Myanmar Ambassadors response to Was (r)

[suantak@xxxxxx]

Dear OKKAR,
U Tin Winn is a servant of the military government. He is also an educated
individual, who has no choice but to serve in his position.  Unless he
praises the SPDC leadership, he will loose his job and pension. I am sure he
does not like to be paid the same amount as the minimum wage earners of his
host country, but he is better off than the 45 million people in Burma. He
must, however, stay on as a loyal servant less he will be recall. What a
shame!
Sincerely,
Vum Son
-----Original Message-----
To: Recipients of burmanet-l <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, March 02, 1998 9:07 AM
Subject: Myanmar Ambassadors response to Washington Post


>Myanmar Ambassador?s response to Washington Post Article by R. Jeffrey
Smith
>
> February 25, 1998
>The Editor
>Washington Post
>Washington, D.C.
>
>Sir,
>
> The egregious misrepresentation of the Myanmar Embassy?s role in
Washington
>by R. Jeffrey Smith (Federal page, Feb. 24) deserves a response.
>
> I should like to state emphatically that the Embassy does not deal in
cloak
>and dagger business.  The purpose of my mission and that of  Embassy
officials
>here is to promote good and friendly relations between the U.S. and
Myanmar.
>In carrying out our duties we have at all times taken care to respect rules
>and regulations of the host country.
>
> In the light of the ?Myanmar bashing? campaign carried out by interest
groups
>and the media in recent years and the subsequent adoption of sanctions by
the
>U.S. government, it has become necessary for the Embassy to prevent
bilateral
>relations from sliding further down by providing information to the U.S.
>government as well as the American people.  This was done through proper
>means.
>
> It is also not hard to fathom why private companies ? American and
Myanmar ?
>have been investing time and money in trying to undo the sanctions.
>
> The question they pose, and rightly so is, ?Are sanctions wise?? Everyone
>knows that limitations of sanctions are greater than their accomplishments
and
>that unilateral sanctions have always fallen short of their stated goals.
>More often than not sanctions exacerbate the economic distress of the
>population of the targeted country.
>
> In the case of Myanmar, a more appropriate response by the U.S. would be
to
>assist in Myanmar?s transformation to a multi-party democracy.  To that
end,
>the U.S. should engage Myanmar and not disengage from it.  Is it any wonder
>then that U.S. companies and Myanmar enterprises are employing all legal
>means, including the use of U.S. lobby firms, to get their point of view
>across to U.S. lawmakers and the public?
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
> sd /-
>       (Tin Winn)
>                                                     Ambassador
>
>*********
>
>