Saturday, September 29, 2007

Myanmar, India, China

There's been a flicker of coverage on the Myanmar military junta's crackdown on the demonstrators. It's been mostly the shaking of heads and making clicking noises at the situation.

Why should Indians care?

By far the biggest culprit in this (apart from the junta of course) is China. Followed by India. Both China and India have invested heavily in keeping the junta armed and dangerous. As pointed out by Amnesty International, China is a leading arms supplier to govts. with human rights violations, including Myanmar and Sudan. India has also invested heavily in arms to the junta. Amnesty International has also accused India of selling Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH) to the junta, which would constitute violations of the EU sanctions on Myanmar, though India denies it. When you give arms to a repressive govt., it's not "non-interference" by any means.

It's widely recognized round the world that arms sales correspond to increasing repression and human rights violations. These arms are used to murder, torture, destroy and pillage. It's not pretty.

Indians have to decide whether to treat the Burmese people as dispensable in India's quest for gas resources in the region.

13 comments:

Karan Vaswani said...

Woah --an issue on which we agree. ;) Problem is, Myanmar isn't the only instance -- we need to also look at human rights violations by the current governments in Bangladesh, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran -- also countries we have afforded support to in various ways in the recent past. For instance, surely we should not reward the Iranian ayatollahs' disdain for press freedom, denial of citizenship rights to "irreligious persons," crackdowns on women, etc, with a lucrative gas pipeline? ;)

Karan Vaswani said...

And let's not forget the various autocratic regimes in Africa to which we afforded diplomatic support and legitimacy in days gone by (often under the umbrella of the NAM) -- Julius Nyerere's Tanzania, Nasserite Egypt and Algeria under the revolutionary FLN are just a few examples that come to mind...

Anand said...

First, since we agree somewhat, let me make clear my approach. My approach is based on a civil liberties perspective. So I'd support things which are helping the Iranian people's civil liberties. (At least that's how I think, maybe I'm inconsistent somewhere).

In this respect, Myanmar is fundamentally different from the other examples you take. (maybe Bangladesh is another, I don't know much about that).

Let's take Iran. I want to distinguish between two things.

As a first approximation, I would want to distinguish between economic and military ties.

To the extent that Indian firms are supplying Iran with arms, I'm firmly opposed to that. I think though, that the extent there is much smaller than Myanmar?

As regards economic ties, it's much more unclear, I think. There can be two ways of looking at these things.

If we want to look at things in a global way: the most important factor regarding Iran is the US. Iran is surrounded by either US-occupied or US client states. The US is making increasingly credible threats against Iran. This is being used by the Iranian govt. and clerics to suppress dissent at home (in the familiar pattern). These are incidentally not my conclusions. This is the view of just about anyone sane on this issue.

So, the major way (globally) in which we can help Iranian civil liberties, is to work against the US threats. Not by cowardly voting against Iran at the IAEA to contribute our bit in the drumbeat for war against Iran.

Next, if we want to look at things India can do, I'm not convinced that the India-Iran-Pakistan pipeline is a bad thing. It is a step forward in regional integration. It will stabilize the region and raise the stakes for a military confrontation with the US.

Of course, India isn't doing all it can to support the pro-democracy forces in Iran. But, I think the gas pipeline is a step forward, not backward.

Karan Vaswani said...

I see: So our importing of Iranian gas will not help perpetuate the current regime, but will somehow provide an impetus for reform? :)That sounds like self-serving rationalization to me, frankly. History has proven that economic and social upheaval is the only way (short of armed intervention from outside) to get rid of well-entrenched autocracies, especially those based on firmly held ideological convictions: Think Czarist Russia, Soviet Russia, Wilhelmine Germany, Bourbon France... And just as crude imports from Saudi Arabia help keep the al-Saud in charge, and Chinese imports of raw materials from Myanmar help keep the junta in power, our gas pipeline plans (not to mention other investments like the Tatas' proposed joint vetures in iron and steel) will certainly help Iran's Islamists stay in power.

Anand said...

You're quite right that it's a self-serving view. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's wrong. I'll admit, my explanation is not very convincing. It's certainly entrenching the regime if we push through the gas pipeline. However, I belive the situation in Iran is much more complex:

a) You don't seem to agree that military and economic ties are different and we should bring different standards to them?

b) Regarding the regime. I think you'll agree that the primary responsibility for the "regime change" lies with the Iranians. So, does the population support a boycott (as it did in South Africa)?

c) The global situation:

i) Do people the world over support diplomatic, cultural and economic ties with the Iran govt.?

ii) The major threat to Iran is, of course, the US. What should be the approach when the US is making credible threats to attack it?

Myanmar is fundamentally different both internally and externally. I think it's pure confusion to conflate the issues. To my mind, they're not comparable directly.

Incidentally, I'm quite amused you've put Venezuela in the list. May I ask why? Chavez has been elected by a landslide a couple of times and is still enjoying around 60-70% popularity. The human rights violations in Venezuela (I'm sure there are some) are almost invisible compared to most other countries.

Anand said...

I would also like to say that I'm more ambivalent on the gas pipeline.

However, India's vote at the IAEA was wrong and shameful in my opinion.

Karan Vaswani said...

I think the whole notion of embargos and sanctions is predicated on the proposition that close economic ties can be just as supportive of a regime as military ones. Of course, military assistance is worse, but surely both are morally problematic, and, in the case of poorer countries in particular, economic assistance and investment can be especially crucial to the survival of odious regimes.

Having said that, I'm not in the least opposed to adopting a realpolitik-based approach, as long as this is done so honestly, without any attempt at deploying the rhetoric of the moral high ground, and without double standards.

I agree that Iran and Myanmar are different; oppression in Iran is actually more pervasive and systemic. Human rights violations in Iran have been egregious for decades -- including under the Shah, with his SAVAK. But at least the Shah only targeted active political opponents, and not the general public. Denial of civil liberties has been far more systemic under the ayatollahs. As Faraj Sarkouhi, the former editor of literary magazine Adineh, who was imprisoned in 1997 and went into exile in Germany the following year, puts it:

"Both the Shah’s monarchy and the Islamic Republic are totalitarian regimes, but while the Shah’s rule was a political autocracy, the Islamic Republic is an ideological despotism. [...] During the Shah’s era, the government denied the existence of any censorship and pretended to champion the elevation and expansion of culture. The name “Ministry of Culture” betrayed no sign of its chief function, censorship.

"By contrast, censorship is not considered such a shameful activity within the Islamic Republic’s totalitarian structure. In fact, the Islamic Republic prides itself on silencing writers, journalists, and artists and regards censorship as the religious duty of nahy az monker (preventing others from doing bad) and amre be maroof (ordering others to do good). The word “Guidance,” which the Islamic Republic has affixed onto the “Ministry of Culture,” reveals the theocratic regime’s desire to subject all cultural activities to its suffocating criteria. The addition of the adjective “Islamic” to the Ministry of Culture also demonstrates that the ruling caste advocates a monolithic culture; non-Islamic cultures must be eliminated because only Islamic culture has the right to exist and be expressed. As a religious obligation, censorship in the Islamic Republic is absolutely legitimate and should be imposed on all aspects of life (not just the political sphere) including personal relationships and values. This system is far more uninhibited and oppressive. [...] The criteria of official censorship of books varied enormously in the two systems. Criteria in the monarchical system were largely political and their main goal was to prevent the publication of political criticism and leftist works. However, the Islamic Republic uses a combination of political, moral, religious and even factional criteria in its censorship, controlling all spheres of existence."

And yet we have been getting closer and closer to Iran, especially since the early 90s. I don't necessarily mind this; all I'm saying is that if we can countenance close ties with communist or Islamic despots, then we might as well countenance close ties with fascists and military dictators too.

You're quite right to ask why I included Venezuela, since Chavez's record is not comparable with Castro's or Stalin's or Mao's, i.e. he has not imprisoned or killed large numbers of people. He has, however, packed Venezuela's Supreme Court, compromising judicial independence (which has paved the way for politically-motivated trials of opponents like NGO founders Maria Machado and Alejandro Plaz); amended the Criminal Code to include hefty penalties for "disrespect" ("desacato") of upto 40 months' imprisonment; arranged passage of a Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television which imposes wide-ranging administrative restrictions on broadcast media; shut down RCTV, the country's oldest private TV channel as well as the most popular channel in the country; and, most recently, issued a decree mandating deportation of foreign visitors who criticize himself or his administration. Reporters Without Borders now ranks Venezuela 115th out of 168 countries on press freedom. (To put this in perspective, even Kuwait, the U.A.E. and Morocco, not exactly bastions of freedom of expression, are ranked higher, at 73rd, 77th and 97th; Bangladesh is ranked 137th; Russia 147th; Vietnam 155th; Pakistan 157th; Saudi Arabia 161st; Iran 162nd; PRC 163rd; Myanmar 164th; Cuba 165th.)

Chavez' popularity is irrelevant to whether he violates civil liberties and undermines checks on government power. The Jacobins were popular in Paris, but there's no doubt that they guillotined plenty of innocent people; Hitler and Mussolini were also very popular for most of their tenure in power, and plenty of genocidal leaders in Serbia were popular with the Serbians, but nevertheless guilty of the mass murder of minorities. This is exactly why simple majoritarian rule, enforced through periodic elections, i.e. democracy in the literal sense, doesn't necessarily equate with individual freedom; that's why the Brits and the Yanks have always used the phrase constitutional government, and, more recently, liberal democracy, where "liberal" is being used in J.S. Mill's sense, to describe their institutions.

Anand said...

Let me quickly repond on the Venezuela part. I'll respond on Iran later.

First, let me give the framework I'm using. In my view, states are not defenders of human rights. They're power centres and they'll do everything they can to get more power. So, that's the standard we'll have to use.

You quite rightly say that popularity is no measure of human rights violations.

Let's take one particular narrow issue: press freedom. You mention the report by RSF (Reporters without Borders) and RCTV's closure.

I'll make a general statement, and you can figure out if it's correct or not. Most of Venezuela's media (mostly private) is bitterly opposed to Chavez. Most of them are functioning with negligible interference - including many who supported the 2002 coup.

Further, let's take the issue of RCTV. This also ties up with RSF and its credibility.

RSF had a report on RCTV's closure.

First, let's get to some facts and some standards (as I understand them). The fact is that RCTV's license to broadcast on public airways has been cancelled. It still has the right to continue broadcasting on cable or satellite.

Now, for some standards. Nearly every govt. (or the telecommunications branch) in the world has authority to regulate consumption of public airwaves. Venezuela is no exception. The authority was perfectly within its rights to do so.

We can also look at other standards. RCTV (along with a lot of Venezuelan media) played a crucial role in the 2002 coup (so did RSF) and the oil boycott. It's record is pretty terrible.

Let's ask a parallel question: would a channel which openly plots the overthrow of the US (or Indian) govt. really be expected to be showered with public concessions? Again, note that the channel is not censored - which would be a clear violation.

More than 80% of Venezuelan media and virtually all of newspapers, cable and satellite is privately owned. How can the state be be said to have "hegemony"?

We can also look at the public reaction from Venezuelans (which is the most important thing, of course) - which RSF also falsifies. There was overwhelming support for the decision, compared to the opponents.

RSF's is a far from isolated case, they had a similar demonization program against Haiti's elected president.

We can also go to broader issues. Many of Chavez's powers are put to referendum - how many referendums have been held in India lately? By what measure is he a "dictator" or a "despot"?

If you compare Chavez govt. to others you'll find that the human rights violations are almost negligible. Compare with, say Brazil, Mexico or Peru (2 or 3 journalists murdered in 2004 in every country, according to RSF - none in Venezuela (or Cuba for that matter - though many are imprisoned)).

Anand said...

I've been thinking about Iran, and it's fair to say that I'm ambivalent.

I think that people can weigh the factors in various ways.

I'm quite sharply opposed to military deals to Myanmar or Iran.

On economic ties, I'm undecided, shall we say. I don't agree about your logic of sanctions. We have to look at case by case basis. For example, Iraqi sanctions were certainly not justified.

Further, it's hard to rank countries on the basis of human rights violations.

I think, whatever my position is on Iran, it has much less moral significance than my position on Burma, where it can be more influential.

Also, my global position stays the same, which I feel is of much more moral significance, especially in view of increasing threats against Iran in the US presently.

Regarding Venezuela, to put it in the same league as Iran or Burma is pretty farfetched, for reasons mentioned before.

Vinod_Sharma said...

The problem with us is that we cannot get over 'moral' arguments when it comes to talking about our relations with outsiders, a weakness which owes its genesis to the damage done by Nehru. And when we get to the real political processes and debates within the country, morality is not even spoken about - immorality is all pervasive in our political class. Vaswani is right. Why get so agitated by Myanmar? What have we been doing with Pakistan where a democratically elected government was overthrown by a General? We have been literally hugging him, despite all his back stabbing, particularly in Kargil.

I have written in some detail on this hypocrisy in my blog in a number of posts..

Anand said...

Thanks for your comments. I looked at the two blog posts you mention.

To be clear, let me reiterate my point about Myanmar. My main thrust is that India is selling arms to Myanmar which are clearly being used to repress the population. India could do lots of things. One simple thing would be to stop its arms supplies.

As my replies to Karan also say, I have zero interest in comparing atrocities by various countries. My moral point is simple: we have control over our actions and our govt. We should pay attention to our own crimes and stop committing them.

Next, I'll go onto your comments.

First, Pakistan. As already mentioned, I have no interest in comparing the monstrosity of the govts. of Pakistan and Myanmar. As far as Indian and Pakistani actions reduce tension between them, I'm supportive of them. I am no fan of Musharraf.

Regarding your comments on the blog:

You say that democracy and morality should not be the basis for international positions by govts. Power should be the criterion.

You have your own opinion, and I cannot hope to change your view in a short space. I'll make some points regarding my position and you can take it or leave it.

Firstly, there's no such thing as a "national interest". Everything which Indian govt. does benefits some portion of the population and makes some portion worse off.

If "national interest" means the interests of the majority of the population, sale of arms to Burma isn't in the national interest by a long shot. It's quite striking when people are (rightly) so distrustful of govt. expenditure on social programs, but miraculously believe govt. is telling the truth on military deals. If anything, the military deals will have more corruption because of the extreme secrecy they have.

I believe states are not moral agents. States, if you leave them alone, are centres of power which try to accumulate more power. You may think that's a sustainable position. I don't. I think, unless there is concern for issues like democracy, morality and justice, the nation-state system will destroy the world.

Karan Vaswani said...

From where I'm standing, your position on Iran can be as influential (or not) as your position on Myanmar, so I don't see the basis for claiming that it's important to protest loudly about the one while keeping relatively mum about the other. This continues to seem highly inconsistent to me. As far as trade and investment goes, I would actually make a distinction myself between private transactions and transactions involving government-owned entities. Most of our deals with countries like Cuba (you do know about ONGC Videsh's production sharing contract with CUPET, right?), Iran (Tata's JV with IMIDRO), etc, involve supporting government-owned companies through joint ventures, technology transfer, etc; or involve revenue sharing with those same governments. In other words, when we partner with state-owned firms in those countries, we are directly supporting those regimes financially; this is, in my book, far worse that truly private transactions between private parties operating at arm's length from their respective governments.

I'm well aware of RCTV's role in the coup attempt; I couldn't care less. A truly free country would not suspend its broadcast license, which is obviously a retaliatory move. I don't particularly care what the U.S. or India would do either (India has a pretty bad record on press freedom anyway, and press freedom in the U.S. has been declining since the 70s); again, this is excusing the pot for being black on the grounds that the kettle is supposedly blacker, which is not much of an argument, in my book -- and certainly not much of a moral argument. (Remember: You're the one who brought in morality, not me.)

I should probably add that I count usurpation of private property as a violation of civil rights (I suspect most normal people would agree that unilateral government confiscation of their property constituted a violation of their rights); and on that measure, Chavez and his cronies are quite culpable. But I notice you haven't addressed his attempts to compromise judicial independence (presumably because this is, again, indefensible). And suggesting that imprisoning political opponents rather than killing them somehow makes Cuba less egregious is the worst kind of doublespeak, in my book. This is the sort of blind spot I would expect from a card-carrying CPI(M) member.

I agree that ranking countries by their human rights records is difficult; it is, however, quite easy to distinguish in broad terms between oppressive regimes (Iran, Cuba, Myanmar, Pakistan) and relatively free societies (the U.S., the U.K., Sweden, etc). If we really want to be "moral" (I agree that this a Nehruvian legacy; it certainly wasn't Indira Gandhi's approach), we can't be so transparently selective about it. This reminds me of Nehru's hesitation about condemning the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, which contrasted pointedly with his strident speechifying over Suez that same year. People responded the same way they respond to American doublespeak and hypocrisy.

As far as reducing tensions goes, I can assure you that getting cozy with Myanmar has reduced tensions with them too. :) Shouldn't that count for as much or as little as reducing tensions with Pakistan? Both are our close neighbors, after all; both were once part of British India. Both are equally important or unimportant strategically.

Also, we do not conduct foreign policy in a vacuum, and, to use strong language, your statements about focusing on and controlling our own actions, without worrying about others, are irresponsible and dangerous; in the real world, we must of necessity react to the strategic moves of other powers. I actually don't take serious exception to the rest of your arguments (I actually amused myself thinking about whether you'd still defend Chavez ten years from now, once his Bolivarian Revolution is complete, and the contours of his political legacy more starkly revealed), but this one is really problematic. If you really want to make a difference to Myanmar, why not roundly condemn the main culprit, China? And, like I said in an earlier post, how about about condemning Putin, Castro and the rest while you are at it?

To speak even more seriously for a moment: I have a simple test of the depth of people's moral convictions. For example, a friend of mine who cares deeply about the plight of rural farmers has actually devoted himself to working with them. I think it's a total waste, personally, but that's beside the point. If you really, really have burning feelings on this issue, why not actually put something on the line (as you are expecting India to put its energy security and strategic interests on the line), and physically participate in the events in Myanmar? In all seriousness, if you're not prepared to drop everything and do that, then your commitment is obviously qualified / limited -- as it is for almost all of us. In other words, their suffering clearly touches you, but only up to a point. :) Which is probably the same way India's foreign policy wonks feel. :) Talk, as always, is cheap. For myself, for example, I have long believed that India needs to embrace capitalism more fully, and that the influence of the Left (this includes socialist-leaning elements of all the parties) needs to be severely curbed. I've also long believed that India's Westernized, free market oriented haute bourgeoisie needs to assert itself more, in order to shape India in its own image economically, socially, culturally and politically, and deny other groups (socialists of various stripes, Gandhian believers in agrarian utopias, religious fundamentalists, cultural and linguistic chauvinists, unelected populists who run NGOs like Vandana Shiva, elected populists who make irresponsible commitments to voters like Laloo) the ability to set the agenda. Now, I'm putting my money where my mouth is, by going back to India and engaging in exactly the kinds of economic activities I believe need to be fostered. In due course, I will no doubt also make political donations, investment decisions, etc, that will benefit some political parties and states, and punish others. In other words, I will be actively and consciously shaping things the way I believe they should be shaped. Do you want to do the same in Myanmar? Or do you not really care enough? This may seem like an unfair question, but you're the one who has posted about being worked up about Myanmar, so it's legitimate to ask just how much you really care about this issue specifically.

As far as the "global position" goes, basing all your positions on international affairs on a desire to limit American power and influence (call it "anti-imperialism" if you prefer) is a poor guarantor of moral (or even amoral, purely intellectual) consistency by other metrics. You will tend to find yourself condemning pro-American tyrants in some parts of the world, while supporting anti-American ones in others. This may seem like an unfair caricature of your position, but, in practice, this is what it seems like, especially with all the rationalizations on Iran, Cuba, etc.

Anand said...

You make a lot of points:

a) You seem to think that economic and military ties should be held to the same standard. I don't. I can elaborate on the reasons if you want.

b) Regarding private sector investing and public sector investing. I don't think it's a major point with me. But I think the point you're making is weak.

Public investment (to the extent which the economy of a country is democratic) is subject to public control. Private investment is not. There's very little accountability in the private sector investment. In a situation with weak laws, private sector investment could be as much or more harmful. Compare Blackwater.

Also, it's questionable to what extent these companies are "private" given the extensive corporate welfare.

c) Let me clarify the context in which I cited RCTV's example. The context was that you claimed that Venezuela's press freedom is limited, as evidenced by RSF's claims and it's supposed ranking of press freedom. I cited the case to argue that indeed, Venezuela has very little state controlled media and the dominant media is private and bitterly opposed to Chavez.

There's no absolute "freedom". It's always relative. The question is "what standard". RSF's claims are utterly fraudulent in my opinion.

I want to again reiterate the fact that Venezuela only withheld public concessions for RCTV, and did not censor it.

Also, I'd like to reiterate that the important test of the RCTV judgement is Venezuelan reaction. It's for them to decide what their media should be.

I don't know to what degree Venezuela's regime is repressive in other respects.

d) Can you provide details on how Chavez has usurped private property and what's the extent?
Also, I don't agree that all private property is sacred and shouldn't be touched. Private property is, by definition, political. The govt. (or the law) defines what're the limits of private property.

e) I haven't defended Cuba and I'm not defending its repressive nature. That was just a side comment, you can ignore it if you wish. My remarks about Venezuela stand. I can talk more about Cuba if you want.

f) Reducing tension with Burma: I'm not quite sure what you mean. How much tension was there to start with? Were we going to war with Burma?

Also, refer to my comments on the "national interest".

The Burmese govt. runs a large drug racket. It's a familiar story of corruption. Is that a "national interest"?

The same point goes regarding strategy. I agree that strategic considerations should apply. But who decides them? What're "national interests" anyway? You can see that these issues are never debated publicly. Why should I trust the govt. to act in the "national interest" in this case?

There's a simple reason why these issues are not debated publicly. People will not approve of them. That's why there're big anti-disarmament movement around the world. Therefore these have to be pushed through clandestinely. It's instructive that people who talk about "national interest" are adamantly opposed to debating these interests.

g) I have roundly condemned China (refer to my original post). My point is simple: we should pay attention to our own crimes and stop committing them. I can only affect China marginally. I can affect India more.

As to why I don't condemn Putin etc. It's simple. I'm not Amnesty International. I can't do everything.

h) I agree somewhat with your statement that we're only willing to care for other people up to a point. That's fine. You care deeply about India's "left-leaning" policies, fine. You can do whatever you want. It's a free country.

The issue is, to what extent can somebody help another. Everyone has his own limits. I'm not a saint, nor do I wish to be. I am doing what I can.

I agree that talk is cheap. That's no reason to support actions which I believe are immoral. Also, the fact that you don't directly involve yourself into an issue doesn't mean you can't support it. Outside support is extremely important for social movements.

j) Global position. My positions are not based on an "anti-US" principle. I'm opposed to unjustified power. Whether it's US or India or China. As I've said elsewhere, China's growing military activities are disturbing and we should support measures that limit them.

Again, as far as I'm a member of an international community, I can affect China. But my reason for focusing on India is that I can affect it more. I would like to do my bit to shape its society.