President Obama stood tall against Myanmar and they blinked

YOKOHAMA, Japan — President Barack Obama says he welcomes Myanmar's decision to release democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, calling her a "hero of mine."

But Obama says that whether Suu Kyi is imprisoned in her own home or in her country doesn't change the fact that she and the movement she represents has been "systematically silenced" and denied the opportunity to engage in political processes that could change the country.

He called on Myanmar to release all of its political prisoners.

read: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hucSPii23U5cjIWVAS-3YAdvDr8g?docId=5121434


Oppose the Myanmar junta, Obama tells India on Monday

Obama told Indian MPs in a stirring speech that democracies could not remain silent over what was happening in Myanmar.

'When peaceful democratic movements are suppressed -- as in Burma -- then the democracies of the world cannot remain silent. For it is unacceptable to gun down peaceful protesters and incarcerate political prisoners decade after decade.

'It is unacceptable to hold the aspirations of an entire people hostage to the greed and paranoia of a bankrupt regime . . . It is unacceptable to steal an election, as the regime in Burma has done for all the world to see.'

Obama added: 'Faced with such gross violations of human rights, it is the responsibility of the international community -- especially leaders like the US and India -- to condemn it . . . If I can be frank, in international fora India has often avoided these issues. But speaking up for those, who cannot do for themselves, is not interfering in the affairs of other countries... It is staying true to our democratic principles.'

read: http://sify.com/news/oppose-the-myanmar-junta-obama-tells-india-news-national-klitaygbjdd.html


. . . five days after President Obama speaks publicly, Myanmar releases democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

I just read about this today. Good to hear.

:thumbsup:

Sid

over the past few years. The emails that got out during the uprising of the Monks, begged the world not to forget them. It gave them hope when the world for a short time, was focused on their plight. But the medi moved on.

I am so glad that the president has spoken out strongly against the oppression and for that brave woman who was the people's choice and was denied her right to rule as she was elected to do.

Good for the President for this.

. . . to have Democrats (collectively) focus on his accomplishments and achievements when they occur; and not as just some distraction from the rest of the political noise.

It's good he talked about her, but they did not release her because he brought it up. From before his speech in India:

White House: US to support UN inquiry in Myanmar | Raw Story
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/white-house-support-inquiry-myanmar/

Myanmar assails US State Department reports | ABITSU - All Burma
http://www.abitsu.org/?p=4153

2009 Human Rights Report: Burma - March 11, 2010
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/135987.htm



Wed Sep 23, 2009

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States will pursue deeper engagement with Myanmar's military rulers to try to spur democratic reform but will not ease sanctions for now, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday.

While acknowledging economic sanctions had failed to bring about change in Myanmar, Clinton said Washington had concluded in a policy review it had to maintain them while enhancing its dialogue with the isolated Southeast Asian nation.

"Any debate that pits sanctions against engagement creates a false choice. Going forward, we'll need to employ both of these tools," she said in remarks prepared for delivery to a group of nations seeking to promote change in the country.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58N0LL20090924

Something good happens in the world, and people run to give Obama credit?

She was not released because of anything Obama did. You think their leaders give a rat's ass about anything Obama says???

especially the Mariyinsky Park Scenic Overlook.

In my dreams, I am going to tour Ukraine on a bicycle.

. . . or you wouldn't make such an uninformed observation. Myanmar may well be resisting, but as I tried to summarize above, the Obama administration has been pressing the country and its junta from the beginning of the administration.

I really don't expect some folks to give this president any credit for any effort they make, so I'm not surprised when I hear criticisms from those who don't actually follow what they do (outside of what the media tells them) which are loath to acknowledge this administration's efforts and results.

and pointed out that her release was quite a coup for Obama.

bullshit.

I think it's revealing that the President's critics can attribute everything that goes wrong to the President's lack of effort, but can't find a word of praise when something he's actually worked at produces results. It's transparently dishonest.


Neither free nor fair: Obama calls on Burma to free Suu Kyi

President Barack Obama has called for the release of Democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, criticising the first Elections in Burma for 20 years as neither free nor fair.

"We renew our calls for the authorities to free Aung San Suu Kyi and all other Political Prisoners immediately and unconditionally," Obama said in a statement released in Mumbai on Sunday during his state visit to India.

"The US will continue to implement a strategy of pressure and engagement in accordance with conditions on the ground in Burma and the actions of the Burmese authorities."

read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/neither-free-nor-fair-obama-calls-on-burma-to-free-suu-kyi-20101108-17j86.html

and assuming all the credit belong to the US, and no-one else. The UN, the EU and various other countries all condemned her sentence. Obama kept the same sanctions on Burma that were in place at the end of Bush's terms. He's one of several leaders on this, not some superman who's achieved something single-handed.

Is it your own intention to deny the WH credit that's prompting you to make this argument?

The sanctions were largely ineffective against the regime because they were able to sidestep them with assistance from neighboring countries who we were unable to influence. Moreover, the Bush-era Congress had failed to include Chevron in their list of sanctions. Natural gas provided the bulk of the regime's revenue, so the sanctions really hurt the Burmese people more than it served to cripple the regime.

It was pointed out to me that there really isn't, and hasn't been for decades, any government structure there other than the military. The thinking lately had been that there wasn't going to be any shift in the defensive attitude the junta was taking in regard to their rule over Burma and that there could be some progress in negotiations with the generals while keeping the sanctions originated in the UN in effect. Indeed, Aung San Suu Kyi has already called openly for talks with the regime, saying that dialog was key to the 'reconciliation' that she envisions. She has also already spoken hopefully of the prospect of a lessening of some of the hurtful sanctions.

The Obama administration did indeed renew the sanctions, but SOS Clinton actually changed the direction of the U.S. approach by calling for and pursuing 'dialogue' with the military rulers while keeping the pressure on.

"Any debate that pits sanctions against engagement creates a false choice" she said in 2009. "Going forward, we'll need to employ both of these tools," she said.

As I wrote above, the release of Aung San Suu Kyi did not occur in a vacuum of indifference from President Obama, and I fail to see why you insist on discounting the primary influence of the United States, in this case, playing an instrumental role in pressuring the regime and encouraging the rest of the world to support the democratic process there with our own high-level support -- all of this with President Obama actively pursuing a solution there.

It makes no sense at all to deny that the U.S. has been engaged and instrumental in any positive outcome in Burma.

You are the one who failed to mention anyone other than Obama or Clinton; I mentioned the UN, EU and other international pressure too. You are claiming the US was 'instrumental', but so far, you've not actually shown any evidence for that (you know, something like the Burmese junta saying "the closer engagement of the US has persuaded us that we must make a gesture"; anything that actually points to the US being 'instrumental'). And the fact remains that Suu Kyi's house arrest sentence was going to end this weekend anyway; and you still haven't addressed that, instead repeating his speech in India as if that changed something.

The US is part of 'the international community'; it even has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. If you didn't intend to imply that all the credit belongs to Obama's administration alone, then why complain when I say "It's good he talked about her", and "He's one of several leaders on this"?

Which country do you believe was more instrumental to developments there? China?

I give up. You obviously don't want to give this administration credit and I think it's just . . . I don't know. To each their own.

That shows you're making progress.

It follows that the U.S. and this Democratic president should get credit for their efforts. The criticisms that try and discount the years of effort from this administration are baffling . . . except when you consider the animus toward this President that's infected this board. I see that you are being more even-handed, but I still don't know why you feel the need to challenge on this; especially since you aren't really pointing to any other nation or individual who you believe has been more influential in this affair.

'Any'? Do you mean that it's self-evident that the US was leading this? They may well have been following what the Burmese opposition parties were saying.

I challenged the OP because it gave the misleading impression that Obama's speech in India on Monday had something to do with her release. Plainly, it was insignificant - her release had been anticipated for weeks before that. And then I find the tedious American exceptionalism turning up on DU that I'd rather not see - the automatic assumption that the USA is responsible for international successes, without a mention of anyone else. It's not that a nation or individual (outside various Burmese, of course - we know they've done far more than Obama or any national leader) has done more - it's the inaccurate pointing at one speech, followed by "rah, rah, rah, USA is number one!".

because of the modest way that I've described the U.S. role. It's been a matter of diplomacy and sanctions (which the U.S. obviously has led in both areas).

I don't think you effectively counter any posture of 'exceptionalism' in this thread by downplaying and dismissing the dominant role the U.S. plays in most international affairs (the UN), including this effort, recently led by President Obama, to encourage a free and fair democratic process in Burma.

and yet no-one has managed to post any evidence that Obama led the effort. You just assume it. That's why it's 'exceptionalism'. Your 'modest' way of describing the US role has been "USA is number one".

How about a quote from Suu Kyi today?



It's the Burmese people who stood tall, and who will have to in the future.

I think the efforts by the State Dept. speak for themselves. I'm not going to look up and post anything further for you since your mind is made up.

We stand with the Burmese people. That doesn't take anything away from their own efforts, but if they could manage their affairs sufficiently on their own the UN and the U.S. wouldn't have bothered to endeavor to help them.

It was international pressure, not some specific action by Obama.

The public, vocal support and challenge from this U.S. President played no significant role? That's an odd conclusion to make.

:shrug:

Take a look at the defense committee's website.http://www.leonardpeltier.net/theman.htm

A recent story that our "liberal media" kind of skipped over.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=230066 (what a hoot that we have to get news like this from Tehran).


And check out this website fighting to keep the old man behind bars.

http://www.noparolepeltier.com/


Looks like he won't be able to be heard again for parole for a long time. Meanwhile, he is certainly being heard.


Silence, they say, is the voice of complicity.
But silence is impossible.
Silence screams.
Silence is a message,
just as doing nothing is an act.
Let who you are ring out & resonate
in every word & every deed.
Yes, become who you are.
There's no sidestepping your own being
or your own responsibility.
What you do is who you are.
You are your own comeuppance.
You become your own message.
You are the message.

In the Spirit of Crazy Horse

....but it shouldn't matter. the only way he's going to get out is by pardon or commutation.

i'm not optimistic about obama's sense of justice. I mean, he's not prosecuting bushc/cheney, is he?

The evidence that would have exonerated him was quashed. The means by which the "affidavits" were obtained by the FBI were just abhorable and illegal, and the affidavits should have been thrown out.

Meanwhile, Bush has admitted to war crimes, and he walks free. Leonard Peltier is just a poor old Indian now, and Bush, of course, is a white man who got his money the old-fashioned way--he was born into it.

If there is a thing called justice in this country, Obama will pardon Peltier.

If they let him go they would have to admit they were wrong. Something neither Democrats or Republicans are ready to do. Taking responsibility for mistakes is not a strong point of either party.

With the advances in forensic technology they could probably re-open the case and prove he is innocent, once and for all. But there are much more important things to worry about :eyes:

:patriot:

:thumbsup:

what are the business interests here?

Take some time and research the administration's efforts toward Myanmar for yourself. It's not difficult at all - maybe more difficult than smearing them with uninformed criticism.

i think it is you who has the homework to do. the system is corrupt, period. i am merely extrapolating.

I guess, if anything, it would be for a lessening of the sanctions. Not that it mattered much to the wealth of the regime which was enabled by the Bush-era sanctions passed by Congress which excluded Chevron.

AUNG San Suu Kyi has already hinted at her desire for the removal of some of the sanctions which have devastated the Burmese more than they've served to cripple the regime.

Of course, there's corruption in the U.S, system and in Burma, as well. It doesn't necessarily follow, though, that there is something underhanded about this release. Extrapolate what you will, but you should have some facts to point to if you're accusing the President or the administration of some sort of corruption surrounding their engagements with the Burma junta.

...if any trade offs were made to make or nobel prize-winning chess master-in-chief look oh-so-progressive.

based on an historical understanding of u.s. imperialism, i am virtually guaranteed to be correct that something is going on that we cannot see and won't like once we are made privy to.

your dictum of say nothing until the facts are on the table gets us nowhere.

when obama pardons leonard peltier, or in good faith prosecutes the crimes of bush/cheney, he'll gain some credence with me on human rights and justice.

in other words he must clearly distinguish himself from his predecessors or he falls into their category.

Various world entities have chosen to accept or reject the name change. The United Nations, of which Burma (under the name Myanmar) is a member, endorsed the name change five days after its announcement by the junta.<12> However, governments of many countries including Australia, Canada, France,<13> the United Kingdom and the United States<14> still refer to the country as "Burma", with varying levels of recognition of the validity of the name change itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma

. . . to their credit.

While I understand and appreciate the importance of resisting the name change from the junta, I do think that, for purposes of discussion, Myanmar has become almost synonymous with the junta, which is, after all, who we're directing most of our criticism to, not the Burmese population. I really haven't noticed much discipline on your point in the press.

Oh, and, the President does insist on using 'Burma', so you make a really good point to consider when discussing the nation.

thank you, bigtree, for bringing this to our attention. That said, I am still so very disillusioned. A man I respect beyond all, commented to me, he felt Obama won on charisma...period. I may be off topic; however, these are my heartfelt comments.

WTG, MY president...I SO want to see more. I want to see WE, the people, prosper! I want to SEE those bastards that would take us down...TAKEN DOWN!

Will Obama listen? Inquiring minds so very truly want to know!

jenn

caveat: i don't know that my comments were appropriate for this thread; however, i am appreciative of your information.

Burma, the most repressive regime in the world.