There's no Oil in Myanmar

My wife and I traveled to Myanmar (Burma) 4 years ago this week. We went with a partner at the firm I work for and a group that he put together. He is the founder of the Foundation for the People of Burma and has been quite active in making a real, quantifiable difference for many people there. Our reason for joining in on the trip was not necessarily humanitarian in nature. We really just wanted to see a corner of the world that is largely off the radar screen of the average world traveler. As my wife is fond of saying-we're travel tramps!
Every trip is unique in some way, but this trip was an eye opener. It's not everyday you have an opportunity to travel back in time. Burma seems to be a place frozen in the 1950's--countries ruled by military juntas or dictatorships tend to be that way it seems.
The first thing one notices about Burma is the gentleness of the people. They take their Buddhism very seriously. It's really all they have. Although we hit the few tourist destinations that exist, our itinerary focused largely on visiting the various projects the Foundation was funding around the country. The Foundation operates without the approval of the government by the way, so many of the projects are clandestine efforts. The government will let you provide humanitarian relief, but not TOO much; and you can forget about discussing politics or life outside the borders in public. Our guide warned us of this many times. I did witness a government agent following us around a deserted museum one day--not too close, but close enough to note seditious activity had we chosen to engage in any.
I've never been to North Korea but I've read enough about it to paint a picture in my mind that is not dissimilar to what we experienced traveling in Burma. The difference is that although the people are dirt poor, Burma is blessed with warm weather, fertile land and abundant water so nobody is starving or freezing to death (at least outside of the political prisoner population). However I can imagine if Burma were located at the same latitude as North Korea, the people would be just as destitute.
(For more on Burma see this link)

Today I opened the WSJ as I do most mornings and I saw this headline: U.S. Presses U.N. to Add Myanmar to Agenda. My first cynical thought was, "how odd, there's no oil in Myanmar--what business could we possibly have there?" (I'll paste the whole article as the link is subscriber only)

UNITED NATIONS -- The U.S. asked the U.N. Security Council Tuesday to put Myanmar on its agenda for the first time, accusing its military rulers of repressing political opponents including the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
In a letter to the council president, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton accused the regime of destroying villages, targeting ethnic minorities and failing to initiate democratic reforms. He also cited press reports that authorities in Myanmar -- also known as Burma -- are seeking nuclear power capabilities.
Russia and China blocked the last U.S. attempt to get the Security Council to discuss Myanmar in June -- and it was unclear whether they would do so again.
Mr. Bolton's letter to Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov, the current council president, was sent two days after the military government extended the house arrest of Ms. Suu Kyi, which began in May 2003. The Nobel Peace Prize winner has spent 10 of the last 16 years in detention.
The junta took power in 1988 after violently suppressing mass pro-democracy protests. It held a general election in 1990, but refused to recognize the results after a landslide victory by Ms. Suu Kyi's party.
In Tuesday's letter obtained by The Associated Press, Mr. Bolton said "the United States and other members of the Security Council are concerned about the deteriorating situation in Burma."
Mr. Bolton is expected to raise the issue at a Security Council meeting on Wednesday and the U.S. is hoping for a briefing later this week, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the letter has not yet been formally discussed.
Procedural rules prohibit the council from taking up issues not on its agenda, allowing nations to block discussions.
Since the last attempt in June, American diplomats have gone to several key capitals to try to convince other governments that the 15-nation council, the most powerful U.N. decision-making body, should discuss Myanmar.
China has long opposed taking up Myanmar because of its close ties to the country, while Russia is believed to object because fears such talks could lead to discussion of its breakaway Chechnya province.
In the letter, Mr. Bolton did not spell out any specific action that Washington is seeking.
He warned, however, that the flow of narcotics from Myanmar is a catalyst in spreading HIV and AIDS "and potentially destabilizing transnational crime."
In addition, Mr. Bolton wrote, the regime "has destroyed villages, targeted ethnic minorities, and forced relocations."
He also said that the government's "failure to initiate democratic reforms while repressing political opponents shows the regime's continued intent to maintain power regardless of its citizens' desires."

There are varying reports of late that the military junta that rules Burma has been moving the capital from Yangon (Rangoon) further into the interior. The reasons for this are all speculative at this point, but it seems that they might fear an attack from somebody--presumably the U.S.--in the near future, so they are moving to a more secure location. I thought that sounded like paranoia, but after reading this article their fears could be well founded. The one thing we can count on is continued Security Council non-cooperation from Russia and China. Their reasons are stated in the article, but I bet that's hardly the whole story.

Geopolitics are a tricky business. That is why it is so maddening to hear every action that is taken by the U.S. reduced to "imperial warmongering" or "profiteering for Halliburton" by the left. I am interested to see what those who say that we're derelict in our stated goal of spreading democracy around the globe--or who are angered that we're soft on rogue nuclear powers because we're not militarily involved in places like North Korea, Iran and Myanmar--have to say if anything comes of this. The chances that discussion about Myanmar makes it onto the Security Council agenda seem remote to me as long as China and Russia maintain their current stance, so I'll have to continue to wonder I suppose.

UPDATE:

U.N. Security Council delays U.S. move on Myanmar

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:56:09 PM (GMT-08:00)
Provided by: Reuters NewsRTRS
By Irwin Arieff
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 30 (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council on Wednesday delayed a U.S. bid to have the council discuss "the deteriorating situation" in Myanmar after China asked for more time to study Washington's request.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton proposed that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan brief the 15-nation council on developments in Myanmar after its military rulers last weekend extended opposition leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest for another year.
The U.S. attempt to put Myanmar formally on the Security Council's agenda would clear the way for later council actions including the adoption of statements and resolutions.
Instead the council put off the proposal at China's request, council diplomats said. Algeria, Japan and Russia also raised questions about the U.S. plan, they said.
Russian Ambassador Andrei Denisov, the council president for November, said Moscow acknowledged "difficulties" in Myanmar, "but we don't see any threat to international peace and security ... due to the developments in Myanmar."
An earlier U.S. attempt to raise the focus on political repression in Myanmar was rebuffed in June when Russia, backed by China and Algeria, argued that the issue was outside the council's mandate to ensure international peace and security.
Bolton plans to try again on Friday to get the council to agree to put Myanmar on its formal agenda. He had predicted before Wednesday's meeting that the matter would sail through.
British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, who backs the U.S. request, assumes the rotating council presidency on Thursday.
Denisov said the council had two options.
It could choose to raise the issue informally, a move that would require no council vote. Or it could agree to formally add Myanmar to its agenda, clearing the way for a briefing by Annan. The second option would require a procedural vote and would need the support of nine members to prevail.