At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.
Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.
Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
WASHINGTON, DC — When US forces tested their jungle warfare skills in last year’s Cobra Gold exercise in Asia, two officers from Myanmar got privileged access, attending as observers.
That’s one example of cooperation that would have been unthinkable a few years ago — when the US still knew Myanmar as Burma — and which remains controversial today.
Critics contend that the administration of President Barack Obama has been too quick to embrace Myanmar’s military since the country initiated reforms, overlooking its dubious international allies and its lamentable reputation for violence against civilians and minority groups. In addition to launching military cooperation, the Obama administration has eased sanctions and other restrictions.
Dominated by generals, Myanmar’s government has long ranked among the world’s most oppressive and corrupt. It maintains close ties to China and North Korea. The latter link may have aided Burmese nuclear weapon and missile efforts.
In an October letter, more than 100 organizations representing ethnic minorities wrote that their members have endured “decades of oppression and persecution” under military rule in Myanmar. “They have destroyed our villages, stolen our land, forced us to serve as their slave labor, to carry their equipment as they hunt down, torture, kill, and enslave our fellow ethnic brothers and sisters, and rape, gang-rape, and sexually assault our women and girls,” the groups wrote.
But after decades of military rule, in 2011 the country began reforming and opening up.
Under the new order, officials have released the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. The government is now ostensibly civilian, although the military still plays a prominent — arguably dominant — role.
While few doubt that Myanmar is moving in the right direction, there’s growing debate over just how quickly the US should be embracing this still-troubled country. Critics, including prominent members of Congress, want to slow engagement with Burma’s military. They want to require Myanmar to take specific steps before the US grants further military engagement.
A key question is whether Myamar will allow Aung San Suu Kyi to run for the presidency in elections slated for 2015. Her candidacy would require changes to the constitution written by the junta that held her under house arrest for years. A report released last Friday signaled an apparent reluctance to do so, according to the Wall Street Journal.
In defense of the administration, Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Vikram Singh told a House subcommittee that its steps with the Myanmar military are “largely symbolic.”
In addition to allowing observers at the Cobra Gold exercise, they include participation in a bilateral human rights dialogue; resumption of accounting operations for missing US World War II personnel; and academic exchanges and workshops on subjects such as civilian military control, rule of law and the military’s role in humanitarian assistance.
The Obama administration sees this effort as aiding Myanmar’s liberalization. Judith Cefkin, the State Department’s senior advisor for Myanmar, said “military-to-military engagement to share lessons on how militaries operate in a democratic framework will strengthen the hand of reformers.”
The administration stresses that further defense relations will depend on Myanmar’s progress liberalizing and suspending relations with North Korea, but the administration does not want to tie expansion to specific Burmese actions.
As a senior State Department official told GlobalPost, the idea is to “get away from a rigid quid pro quo.”
That is the crux of the dispute.
There is general agreement that US involvement with Myanmar’s military could speed reform and help wean the country from North Korea and China.
Jennifer Quigley of the US Campaign for Burma told an October Heritage Foundation session that the administration is “rapidly developing this military-to-military relationship without really taking into consideration the types of consequences that this will have for people on the ground,” such as ethnic minorities being attacked by the military.
In their October letter, the 133 groups representing ethnic minorities urged, as a precondition for further engagement, that Myanmar end attacks throughout the country, acknowledge past and present human rights abuses, and end economic activity by the military, among other things.
“Allowing military engagement with the Burmese military without requiring the Burmese military to demonstrate an interest in reform and to adhere with our preconditions conveys an undeserved legitimacy on the Burmese military and will jeopardize our efforts to persuade the Burmese military to agree to national reconciliation,” they wrote.
Keith Luse, a respected former Senate staffer, expressing his personal opinions at the Heritage session, acknowledged the need to deal with Myanmar’s military, but called for military relations with Myanmar to be contingent on “measurable reform benchmarks,” including human rights improvements and termination of Burma’s North Korea military relationship.
Legislation to put conditions on further military engagement has been introduced in the Senate and House. Senate sponsors include Marco Rubio, Bob Menendez, Ben Cardin and Bob Corker, the top Democrats and Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee and its Asia subcommittee. The bill was introduced in the House by Steve Chabot, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Affairs Asia subcommittee, and Democrat Joseph Crowley.
The bill would bar military aid to Myanmar other than basic training on human rights and civilian control of the military. It would lift the prohibition only if Burma acts to measurably improve human rights conditions, including establishing civilian oversight of its military, addressing human rights violations by the military and terminating military relations with North Korea. The bill would request an annual report on the administration’s strategy to engage Myanmar’s military.
“I think there’s been far too much carrot and far too little stick,” Chabot said.
We bring to the attention of our readers the letter by 31 retired generals to President Obama. While the latter tacitly endorses the Obama administration without focusing on the illegality and criminal nature of the Guantanamo detention facility, it nonetheless constitutes a timely initiative. The letter by the 31 retired military leaders calls upon President Obama to fully cooperate with the Senate intelligence committee to declassify and publicly release the 6000-plus page study that details the post-9/11 CIA rendition, detention, and interrogation program.
The following introductory text is by Human Rights First, followed by the transcript of the Open Letter (GR Editor M.Ch.)
Washington, D.C. – Thirty-one of the nation’s most respected retired generals and admirals today sent a letter to President Obama urging him to make good on his executive order to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. They also asked that he set the record straight on torture, a policy he also banned by executive order. Members of the coalition who signed today’s letter stood behind the president on January 22, 2009 – his second day in office – when the orders were signed.
“We appreciate your leadership this past year in recommitting to closing Guantanamo,” wrote the generals and admirals. “Guantanamo does not serve America’s interests. As long as it remains open, Guantanamo will undermine America’s security and status as a nation where human rights and the rule of law matter.”
Today’s letter comes as Congress and the Obama Administration have made progress toward putting Guantanamo on the path to closure. In December, Congress passed its annual defense bill that replaced confusing and cumbersome foreign transfer restrictions that the Obama Administration had said complicated the transfers of detainees to their home or third countries. The administration also transferred three Uighur detainees to Slovakia, ending the detention of men whom the administration says never posed a threat to the United States, but could not be repatriated to China where they faced certain persecution as a Muslim minority in that nation.
Progress toward closing Guantanamo continued this month as the Periodic Review Board (PRB), established by executive order in March 2011, concluded its first case. It ruled that Mahmoud Abdulaziz Al-Mujahid, a Yemeni citizen, no longer poses a significant threat to U.S. national security and is now cleared for transfer. In addition, media and nongovernmental organizations have been invited to observe PRB hearings at the end of the month. Despite this progress, the pace of transfers will have to increase dramatically to achieve closing the prison by the end of President Obama’s second term.
With regard to torture, the retired military leaders urged President Obama to direct his administration, particularly the CIA, to fully cooperate with the Senate intelligence committee to declassify and publicly release the 6000-plus page study that details the post-9/11 CIA rendition, detention, and interrogation program. The report, which was adopted by the committee over a year ago, has not yet come to a vote over declassification as the intelligence committee had been unable to move forward due to lack of cooperation from the administration.
“Former CIA officials who authorized torture continue to defend it in books and film, and public opinion is with them, based on mythology, not fact,” stated the letter.
“We believe that upon reviewing the facts the American people will agree that torture was not worth it, and that we as a nation should never return to the dark side.”
TEXT OF LETTER
January 21, 2014
President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama:
Five years ago tomorrow, members of our coalition of retired generals and admirals stood behind you in the Oval Office when you signed three executive orders that helped put our nation’s counterterrorism efforts on a stronger footing, consistent with our laws and values. You banned torture, closed the CIA “black sites” where torture occurred, and put Guantanamo on the path to closure.
We appreciate your leadership this past year in recommitting to closing Guantanamo. Congress responded, passing an annual defense bill that provides you with substantial additional flexibility to repatriate or resettle the 77 detainees who have been cleared for transfer by our security agencies. We encourage your administration to transfer all cleared detainees as soon as possible and complete administrative reviews of the remaining eligible detainees by year’s end to determine who else might be eligible for transfer. Guantanamo does not serve America’s interests. As long as it remains open, Guantanamo will undermine America’s security and status as a nation where human rights and the rule of law matter.
While you have made progress on Guantanamo this past year, we are concerned about the enduring and false debate over torture by the CIA. Former CIA officials who authorized torture continue to defend it in books and film, and public opinion is with them, based on mythology, not fact. The American people deserve access to the voluminous, 6000-plus page study that details the post-9/11 CIA rendition, detention, and interrogation program, adopted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. We call on you to direct your administration, including the CIA, to fully cooperate with the committee to declassify with minimal redaction and publicly release the study. We believe that upon reviewing the facts the American people will agree that torture was not worth it, and that we as a nation should never return to the dark side.
We thank you for your steadfast commitment to these issues at the heart of our national security and values, and stand ready to assist in any way that we can.
Sincerely,
General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (Ret.) General Charles C. Krulak, USMC (Ret.) General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.) General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.) General William G. T. Tuttle, Jr., USA (Ret.) Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr., USA (Ret.) Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.) Lieutenant General Arlen D. Jameson, USAF (Ret.) Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.) Lieutenant General Keith J. Stalder, USMC (Ret.) Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA (Ret.) Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.) Rear Admiral Donald Guter, JAGC, USN (Ret.) Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, JAGC, USN (Ret.) Major General Michael R. Lehnert, USMC (Ret.) Major General Melvyn S. Montano, USAF (Ret.) Major General William L. Nash, USA (Ret.) Major General Thomas J. Romig, USA (Ret.) Major General Walter L. Stewart, Jr., USA (Ret.) Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA (Ret.) Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret.) Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.) Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.) Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.) Brigadier General Dennis P. Geoghan, USA (Ret.) Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.) Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.) Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr, CSMR (Ret.) Brigadier General Richard O’Meara, USA (Ret.) Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.) Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.)
