Letters to the Editor_2004

We may have a hope of restoring freedom and democracy in Burma after a post Iraq war if the United States looks at human rights and democracy in Burma. Liberation of the Iraqis might affect the Burmese regime's current policy towards its citizens and opponents.

Burma might never face the US military force but increased economic embargoes will come. The democratic forces should seek the US diplomatic pressure o­n the regime to change the deadlock. If the Burmese regime does not want to face the US, it has to find its exit. The SPDC cannot play the US card without improving human rights and democratic principles.

Nyo Ohn Myint
Exiled Dissident [Top]

Freedom Fries for Burma

March 20, 2003—When America engaged in war against Germany, the Frankfurter became known as the Hot Dog. Now, the three cafeterias of the United States Congress have re-named French Fries as Freedom Fries and French Toast as Freedom Toast. This trend started at a small store in North Carolina and has even impacted the US Congress.

Yes, there will be pay-back time against France. We see o­n TV, people pouring French wine down the street. Boycotts of French products can be expected. And you can bet the Bush administration will not permit significant French participation in the re-building of the oil industry in Iraq.

But what is more important is the message it sends to the evil regimes of the world. Force will now be used to facilitate regime change.

American Special Forces have been used to hunt down the Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Philippines. Do not be surprised to see American Special Forces and the "Coalition of the Willing" hunting down the UWSA Drug Warlords. Permission from SLORC/SPDC is not needed since it is not the legal government of Burma.

Myint Thein
Texas, USA [Top]

Sanctions not the Answer

March 03, 2003—This letter is in response to the o­n-line commentary: "No Dialogue without Real Pressure".

While I sympathize with Aung Naing Oo’s frustration at the lack of progress towards a political solution in Burma, his call to ratchet up sanctions ["No Dialogue without Real Pressure", o­nline commentary, Feb 26] will meet no response at all from those best placed to influence Burma, namely China, Japan, Australia, Russia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the countries of Asean.

China’s reluctance to upset North Korea despite the growing regional threat to stability which North Korea represents makes it even less likely that China would contemplate action of any kind against Burma. China is well satisfied with the opportunities for expanding its influence in Burma which Western ostracism provides.

Like it or not, Burma can get by with Asian-Pacific aid and trade, and if Western companies are badgered into handing over their assets to their Asian competitors—in the way that Malaysia’s Petronas has recently benefited from the withdrawal of Britain’s Premier Oil—this is unlikely to cause the SPDC to lose much sleep. The real losers are Western companies and the Burmese people whom they were supporting with social welfare projects.

Unfortunately, the name of the political game over Burma seems to be inflexible political posturing. No wonder so little progress is ever made. The SPDC may not yet be willing to talk to the NLD, but they are willing to talk to Western governments, which is a move in the right direction.

Western governments are indeed well placed to influence the SPDC towards a political solution. But if Western governments—under constant pressure from Burma activists to ostracize the SPDC—see no domestic political benefit to them in dialogue, then quite simply the impasse will continue.