Vietnam latest news - Thanh Nien Daily | Republicans’ most hypocritical economic argument

The Republican position on federal spending could not be clearer: It doesn’t create jobs. Except when it goes to defense contractors.

Under the debt-ceiling deal reached last year, planned spending is going to be “sequestered” -- that is, cut -- starting next January. The defense budget is going to take half the hit. On July 12, Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign issued a press release with a statement from Bill Bolling, the Republican lieutenant governor of Virginia, attacking President Barack Obama for cutting defense too much.

“We are very concerned about the impact that sequestration could have on Virginia’s economy,” Bolling said in the statement. He added, “It could also deliver a devastating blow to the private-sector defense contractors who make up a big part of Virginia’s economy, especially in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. This is just another example of how the president’s approach to running the country is jeopardizing our economic viability.”

The same day, the state’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, made the same point in his own statement for the Romney campaign. And the campaign hosted a conference call where Representative Randy Forbes, a Virginia Republican, said, “If you look at it from an economic point of view, this is something that is going to have an enormous, devastating blow on Virginia, especially in northern Virginia and in the Hampton Roads area.” There would be “a huge impact on beauty salons, restaurants, car dealers, the entire economy.”

Virginia’s bounty

The cuts probably will hurt Virginia, since it is, according to a 2011 Bloomberg Government study, the top recipient of federal defense dollars. Is that really a reason to keep the spending going, though? I’ve got nothing against northern Virginia -- along with Hampton Roads, it’s one of my favorite closely divided parts of a swing state. The federal government, though, does more than enough for the region already. You would expect Republicans, at least, to think so.

It’s not just Virginia politicians and the Romney campaign who are making the economic argument for defense spending. It’s a case that has also been made by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, Senator John McCain and Senator John Cornyn -- Republicans all -- among others.

Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, calls his Republican colleagues’ insistence that defense spending be protected to safeguard jobs “weaponized Keynesianism.” His accusation is unfair -- to Keynesians. The Keynesian argument for government spending applies only during economic slumps. The case Bolling and the others are making recognizes no such limitation: The federal government is supposed to keep the dollars flowing to particular communities for all time.

There is, of course, no reason to think that defense spending is more helpful to the economy than other kinds of federal spending. Republicans have been dead-set against sending federal money to states to help them avoid laying off teachers. Yet teachers, too, spend money at beauty salons and car dealerships. They, too, have “good paying and reliable jobs,” as the National Association of Manufacturers said of defense workers in a letter opposing cuts in April.

Endless spending

Needless to say, on the theory that the Republicans are advancing, the federal budget can never be cut. The US Conference of Mayors will be able to say that cuts in social spending will devastate the economy of our cities with at least as much justice as defense-heavy areas can complain about cuts to the military. Rural areas can say the same thing about farm subsidies.

Reductions in federal spending, whether for defense or social programs, will, of course, be disruptive to the people, businesses and communities who have come to rely on it. The cuts should not, however, hurt the broader economy. When federal spending falls and jobs tied to that spending disappear, private-sector spending should normally increase and create jobs tied to it.

So long as the Federal Reserve is targeting inflation or nominal spending, total economic activity should stay roughly the same, even if its composition changes. (If the Fed responds to government spending cuts by tightening money, jobs will be lost. But that would be the fault of the Fed, not the budget writers.)

The Bloomberg Government study listed the 10 states that depend the most on defense dollars. Seven of them voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, and an eighth, Virginia, has usually voted Republican in presidential races. So the party’s interest in keeping defense jobs makes political sense.

Yet the purpose of the defense budget shouldn’t be to subsidize particular people or areas. We don’t buy tanks and train soldiers to keep beauty salons in business. The Republicans resisting big defense cuts generally think that they would jeopardize our national security. That’s a debatable proposition. So debate it. What Republicans should not do is make an economic argument for defense spending that is both untrue and inconsistent with everything else they say about spending and the economy.

When they do that, they treat the nation’s defense as little more than a source of political pork.

Obama OKs telecoms satellite sale to Vietnam | Look At Vietnam

Obama OKs telecoms satellite sale to Vietnam

June 28, 2012

President Barack Obama on Monday gave approval for the U.S. Export-Import Bank to extend a $125.9 million loan to a state-owned company in Vietnam to buy a U.S.-made telecommunications and television satellite, the White House said.
The proposed sale, which also must be presented to Congress for a 35-day review before it can be approved by Ex-Im’s board, is to Vietnam Post and Telecommunications Groups, a wholly state-owned company.
Obama’s presidential determination did not provide the name of the U.S. seller, and Phil Cogan, a spokesman for the U.S. Export-Import Bank, said he was still checking to see if he could release the name of the company.
“We’re hoping this is the beginning of a flow of deals in the pipeline from Vietnam,” Cogan said.
The fast-growing and populous Southeast Asian country has “enormous infrastructure needs” ranging from renewable energy to highways to airports to telecommunications, he said.
U.S. Ex-Im Bank President Fred Hochberg has visited the country twice to promote U.S. exports.
The United States is also negotiating a regional free trade pact known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Reuters

US Defense Secretary to visit Vietnam next month | Look At Vietnam

US Defense Secretary to visit Vietnam next month 

May 27, 2012

The US Secretary of Defense Leon Edward Panetta will arrive in Vietnam next month during his tour of Asia, which begins on May 30.
Panetta’s two-day visit to Vietnam will follow the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, the Department of Defense announced on Tuesday.
The Shangri-La Dialogue is a security forum held annually by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an international think tank.

RELATED CONTENT

Vietnam, US set for military medical partnership

The meeting is typically attended by defense ministers and military chiefs from 28 Asia-Pacific states. The forum is named after the Shangri-La Hotel where it has been held since 2002.
Panetta, 74, became the 23rd American Defense Secteraty last July. Prior to that, he served as Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff and President Obama’s Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Like us on Facebook and scroll down to share your comment

By Nguyen Phong, Thanh Nien News 

Gasoline prices rise All Over the World

Petrol woes mean a gallon of trouble

March 18, 2012

Deputy minister of Industry and Trade (MoIT) Tran Tuan Anh tells how petrol prices and supply sources rising tension in the world could impact on local firms’ performances.
What does the MoIT think about the world market’s volatile oil prices in the past month?
State management agencies and firms closely looked at the global petrol situation in the past month. The price of oil in the world may be in a tight range in 2012 compared to the 2011 average of around $100/barrel if the world economy, particularly the European Union, continues to be in a fix.
However, new factors have appeared which may fuel petrol prices in 2012 against 2011. These are political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa and the EU adopted an oil embargo against Iran, the world’s third largest oil exporter.
In fact, the price of oil in the world market surged in early days of December 2011 when Iran held manoeuvres and was poised to close Hormuz Channel- a strategic gateway for oil sources from the Middle East heading to locations worldwide when necessary.
Compared to December 2011, January 2012 average price of petrol A92 hiked 8.3 per cent, of diesel 0.05S up 3.9 per cent, of kerosene KO up 3.1 per cent, of mazut FO up 7.8 per cent and of crude oil 1.8 per cent more.
Against the same period in 2011, January 2012 average prices rose markedly, such as that of petrol A92 up 15.7 per cent, of diesel 0.05S up18.7 per cent, of kerosene KO up 15.3 per cent, of mazut FO leaped 34.7 per cent and of crude oil WTI was added 11.9 per cent.
The Middle East political unrest will adversely influence the region’s oil sources, directly impacting world oil prices.
How will this impact on local firms’ performances?
Oil prices augmenting in the world market will push up prices in the domestic market. Since petrol is an input material of most economic sectors, rising oil prices could drive up product prices, from there pushing up consumer price index badly affecting people’s purchasing power and causing inflation threats.
Cash-strapped Vietnamese firms would be hurt on the back of input price upsurges since most of them employ fuel-intensive obsolete equipment and technology.
Petrol price hikes will make items using petrol as direct fuel source more expensive such as footwear, plastic, fabric, textile and garment products. Chain effects will also be significant, for instance, firms will suffer from rising transportation costs.
World oil prices are forecast to climb to $150 per barrel. How will the MoIT ensure stable oil supply for the economy in that case?
Vietnam is a big petrol importer. In 2009, we imported 13.2 million cubic metres per tonne of petrol products. The volume shrank to 8.8 million cubic metres per tonne in 2010 and 10.3 million cubic metres per tonne in 2011 since part of the demand was offset by production by Dung Quat oil refinery in central Quang Ngai province.
Around 15.6 million cubic metres per tonne petrol products were consumed in the domestic market in 2011. This year, domestic consumption of petrol products would be around 16.5 million cubic metres per tonne based on 6-6.5 per cent GDP growth forecast.
After looking at domestic supply capacity, the MoIT has allocated minimum import quotas in 2012 equaling 10.1 million cubic metres per tonne on major petrol traders. The ministry has demanded those traders not to import lower than this volume target, while ensuring import progress.
Petrol trading is also governed using other vehicles such as import tax policies and the price stabilisation fund. The MoIT and the Ministry of Finance work closely in petrol price management to ensure interest balance among consumers, firms and the state.
VIR

Vietnam invites Obama to visit regional summit in Hanoi

HANOI, Vietnam — Vietnam has invited President Barack Obama to visit the Southeast Asian country later this year for a regional summit.

Vice Foreign Minister Dao Viet Trung told reporters Thursday that Vietnam was hopeful Obama would attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit, which will be held in Hanoi in October.

Vietnam took over the ASEAN chairmanship from Thailand this year. Heads of state from the 10 ASEAN nations will also meet with leaders from China, Japan, South Korea, India, Russia and the United States at the summit.

A U.S. Embassy spokesman said it was too early to know whether Obama would accept the invitation.

Obama Lays Out America’s Asia-Pacific Agenda

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14, 2009 – The United States is a Pacific nation, and America wants to strengthen alliances and understandings in the region, President Barack Obama said in Tokyo today.

Obama gave a major policy speech at Suntory Hall to 1,500 Japanese leaders. He met with Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and with the emperor and empress of Japan.

The president praised the U.S-Japanese alliance as a partnership based on mutual interests and respect. The alliance has served both nations well in the past, and he expects it will change and deepen in the future, he said.

The United States pledged to defend Japan when a treaty was signed almost 50 years ago. Security is part of the overall relationship between the nations, and the two leaders agreed to move expeditiously through a joint working group to implement the security agreement on restructuring U.S. forces in Okinawa, Obama said.

While Japan is the anchor of American interests and commitments in the Pacific, “it doesn't end here,” the president said.

“Asia and the United States are not separated by this great ocean; we are bound by it,” he said. “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.”

Prosperity binds the regions together, the president said, and he noted that millions of Americans trace their ancestry to Asia. “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,” Obama said.

Japan and China are two of America’s largest trading partners, and the nations of Southeast Asia – especially Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore – are growing in importance to the American economy.

But the United States is interested in the region not only for economics, Obama said, but also for security.

“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,” he said.

Obama said the United States will engage with old friends and seek new ones throughout the region. Alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and the Philippines “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,” he said.

“And even as American troops are engaged in two wars around the world,” he added, “our commitment to Japan’s security and to Asia’s security is unshakeable, 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.”

The United States looks for nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia to play larger roles regionally, he said, and he stressed that 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,” he said. “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 [region].”

This does not mean that China has a blank check, the president noted.

“America will approach China with a focus on our interests,” he said. “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.”

America welcomes China’s effort to play a greater role on the world stage – a role in which their growing economy is joined by growing responsibility, he said.

“China’s partnership has proved critical in our effort to jumpstart economic recovery,” the president said. “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.”

The United States does not seek to contain China, nor does a deeper relationship with China mean a weakening of American bilateral alliances in the region, Obama said.

“On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations,” he said. “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,” he continued, “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.”

The president said he also believes multilateral organizations can advance the security and prosperity of the Asia Pacific.

“I know that the United States has been disengaged from many of these organizations in recent years,” he acknowledged. “So let me be clear: Those days have passed. As an 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.”

The security of the 21st century in the area, the president said, is threatened by a 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,” he said. “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.”

But as long as nuclear weapons exist, Obama added, “the United States will maintain a strong and effective nuclear deterrent that guarantees the defense of our allies – including South Korea and Japan.”

Still, he said, an escalating nuclear arms race in the 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,” he said.

The United States is pursuing a new agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles and also is working to ratify and bring into force a nuclear test ban treaty. “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,” Obama said.

Strengthening the global nonproliferation movement is not about singling out individual nations, he said. “It's about all nations living up to their responsibilities,” the president said. “That includes the Islamic Republic of Iran. And it includes North Korea.”

North Korea has chosen a path of confrontation and provocation, Obama said, and is developing nuclear arms and the means to deliver them.

“It should be clear where this path leads,” the president said. “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.”

North Korea can renounce these efforts and be welcomed into the community of nations, Obama said.

“Instead of an isolation that has compounded the horrific repression of its own people, North Korea could have a future of international integration,” he said. “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.”

He called on North Korea to return to the six-party talks and uphold previous commitments including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He also called for the full and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

The United States will stand with Asian allies in combating the transnational threats of the 21st century: extremism, piracy, disease, poverty and modern-day slavery, the president said. “The final area in which we must work together’” he added, is in upholding the fundamental rights and dignity of all human beings.”

The American agenda in the area is ambitious, and it will not be easy, Obama said. “But at this moment of renewal … history tells us it is possible,” the Hawaiian-born president said. “This is … 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.”

US No.1: Blame it on Obama-12 November, 2009

US No.1: Blame it on Obama

Thanks to US President Obama, the US was ranked No. 1 in FutureBrand’s Country Brand Index (CBI) study. The US was also named the world’s fourth best conference destination.

“It’s logical to assume that the shift in the political climate and renewed optimism surrounding the election of President Obama as a key influencer in the US topping the list,” said Rene A. Mack, president of public relations firm Weber Shandwick’s Global Travel & Lifestyle practice, which produced the report.

He added:

“It will be very interesting to see the US's performance next year and understand if this was a halo effect of a new president, or if the country can actually capitalize on this opportunity to better create a strong brand."

Despite America's strong showing in this year's rankings, the US Travel Association said the country's cumbersome security and visa policies are keeping its positive image from translating into positive visitor numbers.

Ranked No. 3 in 2008, the United States beat out second-place Canada and third-place Australia, as well as New Zealand, France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain — all of which placed in the top 10 of the annual study, which examines how countries are branded and ranked by international travelers.

US doubles funds for Agent Orange cleanup

The United States government has doubled its funding for dealing with the environmental and health consequences of its wartime use in Vietnam of the toxic herbicide Agent Orange, the embassy said Friday.

President Barack Obama recently signed a bill increasing the funding from $3 million to $6 million, embassy officials said. Most of the money is being used in Danang, where U.S. troops used to mix and store Agent Orange at an Air Force base before loading it onto planes.

During the Vietnam war, which ended in 1975, the U.S. sprayed more than 20 million gallons (75 million liters) of Agent Orange and other herbicides across the country to strip Vietnamese guerrillas of ground cover and kill their crops.

Agent Orange contains dioxin, a highly toxic substance that remains in soil and sediment for years and poses a serious health threat to anyone who touches it.

Vietnam believes as many as 4 million people have suffered serious health problems from the herbicide, such as cancer, spina bifida and other birth defects. The U.S. says the actual number is probably far lower and that further scientific study is needed to understand the health impact. The U.S. and Vietnam only began working together in 2007 to address the consequences of Agent Orange after years of disagreement.

The embassy said in a statement that one third of the $6 million is being used for health programs to serve people in the Danang area. The rest will be used to remove dioxin from the soil and sediment near Danang airport.

The first $3 million in U.S. funds was allocated during the administration of George W. Bush. Some of that money was used to contain dioxin at the Danang site to prevent it getting into the water supply.

Friday's People's Army newspaper quoted Lai Minh Hien, a Vietnamese environmental official in charge of Agent Orange issues, as saying that Vietnam needs additional 1 trillion dong ($57 million) to clean up dioxin in Danang as well as at former U.S. air bases in Bien Hoa and Phu Cat.

Agent Orange woman writes Obama

Citing herself as a living evidence of the terrible impacts of dioxin during the Vietnam War, Tran Thi Hoan, 23, who is missing two legs to her knees and her left hand, has written a letter to US President Barack Obama.

Hoan and her small corner at Hoa Binh Village, HCM City.

Hoan is a second-year student at the HCM City University of Foreign Languages and Information Technology (HUFLIT). She told VNExpress online newspaper that she wrote to President Obama a month ago, after the US Supreme Court once again rejected the petition of the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (VAVA).

Dang Hong Nhut, the chief of HCM City Association for Victims of AO/Dioxin Office, said that Hoan’s letter was translated by a US-based relief association for Agent Orange victims and sent to the US President. An Agent Orange victim herself, Nhut didn’t have high hopes, but she said that at the least, the letter will supply the US President more reliable information about Agent Orange victims in Vietnam.

“It is very sad because once again, the voice of Vietnamese people who became disabled because of dioxin was ignored. I decided to write the letter when by chance I read on the internet a letter Obama sent to his daughters, in which he expressed his hope that all children in the world might be happy. I thought that he is sentimental, so I wrote the letter,” Hoan said.

Hoan said in September 2008, she and Dang Hong Nhat, the chief of the HCM City Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin Office, went to the US. After meetings with American lawyers, veterans and intellectuals, Hoan was convinced that many people in the US still pay attention to Vietnamese Agent Orange victims.
“At that time, I placed hope in the petition to the US Supreme Court, but finally it was refused,” she added. She was disappointed but she didn’t give up. Hoan said her letter to Obama expresses her innermost feelings. “I hope he will spend some time to read and think about Vietnamese Agent Orange victims,” Hoan said.
Hoan has been living in the Hoa Binh (Peace) Village, ran by the HCM City-based Tu Du Obstetrics Hospital, since she was 6. Her parents are farmers in Binh Thuan province. Her six brothers and sisters show no effects of dioxin poisoning, but, Hoan says, there are many other disabled children in her home village.
Because of her handicaps, when she reached school age, Hoan was not admitted by local schools. Luckily, someone advised Hoan’s parents to bring her to Hoa Binh Village, where the disabled child was accepted and where she has now lived for 17 years.
“After school hours, I help others to take care of kids living in the village,” Hoan said. In Hoa Binh Village, there are dozens of disabled children who are second, third and even fourth generation Agent Orange victims. Inside bodies handicapped by dioxin, their hearts still beat stronger than ever.
Hoan said she has been luckier than many other Agent Orange victims, and still hopes her small letter will reach President Obama.
VietNamNet/VNE

Obama lifts restrictions in Cuba-10 March, 2009

Cubans applauded the passage of a bill today by U.S. Congress that would ease some travel and trade restrictions against the communist island. They hope for more changes under President Barack Obama.

The bill, which appropriates $410 billion to fund the U.S. government, includes provisions allowing Cuban-Americans to visit their families in Cuba more frequently and makes it easier to sell agricultural and medical goods to Cuba.

It undoes some Bush administration rules that toughened the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, a Cold War policy which Havana blames for the perennial economic woes afflicting the island just 90 miles (145 km) from Florida.

In Miami, there were mixed reactions from the Cuban exile community, which is split between those who favor greater contact and opening between Washington and Havana and some anti-communist hard-liners who oppose any easing of U.S. sanctions on Cuba under the rule of Fidel and Raul Castro.

The bill, which Obama still must sign into law, would allow Cuban-Americans to visit the island annually instead of once every three years as the Bush government mandated. They could also stay longer than the current two weeks.

"People-to-people contact is the number one factor of change in a closed society like the one in Cuba. It's also the right of a Cuban to be able to return to his country," Ramon Saul Sanchez, head of the Democracy Movement, said in Miami.

He urged President Obama to use his authority to completely lift restrictions on travel. "He can do it with the stroke of a pen," he said.

Source: Reuters

Cambodia opposition seeks Obama's help in murder probe

PHNOM PENH (AFP) - Cambodia's opposition leader Thursday urged US President Barack Obama to help find the killers of a prominent union boss, as hundreds of people gathered to mark five years since his murder.
Chea Vichea, who headed the country's largest labour union and was a vocal critic of Prime Minister Hun Sen's government, was gunned down at a Phnom Penh newsstand on January 22, 2004.
The daylight murder shocked Cambodia and badly fractured the country's nascent workers' movement. It was condemned by rights groups as a brutal attempt to silence opposition-linked unions.
"I beg US President Barack Obama to help Cambodian people find the criminals to bring them to justice," opposition leader Sam Rainsy told a crowd Thursday at the spot where Chea Vichea was shot.
The politician marched through Phnom Penh with some 300 garment workers and unionists to place wreaths and light incense sticks at the newsstand.
Sam Rainsy criticised authorities for failing to arrest the real culprits, but said he hoped that a "push from outside" would bring "change" in the case of Chea Vichea's murder over the next year.
Cambodia's highest court late last month provisionally released two men convicted of killing Chea Vichea and ordered the case to be re-tried, citing unclear evidence.
The two men, Born Samnang and Sok Sam Oeun, had been arrested just days after the union chief's 2004 death, convicted of murder and quickly sentenced to 20 years each in prison.
The United States and UN welcomed the decision by the court to order a retrial. International and local rights watchdogs had called the conviction and trial deeply flawed and said the true perpetrators remained at large.
But two other labour leaders have also been murdered since Chea Vichea's killing, in an escalation of attacks against workers' rights advocates.
Their deaths cast a pall over Cambodia's key garment industry, with several major clothing labels warning the government that swift justice was needed for their continued presence in the country.

Vietnam congratulates Obama as new U.S. President

HANOI, Nov. 5 (Xinhua) -- Vietnamese Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Dung said on Wednesday that Vietnam would like to sincerely congratulate Barack Obama on being elected as the new President of the United States.
Dung made the remarks in response to journalists' questions about Vietnam's reaction on Obama's victory,
In recent years, thanks to the joint efforts of the leaders and people of the two countries, the bilateral relationship has recorded positive development on the path of building constructive partnership and mutually beneficial multifaceted cooperation on the basis of the agreements made in two countries' joint statements, said Dung.
"We firmly believe that in the time to come, the sound friendship and cooperation between Vietnam and the United States shall be further strengthened and developed in the interest of the two peoples and the peace, stability, cooperation and development in the region and the world," the spokesman said.

Vietnam stocks rise 4.5 pct, sixth day of gains | Industries | Financial Services & Real Estate | Reuters

HANOI, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Vietnam's main stock index ended sharply higher on Wednesday, tracking gains in other Asian markets, where sentiment was lifted by the U.S. presidential election.
The Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange .VNI, Southeast Asia's worst performer this year, rose 4.52 percent to close at 377.83, racking up its sixth consecutive day of gains. Even so, the index has lost nearly 60 percent this year.
Traders said expectation that U.S. stocks could recover after the election helped Vietnam's markets.
Democrat Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th U.S. president on Jan. 20, 2009 and will face the daunting task of reviving an ailing economy that is the largest buyer of Vietnamese goods.
Vietnamese bank shares retained their position as the best performers on Wednesday, when central bank interest rate cuts announced earlier in the week came into effect.
Sacombank STB.HM shares jumped to the daily ceiling, closing at 24,200 dong after the Ho Chi Minh City-based bank said it would buy back 25 million shares.
In Hanoi, Asia Commercial Bank ACB.HN ended 5.33 percent up at 47,400 dong and the over-the-counter market .HASTCI closed 5.55 percent higher at 125.23. ($1=16,513 dong) (Reporting by Pham Hong Hanh)

Obama captures historic White House win

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama captured the White House on Tuesday after an extraordinary two-year campaign, defeating Republican John McCain to make history as the first black to be elected U.S. president.
Obama will be sworn in as the 44th U.S. president on January 20, 2009, television networks said. He will face a crush of immediate challenges, from tackling an economic crisis to ending the war in Iraq and striking a compromise on overhauling the health care system.
McCain saw his hopes for victory evaporate with losses in a string of key battleground states led by Ohio, the state that narrowly clinched President George W. Bush's re-election in 2004, and Virginia, a state that had not backed a Democrat since 1964.
Obama led a Democratic electoral landslide that also expanded the party's majorities in both chambers of Congress and firmly repudiated eight years of Republican President George W. Bush's leadership.
The win by Obama, son of a black father from Kenya and white mother from Kansas, marked a milestone in U.S. history. It came 45 years after the height of the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King.
In a campaign dominated at the end by a flood of bad news on the economy, Obama's leadership and proposals on how to handle the crisis tipped the race in his favour. Exit polls showed six of every 10 voters listed the economy as the top issue.
Tens of thousands of Obama supporters gathered in Chicago's Grant Park for an election night rally that had the air of a celebratory concert, cheering results that showed his victories in key states.
McCain, a 72-year-old Arizona senator and former Vietnam War prisoner, had hoped to become the oldest president to begin a first term in the White House and see his running mate Sarah Palin become the first female U.S. vice president.
(Editing by Kieran Murra

Obama: the change Asia needs?

The rest of the word may not be voting, but even to the most casual observer, it is already widely assumed by commentators that most non-Americans would prefer Barack Obama to win.
Especially since becoming the Democratic Party’s candidate, the international media has been filled with commentaries suggesting it is not just Europeans who see Mr Obama as the candidate of change – but also most Asians, Africans and Latin Americans.
Given the foreign policy views of John McCain, the Republican candidate, this assumption is not surprising. Mr McCain’s continued support for the war in Iraq, and the constant emphasis on his experience in Vietnam – another war where US reliance on military might to change hearts and minds ended in failure – impress few outside America.
But it is also hubris: yet another example of how too many commentators lazily assume that their vision of a United States as ultimately a force for good in the world – whatever its short-term failings – is shared by others.
What is going on is easy to explain. After George W. Bush’s two terms as president, the world’s chattering classes want to see their faith in the American dream and its supposed self-correcting democratic traditions restored.
The best way to do this? Elect the country’s first black president. That way redemption is delivered and American exceptionalism once again held up as a beacon for everyone else to aim for.
Hold on. Many people in the rest of the world may still admire America’s traditional support for liberty and the rights of individuals – notwithstanding the battering both have taking under the Bush administration.
But after the past eight years the bar has been set very low – too low.
Simply electing someone who is black and spent part of his childhood living in a predominantly Muslim country offers no guarantee of real change in America’s foreign policy mentality.
For sure, if elected, Mr Obama would want to rebuild the US’s reputation around the world. But before anyone outside America is called upon to endorse him, we need to know a lot more about his thinking on several key issues.
First – and most important – will he replace America’s exceptionalist view of itself with an awareness that leadership will require a far more sophisticated understanding of its position in a global community of nations?
Even if arguably a waning superpower, it will remain a dominant force in global affairs. But it will have to acknowledge that its rights and powers have accompanying duties and obligations – in particular to involve other countries in debates that accept they have legitimate interests, even if these sometimes clash with those of America.
Where such a change would be most immediately apparent, and where it could also bring the most significant short-term returns, is in the Middle East.
An apology for the invasion of Iraq would be a good starting point, along with a commitment to work with all of that country’s neighbours, including Iran, towards building a stable and peaceful region.
Second, would the US under Mr Obama show leadership in building global co-operation that will be necessary to deal with the threat of global warming?
A useful sign of intent would be an undertaking to agree to international agreements, particularly the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, that will play a key role in shaping the world’s long-term future.
Of course, this will require taking on various domestic sectoral interests, but no one ever said that contributing to global leadership was easy.
Third, would he start working with rather than against the United Nations, with the goal of making it a more effective organisation?
Fourth, will he acknowledge that the Group of Eight nations is an archaic body formed out of the geopolitics of the second world war, but which now needs urgently to be expanded to include China, India, Brazil and an African representative?
And finally, will he make changes to agricultural policy, removing the farming subsidies and support for bio-fuels which between them are having a disastrous effect on the poorest people of the developing world?
Given Mr Bush’s abysmal foreign policy record, it is abundantly clear that the US needs a new approach. Mr McCain so far looks to be offering more or less the same. This should not mean, however, accepting Mr Obama by default. Unless he can demonstrate that the US will finally end its claims to exceptionalism, commentators should refrain from endorsing him.
If Mr Obama can demonstrate a willingness to work towards the creation of a better, fairer and freer world in which America’s role is about facilitation not coercion, then maybe we can offer him conditional support.
For now, while we may not be voting in this November’s election, we need to let the US know that its claims to exceptionalism no longer stand up to inspection and cannot be the basis for foreign policy.
The writer is founder and chief executive of the Global Institute For Tomorrow