Remarks by the President Obama at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you very much.

Vitamin D deficiency linked to strokes, heart disease

Oily fish such as salmon are rich in Vitamin D

WASHINGTON - Insufficient intake of vitamin D, long known to play a key role in bone health, may significantly increase a person's risk of stroke, heart disease and even death, a US study said Monday.

Examining 27,686 Utah patients aged 50 or older with no history of cardiovascular disease, the study found those with very low vitamin D levels were 77 percent more likely to die early than those with normal levels.

They were also found to be 45 percent more likely to develop coronary artery disease and 78 percent were more likely to have a stroke, said the research by the Heart Institute at the Intermountain Medical Center in Salt Lake City.

Those with very low levels of vitamin D were twice as likely to develop heart failure, said the study which was due to be presented later Monday at a conference organized by the American Heart Association in Orlando, Florida.

"If increasing levels of vitamin D can decrease some risk associated with these cardiovascular diseases, it could have a significant public health impact," said study co-author Heidi May, noting that vitamin D deficiency is easily treatable.

"When you consider that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in America, you understand how this research can help improve the length and quality of people's lives."

Studies have shown that Vitamin D also helps regulated key body functions such as blood pressure, inflammation and glucose control -- all related to heart disease -- and that deficiency of the vitamin is associated with musculoskeletal disorders.

Brent Muhlestein, another co-author of the study and the director of cardiovascular research at Intermountain, stressed that because the study was only observational, definitive links between vitamin D deficiency and heart disease could not be established.

He called for randomized treatment trials of patients with insufficient levels of the vitamin.

Two thirds of the Utah population does not get enough vitamin D, according to the study.

The researchers chose Utah -- home to the Mormon church -- in part because the population consumes low levels of tobacco and alcohol, thus allowing them to focus the study on vitamin D's effects on the cardiovascular system, explained Muhlestein.

The patients were divided into three groups based on their vitamin D levels -- normal (over 30 nanograms per milliliter), low (15-30 ng/ml) or very low (less than 15 ng/ml) -- and were followed for a year to determine whether they developed some form of heart disease.
Source : AFP/ar,Channel News Asia
Posted: 17 November 2009 1148 hrs

Remarks by Secretary Clinton at APEC Singapore Conference

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Suntec Conference Center
Singapore
November 11, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming here this afternoon. Before I get started on my comments concerning the important meetings being held here at the APEC ministerial, I want to take a moment to recognize the fact that today is Veteran’s Day in the United States, and I want to acknowledge the veterans and our men and women in uniform and their families, many of whom are deployed in very difficult places around the world. I cannot emphasize enough our appreciation for their dedication and sacrifice.

Here in Singapore, we’ve had a productive day of discussion, covering the full range of regional and global issues confronting our nations. I have stressed the Obama Administration’s commitment to substantive cooperation. That is a commitment that I have felt very strongly about and made clear on my first trip as Secretary of State to Asia earlier this year. And when President Obama arrives here later this week, he will underscore our view that APEC is an essential forum for engagement and for common action.

I very much appreciate the hard work that Singapore has put in to making this meeting a success, and I thanked the two co-chairs of the ministerial, Minister Yoh, and Minister Lim, for their leadership. During this morning’s APEC foreign ministers breakfast, we covered major regional security issues. North Korea’s nuclear program is of foremost concern, and the United States is committed to making progress on this issue.

Our Special Representative for North Korea Policy, Ambassador Stephen Bosworth, will visit Pyongyang in the near future. The decision to send him was reached after extensive consultation with our partners in the Six-Party process. They share our view that Ambassador Bosworth can use this opportunity to press the basic principles of the September 2005 joint statement, including full, peaceful, verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and work toward the resumption of the Six-Party Talks.

We have made the purpose and parameters of this visit clear to the North Koreans. This is not a negotiation; it is an effort to pave the way toward North Korea’s return to the Six-Party process. Let me emphasize that our expectations of Pyongyang have not changed and will not change, nor has our commitment to the Six-Party process. We will use diplomacy and we will work closely with our partners to find a peaceful path to our shared objective on the Korean Peninsula.

We also discussed the United States approach to Burma. We have begun engaging the Burmese authorities in high-level dialogue to advance our goals of democratic reforms and human rights. Burma’s neighbors and members of ASEAN have an especially important role to play in encouraging the Burmese Government to move forward on reform, to start a meaningful internal dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, political parties, and ethnic minorities; and to hold credible, fair elections in 2010. I reiterated that U.S. sanctions will remain in place until we see meaningful progress in key areas.

In the ministerial meetings and over lunch through the rest of the day, we discussed a wide range of economic and foreign policy issues, especially expanding trade and ensuring sustainable and inclusive growth. I talked about American efforts to advance development and spread opportunity through increased funding and new initiatives.

And I want to say a few words about the pressing global challenge that will be a focus of attention in the coming weeks as we move toward the meeting in Copenhagen. We’ve had fruitful discussions today on climate change. The United States has taken dramatic steps in the past year to change the way we use energy at home, and we have taken our seat at the table in international climate negotiations. We believe all nations have a responsibility to address this urgent global challenge, and we are prepared to assume our share of responsibility.

Going forward, we are committed to reaching the goal of a global, legally binding climate agreement. And we will continue working vigorously with the international community toward that end. If we all exert maximum effort and embrace the right blend of pragmatism and principle, I believe we can secure a strong outcome at Copenhagen, and that would be a stepping stone toward full legal agreement. We cannot let the pursuit of perfection stand in the way of progress, but there are clear metrics by which we will judge the result at Copenhagen.

First, any agreement must involve immediate global action in which all nations do their fair share. We cannot afford further delay. Second, any agreement should cover all of the major issues, including adaptation, financing, technology cooperation, dissemination of technology, forest preservation, and others. It should include a commitment to strong mitigation actions like national reduction targets for developed countries and actions by major developing countries that will reduce their emissions significantly compared to business as usual.

Third, any agreement must include a commitment to a system that will ensure transparency and accountability with regard to the implementation of domestic actions. Fourth, any agreement must endorse funding facilities to assist developing countries. We are prepared to support a global climate fund that will support adaptation and mitigation efforts and a matching entity to help developing countries match needs with available resources. Funding through the new global climate fund and a technology mechanism will help developing countries identify what they need, where to get it, and how to finance, operate, and maintain it.

These are the yardsticks we will use to measure the outcome. But under any circumstance, Copenhagen is not the end of the process. It is part of our larger collective commitment to hold ourselves and others accountable, to speed the transition to a low-carbon global economy, and to leave a cleaner, greener planet for our children and grandchildren. So as we emerge from Copenhagen, we have to continue on this course with urgency and resolve.

Again, I thank our hosts here in Singapore for their excellent hospitality and planning of these meetings, and I would be happy to take some of your questions.

MODERATOR: We have time for a few questions. Are there questions? Dave Gollust from Voice of America.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, here comes a microphone, Dave.

QUESTION: Oh, I’m sorry. Okay. Do you have any indication from Kurt Campbell’s initial soundings with the Burmese that they really will be amenable to changing the political setup that they have for next year? And would the return of Aung San Suu Kyi herself to political life in Burma be a condition for a more normal United States relationship with Burma?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Dave, as you know, we had two very high American diplomats, Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell and Deputy Assistant Secretary Scot Marciel, go to Burma last week and spend a considerable amount of time meeting with not only government officials, but also in a private meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi, members of political opposition and ethnic groups. It was a very thorough and constructive set of visits, and the United States is committed to a process to try to encourage and support Burma’s path to democracy.There is a lot of work to do. We have no illusions that any of this will be easy or quick. But we have consulted broadly with our allies and partners in this region, particularly within ASEAN, and we have a lot of solidarity as we move forward with what is a more calibrated approach. We’re seeking to see a process inside Burma that would inspire and permit dialogue among all of the stakeholders so that there could be a growing consensus within Burma itself about the way forward. This is a very challenging situation, as many of the countries represented here at this meeting can attest, but the United States is committed to moving forward and staying in close consultation with the parties inside Burma as well as other countries that share our goal for a more peaceful, stable, democratic Burma. We think this has to be resolved within the Burmese people themselves, so we are not setting or dictating any conditions. We want to help facilitate the space and opportunity for the Burmese people to try to work out the challenges they face in having free and credible elections and setting forth a plan for a more prosperous and peaceful future.

MODERATOR: Next question, Sondang Sirait from SCTV Indonesia.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, we know that you held a meeting with the Indonesian foreign minister this morning. If you could tell us about what you talked about in the meeting? And also about the upcoming meeting between President Obama and President SBY this weekend?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we had an excellent meeting with the foreign minister today. We covered a broad range of issues, some affecting our bilateral relationship, some affecting regional and other global issues. And I think it would be fair to say that it was such a comprehensive discussion that we ran out of time before we each had to get back to our respective responsibilities. But I am very impressed by the foreign minister. His grasp of the issues that – not only his country, but to – all of us now face. His principled and pragmatic approach toward working through those issues was extremely impressive, and I look forward to working with him.We will be establishing our strategic dialogue between our two countries, and we also anticipate seeing Indonesia play a larger and larger role in the region and on the global stage, as it is doing, for example, in the G-20. In particular, the experience that Indonesia has over the last 10 years of transitioning to a vibrant democracy, we believe, is very relevant in Asia, and in particular, in Burma. And we have learned a lot from our conversations with our Indonesian counterparts.We really congratulated the minister, and of course, President SBY for a very impressive win and an electoral victory. There will be a great deal for our presidents to discuss when they see each other here over the weekend. I know that President Obama has a very special place in his heart for Indonesia and is looking forward to visiting soon. There is just a very positive relationship between our two countries, and we want to broaden and deepen that and take it to a new level.MODERATOR: Next question, Lachlan Carmichael from AFP.QUESTION: Madame Secretary, three questions on North Korea: Do you support, does the United States support the South Korean version of events that the North Korean boat crossed in – crossed the border? And with whom did you discuss this today? And finally, do you have any second thoughts about sending Ambassador Bosworth to North Korea in light of these events? I think the goal was to send him there by the end of the year.SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Lachlan, as you know, there have been flare-ups of the sort we have seen over the last day between North and South Korea over a number of years. There is a set of issues around territorial waters that often serve as a backdrop to this kind of confrontation. I have no reason to question the accounts that we are receiving. We are obviously hoping that the situation does not escalate, and we’re encouraged by the calm reaction that has been present up until now.I’ve spoken, obviously, with my team back in Washington and with Kurt Campbell and the others who have responsibility for this region while we’ve been here. But this does not in any way affect our decision to send Ambassador Bosworth. We think that is an important step that stands on its own. It is connected to our efforts, along with our Six-Party partners, to move toward resumption of the Six-Party process. We think that is critically important. So we are certainly counseling calm and caution when it comes to any kind of dispute, especially one that can cause repercussions and damage that could be quite difficult to contend with. But at the same time, we’re moving ahead with our planned visit for Ambassador Bosworth.

MODERATOR: The last question will go to Channel News Asia, Augustine Anthuvan.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I’d just like to revisit the question my colleague asked earlier about Myanmar. It’s significant for ASEAN, and of course, there is a substantial Burmese community here in Singapore. Secretary Campbell, when he spoke before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, he emphasized, underscored to senior Chinese Government officials the need for Beijing to play a positive role in promoting reform in Burma. I’d like to hear your thoughts, ma’am, on expanding on what exactly you would like to see from China. And a related question, of course, is that you said it’s very much left to the people of Myanmar to see how things unfold in 2010 for the elections. But what sort of role can ASEAN play in terms of on-the-ground, independent observers during the elections? Thank you very much, ma’am.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, and I think those are important questions because we need a broad response by the nations in the region. Certainly, China has the opportunity to play a very positive role, as does Thailand, India, and other ASEAN countries. We would like to see countries individually and through ASEAN reach out to the Burmese leadership, persuade them that it is time to start planning for free, fair and credible elections in 2010 – 2010 is nearly here – that it would be useful to have validation of those elections. And again, countries in the region and certainly, institutionally, ASEAN can offer support to ensure that the elections are viewed as credible.But I think it’s also important to recognize that left alone, the internal problems within Burma are not confined within Burma’s borders. We’ve seen refugee flows out of Burma, people taking to boats, ending up in Malaysia, ending up in Indonesia, ending up in Australia, crossing the border into Thailand. That instability is not good for anyone. Any country that does business in Burma wants to be sure that their investments and their business are safe. And the best way to ensure that is to move toward democracy and the kind of stability that democracy creates, the kind of investment climate that will attract even more businesses.So we look to all the countries in the region to play a role, and we particularly anticipate ASEAN playing a significant role. I mean, if we’re able to encourage the Burmese leadership to meet in dialogue with representatives of various aspects of Burmese society, we hope that that can be encouraged by other nations and by ASEAN, maybe facilitated by ASEAN, because planning for these elections must be a priority, and how it is monitored is something to be discussed and analyzed. But what’s important is getting some confidence that these will be free, fair, and credible elections. Otherwise, the Burmese leadership and the results of the election will not have international legitimacy. And since the Burmese leadership has said they want to have such elections, we hope that they will work with us to try to make sure that those elections gain credibility and that their results are respected globally.

Thank you very much.

Remarks by President Barack Obama at Suntory Hall

Suntory Hall, Tokyo, Japan(November 14, 2009)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you so much. Arigatou. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Good morning. It is a great honor to be in Tokyo -- the first stop on my first visit to Asia as President of the United States. (Applause.) Thank you. It is good to be among so many of you -- Japanese and I see a few Americans here -- (applause) -- who work every day to strengthen the bonds between our two countries, including my longtime friend and our new ambassador to Japan, John Roos. (Applause.) It is wonderful to be back in Japan. Some of you may be aware that when I was a young boy, my mother brought me to Kamakura, where I looked up at that centuries-old symbol of peace and tranquility -- the great bronze Amida Buddha. And as a child, I was more focused on the matcha ice cream. (Laughter.) And I want to thank Prime Minister Hatoyama for sharing some of those memories with more ice cream last night at dinner. (Laughter and applause.) Thank you very much. But I have never forgotten the warmth and the hospitality that the Japanese people showed a young American far from home.
And I feel that same spirit on this visit: In the gracious welcome of Prime Minister Hatoyama. In the extraordinary honor of the meeting with Their Imperial Majesties, the Emperor and Empress, on the 20th anniversary of his ascension to the Chrysanthemum Throne. In the hospitality shown by the Japanese people. And of course, I could not come here without sending my greetings and gratitude to the citizens of Obama, Japan. (Applause.)
Now, I am beginning my journey here for a simple reason. Since taking office, I have worked to renew American leadership and pursue a new era of engagement with the world based on mutual interests and mutual respect. And our efforts in the Asia Pacific will be rooted, in no small measure, through an enduring and revitalized alliance between the United States and Japan.
From my very first days in office, we have worked to strengthen the ties that bind our nations. The first foreign leader that I welcomed to the White House was the Prime Minister of Japan, and for the first time in nearly 50 years, the first foreign trip by an American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was to Asia, starting in Japan. (Applause.)
In two months, our alliance will mark its 50th anniversary -- a day when President Dwight Eisenhower stood next to Japan's Prime Minister and said that our two nations were creating "an indestructible partnership" based on "equality and mutual understanding."
In the half-century since, that alliance has endured as a foundation for our security and prosperity. It has helped us become the world's two largest economies, with Japan emerging as America's second-largest trading partner outside of North America. It has evolved as Japan has played a larger role on the world stage, and made important contributions to stability around the world -- from reconstruction in Iraq, to combating piracy off the Horn of Africa, to assistance for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- most recently through its remarkable leadership in providing additional commitments to international development efforts there.
Above all, our alliance has endured because it reflects our common values -- a belief in the democratic right of free people to choose their own leaders and realize their own dreams; a belief that made possible the election of both Prime Minister Hatoyama and myself on the promise of change. And together, we are committed to providing a new generation of leadership for our people and our alliance.
That is why, at this critical moment in history, the two of us have not only reaffirmed our alliance -- we've agreed to deepen it. We've agreed to move expeditiously through a joint working group to implement the agreement that our two governments reached on restructuring U.S. forces in Okinawa. And as our alliance evolves and adapts for the future, we will always strive to uphold the spirit that President Eisenhower described long ago -- a partnership of equality and mutual respect. (Applause.)
But while our commitment to this region begins in Japan, it doesn't end here. The United States of America may have started as a series of ports and cities along the Atlantic Ocean, but for generations we have also been a nation of the Pacific. Asia and the United States are not separated by this great ocean; we are bound by it. We are bound by our past -- by the Asian immigrants who helped build America, and the generations of Americans in uniform who served and sacrificed to keep this region secure and free. We are bound by our shared prosperity -- by the trade and commerce upon which millions of jobs and families depend. And we are bound by our people -- by the Asian Americans who enrich every segment of American life, and all the people whose lives, like our countries, are interwoven.
My own life is a part of that story. I am an American President who was born in Hawaii and lived in Indonesia as a boy. My sister Maya was born in Jakarta, and later married a Chinese-Canadian. My mother spent nearly a decade working in the villages of Southeast Asia, helping women buy a sewing machine or an education that might give them a foothold in the world economy. So the Pacific Rim has helped shape my view of the world.
And since that time, perhaps no region has changed as swiftly or dramatically. Controlled economies have given way to open markets. Dictatorships have become democracies. Living standards have risen while poverty has plummeted. And through all these changes, the fortunes of America and the Asia Pacific have become more closely linked than ever before.
So I want everyone to know, and I want everybody in America to know, that we have a stake in the future of this region, because what happens here has a direct effect on our lives at home. This is where we engage in much of our commerce and buy many of our goods. And this is where we can export more of our own products and create jobs back home in the process. This is a place where the risk of a nuclear arms race threatens the security of the wider world, and where extremists who defile a great religion plan attacks on both our continents. And there can be no solution to our energy security and our climate challenge without the rising powers and developing nations of the Asia Pacific.
To meet these common challenges, the United States looks to strengthen old alliances and build new partnerships with the nations of this region. To do this, we look to America's treaty alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and the Philippines -- alliances that are not historical documents from a bygone era, but abiding commitments to each other that are fundamental to our shared security.
These alliances continue to provide the bedrock of security and stability that has allowed the nations and peoples of this region to pursue opportunity and prosperity that was unimaginable at the time of my first childhood visit to Japan. And even as American troops are engaged in two wars around the world, our commitment to Japan's security and to Asia's security is unshakeable -- (applause) -- and it can be seen in our deployments throughout the region -- above all, through our young men and women in uniform, of whom I am so proud.
Now, we look to emerging nations that are poised as well to play a larger role -- both in the Asia Pacific region and the wider world; places like Indonesia and Malaysia that have adopted democracy, developed their economies, and tapped the great potential of their own people.
We look to rising powers with the view that in the 21st century, the national security and economic growth of one country need not come at the expense of another. I know there are many who question how the United States perceives China's emergence. But as I have said, in an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another. Cultivating spheres of cooperation -- not competing spheres of influence -- will lead to progress in the Asia Pacific. (Applause.)
Now, as with any nation, America will approach China with a focus on our interests. And it's precisely for this reason that it is important to pursue pragmatic cooperation with China on issues of mutual concern, because no one nation can meet the challenges of the 21st century alone, and the United States and China will both be better off when we are able to meet them together. That's why we welcome China's effort to play a greater role on the world stage -- a role in which their growing economy is joined by growing responsibility. China's partnership has proved critical in our effort to jumpstart economic recovery. China has promoted security and stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And it is now committed to the global nonproliferation regime, and supporting the pursuit of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
So the United States does not seek to contain China, nor does a deeper relationship with China mean a weakening of our bilateral alliances. On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.
And so in Beijing and beyond, we will work to deepen our strategic and economic dialogue, and improve communication between our militaries. Of course, we will not agree on every issue, and the United States will never waver in speaking up for the fundamental values that we hold dear -- and that includes respect for the religion and cultures of all people -- because support for human rights and human dignity is ingrained in America. But we can move these discussions forward in a spirit of partnership rather than rancor.
In addition to our bilateral relations, we also believe that the growth of multilateral organizations can advance the security and prosperity of this region. I know that the United States has been disengaged from many of these organizations in recent years. So let me be clear: Those days have passed. As a Asia Pacific nation, the United States expects to be involved in the discussions that shape the future of this region, and to participate fully in appropriate organizations as they are established and evolve. (Applause.)
That is the work that I will begin on this trip. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum will continue to promote regional commerce and prosperity, and I look forward to participating in that forum this evening. ASEAN will remain a catalyst for Southeast Asian dialogue, cooperation and security, and I look forward to becoming the first American President to meet with all 10 ASEAN leaders. (Applause.) And the United States looks forward to engaging with the East Asia Summit more formally as it plays a role in addressing the challenges of our time.
We seek this deeper and broader engagement because we know our collective future depends on it. And I'd like to speak for a bit about what that future might look like, and what we must do to advance our prosperity, our security, and our universal values and aspirations.
First, we must strengthen our economic recovery, and pursue growth that is both balanced and sustained.
The quick, unprecedented and coordinated action taken by Asia Pacific nations and others has averted economic catastrophe, and helped us to begin to emerge from the worst recession in generations. And we have taken the historic step of reforming our international economic architecture, so that the G20 is now the premier forum for international economic cooperation.
Now, this shift to the G20, along with the greater voice that is being given to Asian nations in international financial institutions, clearly demonstrates the broader, more inclusive engagement that America seeks in the 21st century. And as a key member of the G8, Japan has and will continue to play a leading and vital role in shaping the future of the international financial architecture. (Applause.)
Now that we are on the brink of economic recovery, we must also ensure that it can be sustained. We simply cannot return to the same cycles of boom and bust that led to a global recession. We can't follow the same policies that led to such imbalanced growth. One of the important lessons this recession has taught us is the limits of depending primarily on American consumers and Asian exports to drive growth -- because when Americans found themselves too heavily in debt or lost their jobs and were out of work, demand for Asian goods plummeted. When demand fell sharply, exports from this region fell sharply. Since the economies of this region are so dependent on exports, they stopped growing. And the global recession only deepened.
So we have now reached one of those rare inflection points in history where we have the opportunity to take a different path. And that must begin with the G20 pledge that we made in Pittsburgh to pursue a new strategy for balanced economic growth.
I'll be saying more about this in Singapore, but in the United States, this new strategy will mean that we save more and spend less, reform our financial systems, reduce our long-term deficit and borrowing. It will also mean a greater emphasis on exports that we can build, produce, and sell all over the world. For America, this is a jobs strategy. Right now, our exports support millions upon millions of well-paying American jobs. Increasing those exports by just a small amount has the potential to create millions more. These are jobs making everything from wind turbines and solar panels to the technology that you use every day.
For Asia, striking this better balance will provide an opportunity for workers and consumers to enjoy higher standards of living that their remarkable increases in productivity have made possible. It will allow for greater investments in housing and infrastructure and the service sector. And a more balanced global economy will lead to prosperity that reaches further and deeper.
For decades, the United States has had one of the most open markets in the world, and that openness has helped to fuel the success of so many countries in this region and others over the last century. In this new era, opening other markets around the globe will be critical not just to America's prosperity, but to the world's, as well.
An integral part of this new strategy is working towards an ambitious and balanced Doha agreement -- not any agreement, but an agreement that will open up markets and increase exports around the world. We are ready to work with our Asian partners to see if we can achieve that objective in a timely fashion -- and we invite our regional trading partners to join us at the table.
We also believe that continued integration of the economies of this region will benefit workers, consumers, and businesses in all our nations. Together, with our South Korean friends, we will work through the issues necessary to move forward on a trade agreement with them. The United States will also be engaging with the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries with the goal of shaping a regional agreement that will have broad-based membership and the high standards worthy of a 21st century trade agreement.
Working in partnership, this is how we can sustain this recovery and advance our common prosperity. But it's not enough to pursue growth that is balanced. We also need growth that is sustainable -- for our planet and the future generations that will live here.
Already, the United States has taken more steps to combat climate change in 10 months than we have in our recent history -- (applause) -- by embracing the latest science, by investing in new energy, by raising efficiency standards, forging new partnerships, and engaging in international climate negotiations. In short, America knows there is more work to do -- but we are meeting our responsibility, and will continue to do so.
And that includes striving for success in Copenhagen. I have no illusions that this will be easy, but the contours of a way forward are clear. All nations must accept their responsibility. Those nations, like my own, who have been the leading emitters must have clear reduction targets. Developing countries will need to take substantial actions to curb their emissions, aided by finance and technology. And there must be transparency and accountability for domestic actions.
Each of us must do what we can to grow our economies without endangering our planet -- and we must do it together. But the good news is that if we put the right rules and incentives in place, it will unleash the creative power of our best scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. It will lead to new jobs, new businesses, and entire new industries. And Japan has been at the forefront on this issue. We are looking forward to being a important partner with you as we achieve this critical global goal. (Applause.)
Yet, even as we confront this challenge of the 21st century, we must also redouble our efforts to meet a threat to our security that is the legacy of the 20th century -- the danger posed by nuclear weapons.
In Prague, I affirmed America's commitment to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and laid out a comprehensive agenda to pursue this goal. (Applause.) I am pleased that Japan has joined us in this effort, for no two nations on Earth know better what these weapons can do, and together we must seek a future without them. This is fundamental to our common security, and this is a great test of our common humanity. Our very future hangs in the balance.
Now, let me be clear: So long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a strong and effective nuclear deterrent that guarantees the defense of our allies -- including South Korea and Japan. (Applause.)
But we must recognize that an escalating nuclear arms race in this region would undermine decades of growth and prosperity. So we are called upon to uphold the basic bargain of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- that all nations have a right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have a responsibility to move toward nuclear disarmament; and those without nuclear weapons have a responsibility to forsake them.
Indeed, Japan serves as an example to the world that true peace and power can be achieved by taking this path. (Applause.) For decades, Japan has enjoyed the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy, while rejecting nuclear arms development -- and by any measure, this has increased Japan's security and enhanced its position.
To meet our responsibilities and to move forward with the agenda I laid out in Prague, we have passed, with the help of Japan, a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution embracing this international effort. We are pursuing a new agreement with Russia to reduce our nuclear stockpiles. We will work to ratify and bring into force the test ban treaty. (Applause.) And next year at our Nuclear Security Summit, we will advance our goal of securing all the world's vulnerable nuclear materials within four years.
Now, as I've said before, strengthening the global nonproliferation regime is not about singling out any individual nations. It's about all nations living up to their responsibilities. That includes the Islamic Republic of Iran. And it includes North Korea.
For decades, North Korea has chosen a path of confrontation and provocation, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons. It should be clear where this path leads. We have tightened sanctions on Pyongyang. We have passed the most sweeping U.N. Security Council resolution to date to restrict their weapons of mass destruction activities. We will not be cowed by threats, and we will continue to send a clear message through our actions, and not just our words: North Korea's refusal to meet its international obligations will lead only to less security -- not more.
Yet there is another path that can be taken. Working in tandem with our partners -- supported by direct diplomacy -- the United States is prepared to offer North Korea a different future. Instead of an isolation that has compounded the horrific repression of its own people, North Korea could have a future of international integration. Instead of gripping poverty, it could have a future of economic opportunity -- where trade and investment and tourism can offer the North Korean people the chance at a better life. And instead of increasing insecurity, it could have a future of greater security and respect. This respect cannot be earned through belligerence. It must be reached by a nation that takes its place in the international community by fully living up to its international obligations.
So the path for North Korea to realize this future is clear: a return to the six-party talks; upholding previous commitments, including a return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and the full and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. And full normalization with its neighbors can also only come if Japanese families receive a full accounting of those who have been abducted. (Applause.) These are all steps that can be taken by the North Korean government if they are interested in improving the lives of their people and joining the community of nations.
And as we are vigilant in confronting this challenge, we will stand with all of our Asian partners in combating the transnational threats of the 21st century: by rooting out the extremists who slaughter the innocent, and stopping the piracy that threatens our sea lanes; by enhancing our efforts to stop infectious disease, and working to end extreme poverty in our time; and by shutting down the traffickers who exploit women, children and migrants, and putting a stop to this scourge of modern-day slavery once and for all. Indeed, the final area in which we must work together is in upholding the fundamental rights and dignity of all human beings.
The Asia Pacific region is rich with many cultures. It is marked by extraordinary traditions and strong national histories. And time and again, we have seen the remarkable talent and drive of the peoples of this region in advancing human progress. Yet this much is also clear -- indigenous cultures and economic growth have not been stymied by respect for human rights; they have been strengthened by it. Supporting human rights provides lasting security that cannot be purchased in any other way -- that is the story that can be seen in Japan's democracy, just as it can be seen in America's democracy.
The longing for liberty and dignity is a part of the story of all peoples. For there are certain aspirations that human beings hold in common: the freedom to speak your mind, and choose your leaders; the ability to access information, and worship how you please; confidence in the rule of law, and the equal administration of justice. These are not impediments to stability, they are the cornerstones of stability. And we will always stand on the side of those who seek these rights.
That truth, for example, guides our new approach to Burma. Despite years of good intentions, neither sanctions by the United States nor engagement by others succeeded in improving the lives of the Burmese people. So we are now communicating directly with the leadership to make it clear that existing sanctions will remain until there are concrete steps toward democratic reform. We support a Burma that is unified, peaceful, prosperous, and democratic. And as Burma moves in that direction, a better relationship with the United States is possible.
There are clear steps that must be taken -- the unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi; an end to conflicts with minority groups; and a genuine dialogue between the government, the democratic opposition and minority groups on a shared vision for the future. That is how a government in Burma will be able to respond to the needs of its people. That is the path that will bring Burma true security and prosperity. (Applause.)
These are steps that the United States will take to improve prosperity, security, and human dignity in the Asia Pacific. We will do so through our close friendship with Japan -- which will always be a centerpiece of our efforts in the region. We will do so as a partner -- through the broader engagement that I've discussed today. We will do so as a Pacific nation -- with a President who was shaped in part by this piece of the globe. And we will do so with the same sense of purpose that has guided our ties with the Japanese people for nearly 50 years.
The story of how these ties were forged dates back to the middle of the last century, sometime after the guns of war had quieted in the Pacific. It was then that America's commitment to the security and stability of Japan, along with the Japanese peoples' spirit of resilience and industriousness, led to what's been called "the Japanese miracle" -- a period of economic growth that was faster and more robust than anything the world had seen for some time.
In the coming years and decades, this miracle would spread throughout the region, and in a single generation the lives and fortunes of millions were forever changed for the better. It is progress that has been supported by a hard-earned peace, and strengthened by new bridges of mutual understanding that have bound together the nations of this vast and sprawling space.
But we know that there's still work to be done -- so that new breakthroughs in science and technology can lead to jobs on both sides of the Pacific, and security from a warming planet; so that we can reverse the spread of deadly weapons, and -- on a divided peninsula -- the people of South can be freed from fear, and those in the North can live free from want; so that a young girl can be valued not for her body but for her mind; and so that young people everywhere can go as far as their talent and their drive and their choices will take them.
None of this will come easy, nor without setback or struggle. But at this moment of renewal -- in this land of miracles -- history tells us it is possible. This is the --America's agenda. This is the purpose of our partnership with Japan, and with the nations and peoples of this region. And there must be no doubt: As America's first Pacific President, I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

その真理は、例えば、私達のビルマへの新しいアプローチの指針になっています。長年にわたる善意の努力にもかかわらず、米国による制裁も他国による関与もビルマ国民の生活を改善することができませんでした。このため、私達は今、指導者層と直接話し合い、民主的改革への具体的措置が講じられるまでは現行の制裁は継続することを明瞭に伝えています。私達は、統一され、平和的で繁栄し民主的であるビルマを支持します。そして、ビルマがその方向に移行するならば、米国とのより良い関係が可能です。講じられなければならない明確な措置があります。アウン・サン・スー・チーを含む全ての政治囚の無条件釈放、少数民族グループとの紛争の停止、未来に向けての共有されたビジョンに関する政府、民主的反対勢力、少数民族グループの間の本物の対話などです。それが、ビルマ政府が自国民の欲求に答えることができる方法です。それがビルマに本当の安全と繁栄をもたらす道です。

Myanmar diplomat: Junta may free Suu Kyi for poll

SINGAPORE – Myanmar's military-ruled government may release pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi soon so she can play a role in next year's general elections, according to a senior Myanmar diplomat.
The remarks by Min Lwin _ rare for a Myanmar government official on an overseas visit _ were in line with vague comments in recent years by the junta that it intends to free Suu Kyi soon. But officials have given no time frame and have made no real moves to release her despite hinting they would.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Suu Kyi has been detained for 14 of the past 20 years, and not been able to speak publicly since she was last taken into detention in May 2003. A court recently sentenced the 64-year-old to an additional 18 months of house arrest for briefly sheltering an uninvited American in a trial that drew global condemnation.
That would prevent her from participating in next year's elections _ the first in two decades _ unless she is granted a special release.
"There is a plan to release her soon ... so she can organize her party," Min Lwin, a director-general in the Foreign Ministry, told The Associated Press at the Manila airport before boarding a flight to Singapore en route to Yangon. He refused to elaborate, and it was not clear if he meant that Suu Kyi would be allowed to campaign.
There is also no indication that the government would allow Suu Kyi to run in the election. Myanmar's constitution includes provisions that bar Suu Kyi from holding office and ensure the military a controlling stake in government.
Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, has not yet decided whether to take part in the polls, which it says would be held under a constitution established last year by undemocratic means.
Min Lwin said the proposal to free Suu Kyi was not influenced by the recent change in U.S. policy under President Barack Obama, who is seeking to engage Myanmar, also known as Burma. The Bush administration had shunned any direct talks with the reclusive Southeast Asian nation.
Although Myanmar welcomes the new American policy of "pragmatic engagement," Min Lwin said he did not expect any major changes in the near future, mainly because U.S. sanctions are still in force.
Min Lwin was in Manila to attend a two-day meeting of fellow diplomats from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the United States.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs Scot Marciel held separate talks last week with Myanmar's ruling generals and Suu Kyi in the highest-ranking visit by American officials to Myanmar in 14 years.
Obama will meet ASEAN leaders on Nov. 15, on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Singapore, bringing him in rare contact with Myanmar's prime minister, Gen. Thein Sein.
The Myanmar junta chief, Senior Gen. Than Shwe, typically shuns official meetings outside Myanmar.
Officials have not said if Obama will meet privately with Thein Sein. The last U.S. president to meet a Myanmar head of state was Lyndon B. Johnson, who held talks with then-Prime Minister Ne Win in September 1966 during a state visit to Washington, according to Richard Mei, the U.S. Embassy spokesman in Myanmar.
Despite their new approach to Myanmar, U.S. officials have said that tough sanctions against the junta will remain in place until talks with its generals result in long-demanded democratic reforms.
Seven ASEAN member states _ Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam _ belong to APEC, which includes the U.S. and other Western and South American nations. The three ASEAN members not in APEC are Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar.

Source : news.yahoo.com.sg

By JIM GOMEZ,Associated Press Writer - Tuesday, November 10

Obama to Meet With Prime Minister of Myanmar

MANILA — President Obama plans to meet with the prime minister of Myanmar along with other Southeast Asian leaders next Sunday, in a high-level affirmation of the new policy by Washington of engaging the military-ruled country despite its dismal human rights record.
The meeting between Mr. Obama and leaders of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations will take place on the sidelines of the annual summit meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Singapore, the U.S. ambassador for Asean affairs, Scot Marciel, said Saturday.
Prime Minister Thein Sein of Myanmar will attend the meeting, which marks the 32nd anniversary of Washington’s relations with Asean, said a senior Myanmar diplomat, Min Lwin. The junta chief, Senior Gen. Than Shwe, typically shuns official meetings outside the country.
The talks would be the highest-level contact between Myanmar and the United States in decades.
Officials have not said whether Mr. Obama will meet privately with Thein Sein. The last U.S. president to meet with a Myanmar head of state was Lyndon B. Johnson. He talked with Ne Win, who was then the prime minister, in September 1966 in Washington, according to Richard Mei, the U.S. Embassy spokesman in Myanmar. The country was then called Burma.
Under Mr. Obama, Washington has reversed the policy of the administration of President George W. Bush of shunning Myanmar in favor of direct talks with the country, which has been under military rule since 1962.
Myanmar welcomed the shift in U.S. policy, Min Lwin said, describing the change as “positive.”

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 8, 2009

Obama to meet Myanmar, other ASEAN leaders

By JIM GOMEZ, Associated Press Writer Jim Gomez, Associated Press Writer – Sat Nov 7, 5:14 am ET
MANILA, Philippines – President Barack Obama will meet leaders of Southeast Asian nations, including Myanmar, in a high-level affirmation of Washington's new policy of engaging the military-ruled country despite its dismal human rights record.
The Nov. 15 meeting between Obama and leaders of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations will take place on the sidelines of an annual summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Singapore, U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs Scot Marciel said Saturday.
Myanmar's prime minister, Thein Sein, will attend the meeting, which marks the 32nd anniversary of Washington's relations with ASEAN, senior Myanmar diplomat Min Lwin told The Associated Press in Manila.
The junta chief, Senior Gen. Than Shwe, typically shuns official meetings outside Myanmar.
The talks are to be the highest-level contact between Myanmar and the U.S. in decades.
Officials have not said if Obama will meet privately with Thein Sein. The last U.S. president to meet a Myanmar head of state was Lyndon B. Johnson, who held talks with then Prime Minister Ne Win in September 1966 during a state visit to Washington, according to Richard Mei, the U.S. Embassy spokesman in Myanmar.
Under Obama, Washington has reversed the Bush administration's policy of shunning Myanmar in favor of direct talks with the Southeast Asian country that has been ruled by the military since 1962.
Myanmar welcomes the shift in U.S. policy, Min Lwin said, describing the change as "positive."
Marciel and Min Lwin were in Manila along with other senior ASEAN diplomats to finalize the agenda for Obama's meeting with ASEAN leaders. The talks will focus on trade, energy, health, climate change, food security, disaster response and security issues, Philippine Foreign Undersecretary Enrique Manalo said.
"What we're trying to do is to step up and increase our engagement with ASEAN," Marciel said.
Philippine Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo has said ASEAN welcomes the Obama administration's new policy of engagement with Myanmar, adding that Southeast Asian governments have continued talking with the junta while constantly prodding it to move toward democracy.
"All of us talk with Myanmar," he said. "There is no harm in talking."
ASEAN has faced a barrage of criticism in past years over its failure to coax democratic reforms from the junta or to win freedom for detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and some 2,000 other political prisoners.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Suu Kyi has been detained for 14 of the past 20 years, mostly under house arrest.
Despite their new approach to Myanmar, also known as Burma, U.S. officials have said that tough sanctions against the junta will remain until talks with its generals result in long-demanded democratic reforms.
Seven ASEAN member states — Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam — belong to APEC, which includes the U.S. and other Western nations. The three ASEAN members not in APEC are Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar.
Source : news.yahoo.com
Associated Press writer Jocelyn Gecker in Bangkok contributed to this report.

Japan urges Myanmar to release Suu Kyi before poll

By Yoko Nishikawa Yoko Nishikawa – Sat Nov 7, 10:08 am ET
TOKYO (Reuters) – Japan urged Myanmar Saturday to release detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi before next year's election, adding it was ready to provide more aid if democratization in the country advanced.
The comments came a few days after a U.S. delegation made a landmark visit to Myanmar as part of a new policy of engagement by the Obama administration.
"It is extremely important that Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners are all released before the general election to be held in 2010," Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama told Myanmar's visiting prime minister, according to a Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman.
Hatoyama also urged General Thein Sein to ensure all stakeholders could take part in the election.
Japan has distanced itself from the policy of Western powers, which have imposed tough sanctions on Myanmar, and from that of China, which has pumped billions of dollars into the country.
It has preferred engagement and dialogue to push for democratization of the authoritarian military-run state, and welcomed Washington's recent move, saying it was getting closer to Tokyo's approach.
The talk between Hatoyama and General Thein Sein took place on the sidelines of the Tokyo summit among Japan and five Mekong region countries -- Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam.
It was the first time since 2003 a Myanmar leader had visited Japan.
Hatoyama acknowledged signs of improvement in the democratization process in the country formerly known as Burma, and welcomed improving ties between Washington and Myanmar.
"Based on recent positive moves, Japan will gradually expand its assistance to Myanmar in areas of humanitarian assistance, including those through NGOs, and human development assistance," Hatoyama was quoted as telling General Thein Sein.
"If the general election in 2010 is conducted in a manner we expect, Japan will be in a position to strengthen its assistance to Myanmar," he added.
In the fiscal year that ended in March 2008, Japan provided 1.18 billion yen ($13.13 million) in grant aid and 1.64 billion yen in technical assistance to Myanmar.
(Editing by Andrew Roche)

Source : news.yahoo.com

Japan to increase aid to Myanmar

TOKYO (AFP) – Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama on Saturday said Japan plans to increase aid to Myanmar gradually while hailing Washington's latest efforts to engage the military-ruled country.
"Japan plans to expand our humanitarian aid and assistance for human resources development gradually," a Japanese foreign ministry official quoted Hatoyama as saying at a meeting with his Myanmar counterpart Thein Sein.
Hatoyama did not mention a specific sum, according to the official who was in the bilateral meeting.
He said the decision on greater aid stemmed from the junta's recent release of political prisoners, signs of a resumed dialogue with pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and improved ties with the United States, said the official.
Hatoyama also told Thein Sein that Japan would increase assistance further if Myanmar's planned general elections next year are held in a fair way, the official said, adding the premier did not elaborate on what this aid could be.
Hatoyama met Thein Sein, Myanmar's first premier to visit Japan since 2003, at Japan's first summit with five countries along the Mekong River, which also include Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.
Japan has given about two billion yen (22 million dollars) worth of aid to Myanmar annually over the past few years.
It is mostly disaster relief and humanitarian assistance as Tokyo has shunned loans and grants to the nation criticised for human rights abuses.
Thein Sein thanked Hatoyama for Tokyo's assistance and called for more investment from and trade with Japan, according to the Japanese official.
He also said the nation was preparing law for general elections so that any party can participate, the official said.
Speaking at a press conference after the Mekong-Japan summit, Hatoyama hailed the US government's dialogue with Myanmar.
"America's greater interest in Myanmar... will benefit the Mekong region as a whole," Hatoyama said. "America is gaining greater interest in the region and we welcome it."
The administration of US President Barack Obama has recently changed its policy on Myanmar, saying it would push for engagement with the military regime because sanctions on their own had failed to bear fruit.
US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and his deputy Scot Marciel held rare meetings with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and premier Thein Sein on a two-day visit ending Wednesday.
Japan has maintained trade and dialogue with Myanmar, warning a hard line on Myanmar would push the junta closer to neighbouring China, its main political supporter and commercial partner.
Source : news.yahoo.com

新生児の泣き声にも“訛り”

新生児は子宮の中で言語を覚え始め、生まれたときには既にその言語特有のアクセント、いわば“訛り”のようなものを身に付けているという研究が発表された。　胎児は耳で聞くことで言語に慣れていくという見解は特に目新しいものではない。誕生直後の新生児が複数の異なる言語を耳にすると、ほとんどの場合、母親の胎内で聞こえていた言語に最も近い言語を好むような態度を示すことが複数の研究で既にわかっている。　ただし、言語を認識する能力と発話する能力とはまったく別のものである。　ドイツ、ビュルツブルク大学発話前発育・発育障害研究センターのカトリーン・ヴェルムケ氏が率いる研究チームは、フランス人とドイツ人各30人、計60人の健康な新生児の泣き声の“メロディ”を調査した。　ただしヴェルムケ氏によると、このメロディ、つまりイントネーションは、厳密に言えばアクセントとは異なるという。アクセントとは、単語の発音の仕方に関連するものだ。　一般的に、フランス語を母国語とする人は語尾を上げ、ドイツ語を母国語とする人は逆に語尾を下げるということが知られている。また、メロディ（話し言葉のイントネーション）が言語の習得において決定的に重要な役割を果たすということもわかっている。「ここから、新生児の泣き声の中から何らかの特徴があるメロディを探すというアイデアを思いついた」とヴェルムケ氏は明かす。　今回の研究に参加した新生児の泣き声のメロディは、胎内で聞いていた言語と同じイントネーションをたどっていた。例えば、フランス人の新生児は泣き声の最後の音が高くなった。「胎児や乳幼児がメロディを感じ取り再現することから、人間の言語習得の長いプロセスが始まることは明らかだ」とヴェルムケ氏は語る。　また今回の発見で、言語の発達プロセス以上のことが明らかになる可能性もある。「乳幼児の泣き声などの発声をさらに分析すれば、人間の祖先がどのようにして言語を生み出したのかという謎の解明にも役立つかもしれない」。

Source : news.yahoo.co.jp
この研究結果は2009年11月5日発行の「Current Biology」誌に掲載されている。
Matt Kaplan for National Geographic News

Japanese Society of Child Science

新生児のお世話のポイント（０～１ヵ月）

新生児から３歳児まで －ことばの芽生え

Suu Kyi in landmark talks

YANGON - A United States State Department official met Ms Aung San Suu Kyi yesterday in a visit that marked the highest-ranking talks between an American and Myanmar's detained opposition leader in 14 years.Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell, accompanied by his deputy Scot Marciel, also met Myanmar's prime minister as Washington seeks a new era of engagement with the military regime.Mr Campbell, the top US diplomat for East Asia, greeted Ms Suu Kyi with a handshake after she was driven to his lakeside hotel in Yangon where they met privately for two hours.Mr Campbell and his deputy, Mr Marciel, are the highest-level Americans to visit Myanmar since 1995. The topic of talks with Ms Suu Kyi was not immediately known. But the meeting was her first trip in years outside the confines of her home and a nearby government guesthouse, where she has met United Nations and military government officials in the past. The 64-year-old Ms Suu Kyi has been detained for 14 of the past 20 years, mostly under house arrest and for shorter periods at Myanmar's notorious Insein Prison.Ms Suu Kyi was upbeat as she emerged from the hotel and joked with photographers who asked her to smile."Do I look pretty when I smile," she asked. "Hello to you all," she said, before getting into a car that whisked her back to her tightly-guarded home.Earlier yesterday, Mr Campbell and Mr Marciel held talks with Prime Minister Thein Sein in the administrative capital Naypyidaw.The two-day trip is a follow-up to discussions in New York in September between US and Myanmar officials, the highest-level US contact with the regime in nearly a decade.The US visit is the second step in "the beginning of a dialogue with Burma", State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters in Washington on Tuesday.

Source : http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC091105-0000092/?Suu-Kyi-in-landmark-talks-

U.S. delegation holds talks with Myanmar's Suu Kyi

YANGON (Reuters) – A top U.S. official held rare talks with Myanmar's detained opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, on Wednesday as part of Washington's highest-level visit to the isolated army-ruled country in 14 years.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner met United States Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell for more than two hours at a hotel near Yangon's Inya lake, close to her home where she has been detained for much of the past two decades.

Later, at Yangon airport before the U.S. delegation left the former Burma, Campbell said the United States wanted to improve relations with the government but the authorities needed to take concrete steps toward that end, too.

Describing the visit as an exploratory mission designed to explain the results of a U.S. policy review toward Myanmar, he said the United States advocated "strong support for human rights, the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners and the pursuit of democratic reform."

"At every meeting, the United States underscored its strong commitment to see Burma as a place that respects the human rights of its people, promotes democracy, and abides by U.N. resolutions with regards to proliferation," he added.

Earlier, Suu Kyi and Campbell had posed for photographs together but did not answer reporters' questions.

Campbell, Washington's top official for East and Southeast Asia, met earlier on Wednesday with Myanmar Prime Minister Thein Sein.

On Tuesday, Campbell held talks with top junta officials in the remote new capital Naypyidaw, but he did not meet junta supremo Than Shwe, the aging general who has tightly controlled the former Burma for the past 17 years.

In the meetings, Campbell told government leaders "the U.S. is prepared to take steps to improve the bilateral relationship, but it will be a step-by-step process, and must be based on reciprocal and concrete efforts by the Burmese government," U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said.

The U.S. officials "reaffirmed our support for dialogue between the government and the opposition," Kelly told reporters in Washington. "The goal of such dialogue would be a national reconciliation and a fully inclusive political process in Burma."

Both sides seem ready to edge toward some sort of rapprochement.

Myanmar is keen to see Western sanctions lifted and has allowed Suu Kyi to raise the issue with diplomats in meetings that the junta normally forbids.

The United States has refused to lift its trade embargo on the resource-rich country and says dialogue would supplement sanctions rather than replace them.

Kelly said on Wednesday Washington would need to see specific steps by Myanmar before considering lifting sanctions.

But the U.S. government announced in September it would pursue deeper engagement to try to spur democratic reforms in Myanmar and is pressing for free, fair and inclusive elections next year.

"Toward that end," Campbell said, "we urge the Burmese government to allow Aung San Suu Kyi more frequent interactions with stakeholders, especially the central executive committee of her own party."

State TV reported that Campbell had asked the authorities to let Suu Kyi meet committee members of her National League for Democracy (NLD) before he met her.

That was agreed, MRTV said, but Suu Kyi pulled out of the meeting because one member, NLD vice chairman Tin Oo, 82, was excluded. He has been under house arrest since May 2003.

The NLD was the clear winner the last time polls were held in 1990. The military refused to recognize the NLD victory. The party has yet to say whether it will contest next year's vote.

Source : http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091104/pl_nm/us_myanmar_usa_6
By Aung Hla Tun Aung Hla Tun – Wed Nov 4, 4:51 pm ET
(Additional reporting by David Alexander in Washington; Writing by Martin Petty and Alan Raybould; Editing by Alex Richardson and Paul Simao)

US envoy meets Suu Kyi

Visit raises level of diplomatic engagement with Myanmar junta

Mr Campbell leaving the Inya Lake Hotel with Ms Suu Kyi yesterday after a two-hour meeting. He was the most senior US official to meet her in 14 years. -- PHOTO: AFP

BANGKOK - A TWO-HOUR meeting in Yangon yesterday between a top American official and Myanmar's detained pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi has significantly raised the level of diplomatic engagement between the United States and Myanmar.

US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell became the highest-ranking American official to visit the Nobel Peace laureate in 14 years.

Earlier, he met Myanmar Prime Minister Thein Sein in the administrative capital of Nyapyidaw before flying to Yangon.

State television, which on Tuesday ignored the American delegation's visit, broadcast footage of both meetings.

Mr Campbell greeted Ms Suu Kyi, 64, with a handshake at the Inya Lake Hotel near her home where she has been detained on and off for the past 20 years.

Dressed in a traditional Myanmar jacket, Ms Suu Kyi was upbeat as she emerged from the hotel after the meeting.
Source : www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/SE%2BAsia/Story/STIStory_450480.html
By Nirmal Ghosh, Thailand Correspondent
nirmal@sph.com.sg

US envoy in landmark talks with Suu Kyi

YANGON: A top US official held talks with Aung San Suu Kyi on Wednesday as Myanmar's ruling junta gave the democracy icon a rare break from house arrest during Washington's highest-level visit in 14 years.

Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell also met Myanmar Prime Minister Thein Sein as part of efforts by the Obama administration to re-engage with the hardline military regime.

Nobel laureate Suu Kyi met Campbell for two hours at a luxury hotel in Yangon - the first time she had appeared in front of the media other than at her home or in prison since her current period of detention began in 2003.

Campbell said at Yangon airport that in the "exploratory mission" he had underscored "strong support for human rights, the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners, and the pursuit of democratic reform."

"We stated clearly that the United States is prepared to take steps to improve the relationship but that process must be based on reciprocal and concrete efforts by the Burmese government," Campbell said in a statement.

The US diplomat said he and his deputy, Scot Marciel, had also urged the regime to let Suu Kyi meet more often with members of her National League for Democracy (NLD) Party ahead of elections that are due in 2010.

The duo were not allowed to meet the reclusive head of Myanmar's junta, General Than Shwe. They instead held talks with Premier Thein Sein in the remote administrative capital Naypyidaw.

"They reaffirmed our support for dialogue between the government and the opposition," US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters in Washington.

Kelly said Washington had no plans to mediate between the government and the democratic opposition leaders.

"As I say, this is a step-by-step process... This visit was primarily meant to underscore our call for the government to have a dialogue... with the opposition. But we want to see the Burmese government start taking some concrete steps towards such a dialogue."

During the talks with Suu Kyi "we affirmed our commitment to a dialogue among the government, the opposition, and the ethnic groups," Campbell said.

Dressed in a pink and maroon traditional outfit, the 64-year-old Suu Kyi did not answer questions after the meeting with the US duo but smiled to reporters and joked: "Am I beautiful when I smile?"

Suu Kyi has spent most of the last two decades in detention and the junta, which has ruled since 1962, gave her an extra 18 months of house arrest in August, effectively ruling her out of next year's widely criticised elections.

The opposition leader was sentenced after being found guilty of harbouring an American man who swam to her lakeside house earlier in the year. Journalists saw her in prison at the trial but were not allowed to take pictures.

Campbell and Marciel also met senior members of the NLD, which described the talks as "positive".

"We discussed the transition to democracy and focused on the dialogue between Aung San Suu Kyi and Senior General Than Shwe. From their side they didn't say much. They just listened," NLD spokesman Khin Maung Swe told AFP.

Campbell was the highest ranking US official to travel to Myanmar - formerly known as Burma - since Madeleine Albright went as US ambassador to the United Nations in 1995 during Bill Clinton's presidency.

The trip was a follow-up to discussions in New York in September between US and Myanmar officials, the highest-level US contact with the regime in nearly a decade.

President Barack Obama's administration in September announced a dramatic change in policy because isolating Myanmar had failed, but said it would not ease sanctions without progress on democracy and human rights.

September's talks dealt with US calls for free and fair elections and the release of Suu Kyi, but also with concerns about Myanmar's possible military links with nuclear-armed North Korea.

The first major sign of a thaw came in August when Than Shwe held an unprecedented meeting with visiting US Senator Jim Webb, which yielded the release of John Yettaw, the American detained for swimming to Suu Kyi's house. - AFP/yb/de

Source : Channel News Asia

Posted: 04 November 2009 1132 hrs