News (1)
Top U.S. health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, scrambled in early 2020 to respond to public reporting of a potential connection between COVID-19 and the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
This response, which included a secret Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference, was loosely detailed in previously released and heavily redacted emails. Those emails strongly suggested that Fauci and a small group of top scientists sought to promote the natural origin theory, despite having evidence and internal expert opinions that pointed to the possibility of a leak from the Wuhan lab.
Unredacted versions of some of the emails made public by lawmakers on 11 January further confirm this.
The newly unredacted emails, released by House Oversight Committee Republicans, confirm and illustrate a pattern of lies and coverup. From the emails, it appears the effort was spearheaded by Fauci himself but also involved his boss, recently retired National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins, as well as Jeremy Farrar, the head of the British Wellcome Trust.
It was previously revealed that at least two scientists, both of whom had received funding from the NIH, had told Fauci during the teleconference that they were 60 to 80 percent sure that COVID had come out of a lab.
The most significant new revelations in the unredacted emails come from two of these scientists, Robert Garry and Mike Farzan, who both noted the difficulties presented by the presence of a furin cleavage site in the COVID-19 virus—a feature that would later be cited as the defining characteristic of the virus.
Immunologist "bothered by the furin site"
Farzan, an immunologist who in 2005 discovered the receptor of the original severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus, sent his post-teleconference notes to Farrar, who then shared them with Collins, Fauci, and Lawrence Tabak—top officials at the NIH. In those notes, Farzan wrote that he was “bothered by the furin site” and had difficulty explaining it “as an event outside the lab.” Farzan noted that it was theoretically possible the virus’s furin cleavage site could have arisen in nature but that it was “highly unlikely.”
The furin cleavage site is the defining feature that gives COVID-19 the ability to easily infect humans and has long been puzzled over by scientists, since no such site has ever been observed in naturally occurring SARS-related coronaviruses.
Farzan, like scientist Kristian Andersen, who has received funding from Fauci’s NIAID, works at the Scripps laboratory. As was already known from previously released emails, Andersen had privately told Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020 that the virus looked engineered. Andersen would later spearhead Fauci’s efforts to promote a natural origin narrative.
Farzan told the senior members of Fauci’s teleconference group that “a likely explanation could be something as simple as passage SARS-live CoVs in tissue culture on human cell lines” for an “extended period of time,” which could lead to the accidental creation of “a virus that would be primed for rapid transmission between humans.” This mutated virus would likely have specific “adaptation to human ACE2 receptor via repeated passage.”
A recent study in the science journal Nature noted that the COVID-19 virus was uniquely adapted to infect humans, as it “exhibited the highest binding to human (h)ACE2 of all the species tested.”
In layman’s terms, Farzan concluded that the pandemic likely originated from a lab in which live coronaviruses were passed through human-like tissue over and over, accelerating virus mutations with the end result being that one of the mutated viruses may have leaked from the lab. Farzan placed the likelihood of a leak from a Wuhan lab at 60 to 70 percent likely.
The emails indicate that Farzan was cognizant that the Wuhan lab conducted these types of dangerous experiments in Level 2 labs, which have a very low biosecurity standard. This fact was later admitted by the Wuhan lab’s director, Shi Zhengli, in July 2020. Notably, since the start of the pandemic, Farzan has received grants totaling almost $20 million from Collins’s NIH and Fauci’s NIAID.
News (4)
Scientist cannot figure out how covi gets accomplished in nature
Further revelations in the newly unredacted emails came from Garry, another scientist funded by Fauci’s NIAID, who told the senior members of the teleconference group in no uncertain terms that “I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus” to COVID-19.
Garry cited the remarkable sequences that would have to occur naturally, telling the group that “I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. Do the alignment of the spikes at the amino acid level – it’s stunning.” He noted that a lab-created virus would readily explain the data he was seeing, telling Fauci’s group that “Of course, in the lab, it would be easy to generate the perfect 12 base insert that you wanted.”
Along the same lines of what Farzan had said, Garry was telling Fauci’s group that it was extremely unlikely that the furin cleavage site could have evolved naturally, whereas creating it in a lab was easy.
The primary difference between Farzan’s and Garry’s view lies in whether the lab created the furin cleavage site through serial passage in human-like tissue or through direct insertion of the site. In either case, both scientists thought it was likely that the virus came out of the Wuhan lab rather than having originated in nature.
News (5)
Scientist’s private views in conflict with public statements
Garry’s privately stated view is even more remarkable because only a day earlier, on Feb. 1, 2020, Garry had helped to complete the first draft of the Proximal Origin paper that promoted the idea that the virus had originated in nature. That paper became the media’s and the public health establishment’s go-to evidence for a natural origin for the COVID virus.
It was published online on Feb. 16, 2020, and firmly excluded the possibility of a lab leak.
One of Garry’s co-authors for the Proximal Origin paper, Andrew Rambaut, also is cited in the newly redacted emails. In congruence with the other two scientists, Rambaut told Fauci’s teleconference group that he also was bothered by the unusual furin cleavage site. But unlike Garry or Farzan, he speculated that the virus might have arisen in another animal, a so-called intermediate host.
Two years later, no such host has been identified. In the case of the original SARS virus as well as the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) virus, the intermediate host was found within a few months. Rambaut also recognized immediately the peculiar fact that the furin cleavage site “insertion has resulted in an extremely fit virus in humans—we can also deduce that it is not optimal for transmission in bat species.”
Rambaut lamented the lack of data being shared by Wuhan scientists and concluded that only the Wuhan Institute of Virology knew what had happened.
News (6)
Fauci’s group misleads National Academy of Sciences
The day after these three scientists shared their views with the senior members of the group, on Feb. 3, 2020, Fauci attended a meeting at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). That meeting had been urgently convened at the behest of White House Director of Science and Technology Kelvin Droegmeier, who wrote that he was seeking answers about the origins of COVID-19.
The meeting, which included a presentation by Fauci, was also attended by Peter Daszak–the person through whom Fauci had funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology–and Kristian Andersen. Fauci and his group promoted the natural origin theory to the Academy, despite having just been told on the teleconference and in subsequent emails that a lab leak provided the most likely explanation for the virus.
While they were pushing their natural origin narrative to NASEM, and by extension to the White House, Fauci and his group made no mention of their private discussions—which were taking place at the same time—that the virus most likely originated in a Wuhan lab.
News (7)
NIH hiding behind unjustifiable redactions
The new emails fill some of the gaps left by previous redactions, but still only cover a small portion of the many emails that remain redacted. A close examination of the newly unredacted emails reveals that none of the usual justifications for redactions, such as private information about people or threats to sources and methods, apply. Instead, it appears that all of the redactions were made solely on the basis of shielding the NIH from scrutiny over its coverup of the virus’s origins.
These efforts at obfuscation tie in with the fact that we only found out about these new emails after a months-long battle between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the parent organization of Fauci’s NIH and NIAID, and House Republicans.
In order to obtain this information, House Republicans were forced to avail themselves of a rarely used law from 1928, the so-called Seven Member Rule. Under this law, an executive agency, such as HHS, is required to provide requested information when requested by seven members of the House Committee on Government Operations (now called the Committee on Oversight and Reform).
It is not known why Republicans have not used this law earlier or with greater frequency.
Eventually, HHS allowed the House Republicans’ congressional staffers to view the unredacted emails in person. The staffers then transcribed what they saw, which is how we came to know about these new revelations.
News (8)
NIH silences dissenting views
These new emails are crucial in that they confirm that by Feb. 2, 2020, Fauci’s teleconference group had identified evidence pointing to a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These scientists knew that the virus’s unique furin cleavage site was very likely the result of experiments conducted at the Wuhan lab. Notably, they also knew that these experiments were being conducted in minimum biosecurity Level 2 labs.
These facts presented a major problem for the heads of the NIH, who had funded the experiments.
As the new emails confirm, their response was to cover up the lab leak evidence and push a natural origin narrative.
Then-NIH Director Collins, who would later call for the public “takedown” of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, asked his group for a “swift convening of experts” in order to prevent the “voices of conspiracy” from doing “great potential harm to science and international harmony…” through public discussion of a lab leak theory.
Collins’s view was mirrored by another participant in Fauci’s teleconference, Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier, who told the group that “Further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.”
News (9)
Leading Western experts believed a lab leak was the 'likely' origin of SARS-CoV-2 (covi) but were silenced because it could cause harm to Chinese scientists, bombshell emails show.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, who publicly denounced the theory as a 'conspiracy', admitted in a private email in February 2020 that a 'likely explanation' was that the virus was man-made.
The then-UK Government adviser said at the time he was "70:30 or 60:40" in favour of an accidental release versus natural origin.
In the email, sent to American health chiefs Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins, Sir Jeremy said it was possible covi had been evolved from a SARS-like virus in the lab. He went on that this seemingly benign process may have 'accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans'.
However, the British scientist was silenced by his counterparts in the US who warned further debate about the origins of the virus could damage "international harmony".
He was told by other scientists with links to virus manipulation research that it could cause "unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular".
Sir Jeremy claimed in his emails that other respected scientists also believed the virus could not have emerged naturally. Names included Professor Mike Farzan, the Harvard researcher who first discovered how the original virus SARS-CoV binds to human cells.
Despite his concerns, Sir Jeremy went on to sign letters in The Lancet a fortnight later denouncing anyone who believed in the lab leak theory as bigoted.
Critics slammed the 'lack of openness and transparency' and accused Western scientists of shutting down debate about covi's origin for political reasons.
The new emails were only revealed after the US Republican House Oversight Committee were granted access to them yesterday after multiple appeals. Some information in the notes remains redacted.
In Sir Jeremy's initial email, he revealed his and other experts' main suspicions centred around Covid's unique furin cleavage site — the part of the spike protein which makes it so efficient at infecting human cells.
The email, sent on February 2 when the first Covid death outside of China was confirmed, continued: '[Professor Farzan] is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time [to] explain that as an event outside the lab, though there are possible ways in nature but highly unlikely.
'I think this becomes a question of how do you put all this together, whether you believe in this series of coincidences, what you know of the lab in Wuhan, how much could be in nature — accidental release or natural event? I am 70:30 or 60:40.'
Sir Jeremy later downgraded his estimate 50:50 in further emails just days later on February 4.
Professor Eddie Holmes, from the University of Sydney, said he believed there was a 60:40 chance of a lab leak.
In total, a dozen scientists in the UK, US and Europe — including Britain's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance — were included in the email chains in the first week of February.
Dr Andrew Rambaut, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Edinburgh, responded, "From a (natural) evolutionary point of view the only thing here that strikes me as unusual is the furin cleavage site."
Professor Bob Garry, also from the University of Texas, said he could not "figure out how this gets accomplished in nature".
But those within the email chain who had concerns were met with push back.
Dr Collins — the former head of the influential US National Institutes of Health — warned that going public with their reservations could be damaging.
He wrote to Sir Jeremy in an email, "I share your view that a swift convening of experts in a confidence-inspiring framework is needed or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony."
Other western scientists — some of whom were involved in other controversial virus manipulation research — tried to silence the concerns immediately.
In an email to scientists whose names have been redacted in the email chain, Dutch scientist Dr Ron Fouchier, of Erasmus University, said, 'Further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.'
Dr Fouchier previously led so-called "gain of function studies" in the US on H5N1 bird flu in — the strain that is currently wreaking havoc on Europe's bird and mammal populations, and infected the first British human ever last week.
His studies manipulated the strain so that it could successfully jump between ferrets in 2011.
Viscount Ridley, co-author of Viral: the search for the origin of covi, told the Daily Telegraph: 'These emails show a lamentable lack of openness and transparency among Western scientists who appear to have been more interested in shutting down a hypothesis they thought was very plausible, for political reasons."
It comes after Dr Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, admitted it took 16 months to publish an official conflict of interest statement in which he revealed Dr Daszak had links to the Wuhan laboratory at the centre of the spillover theory.
Dr Daszak organised the original letter signed by Sir Jeremy later in February 2020, co-signed by 26 other leading researchers which condemned 'conspiracy theories' that Covid did not arise naturally.
The move is also claimed to have shut down any debate over whether the virus could have escaped from a lab last year.
However, the zoologist, a Lancastrian who now lives in New York, had ties to Wuhan Institute of Virology stretching back 15 years.
During a grilling from MPs on the Science and Technology Select Committee in December, Dr Horton was forced to defend the 16-month delay before Dr Daszak's important conflicts of interest were finally published in a memorandum in the journal this June.
Study By: Texas A&M University
A new experimental system shows exposure of coronavirus to a very high temperature, even if applied for less than a second, can be sufficient to neutralize the virus so that it can no longer infect another human host.
Applying heat to neutralize COVID-19 has been demonstrated before, but in previous studies researchers applied temperatures from one to 20 minutes. This length of time is not a practical solution, as applying heat for a long period of time is both difficult and costly.
Arum Han, professor in the electrical and computer engineering department at Texas A&M University, and his team have now demonstrated that heat treatment for less than a second completely inactivates the coronavirus—providing a possible solution to mitigating the ongoing spread of COVID-19, particularly through long-range airborne transmission.
The Medistar Corporation approached leadership and researchers from the College of Engineering in the spring of 2020 to collaborate and explore the possibility of applying heat for a short amount of time to kill COVID-19. Soon after, Han and his team built a system to investigate the feasibility of such a procedure.
Their process works by heating one section of a stainless-steel tube, through which the researchers run the coronavirus-containing solution, to a high temperature and then cooling the section immediately afterward.
This experimental setup allows the coronavirus running through the tube to be heated only for a very short period of time. Through this rapid thermal process, the team found the virus was completely neutralized in a significantly shorter time than previously thought possible. The researchers released initial results within two months of proof-of-concept experiments.
Han says if the solution is heated to nearly 72 degrees Celsius (161 degrees Fahrenheit) for about half a second, it can reduce the virus titer, or quantity of the virus in the solution, by 100,000 times which is sufficient to neutralize the virus and prevent transmission.
“The potential impact is huge,” Han says. “I was curious of how high of temperatures we can apply in how short of a time frame and to see whether we can indeed heat-inactivate the coronavirus with only a very short time. And whether such a temperature-based coronavirus neutralization strategy would work or not from a practical standpoint. The biggest driver was, ‘Can we do something that can mitigate the situation with the coronavirus?’”
Not only is this sub-second heat treatment a more efficient and practical solution to stopping the spread of COVID-19 through the air, but it also allows for the implementation of this method in existing systems, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems.
It also can lead to potential applications with other viruses, such as the influenza virus, that are also spread through the air. Han and his collaborators expect that this heat-inactivation method can be broadly applied and have a true global impact.
“Influenza is less dangerous but still proves deadly each year, so if this can lead to the development of an air purification system, that would be a huge deal, not just with the coronavirus, but for other airborne viruses in general,” Han says.
In their future work, the investigators will build a microfluidic-scale testing chip that will allow them to heat-treat viruses for much shorter periods of time, for example, tens of milliseconds, with the hope of identifying a temperature that will allow the virus to be inactivated even with such a short exposure time.
Yuqian Jiang and Han Zhang, both electrical engineering postdoctoral researchers, are lead authors of the study, published in the journal Biotechnology and Bioengineering.
Grants from Medistar Corporation and from the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases supported the work.
This article was originally published by Texas A&M University. Republished via Futurity.org under Creative Commons License 4.0.
News (12) to (16) / Source: BelMarraHealth.com
Actinic purpura was first described by British dermatologist
Thomas Bateman in 1818. Just what is actinic purpura? Well, the simplest
actinic purpura definition is when elderly are more prone to bruises.
Older individuals have thinner, more fragile skin, so
bruises are more likely to form as a result. In the initial stages, these
bruises appear purplish red. It is common for elderly to develop senile purpura
on their forearms. Purpura can also occur in the mucous membranes, particularly
in the mouth and internal organs.
While it may appear as if a person with actinic purpura
has experienced a serious trauma, it is likely that some sort of mild trauma
led to the development of the purplish bruises. Large purpura spots are called
ecchymosis and the smaller spots are known as petchiae.
Prevalence
of actinic purpura
Actinic purpura is most common among seniors with roughly 11.9 percent of adults over the age of 50 having it. Prevalence is also highest among individuals who have greater exposure to the sun.
Actinic purpura is nearly exclusive to seniors with two percent of adults over the age of 60 having it and that increases to 25 percent for those over the age of 90.
What
causes actinic purpura?
Many
people seem to think that actinic purpura is the result of mineral and vitamin
deficiency, but this is not the case. The list below covers some of the
potential senile purpura causes:
- UV rays—ultraviolet
(UV) radiation, like too much exposure to the sun, can weaken the
connective tissues holding the blood vessels in the matrix. Since we are
exposed to sunlight over many, many years, tissues weaken and become
thinner naturally in old age.
- Medications—overuse of
blood thinners, such as steroids and aspirin.
- Vascular diseases—this is a
class of disease affecting the blood vessels.
- Diabetes—this is
defined by high blood sugar levels over a long period of time
- Thrombocytopenia—defined as
deficiency of platelets in the blood, which leads to bleeding into the
tissues and bruising.
- Non-thrombocytopenic—this
includes blood clotting disorders, medications that impact platelet
function, fragile blood vessels, inflammation of blood vessels, pressure
changes during childbirth, haemangioma—which is a benign tumor of
infancy—and amyloidosis, a disorder that occurs when amyloid protein
deposits in tissues.
- Meningococcemia—meningococcal disease is caused by bacteria and can lead to meningitis, which is a serious illness that involves infection of the brain and spinal cord. It can also cause blood infections and a rash that can advance to purpura.
What
are the symptoms of actinic purpura?
Despite
what some people think, the elderly don’t suddenly wake up covered in purplish
red spots. There are common actinic purpura symptoms that can appear before
bruising. Some are covered in the list of symptoms below.
- Thin skin
- Skin tears easily
- Irregularly shaped lesions appear that may measure
one to four cm and are dark in color. They appear on hands, forearms and
sometimes the face or neck.
- Adjacent skin is often thin, not very elastic.
- Bruising disappears on average in about three weeks
- Yellowish or brown stains appear where purple bruises
once were
- Bruises appear with or without minor trauma
- Bruises occur as a relapsing condition
- One of the distinctions between actinic purpura and a regular bruise is that regular bruises tend to change color. Bruises that are the result of actinic purpura do not change color—they remain purple until they disappear. In some cases, a yellow of brown stain takes the place of the purple bruise for a short period of time, while in other cases, the yellowish stain is unfortunately permanent. There are people who struggle with the signs and symptoms of actinic purpura. When they have just a few lesions or bruises, they attempt to cover them up with makeup
How to diagnose actinic purpura?
When
it comes to diagnosing actinic purpura, the doctor will conduct a thorough
examination of the patient, including a look at their hands, legs, neck, face,
and underarms. Any bruising or skin atrophy will be noted. A beam arm test is
also likely. It looks at the structure and function of capillary walls.
Laboratory tests such as a platelets test, capillary fragility tests, and
hemostasis tests—which is a test that checks for blood clotting issues and
platelet plugs—are possible.
Actinic
purpura differential diagnosis is often used. This is a process of
differentiating between two or more conditions that share similar symptoms. The
list below covers most of the investigations involved with senile purpura
differential diagnosis.
- CBC—complete blood count with a differential count
- PT, aPTT with INR—this is a coagulation profile
- Examination of urine to help rule out
Henoch-Schonlein purpura, which is inflammation of the small blood
vessels.
- LFT—liver function test to rule out hepatitis
- ESR or CRP—erythrocyte sedimentation rate or
C-reactive protein to evaluate inflammation related to potential vascular
diseases.
- RFT—renal functions test
- Skin and blood cultures
- RF—rheumatoid factor
Rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and Sjogren’s syndrome are all collagen vascular diseases that have been linked to purpura. Additionally, some people with internal malignancies, including lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and leukemia have been known to experience signs of purpura.
How
to treat and prevent actinic purpura
Actinic
purpura does not require any treatment. The lesions or bruises usually clear up
on their own without causing any serious health complications. The problem with
the condition is that it tends to be chronic. In other words, it recurs, and
people have to live with it for the remainder of their lives. Those who find
that they experience skin tearing should see a doctor for advice on how to
manage the problem.
While it is a new area of research, a study published in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology indicates that a twice-daily dose of citrus bioflavonoids is a good natural remedy for senile purpura. The study showed a reduction of purpura lesions by 50 percent in a group of 70 seniors who used a “citrus bioflavonoid blend.”
More research continues, including investigations into how other supplements might impact actinic purpura. In the meantime, people who suffer from the condition are encouraged to use sun protection when outdoors to prevent future breakouts and apply skin moisturizers to help protect the skin.
News (13)
Topical retinoids reduce actinic purpura
In the majority of cases of actinic purpura, treatment is not necessary, but for those who do not like the appearance of bruises, there are a few options available to them. For example, your doctor can prescribe topical retinoids, which can prevent further skin aging, thus reducing the appearance of actinic purpura.
On
the other hand, these retinol formulas can bring with them unwanted side
effects and sometimes the cons outweigh the benefits. It may also be wise to
wear protective gear to prevent injury, which can lead to further bruising.
News (14)
Citrus bioflavonoids reduce actinic purpura
If
you want to avoid side effects, then there are some natural remedies you can
try to reduce actinic purpura. One study found that seniors who took citrus
bioflavonoids twice daily had a reduction in actinic purpura.
News (15)
Applying epidermal growth factor thickens skin and reduces lesions
An alternative study uncovered that applying epidermal growth factor to the affected area can help skin thicken and reduce lesions.
Some studies have explored using vitamin K topically to reduce the appearance of bruising, but no studies have been conducted on vitamin K’s effects on actinic purpura, so speak to your doctor before using this technique.
News (16)
Arnica Montana effective at treating actinic purpura
Some patients may seek relief from Arnica Montana, which is derived from the Arnica plant. Arnica Montana has anti-inflammatory properties and can control bleeding which can make it effective at treating actinic purpura. Arnica Montana can be taken orally or topically. It is important that if you have actinic purpura, you avoid foods and beverages that can thin the blood.
It is unfortunate, but for many people, actinic purpura is a condition that comes with age. The number of elderly in industrialized nations continues to increase, so the incidence of senile purpura and other age-related skin conditions is expected to rise significantly over the next few decades.
Dermatologists suggest we do whatever we can to protect our skin from an early age. If and when something like senile purpura occurs, it is important to understand that you are not alone and that you can reach out to doctors and dermatologists for guidance.
News (17) to (20) / Source : The Phnom Penh Post / https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national-politics/pm-eyes-myanmar-peace-troika
News (17)
Hun Sen eyes Myanmar peace troika
Prime Minister Hun Sen has suggested that
ASEAN member states establish a tripartite committee or diplomatic troika
consisting of representatives from Cambodia, Brunei and Indonesia that would be
tasked with mediating a ceasefire in Myanmar.
The premier also requested that Nippon
Foundation chairman Yohei Sasakawa be his adviser while Cambodia chairs ASEAN
this year.
Hun Sen made the remarks on 10 January 2022 at the inauguration ceremony for a newly upgraded stretch of National Road 5 connecting Battambang province to neighbouring Banteay Meanchey’s Sisophon town after returning from his trip to Myanmar, where he was informed of an “extended ceasefire” through 2022.
“We can form a troika which could include the
[2021] ASEAN chair Brunei, current ASEAN chair Cambodia and [2023] ASEAN chair
Indonesia, plus the ASEAN Secretariat to facilitate the ceasefire. We’ll need
to have a mechanism for implementation [of the ceasefire],” he said.
Hun Sen said the "extended
ceasefire" in Myanmar created favourable conditions for talks and dialogue
as well as the election that Myanmar previously promised would take place in
August 2023 in the aftermath of the dissolution of the civilian-led
administration and the military’s declaration of a one year state of emergency.
“I hope that our partners in ASEAN will try to
set up a mechanism now while Cambodia is ASEAN chair. The [Myanmar] issue will
not be over with by the end of 2022. It will continue into the term of the next
ASEAN chair, Indonesia. At that point, the troika should then consist of
Cambodia, Indonesia and Laos as the incoming [2024] ASEAN chair. This should be
done for continuity purposes,” he said.
News (18)
Hun Sen urges Japan to step in to improve situation in Myanmar
Hun Sen also urged Japan to step in by joining
a group called “Friends of Myanmar” organised by 2021 ASEAN chair Brunei. He
said Japan expressed its support for his trip to Myanmar and that Japanese
ambassador Masahiro Mikami had praised his display of initiative in trying to
improve the situation there.
“Japan intends to provide strong support to
Cambodia to make it successful as the chair of ASEAN,” he said reading Mikami’s
message, adding that Japan was also considering the increased provision of
humanitarian aid to Myanmar.
Ahead of his meeting with Nippon Foundation
chairman Yohei Sasakawa on January 31, Hun Sen said he will request that the
foundation chairman serve as adviser to the ASEAN chair for 2022 since he has
an in-depth knowledge of Myanmar, having travelled there personally 131 times.
“I want to request that he be an adviser to
the ASEAN chair in 2022 to help with facilitation because he knows Myanmar and
is familiar with almost all of the parties currently involved [in the
conflict]. I will meet him on January 31 and I hope he will agree to this. He
is currently the president of Nippon Foundation,” Hun Sen said.
News (19)
Hun Sen criticizes Ong Keng Yong
The premier also hit back at criticism by
former ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong, who took issue in public remarks
with his Myanmar trip, saying that Ong had little experience with peacemaking.
“You’re not me so you don’t have the same
ideas that I do. You haven’t been the ASEAN chairman, either, just the ASEAN
secretary general. I hope that you would understand all this, but it seems like
you just don’t get it.
“You haven’t had much experience with the
peace process in any country because you were born in a peaceful country. I’m
just letting you know what the real problems are and how to solve them,” he
said.
News (20)
Cambodia has a big heart
Heng Kimkong, a PhD candidate at the
University of Queensland and a visiting senior research fellow at the Cambodia
Development Centre, said it was great that Cambodia as ASEAN chair is being
proactive in finding solutions to address the Myanmar crisis.
“This demonstrates the important role that the
Kingdom will play in ASEAN this year and proves that Cambodia is a small
country with a big heart,” he said.
Ro Vannak, co-founder of the Cambodian
Institute for Democracy, also appreciated Hun Sen’s approach, saying he was
showing good initiative by tackling controversies head-on. However, he urged
that a multi-party approach be taken to solve Myanmar’s complex issues.
Participation by all parties to resolve Myanmar political conflict is crucial
“Cambodia has shown good intentions here, but
the ball is in the court of Myanmar’s military that controls most of the
country and has all the power. Participation by all parties to the political
conflict in Myanmar will be needed for real negotiations to occur – ideally
with facilitation from ASEAN with Cambodia as chair – and other members of the
international community involved, if possible.
“It should also be noted that [Cambodia’s]
good intentions won’t ensure good results if the correct approach isn’t taken,”
Vannak said.
Picture of Ho Chi Minh City
No comments:
Post a Comment