Some superpowers apparently seem unable to learn the lessons of history, while others seem to simply borrow the stale and redundant ideas of other ex-colonial powers around them. The United States of America today seems to be doing both in its latest bloody escapade in Iraq, and the war that is going o­n in that already devastated country seems to be a repeat of another conflict that took place closer to home in nearby Burma in the 19th century.

For the benefit of those whose history lessons at school were not as comprehensive as they ought to have been, here's a short walk down memory lane

Profit and body counts

International Movement for a Just World president Dr Chandra Muzaffar's ( left ) critique of the war in Iraq (1) highlighted the sordid behind-the-scenes squabble that is already going o­n among the members of the axis of the cowed and subservient for the dirty spoils of war.

Before the smoke has even cleared and the shattered bodies of Iraqi civilians put back together and laid to rest, the business moghuls of America and Britain are already falling over each other in the race to grab the loot and win the prized contracts for the re-building of Iraq which, in case some of us may have forgotten, was blown to pieces by the so-called 'liberators' themselves.

We have already seen the first political casualty of this immoral war: Richard Perle, the top US adviser to the White House and the man who is seen as the prime instigator for the invasion of Iraq has been forced to resign over what was described as a 'conflict of interest' over his involvement in the planning and execution of the conflict. This came after revelations of Perle's own business links and commercial interests which stand to benefit should the US gets its way by toppling Saddam's government and gaining control of Iraq.

Before that was the revelation in the Wall Street Journal (2) that the early profits from the war would go to companies that would be needed to keep Iraq's already run-down oil operations running. The paper noted that this would include "oil service firms such as Halliburton Co where Vice-President Dick Cheney formerly served as chief executive."

The paper also noted that when he left the firm to become US vice-president, "Cheney received at least US$19 million from Halliburton." Halliburton and another firm, Schlumberger are seen as favourites for what could be as much as US$1.5 billion in contracts after the war. It has been estimated that repairing pipelines and export terminals apart from developing new fields would require a total investment of US$38 billion.(3)

We have so far been treated to at least o­ne obscene spectacle: that of US and British companies fighting over the right to control and manage the port facilities at Oum Qasar, o­n the southern tip of Iraq. Having bombed and attacked the port city, the US and British forces promptly handed over control of the management of the port facility to o­ne of their own companies, o­n the spurious claim that the port would then be re-opened so that 'humanitarian aid' could be brought in to feed the people.

As if this was not disgraceful enough, o­ne then has to endure the litany of nonsense from the mainstream western media that reports this 'news' with hardly a note of cynicism or critical enquiry. Among the questions that the CNN and BBC could have asked include: If the people of Iraq were in need of humanitarian aid and supplies, who was responsible for putting them in such a state in the first place?

Which were the countries responsible for the embargo o­n Iraq which has kept millions of ordinary Iraqis underfed and undernourished and in need of such care? And who are the o­nes whose business interests are best served by this invasion of Iraq and the reconstruction that is supposed to follow? (Would they be American and British companies, by any chance?)

The story of Oum Qasar and the 'opening up' of Iraq to the outside world reminds us of how another country Burma was 'opened up' to the world and subsequently colonised by a Western colonial power Britain which today seems more than willing to play the role of loyal sidekick and Sancho Panza to the Don Quixote occupying the White House

That other 'war of liberation'

Burma (4), like Malaya, was o­nce a British colony. By the 19th century, the Kingdom of Burma was comprised of territories extending from the Irrawaddy delta to the highlands of the North, the coastal regions of Tenesserim and Arakan as well as was subjected areas such as Assam. Power was centralised at the Court of Rangoon and the government of the Burmese kingdom was in the hands of the King, the royal household and the aristocracy who made up the elite echelons of the bureaucracy and the armed forces.

Although Burma had a formidable army which could be used against its Asian neighbours and vassal territories such as Assam, it was a weak state compared with Western forces that possessed much more advanced weaponry as well as technology in logistics and communications. Britain's involvement in Burmese affairs came when the East India Company (EIC) tried to secure its possessions in India and control the region of Assam. In the 1820s, several instances of conflict in the region occurred as the Assamese tried to break away from Burmese domination. King Bagyidaw ordered his forces to attack the area, and this was used as a provocation by the EIC and it chose to retaliate.

The First Anglo-Burmese War of 1824-26 marked the first conflict between the antiquated forces of Burma and the modern forces of the EIC. Although the British forces were outnumbered by 30,000 to 10,000, their superiority in arms helped them to prevail.

With the defeat of the Burmese army, Burma lost its control of Assam as well as the coastal regions of Arakan and Tenesserim. In Tenasserim, indirect British rule was imposed through a system of indirect administration similar to the Dutch model, where native Burmans would be used to man the lower ranks of the colonial bureaucracy while Europeans manned the top positions of the administrative structure. British influence also made itself felt at Rangoon as the British forced the Burmese to accept their conditions in matters of trade. King Pagan took over the throne in 1846, replacing the humiliated Bagyidaw.

It ought to be noted that the first Anglo-Burmese war was not even a war between states: o­n o­ne side stood the Burmese kingdom and o­n the other the English East India Company which, like American multinationals operating in Africa today, was a power unto itself and which possessed a private army of its own made up of mercenaries and cut-throats for hire. The conflict was fundamentally motivated by economic needs and concerns. The EIC wanted to protect its possessions in Bengal and it also wanted to wrest control of Burma's coastal regions so that it could open up more ports and trading centres.

Then, at least, wars were more honest though no less brutal. There was never any attempt to justify the war o­n moral grounds, though the Burmese kingdom was nonetheless demonised and slandered as a decrepit Asian power ruled by a despot in the popular British media.

The EIC, however, was not satisfied with gaining control of Burma's coastal regions. The company's managers knew that more wealth was in store for them in the central provinces of the kingdom and that they now had an opportunity to win it for themselves. What was needed was a pretext for a second invasion

'Liberating' the Burmese from themselves

Forever o­n the lookout for excuses to topple other governments and colonising countries (today the Americans simply use the term 'regime change', which means pretty much the same thing), the managers of the EIC were skilful at manipulating the domestic politics of their colonial

possessions to earn them the tactical advantages they needed.

The Second Anglo-Burmese War of 1852-53 was sparked by complaints of anti-British agitation in Rangoon. The EIC chose to send its troops to 'pacify' the region and Rangoon was 'liberated' after it was bombarded by the EIC naval forces. EIC troops landed and marched northwards as far as Prome, forcing the royal family to leave for Mandalay and abandon their seat of power.

Writing in 1853, Karl Marx described the conflict in the following terms: "Of all the warlike expeditions of the British in the East, none have been undertaken o­n less warranted grounds than those against Burma".(5)

After their victory, the British assumed control of the Pegu region and the Irrawaddy delta and all shipping and transport along the Irrawaddy river came under the monopoly of the Irrawaddy Flotilla company.

The Irrawaddy Flotilla Company was meant to be a commercial enterprise that was supposed to 'serve' the people of Burma (in the same way that the attack o­n Iraq and the conquest of its port facilities are meant to 'help free' the Iraqis) though even then it was clear that the o­nly o­nes being helped in any way were the owners and managers of the company themselves, who had won control of the delta and all traffic going up and down the Irrawaddy river.

(It has to be noted that by gaining control of the Pegu region and Irrawaddy delta, the British had forced the Burmese up north and all that remained of the Burmese kingdom was now effectively landlocked and cut off from the rest of the world.)

The Pegu region was turned into a separate administrative unit under the British governor-general, and Rangoon became their administrative capital. The Burmese kingdom was effectively isolated after this defeat, but it tried to consolidate their hold of what was left.

King Mindon who came into power tried to introduce a series of economic reforms in the same way that King Chulalongkorn of Siam was attempting at the same time, but his projects were hindered by the British control of the Irrawaddy delta and the wealth from the Pegu region. He died before his reforms could bear fruit and was replaced by King Theebaw.

Nail in the coffin

By the 1860s the running of British Burma was no longer in the hands of the EIC. After the first Indian War of Independence in 1857 (dubbed by British colonial historians and orientalists as the so-called 'Indian mutiny'), control and management of Britain's colonies abroad was taken over by the British government itself. It was to Rangoon that the last Mughal emperor of India, Bahadar Shah Zafar, was sent into exile after the defeat of the Indian forces during the First Indian War of Independence. (His entire family had been executed previously by the British forces).

This change in management did not, however, mean that the mercenary ways of the past were discarded. If anything, Britain's expansionist drive outwards intensified even more thanks to its command of superior military and naval communications technology. It was simply business as usual for the colonial functionaries in London, and as always they were constantly looking for excuses to topple recalcitrant foreign governments that had the temerity to stand up to them.

The Third Anglo-Burmese War of 1884-85 was started o­n the flimsy pretext that Burma was 'unstable' and that the British feared the state of anarchy and unrest that threatened their borders.

British commercial interests both in the colony as well as in Britain was also clamouring for the 'opening' of northern Burma, so that the British companies could trade directly overland with China. In order to succeed in this latest commercial-military venture, the British government fell back o­n its closest ally: the business community and capitalist interests.

It was the ships of the Irrawaddy Flotilla company that ferried British troops north to Mandalay, where the Burmese army was defeated and crushed for good. King Theebaw was forced to abdicate his throne and sent into exile in India. Burma was thus effectively robbed of its leadership, the Alaungpaya Dynasty came to its end and the Burmese were completely dependent o­n their British colonial rulers.

British intervention into Burma was similar to what had happened in Malaya in many ways:

1) It occurred in stages, which allowed the British to consolidate their hold and build up their strength and influence before each successive push inland;

2) It was accompanied by a process of centralisation of administrative and economic power, (The regions conquered after the first two Anglo-Burmese wars were amalgamated into British Burma in 1862 with Rangoon as its capital), and;

3) It led to similar attempts at 'modernisation' and development: The role and status of the indigenous Buddhist religion and culture was marginalised while a market-oriented credo was introduced to the administrative system and the form of development introduced to Burma was o­ne which was profoundly affected by the ideology of colonial-capitalism. What was o­nce a thriving and prosperous not to mention independent Southeast Asian state was reduced to a colonial economy whose economic production was geared towards import-substitution, thereby making it permanently dependent o­n the colonial mother-country: Britain.

Liberation of subjugation?

There are still some adults among us who seem to think and behave like children, believing that democracy can be delivered at the point of a gun or that human rights can be defended through carpet bombing and laser-guided missiles.

Lest it be forgotten, no country with an aggressive and expansionist foreign policy would invade another unless it has something to gain from it. War, here, is an extension of the superpower's economic and foreign policy via the most brutal of means. The end result, however, is always the same: colonisation.

In British Burma, the policy of divide and rule was introduced with the help of 'pseudo-anthropological' tools such as the colonial census and population reports.

After the three successive Anglo-Burmese wars, the British attempted to break the ethnic Burman hold o­n Burmese politics and society by deliberately employing the ethnic minorities and hill tribes in specific sectors of the plural colonial economy. A 'plural economy' founded upon a racially-segregated society was created by importing vast numbers of migrants (mostly from India) and the use of the census and other forms of ethnic-classification to further entrench divisions between the ethnic Burmans and the other minority ethnic groups such as the Shan and Karens.

Groups like the Karens were singled out for missionary conversion and recruitment into the colonial police force (such as the Karen Rifles brigade), thereby immediately setting the different ethnic groupings against each other. Other migrant races were brought in to man the colonial economy as well as the colonial police force. Sikh troops from India were used to

curtail indigenous revolts, as in the case of British Malaya.

The result was a deepening of ethnic and racial differences and the creation of even more resentment between the communities, which the British used to their advantage. As a consequence of this, Burma experienced a series of ethnic conflicts that intensified during the process of nationalist struggle.

The postcolonial regime has also tried to deal with the enduring problem of racial and ethnic animosity for several decades, but most of their policies have failed due to their own Burman-centric approach. The human cost of such policies were borne by the colonised peoples themselves, who continue to suffer from the legacy of bitter racial and religious animosity engendered by their colonisers a century ago.(6)

When we look at what is going o­n in Iraq today, we cannot help but note the similarities: as was the case of Burma more than a hundred years ago, the American and British invaders are already busying themselves with the task of dividing Iraqi society so that it will be easier to manage after the capture/killing of Saddam Hussein. The Americans have been fueling ethnic and tribal tensions in many parts of the country, appealing to the communitarian sensibilities of the Kurds in the north and the Shia Muslims in the south.

Thus far America's own record of 'promoting democracy' has failed to live up to the standards that it has set for itself. In Afghanistan, for instance, it is well known that the American-backed government of Hamid Karzai has no legitimacy or real power outside of the capital of Kabul. Already we have seen instances of anti-American forces fighting back in that unfortunate

country. The Afghan government, o­n the other hand, is precisely where the Americans want it to be: in a state of weakness and near-paralysis, eternally indebted and dependent o­n their American patrons and masters.

Should this war in Iraq culminate in a victory for the Americans and their British flunkies, the likelihood is that Iraq will also come under the neo-colonial dominance of this new arriviste colonial power. But as the saying goes: The more things change, the more they stay the same. The tragedy of Iraq is that it is but another repetition of a sad and miserable drama that has done its rounds in practically every other part of the developing world.

Endnotes:

1) See: Chandra Muzaffar, 'The Spoils of War' (open letter to the press) that can be accessed via the website of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

2) See: Wall Street Journal , Jan 16, 2003.

3) Chandra, ibid . Later the Feb 10, 2003 issue of Business Week reported that the US military would control over Iraq's oil and gas deposits for some time, and that US companies could be in line for a lucrative slice of that business. It therefore comes as no surprise if the managers of companies like Halliburton Co and Bakar Hughes Inc, as well as construction giant Bechtel Group Inc, have been so supportive of the US war effort thus far.

In his article Chandra Muzaffar has pointed out that "Dick Cheney and other hawks in the Bush administration such as Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle have often talked about increasing Iraq's production to its full capacity, estimated at around eight million barrels a day, and using the revenue from this export to finance the country's infrastructure reconstruction. Of course a lot of this reconstruction will revolve around re-building the infrastructure destroyed by the Anglo-American Axis' relentless bombing since March 20, 2003. It is the same perverted psychology that insists o­n feeding the Iraqi populace and supplying the sick with medicines after depriving them of these essentials for 12 long years through the most cruel and comprehensive sanctions regime in recent history.

4) Debate still rages o­n over the question of whether o­ne should use the name 'Burma' or 'Myanmar' to refer to the country in question. But as this is meant to be a historical overview of the developments in that country in the 19th century, we have used the name that was in use at that time to refer to the country in question.

5) Karl Marx, 'The invasion of Burma', in New York Daily Tribune , July 30, 1853. In: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Essays o­n colonialism . Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, USSR. 1960.

6) Those who are interested to learn more about the history of the Anglo-Burmese wars and British colonisation of Burma may want to look at the following texts: Maung Htin Aung, A history of Burma , Columbia University Press, London, 1967; DGE Hall, A History of Southeast Asia , Macmillan Asian Histories Series, Fourth Edition. London. 1981; and Robert H Taylor, The state in Burma , C Hurst. 1987.