Yeah, regarding Burma I was surprised that there was hardly a left presence outside the embassy last Friday (I know it was lunch hour and pissing down with rain but.....)and esp. as the TUC advertised it as well. There was one Unison banner, a contingent from the International Transport Workers' Federation and about 3 SWPers selling the paper. There may have been more but who knows...

And there are some stunning pics advertising the protest on Stroppyblog (plug, plug)

Perhaps someone would tell me why the Burmese junta are so awful (they are nominally 'socialist') while Fidel's dictatorship is so good?

Just asking.

enough of this buddhismophobia!

Erm, because the Cuban government doesn't shoot clergy who are peacefuly protesting? And if you do yer reasearch, the Burmese junta's nominal socialism was dropped around two decades ago.

Dave, the kids look a little bemused. I don't doubt their sincerity, however, they do have a v good father...

sorry Dave, I actually doubt their Marxist sincerity - In fact I think they were actually saying "Pleasee can we now go for our Happy Meals?"

Erm, the Cubans just lock up political opponents, so that's OK.

LotB/Paul M

I spent a month a Cuba last year and I'm no raving Fidelista. I think Havana should authorise multiparty elections.

But a couple of points. Most governments fall way short of Utopia. Look at the US track record for judicial executions, with a disproptionate number of black victims, for instance.

Nor does the Cuba/Burma parallel stand up very well. Havana does not engage in genocide against minority ethnic groups or mass resort to forced labour. It does, however, provide the best health care and education in the third world.

That doesn't excuse its other shortcomings. But it is nonsense to compare the Caribbean country with the southeast Asian one.

I can't help feeling that some on the left are wary of the Burmese democratic cause (a movement with great dignity and courage) because they can see, with their X-ray glasses, some kind of pro-US plot at work. Islamophobia Watch has another line of attack. Prefect Pitt (on the UKLN) has been dragging out stories about Buddhist monks have been, he alleges, responsible for the persecution of Burmese Muslims.

So the usual kind of bad faith is mustered to justify doing nothing to help the brave people standing up for human rights.

It's not the religion that counts here: it's the fact that the Burmese people, monks included now at the forefront, are fighting for *human* freedom.

Yes, usually CIA-backed scum who want to bring back the gold old days under Batista. Prat.

On the subject of Burma, maybe the reason the Left is fairly unenthusiastic is because of cynicism about the huge publicity given to the situation there, c/w, say. Iraq?

The question is why are Bush and co, Tories and New Labourites showing a particular concern about Burmese human rights and democracy when that concern is lacking in a shopping list of other countries? A cynic might think that Burmese 'regime change' might now be in certain peoples strategic political and/or economic interests?

According to Amnesty International, there are 67 "political prisoners" in Cuba. There are a similar number (if not more) in the USA, AFAIK. Okay, bigger population, but still - let's not pretend it only happens in places like Cuba.

Of course, it all depends on how you define "political prisoner".

McGazz wrote: "According to Amnesty International, there are 67 'political prisoners' in Cuba."

This is a gross underestimation. There are in fact hundreds of political prisoners in Cuba, and they have been held for years without trial under conditions which the UN has characterised as equivalent to torture.

Of course, they're all imprisoned in the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.

Dave wrote: "Incidentally, the turn out from the left was minimal. What's the matter? Buddhism the wrong religion or something, comrades?"

And this from the man whose considered response to the vicious suppression of the Ikhwan by the Egyptian state is "neither Mubarak nor the Muslim Brotherhood".

So a faith-based struggle for democracy in Burma receives Dave's enthusiastic support, but when a faith-based democratic struggle against a repressive government takes place in Egypt he adopts a "plague on both their houses" position.

What's the matter? Islam the wrong religion or something, comrade?

Stepping aside from all this familiar bitch-slappery, can I just say thanks for plugging the NUJ events Dave. This is an important campaign, not just from the perspective of the wider union movement, but civil society in general.

On Question Time, young Gideon Osborne of the Tories used the word liberalisation and called for Myanmar to break down the walls -- was he referring to the prison walls that the monks are staring at, or the fact that the generals have control of the economy?

I wonder.

My problem with the protests was not religion but the tactics. Why no general strike? Newsnight's Paul Mason looked into this and got assurance there would be a general strike taking place. If you ask me, the leadership of the opposition weren't too keen on playing up the economic aspects of the struggle -- in common with the world powers...

"What's the matter? Buddhism the wrong religion or something, comrades?"

Christ, Dave, you can do better than that.

The point about socialists exposing what actually goes on in Cuba is that, unlike Burma, not only does the Cuban regime claim to be ‘socialist’ but many on the far-left swallow this lie hook, line and sinker. “Cuba only has 67 political prisoners” you say. More importantly, what are they imprisoned for? How many are imprisoned for campaigning for more democracy? If a single one of them is, we know all we need about the Castro regime. Ask yourself the question: “If I was in Cuba, how long before they’d lock me up?”

Since I'd never take money or advice from employees of the US government in a million years and I am generally a peaceable sort - I guess I'd be loose for a million years.

On the issue of the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims in Burma, to which Andrew Coates refers, there is no question that this has taken place with the involvement of at least a section of the Buddhist monks. Here's an eye-witness account of events in Mandalay ten years ago:

"On 16 March 1997 beginning at about 3:30 p.m. a mob of about 1,000/1,500 Buddhist monks and others shouted anti-Muslim slogans without any provocation of any kind on the part of the Muslims. They targeted the mosques first for attack, followed by Muslim shop-houses and transportation vehicles in the vicinity of mosques, damaging, destroying, looting, and trampling, burning the religious books, committing acts of sacrilege....

"In spite of several requests from the victims of the attacks, authorities responsible for providing security and maintaining law and order looked on with folded arms and allowed the rampage to continue for 6 hours, by which time four mosques and 90-100 houses and shops of Muslims had been destroyed and looted."

Other accounts suggest that the authorities were directly involved in the anti-Muslim pogroms, and there are even reports that military personnel participated in the attacks disguised in monks' clothing. Indeed, the regime has a record of whipping up anti-Muslim hatred in order to divert political opposition into the dead end of religious conflict. But this tactic is effective because anti-Muslim bigotry does exist among the Buddhist majority community, and it would be surprising if the monks were immune to this.

You could draw a parallel with the situation in Egypt, a majority-Muslim country where Coptic Christians are subject to oppression and violence. The worst that can be said of the Muslim Brotherhood is that its more conservative elements defend a degree of institutional discrimination against Copts, arguing that they should not be members of the armed forces or entitled to hold the position of president. But no section of the MB has participated in anti-Copt pogroms. On the contrary, when violence against the Copts has occurred the MB has played a progressive role, working with the leadership of the Coptic minority to defuse inter-communal tensions.

The reason why the Western media uncritically back the Buddhist monks in their struggle against the Burmese military regime but ignore the repression of the Muslim Brotherhood by the Mubarak regime in Egypt is not hard to identify. Mubarak is a US ally, whereas the Myanmar regime has long enjoyed close diplomatic relations with China. If Mubarak fell and the MB took power this would be very much against Western interests in the Middle East; the replacement of the Burmese military dictatorship with a more pro-Western regime would be quite welcome to imperialism.

But what can possibly justify similar double standards on the part of the Left?

This is not an argument for refusing to back the Buddhist monks against the Burmese regime. But the Left should be consistent in its support for democratic struggles led by religious forces against authoritarian regimes, rather than echo the hypocrisy and double-think of imperialist propaganda.

I never denied that there have been attacks on Burmese Muslims. My point was that Prefect Pitt was using this to muddy the waters,in 'bad faith'.

Since I have not mentioend Egypt, why does Geoff?

Be that as it may I will now. A socialist stand on the Muslim Brotherhood would be that they stand for the Vice-Regency of god on Earth, and the Shariah - in other words they defend divine rights, not human ones. One could add that their history has been one of violent opposition to secularism, socialism, non-Muslims, particularly 'Jews'.

I don't believe they have changed any more than the Italian 'post-fascists' have. More subtle, more publicity conscious, more sophisticarted in making alliance. But going to the roots: they are certainly still theocratic. For a socialist it is significant as well that they are pro-capitalist, since the Brotherhood's cadre is built around the pious Islamicist bourgeoisie, whatever their populist appeal and their use of Charity (on Charity: Kant's judgement is the best, it makes the receiver dependent on the Good Will of the giver and is the opposite of rights).

I suspect that Burma gets a lot of publicity because 1) Human rights abuses there have received a lot of publicity here for over a decade, possibly partly as the leader of the opposition spent many years in the UK and has strong ties with this country (such as her children). 2) Backing the democrats is a clear case of an overwhelming moral obligation, that strikes anyone with an ethical impulse. 3) Our political leaders, and the media, have no stake whatsoever in the rule of the Military: the country is way off the edge of UK economic and security interests.

BTW Dave's posts from Cuba were pretty critical, so I fail to see how he can be described as an unconditional Fidelista.

Geoff: "The worst that can be said of the Muslim Brotherhood is that its more conservative elements defend a degree of institutional discrimination against Copts, arguing that they should not be members of the armed forces or entitled to hold the position of president."

Is that really the "worst" that can be said of the Moslem Brotherhood?

How about its long term terrorist campaign during the 1960s aganist nasser's government, backed by the USA and funded by the Saudis. Blowing up bridges, bombing the Alexndara-Cairo train in 1967 in an attempt to assasinate Nasser, etc.

Come on, Andy. Nobody denies that the Muslim Brotherhood was once committed to the violent overthrow of the Egyptian government. But things change. I'm talking about what's happening now.

Comparing Fidel to the Junta in Burma is far fetched and misleading. The Junta wasn't the result of a popular uprising - in purely political terms. Does this mean the Cuban government can do no wrong? Hardly. But it does mean that there is a dramatic difference between the two.

I oppose anyone being locked up for their political beliefs. In reality it shows the weakness of the Cuban government internally the freedom of the press and free access to the www is not allowed. (Some say this is because of lack of resources but when the new fibre optic cable gets up and running courtesy of Chavez we shall see).

The reality is however that there is a disproportionate hue and cry when something happens in Cuba which is not echoed by the Right when it happens elsewhere, including the US (or by the US IN Cuba itself at Guantanamo as someone else has rightly pointed out).

There is not an equal sign between this and the actions of an unpopular military junta who are gunning people off the streets. To say this is to have a lack of understanding of the organic nature of the rebellion in Cuba in '59 and its degeneration since. It is also to deny the fact that despite propaganda that states otherwise, Fidel does remain a very popular leader inside Cuba.

Does this mean he can do no wrong? No, but it does mean there are still plenty of people within Cuba who support him - right or wrong - and this is a very important difference with Burma.