Aung San Suu Kyi on The Huffington Post

Obama tells Myanmar junta to free Suu Kyi

2009-11-15T01:59:27Z

SINGAPORE — President Barack Obama on Sunday told Myanmar's junta to free pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi during an unusual face-to-face interaction with a top leader of the ruling military.

Obama delivered the strong message during his summit with leaders of 10 Southeast Asian nations, which included Myanmar Prime Minister Gen. Thein Sein.

Kurt Campbell, Aung San Suu Kyi Meet In Burma: A First In 14 Years

2009-11-04T08:09:30Z

YANGON, Myanmar — The highest-ranking American diplomat to visit Myanmar in 14 years offered improved relations Wednesday if its military regime moves toward democracy, putting into action the Obama administration's new policy of engagement with the isolated country.

Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell spoke after both talks with the ruling generals and a rare meeting with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has been under house arrest for most of the last two decades.

Jack Healey: A Missed Opportunity: Human Rights in Asia

2009-10-28T02:09:39Z

In the early 1990s, at the Vienna Human Rights Conference, the Chinese government would not allow the Dalai Lama to enter the building and attend the on-going conference. Now in 2009, President Obama just did the exact same thing by refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama during his visit to Washington, DC. In Vienna, it was more understandable because China forbade it as they sat in the conference as a key player inside the United Nations. The President leads a free nation.

My reaction to the exclusion of the Dalai Lama from the Vienna Human Rights Conference was to carry out a blockade of the conference building entrance as an act of civil disobedience. The New York Times carried a picture of that demonstration. If I could find a venue to organize a similar demonstration of Obama's refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama this time, I would.

Let me say why.

The Dalai Lama represents the Tibetan people better than most governmental leaders represent theirs. Like Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, another popular leader kept out of power by her government and again backed by the Chinese. Why is it that he (or she) should suffer these kinds of slights? Should not the Nobel Peace Prize winners have anything to say about this? Is it not correct and proper that the winners of such prestigious awards be able to convene and talk about the state of peace in the world?

China is the answer. China is big. Big in dollars. Big in customers. Big in our national debt. Big in supplying guns, to Burma which itself oppresses its people with a serious determination. Big in human rights abuses. China often sends fearsome messages, in the form of military exercises and threatening diplomacy, to Taiwan. China is big in land and environmental abuse. China is big in labor abuses. Many corporations for fear of China will not do a certain kind of charity(funding of human rights groups for example) . Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State goes to China and goes easy on their human rights abuses. She was stronger when she spoke at a human rights event in China when she was the First Lady. We human groups are told that she is after a better economic relationship with China and that she needs to go easy. The President follows suit by avoiding the Dalai Lama. The administration is coordinated when it needs dissidence.

Our President, skilled in politics, terribly bright and a former community organizer, is afraid of being seen in public shaking the hand of the Dalai Lama. This is especially ironic in light of Obama receiving this year's Nobel Peace Prize. There are vague promises that Obama can meet with the Dalai Lama later. If later, then why not now? One Nobel winner should be able to meet another Nobel winner without fear. Did not one of the President Roosevelt speak of the freedom from fear as a necessary ingredient for life in a democracy?

Thus, given this kind of timidity, hard questions need to be asked. Can President Obama ask the President of China if the Dalai Lama would be allowed back into Tibet? Take up his old residence? Calm his people? Walk familiar Lhasa streets now that he is in his older years? Hang out with his followers? Pray in monasteries that he knows? Dalai is old and it would be an appropriate gesture by both heads of state.

Tibet is the Dalai Lama's "Vatican." He is non-violent, unlike the Chinese government. Publicly acknowledging the Dalai Lama's cause would be type of change I hoped to see when I gave money to Obama's campaign. Can we advocate that the Dalai Lama be able to return to his home and join his people? Is this too radical?

Better yet, maybe the Dalai Lama ought to do what Gandhi did ...march, not to the sea, but to the mountains. His mountains, Tibet. Maybe. Maybe not. But then, nothing comes from fear, not for the President, not for the Dalai Lama and not for the Chinese -- it is time for the light.

Jesse Larner: Obama and the Nobel: Just Bizarre

2009-10-09T18:38:33Z

First media check of the morning - my web browser opens to the NYT - and I thought it was a joke. "Has someone hacked the Times site?"

Nope. Obama really did win the Nobel Peace Prize, eight months after his inauguration.

Now I know a lot of people are going to be very happy about this; a new day has dawned, etc. Personally I found it inexplicable. And disturbing. And vaguely annoying.

The Nobel is supposed to mean something, although it's been awarded to some dubious people. Rigoberta Menchu, for example, for some an icon of the Guatemalan freedom struggle. All of the acts of terror and martyrdom that she describes in her autobiography really did happen. But many of them didn't happen to her, and the discovery of her lies set back the cause of peace in Guatemala by an incalculable quanta, since it allowed the reactionaries to pretend that nothing was very much wrong in Guatemala anyway, or that it was all the Indians' fault. Yasser Arafat also won the prize, as the right-wingers love to point out, although I don't think he deserved it less than his interlocutors and co-winners, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. None of them were willing to move their people towards what will ultimately be necessary for peace in the Middle East: The Palestinian abandonment of the dream of expelling the Jews from the region, and the Jewish abandonment of an undemocratic Jewish state in which Jews have special rights based on ethnicity.

And for every right-winger enjoying his outrage over Arafat's award, there's a left-winger who is dismayed at both Arafat and Kissinger receiving the prize.

Still, the peace prize has had many impressive and deserving laureates: Nelson Mandela, Muhammad Yunus, Aung San Suu Kyi, Oscar Arias Sanchez, Shirin Ebadi, among many others. Quite a few more good people than bad, people who changed the world or their little corner of it. What exactly has Obama done to deserve this honor, eight months out? He's embarked on a program of humility in diplomacy abroad, no doubt warming the hearts of the Norwegians who chose him [all the other Nobel prizes are awarded by Swedish institutions; the Peace Prize by a Norwegian one.] America now presents itself as merely an equal in the company of nations. I hope we're only doing this in public, not behind the scenes, because the world desperately can't afford, right now, for America not to lead military, economically, and diplomatically; and, yes, as a champion of freedom in the world. We don't have to be arrogant about it. But we do have to do it.

Obama hasn't done much about climate change besides talk about it a lot. He has more or less continued the Bush drawdown in Iraq, and he hasn't responded very forcefully to signs that the nascent and fragile civil society of Iraq may not be able to survive the absence of American soldiers, any more than it can survive the presence of American soldiers. Yes, it's a conundrum. What is Obama doing about it? I don't know. I doubt the Swedes and Norwegians do either.

Obama has suggested that the United States and the international community should move to complete nuclear disarmament - the thing that is more likely than any other thing in the world to guarantee the return of major wars between superpowers that kill tens of millions. This should not recommend him for a peace prize.

On Afghanistan, the most important issue before him at the moment, he's dragged his feet on a strategy. Signs are that he may be looking for a split-the-difference approach: Less than the full 50,000 troops that General McChrystal has requested, less than full engagement in nation-building, but more than simply a remote-controlled, killer-drone strategy of attacking al-Qaeda wherever it might be found in the country, leaving the Afghans to struggle with the Taliban on their own. Such neither-nor half measures might well be the worst approach possible, gaining neither stability in Afghanistan nor the minimum security we need to dishonorably abandon that country.

Sure, it might work. So might ignoring the Taliban and sending the drones after Zawahiri. So might the strategy I would like to see: One last try at getting nation-building right, involving a lot more troops, a lot more economic development, a lot more wisdom, and a much more realistic policy toward Pakistan. But again, we don't know. We can't know yet, because nothing has really been tried. So the prize seems a bit premature. Jimmy Carter got a peace treaty and diplomatic relations between Israel and Egypt, and the return of the Sinai. He had to wait thirty years for the call from Oslo.

But maybe that's the point. Maybe the more absurd and bizarre it is, the more of a kick in the pants it is to the Bush presidency, of late, unlamented memory. This is how much we hate you, George; anyone who comes after you will win the Nobel prize, just for not being you. This may be satisfying to some. It is rather childish, however. And a poor use of the power of the prize.

Here are a few of the other reported finalists for 2009:

Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe, a man of almost unbelievable courage in standing up to the thug regime of president-for-life Robert Mugabe. Tsvangirai withdrew from last year's runoff election for president, even though he would surely have won a fair ballot, because, he said, he could not ask his supporters to risk their lives for any cause, not even for democracy; and certainly not for his, Tsvangirai's, election; although he himself risks his life for the freedom of his fellow citizens every day. Since that canceled election, his wife of more than 30 years, Susan, was killed in an automobile "accident" in which Tsvangirai himself was also injured; and his three-year-old grandson, Shaun, "accidentally" drowned in a swimming pool. Tsvangirai's withdrawal from the election was the kind of act that will always separate men of conscience like himself from bullies like Mugabe.
Hu Jia of China, a human rights and democracy advocate who has paid dearly for his desire for freedom. He's presently serving a three and a half year prison sentence for "inciting subversion of state power."
Dr. Sima Samar of Afghanistan, a physician who has set up medical services for refugees, and who served as Afghan Minister of Women's Affairs until she was driven from office by the death threats she had earned through being insufficiently cowed by the demands of Islam (she questioned the legitimacy of Shari'a law, and of customs that kept women isolated, ignorant, and powerless.) She is now the chairman of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (not a safe job) and is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Sudan.

But - not the year for any of these good people. More important to lift up a president of dubious international achievements, whose legacy in regard to war and peace we may not know for years, in order to confirm the Nobel committee's insular and naive beliefs about the world.

I wish that were all there was to it. But am I the only one who found something vaguely sinister in the statement by Thorbjorn Jagland, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, who said "We would hope this will enhance what he (Obama) is trying to do." Is this really the role of the Nobels - to influence policy? If so - and remember that there's a $1.4 million cash prize attached to the honor - it could be considered an illegal interference with the United States' exercise of sovereign power in the conduct of its foreign policy.

Wouldn't it be great if Obama were to refuse the prize? That would surely be even more astonishing, and even more worthy of acclaim, than the award. He could point out that initiatives are one thing, and results another, and that he will wait for results before accepting accolades. He could also mention the fact that the United States of America does not need guidance or "enhancement" of its policies by a private foreign committee. And he could do a lot of good by drawing public attention to the causes of the other finalists.

Imagine how that would confound his fanatical right-wing opponents; how popular - and how empowering - it would be at home. And political confidence at home is an important aspect of power and influence abroad; which might, actually, help Obama to accomplish something that would be important in securing world peace at some point down the road.

Second media check of the day: "Mr. Obama said he was 'surprised and deeply humbled' by the committee's decision, and quickly put to rest any speculation that he might not accept the honor."

Chris Campbell: Congratulations, President Obama

2009-10-09T18:10:14Z

Once again, positive news on the domestic front has awakened the crazies. Oh, I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be debate regarding Obama's worthiness for the Nobel Peace Prize. I, like many, was stunned to learn that he'd been given the honor. He's certainly a well-intentioned man but the Nobel Peace Prize? Seems very premature. We still have no idea how he will fare in the long run. And thus far, even many level-headed Americans are waiting for the Obama we saw during the campaign to show up.

All that said, I find it maddening how quickly the wolves came out. Similar to any policy move that will actually benefit Americans and our standing in the world, the right-wing goes ballistic. You know, like with health care. Aside from industry insiders, health care reform, in some form, should be supported by 99% of the country. Like closing of Guantanamo Bay. Americans seriously fear that the terrorists shouldn't be housed on American soil due to their threat in a maximum security prison in Montana? Yikes. Equal rights for gays? When will some people (or in the case of many in the republican party, closeted people) stop fearing those different than them? Rescinding the tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans? Errr, that'd pay for health care right there.

Barack Obama has had a few wins since taking office in January, but he's a far cry from the monumental sacrifices in the name of peace and humanity from folks such as Martin Luther King Jr., Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi. These selfless people fought for those in need and ultimately helped shape policy that gave voice or care to millions. Nevertheless, Barack Obama stepped into office in the wake of arguably the most disgraceful presidency in American history. Torture. WMDs. Ignoring climate change. Guantanamo. Civil liberties stripped. Tax cuts. Axis of Evil. My hand is starting to get tired. Obama's accomplishments may be minimal, but he has worked to reverse some of the most egregious policies this country has ever seen, and for that alone, he does deserve a lot of credit.

The major issues before the Obama presidency lie ahead and will ultimately serve as the basis for how he serves. The economy, health care reform, Iraq, Afghanistan, unemployment, climate change and a host of other issues will determine the Obama presidency. But as much as the right wants everyone to forget his predecessor's catastrophic mistakes, the Obama administration is forced to deal with them every minute of every day. And his efforts on many of these fronts should not be discounted.

Let's hope that this is just the beginning. Congratulations, Mr. President.

Suu Kyi Holds Sanctions Talks With Western Diplomats

2009-10-09T09:12:10Z

Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi asked the three Western diplomats she met in Rangoon on Friday what the aims were of the economic sanctions their countries imposed on Burma, according to an NLD spokesman.

Jim Wallis: U2's Music and Mission and My Kid's First Rock Concert

2009-10-01T14:53:00Z

Oh no, my eleven-year-old went to his first rock concert this week! Oh good, it was Bono and U2. That would express the feelings of many parents about their child's introductory rock and roll concert experience. FedEx Field, where the Washington football team plays with much less energy and appeal, was filled with people from bottom to top, in boxes to bleachers, with a sound that seemed to reach every corner of the gigantic stadium, and with lights that inspired admiration and awe.

The stage alone was more than any other contemporary rock band has produced, according to 25 year-olds I know, who really "know" about this stuff. It has been described as a 164-foot high "claw" that loomed over the stadium, to a "cathedral," to a "spaceship" said Bono, "But it isn't going anywhere without you!"

"Mom, how do you know the words to all these songs?" Luke asked Joy Carroll, who has been singing along with this band for its whole 33-year career. U2 roused the huge crowd with its best tunes like "Beautiful Day," "Sunday Bloody Sunday," "Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For;" with the highlight for me coming when Bono began with a solo rendition of "Amazing Grace" that moved right into "Where the Streets Have No Name."

But it was the stunning and extravagant stage, set, and lights of the U2 tour that stole the show. U2 literally lit up the sky and filled the air over the nation's Capital with a display of sight and sound unlike anything I had ever seen. And in the middle of the show, Joy and I got a light tap on the back, turned around, and lit up ourselves with big smiles as we greeted our long-time friend Willie Williams--the man responsible for the amazing grace of all that light. "I heard you were here, and they told me where you were sitting. So I had to come over and just say hi." "This is the person responsible for all the lighting," I told Luke, who could hardly believe this was all happening to him.

And because it was the nation's Capital, the politicos were all on hand. How many concerts feature shout-outs to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Judiciary Chair, Patrick Leahy, (who Bono called the "John Wayne" of Washington), or one to Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick , who were all on hand. "Can you believe it," cried Bono, "A Cardinal at a rock concert!" And we even got to come in on the One Campaign bus with the Cardinal!

"Politics" was indeed part of the concert, not the partisan politics that dominate Washington D.C. - (Bono made it a point to praise politicians on "both the left and the right" who have cared about places like Africa, he even dedicated a song to President Bush for increasing foreign aid) - but the moral politics that characterize Bono's clarion call to conscience and action which echoed throughout the evening.

In fact, what I love about a U2 concert, headlined by the Irish tenor with the sun glasses, is how it achieves such a powerful combination of art and social justice, music and message; and all with such fun. The New York Times titled its review of the opening concert in Giants stadium as "Fun With a Mission."

As always on nights with U2, activism for human rights and democracy was lifted up. "Walk On" was dedicated to Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate under house arrest in Burma/Myanmar. "How long has she been under house arrest," asked Luke. "20 years" I said, and watched the look of concern and indignation on the face of a pre-teenager--at a rock concert. Luke also got to see a short video of a beaming Desmond Tutu, another Nobel Peace Prize winner, talk about "the kind of people" who make a difference in this world, and invited us all to join the One Campaign.

On the way out of the concert, Luke whispered that he had just heard somebody say, "The only thing I don't like about Bono is his political sh*t." Luke asked me what he meant. I said there are some people who don't like the message of Bono and U2, just the music. But it is precisely the incredibly inspiring blend and, dare I say, integration of music, message, and mission that makes U2 not only so compelling; but also so important.

It was a night of mutual affirmation with a band and an adoring audience, their community, who truly seemed to love being together again. It was an evening of joy and justice. The final comment of a first time almost teenager was, of course, "It was awesome," but, unlike most of the moments and venues where this overused affirmation of the younger generation is invoked, this time it was accurate and appropriate. The concert was truly "awesome."

Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening, Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Jonathan Hulland: As an American is Tortured in Burma, Where's the Outrage?

2009-09-29T15:09:34Z

As I write this, an American is being tortured in Burma. Yet little is being done by the United States to secure his release and few mainstream media outlets are covering his story. So why isn't more being done on Nyi Nyi Aung's behalf?

The last time I saw Nyi Nyi Aung (also known as Kyaw Zaw Lwin) was in June at an event in New York to commemorate the 64th birthday of Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Nyi Nyi Aung was dressed in a crisp white collarless button-down shirt and a Burmese plaid sarong -- since 1988 the recognizable uniform of Burma's student democracy activists. Born in Burma, Nyi Nyi Aung fled the country following his participation in 1988's democracy protests. Since 1994, he's lived in the U.S. as a resident of suburban Maryland.

Today Nyi Nyi Aung languishes in Burma's infamous Insein (pronounced "insane") Prison, where for four decades legions of democracy activists have been imprisoned, tortured, and murdered. Since his arrest in September, credible reports have emerged that Nyi Nyi Aung has been tortured, beaten, even denied food for a week. Indeed, there's a good chance that Nyi Nyi Aung is being tortured right now -- his body spread out and tied down to a rough table while guards beat him with bamboo canes. Sadly, as the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners-Burma has thoroughly documented, such torture is routine for the roughly 2,100 political prisoners in Burma. So how does an American citizen end up tortured in Burma?

On September 3rd, Nyi Nyi Aung arrived at Rangoon's airport with a tourist visa stamped into his American passport. For whatever reason, Burma's ruling junta was waiting for him. For the more than three-weeks since he was arrested at the airport, Nyi Nyi Aung has been a prisoner of a foreign regime. Yet Nyi Nyi Aung's name and face have yet to be beamed out on the evening news, nor has the State Department made an official appeal on his behalf. The White House also hasn't done a thing despite the fact that President Obama's is bound by law to take up Nyi Nyi Aung's case if it appears that the imprisonment is wrongful (remember Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea and Senator Webb's trip to Burma earlier this year?). So why isn't there more outrage and action at this American's appalling treatment by a ruthless dictatorship? One answer is that America's recent flirtation with torture has inured it to the torture of Americans themselves, but I can't and don't want to believe this.

A more likely answer lies with the U.S.'s recent decision to rethink its foreign policy on Burma. The tough "stick" sanctions policy, which has prevailed in Washington for over a decade and admittedly hasn't brought Burma closer to democracy, seems to be quickly giving way to a softer "carrots" engagement policy despite the regime's brutal response to the 2007 democracy protests and its pitiful failure to act after Cyclone Nargis ravaged Burma last year. This policy realignment kicked off last week in Washington, D.C. with a meeting between the State Department and Burma's foreign minister. Major General Nyan Win's visit to the capital was the first by a Burmese foreign minister in nine years because of a visa ban that had kept high-level members of the military junta from traveling in the U.S. The visa ban is law, but that didn't stop the Obama administration from waiving the ban -- no doubt the first of many controversial carrots to come.

Whatever the consequences of this policy sea change, it seems clear that as a result the military dictatorship will gain at the expense of the country's embattled democracy movement, at least in the short term. But how will this change in policy affect those inside Burma, whose human rights and dignity are already threatened on a massive scale? Given the recent treatment of Nyi Nyi Aung, by both the junta and the United States government, we should be worried. Human rights are clearly not a priority of this policy reversal.

Ignoring Nyi Nyi Aung's arrest and torture, I fear, was a direct consequence of the U.S.'s reengagement with the regime. Given the delicate and controversial politics at play, calling for his release, it was probably reasoned, would have jeopardized the U.S.'s entire strategy to bring the junta to the table. Of course, you might argue that it wasn't in the best interests of the junta either to torture an American just as its foreign minister was arriving in Washington. But the junta is famous for testing the limits of what it can get away with.

The message from Washington to Burma's junta last week was clear: we will look the other way, even at the torture of one of our own, if you engage with us. The U.S.'s ultimate objective by engaging the junta remains unclear. Engagement is not a bad thing per say, in fact it's needed, but the motives for it should be made clear and transparent. Many analysts suspect that the reengagement is a purely realpolitik move directed at containing Chinese influence in Burma rather than any meaningful step towards democracy promotion. Either way, it's a gamble for a White House that is already doing too little to promote and protect human rights worldwide.

In his speech at the United Nations last week, President Obama pledged that "America will live its values, and we will lead by example." If we are to believe Mr. Obama, he must -- at the very least -- stand up for the human rights of his fellow Americans. As for the U.S.'s position on Burma, whatever we do, let's ensure that the protection and promotion of human rights remains a clear priority of that policy. The U.S.'s failure to act on Nyi Nyi Aung's behalf, much less the 2,100 other political prisoners in Burma, is a clear reminder that we must not allow human rights to be sacrificed at the altar of "diplomatic engagement."

Jonathan Hulland is a recent graduate of Columbia University's School for International and Public Affairs. He worked with Burma's democracy movement in New York and Thailand from 2003 to 2008.

Burma: Suu Kyi Backs U.S. Move To Open Talks With Junta

2009-09-25T10:46:39Z

By Andrew Buncombe I Independent

The US is set to engage directly with Burma's military rulers in an effort to push for democratic reforms while maintaining sanctions - a move that has the support of the imprisoned opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

In a policy shift that underscores how the West's regime of sanctions has failed to bring about change in the South-east Asian country and also how Asian giants such as China are benefiting from Burma's natural resources, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said dialogue with the junta was to be stepped up.

Officials revealed that direct engagement had already been under way for several months and that the US expected Burma to soon name an "interlocutor".
Related articles

"Any debate that pits sanctions against engagement creates a false choice. Going forward, we'll need to employ both of these tools," Mrs Clinton told a Group of Friends on Myanmar meeting in New York.

"Lifting sanctions now would send the wrong signal, and we will maintain our existing sanctions until we see concrete progress towards reform. But we will be willing to discuss the easing of sanctions in response to significant actions on the part of Burma's generals that address the core human rights and democracy issues that are inhibiting Burma's progress," Mrs Clinton said.

The decision follows a review of US policy towards Burma, undertaken this summer by the Obama administration. While the US has tightened sanctions, there were hints from Mrs Clinton earlier this year that such measures could be lifted if the junta was open to change.

Expectations that the US was preparing for greater dialogue were further raised last month after the trial of Ms Suu Kyi on charges that she breached the terms of her house arrest by letting the American John Yettaw stay at her house for two nights after he swam there uninvited.

The democracy figurehead was ordered to be detained for a further 18 months. Mr Yettaw was sentenced to seven years but was released after a visit from the Democratic senator Jim Webb. Mr Webb, who believes in closer engagement with Burma, said Ms Suu Kyi - whom he met - may share his sentiments: "I don't want to misrepresent her views, but my clear impression is that she is not opposed to the lifting of some sanctions."

There was broad approval of the US stance yesterday. Nyan Win, a spokesman for Ms Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, told The Irawaddy website: "The new US approach will bring an improved and more transparent relation between the US and Burma." Ms Suu Kyi supported the change in approach: "She accepted the idea of engagement by the US administration. She has always espoused engagement, however, [she] suggested that engagement had to be done with both sides - the government as well as the democratic forces."

George Yeo, the Foreign Minister of Singapore, said the move would give the US and EU greater leverage. "Singapore sees the [Burmese] army as being part of the problem but also as a necessary part of the solution."

Campaigners for sanctions against the country said they were pleased that the US had recognised that a dual-track approach may have greater traction with the junta.

Mark Farmaner, from the Burma Campaign UK, said his organisation had always called for high-level engagement that went hand-in-hand with tougher measures.

"We welcome more engagement but it has to be critical engagement. After Cyclone Nargis there was high-level engagement and the junta backed down over letting in aid groups. When there is high-level engagement with the threat of a stick, that is what happens." While the US and the EU - which also supports greater engagement with Burma - may wish to see democratic change in the country, the shift in policy also reflects other realities. The West has little direct influence on Burma. China holds greater sway, as do India and members of the Association of South-east Asian Nations.

It is these countries that are reaping the benefits of a close energy relationship with the generals. China, South Korea and India are co-operating on multibillion-pound gas deals but Western companies have been blocked, with the exception of Total and Chevron, which are allowed to continue work under existing contracts.

Earlier this year, when the prospect of lifting sanctions was raised, it was speculated that energy companies would be champing to enter Burma. "With regards to Myanmar it will not have escaped the attention of Obama and Clinton that the Chinese have dug in deep," an unidentified official with a Western embassy in Bangkok told the Asia Oil & Gas Monitor. "Burma is now not only a rich source of raw essentials for China, it's become an important geo-strategic client state, giving Beijing access to the Indian Ocean."

Read more at the Independent

Jack Healey: Introducing 'The Adults,' a New Group of Truth-Tellers

2009-09-24T12:52:43Z

Meet The Elders. They're great people. You know most of them.

Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter (39th U.S. President), Muhammad Yunus (creator of micro-credit). Kofi Annan (former U.N. Secretary-General), Mary Robinson (Former UN High Commissioner of Human Rights), Peter Gabriel and Richard Branson of musical fame. Aung San Suu Kyi, elected prime minister of Burma, is the empty chair, and still the one many do not know. She is a prisoner in Rangoon, Burma.

According to Peter Gabriel, the Elders is a gathering of world leaders who come "together to support our 'global village.'" They exist on the basis that they can boldly say what needs to be said, both in public and behind closed doors, and what they think needs to be said is that there is much more to this world than military might and economic prowess. They advocate for the unheard, for human rights. Good folks doing good deeds. A group of these Elders just visited Israel/Palestine on one of its first visits.

Have you heard of them? Maybe? My suggestion is you should follow their words and their deeds. Evidently, Branson and Peter Gabriel, with whom I have done concerts with, thought a new group was needed and the two of them gave birth to the Elders. A good idea that could get better. I hope so.

Peter Gabriel's music and ideas are always worth listening to. He leads with both and gives of himself to both. Being one of his fans, I started thinking what we 'others' could do to help the Elders. Peter Gabriel always inspires and here is my idea patented after his: we need an adult group, a group who does good 'stuff' as well. But with a different mandate. While the Elders are appropriately international, I want to create a national body. If it works, then we create the backup body to the Elders. I call our group Adults, USA.

The Adults. First and only criterion to get into this special group is that you tell the truth all the time, like Jim Carrey in Liar Liar. You're ousted from The Adults when you fail to follow the only rule the Adults have. You need not say anything or do anything except to tell the truth. Remember Liar Liar; that is the model.

The Adults cover any subject that's longing for some good truth telling. Let me start with a few examples:

Congressman Ron Paul. He has been an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policy. In the interest of truth, I have to admit I was a freshman/sophomore in the same high school with him as a junior/senior.

Congressman Denis Kucinich spoke out publicly against the war in Iraq and attempted to get both Bush and Cheney impeached. Seen as odd at times but 'cool' to the rust belt folk.

TV host Jon Stewart. Screams and points to the likes of CNN, Fox and MSNBC for their lack of journalistic integrity, especially around the Iraq war and the economic collapse.

Bill Cosby as he outlines educational goals for children

Muhammad Ali for opposing the Vietnam War and losing millions in revenue because of that objection.

In The Valley of Elah, a filmatic omen of things to come. Paul Haggis became a seer.

Dick Gregory telling us of truths and conspiracies for so many years. Comedic but always hunting the truth.

Aung San Suu Kyi for being the Mandela of Asia and staying with her people

We've seen the likes of Lenny Bruce or Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove (or: How I learned to stop worrying and Love the Bomb). These are the people who keep credibility and tell it like it is. No angels, good citizens.

The Adults. We welcome bankers, financiers, Wall Street thugs, social climbers; we also welcome ex-prison inmates. Martha Stewart, you are welcome. Madoff...too soon. Only truth-tellers make up the directory.

And the Elders group has been telling us about the need for a return to decency and goodness in our world all along from their anonymous meeting room. American media broadcasters have begun to catch on. Torture is being debated, once in a while. We are starting to grow up and re-enter the world of truth. Rendition (moving people to other places to get tortured) might end. Secret prisons on the way out? Maybe we'll join the ranks of the Peruvians who sent their former President to jail for human rights abuses. Wow, hold on. Are we also going to be that courageous? Well, yes, because in the world of adults, truth is the determinator.

Now, let my adult side have a word: I am looking for a single standard for human rights in the U.S. policy. Yes, that simple and that clear. But really, this is what human rights are. A return to the fact that all citizens, yes, all, deserve the same basic human rights, even if we live in a part of the world that is the new target of the press and some governments. A truth whispered, some say, is louder than any gun barrel (from a movie).

Because you are an adult, you may not know your rights if asked, but you know if you have them. Some never can define justice, but they do know injustice. It is like the truth or a lie. We smell the difference.

You join The Adults when you tell the truth. You're out when you do not. No e-mail lists, no Twittering. No daily news briefs. No meetings. No trips. Just the, well, yes, just the truth. Rather than the home of the free and home of the brave, we become the home of the truth-tellers. Then these Adults can spread out from the U.S. to other nations and the United Nations perhaps? The Adult quota seems low in that building.

This group 'adults' might change the world. Truth-telling might even become an American daily exercise, just got to build up some stamina. We'll start one day at a time. It is up to you.

A good beginning would be reading the Constitution and U.S. Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You will know then when others are lying too.

Myanmar Announces Amnesty For 7,114 Prisoners

2009-09-18T12:47:31Z

YANGON, Myanmar — Myanmar's junta has granted amnesty to 7,114 convicts at prisons across the country, but it was not immediately known if they included political detainees.

State television, which announced the amnesty Thursday evening, said the prisoners would be released for good behavior and on humanitarian grounds.

Ari Bendersky: U2 Energizes Chicago During North American Tour Kickoff

2009-09-14T02:02:21Z

With the hovering, all-encompassing 360-degree stage setup, otherwise known as "the Claw," U2 came to Chicago's Soldier Field Saturday night to kick off the North American leg of their current world tour -- the first time since 1997 they're performing in outdoor stadiums.

As with everything U2 does, this show was big. Big stage. Big lights. Big sound. Big messages. But this show was played, for lack of a better term, in the round and, for as massive as it was, felt more intimate than your typical stadium concert. With the stage and its four-pronged tentacle-like structure set more toward the middle of the field, fans were able to get up-close-and-personal with the band. Speakers were installed into each structure to helped spread out the sound and massive lights beamed to every corner of Soldier Field, even up into the night sky. An incredibly hefty and visually encapsulating video screen that expanded projected images that even fans in the nosebleeds could see. Only if the band performed while hanging from helicopters hovering over the stadium could they have outdone themselves, but the Claw helped U2 deliver something utterly unique and completely distinct from any other show played before.

Too bad the same can't be said for the set list.

Don't take that the wrong way. U2 sounds incredible and has almost as much energy as it takes to power their setup. But instead of truly going deep, they simply ran through their catalog, grabbing hits from various periods of their career. Whether that was playing a handful of songs off the latest album, No Line on the Horizon, including the poppy "Magnificent," the disco-accelerated "I'll Go Crazy if I Don't Go Crazy Tonight," and the somewhat vapid "Get on Your Boots," or other songs like "City of Blinding Lights," "Beautiful Day" or "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For," the band put on a great show, possibly one of their best live spectacles to date. Yet, it seemed like they could have given more musically.

Yes, they played the requisite "With or Without You" and "Where the Streets Have No Name." Yes, they pulled out "Bad," "MLK" and "The Unforgettable Fire," which was definitely a show highlight. But at this stage in their career, U2 could throw the crowd a few bones. Maybe give up "Gloria" or "Party Girl," which, apparently, they played during the European leg earlier this summer. Where were "New Year's Day" and "October"? A snipped of "40" at the end of "Bad" was a nice surprise, but the entire song would have been a gift. U2 is one of the world's biggest bands and has been since the Irish foursome appeared on the cover of Time in 1987 (only the fourth band ever to do so at that point), but while their sound was edgy, gruff and dangerous, they've reached a point of comfort -- even when it comes to their political pontificating.

U2, particularly Bono, is never short on telling -- or, in the case of the massive video screen, showing -- what he stands behind. At Saturday night's show he talked about AIDS in Africa, dropping Third World debt and the recent protests over the Iranian elections. The band paid homage to Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese activist currently being held under house arrest, for whom they supposedly wrote "Walk On." During that song, images of Suu Kyi remained on the giant video screens while a few dozen people walked on to the outer ring of the stage holding masks bearing the activist's face in front of their own.

Mid set, the band rocked "Sunday Bloody Sunday" as they have for more than 25 years. They sang "How long must we sing this song?" showing that even though we appreciate the political messages, U2 ultimately is here for our entertainment. At Saturday night's show, despite a lack of deeper catalog digging, U2 entertained. It is, after all, what they do best.

Robert Amsterdam: Political Trials and Crimes Against Reality

2009-09-09T14:28:07Z

When an authoritarian leader like Fidel Castro or Robert Mugabe pretends to hold an election, we don't bother asking them to make it "a nice clean vote." So why do we go through the motions when it comes to political trials?

This troubling trend was illustrated again last week in Kazakhstan when the human rights leader Yevgeny Zhovtis was brought up on criminal charges relating to a tragic car accident. Leading up to the proceedings, various NGO and government observers issued statements requesting that the Kazakh authorities ensure a "fair trial" for Zhovtis. What happened? The rigged trial barely lasted three days, basic rights to defense were denied, and the country's most prestigious human rights advocate was thrown into a prison colony on a four year sentence.

President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. (Photo credit: The Official Site of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan)

For countries featuring deficient rule of law and a record of judicial abuses, to receive a request from reputable voices of the international community to hold fair trials is, inferentially, the most flattering compliment. By implication, we are to assume that such an event is even possible, which presumes legal regularity of the state, lends much needed credibility, and diminishes any pressure for real reform.

Take what we already knew about Kazakhstan before this trial began. The country is still led by its founding president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, former Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and has not experienced a genuine transition to a free justice system. The 1995 Constitution establishes a boilerplate version of judicial independence but is openly ignored, and no judge can get appointed without first being presented personally by the president then approved by his 88% controlled Senate.

Various international observers such as Freedom House and Transparency International have deplored the judicial corruption in the country, which has instrumentalized the courts both a political weapon as well as a tool of private interests (see the ABA Rule of Law Index report on Kazakhtan for all the lurid stories). Martha Brill-Olcott, a longtime Central Asia analyst, has written that "There is no real rule of law in the country, however, since no one really expects the legal system to afford any protection."

Nor was the Zhovtis trial the first time that Nazarbayev's prosecutors were sicked on one of his opponents. The list of falsely imprisoned journalists (such as Sergei Duvanov, who uncovered Kazakhgate) and opposition politicians surpasses three digits, while many others have met a less ambiguous fate. A few months after the politician Zamanbek Nurkadilov met with the American journalist Paul Starobin of The Atlantic, Nurkadilov was found shot dead - but the authorities made no arrests and suggested it was suicide.

So it is against this backdrop that we are expecting Kazakhstan to observe due process and legal rights of a mild mannered and respected government critic, when only four months ago a UN rapporteur on torture was denouncing "many credible allegations of beatings with hands and fists, plastic bottles filled with sand, police truncheons; of kicking, asphyxiation through plastic bags and gas masks used to obtain confessions from suspects."

It's not only surreality, it's a crime against reality for us to carry on pretending that countries like Kazakhstan can hold fair trials. Even if they were motivated to treat Zhovtis fairly, there is a structural inability to administer justice with any level of credibility under current conditions.

Let's be clear that this is not to discount the important and often thankless work of human rights activists, or the contributions of large NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, without whom we would face a Hobbesian legal universe. These groups understandably often make calculations to soften their words in order not to loose what little cooperation and gains they have made with a given government. One can appreciate the mere recognition of a trial by an NGO as a game changer, and I wouldn't dare to speculate over the bureaucratic politics behind these decisions.

Nor are political trials the monopoly of any given country or region. Russia is carrying on with the second trial of political prisoner Mikhail Khodorkovsky (whom I represent), China just sentenced the dissident Xie Changfa to 13 years jail, Iran has admitted to killing a detainee (Mohsen Rouhalamini) from beatings, and Burma's angel of democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, is once again fighting a court.

What we should focus on, at the very least, is coming up with something more effective to say and do when a government lacks a functioning legal system, and appears to be on the verge of rigging up a political trial against an opponent. If a state has not met a hypothetical minimum criteria for rule of law agreed on by the international community, then the conclusion should be similar to the minimum criteria for a democratic vote -- that we stop pretending the government is something that it is not. Incentives must be created for these states to take concrete and measurable steps toward judicial independence and rule of law. For example, legislative provisions could be made to prevent their state-owned interests from acquiring property abroad until improvements are made -- or one of many other ways to ensure that the importance of human rights is finally felt in the presidents' personal pocket books.

There's no reason why the world should have to witness another Zhovtis trial -- neither in Central Asia nor elsewhere -- when there are so many underutilized points of leverage to motivate real change.

Aung San Suu Kyi: Myanmar Court Accepts Suu Kyi Appeal

2009-09-04T01:48:00Z

YANGON, Myanmar — A Myanmar court agreed Friday to hear an appeal by detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi of the criminal conviction that extended her house arrest by 18 months, one of her lawyers said.

The Divisional Court in Yangon set a Sept. 18 date for the appeal after lawyers formally presented their request Friday, Nyan Win said.

Suu Kyi In Burma Launches Detention Appeal

2009-09-03T08:43:22Z

Lawyers for Burma's pro-democracy opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, have launched an appeal against the extension of her house arrest.

U Pyinya Zawta: Jim Webb Woefully Unaware Of Burma's Problems

2009-08-31T15:26:20Z

US Sen Jim Webb recently traveled to Burma to lean not on Burma's military regime, but to pressure my country's democracy movement into giving up economic sanctions--the most important tool in our struggle for freedom.

Although he emphasized the necessity of the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, this falls far short of the demands of the US, the United Nations and the European Union for the immediate and unconditional release of all my country's 2,100 political prisoners.

Webb's ignorance of the situation in my country was revealed his book "A Time to Fight" in which he came down squarely on the side of the oppressors in Burma. He wrote about the demonstrations which took place in Burma in 2007, led by Buddhist monks such as myself.

"If Westerners had remained in the country this moment might never have occurred, because it is entirely possible that conditions may have improved rather than deteriorated."

Webb's statement is either shockingly naïve or willfully misleading. We Buddhist monks, who Webb discounts as a "throng," marched for an end to military dictatorship in Burma not because we wanted marginal improvements in our economy. We marched because we believe in freedom and democracy and are willing to make sacrifices to reach those goals.

Webb claims that the Burmese people would benefit from interaction with the outside world, as if we need to be condescendingly "taught" by Americans about our rights and responsibilities. Had Webb spent some time with real Burmese people apart from the military regime and others who share his views, he would better understand the sacrifice we made for democracy, and he would know that we Burmese value the longstanding support we have had from the US Congress.

Webb, an author, has proven extremely manipulative in his use of language, calling for "engagement" and "interaction" instead of sanctions. His implication is that the Burmese people are solely set on sanctions and confrontation--the exact same language used by Burma's military regime, which couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is that the world is not as black and white as Webb would have it. We want the United States to talk to and negotiate with Burma's military regime, but this shouldn't preclude increasing international pressure. The US appears to be able to carry out this policy with other countries such as in North Korea where it is willing to talk to the North Koreans while at the same time increasing sanctions if Pyongyang doesn't respond. Webb is intent on driving a wedge into this process in the case of Burma. We must choose, he explains, between sanctions and engagement--there can be no sophisticated strategy, only complete involvement or none at all.

What Webb proposes--lifting sanctions on Burma--translates to basically handing over the Burmese peoples' natural resources to rapacious multinational corporations, particularly Big Oil. If the US lifts sanctions on Burma, there will be a rush of companies into Burma intent on looting my country's natural heritage and the benefits of such "engagement" will flow directly to the military regime.

In terms of human rights, Webb has remained focused only on Suu Kyi's freedom and ability to participate in scheduled elections in Burma, never mind the fact that the Burmese regime has already rigged the elections so that no matter who participates there will be many more decades of complete military rule.

The new constitution is an air-tight document that gives no room whatsoever for reform from within. At the same time, Webb has completely ignored the purposeful, massive human rights violations carried out by Burma's military regime. The human rights nightmare in Burma includes the recruitment of tens of thousands of child soldiers, pressing hundreds of thousands of Burmese into forced labor and the widespread rape of ethnic minority women.

Luckily for the Burmese people, Webb is not the only US senator. Recently, the US Senate voted unanimously to extend sanctions on Burma. President Obama signed the bill into law.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a student of politics and more likely to examine the facts on the ground instead of falling for blanket ideological generalizations. While Webb may seek to sell out Aung San Suu Kyi, our courageous Buddhist monks, and all the people of Burma, we hold out hope that Secretary Clinton and President Obama will take a more nuanced view in formulating policy toward Burma.

In particular, the US should seek to negotiate with Burma's military regime--but, at the same time, carry forward along the lines of the advice offered by South Africa's Nobel Peace Prize recipient Desmond Tutu: seek a global arms embargo on Burma's military regime, start a UN Security Council investigation into crimes against humanity committed by the regime, and begin the process to full implementation of financial sanctions against the regime and its cronies.

Webb is now despised by the people of Burma. If he succeeds in achieving a shift in US policy to abandon sanctions, he will have secured his place in history as one of the most important supporters of Than Swe's military dictatorship.

Article first published on Irrawaddy