http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/19/chinas_billion_dollar_aid_appetite?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full
JULY 28, 2010
China's Billion-Dollar Aid Appetite
Why is Beijing winning health grants at the expense of African countries?
BY JACK C. CHOW | JULY 19, 2010
Back in 2001, I was the lead U.S. negotiator in international talks meant to transform the way that poor countries fight some of the world's most pernicious diseases -- HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Our vision looked like this: Instead of each country spending on its own, rich countries would pool donations into one coordinated fund that would give grants to help resource-strapped countries purchase medicines, build health programs, and prevent the diseases from spreading. We imagined the bulk of the money ending up in places like Lesotho, Haiti, and Uganda, where these three diseases have reached crisis levels. So it might surprise and concern you -- as much as it still does me -- to learn that one of the top grant recipients isn't in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, or impoverished Central Asia. It's a country with $2.5 trillion in foreign currency reserves: China.
More... Over the eight years since the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria first launched, China has applied for and been awarded nearly $1 billion in grants, becoming the fourth-largest recipient of funds behind Ethiopia, India, and Tanzania. Already, the country has drawn nearly $500 million from this credit line and soon expects to receive $165 million in new grants. China's aggregate award from the fund is nearly three times larger than that of South Africa, one of the most affected countries from these three diseases. Moreover, China has won malaria grant money totaling $149 million (and $89 million more might be on the way) -- in a country where only 38 deaths from the mosquito-borne illness were reported last year. That is more than the $122 million awarded to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which reported nearly 25,000 malaria deaths during the same period. In fact, only seven sub-Saharan African countries receive more malaria aid than China -- and 29 countries in Africa get less. Combined, those 29 countries report 64,000 deaths from the disease each year.
China has aggressively pursued Global Fund grants and has continued to win significant amounts with every passing year. Beijing does make a nominal contribution to the fund of $2 million annually, meaning that it has donated $16 million over the last eight years. By comparison, the United States, the leading donor, has committed $5.5 billion, and France has offered $2.5 billion over the same period. These contributing countries expect no financial return for their gift, but China has recouped its spending by 60 times.
Even more alarming, China's persistent appetite threatens to undermine the entire premise behind the Global Fund. The organization's leadership is trying to solicit between $13 billion and $20 billion to cover its next three years of operations -- a tall order at a time of global recession. Donors will grow even more reluctant if they realize that substantial funds are being awarded to a country that can more than pay for its own health programs.
How did China ever become eligible for grants in the first place? In short, because of a loophole. The Global Fund decides eligibility for grants based on the World Bank's classification system, which divides countries by income. High-income countries such as the United States, the European industrial countries, and Japan are ineligible. Low-income countries, including many in sub-Saharan Africa, are grant-eligible. In between, so-called lower-middle-income countries like China are eligible if the grants are part of a cost-sharing program through which the fund pays up to 65 percent and the country pays the rest. (China stays in this lower-middle-income category because its huge population keeps per capita figures down.) The country competes with the likes of Bolivia, Cameroon, and India in this category. But because the fund's pot of money isn't allocated by income group, any grants that China wins reduce the remaining money available for all eligible countries.
For a country like Cameroon, cost-sharing grants make a lot of sense. By giving part of the full amount, the fund can spur the host government into investing more of its discretionary budget in health. The extra cash can build health infrastructure and capacity, preparing the country to wean itself from foreign funds. But in China's case, the argument for a Global Fund grant is tenuous at best. During the depths of the world economic crisis in 2008, China put forth a massive economic stimulus package of $586 billion that included new health and education spending of $27 billion. The government announced its intention to boost rural health coverage with $125 billion in spending over the next several years. Even a fraction of that promised amount would negate any need by China to draw upon the Global Fund.
This is not to say, of course, that China's health system does not face formidable challenges. Indeed, global health policymakers worry that HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis in particular could rise dramatically as the country urbanizes and industrializes and a new middle class veers away from traditional social mores. Everyone remembers the SARS outbreak in 2002 and 2003 that practically shut down major cities in China. And beyond specific threats, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the chief implementer of the Global Fund portfolio and officiator of the government's public health strategy, has hard work ahead to build up China's health workforce and medical infrastructure.
But China might want these grants for reasons having more to do with politics than public health. The Health Ministry is the only member of China's policymaking State Council not led by a political party member. As such, its ability to compete for domestic funds pales in comparison with other assertive, powerful ministries led by longstanding party leaders. So the Health Ministry might be driven to external funding by political necessity. Or, China might value obtaining the technical assistance of international health agencies such as the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Global Fund grants provide a means of securing their advice and services. China's participation on the fund's board might also be useful to Beijing's global politics, confirming its importance on the world stage.
Whatever benefits China gains from seeking grants, however, stack up poorly against expensive opportunity costs exacted upon needier countries. The $1 billion awarded to China could have been used by the poorest countries to distribute 67 million anti-malarial bed nets, 4.5 million curative tuberculosis treatments, or nearly 2 million courses of anti-retroviral therapy for AIDS patients (a number equivalent to all those living with the disease in Kenya).
It is intriguing that health ministers from the poorest countries have expressed neither concern nor opposition to China winning grants. Nor has there been any substantial public challenge to or debate about the money China has received from the Global Fund. Part of the reason might be structural; the fund's large 26-member board (which includes representatives of countries, regions, organizations, and the Global Fund itself) operates based on consensus, and its meetings are time-constrained forums that pressure members to make rapid decisions. Changing eligibility policy, for example to exclude China, would entail time-intensive negotiations that may well pit groups of grantees against one another. The board also approves grants en bloc, relying upon the advice of technical experts who review them for feasibility and public health impact, not fairness, balance, or a country's ability to pay.
Even so, there is likely more behind the silence than just procedure. For many of the poorer countries that lose out, opposing China in international forums would risk incurring Beijing's diplomatic wrath. Health ministers are skittish to imperil their country's broader interactions with China, which in the case of African countries, often entails Chinese loans, grants, infrastructure projects, and investment -- and indeed, even further, health aid. In turn, African countries seeking access to the burgeoning Chinese market must curry Beijing's favor. Any country that openly opposes China at the Global Fund might see these economic links broken or be put at a disadvantage to competitors. And so the neediest countries endure a loss of grant money to China through their collective silence.
Donor governments have also been mute or reluctant to oppose China at the Global Fund, perhaps for similar reasons of not wishing to provoke a reaction that impacts other diplomatic or political equities elsewhere. In the United States, neither Congress nor the White House has voiced open concern that an amount equivalent to President Barack Obama's entire fiscal 2011 Global Fund budget request of $1 billion has gone to a country that can afford to pay its own way.
This has left the fund's leadership as the only front left for trying to change China's stance. Based on China's national income and the rate of other donor contributions, the Global Fund recommends that China should give $96 million over the next three years, amounting to 16 times its current annual donation. In 2007, prior to China's hosting of a board meeting in Kunming, the fund asked China's government to up its donor commitment, but the appeal went nowhere. In June, with fundraising pressures escalating, the fund's executive director, Michel Kazatchkine, met in Beijing with Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang, who issued a vague promise to cooperate with international organizations to expand disease prevention and treatment, but made no announcement to refrain from taking new grants or signaled any intent to become a major donor.
Not even a rival country's actions seem to have convinced Beijing. In recent years, nearby Russia has transformed itself from recipient to donor, and it has done so under arguably less favorable economic conditions than those in China today. In 2006, then President Vladimir Putin pledged to repay the Global Fund $270 million over four years, covering the past assistance it received, and announced $156 million in new domestic spending for HIV treatment. Now four years out, Russia has paid in $250 million to the Global Fund, essentially fulfilling Putin's pledge.
It is audacious for China to assert that it needs international health assistance on par with the world's poorest countries. In fact, at the same time it is drawing from the Global Fund, China is building its entire global image as one of economic growth, accumulating wealth and international stature. To boost its public profile and prestige, China spent billions to host the Beijing Olympics and the Shanghai World Expo. Surely it could spend another $1 billion of its cash on health as well. And why not take it one step further? By becoming a Global Fund donor, China could win acclaim with the West and the world's poorest -- earning exactly the kind of respect that a rising power deserves.
Save big when you subscribe to FP.
China Photos/Getty Images
Jack C. Chow served as U.S. ambassador on global HIV/AIDS from 2001 to 2003 and was the lead U.S. negotiator at talks that established the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. He is currently distinguished service professor of global health at Carnegie Mellon University in Heinz College's School of Public Policy and Management.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Reddit
You might like:
Why the Army needs to revisit the way it handles deployment sex - By Tom Ricks (The Best Defense )
Chinese Takeout (The Argument )
Beijing has alienated the most pro-China interest groups in the United States and Europe (Foreign Policy - Daniel W. Drezner )
Tapped Out (Foreign Policy)
SUBJECTS: CHINA, POLITICS, AIDS, PUBLIC HEALTH, DEVELOPMENT, U.S. CONGRESS, HEALTH, FOREIGN AID, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, AFRICA, EAST ASIA
Vladimir Putin's Wild Ukrainian Weekend
We Spent 8Years Prosecuting Osama's Fax Machine Guy?
Only Ignorant Liberals Think Reagan Was A Dove
The State Dept.'s Top Iran Expert Explains Why He Quit
(21)SHOW COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE
PUBLICUS
1:26 AM ET
July 20, 2010
Absurd
We know that the PRC is not a responsible member of the international system, as this piece mightily documents in yet another way.
Beijing has little give and a lot of take.
The CPC leadership in Beijing continues to hold and practice a world view that is selfish and too self-centered to expect any changes to China's low international standing any time soon. There's the bully pulpit and then there's simply the bully.
REPLY KASEMAN
9:54 AM ET
July 20, 2010
damn clever these Chinese, eh?
And the place is run by engineers not lawyers! When was the last time we heard of our engineers outsmarting our tribes of perfidious Lawyers?
Engineers construct, lawyers destruct.
REPLY VILKSSWEDEN
11:55 AM ET
July 20, 2010
and assholes make irrelevant comments about
lawyers and engineers. Point is, China is taking the money from more needy countries, when it can more than easily foot the bill itself, at no harm to its economy or policy.
REPLY COOL_HEAD
5:40 AM ET
July 20, 2010
What about India
China has applied for and been awarded nearly $1 billion in grants, becoming the fourth-largest recipient of funds behind Ethiopia, India, and Tanzania.
What about India -- the 2nd-largest recipient?
REPLY NORBOOSE
10:15 AM ET
July 20, 2010
India isnt oppressive
First of all, I am writing from an American perspective, about why I think America should give lots of aid to India. If youre from some other country, then this is irrelevant.
India has problems, like any country (Kashmir, overeaction to the Naxalites), but all in all, its a pretty free country. China is ruled by a clockwork system of oppression. India will probably be a close US ally untill hell freezes over, as almost all of our long-term interests align perfectly. It is in our own interest to help India modernize as rapidly as possible.
REPLY SAM FROM CALIFORNIA
4:52 PM ET
July 20, 2010
Uhhhh
India is a lot poorer than China, and it may have a worse AIDS problem (both countries do have an AIDS problem, i'm too lazy to check which is worse.) China is now wealthy enough to provide the universal, national health care its socialist system promises, without taking aid money. Or at least it should take less.
But perhaps there is a problem with a time lag; ie, China is traditionally a poor country, and has yet to really reorient its foreign policy in line with its newfound wealth. I think the Chinese still think they are a third world country like any other; they are, but they are also the country with the world's largest and most profitable businesses and many broken or unfulfilled social promises.
REPLY MINDALAY
12:05 PM ET
July 23, 2010
If the very wealthy Chinese
If the very wealthy Chinese state doesn't care about its citizens, why should anyone else? You are right: nation-state power is not the the same as the wealth of individual citizens. So where are the Chinese donations to American citizens in Appalachia and the South Bronx? The moment China started a space program is the moment they no longer deserved any foreign aid.
REPLY BOBCHEN
8:34 AM ET
July 20, 2010
I don't understand.
Why couldn't the Global Fund make the requirement for nations with low-to-middle income AND the largest population with AIDS/tuberculosis/malaria.
This loophole has been around for 8 years, and nobody at Global Fund thought to close it?
REPLY KASEMAN
9:51 AM ET
July 20, 2010
HIV is racially blind
All humans are the same altho some more so than others
REPLY FIRST ADVISOR
6:13 PM ET
July 20, 2010
American Jingoism and China-Bashing
As the brainless bigotry of many comments demonstrate, this essay is merely more US China-bashing, with no purpose or conclusion at all. Some posters proudly display their utter innumerancy by arguing that China is wealthy, apparently incapable of performing the Grade 4 artihmetic of dividing GDP by population. Monkeys in a cage in a zoo have more common sense.
What is immediately obvious, and most important to an intelligent, educated reader, is the astonishing rudeness and inexcusable offensiveness of a supposed professional diplomat publicly criticizing and complaining about the national government of any country. Dr. Chow confesses that as far as he can tell, no one in the entire world cares about China's so-called 'scam', not even his own government.
He makes up, out of his own head, highly questionable speculation and extremely dubious conclusions, trying to explain to himself and the reader WHY no one else in the world seems to care but him. This is elementary school fights nonsense. It is shocking, and deeply embarrassing, to see a supposed diplomat make a public fool of himself, ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth over an imaginary bugaboo that only he can see.
It would be folly for any nation not to take advantage of any cost-savings they could find in healthcare, particularly in the realm of prevention. The claim that China can afford healthcare for 1.3 billion people isn't just shocking and ludicrous, it is flatly, factually false and untrue. As amateur propaganda, the allegation is outrageous -- defamatory, slanderous, and libelous, against every member of the State Council.
Dr. Chow appears to have a mean, petty, spiteful, and vindicative pet peeve against one specific country, for doing exactly what any and every country in the world would do in similar circumstances. We can only speculate over the reasons for his prejudices and bigotry. But try as we might, nothing can justify his exposure and deliberate exhibition of his obnoxious envy and resentment in front of the whole planet. This is unforgivable, intolerable, unacceptable behavior in any would-be diplomat.
REPLY AMOSYARKONI
7:53 PM ET
July 20, 2010
Yeah First Advisor -
"The claim that China can afford healthcare for 1.3 billion people isn't just shocking and ludicrous, it is flatly, factually false and untrue."
Yeah, instead China has to make room in its budget to spend billions on the Olympics and the shanghai expo. I mean it's "ludicrous" that we expect them to use that money on their own health care! Or that they use money from their huge budgetary surplus! Instead, let them take it from poor Africans. I mean those African countries must be having surpluses from their booming economies, right?.....right?......crickets......
REPLY FIRST ADVISOR
10:41 PM ET
July 20, 2010
Zany and Incoherent Reply
Do you know what a return on investment is? The ROI on a nation's first ever Olympics, and a nation's first ever World Expo, is incalculable in both income plus the abstracts of prestige, status, goodwill, future contracts, and so on. Try and figure out the return on investment, with a calculator, pen and paper, of healthcare for HIV/AIDS patients, who in China are virtually all hard drug addicts, with a sprinkling of homosexuals and prostitutes. What is the benefit to China in providing treatments to those people, exactly? Show me the money, in dollars and cents. Condoms don't do much good for people shooting up heroin with a dirty needle. The same is true of the majority of the incidence of TB in China; nearly all the sick people are hard drug addicts.
Now read very carefully, because this involves arithmetic, which is clearly not your strength. If China tries to sell any -- ANY -- of its holdings in the bonds currency of other nations, such as USA six-month Treasury bills, the value of the treasury bills and the US dollar will plummet, the value of China's holdings would collapse, the global market would be flung into turmoil, America would certainly be plunged into a second recession, and quite possibly a second Great Depression would begin. Selling those T-bills is the very last thing China can do. Their holdings in US debentures are worthless to them. They simply have no other choice over buying them, because there is nowhere else to put their money. If you think the Chinese don't resent this dilemma, you are incorrect.
No one is taking anything from African nations. Don't you grasp the simple fact that Dr. Chow is not a reliable source of information? Look at the dishonesty and deceit of his essay. Are you telling the world you actually believe the silly fairytales he writes? Even Mr. Chow's own US government doesn't agree with his hysterical obsessions; don't you get it? In fact, HIV/AIDS is a trivial disease, of no concern to any national government. Heart and stroke harm is 10 times worse, at least, and smoking, obesity, diabetes, mental illness, autism, and dozens of other medical conditions are all hugely more important and serious. You really should stop letting newspaper reporters tell you what to think, and what not to think about.
REPLY MERVYN
8:59 PM ET
July 20, 2010
juxtaposition of the world we live in
There is no white man's burden with the Chinese.
Why sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, or impoverished Central Asia are on the first list when HIV/AID spread is concerned? I might add Indochina to that list. China and few others are now getting out of name and shame list. The vaccine used are exclusively made from Western Phama companies, thus the high cost.
I don't disagree that China should get less of the fund allocation, but only few countries can afford the vaccination without subsidies. I'd suggest let the big phama to phase out rights on most demanded drugs and make licensing available of generic version to India or China phama. Then push the Chinese and Indian to donate these generic drugs to where it is required, domestic and overseas.
REPLY HERA
4:47 AM ET
July 21, 2010
who get the money at last?
What we should be concerned with shouldn't be whether the Global Fund should provide China great amount of aids, but how can they ensure that the money really arrives at people who are in need. It is undeniable that among 1.3 billion Chinese people there must be some one suffering from various diseases, especially in undevelopement area such as the Mid-Western countryside. The real tragedy is that bureaucrats safisfy themselves from corruption instead of giving this money to those who need it.
REPLY SEZER
8:10 AM ET
July 21, 2010
thank you
Very nice, thank you
The informations are so lovely and so usefull so thank you very much. Be sure i will use all of them keeping in my mind.Have a goog luck.
-----------------------------
carsgames
sohbet
free kids games
sohbet
REPLY NIUBI
2:37 PM ET
July 21, 2010
shopping
welcome to: http://www.madeshopping.com
The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time.
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal
http://www.madeshopping.com
SOCCER JERSEY 16USD
jordan shoes $32
nike shox $32
Christan Audigier bikini $23
Ed Hardy Bikini $23
Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15
ed hardy short_tank_woman $16
Sandal $32
christian louboutin $80
Sunglass $15
COACH_Necklace $27
handbag $33
AF tank woman $17
puma slipper woman $30
http://www.madeshopping.com
REPLY XTIANGODLOKI
3:02 PM ET
July 21, 2010
It's all funny money anyway
When America gives $1 Billion to Africa for AIDS most of the money is going to fat consultants who sit around and do nothing anyway. Dr.Chow who came from the upper echelons of McKinsey probably knows this well; getting paid hundreds to thousands of dollars per hour to BS about the non-existent magical bullet which would solve the hardest problems in an instant. Whatever.
The reality is that money going to 3rd world nations do not generally help because that money never gets to the right hands anyway. This is why after spending billions after billions places like haiti still stand on their own.
REPLY CANADALEX
4:48 AM ET
July 22, 2010
flawed reasoning
The article correctly presents the issue, but uses specious reasoning and arguments to make a china=bad guy case.
"(China stays in this lower-middle-income category because its huge population keeps per capita figures down.)"
It presents this fact as if China were gaming the system by having a huge population. No, in fact there is a reason we use per-capita figures to judge income. Otherwise we can make claims like India is over 2x as rich as Switzerland (GDP). This issue seems very simple. Chinese gov't realizes they can get grant money through Global Fund, so obviously they're going to take it. I highly doubt many countries would pass up an opportunity for free money. Yes we can blame China for using a loophole, but we should also blame the fund for being unable to properly disburse its funds, and allowing China to do this. The fund is clearly aware this is happening and could easily put an end to this. But it hasn't, (and as the article touched on) the reasons (as they most often are) are likely political. This isn't a transfer to help China with Malaria its another political tool to transfer funds to China.
We can get mad at China for taking free money, but we should be at least as critical of an aid system which is funneling money inefficiently to countries which don't stand the most to gain.
REPLY LIONEL
5:02 AM ET
July 22, 2010
China remains poor!
In the article, Jack Chow notes, parenthetically, that "(China stays in this lower-middle-income category because its huge population keeps per capita figures down.)" This is true. China remains a low-middle income country for a simple reason -- because most people in China remain poor.
As of 2009, PPP-adjusted GDP in China puts the country on par with Namibia and Algeria. China's economic power is mostly a function of its population size. China is still not rich.
In 2007, the World Bank reported there were over 300 million Chinese living on less than $1.25 a day. Despite China's rapid progress, it's hard to imagine that number is much less than 100 million in 2010. In any event, by the more stringent measure of $1.08 a day, China currently has about 50 million poor. China is still not rich.
China's county governments, which are responsible for most health spending and collect most taxes, are so cash strapped that they sell land to meet about 50 percent of their revenue needs. Selling off the currency reserves is not an option -- it could lead to economic implosion and misery. China is still not rich.
China has made remarkable progress but remains a country with a serious poverty problem, and needs serious assistance.
REPLY FASHIONLOVE
3:06 AM ET
July 23, 2010
China is still a poor country
All information as mentioned is very useful for us to catch up the updated news and knowing many facts around the world. China even though a big country, many parts of it remain poor and life is still hard for many people. Still, this is somewhat unreasonable when China received so many aids every year more than countries who need it.
-----------------------------------------
[url=http://www.fashionlove.net/mat-kinh-thoi-trang-kinh-mat-hang-hieu-kinh-can/]kinh hang hieu[/url]
[url=http://www.chosimsodep.net/ban-sim-so-dep-re-sim-taxi-tu-quy-loc-phat-than-tai/]sim than tai[/url]
[url=http://www.chosimsodep.net/ban-sim-so-dep-re-sim-taxi-tu-quy-loc-phat-than-tai/]viec lam nhanh[/url]
REPLY CITIZEN8
5:57 PM ET
July 25, 2010
First Advisor-huh????
First Advisor, if China is a world player, then like the US and other world players, its actions are subject to scrutiny and praise or criticism as the case may be. Observers are free to agree or disagree to criticisms they wish. However, what is the point in slamming a piece that you don't like by throwing around words like "brainless China bashing," "bigotry," "mean," "petty," spiteful, and "vindictive," "amateur propaganda," and nasty personal attacks, etc.? "American jingoism" in an article that hold Russia up as a model of behavior? Your posts may make you feel better, but it reads like a hysterical, hypersensitive, nationalist rant as do your rude comment to another poster. Rather, it would have advanced the discussion if you actually countered with a fact-based reply. Show me the bigotry and vindictiveness, etc. Instead, you bash and distort the article to such a degree that one has to wonder if your real intention is simply to stifle any examination of Chinese behavior.
You say in your second post that China can't possibly afford providing health care to all its citizens. Well, yes, that is an enormous undertaking, and you could have mentioned that China gets aid from countries like Japan to provide aid in the health sector. Even so, one has to wonder about China's acceptance of finds from the Global Fund or from Japan when it is sitting on enormous currency reserves and spending ever-increasing billions of dollars in aid overseas, with a new pledge of $10B in loans and $1B fund for business development to Africa made in November 2009. Given China's foreign aid program of several billion dollars a year and its spending on assets around the world, surely it could rustle up a $1 billion somewhere for more funds for health care in China, couldn't it? Using $1 billion of foreign currency for spending of home is not going to cause worldwide financial turmoil.
(BTW,why aren't you chiding China for taking money from the Global Fund if it is such a wasted effort to you? it's interesting that you see no need treating people with HIV/AIDS in people you consider worthless, even though TB is spread through proximity, and HIV+ prostitutes could spread the disease to their customers who refuse, or don't have access to condoms?)
Instead, it sure does seem like that on one hand, China is extending a hand to other developing countries while on the other, through its actions vis-a-vis the Global Fund, harming the poorest countries by taking aid resources that could have gone to them. Is this part of China's effort to keep its aid and investment front and center in the minds of people in the recipient countries while diminishing the Global Fund's presence? That may not be China's intention at all, and the author notes that China's Health Ministry may have various reasonable reasons for taking money from the Global Fund, whether it might be domestic budget considerations or the desire for technical assistance. (Even the author, whom you attack so viciously, notes that Beijing faces funding issues in health and that the Chinese health system faces "formidable challenges.") Whatever the reason, China's behavior vis-a-vis the Global Fund creates a perception problem. Such a problem could have been avoided if, for example, China donated the equivalent of the grants that it received, thereby getting the technical assistance without depriving other nations of grants from the Global Fund.
You criticize the article for singling China out. Well, are there other donors to the Global Fund who are also taking more out the fund than they put in? In fact, are they are any other donors who are currently receiving funds? (I don't know; I really am asking.) If not, then China's behavior is worthy of notice.
You also didn't seem to understand Mr. Chow's position or that of the US Government. "Supposed professional diplomat" and "would-be diplomat"? He worked --past tense--in the US Government, He is not part of the USG now. He is a private citizen, and in the United States, private citizens are free to voice their opinions, according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As for the US Government's official position on the subject of this article, the only mention is that there has been no "open," that is, publicly mentioned, official concern about this development. Why is that? Maybe it is because there is no official concern, and you're correct on that point, though you don't provide any evidence supporting your claim. Maybe because until this article, no one has drawn people's attention to this situation. Maybe it is because it is a concern that the US doesn't want to air publicly because as the author notes, donors don't want "to provoke a reaction that impacts other diplomatic or political equities elsewhere." Similarly, it is not at all clear, as you claim, "no one else in the world cares." The billions that China is spending in poorer countries, and those countries' need for markets may be the causes of the silence. Moreover, Mr. Chow does offer ideas why there has not been much public discussion. Unless they work directly on this issue and are somehow involved in the Global Fund as a recipient or a donor, people would not learn about this issue if not for an article like this.
If anyone owes anyone an apology for being offensive, it is you, First Advisor, with your attempts to intimidate anyone who might not look at everything China does through rose-colored glasses. No country is perfect, and in the United States, individuals are free to express their opinions. (I would not be surprised if you now attack me with another venomous tirade on this board, which will only prove my point that you are a bully attempting to stifle discussion. How about proving me wrong and providing an evidence-based reply to Mr. Chow's article?)
Thursday, July 29, 2010
China's Billion-Dollar Aid Appetite
What an energy-hogging China may mean for the U.S. and global politics
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/28/what_an_energy_hogging_china_may_mean_for_the_us_and_global_politics
JULY 28, 2010
What an energy-hogging China may mean for the U.S. and global politics
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 10:22 AM Share
By Matthew Acocella
Best Defense deputy bureau chief, East Asian energy bureau
The International Energy Agency announced last week that China had overtaken the U.S. as the world's largest consumer of energy, citing data showing that "China consumed the equivalent of 2.25 billion tons of oil last year, slightly above U.S. consumption of 2.17 billion tons. The measure includes all types of energy: oil, nuclear energy, coal, natural gas and renewable energy sources." Chinese officials moved quickly to dispute this assertion and questioned the IEA's calculations.
This pushback is predictable, according to Fereidun Fesharaki, Senior Fellow at the East-West Center and Senior Associate at CSIS. At a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies last week on "China and India's Energy Policy Directions," Ferashaki explained that China is loathe to take on the title of World's #1 energy user because it prefers the U.S. to be in the global hot seat. One fact particularly struck me: according to Dr. Fesharaki, China purposely waits until a lull occurs in the price of oil before it buys up large amounts for its strategic petroleum reserves, in order to avoid being accused of spiking the price of crude.
China's energy use is projected to continue skyrocketing over the next decade. It is currently the world's top emitter of global warming gases, but simultaneously investing the most of any nation into developing green technology. Whether this investment will yield any substantial emissions reductions over the next decade is up for debate. Critics note that China's efforts at carbon-capture and sequestration, a process that strips out harmful elements in released gases to be stored underground, is very expensive and requires a large usage of coal to fuel the process. With China's economy still developing, even substantial investments in clean technology may fail to bend the curve of its pollution.
Of course, China's energy needs have other geopolitical effects. When it comes to China's relationship with Iran in the wake of recent US sanctions and forthcoming EU ones... well, there's not much top surprising there. China will continue to do business with Iran, even with delays and setbacks caused by sanctions. "Despite political pressures, Chinese contractors could invest more than $10 billion dollars in the Iranian oil and gas sectors in the next few years," stated Ferekashi. Chinese corporations are also heavily invested in other of Iran's domestic industries. Iran is fortunate in that 60% of its energy use is domestically produced, continued Ferekashi, which perhaps will allows it to withstand sanctions longer. With China so heavily invested in Iran, will Sino-Iranian ties make Iran sanction-proof?
In sum, there is plenty here for Western nations to grapple with. China's insatiable thirst for oil and other energy sources will make shedding any pretense of modesty necessary as it becomes an increasingly aggressive player in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Furthermore, its willingness to partner with rogue states even in the face of international pressure has the potential to undercut efforts to impose sanctions on bad actors. If a superpower like China has no qualms entering into agreements with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the U.S. will need in the coming years to develop policies and incentives to counter these marriages of convenience.
Marc van der Chijs/flickr
EXPLORE:CHINA, ENERGY, IRAN, OIL SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Reddit
How to Avoid Cell Phone Radiation? Safety Tips
http://lovebeats.org/community/index.php?topic=16284.0
How to Avoid Cell Phone Radiation? Safety Tips
Cell phones have become very common now-a-days, as almost every one of us has a cell phone. Cell phone also creates radiation when it is in use. This radiation is harmful for the body. There are few things that can reduce the cell phone radiation exposure by as much as possible.
Daily we are swimming in a sea of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) produced by electrical appliances, power lines, wiring in buildings, and other technologies that are part of modern life. From the dishwasher and microwave oven in the kitchen and the clock next to your bed, to the cellular phone you hold to your ear is dangerous and becoming a serious health risk.
EMR from cellular phones, both the radiation from the handsets and from the tower-based antennas carrying the signals have linked to develop health problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, brain tumors, cancer, Alzheimer’s, and more. The effects are cumulative and safety measures should be taken now before it is too late.
Tips to minimize effects of Cell phone Radiation:
These are some steps to minimize the effects of cell phone radiation exposure.
Headset: A headset is a cell phone accessory that can considerably reduce radiation exposure to the brain. Not a Bluetooth headset or a wireless headset but a headset that plugs into the phone, eliminates cell phone radiation near your brain.
Speakerphone: Speaker phone must be used as often as possible. Speakerphone also reduces the cell phone radiation exposure because you do not have to keep the cell phone near you.
Avoid Bluetooth and wireless handset: These cell phone accessories produce their own radiation along the radiation produced by the cell phone. The use of these accessories must be avoided.
Cell Phone Radiation Shielding Case: exposure while the mobile phone is in your pocket or clipped to your belt this can prevent radiation. It dissipates the radiation so that it decreases going into your body. They also have clips and antenna radiation disbursers.
Limit your calls: Many of us make unnecessary calls. Reducing needless calls will reduce radiation exposure.
Wear an air tube headset: The regular wired headset has been found to intensify radiation into the ear canal. The wire transmits not only the radiation from the cell phone but also serves as an antenna attracting electromagnetic fields from the surroundings.
Don’t put the cell phone in your pocket or belt: The body tissue in the lower body area has good conductivity and absorbs radiation more rapidly than the head. One study shows that men who wear cell phones near their groin could have their sperm count dropped by as much as 30 percent.
Purchase a phone with a low SAR (Specific Absorption Rate): Most mobile phones have a SAR level listed in its instruction manual. The SAR level is a way of measuring the quantity of radiofrequency (RF) energy that is absorbed by the body.
Use a scientifically validated EMF protection device: There are advanced technologies obtainable nowadays that strengthen the immune system against the effects of EMF. The EMF radiation causes a problem only when the cumulative effects due to repeated exposure weaken the body’s ability to repair it.
Other steps:
* If using the phone without a headset, wait for the call to connect before placing the phone next to the ear.
* Do not use the cell phone in enclosed metal spaces such as vehicles or elevators, where devices may use more power to establish connection. The metal enclosure also acts as a Faraday cage that traps the radiation and reflects it back onto the occupants.
* Do not make a call when the signal strength is one bar or less, which means the phone must work harder to establish a connection.
* Children should be allowed to use the cell phone in cases of emergency only. Because of their developing skulls, the radiation can penetrate much more deeply.
* Avoid carrying cell phone on the body at all times. Do not keep it near the body at night such as under the pillow or on a bedside table, particularly if pregnant. You can also put it on “flight” or “off-line” mode, which stops electromagnetic emissions.
* Make sure that the keypad is positioned toward the body and the back is positioned toward the outside while carrying it, so that the transmitted electromagnetic fields move away from you.
* Avoid using the cell phone when the signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train, as this automatically increases power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to connect to a new relay antenna.
* When possible, communicate by text messaging rather than making a call.
Up to 45,000 failed asylum seekers given right to work in BritainBy Jack Doyle
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298431/Up-45-000-failed-asylum-seekers-given-right-work-Britain.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Up to 45,000 failed asylum seekers given right to work in BritainBy Jack Doyle
Last updated at 5:26 PM on 28th July 2010
Comments (0) Add to My Stories
Short term: Immigration Minister Damian Green said he wants to speed things up so failed asylum seekers who refuse to return home voluntarily can be sent home before they qualify
Tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers have been granted the right to work in the UK in a landmark court ruling.
It affects around 45,000 asylum seekers whose applications have already been rejected at least once but have not been deported.
Home Office officials argued that an EU directive should not apply to them because it would encourage bogus applicants to abuse the system by making repeated claims.
But the Supreme Court ruled that failed asylum seekers whose cases had not been dealt with after 12 months must be given access to jobs.
Many of those affected are part of Labour's giant backlog of 450,000 asylum claims - which are still being processed by officials.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the MigrationWatch think-tank said: 'There seems to have been a succession of court decisions which take no account of the real world in which our Home Office has to operate.
'It is no service to genuine refugees to make the asylum system progressively more open to abuse.
'Yet again directives drawn up by the EU have unintended and unwelcome consequences for Britain.'
Reacting to the judgment, Tory ministers said they were considering restricting access to industries in which there is already a proven shortage of workers.
Immigration Minister Damian Green said: 'This judgment will only have a short-term effect. The long delays in the asylum system will be resolved by the summer of next year when all the older asylum cases are concluded.
'I believe it is important to maintain a distinction between economic migration and asylum - giving failed asylum seekers access to the labour market undermines this principle.
More...Cable stokes revolt against Tory election pledge on strict immigration limit
Border policy in turmoil as fast-track deportations for asylum seekers are ruled illegal
'I am already committed to reviewing the asylum process to make it more cost effective and quicker. In the future I want to be able to remove failed asylum seekers who refuse to return home voluntarily well before they can qualify to work.'
The case was brought by two asylum seekers. One, a Somali national known only as ZO, came to the UK in 2003.
Her asylum claim was rejected in February 2004 and all appeals against the ruling had failed by the end of that year.
But in March 2005 she made a new claim for asylum and in June 2007 she asked for the right to work in the UK. Delays in processing her case mean it is still being considered.
The second, from Burma, who is known as MM, first applied for asylum in 2004 and was refused by March 2005. Two months later he made a new claim which has also never been resolved.
Asylum seekers making their first application are entitled to work if their cases have not been dealt with after 12 months.
But Home Office officials had ruled that it would be wrong to allow failed asylum seekers access to jobs after their initial claims for refugee status had been dismissed.
Fresh applications are sometimes made in which asylum seekers argue new threats have emerged since their cases were first rejected, and they are now at risk of persecution if they return home.
The Home Office told the court that extending EU directive 2003/9/EC - which was drawn up as a step towards the creation of a Europe-wide asylum policy - would 'greatly increase' the potential for abuse.
Lawyers argued it would encourage applicants to bring 'wholly unmeritorious claims with the aim of delaying their removal'.
But judges said the directive should be applied until a final decision has been made on each individual case.
In his ruling, deputy president of the court Lord Kerr wrote: 'It would be, in my view, anomalous and untoward that an applicant who makes a subsequent application after his first application has been finally disposed of should be denied access to standards that are no more than the minimum to permit him to live with some measure of dignity.'
Asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected are not entitled to benefits unless they have children. Nor are they allowed access to free healthcare except in emergencies.
The ruling was welcomed by refugee charities. Jonathan Ellis, director of policy at the Refugee Council said: 'The vast majority of asylum seekers who come to the UK would rather support themselves through work than be forced to be homeless or to rely on Government support.
'Denying asylum seekers the chance to work means they cannot contribute to the UK economy and condemns asylum seekers and their families to abject poverty.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298431/Up-45-000-failed-asylum-seekers-given-right-work-Britain.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0uzsruw3p
Myanmar Tries To Build Nuclear Weapons with North Korea's Help
http://english.pravda.ru/print/world/asia/114396-myanmar-0
Myanmar Tries To Build Nuclear Weapons with North Korea's Help
28.07.2010 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/114396-myanmar-0
Myanmar (formerly Burma) is trying to create its own nuclear weapons with the help of North Korea. Such suspicions were voiced by American experts.
The story began back in early June. Then the information was released that a Burmese rocket engineer Sai Thein Win had defected to the West. He claimed to have had access to two secret missile objects, including the location of the so-called “nuclear Battalion” that allegedly served nuclear facilities built with the active assistance of North Korea.
On July 20, analytical publication Jane's Intelligence Review has posted pictures depicting the secret military facilities that are supposedly close to the capital city Naypyidaw. Following this, the British publication The Daily Telegraph wrote that the evidence of the presence of Myanmar nuclear program has been received as a result of electronic intelligence and satellite imagery.
Russia Today: Russia is neither with the West, nor with Iran
This gave grounds for the U.S. State Department to demand from Myanmar military regime to disclose information regarding its existing nuclear technology. According to a former inspector of nuclear weapons from the U.S. to the IAEA, Robert Kelly, the defector provided “compelling evidence” of the existence of Myanmar nuclear programs. According to the expert Kelly, the nuclear objects are being built with implausible goals in mind.
"They are either trying to make reactor fuel, which they could buy for nothing from another country or they are trying to make a weapon clandestinely. There isn't much point doing that unless it's for a bomb," said Mr. Kelly.
It is possible that the West uses the available information to convince the IAEA to initiate an investigation. American intelligence genuinely fears that North Korea will share missile and nuclear technology with Myanmar. State Department is not trying to hide the fact that the United States is carefully watching the development of relations between Myanmar and North Korea. In recent years, these countries have strengthened their collaboration on a number of issues. For example, there is evidence that the North Korean builders have been erecting secret underground facilities in Myanmar for a few years.
Washington refers to the fact that Myanmar had earlier signed a nonproliferation treaty and has international obligations that must be fulfilled. However, speaking about its fears, the West forgets that this country was engaged in nuclear development long before the military came to power. In the 1950's Burmese nuclear physicists went to London and Washington for the first time to study. At the time its government was loyal to the West, and the U.S. and Britain were not as worried as they are now, when the military are in power.
The Government of Myanmar refutes the statement of Western experts, calling them “accusations based only on fabrications made by deserters, fugitives and exiles.” Who is right? Vladimir Khrustaliov, an expert on nuclear technology with the Maritime State University named after Admiral Nevelskoy in Vladivostok in his interview with Pravda.ru described the “nuclear accusations” against Myanmar as ungrounded.
“This is not the first mention of the development of nuclear weapons by this country. However, until now there has been no clear evidence that such program of a military nature exists. The testimony of defectors is a very dubious source, and photos, including those from outer space, are also not an accurate evidence of Myanmar military nuclear program, given the fact that secret objects can be well camouflaged and even imitated.
The technological level of the country, as well as the level of training, is terribly low. Of course, we cannot rule out the fact that Myanmar could seek foreign aid in building its nuclear bombs. Currently, the cost of implementing such a project is only $300 million. But again, even in this case the level of technical education in the country is so low that if the nuclear program existed, it could only function under the supervision of foreign experts, i.e., “turnkey.”
If we compare the level of development of Myanmar and North Korea, the latter is several levels higher in all respects. First, many North Korean nuclear scientists obtained valuable education in the Soviet Union and beyond. And they were very intelligent students, and very independent. By the time of the creation of its nuclear weapons they have mastered their raw material base, built facilities for the production of nuclear fuel, reactor, a plant for plutonium separation, and so on. There are very few of such educated professionals from Myanmar.
The countries that have created or are creating their own nuclear program, act in a different way. For example, Iran that regularly makes loud statements. Myanmar behaves quite differently and does not engage in the nuclear PR.
The regime of the Burmese generals does not contribute to the success of this complex project. It is more like a traditional dictatorship of former agricultural colonies of the West, incapable of such technological breakthroughs, rather than industrial dictatorship like North Korea.
I think there is a big scale geopolitical game around this country. The West and India do not like the authoritarian undemocratic regime of Myanmar that is also friends with China. Myanmar and Thailand also have their disagreements. So now there is a banal information war against Myanmar.
In addition, the emergence of the information stating that this country is engaged in developing nuclear weapons, may be due to the fact that local generals want to “raise their status” by conducting or simulating certain works in the field of military atom. Nothing can be ruled out. We must closely monitor the situation. But now it is too early to consider Myanmar as the country on the “threshold” of creating its own nuclear weapons.”
However, it may be that Myanmar is not the most important defendant in this scandal. Perhaps, the West decided to “work out” another approach to North Korea accusing it of exporting missile and nuclear technology.
There is another interesting fact that may be played out in the future. Sai Thein Win is by far not the first, and probably not the last defector who claimed the development of nuclear weapons in Myanmar. Since the early 2000's there have been a few of such defectors. However, Sai Thein Win said he had allegedly obtained special education in the field of missile technology in Russia. Some particularly zealous “analysts” are already talking about possible indirect involvement of Russians with the semi-mythical nuclear program.
Sergei Balmasov
Pravda.Ru
Read the original in Russian
© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
第61回 ビルマ市民フォーラム例会のご案内
【転送・転載歓迎】
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
第61回 ビルマ市民フォーラム例会のご案内
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
今年9月から「第三国定住プログラム」によりカレン難民約30名が日本にやってきます。
これをうけて、次回例会では国際移住機関(IOM)駐日事務所の橋本直子さんと
在日カレン難民のソーパラティンさんを迎え、第三国定住プログラムとはどういう
ものなのか、カレン難民はどのような状況におかれているのか、また日本でのプログラム
開始に関する最新情勢などをお話していただきます。
後半にはビルマ最新情勢の報告として、総選挙を前にしたビルマ国内の少数
民族の動きについて、カチン民族のマリップセンブさんよりお話いただきます。
初めての方も、ぜひご参加ください。
■日時：2010年7月31 日（土） 18時00分～20時30分（開場17時45分）
■場所：池袋・生活産業プラザ（ＥＣＯとしま） 8階多目的ホール
各線池袋東口下車 徒歩7分
地図： http://www.city.toshima.lg.jp/shisetsu/shisetsu_community/005133.html
■資料代： 500円（非会員）、200円（会員）
■事前申込み不要（先着順 70名）
-------------------------------------------------------------
【プログラム】
-------------------------------------------------------------
１．第三国定住プログラムについて
カレン難民の受け入れにあたって－プログラム最新情勢の報告
―18:00-19:00 国際移住機関（ＩＯＭ）駐日事務所
プログラム・マネージャー 橋本 直子さん
―19:00-19:30 在日カレン難民 ソーパラティンさん
―19:30-19:45 質疑応答
休憩（10分： 19:45-20:00）
２．2010年総選挙を前にしたビルマ少数民族の最新情勢報告（仮）
―20:00-20:30 マリップセンブさん （カチン民族機構（日本）事務局長、PFB運営委員）
３．事務連絡・お知らせ他
―20:30-20:40 ＰＦＢ事務局長 弁護士 渡辺彰悟
-------------------------------------------------------------
関連記事：
【共同通信】2010年7月26日
ミャンマー難民が日本定住へ ６家族３２人、９月から
http://www.47news.jp/CN/201007/CN2010072601000758.html
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
★PFBでは、日本人と在日ビルマ人を対象に、時々のビルマ情勢や在日
ビルマ難民の抱える問題などをテーマに、隔月で例会を実施しております。
会員・非会員を問わず、どなたでもご参加いただけます。
初めての方でもぜひお気軽にご参加ください。
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
★詳細問合せ ビルマ市民フォーラム（ＰＦＢ）事務局
電話03-5312-4817（直） FAX 03-5312-4543
E-mail： pfb@izumibashi-law.net
http://www1.jca.apc.org/pfb/
ツイッター：https://twitter.com/PFB_Japan
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Obama Renews Sanctions on Burma
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=19070
Obama Renews Sanctions on Burma
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LALIT K. JHA / Washington Wednesday, July 28, 2010
US President Barack Obama signed into law a Congressional resolution renewing economic sanctions against the Burmese military junta one more year, the White House said on Tuesday.
The US House of Representatives and the Senate overwhelmingly passed the resolution to renew sanctions against the Burmese military junta almost three months ago.
The Senate passed the resolution by 99-1 votes. It was sponsored by a record 68 senators.
The “Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003," which imposed a ban on Burmese imports, was passed by the House by a voice vote.
Noting that renewed sanctions against the military regime is as important as ever, Sen. Mitch McConnell said the bipartisan support reflects the view of more than two-thirds of the Senate that the junta should be denied the legitimacy it pursues through this year’s sham elections.
“The ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) is continuing its efforts to try to stand up a farcical, new Constitution by holding a bogus election,” he said.
Sen. MaxBaucus said: “I have often questioned whether unilateral trade sanctions are the best path. But several trading partners—including the European Union, Canada, and Australia—have joined us in imposing sanctions against Burma.”
“The State Department has found that these sanctions have made it more difficult and costly for the Burmese regime to profit from imprisoning its people,” he said.
Sen. Barbara Feinstein said that for the past two decades, Burma’s despotic military rulers have engaged in a campaign of persecution against Aung San Suu Kyi, tarnishing her image wherever they could, unjustly convicting her of violating an illegitimate house arrest last year and extending her unlawful detention.
“She has spent the better part of 20 years under house arrest. She has not seen her two sons who live in the United Kingdom for years. She was not permitted to visit her husband when he was dying of cancer in the United Kingdom,” she said.
“Yet Aung San Suu Kyi remains resolute in her dedication to the pursuit of peaceful national reconciliation, as do the members of her political party, the National League for Democracy,” Feinstein said.
“Now, more than ever, the people of Burman need to know that we stand by them and support their vision of a free and democratic Burma,” the senator said.
Democratic Rep. Joseph Crowley said: “It is long overdue that the world acknowledges the regime is guilty of many heinous crimes, and we must lead the effort to hold it accountable. As a first step, I hope the United States will go on the record in acknowledging that the Burmese regime has committed crimes against humanity.”
Japan to take 32 Myanmar refugees
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Japan to take 32 Myanmar refugees
BANGKOK (Kyodo) Japan will allow the settlement of 32 ethnic minority Myanmar refugees now living in Thailand, sources said.
The 32 people, consisting of six ethnic Karen families, will be the first refugees allowed in under the "third country" refugee resettlement program.
The sources said the refugees are due to travel to Japan after taking a monthlong Japanese-language and culture-acclimatization program at the Mera refugee camp in northeastern Thailand near the Myanmar border.
They were selected from among 50 Myanmar refugees at Mera who have expressed a desire to settle in Japan.
The government plans to take in 90 Myanmar refugees under the resettlement program over the next three years.
If the resettlement goes well, Tokyo will consider accepting more refugees under this system, government officials said.
After arriving in Japan, they are expected to stay in Tokyo for six months to learn the Japanese language and local customs.
There is no decision yet on where in Japan they will eventually live, the sources said.
Camp Mera, the biggest refugee camp in Thailand, is home to about 50,000 Myanmar refugees who have fled their country, mainly due to armed conflicts between the military and Karen National Union rebels.
Burma poll must be judged on merit: election expert
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/asiapac/stories/201007/s2967021.htm
Burma poll must be judged on merit: election expert
Print Email
Updated July 28, 2010 20:35:50
One of Australia's most experienced international election officials has cautioned those who might try to compromise on what constitutes a free and fair poll in Burma.
Some South East Asian leaders have refused to define what a free and fair election in Burma would look like, suggesting that another standard might be defined as what the people want. But Michael Maley
Presenter: Linda Mottram
Speakers: Michael Maley, special adviser electoral reform and international services, Australian Electoral Commission; Morten Pederson, Centre for International Governance and Justice, Australian National University; Zaw Naing Wynn, Burma activist; Trevor Wilson, former Australian Ambassador to Burma, visiting fellow, Australian National University.
MOTTRAM: It is difficult to find anyone who believes Burma's junta intends to hold a free and fair election, so compromised is the process, and the junta itself, even before a polling date is announced. Still there are calls on Burma to hold a free and fair poll, not least from the country's neighbours in ASEAN. At the same time though, individual South East Asian leaders have shied away from defining what constitutes free and fair. For example, Indonesia's Foreign minister Marty Natalagawa says it could in part depend on what the Burmese people think. Others flatly reject any attempt to manipulate what constitutes free and fair. Michael Maley is special adviser to the Australian Electoral Commission, and a man with 28 years experience in United Nations missions as an election administrator around the world.
MALEY: You sometimes hear election observers move away from the terminology of free and fair. They want to talk about elections that broadly reflect the will of the people. How do they know when they say this? None of us are mind readers, we are not engaged in election processes in an exercise in mental telepathy.
MOTTRAM: Speaking at a forum at the Australian National University on Burma's elections, Michael Maley outlined a list of tests for a free and fair poll, among them the need for impartial administration of the vote, transparency, secret voting, no vote buying or multiple voting, an absence of intimidation and the ability to count ballots accurately. But what happens when an election clearly isn't perfect but neither is it the worst poll ever run? Michael Maley says where some argue any election is better than none, he takes a different view, and he uses a religious analogy to make the point.
MALEY: A crooked election sold as a valid exercise is a blasphemy. It's like saying the Lord's Prayer backwards. It's not an exercise in religion it's an exercise in contempt for religion.
MOTTRAM: And there is every prospect that that description will fit Burma's election. But while the international community will face the question of how to respond on the issue of the running of the election itself, it will also face a new reality in Burma. Hence the conference title, If neither free nor fair, then what?
Morten Pederson has worked on Burma for the International Crisis Group, the UN and the World Bank and is currently with the Centre for International Governance and Justice at the Australian National University. He says looking at the election from a democratic point of view, the new system is being developed to limit change. But there will still be change, generational change, a new government looking to establish its legitimacy and a new central parliament and 14 new regional Parliaments.
PEDERSEN: Now every time I bring these things up people always say, well but the military's going to stop all that. And there's no doubt that they have an interest in countering many of these potential openings. But the question is how far they are prepared to go in denying every democratic seed while claiming to be a democracy of sorts.
MOTTRAM: He says the new parties that have formed are right to engage with the process, despite the obvious flaws.
For many Burmese exiles though, the prospect of jettisoning the fight to restore the landslide 1990 election victory of the National League for Democracy, the NLD -- which was never recognised by the generals -- is a step too far.
Zaw Naing Wynn, an ethnic Wa formerly from Shan state came to Australia in 1988.
ZAW NAING WYNN: The election is to legalise the militarisation of politics. We have seen a good example recently in Thailand. To elaborate further, I just want to ask this question: why do we need another election right now? The last time we had election in Burma was in 1990 where the NLD was given mandate to restore democracy that was taken away in 1962.
MOTTRAM: Still, veteran Burma watcher and former Australian Ambassador to Rangoon, Trevor Wilson, told the forum that whatever the results, they have to be dealt with.
WILSON: You've heard many people speaking today saying how little is likely to change and I don't disagree with that at all. But one aspect we have to deal with afterwards is the government, the government that will be elected and will have a different form.
MOTTRAM: Trevor Wilson cautions though that Burma's Constitution guarantees nothing and can take away anything, that the new institutions that will be created will be weak at best and that post election Burma could entail greater instability rather than greater certainty.
Why India is Embracing Burma’s Junta
http://thefastertimes.com/india/2010/07/28/why-india-is-embracing-burmas-junta/
Why India is Embracing Burma’s Junta July 28, 2010 -Jeremy Kahn
Jeremy Kahn is an independent journalist based in New Delhi, India, where he covers everything from politics and foreign affairs to business and the arts. In addition to The Faster Times, his work has recently appeared in Newsweek International, The International Herald Tribune ...
Read more about Jeremy Kahn ->
The leader of Myanmar’s repressive military junta, General Than Shwe, is in India this week for his fourth state visit. I have a story in this week’s issue of Newsweek in which I explain why India, which once sheltered Burmese refugees and saw itself as a champion of democracy in South Asia, has in recent years been cuddling up to one of the world’s worst regimes. In short, it is all about securing energy — in the form of Burmese natural gas — that India desperately needs to continue its torrid rate of economic growth, and about checking the growing influence of China in India’s own backyard. In the Newsweek piece, which is very short, I also argue that India’s increasing ties — including military sales — to Myanmar, along with China’s continuing warm relations with Yangoon, highlight how ineffective Western sanctions policy against Myanmar is. Those sanctions only apply to certain key Burmese generals and industrialists — and to Western companies doing business in Myanmar in certain key industries. But Western trade with Burma was never very great. To create a sanctions policy that works, the U.S. and EU will either need universally applied multilateral sanctions — or they will need sanctions that punish third countries (like India and China) for doing business with the junta. The U.S. just imposed these kind of sanctions on Iran. But if the U.S. is unwilling to do the same against Burma then it might be better off simply scrapping the sanctions policy and trying something else. The sanctions are clearly not working.
On a related note, The Wall Street Journal today has a good item on the fact that not only is Than Shwe visiting India right now, but so is British Prime Minister David Cameron, who has brought with him a huge delegation of Cabinet ministers and British business leaders. The Journal points out how the two contemporaneous visits of these very different leaders to India tells one a lot about the dual nature of India’s foreign policy and position in the world. I would quibble only in the sense that the dualism in Indian foreign policy that the Journal highlights is actually less contradictory than the Journal makes out. The whole reason that India needs Burmese natural gas is because its economy is booming — and that booming economy is one of the prime reasons the British Prime Minister is so interested in forging a new “special relationship” with India. India is also interested in Burma because it wants to check Chinese influence, and this too is sort of the flip-side of India’s own growing military strength and world profile. As it becomes a more important world player, it is bumping up against the other global player and emerging economic superpower in the region: China. Places like Burma become zones where China and India compete for influence. But India’s emerging military and strategic importance are also a reason for Britain’s desire to refresh its historically-close ties to New Delhi.
India under fire after giving Burma's leader a state welcome
PHOTO
Burma's military ruler General Than Shwe and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh arrive for delegation level talks in New Delhi. [AFP]
Last Updated: 5 hours 59 minutes ago
International Human rights groups have strongly criticised India for giving Burma's military leader the honour of a state visit.
They say it helps legitimise Burma's military government, which has been internationally condemned for human rights abuses.
Than Shwe has arrived in Hyderabad on the latest leg of a five-day visit to the nation.
Scores of pro democracy activists including members of the local Burmese community were determined to make their concerns about the military regime heard and protested in New Delhi during the leader's visit.
Senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, Dave Mathieson, who is based in Thailand has told Asia Pacific India has a responsibility to persuade Burma's junta to do more to restore democracy in its nation.
"India really has a role to speak up more for genuine elections and genuine respect for human rights and on Burma it has just fallen completely flat on that . It has been very very quiet on the release of political prisoners and the gross short comings of the so called election process in Burma."
Burma's Than Shwe Visits India to Talk Energy, Security
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100728/wl_time/08599200701200
Burma's Than Shwe Visits India to Talk Energy, Security
Buzz up!3 votes ShareretweetEmailPrintBy JYOTI THOTTAM / NEW DELHI Jyoti Thottam / New Delhi – Wed Jul 28, 6:55 am ET
In Amitav Ghosh's novel The Glass Palace, the connection between India and Burma, two countries with a long shared colonial history, is romantic: a resourceful Indian orphan braves war and treachery to find the exiled Burmese princess he loves. In real life, the bond between India and Burma is all business. General Than Shwe, leader of the junta that has ruled Burma since 1988, arrived in New Delhi on Tuesday as part of a five-day state visit. He traveled there to talk about trade and security - and to not talk about free elections or the imprisoned pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi.
India's official policy on Burma remains unchanged: it supports democracy. The large Burmese refugee community in India is a product of that support; most arrived during the 1988 military crackdown. But since 1993, New Delhi has cultivated closer ties with the ruling junta in the hopes of getting Burma's help in cracking down on insurgent groups on their shared border and striking deals for Burma's rich reserves of natural gas. "It's a pragmatic kind of policy," says Sreeradha Datta, a research fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi. "There is a consensus, even among the left, that we need to engage with the junta." (See pictures of the race for Burma's natural resources.)
Than Shwe, who has led the military regime since 1992, got the full state-visit treatment this week. He met with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other top officials, and was the guest of honor at a banquet at the President's mansion. While Singh is not expected to make any personal statement, the warm welcome signals the implicit support of the world's largest democracy to Burma's military dictatorship.
This irony has not been lost on the handful of dissenters in the Indian Parliament. Thirteen MPs (all but one from the ceremonial upper house) signed a letter criticizing the government for "lending legitimacy" to the junta, which will be holding elections later this year. The elections have been widely criticized as a sham, the letter notes, but not by India. "We should not send [the] wrong message to the world by focusing primarily on military and economic cooperation with the military dictatorship in Burma." (See pictures of Burma's decades-long battle for democracy.)
And yet that's exactly what this visit is about. Indian state-owned energy companies recently announced a new $1.3 billion investment in gas-field development and pipeline projects in Burma - an unusual deal in which India will have a stake in a pipeline that is majority-owned by China, its regional rival. The joint statement issued on July 27 by India and Burma singled out oil and gas as a particularly ripe field of cooperation, pledging to encourage more investment by public and private Indian companies.
The two countries also signed five agreements, the most important of which is the Treaty on Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters, a cross-border anti-insurgency pact. They "resolved not to allow their respective territory to be used for training, sanctuary and other operations by terrorist and insurgent organizations and their operatives."
India is hoping that this treaty, similar to earlier efforts with Bhutan and Bangladesh, will help end the persistent ethnic insurgencies in the seven small states of India's northeast, a region that also abuts Burma's western border. The strategy has had some effect. Terrorism-related fatalities in the northeast have fallen from 1,051 in 2008 to 207 so far in 2010, according to figures compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal. Security experts believe there are some groups in Burma but that they are operating in regions where the junta's control is weakest.
India, on the other hand, has already proven itself an ally in Burma's fight against the Karen and Arakan separatist groups. India has detained 34 rebels for 12 years on gun-running charges, which were dropped earlier this month. How they got to India is a murky story: the rebels allege they crossed into India at the behest of Indian intelligence operatives but were then arrested. They will eventually be eligible for repatriation to a third country, but in the meantime they remain in Indian custody. "We always cooperated with Indian military intelligence but they betrayed us," Arakan separatist leader Khin Maung told the BBC. India's romance with the junta, on the other hand, is still going strong.
Posts
