[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
Interview of H.E Dr. Kyaw Win with
Subject: Interview of H.E Dr. Kyaw Win with the TV Channel-4 of Britain
Interview of the Myanmar Ambassador tothe United Kingdom H.E Dr. Kyaw Win
with the TV Channel-4 of Britain
Question-1 Do you have a general view of economic sanctions
against
individual countries?
Answer-1 The very rationale of economic sanctions is at
best a cruel
one. The objective being to pressure a country or a government to
reverse its policy or attitude without having to go to war. The
sanctions are in fact meant to make the country so poor that the
people will find the living conditions intolerably difficult and
hopefully rise up against their own leaders ultimately
resulting in the
overthrow of their government. It is also the hope of those
countries
imposing the sanctions, which at this stage happen to be done
predominantly by powerful western governments against weaker
third
would countries, that a democratic or a pluralistic form of
government
that they can support can emerge in that weaker country.
However, in
the world today, this choice is often determined by the
economic and
security interests of the rich and the powerful countries as
well.
However imposition of unilateral sanctions, misses one very
important
point. The people, first of all, when they get poverty
stricken as a
result of these sanctions, can often be made to realise that
certain
foreign powers and their supporters are in fact responsible
for making
the government in power stronger and arouse nationalistic
sentiments
that work against the foreign powers. In such cases although
sanctions
may adversely affect the country's economy to a significant
degree
they have not been able to cause a significant change in the
government. Theoretically, sanctions are suppose to be less
cruel than
military action. In reality, sanctions can be as cruel because
although
it takes longer and more protracted in making its effects
felt, they
last longer and are more difficult to rehabilitate the
innocent people
from its chronic effects such as malnutrition and disease. It
is also a
weapon that is inaccurate and crude. It cannot be properly
targeted
with a lot of collateral damage, which is almost inevitable.
At this
stage, therefore, I will simply agree and bring out the views
that
have already been expressed by many well-known personalities
from
Britain and the United States. For instance, the famed British
filmmaker, Sir Peter Ustinov, on his way back from Myanmar in
1996
after making a film documentary, told the Sunday Post in
Bangkok that
'' I am absolutely against the isolation of any country. There
seems to
be a mistake commensurate with sanctions and sanctions are the
most
stupid things that have ever been invented. ''He said'' all
sanctions
have done is to make many old people poorer and many young people
unhappy, miserable and ill. It is a waste of time and very
unfair.'' On
the other side of the Atlantic have come similar views from
former
Secretaries of State Dr. Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig,
former US
Secretary Haig called sanctions ''a short sighted approach''
and that
''such deeds are arrogant, wrong-headed and misreads lessons of
history'' because sanctions failed to work but they frequently,
especially in democratic societies, create obstacles for the
leaders of
those countries to make the changes we want. The real issue is
how you
make the situation better and not how to make you feel good
at home
and keep the press happy.'' Also at the same time the study
of the
American Association of manufacturers indicate in a
20-page-report that
out of 35 countries sanctioned by U.S government unilaterally
(not
through the United Nations) in the past have not produced any
positive
change in the government, system or the politics of any of those
countries.
Q-2 Do you believe that one country has the right to
impose it's will
on the government or citizens of another country?
A-2 The answer is a simple, No. I don't think even the
majority of
citizens of the country imposing sanctions will agree in
general with
this idea. The problem is caused by the few dissidents and
their very
vocal and powerful supporters abroad in the political sphere
who may
still have some vested interest in the country, which was at
one time
their colony and where they still have some citizens still
loyal to
them and even waging an armed struggle for independence an so
on. The
politicians in the west, befriended by these few dissidents for
decades, often lobby in their support. So a lot of these
impositions
are done like Mr. Alexander Haig once said ''to make yourself
feel
good'' and to keep the local political constituencies as well
as the
press happy. They don't even necessarily have a good and sound
understanding of the problems. It is more than a coincidence
that those
who say the worst things about Myanmar, have never actually
been there.
Most of them being purely theoreticians.
Q-3 Many governments in the developing world have argued
that certain
sections of western society have difficulties in understanding
cultural
differences between the East and the West. Do you feel this is
a valid
argument?
A-3 To that I would answer that this is indeed a very
valid argument.
At the United Nations General Assembly two years ago, a
South-East
Asian representative pointed out that the absence of any Asian or
African country joining the co-sponsorship of the human rights
resolution against Myanmar signifies a glaring geographical
divide on
the understanding of this problem. It may be too simplistic to
say that
cultural differences alone has caused this but it is certainly
one of
the main factors.
Q-4 Do you feel that there is an element of 'cultural
imperialism'
implied in these people calling for sanctions?
A-4 Personally I would not go as far as that but the way
things are
happening does lend a degree of credibility to such an
argument. There
are still people out here who are probably not in the majority
but who
feel that they are more moral, technically and economically
ahead and
have a tendency to talk down to the others in the developing
countries
in a patronizing and condescending manner. When they don't get
their
way they would try to use the threat of economic, political
and even
military power to make the weaker countries comply. Such
politicians
have been using sanctions to serve domestic political purposes
where
they want to be seen acting forcefully at the same time not to
cause
blood shed. In fact domestic political goals increasingly
appear to be
the motivating force behind the imposition of many recent
sanctions.
Other determining factors are the size of the country,
military might,
and the economic repercussions that it would have on the country
imposing the sanctions. If such sanctions would only have a
minimal
impact on their own economies. They are usually less reluctant to
impose the sanctions even though it is obvious that the
effects of
sanctions may be just symbolic. Self interests always seem to
take
priority over principles and hypocrisy often becomes quite
apparent.
(To be continued on 4 September.)
****************
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.