GA Third Committee approves Burma Resolution despite India’s dissent

According to the Press Release (GA/SHC/3909) of the United Nations Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, New York issued on 20th of November 2007, the United Nations Sixty-Second General Assembly “Third Committee” (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) in its day-long 49th and 50th meetings approved a draft resolution on the Situation of human rights in Burma by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 24 against, with 66 abstentions despite Government of India’s note of dissent and going against the resolution♣. Earlier, in the same day vote on the motion to adjourn debate was taken up, in which India favored unsuccessfully adjournment of the debate with military junta   

By going against the resolution with China, Russia and Pakistan, India once again lost the golden diplomatic opportunity to review its Burma policy of constructive engagement with infamous junta started since 1992 under the banner of “Look East Policy”. If India’s South Block diplomatic core is facing problem in suddenly breaking-up the full grown economic engagement with the military regime, then it could have avoided it with fineness by abstaining from resolution rather then voting against it like – Thailand, South Africa, Brunei Darussalam, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore etc. or neighbouring SAARC countries like – Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan? Another SAARC country – Maldives remain absent from the resolution and Afghanistan voted with Japan, EU, UK, USA, Turkey etc. facilitating the welcome step of the adoption of Human Rights resolution on Burma.   

While participating in the GA Third Committee resolution debate, unfortunately; the India representative said that, “His country had consistently maintained that all initiatives vis-à-vis Myanmar should be forward-looking, non-condemnatory, and seek to engage the Government in a non-intrusive and constructive manner.  By adopting a condemnatory, intrusive and unhelpful tone, the draft resolution would not contribute to, or strengthen, the initiatives being taken by the United Nations; in fact, it might prove to be counterproductive.  It also did not reflect the positive steps being taken by the Government of Myanmar, including the visit of the Special Rapporteur and meetings between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the Government’s specially appointed minister for relations with her.  India had no option but to vote against – L.41/Rev.1”.  

It is unfortunate, because many a times, India has officially spoken and maintained the position of freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from House arrest, apart from many world leaders demand and the United Nations Secretary General’s  appeal to immediately release all political prisoners in Burma without any pre-conditions. And the draft resolution’s texts stated that, “General Assembly would strongly call upon the Government (Burma) to desist from further arrests and violence against peaceful protesters, and to release all political prisoners without conditions, including the leaders of the NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi and Tin Oo. The Government would also be called upon to lift all restraints on peaceful political activity, to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, and to immediately ensure safe and unhindered access to all parts of Myanmar for the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations.”   

In addition, Burma’s military regime’s showing news and photograph of meeting of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi with Government appointed minister on 19th – 20 November was only a tactical move to manage 40th  anniversary ASEAN meeting and adjourn voting in GA third committee, as they have continued side by side their propaganda of negating Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD in their official mouthpiece – “The New Light of Myanmar (NLM)” (even in today’s NLM) through government supported ethnic groups.     

Moreover major countries of Nordic region, Latin America, Africa, Asia remain either in favour or abstained or remain absent and not going against resolution facilitating the adoption of resolution. Although, many democratic groups are criticizing the role played by many ASEAN countries or Asian countries for abstaining from voting but practically it also helped in realizing the adoption of resolution seeking freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Tin Oo and other political prisoners of Burma. Although, the position of many Asian countries while abstaining from voting that, “they oppose country specific resolution” is erroneous. They should also understand that, the beginning of Second World was country specific problem and recent rise of Taliban in Afghanistan was also the outcome of country specific problem. And the brutal suppression of monk’s non-violent protests in August-September 2007 by military regime is a proof that, Burmese regime requires a country specific resolution.     

It is also important for the success of United Nations as an upholder of the institution of democratic values as enshrined in the United Nations Charter, that the adopted resolution including the freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi gets implemented without any delay and pre-condition by Burmese military authority. Now it doesn’t matter that which country voted with or abstained or absent or against on the resolution, it is now important that the act of world’s largest body finds its implementation or not? Or, it finds death like the earlier appeal of Mr. Kofi Annan or present UN Secretary General appeared in January 2007 to immediately release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners without delay?     

ENDNOTES:  

ANNEX VI: Vote on Situation of Human Rights in Burma

The resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/62/L.41/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 24 against, with 66 abstentions, as follows: 

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu. 

Against:  Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe. 

Abstain:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia. 

Absent:  Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Madagascar, Maldives, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, and Tunisia.  

ANNEX V: Vote on Motion to Adjourn Debate:  

The motion to adjourn the debate on the resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/62/L.41/Rev.1) was rejected by a recorded vote of 88 against to 54 in favour, with 34 abstentions, as follows:  

In favour:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, India, Iran, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.  

Against:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu. 

Abstain:  Belize, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, and Tuvalu. 

Absent:  Algeria, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, and Tajikistan.    

(Source: United Nations, Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, New York, Press Release (GA/SHC/3909) issued on 20th November 2007 entitled: “THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES THREE COUNTRY-SPECIFIC TEXTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS DESPITE OPPOSITION LED BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES”)   

 

(THE END)  

 

***********************************

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Ambassador, ASEAN, Asian History & Politics, Bhutan, Blogroll, Britain, Buddhism, Burma, Burma Review, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Democracy, Diplomat, Europe, European Union, Freedom, History, Human Rights, India, Japan, Junta, Liberty, Mahatma Gandhi, Media, Modern Asian History, Monks, Myanmar, News, Non-violence, Nordic, Politics, Religion, Reporters, South Asian Politics, Southeast Asia, Thoughts, UK, UN, USA

4 Comments on “GA Third Committee approves Burma Resolution despite India’s dissent”

  1. Richard Mookerdum Says:

    While the present military regime is demonised and condemned in the UN General Asembly, the former generals in the National League for Democracy must be laughing their heads off. Aung San Suu Kyi is the general secretary of the NLD.

    During 45 years of military rule in Burma, the 1962 to 1988 period was theDarkest. Under dictator Gen Ne Win’s communistic rule, my family business was nationalised and my uncle, like other “capitalists” were jailed for seven years.

    The national currency kyat was demonetised/cancelled three times during this period, levelling the society again and again. Some two million fled the cold killing fields.

    The thugs in the NLD are Tin Oo, Ne Win’s favourite general. He was commander in chief when troops killed scores of people during anti-govt riots, sparked by Ne Win’s disrespect over UN Secretary-General U Thant’s funeral in 1974. Tin Oo was a member of the Revolutionary Council (RC) that overthrew the elected govt of U Nu in March 1962. The vice-chairman of the NLD was the late Col Kyi Maung, also a member of the RC.

    The NLD chairman is Aung Shwe, a former brigadier from Ne Win’s era. The other senior NLD members are former communists who joined Ne Win’s Burma Socialist Party Program.

    So, what is a Nobel laureate like Suu Kyi doing with these thugs who have blood on their hands. Suu, when asked by the generals in 1991, replied that she found the Communists in the NLD “sincere” while the army distrusts them. If not for Suu Kyi, the military would have totally crushed the Left in 1988. Suu is the new label on the old Red bottle. We didn’t know that Nobel Peace prize came with a halo.

    Suu and her communists allies (her father was founder of the Burma Communist Party) are very deceitful: They have managed to deceive the most brilliant minds in international politics and journalism. The NLD can chant democracy mantras all they like — and deceive the world. But the army is not buying.

    And hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story: a damsel in distress confronting brutal generals. Wow.

    The Burmese have no time or sympathy for the communists. They are spiritually opposed to Communism. Today, the radicals are getting a taste of their own medicine. It’s called karma.

    Sincerely
    Richard Mookerdum

    PS: The United Nations human rights expert for Burma, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, would do well to first stop extrajudicial killings of innocent victims in the slums of his homeland — Brazil — by police death squads. The UN is playing a cruel joke on the Burmese by appointing holier-than-thou characters to oversee so-called human rights abuses in Burma. Does UN member states have the guts to stand up to the US and demand a stop to the atrocities committed by American troops in Iraq and sanctioned by the UN. All in the name of democracy.This is UN hyprocrisy at its finest. A truly sad day for the world body, indeed. A word to the wise: Like teak trees, the Burmese do not bend with the wind. And no country in the world have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, especially Burma.

  2. Rajshekhar Says:

    Dear Richard , Farouke Maung or any name which you have,

    I published your opposite view to follow the best traditions of Gandhian principles to give space to even worst form of criticism. Even earlier, I received your one comment and I didn’t publish it for month and I couldn’t sleep well because I felt that I’m committing a crime of not giving space to opposite views against basic principles of my great father of the nation – Mahatma Gandhi. You sent comments in different names but you know that I.P. location software finds easily the persons location of the mail. Although, you know, that, if you have written in the same fashion against your military rulers, whom you want to give freedom to suppress people’s voice they would have not published your mail or you would have found yourself in any prison of Burma like many others are facing in present circumstances.

    Now I come to the subject of your comment my dear friend. It is true that, Tin Oo and Aung Shwe were former officers of military ilk or Revolutionary Councils. But one should also accept the facts and remember, that they have joined the people’s forces and tasks of establishing people’s freedom in Burma. It is not that much important that what they did earlier but it is important that what they are doing now genuinly for the people of Burma?

    Have you heard of a story of Tripitaka contained in Sutta Pitaka and part of Theragatha about Angulimala and Lord Buddha, a cruel and famous murderer turned monk under the shadow of Lord Buddha? His name was Angulimal. Angulimal means a man who wears a garland of human fingers. He had taken a vow that he would kill one thousand people; from each single person he would take one finger so that he could remember how many he had killed and he will make a garland of all those fingers.

    When Lord Buddha heard of him went to reform him towards good work. When Lord Buddha approached him, Angulimal, with his naked sword in his hand, shouted, “Stop!” Gautam Buddha was just a few feet away, and Angulimal said, “Don’t take another step because then the responsibility will not be mine. Perhaps you don’t know who I am!”

    Buddha said, “Do you know who you are?”

    Angulimal said, “This is not the point. Neither is it the place nor the time to discuss such things. Your life is in danger!”
    Buddha said, “I think otherwise–your life is in danger.”

    That man said, “I used to think I was mad, You are really mad! And you go on moving closer. Then don’t say that I killed an innocent man. You look so innocent and so beautiful that I want you to go back. I will find somebody else. I can wait; there is no hurry. If I can manage nine hundred and ninety-nine… it is only a question of one more, but don’t force me to kill you.”

    Buddha came very close, and Angulimal’s hands were trembling. The man was so beautiful, so innocent, so childlike. He had already fallen in love. He had killed so many people… He had never felt this weakness; he had never known what love is. For the first time he was full of love. So there was a contradiction: the hand was holding the sword to kill the person, and his heart was saying, “Put the sword back in the sheath.”

    Buddha said, “I am ready, but why is your hand shaking?–you are such a great warrior, even kings are afraid of you, and I am just a poor beggar. Except the begging bowl, I don’t have anything. You can kill me, and I will feel immensely satisfied that at least my death fulfills somebody’s desire; my life has been useful, my death has also been useful. But before you cut my head I have a small desire, and I think you will grant me a small desire before killing me.”

    Before death, even the hardest enemy is willing to fulfill any desire. Angulimal said, “What do you want?”

    Buddha said, “I want you just to cut from the tree a branch which is full of flowers. I will never see these flowers again; I want to see those flowers closely, feel their fragrance and their beauty in this morning sun, their glory.”

    So Angulimal cut with his sword a whole branch full of flowers. And before he could give it to Buddha, Buddha said, “This was only half the desire; the other half is, please put the branch back on the tree.”

    Angulimal said, “I was thinking from the very beginning that you are crazy. Now this is the craziest desire. How can I put this branch back?”

    Buddha said, “If you cannot create, you have no right to destroy. If you cannot give life, you don’t have the right to give death to any living thing.”

    A moment of silence and a moment of transformation… the sword fell down from his hands. Angulimal fell down at the feet of Gautam Buddha, and he said, “I don’t know who you are, but whoever you are, take me to the same space in which you are; initiate me.”

    By that time the followers of Gautam Buddha had come closer and closer. They were all around and when he fell at Buddha’s feet they immediately came close. Somebody raised the question, “Don’t initiate this man, he is a murderer!”

    Buddha said again, “If I don’t initiate him, who will initiate him? And I love the man, I love his courage. And I can see tremendous possibility in him: a single man fighting against the whole world. I want this kind of people, who can stand against the whole world. Up to now he was standing against the world with a sword; now he will stand against the world with a consciousness, which is far sharper than any sword. I told you that murder was going to happen, but it was not certain who was going to be murdered–either I was going to be murdered, or Angulimal. Now you can see Angulimal is murdered. And who I am to judge?”

    So this is the story of Angulimala and Lord Buddha, I hope you would have understand I was referring towards Tin Oo, Aung Shwe or any other who have joined NLD. Even if General Than Shwe wants to turn like Angulimala a good person, he is welcome for that but I’m sorry to say that he is not following the true teachings of Buddhism.

    Regarding, Daw Suu’s word’s for communist, you know that the rulers whom you are praising are more closely related with communists or Chinese rulers. However, even if communists have certain good thing one should not discard it in totality. You know, Gandhi ji used to say that, I’m a better communist then those who claims to be communist because they preach about communism but I practice it. And he used to abhor or reject violence part of communist ideology. And Daw Suu is following true path of Gandhian practices, So , She would have said in that sense, which military or other persons failed to understand.

    I’m an Indian but I regard your leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as one of the greatest personalities Asia has ever produced. And I come to this conclusion after much thought and not suddenly or bacause of her Nobel Prize. And I feel sorry for your thoughts about her and Bogyoke Aung San.

    I don’t know, how you are associated with military rulers but they are committing mistakes after mistakes and loosing the opportunity of sharing people’s freedom by negating personalities like Daw Suu? For your information, I’m not related with any political party of Burma or NLD. Yes, I have many Burmese friends in your country. If I write in favour for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, it is because she has sacrificed a lot in house arrest losing contacts with her members of the family and sons, apart from her Party and people of Burma. Moreover, it is Burma where India’s great poet and last king Bahadurshah Jafar’s souls rest and it is in Burma where Subhas Chandra Bose, Gandhiji, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Ajit Singh spent her prison days in their journey towards freedom. So I feel special attachement towards your country, so I’m standing with those who wants to genuinly serve the people of Burma. However I feel sorry for the event which happened with you during military rule of General Ne Win.

    Once you wrote that, what Daw Suu was doing when Burma was burning before 1988? My friend, this is to inform you that, She has not chosen politics as a career and it was the circumstances which forced her to join politics in 1988 like Mahatma Gandhi went to South Africa for legal practice and not for doing politics.

    Regarding your note about Brazil, this is also to inform you that, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro is not a ruler of his country and he never supported any crime even if it comes from his own police force. And regarding US invlovement in Iraq, you should also remember the unfortunate killings of innocent people in September 11 incident and relate it with it. Hope if Mr. Pinheiro will read this, he would better respond to it.

    How you say, that others are interfering in your country, when your military rulers forced May 1990 elected representative to leave the country and many had been killed in their journey to establish freedom in Burma. When they are voicing Burmese peoples concerns and people around globe are supporting their voices; then how come it is interfering in the internal affairs of Burma? Who gave the right to SPDC to become sole representative of Burma? Is it the people of Burma? No! Then how you are saying like a taperecorder of military, that, “no country in the world have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, especially Burma”.

    With best wishes,

    Sincerely yours,

    Rajshekhar
    Editor
    Burma Review
    http://www.burmareview.com

  3. richard mookerdum Says:

    Mind your manners, Raj.

    How dare you tell a Burmese how to think. Unlike your kind, the Burmese do not have a herd mentality. You are upset because you now feel like a fool and probably in shock after reading my comments to the UN Sec Gen, Gambari and UN HRights Commissioner, and of course the UN GA.

    I dare you to post my comments to the UN sec-gen on your website.

    I am setting the record straight to educate fools like you.

    Don’t get sentimental. Normally, i do not waste my time with morons but you seem like an intelligent fool.

    The Burma democracy movement over the years has turned into a growth industry. Many of you are making a living selling the misery of ordinary Burmese to Western nations for a buck. The US alone hands out $2 million a year to these groups. As they say: A fool and his money are soon parted.

    FYI, I am helping US-based groups to find out where these millions are being spent. You are on my list.

    So, how much do you get paid to worship gods with clay feet like Suu.

    I lived in India for two year — 992- to 1994. (Yuck. Give me China any day!)

    There I met a number of Burmese exiles in New Delhi, where I found them living a hand to mouth existence.

    I was told funds from overseas meant for Burmese students ended up in the pockets of “Indians for Burma democracy” groups, one of them led by Indian defence minister George Fernandes. Surprise, surprise!

    Suu’s brother Aung San Oo, who lives in San Diego, California, always donates money to wounded soldiers when visiting Burma, and checks in at the military guest house. At the same time, totally ignoring his younger sibling. Are you also critical of Aung San Oo because he would not worship the sister.

    BTW, who the hell appointed you to question Burmese, like myself, who tend to disagree with Janus-faced Suu. Dissent is good for democracy, fool.

    Comparing Suu Kyi to the Mahatma and Mandela is unacceptable ignorance. It is insulting. Unlike these great leaders. Suu was a part-time Burmese when it suited her until 1988.

    Unfortunately, there are no experts on Burma, only varied degrees of ignorance.

    Facing the past is the first sign of maturity for a nation.

    And charity begins at home. So, why don’t you focus your limited attention span to the centuries old curse you poor Induans have to live with. Maybe, you haven’t heard. It’s called the caste system.

    First, free the billion Indians from this insidious and oppressive human-degrading system before you lecture the Burmese on Indian-style democracy. What a joker.

    PS: Research is the mother of all ignorance. Learn to read first, fool.

  4. Rajshekhar Says:

    My Dear Friend,

    I’m happy to learn that you are doing a great job that who are stealing money directed towards suffering Burmese refugees and migrants. And, yes offcourse you can keep me in your list.

    Regarding your abuse, there is a famous example in the holy texts of Buddhism that, once a man abused Lord Buddha vehemently like your perception of the issues in Burma. But for Lord Buddha, who believed that anyone who foolishly does me wrong, I will return to him the protection of my ungrudging love, replied to man when he finished his abuse. And he asked him saying – “Son, when a man forgets the rules of politeness in making a present to another, the custom is to say, keep your present. Son, you have now railed at me; I decline to entertain your abuse, and respect you to keep it, a source of misery to yourself,” and I believe in this teachings of Lord Buddha and don’t accepts your abuse.

    I’m sorry for your views on UN Secretary General, and other high officials of UN. And if it is the official perception of the government then it is very unfortunate and sad thing. I’m happy to learn that you were in India for two years but I know George Fernandes since my childhood, although I don’t belong to his political party. He is a very honest politician, India has ever produced and a very excellent Parliamentarian. Moreover, he doesn’t need Burma money of US. You don’t know gentlemen that his one statement can raise crores of Rs. from Indian Industrial class.

    Regarding plight of my fellow Indian people, I’m aware of that and also working on those issues.

    I feel utterly sorry for you about your assessment of a great leader of Asia belonging to your nation – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Only one advice to you that you please read and study well to become complete citizen. Regarding her brother caring to Burmese army soldiers, I think, if your SPDC masters free her, She would also care for Burma army wounded soldiers. Lastly, I’m extremely sorry, if anyone of my analysis has hurt you, my purpose is not to hurt you and even to your military rulers but to convince them for the right historical path of the nation.

    Sincerely yours,

    Rajshekhar
    Editor, Burma Review


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: