Aung San Suu Kyi arrives for a meeting with US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell (l.) at the Inya Lake Hotel in Yangon on Wednesday.
(Aung Hla Tun/Reuters)Photos (1 of 1)
US envoy meets Suu Kyi in trip to engage Burma (Myanmar)
The highest-ranking US diplomat to visit Burma (Myanmar) since 1995 met with junta officials and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi Wednesday. The visit is part of the White House's bid to engage the regime.
By Simon Montlake | Correspondent 11.04.09
BANGKOK, THAILAND – A senior US diplomat met with Burma’s (Myanmar’s) detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi Wednesday during a visit to the military-ruled country. The US has tried for years to isolate it with economic and political sanctions, but now also seeks to engage.
Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, the State Department’s top Asia official, is finishing a two-day “fact-finding” mission to Burma, part of a tentative détente between the countries. He met Tuesday with Prime Minister General Thein Sein and was also due to meet leaders of ethnic-based and other political parties, Reuters reported.
In recent months, the Obama administration has pushed a policy of engagement with Burma, while sticking to a trade embargo and other punitive measures. It continues to call for the release of Ms. Suu Kyi, who has spent much of the past two decades under house arrest in Rangoon, the former capital.
Mr. Campbell was photographed Wednesday by Suu Kyi’s side after a two-hour meeting. He isn’t expected to comment publicly before returning to Washington, though his deputy Scot Marciel, who is part of the mission, is due to speak Thursday in Bangkok. Campbell is the highest-ranking US administration official to visit Burma since then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright’s visit in 1995. [Editor’s note: The original version misspelled Ms. Albright’s name and mischaracterized Campbell’s position.]
Burma’s rulers insist that they plan to eventually restore democracy in a country that has been wracked by armed conflicts since independence in 1948. The first elections since 1990 are due to be held next year, though under a constitution that reserves substantial power for the military under civilian rule. (Read more here.)
The US and other Western countries have urged Burma to hold fair and credible elections and to allow Suu Kyi’s party and others to campaign freely.
Some of Burma’s neighbors have made similar calls, while arguing that the protracted Western strategy of punishing Burma has failed to shift its behavior.
Southeast Asian diplomats argue that engagement stands a better chance of nudging it toward democracy.
But a tough approach towards the junta remains popular among Burmese pro-democracy campaigners in European and North American capitals and a cause célèbre among Western publics for whom Suu Kyi is an icon of peaceful struggle.
Some analysts have argued that the regime’s overtures to Washington appear aimed at balancing its dependence on China, Burma’s largest arms supplier and investor.
Whatever the reason, skepticism towards the diplomatic moves is essential, according to exiled anti-regime activists in Thailand.
“Many Burmese say the new US policy is undoubtably a smart move, but they caution that a smart policy doesn’t always fit often irrational, nationalistic and insular military leaders,” wrote Aung Zaw in Monday’s Bangkok Post.
Also: How Sen. Jim Webb’s rare visit broke the ice with Burma in August.
<< India: On ‘Ladies Special’ trains, there are no men to harass women | MainComments
2. Jonathan | 11.04.09
Galium, the title is correct. Burma should come first, not Myanmar. This argument is a little old and drawn out, but there are a number of reasons why this is so and you can look them all up on wikipedia where the argument has raged on. One reason that I will mention is a moral one, being the name has been “officially” changed by a party that is not the real party elect. Ann San Suu Kyi represents the REAL party elect. The current regime is closer to the Taliban, if anything, so the English colonies analogy doesn’t hold. Would we be changing the name on the map of Afghanistan if the Taliban decided the country should be something else?
3. Jonathan | 11.04.09
The title is correct: Burma should go before Myanmar because the country’s name was “officially” changed by a ruling party that is not the party elect.
4. David Wickersham | 11.04.09
Galium makes a good point. Does the U.S. press still use the name “Burma” because it shows support for Suu Kyi? I’m perplexed by it, as I always refer to Myanamar as, well, Myanmar. If someone hasn’t heard of Myanmar I will say “the old Burma.” Hopefully someone will clarify why the use of Burma is still used so much. Again, is it an insult to the military leaders in Myanmar? I don’t see the Mumbai being called Bombay any longer.
Thanks in advance!
5. Ashley | 11.04.09
The name of the country is Burma. The military regime can call the country anything it wishes but the name is Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader. Period.
To call it anything else is an insult. When a title for an article such as this was chosen, Burma should have been the only country name reflected. To refer to Burma as Myanmar is to normalize despots.
6. Jonathan | 11.04.09
Not all of the press calls Myanmar by the name of Burma. I notice different newspapers have different policies.
But if you were to imagine what happened in Burma happened here, it would make much more sense to respect the name of Burma. It’s like if an oppressive military regime took over the U.S., pushed us all into poverty, destroyed all that was good in our lives (freedom, democracy, free press, etc), and then had the audacity to change our name from the United States to The Country of Omaha.
(no offense to Omaha)
7. A.P. | 11.04.09
<>
Of course it is—it’s a purposeful and direct insult to them. This is what we do when we don’t like the architects of a particular takeover. When we like—or have funded—a takeover, then we prefer and use the “new name.”
In this case, I personally say Burma when speaking of that country because the “Myanmar guys” are a bunch of cruel and subjugating creeps. Also, “Burma” is easier to pronounce.
8. galium | 11.04.09
Jonathan, morality has nothing to do with it. Who ever is in power can call the country whatever they want, no matter how they achieved the power. The Taliban is not in power in Afghanistan, a puppet government is and they call the country Afghanistan. So did the Taliban when they had control. With your reasoning N. Korea is just Korea, and Iran is Persia as neither of these countries have an elected government. I would assume that school geography books do not list Burma as Burma, but Myanmar. Nor does the UN use Burma. How ever we feel about a countries political government they, not us have the right to call their country whatever they wish. Using a name of a country that was the old kingdom name shows arrogance on our part. I am sure that Mr. Campbell did not go to the ruling powers in Myanmar and say Burma every time he referenced their country. When and if M. Kyi gets back into power and if they wish to change their name back to Burma, they have that right, we do not. I hope that she will but only time will tell. What you are saying is that some people have a preference to use the old name, that does not make it correct. My opinion is that news sources that do this are compounding the arrogance. Governments good or bad take a dim view of being insulted.
9. Aung Aung | 11.04.09
What 55 million Burmese people including all minorities suffer for almost 50 years is paramount important than myanmar or not. This is done by the Junta. Please note that they are not yet a legal government as of today. Therefore,”Myanmar” is also an illegal name so far. Instead of talking meaningless wording why don’t you argue about killing of Rev. Monks, people beaten to death daylight on the street, in the jails?
Burma, now in the process of Democratization. Burmese people will define their future very soon.
10. tim | 11.04.09
the country name is burma and we are burmese people. if you call the country Myanmar than what do you call the people of burma. i was raise in burma and just because the gov wants to change the name because the can.
11. Robert in Bangkok | 11.04.09
@galium - yes ,whoever is in power can call the country whatever they want. And whoever decides the policy of the newspaper can honor the wishes of those who were elected to lead the country, but denied the right to take office and instead imprisoned, exiled or killed, and call the country Burma — if they so see fit. That’s the power of the press.
12. matthew | 11.04.09
Just food for thought…what was the land of the nation now known as the United States of America originally called by those indegenous populations before the governments of Europe planted colonies and settlers here? ;]
Does time and annihilation justify terrorism and subjugation…? maybe not related…this came to mind after reading the comments…we constantly wrestle with our identity among humanity…who defines it…how is it defined…etc…be blessed everyone…
13. Myanmese | 11.04.09
i am a seventeen years old burmese in singapore. people sometimes call us myanmese and my country as myanmar. so i normally introduce me as from myanmar. but i do feel warm inside when people say i am from burma. if using the name “burma” insults our military, i vow to use burma from now on. at least, this is what i can do now..
14. Jonathan | 11.04.09
Aung Aung, I just want to kindly ask that you consider what you just wrote about “meaningless wording.” I believe that is very dangerous to believe. Words are everything. Wars, fights, problems are all started because of poor use of words. The meaning behind a word carries power, as it should. Sometimes, yes, it is meaningless, but I don’t think this is one of those cases.
15. Dennis Kerr | 11.10.09
I still call it Burma. Also, I have been a big fan of Aung San Suu Kyi for a long time. She represents everything I like about Asian women. It speaks volumes for the Burmese people to work away from communist rule. They still have a long way to go. They deserve our prayers.
16. Dennis Kerr | 11.10.09
Oh, I am from Omaha also. And related to another comment, I regard Denver as West Omaha, Chicago as East Omaha, St. Louis as South Omaha, and North Omaha as North Omaha. The coasts are our suburbs with nuclear missiles hidden in our back yards in the Dakotas, and our driveway to the gulf in Texas. So your comment is surprisingly appropriate. Needless to say though, Ted Turner has already bought up the land needed for a new capital city in Western Nebraska in case our current one ever gets hit in an attack.
No offense taken… 
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
2. Twitter Trackbacks for US envoy meets Suu Kyi in trip to engage Burma (Myanmar) | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 11.04.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. galium | 11.04.09
Very good article, except the title. The country’s name is Myanmar, not Burma. The title should have read US envoy meets Suu Kyi in trip to engage Myanmar (Burma). How would we respond to a heading that refered to the US as the English colonies (USA). I know the geographicly challenged understand the name Burma more than Myanmar, but don’t you think that using the names in the context that you have is insulting. All you had to do is reverse the placement.