Wikileaks စာမ်က္ႏွာတြင္ပါရွိေသာ ျမန္မာ့အေရးကိစၥမ်ား မူရင္း အတိုင္းေဖၚျပပါသည္ (၁၀)

       ျမန္မာအစိုးရ၏ ညဴ အစီအစဥ္ႏွင့္ပတ္သက္ေသာ ၾကိဳးပမ္းမႈျဖစ္ပါသည္။ ထိုအစီအစဥ္မ်ားသာ အေကာင္အထည္ေဖၚႏိုင္လွ်င္ တိုင္းျပည္၏ ေျမေအာက္သယံဇာတမ်ား အားလံုးဆံုးရံႈးဖြယ္ျဖစ္ႏိုင္ပါသည္။

Tuesday, 10 November 2009, 09:35

S E C R E T RANGOON 000732

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EAP/MLS, INR/EAP

PACOM FOR FPA

EO 12958 DECL: 11/10/2019

TAGS KNNP, PARM, PREL, NPT, PGOV, PINR, KN, BM

SUBJECT: BURMA: ANOTHER CONVERSATION ABOUT BURMA-DPRK

NUCLEAR ISSUE

REF: RANGOON 502

Classified By: CDA Larry Dinger for Reasons 1.4 (b) & (d)

¶1. (S) [NAME REMOVED] , who on [DETAILS REMOVED] informed Australian Ambassador Chan in Rangoon that Burma and the DPRK were engaged in “peaceful nuclear cooperation” (reftel), has changed [DETAILS REMOVED] story. In a November 9 conversation with Ambassador Chan, [NAME REMOVED] said there had been a “misunderstanding.” After Chan’s “blunt” response to the August revelation (Chan had responded with incredulity to the thought that the GOB might consider nuclear cooperation of any sort with the DPRK to be acceptable), [NAME REMOVED] had checked around Nay Pyi Taw. [DETAILS REMOVED] now says GOB-DPRK conversations were merely “exploratory.” [NAME REMOVED] cannot confirm any direct nuclear cooperation. [DETAILS REMOVED] added that, in any case, the Kang Nam 1 affair and Secretary Clinton’s remarks in Phuket in July “put everything on hold.”

¶2. (S)[NAME REMOVED] observed that Russia is the key GOB partner for a nuclear reactor, but [DETAILS REMOVED] said there has been no progress. Russia has proposed a commercial deal, and the GOB cannot afford it. [NAME REMOVED] added that many countries have relations with the DPRK, including Australia, “so why worry?!”

Comment

-------

¶3. (S) As with many issues in Burma, the truth behind and possible motivations for [NAME REMOVED] first version and the recent revision are difficult to ascertain. Ambassador Chan now believes [DETAILS REMOVED] was simply speculating in August and has corrected the record. We were not in the actual conversations, but to us [DETAILS REMOVED] revision sounds more like an effort to cover a lapse in judgment than to deny the earlier story outright. The comment about the Kang Nam 1 and the Secretary’s remarks having “put everything on hold” leave room for concern. That noted, other of [NAME REMOVED] comments have caused us to question just how well plugged in [NAME REMOVED] is on the “nuclear” issue. Bottom line: GOB-DPRK cooperation remains opaque. Something is certainly happening; whether that something includes “nukes” is a very open question which remains a very high priority for Embassy reporting. DINGER