Note on Release of people’s queen of Asia – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi

Burma Review welcomes the release of people’s queen of Asia and a true philosophical disciple of Mahatma Gandhi by Myanmar Government “without any words”, which was long overdue and pays deepest respect to her. Hope, her release will start a new step forward towards a democratization process of prosperous and stable Myanmar. This is also an humble and open appeal to Indian media to not to abuse your father of nation by using the word like “Gandhigiri” and relating it with Bollywood film “Munna Bhai MBBS” if you don’t have any idea of Gandhi. Burma Review is changing to Myanmar Review. Hope other prisoners will be also freed soon and pray to almighty God for stable and prosperous Myanmar in Asia and continue maintaining rich relation with people of India and government.

Which one is true – China or United Nations on British PM’s Letter on Burma to UNSG?

On 17th of March 2010, China’s State controlled official media – ‘Xinhua’ surprisingly published a news story entitled – “UN Chief denies receiving letter from British Prime Minister on Myanmar” concerning his appeal to convene meeting of Group of Friends on Myanmar to discuss Burma’s different democratic issues. It was surprising as the news was first time appeared in China’s official media highlighting UN Secretary General’s concern about the credibility of the proposed 2010 elections in Burma, release of non-violent democratic campaigner - Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, release of political prisoners after many years of sugar coated relationship with Burma’s military junta. The other Chinese media even went to extent that, British PM is lying about the letter written to the United Nations Secretary General – Ban Ki-moon, which was soon removed from the web. The news also came soon after the previous news post on Burma Review. However, my purpose of publishing that news was not for humiliating Burma’s military junta but for the support of an accountable & transparent open society institution.


However, later China’s ‘Xinhua’ published another news story on 19th of March 2010 entitled, “Group of Friends on Myanmar to meet at UN headquarters”, correcting the earlier story and accepting the validity of the letter of British Prime Minister – Mr. Gordon Brown in a balancing diplomatic move to maintain cozy relationship with Burma’s military junta as well as with European Union and Britain.


Now comes the question of de-mystifying the truth about meeting of ‘Group of Friends on Myanmar’ scheduled for 25th of March 2010 and the letter of British PM – Gordon Brown to UNSG denied by China’s official media on 17th of March 2010. The official website of the United Nations Secretary General’s press briefings archives from 15th of March 2010 to 19th of March 2010 (latest available on concerned time period) suggests that UN Secretary General has not denied the receiving letter from British PM calling for a meeting of ‘Groups of Friend on Myanmar’. In addition, the press briefings of 18th of March 2010 of the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General Mr. Martin Nesirky declares that, “Secretary-General did receive a letter from UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Tuesday 16th of March 2010 contradicting the concerned news of China’s official media. Moreover, the spokesperson of UNSG also acknowledges that, UN Secretary-General has scheduled a meeting of that Group on 25th of March.


Although, another mystery is related about the scheduled meeting of ‘Group of Friends on Myanmar’ proposed for 25th of March 2010. The office of Spokesperson of UNSG’s list of programme scheduled for 25th of March doesn’t indicate holding any meeting on Burma. The programme which is given entitled - THE WEEK AHEAD AT THE UNITED NATIONS (20-26 March 2010) has following list of schedules missing the announced meeting of Group of Friends on Myanmar -


Thursday, 25 March

Today is the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

At 11:00 a.m., Hania Zlotnik, Director of the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, will hold a press conference about the results of the 2009 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects, in the Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium.

At 12:00 p.m., Mr. Alain Le Roy, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations; and Susana Malcorra, Under-Secretary-General for Field Support, will hold their quarterly press conference.

At 1:00 p.m., the Department of Public Information will hold a press conference to commemorate the abolition of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

From 3 to 4:30 p.m., a solemn Commemorative Ceremony will take place in the Trusteeship Council Chamber to mark the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

Today is the International Day of Solidarity with Detained and Missing Staff Members.

In Copenhagen, UNDP Administrator Helen Clark will give remarks to the MDG3 Conference, with World Bank President Robert Zoellick.

Now comes the question, which one is true – United Nations or China’s official media report about the letter of British PM – Mr. Gordon Brown related with proposed meeting of Group of Friends on Myanmar scheduled for 25th of March 2010? If China is so much concerned about the detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and political prisoners of Burma, then, what was she doing in previous three meetings of UN Security Council on the concerned issue? The truth has yet to come…., So one passerby announced – “Say apple – an apple, mango – a mango, monkey – a monkey…..don’t make a monk…?”

No indication Myanmar will release prisoners ahead of elections – UN rights expert

News Courtesy: UN News Centre

15 March 2010 – An independent United Nations human rights expert who recently visited Myanmar said today that there is no indication that the Government is willing to release political prisoners ahead of national elections scheduled for later this year.

Tomás Ojea Quintana, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, had stated prior to his 15-19 February visit that the elections should be fair and transparent, that freedom of speech, movement and association should be guaranteed in the country, and that all prisoners of conscience should be released before the polls so they can be as inclusive as possible.

“Without full participation, including by the some 2,100 prisoners of conscience, and an environment that allows people and parties to engage in the range of electoral activities, the elections cannot be credible,” he said today, as he presented his report to the 47-member Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Mr. Quintana has also stated that the Government missed an opportunity to prove its commitment to holding inclusive elections by extending the house arrest of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, effectively barring her from participating in the country’s elections.

His request to meet Ms. Suu Kyi during last month’s visit was rejected. “I consider her a prisoner of conscience and reiterate my call for her release without delay,” he said today.

The Special Rapporteur added that he did not come away from his most recent visit with a “clear sense of progress” on the four core elements he put forward to the Government in August 2008.

He had urged the Government to complete the following tasks ahead of this year’s elections: the revision of domestic laws that limit fundamental rights, the progressive release of the prisoners of conscience still in detention, the reform and training of the military so that it conforms with human rights, and changes to the judiciary so that it is fully independent.

“The same large number of prisoners of conscience is to be found in prisons across the country, while new arrests and sentences continue, though there have been some occasional releases,” said Mr. Quintana, who was given access to three prisons during the visit.

Stating that the human rights challenges that the Government has to deal with are “daunting,” he stressed that accountability for past violations has to be established. “The possibility that the gross and systematic nature of the human rights violations may entail crimes against humanity must be seriously examined and addressed accordingly.

“It is now the time for the Government of Myanmar to assume its responsibility to undertake steps in this direction,” said Mr. Quintana. “And it is also now for the international community to consider further steps to ensure accountability and to assist the authorities of Myanmar in fulfilling this obligation.”

Mr. Quintana noted that Myanmar is at a “critical” moment in its history, with elections planned for the first time in 20 years.

“The process towards the organization of elections should represent an important opportunity for the Government of Myanmar to address a range of human rights issues and to initiate the much-needed reforms towards the building of democratic institutions.

“I am concerned that this opportunity is not being seized.”

Last month’s visit to the country – carried out at the invitation of the Government – was Mr. Quintana’s third since being appointed to his post in May 2008. He reports to the Human Rights Council in an independent and unpaid capacity.

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

Notice to Readers of Burma Review

Dear Readers of Burma Review,

Burma Review wishes a very happy new year to its readers for 2010. Last ten month’s journey of Burma Review has been a most difficult one. I don’t have words. I hope some good news for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will come up in the year 2010. This is to also inform you all that I’m going off the web and don’t know when I would resume the web board of Burma Review? May almighty God save India’s open society structures. Thank you or Ce-zu tin-ba-deh once again for visiting Burma Review!

Rajshekhar alias Vijay 'Bidrohi'

Editor, Burma Review

India
****************

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

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

Min Ko Naing Needs Urgent Medical Attention, NLD Says

News Courtesy: The Irrawaddy, 26th November 2009.

The imprisoned activist Min Ko Naing is in urgent need of medical attention, according to the National League for Democracy (NLD).

NLD spokesman Khin Maung Swe said Min Ko Naing, a leader of the 88 Generation Students group—most of whom are now in prison—was suffering from hypertension (abnormally high blood pressure). Khin Maung Swe said he had been told by the activist's sister that he urgently needed proper medical attention.


Min Ko Naing was arrested in August 2007, along with more than a dozen other members of the 88 Generation Students group, after leading demonstrations against steeply rising prices. The demonstrations preceded massive protests the following month, which were brutally suppressed by the regime.


Min Ko Naing was sentenced to 65 years imprisonment and was sent to a remote prison in Kengtung, Shan State, one of the coldest areas in the country. The prison has no resident medical staff. Min Ko Naing is one of 128 political prisoners in poor health, the AAPP said. More than 2,100 political prisoners are detained in prisons scattered throughout Burma.


Bo Kyi, joint-secretary of the AAPP, said the Burmese authorities were deliberately torturing prisoners in cold areas of the country by denying them the possibility of keeping warm. Remote prisons also lacked proper medical care, he said.


Two political prisoners, Hla Myo Naung and Than Lwin, needed treatment for eye injuries, Bo Kyi said. The mother of one prisoner, Pyone Cho, said she was worried about his health after not hearing from him for some time. Pyone Cho, a member of the 88 Generation Students group, is imprisoned in Kawthaung, southern Burma.

In October, Ni Mo Hlaing, an NLD member imprisoned in Thayet, Magwe Division, fell ill with typhoid fever. Her condition has steadily deteriorated, according to the AAPP.


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

Dalai Lama As A Slave Owner

Article Courtesy: phayul.com

By: Bhuchung D. Sonam

It is basic human nature to accuse, name-call and to use strange analogies when you have an internal crisis that cannot be solved. Beijing has been under the spell of this abnormal behaviour for a long time. The problem is that it does not want to look for a permanent cure. Instead it wants to remain in this irksome state.

First it was Zhang Qingli, the Party Secretary of the Tibet Autonomous Region, who called the Dalai Lama "a wolf in monk's robes, a devil with a human face." Zhang was, perhaps, seeing the world's revered icon through skewed glasses issued by Beijing. In May 2009, while speaking to a large crowd at MIT in Boston, the Tibetan leader formed two horns with his fingers and said, "A demon with compassion is not bad after all." Laughter boomed across the hall.

On November 12, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, described the Nobel Laureate as "the former head of a slave state." "In 1959, China abolished the feudal serf system just as President Lincoln freed the black slaves,” he said.

Let's get what Qin is saying − the PRC is analogous to Abraham Lincoln; and Old Tibet comparable to the slavery of black Americans.

Before China's occupation in 1959, Tibet was neither the 'Nectar-filled Shangri-la' of foreign fantasy nor a total serfdom as Beijing claims. It was a viable independent nation with its own army, legal and taxation systems. Like any other nation, it had problems too − such as lack of modern education and economic infrastructure.

It is also true that many Tibetan peasants worked on estates of the rich land-owning families and monasteries, for which they were paid, and they enjoyed freedom and had comfortable rapport with their employers. It was a relationship quite similar to today's workers at large factories. If such a system is called serfdom, as Beijing does, and compared with black slavery in America before 1865, then pretty much the whole world practiced a kind of slavery.

President Abraham Lincoln's War of Independence and eventual abolishment of slavery in the US was based on the principle of basic human equality and the urgent need to assert such rights. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and later made the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which "officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime." It was adopted on December 6, 1865.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong," Lincoln said.
China's coming into Tibet was neither a war of independence nor 'liberation' from the onset. It was an illegal annexation of an independent country. Beijing's gifts were the death of over a million Tibetans, destruction of thousands of monasteries and making the Tibetans sign the 17-Point Agreement under duress.

Beijing's record in China is not much brighter. In Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday estimate that over 70 million people died in China by 1976. To add onto this are mauling of its students in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and the countless crackdowns on poor rural people, and the execution of political prisoners in Tibet and East Turkestan (Chinese: Xinjiang).

Despite its economic growth, today's China is no fairer than serfdom, Beijing is loudly shouting about. In The Dark Side of China's Rise, Minxin Pei writes that Beijing oversees a vast patronage system that secures the loyalty of supporters and allocates privileges to favored groups. "The party appoints 81 percent of the chief executives of state-owned enterprises and 56 percent of all senior corporate executives."

In recent times there were cases of ugly racism in China, where individuals were targeted because of their skin colour. The Wall Street Journal reports Hung Huang, a publisher, writer and one of China's most popular media personalities as saying, "It pains me to see that a people who themselves were discriminated against by the West and called 'the sick man of Asia,' would have such short memories, and start discriminating against groups that are in a disadvantaged position."

Lincoln said that blacks had the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and his legacy is putting an end to slavery and giving the blacks a permanent freedom in the US.

The opposite can be said about China's record in Tibet which includes the denial of basic rights resulting in the 2008 peaceful protests in Tibet; arbitrary arrests and the disappearance of the 11th Panchen Lama Gendun Choekyi Nyima and writer-blogger Kunga Tsangyang among many others.

Qin Gang's analogy about slavery and Lincoln is a new addition to China's long list of propaganda designed to hide the fact that "beyond the new high-rises and churning factories lie rampant corruption, vast waste, and an elite with little interest in making things better."

For a "former slave owner" Dalai Lama is doing very well. Apart from being a Nobel Laureate, the Tibetan leader is a respected spiritual teacher and tirelessly works to promote non-violence and equal rights based on respect and genuine compassion.

Qin said, “So we hope President Obama more than any other foreign state leader can have a better understanding on China's position on opposing the Dalai's splitting activities."

Obama, being a man of conscience and a new Nobel Laureate, has the power to stop Beijing's meaningless lectures.

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

Does India Need to Accept Philosophy of Making 21st Century as an ‘Asian Century’?

Since last few years there has been well crafted strategic attempt to create the concept of ‘Asian Century’ by the political leadership of Communist China. The recent one is the meeting between Indian Prime Minister – Mr. Manmohan Singh and his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao’s meeting held in the last week of October 2009 at Cha-Am Hua Hin in Thaliland. However, the fact is that, Indian people culturally & philosophically don’t believe in the concept of making 21st century as an Asian century’ but believes in the philosophy of ‘one democratic world’, which has it semblance with the United Nations resolutions on ‘Dialogue among civilizations’ and Indian philosophy of ‘Vasudaiva kutumbakam’ (the whole world is one single family). The very concept of espousing cause of continental century (Asian Century) like earlier ‘European Century’ creates rivalry among continents and makes another worse political tool to exploit resources of developing and under-developed nations of Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia like colonial period of ‘European Century’.


The United Nations resolution on ‘dialogue among civilization’ was first floated by Republic of Iran’s letter dated 6th January 1999 in UN General Assembly fifty-fourth session. And the concept had its roots in the ‘Declaration of Athens’, entitled “The heritage of ancient civilizations: Implications for the modern world”, signed by representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, Italy and Greece at the European Cultural Centre at Delphi, Greece, on 11 November 1998, which also contradicts with the very philosophy of ‘continental century’ like – ‘Asian Century’ of ‘Communist China’ or colonial theory of ‘European Century’. Later on after many meetings since 6th of January 1999, the United Nations decided to observe year 2001 as the Year of ‘Dialogue among Civilizations’. So it is for the Indian leadership to re-think, whether India’s cultural heritage & philosophy believes in ‘Vasudaiva kutumbakam’ (the whole world is one single family) / the UN concept of ‘dialogue among civilization’ or in the philosophy & political theory of making 21st century as an ‘Asian Century’?

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

Burma Need’s Full Engagement, Not half-hearted One

By: Rajshekhar alias Vijay ‘Bidrohi’

The new US policy to engage Burma is a welcome step and a step forward to help directly Burma’s innocent citizen’s devastated in Cyclone Nargis. Moreover, the policy of engaging Burma is coherent with the Gandhian philosophy of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, which doesn’t believe in ‘permanent boycott and hate’ of opposite forces. However, the present policy of sanction as well as of engagement is against the basic ethos of Gandhian philosophy of ‘non-violence’, so Burma needs full engagement from western civilization and not a half-hearted one. The United States apprehension that, engaging Burma would give a wrong signal to the world is a prejudiced notion. It also creates a definite distance between Burma’s ruling military regime and western world, weakening the objective of release of Daw Suu Kyi and other political prisoners.

In a recent visit by US Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs - Mr. Scot Marciel and Assistant Secretary of State - Mr. Kurt Campbell to Burma and Junta’s positive approach of allowing media to cover the event was positive development in the democratization process of Burma.

The struggle & demand for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners could be pursued while engaging Burma as per UN & ASEAN resolutions. Burma needs a massive international help to create job intensive industries to help unemployed poor people. Moreover, India needs to engage Burma beyond traditional trade items in the areas of critical technology like - Space Research, Joint Ocean research programme, Robotics and peaceful use of nuclear energy etc.

Few days back, I come across a poem, which made India’s father of nation – Mahatma Gandhi a firm believer in ‘non-violence’. The poem is an anonymous Gujarati one and poet had been unknown to Gandhi. He mentions the poet as 'Diwana'. The poem was published in his journal – “Indian Opinion” on 13th November 1909. It is my pleasure to share Gandhi’s favorite poem with the readers of Burma Review, which is applicable to all rulers & citizens resorting to violence to suppress ‘individual freedom of opinion’. “Burma Review” will change to “Myanmar Review”, the day Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is released.

"The lamp not burning
On what will the moth throw itself and be burnt?
Seeking to burn us,
You burn yourself first.

The union of soul and body,
The same in you as in me;
Unless you wound yourself,
Us you cannot hurt.

So soon as I owned myself your lover,
You stood declared my beloved;
A name I’ve bestowed on you,
And will cease only when I perish.

Such airs you give yourself today,
Your eyes stern and proud;
These your arrows
Will turn back upon you, myself unharmed.

You live, if I live; if I die,
Tell yourself you die too;
Can a tree exist without seed?
The fruit, whereon will it grow?

Where is the king if there are no subjects?
Would he rule over wood and stone?
Your being is wrapped up in mine,
Aiming a blow at me,
You shall only hurt yourself."

(By: A Diwana - a mad one)

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

Why is China scared?

(Article Courtesy: phayul.com, first published in “Asian Age”, Tuesday, November 03, 2009, Burma Review thanks Ms. Maura Moynihan for truth speaking and her love for Tibetan people)

By: Maura Moynihan

A special ritual of life in Dharamsala is welcoming His Holiness the Dalai Lama back to his exile home. A victory banner is strung over the road as a multinational crowd pours into the lanes of Mcleodganj and down Temple Road to His Holiness’ residence, waiting for a glimpse of the great spiritual master and honorary citizen of India, waving from the window of a vehicle escorted by a crack team of Indian commandos.


The Dalai Lama never seems to rest; he just returned from North America, to commence a week of teachings on the Diamond Sutra and the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha. It’s impossible to find a hotel room — Dharamsala quivers from the weight of tourists and pilgrims from five continents who have come to this refugee town in Himachal Pradesh to touch a piece of old Tibet that fell upon this hillside 50 years ago.


There is disquiet among Tibetan refugees and their supporters over escalating Chinese repression in Tibet and Beijing’s success in pressuring world leaders to back off from the Tibet issue.


Last month United States President Barack Obama declined to meet the Dalai Lama as it would upset the Chinese Communist Party bosses in Beijing. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “The stronger relationship that we have with China benefits the Tibetan people.” A statement so credulous, or cynical, it seems to have been crafted expressly by the Beijing bureau of propaganda.

The grim reality of life in China’s Tibet is told in every corner of this refugee town, especially at the Gu Chu Sum Society created by ex-political prisoners from Tibet. The office stairwell is lined with drawings depicting the torture Tibetan nationalists endured in Chinese custody. One man was hung by his ankles for hours and whipped with barbed wire. Another had his legs and arms broken, was tossed into a sewage pit and pelted with rocks. A Buddhist nun was repeatedly raped with an electric cattle prod.

This is how China governs Tibet, and the most dangerous outcome of Mr Obama’s refusal to meet the Dalai Lama is the message it sends to the Chinese Communist Party: that their barbarous rule in Tibet can continue without impediment, that they can proceed with the plunder of Tibet’s lands and the yoking of Tibet’s rivers.

China has made the mere mention of Tibet so toxic that delegates at last month’s climate change summit in Bangkok refused to address climate change on the Tibetan plateau and its deleterious effect on the rivers of nation states in south and southeast Asia, hardly a small matter.


Control of the Tibetan plateau and its vast riches is a priority for Hu Jintao’s government. Since March 2008, China has mobilised an estimated 50,000 troops along the Tibet-India border, while protesting against visits by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Arunachal Pradesh and excising Kashmir from India in a new map and website. China is supplying Nepal with aid and weaponry, which fuels the advance of Maoist insurgencies across India. Himachal This Week just ran a two-page story on Chinese spies working in Dharamsala, with a timeline of a decade of arrests and confessions of agents with plans to attack the Dalai Lama.

Why does Beijing so fear this gentle Tibetan Buddhist master and purveyor of the Gandhian legacy of non-violence? On October 1, 2009, the Chinese Communist Party celebrated 60 years of one-party rule with a Cold War parade of massive weaponry and Maoist sloganeering. On October 2, India paid tribute to Mahatma Gandhi on his 140th birth anniversary with an inter-faith service at New Delhi’s Gandhi Smriti. Dr Singh sat upon the grass amid citizens and guests as prayers from all religions were read and sung, then scattered rose petals on the site of the Mahatma’s martyrdom with quiet dignity.


These twin ceremonies just a day apart reveal the vast gap between Mao’s and Gandhi’s visions of power. His Holiness the Dalai Lama calls Gandhi his political guru and has steadfastly pursued the path of ahimsa with the Chinese Communists who call him “an incestuous murderer with evil intentions”. But the Dalai Lama has not been broken. Witness him upon his lama’s throne, imparting the wisdom of the Buddha into the golden light of the Kangra Valley, to students from Mongolia, Vietnam and Laos, whose sanghas were laid waste by the Communists, who regard him as the Living Buddha.


“Look how much power China has, and they are so paranoid, they take such desperate measures to keep politicians away from the Dalai Lama,” says celebrated Tibetan poet Tenzing Tsundue. “The Dalai Lama has no aircraft, no money, he’s a refugee. China has weapons and banks, but they are terrified of this simple monk who wants to make peace with them. It shows their great insecurity. Our power lies in our faith in non-violence. The Tibet movement is still here after 50 years. We continue to inspire the people of the world who are looking for solutions to violence and conflict.”

(Ms Maura Moynihan is a writer who has worked with Tibetan refugees in India for many years. Now based in New York, she is researching a book on America’s failed China policy)

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

Tawang Set to Welcome His Holiness the Dalai Lama

News Courtesy: tibet.net

(Burma Review wishes for a very successful visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh, India and welcomes US Administration supportive statement on the visit of His Holiness to Tawang Monastery)


The historic ‘Galden Namgyal Lhatse’, populary known as Tawang Monastery, located in India's north-eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, has got a facelift and adorned with welcome banners to receive His Holiness the Dalai Lama due to arrive on Sunday, according to media reports. His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be in Arunachal Pradesh from 8 – 13 November, during which he will give religious teachings at Tawang, Dirang and Bombila. His Holiness will also inaugurate a super-speciality hospital at Tawang. It will be the fifth visit of His Holiness to the Indian Himalayan state, earlier he visited in 1959, 1996, 1997 and 2003. Tsona Gontsa Rinpoche, a senior Buddhist spiritual leader and chairperson of the state-level reception committee, said preparations are almost complete with 700 to 800 monks all set to give His Holiness the Dalai Lama a religious welcome.

T G Rinpoche is overseeing preparations at the Tawang monastery and also at a school playground here where His Holiness the Dalai Lama will hold a three-day religious discourse from Monday. Monasteries in Tawang are also conducting special prayers for a successful visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

'The entire town and the monastery have got a facelift. Devotees are excited about the Dalai Lama's visit,' T G Rinpoche was quoted as saying by Indo Asian News Service. The Tawang monastery was established in mid-17th century by Mera Lama, a contemporary of the Great fifth Dalai Lama. The monastery is a virtual treasure trove of Tibetan Buddhist culture. The Parkhang hall within the monastery has a library that houses a good collection of rare Buddhist manuscripts and “thanka” paintings (traditional Tibetan paintings on cloth). The sixth Dalai Lama, Tsangyang Gyatso, was born 1683 at Urgelling Monastery, 5 km from Tawang.


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

Say Apple – An Apple, Mango – A Mango, Monkey – A Monkey, don’t make a monk - Thief!

By: Vijay ‘Bidrohi’

A curious student, hungry for knowledge, asked his teacher a very difficult question – “how to follow Gandhi’s philosophy in current materialistic world to serve humanity”? After a little pause & thought, the teacher replied, it is very simple, start saying – apple – an apple, mango – a mango, monkey – a monkey but don’t make a monk & spiritual person like –Holy Dalai Lama – a thief!

Then equally difficult student asked, if I have to say - a Dragon - a Rabbit, a Monkey - a Parrot, a Mango – an Apple, a Chimpanzee – a Fox, a lovely tender Rose – a Stone, what I would do? The teacher replied - "become an Ambassador or join diplomatic service" or "membership of ruling political party of walled kingdom". Then, the curious student unsatisfied with the answers of his master asked again – "diplomatic services of which country"? The teacher quickly replied – Ambassadorship of any country will work, art of contemporary diplomacy is very scientific. It can make very simple thing appear complicated and complicated thing appear very simple. Student little confused with the answers, asked again – how come political party of walled kingdom figures into this? The teacher replied – ‘don’t you see my loved one, that, sometime, detention & house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi loved by the people of pagoda kingdom becomes an international problem for walled kingdom and sometimes an internal one! Student satisfied with answers, thanked his master, left him & walked towards countryside to spread the message singing - “Say apple – an apple, mango – a mango, monkey – a monkey, don’t make a monk thief...don't make a monk thief...don't make a monk thief...o...o...o...Great Holy Dalai Lama accept my salute!”

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

UN Expert Urges Release of All Political Prisoners Before Elections

(Tomas Ojea Quintana, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar)

Photo & News Courtesy: UN News Centre

22 October 2009 – An independent United Nations expert has called on Myanmar’s Government to release all political prisoners before the national elections planned for 2010 so that the polls can be as inclusive as possible. “I told the Government that these elections should be fair and transparent, that freedom of speech, movement and association should be guaranteed in the country, and of course that all prisoners of conscience should be released before those elections,” Tomás Ojea Quintana told a news conference in New York.

In his most recent report on the issue, Mr. Quintana, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said the Government missed an opportunity to prove its commitment to holding inclusive elections by extending the house arrest of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, effectively barring her from participating in next year’s polls.

Earlier today he told the General Assembly committee dealing with social and humanitarian issues, also known as the Third Committee, that all political prisoners should be released to be able to participate, either as candidates or voters, in the elections – which the Government announced as the fifth step in its seven-step roadmap to democracy. Last year the Special Rapporteur proposed that four core human rights elements be completed before the 2010 elections.

He again urged the Government to implement the elements, which are the revision of domestic laws that limit fundamental rights, the progressive release of the estimated 2,000 prisoners of conscience still in detention, the reform and training of the military so that it conforms with human rights, and changes to the judiciary so that it is fully independent. He reported that the situation of human rights in Myanmar remains “alarming,” with “a pattern of widespread and systematic violations.” In addition, the prevailing impunity allowed for the continuation of those violations.

“I urge the Government to take prompt measures to establish accountability and responsibility with regard to those widespread and systematic human rights violations.”

Mr. Quintana also referred to the “starvation situation” in many parts of the country – including Kayin, North Rakhine, Chin, North Shan and East Shan states – and reports of “dire” economic and social conditions. He said he has asked the Government and the international community to try to find solutions to tackle poverty in the country.

Mr. Quintana, who has visited Myanmar twice since being appointed Special Rapporteur in May 2008, announced he will make his trip by the end of November. Like all Special Rapporteurs, he reports to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council in an independent and unpaid capacity.

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

UN SECRETARY-GENERAL REITERATES HIS COMMITMENT ON BURMA

Document No. SG/SM/12501, UN Secretary General, 28th of September 2009
Courtesy : UN News Centre

********************
The following statement was issued on 28th of September by the Spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

The Secretary-General met this morning with Prime Minister Thein Sein of Myanmar. The Secretary-General reiterated his clear expectation that Myanmar will respond in a timely manner to the proposals he left with the senior leadership of Myanmar during his visit. In particular, the Secretary-General made clear that the onus was on the Government to create the necessary conditions for credible and inclusive elections, including the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, as well as dialogue with all stakeholders.

The Secretary-General reiterated his intention to work through his good offices with the Government and people of Myanmar to address the political, humanitarian and development challenges facing Myanmar, a role which was strongly endorsed again last week at the high-level meeting of the Group of Friends on Myanmar.

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

Document: Text of Address by Prime Minister of Burma at 64th session of UNGA

Given below the text of H.E. General Thein Sein, Prime Minister of the Union of Burma at the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, 28th September 2009.

Courtesy: UN News Centre

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

Mr. President,

1. I would like to extend our warm congratulations to you on your well-deserved election as the President of the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

2. I would also like to pay a special tribute to His Excellency Mr. Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann for his able leadership of the 63rd session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Mr. President,

3. The global financial and economic crisis which began last year is showing tentative signs of recovery. However, many countries, large and small, still face daunting challenges. The crisis originated in the developed countries, but the developing countries have been the hardest hit. The nascent economic recovery has yet to effectively lift the low-income countries from the trough.

4. It is commendable that the developed countries have been playing a leading role in addressing the crisis. The views of the developing countries should also be taken into consideration together with those of the G-8 and G-20 countries. Measures that could have adverse effects on economic growth of the developing countries must be avoided. The developing countries have for many years worked hard to combat poverty and achieve favourable conditions for economic growth. Low-income countries require developmental assistance beyond existing ODAs in order for them to meet the challenges posed by the global economic downturn. The developed countries should increase their ODAs to the developing countries. We welcome the reaffirmation by President Hu Jintao of the People's Republic of China in his statement to this Assembly that his country will increase support for other developing countries hit hard by the economic and financial crisis.


Mr. President,

5. Climate change is the most pressing major threat facing our planet. It is a global challenge that requires a global response. No country can be insulated from the consequences of climate change. The rapid pace and scale of climate change requires the global community to respond urgently and effectively. The UN Summit on Climate Change convened by the Secretary-General last week underlined the magnitude of the problem and the need to redouble our efforts on climate change.

6. We look forward to the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change in December. We hope that the negotiations will be fruitful and arrive at a new agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions that would go into effect in 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period expires. Any deal to be effective must be comprehensive and consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

7. The global financial and economic crisis and the climate change crisis have compounded the problems we face in the last few years. These include the rising prices of food, high energy prices and the spread of pandemic diseases. No single country can effectively overcome these problems acting alone. The global community must work together to meet the common challenges we face. In these trying times for our planet, multilateralism is more important than ever. Dialogue among nations of different religious and cultural backgrounds can contribute to international peace, security and development.

Mr. President,

8. The United Nations is the single world organization with near universal participation dedicated to peace and development. In recent years, steps have been initiated to reform the Organization to make it more democratic, effective and accountable to enable it to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Regrettably, progress has been painfully slow.

9. For the United Nations to take decisions in a more democratic manner, it is essential that the role of the General Assembly where all Member States are represented be enhanced. The Security Council reform is also important. For many years, the United Nations General Assembly has debated the matter but has made little headway. In addition to the focus on the vexed issue of enlargement of the Council, we would like to see constructive changes in procedures and working methods of the Council, particularly those that would make it more transparent and accountable.

Mr. President,

10. The continued existence of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons pose the greatest threat to mankind. Myanmar believes that the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the single absolute guarantee against the threat or use of those weapons. Accordingly, we have been calling upon nuclear weapon States to undertake the step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat with a view to achieving the total elimination of those weapons.

11. We consider that pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons we should pursue efforts towards the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States. We support the establishment of nuclear weapons free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned. Nuclear weapons free zones enhance global and regional security and contribute toward reaching the objectives of nuclear disarmament.

12. It is our hope that all nations of the world will continue to work together to eliminate nuclear weapons so that the power of the atom can be harnessed exclusively as a tool for the benefit of mankind and not as an instrument of self-destruction. At the same time, every nation must have the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear techniques have widespread application in such areas as food and agriculture, health, industry and science. We welcome the reaffirmation of the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament held last week that the international nuclear non-proliferation regime should be maintained and strengthened to ensure the effective implementation of the NPT.

Mr. President,

13. Some powerful nations have been resorting to economic sanctions to pressure developing countries. Their aim is to influence the political and economic systems of those countries without taking into account their historical and cultural backgrounds. Sanctions have no moral basis as they not only hinder the economic and social development of the people but also interfere in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the country. As sanctions are indiscriminate and of themselves a form of violence, they cannot legitimately be regarded as a tool to promote human rights and democracy. Sanctions are being employed as a political tool against Myanmar and we consider them unjust. I would like to state that such acts must be stopped.

14. Myanmar is a country that practices a market economy based on agriculture. We are self sufficient in food and are able to contribute to food security of the region. We have made considerable progress in improving the socio-economic conditions thanks to the combined efforts of the Government and the people. Without the economic sanctions imposed on us, progress would be even greater.

Mr. President,

15. Following Cyclone Nargis which hit Myanmar in May 2008, the Myanmar Government, the United Nations and the ASEAN established the Tripartite Core Group (TCG) to undertake relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction works in the affected areas. The success of the TCG has been given due recognition by the international community. It has been acknowledged as an exemplary mechanism for future disaster relief and rehabilitation undertakings. The Post-Nargis Recovery and Preparedness Plan (PONREPP) has been laid down for the period 2009 to 2011. Further plans have also been adopted to effectively respond to similar natural disasters in the future. We will implement the projects diligently.

16. PONREPP will require US$ 691 million over a period of three years. To date, only half of that amount has been committed by the international community. We have been carrying out many of the rehabilitation activities relying on our own funds and resources. If more funds are forthcoming and donors fulfill their pledges, the rehabilitation process would be speedier and more effective. I would like to say that the Myanmar Government and the people of the affected areas will always remain grateful to the individuals, organizations, and the international community at large for the generous help and assistance extended to them during their hour of need.

Mr. President,

17. Peace and stability in the country and the successful holding of the democratic elections are essentials for the democratization process of Myanmar. A new State Constitution was approved by 92.48% of the eligible voters in a nation-wide referendum held in May 2008. The multiparty general elections will be held in the coming year. Subsequently, the parliament will be convened and a government will be formed in accordance with the new Constitution.


18. The country would have a bicameral legislature. The Constitution provides for a presidential system of governance. It is envisaged that the President would be elected by a presidential electoral college. The State will be composed of seven states, seven regions, five self-administered zones and one self-administered division. The Capital, Nay Pyi Taw, would be designated a Union territory. In keeping with the state structure, the Constitution also establishes 14 state and regional legislative bodies.

19. The transition to democracy is proceeding. Our focus is not on the narrow interest of individuals, organizations or parties but on the larger interest of the entire people of the nation. We have urged all citizens, whether they agree with us or not, to actively participate in the process without losing sight of the democratic goal. In this way, the aspirations of the people will be fulfilled.

20. The Government is taking systematic steps to hold free and fair elections. Electoral laws will be promulgated, and an election commission will be formed so that political parties can be formed and contest the elections. On 17 September 2009, 7,114 prisoners were released for their good conduct. They too will be able to participate in the general elections next year in accordance with the law.

21. The multiparty general elections is a significant step in our transition to a peaceful, modern and developed democratic State. Democracy cannot be imposed from the outside and a system suitable for Myanmar can only be born out of Myanmar society. Citizens of Myanmar are the ones who can best determine their future. They can judge the merits of democracy and make adjustments in accordance with their genius.

22. The international community can best assist Myanmar's emergence as a new nation, based on the principles of justice, freedom and equality enshrined in the new State Constitution, by demonstrating understanding.

Mr. President,

23. Global issues that require the attention of all countries will increasingly come to the fore in the years to come. Strong political will and commitment of all countries would be needed to overcome the challenges. Speakers before me have emphasized the need for collective efforts in finding solutions to the problems and challenges. I fully share their views and affirm that Myanmar will do its part.

24. Thank you.

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

Angela Merkel: the 'Darling of Europe' & Champion of Burma's Freedom

Burma Review welcomes the victory of Angela Merkel and thanks people of Germany for giving her a second term'. In her long career of public service - Angela Merkel popularly known as 'Angie' always stood firm to lead Europe preserve the values of 'freedom of thought' against regimented philosophy. If Daw Suu Kyi is people's queen of Burma, Angela Merkel is 'Darling of Europe'.

She has not only worked hard as a champion of 'individual freedom' in Europe but also for the freedom of Burma's 'people's queen' Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. This year on 12th of June, she was among first european leaders to organize joint press conference with French President - Nicolos Sarkozy to appeal Asian powers to work seriously for Daw Suu Kyi's release. Burma Review looks forward to see continued close cultural-economic-strategic cooperation between India and Germany for a better world.

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


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