My Photo

« Ahmadinejad's follies | Main | Hitchens and Iraq »


Per Arheim

I had exactly the same thought. George W Bush forgot Burma when he spoke about the "Axis of Evil". Bush and Blair claimed higher humanitarian purposes as good enough motive to overrule the dear old international community and attack Iraq. However, most of us know too well that the Iraq campaign was not a successful illustration of humanitarianism.

Bush seems to care about little these days besides going down in history in a less-than-disastrous manner. As far as humanitarian purposes go, I'm covinced an attack on the infamous Burmese regime would serve as a way more convincing example than Iraq. And I hear Burma too is rich in natural resources...


I frankly do not think that politics is motivated by humanitarian issues. The latter are just for public consumption.

Burma is indeed rich in natural resources. Sanctions imposed by the US gov't exclude Chevron, however (grandfather clause), which extracts the natural gas. The gas and oil sector have other big names ( The junta makes a killing, making money and buying weapons to suppress the population. It's a perfect scenario. We see it in Nigeria too.

You're pissed off. I am pissed off. But as long as business is good, I rather doubt anyone of consequence will be pissed off. I hope I am wrong.

Per Arheim

Suha, I obviously agree about the public consumption and the rest of your comment. I'm basically just reflecting upon some slight irony of the political rhetoric, without any serious hope that the US would launch into a Burmese campaign. I encourage everyone who wants to make a difference to contact the listed companies on your link!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Nordic perspectives

Web resources

General rolls