Senator McConnell may not understand that diplomatic relations are between
States, not between administrations. These relations are governed by the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which both the US and Burma
have acceded. As a sign of displeasure with the SPDC's policies, the US have
not for some time sought to appoint an Ambassador to Rangoon. However, the
US could only require the Burmese Ambassador to leave by declaring him
persona non grata on the grounds that his personal conduct was held to be
incompatible with accepted diplomatic practice, and there is absolutely no
evidence of this. Indeed, Mr Linn Myaing is, I understand, a charming and
hard-working individual.

Should the US wish to negotiate a downgrading of diplomatic relations and
assign a new class to their respective Heads of Missions, they may indeed
seek to do so under Article 15 of the Vienna Convention. But this requires
negotiation and agreement between the two States. A downgrading cannot be
imposed unilaterally by one Party. Nor can Ambassadors be expelled without
valid legal reason. In both cases it would be a breach of the Vienna
Convention to attempt do so, and as the Vienna Convention is also
incorporated into US domestic law, it would accordingly be a breach of both
international law as well as an offence under US domestic law.

In any tit-for-tat expulsion, the US would be bound to come off worse. The
US Embassy in Rangoon, which has far more home-based officials than the
Burmese Embassy in Washington, would find their numbers decimated. The US
Embassy in Rangoon keep a large staff, no doubt to monitor the situation in
Burma. I do not suppose that the junta would be too worried if
officials were mutually expelled down to zero. Now that the US has imposed
tough sanctions against Burma, the junta might well wonder what possible
value the maintenance of diplomatic relations with the US has for them, and
I suspect that they would not be all that concerned if the US were to break
relations. Burma enjoys normal diplomatic and trading relations with most
countries in the Asia Pacific region, including such industrial giants as
China, Japan, Russia and India, so that the departure of US diplomats from
Rangoon would not necessarily be unwelcome. Burma would retain a restricted
foothold in the US through their permanent representation in the United
Nations.

Most of Burma's neighbours have, over the last thirty years, suffered from
US imposed sanctions regimes. The more the Neo Cons in Washington huff and
puff, the more entrenched the junta is likely to become. Disregard of
international and domestic law would not however be likely to cause the Neo
Cons all that much concern, as their support for the war in Iraq has shown.
But the State Department can scarcely welcome Senator McConnell's
intervention, which if implemented would be to the detriment of US
interests. Senator McConnell's interests, however, are clearly personal and
political.

Derek Tonkin
[British Ambassador to Thailand 1986-89]

You have a good point.  Senator Mitch McConnell has been calling such
move based on his personal feeling, I believe.

In fact, US has already breached international treaty, i.e., WTO
(sanctions against WTO regulations which both US and Burma signed.  So
what is the big deal for the US to breach any international rules and
regulations? I personally do not like SPDC at all. But in this case,
Burma is being bullied because Burma is such a small state of which
the US does not have any interest at all except US's support for
DASSK.  If the US really wants Burma to be free, then they have to
make an effort for Burma to be under-sieged.  Sanctions irrespective
of multilateral or unilateral sanctions will not work for the case of
Burma.  Siege is the only way and which is also impossible.

Tide

Many thanks.

The rules are that you can't send an Ambassador packing and still expect to
maintain diplomatic relations unless his personal conduct is incompatible
with diplomatic practice. The Vienna Convention also requires that receiving
States (i.e. the US) "shall treat him [a diplomatic agent] with due respect
and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person,
freedom or dignity" (Article 29). Senator McConnell's personal attack on the
Ambassador would thus appear to be a breach of the Convention.

If the US want to show their continuing displeasure with the SPDC, then they
should further reduce the status of their Head of Mission, currently a
Charge d'Affaires "ad interim" (but in effect "en permanence") to a simple
charge des affaires, which is an officer in day-to-day control of the
Embassy, and cut the number of US nationals on their Rangoon staff (which I
understand is well over 100) by 90% to the level of Burmese nationals in
Washington.  I am not sure how the Burmese people generally would react to a
drastic reduction of US Embassy staff, but my guess is that the vast
majority would be supremely indifferent, or if they had a view at all, would
shed no tears at the departure of US nationals intent on implementing the
current US sanctions regime against them. The only Embassy Departments which
the US need maintain are those which are supportive of the Burmese people,
including those responsible for narcotics control, humanitarian aid
(especially HIV programmes) and human rights.

Derek

Thanks for sharing some technical implications to diplomatic
relationship.  You know what comes into my mind?

US maintains a good relationship with ASEAN of which political system
ranges from some form of democracy in Philippines/Thailand to soft
authoritarian in Malaysia/Singapore to communist in Vietnam.
US relationship with Saudi is perfectly fine. There are many other
countries who are at the top of violating human rights and practicing
non-democratic system.  But why US keeps refusing to have a
relationship with military junta in Rangoon?

Thanks
Tide

There are two basic policies towards Burma - ostracism, practised by the US
and EU, and engagement, practised by countries in the Asian-Pacific region.
Ostracism is a politically risk free option : the SPDC are baddies, they
need to be taught a lesson, so throw them to the wolves. Engagement requires
the expenditure of time, resources and political capital. For Burma's
neighbours, however, there frankly is no other choice but engagement, simply
because Burma is where it is.

In the case of the US, ostracism is attractive because of the forthcoming
presidential elections, the domestic political influence of personalities
like Senator McConnell, the very low priority accorded to US-Burmese
relations and the iconic, charismatic personality of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
who favours strong pressures against the junta. It is against this
background that the President can proclaim Burma to be an "extraordinary
threat" to the security of the US. But rather like the "threat" from Weapons
of Mass Destruction, it is all a figment of the imagination, though needed
to justify the renewal of sanctions.

US policy would change, though not overnight,  if Daw Suu were to confirm
publicly reports of NLD willingness in principle to accept 25% military
nominated seats in the Lower and Upper Houses and if the SPDC were to agree
to revise the criteria for the Head of State to allow Daw Suu to be eligible
for the Presidency. This would require compromise on both sides. There is a
window of opportunity created by the National Convention recess. Let us hope
the SPDC and the NLD use the recess to talk to each other.

[As for Britain, Sir Winston Churchill commented on page 968 of the 1959
abridged edition of his "History of the Second World War" :

"To this day the Burmese Government's writ runs but incompletely through its
territories. They too, however, are a firmly established entity with whom
our relations are friendly, and where the long and honourable tradition of
British authority and its legacies of justice and order have borne fruit."

Sir Winston had by then mellowed considerably, and  forgiven the Burmese
leadership for their war-time collaboration with the Japanese.]

Derek

That's what I exactly meant and therefore I wrote something related to
DASSK's negotiation with military junta some time ago on this forum.

Regarding ostracism engaged by the US, you are right, Burma is not
Haiti nor Cuba.  U.S, as everyone is aware of, does not have
significant interest either in geopolitics or in trade relation at
all.  At the same time, US also does not have to worry about Burmese
refugees around their border.

What I don't understand is about DASSK and NLD. Sometimes I really
wonder whether they are negotiating or competing for winner and loser.
 US foreign policy has been very tough on Burma since DASSK called for
sanctions and boycotts in 1995. Before that, I would call it sanctions
or ostracism were in symbolic nature.

Of course no democratic government would want any military seats in
their parliament.  This is common sense.  But our case is different.
If this military government was willing to handover power to peoples'
representative party, we would not even be shot death in 1988 and
DASSK would not even be locked up since before general elections.  But
this military guys do not wish to give up at all for many reasons.
They may be wanting to hold onto power, or they may be scared to face
with international court like former East-European dictators....it
could be any reason.  That is why NLD is naturally placed in
negotiation position.  25% military + 75% civilian (all in combination
with NLD and other parties) is, in my opinion, better than nothing.
At least, peoples' representatives will be in parliament, face to face
debating for betterment of our nation.  At least, peoples'
representatives will earn legitimacy.  From there, a better change can
come gradually.  At least Burma will be in run with legitimated
bodies.  Now Burma has been run under rigid and moderate martial laws.
 From their point of view, military generals can argue that they do
not violate any laws and regulations since the 1974-constitution does
not exist anymore.

In terms of constructive engagement pursued by Asian countries,
yes...you are right...for one reason, they have no better choice,
second reason they are better off since big and giant US firms do not
operate in Burma.  Asian firms are, as you are aware of, do not truly
wish to comply with other international treaties as well.  If they are
given any opportunity, they will definitely try a way to escape from
meeting international norms and standards which might take up their
operating costs.  For instance, providing health insurance for a
Burmese workers, meeting minimum wages for Burmese workers, complying
environmental rules and regulations for factories set up in Burma,
etc.  Having said that, I do not say all US firms and Western firms do
follow international norms but for them public opinion is very
critical and there are always watch-dog groups hanging around them.

For EU, I think if US comes up with a reason to lift up sanctions,
then they might follow U.S way sooner or later.  The hostile
propagandas against British in Burma can always tone down like the way
Ne Win did for Japanese facism.  In addition to that, the military
government can always use Karens to make better relationship with
Britain.  The military government can come up with forgiveness to
British's broken promise during early post-independent era, i.e.,
British broke their promises (not to sell weapons to Karens) and
Rangoon was almost besiged during the late 1940s.

I hope NLD and DASSK would come up with better solution in their
negotiation process.

By the way, I sometimes come up with crazy words to siege Burma and
bla bla bla....these nonsense stuff only represents my impatience
personal feeling. Forget about all these childish behaviors, please.
Sometimes I still want to act like a child....har ha!

Take care and have a good time!
Tide

SPDC will not hand over power to individuals who is fighting against
them. Because if they give in to their opponent, it's means they lost.
SPDC don't want to become loser. From SPDC point of view, anyone who
will hand over poewr from them should be a friend of SPDC (as least
neutral). Is this too much to asked? US hand over Iraqi sovereignty to
friendlu Iraqi, not to the iraqi who are fighting against them. SPDC
will die fighting rather than hand over the power and their lives to
the very people who fighting against them.

DASSK and her NLD have moral high ground. They are too clean (because
they have not done a thing yet). The whole world backed them. Every
body love them. This make them very inflexible. To become a business
partaner and friend of dirty SPDC is a "MORAL impossibility" for NLD
and DASSK. They rather stay in jail than seeing collaborate with SPDC.
For NLD and pro-democracy groups Collaborating or befriending or
sympathizing with SPDC means sold out to evil.

So...they keep fighting for now. What is next? The world is enjoying
the Burma struggle just like they enjoy hollywood movies. Ofcourse
every viewer want to see the good guys wind over the evil one. But for
them Burma is just another interesting show, nothing more. Burma
struggle is just a show to them, because our economy is too small, we
have no oil, no nukes and no many asylum seekers to their shore from
Burma.

I am blamaing nobody. I just wish every one (inclucing SPDC and NLD)
to succeed with whatever they are doing, as long as they are not
trying to harm others.

See you Tide.