FREE MIN KO NAING, STUDENTS AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS
When the present government of Burma recently offered all the exiles to come back home and work together in building up the new country they never mentioned about those who sacrificed their lives in bringing down the notorious Burma Socialist Program Party, and those who had fallen in the movement to get rid of military regime and restoring democracy in the country. Of course, those martyrs will never come back from their existence they are now living. There were thousands of people cut down on the streets, thousands of people were tortured and they are still in the prison. All the uprising that started from 1962 to 1988 were led by students except the saffron revolution which was protested against the regime by religious monks. Student leaders of 1988 Generation are also still in the prison. They were sentenced long years by the military regime in 2008. Among them Min Ko Naing served time for 18 years for his activities in 1988. Two years after releasing from the prison he was again arrested by the regime for protesting against the fuel price hike by the regime. This time he gets 56 years.
Those who are away from their motherland, living in exile in another country are already settled down where they are living. Only a few number of exiles will go back home. But it is for sure that there are people who will visit their home country to see their parents or close relatives whom they have not met for more than twenty years. They will come back to their country where they applied for the citizen and mostly are now having citizenship of the countries where they had taken refuge.
Expecting changes in every aspect in political, economic and social fields, some people live on with their dreams that hardly come true. Some waiting for chance to go back home as they had left their loved ones in home country for numerous years but not success. They passed away while waiting peace come to their country. Now, is peace really returned to our country?
Are we satisfied with the recent changes after the democracy icon has been released from house arrest and after the formation of new government by the military regime? The release of a few political prisoners and the authority comply with the demand of people to stop building dams on the River Irrawaddy. With these do we have to be contented?
To be honest, we are not fully satisfy with the present situation of Burma. Daw Suu who represents majority of Burmese people in plight and members of the present government who represents the military regime are now engaging for peace talk and reformation of the country, according to news media. As the military regime never keeps their words in the past should we trust the present government that is uttering peace and reconciliation? Some political analysts are saying changes is fast that they are puzzled and some are cautiously watching the moves of both government and the Opposition leader. It is still too early to interpret the game played by the two sides. However, the civil war is still going on and the government forces are reinforcing their troops in front lines. Bomb explosions in public places reoccur followed by death and wound.
A sudden appearance of a fugitive of Thailand Taksin Shinawat in the country makes people and politician astonished. His meeting with the retired dictator Than Shwe also makes people surprised. There were speculation behind this story and the people feel unhappy to find out the dictator is still in power and pulling the strings of puppet government behind the curtain. As the constitution has drawn by the military with their own consent the Armed Forces can any time take over power from the present government. The opposition parties and people should take firm measures in order to thwart the rise again by the Army and the most important thing is the opposition parties must protect their common leader Daw Suu as no one can be trusted in the course toward peace and democracy. Any time the military can try one or another attempt on the democracy icon's life. If she is gone there is no one to take her place. Because there is no one to step in her shoe. Now, again, speculation of releasing political prisoners has been spread in Rangoon when writing this article. If it is true, we hope Min Ko Naing and all the students should be among the released political prisoners. (Written by MMKW)
INTERVIEW WITH EVAN WILLIAMS
Thursday 05 August 2010
An in-depth interview with experienced Unreported World journalist Evan Williams.
As a reporter for the critically-acclaimed foreign affairs series Unreported World, Evan Williams has covered stories in some of the most extreme and hostile places on Earth. From the remote jungle of West Papua to the favelas of Brazil, from war-torn Iraq to a Zimbabwe on its knees, Williams has seen the best and worst of humanity, as people struggle to survive in unthinkable circumstances.
Ahead of the new series of Unreported World, he talks about why he still feels passionate about his work, how he copes with the emotional fallout and why Unreported World continues to make a difference.
How did you end-up making international current affairs documentaries?
I started with the ABC in Australia. I was one of their foreign correspondents based in Southeast Asia during the 90s. After that, I took a job with a programme at the ABC called Foreign Correspondent, which was all international current affairs, making stories of between 20 and 45 minutes long. So that's how I got into making the longer form of current affairs stories. I moved to the UK with my wife in 2005 and wanted to work on international current affairs with Channel 4 because I liked their slightly subversive approach and wanted to learn more, and to expand into new areas and longer formats. My motivation was also a lifelong interest in international current affairs, and real desire to get out and be in the situation rather than reporting it from an office.
How many Unreported World documentaries have you made now?
Twelve.
How long do you work on each one for?
Each one is a contract of two months: that’s two weeks of preparation, up to three weeks shooting in the field, and three weeks editing. It’s a pretty fixed timeframe.
It must be pretty intensive?
It's very intensive. It's all-consuming. The style is very much what you see on the ground, it's very actuality based. There's no going and adding things in the edit suite. It's all about what you find and what you discover while you're out there, and your journey along the way. Unlike a lot of TV current affairs, where you go with a file and you know all this material and information first, and feed it in a detached way, this is very much based on what you discover on the ground. Obviously you have to set up where you're going, and you have to know roughly what's happening, but it is a genuine journey of journalistic discovery, and that's its strength.
Is it always the case that there are just two of you on the ground for each programme?
That's right. It's always a two-person team - the shooter/director and the reporter. And, of course, you have a local fixer who you work with. So really we’re a three-person team.
What's the thinking behind having such a small team?
It's partly stylistic, and partly for ease in operating. You get a really good dynamic going for this style of actuality-based television when there are two of you. You are genuinely following the reporter's journey, it's not to do with the ego of the reporter or that we have to be the centre of attention. It's nothing to do with that. It's more that a director who is shooting with you all the time will be on your shoulder and will follow you through what you discover on your way. Doing it with any more than two people wouldn't really work, because you'd have lots of set-up and you'd have lots of other people involved. Whereas this is just the cameraman following you through, and you get a really good dynamic going. It's also very important for a lot of stories we do to remain slightly covert. Often we're in places where people don’t really want us to be - particularly governments and officials - or we might need to get into another area to get to people. And having a two-person crew, especially if you've got a man and a woman, can give you a much better ability to move into an area and keep moving and keep a low profile.
A lot of the filming you do is in secret. What are the methods you employ to remain undetected?
Moving quickly, being aware of your environment all the time, having things lined up as much as you can where you might be able to get what you need without further endangering the people you're meeting, and also keeping your head down. So you don’t hang around in a place any longer than you have to, you keep moving. You may decide to change your dates from when you were meant to be somewhere. Try and organise back-ups for when things go wrong. Try and stay aware as much as possible about what threats might be out there, in terms of being detected by officials, governments and others, such as non-state parties who might want to get hold of you.
You talk about wanting to protect the people who talk to you. That must be one of your primary concerns.
Yeah, it's very, very important. Obviously, in this age of internet and other material going back into countries, it’s even more important. A lot of people we meet are very keen that they are seen to be standing up for a particular issue or cause, or even their own pursuit of justice. And often this is a very dangerous thing for those people to do. So it's a matter of trying to protect those people. Sometimes we have to make decisions where an interviewee might want to be seen, but we decide it's in their best interests to disguise his or her identity. Or we try and give the people we work with some kind of deniability - so if we're working with locals who are getting us to a particular place, we won't involve them in a particular part of the filming so that they can't be identified with anything too incriminating.
Which of the stories that you've reported have made the biggest impression on you?
There are so many, it's hard to condense down. Every story has its very powerful and moving moments - some more that others, but they are always there. It is often the most vulnerable who get to me, but it can sometimes be the most inspiring who affect me in any given situation - someone who is stoically pursuing a goal despite all the odds, someone who refuses to give up. I think one of my first stories contained some of the most moving moments, the West Papua story. We went in to see people who were struggling to keep their own land. They are completely tied in with their land, it is everything to them, and yet it no longer really belongs to them. Egypt was very moving, where we found Christians who were living pretty much on a rubbish dump. They're all moving, and they're all very compelling in their own way. It's hard to differentiate. Ingushetia made a big impact on me as well. They all do.
It often looks pretty terrifying, too. When have you been the most scared?
I think when we almost got arrested in West Papua. Or, our going out with American soldiers on patrol in Iraq. You won't necessarily have a particular incident, but it's about what could happen. In Ingushetia we were arrested by the Russian secret service, pulled over and taken to the police headquarters, where you're unsure about what's about to happen, or what could happen. Being a bit scared is a good thing. It keeps you alert and hopefully lessens complacency.
Do you still get shocked by the things you see, or does nothing surprise you any more?
No, I'm always shocked. Always shocked and always interested. I think if you feel that you've seen it all before, it's probably time to give it up. Every bad or distressing situation is shocking. Certain things might move you in a particular way. I think sometimes you see a series of incidents and not really allow it to get too deep as you keep working - then you come across an incident or person or event and it all comes out at that point for some reason. It doesn’t have to be the most dramatic or moving moment that sets it off, and I think different people react to different things in this regard. We met a woman in Brazil whose son had been killed, and as far as the police were concerned he was just another street kid. And she was this beautiful, 45-year-old woman who had lost her son and was completely hopeless. I found it very, very moving. There was no particular answer to anything, and no one in particular to blame, it was just her sense of isolated hopelessness. She had no one to turn to. She sat in the small cinder block shack that was her home, with her son dead. That really affected me. Each one of them does affect you. In Zimbabwe I met a 14-year-old girl taking care of all her siblings as her mother had died of an AIDS-related illness. She wanted to take care of her brothers and sisters even though she wasn’t sure where to get their daily food and all she wanted to do was go to school, but in her eyes I could see she knew she was trapped. In this case there was someone to blame - a completely uncaring government and leader. In Ingushetia, we met a family whose son had just been blown up by the Russian security forces, allegedly, in their own home. We met them during a mourning ceremony, when the whole family was there, and that was extremely moving. They described how his body had been dragged to a particular part of the room and blown up. I could go on. Each story has its own personality, and its own episode that is particularly shocking.
Do you find it difficult to come back home and switch off and enjoy the trappings of life here?
I think you'd be lying if you said you weren't affected by these things. But I think it's very important to try not to carry it too heavily when you come back - particularly with other people who haven't been there. Those people can't really understand it, and hopefully the power is through the story, not through your own banging on about it for hours and days. You're just going to bore people, they can't relate to it until they've seen the film. These stories are extremely important to us, and so I try to channel that energy or anger or frustration or emotion through them. I find I don't talk about them too much - in fact, my wife complains I don't talk about it enough. So I think it's important that you come back and are able to get on with and enjoy life as much as you can, and channel your feelings into the story. But I do find, as I get a little older, that it's a cumulative type of experience - it does add up.
If, as you say, it's cumulative, does that mean that you can't keep on going for too much longer?
No, I think what it means is you need to be aware of how you handle it, and not to pretend it's not there. Like all reporters and investigators, we're going into very unusual situations, and we inevitably see certain things. Many people have seen much worse than I have - I think that's an important thing to say. I've seen some things, but I've also been very fortunate. But it's a matter of not pretending that it's not unusual - of recognising that there are stresses and strains and that sometimes these things need to be sat down and thought about and thought through. We have a strong team of people on Unreported World who all experience similar things, and that is a useful safety valve too. I think that's the most useful thing - to go back over what you've experienced, and put it in context. Because you also meet fabulous heroes, people who are resisting, and who are very inspirational, and they can often be a good counterbalance.
Do the films ever make a significant difference?
A lot of people take great heart, on the ground when we get to them, just from the fact that anybody from outside is taking any notice at all. I think that's one of the most important things to remember. It cannot be underestimated, because these people are often operating in very difficult circumstances. They're isolated; they often don’t have much contact with the outside world. We get to them and we tell their story, and that gives these people on the ground an enormous boost. And for legal and journalistic reasons, we often have to take these concerns to the authorities, and so often government and national attention is raised on an issue that might not have been there before - so in that way I think it helps tremendously on the ground. I would say that the presence of the camera and the programme imbues people with a new energy, and I've witnessed that. Does it lead to change? Yes, I think it does. For example in Jamaica, I wouldn’t say we affected domestic politics, but certainly the issues we were looking at there, in terms of the political connections to gang violence, became a national election issue, led to a national enquiry with a new government, and led to some soul-searching by political parties. And that was an issue that our presence and our story helped raise. Many other Unreported World reporters and directors could recount more stories like this.
The new series of Unreported World is about to start. Where have you been for this series?
I've just got back from Pakistan, where we've been looking at the continuation of militant groups. We're looking at why it is that militant organisations are still allowed and can still operate in Pakistan. We can reveal more details in the story. And I'm about to go somewhere else, but I can't talk about it at this stage.
Interview by Benjie Goodhart.
Sayagyi Min Thu Wun (The late Great Poet)
Today (Aug 15, 2011) is the 7th anniversary of Sayagyi Min Thu Wun's departure to another existence from Burma where he was born. His name will live forever though he passed away seven years ago. The great poet who was also a peace lover wrote numerous books mostly dealt with poems. Almost all of his works are famous in Burmese literary world. He loves to represent people who live simple lives and who love peace and democracy. He became a Parliament member of NLD, elected by Kamayut Constituency in Rangoon. The last time I saw Sayagyi was a year before his demise at his home in Hledan. My eldest brother Maung Linyon (Shan Pyi), also a poet, worked under him at Translation Department of Rangoon University. Today he is in his 70s and resided in Insein. Sayagyi Min Thu Wun is one of my admired literary figures.
Aung San Suu Kyi challenges Burma junta to begin journey towards reform
Aung San Suu Kyi today reached out to the generals who jailed her, saying she wants direct talks with the military's leaders in the interests of "national reconciliation".
Aung San Suu Kyi has emerged from seven years' house arrest, and incarceration at the junta's hands for 15 of the past 21 years, insisting she bears no grudge against her country's military regime. She has urged reconciliation and unity for Burma.
She has hinted, too, that she may be willing to soften her stance in favour of international sanctions against Burma's military junta, but insisted that true progress could not be made until all of the country's 2,100 political prisoners were freed.
Despite her historic release at the weekend, and the euphoria that has enveloped Burma in its aftermath, concerns remain that this could be a false dawn for the country and not a "Mandela moment" that signals the start of genuine political reform.
Today, speaking publicly for the first time since her release on Saturday, Aung San Suu Kyi told supporters she needed their support to transform the country. "I think we all have to work together. I wish to work in unison with the people of Burma," she said. She stressed she alone could not lead the country to democracy after 50 years of military rule.
"I don't believe in one person's influence and authority to move a country forward," she said. "One person alone cannot do something as important as bringing democracy to a country."
More than 10,000 supporters, many wearing T-shirts bearing Aung San Suu Kyi's image or with photographs of her pinned to their clothes, rallied outside the headquarters of her now banned political party, the National League for Democracy, cramming Shwegondine Road in central Rangoon to listen to her speak.
Many held up signs saying "We love Suu". In response she lifted a handwritten sign saying "I love the public, too".
Aung San Suu Kyi said she had a message for the regime's senior general, Than Shwe: "Let's speak to each other directly." She added: "I am for national reconciliation. I am for dialogue." The pair last met in secret talks in 2002 at the encouragement of the United Nations, just months before the junta arrested her again.
There has been no word from Burma's jungle capital, Nay Pi Daw, on whether the regime's leaders wish to meet her, and there are doubts over the junta's commitment to reform.
Dr Maung Zarni, a Burma research fellow at the London School of Economics, said the junta had released political prisoners before, usually to win favour internationally, but had rearrested them when it felt the need to reassert control. "We should not fool ourselves to think that her release signals the desire on the part of the regime towards democratisation, dialogue and reconciliation," Zarni said.
"Her release is simply a tactical move. The regime is still holding over 2,100 prisoners of conscience … many serving ridiculously lengthy prison sentences. They must all be freed if we are to be convinced of the regime's desire towards reconciliation."
Burma's generals have jailed Aung San Suu Kyi three times in the past two decades, either arbitrarily or on dubious charges, and Zarni said they could be moved to do so again if they felt her near-universal popularity was weakening their grip on power.
But asked if she feared being imprisoned again, Aung San Suu Kyi was deliberately coy. "I do not think I am threatening, do you?" the 65-year-old grandmother said.
"Popularity is something that comes and goes. I don't think anybody should feel threatened by it. But I know that there's always the possibility that I might be rearrested. It's not something that I particularly wish for, because if you're placed under arrest, you can't work as much as you can when you're not under arrest."
Others cautiously believe the junta's move could mark the beginning of genuine reform. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean), which counts Burma as a member but which the west has accused of not doing enough to push for change there, welcomed the release. "I'm very, very relieved and hope that this will contribute to true national reconciliation," said the secretary-general, Surin Pitsuwan.
Aung San Suu Kyi also met a corps of diplomats today, including representatives from Britain, the European Union and Asean countries.
Later, during a wide-ranging press conference, Aung San Suu Kyi said that while during her years of imprisonment she "felt free within myself", she would not rest until all of Burma's political prisoners were released unconditionally. "If my people are not free, how can you say I am free?" she said. "We are none of us free."
Aung San Suu Kyi has been a strong supporter of trade sanctions, which have isolated Burma for more than a decade, but appeared to indicate a willingness to reconsider. "This is a time for Burma when we need help," she said. "We need everybody to help in this venture. Western nations, eastern nations, all nations."
Her previous spells of liberty have come with conditions attached by the military, limiting her movements and with whom she could meet, but the military had not imposed any restrictions on her this time, she said.
Her first formal act is likely to be a response to last weekend's elections, which were marred by reports of voter intimidation, bribery and stuffed ballot boxes. The election was won overwhelmingly by the junta's party. Aung San Suu Kyi was banned from participating and her party urged a boycott, resulting in a poor voter turnout. An NLD committee is set to investigate all complaints independently. "From what I have heard there are many, many questions about the fairness of the election and there are many, many allegations of vote rigging and so on," she said.
Aung San Suu Kyi said today she was enjoying her freedom, particularly the chance to meet and talk to people. "I have been listening to the radio for six years," she said. "I think I'd like to listen to some real human voices."
She said she had not had a chance to see very much of the outside world, "but I have noticed that a lot of people have mobile phones".
She used a mobile for the first time on Sunday to call her son Kim, who is in Bangkok, and whom she hasn't seen for nearly a decade. She has never met her grandchildren.
Aung San Suu Kyi spent her first afternoon of freedom at Rangoon's Shwedagon pagoda, then attended the funeral of an NLD colleague.
Aung San Suu Kyi release brings joy, tears – and new hope for Burma
The defiant and dignified Aung San Suu Kyi, who is known among her supporters as "The Lady", appeared in front of a weeping and cheering crowd who had rushed to her house in Rangoon after the government barricades were swept away.
Jubilation was tempered, however, by the reality that Burma is still in the grip of the generals who have run the country since overthrowing the democratically elected government more than 20 years ago and who cemented their hold last week in an orchestrated election.
Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the Nobel peace prize in 1991, acknowledged the crowds and urged them to work together. "I am so glad to see so many people here and so happy to be free," she said, standing on a stool and looking over the gate of the house where she had been confined for 15 of the last 21 years.
"There is a time to be quiet and a time to talk. People must work in unison. Only then can we achieve our goal."
After just 10 minutes outside, she returned to the home that is no longer her prison. Thousands of her supporters, many wearing T-shirts bearing her image alongside the words "We stand by Aung San Suu Kyi", stayed outside for several hours.
Aung San Suu Kyi emerged later, thanking her supporters, but urging them to go home to sleep.
While her term of detention has technically finished, it was not immediately clear how long that respite would last. During previous brief spells of freedom she has railed against, and defied, the conditions restricting where she could go – banning her from leaving Rangoon, for instance – and who she could meet.
The government says that this time her freedom will not be restricted. "She is completely free – there are no conditions at all," an unnamed senior government official was quoted as saying. But Aung San Suu Kyi's supporters fear her freedom may again be short-lived, and that the generals will seek to rearrest her on some technical infringement.
A defiant Aung San Suu Kyi, meanwhile, clearly intends to reimpose her leadership on Burma's splintered National League for Democracy (NLD). She promised to reveal her plans tomorrow at the headquarters of the NLD, a sign to the regime that she intends to fight on for democracy.
Her release was welcomed around the world, not least by her late husband's family in Britain. It is understood that she was able to speak on the phone to her youngest son, Kim, who is currently in Bangkok. She has not seen her two sons for 10 years, and Kim this week failed again in his attempt to get a visa to travel to Burma. He has two children whom Aung San Suu Kyi has never met.
Today was a "happy day", said Aung San Suu Kyi's British brother-in-law, Adrian Phillips. "We are obviously very pleased if it means we can contact her again after so many years of silence," Phillips said.
"The last time I spoke to her was when her husband [Michael Aris] died in 1999. There are all sorts of family matters that we haven't been able to talk to her about. She has a granddaughter, Jasmine, who she has never seen."
In the UK, David Cameron said Aung San Suu Kyi's release had been long overdue. The prime minister added: "Aung San Suu Kyi is an inspiration for all of us who believe in freedom of speech, democracy and human rights."
William Hague, the foreign secretary, said: "Aung San Suu Kyi's arbitrary detention for most of the past 20 years has been deeply unjust. Her fortitude in the face of this outrage has been inspirational.
"She must now be allowed to assume a role of her choosing in the political life of her country without further hindrance or restriction.
"Last week's sham elections will not bring peace and prosperity to Burma. The regime now needs to release the other 2,100 political prisoners and begin a genuine dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and all opposition and ethnic groups. These remain the crucial first steps to solving Burma's many problems and addressing the pressing needs of its people."
Gordon Brown, the former prime minister, said: "There will be joy round the world at the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the world's most renowned and courageous prisoner of conscience."
President Barack Obama described the woman who has spent most of the past two decades almost cut off from the world, as a hero.
"She is a hero of mine and a source of inspiration for all who work to advance basic human rights in Burma and around the world," he said
Fellow Nobel laureates, meeting in Hiroshima, Japan, to campaign against nuclear weapons, welcomed her release. "For years we have been asking… for her release," FW de Klerk, the former president of South Africa, said. "We welcome it, and we hope it will last, and there won't be a regression of any nature."
Burmese state media last night attributed Aung San Suu Kyi's release to good conduct. "Aung San Suu Kyi behaved well according to the regulations during the period she was under a suspended sentence, so she was allowed to be released," government-run TV reported.
The report noted that Aung San Suu Kyi was "the daughter of the leader General Aung San who gave his life for Myanmar's [Burma's] independence". It also expressed a desire "not to hold a grudge against each other".
Aung San Suu Kyi was first imprisoned by Burma's military regime in June 1989. Since then, she has spent more than 15 years in secret detention, jail and under house arrest.
Her latest period of incarceration, her third, began in 2003. This final stretch of imprisonment was an 18-month sentence for having "received" an unauthorised visitor when an eccentric well-wisher, American John Yettaw, swam across a lake to her house in the middle of the night.
LETTER FROM USCB
Amazing! In just two weeks, we got 32 Senators to call for the US to support a UN Commission of Inquiry into the military regime's crimes against humanity. This was made possible by your phone calls to your Senators' offices. This is a monumental step forward in our campaign to hold Burma's Generals accountable for their crimes against humanity and war crimes.
See if your Senator was one of the 32 here.
While we continue to pressure our government on behalf of the people of Burma, the struggle in Burma continues. Just this week the regime raided a number of Karen villages sending even more villagers on the run. We ask President Obama and Secretary Clinton to hear these villagers and work together with the international community to bring Burma's generals committing these crimes to justice.
We are going to need your help to make sure that the Obama administration listens to these Senators and to the growing voices around the world calling for a Commission of Inquiry on Burma. We at U.S. Campaign for Burma will remain steadfast in this goal.
Sincerely,
Aung Din, Jen, Nadi and Mike
LETTER TO SECRETARY OF STATE
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Madame Secretary:
We write to urge you to support the establishment of a United Nations Commission of Inquiry to investigate whether crimes against humanity and war crimes took place in Burma. While your administration continues along a path of sanctions and pragmatic engagement with Burma, we believe that such a commission will help convince Burma’s military regime that we are serious about our commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law for the people of Burma.
At the 13th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council in March, UN Special Rapporteur for the Human Rights Situation in Burma, Mr. Tomas Ojea Quintana, released his latest report and urged the United Nations “to consider the possibility to establish a commission of inquiry with a specific fact finding mandate to address the question of international crimes” in Burma.
The Special Rapporteur argued that: “[g]iven the gross and systematic nature of human rights violations in Myanmar over a period of many years, and the lack of accountability, there is an indication that those human rights violations are the result of a state policy that involves authorities in the executive, military, and judiciary at all levels.” Mr. Quintana further stated that “[a]ccording to consistent reports, the possibility exists that some of these human rights violations may entail categories of crimes against humanity or war crimes under the terms of the Statue of the International Criminal Court.”
We appreciate the comments made by Douglas Griffiths, US Charge d’Affaires at US Mission to the UN in Geneva, in response to the report that “[t]his recommendation serves to underscore the seriousness of the human rights problems in the country and the pressing need for the international community to find an effective way to address challenges there.”
Indeed, a number of reports have documented a consistent pattern of human rights abuses by the regime in Burma which must be addressed: the use of child soldiers, the destruction of villages and the displacement of ethnic minorities, the use of rape as a weapon of war, extrajudicial killings, forced relocation, and forced labor.
These abuses have been exacerbated by the regime’s intention to hold elections in 2010 based on a constitution which disallows the full participation of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy, political prisoners, religious clergy and ethnic nationalities.
As President Obama stated in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech: “When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.” Both the Australian and British governments have both stated their support for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry on Burma, and we must stand together with them and the people of Burma.
We appreciate your attention to this request and we look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Senator Feinstein (D-CA)
Senator Boxer (D-CA)
Senator Gregg (R-NH)
Senator Durbin (D-IL)
Senator Bingaman (D-NM)
Senator Wyden (D-OR)
Senator Udall (D-CO)
Senator Cardin (D-MD)
Senator Brownback (R-KS)
Senator Merkley (D-OR)
Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Senator Brown (D-OH)
Senator Lieberman (ID-CT)
Senator Mikulski (D-MD)
Senator Gillibrand (D-NY)
Senator Casey (D-PA)
Senator Bennet (D-CO)
Senator Voinovich (R-OH)
Senator Whitehouse (D-RI)
Senator Schumer (D-NY)
Senator Feingold (D-WI)
Senator Collins (R-ME)
Senator Sanders (I-VT)
Senator Hagan (D-NC)
Senator Harkin (D-IA)
Senator Murray (D-WA)
Senator Franken (D-MN)
Senator Burr (R-NC)
Senator Burris (D-IL)
Senator Klobuchar (D-MN)
Senator Leahy (D-VT)
Senator Menendez (D-NJ)
Message from Senator Durbin
Thank you for your message about human rights abuses in Burma and Senate Joint Resolution 29 (S.J. Res. 29). I appreciate hearing from you and share your concerns about this situation.
The United States has imposed sanctions on Burma since 1988. In 2003, Congress passed the Burma Freedom and Democracy Act, which I cosponsored. This measure imposes a prohibition on the importation of any goods from Burma until its government makes significant progress toward democracy and respect for human rights. The Act also freezes the U.S. assets of Burma's ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), prohibits SPDC members and supporters from entering the United States, and requires that U.S. representatives to international financial institutions oppose aid to Burma.
Congress annually votes to reauthorize these sanctions and this year I am, again, a cosponsor. Unfortunately, despite these sanctions, the human rights record of the Burmese regime remains dismal.
China and India have signed deals with the SPDC for substantial purchases of natural gas, and Burma reportedly also earns $1-2 billion annually from the export of illegal drugs. While other members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have grown more critical of the SPDC, these two countries still do not support sanctions. China has provided $2 billion in military aid to Burma since the early 1990s, in addition to $200 million each year in economic aid. There also have been reports of military cooperation between Burma and North Korea.
According to the United Nations (U.N.), more than 3,000 Burmese villages have been destroyed by the ruling military junta in an ethnic cleansing campaign. One million refugees have fled the country and an additional 500,000 remain internally displaced. The junta has ignored every ceasefire agreement and continues to attack civilians, use rape as a weapon of war, and conscript children into slave labor. Burma is now home to at least 70,000 child soldiers - more than in any other nation. The junta is holding more than 1,300 political prisoners in jail and has continued the house arrest of Nobel Laureate and pro-democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi. The public health situation in Burma also is deteriorating because of the regime's interference with the delivery of humanitarian aid and medicines. In April 2007, I joined other senators in sending a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressing concern about the situation in Burma and asking him to take a more active role in resolving this problem.
As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, I am committed to the vision of a world in which the human rights of all are respected. I am monitoring the situation in Burma closely, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to promote freedom, democracy, and human rights in Burma and around the world.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
RJD/ab
What they suggest
Copy from Yahoo Page
Profile
- Maung Maung Kyaw Win
- An exiled journalist from Burma, I have taken refuge in the United States with my family thanks to CPJ in New York, UNHCR (Cambodia) and the States Department. I was detained for one and a half year in 1969 for burning effigy of the late dictator Ne Win in the Rangoon University campus during SEA Games Strike. I was also actively participated in 8888 nationwide uprising by taking charge in publishing The Guardian Daily as independent newspaper for 22 days before I resigned from the newspaper as Assistant Editor in September,1988. Fortunately, I was escaped from arresting by the military regime. In 1990, I left for Bangkok where I had an assignment to translate the "Outrage: Burma's Struggle for Democracy". The book was originally written by Bertil Lintner, a Swedish journalist. I fled my country in December 2005 after my life was threatened by the military intelligence service for involving in political movements and had given assistance to foreign journalists who came to Burma. I am still active with the movement for restoring democracy in Burma.