[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
[burmanet2-l] Interview of H.E Dr.
Subject: Re: [burmanet2-l] Interview of H.E Dr. Kyaw Win with the TV
Channel-4 of Britain
To: Okkar <okkar66129@xxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32)
X-Sender: strider@xxxxxxxxxxxx
I really dont know who to feel more sorry for, the listeners of TV4 to
hear all this twisted cock and bull, or or the poor dimwit kyaw win, who
has to keep his job and talk such twisted baloney. Save it for SPDC
9999 preparations, like putting their finger in the dyke! Quel idiot!
Thanks for the laugh, but ug, after only a couple of lines, quit.
ds
Okkar wrote:
>
> 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.