Myanmar Targeted by Globalists

by Dr. K R Bolton

It seems clear now that whenever a regime is damned as repressive by “world

opinion” then it is being marked for “regime change” in the interests of global
capitalism. One should consider this before getting too enthused when the
masses “spontaneously” pour out onto the streets demanding “democracy,”
which should be interpreted rather as “plutocracy.” The same pattern has
been followed in Eastern European, Central Asia, North Africa and adjacent
areas, and Myanmar. Venezuela and Belarus are also particularly of interest
to the globalists.
Myanmar was already the setting of a “color revolution” in 2007. As soon as
Laura Bush was on Television referring to the “Saffron Revolution”,[1] the
code word had gone out to the world that Soros/CFR et al were trying to pull
off another money coup in the name of “human rights.”

In 2010, the military junta stepped down and allowed elections. It doesn’t
really matter to the globalist wire-pullers whether an election is “legitimate”
or “fraudulent,” in their eyes. It does not really matter whether a regime is
brutally repressive towards its own population or of genteel disposition. The
globalists have no genuine and convincing objection to China’s domination of
Tibet, where predatory capital can deal very well with China in exploiting
Tibet’s resources.[2] The global corporate elite backs states that are Left,
Right, or Center; democratic or dictatorial, on the basis of profit
maximization and/or geopolitical considerations. Cant about democracy and
human rights is purely for subversive or war-mongering purposes. It has
been used by war-mongering humbugs as a propaganda device at least since
the time slavery was made the ostensible issue for warring against the
Confederate secessionists, and when the “human rights” of the Uitlanders in
South Africa were made a cause celebre to allow monopolists to declare war
on the Boer folk to secure the resources of that territory. In more recent times
the same propaganda was used to demonize Saddam’s Iraq and Serbia for
the purposes of grabbing the mineral wealth of Kosovo. It is being used now
to justify the bombing of Libya. One should, then, ask what it is about
Myanmar, other than the humbuggery about “human rights,” that is really
behind the on-going US “interest” in the state?
John McCain’s Visit to the Opposition
Senator John McCain has a particular interest in Myanmar. He is about to
meet with the much touted Nobel Prize-winning “democratic opposition”
leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Why is McCain meeting with Suu Kyi, and as far as
is known at the moment, not meeting with the actual leadership of Myanmar?
[3] The answer would surely be that the interests he represents wish to access
the situation in a way antagonistic towards the present regime; in which case
Myanmar’s leadership should tell McCain and any other such Americans to
stay out because they are reckless subversives. Reports state further:
The senator has been one of the foremost critics of Myanmar’s military junta
that ruled the country from 1988 to 2010 before passing power to an elected
government after a general election in November.
The election, labeled a sham by Obama, was won by the pro-military Union
Solidarity and Development Party, which is packed with former military
officials, including ex-general Thein Sein.
McCain’s visit is to follow other high-profile visits since new government of
Myanmar, which has long been denounced by the United States for human
rights abuses, took office on March 30.
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Yun visited Myanmar last week
and met with Foreign Minister Wanna Maung Lwin.
Yun, who also met with Suu Kyi, told the Nobel Peace Prize laureate that he
‘wanted to see significant development here’ before the US would consider
lifting sanctions on the government.[4]
“Saffron Revolution” 2007
The abortive “Saffron Revolution” of 2007 was supposed to follow the same
course as other “color revolutions” but fizzled. The color designation, saffron,
was chosen as a psychological ploy, being the color of the robes worn by the
monks in the forefront of the streets marches. There’s nothing like putting
monks, priests, or women and children at the forefront of marches to achieve
the desired martyrs and appropriate television images.
Myanmar is one of the primary states of interest to George Soros’ globalist
network and to the Council on Foreign Relations. The Soros Open Society
network includes a “Burma Project Southeast Asia Initiative.” This has been
going since 1994,[5] for the purposes of changing Myanmar into an “open
society,” which is to say, “open” to predatory capital. As had been apparent in
many of the “color revolutions” around the world, from the recent one in
Egypt[6] to those in Eastern Europe, there is often a leader-in-waiting that
has the patronage of the globalists, ready to take authority in the advent of a
“regime change.” In the case of Myanmar, the position seems to be held by
Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy, whom McCain will be
meeting. When Suu Kyi’s detention was extended in 2009 due to the actions
of an American swimming across a lake to visit her, Soros’ network mobilized,
and one might wonder whether the reckless American prank was a ploy, given
that Suu Kyi was due for release. Open Society states of its mobilization:
A coalition of Open Society Institute grantees has launched a major campaign
calling for a global arms embargo and international pressure on the Burmese
junta to release Aung San Suu Kyi before the military-supervised elections
planned for 2010.[7]
As elsewhere, OSI funds opposition media, the primary recipient for
Myanmar being “Burma News International.” [8] As with the other targeted
states, OSI trains and funds “activists” working for an “open society,” the
grant making priories being:
Advocacy efforts that promote change in Burma; Documentation of rights
abuses that complement advocacy efforts; Community empowerment and
skills training that aim to strengthen civil society inside Burma and along its
borders; Support for media and information dissemination to people inside
Burma, the diaspora, and the international community.[9]
Asia Society
Soros was a member of the “task force” under the auspices of the Asia Society,
a Rockefeller think tank that interlinks with the CFR and has played a
prominent role in US-China relations. “Co-Chairs” were: General Wesley
Clark, former NATO commander who oversaw the war against Serbia, which
the task force report characterizes as saving Albanians from “ethnic
cleansing” (as distinct from saving Serbians from the KLA’s “ethnic
cleansing”); and Henrietta Fore, CEO of Holsman International
investments[10], and former administrator of USAID. Members came from
academia, Human Rights Watch, Open Society and Asia Society.
Recommendations for present US policy are that,
The National League for Democracy should continue to be a focal point of
U.S. policy support, and its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, will remain an
important figure for achieving the dialogue necessary to bring about national
reconciliation of the military, democracy groups, and minority nationalities.
At the same time, U.S. policy also must place greater emphasis on reaching
out to other democratic forces, including civil society groups, and ethnic
minorities and ensuring that they benefit from U.S. assistance programs
inside Burma.[11]
What can be deduced is that, as in Central Asia, Eastern Europe and the Near
and Middle East, the US will directly intervene in the political processes of a
sovereign state and assist opposition political parties. It is also notable that
there is a focus on supporting “ethnic minorities,” which have often provided
a means of subverting a state under the guise of “human rights,” whether it be
Hitler marching into Czechoslovakia to save the Sudeten Germans, or the US
backing of Albanian gangsters against Serbia.

The Task Force Report flagrantly refers to “aid programs” as being a means
of subverting states, in case there is any doubt. Hence, US aid is shown to be a
strategic weapon of US foreign policy:
In pursuing pragmatic engagement with Burma, the United States must
continue to develop, and even ramp up, means of reaching the Burmese
population directly through assistance programs.[12]
The Task Force states that US aid should bypass the Government to provide
“Assistance to NGOs that have no connections to the military and are not
officially registered with authorities should be expanded.”[13] The report
states that care must be taken as the new constitution of Myanmar prohibits
those who receive foreign aid for running for office. Hence it can be seen that
Myanmar is trying to take steps to thwart foreign subversion that is
undertaken under the guise of humanitarian programs.[14] That the
Myanmar regime is correct in its suspicions is clear from what the Task Force
report itself states about the purposes of aid programs, as cited above.
Cultural subversion, or what the Left had traditionally called “American
cultural imperialism,” remains an essential part of the globalization process.
The Task Force lays out plans for subverting the traditional basis of Myanmar
society, a matter in which the Open Society network has been very active in
the former Soviet bloc and Central Asia. There is nothing more lethal that the
cultural poison that emanates from the USA and spread across the world:
Educational exchange under the Fulbright and Humphrey Scholar programs
and cultural outreach activities should be expanded. These programs produce
powerful agents for community development in Burma and can significantly
expand the prospects for improved governance. Although the military
government is highly averse to foreign cultural influence in the country, the
U.S. Embassy’s American Center has long served as a cultural focal point for
many Burmese living in the Rangoon area. If the election produces a transfer
of power to a less xenophobic leadership, the United States should support
the extension of American Center programs through the Internet, the
deployment of visiting speakers to other cities, and other forms of cultural
outreach. If political transition produces real change, marked by full
participation of opposition and non-Burman ethnic representatives in elected
government, U.S. scholarship and visitor programs should be expanded to
include Burmese government officials.[15]
Note how the Myanmar regime is suspicious of “foreign cultural influence,”
making Myanmar a rare state that is determined to resist globalization on all
levels, economically, politically and culturally. Note also the role played by the
US Embassy’s “American Center.” Myanmar would do well to shut it down as
a center of cultural pathology. The wide-ranging culturally subversive
program outlined by Rivkin, US Ambassador to France, for using Muslim
youth to undermine French culture and national identity, called “xenophobia”
by the globalists, might here be recalled.[16] The use of non-Burmese ethnics
is mentioned as being a potential source of use for creating dissent and
division.
If Myanmar cannot be shifted in the desired direction the Task Force
recommends that business and banking sanctions should be increased, with
the assistance of ASEAN and the European Union. Should, however,
Myanmar’s leadership bow to pressure and open itself up to foreign
exploitation, then Asian (including China) and some other states should be
used in proxy to “assist” Myanmar to make the necessary reforms under the
auspices of the United Nations.[17]
Significantly the focus of the above-cited 2010 Asia Society Task Force report
was on the reform of Myanmar’s economy, with the object of “reform-
oriented economic activity.”[18] Once Myanmar has succumbed to US
pressure, the Task Force proposes that Myanmar’s economic globalization
proceeds with advice from the IMF, World Bank and Asia Development Bank:
A first measure is the provision of expert advice. Accordingly, the United
States should gradually release current injunctions on and partner with
institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and Asian
Development Bank to provide Burma with advice on reform.[19]
The Task Force Report then states that the US and other states should provide
advisers to instruct as to how best to exploit Myanmar’s resources. “A second
measure is for the United States and other appropriate countries to provide
Burma with assistance in economic institution building.”[20] Should
Myanmar show signs of reticence at domination by the USA and exploitation
by predatory capital, there should be options in place to put the squeeze on:
The United States should encourage the creation of a flexible mechanism that
will allow some sanctions to be lifted, while maintaining others and holding
the capacity to impose new, tightly targeted financial sanctions should
circumstances deteriorate.[21]
The “problem” with Myanmar, in the view of the globalists, is that its
economy is under state direction, and is not amenable to being exploited by
international capital. The Task Force Report states that Myanmar’s “formal
economy” is dominated by the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings
Limited and the Myanmar Economic Corporation.[22] Of the six demands for
reform, the Task Focvre objectives include: “Market opening policies,
including the removal of remaining restrictions on private enterprise,
Openness to foreign trade and investment.”[23] Once Myanmar has opened
up to predation. then the usual gaggle of financial advisers are expected to be
able to descend on the hapless state, as has been the case with so many now
bankrupt and impoverished states throughout the world; lamenting that, “The
Burmese government has a track record of disregarding the advice of
international financial institutions.”[24] The Report states on this: “Second,
economic engagement can be directed toward providing advice on how
Burma should manage its natural gas revenues and promoting accountability
for government spending.”[25]
CFR Globalists Report on Myanmar in 2003
The overlap between the CFR, the USA pre-eminent think tank, and the Asia
Society and Soros OSI is typical of the globalist nexus. Both Fore[26] and
General Clark[27] who Co-Chaired the Asia Society Task Force on
Burma/Myanmar, are also members of the CFR, as is George Soros.[28] One
of the primary purposes of the CFR is to change policy and public opinion
from “behind the scenes,” (sic) as candidly stated by CFR historian and
luminary Peter Grosse.[29] CFR Task Force Reports should therefore be
regarded as something more than idle theorizing from a “non-partisan” (sic)
discussion club. As Grosse makes plain in his book, the CFR is at the heart of
US foreign policy decision making and provides continuity between
Democratic and Republic Administrations, which might in part explain why
nothing substantial changes.
The CFR report on Myanmar is entitled Burma: Time for Change.[30] (As far
as this writer knows, Myanmar’s Generals have yet to reciprocate with a
report entitled USA: Time for Change). Of the twenty-seven CFR Task Force
members, the following have particularly interesting links:
UREEN AUNG-THWIN, director of the Burma Project/Southeast Asia
Initiative of the Open Society Institute; serves on the advisory boards of
Human Rights Watch/Asia and the Burma Studies Foundation, which
oversees the Center for Burma Studies at Northern Illinois University.
MA JANET BENSHOOF, president emeritus and founder of the Center for
Reproductive Rights (formerly the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy).
This organization is a recipient of Soros largesse, as part of the Soros strategy
for using “feminism,” and especially “reproductive rights,” to undermine
traditional societies, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Muslim.
GEORGE C. BIDDLE, senior vice president of the International Rescue
Committee. Previously vice president of the International Crisis Group (ICG)
and president of the Institute for Central American Studies. The International
Crisis Group is yet another globalist think tank that was founded in1995.
Among the ICG Executive Committee is the omni-present George Soros, and
General Wesley Clark.[31] It should be recalled that another member was
Mohamed ElBaradei, who “suspended his membership in 2011 to return to
Egypt,” as the globalist’s leader-in-waiting after yet another “velvet
revolution” had overthrown an unwanted regime. Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR),
former National Security Adviser under Carter, and North American director
of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, is a “senior adviser” for the ICG.
[32]
BOWMAN CUTTER, managing director at Warburg Pincus, part of the
well-known Warburg banking dynasty.
MATHEA FALCO, a chair of the Task Force, president of Drug Strategies,
and associate professor of public health at the Weill Medical College, Cornell
University. She served as assistant secretary of state for international
narcotics matters 1977 to 1981. Drug Strategies is one of the narcotics
liberalization lobbies funded by Soros.
ADRIENNE GERMAIN, president of the International Women’s Health
Coalition; member of the Asia and women’s rights advisory committees of
Human Rights Watch and of the Millennium Development Goals Project Task
Force on Child Mortality and Maternal Health.
JOSHUA KURLANTZICK, foreign editor of The New Republic, having
formerly worked for The New Republic, U.S. News and World Report and
The Economist.
TOM MALINOWSKI, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights
Watch; served as a senior director at the National Security Council 1998 to
2001 and served at the State Department 1994 to 1998.
ARYEH NEIER, president of the Open Society Institute and the Soros
Foundations Network, previously serving as executive director of Human
Rights Watch.
GEORGE SOROS, chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC, founder of
the Soros Foundations Network, “a consortium of philanthropic organizations
active in more than 50 countries.”
ROSE STYRON, poet, journalist, and human rights activist who has chaired
Amnesty International’s National Advisory Council, PEN’s Freedom-to-Write
Committee, and the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Awards.
KENNETH WOLLACK, president of the National Democratic Institute for
International Affairs.
Note among the above that the supposedly “non-partisan” Human Rights
Watch, which is influential in shaping the perceptions of “world opinion”
towards states, is well represented in the CFR and is closely associated with
Soros. Amnesty International also has a connection here. These “impartial”
organizations are influential in deciding how the mass media throughout
much of the world portrays a regime.

The CFR Task Force Report in many ways seems to have established the basis
for the recent Asia Society Report, including recommendations to work with
ASEAN and China to put pressure on Myanmar.[33] Again, economic
pressure is recommended to persuade Myanmar to implement the advice of
the IMF, World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank; which became a
primary requisite for the 2010 Asia Society Report. China is urged to use its
influence to push for reform of Myanmar’s economy and government,
presumably with the view that China is a paragon of good governance. [34]
The cultural penetration of Myanmar recommended in the 2010 Asia Society
Report was laid out in the 2003 CFR Report, suggesting that the American
Center in Rangoon could serve as the focus for cultural exchanges and
influence.[35] Myanmar comprises fourteen ethnic-based states. Hence, the
references by both the CFR and Asia Society regarding the use of “non-
Burman” ethnic groups. One can expect to see American agitation among
ethnic minorities in order to divide the nation.
Why Myanmar?
Myanmar’s economy is an anomaly in the “new world order.” Myanmar has a
command economy. Hence the demands from both the CFR and Asia Society
are the same: “economic reform” in accordance with the “advice” of the World
Bank and the IMF. The issue is that of economic and financial exploitation by
foreign capital, and one therefore needs to look beyond the condemnation of
the regime as “repressive,” “anti-democratic,” “corrupt,” etc. Like Kosovo, the
country is rich in mineral resources, including: petroleum, timber, tin,
antimony, zinc, copper, tungsten, lead, coal, some marble, limestone,
precious stones, natural gas, and hydropower.[36] There are investment
opportunities open to outside corporations, but in partnership with the State.
[37]
Unlike free market states such as New Zealand, which have dismantled the
great public works projects, Myanmar still has a large-scale public works
program that employs 23,000, including 16,000 engineers and technicians.
[38] The Public Works division has established a Central Training Centre in
Thuwunna, Thingunyun Township. “The training courses for the craftsmen
and construction workers in the various trades, as well as refresher training
courses for engineers and supporting staffs are being conducted at the
Centre.”[39] The Department of Housing constructs low cost housing and
new satellite towns, industrial zones and commercial complexes. Unlike the
haphazard manner of free market economies, housing development is
planned. Slum squatters have been housed in accommodation with a
minimum of 600 sq. ft.[40]
Much of the economy is co-operative based, under the supervision of the
Ministry of Cooperatives. According to the 1992 Cooperative Societies Law,
“Under this Law, a Primary cooperative society can be formed with a
minimum of 5 persons. Any person who has completed the age of 18 years
and is a citizen, associate citizen or a naturalized citizen can become a
member of the society.” Cooperative societies can then form into larger
syndicates.[41] 551 industrial cooperatives (2009 figures) have been formed.
One cooperative, “the Myanmar Inventor Co-operative Society is producing
electric power by using rice husk consuming generators,”[42] an indication of
the alternative energy methods that the state has long aimed to pursue, as
part of a program that aims at autarchy or self-sufficiency. “A total of 1259
livestock and fishery cooperative societies have been formed and the total
production value for fiscal year 2007-2008 is 19078 million kyats.”[43] There
are cooperative healthcare facilities, including over 202 general clinics, two
hospitals, 16 indigenous health care clinics, and 35 polyclinics.[44]
The cooperative system is part of Myanmar’s finance policy:
A total of 1719 saving and credit cooperative societies have been formed with
the aim to extend loan at low interest rate to the needy members. Cooperative
Bank has been formed for cooperative banking activities.[45]
The Ministry of Industry has five departments and directorates under its
auspices. Industrial development is coordinated via the Directorate of
Myanmar Industrial Planning. [46] Under its supervision are institutions
responsible for automobile and diesel engine industries, agricultural
machinery industries, machine tools and electrical industries, tire and rubber
industries, and industrial construction services.[47]
State Banking: The Basis of Real Sovereignty
The banking sector is under state supervision, a heresy among the free market
ideologues, without which there can be no real sovereignty. To quote:
The Central Bank of Myanmar Law (1990) empowers the Central Bank of
Myanmar (CBM) to act as the sole issuer of domestic currency, to act as a
banker to the Government, to act as an adviser to the Government in respect
of economic matters, to inspect and supervise the financial institutions, to
manage the international reserves of the State, to perform the transactions
resulting from the participation of the State in intergovernmental
organizations and to undertake all the responsibilities in the name of the
Government in dealing with the aforesaid organizations on behalf of the
Government
In particular, the Central Bank of Myanmar is also empowered to set reserve
requirements, maximum discount rate, maximum and minimum interest
rates on loans and deposits, asset and liability ratios and minimum cash
margins. Thus, the Law enables the Central Bank of Myanmar to less rely on
quantitative credit control and more on indirect instruments of monetary
control including the use of reserve requirement ratio and interest rate policy.
Accordingly, the Central Bank of Myanmar has currently used such monetary
policy instruments as reserve requirements, interest rate policy and limited
open market operations in order to maintain adequate level of money supply
for ensuring balance between economic expansion and general price level.
[48]
A Banking Supervisory Committee closely oversees the private banking
sector. Foreign currency operations are the prerogative of three state banks.
“Imports are permitted commensurate to the level of export earnings or
service earnings,” under the direction of Ministry of National Planning and
Economic Development and the Ministry of Finance and Revenue.[49]
The operation of this type of economic and banking system is more likely to
explain the vitriol against the Myanmar regime than allegations of “human
rights” abuses. It seems coincidental that those states that are targeted for
“exposure” in the global news media by Human Rights Watch, etc., also
happen to be the states that do not fit into the Brave New World of Soros,
Rockefeller, et al. While the description of Myanmar’s economic system
might be dismissed as regime propaganda, the Ministries seem quite frank in
stating the shortcomings that are yet to be dealt with. However, what does
seem salient is that Myanmar is a planned economy, striving for an autarchic
state, and with a strictly supervised banking system. It is little wonder that the
globalists are so keen to have Myanmar’s rulers embrace the advice of the
IMF and the World Bank, and to become an “open society” like so many
others that have succumbed to “velvet revolutions.” Much to the
consternation of the global banksters, although Myanmar has long been a
member of the IMF, the regime has showed no willingness to co-operate with
the institution, has refused to furnish data, and has not repaid previous debt
or interest accruing from 1987. Myanmar’s rulers have refused to enter into
the IMP/World Bank “Heavily Indebted Poor Countries” initiative,[50] and
have therefore remained out of the clutches of the international money-
lenders.
Against this autarchic planned economy is posited the ideology of the much
touted National League for Democracy (NLD), which is the preferred option
of the globalists; the focus of their hopes. The NLD advocates the type of
economic reforms demanded by predatory capital. The NLD manifesto calls
for the revision and amending of “foreign investment laws for setting multiple
increases in foreign investment.”[51] Further: “To revise the laws, circulate
orders, rules and regulations and the management system, that restricted
economic enterprises, and some will be amended, and some are to be
abolished, as seemed fit.”[52] “The present various types of revenue system
shall be revised and amended to benefit the private enterprises.”[53] “Various
enterprises of economic sector must completely base itself on the market
economy. Special encouragement shall be made for a quick development of
private enterprises.”[54]
Economic development is focused on establishing a market economy and
taking the state out of is supervisory role, and negating the planned economy.
The NLD manifesto states of this: “The nationalized economic enterprises
that are included in all the above sectors of economy, shall be given back to
their original owners respectively and for those enterprises whose original
owners can no longer take responsibility for them, the state shall try and get
the economic expertise and financial investment to continue to run the
business.”[55] “The business enterprises will not be nationalized.”[56] “With
the exception of some enterprises, if immediately abandoned, could cause
devastation to domestic economy and increase unemployment shall be
retained, the remaining nationalized enterprises shall be abolished and
privatized…”[57] “Shall allow foreign investment that will benefit the
development of the country’s economy, according to the principles of a
market economy.”[58]
The National League for Democracy is committed to opening up Myanmar to
international exploitation and domination by High Finance. Hence the visit
by John McCain to the much-touted to NLD leader Suu Kyi.

[1] BBC World News, September 28, 2007.

[2] K R Bolton, “The Tragedy of Tibet: A Saga of Betrayal, Colonization and
Exploitation,” Foreign Policy Journal, June 25, 2010,
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/06/25/the-tragedy-of-tibet-a-
saga-of-betrayal-colonization-and-exploitation
[3] “US Senator John McCain to Meet Myanmar Opposition Leader,”
M&C/Deutsche-Presse-Agentur,
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_164200
8.php/US-Senator-John-McCain-to-meet-Myanmar-opposition-leader
[4] Ibid.
[5] http://www.soros.org/initiatives/bpsai/about
[6] K R Bolton, “What’s Behind the Tumult in Egypt?,” Foreign Policy
Journal, February 1, 2011,
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/01/whats-behind-the-
tumult-in-egypt
[7] “Burma Project Grantees Rally Global Support Around Aung San Suu
Kyi,” June 10, 2009,
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/bpsai/news/support_20090610
[8] “New Website Focuses on Burma’s Elections,” September 27, 2010.
[9] “Call for Proposals: Burma Project/Southeast Asia Initiative,”
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/bpsai/news/call-for-proposals-20100610
[10] Fore is also, predictably, a member of the CFR, Co-Chair of the Asia
Society, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, etc. SourceWatch, http://ww
title=Henrietta_Holsman_Fore
[11] “Current Realities and Future Possibilities in Burma/Myanmar: Options
for US policy,” Asia Society, Task Force Report, March 2010, p. 9,
http://www2.jiia.or.jp/pdf/report/201003/BurmaMyanmar_TaskForceRepo
rt2.pdfhttp://www2.jiia.or.jp/pdf/report/201003/BurmaMyanmar_TaskFor
ceReport2.pdf
[12] Ibid., p. 10.
[13] Ibid., pp. 10-11.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Task Force Report, op. cit., p. 11.
[16] K R Bolton, “The Rivkin Project: How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism
to Subvert Sovereign Nations,” Foreign Policy Journal, March 12, 2011,
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/12/the-rivkin-project-how-
globalism-uses-multiculturalism-to-subvert-sovereign-nations
[17] Task Force Report, op. cit., p. 12.
[18] Ibid., p. 8,
[19] Ibid., p. 13.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid., p. 15.
[22] Ibid., p. 24.
[23] Ibid., p. 33.
[24] Ibid., p. 38.
[25] Ibid.
[26] CFR Membership Roster,
http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=F
[27] Ibid., http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=C
[28] Ibid., http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=S
[29] Grosse, writing of the cold War era, states of the CFR:
The Council on Foreign Relations functioned at the core of the public
institution-building of the early Cold War, but only behind the scenes. As a
forum providing intellectual stimulation and energy, it enabled well-placed
members to convey cutting-edge thinking to the public—but without
portraying the Council as the font from which the ideas rose. Peter Grosse,
Continuing The Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to
1996, “X Leads the Way,” (New York: Council on Foreign Relations,
2006).The entire book can be read online at: Council on Foreign Relations:
http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/index.html
[30] Burma: Time for Change, Council on Foreign Relations, 2003, “Task
Force Members,” http://www.cfr.org/burmamyanmar/burma-time-
change/p6054
[31] International Crisis Group, Board,
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board.aspx
[32] International Crisis Group, Senior Advisers,
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board/crisis-group-senior-
advisers.aspx
[33] Burma: Time for Change, op. cit., p. 4.
[34] Ibid., pp. 4-5.
[35] Ibid., p. 5.
[36] Ministry of Commerce, http://www.commerce.gov.mm/myanmar.html
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ministry of Construction, “Public Works,”
http://www.construction.gov.mm/PW/Organization.htm
[39] Ibid., “Training Center,”
http://www.construction.gov.mm/PW/CentralTC.htm
[40] Ibid., Department of Human Settlement,
http://www.construction.gov.mm/DHSH/Highclasshousing.htm
[41] Ministry of Cooperatives, http://www.myancoop.gov.mm/formation.htm
[42] Ministry of Cooperatives, “Economic Activities of Cooperatives,”
http://www.myancoop.gov.mm/economic1.htm
[43] Ibid.
[44] Ibid., 2009 figures.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Directorate of Myanmar Industrial Development,
http://www.industry2.gov.mm/dmip.htm
[47] Ibid.
[48] Central Bank of Myanmar,
http://www.myanmar.com/finance/dept_cbm.html
[49] Ibid.
[50] William Boot, “Burma Junta of World Bank-IMF US$3.5 Billion,” Asia
Views, December 21, 2010, http://www.asiaviews.org/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=17338%3Aonbusinessalias2663&Item
id=46
[51] National League for Democracy Manifesto, November 6, 1989, 12 (f),
http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/NLDElectionManifesto1989.htm
[52] Ibid., 12 (h).
[53] Ibid., 12 (i).
[54] Ibid., 12 (j).
[55] Ibid., 13 (a).
[56] Ibid., 13 (b).
[57] Ibid., 13 (d).
[58] Ibid., 13 (f).

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/01/myanmar-targeted-by-
globalists/0/