'We All Want Democracy'

A rare glimpse of the issues affecting the lower ranks of Burma’s military, seen through the eyes of an active-duty sergeant.

WASHINGTON (RFA) -—In a rare interview, an active-duty sergeant in Burma’s military has expressed his frustration at the junta’s handling of the country’s affairs and said that this view is shared by many like him in the lower ranks of the army.

Experts agree that morale amongst rank-and-file soldiers in Burma’s army is low and may pose a threat to the military regime’s hold on power.

Elaine Pearson, Deputy Director of the Asia Division at Human Rights Watch in New York, said access to Burma’s military is extremely difficult and that it is unusual for soldiers to speak out in such a way.

“I guess this sergeant feels the need to speak out because things are really at an all time low in Burma,” Pearson said.

She noted that in the past two years, arrests and intimidation of political activists have intensified as the number of political prisoners has doubled.

Offices of opposition parties have been forcibly closed, while freedom of expression, assembly, and association have all been sharply curtailed, she said.

“This sham trial of Aung San Suu Kyi is just the last straw, when we didn’t think things could get any worse,” Pearson said.

“Even members of the military recognize this trial to be the complete farce that it is, and ... are not taken in by the regime’s propaganda,” she said.

Mark Palmer, Vice-Chairman of the board at Freedom House in Washington, said the soldier was likely motivated to speak because of his dissatisfaction with the difficulty of life in Burma, rampant corruption amongst officers, and his belief that most Burmese want a shift to democracy.

Palmer noted that in dozens of transitions from dictatorship to democracy the turning point comes when soldiers and police are no longer willing to open fire on nonviolent demonstrators for democracy.

“The views of this sergeant are therefore immensely important and promising,” Palmer said.

Palmer called for a “massive communications effort” to ensure that like-minded soldiers “know that they are not alone.”

He said it was necessary to show these members of the military “that the people are 'them' and not their enemies."

Palmer referred to a 2007 protest movement that ended in a bloody military crackdown, saying it is imperative to teach Burmese soldiers that "the next time civil resistance arises, they can and must refuse orders to kill innocent monks and ordinary citizens.”

The following interview was conducted with an active-duty sergeant in the Burmese military, who has asked to remain anonymous for reasons of personal safety.

RFA: What is the situation at the grassroots level of the army?

Sergeant: At the grassroots level we are facing difficulty with everything in our lives including affording food, shelter, and other things. We are experiencing financial hardship because our pay is insufficient. Our family members are being forced to work outside of the barracks in order to make ends meet.

RFA: How is the life of the military leadership?

Sergeant: The regional commanders in Rangoon often have three or four cars and three or four houses, but the rank-and-file members of the military can’t even afford a plot of land after retiring from fifty years of military service. The officers can take care of themselves without having to worry.

RFA: How are you able to survive?

Sergeant: After high school our children must take vocational classes and must go to work. Other family members do whatever they can and are often forced to sell produce in local markets to make extra money.

RFA: Does the military make use of child soldiers?

Sergeant: This does not happen in the township areas, but it occurs from time to time in the outlying regions. When an officer commands you to fill a certain quota of recruits, you are forced to obey.

RFA: What is the feeling of the rank-and-file soldiers about the government response to the Saffron Rebellion and the killing of the Sangha monks?

Sergeant: In the army there are many officers who are trying to advance their careers and commit these kinds of acts to do so, but the majority of the rank-and-file officers were saddened by this act. Many of us feel this way. We sympathize with the monks and feel that the officers who ordered this violence will someday have to pay for their actions.

RFA: There are some who hope that the army will stand with the Burmese people in the event of any political change. What is your opinion?

Sergeant: I would like to stand with the people, but the higher-ranking officers are unlikely to do so—only the rank-and-file soldiers.

RFA: What does the lower echelon of the military think about Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial?

Sergeant: Most are unhappy about it and feel that the government is making up lies about her in order to put her on trial.

RFA: What do the rank-and-file soldiers think about the legacy of General Aung San?

Sergeant: We all revere General Aung San and feel that Burma owes its independence to him. We don’t think that the daughter should have to suffer after the father’s work for the country.

RFA: Are new members of the military taught about the work that General Aung San did for the country?

Sergeant: It has been a long time since the military taught new recruits about General Aung San. These days his picture is not even allowed to be hung on the wall in military institutions.

RFA: Do the rank-and-file soldiers think democracy would help Burma?

Sergeant: Yes, we all feel it would make the country better off. We all want democracy—both the people and the soldiers.

Original reporting by Zaw Moe Kyaw for RFA’s Burmese service. Burmese service director: Nyein Shwe. Translated by Nyein Shwe. Written in English with additional reporting by Joshua Lipes. Edited by Sarah Jackson-Han.

READ MORE---> 'We All Want Democracy'...

Suffering and hope in a Burmese refugee camp

by Hnin Pan Ein

(This article describes the lives and hopes of Burmese refugees in a Thai-Burma border camp)

Mizzima News - Rays of sun pierce the clouds, bathing the entire mountain range and forest. At other times during monsoon season, drizzle and mist veil the mountains, including Noe Boe Mountain, hiding them from the outside world. In the far distance, from the village of Noe Boe, torrential streams of water can be seen cascading from surrounding mountains following the rain, the scent of seasonal wild flowers and the earth lingering in the air.

When night falls Noe Boe becomes silent, the sound of water flowing in the rain swollen streams mixed with night birds all that can be heard, ushering in mixed and sometimes haunting feelings for the forlorn and desolate refugees living in the camp.

These refugees came to this camp fleeing the severe oppression inflicted upon them politically, militarily, socially and religiously. Some have been here for over 12 years. Throughout their time in this camp they encounter only a miserable and hard life. For their survival they search for wild berries and vegetables in the dense forest along with frogs and fish from the streams. Occasionally, they make a salad by boiling banana buds and mixing them with raw onion, pea flour and seasoning powder. Those Karen refugees who arrived first serve as survival teachers for those who follow.

There are two types of refugees in the camp, those who receive a refugee ration and those who do not. Those with a ration need not worry about basic foodstuffs, while those without must rely on what they can scrounge from the forest and buy in the camp. For drinking water, rainwater is collected during the monsoon season from the leaf-woven roofs of huts, before it reaches the ground and turns reddish. To facilitate the collection, some build rainwater harvesting units comprising four bamboo poles and a plastic sheet. Bamboo, due to its versatility, is essential for the camp’s survival.

The monsoon season also brings with it melancholy feelings and stress, as refuges struggle to cope with daily livelihood and harsh weather conditions. Moreover, it is very sad for them to wonder when families may be reunited, when friends and colleagues can one day be visited and when they can again set foot again on the soil of their motherland. Yet, at other times the memories and thoughts of family, friends and home provides a feeling of closeness, togetherness, love and joy.

There is no proper work to be found in the camp, only the bartering of goods and services with fellow refugees. As a last resort, they have to rely on family members and friends who have been resettled in third countries to send back remittances.

The phone and Internet allows refugees, the latter at a more affordable rate, to keep in contact with family and friends abroad and update them as to their situation. Phone booths and Internet cafés are always busy and crowded, with refugees pouring out their despair, anxieties and hopes to those on the receiving end. It can be an experience of joy, pleasure, anger, sorrow and resentment – maybe even all at the same the time.

If friends living in outside countries do not want to talk with them or the money that is to be sent is not yet ready, they sometimes will not pick up the phone, leaving refugees to hear only the answering machine notifying them in a foreign language to repeatedly ‘Leave your message if any’. Phone booth owners warn them not to pick up the phone receiver before hearing the live voice on the other end to avoid unnecessary charges – a premature pick-up costing the dialer 10 baht to ‘converse’ with the answering machine, an expense few can afford on their shoestring budgets.

At other times family and friends will insist on calling back to save the refugees money. But sometimes refugees have to wait a long time at the phone booth for the return call, rushing forth whenever the phone rings, their necks extended like the ‘Padaung’ long-necks after waiting a long time in vain.

For those who can use the Internet, it is always hoped to find an Inbox full of mail. Even a single line from beloved friends can make them happy and bring encouragement. If they see friends online with a green light next to their name on Google Talk they are very happy and start to call them. And if those who are online try and ‘disappear’ once contacted in fear of being asked for money, refugees send an email to the concerned individual asking them not to try and avoid them, as they only wish to talk.

‘Peaceful coexistence’ for those in the camp encapsulates the feeling that the refugees live with body and soul existing separate. As most are simply waiting to leave, when the expected duration of wait becomes longer than expected their lives become more bitter and unpleasant, which sometimes brings with it cases of domestic violence and family conflict. It is natural to see counseling and psychotherapy services available in Noe Boe, while the owner of the liquor shop just outside the camp reaps a huge profit.

Asking each other about their situation and what news they have heard is habitual. And even if the news conveyed is false, anger is not shown, as the sharing of news is essential for the survival of everyone – daily news from prospective host countries, world news, news from around the camp and news of resettlement plans. We are happy when we hear encouraging news and despair when we hear bad news.

In the hope of expediting their departure and easing their transition into a new country, English lessons, especially with an English accent, are constantly sought after. It is a case of English, English everywhere, echoing forth from thatch roof huts and every nook and cranny of the camp.

New plants and trees are grown from seeds inadvertently thrown away during meal preparations. Around Noe Boe you can see chilly, pumpkin and papaya plants at almost every house with a courtyard. However, almost all papaya plants disappeared after a monk said, “If there is a papaya tree in front of your house, your departure date will be long” – though some housewives must lie to husbands not as superstitious, telling them that the plant was uprooted in strong winds. News spreads quickly around the camp of departure plans and the presence of any papaya plants in front of the concerned house.

Those who are lucky enough to leave and never again touch the red soil of the camp are seen off at the gate by those who are to remain behind, the sound of the engine starting on the blue bus which will carry those leaving for Mae Sot making those left behind further ponder just how long they will have to wait their turn. Tears of joy and sorrow mix in the eyes of farewells.

Those boarding the blue bus say to their friends after shaking hands, “Don’t worry, I’ll send pocket money to you when I get there”. And though they strolled together, fetched water together, gathered firewood together, searched for seasonal vegetables together, collected rations together, visited the market together, shared fortune and woe together around Noe Boe camp and the nearby forest – now these beloved friends are departing, not to return.

As for those left behind…it is back to the Internet cafes and phone booths in the hope of talking with a friend, securing a little pocket money and – just maybe – news on when they might in turn be boarding the blue bus to Mae Sot.

READ MORE---> Suffering and hope in a Burmese refugee camp...

China complains to Australia about Uighur's visit

(SMH) -China has repeatedly complained to the Australian government about the planned visit to a Melbourne film festival of the Uighur activist Beijing accuses of inciting ethnic riots in its far west, an official says.

Rebiya Kadeer - who lives in exile in the United States - is scheduled to attend the Melbourne International Film Festival on August 8 for the premier of a film about her life, 10 Conditions of Love.

She is also scheduled to address the National Press Club in Canberra on August 11 in a nationally televised speech, her host and film producer John Lewis says.

China has accused her of being behind this month's violence between Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese in the Xinjiang region that has left nearly 200 dead.

She denies the claim and in turn has claimed that nearly 10,000 people "disappeared in one night" during ethnic unrest in the Chinese city of Urumqi early this month.

"Close to 10,000 people in Urumqi disappeared in one night. Where did those people go?" she said in Japan, speaking in her native language through a translator.

"If they died, where did they go?"

China's complaints are the latest in a string of objections to the screening and Kadeer's appearance: Festival director Richard Moore said an official from the Chinese consulate in Melbourne asked him to withdraw the film about three weeks ago. Two Chinese directors have pulled their films in protest.

The festival's website has also been hacked into - an attack Moore blames on his refusal to scrap the Kadeer film or her visit.

"I can confirm that the Chinese Embassy has made representations here in Canberra," a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokeswoman told The Associated Press under condition of anonymity, citing policy.

"The matter has been discussed several times, both in Canberra and Beijing," she said.

"We do not ordinarily comment on the details of bilateral discussions."

In a statement issued on Wednesday, the Chinese Embassy said: "Facts have proven that the violent crime" that occurred in Xinjiang "was instigated, masterminded and directed by World Uighur Congress headed by Rebiya".

"We urge the international community not to provide any form of support or even encouragement for her separatist activities," the statement said. (JEG's: He means, HR team should group up and start claiming HRs for Uighurs, Nepals and others affected)

"Rebiya Kadeer is a criminal convicted by the Chinese judiciary authorities for committing crimes that jeopardise national security and major economic crimes," it said. (JEG's: oh the convenient criminal garbo of dictators..)

China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in a statement on Monday that China "expresses strong dissatisfaction" with the Japanese government for allowing the 62-year-old businesswoman to visit this week.

Kadeer is in Japan to urge global support for her "massacred" people following deadly unrest in western China, as Beijing pressed the United States to rein her in.

Kadeer, 62, the US-based head of the World Uighur Congress, has charged that "the Chinese government is trying to destroy the Uighur people. I want to tell the international community about our situation".

Beijing accuses the mother-of-11 of being a "criminal" who instigated the unrest pitting Uighurs against Han Chinese in China's Xinjiang region, which the government says left 197 people dead.

Kadeer charged that "the responsibility lies with the authorities who changed what was a peaceful demonstration into a violent riot".

"For Uighurs, taking part in demonstrations is like committing suicide," she added, speaking at a Tokyo press conference.

Agencies

READ MORE---> China complains to Australia about Uighur's visit...

Facing 40 lashes for wearing trousers

Trial postponed ... Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein. Photo: AFP

(SMH) -A Sudanese court has adjourned the case of a woman journalist facing 40 lashes for wearing "indecent" trousers, with 10 women already whipped for similar offences against Islamic law.

The judge deferred the case to next Tuesday after Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, who works for the left-wing Al-Sahafa newspaper and for the media department of the United Nations Mission in Sudan, waived the immunity given to UN workers.

"The court gave Lubna the choice either to accept immunity from the UN or to waive that and go on with the trial," her lawyer Nabil Adeeb said.

"I wish to resign from the UN, I wish this court case to continue," Hussein told a packed courtroom before the judge adjourned the case to August 4.

Hussein, who wears a hijab or Islamic headscarf, faces 40 lashes and a fine of 250 Sudanese pounds ($US100) if found guilty.

She wore the same clothes to court as when she was arrested - moss-green slacks with a loose floral top and green headscarf.

She waved defiantly to crowds as she left the court.

Hussein said she was at a restaurant on July 3 when police came in and ordered 13 women wearing trousers to follow them to the police station.

Ten of the women were summoned to a police station two days later and were lashed 10 times each, according to Hussein.

The women whipped earlier this month included some from animist and Christian south Sudan where the Muslim north's Islamic or sharia law does not apply.

Scores of people crammed into the courthouse to hear the ruling, many of them female supporters - some of them also wearing trousers out of solidarity.

Some held up placards on the street outside. "A woman is not for flogging," read one in Arabic.

"We are here to support Lubna, because this treatment of women is arbitrary and not correct," said Zuhal Mohammed Elamin, a law professor in Khartoum. "Women should not be humiliated in this manner."

Police have also cracked down on another woman journalist, Amal Habbani, after she wrote an article condemning Hussein's treatment.

Habbani wrote an article for Ajrass Al-Horreya newspaper following the arrests entitled Lubna, a case of subduing a woman's body.

"I am waiting for a decision," Habbani said after she was charged with defaming police, a charge which can carry a fine of up to several hundred thousand dollars.

The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information said the charge against Habbani stemmed from her claim that Hussein's arrest was "not about fashion but a political tactic to intimidate and terrorise opponents".

Unlike many other Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf, women have a prominent place in Sudanese public life. Nevertheless, human rights organisations say some of Sudan's laws discriminate against women.

In December 2007, British teacher Gillian Gibbons faced 40 lashes after being convicted of insulting religion by allowing her pupils to name a teddy bear Mohammed.

Gibbons, 54 at the time, was eventually sentenced to 15 days in prison but was pardoned by Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir following the mediation of two Muslim members of Britain's upper house of parliament.

AFP

READ MORE---> Facing 40 lashes for wearing trousers...

Predicting Suu Kyi’s trial is “contempt of court”: Junta’s mouthpiece

by Mungpi

New Delhi (Mizzima) – With speculation rife that the court will pronounce pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi “guilty”, Burma’s state-run newspaper on Wednesday warned against predicting the outcome saying it amounts to ‘contempt of court’.

A commentary in the New Light of Myanmar, the junta’s mouthpiece, on Wednesday justified the trial against pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, her two live-in party mates and John William Yettaw, the American man, who swam across a lake and sneaked into Aung San Suu Kyi’s home, saying they have violated the law.

The newspaper while justifying the charges and trial said, “Everyone who breaches the law shall face a lawsuit and obey the court decision.”

On Tuesday, the court heard final arguments by the defence attorneys, formally ending the over two-month long trial. Now the court’s verdict is awaited on Friday.

Nyan Win, one of the defence lawyers, told Mizzima on Tuesday that legally the trial has proved Aung San Suu Kyi’s innocence and there is not sufficient ground to find her guilty. But he refused to comment on the possible outcome of the trial.

But many observers including senior leaders of the National League for Democracy, Win Tin, said the court will find her “guilty” and sentence her to a prison term.

However, the newspaper on Wednesday warned against such comments saying, “biased writings about the trial in progress, writings about which side will win or lose in that trial, predicted writings about the possibility of the defendant’s conviction and writings about tendency to give instructions to the judgment of the judge” amounts to contempt of court.

But Win Tin said the trial itself is unfair and there are no grounds to charge the pro-democracy leader as it is not her fault in a stranger forcing his way into her house, as she had not invited him.

He said the court is not acting independently in filing a lawsuit against the Burmese Nobel Peace Laureate and even in the trial, stating instances of the court dismissing two out of the four defence witnesses while allowing several prosecution witnesses.

He said even in the last stage of the trial – submission of final arguments by lawyers of both sides – the court has shown partiality towards the prosecution by setting a two-day gap after the defence had submitted their arguments.

“Daw Suu had told her lawyer that she was not happy with the two-day gap between the defence and prosecution’s submission of their final arguments,” Win Tin said.

The trial, which began on May 18, has attracted the attention of human rights activists, politicians, world leaders and celebrities calling for her immediate release along with other political prisoners in Burma.

The commentary on Wednesday also attacked such calls saying calling for Aung San Suu Kyi’s release while she is facing a court trial amounts to contempt of court.

Despite the newspaper’s claim that Aung San Suu Kyi would be released if she is found not guilty, Win Tin said it is obvious that the junta is all set to continue detaining her.

“It seems to me that the junta is all set to detain her in anyway. But it may possibly buy-time in doing so if the pressures mount,” Win Tin said.

He added that with the kind of international as well as internal pressure mounting over the trial, the Insein prison court might not pass a strong verdict on Aung San Suu Kyi.

“But it is likely that the prosecution will go to a higher court and appeal and then they will sentence her,” he added.

According to him, it is unlikely that the Insein prison court will sentence her heavily at the moment to ease the mounting pressure, but that does not mean Aung San Suu Kyi will be acquitted.

“In anyway, they will detain her,” he added.

He also said, Wednesday’s commentary in the New Light of Myanmar might be a warning that the junta intends to crackdown on opposition figures, who are commenting on the trial and speculating on the junta’s possible plans.

READ MORE---> Predicting Suu Kyi’s trial is “contempt of court”: Junta’s mouthpiece...

Politicians mull over Suu Kyi verdict

(DVB)–Several senior Burmese politicians and lawyers said yesterday that it was likely Aung San Suu Kyi would be jailed on Friday in a ploy to keep her behind bars for next year’s elections.

Speaking to DVB yesterday as the trial drew to a close, central court lawyer Aung Thein said that there is a prevailing sense in Burma that the ruling junta “wants to keep Daw Suu far from Burma’s politics”.

His comments were echoed by the prime minister of the exiled National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, Dr Sein Win.

“This is a political strategy by the junta to keep Daw Aung San Suu Kyi away from the public and I find this very unfair.”

Yesterday morning the prosecution team wrapped up its final statements in a trial that has dragged on for almost three months.

The trial was initially expected to last only a matter of weeks, but it appears that a series of delays and digressions were a reaction to the international pressure that has piled up on the regime.

Several minor concessions have since been offered by the regime, including a suggestion at the UN Security Council that the government would soon release a number of prisoners in response to demands made by UN chief Ban Ki-moon when he visited Burma earlier this month.

“I think they will jail Daw Suu, and then wait and see what’s the world’s reaction is like,” said senior National League for Democracy member, Win Tin.

“Depending on that reaction, maybe they will include her among the list of [prisoner] amnesties promised to the UN.”

The vice chairperson of the Mon National Democratic Front, Nai Ngwe Thein, said that the work done by the junta to carry this case through in the face of international pressure meant that “they are going to send her to prison”.

If Suu Kyi is found guilty of breaching conditions of her house arrest, she could up to five years in prison.

The end of the trial coincided with Amnesty International awarding Suu Kyi its highest accolade, that of Ambassador of Conscience.

Reporting by Nan Kham Kaew and Naw Say Phaw

READ MORE---> Politicians mull over Suu Kyi verdict...

Energy investments ‘at expense’ of Burma population

(DVB)–Civil society groups have criticised ASEAN’s energy investments in Burma that only benefit neighbouring countries whilst leaving the majority of the Burmese population in the dark.

A joint statement released by three groups coincides with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Ministers for Energy Meeting which is underway in Burma’s second city of Mandalay this week.

The Burma Rivers Network (BRN), the Shwe Gas Movement (SGM) and the Ethnic Community Development Forum (ECDF) in their statement addressed the lack of electricity being provided to the Burmese population.

The groups highlight that the electricity consumption rate of Burma is only 5 percent of that in Thailand yet the Burmese government continues to export energy to its energy hungry neighbours.

“Burma’s military regime is steaming ahead with plans to export even more energy resources to its neighbors,” said the statement.

“These include plans for over 20 large hydroelectric dams to power Thailand, China and ASEAN power grid, and trans-Burma oil and gas pipelines to China set to begin in September this year.”

It is reported that exported gas from Burma’s controversial Yadana and Yetagun fields’ fuels 20 percent of Thailand’s electricity needs while none fuels its own households.

The statement voices concerns that more energy investments will only increase human rights violations and make the population angrier at the lack of electricity.

“Energy projects in Burma should be for the benefit of Burmese people and not at their expense,” the statement said.

Wong Aung, from the Shwe Gas Movement, said that the ASEAN energy meeting will only “further enrage” the Burmese population.

“The generals are pocketing huge amounts from the projects but we are left in the dark,” he said.

Oilwatch Southeast Asia, a network of Southeast Asian environmental NGOs, has similarly expressed concern that previous projects have led to the loss of livelihood as fishing communities face fishing restrictions.

The organisation states that oil projects increase human rights abuses due to the presence of soldiers safeguarding the sites, who have reportedly used forced labour and forced relocation. Instances of rape by soldiers have also been reported.

“It’s very important that the ASEAN Energy Ministers review their investment policies with Burma,” Penchom Tang, spokesman of Oilwatch SEA said.

“They must wait for a democratically elected government so that investments are beneficial for the local people and the environment”.

Reporting by Alex Ellgee

READ MORE---> Energy investments ‘at expense’ of Burma population...

Army Directorate restricts entry of Chinese travellers

by Myo Gyi

Ruili (Mizzima) – As of now Chinese travelers wanting to visit Burma through the border entry points must get prior approval of the Chief of Staff (Army) Office.

The new rule has come into effect from July 16 for Chinese travellers to Burma.

“It is mandatory from now on for Chinese tourists to send the advisory letter to the Chief of Staff (Army) Office before entering Burma. Their tour guide must escort them to Lashio first. If the persons in the list do not match with the persons at the exit point and someone is missing, the guide will be responsible for the missing person(s) and he or she will be interrogated. The guide must take full responsibility for all his guests,” a person close to Chinese traders told Mizzima.

An official of the Mya Padamya Travel Agency in Muse and a resident from Jie Gong, which is near the Sino-Burma border gate, confirmed the new immigration rules.

Chinese tourists have to first apply for approval from the CS (Army) office at Naypyitaw through the Immigration Department on the Sino-Burma border. They can enter Burma only after getting approval from the CS (Army) Office. Previously they could enter Burma easily with the help of travel agencies.

The restriction on visits by Chinese travellers with tour visas is because of visits by the tourists to restricted areas, the person close to Chinese traders said.

“Earlier, they visited Mandalay with ordinary travel permits. Then they visited restricted areas such as Pha Kant and the gold mines. Now the government has restricted their movement inside Burma,” he said.

Eyewitnesses on the border, however, said Chinese jade traders are still entering Burma as they did earlier.

Those who wish to visit Burma for other purposes need invitation letters from their concerned companies and departments.

“If they receive invitation letters from concerned departments for specific purposes such as visiting mining sites, exploratory visits, checking plots owned by their company, economic seminars, then they can get entry permits as either individuals or as part of a package tour. Such visitors must apply for visa at the Burmese embassies. As for border visits, these formalities are not needed. Tourism companies from both countries can arrange it themselves,” he added.

Moreover, illegal import of Chinese goods has been banned since early this month.

READ MORE---> Army Directorate restricts entry of Chinese travellers...

Obama Signs Burma Sanctions Renewal into Law

By LALIT K JHA
The Irrawaddy News

WASHINGTON —US President Barack Obama on Tuesday signed into law the Burma Sanctions Renewal Act, thus extending sanctions on the country’s military junta.

The bill, unanimously passed by both the US House of Representative and the Senate last week, renews the current sanctions on imports from Burma for an additional three years and maintains the ban on the import of jade and other gems from Burma.

In a statement, the White House said Obama signed into law “HJ Res. 56, which renews the import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.”

Burmese pro-democracy activists in the US welcomed the decision.

“By signing the sanctions renewal resolution, unanimously approved by the Senate and the House on July 24 and 21 respectively, President Obama sends a clear signal to the Burmese military junta that the United States’ support of the democracy movement in Burma led by Aung San Suu Kyi is still strong, consistent and decisive,” said Aung Din, the executive director of the US Campaign for Burma.

The renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act follows Obama’s decision on May 15 to extend investment prohibitions against the Burmese military regime that began under President Bill Clinton.

The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act was first enacted in 2003 under the leadership of the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos.

“I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act because we must show the military regime currently ruling with an iron fist in Burma that there are consequences for their actions,” said Congressman Joseph Crowley, one of the sponsors of the legislation.

“Burma’s military regime has carried out a brutal campaign against its own people. It has destroyed 3,000 villages, forced one million people to flee as refugees, used rape as a weapon of war, and pressed millions of civilians into forced labor—modern-day slave labor,” he added.

Crowley said that the junta has also rejected recent diplomatic outreach, which would have been well-received in the global community.

“Specifically, the junta refused United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s request to release political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the nonviolent movement for democracy and human rights in Burma. Not only did the junta refuse Aung San Suu Kyi’s release, they even refused Ban Ki-moon’s request to meet with her,” he said.

READ MORE---> Obama Signs Burma Sanctions Renewal into Law...

Clinton’s Flawed Burma Message

The Irrawaddy News

Despite Aung San Suu Kyi’s insistence on her innocence, the learned support of her lawyers and the international community, it’s clear that the generals are determined to keep her locked up.

The final verdict in her bizarre trial in Rangoon’s Insein Prison will be announced on Friday, and security around Rangoon is being beefed up in readiness for possible protests.

Suu Kyi is charged with breaking the terms of her house arrest order by giving refuge to an American trespasser, John William Yettaw, and faces a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment if convicted.

Suu Kyi told her lawyers on the final day of the trial that the proceedings would show “whether or not the rule of law exists in the country.” The sad fact, however, is that Suu Kyi is fighting a losing battle in a country where the basic rule of law is not respected.

Analysts say the trial is politically motivated and is an attempt to exclude Suu Kyi from future politics and the 2010 election.

It is certain that the regime plans to hand out punishment to the Nobel Peace Prize winner and perhaps drag the court proceedings out still further.

High-ranking US officials recently said that Suu Kyi’s trial has complicated the Obama administration’s policy review on Burma. It is increasingly obvious that it’s a wrong strategy to tie the trial to a policy review and to a decision on whether to increase or renew sanctions on Burma.

Last week, at the Asean Ministerial Meeting in Phuket, Thailand, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made contradictory statements on Burma. She had earlier said that Burma’s relationship with North Korea would destabilize the region, and she offered incentives to the regime.

Clinton also said that if Suu Kyi were released, “this would open up doors for investment and for other exchanges that would help the people of Burma.”

It is naïve to expect that the regime would exchange Suu Kyi’s freedom in return for cash and investment. The regime leaders won’t compromise and such a deal is far from their thoughts.

It is safe to assume that the regime leaders are quite confident that they can weather the international pressure with the support of such friends as China.

According to a recent report from Burma’s Ministry of National Planning and Development, foreign investment jumped from $172.7m in the 2007- 2008 fiscal year to a current peak of $984.9m. The ministry said China accounted for 87 per cent of total investments—mainly in energy and natural resources.

With this level of Chinese support, Burmese rulers and their armed forces are assured of the financial and political backing to continue their crimes in the ethnic regions for decades to come. The oppressed people of Burma will continue to live in extreme poverty.

The regime’s ultimate goal is to remain in power as long as it can. Suu Kyi poses a real threat to the Than Shwe’s road map and his grip on power—and so do more than 2,000 political prisoners held by his regime.

Secretary of State Clinton should have learnt from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who had earlier delivered a firm message to the generals, telling them to free Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, to make the road map inclusive, to work for national reconciliation and to ensure that the 2010 election is credible.

Clinton and Ban were each acting as temporary negotiators in Burma’s hostage drama, where the Burmese feel themselves prisoners in their own country. Clinton’s message, however, failed to strike the correct tone.

READ MORE---> Clinton’s Flawed Burma Message...

Cultural Traits are Blocking Progress in Burma

By ADAM SELENE
The Irrawaddy

As a journalist, I have travelled widely in Burma. One aspect of Burmese culture never stops to surprise me: the extreme amount of respect the elderly receive. Of course we need to respect our elders. But the Burmese go far beyond what I as a European consider to be normal.

Once when I had dinner at the house of my Burmese friends in Rangoon we were having a serious discussion. When the father of the family—a man over 80 years old who’d just suffered a severe stroke—came downstairs to join us, the discussion changed dramatically. He spoke; my Burmese friends listened. Even though his understanding of the subject was very limited he dominated the conversation. My friends agreed with his every word, out of respect and because they were brought up not to disagree openly with a senior.

I encountered the same phenomenon when I was teaching a Burmese friend how to use the Internet and send e-mails. After that, he referred to me as “his teacher.” He told me that because I was five years older and I had taught him something, he needed to show me a lot of respect. In practice this went quite far. In discussions, he was always bending my way and he acted very subservient. It made me feel quite uncomfortable. In the West we are taught everybody is equal.

In Burmese politics, the emphasis on age is a problem not to be underestimated. Everybody knows that people grow more conservative and often more scared when they age. They are less willing to consider change, and they are less flexible and less dynamic. Nevertheless, in Burma, the military leadership and the executive committees of the main opposition parties are almost completely made up of elderly people, some over 80 years old who would not even consider stepping down to make way for fresh leadership.

In the National League for Democracy this has led to a lot of frustration among younger politicians, who feel the old leaders are not doing enough to force change. There is no denying—age has become a factor slowing down progress and change.

Age is not the only factor, though.

Another typically Burmese problem is the way power is perceived. Burmese traditionally think about power in a highly personalized way. Power is vested in one ruler: he who rules all—be it the kings of the three dynasties, the father of modern Burma, Aung San, dictator Ne Win or Aung San Suu Kyi. Historically, this “Great Leader” is the role model that most Burmese politicians base themselves on.

This becomes a serious problem when another factor comes in to play: Buddhism. The mainstay religion in Burmese culture not only teaches non-violence—a way of life that is of little use when trying to overcome a bunch of generals clinging to their guns—but it also teaches people that this earthly existence is just one of many lives.

The form you reincarnate into depends on the merit you collected during earlier lives. Thinking along these lines, it is easy to believe that rulers, however bad they may be, were awarded their high positions because of their merits in earlier incarnations. A true Buddhist shouldn’t resist. The generals shrewdly take advantage of this misconception by affiliating themselves closely with Buddhism. They build pagodas, offer donations to monks and take part in religious ceremonies.

Of course, cultural factors like these are not the only reasons for the lack of progress in Burma over the past 47 years. The Machiavellian mindset of the generals is another factor, as is the fact that the generals fear what will happen to them if they hand over power. They could end up in jail, or worse.

To me, it is sadly all too clear that the teachings of the Buddha, the tradition of personalized power, and the emphasis on age together make up a tragic cocktail hampering progress in Burma. And with that culture being a slowly evolving phenomenon, there is little we can do about it.

Adam Selene is journalist based in Bangkok

READ MORE---> Cultural Traits are Blocking Progress in Burma...

Junta faces mounting pressure as Aung San Suu Kyi awaits fate

by Larry Jagan

Bangkok (Mizzima) - The special court in the notorious Insein prison will pronounce the verdict on the trial of Burma’s democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi on Friday as international pressure on the junta mounts to release her.

On Monday night in the Irish capital of Dublin, Bono lead singer of the famous British rock band U2, announced that Aung San Suu Kyi had been awarded Amnesty International's most prestigious honour – she had been made the organization’s “Ambassador of Conscience” for 2009.

“As powerful a voice and as strong a leader in these times, as Dr. King and Nelson Mandela were in theirs... is Aung San Suu Ky,” he told some 80,000 cheering fans, as the band played 'Walk On' -- a track written especially for Aung San Suu Kyi in 2001. Every night during the rest of the group’s current on the 360 tour, U2 plans to highlight her plight during their performances and play 'Walk On'.

U2 has been a long-time campaigner on Aung San Suu Kyi’s behalf. Their lead singer, Bono has been associated with many human rights causes in the past, and the group was previously awarded the title, which was introduced by Amnesty six years ago. Past winners of the award include Vaclav Havel (former Czech president and political prisoner), Nelson Mandela (former South African leader and political prisoner) and the former Irish president and head of the UN’s human rights body, Mary Robinson.

It was inspired by a poem written for Amnesty International by the Nobel Laureate for Literature Seamus Heaney, the award aims to promote the organisation through the life, work and example of its 'Ambassadors'.

Amnesty International’s award and U2’s renewed campaign comes at time when the pro-democracy icon and Nobel Peace Laureate faces a further term in detention. She has been charged with flouting the conditions of her house arrest, when she gave food and shelter to an uninvited and unwanted visitor, an American Vietnam war veteran, John William Yettaw who swam across the lake behind her residence to get entry to her compound.

While the trial has been anything but free, Amnesty insists the real issue is she should never have been arrested in the first place – not have ever been in detention. “It is not a question of whether the proceedings are fair or not, she should never have gone on trial in the first place – it’s a form of political and legal theatre,” Amnesty’s Bangkok-based Burma researcher, Benjamin Zawacki said in an interview with Mizzima. “As a prisoner of conscience she should be released immediately.”

Amnesty International’s campaign for the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi has been endorsed by hundreds of the world’s political leaders, human rights advocates, writers and entertainment personalities. One of those who have joined the campaign is the former UN human rights rapporteur for Burma, Professor Paulo Pinheiro. “These current charges are a complete and crude fabrication, a pretext to keep Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in detention for as long as possible,” he recently told Mizzima.

Suu Kyi has spent 14 of the past 20 years under house arrest. Her latest detention began in May 2003, after she and her supporters were attacked by pro-junta thugs while travelling in central Burma. She was first arrested in July 1989 and spent six years under house until she was released in 1995.

For the past five years she has been in virtual solitary confinement, being allowed only very occasional visits by her doctor and lawyer. The UN’s special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari has been able to see her six times in the past few years, but the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was not permitted to see her during his two-day visit to the country earlier this month.

“It is appropriate that she should be given this award [Amnesty’s Ambassador of Conscience] almost 20 years since she began her long fight for human rights in Myanmar,” said Benjamin Zawacki. “Twenty years on and still in detention, she remains a beacon of hope for all Burmese people and the world as a whole,” he added.

As Bono poignantly pointed out as he accepted the award on Aung San Suu Kyi’s behalf earlier this week: “She has been under house arrest in her native Burma for most of the last 20 years.

Her crime is that if she was to participate in elections she would win.”

Within a matter of few days now, Aung San Suu Kyi will know her fate. "We are confident that we will win the case if things go according to the law,” her defence lawyer Nyan Win told reporters outside the court on Tuesday.

But of course in Burma the courts are not free of government interference, and it will certainly be political considerations which determine her future.

However few people – inside Burma and abroad -- believe there will any other verdict than guilty. “The trial has been entirely scripted and the end already decided before-hand,” the British Ambassador in Rangoon, Mark Canning told Mizzima after a rare occasion when he was allowed to attend the court hearing. Public sentiment echoes that of the diplomats.

“No one is in any doubt about the outcome,” said Moe Moe, a taxi driver in the country’s main commercial city. “Those men in green in Naypitdaw [the new capital some 400 kilometres north of Rangoon] know she is the peoples’ hero and the real leader of this country,” he added.

While international pressure is set to mount if she is found guilty, it is unlikely to have any impact on the top generals. “They have completely ignored all international concerns – and gone on with their devastating, shattering repression of all dissent – with extremely heavy sentences being handed down for the crimes of democratic protest,” said Mr Pinheiro.

Nevertheless Aung San Suu Kyi remains Burma’s beacon of hope for the future. And the international campaign supporting her and the democratic cause in Burma will continue to remind the junta, that while they may lock her up, try to silence her and prevent her from seeing visitors, the Burmese people and the world as a whole will not forget her and her heroic efforts on behalf of Burma’s fight for democracy and human rights. We are proud to announce … that Amnesty International has chosen Aung San Suu Kyi as the recipient of their Ambassador of Conscience Award 2009. Thank God for Amnesty International,” said Bono. “May God keep Aung Sang Suu Kyi safe.”

READ MORE---> Junta faces mounting pressure as Aung San Suu Kyi awaits fate...

Suu Kyi Insists Her Trial Will Test Rule of Law in Burma

By SAW YAN NAING
The Irrawaddy News

Aung San Suu Kyi insisted after Tuesday’s final session of her trial before Friday’s scheduled verdict that the proceedings would show “whether or not the rule of law exists in the country,” according to her lawyer Nyan Win.

Suu Kyi made the comment to Nyan Win after the court announced a verdict would be announced on Friday. Suu Kyi is charged with breaking the terms of her house arrest order by giving refuge to an American trespasser, John Yettaw, and faces a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment if convicted.

Nyan Win, who is also a spokesman of Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, told The Irrawaddy that his legal team had tried its best in accordance with the law.

Suu Kyi was innocent, Nyan Win insisted. “She [Suu Kyi] did not break the law. According to the law, it will be unlawful if the court even sentences her.”

During Tuesday’s two-hour morning session, a defense plea for more witnesses to be heard was rejected by the court, Nyan Win said.

Win Tin, an NLD executive leader who joined Suu Kyi supporters outside Insein Prison on Tuesday, said her two female companions and Yettaw also appeared at Tuesday’s session.

Suu Kyi’s companions Khin Khin Win and Win Ma Ma also face a charge of giving unlawful refuge to Yettaw. They are represented by Hla Myo Myint.

Nyan Win was one of four lawyers representing Suu Kyi at Tuesday’s session. The others were Kyi Wynn, Hla Myo Myint and Khin Htay Kywe, according to Khin Maung Swe, an NLD spokesperson.

Diplomats from Japan, Singapore, Thailand and the US were allowed to attend Tuesday’s session, according to an Associated Press report.

Last weekend, Suu Kyi told Nyan Win that she is unhappy with the continual delays in her trial, which she said gave the prosecution more time to prepare its final arguments. The trial began on May 18 and has been interrupted by several adjournments.

The proceedings against Suu Kyi have drawn wide international condemnation.

Last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and several Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) foreign ministers called for the release of Suu Kyi and more than 2,100 other political prisoners during the Asean Ministerial Meeting and Asean Regional Forum at Phuket in southern Thailand.

The Burmese state-owned newspaper, The New Light of Myanmar, carried an editorial last weekend saying that “demanding the release of Suu Kyi means showing reckless disregard for the law.”

The opposition leader has spent nearly 14 of the past 20 years under house arrest. Her latest term of detention began in May 2003, when she and her supporters came under attack by junta-backed thugs while traveling in central Burma.

READ MORE---> Suu Kyi Insists Her Trial Will Test Rule of Law in Burma...

Legally Suu Kyi is innocent: Defence lawyer

by Mungpi

New Delhi (Mizzima) – The over two-month long trial of Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi points to her innocence, legally and the verdict to be pronounced on Friday will put to acid test the rule of law in the military-ruled country, her lawyer said on Tuesday.

Nyan Win, one of Aung San Suu Kyi’s lawyers told Mizzima after the arguments put forward by the defence on Tuesday that testimonies of the witnesses, arguments of lawyers of both the defence and the prosecution have all proved that the Burmese pro-democracy leader is innocent.

“As far as I have analysed the trial, legally there is no evidence to convict her [Aung San Suu Kyi,” said Nyan Win, adding that it would surprise him and the other members of the defence team if the verdict pronounces her guilty.

On Tuesday Nyan Win submitted his clarification on the prosecution’s arguments stating that there are no grounds to charge the Nobel Peace Laureate and the charges filed by the prosecution are not valid as the 1974 constitution is no more in effect.

Fellow party member and one of the spokesperson of the National League for Democracy, Ohn Kyaing told Mizzima earlier that he believed legally there is no ground to charge and convict the Burmese democracy icon but expressed concern that the court might not independently take a decision.

“I think the court will convict her because that’s the junta’s plan,” he said.

Like Ohn Kyaing, observers and critics believe that the junta is using the incident of John William Yettaw’s visit to Aung San Suu Kyi’s home as an excuse to charge her and sentence her to yet another prison term, in a move to keep her out of the 2010 election scenario.

But Nyan Win said, the defence team has not given up, and is willing to go to any extent in trying to bring justice to the pro-democracy leader.

“Aung San Suu Kyi has agreed with us and has given us permission to continue fighting the case legally and we plan to take the case to higher courts if the verdict pronounces her guilty,’ Nyan Win said.

Opposition activists widely believe that the military has chalked out a plan to sentence Aung San Suu Kyi before the end of July to avoid the verdict coinciding with the ensuing anniversary of the 8.8.88 uprising on August 8.

But the junta, which initially thought of sentencing Aung San Suu Kyi in a short trial, is also taking into account the possible reaction – both international and domestic - that may erupt in the wake of her being sentenced.

Win Tin, a senior leader of the NLD and veteran journalist, earlier told Mizzima that pronouncing Aung San Suu Kyi guilty and sentencing her to a prison term could provoke peoples’ anger that could lead to yet another mass movement particularly in Burma’s former capital city Rangoon.

READ MORE---> Legally Suu Kyi is innocent: Defence lawyer...

Electricity supply improves in Rangoon

by May Kyaw

Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – There has been a substantial improvement in electricity supply in Rangoon after severe shortage for months on end.

The townships in Rangoon (Yangon) in the City Development Committee (YCDC) area are divided into four groups -- A, B, C & H. The H group gets round the clock electricity supply daily.

The A, B and C groups are getting electricity from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. continuously and they get power alternatively and equally for the rest of the day.

Hospitals, CNG filling stations, police battalions, army units, cemeteries and Township Administration Offices in H Group get round the clock electricity daily.

But industrial zones are getting power for only nine hours during the daytime but do not get power at night. Power generation is not yet adequate to provide electricity at night.

Though the availability of power has improved to a large extent in Rangoon, people living in the town used to severe power shortages for a long time are still worried.

“Yes, electricity has become regular but it has been so for just a few days. We are not sure how long it will last,” a local resident of Rangoon told Mizzima.

Another local resident said that they are getting power regularly in the afternoon and alternatively at night and getting continuous electricity from 11 p.m. till morning.

But in Syriam, in the outskirts of Rangoon, they do not get power even alternatively.

“I don’t know whether the townships in Rangoon RCDC area are getting power regularly or not. In Syriam we are not getting electricity regularly. It is available off and on. Currently there is no power here,” a local resident of Syriam said.

The availability of power improved in Rangoon because of supplies from the China owned Ruili Hydropower Station, a staff from the Rangoon City Electricity Board said.

“The power situation improved because of supply from Ruili Station. Three Natural Gas Turbines are still under repair because of leaking gas pipes,” he said.

Previously power supply for Rangoon came from three off shore gas turbines in Thaketa, Ywama and Hlawga, on shore gas turbine in Ahlone and the state owned Hydro Electric Power Station.

Now Rangoon and Mandalay are buying power from the joint venture company, Ruili No. 1 Hydro Electric Power Station jointly owned by the Chinese company and Burma’s No. 1 Electric Power Ministry.

Rangoon City Electric Power Board Secretary Lt. Col. Maung Maung Latt recently told domestic news journals that they would supply Rangoon round the clock electricity within this month.

READ MORE---> Electricity supply improves in Rangoon...

FREE EAST TURKESTAN

PLEASE CIRCULATE

By Roland Watson
Dictator Watch Org
July 27, 2009

(Note: We recommend the history of China given in the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party.)

The Uyghur people in East Turkestan are restless. Throughout history, Chinese emperors and warlords has repeatedly invaded their land, only to be pushed back. In the modern era, China took control in the late 19th century. East Turkestan was renamed the "New Territory." Excepting two short periods when they again won their freedom, the Uyghur people have been under increasingly restrictive dictatorial rule ever since. Since 1949, they have been under the boot of the Communist Party of China (CCP).

As the name of their homeland implies, the Uyghur are a Turkic people. They share ethnic and language characteristics with similar peoples across Central Asia all the way to Turkey itself. But, whereas these other peoples now have their own nations, the Uyghurs, because they were conquered by the Chinese, do not. East Turkestan is a colony of China.

The CCP's policy has been to dilute the Uyghur population in East Turkestan and hence their argument that it is their land. Uyghurs have been sent to China as factory workers, and Han Chinese moved in. In both cases, the Uyghurs have been the victims of discrimination. In China, Uyghur workers must slave away under terrible labor conditions. In East Turkestan, they are denied good jobs, government posts, the right to be educated in their own language, and to carry on their cultural traditions.

A basic question is if the Chinese conquest of the Uyghur constitutes genocide. Historically, it was a land grab, no different from innumerable such conquests over the ages. In the modern context, the CCP has realized that East Turkestan is also valuable for it oil and mineral resources, its barren sections - which were used for China's atomic tests and now its space program, etc. The CCP is loathe to return the conquered territory, to prevent the loss of this plunder.

According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,

"genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

It is difficult to argue that the CCP's treatment constitutes genocide, although it is guilty to some degree of the first four conditions. Rather, what the communists are doing in East Turkestan is equivalent to their actions in Tibet, which the Dalai Lama has described as Cultural Genocide. The Uyghurs, like the Tibetans, may survive, but their culture will not.

This year the CCP has been destroying the Old Quarter of Kashgar, one of the most important stopping points on the ancient Silk Road. The Party says that this is because of the risk to the Quarter from earthquakes, even though it has survived for thousands of years. The destruction of Old Kashgar is a cultural atrocity no less profound that the destruction in Afghanistan of the Bamiyan Buddhas. And, it is being accompanied by the forced relocation of 220,000 Uyghur people. The real reasons for the destruction are simple: cultural genocide combined with armed robbery of Uyghur property.

The Chinese say that the Uyghurs are ungrateful for "development." This development is really "theft."

The latest unrest in East Turkestan - the Uyghurs have protested numerous times in recent decades, only to be met with CCP massacres - followed the killing of Uyghur laborers in China. Some 3,000 Uyghurs protested peacefully in East Turkestan's capital, Urumqi, (videos of the march are widely available) only to be shot by CCP "security forces" when night fell (yet another massacre). The Uyghurs fled and some of the protesters turned their anger on Chinese immigrants. The Chinese then retaliated.

As also occurred with the Tiananmen Square massacre twenty years ago, the CCP has yet to give a truthful accounting of the events of the unrest and of the numbers of Uyghurs and Chinese who died. Instead, the CCP blamed the Uyghurs for everything, which is the classic propaganda strategy of "blaming the victim." Rapists blame the women who they rape, and the CCP blames everyone. (The Party never accepts any responsibility itself.) The actions of the Uyghur groups that attacked the Chinese were reprehensible, but as with all cases where both sides in a conflict commit atrocities, it is essential to recall how the problem began. The Uyghurs are upset because they were invaded by the Chinese. This began a more than one hundred year pattern of increasingly severe repression. It is the Chinese - since 1949 the CCP - that bears all the blame for the problems in East Turkestan.

The Chinese people have been conditioned by the CCP to view the Uyghurs as backward, if not savages. They are the enemy. When Chinese police confront protesters in China, they make arrests. With Uyghurs, they commit cold-blooded murder. Because of the conditioning, the Chinese people accept such extreme prejudice as completely justifiable.

This is consistent with the unprecedented brainwashing that has been perpetrated by the CCP on the people of China since the Party was formed. (The term "brainwashing" was coined to describe CCP "thought-reform" torture techniques.)

The CCP is based on the ideology of "struggle," specifically, class struggle against "class enemies." The people must fight and cleanse wayward social elements (the "black" classes) to establish a utopian state. The real goal of never-ending struggle, though, is (1) to justify the CCP's rule; (2) to purge elements within the Party and society at large that oppose its abuses; and (3) more generally to terrorize everyone through arbitrary persecution, and hence create the greatest possible conformity.

Starting under the leadership of Mao Zedong, the CCP blamed one group after another for China's perceived problems, and launched "movements" against them. There have been countless such movements. Their targets have included landowners and rich farmers in the countryside; capitalists in towns and cities; "reactionaries" and "counter-revolutionaries"; "rightists"; intellectuals (anyone well-educated); religious groups; etc.

(When the CCP targeted landowners and capitalists, including by banning private property, they effectively stole the entire nation of China, just as through invading East Turkestan and Tibet they stole these lands as well.)

Mao said that, "after chaos the world reaches peace, but in seven or eight years, the chaos needed to happen again." In other words, China required regular civil wars. In each such conflict, the CCP followed a 5%/95% formula. Five percent of the people were labeled class enemies, and who should be killed. The rest were designated "acceptable classes," and charged with doing the killing. This created a perpetual state of fear, which continues today, because you can never be certain that your class will remain acceptable.

Through this the CCP promoted the idea of "collective guilt." If you had an unacceptable class origin, you - and your entire family - were flawed, and fully deserving of capital punishment. Even the babies and the elderly in the black classes were killed.

The CCP, for six decades, has encouraged the Chinese people to kill each other. In the worst cases, such as during the Cultural Revolution, the murder became competitive, as a means to improve one's revolutionary standing.

This history has dehumanized the Chinese people. It has further caused Chinese society to be permeated by fear.

There have also been unspeakable atrocities. The use of public executions in some cases led to public displays of cannibalism, of the organs such as the heart and liver of the executed class enemies, and then to cannibalistic feasts. The last were even held in front - and with the participation - of children, many of whom became deranged.

Under CCP rule the Chinese people have suffered upwards of eighty million unnatural deaths, from murder, starvation, etc. The CCP's tyranny is without question the greatest crime ever perpetrated in human history, surpassing the crimes of Hitler and the Nazis, Imperial Japan, and Stalin.

This crime, or rather series of crimes, is also completely unpunished. The Chinese people, and the many other victims of the CCP, have yet to receive any justice.

Because of this, the CCP further is entirely unreformed. Its strategy has worked and it is still in power. While as mentioned people generally are no longer murdered publicly in China itself, millions have been unjustly sentenced to the Laogai (forced labor and reeducation camps), and where death is common. And, the enemy-creation movements continue, including against the students at Tiananmen; followers of the spiritual discipline, Falun Gong; the Tibetans; anyone who spoke up for human rights in the run-up to the Olympics: pro-democracy activists such as the signers of the Charter 08 document; and now the East Turkestanis.

For the Falun Gong, which the CCP despises because it promotes tradition and morality, the Party has killed a documented 3,900 practitioners, although the true number is many times this, because of the great number of practitioners who have simply "disappeared." Most of these murders involved torture, and of an extraordinarily wide variety (over 100 techniques have been identified), including beating of the genitals, electric shock, flaying of the skin and then being drenched with salt water, etc. Many women have been stripped naked and then thrown into cells with criminals to be gang-raped. And, once dead, the victims’ organs are stolen for transplantation.

In East Turkestan the CCP has launched a series of Strike Hard movements, against the so-called Three Evils of separatism, extremism and terrorism. Thousands of Uyghurs have been imprisoned, tortured and killed.

What is surprising about this history is that the Chinese people are for the most part ignorant of it. The CCP has the largest censorship and propaganda program in the world, including its Great Internet Firewall, which an army of technicians maintains (by blocking websites, censoring blogs, fabricating and disseminating lies, etc.). Moreover, the fear in China, even though it is now less publicly apparent, is still so strong under the surface that most people simply do not want to know.

The greatest recent development has been the international targeting of CCP propaganda at Chinese residents of other countries, the media, and foreign governments. For example, the propaganda has led to an explosion in ultra-nationalism, which was particularly evident with the harassment of Chinese CCP critics during the Beijing Olympics. (The height of all ironies is that the CCP fancies itself to be a new China Empire, and surely this is what Mao had in mind, even as he criticized, and destroyed the remnants of, former empires.) Similarly, many expatriate Chinese, particularly in the United States, have engaged in espionage on behalf of the Party back home.

Indeed, these developments raise an important question: What does it mean to be Chinese?

"Chinese" is a complex identity. You are Chinese, wherever you live in the world, if you are a member of the ethnic group. But, you are also Chinese if you are from China itself, even if you are a member of one of its other groups. Finally, in addition to ethnicity and nationality, there is a cultural identity as well, if you associate with and take pride in Chinese history and traditions. The CCP has destroyed traditional Chinese culture, and replaced it with Party culture. Further, an explicit goal of its propaganda campaign has been to get all ethnic Chinese worldwide to identify with this culture: with the new "Rising China," under the eternal leadership of the CCP.

The CCP is trying to create a global Chinese culture, where all ethnic Chinese people, wherever they may live, are loyal to the Communist Party.

The efficacy of CCP propaganda is also evident with other international parties, with the press and foreign governments, where the basic story line is that the CCP has been reformed, and that it is an acceptable partner in trade and diplomacy. These are lies as well, but for a variety of reasons they have achieved great traction.

For the press, and returning to East Turkestan, journalists have consistently reported the lies of the "State Media" about the events of early July, as if they were truth. They have presented the casualty count, and the breakdown between Uyghur and Chinese victims, as truth even though these figures are completely fabricated. One reason for this is that many journalists are sloppy, and accept the CCP's arguments and statistics as they are given. Another is that some journalists are willing to repeat the "party line," to preserve access.

It was extremely telling that during the unrest in Iran that followed the stolen election, most media qualified their reports by mentioning Iranian government restrictions on journalists and the Internet. Such disclaimers have been rare for coverage of East Turkestan.

Similarly, for foreign governments, China is now such an important economic factor that they appear willing to forgive the CCP virtually anything, if not work actively on its behalf. For East Turkestan, some neighboring states, notably Kazakhstan, have allied with the CCP even though the Kazaks are Turkic people as well (and with a long history of friendship with the Uyghurs). The Kazakh government recently signed a $10 billion deal with China. Identical relationships also exist with other members of the Shanghai Co-operation Organization, including East Turkestan's neighbors Kyrgystan and Tajikistan. And finally, Western partners including the United States and Europe have also been silent on East Turkestan, not only the current repression but the entire history of Communist Party domination.

The communists believed that they had history on their side: that their socialist utopia was inevitable. They were wrong. The real historical imperative lies with democracy.

Ultimately, the CCP will relinquish power and democracy in China will flourish. As part of this, China will decolonize.

While the Communist Party will oppose the loss of its colonies with all its might (just as the buyers of the art looted by the Nazis have done everything possible not to return the art to its original owners or heirs), China one day will break up. East Turkestan will be returned to the Uyghurs and also Tibet to the Tibetans and Southern Mongolia to the Southern Mongolians. Communism is a defeated ideology, as is dictatorship more generally in all its different forms. Human rights will prevail. A basic right at the group level is the right of self-determination. The Uyghurs, Tibetans and Southern Mongolians will secure this right.

The people, governments and media of the world should support this right. It will be much easier to attain if they do.

When China, finally, is freed from the grips of the CCP, the people of the country will be able to confront their past, and seek justice for the wrongs that they have suffered. But, this should extend not only to the specific atrocities of the communists, but more generally to China's imperial, authoritarian tradition, which the communists publicly rejected but in practice simply reinvented.

The entire history of China has been based on the ideal of the unconditional acceptance of authority. (This is known as the “philosopher-king” or "benevolent dictatorship." Plato argued that it was the best form of government.) When rulers are good, this approach works: The society is at peace. But blind acceptance of authority also opens oneself to the risk of power-mad tyrants. There were bad emperors in China in the past, but no one has ever rivaled the likes of Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and now Hu Jintao. The bad emperors were overthrown, and some day - soon - the communists will be so as well. However, it is only through rejecting the underlying authoritarian tradition that has governed China for millennia, that the people of the country will ever achieve – and preserve – their freedom.

READ MORE---> FREE EAST TURKESTAN...

U.S. POLICY ON BURMA: MORE STICK, LESS CARROT

By Roland Watson
Dictator Watch Org
July 27, 2009

Burma has been in the news a lot in the last month or two:

- The regime arrested Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and her long-delayed trial is about to conclude.

- United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made a fruitless visit to Burma's dictator, Than Shwe, in an effort to win her release.

- As part of its plan to control the ethnic resistance armies, both ceasefire and non-ceasefire, the Junta forced its Karen proxy army, the DKBA, to launch a rainy season offensive against the Karen National Union.

- And, a North Korean cargo ship was dispatched to Burma, reportedly with a load of missiles, but after being shadowed by the United States Navy it reversed course and returned home.

Each one of these events is complex in its own right, and requires careful analysis to reach a proper understanding. Moreover, they are the most important elements of the larger picture of the struggle for freedom in Burma. They reveal the plan of the SPDC to stay in power, the actions of its allies and cronies in support of this, and the evolving policy of other nations, and the United Nations, which supposedly support the democratic aspirations of the Burmese.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi

With only thirteen days to go before her illegal six year detention was potentially to end (not that anyone seriously expected this, and which detention followed the unsuccessful assassination attempt against her at the 2003 Depayin Massacre), Daw Suu was charged with violating her house arrest because her SPDC guards let in a visitor. (You have to hand it to Than Shwe, to dream up such a ludicrous charge.) Now, following Kangaroo Court proceedings, she is likely to be sentenced to formal imprisonment.

What is most revealing about this incident is the lack of influence on the Junta by the international community, including the U.N., U.S. and E.U. For the first, Ban Ki-moon did fulfill the request of the 680,000 people who signed the petition by the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners of Burma, calling for him to travel to the country and secure Daw Suu's release. But, he left empty-handed. The reason for this is that he is still following the basic policy, set by his predecessor Kofi Annan, that the U.N. Secretariat is powerless – the belief that all U.N. power lies with the member states, most importantly the members of the Security Council. Even more, he has been unwilling to criticize the SPDC (and he certainly has this right, if not the obligation to do so), by openly rejecting its Roadmap, by calling for an end to its attacks on Burma's ethnic nationalities, etc. As Burma activists have come to recognize, the U.N. is useless, for a number of reasons, starting with the fact that the Secretary General views it - his own organization - this way.

For the U.S. and Europe, the lack of action is based on their desire to secure business opportunities in China. Burma is China's colony (like Tibet, East Turkestan, and Laos), so hands off. This position is underlined for the U.S. by Chinese extortion over its huge purchases of U.S. treasury bonds (currently over $800 billion). "Oppose us and we will stop buying your bonds and funding your deficit, and the United States Government will go bankrupt!"

Indeed, one can make the case that Than Shwe should also make large-scale purchases of U.S. bonds, using the proceeds of his energy sales to Chevron, Total, Daewoo, China and India. This would give him additional insurance against a U.S. intervention, even though pragmatically there is no such risk. When George Bush was President, the U.S. was preoccupied with Iraq, but there was still the chance that he would intervene. Even with the China card Than Shwe couldn't completely discount the possibility that he would act. Bush was a nut; you simply couldn't predict what he would do. (It was last summer, during Bush's final year, that unmanned drones were spotted by the Burma Army.) Obama, though, is rational, and - internationally - out of his depth. Than Shwe clearly understands that the threat from the U.S. has evaporated, hence the arrest of Daw Suu.

The only other high profile source of pressure for her release (we pro-democracy advocates are not "high-profile") has been from celebrities. God bless the celebrities. What would we do without them?

Celebrity "activists" are the masters of "forgettable campaigns." The AAPPB signature campaign was significant and powerful, even if Ban Ki-moon's personal weakness reduced its impact. The Not On Our Watch's "64wordsforSuu," or U2's ridiculous Daw Suu mask idea, while they did attract a tiny amount of press attention, were essentially worthless. Celebrities really only care about themselves. That's why they support "easy activism": non-controversial causes such as cancer, or imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize winners. However, even for such causes they never make strong stands or commitments. The only outcome of their so-called activism is that they get a boost in their personal reputations, because "they care."

The Karen struggle

The SPDC has been attacking Daw Suu, and also the Karen National Union. This is not a coincidence. The two are the greatest risks to Than Shwe. Daw Suu has the power to instigate a popular uprising, and even though some parties, such as the Irrawaddy, would have us believe that the Karen are defeated, they are actually still a powerful military force, particularly in alliance with the other non-ceasefire groups, and also since the SPDC's situation with the large ceasefire groups is so tenuous. With the U.S. under control, and Thailand, surprisingly - since the Democrats are in power - also supportive, this was a good opportunity for Than Shwe to attack on both fronts.

For those who witnessed it, and this includes both SPDC spies and Thai intelligence agents, the KNU's 60th anniversary event must have caused alarm. Some 6,000 Karen came out for what was a combined Karen fair/memorial. If they could have emptied Mae La Refugee Camp, it would have been 50,000 people. It was clear even to the casual onlooker that the Karen people fully support the KNU and that the struggle is far from over.

The SPDC ordered the corrupt, drug-dealing leaders of the DKBA to attack the KNLA's 7th Brigade (the site of the anniversary). The Karen resistance withdrew, and the area is now a no mans land. The DKBA are afraid to occupy the empty camps. (They suffered over 100 KIA and 220 injuries in June alone.) And, it is now undeniable that the DKBA are traitors to the Karen cause, with the result that they are suffering large-scale defections.

Dictator Watch has said for years that the simplest solution to the Burma problem (other than a Predator drone strike against Than Shwe) is to offer inducements to desert to Burma Army soldiers and their ethnic allies such as the DKBA. With a little incentive, thousands and thousands of troops would be happy to flee. The floor would collapse under the SPDC generals, and this would cause disputes and then a coup by officers who are secret pro-democracy sympathizers. Burma would be free.

We couldn't get any money for a surrender initiative from the Bush Administration. It is also doubtful that Obama will help. Maybe we can ask the celebrities. They are billionaires. It wouldn't cost them that much: pennies in proportion to their total wealth. Plus, soliciting surrenders is a non-violent tactic. Perhaps some of the celebrities from the following list, the "pro-Burma celebrities," can be prevailed upon to become real activists.

George Clooney, Sec. Madeleine Albright, Wes Anderson, Drew Barrymore, David Beckham, Bono, Matthew Broderick, Sandra Bullock, James Carville, Michael Chabon, Daniel Craig, John Cusack, Matt Damon, Robert De Niro, Dave Eggers, Jake Gyllenhaal, Vaclav Havel, Helen Hunt, Anjelica Huston, Scarlett Johansson, Nicole Kidman, Ashton Kutcher, Norman Lear, Madonna, Mary Matalin, Sen. John & Cindy McCain, Rose McGowan, Orhan Pamuk, Sarah Jessica Parker, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Robert Rodriguez, Meg Ryan, Liev Schreiber, George Soros, Steven Spielberg, Meryl Streep, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Naomi Watts, Prof. Elie Wiesel, Owen Wilson.

Does anybody have the ability to get an answer to an email sent to Not On Our Watch?

The Kang Nam 1

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, and also President Obama, said that the return of the Kang Nam 1 to North Korea was proof that the sanctions on the North worked. In this case they were referring to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874, which denies the North the right to sell arms to other countries, and which was passed following the atomic bomb test in May and the launching of a variety of ballistic missiles. Yet even with these sanctions North Korea continues to pursue both programs. Regarding the Kang Nam 1, the U.S. is trumpeting a small success, while the overall threat becomes even more severe, at great risk to America, its allies, and the rest of the world. There is no plan in place, none whatsoever, that will actually prevent North Korea from developing nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.

To understand the Kang Nam incident, it is essential to track the actual series of events. The incident began when a South Korea television network (YTN) reported information from a South Korean intelligence source, which info in turn originated from U.S. intelligence, that the ship had a cargo of missiles, meaning ballistic missiles, and that it was being tracked by a U.S. Navy destroyer and was destined for Burma. While the following is speculation, subsequent events imply that South Korean intelligence was not authorized by the U.S. to disclose this information.

After the news was released, YTN made a series of retractions. The ship was not carrying missiles; rather, its cargo was small arms. Then, perhaps the shipment was not even weapons at all. However, the U.S. Navy continued to follow the Kang Nam. The obvious explanation is that U.S. intelligence complained to their South Korean counterparts: "Why did you leak the intel? Now we are on the spot. We have to do something. We can't allow the ship to reach its destination." (Previous voyages of the Kang Nam 1, a known weapons carrier, had terminated at Rangoon.)

An extraordinary behind the scenes diplomatic negotiation clearly then began, and which was refereed by China. While the ship was en-route, military envoys from the U.S.; the heir apparent of the North Korean regime; Thailand's Prime Minister (any ballistic missiles acquired by Burma are targeted at Thailand); and officials of Burma's junta all made trips to China.

Then the ship turned around

This "solution" meant that the U.S. did not have to board the Kang Nam, as called for by Senator John McCain; or direct it to a nearby port, most likely Singapore; or report it to the Security Council. The cargo was allowed to remain unconfirmed, and, significantly, the Burma link was completely dropped. (Also, when the story changed to "a cargo of small arms," as if this were a good thing, no one publicly expressed displeasure that such a cargo would be delivered to the SPDC, for use against the people of Burma.)

The Kang Nam incident speaks volumes about the Obama Administration's dearth of ideas on nuclear proliferation (we haven't yet mentioned Iran), and its lack of real concern for Burma.

The only positive outcome of the turnaround, other than that the SPDC didn't get more missiles, is the effect of its disruption on the traffickers themselves. The SPDC and North Korea are traffickers, in weapons, narcotics and people. They are gangsters. This was a deal between two different mafias, and it collapsed. Gangsters, such as the Columbian and Mexican drug cartels, do not like to see their shipments stopped. They get upset when they are. People get killed.

A major arms deal between the SPDC and North Korea failed. We don't know the terms of the deal, including what was being bartered or paid by the SPDC for the missiles, if such barter or payment had already occurred, and whatever else the Kang Nam might have had (nuclear components, perhaps even enrichment centrifuges?). In any case, there is likely to be significant fallout from the event, to resolve the transaction, and also to resume other deals that were agreed upon when SPDC General Shwe Mann visited the North.

Furthermore, Junta Foreign Minister Nyan Win's pledge to Japanese officials to comply with Resolution 1874 (not to do nuclear and missile business with North Korea) is a bald-faced lie. Secretary of State Clinton’s comment that the pledge was “a positive development,” was naïve.

United States policy

The United States policy on Burma is already weak. Now President Obama and Secretary Clinton seem determined to make it even weaker.

If the U.S. wants to free Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, it should do it!!! The Administration should not just plaintively complain, again and again. This makes the United States appear pathetic, but it is actually a great power. It would be a simple task to free Daw Suu: just take out the SPDC with drone-launched Hellfire missiles and at the same time helicopter in special forces to the prisons where she and the other political prisoners are held. One well-planned operation could free her, and the country, in a weekend, and the fifty million people of Burma would be eternally grateful.

To hell with the Junta's patron, the Communist Party of China!!! Take a stand for Burma on principle, not geopolitical "reality"!

Similarly with the Karen, the United States has been accepting tens of thousands of Karen refugees. (The 50,000th refugee has now left the border camps in Thailand, although this includes some individuals from other ethnic groups.) This resettlement program actually helps the SPDC. The United States is completing the final stage of the Junta's plan to depopulate Karen State of Karen people. The SPDC drives the Karen from their villages to Thailand, and then the U.S. sends them to the other side of the world.

We shouldn't forget the Junta's bluster that in the future the only Karen will be in a museum in Rangoon. The update to this is: "or America."

Instead of spending millions of dollars to resettle refugees, the U.S. should give the money to the ethnic resistance groups to fight the SPDC. The refugees do not want to come to America. They want to go home. Help them do this!

A little noticed recent event illustrates the complexity - and immorality - of American policy: The United States sent forty tons of weapons to Somalia. Why on earth would it do such a thing: Somalia has no functioning government? The reason is that Somalia has al-Qaeda. Pity poor Burma, if only the country had al-Qaeda terrorists, it would get all the help it needs. Burma has terrorists, of course, the SPDC, but they are not the types of terrorists that Washington cares about.

Lastly, the U.S. should be be open and honest about the nuclear proliferation threat facing the world, including the SPDC's role therein. We are continuing our call for the State Department to publish the long-delayed Report on Military and Intelligence Aid to Burma, as required by Section 10 of the Tom Lantos JADE Act, and also to appoint the Special Envoy for Burma as required by Section 7.

The JADE Act further originally called for tax provisions that would have forced Chevron to divest from the Yadana pipeline, but these provisions were removed at the behest of California Senator Dianne Feinstein. In their place Section 15 expresses Congress' meaningless and impotent "concern" about the at least $500 million that the pipeline gives the SPDC annually, and requests that Chevron withdraw voluntarily.

If you have not read the actual law, please visit the following link. (The JADE Act is potentially much more significant that the just renewed Burma Freedom and Democracy Act.) Section Ten is then given in its entirety.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ286.110.pdf

"SEC. 10. REPORT ON MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE AID TO BURMA.

• (a) In General- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report containing a list of countries, companies, and other entities that provide military or intelligence aid to the SPDC and describing such military or intelligence aid provided by each such country, company, and other entity.

• (b) Military or Intelligence Aid Defined- For the purpose of this section, the term `military or intelligence aid' means, with respect to the SPDC--

• (1) the provision of weapons, weapons parts, military vehicles, or military aircraft;

• (2) the provision of military or intelligence training, including advice and assistance on subject matter expert exchanges;

• (3) the provision of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, capabilities, and technology, including nuclear, chemical, or dual-use capabilities;

• (4) conducting joint military exercises;

• (5) the provision of naval support, including ship development and naval construction;

• (6) the provision of technical support, including computer and software development and installations, networks, and infrastructure development and construction; or

• (7) the construction or expansion of airfields, including radar and anti-aircraft systems.

• (c) Form- The report required under subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex and the unclassified form shall be placed on the Department of State's website."

After we first publicized the report's delay, a journalist asked in a State Department press briefing, in general terms, if the government was obliged to follow the terms of the JADE Act. The spokesperson offered a similarly imprecise and bureaucratic response. It is unfortunate that the question was not specific to Section 10. Also, some people have speculated that perhaps the Act has not been funded. (Laws, even when passed, must receive a budget to be implemented, which is contained in another law - an appropriations bill.) But the JADE Act in part amends the Burma Freedom and Democracy Act, which surely is funded. Also, how much can preparation of the report cost?

In any event, we have evidence that the report was prepared on schedule. It just has not been publicly disclosed.

Burma is a key player in the nuclear proliferation nexus involving North Korea, Iran, Russia and China. In part because the report has yet to be made public, this status is not being given anywhere near the attention that it deserves.

We have previously revealed many aspects of the SPDC's program, including its production of yellowcake uranium. Another aspect of the overall proliferation picture is that it is known that Iran has used up the bulk supplies (six hundred tons) of yellowcake that it purchased from South Africa in the 1970s. Iran is now running 5,000 centrifuges, with another 2,000 set to come online. Its program requires a lot of yellowcake. A logical source for this is Burma, and for which we and others have some confirmation.

(As with North Korea, the Administration has no plan to prevent Iran's Islamic theocracy from obtaining atomic bombs.)

Similarly, we have anecdotal word that the SPDC has begun its own enrichment program. It was disclosed earlier this month in a Security Council sanctions on North Korea enforcement announcement (by the U.S.) that the Junta has a business relationship with Nomchongang Trading, a North Korean company that has acquired Japanese-made centrifuge components.

These are only a few of the different pieces of the proliferation puzzle, of which we have no doubt that United States Intelligence is well informed, and which information should be disclosed in the Section 10 Report.

The Obama Administration is stonewalling. We do not understand why revealing all aspects of the nuclear threat, as John F. Kennedy did when the Soviet Union based nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Cuba, is not the right thing to do.

The nuclear and missile threat from Burma is the best reason to discuss the country in the Security Council, and in a way that China and Russia would find difficult to sustain their vetoes on Council action. It is also a legitimate rationale for an intervention in Burma.

As a final note, to the people of Burma: If the United States continues its posturing but fails to act, when your country is free - and some day Burma will be free - you should never forget that for all the strong words, America was not really your friend.

Secretary Clinton was recently in Thailand. She made some seemingly strong comments, including that the U.S. is concerned about the North Korea-Burma nuclear connection. The U.S. has only become worried because it has been forced to appear worried. Dictator Watch and others have revealed the nuclear plot for years, but the Kang Nam incident, and mistake (the leak), forced the Administration to acknowledge the problem. Such public concern, though, does not mean that the U.S. will act.

Secretary Clinton also called on Asean to expel Burma if Daw Suu is imprisoned, but this is asking others to act.

Hillary Clinton follows Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Madeleine Albright: a more than ten year record of public concern by the United States for Burma, but with no accompanying decisive action.

READ MORE---> U.S. POLICY ON BURMA: MORE STICK, LESS CARROT...