Burma Update
News and updates on Burma01 December 2009
News on Burma - 1/12/09
SPDC into election campaign in Chin State Khonumthung News: Mon 30 Nov 2009 Campaigning for the 2010 general elections in Burma seems to have begun in earnest from the military junta’s side with the Deputy Minister of Power and Electricity visiting Tidim town and Tawnzang town in Chin state on November 13 to 15 on a campaign tour. When the minister arrived he met departmental staff members, representatives of the Union Solidarity Development Association, Women’s Association and about 100 parents in a high school hall in Tawnzang town. He addressed them regarding the election. “He urged us to cast votes for the candidates of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and beware of enemies of the state. The elections will be held soon and we have to unite as a family,” said a member of the USDA. When Khonumthung News asked a person, who attended the meeting about the polls, he said that the forthcoming general election cannot be free and fair. “Even if we cast votes against the authorities it will convert it to votes in its favour,” he added. Similarly, the second commander of LIB 309 Myat Soe had campaigned in Kalemyo and Tamu Township on November 7, where he met representatives of the Union Solidarity Development Association, Women’s Association, volunteer firemen and local parents. Although the military junta has officially announced the elections for 2010, there is no declaration of codes and conducts of the election and the date. Than Shwe urges USDA to forge ahead – Mungpi Mizzima News: Mon 30 Nov 2009 New Delhi – Burma’s military junta supremo Senior General Than Shwe on Friday patted on the back his puppet civilian organization – the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) – for a job well-done for the past 16 years and urged it to carry on with gusto until the junta’s Seven-Step Roadmap is wrapped up. Than Shwe, in his speech on the last day of the USDA’s Annual General Meeting, expressed his appreciation of the USDA, but urged it to continue to safeguard non-disintegration of the Union, non-disintegration of national solidarity and perpetuation of sovereignty of the country, according to the state-own New Light of Myanmar newspaper on Saturday. Burma’s military rulers claim that they are the saviors of the Union, where several groups are struggling to break away, and justify that their rule for the past 20 years have ushered in stability and peace in the country. “Therefore, you are…. to safeguard non-disintegration of the Union, non-disintegration of national solidarity and perpetuation of sovereignty with true patriotic spirit,” Than Shwe, patron of the USDA told the meeting, held in Naypyitaw. He also urged the USDA to cooperate in the successful implementation of the Seven-Step Roadmap, and to prevent any attempt to harm the interests of the State and the people. The junta chief, in his speech, re-affirmed that as part of the roadmap to democracy, a general election will be held in 2010, where political parties would be allowed to contest. “Free and fair elections will be held in 2010 in keeping with the publicly-approved constitution. Political parties, formed based on their different beliefs, will get involved in political activities,” Than Shwe said. Critics have expressed scepticism about the junta’s statement of ‘Free and Fair elections’, pointing out that the referendum held in May 2008 to approve the new constitution was rigged. Opposition groups, including detained Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s party – the National League for Democracy – have demanded a revision of the 2008 constitution, which will be used as the base for next year’s election. While Burma watchers and analysts had earlier speculated that the USDA might be transformed into a political party that will be backed by the junta, a USDA official in Naypyitaw told Mizzima that so far there has not been any ‘orders from above’ to transform the group into a political outfit. The USDA, which was formed by Than Shwe in 1993, has been widely known for carrying out orders from the junta including those to crackdown on protesters during the Buddhist monk-led protests in September 2007. The junta claims that the USDA has a membership of over 20 million, nearly half of Burma’s over 50 million population. Singapore firm inks massive Myanmar gas deal Agence France Presse: Mon 30 Nov 2009 Singapore — A Singaporean marine engineering company has signed a multimillion dollar contract with a Myanmar firm, and will lay gas pipelines off the shores of the military-ruled nation next year. Singapore-based firm Swiber Holdings will construct 150 kilometres of gas pipelines after signing a 77 million US dollar contract with “a Myanmar oil and gas company,” the company said in a statement Friday. The statement did not give the name of the Myanmar company involved. The project will start in the first quarter of 2010 and will last six months, it added. “We are honoured and excited to kick-start the offshore installation job in Myanmar,” said Raymond Goh, group chief executive officer of Swiber Holdings. The agreement comes as foreign investment in military-ruled nation soared more than fivefold to reach almost one billion dollars last year, official statistics showed. Total foreign investment in Myanmar increased from 172.72 million dollars in the 2007-2008 fiscal year to 985 million dollars in 2008-2009, the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development said earlier this year. Myanmar has been ruled by the military since 1962, and sanctions by the United States and Europe coupled with fiscal mismanagement during decades of military rule have battered its economy. Nobel Laureate Stiglitz to advise junta on poverty – Marwaan Macan-Markar Inter Press News Service: Mon 30 Nov 2009 Bangkok – The list of high-profile foreigners heading to Burma to engage and advise the country’s military regime is about to get longer. The latest due to join that flow is Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz. The former chief economist of the World Bank will fly into Burma, or Myanmar as it is also known, on Dec. 14 for a mission aimed to examine and improve the South-east Asian nation’s rural economy, says Noeleen Heyzer, head of a United Nations regional body based in Bangkok. “He will share his ideas on what kind of economic decision making is critical for growth in the rural economy and poverty reduction,” adds the executive secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). “He will be there for a couple of days.” “We hope that this mission will be able to open up a new space in economic decision-making and policy formulations,” Heyzer tells IPS. “The focus is on how do we reach the poorest people in Myanmar.” Stiglitz, who has engaged with poorer countries to offer development models through the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, a think tank he founded, will meet Burma’s Agriculture and Rural Development Minister Maj Gen Htay Oo and National Development Minister Soe Tha during this visit. Both ministers are reportedly close to Burma’s strongman, Senior Gen Than Shwe, who presides over a regime notorious for its oppression and secrecy. Stiglitz is due to deliver a lecture on ‘Economic Policies and Decision Making for Poverty Reduction: Reaching the Bottom Half’ in the afternoon of Dec. 15. The two ministers and Heyzer have also been billed as speakers during this ‘development forum’ under the theme ‘Policies for Poverty Reduction— Effecting Change in Myanmar’s Rural Economy’. This forum, to be held in Naypidaw, the administrative capital, is one of a series of talks Stigliz will be involved in. Others will include an exchange of ideas with leading Burmese economists, U.N. experts, the diplomatic community and speakers from the local and international non-governmental groups. Field visits to Burma’s dry zone are also on the cards, confirms Heyzer, who has been instrumental in the visit of the globally renowned economist. “It should be for two or three days to bring him into contact with the issues of the rural economy and the problems of trading, the banking system and the commodity prices.” ESCAP’s foray into Burma is part of a broader programme to reach out to countries with “special needs” among its over 50 member states. The foundation for this engagement with Burma’s rural economy was laid in August when Heyzer visited the military-ruled country. The initial talks she had at that time touched on issues like the need for farmers to gain greater access to rural credit and concerns over the state fixing of rice prices at rates that condemned farmers into permanent poverty. Currently, some 7.8 million hectares are under paddy cultivation, producing an estimated 30.5 million tonnes of rice during the 2008-2009 harvest period, states the Food and Agriculture Organisation. Such rice production has come at a heavy price for Burmese rice farmers. Most of them, who are small farmers, have had difficulty accessing rural credit, according to Sean Turnell, an Australian academic who publishes the ‘Burma Economic Watch’, in an interview with IPS. “The policies of the Burmese government have been anything but helpful,” he says. “They have, in essence, stood by while Burma’s rural credit scheme has collapsed.” Burmese economists wonder how open the junta will be to Stiglitz’s policy prescriptions given previous foreign attempts to suggest improvements to the country’s beleaguered economy, which were initially received with much fanfare but then ignored by the regime. A Japanese initiative in 2002 is illustrative. Tokyo, with early support from the regime, conducted a macro-economic and structural reform study. Researchers reportedly had access to sensitive economic data for this project. But the implementation of the results, which the Japanese government was willing to back, found little takers within the regime. “This research that was conducted by top Japanese and Burmese economist was rejected by the military government,” says a Burmese economist based in northern Thailand, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This was after the Japanese made every effort to offer a feasible programme that the regime could undertake according to its comfort level.” “Other efforts can face a similar fate,” he adds. “They will fall on deaf ears.” Such reluctance for change has been attributed to the new wealth the regime has amassed since the discovery of huge offshore natural gas fields in the 1990s. Gas exports to neighbouring Thailand has resulted in Burma’s foreign exchange reserves reaching a record 3.6 billion U.S. dollars. That figure is expected to increase with Chinese investments in a new offshore natural gas project. Yet 75 percent of the country’s estimated 57 million people who live in rural areas and make up the largest slice of the country’s poor have hardly benefited from such financial bounty. Malnutrition is rampant, affecting over a third of the country’s children. It is ranked by the U.N. as one of the hunger hotspots of the world. The junta’s public spending offers some clues for this dire picture. Nearly 40 percent of the gross domestic percent goes to support of its over 400,000- strong army while only 0.3 percent is set aside for health, placing it just above the lowest ranked Sierra Leone, at 191st, on a World Health Organisation list. Stiglitz’s solutions to help Burma’s rural poor will have to grapple with other numbers, too. Inflation is at 30 percent and the annual growth rate— estimated at four to five percent by independent analysts—is far lower than the 10 percent rate that the regime claims it to be. Burma’s minorities must not be overlooked – Richard Sollom GlobalPost: Mon 30 Nov 2009 COX ‘S BAZAAR, Bangladesh and CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts – Twenty years after the November 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, a repressive barricade is being quietly raised in the jungles of Burma. The Burmese military junta has begun erecting a concrete and barbed-wire fence along its western border with Bangladesh, allegedly to prevent smuggling, but more probably to prohibit the return from Bangladesh of some 200,000 Rohingya migrants ” a persecuted Burmese Muslim minority group who are now stateless. Burmas new barrier symbolizes the past five decades of military rule and isolation from the free world. It should also remind the West of the brutal repression of ethnic minorities who abide mass atrocities behind Burmas barricade. As principal investigator for Physicians for Human Rights, I returned last week from a three-week trip to Burma and its neighboring countries ” Bangladesh, India and Thailand ” where I met with Burmese civil society and victims of human rights violations. Our investigation revealed ongoing crimes against humanity in this country where murder, forced displacement, slave labor, conscription of child soldiers, torture and rape comprise the militarys arsenal of rights abuses inflicted against ethnic minorities. In Coxs Bazaar, Bangladesh, I interviewed a 72-year-old Buddhist monk whom Burmese military imprisoned and tortured for the past two years after he had led the peaceful demonstration that sparked the Saffron Revolution ” the name of which stems from the monks colorful monastic robes. In Aizawl, India a group of Christian women who fled Chin State in Burma this year reported to me unspeakable sexual violence they suffered at the hands of the Tatmadaw, or Burmese military, during its roundup of forced laborers. In the Thai border town of Mae Sot, I met a 14-year-old landmine survivor whose left leg was blown off just days earlier while tending his familys four water buffalo just across the border in Karen State, Burma. Such egregious breaches of human dignity are not isolated incidents. They highlight the militarys widespread and systematic campaign to crush dissent by imprisonment, torture, enslavement and the silencing of ethnic minorities such as the Chin, Karen, Kokang, Rakhine, Rohingya and Shan. No group is spared. Burmas de facto president, the reclusive Senior General Than Shwe, seized power 20 years ago while promising free and fair elections in 1990. The opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) trounced the military-backed State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) garnering 59 percent of the vote and 80 percent of the seats in the Peoples Assembly. SLORC dismissed the results, and subsequently detained NLDs Prime Minister-elect Aung San Suu Kyi. The merciless head of Burmas military junta will not brook a second defeat at the polls next year. He has hence stepped-up militarization this past year resulting in forced relocation and attendant rights abuses. Than Shwes Tatmadaw has locked up 2,200 political prisoners, destroyed more than 3,200 villages and forced up to 3 million civilians to flee ” all of which make it nearly impossible for the NLD and other political parties to organize prior to upcoming elections. President Obama has recently embarked on a new policy of engagement with the Burmese military claiming targeted sanctions have failed to reform the repressive regime. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell met this month in the capital city Naypyidaw with his Burmese counterpart in a second round of dialogue, which began this September in New York. And Obama himself met recently with ASEAN leaders, including Burmas Prime Minister Thein Sein, in Singapore. For such diplomatic initiatives to succeed, the Obama administration must establish benchmarks and present credible consequences should its new strategy of engagement fail to produce movement toward real political change within Burma. The minimum price for continued dialogue should be the unconditional release of all political prisoners and the immediate cessation of rights abuses against ethnic minorities ” without which there can be neither free nor fair elections in 2010. By meeting with the Americans, Than Shwe has already procured what he craves most ” international legitimacy ” and revoking it is perhaps the best hope for a shift in Burma. If these series of high-level diplomatic talks do not result in any significant positive change by the military junta, the United States should fully implement tougher sanctions already allowed by the 2008 Burmese JADE Act and press the U.N. Security Council to launch a commission of inquiry into crimes against humanity in Burma. Burmas military regime has maintained its intransigence for decades in the face of outside demands for change. As the United States tries to alter that posture, it must not forsake justice and accountability for toothless diplomatic engagement. * Richard Sollom is Director of Research and Investigations at Physicians for Human Rights in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he directs public health research and human rights investigations in areas of armed conflict. Junta under scrutiny for concrete pre-election signs – Marwaan Macan-Markar Inter Press News Service: Mon 30 Nov 2009 BANGKOK, Nov 29 (IPS) – In the wake of a meeting attended by the all-powerful military elite, Burma’s military regime is due to come under close scrutiny for concrete signs of change leading up to a promised general elections in 2010. The weeklong gathering in Naypidaw, the administrative capital, is where the country’s strongman, Senior General Than Shwe, receives reports from senior officers in the military machine that dominates the South-east Asian country and then determines policies for the following four months. There were close to 200 officers who attended this high-powered meeting, from Nov. 23 to 27, according to Win Min, a Burmese national security expert at Payap University in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand. “Than Shwe has been normally holding these meetings once in four months. It draws in ministers of the military government, regional commanders, heads of the light infantry divisions and officers of brigadier general rank,” Win Min told IPS. “Highest policy decisions are made here. Military reshuffles normally occur, but Than Shwe will keep people guessing till the very last minute about concrete moves. He prefers to take people by surprise. It is his military thinking.” Among the announcements that diplomats following Burmese affairs are waiting to hear is Than Shwe’s order to military officers to enter the political field for the 2010 elections. “The order for senior military officers to change uniforms will be significant,” one Asian diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told IPS. “Who among them ordered to do so will also be revealing.” Other more certain signs that the regime will go ahead with the election is the announcement of two election laws, the diplomat added. They are the law for the registration of political parties and the law governing the election process. Until now, the junta’s commitment towards the poll to create a “discipline- flourishing democracy” has only been verbal assurances as part of its “roadmap” towards political reform in Burma, officially called Myanmar. On Friday Than Shwe repeated this promise at a meeting of the Union of Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) held in Naypidaw to coincide with the meeting of the country’s military elite. A free and fair election will be held in 2010 in keeping with the country’s new 2008 constitution, Than Shwe had told members of the USDA, according to Saturday’s edition of ‘The New Light of Myanmar,’ a junta mouthpiece. Yet the strongman sounded a note of warning to the political parties that may vie in this long-awaited poll. They should not undermine the disintegration of the country and affect national solidarity, Than Shwe was reported as saying. Than Shwe is the head of USDA, a civilian arm of the junta that is expected to play a pivotal role in the polls to avoid a repeat of the 1990 elections. At that poll, the last held in Burma, the National League for Democracy (NLD), the party of the detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, won with a massive mandate, which the junta refused to recognise. The new constitution, which was approved in a deeply flawed referendum in May 2008, has other features to ensure that the military’s grip on power will remain even after the poll. The powerful army, with its nearly 450,000- strong troops, has been guaranteed 25 percent of all seats in the legislative bodies from the national to the village levels. Although Western governments are aware of these anti-democratic features, they are increasingly open to engagement with the regime. Still unchanged, however, are the punitive economic sanctions that marked the hostile policy the United States and the European Union (EU) have towards Burma. There are new opportunities for a breakthrough in the political deadlock in Burma, Piero Fassino, the EU special envoy to Burma, said in a statement Friday following mission through South-east Asia. The Italian politician was encouraged by the prospect of a dialogue involving the junta. Fassino’s views add to the softer line taken by the administration of U.S. President Barak Obama on Burma. The latter’s policy shift to engage with Burma has seen an encounter between the U.S. leader and Burmese Prime Minister Gen Thein Sein at a regional summit in Singapore in mid- November. That landmark meeting—the first by a U.S. president in over 40 years— followed a visit to Burma in October by Kurt Campbell, the U.S. assistant secretary of state, who became the highest-ranking official from Washington to visit Burma in 14 years. Campbell’s visit included a nearly two-hour meeting with Suu Kyi, who has spent over 14 of her last 20 years under detention. For her part, Suu Kyi has used the momentum towards engagement to write to Than Shwe, seeking a meeting between the two. The Nobel Peace laureate’s letter reportedly expressed a willingness to “cooperate” to end the stalemate between the junta and the NLD leader. The last time the two met was in 2002 in Rangoon, the former Burmese capital. But Suu Kyi has met with a government minister appointed as the junta’s liaison officer seven times in the past two years, the most recent in October. The changes in the international community’s thinking towards Burma served as a backdrop for the just concluded meeting of the country’s military elite. “The military government could not ignore this during this week’s meeting,” said Zin Linn, information director for the National Coalition Government for the Union of Burma, the government elected in 1990 currently in exile. “There is some pressure and expectations of change from the international community,” he told IPS. “The military government has to decide how they will deal with Aung San Suu Kyi and how they will manage (the country’s) political affairs during the election year.” Burma media faces junta squeeze – Zin Linn Asian Tribune: Mon 30 Nov 2009 Presently, Burma is at an intersection of political makeover. The military regime wants to maintain the status quo while the people desire to open a new chapter of change. People are demanding freedoms of expression and association while the junta is in no mood to allow basic civic rights. So much so, most people are rallying in support of NLD the proposals. In its ‘Shwe-gon-dine declaration’ dated 29th April 2009, the National League for Democracy (NLD) has set two conditions for its participation in the 2010 election. One amend provisions in the 2008 constitution which are not in harmony with democratic principles. Two hold an all-inclusive free and fair poll under international supervision. The International Community has been urging the junta to release all political prisoners prior to the 2010 election in order to gain international support. “Burma must release Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest and let her to take part in a nationwide election, otherwise the vote will not be honourable and U.S. economic sanctions will not be lifted”, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Scot Marciel, warned after meeting her in Rangoon. No diplomatic breakthrough was achieved during the visit to Burma by Mr. Marciel and the Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell on November 3 and 4. In addition to Suu Kyi, the two American diplomats met Prime Minister Gen. Thein Sein, opposition politicians, ethnic leaders, and others. But they could not meet the Big Man, Senior Gen Than Shwe himself. Why a meeting with him could not be arranged remains unclear. After all it is Gen Than who calls the shots in Burma and a meeting with him could have been beneficial to both sides. According to some analysts, there is no progress at all since the US Special Mission’s visit to Burma. There is more belligerence, more restrictions on media and civil society, more control on Internet users, more arrests, more political prisoners, and more military attacks in the ethnic minority areas. So, dissident politicians warned each other to be very wary and have asked the international community to put pressure on the regime until the said benchmarks are achieved. If the junta has a sincere mindset to start democratic reform, the media must be free at the outset. Access to information is crucial to establish a healthy democracy. Moreover, media is the backbone of a democracy system. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless frontiers”. But, in Burma, not only the political oppositions but also the journalists and the media personnel are under the strictest rules of the stratocracy. In most countries, journalists or media workers can do their jobs without fear or favour and survive. But in military ruled Burma, journalism is a hazardous work. Japanese journalist Kenji Nagai was killed in the 2007 Saffron Revolution. Several citizen journalists are still in prisons. According to the Burma Media Association and Reporters Sans Frontieres, at least 12 journalists and dozens of media workers including poets and writers are held behind bars since the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis and the May 2008 constitutional referendum. Some like film director, writer and comic Zarganar and blogger Nay Phone Latt received long-term sentences while sentences for print journalists ranged from two to seven years. Saw Wai, a poet, was arrested in January 2008 for inserting a concealed message – power crazy Than Shwe – in a Valentines Day poem. He has been awarded a two- year jail term.. The New York-based Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) “strongly condemned” the arrest on 28 October 2009 of freelance journalist and blogger Pai Soe Oo (alias) Jay Paing, reportedly a member of Cyclone Nargis disaster relief volunteer group named “Lin Let Kye” (”Shining Star”). CPJ called for his immediate release, saying his arrest undermined the Burmese junta’s assertion of moving toward democracy. “Burma’s military regime claims to be moving toward democracy, yet it continues to routinely arrest and detain journalists,” said Shawn W. Crispin, CPJ’s senior Southeast Asia representative. “Reducing international pressure should require demonstrable improvements in press freedom.” A freelance journalist, speaking under condition of anonymity, said that around 20 people, including entertainers, writers and press workers, have been arrested since third week of October. There were several arrests without warrant between 21 and 28 October. Staff members of the Voice, the Foreign News, the Favourite, the Pyi Myanmar and the Kandarawaddy journals are reportedly picked up for a life in jail. He could confirm at least eight people including 4 journalists arrested by police and military intelligence officials at their homes. They included Khant Min Htet, a poet and the layout designer for the ‘Ahlinkar Wutyi Journal’,Thant Zin Soe, an editor of the Foreign Affair News weekly journal, freelancer Nyi Nyi Tun (alias) Mee Doke and Paing Soe Oo (alias) Jay Paing, a freelance reporter and blogger. The other four, Aung Myat Kyaw Thu, Thet Ko, Myint Thein and Min Min are students of Dagon University. The detained youths are members of “Linlet Kyei,” or “Shining Star” a group which helps survivors of last year’s Cyclone Nargis, which killed over 140,000 people. The Linlet Kye volunteer group was formed in early May 2008 and has over 40 members. Most of them are Rangoon-based reporters and young social activists. They help orphaned schoolchildren by providing them with textbooks and paying for their school expenses. Burmese media is often targeted during periodical crackdown on dissents. Some more arrests of journalists cannot be ruled out since the regime has turned a virtual deaf ear to the appeals from the international community to release political prisoners prior to elections next year.. Burma was at the forefront of press freedom in Southeast Asia before the 1962 military coup. The country then enjoyed a free press; censorship was something unheard then. As many as three dozen newspapers, including English, Chinese and Hindi dailies, existed between 1948 and 1962. Journalists had free access even to the prime minister’s office in those days. They were free to tie –up with international press agencies. The situation changed in 1962, when the military seized power. All newspapers were nationalized. Press Scrutiny Board (PSB) came up to enforce strict censorship on all forms of printed matter including advertisements and even obituaries. Since then, censorship and self-censorship have become commonplace in Burma undermining political rights and civil liberties. Press Scrutiny and Registration Division (PSRD) is a major oppressive tool of Than Shwe military regime. Not surprisingly, Burma stands downgraded from a free state to a prison state. All news media in Burma is strictly censored and tightly controlled by the military — all daily newspapers, radio and television stations are under supervision of the junta. Whatever privately-owned journals and magazines are there, these are few and work strictly under the PSRD scanner. No printed matter can bring out without PSRD permission. The radio, television and other media outlets are monopolized for propaganda warfare by the regime and opposition views are never allowed. Recently some FM Radio stations have come up but people view them as a part of the military campaign to secure voters’ support for the ‘official nominees’ in the 2010 elections. The regime knows well how to take advantage of the popularity of FM radio. They are now using the new stations to magnetize people away from the exiled media. The media is a special tool for the military regime and no space is given for the opposition. Unless the junta guaranteed the essential value of human rights – such as, freedom of expression and freedom of association – its ongoing polling process will be meaningless. Press is the fourth pillar of a State. It is accepted around the globe. Not in Burma. The lifeblood of democracy is free flow of information. Burma needs regional cooperation for Press Freedom. While Burma is at an intersection of political makeover, the media workers in Burma are looking forward to have more assistance, understanding and pragmatic help from the international media groups. Without press freedom a nation cannot have social equality or democracy. Kowtowing holds up political progress in Burma – Ko Ko Thett Irrawaddy: Mon 30 Nov 2009 Megalomania on the part of the authorities and obsequiousness on the part of the people who serve them are salient features of any authoritarian system, where signs of complete submission and personal loyalty can induce rewards. In an authoritarian setting, acting “normal” as self-respecting citizens or professionals can land people on the book of enemies. In Burma, the ruling generals have gone grotesquely backward in time with their penchant for expressions of servility by their underlings. In Burmese Buddhist culture, the act of kowtowing is a sign of garawa, obeisance and humility, to the Buddha and the Sangha (the Order) as well as to teachers and elders. It should be noted that in a sutta, Buddha elucidates that it is not the age but the degree of morality, mindfulness and wisdom that qualifies one as an “elder.” The misunderstanding and malpractice of gawara, rampant in the Burmese society in general and the Burmese military institution in particular, often give way to illusory righteousness and blind obedience. In parts of pre-colonial Asia, ruled by absolute monarchs or feudal lords, kowtowing was commonplace at all levels of social and political hierarchy. In fact, the protocol of having to kowtow sacrosanct Burmese kings, who aspired to be future Buddhas, or Chinese emperors irked the Western diplomats, soldiers, Christian missionaries and adventurers who had journeyed to the seat of the “oriental” kingdoms. Historically, the Burmese elite’s outward display of servility in a highly personalized hierarchical system must have infected all other social relations. Eminent Burma scholars, from Dr Maung Maung Gyi to Dr Than Tun, abhorred the fact that the Burmese first person singular is kyundaw or kyunma, meaning “your royal slave!” From the time of the British conquest of lower Burma in 1824 until the country’s independence in 1948, the local minions who chose to serve the British retained the old habit of kissing up. They addressed the British as thakingyi, or great masters, while continuing to kowtow them. The Japanese who occupied and ruled Burma through a proxy nationalist government during the Second World War demanded “long and deep” formal bows from the locals. Most of the Burmese obliged, calling the new masters simply “masters.” It is one thing to kowtow Buddha but quite another to have to treat one’s boss as if he were a Buddha. Treating one’s superior like a Buddha, however, may be exactly what is expected of the Burmese public servants and military personnel by their bosses, the generals who misrule Burma today. For instance, the most striking image among the photos of General Shwe Mann’s tour of North Korea and China in November 2008, is that of the Burmese embassy staff and their family members on all fours in front of the general in a Beijing hotel room. Shwe Mann, a protégé of junta chief Snr-Gen Than Shwe, is considered the third most powerful man in Burma and an heir apparent. Colonization of Burma thoroughly humiliated the majority Burman (Bama) population as they were forcibly separated from their past. As such, Bama politicians or soldiers are wont to hark back to their pre-colonial roots. On gaining independence in 1948, the Bama leaders resumed building their unitary state on Bama nationalism. As ethnic and communist insurgencies broke out and civil war ensued within months of independence, it was too late for them to undo feudal cultural traits, develop mutually beneficial ties with ethnic peoples or heal their collective inferiority complex. Invasions from neighboring China in the 1940s and 1950s added more fuel to Bama jingoism as the country withdrew further away from the international community during the Cold War. The perceived glory of the past, which is disgraceful to the ethnic groups who suffered at the hands of Bama kings, has been rehabilitated through official and unofficial versions of nationalist historiography. In fact, it has become a staple in the nationalist propaganda. Present-day Bama military officers have been doused in ultra-nationalist doctrine pretty much the same way that all Bama nationalist leaders of various political hues, be they leftist, rightist or totalitarian, fed on the anti-colonial historical narrative. As a result, in the words of Professor Maung Maung Gyi, ‘‘nationalism chained them to the petty world of native culture. Their attitude was that almost everything Burmese was positively superior to anything Western.’’ U Nu, the prime minister of newly independent Burma, behaved like a benevolent Burmese king, a bodhisattva, while presiding over a parliamentary democracy system that eventually went out of his control. Ne Win, who took over power from Nu and set out to ruin the country under a pseudo-socialist regime from 1962 to 1988, was known for his royal antics. Nonetheless only under the present military regime, which named its new capital Naypyidaw, meaning the royal city or abode of kings, “min complex,” or royal-mania, has grown out of all proportion. Burma scholars often speak of the “colonization from within” in the state of Burma. This view is completely justifiable in light of dominant-subordinate colonial relations that can be observed in the Burmese political culture. Given the royal mania of the Burmese military regime, optimists see the current constitution as Burma’s Magna Carta. In this view, the fact that the constitution was unilaterally drawn up and forcibly approved in a sham referendum in May 2008 is less relevant than its emergence as a document that defines the boundaries of state and local powers. Even if this “regime accommodationist view” reflects some elements of reality and relevancy, democracy in Burma will remain a very long-term guided process that will take decades, if not centuries, of evolution of democratic institutions. One thing is for sure—democracy has to wait until the day when the people of Burma no longer take their bosses for Buddha. * Ko Ko Thett is an independent Burma scholar and a student of politics at the University of Helsinki. Parliamentarians from South and South East Asia extend solidarity with the struggle for democracy in Burma Indian Parliamentarian’s Forum for Democracy in Burma: Mon 30 Nov 2009 New Delhi, India – Parliamentarians from South and South East Asian countries such as; India, Nepal, and Singapore gathered today in New Delhi, capital of India to extend their solidarity with Burmese people’s struggle for the restoration of democracy in Burma. Indian Parliamentarians across party lines along with their counterparts from ASEAN countries discussed the current political and human rights situations in Burma and the role of ASEAN and India on the democratization in Burma. They also discussed how Parliamentarians in the region can be of more help in advocating support for the initiation of genuine political dialogue involving all stake holders in the country and national reconciliation in Burma. Mr. Charles Chong, Singaporean Parliamentarian and Vice Chair of ASEAN Inter Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) said in his speech that “ASEAN was of the view that the more ASEAN got involved in Burma, the more it might be able to influence (Burmese generals) but 10 years had passed with no results. Things are getting worse in Burma instead. There are more refugees fleeing Burma”. “ASEAN cannot do it on its own because the military generals have made it clear that the western sanctions will not have any impact so long as the two largest neighbours India and China continue to do big business with Burma” said Mr. Chong. Parliamentarians at the meeting called on the Indian government to join and actively engage with ASEAN and United Nations in finding ways to urge Burmese State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) leaders to pave the way for genuine democracy in Burma. Mr. Sharad Joshi, MP and Convener of the Indian Parliamentarians’ Forum for Democracy in Burma (IPFDB) said “ASEAN and SAARC countries should come together in working for the immediate release of all political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi and for the restoration of democracy in Burma”. “Restoration of democracy in Burma is in our (India) interest,” he added. Indian Parliamentarians came together across party lines and demanded that the Burmese government release all political prisoners in Burma including Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. “The issue of democracy in Burma and the release of Aung San Suu Kyi should find some priority in the agenda of Indian political parties,” said D Raja, Raja Sabha MP and National Secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI). While expressing her party’s strong support for the Burmese democracy movement and pointing out the existence of thousands of Burmese refugees living in India, Brinda Karat, MP and Politbureau member of Communist Party of India (Marxist) said that “our party will do whatever it can to help the Burmese refugees and their lives in India”. She also expressed her disappointment in the fact that there was lack of discussion on Burma issues in the parliamentary foreign policy debates. “We had debates on India’s foreign policy related to Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, but no debates on Burma”. “The issue of India’s policy and stand on Burma must be discussed when we discuss foreign policy,” Brinda Karat added. Criticizing the Indian media for lack of coverage on Burma issues, the participants at the consultation meeting acknowledged that there is a need to mobilize and sensitize the media in India to write and inform the Indian public about Burma’s situation. “When we had demonstrations organized (for Burma) in front of the Burmese embassy (in New Delhi) there was no news (in the media) but when we had protests outside the Pakistan and Chinese embassy, it made news headlines,” said Vijay Jolly of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Parliamentarians in the region also agreed to put greater pressure to make Burma’s 2010 elections free, fair, inclusive and transparent by demanding the junta release all political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi, cease attacks against ethnic groups, and review the constitution of 2008 through inclusive dialogue before the elections. The meeting also resolved to expand cooperation and network between IPFDB and Parliamentarians in other countries in the region to help Burmese people in their struggle for the restoration of democracy in Burma. The consultation meeting was participated among others by Mr. Charles Chong, a Parliamentarian from Singapore and Vice President of ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus which is a group of Parliamentarians from ASEAN countries working for the restoration of democracy and freedom for Burma, Mr Chandrika Yadav, a Parliamentarian from Nepal who is also Chief Whip of MPRF party in the Nepal Parliament, Sharad Joshi MP Rajya Sabha, Swatantra Bharat Paksha, India; Baroness Caroline Cox, MP, British Parliament, Dr Tint Swe, MP-elect of NLD, Burma and Information Minister, National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma; Rev. Achariya, M.P. of Tibetan Parliament in Exile; Thomas Sangma, MP, Nationalist Congress Party, India; Chandan Mitra, and Vijay Jolly, former MP and MLA of the BJP, India; Brinda Karat, MP, Communist Party of India (Marxist), D. Raja, MP of Communist Party of India, Brijbhushan Tiwari, MP of Samajwadi Party, India; KC Tyagi, Former MP and General Secretary of the Janata Dal United, India. Junta continues war on monks – Arkar Moe Irrawaddy: Wed 25 Nov 2009 A war on monks is still underway in Burma, revenge for the monk-led peaceful mass demonstrations in 2007. The military junta continues to put pressure on monks and their family members, place bans on preaching the Dhamma and impose travel restrictions. Ashin Thavara, the secretary of the India-based All Burma Monks’ Representative Committee (ABMRC), told The Irrawaddy on Tuesday: “My parents go to sign up at the township authority every month, and the authorities order my family to inform them whenever I contact them. They also pressured my parents’ employer to fire them from their job.” Ashin Thavara, 26, played a leading role in in the demonstrations and is a founding member of the ABMRC, which launched the demonstrations together with other monk organizations. “The Burmese authorities confiscated all of my belongings in February 2008, they have pressured monks leave my monastery, Zeya Theikdi Monastery in Rangoon’s Thingankyun Township. It now has only one old monk.” On Sept. 27, 2007, the military government cracked down on the demonstrators and scores of monks were forced to flee their monasteries to escape arrest. Dozens of monks fled the country . According to official data, there are now more than 400,000 monks in Burma, and its community, the Sangha, is considered one of the strongest and most revered institutions in the country. Ashin Issariya, one of the founders of All Burma Monks’ Alliance (ABMA), said: “The military junta still oppresses and insults monks and the Buddhist religion. There are currently more than 250 monks and more than 20 nuns in prison in Burma for their political activities.” The regime’s Ministry of Religious Affairs seeks to control monks through the Sangha Maha Nayaka Committee (a state-sponsored Buddhist monks’ organization), which has issued orders restricting monks’ travel and ability to offer dhamma teachings. Authorities have also banned individual monks, such as Shwe Nya War Sayardaw, the dean of Shwe Nya War Buddhist University in Rangoon, from delivering dhamma talks. A monk who studied at the Buddhist University told The Irrawaddy on Thursday: “ Shwe Nya War Sayardawgyi has been banned from Dhamma talks in Rangoon since last year, because of his two Dhamma CDs, “True Independence” and “Don’t be Unfair.” Recently, he was also banned from presenting talks on full moon day in Hledan Township and Kyee Myin Daing Township on Nov. 19.” The Ministry of Religious Affairs has also stopped issuing letters of recommendation, which are required, for a monk to travel to a foreign country. A monk in Rangoon, Ashin Panyarsarmi, said, “Now the authorities are watching monks closely, and it’s very difficult to get visas and scholarships.” Ashin Nayminda, who played a leading role in the 2007 demonstrations, said the authorities told his friends that if they contacted him, they could be arrested. “Some of my friends who took part in the demonstrations have stayed away from me and returned to lay life,” he said. “All of my property in my monastery in Dawbon Township in Rangoon was confiscated.” An abbot in Mandalay Division told The Irrawaddy on Thursday: “Plain clothes security officers are closely watching certain monks and monasteries.” He said four youths who were in contact with monks in Mandalay were detained in September. “Their family and relatives do not know where they are now,” he said. State authorities closed Maggin Monastery in Rangoon’s Thingankyun Township in November 2007 after its abbot, Sayadaw U Indaka, was arrested for his involvement in the demonstrations. Monks and novices were evicted along with several HIV/ AIDS patients who were receiving treatment in the monastery at the time. In October 2009, the All Burma Monks’ Alliance expelled Sen-Gen Than Shwe from the Buddhist faith because he had failed to issue an apology for his abuse of monks and the religion of Buddhism. Thai refugee camps face tough year ahead – Francis Wade Democratic Voice of Burma: Wed 25 Nov 2009 Rising rice prices and the threat of an influx of Burmese refugees into Thailand over the coming year could place a heavy strain on refugee camps along the border, the head of a refugee aid group warned. The comments came in the wake of a visit by European Union officials to the Mae La camp in Thailand’s western Tak province, which is home to some 40,000 Burmese refugees. EU funding accounts for around 65 percent of the total $US60 million in international aid that goes to the camps each year. Jack Dunford, head of the Bangkok-based Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC), which provides food, shelter and amenities to the camps, said that enough funding had been secured for this year, but warned of an uncertain 12 months ahead. “There are three variables that we have no control over: exchange rates, the price of rice and the number of refugees, so when we look at annual funding we always have to do some guess work,” he said. “All three tend to be going against us, and with the global funding squeeze, we are expecting that next year is going to be difficult.” While the price of rice has dropped since the peak of the global food crisis last year, he warned that widespread flooding and storms in India and the Philippines, two of the region’s main rice producers, may push prices back up. He also warned of a possible exodus of Burmese fleeing fighting in the run-up to elections in Burma next year, many of whom would cross into Thailand. “Over the next 12 months we’re facing very uncertain times in Burma, in particular huge uncertainties about what’s going to happen in the border areas,” Dunford said. “We’ll obviously see how it plays out, but we could have a major emergency.” The Burmese government has been aggressively attempting to transform the country’s 18 ceasefire groups into border guard forces prior to polling; a move that it believes would significantly strengthen its dominance in the volatile border regions. Fighting between Burmese troops, supported by the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), and the opposition Karen National Union (KNU) in June, forced around 5000 Karen civilians into Thailand, many of whom ended up in makeshift camps. Another outbreak of fighting in Burma’s northeastern Shan state in August and September caused some 37,000 refugees to cross into neighbouring China. Some of the camps along the Thai-Burma border have been in place for 25 years, and the EU has sent a senior-level delegation each year to assess conditions inside the camps. In total, around 130,000 Burmese refugees live in the nine camps, the majority from Karen state. Villagers flee to avoid forced labor for border fence Kaladan Press: Wed 25 Nov 2009 Maungdaw, Arakan State: Villagers in Maungdaw Township are fleeing from homes to avoid being rounded up by Nasaka for forced labor in fence erection on the Burma–Bangladesh border, said a village elder on condition of anonymity. A Burmese Army Sergeant U Sein who came to Maungdaw Township earlier and camped in Nagakura village for security and supervising the fence construction went to Wabeg village of Maungdaw Township on November 15 and mobilized 10 villagers to work in the fence construction by promising that they would be paid Kyat 3,000 a day each. The villagers, believing the false promise went to the work site of Ngakura village tract with him. But, after four days, when the villagers demanded their wages they were not paid. The authorities were quoted as saying “We came here to suck Rohingyas’ blood.” Hearing this, the villagers on November 19 evening fled from the wok site without getting money for their work, said another villager. The following day, the Sergeant went to the Nasaka camp of Wabeg village and filed a case against the villagers, who fled the work site. The Sergeant filed a case saying the villagers fled from the work site after taking Kyat 100,000 each, said a Nasaka aide on condition of anonymity. As a result, Nasaka personnel frequently go to their homes to arrest them, so the villagers have to keep fleeing from their homes to avoid arrest. They have been passing their nights without sleep. They are also unable to work to support their families. The family members are facing acute food crisis. “How can the Rohingy people pass days and nights with such harassment towards the community?” a local trader asked. The ran away villagers are identified as Mohamed Khasim, Jalal Ahmed, Aman Ullah, Kori Mullah, Md Rofigue, Abul Shama, Md. Jubair, Jaffar Alam, Md. Eliyas and Md. Ismail. Myanmar cyclone survivors still need shelter – U.N. Reuters: Wed 25 Nov 2009 Bangkok – Hundreds of thousands of people are still living in makeshift homes 18 months after Cyclone Nargis tore into Myanmar’s Irrawaddy delta, killing at least 140,000, the United Nations said on Wednesday. International donors pledged a fresh $88 million for 17,800 new houses, 40 new schools and livelihood programmes for 1 million people, but that won’t be enough, the United Nations and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations said. The money only covers 14 percent of the most vulnerable families, leaving about 100,000 without a proper home. The United Nations says 178,000 families in the former Burma need help with shelter. Most of those families are living in makeshift homes covered with threadbare tarpaulins distributed in the early phase of the relief effort, according to aid workers. “The materials have gone through two monsoons and they won’t last another season,” Srinivasa Popuri, leader of a shelter aid group in Myanmar, told Reuters. In May last year, Cyclone Nargis swept through Myanmar’s Irrawaddy delta, flattening villages, destroying 450,000 houses, killing 140,000 and leaving 2.4 million destitute. “What is reflected here (with 17,800 new houses) is not what is needed. It is a much-reduced version of what may be possible to do between now and July,” said Bishow Parajuli, U.N. resident and humanitarian coordinator in Myanmar. The latest pledge falls short of $103 million sought by the United Nations, ASEAN and the Myanmar government for the period ending next July. In February, that group estimated the cost of recovery from Cyclone Nargis at $690 million. (Editing by Jason Szep and Paul Tait) Burma watchers are right to be cautious about signs of change – Andrew Heyn Guardian (UK): Wed 25 Nov 2009 Flurry of activity could prove, as so often before, to be just window dressing, writes British ambassador Andrew Heyn. This is a particularly interesting time for Burma watchers. A flurry of activity, both domestically and internationally, has aroused hopes that things might be starting to move in a positive direction. But the optimism is offset by fears that this might be a repeat of the window dressing, so often seen before, that is designed to obscure the reality of a regime conducting business as usual. The optimists point to recent engagement by the US, and nascent dialogue between Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese regime. Aung San Suu Kyi has recently written to Senior General Than Shwe offering to meet him to discuss how they can work together for the benefit of the people of Burma. Were it not for bitter experience, people might be getting ready to celebrate and preparing for a new, properly inclusive form of politics. But Burma has seen many false dawns and no one is getting too excited. In terms of hard facts there is not much to get excited about. A few months ago I sat in the Rangoon court that, after a show trial, sentenced Aung San Suu Kyi to a further period of house arrest. More than 2,100 political prisoners remain in jail. Elections next year look like going ahead on the basis of a constitution that delivers 25% of the seats in the new national assembly to the military before a single vote has been cast. Burma’s record on human rights and wider political freedoms remains dreadful, as last week’s EU-tabled resolution in the UN’s human rights committee made depressingly clear. The economy continues to stagnate. The most widespread reaction in Burma to these recent developments is to wait and see. People recognise that it is far too early to assess how successful renewed international efforts by the US and EU (along with the UN and Asean) will be. Neither do we know whether Senior General Than Shwe will respond positively to Aung San Suu Kyi’s conciliatory and constructive offer to work together for the benefit of all the Burmese people. In the meantime the EU remains clear that, in the absence of concrete progress on the ground, sanctions that are carefully targeted at the economic interests of the regime and its associates will stay in place. The US approach is the same. We are clear that if there is genuine irreversible progress, we will respond positively and make proportionate adjustments to our restrictive measures. In the meantime we are increasing our commitment to ordinary people through our programme of humanitarian aid, which is delivering crucial support, including for basic healthcare and for poor families in rural areas. Everyone hopes that the optimists are right. Real change here would transform the lives of the Burmese people – not only by helping them escape the poverty trap in which so many of them find themselves mired, but also by alleviating the atmosphere of fear and suspicion in which they live. Diplomats are spared the worst of the overt intrusions and scrutiny which are a daily reality for many people, especially those who work for political change. A small reminder of the ubiquitous nature of the security presence occurred last weekend. A visit to a pagoda, about 20 miles south of Rangoon, concluded with the close questioning of our local driver by a special branch officer who seemed to appear from nowhere after we parked the car. I reflected how it must be for the Burmese. Without recourse to, or support from, a democratically elected government and its institutions, they would surely see the questioner an instrument of dread. The climate of fear and suspicion is well founded. This is why those who are cynical about the government’s intentions significantly outnumber the optimists on the streets of Rangoon. The Burmese people will make their judgement about whether there has been genuine change on the basis of actions, not words. Has India a policy on Myanmar? – Dr Ninan Koshy Mainstream Weekly (India): Wed 25 Nov 2009 It may be more correct to speak of an Indian approach to Myanmar or India’s relations with that country rather than of a policy. While certain assumptions or considerations behind the approach are evident, Myanmar rarely finds a place in India’s foreign policy formulations or perspectives, in spite of the stakes being very high. The time has come to evaluate the results of the approach and test the validity of its assumptions in the light of new developments with a view to formulating a coherent policy. This is all the more necessary in view of repositioning of major powers in Asia and India’s self-understanding of its role as an emerging world power. Myanmar’s geographical position is of immense strategic significance to India. India has extensive interests in Myanmar. It is the gateway to the ASEAN countries and the vitality of Myanmar as a link is of crucial importance especially with the gathering momentum of India’s Look-East policy. In August 2007, Myanmar suddenly burst into international attention by the “saffron revolution” which was followed by the brutal crackdown by the military regime. The large-scale protests were triggered by a sudden and huge hike in fuel prices but there were other causes including anger against economic mismanagement, protest against political repression, loss of confidence in the junta’s ‘roadmap’ for democracy and finally overall discontent with the military misrule of nearly two decades. The violent suppression of the protests, led by the monks, prompted even allies of the military government to recognise that change was desperately needed. While these developments present important new opportunities for change, they must be viewed against the continuance of profound structural obstacles. The balance of power is still heavily weighted in favour of the Army, whose top leaders continue to insist that only a strongly controlled military-led state can hold the country together. Pushing forward the new Constitution which ensures military domination and the fraudulent referendum are clear indicators that there is no willingness on the part of the regime to include any form of national reconciliation with the political forces in Myanmar. Factors that have necessitated the accommoda-tive Indian approach to Myanmar are the importance of containing insurgency in India’s North-East, countering or balancing the growing Chinese influence, and energy requirements. The people of Myanmar do not figure among these considerations; nor are their aspirations for a democratic future a factor. New Delhi’s diplomacy has traversed the entire spectrum from support to the pro-democracy Opposition groups to support for the military regime. New Delhi claims to be working through quiet diplomacy but there is no evidence of any tangible results. Its public positions on Myanmar have been much less critical than those of China. During a visit to Myanmar on January 19, 2007, External Affairs Minister (then) Pranab Mukherjee said that India had to deal with governments “as they exist”. “We are not interested in exporting our own ideology. We are a democracy and we would like democracy to flourish every where. But this is for every country to decide for itself”. Our respected statesman had conveniently forgotten that the people of Myanmar had long ago decided for democracy and that the implementation of the decision was illegally and violently destroyed by the junta. He also overlooked the fact that the right to decide was precisely what is being denied to the people of Myanmar today. When there was widespread condemnation of the 2007 crackdown, all what Mukherjee could manage to say was to express the hope that “the process of national reconciliation and political reforms initiated by the government of Myanmar would taken forward expeditiously”, bestowing legitimacy and credibility to the junta’s plans which they did not deserve. India’s claim that it is following a policy of non-interference in internal affairs with regard to Myanmar does not hold water with its record of interference in Sri Lanka, Nepal etc. It should be remembered that leaders of the pro-democracy movement look up to India for inspiration and support. Sui Kyi frequently cites Mahatma Gandhi as a model for her own non-violent resistance and views India’s democratic system as a model for their own ethnically diverse country. There are tensions between India’s declared interests and its policy of engagement with Myanmar which legitimises the junta. India also appears to be increasingly out of step with Asian neighbours that are quietly pressing the military regime to pursue internal political reform in the interests of regional stability. There are also evident contradictions between Indian officials developing interest in employing the ‘soft power’ of Indian democracy as a tool of foreign policy and their support for a military regime that violently suppresses political dissent. In 2003 India secured a commitment from the Myanmar regime that Indian insurgents including the ULFA and the Khaplang factions of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland would not be allowed to use Burmese territory as a refuge or to launch attacks into India. The two countries subsequently have shared intelligence and performed coordinated military operations against insurgents operating in the region. Indian military officials express satisfaction with the Myanmar military’s demonstrated cooperation on this issue and frequently cite this as a valued deliverable of New Delhi’s engagement with the regime. So wary have been Indian officers of upsetting military cooperation with Myanmar that they have been outspoken, for instance, during the September-October 2007 crackdown in the junta’s defence. Calling the repression “their internal matter”, Indian Army commander General Deepak Kapoor spoke at the height of the violence about “maintaining the close relationship” citing India’s “good relations with Myanmar”. The military-to-military relationship has political implications, again exposing lack of a policy which emboldens Indian military officers to make such statements. In return Myanmar has leveraged its cooperation against Indian insurgents to secure significant military assistance from New Delhi including the provision of lethal weaponry with sophisticated components manufactured in Europe, alleged by human rights groups to have been employed against Burmese civilians. Despite the military help, Myanmar’s support for Indian objectives has not been clear cut. Following bilateral agreements in 2003-04 on anti-insurgent cooperation the regime freed a group of Manipur dissidents captured in 2001. Perhaps more importantly the continuing military campaign against the ethnic minorities leading to destruction and displacement of people has given Indian insurgents not only space to operate but support from some of the minority groups. So it has to be carefully weighed whether a military regime waging war against ethnic groups or a democratic government that represents also the minorities is better for India to deal with the insurgents. Indian leaders also view Myanmar with vast reserves of natural gas, as a leading potential long-term source of energy supply free from the geopolitical risks of West Asia oil and natural gas. However, here also the attempts by India have not been very successful. Myanmar has become a theatre of intense energy diplomacy and competition with clear advantage to China because of the support China renders to the junta in its capacity as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. One of the main factors limiting India’s influence is that India itself sees its relations with Myanmar essentially in terms of competition with China rather than formulating a policy to further its own strategic and economic imperatives. Indian officials and strategists are gravely concerned about Chinese activities in Myanmar, including competition for energy resources, the construction of deepwater ports capable of docking Chinese vessels along Myanmar’s coastline and the operation of military listening posts on the Coco islands only miles from India’s territorial waters in the Bay of Bengal. China is constructing deep water port facilities potentially capable of berthing war ships at Yangon, Kyankpyu and other harbours in Myanmar. Indian officials believe that India can only counter such Chinese influence along India’s eastern land and maritime flanks through a policy of comprehensive engagement with Myanmar’s military junta. There may be need for a policy debate over whether the best way to offset China’s influence is to emulate it by embracing the Myanmar regime even more closely or to pursue an approach that distinguishes India from China. through an engagement also with the pro-democracy movement, clearly factoring the people of Myanmar as a major consideration. Indian leaders who believe that unconditional support for the military rulers in Myanmar is necessary to sustain bilateral cooperation seem to have overlooked that China’s own tolerance for the junta’s repression is limited. Concerned by the possibility that the junta’s brutality towards its own people could lead to revolutionary unrest that would threaten regional stability, senior Chinese officials in both Beijing and Yunnan province reportedly pressed Myanmar’s leaders to improve governance and reduce violence against civilians. Although it blocked the Security Council from imposing sanctions against Myanmar, China condemned the junta’s September 2007 crackdown in stronger terms than did democratic India. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao publicly expressed concern about the junta’s repression and urged it to “promote domestic reconciliation and achieve democracy and development”. China supported the UN Security Council statement deploring the crackdown in Myanmar and urging political reconciliation—a change of position by Beijing which had previously used its veto to shield the Myanmar regime from such criticism. In contrast, India’s public response made no mention of democracy in Myanmar, with Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee expressing only “concern’ about the situation and declaring India’s friendly interest in a “peaceful, stable and prosperous” Myanmar. If Beijing had indeed identified “a real self-interest in stopping the leadership from taking further steps that lead to instability internally and in the region” it was surprising that New Delhi felt constrained from using its hard-won influence for similar ends. New Delhi’s voice was conspicuous by absence during the show trial of Suu Kyi held in May this year. On the diplomatic front Myanmar’s junta has signalled where its strength lies. The strength of Myanmar lies in the strong demand for its natural resources by all its neighbours. The reality is that China, India and Thailand are all interested in the reserves of energy that Myanmar has. Myanmar’s resources have allowed it to bypass international sanctions in the past and will now be used to negotiate with its Asian neighbours to win necessary international support and recognition. The shift in the policy of the USA on Myanmar has raised new questions with regard to India’s approach. For the first time in more than two decades the US has expressed its readiness for engagement with Myanmar. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement during her first foreign trip on a new approach to Myanmar has been followed up by discussions between the two countries and now the visit of the high-level delegation. The talks presumably centred on improving Myanmar’s human rights situation and its claimed intention to move towards democracy, but the subtext is improving diplomatic relations and fostering influence in a country widely viewed as a key regional ally of China. While the US wants to make it clear that the new policy does not mean the end of US sanctions, it concedes a “momentum for policy shift”. Policy analysts say a major reason for this new gambit is a realisation that Chinese political and economic influence in the region has blossomed in the past decade while US attention was largely diverted especially by a foreign policy to suit the ‘war on terror’. Washington, which has substantially expanded its military ties in Asia, seems to have become increasingly concerned about China’s growing influence and power in the region through non-military means. While much of the focus of the USA has been on China’s rapidly modernising military and its growing capacity to project power beyond its immediate borders, a quiet but strong competition is now emerging between Washington and Beijing for influence in South-East Asia which will have reverberations across the whole of Asia. The implications for India by the US, its strategic partner, entering into Myanmar need serious consideration. That this is happening at a time of apparent change in the US’ perception of India with the change in the Administration in Washington makes such consideration particularly relevant. [Revised text of the keynote address at a seminar on “Recent Developments in Myanmar: Implications for India” organised by the Centre for Asia Studies, Chennai and the Department of Politics University of Madras] * Dr Ninan Koshy is a commentator based in Thiruvananthapuram and formerly a Visiting Fellow, Harvard Law School, USA. http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article1785.html Exploitative abuse and villager responses in Thaton District Karen Human Rights Group: Wed 25 Nov 2009 SPDC control of Thaton District is fully consolidated, aided by the DKBA and a variety of other civilian and parastatal organisations. These forces are responsible for perpetrating a variety of exploitative abuses, which include a litany of demands for ‘taxation’ and provision of resources, as well as forced labour on development projects and forced recruitment into the DKBA. Villagers also report ongoing abuses related to SPDC and DKBA ‘counter insurgency’ efforts, including the placement of unmarked landmines in civilian areas, conscription of people as porters and ‘human minesweepers’ and harassment and violent abuse of alleged KNLA supporters. This report includes information on abuses during the period of April to October 2009. To view the news Field Report: http://www.khrg.org/khrg2009/khrg09f20.html About KHRG The Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG) was founded in 1992 and documents the situation of villagers and townspeople in rural Burma through their direct testimonies, supported by photographic and other evidence. KHRG operates independently and is not affiliated with any political or other organisation. Examples of our work can be seen online at www.khrg.org. Junta’s priority is elections, not easing sanctions: Win Tin – Salai Han Thar San Mizzima News: Tue 24 Nov 2009 New Delhi – The Burmese military junta’s priority is to get on with its planned 2010 elections rather than looking at easing western sanctions, leaving little chance of the junta supremo Snr Gen Than Shwe responding to detained opposition leader’s latest proposal, a senior member of her party said. Win Tin, a Central Executive Committee (CEC) member of Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), on Tuesday told Mizzima that the chances of Than Shwe responding to the Nobel Peace Laureate’s letter, requesting a meeting with him, is slim as the military clique seems to be far too preoccupied with its planned elections. On November 11, the detained Burmese democracy icon, through her party spokesperson Nyan Win, sent her second letter to Than Shwe requesting a face to face meeting to follow up on the work to help ease western sanctions. Nyan Win on Tuesday told Mizzima that Than Shwe has not responded to the letter, which also requested permission to allow the pro-democracy leader to pay her respects to aging party leaders and to allow her a meeting at her home with the party CEC. The senior opposition leader on Tuesday said, Burma’s military supremo Snr Gen Than Shwe is unlikely to respond to the detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s proposal sent earlier this month, as the junta’s priority is its elections rather than easing sanctions. Win Tin said, the military clique is unlikely to responds to the proposal as the 2010 elections are on the top of its agenda, compared to looking at easing western sanctions and engaging with the United States. “Sanctions do not constitute real problems for them [junta], as it does not hurt them much but creates slight difficulties in their relationship with the international community. But the elections are very important to them,” Win Tin said. Aung San Suu Kyi on September 25 sent her first letter to Than Shwe offering to cooperate in easing sanctions. The junta responded to her proposal by granting her request to meet diplomats from the United States, European Union and Australia. Besides, the junta also allowed the detained Burmese democracy icon to meet the junta’s Liaison Minister Aung Kyi and also the visiting US high-level delegation led by Assistant Secretary for Asia Pacific Affairs, Kurt Campbell. The letters and the meetings came following the United States’ announcement of a new policy of engaging the generals in Burma while maintaining existing sanctions. Nyan Win, while saying that so far there was no reply, said he is optimistic that something positive will turn up. But Win Tin said, “This election will guarantee the rule of the military because it will be held based on the 2008 constitution. And the new Parliament and the new government will be controlled by this constitution that will guarantee the military’s rule for many years to come in Burma.” Wa Army stands defiant against junta pressure – Hseng Khio Fah Shan Herald Agency for News: Tue 24 Nov 2009 Panghsang, main base of the United Wa State Army (UWSA), has not change its 14 November position to accept Naypyitaw’s Border Guard Force (BGF) demand “only in principle” though the 22 November deadline has gone, sources from the Sino-Burma border said. Panghsang was told by Chief of Military Affair Security (MAS) Lt-Gen Ye Myint at a meeting in Tangyan in northern Shan State to submit a list of its soldiers and weapons on 22 November prior to their reorganization as Border Guard Force (BGF) by December. Up to date, it is reported to have been reinforcing its troops around its border areas with the Burma Army and has been giving intensive military trainings to its men, said a source close to the Wa leadership. “No one is paying attention to the junta’s demand,” he said. Additionally, its relationship with its southern force, 171st Military Region led by Wei Xuegang, wanted both in Thailand and the US on drug charges, along the Thai-Burma border is also reportedly remains strong, the source said. Since April, the 171st has been urged by the Burma Army to separate itself from Panghsang and transform into a junta militia. But sources both on the Thai-Burma border and the Sino-Burma border said the separation is unlikely to happen because its commander is still staying in Panghsang. “All units appear to be following orders from Panghsang,” said a Thai border watcher. The 171st Military Region comprises 5 brigades, stretching from Mongton township to Tachilek township opposite Maehongson, Chiangmai and Chiangrai. The UWSA is the second strongest force after the Burmese Army. It has reportedly over 30,000 fighters. If the group accepts to transform into BGF, it will be reduced to three battalions with 326 troops, run by 30-Burma Army officers attached to each unit. Ethnic conflict in Burma demands ‘renewed focus’ – Francis Wade Democratic Voice of Burma: Tue 24 Nov 2009 International involvement in Burma’s domestic crises has to date had little effect on resolving ongoing ethnic conflict in the country, an influential British think tank said yesterday. Furthermore, pressure from the ruling junta on armed ethnic groups to transform into border guard forces could “bring renewed instability to Burma”, according to a report published by Marie Lall, associate fellow at Chatham House. While the United States has only recently announced it will begin dialogue with the junta after years of sanctions and isolation, Burma’s regional members have long practiced a policy of engagement with the regime. Yet neither isolation nor engagement has resolved conflict between the Burmese army and the country’s multiple armed ethnic groups; conflicts that pre-date Burma’s independence from Britain in 1949, Lall said. “An understanding of the ethnic conflicts, the political significance of the ceasefires and the economic and political seesawing between ethnic minority groups and the army is essential to understand Burma’s political future,” she says. The report follows in the wake of a shift in US policy to Burma, with Washington announcing recently that it would begin dialogue with the junta. Yet Burma observers have claimed that the international community, including the US, is not placing enough emphasis on the plight of the country’s 135 ethnic groups, many of whom are marginalized by the majority Burman government. “I think the international community is not so aware that the conflict is really the basic problem in Burma; it’s not democracy, or against military rule,” said Harn Yawnghwe, senior advisor to the Ethnic Nationalities Council (ENC). “If the problem of the ethnic nationalities cannot be resolved, then you are not going to solve Burma’s wider problems.” He added however that the US was beginning to show signs of an appreciation of the importance of the role that ethnic conflict plays in Burma’s instability, “and they seem to be saying that you need to resolve it, so I think that is the right step”. The conflict between the Karen National Union (KNU) and the Burmese government has stretched over six decades, and is thought to be one of the world’s longest running. Lall also pointed to an outbreak of fighting between Burmese troops and an ethnic Kokang group in August this year as an example of the fragility of ceasefire agreements that 18 of the country’s armed ethnic groups hold with the government. Changing tack on Myanmar – Larry Jagan Al Jazeera: Tue 24 Nov 2009 Barack Obama’s recent sortie into Asia has marked a radical change in Washington’s approach to the region, as the US president looks to re-engage after eight years of diffidence shown by the previous Bush administration. Nowhere is the new US approach starker than its shift in policy towards military-ruled Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. In recent weeks the US has begun to talk directly with the country’s ruling generals, who have been shunned by previous administrations. There have been a series of meetings between senior US diplomats and Myanmar officials – in Naypyidaw the new Burmese capital, New York at the United Nations, and elsewhere. It is a significant change of direction and one that is likely to increase competition for influence in the region between Washington and Beijing. Critical move The most critical series of meetings came during an early November visit to Myanmar by US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell. Many expect him to make a follow-up visit before the end of the year. He told members of the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by the detained opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi that he would back in Myanmar very soon. So far there are no real signs that this is going to happen, and western diplomats in Yangon are sceptical that a return visit is on the cards in the near future. The main problem, it seems, is that Myanmar’s top military leader appears to have cooled on the idea of rapprochement with Washington. “The ball is now very much in the Burmese court,” said Sean Turnell a Myanmar expert at Australia’s Macquarie University. “Obama’s hand has been extended – will they respond in kind or with the clenched fist?” he told Al Jazeera. Washington, for its part, has made its position clear: previous US policy, which relied almost exclusively on sanctions and isolating the regime, has failed miserably. New approach And so, earlier this year, secretary of state Hillary Clinton announced it was time for a new approach – one where sanctions were maintained, but supplemented by a dialogue with Myanmar’s military leaders. “The US policy shift is part of Obama’s overall approach to foreign policy – he is doing the same with Pyongyang, Damascus, Havana and Tehran,” says Myanmar specialist, Derek Tonkin, a former British ambassador. In contrast to Bush’s “unilateralism”, he says, it is a policy likely to produce better results. The change in direction also comes amid a growing feeling on Capitol Hill that China has stolen the march on the US, creating a situation that is neither in the interests of Washington, or the region. Democratic Senator Jim Webb, whose personal visit to Myanmar in August broke the ice with the top generals in Myanmar, is certainly convinced that this is the most important incentive for the US to re-engage, especially with Myanmar. Many analysts in the region also welcome the shift in US policy and understand that, stated or otherwise, it will lead to a competition for influence with the Chinese. “The US realises that if they are to retain American influence in this region, they must be able to match what China is doing,” Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy told Al Jazeera. “If China is improving its ties by leaps and bounds… it is not in America’s interest to be left behind.” Chinese presence Historian Thant Myint-U, author of ‘A River of Lost Footsteps’, a history or modern Myanmar, agrees. “China has had a free run in Burma [Myanmar] for nearly two decades, and will certainly be uneasy with the prospects of a rapprochement between Washington and the Burmese,” he says. At the same time there are also signs that the overwhelming presence of the Chinese has also pushed Myanmar’s military to at least become more receptive to the US overtures. The generals have become over-reliant on Beijing – especially for arms, military hardware and economic investment. According to official figures, more than 90 per cent of direct foreign investment in Myanmar last year was Chinese, jumping more than a quarter over the past 12 months to more than $1bn. The bulk of that investment was in the mining sector, oil industry and numerous hydro-electric schemes in Myanmar. “I think China’s dominance of Burma, economically and politically, has reached its high tide,” says Sean Turnell of Maquarie university. “I think they are worried, and are right to be worried.” “I’m really struck by what I can only describe as the seething resentment in Burma as to China’s dominance of the country’s economy, especially in resource extraction, but also in the various infrastructure projects — the influx of Chinese workers to build them — and in the massive influx of Chinese consumer goods.” Myanmar polls But while the regime may appear to be courting Washington’s recent advances, there is little evidence that the general’s plans for next year’s elections are going to be affected. The US diplomats team that went to Myanmar has made it clear what they are offering in return for improved bilateral relations. “The [forthcoming] elections in Burma could be an opportunity for the country to end its international isolation, but only if these elections are inclusive, with the full participation of all political parties,” deputy assistant US secretary of state Scot Marciel told a press conference in Bangkok, following his visit. “That includes creating the conditions in the run up to the elections which make the process credible.” “There cannot be a credible election that has legitimacy without a thoroughly inclusive political process, and that cannot happen without dialogue,” he stressed. So far there are few signs that the junta is seriously considering starting a dialogue with detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, let alone releasing her. There have been some tentative gestures, including allowing the Nobel peace laureate to talk directly with a government representative, the labour and liaison minister Aung Kyi, and meet various diplomats in Yangon, including Kurt Campbell and Scot Marciel. Now Aung San Suu Kyi has written again to General Than Shwe asking for a meeting to discuss ways she could help the government ease its international isolation – a request which has so far been declined. “This shows she has changed and is prepared to be flexible and compromise,” says Justin Wintle, the British writer who wrote the recent biography of Aung San Suu Kyi, ‘Perfect Hostage’. But the problem is that the regime leader, Than Shwe does not appear to be inclined to accept her offer, or even talk to her. “Than Shwe may feel there is no need to make any concessions, unless he wants to please the Americans,” says former ambassador Derek Tonkin. “And it could now be only six months to the elections,” he warned. Time then is running out for the US and the international community to influence events in Myanmar before next year’s vote. ‘No Asean leverage’ Both China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) have also urged the junta to make sure the elections are credible. But both will likely wait and see rather than increase pressure on the regime in the lead up to the polls. China prefers quiet behind-the-scenes diplomacy and is not likely to push very hard, fearing that they would be ignored if they were to do so, reducing any influence they do have and endangering their already large investment in Myanmar. Asean on the other hand has made some noises in the past 12 months, especially under Thailand’s chairmanship of the regional grouping, emphasising the need for an inclusive and credible election. But this also is unlikely to have much impact on the junta. “There’s not much Asean can do,” historian Thant Myint-U told Al Jazeera. “They certainly have no special leverage.” In recent weeks Myanmar government ministers and officials, including the prime minister Thein Sein, have hinted that Aung San Suu Kyi may be released before the elections. But that in itself would not placate the US administration nor satisfy the international community. Only her uninhibited participation in the elections would satisfy them and Senior General Than Shwe, Myanmar’s reclusive top leader, is highly unlikely to allow that. Selection time precedes election time in Burma – Aung Zaw Irrawaddy: Tue 24 Nov 2009 Although Burma’s military regime has announced no election law nor declared the date of the poll it plans to hold in 2010, preparations appear to have begun in Naypyidaw. Informed sources suggest that potential candidates for president, vice-president, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and defense minister have been chosen. The current list may yet be modified before the election and some potential candidates in the list could be removed. All depends on the regime leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe, who still calls the shots. Than Shwe, who is in his late 70s, and his number 2, Dep Snr-Gen Maung Aye, who is only slightly younger, will retire soon after the election. Informed sources said that they are building lavish new homes in Naypyidaw for their retirement. However, before vacating the throne, Than Shwe will make sure he and his family can live in safely, leaving his trusted officers in high positions to ensure security. Than Shwe has reportedly already endorsed the junta’s No 3, Gen Thura Shwe Mann, joint chief-of-staff in the armed forces, to become president of post-election Burma. According to sources close to the military elite, Shwe Mann, 61, will be nominated by the representatives of the military in the future Senate and House, to be formed after the planned 2010 election. The military will receive 25 percent of the seats at the village, township, state, regional and district levels in the new governing body, according to the 2008 Constitution. There will be three nominees for the presidency—one from the military contingent, one from the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (Union Assembly or Senate) and one from the members of the Pyithu Hluttaw (People’s Assembly or House). The Senate and the House will then vote to choose the president. Shwe Mann, a protégé of Than Shwe, has a reputation of being down to earth and a good listener, but he has yet to show his teeth on a broad range of social, economic and political issues. His vision of Burma’s future is unknown. However, Shwe Mann increasingly oversees regular meetings on political and security affairs with high-ranking military officials in Rangoon and Naypyidaw—perhaps a further sign that Than Shwe will take a back seat after the election. Shwe Mann and his wife are close to Than Shwe’s family on a personal level, undertaking shopping trips together to Singapore. Recently, Shwe Mann was the subject of extensive news coverage focusing on his secret mission to North Korea in November. According to the Constitution, one of the duties of the new president will be to head the National Defense and Security Council, which has the power to declare a state of emergency and nullify the Constitution. Than Shwe’s choice for one of the two proposed vice-presidents, according to informed sources, is Maj-Gen Htay Oo, the minister of agriculture and irrigation and a key leader of the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), the junta-backed mass organization. Htay Oo recently visited Japan—displaying, according to military sources, all the qualities of a politician rather than an army officer. The choice of the second vice-president is likely to fall to an ethnic leader. It’s worth recalling that Burma’s first and second presidents were Shan and Karen. Analysts ponder the question of who will become commander-in- chief of the armed forces. Than Shwe currently holds Burma’s most powerful position in the armed forces and analysts say he will hand this position over only to his most trusted ally. There appear to be plenty of subordinates who could fill the shoes. They include Lt-Gen Hla Htay Win, Maj-Gen Ko Ko, Maj-Gen Tin Ngwe and Maj-Gen Kyaw Swe. All are close to Than Shwe and Dep Snr-Gen Gen Maung Aye, the current army chief and deputy to Than Shwe. Maj-Gen Tin Ngwe is said by analysts to be the front runner for the post of commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He recently accompanied Than Shwe when he made an official visit to Sri Lanka. Born in Nyaung-Oo, in the central heartland of Burma, Tin Ngwe attended the Defense Services Academy Intake 22, together with Kyaw Swe, later serving as G-1 in the defense ministry. He is known to be loyal to Than Shwe and Shwe Mann. According to the new Constitution, the commander-in-chief will control the ministries of defense, border affairs and home affairs, exercising wide executive powers. Analysts also tip Lt-Gen Myint Swe, a Than Shwe protégé, as a possible candidate for the post of defense minister. He attended the 15th intake of the Defense Services Academy in 1971 and is currently commander of the Bureau of Special Operations 5. Myint Swe became commanding officer of Light Infantry Division 11, overseeing security in Rangoon, and later served as commander of Southwest Military Region in Bassein, Irrawaddy Division, before moving in the late 1990s to the defense ministry, where he worked directly under Than Shwe and Maung Aye. This seems to be Than Shwe’s “rest in peace” selection plan for 2010. If he executes it smoothly, he will avoid the fate of such top men as Gen Khin Nyunt and the late dictator Gen Ne Win, both of whom ended up under house arrest. Analysts say Than Shwe wants to make sure the 2010 election provides him and his family with a safe exit strategy. That entails leaving his trusted aides at the helm—and that means the country will continue to be to run by the military. Burma to commission ‘Ye’ hydro-power project in December – Kyaw Thein Kha Mizzima News: Mon 23 Nov 2009 Chiang Mai – The Burmese Ministry of Electric Power (1) will commission the Ye village hydro-power project in December, billed as the biggest in the country. “We will begin operating one turbine of the four for hydro-electricity. We will begin in December and run the turbines one after another in the following months. We are still unsure of the exact date but it might probably be the end of December,” Aye Aye Thant, Director Hydro-Electricity Department of the ministry told Mizzima. For the commissioning of the hydro-power-project, several engineers from the engineering department were said to have reached the hydro-power plant. The hydro-project on the Myittha River, located between Ye-Yamann villages, about 31 miles southeast of Mandalay city, is being constructed by the Department of Hydro Power Implementation (DHPI) No. (2) of the Ministry of Electric Power (1). According to the ministry’s press release, the project cost is over US $ 600 million. While the US$ 200 million was taken as loan from China, the ministry has borne the rest. According to Burma River Network, a Thailand-based activists group that monitors Burma’s hydro-projects — Hydro Power Generation Enterprise along with China International Trust and Investment Co. (CITIC) and Sinohydro Corporation signed an agreement in 2004 for the project and was later joined by five other Chinese companies. The initial design of the project was by a Japanese company Nippon Koei. For details of the design and construction the Burmese government signed an agreement with a Swiss company Colenco Power Engineering in 2003. The hydropower plant is 2264 feet wide and 433 feet high. It will produce an estimated 790 megawatts. The project, once completed, is expected to supply electricity throughout the country through Kyaukse, Meikhtila, and Mandalay towns via 230 KV (Kilo Volt) cable lines. Currently the Ministry of Electric Power (1) operates over 15 hydropower-projects located across the country’s Kachin, Shan, Kayah, and Karen states. However, rights activists have expressed concern over the appalling human rights violations including forced relocations of villages, forced labour, and environmental degradation. Besides, campaigners also expressed fear of a possible break in the dams and its consequences for inhabitants and residents downstream. According to a report by Xinhua, Burma’s current electricity generation is 1684 megawatts, and the statistics of the government shows that Burma consumed 6.62 billion kilowatts in 2008-2009. However, Burmese, including urban residents of Rangoon and Mandalay say they are facing problems as electricity supply is inadequate. Residents of Rangoon and Mandalay, the two largest cities in Burma, said they receive electricity supply for only six to seven hours a day. UN slams Burma over forced labor practices Associated Press: Mon 23 Nov 2009 Geneva — The UN labor agency has criticized Burma for failing to abolish forced labor more than a decade after the global body first took up the issue with the Southeast Asian country, officials said Friday. The International Labor Organization adopted a resolution last week saying it is “deeply concerned” that Burma continues to imprison people who claim to have been subject to forced labor or were involved in complaints against the practice, said spokeswoman Laetitia Dard. The resolution called for the immediate and unconditional release of the prisoners, as well as of all other people detained for political or other labor activism. Foreign governments and human rights groups have for years urged Burma to release pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been detained for 14 of the past 20 years, mostly under house arrest. Burma has consistently maintained that it is making good-faith efforts to eliminate forced labor and recognize the right of its citizens to make complaints on the subject without fear of punishment. The ILO resolution acknowledged that the country was cooperating regarding complaints. The Geneva-based ILO has since 1998 been investigating forced labor being used in Burma to aid the governing military junta and to build roads and other projects. The latest resolution also expresses concern about forced labor being used in infrastructure projects such as building oil and gas pipelines. Junta crimes to be raised in The Hague – Arkar Moe Irrawaddy: Mon 23 Nov 2009 The Burma Lawyers’ Council (BLC) is attending a Nov 18-26 meeting of the Assembly of State Parties to the International Criminal Court in The Hague to discuss the Burmese military government’s alleged crimes against humanity, war crimes and other human rights abuses. BLC General Secretary Aung Htoo, who is based in exile, has been attending the meetings in the Netherlands as an NGO delegate from Burma for the first time. According to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) web site, the grouping will discuss “ICC Campaigns in Asia: Prospects and Challenges in Afghanistan, Burma and Indonesia” on Nov. 25. Speaking to The Irrawaddy on Monday, Thein Oo, the chairman of the BLC, said, “We intend to cooperate with International Criminal Court and to create a network to take more action against the Burmese military junta. Moreover, we intend to share our experience of the junta’s abuses and crimes, and discuss how we can cooperate to establish a regional network.” He added: “We expect the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) to cooperate among state parties and put more pressure on the Burmese junta through the UN and the ICC. We especially want to lobby harder because representatives of China and other world powers will be attending.” The CICC is a network of over 2,500 nongovernment organizations which work closely with the ICC. “Actually, we all need to practice alternative approaches to the Burmese military junta and pave ways for preventive actions,” Thein Oo said. The director of Thailand-based rights group Human Rights Education Institute of Burma, Aung Myo Min, told The Irrawaddy on Monday: “It’s very hard to put the issue of the Burmese junta’s crimes against humanity to the ICC because Burma is not yet a signatory to the ICC. But, the UN Security Council can take the junta to task about its deplorable humna rights record. The Burmese regime has commited many crimes such as the conscription of child soldiers and the systematic rape of ethnic women which should be put before the ICC.” The Burmese military authorities issued Order 1/2009 in April, blacklisting the BLC as an unlawful association. This order came alongside a campaign of defamation in the Burmese state-run press, which denounced the BLC as an “enemy of the state,” and accusing BLC members, in particular those working with the ICC, of “violating the rule of law of Burma.” The ICC was established in 2002 as a permanent international tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute crimes which have been committed or are being committed if a given state’s judicial system is unable or unwilling to investigate and take legal action to ensure justice. In July, the CICC called on the Security Council to press for the surrender and trial of President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and others wanted for serious crimes committed in Darfur. Beware of the generals’ elections – Dr. Zarni Irrawaddy: Mon 23 Nov 2009 The promised 2010 elections in Burma are the talk of the town these days. Future uncertainties for the country’s military regime as well as the popular opposition notwithstanding, today’s election discourses may be diagnosed with a serious historical amnesia. It’s a cliché to say that those who don’t know their history are bound to repeat it. To begin with, since its failed attempt to physically harm the top leaders of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in the Depayin ambush six years ago, the ruling State Peace and Development Council has opted for a discursive and political strategy to beat the NLD. Accordingly, it unfurled its “Roadmap for Democracy” without deviating from its trademark domestic political repression. Just this month the UN Human Rights Commission slammed the regime for a constellation of human rights violations, including “the continuing practice of arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” Only months before the promised elections, the facts on the ground do not signal that there is any real potential for much-needed political, economic and societal transformation. The regime’s “roadmap” is unlikely to meet even its own stated objectives of turning the country into a “modern, prosperous nation,” let alone satisfy popular liberal aspirations. In fact, “We the People” have become jaded after almost a half-century of the generals’ unbroken record of catastrophic failures in economic management, ethnic relations and political leadership, as well as a clear pattern of broken promises, on top of the grinding poverty induced by the regime that envelopes the lives of the Burmese. Under Gen Ne Win’s military rule (1962-88) we lived through the sham constitutional referendum of 1973 in which 92 percent of the voters purportedly favored the Socialist Constitution which, according to the general himself, was designed to prevent the party from morphing into a “one-party dictatorship.” We also participated in the election for “socialist democracy” with the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) as our vanguard. Our hearts sank further as we watched the emergence of a “Pyithu Hluttaw” or “People’s Parliament,” which came to be filled with parliamentarians from all ethnic, social and professional backgrounds, but many of whom were too afraid to leave their seats for a “comfort break” during Ne Win’s speeches, let alone table or debate any motion of societal significance. Nowadays when I hear Burma pundits and “players” who counsel “pragmatism” and discuss the supposed potential for parliamentary space, the imagery that springs to mind is this: rows and rows of our MPs in their seats in the Hluttaw stealthily soiling their fine silk longyis, all robotically nodding and feigning attentiveness while Chairman Ne Win extolled the virtues and successes of “the Burmese Way.” Fast-forward to the post-2010 Pyithu Hluttaw. Pliant democratic MPs who have made it in the military’s electoral process aren’t likely to fight for the people, within or without this talked-up “space.” The regime will most certainly weed the defiant and assertive types out of its “discipline-flourishing democracy,” by keeping them behind bars, under house arrest or in exile, barring their candidacy or even disqualifying their election wins on trumped-up legal grounds. Maybe I am still suffering from the trauma of having lived through “civilized military rule” and the military-sponsored “socialist democracy.” During Gen Ne Win’s “socialist democracy” period, we watched the “civilianization” of military rule and the militarization of the State. By that, I mean the regime staffing all branches of State bureaucracy with thousands of veterans and in-service military officers, with the purpose of expanding its control and domination in all spheres of life. Most of these men possessed neither a sense of bureaucratic professionalism nor appropriate managerial skills or mental orientation. Despite its failed institutional legacy, this militarized bureaucracy is what survived after the complete collapse of the BSPP. For any reforms to succeed, an enlightened political leadership and competent and professional bureaucracy are prerequisites. It would be interesting to see if Snr- Gen Than Shwe’s “discipline flourishing democracy” will include a plan to transform this militarized State so as to help facilitate and sustain a modern democracy, or economic development. So far, there are no such signs. Now the US and Britain have publicly indicated that they are willing to tango with “Naypyidaw men,” providing that the latter take certain steps to make the roadmap’s last act “free, fair and inclusive.” Never mind that the regime has set the autopilot on “cheat” since its journey to “democracy” began. Washington’s Plan A for change in Burma now is to push for “free, fair and inclusive” elections in exchange for increased humanitarian dollars, the removal of Burma’s “pariah” status, a counterbalancing weight against Beijing and the prospect for easing the sanctions. It doesn’t appear to have a Plan B, though. What can the opposition’s western supporters do if the 2010 elections are not fair, free or inclusive? With the looming elections, Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD must be feeling it is between a rock and a hard place as the party whose resounding electoral victory had long been ignored by the same generals in power. Regardless of whether the NLD fields candidates through proxy parties or contests the elections, the generals will make sure her party is in no position to field any sizable number of candidates, much less win a landslide again. Be that as it may, and for the sake of moving the country forward, let’s leave aside the categorically anti-democratic Constitution for a moment and shift attention away from the flagship popular opposition and the revered Nobel Peace laureate. What other benchmarks, then, could be treated as signals that the regime is serious about democratic transition? It could, for instance, relax media and Internet censorship; show increased tolerance towards valid public criticism of its policy and leadership failures; enable existing parties to reorganize themselves with full organizational rights and responsibilities; adopt conciliatory gestures towards multi-ethnic dissidents and armed resistance organizations; allocate public resources fairly and equitably among the parties for election purposes; and grant them equal access to the State-owned media outlets; and last but not least, encourage and educate the Burmese electorate in general about their voting rights, as well as fundamental rights as citizens of a soon-to-be democracy. Concretely speaking, democratization is a multi-layered process and involves more than holding one-off political events such as elections or adopting a Constitution, or convening a parliament once or twice a year. Without institutionalizing legal regimes of human rights to protect citizens’ and communities’ socio-cultural rights, as well as economic and political freedoms, no polity can be labeled democratic. At the societal level, democratization means ruling elites initiating a mass educational plan to encourage, facilitate and support a progressive shift in cultural values, authority relations, collective beliefs and mindsets and social practices. only then can a culturally conservative and semi-feudal society such as Burma be expected to evolve into something that can sustain a formal democracy and its further advancement. Unfortunately for the people, the “Naypyidaw men” have grown accustomed to power, privileges, wealtha and State protection, as well as adept at control, manipulation and domination over the public, economy and the State. As such, these men in the main are not going to be agents of change, regardless of whether engagement or isolation, sanctions or trade are pursued. It is the people themselves—multi-ethnic communities, religious leaders and associations, individual professionals, educators, entrepreneurs, artists and intellectuals, and pockets of enlightened military officers, as well as the webs of informal networks—who need to be viewed as potential change agents and treated accordingly. While the new Western efforts to tango with the generals are welcome, only the public and the society on the ground can, and will, bring about genuine transformation. Burma’s sordid electoral history, the exceedingly illiberal nature of the ruling cliques and their unpredictable tactical teases—for instance, opaque talks of Aung San Suu Kyi’s release—should make pundits weary of the a-historical and deliberately naïve pro-election discourses. When change does happen in Burma, for sure it will not be achieved through the generals’ elections. * Dr Zarni is a columnist for The Irrawaddy and Research Fellow on Burma at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). |
Archives
September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 September 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 October 2011
