What’s in a name? Obama to welcome leader of ‘Myanmar,’ not ‘Burma’

Myanmar's president, Thein Sein, at the U.N. building in Bangkok on April 29. (Chaiwat Subprasom /Reuters)Straight up: This will only be of interest to foreign policy nerds and people interested in the fate of U.S. relations with this particular Asian country (Shoutout: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Republican senate minority leader and resident expert in Congress on this issue).

The White House announced Wednesday that President Barack Obama will welcome President Thein Sein of Myanmar next week. It's a historic visit, part of a gradual patching-up of relations after decades of tension and U.S. economic sanctions.

Obama himself became the first sitting president to visit Myanmar in November 2012. But there's one catch: According to the State Department and the CIA, there's doesn't seem to be any such country. According to those agencies, Thein Sein leads "Burma."

It's a notable diplomatic reward. Obama used the name "Myanmar" during his visit there in November. Authorities there have long quested for Washington to recognize the name, but it's still quite rare among U.S. policymakers—and nearly unheard of in Congress.

Here's the State Department's take: "The military government changed the country name to "Myanmar" in 1989. It remains U.S. policy to refer to the country as Burma."

What does the Central Intelligence Agency have to say? This: "Since 1989 the military authorities in Burma, and the current parliamentary government, have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; the US Government has not adopted the name, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw."

So why the change? National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden has the goods:

"The United States government over time has begun limited use of the name 'Myanmar' as a diplomatic courtesy," Hayden told Yahoo News by email. "Our policy remains that Burma is the name of the country."

She confirmed that the use of the other name is, in effect, a symbolic reward.

"Burma has undertaken a number of positive reforms, including releasing over 850 political prisoners; easing media restriction; permitting freedom of speech, assembly, and movement," she said. "We have responded by expanding our engagement with the government, easing a number of sanctions, and as a courtesy in appropriate setting, more frequently using the name 'Myanmar.'"

Obama believes "that showing respect for a government that is pursuing an ambitious reform agenda is an important signal of support for its efforts and our desire to help the transformation succeed," Hayden said.

Here is the full statement from White House press secretary Jay Carney:

Statement by the Press Secretary on the visit of President Thein Sein of Myanmar to the White House

President Obama will welcome His Excellency President Thein Sein to the White House on Monday, May 20, 2013. Since President Obama’s historic trip to Rangoon last November, the United States has continued to advocate for continued progress on reform by President Thein Sein’s government, in close cooperation with Aung San Suu Kyi, civil society leaders, and the international community. The President looks forward to discussing with President Thein Sein the many remaining challenges to efforts to develop democracy, address communal and ethnic tensions, and bring economic opportunity to the people of his country, and to exploring how the United States can help.

President Thein Sein’s visit underscores President Obama’s commitment to supporting and assisting those governments that make the important decision to embrace reform, and highlights the dedication of the United States to helping the Burmese people realize the full potential of their extraordinary country.

View the original article here

What's at stake in U.N. arms trade treaty negotiations?

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Members of the United Nations are in the final days of negotiations on what could become the first international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

The treaty drafting conference at the U.N.'s headquarters in New York City will continue through Thursday.

A new draft text was circulated to the states participating in the conference last Friday, which rights groups criticized as disappointing.

Following are questions and answers about the arms treaty conference.

WHAT IS THE ARMS TRADE TREATY?

The point of an arms trade treaty is to set standards for all cross-border transfers of any type of conventional weapon - light and heavy. It would also create binding requirements for nations to review all cross-border arms contracts to ensure the munitions will not be used in human rights abuses, terrorism, violations of humanitarian law, do not breach U.N. arms embargoes and are not illegally diverted.

It would require governments to refuse to export weapons to countries that would likely use them to violate human rights or commit war crimes. It would also require governments to regulate arms brokering.

WHAT WEAPONS WOULD BE COVERED?

The current draft treaty says that the following weapon types will be covered battle tanks; armored combat vehicles; large-caliber artillery systems; combat aircraft; attack helicopters; warships; missiles and missile launchers; small arms and light weapons, ranging from assault rifles to handguns.

A previous draft said those were the weapons covered by the treaty "at a minimum." Rights groups complained that the new draft has narrowed the scope of the treaty.

It would not cover unconventional weapons like nuclear, chemical and biological arms. Separate treaties cover those.

WHO WANTS SUCH A TREATY?

Human rights groups, arms control advocates and a majority of the U.N.'s 193 member states want a strong treaty that imposes tough new standards on the largely unregulated arms trade. Many of the treaty's most ardent supporters come from Europe, Latin America and Africa, though it has supporters from all over the world.

Nearly 120 countries, led by Mexico, issued a joint statement on Monday saying "the overwhelming majority of (U.N.) Member States agree with us on the necessity and the urgency of adopting a strong Arms Trade Treaty. Our voice must be heard."

Among that statement's supporters were major arms producers Britain and Germany. The other four top arms exporters - the United States, Russia, China and France - did not endorse it.

The five permanent Security Council members - the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia - issued their own joint statement of support for a treaty that "sets the highest possible common standards by which states will regulate the international transfer of conventional arms."

The five also said that "an effective (treaty) should not hinder the legitimate arms trade or the legitimate right to self defense under the U.N. Charter."

The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the United States - the world's biggest arms trader - reversed U.S. policy on the issue after President Barack Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.

Delegates have expressed concern that other major arms producers like Iran, Pakistan and others might take issue with some of the provisions in the treaty and demand the inclusion of language that weakens it and adds loopholes. Since the treaty-drafting conference works on the basis of consensus, any country can veto the outcome if it chooses to do so.

WHAT WILL AN ARMS TRADE TREATY NOT DO?

According to the U.N. Office of Disarmament, it will not do any of the following: interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in member states; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm states' legitimate right to self-defense; undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. gun rights lobby group, is strongly opposed to the arms trade treaty. The group has vowed to fight the convention's ratification by the U.S. Senate if Washington backs it at the United Nations.

The NRA says the treaty would undermine gun ownership rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The American Bar Association, an attorneys' lobbying group, last month disputed the NRA position, saying in a paper that "ratification of the treaty would not infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE CONFERENCE FAILS TO APPROVE A TREATY?

If the conference fails to agree to a treaty because it cannot reach the required consensus, delegates say they can put it to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly to rescue it. Either way, if a treaty is approved, national legislatures will need to ratify it.

WHAT ARE THE STICKING POINTS IN NEGOTIATIONS?

- Ammunition. Most countries and rights groups want ammunition to be covered comprehensively in the treaty. Exports of ammunition are covered in the draft treaty but not imports. The United States has said it opposes inclusion of ammunition. Rights groups say coverage of ammunition is inadequate.

- Self-defense. Some delegations are insisting that the draft include more language on the right of countries to legitimate self-defense. That is because some major arms-importing states, especially in the Middle East, have expressed concern that their ability to import weapons could suffer if the treaty comes into force.

- Risk of diversion. Some countries want the risk of diversion of weapons to unintended recipients, such as rebel groups or governments under a U.N. arms embargo, to be a criterion for refusing to grant an export license.

- "Overriding." The current draft says that arms exports should be canceled if there is an "overriding" risk that they could be used in human rights violations. Some countries have suggested that a better threshold would be if there is a "substantial" risk involved.

- Exemptions. There are a number of scenarios under which arms deals would be exempt in the current draft, such as defense cooperation agreements - something India wanted - and gifts, loans and leases of weapons. Supporters of a tough treaty call them loopholes and want them removed.

- Reporting. The current draft says countries will send reports to the U.N. on their international arms trade but does not call for them to be made public. Western nations want such reports to be made public but countries like China, Iran and others do not want that information disseminated openly.

(Reporting By Louis Charbonneau; Editing by Paul Simao)

View the original article here