From: Ye Yint Thet Zwe
ႏွစ္ဆယ့္ႏွစ္ႏွစ္တဲ့လား
ခ်စ္ျခင္းမ်ားစြာနဲ ့
ျဖစ္ျခင္း ပ်က္ျခင္း တရားမ်ား
တေရြ ့ေရြ ့ … ခရီးရွည္ …။
ေပးဆပ္ျခင္းမ်ား
ဘ၀ အမ်ိဳးမ်ိဳး အဖံုဖုံ
ေဟာဒီ … လူ ့ဘံုႀကီးမွာ
တခ်ိဳ ့ … ေကာက္ရိုးမီး
တခ်ိဳ ့ … မၿငိမ္းေသာမီး
တခ်ိဳ ့ … မီးခဲျပာဖံုး
တခ်ိဳ ့ … ေတာက္မယ့္မီးခဲ တရဲရဲ
စသည္ျဖင့္ …
ကိုယ့္ေရြးခ်ယ္မႈနဲ ့ ကိုယ္
ေခတ္ေတြကို ျဖတ္သန္းသြားခဲ့ၾက …..။
နာရီေတြ ရာသီေတြ
တျဖဳတ္ျဖဳတ္ေၾကြ
အသက္ေတြ လြတ္လပ္ခြင့္ေတြ
တျဖဳတ္ျဖဳတ္ေၾကြ
လူ ့ေဘာင္ႀကီးတခုလံုး
တျဖဳတ္ျဖဳတ္ေၾကြ
ကမၻာမေၾကေတးသံ ေ၀တဲ့ေျမေပၚမွာ …။
သတိတယ ရွိၾကေဟ့
အေမွာင္ေခတ္ႀကီးရဲ ့အေၾကာင္းကို
ျပန္ေျပာင္းေျပာျပ
အရိုးပံုထဲက တြန္သံမ်ား
ကုန္းရုန္းထၾက
အနာဂတ္ဟာ အမွန္တရားနဲ ့ ၀င္းလက္ေတာက္ပလို ့ …။
(ရွစ္ေလးလံုးအေရးေတာ္ပံုႀကီး ၂၂ ႏွစ္ျပည့္သို ့)
၂၄ ဂ်ဴလိုင္ ၂၀၁၀
Saturday, August 7, 2010
မၿငိမ္းေသာမီး
An Open Letter to His Excellency Ban Ki-moon
1
An Open Letter to His Excellency Ban Ki-moon,
Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Date 6th August, 2010.
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General of the United Nations
United Nations
3 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017
Dear your Excellency,
First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is Tin Win and I am a Burmese democratic
and human right activist living in Japan.
I would like to welcome you to Japan as, first ever UN General Secretary who attend
the Peace Memorial Ceremony in Hiroshima and the first to visit Nagasaki. I also
enthusiastically welcome Your Excellency’s words on intensifying efforts toward nuclear
abolishment. I share Your Excellency’s view that the need to work together toward the
day when governments no longer have a choice but to respond to the will of the people
for a nuclear-free world, by way of Your Excellency have termed in the message to the
Hiroshima Conference for the Total Abolition of Nuclear Weapons by 2020.
As a democratic activist living in Japan I had seen first-hand the drastic reality caused
by the nuclear war. Furthermore, I have been working very closely with the Japanese
Unionists and other Japanese people to send the same massages as Your Excellency
had mentioned in your letter.
I would like to inform Your Excellency that these generals have banned basic human
rights, but spent tens of millions of dollars building the bases with the reported help of
nuclear experts from Russia and North Korea. The first indications of its nuclear
ambitions came last February when army Major Sai Thein Win defected with a dossier
on the secret sites. The several hundred photographs of the plants that Major Win
brought with him have aroused huge interest among defense chiefs in neighboring
Asian countries and western governments.
2
The Directorate of Defense Services, Science and Technology Research Centre in Pyin
Oo Lwin city at the Defense Services Technological Academy manage the country’s
nuclear effort. Evidence has also emerged of a “nuclear battalion” is working at a place
called Thabeikkyin where there are also extensive mining and ore concentrations.
There are suggestions that they are trying to produce yellowcake, a kind of uranium
concentrate powder, for possible use in processing uranium.
Moreover, Burma has obsoleted agreements with the Geneva-based International
Atomic Energy Agency but has not signed protocols that would allow detailed
inspections of the factories. The generals have ignored requests to improve the
agreements that mean the country is virtually exempt from inspections. Nevertheless,
with the generals’ current freedom from sanctions and relative economic prosperity, it is
highly likely that the junta may be able to outsource the technical expertise and tools to
reach its goals far sooner than expected.
In addition to that, Professor Yozo Yokota who was the UN Special Rapporteur on the
Situation of Human Rights in Burma had recently wrote in the Jakarta Post that impunity
prevails in Burma and no action has been taken to bring an end to the war crimes and
crimes against humanity committed by the generals of Burma. That is why he said that
he believe the United Nations has an obligation to respond to the current rapporteur’s
recommendation, establish a commission of inquiry, and propose action.
Given the Balkan-like nature of Burma's domestic situation and its strategic position
between India and China, a nuclear Burma will probably present the single greatest
threat to regional security and will in the long run be very bad for ASEAN countries. The
US and other Asia-Pacific countries have expressed concern that North Korean may
help Burma to become the first nuclear-armed nation in the Southeast Asia, saying the
military ties with North Korea are breaking UN Security Council Resolution 1874.
3
For those reason mentioned above, I would like to appeal Your Excellency to make
every effort, using your good office, to investigate the above mentioned information and
take appropriate actions to halt the doomsday scenario of our future.
Please kindly be warned that rogue nation as North Korea has developed the nuclear
capability by the failure on part of UN to make a concerted actions appropriately and
timely. Please do not allow the generals of Burma to create a new rogue state with
nuclear armaments and with Weapon of Mass Destruction. If Your Excellency fail to
take a timely action, the words you had pronounced in your message will never
materialized.
Respectfully,
Tin Win,
Gunma Prefecture, Ota City,
Ushizawa Chou 1000-1, Ushizawa Shiei Jutaku 3-13,
373-0833 Japan.
Phone/Fax: 0(81)276-38-1036
Mobile 0(81)80-3443-2447
E mail: mtinwin@pc5.so-net.ne.jp
END
4
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Human Rights Should Be Kan's Foreign Policy Priority
by Kanae Doi
Published in: English-Speaking Union of Japan
August 2, 2010
Now that the Upper House elections are over, Prime Minister Kan Naoto can at last concentrate on governing and making good on his pledge to build a "society with the minimum level of unhappiness." One way Prime Minister Kan could carry out this pledge would be to declare a commitment to "human rights diplomacy" and begin by formulating a vision for eliminating "unhappiness" not just in Japan, but also elsewhere in Asia and around the world.
Looking at only our nearest neighbors in Asia, it is easy to find many people suffering horrendous "unhappiness" - massacres, rape as a weapon of war, arbitrary arrest and torture in detention, the criminalization of free expression, association and assembly, and other forms of political oppression. While non-state actors such as armed insurgents are responsible for some of these horrors, many others are caused by abusive governments.
As a major aid donor to many Asian countries, the Japanese government is in a unique position to assert its leadership to stop these governments from inflicting "grave unhappiness." Japan should be using its membership on various important international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council to raise its voice against these rights abuses. Instead, Japan has been reticent to speak out publicly on behalf of victims of human rights abuses.
China's fast rise presents a special challenge to the world in this area. China claims to be a "responsible power," yet it is also a major human rights abuser. It censors its own people, oppresses ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang, and imprisons many people for exercising their rights to free expression.
China also faces strong international criticism for its core policy of "non-interference" in the internal affairs of other states. That approach translates into providing considerable quantities of unconditional economic aid to governments regardless of their rights records, and maintaining close bilateral relations with abusive governments such as Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
Since our neighbor China is making such strides in its efforts to emerge as a world power, it becomes all the more important for Japan to revive its profile in the world as a leader, not only in terms of its "hard" power of economic might but also its "soft" power, by strongly promoting a diplomacy based on human rights and the rule of law. However, in reality, Japan has been extremely hesitant in publicly raising human rights issues with its counterparts, including China. Defending its position, Japanese diplomats refer to variety of obstacles including Japan's past abuses in China and elsewhere during the Second World War. While it goes without saying that the Kan administration must be mindful of Japan's past with China, the past abuses should not be a reason to be less vigorous in its support for universal human rights standards. Rather, as a past abuser, Japan has a moral responsibility to protect the victims of on-going abuses.
Further, promoting and protecting human rights in Asia is necessary from a pragmatic standpoint, and consistent with Japan's national interests. In its Manifesto, the Kan administration promised that, "for the creation of an East Asian Community, we will make our best efforts to forge relationships of trust with China, Korea and other Asian countries." But being able to truly trust China should mean pressing it to demonstrate its respect for human rights, instead of borrowing a page from China's strategy of turning a blind eye to abuse.
An independent judiciary and free media can help monitor and ultimately prevent corruption and injustice by government and corporations. Judges and reporters focused on accountability and upholding the rule of law can function as a self-cleansing mechanism for governance, such as doctors who drain the pus before a festering boil of corruption gets out of hand. However, there is neither an independent judiciary nor free media in today's China, leading to a creeping accumulation of dissatisfaction among its people that may explode at any time.
From a long-term strategic perspective, Japan should gradually press China to expand respect for human rights and political freedoms if we are to create an "East Asian Community" with genuine prosperity and stability. This is not only necessary for Japan, but would benefit China as well.
The fight against impunity is another issue on which Japan's principles are being tested. When there is evidence that a war crime may have been committed and the state concerned fails to fulfill its international obligation to investigate, an independent international inquiry is called for, led by a respected body such as the United Nations. Will Japan raise a principled voice in support of justice for the civilian victims of a conflict, or will it tolerate impunity for senior government officials and rebel leaders who abuse human rights? This issue confronts Japan at this very moment over Israel and the Palestinians, as well as Sri Lanka, and Burma.
Ending impunity is essential to prevent future atrocities. As a leading democracy in Asia, Japan should firmly uphold the principle of justice and accountability in its relations with other governments.
Human Rights diplomacy also comes into play with Japan's Official Development Assistance (ODA). It has been two decades since Japan pledged to pay full attention to "the situation regarding the protection of basic human rights and freedoms in the recipient country" as one of the four principles of its ODA Charter, but implementation of these principles has lacked transparency, and at times, disregarded the substance of the principles altogether. We have to remember that China is not the only country criticized for its unconditional financial support to abusive governments. Japan has been a long time major financial supporter to some of the governments with notorious human rights record, including countries such as Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Burma.
Japan should clearly state that non-humanitarian aid is conditional on the efforts of the recipient government to protect and promote basic human rights, as measured by a concrete set of indicators. If the government is found to be violating basic human rights, based on the indicators, Japan should postpone extending financial aid until the country meets the standards.
With its declining birthrate and aging population, Japan today is feeling increasingly that it is being eclipsed by China and is in need of a positive future vision. Precisely because Japan finds itself in this state, the Kan administration should present a vision of a Japan as a nation that used its diplomatic influence to put a stop to the serious human rights violations around the world. This is Japan's responsibility as a major Asian democracy and a sign that it truly has reached maturity.
The writer is Japan Director of Human Rights Watch.
UN ‘working behind the scenes’ on Burma
http://www.dvb.no/news/un-%e2%80%98working-behind-the-scenes%e2%80%99-on-burma/11073
By FRANCIS WADE
Published: 3 August 2010
The UN has been forced to defend its record on Burma in recent days with the fallout from a leaked memo that slated Ban Ki-moon’s impact on the pariah state showing no signs of easing.
The now-infamous 50-page report, written by Inga-Britt Ahlenius and leaked to the Washington Post in mid-July, said that the UN secretariat is in a “process of decay” after three years of “absence of strategic guidance and leadership” under Ban.
The comments were a parting shot from Ahlenius, who recently finished her post as chief of the UN’s anti-corruption agency, the Office of Internal Oversight (UNOIOS).
“We seem to be seen less and less as a relevant partner in the resolution of world problems,” she said, questioning the UN’s “capacity to protect civilians in conflict and distress…What relevance do we have in disarmament, in Myanmar [Burma], Darfur, Afghanistan, Cyprus, G20…?”
The secretary general used one of his first speeches as UN chief in January 2007 to urge for the release of Burma’s political prisoners, but since his last, and widely criticised, visit to Burma in June last year, he has barely mentioned the country in public.
Moreover, the UN is yet to appoint a successor to Ibrahim Gambari, the equally maligned UN special envoy to Burma who was reassigned to Sudan in late 2009. In January this year it defended the hiatus on reappointing an envoy by claiming that UN Chief of Staff Vijay Nambiar was temporarily filling the role.
But it has again been forced to defend accusations in the wake of the leaked report that it has been lax on pressuring the Burmese junta to reform. One reporter asked Ban’s spokesperson, Martin Nesirky, on 23 July whether the UN had indeed accomplished anything on Burma, which is heading towards widely-criticised elections this year.
“We continue to work, as I also said to you before; the good offices [team] is not one individual, if you like, it’s people working behind the scenes,” he said. “Not everything that happens is in the public eye…Sometimes you see those results quickly, sometimes it takes longer. Certainly we’ve been very public about the need for credible elections in Myanmar.
Nambiar also responded to the Ahlenius report by saying that Ban’s work as secretary general had been “visionary” and that he had balanced his UN role with “providing truly global leadership.”
But critics have argued that his method of dealing in “soft power” has reinforced the growing influence of China within the UN, at a time when Western nations are in a face-off over China’s support for the Burmese junta. Ahlenius said that Ban was “spineless and charmless” and was “struggling to show leadership”, an accusation that has apparently rattled his office.
Author: FRANCIS WADE Category: News, Politics
Burma Turns a Cold Shoulder to the US
Burma Turns a Cold Shoulder to the US
Written by Adam Selene
TUESDAY, 03 AUGUST 2010
'Diplomacy by Stealth' Needed in West's Approach
The renewed dialogue between the US and the Burmese regime has attracted quite a bit of publicity. But these talks have yet to produce any tangible results.
This shouldn't surprise anybody. Off the record, even American diplomats admit that the talks with the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) are about little more than the dialogue itself. There are no offers on the table. The US is sticking to its policy of demanding democratic change.
In the meantime, President Barack Obama has renewed the US sanctions against Burma. So, in reality, there is no real news on the "Western Front."
What the West needs to realize is that the Burmese regime is not going to bow down publicly. The army in Burma stays in power mainly because it projects a strong image of unity and ruthlessness. Internally, this serves the regime well, because it keeps the Burmese people afraid and off the streets. In the psychological framework of the generals there is no chance they will ever voluntarily show signs of weakness. Junta chief Snr-Gen Than Shwe would lose face and his strongman image would crumble if he granted the US the concessions it wants.
There is another factor undermining the Burma policies of the West. The generals are not only politicians, they are businessmen, too. The SPDC doesn't operate on a basis of trust. It wants rock-solid proof. In its dealings with China and India, the SPDC is used to operating on a tit-for-tat basis. Both parties are clear about what they want and what they will supply.
This deal-making aspect is lacking in the dialogue with the US. The Americans want something but they are vague about what reward, if any, awaits an agreement. This irritates the regime instead of softening it up.
The European Union is also lost in a counter-productive Burma policy. Like the US, the European countries have installed rigid diplomatic and economic sanctions. But to what avail? Hardly anybody believes nowadays that the sanctions have produced anything positive.
A couple of weeks ago, even the Dutch Foreign Secretary Maxime Verhagen – known to be a hardliner on Burma issues – admitted in a speech that the sanctions haven't delivered. But he added quickly that he thought it was not an option to remove the sanctions, probably because it would rob the EU of the only card it has in its poker game with the regime.
It looks as if the EU has painted itself into a corner, too.
The counterproductive policies of the EU and the US are all the more sad since important processes are well underway in Burma. Exiled opposition forces may dismiss the elections as a sham, but the fact remains that the new constitution and the elections offer some freedoms and a level of participation that was sorely missing in recent decades.
Instead of marginalizing itself, the West should do everything within its powers to improve the democratic nature of the elections. The old approach hasn't worked out, so a new one is needed. And quickly.
Two things are important. First, there should be a willingness to deal with the regime. Yes, the SPDC is a rogue government. But currently it is the only government in town. If anybody is sincere in the need to achieve anything in Burma, deals are inevitable. The sanctions can still be used as bargaining chips. Better still is to make the first move. Offer something and be clear about the nature of the "reward" — and build on that.
Of course, this is shaky ground because for the West, with all its democratic checks and balances and a past of morally inspired Burma policies, it is hard to start whistling a completely new tune. But time is running out. The elections are casting their shadow ahead, despite the regime being unwilling to announce a date yet. So better hurry.
The second important thing is not to publicly make a numbers game out of it. Let the regime have its deal and receive the credit for the softer line it takes. It's the result that counts. The minute the West makes it seem as if the generals have bowed down, trust will be shattered and it will be back to square one.
What the West needs now is deal-making and diplomacy by stealth. If that means taking flak and biting the bullet so be it.
The Irrawaddy
Adam Selene is a journalist based in Bangkok.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Letter to His Excellency Ban Ki-moon,General Secretary-The United Nations
To
Mr. Ban Ki-moon
General Secretary
The United Nations
Dated – 3-8-2010
Dear Mr. Ban Ki-moon,
First of all, we would like to let you know that our Burmese people would be suffering more
grievances evidently because of the gross violation of human rights and lack of rule of law
under the Burmese dictatorial regime and there will be a bigger burden on the shoulders of
international community including the United Nations as long as all of us cannot set the
following targets in Burma’s political affairs -
1. the current regime should recognize Burma’s 1990 election result appropriately;
2. all concerned parties should amend the 2008 Constitution to be compatible with a
democratic standard,
3. all political prisoners including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should be released immediately
and unconditionally, and
4. all inclusive dialogue for national reconciliation should be launched immediately.
Without implementing such targets, it is very clear that we cannot make political progress to
change Burma as a democratic nation.
The Burmese regime was completely ignorant of the above-mentioned targets; instead, it
continued to announce its one-sided 2010 Election Law based on the so-undemocratic 2008
Constitution. It should be well aware that any election in accordance with such election law
cannot be considered a free and fair election which the UN and international community have
long expected.
If the current Burmese regime holds an election desperately without the above-mentioned
important political process, as this will not certainly be the much needed one that our
Burmese people and international community including the UN, we request you to use your
good office to leverage the United Nations not to recognize the result of such election.
In addition to these political affairs, we strongly urge you to consider without delay a report
from Mr. Tomás Ojea Quintana, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Burma, in
which he has recommended that the UN should consider establishing a Commission of
Inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Burmese government.
2
As the IAEA has planned to play a big role in insuring that nuclear materials do not fall into
the wrong hands, we again request you to take necessary measure against the Burmese
junta who has been aiming to develop nuclear weapons despite being a member of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a global anti-nuclear arms pact, and of the IAEA.
Finally, we would like to let you know that there will be no economic development for our
Burmese people but only for the unnecessarily longer dictatorship in Burma when Daewoo
Group, a major conglomerate from your native South Korea, has invested extremely in Burma
and collaborated with the junta leaders for their bilateral self-interest.
May you be well during your official trip to Japan!
From:
Burmese democratic forces in Japan
N.B. We are individuals and groups of pro-democracy Burmese community in Japan.
ဂ်ပန္ႏိုင္ငံေရာက္ ကုလသမဂၢ အေထြေထြအတြင္းေရးမႉးခ်ဳပ္ ဘန္ကီမြန္းအား တိုက္တြန္းေတာင္းဆိုသည့္ လႈပ္ရွားမႈ
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
ဂ်ပန္ႏိုင္ငံေရာက္ ကုလသမဂၢ အေထြေထြအတြင္းေရးမႉးခ်ဳပ္ ဘန္ကီမြန္းအား တိုက္တြန္းေတာင္းဆိုသည့္ လႈပ္ရွားမႈ
ဂ်ပန္ႏိုင္ငံ ဟီရိုရွီးမားၿမိဳ့ႏွင့္ နာဂါဆာကီးၿမိဳ့မ်ားတြင္ က်င္းပရန္ရွိသည့္ Peace Memorial ႏွစ္ပတ္လည္ အခမ္းအနားသို႔ တက္ေရာက္လာမည့္ ကုလသမဂၢ အေထြေထြအတြင္းေရးမႉးခ်ဳပ္ ဘန္ကီမြန္းအား ဂ်ပန္ႏိုင္ငံေရာက္ ျမန္မာ့ဒီမိုကေရစီ အင္အားစုတို႔မွ ျမန္မာ့အေရးႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္၍ တိုက္တြန္း ေတာင္းဆိုသည့္ လႈပ္ရွားမႈတရပ္ကို တိုက်ိဳ Shibuya UN House ေရွ႔၌ ယေန႔ ညေန ၃း၀၀ နာရီ မွ ၄း၀၀ နာရီအထိ က်င္းပျပဳလုပ္ခဲ့ပါသည္။
အေထြေထြအတြင္းေရးမႉးခ်ဳပ္ ဘန္ကီမြန္းအား ျမန္မာ့အေရးႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္သည့္ တိုက္တြန္း ေတာင္းဆိုသည့္စာကို ကုလသမဂၢရုံး(ဂ်ပန္)တာ၀န္ရွိသူ Mr.KAWADE NOBUYUKI မွလကၡံရယူေပးခဲ့ပါသည္။ တိုက္တြန္း ေတာင္းဆိုသည့္စာတြင္ လက္ရွိ ျမန္မာႏိူင္ငံ၏ အေထြေထြ အက်ပ္အတည္းမ်ားကို ၿငိမ္းခ်မ္းစြာ ေျဖရွင္းႏိုင္ရန္အတြက္ ေရႊဂံုတိုင္ ေၾကညာစာတမ္းပါ အခ်က္မ်ားကို ဂ်ပန္ႏိုင္ငံေရာက္ ျမန္မာ့ဒီမိုကေရစီ အင္အားစုတို႔မွ အဓိကထားၿပီး တိုက္တြန္း ေတာင္းဆိုထားပါသည္။
ေရႊဂံုတိုင္ ေၾကညာစာတမ္းပါ ေတာင္းဆိုခ်က္မ်ားကို နအဖ စစ္အာဏာပိုင္တို႔က လံုးဝ လစ္လ်ဴရႈကာ ၂ဝ၁ဝ မတ္လတြင္ ၎တို႔စိတ္ႀကိဳက္ တဘက္သပ္ ေရးဆြဲထားေသာ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ ဥပေဒမွာ ဒီမိုကေရစီ စံႏႈန္းမ်ား မျပည့္စံုဘဲ ရွိေနသျဖင့္ ကုလသမဂၢႏွင့္ ႏိုင္ငံတကာမွ ေမွ်ာ္လင့္ထားသည့္ ဒီမိုကေရစီ အသြင္ေျပာင္းေရးအတြက္ လြတ္လပ္၍ တရားမွ်တေသာ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ ျဖစ္မလာႏိုင္ေၾကာင္းကိုလည္း ဘန္ကီမြန္းအား တပ္မွန္ၿပီး အသိေပးျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္။ တိုက္တြန္းေတာင္းဆိုမႈမ်ားကို လစ္လ်ဴရႈလ်က္ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲကို ဇြတ္အတင္း က်င္းပလာမည္ ဆိုပါက ကုလသမဂၢ အပါအဝင္ ႏိုင္ငံတကာက အလိုရွိအပ္ေသာ ဒီမိုကေရစီ အသြင္ကူးေျပာင္းျခင္း မဟုတ္သျဖင့္ အဆိုပါ ေရြးေကာက္ပြဲ၏ ရလဒ္ကို ကုလသမဂၢမွ အသိအမွတ္ မျပဳရန္ ဘန္ကီမြန္းအား တိုက္တြန္းေတာင္းဆိုခဲ့ပါသည္။
အထက္ေဖာ္ျပပါ ႏိုင္ငံေရးကိစၥမ်ားအျပင္ ျမန္မာနအဖ စစ္အစိုးရမွ အႀကီးအက်ယ္ က်ဴးလြန္ေနေသာ စစ္ရာဇဝတ္မႈမ်ား (war crimes) ႏွင့္ လူသားမ်ားအေပၚ က်ဴးလြန္သည့္ ရာဇဝတ္မႈမ်ား(crimes against humanity) ကို စံုစမ္းစစ္ေဆးရန္ ေကာ္မရွင္တရပ္ ဖြဲ႔စည္းေရးကို ကုလသမဂၢမွ သံုးသပ္ စဥ္းစားသင့္ေၾကာင္း ကုလသမဂၢ အထူးကိုယ္စားလွယ္ Tomas Ojea Quintana ၏ အစီရင္ခံစာကို ဘန္ကီမြန္းမွ အေလးအနက္ထားကာ အေရးယူ ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးသင့္ေၾကာင္းႏွင့္ သံသယျဖစ္ဖြယ္ရာ အႏုျမဴလက္နက္မ်ားကို ထုတ္လုပ္ရန္ ၾကံစည္ႀကိဳးပမ္းေနျခင္းကို ကုလသမဂၢအေနျဖင့္ လစ္လ်ဴမရႈပဲ လိုအပ္သလို အေရးယူ တားဆီးေပးရန္ စသည့္အခ်က္မ်ားကိုပါ ထည့္သြင္းေတာင္းဆိုထားေၾကာင္း သိရွိရပါသည္။တိုက္တြန္းေတာင္းဆိုသည့္ အခမ္းအနားတြင္ ဂ်ပန္ႏိုင္ငံေရာက္ ျမန္မာ့ဒီမိုကေရစီ အင္အားစု စုစုေပါင္း ၉၀ ခန္႔ ပူးေပါင္း ပါ၀င္ခဲ့ၾကေၾကာင္း သိရွိရပါသည္။
သတင္းမွတ္တမ္း ။ Mai Kyaw Oo
မွတ္တမ္းဓါတ္ပုံ ။ Lian Khan Sum(CNC-Japan)
【22年目の8888】ビルマ民主化運動22周年記念デモ行進のご案内―ビルマ軍政のすすめる総選挙に反対！
みなさま、
今年も、ビルマ民主化運動22周年を記念して8月8日（日）14時より、
在日ビルマ人のみなさんがデモ行進を行います。
以下、案内文をいただきましたので、転送いたします。
この日はビルマの民主化運動の中でももっとも大事な日とされ、
日本での活動の中でも最も多くの参加者があります。
（昨年はなんと1,300人以上。）
今年はビルマ軍政が実施しようとしている総選挙に反対の意味を
こめて、”Boycott 2010 Burma SPDC’s Election !!”のスローガン
のもと、在日ビルマ人のみなさんが現在準備をすすめています。
日本の方もぜひご参加ください。
★昨年の8888デモ行進の様子はこちら（写真）：
http://pfbkatsudo.blogspot.com/2009/08/21881300.html
ビルマ市民フォーラム事務局
http://www1.jca.apc.org/pfb/
-------------------------------------------------
Boycott 2010 Burma SPDC’s Election !!
-------------------------------------------------
22年目の8月8日
8888ビルマ民主化運動記念デモ行進のお知らせ（東京）
-------------------------------------------------
■日 時：2010年8月8日（日） 午後2時集合
■集合場所： 東京・五反田南公園（ＪＲ五反田駅から徒歩3分）
■スケジュール： 午後2時 集合（集会・参加団体のスピーチなど）
午後2時半頃 デモ行進スタート
■行 程:五反田南公園から在日ビルマ大使館前を通り直後に解散
（40分程）
■主 催：在日ビルマ人共同実行委員会(JAC)ほか
在日ビルマ民主化活動家のみなさん
-------------------------------------------------
ビルマにおける軍事独裁主義を打倒するために、民主主義のために、
学生や僧侶、国民全員が参加した「8888ビルマ民主化運動」から
今月8月8日に22周年目を迎えます。
私たち学生や僧侶、国民全体が闘争に加わり1988年8月8日に起きた
8888民主化運動では、ビルマ社会主義計画党の軍事独裁者らによる
虐殺行為にもかかわらず、私たちは一党独裁制を打倒しました。
しかしながら国民全員が待ち望んでいる真の民主主義はまだ実現
しておりません。８８８８民主化運動のなかで命を落とされた勇敢な
人々、運動の代価となった数々の負傷や流血、軍靴の下からの解放、
国民の願い・・・これらのための闘争はまだ終わっていません。
私たちの闘争を支援してくれた、支援してくれている、各国際機関・
団体や個々人の皆さんに改めてここに感謝の意を表するものです。
今後ともビルマの民主主義獲得のために、皆さんが輪になって支援
してくださいますよう、お願い申し上げます。
-------------------------------------------------
China Setting Milestone as Economy Passes Japan's
China Setting Milestone as Economy Passes Japan's
China milestone: Economy seen overtaking Japan's, highlighting challenges at home and abroad
By JOE McDONALD
The Associated Press
BEIJING
China is set to overtake Japan as the world's second-largest economy in a resurgence that is changing everything from the global balance of military and financial power to how cars are designed.
By some measures it has already moved to second place after the U.S. in total economic output a milestone that would underline a pre-eminence not seen since the 18th century, when the Middle Kingdom last served as Asia's military, technological and cultural power.
China is already the biggest exporter, auto buyer and steel producer, and its worldwide influence is growing. The fortunes of companies from Detroit automakers to Brazilian iron miners depend on spending by China's consumers and corporations. And rising wealth brings political presence: Chinese pressure helped to win developing countries a bigger voice in the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
"Japan was the powerhouse driving the rest of Asia," said Rob Subbaraman, chief Asia economist for Nomura Securities. "Now the tide is turning and China is becoming a powerful influence on the rest of Asia, including Japan."
China's rise has produced glaring contradictions. The wealth gap between an elite who profited most from three decades of reform and its poor majority is so extreme that China has dozens of billionaires while average income for the rest of its 1.3 billion people is among the world's lowest. Beijing has launched two manned space missions and is talking about exporting high-speed trains to California and Europe while families in remote areas live in cave houses cut into hillsides.
Japan's people still are among the world's richest, with a per capita income of $37,800 last year, compared with China's $3,600. So are Americans at $42,240, their economy still by far the biggest. But Japan is trapped in a two-decade-old economic slump, the U.S. is wrestling with a financial crisis, and China's sheer economic size and the lure of its vast consumer market adds to its clout abroad.
Its explosive growth has driven conflicting shifts in Asia and beyond, triggering a scramble for commercial opportunity but fueling unease that the wealth is helping to finance a military buildup to press the communist government's claims in the region.
"I think everyone in the region is trying to benefit from Chinese economic dynamism but at the same time is trying to make sure China does not become a regional hegemon," said Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian newspaper.
Exactly when China passes Japan formally will be unclear until after this year ends. It depends on shifting exchange rates and data reported in different forms by the two governments.
Chinese GDP in 2009 was $4.98 trillion and Japan's was $5.07 trillion. In 2010, Chinese GDP was $1.335 trillion for the April-June quarter a period for which Tokyo has yet to report. China is growing at 10 percent a year, while Japan's expansion this year is forecast at no more than 3 percent.
"On that basis, the crossover probably happened last quarter," said Julian Jessop, chief international economist for Capital Economics in London, in an e-mail.
Beijing appears to take it for granted that it already has overtaken Japan.
"China already is the world's second-biggest economic body," said a deputy central bank governor, Yi Gang, in a policy discussion posted July 30 on the foreign exchange agency's website.
Australia has been one of the biggest beneficiaries as China's voracious appetite for iron ore, coal and other commodities drove a mining boom that kept its economy growing through the global crisis.
That booming trade prompted Australia to reconsider its stance toward China, previously seen as a communist aggressor. In 2008, then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a Mandarin-speaker who was a diplomat in Beijing, called for closer political, economic and academic engagement with the Chinese government.
But Rudd also displayed Australia's independence from Beijing by talking about human rights, Tibet and China's Muslim minorities issues Chinese leaders want other countries to keep quiet about. And Australia affirmed its longtime security alliance with Washington a counterweight to China's growing might. Rudd's successor, Julia Gillard, has given no sign of a major change of direction.
In the long historical view, China's 21st century rise is a return to the status it held for most of the past 2,000 years as "Zhong Hua," or the Central Brightness, East Asia's economic and military giant and a beacon of technology and elite culture to societies from Vietnam to Korea to Japan.
China's was the biggest economy, with its workshops and textile mills accounting for up to one-third of global manufacturing. But it went into steep decline in the 19th century as its rulers resisted mimicking Japan's embrace of Western technology. By the 1930s, China produced just a few percent of global factory output.
After a civil war, communist takeover and political upheaval, free-enterprise reforms pioneered by leader Deng Xiaoping opened the door for hundreds of millions of Chinese to work their way out of poverty.
Since those reforms began in 1979, China has grown into the world's low-cost factory, its biggest exporter and producer of half its steel. It wants to evolve beyond cheap manufacturing and is trying to build up technology industries but has had little success so far.
Last year, the World Bank ranked China 124th among economies in per capita income, behind Latin America and some African nations, while Japan was No. 32. The United States was 17th.
Yet already, China's consumers are so avidly courted by global companies that products from autos to home appliances destined for sale worldwide are designed with their tastes in mind. This year, French luxury goods maker Hermes Group unveiled a brand, Shang Xia, to be designed specifically for Chinese customers.
Unlike Japan, which renounced aggressive force after its World War II defeat, Beijing sees itself as Asia's rightful military leader. It has openly possessed nuclear weapons since the 1960s and is spending heavily to build up the Communist Party's military arm, the 2.5 million-soldier People's Liberation Army.
Beijing's military outlays are the world's second-highest and have tripled since 2000 to an estimated $100 billion last year, though well behind Washington's $617 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
China's demand for oil, iron ore and other raw materials is pumping money into developing economies as far-flung as Angola and Kazakhstan that supply them. Chinese companies are making inroads into Africa in search of resources and markets.
"Now, Africa has an alternative development model," said Derek Scissors, a Heritage Foundation scholar in Washington. Instead of Western investment with environmental or other strings attached, Scissors said, "they now see the Chinese as an alternative: 'We don't want to deal with you. We'll get some Chinese state-owned company to put $1.5 billion into this mining project.' "
Chinese pressure helped to trigger the biggest changes in decades in the U.S.- and European-dominated World Bank and IMF, which agreed to give China, Turkey, Mexico and other developing countries a bigger say in picking leaders and deciding policy.
The boom has helped communist leaders pay to cultivate "soft power" educational and media activity to win hearts and minds abroad.
Of course, even after slipping to third place, Japan is still rich and comfortable the Switzerland of Asia.
The society that created hybrid cars and the Walkman has 99 percent literacy and the world's longest life expectancy at 83 years. Tokyo is the capital of fine dining, with more Michelin-starred restaurants than Paris.
Toyota has overtaken General Motors as the biggest global automaker at a time when China companies have yet to establish their own brand names.
Now, with Japan in the rear view mirror, can China catch up with the United States?
Yes, say many analysts.
China could match the U.S. in total output as early as 2020, said a World Bank forecast in June. But still, it said per capita income would be one-fourth the U.S. level, comparable to Malaysia or Latin America.
Achieving even that will require China's unelected, secretive leaders to radically change their state-dominated economy.
They need to promote technology and education, fight rampant corruption that is stoking public anger and resist temptation to favor government-owned companies at the expense of a dynamic private sector that creates jobs and wealth.
Success is far from guaranteed, warn the World Bank and others.
They say China, Mexico and other developing countries easily can stall at middle-income levels if they fail to develop an educated, creative work force and legal systems to support innovation or if they allow entrenched companies to stifle competition.
"Are they going to pass the U.S. in total GDP? Yes, very likely," said Scissors. "Are they going to move into upper-middle-income status? That's a much tougher thing."
———
Associated Press writer Tomoko A. Hosaka in Tokyo contributed to this report.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures
Thursday, July 29, 2010
China's Billion-Dollar Aid Appetite
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/19/chinas_billion_dollar_aid_appetite?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full
JULY 28, 2010
China's Billion-Dollar Aid Appetite
Why is Beijing winning health grants at the expense of African countries?
BY JACK C. CHOW | JULY 19, 2010
Back in 2001, I was the lead U.S. negotiator in international talks meant to transform the way that poor countries fight some of the world's most pernicious diseases -- HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Our vision looked like this: Instead of each country spending on its own, rich countries would pool donations into one coordinated fund that would give grants to help resource-strapped countries purchase medicines, build health programs, and prevent the diseases from spreading. We imagined the bulk of the money ending up in places like Lesotho, Haiti, and Uganda, where these three diseases have reached crisis levels. So it might surprise and concern you -- as much as it still does me -- to learn that one of the top grant recipients isn't in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, or impoverished Central Asia. It's a country with $2.5 trillion in foreign currency reserves: China.
More... Over the eight years since the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria first launched, China has applied for and been awarded nearly $1 billion in grants, becoming the fourth-largest recipient of funds behind Ethiopia, India, and Tanzania. Already, the country has drawn nearly $500 million from this credit line and soon expects to receive $165 million in new grants. China's aggregate award from the fund is nearly three times larger than that of South Africa, one of the most affected countries from these three diseases. Moreover, China has won malaria grant money totaling $149 million (and $89 million more might be on the way) -- in a country where only 38 deaths from the mosquito-borne illness were reported last year. That is more than the $122 million awarded to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which reported nearly 25,000 malaria deaths during the same period. In fact, only seven sub-Saharan African countries receive more malaria aid than China -- and 29 countries in Africa get less. Combined, those 29 countries report 64,000 deaths from the disease each year.
China has aggressively pursued Global Fund grants and has continued to win significant amounts with every passing year. Beijing does make a nominal contribution to the fund of $2 million annually, meaning that it has donated $16 million over the last eight years. By comparison, the United States, the leading donor, has committed $5.5 billion, and France has offered $2.5 billion over the same period. These contributing countries expect no financial return for their gift, but China has recouped its spending by 60 times.
Even more alarming, China's persistent appetite threatens to undermine the entire premise behind the Global Fund. The organization's leadership is trying to solicit between $13 billion and $20 billion to cover its next three years of operations -- a tall order at a time of global recession. Donors will grow even more reluctant if they realize that substantial funds are being awarded to a country that can more than pay for its own health programs.
How did China ever become eligible for grants in the first place? In short, because of a loophole. The Global Fund decides eligibility for grants based on the World Bank's classification system, which divides countries by income. High-income countries such as the United States, the European industrial countries, and Japan are ineligible. Low-income countries, including many in sub-Saharan Africa, are grant-eligible. In between, so-called lower-middle-income countries like China are eligible if the grants are part of a cost-sharing program through which the fund pays up to 65 percent and the country pays the rest. (China stays in this lower-middle-income category because its huge population keeps per capita figures down.) The country competes with the likes of Bolivia, Cameroon, and India in this category. But because the fund's pot of money isn't allocated by income group, any grants that China wins reduce the remaining money available for all eligible countries.
For a country like Cameroon, cost-sharing grants make a lot of sense. By giving part of the full amount, the fund can spur the host government into investing more of its discretionary budget in health. The extra cash can build health infrastructure and capacity, preparing the country to wean itself from foreign funds. But in China's case, the argument for a Global Fund grant is tenuous at best. During the depths of the world economic crisis in 2008, China put forth a massive economic stimulus package of $586 billion that included new health and education spending of $27 billion. The government announced its intention to boost rural health coverage with $125 billion in spending over the next several years. Even a fraction of that promised amount would negate any need by China to draw upon the Global Fund.
This is not to say, of course, that China's health system does not face formidable challenges. Indeed, global health policymakers worry that HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis in particular could rise dramatically as the country urbanizes and industrializes and a new middle class veers away from traditional social mores. Everyone remembers the SARS outbreak in 2002 and 2003 that practically shut down major cities in China. And beyond specific threats, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the chief implementer of the Global Fund portfolio and officiator of the government's public health strategy, has hard work ahead to build up China's health workforce and medical infrastructure.
But China might want these grants for reasons having more to do with politics than public health. The Health Ministry is the only member of China's policymaking State Council not led by a political party member. As such, its ability to compete for domestic funds pales in comparison with other assertive, powerful ministries led by longstanding party leaders. So the Health Ministry might be driven to external funding by political necessity. Or, China might value obtaining the technical assistance of international health agencies such as the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Global Fund grants provide a means of securing their advice and services. China's participation on the fund's board might also be useful to Beijing's global politics, confirming its importance on the world stage.
Whatever benefits China gains from seeking grants, however, stack up poorly against expensive opportunity costs exacted upon needier countries. The $1 billion awarded to China could have been used by the poorest countries to distribute 67 million anti-malarial bed nets, 4.5 million curative tuberculosis treatments, or nearly 2 million courses of anti-retroviral therapy for AIDS patients (a number equivalent to all those living with the disease in Kenya).
It is intriguing that health ministers from the poorest countries have expressed neither concern nor opposition to China winning grants. Nor has there been any substantial public challenge to or debate about the money China has received from the Global Fund. Part of the reason might be structural; the fund's large 26-member board (which includes representatives of countries, regions, organizations, and the Global Fund itself) operates based on consensus, and its meetings are time-constrained forums that pressure members to make rapid decisions. Changing eligibility policy, for example to exclude China, would entail time-intensive negotiations that may well pit groups of grantees against one another. The board also approves grants en bloc, relying upon the advice of technical experts who review them for feasibility and public health impact, not fairness, balance, or a country's ability to pay.
Even so, there is likely more behind the silence than just procedure. For many of the poorer countries that lose out, opposing China in international forums would risk incurring Beijing's diplomatic wrath. Health ministers are skittish to imperil their country's broader interactions with China, which in the case of African countries, often entails Chinese loans, grants, infrastructure projects, and investment -- and indeed, even further, health aid. In turn, African countries seeking access to the burgeoning Chinese market must curry Beijing's favor. Any country that openly opposes China at the Global Fund might see these economic links broken or be put at a disadvantage to competitors. And so the neediest countries endure a loss of grant money to China through their collective silence.
Donor governments have also been mute or reluctant to oppose China at the Global Fund, perhaps for similar reasons of not wishing to provoke a reaction that impacts other diplomatic or political equities elsewhere. In the United States, neither Congress nor the White House has voiced open concern that an amount equivalent to President Barack Obama's entire fiscal 2011 Global Fund budget request of $1 billion has gone to a country that can afford to pay its own way.
This has left the fund's leadership as the only front left for trying to change China's stance. Based on China's national income and the rate of other donor contributions, the Global Fund recommends that China should give $96 million over the next three years, amounting to 16 times its current annual donation. In 2007, prior to China's hosting of a board meeting in Kunming, the fund asked China's government to up its donor commitment, but the appeal went nowhere. In June, with fundraising pressures escalating, the fund's executive director, Michel Kazatchkine, met in Beijing with Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang, who issued a vague promise to cooperate with international organizations to expand disease prevention and treatment, but made no announcement to refrain from taking new grants or signaled any intent to become a major donor.
Not even a rival country's actions seem to have convinced Beijing. In recent years, nearby Russia has transformed itself from recipient to donor, and it has done so under arguably less favorable economic conditions than those in China today. In 2006, then President Vladimir Putin pledged to repay the Global Fund $270 million over four years, covering the past assistance it received, and announced $156 million in new domestic spending for HIV treatment. Now four years out, Russia has paid in $250 million to the Global Fund, essentially fulfilling Putin's pledge.
It is audacious for China to assert that it needs international health assistance on par with the world's poorest countries. In fact, at the same time it is drawing from the Global Fund, China is building its entire global image as one of economic growth, accumulating wealth and international stature. To boost its public profile and prestige, China spent billions to host the Beijing Olympics and the Shanghai World Expo. Surely it could spend another $1 billion of its cash on health as well. And why not take it one step further? By becoming a Global Fund donor, China could win acclaim with the West and the world's poorest -- earning exactly the kind of respect that a rising power deserves.
Save big when you subscribe to FP.
China Photos/Getty Images
Jack C. Chow served as U.S. ambassador on global HIV/AIDS from 2001 to 2003 and was the lead U.S. negotiator at talks that established the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. He is currently distinguished service professor of global health at Carnegie Mellon University in Heinz College's School of Public Policy and Management.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Reddit
You might like:
Why the Army needs to revisit the way it handles deployment sex - By Tom Ricks (The Best Defense )
Chinese Takeout (The Argument )
Beijing has alienated the most pro-China interest groups in the United States and Europe (Foreign Policy - Daniel W. Drezner )
Tapped Out (Foreign Policy)
SUBJECTS: CHINA, POLITICS, AIDS, PUBLIC HEALTH, DEVELOPMENT, U.S. CONGRESS, HEALTH, FOREIGN AID, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, AFRICA, EAST ASIA
Vladimir Putin's Wild Ukrainian Weekend
We Spent 8Years Prosecuting Osama's Fax Machine Guy?
Only Ignorant Liberals Think Reagan Was A Dove
The State Dept.'s Top Iran Expert Explains Why He Quit
(21)SHOW COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE
PUBLICUS
1:26 AM ET
July 20, 2010
Absurd
We know that the PRC is not a responsible member of the international system, as this piece mightily documents in yet another way.
Beijing has little give and a lot of take.
The CPC leadership in Beijing continues to hold and practice a world view that is selfish and too self-centered to expect any changes to China's low international standing any time soon. There's the bully pulpit and then there's simply the bully.
REPLY KASEMAN
9:54 AM ET
July 20, 2010
damn clever these Chinese, eh?
And the place is run by engineers not lawyers! When was the last time we heard of our engineers outsmarting our tribes of perfidious Lawyers?
Engineers construct, lawyers destruct.
REPLY VILKSSWEDEN
11:55 AM ET
July 20, 2010
and assholes make irrelevant comments about
lawyers and engineers. Point is, China is taking the money from more needy countries, when it can more than easily foot the bill itself, at no harm to its economy or policy.
REPLY COOL_HEAD
5:40 AM ET
July 20, 2010
What about India
China has applied for and been awarded nearly $1 billion in grants, becoming the fourth-largest recipient of funds behind Ethiopia, India, and Tanzania.
What about India -- the 2nd-largest recipient?
REPLY NORBOOSE
10:15 AM ET
July 20, 2010
India isnt oppressive
First of all, I am writing from an American perspective, about why I think America should give lots of aid to India. If youre from some other country, then this is irrelevant.
India has problems, like any country (Kashmir, overeaction to the Naxalites), but all in all, its a pretty free country. China is ruled by a clockwork system of oppression. India will probably be a close US ally untill hell freezes over, as almost all of our long-term interests align perfectly. It is in our own interest to help India modernize as rapidly as possible.
REPLY SAM FROM CALIFORNIA
4:52 PM ET
July 20, 2010
Uhhhh
India is a lot poorer than China, and it may have a worse AIDS problem (both countries do have an AIDS problem, i'm too lazy to check which is worse.) China is now wealthy enough to provide the universal, national health care its socialist system promises, without taking aid money. Or at least it should take less.
But perhaps there is a problem with a time lag; ie, China is traditionally a poor country, and has yet to really reorient its foreign policy in line with its newfound wealth. I think the Chinese still think they are a third world country like any other; they are, but they are also the country with the world's largest and most profitable businesses and many broken or unfulfilled social promises.
REPLY MINDALAY
12:05 PM ET
July 23, 2010
If the very wealthy Chinese
If the very wealthy Chinese state doesn't care about its citizens, why should anyone else? You are right: nation-state power is not the the same as the wealth of individual citizens. So where are the Chinese donations to American citizens in Appalachia and the South Bronx? The moment China started a space program is the moment they no longer deserved any foreign aid.
REPLY BOBCHEN
8:34 AM ET
July 20, 2010
I don't understand.
Why couldn't the Global Fund make the requirement for nations with low-to-middle income AND the largest population with AIDS/tuberculosis/malaria.
This loophole has been around for 8 years, and nobody at Global Fund thought to close it?
REPLY KASEMAN
9:51 AM ET
July 20, 2010
HIV is racially blind
All humans are the same altho some more so than others
REPLY FIRST ADVISOR
6:13 PM ET
July 20, 2010
American Jingoism and China-Bashing
As the brainless bigotry of many comments demonstrate, this essay is merely more US China-bashing, with no purpose or conclusion at all. Some posters proudly display their utter innumerancy by arguing that China is wealthy, apparently incapable of performing the Grade 4 artihmetic of dividing GDP by population. Monkeys in a cage in a zoo have more common sense.
What is immediately obvious, and most important to an intelligent, educated reader, is the astonishing rudeness and inexcusable offensiveness of a supposed professional diplomat publicly criticizing and complaining about the national government of any country. Dr. Chow confesses that as far as he can tell, no one in the entire world cares about China's so-called 'scam', not even his own government.
He makes up, out of his own head, highly questionable speculation and extremely dubious conclusions, trying to explain to himself and the reader WHY no one else in the world seems to care but him. This is elementary school fights nonsense. It is shocking, and deeply embarrassing, to see a supposed diplomat make a public fool of himself, ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth over an imaginary bugaboo that only he can see.
It would be folly for any nation not to take advantage of any cost-savings they could find in healthcare, particularly in the realm of prevention. The claim that China can afford healthcare for 1.3 billion people isn't just shocking and ludicrous, it is flatly, factually false and untrue. As amateur propaganda, the allegation is outrageous -- defamatory, slanderous, and libelous, against every member of the State Council.
Dr. Chow appears to have a mean, petty, spiteful, and vindicative pet peeve against one specific country, for doing exactly what any and every country in the world would do in similar circumstances. We can only speculate over the reasons for his prejudices and bigotry. But try as we might, nothing can justify his exposure and deliberate exhibition of his obnoxious envy and resentment in front of the whole planet. This is unforgivable, intolerable, unacceptable behavior in any would-be diplomat.
REPLY AMOSYARKONI
7:53 PM ET
July 20, 2010
Yeah First Advisor -
"The claim that China can afford healthcare for 1.3 billion people isn't just shocking and ludicrous, it is flatly, factually false and untrue."
Yeah, instead China has to make room in its budget to spend billions on the Olympics and the shanghai expo. I mean it's "ludicrous" that we expect them to use that money on their own health care! Or that they use money from their huge budgetary surplus! Instead, let them take it from poor Africans. I mean those African countries must be having surpluses from their booming economies, right?.....right?......crickets......
REPLY FIRST ADVISOR
10:41 PM ET
July 20, 2010
Zany and Incoherent Reply
Do you know what a return on investment is? The ROI on a nation's first ever Olympics, and a nation's first ever World Expo, is incalculable in both income plus the abstracts of prestige, status, goodwill, future contracts, and so on. Try and figure out the return on investment, with a calculator, pen and paper, of healthcare for HIV/AIDS patients, who in China are virtually all hard drug addicts, with a sprinkling of homosexuals and prostitutes. What is the benefit to China in providing treatments to those people, exactly? Show me the money, in dollars and cents. Condoms don't do much good for people shooting up heroin with a dirty needle. The same is true of the majority of the incidence of TB in China; nearly all the sick people are hard drug addicts.
Now read very carefully, because this involves arithmetic, which is clearly not your strength. If China tries to sell any -- ANY -- of its holdings in the bonds currency of other nations, such as USA six-month Treasury bills, the value of the treasury bills and the US dollar will plummet, the value of China's holdings would collapse, the global market would be flung into turmoil, America would certainly be plunged into a second recession, and quite possibly a second Great Depression would begin. Selling those T-bills is the very last thing China can do. Their holdings in US debentures are worthless to them. They simply have no other choice over buying them, because there is nowhere else to put their money. If you think the Chinese don't resent this dilemma, you are incorrect.
No one is taking anything from African nations. Don't you grasp the simple fact that Dr. Chow is not a reliable source of information? Look at the dishonesty and deceit of his essay. Are you telling the world you actually believe the silly fairytales he writes? Even Mr. Chow's own US government doesn't agree with his hysterical obsessions; don't you get it? In fact, HIV/AIDS is a trivial disease, of no concern to any national government. Heart and stroke harm is 10 times worse, at least, and smoking, obesity, diabetes, mental illness, autism, and dozens of other medical conditions are all hugely more important and serious. You really should stop letting newspaper reporters tell you what to think, and what not to think about.
REPLY MERVYN
8:59 PM ET
July 20, 2010
juxtaposition of the world we live in
There is no white man's burden with the Chinese.
Why sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, or impoverished Central Asia are on the first list when HIV/AID spread is concerned? I might add Indochina to that list. China and few others are now getting out of name and shame list. The vaccine used are exclusively made from Western Phama companies, thus the high cost.
I don't disagree that China should get less of the fund allocation, but only few countries can afford the vaccination without subsidies. I'd suggest let the big phama to phase out rights on most demanded drugs and make licensing available of generic version to India or China phama. Then push the Chinese and Indian to donate these generic drugs to where it is required, domestic and overseas.
REPLY HERA
4:47 AM ET
July 21, 2010
who get the money at last?
What we should be concerned with shouldn't be whether the Global Fund should provide China great amount of aids, but how can they ensure that the money really arrives at people who are in need. It is undeniable that among 1.3 billion Chinese people there must be some one suffering from various diseases, especially in undevelopement area such as the Mid-Western countryside. The real tragedy is that bureaucrats safisfy themselves from corruption instead of giving this money to those who need it.
REPLY SEZER
8:10 AM ET
July 21, 2010
thank you
Very nice, thank you
The informations are so lovely and so usefull so thank you very much. Be sure i will use all of them keeping in my mind.Have a goog luck.
-----------------------------
carsgames
sohbet
free kids games
sohbet
REPLY NIUBI
2:37 PM ET
July 21, 2010
shopping
welcome to: http://www.madeshopping.com
The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time.
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal
http://www.madeshopping.com
SOCCER JERSEY 16USD
jordan shoes $32
nike shox $32
Christan Audigier bikini $23
Ed Hardy Bikini $23
Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15
ed hardy short_tank_woman $16
Sandal $32
christian louboutin $80
Sunglass $15
COACH_Necklace $27
handbag $33
AF tank woman $17
puma slipper woman $30
http://www.madeshopping.com
REPLY XTIANGODLOKI
3:02 PM ET
July 21, 2010
It's all funny money anyway
When America gives $1 Billion to Africa for AIDS most of the money is going to fat consultants who sit around and do nothing anyway. Dr.Chow who came from the upper echelons of McKinsey probably knows this well; getting paid hundreds to thousands of dollars per hour to BS about the non-existent magical bullet which would solve the hardest problems in an instant. Whatever.
The reality is that money going to 3rd world nations do not generally help because that money never gets to the right hands anyway. This is why after spending billions after billions places like haiti still stand on their own.
REPLY CANADALEX
4:48 AM ET
July 22, 2010
flawed reasoning
The article correctly presents the issue, but uses specious reasoning and arguments to make a china=bad guy case.
"(China stays in this lower-middle-income category because its huge population keeps per capita figures down.)"
It presents this fact as if China were gaming the system by having a huge population. No, in fact there is a reason we use per-capita figures to judge income. Otherwise we can make claims like India is over 2x as rich as Switzerland (GDP). This issue seems very simple. Chinese gov't realizes they can get grant money through Global Fund, so obviously they're going to take it. I highly doubt many countries would pass up an opportunity for free money. Yes we can blame China for using a loophole, but we should also blame the fund for being unable to properly disburse its funds, and allowing China to do this. The fund is clearly aware this is happening and could easily put an end to this. But it hasn't, (and as the article touched on) the reasons (as they most often are) are likely political. This isn't a transfer to help China with Malaria its another political tool to transfer funds to China.
We can get mad at China for taking free money, but we should be at least as critical of an aid system which is funneling money inefficiently to countries which don't stand the most to gain.
REPLY LIONEL
5:02 AM ET
July 22, 2010
China remains poor!
In the article, Jack Chow notes, parenthetically, that "(China stays in this lower-middle-income category because its huge population keeps per capita figures down.)" This is true. China remains a low-middle income country for a simple reason -- because most people in China remain poor.
As of 2009, PPP-adjusted GDP in China puts the country on par with Namibia and Algeria. China's economic power is mostly a function of its population size. China is still not rich.
In 2007, the World Bank reported there were over 300 million Chinese living on less than $1.25 a day. Despite China's rapid progress, it's hard to imagine that number is much less than 100 million in 2010. In any event, by the more stringent measure of $1.08 a day, China currently has about 50 million poor. China is still not rich.
China's county governments, which are responsible for most health spending and collect most taxes, are so cash strapped that they sell land to meet about 50 percent of their revenue needs. Selling off the currency reserves is not an option -- it could lead to economic implosion and misery. China is still not rich.
China has made remarkable progress but remains a country with a serious poverty problem, and needs serious assistance.
REPLY FASHIONLOVE
3:06 AM ET
July 23, 2010
China is still a poor country
All information as mentioned is very useful for us to catch up the updated news and knowing many facts around the world. China even though a big country, many parts of it remain poor and life is still hard for many people. Still, this is somewhat unreasonable when China received so many aids every year more than countries who need it.
-----------------------------------------
[url=http://www.fashionlove.net/mat-kinh-thoi-trang-kinh-mat-hang-hieu-kinh-can/]kinh hang hieu[/url]
[url=http://www.chosimsodep.net/ban-sim-so-dep-re-sim-taxi-tu-quy-loc-phat-than-tai/]sim than tai[/url]
[url=http://www.chosimsodep.net/ban-sim-so-dep-re-sim-taxi-tu-quy-loc-phat-than-tai/]viec lam nhanh[/url]
REPLY CITIZEN8
5:57 PM ET
July 25, 2010
First Advisor-huh????
First Advisor, if China is a world player, then like the US and other world players, its actions are subject to scrutiny and praise or criticism as the case may be. Observers are free to agree or disagree to criticisms they wish. However, what is the point in slamming a piece that you don't like by throwing around words like "brainless China bashing," "bigotry," "mean," "petty," spiteful, and "vindictive," "amateur propaganda," and nasty personal attacks, etc.? "American jingoism" in an article that hold Russia up as a model of behavior? Your posts may make you feel better, but it reads like a hysterical, hypersensitive, nationalist rant as do your rude comment to another poster. Rather, it would have advanced the discussion if you actually countered with a fact-based reply. Show me the bigotry and vindictiveness, etc. Instead, you bash and distort the article to such a degree that one has to wonder if your real intention is simply to stifle any examination of Chinese behavior.
You say in your second post that China can't possibly afford providing health care to all its citizens. Well, yes, that is an enormous undertaking, and you could have mentioned that China gets aid from countries like Japan to provide aid in the health sector. Even so, one has to wonder about China's acceptance of finds from the Global Fund or from Japan when it is sitting on enormous currency reserves and spending ever-increasing billions of dollars in aid overseas, with a new pledge of $10B in loans and $1B fund for business development to Africa made in November 2009. Given China's foreign aid program of several billion dollars a year and its spending on assets around the world, surely it could rustle up a $1 billion somewhere for more funds for health care in China, couldn't it? Using $1 billion of foreign currency for spending of home is not going to cause worldwide financial turmoil.
(BTW,why aren't you chiding China for taking money from the Global Fund if it is such a wasted effort to you? it's interesting that you see no need treating people with HIV/AIDS in people you consider worthless, even though TB is spread through proximity, and HIV+ prostitutes could spread the disease to their customers who refuse, or don't have access to condoms?)
Instead, it sure does seem like that on one hand, China is extending a hand to other developing countries while on the other, through its actions vis-a-vis the Global Fund, harming the poorest countries by taking aid resources that could have gone to them. Is this part of China's effort to keep its aid and investment front and center in the minds of people in the recipient countries while diminishing the Global Fund's presence? That may not be China's intention at all, and the author notes that China's Health Ministry may have various reasonable reasons for taking money from the Global Fund, whether it might be domestic budget considerations or the desire for technical assistance. (Even the author, whom you attack so viciously, notes that Beijing faces funding issues in health and that the Chinese health system faces "formidable challenges.") Whatever the reason, China's behavior vis-a-vis the Global Fund creates a perception problem. Such a problem could have been avoided if, for example, China donated the equivalent of the grants that it received, thereby getting the technical assistance without depriving other nations of grants from the Global Fund.
You criticize the article for singling China out. Well, are there other donors to the Global Fund who are also taking more out the fund than they put in? In fact, are they are any other donors who are currently receiving funds? (I don't know; I really am asking.) If not, then China's behavior is worthy of notice.
You also didn't seem to understand Mr. Chow's position or that of the US Government. "Supposed professional diplomat" and "would-be diplomat"? He worked --past tense--in the US Government, He is not part of the USG now. He is a private citizen, and in the United States, private citizens are free to voice their opinions, according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As for the US Government's official position on the subject of this article, the only mention is that there has been no "open," that is, publicly mentioned, official concern about this development. Why is that? Maybe it is because there is no official concern, and you're correct on that point, though you don't provide any evidence supporting your claim. Maybe because until this article, no one has drawn people's attention to this situation. Maybe it is because it is a concern that the US doesn't want to air publicly because as the author notes, donors don't want "to provoke a reaction that impacts other diplomatic or political equities elsewhere." Similarly, it is not at all clear, as you claim, "no one else in the world cares." The billions that China is spending in poorer countries, and those countries' need for markets may be the causes of the silence. Moreover, Mr. Chow does offer ideas why there has not been much public discussion. Unless they work directly on this issue and are somehow involved in the Global Fund as a recipient or a donor, people would not learn about this issue if not for an article like this.
If anyone owes anyone an apology for being offensive, it is you, First Advisor, with your attempts to intimidate anyone who might not look at everything China does through rose-colored glasses. No country is perfect, and in the United States, individuals are free to express their opinions. (I would not be surprised if you now attack me with another venomous tirade on this board, which will only prove my point that you are a bully attempting to stifle discussion. How about proving me wrong and providing an evidence-based reply to Mr. Chow's article?)
What an energy-hogging China may mean for the U.S. and global politics
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/28/what_an_energy_hogging_china_may_mean_for_the_us_and_global_politics
JULY 28, 2010
What an energy-hogging China may mean for the U.S. and global politics
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 10:22 AM Share
By Matthew Acocella
Best Defense deputy bureau chief, East Asian energy bureau
The International Energy Agency announced last week that China had overtaken the U.S. as the world's largest consumer of energy, citing data showing that "China consumed the equivalent of 2.25 billion tons of oil last year, slightly above U.S. consumption of 2.17 billion tons. The measure includes all types of energy: oil, nuclear energy, coal, natural gas and renewable energy sources." Chinese officials moved quickly to dispute this assertion and questioned the IEA's calculations.
This pushback is predictable, according to Fereidun Fesharaki, Senior Fellow at the East-West Center and Senior Associate at CSIS. At a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies last week on "China and India's Energy Policy Directions," Ferashaki explained that China is loathe to take on the title of World's #1 energy user because it prefers the U.S. to be in the global hot seat. One fact particularly struck me: according to Dr. Fesharaki, China purposely waits until a lull occurs in the price of oil before it buys up large amounts for its strategic petroleum reserves, in order to avoid being accused of spiking the price of crude.
China's energy use is projected to continue skyrocketing over the next decade. It is currently the world's top emitter of global warming gases, but simultaneously investing the most of any nation into developing green technology. Whether this investment will yield any substantial emissions reductions over the next decade is up for debate. Critics note that China's efforts at carbon-capture and sequestration, a process that strips out harmful elements in released gases to be stored underground, is very expensive and requires a large usage of coal to fuel the process. With China's economy still developing, even substantial investments in clean technology may fail to bend the curve of its pollution.
Of course, China's energy needs have other geopolitical effects. When it comes to China's relationship with Iran in the wake of recent US sanctions and forthcoming EU ones... well, there's not much top surprising there. China will continue to do business with Iran, even with delays and setbacks caused by sanctions. "Despite political pressures, Chinese contractors could invest more than $10 billion dollars in the Iranian oil and gas sectors in the next few years," stated Ferekashi. Chinese corporations are also heavily invested in other of Iran's domestic industries. Iran is fortunate in that 60% of its energy use is domestically produced, continued Ferekashi, which perhaps will allows it to withstand sanctions longer. With China so heavily invested in Iran, will Sino-Iranian ties make Iran sanction-proof?
In sum, there is plenty here for Western nations to grapple with. China's insatiable thirst for oil and other energy sources will make shedding any pretense of modesty necessary as it becomes an increasingly aggressive player in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Furthermore, its willingness to partner with rogue states even in the face of international pressure has the potential to undercut efforts to impose sanctions on bad actors. If a superpower like China has no qualms entering into agreements with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the U.S. will need in the coming years to develop policies and incentives to counter these marriages of convenience.
Marc van der Chijs/flickr
EXPLORE:CHINA, ENERGY, IRAN, OIL SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Reddit
How to Avoid Cell Phone Radiation? Safety Tips
http://lovebeats.org/community/index.php?topic=16284.0
How to Avoid Cell Phone Radiation? Safety Tips
Cell phones have become very common now-a-days, as almost every one of us has a cell phone. Cell phone also creates radiation when it is in use. This radiation is harmful for the body. There are few things that can reduce the cell phone radiation exposure by as much as possible.
Daily we are swimming in a sea of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) produced by electrical appliances, power lines, wiring in buildings, and other technologies that are part of modern life. From the dishwasher and microwave oven in the kitchen and the clock next to your bed, to the cellular phone you hold to your ear is dangerous and becoming a serious health risk.
EMR from cellular phones, both the radiation from the handsets and from the tower-based antennas carrying the signals have linked to develop health problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, brain tumors, cancer, Alzheimer’s, and more. The effects are cumulative and safety measures should be taken now before it is too late.
Tips to minimize effects of Cell phone Radiation:
These are some steps to minimize the effects of cell phone radiation exposure.
Headset: A headset is a cell phone accessory that can considerably reduce radiation exposure to the brain. Not a Bluetooth headset or a wireless headset but a headset that plugs into the phone, eliminates cell phone radiation near your brain.
Speakerphone: Speaker phone must be used as often as possible. Speakerphone also reduces the cell phone radiation exposure because you do not have to keep the cell phone near you.
Avoid Bluetooth and wireless handset: These cell phone accessories produce their own radiation along the radiation produced by the cell phone. The use of these accessories must be avoided.
Cell Phone Radiation Shielding Case: exposure while the mobile phone is in your pocket or clipped to your belt this can prevent radiation. It dissipates the radiation so that it decreases going into your body. They also have clips and antenna radiation disbursers.
Limit your calls: Many of us make unnecessary calls. Reducing needless calls will reduce radiation exposure.
Wear an air tube headset: The regular wired headset has been found to intensify radiation into the ear canal. The wire transmits not only the radiation from the cell phone but also serves as an antenna attracting electromagnetic fields from the surroundings.
Don’t put the cell phone in your pocket or belt: The body tissue in the lower body area has good conductivity and absorbs radiation more rapidly than the head. One study shows that men who wear cell phones near their groin could have their sperm count dropped by as much as 30 percent.
Purchase a phone with a low SAR (Specific Absorption Rate): Most mobile phones have a SAR level listed in its instruction manual. The SAR level is a way of measuring the quantity of radiofrequency (RF) energy that is absorbed by the body.
Use a scientifically validated EMF protection device: There are advanced technologies obtainable nowadays that strengthen the immune system against the effects of EMF. The EMF radiation causes a problem only when the cumulative effects due to repeated exposure weaken the body’s ability to repair it.
Other steps:
* If using the phone without a headset, wait for the call to connect before placing the phone next to the ear.
* Do not use the cell phone in enclosed metal spaces such as vehicles or elevators, where devices may use more power to establish connection. The metal enclosure also acts as a Faraday cage that traps the radiation and reflects it back onto the occupants.
* Do not make a call when the signal strength is one bar or less, which means the phone must work harder to establish a connection.
* Children should be allowed to use the cell phone in cases of emergency only. Because of their developing skulls, the radiation can penetrate much more deeply.
* Avoid carrying cell phone on the body at all times. Do not keep it near the body at night such as under the pillow or on a bedside table, particularly if pregnant. You can also put it on “flight” or “off-line” mode, which stops electromagnetic emissions.
* Make sure that the keypad is positioned toward the body and the back is positioned toward the outside while carrying it, so that the transmitted electromagnetic fields move away from you.
* Avoid using the cell phone when the signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train, as this automatically increases power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to connect to a new relay antenna.
* When possible, communicate by text messaging rather than making a call.
Up to 45,000 failed asylum seekers given right to work in BritainBy Jack Doyle
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298431/Up-45-000-failed-asylum-seekers-given-right-work-Britain.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Up to 45,000 failed asylum seekers given right to work in BritainBy Jack Doyle
Last updated at 5:26 PM on 28th July 2010
Comments (0) Add to My Stories
Short term: Immigration Minister Damian Green said he wants to speed things up so failed asylum seekers who refuse to return home voluntarily can be sent home before they qualify
Tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers have been granted the right to work in the UK in a landmark court ruling.
It affects around 45,000 asylum seekers whose applications have already been rejected at least once but have not been deported.
Home Office officials argued that an EU directive should not apply to them because it would encourage bogus applicants to abuse the system by making repeated claims.
But the Supreme Court ruled that failed asylum seekers whose cases had not been dealt with after 12 months must be given access to jobs.
Many of those affected are part of Labour's giant backlog of 450,000 asylum claims - which are still being processed by officials.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the MigrationWatch think-tank said: 'There seems to have been a succession of court decisions which take no account of the real world in which our Home Office has to operate.
'It is no service to genuine refugees to make the asylum system progressively more open to abuse.
'Yet again directives drawn up by the EU have unintended and unwelcome consequences for Britain.'
Reacting to the judgment, Tory ministers said they were considering restricting access to industries in which there is already a proven shortage of workers.
Immigration Minister Damian Green said: 'This judgment will only have a short-term effect. The long delays in the asylum system will be resolved by the summer of next year when all the older asylum cases are concluded.
'I believe it is important to maintain a distinction between economic migration and asylum - giving failed asylum seekers access to the labour market undermines this principle.
More...Cable stokes revolt against Tory election pledge on strict immigration limit
Border policy in turmoil as fast-track deportations for asylum seekers are ruled illegal
'I am already committed to reviewing the asylum process to make it more cost effective and quicker. In the future I want to be able to remove failed asylum seekers who refuse to return home voluntarily well before they can qualify to work.'
The case was brought by two asylum seekers. One, a Somali national known only as ZO, came to the UK in 2003.
Her asylum claim was rejected in February 2004 and all appeals against the ruling had failed by the end of that year.
But in March 2005 she made a new claim for asylum and in June 2007 she asked for the right to work in the UK. Delays in processing her case mean it is still being considered.
The second, from Burma, who is known as MM, first applied for asylum in 2004 and was refused by March 2005. Two months later he made a new claim which has also never been resolved.
Asylum seekers making their first application are entitled to work if their cases have not been dealt with after 12 months.
But Home Office officials had ruled that it would be wrong to allow failed asylum seekers access to jobs after their initial claims for refugee status had been dismissed.
Fresh applications are sometimes made in which asylum seekers argue new threats have emerged since their cases were first rejected, and they are now at risk of persecution if they return home.
The Home Office told the court that extending EU directive 2003/9/EC - which was drawn up as a step towards the creation of a Europe-wide asylum policy - would 'greatly increase' the potential for abuse.
Lawyers argued it would encourage applicants to bring 'wholly unmeritorious claims with the aim of delaying their removal'.
But judges said the directive should be applied until a final decision has been made on each individual case.
In his ruling, deputy president of the court Lord Kerr wrote: 'It would be, in my view, anomalous and untoward that an applicant who makes a subsequent application after his first application has been finally disposed of should be denied access to standards that are no more than the minimum to permit him to live with some measure of dignity.'
Asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected are not entitled to benefits unless they have children. Nor are they allowed access to free healthcare except in emergencies.
The ruling was welcomed by refugee charities. Jonathan Ellis, director of policy at the Refugee Council said: 'The vast majority of asylum seekers who come to the UK would rather support themselves through work than be forced to be homeless or to rely on Government support.
'Denying asylum seekers the chance to work means they cannot contribute to the UK economy and condemns asylum seekers and their families to abject poverty.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298431/Up-45-000-failed-asylum-seekers-given-right-work-Britain.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0uzsruw3p
Myanmar Tries To Build Nuclear Weapons with North Korea's Help
http://english.pravda.ru/print/world/asia/114396-myanmar-0
Myanmar Tries To Build Nuclear Weapons with North Korea's Help
28.07.2010 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/114396-myanmar-0
Myanmar (formerly Burma) is trying to create its own nuclear weapons with the help of North Korea. Such suspicions were voiced by American experts.
The story began back in early June. Then the information was released that a Burmese rocket engineer Sai Thein Win had defected to the West. He claimed to have had access to two secret missile objects, including the location of the so-called “nuclear Battalion” that allegedly served nuclear facilities built with the active assistance of North Korea.
On July 20, analytical publication Jane's Intelligence Review has posted pictures depicting the secret military facilities that are supposedly close to the capital city Naypyidaw. Following this, the British publication The Daily Telegraph wrote that the evidence of the presence of Myanmar nuclear program has been received as a result of electronic intelligence and satellite imagery.
Russia Today: Russia is neither with the West, nor with Iran
This gave grounds for the U.S. State Department to demand from Myanmar military regime to disclose information regarding its existing nuclear technology. According to a former inspector of nuclear weapons from the U.S. to the IAEA, Robert Kelly, the defector provided “compelling evidence” of the existence of Myanmar nuclear programs. According to the expert Kelly, the nuclear objects are being built with implausible goals in mind.
"They are either trying to make reactor fuel, which they could buy for nothing from another country or they are trying to make a weapon clandestinely. There isn't much point doing that unless it's for a bomb," said Mr. Kelly.
It is possible that the West uses the available information to convince the IAEA to initiate an investigation. American intelligence genuinely fears that North Korea will share missile and nuclear technology with Myanmar. State Department is not trying to hide the fact that the United States is carefully watching the development of relations between Myanmar and North Korea. In recent years, these countries have strengthened their collaboration on a number of issues. For example, there is evidence that the North Korean builders have been erecting secret underground facilities in Myanmar for a few years.
Washington refers to the fact that Myanmar had earlier signed a nonproliferation treaty and has international obligations that must be fulfilled. However, speaking about its fears, the West forgets that this country was engaged in nuclear development long before the military came to power. In the 1950's Burmese nuclear physicists went to London and Washington for the first time to study. At the time its government was loyal to the West, and the U.S. and Britain were not as worried as they are now, when the military are in power.
The Government of Myanmar refutes the statement of Western experts, calling them “accusations based only on fabrications made by deserters, fugitives and exiles.” Who is right? Vladimir Khrustaliov, an expert on nuclear technology with the Maritime State University named after Admiral Nevelskoy in Vladivostok in his interview with Pravda.ru described the “nuclear accusations” against Myanmar as ungrounded.
“This is not the first mention of the development of nuclear weapons by this country. However, until now there has been no clear evidence that such program of a military nature exists. The testimony of defectors is a very dubious source, and photos, including those from outer space, are also not an accurate evidence of Myanmar military nuclear program, given the fact that secret objects can be well camouflaged and even imitated.
The technological level of the country, as well as the level of training, is terribly low. Of course, we cannot rule out the fact that Myanmar could seek foreign aid in building its nuclear bombs. Currently, the cost of implementing such a project is only $300 million. But again, even in this case the level of technical education in the country is so low that if the nuclear program existed, it could only function under the supervision of foreign experts, i.e., “turnkey.”
If we compare the level of development of Myanmar and North Korea, the latter is several levels higher in all respects. First, many North Korean nuclear scientists obtained valuable education in the Soviet Union and beyond. And they were very intelligent students, and very independent. By the time of the creation of its nuclear weapons they have mastered their raw material base, built facilities for the production of nuclear fuel, reactor, a plant for plutonium separation, and so on. There are very few of such educated professionals from Myanmar.
The countries that have created or are creating their own nuclear program, act in a different way. For example, Iran that regularly makes loud statements. Myanmar behaves quite differently and does not engage in the nuclear PR.
The regime of the Burmese generals does not contribute to the success of this complex project. It is more like a traditional dictatorship of former agricultural colonies of the West, incapable of such technological breakthroughs, rather than industrial dictatorship like North Korea.
I think there is a big scale geopolitical game around this country. The West and India do not like the authoritarian undemocratic regime of Myanmar that is also friends with China. Myanmar and Thailand also have their disagreements. So now there is a banal information war against Myanmar.
In addition, the emergence of the information stating that this country is engaged in developing nuclear weapons, may be due to the fact that local generals want to “raise their status” by conducting or simulating certain works in the field of military atom. Nothing can be ruled out. We must closely monitor the situation. But now it is too early to consider Myanmar as the country on the “threshold” of creating its own nuclear weapons.”
However, it may be that Myanmar is not the most important defendant in this scandal. Perhaps, the West decided to “work out” another approach to North Korea accusing it of exporting missile and nuclear technology.
There is another interesting fact that may be played out in the future. Sai Thein Win is by far not the first, and probably not the last defector who claimed the development of nuclear weapons in Myanmar. Since the early 2000's there have been a few of such defectors. However, Sai Thein Win said he had allegedly obtained special education in the field of missile technology in Russia. Some particularly zealous “analysts” are already talking about possible indirect involvement of Russians with the semi-mythical nuclear program.
Sergei Balmasov
Pravda.Ru
Read the original in Russian
© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
第61回 ビルマ市民フォーラム例会のご案内
【転送・転載歓迎】
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
第61回 ビルマ市民フォーラム例会のご案内
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
今年9月から「第三国定住プログラム」によりカレン難民約30名が日本にやってきます。
これをうけて、次回例会では国際移住機関(IOM)駐日事務所の橋本直子さんと
在日カレン難民のソーパラティンさんを迎え、第三国定住プログラムとはどういう
ものなのか、カレン難民はどのような状況におかれているのか、また日本でのプログラム
開始に関する最新情勢などをお話していただきます。
後半にはビルマ最新情勢の報告として、総選挙を前にしたビルマ国内の少数
民族の動きについて、カチン民族のマリップセンブさんよりお話いただきます。
初めての方も、ぜひご参加ください。
■日時：2010年7月31 日（土） 18時00分～20時30分（開場17時45分）
■場所：池袋・生活産業プラザ（ＥＣＯとしま） 8階多目的ホール
各線池袋東口下車 徒歩7分
地図： http://www.city.toshima.lg.jp/shisetsu/shisetsu_community/005133.html
■資料代： 500円（非会員）、200円（会員）
■事前申込み不要（先着順 70名）
-------------------------------------------------------------
【プログラム】
-------------------------------------------------------------
１．第三国定住プログラムについて
カレン難民の受け入れにあたって－プログラム最新情勢の報告
―18:00-19:00 国際移住機関（ＩＯＭ）駐日事務所
プログラム・マネージャー 橋本 直子さん
―19:00-19:30 在日カレン難民 ソーパラティンさん
―19:30-19:45 質疑応答
休憩（10分： 19:45-20:00）
２．2010年総選挙を前にしたビルマ少数民族の最新情勢報告（仮）
―20:00-20:30 マリップセンブさん （カチン民族機構（日本）事務局長、PFB運営委員）
３．事務連絡・お知らせ他
―20:30-20:40 ＰＦＢ事務局長 弁護士 渡辺彰悟
-------------------------------------------------------------
関連記事：
【共同通信】2010年7月26日
ミャンマー難民が日本定住へ ６家族３２人、９月から
http://www.47news.jp/CN/201007/CN2010072601000758.html
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
★PFBでは、日本人と在日ビルマ人を対象に、時々のビルマ情勢や在日
ビルマ難民の抱える問題などをテーマに、隔月で例会を実施しております。
会員・非会員を問わず、どなたでもご参加いただけます。
初めての方でもぜひお気軽にご参加ください。
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
★詳細問合せ ビルマ市民フォーラム（ＰＦＢ）事務局
電話03-5312-4817（直） FAX 03-5312-4543
E-mail： pfb@izumibashi-law.net
http://www1.jca.apc.org/pfb/
ツイッター：https://twitter.com/PFB_Japan
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Obama Renews Sanctions on Burma
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=19070
Obama Renews Sanctions on Burma
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LALIT K. JHA / Washington Wednesday, July 28, 2010
US President Barack Obama signed into law a Congressional resolution renewing economic sanctions against the Burmese military junta one more year, the White House said on Tuesday.
The US House of Representatives and the Senate overwhelmingly passed the resolution to renew sanctions against the Burmese military junta almost three months ago.
The Senate passed the resolution by 99-1 votes. It was sponsored by a record 68 senators.
The “Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003," which imposed a ban on Burmese imports, was passed by the House by a voice vote.
Noting that renewed sanctions against the military regime is as important as ever, Sen. Mitch McConnell said the bipartisan support reflects the view of more than two-thirds of the Senate that the junta should be denied the legitimacy it pursues through this year’s sham elections.
“The ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) is continuing its efforts to try to stand up a farcical, new Constitution by holding a bogus election,” he said.
Sen. MaxBaucus said: “I have often questioned whether unilateral trade sanctions are the best path. But several trading partners—including the European Union, Canada, and Australia—have joined us in imposing sanctions against Burma.”
“The State Department has found that these sanctions have made it more difficult and costly for the Burmese regime to profit from imprisoning its people,” he said.
Sen. Barbara Feinstein said that for the past two decades, Burma’s despotic military rulers have engaged in a campaign of persecution against Aung San Suu Kyi, tarnishing her image wherever they could, unjustly convicting her of violating an illegitimate house arrest last year and extending her unlawful detention.
“She has spent the better part of 20 years under house arrest. She has not seen her two sons who live in the United Kingdom for years. She was not permitted to visit her husband when he was dying of cancer in the United Kingdom,” she said.
“Yet Aung San Suu Kyi remains resolute in her dedication to the pursuit of peaceful national reconciliation, as do the members of her political party, the National League for Democracy,” Feinstein said.
“Now, more than ever, the people of Burman need to know that we stand by them and support their vision of a free and democratic Burma,” the senator said.
Democratic Rep. Joseph Crowley said: “It is long overdue that the world acknowledges the regime is guilty of many heinous crimes, and we must lead the effort to hold it accountable. As a first step, I hope the United States will go on the record in acknowledging that the Burmese regime has committed crimes against humanity.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
