Document: US President – Obama’s Remarks at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize

Document Courtesy: The White House (whitehouse.gov), Office of the Press Secretary Press Release, 10 December 2009

**************
"THE PRESIDENT: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.


But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.


For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause)

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth."

Thank you very much. (Applause)

END

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

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


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

America in the Eyes of Contemporary China

By: Vijay ‘Bidrohi’

Important Note: The purpose of the article is to indicate Chinese sadistic communist attitude, taking pleasure in American tragedy has even not changed in present phase and Obama administration should take suggestions of Republican Party seriously on the concerned broad question’s regularly published on GOPUSA as JFK was democrat and not republican. Present ‘world economic crisis’ is not mere recession but ‘economic cold war’. The open society nations need to check the existing gaps in their stock markets– Vijay ‘Bidrohi’.


In my earlier post entitled – “John F. Kennedy, J. L. Nehru, Bogyoke Aung San and Daw Suu Kyi: Four Personalities - One Soul (Part-I)” published on 15th February 2009, I mentioned the Chinese official vision of taking sadistic pleasure at the time of tragic death of one of the great leader’s of America- John F. Kennedy by writing ‘Kennedy Biting the Dust’ showing the dead President Kennedy lying in a pool of blood and his necktie marked with dollar sign’ in their official leading newspaper – ‘Daily Worker’. However, open society of the West gave positive tribute to their great leader Mao at his death. One may assume that, it was natural Chinese reaction as the world was clouded in the cold war rivalry. However, the fact is that, official Chinese sadistic perception towards America has even not changed in contemporary phase. On the tragic eventful day of September 11, 2009 (the painful American tragedy of September 11 is known to the world), Chinese official media ‘People’s Daily’ published an article entitled – “Bobby and Jackie: a modern American Greek Tragedy”. The article was published taking note from the book of C. David Heymann entitled – “Bobby and Jackie: A Love Story” written on the love affairs of Robert Kennedy (popularly known as Bobby) and Jacqueline Kennedy. The article attempted to highlight that, John F. Kennedy was intellectually inferior then Robert Kennedy and I quote – “Jackie and Bobby had a much closer intellectual liaison than Jackie and John”, unquote.


The article also attempted to prove that “these sorts of illicit love affairs often happen in American free society and “American power elite often play by different rules”, indicating Chinese communist society as an ‘ideal one’. The attempt to denigrate American values by Chinese communist is a regular phenomenon in Chinese official media or the media strictly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party without accepting the fact that ‘love’ can take place at any part of the world, if both the opposite sex agrees and even among rich or poor, Or even old and young and it doesn’t know any foolish communist political control?


Even, if the news of love affairs between Bobby and Jackie are correct then what is wrong in it after the death of JFK, having consent of both? At least, Bobby or Robert Kennedy was not keeping number of concubines like Chinese communist party officials? For example, the Chinese Communist Party’s “Central Discipline and Inspection Commission” themselves accepted on 4th of September 2009 reported by Li Hong for “People’s Daily”, that, “Ninety-five percent of the corrupt officials investigated and sent to law by the commission, at least one mistresses or concubines was embroiled in each case.” It further discloses and I quote, “In China, former Shanghai top leader Chen Lianyu was sent to prison for abusing the city’s pension fund and leading a “decadent lifestyle”, implying that he took multiple mistresses. A woman surnamed Li, who had relationships with the former Qingdao City Party secretary, former SinoPec Chairman and the country’s former finance minister, led to revelation of a colossal graft case…And, sometimes unpleasant wrangling with concubines may force an official to the edge. Duan Yihe, former Chairman of Jinan City’s people Congress, or local legislature, in Shandong Province, had his concubine and her car bombed into pieces, because he got the information that woman, stranded then, was going to tell his corruption at the local prosecutor’s office, unquote. (1)


In addition, a corrupt senior official in Shaanxi province had been brought down by his eleven mistresses, as per the state media ‘People’s Daily’ reports published on 7th September 2007. Moreover, keeping concubines by Chinese Communist Party officials caught in corruption are in increase with compared to year 2009 to 2007. (2)


Although interestingly, article-2 of the marriage law of the People’s Republic of China advocates for – “A marriage system based on the free choice of partners, on MONOGOMY and on equality between man and woman shall be applied. And, article-3 states that, “marriage upon arbitrary decision by any third party, mercenary marriage and any other acts of interference in the freedom of marriage shall be prohibited. The exaction of money or gifts in connection with marriage shall be prohibited. Bigamy shall be prohibited. Cohabitation of a married person with any third party shall be prohibited… etc. unquote. (3)

The culture of taking second wife popularly known as ‘bao ernai’ has remained uninterrupted in new communist China. Nine years ago, in the year 2000, China’s Deputy Director of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress (NPC) standing committee – Mr. Hu Kangsheng accepted the fact that, “the practice of taking a mistress is soaring, posing a serious threat to China’s statutory rule of monogamy.” (4)

The purpose to highlight relationship between Bobby & Jacqueline Kennedy into illicit relations has objective of denigrating the personality of JFK, justifying their own regimented philosophy, despite prevalence of concubine culture by party officials in China. China’s official media didn’t miss any opportunity in putting salt & pepper in American wounds. Another instance is of recent article published on 5th of August 2009 in “People’s Daily” online entitled - “News Analysis: Race still matters in US” despite American people’s broadness to elect Mr. Obama as first African-American President.

Endnotes:

1. Li Hong, Women and Corrupted Officials, People’s Daily Online, Beijing, China, 4 September 2009.

2. Jonathan Watts reporting from Beijing, Concubine Culture brings trouble for China’s Bosses, The Guardian, UK, 8th of September 2007.

3. Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China, From the website of Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in New York, Accessed on 20 September 2009.

4. Unfaithful men…Infidelity Threatens Chinese Family Values, The Straits Times, 1 August 2000.

(Note: For the security of the website, web links has been not given as per reference rules, Burma Review)

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

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