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.

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

Bhutan reports 17 border intrusions by China in 2009

Article Courtesy: phayul.com, published on 9th December 2009.

By Kalsang Rinchen

Dharamsala, December 9 – It's not just India that is at loggerheads with China on border issues. Bhutanese Secretary for International Boundaries, Dasho Pema Wangchuk, told the Bhutanese parliament that Chinese soldiers had intruded into Bhutanese territory as many as seventeen times in 2009 alone, reported Kuenselonline, web edition of Bhutan's national newspaper.

Dasho Pema Wangchuk was presenting an updated status report on the Bhutan-China boundary negotiations on December 4 in the Bhutanese National Assembly. Chinese soldiers have entered as far as the Royal Bhutan Army (RBA) outpost at Lharigang in the Charithang valley, according to Wangchuk.

According to Wangchuk, China started road construction work from Langmarpo stream towards Zuri ridge in 2004 but later stopped work after protests from the Bhutanese government. However, in August this year the Chinese started extension of the road construction work between Zuri to Phuteogang ridge, which overlooks the Charithang valley, Wanghuk said, adding that his government protested five times and asked China to stop construction on the basis of 1998 agreement on the maintenance of peace and tranquility in Bhutan-China border areas which states that “the two sides agree to maintain peace and tranquility in their border areas pending a final settlement on the boundary question, and to maintain status quo on the boundary as before March 1959” and that “they will also refrain from taking any unilateral action to change the status quo of the boundary”.

Dasho Pema Wangchuk said that the main reason why Bhutan has not been able to successfully demarcate the northern border with China even after many years is because of the differences of views and positions of the boundary between Bhutan and China. “At present we have four areas which are disputed in the western sector- Doklam, Charithang, Sinchulumpa and Dramana pasture land, ” Wangchuk was quoted by Kuensel online as saying.

The two countries have met 18 times since 1984 for border talks with the latest being in August 2006 in Beijing. China had proposed the 19th round of the border talks to be held in December this year but Bhutan has proposed the border talks to be held in Thimphu in January next year. Wangduephodrang MP, Gyem Dorji, said thousands of people from Tibet enter Bhutan every year to "illegally" collect Cordyceps (yartsa gunbu) along the northern border of Sephu Gewog.

Analysts say that China has not been able to woo Bhutan the way it had wooed Nepal. Bhutan has been a loyal neighbor for many years to India which has been providing various assistance to the Himalayan Kingdom.

Many Tibetans settled in Bhutan after fleeing Tibet through its southern border at Dromo after Chinese invasion. However, the Tibetan population in Bhutan dwindled after the royal government of Bhutan expelled many Tibetans and Nepalese refugees in early eighties.

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

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’?

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

A Lost Message And A Lost Opportunity

Article Courtesy: gopusa.com


“How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin”


“Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit”


“The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated” -----

By ---- Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), 40th President of United States.


By: Michael Reagan

This past week I have been in Europe to help commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I went into this trip with a great deal of enthusiasm and an expectation that the heroes responsible for that momentous event be justly recognized. Sadly, I was instead reminded of how much we have willingly forgotten.


Over the past several months, the Reagan Legacy Foundation has been working hard to ensure that Berliners remember the vital role my father played in bringing down the wall and defeating communism. Amazingly, there are no major statues, memorials or tributes to Ronald Reagan -- the president, the man who sided with freedom over tyranny. Thankfully, in partnering with the "Checkpoint Charlie" museum, we have now unveiled a Ronald Reagan permanent exhibit to help educate Berliners and their international guests of what would have been an unpardonable omission in modern historical analysis of that period.


During these ceremonies I fully expected the legends of this period to be honored...to at least be mentioned. But over the course of this celebration that included fireworks and a re-enactment of the fall of the wall, I heard nary a mention of Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. This was both frustrating and alarming.


One only has to review modern education textbooks to see that this omission is not limited to an important celebration on a cold Berlin night. Rather, it is a trend -- a trend that is removing the reference of the great heroes and leaders of the Cold War battle and replacing it with a softer, perhaps less controversial revision.

Last year, a German study revealed how disturbingly little German youths understand about their divided history just a generation back. Two-thirds of the schoolchildren surveyed did not believe East Germans lived under a dictatorship. Nearly as many thought the East German economic system was preferable to West German's. Communism, preferable?!


When we allow such a travesty, we disregard not only who the heroes were, but that there was ever any need for heroism at all. The Berlin Wall did not simply divide a city. The focus of Monday's celebrations should have been life and freedom, not unity.


The facts are what they are. We cannot and must not forget that the Soviet Union murdered and oppressed millions of people before, during and after World War II in an effort to conquer more territories, gain more resources and grab more power. And while the world trembled, a select few leaders of that era finally took a stand in defense of freedom-loving people who lived under separate and distinct flags.


Germans are not the only ones who have forgotten. This lazy softening of history is equally a problem in our American classrooms. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, American students test worse in history than they do in any other subject. A survey in 2007 concluded fully a third of 17-year-old American students did not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees our freedoms of religion and speech.

These are the principles our nation's veterans have fought and died for over the centuries, on our own soil and across an ocean, in places like Germany. These are the principles for which men and women like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher made such courageous stands. This is the bedrock of who are, who we have been, and who we must remain in the future.

Thomas Jefferson told us, "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."

I was proud to stand there and remember the fall of that terrible Wall. But until we remember in full, we leave ourselves open and vulnerable to the seditious creep of communism and oppression.


(Michael Reagan or Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late US President Ronald Reagan, is Chairman and President of The Reagan Legacy Foundation.)


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

Pitfalls and possibilities in Obama’s Taiwan line

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


By: Nat Bellocchi


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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)

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

Don’t concede more on Taiwan

(Article Courtesy from taiwandc.org , also published in Taipei Times on 6th of November 2009)

By: Hisahiko Okazaki

For those who are concerned that democratic Taiwan should continue to have the freedom to choose its own future, US President Barack Obama’s upcoming visit to Beijing brings back the memory of a regrettable episode during former US president Bill Clinton’s visit to China in June 1998.

Early in the spring of that year there were signs that the US government would assure China that Washington would not defend Taiwan if it declared independence. On March 13, Joseph Nye proposed in a Washington Post op-ed piece to eliminate the ambiguity in the US position by stating that the US would not recognize or defend Taiwan if it were to declare independence.

I argued against such a policy in an op-ed piece in the Japan Times and directly to the US assistant secretary of state Stanley Roth in Tokyo when he was accompanying US secretary of state Madeline Albright on her way to Beijing to prepare for Clinton’s visit.

My argument was as follows: “Suppose Taiwan declared independence and China used forced, believing in the American statement of its position, I wonder whether the American public and the Congress would acquiesce in abandoning a free and democratic Taiwan to China. If not, it is tantamount to tricking China into a war. It would be similar to how the Korean War began. The United States declared that South Korea is outside its defense line, but intervened when the North launched an attack, having possibly believed in your words.”


I do not know whether my arguments had any influence, but there were no statements about not defending Taiwan then. On the eve of Clinton’s visit, however, stories began to circulate that he was going to state a “three nos” policy: The US would oppose Taiwan independence, oppose a “one China, one Taiwan” policy and oppose Taiwan’s formal membership in state-based international organizations.


Fortunately, there was no mention of “three nos” in Clinton’s joint press conference with the Chinese president Jiang Zeming (江澤民), nor in Clinton’s major policy speech at Peking University. Then the volte-face came. On a visit to Shanghai, Clinton announced the “three nos” during a dialogue with Chinese intellectuals on a TV show.


Although the US Congress quickly rejected Clinton’s commitment through resolutions of both Houses, China may still view his remarks as an official commitment of a US president and may quite likely expect Obama to reconfirm the three nos.

It is not difficult to suspect that there were some disgraceful deals behind the scenes. The date of Clinton’s visit, to start with, is believed to have been sought by the US to turn attention away from a domestic scandal, and that indebted the US to announce the three nos, while bypassing Japan and South Korea to make the longest trip Clinton paid to a single country. In addition, the topics of the Shanghai TV interview, which was originally scheduled to focus on cultural affairs, appeared to have been changed on short notice.

Through the 37-year history of US-China engagement, the US has consistently retreated in the war of semantics about Taiwan. The US has been unable to muster points against the steel wall of one-party dictatorship. It lost inch-by-inch every time. Each time, however, Washington reassured the US public that its position hadn’t changed.


How deceptively the US position had eroded can be seen in the comments made by Clinton. He began his remarks on the “three nos” by stating that he was reiterating US policy on Taiwan but not specifying the time of the previous remarks, whether it was during his meetings in Beijing or much earlier. Then national security adviser Sandy Berger said the US had simply repeated its basic position.


In fact, the US has consistently shifted its position. It started with an admirably objective statement by then national security adviser Henry Kissinger in 1972: “The US acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.”


This was cleverly phrased but would have become obsolete were Taiwan to declare independence. The retreat from this position began in 1983 by denying the intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”


The word “pursuing” implies planning, working for and encouraging, but it does not prevent the US from accepting a fait accompli of Taiwan’s independence. However, there is a more clear implication in the term “not support” used during Clinton’s 1998 visit, which was well explained in Washington Post editorials as among the options that the Taiwanese eventually might choose.


The US assured Taiwan at the time that “not support” did not mean “oppose.” In fact, “oppose” was the term sought by China through former US president George W. Bush’s administration. China boasts domestically that it has won the commitment from the US, but there is no diplomatic record to testify to such a position.


As for Obama’s trip, it would be best not to go beyond the three joint communiques that have long defined US-China relations. The bottom line should be not to reconfirm the “three nos,” which were already denied by Congress. The Obama administration should never accept a change from “not support” to “oppose.”

Incidentally, the Japanese government, perhaps uncharacteristically, has never conceded an inch in the past 37 years from its stand to “understand and respect the Chinese position.”

(Hisahiko Okazaki has served as Japanese ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Thailand. He now runs the Okazaki Institute, a think tank in Tokyo. This piece was first published in ACFR NewsGroup No.1528, an e-mail publication of The American Committees on Foreign Relations, on Oct. 27)

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

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.

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

US & EU Should Engage with Burma

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

Briefing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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