Breaking! Is Burma Going Nuclear?
Journalist Roland Watson from Dictator Watch has produced this very interesting (and chilling) report on the Burmese dictatorship's nuclear aspirations.
Will the Burmese military junta's friends in North Korea, Russia, China and Iran help the "generals" threaten not just their own people, but the whole South Asian region?
WHERE'S THE STATE DEPARTMENT NUCLEAR REPORT ON BURMA?
February 11, 2009
Unbeknownst to the Burma pro-democracy movement, and the journalist and diplomatic communities, there are events unfolding now in Washington, D.C., that will shape the Obama Administration's Burma policy for years to come.
These events specifically relate to the position the Administration will take on the military junta of Burma - the SPDC's - nuclear and missile proliferation programs: whether to acknowledge them or not.
Under Section 10 of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, the Secretary of State is required to prepare a report, not later than 180 days after the enactment of the Act, and annually thereafter, on Military and Intelligence Aid to Burma from foreign countries, companies and other entities. Subsection 3 specifies that the report must include information on "the provision of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, capabilities, and technology, including nuclear, chemical, and dual use capabilities."
The report is to be submitted to the Foreign Affairs and Foreign Relations Committees of the House and Senate, respectively. An unclassified version "shall be placed on the Department of State's website."
President Bust signed the JADE Act into law last July 29th. This means the 180 day preparation period has expired. We assume that the report has been completed and submitted to the committees. Indirect evidence of this is that on January 15th, Senator Richard Lugar, as part of Susan Rice's confirmation hearing as Ambassador to the United Nations, asked Ms. Rice her position on Burma, including "its growing relationship with North Korea." She declined to answer this element of the question.
We believe Senator Lugar and now Ambassador Rice had read the report, and that it confirms that the SPDC has active nuclear and missile proliferation programs, with the involvement of Russia, North Korea and Iran. This would be consistent with information from our own sources, and which intelligence we have published for the last two years.
The report has not yet been posted on the State Department website. If, when it is made public, its contents support our intelligence, this will trigger a political and media firestorm. The State Department, and by default, the U.S. intelligence community, will have confirmed that the SPDC is a nuclear weapons aspirant. (We have previously reported radio intercepts, in the summer of last year, by the pro-democracy resistance in Eastern Burma of Burma Army communications discussing unsuccessful attempts to shoot down unmanned drones. The U.S. is the logical source for such drones, and if so they likely originated from the base on Diego Garcia.)
The State Department report will elevate Burma in the international discourse to shared status with North Korea and Iran as a threat of the most severe magnitude. It will instantly change the Security Council debate on Burma and the ability of Russia and China to sustain their vetoes on Council action.
We were heartened by President Obama's election campaign statements promising real change, and want to give him the benefit of the doubt. We also understand that Secretary Clinton has just assumed her position, and that there are many grave issues confronting both the United States and the world. Still, the Burma question cannot be put off indefinitely. The SPDC ruthlessly attacked peaceful monks and other pro-democracy demonstrators during the 2007 Saffron Revolution. It denied humanitarian relief to the survivors of the Cyclone Nargis catastrophe. Now, a report has been prepared, under the terms of a law that both President Obama and Secretary Clinton signed, as senators, which we are confident will reveal the SPDC to be a developing nuclear threat, and also a partner with North Korea and Iran.
This issue is forcing the Administration's hand on Burma, in its first few weeks in office. If the report appears shortly, and is not censored regarding the findings of Subsection 3, it will signal that the Obama Administration, unlike President Bush, intends to be open and firm on the SPDC. The campaign promises of honesty and integrity will have been satisfied.
If, on the other hand, the report is not released anytime soon, or it is heavily censored, this implies (1) that the U.S. knows that Burma has a proliferation program; and (2) that the Administration does not want to deal with this new and pressing policy issue (perhaps because of how it would complicate diplomacy with North Korea, Iran and Russia), and that Burma and the threat the SPDC poses to international security and peace will remain on the back burner. Moreover, notwithstanding comforting statements about democracy that will inevitably be forthcoming, including during Secretary Clinton's upcoming trip to Asia, the Obama Administration, like Bush, will not initiate or even support the types of steps that are needed to pressure the SPDC and ultimately to dethrone the junta's supreme leader, Burma's dictator Senior General Than Shwe.
We call upon the journalist community to ask their government contacts:
Where's the State Department nuclear report on Burma?
Will the Burmese military junta's friends in North Korea, Russia, China and Iran help the "generals" threaten not just their own people, but the whole South Asian region?
WHERE'S THE STATE DEPARTMENT NUCLEAR REPORT ON BURMA?
February 11, 2009
Unbeknownst to the Burma pro-democracy movement, and the journalist and diplomatic communities, there are events unfolding now in Washington, D.C., that will shape the Obama Administration's Burma policy for years to come.
These events specifically relate to the position the Administration will take on the military junta of Burma - the SPDC's - nuclear and missile proliferation programs: whether to acknowledge them or not.
Under Section 10 of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, the Secretary of State is required to prepare a report, not later than 180 days after the enactment of the Act, and annually thereafter, on Military and Intelligence Aid to Burma from foreign countries, companies and other entities. Subsection 3 specifies that the report must include information on "the provision of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, capabilities, and technology, including nuclear, chemical, and dual use capabilities."
The report is to be submitted to the Foreign Affairs and Foreign Relations Committees of the House and Senate, respectively. An unclassified version "shall be placed on the Department of State's website."
President Bust signed the JADE Act into law last July 29th. This means the 180 day preparation period has expired. We assume that the report has been completed and submitted to the committees. Indirect evidence of this is that on January 15th, Senator Richard Lugar, as part of Susan Rice's confirmation hearing as Ambassador to the United Nations, asked Ms. Rice her position on Burma, including "its growing relationship with North Korea." She declined to answer this element of the question.
We believe Senator Lugar and now Ambassador Rice had read the report, and that it confirms that the SPDC has active nuclear and missile proliferation programs, with the involvement of Russia, North Korea and Iran. This would be consistent with information from our own sources, and which intelligence we have published for the last two years.
The report has not yet been posted on the State Department website. If, when it is made public, its contents support our intelligence, this will trigger a political and media firestorm. The State Department, and by default, the U.S. intelligence community, will have confirmed that the SPDC is a nuclear weapons aspirant. (We have previously reported radio intercepts, in the summer of last year, by the pro-democracy resistance in Eastern Burma of Burma Army communications discussing unsuccessful attempts to shoot down unmanned drones. The U.S. is the logical source for such drones, and if so they likely originated from the base on Diego Garcia.)
The State Department report will elevate Burma in the international discourse to shared status with North Korea and Iran as a threat of the most severe magnitude. It will instantly change the Security Council debate on Burma and the ability of Russia and China to sustain their vetoes on Council action.
We were heartened by President Obama's election campaign statements promising real change, and want to give him the benefit of the doubt. We also understand that Secretary Clinton has just assumed her position, and that there are many grave issues confronting both the United States and the world. Still, the Burma question cannot be put off indefinitely. The SPDC ruthlessly attacked peaceful monks and other pro-democracy demonstrators during the 2007 Saffron Revolution. It denied humanitarian relief to the survivors of the Cyclone Nargis catastrophe. Now, a report has been prepared, under the terms of a law that both President Obama and Secretary Clinton signed, as senators, which we are confident will reveal the SPDC to be a developing nuclear threat, and also a partner with North Korea and Iran.
This issue is forcing the Administration's hand on Burma, in its first few weeks in office. If the report appears shortly, and is not censored regarding the findings of Subsection 3, it will signal that the Obama Administration, unlike President Bush, intends to be open and firm on the SPDC. The campaign promises of honesty and integrity will have been satisfied.
If, on the other hand, the report is not released anytime soon, or it is heavily censored, this implies (1) that the U.S. knows that Burma has a proliferation program; and (2) that the Administration does not want to deal with this new and pressing policy issue (perhaps because of how it would complicate diplomacy with North Korea, Iran and Russia), and that Burma and the threat the SPDC poses to international security and peace will remain on the back burner. Moreover, notwithstanding comforting statements about democracy that will inevitably be forthcoming, including during Secretary Clinton's upcoming trip to Asia, the Obama Administration, like Bush, will not initiate or even support the types of steps that are needed to pressure the SPDC and ultimately to dethrone the junta's supreme leader, Burma's dictator Senior General Than Shwe.
We call upon the journalist community to ask their government contacts:
Where's the State Department nuclear report on Burma?
posted by Trevor Loudon at
2/13/2009 07:55:00 AM
21 Comments:
Burma also puts its minority groups in concentration camps. Yet I don't see those whom shill for Hamas or the Tamil Tigers go after Burma in the same manner.
Trevor. I remember in 2007, when a number of my comrades and I were marching against Burma's brutal junta, you seemed to place yourself on the side of the generals by repeating their smear accusations that the democracy movement were 'communists'.
I am glad you now see the Burmese junta as an enemy of humanity. It would be great if you could advertise on your blog when NZ's Burmese community holds events to support the democracy movement in their country. :D
Joe Biden predicted that there would be an 'artificial' international crisis within the first six months of Obama's presidency.
Was he alluding to this?
*creepy coincidence: the word verification is "dyings"
Cameron-it wasn't a smear campaign, it was a fact.
Saying the Generals were right about this issue, in no way implies any support of their murderous dictatorship.
"it wasn't a smear campaign, it was a fact"
Don't be ridiculous Trev, the Burmese opposition aren't communist and asserting that they are just makes you look foolish and obsessive.
Cheers
Sam Buchanan
Stop your lying Sam, as far as Burma's concern, I don't trust either side. The founder of the Burmese Communist Party-Aung San is the father of Aung San Suu Kyi. Look it up.
Ironically, one of her brothers-Aung San Oo is quite friendly toward the ruling Burmese junta. Anyone find this suspicious?
Of course, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's dad was briefly in the tiny Communist Party of Burma (one of many political groupings he was involved with in his short life) before being assasinated in 1947, therefore his daughter is pro-communist.
That's the sort of depth of thinking I expect from you, Mah. Try and come up with something that isn't blindly stupid, please.
Cheers
Sam
Wasn't John Key's father a commie?
"That's the sort of depth of thinking I expect from you, Mah. Try and come up with something that isn't blindly stupid, please."
Sam, please stop excusing the far left. Why would "Libertarians" wish to defend those whom want something the opposite of their cause?
Apparently, you wish for outright Leftist/Communists to masquarade themselves to be "Libertarians".
Here's Aung San's wiki bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San
Apparently to you Sam, it's only okay for Communists to wave a deceptive campaign of neo-imperialism, via deception in this manner by targeting former colonies like Burma which was under British control.
Aung San was indeed the founder of the Burmese Communist Party, which his daughter-Aang San Suu Kyi is involved in the "pro"-democracy movement in Burma, meanwhile her older brother is involved in supporting the junta.
Can't anyone rational see there is something wrong?
Loudon's "pumping-up" for the generals only a short while ago demonstrates vividly the truly ridiculous, "paint themselves into corners" position the loony right gets itself into !
A pretty facile response from Loudon to now say...."But it doesn't mean I support the generals in everything....blah blah blah".
It does actually Loudon, because you slag the only prospect of getting rid of the bastards....all because her Daddy was a commie....according to you.
Grow up....you doctrinaire fool who reflexively supports the bad guy, always !
"It does actually Loudon, because you slag the only prospect of getting rid of the bastards....all because her Daddy was a commie....according to you."
I guess to you Steve, it's okay for someone to have far left extremist views get away with it. Maybe it's because people like YOU are quite comfortable.
Your boy Hugo Chavez just decided to be more like his idol Fidel Castro today. How "nice" that you happily endorse far left extremism in this vile manner.
So if you had a relative who briefly flirted with communism, even one who was killed when you were a child, then you are a communist too - is that what you are saying? And if you've got a relative with different politics to you, it's "suspicious"?
What kind of weird world do you live in?
Cheers
Sam
"So if you had a relative who briefly flirted with communism, even one who was killed when you were a child, then you are a communist too - is that what you are saying? And if you've got a relative with different politics to you, it's "suspicious"?"
If someone ever briefly flirted with let's say another radical group such as the terrorist Ku Klux Klan or a neo-Nazi group I sure wouldn't want to be associated with that person. Why is it okay for those to flirt with Communism and other far left movements?
If it were wrong for someone to join the Klan, why isn't it equally wrong for someone to support Communism? By your logic, people would be able to freely join up a hate group like the KKK and other neo-Nazi groups as well.
This is why I don't normally bother to reply to you. We aren't talking about somebody flirting with communism, we are talking about your condemnation of somebody for having a relative who flirted with communism.
Cheers
Sam
"This is why I don't normally bother to reply to you. We aren't talking about somebody flirting with communism, we are talking about your condemnation of somebody for having a relative who flirted with communism."
Flirting with totalitarianism? Why is it okay for those to do it with Communism but wrong with the KKK? I guess some forms of totalitarianism are more acceptable to people like you.
Reason why I bring up other totalitarian groups people have flirted with such as the KKK is to expose your dishonest intellectual views on this Sam.
You are being intellectually dishonest in not caring if someone has flirted with a totalitarian cause when it happens to be Communism. Yet I'm sure you'd probably scream your head off if someone where affiliated with Fascist terrorists such as the KKK or those "Patriot" groups back in the 90's.
Why do those whom happen to flirt with Communism in your world view get a free pass yet those whom would probably flirt with other totalitarian ideologies would likely not receive the same treatment?
It's about intellectual honesty, and clearly, I don't seem to see it in you.
"It's about intellectual honesty, and clearly, I don't seem to see it in you."
Who cares?
Please read my last reply, it was very easy to understand.
And by the way, when did I ever say I didn't care if somebody had flirted with communism? Never, that's when.
As usual, you are just rambling - saying the same thing over and over regardless of its relevence.
Cheers
Sam
Strange that you should rave on about neo-nazis and the KKK Mah.
As a Holocaust Nazi you are the neo-nazi. As a strident supporter of zionist apartheid brought down on the Palestinians you are the KKK.
Furthermore, the essential precursor to intellectual honesty is intellect, of course. Amoebic-like function alone will simply not do.
and on that note, Reagan had to be a member of the KKK because the KKK supported his run for presidency.
Very good posting .
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home