Challenge Galloway
by Gadgie, 25 September 2007
Imperialism is on the march again:
President George W Bush said the US was “outraged” by Burma’s human rights record and announced further sanctions.
Hands off Burma, eh George? Respect? Anyone out there? Shhhhh …
Tuesday 25 September 2007 at 21:17
But Peter, didn’t you know that although General Than Shwe is bad, Mr George W Bush is worse?
Tuesday 25 September 2007 at 21:22
I did a quick trawl of socialist websites (Respect, Scottish Socialists, Scottish Solidarity, Stop the War, SWP etc. etc.) this morning. The only one who mentioned Burma at all was the Morning Star.
Expect that to change if the Zionist neocons start leaning on the plucky Burmese.
Tuesday 25 September 2007 at 22:22
I think it’ll soon be ‘yes General Than Shwe is bad, but only the Chinese can stop him and anything else is racist’. Besides, all those monks poisioning everything can’t be good.
Wednesday 26 September 2007 at 1:19
November 2005:
‘Our Voices for Burma Director asked how to install democracy in Burma. Mr Galloway, speaking without notes for the entire two hour meeting, answered that we must strengthen the democratic forces within the country. He did not want war or sanctions.’
And how is this ’strengthening’ supposed to happen without sanctions or the threat of military action? Presumably an airdrop of The Fidel Castro Handbook to show them how to do it.
Wednesday 26 September 2007 at 9:54
Obviously, the cunning and powerful Buddhist Lobby has got their grips on the US, and is using this issue to distract the world from their crimes in Sri Lanka.
Of course, you sheeple are too brainwashed by the Buddhist Lobby that controls Hollywood (eg Richard Gere) to see the truth.
Wednesday 26 September 2007 at 10:25
Canny piece here:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/burma_s_question
“Amid the rhetoric in the outside world, the regime is confident that it can continue to ignore critical world opinion. It is reinforced in this stance by China and India as well its other, smaller neighbours, whose desire to maintain lucrative trade deals and exploit Burma’s natural resources override any interest in the junta’s brutal suppression of its own people.
China lends active political support to the regime, and in 2006 teamed with Russia to shoot down a US initiative to bring the Burma issue to the UN Security Council. India shamed its reputation as the world’s largest democracy by flattering the generals in hope of winning contracts to buy Burmese gas and supply the regime with armaments.
The regime’s uncompromising attitude has been encouraged by such signals to intensify its suppression of pro-democracy groups. A further manifestation, not related to the fuel protests, was the sentencing of six labour activists (conveyed by their families’ lawyer on 8 September) to life imprisonment on sedition charges. Indeed, beyond public criticism and media editorials across the world, there appears little that can deter the generals.”
Wednesday 26 September 2007 at 14:45
That’s very bizarre - your reaction to the Burmese protests is not to ask, - how can they be helped ? or what do they mean, what are their prospects ? but to ask instead “what will the left wingers I hate say about this ?”. It seems as if the Burmese only matter as material for yr imaginary war with some leftwingers. Not only that, you understand your “opponents” so badly that you are simply wrong. If silly Mr Eugenides looks again, he will see that the weekly publication Socialist Worker, has a positive story about the Burmese protests
Wednesday 26 September 2007 at 15:08
And what does that ‘positive story’ in Socialist Worker say?
The bravery of the Burmese people stands in sharp contrast to the hypocrisy of Western politicians who claim to support their struggle.
Gordon Brown praised the protesters and lectured the regime about the sanctity of human rights during his Labour conference speech. Yet it was the British imperialism that Brown so loves that tore apart Burmese society.
Burma was a British colony from 1886 to 1948 …
So, that means that the Labour Party can never support democracy movements in oppressive countries if they were former colonies because it would be hypocritical. So they are wrong to support them and wrong not to. The post was about ideological confusion. Hmm …
Incidentally, there is worse out there but buggered if I am linking to it.
Wednesday 26 September 2007 at 17:02
Ann On - I think Gadgie has owned you.
Liberal voices have been calling for change in Burma since the time when Galloway and other leftists were still in thrall to the Soviet Union.
Though if you are a regular reader of the Socialist Worker, I don’t think we can be expecting much by way of an intelligent reply.
Thursday 27 September 2007 at 2:43
where is all the outrage over the involvement of the religious monks in the resistance movement. Surely, they are buddist-facists the same as the Iraqi resistance are Islamo-facist.
Or maybe the pro war “left” only demands secularism from the Islamic world.
Thursday 27 September 2007 at 5:48
“Surely, they are buddist-facists the same as the Iraqi resistance are Islamo-facist.”
This must be the most cretinous statement ever posted, unless of course you are attempting a very poor parody of pseudo-libs.
Note the fucking obvious:
no roadside bombs, no suicide attacks, no car bombs in markets, no death squads, no blowing the brains out of recalcitrant civilians, no beheading, no kidnapping, no training of sectarian militias, no jihad, no calls for theocracy, no preaching murder of the kuffar…
Thursday 27 September 2007 at 9:58
http://www.labourstart.org/docs/en/000428.html
Thursday 27 September 2007 at 13:51
“Gadgie has owned you” - what a weird and ugly phrase, and from a poet (!?)
I think the arguments can speak for themselves, without this strange - like a football supporter cheering from the sidelines behavior - grunting from the poet.
I’ll spell out the points as you have trouble seeing them . (1) Gadgie (who owns people ) ‘ s first reaction - backed up by a few commentators - to the Burmese rebellion has nothing to do with Burma, instead he sees the brave and endangered people of Burma as nothing more than a stage army in his imaginary war with the left. He doesn’t want to talk about Burma, only what it means for nasty Mr Galloway
(2) As it happens, Socialist Worker has been promoting the campaign over disnvestment from Burma for years, so the point is silly (see for example the recent campaign to keep Howard Davies away from Total). Of course many other left wing and liberal voices have been calling for the same over Burma, which is right and proper .
(3) Socialist Worker’s latest piece does not say the Labour Party should not support the Burmese protestors . It does suggest Brown should not get so excited about the empire, unless you have some logic problems.
It is indeed hard to make an intelligent reply to your “I bet your stupid cos you read Socialist Worker” comment , because your statement is , I think, ugly, dull and lacking thought, but I have tried - and why not let people make up their own mind as to who is “owned” and not owned, rather than chanting like an oaf.
Thursday 27 September 2007 at 14:31
Georges is not the poet George Szirtes, who comments under the name George S. If you read his site you will find some of the most wonderfully poetic prose going.
Now, to the point of my post. This isn’t ‘my first reaction to Burma’. It wasn’t about Burma.
I posted out of anger at the extraordinary lack of response to Burma and of any expressions of support for the pro-democracy protests from some of the left, most notably Respect, and the contrast with their support for the ANTI-democratic insurgency in Iraq. There are horrible examples of this muddled thinking on other sites too (Lenin’s Tomb has a classic and as for the comment of Stephen Martin!). There is still nothing on the Respect site.
This follows on from the debate initiated by Terry Glavin about the lack of discrimination in some left thought that cannot accept that the USA and the West can actually be in the right in some cases and very wrong in others! Instead they try and cram each and every conflict into a narrow ideological framework of imperialism.
This is not an ‘imaginary war against the left’, but a war against idiocy by sections of the left. I actually do know that the SWP has taken a position on Burma that I could support, but I felt thoroughly pissed off when the paper then had to take a side swipe at the mobilisation of support by the Labour Party on the grounds of hypocrisy because of what happened in 1948. We should be hugely encouraged that Britain and the United States are taking a different line to India and China and we should cheer them on. Let us just hope that it works, a democratic revolution in Burma would be a cause of great celebration.
Thursday 27 September 2007 at 16:03
Spot on Gadgie - cheer, cheer, grunt, grunt…
Ann On: your seething prejudice against football supporters is amusing. If you’d like to give me your contact details I’ll take you to a game for some enlightenment…
Thursday 27 September 2007 at 18:25
http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/solidarity-with-the-people-of-burma-friday-28-september/
Thursday 27 September 2007 at 18:30
The clever clever brigade over at Pickled Politics have made the observation that if everyone cares about Myanmar so much, why are they calling it Burma. Idiots.
Thursday 27 September 2007 at 19:15
Graeme, you big daft softy, you are far too kind.
Thursday 27 September 2007 at 21:09
And having read the post I can assure you it is terrible.
Friday 28 September 2007 at 11:13
Gadgie, if your cat got run over, I bet your immediate reaction would be to demand a condemnation from George Galloway.
Friday 28 September 2007 at 11:38
Bloody hell Larry Teabag! This is a ridiculous flippant comment that avoids a serious point by making an ad hominem attack. I would have thought better of someone who could have dreamt up such a revolting theme for his blog.
The point of my post is the revealing question of why someone who is vociferous in his support anti-Western and anti-Zionist revolutionary movements that are anti-democratic and fascistic (and calls this being left wing) is so reticent about a pro-democratic revolutionary movement that is fighting a fascistic military regime. A fair question don’t you think?
On a point of fact. I haven’t had a cat for many years. The last one I had was a splendid mog. He was run over and I cried for days. I didn’t write to my MP.
Wednesday 3 October 2007 at 11:55
Surely the question should be:”Why are we waiting for the invasion of Burma?”
As people have pointed out its human rights record is horrific - easily on a par with the likes of Iran or Iraq. But while the West has been keen to take military action against both they seem strangely quiet about sending troops to Burma.
Perhaps someone here would care to explain the difference.
ps The CWI has material on the situation in Burma
Monday 15 October 2007 at 12:38
For your information, Gadgie, it was me that ran over your cat.
Tough shit.