Nations must follow U.S. steps to force Burma to free Suu Kyi

Despite repeated calls by foreign leaders, international organizations, human rights groups and people concerned with justice for the immediate release of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader remains incommunicado in what Burma's military junta terms "protective custody." Suu Kyi was arrested by the Rangoon generals during a premeditated attack by some 3,000 government-supported thugs against her motorcade May 30. About 70 of her supporters were killed that day.

Red Cross officials visit Suu Kyi
Officials from the Red Cross in Burma have been allowed to visit pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, for the first time since she was taken into government custody, two months ago.

The Red Cross says Suu Kyi is in good health and high spirits.

International concern has been mounting over 58-year-old Suu Kyi's health and whereabouts.

Without saying where she is, the Red Cross has described the conditions as decent.

The visit came as the United States slapped tough new sanctions on the impoverished south-east Asian country.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) officials had been trying to meet the Nobel Peace laureate since she was detained on May 30 after a bloody clash between her supporters and a pro-junta group.

"I and one of my colleagues met her at where she was kept yesterday morning," the ICRC's representative in Myanmar, Michel Ducreaux, said.

"The meeting lasted for about half an hour and we were alone. It was a very decent place and the conditions were also very decent," he said.

Only a UN special envoy had previously been allowed to see Suu Kyi in early June.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s912980.htm

I may be missing something here or is it just the same old ultra left wing, extremist liberal bias?

The country is not Burma and hasn't been for many years. It is now Myanmar, the new name they picked themselves. Now, I have no dog in this hunt any know nothing about the place. But, there is an ultra-leftie who prints a monthly screed in the Sunday editorial section of the Dallas Morning News and she uses the old title "Burma."

She may be trying to make the point as here, that they don't recognize what the government of whom they disapprove has done and, therefore, won't recognize the name they have chosen. But, that's not something that a media outlet should be making a judgment about. These neocommunists in the old timee media would NEVER call Zimbabwe by the old name, Rhodesia! Just another example of the liberal extremists in the media presenting propagnda as though it were news.

I'm no expert on Burma/Myanmar, but the CIA World Factbook says this about the country:

Britain conquered Burma over a period of 62 years (1824-86) and incorporated it into its Indian Empire. Burma was administered as a province of India until 1937 when it became a separate, self-governing colony; independence outside of the Commonwealth was attained in 1948. Gen. NE WIN dominated the government from 1962 to 1988, first as military ruler, then as president, and later as political kingmaker. Despite multiparty elections in 1990 that resulted in the main opposition party winning a decisive victory, the ruling military junta refused to hand over power. Key opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize recipient AUNG SAN SUU KYI, under house arrest from 1989 to 1995, was again placed under house detention from September 2000 to May 2002; her supporters are routinely harassed or jailed.

...and says this about the name:

conventional long form: Union of Burma
conventional short form: Burma
local short form: Myanma Naingngandaw
local long form: Pyidaungzu Myanma Naingngandaw (translated by the US Government as Union of Myanma and by the Burmese as Union of Myanmar)
former: Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma
note: since 1989 the military authorities in Burma have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; this decision was not approved by any sitting legislature in Burma, and the US Government did not adopt the name, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw

It does sound like an illegitimate government.

I don't remember hearing anything like this new American initiative going forward in all the Clinton years! (Nor during Bush I, to be fair.) I think this is brilliant strategery, just like the proposal being pushed to allow in N. Korean refugees via China. The folks on the Left will have smoke coming out of their ears when this goes thru - it was BUSH who finally did something about Myanmar!

Oh, and for comparison here's what the CIA World Factbook says about Zim:

The UK annexed Southern Rhodesia from the South Africa Company in 1923. A 1961 constitution was formulated that favored whites in power. In 1965 the government unilaterally declared its independence, but the UK did not recognize the act and demanded more complete voting rights for the black African majority in the country (then called Rhodesia). UN sanctions and a guerrilla uprising finally led to free elections in 1979 and independence (as Zimbabwe) in 1980. Robert MUGABE, the nation's first prime minister, has been the country's only ruler (as president since 1987) and has dominated the country's political system since independence. His misguided land redistribution campaign begun in 2000 caused an exodus of white farmers, crippled the economy, and ushered in widespread shortages of basic commodities. Ignoring international condemnation, MUGABE rigged the 2002 presidential election to have himself reelected.

Zimbabwe sounds more like a case of a people freely delivering themselves into a horrible fate. Zimbabwe's existence itself doesn't sound illegitimate to me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.