၇ နာရီ ႏွင့္ ၂၅ မိနစ္။ ထိုအခ်ိန္ ကာလသည္ ၆ ႏွစ္အတြင္း ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ႏွင့္ အမ်ိဳးသား ဒီမိုကေရစီ အဖြဲ႔ခ်ဳပ္ (NLD) ၏ ဗဟိုအလုပ္ အမႈေဆာင္အဖဲြ႔ (CEC) အဖြဲ႔၀င္မ်ား ေတြ႔ဆုံခဲ့သည့္ အခ်ိန္ စုစုေပါင္း ျဖစ္သည္။

ဒီပဲယင္း အၾကမ္းဖက္မႈ အၿပီး ေနအိမ္ အက်ယ္ခ်ဳပ္ ခ်မွတ္ခံခ့ဲရသည့္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္သည္ ၂၀၀၃ မွ ၂၀၀၉ ခုႏွစ္ အထိ ၆ ႏွစ္တာ ကာလအတြင္း CEC အဖြဲ႔၀င္မ်ားႏွင့္ ၄ ႀကိမ္ ေတြ႔ဆုံခြင့္ ရခဲ့့သည္။

(ဓာတ္ပံု - Thierry Falise)

ပထမအႀကိမ္ အျဖစ္ ၂၀၀၄ ခုႏွစ္၊ ဧၿပီ ၂၇ ရက္ေန႔တြင္ အာဏာပိုင္တို႔က CEC အဖြဲ႔၀င္မ်ားကုိ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္၏ ေန႔အိမ္တြင္ ေတြ႔ဆုံခြင့္ ျပဳခဲ့သည္။ ထုိသုိ႔ ေတြ႔ဆုံစဥ္ အက်ယ္ခ်ဳပ္က်ေနသူ ဦးတင္ဦးလည္း ပါ၀င္ၿပီး  အမ်ိဳးသား ညီလာခံသုိ႔ ျပန္လည္ တက္ေရး မတက္ေရး အေၾကာင္းအရာႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္၍ ၃ နာရီ ၃၀ မိနစ္ၾကာ ေဆြးေႏြးခဲ့သည္။

၂၀၀၇ ခုႏွစ္ ႏို၀င္ဘာ ၉ ရက္ေန႔တြင္ NLD ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ၃ ဦး ျဖစ္ေသာ ဦးေအာင္ေရႊြ၊ ဦးလြင္၊ ဦးညြန္႔ေ၀ ႏွင့္  NLD ေျပာေရးဆုိခြင့္ရိွသူ ဦးဉာဏ္၀င္းတုိ႔သည္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ ႏွင့္ ၂ နာရီ ၃၀ မိနစ္ခန္႔ ဒုတိယ အႀကိမ္ ေတြ႔ဆုံခြင့္ ရခဲ့သည္။ ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္မႉးႀကီး သန္းေ႐ႊ၏ ေၾကညာခ်က္တေစာင္ႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္၍  ေဆြးေႏြးခဲ့ၾကျခင္း ျဖစ္သည္္။

တတိယ အႀကိမ္ အျဖစ္ ၂၀၀၈ ခုႏွစ္၊ ဇန္န၀ါရီ ၃၀ ရက္ေန႔တြင္ CEC အဖြဲ႔ဝင္တခ်ဳိ႕ႏွင့္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္တို႔ အစုိးရ၏ စိမ္းလဲ့ကန္သာ ဧည့္ေဂဟာတြင္ ၁ နာရီ ၁၀ မိနစ္ခန္႔ ေတြ႔ဆုံခြင့္ ရခဲ့ၾကသည္။

ေနာက္ဆုံး ေတြ႔ဆုံမႈမွာ ၂၀၀၉ ခုႏွစ္၊ ေဖေဖာ္၀ါရီလ ၂ ရက္ေန႔တြင္ ျဖစ္သည္။ ကုလသမဂၢ အထူးကိုယ္စားလွယ္ မစၥတာ ဂန္ဘာရီႏွင့္ မေတြ႔ဆုံၾကမီ CEC အဖြဲ႔ဝင္တခ်ဳိ႕ႏွင့္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္း စုၾကည္တို႔သည္ ၁၅ မိနစ္ခန္႔ ေဆြးေႏြးခဲ့ၾကသည္။

ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ႏွင့္ NLD ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ား ညိွႏိႈင္းေဆြးေႏြးခြင့္ရရိွရန္ လုိအပ္သည္ဟု NLD ေျပာေရးဆုိခြင့္ရိွသူ ဦးဉာဏ္၀င္းက ဧရာ၀တီကုိ ေျပာသည္။

“NLDကို တမင္လုပ္ထားတာပါ၊ ေခါင္းပိုင္းကို အၿမီးပိုင္းနဲ႔ မစပ္မိေအာင္ ႀကိဳးစားတာေပါ့၊ သို႔ေသာ္ NLD အေနနဲ႔က ရွိတဲ့ နည္းလမ္းနဲ႔ လုပ္ပါတယ္၊ ဘယ္အဖြဲ႔အစည္း မဆို အဖြဲ႔အစည္း စုံညီ ေတြ႔ဆုံေဆြးေႏြးတာက အေကာင္းဆုံးပါ” ဟု ဦးဉာဏ္၀င္းက သုံးသပ္သည္။

အႀကိမ္ႀကိမ္ ထိန္းသိမ္းခံရသူ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္သည္ ၿပီးခ့ဲသည့္ အႏွစ္ ၂၀ အတြင္း စုစုေပါင္း ၁၄ ႏွစ္ၾကာ ခ်ဳပ္ေႏွာင္ခံထားရသူ ျဖစ္သည္။ ေမလက အက်ယ္ခ်ဳပ္ ၆ ႏွစ္ ျပည့္ေတာ့မည့္ အခ်ိန္တြင္ အာဏာပုိင္တုိ႔က ဆက္လက္ ခ်ဳပ္ေႏွာင္ထားျပန္သည္။ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္သည္ ေနအိမ္ အက်ယ္ခ်ဳပ္ ေဖာက္ဖ်က္မႈကုိ က်ဴးလြန္ခ့ဲသည္ဟု အာဏာပုိင္တုိ႔က ဆုိသည္။

ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္သည္ NLD ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားႏွင့္ ေတြ႔ဆုံ ညႇိႏိႈင္းခြင့္ရေရးအတြက္ ယခင္ ရက္ပိုင္းက ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္မႉးႀကီး သန္းေရႊထံသို႔ ေရးသား ေပးပို႔လိုက္သည့္ စာတြင္ ထည့္သြင္း ေတာင္းဆိုထားသည္။

NLD ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ား အေနျဖင့္လည္္း ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ႏွင့္ ေတြ႔ဆုံခြင့္ရရန္ အစဥ္ေတာင္းဆိုခဲ့သည္။

ေနအိမ္အက်ယ္ခ်ဳပ္ ေဖာက္ဖ်က္မႈျဖင့္ ရုံးတင္ တရားစြဲခံရစဥ္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္က သူ၏ သက္ေသမ်ား အျဖစ္ ဦးတင္ဦး၊ ဦး၀င္းတင္တို႔ကိုလည္း အဆုိျပဳခ့ဲသည္။ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္က ထုိေခါင္းေဆာင္ႏွစ္ဦးႏွင့္ ေတြဆုံခြင့္ရရန္ အတြက္ ႀကိဳးပမ္းျခင္း ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း ေလ့လာသူမ်ားက သုံးသပ္ၾကသည္။

NLD ပါတီ၏ မူ၀ါဒကို ခ်မွတ္သူ တဦးဟု အမ်ားက ယူဆၾကသည့္ ဦး၀င္းတင္၊ ဒီမုိကေရစီ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ႏွင့္ ႏိုင္ငံေရး ခံယူခ်က္ ခိုင္မာၿပီး အမ်ားက ေလးစားၾကသည့္ ဦးတင္ဦးတို႔ ၃ဦး ေတြ႔ဆုံခြင့္ မရသည္မွာ ယေန႔ဆိုလွ်င္ ႏွစ္ေပါင္း ၂၀ တိုင္ၿပီျဖစ္သည္။

၎တို႔ ၃ ဦးကို ေတြ႔ဆုံခြင့္ ေပးလိုက္ပါက NLD အတြက္ ပိုမို ေကာင္းမြန္ေသာ မူ၀ါဒတခုကို ခ်မွတ္ႏိုင္လိမ္မည္ ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း ေလ့လာသူမ်ားက ဆိုသည္။

“CEC ကို မလႈပ္ရွားႏိုင္ဘူးလို႔ စစ္အစုိးရက ခံယူထားတယ္၊ ေဒၚစုနဲ႔ ေပးေတြ႔ရင္ CEC က လႈပ္လာမယ္၊ ေဒၚစုရဲ႕ အမာခံအားက NLD ထဲမွာ ရွိေနတယ္၊ NLD အေပၚမွာလည္း ယေန႔ထိ အလြန္ ႀကီးမားတဲ့ ၾသဇာ ရွိေနတုန္းပဲ၊ NLDက ဘာပဲေျပာေျပာ ယႏၱရား ရွိေနတုန္းပဲ၊ အဲဒီမွာ ေဒၚစုကို NLDနဲ႔ ေပးေတြ႔လိုက္မယ္၊ ေတြ႔တဲ့ အခါမွာလည္း ေဒၚစုက ႏုိင္ငံေရးနဲ႔ ပတ္သက္တဲ့ ဦးေဆာင္မႈေပးတာ ရွိေနရင္ ေအာက္ေျခ အထိ ေရာက္သြားႏိုင္တယ္” ဟု ဦး၀င္းတင္က ေျပာသည္။

CEC အဖြဲ႔ အတြင္းတြင္ လတ္တေလာ သူ၏ သေဘာထားမွာ တင္းမာသည့္ အတြက္ စစ္အစိုးရက ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ႏွင့္ ေတြ႔ဆုံခြင့္ကို ေရႊ႕ဆိုင္းႏိုင္သေရြ႕ ေရြ႕ဆိုင္းထားႏုိင္ေၾကာင္း သူက ယူဆသည္။

ဦး၀င္းတင္သည္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ႏွင့္ ၁၉၈၉ခုႏွစ္ ဇူလိုင္လ ၄ ရက္ေန႔တြင္ ေနာက္ဆုံး ေတြ႔ဆုံခဲ့ျခင္း ျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း သိရသည္။

NLD ျပန္ၾကားေရး အဖြဲ႔၀င္ ဦးအုန္းႀကိဳင္သည္လည္း လြန္ခ့ဲသည့္ အႏွစ္ ၂၀ က ျပဳလုပ္ခ့ဲသည့္ NLD ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ား၏ အစည္းအေ၀း တခုတြင္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ႏွင့္ ေနာက္ဆုံး ေတြ႔ဆုံခ့ဲရသည္ဟု ဆုိသည္။

“ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ကို NLD ဗဟုိေကာ္မတီမ်ားနဲ႔ ေတြ႔ခြင့္ မေပးတာ တုိင္းျပည္အတြက္လည္း မေကာင္း သလုိ ဒီမိုကေရစီလႈပ္ရွားမႈ အတြက္လည္း မေကာင္းဘူး၊ NLD အတြက္လည္း မေကာင္းဘူး၊ အဆက္အသြယ္ ျဖတ္ထားေတာ့ လုပ္ငန္းေတြက မတြင္ဘူးေပါ့” ဟု ဦးအုန္းႀကိဳင္က ေျပာသည္။

ယင္းသုိ႔ ေတြ႔ဆုံခြင့္ နည္းပါးသည့္ အတြက္ ယခုေနာက္ပုိင္းတြင္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္က ေျပာလုိသည့္ စကားမ်ား၊ သူ၏ သေဘာထားမ်ားကုိ သူ၏ အိမ္ေရွ႕၌ ခ်ိတ္ဆဲြထားေသာ ဆိုင္းဘုတ္မ်ားမွတဆင့္ ေဖာ္ျပေလ့ရိွသည္။

ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္သည္ NLD ေခါင္းေဆာင္မ်ားႏွင့္ ထိေတြ႔မႈမ်ားပါက NLD၏ မူ၀ါဒမ်ား ပိုမိုထိေရာက္ အသက္၀င္လာဖြယ္ ရွိေၾကာင္း ေလ့လာသူမ်ားက သုံးသပ္ၾကသည္။ ယခုအခါ NLD၏ လႈပ္ရွား ေဆာင္ရြက္မႈမ်ား အားနည္းသည္ဟု ေ၀ဖန္ခံေနရသည္။

၀ါရင့္ႏိုင္ငံေရးသမား တဦးျဖစ္သူ သခင္ခ်န္ထြန္းက“ေတြ႔ခြင့္ေပးလုိက္ရင္ အျပင္မွာရွိေနတဲ့ NLD အမႈေဆာင္ အဖြ႔ြဲရဲ႕ လုပ္ရပ္ေတြကို အကုန္လုံးက ပိုၿပီး အင္တိုက္အားတုိက္ လိုက္လာႏိုင္တာေပါ့၊ အခုေတာ့ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ မပါဘဲနဲ႔က်ေတာ့ ဟုတ္မွ ဟုတ္ပါ့ မလားဆိုတဲ့ သေဘာထားေတြ ရွိေနမွာေပါ့” ဟု ဆိုသည္။

ေတြ႔ဆုံခ်ိန္ – ၇ နာရီ ၂၅ မိနစ္
Friday, 09 October 2009 19:22 ကိုေထြး
http://www.irrawaddy.org/

Iranian leaders are so insecure that the peace efforts of one of its own are a threat to their masculinity.  Robbing Shirin Ebadi of her internationally recognized Nobel Peace Prize, is really tacky.  This is not the first time Amadinejad, and the counsel that controls him, have acted out like the control freak bullies they are.  They are totally blind to the power of Iran’s next generation of leaders, growing up educated and exposed to sneak previews of what a little freedom can offer.  The new generation wants it.  The stuffy old men, controlling Amadinejad, cannot kill them all.  Their childish behavior only fans the flames for Iran’s future.  Government can only suppress its population for so long before it backfires.  Using religion as a weapon to suppress free thought, in the age of mass communication, spells downfall.  Will Shirin Ebadi, an icon in the international peace movement, end up like Aung San Suu Kyi?  Will the economically distracted world stand by and write her off as “such a shame” and send weak diplomatic protests to the oppressors?  Is peace just not economical anymore?  It seems that today’s global repositioning and asset grabbing encourages civil strife, to reduce populations that political bullies expect to deal with in the future.  World peace is challenged every day, seeds of defiance are being sown with every casualty tallied in the name of democracy or in the name of any religion, control is the name of the game. Collateral damage changes mindset, the most dangerous byproduct is revenge at any cost. Revenge grows exponentially.  “Peace mongers” are derided and looked upon as a threat to government control.  Suppression becomes more blatant when governments feel threatened by efforts for democracy and human rights. Extraordinary individuals who protect and empower the world’s most vulnerable populations. Dr. Shirin Ebadi exemplifies these attributes, especially in her efforts to confront challenges faced by women around the world.

Iranian authorities confiscate medal from 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi

By Ian Macdougall (CP)  TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian authorities have confiscated Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi’s medal, her lawyer and Norway’s government said Thursday, in a sign of the increasingly drastic steps they are taking against any dissent.

In Norway, where the peace prize is awarded, the government said the confiscation was a shocking first in the history of the 108-year-old prize.

Ebadi, a human rights lawyer, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for her efforts in promoting democracy. She has long faced harassment from Iranian authorities for her activities – including a raid on her office last year in which files were confiscated.

The seizure of her prize is an expression of the Iranian government’s harsh approach to anyone it considers an opponent – particularly since the massive street protests triggered by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed June 12 re-election.

….

During the past months, hundreds of pro-reform activists have been arrested, and a mass trial has sentenced dozens to prison terms.

In Tehran, Ebadi’s lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, confirmed the medal was confiscated and said it was seized on a September order from a judge at Tehran’s Revolutionary Court. The lawyer said she was not aware of the content of the order because the court has not allowed her to study it yet.

“Ebadi’s husband found out some 20 days ago that all medals, including the Nobel one, were confiscated from their safe deposit box,” Sotoudeh said.

Calls to Iranian judiciary officials were not returned Thursday.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere called the move “shocking” and said it was “the first time a Nobel Peace Prize has been confiscated by national authorities.”

…

Ebadi said in an interview published Nov. 17 in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that her apartment, pension and her bank account and those of her relatives had been seized, along with her Nobel and Legion of Honor.

“I live in an effective state of exile,” she was quoted as saying from a hotel in New York, where she had been attending U.N. meetings. “They say I owe them $410,000 in back taxes because of the Nobel; it’s a complete lie, given that the Iranian fiscal law says that prizes are excluded.”

She nevertheless said she plans to return to Iran when she can be more useful in the country than outside it.

“Nothing frightens me anymore, even if they threaten to arrest me for fiscal evasion upon my return,” she said.

Iran seizes Nobel winner Shirin Edabi’s medal

Iranian Militiamen Try to Cow Opposition Figure

Norway protests against confiscation of Shirin Ebadi’s Nobel Peace Prize

Norway has reacted strongly to the news that the Iranian authorities have confiscated the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Shirin Ebadi in 2003. The Iranian Chargé d’affaires Has been summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“This is the first time a Nobel Peace Prize has been confiscated by national authorities. The medal and the diploma have been removed from Dr Ebadi’s bank box, together with other personal items. Such an act leaves us feeling shock and disbelief,” said Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.    (NRK/Press release)   Rolleiv Solholm

I’m hoping this letter finds you well and in excellent spirits for the coming holiday. I know, I know, it’s been quite awhile since you last heard from me–trying to go it alone now, even though it looks like I might have mucked things up a bit. Anyway, since I’ve been pretty good this year, and because you’re a busy man and you hate last minute requests, I thought I’d send you my wish list right now, in plenty of time for Christmas:

1. I need a new car: Yes, I said need and not want, because it’s been well over a decade and the time has come for a new set of wheels, which is why it’s number one here on my list. However, before you say “Ah-hah, one of those little Smart Cars ought to do the trick,” I just want to add that my taste in automobiles is pretty much the same as it was in my Lincoln-Continental days. That is to say that, although I do appreciate fuel economy, I’m simply not a small-car gal, and, if you take into consideration my frugal ways regarding energy consumption, I really do think I could be trusted with, say, a Cadillac. (I’ll leave the color to you.)
2. A new computer: Now on this one there’s a little room for compromise. Meaning, a newer computer will suit me just fine, as long as it comes equipped with a decent printer and the design programs and Apps I’ve grown accustomed to having and that, as both an artist and writer, I’ve come to rely upon. (Be careful with it on the stairs, please. They can be rather tricky in the dark.)
3. New boots: Size eight, but don’t forget to add a half size for a pair of thick wool socks, or in the event that they may come with a lining. Also, I’m going to have to be somewhat picky here because I’ve been investigating this and, seriously, there are a lot of ugly boots in the market lately. Sure, a beggar can’t be choosy but, geesh, no man-made materials or space-age designs, please. And, as is customary, no less than 1 1/2 inch heels. (If you remember, a two-inch heel with a tall shaft typically works best for me, and, by the way, laces are perfectly all right, too, though pull-ons or zip-ups would also be cool. As to the theme, I’m leaning toward western or combat this year, something that balances the concept of kick-ass with cute, but I want a square toe, nothing round or pointed. Again, you may pick the color scheme.)
4. Books: Books have gotten soooo expensive of late. Not my books, of course, but most everyone else’s are just out of this world now. I know you read a lot so, if you can toss a few of your favourites under the tree, I’d be grateful. Per usual, hardcovers are most desirable to me and, yes, I still prefer non-fiction over any other category, with biographies heading up the list. But don’t even trouble yourself with those so called “Bestsellers” as I’ve learned from experience that such lists are thoroughly rigged and, thus, cannot assure a quality read anymore. (In short, just find some truly good books if you can, irrespective of who may have authored them, and surprise me!)
5. Firewood: Yup, you’re right, this request is not for myself but for the Landlady, who, I can vouch for, has been just terrific every single day of the year. If you could deliver her a full cord as opposed to a face cord, and see to it that it’s all split and neatly stacked right outside the door–her door, not mine–that would be really great. (She’s a rugged individual, but she turns sixty this year and, unfortunately, so does her back.)
6. Something for the cats: I know I can speak for my Landlady here when I say that the animus between our animals must end, ASAP. Regrettably, we are at a loss ourselves as to how to achieve this, for, in truth, we have tried everything we could think of, and yet my poor (snooty) Princess is still actively stalked by Lord Findlay (pronounced finn-lee) and lives virtually every waking moment in certain dread of him. Therefore, I am suggesting a gift for these two otherwise exemplary and very well-behaved kitties that explores the idea and possibility of sharing, even though I have no idea what that would potentially resemble. (Having said this much, however, I implore you not to supply them with a chipmunk, bunny, bird, or the like, because neither of their humans have a stomach for murder and mayhem, and, moreover, such a present isn’t likely to bring about the spirit of cooperation we are hoping for and constantly seeking.)
7. Democracy in Burma: In light of how many times I’ve brought this subject up in the past two decades, I’m aware that it may seem I’m harping on it, but within that time span nothing has changed in Burma but its name–the military junta is still in power and the duly elected leader still remains under house arrest, a situation that is not only beneath her but which is negatively impacting her health overall, as well as that of her nation. I understand when it comes to issues like world peace you prefer to look at the big picture, which I respect, but I truly think this is a matter that requires your closer scrutiny. Thus, I am requesting once again that you free Aung San Suu Kyi for Christmas and, if that’s too short notice for you to act upon, then at least in time for her to participate in Burma’s election next year. (I’d be willing to trade the new car in exchange for this, but I can’t budge an inch for a new computer.)

Now, obviously poor Burma isn’t the only place in the world with bad people living in it and, quite frankly, I can name plenty of them dwelling right here in my own hemisphere. I’m only mentioning this just in case any of these individuals have requested a new home-entertainment system from you, for which you have, on proper review, deemed them completely unworthy. Mine, as you’ve probably already heard, went and kicked the bucket on me this month and, as a result, I haven’t been able to watch a home-movie for weeks now on end. (But, since it’s arguable that I could be constructively utilizing all that extra time to finish work on my new novel, I’ll just have to leave this one to your discretion.)

Well, that just about covers everything this year, and, notwithstanding that my wish list is rather short, I think you’ll find it nevertheless comprehensive. Naturally, I have omitted many smaller items from it that might conveniently fit into a stocking. Should you decide to indulge me, you’ll find those hung (with care) beside the broken television, as I no longer have a chimney to speak of. On that note, you’ll also find my new digs kind of small and a bit cramped to work in, for which I apologize in advance. As to me, you’ll see I’m much older than the last time we met, although, I suspect, fairly recognizable. Some things, however, will never change so, yes, I’m still a very light sleeper, but don’t worry about that; I will, as agreed to in the past, pretend that I’m not awake when you get here. By the way, remember to look for your glass of milk on the table by the door. Per usual, it will not be warm, but it will be spiked with good rum, so go easy on it if you’ve got more stops to make. Also, I don’t know if you’re watching your sugar these days, but I’m going to put out a plate of gingersnaps for you, too. (They’re low-fat, low-cal and low-carb, so you might want to give them a try anyway.)

Looking forward to seeing you again, old friend. Have a safe trip and drive carefully!

Your friend, Francine

PS. MERRY CHRISTMAS!

El próximo 10 de diciembre Barack Obama recibirá el Premio Nobel de la Paz, mientras que Aung San Suu Kyi, líder del movimiento democrático birmano y que obtuvo este mismo galardón en 1991, estará prisionera en su país. Lancia se ha propuesto movilizar a los usuarios de Facebook para reivindicar su liberación.

Para ello, la marca del grupo Fiat ha colgado una web www.yourfaceforfreedom.org desde la que pide a los usuarios de Facebook que cambien su foto de perfil por la de la Aung San Suu Kyi, descargable desde la web. Además, los internautas pueden bajarse un widget para publicar en su muro y difundir el mensaje a través de la red social.

La acción es parte de una campaña más amplia que incluye otros medios, como televisión. La agencia italiana Bitmama (Armando Testa) se ha encargado de la parte on line.

Más información: Marketingnews.es

L’iniziativa è nobile, una campagna per la liberazione di AUNG SAN SUU KYI, Nobel per la Pace.

Your Face for Freedom

International pressure on Burmese junta to give up anti-democratic rule and  open political dialogue with the opposition is mounting.The military regime has shown signs of acceptance of democratic policies in the country. The Burmese Democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi had called for direct talks with the military regime following the visit of two senior US diplomats as part of the US’s new diplomatic policies towards Burma.

 On November 19, United Nations, the 192-nation world body, approved a resolution condemning Burma for its systematic violation of human rights and fundamental freedom of the Burmese people .The resolution urged for the immediate and unconditional release of more than 2,000 political prisoners in the country including Suu Kyi. The resolution also advocates the freedom of assembly, association, movement and freedom of expression.

The Burmese Permanent Representative to the UN condemned the resolution as “anachronistic and flawed.” He defended the junta’s position by saying that Burma had already approved a new constitution and is preparing for a general election in 2010 which would be free and fair. The junta has recently released 1000 political prisoners. However China, Russia, India and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries have a different take on the issue. They maintain that constructive dialogue and cooperation are the only way to promote human rights and a resolution pinpointing the flaws would be counter productive.

During the recent US-ASEAN summit, US President Barack Obama called for the unconditional release of Suu Kyi and to open genuine dialogue between the government, democratic opposition and ethnic minority groups.

 Burma is under military dictatorship since 1962 and the junta’s repressive and abusive policies have dragged the country into civil war forcing the ethnic groups of remote areas to engage in armed struggle. The military campaigns of the Burmese junta have left thousands of people internally displaced, especially the ethnic minority groups.

 Thanks to the military junta, Burma ranks as the third most corrupt country in the world according to the ‘2009 Corruption Perceptions Index’ by Transparency International, a Berlin-based global civil society organization. Forced labour, human trafficking and child labour are rampant in the country; and according to the human rights organizations, there is no independent judiciary in Burma. The women’s pro-democracy movements in exile and international movements to defend women’s rights are formed to protest against sexual violence against women by the military regime as an instrument of control.

The totalitarian regime seized power in a coup in 1988 and the opposition was brutally suppressed .Suu Kyi who was under house arrest won the general elections held by the regime in 1990 but the regime refused to hand over power. Ne Win, a believer  in Stalinist ideologies, led the country along the ‘Burmese Road to Socialism’ by implementing ideas like  nationalization, isolationism, ethnic cleansing, and a police state. The oppressive rule of the regime, now known as the ‘State Peace and Development Council’, continues even today.

 Aung San Suu Kyi

 Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s pro-democratic campaigner and leader of opposition National League (NLD) has been fighting against the unjust and suppressive rule of the military junta since 1988.She has spent the last 14 years of the past 20 years in detention under the junta regime. Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her tireless efforts to bring in democracy in Burma.

Suu Kyi, born on 19 June 1945 , is the daughter of Burma’s democratic hero, Aung San, who was assassinated during the transition period of Burma in July 1947. Suu kyi came to India in 1960 accompanying her mother Khin Kyi, who  was appointed as Burma’s ambassador to India. She was inspired by the non-violent methods of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi and campaigned for peaceful democratic reforms in Burma. She went back to Burma in 1988 and led the revolt against General Ne Win. Suu Kyi who was under house arrest won 82% votes in the general elections held by the regime in 1990 but the regime refused to hand over power .

 Suu Kyi was released after six years but was again arrested in 2000 when she tried to travel to the city of Mandalay defying travel restrictions. She was released in 2002, but was again arrested in a year following a clash between her supporters and the government. Government rejected NLD’s pleas to release her as she was suffering from low blood pressure and dehydration. Her detention was due to expire on May 2009 but she was convicted and sentenced for another 18 months of detention  for breaching the conditions of her house arrest as a US person broke into her compound to meet her. There are criticisms that the whole episode was designed by the junta to keep her away from the general elections that are to be held in 2010. But in a surprising move, on 9 November 2009, the military government has indicated that Suu Kyi may be released soon and also that she’ll be allowed to take part in the general elections. But the Burma’s constitution has provisions that bar her from holding office.

 Aung San Suu Kyi’s non-violent campaigns have won support from Western nations in Europe, Australia and North and South America, India, Israel Japan and South Korea. Suu Kyi, referred to as ‘Daw’ by the Burmese people, a term that denotes respect for older women, has become one of the international icons of democracy and fight against injustice.

As this year’s Noble peace prize was given for showing hope, let me follow up on how this hope gets materialize. (http://face4.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/peace/)

Last week Noble peace prize winner Obama oops President Obama had a great opportunity to showcase his commitments for which he was awarded the Noble peace prize. I personally, was expecting to see concrete progress in three areas

1. Dealing with two previous Noble peace prize winners

a) Aung San Suu Kyi

There was no mention about her in the official statements. But Officials mention that Obama has taken up this issue with Burmese officials.

b) Dalai Lama

Obama’s office mentions that it was not the right time for him to receive Dalai Lama but will receive him later

2. Relationship with China

As mentioned in some sectors of the press, even though Obama acted more like a reckless spender paying visit to his banker, being a Noble peace prize winner, he could have been more upright on Human rights issues, censorship, state of North Korean asylum seekers in China or other things that United States of America stands! for. Overall I think, he did a decent job here!

3. Initiates to contain Climate change

A token initiative to set up a research center….

Your Face For Freedom, la nuova campagna sostenuta da Lancia

Lancia sostiene la liberazione del premio nobel per la pace Aung San Suu Kyi.

Dal sito ufficiale il testo della campagna:
“Berlino, 9 novembre 1989: il muro è caduto.

Vent’anni dopo… i muri da abbattere sono ancora tanti.

Muri fisici, muri di silenzio, muri che mettono le catene all’essenza dell’uomo: la libertà.
Abbattere queste barriere è il sogno sempre vivo di tutti coloro che credono nel cambiamento.
Lancia dà voce a questo sentimento comune sostenendo una grande iniziativa dedicata a colei che rappresenta la somma antitesi: la leader birmana Aung San Suu Kyi, Premio Nobel per la Pace 1991 e ancora prigioniera nel suo Paese.

Il 12 novembre 2009 il sentimento e la voce diventano cammino su YourFaceForFreedom.org.
Un simbolico viaggio lungo le libere strade della Rete, per attraversare latitudini e longitudini di tanti “Io” che vogliono diventare “Noi” e lasciare un indelebile messaggio di libertà e solidarietà.

La libertà trova sempre una strada per costruire la pace. La nostra è Your Face For Freedom e avrà il volto di tutti coloro che il giorno 10 dicembre 2009, in occasione della consegna del Premio Nobel per la Pace a Barack Obama, si daranno appuntamento nella piazza mediatica di Facebook.

Con un semplice piccolo gesto, sostituire l’immagine del proprio profilo Facebook con quella di Aung San Suu Kyi free now – disponibile in downolad dal sito- si raggiungerà il culmine di una mobilitazione virtuale i cui partecipanti, testimoni e ambasciatori diretti del sostegno alla richiesta di libertà immediata per la leader birmana, potranno vedere pubblicata la propria foto sul Wall for Freedom, l’unico muro che unisce invece di dividere.

Il 10 dicembre la libertà ha un solo volto. “

Exciting news this morning:  The recent film Burma VJ:  Reporting from a Closed Country, which features the work of citizen journalists inside the title country’s 2007 “Saffron Revolution,” has been shortlisted for the 2009 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature

Here’s what the editors of the Guardian said in their powerful endorsement of the film earlier this year:

There is an awful lot of rough camera work in the just-released film Burma VJ. Heads missing, over-eager zooms, jumpy shots; that kind of thing. Hollywood directors sometimes do this to inject urgency into that otherwise-tepid thriller, but here the lack of cinematic polish is neither voluntary nor superfluous. A record of life inside totalitarian Burma, this documentary was filmed undercover by amateur video journalists (or VJs) on Handycams kept out of sight of the military junta. If the batteries gave out, the VJs used camera phones instead. The generals run Burma’s TV and radio, and they control most print media, so the anonymous VJs who are the subject of this film perform a rare and brave service. Called the Democratic Voice of Burma, this non-profit network gathers its footage in secret, before smuggling it out of the country. Burma VJ concentrates on the Saffron Uprising of September 2007, when thousands of Buddhist monks marched against military rule. This gesture of defiance soon swells into a mass protest. “Film them all! So many!” cries one marcher to a VJ, and the camera pans around balconies and rooftops crammed with cheering protesters. It is a moving scene, all the more so because the viewer knows that soon the uprising will be crushed, with thousands killed and arrested. Citizen journalism is much talked about, but this film shows it at its best – as a powerful force, allowing the world access to places and episodes that would otherwise remain hidden.

For more about Burma VJ, including where and when you can see it, visit http://www.burmavjmovie.com.  A trailer is below.

This from the U.S. Campaign for Burma:

Crimes against humanity and war crimes continue to be committed by the Burmese Junta.

The Burmese regime has destroyed 3,500 ethnic minority villages, recruited tens of thousands of child soldiers, and used systematic rape as a weapon of war. The people in Burma deserve to live without these crimes.

E-mail your representative today urging them to co-sponsor Resolution 898 to help end these abuses. The resolution calls for:

1.) The United Nations Security Council to establish a Commission of Inquiry into crimes against humanity, war crimes, and impunity in Burma

2.) A Global Arms embargo against the Burmese junta

3.) All of Burma’s political prisoners to be freed, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi

Do your part by emailing your member of Congress today asking them to co-sponsor this resolution.

Our message becomes much stronger to the President and the international community if we have dozens of Representatives co-sponsoring this legislation.

Drop an email to your member of Congress here.

.

Obama’s Asia Trip: Too Focused on Common Ground?

Masonic Flag of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy

György Schwartz openly spends at least $2 million a year through his “Open Society” racket, as well as unknown millions in surreptitious support, trying to pave the way for Jewish control of Burma. The Saffron Revolution (Burma) is in concert with Schwartz/CIA/MI6/Mossad/G2/UGLE/GOF’s Bulldozer Revolution (Serbia), 8888 Revolution (Burma), Otpor Revolution (Serbia), Rose Revolution (Georgia), Blue Revolution (Kuwait), Orange Revolution (Ukraine), Tulip Revolution (Kyrgyzstan), Quiet Revolution (Iran), Purple Revolution (Iraq), Zubr Revolution (Belarus), Grape Revolution (Moldova), Yellow Revolution (Mongolia), Cotton Revolution (Uzbekistan) and Jeans Revolution (Belarus), making the world safe for Noachide oligarchy. (Medvedev should demand to see Obama’s birth certificate before speaking with him. After all, we have to be sure everything’s legitimate.)

Kim Kardashian wrote her whole thesis on the terrible situation in Burma

Belarus’ popular president Lukashenko has remarked:

“In our country, there will be no pink or orange, or even banana revolution.” … “They [the West] think that Belarus is ready for some ‘orange’ or, what is a rather frightening option, ‘blue’ or ‘cornflower blue’ revolution. Such ‘blue’ revolutions are the last thing we need”. … “All these coloured revolutions are pure and simple banditry.”

Of course Lukashenko has been called a tyrant and a dictator by the likes of Condoleezza Rice, and faces arrest in Western Europe for having cracked down on foreign agents, because he is supposedly not committed to “democracy” and “liberty”, unlike the West’s great liberal democratic allies in Libya, China, and Saudi Arabia. The great Neo-Con propaganda outlet, Freedom House, in their 2007 list of the “least free” nations, ranks evil Belarus at the same level as Red China, and Saudi Arabia.

Obama’s Pimp Chain from the Saudis

It’s a tricky operation overthrowing military juntas that you’re also doing business with. Naturally, the head of his Burma Project is banned in Burma, and Schwartz himself is unwelcome in neighboring Thailand, home to 2 million refugees who have fled the constant foreign-backed turmoil in Burma, and now destabilize Thailand. Thailand blames Schwartz and his hedge fund for setting off the Asian financial crisis in July 1997, which started when the Thai baht plummeted. “Some get a little nervous to publicly have our support,” says Maureen Aung-Thwin, who heads the project out of a Fifth Avenue office in New York.

To bypass these petty nationalist anti-NWO concerns, Schwartz’s Burma Project usually keeps a very low profile, employing just a few people on the ground in Thailand. It contributes to some 100 groups “civil society”, “pro-democracy” and human rights” front operations and offers scores of academic scholarships to Burmese who might someday serve as puppets in a “democratic” Burma.

Aung-Thwin says the Burma Project keeps its recipients at arm’s length and makes sure they’re also getting funds from other organizations, so that few Thais even know the Burma Project exists. “We just don’t want to give any reason for attracting negative attention to [our agents'] work,” she says.

Under British rule, Burma was the richest country in South-East Asia. ”British” interests were primarily represented in Burma by the Burmah Oil Company (BOC), which was founded in Glasgow in 1886 by David Sime Cargill and had a monopoly in Burma until 1901 when Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company began muzzling in.

In 1909, BOC established the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (renamed Anglo-Iranian in 1935 and British Petroleum in 1954), an almost wholly-owned subsidiary. Difficulties over refining and transporting the Persian oil proved costly for BOC, and in 1912 the chairman, Sir John Cargill, son of the founder David Cargill, refused to finance Anglo-Persian any further. Winston Churchill had recently been appointed first lord of the Admiralty, and in 1914 the UK authorities and BOC concluded an agreement. The government acquired from the company a majority share in Anglo-Persian, and the Admiralty obtained long-term fuel oil supplies from Anglo-Persian.

In 1923, the BOC bribed future Prime Minister Winston Churchill to lobby the British government to allow them to monopolise Persian oil resources. The company was involved in a landmark legal case, Burmah Oil Co. v Lord Advocate, concerning the destruction of oil fields in Burma by British forces. In 1966, Castrol was acquired by Burmah, which was renamed Burmah-Castrol. Rothschild’s Bank of England came to the rescue of Burmah Oil after the company made large losses on its tanker fleets in 1974. In 2000, Burmah-Castrol was acquired by the then BP Amoco (now renamed BP).

Aung San Suu Kyi’s father supported the Japanese regime until he realized that Japan would lose the war, and so switched to an alliance with the British-backed Communists. He was assassinated in 1947.

Post-imperial Burma was subverted by Zionist-backed socialist forces, under U Nu. Ben Gurion went on what he described as “a pilgrimage” to Burma in 1960, to visit puppet U Nu and “learn more about Budhism.” Ethnic and religious tensions were exacerbated when U Nu made Buddhism the state religion as a way of limiting the influence of Christian Chin, Karen, Lisu, Kachin, and Lahu, as well as the powerful KMT militias, many of whose leaders were Christian and intensely anti-Communist. U Nu was overthrown by Ne Win, and the “Burmese Way to Socialism” was instituted.

The “Good Old Days” for Socialist Burma, with the Right Connections

In 2007, the Anglo-American regime attempted to introduce anti-Burmese resolutions at the UN Security Council, but was blocked by China, Russia and South Africa. Just days later Burma granted China oil-and-gas exploration rights. “Those are pretty formidable allies for the Burmese junta, to have both Russia and China protecting them,” said Aung-Thwin. “But we’re not daunted.” She has the support of the philosophers Jennifer Aniston, Woody Harrelson, Michael Stipe, Fergie, and Sarah “Jews killed Christ! Fuck Yeah! I’d do it again” Silverman, Julie Benz, Jason Schwartzman, Famke Janssen, Will Ferrell, Sylvester Stallone, Tila Tequila (Playboy’s first Asian Cyber Girl of the Month), Jason Biggs, Sheryl Crow, Felicity Hoffman, Matisyahu, Kim Kardashian, and the sublime Steven Seagal.

Schwartz’s interest in Burma goes back to the fall of 1987. Millions of Burmese had taken to the streets to protest the regime’s decision to replace the nation’s currency, wiping out much of people’s savings. Schwartz had made a fortune as a Rothschild money manager. Using the same techniques he would eventually adopt in Hungary, Georgia, Belarus and other targeted nations, Schwartz began in Burma by searching for four useful “scholarship” recipients,” and began to develop a network of spies and other subversive agents. It should be understood however, that many of Schwartz’s agents are unaware of their role in destroying their nation, but are step-by-step drawn into the movement through their obligations to their “generous foreign benefactors.”

In the summer of 1988, after months of foreign-backed demonstrations, the brutal Burmese military finally cracked down on the useful idiots. Tens of thousands of students and members of ethnic minorities began flooding across the Burma-Thailand border.

Schwartz launched the Burma Project in 1994. Some 30% of its money goes to NWO-education programs and university scholarships, the rest to grants for front groups. Recipients include the Alternate Asean Network on Burma, which issues reports on Burma; the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, Burma’s “government-in-exile”; and the Computer Network Training Program, which operate in the refugee camps.

The Burma Project puts its money into “capacity building”, to use their jargon. This means that rather than provide food or water, it seeks to foster the economic, legal and media skills needed to run a country on NWO terms. Debbie Stothard, head of the Alternate Asean Network, rationalizes that her group does nothing to provide food or health care, because it is more useful to raise the refugees’ level of economic literacy and show them how to get what they are led to believe is their message out in the media. That means teaching about banking, taxation, and how governments can raise international loans to finance “development” on Josephite terms.

And Joseph situated his father and his brothers, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded. Then Joseph provided his father, his brothers, and all his father’s household with bread, according to the number in their families.

Now there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very severe, so that the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan languished because of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, for the grain which they bought; and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.

So when the money failed in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, “Give us bread, for why should we die in your presence? For the money has failed.”

Then Joseph said, “Give your livestock, and I will give you bread for your livestock, if the money is gone.” So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for the horses, the flocks, the cattle of the herds, and for the donkeys. Thus he fed them with bread in exchange for all their livestock that year.

When that year had ended, they came to him the next year and said to him, “We will not hide from my lord that our money is gone; my lord also has our herds of livestock. There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our lands. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants of Pharaoh; give us seed, that we may live and not die, that the land may not be desolate.”

Then Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for every man of the Egyptians sold his field, because the famine was severe upon them. So the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he moved them into the cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt to the other end. Only the land of the priests he did not buy; for the priests had rations allotted to them by Pharaoh, and they ate their rations which Pharaoh gave them; therefore they did not sell their lands.

Then Joseph said to the people, “Indeed I have bought you and your land this day for Pharaoh. Look, here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the harvest that you shall give one-fifth to Pharaoh. Four-fifths shall be your own, as seed for the field and for your food, for those of your households and as food for your little ones.”

So they said, “You have saved our lives; let us find favor in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants.” And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt to this day, that Pharaoh should have one-fifth, except for the land of the priests only, which did not become Pharaoh’s.

So Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions there and grew and multiplied exceedingly.

One star pupil of Stothard and her Alternate Asean Network on Burma is Charm Tong, a 25-year-old advocate for the Shan minority in Burma who’s met with President George W. Bush and spoken to the UN. “We’re always trying to build the new leaders; we call it the future of Burma,” says Aung-Thwin, who was raised in India. Aung-Thwin claims that, “each year, several hundred Soros scholarships are disbursed to Burmese students all over the world.”

Aung-Thwin praises her sponsor, Schwartz-Soros:

“The bulk of his work promoting open society focuses on Eastern Europe. Soros has keen antennae for dictatorships, and this was one he could not resist.”

David Mathieson, the Burma consultant for Bernstein and Roth’s Human Rights Watch, has taught English to refugees in the camps.

Sometimes the Burma Project’s support is more administrative than “educational”, as shown by its work with the “National Coalition Government”. Burma’s shadow government, formed in Sweden, cools its heels under the nominal leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi’s cousin, Sein Win, in an office outside Washington, D.C. paid for by Schwartz at a cost of $85,000 a year.

The NWO Burma Project endorses economic sanctions against resource-rich Burma, which is already one of the poorest countries in the world. Aung-Thwin explained why before the U.S. House of Representatives on June 10, 2003: “Sanctions offer economic, but also moral pressure.”

Thant Myint-U, author of The River of Lost Footsteps: Histories of Burma, argues that after decades of war Burma needs more than just regime change; it needs to be rebuilt. “Isolating one of the most isolated countries in the world … is both counterproductive and dangerous,” he writes.

Still, the project hasn’t come in for any of the attacks that Schwartz got for his role in destroying Eastern European and South Asian economies and his attempts to destabilize the pound sterling in order to “convince” Britons to adopt the Euro.

Due to the Open Society’s failure so far in Burma, Aung-Thwin doesn’t usually measure progress toward a new government, but charts the development of her grantees. “The individuals we’ve supported, what do they continue to do?” she asks. “Do they go into non-governmental organizational work after they have American citizenship? How many go back to Thailand to work with compatriots and with refugees? That’s one of the ways that gratifies us.”

The Weekly Standard’s Neo-Conservative Communist Jewish Muslim writer Stephen Schwartz (a relative of Schwartz-Soros?) wrote:

“Burma — like Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzia before it — shows that the weak links in the global chain of tyranny are breaking, one by one, and that the worldwide movement for entrepreneurship, accountability, and popular sovereignty can assert itself, with or without the help of outsiders. For Americans and all haters of oppression, the message is clear: The United States should show effective support for the aspirations of Burma’s diverse citizens; tougher sanctions against the regime are only the beginning.”

Aung San Suu Kyi has been the most prominent Schwartz-NWO puppet. After attending universities in England (Oxford), Japan and India, and working for the United Nations and Bhutan’s Foreign Ministry, she was sent from London to Burma, and ended up under house arrest. She is viewed by many Burmese as possessing mystical powers, and is prayed to as a Buddhist quasi-deity. Others blame her Masonic party for much of Burma’s current distress economic state. The ruling junta derives much of its legitimacy from the military personality cult promoted by the likes of Aung San Suu Kyi’s father.

Ironically, Aung San Suu Kyi may herself have little sympathy for the actions or attitudes of those who claim to support her.She has expressed skepticism of free markets as the cure-all for social and political ills. She believes that political reform will create economic reform, but the converse is not necessarily true. Unlike her great champion Schwartz-Soros, she emphasizes a need for spiritual reform. Schwartz-Soros would only care about spiritual reform if there were a profit to made from it.

Oh, who knows what the truth is anymore? Black is white, up is down. Just a few decades ago, Bergen-Belsen was considered a holiday camp for privileged perverts and traitors; now we’re told it was hell on Earth! Who to believe? From the Jewish Virtual Museum:

“[Some] Jews [had] the privilege of being transported to the Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp, where only those who had offered important services to the Germans could stay. There, their lives were not threatened, and they had everything in abundance […] They had all kinds of pleasures at their disposal, even sexual enjoyment. [...] the privileged Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp.”

Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan, wrote that,

“[Aung San Suu Kyi's] small shoulders carry the weight of a restless nation who wait, with dignity, for her release. A woman whose vision and strength reach beyond her borders to embrace all those who believe in freedom and justice. You are not forgotten. We pray for your health and strength. We stand with you, Lady of the Lake.”

Fellow NWO illuminaries and mouthpieces have also campaigned for Schwartz’s “Lady of the Lake, including Romano Prodi, Dora Bakoyannis (Greek Foreign Minister), Mary Robinson, Richard “Virgin” Branson, Jim Carrey, and the Dalai Lama.

Sir Paul McCartney has written that,

“Aung San Suu Kyi is an inspiration to her country and the rest of the world. I truly admire her infallible resolve and her determination to stand up for what she believes in. It is vital that Aung San Suu Kyi is released so that she can govern the people who elected her and give Burma back the freedom we all take for granted.”

A group of political philosophers, including George Clooney, 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, Václav Havel, Helen Hunt, Anjelica Huston, Scarlett Johansson, Nicole Kidman, Ashton Kutcher, Norman Lear, Madonna, Mary Matalin, Sen. John McCain and his Mob Wife Cindy, Rose McGowan, Orhan Pamuk, Sarah Jessica Parker, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Robert Rodriguez, Meg Ryan, Liev Schreiber, Shwartz-Soros, Steven Spielberg, Meryl Streep, Desmond Tutu, Naomi Watts, Holohoax King Elie Wiesel, and Owen Wilson proclaimed:

“Now is the time for the international community to speak with one voice: Free Aung San Suu Kyi.”

Sir Bono wrote the following piece of garbage for her:

Packing a suitcase for a place none of us has been

A place that has to be believed to be seen

You could have flown away

A singing bird in an open cage

Who will only fly, fly for freedom

Walk on, walk on

What you’ve got they can’t deny it

Can’t sell it, can’t buy it

Walk on, walk on

Stay safe tonight.

Yoko Ono wroteto Aung San Suu Kyi,

“Your heart beats with my heart. My eyes see what you see. My belief is your belief. And my life is connected to thousands of universes, as is yours. Every twinkle of the star must travel billions of years to be seen by us. But our minds do not have to travel at all to be seen by each other. Because we are altogether.”

An open letter to Aung San Suu Kyi, Forum 2000, May 2005:

At the beginning of the third millennium our global society is, thanks to modern technologies, able to easily communicate with anyone anywhere in the world. We are all becoming part of a larger spiritual dialogue that is further evolving our civilization.

Everyone has a right to become a meaningful and authentic part of this dialogue. Everyone has something to say and, in his or her own way, something to contribute. But you have been denied this basic right for a number of years. A great many believe you have been deprived of this basic right because your voice – gentle, gracious and inspirational – resonates with the undeniable and resolute force of truth; a truth that threatens those who deny your right to speak. Internationally, your voice has become an inspiration for civil society and it is a light in the darkness along the way to spiritual freedom.

People from all over the world write you letters and hold you in great esteem because you are a symbol of hope, courage and dignity. They write you even though they know their letters and words of hope may never reach you. History, however, has taught us that neither walls nor weapons can silence even the most isolated voice of courage and truth. Indeed, the efforts to silence such a voice only make it louder. Please know that we carry your voice in our hearts for all to hear.

Combating attempts, such as this one, to silence the truth is one of the reasons that we, the undersigned, along with others, have come together to form a collective effort known as Shared Concern Initiative. Shared Concern Initiative is an informal group of political, religious and intellectual leaders from around the world who, in the interest of good governance, tolerance and respect for human rights have dedicated themselves to address important challenges facing global society.

The first undertaking of Shared Concern Initiative is this open letter to you as a symbolic attempt to jointly break through the totalitarian barriers erected so unfairly around you.

With this letter also comes our humble invitation. We would be honoured if you joined us in the Shared Concern Initiative and in our effort to form a collective voice for truth, tolerance and transparency.

With deep respect,

• Václav Havel
• Michael Novak
• Mary Robinson
• George Soros
• André Glucksmann
• His Holiness Dalai Lama
• Karel Schwarzenberg
• Richard von Weizsäcker
• Vartan Gregorian
• Frederik Willem de Klerk
• Prince Hassan bin Talal
• Hans Küng
• Desmond Tutu

Desmond Tutu, Vaclav Havel, Gordon “Prudence” Brown, Stephen Fry, Eddie Izzard, Kevin Spacey, are twittering for ASSK.

James Cameron, a Canadian intellectual, wrote:

“Aung San Suu Kyi is a hero of mine because she stands up for human rights and dignity for the people of Burma, and for all people. I admire her because the heroes of many of the movies that I make [Piranha II: The Spawning, The Terminator, True Lies, Avatar] stand up against injustice. While my heroes are fictional, Aung San Suu Kyi is a real-life hero, and she needs help from you.”

Unelected British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown:

“I add my voice to the growing chorus of those demanding your release. For too long the world has failed to act in the face of this intolerable injustice. That is now changing. The clamour for your release is growing across Europe, Asia, and the entire world. We must do all we can to make this Birthday the last you spend without your freedom.”

So the beleaguered Burmese now find themselves in the same situation as Ukrainians and Finns in the 1930s, having to choose between Nazism or Internazism.

Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad initially supported Schwartz’s economic interventions, until Schwartz (or “Soros”, as he goes by) trashed the Malaysian currency to punish Malaysia for engaging in commerce with Burma [Mark Baker, The Age, June 7, 1997; and Sydney Morning Herald, June 7, 1997:
"The decision by ASEAN foreign ministers to admit Burma as a full member next month in open defiance of the United States ... is likely to seriously complicate ASEAN's future relations with Europe and the US ... It is the ASEAN leaders who now stand isolated and who, with their Burmese military cohorts, will be swept aside in the inexorable march of history"].

Mahathir claimed, in 1997:

We have definite information that he is involved. Of course, he is not the only one. Others followed suit. But he started it. In fact, he more or less confessed later on that he was involved. He had this idea that by applying pressure on Thailand and Malaysia he could prevent Myanmar from joining ASEAN. We also know that on his staff he has a person from Myanmar who might be influencing him. We have every evidence that he is involved.

Fortune Magazine: Why do you oppose the activities of Mr. Soros’ Open Society regarding Myanmar?

Mahathir: We believe Myanmar should be given time to make the necessary adjustments. We never believe in applying pressure on people. Trying to starve a whole nation in order to force its government to behave, that is not our idea. If you want to act against the government, you act against the government…. You have to show them that the way others do things can bring benefits to the country without in any way undermining their authority. Even if they lose authority they’re not going to be thrown into jail. We have seen in some countries that when military authorities give up power in favor of democracy, and they happen to lose the election, they are thrown into jail. I mean that democracy is not any better than the dictatorship, because once you are elected to become the government you throw people into jail and then you say that you are a democracy. To me it doesn’t make sense.

Fortune: But hasn’t Myanmar’s military government put its political opponents under house arrest?

Mahathir: Yes, they put people under house arrest for this. In some countries people are executed, they are massacred as in Bosnia. What has the international community done? Nothing. [Here he's referring to the alleged anti-Muslim bias of the West, even though NATO went to war against the Orthodox Christians on behalf of the Muslims.] You know they sat there and saw people being slaughtered in front of their eyes, and they did nothing. So why should we accuse these people? She [Burmese political dissident Aung San Suu Kyi] is living comfortably in her own house. There are restrictions, of course. But it’s not as if she’s being strung up….

Fortune: There has been an anti-Semitic [sic] strain in the reporting on Mr. Soros in the Malaysian newspapers. What do you plan to do about that?

Mahathir: No, we are not anti-Semitic, because, as you know, the Arabs are also a Semitic people. We have always treated American Jews without any consideration at all that they are Jews. But when a person of Jewish origin does this kind of thing, the effect is the same as when a Muslim carries out something that is akin to terrorism. Immediately people link it to Islam, to Muslims, although generally Muslims do not behave like terrorists….People should stop accusing Muslims of being terrorists. People should not link Jews to these kinds of activities. Most Jews I think are quite innocent. They are not involved in this at all. But the impression created is of course that being Jewish they have lots of money. They know how to manipulate money as much as some people assume we Muslims naturally are terrorists, including myself….

Fortune: Are you worried that this quarrel you’ve had with Mr. Soros will deter foreign investors from coming to Malaysia?

Mahathir: We have no choice. He has wiped out billions of dollars from our economy, and if we’re going to sit by and say nothing in the hope that it will not deter investors, then we’re going to pay a very high price for those investments.

Fortune: If Mr. Soros were right here in front of you, what would you say to him?

Mahathir: Go somewhere else.

+ + +

CIA to Dish out $3 Million to buy silence in Another Narco Scandal

By Sibel Edmonds, Boiling Frog Blog, 2009.11.17

The Mighty Agency on it’s Knees in a Legal Battle

After 15 years of legal battles the CIA agrees to pay $3 million to a former DEA agent who accused a former CIA official of illegally eavesdropping on him as part of a joint CIA and State Department effort to thwart DEA’s anti-narcotics mission in Burma in the early 1990s.

Richard Horn was stationed in Burma in the early 1990s as the DEA country attaché to Burma, a nation that is ranked as one of the top opium poppy producing countries in the world. He was in charge of overseeing DEA’s mission in Burma involving eradication of the opium poppy, which is used to produce heroin.

Bill Conroy of Narco News covers the latest on State Secrets Privilege recipient Richard Horn. As always Conroy dares to dig and cover this significant story when the rest of the media stenographers are avoiding it like the plague and as they are told by their mighty government sources above.

“The CIA’s efforts to undermine Horn’s work in Burma in getting that nation’s government to stem the flow of heroin to the United States should come as no surprise to those who are familiar with the “Agency’s” history. It seems the CIA, over the decades, has often found itself in the corner of narco-traffickers and thugs who support the Agency’s covert objectives in areas deemed critical to U.S. special interests – whether that be in Southeast Asia, Central Asia or Latin America.”

The CIA list of hotshots involved in the case includes former CIA Director George Tenet and recently retired Acting CIA General Counsel John Rizzo. Tenet and Rizzo played major roles in setting up the legal basis to justify the CIA’s use of torture. Here is Mr. Rizzo in action during the agency’s cover up operation on torture:

Conroy sums up the latest status of the case and the potential deserved sanctions that may be brought against Tenet, Rizzo, and other current and former CIA culprits:

And now, as part of the Horn case filed in a Washington D.C. federal court, we find a U.S. District judge, former FISA court member Royce Lamberth, opening the door for sanctions to be brought (as a result of the fraud, or lie, perpetrated on the court) against Tenet and Rizzo — as well as several other current and former CIA officials, among whom is Robert Eatinger, the current Acting Deputy General Counsel for Operations in the CIA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC).

If Lamberth’s judicial opinions in the Horn case are allowed to remain in the court record — to be recalled and cited going forward by other lawyers, judges and academics — then untold damage could be done to the reputation of the CIA and its leadership. Those judicial opinions memorializing the CIA’s fraud on the court also would serve as a permanent reminder of the occasionally dubious credibility of the Agency’s pronouncements invoking national security and the state-secrets privilege.

As part of this article Conroy provides a complete timeline and background on Horn’s case, involved CIA culprits, and of course, the mind-boggling and nauseating conclusions and implications. I highly encourage you to read Bill Conroy’s A+ piece. Afterwards we will have plenty to discuss over here, and plenty to show those who write off CIA’s long past and still present involvement in global Narco-Trafficking as fiction or conspiracy!

.

.

November 16, 2009

AUNG SAN SUU KYI, OMAR KHADR, AND BARACK OBAMA: A DREADFUL TALE OF WHAT AMERICA HAS BECOME

John Chuckman

During his trip to Asia, President Obama called for the government of Burma to release Aung San Suu Kyi, a noted dissident who has spent years under house arrest.

It made headlines, a fact which tells us more about the role of media as an outlet for government press releases than in communicating genuine news.  

Obama’s was hardly a brave or innovative act when you consider that it is a universally-condemned military junta keeping Aung San Suu Kyi penned up.

But when you appreciate the full context of Obama’s call, you may agree with me that it was more a cowardly act than anything else.

A year ago, after eight years of mind-numbing stupidity, countless public lies and bloody war crimes, Obama’s arrival on the American political scene thrilled the world. His intelligence, his grace, and his sense of decency were striking. His like as an American politician, quite apart from his race, had not been seen in the lifetime of many.

But the hopes raised by Obama, like so many flickering little candles in a fierce wind, already are largely extinguished. This polished, educated, liberal-minded and decent man, after only one year in office, has been overwhelmed by America’s military-industrial complex, a terrible machine which grinds on night and day, chewing people in its gears, no matter who is elected ostensibly to be in charge of it.

Much as I resent Burma’s treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi, it shines as genuinely humane compared to America’s treatment of Omar Khadr.

The key facts in the case of this young man, a prisoner at Guantanamo, are easily told.

Omar Khadr was born to a fundamentalist Muslim, highly political family whose father knew and died fighting for Osama bin Laden. In an era whose ruling myths are a clash of civilizations and a war on terror, Omar would seem to have been doomed from birth.

Under intense pressure from his family, fifteen-year old Omar went to fight in Afghanistan when America invaded it. In doing that, he was doing nothing that tens of thousands of Americans hadn’t done, both as idealists for causes and as soldiers of fortune in countless wars from the Spanish Civil War to the Cuban Revolution or the turmoil of the Congo.

Omar’s experience reminded me a little of American Ron Kovic’s Born on the Fourth of July, a story where the need for maternal approval helped drive his destructive participation in America’s Vietnam holocaust (three million Vietnamese slaughtered, many hideously with napalm, and the legacy of soil saturated with Agent Orange and littered with millions of landmines more than justifies that term).

The American claim against Omar is that he shot an American soldier, a medic no less, a fact seemingly almost designed to increase his infamy.

The story, as I heard it in an interview a few years ago with an American soldier, a friend of the dead medic’s, was that after a small firefight, Omar hid himself, then leapt up, heartlessly killing the medic whose only interest was the wounded. Omar was then captured and eventually sent to Guantanamo.

Even were that story true, and it is not, there would still be no excuse for sending a fifteen-year old child to Guantanamo. That act violated all international conventions on the treatment of child soldiers, but then almost everything America has done over the last eight years has violated international conventions, international laws, common decency, and the spirit of its own Bill of Rights.

For years, Omar, like hundreds of inmates at Guantanamo, was held incommunicado: he was allowed no contact with his family, he was allowed no visits from the International Red Cross (again in contravention to international conventions) and he was allowed no legal counsel. Omar was allowed no rights of any kind: being kept shackled in a secret prison ninety miles offshore was considered adequate to efface the entire spirit and meaning of America’s own rights and laws.

We now know that the soldiers who captured Omar, in fact, shot him twice in the back as the frightened boy tried to run. Despite life-threatening wounds and his young age, Omar was consigned to years of imprisonment and torture at Guantanamo. Indeed, his worst torturer, a soldier with a reputation at Guantanamo as perhaps its most vicious interrogator, deliberately contrived his sessions with Omar so that the boy had to sit in a position which pulled at his slowly-healing and painful wounds.

We also know now, evidence having just been published in Canadian newspapers, that Omar could not possibly have killed the medic: Omar was photographed hiding under a pile of rubble as the soldiers passed.

So who killed the medic? One perhaps should recall the case of Pat Tillman, an American football player killed by his own forces in Afghanistan, a case at first covered up the military, but even now full of unanswered questions.

And why did the Americans shoot Omar, twice, in the back?  One simply cannot avoid the suggestion that the American soldiers involved acted with cowardice and savagery.

Some readers may object that American soldiers are incapable of such behaviour, but let’s go back to that time in Afghanistan, reviewing some things we now know as facts, and think about what they suggest about the ethos prevailing there when a fifteen-year old was shot in the back and sent to be tortured.

America’s carpet bombing in Afghanistan was destructive beyond anything Americans have ever been told. Just as was the case in the First Gulf War when uncounted tens of thousands of poor Iraqi recruits were bulldozed into the desert after having been literally pulped into tailing ponds of human bits and fluids by B-52s, the true horror of what massive bombing did in Afghanistan was understandably not well advertised..

The public has been led to believe that, compared to the horrors inflicted upon Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan was almost bloodless. But I learned recently from an expert journalist – an American no less – with many years of experience in that country that a great deal of blood was shed. In Kabul alone, fifty to sixty thousand Afghans died in America’s brutal bombing and artillery cover for its Northern Alliance proxy army, itself a gang of thugs many of whom are not one wit more ethical or civilized than the Taleban.

We knew too, those who cared to search, of the brutal tactics of American special forces in the mountains after the initial “victory”: tales of heavily-armed goons marching into remote towns, throwing stun grenades, breaking down the doors of homes, holding women and children at gunpoint while their male family members were marched away with no explanation. The men were often kept for considerable periods to be “questioned.”

At the least suspicion, air strikes were called in, and in dozens and dozens of cases, those air strikes wiped out whole families or groups of villagers who had done nothing to oppose Americans. They were the victims, thousands of them, of young Americans filled with irrational resentments over 9/11, anxious to prove how good they were with their high-tech killing machines, and let loose on someone else’s country.

And we knew, at least again those who cared to search, the story of America’s hideous treatment of Taleban prisoners in the early days of occupation, of Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld’s Nazi-like public demand that all prisoners should be killed or walled away forever. One of America’s ghastly allies of the Northern Alliance, General Dostum, took Rumsfeld in deadly earnest: he had his men round up three thousand prisoners, seal them in vans and drive them out onto the desert to suffocate in the heat. The bodies were then buried in shallow mass graves. All this was watched by American soldiers who somehow failed to act the way Jimmy Stewart did in war movies. Instead they picked their noses or smoked cigarettes as they gawked.

We also knew of the terrible tales of boys being raped while American troops never lifted a finger to help them. In a strict fundamentalist country like Afghanistan, where young women are kept guarded and almost hidden, the sexual behaviour of men often takes on the character of that common in prisons everywhere: that is, young and vulnerable men are brutally raped and often treated as “bitches” by older, tougher prisoners.

Only recently, I heard the horrible stories of a Canadian soldier with post traumatic stress who told of seeing a boy with blood running down his legs as two Afghan allies raped him. The soldier could do nothing and was told later only to buck it up. He told too of a translator, a hired Afghan, gleefully relating to him about the way he liked to use a knife on boys he raped.

We all saw the ghastly pictures from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Only now we know far uglier pictures and recordings have been suppressed, images and sounds of young Iraqis being raped and sodomized by American soldiers at the prison.

Those facts give us some realistic sense of the atmosphere in Afghanistan when American soldiers shot Omar in the back, falsely accused him of killing a medic, and sent a fifteen-year old boy off to years of torture.    

Omar remains a prisoner in Guantanamo, although the torture mercifully has stopped, but it was announced only a couple of days ago that he would be among those who would stand trial in New York.

Trial for what? For trumped-up charges of murder? Trial for acts in war? Trial for being an abused child soldier? Trial under American laws which never applied to Afghanistan? A trial where every scrap of government evidence is tainted with years of torture and human-rights abuse? Where the government doing the trying itself has acted against countless laws and treaties in invading and occupying two countries?

If there were one breath of decency left in America’s establishment, Omar and the other abused prisoners would all be released and allowed to live the rest of their lives in peace. They are no threat to anyone, most did nothing deserving imprisonment, and those who may have committed something we would regard as a crime have been viciously punished already.

Only days ago, Obama’s White House Counsel Greg Craig was let go. Craig, an old friend of the President’s, had promised to make his administration the most transparent in history. Craig was the main force behind the Obama’s promise to close Guantanamo in one year.

Well, there is no sign Guantanamo is to be closed any time soon, and the policy’s chief advocate is gone. But more importantly, when we speak of American torture chambers, it is easy to forget that Guantanamo is only the most publicized of many. What horrors go on at places like America’s secret base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean or at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, or in a number of other locations, all part of the CIA’s vast international torture gulag, is anybody’s guess.

Obama has not uttered a whimper about the CIA’s euphemistically-named extreme rendition, a practice whereby thousands of people have been kidnapped off streets and sent bound to some of the world’s hell-holes for months of torture. Afterwards, having been discovered innocent of anything, they find themselves dumped in some obscure place like Bosnia without so much as an apology for their treatment.

Obama told people repeatedly during his campaign that American forces in Iraq would be withdrawn promptly, saying “you can bank on it,” and people believed him because Obama did not vote in the Senate for that illegal war, but most of America’s soldiers remain there still.

Obama appointed a commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who has a background swirling with suggestions of black operations and dirty business, and now that ghastly man has said he needs forty-thousand more troops.     

American Predator drones, guided by buzz-cut, faceless men with computer screens in locked rooms in America, now frequently invade Pakistan’s airspace. One can just imagine them hooting and pumping their arms like young men playing a computer game when one of their terrible Hellfire missiles strikes its target, the home of someone not legally charged with anything, killing everyone who happens to be nearby.

No, I only wish the ugly stain on America’s flag was keeping a dissident under house arrest.

.

News items about Obama calling Burmese junta to release Aung San Suu Kyi will be seperately available on this link - http://saveburma.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/obama-urges-myanmar-to-free-democracy-leader-suu-kyi/

.

Obama urges Myanmar to free democracy leader Suu Kyi

November 15, 2009 — Updated 1309 GMT (2109 HKT)

Aung San Suu Kyi, the iconic face of democracy in Myanmar, was placed under house arrest in 1989.

Singapore (CNN) — President Obama on Sunday called for the release of Myanmar democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners.

“There are clear steps that must be taken: the unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi; an end to conflicts with minority groups; and a genuine dialogue between the government, the democratic opposition and minority groups,” according to Obama, who said the regime should work to ensure its people’s needs are met.

He spoke during a meeting with ASEAN-10 leaders that included the prime minister of Myanmar. Obama is the first U.S. president to take part in a summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations economic alliance. The formal meeting was held Sunday.

That 10-nation alliance includes Myanmar, which the United States and other nations have accused of human rights abuses.

U.S. officials were careful to avoid any perception that Obama’s presence at the ASEAN meeting would amount to a bilateral discussion with the prime minister of Myanmar.

After years of refusing direct talks with Myanmar, also known as Burma, the United States has indicated a possible re-engagement with the military regime it considers repressive for cracking down on political opposition, including the National League for Democracy.

The league is led by Suu Kyi, a detained Nobel Peace Prize winner.

“The statement we’re trying to make here is that we’re not going to let the Burmese tail wag the ASEAN dog,” said Jeffrey Bader, the National Security Council’s senior director for East Asian affairs. “We’re going to meet with all 10, and we’re not going to punish the other nine simply because Burma is in the room, but this is not a bilateral.”

Obama reiterated his stance in a speech Saturday in Tokyo, Japan.

“Despite years of good intentions, neither sanctions by the United States nor engagement by others succeeded in improving the lives of the Burmese people,” he said.

“So we are now communicating directly with the leadership to make it clear that existing sanctions will remain until there are concrete steps toward democratic reform.”

Suu Kyi, the iconic face of democracy in Myanmar, was placed under house arrest in 1989.

The next year, the National League for Democracy won more than 80 percent of the legislative seats in the first free elections in the country in nearly 30 years.

But Myanmar’s military junta disqualified Suu Kyi from serving because of her house arrest and annulled the election results.

Her supporters say Suu Kyi’s latest arrest — ostensibly over an American visiting her home without government permission — is meant to keep her confined so she cannot participate in the general elections that the junta has scheduled for next year.

She has been under house arrest for 13 of the past 19 years, and is rarely allowed visitors, except for her doctor.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/15/obama.suu.kyi/

More news

AFP

Obama’s Asia Tour: Focus on Japan and China Kashmir Watch - Abdul Ruff

Obama appeals for Aung San Suu Kyi’s freedom Radio Australia News -

Obama pledges better ties with Myanmar PRESS TV -

Free Aung San Suu Kyi, Obama tells Burma PM guardian.co.uk -

Obama calls for Suu Kyi’s release United Press International -

Obama appeals for Aung San Suu Kyi’s freedom Radio Australia News -

Obama pledges better ties with Myanmar PRESS TV - ‎

Barack Obama tells Burma to free Aung San Suu Kyi Telegraph.co.uk -

Obama tells Myanmar to free Suu Kyi Aljazeera.net -

Obama Urges Burma To Free Opposition Leader Sky News

US eases push for Suu Kyi’s release The Age - Vijay Joshi -

Obama urges release of Burma democracy champion Suu Kyi ChattahBox -

Release Suu Kyi, Obama tells Burmese PM InTheNews.co.uk - Matthew Champion -

Obama Tells Thein Sein Release Suu Kyi The Irrawaddy News Magazine - Simon Roughneen -

Obama meets Myanmar PM, calls for Suu Kyi’s release Reuters Canada - Patricia Zengerle, Bill Tarrant -

Obama asks Myanmar to release Suu Kyi Republica -

US calls for release of Aung San Suu Kyi Radio Netherlands - ‎

Obama tells Burma to free Suu Kyi Independent - ‎

Obama meets Myanmar PM, calls for Suu Kyi’s release Reuters - Patricia Zengerle, Bill Tarrant -

Obama tells Myanmar junta to free Suu Kyi eTaiwan News -

Obama asks Myanmar to free Aung San Suu Kyi Inquirer.net - Christian V. Esguerra -

Obama tells Myanmar junta to free Suu Kyi The Associated Press - Vijay Joshi

Release Suu Kyi, Obama tells Burma junta ABC Online -

Obama calls for Suu Kyi’s release at ASEAN summit Moneycontrol.com -

Obama calls for Suu Kyi’s release RTE.ie -

In Meeting with Southeast Asian Nations, President Obama Calls for Myanmar to Free Aung San Suu Kyi ABC News -

Obama calls for release of Aung San Suu Kyi at meeting with Burma premier guardian.co.uk -

Obama meets with Myanmar’s Thein Sein in Singapore Kyrgyzstan News -

Obama tells Myanmar junta to free Suu Kyi Columbus Ledger-Enquirer - Vijay Joshi -

Release Suu Kyi, Obama tells Myanmar PM AFP -

Obama urges Burma to free Suu Kyi BBC News -

Obama tells Myanmar PM: Release Suu Kyi Sydney Morning Herald -

Obama Calls For Suu Kyi’s Release At ASEAN Summit New York Times - Nopporn Wong-Anan, Dean Yates -

Politico 44

Obama condemns Burmese junta

By POLITICO STAFF | 11/15/09 8:38 AM

President Obama meets with South East Asian leaders in Singapore. AP

Obama condemned the Burma junta and called for the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, at a meeting with other South East Asian leaders in Singapore.

POTUS made no public contact with Myanmar Prime Minister Thein Sein at the meeting in Singapore’s Shangri-la hotel with the 10 leaders of the Association of South East Asian Nations. It was the first ASEAN meeting to include an American president.

The leaders filed into the ballroom in order at just before 4 pm and took to the stage for the traditional cross hands ASEAN handshake.

POTUS stood in the middle of the line, pool reports. To his left was Thai PM. Abhisit Vejjajiva and to his right was Singapore PM Lee Hsieng Loong.

To Lee’s right was Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in a lime green suit. Next to Arroyo was Myanmar PM Thein Sein in a business suit was three places away from POTUS, who did not shake hands with him or speak to him.

The 11 leaders then moved to a circular table. POTUS was flanked by Arroyo to his right and Singapore to his left. Myanmar four places away.

Secretary Clinton was sitting behind POTUS next to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.

Lee welcomed leaders to “the first ASEAN-US leaders meeting.”

Senior officials offered more detail in a briefing following the meeting. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that POTUS “reiterated exactly what he said yesterday in Tokyo about the release of Aung San Suu Kyi by Burma. So he brought that up directly with that government.”

Ben Rhodes, the NSA adviser for strategic communications, added that “in his intervention,” Obama “used exactly the same language that he used in the speech. So privately he said the exact same thing that he said publicly in enumerating the steps that the government of Burma must take: freeing all political prisoners, freeing Aung San Suu Kyi, ending the violence against minority groups, and moving into a dialogue with democratic movements there.”

Obama made a point of mentioning Suu Kyi — who been imprisoned for 14 of the last 20 years by the military regime — by name is his speech in Tokyo.

A joint statement issued by ASEAN after the meeting included a paragraph on Myanmar urging that the elections it intends to hold in 2010 are “conducted in a free, fair, inclusive and transparent manner.” It did not call for the release of political prisoners.

Rhodes pointed out that since Myanmar is a member of the group,that was as far as the statement could reasonably be expected to go, but said that Obama speaking out so directly at the meeting carried much more weight that a staement could have.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1109/on_burma_24426f78-d646-4c8f-a6b9-855f53d09b84.html

U.S. President Barack Obama is 2 days into a 10 day trip to Asia. President Obama held a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, whitehouse.org. Full coverage of the trip, whitehouse.gov.

President Obama will meet with leaders of member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), including the Prime Minister of Myanmar, in Singapore today. Obama called for Myanmar to release its political prisoners, including pro-democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi, Reuters.

President Obama will be in China from November 15-18 where he will hold a town hall meeting with Chinese students. Chinese news agency Xinhua has been soliciting questions for President Obama online, Xinhua.

NASA confirms that it has found a significant quantity of water on the moon, CNN.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has called for a world hunger strike today to highlight the issue, FAO. Follow on Twitter: @faonews. Sign a petition to stop world hunger, 1 billion hungry.

.

Obama talks about human rights in Asia, skips Tibet

High Court accepts Suu Kyi’s revision case application

SOUTH-EAST ASIA: Much at Stake for Thai Premier over Cambodia Row

The moral/ethical tour of Cucalorus

Editorial – Bangkok Post

After many years of what seemed an intractable situation in Burma, the events of recent weeks have given some reason for hope, thanks mostly to the United State’s new policy of engagement with the isolated regime.

Yesterday it was reported that US President Barack Obama ”expects” the leaders of all Asean nations _including Burma _ to attend the Asean-US Enhanced Partnership meeting next Sunday, Nov 15, a meeting Mr Obama is also expected to attend. Speculation is rampant that there will be a face-to-face meeting between the US president and senior Burmese general(s), something that would have seemed the stuff of fiction not long ago.

This comes on the heels of a visit to Burma by two high-level US officials last week; US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Scot Marciel.

In what was called an ”exploratory mission”, the two met with Burmese Prime Minister Gen Thein Sein in the capital of Naypyidaw, and also leader of the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) Aung San Suu Kyi, who was allowed a brief respite from house arrest.

It is also hopeful that the US officials were able to meet with representatives of ethnic minority groups in Rangoon.

No one expects an easy or clear resolution to the troubles in Burma, they have fermented too long. One of the trickiest issues will be to determine how past grievances and human rights abuses can be addressed to everyone’s satisfaction. But that is far down the road and can be dealt with if and when the reconciliation ever comes to such a point.

More immediately there is the issue of the general election scheduled for some time in 2010. A semblance of transparency is an absolute necessity in order for most of the rest of the world to seriously pursue normalisation of relations with Burma.

In this regard there are some important parallels between Burma and Iran, a country which during the US presidential elections Barack Obama said he would conduct talks with. After winning the election he did begin a policy of engagement with Iran. It seems clear that this was the correct policy, as his predecessor George Bush’s policy of hostile non-engagement had done nothing to dissuade Iran from giving up its nuclear programme and caused unnecessary global tensions. The new policy did help to create a better atmosphere; a military conflict began to look less likely and a negotiated agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme was also looking more hopeful.

Rapprochement between the US and Iran was dealt a hard blow with the highly disputed election in June this year, however, with the widespread charges of electoral fraud in incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s victory. It became even more difficult when very harsh measures were used to break up the large protests in support of opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, although Mr Obama has said he is still willing to engage in negotiations.

So again, the election in Burma is the key to the country’s future and its emergence from isolation. As things stand now the junta has given little assurance that the election process will be transparent, or that it will allow the participation of the NLD.

”I think an election without Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD, it would be very hard to see that as credible,” said Mr Marciel on Thursday during a meeting with diplomats, academics and journalists at Chulalongkorn University.

He also said that the representatives from ethnic groups the officials met with ”expressed their concerns about [the] elections and how the government will treat them militarily”.

Clearly it is up to the leaders of the US and other concerned countries to use whatever leverage and powers of persuasion at their disposal to influence the election. An obvious possibility would be a promise to overturn sanctions in return for reasonably free and fair elections. The removal of sanctions by the US Congress is a long shot, but it has become more plausible after reports that Ms Suu Kyi has concluded they are adversely affecting the lives of ordinary Burmese.

Unfortunately, the possibility of free and fair elections still seems more of a long shot.

Published: 8/11/2009

Original source -
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/27046/election-is-the-key-to-reconciliation-in-burma

.