http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8194868.stm
How do you apply pressure on Burma?
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
Burma's ruling junta appear impervious to international criticism
Britain is to propose a UN arms embargo on Burma, but is facing an uphill struggle as the world once again divides on how to deal with a dictatorial and repressive regime.
Some governments will press for more pressure on Burma through increased sanctions.
These are mostly the Western liberal democracies. They are highly sensitive to pressure from human rights campaigners - and there are few lobbies more effective than the Burmese one.
Nine Nobel Peace Prize winners, led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, have added their voices to the powerful crescendo. They have repeated a call for an arms embargo that they made in last year.
Many Western countries have imposed a range of sanctions already, to little effect. Many of them will now support an arms embargo.
The US already bans all imports from Burma, including the highly-prized Burmese jade, and applies a range of other economic sanctions targeted at the junta's leadership.
The prospect of a formal worldwide arms embargo must be minimal
Washington is also currently concerned about North Korea possibly selling missile technology to Burma, and has taken action to freeze funds held by two North Korean companies.
The EU has a full arms embargo and bans the import of timber and precious stones as well.
Other governments see opportunities for trade.
The Burmese junta embarked a few years ago on a modernisation plan for its armed forces, and has bought the weapons to equip them, mainly from China but also from Russia and Ukraine.
British proposals
The conviction and sentence of Aung San Suu Kyi has prompted the British government to declare its next move.
The British Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis said: "What we must do now, and Britain will lead on this, is ensure that the international community finally acts firmly. The measures that we will propose are that we move quickly to ensure further EU sanctions targeting the regime's economic interests.
No major action was taken after troops suppressed protests in 2007
"The prime minister will be writing to the secretary general of the United Nations today and the permanent members of the Security Council... urging further international sanctions.
"Specifically we now want to see an arms embargo against the regime. We want to see Burma's neighbours, the Asean countries, China, Japan, Thailand, apply maximum pressure."
This is easier said than done. Sometimes in situations like these, governments make statements of intent to show their determination and to head off pressure on themselves from the lobby groups.
But statements of outrage and intent cannot always be followed up with collective action.
In this case, the attitude of Russia and China might well be one of reluctance.
In January 2007, before the repressed uprising later that year, the US and UK sponsored a Security Council resolution urging Burma to open dialogue with the opposition. Nine countries voted in favour, three abstained and two voted against. The resolution failed because two of the negative votes were from Russia and China, both veto holders.
There is no shortage of countries willing to arm Burma's military
It is true that the council issued statements after the 2007 protests calling on the Burmese government to create conditions for a dialogue - but that was not a full resolution and did not commit the member states to anything.
An arms embargo would be a major signal and is much harder to achieve.
So there will be a lot of harsh criticism of Burma and calls for joint action, but the prospect of a formal worldwide arms embargo must be minimal.
The best that can hoped for, perhaps, is that the governments that have sold weapons to Burma will be forced to tread softly and perhaps put further Burmese requests on the back burner.
Glimmer
There is one glimmer of hope for campaigners. The sentence on Aung San Suu Kyi was reduced from three years hard labour in prison to an 18-month extension to her house arrest.
This was probably a tactical move by the regime to avoid an even greater international outcry. It also achieves their goal of preventing her from taking any role in elections next year under the new constitution they have forced through.
It shows perhaps that they are aware of the outside world - but only to an extent.
Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
How do you apply pressure on Burma?
Overview of Burma sanctions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8195956.stm
Overview of Burma sanctions
Burma's decision to extend pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest has triggered renewed calls for sanctions against its military rulers. The BBC looks at the existing sanctions and economic limitations in place.
EUROPEAN UNION
In 1996 the EU adopted a Common Position on Burma which included a ban on the sale or transfer of arms and weapons expertise to the country, visa restrictions on members of the military regime and their families and allies, and a freeze on officials' overseas assets.
It also suspended all bilateral aid other than humanitarian assistance.
The sanctions were extended after troops violently suppressed anti-government protests in 2007 to include a ban on imports of gems, timbers and metals. But critics say no monitoring mechanism was put in place to enforce the ban.
They were further tightened in August 2009 when pro-democracy opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest was extended.
UNITED STATES
The US imposed an arms embargo on Burma in 1993 and then widened its sanctions four years later to include all new investment.
However, existing investment - including Unocal's (now Chevron's) gas project - was exempted.
In 2003, the Burma Freedom and Democracy Act banned imports from the country, but teak and gems - two of Burma's major exports - that had been processed in a third country were allowed. The act also restricted financial transactions, froze the assets of some financial institutions and extended visa restrictions on officials.
The Tom Lantos Block Burmese Jade (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008 imposed a specific ban on jadeite and rubies which were mined in Burma, and on jewellery containing either of these precious stones.
US President Barack Obama renewed existing sanctions against Burma in May 2009.
CANADA
Canada imposed sanctions on Burma in 2007 which banned exports, apart from humanitarian goods, and barred imports. The assets of Burmese citizens connected to the junta were frozen. Canada also outlawed the provision of financial services and technical data to Burma.
ASIA PACIFIC
Japan cut aid to Burma in October 2007 following the death of a Japanese journalist covering the mass protests led by monks in September.
Japanese aid resumed following Cyclone Nargis in May 2008.
South East Asian grouping Asean has opposed the use of sanctions against Burma.
Australia has maintained visa restrictions on senior Burmese military figures and a ban on defence exports since 1988.
New Zealand has a long-standing ban on visas for military leaders and their families.
The choices facing Burma's military
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8177328.stm
The choices facing Burma's military
By Kate McGeown
BBC News
Despite the junta's best efforts, Aung San Suu Kyi is still an iconic figure
Burma's Senior General Than Shwe faces a dilemma.
He desperately wants to keep his most influential opponent away from the Burmese public, yet he fears the uproar that will ensue if he keeps her locked up.
Than Shwe and his ruling generals have already procrastinated over Aung San Suu Kyi's latest trial. Most court hearings in Burma last a few days at most, but this one has been going on for more than two months.
Now they've stalled again, postponing the verdict until 11 August.
Unlike the other 2,000 political prisoners - whom the Burmese military seem to keep in jail without much thought for public opinion - it is evident that Burma's officials do not know what to do with this demure 64-year-old woman.
Revered and respected
Aung San Suu Kyi is not an ordinary prisoner. As the daughter of Burma's independence hero General Aung San, she was always going to command people's respect.
But as the rightful winner of the country's last democratic elections in 1990 - which the military refused to recognise - she gained credibility in her own right.
John Yettaw's nocturnal swim gave the junta the pretext they wanted
By imprisoning her for so long, the junta has unwittingly given her even more symbolic significance in the eyes of Burmese people.
"An aura has built up around her," said Maung Zarni, a research fellow at the London School of Economics. "The public view her as the conscience of Burmese society."
It is especially important for the military generals that Aung San Suu Kyi is out of the way ahead of the next elections, which they plan to hold in early 2010.
The polls are widely seen as an attempt to legitimise the regime by increasing its democratic credentials.
But in order for this to work to its favour, the generals need to make sure their allies win.
In the 1990 elections, the military miscalculated in a big way - they were trounced by Ms Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy. This time they don't want to take any chances.
When an eccentric American swam to Ms Suu Kyi's lakeside house in his homemade flippers in May, he gave the generals the excuse they were looking for.
By accusing her of breaking the terms of her house arrest because she let her uninvited well-wisher stay the night, they finally had a reason to extend her detention and keep her safely locked away throughout the election process.
Risky strategy
But even if the junta find some tenuous legal reason to jail Ms Suu Kyi, or extend the terms of her house arrest, they know they will stoke intense public outrage.
The public view her as the conscience of Burmese society.
Maung Zarni, Research fellow on Burma, London School of Economics
Keeping behind bars a woman who is not only a Nobel Peace Prize laureate but also the world's most famous political detainee is a high-risk strategy.
Burmese people will be angry and upset if she is found guilty, but according to Mung Pi, who runs a blog site for Burmese exiles, the government knows there is not much that people inside the country can actually do to change things.
"A guilty verdict probably won't lead to large street protests, because people are still suffering from 2007," he said.
In September 2007 large-scale demonstrations led by monks - the most revered sector of society - were brutally quashed by the military, and the opposition movement is still said to be recovering. The generals know that, right now, their opponents do not have the strength to fight back.
Than Shwe did not let Ban Ki-Moon meet Ms Suu Kyi on his trip to Burma
"The opposition movement has the moral backing of the people, but it's whoever controls the streets, not the moral high ground, who matters," said Maung Zarni.
Coping with the indignation of the international community, though, is a different matter.
On the surface, it seems that the Burmese generals are completely intransigent when it comes to the demands of the rest of the world.
They have ignored recent incentives from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and refused to let UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon meet Aung San Suu Kyi on a recent visit.
They also remain resolutely unswayed by the constant pleas from celebrities and protest marches.
But there are times when the junta does listen to the outside world.
It belatedly reacted to criticism of its handling of the devastating cyclone last year, letting in foreign aid after initially saying it could manage alone.
And if the military really was oblivious to international reaction, it would surely not have bothered to plan elections - no matter how flawed those elections might be.
Chinese influence
The lengthy delays in Aung San Suu Kyi's trial are another indication that the recalcitrant generals can sometimes be swayed by foreign influence.
"The regime wants to take its time because of the mounting pressure it's under," a diplomat in Rangoon told reporters.
The regime wants to take its time because of the mounting pressure it's under
Western diplomat in Rangoon
It is still doubtful the military will take much notice of the West, though. The long years of EU and US sanctions mean that Burma has been thrown into the arms of China and Russia, as well as neighbouring Asian nations.
"When push comes to shove, they can afford to just ignore... what the West thinks. They're backed by China," said Justin Wintel, the author of a book on Aung San Suu Kyi.
And as long as they can rely on China and Russia to veto any major action by the UN Security Council, and their neighbours at the Asean regional forum to do little more than voice occasional disapproval, the generals probably feel there will be no serious ramifications to keeping Aung San Suu Kyi behind bars.
Which is ultimately why most analysts believe that Ms Suu Kyi will be found guilty; the negatives of having her free outweigh the positives.
But even if he does send her to jail, Than Shwe already knows that she is likely to remain his most potent opponent.
She may be out of sight, but someone as iconic as Aung San Suu Kyi will never be out of Burmese minds.
Who is at the heart of Burma's junta?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8586697.stm
Who is at the heart of Burma's junta?
This year's Armed Forces Day in Burma comes after election laws were announced and before a poll date is revealed.
But while elections elsewhere might imply an end to military rule, the BBC's Vaudine England has been finding out that the country's top generals are as solidly in charge as ever.
OVERVIEW
The elections are described by analysts as the moment when top leader Than Shwe seeks legitimacy and secures a political transition that keeps his old age free from prosecution or disgrace.
Speculation is swirling as to what role the general sees for himself - either Than Shwe will want to remain as army chief or will need a solid ally in place so he can become president.
This is likely to be the last time Than Shwe addresses this gathering as armed forces commander in chief
Professor Win Min
Payap University, Chiang Mai
None of these calculations take the opposition into account, analysts agree. Indeed, the election laws bar the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and all political detainees from taking part.
"It's not Suu Kyi who keeps him awake at night, but the question of how his trusted officers can ensure his future security and that of his family," says Aung Zaw, editor of Irrawaddy magazine.
"I doubt he will announce a successor - he doesn't need to do that - but this is likely to be the last time Than Shwe addresses this gathering as armed forces commander in chief," says Professor Win Min, at Payap University in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand.
With or without elections, Burma's military will remain the only institution that counts. So who is in charge?
SENIOR GENERAL THAN SHWE
No-one doubts this general's supremacy. He is chairman of the 12-member State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), aka the junta, and commander in chief of the armed forces. An impressive rise for a former postal clerk who did not finish secondary school.
General Than Shwe is said to hate pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi
Born in 1933, he joined the army in 1953 and helped former top leader Ne Win mount a coup against a democratically elected government in 1962.
He emerged as the chairman of SLORC, the State Law and Order Restoration Committee, precursor to the SPDC, and the body formed when the military took control after the 1988 elections which were won by Ms Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy.
In 2004, he dispensed with a key source of competition to his power, namely then prime minister and intelligence chief Khin Nyunt. He remains under house arrest and hundreds of his followers were purged.
Than Shwe is patron of the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), a mass organisation known for brutally enforcing military wishes in civilian guise.
He harbours a reportedly visceral hatred for Ms Suu Kyi and is said to be secretive, deeply superstitious, xenophobic and rich.
DEPUTY SENIOR GENERAL MAUNG AYE
Maung Aye is thought to have widespread business interests
Born in 1937, General Maung Aye is the closest source of competition, and sometimes conflict, to General Than Shwe.
Once commander of Burma's drug-growing northeast region, he is now also known for his complex business involvements.
He is reputedly hostile to Burma's ethnic groups, yet is believed by some watchers to have argued against the use of force to crack down on the monk-led opposition protests in 2007.
GENERAL SHWE MANN
Recent analysis has concluded that Shwe Mann, joint chief of staff and coordinator of special operations, is Than Shwe's preferred successor.
Some analysts believe Shwe Mann is Burma's leader-in-waiting
Born in 1947, he is described as down to earth, with the respect of the foot soldiers he commanded for many years.
He too has complex business links - one of his three sons married into a leading real estate developer's family, another is in business with Tay Za, a tycoon subject to United States' economic sanctions.
TEAM PLAYERS
Ranked as number four in the junta, Prime Minister Thein Sein does not appear on lists of expected successors to Than Shwe.
Number five in terms of influence is General Tin Aung Myint Oo, followed by Lt Gen Tin Aye, the chief of military ordinance.
This is a hugely important job, reportedly involving Tin Aye in negotiations with North Korea among other weapons suppliers.
The other important lieutenant general is Myint Shwe, who could be ranked as number seven, analysts say, even though he is the only name here who is not a member of the SPDC.
A key indicator of who is closest to Than Shwe at any time can be found in his choice of shopping partners on trips to Singapore - long a discreet playground and medical centre for the generals.
"Than Shwe has been trying to promote Shwe Mann but his inability to do so shows he could not yet reach an agreement with Maung Aye," believes Professor Win Min.
With Armed Forces Day being attended by a longer list of guests than usual, the only certainty is that the power - and the opacity - of the junta will remain.
India, Myanmar boost ties, sign counter-terror pact
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/India-Myanmar-boost-ties-sign-counter-terror-pact/Article1-578616.aspx
India, Myanmar boost ties, sign counter-terror pact
Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, July 27, 2010First Published: 22:06 IST(27/7/2010)
Last Updated: 22:08 IST(27/7/2010) Email printBookmark & Share more...
India on Tuesday signed a clutch of pacts to boost counter-terror cooperation and cement cultural ties with Myanmar, the energy-rich Southeast Asian country whose military junta is considered a pariah in many Western capitals. The two countries signed five pacts after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held talks with visiting Myanmar military ruler General Than Shwe over a wide range of issues, including counter-terror cooperation, enhanced energy ties and collaboration in a string of developmental projects.
Among the pacts is a treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters that will be crucial in enabling India get access to insurgents from India's northeast states who continue to shelter along the sprawling 1,650-kilometer India-Myanmar border.
The treaty aims at deepening bilateral cooperation in combating transnational organized crime, terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and smuggling of arms and explosives.
Increased collaboration for developing cross-border connectivity and infrastructure development figured prominently in the discussions.
The two sides also signed pacts in the areas of small development projects, science and technology and information cooperation.
A memorandum of understanding on Indian assistance in restoring the Ananda temple in Bagan, a renowned Buddhist shrine and a major tourist site in central Myanmar, was also inked.
Against the backdrop of China's growing clout in Myanmar, India has rolled out the red carpet to welcome Than Shwe, who began his five-day visit to the country Sunday by offering prayers at the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya in Bihar. Than Shwe, who heads State Peace and Development Council, as the junta calls itself, was accorded a ceremonial welcome at the forecourt of the Rashtrapati Bhavan Tuesday morning.
He met Vice President Hamid Ansari, External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Sawraj before sitting down for talks with the prime minister.
Than Shwe's visit to India, the world's most populous democracy, takes place days after the US renewed sanctions barring trade with companies tied to the junta in Myanmar. On the eve of the visit, the US has said it “expects to send a clear message to Burma that it needs to change its course".
Thousands of Myanmarese refugees staying in India for years aired their outrage at Than Shwe's visit and have urged the Indian government not to endorse the upcoming elections in that country. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has officially said about 3,500 Myanmarese refugees are in India, with another 4,500 asylum seekers. Unofficial figures put the number at about 100,000, mostly in the northeastern states.
"We feel outraged with his visit as India is the largest democracy in the world, and the land of the Buddha and tolerance," said Tint Swe, who was elected a member of the Myanmarese parliament in 1990 and is now a leading member of the Burmese Pro-Democracy Movement in India.
India supported the pro-democracy uprising in 1988 led by iconic leader Aung San Suu Kyi, but started engaging the junta in the mid-1990s in view of Beijing's surging trade, energy and defence deals with Myanmar.
Besides energy, India sees Myanmar as a gateway for increased connectivity of its northeastern states to Southeast Asia. The transport corridor that would give India's landlocked northeastern states access to the Bay of Bengal through the Myanmar port of Sittwe was also discussed between the two sides.
India focuses on economy, security with Burma
India focuses on economy, security with Burma
Nirmala Ganapathy
The Straits Times
Publication Date : 27-07-2010
As the international community presses the Burmese junta on democratic reforms, the Indian leadership will focus on economic cooperation and border security during talks with Burmese Senior General Than Shwe.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is scheduled to meet Gen Than Shwe for talks on Tuesday (July 27), during which issues such as increasing connectivity and stepping up economic engagement are high on the agenda. But more than that, the message from the Indian leadership continues to be this: engagement with Burma remains a priority for India.
"We regard Myanmar (Burma) as an important neighbour and there have been regular high-level visits. There is a steady progress and consolidation of ties," said official sources.
In an indication of the high level of comfort enjoyed by the two sides, Gen Than Shwe is currently on one of the most wide-ranging visits undergone by a visiting dignitary, travelling to four different parts of the country.
His visit started in the Buddhist holy place of Bodhgaya and will end with visits to Hyderabad, India's IT hub, as well as Jamshedpur, the steel city of conglomerate Tata.
On both sides, ties are being driven by strategic considerations. On the economic front, India wants to move fast on the Kaladan multi-modal transit project, a US$120 million project, which involves sea, river and road connectivity, and to see some movement on a trilateral highway project connecting India, Burma and Thailand.
Due to its geographical position, India has always considered Burma a gateway to Southeast Asia and also to India's northeast. At present, access to the north-eastern states is through a bottleneck access point through the state of West Bengal. Although Bangladesh provides the natural alternative, due to domestic reasons, Dhaka has been hesitant in allowing access. Nevertheless, India has found a willing partner in Burma.
The Kaladan project will establish a transport corridor that starts in Sittwe port in Burma and leads to the northeastern states.
Apart from connectivity, border security is also high on the Indian agenda. Officials point out that Burma has helped India out with insurgents in the north-east who have been unsuccessful in building safe havens across the border.
In the wake of these considerations, coupled with New Delhi's fear of Beijing extending its influence in Burma, the debate on democracy has had little impact on India's ties with Burma.
India's former foreign secretary, Lalit Mansingh, said: "We have important economic interests but more than that, there is the strategic interest, Myanmar (Burma) is vital for security interests."
Experts say India and China offer alternatives to Burma in the face of increasing international isolation over its lack of democratic reforms.
U.S.-Japan Relations for the 21st Century
U.S.-Japan Relations for the 21st Century
Kurt M. Campbell
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Statement before the House Armed Services Committee
Washington, DC
July 27, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Skelton, Mr. McKeon, distinguished Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to appear before you today.
The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of our engagement in the Asia-Pacific. The alliance has provided a basis for peace and security in the Asia-Pacific for a half-century and has -- in many ways -- underwritten the “Asian economic miracle” and the spread of democratic governance throughout the region. This year the United States and Japan are celebrating the 50th anniversary of our Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, a historic milestone that offers both an opportunity to reflect on the successes of the past and, perhaps more importantly, to chart a forward-looking course for this relationship to ensure that it is well positioned to manage issues of consequence both in the region and beyond.
The Obama administration entered office with a deep appreciation of the strategic importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance. Then-Prime Minister Taro Aso was the first foreign leader to meet with President Obama. Japan was President Obama’s first stop on his first visit to East Asia as President. Secretary Clinton’s maiden voyage as Secretary of State was to Asia, and it was no coincidence that her first stop was in Japan. As the world’s first and second largest economies the U.S. and Japan have worked closely to contribute to the global economic recovery.
Bilateral Relations
Together, the United States and Japan bring tremendous capability and creativity to bear on the challenges the world faces today. Our economic relationship is strong, mature, and increasingly interdependent, firmly rooted in the shared interest and responsibility of the United States and Japan to promote global growth, open markets, and a vital world trading system. Our bilateral economic relationship is based on enormous flows of trade, investment, and finance. In previous decades our economic relationship was often characterized by conflict over trade issues. Today, even as we continue to address trade irritants such as beef and Japan Post, we are able to prioritize new modes of cooperation that allow us to pursue common interests – such as innovation and entrepreneurship, the internet economy and cloud computing – as building blocks to improve opportunities for our trade and economic growth. We have a shared interest in greener, more sustainable growth. Climate change is a trend that obviously presents enormous challenges for both the United States and Japan, but also creates opportunities for us both to leverage our comparative advantage in innovation to develop new, growth-inducing energy technologies. We were also very pleased that our two nations initialed the text of an Open Skies aviation agreement in December of last year. It is a landmark agreement that is a pro-consumer, pro-competitive, pro-growth accord. The agreement will strengthen and expand our already strong trade and tourism links with Japan.
As our security and economic relationship has evolved, so has our cultural relationship matured and grown. We have a longstanding tradition of exchange and cooperation between our two countries, and between the people of our two nations. We have cooperation in the fields of education and science, and through traditional programs such as the Fulbright Exchange and the JET (Japan Exchange and Teaching Program). The global challenges we face today require a complex, multi-dimensional approach to public diplomacy. As President Obama said recently, "... cooperation must go beyond our governments. It must be rooted in our people - in the studies we share, the business that we do, the knowledge that we gain, and even in the sports that we play." The Secretary echoed the President’s views when she said, “What we call people-to-people diplomacy has taken on greater significance, as our world has grown more interdependent, and our challenges, more complex. Government alone cannot solve the problems that we face. We have to tap into the challenge of our people, their creativity and innovation, and their ability to forge lasting relationships that build trust and understanding.”
The historic elections in late August of 2009 ushered in the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). It should come as no surprise that over the past 10 months the relationship has had its shares of ups-and-downs. Some commentators have even suggested that the U.S.-Japan alliance is in a period of “strategic drift” --- nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, public opinion polling shows support in Japan for the U.S.-Japan alliance is the highest it has ever been – over 75 percent. After spending over half of my professional career thinking about the U.S.-Japan alliance I feel confident in saying that our alliance will continue to grow stronger. I would now like to take this opportunity to lay out three elements of our relationship that I believe underscore the bilateral, regional and global depth and breadth of our relationship.
It is now more than 10 months since Japan’s historic change of government in September 2009. The new ruling coalition came to power with a manifesto calling for a review of many of the policies of its LDP predecessors, including aspects of the alliance with the United States, with some envisioning an “alliance without bases.” However, in practice the Japanese government has continued to reaffirm the crucial role of the Alliance in ensuring Japan’s security and maintaining peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region. This past January, then-Prime Minister Hatoyama, in a statement celebrating the 50th anniversary of the signing of the revised U.S-Japan Security Treaty, said that “it is not an exaggeration to say that it was thanks to the U.S.-Japan security arrangements that Japan has maintained peace, while respecting freedom and democracy, and enjoyed economic development…since the end of the last World War to this day.” To celebrate this 50th anniversary year, and to deepen and broaden our alliance, we and our Japanese allies are meeting at all levels and across government bureaucracies to share views and assessments of Asia’s dynamic strategic environment and charting a course to seize opportunities while minimizing potential for conflict.
Over the last fifteen years, the United States and Japan have worked together to update our alliance, through efforts ranging from the force posture realignment to the review of roles, missions, and capabilities. The alliance has grown in scope, with cooperation on everything from missile defense to information security. Additionally, Japan provides approximately $1.7 billion annually in host nation support to the U.S. military, a key Japanese contribution to our alliance.
There are more than 48,000 American military personnel deployed in Japan, including our only forward deployed carrier strike group, the 5th Air Force, and the III Marine Expeditionary Force. Through the Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI), the United States and Japan made a landmark alliance commitment under the 2006 U.S.-Japan Realignment Roadmap, which was reaffirmed by the 2009 Guam International Agreement, to implement a coherent package of force posture realignments that will have far-reaching benefits for the Alliance. These changes will help strengthen the flexibility and deterrent capability of U.S. forces while creating the conditions for a more sustainable U.S. military presence in the region. The transformation includes the relocation of approximately 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam, force posture relocations and land returns on Okinawa, and other realignments and combined capability changes on mainland Japan (e.g., increased interoperability, as well as collaboration on ballistic missile defense). This realignment will strengthen both countries’ ability to meet current responsibilities and create an Alliance that is more flexible, capable, and better able to work together to address common security concerns.
It is understood by all that the relocation to Guam of significant elements of the III Marine Expeditionary Force is dependent on tangible progress by the government of Japan towards completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility, a linchpin of the Realignment Roadmap. The new Japanese government undertook an extensive review of existing plans for the Futenma Replacement Facility, carefully examining alternatives with a goal of reconciling operational and security requirements with the recognition that the people of Okinawa, by hosting the majority of U.S. military facilities in Japan, bore a greater responsibility for our joint security than other regions of Japan. This review culminated in the conclusion, as expressed in the May 28 Joint Statement of the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee, that the replacement facility would best be located in Okinawa at Camp Schwab and adjacent waters. Secretaries Clinton and Gates, along with their Japanese counterparts, directed that an experts group undertake a study regarding the replacement facility’s location, configuration, and construction method. The objective is to ensure that the construction of the replacement facility can be completed without significant delay. The Experts Study Group has been meeting steadily since June and we fully expect it to achieve its goals.
Let me also mention briefly another issue that is important to us in the State Department, that is connected with our relationship with Japan and also, because in some cases these families include former or current service members, relevant to this committee. That is the issue of international parental child abduction. Japan remains the only G7 country not to have ratified the Hague Convention; the Department of State consistently urges them to do so at the highest levels. In fact, Secretary Clinton has raised it with her Japanese counterpart, including most recently last week. In recent months, for the first time ever, the GOJ has co-sponsored with the Japanese Bar Association a symposium on the Hague Convention and International Parental Child Abduction. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also posted for the first time preventative passport regulations to their official website. Where the dialogue was once muted less than a year ago, it is now part of the general discourse. While this issue resolved is by no mean resolved, we believe these GOJ efforts are signs of increased engagement by the Government of Japan.
Regional Engagement
We have enjoyed unprecedented cooperation with Japan on a number of consequential regional issues. Japan’s steadfast support for the Republic of Korea was vital in rallying the international community to offer a united response to the Cheonan sinking. Japan is a key partner in our efforts to seek the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner and in holding North Korea to its commitments under the 2005 Joint Statement of the Six Party Talks. We also value our close cooperation on the adoption and implementation of UN Security Council resolutions to curb North Korea’s proliferation activities. Japanese insights into North Korean developments are equally valuable.
We and Japan have a mutual desire to engage constructively with a rising China. We share a stake in a successful China that follows international norms and standards. Japan has joined us in encouraging greater transparency from the Chinese military, and joins us as we carefully watch China’s growing maritime strength. Over the past few years Sino-Japanese relations have grown stronger and we look to both Beijing and Tokyo to continue to take steps to enhance mutual confidence and trust.
Southeast Asia is another area where we have longstanding and fruitful cooperation with Japan. It is an area where we and our Japanese allies share significant interests and objectives. We cooperate in encouraging economic and social development throughout the region, from Timor-Leste to Burma. We maintain close contact and coordinate our efforts in order to gain the maximum benefit from a useful division of labor. Japan remains an important partner and advocate for ASEAN. Where there appears to be potential for instability, we seek to harmonize our messages and ensure that we are reinforcing each other effectively.
One of the most significant and consequential developments over the past ten years has been the strengthening of the U.S.-India relationship. Our efforts have been complemented and supported by Japan. Under the leadership of both the LDP and DPJ government, Japanese-Indian relations have strengthened and become more robust. Both nations recently signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement, and Delhi continues to look to Tokyo as it charts an Eastward course.
As Japan’s chairmanship of APEC continues and the United States is preparing for its host year in 2011, we have been working to create opportunities to strengthen economic integration and address trade and investment issues in order to make it cheaper, easier, and faster to trade in the Asia-Pacific region.
We appreciate Japan’s support for U.S. participation and inclusion in the East Asia Summit, a process the Secretary and President plan to engage in 2010 and 2011. Existing organizations such as ASEAN, APEC, and the ASEAN Regional forum and new ones like the ASEAN Defense Ministers Plus and an expanded East Asia Summit provide excellent platforms for advancing the multitude of shared U.S. and Japanese economic, security, and political interests and values.
Global Cooperation
Japan continues to be an increasingly active partner in global affairs, and our bilateral and multilateral cooperation transcends the Asia-Pacific region.
Our strong relationship with Japan is global in reach. Japan is working with us and others on post-earthquake recovery in Haiti and Chile, to eradicate disease and develop environmentally friendly sources of energy. In addition to their work in Haiti, Japan is involved in UN peace-keeping missions in Syria, Nepal, and Sudan, and has made contributions in kind to numerous UN missions.
In Iraq, our Japanese allies have pledged nearly $5 billion in aid to Iraq, focusing on rebuilding the industrial base and energy, transportation, and irrigation infrastructure. By generating economic opportunities for the Iraqi people, these activities complement our own and contribute to our shared goal of ensuring the country’s long-term stability.
Japan is a vital international supporter of reconstruction, reintegration, and development in Afghanistan. Japan has assumed the lion’s share of the cost of salaries for the Afghan police force. With a $5 billion commitment over five years, Japan is the second largest single donor, after the United States, to Afghanistan. Japan is providing expertise as well as funding, and helping the Afghan government develop programs to hasten the reintegration of former Taliban into normal society. In Pakistan, as well, Japan is contributing to the country’s stability by providing over $2 billion of humanitarian and development assistance. Japan is helping the international community ensure refugees and internally displaced Pakistanis receive the food, shelter, and medical services they need. In a program that complements the American work Secretary Clinton announced in Islamabad on July 19, Japan is extending the electricity grid to areas of the country that have not had it before and developing the energy sector throughout the country.
As a nation dependent on international trade, Japan values the security of its sea lines of communication. Japan is an active and important member of the international flotilla that is combating piracy off the Horn of Africa to ensure freedom of navigation and safety of mariners. Japan has also signed a bilateral agreement with Djibouti to construct a base to support its counter-piracy efforts, and is the largest single bilateral donor to Djibouti.
The architecture of international cooperation is sturdy, but it also dates in part to the cold war or even earlier. We and Japan are seeking new ways to structure international cooperation.
Japan is one of the United States’ closest partners as we confront the global challenge posed by climate change. Last fall, the President endorsed the U.S.-Japan Clean Energy Action Plan, which will build on our extensive scientific cooperation to help our economies transition to greater reliance on renewable forms of energy and ensure that transition creates economic opportunities here at home. We are both committed to ensuring all countries do their part to address this global threat, assisting those that can benefit from our technical expertise. Japan was a strong partner in developing the Copenhagen Accord, and pledged in Copenhagen to provide as much as $15 billion in financing to assist developing countries in combating climate change, premised on the development of a fair and effective global framework. We continue to coordinate closely as we look to the next Conference of the Parties in Mexico this winter.
Whatever challenges we may face in the next half century, I am confident that our relationship with Japan will be an important element of our success. Our relationship continues to develop and evolve, and continues to contribute to peace, prosperity and security throughout the region and the globe. We are under no illusions that there will not be periods of ups-and-downs in the relationship. However, our shared values and strategic interests will enable us to continue to move the relationship forward and ensure that it remains the cornerstone of our strategic engagement in the Asia-Pacific
Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify about the U.S.-Japan relationship and I look forward to answering your questions.
Burma: Genocide against Ethnic Minorities
http://www.unpo.org/article/11341
Burma: Genocide against Ethnic Minorities
Several academics and think tanks have pointed out that the Burmese Junta meets most of the criteria for crimes against humanity or genocide in its treatment of ethnic minorities. However there a few options for the international community to prevent further escalation, the most promising might be the investigation of the International Criminal Court.
Below is an article published by the Democratic Voice of Burma:
Readers of this website should need no convincing of the seriousness of ongoing human rights violations against minority ethnic groups in Burma. Medicins Sans Frontieres has described Burma’s ethnic Rohingya minority has one of the world populations “most in danger of extinction” and leading scholars, including William Schabas, president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, have suggested that the Muslim group may be victims of crimes against humanity, a sentiment that has been echoed by multiple other bodies.
Numerous human rights and legal advocacy groups have similarly said that Burma’s other ethnic minorities – the Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon, and Shan – are also seriously threatened by the ruling junta, which has held power in various forms since 1962.
In the past decade and a half, there has been significant progress in our understanding of genocide and how to prevent it, mainly as the result of our failures to do so. One of the most crucial lessons learned from this bitter experience is that, from the standpoint of saving human lives, the question of whether or not a situation meets the legal definition of genocide is beside the point. And the point, for those in the field of genocide prevention today, is not how to stop genocide once it has begun, but rather how to prevent it from happening in the first place.
To that end, the Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation, based in New York, operates a genocide prevention program targeting the women and men in government who shape and implement the policies that determine whether or not a society will tip over the edge into mass slaughter. Key to the program is the forging of a community of policymakers to support one another in their everyday work. Given that some of those who take part come from countries that are at risk of genocide, or perhaps even in the midst of one, we do not take a position on whether or not the situation in any particular country constitutes genocide. To do so would defeat our purpose, since the countries that are most at risk of genocide are the very ones we most hope to attract.
This is important because, up until now, there has been no community of prevention between the level of grassroots activism and the officialdom of national governments and the UN. And research has shown that the more connected a country is to the rest of the world – especially economically and politically – the less likely it is that conflict there will escalate into genocide. Some of the other risk factors for genocide, according to US political scientist Barbara Harff, include a prior history of genocide, ethnic and religious divisions within society, exclusionary ideology, and autocratic rule.
Burma has all these in spades. Other researchers may look to different indicators, but the pattern is unmistakable. Most genocide scholars and human rights groups agree there has already been one genocide in Burma since 1962 – that of the Rohingya – and there is ample evidence to suggest that government killings of other ethnic groups constitute at least crimes against humanity, if not full-blown genocide.
US political scientist Ted Robert Gurr recently published a brief paper titled ‘Options for the Prevention and Mitigation of Genocide: Strategies and Examples for Policy-Makers’. His analysis and recommendations are grounded in the most recent experience of the international community as well as the most up-to-date scholarship. Other, more comprehensive attempts to address the issue have come from Minority Rights Group International, which focuses on UN policy; the Genocide Prevention Task Force, focusing on US policy; and the Will to Intervene Project, which looks at both US and Canadian policy.
There are several drawbacks, however, to all of these approaches. One is that they tend to stress intervention over prevention, which tilts the balance toward short-term military solutions and away from longer-term, political or economic approaches. The second is that they view the solution as coming from outside the country at risk, as opposed to from within.
In any case, history clearly suggests that it would be naïve to expect direct action by the international community to prevent genocide in Burma anytime soon. Perhaps the most promising avenue for change at the moment is the recently created International Criminal Court (ICC), which is empowered to investigate and prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. In 2009, the former UN special rapporteur on human rights in Burma called on the UN security council to investigate crimes against humanity in Burma with an eye to referring the case to the ICC. And earlier this year, the British government issued a statement saying that it would support a referral of Burma to the ICC by the UN Security Council. The wheels of international justice grind slowly, though. The question is, can they grind quickly enough for Burma’s ethnic minorities?
Alex Zucker is Communications and Development Officer of the New York-based Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation.
Shan trafficking victims lobby UN
http://www.dvb.no/news/shan-trafficking-victims-lobby-un/10722
Shan trafficking victims lobby UN
(0) Like Share Comments (1)
Chinese men below an anti-human trafficking slogan (Reuters)By AYE NAI
Published: 13 July 2010
Two ethnic Shan women who were trafficked and sold as wives to Chinese men before being released in 2008 have now approached an UN agency to demand for help in rescuing the remaining victims.
Six women in total from Burma’s northeastern Shan state were sold for US$1,200 by a ring of Burmese human traffickers in 2008: three reportedly remain with their captors in China, while the third women released has since died of AIDS-related diseases.
The two now back in Burma are filing a report to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which has offices in Rangoon. Previous reports filed to the Myanmar Women’s Affairs Federation and local police in Shan state were fruitless. Thet Wei, chairman of a Rangoon-township National League for Demcoracy (NLD) committee, is helping the women.
“All six were sold to become wives. [The traffickers] tricked them into going to China by promising jobs that pay 80,000 kyat [US$80] per month. After they arrived in China, they were sold to the Chinese men to become their wives,” he said.
It was only when relatives of three of the women travelled to China to confront the captors that they were released. The relatives reportedly cited the harsh penalties that China carries for human traffickers: in the past year, Beijing has returned more than 300 Burmese trafficking victims.
Julia Marip, of the Kachin Women’s Association Thailand (KWAT), said that about 60 percent of these were women sold for forced marriages, out of an estimated total of 50,000 women each year bought by Chinese men.
“If you look at the root of the human trafficking problem, you’ll see that [Burma] is in a very bad situation with economic downfall and poverty. These issues must be dealt with first in order to effectively handle the human trafficking problem,” she said.
Burma became one of the signatory countries to the UN Anti-Human Trafficking agreement in early 2004,. The country also has its own anti-human trafficking laws, which at the of June this year saw a racket in Magwe division’s Chauk township being handed 15-years prison sentences for selling a 16-year-old girl to Chinese men.
A US report in 2009 said that trafficking of Burmese women into forced marriages was “a major problem”, although the UN’s resident coordinator in Burma, Bishow Parajuli, said in January this year that the Southeast Asian pariah had made good progress in the past six years.
China and Malaysia remain the top destinations for women sold as wives to men. The US report cited statistics released by the ILO that estimate that at least 12.3 million people worldwide are in forced labour, bonded labour or commercial sexual exploitation.
Posts
