The 2003 invasion of Iraq has enabled two important realizations. First, that imperial powers only act to preserve their interests, and second, that humanitarian intervention - or rather humanitarian imperialism - is touted and encouraged by the media and official circles to circumvent the true self-serving intents of aggression.

Many Americans are still under the impression that Iraq harbored al-Qaeda, developed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and threatened America’s security. But who can blame them? Compare the relentless campaign of fabrication and half-truths prior to the invasion - courtesy of President George W Bush’s administration and its willing allies in the media - to the dismal follow-ups on whether such military adventurism actually achieved any of its declared objectives.

Every facet in America’s propaganda machine was in ceaseless motion to make a case for war; aside from the obvious pretext, Iraq’s horrors under Saddam Hussein were repeatedly emphasized. Also showcased were Iraq’s exiled elites, who "proved" that the US war was compelled by the desperate pleas of the Iraqi "masses". Forget the actual masses subsequently butchered with impunity during the US occupation.

Compare again the attention given to Saddam’s victims to the subsequent attention given to the victims of the US war - estimated now by some to number around one million - who were not even validated as victims, but instead presented as grateful beneficiaries. A few months into the invasion, a leading US neoconservative claimed to me in an interview that the Iraq democracy experiment was so successful that “Iranians are calling me at my office, angrily saying, how come you liberated the Iraqis and are yet to liberate us?”

So why aren’t the US and Britain responding to the humanitarian situation in Myanmar with the same determination which they exhibited for Iraq, and now Iran? Why haven’t media pundits rushed in to make a case for war against the brutal regime of Myanmar’s Senior General Than Shwe, who has denied his people not only political freedom but also the basic requisites for a dignified life?

Extravagant abuses

To maintain their extravagant lifestyles in the midst of crushing poverty, the ruling junta’s generals jacked up fuel prices by 500% in mid-August. This provoked even Myanmar’s Buddhist monks - legendary symbols of peace and abstinence - to demonstrate en masse, demanding among other things greater compassion for the poor. The protests which started on August 19 culminated late last month into massive rallies of hundreds of thousands.

The mainstream media correctly drew parallels with Myanmar’s 1988 uprising, when students in Yangon triggered nationwide demonstrations that were suppressed brutally by the army, claiming 3,000 lives. Than Shwe became the head of the junta in 1992 and has since ruled with an iron fist. However, his subversion of democracy was not a strong enough reason to prevent large multinationals from seeking lucrative contracts in the natural-gas-rich country.

He and other senior junta members have accumulated massive wealth, sent their children to top-notch Western universities and roamed the globe doing big business deals while the Myanmar people endure crushing poverty. This eventually led to the most recent revolt, which was once again crushed by soldiers without remorse. The number of dead this time, like last time, remains unknown. The junta claims only 10 people were killed in clashes while some exile-based opposition groups have put the figure in the hundreds. Thousands have been arrested and many monks have reportedly been beaten and tortured in detention.

From a media perspective, no revolution could be as sentimental or visually appealing. But, of course, it takes more than tens of thousands of monks leading hundreds of thousands of the country’s poor in mass rallies to make Myanmar relevant for long. Western leaders have paid the necessary lip service. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown decried the use of violence against protestors and demanded European sanctions.

President Bush declared that Americans “stand in solidarity with these brave individuals”. Israel, on the other hand, denied its historical military links to the junta, despite much contradictory evidence. It justified its unwillingness to influence the situation on the grounds of nostalgia - Myanmar was the first South Asian country to recognize Israel.

The United Nations sent its envoy to Myanmar to meet Than Shwe and was left waiting for days before he was allowed to express the concerns of the international community. In a break with protocol, he left the country without debriefing local diplomats.

Strategically, Myanmar is as important to China as the Middle East is to the US. China cares more about the political stability of its neighbours than human rights and democracy; the US cares about such a nuisance insofar as it affects its ability to serve and maintain its own military and economic interests. Under no circumstances will China allow America a significant role in Myanmar, a country with which it shares a 2,000-kilometer border. The US, on the other hand, pays lip service to democracy in Myanmar, and its continued support of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) is aimed mainly at maintaining a foothold in Myanmar for a possible future role should tensions heat up with China.

Humanitarian imperialism has often proved more destructive than the injustices it supposedly addresses. But expect none of that in the case of Myanmar, because intervention does not serve the interests of the main influential parties - not the West’s, nor China’s, nor Russia’s. We may see a few sentimental meetings between Aung San Suu Kyi and representatives of the generals, and perhaps a few gestures of goodwill by the latter, at the joint behest of China and the West.

But they will bring no sweeping reforms, no meaningful move towards democracy or respect for human rights. These can only be achieved by the people of Myanmar themselves, by their monks, political and civil society activists and ordinary citizens. If Iraq has been a lesson of any worth, it is that the Myanmar people are much better off without American bombers or British napalm. True reforms and democracy can only come from within, from the closed fists of the determined dispossessed.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).