There is an interesting point in SJ's post.

For all the America bashing that goes on it is relevant to highlight that their stance

on the Burma issue has been admirable.

for the US in this regard

France ? No comment !

As international campaign secretary for the exiled Federation of Trade Unions of Burma, Mr Naing said all multinationals operating in the country, and tourists visiting there, effectively funded guns for the military Government.

Even a New Zealand Aid project spending $500,000 over three years to provide small-scale irrigation was helping the regime.

So this is saying that the best thing to do for Myammar is to ignore it and hope that it improves? That makes no sense at all.

CB

As international campaign secretary for the exiled Federation of Trade Unions of Burma, Mr Naing said all multinationals operating in the country, and tourists visiting there, effectively funded guns for the military Government.

Even a New Zealand Aid project spending $500,000 over three years to provide small-scale irrigation was helping the regime.

So this is saying that the best thing to do for Myammar is to ignore it and hope that it improves? That makes no sense at all.

CB

Agreed. Although, I do see how tourism helps fund the regime (& even my visa runs over to Kaw Theung ), when direct aid is said to benefit the regime rather than the populace - what is the answer? Leaving them to it is not a viable alternative for any caring person, but it seems aiding is not a good alternative either. So, what is?

As international campaign secretary for the exiled Federation of Trade Unions of Burma, Mr Naing said all multinationals operating in the country, and tourists visiting there, effectively funded guns for the military Government.

Even a New Zealand Aid project spending $500,000 over three years to provide small-scale irrigation was helping the regime.

So this is saying that the best thing to do for Myammar is to ignore it and hope that it improves? That makes no sense at all.

CB

I think what it says is far from ignoring it, it is to continue to highlight the plight of its people. I think it is simply saying not to provide the establishment with funds, be they funds from tourists, businesses, or governments, that it can then use to continue its oppressive regime, .

I think what it says is far from ignoring it, it is to continue to highlight the plight of its people. I think it is simply saying not to provide the establishment with funds, be they funds from tourists, businesses, or governments, that it can then use to continue its oppressive regime, .

Completely unrealistic.

If one could persuade the multinationals not to invest in Burma anymore, you would still have to boycott China to convince them not to invest into Burma. Good luck with that.

Reality is that the generals do of course benefit from investments and tourism, but also the normal population does. A boycott of tourism is hurting the normal everyday population more than it does the Generals. The most radical factions in Burma's army would even welcome isolation as they do not exactly favor the opening of Burma at all.

There are no easy and quick solutions for Burma. Highlight the plight of the people, the crimes of the regime, yes, but don't make them even poorer than they already are. Hope that tourism and investment might not just enrich the generals, but also that it might lead one day to slow improvements.

I think what it says is far from ignoring it, it is to continue to highlight the plight of its people. I think it is simply saying not to provide the establishment with funds, be they funds from tourists, businesses, or governments, that it can then use to continue its oppressive regime, .

Completely unrealistic.

If one could persuade the multinationals not to invest in Burma anymore, you would still have to boycott China to convince them not to invest into Burma. Good luck with that.

Reality is that the generals do of course benefit from investments and tourism, but also the normal population does. A boycott of tourism is hurting the normal everyday population more than it does the Generals. The most radical factions in Burma's army would even welcome isolation as they do not exactly favor the opening of Burma at all.

There are no easy and quick solutions for Burma. Highlight the plight of the people, the crimes of the regime, yes, but don't make them even poorer than they already are. Hope that tourism and investment might not just enrich the generals, but also that it might lead one day to slow improvements.

The voice of reason!

All the same, I think I'll put more weight in the Nobel Prize awardee's views as she seems to have the voice of reason IMO:

Aung San Suu Kyi urged foreign travellers keen to visit Burma to be patient. "We have not yet come to the point where we encourage people to come to Burma as tourists," she said.

- BBC

All the same, I think I'll put more weight in the Nobel Prize awardee's views as she seems to have the voice of reason IMO:

Aung San Suu Kyi urged foreign travellers keen to visit Burma to be patient. "We have not yet come to the point where we encourage people to come to Burma as tourists," she said.

- BBC

I would not put any weight on the Nobel Peace Prize. Some of the awardees are mass murderers such as Kissinger, and Arafat.

And Aung San Suu Kyi may bewitch the romantically inclined through her angelic looks, but she is seen by many critics, including her own former advisers and high ranking members of the NLD, as having made huge mistakes after her first release from house arrest by being too uncompromising in the negotiations, making unrealistic demands and having that way done huge damage to the Burmese democracy movement. She has no practical policies, especially not on the situation of the minorities.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/pdfarticle.php?id=3525

Burma does not need a fabricated saint that responds to the need of the romantics for white knights, but it needs realistic steps towards a democratization. That will necessarily include compromises with the generals.

Burma's democracy movement is not just the Lady, but many other people who are far more realistic, have suffered far more, and whose more realistic ideas and efforts are silenced by the PR machine for the Lady.

All the same, I think I'll put more weight in the Nobel Prize awardee's views as she seems to have the voice of reason IMO:

Aung San Suu Kyi urged foreign travellers keen to visit Burma to be patient. "We have not yet come to the point where we encourage people to come to Burma as tourists," she said.

- BBC

I would not put any weight on the Nobel Peace Prize. Some of the awardees are mass murderers such as Kissinger, and Arafat.

And Aung San Suu Kyi may bewitch the romantically inclined through her angelic looks, but she is seen by many critics, including her own former advisers and high ranking members of the NLD, as having made huge mistakes after her first release from house arrest by being too uncompromising in the negotiations, making unrealistic demands and having that way done huge damage to the Burmese democracy movement. She has no practical policies, especially not on the situation of the minorities.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/pdfarticle.php?id=3525

Burma does not need a fabricated saint that responds to the need of the romantics for white knights, but it needs realistic steps towards a democratization. That will necessarily include compromises with the generals.

Burma's democracy movement is not just the Lady, but many other people who are far more realistic, have suffered far more, and whose more realistic ideas and efforts are silenced by the PR machine for the Lady.

Like Naing Ko Ko from the earlier post and who also advises against tourists from visiting Burma.

Nice analogy with the Nobel Prize given Aung San Suu Kyi and associating her with mass murderers...

More pressure on the Burmese leaders needs to be brought about.... not less. Waiting since 1962 hasn't done a whole heck of a lot.

Like Naing Ko Ko from the earlier post and who also advises against tourists from visiting Burma.

Nice analogy with the Nobel Prize given Aung San Suu Kyi and associating her with mass murderers...

More pressure on the Burmese leaders needs to be brought about.... not less. Waiting since 1962 hasn't done a whole heck of a lot.

I think that tourists who stay out of the government run hotels and using the government run infrastructure and trying as much as possible to use the local population do much more good than harm. Any money given directly to the people and keeping it out of the hands of the military junta has to be a good thing. Exposing the truth on Myammar and letting the world know has to be a good thing. People who have been there, see what it is like, and reporting back to put pressure on their representative governments has to be a good thing. Governments alone will not do anything unless there is a political ie vote benefit for them to do so.

The fact that nothing much has changed since 1962 and that the country has only really started to open in the last (relatively) few years except in severely restricted areas - still lots of places you cannot go to obviously.

To go back a bit Aung San Suu Kyi is someone easy to associate with. She is like the Panda for WWF - she has the looks, and the political savy to be presentable on the world stage. There are many thousands more harshly treated than her in real jails not house arrest, who have been tortured and abused but are ignored by the greater press because they lack that certain something to make them marketable. If she can make the world take notice and action against the military junta in Myammar then so good be it but I doubt it. She is a figurehead but doesn't achieve much practical benefit for the Burmese.

CB

Like Naing Ko Ko from the earlier post and who also advises against tourists from visiting Burma.

Nice analogy with the Nobel Prize given Aung San Suu Kyi and associating her with mass murderers...

More pressure on the Burmese leaders needs to be brought about.... not less. Waiting since 1962 hasn't done a whole heck of a lot.

There is no analogy between mass murderers and the Lady, i have only shown that your highlighted Nobel Peace Price means not that much at all.

I really don't care who is advocating a tourism boycott or any other boycott on Burma, thank you, but i can think for myself. I don't need fabricated saints and heroes to do the thinking for me, especially when their thought processes defy any logic.

Pressure on Burmese leaders need to be brought about, but that will hardly be achieved by empty threads of a boycott that even play into the hands of the most radical factions of the Burmese military, which would prefer to have Burma isolated from the world. And as long as China will invest into Burma, any threat of boycott is a laughable empty gesture anyhow. Or do you have any practical idea how to persuade China to stop investing into Burma, persuade ASEAN to kick Burma out, etc?

Simply forget about it. The drive for a boycott has been going on for more or less 20 years, and nil has it achieved.

So, you dreamers, tell us all please what do you think will be achieved by calls for a boycott that simply cannot be enforced anyhow, and where there is simply no way to punish offenders? Or would you advocate another military "solution" such we have in Iraq and Afghanistan now?

It's all nice to be so moralistic about things, but the question regrading Burma is not how to make moral statements about empty gestures, but how to find any solution that might bring some form of improvement to the people. And lacking alternatives, the only solution so far is peace contracts with the minorities, investment, and tourism.

Like Naing Ko Ko from the earlier post and who also advises against tourists from visiting Burma.

Nice analogy with the Nobel Prize given Aung San Suu Kyi and associating her with mass murderers...

More pressure on the Burmese leaders needs to be brought about.... not less. Waiting since 1962 hasn't done a whole heck of a lot.

There is no analogy between mass murderers and the Lady, i have only shown that your highlighted Nobel Peace Price means not that much at all.

I really don't care who is advocating a tourism boycott or any other boycott on Burma, thank you, but i can think for myself. I don't need fabricated saints and heroes to do the thinking for me, especially when their thought processes defy any logic.

Pressure on Burmese leaders need to be brought about, but that will hardly be achieved by empty threads of a boycott that even play into the hands of the most radical factions of the Burmese military, which would prefer to have Burma isolated from the world. And as long as China will invest into Burma, any threat of boycott is a laughable empty gesture anyhow. Or do you have any practical idea how to persuade China to stop investing into Burma, persuade ASEAN to kick Burma out, etc?

Simply forget about it. The drive for a boycott has been going on for more or less 20 years, and nil has it achieved.

So, you dreamers, tell us all please what do you think will be achieved by calls for a boycott that simply cannot be enforced anyhow, and where there is simply no way to punish offenders? Or would you advocate another military "solution" such we have in Iraq and Afghanistan now?

It's all nice to be so moralistic about things, but the question regrading Burma is not how to make moral statements about empty gestures, but how to find any solution that might bring some form of improvement to the people. And lacking alternatives, the only solution so far is peace contracts with the minorities, investment, and tourism.

the "fabricated saint"...

ANALYSIS: Suu Kyi still a Burmese force

By Peter Janssen

Bangkok/Rangoon - With the fourth anniversary of Daw (Mrs) Aung San Suu Kyi's current term of house arrest coming up on May 27, the international community and her supporters in Burma are going out of their way to prove she is not forgotten. Last week, in an unprecedented gesture, 59 former world leaders, including three US past-presidents and 15 Asian ex-presidents and premiers, signed a letter to Burmese junta leader Senior General Than Shwe appealing for Suu Kyi's immediate release. The United Nations has also done its part. On January 8 the UN Secretary-General called for Suu Kyi's release along with all other political prisoners and on May 10, the call was reiterated by 14 UN human rights mandate holders. Protests outside Burma embassies can be expected this week in countries around the world and some non-violent demonstrations such as mass prayers are likely to mark the anniversary inside the country. Anything too demonstrative gets one arrested in Burma. There is something inherently sad about all these expressions of outrage over the ongoing incarceration of a delicate 61-year-old Nobel peace prize laureate, who has spent 12 out of the past 17 years in prison, in that they are unlikely to achieve their aim.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=118885

There is something inherently sad about all these expressions of outrage over the ongoing incarceration of a delicate 61-year-old Nobel peace prize laureate, who has spent 12 out of the past 17 years in prison, in that they are unlikely to achieve their aim.

That statement sums up the situation, the peaceful protests will continue with zero effect. It is governments that will change the situation but it must be done at an international level. These expresidents and key dignitaries etc should have done something when THEY WERE IN POWER not when they are just trying to keep their names in the media eye.

CB

Is Burma really a tourist destination?

unfortunately, yes. I know some folks who love to travel there because it is pristine and are in full support of the political situation.

I always replied to them that there are other nice places in the world where I rather would spend my tourist dollars.

A sizable contingent of Burmese agree with you, raro...

But not a majority of Burmese, or at least none that I've ever met during my travels in Burma, dating from 1986 (and I was in Burma for 8-8-88) to the present. Conversations with Burmese around the country also suggest that ASSK has ceased to be relevant to most Burmese, who are now looking/hoping for a non-ASSK, non-NLD solution. There is a new and much larger underground operating in Burma now that is looking at a completely different set of tactics (such as a general strike, a la Gandhi), since the NLD and ASSK have failed to produce visible results.

There is an interesting point in SJ's post.

For all the America bashing that goes on it is relevant to highlight that their stance

on the Burma issue has been admirable.

for the US in this regard

France ? No comment !

I don't know if I would agree with that. I know America talks a big talk about Burma and has taken some actions, but we still have interests in the area and we done nothing like invade to 'give them freedom' or anything. We have pretty much just wagged our fingers at them and said " That's not nice." Weak I think.

There is an interesting point in SJ's post.

For all the America bashing that goes on it is relevant to highlight that their stance

on the Burma issue has been admirable.

for the US in this regard

France ? No comment !

I don't know if I would agree with that. I know America talks a big talk about Burma and has taken some actions, but we still have interests in the area and we done nothing like invade to 'give them freedom' or anything. We have pretty much just wagged our fingers at them and said " That's not nice." Weak I think.

One of the problems is, Burma is in China's "Sphere of Influence", and the rest of the world's options are limited unless they (China) agree to play ball. The west is playing that game with Russia right now (drawing the former Soviet Republics into the Western SoI), and Russia isn't to happy about that.

I'm betting China would love to have an Indian Ocean base, with direct overland links into southern China. There are a couple of factors that are keeping them from pushing matters any more though (Tibet and Taiwan currently, and to a lesser extent, their internal problems in Western China). As long as the Burmese Junta plays nice with China, they will maintain their support and can basically thumb their nose at the rest of the world. (Remembering that China isn't too concerned about human rights abuses as long as they can do business, as in Sudan.)

(Remembering that China isn't too concerned about human rights abuses as long as they can do business, as in Sudan.)

I don't think any world power is too concerned about their allies human rights abuses as long as it's business as usual.

(Remembering that China isn't too concerned about human rights abuses as long as they can do business, as in Sudan.)

I don't think any world power is too concerned about their allies human rights abuses as long as it's business as usual.

True, not even their own abuses, let alone their "allies". All in the name of business.

There is an interesting point in SJ's post.

For all the America bashing that goes on it is relevant to highlight that their stance

on the Burma issue has been admirable.

for the US in this regard

France ? No comment !

I don't know if I would agree with that. I know America talks a big talk about Burma and has taken some actions, but we still have interests in the area and we done nothing like invade to 'give them freedom' or anything. We have pretty much just wagged our fingers at them and said " That's not nice." Weak I think.

One of the problems is, Burma is in China's "Sphere of Influence", and the rest of the world's options are limited unless they (China) agree to play ball. The west is playing that game with Russia right now (drawing the former Soviet Republics into the Western SoI), and Russia isn't to happy about that.

I'm betting China would love to have an Indian Ocean base, with direct overland links into southern China. There are a couple of factors that are keeping them from pushing matters any more though (Tibet and Taiwan currently, and to a lesser extent, their internal problems in Western China). As long as the Burmese Junta plays nice with China, they will maintain their support and can basically thumb their nose at the rest of the world. (Remembering that China isn't too concerned about human rights abuses as long as they can do business, as in Sudan.)

There are days when I have to say I don't have a problem with that. Does the Junta suck? Yes. However, America gets into enough trouble playing cop and throwing our weight around that I really don't think other large countries should do the same. I like the fact that China will leave who ever is in power alone for business reasons as this means their judgment it's placed on what others are doing and it makes them a little more predictable.

There are days when I have to say I don't have a problem with that. Does the Junta suck? Yes. However, America gets into enough trouble playing cop and throwing our weight around that I really don't think other large countries should do the same. I like the fact that China will leave who ever is in power alone for business reasons as this means their judgment it's placed on what others are doing and it makes them a little more predictable.

China does not just "leave who ever is in power alone for business reasons", they buy them off and help them maintain their power.

There are days when I have to say I don't have a problem with that. Does the Junta suck? Yes. However, America gets into enough trouble playing cop and throwing our weight around that I really don't think other large countries should do the same. I like the fact that China will leave who ever is in power alone for business reasons as this means their judgment it's placed on what others are doing and it makes them a little more predictable.

China does not just "leave who ever is in power alone for business reasons", they buy them off and help them maintain their power.

Might depend on how you look at it maybe. China deals with who is in power and that help keep people in power, but China does not choose who to put in power, like the US has done. If the government they are dealing with changes they just make a new deal. China is still operating by much of the policies formed by Zhou Enlai and are well known. China can not except people to respect their "internal affiars" attitude towards Tibet and Taiwan if they insist on reworking other governments.