Showing posts with label BURMA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BURMA. Show all posts

Monday, August 11, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY'S BURMA PRESS AVAILABILITY AFTER MEETINGS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Press Availability on the Attended Ministerial Meetings

Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Lake Garden Hotel
Naypyitaw, Burma
August 10, 2014


SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. I want to thank President Thein Sein for his government’s warm welcome here during the course of this conference, for his leadership as chair of ASEAN, and for serving as the United States-ASEAN country coordinator.
Burma has made a significant amount of progress over the course of the last years, and when I was last here in 1999, I visited with Aung San Suu Kyi, who was then under house arrest. Today, she sits in parliament, and the people here are openly debating the future direction of this country. The Burmese people have made a very clear statement about their desire to build a democratic, peaceful, and economically vibrant country, and many have struggled and sacrificed in order to reach this stage.

But I do want to emphasize, despite the progress, there is still obviously a lot of work yet to be done, and the leaders that I met with acknowledged that and indicated a willingness and a readiness to continue to do that in order to ensure the full promise of human rights and of justice and of democracy in this country. So yes, there’s work to done – to be done, and we certainly are prepared to work hand in hand with the government in an effort to try to make sure we move continually in the direction that people want.

The government, among other things, still needs to complete the task – the difficult task – of ending the decades-long, multiple array of civil wars involving more than a dozen groups. And they need also to expand the space for civil society, protect the media, address land rights, prevent intercommunal violence, and enshrine into their laws basic freedoms. What is interesting is that some of the freedoms that people enjoy today, because the government has made a decision to permit it, are not exactly yet enshrined in the law themselves, and it is obviously vital that that occur.

The serious crisis in Rakhine State and elsewhere, profound development challenges to raise the country’s standard of living, ethnic and religious violence that still exists, fundamental questions regarding constitutional reform, and of course the role of the military – all of these remain significant challenges of the road ahead.

Next year’s election will absolutely be a benchmark moment for the whole world to be able to asses the direction that Burma is moving in. And it is important – in fact, beyond important – that that election be inclusive, accountable, open, free, fair, accessible to all, that it wind up being a credible election that leads to the peaceful transfer of power in 2016.

I discussed each of these issues directly with the president and the members of his cabinet and the chairmen of key committees and the speaker, and we had a long and – in fact, a long discussion that made us late for everything else the rest of the day. But it was – because it was important and because it was comprehensive that that occurred. Each of the leaders that I met with – the chairmen of committees, the speaker, the president, the members of his cabinet – they indicated that they recognized the job is not complete, they understand the difficulties, and they indicated a willingness to continue to move.

I invited the speaker and his key committee chairmen to come to Washington soon and to spend time with our legislators, with the members of the House and the Senate. And hopefully doing so, which is certainly the conviction that President Obama and I share, is that that kind of exchange can assist them and encourage them as they make decisions about their constitution and the reforms for the country.

One of the things that characterized by conversations with the president and his team was that we were both able to really talk very candidly and very directly about each of these issues. And we talked, I think and I hope, as friends about the full range of possibilities and the challenges facing Myanmar.

Myanmar’s potential is limitless, and it’s blessed by a rich diversity of people and by an abundant source of natural resources. But it’s ultimately up to the leaders to make the right choices in the days, months, and years ahead. If they do and if people in Myanmar can overcome the differences that exist between them, if they can join together in common purpose, then Myanmar can complete the transition to democracy. And the United States will absolutely remain a partner in the effort to help Myanmar be able to do that.

In the last two days, I participated also in five ministerial meetings – the ASEAN-U.S. ministerial, the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum, the Lower Mekong Initiative, and the Friends of the Lower Mekong. All of these meetings underscored the depth and the intensity of the United States engagement with Asia, and they reinforced and strengthened the role of the institutions, which are at the heart of the problem and the heart of the efforts to solve the problems that exist in the Asia Pacific.

In the effort to solve those problems, ASEAN is really a central player. ASEAN is central to regional peace, to stability, to prosperity. And during my meetings with ASEAN foreign ministers, we affirmed our commitment to sustainable economic growth and to regional development. And American companies are already investing responsibility in order to develop jobs and help to create the economic base that could be really transformative for the people of Myanmar.

Ultimately, it is our hope that those investments will produce initiatives, companies, exciting enterprises that can become models for good corporate behavior and improve the standard of living throughout the region. I’m very proud of what our businesses are doing and I look forward to their continued partnership in the effort to help Myanmar develop.

We’re also focused on our shared interest in protecting the environment. We took practical steps to deepen our cooperation with ASEAN on climate change, on – which is a challenge, obviously, that demands elevated urgency and attention from all of us. At the end of the day, some of you may have been there when they rolled out a logo for the meeting that will take place, which China and Malaysia will host, with respect for preparedness for disasters. And as the disasters were listed – the tsunami and the typhoon and one type of disaster after another that comes from the changes of the climate – it became apparent to all that there’s literally trillions of dollars of cost being spent now with greater prospect of that expenditure in the future, where all of it could be impacted by good decisions about energy policy and good decisions to deal with climate change ahead of time.

We also addressed key security issues. There was an extensive discussion on multiple occasions about the South China Sea. I expressed the concerns of many, which are shared, about the rise in tensions that have occurred. But we all underscored the importance of negotiations on a binding code of conduct. And I stressed the importance of everybody clarifying claims under international law and proceeding under the legal process through the law, through arbitration, and also through bilateral relationships in order to try to resolve these issues. And our hope is that the claimants ultimately can agree among themselves and proceed forward.

We did discuss the concept of freezing in place the actions that people choose to take on a purely voluntary basis. And these – this is a way of actually locking into place the very promises that people have already made under the Declarations of Conduct that were made in 2002. And I’m very pleased that there is positive language that came out in the communique issued by ASEAN foreign ministers yesterday as a result of that discussion that embraces this idea of resolving these issues in a thoughtful and peaceful way.

We also discussed North Korea and North Korea’s actions with respect to its nuclear program. These are actions which present a very serious threat to international peace and stability. I reaffirmed the commitment of the United States to the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. China joined in that, others. I think there is a unanimity within this meeting here – with one exception, needless to say, present this afternoon at the regional forum – about the need to adhere to the United Nations Security Council resolutions and to live up to the international standards with respect to nonproliferation.

So on behalf of President Obama and certainly from myself, I want to thank ASEAN for its committed partnership and very much look forward to continuing what has already been a very productive trip here to the region. I will be meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi later today. And I appreciate enormously the efforts of our hosts to have provided for a very constructive and comprehensive discussion over the course of these two days. And we certainly look forward to President Obama’s visit here in November, when the heads of state will meet to pick up where we left off today.

With that, I’d be delighted to open up to any questions.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Two things quickly. On Myanmar, you’ve taken quite a lot of criticism from Congress, including from Democrats, that the Administration has moved too quickly and been too willing to take at face value the assurances from the Burmese leaders that they really were doing all of the things you’ve asked them to do and the things that I gather they’ve tried to show you today that they are doing. In your remarks a moment ago, you invited some Burmese leaders to come to Washington and I take it face its Congressional critics directly. What would you like to see come out of that kind of conversation? And what is your response to the sort of underlying criticism from Congress that you guys have been too eager to get this done quickly?

And then on the South China Sea, you said you were pleased by the language that was enshrined in the ASEAN document, but it doesn’t go quite as far as you all had hoped. China appears to still flatly disagree with the idea that binding international arbitration or the Law of the Sea ought to rule the day here. So where does this all leave you and what’s your next step? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me begin with this issue of whether we’re moving too quickly or not. We are not basing anything that we are doing in Myanmar on the basis of blind trust or some naive sense of what the challenges are. I just listed a long list of challenges, and I went through every single one of those challenges with our hosts in a very, very direct way. We talked about the need to end the civil war and the efforts that could be made to do it; we talked about the treatment of minorities; we talked about Rakhine State; we talked about the challenges of putting into law those things that people are allowed to do today but which might disappear in the future if they’re not put into law; we talked about constitutional reform.

The speaker particularly was enthusiastic about what America has done and the way America has done it and the kinds of things that our Constitution has enshrined and was very anxious to be able to come and interact with members of Congress in order to make some of the choices that they will be making as they go forward.

We talked about ethnic and religious violence, about the need to deal with these 12 or 15 or so groups that have been engaged in civil war. This is hard work, but you just don’t achieve results by the consequence of looking at somebody and ordering them to do it or telling them they either do it or else. This is country; these are the people with a history and with their own culture and with their own beliefs and aspirations and feelings and thoughts. And it is an amazing journey that has already been traveled to get to where we are today.

And there is no question about those things that have to happen to get to where we want to go. But I believe the Administration has acted very thoughtfully. Some of the sanctions have been reduced, not all. Sanctions are now very much focused on members of the junta and on key individuals who may still be representing a challenge to achieving some of these goals. But this is fundamentally a new government, in a new moment, with a possibility for an election next year.

Now is everything hunky-dory? No, not yet, absolutely not. And I think Aung San Suu Kyi, who I will visit with shortly, will be the first to say that, and I’ll be the second right behind her, saying that there are still things that need to be done. But the key is to have an effective manner of trying to achieve those things and to recognize where there may be a legitimate effort if, in fact, it is being exhibited.

And we will continue to work very, very carefully, without jumping ahead of anybody’s rights and without turning a blind eye to anything that violates our notion of fairness and accountability and human rights and the standards by which America always stands. And those will be forefront in all of our discussions, as they were throughout the last two days.

The other piece was on the --

QUESTION: South China Sea and whether this language goes far enough.

SECRETARY KERRY: No, I think the language does go far enough. I think we made the points that we came to make. We weren’t seeking to pass something, per se. We were trying to put something on the table that people could embrace. A number of countries have decided that’s what they’re going to do. It’s a voluntary process. We absolutely laid it out as a voluntary series of potential steps. And I think it has helped to be able to achieve the language that we do have. But by the same token, I think there’s a way to achieve some progress, and I think we’ll see some progress with respect to the South China Sea, based on the conversations that we’ve had here.

MS. PSAKI: The next question is from Aye Thu San of 7Day Daily.

QUESTION: Good evening, sir. So I would like to ask --

SECRETARY KERRY: Can you pull it very close so I can hear you? Thank you.

QUESTION: Yes. Good evening, sir. I would like to ask about the relation in United States foreign policy between Myanmar and United States. So in yesterday meeting with the President Thein Sein said to you United States will be – United States will (inaudible) the democratization process in Myanmar rather than talking about the criticisms. So Myanmar have many --

SECRETARY KERRY: I couldn’t hear that. I’m sorry. Rather than talking about what?

QUESTION: Rather than talking about the criticisms.

SECRETARY KERRY: Criticisms.

QUESTION: Yes, yes. Myanmar have many support from United States in the last three year. But Myanmar have to face conflict, human rights (inaudible) issue according to the Congress letter to you. So I will like to ask, how do you see on the democratization process in Myanmar in the last three year? And what is your comments and views on the United States foreign policy about Myanmar? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me make it clear to everybody – again, I will reiterate, I think I said this in my opening comments – we had a very frank discussion with the president and with his team. And we raised every single issue that exists with respect to this relationship. It was very comprehensive. We talked about human rights; we talked about the law; we talked about democracy and how you move to it; we talked about the election and the need for it to be open and free and fair; we talked about people’s full participation without penalty; we talked about journalists who recently have been arrested. We talked about all of these things and made it very clear that these are important changes that need to take place in the course of the evolution of Myanmar into a full democracy.

Now it doesn’t happen overnight anywhere. It didn’t happen overnight in the United States of America. We started out with a constitution that had slavery written into it before 100 years later it was finally written out of it. It sometimes takes time to manage change. Now that doesn’t allow you to turn a blind eye to things that are critical, and we’re not. You have to call them to account. And I believe we’ve been very clear about that.

Burma is undertaking very important changes right now, and it clearly faces significant challenges that take time to address. There are some people in the public life of Burma who don’t want to see those changes, and there are some people who are very passionate about them and do want to see them. And so that’s why there’s an election. But this relationship right now is not a relationship about Burma meeting U.S. demands every day. It’s about Burma meeting the potential of the country. And that’s what has to happen over the course of these next months, and particularly this next year leading into the election.

So during this visit, I made it very clear that the country needs to do more. Myanmar needs to do more, and we made that very, very clear. And it will not be able to reach its full potential, whether that’s foreign investment coming in or whether it’s the full participation of people in a democracy here in the country – it just won’t do it unless they address the issues that exist right here at home. And I think we made that very, very clear.

So we want to work with the government. We want to work with the people. And we will be very clear, as I have been here today and was in my conversations, about those things where greater progress needs to be made. But we also need to be realistic about what’s achievable at what pace and at what particular moment. We will never stop fighting for the human rights and basic rights of the people of Myanmar, Burma, whatever somebody chooses to call. That’s what we’re fighting for.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: That’s it?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

U.S. FACTSHEET: PROMOTING PEACE IN BURMA

Description:  Map of Burma.  U.S. State Department Image. 
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Promoting Peace in Burma
Fact Sheet
Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations
May 30, 2014

Opportunity

Changes in Burma provide an opening for investment, promoting human rights, and political and economic reform. These opportunities hinge on building an inclusive political system where parties use dialogue, not violence, to address ethnic identity and reconciliation issues. Longstanding conflicts between the central government and ethnic minorities as well as recent flare-ups of communal violence in areas such as Rakhine State threaten a lasting peace. The U.S. government can help break cycles of violence, particularly in high-risk ethnic minority strongholds, to advance national reconciliation and a lasting political solution between the Government of Burma and diverse ethnic and religious groups.

How CSO Works

CSO supports Department of State conflict prevention and crisis response efforts through locally grounded analysis, strategic planning, and operational support for local partners. CSO deploys civilian talent at the subnational level to catalyze local efforts to build civilian security and connect program implementation to policymaking.


ObjectivesCSO in Burma 

In Burma, CSO officers provide conflict and reconciliation expertise to Embassy Rangoon, focusing particularly on Rakhine State, trust-building through humanitarian mine action, and the peace process. In Washington, a CSO team advises the Department of State on Burma’s peace and reconciliation processes as well as on local conflict.

Support efforts to reduce violence and build community relations, especially in Rakhine State.

Build trust between ethnic groups and the government through issues of common concern, including landmines.

Empower civil society to participate more fully in peace-related initiatives.
U.S. Support for Violence Reduction: CSO contributes to U.S. efforts to reduce violence and strengthen community relations.

Increase U.S. Government understanding of ethnic minority groups’ priorities and concerns. CSO helps the Embassy sharpen U.S. understanding of states facing ethnic armed conflict, increase engagement and trust with ethnic nationalities, and demonstrate U.S. support for the vulnerable, particularly in Rakhine State.
Help shape U.S. Government approaches that support Embassy Rangoon’s mission goals. CSO’s conflict analysis, strategic planning, and violence prevention recommendations are incorporated into post’s approaches.

Facilitate donor and diplomatic coordination. CSO helped establish regular donor meetings to coordinate humanitarian mine action and reinforce conflict-sensitive approaches.

Build Trust: The government, army, civil society, and ethnic minorities share a common interest in reducing the number of landmines. CSO supports the Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and Embassy efforts to use mine-risk education and survivor assistance to build trust and support positive interactions between civilians and the military in ethnic states.

Build momentum for mine risk education and survivor assistance as a trust-building tool.

In coordination with the Kayah State government and armed groups, CSO is facilitating small grants to community-based organizations so they can identify and develop landmine-related projects.

In May 2013, CSO convened Burmese Government officials, armed groups, and civil society in Kayah State to build broader community dialogue around mine action.

In May 2013, CSO organized a workshop for journalists to improve the accuracy of conflict coverage and cast mine action as a contributor to national reconciliation.

In an October 2012 speech, the U.S. Ambassador reinforced to mine action organizations and the Government of Burma that humanitarian mine action should be inclusive, conflict-sensitive, and coordinated.

Advance Mine Risk Education and Survivor Assistance. In cooperation with a number of Department of State and USAID offices, including the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, CSO facilitated the obligation of $3 million to build trust and strengthen civil society around mine risk education and survivor assistance.
Empower Civil Society:

Strengthen civil society’s ability to engage in peace-related initiatives. CSO helped organize a “TechCamp” in January 2014 to introduce local civil society, including members of ethnic minority groups, to new technologies that should strengthen their ability to mitigate conflict.

Empower women and marginalized groups. Through roundtables, CSO helped to advance gender equality and disabled people’s rights and inclusion in conflict resolution.

Saturday, February 8, 2014

SHORT- MEDIUM TERM FINANCE OPENED IN BURMA BY EX-IM BANK

FROM:  EXPORT-IMPORT BANK 
Ex-Im Bank Opens for Short-Term and Medium-Term Financing in Burma

Washington, D.C. – The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) announced today that it will open for business in Burma to help finance short-term and medium-term U.S. export sales.

“Today the Export-Import Bank is sending a strong signal that we are committed to strengthening economic ties with Burma as the nation continues its transition,” said Ex-Im Bank Board Chairman and President Fred Hochberg. “After a diligent review, the Bank's Board reached this decision--which will improve trade flows between our two countries and help reintegrate Burma into the global economy. Furthermore, this decision will open an important new market for American exports and support American jobs.”

Ex-Im Bank can now provide export-credit insurance, loan guarantees and direct loans for creditworthy export sales to Burma starting February 6, 2014.  Short-term insurance is available for sovereign transactions with repayment terms of 180 days or less, and up to 360 days for capital goods. Medium-term insurance, loan guarantees and loans are available for sovereign transactions with terms typically up to five years.

The Bank's working capital guarantees, which help U.S. exporters or their suppliers to obtain funds to produce or buy goods or services for export, will be available to support exports to Burma as well.

The Bank is also able to provide long-term support in Burma, provided there are financing arrangements that eliminate or externalize country risks, such as asset-backed financings and structures that earn revenues offshore in a third country.


Friday, December 27, 2013

DOL ANNOUNCES $5 MILLION GRANT TO REDUCE CHILD LABOR IN BURMA

FROM:  U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT 
$5M grant to reduce child labor in Burma awarded by US Labor Department

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of International Labor Affairs today announced the award of a $5 million cooperative agreement to the International Labour Organization to implement a project to reduce child labor in Burma and support the Government of Burma's efforts to comply with international standards.

The project will:
support research and collection of data on the extent and nature of child labor in Burma, build the capacity of national and local organizations to carry out efforts to reduce child labor, implement pilot programs to remove or prevent children from involvement in exploitative labor and raise awareness about child labor in the country.

"This project will develop effective strategies for reducing child labor in Burma," said Deputy Undersecretary of Labor for International Affairs Carol Pier. "It will expand understanding of the extent and nature of the problem and help stakeholders in the country increase efforts to protect children."

The project involves collaboration among key government agencies and ministries at the national, regional and local levels, including the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security. It will also work with workers' organizations, employers' organizations, civil society organizations and teachers.

Since 1995, ILAB projects have rescued approximately 1.7 million children from exploitative child labor. The Labor Department has funded 275 such projects implemented by more than 65 organizations in 93 countries. ILAB currently oversees more than $245 million of active programming to combat the worst forms of child labor.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT COMBATS CHILD LABOR IN BURMA

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

US Department of Labor announces $5 million grant solicitation to combat child labor in Burma

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of International Labor Affairs today announced a $5 million solicitation for cooperative agreement applications to support Burma's efforts to reduce child labor.
The project(s) funded under this solicitation will develop pilot programs to remove or prevent children from exploitative labor and raise awareness in support of Burma's efforts to comply with international standards. Eligible applicants should propose research that yields much-needed credible, comprehensive data on the extent of child labor in Burma. The project will build the capacity of national and local organizations to advocate for a reduction of child labor and improve access to quality education and other relevant services for children and their families.
Applications must be submitted by Oct. 4, 2013, at 5 p.m. EDT electronically or as hard copies to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Procurement Services, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room S-4307, Washington, D.C. 20210, Attention: Brenda White.
All cooperative agreement awards will be made by Dec. 31, 2013. The solicitation for cooperative agreement application (SCA 13-15) is available online at http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/grants/main.htm and http://www.grants.gov.
Congress has appropriated funds for ILAB to support international technical cooperation projects to combat the worst forms of child labor as defined by the International Labor Organization Convention 182. ILAB grants address child labor through the provision of educational services for children and livelihood support for their households. ILAB also supports the collection of reliable data on child labor and helps strengthen the capacity of governments to address child labor in a sustainable way.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

U.S. TOUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS ON UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Credit:  Wikimedia. 
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

U.S. Accomplishments During Its First Term on the UN Human Rights Council
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 12, 2012

The United States is pleased and proud of its reelection to the UN Human Rights Council earlier today. Since joining the Council in 2009, the United States has ardently worked to help the Council realize its full potential. Our efforts to reform the Council from within have resulted in historic and concrete actions against human rights violators around the world. While much work remains to be done at the Council, in particular ending its excessive and unbalanced focus on Israel, with U.S. leadership the Council has spoken up for those who are suffering major human rights violations and are living under the grip of the world’s cruelest regimes. The Council also has taken action to promote accountability for violations and expand human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide. Today’s vote will allow us to further strengthen the Council and build on what we have already accomplished at the Council by working together with our international partners.

As we prepare for another three years of close collaboration with partners from all corners of the globe to address the many human rights challenges remaining before us, we reflect on the Council’s key accomplishments during our first term, including:

Robust Response to Country-Specific Situations:

Syria:
The Human Rights Council has been an active, vocal body in condemning the atrocities in Syria, holding four special sessions and establishing an independent International Commission of Inquiry, as well as a Special Rapporteur to follow up on the work of the Commission of Inquiry once its mandate expires. The Council has adopted eight resolutions on Syria since 2011, all of which the United States co-sponsored, sharply and repeatedly criticizing and illuminating the conduct of the Syrian government.

Libya: Similarly, in 2011 the Council took assertive action to address the dire human rights situation in Libya, establishing a Commission of Inquiry mandated, among other things, to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law in Libya and to make recommendations on accountability measures. With the support of the United States and on the recommendation of the Council, the UN General Assembly took unprecedented action in March 2011 to suspend Libya’s membership rights on the Council helping to catalyze broader UN action to prevent the slaughter of civilians in Libya.

Iran: In 2011, the United States led the Council in adopting a resolution that re-instituted the mandate of a Special Rapporteur on Iran to highlight Iran’s deteriorating human rights situation. Today, the Special Rapporteur is speaking out on behalf of those Iranians who have suffered egregious human rights violations by the Iranian government.

Belarus: In 2012, the United States co-sponsored a resolution at the Council that established a Special Rapporteur to highlight human rights abuses in Belarus. In doing so, the Council re-instituted a mandate that the Council eliminated in 2006, when the United States was not a member.

Sri Lanka: In 2012, the United States led the Council in adopting a resolution on Sri Lanka, which sent a strong signal that Sri Lanka still needs to address outstanding issues of reconciliation and accountability.

Cote d’Ivoire: When the political and human rights environment in Cote d’Ivoire deteriorated in 2011, the Council acted quickly to establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate human rights abuses. The Council later created an Independent Expert on human rights in Cote d’Ivoire, with a mandate to follow up on the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations and assist the Government of Cote d’Ivoire in combating impunity.

Burma: Since joining the Council in 2009, the United States supported the adoption of four resolutions addressing the human rights situation in Burma. The most recent resolution extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights for another year. In doing so, the Council took into account the many recent positive changes in Burma, including the Government of Burma’s stated commitment to democratization and the reconciliation process as well as the Government’s engagement with Aung San Suu Kyi and opposition parties.

Promoting Universal Human Rights:

Advancing the Rights of LGBT Persons:
In June 2011 the Council adopted the first-ever UN resolution on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons. This resolution commissioned a groundbreaking UN report on the human rights abuses that LGBT persons face around the globe, and has opened a broader international discussion on how to best promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons. As a co-sponsor of this resolution, the United States demonstrated its commitment to an active role in ensuring fair treatment and equality for all people.

Promoting Freedom of Assembly and Association: Since 2010, the United States has led a cross-regional core group of countries in successfully presenting two landmark resolutions on the protection and promotion of freedom of assembly and association. The first resolution created the first new special rapporteur focused on fundamental freedoms in 17 years, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. The second resolution underscores the important role that civil society plays in the promotion and protection of human rights.

Highlighting Internet Freedom: In July 2012, the United States co-sponsored a landmark resolution, that underscores that all individuals are entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms online as they are offline, including the freedom of expression, and that all governments must protect those rights regardless of the medium.

Underscoring the Right to Nationality: In 2012 the United States successfully introduced a landmark resolution addressing the right to a nationality, with a specific focus on women and children. The equal right to a nationality for women, including the ability to acquire and retain nationality and confer it on their children, reduces the likelihood that women and children will become stateless and vulnerable to serious harm.

Reinforcing Freedom of Expression in the Context of Religious Intolerance: The United States worked with a wide range of partners, including the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, to secure adoption in 2011 of the "Combating Discrimination and Violence" resolution, also known as resolution 16/18, which calls on states to take a range of positive actions to combat discrimination, violence, and intolerance on the basis of religion or belief without violating the freedom of expression. This resolution marked a sea change in the global dialogue on countering offensive and hateful speech based upon religion or belief.

Monday, October 22, 2012

U.S. DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS INTERVIEWS WITH INDIAN MEDIA

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Interview With Indian Media

Press Conference
William J. Burns
Deputy Secretary
New Delhi,, India
October 19, 2012

I am very happy to be back in New Delhi at the end of a trip that has also taken me to Japan, South Korea, China and Burma. I am also proud to have been able to contribute in a small way over the past five years, through two administrations, first as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and now as Deputy Secretary of State, to the development of an historic partnership between India and the United States. That period has spanned the completion of the civilian nuclear agreement in 2008 as well as the landmark visits of Prime Minister Singh to Washington in 2009 and President Obama to New Delhi and Mumbai in 2010. And today, I am very proud to reemphasize that our strategic partnership with India is of abiding importance to the United States and one in which both our governments continue to make broad and enduring investments.

Since Secretary Clinton hosted Minister Krishna in Washington in June for the third U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, the interaction between our two governments has continued to deepen and expand. Strong support across the political spectrum in the United States, as well as in India, gives us reason for continued optimism about the bilateral relationship in the years ahead.

Bilateral trade, as you know, is flourishing, and is expected to surpass $100 billion this year. We have done a considerable amount to remove impediments to further expansion of our trade relationship, including in high technology and defense trade, but there is more that we can do. Concluding a Bilateral Investment Treaty should be a top priority for both our countries, and would send a positive signal to our business communities.

I look forward to exchanging views today on how we can continue to advance our civil nuclear cooperation, to which we remain committed, and to deepening our defense and counterterrorism cooperation.

We are encouraged by the Indian government’s recent bold steps toward economic reforms. As Treasury Secretary Geithner said, these reforms will foster economic growth, with increased investment, and greater prosperity. Once implemented, we are confident that U.S. investors will respond positively to these measures with concrete, job-creating projects and proposals.

I also look forward to exchanging views today on regional economic cooperation, including with Afghanistan and Pakistan. We welcome the progress the Indian government has made with Pakistan on building trade and investment ties and appreciate the leading role India has played in spurring private sector investment in Afghanistan.

India has an important voice in the Asia-Pacific region, and it is fitting that I conclude a trip to a number of leading Asia-Pacific powers with a stop in Delhi. I look forward to discussing our mutual goals for the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Summit, along with our shared interested in promoting maritime security in the Indo-Pacific region and connectivity between India and Southeast Asia.

We appreciate India’s efforts to urge Iran’s compliance with its international obligations and to resume P5+1 talks on its nuclear program. In our judgment, tough sanctions are necessary to bring Iran back to the negotiating table and to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

I look forward to thanking my Indian colleagues for India’s immediate and strong statement of support following the attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya and for steps the government has taken to ensure the safety and security of our personnel throughout India.

India is a model of democratic governance, tolerance and rule of law, and can play a critical role throughout the Middle East and North Africa, as well as East Asia, to support the strengthening of democratic institutions, civil society, education, and many other fields. We look forward to partnering with India on these important challenges in the months and years to come.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

BURMA: BEYOND VIOLENCE

From:  CIA World Factbook.
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Burma's Rohingya: Beyond the Communal Violence
Remarks
Anne C. Richard
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Open Society Foundation and Refugees International
Washington, DC
October 9, 2012




From:  CIA World Factbook
I was invited by my good friend Michel Gabaudin of Refugees International, and just now introduced by my good friend Mort Halpern of Open Society, to speak about this issue. And I said, "We can do better than that. I’ll come but we should have Kelly Clements speak." Because my Deputy Assistant Secretary Kelly Clements has just been out to the region on a very remarkable trip. In fact, the last two years have been quite remarkable. The trajectory of U.S.-Burma relations over the past two years, since Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest in November 2010, has been an amazing time. Back then, our relationship with Burma was difficult and had many challenges. And while there are still tensions, no one would have thought possible all of the many developments of the past two years.
 
Highlights include Secretary Clinton’s visit to Nay Pyi Taw and Rangoon in early December of last year. In April 2012, the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, won 43 of the 45 vacant seats in the lower house of Parliament, including a seat for The Lady, who now serves as Chair of the Rule of Law Committee. Ambassador Mitchell’s confirmation in June as our first Ambassador in two decades was another recent development, and most recently, Aung San Suu Kyi’s and President Thein Sein’s September visits to the United States. Perhaps the most important development has been indeed the partnership formed between the Burmese President and Aung San Suu Kyi.

Only a couple weeks ago, I was in a meeting at the State Department on the topic of rule of law with Aung San Suu Kyi. And the thought that she could come to the United States and discuss the situation in her country was unfathomable during her many years of imprisonment in her home.

The president and his partners in government have taken many reformist steps over the past year. However, mutual mistrust between the government and ethnic minority groups runs deep and a long road lies ahead. The June 2012 ethnic and sectarian violence in Rakhine State demonstrates the divisiveness in Burma cultivated over many decades, if not centuries. This will need to be overcome if the Burmese are to achieve lasting peace and genuine national reconciliation.

We, in the U.S. Government, are seeking an end to the violence and want the Burmese to establish a serious dialogue on fundamental political issues. Part of our role in the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration is to provide aid to refugees and displaced people. And in fiscal year 2012, we provided almost $24 million to our international organization and non-governmental organization partners to support protection and humanitarian assistance programs for Burmese refugees and asylum seekers residing in neighboring countries and conflict-affected populations inside Burma. And we are looking at future opportunities to support humanitarian efforts inside.

My Bureau has also benefited from increased openness and unprecedented access, with our staff members being able to travel to places that previously had been off limits. I would specifically like to commend office director Dorothy Shea and program officer Hoa Tran for continuing to advance our engagement in Burma and the neighboring countries. In fact, they traveled to Rakhine state last May. And that trip was filled with great hope for progress, which subsequently was tempered by the June violence.

Most recently, as I said, Kelly Clements traveled to the region with three other senior officials; they were all Deputy Assistant Secretaries. So there was one from our Bureau, one from Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, one from the East Asia Pacific Bureau and one from the Bureau that covers Central Asia and South Asia. So it was called the 4 DAS’s trip, for ‘Deputy Assistant Secretary’. And they were joined in the respective countries by the U.S. Ambassador and the USAID Mission director. So this was really an unusual thing for the State Department to be so organized as to get these folks out there and traveling at the same time and talking to the host governments. Kelly is a PRM superstar. She’s super-smart, she’s super-active, whether she’s slicing and dicing refugee aid numbers or wrestling with foreign governments about flows of refugees. And so it was clearly the smart thing to do to get her to talk of her trip firsthand, things that she witnessed and saw, and so without further ado, let me introduce Kelly Clements.

Friday, August 24, 2012

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ADDRESSES SECURITY THREATS AND SANCTIONS

Map:  Syria.   Credit:  U.S. State Department
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
 
Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft
Remarks
Jose W. Fernandez
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
San Francisco, CA
July 25, 2012
Introduction
Good evening. Thank you for the introduction. I’m delighted to be in San Francisco and at the World Affairs Council.

I am here to talk about sanctions. Now, I didn’t come into the State Department to get involved in sanctions. I came to support development, promoting American values, and helping U.S. business to compete abroad and create jobs here. But if Clausewitz wrote that "war is diplomacy carried out by other means," my time at that State Department has taught me that sanctions too are a form of diplomacy. And this is nothing new.

Throughout world history, effective diplomacy and statecraft more often than not, required a nation to use its commercial and economic leverage to achieve political and strategic goals. Within this narrow focus, the use of sanctions to exploit that leverage is virtually as old as diplomacy itself. Indeed one of the earliest recorded uses of economic sanctions was by ancient Athens. Pericles ordered all trade between Athens and Megra banned in retaliation for Megra’s support of Sparta. In more recent decades, sanctions were used against a number of countries, such as South Africa for apartheid and Serbia for its actions during the break-up of Yugoslavia. The fact of the matter is that, while there are many carrots that can be offered to countries – development assistance or increased access to markets – economic sanctions is one of the few sticks…short of war.

For the United States, the sticks we use today have evolved from the historic policies of the 20th century that shut out Castro’s Cuba from the global economy, and halted Iranian Oil in 1979 after the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran. These days, our approach is more calibrated. Instead of imposing only wholesale embargos on all of a nation’s trade, our deeper understanding of the many complex relationships, transactions and interactions that make up a nation’s economy enables us to craft sanctions regimes that can focus on certain sectors and actors, which more effectively achieve our goal while avoiding collateral damage. Those targeted measures are what we call "smart sanctions," and that’s what I would like to talk about: how smart sanctions can be an effective foreign policy tool, and how smart implementation of sanctions promotes American economic prosperity and national security.

We start with the reality that there are many foreign policy priorities that will compete with sanctions: negotiating new trade agreements with Korea and Colombia, managing relationships with strategic allies such as Pakistan and Russia, and supporting the transitions in North Africa. So where do sanctions fit within our priorities?

Smart Sanctions

When we discuss smart sanctions, the first question is: "What is our goal?" What are we trying to achieve? Sanctions are generally invoked for one of three purposes: 1) to change a government’s or private actor’s unacceptable behavior; 2) to constrain such behavior going forward; and/or 3) to expose behavior through censure. The goal is to raise the economic cost of unacceptable behavior and denying the resources that make it possible.

Given these goals, what are our available tools? Well, as we ratchet up pressure, sanctions increase and change. At the most basic level, we withhold U.S. government cooperation, such as by prohibiting development assistance. But, this only gets us so far, because most of the bad actors in this world don’t get a lot of assistance. As we move to a higher level, we look to freeze the assets of individuals and governments and restrict their access to the U.S. market or prevent them from receiving visas. Finally, we might also ban exports or imports from countries for certain activities, as in the case of Iran for refusing to address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program.

An even more aggressive approach involves the use of "secondary sanctions." These measures act against companies in third countries who do business with a U.S.-sanctioned target, thereby indirectly supporting the behavior of the bad actor. Ultimately, making that institution choose between doing business with a rogue country or operating in the United States.

But at the same time that we consider the optimum sanctions for a given objective, an important element for consideration is how to ensure that sanctions are structured to achieve the desired outcome, while minimizing collateral damage to U.S. and other interests.

This unwanted collateral damage includes investments, economic and trade relations that we want to maintain, and protecting innocent citizens in the targeted country. For example, in Iran, the door is still open for the sale of agriculture products and medicine. Approval was given for NGOs working to empower Iranian women, support heart surgery for children, for consultants on a telecom fiber optic ring, for a lawyer’s association providing legal training, and for a media company that filmed an Iranian election. So our smart sanctions are targeted.

Effective diplomatic leadership is also crucial to effective sanctions. Sanctions are more likely to have an impact when many countries participate. The more global leaders are on board in imposing sanctions, the more powerful the message that certain behavior is unacceptable in today’s world.

So, let’s look at a few recent cases – Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya – and review our sanctions policy.

1) Iran

Iran’s destabilizing actions speak for themselves: refusal to address international concerns about its nuclear program; defiance of UN Security Council resolutions; support for terrorism, and efforts to stir regional unrest, all present a grave threat to international peace and security. Iran remains one of our top foreign policy and international security priorities.

Smart sanctions have played a prominent role in the success of the Administration’s dual-track policy of pressure and engagement to compel Tehran to address the concerns of the international community over its nuclear program. In fact, senior Iranian officials, including President Ahmadinejad have acknowledged the negative impact of sanctions. The macroeconomic indicators tell the story: the Iranian rial has lost nearly half of its value in nine months, oil exports and revenues are down significantly, and inflation is rampant throughout the economy.

The Administration’s recent actions on sanctions include:
An Executive Order targeting development of Iran’s upstream oil and gas industry and petrochemical sector. This order expands existing sanctions by authorizing asset freezes on persons who knowingly support Iran’s ability to develop its petroleum and petrochemical sector, which is one of Iran’s primary sources of funding for public projects like uranium enrichment.
President Obama also enacted legislation targeting the Central Bank and Iran’s oil revenues. Section 1245 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) places sanctions on foreign financial institutions for significant transactions related to the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and designated Iranian financial institutions. As a measure of the successful implementation of the legislation, some 20 countries have qualified for banking exceptions under the NDAA because they significantly reduced their purchase of Iranian crude oil.

In addition, the 27-member European Union implemented a full embargo on Iranian crude oil effective July 1.

The possibility of sanctions has persuaded many firms to discontinue their business with Iran - Total, Shell, Statoil (Norway), Edison International (Italy), and many, many others. In fact, an Iranian official recently admitted that sanctions have led, according to their estimates, to a 20-30 percent reduction in sales of Iranian crude oil. This translates into almost $8 billion in lost revenue every quarter.

Our efforts aren’t limited to oil: as a result of U.S. and multilateral sanctions, major shipping lines have ceased servicing Iranian ports. The Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), Iran’s major shipping line, and the National Iranian Tanker Company, Iran’s tanker fleet, have had increasing difficulty in receiving flagging, insurance, and other shipping services from reputable providers. This further decreases Iran’s ability to gain revenue.

As we continue to seek progress on the negotiating front, we will maintain unrelenting pressure on Tehran. We know the pressure we are bringing to bear has been vital to getting Iran to the negotiating table. We all have a stake in resolving the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program through diplomacy if we can, and so we will continue our work with countries around the world to keep pressure on Tehran.

2) Syria

Although Iran sanctions continue to produce results, Syria requires a different approach. Indeed, as the death toll rises above 17,000, the Syria crisis becomes graver every minute. There are food shortages. There is a lack of safe access to adequate medical services. Syrian families are fleeing the country and registering in refugee camps in neighboring countries. It is a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis.

Our goal in Syria is to support a democratic transition that reflects the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. The United States looks to its sanctions toolbox to isolate Asad and deprive him of financial resources that allow him to continue attacking the Syrian people.

Even before the current outbreak of violence in February 2011, the United States had several sanctions programs against Syria as a result of Syrian support for terrorism. More recently, we applied U.S. sanctions through a series of Executive Orders, issued by President Obama, targeting individuals who use information technology to commit human rights abuses, senior officials of the Syrian government, and supporters of the regime such as some Syrian businessmen.

The United States joined with likeminded countries in a multilateral group known as the "Friends of the Syrian People." Through this group, we work with other countries to harmonize implementation of national sanctions regimes and coordinate efforts for implementing a multi-lateral sanctions regime. The work of this group is especially important given some countries have effectively blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for international sanctions.

In the group, we synchronize the individuals and entities targeted by the sanctions, and discuss ways to strengthen sanctions by identifying measures that will impact the Assad regime while permitting legitimate trade to continue to flow.

So far, U.S. and international sanctions have had a significant effect on Assad’s reserves, and are making it difficult for the regime to finance its brutality.

But what happens when sanctions are successful? How quickly do you unwind?

3) Burma

Recent positive developments in Burma, that were unimaginable just last year, led the Administration to implement an innovative approach that eases certain sanctions and incentivizes further political and economic reform. Within the past year, over 500 political prisoners have been released, and the government and several armed ethnic groups (some of whom have been fighting against the government since 1948) have reached preliminary ceasefire agreements. Pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi re-registered her party and stood for office in recent parliamentary by-elections. She, along with 42 other candidates from her party, was elected to Parliament in early April.

The Burmese parliament has also taken several steps towards reform, including passing new legislation to protect the freedom of assembly and the right of workers to form labor unions. The government is also taking steps to bring increased transparency to the national budget.

Burma became subject to U.S. sanctions in the 1990s. Those sanctions were not universally emulated by many of our traditional allies. But, our sanctions are credited with helping to persuade Burma’s leadership to reconsider its long-term interests and move toward democratic reform. And now the country is becoming a case study in how difficult it is to be "smart" about easing sanctions. Our sanctions were initially developed before we gave serious consideration to the structure of sanctions and they were not built with an exit strategy in mind. That’s made it more difficult to address the developments of the last year, and it’s been a valuable lesson for crafting future sanctions regimes.

With regard to Burma, even though many of our international partners moved to fully suspend their sanctions, we opted for a different route: We are easing our sanctions, but in a calibrated manner. Even after our most recent easing, we remain vigilant about the protection of human rights, corruption, and the role of the military in the Burmese economy. Our approach aims to support democratic reform while aiding in the development of an economic and business environment that provides benefits to all of Burma’s people.

In forming our easing policy, we were also mindful of the desire for American companies to contribute to improved human rights, worker rights, environmental protection, and transparency in Burma, including the need to improve the transparency of the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), Burma’s state-owned oil company. We sought to do so while working for a broad easing across sectors. And we did something that hadn’t been done before in a license context: we integrated novel reporting requirements into the new investment license. These requirements, which will have a public transparency component, cover issues such as due diligence in protecting human rights and worker rights, and transparency in land acquisition and payments to the Burmese government, including state-owned enterprises. In addition, companies working with MOGE must report their investment within 60 days. The purpose of the public reporting is to promote greater transparency and encourage civil society to partner with our companies toward responsible investment. We want American companies to take advantage of the new opportunities. We think that by allowing them to invest in Burma provides an opportunity to share American values, transparency, and model corporate governance in the country.

Another key element of this policy can be found in the general license. While permitting new investment and financial services, we do not authorize new investment with the Burmese Ministry of Defense, state or non-state armed groups (which includes the military), or entities owned by them. U.S. persons are also still prohibited from dealing with blocked persons, including listed Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs), as well as any entities 50 percent or more owned by an SDN. It’s also important to keep in mind that the core authorities underlying our sanctions remain in place. They weren’t terminated, just suspended. This means that back sliding by the Burmese government, or other potential spoilers, on democracy, human rights, etc., can be countered with the appropriate measures.

We took the suspension route because while we are encouraged by the positive steps that President Thein Sein and his government have taken toward a more civilian led and democratic government, concerns still remain. These concerns include the continued detention of hundreds of political prisoners, ongoing conflict in ethnic areas, and Burma’s military relationship with North Korea. Going forward, we hope our calibrated approach results in increased democratic values and economic opportunities, and diminish human rights abuses. But, again, we have also maintained flexibility to further ease, or re-impose, restrictions as necessary. So stay tuned on Burma. We are.

So, let’s look at one of our recent successes?

4) Libya

After suffering from more than four decades of erratic and abusive rule by Muammar Qadhafi, the people of Libya rose up on early 2011. As the Libyan grassroots opposition grew in strength, Qadhafi recognized that his grip on power was threatened. He responded by unleashing the Libyan military on his own citizens.

Working closely with our allies around the world, the United States moved rapidly to support the Libyan people. Our efforts included launching a major economic sanctions program specifically geared to target Qadhafi and his cronies. The program sought to deprive Qadhafi of the resources necessary to sustain his assault, to preserve Libya’s wealth for its people, and to signal to Qadhafi and his allies that they were isolated and their days were numbered. These efforts were on both domestic and multilateral fronts.

Domestically, the U.S. government reached out to U.S. financial institutions to identify assets controlled by the Libyan government, Qadhafi, his family, and their cronies, in anticipation of a new sanctions program, and here we have a pleasant surprise: freezing Libyan assets had a far greater impact than first expected. For example, just one financial institution held assets of over $29 billion; another held almost $500 million in a single portfolio. Freezing these assets substantially constrained Qadhafi’s campaign.

But we do not act alone: just as the United States reacted with unprecedented speed, so too did the international community. The day after President Obama signed the Executive Order to freeze over $30 billion in Libyan assets, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions targeting the individuals most responsible for the violence. As the conflict intensified, the Security Council expanded its approach, imposing further sanctions on key financial and economic institutions, such as the Libyan Central Bank, the National Oil Corporation, and a number of Libyan sovereign wealth funds.

Unilateral and multilateral sanctions, reinforced with intense diplomatic and military efforts, hastened the demise of the Qadhafi regime. Targeted sanctions appeared to motivate Libyan leaders to defect, like the Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa. Broad private sector support in implementing sanctions removed the resources Qadhafi needed to supply his military and pay his mercenaries, and safeguarded the wealth of the Libyan people from Qadhafi and his cronies. Ultimately, this allowed Libya’s people to courageously liberate themselves and begin a new, democratic era. Our goal then became to lead a rapid transition to ease sanctions and help Libya re-open for business.

Last April, I traveled with representatives from twenty U. S. companies to Tripoli. We followed up on U.S. commitments to deepen economic and commercial relations with Libya in the aftermath of Qadhafi. While there, I was met with overwhelming goodwill for the U.S. and appreciation for U.S. leadership in the international operation to protect Libyan civilians against Qadhafi’s regime, and in following through with ensuring the new Libya was on a path to rebound.

Conclusion

Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya remind us there is no one-size-fits-all sanctions strategy. Sanctions tools have to be flexible enough to adapt to rapidly changing conditions. From each application of sanctions, we learn a new lesson. What we learned from unwinding the Libya sanctions, we applied to Burma, and will help us as events unfold in Syria.

We’ve seen success in Libya, changes in Burma, and acknowledgement of an impact in Iran. While the results may take months or years to be apparent, we know economic sanctions work. They can be a powerful tool in diplomacy – a stick whose use we are constantly evaluating and working to improve, and to keep smart.

Thank you.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON CONCERNED ABOUT ETHNIC/SECTARIAN VIOLENCE IN BURMA


Photo:  Recent Trip, Secretary Clinton with Burmese Ethnic Minority Representatives.  Credit:  U.S. State Department.

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

Violence in Burma's Rakhine State

Press Statement
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 11, 2012
The United States continues to be deeply concerned about reports of ongoing ethnic and sectarian violence in western Burma’s Rakhine State and urges all parties to exercise restraint and immediately halt all attacks. The Burmese Government has announced a State of Emergency and curfews in Rakhine State, but reports of violence continue.

We join others in the international community and call on authorities to work with local leaders—together with Muslim, Buddhist, and ethnic representatives, including Rohingya—to halt the on-going violence, begin a dialogue toward a peaceful resolution, and ensure an expeditious and transparent investigation into these incidents that respects due process and the rule of law.

The United States has welcomed Burma’s recent reform efforts and the important steps President Thein Sein, Aung San Suu Kyi, and other leaders inside and outside of government have taken. The situation in Rakhine State underscores the critical need for mutual respect among all ethnic and religious groups and for serious efforts to achieve national reconciliation in Burma. We urge the people of Burma to work together toward a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic country that respects the rights of all its diverse peoples.

Monday, May 21, 2012

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON TALKS TOUGH REGARDING BURMA



Photo:  Burma,  Secretary of State Clinton with Aung San Suu Kyi.  Credit:  File Photo By U.S. State Department. 
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Readout of Secretary Clinton's Call with Aung San Suu Kyi
Media NoteOffice of the SpokespersonWashington, DC
May 21, 2012
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Aung San Suu Kyi last night to review developments in Burma and to discuss the recent U.S. decision regarding sanctions. They talked about the need for specific steps to promote responsible, transparent investment, empower reformers, and target abusers. They agreed that the important progress of the past several months remains fragile and that the international community needs to help protect against backsliding. In this regard, the Secretary assured Aung San Suu Kyi that the United States is keeping its sanctions authorities in place as an insurance policy. Finally, they also discussed the urgent need for progress in resolving the ethnic conflicts and ending human rights abuses in the ethnic areas. They agreed to remain in close touch.


Sunday, May 20, 2012

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON BURMA


Photo:  Oil Wells, Burma.  Credit:  Wikimedia 
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing on Burma
Special Briefing Senior Administration Officials
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
May 17, 2012
MODERATOR: Good afternoon and thanks, everyone, for joining us. As you know, some new measures were announced today in support of Burma’s ongoing democratic reform efforts. And here to talk to us a little bit about what these new actions mean, we have two senior Administration officials. For your own information, they are [names withheld]. Just so you know the ground rules is that they will be referred to as senior Administration officials, and that this call is on background.

So with that out of the way, I’d like to introduce [Senior Administration Official One] to say a few words, and then we’ll open it up to your questions. Go ahead, [Senior Administration Official One].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Okay. Thank you, [Moderator]. And good afternoon everybody, and thank you for joining.
As you heard from the Secretary this afternoon, we came to a major decision on the future of our policy approach to Burma. I think it’s important, though, as you look at this that you understand the context and the details of what we are doing. It is what I would call a substantial refinement and recalibration of our approach to Burma policy, and it is done in response to a pattern of reform that we have seen, that we continue to be encouraged by. But at the same time, we have no illusions about the continuing challenges inside the country and the continuing issues of core concern to us, as the Secretary also outlined today in her statement.

The decision we came to and the announcement we made, we have put much careful thought into, about how to prudently respond and accommodate our policy to the evolving environment on the ground while at the same time staying true to our longstanding principled approach to promoting reform in Burma.

And I would say there are a few elements here that we need to spotlight. First, the approach here, in essence, is to take the bluntness out of the sanctions that have been there to date. What we are doing is easing on society at large and carefully looking to target what we call the spoilers, the bad actors within the system. In a very carefully considered process in coming weeks, we are going to sharpen, refine the tools we have at our disposal to update the specially designated entities list, the SDN list, to ensure that we are working in and consistent with reform and in partnership with a country in reform, and we are not contributing to a system that we have had concerns – deep concerns – about to date. And that’s going to be a very, very carefully considered process, and we will be working on that in coming weeks and such.

Now secondly, as the Secretary outlined, we are – we believe our companies are really the best models for best practices around the world. And in fact, that gives us an opportunity to lead in a way that is consistent with this partnership and reform mantra that we have. We expect and we are very confident that they can model the behavior we are seeking inside the country, that the people of the country are seeking for themselves, which is transparency, accountability, equity, benefit to the citizens and not simply to the elites and the other, as we would call them, bad actors in the country. And this model behavior, I think, is going to be very, very important going forward, and we will be also, I think, talking a bit more about that in coming weeks and working with companies to act accordingly.

And third, I think it’s very important that folks understand that we will continue to listen to voices, particularly inside the country, but also in our NGO community, in Congress, with whom we’ve had a very deep and productive partnership on this. There are diverse voices with diverse opinions about the way forward, and we were pleased by some of the statements – many statements we’ve seen, bipartisan statements coming out from Capitol Hill today in support of what we’re looking to do, the calibrated approach. And we will continue to consult closely with them and all others who have a deep concern about the future of Burma going forward.

MODERATOR: Great. Well, thank you very much. And now, with that, we’ll turn it over to your questions. Operator?

OPERATOR: Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone. Please un-mute your phone and record your name and affiliation clearly when prompted. To withdraw your question, press *2. Once again, to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone phone and record your name and affiliation.

Our first question comes from Josh Rogin with Foreign Policy. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thanks very much for taking the time to do the call, and thank you for your service. Can you talk in more detail about what changes you’re making to the sanctions? How did you choose which changes to make? Which changes will affect the oil sector in particular? And what accountability measures will you have in place to measure whether or not these new provisions or changes are being instituted in the way that you want? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Right. Thank you for the question. I want to make sure it’s clear we are not looking at this in terms of sectors. This is countrywide, again, with the notion of targeting, as well carefully targeting bad actors, so it is not based on any particular sector – oil, gas, or otherwise. So we are easing – and some people call it suspending – the restrictions on financial services and investment, new investment, broadly across all the different sectors.

The – we will hold folks accountable and in terms of – and we’re going to look at various mechanisms going forward for ensuring that there is oversight, that there is transparency, and through transparency, accountability for the activities or our companies and those who engage in Burma going forward.

MODERATOR: Great. Thank you. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Paul Eckert with Reuters News Agency. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. [Senior Administration Official One’s position withheld.] And thanks for doing this call. I’ve noted that the NGO groups are not entirely positive about this development. I know you talk to them, but one of their concerns is that even though you are pointedly maintaining sanctions on the military elements when it comes to investment, that there’s not anything to stop them from still being the enforcers and conducting warfare on the ethnic areas where a lot of these resource – investment projects might be set up; in other words, that a lot of the pressure that’s happening on – the pressure on the ethnic groups is driven by trade, right now China trade but could also – that future foreign investors could step in in that role. Is there ways you can put a check on that? In other words, the cronies of the militaries are eligible for investment projects and for financial transactions and they rely on the military behind the scenes?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We are taking a very close look at that. We understand the challenges, and the Secretary laid those out, about the activities on the ground that can create complications for the reform effort. And in fact, we’ll look to ensure that if there are those types of activities, we have an SDN list that will be regularly updated – it’s not simply a one-time thing – that we will continue to refine. We will need, obviously, very good evidence of this type of activity. And if there are people being pushed off their land, if there’s all kinds of activities that clearly run afoul of our values in human rights, that we will ensure that our companies are not enabled to benefit from that.

And in fact, we’re now going to look to local communities, engagement with them, with local NGOs, with international NGOs to get us good information, the best information they can. I think there’s more information we can get as the country starts to open up and as more people go into the country to get greater fidelity and insight into these types of activities. And we will do everything possible, and I think we can be successful in ensuring that there are no benefits to these people through this new policy.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Ready for the next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from William Wan with The Washington Post. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hey, thanks for doing this. My key question is just why there aren’t any kind of codified regulations on companies. From what the Secretary was saying, it sounded like it was just – that they were encouraging good corporate governance, that kind of thing, but there wasn’t anything written down that would regulate that.

The other one is, just last month we were doing one of these backgrounders, and it seemed at that point, you guys were looking at very specific targeting sectors as a way to do this, and you guys named jade, oil, some of these things that are very tied closely with the military, as sectors you would avoid. I was wondering what changed in terms of the thinking, and why you guys ended up going down this road.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you for the question. On the good corporate governance standards – to outline – she outlined some of them, actually, in her statement – we are going to be very specific about the types of things we’re looking for. And as I said, we will have a mechanism set up to ensure there is some transparency and oversight, to ensure that this is not just exhorting folks and then leaving it, but that we are, again, working with the people of Burma who are asking for this.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been quite consistent in asking for more transparency by corporations and the contracting and the use of funds from those contracting, who folks are talking to and how it’s benefitting local communities. And we are going to be quite – we’re going to outline these things as we see them and have very close consultation, discussion with companies as they go in, those who are interested, and again, try to ensure that they model the behavior and are acting consistent with American values as I think they do in many places around the world. So we haven’t outlined them in full today, but we will be talking. This is not the end of the conversation; this is the beginning of the conversation on that particular point, and we’re going to continue to harp on this over time to ensure that we are doing this right.

On the issue of sectors in specific, it was asked during the previous backgrounder about sectors, and off the cuff, we would list various sectors that raised questions and such or – and I – we still – there are still questions, I think, about mining and timber and oil and gas. I mean, they’re legitimate questions. I think we can get at them effectively through the method that we are, which is to, again, target the entities, the individuals, and the activities rather than do it simply by sector. So it’s just that I think the last time, we were at the start of the process and we’ve been doing some very, very careful consideration, and we’re very confident this is the best way to go in that effort.

MODERATOR: Very good. Next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Jill Dougherty with CNN. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes. Hi there. I just wanted to get into the bad actors part again, just more specifically. Are these individuals who are defined by their actions or their positions? And will there be a publicly available list of the ones that have – American companies cannot do business with? And also, did you consult with Aung San Suu Kyi on any of the specifics about this? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Can I ask maybe [agency withheld] to take a first stab on that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: There is already authority, both statutory and by Executive Order, for the Executive Branch to target problematic actors in Burma – not only human rights abusers, but other figures. So we think we have the authority to address the kind of concerns that were just discussed. And the usual way for this to be promulgated is through [agency withheld] specially designated nationals list.
As to the particular bad actors, I think I would refer that question back to [agency withheld].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, there will be a public document, and we are looking at actions and behavior. What we want to do is incentivize or disincentivize the bad behaviors and incentivize constructive behavior. And obviously that sounds easier than it will be in practice, but there are ways that we target folks and we demonstrate, as we have in the past, and I think it has worked in the past with some – with individuals that you and your family and others are not going to get any benefit from the United States or others and try to lead other countries as well the best we can by saying these are folks that are not consistent with reform, that we can potentially create a positive environment inside the country. So it’s really based on actions and behavior as much as anything about positions, but we will be working on those sort of criteria or those tools going forward.

Consultation with Aung San Suu Kyi on this – we have general conversations with her about everything, and we do want to consult with a wide range of actors and people inside the country and get more information about who’s who, on who is considered reformist and has – is trying to do the right thing in our view, and those who are not, who are moving against the tide and are getting in the way of reform and are regressive. So we will be consulting with a wide range of people in that regard going forward.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. I think we have time for just one more question, Operator.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Matthew Pennington. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah, hello, and thanks for doing this. On the corporate standards, I’m still not sort of clear whether these standards would be legally binding under U.S. law. And on the SDN list, will – that’s going to be renewed now – how long do you think that process will take? And do you think the Myanmar Oil & Gas Enterprise would be a company that U.S. companies could deal with?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Does [agency withheld] want to take the issue of the process, the SDN process?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: There’s a process underway to consider the new landscape within Burma, the progress we’ve seen and the actors and activities that still cause concern. So it’s the usual process of sifting through a lot of information, using our best judgment, see how to use our tools to preserve the good things that have happened over the course of the past few months. I couldn’t make any kind of comment on any particular person or types of persons or actors that we would focus on.

QUESTION: How long would that process take, do you think, to renew the list?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: The (inaudible) is reviewed as matter of course every year, and that is being renewed as a matter of course to keep in place all the statutory authorities that are used to enforce the current Burma sanctions. The SDN list is ongoing; it’s organic. We add people, we subtract people, on an ongoing basis. How long any particular set of designations would take, I can’t tell you except to say that this is obviously a priority as we work forward and try to balance the need for the general licenses with the understanding that we have to be careful and target those who would impede the process we’d all like to see.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the issue of a binding CSR, it will not be legally binding. But we will, as I say, put mechanisms in place that will ideally be – have oversight functions to ensure that there’s transparency about what’s going on, that no one can do anything in the shadows, and that there will be therefore the ability for folks to see and that these – that companies know that their practices will be viewed negatively. And we will find ways to ensure that they’re uncomfortable – made uncomfortable. And I’m sure so will be NGO community and the people of Burma should they find their practices contrary to reform efforts inside the country.

And I know our companies are quite aware of this. And I think companies should be – also note that even though we are moving today on easing the restrictions, it is not a very welcoming environment right now for investment. They need to understand very well the context in which they are operating. It is a very complex context; it is a very fraught context. The human rights situation, the corruption situation, the legal environment, regulatory environment, very, very rudimentary, still a lot of problems inside the country. And they need to be extraordinarily careful as they move in.

And this also goes with the SDN process, because if they move in swiftly and we find they’re working actors that are on the SDN list, they will be held accountable for that. They will need to ensure they are not working with the wrong people. So we will work closely with them. And they, I am sure, will be in touch with us. And we will try to be as clear as possible, making things as public as possible. And I know that’s what companies care most about. They want clarity. What are the rules? What do they need to be aware of? And what should they be doing? What do we expect? And I have great confidence in our corporations to be partners in the effort of what we call principled engagement in Burma going forward.

On the issue of the MOGE, again, we have a process for looking at all the different entities, individuals and such, and that process will be ongoing. So I think it’s premature to talk about any specific item or entity.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: And thank you. And thanks to both of our interlocutors today for taking time out, as well as to all of you who joined us on this call. That’s all we have time for, so have a great afternoon and evening. Bye-bye.

Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed