ဒီေဆာင္ပါးကုိေရသားသည့္သူကလိမၼာပါးနပ္စြာစစ္အစုိးရအတြက္ေရနက္နက္နဲ. Lobby လုပ္ထားသည္၊ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္၏စကားကုိခုတုံလုပ္ထားသည္၊စီးပြားေရးပိတ္ဆုိ.မွဳေၾကာင့္စစ္အစုိးရအထိနာတာကုိတစ္ပုိဒ္တစ္ပါဒေလာက္
ကဘာမဟုတ္ဘူးပုလင္လဲထားသည့္အရက္ဝုိင္အေဟာင္းဘဲလုိ.လူအမ်ားထင္ျမင္ေနေပမဲ့လႊတ္ေတာ္ႏွစ္ရပ္ႏွင့္တုိင္းလႊတ္ေတာ္ ၁၄ ခုေပါင္းထားသည့္အတြက္ေၾကာင့္သူဒုိင္နမုိက္နဲ.သူေမွ်ာ္လင့္ခ်က္ထားလုိ.ရတယ္လုိ.လည္းေရးသားထားပါသည္၊ ဖီး..ဖီး..
Who Is Thaung Tun? Is it Noble Speaks from Dog’s Mouth?
The person who wrote this article is cleverly lobbying (the West) for the Burmese regime in deep water. He referred and misinterpreted Suu Kyi’s words. He did not state the impact of sanction hurting the Burmese regime even one word, instead he surprisingly stated the failure of sanction. He also wrote in the way to make Western countries greedy by stating that if there is no economic sanction, how the western can benefit from Burma. He ignored how bad consequences will be dirty if western holds the bloody and bad smell hands of the Burmese regime. Moreover, he also wrote that “Even though many observers believe that the elections in Myanmar are a sham and are convinced that the new government will be nothing but old wine in new bottles, there is reason to hope that the new institutions – two Houses of Parliament and the 14 regional assemblies – will have dynamics of their own.” Damn!!
Therefore, the person who wrote this article is clear that he is working for the Burmese regime with powerful intelligence.
(Note: Dog is considered the lowest animal in Burma culture)
Time to review sanctions imposed on Myanmar
by Thaung Tun
05:54 AM Dec 02, 2010
The recent elections in Myanmar and Ms Aung San Suu Kyi’s re-emergence from seven years of detention once again thrusts the issue of Western sanctions to the fore, adding another dimension to the evolving political landscape in Myanmar.
The debate on the West’s sanction policy was revived last week when Ms Suu Kyi herself went on record to say she wants to review the consequences of sanctions on the country.
She is reported to have told the Washington Times in a tele-phone interview on Nov 26: “If we find that the sanctions are only hurting the people and that there is no positive outcome as a result of the sanctions, then certainly we would consider calling on those who have imposed sanctions to think whether it is not time to stop them.”
Western countries have sought to censure Myanmar since the military took over power in 1988 and especially since it failed to honour the results of the 1990 elections.
The United States, among other things, has refused to recognise the government’s change of name to Myanmar and has withdrawn its ambassador from Yangon.
In 1990, the US Congress passed the Customs and Trade Act, enabling the President to impose sanctions against Myanmar.
This was followed by the 1995 Free Burma Act, which called for stiff economic and trade sanctions.
In 1997, the US took a decisive step when President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13047 banning new investments in “economic development of resources in Burma” in response to reports of egregious human rights violations by the military.
The European Union followed the US lead. It imposed an arms embargo in 1990 and adopted a common position on sanctions against Myanmar in 1996.
Since then, it has progressively strengthened the sanctions regime to include visa bans and asset freezes for members of the military regime and their families and the prohibition of loans to Myanmar state-owned enterprises.
In 2007, the EU further extended the ban to include investments in or exports of equipment for the timber, mining and gem industries.
The effectiveness of sanctions can be gauged by studying to what extent they have been successful in changing the behaviour of the military regime.
It is evident that the West’s sanctions have not only failed to nudge the military government towards democratic reforms but have also had a negative impact on small and medium businesses, resulting in untold hardships for ordinary citizens.
Two decades of sanctions have left Myanmar with hardly an entrepreneurial class but burdened it with an outmoded economic system. The military itself remains largely impervious to the sanctions.
Despite sanctions and embargoes, it has further consolidated its position in the last two decades, particularly as it can count on substantial revenues from the export of gas. More importantly, Myanmar enjoys excellent relations with its neighbours, which include China and India, two of the world’s fastest growing economies.
In practical terms as well, the West’s policy of further isolating one of the most isolated countries is counter-productive. The move to discourage tourists from visiting Myanmar and the measures barring investments in labour-intensive industries like garment and textiles have resulted in the loss of livelihood for tens of thousands of workers.
By cutting off investments, the sanctions have not only lowered the living standards of the people but have shut out liberalising influences that foreign contacts bring.
Western countries have gone so far as to block funding from international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank to Myanmar. This uncompromising stand deprives Myanmar of possible funding for infrastructure and other development projects to the tune of US$1.5 billion ($1.98 billion) a year.
It is in the interest of the West to “reset” relations with Myanmar, as it is increasingly evident that the vacuum created by the withdrawal of Western investment is being filled by China, India and Thailand. If the US and the EU do not change course, they will not only miss the opportunity to pursue commercial interests but have no leverage to affect positive change in Myanmar.
On its part, the new Myanmar administration should seek to allay the concerns of the West on such issues as human rights and forced labour. It should learn from the experience of countries like China, Vietnam and Indonesia which have been adroit in engaging the West.
The success of these countries speaks volumes for a policy of engagement. Trade with one or two neighbours, however promising it may be, is no substitute for contacts with countries and peoples around the globe.
It would be more productive for both the West and Myanmar to turn a new page. The elections in Myanmar and the policy reviews in the US and Europe offer a golden opportunity to move ahead.
Even though many observers believe that the elections in Myanmar are a sham and are convinced that the new government will be nothing but old wine in new bottles, there is reason to hope that the new institutions – two Houses of Parliament and the 14 regional assemblies – will have dynamics of their own.
It is incumbent on the older democracies to help create an environment in Myanmar in which the seeds of democracy will take firm roots. They should start by removing the yoke of sanctions.
Thaung Tun is the former Myanmar Ambassador to the European Union and a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies.