BURMA RELATED NEWS - FEBRUARY 26, 2011

************************************************************
BURMA RELATED NEWS - FEBRUARY 26, 2011
************************************************************
IPS - Global Fund Back With New Hope
New Zealand Herald - Looking to build hope in a troubled Burma
Reuters - Q+A: How U.S. financial sanctions on Libya might work
CNN - 25 years on, Philippines offers lessons for Egypt
E-Commerce Times - Worries Abound Over US Cyber-Emergency Internet Policy
ANN - Uprisings possible without the Internet
The Japan Times - 186 fewer apply for refugee status
The Japan Times - Refugee families' dads land jobs in farming
Times of India - Mizoram bird flu alarm
AsiaNews.it - Thousands of Karen refugees in Thailand risk hunger
Mizzima News - Border town struggles to clean up its drug image
Mizzima News - Suu Kyi supports expansion of ILO in Burma
************************************************************



Global Fund Back With New Hope
By Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Feb 26, 2011 (IPS) - Burma’s transition from an overt military rule to a civilian administration of retired generals is getting a shot in the arm from a former critic of the junta – the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

The Fund that left the South-East Asian nation in protest more than five years ago is returning this year to Burma, or Myanmar. The move follows three agreements inked last November to finance two-year grants of up to 112.8 million dollars against the three killer diseases.

It marks an increase from the 98.4 million dollars that the Geneva-based humanitarian body had pledged during its first foray. The group pulled out in August 2005 citing political interference in its programmes.

Support for HIV/AIDS initiatives is billed to get the largest share, 46 million dollars, with malaria receiving 36.8 million dollars and tuberculosis (TB) 30 million dollars, according to the Global Fund.

"Burma re-applied for Global Fund grants in 2009 and due to the technical merit of the proposals the board decided to approve them," Marcela Rojo, spokesperson for the Global Fund confirmed in an IPS interview.

The decision coincided with last year’s general election in Burma, the first in two decades. The Nov. 7 poll gained notoriety for its irregularities, prompting critics to say that little has changed since the country came under the grip of oppressive military rule in 1962 after a coup.

"No one really expects the new government to improve the human rights situation, but one practical dividend that must come with the new parliament is increased humanitarian space," says David Scott Mathieson, Burma consultant for Human Rights Watch, a New York-based global watchdog.

"The Global Fund (entry), given its past experience, is going to be an important litmus test in assessing the new government’s sincerity," he added.

The significance of its re-entry is clear to the Fund, as it begins working with its international partners in the country, Save the Children and the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).

"Strong additional safeguards have been put in place to ensure strict oversight of these grants and to ensure the ability of the Global Fund to move quickly should any irregularities be identified," said Rojo. These include an assurance from Burmese officials that the Fund’s staff will have immediate access to implementation sites.

"Funding for life saving drugs, awareness raising in the most vulnerable populations, and behavioural change campaigns will feature in the package to combat HIV," said Andrew Kirkwood, head of Save the Children’s Burma office, that receives 28.3 million dollars for its AIDS programmes.

"The goal is to reduce HIV transmission and HIV-related morbidity, mortality, disability and social and economic impact," he added in an interview.

Burma reportedly has nearly 240,000 people living with HIV, of which 120,000 need life prolonging anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs. Many of them belong to the three most vulnerable groups: female sex workers, men who have sex with men, and injecting drug users.

Malaria has left an equally troubling trail, with nearly 70 percent of the country’s 57 million people at risk, and 475, 297 already infected, according to health reports. TB is as virulent, with some 200,000 cases reported in 2008, placing Burma 20th among 22 countries across the world topping in the burden of the disease.

Dovetailing with the Fund’s initiative is another international programme, the Three Diseases Fund (3DF), aimed at caring for the sick infected by HIV, TB and malaria.

Set up by a coalition of donors from Australia, Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the European Commission, 3DF invested an estimated 100 million dollars when it came to Burma in 2006 after the Global Fund quit.

"These programmes have provided 21,138 people living with HIV antiretroviral medication, detected and treated more than 100,000 cases of tuberculosis and treated over one million cases of malaria," Sanjay Mathur, director of UNOPS in Burma told IPS.

"The challenge to cover all those in need has always been daunting," admits Paul Yon, head of the Medecins Sans Frontier (MSF- Doctors Without Borders) mission in Burma.

"The pulling out of the Global Fund in Myanmar did not make the situation better for the people in need of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria treatment for sure," he told IPS. "MSF has always been advocating for international inputs and to get donors such as the Global Fund back in the country."

The desperate need for foreign funds was brought home by MSF in 2008, when it warned that 76,000 patients needed the life-prolonging ARV therapy but only about 25,000 were receiving first-line drugs.

By then, the military regime’s record on welfare was as notorious as its oppressive grip. The junta had only permitted some 1,800 people to be treated with ARVs in 22 hospitals across the country. The health budget that year to care for people living with HIV was only 200,000 dollars, compared to the nearly 8 billion dollars the regime had earned from natural gas sales from the resource rich country between 2000 and 2008.

"Aid has always been a political issue in Burma and it will be that way now that the Global Fund is back," said a Rangoon-based doctor who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We need this assistance, because it is a lifeline for the patients."
************************************************************
New Zealand Herald - Looking to build hope in a troubled Burma
By Simon Scott
5:30 AM Monday Jan 17, 2011

Political leaders much talked about in their own time are, with a few notable exceptions, largely forgotten by history.

Their influence and fame begin to expire as soon as their hold on power does and often their lives never seem to live up to their words.

They frequently become just a name in a book on a library shelf, a paragraph, perhaps, in a student's history notes or the answer to a tricky question at a pub quiz night.

Aung San Suu Kyi, on the other hand, seems destined to outlive her time.

More than just a spokeswoman for Burma's struggle for democracy, "The Lady", as her people affectionately call her, is the embodiment of that struggle itself.

Like a modern Gandhi, she lives those timeless and universal notions which have always appealed to humans - freedom, sacrifice, endurance, peace, courage, forgiveness and most of all, hope, when there is little reason for it.

At 65 years of age, she has spent 15 of the past 21 years under house arrest in Rangoon for speaking out against the country's repressive ruling regime and yet still remains fearless.

Released from house arrest only two months ago, she is already risking her freedom by speaking publicly about the troubles in Burma.

Although Suu Kyi has been released, more than 2000 political prisoners remain behind bars in Burma.

The daughter of Burma's famous independence leader General Aung San and a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Suu Kyi became involved in politics in Burma in 1988 and led the National League for Democracy (NLD) to victory in the 1990 elections - a victory that was denied her by the ruling military regime which refused to give up power.

She is a mother of two and recently met her youngest son Kim Aris for the first time in 10 years after he was finally granted a visa to visit her in Burma.

Herald: Looking ahead in 2011, what is your vision for the future of Burma and what kind of a role do see yourself playing in that future?

Suu Kyi: Well, what I see for 2011 is the need to try to make the people understand that we have the capacity to bring about change. What I want most of all is to empower the people and make them understand 'we are the ones who can bring about change in this country'.

Herald: It seems that the Burmese people have pinned their hopes on you. Do you feel that it is realistic for them to see you as the saviour of Burma?

Suu Kyi: I think they should pin their hopes on themselves. I always tell people, that they can't hope without endeavour. If they have any hopes, they have got to work towards the realisation of their hopes. I'll do everything I can to help bring about the realisation of the hopes of our country, but they also have to do their part.

Herald: At the end of 2010 two key events occurred in Burma, the November elections and your own release from house arrest. Do you think these events can be seen as being a sign of positive change?

Suu Kyi: My release from house arrest had to do with the fact that my term of detention was over anyway and they could not legally have kept me under dentition anymore. Of course, if they wanted to they could have done anything at all, but I think that they decided that it was much better to be legalistic. So I don't think that this was anything out of the ordinary. As for the elections, it was part of the road map that they had written out - that they had blueprinted some years ago. So, I don't think it was a new development. It was just another step in the road map they had marked out.

Herald: Critics say the November vote was a charade aimed at preserving the current rule in Burma and giving it legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. Do you agree? Can you think of one positive thing that came out of the election?

Suu Kyi: I think it did make some people understand what elections should not be about, or how elections should not be conducted. I think that is positive, if people can start to get an understanding of what should not be done if elections are supposed to be democratic.

Herald: It seems that the ruling generals are in a bind of sorts. Even if they really do decide they want to move the country towards democracy, they will no doubt be fearful that by handing more power to the people they will be putting themselves at risk for retribution, such as being put on trial for crimes against humanity. Is there any way to get out of this bind?

Suu Kyi: I think that we need a new kind of thinking on both sides. The people need to be more confident of their ability to change things, and at the same time, I think those in authority have to learn to think that they should not see the people as the enemy.

Herald: Many people in New Zealand support you and your struggle for democracy in Burma. Do you have anything you would like to say to them? Is it really possible for the average New Zealander to make a difference in Burma?

Suu Kyi: Oh, yes, of course. Anybody who supports our movement gives us some strength, helps us in some way however small it may be. And I'm immensely grateful to the people of New Zealand for the interest they have taken in our movement. After all, New Zealand is far removed from us and it is a completely different sort of society and yet, the fact that they care enough, about the rights of the people in Burma, is a great boost to our morale, it does strengthen us. I have been trying to build up a network for Democracy in Burma and would like to think the people of New Zealand would be a strong and very active part of the movement.

Herald: In January 2010 the Australia and New Zealand Free Trade Area was established. This was a trade agreement between Australia and New Zealand and Asean member countries, including Burma. Do you think countries like New Zealand should sign these kinds of agreements which facilitate economic co-operation and trade with Burma?

Suu Kyi: We would very much like to be certain that whatever business activities [or] economic activities New Zealand undertakes with regard to Burma, [that they] keep in sight very, very clearly the need for certain policies in this country with regards to the rights of workers and with regards to accountability and transparency and other necessary democratic values.

Herald: What is your current advice to New Zealand tourists wanting to visit Burma and why?

Suu Kyi: We are going to work out a policy on tourism as to what kind of tourists and what way we would welcome tourists to come. How they should come and how they should go about the country. What kind of hotels they should use and what kind of facilities they should use and what they should look out for.

Herald: Do you mean doing things in such a way so that money gets directed towards the people rather than the regime?

Suu Kyi: That's right. In such a way that tourism would benefit the people rather than the powers that be.

Herald: Your youngest son Kim was recently able to come to Burma to visit you for the first time in a decade. What was it like seeing him after all that time?

Suu Kyi: Oh, it was lovely. I think the loveliest thing of all was that we didn't feel we had been apart for 10 years. It was very nice. We felt very close to each other, as close as we have ever been.

Herald: Was there any one moment or time during your son's visit that was especially memorable?

Suu Kyi: Just being together, I think, and he cooked breakfast for me one day which was very nice. I didn't have time to cook for him at all.

Herald: What did he cook?

Suu Kyi: He made me a mushroom omelette. [It was] very tasty. He is a good cook.

Herald: What are your hopes in terms of seeing him again? Do you think he will be able to visit you again?

Suu Kyi: We hope so - both of us hope very much that he will be able to come again soon. But it depends on many, many things, because he has other commitments as well.

Herald: Now that you have been released from house arrest, are you concerned about your own safety and security? Are you fearful your life is at risk or that you may be re-arrested?

Suu Kyi: Actually, I have to admit, I don't think about it very much. People keep speaking about my security, but I believe it is the duty of the Government to look after the security of all its citizens including myself.
************************************************************
Q+A: How U.S. financial sanctions on Libya might work
Fri Feb 25, 10:23 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States on Friday imposed sanctions on the Libyan government, targeting its longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi, his family and other senior officials.

President Barack Obama signed an executive order freezing any financial assets tied to Gaddafi's government that were held by U.S. banks and institutions throughout the world.
Following are some questions and answers on how the United States imposes and enforces sanctions, and what legal authorities would be required.

CAN THE U.S. TREASURY FREEZE LIBYAN ASSETS?

Obama's executive order clears the way for the sanctions to be imposed. Various executive orders exist targeting governments that are accused of oppressing their people or that are seen as security threats to the United States, including Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Other executive orders target behaviors such as financing of terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or narcotics trafficking.

HOW CAN OBAMA IMPOSE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER?

Based on an assessment of the situation or threat, he has declared a "national emergency" under authorities granted by the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This allows an executive order blocking transactions with targeted parties and freezing their assets.

In addition, if the U.N. Security Council were to issue a resolution ordering sanctions on a country, Obama could issue an executive order to implement those sanctions, allowing the Treasury to act.

HOW DO FINANCIAL SANCTIONS WORK?

Once an order is issued, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control identifies individuals, companies and other entities linked to the targeted regime or that show evidence of engaging in the targeted behaviors. It puts them on a list of "specially designated nationals," which blocks Americans from engaging in transactions with them. Assets they may have under U.S. jurisdiction are frozen. Financial institutions are notified to scrutinize transactions for possible links to the blacklisted individuals or entities. The aim is to deny them access to the international financial system.

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE FINANCIAL SANCTIONS

They have been effective in closing off access to the financial system for certain entities, such as accused terrorist financing networks, but it not clear whether they are effective in changing governments' policies or behavior.

In 2005, the blacklisting of Macau's Banco Delta Asia shut down North Korea's main conduit to the international financial system. Both U.S. and foreign banks declined transactions with the bank, and the action became a major issue in nuclear talks with Pyongyang.

The strengthening of sanctions against Iran last year over its nuclear and missile programs has hurt Iran's economy, cutting off access to imported materials. But there is little evidence it has had any effect on Tehran's nuclear program. Iran has also been adept at creating new shell companies to conceal transactions, Treasury officials say.

But others argue that U.S. sanctions on Libya helped push Gaddafi to renounce his country's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and open Libyan territory to international weapons inspectors. Washington lifted those sanctions in 2004.

COULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SEIZE LIBYAN ASSETS IN COURT?

Yes. The U.S. Justice Department could go to federal court to try to seize any assets, such as money or property, that the government believes are the proceeds from alleged illegal activity. It can be a particularly lengthy process to seize assets, as it is subject to challenges by the owners and appeals. The process, known as civil asset forfeiture, can be undertaken if the funds from illicit activity overseas are found in the United States, either in bank accounts or in the form of property.

For example, the Justice Department has sought to seize two properties, including a luxury Manhattan apartment, that are believed to have ties to alleged corrupt activities by the former president of Taiwan and his family.
************************************************************
25 years on, Philippines offers lessons for Egypt
By Maria Ressa, Special to CNN
February 25, 2011 4:51 p.m. EST

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Philippines marks 25 years since people power toppled President Ferdinand Marcos
Since then, U.S.-style democracy has "largely failed" in the Philippines
Meanwhile, since its government fell in 1998, Indonesia has become a stable nation with a growing economy

Editor's note: Maria Ressa is CNN's former Jakarta bureau chief and author of "Seeds of Terror: An Eyewitness Account of Al-Qaeda's Newest Center of Operations in Southeast Asia." She worked as a journalist in Southeast Asia for nearly 25 years, most recently for ABS-CBN, and is the first Author-in-Residence at the International Centre for Political Violence & Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) in Singapore.

(CNN) -- When you live under a dictator, you follow the rules. Why? Because you're afraid -- for your job, your family, your life. Your neighbors are afraid. It creates a culture of fear and silence.

The system only changes when people find the courage to band together and challenge authority. When enough do that, they break the wall of fear. Tunisia and Egypt are the latest countries to do just that, the people winning their freedom and fanning a contagion effect across the Middle East and North Africa.

This isn't the first time it's happened, and as history has shown, deposing a dictator may be the easiest part of building a nation. No country knows this better than the birthplace of people power, the Philippines, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this week.

The 1986 people power revolt sparked pro-democracy movements across the world: Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan, Romania, Mongolia, Indonesia and many more.

1986 in the Philippines had many similarities to Egypt: Ferdinand Marcos, a U.S.-backed dictator in power for 21 years, was pushed out by more than two million people facing tanks and troops. The call to come to the streets and peacefully protest was also spread by the technology of the time -- not Facebook and Twitter -- but radio.

Euphoria infused the entire society: it was a moment of redemption. Spontaneously created, people power in the Philippines was triggered by a failed military coup; the calls of the powerful Catholic Church to help the soldiers; the journalists who risked their lives to get the message out; alternative political figures who rallied around a widow, Corazon Aquino; and the people who answered the call and came to the streets. In those moments of uncertainty, Filipinos took a stand and risked all they had.

Globally, the social movement that creates people power is driven by activists who call for passionate volunteers. They are more motivated than those who join political parties and government bureaucracies because this is an outpouring of emotion with only one general goal: depose the dictator. They are good fighting evil.

In Egypt, the protesters changed the fight against Hosni Mubarak. In the past, it was led by a political party, the Muslim Brotherhood, with clear leadership, hierarchy, structure and ideology (making it easier for government to track and control). Then the organizational framework changed when it became a social movement, largely leaderless, with no clear goals beyond demanding the end of Mubarak's regime.

Protesters broke the wall of fear and reached a tipping point quicker, amplifying their new-found courage through social media. That shift surprised the Egyptian government, creating uncertainty, volatility and the breakaway of the military which ended Mubarak's rule. Turning a social movement into a political system that delivers on the exuberance of people power is not easy. Only two nations have done it in the past 25 years: Indonesia and South Korea.

They did it by combining the revolutionary zeal of the social movement with working institutions and the experience of government bureaucracy. They did not abolish everything overnight. South Korea, where people overthrew a U.S.-backed military dictatorship, introduced reforms at a calibrated pace to create a stable democracy.

In 1998, Indonesia, which has the world's largest Muslim population, had much in common with Egypt today: a Muslim majority with a large Christian minority; strongman ruler in power for at least 30 years; a powerful military intertwined with government; an Islamist underground that was seen as a threat and also the best excuse for authoritarian rule.

Once the government was toppled, Indonesia combined reforms with a balance of its institutional past -- strengthening its political parties and systems, painstakingly building its democracy.

Thirteen years later, Indonesia is the democratic model in Southeast Asia, turning its political successes into tangible benefits for its 237 million people. Its $695 billion economy, Southeast Asia's largest, continues to grow. It is politically stable, has controlled its Islamist threat, and has a vibrant civil society. Last week, senior U.S. officials said Indonesia is "widely seen as the best example" of where Egypt could go.

Contrast that with Thailand's 1992 revolution against a military regime. It changed the government but failed to nurture its newfound democracy. Elections since then have been rituals, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Now as it prepares for elections later this year, it faces an insurgency in the south, a border dispute with Cambodia and two different groups (red shirts and yellow shirts) staging regular protests. Their dissenters are addicted to the streets -- much like the Philippines.

People power in the Philippines became a political tool, brandished by its people and its symbol, Corazon Aquino. She led mass protests against her three successors: fighting charter change under President Fidel Ramos; successfully deposing President Joseph Estrada in a second people power uprising which bastardized its meaning because he was a democratically elected leader; helping install President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, then later calling for protests against her.

Mrs Aquino's attempts to rekindle people power and repeat her extra-constitutional triumph challenged her primary legacy -- democracy -- and further weakened the fledgling institutions she left behind.

What's clear is that American-style democracy has largely failed in the Philippines. More form than substance, it has given little back to the people who risked their lives in the streets 25 years ago. Figures from the Asian Development Bank show the Philippines is the only Southeast Asian nation to record an increase in the absolute number of poor people since 1990 (although no figures are available for Myanmar).

On World Governance indicators -- Voice and Accountability, Political Stability, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law and Control of Corruption -- the Philippines actually slid backwards between 1998 and 2009. A survey done in 2006 showed that only 36% of Filipinos believed Ferdinand Marcos should have been removed by people power.

His son, Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr. is now a senator and tweeted this after Hosni Mubarak stepped down: "25 years from now in 2036 -- a pretty long time -- I hope Egypt does not look back and lament that things have since gone for the worse."

Ironically, Aquino's son, Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino, III, now has the challenge of fulfilling the promise of people power (which brought his mother into power). Elected by the largest margin since 1986, he was a reluctant candidate with a hodge-podge political machinery that has yet to translate to effective governance. (One of the main problems of the Philippines remains its underdeveloped political parties, depriving politicians of the chance to practice running institutions before they actually get into power).

Still, no one doubts his good intentions. So in its birthplace, where is people power 25 years later? The daily and exhausting drama of real-life political theater and the repeated attempts to replay the now tired script of people power -- all this have only succeeded in trivializing its meaning.

By the third time, people power became a parody of itself. It prevented the painful but necessary growth of all sectors of a society that needed to learn accountability for its choices during elections and a government bureaucracy that needed to institute systems of transparency so it could be held accountable.

People power should never have become part of the regular political arsenal; it was a once-in-a-lifetime act that should have been followed by the hard work of building democratic institutions. That never happened. That is the work that, 25 years later, desperately needs to be done in the Philippines -- and the lesson Egypt should take to heart.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Maria Ressa.
************************************************************
TECHNOLOGY LAW CORNER
Worries Abound Over US Cyber-Emergency Internet Policy
By C. Donald Brown, E-Commerce Times
02/26/11 5:00 AM PT

Sen. Lieberman has categorically stated that there is no "kill switch" in the bill he cosponsored, and that "it is impossible to turn off the Internet in this country." Its purpose is to protect "the most critical infrastructures that Americans rely on in their daily lives -- energy transmission, water supply, financial services, for example -- to ensure that those assets are protected in case of a potentially crippling cyberattack."

In the midst of the civil unrest in Egypt and throughout the Middle East, U.S. Senate-proposed legislation that has become known as the "Internet kill switch bill" was recently reintroduced.

The controversial bill, first introduced by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn, in June 2010, seeks to empower the president and, in turn, the Department of Homeland Security to issue decrees that pertain to certain privately owned computer systems should the president declare a "national cyberemergency."

Amid criticism from the likes of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Sen. Collins has stated that the proposed bill is proactive in that "we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government finally realizes the importance of protecting our digital resources."

Moreover, in addressing the concerns directed to the expansive nature of the bill, the senator has stated that "the emergency measures in our bill apply in a precise and targeted way only to our most critical infrastructure."

In contrast to the control exerted most recently in Egypt, proponents of are of the view that the proposed bill provides for protections against cyberattacks and that it would not be implemented to control freedom of speech nor the organization of peaceful assemblies.

Addressing Civil Disobedience by Turning Off the Internet

The reintroduction of the proposed bill comes at a time when the Egyptian uprising, and Egypt's deactivation of the Internet in an effort to silence mounting dissent, has dominated the news.

By unplugging itself entirely from the Internet, Egypt did what was once thought unthinkable for any country with a major Internet economy. What occurred in Egypt has shown that a country with strong control over its Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can force all of them to simultaneously "switch off" the Internet.

The notion of quelling dissent by limiting people's access to communications -- including the Internet -- is not new. Various countries have attempted to restrict Internet access and cellphone use by their citizens. This tactic was used by the governments of both Myanmar and Iran.

In 2007, the Myanmar government shut down the Internet during anti-government protests. However, unlike Egypt, Myanmar was not as pervasively connected to the Internet.

In 2009, widespread demonstrations occurred following the presidential elections in Iran. The protests were organized in part through social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter. As a result, the Iranian government filtered and censored the Internet. However, it still allowed the Internet to function.

For years, China has restricted the content that can be viewed by its citizens over the Internet.

Still, it should be noted that until the Internet went dark in Egypt, a shutdown had never been implemented on such a large scale and in such synchronicity. Egypt demonstrated that it could be done.

Can the US Government Kill the Internet?

So, could the complete shutdown of the Internet occur in the United States? Even with the looming passage of the controversial "kill switch bill," it is unlikely that what occurred in Egypt could happen in the United States.

The U.S. has numerous ISPs and numerous ways of connecting to the Internet. While Egypt has dozens of ISPs, there are only five large carriers for Internet connectivity. It would be extremely difficult for the U.S. to coordinate a comparable, simultaneous shutdown.

This fact was emphasized by Sen. Lieberman, who has categorically stated that there is no "kill switch" in this bill, and that "it is impossible to turn off the Internet in this country."

Instead, the proposed legislation would see government control asserted over "the most critical infrastructures that Americans rely on in their daily lives -- energy transmission, water supply, financial services, for example -- to ensure that those assets are protected in case of a potentially crippling cyberattack," he said.

Despite these assurances, civil liberties groups and other critics are concerned that the president would still be given tremendous authority to interfere with Internet communications. As such, the issue for critics is not whether there is an Internet "kill switch."

Instead, the question that should be asked is whether the government can interfere with communications; and if so, whether there are significant protections, such as the ability to obtain a judicial review, to ensure the government does not overstep its boundaries.

The government recognizes that "a total Internet kill switch is totally unacceptable," said Jim Harper, member of a DHS advisory panel. "A smaller Internet kill switch, or a series of kill switches, is also unacceptable... . How does this make cybersecurity better? They have no answer."

Though critics from industry groups or technology companies may have views that differ in their particulars, they are united in that the proposed bill "is in need of additional refinement" before it should be unleashed on the American public.
************************************************************
Asia News Network
Uprisings possible without the Internet
Jeremy Au Yong, The Straits Times
Publication Date : 26-02-2011

The Web doesn't spark revolts but it helps in mobilising protesters

It is not immediately obvious, but nearly all street protests involve only a minuscule proportion of a country's population. None of the high-profile protests in recent memory, whether in Bahrain, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Iran or Moldova, have involved even 1 per cent of the people.

The 300,000 Egyptians, for instance, who descended on Tahrir Square in Cairo represent just 0.4 per cent of the country's 83 million people. Many other revolts involve even fewer.

That makes the 1979 Iran Revolution particularly noteworthy. The number of Iranians who gathered to voice their anger with the Shah was estimated at between six million and nine million - more than 10 per cent of Iran's population then. Looking at it some three decades later, it seems particularly impressive that such a widespread movement was put together without the Internet.

Iranian activists then did not have a Facebook page, did not send out any Twitter message and did not have Google. This makes one wonder: How much credit can social media take for the revolutions unfolding now in North Africa and the Middle East?

One way to answer that question would be to ask: Would the protests that we are seeing now have happened without social media?

There is no doubt that the Egyptian protests could have occurred offline. The protests continued, even intensified, after the country was cut off from the Web. But what if there had never been Internet in the first place?

There is no shortage of examples of large-scale protests around the world that had nothing to do with cyberspace: Among others, the eastern European protests of 1988 through the early 1990s, the Indonesian reformasi movement of the late 1990s and the Philippine protest that unseated then president Joseph Estrada in 2001. In each case, demonstrators used offline tools to organise.

In the Philippines, activists wrote a simple SMS message that was forwarded numerous times that day: 'Go to EDSA. Wear Black.' (EDSA is the acronym for Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, a highway that connects Manila to five other cities.)

In the case of Iran in 1978, the exiled Ayatollah Khamenei communicated with activists back home through cassettes that were smuggled into the country. Elsewhere, everything from radio transmitters to fliers and payphones have been the revolutionary tools of choice.

Granted, it is hard to guess if the lack of Twitter might have been a reason why people did not come out against oppressive governments elsewhere. But what these examples show is that there are certain commonalities among revolutions. They do not require online tools as such, but all protests need to be organised and protesters need communication tools.

It just so happens that the Internet is perfect for this job. It is fast, wide-reaching, and relatively resilient against government action. It is harder to break up activists meeting online compared with those sitting in a coffee shop. But as many of these previous protests show, when there is no Internet, activists can just use a different, if less perfect, tool.

Perhaps it would be more instructive to figure out if the Internet can actually be the tipping point in a given protest. Can Facebook and Twitter or YouTube actually cause a revolution?

In recent history, economic pressure has proved to be a common trigger of unrest in South-east Asia. The 2007 protests in Burma were largely caused by the junta's decision to suddenly remove fuel subsidies. The 1998 protests that heralded the fall of Suharto in Indonesia can be attributed to the economic crisis that hit the country hard. Elsewhere, violent death is a frequent flashpoint.

Oxford historian Mark Almond, writing for the BBC, noted that the most common catalyst for radicalising discontent over the past 30 years has been violent death. The Tunisian revolution, for instance, was triggered by the self-immolation of street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi. He set himself on fire on Dec 17 last year to protest against the confiscation of his goods and subsequent harassment.

Similar self-immolation incidents took place in Egypt last month, though some point to another death six months earlier - that of Mr Khaled Mohamed Saeed last June. Mr Khaled, aged 28, is believed to have been beaten to death by Egyptian police.

What is interesting here is that the Internet was integral to him becoming a martyr. Outrage was at its most intense after photos of him badly disfigured made the rounds online. A Facebook page set up in his honour attracted more than 900,000 members.

On the face of it, this seems like pretty solid evidence that the Egyptian revolution might not have happened without the Internet. Yet, it should be pointed out that news of the deaths in the 1978 Cinema Rex fire that aggravated the situation in Iran managed to make the rounds without the Internet.

What the Egyptian example shows us is simply the power of the Internet to mobilise and to do so quickly. There is no denying the resourcefulness of a determined, even if unplugged, activist, but it is clear that the rapid spread of unrest in the Arab world today can largely be attributed to the Internet's power.

It has been just two months since Tunisia's revolution and already it has influenced events in Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Yemen and, most recently, Morocco.

In contrast, the 1979 Iranian revolution began almost two years before it actually hit its peak. The Tiananmen Square protests in China in 1989 took about as long to gestate.

And maybe that's just it: The Internet's single greatest gift to revolutionaries is speed. The lack of the Internet doesn't completely stall a revolution - it just slows it down.
************************************************************
02/25/2011 17:09
MYANMAR – THAILAND
AsiaNews.it - Thousands of Karen refugees in Thailand risk hunger

Members of the Burmese ethnic minority fled their country because of fighting between the military and rebels. At least 10,000 complained about the lack of adequate shelter and food. Women, the elderly and children are the most affected. The Thai government is stopping donations of rice. Aung San Suu Kyi expresses her solidarity.

Yangon (AsiaNews) – Thousands of ethnic Karen refugees, who fled Myanmar, could die of hunger in Thailand. Most have been living in makeshift tents in Tak province since January after intensified fighting between Karen rebels and Myanmar’s military forced them to leave their homes for the border area and then across the border into Thailand.

Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi spoke about the refugee crisis, expressing hope that the refugees can come home quickly and enjoy better living conditions.

An estimated 10,000 Karen refugees have been surviving in Thailand without adequate shelter and food, eating plain rice, struggling to make any money since they are unable to work. “We only get rice,” said one man in the border town of Mae Sot, “two cups per person each day, provided once every two weeks”.

Making matters worse, “It’s difficult enough even for the [sympathisers] to donate rice because Thailand doesn’t officially approve this.”

Elderly women and young children are among the refugees who are most at risk for malnutrition.

In Thailand, they live makeshift tents set up in wooded areas. Some have found shelter in local farms.

Most want to go back to their villages in Myanmar, but the border region is covered in landmines. Last week for example, a seven-year-old girl was injured after she rode her bike over a mine.

Moreover, for many refugees the trip itself would be too expensive.

The United Nations special envoy to Burma, Tomas Ojea Quintana, said yesterday that rising numbers of Burmese refugees and asylum seekers in Southeast Asian countries is evidence that the Myanmar’s regime is experiencing a serious domestic crisis that has become a regional problem.

Aung San Suu Kyi, head of the National League for Democracy (NLD), also spoke out on the refugee issue, expressing her solidarity towards fellow Burmese fleeing the country.
“I am very sorry that conditions in our country are such that the Burmese have been forced to become refugees,” said the Nobel Prize laureate.

“We hope that the day will come when they will be able to return to their homes in safety,” she noted, urging host countries “to look upon these refugees with compassion and understanding.”
************************************************************
Saturday, Feb. 26, 2011
The Japan Times - 186 fewer apply for refugee status
Kyodo News

The number of foreigners who applied for refugee status in Japan in 2010 totaled 1,202, down 186 from a year earlier, while only 39 people were certified as refugees, up by nine, the Justice Ministry said Friday.

Applicants from Myanmar, the largest group, decreased by 226, apparently because the situation in the country has been stabilizing since 2007, a year that saw violent repression of antigovernment demonstrations, according to the ministry's Immigration Bureau.

Those who applied for refugee status in 2010 included 342 people from Myanmar, 171 from Sri Lanka, 126 from Turkey, 109 from Nepal and 91 from India. The number of Nepalese more than doubled from the previous year.
************************************************************
Saturday, Feb. 26, 2011
The Japan Times - Refugee families' dads land jobs in farming
By MASAMI ITO, Staff writer

The fathers of five refugee families from Myanmar who have been undergoing language training and living orientation after arriving in Japan under the U.N.-sponsored third-country resettlement program have landed jobs on farms, Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara said Friday.

The fathers of two ethnic Karen families comprising 12 refugees will work farms to grow leaf vegetables and peanuts in Yachimata, Chiba Prefecture, and the fathers of the remaining three families comprising 15 refugees will cultivate shiitake in Suzuka, Mie Prefecture, the Foreign Ministry said.

"I hope that the refugees will be able to live a stable life independently with the support of their local governments, their employers and society," Maehara said.

The Foreign Ministry refused to reveal other details for privacy reasons.

The three-year pilot program began last fall, under which 90 refugees will be accepted from the Mera refugee camp in Thailand. Japan is the first Asian country to participate in the program.

The government is now in the process of choosing the next 30 candidates who will arrive in Japan this fall.

The five families who came here last fall have been on a six-month training program. According to the Foreign Ministry, the 27 refugees, ranging from adults to young children, have been studying Japanese as well as learning to adjust to daily life in Japan.

The training program will end March 9 and the five families are expected to start their new lives later that month.

"The government will continue to follow up on the lives of the refugees and is prepared to give them advice in various areas," Maehara said.
************************************************************
Times of India - Mizoram bird flu alarm
TNN, Feb 26, 2011, 12.15am IST

AIZAWL: The Mizoram government has sounded a bird flu alert and imposed a ban on import of chicken and eggs from Myanmar and Tripura where avian influenza was detected recently.

An official statement issued here on Friday said all veterinary doctors and technical staff posted in the border areas had been instructed to verify any death of chicken and other bird within their respective jurisdictions and maintain close vigil on the illegal import of birds and eggs from across the border. Mizoram shares a 404-km international border with Myanmar and 66-km boundary with Tripura.

The statement said H1N1 case was detected in Myanmar's Sittwe district bordering Mizoram on January 18, while the bird flu outbreak was confirmed in Tripura on February 9 at a state government-run poultry farm where over 30,000 ducks and chickens had to be culled.
************************************************************
Mizzima News - Border town struggles to clean up its drug image
Saturday, 26 February 2011 18:19 Jim Andrews

A shootout in a Thai town on the Burmese border is a reminder that the illegal drug trade is thriving in northern Thailand, despite efforts to crack down.

“Two policemen were shot by drug dealers in the noodle shop over there,” said a Swiss volunteer teacher, pointing across the road to where the clash occurred the day before.

Welcome to Arunathai, aka Nong Ook, a dusty little Thai town whose one main street leads to a narrow country road that ends abruptly at the closed Burmese border 3 kilometres away.

For the police officers, it was a close call. In the clash with the drug traders, troops quickly sealed off the town and a tense standoff occurred as the two forces of law and order argued over ownership of confiscated drugs. The injured officers were taken to hospital, where they recovered.

Arunathai - literally “the place where the sun comes up” - was mostly built on drug money. The town is Thai in name only - 90 percent of its 1,600 families are ethnic Chinese, direct descendants of Kuomintang forces who sought refuge in this remote corner of Thailand in the chaotic years following World War II. Although successive Thai anti-narcotics campaigns have replaced opium-producing poppy fields with alternative crops, the raw drug and its derivative, heroin, are still successfully smuggled from Burma across the nearby, porous border.

But the battle in the main street of Arunathai was over an insidious alternative to opium and heroin. As Burmese and Thai government efforts to stamp out the trade gained strength in recent years, methamphetamine, or so-called “ya ba (crazy medicine),” joined the shopping list of illegal, addictive substances produced and marketed by operators characterized by author and Burma expert Bertil Lintner as “merchants of madness”.

Millions of smuggled methamphetamine pills are confiscated by Thai police and members of the government’s anti-drugs force every year, and hundreds of once prosperous dealers are serving long sentences in the country’s prisons.

Crooked police officers and local politicians are among those behind bars and some have paid the ultimate penalty for tapping into the lucrative trade - this week four senior Thai police officers from northern Thailand were sentenced to death by a Thai court for trying to sell 150,000 “ya ba” tablets for 11.25 million baht to an undercover agent in a sting operation.

Crackdowns have failed to stem the trade. In the first three months of a “war on drugs” launched by Thailand’s former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2003, more than 40 million methamphetamine pills were seized and 43,000 dealers were arrested. The controversial campaign came at a huge cost in human lives, however—at least 2,500 people were killed, mostly in extrajudicial “executions”.

Thaksin’s radical campaign, however, only interrupted the trade in methamphetamines, and after a lull the annual haul of the addictive tablets rose steadily from 17.7 million in 2004 to a current estimate of nearly 30 million.

The events of 2003 still hang heavily over Arunathai, where local people are reluctant to talk about Thaksin’s “war on drugs”. The recent shootout in the noodle shop is shrugged off as just another incident in the continuing tension that holds the little town in its grip.

Thai army and border police checkpoints straddle the one paved road into town, while army bases dot the border area. Local community leaders who work to keep the town drug-free claim the continuing trade is carried out by smugglers who are unwanted outsiders.

It wasn’t always so. When fleeing remnants of the anti-Communist Kuomintang, defeated in 1949 by Mao Zedong’s forces, settled here after being pushed out of the Chinese western province of Yunnan and then out of Burma, many of the refugee soldiers kept themselves alive by cultivating opium and selling it on a relatively open market.

Arunathai - then a tiny settlement with the name Nong Ook - was ideally located amid the rolling uplands and mountains of Northern Thailand. The climate, soil conditions and elevation were just right for the cultivation of the poppies that provided opium.

Better still, the region was remote from the reach of officialdom. A mule track was the only way in to the settlement, and few outsiders ventured the long journey from the nearest towns of any size, Chiang Dao, 50 kilometres south, and Chiang Rai, about an equal distance east.

Today, another nearby township established by Kuomintang forces, Santikhiri, perched picturesquely on the Doi Salong mountain, attracts thousands of tourists annually by cleverly marketing its fascinating history. On its one main street, handicraft and souvenir boutiques jostle with guesthouses for space, hemmed in by mountain slopes clothed in fruit orchards and tea plantations. On the outskirts of town, a luxury resort beckons with an infinity pool where swimmers can sip sundowners as they drink in the magnificent views.

Arunathai, on the other hand, is a very poor cousin, a shabby little backwater where it’s difficult to find even a cup of the tea that has made Santikhiri famous. Its one guesthouse offers very simple accommodation for 300 baht a night.

Yet whatever Arunathai lacks in tourist facilities it makes up for in authenticity. Ninety percent of its estimated 5,000 people are ethnic Chinese, tracing their ancestry back to roots lying deep within China. Signboards are written in Mandarin as well as Thai, and sometimes only in the Chinese script.

Liu Hua Chang, who has served three terms as Arunathai’s kamnan, or local mayor, and is now the owner of a motorcycle agency, is a prominent and proud representative of these second-generation ethnic Chinese. His father - whose own father hailed from the far eastern Chinese province of Jiang Su - was captain of a mule train company in the 93rd Division of Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalist army, the Kuomintang.

The 93rd Division’s presence in this region of Indochina dates back to World War II, when the allies accepted an offer in 1942 by Chiang Kai-shek to commit some of his crack troops to help protect the supply routes between Rangoon and Shan State, the so-called “Burma Road”.

Units of the 93rd Division from China’s Yunnan Province established a base in Kengtung, Shan State, but came under heavy bombardment by Thai aircraft flying in support of Japan’s Northern Army.

The surviving Kuomintang forces withdrew into the jungle-clad mountains of eastern Shan State and fought their way back to China.

At the end of the war in Asia, in 1945, a reconstituted 93rd Division found itself again in action when civil war broke out in China between Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalist Kuomintang and the Communist forces of Mao Zedong.

When Mao Zedong emerged victorious in 1949, several units of the 93rd Division in Yunnan Province refused to surrender and withdrew to Burma. For the next 20 years they fought for survival against Burmese government forces and troops of the outlawed Burmese Communist Party.

At the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, America’s Central Intelligence Agency hired Kuomintang troops in Shan State to slip into Yunnan Province on espionage missions - and so began a murky chapter in which the Kuomintang were dragged into the opium trade to finance their undercover operations.

Most of the Kuomintang forces were pushed out of Burma in 1961 and settled across the border in Thailand, establishing bases in areas under constant threat by Thailand’s emerging Communist movement. The Thai government took eager advantage of the Kuomintang’s anti-communist stand and enrolled the Chinese soldiers in its campaign to eradicate the rebels.

As a reward for their assistance in ridding Thailand of the Communist threat, the Kuomintang troops and their families were given sanctuary. Many were granted Thai citizenship.

It took several years, however, to wean the new settlers away from the opium, after a Western anti-drug drive began in the 1950s and the Thai government made trade in the drug illegal in 1959. In 1967, a Kuomintang commander, Tuan Shi-wen, told a British newspaper: “We have to continue to fight the evil of communism, and to fight you must have an army, and an army must have guns, and to buy guns you must have money. In these mountains, the only money is opium.”

Today, the fields of opium-producing poppies have disappeared from the mountainsides of this region of Northern Thailand, replaced by alternative crops like fruit and tea. But, despite Thai government efforts to stamp out the influx of drugs from Burma, methamphetamine pills still drive a lucrative but illegal part of Arunathai’s economy and the potential for shootouts on the main street remain.
************************************************************
Mizzima News - Suu Kyi supports expansion of ILO in Burma
Friday, 25 February 2011 19:08 Myo Thant

Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – Burma's pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, was briefed by an International Labour Organization (ILO) team in Rangoon on Friday led by Executive Director Guy Ryder.

Suu Kyi gave her support during a meeting held in her home on University Avenue. ILO projects include protecting labour rights and interests and advocating for the freedom to form trade unions.

‘The ILO explained to Daw Suu their planned expansion and the mandate they presented to the Burmese regime’, NLD leader Ohn Kyaing told MIzzima.

The meeting included Ryder, ILO liaison officer Steve Marshall and three other ILO representatives, in addition to Nyan Win and Hanthar Myint of the NLD.

An ILO team met with about 80 human rights activists at Traders Hotel in Rangoon on Thursday.

During the meeting, participants expressed concern about the recruitment of child soldiers in Burma, and ILO officials said they planned to continue to hear complaints from Burmese citizens and work with the regime to remove child soldiers from the armed forces.

An NLD official said, ‘They explained how the army took responsibility for these child soldiers. The Army has issued orders of discharge in some cases, but not in others.’

The ILO and the Burmese government renewed a memorandum of understanding for one year on Thursday, which includes procedures for lodging complaints against forced labour cases and child soldier conscription.

People can also lodge complaints of forcible seizure of farmland with the ILO, said officials.

Human Rights Education Institute in Burma (HREIB) director Aung Myo Min said that the Burmese government has estimated that there are about 60,000 child soldiers in the army. Other armed groups may contain about 6,000 child soldiers, say observers.
************************************************************