We can not say exactly whether this is true or not but i guess it is close what Daw ASSK demand to militry regime
tz
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Subject: [nldlajb] DASSK DEMAD
David Miliband: Ukraine, Russia and European stability | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
David Miliband
guardian.co.uk, Friday August 29 2008 12:00 BST Article history
It is not an act of hostility towards Russia for Europe to support Ukraine, but a positive move towards lasting peaceAll comments (315)
David Miliband guardian.co.uk, Friday August 29 2008 12:00 BST Article historySince the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has seemed that new rules were being established for the conduct of international relations in central and eastern Europe and central Asia. The watchwords were independence and interdependence; sovereignty and mutual responsibility; cooperation and common interests. They are good words that need to be defended.
The Georgia crisis provided a rude awakening. The sight of Russian tanks in a neighbouring country on the 40th anniversary of the crushing of the Prague Spring has shown that the temptations of power politics remain. The old sores and divisions fester. Russia remains unreconciled to the new map of Europe.
Yesterday's unilateral attempt to redraw the map marks not just the end of the post-cold war period, but is also the moment when countries are required to set out where they stand on the significant issues of nationhood and international law.
The Russian president says he is not afraid of a new cold war. We don't want one. He has a big responsibility not to start one.
Ukraine is a leading example of the benefits that accrue when a country takes charge of its own destiny, and seeks alliances with other countries.
Its choices should not be seen as a threat to Russia or an act of hostility. Equally its independence does demand a new relationship with Russia – a partnership of equals, not the relationship of master and servant.
Russia must not learn the wrong lessons from the Georgia crisis: there can be no going back on fundamental principles of territorial integrity, democratic governance and international law. It has shown in the last two weeks what anyone could have foretold: that it can defeat Georgia's army. But today Russia is more isolated, less trusted and less respected than two weeks ago. It has made military gains in the short term. But over time it will feel the economic and political losses. If Russia truly wants respect and influence, and the benefits that flow from it, Russia needs to change course.
Prime Minister Putin has described the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century. I don't see it that way. Most people of the former Soviet bloc or Warsaw Pact don't see it that way. It will be a tragedy for Russia if it spends the next 20 years believing it to be the case.
Indeed, since 1991 there has been no "stab in the back" of Russia. In fact, we have offered Russia extensive cooperation with the EU and Nato; membership of the council of Europe and the G8. Summits, mechanisms and meetings have been developed by the EU and Nato not to humiliate or threaten Russia, but to engage with it. The EU and the United States provided critical support for the Russian economy when it was needed, and western companies have invested heavily. And Russia has made substantial gains from its reintegration into the global economy.
These are actions that seek to promote prosperity and respect for Russia. But they have recently been met with scorn. Indeed, the record from suspension of Russian participation in the conventional armed forces to harassment of business people and cyber attacks on neighbours is not a good one. Now we have Georgia.
People often talk and ask about unity in Europe. Russian action has produced unity in Europe. Unity in demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops to their August 7 positions; unity in rejecting the use of force as the basis for redrawing the map of the Caucasus; unity in support of the democratically elected government of Georgia.
Of course Russia can and should have interests in its neighbours, but like everyone else, it must earn that influence. Indeed, they do not make up the "post-Soviet space" to which Prime Minister Putin often refers. The collapse of the Soviet Union created a new reality – sovereign, independent countries with minds of their own and rights to defend.
Russia also needs to clarify its attitude to the use of force to solve disputes. Some argue that Russia has done nothing not previously done by Nato in Kosovo in 1999. But this comparison does not bear serious examination.
Leave to one side that Russia spends a lot of time arguing in the UN and elsewhere against "interference" in internal affairs, whether in Zimbabwe or Burma. Nato's actions in Kosovo followed dramatic and systematic abuse of human rights, culminating in ethnic cleansing on a scale not seen in Europe since the second world war. Nato acted over Kosovo only after intensive negotiations in the UN security council and determined efforts at peace talks. Special envoys were sent to warn Milosevic in person of the consequences of his actions. None of this can be said for Russia's use of force in Georgia.
The decision to recognise Kosovo's independence came only after Russia made clear it would veto the deal proposed by the UN secretary general's special envoy, former Finnish President Ahtisaari. Even then we agreed to a further four months of negotiations by an EU-US-Russia troika in order to ensure that no stone was left unturned in the search for a mutually acceptable compromise.
Over Georgia, Russia moved from support for territorial integrity to breaking up the country in three weeks and relied entirely on military force to do so.
Russia must now ask itself about the relationship between short-term military victories and long-term economic prosperity. At the time of the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968, no one asked what impact its actions had on the Russian stock market. There was no Russian stock market.
Now, the conflict in Georgia has been associated with a sharp decline in investor confidence. Russia's foreign exchange reserves fell in one week by $16bn. In one day the value of Gazprom fell by the same amount. Risk premia in Russia have sky-rocketed.
Isolation of Russia is not feasible. It would be counter-productive because Russia's economic integration is the best discipline on its politics. It would only strengthen the sense of victimhood that fuels intolerant nationalism. And it would compromise the world's interests in tackling nuclear proliferation, addressing climate change or stabilising Afghanistan.
But the international community is not impotent. Europeans need Russian gas, but Gazprom needs European consumers and investment. The reality of interdependence is that both sides have leverage; both sides can change the terms of trade.
Our approach must be hard-headed-engagement. That means bolstering allies, rebalancing the energy relationship with Russia, defending the rules of international institutions, and renewing efforts to tackle "unresolved conflicts".
Here, Ukraine is key. It has strong links to Russia and this is firmly in both countries' interests. But Ukraine is also a European country. Ukrainian leaders have spoken of their aspiration to see their country become a member of the EU. Article 49 of the EU treaty gives all European countries the right to apply. The prospect and reality of EU membership has been a force for stability, prosperity and democracy across eastern Europe and it should remain so beyond. Once Ukraine fulfils EU criteria, it should be accepted as a full member.
As for Ukraine's relationship with Nato, it does not pose a threat to Russia. It is about strengthening Ukraine's democratic institutions and independence – things that will benefit Russia in the long term.
Europe also must re-balance the energy relationship with Russia. Europe needs to invest in storing gas to deal with interruptions. More interconnections between countries and properly functioning internal markets will increase resilience. It needs diverse, secure and resilient gas supplies.
Europe needs to act as one when dealing with third parties like Russia. And we will be reducing our dependence on gas altogether: increasing energy efficiency, investing in carbon capture and storage technology for coal, and in renewables and nuclear power.
In all international institutions, we will need to review our relations with Russia. I do not apologise for rejecting kneejerk calls for Russia to be expelled from the G8, or for EU-Russia or Nato-Russia relations to be broken. But we do need to examine the nature, depth and breadth of relations with Russia.
In Nato, we will stand by our commitments to existing members, and there will be renewed determination that there should be no Russian veto on the future direction of Nato.
Fourth, the unresolved conflicts that mark the end of empire should not be ignored. The world's attention is currently on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But the conflicts in Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh must not be overlooked. Each has its roots in longstanding ethnic tensions, exacerbated by economic and political underdevelopment.
The choice today is clear. Not to sponsor a new cold war, but to be clear about the foundations of lasting peace.
In cooperation with Project Syndicate, 2008.
UNDP WATCH: UN Whistleblower in Tokyo Raises Questions of Fraud, Cover-Up and Retaliation from Below
Russia, China Alliance Weakening Over Georgia
UNITED NATIONS — An alliance between two of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Russia and China, that has endured through several recent world crises is faltering as the council clashes over the war in Georgia.
During a contentious public debate yesterday — in which Russia formally raised, for the first time at the council, its decision to recognize the independence of two separatist Georgian regions — China was one of the only seat holders in the 15-member body that did not ask to speak. Chinese diplomats also were mum during earlier closed-door consultations yesterday, as Russia tried, and failed, to convince council members to invite representatives of the two regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, to address the world body.
Chinese diplomats increasingly have raised their profile at council deliberations in recent years, and as the body deliberated over international crises this year in Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Burma, they have emerged as representatives of a true world power, using or threatening to use the veto power that they have mostly declined to wield in past decades.
"We will assess what they say, or whether they'll maintain an eloquent silence," the British ambassador to the United Nations, John Sawers, told The New York Sun as he entered the public session on Georgia yesterday, referring to China. Chinese diplomats then made no comment, even as other council members engaged in an increasingly contentious exchange.
"We have no complaint about the position taken by our colleagues," Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said yesterday when asked about China's lack of response at the council. But diplomats noted that China rebuffed President Medvedev's appeal for support, made this week to a regional alliance of Central Asian countries, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, of which China and Russia are members.
Tibetan separatists and Muslims from the western Chinese region of Xinjiang seeking independence present a major concern for Beijing. China also opposes U.N. membership for Taiwan, which it considers part of China. The conflict in South Ossetia also began just as the Olympic Games began in Beijing, reportedly raising the ire of Chinese officials.
Mr. Churkin said yesterday that officials from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, carrying Russian passports, have requested American visas at the American Embassy in Moscow so that they could come to address the Security Council. "They have not been refused," he said, adding that such a denial would violate the host country agreement between America and the United Nations.
But according to several diplomats, Russia did not secure the requisite support of nine council members needed to invite the officials. "South Africa supported the Russians, and so did Vietnam, but China said nothing," a Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said.
New America Media Blogs
people-against-democracy
"I’m here in Thailand right now, far to the north of Bangkok where all the action is. I’m no expert on the politics of this country, but from what I’ve been told, the People’s Alliance for Democracy and these protests are anti-democratic. Thailand is not a Republic but is governed by a monarchy backed by a military junta (as in Burma).
These protests represent another military coup, similar to the one in 2006 that ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra—though this time it’s a military coup without the military.I’m here in Thailand right now, far to the north of Bangkok where all the action is. I’m no expert on the politics of this country, but from what I’ve been told, the People’s Alliance for Democracy and these protests are anti-democratic. Thailand is not a Republic but is governed by a monarchy backed by a military junta (as in Burma).
These protests represent another military coup, similar to the one in 2006 that ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra—though this time it’s a military coup without the military."
OpEdNews » Suu Kyi's message to the world: UN is on the wrong track,世界へのSuu Kyiメッセージ: 国連は間違ったトラックにある
OpEdNews » Suu Kyi's message to the world: UN is on the wrong track
The UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari left Burma without seeing the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the regime's high profiles. Suu Kyi did not turn up for the scheduled meeting with Mr. Gambari and there have been claims that she did not accept the junta's food provisions. Suu Kyi's behaviour was criticised by Japan while Thailand Prime Minister tried to marginalise Suu in Burma's politics. However, the world never had a chance to know the progress of the dialogue between the regime and Suu brokered by the UN until the fourth meeting.
国連公使イブラヒムGambariは民主化のリーダーAung San Suu Kyiおよび政体の話題を見ないでビルマを去った。 彼女が会議の食糧準備を受け入れなかったことSuu Kyiは氏とGambari会合のためにそこにであるために要求出て来なかったし。 Suu Kyiの行動は日本によってタイの総理大臣がBurma'のSuuを疎外することを試みる間、批判された; sの政治。 但し、世界に決して第4会合までの国連が仲介した政体とSuu間のダイアログの進歩を知るチャンスがなかった。
A remark from the Japanese diplomat that Suu Kyi's behaviour is 'ill-tempered and uncompromising' was quite negative and ignores that the majority of the people are pro-democracy. As no one has a slight chance of opportunity to voice for their sufferings under military rule and Suu Kyi never had a chance to let the world know that whether UN is on the right track. Her absence at the meeting is simply the 'silent message' to the world that UN's effort in resolving Burma's political stalemate is complete failure.
Suu Kyiの行動がill-temperedおよびuncompromising'であること日本の外交官からの注目; 陰性はかなりあり、人々の大半が民主化であること無視する。 誰も持っていないので国連が正しい軌道にあるかどうか軍事政権およびSuu Kyiの下で苦労のために表明する機会のわずかなチャンスに決して世界にそれを知らせるチャンスがなかった。 会合の彼女の不在は'単にである; 無声message' 世界に完全な失敗であることをビルマの政治行き詰りの解決の国連努力がこと。
Yet, the UN tried to save its work that the last visit of Mr. Gambari could not be judged as an event which is a process. While senior members of 1990 election winning party NLD led by Suu was allowed to talk to Gambari for 20 minutes, the envoy also had to talk to other several pro-junta's individuals and groups such as Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA). The envoy had no idea of 1990 election result when he was asked and rather hoping for the free and fair election of 2010.
しかし、国連は氏のGambari最後の訪問がプロセスであるでき事として判断できなかったこと仕事を救うことを試みた。 Suuが導いた1990年の選挙の勝利党の古参議員がNLD 20分のGambariに話すことは許される間、公使はまた連合団結および開発連合(米国農務省)のような他の何人かのプロ会議の個人そしてグループに話さなければならなかった。 公使は1990年の選挙結果がわかり、彼が尋ねられたときに2010年の自由で、公平な選挙をむしろ望む。
Although the US and other western countries imposed punitive measures against the regime for not honouring the 1990 election result, the UN did not take responsible and serious steps to put pressure on the regime. The junta disgracefully controlled the power on the ground of drafting new constitution and NLD ended boycotting the National Convention for only to listen whatever the regime was saying. Then, who should be blamed? Although the envoy offered UN supervision or independent monitoring for the referendum held in May, the junta did not accept the offer as it is an offer not a binding resolution.
米国および他の西欧諸国が1990年の選挙結果に名誉を与えないための政体に対して罰則処置を課したが、国連は政体に圧力を置く責任があり、深刻なステップを踏まなかった。 会議は不面目に新しい憲法の起草の地面の力を制御し、NLDは政体が言っていたものは何でも聞くためにただのための全国大会のボイコットを終えた。 それから、だれが責任にされるべきであるか。 公使が5月に行われた国民投票のための国連監督か独立した監視を提供したが会議はそれが提供ない結合の決断であるので提供を受け入れなかった。
The junta only looks for the business deals and something which could make profits for them from the international community and institutions. The UN must take serious measures and make the regime to listen to the world body rather than being played by the regime. In Burma's conflict, the regional countries have been pleased with bargains in their counterpart's market, free from western competition and they would love to go on with the junta rather than deal with a democratic government.
会議は国際地域社会および施設からそれらのための利益を作ることができる何かおよび商売上の取引だけを捜す。 国連は深刻な手段を取り、政体を作らなければなり政体によって遊ばれるよりもむしろ国連を聞くために。 ビルマの対立では、地方国は西部の競争から自由な同等の市場の契約と喜び、民主政治の取り引きよりもむしろ会議とでありたいと思う。
It is time for neighbouring countries not to follow the economic interest and stop playing along with Burmese junta. Without a genuine dialogue between the regime and Aung San Suu Kyi who represents the people of Burma, Burma will never reach a peaceful solution. It does not make sense at all to leaving an opposition leader outside the roundtable to resolve the political impasse in a country.
それは経済的利益に続き、ビルマの会議と共に遊ぶことを止めない近隣諸国の時間である。 ビルマの人々を表す政体とAung San Suu Kyi間の本物ダイアログなしで、ビルマは決して平和的解決に達しない。 それは国の政治袋小路を解決するために円卓の外の反対派勢力の指導者を残すことに意味を全然成していない。
The UN should acknowledge the whole process of what the regime has been doing from drafting constitution and holding a rigged referendum to entrench the military until after the 2010 election. The 1990 election result could not be wiped off from the history along with the junta's brutality and bloodshed over the decades. Without releasing political prisoners including Suu Kyi, holding talks will simply extend the time of military rule rather than lead to a solution.
国連は認める政体が憲法草案からして、ずっと2010年の選挙の後までの軍隊を塹壕で防備するために装備された国民投票を保持していることをの全プロセスをべきである。 1990年の選挙結果は会議の残忍と共に歴史および何十年かにわたって惨殺からふき取ることができなかった。 Suu Kyiを含む政治犯の解放なしで、会議を開催することは解決に軍事政権の時をよりもむしろ導く単に拡張する。
The UN must review its mission and make clear that the regime could not go for 2010 election without honouring 1990 election result. The whole process of regime's roadmap to democracy has completely ignored the people's desire and people's representatives who won a majority of the seats in 1990. The UN should realize that its mission is on the wrong track and deluded by the junta.
国連は代表団を見直し、政体が2010年の選挙のために1990年の選挙結果にことを名誉を与えなければ行くことができなかったこと明らかに作らなければならない。 民主主義への政体の道路地図の全プロセスは完全に1990年に座席の大半に勝った人々の代表および人々の欲求を無視した。 国連は代表団が間違ったトラックにあり、会議によって惑わせることを意識するべきである。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
