Burma Update
News and updates on Burma29 October 2010
News on Burma - 29/10/10
Myanmar junta chief’s ‘retirement’ unlikely: Philippines Agence France Presse: Thu 28 Oct 2010 Hanoi – Myanmar has said that its military ruler Than Shwe will bow out of politics after next month’s elections, but the assurances should be viewed with deep scepticism, the Philippines said Thursday.“I cannot imagine that after two decades where he held on to power he will suddenly give it up and no more. I cannot believe that,” Philippines Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo said on the sidelines of a regional summit. Romulo said his Myanmar counterpart Nyan Win had confirmed at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting in Hanoi that Than Shwe would not take part in the November 7 polls. “He said he will not run. But you know they can elect anybody who did not run,” he told reporters, referring to the process under which a president and vice-presidents will be appointed. “It remains to be seen (whether he will bow out), but my feeling is that he will be elected to a higher office, perhaps the presidency, something where he still (holds) control.” A foreign ministry official from one of the ASEAN delegations also said Nyan Win had said Than Shwe would not run for any seat in the November 7 polls — widely criticised as a sham aimed at cementing the junta’s grip on power. “Than Shwe is not running. He will bow out of the political scene,” the source told AFP. Under Myanmar’s new parliamentary system, there will be two national assemblies — one lower and one upper house — and a number of regional assemblies. The source said that Nyan Win reported he was himself running for a post in the one of the regional assemblies and was sure to win because he enjoyed strong popularity in his region. But, being a regional lawmaker, he won’t be eligible for a cabinet post. Myanmar also introduced its new flag during a meeting of senior officials on Monday, according to the source. The banner features a large, lone star which is meant to represent the country’s unity. Than Shwe’s future has been the subject of much rumour in Myanmar lately, with many scenarios envisioned. But after the biggest military reshuffle in decades which took place in September — which left him on top of the heap in the military — several experts have tipped him to move into the presidency. India cautions on ‘adverse’ UN probe – Dan Withers Democratic Voice of Burma: Thu 28 Oct 2010 India has questioned the value of holding a UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into war crimes in Burma, an Indian diplomat recently told a General Assembly committee. The probe, now supported by more than a dozen nations, may be “counter productive” and “end up adversely affecting the very people it is supposed to help,” Acquino Vimal said, according to the Press Trust of India. Vimal pointed out that UN chief Ban Ki-Moon’s recent report on Burma made no mention of the CoI, which was first proposed in March by UN special rapporteur on human rights in Burma, Tomás Ojea Quintana. “We believe that the focus of efforts of the international community should be on ensuring constructive engagement with Myanmar [Burma],” Vimal said. In comments which bore a striking resemblance to Chinese policy on Burma, Vimal also stressed the importance of “peace and stability” on India’s borders. Burma’s controversial 7 November elections would be a “step forward” in the country’s “national reconciliation process and democratic transition,” he added. The diplomat’s comments come days after Nobel-prize winning Indian economist Amartya Sen made a statement bemoaning his country’s policies towards the Burmese regime. In July, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh welcomed junta leader Senior General Than Shwe on a state visit to India. “It breaks my heart to see the prime minister of my democratic country – and one of the most humane and sympathetic political leaders in the world – engage in welcoming the butchers from Burma and to be photographed in a state of cordial proximity,” AFP quoted Sen as saying. India had forgotten its ideals and was emulating China because of fears over its communist rival’s growing influence in the region, he said. While India used to offer unqualified support to Burma’s democracy movement, over the past two decades it has changed tack. The country is now investing heavily in Burma, particularly in the energy and extraction industries, and maintains a strategic partnership with the country in a bid to counter growing Chinese influence in the region. Momentum behind the UN commission of inquiry, which would investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity by the junta and Burma’s ethnic rebel armies, appears to be flagging. Although 13 countries, led by the United States, back the probe, the Washington Post recently revealed that China is engaged in a diplomatic campaign to scupper the investigation. Professor Ian Holliday, a specialist in China-Burma relations at the University of Hong Kong, recently told DVB that the Chinese Communist Party may also fear investigations into its own human rights record. “The core concern is not to allow anybody to stick their nose into China,” he said. China and Burma maintain an uneasy alliance, with the larger country enjoying access to Burma’s resources and backing the junta on the international stage. China is also believed to see the military as the best bet for ensuring stability on its borders. UN chief says Myanmar elections not legitimate if political prisoners not freed – Vijay Joshi Associated Press: Thu 28 Oct 2010 Phnom Penh, Cambodia — The United Nations chief warned Thursday that unless Myanmar’s junta frees political prisoners its planned Nov. 7 elections may not be considered legitimate or credible.Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon told The Associated Press in an interview that freeing the more than 2,000 political prisoners in Myanmar would at least help create a “perception that this election will be more inclusive.” The Southeast Asian country’s military rulers have enacted laws that prevent pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners from contesting the elections, which have been slammed by critics as a sham. Ban acknowledged that the political prisoners may not be “able to actually participate in the vote, but it will create a favourable political atmosphere which will make this perception better.” “But without releasing all political prisoners then there may certainly be some issue of legitimacy or credibility,” he said in an interview ahead of his bilateral meeting with Myanmar Prime Minister Gen. Thein Sein in Hanoi this week. This is the closest that Ban has come to criticizing the elections after repeatedly taking a diplomatic tone by urging the junta to make the elections more inclusive, fair and credible. But even his latest comments were tempered by hope that the junta would surprise everybody by making some concessions to the pro-democracy movement in a country that has been ruled by the military since 1962. The junta has kept Suu Kyi under house arrest for 15 of the past 21 years. She is expected to be released on Nov. 13, just six days after the election. “We expected and hoped that she should have been released much earlier. Now at this time I would strongly urge the Myanmar authorities that it is not too late even at this time to release all political prisoners so that the Nov. 7 elections could be more inclusive and more participatory and credible one,” Ban said. The junta has touted the elections as a big step forward in the country’s so-called roadmap to democracy. But the results are considered a foregone conclusion, as the junta has already taken steps to block transparency and ensure that the military remains in power by repressing the country’s main opposition party and limiting campaigning. Suu Kyi’s party is boycotting the elections as undemocratic after winning a landslide victory in 1990 that was dismissed by the military leaders. That leaves the key junta-backed party as the only strong contender to win the upcoming contest. Ban sidestepped the question of whether the government that takes power after the elections would be considered legitimate or democratic. “I am not in a position to judge any results, first of all. What I am emphasizing is that the Myanmar authorities should ensure all possible measures to make this election inclusive, credible and transparent,” he said. “There will be an opportunity for me and the international comuntity to make a judgment on this process.” He dismissed suggestions that the U.N. had failed in its effort to democratize Myanmar, and instead blamed the Myanmar government. “It is surely because of a lack of support, lack of political will on the part of Myanmar authorities,” he said, adding that the U.N. will “continue to be engaged” with Myanmar after the elections. “We will continue to facilitate this political, democratization process,” he said. Obama admin. split on Burma engagement: senator Reuters: Thu 28 Oct 2010 Washington – President Barack Obama’s administration faces internal divisions that have so far prevented it from seizing opportunities to engage Myanmar’s military rulers, a key senator said on Wednesday.Senator Jim Webb, the chair of a Senate subcommittee on East Asia who traveled to Myanmar last year, is an outspoken proponent of deepening ties with the isolated country, which he said risked becoming a “a province of China” otherwise. The Obama administration last November launched the highest-level talks with the reclusive junta in 14 years, but has since publicly expressed deep disappointment with Myanmar’s response to U.S. outreach. “I don’t think that this administration took advantage of the opportunities that were presented to it,” Webb told a small group of defense reporters in Washington. Webb said U.S. diplomats at the State Department were divided over the issue, and effectively failed to act on diplomatic signals from Burma last year that offered an opportunity for “a different formula” on engagement. “There was a big division in the State Department over whether to do that or not,” he said. “I think Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton was inclined to a certain point to want to try. But there was an awful lot of pressure on the other side.” The comments come ahead of a trip by Clinton to this week’s East Asia summit in Vietnam, and just days before Myanmar’s November 7 elections, which rights groups deride as a sham designed to entrench military power in the country formerly known as Burma. The elections will be the first since 1990 polls won by detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) party but ignored by the junta. Washington has dismissed preparations for the November polls as failing to meet basic democratic standards, and has also expressed concern over growing ties between Myanmar and Asian nuclear renegade North Korea. “It’s a very complicated issue, because we all respect Aung San Suu Kyi and the sacrifices she has made,” Webb said. “And yet, on the other hand, we are in a situation where if we do not push some form of constructive engagement, Burma is going to basically become a province of China.” (Reporting by Phil Stewart and Andrew Quinn) Don’t legitimize Burma’s elections – Ashin Issariya Wall Street Journal: Thu 28 Oct 2010 The government that emerges after Nov. 7 will be no less corrupt and unlawful than the present one.All actions are based on intentions. For instance, the goal of monks is to bring peace and kindness to the people, and so Burmese trust their actions. In contrast, when the military regime says they will hold elections, Burmese are skeptical because they know the intention is only to maintain power at their expense. When Burma’s monks marched through the streets in 2007, we did so because we saw the pain of the people, and knew we had to respond. People have suffered needlessly for many years because of the military system of control and intimidation. Our involvement in what would become the Saffron Revolution began Sept. 5 in the town of Pakokku in Magway Division. We began our peaceful demonstration by reciting the prayers of loving kindness, urging the authorities to open their eyes and finally take action to alleviate the sorrows of the people. In response, local authorities and members of the military-supported civilian group, the Union Solidarity and Development Association, violently attacked my brothers. In response to this horrific insult, we, the monks of the All Burma Monk’s Alliance, demanded an apology from the authorities who purport to be Buddhist. No apology has ever come. The same organization that participated in that violent crackdown is now masquerading as a political party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party, in the upcoming elections. The people of Pakokku remember the September 2007 attacks and are very upset to see the perpetrators now presenting themselves as candidates. This story of the corrupt elite taking political power in Pakokku is repeating itself throughout the country right now. The USDP’s members are running uncontested in many areas because of wide restrictions on any independent political parties. And where there are other parties, the USDP is doing everything it can to manipulate the process and ensure a win. Moreover, people are hesitant to participate because this is not a real election; it is just more of the same deceptions that always happen in my country under the generals. Like most people of Burma, I am all too familiar with the schemes that the military regime uses to maintain its power. Once when I opened a library in my town so that people could have some access to knowledge, the USDA came and wanted to take books from my library. I would not give them the books because I knew their only interest was to take photos and claim they had built the library. This is the type of social manipulation the USDA is known for. When a road needs to be built in an area, the USDA goes house to house forcing families to give large amounts of money or even to help build the road themselves. Then when the road is finished, the USDA proclaims that it has helped the people by building the road. In such a system, there are endless barriers for people who seek to build a better society. Monks are not free to even give the sermons they would like. Recently, the regime’s Minister of Livestock Breeding and Fisheries Maung Maung Thein, a former Brigadier General who is now running for office, held a ceremony in Thabya village, Tenasserim Division. During the ceremony, a young monk preached about the sin of killing. As a result, district authorities disrobed the monk. For that monk, this is a deep humiliation and an end to his heartfelt vocation, as well as a great loss to our religious community. It is a sacrilege to be disrobed. What price is that to pay for speaking the truth? Even though monks cannot vote in these upcoming elections, we cannot remain silent. Despite restrictions, monks are still taking measures to educate people about the problems of the elections, including distributing leaflets and stamping money with boycott slogans. This is done with great risk. In September, monk U Okkantha, who was arrested for anti-election campaigning, was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Nevertheless, the work continues and we are finding ways to act. We do this because we know these elections are a lie that will not improve the lives of the people. After the election, Burma’s ruling class will sit in the new parliament buildings in the isolated capital Naypyidaw. There they will pretend to work, far away from the harsh reality of the lives of the people of Burma. And what’s even more, the new constitution gives the military complete independence from any civilian control and they will be able to continue their campaigns of persecution. How is this supposed to improve our country? I am confused why people in the international community want to wait and see what the elections will bring. The people of Burma already know what will happen. It will be the same faces and the same system that we have been living with for decades. The name “elections” does not change anything for us. International leaders should think more deeply. Supporting these elections is not supporting gradual progress to democracy; rather it is a message to the suffering people of Burma that international support is given to the military regime and their friends to continue to do what they will. A different message must be sent. The monks’ religious boycott of alms from Burma’s corrupt elite that began after the violence of 2007 is ongoing. We still demand the release of monks and all political prisoners and call for an end to the people’s suffering. And for these purposes, myself and others will continue to organize and act. The Venerable Ashin Issariya, also known as King Zero, is a founding member of the All Burma Monks Alliance. Burma needs a war crimes inquiry – Elaine Pearson Guardian (UK): Thu 28 Oct 2010 The proposed UN inquiry would call the Burmese regime to account, but it depends on global support that’s so far lacking.Support for an international commission of inquiry into war crimes in Burma got a major boost as the UN’s special rapporteur on Burma, Tomas Ojea Quintana, strengthened his call for a commission of inquiry into violations of international law in Burma. “Failing to act on accountability in Myanmar will embolden the perpetrators of international crimes and further postpone long-overdue justice,” he said in a report delivered to the UN general assembly last week. Since Quintana first broached the issue in his March 2010 report, more than a dozen countries – including the UK, France, US, Canada and Australia – have publicly voiced their support for a commission of inquiry. Despite this growing momentum for justice, not one of these countries is showing concerted leadership to make the commission of inquiry a reality. Instead, there are various excuses given for delaying justice. But the victims of atrocities in Burma should not have to wait any longer. Over the course of the world’s longest-running civil war – now more than six decades old – Burma’s security forces have committed deliberate attacks on civilians, carried out summary executions, sexual violence and torture, they have used child soldiers and committed other war crimes with total impunity. Ethnic minority armed groups have also committed serious abuses. For nearly 20 years, the UN has been passing annual resolutions on Burma, condemning human rights violations and calling on the government to stop abuses and hold the perpetrators accountable. Yet the government has failed to act, hence the UN special rapporteur’s call for a commission of inquiry to be set up through the UN general assembly or the human rights council or on the secretary general’s own initiative. Such a commission would investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law by all parties to the conflict in Burma. It would be different from the usual UN reports, because a commission would collect information to establish that crimes have been committed. By shining the spotlight on the violations, this would give recognition to victims, and compel the Burmese government to seriously address the problem. Concerned governments have a prime opportunity to move on the commission of inquiry recommendation with the annual Burma resolution at the general assembly. So why don’t they act? Diplomats have given various reasons for not wanting to pursue accountability now, but the main excuse is the looming elections – “It’s not the right time.” It is true that the first elections in 20 years are about to take place in Burma on 7 November. Yet all the evidence suggests these elections will simply entrench military rule with a civilian face – a quarter of all parliamentary seats are reserved for military officers. More than 2,000 political prisoners remain behind bars, and the pro-military party, the Union Solidarity and Development party (USDP), will be the only party to field candidates for every open seat. Yes, generals are shedding their uniforms, but no one should be hoodwinked into thinking there is any genuine civilian transition underway that could be threatened by an international inquiry. Some governments seem concerned that pushing for an international process of accountability may negatively affect the conduct of the elections by driving Burma further into isolation. A few Asian leaders have suggested a commission of inquiry could lead to renewed intense fighting in Burma. If anything, embarking on an accountability process will put all parties to the conflict on notice that there are consequences for serious abuses. As we have seen from Liberia to the Balkans, justice could instead facilitate a process in which highly abusive figures are marginalised and a more reformist leadership is able to emerge in Burma. Some states are concerned that acting on a commission of inquiry may affect whether democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi will be released shortly after the elections, as her current term for house arrest expires. While we all want to see Suu Kyi released, her liberty is not a meaningful indicator of progress in Burma. She has been released and detained many times over the last 20 years. Burma’s military rulers are masters at using one woman’s freedom as a bargaining chip to distract and deter the international community from taking actions that would harm the military’s interests. Another argument is that certain powerful countries, namely China, are actively lobbying against a commission of inquiry for Burma. A commission will only succeed if the major players who have come out in support of a commission are as active in support for it as China is in efforts to scupper it. In the past, commissions of inquiry have been created by the security council despite China’s initial reservations, most recently in the case of Darfur. But there will need to be a commitment to a campaign of sustained advocacy and high-level démarches to ensure enough votes to support it. The international community needs to heed the call of the UN special rapporteur to act, because as he points out, “Justice and accountability are the very foundation of the UN system.” Getting a commission of inquiry for Burma will entirely depend on how much the EU, the US and like-minded states are prepared to engage, rather than on how much the spoilers want to shoot it down. ANALYSIS: Post-election offensive feared against Myanmar rebel groups – Peter Janssen Deustche Press Agentur: Thu 28 Oct 2010 Bangkok – Few people have high hopes for real change after Myanmar’s November 7 general election, its first in 20 years, but for the country’s ethnic minority rebel groups, the polls threaten to bring change for the worse. ‘The election is not for the Kachin people,’ said Laphai Naw Din, editor of the Kachin News Group, which operates on the Thai-Myanmar border. ‘After the election, the war will start.’ The Kachin Independence Army (KIA) is one of six guerilla groups in northern and north-eastern Myanmar that have refused to submit to the ruling military junta. In 1994, the Kachin signed a ceasefire with the regime, allowing them semi-autonomy to govern in their territories in Kachin state and even keep their own army. Last year, however, the junta insisted the ‘ceasefire groups’ were to cease to exist. As part of the regime’s election preparations, the ceasefire areas were to set up political parties and turn their armies into ‘border guard forces’ under the military’s control. Among the rebels who refused to comply were the KIA with an estimated force of 7,000, the United Wa State Army with 30,000 fighters, the Shan State Army/North (SSA) with 5,000, the Karen National Liberation Army with fewer than 8,000, the New Mon State Party with 1,000 and a breakaway faction of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army with 1,400. In retaliation, the regime has barred rebel-controlled portions of the Kachin, Karen, Wa and Shan states from voting. The election commission also rejected applications from a Kachin party and Kachin independents to contest the polls. More worrisome, the junta has cut off all communications with the KIA since September 1 and in public speeches has referred to the movement as an ‘insurgency’ for the first time since signing the ceasefire. Whether the military in Myanmar, which was once named Burma, would launch an offensive against the Kachin and other ethnic groups in the post-election period remained open. ‘I would say the ethnic minorities shouldn’t be worried about being attacked by the Burmese army for the next six months,’ said Khunsai Jaiyen, editor of the Shan Herald Agency, another news agency based along the Thai-Myanmar border. Khunsai argued it would take the regime three months to set up a new government and it might take another three months for them to get used to their civilian clothes. The pro-junta Union Solidarity and Development Party, packed with former military men, was expected to win the polls. The Shan people can vote for the Shan Nationalities Democratic Party, a Yangon-based party that has fielded 157 candidates. In the 1990 election, the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy won 23 seats in a statewide victory. There are hopes that the new party would do similarly well this time round. Khunsai said he was confident that if the military attacks the SSA, the United Wa State Army, one of the best-armed insurgencies in South-East Asia thanks to its lucrative methamphetamines trade, would come to its aid. In August last year, the military launched a 48-hour attack on Laogai, the capital of the Kokang region in Shan state, crushing the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, as the Kokang rebel army was called. The attack sent 30,000 Kokang refugees across the border into China, irking Myanmar’s big neighbour and one of its few allies. Since the Kokang attack, the six rebel armies have formed an alliance, promising to come to each other’s aid should the junta launch another attack. Thai military sources suspected the most likely first target would be the Karen National Liberation Army, which has been weakened by years of fighting and internal dissension. ‘If the Karens were defeated in a swift military offensive, the Myanmar army could claim they had ended the oldest insurgency and that would send a chilling sign to the other groups,’ said Maung Zarni, a research fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. The Karen have been fighting for the autonomy of their state since 1949 with the military having failed for the past six decades to defeat them. Whatever their outcome, the November 7 polls were not expected to miraculously improve the Myanmar army’s fighting skills. ‘They cannot win, unless they are prepared to commit genocide,’ Maung Zarni said. Than Shwe plans no retirement from power – Wai Moe Irrawaddy: Wed 27 Oct 2010 Though junta supremo Snr-Gen Than Shwe’s plans for his post-election role still remain uncertain after state-run media described him as the commander in chief during the week, observers say at least two ways remain for him to retain control of the country in the next 10 years. Rangoon’s business community suggest that Than Shwe might appoint himself as the next president of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, becoming the constitutional head of state while his loyal generals retain control of the armed forces. However, military sources in Naypyidaw said whether Than Shwe retires his uniform or not, he will control the armed forces as chairman of the military council, much like the Central Military Commission of China and North Korea. The state-media’s reference to his position as the commander in chief followed a near two-month silence after Lt-Gen Myint Aung was appointed as his successor in the major military reshuffle in late August. In recent days, state-run newspapers and broadcast media have described Than Shwe as the junta chairman and the commander in chief in reports about visits he made to rehabilitation projects in the Irrawaddy delta hit by Cyclone Nargis in May 2008. It was not the first time that the junta media has mentioned the military positions of the two top generals, Than Shwe,77, and his deputy, Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye,73, since the August military reshuffle. On Oct.5, The New Light of Myanmar noted the deputy Commander-in-Chief of Defense Services, Maung Aye, separately met outgoing and incoming Chinese and Thai military attachés to Burma in Naypyidaw on Oct.5. This conflicts with earlier reports from military sources in Naypyidaw that Than Shwe and his deputy signed their retirements from the armed forces when other top generals including junta No.3 Gen Shwe Mann, Secretary-1 Gen Tin Aung Myint Oo and other lieutenant generals were ordered to retire from their military positions in late August. “At the time, A Ba [“the grandfather” as Than Shwe is commonly called in the military] also signed his retirement,” said a source in Naypyidaw. “So other generals were prepared to retire from their uniforms saying ‘even A Ba has decided to take off his uniform.’” “But A Ba’s reversal of his resignation and that of his top deputy has surprised many, who now see the earlier move as a ‘pre-emptive strike’ to placate potential disgruntlement among military officers in Naypyidaw,” he said. The state media reports about Than Shwe’s and Maung Aye’s ranks in October contradicted previous news about their retirement and replacement by loyal generals, Lt-Gen Myint Aung, former adjutant-general, and Lt-Gen Ko Ko, a former chief of Bureau of Special Operations-3. Sources in Naypyidaw said Myint Aung and Ko Ko are attached to the War Office and remain in waiting to take over their new positions, however. Military officials in Naypyidaw, meanwhile, speculate that Than Shwe and Maung Aye are retaining their top positions until after the election to preserve unity among senior officers during the period of readjustment after the August reshuffle. Although Myint Aung and Ko Ko are tipped as successors for the Tatmadaw’s top two positions, the state media has not mentioned them since late August. The most noticeable promotion in the reshuffle is that of Lt-Gen Min Aung Hlaing, the former Bureau of Special Operations-2, who replaced Gen Shwe Mann as joint-chief of staff (Army, Navy, Air Force). Min Aung Hlaing has been seen accompanying Than Shwe to the Irrawaddy Delta this week as well as on other tours in the country in recent months. He also went with Than Shwe on state visits to India, China and Laos. Whether Myint Aung or Min Aung Hlaing—both are in their 50s—succeeds Than Shwe to the top slot, both are considered loyal. How Than Shwe will retain control over Burma’s power structure after he resigns from the top post in Burma’s military hierarchy remains in question, however. Some observers suggest that by designating the two young loyal generals to the top ranks, Than Shwe will keep a grip on power for two electoral terms and will not need to reshuffle the military for another 10 years, that is assuming the deputies remain loyal to their master. Observers express caution about all news and rumors emanating from the military in Burma, however. “All is speculation since Burma is a most secretive nation,” said an editor of a private Rangoon journal. “Everything can change at the last minute in an authoritarian state like this.” “At present, only Snr-Gen Than Shwe knows the future of the leadership in military-ruled Burma,” he said. Political prisoners hold little hope of release before polls Mizzima News: Wed 27 Oct 2010 New Delhi – Burmese elections next month cannot be presumed free and fair unless the military junta releases all political prisoners prior to November elections and allows them to participate, a range of Burma analysts, pro-democracy advocates and the UN have said.As the military continues to jail many political prisoners, their role in shaping the future political scene in Burma is fading almost completely. Junta’s electoral laws bar prisoners from the vote. In the world’s largest democracy, political activist Jaya Jaitly said India allowed prisoners to vote, let them contest in parliamentary elections and some even served in high government positions. “If we give an Indian example, Indira Gandhi threw all opposition leaders into jail in 1975. When the government announced elections, the leaders could contest … despite their detention. George Fernandes was being detained at that time as well. We took his photo and campaigned through out the country in cars. Then he won with the second largest number of votes. For that reason, why can’t someone join the vote whether detained or living under house arrest?” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also called on the Burmese junta to release political prisoners during his visit to Burma after Cyclone Nargis. He reiterated his call in August this year, after the junta announced the election date, and urged that all political prisoners be released, adding that the election needed to include them to be free and fair. Ban further reiterated those calls said yesterday in Bangkok. He said that while the UN was committed to long-term engagement with military-ruled Burma that it was not too late to make next months election more credible, Reuters reported. The United Nations would work with the new government formed after the much-criticised ballot on November 7, and that the junta could improve its international image by releasing all political prisoners immediately, he told a press conference at Government House in Bangkok. “It’s not too late, even now. By releasing political detainees, [the junta] can make this election more inclusive and participatory,” Reuters quoted Ban as saying. “We will really be expecting this election will be a free one, fair one and inclusive one.” But the junta had made no signals of releasing political prisoners before November 7, despite western democracies and regional countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines adding their calls to the UN’s to make this happen. Burmese parties and individual candidates have recently started adding their voices for the release political prisoners, for the polls to be inclusive. Kaung Myint Htut, an individual candidate standing for a seat in the South Okkalapa Township constituency said: “It is routine that political prisoners are released after a general election. That is my dream, which is quite possible … I wish they could be released today or tomorrow. They could play a role assisting the election that is a turning point of our country’s change. They can debate and discuss their views, which would be a valuable contribution to the country’s freedom and self-determination. If this doesn’t happen, I wish them to be released after the election. I will continue to call for their release to be realised”. However, Ashin Htarwara, a Buddhist monk who participated in the 2007 Saffron Revolution, was not holding out much hope that political prisoners, student leaders and jailed monks would be released under the Burmese military dictatorship. “If the junta released [political prisoners] and called an election, we could say the election was fair, instead of continuing to lock them up in prisons. We’ve heard nothing so far from the junta about releasing political prisoners,” the monk said. “The prisoners frequently being released now are mostly criminals, which is why I’m deeply concerned about the situation.” NLD vice-chairman Tin Oo said better political change could be allowed to happen if imprisoned political leaders were released and the junta started a national reconciliation programme. “We have opened the door. It would be better if the government released political prisoners and sought dialogue to solve the problems. That is the principle by which we stand,” he said. Many prominent activists and opposition leaders are still serving or have served lengthy terms in the junta’s infamous prisons, such as the NLD’s Aung San Suu Kyi, Shan leader Khun Tun Oo, General Sai Htin, 88 Generation Students leader Min Ko Naing, satirist Zargana, blogger Nay Phone Latt, and the many other NLD leaders, activists and monks who participated in the Saffron Revolution, which started in 2007 calling for decreased commodity prices. Despite the junta’s claims that there were no political prisoners in Burma, the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners-Burma (AAPPB) had recorded that more than 2,010 prisoners remained behind bars for their political beliefs. The United Nations, international advocates, NGOs, activists and many governments have frequently called on the Burmese junta to release all political prisoners. Junta accused of slowing, cutting Net ahead of polls – Myint Maung Mizzima News: Wed 27 Oct 2010 New Delhi – Burmese internet users on the Bagan Net provider are having their connections cut regularly and when working, they slow to a crawl, according to cybercafé owners and surfers. With little more than a week until election day, Burma’s Bagan Net internet service from Myanmar Teleport had been very poor for the past three days, they said, adding that they had no warning of impending difficulties. “Bagan Net told us nothing … . The internet connection has been cut frequently but we can access local websites such as Myanmar Times online and People Magazine’s website. Although we could access our e-mail occasionally, after 10 minutes of use, the connection breaks down. Sometimes, we can use just about five minutes”, a cybercafé owner in Kyauktada Township, downtown Rangoon, told Mizzima. The Burmese junta’s severe censorship laws and poor development of networks has earned Burma’s internet access environment the pejorative nickname of the “Myanmar Wide Web”. An editor from a weekly journal told Mizzima: “I think that the closer we come to election day, the more often connections will be cut. I think their [the Burmese junta’s] intention is to block the flow of information out of the country. Not only internet connections, but also phone links have been disturbed. People think the junta is doing it intentionally”. Because of the poor internet connection, the number of Net users had declined, another cybercafé owner said. “Just a few people came to use the internet. They used to use Facebook and Google Talk, but these days, they could not access them … my cybercafé has nearly been empty,” the owner from Thingangyun Township told Mizzima. An internet user said: “We can’t use the internet. Some cybercafés were closed. One of my friends who needed a Departure Form [D Form] to go to a foreign country, could not apply online as the government’s D Form site was down. We haven’t been able to surf other sites as well. I went to many cybercafés … but the connection was down at all of them.” Web connections in Arakan, Kachin, and Karen states and Tenasserim, Mandalay and Sagaing Divisions have also been very slow. A Bagan Net employee said that he was unaware of when connections would be restored. An official in charge of the provider said connections were under maintenance, according to a cybercafé owner in South Okkalapa Township, Rangoon Division. Since the monk-led “saffron revolution” of 2007, the junta has strictly controlled access to the internet. During the anti-government protests that year, the junta shut down all services out of the country, claiming a break in an underwater cable. Net users and observers have accused the junta of again disturbing services intentionally as the election, to be held on November 7, draws near. Nearly 60,000 Burmese have their own internet connections, according to figures from the Ministry of Communication, Post and Telegraph. While Burma has been connected to the World Wide Web since 2000, the junta considers use of the internet so threatening that just connecting can be seen, under its laws, as a dissident act. The military government restricts access using censoring software that blocks sites, especially free online e-mail and pornography. The government also charges exorbitant fees for access. Philippines dubs Myanmar election a “farce” – Ambika Ahuja Reuters: Wed 27 Oct 2010 Hanoi – Myanmar’s election is a democratic farce, the Philippines said in a document outlining President Benigno Aquino’s position at an Asian summit this week where differences over the military-ruled nation could bring discord.The 10-member Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) faces divisions over reclusive and recalcitrant Myanmar, days before its first election in two decades, at the gathering in Vietnam of leaders aiming to forge an economic and political union in the next five years. Myanmar’s grim record on human rights damages ASEAN’s reputation and credibility and is an obstacle to cooperation with some of its international partners. It is also a source of friction within ASEAN, which groups Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. “It is increasingly evident that the forthcoming elections … will continue to be a farce to democratic values of transparency, fairness, provision for ‘level playing field’, credibility and all-inclusiveness,” the Philippines government said in the document prepared for Aquino’s meetings this week and seen by Reuters on Wednesday. The Myanmar military, which has ruled since 1962, says the election will be fair and will return the country to civilian rule but critics say it is a sham aimed at ensuring the generals remains firmly in control. Some ASEAN members, such as the Philippines and Indonesia, have been pressing for reform. Others, such as Vietnam and Cambodia, have called for respect of ASEAN’s long-held principle of non-interference. EXCLUDED FROM POLITICS Detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party swept the country’s last polls in 1990 but was never allowed to govern, has been kept in detention and excluded from politics for most of the past 21 years. The exclusion of Suu Kyi from the election and the detention of more than 2,000 political prisoners “is a clear signal that the Myanmar government does not intend to provide space and opportunity for the election process that the U.N. and ASEAN demand,” the Philippine government said in the paper. “The Philippines strongly urges for real and meaningful change for the Myanmar people,” it said. Earlier, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said Myanmar’s election lacked credibility but neighbours hoped it was not too late to improve prospects for the vote. “There is obviously a credibility deficit at this time in terms of where the election appears to be heading, in terms of its preparation,” Natalegawa said before a meeting with his counterparts from the region, including Myanmar. “We are not pessimistic, even at this late stage, that we can all work together to ensure that an election in Myanmar can be part of a solution rather than part of more difficulties ahead.” ASEAN offered Myanmar help with the vote, with some members suggesting observers. Myanmar declined the offer. ASEAN Secretary General Surin Pitsuwan said on Tuesday Myanmar could make it difficult for ASEAN to establish the confidence and credibility “for us to move on as a region.” (Additional reporting by Yoko Kubota in Tokyo; Writing by Robert Birsel; Editing by John Ruwitch and Miral Fahmy) Myanmar nuclear plan could speed up: scientist Agence France Presse: Wed 27 Oct 2010 Bangkok — Myanmar is carrying out a secret atomic weapons programme that could “really speed up” if the army-ruled country is aided by North Korea, according to a top nuclear scientist. The comments follow a June documentary by the Norwegian-based news group Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) that said Myanmar was trying to develop nuclear weapons, citing a senior army defector and years of “top secret material”. Robert Kelley, a former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), inspected the files smuggled out of Myanmar by Sai Thein Win and said the evidence indicated “a clandestine nuclear programme” was underway. “This is not a well-developed programme. I don’t think it’s going very well,” he told the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand late Tuesday. “But if another country steps in and has all of the knowledge, the materials, and maybe the key to some of the things that are plaguing them, including bad management, this programme could really speed up.” Kelley said North Korea was “certainly the country I have in mind”. Myanmar, which is holding its first elections in two decades on November 7, has dismissed the reports of its nuclear intentions and brushed aside Western concerns about possible cooperation with North Korea. The DVB documentary gathered thousands of photos and defector testimony, some regarding Myanmar’s network of secret underground bunkers and tunnels, which were allegedly built with the help of North Korean expertise. The United States has expressed concern about military ties between the two pariah states, and said it was assessing the nuclear allegations against Myanmar, which would be “tremendously destabilising” to the region. The Southeast Asian nation has also come under fire for the upcoming polls, which Western governments believe are a sham aimed at entrenching the rule of the army generals behind a civilian guise. Kelley doubted their nuclear programme would succeed without outside help. “I think it’s safe to say the people of Thailand are safe for the next few years because these people don’t know what they’re doing. I wouldn’t want to give them more than a few more years,” he said. Burma’s brutal repression continues with a sham election – Editorial Washington Post: Wed 27 Oct 2010 Without warning, Burma’s rulers last week bestowed upon their country a new flag, a new seal and a new anthem. A surprised government official told Reuters that the junta’s instructions specified that the old flags should be lowered by people born on a Tuesday and the new flags should be raised by people born on a Wednesday. Then all the old flags were to be burned.The order, accompanied by no explanation and probably informed by astrologers, was typical of the generals who govern this Southeast Asian nation of 50 million people from their isolated and recently constructed capital of Naypyidaw. They rank with North Korea’s leaders as the world’s most secretive, repressive and destructive to their own people. Now they are about to hold a national election, and the one thing that should be unpredictable is in fact fully known in advance: the election result. The Nov. 7 poll will be Burma’s first in 20 years, and it might have provided an avenue toward a gradual easing of dictatorial control. But it has not worked out that way. There are a few opposition candidates, but even if all of them win, the junta is guaranteed control of the new parliament. It accomplished this certainty by blocking many parties from participating, including the National League for Democracy and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the 1990 election but was never permitted to take office; by setting fees so high that in many districts only government-backed candidates could register; by stipulating that the military may allot close to one-quarter of all seats after the election takes place; and by harassing and threatening opposition candidates who have tried, against all odds, to compete. No international observers will be permitted; no foreign journalists are being allowed in. The best that can be expected is that some ruling generals will replace their uniforms with civilian suits. Nonetheless, we can expect calls after the election for a lifting of economic sanctions and a welcoming of the “new” government into polite company. These calls will come from companies eager to invest in Burma (also known as Myanmar) and from nations eager for influence there. The calls will get louder if, as seems possible, the regime frees Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest on Nov. 13, when the latest of her many sentences expires. The Obama administration, which thus far has provided too little leadership on Burma, should be ready to parry these calls. It should appoint the special representative and policy coordinator mandated by Congress; refine its financial sanctions to target Burma’s leaders and their families; and put some muscle behind its claimed support for a U.N. inquiry into the regime’s crimes against humanity, namely the military’s depredations against ethnic minorities. The Voice of America should rethink its plan to cut back broadcasting hours to Burma the month after the election, while Congress should provide the VOA with enough funds to carry out its mission. And the administration should make clear that real steps toward democracy will be reciprocated, but sham elections will gain the regime nothing, no matter what the astrologers promise. How to win an election before it’s held – Kay Latt Irrawaddy: Wed 27 Oct 2010 If you look at the election strategy of the Burmese military regime, you will find it has ensured control of a majority of seats in the parliament even before the election.The strategy was put together like a military operation in a war theater starting with the 2008 Constitution which was approved in a so-called referendum vote. Under the Basic Principles of the Constitution, one of the six objectives of the Union is “enabling the Defense Services to be able to participate in the National political leadership role of the State.’ Accordingly, military personnel are granted 25 percent of the total seats in the respective parliaments. The second step of the strategy was the Political Party Registration Law and Electoral Laws, carefully crafted to demand allegiance to the state in ways that were unacceptable to pro-democracy parties such as the National League for Democracy, which refused to take part. In this way, they eliminated their major opposition and ensured even more seats in parliament. Next, the Union Election Commission, whose members were selected by the military, was given draconian power to judge which parities were registered to take part. At the same time, as part of its strategy, the military increased pressure on ethnic cease-fire groups to transform into a border guard force. Those that refused were blocked from entering the election. The only party that attempted to take part was the Kachin State Progressive Party, led by Dr. Manam Tu Ja, a former vice president of the Kachin Independence Organization. His party was not accepted for registration, presumable because it was seen as a proxy party of the KIO. Step by step, major political forces, both ethnic and Burman, that could pose a threat to the military regime, were marginalized from the election process. Finally, the regime’s mass organization, the Union Solidarity and Development Association, was transformed into the Union Solidarity and Development Party led by Prime Minister Thein Sein and other ministers. Later they were joined by the former joint chief of staff, a former secretary of the SPDC and many other retired high-ranking military officers. The formation and operation of the USDP has clearly violated the electoral laws barring civil services personnel and state resources from involvement in party politics. The Election Commission, led by Thein Soe, a former military judge advocate-general and deputy chief justice of the Supreme Court, approved the registration of the USDP regardless of the irregularities. From that time on, the USDP has enjoyed the full support of local governmental authorities and the Election Commission, including the assets of the former USDA. And then came the candidate registration fees. Most of the parties, except the USDP and NUP, the former socialist party, could not field all their candidates as originally planned due to the high registration fees. Coupled with insufficient time, that prevented most parties from ever putting together a well-funded, coordinated campaign. However, some challenges remained regarding a few ethnic political parties, but they were handled by declaring designated ethnic-dominated townships and a large number of ethnic village tracts as areas where a free and fair election could not be held, hence the people in those areas were denied the opportunity to vote. Lastly, the USDP has used the resources of the state in its campaigning, offering inducements such as loans, selling mobile phones at reduced price or offering incentives such as providing donations, building roads and bridges, opening free clinics, repairing schools or digging water wells for local communities in return for support. In some places like Maungdaw and Buthidaung it even issued ID cards to local people. The USDP distributed 100,000 copies of newsletters free every week using the Ministry of Information’s printers, all without interference from the Press and Scrutiny Board, which carefully scrutinized the campaign literature of other political parties. The USDP, acting like an agency of the state, reportedly instructed Naypyidaw civil servants to vote for its candidates. The prime minister delivered speeches to civil servants asking them to vote for the USDP during visits around the country. According to a leaked document, in the run-up to the election the USDP is even prepared to use violence including the use of cadres of hardcore criminals to achieve a landslide victory. The document says, “criminals and thugs must be organized. Otherwise, they could be used by other political parties to bully, torture and extort from us.” There have also been reports that the USDP forcibly recruited party members, shut down business owned by other political parties and prohibited members of other parties from freely campaigning. With such a well-planned strategy to keep control of the election process and deny other parties an equal chance on the playing field, the regime has guaranteed its continued dominance of the political scene. The only remaining question is how many seats the generals end up with after the Nov. 7 election. Suu Kyi party says Myanmar vote will prolong dictatorship Agence France Presse: Tue 26 Oct 2010 Yangon – Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s party warned Tuesday that next month’s elections would only “prolong the military dictatorship”, describing the rules as “totally unfair”. The National League for Democracy (NLD) — which has been officially disbanded by the junta — said it “completely boycotts” the vote, which will be held without the participation of Suu Kyi, who is locked up. “This election will be held to prolong the military dictatorship and to confirm the 2008 constitution,” the NLD said in a statement released to the media. The charter provides no guarantee for human rights and “cannot build a peaceful new democratic nation”, it added. The constitution was adopted in 2008 after a widely criticised referendum held days after a cyclone laid waste to vast swathes of the country and left 138,000 people dead or missing. The NLD won a landslide election victory in 1990 but was never allowed to take office. It has been banned from political activities after opting to boycott the November 7 vote, the first in 20 years. Opponents say the junta, headed by Senior General Than Shwe, is taking no chances this time, reserving a quarter of seats in parliament for the military and crafting rules to make sure that junta-backed parties have the upper hand. Suu Kyi is under house arrest and as a serving prisoner is barred from standing in the polls. The election has been widely criticised by Western governments who say the vote cannot be democratic without the participation of Suu Kyi and other opposition figures. UN chief Ban Ki-moon urged the junta to ensure the election is “inclusive and transparent”, renewing his call for the release of political prisoners. “It is not too late, even now… by releasing political detainees they can make this election more inclusive and participatory,” Ban said during a visit to Thailand. Suu Kyi has said she will refuse to cast a ballot next month and has suggested her supporters consider doing the same, although she has stopped short of an outright call for a boycott by voters. She reiterated her view that people have the right to make up their own minds whether to vote, her lawyer Nyan Win said after he visited the democracy icon at her lakeside home. “She also asked the voters to consider why they want to vote, or for what? … It is nonsense as some people have said they will vote without knowing anything,” he said. Suu Kyi’s stance has led to a split within the opposition between those who support her boycott and others who see the vote as the only hope for progress in the autocratic nation. A group of former NLD members has formed a new party, the National Democratic Force (NDF), to stand in the election — a move that has put it at odds with Suu Kyi. The NLD statement said the decision to participate ignored the “unanimous decision” of Suu Kyi’s party. Suu Kyi, who has spent most of the past two decades locked up, had her detention extended by 18 months in August last year over a bizarre incident in which an American man swam uninvited to her lakeside home. The opposition leader’s current term of house arrest is due to expire just days after the November election. Even if she is released, observers believe she is unlikely to be allowed to freely conduct political activities. Burma shuts border until after polls – Thanida Tansubhapol Bangkok Post: Tue 26 Oct 2010 Mae Sot: Foreign Ministry officials are expecting Burma to keep its border checkpoint opposite this Tak district closed until at least after its general elections on Nov 7. The junta closed the border in July in protest against a project by the Public Works Department to build an embankment along the Thai side of the Moei River without informing Burma. Naypyidaw said the embankment could change the flow of the river and cause erosion to the bank on the Burma side. Border trade has slowed dramatically following the closure, causing major problems for local business operators. Senior officials, including Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, have tried to negotiate with Burma to reopen the border. A Foreign Ministry source said yesterday Thai authorities questioned the junta’s reason for closing the border. The source said the closure was motivated by a military desire to reorganise the command and control structure in the area so authorities fully benefited from the trade in the area, which is worth more than 20 billion baht a year. The junta is reportedly furious that minority groups operating along the border enjoy a large share of the commerce. Authorities want to break up trade by minority groups before reopening the border, the source said. Thai and Burmese officials have agreed to let 18 unofficial border checkpoints operate to ease the impact of the closure. Trading is allowed only after sunset and only five light trucks are allowed to transport goods to Burma each night. Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said during a visit to Mae Sot on Friday that the two sides were negotiating the issue through a joint border committee Mr Kasit said it was likely the checkpoint would reopen when Burma’s internal security situation improved, which Thai authorities expect would happen after the Nov 7 election. The Foreign Ministry source said the junta itself was constructing something similar along a one-kilometre stretch of the river even though it had protested against Thailand’s construction of an embankment on the Moei River. The Foreign Ministry plans to protest the Burmese project, which the source said would cause erosion on the Thai side. The Public Works Department resumed building its embankment a few days ago after the Burmese move. Burmese officials filed a second protest against the project with Thai authorities last Monday. Burma’s nuclear adventure – the real threat – Robert Kelley The Nation (Thailand): Tue 26 Oct 2010 For several years reports have been emerging from Burma about its nuclear ambitions, supported by claims of varying provenance about equipment purchases and overt attempts to buy nuclear technology from Russia. Now a brave military officer, who defected from the secretive state, has provided photographs of specialised machine shops building chemical equipment that is almost certainly designed for processing uranium chemical compounds to enrich uranium. The only reason for Burma to be taking this secretive path is to embark on a weapons programme. There is no other logical fit for the pieces. The good news is that the technology is far too complex for Burma to master easily. The photos and information provided by the defector show a dysfunctional programme. It has made terrible technology choices and the quality of the workmanship we can observe is primitive. If Burma stays on this course there is a good possibility the programme will never succeed, although we must remember, however, that the photographs and descriptions available for examination come from a single source. It is possible there are other areas where the programme is better managed and more advanced. Nonetheless from what we can see, there is no immediate threat to Burma’s neighbours. Yet should another country step in to assist Burma with knowledge, equipment and nuclear materials this could rapidly change. Pakistani nuclear scientists reportedly fled to Burma in 2001, and North Korea, closely allied with the Burmese regime, provides it with conventional weaponry. North Korea has detonated two nuclear devices of its own. It is suspected of sharing this technology. And that’s the bad news: there is every reason to be alarmed by reports that a state, regardless of its technical limits, may be toying with the development of nuclear weapons. The dye has long been cast: nuclear arms merchants and their suppliers are a chilling aspect of nuclear proliferation. The nuclear weapons dreams of despots cannot be readily dismissed. What they may themselves be unable to produce they can purchase. At risk in this high stakes game is not only the security of the would-be nuclear proliferator’s neighbours but the international non-proliferation regime. I have been serving the goals of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) for 20 years. We have always come from behind in trying to stop proliferators. We succeeded just in time in Iraq when we discovered a clandestine programme in 1991. We arrived too late in North Korea, even though there were unmistakable signs that proliferation was occurring. Pakistan, which did not sign the NPT, openly produced nuclear weapons while we stood by helplessly, exploded test devices, and then contrived to re-export its nuclear knowledge to an unknown number of persons and states that had signed the NPT. In the non-proliferation community, we have argued for more and better tools to detect potential proliferators. Now we have used some of those tools to identify one, but the response from many quarters is that it is too soon, too difficult and too hard, to investigate and stop Burma. But when is the right time? When it is too late? What tools will the world use then? Sanctions? Bombs? These are key questions. Intelligence analysis has done its job: it’s identified the parts of a potential smoking gun. Now is the time to act. Burma has been caught earlier and more completely than any other would-be proliferator. It’s against such risks that the NPT and its system of safeguards was established. Its complement, the Bangkok Treaty, establishing a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone encompassing Asean states, is a further buttress against proliferation. If we fail to act in a timely manner to respond to this poorly executed but obvious threat, we render meaningless the NPT and the tenets of the Bangkok Treaty. It is time to invoke Articles 12 and 13 of the Treaty that allow the group to begin an investigation of these assertions and force Burma to come clean. Citizens of this populous region may not feel threatened today or next year, but they will never know when they can feel safe without resolution of this issue. A lost opportunity in Burma – Editorial Voice of America: Tue 26 Oct 2010 Lack of freedoms of expression, assembly and association make the country’s electoral process “deeply flawed.” Volunteers in Shan ethnic traditional costume enroll to get ballots in a demonstration on voting for the upcoming general election. A new United Nations report confirms what many in the international community have been saying for months since the military government of Burma announced it would hold the first parliamentary elections there in 20 years. Tomas Quintana, U.N. human rights rapporteur on Burma, told the UN General Assembly on October 20 that the lack of freedoms of expression, assembly and association make the country’s electoral process “deeply flawed.” Genuine elections call for broad participation, but Burma’s electoral process has been marked by a distinct lack of inclusiveness. Many opposition groups and ethnic minorities won’t be allowed to participate, and those candidates permitted to take part must swear allegiance to the 2008 constitution, which guarantees the military one quarter of the seats in parliament, regardless of the outcome of the vote. The regime also continues to hold thousands of political prisoners, a grim warning against the questioning of authority. Outside election observers and members of the foreign press are also barred from entering the country to study and report on the election. News that Burma was essentially closing its borders to outsiders before the election is not surprising, given the regime’s preparations for the vote under the constitution and a political registration law imposed earlier this year. Still, it is disappointing that Burma’s leaders are not taking advantage of the opportunity to have a more open election and pursuing a dialogue within civil society in Burma, one that will help build a more stable, prosperous Burma that respects the rights of all its citizens. ‘Than Shwe fears the ICC’ – Dan Withers with Aung Htoo Democratic Voice of Burma: Tue 26 Oct 2010 As calls for Than Shwe to be indicted for war crimes gather momentum, DVB speaks to exiled Burmese lawyer, Aung Htoo, who heads the Burma Lawyers’ Council. He claims that China’s rise as an international player may indeed be detrimental to the ruling junta, as it works to maintain its dignity and ‘abstain’ if the issue reaches the UN Security Council.Why is a UN probe into crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma necessary? In addition to reports issued by the international human rights organizations such as the International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC), Amnesty International (AI), the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), Human Rights Watch (HRW) and others, the reports of UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Situation in Burma, Tomas Quintana, have indicated that human rights violations in Burma are likely crimes against humanity and/or war crimes. It has become the responsibility of the society – national and international alike – to address those heinous crimes in appropriate ways. If not, justice for victims of crimes will have been perpetually denied, repeated commission of such heinous crimes in near future would not be deterred, the rule of law will never prevail, and, as a result, the rule of the military dictatorship will have been entrenched and a peaceful democratic transition for Burma only a myth. How will Burma benefit from such an inquiry? If the UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI) can operate well inside Burma, the truth will be uncovered; prevailing impunity in Burma will have been denied to some extent; society may find ways to address the sufferings of the victims of heinous crimes; peaceful movements of grassroots people who are seeking justice will be strengthened; pressure on the ruling military regime from the national and international community to transform society may notably increase; the internal conflicts within the ruling military regime might be exacerbated; and as a result, it may lead to reformation of security forces such as army, police and intelligent organizations and justice mechanism, including the judiciary. And finally, legal action might be taken on the perpetrators of heinous crimes by the International Criminal Court and a genuine democratic transition for Burma may become a reality. Wouldn’t China, which has a seat on the UN Security Council, block moves to hold the inquiry? In today’s world, the rule of law has become a convergence of diverse concepts, adopted by both Western and Eastern societies: one focuses on individual freedoms whereas another seeks the collective value of society, despite the existence of mixed practices in many countries. It is proven that since 1980 China has focused on the importance of the rule of law despite the fact that it may hesitate to recognize “democracy”. The commission of heinous crimes in Burma is directly relevant to the issue arising due to the lack of the rule of law. In addition, under the Chapter of Fundamental Rights, Article 33 of the Constitution of China stipulates: “The State respects and preserves human rights.” This is time for the international community to persuade China to deal with the issues of Burma from the aspect of the rule of law and human rights. It is also expected that as China has become an international actor, it may attempt to maintain its dignity and may not protect the perpetrators of heinous crimes in Burma, turning a blind eye under whatever circumstances. If the majority of the international community consistently highlights the situation of Burma from the aspect of commission of heinous crimes, China may exercise similar practice by taking a position of ‘abstention’ if there is a motion in the UN Security Council, as was the case for Sudan. How could a CoI result in perpetrators of such crimes being held accountable at the International Criminal Court? It will depend on the finding of the COI. If its report is comprehensive enough and if there are prima facie to prosecute perpetrators, the UN Security Council may refer the situation of Burma to ICC. What are the chances of a conviction? It will be relevant only to the efforts of the ICC prosecutor as well as merits of the case. However, it is noteworthy that the ICC Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo is quite active in exerting efforts for ending impunity across the world and is also ardent to address the impunity issue in Burma. Under the Coalition of the International Criminal Court (CICC)’s initiation, the representatives of civil society organisations from the states that founded the ICC held a meeting with the Moreno-Ocampo at the World Forum Conference Centre at the African Meeting Hall on 23 November 2009. He responded to my question with full interest, stating that he cannot initiate investigations proprio motu [‘by one’s own volition’] because Burma has not ratified the Rome Statute as of yet; as well, because the UN Security Council has not yet referred the situation of Burma to the ICC. He did however explain in detail the conditions that might allow initiation of investigations proprio motu : most importantly, there can be conditions that will allow the Chief Prosecutor to initiate investigations proprio motu if he can obtain evidence brought forward against a citizen or citizens that belong to one of the 110 states that have signed and ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which prove that that citizen has conspired with and abetted the junta, which itself has committed international crimes. There is no doubt that if ICC Prosecutor receives a comprehensive report from CoI, he and his good office will attempt to prosecute perpetrators of heinous crimes in Burma. If the CoI recommended prosecution of members of the Burmese government, couldn’t they just ignore an arrest warrant as did Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir? To answer your question, I have four points: 1. Al-Bashir has not been arrested due to the protection of the African Union and the Arab League; in Asia there is no regional organisation that will protect Senior General Than Shwe. I do not believe that ASEAN will protect him. Nor do I presume that even China will give him protection if the crimes in Burma continue to become increasingly explicit. Even the October 2009 UN General Assembly Resolution began to call on the military regime “to take urgent measures to put an end to violations of international human rights and humanitarian law”. 2. In Burma there is the charismatic national leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who is well-known around the world; there is the National League for Democracy, the party that influences the whole nation of Burma; and there are the 1990 election results. In addition, currently almost all major ethnic armed resistance organizations – ceasefire as well as non-ceasefires – stand against the rule of the military dictatorship. These conditions do not exist in Sudan. Arrest warrant against Senior General Than Shwe, and other former generals such as Shwe Mann, Thein Sein and Tin Aung Myint Oo, who were deeply involved in the commission of heinous crimes, will effectively encourage the democratic movement inside Burma and across world and the struggle of the ethnic people and organizations to establish a democratic federal union for Burma. 3. The forthcoming 2010 election in Burma is the result of efforts of the military dictators to achieve legitimacy to rule the country indefinitely in accordance with the 2008 constitution. Arrest warrants against those top generals who have turned into civilians and who will take high political positions after the 2010 election will seriously damage their dream for achieving legitimacy under the rule of the military dictatorship. 4. In addition to Korea and Japan, Bangladesh also became a state party to the Rome Statute of the ICC in 2010. As an immediate neighbour of Burma, Bangladesh is accountable to arrest the military leaders. Thailand, which is another immediate neighbour of Burma, may support the efforts of the international community to implement the arrest warrant, issued by ICC with a low profile, so long as Thailand is under the leadership of democratic party led by incumbent Prime Minister Abhisit. The regional situation existing for Burma is different from Sudan. Could the money to be spent on an inquiry be better used elsewhere? It will depend on the decision of relevant parties, national and international alike. Does Than Shwe fear a CoI? He does. Let me share my experience. The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and the Burma Lawyers’ Council (BLC) conducted the biggest seminar on Burma of those held in Bangkok entitled “Advancing Human Rights and Ending Impunity in Burma” on 4-6 May 2009, with the participation of over 70 organizations from around the world. During the seminar period, the military regime issued an arrest warrant against me and, conspiring with Thai police, sent its military intelligence working in the Burmese embassy in Bangkok to where the seminar was being held. Then it attempted to kidnap me, even in the presence of the international community and human rights organizations. Immediately after the seminar, I had to hide in Bangkok for three weeks. Then, with the assistance of FIDH, Thai human rights lawyers, a local human rights NGO in Bangkok, the Swedish embassy and Thailand’s ministry of foreign affairs, my family and I were able to leave Bangkok for Sweden on 23 May 2009, safe and sound. Tensions cloud Myanmar vote Wall Street Journal: Mon 25 Oct 2010 Mae Sot, Thailand—As Myanmar prepares for its first election in two decades, many of its residents are unlikely to participate, adding to growing doubts over the vote’s legitimacy. Election watchers increasingly are focused on Myanmar’s restive ethnic minority groups, which make up about a third of the population and control large swaths of territory along its borders with China and Thailand, in some cases backed by their own private militias. Some of the groups plan to boycott the Nov. 7 national election or intend to block election officials from visiting communities they control because they believe it won’t be fair, according to ethnic leaders and other people familiar with their activities. Other ethnic-minority residents will be prevented from voting by the government, which has said it won’t allow polling in some villages dominated by ethnic groups because it won’t be able to fully oversee voting there. Although a few ethnic leaders have publicly embraced the election, in one of the world’s most secretive nations, analysts say the number is far smaller than the regime had hoped a few months ago. Of the 37 political parties approved to participate by election authorities, several represent ethnic-minority areas, though advocacy groups say some are dominated by pro-government figures who don’t represent the minority residents. The potential for low participation in some areas comes as the National League for Democracy, Myanmar’s best-known opposition group, now actively campaigns for an election boycott, after initially refusing to register to participate. The NLD, led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, easily won Myanmar’s last election in 1990, but the government ignored the results and imprisoned many of its top leaders, including Ms. Suu Kyi, who remains under house arrest in Yangon. Voting isn’t compulsory. But a recent commentary in state-controlled media warned residents that inciting voters to skip the polls was against the law, punishable by up to a year in prison. The government officially disbanded the NLD this year. The party regrouped as a social organization and is sending representatives to villages to tell supporters not to cast ballots, its backers say. “It’s going to be a sham election, so we’re trying to get that message out,” says Aye Kyaw, a vice chairperson of an NLD affiliate in the Thai-Myanmar border town of Mae Sot. “People should stay away from the polling stations.” It is unclear how many people will ultimately join the boycott, or if their absence will be accurately reported in official results after polling closes. Khin Ohmar, a coordinator of Burma Partnership, a coalition of Myanmar-related pro-democracy groups, says she believes as many as three million voters might not participate in elections in ethnic-minority areas, though she added that some residents will likely be pressured into voting. Critics of the military regime, which has controlled Myanmar since 1962, say it is impossible to hold a fair election in a country where the media are censored and more than 2,000 government critics have been jailed, according to human-rights advocates. The government, led by the aging Gen. Than Shwe, has placed additional limits on organizing campaign rallies and imposed hefty candidate registration fees that opposition leaders say made it difficult to field contestants in most areas. It remains unclear whether the general, who has ruled Myanmar since 1992, will retire after the election or assume some new post that allows him to remain in power. Some 25% of parliamentary seats will be reserved for the military, and analysts widely expect the government-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party and its allies to win. “There is no sign that there will be legitimacy associated with this process,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell told reporters in September, adding “recent reports that balloting will be deeply restricted in ethnic areas is worrisome.” Nevertheless, the vote is being watched carefully around the world for any sign the resource-rich nation of 50 million people is inching toward democracy. Political leaders in China, Singapore and other Asian nations have expressed support for the process, which some Myanmar experts say could at least result in greater public political participation, even if the vote is flawed. Boycotts could deprive ethnic groups of a chance to have a bigger say in a new government after the election ends. But boycotts also could prove embarrassing to the regime, which is keen to show a unified and peaceful nation to the outside world. Analysts say the regime called the vote largely to boost its legitimacy in the eyes of foreign countries, including the U.S., which maintains tough sanctions against the junta. Myanmar’s minority groups are among the vote’s biggest question marks. Although about 70% of Myanmar’s population is Burman, the dominant ethnicity, the rest is split between ethnic minorities including Wa, Shan, Karen, Kachin and other groups, many of which have waged decadeslong insurgencies against the government. Tensions have intensified over the past year, as the government has sought, and largely failed, to convert ethnic militia units into “border guards” under the leadership of the Myanmar army so they can be subdued before the Nov. 7 vote. Underscoring the tensions in ethnic areas, Myanmar’s military government last week blamed ethnic Kachin insurgents in northern Myanmar for a land-mine explosion that killed two people there. Myanmar’s election commission recently disqualified some Kachin leaders from running as candidates without citing a reason, a move that will likely further reduce the turnout in areas dominated by that minority group. It wasn’t possible to reach ethnic Kachin leaders for comment. Attempts to reach the Myanmar government were unsuccessful. It has previously said its election will be free and fair. The government rarely speaks to the foreign media. Last week, the local Election Commission said foreign journalists wouldn’t be allowed into Myanmar to cover the polling. Many ethnic leaders, including some from Karen, Wa and other communities, have refused to hand over arms or endorse the coming polls. “We don’t trust this election,” says Dot Lay Mu, joint secretary of the Karen National Union, an ethnic Karen political organization supporting a boycott. He says Myanmar’s leaders are using the vote to “consolidate and prolong” their control over the country. The government responded to problems in ethnic areas last month by saying many townships in Kachin, Mon, Shan, Wa and other areas won’t be allowed to vote. And the winner is … the junta – Editorial The Jakarta Post: Mon 25 Oct 2010 No prize for guessing the real winners of the Nov. 7 election in Myanmar. The junta’s decision to bar foreign observers and foreign journalists from covering the polls came as no surprise. It confirmed what we knew all along: There will be an election that is anything but free and fair — and whose outcome has been decided long beforehand. The junta has done everything to make sure it retains control of the government. Myanmar’s military will automatically receive 20 percent of the seats in the parliament. The junta also barred political figures and parties that might upset their desired outcome. Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi remained in detention and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party, which was robbed of its victory in the country’s last election in 1990, was dissolved. The generals must have taken a page from the history of Indonesia’s elections under Soeharto in the 1980s and 1990s. The junta-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) will be the civilian face of what is essentially a military-controlled party, in the same way that Golkar was used by Soeharto and his generals. Myanmar’s junta learned from the best, and then improvised by barring foreign monitoring. Since Soeharto is now dead and the nation has moved on to become a democracy (or some would say, a semi-democracy), it is unlikely that the Indonesian government will be blamed for inspiring Myanmar’s generals. But Jakarta will still have to take a stand on the electoral process of a fellow ASEAN member state. With Indonesia set to chair ASEAN next year, the region and the world are waiting to see how Jakarta responds. The way the election has been managed is a gross violation of the values enshrined in the ASEAN Charter. While ASEAN continues to uphold the principle of non-interference, Myanmar’s junta is making a complete mockery of the charter’s provisions on freedom, human rights and democracy. Since we already know how the election will run, and what its outcome will be, the Indonesian government may as well form its opinion now instead of waiting until Nov. 7, and start sounding out support for the prospect of expelling Myanmar from ASEAN. Anything less will only serve to undermine Indonesia’s chairmanship next year. ‘The generals’ election’ – Bertil Lintner Wall Street Journal: Mon 25 Oct 2010 Western countries are naive to think Burma’s junta is taking steps toward a competitive democracy. Burma’s elections will be held on November 7, and the optimistic scenario goes something like this: Nearly 40 political parties will compete for more than 1,000 seats in the national legislature as well as regional assemblies. The junta-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party will win, and a quarter of the seats in the national assembly’s lower and upper houses will be reserved for the military. But there will be some space for opposition voices, and besides, there is a younger generation of more reform-minded army officers lurking in the wings. This scenario, posited by diplomats from the United States to the European Union, is dangerously uninformed. Rather than being “the first step toward democracy” the upcoming election is the final step in the military’s consolidation of its absolute grip on power, and a way for the regime to acquire the legitimacy it desires. Even before the election has been held, the military has scored some remarkable victories. Pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi has been effectively marginalized and even seen by some foreign observers as an “obstacle” to the democratic process because she has announced that she will boycott the election. The regime also dissolved her party, the National League for Democracy, which won a landslide victory in the 1990 election. People inside Burma jokingly refer to Nov. 7 not as a “general election” but as “the generals’ election.” The Burmese have been through this before and are not as easily fooled as Western diplomats and other outsiders. The country’s ethnic former rebel groups—which have had cease-fire agreements with the government for nearly two decades—have also been co-opted by the ruling junta. The regime has pressured them to convert their respective armies into “Border Guard Forces” under the command of the military. Their political wings can then participate in the election or other activities “within the law.” Some smaller groups have acquiesced while others, such as the Wa, Kachin and Shan armies, are resisting. The Karen and a faction of the Shan never agreed to a cease-fire. Recent troop movements in northeastern and northern Burma suggest that a military offensive against these armed ethnic minority groups may follow after the election. Thus a political solution to Burma’s decades-long ethnic strife seems now, with a new military-drafted constitution in place, more remote than ever. Burma’s immediate neighbors are likely to welcome the election, even if it means just a continuation of military rule under the guise of a partly civilian cloak. China wants stability, not any dramatic change, to secure vital trade links and other economic and strategic interests in Burma. India wants to keep China at bay by trying to be equally friendly with the Burmese regime, not by trying to export its democracy to a weak neighbor, a policy which the Indians fear would push the Burmese military even further into the arms of the Chinese. The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations is openly welcoming the election in what is arguably its least democratic member state. These countries’ policy makers all echo their Western counterparts in arguing that this election is better than nothing. Be patient, and things will change in due course. In the meantime, criticism of human-rights abuses in Burma should be toned down so as not to upset “the process.” But this thesis presupposes that a younger, more liberal generation of army officers, exists. The bitter reality is that it doesn’t. Lower and middle-ranking army officers remain immensely loyal to the leadership, knowing full well that they can only rise to prominent and privileged positions by showing that they are even more hardline than their superiors. The only alternative is to defect, and so far very few have chosen that option, which, anyway, doesn’t affect the political order in Burma. As for the MPs-to-be, constitutional safeguards are already in place to make sure they don’t cause any trouble after they are elected next month. Article 396 of the new constitution ensures that they can be dismissed for “misbehavior” by the Union Election Commission, which is indirectly controlled by the junta. And, if the “democratic” situation gets really out of hand, Article 413 gives the president the right to hand over executive as well as judicial powers to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. In other words, the military has already won the “election.” Rather than close their eyes to this reality, the best way forward for democratic nations would be to back a United Nations’ enquiry into the junta’s alleged crimes of humanity. That is the only way to force some of the younger military officers to think twice before blindly following their superiors. After all, the only hope for Burma’s future is that some officers, young or old, question their country’s path. Until that happens, nothing is likely to change. * Mr. Lintner is a Thailand-based correspondent for the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet and author of several books on Burma. No more charades – Jared Genser Los Angeles Times: Mon 25 Oct 2010 Myanmar will hold ‘elections’ on Nov. 7, but they will be neither free nor fair. The U.S. should denounce them and continue to press for real change.Sunday was an important anniversary for Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. But there were no celebrations. There was little to commemorate. Not her husband’s funeral, her children’s weddings or the birth of her grandchildren; she has missed all of these. As of Sunday, Suu Kyi has spent 15 of the last 21 years under house arrest. Burma’s military junta, which renamed the country Myanmar, has kept the Nobel Peace Prize laureate imprisoned and isolated in her decaying, whitewashed house for the last seven years, and eight sporadically before that. But even if Suu Kyi — the elected leader of the country since 1990 — were allowed outside her house, she would see that she is not the only one who has been isolated for much of the last two decades. The 50 million Burmese people in the crumbling country are also living in poverty, cut off from much of the world and under the thumb of the military dictatorship. The junta’s latest ploy to cement its power is the general “elections” scheduled for Nov. 7, the first since 1990, when Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy and its allies won more than 80% of the seats in parliament. The junta refused to ratify those results. There is no reason to believe the junta will be any more inclined to relinquish power next month than it was 20 years ago. The so-called elections will be neither free nor fair. These elections are based on a new constitution that provides the military, which is immune from prosecution, with the right to overturn any decision of the other branches of government. The leader of the military has the power to appoint one-quarter of both houses of parliament — all that is needed to veto any constitutional amendment. Perhaps most chilling is the constitution’s establishment of a National Defense and Security Council, a vague institution that appears to be merely a new moniker for the State Peace and Development Council, otherwise known as the Burmese junta. The elections themselves also will be deeply flawed. Suu Kyi and her more than 2,000 fellow political prisoners are prohibited from being candidates for office. And the cost to register as a candidate exceeds the country’s annual per capita GDP, and most attempting to register are turned down. The last time Burmese went to the polls, just days after the devastation of Cyclone Nargis in 2008 to vote on the constitution, military agents stood watch over ballot boxes — when they were not stuffing them — and threatened citizens with fines and prison sentences if they didn’t vote the way the regime demanded. As a kind of olive branch to the world, intended to quiet condemnation of the elections, the junta claims it will free Suu Kyi on Nov. 13, the date she should be released under her sentence. Ultimately, however, her release is a necessary but far from sufficient condition to achieve progress. Regardless of Suu Kyi’s release, the United States must not recognize these elections as anything but a charade. Anything less than a full-throated condemnation of the elections will buy the junta another reprieve from having the spotlight on its practices. President Obama must fully implement the sanctions adopted by Congress and investigate, expose and sanction the junta’s bankers in Singapore and Dubai for laundering the funds the regime has pillaged from its people. He must appoint a special coordinator on Burma policy, a position that has been empty since he took office. And U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice should take the lead in the United Nations in pressing for a commission of inquiry into the junta’s atrocities. At the same time, the United States should also press U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to restart direct talks with the regime. It is only through a facilitated process of tripartite dialogue among the junta, Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy and the country’s disparate ethnic groups that any real reconciliation and progress toward democracy will be made. All of these efforts must have specific benchmarks, time frames and consequences for a lack of progress. There is another imposing whitewashed building that sits just half a mile west of Suu Kyi’s home, on the very same street. Here too the Burmese junta keeps a close eye on who goes in and out. It is the U.S. Embassy. The United States is, all too literally, sitting on the sidelines. It is time to get in the game. * Jared Genser is president of Freedom Now and serves as international counsel to Aung San Suu Kyi. U.S. push for Burmese war crimes probe hits Chinese wall – Colum Lynch Foreign Policy: Mon 25 Oct 2010 Just days after the Obama administration decided in August to support the prosecution of Burma’s top military rulers for war crimes, China’s U.N. ambassador, Li Baodong, paid a confidential visit to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s chief of staff to make his opposition clear: The U.S. proposal, he said, was dangerous and counterproductive, and should not be allowed to proceed, three U.N.-based sources familiar with the exchange told Turtle Bay. Li’s meeting with Vijay Nambiar, who also serves as Ban’s Burma envoy, was the beginning of an all-out campaign by Beijing to thwart a key American initiative that was designed to raise the political costs for Burma’s military junta for failing to open its Nov. 7 election to the country’s political opposition. In recent months, China has mounted a high-octane, Western-style diplomatic effort, lobbying European and Asian countries to oppose the measure on the grounds that it could undermine the country’s fragile political transition, according to diplomats and human rights advocates. In contrast, the United States has pursued a more measured diplomatic strategy, sounding out top U.N. officials and potential allies about their willingness to support the prosecution of top Burmese officials, but not offering a clear plan on how to do it, these officials said. For the time being, China appears to have the upper hand, leaving the United States with little public support for the initiative from Asian and European governments, or the U.N. leadership. Even some U.S. officials are pessimistic about the prospects for establishing a commission of inquiry for the time being. “What we are seeing is the Chinese practicing American-style diplomacy and the Americans practicing Asian-style diplomacy,” Tom Malinowski, the Washington, D.C.-based director of advocacy for Human Rights Watch, told Turtle Bay. “The Chinese are making it clear what they want, and they are using all the leverage at their disposal to get what they want. And the Americans are operating in this hyper-consensual, subtle, indirect way that we associate with Chinese diplomacy.” Malinowski said the problem is less about Chinese or Russian opposition, which was to be expected, so much as a failure of U.S. leadership. “One should recognize why the Chinese are against this: They recognize it would be a consequential measure,” Malinowski said. “If you allow Chinese opposition to deter you then what you are saying is that you are only going to take steps on Burma that are inconsequential.” Burma, which is also known as Myanmar, has one of the most appalling human rights records in the world. The ruling junta has detained more than 2,100 political prisoners who endure torture, inadequate medical care, and frequently death. The Burmese military has also imposed abuses on ethnic minorities, including the forced relocation of villages, forced labor, and systematic human rights abuses, including rape. The country’s Rohingya Muslim community in northern Rakhine state are subject to severe bureaucratic restrictions that limit their ability to travel or marry, and which deny citizenship to Muslim children. “There is a pattern of gross and systematic violation of human rights which has been in place for many years and still continues,” the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in Burma, Tomás Ojea Quintana, wrote in a March report, saying such crimes may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity. “There is an indication that those human rights violations are the result of a state policy.” In August, the Obama administration separately briefed Turtle Bay and the Washington Post’s John Pomfret on its plan to support Quintana’s call for a commission of inquiry to investigate such abuses. Such commissions in other parts of the world, including Sudan and the Balkans, have led to war-crimes trials. The decision reflected frustration that U.S. officials’ effort to engage the regime had failed to produce democratic reforms or the release of political prisoners, including Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who serves under house detention. The most likely venues for pursuing the creation of a commission of inquiry is through the passage of resolutions at the U.N. General Assembly’s human rights committee, which is currently in session, or the U.N. Human Rights Council, which will convene early next year. Washington could also appeal to Secretary-General Ban to do it under his own authority — although Ban, who is seeking reelection, needs China’s support for a second term. At the time, a senior U.S. official told Turtle Bay the United States anticipated the effort could take years, comparing it to the decades-long struggle to hold Khmer Rouge leaders accountable for mass killing in Cambodia in the 1970s. The official said the U.S. supports an investigation in actions perpetrated against ethnic groups and dissident organizations by Burma’s senior leadership, including Burma’s top military ruler Than Shwe. “Responsibility lies clearly at his doorstep,” the official said. In the first major test of the strategy, the annual debate on human rights at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama administration was the only country that explicitly called for consideration of a commission of inquiry — though Britain, the Czech Republic and Slovakia signaled support for holding human rights violators accountable for crimes. In contrast, China, Russia, Singapore and other members of the ASEAN nations voiced firm opposition to the proposal. Ban’s report to the General Assembly on Burma’s human rights record made no reference to the controversial proposal. Rick Barton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Economic and Social Council, told the General Assembly’s 3rd committee, which deals with human rights, that the U.N. consideration of a commission of inquiry was “significant.” “After carefully considering the issues, the U.S. believes that a properly structured international commission of inquiry that would examine allegations of serious violations of international law could provide an opportunity for achieving our shared objectives of advancing human rights there,” he said. But another top U.S. official interviewed by Turtle Bay last week appeared more tentative about the prospects for success. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, characterized the U.S. diplomatic effort as “exploratory.” “We have been and continue to consult with others,” the official said. “It’s on the list of things that are good ideas that we want to discuss and explore, but we don’t run the resolution in the General Assembly. So that’s not our call. My sense is there is not much momentum right now in the General Assembly to add this new element to the resolution. But the dynamics could change over time.” Cries of foul play as ‘new Burma’ is hoisted – Min Lwin Democratic Voice of Burma: Fri 22 Oct 2010 As the rooftop landscape of Burma changed yesterday with the hoisting of a new flag, critics of the junta have said that the country’s identity change came too early.According to opposition politicians, Burmese law states that the 2008 constitution must come into force before any new flag is raised. This shouldn’t happen until after the controversial 7 November elections. Nay Myo Wei, general secretary of the Diversity and Peace Party (DPP), which is running in the polls, said that the junta had exploited a legal loophole to make it appear as if it had complied with the law. “This is very controversial so it shouldn’t be carried out by either the government leaders nor the political leaders [competing in the elections],” he said. The criticism was echoed by Thein Oo, chairman of the exiled Burma Lawyers’ Council (BLC), who claimed that the junta was “already abusing and violating the constitution even before it has started, and this is definitely not a good sign for Burma in the future”. A government announcement yesterday said however that it was part of “preparatory work to bring the Constitution into operation”. One civil servant who attended the ceremony in the capital, Naypyidaw, said that every government ministry was ordered to hold the flag-changing ceremony at 3pm concurrently. While the star on the new flag is meant to signify ”the perpetual existence of the consolidated Union’, observers claim it is the stamp of the army. The green officially represents peace, yellow solidarity, and red valour. A name change was also implemented as flags were raised across the country. It is now officially known as the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, where previously it was just the Union of Myanmar. The country’s pro-democracy movement, as well as a number of Western governments, continue however to call it Burma – the name given to the country by the British. Prior to the start of colonial rule, it was variously called Birmah, Bermah and Brama. The generals have promised a transition to civilian governance following the elections, but critics say the polls are merely a cosmetic lift, with military rule set to continue. |
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
