|(To send letters, comments or suggestions on news coverage)|
Communiqué from the French Embassy in Rangoon
Thursday, November 17, 2011
"According to the EU Council Decision 2011/239/CFSP of 12 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/232/CFSP renewing restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar, member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of persons listed in Annex II of the Decision. France fully and strictly abides to this decision.
Therefore, contrary to an erroneous allegation made by The Irrawaddy in an article dated 16 November 2011, the French Embassy in Rangoon has never issued a visa to the individual mentioned in this article who is listed in the above mentioned Annex under reference #A1o. Neither the Embassy has been informed or aware of the alleged visit to France of this individual.
The French Embassy in Rangoon would appreciate The Irrawaddy to make the necessary correction.”
French Embassy, Rangoon
Attacking Academic Freedom or Legitimate Scrutiny?
Monday, September 19, 2011
The remarkable vitriolic and personalized article by Mr. Mark Farmaner of Burma Campaign, UK ("Attacking Academic Freedom or Legitimate Scrutiny" 9-15-2011), which attacks me and obliquely Mr. Ashley South, demonstrates more eloquently than ever I could that indeed there are bullies on both sides of the Thai-Burma border (Steinberg-Asia Times, "Bullies across Borders"). By vilifying through personal innuendo legitimate policy disputes, referring to critics of some of the policies of the establishment to which Mr. Farmaner is associated as sycophants of the Burmese military (he obviously has not read what I have written), bringing in Lenin (wow!), and then charging that we "have been directly paid for our work," he has crossed the line of legitimate disagreement and civility, and will cause many thoughtful people to question the democratic goals of his organization. By stating that I have been paid for my writing on Burma, either by the regime in Naypyidaw, as he implies, or even by Georgetown University, is libelous.
The liberal use of scurrilous adjectives both by Mr. Farmaner, and earlier by Mr. Mathieson of Human Rights Watch Asia, are antithetical to the admirable goals they seek and undercut their very objectives. Democracy calls for civility in debate, and as these gentlemen have amply illustrated, it has been gravely lacking.
Monday, August 29, 2011
I would like to respond to Naw Htoo Paw's article "Karen Struggle Divides Opinion as Refugees Fight Deportation", an earlier version of which was published in 'The Nation'. The original article included a response from myself, which is not reproduced in the Irrawaddy article.
My report, 'Burma's Longest War: anatomy of the Karen conflict' (http://www.tni.org/briefing/burmas-longest-war-anatomy-karen-conflict) describes the KNU a key actor, but only one among several organisations seeking to represent the Karen community. This analysis might be perceived as threatening to some. However, I have had positive feedback on the report from a wide range of Karen people. These include KNU officials who have privately stated that my analysis is accurate and that, if the KNU is to avoid further marginalisation, it needs to address the issues I have raised.
Over the past 20 years, I have travelled extensively in Karen lands and worked with different Karen organisations, including KNU departments and personnel. However, I have never made any direct payments to the Karen National Liberation Army - and certainly not for security. Although I am currently based in the UK, I have visited Burma eight times this year, including several trips to Karen areas.
I am concerned that Naw Htoo Paw's article is part of a campaign to silence alternative viewpoints regarding Burma.