Another No Man's Land

The historic conflict over the Gaza strip hardly stirs anybody anymore, except of course the Jewish lobby in the US Congress. There is a decent amount of media coverage of the new developments and the ongoing outbreaks of violence, but the international public does seem to be too concerned with the issue.

This is what happens with historic conflicts: people are either fed up with constant reminders by the media about the problem or they are so frustrated by the fact that no one has come up with a viable solution that they choose to ignore the problem altogether. Still, during the past four years there were a number of decent attempts to resolve the issue.

Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan offered some light in the tunnel. Despite the controversy of the measure, the large majority of the Israeli electorate supported it. Unfortunately, as it usually happens with democracies that are far from being fully-fledged, there was no one to execute the popular will after Sharon’s dead.

The road map that the international community so eagerly proposed was another viable and much needed solution. However, as time passes it becomes more and more clear that both sides are anything but prepared to make the hard-core commitments that the road map requires. Naturally then, all the proposals for the establishment a single state or dual state remain unfeasible. The ongoing violent incidents during the Oslo Peace process made it all the more clear that the idea of mutual compromises is very far-fetched one.

I want to end this post by a quote by Bruce Barton, which vary much refers to the meaninglessness of the fights for the Gaza Strip,” What a curious phenomenon it is that you can get men to die for the liberty of the world who will not make the little sacrifice that is needed to free themselves from their own individual bondage.”

History of Kurds/Iraq

The Kurds are a Sunni Muslim people who primarily live in Iran, Turkey, and Iraq. Their culture is made up of 25 million people. The Turkish, Persian, and Arabic friends/neighbors are not like the other Kurds and Sunni Muslim people. There are many cultural differences between the groups such as: approximately 10 million live in Turkey, four million in Iraq, and five million in Iran, with the rest scattered all across the world. In President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, he promises the Kurds he will give them a sovereign state. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920 said the Kurds could have an independent state if they desired one. They established a semi-independent state as a result and succeeded in forming the Kingdom of Kurdistan. This lasted from 1922-1924.

The Iraqis destroyed approximately 5000 Kurdish villages during the 1980s. From this point on, the recent history and current state of these conflicts between the Kurds and the Turks and the Kurds against the Iraqis is demonstrated.

For instance, the areas of geography and political geography and economic geography are shown. The Kurds are ethnically and culturally different from the Turks and the Iraqis. They speak a different language and all practice slightly different religions.

The Turks and Iraqis look at the contrast in ethnicity in very different senses. The government of Turkey views any religious or ethnic identity not their own to be a threat to the state. In addition, Saddam Hussein believes the Kurds to be a bother in Iraq and perceive them as a threat. He carried out a mass genocide of the Kurds in his country for this reason. A third factor in these conflicts has to do with economic geography. The following areas of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria the Kurds now live in is referred to as Kurdistan. Kurdistan is an important area strategically due to its trade embargo against Iraq that has been in place since 1991.

Meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue4/jv6n4a5

History of Palestine/Israeli Conflict

Palestine is the name given in the 2nd century C.E. to a region of the present day middle east. The name was derived from “Palaestina” or “Land of the Philistines.” These people settled a small coastal area north of Egypt near Gaza. Palestine is held sacred by Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a dispute that is ongoing between the Palestinians and the State of Israel. This is a dispute between two national identities with claims over the same area of land. Many people believe that a two-state solution is the best way to end the conflict. Both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip constitute the area of their future state. The following are involved in this conflict: the Israeli government, the United States, Russia, and the European Union as well as the United Nations.

Palestine is at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe. It has been the battleground of great powers in the region throughout history. In the first century B.C.E., the Romans conquered the region and drove out most of the Jews in the area. Jewish immigrants returned to Palestine in increasing numbers as they fled Russian persecution. In World War II and the Holocaust, there was a surge in Jewish immigration.

It was held sacred by the great empires that came into power in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The West Bank, Israel, and the Gaza strip, as well as Jordan, Syria, and parts of Egypt were once part of Palestine.

The demography of the area is estimated at 2000 people. It was originally 1,132,063. Approximately 99.5 percent or 2,020,298 people are Palestinian Arabs. 17 percent are Jewish. Interestingly, half the population of the west bank is under the age of 15. It is situated on the Eastern middle end of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

The Palestinians are a Semitic people much like the Jews, and the language of the two are very similar. The Palestinian flag consists of three bands that contain a black, white, green, and red flagstaff side pointing to the center of the white band.

History of Human Rights in Sudan and Georgia

What are human rights? Human rights are basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled. Everyone is given the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law. However, in Sudan and Georgia this is not necessarily the case. There are several conflicts that occur between the Sudanese and Georgia governments and rebel groups on a daily basis.

In Sudan and Georgia, not many people have access to human rights.

In Sudan, enslavement still exists and is encouraged by the Sudanese government. In the Darfur region, war is prevalent between Africa tribes and Arab groups over access to land. Last year, two armed African groups rebelled against the Khartoum regime. The government responded by giving military support to Arab militias. The Sudanese military planes are bombing villages after which Arab militaries rape and kill survivors. Sudan currently has 17,000 child soldiers fighting on the government side. Several hundred students were imprisoned as well after the members of the Justice and Equality Movement.


( http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/sudan_genocide)

A new humanitarian disaster is likely to take place now that the fighting is still in progress. History has shown that peace in the south is nearly impossible if fighting continues in the south. Famines in Sudan have occurred from the burning of homes and villages, grain, community structures, and the killing of children and women.

(www.hrw.org)

In Georgia, torture is a huge issue. However, there have been numerous reforms on the part of the government to decrease it. Human rights are guaranteed in Georgia by the constitution. Georgia proclaimed its total independence on April 6, 1991. Between 1992 and 1993, the government engaged in armed conflict with separatists. In 2002, Georgia's military was trained in antiterrorism measures. Work began on the Georgian section of the ambitious Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipelines that runs throuh Georgia. In 2005, the Georgian Orthodox church placed a considerable monopoly in Georgia. For this reason, minority groups found it hard to build places of worship.

A recent news briefing from CNN said that Georgian leaders blame Russia for the conflict that raged in South Ossetia in response to devastation in the city of Tskhinvali. Mikhail Gorbachev told CNN’s Larry King that Russia called extra troops into Georgia to stem violence. On August 7, 2008, fighting broke out after Georgian soldiers attacked South Ossetia. An enclave in Georiga that won de facto independence in the 1990s. Separtists in South Ossetia retaliated, and about a dozen troops and civilians died in the battles. Fighting between the two sides has been sporadic since Mikheil Saakashvili was elected president of Georgia in 2004 and sought to resume control over the region. Russia sent 150 tanks into South Ossetia on August 8 to support the region. In addition, on August 9, Russia intensified its involvement by moving troops into Abkhazia, another breakaway region, and launching airstrikes at Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. In Gori, Georgia, approximately 1,500 civilians were killed when Russia launched an air strike.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Georgia_country)

In Georgia and Sudan, the jihad is of great importance. Michael Rubin quotes The Wall Street Journal, saying, “The jihad is our way, and we will not abandon it and keep the banner high.” The jihad refers to those who "struggle in the way of God." People in both Georgia and Sudan continue to struggle to keep their human rights.

Posted by Katie Robertson at 6:58 PM 0 comments

Posted by Katie Robertson at 7:56 PM 0 comments



History of Human Rights in Georgia and Sudan

What are human rights? Human rights are basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled. Everyone is given the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law. However, in Sudan and Georgia this is not necessarily the case. There are several conflicts that occur between the Sudanese and Georgia governments and rebel groups on a daily basis.

In Sudan and Georgia, not many people have access to human rights.

In Sudan, enslavement still exists and is encouraged by the Sudanese government. In the Darfur region, war is prevalent between Africa tribes and Arab groups over access to land. Last year, two armed African groups rebelled against the Khartoum regime. The government responded by giving military support to Arab militias. The Sudanese military planes are bombing villages after which Arab militaries rape and kill survivors. Sudan currently has 17,000 child soldiers fighting on the government side. Several hundred students were imprisoned as well after the members of the Justice and Equality Movement.


( http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/sudan_genocide)

Israel vs. Palestine in the Media Part 1

For some years, the conflict in the Middle East has been one of the most regularly covered topics in the media. While the majority of the coverage has been negative, related to suicide bombers or other violent attacks, there have also been some interesting human interest stories that have accompanied the negative coverage. Personal opinions aside, the U.S. has generally taken a position that is more supportive of Israel as opposed to Palestine, which has transferred in to the media's coverage of the events. 

 For instance, from the Israeli side, the most recent news is Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's decision to submit his resignation in light of the charges he is facing for corruption related to financial dealings. An election was held last week to determine who would be Olmert's successor.  The CNN article includes a quote from the President Shimon explaining how he plans to proceed and what his role in the upcoming phase will be.  It also touches on the importance of the next six weeks because whoever successfully forms the cabinet will ultimately be the main negotiator with Palestinian officials in an effort to end the conflict as peacefully as possible.  The BBC article gives a straight forward synopsis of the election , outlining exactly what will happen over the next six weeks and what will happen in the event the requirements are not met within the alloted time period. The expert analysis in the article is from a BBC reporter who is based in Jerusalem. 

This difference in coverage is in support of the idea that American media does maintain it's bias (see below) while still reporting the facts.  For the uninformed, the BBC piece accompanied by the background section offers a clear cut explanation of this election process giving them the necessary facts.  The CNN piece gives more of a context to the magnitude of the issue without sensationalizing the story.  For the reader, having the President of a country comment on an issue shows that the issue is prominent and of great importance to the political process of that country. 

Does this article support the idea that American media (specifically CNN) is more biased than it's international counterpart BBC? Or does it show that the BBC gives its audience the news objectively, without the subtle bias?

In the next installment, I will examine the Palestinian point of view with an article directly related to the conflict. I will also take a look at the media outlets on each side of the conflict.

For the remainder of this semester, I will examine media coverage for each human rights issue discussed. I will primarily look at two major sources, CNN and BBC World, as I am particularly interested in mainstream media outlet's coverage of international conflicts.  Earlier this year, BBC World released a report supporting their claim that American media outlets are extremely biased in their coverage of news. In the summer of 2007, BBC World launched a guerilla marketing campaign to support their claims and encourage the American public to demand the addition of BBC World to local cable offerings across the country.  At the time, I was a part of the team who conducted the media outreach in support of the guerilla marketing campaign and found this topic very interesting. I will also look at the media outlets available in the particular country to analyze any biases that may exist. 

Little Relief in the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

While so many international conflicts have countries declaring clear partisanships, the ongoing Israel-Hezbollah conflict seems to be dwelling in an eternal gray area. Numerous international humanitarian and relief organizations are still straddling the line- with the chief concern being relief for one and all.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, expressed grave concern for the growing number of casualties in Israel, Lebanon, and surrounding areas in a released statement. She called for unrestricted and secure passage for all humanitarian assistance.http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/International_bodies_express_concern_over_Israel-Hezbollah_conflict

The Red Cross' efforts to export necessary medical assistance is severely limited due to ongoing hostilities. A reminder was issued regarding the obligation to distinguish between civillians and military targets in such battle zones. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch additionally released similar statements.

Rather than physical relief, this battleground area of Israel, Lebanon, and surrounding territories are recieving "urgent requests" and "issuing of statements". Regardless of personal belief or partisanship, United States aid vehicles are keeping their physical distance from all related territories. The greatest aid is coming from the actual citizens (Palestinians and Israelis) as well as sympathizers (people all over the world who identify with the Palestinian cause and Hezbollah members vs. the Israeli, and furthermore Jewish, cause). This may have something to do with the fact that while 25% of Americans think the Government should side with Israel, and 1% side with the Hezbollah, a whopping 74% think that the US should stay neutral regarding the conflict.

Because there are religious undertones in the ongoing fight (the battle for Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip), many want to steer clear of become involved in the conflict. The United States Government has been on both sides of the fight. Since 2006, the US has commited over $371 million in security assistance, including Humvees, cargo trucks, armor, helicopter repair parts, assault rifles, etc, to Lebanon. http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=1013
US assistance to Lebanon has also skyrocketed from $41 million to $520 million in overall military aid in 2007. http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=1013

Israel is the United State's closest ally in the Middle East and receives roughly $3 billion per year in military aid. This rise in military aid is balanced out by a depletion of economic aid. While Israel is one of the top recipients of U.S. forgeign aid, it is also in competition with all of those who consider themselves part of an area formerly known as "Palestine" (i.e. Israel is competing for aid against a large portion of the Middle East- Lebanon, Syria, Jordan...and all of its sympathizers.)

The Georgia conflict in the media

The Georgia Russia conflict has been one of the most talked about international issues in the last month and a half, especially in the American media. Major American news outlets have a tendency to focus heavily on a particular international issue for a while, as the immediate conflict dies down so does the coverage.  

The Georgia Russia conflict began in early August, and CNN reported the invasion of Russian troops with their eyewitness crews.  In some articles and commentary, it has been argued that the U.S. maintains a strong interest in this conflict because of economic interests in the region and therefore has remained in the forefront of major news outlet's international coverage. In the same instance others believe that the American media has not made the conflict a big enough priority. Based on 12a@ CNN covered the Georgian president's opinion of this conflict, while coverage of Russia's point of view has been limited.  According to the American Thinker Blog, in the days after the conflict made headlines, Russian government felt that they were being portrayed incorrectly by western news media. 

Each of these articles and opinion pieces frame the Russia conflict differently. An interesting reasoning of the differences in coverage can be attributed to each media outlet's biases that govern the way that news is distributed. Besides political interests, some media outlets frame issues and stories based on their religious and social beliefs. American media is consistently criticized for not providing a wide enough objective scope of issues that occur in the global community.

Congress Reaction to Russia-Georgia Conflict

Congress began its August 2008 recess at the start of the Russia-Georgia conflict, but members still spoke out on the issue. Senator Joseph Biden warned Russia that its aggression in Georgia jeopardized congressional for legislation to collaborate on nuclear energy production. Senator John McCain warned of severe, long-term consequences to Russia’s relations with the U.S. and Europe, and offered support to Georgia. Senator Barack Obama called for Georgia to refrain from using force in South Ossetia and Abkhazia to pursue political settlement addressing the region. Both McCain and Obama encouraged NATO to extend to Georgia(1).

The incompliance of Russia to the six-point plan has sent up a red flag. The six-point resolution was agreed upon by both Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his Georgian counterpart Mikheil Saakashvili on August 12. The principles state there be no recourse to use violence between the protagonist, the cessation of hostilities, the granting of access to humanitarian aid, the return of Georgian armed forces to their usual quarters, Russian armed forces return to positions held before hostilies began in South Ossetia along with peacekeepers to implement additional security measures until an international monitoring mechanism is in place and the opening of international discussions on the modalities of security and stability of South Ossetia and Abkhazia(2).

According to U.S. analyst Ariel Cohen, the West should send a strong message to Russia that “redrawing the borders of the former Soviet Union is a danger to world peace.” During a United Nations Security Council meeting on August 28, some suggested sanctions against Russia including exclusion from the G-8, withdraw of support for Russia as the 2014 Winter Olympics host and reconsideration of the World Trade Organization membership.

The Russia-Georgia conflict is an example of power struggle where citizens, innocent humans, are involved and harmed because of political strife. I agree with Obama’s immediate statement to reconcile through dialogue, not threats. Now I will step down from my soap box.


(1) Nichol, Jim. Russia-Georgia Conflict in South Ossetia: Context and Implications for U.S. Interest. CRS Report for Congress, 29 Aug. 2008. Congressional Research Service RL34618.

(2) Deutsche Presse Agentur. “Background: six-point peace plan for the Georgia-Russia conflict.” Relief Web. 15 Aug. 2008. 17 Sept. 2008..

USAid for Georgia Relief

US efforts to help the people of Georgia have been spearheaded by a group called USAid. USAid is an independent federal governement agency. They receive foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State and spend less than .05% of the federal budget. USAid conducts itself on the platform of supporting economic growth, agriculture and trade, global health, and deomcracy. (www.usaid.gov)
USAid has been in Tbilisi since August 15, 2008, distributing food supplies, creating temporary transitional shelters for families, and offering local transportation in emergency relief communities. In correlation with USAid's office of Food For Peace, $1 million was provided to airlift emergency food supplies using US and navy aircrafts for those areas in ongoing emergency. With help from the US embassy, emergency medical supplies, blankets, bedding, clothing, and hygiene items have also been distributed. Other donors to Georgian cause are the World Bank, the United States, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Union (EU) (www.usaid.gov). All of these groups have donated millions of dollars to help- the World Bank has issued agricultural development loans while the EU has been working on rehabilitating transportation through Georgia.The USAid assistance to Georgia is valued at nearly $39 million.

It’s the Gas, Stupid!

This week the foreign ministers of the European Union are planning yet another meeting to discuss the plan action for resolution of the conflict between Russia and Georgia. As the world powers threaten to hold their breaths if Russia does not adhere to the cease-fire agreement, Putin is counting his Gazprom stocks and bonds. What is interesting about the international response to the crisis is that Western Europe finally admitted their vulnerability to Russia’s foreign interests. If it had not become clear from the Kosovo crisis or the Chechnya frozen conflict, the situation in Georgia made it pretty clear - Russia can do whatever they want, as long as the pipelines are still running. This time the media showed little courtesy and blatantly revealed Europe’s incapability to manage and/ or prevent conflicts, which combined with the Irish rejection of the European Constitution, raise serious concerns about the future of the EU. As much as the EU leaders have tried to reshape the image of the union of “economic giant, political dwarf, military worm”, the response (or lack thereof) to Russia’s imperial appetites, showed to the world that the EU is hardly the political actor it pretends to be. Well, we have to be understanding, asking Russia to remove its troops from Georgia, is not quite the same as imposing economic sanctions on third-world countries….

Protests in Myanmar

This is my first time learning extensive information about the protests occurring in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. These protests began due to the price of fuel that was significantly increased by the government. The government intimidated
Protestors and then the Buddhist monks became involved.

The latest march by the monks occurred in the central town of Pakokku, 370 miles from Yangon. This crackdown stifled anger at 45 years of military rule and poverty that deepened.

(Information found through MSNBC)

On August 19 2008, in Myanmar, there were 400,000 military men and monks from poorer families. In Myanmar and other Buddhist nations, many joined the monks in protest against the rising costs of transportation and basic goods. After a fuel price increase, the price of transportation and goods were increased. The monks retained ultimate moral authority.

(Information found through the New York Times)

The Sangha (also known as the Buddhist hierarchy and spiritual status of the monks) are of utmost importance. All leaders have adhered to the Buddhist pratices. Over the years, the junta (also known as the military or political group that rules a country after taking power by force) worked to co-opt the Buddhist hierarchy. They placed chosen men in key positions angering and alienating younger monks.

My personal opinion about the protests is the monks in Myanmar are fairly standing up for their rights with just cause. Due to high fuel and food prices, they have reason to be frustrated with their current situations.

Other causes for tension and frustrations may be attributed to the fact that only one percent of the people of Myanmar are educated. There is political repression, religious tension, and very little national unity. The poor economic policies have led to a retardation of economic development. The Burmese state has very little control over their economy. Their economy is made up of mostly rice agriculture, and is in British, Indian, and Chinese hands.

Should you travel to Myanmar? Is it the ethical thing to do?

Myanmar offers various beautiful temples and beaches as well as various languages and a modern city--but is it safe for tourists?

Currently the Burmese pro-democracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi is being held in prison. In a written statement from US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, "Aung San Suu Kyi has been denied her liberty and fundamental political and civil rights by Burma's military rulers. This is a deplorable situation and must end." Suu Kyi is in prison because the military refused to honor the victory in the parliamentary elections. This has created various protests not only for the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi, but for human justice of the citizens. In addition to this, in May 2008, tropical cyclone Nargis caused extensive damage and fatalities in Myanmar, up to 130,000 lives were lost and over two million people were affected. There are also large anti-government demonstrations taking place throughout the country and several bomb explosions all occuring in places frequented by the public.

With all of these things happening listed below are the pros and cons to travelling to Myanmar right now.

Reasons not go:

- The government has used forced labor in order to complete tourist-related sights and services.

- International tourism can be seen as a stamp of approval to the Myanmar government.

- It's impossible to visit without some of tourist dollars going to the military junta, (estimated

US$20.00 per VISA, US$10 per departure fee and seven to ten percent tax on

purchases) which fuels government repression.

Reasons to go:

- Tourist attractions remains one of the few areas tourists and locals have access--as it relates

to income and communication.

- Human-rights abuse are less likely to ocuur in areas where international community is

present.

- The majority of the careful independent traveller's expenses can go into the private sector.

- The government stopped forcing foreigners to change US$200 into government notes upon

arrival.

If you decide to go, it is suggested you do the following:

Stay at a private, locally owned hotel and guesthouse. Avoid package tours connected w/Myanmar Travel and Tours, avoid MTT-sponsored modes of transportation, buy handcrafts directly from artisans as opposed to government owned shops. Avoid patronising companies involved with the military-owned Myanmar Economic Holdings.

Fast Facts
Country Full Name - Union of Myanmar
Population - 47,373,958
Electrical Plugs - 230V 50Hz
Languages Spoken Official: Burmese
Time Zones GMT/UTC +6.5
Country Dialing Code +95
Weights & Measures Imperial

Excerpt from U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST BURMA A Failure on All Fronts by Leon T. Hadar

Burma has not traditionally been a top foreign policy concern for Washington, although it does have some limited effect on U.S. economic and strategic interests as well as on counternarcotics policy. (Burma is the world's largest grower of opium.)

Washington has sought to isolate Burma since the State Law and Order Restoration Council came to power in 1988, and especially since it refused to transfer power in 1990 to the National League for Democracy, which had defeated the SLORC in an open election. (Burma's ruling junta officially abolished the SLORC in November 1997, only to replace it with the equally repressive State Peace and Development Council.)

The United States has refused, among other things, to recognize the government's change of the country's name to Myanmar, but it has maintained limited diplomatic and economic ties as well as counternarcotics cooperation with Rangoon. In 1990 Washington withdrew its ambassador from Rangoon, and since then it has opposed Burma's membership in various multilateral financial organizations, refused to approve licenses for the export of military-related items to Burma, and imposed limited economic sanctions on that country (for example, suspending Burma from the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences).

Since 1990 the U.S. policy of isolating Burma has been rejected by America's trade partners in Asia, who happen also to be Burma's major trade partners, but it has received some symbolic backing from Washington's Western allies.

The entire document is available on http://www.cato.org/pubs/trade/tpa-001.html

Report on U.S. Trade Sanctions Against Burma

http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/32106.htm

CRS Report for Congress Burma: Economic Sanctions: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22737.pdf

The International Reactions or Lack Thereof

The international community failed to respond adequately to another severe humanitarian crisis. The concerned members of the United Nations found it hard to agree on the basic policy measures that need to be implemented and decided to take the soft measures approach…. again. On the other hand, the big players – the US and the EU wanted to promote their image of world policemen and renewed their economic sanctions on Burma. The academic and the political elites in the EU and the US debated the effectiveness of those types of measures during the last decade. Now, there is a silent consensus that the sanctions are adopted as “good wishes” type of measures, rather than actual means to alleviate the dreadful situation in Burma. What is worse, every freshman in college can tell you that economic sanctions, by definition, have profound adverse effects on the population of the country, the same population that they are designed to protect. As much as I tried to avoid engaging in political debates, I am really looking forward to open the discussion on the issue of the lack of adequate international response to the Burmese crisis.

I will attach a number of documents that provide background information.

Introduction

Myanmar, formally known as Burma, is a country about the size of Texas located between Bangladesh and Thailand. It is governed by a military junta, the State Law and Order Council, who changed their name to the State Peace and Development Council in 1997. They have been in place since the military coup in 1988. Despite multiparty elections in 1990 that resulted in the victory of the opposition part, the National League for Democracy, the military junta refused to hand over the power to key opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi. She was placed under house arrest, and under house detention in 2000. On May 27, 2008, the military junta extended her detention for another six months to a year. Her supporters are often harassed or imprisoned. NOTE: This information was obtained from the World Fact Book of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

So, where am I going with this? In August of 2007, there were a series of anti-government protest led by students and government opposition activists. It was sparked by the unannounced decision to remove fuel subsidies, causing the price of fuel to raise exponentially. The junta responded harshly, arresting and detaining hundreds of protesters. A peaceful movement, also known as the "Saffron Revolution", was then led by Buddhist monks where thousands joined marches, particularly in the capital, Yangon. The government allowed the proceedings until Sept. 26, when the junta violently cracked-down on any opposition. Rumors are that monks were detained and their bodies would show up weeks later, some never seen again. Video clips of the violent response by the military are documented all over the Internet.

According to an article in Asia-Pacific News, Ibrahim Gambari, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and special envoy to Myanmar, attempted to meet with Suu Kyi this August at her compound, but failed when she did not come out. Supporters speculated that Suu Kyi is frustrated over the U.N.'s inability to bring about democratic reform in the country. Gambari has been mandated by the U.N. to deal with Myanmar's military regime in addressing international concerns about human rights violation, slow-paced political reforms and ongoing political prisoners. However, the junta shows little willingness to work with the overall mission.

This is an issue that one would think should consistently be on the world stage, however, it seems that it has faded, particularly in U.S. media, after the initial protests of 2007. Why do you think this is?

Myanmar Protests

As someone who is newly educated about the situation occurring in Myanmar, I am posting some background information as well as a few of my initial views that might aid some in gaining a better understanding:

Myanmar is the name of the country previously known as Burma (as of 1989). Although the military government changed the name officially, the US State Department does not recognize Myanmar or the military regime that represents it (www.infoplease.com). Although the National League for Democracy came out victorious in a May 1990 election, the State Law and Order Council failed to implement the new governmental system. The people of Myanmar are now being held captive of their government- a tyrannical regime that has no plans of giving up their power. Suu Kyi, the NLD leader, was placed under house arrest to prevent her from publicly defying the SLORC.


According to Wikipedia, Yangon (also known as Rangoon) is the largest city and former capital of Burma...with a population of 6 million it is the country's largest city and most important commercial center. Although it is the hub for music, news, movies, and advertising, all media content must first be approved by the military government. Foreign media of any kind (satellite television, newspapers, radio stations) are extremely hard to access and can be expensive to obtain.

In 2005, the military junta secretively relocated the seat of government from Yangon (Rangoon) to a mountain compound called Pyinmanaa (www.infoplease.com). In 2007 a bill was signed stating that the military regime would continue to control ministries and and that political parties would have limited power. Pro-democracy protests began to break out, resulting in fatal backlash from the government as military officers fired into crowds and arrested monks. Peaceful protesters were killed. Months later, in May 2007, Cylcone Nargis tore into Yangon, killing thousands and leaving many injured and homeless. Although they accepted financial relief, only 10% of supplies were actually distributed to the people in Yangon- solidifying my belief that the current government of Myanmar has no concern for its people.

Below are some links to pictures and visuals:
a map of Myanmar: http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/country/myanmar.html

U.N. special envoy Ibrahim Gambari, left, poses with Myanmar junta chief Senior Gen. Than Shwe, second left, and other unidentified generals, during their meeting in the junta's remote new capital, Naypyitaw, Myanmar, Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2007:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0eFecAKaXm9jp/610x.jpg

Myanmar monks in a peaceful protest:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Myanmar-monks.jpg

Musings of a novice.....

I should start by offering the following disclaimer: I am not well versed on the conflict in Myanmar.  While I am an avid consumer of the news and I was aware of the protests, I have no context or background information on the subject.  When my colleagues and I discussed potential topics for our blog, I realized that this would be a great opportunity to learn more about a conflict that is virtually ignored by the international media. As the semester progresses, I'm sure I will develop a more definitive position on this conflict based on my own research. 

To conduct my initial research for this posting, I visited BBC to get some basic information which provided me with an interesting synopsis of the conflict that made headlines in 2007.  One of the things I found most interesting was the government's attempt to limit Burmese citizens' contact with the outside world by controlling cell phone and internet usage.  This action suggests that the government knew their intended course of action could have a negative effect on the nation's international image.  For me and many others, especially those who are citizens of nations governed by free speech and democracy, this is nearly unthinkable.  

To think, I have only scratched the surface of the issues in Myanmar.