The difference between our treatment of the three is that we isolated Burma, and General Ne Win isolated himself, whereas, because of the cold war, we embraced the Taiwanese, we embraced the South Koreans. Today, having been isolated for over a quarter of a century, Burma continues to be the same country it was, maybe only worse than 30-odd years ago, whereas South Korea and Taiwan have developed into thriving, prosperous democracies. Now, does the Senator see any lesson to be learned from this difference in treatment?
David Cay Johnston: “The difference between our treatment of the three is that we isolated Burma, and General Ne Win isolated himself…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the contrasting treatment of Burma, Taiwan, and South Korea in the context of U.S. foreign policy.
Share
More from David Cay Johnston
The point is this, though: They have tested it with weapons 30 times bigger than antitank weapons with direct hits. That caused a breach. Only a third of an ounce comes out. There are many, many much more lucrative targets, by orders of…
Then how in the world can the Senator say they are transferring the duty of disposing of nuclear waste from the Federal Government or the taxpayers and giving that to the utilities?
There are many reasons to be against the McCain amendment, but the clearest, most indelible, most compelling reason is that to cut these funds now would subject the U.S. Government to greater penalties for termination costs than it would…
nuclear waste traveling the country is, first of all, solid in form. It is sealed in a cask that, as I say, if you get a direct hit by something 30 times more powerful than an antitank weapon, what do you get? You get a third of an ounce…





