What is Burma CalledWhat's Burma?
Was Obama supposed to call it Burma or Myanmar? Practical guide
"In 1989, the army regime renamed the country'Myanmar'. It' s still the US politics to call the state Burma," the State Department website says (note: "When we look at the State Department website, we think of Hillary Clinton's vote that she is speaking, and that makes her even more serious). "Ben Rhodes, Deputy Federal Intelligence Advisor, said that Obama's use of Myanmar was'a kind of" polite diplomacy that does not alter the US view that the US is still Burma," a Fox News derailment reporter states.
as Burma." But, at the end of the afternoon, no matter how you might be feeling about Burma/Myanmar, we can all see eye to eye that Burma/Myanmar is saying to Obama: "The Golden Stupa" is the best there ever was?
China's future role in Burma
The Chinese State Department expresses its strong backing for Burma's renewing ties with the US with the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Naypyidaw. Underneath the ground, however, there is increasing concerns in Beijing about Burma's use in the US. Burma's President Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi, head of the Burma regime, assured the general population that Burma would have good ties with China, but given the wind in the Asia-Pacific area, these promises may not be enough to reassure the huge kite in northern Naypyidaw.
Burma's ties with China have gone through many ups and downs since it gained sovereignty in 1948. At the beginning of the 1950s, the two nations decided to adhere to the five basic tenets of peace in the world: the principle of peace: But in the 1960' China named the Myanmar dictatorship Ne Win a "fascist" and supported the attempts of the rebels to overthrow his regimes, which eventually collapsed, and Burma suffered anti-Chinese unrest in 1967.
Beijing gradually ceased to back the Communist Party and improve its ties with Ne Win's Nazi leadership after Chairman Mao's demise, but it was not until the end of the 1980' that it began to build the political and economic influence it has with Burmese leader. When a new Burmese army took over in 1988 and then took action against pro-democracy protesters, imprisoning Suu Kyi and ignoring the results of the 1990 elections, western government withdrew almost all aid to Burma and imposed penalties against the Burmese junta.
Then China entered and bridged the gap by providing Burma with Burma's equipment, assistance, credit, financial facilities and overseas diplomacy. As a countermove, Burma's general gave China's treasure stores about doing good dealings inside Burma, especially regarding the country's abundant biodiversity. Myanmar also became a key geographical and, above all, dependable Chinese confederate, with Burma's leadership even showing open compassion for Beijing during the suppression of Tiananmen Squareissidents.
In this way of supporting each other, the Myanmar have consolidated what they call a kettle drum phav rapport, which means "brotherhood," with frequent state calls from the state by local political leadership. However, for the simple Myanmar tribe, most of whom had almost no face-to-face contacts with the Chinese, the kettledrum fellowship did not mean anything. Indeed, they were rejected by China's backing for the violent dictatorial rule that governed their land, they saw that China did little to help make life better for Burma's commoners, or to help the pro-democracy opposition's struggle, and they became deeply worried about the fact that their land had become China's cyber customer state.
Consequently, the anti-Chinese mood was growing as most of Burma's citizens thought that China's assistance to Burma was only meant to maintain the violent government so that it could plunder their country's Indian Ocean heritage and strategically get into it. Unlike China, the US and other West African leaders have criticised and insulated the Burmajuta, in political and economic terms, and have been supporting the Burma people's fight for peace and democratisation over the past two decade .
However, while the West's attempts to introduce democratic and fundamental freedoms into Myanmar were greeted and valued by the country's repressed people, the irony of the independence and penalties they applied has been to push the military general of the regime further into the holding arm of Beijing. China, however, has exaggerated its grip by trying to domineer Burma's economic and resource base and overestimating the allegiance of Myanmar general support it has been supporting for over twenty years. Christian Jericho Wrote: talking about Myanmar, full of a wealth of nature. Are you correcting me if I'm mistaken? Where are these mines?
That is why the Burmese majority-dominated regime will not think twice about waging a war to rule these areas? it's not about getting nationally whole or in a spirit of social support or whatever the mess is? it's about stealing resources. Had I been the guide of Cachin, I would formally disband the Association of Rackets (sorry, Burma) and start working on the Myit-Sone Reservoir again and resell the power to either Indian or Chinese, whoever is the highest bidder-even the Burmese, if he can buy it:
Do you want to see how a nation can thrive, if not under penalties? Take a look at the Eastern European nations, as they are governed by a certain visionary leadership. How often do penalties lead to change in Asia's policies? Normally, human beings help to impose financial penalties when they do not have to subsist.
Walk around and ask every emigrant in Myanmar why he lives absraod. Does it happen because there are virtually no job prospects or because there is no democratic system in Myanmar? But she doesn't put dinner on the menu. Jericho Wrote: Moe Aung- First of all, I am not a follower of a Myanmar government under any guise.
I am also strictly opposed to seeing the Westerners as the rescuers' god and copy their system. It has been proved over and over again that it is best to get a country's economies moving before you let go of the policy system. Take a look at S. Korea and Taiwan, back in the 1970s, when these two nations chose to open up to how democratically their respective communities were.
To prioritise a poverty-stricken state like Burma, it must be very cautious. As for me, back to the Burmese army rulers from times immemorial, they can all go to hell. Interestingly, to see in the same vein Christian Hieronymus contradict himself by making the penalties responsible as perpetrators for all the pain that characterizes certain business-oriented groups, and then refusing that most likely the Westernist backed democracy reform will also lift the penalties (which the government urgently wanted for its own dominant classes interests - no changes there), since it is not possible for everyone to secure wealth per proportion.
What he therefore wants seems to lift the penalties without any real need for reform, since Singapore is doing very well, thank you. Those in government on both sides of the frontier, Burma and China must stay on track in trading and patriotism, but always protect their own frontiers and state.
Myanmar's economies will be much, much worse without China, as Western dictatorship has paralyzed the economies. Certainly China had more help for Myanmar than the USA since 1950, what had the USA done for Myanmar in the last 60 years? It is not as if the penalties against Burma had been generally used.
The FDI in Burma was headed by China, Singapore, Thailand, India and many other nations during the turbulent period of war. But why have the Burmese population not benefited from this investment? Can Burma have raised the world's yearly index of global economic growth or public finances ahead of Somalia or Afghanistan?
Is it still due to the US-backed penalties? But if the Burmese government and the lambs in sheep's fur did not maladminister or self-funding, a nation as natural and wealthy as Burma would have been at eye level with all other ASEAN states. All of these issues in Burma are nothing more than the rackets that have plundered the whole nation with the help of China and Co.
Have you noticed the Burmese government's frequent excuses that "Burma is still impoverished and a development country" if it does not want to carry out the necessary reforms or politics that will be beneficial to the state? Ex-generals will always offer the same slow apology when faced with societal problems instead of correcting the politics that have plagued the countrys economy for years.
Throughout all this period, expenditure on the army is exploding, while that on training, infrastructures and health care is profound. Burma is rich in a vast amount of wildlife and has many great geographic characteristics. In fact, Burma, with or without penalties, would have been more than able to support its own nation and offer a living for every individual on its own soil.
But the best potential Burmese can offer to all have been misused and explored by a fistful of Burmese soldiers and their comrades! In the words of Christian Yericho (1), "The impact of the US-backed sanction in the last three centuries - baby death, malnutritioned infants and missing decade for an entire generation...."""????????
If, despite the penalties, this argument is correct, do you want to say why the leadership of the regime and its pals are becoming increasingly rich, while the remainder of the population has become penniless? In spite of the penalties, many of the offspring of who's who in Burma can go abroad for third level training, while the whole class of normal college kids was losing their futures?
Anyone who has experienced the oppressed Plebejic lifestyle in Burma (to which I belong) understands that no one other than the army alone is accountable for the present sad state of record-breaking and world-class livelihoods, which is slightly better than a land like Somalia! It is irrelevant in our lives.
For too long Burma has been a garbage dump for China. It is destroying our fair nation. Please, no more China. It will always be remembered that China has helped Than Shwe, who murdered ten thousand human beings and at the same a rapist of the nation's indigenous peoples' interests.
This will never disappear and will always be a reminder when we deal with China in the years to come. Commodist China is not a fan of the Myanmar tribe, it is just a counterpart. Keep in mind: Around 1961 Burma was compelled (yes or no?) to abandon three properties. Today, the whole planet has recognised that many impoverished nations are in difficulty, especially tyranny and the impoverished Asian, African and Latin American states.
Might it be possible that Burma is being upgraded from Asia Rice to LDC? Rather than pointing to the neighbours for their misconduct, the dear general and pals should check their work so far and make changes if necessary before it is too late. What do they want? The tides and the times don't await a tyrant! Utopian Wrote: Burma's best part China can do in Burma in the near term is to stay away from Burma.
Quit swamping the land with yuan and y-chromosomes and stop harassing and corrupting the genders (the top 1%). It is better to be free and needy than to become a slave to China. There' s something we call the grandeur and holiness of the mind and the nature. In the aftermath of the Korea Wars with Russian help&North Vietnam's invasions of Laos and Cambodia, China is conscious of all treachery.
Despite capitalist communism, China's statewide state is no less than Burmese (see Sino-Japanese Crash). There is a risk of insecurity in Burma, not China. It is contemplating a downgrade of the sizes of Myistones before the proclamation of its discontinuation. Burmese people are unobtrusive and aware of the cruelty and bamaization of the people.
Emerging China is not of external influences and help. Tonight China is the wealthy, (Burmese neighbour) not the impoverished China of yesteryear. Well-considered, skilled China is not an unrestrained force on Burma (disagree with Aung Zaw). Had Ming Ko Naing (once China's favorite) been DASSK's proxy, China could have trusted DASSK. It is pointless to point the fingers at other lands or to invite them. chris jericho Wrote:
They forgot to note the impact of US-backed sanctioning over the past three centuries - baby death, child malnutrition and decade-long losses for an entire population - the only way for young people to find work in Myanmar was to flee the state. Obama's commitment has less to do with Burma's democracy reform than with the despair (of containment) of getting Chinas adherence to "international" rules: they put the horses in front of the wagons and say that support from the West and democracy reform process necessarily secure wellbeing.