Skip to main content

Myanmar: Too much haste by "first responders?"

In the rush to see Burma, or more correctly Myanmar, return to democracy, some governments have been almost falling over themselves to accord the country some concessions now that it conducted an election and San Suu Kyi  secured a seat in the new Parliament.    

The rush to be a "first responder", as a piece in IHT Rendezvous calls those countries which took a shine to Myanmar so quickly, might have been premature.

"The first public confrontation between the democrats led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the Myanmar government began to play out on Monday as newly elected members of Parliament refused to take the official oath of office.

The new lawmakers want to tweak the wording of the oath, but the nominally civilian government has refused to blink, which suggests that more conservative elements in the country could be putting the reformist tendencies of President Thein Sein in jeopardy.

The democrats, after having created the standoff, played down its severity on Monday, saying they expect some sort of resolution soon.

But the issue might well give pause to Britain, the United States and other “first responders” that have already begun relaxing their political and economic sanctions against the former Burma. Japan, for example, agreed last weekend to forgive $3.7 billion in overdue loans while holding out the possibility of new assistance.

The most nagging question now seems to be: Have foreign governments perhaps rushed to judgment on Myanmar, rolling back their sanctions too quickly? And this: Have the former generals and other hard-liners who have burrowed into the government finally had enough of reforms, democracy and the star power of Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi?"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more