SELECTED NEWS AND VIEWS COLLECTED BY YE KYAW SWA

No 2 - Wednesday, July 27, 2011

This is the combination or the continuation of the blog named http://mahathuriya.blogspot.com/

News,Views & Opinions

Wednesday, June 27, 2011

NO 2

Prologue

Sometimes the ruled could overwhelm the ruling class and it could itself create the new ruling class. But, in many cases, the ruled in general could not overthrow the old ruling class completely and conclusively so that the new ruling class must be formed by means of sharing power with the old ruling class and the ruled.

Examples of the classical revolutions in world history are the 1789 French Revolution, the 1848-50 European Revolutions, the first abortive Russian Revolution of 1905, and the Russian Revolution of 1917 which had created socialist centralization economy and a single party system that had attempted to abolish capitalism and freedom from the world. The political consequences of the above said classical revolutions had shown the proof that the feudal society could not be transformed into capitalist society without having been both politically and economically formed its class structure to have the full strength to be born as the capitalist society. Apparently the history had revealed that all those classical revolutions in examples were ended up in coups d'tat and the autocratic feudalism only went forward onto the stage of the political power of the society concerned. There was no exception for the Lenins Soviet Russia. The proletariat dictatorship of V.I Lenins totally wrong theoretical outlook to Marxs political ideology in general and in essence, and Marxs political lessons taken from French society and French revolutions were also negated and neglected by Lenin. Thus, instead of democracy and capitalism, Lenins Russia went backward to Feudalism and autocracy in the name of socialism. That is to be called the restoration of the autocratic feudal society or the slipping back to the feudal autocratic society. Lenin had dragged back Russia into the dark age by coup d'tat as Napoleon Bonaparte and his nephew, Napoleon the III of French and Czar Nicholas II of Russia in 1905 had done, though there might be differences in historical and economical values in each of the cases. The point is that all the revolutions themselves failed and ended in coups d'tat, and the societies went into the hands of the new feudal landlords. In short, after Lenin, there were Stalin to Gorbachev in Russia and Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping in China. Many mini Stalins and Maos had appeared in various parts of the world both in power and not in power. The twentieth century was put into motion

mostly under the ideological influences of Marxism-Leninism or Communism-Socialism. It was but just a so-called Marxism-Leninism. In fact, merely the Leninism had been taken the major role to make political influence by force in that century. Marx was only an academician and one of the greatest historians, for that case, Lenin or Mao could never be matched. In the years approached toward the twenty first century, such a name known as Modern Reformations came out to the front line of our global society. Gorbachev of Russia and Deng Xiaoping of China, the two great reformists, had attempted to change their societies by means of reformation. They had both attempted to extricate their societies from the hell like ocean of complete darkness in socialist economy together with totalitarianism. However, Deng selected the economic reform as his first and basic priority when Gorbachev chose the path in favor of political reform. It was because Russia had more problems than China and Russia at that time was also a super power rivaling with USA. In addition, Russia had its eastern bloc and its own socialist empire. In my view, modern reformations are how the reformers had taken the lessons from history especially over such classical revolutions of the past. The lessons are not only political but also economical indeed. Eventually, what Karl Marx said was correctly and pragmatically interpreted by those two leading reformers in this modern time. Only because of the economic crisis, there became mass-uprisings, can be called them as revolutions. So, how to prevent or how to cure the economic crisis is the key point of how to evade the evils of such a type of classical revolution reincarnating into our modern societies.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Refs: - A History of Modern France Volume 1: 1715-1799 by Alfred Cobban - V.I.Lenin Biography by David Shub (1948) - Selected Works Volume 1 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels - A History of Europe by H.A.L. Fisher 1936 - Deng Xiaoping - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping - Mikhail Gorbachev - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev

Collectors Items
- STATEMENT BY DEREK MITCHELL - Ambassador-designate, U.S. Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma - JUNE 29, 2011 - Thailand's general election - Lucky Yingluck

- New US Defense Chief Optimistic About Defeating al-Qaida - July 09, 2011
- Life after Capitalism - Opinion - Robert Skidelsky - US, Chinese Military Chiefs Discuss Maritime Disputes, Other Issues -VOA News - July 11,
2011

- Principles of U.S. Engagement in the Asia-Pacific - Testimony of Kurt M. Campbell January 21, 2010

STATEMENT BY DEREK MITCHELL Ambassador-designate, U.S. Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE JUNE 29, 2011 Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you today as the Presidents nominee to serve as the Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma with the rank of Ambassador. I appreciate the confidence that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have shown in me by this nomination. As you are well aware, Burma is a nation rich in history, rich in culture, and rich in possibility. At the crossroads of South and Southeast Asia, Burma sits on sea lanes, natural resources, and fertile soil that create the conditions for potentially unlimited development. It is therefore particularly unfortunate that while much of Southeast Asia has become more free, prosperous, and globally interconnected in recent decades, Burma has been the outlier. Burma remains a country at war with itself and distrustful of others. With a government that has chosen for several decades to distance itself from the outside world, Burma now is the poorest country in Southeast Asia and a source of great concern and potential instability in the region. Although rich in natural and human resources, nearly a third of Burmas population lives in poverty. Hundreds of thousands of its citizens are internally displaced and thousands more continue to seek refuge and asylum in neighboring countries largely due to the central authoritys longstanding conflicts with and systematic repression of the countrys ethnic minority populations. Over 2,000 political prisoners languish in detention, while Burmas military continues to routinely violate international human rights. Overall, the average Burmese citizen lacks fundamental freedoms and civil rights. Although the Burmese government has claimed a successful transition to a disciplined, flourishing democracy, a political system that exhibits anything close to recognizable standards of representative democracy remains to be seen. I am encouraged that the new President of Burma speaks of reform and change, but the pathway to real national

reconciliation, unity among its diverse peoples, and sustainable development requires concrete action to protect human rights and to promote representative and responsive governance. As a result, U.S. relations with Burma have been strained. Over the past two decades, international policies of either pressure or engagement alone have not produced the change in Burma that we and the rest of the international community seek. In 2008, Congress directed the establishment of a Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma to enable more focused, sustained, and coordinated attention on Burma by the U.S. government. Consistent with this directive, in September 2009, the Obama Administration completed its Burma policy review and announced its intention to pursue a more flexible U.S. policy approach that integrated both sanctions and engagement to achieve results in Burma. This dual-track approach is fully consistent with President Obamas call for principled engagement with nations around the world. 2 Although U.S. policy toward Burma has evolved, our overriding objective has not: the United States still seeks a peaceful, prosperous, open, and democratic Burma that respects the rights of all its citizens and adheres to its international obligations. The United States remains prepared to establish a positive relationship, based on mutual respect and mutual benefit, with a Burmese leadership that advances these principles. If I am confirmed, my role as Special Representative and Policy Coordinator will be to work closely with and build upon the excellent foundation established by Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Yun in implementing Burma policy. I will seek opportunities for direct and candid dialogue with the regime concerning a path forward for Burma that promotes our values and broader national interests, and contributes to Burmas own development as a secure and prosperous nation. Of course, engagement is not an end in itself or the single measure of success: engagement must be time-bound, results-based, and accompanied by meaningful progress. If confirmed, I will report regularly to the White House, Secretary of State Clinton, and the U.S. Congress on the results of our dialogue and evidence of

such progress so we may calibrate our dual-track policy appropriately. I believe we should be prepared to respond flexibly and with agility to opportunities available in Burma and according to evolving conditions on the ground. If confirmed, I will also conduct extensive consultations with key stakeholders both inside and outside government, at home and abroad. My objective will be to implement U.S. law faithfully and coordinate efforts to advance the common international objectives of bringing about in Burma the unconditional release of all political prisoners, respect for human rights, an inclusive dialogue between the regime and the political opposition, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and ethnic groups that would lead to national reconciliation, and Burmas adherence to its international obligations, including all UN Security Council resolutions on nonproliferation. To date, in my view, the inability of key members of the international community to coordinate their approach to Burma has undermined the effective realization of our shared objectives.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right mix of skills, experience, and regional expertise to carry out fully the congressional mandate for this position. My first job in Washington was in the foreign policy office of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, where I learned the importance of congressional oversight, particularly on international issues of unique interest to Members and the American people. I have more than 20 years of experience studying and working on Asia from various perspectives both inside and outside of government, from within the United States and in Asia itself. For eight years, I led the Asia division at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) International Security Program and established CSIS Southeast Asia Initiative. I currently serve as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs, where I have been responsible for overseeing U.S. security policy and strategy throughout East, Southeast, South, and Central Asia. My first visit to Burma was in 1995, when I traveled to Rangoon with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and met with government officials, international NGO representatives, and political party leaders, including the remarkable Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. I made subsequent visits, which solidified my appreciation for

the richness of the countrys history and culture as well as the tragic limitations of its political and economic development. 3 I retained a keen interest in Burmas affairs in the years since, and co-wrote an article in the journal Foreign Affairs in 2007 that outlines a new U.S. policy approach to the country not dissimilar to results of the Obama Administrations 2009 policy review. Mr. Chairman, I know you take a particularly keen personal interest in the situation in Burma, as do many others in Congress, throughout our country, and around the world. It is a country of unique interest to me as well. It would be a great privilege to serve my country as the first Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma. If confirmed, I will bring the full weight of my diverse experience, personal contacts, understanding of Asia, and strategic instincts to this position. I will consult closely with you and other Members of this Committee and in the Congress to fulfill the mandate of this position in the interest of the United States and toward the betterment of the people of Burma.

Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to your questions. Ref: http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Mitchell_Testimony.pdf

Thailand's general election Lucky Yingluck Even copying their opponents policies has done the ruling party little good Jun 23rd 2011 | BANGKOK | from the print edition

WITH little more than a week to go before polling day on July 3rd, it is clear that the opposition Pheu Thai (PT) party will win more seats than any other in Thailands 500strong parliament. This will mark an extraordinary comeback for the unofficial leader of PT, Thaksin Shinawatra, a former prime minister ousted in a military coup in 2006 and now living in exile in Dubai as a fugitive from Thai justice. Some even predict that PT may win an outright majority, though a hung parliament looks more likely. But in Thai politics merely winning an election is not enough; whether PT gets to form a government is another matter entirely.

The surge of enthusiasm for PT owes a lot not only to Mr Thaksins enduring popularity among Thailands rural poor, but also to the dizzying rise of the official party leader, his younger sister Yingluck, who was unknown only a month or so ago. When Mr Thaksin picked her to lead PT into the election many dismissed it as a quixotic, even bizarre gesture. It turns out to have been a stroke of genius. The 44-year-old businesswoman has never held or campaigned for political office before. Yet she behaves as if she has been doing it all her life and has completely wrong-footed her main opponent, Abhisit Vejjajiva, the prime minister and leader of the Democrat Party that heads the ruling coalition. At the start of the campaign the two rivals were just about even. It is mostly Ms Yinglucks bravura campaigning that has opened up the gap. Mr Thaksin described his younger sister as his clone. In fact, she brings her own qualities and attributes to the campaign, drawing in people beyond the PT base. A fresher face even than the relatively youthful 47-year-old Mr Abhisit, and a woman campaigning in the very male world of Thai politics, she has injected a buzz and excitement into the election. Her seasoned, pragmatic campaign managers have exploited her looks and easy-going nature to the full. She, for her part, has played the perfect candidate by sticking closely to her sound bites and smiling ceaselessly at the camera. As to her policies (not that her adoring supporters care), she has promised to continue the populist economic programmes of her brother when he was prime minister from 2001 to 2006. She promises, for instance, to give free Tablet PCs to about 1m new schoolchildren and to raise the minimum wage. But, aware that triumph for Mr Thaksins party will undoubtedly rile those (such as the army) who got rid of him in a 2006 coup, she has struck a conciliatory tone. She vows that there will no revenge for the coup, and that she wont rush into devising amnesties for Mr Thaksin. For all the enthusiasm of his red shirt supporters, he remains a divisive figure. Even with the advantages of incumbency, the Democrat Party has floundered. Their rather bewildered campaign manager concedes that the timing of Ms Yinglucks candidature, pretty much on the day the campaign began, was brilliant. She stole the

headlines and has never looked backand a month is just long enough to remain an exciting novelty while avoiding serious scrutiny. Some mutter that she could yet have to answer to charges of perjury arising from the sale of Mr Thaksins telecoms company five years ago, but that will have to wait until after July 3rd. In contrast to the smiley-feely Ms Yingluck, Mr Abhisit and his deputy and finance minister, Korn Chatikavanij, are both Oxford-educated technocrats, less polished at working a crowd. Mr Abhisit has looked less stiff on the stump than in past elections, though it doesnt come naturally. One recent afternoon, he walked the length of a market in Bangkok, shaking hands, posing for photos with vendors and residents, a yellow garland draped around his powder-blue shirt and windbreaker. Supporters foisted gifts on him; cakes, flowers and the odd baby. He smiledbut it might as well have been a wince. Arriving at a community centre where former drug addicts had gathered on plastic chairs, he launched into a detailed analysis of why Mr Thaksins hardline policies against dealers did not work. He lost the audiences attention. It does not help that the Democrat Party has proposed a lot of similarly populist economic policies to PTs. In the scramble for votes, especially among Mr Thaksins core constituency of poorer supporters, the Democrat Partyagainst its better instinctshas also made a lot of expensive promises. It is offering subsidies for rice farmers and its own version of a hike in the minimum wage. One academic commentator, Thitinan Pongsudhirak, has called this campaign the race to the populist bottom. Mr Korn has costed PTs populism at a whopping 2.06 trillion baht ($68 billion) in the first year, but the Democrats arent doing so badly either. These promises of largesse alienate their traditional supporters in business, nervous about having to pay for the new wages, and do Ms Yingluck no damage. The minnows will decide For all the focus on Mr Abhisit and Ms Yingluck, if neither wins an outright majority of seats, then it will (as usual) be Thailands smaller parties that play a decisive role in a hung parliament. None has any ideology; they will simply haggle for ministerial posts and local pork.

Bhumjaithai, a vehicle for Newin Chidchob, a banned politician and former Thaksin henchman, could come third, perhaps with 40 or so seats. The party says it will stick with the Democrats, its current partners, and is leery of PT. Another party, Chart Thai Pattana (CTP), is courting both main parties and may well join PT in a flash. Other parties lack the numbers but could add some ballast, particularly if PT is nervous about fraud cases that might disqualify MPs. One tiny party is led by a retired general, Sondhi Boonyaratglin, leader of the coup in 2006, and so an unlikely ally for Thaksinites. But there are no permanent enemies in Thai politics. And then there is Mr Thaksins old foe, the powerful army. Besides staging the 2006 coup, it was instrumental behind the scenes in the formation of the present government. It has promised to stay in its barracks. But a close result and the ensuing horse-trading might tempt it to meddle againespecially if it looks as if Mr Thaksin is on his way back.

Ref: http://www.economist.com/node/18866885?story_id=18866885

..

Asia July 09, 2011 New US Defense Chief Optimistic About Defeating al-Qaida

Photo: AP/Paul J. Richards, Pool

USMC Gen. John Allen, left, and Gen. David Petraeus, incoming CIA Director, greets former CIA Director and new U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as he lands in Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, July 9, 2011.

Newly appointed U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is on a previously unannounced visit to Afghanistan, his first since taking over the defense post on July 1. He says he is optimistic about defeating al-Qaida, and that victory over insurgents in Afghanistan is "within reach." In the aftermath of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, Panetta says the United States is closer than ever to "strategically beating" al-Qaida, crippling the terrorist group's ability to stage mass attacks.

Panetta took over at the Pentagon this month after leading the CIA for two and a half years. Speaking with reporters traveling with him to Kabul, he said that if the United States keeps up the pressure, al-Qaida will no longer be able to conduct significant operations. "I think now is the moment - now is the moment - following what happened with Bin Laden, to put maximum pressure on them, because I do believe that if we continue this effort that we can really cripple al-Qaida," he said. The U.S. defense secretary said that information gained during the raid that killed bin Laden in Pakistan, plus other intelligence the U.S. has collected over years, has resulted in an "active pursuit" of between 10 and 20 terrorist leaders. Visiting Kabul for the first time since he left the Central Intelligence Agency, Panetta is expected to meet with the U.S. and NATO military commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, who will soon be returning to the United States himself, to take over from Panetta as CIA director. In addition, Panetta will meet with U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, who also is leaving his post by the end of this month. Those personnel changes closely follow the White House announcement that a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan is beginning, with 10,000 troops leaving by the end of the year. Pressure to reduce military spending due to the U.S. economic downturn is one of the factors behind the troop withdrawals, but Panetta said he believes costs can be cut without cutting America's military capability. "I do not believe that you have to choose between fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense. I believe that we can achieve savings and have a strong defense force at the same time," he said. The new defense secretary went on to echo his predecessor, Robert Gates, who expressed concern that excessive cuts could "hollow out" the U.S. military.

The Pentagon chief also intends to meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul. The U.S. relationship with Mr. Karzai has been strained for years, and the Afghan president has complained strongly about civilian casualties in his country caused by coalition airstrikes. Panetta said he is optimistic that a new U.S. military and civilian leadership team in Afghanistan can mark a new beginning in the nations' partnership.

Ref: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/New-US-Defense-Chief-Optimistic-AboutDefeating-Al-Qaida-125268919.html

Opinion Life after capitalism If capitalism means that money always talks, does the end of capitalism finish our urge to listen to it?
Robert Skidelsky Last Modified: 07 Jul 2011 17:51

Could capitalism have exhausted its potential to create a better life? [Reuters]

In 1995, I published a book called The World After Communism. Today, I wonder whether there will be a world after capitalism. That question is not prompted by the worst economic slump since the 1930s. Capitalism has always had crises, and will go on having them. Rather, it comes from the feeling that Western civilization is increasingly unsatisfying, saddled with a system of incentives that are essential for accumulating wealth, but that undermine our capacity to enjoy it.

Capitalism may be close to exhausting its potential to create a better life at least in the worlds rich countries. By "better", I mean better ethically, not materially. Material gains may continue, though evidence shows that they no longer make people happier. My discontent is with the quality of a civilization in which the production and consumption of unnecessary goods has become most peoples main occupation. This is not to denigrate capitalism. It was, and is, a superb system for overcoming scarcity. By organising production efficiently, and directing it to the pursuit of welfare rather than power, it has lifted a large part of the world out of poverty. Yet what happens to such a system when scarcity has been turned to plenty? Does it just go on producing more of the same, stimulating jaded appetites with new gadgets, thrills, and excitements? How much longer can this continue? Do we spend the next century wallowing in triviality? For most of the last century, the alternative to capitalism was socialism. But socialism, in its classical form, failed as it had to. Public production is inferior to private production for any number of reasons, not least because it destroys choice and variety. And, since the collapse of communism, there has been no coherent alternative to capitalism. Beyond capitalism, it seems, stretches a vista ofcapitalism. There have always been huge moral questions about capitalism, which could be put to one side because capitalism was so successful at generating wealth. Now, when we already have all the wealth we need, we are right to wonder whether the costs of capitalism are worth incurring. Adam Smith, for example, recognized that the division of labor would make people dumber by robbing them of non-specialized skills. Yet he thought that this was a price possibly compensated by education worth paying, since the widening of the market increased the growth of wealth. This made him a fervent free trader. Today's apostles of free trade argue the case in much the same way as Adam Smith, ignoring the fact that wealth has expanded enormously since Smith's day. They typically

admit that free trade costs jobs, but claim that re-training programs will fit workers into new, "higher value" jobs. This amounts to saying that even though rich countries (or regions) no longer need the benefits of free trade, they must continue to suffer its costs. Defenders of the current system reply: we leave such choices to individuals to make for themselves. If people want to step off the conveyor belt, they are free to do so. And increasing numbers do, in fact, "drop out". Democracy, too, means the freedom to vote capitalism out of office. This answer is powerful but nave. People do not form their preferences in isolation. Their choices are framed by their societies' dominant culture. Is it really supposed that constant pressure to consume has no effect on preferences? We ban pornography and restrict violence on TV, believing that they affect people negatively, yet we should believe that unrestricted advertising of consumer goods affects only the distribution of demand, but not the total? Capitalism's defenders sometimes argue that the spirit of acquisitiveness is so deeply ingrained in human nature that nothing can dislodge it. But human nature is a bundle of conflicting passions and possibilities. It has always been the function of culture (including religion) to encourage some and limit the expression of others. Indeed, the "spirit of capitalism" entered human affairs rather late in history. Before then, markets for buying and selling were hedged with legal and moral restrictions. A person who devoted his life to making money was not regarded as a good role model. Greed, avarice, and envy were among the deadly sins. Usury (making money from money) was an offense against God. It was only in the 18th century that greed became morally respectable. It was now considered healthily Promethean to turn wealth into money and put it to work to make more money, because by doing this one was benefiting humanity. This inspired the American way of life, where money always talks. The end of capitalism means simply the end of the urge to listen to it. People would start to enjoy what they

have, instead of always wanting more. One can imagine a society of private wealth holders, whose main objective is to lead good lives, not to turn their wealth into "capital". Financial services would shrink, because the rich would not always want to become richer. As more and more people find themselves with enough, one might expect the spirit of gain to lose its social approbation. Capitalism would have done its work, and the profit motive would resume its place in the rogues' gallery. The dishonoring of greed is likely only in those countries whose citizens already have more than they need. And even there, many people still have less than they need. The evidence suggests that economies would be more stable and citizens happier if wealth and income were more evenly distributed. The economic justification for large income inequalities the need to stimulate people to be more productive collapses when growth ceases to be so important. Perhaps socialism was not an alternative to capitalism, but its heir. It will inherit the earth not by dispossessing the rich of their property, but by providing motives and incentives for behavior that are unconnected with the further accumulation of wealth.
Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords, is professor emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University, author of a prize-winning biography of the economist John Maynard Keynes. A version of this article first appeared on Project Syndicate. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Source: Project Sydicate

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/201176105512730267.html .

Asia
July 11, 2011 VOA News

US, Chinese Military Chiefs Discuss Maritime Disputes, Other Issues

Gen Chen (R) said he had found common ground in talks with Adm Mullen

The top military commanders from the United States and China say they held "candid" talks Monday about territorial disputes in the South China Sea and other contentious issues. The official Xinhua news agency quoted Chinese armed forces chief Chen Bingde saying the two also discussed cyber security, China's military development and the attitude of some U.S. politicians toward China. Admiral Mike Mullen is in Beijing on a four-day visit, the first by a U.S. military chief of staff since 2007. Xinhua quoted Chen saying the two found "a lot of common ground" but had "different opinions on certain issues." Mullen said after his arrival in Beijing Sunday that he is worried about China's disputes with the Philippines and Vietnam over competing territorial claims in the resource-rich

South China Sea. China says the United States should stay out of the disputes. Washington recently reaffirmed its commitment to a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines. The United States has also declared a national interest in maintaining free navigation through the South China Sea, which carries vital sea traffic between Northeast Asia, and Europe and the Middle East. Speaking Sunday at Beijing's prestigious Renmin University, Mullen said the United States is, and will remain, a Pacific power. But he said the regional and global challenges facing the U.S. and China are too large and too vital to be blocked by misunderstandings. Mullen also called for greater openness from China's growing military. He said that "with greater military power must come greater responsibility, greater cooperation and just as important, greater transparency." During his visit, Admiral Mullen is due to visit Chinese military bases outside Beijing. His meetings are also expected to deal with stalled nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and confidence building measures between China and the United States. China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan all claim territory in the South China Sea, with most of those claims centered on the potentially energy rich Paracel and Spratly island chains. China's claim is the largest and it has issued sharp warnings in recent weeks, including threats of military action, to enforce its claims.

Ref:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/US-Chinese-Military-Chiefs-Discuss-MaritimeDisputes-Other-Issues-125331783.html Ref: ( pics) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14097503

US-China spat over South China Sea military exercises

..

Testimony of Kurt M. Campbell Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs U.S. Department of State Before the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs Senate Foreign Relations Committee January 21, 2010

Principles of U.S. Engagement in the Asia-Pacific

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting me here today to testify about the vital importance of Asian- Pacific countries to the United States and the key aspects of our engagement strategy with the region. There should be no doubt that the United States itself is a Pacific nation, and in every regard -- geopolitically, militarily, diplomatically, and economically -- Asia and the Pacific are indispensable to addressing the challenges and seizing the opportunities of the 21st century. Senator Webb, as you have eloquently noted, The United States is a Pacific nation in terms of our history, our culture, our economy, and our national security. As the Asia-Pacific century emerges, defining the new international environment, the United States must enhance and deepen its strategic engagement and leadership role in the region. Our economic relationships demonstrate the mutual importance of the interactions between the countries of the Asia-Pacific and the United States. The region is home to almost one-third of the Earths population. The Asia-Pacific accounts for almost onethird of global GDP and is a key driver for technological innovation. American and Asian economies are growing increasingly interdependent while assisting the global economic recovery.

Despite significant economic growth and vitality, the Asia-Pacific region is home to many of the most pressing security challenges of the modern era. What is most often absent in our discussion about the Asian miracle are the challenges posed by uneven growth, poverty, and weak and ineffective governments. Hundreds of millions have yet to benefit from the fruits of the Asian miracle, and income inequality continues to strain the capacity of governments to respond. Perhaps the most significant unintended consequence of the Asian miracle has been the acceleration of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Asias densely populated littoral nations will likely suffer as climatic variations target the region. Compounding these challenges is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, extremist groups in Southeast Asia, unresolved territorial disputes, and growing competition over energy and natural resources. The severity and transnational nature of these challenges demand collective action and American leadership. They also suggest a need for America to enhance, deepen, and sustain our engagement to seize opportunities and minimize risk.

Renewed Engagement Generates Results - Let me now take this opportunity to briefly
list the steps we have undertaken over the past year to step up and broaden U.S. engagement in the region. First, we have newly reengaged in the region through visits of our senior leadership and attendance at high-level meetings. Our attendance has produced concrete results that further U.S. strategic interests. In November, President Obama spent 10 days visiting Japan, Singapore, China, and South Korea, strengthening U.S. leadership and economic competitiveness in the region, renewing old alliances, and forging new partnerships. Under the leadership and guidance of President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Secretary Geithner, we hosted the first U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in July 2009, and we will have follow-on discussions in 2010. The dialogue set a positive tone for the U.S.-China relationship, while underscoring challenges and opportunities to enhance that relationship. We continue to build the U.S.-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership, which would provide a framework to broaden and deepen the bilateral relationship. Secretary Clinton has visited the region four times. Her first overseas trip as Secretary last February and her subsequent trips in July, November, and earlier this month bolstered bilateral relationships and enhanced U.S. ties to multilateral organizations.

The renewal of high-level engagement is producing tangible results. President Obamas November trip included participation in the 17th Annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders meeting in Singapore, important for U.S. trade since APEC members account for 53 percent of global GDP, purchase 58 percent of U.S. goods exports, and represent a market of 2.7 billion consumers. APEC leaders endorsed the Pittsburgh G-20 principles and agreed to implement the policies of the G-20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth, further expanding the global commitment to achieve more balanced growth that is less prone to destabilizing booms and busts. They also put forward a strong statement of support for concluding the Doha Round in 2010 and agreed to reject all forms of protectionism. In addition, Leaders agreed on core principles to promote cross-border services trade that will provide a strong basis for our efforts to facilitate and promote trade in services in the Asia-Pacific region. Leaders also pledged to make growth more inclusive through APEC initiatives that will support development of small and medium enterprises, facilitate worker retraining, and enhance economic opportunity for women. Finally, Leaders took steps to ensure environmentally sustainable growth in the region by agreeing on an ambitious plan to address barriers to trade and investment in environmental goods and services. President Obama also attended the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Leaders Meeting, the first ever with all 10 ASEAN members represented, providing a clear demonstration of renewed U.S. engagement with Southeast Asia. Secretary Clintons July trip included meetings with regional foreign ministers at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Thailand and the signing of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) with ASEAN nations. Her November visits to the Philippines, Singapore, and China included attendance at APEC Ministerial Meetings and meetings with allies and regional partners that further solidified relationships and deepened U.S. multi-lateral engagement.

Let me turn to another area of renewed engagement: Burma. Mr. Chairman, your leadership on this issue has been instrumental in changing our policy and initiating steps to engage the Burmese junta. As you are well aware, the Administrations formal review of U.S. policy towards Burma reaffirmed our fundamental goals: a democratic Burma at peace with its neighbors and that respects the rights of its people. A policy of pragmatic engagement with the Burmese authorities holds the best hope for advancing our goals. Under this approach, U.S. sanctions will remain in place until Burmese authorities demonstrate that they are prepared to make meaningful progress on U.S. core concerns. The leaders of Burmas democratic opposition have confirmed to us their support for this approach. The policy review also confirmed that we need additional tools to augment those that we have been using in pursuit of our objectives. A central element of this approach is a direct, senior-level dialogue with representatives of the Burmese leadership. Since I testified before you on the subject late last September, I visited Burma November 3 and 4 for meetings with Burmese officials, including Prime Minister Thein Sein, leaders of the democracy movement, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and representatives of the largest ethnic minorities. In my meetings, I stressed the importance of all stakeholders engaging in a dialogue on reform and emphasized that the release of political prisoners is essential if the elections planned for 2010 are to have any credibility. Finally, I want to underscore the Obama Administrations commitment to stepping up our engagement with Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Island nations. Secretary of State Clinton was en route to Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Australia last week, but the pressing need to help organize U.S. assistance to Haiti led her to postpone that visit. Her trip builds on her meeting with Pacific Island leaders in September 2009 in New York, with all parties committing to work together to address climate change and other transnational issues. The U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Susan Rice, has met regularly with her Pacific Island counterparts to share views and build cooperation on key issues before the United Nations. Within weeks of assuming my current responsibilities, I traveled to Cairns, Australia, to represent the United States at the Pacific Island Forums Post Forum Dialogue of key partner countries and institutions. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

chaired the proceedings, which focused on improving the coordination and effectiveness of development assistance efforts in the region.

U.S. Principles for Engagement in the Asia-Pacific Region The Asia-Pacific region is of
vital and permanent importance to the United States and it is clear that countries in the region want the United States to maintain a strong and active presence. We need to ensure that the United States is a resident power and not just a visitor, because what happens in the region has a direct effect on our security and economic well-being. Over the course of the next few decades climate change, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and widespread poverty will pose the most significant challenges to the United States and the rest of the region. These challenges are and will continue to be most acute in East Asia. This situation not only suggests a need for the United States to play a leading role in addressing these challenges, but it also indicates a need to strengthen and broaden alliances, build new partnerships, and enhance capacity of multilateral organizations in the region. Fundamental to this approach will be continued encouragement of Chinas peaceful rise and integration into the international system. A forward-looking strategy that builds on these relationships and U.S. strengths as a democracy and a Pacific power is essential to manage both regional and increasingly global challenges. With the positive outcomes of renewed engagement as a backdrop, I would like to discuss a series of principles that will guide our efforts moving forward. Intrinsic to our engagement strategy is an unwavering commitment to American values that have undergirded our foreign policy since the inception of our Republic. In many ways, it is precisely because of the emergence of a more complex and multi-polar world that values can and should serve as a tool of American statecraft. Five principles guide the Obama administrations engagement in East Asia and the Pacific. In her January 12 speech in Honolulu, Secretary Clinton detailed the five principles for how we view the Asia-Pacific architecture and U.S. involvement evolving. These include the foundation of the U.S. alliance system and bilateral partnerships, building a common regional economic and security agenda, the importance of result-oriented cooperation, the need to enhance the flexibility and creativity of our multilateral cooperation, and the principle

that the Asia-Pacifics defining institutions will include all the key stakeholders such as the United States. For the last half century, the United States and its allies in the region Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand have maintained security and stability in East Asia and the Pacific. Our alliances remain the bedrock of our engagement in the region, and the Obama Administration is committed to strengthening those alliances to address both continuing and emerging challenges. The United States, therefore, must maintain a forward-deployed military presence in the region that both reassures friends and reminds others that the United States will remain the ultimate guarantor of regional peace and stability. There should be no mistake: the United States is firm in its resolve to uphold its treaty commitments regarding the defense of its allies. Our alliance with Japan is a cornerstone of our strategic engagement in Asia. The May 2006 agreement on defense transformation and realignment will enhance deterrence while creating a more sustainable military presence in the region. The Guam International Agreement, signed by Secretary Clinton during her February 2009 trip, carries this transformation to the next stage. As part of our ongoing efforts to assist the Government of Japan with its review of the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) Agreement, a high-level working group met in Tokyo in November and December, and the Government of Japan is continuing its review. In addition to our focus on these issues, we are working to create a more durable and forward-looking vision for the alliance that seizes upon Japans global leadership role on climate change and humanitarian and development assistance programs, to name a few. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the alliance, we will work closely with our friends in Japan to think creatively and strategically about the alliance.

We are also working vigorously with our other critical ally in Northeast Asia, the Republic of Korea, to modernize our defense alliance and to achieve a partnership that is truly global and comprehensive in nature. Building off the Joint Vision Statement

between Presidents Obama and Lee Myung-bak, we are committed to creating a more dynamic relationship that builds on our shared values and strategic interests. We look forward to the Republic of Koreas growing international leadership role as it hosts the 2010 G-20 Leaders Meeting. Japan and the Republic of Korea have been key partners in our joint efforts to maintain peace and stability in Northeast Asia and, in particular, to denuclearize North Korea through the Six-Party process. The process suffered serious setbacks in 2009 with North Korea carrying out a series of provocations including its April 5 missile test and its May 25 announcement of a second nuclear test. As President Obama said, North Koreas actions blatantly defied U.N. Security Council resolutions and constitute a direct and reckless challenge to the international community, increasing tension and undermining stability in Northeast Asia. However, the international communitys unified response to North Koreas provocations is another example of the fruits of U.S. engagement. The U.N. Security Council, led by our Five-Party partners, unanimously condemned the DPRKs provocative actions and passed UNSCR 1874, introducing tough sanctions against North Koreas weapons and proliferation finance networks. When North Korea began to show renewed interest in dialogue later in the year, the United States sent U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Policy Ambassador Stephen Bosworth to Pyongyang on December 8 for discussions with North Korean officials about the nuclear issue. In these discussions, the DPRK reaffirmed the importance of the Six-Party Talks and the September 2005 Joint Statement on the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. We did not, however, reach agreement on when and how North Korea will return to Six-Party Talks, a matter that we will continue to discuss with Asian partners early in 2010.

Our deep and sustained engagement with China continues to yield progress on important international issues, such as the global economic recovery, climate change policy, and efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. However, we obviously do not see eye-to-eye with China on every issue, as evidenced by our discussions on human rights and concerns over Chinas opaque military modernization and exclusionary

industrial policies. We will continue to address these issues through continuous and frank dialogue, seeking out Chinese cooperation on areas of mutual concern while directly addressing differences. A recent example of this approach is our engagement regarding Googles troubling allegations regarding intrusions and the routine accessing of human rights activists e-mail accounts by third parties. U.S. officials have emphasized the importance of China's addressing the concerns raised by Google as well as the importance of Internet freedom as a central human rights issue. We need to recognize Asias importance to the global economy. Close U.S.-Asian economic cooperation is vital to the well-being of the U.S. and international economic order. However, as President Obama noted in his recent trip to Asia, We simply cannot return to the same cycles of boom and bust that led us into a global recession. The United States and Asia need to emphasize balanced growth and trade.

It is worth highlighting that four Asian economies (China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan) are now among our top-twelve trading partners. Today, the 21 APEC economies purchase almost 60 percent of U.S. goods. Taken as a group, ASEAN is also a large and critical trading partner. The strong Asian participation in APEC, the WTO, and the G-20 reflects the increasing importance of Asian economies and their centrality to strengthening the multilateral trading system and maintaining our economic recovery. Continued integration of the economies of this region will create new business opportunities, benefitting workers, consumers, and businesses and creating jobs back here in the United States. Despite strong export growth to the Asia-Pacific, the United States share of the total trade in the region has declined by 3 percent in the past five years. To reverse this trend, we will continue to work with the Congress, stakeholders, and the Republic of Korea to work through the outstanding issues of concern so we can move forward on our bilateral free trade agreement. We will also enter into negotiations of a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, as President Obama announced to APEC leaders in November. As the Administration stated when it announced its intention to

launch these negotiations, we intend to work in partnership with the U.S. Congress and stakeholders to shape a high-standard, broad-based regional agreement that will serve as a potential platform for economic integration across the region. This is an exciting opportunity for the United States to engage with some of the fastest growing economies in the world as well as to update our approaches to traditional trade issues, address new issues, and incorporate new elements that respond to 21st-century challenges.

The U.S. commitment to democracy and the protection of human rights is an intrinsic and indispensable aspect of our character as a nation and our engagement in the AsiaPacific region. Let me be clear, the promotion of democracy and human rights is an essential element of American foreign policy. It is part of who we are as a people. We believe human rights are not only core American values, but universal values. These values are a force multiplier in a region where democratic norms are on the ascent. We believe that citizens around the world should enjoy these rights, irrespective of their nationality, ethnicity, religion, or race. The United States will continue to speak for those on the margins of society, encouraging countries in the region to respect the internationally recognized human rights of their people while undertaking policies to further liberalize and open their states. As President Obama said in his speech on the way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan, We must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. President Obama has eloquently stated that our willingness to speak out on human rights and other democratic values is the source of our moral authority and courage. In order to ensure that human rights and the development of the rule of law and civil society remain strong pillars of our engagement, we will continue to adopt new and creative approaches that seize the opportunities of a dynamic information age. The freedom to speak your mind and choose your leaders, the ability to access information

and worship how you please are the basis of stability. We need to let our partners in the region know that we will always stand on the side of those who pursue those rights. Democratic governance is rapidly evolving within Asia; advancing human rights, freedom, and democracy is critical to alleviating poverty and conditions that catalyze extremism. Sustained economic growth requires governments that are transparent, non-corrupt, and responsive to the needs of their people. Our strategy is to maintain pressure on local decision-makers to improve governments human rights records while cooperating closely with international and non-governmental organizations involved in monitoring and reporting on human rights. As the Asia-Pacific region evolves, so should our own approach to multilateral economic and security cooperation. The President stated in Tokyo that we aim to participate fully in regional organizations, as appropriate, including engaging with the East Asian Summit. Secretary Clinton spoke in Honolulu of the need to enhance the flexibility and creativity of our multilateral cooperation. We plan to consult with allies and partners in the region and with Congress on how the United States, working with our Asian counterparts, can join and shape the regions evolving multilateral bodies. Strong, multilateral links to Asia can help ensure that the United States remains a critical part of this dynamic region.

Multilateral engagement can be an effective way to address our efforts to deal with transnational security challenges such as climate change, pandemics, or environmental degradation. For example, steps taken by APEC and ASEAN to improve cooperation among regional emergency management agencies is an important step in light of the spate of recent natural disasters that have battered the region. Multilateral efforts are also proving effective in addressing new transnational threats such as terrorism, piracy that threatens our sea lanes, and traffickers who exploit women, children, laborers, and migrants. In 2011, the United States will host APEC for the first time in 18 years, providing us with unique opportunities to demonstrate our commitment to and engagement in the

region, shape the organizations agenda in ways that reflect our values, and will help U.S. businesses and workers to compete on a more level economic playing field in this dynamic region. Through APEC, we will continue to advance regional economic integration, reduce barriers to trade and investment in the region, and help rebalance the Asia-Pacific economies. Working with ASEAN, the U.S. will seek to streamline and strengthen the ASEAN Regional Forums (ARF) institutional processes and create a more action-oriented agenda, especially with respect to transnational and non-traditional security challenges.

Conclusion
The United States faces a number of critical challenges in the coming years in its engagement with Asia. These include rising and failing states, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, critical global issues like climate change, violent extremism in some parts of Southeast Asia, poverty and income disparity. The essential ingredient in meeting these challenges is United States leadership. We need to play an active role in helping the countries of the region to enhance their capacity to succeed. The region is vital to U.S. interests not only in the Asia-Pacific context, but also globally. We are a vital contributor to the regions security and economic success. The Asia-Pacific region, in turn, has a profound impact on our lives through trade, our alliances, and partnerships. As the region continues to grow and as new groupings and structures take shape, the United States will be a player, not a distant spectator. Under President Obama and Secretary Clintons leadership, we are ready to face these challenges. We look forward to working with Congress and this Committee to seek opportunities to influence positively the future direction of the region.

Thank you for extending this opportunity to me to testify today on this pressing and vitally important issue. I am happy to respond to any questions you may have. Ref: http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2010/01/134168.htm

..

Epilogue
WAR IS ONLY A CONTINUATION OF STATE POLICY BY OTHER MEANS. GENERAL CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ (1780-1831)

Clausewitz continued to say that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. # He also said that war is the means and the means must always include the object in our conception. Thus, in other words, war is the continuation of political means with an act of violence. # In his definition of war, Clausewitz said again that war therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will. # So, when the political means collapsed, the means of war would take place as the other means of political instrument to initiate to accomplish the strategic policy of the nation. To end the war or to prevent the war, however, we have to use diplomacy between or among the nations. It is in time of peace, alliances or adversaries, to manipulate their foreign policies to achieve their goals in trade or in security, would be into practice of diplomacy for the sake of their own national interests. But diplomacy itself is very sensitive and subtle. Some strategic policy issues could not be solved within a few years. The several meetings of the head-ofstates or diplomats or special envoys could not gain the result perfectly and immediately. Sometimes, facts finding alone would take times a lot.

In certain extraordinary cases, Secret Diplomacy or Quiet Diplomacy is unavoidable and obligatory rather than Gun-boat diplomacy which is backed by threat of force or Public diplomacy which makes use of publicity. The entire story of the Nixon-Kissingers historic diplomacy with Mao Zedong had apparently revealed how Sino-US relationship was successfully rebuilt and how China became the international figure and how the balance of power was reshaped and revitalized in new designs but with the old mantras. It was the great example of the exercise of Secret Diplomacy between US and China successfully well before the global society. Quiet Diplomacy is in other words known as Preventive Diplomacy that is the range of peaceful dispute resolution approaches mentioned in Article 33 of the UN Charter. One form of diplomacy which may be brought to bear to prevent violent conflict or to prevent its recurrence is Quiet Diplomacy. * When one speaks of the practice of quiet diplomacy, definitional clarity is largely absent. Multiple definitions are often invoked simultaneously by theorists, and the activities themselves often mix and overlap in practice.* The following, though not intended as an exhaustive list, provides a brief overview of the primary options for quiet diplomatic engagement for the prevention of violent conflict: good offices, special envoys, facilitation, mediation, conciliation, adjudication and arbitration. * Diplomacy describes the conduct of international relations through the interaction of official representatives of governments or groups. It encompasses a broad range of activities and approaches to exchanging information and negotiating agreements which vary widely according to the actors and situations involved.* For the purposes of this typology, we distinguish such activities from coercion or the use of force thus excluding sanctions and military interventions from consideration

while acknowledging that non-coercive diplomacy may well take place in contexts where these factors are present.* So, if the issue is not concerned with Article 33 of the UN Charter, Secret Diplomacy should be considered as the most appropriate technique. As sanctions issues are becoming at major consideration, practical engagement should be silent and secret. Public diplomacy should be totally set aside and the most appropriate technique should be Secret diplomacy. It is because the genesis of the issue is not the sanction but the relationship. Let me say again that diplomacy itself is very sensitive and subtle. As the political means collapsed, the means of war would take place as the other means of political instrument, similarly, if or when the diplomacy would be collapsed, the war might come into place.

Sunday, July 24, 2011 References: Carl Von Clausewitz On War Volume I # Craig Collins and John Packer - Options and Techniques for Quiet Diplomacy (2006) * Henry Kissinger White House Years

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Prologue and Epilogue are contributed by YE KYAW SWA

NO 2

Collectors Items
- STATEMENT BY DEREK MITCHELL - Ambassador-designate, U.S. Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma - JUNE 29, 2011 - Thailand's general election - Lucky Yingluck

- New US Defense Chief Optimistic About Defeating al-Qaida - July 09, 2011
- Life after Capitalism - Opinion - Robert Skidelsky - US, Chinese Military Chiefs Discuss Maritime Disputes, Other Issues -VOA News - July 11,
2011

- Principles of U.S. Engagement in the Asia-Pacific - Testimony of Kurt M. Campbell January 21, 2010

SELECTED NEWS AND VIEWS COLLECTED BY YE KYAW SWA

No 2 - Wednesday, July 27, 2011