UN

[zni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

UN -: Burma on Wednesday succeeded in geting the
>United Nations to cancel a film on an American
>tourist caught in Rangoon's 1988 chos and violence.
>UN spokesman Juan Carlos Brandht said that Burma,
>now called Myanmar, had objected to the showing
>at the end of a session on humanrights.
>The United Nations had no choice but to comply
>with a request by a member state, he added.
>UN sources said such a decision was made when
>the event was not organised by a member state
>but other groups using UN permises, in this
>case the UN staff union.


This type of reasoning is completely lame.  Why should an international
body like the UN comply with an objection by a member state, which has as
yet to heed the UN resolutions (one after another) concerning human rights
violations, blatant rejection of elections results, and barbarity of its
unscrupulous rulers?   (Issuing resolutions, one after another every year,
seems to have become a collective past time or the most it can do, as it
does not have capabilities to enforce any.)

It's tragic that UN careerists have consistently failed to ask "who voices
are heared in the disguise of a state."  Words are cheap.  They would do
well if they listen to what Rev. Desmond Tutu has to say:

International pressure can change the situation in Burma.  Tough sanctions,
not constructive engagement, finally brought the release of Nelson Mandela
and the dawn of a new era in my country.  This is the language that must be
spoken with tyrants__ for, sadly, it is the only language they understand.