Administration Eases Financial and Investment Sanctions on Burma, July 11, 2012 - state.gov

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/07/194868.htm

Administration Eases Financial and Investment Sanctions on Burma, July 11, 2012

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton announced in May that the United States would ease certain financial and investment sanctions on Burma in response to the historic reforms that have taken place in that country over the past year. Today, the U.S. Government has implemented these changes to permit the first new U.S. investment in Burma in nearly 15 years, and to broadly authorize the exportation of financial services to Burma. The United States supports the Burmese Government’s ongoing reform efforts, and believes that the participation of U.S. businesses in the Burmese economy will set a model for responsible investment and business operations as well as encourage further change, promote economic development, and contribute to the welfare of the Burmese people.

(July 11 – implement the changes.  Two components (i) U.S. investment in Burma, and (ii) the exportation of financial service to Burma.  In response to and to encourage the historic reform )

As these vital economic and political reform efforts move forward, the United States will continue to support and monitor Burma’s progress. We have and will continue to urge the Burmese Government to continue its reform process and we expect the Burmese Government to implement measures that increase socio-economic development and safeguard the human rights of all its people, including political rights and civil liberties.

The United States remains concerned about the protection of human rights, corruption, and the role of the military in the Burmese economy. Consequently, the policy we are announcing today is carefully calibrated and aimed at supporting democratic reform and reconciliation efforts while aiding in the development of an economic and business environment that provides benefits to all Burma’s people. A key element of this policy is that we are not authorizing new investment with the Burmese Ministry of Defense, state or non-state armed groups (which includes the military), or entities owned by the foregoing. Moreover, the core authorities underlying our sanctions remain in place. U.S. persons are still prohibited from dealing with blocked persons, including both listed Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) as well as any entities 50 percent or more owned by an SDN. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) publishes a list of SDNs available here.

(remains concerned about human rights and corruption

-       not authorizing new investment with the Burmese Ministry of Defense, state or non-state armed groups

-       sanction laws are still in place, in book ; executive branch using waiver authority or block authority so that it maintains readiness to roll back if things turn out negatively, e.g., in terms of human rights concerns  

-       U.S. persons are still prohibited from dealing with blocked persons, including both listed Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs)

Also today, the President issued a new Executive Order that will allow the U.S. Government to sanction individuals or entities that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burma, including those who undermine or obstruct the political reform process or the peace process with ethnic minorities, those who are responsible for or complicit in the commission of human rights abuses in Burma, and those who conduct certain arms trade with North Korea. Individual or entities engaging in such activities would be subject to Treasury action that would cut them off from the U.S. financial system.

(Executive Order, July 11, 2012)

-       http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/11/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-threatening-peace-security-or-

-       a new Executive Order that will allow the U.S. Government to sanction individuals or entities that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burma

OFAC General License No. 16 Authorizes the Exportation of Financial Services to Burma

• OFAC has issued General License No. 16 (GL 16) authorizing the exportation of U.S. financial services to Burma, subject to certain limitations. Reflecting particular human rights risks with the provision of security services, GL 16 does not authorize, in connection with the provision of security services, the exportation of financial services to the Burmese Ministry of Defense, state or non-state armed groups (which includes the military), or entities owned by the foregoing. GL 16 also does not authorize the exportation of financial services to any person blocked under the Burma sanctions program. Transfers of funds to or from an account of a financial institution that is blocked under the Burma sanctions program are authorized, however, provided that the account is not on the books of a U.S. financial institution.
   
• Because the transactions authorized by GL 16 include activities formerly authorized by other general licenses (such as financial transactions in support of humanitarian, religious, and other not-for-profit activities in Burma, and noncommercial, personal remittances to Burma), General License No. 14-C and General License No. 15 are replaced and superseded by GL 16.

OFAC General License No. 17 Authorizes New Investment in Burma

• The Secretary of State, pursuant to a delegation of authority from the President, has waived the ban on new U.S. investment in Burma set forth in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1997.
   
• Consistent with this waiver, OFAC has issued General License No. 17 (GL 17) authorizing new investment in Burma, subject to certain limitations and requirements. GL 17 does not authorize new investment pursuant to an agreement, or pursuant to the exercise of rights under such an agreement, that is entered into with the Burmese Ministry of Defense, state or non-state armed groups (which includes the military), or entities owned by the foregoing, or any person blocked under the Burma sanctions program.

Reporting Requirements on Responsible Investment in Burma

• Any U.S. person (both individuals and entities) engaging in new investment in Burma pursuant to GL 17 whose aggregate new investment exceeds $500,000 must provide to the State Department the information set forth in the State Department’s “Reporting Requirements on Responsible Investment in Burma,” available here.
   
• These reporting requirements will undergo public notice and comment in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Department of State expects to issue its 60-day Federal Register notice of proposed information collections in the coming days.
   
• There are several components to these new reporting requirements, which will apply to investors with more than $500,000 in aggregate new investment in Burma. Investors will be required to file reports with the State Department on an annual basis, and will include a version that the Department will make publicly available, consistent with relevant U.S. law. Key information that companies will report on include information regarding policies and procedures with respect to human rights, workers’ rights, environmental stewardship, land acquisitions, arrangements with security service providers, and, aggregate annual payments exceeding $10,000 to Burmese government entities, including state-owned enterprises. The purpose of the public report is to promote greater transparency and encourage civil society to partner with our companies toward responsible investment. The above reporting requirements apply to any new investment, whatever corporate form it might take.
   
• In addition, individuals or entities undertaking new investment pursuant to an agreement, or pursuant to the exercise of rights under such an agreement, that is entered into with the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) must notify the State Department within 60 days of their new investment.

New Executive Order Targeting Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Burma

• In signing this Executive Order, the President has provided the United States Government with additional tools to respond to threats to the peace, security, or stability of Burma, and to encourage further reform in Burma. The order provides new authority to impose blocking sanctions on persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with or at the recommendation of the Secretary of State: to have engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burma, such as actions that have the purpose or effect of undermining or obstructing the political reform process or the peace process with ethnic minorities in Burma; to be responsible for or complicit in, or responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, or to have participated in, the commission of human rights abuses in Burma; to have, directly or indirectly, imported, exported, reexported, sold or supplied arms or related materiel from North Korea or the Government of North Korea to Burma or the Government of Burma; to be a senior official of an entity that has engaged in the foregoing acts; to have materially assisted any of the foregoing acts, or a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order; or to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted for or on behalf of, such a person.

Designation of the Directorate of Defense Industries

• The Directorate of Defense Industries (DDI) carries out missile research and development at its facilities in Burma, where North Korean experts are active. During a trip to Pyongyang in November 2008, Burmese military officials, including the head of the Directorate of Defense Industries, signed a memorandum of understanding with the DPRK to provide assistance to Burma to build medium range, liquid-fueled ballistic missiles. In the past year, North Korean ships have continued to arrive at Burma’s ports carrying goods destined for Burma’s defense industries.
   
• DDI has been designated pursuant to Executive Order ________ of July 11, 2012 (“Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Stability, or Security of Burma”), which provides the authority to block the property and interests in property of persons determined to have, directly or indirectly, imported, exported, reexported, sold or supplied arms or related materiel from North Korea or the Government of North Korea to Burma or the Government of Burma or to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, such acts.

Designation of Innwa Bank

• Innwa Bank has been designated pursuant to Executive Order 13464 as an entity that is owned or controlled by Myanmar Economic Corporation, a company previously designated by OFAC pursuant to Executive Order 13464. The Myanmar Economic Corporation is a conglomerate owned by the Ministry of Defense that has extensive interests in a variety of Burmese economic sectors.

Reporting Requirements on Responsible Investment in Burma

http://www.humanrights.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Burma-Responsible-Investment-Reporting-Reqs.pdf

8.  transparency

-       Not clear as to whether at the country level or the project level

-       each separate payment type, including but not limited to royalties, tax obligations, and fees.  

-       Property acquisition

-       Security arrangement

In sum, the mandate is broader than Section 1504 is

problems in some rural constituencies in the parliamentary by-election on April 2012

http://transitions.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/16/aung_san_suu_kyi_takes_her_case_to_the_nation

Posted By Min Zin   Friday, March 16, 2012

Aung San Suu Kyi takes her case to the nation

On March 14 Burmese state TV allowed something that would have been unthinkable just a few months ago: it broadcast a speech by opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Her speech, which was leaked online a few days earlier, was partly censored by the authorities, who deleted some unflattering references to the still-powerful military.

But even the broadcast version enabled Suu Kyi, who is running along with other members of her party in the much-anticipated parliamentary by-election on April 1, to deliver a powerful message to a national audience. In her speech, she said that her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), will pursue three priorities should it achieve a presence in parliament: It will work to promote the rule of law, to end the civil war, and to amend the 2008 constitution that grants 25 percent of the seats in parliament to the military without any of its candidates having to stand for election.  Aung San Suu Kyi also pledged to support market-oriented economic reform, improvements in education, language rights for ethnic minorities, greater opportunities for young people and women, and freedom of association for labor unions and farmers.

These are all issues that will no doubt resonate with the majority in this ill-fated country. But how is the NLD supposed to achieve them even if it gets all 47 of the seats that it hopes to win in the election?

The current parliament, created after a 2010 election that took place according to rules laid out by the same military regime that has controlled Burma since 1962, is dominated by the generals and their stooges. It's not just that a quarter of the national assembly is reserved for members of the military. About 80 percent of the remaining 498 seats are controlled by the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), the tame party of the old junta. So it's hard to imagine how Aung San Suu Kyi will be able to deliver on her campaign promises unless the military cooperates.

So why, then, should we care about these elections at all?

First of all, the generals want to show that they're capable of holding free and fair elections, since that's the only way that they'll get the U.S. and the European Union to lift the sanctions they imposed on Burma years ago. For that reason, I'm inclined to think that the election is likely to be conducted in an internationally acceptable manner -- at least on the day of voting, and perhaps with some local exceptions. Although there are some reports of irregularities with voter lists in the run-up to the elections, sources in the government say privately that they wouldn't even mind if the NLD wins half of the contested seats, since that would lend additional legitimacy to the whole process.

But Suu Kyi is aiming for a sweeping victory, treating the by-elections as a referendum of public support for her leadership. Some analysts estimate that the NLD can win up to two-thirds of the available seats.

I believe that the NLD will fare very well in the races held in the main cities, but I'm afraid that the party candidates will run into problems in some rural constituencies. The reasons are simple: intimidation and bribery. The USDP in the countryside has both a strong grassroots organization and a lot of financial power. Farmers and the rural poor are expected not to disappoint local party bosses politically if they want to avoid harassment, and sometimes they even benefit from a bit of microcredit administered by its strongmen. The USDP's local thugs are notorious for their sanctions against opposition supporters. In a recent interview with the Voice of America (Burmese Service), the USDP campaign chief for Rangoon said that his party will seek votes from the public by going door to door in the neighborhoods (and by that he doesn't mean just handing out campaign literature). The rural people who live in remote and scattered communities can expect the ruling party to wield both incentives and punishments to dissuade them from voting for the NLD.

Aung San Suu Kyi is well aware of such techniques. In one of her public speeches, she advised people to pretend to be fearful of the authorities if they are pressured to vote against their will - and then to vote for the NLD.

The NLD can hope for a sweeping victory only if people practice what political scientists call "sincere voting" -- votes from the heart. Let's see if they can get away with it.

British PM David Cameron's visit to Burma

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/288891/cameron-made-right-move-in-myanmar

Cameron made right move in Myanmar

Published: 15/04/2012

 

British Prime Minister David Cameron's visit to Myanmar on Friday has repeatedly been described as a ''landmark'' event because he is the first leader of a Western state to make the trip in many years, and not surprisingly he made good use of the momentous occasion to make a major announcement. Along with pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, Mr Cameron called for the suspension of economic sanctions which have been imposed by the European Union countries and the United States, Canada, Australia as well as a few other countries. The move is no surprise and comes sharply on the heels of the April 1 by-election which gave parliamentary seats to Mrs Suu Kyi and 42 other members of her National League for Democracy in a landslide win for the party.

Mr Cameron correctly served notice to the military-backed government that such international concessions are contingent upon real democratic progress, both by making the announcement jointly with Mrs Suu Kyi, and by calling for a suspension rather than an outright lifting of the sanctions.

''I think there are prospects for change in Burma [Myanmar] and I think it is right for the rest of the world to respond to those changes.

''Of course we must respond with caution, with care. We must always be sceptical and questioning because we want to know those changes are irreversible,'' said Mr Cameron, who also held talks with President Thein Sein.

Mr Cameron's views will carry much weight with the 27-nation EU, which has already lifted some restrictions. EU foreign ministers will decide on their next steps when they meet on April 23, and it is likely that Mr Cameron's move was given unofficial backing by the international body before he left London.

It is also more than likely that Washington is on board with the suspension of sanctions.

All things considered, as long as Myanmar continues to make significant strides toward democratisation the suspension and ultimate lifting of sanctions is an inevitable and desirable consequence which should serve to speed along the reforms. At any rate, whether or not the West does business in Myanmar, many countries in this part of the world have long been doing so and will continue to, with Thailand at the forefront.

As has often been pointed out in this space and elsewhere, the desire to exploit Myanmar's natural resources is a powerful force for the opening up of the country. Whether the companies doing business in the future in Myanmar are British, Canadian, Chinese, American or Thai, it will be crucial for the Myanmar people to properly safeguard their own interests and their environment.

This will depend to a large extent on how representative the government truly is and on how much local participation is allowed in major development schemes before they are ever begun. The foreign governments and companies involved should be willing to encourage local participation, both because it is the right thing to do and also because it may help to head off problems down the road.

In Thailand we know all too well how major development projects that are pushed through with a lack of transparency can come back to haunt developers.

It seems very unlikely that there was much participation of locals in the planning of the Dawei deep sea port and adjacent industrial zone being developed by Ital-Thai and pushed by successive Thai governments, both ''yellow'' and ''red''. What we do know is that thousands of locals are being relocated for the project.

The deep sea port/industrial park will almost surely go ahead, and it may well be a great boon to the Myanmar economy and people, as the project's supporters predict. But as it is still in the early construction stages it is not too late to make changes necessary to protect the locals and, as much as possible, the pristine Andaman Sea environment.

As Thais we should ask ourselves how we would feel if a foreign developer were bringing a huge industrial operation to Krabi or Khao Lak. We should also consider that Dawei is not so very far from Thai waters, and pollution has no respect for national boundaries.

South Korean corporate and government should not exploit Burma's liberal movement

== = = = == = 

I do not really see how Korean corporate and government exploit Burma's liberal movement. Korean corporate investment and the recent development in Burma, the two things are not yet proximately interwoven. Why brings up KMDC? How can KMDC be linked to the democratic movement in Burma? 

The whole point here looks to me quite a stretch.    

=== = ==== =====

Dear friends,

We wish to share with you the following joint statement from a group of Korean NGOs.

For inquiries, please contact to Mr. Na Hyun Phil from Korean House for International Solidarity by email (khis21@hanmail.net). For Koreans, please follow this link.

Asian Human Rights Commission
Hong Kong

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-FST-025-2012
April 13, 2012

A Statement from Korean NGOs forwarded by the Asian Human Rights Commission

SOUTH KOREA/BURMA: South Korean corporate and government should not exploit Burma's liberal movement

Recently the movements such as nomination Aung San Suu Kyi, in Burma election have shown positive progressive movement of democratization in Burma. However, even after the official liberalization, it is still plausible to say that Burma is still being controlled by military authorities with an iron fist. Even if the military is still occupying Burma and many people were struggling to promote democracy in the past, the movement could have had a positive progress due to people's aspiration and effort for the country's liberalization.

However, the Korean society is not completely welcoming Burma's democratization process. According to the recent press, EU, US and Japanese Corporate are showing interest in heavily investing in Burma as they fear that they had lost the Burma market to other countries such as China, Korea, and India during the government modification. As Burma government stated that it would step back from liberalization and human rights issues, the multinational corporate are willing to take advantage of the country as their enormous field of competition. Therefore, the already existing infringement of human rights and environment from development exploitation, corruption of multinational corporate and labor repression will be even more applied and worsened.

Even if a country has certain standard of democracy, 99 percent of the people are suffering from constant economic struggles due to today's Neo-liberalism economic structure which only protects the economic benefits of corporate. For Burma, it is nearly impossible for the country which has recently been in the process of democratization to stand up against the exploitation of such enormous corporate. The Korean society has acknowledged this phenomenon through the investment of Korean enterprise.

As Burma became known for a country worth investing with the protection of its own government, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy and many Korean companies are promoting Myanmar-Korea Economic Forum in April 6. Also, South Korean government has announced it will be providing ODA to Burma in a form of "Saemaul undong(New Village Movement)" for rural development system and also advise active investment. However, Daewoo International and Korean Gas Corporation's gas development of gas pipeline construction across Burma to China has started and the infringement of human rights is already being brought to the surface. In January 2010, Korean apparel factories on industrial zone in Langoon had labor strikes against the brutal working conditions. Last year, a company called KMDC announced their huge Burma Gas Development project, bringing political controversy.

The multinational enterprise's insensitive investments without considering the rights of laborers and inhabitants are also a serious issue. Burma Environmental Working Group (www.bewg.org) is presenting a statement which claims that the investment should follow the boundaries of human rights and environment protection.

Until the citizens of Burma can freely choose the government which can independently represent the citizens, the investment made to the country needs to be more considerate and sensitive to the issue of human rights and environment protection. Over the years, Burma has already suffered because of the militaristic government and its protected multinational corporate. By exploiting the fact that Burma is slowly being democratized, South Korean government and enterprises should not agonize and burden the Burma citizens with indiscreet investment.

We demand the following:
 

1.     Before South Korean enterprises invest in Burma, they must fairly and transparently proceed human rights and environmental impact assessment

2.     South Korean enterprises investing in Burma must follow the international standard such as OECD MNE guideline or ILO Labor Standards.

3.     In the process of natural resource development, human rights infringement such as forced eviction or forced labor must not be participated.

4.     South Korean government needs to prepare a countermeasure to prevent and protect in case of environment and human right violation by Korean enterprises investing in Burma

5.     For ODA of South Korea, government must establish standards which protect human rights and environment.

April 9 2012
 

1.     Democratic Legal Studies Association

2.     Human Rights Education Center, DEUL

3.     Imagination For International Solidarity

4.     Korean House for International Solidarity

5.     Korean Public Interest Lawyers' Group

6.     National Association of Professors for Democratic Society

7.     Network for Glocal Activism

8.     Palestine Peace Solidarity

9.     People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

10.   People's Solidarity for Social Progress

11.   RANGZEN

# # # 

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Deafening Silence, Bhopali at 2012 Environmental Film Festival in the Nation’s Capital

http://www.dcenvironmentalfilmfest.org/

2012 Environmental Film Festival in the Nation’s Capital

http://www.dcenvironmentalfilmfest.org/films/show/838

DEAFENING SILENCE

MARCH 20, 7:00 PM, Directed by: Holly Fisher

Venue: National Museum of Women in the Arts

DEAFENING SILENCE (USA, 2012, 120 min.)

World Premiere A fusion of beauty and terror, observation and anger, roving visuals and intimate stories – funny, contemplative or horrific – this experimental film provides a subjective, layered depiction of Burma (Myanmar) under brutal military dictatorship. Offering a living history of a country arrested in time, this hybrid documentary focuses on ethnic genocide, but with constant poetic resonance and a rich multiplicity of references to history and popular culture. Colonial archives and clips from YouTube are interposed within this tapestry of fragments, often in ironic counterpoint, and always to pierce the chokehold of censorship. The filmmaker made two filming trips to Burma – one posing as a tour guide and the second under-cover with ethnic Karen guerrillas, to film internal exiles surviving a free-fire jungle war zone. Directed and produced by Holly Fisher.

Holly Fisher

Fisher will be discussing DEAFENING SILENCE.

Holly Fisher has been active since the mid-sixties as an independent filmmaker, teacher, and editor of feature documentaries including the 1989 Academy Award Nominee "Who Killed Vincent Chin?"  From 1965-70, together with Romas Slezas, she made independent documentaries that focused on environmental, rural culture, and political issues.  The debut project by Fisher-Slezas Films Inc., Progress, Pork-Barrel, and Pheasant Feathers, received a Blue Ribbon for Conservation at The American Film Festival, NYC, 1966. The next project was an award-winning film called Watermen, a verité portrait of a family of Chesapeake Bay oyster fishermen, premiered in the late 60’s at Constitution Hall in Washington, DC.  Watermen resurfaced in 2010 when screened by Maryland Public TV and at the 2011 Environmental Film Festival.  Another Fisher-Slezas early film is a short spoof from 1968 called PSSSHT that will be screened for the first time in decades in this year’s EFF. To date, Fisher has directed, filmed, and edited five feature works: Bullets for Breakfast (1992); Kalama Sutta: Seeing is Believing (2001) about Burma; Everywhere at Once (2010) in collaboration with photographer Peter Lindbergh and narrated by Jeanne Moreau; Deafening Silence (2012), a new work about Burma; and A Question of Sunlight for release summer, 2012. Each is an open-ended essay, exploring ways to fuse linear narrative within non-linear structures, in order to draw the viewer into the process of its making or toward what the filmmaker calls the “presence” of the work as it unfolds.

During the film

“I wonder why people are so hunger for power? With the money to send a person to the moon, we can feed all the people on this planet.”

Violence v. non-violence

Q and A session after the movie

She said

Made two trips: one as a tourist, the other under cover with a Karen  

It is not hard to edit a documentary to direct or lead audience to a certain view. What is difficult is to present the fact in a balanced way.

Every piece is connected with every piece.

Questions  

.. why is this screened at environmental film festival?

.. things are getting better in Burma?
.. .. .. no, the "change" is smoke screen  

.. how did she get involved in Burma ?

============

=============

 MARCH 22, 6:30 PM

Venue: Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)

HAS FIRESTONE LIBERIA GONE FAR ENOUGH IN WORKPLACE REFORMS?

The Firestone rubber plantation was completely shut down during civil war. After re-open, it started to operate in a socially responsible way, partly because of support or pressure from new government  

INDONESIA'S PALM OIL DILEMMA

BHOPALI

Directed by: Van Maximilian Carlson

BHOPALI (India / USA, 2011, 83 min.)

Washington, D.C. Premiere Examining the aftermath of the catastrophic industrial disaster, the massive leakage of poison gas from a Union Carbide pesticide factory in the central Indian city of Bhopal, this documentary consistently maintains a tone of soft-spoken outrage. The film reveals that the initial death toll of the Dec 3, 1984 calamity, which was estimated at 10,000 or more, has been surpassed by the significant number of chronic maladies and birth defects attributed to water contamination caused by the leakage. The film tells often heart-wrenching stories of the disaster’s living victims. These include severely handicapped children whose parents, most of whom are very poor, must seek help from charity-funded or government-operated facilities that often are ill-equipped to cope with so many in desperate need. Directed, produced and edited by Van Maximilian Carlson. Co-produced by Kirk Palayan.

Van Maximilian Carlson

Carlson will be discussing BHOPALI.

Van Maximilian Carlson, born November 1984, is a Los Angeles-based director, editor, and cinematographer who has worked on numerous projects including documentaries, commercials, trailers, and several original dramatic films. His directorial works have received numerous awards, such as a “Special Jury Award” at the 40th Annual USA Film Festival, the “Most Promising Director Award” at the Buffalo Niagara Film Festival, and the “Best Director Award” at the Toronto International Teen Movie Festival for a short film he completed while in high school. He directed and shot DISSOCIATIVE (2008), which went on to win a “Best thriller Award.” His film, NINTH NOVEMBER NIGHT (2004), was considered by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Documentary Screening Committee to be “one of the outstanding documentaries of 2004.” His editorial work has also been recognized and awarded three Promax/ BDA awards and one Key Art nomination.

After movie with the director over some light refreshment

He lives in LA, now working on a film on Chinese people in China Town in LA

Spent about three months in Bhopal, at the beginning and end of the year

Why Noam Chomsky?

.. the director said, he has enormous respect for the professor, though the professor did not have an insight specific to the Bhopal incident 

Exclusive Interview with Kachin Independence Army Vice-Chief of Staff

http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=23169

Exclusive Interview with KIA Vice-Chief of Staff

By THE IRRAWADDY        Thursday, March 8, 2012

Gen Sumlut Gun Maw, the vice-chief of staff of the Kachin Independence Army, discusses ongoing negotiations with the Burmese government. (Photo: Irrawaddy)

Gen Gun Maw, the vice-chief of staff of the Kachin Independence Army, talks exclusively with The Irrawaddy at his command center in Laiza. Behind the general hangs a picture of Aung San Suu Kyi while a projector streams video from the talks in Ruili and a banner which reads “God is our Victory” hangs nearby.

With negotiations between the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) and Burmese government restarting in the Chinese bordertown of Ruili on Thursday, Sumlut Gun Maw explains the key factors for achieving a lasting peace.

Question: What are the conditions you bring to the table at the talks between the KIO and the Burmese government in Ruili today?

Answer: We have already suggested to them that we proceed in three stages: firstly the preliminary stage of talks, secondly a national political dialogue and thirdly the implementation of the political accord reached.  

The main intention is to get equal rights and self-determination as agreed upon in the Panglong Agreement signed in 1947.

Now we are just at a preliminary stage preceding real negotiations. Before this dialogue can start, we demand eight conditions to be met. These preliminary talks have to start, and they are now taking place in Ruili. Both parties have to show willingness for political dialogue. Both parties must agree to report news only according to the facts. Neither party should make slanderous accusations of the other.

Information on the preliminary talks has to be made publicly known. The fact is that the territories controlled by the two armed forces are intertwined, so we demand that clear lines be drawn and the forces be relocated behind those clear lines of control.  If civilians or soldiers are detained, they should be released immediately. We demand liaison offices to be established on both sides to ensure proper communication channels.

After these conditions are met, we are willing to enter into a political dialogue. As a first step we call for a grand national assembly, possibly in Panlong. This convention should lead to an agreement between the government and all ethnic communities in Burma.

We want to work together in every aspect of the ensuing development process, be it in infrastructure etc., and ensure that villages are rebuilt and victims compensated. After these political negotiations we demand the implementation of the agreements reached. To sum up, in a first step we are talking now in Ruili, after these talks we want that all ethnic communities of Burma come together and reach a political accord, and thirdly we want this agreement to be implemented.

Q: Why did the last round of preliminary talks in January fail?

A: At a preliminary level, we can’t say whether talks are a failure or a success. It’s not like the media reported. We are demanding for political dialogue first, the government is only talking about a ceasefire.  

Since 1994, we have been in a situation of ceasefire waiting for political dialogue.

Concession KIO made since 1994

We entered into a ceasefire agreement in 1994, participated in the National Convention in 2004, we have participated in every step of the process of drafting the constitution. We even agreed to hold the referendum on the constitution in KIO-controlled areas and held it. We did not obstruct the elections in 2010 and we told the public to vote as they wished. We have been telling the public to form a Kachin political party since late 2008, but the government did not allow the registration of the party.

Before the 2010 elections, they told us we should wait for the new government after the election to have a political dialogue. Then, they forced us to transform into the Border Guard Force in 2009. After the elections, they still did not accept a political dialogue.  Based on these tensions, the conflict started in 2011.

Now the international community understands that the KIO doesn’t want a ceasefire agreement. The Burmese government is telling the international community that we don’t want to sign the ceasefire agreement, but they don’t tell them of our efforts for political dialogue over the last 17 years. Nobody sees our efforts.

Q: Your talks with the Burmese government are hosted by China, how do you evaluate your relations with the Chinese government?

A: We have to have a relationship with China and a good one, because we share a border with them. They just want stability along the border.