http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=20819380
By Seth Mydans
Sunday, March 15, 2009
BANGKOK: It has been a policy of unintended consequences — two decades of isolation and sanctions by the United States that only made Myanmar's ruling generals more stubborn — and now a new administration in Washington has declared it a failure.
But U.S. officials also say they don't know what else to do.
"Clearly, the path we have taken in imposing sanctions hasn't influenced the Burmese junta," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in February. "Reaching out and trying to engage them hasn't influenced them, either," she said, referring to the policies of Myanmar's Southeast Asian neighbors.
"We are conducting a review, because we want to see the best ideas about to influence the Burmese regime," she said during a visit to Indonesia. "And we are looking at every possible idea that can be presented."
Where that will lead is still unclear. Putting it bluntly, Scot Marciel, deputy assistant secretary of state, said soon afterward: "The fact is, there isn't any obvious way ahead."
Over the years, the United States has attempted to curb political repression and human rights violations in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, with ever-tighter economic restrictions and diplomatic pressure, accompanied by warnings and condemnation.
The sanctions began with an arms embargo after a massacre of as many as 3,000 pro-democracy demonstrators in 1988. Broader sanctions were imposed in 1997 and 2003 in protest of human rights violations that included restrictions on the freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other opposition figures.
The European Union and other countries have put in place their own embargoes, and analysts say those countries would have to be consulted in any policy change.
But Myanmar's military has not budged. Political opponents are still jailed by the hundreds, free speech and assembly are still smothered, the wealthy generals still leave their people in grinding poverty, and any protests are crushed by force.
Rather than forcing change, many analysts say, the confrontational approach has made the generals more stubborn, more repressive and more antagonistic toward the West. The policy has deprived the United States of useful contacts within the government and has left it with little leverage to affect the junta's behavior. And it has held back the emergence of a middle class that could have pushed for change.
"Continued pressure on the regime to change in unacceptable ways to them forced them inward," said Robert Taylor, a consultant in London on Myanmar affairs, in an e-mail message. "Had sanctions not helped end foreign investments in the 1990s, Myanmar would now be involved in the world economy, like Vietnam perhaps," he said. "Opening the country up now will be many times harder than it would have been in the early 1990s, or even seven years ago."
Economic sanctions have also been undermined by continuing trade and investment from Myanmar's neighbors China, India and the Southeast Asian nations.
Western nations learned the limits of their influence when the military crushed an uprising led by Buddhist monks in late 2007, ignoring threats and condemnation from around the world. A new round of sanctions was imposed, with little effect.
Since then, a sense of the futility of sanctions has grown among many exiles and foreign analysts.
Even the main opposition party, the National League for Democracy, said in February that "continued confrontation and economic sanctions" were "not beneficial to the country and its people."
The statement is significant because the National League for Democracy is the party of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro-democracy leader who has been held under house arrest for 13 of the past 19 years.
She is an original proponent of sanctions, and her views have had a strong impact on American policy. But because she has been cut off from the outside world, it is difficult to know what she would say today. Without her influence, said David Steinberg, an expert on Myanmar at Georgetown University, America's reassessment might have come earlier.
In any case, a weakening of sanctions would face tough opposition in Washington, where the policy carries emotional resonance and has many backers in Congress and among human rights groups.
"I think we have to stay the course and use this form of pressure to push the regime to greater dialogue," said Debbie Stothard, coordinator of Altsean-Burma, a regional human rights group. "If you want to throw away the best cards that you have, you are setting yourselves up for failure."
Sanctions may not be an all-or-nothing issue, though, said Sean Turnell, an expert on the Burmese economy at Macquarie University in Sydney.
He pointed to "targeted sanctions" that aim to cripple the financial dealings of the junta and its associates and "send exactly the right message to the people the message needs to be sent to."
Some of Washington's current sanctions fit this description, blocking certain bank transactions and visa permits. It is broad-based embargoes on trade and investment that critics argue are hurting the general population more than the generals in power.
In an influential report last October, the International Crisis Group, an independent research and advocacy group, said the aftermath of the devastating cyclone last year could be an opportunity for productive engagement. The cyclone took 138,000 lives when it struck the Irrawaddy Delta in May 2008, and at first the junta — true to its insular and suspicious nature — barred large-scale foreign aid.
But in the months since then, the crisis group said, Myanmar had entered a period of "unprecedented cooperation between the government and international humanitarian agencies." Visas and travel permits have been streamlined, and working conditions have become more open. The crisis group said some nations that seek to influence Myanmar's behavior had been slow to seize this opportunity, still held back by old policies of rejection.
It concluded: "Twenty years of aid restrictions — which see Myanmar receiving 20 times less assistance per capita than other least-developed countries — have weakened, not strengthened, the forces for change."
Correction:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2009 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
Friday, March 20, 2009
U.S. in a quandary over policy on Myanmar
Burma's Bullies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401474.html
They're always ready with fresh examples of ruthlessness. U.S. engagement must be conditional.
Discussion PolicyYour browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging» Links to this article
Sunday, March 15, 2009; Page A18
THE CRUELEST dictatorships, like the most ruthless criminal gangs, always have understood that the most effective way to deter opposition is to go after the innocent loved ones of potential enemies. Thus it was not enough for Gen. Than Shwe and his junta in the Southeast Asian nation of Burma (also known as Myanmar) to sentence the Buddhist monk U Gambira to prison for 68 years last fall. It was learned last week that his brother, his brother-in-law and four cousins have been sentenced to five years in Burma's gloomy prisons. We hope that this small piece of data is fed into the review of U.S. policy on Burma that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised.
U Gambira, 28 at the time, was a leader of the nonviolent protests that broke out in Burma in September 2007. Thousands of Burmese followed him and other monks in peaceful protest against one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, despite understanding the possible consequences. U Gambira himself, in an op-ed published in The Post on Nov. 4, 2007 -- the day, as it happened, of his arrest after weeks on the run -- said that he understood the risks he was taking. "It matters little if my life or the lives of colleagues should be sacrificed on this journey," he wrote. "Others will fill our sandals, and more will join and follow." We can only guess whether he understood that even his uninvolved relatives would be victimized.
The United States has been frustrated in its efforts to promote democratization in Burma, a nation of about 50 million, so Ms. Clinton's policy review is well timed. No doubt her team will talk to academics and humanitarian aid workers who favor more engagement with the regime and the country. (Those who tout Burma's recent cooperation with relief agencies might, however, want to take note of another prison sentence handed down last week: 17 years to Min Thein Tun, who was arrested last July for distributing relief supplies to the victims of Cyclone Nargis in the Irrawaddy delta.) They should talk with officials in neighboring countries, who have been pursuing a policy of engagement for years; in addition to its impact on the wealth of the regime and its trading partners in countries such as Thailand and Singapore, U.S. officials might ask, what effect has this policy had?
It may be that the U.S. review can lead to smarter and more targeted sanctions, with better coordination among allies and neighbors. Certainly, we hope that Ms. Clinton will make clear to Burma's government that the United States could never ease sanctions without first conducting full and free consultations with Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's rightful ruler. Aung San Suu Kyi's party overwhelmingly won an election in 1990, but the junta ignored the results and has kept her isolated and under house arrest for most of the time since. Her release, and that of thousands of other political prisoners -- and their families -- remains essential.
Burma to Fence Border with Bangladesh
http://www.narinjara.com/details.asp?id=2088
Maungdaw: The Burmese military government is now preparing to fence its border with Bangladesh to prevent human trafficking between the two countries, said an official from Maungdaw on the condition of anonymity.
"Many soldiers arrived in northern Maungdaw bringing a lot of barbed wire fence to the western Burmese border with Bangladesh. I think the project will be implemented very soon," the official said.
Over 200 soldiers arrived at Kyin Chaung Village in northern Maungdaw Township to implement the project. At the same time, a large amount of barbed wire has been transported to Maungdaw from Sittwe on cargo ships to use in the construction of the fence.
A townsperson from Maungdaw said, "I saw much barbed wire piled up at the Kyin Gan Byin Jetty in Maungdaw that was brought there by four cargo ships. Large amounts of barbed wire is being transported to Maungdaw by cargo ships."
The barbed wire has been transported and distributed from the jetty to Nasaka Areas 1 and 2, which are very close to Bangladesh in the north of Maungdaw.
"Our government will fence its lands from Maungdaw Township to Paletwa township near the triangle area among Burma, Bangladesh, and India," the official said.
Even though the Burmese military government is preparing to fence its border with barbed wire to prevent human trafficking, the authorities have yet to officially make any announcements about the project.
Many people are traveling across the Burma - Bangladesh border without permission, and the Burmese authorities intend to curb such unauthorized movements with the barbed wire fence on the border.
[Ye Yint Thet Zwe] အဲဒီလမ္းကေလးေပၚမွာ
ညမရွိတဲ့ ေကာင္းကင္
ေကာင္းကင္မရွိတဲ့ လ
ႀကံဳဘူူးၾကရဲ ့လား
အလင္းမဲ့ေန ့မ်ားမွာ
ငါတို ့ရဲ ့အတၱေတြကို
ေလာင္စာတခုလို အသံုးခ်
အားလံုးအတြက္
ယံုၾကည္ခ်က္နဲ ့ ၀င္းလက္ေတာက္ပေနခဲ့ဘူးတယ္ ။
အခုမ်ားမွာေတာ့
ေကြးေသာလက္ မဆန္ ့မွီ
ဆန္ ့ေသာလက္ မေကြးမွီ
ေခါက္ရွာငွက္တို ့ရဲ ့ပ်ံသန္းမႈမွာ
ဘ၀ဟာ ေပ်ာ္၀င္တယ္
အသက္က
ဉာဏ္ရဲ ့ ေစစားရာအတိုင္း ရွင္သန္တယ္
အေမကေတာ့
ေမွ်ာ္လင့္ခ်က္အကုန္လံုး
သား ျပန္လာမယ့္
ေဟာဒီလမ္းကေလးအေပၚ ပံုထားတုန္းပဲ ။
တေန ့တာရဲ ့
ေနာက္ဆံုးအလင္းေရာင္ အကြယ္မွာ
ဘုရားစင္ေရွ ့က ရိႈက္သံဟာ
လမ္းကေလးအေပၚမွာ ပဲ့တင္ထပ္လို ့
ခ်ိဳးျဖဴငွက္တို ့ရဲ ့ ေတာင္ပံခတ္သံမွာ ပဲ့တင္ထပ္လို ့
ခြပ္ေဒါင္းတို ့ရဲ ့ ေတာင္ပံခတ္သံမွာ ပဲ ့တင္ထပ္လို ့
သားေပ်ာက္မိခင္တို ့ရဲ ့ ရင္မွာ ပဲ့တင္ထပ္လို ့ ။
ပဲ့တင္ထပ္လို ့ ၊ ပဲ့တင္ထပ္လို ့၊ ပဲ့တင္ထပ္လို ့ ။
--
Posted By Ye Yint Thet Zwe to Ye Yint Thet Zwe at 3/09/2009 01:01:00 PM
Just Back From: Burma - temples, nice people
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/13/TRDH165NIU.DTL
Sunday, March 15, 2009
I went because: You hear horrible things about some places and wonder what is really true, but when I get to North Korea, Iran, etc., I always find nice people.
Don't miss: Bagan. You must go - 2,800 temples and stupas! At sunset? Wow! The main temple in Rangoon was nice, too.
Don't bother: Going anywhere else. Burma is amazing. The junta stays in its jungle capital and leaves the rest of Burma to its wonderful people.
Coolest souvenir: Hard to choose. I went on an Overseas Adventure Travel tour and we went to lots of crafts factories. The marionettes, maybe?
Worth a splurge: The Hotel Red Canal in Mandalay. It's all teakwood - and the Internet is free.
I wish I'd packed: More memory cards for my camera. I took 650 photos - not nearly enough.
Other comments: Burma is truly safe, not a failed state. The people are all Buddhists who practice what they preach. They watch out for one another - and for you, too.
Trade unions as job killers?
http://www.examiner.com/x-2547-Watchdog-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d12-Trade-unions-as-job-killers
March 12, 11:55 AM · 2 comments
ShareThis Feed
As the Employees Free Choice Act is debated in Congress, some wonder why it is only in government that unionization is growing stronger.
According to a study of unions and the American workplace by Professor Barry Hirsch, unionized companies not only suffer lower profits but lower investment in physical and tangible capital and slower growth. As a result, unionized firms lose market shre to nonunionized firms, both domestic and foreign. This is borne out by the fact that in manufacturing virtually all the job losses between 1973 and 2006 occurred among unionized workers.
During the recent recession, the companies with the most serious trouble is found in those having the most heavily unionized work forces. Two examples are the Big Three automakers and big city newspapers. For the automakers, the cost of labor has been 50% higher than costs for
nonunion, foreign-owned auto companies. The unions have literally priced the employers out of the market.
One U.S. state facing high unemployment rates is California in which there are 1,088 locals and statewide union branches. It is a political force with billions of dollars to support candidates that are in bed with them.
The corruption and graft in many labor unions is ignored by the politicians who look to them for campaign contributions. There have been caught giving the spouses of UAW staffers million dollar contracts, pension funds mismanagement and recently the Service Employees International Union officials in Illinois were named in a federal criminal complain after being caught on tape with the now indicted Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
So while millions of American are losing their union-related jobs due to competition in the U.S. and abroad, President Barack Obama, who wrote in his autobiography,
I owe those unions
is still pledging to support their top priority of 2009, the end of the secret ballot.
Government employment seems to be the only place that unionization is growing as American workers jobs are killed by foreign competition while the politicians continue to rake in tainted campaign contributions that keep the union bosses in power.
Failures of International Law and The Security Council’s Tyranny
http://911truth-sherbrooke.org/2009/03/13/failures-of-international-law-and-the-security-council%E2%80%99s-tyranny/
In relation to recent global events; wars, invasions of lands, conflicts between states, political scandals, recognitions of new states, there is one phrase that everybody likes to use, that phrase is called international law.
INTERNATIONAL LAW
International law is the term commonly used for referring to the system of implicit and explicit agreements that connect together nation-states in commitment to recognized values and standards, differing from other legal systems in that it concerns nations rather than private citizens.
International law can be referred to tree different legal disciplines, these include: public international law, private international law and supranational law.
The most interesting is the public international law or “Law of Nations”, since it involves the United Nations (International Court of Justice and Security Council), International Criminal Law, Geneva Conventions, Vienna Conventions, World Health Organization, International Labour Organization, International Monetary Fund, among others.
Public international law concerns the structure and conduct of states and intergovernmental organizations. In its most general sense, international public law consists of rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of states and of intergovernmental organizations and with their relations among themselves, as well as with some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical. Public international law establishes the framework and the criteria for identifying states as the principal actors in the international legal system.
In relation to the devastating international political scene, some main bodies of the public international law came to question, these include: the United Nations (International Court of Justice and Security Council) and the International Criminal Law.
Going back to the evolution and practice of these human organizations, it is pertinent to remind ourselves of the manual guide for the conduct of modern day international law.
THE UNITED NATIONS
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achieving world peace. The organization is divided into administrative bodies, primarily: the General Assembly, The Security Council, The Economic and Social Council, The Secretariat, The International Court of Justice. There are currently 192 member states, including nearly every recognized independent state in the world.
The United Nations Charter is the treaty that forms and establishes the international organization called the United Nations. As a Charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. The Charter consists of a preamble and a series of articles grouped into chapters.
A preamble to the UN Charter:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
· to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
· to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations, large and small, and
· to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
· to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
· to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
· to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
· to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
· to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.
Charter I of the United Nations Charter lays out the purposes and principles of the United Nations organization.
Article 1:
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 2, clauses 3-4 essentially prohibit war (except in self-defence) by stating:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, is not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Article 2, clause 7 of this chapter reemphasizes the fact that only the UN Security Council has the power to force any country to do anything by stating:
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII. (Only the Security Council can institute Chapter VII enforcement measures.)
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council’s powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and to take military and non-military action to restore international peace and security.
The UN Charter’s prohibition of member states of the UN attacking other UN member states is central to the purpose for which the UN was founded in the wake of the destruction of World War II: to prevent war.
According to Charter VII, article 51 of the United Nations Charter, countries can engage into military action only in self-defence, including collective self-defence:
51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The Security Council was consequently granted broad powers through Chapter VII as a reaction to the failure of the League of Nations in the years between World War I and II.
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE – WORLD COURT
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established by the UN Charter, Charter XIV, and is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. The ICJ is established to settle disputes between nations. Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce the ICJ rulings, but such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council.
Charter XIV, Article 93, clause 1:
1. All Members of the United Nations are “ipso facto” parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
Article 94, clause 1 and 2 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action:
1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
2. If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.
Only states may be parties in contentious cases, on the other side individuals, corporations, parts of a federal state, NGOs, the UN organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in cases. The United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and so accepts the court’s jurisdiction only on a case to case basis.
Since the International Court of Justice deals only with states, there is an autonomous branch of law called International Criminal Law (ICL).
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
The International Criminal Law (ICL) deals with international crimes, the courts and tribunals are set up to arbitrate cases in which persons have incurred international criminal responsibility. It represents a significant departure from classical international law which was mainly considered law created by states for the benefit of states, but tended to ignore the individual as a subject of the law.
However, the precise parameters of this body of law are often unclear, perhaps due to the rapid and complex developments of our global society. In its widest context, the source of international criminal law might be derived from the general principles of international law recognized by civilized nations; and therefore, found in the customary law accepted by states, the general criminal law recognized by nations, and the treaties which govern particular conduct.
Today, the most important institution of the International Criminal Law is the International Criminal Court (ICC) as well as several “ad hoc” tribunals, such as: the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Unlike the International Court of Justice, the ICC is legally and functionally independent from the United Nations. However, the Rome Statute grants certain powers to the United Nations Security Council.
Court came into being on 1 July, 2002 when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force, and it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date. The ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes. The ICC is joined by 108 countries; however, a number of states, including China, India, Israel, Iraq, Libya, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States are critical of the Court and have not joined. The Court is projected as a court of last resort, investigating and prosecuting only where national courts have failed.
During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, a large number of states argued that the Court should be allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States. A compromise was reached, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction only under the following limited circumstances:
where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person’s state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court);
where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or
where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.
FAILURES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ITS LEGAL SYSTEM
The United Nations
Multilateral diplomacy, as practiced at the United Nations provides the forum for exchange of experiences, conducting negotiations, exchange of thoughts in a culturally-diversified arena. Unfortunately, however, the United Nations has not lived up to the expectations of its founding fathers.
It appears that the United Nations is doing all kind of things, but not the most important ones, like: uniting people, maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations between nations, among others.
Since the formation of the UN in 1945, almost every Charter of the UN has been breached. There have been approximately 182 wars around the world since 1945, including most recent South Ossetia War. Currently, in contemporary days there are 32 ongoing wars which are being fought, these include: Sri Lanka Civil War, Second Chechen War, War in Afghanistan, War in Darfur, Iraq War, War in Somalia, age-old Arab-Israel/Israel-Palestine (including al-Aqsa Intifada) conflict, among others.
In addition, the UN became a war combatant itself. There have been two major wars authorized by the Security Council; the 1950 Korean War, and the 1991 Gulf War. States that breach resolutions have different fates. The Korean War was the first war in which the UN participated. Iraq was swiftly attacked after failing to comply with a Security Council resolution by withdrawing from Kuwait.
However, the US, the United Kingdom, Russia, Indonesia, Morocco, Turkey, among others have been in breach of several resolutions, sometimes for decades, without having had any action taken against them.
The United States as a member state, permanent member of Security Council and founder of the UN was involved in over 100 international military conflicts since 1945, some of which were: Vietnam War, Korean War, Gulf War, and ongoing wars: Iraq War (Second Persian Gulf War), War in Somalia, War on Terrorism (Operation Enduring Freedom); Afghanistan, Philippines, Trans Sahara, among others. If we look through world history for the last fifty years, we can see that no country has been involved in as many military conflicts as the United States has.
Similarly, under the United Nations Charter, Charter I, ratified by the US and therefore binding on it, all the UN member states, including the US are prohibited from using force against fellow member states, except to defend against an imminent attack or pursuant to explicit Security Council authorization.
However, some member states of the UN were attacked by other UN members, these include: Iraq (the US invasion of Iraq), Afghanistan (the US invasion of Afghanistan), Former Yugoslavia (the US led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia), Georgia (South Ossetia War and Russian interference), Panama (the US invasion of Panama), Kuwait (Invasion of Kuwait by Iraq), Somalia (invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia), among others.
The UN and its Charters were established “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”; however, since its formation, around 38 million people lost their lives in various wars around the globe. Unfortunately, the final number of the war victims will never be known. The UN failed to maintain peace.
The UN Charters was also breached by some member states with their recognition of Kosovo, as well as with recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There is no such thing called “special case” or “precedent” in the international law. International law, Charters of the UN and sovereignty and territorial integrity of a member state has to be respected by all member states equally and without any exemptions.
The Security Council and Power of Veto
The United Nations Security Council power of veto is frequently cited as a major problem with the UN. Key arguments include that the five permanent members (the US, the UK, Russia, China and France) no longer represent the most stable and responsible member states in the United Nations and that their veto power slows down and even prevents important decisions being made on matters of international peace and security.
For example, the Security Council passed no resolutions on most major Cold War conflicts, including the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and the Vietnam War, among others. Resolutions addressing more current problems, failed also, such as the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, South Ossetia War. There has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council, as almost all of the wars was not endorsed by the UN.
Nonetheless, the current Security Council power of veto is irrelevant. With the General Assembly’s adoption of the Uniting for Peace resolution 337A in 1950, it was made clear by the UN Member states that:
Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
In fact, on the other hand, this resolution looks irrelevant, since it was not used to maintain international peace and security when Security Council failed.
The United Nations was set to be a democratic organization, to represent all nations equally, however, today, after 63 years of existence, the UN has not changed, and continues to represents the interests of the governments of the nations who form it and not the individuals within those nations.
Knowing that the five permanent members of the Security Council, who are all nuclear powers, have created an exclusive nuclear club whose powers are unchecked, the General Assembly (which has true international representation) with all its members can easily withdraw from the UN.
It is very straightforward, why should members of the General Assembly or better to say members of the UN pay annual fees of millions of Dollars to the UN when they have no rights, they are not even protected from any military aggression by another member state, as was seen in the past. It was, also, reported that the US, a permanent member of the Security Council seriously thinking to withdraw from the UN. In addition to withdrawal, there were some proposals to expel the United Nations Headquarters from the US territory and the City of New York.
The International Court of Justice
If we look at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), there is not much to say. The Court decides in accordance with international treaties and conventions in force, international custom, and the general principles of law and, as subsidiary means, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists.
Generally, the Court has been most successful resolving border delineation and the use of oceans and waterways. While the Court has, in some instances, resolved claims by one State espoused on behalf of its nationals, the Court has generally refrained from hearing contentious cases that are political in nature, due in part to its lack of enforcement mechanism and its lack of compulsory jurisdiction. The Court has generally found it did not have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the use of force.
In relation to the UN Charter XIV, Article 94 of the UN Charter, there are some obvious problems; if the judgment is against one of the five permanent members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. This occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua case (Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua vs. the US)), when Nicaragua brought the issue of the US’s non-compliance with the Court’s decision before the Security Council. Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply.
In practice, the Court’s powers have been limited by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the Court’s ruling, and by the Security Council’s unwillingness to impose consequences. Simply, the ICJ does not enjoy a full separation of force, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of even cases to which they consented in advance to be bound.
The International Criminal Court
Relating to the International Criminal Court (ICC), as of 2002, the Office of the Prosecutor had received around 2800 so called “communications” about alleged crimes in at least 139 countries. After initial review, however, the vast majority of these communications were dismissed as obviously outside the jurisdiction of the Court. As of August 2008, the International Criminal Court has launched investigations into just four situations: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Darfur (Sudan). Several other situations have been subject to intensive analysis, including Afghanistan, Chad, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Georgia and Kenya.
The Office of the Prosecutor had received around 240 communications in connection with the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which alleged that various war crimes had been committed; none of these allegations had survived.
The UK, Australia, and Poland (countries that invaded Iraq with the US) are all state parties to the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and therefore their nationals are liable to prosecution by the court for the violation of any relevant international criminal laws. Because the United States is not a state party, the US nationals cannot be prosecuted by the court (except for crimes that take place in the territory of a state that has accepted the court’s jurisdiction, or situations that are referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council, where the US has a power of veto).
In July 2002, the United States threatened to use its Security Council veto to block renewal of the mandates of several United Nations peacekeeping operations, unless the Security Council agreed to permanently exempt US nationals from the Court’s jurisdiction.
A resolution to exempt citizens of the United States from jurisdiction of the ICC was renewed in 2003 by the Security Council Resolution 1487. However, the Security Council refused to renew the exemption again in 2004, after pictures emerged of US troops torturing and abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Shortly, the US withdrew its demand.
As part of the US campaign to exclude its citizens and military personnel from extradition to the ICC, the President Bush administration has been approaching countries around the world seeking to conclude Bilateral Immunity Agreements, or “Article 98” agreements. So far hundred countries have ratified this agreement. Countries that have ratified the Rome Statute and signed Article 98 breached their obligations under international law.
In 2008, the US President George W. Bush signed into law an amendment to the American Service-members Protection Act (ASPA), to eliminate restrictions on Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to nations unwilling to enter into Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) shielding the US nationals from the jurisdiction of the ICC. This Act authorizes use of military force to free US nationals from the custody of the ICC.
Some of the communications received by the Prosecutor alleged that crimes had been committed on the territory of states parties to the Court, or by nationals of states parties: in such cases, the Court may automatically exercise jurisdiction. Other communications concerned conduct outside the jurisdiction of states parties: in these cases, the Court can only act if it has received a referral by the United Nations Security Council or a declaration by the relevant state allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction.
We have not seen the Security Council referring to the court regarding genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, except in situations such as Darfur, and non-state country Cote d’Ivoire.
However, the Security Council established two ad hoc tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
The ICTY has been established by the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, but, it is not clear how a tribunal could be considered a measure to maintain or restore international peace and security. Also, the ICTY budget is not entirely financed by the UN, but also by private entities; some 14% is being privately funded and the remainder is being provided by the UN. This private co-financing might prove a problem concerning the Tribunal’s independence and fairness.
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is an international court established by the United Nations Security Council in order to judge those people responsible for the Rwandan genocide and other serious violations of the international law performed in the territory of Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states. So far, this tribunal is proven to be the most efficient.
On the other side, we have not seen ad hoc International Tribunals for Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Chechnya, among others. This is because of the permanent five power of veto, or maybe, there are no funds available for new ones, since these two costs too much.
In this story we have seen just a fraction of the devastating situation in international law, and if this trend continues there will be no mechanism to prevent and discipline any crimes committed by anyone.
Maybe, the hope is in the General Assembly, but only if;
the General Assembly, as apparent last resort for international law, acts and establishes serious mechanism which will carry out grave verdicts against countries and individuals who had breached Charters of the UN and international law.
If necessary, these shall include actions to be taken against countries such as: the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, among others. As well as, against individuals/Heads of States, such as: the US President George W. Bush, former US President William Bill Clinton, Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev, former Prime Minister of the UK Tony Blair, President of Eritrea Isaias Afewerki, former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard, among many others.
Ivan Simic
http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/9651-failures-of-international-law-and-the-security-councils-tyranny.html
Norway's vast oil wealth fund drops Chinese firm which is selling military trucks to Burma
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/03/13/ap6164195.html
Associated Press, 03.13.09, 07:55 AM EDT
Norway's fund for investing its vast oil wealth has blacklisted China's Dongfeng Motor Group Co. Ltd. for ethical reasons because it sells arms supplies to Myanmar's military dictatorship, the finance minister announced Friday.
The finance ministry announced in October it would bar the fund from owning shares in companies that sell arms or military supplies to Myanmar, also known as Burma.
"We cannot finance companies that support the military dictatorship in Burma through the sale of military materials," said Minister of Finance Kristin Halvorsen. Myanmar has been ruled by a dictatorship since 1962, and in 2007 the rulers staged a violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in which at least 31 people died and hundreds were arrested.
A news release said Dongfeng had been asked to comment, and confirmed that its subsidiary had sold about 900 military trucks to Myanmar in the first half of 2008.
Norway, a major exporter of oil and natural gas, sets aside surplus central government revenue in the Government Pension Fund-Global - formerly the oil fund - for foreign investment that is now worth about 2.2 trillion kroner ($319).
In 2004, the government imposed standards on the fund's investments, and created a national Council of Ethics to review company records in such areas as labor rights, environmental issues, human rights and production of nuclear weapons and cluster bombs.
Comment On This Story
The Council of Ethics said the Chinese trucks are adapted to military use and are thus covered by the ban.
RSF lists Burma among 12 “Internet Enemies”
http://www.mizzima.com/news/world/1839-rsf-lists-burma-among-12-internet-enemies.html
by Mungpi
Friday, 13 March 2009 18:16
New Delhi (Mizzima) - Paris-based media watchdog, Reporters Without Border (RSF), has listed military-ruled Burma among 12 countries, which it has called “Internet Enemies” for censoring online freedom of expression.
In a report published on Thursday, entitled “Enemies of the Internet”, the RSF identified 12 nations, that it said had systematically restricted the flow of information to the people by denying them access to the internet and banning sites that it deemed “undesirable”.
The list of such nations included, Burma, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Cuba and Tunisia.
According to the report, Burma’s military rulers have displayed their high-handedness on the few internet users in Burma, by arresting and sentencing at least 14 journalists and two bloggers to long prison terms.
Out of an approximate nearly 50 million people, only about 40,000, mostly urban dwellers, have the privilege of access to the internet, the report said.
In 1996, Burma had introduced a law on television, and video along with the Electronic Act, which banned the import, possession and use of a modem, without official permission. The offense was punishable with up to 15-years of imprisonment, for damaging state security, national unity, culture, the national economy and law and order.
Burma has two government-controlled Internet Service Providers, namely the Myanmar Post and Telecommunication (MPT) and the Bagan Cybertech, which was later renamed as Myanmar Teleport.
Besides monitoring public cyber cafes by conducting surprise checks on internet users and asking the café managers to keep track records of users, the prohibitive prices of getting a connection at home, also restricts the population from accessing the internet.
The report said, the Burmese military junta due to its fear of losing control over the internet, had made laws relating to electronic communications and the dissemination of news online, the most dissuasive in the world, exposing internet-users to very harsh prison sentences.
Internet users in Burma could be simply arrested and sentenced to long prison terms, if they were found surfing or browsing dissident websites, international news sites, and exiled Burmese Media sites, including Mizzima News.
Nay Phone Latt, a 28 year old, owner of two cyber cafes in Rangoon, was arrested in January 2008, and sentenced to over 12 years of imprisonment, under the Electronic Act for possessing a film, which the junta said was “subversive”.
Similarly, popular comedian Zargarnar was also sentenced to 35 years under the Electronic Act, for posting pictures and information on the impact of Cyclone Nargis, which revealed the government’s failure to adequately assist the victims.
The report said, “All of these countries mark themselves out not just for their capacity to censor news and information online, but also for their almost systematic repression of internet users.”
The report, which made a study of 22 countries, also said there were “at least 69 people behind bars, for having expressed themselves freely online.”
The RSF also puts 10 other countries including Australia and South Korea, “Under Surveillance” for adopting worrying measures that could be the beginning of abuses on internet users and imposition of censorship on freedom of expression online.
Pro-democracy committee tells UN to stay away from 2010 elections
http://english.dvb.no/news.php?id=2328
Mar 13, 2009 (DVB)–A committee comprised of representatives of parties that won the 1990 elections has said that international observers should attend the proposed 2010 elections only when all parties are allowed to contest.
The comment was made by the Committee Representing the People’s Parliament secretary, Aye Thar Aung, at a meeting on 12 March in Rangoon.
CRPP members discussed how the UN would regard an election which doesn't include parties that won the 1990 election.
"We discussed whether there is a situation where the State Peace and Development Council would amend the constitution,” said Aye Thar Aung.
“If not, what will the consequences of the 2010 election be, especially when the UN and international community have urged that all political parties, ethnic national groups and pro-democracy groups should be included in the 2010 election?”
The CRPP had already decided not to contest the election unless the 2008 constitution is amended.
UN special envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, has however urged the sending of observers to Burma next year.
Prime Minister General Thein Sein hinted at the ASEAN summit that the SPDC would accept them, throwing into question whether the UN is accepting the legitimacy of the elections given the presence of observers.
"When it comes to that, it is not about whether the 2010 election is free and fair,” said Aye Thar Aung. “The 2010 election depends on the amendment of 2008 constitution.”
“Therefore, it won’t matter whether the election is observed by the UN or EU or not if the 2008 constitution is not amended.”
Furthermore, the SPDC has been encouraging business owners to set up parties and contest the election, as well as carrying out surveillance activities on some NLD township offices, Aye Thar Aung said.
Reporting by Htet Aung Kyaw
The Ambassador of Japan from Bangkok opened the mobile Burmese Migrant Learning Center
http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/the-ambassador-of-japan-from-bangkok-opened-the-mobile-burmese-migrant-learning-center/
On March 16th His Excellency Kyoji Komachi, Ambassador of Japan to the Kingdom of Thailand attended the opening ceremony of Burmese Migrant mobile Learning Center which he officially opened that afternoon by cutting the ribbon.
This learning center, located in Tit Tit rubber plantation of Takua Hton District of Phang Nga Province in Southern Thailand, was established by Grassroots-HRE and has been financially supported by the Embassy of Japan in Bangkok, Thailand. The Ambassador of Japan said during a speech made at the ceremony that “I’m very proud to have the opportunity to attend the opening ceremony of this learning center as the Ambassador of Japan. Unfortunately, many children living in these communities are not receiving even a basic education and health service. I’m very glad to support the Learning Centers for the children’s education in this remote region.”
Mr. Kraisak Choonhavan, Chairman of Grassroots-HRE said during his speech speech that “In Thailand, the only Burmese director of a legally recognized Thai foundation is Htoo Chit and he is working together with Thai, Burmese, Mon, Rakaing, Karen, Tavoy, Karenni and many other foreign staff in order to help the Burmese Migrant community. I thank the Japanese Embassy so much for the financial support of our Learning Centers and also I thank the Thai Land owner for giving us the land on which to build the Learning Center”.
Phi Chindaphon, the Thai Land owner, said “I’m very happy to see the learning center for Burmese Children on my land. I’m ready to donate more of my land if necessary to build another”.
Furthermore, Director Mr. Htoo Chit said “Education is very important for our Burmese people. The important thing is that we can open the learning centers with the help of Thai people. We can’t survive without the help of Thais. That’s why I would like to request to the parents to be with disciplined and respect Thai Law”.
This Learning Center opening ceremony was attended by The Ambassador of Japan to the Kingdom of Thailand, Mr. Kraisak, Chairman of GHRE, Mrs. Charida Tajalang Sak, a board member of GHRE, The Local governor of Takua Hton district and other local authorities.
The opening ceremony represented the opening ceremony for 4 learning centers, all located in remote areas, which are supported by the Japanese Embassy under the mobile education program. Before getting the support from the Japanese Embassy for these 4 Learning centers, the so called mobile education program was run by GHRE staff and teachers who went to teach the children in those remote areas every weekend. Often, teaching was done under the shade of a tree.
Up till now GHRE has built 4 learning centers in these remote areas with 150 students attending there in regularly.
Grassroots http://www.ghre.org/en/
Farmers’ lawyer sentenced to four years in prison
http://english.dvb.no/news.php?id=2348
Mar 18, 2009 (DVB)–A young lawyer defending farmers whose land had been forcibly seized by the army was sentenced to four years' imprisonment by Magwe division court yesterday, said a source close to the court.
Around 50 farmers reported to the International Labour Organisation office in Rangoon in January, complaining that the army confiscated more than 5,000 acres of paddy fields at Myetyeh-kan and Kyaung-ywalay villages in Natmauk township.
Pho Phyu, well-known as a political activists' lawyer, had been requested by family members to represent four farmers who were arrested and detained when news of their visit to the ILO reached authorities.
He was charged under the Unlawful Associations Act.
One of the farmers, Zaw Htay from Aunglan, was sentenced to 10 years on 23 January with the charge of leaking national secrets for taking photographs of confiscated farmlands.
Lawyers defending political and human rights activists have been harassed and intimidated in various ways.
Young lawyer Nyi Nyi Htway was sentenced to six months in jail by Rangoon Hlaing township court in October with the charge of impeding court procedures.
Another lawyer Kyaw Kyaw Min, who was sentenced in absentia, had fled to the Thai-Burmese border.
Two senior lawyers Aung Thein and Khin Maung Shein were each sentenced to four months' imprisonment last November for contempt of court. They were released on 6 March.
Reporting by Aye Nai
Printer Friendly Version | Send to a Friend
Singapore to face worst economic crisis since World War II
Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore has warned that his country faces its worst economic crisis since World War II, as exports from the country are falling at their fastest rate, down 24% last month on 2008 figures, and down 35% in January.
Experts are predicting that Singapore`s trade-dependent economy will contract by up to 10% this year. Trade has driven Singapore`s economy throughout its 200 years of existence.
Untimely rain suspends salt production in Myanmar cyclone-hit areas
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6617697.html
Salt production in some Myanmar's cyclone-hit areas has been suspended as salt fields in the areas were destroyed by the rain starting from the last weekend to Monday, the local Biweekly Eleven News reported Thursday.
Quoting local salt producers, the report said salt production work had to be stopped in the areas including Laputta, Haigyigyun and a number of villages in Ayeyawaddy division hit by the untimely rain and the production could only restore if there is no more rain to come.
The temporary suspension of salt production has prompted the soaring of salt prices which were once dropping before the mishap.
Local salt producers are distressed over the climate change although they could once resettle their work after last May storm with the loan assistance provided by the government.
Deadly cyclone Nargis, which occurred over the Bay of Bengal, hit five divisions and states -- Ayeyawaddy, Yangon, Bago, Mon and Kayin on May 2 and 3 last year, of which Ayeyawaddy and Yangon inflicted the heaviest casualties and massive infrastructure damage.
The storm has killed 84,537 people and left 53,836 missing and 19,359 injured, according to official death toll.
Source:Xinhua
Bangladesh-Myanmar Border Tense Over Fencing
http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=31820090211
(RTTNews) - Tension along the 200-km. Bangladesh-Myanmar border has risen after Yangon reportedly mobilized extra troops, and started erecting a barbed-wire fence on the frontline, media say.
Myanmar's move has forced authorities in Dhaka to ask its Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) paramilitary border guard force to stay alert on the Myanmar-Bangladesh border, as reports said panic had gripped frontier villages.
The border tensions came soon after a stand-off between the maritime forces of the two countries in the Bay of Bengal a few months ago over the exploration of offshore oil.
Foreign Minister Dipu Moni merely said:"I do not like to voice any opinion now. We will firm up our stance after considering the situation."
However, Home Secretary Abdus Sobhan Sikder, acknowledged that Myanmar had pushed reinforcements of its paramilitary forces across the river Naaf, and started the construction of infrastructure for them near the frontier, but Foreign Secretary Touhid Hossain said that Bangladesh had no problem if Myanmar erected a fence on its side of the territory.
For comments and feedback: contact editorial@rttnews.com
Copyright(c) 2009 RTTNews.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Myanmar foreign investment rises sharply in 2008
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90778/90858/90863/6617077.html
Myanmar's foreign investment rose sharply by 93.06 percent in 2008, reaching 974.996 million U.S. dollars compared with 2007, according to the latest figures released by the Central Statistical Organization.
The organization attributed the sharp increase of the foreign investment to that added in the mining sector which registered 860.996 million dollars. Of it, over 855.996 million dollars were injected by China, while the remaining 5 million dollars by Singapore.
Of the 114 million dollars' foreign investment in oil and gas during the year, Russia accounted for 94 million dollars, while Vietnam represented 20 million dollars.
According to local report, total foreign contracted investment in Myanmar has hit 15 billion U.S. dollars in 422 projects up to end of 2008 since Myanmar opened up to such investment in late 1988.
Of the 29 countries and regions investing in Myanmar, Thailand stood first with over 7 billion U.S. dollars, followed by Britain and Singapore with over 1 billion U.S. dollars each, the Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry was quoted as saying.
Electric power sector dominated with 6 billion U.S. dollars, followed by oil and gas (over 3 billion U.S. dollars).
Such sectors as manufacturing, mining, real estate development, hotel and tourism were injected with over 1 billion U.S. dollars each, while fisheries and livestock breeding, and transport and communication took 300 million U.S. dollars each, industry estate 100 million U.S. dollars, construction and agriculture 30 million U.S. dollars each.
Myanmar also received 136.5 billion Kyats' (113.7 million U.S. dollars) investment from domestic companies in 11 sectors namely -manufacturing, real estate development, transportation, construction, fisheries and livestock breeding, mining, hotel and tourism, electric power, industries and agriculture, local news reports said.
Of these sectors, manufacturing topped the investment with 40 billion Kyats (33 million U.S. dollars), followed by real estate development (25 million U.S. dollars) and transportation (16.6 million U.S. dollars).
Source: Xinhua
More troops for Myanmar border
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=279388&version=1&template_id=44&parent_id=24
Bangladesh has deployed more troopers of its border guards after Myanmar moved men and material for erecting a barbed wire fence along a 200km border between the two countries.
The move indicates fresh tension after the stand-off in the Bay of Bengal between the two neighbours in November last year, New Age newspaper said yesterday.
Dhaka has made diplomatic moves and has refrained from saying anything provocative.
Foreign Minister Dipu Moni refused to comment. “I do not like to voice any opinion now. We will firm up our stance after considering the situation,” she told the media on Tuesday.
Foreign secretary Mohammed Touhid Hossain and home secretary Abdus Sobhan Sikder told New Age that they had not received any information about Myanmar’s move to erect a fence along the border.
Home secretary Abdus Sobhan Sikder said that the Bangladesh Coast Guard and the deputy commissioner of Cox’s Bazar in south-eastern region had told him that a fresh contingent of troops had been mobilised across the Naaf river that forms the international border at some points.
Myanmar was starting construction of infrastructure for them, not erecting a fence, the official said. IANS
Singapore urges Myanmar to look West
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2009/03/200931892223961313.html
Myanmar's Prime Minister Thein Sein, centre, is on an official visit to Singapore [Reuters]
Myanmar's military government must take "bolder steps" to promote reconciliation with its political opponents and step up cooperation with the international community, Singapore's prime minister has said.
Lee Hsien Loong was speaking at a dinner to welcome his Myanmar counterpart, General Thein Sein, who is on an official visit to Singapore.
During his address Lee said the global environment was changing and it was time for Myanmar's diplomatically-isolated rulers to engage with the international community.
Nonetheless he said Myanmar remained an "an old friend" of Singapore and said he hoped the relationship would "develop and prosper."
Singapore and Myanmar are both members of the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), a regional body which has been criticised for tolerating human rights abuses by the Myanmar government and not pressing for reform.
Singapore, which is one of the biggest investors in Myanmar, has been a leading voice in opposing sanctions against the country and its rulers.
The city state is also believed to be home to much of the finances held in offshore bank accounts owned by the Myanmar military.
Call for prisoner release
Lee's remarks came as a UN investigator called on Myanmar's ruling generals to release more than 2,100 political prisoners and allow them to take part in an election set for 2010.
Tomas Ojea Quintana, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, also urged the military to halt its use of civilians in forced labour.
Myanmar's military has ruled the country formerly known as Burma since 1962.
It refused to recognise a landslide victory of the opposition National League for Democracy in national elections held in 1990 and has jailed or detained many of its members including Aung San Suu Kyi, the party leader.
She has been under house arrest for most of the past two decades.
Western governments have criticised the government's plan to hold fresh elections in next year as a sham aimed at entrenching military rule.
Source: Agencies
U Gambira is urging the Burmese people to carry on
http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/a-leader-of-burma%E2%80%99s-2007-saffron-revolution-u-gambira-is-urging-the-burmese-people-to-carry-on-in-resisting-the-military-government-and-has-agreed-to-appeal-his-conviction-and-lengthy-prison/
A leader of Burma’s 2007 Saffron Revolution, U Gambira, is urging the Burmese people to carry on in resisting the military government and has agreed to appeal his conviction and lengthy prison sentence, according to his mother.
2009 March 18
tags: Human Rights, world focus on Burma, Junta, UN, Burma, prisoner, monksby peacerunningU Gambira, leader of the All-Burma Monks Alliance, is serving a 69-years jail term Khandee prison for his role in the 2007 protests. He was transferred from Mandalay prison in February after staging a hunger strike there.
His mother, Daw Yay, said that when she visited her son in prison he quoted Burma’s late independence hero Gen. Aung San, father of detained opposition leader and Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.
“If one wants [to follow] the way of the Buddha, one must practice Buddhism. If one wanted independence, one must practice the way towards independence,” she quoted U Gambira as saying.
“He is continuing along that same road,” she said.
Hunger strike
U Gambira began a hunger strike Feb. 15 in Mandalay prison to demand the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, prompting authorities to transfer him in iron shackles to remote Kamdee prison in the north of the country, she said.
“The trip from Mandalay to Kamdee prison was like being sent to Hell alive,” she said, adding that it required a three-day boat trip from Monywa to Homalin. “I was in the middle seat of the boat without a back rest. It was very uncomfortable.”
“My life, and my family’s life, is just clockwork now. We eat and sleep like robots. There is no life in our bodies,” she said, calling on the authorities to free all political prisoners on humanitarian grounds.
“The ordeal we are going through—it’s a punishment for our entire family.”
Daw Yay said that she had persuaded her son to appeal his conviction for treason, although he initially refused, and that she would travel from her home in Mandalay to the former capital, Rangoon, to file papers on his behalf.
Suu Kyi a ‘Beacon of Hope’: Clinton
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15294
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LALIT K JHA Friday, March 13, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday called the iconic Burmese pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, a beacon of hope for people around the world.
Clinton’s comments occurred at a function at the State Department on the occasion of Women’s History Month.
“Aung San Suu Kyi, whom I mentioned yesterday and I mention as often as I can because having been in prison now for most of the past two decades, she still remains a beacon of hope, strength, and liberty for people around the world,” Clinton said.
The secretary also mentioned Mukhtar Mai of Pakistan, who survived a horrific assault in what is euphemistically called an “honor crime,” and then used the money she received in a court settlement to help educate the rural poor in Pakistan.
“These women are not just improving the world for other women,” Clinton said. “Their courage and actions are helping to create societies where every boy and girl, every man and woman, has the opportunity to live up to his or her God-given potential.”
She said these women understand that the struggle for women’s rights in the 21st century is no longer limited to fighting for the ballot, or equal pay for equal work, or the end of domestic violence, or the right to speak out, or the right to worship or associate.
“All of these items are critical and necessary, but they are no longer sufficient. In order to secure the full spectrum of women’s rights, we have to create economic opportunity and economic security,” Clinton said.
“It is essential that we improve access to healthcare and that we protect Mother Earth from our assaults, so that we can guarantee a better future, and that we do all that we can to help improve education so that we will have more allies and partners and fewer adversaries,” she said.
Clinton said wherever there is oppression, women need to stand against it. “Wherever there is violence, we as women must work to end it. Wherever there is poverty or sickness, we as women must work to cure it. And wherever our planet is in danger, we as women must work to protect it,” she said.
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org
We Will Boycott Election: CRPP
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15301
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LAWI WENG Friday, March 13, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Representing the People’s Parliament (CRPP) will not participate in next year’s general election in Burma unless political prisoners are released and the junta agrees to a review of the constitution, according to Aye Thar Aung, a spokesman for the committee, who spoke to The Irrawaddy on Friday.
“The release of political prisoners is the first step toward democracy,” he said. “The second is to allow for a review of the new constitution. If not, we will not be involved in the election.”
The announcement came after a meeting was held in Rangoon on Thursday between representatives of the five political parties that comprise the CRPP coalition: the National League for Democracy (NLD), the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy, the Mon National League for Democracy, the Arakan League for Democracy, and Zomi National Congress.
Between them, the five parties took 89 percent of the electoral votes at the 1990 general election—some 433 of the parliament’s 485 seats—with the NLD winning a landslide victory.
However, the elected representatives were never allowed to take power and many of their members were subsequently arrested and imprisoned by the military junta.
Despite the announcement, Nyan Win, a spokesperson for the NLD, refused to comment to The Irrawaddy on Friday about the CRPP decision or the 2010 election.
The NLD has previously called on the Burmese military regime to review the new constitution and release all political prisoners, including its general secretary, Aung San Suu Kyi.
At the 14th Asean Summit in Thailand last month, Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein reportedly promised that Burma would allow United Nations to monitor the 2010 election, a date for which still has not been announced.
But Aye Thar Aung said that allowing the international community to monitor next year’s general election is not as important a factor as the need to review the new constitution.
“It is simply unacceptable that the military will reserve 25 percent of seats in the parliament for itself according to the new constitution,” he said.
He added that the CRPP seeks meaning dialogue between the military junta and the opposition groups for the future of democracy in Burma.
Some leaders of political parties within the CRPP are still in detention, including Suu Kyi and Tin Oo of the NLD, and ethnic Shan leader Hkun Htun Oo.
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org
Political Prisoners Doubled in Two Years, Say Activists
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15302
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By WAI MOE Friday, March 13, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT(5)
The number of political prisoners in Burma has almost doubled since July 2007, according to activists who launched a campaign on Friday to press for their release.
Before the start of demonstrations in August 2007, it was estimated that Burmese jails held 1,100 political prisoners. Today the number stands at 2,100, said Khin Ohmar, a leading Burmese activist at the launch of the campaign “Free Burma’s Political Prisoners Now!” (www.fbppn.net) in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand.
“Unless political prisoners are released, there is no peace and stability in the country,” she said.
The “Free Burma’s Political Prisoners Now!” campaign is organized by the Thailand-based Burmese Assistance Association for Political Prisoners-Burma (AAPP) and the Forum for Democracy in Burma (FDB), an umbrella dissident group of seven organizations in exile.
Khin Ohmar, of the FDB, was banned from attending the Asean summit in Thailand last month, along with a Cambodian activist.
The current campaign aims to collect a symbolic 888,888 signatures on a petition for the release of Burma’s political prisoners. The petition will be circulated in Thailand, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
In Thailand, the launch was held at the Foreign Correspondents Club in Bangkok and Chiang Mai University’s International Center.
Friday was chosen for the launch because March 13 was proclaimed Burma’s Human Rights Day by pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other leading dissidents to mark the anniversary of the deaths of activists Phone Maw and Soe Naing in clashes with police in 1988.
The petition calling for the release of political prisoners will be circulated until May 24, the day that Suu Kyi should be released from her current term of house arrest under Burmese law. It will be sent to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon,
The UN General Assembly has been urging the release of Burma’s political prisoners for more than a decade.
AAPP Secretary Tate Naing said at Friday’s launch that the 2010 election would be meaningless if political prisoners were still behind bars on polling day.
“The release of political prisoners is number 1 priority for national reconciliation and democratization in the country,” he said.
COMMENT(5)
Name:
E-mail: (Your e-mail will not be published.)
Comment:
You have characters left.
Word Verification: Type the characters you see in the picture.
Nay Tun Wrote: 14/03/2009
Why haven't the US and EU countries (France once advised UN that it should use R2P during Nargis) proposed asylum for Aung San Suu Kyi and her followers in prison? I am sure the junta will release them immediately. I found no other better solution than that.
For example I heard that some 88 generation have children such as Jimmy/Nilar Thein or Ma Mie Mie. I am sure their families will be very happy if their children can study in US or France or UK for free.
France gives special scholarships to political asylum seekers. In the UK there are special scholarships for the children of pro-opposition politicians from Myanmar.
In the US, Soros's OSI is a very consistent scholarship source for all children of NLD MP-elects and the 88 generation group.
That is just for your info.
zaw win Wrote: 14/03/2009
When the Muslim separatist movement started to flare up in the south the then PM Thaksin asked the Thais to make origami paper birds. Even though educated Thais cringed in shame, Thaksin's govt. rained down the south with paper birds using air force planes. He assumed all Thais are as stupid as those poor ignorant villagers who do not understand the complexities of tax evasion.
Instead of addressing the real issues facing the Muslim south he thought that the sight of paper birds falling from the skies will soften the hearts of hardcore Muslim fundamentalists. Well, where is Thaksin now?
This Signature campaign is just like this.
Only a few of these lazy day dreaming NGOS or so called experts on so and so will believe that after seeing these signatures the junta's heart will soften. Grow up, fellas.
Pi Tu Wrote: 14/03/2009
I want to say signing the petition is like providing a piece of sand and a brick for democratization in Burma. I am always happy to support this campaign as it will be a strong knock in international communities, though the dictators won't care and they ignore the demand of international communities. I completely agree with the statement that without releasing all the prisoners, there will be no justice and the forthcoming 2010 election is not just since it is manipulated by the power-crazy generals and they ignore the rights of ethnicities who are pressed to take part in the election. It is obvious that the brutal SPDC is not willing to discuss with the opposition.
Tettoe Aung Wrote: 14/03/2009
Is there any surprise after that document was leaked in September last year? The military regime intends to crack down on dissent as their preparation for the forthcoming 2010 elections. The question is why a country like Australia is helping them in upgrading the regime's police force. It may be the previous government's decision but it has bad consequences.
hsi hsa paw Wrote: 13/03/2009
We are very sad when are reading this news.
We would like to support this campaign.
So what can we do?
Americans’ Opinion of United Nations at Record Low
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44971
Friday, March 13, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
Flags of member nations flying at United Nations headquarters in New York City. (U.N. Photo by Araujo Pinto)(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration’s attempts to revamp the U.S. relationship with the United Nations comes at a time when Americans’ opinion of the world body’s effectiveness has dropped to an all-time low.
In the latest annual Gallup poll on the subject, only 26 percent of respondents said the U.N. was doing a good job “in trying to solve the problems it has had to face.”
The score marks a new low point in a steady decline since 2002, when 58 percent of respondents thought the U.N. was doing a good job. This year’s is also the lowest score registered by Gallup in more than half a century of tracking the issue.
Gallup previously attributed the downward trend since 2002 to the U.N.’s stand on the 2003 war in Iraq, corruption and scandals including the oil-for-food affair and sexual abuse by peacekeepers in Africa. But even subsequent attempts to reform the U.N. and the departure of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2006 do not appear to have checked the slide.
More recent criticism has focused on the inability of the Security Council to take unified positions on contentious issues including Iran, Burma, Darfur and Zimbabwe; controversies at the new, ostensibly reformed Human Rights Council; claims of financial irregularities in the U.N. Development Program’s operations in North Korea; alleged collaboration between the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees UNRWA and Hamas in Gaza; and attacks on U.S. and Israeli policies in the General Assembly, including by the body’s current Nicaraguan president.
The Democratic Party platform for 2008 called the U.N. “indispensable,” and said while it needed reform those problems would not be solved unless the U.S. “rededicates itself to the organization and its mission.”
Since taking office, President Obama has taken steps to improve the relationship, including reinstating funding to the U.N. Population Fund, restoring the position of ambassador to the U.N. to cabinet rank, and returning to the Human Rights Council as an observer.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and President Obama hold a joint press conference after holding talks at the White House on March 10, 2009. (U.N. Photo by Eskinder Debebe)On Tuesday, he met with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and said afterwards that “the United Nations can be an extraordinarily constructive, important partner in bringing about peace and stability and security to people around the world.”
He also praised Ban, saying he had “shown extraordinary leadership during his tenure.”
One day later, Ban angered some Republican lawmakers when during a visit to the U.S. Congress he was quoted as having described the U.S. as a “deadbeat” donor to the U.N.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Thursday called the word choice “unfortunate, given the fact that the American taxpayer is the largest contributor to the United Nations.”
Ban at a press conference also addressed the incident, calling it a “misunderstanding.”
He said he had noted the generous U.S. financial support for the U.N. but also pointed out that the U.S. was “the largest debtor, owing more than $1 billion in arrears, soon to reach $1.6 billion. My point was simply that the United Nations needs the fullest support of its members, and never more so than in these very demanding time.”
Ban also said Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had both “showed their commitment to resolve this issue as soon as possible.”
“America being called a ‘deadbeat’ by an organization that as a whole excuses catastrophic human rights abuses, terrorism and widespread financial fraud around the world might be laughable, if it weren’t so expensive,” Rory Cooper, director of strategic communications at the Heritage Foundation, commented in a blog posting Thursday.
‘Paying our dues’
One of the advocacy priorities for 2009 for the United Nations Association of the U.S.A. is to lobby for the U.S. to “pay its dues” on time and in full.
“By failing to fully pay our mutually agreed-upon share of U.N. expenses, we are undermining our influence at the United Nations and the important work of the organization,” the association argued in an advocacy agenda document adopted last December.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon meets with President Obama at the White House on March 10, 2009 (U.N. Photo by Eskinder Debebe)“The United States can make a powerful statement about its support for global cooperation and the importance of fulfilling international commitments by meeting the most basic obligation of UN membership – paying our dues.”
U.N. member states’ contributions to operating costs are calculated from assessments based on their relative “capacity to pay,” taking into account gross national income and other factors.
The U.S. contribution is assessed at 22 percent of the regular operating budget, which finances the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and several other bodies. It also contributes 25 percent of the peacekeeping budget.
The next biggest contributor (2008 figures) is Japan, at 16.6 percent. No other country comes close, including the other four permanent members of the Security Council – Britain 6.6, France 6.3, China 2.6 and Russia 1.2 percent.
Together, the top 15 contributing nations contribute around 84 percent of the regular budget.
In 2006, the Bush administration proposed reforming the assessment process, arguing that using purchasing power parity (PPP) data rather than gross national income as determined by GDP would produce a “more balanced” outcome.
PPP compares living conditions across countries, by comparing how much is needed to buy the same basket of goods and services.
If that measure was used to calculate U.N. contributions, major funders including the U.S. and Japan would pay less, while Russia and China would pay more – in China’s case, significantly so.
Japan that same year also proposed changes to the way member states’ dues are assessed, stung by China’s ongoing opposition to Japan’s aspirations to become a permanent member of the Security Council.
Arguing that contributions should reflect member states’ status and level of responsibility at the U.N., Tokyo said each permanent Security Council member should contribute a minimum of 3-5 percent of the total budget.
Like the U.S. proposal to shift to calculations based on PPP, the Japanese recommendation would have impacted on Russia and China, both of which contribute less than three percent. Meanwhile dues paid by others – including Japan – would have consequently dropped.
China and Russia quickly rejected Japan’s proposal.
John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., told lawmakers in 2007 that a system of “voluntary contributions” would allow the U.S. and other member states “to judge the effectiveness of the various parts of the U.N. system, and demand results.”
“Non-responsive programs and funds can be defunded, effective agencies and personnel can be rewarded and augmented,” he said. “Most importantly, the crippling mentality of ‘entitlement’ that pervades the main U.N. organization will be stripped away.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-3 of 3 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
thinking at 06:33 AM - March 15, 2009
The best way to change the disparity in pay is to make it so that your vote carries the same weight as your % of financial support. It'll never happen but boy I bet China and Russia would up what they pay real quick hehe. In any event I have to agree, turn out the lights. It was a failure under the name of "The League of Nations" and its a failure now. It has been taken over by corrupt people and Leftist organizations. They only have power and control on there minds and if we're not careful they will control us soon. If your not convinced look at the EPA and how it is in danger of being replaced or overseen by the UN's version. I would be interested it seeing what other agencies the UN has its sights on.
zanne at 11:26 PM - March 13, 2009
A useless U.S. taxpayer expense. Turn off the lights/send everyone home. The UN is a filthy,ugly money pig.
Peted at 09:23 AM - March 13, 2009
Is the U.N. paying rent on the U.N. building or is that a U.S. taxpayer giveaway? These jackasses have to be evicted and the whole mess moved to a more accommodating country such as Zimbabwe.
2 million methamphetamine pills seized in Myanmar
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/152607/2-million-methamphetamine-pills-seized-in-Myanmar
03/13/2009 | 03:38 PM
Email this | Email the Editor | Print | ShareThisYANGON, Myanmar — An anti-drug squad in Myanmar has seized 2 million methamphetamine tablets hidden in the fuel tank of a truck headed to the Thai border, state-owned media said Friday.
The report follows an announcement Thursday that Myanmar seized more than 1.3 million methamphetamine tablets in February, a 25-fold increase over January's total.
The New Light of Myanmar newspaper said the 10-wheel truck was traveling from Kengtung in eastern Myanmar to the border town of Tachileik when it was stopped and searched. The truck owner was arrested as part of an ongoing sweep against traffickers.
The most recent U.S. State Department report on the international illicit drug trade said Myanmar "is a significant player in the manufacture and regional trafficking of amphetamine-type stimulants."
Large quantities of the drugs end up in Thailand, where their use has been rampant in recent years.
A separate report in the newspaper said the Myanmar government has destroyed 7,893 acres (3,194 hectares) of opium poppy fields in the Shan and Kachin states during this year's growing season.
Myanmar, also known as Burma, is the world's second largest producer of heroin after Afghanistan, according to U.S. and U.N. experts, although the Central Asian country leads by a long shot, accounting for 90 percent of the world's production of the narcotic.
Heroin is produced from the opium poppies. - AP
Medical interpreters key to improving health care
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090312/NEWS0201/903120334/1002/NEWS
March 12, 2009
Medical interpreters key to improving health care
Mark Hare
Effective communication between doctors and patients is essential to improving medical care, says Eric Candle, the New York state representative for the International Medical Interpreters Association.
While Candle is an advocate for programs to train and certify medical interpreters who can assist those with limited English ability, he says the problem of failed communication extends well beyond immigrants.
Perhaps as many as half of all American adults are not "medically literate" and "cannot successfully navigate the medical care system," he says.
Candle, of Fairport, owns ECdata, Inc. a Brighton computer services company. Having immigrated years earlier and settled in Rochester, Candle brought his parents from Russia in 1993. Candle speaks German and Russian — which he says allows him to communicate with Ukrainians and others from former Soviet republics.
In 1988, as immigrants from Eastern Europe and Russia began to arrive in larger numbers, word of his language skill spread and "people started asking me for help," he says.
Immigrants with little or no English proficiency delay seeking medical care as long as possible and then opt for more expensive emergency room care, he says.
Citing research by The Joint Commission, an Illinois-based medical research and accreditation organization, Candle says the annual cost of "misdirected, misunderstood medical care is $73 billion. The price tag includes everything from the cost of illness prolonged by patients' inability to follow care instructions to the cost of redundant testing and procedures performed because of insufficient record-keeping or patients' inability to explain their medical care or history."
Language and cultural barriers present real problems, says Kathy Miraglia, director of interpreter services for the University of Rochester's Strong Memorial Hospital. Miraglia, an American Sign Language interpreter, says the hospital has sign language and Spanish interpreters on staff 24/7 and can call in other translators as needed, or use a telephone translation service with access to interpreters in any of more than 170 languages.
There is a need for trained interpreters, and a program to train and certify interpreters through one or more area colleges would be welcome, she says.
Representing the IMIA, Candle has been reaching out to Rochester area colleges in hopes of beginning such a program.
It's not easy. Finding start-up funds is the first hurdle, he says. And, says Miraglia, there needs to be a source of money to pay interpreters once they are trained.
A certification program, backed by national standards, would guarantee providers access to interpreters whose abilities are proven. And face-to-face contact is far superior to telephone or video services as a way to build trust and detect subtle evidence of confusion or doubt.
In Monroe County alone, he says, there are 120,000 people who speak little or no English. The need is great. Hospitals have many pressing needs, he says, "but it's important that they see this not as an investment, but as a way to curbs expenses and provide better care."
This and many other communities are again being remade by new waves of immigrants — from China, Vietnam, Burma, Africa and Eastern Europe.
Their health, and potential contributions to our community, depend on their access to quality care, and on their ability to understand and participate in their own treatment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Announces 2009 International Women of Courage Awards
Written by Press Release
Thursday, 12 March 2009 18:54
Washington, DC--(ENEWSPF)--March 11, 2009.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is such an exciting occasion, and there were so many people who wanted to come today, but unfortunately, there is a limit to how many people we can let into this magnificent room. So there are people watching on closed-circuit TV all over this building, and beyond.
And it is my pleasure to welcome you to the State Department to celebrate International Women’s Day with a very special event and a very special guest. The event is the International Women of Courage Awards, and in a minute, you will meet these remarkable women and learn more about their lives and their work. And I am especially delighted to thank one person in particular whose presence here means a great deal to all of us – our First Lady, Michelle Obama. (Applause.)
Now, I know a little bit about the role that – (laughter) – Michelle Obama is filling now. And I have to say that in a very short time, she has, through her grace and her wisdom, become an inspiration to women and girls not only in the United States, but around the world. And it is so fitting that she would join us here at the State Department to celebrate the achievements of other extraordinary women, and to show her commitment to supporting women and girls around the globe.
She understands, as we all do here at the State Department, that the status of women and girls is a key indicator of whether or not progress is possible in a society. And so I am very grateful to her and to President Obama, who earlier today announced the creation of the White House Interagency Council on Women and Girls. That will – (applause). That office will help us collaborate across every department and agency in our government.
President Obama has also designated an ambassador-at-large to consolidate our work on women’s global issues here at the State Department. Now, this is a position that has never existed before, and I am very pleased that someone you all know, if you have ever worked on women’s issues – know and appreciate a longtime colleague and friend, Melanne Verveer, who’s been nominated to fill that post. (Applause.)
And I also want to thank Ambassador Susan Rice and our excellent U.S. delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, which is in the middle of its annual meetings now, for the work that they are doing and for the engagement that they demonstrate.
Today, we’re focusing on the International Women of Courage Awards. It’s a fairly new tradition here at the State Department, but it’s already become a cherished institution. For the past three years, our embassies have sent us stories of extraordinary women who work every day, often against great odds to advance the rights of all human beings to fulfill their God-given potential. Today, we recognize eight of those women. Each is one of a kind, but together they represent countless women and men who strive daily for justice and opportunity in every country and on every continent, usually without recognition or reward.
And I want to say a special word about someone who could not join us, who we honor today – Reem Al Numery, who was forced to marry her older cousin when she was just 12 years old. She is now fighting to obtain a divorce for herself and end child marriage in Yemen. She was not able to be here, but we honor her strength and we pledge our support to end child marriage everywhere, once and for all. (Applause.)
We also express our solidarity with women whose governments have forbidden them from joining us, especially Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been kept under house arrest in Burma for most of the past two decades, but continues to be a beacon of hope and strength to people around the world. Her example has been especially important to other women in Burma who have been imprisoned for their political beliefs, driven into exile, or subjected to sexual violence by the military.
Our honorees and the hundreds of millions of women they represent not only deserve our respect, they deserve our full support. When we talk about human rights, what I think of are faces like these. What I am committed to is doing everything in my power as Secretary of State to further the work on the ground in countries like those represented here to make changes in peoples’ lives. That doesn’t happen always in the halls of government. It happens day to day in the towns and cities, the villages and countryside where the work of human rights goes on.
We simply cannot solve the global problems confronting us, from a worldwide financial crisis to the risks of climate change to chronic hunger, disease, and poverty that sap the energies and talents of hundreds of millions of people when half the world’s population is left behind. The rights of women – really, of all people – are at the core of these challenges, and human rights will always be central to our foreign policy.
Earlier today I met with Foreign Minister Yang of China and conveyed to him, as I do in my meetings with all other leaders, that it is our view in the Obama Administration that every nation seeking to lead in the international community must not only live by, but help shape the global rules that will determine whether people do enjoy the rights to live freely and participate fully.
The peace, prosperity and progress that we know are best served and best serve human beings come when there is freedom to speak out, to worship, to go to school, enjoy access to health care, live and work with dignity.
The United States is grounded in these ideals, and our foreign policy must be guided by them. Indeed, our own country must continually strive to live up to these ideals ourselves. Not only does smart power require us to demand more of ourselves when it comes to human rights, but to express those views to others and to actually assist those who are on the frontlines of human rights struggles everywhere.
It is important that we focus on human rights because I know what inspiration it has given to me over many years. The people I have met, they have constantly reminded me of how much work lies ahead if we are to be the world of peace, prosperity and progress that we all seek.
I’ve met a lot of people, particularly women, who have risked their lives – from women being oppressed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, to mothers seeking to end the violence in Northern Ireland, to citizens working for freedom of religion in Uzbekistan, and NGOs struggling to build civil society in Slovakia, to grassroots advocates working to end human trafficking in Asia and Africa, and local women in India and Bangladesh, Chile, Nicaragua, Vietnam and many other places who are leading movements for economic independence and empowerment.
These personal experiences have informed my work. And I will continue to fight for human rights as Secretary of State in traditional and especially non-traditional ways and venues.
All of you gathered here represent the kind of broad coalition that we need – business leaders, NGO leaders, ambassadors, experts, people from every corner of our government, citizens who are moved and touched by the stories of courage that we will be hearing some more of today.
And it is exciting that we have now in our own country someone who is standing up for the best of America, a woman who understands the multiple roles that women play during the course of our lives, and fulfills each one with grace. An example of leadership, service, and strength. It is my great pleasure and honor to introduce the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama.
(Applause.)
(The First Lady makes remarks.)
(Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Mrs. Obama, and it’s exciting to have your leadership and example for not only girls and women in our country, but those around the world.
Now, we’re going to start with the extraordinary women who we honor today. The first woman, Wazhma Frogh, from Afghanistan, is being recognized for her courageous efforts to combat sexual and domestic violence and child and marital rape throughout Afghanistan, despite facing dangerous conditions. She has come a long way, and we stand in solidarity with her and the people of Afghanistan. (Applause.)
Next, from Guatemala, Norma Cruz. We are recognizing her for her unyielding efforts to end the culture of impunity surrounding the murder and other forms of violence against women in Guatemala. At great risk to her personal safety, Norma Cruz has been outspoken and extraordinarily brave, and we are honored to have her with us today. Norma Cruz. (Applause.)
Suaad Allami, from Iraq. I told Suaad when we were waiting to come out how pleased I was to see her, and how grateful we are for the progress that we’ve seen, but we know how much more needs to be done in her country. And we honor her for bravely promoting the legal rights, the health, the social well-being and the economic and political empowerment of women in Iraq, despite threats to her own safety. Thank you so much, Suaad. (Applause.)
Veronika Marchenko, from Russia. We honor her for her stalwart leadership in seeking justice for the families of bereaved service members, young men conscripted into the Russian Army. For her commitment to seeking the truth and in promoting improved human rights conditions for those who serve in the Russian army, and being a networking presence to bring together those who served and their families to find answers to so many of the questions that no one had ever, ever bothered to answer before. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
Our next honoree is from Uzbekistan, Mutabar Tadjibayeva, for her courage, her conviction, her perseverance in promoting human rights, the rule of law, and good governance in Uzbekistan, and for standing up for justice at great personal risk. Mutabar is someone who has been in prison for quite some time, and she still has a big smile on her face, and I salute her courage and her persistence. (Applause.)
From Niger, Hadizatou Mani. Hadizatou is such an inspiring person. Enslaved by being sold at a very young age, she never gave up on herself or on her deep reservoir of human dignity. When she finally escaped from slavery, she didn’t forget those who were still enslaved. For her inspiring courage in successfully challenging an entrenched system of caste-based slavery, and securing a legal precedent that will help countless others seek freedom and justice, we honor and salute her. (Applause.)
You know, before I introduce our final honoree, who will respond on behalf of all of the honorees, I just want to say that over the course of many years of doing human rights work, and particularly on behalf of girls and women, I’m sometimes asked, well, do ceremonies like this really matter; is that just not something, you know, that you do and it’s a nice feeling, and then you go back to wherever you came from?
I know that these kinds of recognitions and moments of honor by both governments and NGOs and other institutions and individuals are extremely important. They provide a recognition of an individual’s struggle and courage that stands for so much more. They provide a degree of awareness about the problems that the individual is fighting to remedy. They serve notice on governments that the first and highest duty is for every government to protect the human rights of every individual within that jurisdiction. And they provide a degree of protection.
And so I salute those in the State Department who have recognized the importance of this and kept it going, and we are proud to continue that tradition.
Our final speaker, Ambiga Sreenevasan, has a remarkable record of accomplishment in Malaysia. She has pursued judicial reform and good governance, she has stood up for religious tolerance, and she has been a resolute advocate of women’s equality and their full political participation. She is someone who is not only working in her own country, but whose influence is felt beyond the borders of Malaysia. And it is a great honor to recognize her and invite her to the podium. (Applause.)
MS. SREENEVASAN: The First Lady Mrs. Obama, Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton, ladies and gentlemen, I am humbled to be in the company of seven extraordinary women receiving this award for courage, and I am deeply honored to now speak on their behalf and on mine.
We accept this award in all humility, remembering that we have been fortunate in being singled out from among countless courageous women in our countries who are dedicated to the cause of equality and justice.
It is also timely for us to remember all the women in other conflict-ridden territories, like Palestine and other countries, who have to show courage every single day in their struggle to survive and to keep their families together.
Each of us fights causes that promote equality and justice, and by presenting us with this award you honor those causes and all the people who work tirelessly for them with unflinching dedication.
This award will help to bring to the international stage our voices and our advocacy on these important issues. This occasion gives us an opportunity to reflect on the importance of the rule of law in promoting the rights of women around the world. When the rule of law is upheld, equality is upheld, the cause of justice is upheld, and human rights are upheld.
Today, we are witnessing a struggle for the souls of our nations, taking place between the forces of the old and the forces of change. We see our commitment to the rule of law, fundamental liberties, and the independence of our institutions being tested. The strength of our nations will depend on how well they withstand this test.
There are those who claim that democracy is a Western concept and is unsuitable elsewhere. There are yet others who perpetrate injustices behind a veneer of democracy. We say that democracy is universal, and a true democracy and the rule of law will prevail when the collective voices of the people are raised in its support.
On my part, I have for the past two years had the privilege to lead and serve the Malaysian Bar, a professional organization consisting of approximately 13,000 lawyers. History will bear testament to the fact that the Malaysian Bar has always been true to its first article of faith, to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members uninfluenced by fear or favor. In a sense, I was merely stepping into the shoes of the many other brave leaders of the bar who came before me, whereas many of the awardees today are pioneers in their struggle for justice.
This award has given us the opportunity which we would not otherwise have had, to share our stories, our successes, our failures, to reach out across our borders and to establish a base upon which we can build a meaningful network of support. These stories must be told in all our countries. By this experience, we are both enriched and enraged; enriched by what we have shared, and enraged that so many of our sisters endure intimidation and suffering in their countries. Nevertheless, ours is a message of hope that something has been achieved, despite the odds.
Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This means that although we may come from different walks of life, our struggle is common. And each success is a success for all, just as each failure is a failure for all. When we unite on a human rights platform, whether domestically or internationally, above politics and political alliances, we create more enduring partnerships and relationships. When we pursue freedom and empowerment for others, we reaffirm and protect our own.
In my interaction with the other awardees present here today, it was evident that the passion we feel for our causes is driven by the love of our homelands and our people. That, in turn, drives our passion for what is right and what is just. Our people deserve nothing less. We all believe in striving for ideals that are– if I may borrow the words – self-evident; namely, the ideals of truth, justice, goodness, and universal love and understanding. Our stories are a testament to the universality of these ideals.
We are truly and deeply honored by this award, more so, when it comes from you, Madame Secretary, yourself a woman of courage, who has inspired women around the world to reach great heights. Your untiring efforts in championing women’s rights worldwide are well known. Your immortal words that, “Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights,” resonate with all of us here.
We would also like to express our deep admiration for the First Lady Mrs. Obama, and we would also like to express our appreciation for your sharing this moment with us. Madame Secretary, on behalf of all the awardees, I thank you. And we accept the honor with humility and pride. Thank you. (Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. These women of courage will serve to remind us every day as we do our work in this venerable building – here we are in the Benjamin Franklin Room, and I’m about to invite you to join our reception in the Thomas Jefferson Room – that our own country has a lot to live up to. But we derive inspiration from those who are struggling so hard just to realize the basic rights that we sometimes take for granted. And it is our responsibility not only to continue to do what we must here at home to realize the dream that America represents, but to use our talents and our abilities and resources to help others as well.
It is such a great privilege to be here with all of you, to be the Secretary of State at this moment of history in an administration represented by Mrs. Obama today, led by President Obama, who means so much already to so many around the world. Now, it’s our job to realize the promise that that represents. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)
Source: state.gov
Articles by this Author:
Fathead Adds NFL Players and Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders to Lineup
Hundreds 'Home for the Holidays' Thanks to Unique Alliance
Chicago Rush Bob McMillen Named Cover Athlete for: Road to Glory
CNA Building Lights up Chicago Skyline for Chicago Bears
View all articles by this author
Posts
