Burma Update
News and updates on Burma15 February 2011
News on Burma - 15/2/11
Burma Appears to Tighten Grip on Media – Ron Corben Voice of America: Mon 14 Feb 2011 Bangkok – The arrest in Burma of Ross Dunkley, the Australian publisher of the Myanmar Times, has raised fears of even tighter control over Burma’s media by the military. Dunkly was was arrested in Rangoon shortly after returning from overseas last week. A pioneer in Southeast Asia news media, he founded the Times in 2000. But there have been reports of a conflict over control of the paper. Dunkley currently holds 49 percent of Myanmar Consolidated Media, which oversees the paper. The remaining shares are held by Tin Htun Oo. A statement Monday from the Thailand-based Post Media, a sister company of Myanmar Consolidated, called for Dunkley’s immediate release after authorities failed to press charges. He reportedly was arrested for visa violations and drug possession. His arrest may have more to do with control over the paper than crime, says Aung Zaw, the editor of The Irrawaddy, a magazine about Burma published in Thailand. “What is clear is that there was conflict between Dr. Tin Htun Oo and Ross Dunkley; and now it is apparent they want to take over the whole Myanmar Times,” he says. “That’s why I think probably they will frame up the charges against him, which doesn’t surprise anyone.” Dunkley’s initial partner in the pro-military paper was Sonny Swe, the son of former Brigadier General Thein Swe. But Thein Swe fell from favor with the top leadership. Sonny Swe was found guilty of corruption and sentenced to prison in 2005. His shares were passed to Tin Htun Oo. Burma, also known as Myanmar, has long been ruled by the military, which keeps tight control on the media and most aspects of the economy and public life. The country’s first parliament in 22 years was elected in November, but more than 80 percent of its members are either in the military or linked to it. And the parliament selected former Prime Minister Thein Sein to be the new president. Aung Zaw says Dunkley had initially been hopeful that Burma’s tight media controls would ease. But he says those controls and the country’s politics meant the paper was always a risky investment. “Ross … should realize Burma is a political graveyard for everyone,” he said. “Even he should realize how many journalists and reporters are being apprehended and spending time … in prison.” The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners Burma says around 30 journalists and media activists are among Burma’s more than 2,000 political prisoners. Dunkley also publishes the Phnom Penh Post in Cambodia. Some journalists familiar with the operation say there are fears that the loss of the Burma paper could hurt finances at the Post. But the Post on Monday said that although its management is concerned for Dunkley’s well-being, the paper is running as normal. Dunkley has been viewed as a media maverick and risk taker, after investing in Vietnam’s fledgling news industry in the early 1990s. Reporters Without Borders in 2010 ranked Burma as 174th out of 178 countries in its annual press freedom index. Several media analysts in Southeast Asia say with Dunkley’s arrest points to tighter control over the media by the military. Suu Kyi warned over sanctions support – Tim Johnston Financial Times: Mon 14 Feb 2011 The Burmese junta has warned Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader, that she and her party “will meet their tragic ends” unless they change their stance on the lifting of western sanctions.Ms Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy have called for European Union and US sanctions to remain in place, enraging the ruling generals, who appear to have hoped that last year’s elections would open a new era in international engagement in spite of allegations of wholesale ballot rigging. “If Suu Kyi and the NLD keep going to the wrong way, ignoring the fact that today’s Myanmar [Burma] is marching to a new era, new system and new political platforms paving the way for democracy, they will meet their tragic ends,” said an editorial in the state-run newspaper New Light of Myanmar. Ms Suu Kyi has spent 15 of the past 20 years under house arrest and was only released last November, after the elections. There have been a number of crackdowns on her party since they won a resounding victory in the annulled 1990 polls. Since her release, Ms Suu Kyi has given mixed signals on sanctions. Speaking to the Financial Times last month, she said they should remain, but in a speech to the recent World Economic Forum meeting in Davos she called for increased investment. “We need investments in technology and infrastructure. We need to counter, and eventually eradicate, widespread poverty by offering opportunities that will allow the entrepreneurial spirit of our people to be again fully harnessed through microlending projects,” she said in a recorded speech that made no mention of sanctions. There is no sign that the sanctions, which include a ban on arms exports to Burma and also cover imports of gems, timber and metals from the country, plus visa restrictions on senior regime figures, are likely to be lifted soon. The powerful Burma lobby in Europe remains implacably opposed to any such move, arguing that the only reason sanctions have not been effective is because they have never been implemented forcefully enough. But western powers have made it clear that they would reconsider their position should Ms Suu Kyi call for the restrictions to be lifted, in effect giving her a veto over the process. “Sanctions are the only card that Aung San Suu Kyi can play in her negotiations with the generals: she can’t throw it away lightly,” said one Bangkok-based diplomat. A recent NLD study concluded that sanctions were having relatively little detrimental effect on ordinary Burmese, removing any moral imperative to remove the measures. In spite of the restrictions, there has been a flood of investment into Burma in the past 12 months. Although there is little reliable data, the Burmese embassy in Bangkok says there has been a marked increase in requests for business visas. Much of the money is coming from China and Thailand. China is building a $9bn hydroelectric power plant and an oil pipeline that will eventually run from the Andaman Sea to Kunming in southern China. And Italthai, the Thai construction company, signed a $13.5bn deal to develop a port and industrial zone in the Burmese city of Tavoy with a rail link back to Thailand. Sinopec JV finds large gas deposits in Myanmar – state media Reuters: Mon 14 Feb 2011 Yangon – A Sinopec International Petroleum (SIPC) joint venture has discovered gas deposits in northwest Myanmar with a capacity of 2.1 million cubic feet per day, official Myanmar media reported on Monday.The international trading arm of China Petroleum & Chemical Corp (Sinopec), made the find in the country’s Mahutaung Region about 520 miles northwest of the country’s biggest city, Yangon. A total of six test wells were drilled in inland Block D by the joint venture between Sinopec and the state-controlled Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise, an official was quoted as saying in the Kyemon Daily, adding that tests on three more wells would be conducted. (Reporting by Aung Hla Tun; Writing by Martin Petty; Editing by Dhara Ranasinghe) Myanmar expected to cancel profit tax in April Xinhua: Mon 14 Feb 2011 Myanmar is expected to cancel profit tax and levy only income tax and commercial tax in the next fiscal year 2011-12 starting on April 1, the local weekly Messenger News reported Sunday.The change will be effective from the date in line with the emergence of the new parliament which is being set up after the Nov. 7, 2010 general election, the report said. Currently, income tax applies to state-owned enterprises, cooperative enterprises and public-invested enterprises, while profit tax applies to individual private businessmen. Profit tax has been levied on individual businessmen since it was introduced in 1976, troubling the businessmen as 50 percent were taxed on a profit of just over 300,000 Kyats (about 352 U.S. dollars), the report said. The taxation is to be changed in the interest of businessmen. Instead, income tax will be applied, which levies 40 percent on an income of 2 million Kyats (2,352 U.S. dollars) and a minimum of 5 percent and a maximum of 200 percent with the commercial tax. Myanmar has five categories of tax — commercial tax, stale lottery tax, stamp duties, income tax and profit tax. Burma benefits as UK targets aid money on fight for democracy – Andrew Buncombe Independent (UK): Mon 14 Feb 2011 British aid to Burma – the poorest country in South-east Asia – is to be sharply increased in an effort to help the country’s most beleaguered and to support the struggle for democracy.A review carried out at the behest of Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, has concluded the £32m currently spent in Burma should increase to a total of £185m over the next four years. Officials say the money will target grass roots organisations and other partners working there and not to the military junta. “Britain has not forgotten the people of Burma, who have been silenced for too long. They have suffered under decades of dreadful economic mismanagement and human rights abuses as well as the ongoing threat of civil war and famine,” Mr Mitchell said in a statement. “The poorest in Burma must have a voice. We will build up civil society, local charities, village groups and their representatives to push for change.” While the Coalition says the total budget for international aid budget is to be increased by 37 per cent in real terms, Mr Mitchell said last summer that he believed the money needed to be targeted more effectively. It is expected that the aid budgets to many countries will be sharply reduced or scrapped. India, a country where the economy is growing by more than 8 per cent and where Britain currently annually spends £280m, is one of those places where some believe aid should be halted. In contrast, the minister announced earlier this month that aid to Somalia is to be tripled, from £26m in 2010-11 to £80m in 2013-14. The review, the full results of which are expected to be announced later this month or in early March, found that in Burma at least 16 million people live in desperate hardship. The junta, which recently oversaw controversial elections for a largely toothless parliament, spends just a tiny amount on services healthcare and education. Officials said DFID will work with a growing number of community groups and aid organisations working “to promote a peaceful and democratic future for Burma from the bottom up” to try to address some of this shortfall. In particular, money will be targeted towards improving maternal health and reducing the threat of malaria, estimated to affect more than 8 million Burmese. In addition, they believe the money will support 225,000 children through primary school, help increase food production for 200,000 people and provide micro-finance to another 100,000. Money lenders in the country currently charge interest rates of up to 200 per cent. The increased funding has been welcomed by campaign groups, which had been urging the department not to cut back on spending. They said, however, Britain could do more. “We would also like to see them be more creative in ensuring aid reaches the most needy, and not just channel large grants through UN agencies which face restrictions on their operations, especially in ethnic [minority] areas,” said Mark Farmaner of Burma Campaign UK. “DFID should significantly expand democracy promotion work via groups in exile which manage underground networks, as well as civil society in country, as there are strict limitations on what can be done in country.” * The Australian publisher of an English-language newspaper in Burma has been arrested in what an associate suggested was a business dispute. The Myanmar Times editor-in-chief, Ross Dunkley, was in Rangoon’s Insein jail on charges of violating a section of the immigration law on overstaying a visa. The associate said his arrest coincided with “tense negotiations” with his Burmese business partners. British aid in numbers £32m Current British bilateral aid to Burma £185m Intended aid to Burma over next four years £8.7bn Total UK overseas aid budget this year, set to rise to £12.6bn by 2014 42% Share of aid sent to Burma spent on healthcare $5 The total international aid spend on Burma per capita $37m US government’s intended spend this year ‘You’re now on the dead list’ – Phil Thorton Bangkok Post: Mon 14 Feb 2011 Reports of atrocities committed by Burmese soldiers against ‘convict porters’ destroy any slim hopes that the shift to a ‘civilian political system’ will somehow dilute the military’s absolute power.Aung is a small man, barely out of his teens. He shifts his bruised body, unable to sit or to find comfort or peace of mind. He’s full of half-spoken questions. Aung’s scared he might be sent back to Burma, where he was forced to work for the army after being jailed. “I got 12 months, but it’s a death sentence,” said Aung. He hurts from a soldier’s bullet that smashed his arm and dropped him into a coma. He’s worried the testimony of the pains the Burmese army inflicted on his body will harm the family he has not seen for more than a year. Most of all, Aung’s haunted by the memory of the battlefield sounds of torn bodies and the terrifying treks he made carrying mortar shells up mountains and through minefields for 15 days. Aung’s journey to the front line started on Dec 31, of last year, when the Burmese army came to the jail where he was serving a 12-month sentence for fighting with his neighbour over a fallen tree they both wanted to use to make charcoal. “We exchanged punches. I hit him with a rock. The police came, he paid a bribe, I couldn’t. I went to jail, he went free.” Aung drops his head and mutters that not being able to be with his wife when she gave birth to their son had added misery to his sentence. “She was eight months pregnant when I was put in jail. Every day I thought about them. I miss them so much, I’ve never seen or held my baby son.” Aung had a month of his sentence to finish when soldiers took him and some other prisoners. “No one volunteered. The guards told us we were going to the front to serve as porters for the army. Our names were on a list, we had no choice.” Aung was transported in a convoy of army trucks that wound its way from upper Burma to the jungles and mountains of Karen State in the east. Their confused journey lasted five days. By the time the convicts got to the battlefield, their estimates of their numbers varied from between 800 to 2,000. “The truck was crowded and there were many trucks. Our legs were shackled, we had to squat on our haunches with our heads bowed. We couldn’t see out or talk to each other. At Pa-an we were given blue uniforms.” HUMAN MINESWEEPERS In Karen State, there are few all-weather roads capable of carrying heavy army trucks, weapons, munitions, rice and other food supplies to the ever-shifting front line. International and regional humanitarian groups have compiled numerous reports on how the Burmese army creates its own operational support mechanisms to deal with this lack of infrastructure _ forcing civilian or convict porters to act as a human supply chain to the front lines. In October 2007, the New York-based Human Rights Watch released a report that cited a “rare public statement” from the International Committee of the Red Cross, “condemning widespread violations of international humanitarian law”. Human Rights Watch said at the time that the Red Cross was concerned about the use of convict labour to support military operations. The report noted that ”thousands of prisoners have been forced to carry army supplies, undertake construction labour, and, in a practice called ‘atrocity demining’, forced to walk ahead of Burmese army soldiers to trigger potential landmines.” Aung says his life was in constant danger from landmines and crossfire as he carried heavy panniers weighing as much as 60kg up the steep mountain paths. ”I was a porter for 15 days. I was scared. We carried [panniers of] rice, large shells. If we were slow, they hit us with their guns or kicked us.” Aung explains he was put in the firing line, used as a human minesweeper and as a pack animal to carry munitions, artillery and food supplies to the soldiers. ”Porters were ordered to walk in front of the soldiers. We were never told we were going to the front line. I was scared. I was ordered to carry 81mm mortar shells, 15 to a basket, up a steep mountain to the artillery positions.” Aung says he was also ordered to stretcher injured soldiers from the front to a monastery at Palu. ”When a mine exploded, I saw the body blown skywards, there was noise, screams and lots of blood. We were told to keep walking, but everyone dropped their packs and fell to the ground. They threatened to beat us for stopping, but we didn’t care, we just fell.” For years the Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG) has been reporting, documenting and conducting in-depth interviews with escaped convict porters that show the practice is systematic, widespread and in common use. The KHRG reports say prisoners’ testimonies tell of ‘’serious incidents of human rights abuses occurring as standard practice, including use of porters used to sweep for landmines, deprivation of adequate food and medical assistance to porters and the systematic extortion of civilians at every level of Burma’s police, judicial and prison infrastructure.” Aung says he saw both porters and soldiers killed and wounded. ”We used hammocks to carry three wounded soldiers. I saw a porter blown up by a landmine. We never knew if he lived or died. The soldiers told us nothing, but each day we had to walk past the blood.” Aung says after 15 days he had had enough of being a front-line porter. ”I thought I would die if I stayed, either the soldiers would kill me or I would be blown up by a mine. A sergeant thrashed me because another porter escaped. I was beaten for not telling the soldiers. I knew I had to escape.” Aung said he saw other prisoners beaten and tortured by the soldiers. On Jan 15, Aung was told he would be carrying mortar shells to the front line the next day. ”I knew there would be many mines and lots of fighting, I didn’t want to die. I was desperate. We made a plan to escape into the jungle and get across the river to safety in Thailand.” Aung said their escape plan relied on the soldiers getting drunk. ”Most of the time the soldiers were drunk and that night they had a party to celebrate taking a Karen position. At about 11pm, about 13 of us ran away. I was with my friend and we crashed through the trees and bamboo. I soon lost contact with the others.” By the time Aung had reached the Moei River, which separates Thailand from Burma, the soldiers had almost caught up with him. ”We were splashing across the river, hoping to get to the safety of the cornfields on the Thai side. We were told if we got to Thailand, we would be safe. The soldiers kept shooting at us even though we were on the Thai side. I was hit and knocked off my feet. My friend helped me to the cover of the cornfield. I bled all through the night. Next day I could not stand and I had a fever.” Early the next morning Aung’s friend made contact with a Karen farmer who told a Thai soldier of the escaped convict porters. ”The Thai soldier helped me and took me to a hospital. He reassured me that the Burmese army could not hurt me any more. I was shot, but I was lucky I got away. If I stayed, I knew I would die for sure.” Interviews with five more prison porters and two Burmese army deserters for this article add weight to Aung’s testimony that the porters were beaten by soldiers, fed poorly, tortured and forced to sweep for land mines. 109 LABOUR CAMPS Restaurant owner Win claims he was jailed on trumped-up charges of heroin trafficking and sentenced to 10 years. He spent two years in one of Burma’s notorious labour camps. ”We were chained at the ankles while we broke rocks for roads. We worked six days a week, even when we were sick. I saw prisoners badly injured, some with broken legs and still not getting treatment. The food was little, rice and some swamp vegetable. If I didn’t work hard enough, the guards beat me. It was vicious. While I was there, three prisoners died, two under rock falls and one by sickness.” One Burmese man, Bo Kyi, has made it his life’s work to make sure political prisoners are not forgotten. He is concerned about the abuse of convict porters. A founding member and now secretary of the Association Assisting Political Prisoners, Bo Kyi was jailed three times for a total of seven years and three months. ”In Burma there are 109 labour camps and 42 jails with more than 400,000 prisoners, and only 33 doctors and about 60 medics to treat them when they get sick. All prisoners, irrespective of their crimes, should be treated as humans _ animals are treated better than prisoners in Burma,” said Bo Kyi. His main focus is political prisoners, but he also lashes out against the abuse of convict porters. ”I accuse this regime of crimes against humanity. There’s enough solid documented evidence on current political prisoners, past political prisoners and the abuse of convict porters. Prisoners who escape are often beaten to death as a lesson to other prisoners. They do not get proper funeral rites and are often buried with their chains on.” Outside the small bare room in a safe house on the Thai-Burmese border that Win now calls home, children kick a football against a wall and play at war with plastic guns. Motorbikes roar pass and dogs bark after them _ normal weekend sounds. Win studies his broken fingernails, calloused hands and scars before explaining how he was taken to the frontline. ”The army came for me at 4am on Jan 1 _ 75 of us were taken from our cells and put in two army trucks. We were told nothing but guessed we were going to the front line. I planned to escape.” Win says that when they arrived at the front line it was chaos. ”There were about 400 prisoners going up and down the mountain in a continuous procession. The mortars were firing all the time. I was scared of the soldiers. They told us not to leave the paths and if we did get blown up by a mine, they would shoot us.” Win says the soldiers kept the convicts under guard in Palu monastery for three nights. ”I helped carry their injured soldiers there. The monks had left. I ran away but they caught me after a couple of hours. I was beaten and my hands were tied behind my back. They rolled a thick bamboo pole up and down my shins, and told me if I ran away again, I would be killed.” Win lifts his trouser leg to show white scars, painful reminders of the beating he took from the soldiers. ”I was sent back to the front. We had to carry a 120mm mortar up to the top of the mountain. It took three porters to carry the barrel, two porters to carry the metal plate and two more for the legs.” Win points to a plastic electric tea urn and says the mortar shells were about the same size. ”I could only manage to carry two at a time.” Now 45, Win says he was not nearly the oldest convict porter. ”I saw some as old as 55 and others as young as 15.” ‘I THOUGHT I WOULD DIE’ Soe was given a 20-year jail sentence for murder. ”I was drunk and fighting. I knifed a man. I escaped but the police arrested my brother and said he would be charged instead. I turned myself in. I was sent to hard labour, breaking rocks.” Soe, 28, worked at the quarry for five years before he was told he now belonged to the army. ”They said we were no longer convicts, but were now on ‘the dead list’ _ we no longer existed. I felt sad. I was owed 71,000 kyat [about 2,100 baht] for my five years working in the quarry, but our pay was taken by the soldiers.” Soe says he was also forced to carry 120mm mortars and their shells up the mountain to an artillery battalion. ”Porters died, others lost legs. We carried them down the mountain. We buried the dead porters in 18-inch trenches, but you still see their faces. Dead soldiers were taken by truck to Pa-an. I heard that out of 800 porters, only 40 of us survived.” The humanitarian organisation Free Burma Rangers (FBR) has 53 teams delivering emergency medical assistance to displaced communities in eastern Burma. In a report released in 2008, FBR documented a Burmese army operation in northern Karen State in which 2,200 convict porters were used. FBR document that ”the Burma army used over 2,200 porters in this offensive and over 265 have been reported dead, many of whom were executed.” FBR’s information was collected from, ”escaped porters, Burmese army deserters and villagers who have seen the bodies of dead porters”. Win says the food was rotten and there were times the convict porters were not fed for two days. ”I had enough. I decided to escape. Two of us were sent unguarded to fix a generator. We ran and hid in the jungle until it was dark and then crossed the river. A monk told us the way. Once we got to Thailand, we hid in a cornfield for three days.” Convicts interviewed for this story say they do not expect their plight is worthy of investigation. Most feel it is enough that they have escaped. But abuses by the Burmese army have not gone unnoticed. Groups such as KHRG, FBR and HRW have built up an impressive amount of documentation _ eyewitness accounts, army orders and photographic evidence to support calls for a commission of inquiry into Burma’s human rights abuses. WHAT CRIMES? In March of last year in his report to the UN Human Rights Council, Tomas Ojea Quintana, the UN special rapporteur for Burma, outlined a ”pattern of gross and systematic violation of human rights which has been in place for many years”. Mr Quintana concluded that the ”UN institutions may consider the possibility to establish a commission of inquiry with a specific fact finding mandate to address the question of international crimes.” The Human Rights Watch World Report for 2011 details the denials from Burmese ambassador U Wunna Maung Lwin to calls for an inquiry. U Wunna Maung said there were ”no crimes against humanity in Myanmar with regard to the issue of impunity, any member of the military who breached national law was subject to legal punishments there was no need to conduct investigations in Myanmar since there were no human rights violations there.” In January this year, the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva examined Burma’s human rights record as part of its first Universal Periodic Review. Burma’s delegation, led by deputy attorney-general Tun Shin, categorically denied state-orchestrated widespread, systematic and persistent human rights violations against the people of Burma. During the three-hour review, many concerns, including the issue of political prisoners, treatment of ethnic and religious minorities, and impunity for perpetrators of gross human rights violations that may amount to crimes against humanity, were raised. The Burmese delegation’s response was to claim, ”The armed forces have a zero tolerance policy towards serious human rights violations, including sexual violence,” and that ”There is no widespread occurrence of human rights violations with impunity.” Myanmar’s parliament unanimously approves all 30 Cabinet nominees from president Associated Press: Fri 11 Feb 2011 NAYPYITAW, Myanmar — Myanmar’s new military-dominated parliament on Friday unanimously approved all of the president-elect’s 30 Cabinet nominees. Upper house lawmaker Phone Myint Aung said all of the names submitted by President-elect Thein Sein were approved, although the list did not indicate which position each would take in the Cabinet. Thein Sein, who was elected president by parliament last week, was prime minister and a top member of the military junta that is handing over power to the new government. It is not clear when he and his Cabinet will be sworn in. Most of the Cabinet appointees are former military officers who retired in order to run in last November’s elections — the country’s first in 20 years — and about a dozen were ministers in the junta’s Cabinet. Only four of the appointees are strictly civilian. Critics say last year’s elections were orchestrated by the junta to perpetuate military rule. With one quarter of the seats in parliament filled by military appointees, and a large majority of the remaining seats won by a military-backed party, the army retains power. The army has held power in Myanmar since 1962. Senior Gen. Than Shwe, the junta chief, is widely believed to remain in charge despite the change of government. The party of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, which won the last elections in 1990 but was blocked from taking power by the military, boycotted November’s vote, calling it unfair. Much of the international community also dismissed the elections as rigged in favour of the junta. Thein Sein, 65, now heads the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party, which won most of the seats in the elections. He has an image as a “clean” soldier who is not engaged in corruption. Germany wants to end EU Burma sanctions, activists say – Thomas Maung Shwe Mizzima News: Fri 11 Feb 2011 Germany with the assistance of Italy will push to have Burma sanction significantly weakened when the European Union’s Burma sanctions policy comes up for yearly review in April, according to the London-based advocacy organization Burma Campaign UK.Burma Campaign UK executive director Mark Farmaner told Mizzima, ‘Germany’s approach to Burma is shameful and unprincipled. They are solely interested in commercial opportunities in Burma and only pay lip-service to human rights issues’. German President Angela Merkel. Activists say that the German government wants to alter the EU sanctions on Burma. German President Angela Merkel. Activists say that the German government wants to alter the EU sanctions on Burma. Farmaner and his fellow Burma activists across Europe aren’t alone in their assessment that Germany wants to lift sanctions against Burma. A leaked US diplomatic cable disclosed by the Wikileaks website this month reveals that in December 2009 officials from the US state department were informed by their counterpart from the UK that three EU nations, in particular Italy, Spain and Germany were advocating that the EU begin ‘re-engagement’ with the Burmese military regime. In the cable, Nigel Boud from the UK foreign office’s Asia section informed the Americans that while the UK supported sanctions, Germany and some other EU member states had ‘heard what they wanted to hear’ about the situation in Burma and therefore ‘have subsequently started discussions within the EU about relaxing the current measures’, made in reference to the EU’s targeted financial sanctions and EU-wide travel ban for the senior members of the military regime, their family members and their cronies. Germany’s apparent renewed push to weaken the EU’s targeted sanctions against Burma comes in spite of explosive allegations made by a military defector last year that the Burmese regime used sophisticated equipment imported from Germany to advance both a top-secret rocket development program and an equally clandestine nuclear programme. In a Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) documentary on Burma’s weapons programme that aired last year on Al Jazeera, Major Sai Thein Win, a former senior scientist in the Burmese military, detailed how the firm Deckel Maho Gildemeister (DMG) sent engineers to assist with the installation of specialized imported machinery in Burmese military-owned factories. Sai Thein Win said DMG machinery was designed to make precision metal parts in the manufacturing of rocket and missile parts. In addition to DMG, the Burmese military had also bought equipment from the German firm Trumpf, including a specialized laser cutting machine designed to cut sheet metal quickly. The military engineer-turned-whistleblower escaped Burma with pages of documents and photographs of German engineers installing the equipment. Diplomats from the German embassy in Rangoon visited two of the factories where the machinery was being used in 2007, 2008 and again in 2009, according to the DVD report. Although Sai Thein Win’s testimony and evidence that the equipment was being used for non-civilian purposes was independently verified by former IAEA inspector Bob Kelley, it’s unclear if the German government has done anything to restrict the sale of similar weapon-related technology in thefuture. A US diplomatic cable from 2009 marked ‘confidential’ but disclosed by Wikileaks and the Guardian newspaper in Decembers suggested that US authorities were concerned enough about the German exports to Burma that the issue was a topic of discussion between the state department and the German government in July 2009. The cable revealed that during her time as Berlin Ambassador Susan Burk, America’s special representative for nuclear non-proliferation, spoke with German officials regarding ‘concerns about Myanmar’s nuclear intentions’. The cable which also summarizes her discussions with officials in Paris and London revealed that Berlin was the only place during her European tour where she specifically spoke about the Burmese nuclear issue. The EU-wide sanctions, while barring European business dealings with some of the junta’s blacklisted cronies and their black listed banks, have not prevented many European firms from conducting business in Burma. Burma’s lucrative natural resource industry, in which France’s Total has a major stake in the offshore gas sector, is largely exempted from the sanctions. Loopholes in the sanctions have left space for several German firms also to participate in Burma’s extractives sector including FOSCE-Lorentzenstr, an engineering firm that participated in dam construction along the Upper Paunglaung river. Another German firm, Hannover Re, self-described as ‘one of the leading reinsurance groups in the world’ which deals with marine, aviation and other reinsurance programs designed for businesses, has a subsidiary that operates in Burma. Despite the existence of EU sanctions, Germany is still a sizable trading partner with Burma. In December 2009, Myint Soe, the joint secretary of the Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, told The Myanmar Times, ‘Among the European nations, Germany is one of our larger trading partners, even considering the sanctions.’ Last December the state-backed 7 Day News reported that Germany was Burma’s biggest trading partner in Europe during the period April-December 2010. Enforcement of the EU sanctions that do exist is largely left up to member nations who may or not be interested in pursuing the matter. After the DVB allegations that German equipment was being used for military use first appeared, the German foreign ministry has repeatedly refused media requests. Germany’s stance towards Burma is in sharp contrast with its statementw about Iran, the subject of numerous press releases issued by Germany’s ministry of Foreign Affairs over the past two years. The present German foreign minister and his predecessor frequently spoke out againt Iran’s alleged nuclear program and the government has supported continued sanctions against Tehran. It remains to be seen whether Germany will have its way and the EU Burma sanctions are weakened or ended completely. Mark Farmaner of the UK Campaign claims the government of Angela Merkel in Berlin is not concerned with the plight of the Burmese people. According to Farmaner, “If they really cared about ordinary people, they would increase their aid to humanitarian projects in Burma, which is tiny. Germany sets the bar for progress in Burma so low you have to dig down to find it.” Despite repeated requests, the German Foreign Office did not provide comment for this story. Burmese junta looks foolish – Bruce Loudon The Australian: Fri 11 Feb 2011 NO one will be surprised to learn that Burma’s media have studiously avoided mention of the historic tumult sweeping the Middle East, with popular uprisings challenging the region’s longstanding and corrupt dictatorships. Burma’s brutal military rulers, despite last November’s election that was supposed to usher in a transition to “disciplined flourishing democracy”, are once more confounding the hopes of those who naively believed the men in uniform were serious when they said things would change. In itself, the ban in the government-controlled media on mentioning the clamour for freedom in Cairo, Tunis and elsewhere speaks volumes about the Burmese junta’s intentions. Incredibly, the generals seem to believe that by keeping any mention out of the official media, the Burmese people will be kept in the dark about what’s happening and will not be inspired to reignite the mass popular uprisings seen in Rangoon and other cities in 1988 and the Saffron Revolution in 2007, which were ruthlessly put down by the military. The ban is, of course, farcical. There may not be an internet cafe on every street corner, but the Burmese are savvy people. They know from the internet and radio what’s happening. They’re plugged into the social media. The result is that the junta, in its efforts to keep the shutters down on information, looks plain silly. The generals, however, remain unabashed. They’re determined, after five decades in power shamelessly feathering their own nests, to do things their way rather than give in to any pressure at home or abroad for genuine democracy and real reform. Thus, at last week’s first sitting of the new two-chamber national parliament — 80 per cent occupied by the junta’s proxy, the Union Solidarity and Development Party, after a sham national election — the man elected to be Burma’s new president turned out unsurprisingly to be a general, albeit one who has doffed his uniform and now wears civvies. Thein Sein’s main qualification is that he is a longtime adjutant to and gofer for the all-powerful commander in chief and head of the junta, Senior General Than Shwe, who is 78 and has been in control since 1992. Thein Sein is slavish in his loyalty to Than Shwe. He is a career military officer who became a member of the junta in 1997 and prime minister in 2007, and he is believed to have no political agenda of his own. But he’s not the only general to emerge in a key role in the curious new world of the “disciplined flourishing democracy” from the election. Four of the top five figures appointed under the new system, it has now emerged, are generals. Each of the two houses of the national parliament will be presided over by senior members of the junta. Of the two vice-presidents, one will be another member of the junta who is a general, while one will be a doctor from the Shan ethnic minority. All will be subservient to Than Shwe, with some analysts suggesting the junta chief will assume a role similar to that of Deng Xiaoping during China’s transition and remaining the real power in the land, pulling all the strings. So where does all this leave hopes for real change and genuine democracy? One sceptic this week summed up the first meeting of parliament in 20 years and the election of Thein Sein as being “the beginning of absolutely nothing new”. It’s hard to argue with that conclusion. The generals have, of course, finally bowed to international pressure and freed the widely esteemed Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, a welcome development in an otherwise bleak scenario. She’s even been permitted an internet connection. But her freedom came only after the election and after her party, the National League for Democracy, boycotted the poll — and has now been banned for having done so, while she, despite huge public support, has been out-manoeuvred by the regime. The junta is unapologetic about any of this. With a new civilian president elected by a new parliament, it reckons it has done more than enough to be accepted as a genuine democracy, and that the West should now agree with the ASEAN nations and lift sanctions. Even within Suu Kyi’s NLD, there is fresh debate on this issue, with the party calling for discussions with the US, the European Union and other nations “with a view to reaching agreement on when, how and under what circumstances sanctions might be modified in the interests of democracy, human rights and a healthy economic environment”. Progress on human rights, the NLD says, is the key. Estimates are that the regime is holding 2189 political prisoners, including 254 monks and 397 members of Suu Kyi’s party. Lifting sanctions, or not lifting sanctions, is clearly now going to become an issue for Australia as much as other countries. Not that the generals seem bothered, since the Western policy of isolating the country has been largely ignored by China, which is now the paramount influence in highly strategic Burma, and by India, which gladhands the generals as it tries to reassert influence in an area it maintains is part of New Delhi’s area of hegemony. Will lifting sanctions help or hinder the cause of democracy and freedom? Will the long-suffering Burmese people be better off with or without sanctions? It’s not an easy call. But just as the generals did little to help their cause by holding a highly dubious election, so have they done little to instil confidence since the poll by so shamelessly rigging things in a way that the same old generals, after doffing their uniforms, have now been given most of the top jobs in the new “democracy”. Than Shwe to head extra-constitutional ‘State Supreme Council’ Irrawaddy: Thu 10 Feb 2011 Rangoon—Although the Burmese military regime said that it will hand over state power to president-elect Thein Sein and the new government on March 15, junta chief Snr-Gen Than Shwe has now revealed that he will personally lead a newly created council called the “State Supreme Council,” which as its name implies will be the most powerful body in the country, according to sources in Naypyidaw. Two bodies have now emerged in the new government’s administrative structure that observers say will have powers that reach—either directly or indirectly—above and beyond the powers of the new civilian executive and legislative branches. The first is the eight-member State Supreme Council, which is nowhere mentioned in the 2008 Constitution and will be led by Than Shwe. The second is the eleven-member National Defense and Security Council (NDSC), which is called for in the 2008 Constitution and will be led by Thein Sein. “The State Supreme Council will become the highest body of the state. While it will assume an advisory role to guide the future governments, the body will be very influential,” said a source close to the military. The members of the State Supreme Council will be: Snr-Gen Than Shwe, Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye, Pyithu Hluttaw [Lower House] Speaker Thura Shwe Mann, President-elect Thein Sein, Vice President-elect Thiha Thura Tin Aung Myint Oo, former Lt. Gen Tin Aye and other two senior military generals. As required by the 2008 Constitution, the NDSC will be comprised of the president, two vice presidents, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, vice commander-in-chief, and the ministers of defense, home, foreign affairs and border affairs. Meanwhile, according to sources in Naypyidaw, Burma’s ruling State Peace and Development Council will hand over power to the new government on March 15. The sources said that army commanders, heads of the military’s Bureaus of Special Operations and retired generals are currently meeting to discuss the transfer of power to the new civilian regime in Naypyidaw, which will consist mostly of former generals. According to sources close to the military in Naypyidaw, there is discontent among the military because the latest appointments of certain high-ranking military officials to major positions in the new government structure was apparently based on loyalty to Than Shwe rather than military hierarchy. In particluar, Lt-Gen Thura Myint Aung was not chosen by Than Shwe as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and after complaining of being assigned the position of defense minister he was removed and placed under house arrest. Burma regime misses another chance – Editorial Voice of America: Thu 10 Feb 2011 Burma’s highest court has upheld a decision to dissolve the country’s leading opposition political party. Aung San Suu Kyi speaks with youths at the National League for Democracy (NLD) head office in Yangon February 8, 2011.Burma’s highest court has upheld a decision to dissolve the country’s leading opposition political party, which was outlawed last year for failing to register according to conditions set down by Burma’s ruling military regime. The decision leaves Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and thousands of other pro-democracy activists outside formal politics in Burma just as the regime claims to be moving the nation to civilian rule. The high court took little time to decide against the National League for Democracy’s appeal of lower court rulings that it be banned. A lawyer representing the NLD said that only the country’s chief justice could now change the ruling, and he saw little likelihood of that happening. As a political force, however, the NLD will continue in the hearts and minds of the people. The NLD won a resounding victory in Burma’s last elections in 1990, but was kept from power by the military junta. As the nation prepared for new elections in November, the regime laid down restrictive rules on membership and political activities for parties wishing to offer candidates. The NLD refused to take part, calling the registration rules unfair and undemocratic. In return, it was barred from the race and declared illegal. As the high court was ruling, the new parliament elected in November was being seated in a show of a supposed transition to democracy. Not only did the military leadership limit the ability of opposition candidates to campaign for elected seats, it guaranteed itself a strong hand in the next government with a large number of designated military appointees and full support for the government’s proxy party. The United States is disappointed in the high court’s decision to uphold the banning of the NLD. Authorizing recognition of that and other democratic and ethnic opposition parties would have been a good step to enter into a genuine and inclusive dialogue on the nation’s future. Instead, the decision was another lost opportunity for bringing Burma much needed and fundamental change and progress toward reconciliation. Let’s move on from sanctions – Mark Farmaner Democratic Voice of Burma: Thu 10 Feb 2011 It wasn’t much to ask: a few sanctions, carefully targeted at Burma’s generals, to try to coax them into negotiations.Stronger demands for targeted sanctions began in the mid-1990s, after billions of dollars in new trade and investment funded a doubling in the size of the army, rather than schools and hospitals. At the same time a National Convention to draft a new constitution for Burma ground to a halt, as the generals refused to compromise on any issues. With dialogue dead and the generals growing in strength, carefully targeted sanctions were seen as an additional source of leverage to persuade the generals back to the negotiating table. What was seen as one tool out of many which could and should be used to push and coax the generals into dialogue began to dominate international debate about Burma, even obscuring the horrific human rights record of the dictatorship. Three main issues came to govern the debate: whether sanctions work, whether sanctions were hurting ordinary people, and what kind of change in Burma would justify the lifting of sanctions. Injecting rationality and facts into this debate, and defusing the shrill tone, was an obvious priority for Aung San Suu Kyi upon her release. She immediately announced a review of sanctions, and said that she would listen to the people, and look at the facts. She was open to the lifting of some sanctions if they were found to be hurting ordinary people. For the people of Burma it was a small taste of the accountable leadership they dream of, but which is denied them by the generals. On 8 February the conclusions of that review were published. In terms of the effectiveness of sanctions, it would be wrong to conclude that because the dictatorship is still in power, in whatever current guise, sanctions have failed. This would be judging sanctions against the wrong criteria, given that it was never thought that sanctions alone would bring down the dictatorship. And in addition, the kind of targeted sanctions which had been called for were never applied. The review by the National League for Democracy (NLD) makes a much more measured and realistic assessment of sanctions, given the current climate. It argues that “targeted sanctions serve as a warning that acts contrary to basic norms of justice and human rights cannot be committed with impunity even by authoritarian governments”. It points out that financial sanctions have denied junta members and their associates access to the US financial system, and helped prevent the laundering of black money and the siphoning off of revenues from the sale of gas and other resources. On the impact of sanctions on ordinary people in Burma, the review looked carefully at different areas, including trade, foreign direct investment, overseas aid and finance. Time and again the evidence led to the conclusion that it is the policies of the dictatorship, not economic sanctions, which are responsible for the hardships faced by ordinary people in Burma. The third issue relates to what steps would need to be taken by the dictatorship to justify the lifting of sanctions. There has been a crescendo of calls for the lifting of sanctions in recent months, citing the November elections and release of Aung San Suu Kyi as justification. This is despite the fact that the elections were neither free nor fair, that the count was rigged, and that a new constitution legalises dictatorship, albeit with a civilian face. And the release of one political prisoner, Aung San Suu Kyi, while thousands more remain in detention, hardly justifies a change in government policy. The request of the NLD for discussions with those countries which have imposed sanctions to reach agreement on “…when, how and under what circumstances sanctions might be modified in the interests of democracy, human rights and a healthy economic environment” is designed to settle this debate. Having clear benchmarks that need to be met before the lifting of certain sanctions will provide clarity on an issue which has diverted attention away from other practical steps that could be taken by the international community. Clear benchmarks mean that governments around the world can agree and move on, while at the same time making it much clearer to the dictatorship what practical steps they must take if they do want to see sanctions lifted. In the past sanctions have been applied generally as a punishment after an atrocity. This approach would put existing sanctions to work more actively in support of dialogue, using the lifting of sanctions as a carrot. So on the three main areas of debate, the NLD has made its assessment. On whether sanctions can have an impact, the answer is yes, but of course they are no magic bullet – there must be realism about their role. On whether sanctions are hurting ordinary people, the evidence is no. And on what would justify the lifting of sanctions, a request for talks to agree on benchmarks, allowing the issue to be settled and attention given to other issues relating to Burma. Those hoping for the NLD to call for the lifting of sanctions may be disappointed, but the party has shown its flexibility in accepting certain kinds of investment under certain circumstances, provided it is not harmful to the people and the environment. Those hoping for a call for stronger sanctions may also be disappointed. Such a call at this time, however, given the current international climate, would not be heeded, but would merely add heat to the debate. But the setting of clear benchmarks would be an important and practical step. The NLD has suggested the release of all political prisoners as one benchmark. Suu Kyi’s party has followed a moderate path, both in proposals and in its language, hoping that the international community can reach some kind of consensus on sanctions, or at least an acceptance that on this there may be disagreement, but on other areas there can be progress. This is the final point by the NLD in its paper on sanctions on Burma. It has drawn the least attention, but is perhaps the most important: “The international community has long expressed a wish to see Burma progress along the road to democracy and economic prosperity. Appropriate policies, wisely coordinated and consistently applied would constitute the best path to the achievement of this objective.” It is an appeal for a more rational, coordinated and consistent approach. It is time to move on from solely debating sanctions, and focus on how and on what issues the international community can work together to help the people of Burma. * Mark Farmaner is director of Burma Campaign UK Military generals assume key ministries – Ba Kaung and Wai Moe Irrawaddy: Wed 9 Feb 2011 Three military generals were appointed on Wednesday by Burmese junta supremo Snr-Gen Than Shwe to the powerful ministerial posts of defense, home affairs, and border affairs, according to MPs in Naypyidaw. Burma’s new defense minister is Lt-Gen Ko Ko, a former chief of the Bureau of Special Operations-3 (BSO-3), while Maj-Gen Hla Min, the current BSO-3 chief, becomes the minister of home affairs. Both previously served as commanders of Southern Regional Military Command. Maj-Gen Thein Htay, the chief of military ordnance, has been appointed minister for border affairs, considered a key position in the new government. A former military officer turned Burmese diplomat, Wanna Maung Lwin, becomes Burma’s new foreign minister. The four ministers will automatically be members of the Nation Defense and Security Council (NDSC) alongside the president, two vice-presidents, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the deputy commander-in-chief, and the two House speakers. With the exception of Vice-president Sai Mauk Kham, every member of the NDSC is a military officer or former officer. Under the 2008 constitution, the commender-in-chief of the armed forces has the exclusive authority to appoint the ministers of defense, home affairs, and border affairs. Other ministerial appointments on Wednesday include Pe Thet Khin as health minister, and Dr. Mya Aye as education minister. Brig-Gen Kyaw Hsan retains his position as minister of information. Construction Minister Khin Maung Myint also remains at his current post. Thein Nyunt is named as minister of the presidential office, Khin Yi is named as minister of science and technology, and Aye Myint is appointed minister of culture. Thein Tun has been appointed as head of the Ministry of Telecommunications, Post and Telegraphs, a job previously held by Thein Zaw. MP Khin Maung Yi, who represents the National Democratic Force and attended the parliamentary session on Wednesday, said that parliamentary officials distributed a list of the ministerial appointments to every MP on Wednesday, while another list of 34 appointments was handed out the day before. A rumor leaked from the War Office on Monday suggesting that Lt-Gen Min Aung Hlaing, the current joint-chief of staff (army, navy, air force), and Maj-Gen Soe Win, the head of BSO-6, would take over as commander-in-chief and deputy commander-in-chief respectively if Than Shwe and his deputy, Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye, stepped down. From Friday through to Wednesday, Burma’s state-run newspapers have run Than Shwe’s previous Union Day messages with his photo on their front pages and/or alongside their mastheads. “The talk of the town is Than Shwe’s Union Day messages with his photos,” said an editor with a private news journal in Rangoon. “I think he ordered the Ministry of Information to put them there. “Maybe it’s a message from the old psychological warfare officer reminding his soldiers that the senior-general is still number one.” It’s the politics, stupid – Editorial Irrawaddy: Wed 9 Feb 2011 Burma’s outlawed opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), released a statement on Tuesday spelling out its position on sanctions. In the well-written statement, the party argues that the impact of sanctions on the Burmese economy has been greatly overstated, while the real issue—rampant human rights abuses under military rule—has been largely ignored, and must be addressed if sanctions are to be lifted. While there’s no disputing that Burma’s economy is in a sorry state, this has far less to do with sanctions than with the junta’s economic mismanagement, poor governance, corruption and blatant cronyism, according to the statement. Long before Western sanctions were imposed on Burma, the country’s first military ruler, Gen Ne Win, turned Southeast Asia’s most promising economy into one of the world’s worst. In 1987, a year before his regime collapsed, Burma was declared a Least Developed Nation by the UN. What if Ne Win had decided to reform the economy and integrate it into the global economy? Most likely, he would not have had to face a nationwide uprising in 1988 and could have remained in power as a benevolent dictator. Now, we have to ask why Western sanctions were imposed on Ne Win’s successors in the first place. The answer, obviously, is its record of human rights violations. On May 20, 1997, US President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13047 banning most new US investment in “economic development of resources in Burma.” To justify the ban, the president cited a “constant and continuing pattern of severe repression” of the democratic opposition by Burma’s ruling junta, then known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council. In June 2003, the Bush Administration passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act after the military and its thugs ambushed pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters in Depayin, killing dozens. In July 2008, after the brutal crackdown on monks and activists in September 2007, the US government introduced the Burmese JADE Act, banning imports of jade and gems from Burma and imposing visa bans on regime leaders and their cronies. Clearly, these sanctions are political tools aimed at censuring the regime’s poor human rights record, and not at hobbling Burma’s economy. Rather than focusing on the economic impact of the sanctions, perhaps we should be asking if they have had any positive effect on its politics. In other words, have sanctions been an effective tool to counter the repressive regime in Burma? The NLD statement doesn’t answer this question. But what we have seen is the generals and their cronies getting richer over the past decade, thanks to the eagerness of Burma’s neighbors to extract its natural resources and invest in infrastructure with little or no benefit for Burmese people. Burma remains one of the poorest nations in the world. The regime spends the lion’s share of its budget on the military, while setting aside only tiny amounts for education and health care. According to the NLD statement, “If we look at Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), foreign capital went mainly into the extraction of natural resources. Whereas FDI for 2008-09 totaled 925 million dollars, permitted foreign investment in 2009-2010 increased to 15,839 million dollars, of which 62 percent was in the oil and natural gas sectors.” So where has all this gas money gone? But even as the NLD statement finds fault with foreign investment that only enriches the generals and their partners, it keeps the door open for more ethical investment aimed at benefiting Burma’s people and protecting its natural environment. “The NLD considers that in the meantime the economic hardships of the people would be ameliorated if businesses that have already invested, or are thinking of investing, in Burma were to observe guidelines aimed at conserving the ecological environment, protecting the rights of workers and promoting civil society,” says the statement. This was an echo of a statement made by NLD leader Suu Kyi in her prerecorded message to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, at the end of last month. Speaking to a gathering of world leaders, businessmen, politicians, academics and civil society representatives, she said, “I would like to request those who have invested or who are thinking of investing in Burma to put a premium on respect for the law, on environmental and social factors, on the rights of workers, on job creation and on the promotion of technological skills.” She also reminded them: “I believe that as necessary steps towards integration within the global community Burma must achieve national reconciliation, political stability, and economic growth grounded in human resources development.” Burma cannot live with sanctions forever. The people of Burma deserve prosperity, business opportunities and foreign direct investment that will benefit everyone. Thus, it is important that NLD leaders now encourage tourism to Burma. But it is important that Suu Kyi and her party’s leaders have spelled out their sanctions policy and sent a clear message to the world. However, let’s be clear that sanctions are symbolic and political, aimed at the junta and its cronies. Whether or not they meet their desired objectives remains controversial. It is important to remind the regime and kick the ball back to the generals’ court. The point is the regime must improve its human rights records and release all political prisoners and create a conducive political environment where everyone feels that Burma is heading in the right direction. Burma cannot live with sanctions forever—nor should they be condemned to an eternity under military rule. Suu Kyi: Young people should critique the judicial system Mizzima News: Tue 8 Feb 2011 New Delhi – The weaknesses of the Burmese judicial system should be critiqued by Burma’s young people, pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi said on Tuesday.dassk-meet-youth-1sSpeaking to a group of about 200 young people from across the country at the National League for Democracy (NLD) headquarters in Bahan Township in Rangoon, she said that young people should point out the weaknesses of the country’s judicial system in order to help restore law and order. ‘We need to try to restore the country’s law and order by noting its weaknesses’, Ohn Kyaing, an NLD spokesman, quoted Suu Kyi as saying. Young activists from Irrawaddy, Magway and Sagaing divisions and Mon and Karen states attended the meeting, in which they discussed various unlawful acts of the courts in Burma and what could be done about it. The young people also discussed various issues with Suu Kyi including social work, education, the difficulties of access to clean water and potential conscription in the armed forces. Suu Kyi will meet with young people again on Wednesday, party officials said. Government to auction off 76 businesses – Kyaw Hsu Mon Myanmar Times: Tue 8 Feb 2011 THE government’s push to privatise state-owned firms is continuing with 76 enterprises set to be auctioned in coming weeks, the Privatisation Commission announced last week.Factories, hotels, apartments, land plots and cinemas from 11 different ministries are set to be sold off by the Privatisation Commission, with the deadline for bids passing on January 28. Recent auctions have included the Myanmar Petroleum Products Enterprises’ network of filling stations and numerous properties in Yangon previously used by the various ministries. The auctions have acted to depress the property market as consumers await the outcome, real estate agents said. “Buyers would only become really interested in the auction if they could see viable sites in good locations. And when those were available, many potential buyers sat back and waited to see who won the properties in the auctions,” said U Than Oo, the managing director of Mandine real estate agency. This auction does not include a huge number of properties but there are a few that will catch the eye of wealthy buyers, including a plot of land on Inya road in Kamaryut township, and two apartments in Kyauktada and Pabetan townships. U Than Oo said he saw little of value in the upcoming auction. “Most of them [the sites] are factories. And the buyer is required by law to continue the operation and cannot simply demolish the site and redevelop it. However, those apartments and the land on Inya Road should be very interesting,” he said. Dr Maung Maung Lay, general secretary of the Union of Myanmar Federation of Commerce and Chamber Industry (UMFCCI), said that the government was likely to offload all of its existing holdings in Yangon. “The government would have plans to privatise all its properties in Yangon, which it no longer needs. The advantage of this privatisation would be that it would open up a lot of land for development in Yangon and improve the real estate sector,” he said. Included in the upcoming auction are seven cinemas in Yangon Region, one in Mandalay Region and two in Sagaing Region. During last year’s auction five cinemas were sold off in Yangon; these remain in the hands of those who were previously running them. Sanctions on Burma National League for Democracy: Tue 8 Feb 2011 In recent months sanctions have repeatedly featured in discussions over the kind of policies that would best encourage positive change in Burma. Are current administrative policies and practices conducive to a healthy economy, with or without sanctions? Are allegations that sanctions have exacerbated the hardships of the people of Burma justified or are such accusations based on political motives? Are sanctions in their present form likely to achieve the desired objectives? Are there credible signs of progress in the democratization process? The issue of sanctions needs to be examined within the broad context of political desiderata and economic realities. The extent to which sanctions bear responsibility for the economic hardships of the people of Burma is a subject that has raised much controversy. The International Monetary Fund has pinpointed poor economic policies and performances, mismanagement and an unattractive investment climate as the main causes of the ills of the economy. The Fund does not see sanctions as a significant factor in regard to the economic problems of the country. It might be well to consider here the allegation that development has been held back because of a sanctions related fall in development assistance. It should be noted that most Official Development Assistance to Burma was stopped only after 1988. However, by December 1987 Burma had already fallen to the status of a Least Developed Country in spite of the 3,712 million US dollars that was received in aid between 1978-1988. Have sanctions led to foreign trade constraints harmful to social conditions in Burma? The volume of Burmese foreign trade has actually increased rapidly since the late 1990s. Earnings from natural gas alone generated about 35% of total export earnings for the fiscal year 2008-09. Natural gas exports began in 1998 and brought in 1,070 million dollars in 2005-06 and 2,380 million dollars in 2008-09. It is estimated that gas exports could reach the 4,000 million dollar mark by 2010-11. Such sales of natural resources augmented income and strengthened financial resources. Foreign exchange reserves rose to 4,041.6 million dollars in 2008-09. Yet despite increasing financial strength, education and health care have been neglected and living standards have not risen. According to the 2010 Human Resources Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme, Burma has fallen behind Laos and Cambodia and now ranks lowest among the nations of South East Asia. If we look at Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), foreign capital went mainly into the extraction of natural resources. Whereas FDI for 2008-09 totalled 925 million dollars, permitted foreign investment in 2009- 2010 increased to 15,839 million dollars, of which 62% was in the oil and natural gas sectors. The rest went to hydroelectric power generation and mining. Investments in other sectors were insignificant. Productive investments have been impeded by an unfavourable business environment comprising multiple exchange rates, lack of accountability and corruption. Even investments by some Asian countries unrelated to economic sanctions were withdrawn from Burma during the 1990’s. The Burmese garment industry was hardest hit by sanctions. 1998 to 2001 were the boom years for the garment industry because of high demand from American and European markets. Earnings from garment exports fell by 400 million dollars in 2003 as a result of US sanctions. Of that loss, only about 2.5% was related to labour wages. The main burden was borne by big businesses and by the privileged classes that were exploiting the country and the labour force. As garment factories could not export directly to the countries for which their goods were destined but had to reroute their goods through third countries, Burmese profits fell. However, by 2008-09, the garment industry had recovered due to the influx of new business from China. Currently, income from garment exports ranks third in the export earnings line-up. The rural population engaged in agriculture, which comprises 63% of the total population of the country, has not been affected by economic sanctions. Rather, peasants have suffered from lack of freedom in production and marketing, from forced sales of agriculture land and from policies and practices that have resulted in the gross suppression of the price of farming products. Thus the hardships of the vast majority of the people of Burma are not related to sanctions but to misguided government policies. It might be appropriate to mention here certain practices current in the forestry sector. Excellent laws and regulations, promulgated since colonial times, relating to the conservation of forests still remain valid. However these have been consistently ignored and for decades irresponsible logging has been rife throughout the forests of the country, particularly in areas contiguous to the national borders. Once pristine forests have been turned into bare tracts of land, the unhappy consequence of complicity between rapacious timber merchants from neighbouring countries and corrupt local authorities. From this example it can be seen that much of the present imbalance in the economic development of Burma is due to a lack of systematic management of domestic resources. Sanctions cannot be blamed for the distressing state of Burma’s forests. Criticism of sanctions, particularly economic sanctions, sometimes serve to divert attention from the main problems plaguing the country. Allegations that economic sanctions have prevented the emergence of a middle class overlook the glaring fact that there is no genuine market economy in Burma. Blatant cronyism is the trademark of the Burmese economy and constitutes the main obstacle to the emergence of small and medium enterprises. Similarly, allegations that it is sanctions that have distanced the ordinary people of Burma from concepts of good governance totally ignore the refusal of the military regime to accept suggestions of reforms that might in any way diminish their absolute grip on power in all spheres of the life of the nation. It has been claimed that sanctions have kept out high technology from the west while the only accessible technology, from countries that are not overly concerned with ethical considerations, is sub-standard. Such a claim is tantamount to an absolution of governmental responsibility for ensuring that business contracts incorporate stipulations that protect the interests of the country and the people. It has been further alleged that financial sanctions are ineffective and poorly targeted. In actual fact only members of the military junta and their associates have been denied access to the United States’ financial system and since the average Burmese citizen does not have a bank account it can be asserted that these measures do not hurt the public at large. Financial sanctions have also prevented, albeit imperfectly, the laundering of black money and the siphoning off of revenues from the sale of gas and other natural resources. Targetted sanctions serve as a warning that acts contrary to basic norms of justice and human rights cannot be committed with impunity even by authoritarian governments. Sanctions were imposed on Burma by the United States, member countries of the European Union, Canada, New Zealand and Australia with the following aims: (a) To put an end to human rights violations; (b) To promote democratic values and practices; (c) To discourage the military government from oppressing the people. The legislative assemblies that have emerged as a result of the 2010 elections are totally dominated, at all the national and regional levels, by the combined body of the Union Solidarity and Development Party, which was founded by the State Peace and Development Council (the erstwhile State Law and Order Restoration Council) and the non-elected military representatives nominated by the commander-in-chief. Moves to designate these assemblies as the only permitted field for political play reduces democratization in Burma to a parody. The special appeal of the National League for Democracy (NLD) against its deregistration was dismissed with indecent haste and without acceptable legal justification by the Supreme Court. This too is an indication of intent to limit political activities in the country to a minimum. Now more than ever there is an urgent need to call for an all inclusive political process. The participation of a broad spectrum of political forces is essential to the achievement of national reconciliation in Burma. Progress in the democratization process, firmly grounded in national reconciliation, and the release of political prisoners should be central to any consideration of changes in sanctions policies. The views of the NLD with regard to sanctions may be summarized as follows: 1. The United States, member countries of the European Union, Canada, New Zealand and Australia imposed sanctions on Burma to effect improvements in the human rights situation and to promote democratic values. 2. Sanctions are the result of decisions made by the countries concerned, not the outcome of demands by political parties, organizations or individuals in Burma. 3. Recently there have been calls for the removal of sanctions by some political parties, organizations, individuals and nations. Most of these calls seem to have been motivated by political considerations. Available evidence indicates that economic conditions within the country have not been affected by sanctions to any notable degree. 4. As the major causes of sanctions are violations of human rights and lack of democratic practices, it is by dealing effectively with these issues that the removal of sanctions can best be effected. The release of all political prisoners is a critical requirement. 5. We therefore urge the Government of Burma to take the necessary steps speedily and assiduously. 6. The NLD considers that in the meantime the economic hardships of the people would be ameliorated if businesses that have already invested, or are thinking of investing, in Burma were to observe guidelines aimed at conserving the ecological environment, protecting the rights of workers and promoting civil society. 7. The NLD calls for discussions with the United States, the European Union, Canada and Australia with a view to reaching agreement on when, how and under what circumstances sanctions might be modified in the interests of democracy, human rights and a healthy economic environment. A study and analysis by a team of widely-respected professionals on the effects of sanctions would be beneficial to such discussions. 8. The international community has long expressed a wish to see Burma progress along the road to democracy and economic prosperity. Appropriate policies, wisely coordinated and consistently applied would constitute the best path to the achievement of this objective. National League For Democracy 97/B, West Shwegondine Road, Bahan Township , Rangoon Youths must ‘get political’, NLD says – Nang Kham Kaew Democratic Voice of Burma: Fri 4 Feb 2011 A perceived lack of political awareness and interest among Burmese youths is potentially damaging to the future direction of the country, the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) has warned. Young Burmese are being “swayed from politics by entertainment and materialist interests”, the head of the NLD general-secretary’s office, Win Htein, said yesterday during a celebration of veteran politician U Tin’s birthday. He added that party leader Aung San Suu Kyi had developed concerns about the lack of a politicised youth in Burma where the median age remains relatively young, at 28 years. The Nobel laureate is next week due to meet hundreds of young Burmese from across the country who are active in social and humanitarian work. Since her release from house arrest in November last year, Suu Kyi has made engagement with Burma’s youth a priority and has spoken of her intentions to bring herself up to date with youth fads, such as social networking. Win Htein said that the party would “make an effort to spread the idea among them that they play an important role in the country’s future politics”. He acknowledged however that youngsters are hesitant to get involved in politics, a potentially dangerous venture in Burma where any sign political mobilisation can draw the wrath of the ruling regime. University students were at the vanguard of the infamous 1988 uprising, when hundreds of thousands took to the streets to protest economic mismanagement and government oppression. Up to 6000 were gunned down by the military. Numbers of underground youth activist groups still exist, but their actions are closely monitored by the junta. With a new parliament and, ostensibly, a new political landscape, however, Suu Kyi has urged young Burmese to lend their voice to open debate about the country’s future. Calls to lift Myanmar sanctions face challenges – Mustaqim Adamrah The Jakarta Post: Fri 4 Feb 2011 Jakarta – ASEAN’s latest request for the United States, the European Union (EU) and Canada to lift their sanctions on Myanmar may face challenges from their internal political situations. ASEAN addressed that request during an ASEAN ministerial meeting on Lombok Island, West Nusa Tenggara, last month. But it is ASEAN that needs to convince their counterparts that it is the best solution possible for a better Myanmar and it is up to them whether they are willing to confront and able to convince their politicians at home, experts say. “The Lombok meeting implied that the chance to see democratization [in Myanmar] happen as soon as possible would become smaller if the US failed to meet ASEAN’s demand,” University of Indonesian international relations expert Hariyadi Wirawan told The Jakarta Post on Wednesday. “It is the US government’s responsibility to convince the US Congress and the US House of Representatives [that lifting sanctions on Myanmar would help settle issues in that country].” He said Myanmar might not become a democratic country like the US wanted but would rather be like Malaysia or Singapore. But Myanmar had nothing to lose if the US finally decided to turn down ASEAN’s request because the restive country was not in a hurry toward democracy and still had China in the backyard as its main ally, Hariyadi said. Moreover, he said, alienating Myanmar would only cost the Southeast Asian region’s stability in the end of the day. Parahyangan University international relations expert Bantarto Bandoro said ASEAN’s request showed that the bloc had no more ammo to solve issues in Myanmar, relying on sanction removal. “Sanctions are actually a positive thing to certain degree. But they should be reviewed periodically and may perhaps need to end when there are [positive] changes,” he told the Post. “[Therefore] ASEAN needs to be more proactive [in persuading the US to finally lift sanctions on Myanmar].” During the Lombok meeting, ASEAN foreign ministers said the US, the EU and Canada — all ASEAN dialog partners — needed to consider lifting their sanctions because Myanmar had “successfully conducted general elections” and released Nobel laureate and democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest late last year. “We believe that recent developments need to be responded to the international community, especially to ensure that economic development in Myanmar can take place,” Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said after the meeting. “However, it should be remembered that lifting the bans and reconciliation go hand in hand.” In response to the request, the US secretary of state’s deputy assistant Joseph Y. Yun recently said: “These are excellent demands from the ASEAN ministers, and I think the Myanmar authorities should really take them to heart and make them a reality.” Yun, who oversees affairs in East Asia and the Pacific, said then there would be a positive response if Myanmar’s government had complied with all the requests from the international community. “And clearly, as the reconciliation process makes progress, I think the international community can ensure a response,” he said. Myanmar joined ASEAN in 1997 despite strong opposition from Western nations. The US and a number of other countries imposed sanctions — both diplomatic and economic — on Myanmar for its poor human rights record and slow move toward democracy. Q+A: Will Myanmar’s strongman fade from political scene? – Martin Petty Reuters: Fri 4 Feb 2011 Bangkok – Prime Minister Thein Sein was chosen on Friday to become president in Myanmar’s new civilian-led political set-up, nominally at least becoming head of state as the country’s junta steps down.The big question is: what will junta supremo Than Shwe do now? IS THAN SHWE SIMPLY STEPPING ASIDE? Unlikely. The presidency is probably something the military strongman never really wanted. The rise of one of his most trusted associates in a choreographed parliamentary vote suggests Than Shwe will remain in charge, but behind the scenes. The reclusive junta boss is not suited to the public role required of a president. He rarely attends public events or gives speeches and has not spoken to the media in years. His state visits have been restricted to neighboring India and China. IS IT A SURPRISE THAN SHWE DIDN’T BECOME PRESIDENT? To a certain extent, yes. Many experts say the 78-year-old Than Shwe is seriously worried about what might happen to him and his family, and they assumed he was reluctant to put power into the hands of someone else, even a loyalist. Than Shwe has made many enemies and he knows it. He’s not too bothered about Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi or the public. His real fear is probably people in the military he has crossed swords with, demoting them or forcing them into retirement. Insiders say he is concerned he might one day be purged or even assassinated and needed to ensure the new political system was controlled by loyal servants. Than Shwe knows all about purges. He engineered the downfall of two power-holders in the past, former junta boss the late Ne Win and ex-premier Khin Nyunt. He placed both under house arrest. WHAT WILL HE DO NEXT? One thing seems sure to analysts: he will continue to pull the strings behind the military, legislature and executive. He could remain head of the military by taking the job of commander-in-chief of Defence Services, which is also a powerful, hands-on political role offering a seat on the National Defense and Security Council, a new entity analysts say could turn out to be similar to the politburo of China. In a crisis, the commander-in-chief, with the president’s approval, can call a state of emergency and assume sovereign power over the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. However, there are rumors he may have already appointed a successor. On Thursday state media reported that “the commander-in-chief” attended a meeting of parliament but didn’t mention Than Shwe by name, which is unusual. SO WILL HE RETIRE? It’s an option. He’s 78 years old and his health is deteriorating. He has a palace-like mansion in the new capital, Naypyitaw. But some suggest he could become a patron of the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), the junta’s political proxy that controls 76 percent of the legislature. Concerned the party could develop an agenda of its own and challenge the military status quo, he could take unofficial control and keep its members in check. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THEIN SEIN? Thein Sein is the regime’s fourth-in-command and seen as a neutral figure in Myanmar’s military, having not been a member of any faction. The 65-year-old is seen as a “yes man” with no political agenda and no ambitions for real power, making him the perfect front man for Than Shwe. Unlike his associates in the old regime, who have become considerably rich, he has no known business interests and has a clean image. He is a shy and retiring figure and military insiders say there’s little reason to dislike him. Thein Sein was a career soldier who became part of the junta in 1997 when it was reorganized. He replaced General Soe Win as prime minister after his death in October 2007. He resigned from the army in early 2010 so he could take part in the November election as a civilian. He was the international face of the old regime and is known to other leaders, having attended summits. His ascendance to the presidency represents a continuation of the status quo. ARE THESE CHANGES ALL FOR SHOW? It seems so. If Than Shwe and his deputy, Maung Aye, seen to be stepping aside, it may make the elections and parliament look more like a political transformation to an international audience after five decades of iron-fisted military rule. In reality, the regime has not ceded power at all. The changes are largely cosmetic, simply retiring junta heavyweights and shifting them into other political positions. Most lawmakers are soldiers or retired soldiers. Military people fill many other top positions. (Editing by Alan Raybould and Jonathan Thatcher) India’s strategic interests in Myanmar: An interview with Shyam Saran Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies: Fri 4 Feb 2011 Myanmar is of extreme strategic and economic importance for India. The two nations share a 1,600km land border and a long maritime boundary in the strategically important Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea; they are bound by religious, cultural and ethnic linkages and four of India’s politically-sensitive Northeastern states share international borders with Myanmar. India has been pursuing friendly relations with its eastern neighbour since the early 1990s with the goal of countering China’s influence in the region as well as exploiting the tremendous energy resources of Myanmar. Critics have however, argued that India’s Myanmar policy is flawed and have called for a re-valuation. Medha Chaturvedi from the IPCS spoke to Ambassador Shyam Saran, acting Chairman of Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), a New Delhi based autonomous think-tank under the Ministry of External Affairs, on the subject. Ambassador Saran was a former Indian Ambassador to Myanmar and later, Indian Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change. Medha Chaturvedi: What is the historical perspective of modern relations between India and Myanmar? Shyam Saran: There have been historical and cultural linkages between India and Myanmar, in particular, through the spread of Thervada Buddhism to the country. During the Second World War, parts of Burma were taken over by the Japanese forces along the Irrawaddy River. However, the Arakan peninsula was somewhat untouched. Sittwe port was one of the routes used to ferry supplies to the northeast of India. The goods were then taken up to Palewa town where the transport encountered rapids and human porters were used to ferry goods across to Mizoram where they followed the river again. The Kaladan River rises in the Chin Hills in Myanmar, flows through Mizoram and back into Myanmar’s Sittwe Delta. It was infrequently used as a trade route because of all the rapids and other obstructions. However, Sittwe has been an important port even historically since the rule of the Sultans over Arakan. It was, from ancient times, among the three most important trading sea ports in the Bay of Bengal, especially for India. Later, Myanmar became a major rice exporter. The coastal trading route followed for this trade between India, Myanmar and Sri Lanka lay through Kolkata in India, Sittwe and Yangoon in Myanmar to Chennai in India, and finally to Colombo in Sri Lanka. However, in addition to rice trade, this route was also used for illegal trade in drugs and for human trafficking. Thus, Sittwe’s importance cannot be underestimated. With Myanmar being ruled as part of the British Indian Empire till its separation in 1937, there was a heavy Indian presence in trade and utilities and services, including education, railways, power, and business. Yangon’s population at the time was over 60 per cent Indian. MC: Politically, India-Myanmar relations have seen several ups and downs. What are the reasons for this? SS: Strong personal relations, first between Gen. Aung San and Jawaharlal Nehru and then between Nehru and Burmese Prime Minister U Nu, contributed to good relations between the two countries. Then came the period of Retrenchment starting in the 1950s when the Indian Chettiyar community was dispossessed of their land by Gen. Ne Win following his military coup. He started imposing Burmanization/Nationalization from 1961-64 due to which 350,000 Indians were dispossessed and had to return to India. At this time, critical sectors like the railways, public services, banking, insurance, wholesale retail, trade, and commerce, were all taken back from declared foreigners, including Indians. Burmese language was declared the official language and as a result, Yangon University, which was the best in the region, suffered. Except the absolute lowest rung of labour, Indians were disallowed from every other employment. There were continued friendly relations between the two countries despite these developments as Burma was a crucial transport hub of Southeast Asia at that time. However, due to the decline of the Burmese economy, this role too disappeared. Burma retreated into a shell. The long years of Ne Win’s rule ended in 1987 due to discontent in the army, and the economic crisis, a result of his isolationist policies. Prices of commodities were at an all time high and inflation skyrocketed. The National League for Democracy (NLD) took advantage of the situation and emerged as the voice of the people. At the same time, Myanmar was facing constant challenges of insurgencies from its ethnic armed groups on the peripheries of the country. The challenge was to maintain political unity despite insurgencies. Myanmar faced pressures from China and other large neighbours to maintain its sovereignty. Elections in 1988 did not sort out the ethnic problem and posed a challenge to the military in neutralizing the ethnic groups. With China’s help, Myanmar managed to get most of the ethnic armed groups to sign Arms for Peace and ceasefire agreements. After this, for many years, there were very thin India-Myanmar relations despite some positive political exchanges like the visit of the then Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, to Myanmar in 1987. Meanwhile, relations between Myanmar and China started improving as they found themselves on the same side of ostracization: Myanamar for the military takeover post-1988 elections and China for the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. MC: Why were India’s relations with Myanmar not consistently good for a long time? SS: India assumed that the longevity of the military regime was limited which did not prove to be true. Having neutralized the insurgencies by ethnic groups, the junta tried to bring together the civilians and ethnic groups. When it realized that this regime was here to stay, New Delhi started its constructive engagement policy with Yangon. India-Myanmar relations point out the salience of threat perception that Chinese influence in Myanmar poses to India’s position in the region. China has majorly expanded in Myanmar and this has facilitated China’s entry into the Bay of Bengal. India needs to have a countervailing presence in Myanmar to ensure its own interests are not jeopardized. MC: Would Aung San Suu Kyi’s release after the elections last year have any impact on India’s relations with Myanmar? SS: India had a democratic connection with Myanmar along with the element of support for Aung San Suu Kyi and her Indian connection, due to her education in India. During the early years of military rule, India was a big supporter of Suu Kyi, bestowing upon her the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding in 1992. The reluctance in maintaining friendly relations by India was to the Chinese advantage as they made inroads in Myanmar around the same time. After the release of Suu Kyi, some transformation for Myanmar is on the cards and India needs to be alert to the developing situation as it unfolds. Tensions between ethnic groups, military and civilians may escalate, forcing the government to take some strong actions. A second Panglong agreement under Suu Kyi will lead to some progress for India in the country. MC: Sittwe lost its importance for sometime in between. To what do you attribute this change? SS: Sittwe lost its importance due to many reasons. The rice trade saw a sharp decline after its independence. Moreover, the Myanmar government neglected the Arakan region due to its ethnic diversity and Muslim population. Also, connectivity between Arakan and the rest of Myanmar was difficult. MC: How is Sittwe important for India in the present context? SS: Sittwe’s importance for India has magnified under the shadow of access problems between Southeast Asia and the Indian Northeast due to the presence of Bangladesh and India’s difficult relations with the country. So, India took into account the history of this route as a solution to the access problem and tried to put the Sittwe route back in place as an alternate access route from its Northeast. India was also looking for closer trade relations with Myanmar and the development of onshore and offshore gas blocks there. Even China has a stake in some of Myanmar’s onshore blocks in Arakan and is looking to acquire some offshore blocks in the Bay of Bengal. MC: What should be the focus of development in Sittwe in the present scenario? SS: It would be beneficial for India to develop the gas blocks present in Myanmar for our domestic use by drawing a pipeline between the Indian Northeast and Bonai village in Sittwe. The idea should be to enhance river transport and develop a point to get off from boats and a highway up to Mizoram to support the idea of having a gas pipeline. Under the river project, certain measures need to be taken on an immediate basis. The development of Sittwe is critical. Obstructions upstream of Kaladan River should be removed for the smooth transport of large container ships up to Palewa town. MC: What is India’s present status on oil and natural gas trade with Myanmar? SS: There is the possibility of Myanmar becoming a major source of energy and Assam oil belts spilling into Northern Myanmar. It is a zone of energy security for India which needs to be maintained. In India, no development has really taken place in terms of gas and oil purchases. It has remained only an idea which has not yet materialized into an organized plan of action. It has not been followed up properly so far. A detailed project report (DPR) on infrastructure of the Sittwe Project has already been drawn up and the government has sanctioned funds for it. As far as my information goes, construction on the A1 and A3 gas blocks has also begun. The problem with India’s energy interests in Myanmar is that even if it develops A1 to A7 energy blocks or any other offshore Bay of Bengal blocks, how will be it be transported back to India? The original plan for the Kaladan project was to provide a transit route from Sittwe to Bongaigaon in Assam through the river. Energy transit is not India’s primary concern with this project as we lost out on A1 and A7 blocks. MC: What is the Chinese interest in Myanmar’s gas reserves? SS: Chinese interest lies in building the pipeline from A1 to A7 blocks from Myanmar to China. For that, they want to develop deep sea water ports on west Arakan alongside a petrochemical complex. India was earlier looking for control of these ports. MC: Do you think India should have done more to explore and develop its stake in Myanmar’s natural resources? SS: India should have been more aggressive in exploring and developing gas reserves available in Myanmar. At present, we only hold a 30 per cent stake in A1 and A3 blocks, and that too we are forced to sell to China because of the absence of a proper pipeline between India and Myanmar. China is purchasing gas from all seven known gas blocks in Myanmar (A1 to A7 blocks). MC: What is the available surplus of gas reserves in Myanmar which can be imported by India? SS: There is no officially known proven surplus in Myanmar gas blocks for export except in A1 and A3 blocks in Yadana and Yatagun areas. There are estimates of a surplus, but nothing concrete so far. MC: What is Myanmar’s interest in aligning with India as a trade partner? SS: In Myanmar’s interest, the Indian government is planning to assist it with technology and infrastructure to set up gas-based power and fertilizer plants. This is because after meeting their contracted amount to Thailand, Myanmar is left with no surplus gas for its own consumption. However, there is no clarity on where to build these factories. If they are built in Yangon, a transport corridor first needs to be made between Yangon and Arakan region due to geographical constraints. MC: Are there any more gas blocks available for India to develop? If so, can India formulate a more aggressive strategy to acquire and develop them? SS: Yes, there are some unexplored gas blocks still available even along the Arakan region. There are also some known unexplored oil fields in northern Myanmar contiguous to Assam. But, is the Indian government ready to make that investment in exploring and developing them? It is unlikely that there are any more offshore blocks available though. MC: Why is Myanmar inclined towards China as a trading partner rather than India? SS: Myanmar is inclined towards China to trade their available gas and energy because India is not taking a firm strategic decision on this issue. MC: Are the regional cooperation agreements of any help in energizing India-Myanmar relations? SS: Regional cooperation agreements are certainly important catalysts for energizing development in the Indian Northeast. Such platforms are critical in the Bay of Bengal economic community in terms of India’s Look East policy as these measures are not subject to Pakistan-related problems in the SAARC. After Myanmar’s integration into ASEAN in 1997, it became a big part of the Look East Policy as Myanmar was considered India’s gateway to ASEAN countries because of a contiguous land and maritime border. It was for this reason that India invited Myanmar to join BIMSTEC in December 1997. India realized that no Bay of Bengal community initiative could be successful without the inclusion of Myanmar. Many cross-border highways are being planned to connect India to Myanmar and beyond, like the Rhi-Tidim and Rhi-Falam projects or the Moiwa-Chindwin-Thailand trilateral highway project. As with Bhutan, India can find a strong cooperation for hydroelectricity with Myanmar based on the upcoming 2000MW Tamanthi river project in Chindwin. MC: Should India pursue a parallel alternate strategy to engage with Myanmar? SS: If India develops institutional linkages with Myanmar through cultural exchanges, the problems of integration between the two nations can be handled effectively. With China, and especially its south, the question is whether it should be a part of the Bay of Bengal community. Myanmar has a lot of agricultural land and is the chief source of pulses for India. India’s food security is thus significantly dependent upon agricultural exchanges with Myanmar. India at present enjoys a large presence in Myanmar; but slow delivery from the Indian side is hampering the true potential of this cooperation. India-Myanmar trade is increasingly gaining steam and it will continue to grow as long as Myanmar remains an agro-based economy. Military-military training can provide an opportunity to have a countervailing presence to China in the region. India is right to not get involved in Myanmar’s domestic politics. India must be more aggressive in developing border trade now as western Myanmar is where most of trade with India takes place. MC: Are the recently signed MoUs on criminal matters an indication of positive counterinsurgency operations between the two nations along the India-Myanmar border in India’s Northeast? What results are they expected to yield? SS: The MoUs are a positive step. Myanmar has so far been helpful and forthcoming in helping deal with insurgency problems in India’s Northeast. The MoUs are only a culmination of what has been informally going on for the past decade. MC: The perception however, is that Myanmar is less than interested in dealing with Northeast Indian insurgents in its territory. Why is this the case? SS: Many of the insurgent groups operating along the India-Myanmar border are well-armed and highly trained. Myanmar has helped flush some of them out but there is not much incentive for Myanmar to take any action against them. For instance, Myanmar lost 20-25 soldiers in an operation against an NSCN (K) faction recently. Unless, India is willing to provide them with better logistical support and a stake in the maintenance of better relations, Myanmar would not be very keen on helping India with its insurgency problem. The Tamanthi river project is one more such multi-modal projects in the pipeline which will provide an incentive to Myanmar for stable border management. There are various other constructs to India-Myanmar relations. India’s four highly sensitive states in its Northeast share a common border with Myanmar. In these states, insurgency and ethnic unrest are constant problems that spill across the border as well, and having a hostile Myanmar would only make matters worse for India. Even if Myanmar is not helpful in tackling these problems for India, which it is at present, it is still reassuring that it does not intend on getting hostile and hosting China against India if the need arises. If we want Myanmar to be helpful in dealing with insurgencies which have sanctuaries on the Myanmar side, we have to give them a stake in keeping the border safe. Therefore, the Indian government-initiated cross-border projects like the Tamu-Kalewa highway, Tamanthi River hydroelectricity and offshore blocks in Bay of Bengal and the A1 and A7 gas blocks in Arakan region become important. India needs to push for infrastructure and energy projects in Myanmar. Since 1997, when the Myanmar army conducted a large scale operation against NSCN (K) and ULFA camps around the border areas, Myanmar’s attitude has been very positive on anti-insurgency operations along the border. * Medha Chaturvedi, Research Officer, IPCS, email: medhachaturvedi@gmail.com The right way to help Burma’s democracy movement – Editorial Washington Post: Thu 3 Feb 2011 SOME OBSERVERS have hailed the inauguration of a new parliament this week as an augur of a potentially more democratic era for the sad, Southeast Asian nation of Burma (also known as Myanmar). If so, it’s an odd sort of democracy. The session took place in Naypyidaw, the remote and lavish new capital that Burma’s ruling generals constructed, at huge expense, reportedly on the advice of astrologers. The city’s chief feature is that almost no one lives there, and almost no one who doesn’t live there is permitted to visit. Parliamentary rules were consistent with that paranoia. Journalists were barred, as were ordinary citizens, and even parliamentarians were not allowed to bring in cellphones, cameras or recording devices. Any legislator who wants to ask a question has to submit it 10 days in advance, with the regime ruling on its appropriateness. This would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic. The Burmese people have shown, through courageous uprisings in 1989 and 2007, that they are desperate to govern themselves. But unlike in Egypt so far, the Burmese army has proved willing to kill as many civilians as necessary to maintain power. The regime, led by Gen. Than Shwe, is one of the world’s most brutal, and it has led the nation of 50 million – once among Asia’s most prosperous and educated – steadily downward. The latest farce of controlled elections to a pseudo-parliament is hopeful in one sense, though: It shows that the generals care enough about global opinion at least to pretend at democracy. That in turn suggests that outside nations could exert some influence if they chose. Which brings us to the failing policy of the Obama administration, ostensibly a marriage of engagement and targeted sanctions. In practice, engagement has been half-hearted and fruitless – the regime seems uninterested – and sanctions have been allowed to languish. The administration hasn’t added a single name to the Treasury Department’s Burma sanctions list or cracked down on a single bank doing business with the regime – even as the generals sign multibillion-dollar development deals with companies in China, Thailand and elsewhere. There’s an honest debate to be had about whether sanctions hurt ordinary people more than their rulers. But a focused effort to target the regime and its cronies might leave more room to expand humanitarian aid to the population. Right now, the administration has the worst of all worlds. It’s not influencing events, it’s not helping the people and it’s positioning itself to be blamed nonetheless. A less honest debate would be one that blames the administration’s lassitude on Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma’s democracy movement, or argues that sanctions should await a clear pronouncement from her. Though she was recently freed from house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi is not in an easy position; if she did call forthrightly for enhanced sanctions, she would be vilified in the poisonous state-controlled press. The biggest help the West could give the democracy movement would be to freeze the bank accounts of the nation’s rulers and their relatives, to keep them from stealing more of their nation’s patrimony, and let Aung San Suu Kyi call for relaxation when and if events merit. The opening of a Potemkin parliament wouldn’t qualify as one such event. Suu Kyi’s Davos speech: A radical u-turn? – Htet Aung Irrawaddy: Thu 3 Feb 2011 In her first major international speech since her release from house arrest in November, Burma’s pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi spoke for the first time about investment opportunities in Burma. In an articulate pre-recorded message to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Suu Kyi lauded the potential for investment in Burma to a gathering of world leaders, businessmen, politicians, academics and civil society representatives. Following growing criticism of her party’s intransigence on the existing economic sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, Canada and Australia, Suu Kyi acknowledged that the people of Burma has been left behind while their neighbors develop economic ties with the junta, and exploit Burma’s abundant natural resources at the expense of internal political conflict in the country. “We have already missed so many opportunities because of political conflicts in our country over the last 50 years,” said Suu Kyi in her speech. “Despite an abundance of natural resources, Burma’s development has lagged far behind its neighbors.” At first glimpse, her speech leads to the conclusion that Suu Kyi admits the sanctions have failed and have restricted Burma’s development; even more so when she went on to encourage foreign investment, albeit with principles attached. “I would like to request those who have invested or who are thinking of investing in Burma to put a premium on respect for the law, on environmental and social factors, on the rights of workers, on job creation and on the promotion of technological skills,” she said. Does this speech mark a radical U-turn in Suu Kyi’s attitude toward sanctions? Did she simply want to make a point about foreign investment? Or is she offering yet another olive branch to the generals, touting herself as a cheerleader for the new government? “I don’t think her speech was a departure from her past approach,” said Prof. Sean Turnell of Macquarie University in Australia, a longterm economic expert on Burma. “What she said was not only sensible and reasonable in terms of social justice, but also in terms of sound economics. “She really called for an infusion of foreign investment in Burma that was both in and of itself intrinsically beneficial in terms of Burma’s longterm economic development, and for the sort of environment that would maximize the benefits of such investment.” Indeed, the speech proves Suu Kyi’s commitment to the people of Burma to improve the lot of the common citizens while sacrificing the political platform of her party, which was coincidentally denied the right to exist by Burma’s Court of Appeal on the same day she gave this speech at Davos. Has her speech lessened the contentious debate about Burmese sanctions? Several Rangoon-based economists have recently analyzed whether the existing economic sanctions really hurt the ordinary people or the junta and its business circle. Heading back to 1997 when the first US economic sanctions were imposed on the Burmese regime, more than 75 percent of Burma’s population was agrarian or reliant on the agriculture industry for their livelihoods. Then, as now, the traditional export markets for Burmese agricultural produce are largely within Asia, with a very tiny market in Africa, and nothing in North America or Europe. As the Asian countries did not impose economic sanctions on Burma, and in many cases actively engaged with the junta, no barriers existed in Asian trade and investment in Burma. Therefore, the rise or decline of trade between Burma and its Asian neighbors has never had anything to do with the Western sanctions. Of course, at the same time it is fair to say that Asia’s eagerness to do business with the junta is the major reason for the ineffectiveness of the economist sanctions. But on the whole, US and EU trade has played a minuscule role in the country’s economy since long before sanctions hit the table. The US financial sanctions blocked the junta’s US Dollar transaction in its international trade, but Burma’s business elite are still able to use the Euro and other currencies. Therefore, the junta’s ability to sell natural gas to Thailand has remained unhindered, and it has in recent years been able to expand the market to China. Natural resource exports such as oil, gas, gems and teak are thriving businesses, but ones which require a huge investment up front. Indisputably, these contracts have remained the domain of the military generals, their families and their cronies, and they do not affect the common people of Burma. The tiny portion of the country’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) from the industrial sector goes only to local markets. Because of the low quality of the products, they don’t have a market outside the country; their competitive power is further reduced due to the enhanced status of popular imports mainly from China, India and Thailand. But many still favor targeted sanctions. “I believe sanctions that limit the ability of regime officials and connected cronies to use the international financial system, to both expropriate and disguise ill-gotten rents from exclusive access to Burma’s natural resources, will continue to have utility,” said Turnell. In this point, a thorough policy analysis should be done on why the flow of foreign investments into the country’s agricultural and industrial sectors has been extremely low while their flow in the area of the natural resource extraction has been skyrocketing. “Investment in manufacturing, agriculture and the like requires a degree of certainty—of reasonable property rights against expropriation—but such rights are not present in Burma,” said Turnell, who established Burma Economic Watch, an online resource on Burma’s economy. “Accordingly, Burma attracts the investment typical of that which flows to unstable states, the sort that through resource extraction (digging, cutting and carrying away) yields quick cash with little interaction with the economy as a whole.” The rise and decline of the Foreign Direct Investment flow in a country depends mainly on domestic political and economic stability—the two areas are interlinked. Suu Kyi emphasized this fact in her speech. “I believe that as necessary steps towards integration within the global community Burma must achieve national reconciliation, political stability and economic growth grounded in human resources development,” she said. “Without the first two—which are essential for the basic requirements of good governance such as transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity—social and economic development will remain mere pipe dreams.” No government in this 21st century believes that it alone can build the state structures in the economic, social, political and cultural arenas without the support and active participation of its citizens. Since her release, critics of Suu Kyi inside and outside the country have said that if Suu Kyi gave up her stand on sanctions, dialogue could begin between the junta and the NLD. But they have never shown their broad analysis on what are the root causes that have brought about the long economic stagnation in Burma. She has taken a radical step—perhaps with a conciliatory tone—in announcing her economic principles at the World Economic Forum. If the Burmese generals do place national interests above all else, and are truly serious about improving the country’s economy, the time has come for the regime to consider Suu Kyi’s offer to work together for the betterment of the people. A Parliament without debate? – Myo Thant Mizzima News: Wed 2 Feb 2011 Chiang Mai – Freedom of debate in Burma’s new Parliament apparently will be tightly controlled by the authorities, saying ‘it is important not to have a sense of contradiction.’ In one of his first statements, Lower House Speaker Khin Aung Myint warned members of Parliament to refrain from spending too much time in debate during sessions. Likewise, during the Upper House session on Monday Speaker Khin Aung Myint warned MPs about excessive, rowdy debate in Parliament. He was quoted in a state-run newspaper, ‘The Mirror’, on Tuesday: ‘The Parliament representatives are to serve the interests of the people unanimously no matter which party they are from. And they are to discuss any matters in unison. It is important not to have a sense of contradiction. The precious time will be lost if they argue with each other. The Parliament should not be in a debate-like situation’. A USDP member in the Upper House, Khin Shwe, said that restrictions and close scrutiny of debate was good because many MPs are inexperienced in parliamentary affairs. ‘We are not yet accustomed to that practice (parliamentary debates) so the regulation and restriction should be exercised and adopted to avoid unnecessary problems. This is a preventive measure’, he said. However, 88-Generation Students and Youths (Union of Myanmar) party chairman Ye Tun said that many MPs failed to nod their heads during the anti-debate remarks. ‘They must say white is white and black is black based on what they see and think’, he said. ‘In these assemblies, which a single party (USDP) dominates, some MPs are scared of opposing the dominant MPs, and they might not dare to say “white” when the dominant party is saying “black”’. ‘It should not be like that in Parliament, the minority having to accept whatever someone representing the majority is saying’, he said. White Tiger party (Shan Nationalities Democratic Party) MP Sai Saung Si said that his party planned to present their arguments in debates with sound facts and reasons, and they have no reason to create ‘roadside brawls,’ as one speaker described debates. ‘We will submit our bills and raise our questions with reasonable facts done lawfully in the parliaments. All of our presentations will be controlled and reasonable’, he said. The first parliamentary sessions took place in the newly built Lower House, which has 440 seats, and the Upper House, which has 224 seats. One fourth of the total seats are reserved for military-appointed MPs in uniform. News of the Parliament sessions was telecast by state-run Myanmar TV on Tuesday, which showed some MPs in their ethnic traditional dress seated among other MPs in military uniform and MPs wearing the white traditional Burmese overcoat. According to the dress code prescribed by Parliament regulations, all non-military MPs must wear traditional dress. Hand phones, cameras and recorders are banned from the Parliament chambers. Media group criticises Parliament for lack of media access Mizzima News: Wed 2 Feb 2011 New Delhi – Banning journalists from covering the news of Parliament sessions in Burma is undemocratic, the France-based Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF) said on Tuesday. The first session of Parliament in two decades was convened on Monday, but domestic journalists and foreign correspondents were barred from covering the news of the sessions. ‘The junta’s road to democracy is in fact undemocratic’, RSF editor-in-chief Gilles Lordet told Mizzima. ‘This is mere farce. They are doing it (convening Parliament) just to show the world that they are striving for change and no more military rule in Burma. ‘This is not the truth. The situation remains unchanged as before. There are no changes at all’. Lordet also called for the release of imprisoned journalists, bloggers and other political prisoners. The Committee for Professional Conduct (CPC), which was recently formed in Burma to develop private media, and the Rangoon-based Foreign Correspondents Club in Myanmar (FCCM), applied to the Press Scrutiny and Registration Division [censorship board] for permission to cover Parliament sessions, but they were informed that media would not be invited to cover the sessions. “We received a reply from them saying not only the CPC, but no other news agencies were invited’, said CPC chairman Ko Ko. After the Parliament session on Monday, reporters had to visit guesthouses and hotels where members of Parliament were staying to find out what happened in the historic first session. The junta permits state-run media to cover the news of elected assemblies in states and regions. The Burmese exiled government, the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), Information Minister, Dr. Tint Swe, said not allowing journalists to cover Parliament demonstrated the junta’s lack of belief in democracy. “I think they have banned reporters and media from covering the news to conceal the facts that they do not want to be disclosed to the people. This will not be good for the people’, he said. Tint Swe, who lives in New Delhi, said, ‘In India, the parliament sessions are telecast live to the entire country. Democracy is based on the people. It means the representatives of the people cannot do anything which is not known to the people’. Veteran reporter Subhajit Roy of the English-language newspaper Indian Express told Mizzima that reporters in democratic countries are entitled to cover deliberations and debates between ruling parties and opposition parties in parliament sessions. ‘For instance, the news of how the opposition criticises the ruling party in Parliament on various issues, such as rising commodity prices, terror issues, internal security, is important. It’s important for the people because it brings out the position of the government’, he said. In addition, after a parliament session, the MPs and ministers usually answer questions from reporters, he said. In section 52 of the recently enacted Parliament laws, only members of Parliament are allowed to enter Parliament without permission of the speaker. Unauthorised persons inside the premises during sessions could receive up to a one-year prison term or be fined 100,000 kyat (US$ 850) or both. RSF said that in 2010 Burma was ranked 5th worst regime in the world in terms of media freedom out of a total of 178 countries. |
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
