Tony Blair Says Boycott Burma !

[pautai]

Blair tells tourists to stay away from Burma

(Filed: 01/02/2005)

Tony Blair has joined political leaders and celebrities in backing a campaign urging tourists not to holiday in Burma because of country's human rights abuses.

Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's opposition leader, is under house arrest

The Prime Minister's support for Burma Campaign UK's call to stay away from the country was matched by Michael Howard, the Tory leader, and Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader.

They have urged holidaymakers to avoid going to the country after Burma Campaign UK revealed that the military junta is using child and slave labour to build hotels and other tourist developments.

The regime has also detained 1,300 political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition National League for Democracy, who has been under house arrest for more than a year.

Mr Blair voiced his support for the campaign in a letter to Burma Campaign UK.

He said: "Human rights violations in Burma have been highlighted in successive UN resolutions which have drawn attention to torture, extra-judicial killings and rape by members of the armed forces, forced labour including the use of child soldiers and forced relocation of villagers.

"For as long as they continue, I would urge anyone who may be thinking of visiting Burma on holiday to consider carefully whether by their actions they are helping to support the regime and prolong such dreadful abuses."

Other high-profile figures to join the campaign include the actors Sir Ian McKellen, Joanna Lumley, Susan Sarandon and Anna Friel.

The fashion designer Vivienne Westwood and television presenter Tony Robinson have also lent their support.

Yvette Mahon, director of Burma Campaign UK, said: "In Burma tourism doesn't help most ordinary people, instead it finances the regime that keeps them poor and oppressed.

"Every tourist that visits Burma puts money into the hands of the regime. That is why Burma's democracy movement has asked tourists to stay away. Please respect their wishes, don't go."

[cdnvic]

Making a country poorer never does anything to free people, it only makes them more dependant on their government. The people in power will always be taken care of. As the money dries up, it will stop flowing to the poor first. One look at the palaces saddam built during the sanctions on Iraq testifies to that.

By all means go to Burma. Avoid the big hotels, stay with independants, buy what you can from locals. Make the individuals more self supporting and they will find the incompetent generals in charge more and more irrelevant.

cv

[sabaijai]

Making a country poorer never does anything to free people, it only makes them more dependant on their government. The people in power will always be taken care of. As the money dries up, it will stop flowing to the poor first. One look at the palaces saddam built during the sanctions on Iraq testifies to that.

By all means go to Burma. Avoid the big hotels, stay with independants, buy what you can from locals. Make the individuals more self supporting and they will find the incompetent generals in charge more and more irrelevant.

cv

NOPE! Send in the Americans and Birts... and take Iraq as a good example.

I was thinking the same thing. Tony B says it's a sin to travel in Burma, but A-OK to invade Iraq ...

[bkk2004]

I was at a FCCT function on Burma a couple of years ago. An American tourist asked a Burmese in exile whether he should visit Burma or not. The exiled Burmese man's response (and remember he can't go back to his country while the regime is in power) was to visit not as a tourist but as an informed traveller.

Personally, I got a much better sense of why the country needs to change by going and visiting it. But it's up to each individual to decide - not for Mr Blair to state something depending on who's pressuring him or whose votes he's courting for the next UK election.

[Rinrada]

errr...Could be something to do with...

Personally I am looking forward to the day (one day...for sure) when I can jump into my wee jeep,drive down the mountain hopefully from our But and Ben o/s Chiangers and pop over for a quiet weekend,spot of tiffin and a couple of beers in a free and democratic Burma.

Apart from the potential tourist boom in Lanna...........etc... su

anyway...Can you remember what you were doing err 9 odd years ago..

As of today.............

Aung San Suu Kyi has been detained for a total of:

9 years,3 months and 10 days

and as she comments...

Tourism is an important source of income for the dictatorship in Burma, providing it with millions of pounds every year.

Forced labour has been used to develop many tourist facilities.

“Burma will be here for many years, so tell your friends to visit us later. Visiting now is tantamount to condoning the regime.” A.S.S.K.

Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi has asked tourists not to visit Burma.

latest news.............FYI.

http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/imnotgoingpledges.htm

[sabaijai]

I've travelled in Burma/Myanmar both before and after the '88-90 democracy movement, and as bad as the current junta is, at least now (as opposed to pre-1990) tourism is privatised and anyone may run a business catering to travellers. The same generation of generals has been in power since 1962, and will foreseeably remain in power until such time as an effective internal opposition rises up (which under ASSK has yet to arise).

On the several trips I've made inside the country, including one trip that lasted four months, thanks to back-to-back one-month tourist visa renewals (now limited to two months total), I've never met a single Burmese -- including several I know who are ex-political prisoners of the regime -- who are supportive of any kind of tourism boycott, whether called for by Aung San Suu Kyi or anyone else. Par Par Lay, who was arrested and imprisoned for five years after satirizing the military during a rally at ASSK's house (and who had previously spent 6 months in jail for airing public dissent) has publicly maintained his 100% support of tourism in Myanmar.

And as an aside, I voted for Bill Clinton, and felt ably served during his two terms. Yet despite my strong support for Clinton, I would never endorse wholesale his (or any other president's) every policy statement. And there's no reason Aung San Suu Kyi's purported policies (she never once announced her boybott to the Burmese people, even when she was giving weekly speeches at her house -- she only offered them to Western reporters, in private, apparently under pressure from Burma Action Group - now Burma Campaign - and other groups in the UK) ought not to be subject to the same scrutiny.

Of course many foreigners are unaware of the fact that Suu Kyi was never an elected leader. In fact she never ran for election as she was ineligible (being married to a foreigner) to run under the Burmese constitution in effect at the time

the NLD were campaigning. She was secretary general and international spokesperson for the NLD but was never a candidate for any office. Even had she been eligible, the most likely candidates for any PM position that might have become available would have been NLD leaders Tin Oo and Kyi Maung, both ex-military. Even then the NLD knew that only someone with a military background had a ghost of a chance taking power (of course as it turned out, even that was insufficient).

Even disregarding my personal impressions of popular opinion in Burma, I'll always oppose boycotts, embargoes and other economic sanctions that target innocent civilians as well as bad governments. It's particularly ineffective with 3rd-world dictatorships - didn't work with Iraq, hasn't worked with Cuba, and I don't think it will t work with Burma.

[Bizz]

This is all a bit confusing.

A quick check with google produces many

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=hotels...le+Search&meta=

Groups promoting democracy in Burma urge tourists to stay away from the country and boycott the junta's tourist drives. Many travel agents and tour operators have publicly declared that they will not book or operate tours to Burma. These efforts have apparently been effective; the occupancy rate at Burma's top hotels is under forty percent. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize winner and leader of Burma's democracy movement, agrees that tourists should not visit Burma until there is a restoration of democratic rule. "We think it is too early for either tourists or investment or aid to come pouring into Burma," she told visitors to her Rangoon residence in November 1995. "We would like to see that these things are conditional on genuine progress towards democratization." In 2002 Aung San Suu Kyi reiterated her call for a tourism boycott. In an interview with the BBC, she said: ""Our policy with regard to tourism has not changed, which is say that we have not yet come to the point where we encourage people to come to Burma as tourists."

errr...Could be something to do with...

Personally I am looking forward to the day (one day...for sure) when I can jump into my wee jeep,drive down the mountain hopefully from our  But and Ben o/s Chiangers and pop over for a quiet weekend,spot of tiffin and a couple of beers in a free and democratic Burma.

Apart from the potential tourist boom in Lanna...........etc... su

anyway...Can you remember what you were doing err 9 odd years ago..

As of today.............

Aung San Suu Kyi has been detained for a total of:

9 years,3 months and 10 days 

and as she comments...

Tourism is an important source of income for the dictatorship in Burma, providing it with millions of pounds every year.

Forced labour has been used to develop many tourist facilities.

“Burma will be here for many years, so tell your friends to visit us later. Visiting now is tantamount to condoning the regime.” A.S.S.K.

Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi has asked tourists not to visit Burma.

latest news.............FYI.

http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/imnotgoingpledges.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[sabaijai]

In 2002 Aung San Suu Kyi reiterated her call for a tourism boycott. In an interview with the BBC, she said: "Our policy with regard to tourism has not changed, which is say that we have not yet come to the point where we encourage people to come to Burma as tourists."

Burma Campaign UK claims ASSK said this in an interview with the BBC but there is no trace whatsoever of this supposed 2002 interview statement. Google the quote and you get only two hits, both from anti-tourism activists.

In fact there is a lot of phoney information about Burma floating around. Here's a recent expose from a former British ambassador to Thailand, Laos and Vietnam, and former UK desk officer in Burma.

Burmese Perspectives

Guildford, UK - 1 February 2005

"In ten days travelling across Burma, people bent my ears in bars and cars, on riverbanks and in villages. They talked so much I feared for their safety. They were funny, bitter, rueful, and touchingly friendly. Totalitarian countries are lonely places. 'Thank you for coming' they said, 'talking to oneself sends a person mad'."

"Daily Telegraph" 7 April 2001, article by Christopher Hope

Burma Boycott: A Dubious Cause

The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has lent his support to action by the Burma Campaign UK to boycott tourism to Burma. He has said:

"The UK has been at the forefront of efforts over many years to draw attention to the extent of abuse in Burma, and to bring pressure to bear on the military regime to reform......... Together with our partners in Europe, the British government imposes a series of measures against those responsible for these crimes. For as long as they continue, I would urge anyone who may be thinking of visiting Burma on holiday to consider carefully whether by their actions they are helping to support the regime and prolong such dreadful abuses."

The British public might be led to believe, from the Prime Minister's personal involvement, that the number of UK tourists to Burma was somehow significant. In fact, it is virtually a non-issue. Last year, a mere 7,720 UK passport holders went to Burma through the "international gateways" of Rangoon, Mandalay and Bagan. They included NGO staff, UN officials on British passports, businessmen and technicians, diplomats, family visitors and repeat visits by couriers and Burma-based staff, quite apart from tourists and travellers of all shapes and sizes. Roughly 2 out 5 visitors could be classified as "holiday-makers" or, let us say, 3,000 or so individuals, with another 1,500 pursuing serious scientific, cultural, linguistic and similar interests during holiday breaks.

So why has the Prime Minister, Michael Howard, Charles Kennedy and a host of personalities got quite so excited about a mere 4,500 British tourists and travellers, most of whom know exactly why they want to go to Burma and what sort of a country it is? In any case, it would make little difference to the Burmese economy if not a single British holiday-maker went to Burma this year.

Let me give you an example of how this kind of campaign can go over the top. In support of the campaign, Vera Baird MP has said: "It would be wrong to go to Burma and rest in hotels built by forced labour in spaces cleared by forcing locals out of their homes. No-one should do it." I fully agree with her. However, in over 1,000 pages of investigative documentation by the International Labour Organisation on forced labour in Burma, you will find only one reference to alleged forced labour on hotel construction, and that in an unconfirmed report from the Karen Human Rights Organisation reporting forced labour on a hotel of unknown category in Sittwe in Arakan, on the West coast, hundreds of miles from Karen territory. I would have thought that the Karens had enough to report about in their own region without wandering over to Arakan. Nothing else in the ILO report, absolutely nothing. So where did Vera Baird get her information from?

I have no difficulty with Tony Blair's exhortation that anyone who may be thinking of visiting Burma should ponder seriously on whether they might be helping to support the regime and prolonging such dreadful abuses. Indeed, I would go further and say that if this were the result of visits to Burma, then no one should go.

But I think it important that people should make up their own minds on the basis of factual information and reasoned argument. It is not enough to say that, because Burma stands accused of serious human rights violations, therefore we should not visit. The Dalai Lama has had to contend with very much the same situation in Tibet, and his conclusion is exactly the opposite - it is that, if after careful consideration visitors feel they would like to go to Tibet, then they should go, to witness the oppression and to let their friends know what they have seen.

More generally, there are some 15 million Chinese tourists on the move overseas, and many millions of Asians. Britain has already sold out its commercial and industrial assets in Burma to our Asian-Pacific competitors, and now they seem likely to push us out of Burma as tourists. Our policies will also have a knock-on effect in the rest of South East Asia where Britain is increasingly seen as a front for the United States, whose record for imposing sanctions on practically every country in the region is a matter of historical fact and whose human rights record in Iraq is now seriously tainted. We are in danger of losing our influence in the region. British politicians and personalities have been unwise to be hijacked by this campaign. They do not seem to have thought through the implications of their actions. I suspect that Ministers have not been well briefed by their political advisers, despite the valiant efforts of permanent officials.

To the personalities who have signed up to the campaign, I would put the following points to you all:

Ostracism and isolation are not a sensible or effective policy to bring about change. In totalitarian countries, just being seen by the local population brings them hope. Reporting on the bloody riots in Rangoon on 8 August 1988, the Burma specialist Bertil Linter noted in his "Outrage : Burma's Struggle for Democracy" : "Placards in English were turned in their direction while the demonstrators called out, also in English: 'Let the world know that Burma has risen against the tyranny! We want democracy! Welcome foreign journalists.' "

I feel it important to let oppressed peoples know that they are not forgotten by the outside world, and that we care about them. "The Dalai Lama has announced publicly that it is beneficial for foreigners to witness the oppression in Tibet and to inform others of their experiences on coming home. Tourism is also thought to be a source of encouragement to Tibetans to have any form of contact with the West.........Tourism in some respects at least provides a window to the outside world and a first step towards a more open policy" [Free Tibet Organisation]

Almost without exception, visitors to Burma/Myanmar have reported that their visit was very much worthwhile, that they felt they had learnt a lot, and that they had something to talk about when then they returned home. "Those who would learn more, those who are sensitive to the suffering, they should definitely come......If they spend their money wisely, the junta need not see any of it; it can go directly to the people." [James Mawdsley, human rights activist]

Many in Burma, probably the vast majority of Burmese, do not support Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's general discouragement of tourism. "We want the truth to come out. We want people to know the reality about Burma and the suffering of the people." [Par Par Lay, imprisoned satirist, one of the Moustache Troupe Brothers] "We want tourists to come and spread the word. Take our photograph and put it on the Internet. Foreigners are our protection."

The Burmese are by nature hospitable, but their welcome to foreign visitors is genuine and rewarding. They are surprised, and often saddened to learn that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has reservations about travel to their country at the present time.

The more cameras can click, the more camcorders can turn, the happier the Burmese people will be, for their own security and protection from the excesses of the junta. "I understand that Aung San Suu Kyi may not like it, but tourism may be a profound factor in laying the ground for democracy." [Francesco Frangialli, Secretary-General of the World Tourism Organisation]

There is strong evidence that the National League for Democracy rank and file do not support a tourist boycott. "Many Members of the NLD consider a travel boycott ridiculous......Many long concerned with Burma - including NLD Members and currently imprisoned political dissidents - are of the view that tourism not only promotes the economy, but through bilateral information exchange so facilitated also brings benefit to the democracy movement." Stefan Loose, travel writer - Newssheet 1/2001

No other country in the EU or elsewhere, not even the United States which has imposed tough financial and commercial sanctions, sees merit in seeking to boycott tourism to Burma. The EU has paid lip-service to discouraging tourism, but I would be very surprised indeed if Tony Blair's support were matched by similar initiatives in the EU.

Tourists are increasingly under terrorist threat of kidnapping and assassination in many countries, not least in countries of the region like India, Indonesia, Nepal, Southern Thailand and the Philippines. Burma has been mercifully free from terrorist attack. The British policy of discouraging tourism to Burma is most unwelcome in South East Asia generally because loose talk about boycotts, especially in the wake of recent tsunami, affects tourism in the region and adds to the uncertainties created by terrorism, SARS, bird flu and the war in Iraq.

An objective of terrorists is to discourage Western visitors from visiting Asian countries because of the ideas and information they might bring with them and of the values which they represent. We need to be especially careful that we do not, however unwittingly, take action which gives terrorists comfort or supports their aims and objectives.

Thailand especially, currently facing a renewed terrorist threat in the South of the country, has been critical of the British attitude. Xinhua News Agency on 1 August 2003 quoted Thai Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai as criticising the West for (allegedly) banning their citizens from travelling to Myanmar, but he said the 'Economic Cooperation Strategy' would promote package tours instead to the four signatory countries of Thailand, Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia.

A modest 241,938 foreign visitors of all categories (tourists, officials, businessmen, NGO staff, family visitors etc.) visited Burma during 2004 through the international gateways of Rangoon, Mandalay and Bagan, providing gross revenue of some US$ 110 million. Travel to Burma would need to increase by a factor of 5 to generate US$ 550 million for the industry to begin to make a significant contribution to the economy, and even then there are several years of unpaid debt and losses which need to be made good. At current levels, the financial benefits to the junta are a small price to pay for opening up the country to democracy.

I attach details of visitor arrivals by country and by category in 2004. Tourist arrivals (FIT which means Foreign Independent Traveller and Package Tour) through Rangoon were 151,301 in 2004 compared with 116,440 in 2003, an increase of 30%. Add another 5% for arrivals via Mandalay and Bagan. EVB, EV and "Others" represent business, official and family visits. These are very modest figures indeed compared with the rest of South East Asia, lower even than Laos. Altogether 656,910 visitors came to Burma last year, but 400,000 of these were short-time visits by mainly Thais and Chinese to cross-border casinos and entertainment centres in the Shan State.

A comment finally from Steven Dave, UK travel photographer and writer, who in February 2001 told the Australian travel company Intrepid Travel: "I travelled to Romania before and after the revolution and was struck by the number of the Romanians who said that even though they were prevented from speaking to tourists before the revolution, they got hope from seeing them there. That seeing the freedoms foreigners enjoyed made them see that such freedoms were possible and weren't in the natural way of things like their government claimed.......All of the revolutions in Eastern Europe and the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square carried signs in English. To them it was important that they weren't cut off and that the world was there, watching".

Might I also draw attention to certain statements by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in which, with all respect, she is less than persuasive:

"It's better to stay at home and read many of the human rights reports there are" - I doubt this is the more effective way to witness what is happening in Burma.

"The bulk of the money goes straight into the pockets of the generals" - This is clearly impossible. All the main international class hotels in Burma are either wholly or majority owned by foreign interests. Revenue has to be set against expenditure, and few tourist investments in Burma are currently making even an operating profit, let alone a net profit sufficiently large to enable the payment of dividends to shareholders. Only some US$ 12.5 - 15.0 million of gross annual revenue of US$ 110 million goes to the junta, mostly through taxes and land rentals.

"Burma will be here for many years, so visit us later" - But not for octogenarian veterans from the Burma Campaign, while for many scholars, linguists, ethnologists and other scientists, Burma has been a hermit kingdom since the military took over in 1962.

"Visiting now is tantamount to condoning the regime" - But the same could be true of almost any other regime where serious human rights abuses have been noted. If the legitimacy of the junta is to be challenged, then this should be done in the United Nations.

What conclusions may we reasonably draw concerning Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's attitude to tourism? They are that she :

* has reservations generally about tourism to Burma and is concerned to avoid the excesses seen in some neighbouring countries.

* regards it as very important that prospective tourists and travellers should search their consciences most carefully before visiting Burma at the present time and, if they have no good reason for coming, delay their visits.

* has no problem about visits by individuals with serious cultural or scientific interests in Burma.

* is not generally sympathetic to the concept of a service industry, evident in her wish to protect Burmese from subordinate " servant " status.

* is not well advised on tourism issues, but maintains an idealistic stance which is at odds with the realities of the tourist industry internationally.

* most importantly, has not advocated a boycott, except against the " Visit Myanmar Year 1996 " which has now long since passed.

* has few supporters for her policy on tourism among ordinary Burmese, who tend to be embarrassed about this.

* knows that no-one in the NLD leadership would wish to gainsay her, whatever their personal views, since this could weaken her position vis-เ-vis the junta.

* has taken a critical stance on tourism out of intense frustration that the junta has hitherto declined to open a meaningful political dialogue with her and the NLD.

The purpose of this paper is to try to redress the balance of argument over whether visitors should go to Burma or not. I think most people who are fair-minded would agree that the pros and cons are in fact fairly evenly balanced, and that people should be allowed to make up their own minds.

It would be very helpful if some independent body could assemble the arguments for and against travel to Burma so that people could decide on the basis of reasoned argument and reliable fact. The Austrians have done so, through their Institute for Integrative Tourism and Development, at the behest of the Austrian Foreign Ministry. The Institute concluded that, taking all the pros and cons into account, tourism to Burma was on balance beneficial. At present, there is no such independent discussion on Burma in Britain. There is only assertion and political statement.

Let me quote in conclusion Daw Aung San Suu Kyi again. At the time of the " Visit Myanmar Year 1996 " promotional campaign, she called for a boycott "as a demonstration of solidarity with the democratic movement in Burma.........The people of Burma have suffered a lot. As you know, they have been forced to take part in the building of roads and bridges. People have been moved away from homes, entire villages have been destroyed in order to clear up the places for tourists. So we would like potential visitors to Burma to show that they are not going to buy their pleasure at the expense of the ordinary people.........But how would I advise tourists who come to Burma? I would say, 'Please ask yourself - why do you want to come to this country. Do you think that by coming you are going to do the country any good? Or is it simply to satisfy some vanity or curiosity in yourself?'" She acknowledged however that "some people come because they are genuinely interested in the culture." Asked by writer Alan Clements at the same time: "Are you advocating would-be travellers and tourists to stay away from your country", her reply was unequivocal:

"No, we are not doing anything like that."

[Pages 167-168 "The Voice of Hope" 1996 ­ Conversations with Alan Clements, writer and former Buddhist monk]

To rephrase Tony Blair's final comment, I would suggest that this should read:

".......I would urge anyone who may be thinking of visiting Burma on holiday to consider very carefully whether their actions might help to retard, or to advance the cause of democracy and human rights in Burma, and while some may well decide that it would be better in present circumstances to stay away, as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has suggested, those who have studied the situation closely should not hesitate to go, if they want to. The Burmese people will be delighted to see them."

Derek Tonkin

[british Diplomatic Service 1953-89]

[Gohonzon]

Making a country poorer never does anything to free people, it only makes them more dependant on their government. The people in power will always be taken care of. As the money dries up, it will stop flowing to the poor first. One look at the palaces saddam built during the sanctions on Iraq testifies to that.

By all means go to Burma. Avoid the big hotels, stay with independants, buy what you can from locals. Make the individuals more self supporting and they will find the incompetent generals in charge more and more irrelevant.

cv

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NOPE! Send in the Americans and Birts... and take Iraq as a good example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was thinking the same thing. Tony B says it's a sin to travel in Burma, but A-OK to invade Iraq

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I was thinking that boycotting B.liar would be the best thing to do in all circumstances.

Edited February 7, 2005 by Gohonzon

[SeaVisionBurma]

Nice to see an intelligent level of debate and interest on burma/myanmar - instead of the usual nonsense people post when they have little or no idea about the subject.

Most of you have alluded to the suggestion that the tourist dollar can do a lot to help the ordinary person - this is true.

Burma has changed significantly in the last decade or so - especially in terms of tourism infrastructure and facilities. In the early days, accommodation and the like were very limited, and the tourists would inevitably stay in state-run hotels, taking limited tours.

Nowadays tourism is very open. There are a large number of privately run guest houses and hotels, independent tour guides are in abundance, and the tourist dollar, if spent sensibly - can certainly help the general populace.

Interesting to see the slogan of this latest anti-burma campaign:

"I'm Not Going"

Coming from many of the celebrities - more likely they should have called it:

"I've Never Been - and probably will never go"

Keep tourism and feelgood politics separate, for goodness sake. Boycotting tourism here because it's supposed to stop money heading in to the general's coffers is completely uninformed babble. It would hurt more of the everyday people, I'm sure. If you look at the amount of tourist money spent in the country (very little), say compared to the govt's spending on other things (military etc), and their revenue from countless other sources - there's no economical argument to the boycott.

If you want to come - come. You can have your opinions on the political situation by all means, but dont let that stop you having an enjoyable holiday, and meeting the people at the grassroots level, and learning a bit about the culture and beauty of the country.

[Harmonica]

>>>>>>Blair tells tourists to stay away from Burma

(Filed: 01/02/2005)<<<<<<<<

Not to worry because Tony doesn't do or mean squat unless Uncle George did or said it first!

[madmadang]

Before making such comments,Tony Blair should get off his butt and see the suffering of the Burmese.

[aletta]

Got to feel sorry for the Burmese as any sanctions are going to affect the little people rather than the generals in their mansions.

[Rinrada]

Time for a Jolly to Iran or north Korea......heard the action is hot hot hot even better than pattaya used to be.

[aaaaaa]

Making a country poorer never does anything to free people, it only makes them more dependant on their government. The people in power will always be taken care of. As the money dries up, it will stop flowing to the poor first. One look at the palaces saddam built during the sanctions on Iraq testifies to that.

By all means go to Burma. Avoid the big hotels, stay with independants, buy what you can from locals. Make the individuals more self supporting and they will find the incompetent generals in charge more and more irrelevant.

cv

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ha ! nice fella Tony!

I agree with all ppl here who disagree with him though - all the politics, be it latest elections in Thailand or Tsunami-related aid bids or whatever else hardly help simple small people....

but it reminds me of another thread where was mentioned about stereotypes.... fellas like Tony mostly initiate such stereeotypes it seems: sort of give directives to ppl's minds "do have such and such perception and /or opinion".

I wonder - he himself ever bothered to visit Burma and ask opinion of simple people there on this matter? how they think it's gonna affect them ?