Response to The Washington Post, My (r)

[enmasse_1@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Re: Response to The Washington Post, Myanmar Emabssy Washington DC.
===================================================================

>The Post errs in stating that the military lost to the NLD in the 
>election held in 1990. The fact is that the military which was 
>compelled to assume the reins of state in September 1988 following >the 
breakdown of civil order in the country, responded to the >expressed 
wishes of the people by bringing to an end nearly three >decade of 
socialist rule. It did not contest the 1990 elections. >Rather, as the 
only organized entity in the nation, it acted as an >arbitor.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi OKKAR,


The response from the Burmese Embassy, Washington DC as well as yours 
are complete cover-ups. Why did the military had to kill thousands of 
peaceful demonstrators who were simply expressing their wishes to bring 
an end to nearly three decades of socialist rule in the country?. What 
you all said did not add up. 

You failed to mention that it was the BSPP government with the help of 
DDSI that had deliberately created conditons that appeared to look like 
a breakdown of civil order in the country to justify for yet another 
military coup to protect Ne Win and his cronies.  

You also failed to mention how people have voted in the May 1990 general 
elections. (We all know that SLORC did not dare to take part in the May 
1990 general elections. Even the 'NUP' which received much backing from 
the SLORC did not even win a seat.) If you look at the results of the 
May 1990 general elections you will see how people had voted to express 
their wishes peacefully again to bring about an end to the military rule 
in Burma. And that's what is exactly happening in Burma, right now.

So, according to your point of argument, there is no use in fighting 
against the wishes of the people of Burma. This is something that you 
could not keep it covered. The day will come when the SPDC had to go. It 
is not a matter of 'if' but how peacefully it will go and when. You will 
see. 


Minn Kyaw Minn
============== 






>From notes@xxxxxxx Mon Sep 14 18:51:18 1998
>Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (root@xxxxxxxxxxx [192.82.108.1])
>	by igc7.igc.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA15221;
>	Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: (from notes@localhost)
>	by cdp.igc.apc.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA24267;
>	Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
>Date: 14 Sep 1998 17:56:42
>Reply-To: Conference "reg.burma" <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>From: OKKAR66129@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Response to The Washington Post, Myanmar Emabssy Washington 
DC.
>To: Recipients of burmanet-l <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Message-ID: <c0755dbb.35fdba41@xxxxxxx>
>X-Gateway: conf2mail@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Errors-To: owner-burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Precedence: bulk
>Lines: 161
>
>                          EMBASSY OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR                     
>                                        WASHINGTON,  DC 
>                                                                   
>PRESS   RELEASE      13 /  98  		14  September 1998
>
> 
>	
> Myanmar Embassy's Response to The Washington Post
>
>
>		It is a sad commentary of our times that The Washington Post ( 
Editorial,
>September 14), chooses to trash Myanmar, notwithstanding the political 
and
>legal maelstrom that imperils the White House.  While Americans are 
busy
>worrying about whether the President can avoid  impeachment or survive,
>unimpeached  in an increasingly untenable situation, the Post flies off 
on a
>tangent and devotes an entire editorial column to denigrate Myanmar. 
This
>attempt to deflect attention from the growing crisis at home makes a 
statement
>about how the US is failing to live up to the high standard expected of 
it.
>
>		The Post does a great disservice to its readers by not checking facts 
before
>rushing to decry the " crackdown " in Myanmar. Had the Post bothered to 
follow
>up on the allegation that some 700 NLD members have been detained in 
recent
>months, it could have easily ascertained that the charge is baseless 
and that
>it is nothing but a ruse to ratchet up pressure on the government. By 
now
>everyone familiar with the tactics of the opposition groups must 
realise that
>they are not adverse to exaggerating figures to suit their ends. In 
1996, they
>claimed 300 were detained ; last year 400; this year 700. The figure 
keeps
>growing by geometric progression. When will the deception end ? The 
fact is no
>NLD member has been arbitrarily detained or charged with a crime in 
recent
>days. Let alone being dragged from  bed in the middle of the night. 
What may
>have prompted the government's detractors to raise a hue and a cry is 
that
>some NLD members were recently invited to government guest-houses to 
discuss
>matters relating to the unlawful attempt of  that party to unilaterally
>convene a parliament. It's not hard to imagine what would happen if 
each of
>the 10 registered political parties in Myanmar decided to take such 
measures
>unilaterally.
>
>		The Post errs in stating that the military lost to the NLD in the 
election
>held in 1990. The fact is that the military which was compelled to 
assume the
>reins of state in September 1988 following the breakdown of civil order 
in the
>country, responded  to the expressed wishes of the people by bringing 
to an
>end nearly three decade of socialist rule. It did not contest the 1990
>elections. Rather, as the only organized entity in the nation, it acted 
as an
>arbitor.
>
>		From the outset the military has been striving  to fulfill  the  
aspirations
>of the people for a democratic society. It abolished the single-party 
system
>and allowed the formation of political parties.  It promptly replaced 
the
>centrally-planned economic policy of the past, with market-oriented 
policies
>and sought foreign direct investment. 
>
>
>The Post conveniently forgets that it was the military that proceeded 
in 1990
>with its plan to allow the Myanmar people to elect representatives to
>participate in the government's proposed National Convention to draft a 
new
>constitution. That was what  the elections  were for and not to form a 
new
>government as a NLD and its supporters in the West now claim. It should 
be
>recognized that Myanmar had no constitution at all at that time.
>
>Out of the 235 political parties that sprang up in 1988 only 93 were 
able to
>field candidates in 1990. A fact often overlooked by the West is that 
Aung San
>Suu Kyi was herself not eligible to stand for elections.
>
>	The allegation that the Myanmar Government engages in forced labour on 
a
>massive scale is spurious. The fact that a commission of the ILO 
ritually
>concludes that something is amiss in Myanmar based on stories fed to 
those
>sitting in Geneva does not necessarily make it so. Reports of recent 
visitors
>to Myanmar stand in stark contrast to tales disseminated by those who 
have an
>axe to grind. 
>
>	As regards the economy, Myanmar like others in the region has not been 
immune
>to the financial crisis. However,  it has been able to shield its 
economy to a
>large extend because it is not yet linked to the global economy as some 
of its
>ASEAN partners and because it has always favoured a prudent policy of 
self
>reliance. True, the World Bank recently declared the country ineligible 
for
>new loans because it has not repaid past  ones. But has the Post 
stopped to
>ponder why Myanmar, which has been faithful in meeting its repayments 
to IDA
>up until very recently,  decided to suspend the further repayments ? 
The
>answer lies in the attitude adopted by the major shareholders vis-a-vis
>Myanmar. All loans to Myanmar have been suspended since 1987. The 
Bank's
>reason for suspension of lending was a determination that Myanmar was
>unwilling to modify the highly distortionary economic policies that the 
Bank
>concluded created an environment in which external aid resources could 
not be
>efficiently utilized. Eventhough Myanmar has now opened its doors and 
the
>situation has changed, the Bank has not revised its stand. This is due 
not to
>technical difficulties between the Bank and the Myanmar Government but  
to the
>US policy blocking loans to Myanmar from all international financial
>institutions, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund 
( IMF)
>and the Asian Development Bank ( ADB ).
>
>	In the circumstance,  the Myanmar Government took a decision to 
postpone
>repayment on outstanding loans until the World Bank treats Myanmar like 
other
>members and resumes lending. The amounts  involved are not significant 
and
>Myanmar hopes to resume the payments sooner rather than later.
>
>	Unilateral sanctions have never been successful and the case of US 
sanctions
>against Myanmar is no different. The slack created by the departure of 
US
>investors has been taken up by others from the ASEAN and  Europe. US 
ranks
>only fifth on the list of foreign investors. All that US sanctions have
>accomplished is to deprive Myanmars  working in textile mills and 
tourist-
>related industries of their livelihood.
>
>	It is indeed odd that the Post should be seeking to take issue with 
the
>Myanmar Government at a time when the entire world is focusing on the
>President's moment of reckoning. Surely, it is time to stop demonizing 
the
>Myanmar Government and come to grips with reality. 
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
> The following is the Post Editorial for your easy reference.
>
>
>Burma Crackdown
>
>
>	   The Washington Post, Editorial 
>                 Monday, September 14, 1998 
>
>                  WITH THE ECONOMY deteriorating and its political 
control
>slipping, Burma's military regime has responded in the only way it 
seems to
>understand -- with  more repression. Some 700 members of the National 
League
>for Democracy  including 194 elected members of parliament, have been 
detained
>in recent months, many in the past week. Some, including an 
octogenarian, were
>rousted from their beds. The regime says the democrats were "invited" 
into
>custody so the regime could "present the government's view." Even 
before the
>latest roundup, three elected members had died in custody, and scores 
more
>were being held in often deplorable conditions.
>
>                  Burma -- or, as the current regime calls it, Myanmar 
-- is a
>Southeast Asian  nation of 46 million people with great natural wealth 
and
>beauty, a strategic  location and a tragic modern history. In 1990, its
>military rulers permitted a  parliamentary election, which they lost
>overwhelmingly to the National League  for Democracy. They never have
>permitted the parliament -- which is Burma's only legitimate government 
-- to
>meet.
>
>                  Just last month a commission of the International 
Labor
>Organization  concluded after a yearlong study that Burma's regime -- 
in
>particular its  military -- engages in forced labor on a massive scale. 
This
>"gross denial of  human rights" involves pressing women and children to 
walk
>ahead through  suspected minefields, build roads and perform other 
dangerous
>and unpaid  tasks. Resistance is met with torture, rape, beatings and 
murder.
>
>                  At the same time, because of the regime's 
incompetence and
>increasing  isolation brought about by U.S. economic sanctions, Burma's
>economy is  declining rapidly. The World Bank recently declared the 
country
>ineligible for   new loans because it has not repaid past ones, a 
signal to
>other lenders to steer clear, and is reconsidering a loan to 
neighboring
>Thailand for a power  plant that would depend on natural gas from 
Burma.
>
>                  Students recently staged their largest demonstration 
in
>years, despite obvious   risks, and Buddhist monks have protested and 
been
>arrested. Instead of the  dialogue requested by the democrats, the 
regime
>responds with more arrests.  The United States has spoken out clearly 
against
>the regime. Japan and  Burma's neighbors in Southeast Asia should 
likewise
>make clear that more  repression can only increase Burma's isolation. 
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com