Those New Mandala readers who follow debates about economic sanctions against the Burmese government will be intrigued by this current flare-up in Australia.
The president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sharan Burrow, is lobbying for Jetstar to stop its flights to the country. All of the usual arguments for beefing up sanctions against Burma are trotted out. According to Burrow, “We [Australia] now should be part of increased sanctions, increased pressure to make sure that everything is done to bring this military rule to an end”.
It is precisely because (limited, Western, symbolic) sanctions do not bring this (or probably any) military dictatorship to “an end” that after two decades of such rhetoric the Burmese government is arguably as strong as it has ever been.
What is needed is less of these tired rhetorical flourishes. Perhaps Australia’s Union heavyweights could, instead, fund a study, starting from first principles, into the efficacy of sanctions against the Burmese government. The existing research around this question suggests that sanctions against Burma are “folly”, ”caused hardship for ordinary Burmese people without significantly impacting the State Peace and Development military regime”, and have “proven to be a failure on all fronts”. None of these analyses are particularly new but they should, together, raise some serious questions for those hoping to justify an ongoing sanctions policy.
Or, if we’re too busy to read some of these deeper reflections on the topic, we could just run with the assumption that (limited, Western, symbolic) sanctions do not work except in (limited, Western, symbolic) ways.
If the goal is to unseat Than Shwe and the boys then, based on the modest available evidence, I am happy to hypothesise that the quickest way to change the terms of military rule in Burma is to make it politically viable for all the Jetstars (and McDonalds, KFCs, etc, etc) to make their Burma push. Tough-minded Western investors, competing with their Japanese, Singaporean, Thai and Chinese counterparts, will probably change Burma far more quickly than any sanctions we could ever consider.
My guess is that some of those changes would be “good”, others would probably be “bad” and a fair few would be simply indifferent. But would such an approach lead to political change in directions that are appealing to Australia’s Union bosses? I would bet on it. For many of us, this is, I’d suggest, an unpalatable realisation.
I am open to anybody who can put the counter-case, with evidence that shows how (limited, Western, symbolic) sanctions will “bring this military rule to an end”.
The sanctions have so far failed.
The generals and their families can obtain anything they want from the shops in Singapore, which includes western made products.
They use the money given to them by firms such as Total, which could care less about sanctions.
The American govt., in the form of Senator Jim Webb, and head of the U.S. State Dept., Hillary Clinton, have now allowed Snr. Gen. Than Shwe to travel to the U.S. Upon his return to Burma Than Shwe will no doubt crow about how he outlasted the puny sanctions.
Anyone thinking that this new opening will moderate the generals is sadly deluding himself – they have been given the green light to continue their oppressive policies. The genocidal war being waged against the ethnic minorities will undoubtedly increase.
Another big loser will be China. Clinton and Webb have just dealt Than Shwe an ace. He will use it to trump Chinese threats on their common border.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Charles F is correct to point out that western sanctions have never been as draconian some would like to believe. There is a Lonely Planet guide to the country after all which basically suggest that more travellers will bring political change; we’ve seen how well that has worked out. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily follow that western sanction would work if only they had been and are stricter. Still, it should keep in mind that where there is real money to be made in oil or mining or whatever, sanctions have basically been limited, as the post noted.
I’m also a bit confused because if I remember correctly Thailand has plenty of KFCs and McDonald’s but based on what I read here democracy isn’t exactly flourishing these days. Is the solution to Thailand’s political problems another fast food franchise?
The quickest way to unseat Than Shwe wouldn’t be more burgers, but more bullets. Give the Kachins, Karens and Wa, and anyone else that wants to fight the regime all the guns and ammuntion they can use. The aftermath may not be pretty, but that is the only realistic way to change the regime’s behavior. Not that the American, Austrialian or European governments would ever go that far, so the future of Burma looks like more oppression with burger and fries.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
More important and immediately effective would be an end to the double economy functioning within Burma. So long as the profits that the government is receiving, from Total yes, but more from Thailand and soon to be China, from natural gas exports are declared at the official and highly inflated rate the country’s economy will appear to be weak and susceptible to sanctions. In reality, as Sean Turnell has written most convincingly, the economy is in surplus and the government is able to maintain their underdeveloped economically crippled image while funding a new capital and obtaining a nuclear reactor.
Superficial appraisals of Burma’s economy maintain the idea that sanctions can achieve anything in Burma. The government has proven itself most adept at overcoming any economic hardships, first with aid funding and now with gas profits, and if sanctions have achieved anything it is to make the government more insulated from their effects. Sanctions have instead encouraged increased relations with North Korea, Russia and Iran for their diplomatic and economic protection.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
One can argue that “Sanctions have worked”. The generals are now openly asking for sanctions to be stopped, it shows they are hurting. It may not be the result that the world wants, there is now a sliver of hope, at the very least a dialogue has begun.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092803761.html
Myanmar’s prime minister, General Thein Sein, on Monday demanded an end to economic sanctions in an address to the UN General Assembly.”Sanctions are being employed as a political tool against Myanmar and we consider them unjust,” said Thein Sein, the highest-ranking Myanmar official to address the General Assembly in 14 years. “Such acts must be stopped.”
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
First of all Charles F., Than Shwe has certainly not been allowed to travel to the U.S.
His Prime Minister, Thein Sein, is currently at the UNGA – perhaps you confused the names? This is the first time someone of that rank has visited the U.S. in 14 years. Additionally, concessions were made for the Foreign Minister, U Nyan Win, who was allowed to leave the usual 25km radius of the UN building in NYC; he spent a day visiting the Myanmar Embassy, the White House, and the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C.
Back to the main point…
The recent announcement of the U.S.’s new game plan for Myanmar has been interesting for a lot of long-term watchers. What remains to be seen is whether engagement, just as much as sanctions have been, will itself remain “limited, Western, symbolic”. It is hard to put much faith in a country whose foreign policy has been so flawed and so harmful towards the people of Myanmar for 20 years. While little diplomatic concessions are being made by each side (the release of Yettaw, the granting of meetings with Sen. Webb and both Than Shwe and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi vis-a-vis the visa grant to Thein Sein, the D.C. concessions), it remains to be seen what of the new engagement policy will remain (like much of the Obama administration’s foreign policy) only rhetoric, and what will be actualized.
As for Australia – the interesting part to me is that Australia’s foreign policy towards Myanmar is at times the most progressive of the Western countries (no blanket sanctions, only targeted financial/travel sanctions), but at the same time when it comes to business investment, DFAT maintains a strict “not promoting, but not condemning” policy that allows a lot of room for failure. Any Australian business can come to Myanmar and partner with unsavoury mega-companies run by cronies. DFAT would be better to promote small scale investment in industries where family and small businesses can be invested in, rather than allowing (with a hands off approach) big Australian companies to provide characters like Steven Law and U Tay Zar with more cash.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
This just popped up on my radar moments ago and I laughed heartily today when I read a story on Agent France Presse that said:
Zetty Brake, a spokeswoman for the Burma Campaign Australia, said most Myanmar residents would be unable to afford the flights.
“The people that are using these services from Burma are people with links to the regime,” she told AFP.
I’m not disputing most people can’t afford the flights, but anybody who has flown on the Jetstar services to Singapore would know a large proportion of passengers are leaving Myanmar to try and earn some money that they will then send back to their families. Remittances such as these are a crucial “lifeline” for hundreds of thousands of families and people working in Singapore can earn significantly more than in Thailand.
Besides, well connected people would be flying Silk Air, not Jetstar.
It’s sad to see this kind of rubbish still being trotted out.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Dylan Grey is correct – I confused the names.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I think it’s impossible to go back to ‘first principles’ for a study because there are no ‘first principles’ in international relations (which would be the area of study when talking about sanctions.) Unless we’re talking about a principle of all states developing democractic institutions (a self determining process)…
I think really there can only be the ‘first principles’ of a state and one of those first principles is self determination. However, maybe that’s what you are highlighting with regards to the Unions’ (or at least Shazza’s) myopic position – that to even fund a study looking at the ‘efficacy’ of sanctions would educate and prove to them that sanctions are inadequate, since they would (or are?) be unwilling to listen (or read from) to.. say an expert?
For me, sanctions go hand in hand with Myanmar’s rhetoric of self-determination. If there was no anti-neo-colonial self-determining rhetoric from the Junta, then I don’t think there would be ‘symbolic’ sanctions because there would be a different paradigm for Myanmar to forge its development in. The current sanctions ultimately play into the Junta’s favour because, with my limited eye, they don’t attack anything that the Junta hasn’t made a justification for which directly supports (their own) ‘self-determination.’ So yes, “Western” foreign policy toward Myanmar seems to just sadly mirror the Junta’s own sad agenda…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Today, Kurt Campbell the assistant secretary of state for Asia, said a long-running policy review by the U.S. had concluded that the Myanmar leadership was eager for dialogue. The U.S. intends to pursue that interest but insisted it would keep sanctions and keep pressing the military regime on democracy. However, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, the Chairman of East Asia Affairs, subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee thinks the current policy has isolated Myanmar people from the international community and made it hard to bring cultural and political change to the country.
There are various reasons why ASEAN countries, China and India refuse to follow the U.S. economic sanction approach. It has been perceived that the U.S. applied double standards in single out only Myanmar when Thailand’s democratization has also been manipulated by the military. Imposing economic sanctions based on democratic values and norms without taking into account the strategic ramifications, has push Myanmar toward acquiring nuclear weapons in defending its sovereignty and regime change from the superpower. This perceived threat definitely is working against the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In other words, the U.S. foreign policy increases the spread of nuclear weapons.
In addition, before imposing a certain form of politics, the stage of the country’s economic base should be taken into consideration. During the Cold War era, while the countries under the U.S. Sphere of Influence underwent the industrialization process following the export-oriented model, Myanmar leaders joined the non-aligned camp and rejected market economy development. While Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchea recognized their economic policy mistakes and adjusted during the 1980s-1990s, Myanmar didn’t do so due to its preoccupied with internal problems. As a result, Myanmar falls behind its neighboring countries in term of economic growth. During the transformation period, laying the market economy infrastructure, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines had authoritarian regimes. These countries now have a higher gross national product yet they still have difficulty in transition to democracy as we see in Thailand. Foreign policy that puts the emphasis only on the political culture of democratic norms without taking into the consideration the political economy of the economic base would only be seen as naive and bullying a smaller, weaker country.
Lastly, with dominant historical legacies and a wealth of natural resources, Myanmar is one of the major de facto powers in Southeast Asia. In order to understand Myanmar leaders’ psychology and perception, it is important to understand the country’s historical experiences. Myanmar experienced a direct colonial rule under the British, this had a strong imprint on Myanmar leaders’ emotions and pride to the point that they changed the name from Burma to Myanmar. President Obama states that the U.S. will not rely only on military measures but will include diplomacy, development, and intelligence instruments in the projection of its foreign policy. He emphasizes the importance of making the world understand U.S. principles and values in opportunity, liberty, progress, and mutual respects among nations.
I believe understanding Myanmar economic background, the role of pride, and the ramification of nuclear proliferation, would avert future serious disaster in Southeast Asia region.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
ACTU’s Burrow doesn’t really seem to know what she is talking about. If Jetstar is forced to pull out it will just help Tiger Airways get more business out of Burma as Singaporeans don’t give a stuff about Burmese politics.
Sanctions hurt both Generals and ordinary Burmese, but definitely and brutally harsher on the poor workers. When US and EU abruptly stopped textile imports from Burma it destroyed overnight a steadily growing industry that employed almost quarter a million Burmese women and girls. Many of the unemployed females ended up in so-called entertainment industry as karaoke girls or massage parlor girls or worse as prostitutes.
The so-called Burmese exiles now enjoying newly found comfortable lives in the West and ruthlessly calling for harsher sanctions should have known that particular case of human suffering.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Charles F.,
A green light it is as far as the generals are concerned to carry on business as usual. Give them an inch, and they’d feel vindicated and even exonerated, more confident than ever.
aiontay,
The quickest way to unseat Than Shwe wouldn’t be more burgers, but more bullets…. Not that the American, Austrialian or European governments would ever go that far, so the future of Burma looks like more oppression with burger and fries.
The first I agree with. The second, I’m not sure if they’d hold back once some ‘Contras’ appear on the scene to suit some ‘Reagan’, although this scenario is only ever likely against left wing Marxist governments and never against right wing military dictators, never mind the parallels in the way democracy and human rights get short shrift.
Bamar,
I agree about the sanctions having a palpable effect on the regime, otherwise why would they so badly want them lifted? For one thing, they would dearly love to take their wives shopping to Oxford Street and Manhattan, Harrods and Tiffany’s, rather than to Orchard Road. They’d rather send their offspring to Oxbridge and Ivy League too than to Singapore or Moscow. It’s definitely a thorn in their side. It goes hand in hand with seeking legitimacy through the imminent sham elections to carry on business as usual regardless, and even more business literally their way.
Dylan Grey,
Major trading countries to promote small scale investment in industries where family and small businesses can be invested in sounds great and laudable in theory but it’s probably asking too much. Even in their domestic situation they’d pay lip service to small and middling businesses to win their votes, but they are all too ready to sacrifice this very important sector whenever the economy goes pear-shaped, so that big business, those pillars of capitalism, can fight another day.
Tom,
Jetstar reminds me of a recent proposal by the Burma Campaign in London to stop student visas allegedly because only those who have connections to the junta can afford to come. Some of them may be related though not close family, but a blanket ban?!
Gollum… or Sméagol?!,
Your assertion that anti-neo-colonial self-determining rhetoric from the Junta is responsible for the sanctions, if I may say so, is pretty superficial. Rhetoric begets rhetoric, and actions produce reactions. Relentless repression and widespread and systemic human rights abuses hardly count for rhetoric no matter how the regime justifies itself. The sanctions are limited, Western, symbolic because it is by its very nature anti-business, going against the grain of the sacred tenets of free trade and open markets, and being compelled to put people before profits.
Hla Oo,
Both blanket and mistargeted sanctions will have an adverse effect on the populace. A very blunt instrument when not properly thought out and intelligently employed.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Hla Oo,
I am not sure what the Sharons & Zettys are trying to achieve, when the very person they are rallying to help is making gestures for sanctions to be lifted. I feel like a person being manhandled to sit down when I know standing up will be good for me and I need help to stand up not forced to sit down.
Moe Aung,
Ah, you forgot to mention, DavidJones, Myer, ANU, Monash, UTS. Do you know Than Shwe’s daughter is getting her PhD from Beijing University?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Bamar,
My sincere apologies to all. How very insensitive of me! I am so sorry. I’m bound to blame it on the old colonial ties and the Anglo-American dominance of today’s world order for the bias. Than Shwe’s daughter will find that the Chinese are keen to learn English which I’m sure she would have preferred to Mandarin herself. The regime has sent hundreds of army officers to Moscow to study, so we’d have ‘Moscow Men’ instead of ‘Barkeley Boys’ that graced Indonesia’s military in the 6os ushering in the Suharto era.
One positive thing that has come out of this now substantial Burmese diaspora, whether by choice or driven by circumstances thanks to life under our dear generals, is that we have broadened our horizons far and wide which can only be good for the future. Still it is a disgrace that our universities, whatever passes for higher education these days, have yet to offer courses on Indian, Chinese or SE Asian studies.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Moe Aung,
Maybe foreign governments would support an armed opposition, but it will still be oppression with burgers and fries.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
aiontay,
I get the feeling you are right once they manage to get their own kind of people, their placemen like Allawi and Karzi. We’d still have burger and fries with ASSK I’m sure, hopefully without the power corrupting her. Whenever a new ruling class/elite forms, like the military in Burma or the nomenclatura of the old Soviet bloc, the people get short shrift.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Susie Wong,
A belated thanks for your post. You put it in a nutshell. Even more impressive how well you understand the country, if you are not of Burmese origin. Hopefully you haven’t come to the conclusion that the generals must not just be understood but appeased like our own Thant Myint-U.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Readers might be interested in viewing a debate on whether it is time to lift sanctions on Burma that I produced for Intelligence Squared in London, 2nd December 2009
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/burma
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Dear Ileana,
“First vote: Agree 106, Disagree 98, Undecided 91
Final vote: Agree 120, Disagree 157, Undecided 23
The motion was defeated by 37 votes.”
Who were the voters and what made so many of them change their stances after the first vote? Many undecided seemed to sway to Disagree at the final vote. Thanks.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Dear Hla Oo,
The voters were regular IQ audience with quite a few S. Africans -who may have been predisposed to have a positive view of how sanctions worked in S. Africa. We don’t think that the audience was packed with lobbyists from any of the lobby or aid groups, and we didn’t notice many Burmese in the audience. Please bear in mind that London is the home of the pro – sanctions lobby so the amount of votes for lifting sanctions was more than expected.
Voters against lifting sanctions:
I think that a lot of people were very swayed by Ben Rogers detailed accounts of individual cases of brutality amongst the minorities that he works with, and by Brad Adams very likeable presence, arguing that although sanctions don’t work, we must show our disapproval.
Votes FOR lifting sanctions:
On the other hand, interested but un-informed people were hearing arguments against sanctions for the very first time, and as those arguments were powerful and authoritatively made, they won a lot of votes too. (The pretty girls all voted for Thant and Frank by the way!)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ileana, what you said as follow is quite an eye-opener.
“We don’t think that the audience was packed with lobbyists from any of the lobby or aid groups, and we didn’t notice many Burmese in the audience.”
There must be thousands and thousands of Burmese living and prospering in London and almost all of them were not there, amazing. I personally know more Burmese doctors living in London than back in Rangoon.
This is the main problem with Burmese living abroad. And it applies to Burmese back home too. Majority of them are not taking sides. They are all happily sitting on the fence.
Even the exile ones actively involved in the anti-govt struggles will stay at home comfortably welcoming a senior Burmese govt official visiting their country.
One of the prominent leaders of world-wide CRDB (Committee for Restoration of Democracy in Burma) here in Australia has a brother who is a senior general and a well-known minister back home. One day I visited his house and I was amazed to see another retired senior general from Burma visiting them.
A wise man once said that in a war among brothers, nobody gets hurt seriously. That might be the reason we haven’t seen any Karen or Kachin or Kareni suicide bomber in Burma, yet.
Only the progressive westerners seem to take seriously about what is really happening in Burma!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Thousands of Burmese doctors in London none of whom came to the debate? That sounds as if we had a serious marketing failure at Intelligence Squared!
I can’t help admiring your CRDB friend and the retired General sitting and chatting to eachother – how much more constructive than shooting and shouting at eachother… but you will have gathered that I am in favour of debate…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
@ Ileana, kudos for you for producing this debate. There are a lot of us in Yangon who are really wanting to see this, but the internet connection is too slow and unreliable to stream such a large video… Will have to watch it the next time I’m outside of Burma.
Also, kind of funny how the people who are against the motion are all people who have never spent significant amounts of time in Burma, having only visited for short stays, and one may have never even stepped foot in the country. Whereas all those arguing in favour of the motion are people who have actually spent time in Burma/Myanmar, working towards change from within the country. That fact alone should have helped the IQ audience’s decision…
Intelligence squared? Or intelligence divided?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ileana,
Many thanks for making this great debate available though the video runs too erratically to do it any justice. And yes, the marketing failure was glaring, on the surface at least, if it didn’t even manage to attract the embassy spies to check on those Burmese who might have attended. There’s a clue to why none was seen in the audience, and I bet they’d all be grateful like me to see it online.
You might have of course attracted the dissident activists in London many of whom I expect you could have filled the auditorium with if you were so inclined. One prominent doctor among them is married to a sister in law of Aung Thaung, one of the prominent ministers of the junta. Both sisters are doctors themselves, and they phone each other all the time. This divide can be seen in many families. So in a way it is intelligence divided as Dylan has put it. But we shouldn’t be surprised about this either.
Those who have worked inside, by grace of the authorities, perhaps need to stand back abit and reflect on the bigger picture. Just because you have the hands on experience in some practical field, or for that matter just because you are Burmese, unfortunately does not equate to the real understanding of the issues and their solution. Politics would not exist in this world anywhere otherwise.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Dear Moe Aung ,
Perhpas we will have to change the names of the debates to Intelligence divided after all!
I will admit to some marketing failure, but we didn’t invite the Burmese embassy after deliberate thought, to allow people to feel more comfortable. I think that some came though as there were 3 Burmese men in suits in a row taking notes very solemnly…
IQ didn’t want to “pack” the debate with any one group of activists and lobbyists either, as you know there is not really an “anti-sanctions” lobby, although there is an extremely well organised “pro sanctions” lobby, so any lobby-targetting would have resulted in bias rather than debate. BCUK, HRW and CSW all I am sure did their own marketing.
The most interesting failure though was that I failed to get any Member of Parliament or Foreign Office representative to come and speak despite asking very persistently, directly and with personal introductions! Actually I failed to get them even to answer me.
Dear Dylan,
The debate is being posted on the UK Embassy in Rangoon website, so perhaps that will be easier to view? Tell me if that is any easier. They may also have the transcript if you are interested.
By the way, Frank Smithuis website is http://www.medicalactionmyanmar.com if you are interested in his work. He is always happy to show people around.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ileana,
I think you did the right thing not inviting the Burmese to the debate. One on the panel perhaps could have been balanced by another, say someone like Dr Zarni who has gone through pro to anti-sanctions stages and now seems totally disillusioned about engagement from first hand experience.
I don’t suppose we have a Jim Webb or a Kurt Campbell in the British parliament and government to commit themselves one way or the other. Besides the rather short-lived ethical foreign policy à la Robin Cook is still fresh in memory. And you wouldn’t have been given the time of day by the Burmese ambassador if you’d tried, although you can bet the note-taking chaps were from his office.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Dear Moe Aung,
The UK is sadly lacking in politicians of stature in general at the moment. The anti-sanctions lobby do complain that the UK politicians only accept briefings from the rather extreme pro-sanctions lobby, creating a greater imbalance than in any other country. This could account for the lack of Senator Webbs emanating from the UK…
If I ever have the opportunity to stage another discussion, I will have lots of good suggestions to consult thanks to everyone who has written!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Dear Hla Oo
I was dismayed and disgusted by your totally false and malicious statement that you had met a retired senior general from Burma visiting me at my home in Australia. I strongly suggest that you identify yourself ( your true self), and apologise to your readers and those participating in the debate for having wasted their time by your uncanny and groundless accusation.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Dear Ko Tint Way,
Sorry If I offended you, I am truly sorry. Please accept my apology.
I didn’t mention your name intentionally, and also my point is just to prove that all the parties involved in this nasty affairs of Burma are just the brothers or friends.
We all do have our brothers, cousins, and close friends on the side of generals, unfortunately. Like you have a general brother.
Nothing uncanny and I wasn’t accusing anything. Nothing at all.
But I was so sure that I met General Tint Swe (Retired Minister for Ministry of Industry 1) in one of your residents (which one I can’t recall now) in 1993 or 1994. A year after ABSDF’s Aung Naing Oo’s visit to Sydney. I also met him in your house.
What I still remember was that he was just visiting Sydney after a medical operation in Canberra and he was meeting another Burmese doctor, Dr Reggie if I correctly remember, at your place, as you are the most well-known of the Burmese doctors in Sydney.
Please accept my sincere apology for the offense I may have caused.
My real name is Hla Oo too and you know me very well and also my family owed you and your family, especially your mother, a lot as you have taken care of us since our arrival in Sydney many many years ago.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Dear U Hla Oo
I found your apologies unconvincing, because you could easily have avoided giving offence in the first place.I also found your claim that “you know me very well” rather puzzling.
You may well be acquainted with my mother and may have attended some social events at her house, but I was not there.
I still maintain that your allegation of my meeting with retired General Tint Swe is totally false.
I am pleased to know that Hla Oo is your real name, and I accept your apology, albeit grudgingly after you attacked me unfairly. I truly believe that this petty dispute should not clog up the important channels of debate on this forum.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Dear Dr. Tint Way,
Sorry for the grief I’ve caused you. I have to apologize you again.
I dug up my old diaries and rediscovered that you were right about the location. It wasn’t your house. It was your mother’s house in Campsie. I think you were then working and living in Canberra. But I remember seeing your family back in Campsie so many times.
I might have confused you with one of your brothers. At my age of almost 55 the memories are getting blurred. Especially recalling the ones from almost 20 years ago. I hope you understand me.
The reason I still remember that occasion of meeting Gen Tint Swe there was the fact that he was the most powerful retired general out of all Ne Win’s lieutenants and we all knew him very well as the head of The Economic Reform Commission or some powerful commission formed after the 1988 coup.
Also his adopted son was none other than General Khin Nyunt and he was the one who recommended to appoint his protege Khin Nyunit as the powerful chief of MIS to Ne Win after MI chief Tin Oo was removed in 1983.
You know all the Burmese here always look up to you as a freedom fighter and the important leader of CRDB actively struggling for the restoration of democracy in our Burma.
I was really shocked to see him comfortably sitting on the couch at your mother’s house with your brothers so I wrote it down that occasion in my diary that night.
I was already shocked to see the Burmese ambassador’s Mercedes at the front. You and many Burmese used to stand and yelled slogans for many hours in front of Burmese embassy in Canberra during many protests then.
So I happily retract my throw-away statement that you met him. Please forgive me for that. Sorry!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I was interested to hear on the radio in London today David Miliband (UK Foreign Secretary) being quoted by Baroness Kinnock, Africa Minister, on the recent decision to extend targeted sanctions in Zimbabwe, as saying;
“If sanctions were to harm the people of Zimbabwe, that would of course be a step too far.”
Would that he would apply that principle to Burma!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
To be more precies, Shaun Ley in Radio 4 this morning quotes David Miliband, (not Braoness Kinnock, sorry):
” David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary in Britain, told the House of Commons last month that in his view it wasn’t a question of choosing between all sanctions or lifting no sanctions it was a question of calibrating our response to the situation on the ground. And he went on to say, and this is a direct quote, “I believe that European Union sanctions have helped to send a strong message and that they have had a practical effect without hurting the Zimbabwean people which would have been a sanction too far.”
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
As Ileana knows, I was one of the team arguing for the lifting of sanctions. But I realised straight away that supporting such a motion would be problematic. I am in favour of the Western arms embargo. I have no problem with the asset freeze and the visa ban, though they achieve very little.
The problem is to define what we are talking about. To take just the EU, there are five categories of sanctions:
(a) Statutory sanctions approved by the European Council and set out in the Official Journal.
(b) Policy decisions taken by the Council but not requiring statutory implementation, such as the decision in the autumn of 2004 “against extending loans to Burma from international financial institutions” .
(c) Bilateral and multilateral measures not formally agreed as part of the Common Position, such as the suspension of bilateral and multilateral aid 1988-2004. These sanctions are already fraying at the edges because they have no public support.
(d) Measures taken by hard-line EU members held to be consistent with Common Policy such as the discouragement of trade, investment and tourism and the denial of export credits.
(e) Miscellaneous boycotts and political pressures applied such as the summoning of company directors to Whitehall to induce companies to withdraw from Myanmar (Premier Oil, British-American Tobacco).
The sanctions listed at (a) include asset freezes and visa bans, but also numerous measures which have an impact on the population such as targeted, but non-crony SMEs in furniture manufacture and jewellery. (b) and (c) are major sanctions, accounting for some US$ 2 billion in lost ODA and wholly targeted at the population. Excuses given are that Burma is “in arrears” or that the funds “would be misused to support the regime”. (d) are said not to be sanctions at all, but only “recommendations”. (e) likewise.
In the 10 minutes allotted to me, I felt I only scratched the surface of the sanctions debate which raises very complex issues, as this New Mandala discussion shows. In the end, outrage at the regime dominated the debate. Emotion triumphed over reason. I hardly helped by saying I supported some sanctions. Motion lost, and in terms of sheer logic rightly so.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
@Derek Tonkin
“I am in favour of the Western arms embargo”
The arms embargo don’t mean that much for Burmese junta too as China and other rogue countries such as Israel and Ukraine are willing to provide arms legally or illegally to the Burmese army.
Burmese army standard infantry rifle used to be the locally-produced German Heckler and Koch G3 till the day UN and EU imposed the arms embargo. Within a year the Burma’s Defense Industries is producing new MA rifles whch is the exact replica of Israeli Galil assault rifle.
Israel claimed it is an illegal copy. But it really is a better and updated version of the Israeli IMI GALIL assault rifle, manufactured under supervision of Israeli consultants and with the use of Israeli machinery shipped to Burma in violation of the arms embargo.
A payment of 100 million US dollars simply lifted the arms embargo!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Hla Oo.
I wouldn’t brag on the Burmese MA rifles. Having handled them I can tell you that they’re unreliable junk.
The SPDC would have served themselves better had they stuck with the G3, or even Singaporean copies of the M-16.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Charles F.
How did you manage to get hold of one?
I do not know 5.56 MA at all. But I know 7.62 G3 well. I used to sleep with one beside my bed. Powerful and reliable but to long, too big, and too cumbersome for jungle warfare. The magazine is only 20 rounds too.
Smaller MA with 30 round magazine is more suitable for the Burmese jungle.
Unreliable junk?
Maybe the production facilities are not up to the Israel standard yet. Or the original Galil itself has reliability problems?
Maybe that is the reason even the Israel infantry use M16 instead of their own Galil.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Hla Oo,
One was kept in my hut, hanging from a nail on the wall. I had many opportunities to examine it, but sadly, none to use it. The Karenni Army get them from the SPDC.
The workmanship was very poor, with poorly fitting parts and tool marks.
They also had G3′s that had been taken off of dead SPDC soldiers, or from ones who deserted and traded them for safe passage to Thailand.
They were much better made.
The problems that the SPDC had with the G3 stemmed from the fact that the weapon was designed for a larger person (longer arm reach).
I’m not going to get into the argument of which round was better – 7.62 vs 5.56. Each has its fans and detractors. Same for 9mm vs 45 caliber. Both are arguments that never end.
Insofar as magazine capacity, a person who knows what he’s doing will get along just fine with a twenty round capacity magazine. Those of the “spray and pray” persuasion should probably consider going back to the rifle range for more instruction. Holding the rifle over your head and emptying the magazine in the general direction of the enemy only works if the enemy is employing the same tactic.
Well aimed fire, whether with a MA-1 or a G3, is the ticket to success.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0