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.”

Monks Protesting in Burma (Rangoon, Shwedagon pagoda) in 2007

Monks Protesting in Burma (Rangoon, Shwedagon pagoda) in 2007

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,

[3] “US Senator John McCain to Meet Myanmar Opposition Leader,” M&C/Deutsche-Presse-Agentur,

[4] Ibid.

[6] K R Bolton, “What’s Behind the Tumult in Egypt?,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 1, 2011,

[7] “Burma Project Grantees Rally Global Support Around Aung San Suu Kyi,” June 10, 2009,

[8] “New Website Focuses on Burma’s Elections,” September 27, 2010.

[9] “Call for Proposals: Burma Project/Southeast Asia Initiative,”

[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,

[11] “Current Realities and Future Possibilities in Burma/Myanmar: Options for US policy,” Asia Society, Task Force Report, March 2010, p. 9,

[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,

[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.

[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:

[30] Burma: Time for Change, Council on Foreign Relations, 2003, “Task Force Members,”

[31] International Crisis Group, Board,

[32] International Crisis Group, Senior Advisers,

[33] Burma: Time for Change, op. cit., p. 4.

[34] Ibid., pp. 4-5.

[35] Ibid., p. 5.

[36] Ministry of Commerce,

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ministry of Construction, “Public Works,”

[39] Ibid., “Training Center,”

[40] Ibid., Department of Human Settlement,

[41] Ministry of Cooperatives,

[42] Ministry of Cooperatives, “Economic Activities of Cooperatives,”

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid., 2009 figures.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Directorate of Myanmar Industrial Development,

[47] Ibid.

[48] Central Bank of Myanmar,

[49] Ibid.

[50] William Boot,  “Burma Junta of World Bank-IMF US$3.5 Billion,” Asia Views, December 21, 2010,

[51] National League for Democracy Manifesto, November 6, 1989, 12 (f),

[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).