Total funds the military junta to guard its pipelines, and is guilty of propping up a regime that sponsers and commits rape, murder, genocide, and forced labour.

Myanmer is a vile country and Yangon is a vile city, but Burma and Rangoon are not. I am glad to see many still call the country and their capital by their official names. The world saw the outrages in the country, 7 months ago, as protesters were slaughtered by the government, in this case literally, as they were slaughtered by the military, and the military is the government. The despotism is summed up by a national joke in Burma: that George Orwell wrote a trilogy about the country- Burmese Days, Animal Farm, and 1984.

The relevance to the title of my post is this. No matter what totalitarian country we encounter, or of the actions we see on our televisions, these regimes seem to have a universal trait: they are propped up by Beijing.

If there was any other reason to hate a vulgar fraud like the member for Bethnal Green and Bow any more, well, I thought I could not find another one. The creationist side of Galloway does not even compare to his moronic, repugnant masochistic adulation of the sadist-in-chief of Iraq. We all know the particular quote which shows that he wasn't praising the Iraqi people, but instead Saddam, while also spending Christmas with Tariq Aziz, and going nightclubbing with the rapist dauphains of the regime, Uday and Qusay. It isn't just that he defends an organisation like Hezbollah, who have exploited ethno-religious hatred in Lebanon, based on hierarchial structures that only reap more money from the fascist theocracy in Tehran. It's not just that he defends the right of Syria to fan the hatred in Lebanon, but instead blames it on Zionism, his criticisms having a great deal of anti-Semitic innuendos (yes anti-Zionism is different, but he plays on anti-Semitic jibes like the Jewish media conspiracy, or that Zionism was for Jewish interests in the Arab world). It isn't just that he thinks Bush and Blair have commited crimes of humanity against Iraq, while not really extending that criticism to Saddam. It isn't just that he doesn't believe in democracy for poorer countries (namely Pakistan). It isn't just that he believes that those who support gay rights in Iran want an invasion of the country, and affirms the innuendos that gay people executed are actually 'paedophiles'. It isn't just his defence of Castro, or of the Soviets as an 'anti-imperialist' power, and calling the collapse of that country  as the 'greatest catastrophe' of his life. It isn't just that he alligned Leninism with clerical fanaticism for an election to parliament. Or calling suicide murders in Iraq, part of a 'resistance movement'.

Now he has defended the Chinese regime. He says that Tibet was 'always part of the Chinese motherland'. He asserts that China is being criticised for 'NOT interfering in another country's affairs'. Amnesty International and other human rights organisations have maintained that China is certainly aiding the genocidal government of Sudan. If ever there was an example of a 'blood-for-oil' then this would be it. They buy most of the weapons and oil of the Sudanese, through the diplomatic immunity of the Chinese veto at the United Nations. The letter 2 months ago, signed by many international intellectuals, and campaigners for peace, like the exemplary Jody Williams, condemned their involvement. Did we realise that we would see in the next 2 months, more examples of Chinese colonialism?

Robert Mugabe is a vile racist, He is guilty of genocidal acts against certain tribes in the '80's. He is a Machiavellian fraud. Some from the Anti-Apartheid movement have defended him. He says he is fighting British imperialism, while the other hand accepts involvement in his country from imperialist China, always ready to help out Marxist-Leninists and democracy haters. Kim Jong-Il, is not the head of state of North Korea. His long dead father is. The corpse leads a state worse than Oceania. The only way to top it would be with the economic conditions of Zimbabwe. We have no way of telling the extent of the human rights abuses there. We do know there are mass concentration camps, and the citizens (now 5-6 inches shorter than their southern compatriots as a manifestation of severe malnutrition) are workers of a slave state. They live in abject famine. The chairman of North Korea, has control over nuclear weapons. Who backs them? Beijing. China has effective control of these foreign powers and others. But the fun never stops for this regime:

Maoist chauvinism sells Silkworm missiles to Iran. They supported. It is likely that they purport Milosevic as a 'defender of national sovereignty', is because they are worried of support for 'races' they consider inferior to the Han. It is also likely that any concerns for Iraq, were about the oil fields that the CNPC controlled. Oil is just as big a concern on the side of those who oppose military intervention, as to those who may support it.

With regards to my point about Milosevic, the combination of racism and colonialism, is an ideology prevalent in China aka Maoist chauvinism. China has sent many Han people into Tibet, which has severely undermined the sovereignty of Tibet, and the Tibetan people, as the Tibetans hold no power in comparison to a select Han elite, even with in their own country. I am not one of those who can transfer my dislike of piety, to a praise of a Buhddist alternative, as I am quite critical of the Dalai Lama. But, it is the Chinese imperial hold over this country which is more disgusting. They hold the true Communist doublethink position of regarding Tibetans, and the largely Sunni Muslim Uighar people as Chinese, while also regarding them as part of an inferior race. The official borders of their empire, take in Macao and Hong Kong (two states deserving not to be considered the sovereign power of other countries), and Taiwan.

They can exploit the capitalism of Hong Kong and Macao, while suppressing the trading rights of Taiwan. They take the worst elements of Marxist-Leninism and the worst elements of capitalism. They can endorse systematic genocide and economic collapse in other countries. They deal with British businessman, while aiding a dictator who blames many of his problems on British business and 'imperialism'. China effectively controls many countries across the globe, not caring who it hurts, often sadistically, as they can praise the aspects of leaders who supress their own citizens in a racist, and colonialist manner. This is because they have a noted history of undertaking such actions themselves. 

They can perfectly happily form an alliance with India, to evade the Kyoto treaty, to further economic interests, and to gain a further standing on the world stage. But when a nuclear war breaks out in the sobcontinant, they will probably side with Pakistan, as their border disputes with India, will manifest into a fear that India's power could overtake their power. They centralise a lassez-faire deregulation of a regulated economy. Contradictions don't even begin to describe it.

I'll part with this thought. When a mass Boycott Burma movement was considered in the form of the Anti-Apartheid boycotts of South Africa, a valid concern was raised. The countries who Beijing have colonised, are now effectivel paying tythes to them. So when you see a product that says 'Made in China', it could actually mean 'Made in Burma'.