By Moe Myint

(CONTINUED FROM YESTERDAY)

THE assistance provided by a foreign country to another should be non-attached, and the receiv­ing country should only accept assistance that is clean and trust­worthy. Such assistance should be the one based on practical policies that are mutually beneficial for both sides. It should be a kind of assistance that prioritizes stabil­ity rather than genuine support for the development of the coun­try, democracy or human rights issues.

Learn what the changing US administration works

When looking back at the world, it can be seen that the United States itself has gradually stopped many of the democra­cy- and human rights-focused aid programmes it had consistently implemented since the end of World War II. This shift reflects a move away from impractical and ineffective democracy and human rights agendas, toward prioritiz­ing American interests first and emphasizing stability. The news of Reuters released a few days ago stated that the US Department of State shut down 132 divisions and reduced its workforce by up to 15 per cent, and it reflected this shift.

This factor also shows that it is part of the current actions taken by the nationalism of President Trump regarding organizations like USAID and NED. What I want to emphasize is that even the American people and their leaders have now abandoned the idea of using the appealing terms “democracy” and “human rights” as tools for political manipulation. At the same time, I wish to high­light the public desire to learn from the painful political history of Myanmar and to build a future political landscape that is stable and promising.

Negative consequences of be­ing manipulated in the polit­ical arena

If so, what was right and what was wrong in Myanmar’s polit­ical history? From the writer’s perspective, I believe that there were more wrongs than rights. It seems that we, the people, are more inclined to support corrupt and theatrically staged politics, and the public is also responsible.

Theatrical politics means reliance on others’ manipula­tion and a lack of qualifications. Governments that are receiving assistance from over 100 foreign advisers like Sean Turnell, much like the puppet-like figures in the lives of those manipulated by the US, the UK, and George Soros, that have appointed former ad­visers of Soros to key positions in the administration, governments whose intelligence services, like MI5 and MI6, are closely connect­ed with hostile foreign powers, and that are ridiculous to share the actions leaders, national level policies, political and economic facts and top military secrets with the advisers, and such actions of government are right or wrong? Due to the advisers appointed in various Union-level organizations and ministries, the country’s se­crets have been exposed. During this time, both military represent­atives and civilian members of parliament have raised questions at the Hluttaw.

Diversities under liberal waves

In a country, religion, eth­nicity and nationalism, patriotic spirits for the country and people are of great importance. However, when these beliefs and sentiments are systematically destroyed un­der the influence of democratic standards and neoliberal waves, even the noble teachings of Bud­dha cannot save them. Neoliber­alism is a subtle, modern form of colonial governance. This was particularly evident during the term of the NLD government. Being manipulated, the liberal education they introduced was also accepted. When cultural val­ues are systematically poisoned through education, trust and understanding are lost between the government and the peo­ple, between Tatmadaw and the people, among political parties, among students, among mem­bers of the Sangha, and finally between teachers and students, and between parents and chil­dren. Emotions take precedence over reason. Divisions emerge. Political ideologies become dis­torted. Nationalism is dismissed as outdated, leading to the disap­pearance of patriotism. Disinte­gration and conflicts emerged.

Example of the Indian BJP and Hungary

Who made it happen like this? Who created it? Among the director, the main characters, the supporting characters, and the extras, how were the world-fa­mous billionaire George Soros and his son Alexander Soros in­volved as supporting characters? Who was the real director behind the scenes – was it the CIA, MI6, or someone else? By studying this carefully, I believe we can get lessons that will help us be more thoughtful in future politi­cal issues. Let’s take an example regarding George Soros’s entan­glement in India. The ruling BJP officially labelled George Soros as the country’s number one enemy and blocked US$18 billion that his Open Society Foundation (OSF) had secretly invested in India. So­ros, who hated Prime Minister Modi, has long been involved in India’s political scene by connect­ing and sponsoring the opposition Congress Party of the BJP. He accused Modi of being a Hindu nationalist and showed support for the Muslim community. This involvement also included racial and religious division.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán recently criticized George Soros, who is considered the king behind many malicious Conspiracies around the world. Prime Minister Orbán strongly disapproved of Soros’s activities, especially after his country was pressured to accept migrants and refugees from various parts of the world, and he was not satisfied with Soros for interfering in leg­islation related to financial mat­ters. Similarly, President Donald Trump also frequently criticized Soros and expressed his disap­proval of George Soros’s actions.

Soros and the Myanmar po­litical issue

Politics that receive financial support in the form of donations and funding cannot be expected to be entirely independent. Here, Hungarian financier, philanthro­pist, and global tycoon George So­ros, along with his son Alexander Soros, are considered masters. Known for his strong opposition to communism, Soros is an active political player who has been in­volved in promoting democratic transitions.

However, being a literal and capable of influencing democratic elections to defeat those he op­posed, and such a case can be seen in the 2004 election with the loss of presidential candidate George W Bush. Through wide­spread donations, Soros became involved in the affairs of about 60 countries and achieved many of his desired successes. His vision was to create a society free from centralized control, and in pursuit of that, he promoted globalization, aiming to transform the world into a single, borderless village.

Due to the excessive love for the environment of Soros’s group, development slowed down in some countries. By putting in­dividual rights at the forefront, people began to resist everything. Promoting the idea that all hu­mans must be completely equal (equity) caused divisions within societies. When religious freedom was emphasized, people’s respect and faith in their own traditional religions started to decline.

With political neoliberalism, a free-market economy was pro­moted, and people were encour­aged to think freely according to their beliefs – even to the extent of supporting the freedom to choose same-sex relationships, gender di­versity, and gender transitions. No discrimination and tensions grow between parents and children, friends, and even countries. Even­tually, divisions deepened, with hostility rising between groups labelled as red and green, “Dis­loyalty Civil Servants (DCS)” and loyal civil servants (Non-DCS).

When liberals prioritized equality in race, religion, and gender, and in all matters, im­portant laws like the “overnight guest registration law” and other subsidiary laws were abolished, leading to a loss of control. This situation even opened the door to accepting illegal Bengali im­migrants.

Due to the “Child Adoption Law”, which does not truly benefit the public, ethnic identities and religious traditions are at risk of disappearing. Moreover, spend­ing around K64 billion to control the voices of opposition groups on the public platform of Facebook raises the question of whether this still counts as media freedom. Although the answer is unclear, it has certainly been very effective in suppressing dissent. It shows how liberal ideology is intertwined with security measures, and it shows a reflection on how these actions seem to have been pre-planned for shaping the future political landscape of the country.

(TO BE CONTINUED)