Myanmar: UN Secretary-General voices concern at new electoral laws

News Courtesy: UN News Centre, First Published on 10th March 2010

10 March 2010 – New electoral laws unveiled by authorities in Myanmar do not meet international expectations of what is required for an inclusive political process in the Asian country, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned today.

The United Nations is carefully studying the laws as they are being published by the Government in preparation for planned national elections later this year, Mr. Ban said in a statement issued by his spokesperson.

According to media reports, the new laws relate to the registration of political parties and prohibit anyone with a criminal conviction from being a member of an official party.

“The indications available so far suggest that they do not measure up to the international community’s expectations of what is needed for an inclusive political process,” Mr. Ban said.

“The Secretary-General reiterates his call for the Myanmar authorities to ensure such an inclusive political process leading to fair, transparent and credible elections in which all citizens of Myanmar, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, can freely participate.”

Ms. Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD), a prominent opposition leader, has been under house arrest for much of the past two decades. In August last year she was sentenced to an additional 18 months of detention after being convicted of violating State security laws.

Last month Mr. Ban expressed disappointment that Ms. Suu Kyi’s appeal against her house arrest was rejected and reiterated his call for her release.

Myanmar is slated to later this year conduct its first elections in over 20 years as part of a Government-designed timetable towards greater democratization.

******************************

ASEAN to Deepen Air Transport Liberalisation

News Courtesy: ASEAN Secretariat Press Release, 11 December 2009
*********
ASEAN Transport Ministers have agreed to further deepen and broaden Member States' commitments in liberalising air transport ancillary services in the region. Meeting at the 15th ASEAN Transport Ministers (ATM) Meeting on 10 December 2009 in Ha Noi, the Ministers concluded and signed the Protocol to implement the 6th Package of Air Transport Services Commitments under the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) and its Annex.

The Ministers also welcomed the entry into force in October 2009 of the ASEAN Multilateral Agreement on Air Services and the ASEAN Multilateral Agreement on the Full Liberalisation of Air Freight Services, which were concluded last year at the 14th ATM. It is envisaged that the implementation of these Agreements and their implementing Protocols will provide the competitive space and opportunities for greater expansion of air travel within the ASEAN region, in terms of more destinations, increased capacities and lower fares.

In addition, the ASEAN Multilateral Agreement on the Full Liberalisation of Passenger Air Services and its Protocols have been finalised and all Member States were encouraged to complete the domestic procedures for their signing by next year.

The meeting of the transport ministers comes at a time when ASEAN is looking at its connectivity within and with the wider Asia-Pacific region in supporting community building efforts and centrality of ASEAN in the evolving regional architecture. "The coming into force of the ASEAN Multilateral Agreement on Air Services and the ASEAN Multilateral Agreement on the Full Liberalisation of Air Freight Services as well as the expected conclusion of the ASEAN Multilateral Agreement on the Full Liberalisation of Passenger Air Services and its Protocols in 2010 will serve as the foundations for ASEAN Open Skies supporting community building, and economic integration and competitiveness of the ASEAN single market and production base by 2015,” said the Deputy Secretary-General of ASEAN for ASEAN Economic Community, H.E. S. Pushpanathan.

The ASEAN Ministers also agreed to implement measures to mitigate climate change especially in the land transport sector and promotion of energy efficiency and sustainable urban transport in ASEAN cities.

The Ministers also convened meetings with their counterparts from ASEAN Dialogue Partners. “The various intra-ASEAN transport initiatives and concrete plans with China, Japan and the Republic of Korea will also strengthen economic ties, support the development of a competitive and integrated ASEAN and put in place more environmentally friendly transport infrastructure and systems for sustainable economic and social development of the region," said DSG Pushpanathan.

****************

Pitfalls and possibilities in Obama’s Taiwan line

Article Courtesy: taiwandc.org as well as Taipei Times (published on 9th November, 2009)


By: Nat Bellocchi


As US President Barack Obama prepares for his visit to Japan, South Korea, China and Singapore, it is worthwhile to consider a number of issues that affect US-Taiwan-China relations.

On two of the three sides in this triangle, we have relatively new actors at the political helm: the Obama administration in the US and the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou.

Obama has the advantage of being at the start of a new chapter in relations with both Taiwan and China. He is relatively unburdened by the inhibitions of the past, and has the freedom to do some out-of-the-box thinking.

But there is already a tendency — similar to that seen in the administration of US president George W. Bush — that the US “needs” China to resolve major issues like global warming, pollution and the financial crisis.

While it is essential to engage China on these issues, we need to ensure that this is not done at the expense of a free and democratic Taiwan. During the past weeks, Chinese spokesmen have called on the US and other international partners to respect China’s so-called “core interests.” It would be good if Obama emphasized clearly that it is a core interest of the US that the future of Taiwan be resolved peacefully and with the express consent of the Taiwanese people.

Similarly, in his first year in office, Ma opened a new chapter and started rapprochement with China. While there is broad agreement that a reduction of tension in the Taiwan Strait is desirable, Ma has been criticized for moving too far, too fast and for allowing Taiwan’s drift into China’s sphere of influence to be accompanied by erosion of justice and a decline in press freedom.

The US’ Taiwan policy has traditionally swung back and forth between realism and idealism. The policies of president Richard Nixon and secretary of state Henry Kissinger in the 1970s, president Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s, president Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s and Bush in the period 2001-2004 are all testimony to the fact that the US made significant mid-course changes that were detrimental to Taiwan and that contributed to its international isolation, despite Washington’s statements that its policies were “unchanged” and contributed to “stability.”

From an international perspective, Taiwan is an example of a successful transition to democracy. The most rational and reasonable outcome of Taiwan’s normalization of relations with China would be acceptance of this young democracy in the international family of nations. This is a process that will need cooperation from all sides; for its part, China will need to see that it is in its own interests to come to terms with a small and democratic neighbor with which it can live in peace.

Taiwan can justifiably be proud of its achievements, economically and politically, but it needs to stay the course and strengthen its democracy, sovereignty and international relations so that it can be an equal partner in the international community.

Taiwan can also strengthen the fabric of its society by implementing judicial change, improving governance, protecting human rights and finding new niches in the international economy. All of these will enhance the nation’s acceptance and respect around the world.

The US can play a constructive role if Obama is willing to apply creative thinking and steer away from the pitfalls of the mantras that were recited in the past. The fundamental values of democracy and human rights, for which the US stands, mandate that we are more supportive of the dream of many Taiwanese that their country be accepted as a full and equal member of the international community. That would be change we can believe in.


(Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group.)


********************

Document - Press Release: U.S. Policy Toward Burma

Kurt M . Campbell

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Washington, DC
September 28, 2009
PRN : 2009/970 (Released at 1.40 AM, September 29, 2009)
(Courtesy: US State Dept.)

*****************************************************
MR. CROWLEY: I don’t see any UNGA survivors here yet. They’re still up there. Good afternoon, and welcome to the Department of State. To kick us off this afternoon, we’ve invited down the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Pacific region Kurt Campbell, who is going to kind of follow up on some comments that the Secretary made last night – or last week, I’m sorry – regarding Burma, but will obviously entertain broader questions on the region.
Kurt, you can just kick us off.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Thank you, P.J., and it’s great to see so many friends here. This is my first time in front of the podium, so I’m going to take a variety of questions, if that’s possible.

Let me first underscore that last week was a big week for us in the Asia Pacific region. I think all of you know the President and the Secretary had a series of meetings with our friends and allies in the Asia Pacific region. President Obama met both in Pittsburgh and in New York with President Hu, had a broad range of discussions on North Korea, on Iran, on climate change, on a variety of economic and trade-related issues. The President also met with new Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama to discuss our vital, important partnership and the direction ahead. We also had strong meetings between the President – between the Secretary and her counterparts in several key countries in Asia.

The Secretary also, on Wednesday, had a meeting of the Friends of Burma, and at that meeting she rolled out some of our initial views concerning the Burma review, which is going to be fully discussed this week on Capitol Hill and also with other key players. There will be testimony before the Senate subcommittee on Wednesday; I will appear before that, before Senator Webb and the committee.

I’d like now, if possible, to read a relatively long statement. I apologize for the detail, but it will give you some context in terms of our overall review and what we’ve concluded over the course of these last seven months.

In terms of the background, the Administration launched a review of Burma policy seven months ago, recognizing that the conditions in Burma were deplorable and that neither isolation nor engagement, when implemented alone, had succeeded in improving those conditions. Throughout this review, the Administration consulted closely with Congress, the international community, and a wide range of stakeholders inside Burma, including the National League of Democracy.

For the first time in memory, the Burmese leadership has shown an interest in engaging with the United States, and we intend to explore that interest. In addition, concerns have emerged in recent days about Burma and North Korea’s relationship that require greater focus and dialogue.

What are the strategic goals and interests of this approach? We have reaffirmed our fundamental goals in Burma. We support a unified, peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Burma that respects the human rights of its citizens. To that end, we will continue to push for the immediate and unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, an end to conflicts with ethnic minorities and gross human rights violations, and initiation of a credible internal political dialogue with the democratic opposition and ethnic minority leaders on elements of reconciliation and reform.

We will also press Burma to comply with its international obligations, including on nonproliferation, ending any prohibited military or proliferation-related cooperation with North Korea, and full compliance with United Nations 1874 and 1718.

If Burma makes meaningful progress towards these goals, it will be possible to improve the relationship with the United States in a step-by-step process. We recognize that this will likely be a long and difficult process, and we are prepared to sustain our efforts on this front.

Burma’s continued estrangement from the international community harms the country and has direct negative consequences beyond Burma’s borders. Burma’s engagement with the outside world has the potential to encourage new thinking, reform, and participation in the work of the international community.

In terms of engagement, we intend to begin a direct dialogue with Burmese authorities to lay out a path towards better relations. The dialogue will include specific discussion of democracy and human rights inside Burma, cooperation on international security issues such as nonproliferation and compliance with 1874 and 1718, and areas that could be of mutual benefit such as counternarcotics and recovery of World War II era remains.

In terms of sanctions, we will maintain existing sanctions until we see concrete progress towards reform. Lifting sanctions now would send the wrong signal. We will tell the Burmese that we will discuss easing sanctions only if they take actions on our core concerns. We will reserve the option to apply additional targeted sanctions, if warranted, by events inside Burma.

In terms of humanitarian assistance, we will continue our commitment to the Burmese people by expanding humanitarian assistance to the extent we are confident the assistance is reaching the people in need. Our experience in providing close to $75 million to Cyclone Nargis relief efforts has proven that we can effectively provide assistance directly to the Burmese people.

In terms of the approach to the upcoming 2010 elections in Burma, we will take a measured approach to the 2010 elections until we can assess the electoral conditions and know whether opposition and ethnic groups will be able to participate. We are skeptical that the elections will be either free or fair, but we will stress to the Burmese the conditions that we consider necessary for a credible electoral process.

In terms of cooperation with others in the international community, we understand that we cannot meet all of these goals alone. We will increase efforts to engage our partners in intergovernmental forum and the region to promote change inside Burma. We value very much the strong relationships we have had with the EU, with Australia, Canada, Japan, and the UN and others in working towards the common goal of a democratic transition in Burma. We seek to continue these partnerships and relationships, and indeed have consulted very closely with all of these countries and groups over the course of the last several months.

We will also intensify our engagement with ASEAN, China, and India to press the Burmese leadership to reform and to participate responsibly in the international community.

In terms of long-term efforts, we will initiate these efforts immediately, but we will also be realistic. We know the process may be long and difficult. We should be prepared to sustain our efforts beyond the planned 2010 elections. We will be working with our partners to encourage Burma to be more open and to promote new thinking and new ideas. It is important that the Burmese people gain greater exposure to broader ideas. It’s also important that Burmese leaders, including Burma’s next generation of leaders, realize that there is a more positive way ahead. These efforts may take time, but the United States is ready to commit to that long-term effort.

With that sort of broad overview, I’d be happy to take any specific questions. Thank you.

Yes. And if you wouldn’t mind, identify yourself just so I know.

QUESTION: Kim Ghattas from the BBC.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Hi, Kim.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you for this. I have two questions. One, you said that for the first time in history, the Burmese regime has shown interest in engaging the U.S. I was wondering why you thought that was. Why are they interested at this point in engaging with the U.S.?

And the second question is – it’s still a little bit unclear to me what has changed in the policy beyond the fact that you will engage in direct dialogue with them. And so therefore, what is the interest of the Burmese authorities of responding to your requests for improved human rights, et cetera, if the only thing they’re getting out of it is a direct dialogue with you?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Well, let me first say that one of our first questions to our Burmese interlocutors is why indeed have you sought a dialogue with the United States at this time? I think as you know over the course of the last several years, there have occasionally been episodic contacts between the United States and Burmese authorities. And I think what we would like to do is start a process, a sustained process of interaction, where hopefully we can answer some of these questions going forward.

Ultimately, as we conducted this review, we recognized that ultimately, we need to change our methods but not our goals. And I think at this early stage, we think it’s important to suggest that we are prepared to sit down, but also recognize that nothing has changed yet on the ground or in terms of some of the activities that Burma has been involved with. And so I think this initial step is the right approach, and greater clarity can be gained, hopefully, through a process of dialogue over the course of the coming weeks.

Yes.

QUESTION: How do you – Jill Dougherty from CNN.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Hi, Jill.

QUESTION: How do you square this apparent approach that they have with the alleged cooperation with North Korea?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Well, first of all, I think that Burma has done a variety of things. We think they did play a positive role behind the scenes recently in terms of some steps associated with the implementation of 1874, UN Resolution 1874, and we have noted that in public. And so that willingness to play a more responsible role in the realm of international sanctions support vis-à-vis North Korea has been factored into our overall approach. The truth is that we’ve had so little dialogue with Burma over the course of the last several years that we’re still looking for a clear indication of the direction of its leadership in terms of what it seeks in terms of international engagement.
We’ve seen much more engagement of Burma, particularly at the level of economic engagement and other kind of interactions, both with China, with India, and other countries in Southeast Asia. It’s possible that they seek to diversify those contacts to include the United States, and we intend to explore that over the course of the next several weeks again.

Yes.

QUESTION: Andy Quinn from Reuters.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Hi, Andy?

QUESTION: It’s sort of a follow-up question. You talked about asking the Burmese to stop whatever prohibited contacts they may have had with the North Koreans. Are you willing to let us know what your assessment is of the current state of their contacts, where they’re making deals and what these sorts of deals might be?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: I don’t think I can go very much beyond what Secretary Clinton said at the ASEAN Regional Forum a few months ago in July, late July. She underscored at that time that there clearly were some areas of interaction on the military side, and perhaps even beyond that, between North Korea and Burma that raised concerns not just for the United States, but also for countries in the immediate region. And one of our goals over the course of this period of strategic review have been discussions with Thailand, with Indonesia, with the Philippines, with China. And I think there is a greater desire on the part of these regional partners for the United States to have a direct dialogue with Burma about aspects of their relationship with North Korea that we’re seeking to gain greater clarity into.

Yes. Hi.

QUESTION: A question on China.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Yeah.

QUESTION: What is your assessment of China’s willingness to go along with tougher sanctions against Iran on the nuclear question?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: It’s a good question. I think there was an important process last week. At the same time that the G-20 was meeting at the finance minister level, there was also some very important discussion taking place behind the scenes between U.S. and Chinese representatives. For the first time really, the Chinese supported elements of our tough approach on the P-5+1. I think they are asking the United States for deeper engagement on these issues, discussions around Iran. We’ve provided background and details. I think the Secretary said that we’ll take this after the first meeting on Thursday.

All I can say is that we view China’s engagement in the diplomacy surrounding Iran as increasingly central to a positive resolution.

QUESTION: When you say that they’re interested in deeper engagement, do you mean with the U.S. about what the U.S. wants, or with the Iranians?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Deeper engagement with the U.S., both on what we think we understand in terms of some of Iranian behaviors, also in terms of what American and other P-5+1 expectations are, and what positive role China can play in the peaceful resolution of this problem.
Yeah.

QUESTION: Ai Awaji from JiJi Press, Japan.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Yes, hi.

QUESTION: I have a question about North Korea.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: After the consultations in New York, it seems that you have a strong support from your partners in the Six-Party Talks about having direct talks with North Koreans. So are you ready to go ahead with the plan and send Ambassador Bosworth to Pyongyang? Could you tell us about the next step you’re taking?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Not yet. I think one of the lessons that the United States has learned in this process is a certain degree of patience pays off. We have had, I think as you underscore, very strong support from our partners in the Six-Party framework. China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia have all very clearly and strongly underscored the American approach as the right approach. And that is that we expect North Korea to abide by its commitments made as part of the Six-Party framework in both 2005 and 2007, and that if there were to be any bilateral interactions between the United States and North Korea, that they be designed towards moving back rapidly and very clearly to a Six-Party framework for formal interactions with our North Korean interlocutors.

And I think we’re in the process now of planning our next steps in terms of diplomacy in Northeast Asia. Deputy Secretary Steinberg is in Asia currently for further discussions with both China, South Korea, and Japan. And I think it’s also the case that some very senior Chinese interlocutors will be visiting North Korea in the coming days.
Our goal is to remain lockstep with our partners to ensure that we are working together so that there can be no picking off of one or other members of the Six-Party framework or that there will be any tension among us as we engage together with Pyongyang.

Yes. Others?

QUESTION: Just one more?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So are you waiting for specific actions or statement from North Koreans?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Not at this juncture. We are involved – there are several elements of diplomacy. Only some of it involve the United States. As I indicated, both Chinese interlocutors, South Korean interlocutors have been engaging North Korea, making very clear what our expectations are in terms of next steps.
Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: Gail from Singapore Straits Times.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Hi, how are you?

QUESTION: Very well, thank you. Do you expect – President Obama happened to announce that he is interested in holding a U.S.-ASEAN summit in Singapore, and Singapore confirmed overnight that it might be held on November 15th. I’d like to know what was the state of the mind in, you know, proposing the summit? What caused – has there been a rethinking on the issue? And finally, if Myanmar is expected to participate in the summit?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Yeah. Look, let me just say that, first of all, I can’t say anything further beyond what you’ve already indicated. But I will say that we have heard, over the course of the last several months, that it was a shame that the U.S.-ASEAN summit had to be cancelled in 2008.

And it was important to many of our ASEAN friends and leaders that that be rescheduled as a symbolic summit to signify the importance of the progress that ASEAN has made over the last several years, and also of the relationship with the United States. And we’ve tried to listen to those concerns carefully, and I think I’ll just – I’ll leave it at that. And in terms of Burma’s participation in those meetings, I think we’ll have more to say about that subsequently. Thanks.

QUESTION: Rob Reynolds from Al Jazeera English.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Hi.

QUESTION: Given China’s expanding economic ties with Iran, isn’t it considered quite unlikely that China would go along with the kind of stringent sanctions that the U.S. might want to impose if the talks are not successful?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: First of all, China has broad and diverse interests, like any great power. And it faces now a situation in which it has several powers on its border that face the potential of specific challenges – North Korea obviously, Pakistan, and now a series of challenges near its territory from Iran.

It’s very important for China that this issue be resolved peacefully, but also that it be resolved. I think Chinese leaders and interlocutors at the foreign ministry have been very clear that it is the strong view of China that Iran not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons capability. And so obviously, they’ll have to face some difficult choices going forward, but in terms of their basic policy approach, I think we’re very comfortable with it.

Yes.
QUESTION: Oh, yes. My name is (inaudible) Shimbun.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Yes, hi.

QUESTION: My question is about direct talk with Myanmar. So could you give us a bit more detail about how do you proceed direct talks with Myanmar? So last week, briefers mentioned that Myanmar side will appoint interlocutor and the U.S. Government may appoint a counterpart. And could you give us your image about how do you proceed direct talks?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: I can give you some general background.

QUESTION: Where and when?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Yes, some general background. We are now working on the details of our first substantive interaction with Burmese authorities, and we expect that to take place around the edges of the UN General Assembly. I will be involved in those discussions. In addition, the legislation requires – and the Administration intends to abide by that, obviously – the appointment of a Burma coordinator. And we are in the process of working with the White House, both identifying the appropriate person and consultations with Congress about this important assignment.

QUESTION: I – so sorry, Kurt – Indira.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Hi, Indira.

QUESTION: Hi. So – sorry – if you would be the person, that means within the context of UNGA this week in New York? Is that going to be – I mean, Wednesday, we know you’re going to be testifying here on the Hill. So which day would that be?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Well, let me just say we’re working on the details of this. Obviously, we’re – it is the case that we’ve had so little of discussion – so little dialogue with Burma in the past that, actually, the process of actually setting up a meeting like this has – poses its own logistics challenges. And I think it would be fair to say that your parameters are roughly right – over the course of the next week.

Yes.

QUESTION: Paul Richard with OHI.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Hi, Paul.

QUESTION: Can you tell anything more about how this outreach from the Burmese came? And does the timing suggest that they may have been reacting in part to the enforcement of 1874? I mean, did that process make them a little nervous? Is that possibly a factor into this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: I think it is often the case that in important decisions, that more than one factor comes to play. And I think there are probably a number of factors that are based on global dynamics, some regional dynamics, and probably some internal issues as well. And we, during the process of our consultations in the region, asked some of our interlocutors to have dialogue with senior leaders in Burma, and we received a very clear message, both indirectly and then subsequently directly, that there was a desire for a dialogue at this time.
I think it’s also the case that – let’s be clear that the President’s very clear statement about approaching countries with an open hand and beginning a dialogue with them, it’s a powerful tool in – at least in the initial phase of opening up contacts. What happens subsequently will be based on concrete steps that the Government of Burma is prepared to take.

Overall, we are as interested as you are in terms of what Burma expects and what their plans are in terms of domestic steps and regional behavior. So we’re keenly interested, we’re – we have an open door, and we’re prepared to sit down and have a responsible dialogue about the way forward.

QUESTION: Well, it sounds like the U.S., though, took – it was the U.S. that initially took the initiative here, talking to our interlocutors, who contacted them?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Actually, not. The first real step came from Burmese interlocutors, but there is often in Southeast Asia, because of the lack of our dialogue, a noise-to-signal problem, trying to figure out are these authoritative voices, are they really speaking for the central elements of the government. And through a process – a very rigorous process of trying to determine exactly who this message was coming from, and sort of numerous messages, I think we arrived at a conclusion that – very clearly that they were prepared to sit down with the United States. And now we subsequently believe that’s very much to be the case.
But I must underscore we’re at the earliest possible stages here, and we’ve stated very clearly through the process of this review that there are certain elements, foundations for our approach, that we think still apply given the conditions on the ground inside Burma.

MR. CROWLEY: Last question.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Indira.

QUESTION: Thanks, Kurt. Other than the discussions that happened at UNGA and G-20 that we’re aware of on the economic front, in particular with China, can you tell us – and P-5+1 – can you tell us what else came out of the very high-level – you know, the leaders contact between Obama and Hu, specific things that came up?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Yeah, thank you. First of all, the team that the president brought from China was one of the highest-level teams I’ve ever seen assembled. Key players from all the major ministries, the key players on climate change, on the economy, on various aspects of regional diplomacy.

We talked in great detail about the way ahead on North Korea. China underscored its commitment to the Six-Party framework and its very strong insistence that North Korea abide by its statements on denuclearization. We spoke extensively about climate change and the process leading to Copenhagen. I think there was a pretty frank back-and-forth exchange between the two sides. I think the President – our President, President Obama – asked for a little bit of greater clarity to some of the positions that the Chinese interlocutors had put forward at the UN last week.

As indicated earlier, I think the President made very clear to our Chinese friends of our desire for greater assistance when it came – when it comes to Iran and our concerns about some of the steps that we’ve seen in recent weeks, and I think overall a discussion about ensuring that U.S.-China relations remain on a very stable footing. Chinese friends were very much looking forward to the visit of President Obama early next month; we talked about some of the details associated with that.

It – what in my view was impressive, it was a warm meeting, but it was very workmanlike in the sense that we went through a range of issues in great detail. And, Indira, I think what’s interesting – it’s not just the meeting itself, but the amount of preparation that went into this was as deep and intense as any international meeting that I’ve been involved with, and I think it reflects the importance of Sino-American relations in the current period.

Thank you all very much, look forward to doing this again soon.

PRN: 2009/970


***************************************

US & EU Should Engage with Burma

China is right in her regular viewpoint expressed in UN Security Council Meeting held on 11th of October 2007, 2nd May 2008, 22nd May 2009 and on 13th August 2009, that, “it is wrong to isolate and sanction Burma / Myanmar and its position in that regard remained unchanged.” It is for the people of Burma to understand that how Chinese Communist Party has betrayed them in crucial hours for peaceful democratic change? It also shows the true colour of double face of ‘Chinese communist philosophy’. Moreover, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s Gandhian philosophy of non-violence believes in ‘winning of hearts’ with love and compassion, and not with the politics of ‘permanent hate and boycott’. So the time has come to engage massively with Burma by EU and United States in all fields to end sufferings of devastated innocent citizens of Burma in cyclone Nargis. Although, it does not mean that, the struggle for the release of Daw Suu Kyi and other prisoners should be left out. The struggle for the release of Daw Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Burma for national reconciliation as per the ASEAN & UN resolutions will remain unchanged. It is a welcome step by a divisional court in Burma to accept the freedom appeal of Daw Suu Kyi.

The reason for continuous vetoing of Burma resolution by China and Russia has different aim, which goes beyond strategic, economic and energy needs. Although, the naïve ruling General’s in Burma is considering them as saviour and friend and missing the opportunity to engage their own great leader like - Daw Suu Kyi to solve the problem of Burma’s democratization.

**************

UN Security Council Document No. SC /9704 concerning UNSG Briefing on Burma

Courtesy: United Nations Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York, UN Security Council 6161st MEETING, 13th July 2009


Secretary-General, briefing Security Council, calls myanmar’s refusal, to grant meeting with jailed opposition leader a lost opportunity

The refusal by Myanmar’s senior leadership to allow Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was not only a deep disappointment, but also a major lost opportunity for the country, he told the Security Council today.

Briefing the Council on his recent visit to Myanmar, he said that allowing such a meeting would have sent a constructive, conciliatory signal inside the country and abroad. He said that, during two meetings with Senior General Than Shwe, the Head of State, and one with General Thein Sein, the Prime Minister, he had made special proposals with a particular focus on three outstanding concerns that could undermine confidence in the political process if not addressed: the release of all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi; the resumption of a substantive dialogue between the Government and the opposition; and the creation of conditions conducive to credible and legitimate elections in 2010.

He went on to say he had proposed that the senior leadership enhance cooperation with the United Nations to address pressing development needs through a broad-based process involving all sectors of society. Empowering the people to participate in development was equally important for stability, democracy and prosperity, and in order to ensure that Myanmar benefited fully from, and contributed to, the regional and global economy. “I have made clear my expectation, and that of the international community, that the Government needs to deliver on the promise to make the 2010 elections inclusive, free and fair, and to take necessary steps on my specific proposals in the very near future.” Senior General Than Shwe had pledged to ensure the elections were free and fair.

Before leaving Myanmar, the Secretary-General continued, he had been able publicly to reiterate a dual twofold message in a keynote speech to a large and diverse audience in Yangon: that, while Myanmar had a unique and complex history, the challenges it faced as a country in transition were neither exceptional nor insurmountable; and that the choice in the coming days and weeks would be for Myanmar’s leadership to meet their responsibilities or fail their own people. “The world is now watching closely whether they will choose to act in the best interest of their country or ignore our concerns and expectations and the needs of their people.”

Myanmar’s representative responded by saying that the utmost had been done to accommodate the Secretary-General’s requests, except the one for a meeting with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi due to the Special Court’s independent jurisdiction over the matter. The Secretary-General had discussed Myanmar’s social and economic development at length with the Prime Minister, who had noted that some States had imposed economic sanctions on the country instead of providing assistance and cooperation. The Government intended to implement all appropriate recommendations proposed by the Secretary-General, including on such matters as amnesty for prisoners and technical assistance for the elections.

Myanmar’s acceptance of the Secretary-General’s good offices mission, as well as his two visits in just over a year, were important milestones of its cooperation with the United Nations. His recent visit had been successful, whereas undue pressure from the outside, without full comprehension of the challenges facing the country, would not be conducive to its home-grown political process. Myanmar posed no threat to international peace and security, therefore, no Council action was warranted.

In the ensuing discussion, Council members stressed the importance of, and expressed support for, the role that the United Nations could play through the Secretary-General’s good offices. While disappointed that he had been unable to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, most speakers underlined the necessity of the unconditional release, not only of the Nobel Peace Laureate, but also of all other political prisoners in order to make the process leading to the 2010 elections free, transparent and participatory.

However, some speakers said the Secretary-General’s failure to meet with the opposition leader should not be the only criterion by which the success of his visit should be judged. The authorities had made gains towards the goal of a democratic society through implementation of a seven-step road map, of which the holding of general elections in 2010 would be an important step. The country’s internal affairs should be handled by the Government, in consultation with the population and with the assistance of the international community, some speakers said, welcoming the involvement of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

China’s representative described the Secretary-General’s visit as significant and that its positive outcome deserved a fair assessment by the international community, adding that it would be unfair to turn a blind eye to the progress that Myanmar had made. As an Asian country and a neighbour, China fully understood Myanmar’s challenges, the biggest of which was development. In addition, armed groups inside the country had not yet signed peace agreements with the Government. National unity and reconciliation were, therefore, another big challenge. Hopefully the international sanctions against Myanmar would be lifted, which was necessary for the creation of an enabling environment for development. Events occurring inside Myanmar were internal matters that posed no threat to international peace and security.

The representative of the United Kingdom emphasized, however, that the visit had been an opportunity for the Government to transform its relationship with the international community, and its failure to take that opportunity only served to isolate the regime further. Without improvement in the situation, including an acceptable outcome to the trial of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the international community must react firmly, he stressed.

France’s representative added that that the Myanmar Government had not only done nothing to meet the Council’s demands, but it had taken decisions to counter those demands. A genuine process of national reconciliation was a precondition of which the release of Aung San Suu Kyi was an essential part. However, the current impasse was no reason for the international community to do nothing. While the Council must respond firmly if she was found guilty, inaction must not be the price of a unified response.

Also making statements were the representatives of Mexico, Japan, United States, Austria, Viet Nam, Russian Federation, Croatia, Turkey, Libya, Costa Rica, Burkina Faso and Uganda.

The meeting began at 11:38 a.m. and adjourned at 1:19 p.m.

Background

Meeting to consider the situation in Myanmar, the Security Council heard a briefing by the Secretary-General on his recent visit to that country.

Briefing

BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations, commended the Council and the Group of Friends on Myanmar for supporting his 3-4 July visit to Myanmar and his good offices in that regard. The trip’s objective was to engage the country’s senior leadership directly on several serious and long-standing concerns which could not be left unaddressed at the current critical stage of Myanmar’s transition. Given the attention on the ongoing trial of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and on the eve of Myanmar’s first election in 20 years, it was necessary to raise those concerns and extend United Nations assistance to advance national reconciliation, democracy, respect for human rights and sustainable development. “The refusal of the senior leadership to allow me to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was not only a deep disappointment, but also a major lost opportunity for Myanmar,” he said.

Allowing such a meeting would have sent a constructive, conciliatory signal inside the country and abroad, he continued. During two meetings with Senior General Than Shwe and one meeting with the Prime Minister, General Thein Sein, there had been extensive discussions on the need for Myanmar to take meaningful steps on the five-point agenda developed in the context of the Secretary-General’s good offices, and on humanitarian issues. He had made special proposals with a particular focus on three outstanding concerns that could undermine confidence in the political process if left unaddressed: the release of all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi; the resumption of a substantive dialogue between the Government and the opposition; and the creation of conditions conducive to credible and legitimate elections.

It was essential to address those concerns in order to ensure that the political process was inclusive and served the interest of all Myanmar’s people in a way that could be broadly accepted by the international community, he stressed, adding that he had met with registered political parties and ethnic ceasefire groups, and shared their views with the authorities. Encouraging both groups to remain constructive in the political process, he said any successful transition would require overcoming Myanmar’s twin legacy of political deadlock and civil conflict. It was in everyone’s interest to ensure that any gains made thus far were irreversible. The Government was primarily obligated to address the concerns of all stakeholders, but every stakeholder had a role to play.

The Secretary-General said he had witnessed the progress made over the past year in recovery and reconstruction of cyclone-affected areas of the country, thanks to unprecedented cooperation between Myanmar, the United Nations and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). In all his meetings, he had stressed the need to consolidate and build on those efforts to ensure that assistance in the Delta was expedited and that humanitarian access was expanded to reach all vulnerable groups nationwide. There was no justification for the Government to allow humanitarian access to some people and not others.

He said he had proposed to the senior leadership that it enhance cooperation with the United Nations to address pressing development needs through a broad-based process involving all sectors of society. Empowering the people to participate in development was equally important for stability, democracy and prosperity, and in order to ensure that Myanmar benefited fully from and contributed to the regional and global economy. “My visit offered the clearest signal of the United Nations’ commitment to work with the Government and people of Myanmar to address issues that are of fundamental importance for the prospects of durable peace, democracy and development,” he said. “What is more important is not so much what I came back with, but what I left behind with the authorities.”

The Secretary-General, continued: “I have made clear my expectation and that of the international community that the Government needs to deliver on the promise to make the 2010 elections inclusive, free and fair, and to take necessary steps on my specific proposals in the very near future.” In that connection, Senior General Than Shwe had pledged to make the elections free and fair. It was necessary to ensure the credibility of the process and to demonstrate concretely Myanmar’s commitment to cooperate with the international community.

Before leaving Myanmar, he said, he had had the opportunity publicly to reiterate all his messages in a keynote speech to a large and diverse audience in Yangon. His message had been twofold. While Myanmar had a unique and complex history, the challenges it faced as a country in transition were neither exceptional nor insurmountable. None of the challenges facing Myanmar today ‑‑ political, humanitarian, development ‑‑ could be addressed on its own and failure to address them with equal attention could undermine prospects for durable peace, democracy and prosperity. Myanmar was not alone. Continued support for the Secretary-General’s good offices and encouragement ‑‑ particularly from neighbouring and ASEAN countries ‑‑ to the Myanmar authorities was even more important and necessary.

While welcoming the continuing support for his efforts from G-8 leaders and from the Group of Friends of Myanmar, he said ultimately it was the people of Myanmar who would bear the cost of any lack of engagement and cooperation by their Government with the United Nations and the international community. That was why Myanmar’s leaders had a responsibility to their people and the international community to respond to his proposals. The choice in the coming days and weeks would be for them to meet that responsibility or fail their own people, he said, stressing that “the world is now watching closely whether they will choose to act in the best interest of their country or ignore our concerns and expectations and the needs of their people”.

U THAN SWE (Myanmar), noting that the Secretary-General’s visit to his country had been the second in just over a year, said the utmost had been done to accommodate his requests, except the one for a meeting with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. In his meetings with Senior General Than Shwe, the Secretary-General had expressed the views of the United Nations and the international community, while the Senior General had thoroughly explained the developments of Myanmar’s political process, highlighting the Government’s two most important priorities: to hand over State power to a civilian Government after the 2010 general elections, and to lay a foundation for future socio-economic development. He had assured that the 2010 general elections would be free, fair and credible, and that he would arrange for participation of all citizens.

He said the Head of State had been willing to arrange a meeting between the Secretary-General and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, but had not been able to do so because the Special Court had independent jurisdiction over the matter, as had been clearly explained. Arrangements had been made for the Secretary-General to meet with leaders and representative of 10 officially registered political parties, including the National League for Democracy, and former armed groups. On his request, a public “Thank you event” had also been arranged by the Myanmar Government.

He said the Secretary-General had discussed Myanmar’s social and economic development at length with the Prime Minister, noting that some States had imposed economic sanctions on the country instead of providing assistance and cooperation. Regrettably, official development assistance per capita was less than $3, which was minimal compared to that of other similar countries. The Prime Minister had stressed that such policies hindered development and had had an impact mainly at grass-roots levels. It would be more constructive if the international community viewed the situation of Myanmar in a wider perspective.

The Government of Myanmar intended to implement all appropriate recommendations proposed by the Secretary-General he said. It was processing amnesty granted to prisoners on humanitarian grounds, with a view to enabling them to participate in the general elections. With regard to the National Economic Forum, the Government would cooperate with the United Nations in the agriculture, livestock and fishery sectors and on technical assistance for the elections. The State would enact the political party registration law and election law in due time. Myanmar’s acceptance of the Secretary-General’s good offices role, as well as his two visits in just over a year, were important milestones of cooperation between Myanmar and the United Nations. The Secretary-General’s visit had been a successful one.

Today, Myanmar was steadfastly proceeding on its chosen path to democracy, he said, adding that the challenges it faced were complex and multifaceted. Surrounded by countries with different political systems, cultures and religions, Myanmar was a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, which must be neutral and seek harmony with its neighbours for the stability of the region. Undue pressure from the outside without full comprehension of the challenges facing the country would not be conducive to its home-grown political process. Myanmar was making significant strides in national reconsolidation and democratization processes. As the country was not a threat to international peace and security, no Council action was warranted.

PHILIP PARHAM (United Kingdom) said that, by going to Burma, the Secretary-General had demonstrated the commitment of the United Nations to progress in the areas of democracy, human rights and development. The United Kingdom welcomed the Secretary-General’s unambiguous messages on the need for political reform, which reflected the international community’s concerns. Council statements had set out what must happen, including the release of political prisoners ‑‑ in particular Daw Aung San Suu Kyi ‑‑ and the resumption of dialogue with all political parties ‑‑ including the National Democratic Party ‑‑ and ethnic groups.

Echoing the Secretary-General’s disappointment that he had not been allowed to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, particularly at the time of a trial that was a judicial travesty, he said she had an essential role to play in establishing democracy in the country. The Secretary-General’s visit was an opportunity for the Government to transform its relationship with the international community, and its failure to take that opportunity only served to isolate the regime further.

If there was no improvement, including an acceptable outcome to the trial of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the international community must react firmly, he stressed, urging the regime to engage constructively to meet the international community’s concerns. The United Kingdom remained committed to work with partners to start a reconciliation process in Burma, and supported the good offices of the Secretary-General. The Government’s road map and the elections would have no credibility if the political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, could play no part.

CLAUDE HELLER (Mexico) said the Secretary-General’s visit had taken place at a propitious time. It had not only enabled him to assess the status of rebuilding in the country following Cyclone Nargis, but also to assess the situation leading up to general elections in 2010. Reconstruction efforts, made thanks to cooperation among the United Nations, ASEAN and the Government of Myanmar, through the Tripartite Core Group, as well as the donor community, must continue. However, there were many political challenges to ensuring that the 2010 elections would be transparent and fully inclusive. They must be aimed at facilitating a peaceful transition towards democracy and reconciliation, with a priority on strengthening the rule of law and human rights.

The elections should not only have the support of the Government, but also that of all registered political parties and any rebel groups that had shown readiness to lay down their weapons, he said. Mexico hoped that the Government would create the conditions necessary for dialogue with ethnic minorities in order to facilitate national reconciliation. All political prisoners must be released as soon as possible as their participation in the elections would guarantee the credibility and legitimacy of the electoral process. Mexico would have preferred that Senior General Than Shwe had allowed the Secretary-General to visit Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who remained under house arrest. The Government now had an opportunity to strengthen the national reconciliation process, which would allow people to enjoy their civil and political rights, consolidate peace and lay the groundwork for economic development.

Expressing concern about the constant flow of refugees from Myanmar into Thailand, he urged all regional actors to take the necessary measures to ensure that the more than 100,000 refugees would have adequate protection and shelter. Mexico was also concerned about the situation of child soldiers, since Government efforts to address that issue thus far had been insufficient. The Government should cooperate with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict in ensuring that child soldiers were reunited with their families and reintegrated into civilian life.

JEAN-MAURICE RIPERT (France) said that, although the Secretary-General had conveyed the expectations of the international community, the Government had unfortunately refused to cooperate and had not allowed him to visit Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. It had, therefore, indicated its rejection of a national reconciliation process. The international community had shown its readiness to work constructively to support reconciliation and development with strict respect for sovereignty, but the hand that the Secretary-General had offered had been ignored.

He said the Council had set out clear and precise expectations, the first of which was the rapid release of all political prisoners. However, their number had increased instead. Far from initiating a dialogue with political parties and ethnic groups, the authorities had unilaterally implemented a road map which had led to increased politicization. Not only had the Government done nothing to meet the Council’s demands, it had taken decisions to counter those demands. A genuine process of national reconciliation was a precondition of which the release of Aung San Suu Kyi was an essential part. However, the current impasse was no reason for the international community to do nothing. The Council must respond firmly if she was found guilty, but inaction must not be the price of its unity.

YUKIO TAKASU (Japan) stressed his country’s support for the Secretary-General’s good offices, which it had conveyed to the Government of Myanmar in close dialogues. The Government had been implementing a road map for democratization, which was now at a crucial stage with international attention focused on the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi. The Secretary-General had called for the release of political prisoners, the resumption of dialogue, the holding of elections in 2010, improvements in human rights, national reconciliation and the establishment of a National Economic Forum. Japan was disappointed that the Secretary-General had not been able meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, but his visit as a whole had been very useful. The Secretary-General was, after all, one of the few political leaders who could convey the concerns of the international community to the highest level of the Myanmar leadership.

He said the Secretary-General had had a full and detailed exchange of views with the leadership on the concrete steps that must be taken. It was also significant that the Secretary-General had been able to meet with representatives of all political parties, including the National Democratic Party, and to make a public address. Hopefully Myanmar would seriously consider all international concerns and come up with a positive response. The Government should match words with deeds. Regarding Aung San Suu Kyi, Japan appealed to the Government to take appropriate and lenient action. For the international community, it was important to respond positively with concrete steps. The Secretary-General’s good offices did not end with one visit, and Japan would continue to lend its support.

ROSEMARY DICARLO (United States) expressed hope that the Burmese Government would implement all the Secretary-General’s recommendations. While the Secretary-General had been able to meet with Senior General Than Shwe, the United States was strongly disappointed that the authorities had turned down his request to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and awaited a response to the challenges that the Secretary-General had presented. If the authorities failed to address those challenges, they would miss a critical opportunity. The current path led neither to democracy nor to stability, and the people would be the ones to suffer. There could be no free and fair elections while key opposition leaders, including Ms. Suu Kyi, and more than 2,000 political prisoners languished in prison. The authorities were clearly not respecting the popular will by putting the opposition leader on trial.

It was troubling that the authorities continued to fail to address grave human rights challenges, including the plight of refugees fleeing into Thailand she said, adding that the failure raised a red flag about the treatment of ethnic groups. Such problems could not be resolved by plans that lacked legitimacy, which could only be achieved through a genuine dialogue, including with the opposition and all ethnic groups. The United States recognized the crucial contribution of the Tripartite Core Group in the wake of Cyclone Nargis and called for the granting of visas to aid workers. The Secretary-General had called for immediate Government action to avoid more wasted lives, missed opportunities and prolonged isolation. The United States could not agree more. The Government must understand that those around the Council table stood ready to help. It had called cooperation with the United Nations a cornerstone of its foreign policy, and now was the time for it to match its words with deeds.

THOMAS MAYR-HARTING (Austria) noted with great concern that, during the past year, the human rights situation in Myanmar had deteriorated significantly. Daw Aung Sang Sui Kyi had been detained as consequence of an alleged breach of her house arrest, which, according to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, violated international and Myanmar law. Recent intense fighting in the east had forced thousands of civilians to flee to neighbouring States. Such developments did not bode well for Myanmar’s plans for a peaceful transition to democracy. The areas covered during the Secretary-General’s visit ‑‑ the release of all political prisoners, the resumption of substantive and time-bound dialogue, and the creation of an environment conducive to free and fair elections, national development and humanitarian assistance ‑‑ were of great relevance.

Expressing disappointment with the Government’s decision to deny the Secretary-General a meeting with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, he said the Government had missed an important opportunity to demonstrate effective cooperation and political openness. Austria urged the Government to immediately and unconditionally release Ms. Suu Kyi and all political prisoners and detainees. Concerned about the high level of poverty and human suffering in Myanmar, Austria strongly commended the efforts of the Government, the United Nations and ASEAN, in the framework of the Tripartite Core Group, to respond to Cyclone Nargis, and hoped that spirit of openness would be applied to future practical issues relating to humanitarian aid, development cooperation and the proposed creation of a national economic forum.

BUI THE GIANG (Viet Nam) said the Secretary-General’s visit had confirmed the role of the United Nations as a key mediator, as well as its commitment to helping the Government and people of Myanmar with a broad-based, forward-looking package. All activities scheduled for the visit had been realized, except one. Viet Nam regretted, but understood from the local legal perspective, the Secretary-General’s inability to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The Secretary-General’s meeting with the Tripartite Core Groups was very important as it added value to the successful cooperation between the United Nations, ASEAN and the Government of Myanmar.

He said the visit had proved to be a meaningful step in a process that was needed in order for Myanmar to become a peaceful, stable and prosperous country. The people of Myanmar would determine their own destiny in that process, but international assistance would be effective if it was based on engagement and cooperation with the Government and people, as had been the case in the context of the seven-step road map towards democracy and national reconciliation. Viet Nam supported a comprehensive approach to address the root causes of the country’s problems, which lay in poverty and economic underdevelopment. United Nations agencies and donors should and could play a more active role in that regard. Viet Nam also supported the Secretary-General’s good offices.

VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation), describing the Secretary-General’s visit as timely, noted that he had met twice with the Head of State, as well as with other Government leaders and opposition representatives, including the National League for Democracy. He had also visited regions affected by Cyclone Nargis and been allowed to speak publicly. Although he had hoped to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, the fact that he had not been able to do so should not be the only criterion for judging the visit. He had conveyed the importance of democracy and reaffirmed the international community’s readiness to provide assistance.

He said the good offices mission was a process, noting that many of the issues concerned could not be resolved immediately. The Russian Federation counted in that regard on the constructive efforts of Ibrahim Gambari, the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser. Myanmar was preparing for general elections, which was the latest stage in implementing its road map towards democracy. Assurances had been given that all political parties could participate in the elections. Grateful for the Secretary-General’s personal role in the good offices mission, the Russian Federation would continue to provide that mission with the necessary assistance.

RANKO VILOVIĆ (Croatia) said he was particularly interested to learn about the impressions that the Secretary-General had drawn from his meeting with ethnic minority groups, and about the status of humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in the Delta since his first visit since Cyclone Nargis. Croatia was encouraged by the good cooperation involving the Government of Myanmar, the United Nations and ASEAN in that regard, but was deeply concerned about the human rights situation in the country. Given the complexity of the political situation, that was further complicated by the ongoing trial of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Secretary-General’s visit also served an important purpose in laying out a vision for Myanmar, he said, adding that it showed that the Government had a choice on how to proceed. Croatia regretted deeply that the leadership had chosen not to use the unique opportunity of the Secretary-General’s visit to work towards reform, and strongly urged the authorities to use his good offices mission and to cooperate by releasing all political prisoners, resuming the dialogue and reconciliation process, and creating the conditions for free and fair elections.

LIU ZHENMIN (China) noted that some media and certain countries were not happy that the Secretary-General had not met with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, but the Secretary-General had met with many other people. Meeting with her as well should not be used as a criterion for assessing the success of his visit. General Than Shwe had not made arrangements for the Secretary-General to meet with her and the United Nations must respect that decision by a Member State. During his visit, the Secretary-General had held in-depth dialogues with top leaders and that would play an important role in encouraging the democratic process. He had also had extensive contacts with other groups.

The Secretary-General’s visit had been significant and its positive outcome deserved to be assessed fairly by the international community, he said, noting that Myanmar would soon hold its first general election in 20 years. That would not have been possible without the Secretary-General’s good offices. It would be unfair to turn a blind eye to the progress Myanmar had made. The international community should make a balanced assessment. As an Asian country and a neighbour, China fully understood Myanmar’s challenges. A least developed country, it was self-sufficient in agriculture, but most of its people were yet to reap the benefits of industrialization. Development was the country’s biggest challenge. Armed groups inside the country had not yet signed peace agreements with the Government. National unity and reconciliation were, therefore, its biggest challenge.

It was obvious that Myanmar’s problems could not be addressed in a Western manner, he said, expressing hope that the Government would steadily reform and lead its people towards economic prosperity, and that the international community would fairly assess the country’s challenges. China hoped the international sanctions against Myanmar would be lifted, which was necessary for the creation of an enabling environment for development. Events occurring inside Myanmar were internal affairs that should be handled by the Government, as they posed no threat to international peace and security. China was against isolating and sanctioning Myanmar and its position in that regard remained unchanged. It was to be hoped that ASEAN and other countries in the region would work together to help Myanmar address its difficulties.

FAZLI ÇORMAN (Turkey) welcomed some positive developments in the political and economic domains, including the ceasefire agreements with armed groups and the facilitation of external trade and investment. However, there was a need for more substantive and tangible progress on the protection of human rights and political freedoms. The 2010 elections would be a critical test, and ought to be free and fair. All political parties should be allowed to campaign for and participate freely in those elections. The Government should also establish the necessary conditions for national reconciliation.

He said it was unfortunate that, as a leading opposition figure, Aung San Suu Kyi had spent 13 years under house arrest, adding that her trial raised important question marks yet again. The Government’s refusal to allow the Secretary-General to visit her was not a welcome development and it was high time it heeded the repeated appeals of the Council and released all political prisoners, which was essential for the establishment of a political environment conducive to dialogue, conciliation and mutual respect. Turkey hoped all parties would seize the historic opportunity presented by the 2010 elections to embark upon an irreversible track towards national reconciliation and peace.

IBRAHIM DABBASHI (Libya), while expressing disappointment that the Secretary-General had not been able to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, said he understood the Government’s views. The Secretary-General’s good offices efforts had nevertheless led to real and positive developments. The Government had promised to move forward, among other things, on the commitment to continue its seven-step road map and to announce, at the right time, the date for the 2010 elections. There was a need to continue dialogue with the Government in order to urge the release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and a resumption of dialogue with political parties, including the National League for Democracy, while respecting human rights. Coordination between the United Nations and ASEAN was important in order to bring about tangible results.

He said his country had always stressed that the internal affairs of States must be dealt with through constructive dialogue between the Government and other parties concerned, with the assistance of the international community. Libya commended in that regard the role undertaken by ASEAN and affirmed its support for the Secretary-General’s good offices mission. Hopefully Myanmar would soon achieve democracy, development and national reconciliation. The country’s future was in the hand of its people alone and all should work together to ensure that that future would be a prosperous one.

JORGE URBINA (Costa Rica) expressed displeasure over the behaviour of the Myanmar Government, saying it was disturbing that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was on trial while the number of political prisoners remained consistently high. There was need for a gradual change from a policy of sanctions and isolation towards a model of greater cooperation and opportunity that would lead to inclusive dialogue, reconciliation and democracy. That change required the Government to work actively towards reform. Lasting peace and economic development depended on participation and joint action.

Welcoming the statement by the representative of Myanmar that the Government was giving priority to a transfer of power to a civilian Government in 2010, he said the political process must respect the rights of all people and provide guarantees for everyone’s freedom. Political repression and the denial of rights could not continue. Costa Rica called on the Government to release all political prisoners and restore the rights of Ms. Suu Kyi. There was an urgent need to reinvigorate the national reconciliation process, which was fundamentally important for any future economic development. Costa Rica also stressed the need for greater access to international humanitarian assistance.

BONAVENTURE KOUDOUGOU (Burkina Faso) thanked the Secretary-General for breathing new life into the reconciliation and democratization process, and welcomed his meeting with Senior General Than Shwe and development partners. It was regrettable, however, that it had not been possible for the Secretary-General to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, he said, urging the Government to release all political prisoners, establish an ongoing dialogue with all political actors and create an enabling environment for the 2010 elections. In light of the importance of those elections, there was a need for appropriate legislation to create a competent structure to manage those elections.

He said he was encouraged by the Government’s commitment to the elections, as expressed earlier by Myanmar’s representative, and welcomed the meeting between the Council and the Tripartite Core Group regarding reconstruction in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis. Burkina Faso was encouraged by the Government’s efforts to further facilitate humanitarian access to the affected zones, and called on the Government to facilitate implementation of the national economic forum, with a focus on agriculture and development. It was encouraging that several armed groups had chosen to observe the ceasefire, and others were encouraged to follow suit and join the political process.

RUHAKANA RUGUNDA (Uganda), Council President, spoke in his national capacity, stating that elections, step five of the Government’s seven-step road map to democracy, would be an important stage as they would contribute to democratization. The Government should ensure that the elections were free, transparent and inclusive. Uganda called on the Government and parties to pursue dialogue and reconciliation and for the unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi.

*******************

Important Note: To understand background of Russia and China’s support to Burma’s ruling military regime against Burmese people’s aspiration for democracy and their demand for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, please see the three-part article entitled: “Russia & China’s Veto on Burma and Politics of Double Face” published on 14th, 20th & 26th January 2007 at burmareview.wordpress.com
*******************************