Friday, September 12, 2008
Look East Policy Could Be the Kohinoor for North East India
Former Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee had India's 'Look East' policy in mind when he proposed at the ASEAN-India summit in Bali (Indonesia) 2003 the holding of an India-ASEAN car rally "to draw dramatic attention to our geographical proximity".
A possible route according to him could be from Guwahati in the North-east India, through Burma, Thailand and Cambodia to Hanoi in Vietnam. He said then "It would draw commercial interest in infrastructure along the route, promote tourism and development".
The India-ASEAN car rally has since become a reality. Flagging off the First India-ASEAN Rally at a colorful function at the Nehru Stadium in Guwahati (Assam) on Nov. 23, 2004, the present Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh said, "We are now rediscovering the age old relations".
While addressing the recent meeting of the North East council Dr Singh said the North East India could be a gateway for India for the ASEAN and East Asia it is for the North East Council to build on this. During his visit to the North East In November 2004 Dr Singh described the region as the "gateway" to India's engagement with the Association for South East Asian Nations and with the sub-regional grouping, BIMST-EC (Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand-Economic Cooperation))
The recent inauguration of a highway project to link the North-East to Thailand via Myanmar, a rail project connecting Manipur to Yangon, and the signing of an agreement for a gas pipeline from Myanmar through the North-East and Bangladesh to Kolkata, are all opportunities in the making for the region, which is also rich in natural resources
If the concerned governments, particularly that of India, Burma and Thailand, and local authorities of these countries are serious about their declared intentions, then these new initiatives would indeed rediscover, renew and rejuvenate the age-old cultural and historical ties between the peoples of South-east and North East India. In turn, greater interaction would undoubtedly boost trade, commerce and tourism prospects in the entire region.
In Asia, political boundaries have separated peoples who have cultural, historical, racial and ethnic affinities and share socio-economic and climate conditions
The moot point is whether the Government of India is only trying to become closer with the Southeast Asian countries by using northeast region as a "conduit" for its economic development. If so, it will be disastrous in the long run. You cannot have "Look East Policy" or "Indo-ASEAN Car Rally" only to please neighboring countries. But the core issue is how to make the people of the region aware that New Delhi is equally concerned for their security and well-being.
The recent statement of the Union Minister for Development of the North East Region (DONER), PR Kyndiah that the North-East Region is no more "sensitive" but "strategic" to not only the entire country but also the neighboring countries like China, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Myanmar has full of sense.
Though the north-east has enormous natural and human resources, India's north-east has always been neglected by the central government in New Delhi. As a result, tribals (Nagas, Mizos, Karbis, Meities, Khasis, Garos, Bodos etc) in these mountainous areas remain economically and educationally backward.
Even though India is making a small late beginning towards the East Asia via the North East, China has already started the process very fast. Recognization of Sikkim as an integral part of India Opening up of the Nathula pass between Sikkim and Tibet are all measures towards this Chinese Strategic and economic thinking
China also wants the Old Burma Road, which connects China's southwestern Yunnan province with Burma, opened. Likewise, to increase trade and commercial activities with India, China wants a direct flight between Calcutta in West Bengal and Kunming, the fast-growing capital of Yunnan that was closed to trade in the '60s
Last year, a 70-member delegation from landlocked Yunnan, led by its vice governor, Shao Quiewi, met high-ranking members of the West Bengal government to explore opportunities in trade, investment and cultural cooperation.
Besides tapping tourism and the tea industry with India, China has its eye on ASEAN countries for development of trade. "There are close relations between Yunnan and South-east Asian markets, and Yunnan wants to exploit this. Our trade relationship with Bengal was mutually beneficial till links were snapped in the 1960s," said a member of the Yunnan Chamber of Commerce, who accompanied the delegation. "We are seeking more border points, including the Old Burma Road. Once the road is opened, this will go a long way in developing trade between China and South-east Asian countries".
Question arises as to why China is focusing so much on this part of the world. Reasons for this are many. India's "Look East Policy" worries Beijing because it has cut short latter's expansionist policy with the Southeast Asian countries mainly Myanmar. The Indo-ASEAN car rally has generated tremendous amount of "goodwill mission" with the Southeast Asian countries. The idea of "Indo-ASEAN Car Rally" was to make grounds for partnership in the economic developments of the sub-continent and the "Look East Policy" was in that direction and certainly, the northeast region will act as an "Economic bridge" between the rest of the country and the Southeast Asian countries.
Again China's deliberate move towards the ASEAN and East Asia and trying to mend ways with India has strategic reasons behind it. United States of America is trying to develop a free trade area with Taiwan -Japan .A US-Taiwan-Japan FTA could provide a shield against Beijing's political clout and spur so-called "competitive liberalization" in East Asia by encouraging countries including Japan and ASEAN members to enter into FTAs with Taiwan. China feels its plan to push an "ASEAN plus three" free trade area (the three being China, Japan and South Korea)- a bloc that would deliberately exclude Taiwan and the USA could not materialize without getting India to act as a buffer in its strategic plan as such its making all this serious noices
It's heartening to see that India has finally woken up from its slumber and has started acting fast on its Look East Policy. The government of India off late is seriously engaging Myanmar in its strategic repositioning against China and the United States of America towards this part of the world.
Burma has shot back to the top of India?s foreign policy agenda following Indian President APJ Abdul Kalam?s visit last month, and battle lines are now being drawn in New Delhi over the contentious question of how to deal with the military junta
In the 13 years since India gave up its commitment to the cause of democracy in Burma and started dealing with the generals, "powerful lobbies in New Delhi have emerged favoring the progressive improvement of relations with the junta for the promotion of India?s national interest".
Indian president Kalam said on his return from Burma that trade between India and Burma should increase sharply in the next three years. The volume of bilateral trade in the financial year 2003-2004 amounted to US $470 million." We need to work out a method by which we can aspire to increase this volume to around $2 billion within the next three years,? Kalam said
The Indian president promised development of a hydroelectric power project at Htamanthi, Sagaing Division, which has a 1,000-megawatt potential, and work on the India-Burma-Thailand trilateral highway, which is likely to start soon would connect the rest of India via Bangladesh and the North East. The president also suggested the development of port facilities in Burma for the benefit of the two countries through which goods from the North East could be exported to other countries of
the ASEAN.
Again India has not only obliged the Burmese junta in driving out and even killing Kachin, Chin and Arakanese rebels from its territory. It intends to compete with China in becoming an important supplier of military hardware to the Burmese army?from high-velocity rifles to aircraft produced on license from other countries. New Delhi is prepared to sell all that Burma?s generals want to buy from them in an effort to reduce dependence on China
India is desperate to get as much natural gas as it can from the blocks in Arakan State passing through Bangladesh and the North East connecting the rest of India. Prime Minister Singh, an economist with ambitions to make India an economic power, is keen to ensure energy security to keep the country?s 7-8 percent annual economic growth on course. Dr Singh wants all possible trans-border energy sources tapped, and Burma is important in his schemes. Chances of the gas pipe line between the two countries finalizing looks very bright now and it the deal is finally though it would boost up tremendous development in the North Eastern part of India.
The development model resulting from India's Look East Policy has tremendous potential for the North East. It serves as a contiguous gateway to the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries with which India has established engagement models. However, this would first require working on integrating the North East with the rest of India to make it a solid springboard for the globalization process the first step in this regard should be a focus on a rural-centric development model.
The trade between India and ASEAN has jumped from $ 3.1 billion in 1991 to about $12 billion in 2002 and it is expected to rise to $30 billion by the end of 2007. The share of North East India in this annual trade was around 12 percent annually. There is tremendous scope to increase this further.
Thus looking into the political, strategic and economic angle of this Look East policy of India towards the ASEAN and East Asia can be gold mine for North East India in the long run to solve her age old political problem and economic backwardness and hopefully the coming ASEAN summit this month will help in achieving this aim. One should strongly hope the free trade agreement between India and the ASEAN is signed in this ASEAN Summit as this could pave the way for economic prosperity of the North East.
Dr Suvrokamal Dutta
Foreign Affairs and Economic Expert
Contact: Email: sk_dutta70@yahoo, Dutta007@hotmail
Singapore seeks contempt proceedings vs Dow Jones
Reuters,
Thursday September 11 2008 NEW YORK, Sept 11 (Reuters) -
Singapore's attorney general is seeking contempt proceedings against the publisher of the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal and two of its editors, saying their editorials "impugn the impartiality, integrity and independence of the Singapore Judiciary."
The move comes after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong filed a libel suit against the Far Eastern Economic Review, which like the Journal is owned by News Corp's Dow Jones & Co.
Both cases involve coverage of Singapore's government and opposition Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan, and are the latest in a string of legal actions brought by the Southeast Asian country against foreign news organizations.
The attorney general's office said in a statement on its website dated Sept. 11 that two editorials published in the Asian Wall Street Journal titled "Democracy in Singapore" and "Judging Singapore's Judiciary," allege that the judiciary is "not independent" and "is biased and lacks integrity."
The statement also cited a letter to the editor written by Chee called "Produce the Transcript, Show the Truth," that was published in the Asian Wall Street Journal on July 9.
Along with Dow Jones Publishing Co (Asia) Inc, the attorney general named Daniel Hertzberg, international editor at the Asian Wall Street Journal, and Managing Editor Christine Glancey.
"We are aware of the statement issued by the Singapore attorney general's office regarding the application for contempt proceedings against the Asian Wall Street Journal," Journal spokesman Robert Christie wrote in an e-mail.
"While we are reserving comment on the application until we receive official notification, we do not believe the articles were contemptuous of the Singapore courts," he wrote.
The editorial "Democracy in Singapore," published on June 26, concerned comments made in a Singapore court as damages were being assessed against Chee and his sister and colleague, Chee Siok Chin.
In 2006, the two lost a defamation suit brought by Lee and his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, over an article the Chees published in their party newsletter that was interpreted by the court to imply corruption on the part of the government.
In August, Singapore's prime minister raised the stakes in his libel suit against the Far Eastern Economic Review, saying the magazine implied he was corrupt, court documents showed.
An amendment by Lee's lawyers added the more serious charge to an earlier claim that the magazine had implied that the prime minister was unfit for office because he had condoned corruption by his father.
Singapore leaders have won damages in the past from foreign media groups when they report on local politics, including the Economist, the International Herald Tribune and Bloomberg.
In another contempt case in 1991, Singapore fined the editor of the Asian Wall Street Journal S$4,000 (US$2,777), the proprietors S$4,000 and the publisher S$1,000. The printer and distributor escaped fines but had to pay costs.
At issue was a 1989 story on a Singapore court ruling in favour of then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in his libel action against Derek Davies, then-editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review.
(Reporting by Robert MacMillan; Editing by Ted Kerr)
New Book Release: The Responsibility to Protect
Brussels, 12 September 2008: The International Crisis Group is pleased to announce the release of a new book by its president, Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All, published by Brookings Institution Press.
After the Holocaust, the world vowed it would “never again!” permit such atrocities to occur. Yet many mass atrocity crimes have since gone unchecked, from the killing fields of Cambodia to the machetes of Rwanda to the ongoing nightmare in Darfur. In this new book, International Crisis Group President Gareth Evans shows how the emergence of the new Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm has fundamentally changed this landscape and can effectively mean an end once and for all to such large scale suffering.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept was born out of the catastrophes in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s and captures a simple and powerful idea. The primary responsibility for protecting its own people from mass atrocity crimes lies with the state itself. State sovereignty implies responsibility, not a license to kill.
But when a state is unwilling or unable to halt or avert such crimes, the wider international community then has a collective responsibility to take appropriate action, not excluding the use of military force in extreme and exceptional cases.
R2P was unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit. But many misunderstandings persist about its scope and limits, compounded by its use and misuse in debates about the appropriate reaction to recent events, for example, in Iraq, Darfur, Myanmar and Georgia. And much remains to be done to solidify political support and to build institutional capacity.
The book examines how big a break R2P represents from the past, and how, with understanding of its scope, and its acceptance in principle and effective application in practice, the promise of “never again!” can at last become a reality.
The Author
Gareth Evans has been President and CEO of the International Crisis Group since 2000, after serving eight years as Australia’s Foreign Minister. Evans co-chaired the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that initiated the Responsibility to Protect concept in 2001, and he was a member of the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Panel in 2004 that successfully proposed its adoption by the 2005 UN World Summit.
Book launch events with Gareth Evans and special guest speakers:
17 September, New York: with Romeo Dallaire, hosted by the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and the International Peace Institute, 777 United Nations Plaza, 44th Street and 1st Avenue, 12th Floor; 1pm to 3pm
22 September, London: with Lord Patten of Barnes and Lord Hannay of Chiswick; hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Arundel House, 13-15 Arundel Street, Temple Place, WC2R 3DX;11am to 1230pm
7 October, Brussels: with Eric Chevallier, Joschka Fischer and Emma Bonino; at Residence Palace, Polak Room, Rue de la Loi 155; 11am-1230pm
28 October, Washington, DC: hosted by Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 20004-3027; 10am to 1130am
If you would like to attend any of these launch events, please send a short email with your name, affiliation and launch city to media@crisisgroup.org
If you would like to obtain the book, at a discounted price, please use the order form below or order online at:
http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2008/responsibilitytoprotect.aspx
Use code KGE8 to get a 20% discount off the cover price.
Min Ko Naing Defiant at Hearing: Lawyer
Min Ko Naing
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article3.php?art_id=14243
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By MIN LWIN Friday, September 12, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for Min Ko Naing, a leading figure from Burma’s nationwide pro-democracy uprising in 1988, said that the detained activist was defiant when he appeared in court at Rangoon’s Insein Prison on Tuesday.
“You can sentence us to a thousand years in prison for our political activities, but we will continue to defend ourselves in accordance with the law. Nobody can hide from justice,” the lawyer quoted Min Ko Naing as saying to the presiding judge.
Nyi Nyi Hlaing, a lawyer for Min Ko Naing and 34 other members of the 88 Generation Students’ Group, said that the defendants were facing a variety of charges related to their involvement in last year’s protests against a drastic fuel price hike by the ruling junta.
The charges include violations of Electronics Act 33A, the Illegal Organizations Act 17/1 and Section 4 of SPDC Law No 5/96, which prohibits actions that “endanger the national convention.”
The accused were also charged with violating Article 130B of the Penal Code, which prohibits libel against friendly foreign powers. The charge stems from the group’s alleged criticism of China and Russia for their role in vetoing a draft UN Security Council resolution o¬n Burma in January 2007.
Nyi Nyi Hlaing told The Irrawaddy that the prosecution also accused Min Ko Naing and his colleagues of speaking with the exiled media. Recorded interviews and other items uploaded to Web sites operated by Burmese exiles were exhibited as evidence.
On Tuesday, the 35 detained former student leaders appeared in the Rangoon East District Court, located in Insein Prison, with their lawyers and family members to hear the charges against them.
According to relatives of the defendants, the 88 Generation Students’ Group requested on August 27 to be permitted to appear in court without handcuffs. They also requested the presence of witnesses during the court hearing, in accordance with international laws. However, only family members were allowed to enter the courtroom.
“The family members could be present and listen to the court proceedings, but [the defendants] were still in handcuffs,” said Aung Thein, another lawyer for the group.
Most of the accused have been in detention since August 21, 2007, when they were arrested for leading a march against sharp increases in the price of fuel and other commodities on August 19.
Many are veterans of Burma’s pro-democracy movement who have spent more than a decade in prison for their political activities.
Besides Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi, other prominent members of the 88 Generation Students’ Group who are now in detention include Htay Win Aung, Min Zeya, Mya Aye and Kyaw Min Yu (also known as Jimmy).
Lawyers for the group expressed doubt that they would receive a fair trial, saying that the authorities had already decided that they were guilty.
“Nobody should predict the outcome of a trial before a verdict has been reached,” said Aung Thein, referring to a press conference given by police chief Brig-Gen Khin Ye, who repeatedly declared that the defendants were guilty of a variety of crimes.
Nine other political activists who were not present at Tuesday’s hearing were also among the accused. They include Tun Myint Aung and Soe Tun, who are still in hiding, and Nilar Thein, who was arrested on Wednesday, and Mar Mar Oo, who was apprehended two weeks ago.
Related article: Empowering Peaceful Dissent
China launches nationwide baby formula probe
By JOE McDONALD, AP Business Writer
Fri Sep 12, 12:40 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_re_as/china_baby_formula_recall_2
BEIJING - China's Health Ministry on Friday ordered a nationwide probe of milk powder linked to a rash of kidney stones in infants and one death and said those responsible "will face serious punishment."
The announcement this week that infants were sickened by the milk powder fueled new worries about Chinese product safety after a spate of injuries and deaths blamed on tainted toothpaste and other goods.
Local officials were ordered to report all possible cases of illness in infants linked to the powder and to arrange emergency treatment, the ministry said in a statement.
"Those responsible will face serious punishment," said a ministry spokesman, Mao Qunan, quoted by the official Xinhua News Agency.
The major Chinese dairy that produced the formula has recalled 700 tons of the product and said it was contaminated with melamine, a chemical used in plastics, Xinhua and the official China Daily newspaper reported.
People who answered the phone at the dairy, Sanlu Group Co., said managers were not available to comment.
"The Health Ministry is still conducting a nationwide investigation of babies' illness due to this, and at the same time is urgently organizing exports to conduct research and treatment," the ministry statement said.
Another ministry statement instructed doctors in how to diagnose and treat the ailments.
In one province, Gansu in the northwest, doctors have reported a total of 59 cases of kidney stones in infants, compared with none in 2006 or 2007, the China Daily said. It said many of those babies were fed the Sanlu formula.
Fonterra, a New Zealand dairy cooperative that owns 43 percent of Sanlu, said it was advised the company had a "quality issue in its products as a result of receiving defective milk in China."
The company "has advised us that they have recalled product in China and have put new milk quality testing procedures in place," Fonterra said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press. The statement gave no details of the recall, but China Daily said it involved 700 tons of milk powder.
According to Xinhua, Sanlu said the contaminated powder was produced before Aug. 6.
Authorities launched an investigation this week after 14 babies who drank the formula developed kidney stones and one died, state media reported.
The case adds to a string of safety incidents in China over tainted toothpaste, toys, seafood and other products that have been blamed for deaths and injuries.
Melamine is the chemical involved in a massive pet food recall last year. It is not supposed to be added to any food ingredients, but suppliers in China sometimes mix it into food to make it appear to be high in protein. Melamine is nitrogen rich, and standard tests for protein in bulk food ingredients measure levels of nitrogen.
In Washington, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned consumers to avoid infant formula from China. Authorities said Chinese formula was not legally approved for importation into the United States but might be sold at ethnic grocery stores.
"We're concerned that there may be some infant formula that may have gotten into the United States illegally and may be on the ethnic market," said Janice Oliver, deputy director of the FDA's food safety program.
Sanlu, based in Shijiazhuang southwest of Beijing, is China's biggest producer of milk powder, with 18 percent of the market, according to government data. The company says it produces 6,800 tons of milk per day.
In 2004, more than 200 Chinese infants suffered malnutrition and at least 12 died after being fed phony formula that contained no nutrients. Some 40 companies were found to be making phony formula and 47 people were arrested.
Irony much?
http://jeanchoi.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/irony-much/
Posted by: Jean Choi | September 11, 2008
The 2008 Beijing Olympics finally came to a close two weeks ago, with a spendid closing ceremony that even surprisingly featured the Korean singer Rain. Aside from the Korean national team’s outstanding achievements in numerous sports categories such as baseball and archery, the Beijing Olympics proved to be a source of controversy due to the lip-syncing incident and the computer-generated fireworks during its opening ceremony, as well as the feasibility of China hosting this internationally and historically-renowned event. However, excluding these problems, I would have to admit that the 2008 Olympics was a fairly big success and that it did live up to the expecations that were associated with the symbolic significance of its opening date: August 8th, 2008. However, not long after I had written something on my blog about what meaning the date August 8th holds in Chinese culture, I found something even more interesting on the Internet. It turns out to be that August 8th also marks the 20th anniversary of Burma’s largest democratic uprising. What’s more, China is one of the main supporters of Burma’s regime, as it frequently supplies weapons of mass destruction to the military regime in Burma.
The site (click here) provides a lot of information on the current political conditions in Burma, as well as the history behind the entire situation. There is also a petition going on against viewing the Beijing Olympics (remember, the Paralympics is still going on at this point!), because the date of the democratic uprising in Burma coincides with the official opening date of the entire Beijing Olympics. It’s a shame that I didn’t know anything about the unstable political situation in Burma until now, because if I had known any earlier, then I probably wouldn’t have written a post about how the Beijing Olympics is supposed to be full of good fortune because of its auspicious opening date. I guess this just adds one more controversy to the several that are already associated with China’s hostage of the Olympics! At any rate, below is a clip found on the US Campagin for Burma website that effectively summarizes the history behind Burma’s fight for freedom. Try visiting the website and let’s all take some action!
Tension With Russia About Georgia War Spreads at UN, Envoys Say
By Bill Varner
Sept. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Tension with the West over the war in Georgia has sharpened Russian opposition to pressuring Iran and Myanmar at the United Nations, U.S. and British envoys said.
``In the aftermath of Georgia there is an impact on Russian statements on other issues, which we regret,'' U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said. ``We hope and expect that in regard to the nuclear issue in Iran, a threat to international peace and security on which the Security Council has expressed itself, without opposition from Russia, we can continue to cooperate.''
Khalilzad pointed to Russian Deputy Ambassador Konstantin Dolgov's statement that his government won't curtail financial transactions with Iranian banks. Dolgov told the UN Security Council that a March resolution calling for vigilance in financial relations was only a ``political signal'' to the government in Tehran and that nations have the ``right to determine themselves how they will be vigilant.''
Any spillover from the five-day war in Georgia, fought over pro-Russian breakaway regions, would make it more difficult to reach agreement on further UN sanctions to constrain Iran's nuclear development work. Foreign ministers of the U.S., U.K., China, France, Germany and Russia are scheduled to discuss possible next steps on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly during the week of Sept. 22.
Myanmar is under UN scrutiny because of its military rulers' crackdown on the pro-democracy opposition in the Southeast Asian nation.
Iran Sanctions
The debate at the UN followed U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Glaser's address to a Security Council committee meeting yesterday in which he urged stronger implementation of financial sanctions on Iran. Glaser's remarks accompanied U.S. imposition of sanctions on an Iranian shipping company and 18 of its affiliates that it accused of hauling material covertly for Iran's military.
Iran's government denies that it is seeking to build a nuclear weapon or gain the knowledge of how to do so. Its program is an effort to develop a nuclear power industry, Iranian officials say.
Dolgov denied any linkage of Georgia to either Iran or Myanmar, saying his government was ``not mixing up issues'' and only wanted to prevent ``de facto expansion of the scope'' of UN sanctions on Iran.
On Myanmar, Russia joined other Security Council member governments in blocking a French proposal for a statement that would have ``deplored'' the regime's refusal to engage in dialogue with opposition parties or release political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi.
Georgia, Myanmar
Dolgov questioned whether the U.S. and its European allies were as concerned about the violence in Georgia as they are about repression in Myanmar, according to Khalilzad and U.K. Ambassador John Sawers. There should be no ``double standard,'' Dolgov said.
``Dolgov seemed to make a linkage between the situation in Myanmar and our approach to Georgia,'' Sawers said. ``It is very unfortunate that Russia is going to start linking unconnected dossiers with Georgia.''
Khalilzad said Dolgov ``implied we are concerned about bloodshed in one area and not in another.''
Sawers and Khalilzad both said UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari made no progress with Myanmar's military government during his visit to the country last month. Khalilzad urged stronger Security Council pressure on the regime.
Khalilzad and Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin have had several harsh public exchanges over Georgia in the Security Council, adding to concerns about a new ``Cold War'' between the powers.
``This harsh rhetoric is not always desirable in resolving differences of opinion,'' UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at a news conference.
To contact the reporter on this story: Bill Varner at the United Nations at wvarner@bloomberg.net
U.N. envoy in dark after snub by Myanmar's Suu Kyi
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.N. envoy said on Thursday he has no idea why Myanmar's detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi refused to meet him last month.
U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari tried twice to meet the 63-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner who has been under house arrest for most of the past five years, but she refused.
After briefing the U.N. Security Council on his sixth visit to push for reform in the former Burma, Gambari was asked why Suu Kyi had declined to see him.
"To be honest with you, I don't know because this is not consistent with her previous relation to me," he told reporters. "I've met with her seven times in all now."
"We don't know why she has refused to see anybody except her lawyer in the last few weeks. There may be a sense of frustration, of course, which we all share about the pace of change in the country."
Suu Kyi's snub of Gambari during his six-day visit fueled speculation she was fed up with the ruling junta's treatment of the emissary and the lack of meaningful dialogue between her party and the junta.
So far, Gambari has had little to show for his efforts to get Myanmar's leadership to include Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy in its plans to cede political control.
The party said this week that Suu Kyi was on a hunger strike to protest her detention and restrictions on visitors, but the junta denied it.
Some Western diplomats in New York have suggested privately that Suu Kyi's snub of Gambari on his fourth visit since the junta cracked down on monk-led protests last September was a vote of no confidence in what they described as the United Nations' soft approach to Myanmar.
However, Britain's U.N. Ambassador John Sawers placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of the junta.
He said the snub was a message of frustration about the slow pace of reforms in Myanmar that Suu Kyi was sending the international community.
"We need to understand the frustration that she, her supporters, her party, and indeed the people of Burma are feeling at the lack of progress there," Sawers said. "Let's listen to that and let's reflect on that."
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad suggested it was time for tougher measures. He accused the junta of defying international demands that it release Suu Kyi and other dissidents and begin taking steps toward democracy.
"The time has come to review what needs to be done to be more effective to bring about more progress with regard to these two objectives," Khalilzad told reporters.
Time for Myanmar regime to release political prisoners: UN envoy
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari said here Thursday that it was time for Myanmar's military regime to release political prisoners and resume dialogue with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Speaking to reporters after briefing the UN Security Council on his last visit to the southeast Asian country in August, Gambari said: "the tangible results of my last visit fell below expectations."
He added that it was imperative for "the government of Myanmar at this point to deliver substantive results" regarding "the release of political prisoners and the resumption of dialogue between the government and Aung San Suu Kyi."
His view was echoed by US Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad, who noted: "The United States and several others (in the 15-member council) are of the view that there hasn't been any concrete progress with regard to ... time-bound political negotiations leading to democratization and the release of political prisoners."
"The time has come to review what needs to be done to be more effective in bringing about progress with regard to those two objectives," he added. "Our judgment is that more pressure needs to be applied on the regime."
Khalilzad's British counterpart John Sawers also voiced disappointment at the way the Myanmar regime handled Gambari's August visit.
"We have not seen substantive progress on the central goal of achieving national reconciliation," he noted.
And commenting on Aun San Suu Kyi's refusal to see Gambari on his latest visit, Sawers noted: "We should take this as a message."
"We need to understand the frustration that she, and her supporters, her party and indeed the people of Burma (Myanmar) are feeling at the lack of progress."
Gambari visited Myanmar August 18-23, in a bid to restart dialogue between Aung San Suu Kyi and the ruling military regime. He was also unable to meet with senior figures in the regime but held talks with the prime minister.
A UN spokeswoman said at the time that Aung San Suu Kyi, who is under house arrest, was unable to meet Gambari as scheduled but that the UN envoy met members of the National League for Democracy (NLD), the opposition party she leads.
UN chief urges Myanmar junta to include opponents
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 11, 6:29 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed frustration Thursday at the failure of Myanmar's military government to open its political process and urged the junta to take "tangible steps" to include opponents like Aung San Suu Kyi.
Ban spoke to reporters at a news conference while his special envoy to Myanmar, Ibrahim Gambari, was briefing the U.N. Security Council behind closed doors on his visit to Myanmar from Aug. 18-23. He failed to see Suu Kyi during the visit.
Gambari said afterward that he told council members the visit "fell below our expectations, particularly with regard to the release of political prisoners and the resumption of dialogue between the government and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi."
"Therefore, it's our view that it's imperative for the government of Myanmar at this point to deliver substantive results...," he said.
Ban refused to call Gambari's visit a failure, telling reporters that he intends to continue to try to make progress through "all possible diplomatic means."
He announced that he will hold a meeting on Friday with ambassadors from concerned member states to discuss ways to promote progress, particularly with countries that may have influence on Myanmar.
"I share the frustration many feel with the situation in Myanmar," Ban said. "We have not seen the political progress I had hoped for. We want to see the parties, in particular the government of Myanmar, take tangible steps toward establishing a credible and inclusive political process in the country, which of course must include progress on human rights."
Myanmar, also known as Burma, has been in a political deadlock since 1990, when Suu Kyi's party overwhelmingly won a general election but was not allowed to take power by the military. She has been detained, mainly under house arrest, for 13 of the last 19 years.
The United Nations has tried with little success to nudge the regime toward talks with the opposition, hoping the top generals would respond to international pressure to embrace national reconciliation following its violent suppression of massive, anti-government protests in Yangon last year. Suu Kyi's cancellation of meetings with Gambari was the latest stumble in the U.N.'s bid to promote democracy in Myanmar.
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Thursday that Washington believes "more pressure needs to be applied on the (Myanmar) regime."
"The regime is not complying," he said. "It is in defiance of what the international community has asked for. We believe that it is time to deliberate on what to do to be more effective."
British Ambassador John Sawers said the U.N., the Security Council and others "need to reassess the way forward to bring about national reconciliation and democratic government."
"Prospects of moving forward are not at all promising," he said. "We need to understand the frustration that she (Suu Kyi), her supporters and party and indeed the people of Burma are feeling at the lack of progress there."
A statement last month by Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy complained about the lack of results from Gambari's trips.
Gambari, who has met with Suu Kyi seven times during five previous visits, said the fact that he didn't meet the detained Nobel Peace Prize winner on this trip "was disappointing to all of us" and meant he couldn't report her views as he had in the past.
He said he didn't know why Suu Kyi didn't meet him, noting that she has previously said the U.N. should be at the center of promoting dialogue between her and the government.
Fukuda resignation shakes up Japan's ruling party
By ERIC TALMADGE, Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 11, 12:23 PM ET
TOKYO - Over the past 20 years, Japan has had 13 prime ministers. In a pattern rarely seen outside the communist world, individual leaders have come and gone, but the ruling party has remained the same.
Now, Japan is once again looking for a leader, its third in two years. But this time, the party could be in trouble, too.
Unable to deal with inconclusive battles in parliament, chronically low support ratings and repeated beatings from a surging opposition, Japan's last two prime ministers have simply thrown in the towel — raising questions over whether Japan's long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party still has the stomach for leadership.
"They have lost the trust of the nation," said Tomoaki Iwai, a political science professor at Tokyo's Nihon University. "I don't think I have ever seen the Liberal Democrats in as deep trouble as they are in now. The feeling that it is time for a change in government is stronger than ever before."
The Liberal Democrats has been one of the most successful parties in modern history.
The party governed Japan throughout virtually all of the post World War II period — missing out on only one 10-month period since 1955 — and supervised Japan's rise from the devastation of war and occupation to its current status as the world's second-largest economy.
But the Liberal Democrats' own sense of urgency runs deep.
"If we don't do anything ... the Liberal Democratic Party will perish," Kaoru Yosano, a party veteran and one the leading post-Fukuda candidates, said this week. "We are facing a crisis that brings into question our very existence."
Yosano's comments underscore a growing malaise within the party and frustration among voters, who increasingly see the Liberal Democrats as incapable of dealing with pressing issues such as rising gasoline and food prices and an underfunded and mismanaged pension system.
The manner in which the last two leaders quit has been particularly striking.
In stepping down last week, Yasuo Fukuda, unapologetically, said he had enough bickering with the opposition, which has used its majority in the less powerful upper house of parliament to block or stall most of the legislation backed by the ruling party. Fukuda was widely panned as irresponsible and selfish by the media, and has pointedly made no public comments since.
The Liberal Democrats have moved fast to ward off criticism that Fukuda's decision was a sign of confusion or disarray. Within days of the announcement, the party had set elections to replace him. They will be held on Sept. 22, and five ruling party members are running.
Fukuda's predecessor, Shinzo Abe, also resigned suddenly, claiming physical problems brought about by the stress of the job, which he held for less than a year. Fukuda and Abe both suffered from low public support ratings — largely because they were seen as ineffective.
For decades, the individual in charge didn't make that much difference.
It was the party that ruled, with platform and ideology shaped through consensus. It used its numbers in parliament and clout with the voters, big business and other special interests to sustain its power while the most influential members would field subordinates for the party presidency and pull the strings from the sidelines, under less scrutiny.
Those days appear to be over.
Junichiro Koizumi, in office before Abe, stayed in power for a record five years and put his personal stamp on the job. He was an exception in that he doggedly pursued several issues — including the privatization of the postal system — and worked to declaw the powerful factions that had hitherto controlled party objectives and personnel selections.
But since Koizumi, the party has weakened to the point that it no longer has kingmakers or backroom barons of the stature of those in the past.
"The party members are now thinking more of their own interests and are less inclined to fall in line behind the prime minister," Iwai said. "They are far less organized than they used to be, and they are out of touch with their usual bases of support."
Voters now also have an increasingly viable alternative in the Democratic Party of Japan, which, while stridently critical of the LDP, is centrist and, unlike the communists or socialists, reassuringly familiar. Many of its leaders are, in fact, former ruling party renegades who helped briefly oust the LDP from power in 1993.
Headed by former LDP powerbroker Ichiro Ozawa, the Democrats are already looking beyond the naming of Fukuda's successor toward general elections, which are expected to be held before the year is over.
The Liberal Democrats lead in most polls, but analysts are split over whether the party will gain or lose ground when it comes down to battles for individual seats and are even more uncertain about whether the LDP will ever return to its previous position of strength.
The emboldened Democrats, meanwhile, are turning up their rhetoric.
"Two LDP prime ministers in succession have suddenly walked away from their office, exposing the LDP's inability to govern," said Democratic Party Secretary-General Yukio Hatoyama. "Whether Mr. Fukuda is prime minister, or whether one of his followers takes over the post, the DPJ still believes resolutely that the (ruling party and its coalition partner have) run out of ideas."
Myanmar's junta grants Suu Kyi new rights
YANGON, Myanmar - Detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was expected to stop shunning food deliveries after the junta approved several requests, including the right to receive regular mail deliveries and certain foreign news publications, her lawyer said Friday.
The apparent concessions came amid growing concerns that Suu Kyi was on a hunger strike to protest her ongoing detention. The 63-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner has refused daily food delivered to her home for over three weeks.
"She will most probably accept her food deliveries as some of the conditions she had asked for were smoothed out," her lawyer, Kyi Win, told The Associated Press.
The junta made no immediate comment.
Among the conditions were Suu Kyi's request to be allowed regular mail deliveries from her two sons, who live in Britain, and other family members, Kyi Win said. Until now, delivery was spotty with some mail permitted and some blocked, he said.
Suu Kyi was also granted permission to read foreign publications, "including Time, Newsweek, etc.," her lawyer said.
He did not give details about how long Suu Kyi has been denied access to foreign news publications.
Suu Kyi has been held in detention by Myanmar's notoriously xenophobic ruling junta for 13 of the past 19 years, mostly under house arrest. She relies on food delivered by her opposition National League for Democracy for sustenance.
She lives in a lakeside home in Yangon, Myanmar's biggest city, with two female companions who help take care of the house.
Suu Kyi had demanded greater freedom of movement for the two women, who were previously barred from leaving the home but will now be allowed out during the daytime, the lawyer said.
She will also be allowed monthly medical checkups by her personal physician, which the junta had previously promised her but then blocked.
Myanmar, also known as Burma, has been in a political deadlock since 1990, when Suu Kyi's party overwhelmingly won general elections but was not allowed to take power by the military
We’re Not Quitters
MIN KHIN KYAW
min kyaw"
The NLD has been waiting for real talk with the junta since 1991 or so as the elected representatives of the Burmese people as they have been given the mandate to govern the country as the legitimate government.
However, the UN has been so far never able to bring the junta to the table to start practical dialogue. Will it be able to talk to the junta one to one in terms of human rights and political freedom? So has ASEAN failed; the pain is it’s always ready to blame us, the democratic side, bluntly. Can it also talk to the junta one by one in near future seriously for the improvements of human rights and poverty?
As the call for tripartite dialogue has been ignored so many times for two decades, it’s time for both UN and ASEAN to take the matter in their own hands. The cooperation between ASEAN and UN is up to their choice and strategy.
So far, neither UN nor ASEAN had tried to engage the junta and democratic activists outside Burma where equal term can be applied – especially, in their assemblies but accepted the denials of the junta to engage with us inside Burma as they failed to highlight that; instead they are pointing their fingers at us as if we’re behaving the same way as the junta does. As ASEAN is unfair to us, the UN seems its sole solution to the crisis is to second the ASEAN. Although Thailand tried once with its roadmap, that was rejected by the junta but we are still willing to engage in that process anyway; however, was the Thai government of that time really serious? Or was it just for show whilst lending a significant amount of money to the junta and trying to gain access to Burma ’s domestic market and natural resources? And currently, Thailand is a main source of income to the junta to keep running its brutal business against Burmese population. Also the current Thai government is openly opposing our effort for democracy. Certainly, we can never trust any Thai government that is unfair to us.
Whilst they cannot bring the junta to the table for talk inside Burma , why have they ignored our voices to bring the junta to their tables wherever their meetings took place? Why have they ignored us to give an equal share of recognition, as Burmese people have their own elected representatives, as they have given to the junta?
We are ready to meet the junta anywhere any time, whether it’s at UN or ASEAN meeting to solve the political crisis that has deprived the population from everything good.
We should want to know how they’re going to answer about this.
We just want to start a practical path. And both UN and ASEAN should have real plans as they have been engaging with the junta such a long, long time. Neither UN nor ASEAN ever engaged in political issues directly however. They have failed but have they appeared that they want to make it our fault now?!
As the junta do not want to meet NLD directly, can ASEAN and UN envoys seek the head of the junta for real discussion political issues, economic issues, refugee crises, human right situations, drug problems and their views how things should be? After they have discussed with the junta, whatever results they achieved, then could they talk with us – as favouring the junta to say what it wants first.
On the other hand, we have stated our stance. We are for the democracy in Burma . What is that we have to discuss with the junta? Isn’t it how the junta will implement democracy as soon as possible? As both UN and ASEAN know what we want, we can give them total responsibility to engage with the junta in their own terms. All we have to do is to raise our voice on what going on between the junta and the UN and between the junta and ASEAN and among themselves.
Whether we given the observer status during their meetings, we have to right to observe and we can do just that. And we should just give them complete control to steer the junta toward democracy – if they agree to do so.
If they cannot do just that, then we have to know what they can do for the people of Burma .
By observing, we don’t isolate ourselves as our critics and voices will be as important as ever. We rather change our way as the junta doesn’t want us to exist as it has been suppressed all political activities inside the country. And this must be in the minds of all envoys to Burma and their activities and views must reflect this directly or indirectly as they try to engage with the junta toward true democratic practices.
After all, it seems we have to prove that we are not the problem makers. Then we can prove that we are the side that wants all problems solved as soon as possible but we are going to take the status of observing what and how the ASEAN and UN deal with the junta.
If they fail again, they must admit the junta is failure. Then they must seek the best solutions to solve the crisis. If they want to give up completely, then they may do so. But don’t support the junta both economically and politically – as such actions are supporting the cruelty of the junta breaching the human rights and the cause of the state of atrocity of Burmese people.
The reality is ASEAN has avoided real political engagement with the junta and the UN has started to follow the ASEAN’s achievements in denial. ASEAN has given us hope and successfully avoided actions in finding solutions and testing solutions. The reality of ASEAN is some of its influential countries are enjoying cheap resources and cheap labour from Burma whilst others share the blame for their own reasons. Yet we must not put the blame on the shoulder of the Thai people who are still struggling for their democracy.
But the United Nation should address the reality in dealing with the junta and why it hasn’t achieved particular goals and what troubles it has been facing in solving the crimes committed by the junta. The UN’s responsible people have failed to recognise how they should report the barriers and the reasons of failures – such as to free Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders and activists detained unlawfully, and why it cannot bring the junta to the negotiation table.
Whatever happening, we have to find our way to freedom and must carry on the torch of revolutionary to the final glory.
We must prove with our history making efforts that we are not the quitters in fighting their injustices and insincerity. The history will glorify as the true freedom fighters and record them as villains. The history always stands by the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
