U.N. envoy reports on Myanmar as China opposes action | International | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN0438880620071005?pageNumber=1)

They are using the non-interference in internal affairs gambit .


Beijing's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters, "There are problems there in Myanmar but these problems still, we believe, are basically internal. No international-imposed solution can help the situation," Wang said. "We want the government there to handle this issue."...

Wrechard at Belmont Club makes the following grim asessment of the UN


The UN has become a place where totalitarian regimes block any possibility of change by invoking "national dignity" and "noninterference". At the same time the UN insists it is the only "legitimate" venue to discuss political affairs, an assertion with which a large number of "patriots" agree.

With national unilateral action de-legitimized and international inaction guaranteed, the only way forward against the Burmese tyrants appears to be a networked resistance of private individuals in whatever legal ways this can be attempted. This is the bitter fruit of so-called transnationalism: a world paralyzed by the veto of tinpot strongmen; a world where all licitness is vested in an organization which has decided, as a matter of principle, to hoard it and do nothing further. The "international system" is so rotten that perhaps it can no longer be saved. The UN may be beyond reform.
The Belmont Club: The UN and Burma (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/10/un-and-burma.html)

Do you agree ? Certainly when Ambassador Bolton was there he was vigorously pushing for the type of reform the organization needed. Short-sighted opposition to him by Administration critic derailed what may have been the last best hope for the UN.

When Wrechard says that the only way forward against the Burmese tyrants appears to be a networked resistance of private individuals in whatever legal ways this can be attempted; I would point out that people only began to pay attention to Darfur when the killings became genocidal in nature. We already know from the last decade that when offered a chance to stop the massacres of 100s of thousands in Rhwanda ;the world body chose to collectively sit on their hands.

I for one am in favor of the formation of an organization of free nations larger that NATO . But where I disagree with Wrechard is that there are parts of the UN that are salvageable ;perhaps not in the organization itself ,but within the framework of an "international community" .

It's my guess China don't want another Democratic government in the area. I believe that Democratic governments who are purchasing gas and supplying technological aid to Burma should stop. That would be the immediate thing to do.

The UN lacks a moral foundation and is doomed to fail, I agree, the free nations of the world should set-up their own version of a Untied Nations and stop 'sleeping with the enemy'.

DC

I am behind the efforts of groups like 'Set America Free ' who are strong advocates of doing what is necessary for energy independence ;primarily because of the national security implications of being dependent on foreign sources.

http://www.setamericafree.org/

Until such time that this goal is realized we cannot have a truly moral foreign policy as energy is such a crucial part of our lives.

I am not clear as to your position . You have argued that sanctions are ineffective and do not hurt the people in the country they target ,but instead hurt the populace. Now you seem to be calling for a divestiture .

Tom

I am generally against starving people or withholding medical supplies; purchasing stolen goods or providing aid to a tyrant does not fall into that category.

I didn't know much of anything about Burma/Myanmar, so I looked up information on the internet. Myanmar is the largest country in Southeast Asia with a very long coastline and a heavy monsoon season. There is a diverse assortment of wildlife and vegetation. The country is ethnically diverse, and primarily Buddhist; hence the leadership position of Buddhist Monks in the civil unrest against the Socialist government.

As we all know, all countries and groups dealing with countries and international relations are "political"! The UN is no exception---the United States is no exception---China is no exception.

I am hoping that the Buddhist Monks are able to lead a revolution with many people in agreement. That is how successful revolutions happen! All we have to do is look to Iraq see that foreign intervention, a coup d'etat, and establishment of a parliamentary democracy was doomed to total failure. The people and the homegrown leaders have the POWER and BACKBONE to make a go of a revolution. Note: the American Revolution was a bunch of guerilla warriors fighting the sophisticated British Army... lots of colonists died in order to establish a new kind of government--the colonist were a fierce lot with a mission.

To sum up, Bush made a mess of Iraq and, as we see, Afghanistan is still a repressive state with a huge** increase** in production of OPIUM their largest product.

The Monks are doing a good job with a difficult, oppressive, and powerful enemy. It is just the beginning. Leave Burma/Myanmar alone.

It's a good thing the French didn't think that way in 1781 .

I didn't know much of anything about Burma/Myanmar, so I looked up information on the internet. Myanmar is the largest country in Southeast Asia with a very long coastline and a heavy monsoon season. There is a diverse assortment of wildlife and vegetation. The country is ethnically diverse, and primarily Buddhist; hence the leadership position of Buddhist Monks in the civil unrest against the Socialist government.

As we all know, all countries and groups dealing with countries and international relations are "political"!! The UN is no exception---the United States is no exception---China is no exception.

I am hoping that the Buddhist Monks are able to lead a revolution with many people in agreement. That is how successful revolutions happen! All we have to do is look to Iraq see that foreign intervention, a coup d'etat, and establishment of a parliamentary democracy was doomed to total failure. The people and the homegrown leaders have the POWER and BACKBONE to make a go of a revolution. Note: the American Revolution was a bunch of guerilla warriors fighting the sophisticated British Army....lots of colonists died in order to establish a new kind of government--the colonist were a fierce lot with a mission.

To sum up, Bush made a mess of Iraq and, as we see, Afghanistan is still a repressive state with a huge** increase** in production of OPIUM their largest product.

The Monks are doing a good job with a difficult, oppressive, and powerful enemy. It is just the beginning. Leave Burma/Myanmar alone.
My dear child…Don’t fret too much about Bush, at least Iraq may turn out to be the best of the best with their new constitution given them by Bush. Why…because they will have a decentralized government, like we here once had and gave away in the name of “Security.”

"My dear child"... you always patronize me when I make an excellent, even a good answer. LOL!

I've been working on my writing skills lately. I'm *not* just throwing words onto the screen and transmitting what sticks.

"My dear child"..............you always patronize me when I make an excellent, even a good answer. LOL!!

I've been working on my writing skills lately. I'm *not* just throwing words onto the screen and transmitting what sticks.
That’s because I love you so much; and I do see how your writing skills have improved so much:) :) :) :) :)

China will block any UN action against Burma at the UNHello tom:

So would the Soviet Union, according to Fred. Ooops, I got that wrong. The Soviets wouldn't offer any help against Iran... That's what Fred said.

excon

PS> See what happens to actors when they don't have anybody writing their lines?

Actually the Soviets would also vote to block any UN action against Burma. They also have been one of the main reasons the Iranians have been able to defy the UN this long.

As for actors and their lines ;any misconceptions of that should have been put to rest with the publication of the Reagan diaries . Turns out he was a prolific writer who's politics was well thought out . Thompson has had many pursuits ;acting is but one of them.