Thursday 29 August 2013

Tiny Rowland





Secretive, ruthless and contemptuous of anything that smacked of "Establishment hypocrisy", Rowland made few concessions to accepted principles of corporate governance, and none at all to public relations. In 1973 his methods were condemned by Edward Heath, the Prime Minister, as "an unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism". His later career was marked by a series of vendettas - notably against the Fayed brothers - which he pursued with cold, obsessive fury.

But to an army of small shareholders, well satisfied with their dividends, Rowland was a hero, tarnished only by Lonrho's sharply declining financial performance in the early Nineties. And in Africa he was esteemed hardly less than the heads of state who were his friends and business allies. A colleague interviewed by government inspectors judged him "a sort of tyrant, and part madman to boot, but a brilliant one".

Rowland's association with Lonrho - originally the London & Rhodesia Mining and Land Company - began in 1961. Lonrho was then a modest and almost moribund enterprise. One of the directors, Angus Ogilvy, was asked by Harley Drayton, a leading shareholder, to find someone to rejuvenate the company. He suggested Rowland, who was appointed joint managing director.

The business expanded aggressively, particularly in mining. It diversified out of Rhodesia, where Rowland disliked the racist tone of Ian Smith's regime.

Rowland early established his habit of taking important decisions with little or no consultation with the Lonrho board. By 1970, however, the speed of expansion had begun to overstretch the company's finances, while in South Africa Lonrho executives were accused of fraud. The accountants Peat Marwick were called in to report on the company.

In consequence, Rowland was obliged to bring in outside directors; these included, as chairman, the unmistakeably "Establishment" figure of Sir Basil Smallpeice, formerly of Cunard and BOAC, who wanted to change the company's strategy and to force Rowland to be more open in his methods.

In 1972, Smallpeice attempted to oust Rowland, accusing him of recklessness, intolerance, disloyalty and deceit. But 3,000 shareholders packed an extraordinary general meeting at Central Hall, Westminster, in May 1973, and voted overwhelmingly in Rowland's favour. Smallpeice and his group were jeered, and themselves ejected from the board. The findings of the subsequent Department of Trade inquiry, which censored Lonrho for flouting Rhodesian sanctions, prompted Edward Heath's celebrated condemnation.

But thereafter there was no question of Rowland's power being tempered by independent voices on the board. He once referred to non-executive directors as "Christmas tree decorations".

From drab and anonymous headquarters in Cheapside, he presided as an autocrat over a conglomerate which grew to encompass some 800 businesses: newspapers, vehicle distribution, textiles, mines, hotels and many others. At its peak, in the late Eighties, Lonrho's profits exceeded pounds 270 million.

The core of the company's success remained in Africa. Rowland often spent three weeks in every month there, criss-crossing the continent by private jet. His methods were both robust - he employed a private army to protect plantations in Mozambique - and politically acute. He courted heads of state and, when he saw advantage, rebel leaders. Presidents Kaunda, Banda and later Mugabe were claimed as friends. Unita, in Angola, received his backing, and Oliver Tambo of the ANC had the use of Rowland's aircraft.

Rowland relished backroom influence in high politics, and enjoyed close contacts with the British and American intelligence services. His access to Anwar Sadat is thought to have helped to open the way to the Camp David agreement in 1978. He was rumoured to have had a hand in Lebanese hostage negotiations, and even in Falklands peace manoeuvres.

IF ROWLAND was unrivalled in his grasp of African business and politics, his touch elsewhere was less sure. His long battle for Harrods, for instance, was felt by many to have been a damaging distraction of his energies and an unjustifiable cost to Lonrho.

The saga began in 1977. Rowland had identified retailing as a potential boom sector, and perhaps believed that ownership of Harrods would provide a measure of respectability otherwise denied him in Britain.

Lonrho began buying shares in Scottish & Universal Trusts, the holding company of Sir Hugh Fraser's family interests and the holder of 29 per cent of the store group House of Fraser, which owned Harrods. When the rest of Scottish & Universal was acquired by Lonrho the next year, City institutions closed ranks against Rowland. The subsequent battle for the House of Fraser was ferocious. Rowland's anger was targeted particularly at the combative Fraser chairman, Professor Roland Smith, and the unfortunate Sir Hugh Fraser - whom he had initially courted as an ally but whom he later helped to ruin by revelations about gambling debts.

When victory seemed to be in sight for Lonrho, the Government blocked the takeover on grounds of national interest. Lonrho's shares were then, according to Rowland, "parked" temporarily with the Fayeds. According to the Egyptian brothers, the shares had been sold to them outright; in any case they used them as a springboard to acquire the House of Fraser before the Government's decision against Lonrho could be reversed.

Rowland responded with a campaign to discredit the Fayeds and their alleged backer, the Sultan of Brunei. This was conducted through the pages of the Observer, which Lonrho had acquired in 1981, and by long, trenchant letters to ministers and public figures.

In 1989 a secret Department of Trade report, highly critical of the Fayed takeover, was leaked by the Observer in a special mid-week edition headlined The Phoney Pharoah. But despite a continuing barrage of litigation, control of the store eluded Rowland. This cast a shadow over his last years.

Rowland never hesitated to flex his proprietorial muscle at the Observer. When he fell out with Daniel arap Moi of Kenya, the paper ran exposes of corruption which named the President. When reporting of atrocities in Matabeleland displeased him, he threatened to sell the paper to Robert Maxwell.

All Rowland's corporate battles had a dark personal edge. "He's a very hard man. He's the sort of enemy no one wants to have," the wife of one adversary remarked.

Rowland's most merciless victory was over the Australian tycoon Alan Bond, whom he at first befriended as a potential "white knight" when Lonrho was being stalked by another predator, Asher Edelman. Bond bought out Edelman's stake, boasted of himself as Rowland's natural successor and continued buying up shares.

Rowland turned on him with savage intensity, publishing a 93-page document claiming that Bond, sustained by a fragile pyramid of borrowings, was technically insolvent. Bond's bankers demanded their money back, and he found himself facing bankruptcy and jail.

BUT IN 1991 serious cracks began to appear in Lonrho's impenetrable facade. The dividend was cut and the share price tumbled. A billion pounds worth of debt forced a shedding of assets. The lucrative Volkswagen Audi franchise was sold and, ever unpredictable, Rowland offered part of his hotel interests to his arch-enemies, the Fayeds.

Most controversially, a pounds 177 million stake in the Metropole Hotels group was sold to the Libyan government, just when the United Nations was considering sanctions against Libya in connection with the Lockerbie bombing. "To me, Gaddafi is a super friend," Rowland explained. "Don't talk to me about morality and proper behaviour. I pay my taxes here. Gaddafi and Lonrho are a perfect fit."

At 75, Rowland continued to defy his critics. The arrangements he made in December 1992 for the eventual sale of his own 15 per cent stake in Lonrho - to a little-known German property developer, Dieter Bock, at a price substantially higher than that which Rowland's loyal band of small investors could hope to obtain - provoked a storm of hostile comment, coupled with speculation whether Bock (whom Rowland had only recently met) was his chosen successor, or was in some way being set up to be "flayed alive" (as one commentator put it) like Alan Bond.

This inscrutability and menace were at the heart of the City's distrust of Tiny Rowland. He in turn trusted only his closest collaborators. Fiercely loyal while they were with him, he was utterly unforgiving if they jumped ship.

Although capable of charm - and of kindness to fallen tycoons like Sir Freddie Laker - he had few friends, always suspecting venal motives. He eschewed the social trappings and foibles which his immense wealth (much of it hoarded in cash deposits) might have brought him. The intrigues of business and power occupied virtually the whole of his existence.

Rowland was born Roland Walter Fuhrop on November 27 1917, in a detention camp in India where his father, a German merchant, and his Anglo-Dutch mother, were held as aliens during the Great War. After the war, the family sought to settle in Britain, but were refused entry. They moved to Hamburg, where Roland joined the Hitler Youth. His father, though, lost his business through his anti-Nazi sentiments, and the family finally succeeded in moving to England.

Roland was sent to Churchers College, at Petersfield. His first job after school was with a firm of shipping agents, for which he travelled widely.

In Berlin in 1939 he was jailed for eight weeks for associating with anti-Nazis, and that year he changed his surname, forming Rowland by inserting his middle initial into the first syllable of his Christian name. The origin of the nickname "Tiny" - with which he signed all official correspondence - doubtless lay in the fact that he was tall and well-built.

His two elder brothers fought in the German army during the Second World War, but Rowland was enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps, and in 1940 served in Norway. However, when his parents were again interned, this time on the Isle of Man, Rowland refused to continue in the RAMC while they were detained.

He was discharged, and detained with his parents. His mother died in detention, and her treatment by the authorities was often cited as a cause of Rowland's hostility to British officialdom.

Thereafter, Rowland took various jobs, including a spell as a porter at Paddington station and as a waiter at the Cumberland Hotel. After the war he sold refrigerators and car radios, and then in 1947 decided to emigrate, first to South Africa and then to Southern Rhodesia. He bought two farms and had interests in gold mines. He acquired the Mercedes franchise for Rhodesia, and became an agent for Rio Tinto Zinc.

When Angus Ogilvy recruited him in 1961, Rowland's own group of businesses, Shepton Estates, was exchanged for 1.5 million shares in Lonrho. The holding was the foundation of a personal fortune estimated to have reached pounds 200 million by the late Eighties.

Always impeccably dressed and tanned, Rowland lived in discreet opulence with mansions in Buckinghamshire and Chester Square. He was fiercely protective of his family's privacy.

He collected African and German expressionist art, and had a penchant for Siamese cats. But very little impinged on his work.

Tiny Rowland married, in 1967, his god-daughter Josie Taylor, the daughter of his farm manager in Rhodesia. They had a son and three daughters.

Maths for Americans



"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."


Any action by either the UN or NATO on Syria is a mathematical impossibility, and there is zero legal basis for unilateral action.

Therefore it will not happen. 

Anyone who says otherwise is just blowing smoke and is probably either William Hague, French, or an agent of the Mossad.

NATO has fought precisely one war, and that was in circumvention of the UN Security Council and Russia's veto over attacking Serbia in support of German-backed, SAS and CIA-trained Albanian bandits.

The KLA don't even qualify as terrorists, they have no ideology, they were just bandits, plain and simple.

And the result was the closet the World has come to World War III since 1962, when General Wesley Clark ordered his troops to open firm on the two squads of Russian troops that had secured the airport at Pristîna - it was only because his British Army subordinate, General Sir Mike Jackson, told him to go and stuff his order that the world breathed a sigh of relief.

UN Ambassador Samantha Power considers that to have been a successful model for intervention.....

In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This definition was first used by Finland to prosecute the political leadership in the war-responsibility trials in Finland. 

The principles were later known as the Nuremberg Principles.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle VI, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).



The (so-called) United Nations Security Council






Arithmetic

America = 1

The Anglo-French = 1 + 1 = 2

Russia + China = 1 + 1 = 2

(15 / 2) + 0.5 = 8

BUT -



HOWEVER -

"The Definition of Aggression also does not cover acts by international organisations. The two key military alliances at the time of the definition's adoption, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, were non-state parties and thus were outside the scope of the definition.



The North Atlantic Council





""NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is an international alliance that consists of 28 member states from North America and Europe. It was established at the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. 

Article Five of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.

Of the 28 member countries, two are located in North America (Canada and the United States) and 25 are European countries while Turkey is in Eurasia. 

All members have militias, although Iceland does not have a typical army (it does, however, have a military coast guard and a small unit of soldiers for NATO operations). 

Three of NATO's members are nuclear weapons states: France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 

NATO has 12 original founding member nation states and through April 2009 it has added 16 more member nations."







There are 28 Member States of NATO. They each get 1 vote on the NATO Council.

The NATO Council can vote on collective military action, up to and including pre-emptive / aggressive war on the basis of a simple majority vote in council.

Arithmetic

28 - 1 = 27

28 / 2 = 14

(28 / 2) + 1 = 15




America 
your head's too big 
because
America 
your belly's too big
and I love you 



I just wish you'd stay where
you is 
in
America 

the land of the Free, they said
and of opportunity 
in a Just and a Truthful way
but where the President
is never black, female or gay


and until that day
you've got nothing to say to me
to help me believe 
in
America...









Sir James Goldsmith vs. The New World Order



Tiny Rowlands tries and fails to buy Harrods;

Mohammad Al-Fayedd saves the Pound, Margaret Thatcher and claims Harrods as his reward.

Sorros breaks the Bank of England

In the wake of Lockerbie, Tiny Rowland hooked up with Allan Frankovitch and declares war on the CIA, DEA, MI5, MI6 and the Secret Team.

And exploding out from the rainforests of Central America, Sir James Goldsmith, accompanied by his children, Mistresses all his wives declare all-out war on the forces of The New World Order.



On May 1st, 1997, Goldsmith, Rowlands and Fayedd collectively and decisively brought down the British Government, making good on Goldsmith's sworn pledge to roll back the Bilderbergers of the European Union and strike down the march of Neoliberal Globalisation dead in it's tracks.



His party polled a total of some 800,000 votes.

More than a dozen Conservative members were unseated by a margin smaller than the Referendum Party's vote against them.

Fortunately, for the British Establishment, the newly annoited British Prime Minister had been approached and recruited by 5 in 1983 and persuaded to adopt the Left-Hand Path of infiltrating Michael Foot's Parliamentary party team, rather than the more natural and predictible course by forgoing membership of the Alliance that election.....

On July 25th 1997, Sir James died suddenly in Spain, aged 58.

Reports further detailing the cause and manner of death are contradictory and fragmentary.



On August 31st 1997, both Dodi Fayedd and Diana, Princess of Wales, were reported dead whilst on a visit to Paris

Reports further detailing the cause and manner of death are contradictory and fragmentary.
















Wednesday 28 August 2013

The Ministry of Truth


Why what the NSA does is not unconstitutional.

Artist Brian Springer spent a year scouring the airwaves with a satellite dish grabbing back channel news feeds not intended for public consumption.

The result of his research is SPIN, one of the most insightful films ever made about the mechanics of how television is used as a tool of social control to distort and limit the American public’s perception of reality.

Take the time to watch it from beginning to end and you’ll never look at TV reporting the same again.

Tell your friends about it.

This extraordinary film released in the early 1990s is almost completely unknown.

Hopefully, the Internet will change that.

Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George H. W. Bush talks to Larry King about Halcion -- all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality.

The film documents behind the scenes footage of Larry Agran who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic Party nomination for President. Agran was generally ignored by the media during his candidacy, a topic covered in the documentary. The media did not report his polling numbers even as he met or exceeded the support of other candidates such as Jerry Brown. Party officials excluded him from most debates on various grounds, even having him arrested when he interrupted to ask to participate. When he managed to join the other candidates in any forum, his ideas went unreported.

Spin is a followup of the 1992 film Feed; for which Springer provided much of the raw satellite footage.


"Historical reality", JFK and Operation Mockingbird.... from Spike1138 on Vimeo.



Mainstream Media Admits to 9 11 from Spike1138 on Vimeo.




One of the earliest (and BY FAR, one of the best) Benghazi documentaries, but so much more than that besides,

Raw, ready and totally straight to the heart of the matter, I think this one even predated the FIRST set of Issa Committee Government Oversight Star Chamber Hearings, which places in the last fortnight of September 2012.

Just a couple of corrections to the record that we didn't know then, but then subsequently have learnt
(and which the vast majority of people have now completely forgotten again)

Firstly, this predates the revelation of there in fact being TWO attacks that night, six hours apart, at two locations, around half a mile from one another, under very different circumstances.

Secondly, and far more crucially, Hankey's analysis leads him all the way to the brink of the paradigm leap he almost but never quite makes regarding the central question of his piece :

"Why DOES Mitt Romney want to be President so badly, what is he hiding and what does he really stand for,,,?"

The actual answer, we now know, was: "He doesn't".

Tagg Romney said his father "wanted to be president less than anyone I've met in my life," according to the Boston Globe.

“He had no desire,” the eldest Romney son said. “If he could have found someone else to take his place ... he would have been ecstatic to step aside. He is a very private person who loves his family deeply and wants to be with them, but he has deep faith in God and he loves his country, but he doesn’t love the attention."

The behaviour and actions of Elliot Cohen and other PNAC Veterans, Zionists and NeoLiberal Fascists make it plain - they were runninghim and stetting him up to get utterly screwed once his usefulness to them was once more at an end....

Petraeus, Allen, Gaouette, Ham The Benghazi Story The Media Isn't Telling You from Spike1138 on Vimeo.

"Why doth Treason never prosper...?

...for if it proceeder, none dare call it Treason...."


Russell Brand Destroys the Media from Spike1138 on Vimeo.

Good Lord - what just happened?!!

I feel as if I've just been groped by a nun in a lift...!

Look what he's done to Zbigniew Brezinski's daughter...!!!



Why ONLY Snowden Media Ignoring Second NSA Whistleblower - JAMES CORBETT from Spike1138 on Vimeo.


Woolwich: Mainstream Media End Product from Spike1138 on Vimeo.


"...Of The People, For The People and By The People."


"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-and no republic can survive. 

That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. "

 President John F. Kennedy,
"The President and The Press"



Well, this is fairly depressing....

I have to admit, my expectations were not all that high....


But I can't honestly say this isn't rather disappointing...



It won 8 Oscars that year.

Including, Best Screenplay....


"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. 

And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"...

--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. 

And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. 

Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: 

free and independent.


John F. Kennedy
153 - Address "The President and the Press" Before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City.
April 27, 1961



“I was a researcher on Friday and Saturday nights, ... but I spent a lot more time there. 

We were having a heat wave and the office was air-conditioned. 

They mistook me for a hard worker.”

Michael Hastings.


They say that those who live, spend the rest of their lives trying to forget that narrow band of hours, minutes, seconds. That energetic burst of violent emotional and physical, and psychological bandwidth, super compressed, desiccated and freeze dried for endless, gore-splattered future consumption via neurological re-runs in full HD sensuround;

Failing to forget, they try, still, instead rather not to remember.

Predictably, this ultimately comes to nothing as rule, but its the trying that makes...

Those who live remember. They do little else.

They will do little else. Open-ended engagement, with no support act.

Those who live remember.

The dead do not remember.

The dead are not there to remember.

Frankly, they have far better things to be getting on with.

Mostly they watch the living.

They gaze upon the living and they do not remember.

Do not remember how they got there.

Or how it was, that the living came to be where they are now.


What must they think....?


The last thing on his mind would be some damn white picket fence...




Last thing on her mind would be her blasted in-laws...



Last thing on their minds would be Beef.



They need never even have heard of Helter-Skelter.



There is absolutely zero reason for any form of any kind of attack on Syria other than the American, British and French media have established the conditions whereby it appears as though there is no other option.


This is how Petreaus, McCrystal and the Generals got their massive surge in Afghanistan - this is exactly what Michael Hastings died for telling the world about;

In 2009, they boxed him in, and he didn't know enough to over-rule them and just get out.


US Officials now conduct direct negotiations with the Taliban AND Mohammad Karzai, just as was the case in 1998; there is a Taliban embassy in Doha.

They conduct direct, clandestine negotiations with Iran, behind the back of  Israel and the Pentagon to secure a historic peace into the next century.

Obama is attacked daily for supporting al-Qaeda, for supporting terrorists. Whatever that means.

I admire him for it.

It's the most courageous act of statesmanship seen in generations; Isreal infected the US with the credo "We do not negotiate with terrorists".

First, you stop referring to them as terrorists.

Peace, lasting peace is achieved only ever and always only by talking to one's enemies - or total annihilation.

I prefer not to take the Nagasaki route.

That is something the public, and the people of the West (Christendom) today, in this society, devoid of all depth, context and nuance, will NEVER understand any more, and which the Corporate, alternative, mainstream media is no longer capable of telling them, even were it so inclined to do so.

You say I carry water for Obama - I judge him through the lens of history not yet written and not fully unfurled.

Jack, Bobby, Martin, Lincoln.... Zachary Taylor.... They never had the chance to duck that bullet, they never saw it coming.

This man is smart and hungry and Teflon as any I have ever seen - he sails past obstacles, he walks in between raindrops....

He read, and studied, and learned from EVERY mistake, attack, weakness or pecidillo that took down all those who came before him.

What you DO, in the moment in that job does not matter; that gone in an instant.

What you DO that echoes down the ages of enternity is the Bell Curve.

Carter, Kerry, both Clintons.... Jack, Bobby and Malcolm. And more.

I just hope he remembered to read as far as Jack, Bobby, Douglas MaxAruthur and the Summer of '62 chewing over the Guns of August....

Tuesday 27 August 2013

How a Nation Is Exploited – The British Empire in Burma (May 1929)



Map showing the growth of British Bengal and British Burma (1907)




 
Le Progrès Civique, 4 May 1929. Translated into English by Janet Percival and Ian Willison.



Following the recent troubles in India, we have asked our contributor, Mr E. A. Blair, whose investigations on ‘The Plight of the British Worker’ have already appeared in these pages, to tell us something of the unrest which has been fermenting in the sub-continent for some years, and which is threatening to spread to English Indo-China.

Mr E. A. Blair, who lived in Burma for some years, has written the following interesting article for us, which shows the methods the British Empire uses to milk dry her Asian colonies.




Burma lies between India and China. Ethnologically it belongs to Indo-China.

It is three times the size of England and Wales, with a population of about fourteen million, of whom roughly nine million are Burmese.

The rest is made up of countless Mongol tribes who have emigrated at various periods from the steppes of Central Asia, and Indians who have arrived since the English occupation.

The Burmese are Buddhists; the tribesmen worship various pagan gods.

To be able to talk in their own language to the people of such diverse origins living in Burma, you would need to know a hundred and twenty different languages and dialects.

This country, the population of which is one-tenth as dense as that of England, is one of the richest in the world. It abounds in natural resources which are only just beginning to be exploited.

There are tin, tungsten, jade and rubies, and these are the least of its mineral materials.

At this moment it produces five per cent of the world’s petroleum, and its reserves are far from exhausted.

But the greatest source of wealth-and that which feeds between eighty and ninety per cent of the population-is the paddy fields.

Rice is grown everywhere in the basin of the Irawaddy, which flows through Burma from north to south.

In the south, in the huge delta where the Irawaddy brings down tons of alluvial mud every year, the soil is immensely fertile.

The harvests, which are remarkable in both quality and quantity, enable Burma to export rice to India, Europe, even to America.

Moreover, variations in temperature are less frequent and sharp than in India.

Thanks to abundant rainfall, especially in the south, drought is unknown, and the heat is never excessive. The climate as a whole can thus be considered one of the healthiest to be found in the tropics.

If we add that the Burmese countryside is exceptionally beautiful, with broad rivers, high mountains, eternally green forests, brightly coloured flowers, exotic fruits, the phrase ‘earthly paradise’ naturally springs to mind.

So it is hardly surprising that the English tried for a long time to gain possession of it.

In 1820 they seized a vast expanse of territory. This operation was repeated in 1852, and finally in 1882 the Union Jack flew over almost all the country.

Certain mountainous districts in the north, inhabited by small savage tribes, had until recently escaped the clutches of the British, but it is more and more likely that they will meet the same fate as the rest of the country, thanks to the process euphemistically known as ‘peaceful penetration’, which means, in plain English, ‘peaceful annexation’.

In this article I do not seek to praise or blame this manifestation of British imperialism; let us simply note it is a logical result of any imperialist policy.

It will be much more profitable to examine the good and bad sides of British administration in Burma from an economic and a political standpoint.

* * *



Let us turn first to politics.

The government of all the Indian provinces under the control of the British Empire is of necessity despotic, because only the threat of force can subdue a population of several million subjects.

But this despotism is latent. It hides behind a mask of democracy.

The great maxim of the English in governing an oriental race is ‘never get something done by a European when an Oriental can do it’. In other words, supreme power remains with the British authorities, but the minor civil servants who have to carry out day-to-day administration and who must come into contact with the people in the course of their duties are recruited locally.

In Burma, for example, the lower grade magistrates, all policemen up to the rank of inspector, members of the postal service, government employees, village elders etc. are Burmese.

Recently, to appease public opinion and put a stop to nationalist agitation which was beginning to cause concern, it was even decided to accept the candidature of educated natives for several important posts.

The system of employing natives as civil servants has three advantages.

First, natives will accept lower salaries than Europeans.

Secondly, they have a better idea of the workings of their fellow countrymen’s minds, and this helps them to settle legal disputes more easily.

Thirdly, it is to their own advantage to show their loyalty to a government which provides their livelihood.

And so peace is maintained by ensuring the close collaboration of the educated or semi-educated classes, where discontent might otherwise produce rebel leaders.

Nevertheless the British control the country. Of course, Burma, like each of the Indian provinces, has a parliament-always the show of democracy-but in reality its parliament has very little power.

Nothing of any consequence lies within its jurisdiction. Most of the members are puppets of the government, which is not above using them to nip in the bud any Bill which seems untimely.

In addition, each province has a Governor, appointed by the English, who has at his disposal a veto just as absolute as that of the President of the United States to oppose any proposal which displeases him.

Yet although the British government is, as we have shown, essentially despotic, it is by no means unpopular.

The English are building roads and canals-in their own interest, of course, but the Burmese benefit from them-they set up hospitals, open schools, and see to the maintenance of law and order.

And after all, the Burmese are mere peasants, occupied in cultivating the land.

They have not yet reached that stage of intellectual development which makes for nationalists.

Their village is their universe, and as long as they are left in peace to cultivate their fields, they do not care whether their masters are black or white.

A proof of this political apathy on the part of the people of Burma is the fact that the only British military forces in the country are two English infantry battalions and around ten battalions of Indian infantry and mounted police.


Surrender of the Burmese Army to British forces in 1885
Thus twelve thousand armed men, mostly Indians, are enough to subdue a population of fourteen million.

The most dangerous enemies of the government are the young men of the educated classes. If these classes were more numerous and were really educated, they could perhaps raise the revolutionary banner. But they are not.

The reason is firstly that, as we have seen, the majority of the Burmese are peasants.

Secondly, the British government is at pains to give the people only summary instruction, which is almost useless, merely sufficient to produce messengers, low-grade civil servants, petty lawyers’ clerks and other white-collar workers.

Care is taken to avoid technical and industrial training. This rule, observed throughout India, aims to stop India from becoming an industrial country capable of competing with England.
It is true to say that in general, any really educated Burmese was educated in England, and belongs as a result to the small class of the well-to-do.

So, because there are no educated classes, public opinion, which could press for rebellion against England, is non-existent.

* * *




Let us now consider the economic question. Here again we find the Burmese in general too ignorant to have a clear understanding of the way in which they are being treated and, as a result, too ignorant to show the least resentment.

Besides, for the moment they have not suffered much economic damage.

It is true that the British seized the mines and the oil wells. It is true that they control timber production. It is true that all sorts of middlemen, brokers, millers, exporters, have made colossal fortunes from rice without the producer-that is the peasant-getting a thing out of it.

It is also true that the get-rich-quick businessmen who made their pile from rice, petrol etc. are not contributing as they should be to the well-being of the country, and that their money, instead of swelling local revenues in the form of taxes, is sent abroad to be spent in England.

If we are honest, it is true that the British are robbing and pilfering Burma quite shamelessly.

But we must stress that the Burmese hardly notice it for the moment. Their country is so rich, their population so scattered, their needs, like those of all Orientals, so slight that they are not conscious of being exploited.

The peasant cultivating his patch of ground lives more or less as his ancestors did in Marco Polo’s day. If he wishes, he can buy virgin land for a reasonable price.

He certainly leads an arduous existence, but he is on the whole free from care.

Hunger and unemployment are for him meaningless words. There is work and food for everyone. Why worry needlessly?

But, and this is the important point, the Burmese will begin to suffer when a large part of the richness of their country has declined.

Although Burma has developed to a certain extent since the war, already the peasant there is poorer than he was twenty years ago.

He is beginning to feel the weight of land taxation, for which he is not compensated by the increased yield of his harvests.

The worker’s wages have not kept up with the cost of living.

The reason is that the British government has allowed free entry into Burma for veritable hordes of Indians, who, coming from a land where they were literally dying of hunger, work for next to nothing and are, as a result, fearsome rivals for the Burmese.

Add to this a rapid rise in population growth-at the last census the population registered an increase of ten million in ten years-it is easy to see that sooner or later, as happens in all overpopulated countries, the Burmese will be dispossessed of their lands, reduced to a state of semislavery in the service of capitalism, and will have to endure unemployment into the bargain.

They will then discover what they hardly suspect today, that the oil wells, the mines, the milling industry, the sale and cultivation of rice are all controlled by the British.

They will also realise their own industrial incompetence in a world where industry dominates.

* * *


British politics in Burma is the same as in India.

Industrially speaking, India was deliberately kept in ignorance.

She only produces basic necessities, made by hand. The Indians would be incapable, for example, of making a motor-car, a rifle, a clock, an electric-light bulb etc. They would be incapable of building or sailing an ocean-going vessel.

At the same time they have learnt in their dealings with Westerners to depend on certain machine-made articles. So the products of English factories find an important outlet in a country incapable of manufacturing them herself.

Foreign competition is prevented by an insuperable barrier of prohibitive customs tariffs. And so the English factory-owners, with nothing to fear, control the markets absolutely and reap exorbitant profits.

We said that the Burmese have not yet suffered too much, but this is because they have remained, on the whole, an agricultural nation.

Yet for them as for all Orientals, contact with Europeans has created the demand, unknown to their fathers, for the products of modern industry. As a result, the British are stealing from Burma in two ways:

In the first place, they pillage her natural resources; secondly, they grant themselves the exclusive right to sell here the manufactured products she now needs.

And the Burmese are thus drawn into the system of industrial capitalism, with any hope of becoming capitalist industrialists themselves.

Moreover the Burmese, like all the other peoples of India, remain under the rule of the British Empire for purely military considerations. For they are in effect incapable of building ships, manufacturing guns or any other arms necessary for modern warfare, and, as things now stand, if the English were to give up India, it would only result in a change of master. The country would simply be invaded and exploited by some other Power.
British domination in India rests essentially on exchanging military protection for a commercial monopoly, but, as we have tried to show, the bargain is to the advantage of the English whose control reaches into every domain.

* * *

To sum up, if Burma derives some incidental benefit from the English, she must pay dearly for it.

Up till now the English have refrained from oppressing the native people too much because there has been no need. The Burmese are still at the beginning of a period of transition which will transform them from agricultural peasants to workers in the service of the manufacturing industries.

Their situation could be compared with that of any people of eighteenth-century Europe, apart from the fact that the capital, construction materials, knowledge and power necessary for their commerce and industry belong exclusively to foreigners.

So they are under the protection of a despotism which defends them for its own ends, but which would abandon them without hesitation if they ceased to be of use.

Their relationship with the British Empire is that of slave and master.

Is the master good or bad? That is not the question; let us simply say that his control is despotic and, to put it plainly, self-interested.

Even though the Burmese have not had much cause for complaint up till now, the day will come when the riches of their country will be insufficient for a population which is constantly growing.

Then they will be able to appreciate how capitalism shows its gratitude to those to whom it owes its existence.

E.-A. BLAIR

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Note: Raoul Nicole wrote on 22 March 1929, while Orwell was still in the Hôpital Cochin, to say he was sorry Orwell was ill and thanking him for his article on Burma. This would, he said, be included in an early issue of Le Progrès Civique, and, indeed, would have appeared already were it not that the journal had been embarrassed by a large number of articles on foreign affairs. Orwell was paid 225 francs for the article on 11 June. This was the last article he is known to have had published in Paris.