Showing posts with label Burma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Burma. Show all posts
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Chinese veto wrong - like the US's
A quote to put the Chinese veto in perspective... from IPS and the Asia Times
"Taking a different perspective, Ian William, w says that even though there is no justification for China to use its veto to protect a universally condemned regime, he sees a parallel in the United States using its own veto to protect its ally Israel over the last decades.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Williams told IPS, Washington has been adding annually to its veto total and will soon outrun the former USSR's tally of "Nyets".
China is doing itself no favors in using its vetoes for issues like Sudan and Burma, which are surely peripheral to its national interests, and Beijing seems to be realizing that it is getting close to calls for boycott of next year's Olympics, which would be an additional blow to its prestige.
"But it is understandable that it should want to emulate its number one debtor, the United States which has devalued the veto by using it for resolutions which often actually reflect longstanding U.S. policy on Israel, over settlements, Jerusalem and so on," noted Williams.
Ironically, it is that same support for Israel which has caused the United States to disregard its own innovation, the "Uniting For Peace" procedure by which issues stuck in the Security Council could be taken up by the General Assembly.
Williams said the United States invented it during the Korean War -- but declared it non-binding after Palestine invoked it to bypass "unreasonable" U.S. vetoes in the Council.
"In Kosovo, in Sudan, in Bosnia, the procedure could have been used to save lives, but Washington has effectively disarmed the United Nations in order to protect Israeli -- not U.S. -- interests," added Williams, who also writes for the Nation."
full article
ASEAN Backs Neither U.S. nor China over Burma
Sat, 2007-10-06 12:59
By Thalif Deen - Inter Press Service
United Nations, 06 Octeber, (IPS): The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Burma (Myanmar) is a member, is refusing to see eye-to-eye either with the United States or China on how the international community should deal with the ongoing crisis in the politically-troubled military-run country.
Speaking as chair of ASEAN, Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon of Singapore told the Security Council Friday the military repression in Burma "cannot just be an internal matter" -- a view diametrically opposed to that of China.
At the same time, he said, he can understand the impulse to punish unacceptable behavior, even though ASEAN should not rule this out.
"But we have to pause to consider dispassionately what the real impact of additional sanctions will be?" he asked, expressing skepticism over a proposed move by the United States and Western nations to impose mandatory sanctions on Burma as a punishment for its repression.
"How will they affect a regime that is only tangentially connected to the rest of the world? Will they help or hinder the U.N.'s role?" he asked. "And what is their impact on the people of Myanmar?"
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told delegates his country has already "imposed sanctions on the regime to encourage it to make further progress."
If there was no such progress, he warned, "the United States would call for Security Council sanctions. It was time for the Council to do more than simply listen to a briefing."
Last week, nine of the 10 foreign ministers of ASEAN -- representing Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia -- expressed "revulsion over reports that the protests (in the streets of Burma) were being suppressed by violence."
Burma was the only ASEAN member to skip that meeting, which took place in the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly sessions in New York.
Ambassador U Kyaw Tint Swe, the permanent representative of Burma to the United Nations, said he was made to understand that Menon's statement was "not on behalf of ASEAN" -- a claim denied by Singapore.
But he stressed that despite the "recent tragic events, the situation in Myanmar is not a threat to either regional or international peace or security."
He expressed his country's deep appreciation to members of the Security Council -- namely Russia and China, whom he did not name -- for taking that position.
"I would therefore like to call on the Security Council to refrain from any action that would be detrimental to the good offices role of the secretary-general mandated by the General Assembly," he added.
The U.N. secretary-general's special adviser on Myanmar, Ambassador Ibrahim Gambari, returned to New York Thursday after a brief visit to the country.
He said his visit was short, but ideally, the next time around he would like "stay as long as possible and meet all the people I want to meet."
Gambari said a return visit -- possibly in mid-November -- should help sustain the momentum and not allow it to slip by. He also told reporters that China and India, along with ASEAN, could be "critically important" in helping resolve the crisis in Burma.
"We are working closely with them," said Gambari, who called for a time-bound and serious dialogue for national reconciliation.
Last week, an unnamed Indian official was quoted as saying: "We are not the only democracy that works with generals," as he made a veiled criticism of the United States, which has been a close ally of General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan.
India, which has close economic and military ties to Burma, has taken a less critical view of events in that country.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council he was "deeply concerned" about the recent events in Myanmar and the reports of continued human rights violations.
"I must reiterate that the use of force against peaceful demonstrators is abhorrent and unacceptable," he said.
"A united Security Council could play an important role in support of the ongoing efforts of the United Nations," he added.
The Security Council, however, remains divided, with China and Russia, two veto-wielding permanent members, taking the position that the events in Burma do not constitute a threat to international peace and security.
Last week, the Council was also unable to reach consensus on a proposed presidential statement expressing concerns over the killings in Burma because of opposition from China.
The traditional Chinese party line is that the demonstrations and killings in the military-run country were a "domestic" problem warranting no international condemnation or U.N. sanctions.
Yvonne Terlingen, head of Amnesty International's Office at the United Nations, said Friday the Security Council must press for drastic change in "Myanmar's appalling human rights policies and keep the human rights situation under close and constant review as resolving the human rights crisis is key to addressing peace and security and advancing national reconciliation in Myanmar."
"The Council must also ensure that those responsible for human rights violations are held accountable and that the Myanmar authorities deal with the country's longstanding human rights concerns, which have helped fuel the recent crisis," she added.
Last January, both China and Russia exercised their vetoes to block a U.S.-sponsored draft resolution calling for an end to political repression and human rights violations in Burma.
Ambassador Wang Guangya of China argued then -- as he did Friday -- that the problems facing Burma are "basically internal". "No international-imposed solution can help the situation," he told reporters. "We want the government there to handle this issue."
If the United States pushes for sanctions against Burma, China is expected to use its veto once again to protect a neighboring country with which it has strong political, economic and military interests.
A longstanding U.N. observer told IPS that Western oil companies such as Chevron and Total have a major stake in Burma's big gas fields, the financial mainstay of the military junta.
"So, the story is not just about brutal Chinese policy vs enlightened U.S. policy," he said. "The cynical maneuvers in these cases are revolting, as great powers seek their geopolitical interests, never the authentic defence of human rights."
Taking a different perspective, Ian William, who covers the United Nations for several international publications including the London Guardian, says that even though there is no justification for China to use its veto to protect a universally condemned regime, he sees a parallel in the United States using its own veto to protect its ally Israel over the last decades.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Williams told IPS, Washington has been adding annually to its veto total and will soon outrun the former USSR's tally of "Nyets".
China is doing itself no favors in using its vetoes for issues like Sudan and Burma, which are surely peripheral to its national interests, and Beijing seems to be realizing that it is getting close to calls for boycott of next year's Olympics, which would be an additional blow to its prestige.
"But it is understandable that it should want to emulate its number one debtor, the United States which has devalued the veto by using it for resolutions which often actually reflect longstanding U.S. policy on Israel, over settlements, Jerusalem and so on," noted Williams.
Ironically, it is that same support for Israel which has caused the United States to disregard its own innovation, the "Uniting For Peace" procedure by which issues stuck in the Security Council could be taken up by the General Assembly.
Williams said the United States invented it during the Korean War -- but declared it non-binding after Palestine invoked it to bypass "unreasonable" U.S. vetoes in the Council.
"In Kosovo, in Sudan, in Bosnia, the procedure could have been used to save lives, but Washington has effectively disarmed the United Nations in order to protect Israeli -- not U.S. -- interests," added Williams, who also writes for the Nation.
- Inter Press Service (IPS) News Agency
"Taking a different perspective, Ian William, w says that even though there is no justification for China to use its veto to protect a universally condemned regime, he sees a parallel in the United States using its own veto to protect its ally Israel over the last decades.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Williams told IPS, Washington has been adding annually to its veto total and will soon outrun the former USSR's tally of "Nyets".
China is doing itself no favors in using its vetoes for issues like Sudan and Burma, which are surely peripheral to its national interests, and Beijing seems to be realizing that it is getting close to calls for boycott of next year's Olympics, which would be an additional blow to its prestige.
"But it is understandable that it should want to emulate its number one debtor, the United States which has devalued the veto by using it for resolutions which often actually reflect longstanding U.S. policy on Israel, over settlements, Jerusalem and so on," noted Williams.
Ironically, it is that same support for Israel which has caused the United States to disregard its own innovation, the "Uniting For Peace" procedure by which issues stuck in the Security Council could be taken up by the General Assembly.
Williams said the United States invented it during the Korean War -- but declared it non-binding after Palestine invoked it to bypass "unreasonable" U.S. vetoes in the Council.
"In Kosovo, in Sudan, in Bosnia, the procedure could have been used to save lives, but Washington has effectively disarmed the United Nations in order to protect Israeli -- not U.S. -- interests," added Williams, who also writes for the Nation."
full article
ASEAN Backs Neither U.S. nor China over Burma
Sat, 2007-10-06 12:59
By Thalif Deen - Inter Press Service
United Nations, 06 Octeber, (IPS): The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Burma (Myanmar) is a member, is refusing to see eye-to-eye either with the United States or China on how the international community should deal with the ongoing crisis in the politically-troubled military-run country.
Speaking as chair of ASEAN, Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon of Singapore told the Security Council Friday the military repression in Burma "cannot just be an internal matter" -- a view diametrically opposed to that of China.
At the same time, he said, he can understand the impulse to punish unacceptable behavior, even though ASEAN should not rule this out.
"But we have to pause to consider dispassionately what the real impact of additional sanctions will be?" he asked, expressing skepticism over a proposed move by the United States and Western nations to impose mandatory sanctions on Burma as a punishment for its repression.
"How will they affect a regime that is only tangentially connected to the rest of the world? Will they help or hinder the U.N.'s role?" he asked. "And what is their impact on the people of Myanmar?"
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told delegates his country has already "imposed sanctions on the regime to encourage it to make further progress."
If there was no such progress, he warned, "the United States would call for Security Council sanctions. It was time for the Council to do more than simply listen to a briefing."
Last week, nine of the 10 foreign ministers of ASEAN -- representing Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia -- expressed "revulsion over reports that the protests (in the streets of Burma) were being suppressed by violence."
Burma was the only ASEAN member to skip that meeting, which took place in the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly sessions in New York.
Ambassador U Kyaw Tint Swe, the permanent representative of Burma to the United Nations, said he was made to understand that Menon's statement was "not on behalf of ASEAN" -- a claim denied by Singapore.
But he stressed that despite the "recent tragic events, the situation in Myanmar is not a threat to either regional or international peace or security."
He expressed his country's deep appreciation to members of the Security Council -- namely Russia and China, whom he did not name -- for taking that position.
"I would therefore like to call on the Security Council to refrain from any action that would be detrimental to the good offices role of the secretary-general mandated by the General Assembly," he added.
The U.N. secretary-general's special adviser on Myanmar, Ambassador Ibrahim Gambari, returned to New York Thursday after a brief visit to the country.
He said his visit was short, but ideally, the next time around he would like "stay as long as possible and meet all the people I want to meet."
Gambari said a return visit -- possibly in mid-November -- should help sustain the momentum and not allow it to slip by. He also told reporters that China and India, along with ASEAN, could be "critically important" in helping resolve the crisis in Burma.
"We are working closely with them," said Gambari, who called for a time-bound and serious dialogue for national reconciliation.
Last week, an unnamed Indian official was quoted as saying: "We are not the only democracy that works with generals," as he made a veiled criticism of the United States, which has been a close ally of General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan.
India, which has close economic and military ties to Burma, has taken a less critical view of events in that country.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council he was "deeply concerned" about the recent events in Myanmar and the reports of continued human rights violations.
"I must reiterate that the use of force against peaceful demonstrators is abhorrent and unacceptable," he said.
"A united Security Council could play an important role in support of the ongoing efforts of the United Nations," he added.
The Security Council, however, remains divided, with China and Russia, two veto-wielding permanent members, taking the position that the events in Burma do not constitute a threat to international peace and security.
Last week, the Council was also unable to reach consensus on a proposed presidential statement expressing concerns over the killings in Burma because of opposition from China.
The traditional Chinese party line is that the demonstrations and killings in the military-run country were a "domestic" problem warranting no international condemnation or U.N. sanctions.
Yvonne Terlingen, head of Amnesty International's Office at the United Nations, said Friday the Security Council must press for drastic change in "Myanmar's appalling human rights policies and keep the human rights situation under close and constant review as resolving the human rights crisis is key to addressing peace and security and advancing national reconciliation in Myanmar."
"The Council must also ensure that those responsible for human rights violations are held accountable and that the Myanmar authorities deal with the country's longstanding human rights concerns, which have helped fuel the recent crisis," she added.
Last January, both China and Russia exercised their vetoes to block a U.S.-sponsored draft resolution calling for an end to political repression and human rights violations in Burma.
Ambassador Wang Guangya of China argued then -- as he did Friday -- that the problems facing Burma are "basically internal". "No international-imposed solution can help the situation," he told reporters. "We want the government there to handle this issue."
If the United States pushes for sanctions against Burma, China is expected to use its veto once again to protect a neighboring country with which it has strong political, economic and military interests.
A longstanding U.N. observer told IPS that Western oil companies such as Chevron and Total have a major stake in Burma's big gas fields, the financial mainstay of the military junta.
"So, the story is not just about brutal Chinese policy vs enlightened U.S. policy," he said. "The cynical maneuvers in these cases are revolting, as great powers seek their geopolitical interests, never the authentic defence of human rights."
Taking a different perspective, Ian William, who covers the United Nations for several international publications including the London Guardian, says that even though there is no justification for China to use its veto to protect a universally condemned regime, he sees a parallel in the United States using its own veto to protect its ally Israel over the last decades.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Williams told IPS, Washington has been adding annually to its veto total and will soon outrun the former USSR's tally of "Nyets".
China is doing itself no favors in using its vetoes for issues like Sudan and Burma, which are surely peripheral to its national interests, and Beijing seems to be realizing that it is getting close to calls for boycott of next year's Olympics, which would be an additional blow to its prestige.
"But it is understandable that it should want to emulate its number one debtor, the United States which has devalued the veto by using it for resolutions which often actually reflect longstanding U.S. policy on Israel, over settlements, Jerusalem and so on," noted Williams.
Ironically, it is that same support for Israel which has caused the United States to disregard its own innovation, the "Uniting For Peace" procedure by which issues stuck in the Security Council could be taken up by the General Assembly.
Williams said the United States invented it during the Korean War -- but declared it non-binding after Palestine invoked it to bypass "unreasonable" U.S. vetoes in the Council.
"In Kosovo, in Sudan, in Bosnia, the procedure could have been used to save lives, but Washington has effectively disarmed the United Nations in order to protect Israeli -- not U.S. -- interests," added Williams, who also writes for the Nation.
- Inter Press Service (IPS) News Agency
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Sporting Chances for Burma?
China's Olympic workout
The Beijing Games next year may prove to be China's Achilles heel - if human rights groups can hit it.
Full text of Comment is Free
October 1, 2007 11:00 AM | Printable version
The UN general assembly and the Olympics may not seem that connected, but there are similarities. The latter is an official occasion for global peace and harmony to which almost every country in the world sends its national team to compete ferociously with others and whip up varying degrees of nationalist fervour at home.
Last week's meeting of the general assembly was no different, although we did miss Hugo Chavez's attempt to expand President Bush's reading material beyond the Pet Goat. There was something quite athletic about how different delegations raced up the aisles in the competitive walkout stakes to make sure that a row of empty seats greeted whoever the demon of the day was as he took the rostrum. The sprint was definitely the race that the original Olympians, the Greeks, won to protest the omission of (Former Yugoslav Republic of) from Macedonia's title.
The Cuban foreign minister's articulate and, sad to say, factually based (if somewhat one-sided) verbal assault on Bush, in reply to the latter's attack on Castro, played a nice counterpart to the orotundly obscure style of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In fact the puzzled expressions of the Iranian and American presidents almost had me thinking they were competing for the Mad Magazine Alfred E Neuman "What, Me Worry?" gold medal. (Bush wins on quotes.)
But the Iranian did actually put himself forward for the press - as long as they were not from the Israeli team. Bush may be somewhat challenged, but he knows his limitations enough to avoid unchoreographed and unscripted press conferences.
It may have been my early years as a conductor on football trains, but I've always been very dubious of the idea that sport and peace go hand in hand. Even apart from the personal experience of trying to fend off scores of rabid fans after someone's blood, sport's track record of promoting harmony does not impress. It is not just the fans - think of the football war of 1969. The Olympics has not been much better.
Indeed totalitarianism and the track seem much more closely related. From Hitler in 1936 - and it would have been held in Tokyo in 1940 if throwing javelins had not been overshadowed by firing shells - right on to Beijing, tough regimes love sport. Just look at the gymnastic splendour of a Kim Jong Il birthday party, the inhumane training regime of the East Germans.
At least one thing that can be said about the major American sports, baseball and the American version of football, is that since few other countries play them at a serious level, they are not really the occasions for xenophobic competitiveness on a grand scale. It seems like archetypal American isolationism that they have a baseball World Series just for themselves.
But the Beijing Olympics offers a genuine opportunity for peace. The Chinese are so concerned about urination on their 2008 parade that human rights organisations and governments that support human rights (and even those like Bush's that pretend to do so) have a rare but serious opportunity to get the Chinese onside. The Taiwanese know this - that's why they are staging their referendum on UN membership early in the New Year - not long before the Olympics.
From Darfur to Rangoon, there are definite signals that roguish states that have benefited from Chinese diplomatic protection are feeling a little chilly. The more calls there are for boycotts, the less likely Beijing is to go out on a limb for its mass murdering friends.
Human rights supporters should keep talking boycotts, and they may even put some truth in the rumours of a responsibility to protect that the UN general assembly voted for in 2005, with none against. China seems to have forgotten that principle - that mass murders by governments are a threat to international peace and security that demand United Nations action.
The Beijing Games next year may prove to be China's Achilles heel - if human rights groups can hit it.
Full text of Comment is Free
October 1, 2007 11:00 AM | Printable version
The UN general assembly and the Olympics may not seem that connected, but there are similarities. The latter is an official occasion for global peace and harmony to which almost every country in the world sends its national team to compete ferociously with others and whip up varying degrees of nationalist fervour at home.
Last week's meeting of the general assembly was no different, although we did miss Hugo Chavez's attempt to expand President Bush's reading material beyond the Pet Goat. There was something quite athletic about how different delegations raced up the aisles in the competitive walkout stakes to make sure that a row of empty seats greeted whoever the demon of the day was as he took the rostrum. The sprint was definitely the race that the original Olympians, the Greeks, won to protest the omission of (Former Yugoslav Republic of) from Macedonia's title.
The Cuban foreign minister's articulate and, sad to say, factually based (if somewhat one-sided) verbal assault on Bush, in reply to the latter's attack on Castro, played a nice counterpart to the orotundly obscure style of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In fact the puzzled expressions of the Iranian and American presidents almost had me thinking they were competing for the Mad Magazine Alfred E Neuman "What, Me Worry?" gold medal. (Bush wins on quotes.)
But the Iranian did actually put himself forward for the press - as long as they were not from the Israeli team. Bush may be somewhat challenged, but he knows his limitations enough to avoid unchoreographed and unscripted press conferences.
It may have been my early years as a conductor on football trains, but I've always been very dubious of the idea that sport and peace go hand in hand. Even apart from the personal experience of trying to fend off scores of rabid fans after someone's blood, sport's track record of promoting harmony does not impress. It is not just the fans - think of the football war of 1969. The Olympics has not been much better.
Indeed totalitarianism and the track seem much more closely related. From Hitler in 1936 - and it would have been held in Tokyo in 1940 if throwing javelins had not been overshadowed by firing shells - right on to Beijing, tough regimes love sport. Just look at the gymnastic splendour of a Kim Jong Il birthday party, the inhumane training regime of the East Germans.
At least one thing that can be said about the major American sports, baseball and the American version of football, is that since few other countries play them at a serious level, they are not really the occasions for xenophobic competitiveness on a grand scale. It seems like archetypal American isolationism that they have a baseball World Series just for themselves.
But the Beijing Olympics offers a genuine opportunity for peace. The Chinese are so concerned about urination on their 2008 parade that human rights organisations and governments that support human rights (and even those like Bush's that pretend to do so) have a rare but serious opportunity to get the Chinese onside. The Taiwanese know this - that's why they are staging their referendum on UN membership early in the New Year - not long before the Olympics.
From Darfur to Rangoon, there are definite signals that roguish states that have benefited from Chinese diplomatic protection are feeling a little chilly. The more calls there are for boycotts, the less likely Beijing is to go out on a limb for its mass murdering friends.
Human rights supporters should keep talking boycotts, and they may even put some truth in the rumours of a responsibility to protect that the UN general assembly voted for in 2005, with none against. China seems to have forgotten that principle - that mass murders by governments are a threat to international peace and security that demand United Nations action.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)