goofyfish
05-03-02, 08:36 AM
It's looking increasingly likely that Aung San Suu Kyi is going to be released with full right to travel, very soon. According to this article ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1963000/1963396.stm), it is the threat of US, Japanese and EU sanctions that are driving The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) to negotiate. However, even with the leader of the National League for Democracy free to travel, it remains unlikely that the NLD election victory of 1990 will be honored (the SLORC has forcibly suppressed the democracy movement of 1988, refused to implement the results of the 1990 election, and conducted military offensives against the armed ethnic groups.)
Like South Africa before it, Myanmar/Burma possesses an unusual political feature - a well-defined, clearly legitimate and sophisticated opposition with relatively clean hands. But the difference between Burma and South Africa is that the Apartheid government liked to imagine itself democratic and part of the community of nations. Social pressure was effective on them in a way that it isn't on regimes like Burma or Iraq. If you aren't part of the international community and don't aspire to be part of the international community then a punishment of being cut off from the international community isn't very frightening.
The SLORC presents themselves as being representative of the People ( http://www.myanmar.com/today/today.html). Discipline-flourishing democracy with rights to freedom exercised with in framework of law
Democracy compatible with political, economic and social structures of State
Democracy in line with historical traditions, customs and culture of nationality
Democracy that brings benefits fairly for all nationals within the framework of national solidarityMy translation: "..if we call despotism democracy, then it's democracy".
However, it's not social ostracism that I'm discussing - it's economic. I recall that with the shameful exception of Thatcher's government ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1787000/1787955.stm), there were widespread international economic sanctions imposed on South Africa. What's helping to keep the SLORC propped up financially is the fact that Western companies (particularly oil companies) are prepared, and allowed by their governments, to do business in Burma. If Western governments made this illegal, their economy would suffer:As peace and tranquility begin to prevail within the country, and with the practice of market-oriented economy, investments from both local and foreign companies have grown considerably 22 countries have made investments in 11 economic sectors with a total of almost 300 projects.So the question is, should the West give them a pat on the back for being more “democratic”, or should 'we' continue to threaten sanctions to force them back to the ballot box?
A friend of mine met Aung San Suu Kyi outside her home in
Rangoon in 1994. He was a bit star-struck, and the only question
he could think of to ask her was "Is it Myanmar, or is it Burma?"
She replied: "Burma, of course." It'll do for me.
Peace.
Like South Africa before it, Myanmar/Burma possesses an unusual political feature - a well-defined, clearly legitimate and sophisticated opposition with relatively clean hands. But the difference between Burma and South Africa is that the Apartheid government liked to imagine itself democratic and part of the community of nations. Social pressure was effective on them in a way that it isn't on regimes like Burma or Iraq. If you aren't part of the international community and don't aspire to be part of the international community then a punishment of being cut off from the international community isn't very frightening.
The SLORC presents themselves as being representative of the People ( http://www.myanmar.com/today/today.html). Discipline-flourishing democracy with rights to freedom exercised with in framework of law
Democracy compatible with political, economic and social structures of State
Democracy in line with historical traditions, customs and culture of nationality
Democracy that brings benefits fairly for all nationals within the framework of national solidarityMy translation: "..if we call despotism democracy, then it's democracy".
However, it's not social ostracism that I'm discussing - it's economic. I recall that with the shameful exception of Thatcher's government ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1787000/1787955.stm), there were widespread international economic sanctions imposed on South Africa. What's helping to keep the SLORC propped up financially is the fact that Western companies (particularly oil companies) are prepared, and allowed by their governments, to do business in Burma. If Western governments made this illegal, their economy would suffer:As peace and tranquility begin to prevail within the country, and with the practice of market-oriented economy, investments from both local and foreign companies have grown considerably 22 countries have made investments in 11 economic sectors with a total of almost 300 projects.So the question is, should the West give them a pat on the back for being more “democratic”, or should 'we' continue to threaten sanctions to force them back to the ballot box?
A friend of mine met Aung San Suu Kyi outside her home in
Rangoon in 1994. He was a bit star-struck, and the only question
he could think of to ask her was "Is it Myanmar, or is it Burma?"
She replied: "Burma, of course." It'll do for me.
Peace.