US-Iran Talks Start October 1 - Nation

Image by danny.hammontree via Flickr

posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 09/14/2009

The hawks, neoconservatives, and Israeli hardliners are squealing, but the US and Iran are set to talk. The talks will begin October 1, among Iran and the P5 + 1, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was ebullient, even as he urged Iran to "engage substantively with the agency," saying:

"Addressing the concerns of the international community about Iran's future intentions is primarily a matter of confidence-building, which can only be achieved through dialogue. I therefore welcome the offer of the US to initiate a dialogue with Iran, without preconditions and on the basis of mutual respect."

That's exactly the right tone and message, and it underscores that President Obama is doing precisely what he campaigned on, namely, to open a dialogue with Iran. It's an effort that began with his comments on Iran during his inaugural address, his videotaped Nowruz message to Iran last winter, a pair of quiet messages to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Leader, and Obama's careful and balanced response to the post-election crisis over the summer. Once started, the talks aren't likely to have a swift conclusion, but the very fact that they're taking place will make it impossible for hawks to argue successfully either for harsh, "crippling" sanctions on Iran or for a military attack.

That didn't stop Bibi Netanyahu, for one, from trying. Speaking to Israel's foreign affairs and defense committee today, the Israeli leader said:

"I believe that now is the time to start harsh sanctions against Iran -- if not now then when? These harsh sanctions can be effective. I believe that the international community can act effectively. The Iranian regime is weak, the Iranian people would not rally around the regime if they felt for the first time that there was a danger to their regime -- and this would be a new situation."

Netanyahu's belief in sanctions, harsh measures, and regime change was echoed by John Hannah, the former top aide to Vice President Cheney, who wrote an op-ed criticizing Obama for taking regime change off the table in dealing with Iran. Hannah utterly ignored the fact that eight years of anti-Iran, pro-regime change bombast from the Bush-Cheney administration did nothing but strengthen Iran's hawks, while Obama's softer, dialogue-centered approach to Iran helped boost the power of the reformists and their allies in Iranian politics. Indeed, it was precisely Obama's less belligerent tone that confused the Iranian hardliners, emboldened the liberals, reformists and pragmatists in Iran, and therefore did more to create the conditions for "regime change" than anything that Bush, Cheney, and Hannah did.

Nevertheless, here's Hannah:

"It is ironic, of course, that just as the Obama administration seemed prepared to write off regime change forever, the Iranian people have made it a distinct possibility. It would be tragic indeed if the United States took steps to bolster the staying power of Iran's dictatorship at precisely the moment when so many Iranians appear prepared to risk everything to be rid of it. It would also seem strategically shortsighted to risk throwing this regime a lifeline."

Hannah adds that whatever happens in the talks, Obama had better be careful not to undermine the possibility that the regime might collapse. "However engagement now unfolds, Obama should do nothing to undermine this historic opportunity."

Other, less temperate hawks have forthrightly condemned Iran's offer to negotiate. The Weekly Standard ridiculed Iran's five-page statement on opening negotiations:

"The Iranian response is a bad joke. It makes a complete mockery of the situation."

And the churlish Washington Post, in an editorial written before the US agreed to start talks with Iran, huffed that Iran's offer to talk was a "non-response" and complained that so far Obama has had no results:

"President Obama's offer of direct diplomacy evidently has produced no change in the stance taken by Iran during the George W. Bush administration, when Tehran proposed discussing everything from stability in the Balkans to the development of Latin America with the United States and its allies -- but refused to consider even a temporary shutdown of its centrifuges."

And the Post again brought up the importance of getting "tough" with Iran and pushing for sanctions, a la Netanyahu, even though neither Russia nor China will have anything to do with more sanctions. (The Europeans don't really want more sanctions either, though they say they do. And Venezuela has offered to export whatever gasoline Iran needs if, in fact, the United States tries to impose a cut-off of refined petroleum products imported by Iran.)

We can only hope, now, that the United States and the rest of the P5 + 1 will table an offer to Iran to allow Tehran to maintain its uranium enrichment program, on its own soil, combined with a system of stronger international inspections. That's the end game: not regime change, not Big Bad Wolf threats of military action, not Hillary Clinton-style "crippling sanctions," not an Iran without uranium enrichment -- but an Iran that is ushered into the age of peaceful use of nuclear energy, including enrichment, in exchange for a comprehensive settlement.

Myanmar Exiles Eye New Path

By WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporters

With Myanmar's military government expected to sentence dissident Aung San Suu Kyi to further detention as early as Tuesday, some of her exiled supporters are considering new tactics -- such as negotiating with the regime -- to break a decades-old political stalemate in the troubled Southeast Asian nation.

Ms. Suu Kyi faces up to five years in prison for allegedly violating the terms of a government-imposed house arrest in May, when she allowed an uninvited American well-wisher to visit her lakeside home without state approval.

Myanmar officials have said a verdict will come Tuesday, though some analysts say the decision may be delayed due to the poor health of John Yettaw, the American visitor, who is also on trial and has reportedly suffered from epileptic seizures recently. The verdict was delayed once before, after authorities in Myanmar, previously known as Burma, said they needed more time to review the facts in the case.

Analysts and exiles expect the court to eventually find Ms. Suu Kyi guilty, resulting in further detention for the 64-year-old Nobel laureate who has spent nearly 14 of the past 20 years under arrest.

Such an outcome, combined with Myanmar's miserable economic conditions and the likelihood that Ms. Suu Kyi won't be able to participate in elections the government plans for 2010, are prodding exile groups to contemplate new strategies, including seeking negotiations with Myanmar's military regime and possibly dropping some earlier demands that have blocked rapprochement.

Ms. Suu Kyi's supporters have traditionally taken a hard-line approach towards talking with the regime, unless it agrees to free hundreds of political prisoners and recognize the results of a 1990 election won overwhelmingly by Ms. Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy Party.

The military ignored that vote and subsequently tightened its grip on the country, locking away opponents and drawing widespread condemnation for its alleged human-rights abuses.

Last week, a group of senior opposition leaders, including Sein Win, head of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, which describes itself as Myanmar's government-in-exile, announced plans for a new "proposal for national reconciliation" that involves negotiations with the regime. The proposal reiterates older goals such as the release of political prisoners and a review of the country's constitution, but acknowledges the need for dialogue with the military to make those goals a reality.

Other dissidents are pressing exile leaders to go further and possibly drop calls for the military to honor the 1990 vote if it helps advance the dissidents' other agendas, such as getting Ms. Suu Kyi freed.

Dissident groups plan to discuss further details at a convention in Jakarta, Indonesia on Wednesday and Thursday. At least 10 major dissident groups are expected to attend, including the Women's League of Burma and representatives from the NLD, along with Mr. Sein Win and others. People who intend to participate say it may be the first time in decades so many groups have come together to forge a common position in dealing with the Myanmar junta.

"We're not only thinking about what we want, but what the regime can and cannot accept. It's a move back to the center," says Nyo Ohn Myint, a senior opposition figure who's been in exile in Thailand and the U.S. for 20 years. He says a majority of senior NLD leaders now support some form of compromise with Myanmar's military government, including possibly writing off the 1990 vote.

Mr. Nyo Ohn Myint says he believes Ms. Suu Kyi is also willing to compromise, including accepting some kind of role for the military in government, though it is difficult to confirm Ms. Suu Kyi's views while she is under arrest.

Many dissidents are focusing on the regime's planned 2010 elections. Initially, opposition groups vowed to boycott the election as they believed that no vote overseen by the military could be free and fair. But some dissidents have softened their positions in the belief that participating in a flawed election may be better than sitting it out entirely.

"There is the danger that the main political activists or stakeholders like the NLD and major ethnic groups will be sidelined" if they don't in some way participate in the election, says Thaung Htun, who the government-in-exile calls its representative to the United Nations. "We need to publicly propose an alternative."

Some analysts are skeptical that any new approaches from exiles will yield results. Dialogue requires participation on both sides, and the regime has given little indication in the past that it wants to negotiate, though some dissidents believe that may change if military leaders are given face-saving options that allow them to claim the 2010 election is legitimate. The regime rarely speaks to the foreign media, Western diplomats or high-ranking dissidents, making it difficult to divine its intentions.

Myanmar's myriad exile groups have struggled to reach consensus in the past and the latest discussions could easily break down over the details of how far to go with any national reconciliation plan. Many exiles still view any form of rapprochement as totally unacceptable and worry that any participation in the 2010 election could legitimize a government widely viewed as a military dictatorship.

"The Burmese are too divided to suddenly put all their history behind them," retired Rutgers University professor and Myanmar expert Josef Silverstein said.

Some analysts who follow Myanmar say the new approach at least offers hope of a fresh start after more than two decades of worsening economic and social conditions in the country. Many leading dissidents are now in their 70s and 80s, and a new generation of intellectuals, including some based in Myanmar, has been highly critical of their elders' refusal to negotiate with the regime.

The Jakarta conference was planned in part "to stay relevant to meet the criticism" that older dissident groups are too inflexible, says Sean Turnell, a Myanmar expert at Macquarie University in Sydney.

Dissidents are considering new approaches "probably because things are looking so dire" in the country, with little change in recent years, forcing exiles to look "for a new way," says Monique Skidmore, a Myanmar expert at the University of Canberra in Australia. "I'm pleased it's happening," she says.

Arroyo’s Mindanao Gamble

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

India-Pak Statement Rocks Parliament, BJP Walks Out

New Delhi (IANS): A two-day debate in parliament on a controversial India-Pakistan joint statement that sought to delink terrorism from dialogue ended on Thursday with the government reiterating that there was no dilution in its stand on countering cross-border terror and a hostile Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) staging a walk-out over the Balochistan issue.

The intense and bitterly partisan Lok Sabha debate that lasted for nearly seven hours spread over two days concluded with a formal reply by External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna asserting that there was no deviation from the basic principles of foreign policy except for a shift in nuances and emphases here and there.

But an aggressive BJP remained unconvinced and sought to pin down the government on the inclusion of a reference to Balochistan - shorthand for India's alleged meddling in Pakistan's southwestern province - in the July 16 India-Pakistan joint statement agreed between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani at Sharm el-Sheikh.

In the end, a belligerent BJP decided to walk out when Mr. Krishna reiterated the government's position on Balochistan, saying "we have nothing to hide". BJP leader L.K. Advani said the prime minister's intervention Wednesday and the external affairs minister's reply had failed to address the party's chief objections to the Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement.

"There was no satisfactory response. There is no point in this discussion," an exasperated Advani said while leading the walk-out by his party MPs from the Lok Sabha.

Mr. Krishna focused his reply on India's continuing pursuit of an independent foreign policy, but chose to brush off the opposition's objections to the terror-dialogue delink and a reference to Balochistan in the India-Pakistan joint statement.

"Certain doubts have been expressed," Mr. Krishna admitted, adding that much of them had been "cleared by the effective intervention" of Dr. Manmohan Singh and of former foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee Thursday.

Mr. Krishna's reply was interrupted by vociferous accusations from BJP members questioning the Balochistan reference.

In his spirited 45-minute intervention in the debate Wednesday, Dr. Manmohan Singh asserted that while there was no dilution or rupture of national consensus on countering terrorism emanating from Pakistan, there was no alternative except to continue the engagement with Islamabad.

Seeking to allay apprehensions over the India-Pakistan joint statement, the prime minister, however, stressed that bilateral engagement or dialogue process can't move forward if terrorist attacks continue from across the border. The prime minister also responded to concerns on India's end-user defence pact with the US and New Delhi's position on climate change, saying that there was no compromise of national interests.

With the prime minister's reply as a backdrop, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who held the external affairs portfolio in the previous Dr. Manmohan Singh dispensation, Thursday eloquently defended the government's latest Pakistan diplomacy and reiterated that there was no surrender on the issue of countering cross-border terrorism.

"Neither have we succumbed to terrorism nor will we stop talking," Mr. Mukherjee maintained.

"The NDA did it. The UPA did it. This is the way the world of diplomacy moves," Mr. Mukherjee said while reminding parliament that over the last 10 years governments across the political spectrum in India kept talking to Pakistan despite brief disruptions after terrorist attacks.

"We can't erase Pakistan. It's going to exist. War is no solution," Mr. Mukherjee said while underlining the importance of keeping talks going with Pakistan.

Mr. Mukherjee, during whose tenure as external affairs minister the 26/11 Mumbai attacks had taken place, clarified that talking did not mean the resumption of a full-fledged dialogue.

"Keeping channels open does not mean surrendering our position on terrorism," Mr. Mukherjee stressed, adding that action against terrorism was independent of the composite dialogue.

"Pakistan must act credibly and verifiably to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure operating from its soil," Mr. Mukherjee maintained.

Mr. Mukherjee also vehemently defended the Balochistan reference, echoing what the prime minister had said. "It's a unilateral reference. The perception of Pakistan is not shared by us," he pointed out.

Mr. Mukherjee also repudiated any suggestion of India's involvement in fomenting insurgency in Balochistan. "We are victims of terrorism. We have no intention of exporting terrorism to any other country," he maintained.

This defence, however, did not cut ice with the BJP, with member after member asking why Balochistan was included for the first time in a bilateral document between India and Pakistan.

The two-day debate had started with BJP leader Yashwant Sinha Wednesday shredding apart the joint statement, saying it showed the government had broken the national consensus on Pakistan. "All the waters of the seven seas will not be able to wash the shame at Sharm el-Sheikh," Sinha had said.

Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav and Janata Dal-United chief Sharad Yadav also questioned the government's Pakistan diplomacy. But the treasury benches rallied around the prime minister with MPs thumping their desks in appreciation when he intervened in the debate, indicating that the much-speculated rift between the government and the party over the joint statement was a thing of the past.

North Korea Asserts New Willingness to Talk

By CHOE SANG-HUN

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea said on Monday that it was open to a form of dialogue to help resolve the dispute with the United States over its nuclear weapons program — but not to six-nation talks involving other regional powers.

The statement, from North Korea’s Foreign Ministry, was seen as an unusually conciliatory-sounding expression of willingness to engage the United States in direct, one-on-one talks — a longstanding North Korean preference.

The statement followed remarks over the weekend by Sin Son-ho, the top North Korean diplomat at the United Nations, who said his government was “not against a dialogue” with Washington.

North Korea’s suggestion appeared to brighten the prospects for dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington after months of tensions punctuated by the North’s long-range rocket launching in April and its second nuclear test in May.

There was no immediate reaction from Washington to the North Korean Foreign Ministry’s statement on Monday. The Obama administration has indicated that it is willing to engage the North in direct talks, but only if the North agrees to return to six-nation talks, a position reiterated over the weekend by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who just completed a visit to Asia. Those talks also include South Korea, China, Japan and Russia.

The North Korean Foreign Ministry’s statement said the six-party talks were dead the moment that member countries agreed to the international sanctions that the United Nations Security Council imposed on North Korea following the May 25 nuclear test. The North has said those sanctions violate its sovereignty.

But the ministry’s statement on Monday added, “There is a specific and reserved form of dialogue that can address the current situation.”

North Korea has said the purpose of the six-nation talks was to “disarm and incapacitate” it.

Talk to Taliban, Miliband Urges

David Miliband has urged the Afghan government to talk to moderate members of the Taliban as part of efforts to bring stability to the country.

In a speech to Nato, the UK foreign secretary said those insurgents willing to renounce violence should be included in a broad-based political coalition.

His comments came as it was confirmed the first phase of the UK-US offensive in southern Afghanistan has now ended.

The Tories said ministers must focus on a limited number of clear objectives.

'Heavy toll'

July has been the deadliest month for the UK and Nato after they launched Operation Panther's Claw - designed to take and secure land in Helmand province ahead of next month's presidential elections.

Mr Miliband said the operation had resulted in a "heavy toll" in terms of British deaths but "significant gains" had been made.

The Ministry of Defence said the first phase of the operation - which led directly to ten British deaths - is now over and that Nato troops would now be focusing on holding onto territory gained ahead of next month's elections.

Mr Miliband said the objectives of the UK's mission were clear but accepted the public "wanted to know whether and how we can succeed" in Afghanistan.

He said a viable political solution, alongside the military offensive, was essential to securing Afghanistan's future.

As part of this, Mr Miliband said current insurgents should be reintegrated into society and, in some cases, given a role in local and central government.

In doing so, he said a distinction should be drawn between "hard-line ideologues" and Jihaddist terrorists who must be fought and defeated from those who could be "drawn into a political process".

Switching sides

Those who had either been coerced or bribed into joining the insurgency could play a constructive role if they disowned violence and respected the Afghan constitution, he said.

"These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course."

Denying the approach marked a change of strategy, he added: "That means in the long term an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan - separating those who want Islamic rule locally from those committed to violent jihad globally - and giving them a sufficient role in local politics that they leave the path of confrontation with the government."

HAVE YOUR SAY They have goals, we have goals. If we can both respect each other it is possible but depends on who is willing to give what Wayne, Lancashire, UK

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall said the UK was clear the responsibility was on the Afghan government to show commitment to this process.

But the Conservatives said there was nothing new in Mr Miliband's speech, saying dialogue between Kabul and parts of the Taliban had taken place for years.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said the UK must focus on clear objectives such as building up of the Afghan army and "ensuring that the gains won by British forces on the battlefield are swiftly followed by reconstruction".

For the Lib Dems, former leader Sir Menzies Campbell said Nato's evident lack of confidence in Afghan President Hamid Karzail could be a major stumbling block to reconciliation efforts.

"President Karzai shows no inclination for the kind of engagement with the Taliban that David Miliband envisages," he said.

"If Britain and America want to promote dialogue they will have to do it by working round Karzai and presenting him with a fait accompli."

Earlier, International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander compared the move to the talks that brought an end to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

Mr Alexander, who is in Afghanistan, conceded it was a "challenging" message for politicians to suggest when British troops were being killed in action but said he had "confidence in the good judgement of the British people" that such a move would ultimately be beneficial.

'Terror chain'

British commanders say key objectives have been achieved on the ground and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has paid tribute to the professionalism and courage of British troops involved in the mission.

"What we have done is make the land secure for about 100,000 people, push back the Taliban and start to break the chain of terror linking the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan to the streets of Britain," he said.

Although troops from other Nato members have been drawn into offensive action, Mr Miliband has called for other countries to contribute more.

He said the policy of burden-sharing must work in "practice" not just in theory.

So far in July, 67 international troops have been killed, bringing the number of coalition deaths in 2009 to 223.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8169789.stm

Published: 2009/07/27

Chechen Separatist in Rare Talks

A Chechen separatist envoy and a regional government representative say they have held talks on bringing stability to the south Russian region.

The prime minister of the government-in-exile, Akhmed Zakayev, and Dukuvakha Abdurakhmanov, chairman of the Chechen parliament, said they had met in Oslo.

Mediators said the talks were the first between the two sides in eight years.

Russian forces have fought two wars against separatists in the mainly Muslim republic since 1994.

The conflicts claimed more than 100,000 lives and left it in ruins.

Mr Zakayev represents the separatists' political wing, not the military wing that is leading the insurgency in Chechnya.

He said the two sides had "discussed political issues being solved not by force but by political means".

"I would like to express delight that this has taken place," he added. "I'm strongly convinced every Chechen person should be well aware of the processes taking place, and should take part in them."

“ This meeting has been authorised not only by [Chechen President Ramzan] Kadyrov himself... It has been happening in perfect co-ordination with the highest leadership in the Kremlin ”
Ivar Amundsen Chechnya Peace Forum

Mr Abdurakhmanov meanwhile said the talks had centred on "the total political stabilisation of the Chechen Republic and the final consolidation of Chechen society".

Norwegian mediator Ivar Amundsen, the director of the human rights group, Chechnya Peace Forum, said it was the first time there had been "a serious political dialogue between the Russian-installed regime in Chechnya and the government-in-exile".

"This meeting has been authorised not only by [Chechen President Ramzan] Kadyrov himself... It has been happening in perfect co-ordination with the highest leadership in the Kremlin," he said, adding that further talks would be held in London in 10 days' time.

Six months ago, Mr Kadyrov declared that political normalisation could not be achieved without the involvement of Mr Zakayev.

He repeated the offer of reconciliation last month, telling Russian television that there would be no point in imprisoning him and that he would like the former actor to play a role in reviving Chechen culture.

When asked on Friday if he would take up offer, Mr Zakayev told BBC Russian: "I will definitely return to the Chechen Republic and there are no conditions that I would impose on this."

Spreading insurgency

Mr Zakayev was a leading rebel in Chechnya until 2000, but fled and sought asylum in the UK when Russia regained control.

In 2003, a British court rejected Moscow's request for his extradition on kidnapping and murder charges, saying that there was substantial risk of him being tortured by the authorities.

Two years ago, Mr Zakayev declared himself prime minister of the rebel Republic of Ichkeria after the President, Doku Umarov, described Western countries as the enemies of all Muslims, and announced his intention to install shariah across the region.

Any statement of support from him for the Kremlin-backed government in Chechnya would aid Moscow, analysts say.

Chechnya has in recent years been more peaceful. In April, President Dmitry Medvedev ordered the end of a decade-long "counter-terrorism operation", intended to pave the way for the withdrawal of thousands of troops.

But since then several attacks have taken place. Earlier this month, two police officers and two soldiers were killed in a gun battle with militants in southern Chechnya.

Fighting has also spread to neighbouring Dagestan and Ingushetia, where correspondents say a violent Islamist insurgency is growing.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/8167526.stm

Published: 2009/07/24

N.Korean Allies Join Test Protest

Writer: ACHARA ASHAYAGACHAT AND THANIDA TANSUBHAPOL

Published: 24/07/2009 at 12:00 AM

PHUKET : Russia and China have joined the US in pressuring North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions, following Pyongyang's recent ballistic missile tests.

See no evil: Mrs Clinton and North Korean delegate Pak Kun-gwang ignore each other at the Phuket meeting.

Normally counting themselves as Pyongyang's allies, Russia and China expressed concern about the nuclear missile tests at the Asean Regional Forum yesterday.

The North Korean nuclear issue dominated security issues at talks held to wrap up the week-long meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

The ARF urged North Korea to return to the six-party talks to end the regional nuclear threat, but North Korea immediately rejected the call.

The meeting also urged members of the United Nations to implement the UN Security Council's resolution to impose sanctions on North Korea.

The ARF would look at what it could do to promote peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said after the meeting.

Asean diplomatic sources said even Russia and China shared international concern about the issue.

But in a compromising note, China said it hoped sanctions against Pyongyang would not affect North Korean people, and that the six-nation talks could resume, the sources said.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said North Korea faced strong international opposition over its missile testing programme.

"There is no place to go for North Korea as they have no friends left," Mrs Clinton said.

"There is a convergence of views that we are prepared to work with North Korea, but that North Korea has to change its behaviour," she said.

But Ri Hung-sik, who led the North Korean delegation at the meeting, said Pyongyang would not return to the negotiating table until the US changed its anti-North Korea attitude.

The six-party talks comprise China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia and the US.

Earlier, North Korea downgraded its representative attending the ARF from ambassador-at-large Pak Kun-gwang to Mr Ri, who is director-general of the International Organisations Department. It was the third time Pyongyang had sent a low-level representative to the ARF since 2000.

North Korea's insistence its position should be reflected in the ARF statement forced participants to delay issuing it for two hours.

The ARF members also called for joint efforts to fight terrorists and said the July 17 hotel bombings in Jakarta were a reminder terrorism was still a threat to the region.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman said in addressing the terrorism problem, people should avoid singling out any country, race, religion or ethnicity.

"If terrorism is associated with religion, it will create animosity," Mr Anifah said.

The meeting also pledged to promote democracy and human rights in Burma, Mr Kasit said.

Burma is under pressure to release National League for Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners to pave the way for national reconciliation before the country holds general elections next year.