By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers Ron Fournier And Trevor Tompson, Associated Press Writers – 26 mins ago
WASHINGTON – For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future.
Intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses, Americans nonetheless appear realistic about the time Obama might need to turn things around, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. It shows most Americans consider their new president to be a strong, ethical and empathetic leader who is working to change Washington.
Nobody knows how long the honeymoon will last, but Obama has clearly transformed the yes-we-can spirit of his candidacy into a tool of governance. His ability to inspire confidence — Obama's second book is titled "The Audacity of Hope" — has thus far buffered the president against the harsh political realities of two wars, a global economic meltdown and countless domestic challenges.
"He presents a very positive outlook," said Cheryl Wetherington, 35, an independent voter who runs a chocolate shop in Gardner, Kan. "He's very well-spoken and very vocal about what direction should be taken."
But other AP-GfK findings could signal trouble for Obama as he approaches his 100th day in office, April 29:
_While there is evidence that people feel more optimistic about the economy, 65 percent said it's difficult for them and their families to get ahead. More than one-third know of a family member who recently lost a job.
_More than 90 percent of Americans consider the economy an important issue, the highest ever in AP polling.
_Nearly 80 percent believe that the rising federal debt will hurt future generations, and Obama is getting mixed reviews at best for his handling of the issue.
And yet, the percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track.
Not since January 2004, shortly after the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, has an AP survey found more "right direction" than "wrong direction" respondents.
So far, Obama has defied the odds by producing a sustained trend toward optimism. It began with his election.
But he is aware that his political prospects are directly linked to such numbers. If at the end of his term the public is no more assured that Washington is competent and accountable and that the nation is at least on the right track, his re-election prospects will be doubtful.
"I will be held accountable," Obama said a few weeks into his presidency. "You know, I've got four years. ... If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
The AP-GfK poll suggests that 64 percent of the public approves of Obama's job performance, down just slightly from 67 percent in February. President George W. Bush's approval ratings hovered in the high 50s after his first 100 days in office.
But Obama also has become a somewhat polarizing figure, with just 24 percent of Republicans approving of his performance — down from 33 percent in February. Obama campaigned on a promise — just as Bush had — to end the party-first mind-set that breeds gridlock in Washington.
Obama is not the first president who sought to tap the deep well of American optimism — the never-say-die spirit that Americans like to see in themselves.
Even as he briefly closed the nation's banks, Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke in the first days of his presidency of the "confidence and courage" needed to fix the U.S. economy. "Together we cannot fail," he declared.
"When Obama came in," said D.T. Brown, 39, a Mount Vernon, Ill., radio show host who voted against Obama, "it was just a breath of fresh air."
Others said their newfound optimism had nothing to do with Obama, but rather with an era of personal responsibility they believe has come with the economic meltdown.
"I think people are beginning to turn in that direction and realize that there's not always going to be somebody to catch them when things fall down," said Dwight Hageman, 66, a retired welder from Newberg, Ore., who voted against Obama.
The AP-GfK Poll was conducted April 16-20 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media. It involved telephone interviews on landline and cell phones with 1,000 adults nationwide. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
___
Associated Press News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and AP writer Christine Simmons contributed to this report.
___
On the Net:
Poll site: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009
AP Poll: Americans high on Obama, direction of US
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Gingrich slams Obama over Chavez
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090420/pl_politico/21445;_ylt=AqeDNAd_jtcoSpnvYmBKlnhg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTJlaHNyMmtpBGFzc2V0A3BvbGl0aWNvLzIwMDkwNDIwLzIxNDQ1BGNwb3MDNQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2dpbmdyaWNoc2xhbQ--
AFP Carol E. Lee Carol E. Lee – 1 hr 53 mins ago
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tore into President Barack Obama Monday for his friendly greeting of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying Obama is bolstering the "enemies of America.”
Gingrich appeared on a number of morning talk shows comparing Obama to President Jimmy Carter for the smiling, hearty handshake he offered Chavez, one of the harshest critics of the United States, during the Summit of the Americas.
“Frankly, this does look a lot like Jimmy Carter. Carter tried weakness, and the world got tougher and tougher, because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators – when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead,” Gingrich said on “Fox & Friends.”
Two Republican senators, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Ensign of Nevada, joined in the criticism Monday, with Ensign calling Obama's greeting of Chavez "irresponsible."
Obama addressed such criticism before he left the summit in Trinidad and Tobago on Sunday, noting his “great differences” with Chavez and expressing concern for the Venezuelan president’s “inflammatory” rhetoric toward the United States and interference in neighboring Latin American countries
“It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States,” Obama told reporters at a news conference. “I don't think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.”
While the White House felt Obama's first foray into Latin America went well, officials seemed concerned that so-called “picture seen ‘round the world” of Obama greeting Chavez at the summit would generate such criticism back home.
The criticism is déjà vu for the Obama team. It is along the same line of what Obama’s opponents – Hillary Clinton, now secretary of State, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), said of him during the campaign, that he was too willing to talk to U.S. adversaries.
Obama defended that, too, on Sunday before returning from a four-day trip to Latin America.
“We had this debate throughout the campaign, and the whole notion was, is that somehow if we showed courtesy or opened up dialogue with governments that had previously been hostile to us, that that somehow would be a sign of weakness – the American people didn't buy it,” Obama said. “And there's a good reason the American people didn't buy it — because it doesn't make sense.”
By Saturday afternoon, Chavez had gifted Obama a book critical of U.S. involvement in Latin America, the images were being replayed on television, and the White House had a new talking point: that handshakes and smiles are not enough, that actions speak louder than words.
"The smiles and handshakes and the desire of one leader to say to the president that he wants to be his friend, again is a wonderful opportunity to match actions with words," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
But Gregg told MSNBC's Morning Joe Monday that while Chavez is "not a strategic threat,” Obama’s greeting of him is “not a good way to start your presidency."
Gingrich on NBC’s Today Show that Obama’s warm greeting of Chavez was "proof that Chavez is now legitimate, is acceptable."
And Ensign called Chavez "one of the most anti-American leaders in the entire world. He is a brutal dictator and human rights violations are very, very prevalent in Venezuela. And you have to be careful.”
Gingrich first raised the issue on Friday, the night Obama and Chavez first met at a reception.
“I think it sends a terrible signal to all of Latin America, and a terrible signal about how the new administration regards dictators,” Gingrich said on Fox, also citing Obama’s willingness to talk to Iran, his handling of North Korea and overtures to the Castro government in Cuba. “I don’t think there’s any downside to talking to him. But I think being friends, taking a picture that clearly looks like they’re buddies hurts in all of Latin America.”
AP IMPACT: Tons of released drugs taint US water
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/pharmawater_factories
By JEFF DONN, MARTHA MENDOZA and JUSTIN PRITCHARD,
Associated Press Writers – Mon Apr 20, 4:45 am ET
U.S. manufacturers, including major drugmakers, have legally released at least 271 million pounds of pharmaceuticals into waterways that often provide drinking water — contamination the federal government has consistently overlooked, according to an Associated Press investigation.
Hundreds of active pharmaceutical ingredients are used in a variety of manufacturing, including drugmaking: For example, lithium is used to make ceramics and treat bipolar disorder; nitroglycerin is a heart drug and also used in explosives; copper shows up in everything from pipes to contraceptives.
Federal and industry officials say they don't know the extent to which pharmaceuticals are released by U.S. manufacturers because no one tracks them — as drugs. But a close analysis of 20 years of federal records found that, in fact, the government unintentionally keeps data on a few, allowing a glimpse of the pharmaceuticals coming from factories.
As part of its ongoing PharmaWater investigation about trace concentrations of pharmaceuticals in drinking water, AP identified 22 compounds that show up on two lists: the EPA monitors them as industrial chemicals that are released into rivers, lakes and other bodies of water under federal pollution laws, while the Food and Drug Administration classifies them as active pharmaceutical ingredients.
The data don't show precisely how much of the 271 million pounds comes from drugmakers versus other manufacturers; also, the figure is a massive undercount because of the limited federal government tracking.
To date, drugmakers have dismissed the suggestion that their manufacturing contributes significantly to what's being found in water. Federal drug and water regulators agree.
But some researchers say the lack of required testing amounts to a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy about whether drugmakers are contributing to water pollution.
"It doesn't pass the straight-face test to say pharmaceutical manufacturers are not emitting any of the compounds they're creating," said Kyla Bennett, who spent 10 years as an EPA enforcement officer before becoming an ecologist and environmental attorney.
Pilot studies in the U.S. and abroad are now confirming those doubts.
Last year, the AP reported that trace amounts of a wide range of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in American drinking water supplies. Including recent findings in Dallas, Cleveland and Maryland's Prince George's and Montgomery counties, pharmaceuticals have been detected in the drinking water of at least 51 million Americans.
Most cities and water providers still do not test. Some scientists say that wherever researchers look, they will find pharma-tainted water.
Consumers are considered the biggest contributors to the contamination. We consume drugs, then excrete what our bodies don't absorb. Other times, we flush unused drugs down toilets. The AP also found that an estimated 250 million pounds of pharmaceuticals and contaminated packaging are thrown away each year by hospitals and long-term care facilities.
Researchers have found that even extremely diluted concentrations of drugs harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species. Also, researchers report that human cells fail to grow normally in the laboratory when exposed to trace concentrations of certain drugs. Some scientists say they are increasingly concerned that the consumption of combinations of many drugs, even in small amounts, could harm humans over decades.
Utilities say the water is safe. Scientists, doctors and the EPA say there are no confirmed human risks associated with consuming minute concentrations of drugs. But those experts also agree that dangers cannot be ruled out, especially given the emerging research.
___
Two common industrial chemicals that are also pharmaceuticals — the antiseptics phenol and hydrogen peroxide — account for 92 percent of the 271 million pounds identified as coming from drugmakers and other manufacturers. Both can be toxic and both are considered to be ubiquitous in the environment.
However, the list of 22 includes other troubling releases of chemicals that can be used to make drugs and other products: 8 million pounds of the skin bleaching cream hydroquinone, 3 million pounds of nicotine compounds that can be used in quit-smoking patches, 10,000 pounds of the antibiotic tetracycline hydrochloride. Others include treatments for head lice and worms.
Residues are often released into the environment when manufacturing equipment is cleaned.
A small fraction of pharmaceuticals also leach out of landfills where they are dumped. Pharmaceuticals released onto land include the chemo agent fluorouracil, the epilepsy medicine phenytoin and the sedative pentobarbital sodium. The overall amount may be considerable, given the volume of what has been buried — 572 million pounds of the 22 monitored drugs since 1988.
In one case, government data shows that in Columbus, Ohio, pharmaceutical maker Boehringer Ingelheim Roxane Inc. discharged an estimated 2,285 pounds of lithium carbonate — which is considered slightly toxic to aquatic invertebrates and freshwater fish — to a local wastewater treatment plant between 1995 and 2006. Company spokeswoman Marybeth C. McGuire said the pharmaceutical plant, which uses lithium to make drugs for bipolar disorder, has violated no laws or regulations. McGuire said all the lithium discharged, an annual average of 190 pounds, was lost when residues stuck to mixing equipment were washed down the drain.
___
Pharmaceutical company officials point out that active ingredients represent profits, so there's a huge incentive not to let any escape. They also say extremely strict manufacturing regulations — albeit aimed at other chemicals — help prevent leakage, and that whatever traces may get away are handled by onsite wastewater treatment.
"Manufacturers have to be in compliance with all relevant environmental laws," said Alan Goldhammer, a scientist and vice president at the industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
Goldhammer conceded some drug residues could be released in wastewater, but stressed "it would not cause any environmental issues because it was not a toxic substance at the level that it was being released at."
Several big drugmakers were asked this simple question: Have you tested wastewater from your plants to find out whether any active pharmaceuticals are escaping, and if so what have you found?
No drugmaker answered directly.
"Based on research that we have reviewed from the past 20 years, pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities are not a significant source of pharmaceuticals that contribute to environmental risk," GlaxoSmithKline said in a statement.
AstraZeneca spokeswoman Kate Klemas said the company's manufacturing processes "are designed to avoid, or otherwise minimize the loss of product to the environment" and thus "ensure that any residual losses of pharmaceuticals to the environment that do occur are at levels that would be unlikely to pose a threat to human health or the environment."
One major manufacturer, Pfizer Inc., acknowledged that it tested some of its wastewater — but outside the United States.
The company's director of hazard communication and environmental toxicology, Frank Mastrocco, said Pfizer has sampled effluent from some of its foreign drug factories. Without disclosing details, he said the results left Pfizer "confident that the current controls and processes in place at these facilities are adequately protective of human health and the environment."
It's not just the industry that isn't testing.
FDA spokesman Christopher Kelly noted that his agency is not responsible for what comes out on the waste end of drug factories. At the EPA, acting assistant administrator for water Mike Shapiro — whose agency's Web site says pharmaceutical releases from manufacturing are "well defined and controlled" — did not mention factories as a source of pharmaceutical pollution when asked by the AP how drugs get into drinking water.
"Pharmaceuticals get into water in many ways," he said in a written statement. "It's commonly believed the majority come from human and animal excretion. A portion also comes from flushing unused drugs down the toilet or drain; a practice EPA generally discourages."
His position echoes that of a line of federal drug and water regulators as well as drugmakers, who concluded in the 1990s — before highly sensitive tests now used had been developed — that manufacturing is not a meaningful source of pharmaceuticals in the environment.
Pharmaceutical makers typically are excused from having to submit an environmental review for new products, and the FDA has never rejected a drug application based on potential environmental impact. Also at play are pressures not to delay potentially lifesaving drugs. What's more, because the EPA hasn't concluded at what level, if any, pharmaceuticals are bad for the environment or harmful to people, drugmakers almost never have to report the release of pharmaceuticals they produce.
"The government could get a national snapshot of the water if they chose to," said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, "and it seems logical that we would want to find out what's coming out of these plants."
Ajit Ghorpade, an environmental engineer who worked for several major pharmaceutical companies before his current job helping run a wastewater treatment plant, said drugmakers have no impetus to take measurements that the government doesn't require.
"Obviously nobody wants to spend the time or their dime to prove this," he said. "It's like asking me why I don't drive a hybrid car? Why should I? It's not required."
___
After contacting the nation's leading drugmakers and filing public records requests, the AP found two federal agencies that have tested.
Both the EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey have studies under way comparing sewage at treatment plants that receive wastewater from drugmaking factories against sewage at treatment plants that do not.
Preliminary USGS results, slated for publication later this year, show that treated wastewater from sewage plants serving drug factories had significantly more medicine residues. Data from the EPA study show a disproportionate concentration in wastewater of an antibiotic that a major Michigan factory was producing at the time the samples were taken.
Meanwhile, other researchers recorded concentrations of codeine in the southern reaches of the Delaware River that were at least 10 times higher than the rest of the river.
The scientists from the Delaware River Basin Commission won't have to look far when they try to track down potential sources later this year. One mile from the sampling site, just off shore of Pennsville, N.J., there's a pipe that spits out treated wastewater from a municipal plant. The plant accepts sewage from a pharmaceutical factory owned by Siegfried Ltd. The factory makes codeine.
"We have implemented programs to not only reduce the volume of waste materials generated but to minimize the amount of pharmaceutical ingredients in the water," said Siegfried spokeswoman Rita van Eck.
Another codeine plant, run by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Noramco Inc., is about seven miles away. A Noramco spokesman acknowledged that the Wilmington, Del., factory had voluntarily tested its wastewater and found codeine in trace concentrations thousands of times greater than what was found in the Delaware River. "The amounts of codeine we measured in the wastewater, prior to releasing it to the City of Wilmington, are not considered to be hazardous to the environment," said a company spokesman.
In another instance, equipment-cleaning water sent down the drain of an Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. factory in Denver consistently contains traces of warfarin, a blood thinner, according to results obtained under a public records act request. Officials at the company and the Denver Metro Wastewater Reclamation District said they believe the concentrations are safe.
Warfarin, which also is a common rat poison and pesticide, is so effective at inhibiting growth of aquatic plants and animals it's actually deliberately introduced to clean plants and tiny aquatic animals from ballast water of ships.
"With regard to wastewater management we are subject to a variety of federal, state and local regulation and oversight," said Joel Green, Upsher-Smith's vice president and general counsel. "And we work hard to maintain systems to promote compliance."
Baylor University professor Bryan Brooks, who has published more than a dozen studies related to pharmaceuticals in the environment, said assurances that drugmakers run clean shops are not enough.
"I have no reason to believe them or not believe them," he said. "We don't have peer-reviewed studies to support or not support their claims."
___
Associated Press Writer Don Mitchell in Denver contributed to this report.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Film About Underground Reporters in Burma Captures Top Honors
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-08-voa1.cfm
By VOA News
08 April 2009
A film about underground reporters who risk their lives to document political repression in Burma has turned out to be the big winner at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival in the southeastern U.S. state of North Carolina.
Burma VJ - Reporting from a Closed Country - won in three categories at the festival, the most for any entry.
Burma VJ, which was directed by Andreas Ostergaard, captured the "Grand Jury Award." The film also won the "Center for Documentary Studies Filmmaker Award" and the "Full Frame/Working Films Award" at the three-day festival that ended on April 5.
The film festival, in the city of Durham, is an annual international event. Organizers say it is dedicated to the theatrical exhibition of non-fiction cinema.
The other films honored include Unmistaken Child, which is about the search for the reincarnation of a Tibetan mediator and Love on Delivery, a story about a woman's efforts to help Thai women find Danish husbands.
http://www.mizzima.com/news/regional/1946-burmese-oppositions-aligned-to-form-a-united-front.html
Burmese oppositions aligned to form a ‘United Front’
by Ko Wild
Tuesday, 07 April 2009 22:26
Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – Several Burmese opposition groups during a meeting last week in Thai-Burmese border had decided to form an inclusive united front to strengthen unity and consolidate.
The meeting held from April 2 to 4 was attended by representatives of pro-democracy organizations, including women’s and ethnic united fronts and the coalition government in exile.
"We badly need unity and consolidation at this juncture. We need to pave the way for setting up of a sole, unified and consolidated united front, which will be more effective. We will oppose the 2010 election, but how. So we discussed these at the meeting," Pado David Taw, Joint-Secretary (1) of the Ethnic Nationalities Council (ENC) said.
The meeting was attended by 58 delegates representing seven alliance organizations namely the 'National Council of Union of Burma' (NCUB), 'Ethnic Nationalities Council' (ENC) (Union of Burma), 'Women’s League of Burma' (WLB), 'Forum for Democracy in Burma' (FDB), 'Students and Youths Congress of Burma' (SYCB) and the 'Nationalities Youth Forum' (NYF).
The goal of the meeting was to explore and adopt a common programme for the Burmese democracy movement.
The meeting decided to form a 14-member working committee from among the delegates; to draw and adopt the basic principles for forming the alliance. But it did not set a deadline for completing these basic principles.
Pado David Taw said that one of the common programmes adopted in the meeting was the 'elimination programme' of the new 2008 constitution. This is fundamental for the implementation of democratic transition and conforms to the principle with the four-point agenda being called for by the NLD and political forces for 'reviewing the constitution'.
"In fact, the stand of our revolutionary forces is total elimination. But as for the NLD, its stand is reviewing the constitution. We concluded that it was difficult for the NLD to call for total elimination explicitly. So we added one more point in the agenda in keeping with their demand," he said.
The timing of trying to set up a single united front by merging all the seven separate alliance organizations coincides with the pressure being mounted on the oldest revolutionary group among them, the 'Karen National Union' (KNU), to enter into a dialogue with the Burmese junta by the Thai government.
But KNU Central Executive Committee member Pado David Taw said that KNU will only discuss political affairs with the regime, not territorial and economic issues so that it will not reflect on the stand and expansion of the alliance organizations.
Pado David Taw also said that the KNU delegation led by 'Karen National Liberation Army' (KNLA) Chief of Staff Gen. Mutu Saypho and comprising KNU Vice-Chairman Pado David Tarkapaw and General Secretary Naw Zippora Sein held discussions with Thai officials on Monday.
But who represented the Thai side and the subject of the meeting are not yet known.
SSA deplores clashes between DKBA, KNU
http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2528:ssa-deplores-clashes-between-dkba-knu&catid=86:war&Itemid=284
Wednesday, 08 April 2009 18:28 Hseng Khio Fah
Col Yawd Serk, Chairman of the Restoration Council of Shan State (RCSS), the political arm of the Shan State Army (SSA) South, said he was distressed to hear about clashes among the same nationality, the Karen National Union (KNU) and the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA).
“It is not good to take personal problems into the national problems. It brings no benefit to one’s own nationality,” said Col Yawd Serk.
On 6 April, a joint force of Burma Army and DKBA attacked Waleki, a base camp of the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), the armed wing of KNU.
He said that the Burma Army is using two strategies to fight the KNU to be weak. One is psychological and the other is actual fighting.
On the other hand, some KNU’s officers and Thai Foreign Ministry’s officials on the same day held a meeting in Bangkok, according to the New Era Journal, 6 April.
Col Yawd Serk
The Burma Army is asking Thailand to help facilitate talks with ethnic resistance movements to join its seven-step roadmap toward national reconciliation when Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya made his two day visit to Burma on 22-23 March.
“It is good that KNU held meeting with Thailand. But I don’t think KNU will benefit on it as we all know the Burma Army is bent on walking the same trail that it is used to,” commented Col Yawd Serk.
To solve the political problems in Burma one must endeavor to solve the root cause of the problems, that is, the Panglong agreement, he said.
“SSA is always ready to hold talks with the Burma Army, but the meeting must be held in the third country and there must be observers. We must build mutual trust first,” he added.
Whoever wants to mediate must know the root cause of the political problems in Burma. The main key to change Burma into a genuine Union is based on the unity of all groups. Without this unity, nobody can help them, he said.
The junta and the SSA had agreed to hold talks on 23 May 2007 but it failed to take place when the Burma Army delegation failed to appear at the venue.
KNU accepts junta’s offer for peace parleys
http://www.mizzima.com/news/regional/1948-knu-accepts-juntas-offer-for-peace-parleys.html
by Salai Pi Pi
Wednesday, 08 April 2009 15:33
New Delhi (Mizzima) - Burma’s leading ethnic armed resistance group, the Karen National Union has accepted the offer of the Burmese military junta for peace talks through Thailand’s Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya on Monday.
Saw David Takapaw, Vice-president of the KNU on Wednesday told Mizzima that KNU had reacted positively to Kasit at the informal meeting held in Bangkok for over one hour on Monday regarding the offer of the Burmese regime for peace parleys.
“We told them (Thailand) that we have accepted the offer of the junta on peace talks, as we want to solve political problems by political means,” Takapaw said. “
However, he said the date and venue for the talks are yet to be fixed.
KNU delegates led by Takapaw and General Secretary Naw Ziporah Sein met Kasit, the facilitator for the talks between KNU and the Burmese regime, and other officials from Thailand’s Foreign Ministry in Bangkok.
During the meeting, Takapaw said, Kasit revealed the message of the Burmese Prime Minister General Thein Sein that the junta would like to hold a dialogue with the KNU for national reconciliation.
“They (Thai) informed us that Thein Sein would like to talk to us regarding national reconciliation,” he said. “He (Kasit) said he will act as facilitator.”
Last month, Thein Sein sought help from Kasit during his two-day visit to Burma to persuade the KNU to contest the ensuing 2010 election.
“If the regime is willing to solve problems peacefully, we are ready to talk,” said Takapaw, adding that the KNU will insist the regime first convene a tripartite dialogue and amend the constitution.
Meanwhile, Takapaw alleged, the Burmese Army is supporting the KNU splinter group, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) in launching fresh offensives against its armed wing the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) in Kawkreit district in Karen state close to the Thai-Burma border. KNLA battalions have been retaliating using guerrilla tactics.
“Recently, the Burmese Army backed up the DKBA which was attacking us in Kawkreit district. We also retaliated in guerrilla warfare style,” he said.
“We (KNU and the junta) attack each other while we also talk to each other,” he added.
The KNU has held talks with the Burmese regime on five occasions previously since launching their campaign for self-determination in 1948.
The two sides were able to reach a verbal ceasefire agreement, commonly known as the “Gentlemen's Agreement," after the last round of formal talks between the KNU’s late leader, General Bo Mya, and former military intelligence chief, General Khin Nyunt, in the former capital Rangoon in 2004. The talks, however, came to a halt after Khin Nyunt was purged from the military hierarchy.
The KNU’s statement on peace efforts issued last month said, “Peace negotiations between the KNU and successive Burmese regimes have consistently failed because of lack of sincerity on the part of the regime in power.”
According to Burma’s state media ‘The New Light of Myanmar’ on April 4, Nay Soe Mya, son of the late KNU leader Gen Saw Bo Mya, led 71 Karen rebels and defected to the junta on March 30.
However, Takapaw said, among the 71 Karen who had defected to the junta, only four are from the KNLA armed group including Nay Soe Mya while the rest are civilians.
He went on to say that 71 Karen broke away from KNU as the Burmese regime, particularly Maj. Gen. Saw Htay Maung led DKBA tempted them with money.”
“It is better for KNU that such corrupt people defect” he added.
Singapore’s Shame (Chapter 2 - A culture of fear)
http://wayangparty.com/?p=7491
April 7, 2009 by admin
Filed under James Gomez, Top Story
Leave a comment
By Dr James Gomez, Author, Self-Censorship: Singapore’s Shame
EDITORS’ NOTE:
(Self-Censorship: Singapore`s Shame written by Dr. James Gomez ten years ago focuses on the political behavior of citizens and foreigners living and working in Singapore. He is currently revising his book to consider the impact of the post-internet environment. Dr. Gomez invites readers and bloggers to post their reactions, suggestions and comments to his draft chapters which will be serialized here each week.You are invited to join his
Facebook Author’s Support Group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=59118927883 and check out his blog at http://www.jamesgomeznews.com/blog). His posting last week “Introduction” can be found here.)
When it comes to discussions of political culture, a commonly phrase used is the “culture of fear”. In Singapore, a culture of fear is seen as driving self-censorship. This culture of fear is something that has been constructed by the PAP government through its historical tightening of political controls in spite of its occasional rhetoric of openness.
This deliberately manufactured fear is aimed at securing social and political control over citizens and foreign residents in Singapore. It is the reason why people become anxious about political participation and justify self-censorship because a culture of fear exists. How has this fear been created in Singapore?
The culture of fear is related to political development in Singapore. Discussions on the political development in the city-state have been reviewed from a number of perspectives over the last three decades. One
writer attributed this political conservatism to the ideological hegemony of the ruling party and to Asian values (Chua, 1996).
While another argued that the economy of Singapore was used to as tool of social control and to nurture political conservatism in the republic (Tremewan, 1994), others have suggested that the character of the middle class has something to do with this state of affairs (Rodan, 1992; Jones and Brown, 1994). The tactics of the PAP and its authoritarian character have also been identified as having explanatory potential (Rodan, 1993). Much earlier, local political scientist Chan Heng Chee had explained conservatism as a result of “politics” being absorbed into the state bureaucracy (Chan, 1975).
Former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew’s political style, together with his use of legal action at the courts, have also been proffered as contributing to the state of political conservatism here (Haas, 1999; Seow, 1994 and 1998;
Selvam, 1991; Minchin, 1986). However, the centrality of Lee’s role in Singapore politics is now being challenged on several fronts. For instance, one book that tries to map the contributions of his other colleagues (Lam
and Tan, 1999) while others include political autobiographies such as that of Said Zahari (2001 and 2007) which collectively challenge the centrality of Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore`s political history.
The contemporary structures of changes in Singapore have also been identified as shaping political conservatism in Singapore. Analyses have focused on the strategies of the PAP, the institutional restrictions against independent political expression and the reforms that have taken place to “accommodate” the demand for greater political participation (Heng, 1997; Rodan, 1997; and Lam, 1997) as well as restrictions place over the internet,
political films and public protests.
Issues concerning elections have also been considered relevant to the local political culture. One writer has provided an overall description of the Singapore electoral system and the accompanying changes over the years
(Thio, 1997) while another has focused on the failure of the electoral system in representing alternative voices (Rodan, 1996). There are also several local academics have sought to explain the general and other
elections in Singapore (Mutalib, 1992 and 1993; Singh, 1992; da Cunha, 1997). In my own PhD thesis on the impact of the internet on the electoral system, I concluded that political culture contributed in part to upholding
the electoral system in Singapore that continuously returns the PAP into power (Gomez 2008).
Some works on civil society, mainly emanating from PAP government think-tanks, seek to make a distinction between civil and political society (Ooi and Goh, 1999). Others claim that civil society will be the site of future political contestation (Tay, 1998). Implicit in local discussions on civil society is that “neutral” or “non-partisan” political culture of such groups is the preferred choice.
There are only a few studies that have directly commented on political culture and behaviour in Singapore. Most works on the Republic’s political development, if they refer to political behaviour, use the term “political
culture” (Soin Tan, 1993; Khong, 1995; Jeyaretnam, 1997), though it is not adequately explained, described or gauged. Often, it is mentioned in passing, without any depth of deliberation.
Most discussions on self-censorship have often been used in relation to the media and local media in particular. The application of the concept self-censorship has only been used in a limited way to explain Singaporean political culture. Almost none discuss its role in a post-internet environment in Singapore.
Discussion on domestic political culture often go back to the features of traditional heritage, religion, political history of the region and ethnic origins of the migrant population in Singapore. Conventional explanations often state that the nature of political conservatism on the island can be attributed to ethnic culture. Understood in rigid ethnic categories, Singapore is made up of 75% Chinese, 14% Malay, 6% Indians and 5% Others. However, such categories are increasingly becoming irrelevant as more foreigners from non-traditional sources of immigration countries such as the Burma, Nepal, Philippines, Vietnam and elsewhere settle and work in Singapore.
One piece of work that attempted an ethnic explanation was an early study, which focused on the Chinese community (Clammer, 1985). The writer argued that their large numbers in Singapore sinicised the political culture of the
Republic. Hence, the disdain that the Chinese hold for politics is reflected across the board in Singapore, he said. The writer pointed out that the majority Chinese, as opposed to the minorities, are politically conservative. He believed that this was one reason why political development in Singapore has largely mirrored the cultural conservatism of the ethnic majority. He offered as reasons, the social structure and attitudes of the Chinese community towards politics.
The PAP government has been able to manipulate and stretch this cultural argument to all ethnic communities in Singapore, in the 1990s, to sell the idea of an “Asian values” system, which tries to render democracy as a culturally Western-style alien concept. Modeled after Confucianism, Asian values instead are said to entail a belief in good government by honest men and includes a reverence for authority. As such, direct opposition is not to be encouraged; instead, consensus building is to be supported.
While arguments from ethnicity can hold some explanatory relevance, the uncritical use of ethnic explanations for political behaviour, needs to be guarded against. For instance, it is important to recognise that Singapore`s
minority communities in the broad sense of the word are generally not involved in politics. In political parties, especially opposition parties, ethnic minority community participation is small, token or non-existent. Minority communities in Singapore have essentially abandoned politics and live their daily lives as a community unto themselves.
Often the plural ethno-religious make up of the city-state is used to pre-empt political change. Pictures of ethnic strife drawn from two early riots in the Republic’s history have been well utilised in government discourse to help the citizens and foreign residents to internalise risk aversive behaviour when it comes to politics. On the basis of frailties of statehood and a narrow range of policy instruments available for ethno-centered policies, the use of culture in this way aids the retention of the existing system.
The argument from ethnic culture attempts to paint alternative views as dangerous, anti-establishment, unreflective of aspirations of the majority and as “fringe” interests. In this way, it perpetuates popular attempts to endanger and marginalise alternative views. For instance, demands for political space are often represented as the wants
of minorities. The demand for political space is frequently depicted as a concern only of ethnic minorities, the English-educated, sexual minorities, academics and eccentric elements of society. Additionally, the push for
liberal values and democracy is portrayed as the demand by a small group of people who use such ‘romantic’ notions as a strategy to gain political attention.
But the explanation via ethnicity does not clarify why political participation in other East Asian countries such as South Korea and Taiwan is large and highly impassioned. Further, it does not explain why a very
disparately constituted group of Chinese-educated, blue-collared workers and the man in the street elbowed for political space some 40 years ago in the Republic.
There is nothing inherent in Asian cultures that make self-censoring a necessary feature. Instead, much of the promotion of group solidarity and the rejection of self-assertion and individual rights are systemic of Asian one-party dominated regimes or military dictatorships such as in Burma, China, Laos, Vietnam and even Japan. Thus, there is a need to go beyond ethnic culture to look at structures to explain the political culture that is uniquely Singaporean, cutting across ethnic lines and affecting even those of other nationalities residing in the Republic. There is something deeper than ethnicity that explains the state of political culture and fear in Singapore.
Economics has also been used to explain local political behaviour. Linked to the presence of a patron-client relationship between the PAP and the majority of the voters, the economic success of the republic is said to have
created gratitude, loyalty and dependency among citizens and foreigners residing in Singapore for the ruling party. The fact is the PAP government is literally the largest employer in terms of percentage of total jobs in
the economy. This position as the lead employer includes the number of government jobs (not just civil service, but includes all quasi-government and non-government entities that receive government funds or come under some
form of government control). Add to this the percentage of total value of the stock market under state control (through Temasek, Government Investment Corporation, etc) versus that which is in truly private hands (bearing in
mind that a lot of ‘private’ owners are active participants in the patronage system).
Work in also the size of small and medium enterprises versus the size of MNCs and PAP government controlled businesses (Singapore Airlines, SingTel, etc) and this shows the link between the level of self-censorshiphow much the PAP government controls the livelihood of its citizens and foreign workers. Most people are not willing to do something to jeopardize their career or livelihood. The connection of the Republic’s economic
success to the PAP is manifested in the way individuals and groups preface remarks about politics, especially their desire for greater political participation, with accolades for the ruling party and its leaders that is
at the same time coupled with expressions of gratitude and loyalty. It is a ritual that is clearly observable at local conferences, meetings and speeches at events.
The political behaviour of the middle-class is highly relevant in any study of the nation’s economic culture. Based on it; size, some commentators note that middle-class behaviour represents the political culture of Singaporean
society. They argue that the republic’s large middle-class, whose material consumption is linked to the state, does not want to upset the status quo. This special dependency is in part supported by the people’s obsession with
material gain.
Since citizens and foreign workers alike in Singapore are motivated by the need to constantly gather material advantage and get ahead, a national trait referred to locally as kiasuism is seen as an intrinsic character of this middle class. The ruling party taps this deep-seated desire of the people for materialism and therefore continually plays the economic card for its political ends. Feelings of anxiety and uncertainty displayed by the economically dependent middle class’ whenever the ruling party raises the spectre of economic downfall have been linked to the slow rate of the democratisation process in Singapore (Jones and Brown, 1994).
Even though some have endeavoured to show that the middle class itself is complex (Chua and Tan, 1995), economic dependency has been accepted as one explanation why the Singapore middle-class does not initiate political
change. One writer speaks in terms of an ideological consensus between the PAP government and the electorate that has been based on a shared interest in economic growth (Chua, 1998). In 2008 when the mini-bond issues broke out
in Singapore following the collapse of the Lehman Brothers, the initial crowds that gathered at the Speakers Corner eventually dissipated without building on the momentum for mass political action.
But the similarity between the political culture of the elite class and the masses, arising out of a centralised and punitive political system, goes beyond economics and the citizenry. This phenomenon has also affected the
behaviour of foreign residents in the Republic and other foreigners who have dealings with the country. Those who do not publicly subscribe to this larger political culture or have actively taken part in what is seen as
antagonistic political activity have been deported or their resident, work or student permits terminated or not renewed. This larger impact of political culture reveals lacunae in theories of democratisation that
expected a course of political action from the middle-class.
Another account of political conservatism in the Republic focuses on the popular fear that the PAP will persecute any independent political expression. This fear originates from the perception that the government takes punitive action against its political opponents. In Singapore, there have been numerous examples of individuals who have challenged the political leaders of the country and suffered from detention without trial or have had defamation, bankruptcy and tax evasion suits filed against them. The challengers’ names and characters have been subjected to negative
campaigning through a compliant local press. Such examples of negative campaigning of civil society activists and various opposition politicians in the past and present stay vivid in the minds of the people and perpetuate
the fear. Memories lead opposition figures subjected to negative campaigning include Chia Thye Poh, Tan Wah Piow, JB Jeyaretnam, Francis Seow, Chee Soon Juan, and in 2006 when I contested the general elections against the PAP, I
joined the ranks of these figures as PAP objects of negative campaigning.
Fear is also due to the presence of the Internal Security Department (ISD) and its surveillance of political activities. The ISD makes its surveillance activities fairly visible, especially during opposition party activities or when political figures meet members of foreign embassies, overseas opposition politicians and civil society actors. The surveillance also covers religious activities, academic, social and theatre gatherings. Tertiary institutions such as polytechnics and universities are also monitored by handlers through student and academic informers. The public can
get a fairly detailed account of the workings of the ISD, and its detention and interrogation techniques from Francis Seow’s book To Catch a Tartor: Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew’s Prison (Seow, 1994), supplementary information
can also be found in (Tan, Gomez, 1999) and ( Hong 2009; Tan, Teo and Koh 2009).
There is also an informal culture of curiosity over each others` perceived political activity and the accompanying rumour mongering that acts as a mass surveillance device that feeds the formal surveillance network. The fear
against surveillance is so widespread that presence of the ISD is evoked even when lay people speak of politics, make telephone calls or send messages via the Internet or post articles on blogs. With the arrival of the
internet, there is a perception and acceptance that internet content is constantly being monitored by the authorities.
Further, online anonymity that features prominently in internet chat rooms and in the comment sections
of blogs is accepted as non-existent. The belief is that the PAP government and its agents have the technical and financial means to track every single anonymous online entity and that “radical” bloggers are invited out for a
chat by government agents and persuaded to moderate their stance! Adding to this, are revelations that a Singapore-based company has supplied sophisticated intelligence gathering equipment to Burma’s military-rulers that is capable of intercepting all sorts of telephone and fax messages as well as e-mail and radio communications aggravates the situation even further (2nd September, Far Eastern Economic Review 1999).
Fear has also been attributed to an underlying apprehension that the vote is not secret, that voting against the ruling party could have a negative impact on voters’ livelihood, or that any alternative political views that individuals may have might be held against them. This mind-set is prevalent among many civil servants, employees in government-linked companies, and those who see themselves as being in one way or another connected to the state for their livelihood in Singapore. Being the largest employer and financial patron on the island, the PAP government has a psychological influence over the way a significant number of the people vote during elections. In 1997, the direct threats to withhold funding for precincts voting against the PAP had an immediate influence on voter behaviour (da
Cuhna, 1997). In the last two general elections in 2001 and 2006, the PAP has turned to giving cash incentives such as Singapore Shares and other cash rebates to appeal to voter materialism.
Perceptions of a whole network of informal pressures that pulsate through the state machinery also contribute to fear. This is believed to take the form of “advice” and “pressure” put on civil servants or those in employment outside the civil service but who are nonetheless susceptible to pressure in having their actions deterred or curtailed. A frequently cited example is that immediate superiors advise their junior workers on the wisdom of
engaging in particular political activities or associating with certain individuals and their causes. Failing to adhere to such advice is viewed as courting risk in losing one’s job, being demoted, being passed over for promotion or transferred to lesser departments in the organisation.
It is easy to agree that fear caused by perceptions of the surveillance and intimidation activities of the ISD, the wrath of the service machinery plus informal government pressures can be a powerful deterrent to alternative
political activity and thought. However, ethnicity, economics and fear offered as individual explanations of a typically Singaporean political culture are not satisfactory. They do not demonstrate clearly the relationship between the political structure and behaviour, and how the two are part of a complex interdependent and mutually constitutive relationship in a dominant one-party regime. More importantly they do not reveal the dynamics of political self-censorship and the act of censoring others that are central to how this political culture manifests itself in material form. Thus other perspectives and ideas are needed to complement present understandings of how the system is constantly reproduced.
Culture is often treated as an abstract value system but it has its physical manifestation in people’s behaviour. The structural determination of a dominant Singaporean political culture and its material manifestation are
significant. Censorship should not be understood in negative terms as an “absence” or failure in political life, of what is not done, but as an active material behaviour that itself shapes events in the real world. Censorship impacts on political structure and participation and is in turn constituted by these. Simply put, the current system is responsible for facilitating the censorial behaviour one witnesses in Singapore and such behaviour in return helps keep same the structure and fear in place. Each is necessary for the other.
In such an environment how does one think of political development or reform? What is the way forward? What strategies should one adopt? In the next chapter, Singapore’s political history is briefly surveyed to
trace the emergence and character of this dominant culture of self-censorship and the act of censoring others. It shows that it is mainly in contemporary Singapore that such a censorial climate emerged - a consequence of a systematic attempt by the PAP to contain alternative political expression.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Obama Puts Global Engagement to the Test
http://www.northstarwriters.com/lh026.htm
April 7, 2009
President Obama is about to test an important proposition – that the United States can more effectively improve even the worst global institutions by participating in them than by shunning them.
In this case, the institution is the United Nations Human Rights Council, for which the Obama Administration has applied for U.S. membership, reversing a longstanding policy of the Bush Administration.
When the U.N. General Assembly approves its application in May, as it surely will, the United States will face the challenge of re-directing one of the U.N.’s most notorious and ill-named panels.
The United States can make progress, but only if it seizes the opportunity of council membership to promote its own values of human rights. What it must not do is go along to get along – that is, object too tepidly to the council’s likely activities and, by doing so, give those activities more legitimacy on the world stage.
The United Nations created its Human Rights Council in 2006 to replace its discredited Human Rights Commission. If anything, the council has proved more a human rights embarrassment than its predecessor.
Membership in the 47-seat council is dominated by African and Asian regional groups, which together control 26 seats. These groups, in turn, are dominated by the influential Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
The council includes some of the world’s worst human rights abusers, and it avoids discussion of the world’s worst human rights situations. It has not condemned ethnic cleansing in Sudan, it recently stopped investigating bloodshed in Congo and it largely ignores day-to-day human rights abuses from Cuba to Burma to Zimbabwe.
Instead, the council focuses almost singularly on Israel, the Middle East’s lone democracy but a nation to which many council members are reflexively hostile. The council reserves one permanent agenda item for condemning Israel and another for investigating human rights in the rest of the world, says the Hudson Institute’s Anne Bayefsky, who edits the newsletter www.EyeontheUN.org.
Not surprisingly, the council has issued the vast majority of its condemnations against the Jewish State – more than against all other nations combined. It also has barred Israel from participating in any of its five regional groups through which council members share information and plot strategy.
The council’s other preoccupation of late is a move to outlaw criticism of Islam. It recently passed a resolution that encourages nations to provide legal “protections” against “acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion” that arise from “defamation of religions” or “incitement to religious hatred.”
Though it refers to religion in general, the resolution is clearly designed to prevent criticism of Islam. The resolution states that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human-rights violations and terrorism.” If enacted, such “protections” could severely curtail free speech, including efforts to explore the theological roots of terrorism that emanates from the Middle East and elsewhere.
Obama’s decision to apply for council membership reflects his desire to send a clear message to the global community that, in contrast to President Bush, America’s new leader wants to engage more with allies and adversaries alike.
His decision comes as his administration seeks to develop a new relationship with the Islamic world in particular, highlighted by such steps as Obama’s interview on Al Arabiya TV, his high-profile stop in Turkey at the tail-end of his European trip and his efforts to open discussions between top administration officials and their counterparts in Iran – a U.S. adversary for the last 30 years.
Whether the United States benefits from council membership will depend on what Obama does with it.
Several weeks ago, critics blasted Obama for sending U.S. officials to planning meetings for the upcoming “Durban II” conference, arguing the United States should shun an event that has all the makings of another “Durban I” – the 2001 conference that degenerated into such an orgy of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism that Secretary of State Colin Powell ordered the U.S. delegation to leave.
In fact, Obama used the Durban II process to send a strong signal about U.S. values. After participating briefly, the administration announced it would not continue to do so unless organizers dropped the Israel-bashing and other unacceptable features of emerging conference documents.
Obama will face similar clashes between council priorities and U.S. values. If he turns these clashes into opportunities to promote our values forcefully, U.S. membership may prove a worthwhile endeavor.
© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.
This is Column # LH026. Request permission to publish here.
Beverages in Burma under inspection for containing banned chemical dye
http://www.mizzima.com/news/inside-burma/1944-beverages-in-burma-under-inspection-for-containing-banned-chemical-dye.html
by Phanida
Monday, 06 April 2009 21:39
Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – Burmese military junta authorities have started inspecting food and soft drinks in Burma, to check whether they are tainted with a chemical dye, which is dangerous for health of the people.
This latest move was initiated after the authorities banned over 100 brands of pickled tea leaves for using a banned chemical dye, 'Auramine O'. The authorities also recently, banned two alternative medicines for the high content of lead and arsenic in the products.
"We are inspecting all products, including soft drinks, fish paste, dried fish etc. We are inspecting soft drinks of domestic-make found in the market. Some of them are officially permitted brands," Chairman of 'Food and Drug Administration' (FDA), Dr. Kyaw Lin, told Mizzima.
"We have already tested samples of these soft drinks before production. But, the market survey is more important, so we are focusing on the market survey. We inspected all the brands, so as not to leave anything untested," he added.
The brands of domestically produced soft drinks are Scorpion, C +, Ve Ve, Max, Stan Crusher produced by Myanmar Golden Star (MGS), Pepsi, Sparking and Fantasy Orange among others.
A reliable source from Scorpion Soft Drink Trading and Distribution said that they had not yet received any notice from the department concerned, and they were distributing their products as usual to their customers.
"Scorpion is not yet included in the list of banned products. I do not know whether other brands are included in this list or not. So, we are continuing our sale to the customer companies. The buyers are still buying our products. We have not yet heard any significant news regarding it. We must inform our company, when we hear such news as we are agents for them. The ban order must be made public officially in newspapers," he said.
They buy these products from Pholapye Co. in wholesale and redistribute them.
The officials from the Health Department have not yet visited Pholapye Co. and have not yet banned their products, he added.
It has been learnt that local food and drug administration committees have been formed in each township.
The committee consists of a Township Medical Officer, a Township Health Department Officer, and responsible persons from the municipal body, police force, General Administration Department and Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department.
"These committees are in every township. They will inspect all the products, banned by the government as unfit for consumption in Burma, and recall these products from the shelves and destroy them in the presence of the shop owners. They can also inform about putting these products in the market again, depending on how much they are working," Dr. Kyaw Lin said.
It has also been learnt that no new rules and regulations have been announced yet and these tainted products will be removed in accordance with the existing National Food and Drug Law.
"They will know our Burma Food and Drug Administration regime in this way. We do not need to issue any new regulations. These regulations and rules are already in existence. We need to take action in accordance with them, such as the National Food and Drug Law. We will continue to enforce this law," Dr. Kyaw Lin said.
In today's edition of the state-run 'New Light of Myanmar', it has been reported that in a forum held in Rangoon, Liver Disease specialist, Professor Dr. Khin Maung Win, said that it had been found meat, fish and dried shrimps were tainted with chemical dyes for preservation and to artificially seem fresh. And also the salt found in the market was bleached with chemicals to whiten the product, which is originally brown, he added.
Fruits such as apples, grapes, papaya and watermelon were also dyed with chemicals to make them colourful and attractive to the customers. These banned chemicals, were also found in some snacks such as tea, roasted peanuts, cakes, phaluda and plums, the paper reported citing Dr. Khin Maung Win.
The state-run papers also explicitly announced on March 12 and March 29, that the Ministry of Health had banned 43 pickled tea leaf brands, including famous 'Ahyeetaung' and other 57 brands of pickled tea leaves for being tainted with the banned chemical dye called 'Auramine O'.
'Auramine O' is the industrial chemical dye usually used in dyeing of yarn, wool, silk, paper and hides, which may cause liver and renal diseases, cancer and may also affect the growth of the body if it is consumed for a long time.
[Ye Yint Thet Zwe] “ကမၻာပ်က္ အလြမ္း”
(တနဂၤေႏြ ၅ရက္ေန ့က အိမ္နဲ ့မနီးမေ၀းမွာ ခ်ယ္ရီပန္းၾကည့္ပြဲ
သြားေတာ့ ခ်ယ္ရီပင္တန္းေအာက္မွာ တိုးမေပါက္တဲ့လူေတြကို
ေငးေမာၾကည့္ရင္းနဲ ့ ၂၀၀၇၊ ဧၿပီလကေရးခဲ့တဲ့ ကဗ်ာေလးကိုျပန္ရြတ္မိတယ္။
အားလံုးကိုလည္းခံစားမႈေတြေ၀မွ်လိုက္ရဲ ့။)
“ကမၻာပ်က္ အလြမ္း”
ေလာကပါလ တရားကေလး
မစို႔မပို႔နဲ႔
လွေနတဲ့ ညေနခင္းေလးတခု
ခ်ယ္ရီပြင့္ေတြက
အဆုပ္လိုက္ အခိုင္လိုက္
အၿပိဳင္းအရိုင္း ေဝေဝဆာဆာ
ခ်ယ္ရီပင္ေတြေအာက္မွာ
ေသာကဒုကၡမ်ား
အခိုက္အတန္႔ ေမ့ေလ်ာ့ထားရာ
လူအမ်ား
ခ်ယ္ရီပြင့္ေဝရႈ ့ခင္းထဲ
သူတို႔ဘဝေတြကို ပစ္တင္ရြက္လႊင့္လို႔ ။
ဒီအခ်ိန္ဆို
တို႔တိုင္း တို႔ေျပ
တို႔ေရ တို႔ေျမေပၚမွာ
ပိေတာက္ေတြ
အဆုပ္လိုက္ အခိုင္လိုက္
အၿပိဳင္းအရိုင္း ေဝေဝဆာဆာ
ဖူးပြင့္လာဘို႔ အတြက္
မဝံ့မရဲနဲ႔ အားယူေနရွာေရာ့မယ္ ။
‘စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ေအာက္မွာ
ေအးျမတဲ့ သႀကၤန္ေရလည္း
ျပည္သူလူထႀုကီးရဲ ့ ရင္ထဲကအပူမီးကိုို
မေအးျမေစႏိုင္ေတာ့ဘူး
မွားယြင္းတဲ့စနစ္တခုအေပၚက
အာဏာကိုရူးသြပ္ဖက္တြယ္ထားသူလူတစုရဲ႔
ရိုက္ခ်က္ၾကမ္းၾကမ္းေအာက္မွာ
ပိေတာက္ေတြေတာင္ တထိတ္္တလန္႔္႔နဲ႔ဲ႔ဖူးပြြင့့္္ရ
ခေလးသူငယ္မ်ားေတာင္မွ
အေၾကာက္တရားနဲ႔ႀကီးျပင္းရ
ေက်ာင္းသားလူငယ္မ်ားေတာင္မွ
မ်ိဳးဆက္လိုိုက္ စနစ္တက်ဖ်က္ဆီးခံေနရ
တိုို႔ု႔ေခတ္ေရာက္္မွ ညံ့ၾကေတာ့မွွာလား ’
ခ်ယ္ရီပင္ေအာက္က
ပိေတာက္ခ်စ္သူတေယာက္ရဲ႔အေတြး
အလြမ္းေတြနဲ႔ ကမၻာပ်က္လို႔ ။
ရဲရင့္သက္ဇြဲ
--
Posted By Ye Yint Thet Zwe
US ‘Not Averse’ to Direct Talks with Burmese Regime
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15440
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LALIT K JHA Friday, April 3, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON — The new US administration is not averse to the idea of entering into direct negotiations with the Burmese military junta, according to insiders at the State Department in Washington.
Proponents of such a policy move argue that if the Obama administration can support reconciliation with the Taliban in Afghanistan and offer an olive branch to Iran, with which it does not even have diplomatic ties, it would not be a bad idea to try the route of talking to the Burmese military junta, either on a bilateral level or at a multi-party platform.
The recent meeting of Stephen Blake, director of the US State Department’s Office of Mainland Southeast Asia, with Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win in Naypyidaw was part of a process of touching base with the junta and exploring the possibilities of engaging with it directly, officials say.
“The US wants to see progress for a democratic Burma that respects the rights of its citizens, is at peace with its neighbors and is integrated into the global economy,” one State Department official told The Irrawaddy.
“We are prepared to work with other countries in the region and elsewhere to achieve these goals and we are flexible on the mechanisms and the modalities that underpin that effort,” the official said, on condition of anonymity.
“We are still in the process of reviewing our policies on Burma and are considering ideas from a variety of stake holders,” he said.
Observers take issue with State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid’s description of Blake’s Naypidaw visit as a routine one. They point out that a meeting between a Burmese foreign minister and a US official of Blake’s level is a rare event.
The substance of the Naypyidaw talks has not been disclosed by the State Department. A tone of flexibility has, however, since been noted by observers.
Dissatisfaction with the sanctions policy adopted by the Bush administration has been voiced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the Obama administration is also not very keen on a continuation of the UN-led international effort under special envoy Ibrahim Gambari, believing it has failed so far to yield any results.
The two approaches, the administration believes, have only helped pushed Burma into the lap of China, consolidating the position of the Burmese military junta.
None of the key objectives of the international community—restoration of democracy and protection of human rights of Burma’s citizens—have been achieved. Despite all the rhetoric at the UN and within the Security Council, and in spite of a series of visits to Burma by Gambari, opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house arrest and more than 2,000 political prisoners are still being held.
Policy framers in the Obama administration believe that a new approach on Burma should be based on lessons learned from the past and the ground realities. It should not be driven by idealism alone, they feel.
They insist that any new policy would keep as its goal the restoration of democracy in Burma, protection of human rights and the establishment of peace with its neighbors.
Burma’s integration in the global economy is a recently added objective, indicating that the US would be willing to lift economic sanctions if the Burmese military junta takes steps in the right direction.
If the Obama administration’s latest move on Afghanistan is any indication of its foreign policy, the US could insist in any talks with Burma on the restoration of democracy and free and fair elections, without being seen to support any particular candidate or a party.
This is the Obama administration’s approach in Afghanistan, where presidential and provincial elections are to be held later this year.
Unlike in the past, where the US threw its support behind specific candidates, the White House has said it would work to ensure a level playing field for all the candidates.
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org
Myanmar announces peace deal with Karen rebels
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C04%5C06%5Cstory_6-4-2009_pg20_6
YANGON: Myanmar on Sunday confirmed that it had made peace with a splinter group of Karen rebels.
Government spokesman Ye Htut told The Associated Press in an e-mail statement that Saw Nay Soe Mya, the son of a late Karen leader, his 71 followers and 88 of their family members turned themselves in to authorities in Htokawko village on Monday. They will be allowed to keep their weapons, he said. Nay Soe Mya could not be reached, and it was impossible to independently verify the report.
Even if true, the latest peace deal is unlikely to end fighting between Karen rebels and the government since his group represents such a small number of fighters. The Karen National Union has been fighting for half a century for greater autonomy from Myanmar’s central government. It is the largest ethnic rebel group and the only major one which has yet to sign a cease-fire with the junta.
The United Nations and human rights groups say that over the years the military has burned villages, killed civilians and committed other atrocities against the Karen and other ethnic minorities. The Myanma Ahlin daily newspaper on Saturday said Nay Soe Mya returned to the legal fold “as he has confidence in the government’s roadmap and understood the genuine goodwill of the people and the military,” referring to the junta’s plans to hold elections next year.
Cease-fire talks broke down between the KNU and the government 2004, and the Myanmar army launched a major offensive in eastern Karen state in 2005. It has also successfully enticed elements of the KNU to the bargaining table as part of a campaign to split up the group. In 2007, the government announced that a splinter group led by Brig. Gen. Htein Maung had agreed to a peace deal. Maung was reportedly on hand Monday when Nay Soe Mya and his followers arrived at Htokawko. A KNU spokesman could not be reached for comment. ap
Rogue Agent: How India's Military Intelligence Betrayed the Burmese Resistance
http://www.mizzima.com/book-reviews/1941-indias-betrayal-of-burmas-democratic-aspirations.html
by Nandita Haksar
Monday, 06 April 2009 14:21
Publisher: Penguin Books India, 2009
Price: Rs. 299
Reviewed by: Joseph Ball
Traveling east, crossing the internal border demarcating the Indian states of West Bengal and Sikkim, there is the distinct feel of entering a frontier area outside the unchallenged purview of the central state – special travel documents, an immediate upsurge in national propaganda and, on the return trip, a dash by virtually all travelers, businessmen and drivers alike for the 'duty free' shops on the Sikkim side of the divide. India's northeast can indeed feel very far from the halls of power in New Delhi.
It may seem improbable that India's northeastern border with Burma, significantly closer geographically to Bangkok than the Indian capital, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, located nearly 800 miles offshore from Kolkata, would be linked in a complex nexus of international politics and intrigue. Yet, this is precisely the story that Rogue Agent sets out to tell – a saga that has left 34 Arakanese and Karen Burmese freedom fighters wallowing in Indian detention for over a decade, wrongfully accused by a corrupt Indian intelligence officer of gunrunning for insurgents operating in northeast India, and anonymous victims of a shift in Indian foreign policy away from Burma's democratic opposition and in favor of closer ties with Burma's ruling generals.
Along these lines, Rogue Agent asks searching questions of why India's bureaucracy has betrayed the Arakanese and Karen resistance movements, Burma's struggle for democracy and, in a wider context, what the evolution of Indian foreign policy says of India's own struggle to adhere to the democratic ideals upon which the state was founded.
Nandita Haksar is well positioned to tell the story of the ethnic Burmese freedom fighters. A trained human rights lawyer, she is also a long standing friend of Burmese pro-democracy elements, having formed tight bonds not only with the freedom fighters chronicled in the book, but also with communities of Burmese refugees living in India.
The strength of the book lies in the close relationship between the author and the detained freedom fighters, whose testimonies vividly portray not only the harrowing trials of their betrayal by India's intelligence system, but also the often neglected sagas of the fights of the Arakanese and Karen for their rights as citizens of Burma – struggles that have waged for generations, spanning the entire history of modern Burma.
Haksar, an ardent proponent of the argument that India's national interests are best served by supporting Burma's opposition elements, goes to great lengths to chronicle the changing face of Indian foreign policy vis-à-vis Burma as emblematic of why Indians should be much concerned over the future of democracy in their own country.
Even some of those detained are described as having adopted a similar mantra during their time under detention in the world's largest democracy. Haksar says of one Burmese inmate, "[His] obsession throughout the period of his ten-year detention has been to understand why India has refused to support the Burmese resistance movement."
Haksar at least partially answers this by contending that "India does not have a cohesive policy towards Burma because it never had a policy for its North-East." Indian nationalists, it is said, see Karen and Arakanese movements in similar light to separatist movements in northeast India. And as an Indian Admiral is quoted in the text as saying, "Surely even Ms Aung San Suu Kyi would oppose the balkanization of her country."
Such reasoning, at the forefront of India's change in orientation with respect to Burma, in addition to combating Chinese influence, fighting for its own economic interests and allotting greater importance to its eastern neighbors, highlights a crucial question at the center of the debate: are Indian interests best met by focusing on a staunchly nationalist agenda or, instead, through a discourse led by a trans-state agenda of interwoven rights?
However, as the Burmese freedom fighters embarked on their fateful journey to Landfall Island in 1998, such a question was likely far from their minds – preoccupied as they were with matters of daily struggle and survival.
Isolated, with few friends to whom to turn, the National Union Party of Arakan (NUPA), from which several of those detained are members, was forced to turn to anyone willing to help – and an overture from a ranking Indian military intelligence agent could not be discarded.
Lured to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands by the promise of a sanctuary from which to direct activities against Burma's military rulers, in exchange for espionage services against Chinese interests in the region and assistance in combating piracy, the tale of the ethnic Burmese freedom fighters also comes across as one of dwindling available options forcing misplaced trust in an individual whose sincerity should well have been questioned.
Epitomizing the desperation of the NUPA camp, Haksar writes, "The Arakans had no choice but to fulfill his demands since he was their only contact with the Indian authorities." She goes on to explain how he demanded such exorbitant gifts from the rebels as gold for his wife and a new house in Punjab. For a cash-strapped resistance movement, the tens of thousands of dollars poured into the private coffers of a wayward Indian intelligence agent provides a somber appraisal of their dire position.
In contrast to Grewal, Haksar points to George Fernandes as reflective of what Indian approaches to Burma used to encapsulate and representative of the direction the country again needs to take. Fernandes, a long-standing personal friend of Burma's democratic forces, is a former Defense Minister and outspoken political voice for the rights of estranged communities, including the cause of Tibetans as well as that of Burma’s democratic opposition.
However, the policies espoused by Fernandes and others like him were far from in the ascendancy during the mid-1990's. In combination with Grewal’s agenda of greed, the ethnic Burmese rebels were doomed by the near 180 degree shift in India's Burma policy, which – encapsulated by the 'Look East Policy' – was just starting to come into its own at the time of their arrests. In short, Burma's rebels had become expendable, the purported reasons for the rebels' activities in Indian waters and territories coming in direct conflict with New Delhi's newfound interpretation of what best served India's national interests.
The shortfall of the book comes in the form of the factual errors and questionable inferences sprinkled throughout the text.
From spelling errors associated with Burmese names, the country's Foreign Minister is identified as Nay Win as opposed to Nyan Win, to oversights regarding general associations and figures, Muslims are sited as comprising 20 percent the Burmese population – approximately five times the common estimate, the informed reader is unfortunately distracted from the text.
More thought provoking, however, are a number of 'interpretative liberties' taken with respect to historical timelines, geopolitics and geography.
Speaking to the strategic importance of The Straits of Malacca, Haksar writes, "The Pentagon has been trying to militarize the region since 11 September 2001." Increasingly militarize, possibly. But the insinuation that 9/11 ushered in the U.S. military's interest in the region ignores a longstanding commitment of the U.S. government to the need to secure The Straits – the Dulles brothers of the 1950s serving as but one prime example of America's long-standing strategic thinking regarding Straits security.
Additionally, it is somewhat surprising that the critical role India played in supporting Burmese Prime Minister U Nu's fledgling government in the immediate post-independence years is somewhat glossed over. To this end, the question must be asked if this has anything to do with the fact that the Karen National Defense Organization was very much at the head of the opposing camp, threatening the very outskirts of Rangoon and the government of U Nu – Indian democratic posturing, and support for the central state, at this early stage squarely conflicting with the self-determination agendas of Burma's ethnic communities.
And what is the reader to make of the assertion that if allowed to benefit from a base in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands "they [the rebels] would have been able to carry out an effective resistance against the military junta in Rangoon." The critical stronghold of the Karen resistance, Manerplaw, had already been overrun some three years previously, and the organization was facing daunting internal divisions. As for the Arakanese resistance, by the mid-80s scholarly reports were already speaking pessimistically of the chances for success by Arakanese forces – citing war weariness, disunity and the global situation among other factors for the bleak outlook.
Throughout the book, the fight to free the detained freedom fighters is put forth as a mission to right both moral and political wrongs – the two aspects of the cause rarely divorced. Even Dynyalin, one of those detained, concludes from his study of early Indian support for Burma's opposition elements: "While other East Asian countries engaged Burma 'constructively', India pursued a moralistic policy."
The morality of politics has in turn been a central tenet of Burma's struggle for democracy, with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi occupying a not undeserved position of dominance atop the moral dais. But does morality necessarily lend itself to effective politics either domestically or with respect to the formulation of foreign policy? Is the pursuit of changing the policies of governments best served by headlining arguments of international rights, or national interest?
While paying heed to the larger political context, Rogue Agent succeeds in telling the story of an often neglected subplot to independent Burma’s woes, the subterfuge of Indian Ocean politics and the pursuit of Arakanese and Karen resistance forces for their basic rights – fights which predate the trendy historical focal point of Burmese resistance, 8-8-88, by several decades.
But Rogue Agent was never just about the depravity of rights enjoyed by Burma's fringe populations and the incarceration of 34 ethnic rebels from Burma, it is very much also a impassioned plea for what the author sees as an Indian democratic tradition threatened by misplaced calculations of national interest. As Haksar concludes, "In the final analysis my solidarity for the Burmese peoples' struggle for democracy was dictated by my concern for protecting the democratic space in my own country" – fates forever intertwined.
And what has come of those whose wrongful detention inspired the book? They remain right where Rogue Agent left them, with the reconvening of their trial scheduled to commence in June of this year after India's military establishment continued to impede the pursuit of justice and access of information to key witnesses during the most recent hearings concluded this past March.
However, even if released, what then for the freedom fighters? Sadly, freedom could yet prove but a poisoned chalice.
Though already agreed to be accepted as refugees in either the Czech Republic or East Timor, without approval of refugee status forthcoming from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) such offers hold no protection against the possible persecution the 34 may face if repatriated to Burma.
To date, the UNHCR’s acknowledged reluctance to act on behalf of the appeal for refugee status stems from statutes contained within Article 1F of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
The importance of procuring refugee status for the ex-combatants lies in the prohibitions of forced return related to Article 1F. An exclusionary principle related to the Article in question states: "No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political persuasion."
Ultimately, then, the case of return or exile would hinge on weighing the seriousness of the threat of reprisal upon return to Burma – the threat of which is manifestly undeniable.
Further, as spelled out in a UNHCR position paper, when dealing with ex-combatants of non-international conflicts, the right against torture should reign supreme.
According to the study, “refugee law should not lag behind human rights law,” the two, it is argued, need to be brought closer together in recognition of the vision of the Preamble to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
And, as UNHCR research concludes: "[W]here substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question, if expelled, would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 [of the Convention Against Torture] in the receiving country. In these circumstances, Article 3 implies the obligation not to expel the person in question to that country."
But without action on the part of UNHCR in recognizing the 34 as refugees and the imminent threat against their well-being if repatriated to Burma, their future freedom remains seriously jeopardized – even if their days in Indian custody are finally brought to a close.
Monday, April 6, 2009
第56回PFB例会のご案内 政治囚の早期釈放を！元政治囚ボーチー氏を招いて（4月11日（土） 18時～/ 東京・池袋）
転送・転載 大歓迎
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
■第56回ビルマ市民フォーラム例会のご案内
<4月11日（土） 18時～/ 東京・池袋>
￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
『政治囚の早期釈放を！元政治囚ボーチー氏を招いて』
ボーチー 氏 政治囚支援協会(AAPP)
デービッド・マティソン氏 ヒューマン・ライツ・ウォッチ ビルマ調査員
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
◆日時＝2009年4月11日（土）午後6時～午後8時30分
＊午後5時45分開場
◆会場＝ 池袋・ECOとしま（豊島区立生活産業プラザ）
８階 多目的ホール
*所在： 豊島区東池袋1-20-15、Tel 03-5992-7011
*交通： 池袋駅東口徒歩5分
地図：http://www.city.toshima.lg.jp/shisetsu/shisetsu_community/005133.html
◆資料代＝ 200円（会員）・500円（非会員）
◆定 員＝ 80名 （事前申込み不要／先着順）
￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
ビルマ軍事政権は昨年5月、巨大サイクロンがビルマ史上最悪となる
被害をもたらした直後に、一方的に起案した新憲法の是非を問う国民
投票を強行しました。軍政はこの新憲法に基づく総選挙の実施を2010年
に計画しています。
選挙を前に、軍政はさらに民主化を求める勢力への封じ込めを強めており、
政治囚の数はこれまでで最高の2,100名にも上っています。
民主化の進展には、まず第一に、一刻も早く全ての政治囚を釈放し、
民主化勢力と少数民族との対話が必要だとして、現在、世界24カ国で
政治囚の釈放を求める署名キャンペーンが行われています。
次回、ＰＦＢ例会では、この署名キャンペーンの中心団体である「ビルマ
政治囚支援協会（AAPP、本部タイ）」から、自身も7年3ヶ月政治囚として
刑務所で過ごした元政治囚 ボーチー氏を招き、ビルマ国内の実情と
政治囚の状況についてお話いただき、私たち日本の市民や政府の
役割について共に考えてみたいと思います。
また、国際人権NGOヒューマン・ライツ・ウォッチより、ビルマ調査員の
デービット・マティソン氏もお招きし、最新のビルマ情勢について、ご報告
いただきます。
ぜひご参加ください。
【スピーカー プロフィール】
●ボーチー (Bo Kyi)
政治囚支援協会(AAPP)を創設（本部タイ）。ビルマ（ミャンマー）で、政治的
意見や活動ゆえに囚われている人びとの釈放に尽力してきた。ボーチー氏
自身も、政治犯として7年3ヶ月、刑務所に拘束されていた。身の危険を冒し
ながらも、20年にわたり、自らの体験をもとに、ビルマで苦しむ多数の
政治囚の実情を世に知らせるとともに、ビルマ軍事政権がひた隠す残虐
行為の真実を世界に知らせ続けてきた。
2008年、ヒューマン・ライツ・ウォッチは、弾圧にもくじけないボーチー氏の
勇気、そして、声をあげられない多くの人々にかわって声をあげてきた
英雄的な努力を讃え、「人権賞（Human Rights Defender Award）」を送った。
●デービッド・マティソン（David Mathieson）
ヒューマン・ライツ・ウォッチ（本部 ニューヨーク） のビルマ調査員。
フリンダース大学、オーストラリア国立大学、Alternative ASEAN Network on
Burma(ALTSEAN)でのビルマ調査員を経て、2006年から現職。
主な研究分野は、ビルマの現代政治学、経済的・社会的・地理的観点に
おけるビルマ内戦、人間の安全保障と麻薬取引など。
Asia Times Online, The New Statesman, The Nation, 毎日新聞（「ビルマを
巡る危険な楽観主義」、2007年）等に取り上げられたマティソン氏の記事・
論説は多数にのぼる。
2000年にフリンダース大学修士課程修了（政治学）。2009年にオーストラリア
国立大学博士課程修了予定（政治学・国際関係論）。
◆ビルマ政治囚支援協会
http://www.aappb.org/
ビルマの政治囚や彼らの家族への支援を目的に設立された。政治囚へ食料や物品を
届けるほか、国際社会と協力してビルマの政治囚の早期釈放を訴える活動を行ってい
る。
◆ヒューマン・ライツ・ウォッチ
http://www.hrw.org/
---------------------------------------------
★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。
以上
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
◇ ビルマ市民フォーラム事務局 ◇
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
〒160-0004
東京都新宿区四谷一丁目18番地6 四谷1丁目ウエストビル4階
いずみ橋法律事務所内
電話03-5312-4817（直）／ FAX 03-5312-4543
E-mail： pfb@izumibashi-law.net
ホームページ： http://www1.jca.apc.org/pfb/index.htm
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Son of late insurgency leader defects to Myanmar's government
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/263009,son-of-late-insurgency-leader-defects-to-myanmars-government.html
Yangon- A son of late Karen rebellion leader general Bo Mya has defected to the Myanmar's military junta, an official statement said Saturday. Nay Soe Mya, with a group of soldiers and their families totaling 159 people, crossed over on March 30 to enjoy the "fruits of regional development" after "witnessing the nation-building endeavours being carried out by the state," the statement said.
The ethnic Karen's 60-year fight for autonomy, is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain as Myanmar's military chips away at its remaining hold on the mountainous border region with Thailand, analysts say.
Nay Soe Mya, one of three surviving sons of Bo Mya - who died a legendary warrior in 2006 aged 81 - has joined Htain Maung, a former brigade leader, who was sacked from the Karen army in January 2007 after making an independent peace deal with the government, a Karen guerrilla on the Thai-Myanmar border said.
Htain Maung is believed to have been allocated land for settlement and permitted to carry on a logging trade.
"We consider them traitors who have become defeatist, and corrupt too. They want money and they have been given (trade) concessions," the rebel fighter said. Nay Soe Mya is related by marriage to Htain Maung, he added.
The State Peace and Development Council, as the ruling junta styles itself, is keen to suppress all potential problems ahead of elections designed to produce a "civilian government" controlled by the military, early next year.
Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, gained independence in 1949. It has a myriad of minority groups at odds with the central authority, which has historically not been in complete control of the border regions. Several groups yet fight for autonomy, the Karen being the biggest.
Copyright, respective author or news agency
Suu Kyi's US backers plead to keep sanctions
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5477015
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Congress supporters of Myanmar's democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi pleaded to keep sanctions on the military regime as a key senator said efforts to isolate the junta had failed.
President Barack Obama's administration is reviewing strategy on Myanmar , also known as Burma , whose ruling junta has crushed dissent and kept Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for 19 years.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , 17 members of Congress said they were "greatly concerned" by indications that the United States was considering lifting sanctions on Myanmar .
The lawmakers, led by longtime Aung San Suu Kyi champion Joseph Crowley, said that Myanmar's leader Than Shwe had shown no desire to engage with the world's only detained Nobel laureate.
"Than Shwe's regime continues to perpetuate crimes against humanity and war crimes so severe that Burma has been called 'Southeast Asia's Darfur,'" they wrote.
They noted that Congress approved a law last year subjecting the Myanmar junta to sanctions until it releases all political prisoners and starts dialogue on bringing in democracy.
"We urge you to join us in standing firmly alongside Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma's democracy movement," they said.
But Jim Webb, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Asia, said the United States needed a more "constructive" policy on Myanmar .
"Certainly the way that we approach it now I don't believe has had the results that people want it to have," Webb, a member of Obama's Democratic Party, told a luncheon at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"What I think we should be doing in Burma is trying to open up diplomatic avenues where you can have confidence builders... and through that process work toward some way where you can remove sanctions," he said.
State Department official Stephen Blake last week paid the first visit by a senior US envoy to Myanmar in more than seven years, quietly holding talks both with the junta and the opposition.
The State Department played down the significance of the meeting, stressing that the Obama team was still reviewing policy on Myanmar .
Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg said Wednesday the United States was seeking a common approach with Asia on Myanmar and said the six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear program could serve as a model.
Nearly all Asian nations maintain full relations and trade with Myanmar , distancing themselves from the sanctions policy of the United States and the European Union.
China is the key commercial and military partner of the junta, which crushed 2007 protests led by Buddhist monks.
The previous US administration of George W. Bush strengthened decade-old sanctions against Myanmar -- imposed under his predecessor Bill Clinton -- while his wife Laura was an outspoken critic of the military regime.
Senator Webb -- a Vietnam veteran who has also been a journalist -- said the United States should take a lesson from how it opened relations with China and Vietnam despite human rights and other concerns in the two communist states.
Webb said that when he returned to Vietnam in 1991 -- four years before Washington and Hanoi established relations -- the situation was worse than when he visited Myanmar in 2001.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Daewoo Int'l extends Myanmar field exploration
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSSEO3885220090403
SEOUL, April 3 (Reuters) -
South Korea's Daewoo International Corp said on Friday it had extended exploration rights to Myanmar's AD-7 oil and gas field despite other members of the project dropping out after the original exploration period ended in February.
Daewoo International (047050.KS) will have a 100 percent stake in the field under the new deal, from its previous 60 percent stake.
India's ONGC Videsh Limited had owned a 20 percent stake in the field, while another Indian firm, Gail (GAIL.BO), and state-run Korea Gas Corp (KOGAS) (036460.KS) each had 10 percent, it said.
(Reporting by Angela Moon; Editing by Jonathan Hopfner)
US should aim to lift Myanmar sanctions: senator
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h1-7_FE-Kox45ivWahFKJxSBhk7Q
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States should take a new approach of engagement with military-run Myanmar with an aim of lifting sanctions, a key senator said Friday.
President Barack Obama's administration is reviewing strategy on Myanmar, also known as Burma, whose ruling junta has crushed dissent and kept pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for 19 years.
Jim Webb, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Asia, said the United States needed an "aggressive diplomatic posture" on Myanmar but one that was more "constructive."
"Certainly the way that we approach it now I don't believe has had the results that people want it to have," Webb, a member of Obama's Democratic Party, told a luncheon at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"What I think we should be doing in Burma is trying to open up diplomatic avenues where you can have confidence builders ... and through that process work toward some way where you can remove sanctions," he said.
Webb said any diplomacy between the United States and Myanmar should closely involve other countries, particularly members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) which includes Myanmar.
ASEAN nations, along with Japan and China, have maintained cordial relations and trade with Myanmar, distancing themselves from the sanctions policy of the United States and the European Union.
Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg said Wednesday the United States was seeking a common approach with Asia on Myanmar and said the six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear program could serve as a model.
Webb -- a Vietnam veteran who has also been a journalist -- said the United States should look at how it opened relations with China and Vietnam despite human rights and other concerns in the two communist states.
Webb said that when he returned to Vietnam in 1991 -- four years before Washington and Hanoi established relations -- the situation was "worse than the conditions I saw in Burma in '01."
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
Posts
