What's up with U.S policy toward Bu

[tmyint@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: What's up with U.S policy toward Burma? 


	PRACTICAL MEASUREMENT v. ETHICAL MEASUREMENT

Every time I meet friends here, I usually run into greeting "What's Up,
Tun." I almost adopt myself in meeting people in this way, so I become to
greet people with "What's Up." I feel kind of fun and easy to speak out
these two words "What's Up."  When I am asked by my close friends, I
answer their greeting "The Sun Up!"  I am not sure this time whether I
should answer the sun is up or down for the question "What's up with U.S
policy toward SLORC?" Or Is U.S government still friend of Burmese
democratic forces? 

I read FEER (April 4, '96 Far Eastern Economic Review) report on the
change of U.S policy to follow ASEAN model "constructive engagement" with
enthusiasm.  After reading this, my thought goes many different directions
and angles of analysis on "what's up?" with U.S policy and why it goes
that way.  Here, I don't need to take any quote or saying to approve with
whom the ASEAN "Constructive Engagement" is really constructing and why
they are constructing with them.  ASEAN constructive engagement is
constructing with SLORC, and its aim is to exploit from SLORC's poverty of
brain and Burma's unfortunate condition. The victim is the people of Burma
who have to work with the world's cheapest rate of payment under no
progressive condition of lives. Some might say this condition is better
than BSPP's time when there were no jobs available. Well, I would like to
borrow someone's words "do you want to be a well-fed bird in the cage or a
self-feeding bird outside in natural environment?"  Even this answer has
some lack of reflection on current situation -whether SLORC's economic
policies could fed its birds in the cage. If not so, can anybody approve
if local Burmese's lives become better and easier to work for even a meal? 
 
I am sure U.S policy makers know it and see it. What I can see in U.S
policy is that it becomes much more and more dangerously dominated by
ethically-weak liberal thinkers. These liberals don't view things around
with moral but practical or realistic measurements. This type of liberals
are people who become to believe in "betweens" - A is good and B is also
not bad.  There are things that we shouldn't loosely view like that. For
instance, in this "constructive engagement v.  economic embargo" case,
there is question of ethic - should we leave the message for our future
generation that it is okay if a government killed unarmed civilians and
stage a coup and control power by gun, and later it can regain its
"legitimacy" by letting foreign investment make rich for "people"?  Does
economic development serve as a form of justice?  American scholars like
Samuel Huntington, the author of "Political Order In Changing Societies; 
c.1968," might say it is a de-facto justice. 

Moreover, one might argue that the important matter is future.  But the
future is product of past and present. Without past and present, there is
no future. Therefore, we have to be careful with our actions from which
our future generation will learn and follow the suit. To sum up my point
here, it is not the question of realistic and practical measurement that
we are requesting international community to punish or pressure SLORC
which killed at least 3000 unarmed civilians and took power in inhumane
manners by oppressing all its opposition which won landslide victory in
public poll in 1990 election. 

Therefore, even if the practical measurement -economic development will
bring democracy- could be true, it is much more humanist and ethical not
to be associated with inhumane activities -forced labors, rape, torture,
and violations of basic human rights which are widely reported by UN Human
Right Commission, U.S State Department, and International Human Rights
monitoring groups. If U.S is changing its policy as FEER reported to
follow ASEAN's constructive engagement, U.S policy makers need to review 
their acts and democratic principle.  

Tun Myint

PS. Anybody, please, help me with how to forward this note to Letter to 
Editor Service at FEER- Appreciated.

------------Report from FEER----------------------
>From: strider@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: BurmaNet News April 5, 1996 #376

>FEER: CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT
>April 4, 1996

>THE American Chamber of Commerce in Bangkok has taken a stand on
>investment and commercial ties with Burma. Going against the political
>trend in Washington, Amcham recommends promoting the development of US
>business in Burma, rather than adopting restrictive policies or sanctions.
>The chamber says there are some problems in Burma of serious concern to
>Americans, but argues that they should be addressed pragmatically. It
>believes US business involvement will help increase Burma's standard of
>living and contribute to nation building. (FEER)