[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
SLORC's Response
The Burmese Response
Wednesday, May 7 1997; Page A20
The Washington Post
The Post's April 24 editorial "When Sanctions Make
Sense"
supported the Clinton administration's decision to
impose economic
sanctions on Myanmar [Burma]. It ignored historical
precedent and
failed to check the facts in portraying dissident
Aung San Suu Kyi
as having been "democratically elected."
The Post's support for sanctions apparently is
based on the
assumption that there are widespread human rights
violations in
Myanmar.
The government has negotiated successfully the
return to the legal
fold of 15 armed groups that had been challenging
successive
governments, leaving only one, the KNU, in armed
opposition. The
government continues to leave the door open to that
group, which
after four rounds of talks last year unilaterally
ended the
negotiation.
With regard to the assertion that Aung San Suu Kyi is a
"democratically elected leader," I should like to
put the record
straight. Aung San Suu Kyi never was a candidate
for the 1990
elections, which were held to choose
representatives to draft
principles for a new constitution. In keeping with
the election laws,
which were established at the time of our
independence from
Britain, no citizen married to a foreigner is
eligible to be a
representative. Thus Aung San Suu Kyi -- who is
married to
Michael Aris, a British citizen, and who resided in
Britain all her
adult life, save for the two-year period prior to
1990 -- was not
eligible to stand for election.
Given the findings of the considerable research
carried out on
sanctions, I find The Post's conclusion that
"rarely has a nation
been more deserving of economic sanction"
contrived. First and
foremost, the Clinton administration's decision
smacks of hypocrisy
coming as it does at a time when the president has
not been able to
act on analogous situations. It is unconvincing
that Myanmar should
stand so starkly apart from other regimes. The
political systems of
some of the United States' allies are not notable
for their concern
with individual liberties.
Second, the chances that unilateral sanctions
imposed by the
United States would have a measurable impact on
Myanmar are
nil. Eighty percent of Myanmar's trade is with
other Asian
countries, and any void that the United States
might leave in the
wake of the sanctions would be quickly filled by
Asian investors.
It should be noted that unilateral sanctions are
particularly
ineffective. One need only look at U.S. policies
toward Cuba, Iraq
and Libya.
It is time to question the wisdom of the current
punitive stance
toward Myanmar by members of Congress and the
media. At a
time when there is significant change and
transformation in
Myanmar, when it is opening its doors, creating
opportunities for
other countries to make a difference not only in
the economic field
but also in other spheres, it is important for the
United States not to
be influenced by the rhetoric of dissidents. The
sooner the United
States realizes this, the better its chanc\es of
achieving progress on
bilateral issues as well as in bringing about
positive change in
Myanmar.
THAUNG TUN
Minister-Counsellor
Embassy of the Union of Myanmar
Washington