DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Politics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 16193--------------------------------------------------
Obama and Clinton
DIR By: Kerry
Date: September 12, 2017, 8:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it possible to discuss the current disastrous humanitarian
crisis in Myanmar without discussing the roles played by
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?
Apparently it is since almost no one mentions them.
Let's go back to 2007.
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar–United_States_relations
Since September 27, 2007, the U.S. Department of Treasury
designated 25 senior Burmese government officials as subject to
an asset block under Executive Order 13310. On October 19, 2007,
President George W. Bush announced a new Executive Order (E.O.
13448) which expands the authority to block assets to
individuals who are responsible for human rights abuses and
public corruption, as well as those who provide material and
financial support to the regime.
In addition, since May 1997, the U.S. Government has prohibited
new investment by U.S. persons or entities. A number of U.S.
companies exited the Burma market even prior to the imposition
of sanctions due to a worsening business climate and mounting
criticism from human rights groups, consumers, and shareholders.
The United States has also imposed countermeasures on Burma due
to its inadequate measures to eliminate money laundering.
Due to its particularly severe violations of religious freedom,
the United States has designated Burma a Country of Particular
Concern (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act.
Burma is also designated a Tier 3 Country in the Trafficking in
Persons Report for its use of forced labour, and is subject to
additional sanctions as a result. The political relationship
between the United States and Burma worsened after the 1988
military coup and violent suppression of pro-democracy
demonstrations. Subsequent repression, including the brutal
crackdown on peaceful protestors in September 2007, further
strained the relationship.
The United States downgraded its level of representation in
Burma from Ambassador to Chargé d'Affaires after the
government's crackdown on the democratic opposition in 1988 and
its failure to honour the results of the 1990 parliamentary
election.
The new constitution of 2008 was rotten to the core,
guaranteeing the military control over the legislature. Aung
San Suu Kyi's success at the polls could not be carried over
into putting together a government that actually governed since
the military could also veto anything it didn't like and also
because the military effectively controlled various departments
of the government.
Why did the US government accept this situation where the
miltary was not under the control of a democratically elected
government but remained a law unto itself? Why did President
Obama pull the rug out from under Suu Kyi by removing the
sanctions on the military?
September 16, 2016
HTML http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-37375829
One hundred and eleven individuals and companies are on the
soon-to-be-scrapped blacklist.
They are some of Myanmar's dodgiest characters. Among them, men
who gave the orders to fire on demonstrators and imprison
activists and opposition leaders, including Ms Suu Kyi.
There are businesses that helped procure weapons and others that
were dubiously awarded juicy contracts to build, among many
things, Myanmar's empty capital, Naypyitaw.
In the upmarket bars of Yangon, also known as Rangoon, the
generals and their families will be toasting President Obama.
Their crony businesses can now freely compete for US investment
with cleaner, more ethical, companies.
For their part, American companies coming to Myanmar now have
greater choice of partners and much fewer restrictions.
It will be easier for them to make money. So how is Ms Suu Kyi
explaining it?
In Washington, she said: "We think that the time has now come to
remove all the sanctions that hurt us economically, because our
country is in a position to open up to those who are interested
in taking part in our economic enterprises."
So no real justification of the change to her position - perhaps
she just feels it is time to move on.
Did she have a real choice? What made her change her mind like
that?
he US decision to lift all of its remaining economic sanctions
on Myanmar, also known as Burma, has surprised many.
To understand the shock, let me first present three key facts.
First, US President Barack Obama could not have taken this
decision without Aung San Suu Kyi's approval. She is just too
influential.
Secondly, Ms Suu Kyi has long defended sanctions as a way to
keep pressure on the powerful Burmese military.
Thirdly, despite Ms Suu Kyi's rise to power, the Burmese army
has shown little sign of stepping back from political life or
allowing the country's undemocratic constitution to be changed.
The US had begun easing the sanctions earlier.
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar–United_States_relations
On Thursday, May 17, 2012, the White House Press Office
announced that President Barack Obama had nominated Derek
Mitchell to the U.S. Senate for confirmation to serve as U.S.
Ambassador to Burma. After being confirmed by the U.S. Senate
in late June, Derek Mitchell, the first U.S ambassador to
Myanmar in 22 years formally assumed his job on July 11, 2012 by
presenting his credentials to President Thein Sein at the
presidential mansion in the capital Naypyitaw.
In July 2012 the United States formally eased sanctions on
Burma. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced
plans in the spring of 2012 for a “targeted easing” of sanctions
to allow American dollars to enter the country, but companies
could not move ahead until the sanctions were formally
suspended. President Obama ordered in July 2012 the U.S.
Treasury Department to issue two licenses, one giving special
permission for investment in Burma and the other allowing
financial services. Although plans to lift investment
restrictions were announced in May 2012, the change awaited what
administration officials said were detailed reporting
requirements on U.S. companies doing business in Burma, along
with creating mechanisms to prevent U.S. economic ties to the
powerful Burmese military and individuals and companies involved
in human rights abuses. President Obama also issued an
executive order expanding existing sanctions against individuals
who violate human rights to include those who threaten Burma’s
political restructuring process.
The United States will not allow investment in military entities
owned by Myanmar’s armed forces or its Ministry of Defense.
It also bolstered its ability to place sanctions on “those who
undermine the reform process, engage in human rights abuses,
contribute to ethnic conflict or participate in military trade
with North Korea.” The United States will continue to block
businesses or individuals from making transactions with any
“specially designated nationals” or businesses that they control
— allowing Washington, for example, to stop money from flowing
to groups disrupting the reform process. President Obama also
created a new power for the government to impose “blocking
sanctions” on any individual threatening peace in Myanmar.
Businesses with more than $500,000 in investment in the country
will need to file an annual report with the State Department,
with details on workers’ rights, land acquisitions and any
payments of more than $10,000 to government entities, including
Myanmar’s state-owned enterprises. American companies and people
will be allowed to invest in the state-owned Myanma Oil and Gas
Enterprise, but any investors will need to notify the State
Department within 60 days. This was criticized by Human Rights
Groups. “The new United States government policy allowing
business activity in Burma’s controversial oil sector with
reporting requirements will not adequately prevent new
investments from fueling abuses and undermining reform,” New
York-based watchdog Human Rights Watch said in a statement. “By
allowing deals with Burma’s state-owned oil company, the U.S.
looks like it caved to industry pressure and undercut Aung San
Suu Kyi and others in Burma who are promoting government
accountability,” HRW’s Business and Human Rights Director Arvind
Ganesan said.
In September 2016, Aung San Suu Kyi as State Counsellor of
Myanmar visited United States and which has set a mile stone for
the relationship between United States and Myanmar issuing a
joint statement in which President Obama is lifting the
Executive Order-based framework of the Myanmar sanctions while
restoring Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) trade benefits
to Myanmar.
So how long did it take after the US removed all those sanctions
before the military began its current campaign against the
Rohingyas? It is true that Rohingays had been attacking the
police earlier, as early as August. The real trouble started
however with attacks in October.
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Rakhine_State_clashes_(2016–present)
According to Myanmar state reports, on 9 October, hundreds of
unidentified insurgents attacked three Burmese border posts
along Myanmar's border with Bangladesh. According to government
officials in the majority Rohingya border town of Maungdaw, the
attackers brandished knives, machetes and homemade slingshots
that fired metal bolts. Several dozen firearms and boxes of
ammunition were looted by the attackers from the border posts.
The attack resulted in the deaths of nine border officers. Four
Burmese soldiers were killed on the third day of fighting.
Government officials in Rakhine State initially blamed the
Rohingya Solidarity Organisation (RSO), an Islamist insurgent
group mainly active in the 1980s and 1990s, for the attacks. A
group calling itself Harakah al-Yaqin (Faith Movement) later
claimed responsibility.
The government's response was disproportionate. Whole villages
have been burned. There are all kinds of refugees. I maintain
the military and the police in Myanmar would have been more
moderate if they had wanted sanctions removed.
Why did Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration twist Suu
Kyi's arm first of all to accept the lousy arrangement set forth
in the lousy constitution and then later desert her, leaving her
to her own devices by removing all the sanctions?
We know how Obama tried to undercut the Chinese at every turn.
I can only think Obama did it fearing Myanmar's ties to China
might become stronger if the sanctions were left in place.
We can also be fairly sure that the current oppression of the
Rohingyas will feed more radical Islamic terrorism if the UN and
the world at large twiddles its thumbs. Malaysia is right:
HTML http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/12/malaysia-warns-rohingya-crisis-could-lead-isil-attacks-burma/
Southeast Asia could “pay the price” of Islamic State supporters
seeking to exploit the persecution of the Rohingya Muslim
minority, Malaysia’s defence minister has warned.
Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin cautioned that Isil, who have
been seeking to establish a bigger foothold in the region, could
use the current crisis to recruit members of the Rohingya
community who were left “vulnerable and without a choice.”
- - -
Malaysia is already on edge after hundreds of Isil-affiliated
miilitants invaded the southern city of Marawi in the
Philippines, a regional neighbour. The two countries have
pledged with nearby Indonesia to step up sea patrols to search
for extremists.
According to Malaysian think-tank Iman Research, Malaysian
militants had already been recruiting Rohingya affected by the
last mass exodus of the minority in October, and dispatching
them to the Philippines for training.
In January, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak told the
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation that violence against the
Rohingya had fuelled an outflow of refugees that could
destabilise the region, warning that Isil would infiltrate the
group if the violence did not stop.
#Post#: 16197--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama and Clinton
DIR By: paralambano
Date: September 13, 2017, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry -
I'm just guessing that the US did not and might not want a weak
democracy with an iffy military to have another part of the
world thrown into chaos like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya when
they could have a strong military to keep the extremist factions
down. That might be better for business.
para . . . .
#Post#: 16199--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama and Clinton
DIR By: Kerry
Date: September 13, 2017, 3:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: paralambano link ---
>
> Kerry -
>
> I'm just guessing that the US did not and might not want a
weak democracy with an iffy military to have another part of the
world thrown into chaos like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya when
they could have a strong military to keep the extremist factions
down. That might be better for business.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I think the situation in Myanmar is different from those
countries which are predominantly Muslim.
Myanmar had a strong military; all they needed to do was to keep
it strong while making it answerable either to the President or
to their Parliament. Effectively today, they don't have a real
democracy. They had elected officials who lack power. Both
Obama and Clinton appeared over-eager to portray the country as
a real-win for their efforts. They wanted to bask in the glow
of success before anything real was accomplished.
The left-leaning Mother Jones ran an article
HTML http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/hillary-clinton-burma-myanmar-general-election/<br
/>in October 2016 titled, "No, Hillary. You Did Not Bring
Democracy to Burma."
Clinton was the first US secretary of state to visit Burma
(Myanmar) since before a military dictatorship came to power
there in 1962. Earlier in 2011, the repressive ruling junta had
surprised the world by allowing a quasi-civilian government and
parliament to take the reins. The United States cautiously
announced its support.
But Clinton wanted to push things further. Rather than isolating
Burma with sweeping sanctions, as the international community
had done in the past, she encouraged the Obama administration to
offer the new Burmese government concessions like development
assistance in exchange for a commitment to improve human rights.
Four years later, as she makes her bid for the White House,
Clinton is pointing to Burma’s political transition as a prime
example of her foreign policy leadership.
I thought then Myanmar had been one of her failures, and I
continue to think so.
During her opening statement at October’s Benghazi hearing,
Clinton steered her audience to consider her success in Burma:
“I worked with the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell,
to open up Burma, now Myanmar, to find democratic change,” she
asserted. In her 2014 memoir, Hard Choices, she devoted an
entire chapter to this endeavor: “While the Arab Spring was
losing its luster in the Middle East, Burma was giving the world
new hope that it is indeed possible to transition peacefully
from dictatorship to democracy,” she wrote. Progress in Burma,
she noted, was making the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia
look like a success, and affirming “the unique role the United
States can and should play in the world as a champion of dignity
and democracy.” It was an example, she wrote, of “America at our
best.”
But was it? Though Burma is preparing for a historic general
election on November 8—one that’s expected to be the country’s
most credible vote in decades—a closer look at its political
situation shows the government there remains far from
democratic.
Not enough attention was paid to make sure progress kept being
made.
Fast-forward a couple of years, and the results are less rosy.
By 2014, the Burmese government was backsliding on
reforms—including by cracking down on the press and political
activists. As of mid-October this year, 97 political prisoners
were behind bars (compared with about 25 political prisoners in
early 2014), according to Bo Kyi, who leads the Assistance
Association for Political Prisoners, a Burmese advocacy group.
Another 471 political activists are awaiting trial, he says.
“The hope that the government would put an end to human rights
violations and impunity was wishful thinking,” he told Mother
Jones.
Meanwhile, though the military in October signed a multilateral
ceasefire with some ethnic rebel groups, including the Karen
National Union, it has continued to wage bloody wars against
others. In the northern part of the country, more than 100,000
civilians remain displaced from their homes amid ongoing
fighting. Elsewhere, the Buddhist-majority government has failed
to protect Muslims from violent Buddhist mobs: In western Burma,
some 140,000 Rohingya Muslims have been locked up in squalid
camps after their homes were burned down by attackers in 2012.
Many of them are dying without access to medicine or doctors.
We did not hear Hillary or Obama talking too about these things.
They wanted photo-ops. Hillary wanted to portray Myanmar as
one of her successes in her bid to become President. John
Podesta, who later played an important role in her campaign,
also had a role with getting her favorable PR about Myanmar.
She will have help playing up Burma’s successes in Washington.
In March, the Podesta Group, one of DC’s most powerful lobbying
firms, inked an $840,000 deal to promote Burma’s interests in
the United States. As Burmese media have noted, John Podesta,
who co-founded the Podesta Group with his brother, is perhaps
not so coincidentally the campaign chair for Clinton’s
presidential run. The Clinton campaign did not respond to
requests for comment about the deal.
This isn’t the first time Burma’s government has teamed up with
Western PR firms. In the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton
first placed sanctions on the junta, Burma reached out to
several other US PR firms—Bain and Associates, Jefferson
Waterman International, and DCI Associates—for help with its
image, according to Aung Zaw, editor-in-chief of the
Rangoon-based Irrawaddy magazine (where I worked before joining
Mother Jones). The current deal with Podesta will help paint
Burma in a better light on Capitol Hill, which could be
beneficial for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid.
If we see radical Islam as the major threat in the area, then
one top priority would have been keeping the the Rohingyas
pacified. Surely the police and military needed to act if
there was violence; and moderate Hohingyas would not object to
moderate and reasonable needed to keep the peace. The
oppressive measures taken flamed the fires of radicalism.
What we see today is the country still being run by the military
with Aung San Suu Kyi as a mere figurehead. That's working out
rather well for the military now since she's taking the brunt of
world criticism. We should realize she was never in a position
to do what she probably wanted and what we should have wanted.
The US has continued its cooperation with Myanmar's military as
they got worse and worse and was planning to expand it! I'm
not sure anyone has a reasonable answer. John McCain is close,
I think, to my views.
September 12, 2017
HTML http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-mccain-to-punish-myanmar-in-defense-bill/article/2634199
McCain authored the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization
Act bill setting spending for defense and other U.S. national
security budgets. Senate lawmakers are scheduled to vote on the
bill this week.
"I can no longer support expanding military-to-military
cooperation given the worsening humanitarian crisis and human
rights crackdown against the Rohingya people, and will seek to
remove this language when the Senate begins debating the NDAA,"
McCain announced.
McCain noted that the Rohingya have been attacked by the
Myanmar's military, which the United Nations has labeled ethnic
cleansing.
Last week, McCain and three Democrats introduced a resolution
calling on Myanmar's de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi to
intervene.
"But there has been no action to date," McCain said.
Earlier Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,
said he would not take up the bipartisan resolution.
"I don't favor passing a resolution going after her," McConnell
said. "I think she's the greatest hope we have to move Burma
from where it has been, a military dictatorship, where I hope
she is going."
McConnell is naive. What can she do? She can't fire the
military or order them around. Should she start a civil war
because the constitution is messed up? That wouldn't be
popular, and there is no way she could win.
McConnell also appears to be blithely ignoring the possibility
of restoring the sanctions Obama lifted.
HTML https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-myanmar-mcconnell/senate-leader-opposes-lecturing-myanmar-leader-suu-kyi-idUSKCN1BN2MW
McConnell did not respond to a question about whether there was
any consideration of reconsidering Democratic former President
Barack Obama’s lifting of sanctions on Myanmar.
International pressure has been mounting on Myanmar to end
violence that has sent about 370,000 Rohingya Muslims fleeing to
Bangladesh. The Trump administration has called for protection
of civilians, and Bangladesh has urged safe zones so refugees
can return home.
While Washington has been a staunch supporter of Myanmar’s
transition from decades of harsh military rule being led by Suu
Kyi, the Nobel laureate has been criticized as doing too little
to stop the violence.
I agree Suu Kyi shouldn't be lectured. I think she needs to be
understood, and she needs help. What she says in public is
probably as much for the military to hear as it is for foreign
leaders -- perhaps more so. She appears isolated to me, a pawn
of the military. The Rohingyas also need help if the world
doesn't want to see them become more radicalized than they are
already.
Bangladesh struggles with its own people. How can it reasonably
be expected to deal with so many refugees?
Turkey was taking active measures back in May, 2015, to help
refugees.
HTML http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-military-ship-joins-efforts-to-reach-rohingya-muslims.aspx?PageID=238&NID=82639&NewsCatID=510
The Turkish navy is carrying out efforts to reach Rohingya
Muslims stranded in boats off the coast of Thailand and
Malaysia, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said.
Addressing a group of young people at Çankaya Palace May 19,
Davutoğlu said that Turkey was doing its best to reach
Rohingya Muslims at sea with the International Organization for
Migration (IOM), with the help of a ship from the Turkish Armed
Forces already sailing in the region.
Some 7,000 to 8,000 Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants are
currently thought to be in the Malacca Straits, unable to
disembark because of crackdowns on trafficking networks in
Thailand and Malaysia, their primary destination.
Boats carrying about 500 members of Myanmar’s long-persecuted
Rohingya Muslim community washed ashore in western Indonesia on
May 10, with some people in need of medical attention, a
migration official and a human rights advocate said.
September 10, 2017
HTML http://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/turkey-draws-worlds-attention-to-rohingya-muslims-2792729
More aid is being sent to Rohingya Muslims in Cox’s Bazaar,
Bangladesh, after a Turkish delegation, headed by Turkey’s first
lady Emine Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Mevlüt
Çavuşoğlu, delivered 1,000 tons of aid to Bangladesh.
So much so that the authorities in Bangladesh who previously did
not accept any refugees from Rakhine are now personally
delivering aid to Rohingya Muslims.
- - - -
Visiting Bangladesh with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s
wife Emine Erdoğan, “The moment Bangladesh permits the
establishment of camps, we can load the tents on the ship and
send them. We are ready to provide aid in many fields such as
shelter, health and education, as well as food,” the Turkish
Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) President
Mehmet Güllüoğlu said.
Noting that Bangladesh is an underdeveloped country,
Güllüoğlu added: “The authorities from Bangladesh say that
they are already poor, and they do not want any population of
refugees. Therefore, a stateless crowd of people without any
identification remain on the border. Turkey, however, by paying
a high-level visit has stated that ‘there is an ongoing crisis,
and we are ready to help.’ The official talks here were very
positive. We expect positive feedback.”
It also is a real crime that the Rohingyas are a stateless
people. How could Obama and Clinton excuse it and accept the
Myanmar government as legitimate when its military says they are
not citizens and have no rights?
HTML http://time.com/4928598/myanmar-rohingya-un-legal-status/
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Tuesday it's crucial
that Myanmar's government immediately reverse its longstanding
policy and give Rohingya Muslims either nationality or legal
status so they can lead normal lives and freely move, find jobs,
and get an education.
Guterres cited the longstanding history of "discrimination,
hopelessness and extreme poverty" in Myanmar's western Rakhine
State and appealed to the country's civilian and military
authorities to end the current violence.
"The grievances and unresolved plight of the Rohingya have
festered for far too long and are becoming an undeniable factor
in regional destabilization," he warned.
The Rohingya Muslim ethnic minority in Rakhine has faced
systematic persecution for decades at the hands of Myanmar's
Buddhist majority, who consider most of them to be illegal
immigrants from neighboring Bangladesh. The military junta that
ruled the nation for decades stripped them of their citizenship
and rights.
It seems to me President Trump is missing a chance here to prove
he's not a bigot by standing up for Muslims when they are the
victims. The US should be working with Turkey and any other
Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries to tackle this
problem.
September 8, 2017
HTML https://www.voanews.com/a/us-myanmar-rohingya-bangladesh/4021043.html
Priscilla Clapp, who served as chief of mission and permanent
charge d'affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Myanmar from 1999 to
2002, said a lot of the criticism of Aung San Suu Kyi is unfair,
due to the limitations on her power and influence.
"In a way, she's at a great disadvantage with the military,
which controls all the security of the country and much of the
government administration from before," said Clapp, currently a
senior adviser at the U.S. Institute of Peace and Asia Society.
Clapp also blames the ARSA group, which she calls terrorists who
have deliberately provoked the extreme reaction on the part of
the security forces. But she also maintains security forces must
be "much more moderate in a way they approach these things and
sensitive to community relations."
Clapp's remarks sound right to me.
"The governments of the world have to press very hard on Aung
San Suu Kyi and also the Burma military to stop the violence,"
Human Rights Watch's Deputy Asia Director Phil Robertson told
VOA, adding that independent monitors should be granted access
to assess allegations of serious human rights violations made by
ethnic Rohingya refugees who have fled into Bangladesh.
Robertson urged the United States and the international
community to provide more humanitarian relief and medical
assistance to the refugees.
"So far, we have seen very little comments from the Trump
administration about the situation, which is quite shocking," he
said. "There is a massive humanitarian crisis in a country
which, until recently, the United States spent a great deal of
time trying to understand them and work with the government on
various developments and trade."
Former U.S. diplomat Clapp says the complexity of the situation
merits a more nuanced reaction from the international community.
"To reduce it to simplicity and black-and-white equations is not
helpful. It's just inflaming further problems inside the country
and it's making the population more resistant to international
advice," Clapp said. "We have to be much more understanding and
get involved on the ground in helping them resolve this
problem."
I find Trump's silence troubling.
I don't have time to read the entire report of 2016 from the US
State Department; but it's shocking to me that the State
Department knew all these things and Obama and Hillary still
touted Myanmar as a success and removed the sanctions.
HTML https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2016&dlid=265324#wrapper
Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq might be worth discussing. Perhaps
Syria and Yemen should be added along with some more countries
in Africa where violence is erupting. At the moment, I can't
blame Trump or his administration too much although they seem to
twiddling their thumbs; but I suspect the Obama administration
mismanaged several of them.
#Post#: 16200--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama and Clinton
DIR By: paralambano
Date: September 13, 2017, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry -
I don't think Trump will do much of anything unless the
situation there threatens US security financially or otherwise.
I doubt that "ethnic cleansing" or "religious cleansing" is a
top priority of his when they're not American and Christian.
He'll probably continue with his America(ns) first agenda to
please his base. I'm not sure that they care as much about
Burmese democracy and its leader as they do about attacks on
their land. Better Saddam for him than ISIS and better the devil
of a military that can control the situation than having to send
in Americans to fight for them when they're subverted by the US.
That military will then have to be faced in another form against
the US. Trump's electorate voted for him to keep the US out of
stuff like this. They think the US gets played fighting for
others.
para . . . .
#Post#: 16213--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama and Clinton
DIR By: Kerry
Date: September 14, 2017, 10:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: paralambano link ---
>
> Kerry -
>
> I don't think Trump will do much of anything unless the
situation there threatens US security financially or otherwise.
I doubt that "ethnic cleansing" or "religious cleansing" is a
top priority of his when they're not American and Christian.
He'll probably continue with his America(ns) first agenda to
please his base.
--- End Quote ---
He took action in Syria over chemical weapons. I can't see the
connection of that with US security. He said it was on
humanitarian grounds.
--- Quote ---
> I'm not sure that they care as much about Burmese democracy
and its leader as they do about attacks on their land.
--- End Quote ---
We're talking priorities here and rightfully so too. What I
think is a fairly well established principle is that two
countries, if genuine democracies, almost never go to war with
each other.
--- Quote ---
> Better Saddam for him than ISIS and better the devil of a
military that can control the situation than having to send in
Americans to fight for them when they're subverted by the US.
That military will then have to be faced in another form against
the US. Trump's electorate voted for him to keep the US out of
stuff like this. They think the US gets played fighting for
others.
--- End Quote ---
I think myself we might be better off if Saddam was still in
power. It might have been a lot better for the Iraqis too.
What we know (or should know) is that a country used to being
rule by a dictator cannot be expected to toppled and replaced by
a stable democracy. It almost never happens if it ever does. A
country needs a transition to democracy. We often forget that
the US started off as 13 colonies which, although under British
rule, were accustomed to governing themselves to a big extent.
You can't write a new constitution for a defeated country and
exit suddenly expecting them to be able to govern themselves.
Accepting flaws in a constitution by a defeated country is also
a recipe for disaster. Why were Afghanistan and Iraq allowed to
declare themselves "Islamic Republics"? This was almost
certain to cause trouble -- because different parties had
different ideas about what "Islamic" means. There are people
in the US who say the US is a Christian country; and perhaps so,
perhaps not; but what would happen if that was part of our
Constitution? I think we'd have Protestants and Catholics
fighting over what the word "Christian" means -- perhaps on the
streets too.
Democracy needs to be introduced first at the lower levels, down
to the villages even. When they learn to govern themselves and
have done so peacefully for some years, then it's time to have
them elect people to a national legislature and be allowed to
vote for a President. Areas still in chaos would not be
allowed to participate in the national government.
If Trump and his administration are not interested in Myanmar
that much, why was the military planning to ramp up its
involvement with the Burmese military? Why not withdraw
completely?
It seems pretty obvious to me that the Burmese military are not
being completely honest with the US. The US military had its
own goal -- and I'd say it was a good one.
August 3, 2013
HTML https://www.mmtimes.com/national-news/7656-us-and-myanmar-to-commence-military-cooperation.html
The United States plans to begin military engagement with
Myanmar later this month, ambassador Derek Mitchell said, as
part of Washington’s efforts to encourage the Tatmadaw to
transform into a professional security force with civilian
oversight.
Did it work? I'd say not too well.
However, Mr Mitchell insisted that there was no definitive “road
map” for military-to-military activities. He said instead that
cooperation would be contingent on the continuation of the
reform process undertaken by President U Thein Sein and that the
US was “not even close” to arms sales or operational training of
Myanmar troops.
It was a view echoed by Mr Rhodes, who is a close adviser to
President Barack Obama. He accompanied the president to Yangon
in November 2012 and is seen as a driving force behind the White
House’s policy toward Myanmar.
“We are not going to be able to see a deepening of that
[military] engagement unless we see a continued progress on
reform and … a permanent change made in terms of an inclusive
democratic society,” Mr Rhodes said.
As well as improve its professionalism, Washington also wants to
encourage the Tatmadaw to relinquish its hold on 25 percent of
seats in Myanmar’s parliaments.
Did they give up their 25% of the seats in Parliament? No. And
the US was applying pressure then (back in 2013) for Myanmar to
cut its ties with the North Korean military.
However, the US has also made clear its intention to target
those members of the military it believes are deviating from its
perceived path to reform.
On July 2 the US Department of the Treasury sanctioned
Lieutenant General Thein Htay, head of the Directorate of
Defense Industries, for apparent arms deals involving North
Korea. In a statement issued by US Under Secretary for Terrorism
and Financial Intelligence David Cohen, the government
emphasised that it was displeased with an individual but that on
the whole Myanmar continues "to take positive steps in severing
its military ties with North Korea”.
So here we are four years later, and Myanmar's military and
police are becoming more aggressive and their military still has
ties to North Korea.
December 13, 2016
HTML http://thediplomat.com/2016/12/whats-next-for-us-myanmar-military-relations/
When I asked Aung Lynn, Myanmar’s envoy to the United States,
what he would like to see in bilateral defense ties, his
response focused on two things. The first was Myanmar’s
restoration to the International Military Education and Training
(IMET) program, a key tool for Washington to help engage and
educate foreign militaries in areas like professionalism,
civil-military relations, and democracy. “This is the program we
wish to see more,” he said.
There are lingering, legitimate concerns about even restoring
previous programs like IMET, some of them tied to broader
concerns on the military’s role in human rights violations and
others focused more specifically on IMET itself, including its
effectiveness as a policy instrument in a cash-strapped
environment. But it is also true that within a broader,
calibrated strategy of engaging Myanmar’s military, IMET is
low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking.
The second area Aung Lynn emphasized was Myanmar’s growing
involvement in U.S. defense workshops. As an example, he noted
the case of the just-concluded four-day annual workshop on
humanitarian and disaster relief organized by U.S. Army Pacific.
The engagement, called the Lower Mekong Initiative and Disaster
Response Exercise and Exchange (DREE), kicked off on December 6
in Myanmar and is meant to promote integrated regional
cooperation between mainland Southeast Asian states that fall
under the U.S.-led Lower Mekong Initiative.
“Maybe this is a good beginning we can do more of in the
future,” he said.
Facilitating Naypyidaw’s involvement in such engagements is
important for U.S. policy because it facilitates its integration
into what U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter calls the principled
and inclusive security network in the Asia-Pacific (See: “US
Hits Right Note at Shangri-La With Principled Security
Network”). And besides being good for the United States and
Myanmar, this is also a positive for the region more generally
since it would lead to the country playing a more active and
constructive role in shared challenges in areas like HADR.
Is he serious? Who knows? This could be sweet talk meant to
keep money and aid flowing along with know-how. What we do know
is their army also seems to want to benefit somehow from North
Korea. How can Myanmar be integrated into a "principled and
inclusive security network in the Asia-Pacific" when they
maintain ties with North Korea?
HTML https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-myanmar-usa/exclusive-u-s-presses-myanmar-to-cease-military-ties-with-north-korea-idUSKBN1A62PG
Myanmar’s military has maintained ties with North Korea, even
though the civilian-led government denies any cooperation, and
the Trump administration is pressing for a complete break-off of
remaining links, current and former U.S. officials said.
Washington made its case to Myanmar’s de facto leader, Nobel
Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and the army chief Senior
General Min Aung Hlaing during a visit to the country this week
by the U.S. special envoy for North Korea.
U.S. Ambassador Joseph Yun’s trip to Myanmar underlined
continuing U.S. worries over North Korean links that date back
to Myanmar’s decades of military rule, according to a senior
State Department official on Friday.
”It was an opportunity to message that any engagement with North
Korea, particularly military engagement, is counterproductive to
trying to end this threat that North Korea poses to the region
and to the globe,” the official told Reuters, speaking on
condition of anonymity.
He declined to specify what kind of military cooperation had
continued between North Korea and Myanmar.
There was no immediate response to a request for comment from
Myanmar’s embassy in Washington.
The official said U.S. sanctions leveled this year against the
Myanmar army’s procurement body were meant to “reflect
long-standing concerns” about the military’s dealings with
Pyongyang.
Myanmar insists that arms deals and other military relations
with North Korea stopped before Myanmar’s transition to a
nominally civilian government in 2011.
Myanmar’s military was believed in the past to have imported
North Korean-made weapons and North Korean personnel also worked
in Myanmar, two former U.S. officials said.
Any residual ties may be unfinished business between the two
armies dating back to Myanmar’s previous military-led
government, one of the former officials said, adding there was
no indication of a “nuclear component to the relationship.”
I think the Trump administration is right to put the pressure
on.
The State Department official did not rule out the possibility
of imposing further North Korea-related measures on Myanmar,
saying: “If a situation becomes so egregious and serious for our
national security interests, there are a variety of tools,
including sanctions.”
For now, though, Washington was relying mostly on diplomacy with
Myanmar, a resource-rich and strategically placed country that
Washington wants to keep out of China’s orbit.
He stressed, however, that it would be difficult to proceed
toward full normalization of U.S. relations with Myanmar until
Washington was convinced of a halt to ties with North Korea.
That tells us something about the priorities. Myanmar being
friendly with North Korea is a national security problem; but
genocide appears to raise no objections.
As for Trump's base, I think they might be happy if he showed
compassion for the Rohingya people. They could stop being
defensive when people accuse him of being a bigot and say, "See?
He's not a bigot. He cares about Muslims." It also might
improve relations domestically if Muslims saw him caring about
the Rohingya.
#Post#: 16220--------------------------------------------------
Re: Obama and Clinton
DIR By: paralambano
Date: September 15, 2017, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry -
--- Quote ---
> He took action in Syria over chemical weapons. I can't see
the connection of that with US security. He said it was on
humanitarian grounds.
--- End Quote ---
Assad's planes fly close to American supported allies fighting
the Islamic state. Trump might be concerned that chemical
weapons could be used there. Trump, according to Sean Spicer,
tied Syria to American security issues:
But back in Washington, Mr. Spicer seemed to return to Mr.
Trump’s “America first” formulation. “We’re not just going to
become the world’s policeman running around the country —
running around the world,” he said. “It’s our national security
first and foremost.”
Asked if Syria fit within that doctrine, he said, “Absolutely.”:
HTML https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/world/middleeast/syria-trump-assad.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
HTML https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/world/middleeast/syria-trump-assad.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
It seems that Trump somehow sees Syria as being important to
America's national security interests in spite of Spicer's
answer. He might not want any of those chemicals getting into
the hands of groups who would use them on Americans.
--- Quote ---
> We're talking priorities here and rightfully so too. What I
think is a fairly well established principle is that two
countries, if genuine democracies, almost never go to war with
each other.
>
--- End Quote ---
One would want a military convergent with democratic values. I'm
not sure that's the case in Myanmar. One then has to know how to
steer a military in this direction. If it's seen that the US is
a threat to them, the US has just notched up another enemy in
another region. They will be seen as threat, democratic or not.
--- Quote ---
> I think myself we might be better off if Saddam was still in
power. It might have been a lot better for the Iraqis too.
What we know (or should know) is that a country used to being
rule by a dictator cannot be expected to toppled and replaced by
a stable democracy. It almost never happens if it ever does. A
country needs a transition to democracy. We often forget that
the US started off as 13 colonies which, although under British
rule, were accustomed to governing themselves to a big extent.
You can't write a new constitution for a defeated country and
exit suddenly expecting them to be able to govern themselves.
Accepting flaws in a constitution by a defeated country is also
a recipe for disaster. Why were Afghanistan and Iraq allowed to
declare themselves "Islamic Republics"? This was almost
certain to cause trouble -- because different parties had
different ideas about what "Islamic" means. There are people
in the US who say the US is a Christian country; and perhaps so,
perhaps not; but what would happen if that was part of our
Constitution? I think we'd have Protestants and Catholics
fighting over what the word "Christian" means -- perhaps on the
streets too.
>
> Democracy needs to be introduced first at the lower levels,
down to the villages even. When they learn to govern themselves
and have done so peacefully for some years, then it's time to
have them elect people to a national legislature and be allowed
to vote for a President. Areas still in chaos would not be
allowed to participate in the national government.
--- End Quote ---
Ya, exactly.
--- Quote ---
> If Trump and his administration are not interested in Myanmar
that much, why was the military planning to ramp up its
involvement with the Burmese military? Why not withdraw
completely?
>
> It seems pretty obvious to me that the Burmese military are
not being completely honest with the US. The US military had
its own goal -- and I'd say it was a good one.
>
> August 3, 2013
HTML https://www.mmtimes.com/national-news/7656-us-and-myanmar-to-commence-military-cooperation.html
>
> The United States plans to begin military engagement with
Myanmar later this month, ambassador Derek Mitchell said, as
part of Washington’s efforts to encourage the Tatmadaw to
transform into a professional security force with civilian
oversight.
>
> Did it work? I'd say not too well.
>
> However, Mr Mitchell insisted that there was no definitive
“road map” for military-to-military activities. He said instead
that cooperation would be contingent on the continuation of the
reform process undertaken by President U Thein Sein and that the
US was “not even close” to arms sales or operational training of
Myanmar troops.
>
> It was a view echoed by Mr Rhodes, who is a close adviser to
President Barack Obama. He accompanied the president to Yangon
in November 2012 and is seen as a driving force behind the White
House’s policy toward Myanmar.
>
> “We are not going to be able to see a deepening of that
[military] engagement unless we see a continued progress on
reform and … a permanent change made in terms of an inclusive
democratic society,” Mr Rhodes said.
>
> As well as improve its professionalism, Washington also wants
to encourage the Tatmadaw to relinquish its hold on 25 percent
of seats in Myanmar’s parliaments.
>
> Did they give up their 25% of the seats in Parliament? No.
And the US was applying pressure then (back in 2013) for Myanmar
to cut its ties with the North Korean military.
>
> However, the US has also made clear its intention to target
those members of the military it believes are deviating from its
perceived path to reform.
>
> On July 2 the US Department of the Treasury sanctioned
Lieutenant General Thein Htay, head of the Directorate of
Defense Industries, for apparent arms deals involving North
Korea. In a statement issued by US Under Secretary for Terrorism
and Financial Intelligence David Cohen, the government
emphasised that it was displeased with an individual but that on
the whole Myanmar continues "to take positive steps in severing
its military ties with North Korea”.
>
> So here we are four years later, and Myanmar's military and
police are becoming more aggressive and their military still has
ties to North Korea.
--- End Quote ---
Militaries are usually very conservative in ideology and
difficult to change in the short term. It's also the way they're
changed. They need someone to demonstrate to them that it's in
their best self-interest to have a stable democracy with
democratic allies to have a better standard of living for their
families and country.
--- Quote ---
> As for Trump's base, I think they might be happy if he showed
compassion for the Rohingya people. They could stop being
defensive when people accuse him of being a bigot and say, "See?
He's not a bigot. He cares about Muslims." It also might
improve relations domestically if Muslims saw him caring about
the Rohingya.
--- End Quote ---
The next question could be: What's he done for them?
--- Quote ---
> That tells us something about the priorities. Myanmar being
friendly with North Korea is a national security problem; but
genocide appears to raise no objections.
>
> As for Trump's base, I think they might be happy if he showed
compassion for the Rohingya people. They could stop being
defensive when people accuse him of being a bigot and say, "See?
He's not a bigot. He cares about Muslims." It also might
improve relations domestically if Muslims saw him caring about
the Rohingya.
>
--- End Quote ---
Trump might not want North Korean nuclear know-how getting into
Myanmar's hands. That might be a bigger problem for him and the
region. Unless Trump actually does something about what's
happening there, no matter what he says, he'll still be seen as
not helping. And the extremists? It doesn't matter what he does.
He'll be a duped infidel to them and the ISIS flag will still be
wanted flying over his state. Genocide for them is their way. He
needs some very intelligent civilians and military people to
convince the military there that their repression will come back
to bite them perhaps in the form of Indonesia or most likely
Pakistan.
Why is that syu lady so quiet about it? Some in Canada are
calling for her to be stripped of her honorary Canadian
citizenship. That'll learn her, eh? What does she know?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1