Burma Update
News and updates on Burma01 March 2011
News on Burma - 1/3/11
UNSC Resolution on Libya sends a message to other regimes – Lalit K Jha Irrawaddy: Mon 28 Feb 2011 Washington—The unprecedented unity shown by the powerful 15-member United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in passing a strong resolution against Libyan leader Muammar Al-Gaddafi, including a travel ban and asset freeze, also sends a tough warning to other hardline regimes, including Burma’s military junta. The resolution, passed unanimously late Saturday night after hours of debate, sends a strong message that the international community will no longer tolerate regimes across the globe that kill their own citizens or commit gross human rights violations to hold onto power. “It is obvious that this referral is going well beyond Libya,” France’s ambassador to the UN, Gerard Araud, told reporters Saturday night following a decision by the UNSC to refer Gaddafi and his cronies to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged crimes against humanity. Despite their initial reservations on this issue, China and India both finally agreed to go along with the rest of the Security Council in passing the resolution. This is particularly notable in the case of China, which in the past has used its veto power to block moves by Western countries led by France to invoke the “responsibility to protect” principle in the case of Burma. This will make it more difficult in the future for China to block strong international action against the Burmese regime, as it did following the bloody crackdown on monk-led protests in September 2007 and in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis in May 2008, when the junta was accused of dragging its heels in response to the disaster, resulting in thousands of deaths. The decision to condemn Gaddafi—and the newfound willingness of China and others to recognize the need to take strong action against oppressive regimes—was immediately applauded in Washington. “The Security Council resolution, which was passed in record time and included countries that are often reluctant to empower the international community to take such actions, sends a strong, unmistakable signal,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters traveling with her on her way to Geneva to attend the meeting of the UN Human Rights Council. Araud, the French ambassador, went even further in describing the move as a significant break from the past, calling the ICC referral “a warning to all the leaders who could be tempted to use repression against this wind of change, this wind of liberty. We feel it, we felt it in the Security Council chamber, we feel it in the corridors of this organization.” “There is an earthquake going on, and it has reached New York. I don’t know if there will be a tomorrow. I do hope there will be a tomorrow. I do hope that responsibility to protect, international justice and sanctions against dictators will have a follow-up and that dictators will listen to what is happening even in the usually prudent Security Council,” the French ambassador said. It is noteworthy that France had moved to invoke the UN’s responsibility to protect option on Burma in response to both the 2007 Saffron Revolution and Cyclone Nargis, but was both times rebuffed by the Chinese. At the time, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner suggested that the UN invoke this collective responsibility to protect the people of Burma. China was not the only country that balked at the idea of invoking the responsibility to protect, or “R2P,” principle in response to the Burmese junta’s handling of the Nargis relief effort. Although some experts called on the US and UK to join France in taking drastic action to deal with the disaster in Burma, neither country supported the move at the time. “The United States and Britain should join with the French government and introduce a resolution in the UN Security Council demanding that the Burmese government accept the offers of international relief supplies and personnel, let them enter the country immediately and without interference, and allow the UN to take charge of the humanitarian mission,” wrote Ivo Daalder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Paul Stares, the director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, in The New York Times on May 13, 2008. The Burmese expatriate community had also urged the UN to invoke the R2P principle to save the lives of people stranded in the Irrawaddy delta after Cyclone Nargis devastated the area. “Now is the time to act. You have helicopters, ships and supplies ready and waiting. Stop waiting for China or the Burmese regime’s approval and send aid now,” wrote Aung Din, the director of the US Campaign for Burma, in a letter addressed to heads of state in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis. Karen petition urges UN to take action against junta – Ko Wild Mizzima News: Mon 28 Feb 2011 Chiang Mai – A petition signed by 84,000 Karen has been sent to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to take action against the Burmese junta’s violation of human rights and military campaigns against the Karen people. Organized by the Karen National Union (KNU) and 31 Karen social organizations in 16 countries in Asia, Europe and North America, the petition was also sent to leaders of eight countries including British Prime Minister David Cameron and Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard, according to the KNU. The eldest petitioner was 103 years old and the youngest was 16. Naw Zipporrah Sein, the KNU secretary-general, said, ‘We want Mr. Ban Ki-moon to use his power and authority to exert pressure on the junta to stop the violations of human rights. We would like to request Mr. Ban Ki-moon to put pressures on the junta to negotiate a cease-fire across the country, to hold a serious political dialogue and to build a federal country that can guarantee racial equality and human rights’. KNU officials said that more than 3,600 villages in Karen State have been destroyed by the junta in the past 15 years. More recently, 18 Karen civilians were killed and 38 were physically abused by junta troops before the election in November 2010, officials said. It said 52 Karen were arrested unlawfully, 2,300 were used in forced labour, 198 buildings including homes, schools and churches were destroyed due to the military clashes in the Karen State, and more than 3,000 Karen villagers were forced to seek refuge in the jungle, according to the KNU statement. During 2010, there were more than 1,000 clashes between the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), the armed wing of the KNU, and junta troops in Thaton, Taungoo, Nyaunglebin, Myeik, Dawei, Papun, Kawkareik and Hpa-an districts, said KNU officials. The KNU was formed in February 5, 1947, to fight for equality and self-determination for the Karen people. Chin state abuses are the tip of the iceberg – Richard Sollom Democratic Voice of Burma: Mon 28 Feb 2011 Recently a new Burmese legislature convened for the first time in 22 years, but the parliament resembles last year’s electoral exercise – an elaborate show that is a democracy only in name. Yesterday, as DVB reported, Burma snatched power from judges as well. The 50 million people living in Burma are still under the military regime’s repressive rule, and for them, the human rights abuses that they suffer at the hands of the military junta are a regular way of life. Burma’s military regime has been a constant roadblock to democracy. The new parliament is under the junta’s strong arm, and 84 percent of all parliamentary seats are reserved for current military officers or held by General Than Shwe’s cronies – the same army soldiers who committed 73 percent of all reported human rights violations last year. The brutal treatment of ethnic nationalities under the military junta is well known to the international community, but the mass atrocities that they suffer have been deliberately hidden from the world by this repressive regime. Physicians for Human Rights recently went door-to-door in Burma’s remote western Chin state to conduct a random survey of 702 households. Together with our local partners, we documented 2,951 abuses over a 12-month period. We found that government authorities may have killed an estimated 1,000 household members, tortured 3,800 individuals and raped 2,800 adults and children over the course of the 12-month reporting period. And that’s in just one state of 500,000 people who represent one percent of the total population of Burma. Our report, Life Under the Junta, presents strong evidence that Burmese authorities are committing crimes against humanity. One 18-year-old woman told us how the Burmese military raped her at gunpoint in June 2009 in her rural village in Mindat. The reason they raped her and forced her into servitude is because she is Christian and Chin – a different ethnic nationality than the military, who are mostly Buddhist and Burmese. The collective voices captured in our survey speak for a brutalized population who will not see the results of Burma’s new “democracy.” As one of its first orders of business, the new parliament should allow a full and independent investigation into these possible crimes. Such an investigation, which the United Nations could establish as a commission of inquiry, is an essential first step to help Burma replace impunity with accountability and bring justice and stability to the people of Burma. I was in Geneva in the days before Burma’s review of its deplorable human rights record by the United Nations. While there, I had the opportunity to speak with UN delegations of countries that publicly support an investigation of crimes in Burma. The leadership these countries have shown in forging a path to justice is a hopeful sign, but more countries must join their ranks. Currently 14 countries publicly support establishing a UN Commission of Inquiry, most of which are Western democratic governments. Now these 14 countries, including the United States, should build cross-regional unity in the push for accountability in Burma to end these mass atrocities. We know that Burmese authorities will continue the abuses that it has been committing for decades, and that the government will not investigate the crimes on its own. Under this regime of impunity, the 18-year-old Chin woman who told us her tale of survival will have no recourse to justice. International action is essential for justice, accountability, and a peaceful future. Now is the time for the international community to come together, stand alongside the people of Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi, and demand accountability in a country that has been plagued with injustice. * Richard Sollom is deputy director of the Nobel prize-winning Physicians for Human Rights. Stop the looting of Burma – Matthew Smith Wall Street Journal: Mon 28 Feb 2011 The international community can make it harder for the generals to steal the proceeds of Burma’s oil and gas exports. The hunt for Hosni Mubarak’s ill-gotten wealth is underway, with banks and governments cooperating to return what belongs to the people of Egypt. However, it may be too late to recover most of what Mr. Mubarak and his cronies stole, and in many other cases it may be impossible to prevent such losses as they are happening. There is one place, though, where it is both indisputable that the authoritarian rulers are looting the country’s wealth and possible to do something about it right now: Burma. The military junta has been diverting profits from the lucrative energy sector for nearly two decades. Natural gas sales to Thailand alone have generated billions of dollars, accounting for roughly 35% of annual export earnings. But instead of generating prosperity and hope for Burmese, this wealth has largely disappeared into the generals’ pockets. Part of the problem is that very little of the gas revenue ever officially enters Burma. A well-documented dual accounting method ensures most of the profit, paid to the military in U.S. dollars, remains outside of the country’s national budget. In some cases it is located in shadowy offshore bank accounts held in trust by entities designed to avoid international sanctions. So what can the international community do? The U.S. could fully implement existing financial sanctions that were designed to target the generals’ offshore bank accounts. Section 5(c) of the JADE Act of 2008 already authorizes the Treasury Department to prohibit Burmese individuals and foreign banks from accessing the U.S. financial system if they hold cash or facilitate transactions for the Burmese regime. Restricted access to the U.S. financial system is a risk foreign banks will not take lightly. This should have little adverse impact on Burma’s general population, since they are already largely isolated from the global financial system, but it will make it more difficult for the generals to hide public money. While the full weight of the U.S. legislation has never been applied, recent reports from Singapore suggest some banks in the island state have started refusing accounts held by politically exposed persons from Burma. This shows that bankers are very aware of the risk of tougher sanctions, and that such sanctions might be very effective. Working with Egypt and other transitioning countries to recover lost or stolen assets is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. A military junta should not be allowed to openly loot a country’s resources with the help of the international financial system. Cutting the generals off from the tools they need to launder their stolen money is a sound measure that can change their behavior and help the people of Burma recover what is rightfully theirs. * Mr. Smith is a senior consultant with EarthRights International, which represented Burmese plaintiffs in Doe v. Unocal Corporation. Global Fund back with new hope – Marwaan Macan-Markar Inter Press Service: Mon 28 Feb 2011 Bangkok – Burma’s transition from an overt military rule to a civilian administration of retired generals is getting a shot in the arm from a former critic of the junta – the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Fund that left the South-East Asian nation in protest more than five years ago is returning this year to Burma, or Myanmar. The move follows three agreements inked last November to finance two-year grants of up to 112.8 million dollars against the three killer diseases. It marks an increase from the 98.4 million dollars that the Geneva-based humanitarian body had pledged during its first foray. The group pulled out in August 2005 citing political interference in its programmes. Support for HIV/AIDS initiatives is billed to get the largest share, 46 million dollars, with malaria receiving 36.8 million dollars and tuberculosis (TB) 30 million dollars, according to the Global Fund. “Burma re-applied for Global Fund grants in 2009 and due to the technical merit of the proposals the board decided to approve them,” Marcela Rojo, spokesperson for the Global Fund confirmed in an IPS interview. The decision coincided with last year’s general election in Burma, the first in two decades. The Nov. 7 poll gained notoriety for its irregularities, prompting critics to say that little has changed since the country came under the grip of oppressive military rule in 1962 after a coup. “No one really expects the new government to improve the human rights situation, but one practical dividend that must come with the new parliament is increased humanitarian space,” says David Scott Mathieson, Burma consultant for Human Rights Watch, a New York-based global watchdog. “The Global Fund (entry), given its past experience, is going to be an important litmus test in assessing the new government’s sincerity,” he added. The significance of its re-entry is clear to the Fund, as it begins working with its international partners in the country, Save the Children and the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). “Strong additional safeguards have been put in place to ensure strict oversight of these grants and to ensure the ability of the Global Fund to move quickly should any irregularities be identified,” said Rojo. These include an assurance from Burmese officials that the Fund’s staff will have immediate access to implementation sites. “Funding for life saving drugs, awareness raising in the most vulnerable populations, and behavioural change campaigns will feature in the package to combat HIV,” said Andrew Kirkwood, head of Save the Children’s Burma office, that receives 28.3 million dollars for its AIDS programmes. “The goal is to reduce HIV transmission and HIV-related morbidity, mortality, disability and social and economic impact,” he added in an interview. Burma reportedly has nearly 240,000 people living with HIV, of which 120,000 need life prolonging anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs. Many of them belong to the three most vulnerable groups: female sex workers, men who have sex with men, and injecting drug users. Malaria has left an equally troubling trail, with nearly 70 percent of the country’s 57 million people at risk, and 475, 297 already infected, according to health reports. TB is as virulent, with some 200,000 cases reported in 2008, placing Burma 20th among 22 countries across the world topping in the burden of the disease. Dovetailing with the Fund’s initiative is another international programme, the Three Diseases Fund (3DF), aimed at caring for the sick infected by HIV, TB and malaria. Set up by a coalition of donors from Australia, Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the European Commission, 3DF invested an estimated 100 million dollars when it came to Burma in 2006 after the Global Fund quit. “These programmes have provided 21,138 people living with HIV antiretroviral medication, detected and treated more than 100,000 cases of tuberculosis and treated over one million cases of malaria,” Sanjay Mathur, director of UNOPS in Burma told IPS. “The challenge to cover all those in need has always been daunting,” admits Paul Yon, head of the Medecins Sans Frontier (MSF- Doctors Without Borders) mission in Burma. “The pulling out of the Global Fund in Myanmar did not make the situation better for the people in need of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria treatment for sure,” he told IPS. “MSF has always been advocating for international inputs and to get donors such as the Global Fund back in the country.” The desperate need for foreign funds was brought home by MSF in 2008, when it warned that 76,000 patients needed the life-prolonging ARV therapy but only about 25,000 were receiving first-line drugs. By then, the military regime’s record on welfare was as notorious as its oppressive grip. The junta had only permitted some 1,800 people to be treated with ARVs in 22 hospitals across the country. The health budget that year to care for people living with HIV was only 200,000 dollars, compared to the nearly 8 billion dollars the regime had earned from natural gas sales from the resource rich country between 2000 and 2008. “Aid has always been a political issue in Burma and it will be that way now that the Global Fund is back,” said a Rangoon-based doctor who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We need this assistance, because it is a lifeline for the patients.” Aung San Suu Kyi notes parallels between Middle East and Burma – Luke Hunt Voice of America: Fri 25 Feb 2011 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – Nobel Laureate and pro-democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi says the people of Burma are closely following events in the Middle East, where largely peaceful protests have forced governments out of office in Tunisia and Egypt. Aung San Suu Kyi says Burma’s military government has attempted to block coverage of events in the Middle East from reaching ordinary people without much success. She spoke to foreign correspondents in Kuala Lumpur through an audio link from Rangoon. The 65-year-old Nobel Laureate said the ousting of governments in Tunisia and Egypt – as well as the confrontation between supporters of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and anti-government protestors – were followed closely by the Burmese people. “They are comparing what’s happening there with what happened in Burma [in] 1988 and one of the things they have noticed is that in Tunisia and in Egypt the army did not fire on its people, whereas in Libya it is different,” she said. “The outcome also seems to be much more complicated and much worse in Libya than in Tunisia and Egypt. Everybody is waiting around to see with great interest what transpires because people were impressed with what happened, particularly in Egypt.” As leader of the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi won democratic elections in 1988 but the result was rejected by the military, which put down protests and has ruled the country ever since. Aung San Suu Kyi spent most of the last two decades behind bars or under house arrest before she was freed last November, after scheduled elections, widely regarded as a sham by international rights groups and others. Under military rule, civilian frustrations have erupted into protests on the streets of the capital, Rangoon, most recently in 2007 when thousands of Buddhist monks demonstrated. They were beaten harshly, fired upon by the military and jailed. Aung San Suu Kyi says this is the significant difference between the plight of Burmese people and those living under totalitarian or autocratic regimes in the Middle East. “Well the people have stood in Burma before as you know and in those instances they were fired upon by the army and I think that makes a great difference. Now the situation in Libya is that the army itself appears divided in regard to how the situation should be handled. In Burma I don’t think there was any noticeable divisions with regards to the policies of the military,” she said. Aung San Suu Kyi says even Burma can not escape 21st Century technology that has significantly increased the ability of people to organize without interference by their governments and she says she intends to sign up for Facebook and Twitter as soon as possible. There are also plans to expand her party’s network among Burmese people living abroad to bring pressure on the Burmese military and the government, which she hopes might encourage them to the negotiating table and towards national reconciliation. Compound interest in Myanmar – Bertil Lintner Asia Times: Fri 25 Feb 2011 Bangkok – While the outside world grapples with how much power Myanmar’s new partly civilian government will command, the country’s still ruling generals are literally digging in, taking no chances of a substantial power shift after last November’s general elections.Those who predicted that the blatantly rigged polls would mean something more than further institutionalizing the military regime may now have to reevaluate those assessments. United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon said in New York on February 5 that he hoped the new elected parliament would mark “the beginning of a change in the status quo” in Myanmar. He said that the appointment of retired general Thein Sein as the new president was “an important step”. However, those hopes were dashed just days after Ki-moon presented his optimistic scenario for Myanmar’s political future. The old junta strongman, General Than Shwe, decided against retirement and will become the chairman of a new seven-member “State Supreme Council”, which, as the name suggests, will be the most powerful institution in the country. Significantly, the new constitution, under which last year’s elections were held and the new government formed, does not mention or legally mandate the creation of any such body. Many earlier thought Than Shwe would retain influence through a constitutionally mandated 11-member National Defense and Security Council (NDSC), which will be led by the president. Apart from chairman Than Shwe, the extra-constitutional State Supreme Council will also include the number two in the old junta hierarchy, General Maung Aye. Other former members of the now dissolved junta, known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), will include Thura Shwe Mann, a known Than Shwe ally who supposedly retired from military service to become a “civilian politician” before last year’s election. He has also been appointed the new speaker of the Lower House of the new National Assembly. More importantly, a new village has been built on the outskirts of the capital Naypyidaw, apparently to ensure that members of the top brass remain in view and stay in step with Than Shwe’s new political order. According to a town plan leaked to Asia Times Online, 16 new homes have or are in the process of being built behind a high-walled compound for the country’s 16 top military leaders. Than Shwe’s own residence sits at the center of this exclusive, closely guarded “gated community”. He will reside in a huge mansion, complete with a sprawling garden, tree-lined driveway and swimming pool, according to the town plan. Next door, the plan shows, his deputy Maung Aye will reside in a considerably smaller villa. Homes in the compound have also been reserved for Thein Sein, the former lieutenant-general-turned-civilian president, supposedly retired former general Thura Shwe Mann, and ex-Lieutenant General Tin Aye, now chairman of the Election Commission. The other houses will belong to other generals and newly appointed parliamentarians. According to the source who leaked the town plans, Than Shwe wants to make sure that no one in his flock goes astray: “It’s like they are under some kind of house arrest. Than Shwe is dead-scared of any possible split, or even disagreements, within the top military leadership,” the source said. To guard against potential threats, there is a complex network of bunkers and bomb-proof culverts built under Than Shwe’s presumptuous new residence, according to the plan. Apart from a domestic revolt, Than Shwe is known to fear a possible US-led foreign invasion. Mild dissent Historically, Myanmar’s ruling military has demonstrated a remarkable ability to remain united in the face of both domestic protests and international condemnation, particularly of its abysmal rights record. However, divergent opinions over how to handle public unrest became apparent among junta leaders in late 2007, when hundreds of thousands of Buddhist monks marched through the old capital Yangon and other cities and towns. There was also reportedly disagreement among the top brass over whether international aid should be accepted after Cyclone Nargis devastated much of lower Myanmar in May 2008. According to a cable from the US Embassy in Yangon, which was sent shortly after the cyclone and made public by WikiLeaks in February this year, both Than Shwe and Thura Shwe Mann were reluctant to allow international rescue workers into the country. “Than Shwe remained worried about a US invasion and [was] determined to hold on to power,” the leaked cable said. Than Shwe was eventually persuaded by other top generals to give rescue workers access to the affected areas, but only after more than a hundred thousand people had perished and hundreds of thousands more were dislocated or otherwise adversely impacted by the natural disaster. Faced with a Buddhist monk-led revolt in 2007, both Than Shwe and his deputy Maung Aye “gave the orders to crackdown on the monks, including shooting them if necessary”, according to another US cable made available by WikiLeaks. Dated November 28, 2007, that cable alleges that Thura Shwe Mann disagreed with the decision to suppress the monk-led anti-government manifestation, but carried it out while “quietly advising regional commanders to do so with minimal bloodshed”. With the country’s 16 most powerful men living together inside a new compound, future disagreements will be more easily managed, some sources suggest. The appointment of Thein Sein as president will also ensure that little changes after the election and the formation of a new National Assembly. Myanmar sources draw parallels with the Machiavellian tactics deployed by former strongman Ne Win, who “retired” as president of the country in 1981 and symbolically handed power to San Yu, a weak and colorless figure who obediently complied with his boss’s wishes. Ne Win also stayed on as chairman of the then ruling Burma Socialist Program Party, the country’s supreme authority, until both he and San Yu resigned in 1988 amid massive anti-government demonstrations that swept the country. According to the assessment of some Myanmar insiders, Thein Sein has become “Than Shwe’s San Yu”. As one of the leaked US cables suggests, Thein Sein may have been among those who wanted to accept foreign assistance after Cyclone Nargis. However he is not known to have ever challenged any major official policy – no matter how controversial. On May 9, 2001, when Thein Sein served as a major general and commander of the Myanmar Army’s Golden Triangle Command in eastern Shan State, he said in a speech before former rebels in the town of Mong La near the Chinese border: “I was in Mong Ton and Mong Hsat for two weeks. U Wei Xuegang and U Bao Youri from the Wa groups are real friends.” Wei and Bao may have made peace with the central government, but both have been indicted by a US court for their involvement in the Golden Triangle drug trade, which includes the production of methamphetamines as well as heroin. To Thein Sein, however, they were “friends” of the regime. Such tow-the-line statements indicate to observers that Thein Sein will remain a loyal servant to Than Shwe in his new presidential capacity. According to another of the leaked US Embassy cables, “Than Shwe’s isolation and paranoia know no bounds … the question is who is brave enough to shunt Than Shwe aside? Most Burmese [Myanmars] tell us no one.” Because all the top generals will be closely guarded neighbors under the watchful eye of a general who will remain the country’s most powerful player, the potential for an internal coup seems as remote as the country’s democratic prospects under “civilian” rule. * Bertil Lintner is a former correspondent with the Far Eastern Economic Review and the author of several books on Myanmar. He is currently a writer with Asia Pacific Media Services. Burma’s President-Elect: A clever puppet? Irrawaddy: Fri 25 Feb 2011 Upon inspection, the make-up of Burma’s “new” government much resembles the old. The only apparent difference from the military regime that has run the country for the past two decades is that certain job titles have changed to accommodate the facade of a civilian government and some ministers who had fallen out of favor with junta chief Snr-Gen Than Shwe have been replaced by their deputies. Probably the biggest indication that it is junta business-as-usual in Naypyidaw is the fact that former Prime Minister Thein Sein, who is Than Shwe’s most malleable puppet, is now President-elect Thein Sein. But does the fact that he has been appointed the new government’s first president demonstrate a shrewdness that he is not often given credit for? Born in Irrawaddy Division, Thein Sein was a 1968 graduate of the Defense Services Academy’s 19th Intake. He was a major in Light Infantry Division 55 when the nationwide pro-democracy uprising broke out in 1988 and later served as the commander of Infantry Battalion 89 in Kalay, Sagaing Division. In 1989, Thein Sein’s path to promotion opened following graduation from the well-known Command and General Staff College in Kalaw, Shan State, and he was later assigned to the War Office as the Colonel General Staff for Than Shwe. Observers said Thein Sein was transferred to the War Office as a courtesy to ex-Gen Khin Maung Than, the former head of the Bureau of Special Operations. At that time, fighting in the northeastern region had subsided and the junta was focusing its military efforts on the Karen National Union and the All Burma Students’ Democratic Front in the southeastern part of the country, where the army engaged in hard-fought battles in which many senior officers died. Being good at office work, Thein Sein became known as “Senior Clerk.” The dutiful Thein Sein gained favor with Than Shwe for his work as the junta chief’s personal assistant and was promoted to brigadier general earlier than expected. Although the Colonel General Staff position was traditionally held only by colonels, Than Shwe let Brig-Gen Thein Sein remain in the post. In order to keep up with the growing number of officers, Than Shwe and a group of military leaders decided to expand the size of the army. Consequently, more divisions were created and Thein Sein was assigned to establish the newly formed No. 4 Military Operations Command in Rangoon’s Hmawbi Township. In 1997, Thein Sein became the commander of the Triangle Region Command based in eastern Shan State. The nature of the orders he received in this command reportedly caused him painful head-aches, and according to Tachileik residents, he often went to a barber shop to get his hair washed in an effort to relieve his sufferings. During his time as the Triangle Region Commander, Thein Sein developed a reputation of being anti-Thai because a number of border skirmishes with Thai troops occurred on his watch. When Lt-Gen Tin Oo, who was then the Adjutant General, died in a helicopter crash in Karen State in 2001, Thein Sein became his successor. Two years later, he was appointed Secretary 2 of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), and after the regime adopted its seven-step “Roadmap to Democracy,” he was assigned to be the chairman of the National Constitutional Convention. Some who know him well said that although Thein Sein seems kinder and less haughty than other generals, he possesses the same negative character traits as most Burmese army officers—he once punched a railway station master in Mandalay. Nonetheless, among the arrogant and haughty top generals who comprise his peer group, Thein Sein is reportedly considered more open-minded and easy-going than most. Thein Sein’s non-confrontational style led him to become known as Than Shwe’s “yes-man” who always listened to the junta chief whether he was right or wrong. From the junta chief’s perspective, this made Thein Sein the perfect choice to fill the vacancy when then Prime Minister Lt-Gen Soe Win—who allegedly masterminded the 2003 attack on Aung San Suu Kyi and her entourage—died of cancer. As Prime Minister, Thein Sein was sent into the international arena and often asked to carry the regime’s highly controversial flag. According to recent dispatches by Wikileaks, Than Shwe ordered Thein Sein to boycott a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) held after the 2007 monk-led protests in Burma if Asean leaders allowed Ibrahim Gambari, a former UN special envoy to Burma, to speak at the meeting. Also according to Wikileaks, Than Shwe ordered Thein Sein to try his best to alleviate US sanctions imposed on the junta, and Thein Sein became the first Burmese general to be allowed on US soil since 1988. During his visit to New York, Thein Sein almost had the dubious distinction of being the first Burmese prime minister to be hit by shoes when former student leader Moe Thee Zun and other Burmese activists planned to throw their shoes at his car. For better or worse, he managed to avoid the incident. Thein Sein was not given much respect at home, either. His mandates were reportedly blocked by Thiha Thura Tin Aung Myint Oo because he was considered too weak to handle the job of prime minister. Other ministers even remarked that Tin Aung Myint Oo had usurped Thein Sein’s power. The two rivals have moved in unison into the new government—they have now become the President and the Vice President, respectively—and some observers said tension between Thein Sein and Tin Aung Myint Oo has already appeared in the Parliament and the ruling junta. A businessman who met Thein Sein in person told The Irrawaddy that the President-elect is a good speaker, good at administrative matters and also well-liked by many people, but he does not seem to have an economic vision. The businessman said he does not know how the new President will administer the country’s economy without economic knowledge. But even though he may not personally understand much about Burma’s economy, Thein Sein has recruited businessmen such as Khin Maung Aye, the chairman of the Co-operative Bank who allegedly became rich through illegal logging, to be his advisors. He reportedly takes Tay Za and Zaw Zaw, the Burmese economic tycoons who are subject to Western sanctions, along with him whenever he makes a trip outside the country. Compared to Snr-Gen Than Shwe and other top generals who have been repeatedly accused of making the state’s money their own, Thein Sein is thought to be the least corrupt former general. Also, his children are reportedly not business hungry persons like those of former Gen Shwe Mann and Tin Aung Myint Oo. Khin Khin Win, Thein Sein’s wife, said, “We don’t have money. We are living in the house provided by the State.” However, some ethnic Wa and other leaders from the Triangle Region Command have said that there is no regional commander or general who does not accept bribes. So Thein Sein may have savings from what he was able to pocket while serving as the regional commander and prime minister. Perhaps Burma’s Office of the Auditor General has just not yet caught up with Thein Sein—something which often coincidentally occurs when Than Shwe decides that a top junta official’s usefulness to him has run its course. Burma introduces prepaid card system for mobile phones – Na Yee Lin Let Irrawaddy: Thu 24 Feb 2011 Burma’s Ministry of Telecommunications, Post and Telegraphs has finally agreed to allow mobile phone users to buy “top-ups” for their phones to replace the existing billing system. Sources at the ministry in Naypyidaw said that prepaid top-up cards will be produced by the E-lite Tech company, a subsidiary of the Htoo Trading Company, in collaboration with semi-government-owned Myanmar Teleport. Currently, Burma has both GSM and CDMA networks. A WCDMA network was launched in 2009, but with very limited availability. Burma introduced a cellular phone system in 1993, followed by the CDMA system in 1997 and the GSM system in 2002. “Anyone can install the system on their mobile phones at any E-lite Tech shop or its affiliates,” an official said. “However, the phone service will be suspended for a day while the new system is installed.” Traditionally, Burma’s telecommunications have been dominated by the state-owned monopoly telephone service provider, Myanmar Post and Telecommunications (MPT). However, Central Marketing and E-Lite have reportedly been given the contract because they have the technology and infrastructure to provide better service. In January, Myanmar Teleport and six privately owned companies—including E-Lite and Redlink, owned by Toe Naing Mann, the son of Burma’s former No. 3 general, “Thura” Shwe Mann—have introduced a VoIP system in mobile phones that is now available in cities including Rangoon, Mandalay and Pyin Oo Lwin. Telecommunications authorities said they are building more cross-border fiber optic links with neighboring countries in addition to China, Thailand and India to improve domestic Internet communication links. They also said that they are are planning to expand GSM coverage to its neighbors including Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and China. Burma’s mobile market has been growing at an annual rate in excess of 25 percent over the last three years, although foreign investment in the telecoms sector continues to remain low. According to research by Paul Budde Communication Pty Ltd., released on September 2010, investment in Burma’s telecoms sector has been running at less than $6 million per year. The statistical figures show that the telephone density now stands 37 per 1,000 of the population. Myanmar absorbs 3.56 billion USD of foreign investment in three months Xinhua: Thu 24 Feb 2011 YANGON — Myanmar absorbed 3.56 billion U.S. dollars of foreign investment in the three months from November 2010 to January 2011, bringing the total to 35.406 billion dollars as of January this year since the country opened to such investment in late 1988, the Popular News reported Wednesday.The 3.5 billion USD include 3.18 billion USD from China, 186 million USD from Singapore, 183 million USD from South Korea and 3 million USD from China’s Hong Kong, the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development was quoted as saying. Of the total foreign investment injected in over two decades, China’s investment has now topped with 9.603 billion USD, overtaking Thailand which once stood 9.568 billion USD in the foreign investment line-up previously. The Chinese investment was raised by its increased involvement in building of deep seaport, hydropower plants, exploration of natural gas and exploitation of mineral resources and transport. The foreign investment coming from 433 enterprises of 31 countries and region were respectively injected into 12 economic sectors which are oil and gas, electric power, manufacturing, real estate, hotels and tourism, mining, transport and communications, livestock breeding and fisheries, industry, construction, agriculture and services sector. Myanmar’s human rights abuses burden region with exodus of refugees – UN expert UN News Centre: Thu 24 Feb 2011 Human rights violations in Myanmar are burdening other countries in the region, with an influx of refuges fleeing a host of abuses from forced labour and land confiscation to arbitrary detention and sexual violence, a United Nations expert warned today. “There is clearly an extra-territorial dimension,” the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Tomás Ojea Quintana, said in Kuala Lumpur at the end of an eight-day fact-finding mission to Malaysia, one of the affected countries with some 84,800 registered refugees and asylum-seekers and a large number still unregistered. “Despite the promise of the transition in Myanmar, the human rights situation remains grave.” Other countries in the region also host a considerable number of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants from Myanmar. “Countries in the region have a particular interest in persuading the Government of Myanmar to take necessary measures for the improvement of its human rights situation,” Mr. Quintana added. “These measures are an urgent matter for the new Government, and the international community should ensure that Myanmar fulfils this responsibility.” Mr. Quintana met with a wide range of individuals who had fled Myanmar to Malaysia, the organizations that serve these communities, and different ethnic groups, particularly the Chin and Rohingya communities. “I talked to many people who had recently left Myanmar fleeing forced labour, land and property confiscation, arbitrary taxation, religious and ethnic discrimination, arbitrary detention, as well as sexual and gender-based violence,” he said. These included a man who left Chin State after 15 years of portering and forced labour for the military; a prominent Chin woman religious leader coerced to read a statement at a televised event denying restrictions on religious freedom despite her own views; and a young man who left Northern Rakhine State after he was denied the necessary travel permit to attend university and was arrested for trying to bypass the restrictions. Another young man left Shan State after years of forced labour, when the military confiscated his family’s farm and his brother was arrested and subsequently killed; he himself was also arrested but managed to escape. Mr. Quintana will present his latest report to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council next month. When a new president and vice-presidents of Myanmar were elected earlier this month by the newly-convened parliament, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had voiced hope that the move would lead to the formation of a more inclusive civilian government broadly representative of all parties “relevant to national reconciliation and more responsive to the aspirations of the people.” Suu Kyi’s determination to peacefully defy dictatorship remains unchanged – Pak Chong-chu Mainichi Shimbun (Japan): Thu 24 Feb 2011 The Mainichi Shimbun resumed Myanmar pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s column, “Letter from Burma,” this year after a 13-year break. I flew to Myanmar where press restrains were in force late last year and visited Suu Kyi’s residence prior to the publication of the first part of the column on New Year’s Day.Suu Kyi had been under house arrest there on and off over a 15-year period from 1989 to November last year. I stood by one of the windows of her residence, and thought about how firm her determination must be to spend her life resisting Myanmar’s military dictatorship. The military dictatorship has been in power in Myanmar for nearly half a century since the 1962 coup. Suu Kyi founded the National League for Democracy (NLD) in 1988 in a bid to democratize the country, and the party secured 82 percent of the seats in Parliament in a 1990 general election. Nevertheless, the military regime refused to hand over power to the NLD and suppressed pro-democracy movements. The military regime has continued a reign of terror, detaining and torturing NLD members and supporters. Last autumn, the regime called a general election and released Suu Kyi from house arrest. However, the shift to civilian rule was a mirage and the military is still ruling the country. Suu Kyi’s residence is situated in Yangon, the largest city in Myanmar. Since its gate is higher than an adult’s average height, it is impossible to look into her home from the street. There is no other house nearby, and since security forces are surrounding her home round the clock, ordinary citizens are reluctant to approach her house out of fear that security authorities might suspect they have ties to Suu Kyi. Her house is a western-style two-story building with white walls, and security authorities set up a fence with barbed wire behind her home facing a lake. When I saw a scene at the lakeside while waiting for her to return home, I could hardly believe my eyes. There, dozens of couples were dating while people with children were taking a walk. A promenade leads to an amusement park and a Ferris wheel towers over trees. A place isolated from the outside world and a place where citizens lead their daily lives coexist there — a ruthless reality. Suu Kyi, who was separated from her family because of her house arrest, has never lost courage even though she regularly sees citizens nearby who appear happy, and instead tolerates her solitary life. She has reasons for having to do so. Suu Kyi lost her husband, who had been battling cancer in Britain, in 1999 while she was under house arrest. Feeling that he was close to the end of his life, he applied for a visa to visit Myanmar to meet his wife, only to be rejected. The military regime hoped that Suu Kyi would leave for Britain to meet with her ailing husband. However, she chose to stay home because there was no guarantee that she would be allowed to come back to Myanmar once she left the country. She chose to prioritize her pro-democracy movement rather than stay with her dying husband. Her determination is undoubtedly attributable to the existence of fellow freedom fighters imprisoned as political prisoners. In December 1995, shortly after she started the column in the Mainichi Shimbun, Suu Kyi told the world political prisoners were barred from meeting their children for over two years and that their family members were being interrogated and harassed. Her message that she was not the only Myanmar woman detained for her political thoughts appears to reflect a kind of guilty feeling she harbors toward other people who were being suppressed by the military regime. There is a special reason why Suu Kyi evaded being tortured or imprisoned even though she is the leader of Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement. Her father played a leading role in winning Myanmar’s independence and she is well-known to the world as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. The military regime cannot simply take her away from society. In other words, Suu Kyi is a pro-democracy activist whose safety is guaranteed. Therefore, she is obviously determined to share the pain imposed on her fellow pro-democracy activists. In the second letter of the current series that ran on Feb. 6, she confessed that she made a habit of having breakfast quite late during her house arrest “so that in my hunger I would not forget our comrades who were incarcerated not in their own homes but in prisons, often in places far distant from where their families live.” I have met various people as a journalist, but I clearly remember I felt tense when I first met Suu Kyi. The feeling derived from my sense of reverence — similar to a feeling I harbored toward citizens who repeatedly staged a sit-in protest in the Henoko district of Nago, Okinawa Prefecture, to express opposition to the relocation of a U.S. base to the area and those who were involved in a signature-collecting campaign against a so-called plutonium-thermal power generation project. They are determined to confront political power without resorting to violence. I asked Suu Kyi, a Japanophile who studied at Kyoto University in the 1980s, what she expects Japan to do for the democratization of Myanmar. Instead of answering my question, she asked me whether I, as a Japanese national, have urged the Japanese government to pressure Myanmar’s military regime to release all political prisoners. I couldn’t nod with confidence to Suu Kyi, who shot a questioning glance at me. (By Pak Chong-chu, Foreign News Department) Asset grabs in Myanmar – Clifford McCoy Asia Times: Thu 24 Feb 2011 Myanmar is in the midst of a large-scale privatization drive that promises, for better or worse, to shake up one of Asia’s most moribund economies. However, investors keen get involved in the fire sale would be wise to weigh the experience of media entrepreneur Ross Dunkley, who is languishing on unclear charges in the country’s Insein prison. Dunkley, chief executive officer and until recently editor-in-chief of the Myanmar Times newspaper, was arrested on February 10 after returning from a business trip to Japan. A statement from his publishing group said that his arrest was due to immigration violations. Rumors have since surfaced of an altercation with a sex worker in a bar in the former capital city of Yangon. However, the real reason behind his arrest seems to be a power play by his local business partner, Tin Hun Oo, who in recent days has assumed editorial control of the venture. Many observers suspect that since the arrest and sentencing of Dunkley’s previous business partner and political patron in 2004 that the country’s ruling generals have been keen to exert more control over the profitable joint venture. Dunkley was known to be in tense negotiations with his partner over the future leadership of the paper at the time of his arrest. Tin Tun Oo owns 51% of the paper’s parent, Myanmar Consolidate Media, with a group of foreign investors including Dunkley hold the rest, and have long exercised management control, according to the Wall St Journal, which said Dunkley was arrested on February 10. Dunkley 20 years ago launched the Vietnam Investment Review, which he has since left, and in 2008 bought with Western partners control of the Phnom Penh Post. David Armstrong, a former editor of the South China Morning Post who works with Dunkley on the Cambodian paper, said police had decided to take no action on the sexual assault charge and that the woman had subsequently withdrawn her complaint, the Journal report said. Dunkley’s incarceration coincides with the government’s announcement of a fresh round of sales of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in line with the country’s transition from military to civilian rule after last November’s general elections. However, the privatization process has so far been fraught with charges of favoritism of businessmen close to the country’s military rulers and a lack of transparency surrounding the deals. Myanmar is bidding to transform its economy after decades of strong state-control and poor performance that has kept the country at the bottom of most economic and development indexes. Most industries were nationalized when the military seized power in 1962 and declared it was following the “Burmese Way to Socialism”. That inward-looking campaign aimed to limit foreign influence in the economy while promoting the military’s interests. Certain industries were privatized as early as 1995, but the pace of the sell-off accelerated last year in the lead up to the elections. Myanmar officials have said that the government aims ultimately to sell 90% of its held assets. Officials have also said that 70% of those holdings have already been sold. However, it is unlikely that the country’s most important revenue spinners, including control over offshore oil and gas fields, will be spun off to private interests. Khin Maung Kyaw, deputy minister of industry No 2, was reported in the local press as saying that the privatization drive was in line with the experiences of other newly democratic countries. However, Myanmar’s state assets have been made available mainly to military-linked holding companies, private businessmen with close ties to the regime and their relatives. Few, if any, deals have involved foreign investors. In early 2010, 110 business properties, 32 buildings, 246 gas stations and a number of port facilities along the Yangon River that handle much of the country’s international trade were sold to private business interests. Most of the buildings were former government offices in Yangon, where the capital was situated before its move to Naypyidaw in 2005. The businesses included a number of gem and tin mines, agricultural land and factories producing commodities such as soft drinks and cigarettes. Another round of privatizations, including initial offerings of 76 state-owned enterprises and properties, kicked off on January 26 this year. State-run newspapers reported that the sales included former government offices in Yangon, many of which are dilapidated and would likely be demolished to make room for new developments, and loss-making enterprises that weren’t sold during the previous round of sales. The offerings included state-owned factories that produce textiles, consumer goods, electronic and electrical goods, as well as land, buildings, cinemas and warehouses in Yangon and other areas of the country. Another announcement was made on February 15 that put 268 enterprises, buildings and parcels of land on the auction block. Many of the properties and enterprises have been sold to either the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings (UMEH) and the Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC). UMEH is run by the military’s quartermaster general rather than private investors, raising questions about the integrity of the divestments. MEC is also a questionable participant in the privatization process since it is a government body and responsible for controlling the funds raised from the sale of SOEs. Sales to private investors have been even more opaque. During the 2010 asset sales, announcements were made quietly to small, select groups of businessmen, many known to be close to the generals. This, critics say, provided them with privileged choice before the assets were made more widely available to bidders. The lack of transparency has increased the odds that the most profitable assets have wound up in the hands of the military’s cronies or their relatives. Most large private companies in Myanmar have strong ties to the country’s military rulers. This has become a matter of necessity in order to receive operating licenses and lucrative state contracts. Economists have noted that businessmen in Myanmar often participate knowingly in loss-making government projects, such as infrastructure development schemes, in order to maintain their political connections. Friends in ‘high’ places Prominent businessmen who have participated in recent privatizations include Tay Za of the Htoo Group of Companies, Steven Law of Asia World, Zaw Zaw of Max Myanmar Group, Htay Myint of the Yuzana Company, Win Aung of Dagon International and Khin Shwe of Zaykabar Co Ltd. All of these businessmen are currently on the United States’ financial sanctions list. The Htoo Group has interests in logging, construction, tourism, mining and telecommunications. Its owner and chief executive officer, Tay Za, is known to be close to junta supremo and now head of the newly created “State Supreme Council” Senior General Than Shwe. He is also known to be close to former General Shwe Mann, now the speaker of the newly founded People’s Parliament, and his son, Aung Thet Mann. Both sit on the Htoo Group’s board of directors. Steven Law’s Asia World is perhaps the country’s largest and most diversified conglomerate, with ventures spanning industrial investment, transportation and port and road construction. The company is constructing an international airport at the new capital and is expected to run the facility upon completion. Pioneer Aerodrome Services, an affiliate of Asia World, was awarded the concession to run Yangon’s international airport last year. Steven Law is the son of famous drug lord Lo Hsing Han. Zaw Zaw is Tay Za’s main rival for the title of the richest man in Myanmar and has been active in the privatization process. His Max Myanmar Group has extensive interests in gem mining, timber, tourism and construction and it recently won a lucrative contract to participate in the development of a new deep-sea port project at Dawei in southern Myanmar. Zaw Zaw is close to Senior General Than Shwe and former Lieutenant General Tin Aung Myint Oo, the junta’s Secretary-1 and now the country’s “first vice president”. Htay Myint’s Yuzana Company is involved in tourism, real estate, fisheries, palm oil production and rubber. The company also owns the Yuzana Supermarket and Yuzana Hotel in Yangon and an oil refinery in Thaketa township near the old capital. Khin Shwe is Myanmar’s leading property developer and plays a prominent role in the tourism industry through his chairmanship of the Myanmar Hotelier Association. His daughter is married to Shwe Mann’s youngest son. Another company with close ties to senior military officers is the Kanbawza Bank, one of the country’s largest privately held financial institutions. The bank is part of Aung Ko Win’s Myanmar Billion Group, which has interests in banking, mining, gems and large-scale commercial agriculture. It is also on the list of companies sanctioned by the US Treasury Department. Aung Ko Win, is reportedly close to junta number two Vice-Senior General Maung Aye, who is the other major shareholder in the bank. Maung Aye was a regional commander in Shan State, from where Aung Ko Win hails. Kanbawza Bank secured a controlling 80% share of national carrier Myanmar Airways International in last year’s mass sale of state assets. Some analysts believe the sale of Myanmar’s SOEs could mark a dramatic shift for the economy. Most of the enterprises that have been sold were run by the state since their inception and that private ownership will lead to greater efficiency. However, many are expected to face difficulties if they are simply rebranded and expected to compete in a more market-driven economy without wholesale restructuring. Because details of the sales remain sketchy, it is unclear if the process represents a genuine attempt at economic reform or is instead a thinly veiled asset grab aimed at maintaining the military’s hold over the economy. Many observers saw the 2010 sales as a means for the generals to cement the support of the country’s wealthiest businessmen ahead of a potentially delicate political transition. Although most of these businessmen did not themselves run for office, they financially supported other military-linked candidates who did. The transfer of assets from state to private hands will thus likely ensure the economic well-being of the many senior military officials who were required to leave the armed forces in order to become “civilian” politicians as required under the 2008 constitution. Some incentive for the asset sales may also have come from Beijing, which has strongly and publicly encouraged Myanmar’s generals to reform the economy. China is a top foreign investor in Myanmar and would likely gain from a more open investment climate. Than Shwe has shown interest in China’s economic reforms, most recently during a visit he paid to the Shenzen Special Economic Zone. To follow China’s liberalizing model, however, Naypyidaw will need to allow for greater openness. Total foreign investment in Myanmar reached US$32 billion as of October 10, 2010, including major foreign joint ventures in oil and gas development and electrical power generation. A deal signed last year with Thailand’s Ital-Thai Company to develop a deep-sea port at Dawei could bring in as much as $13 billion. China has also committed to investments worth $8 billion in the energy sector, mostly related to the Shwe oil and gas pipelines designed to connect southwest China with Myanmar ports on the Indian Ocean. Nonetheless, two opposition parties have spoken out against the government’s handling of the privatization process. The National Unity Party (NUP), successor to the Burma Socialist Program Party that nationalized much of the economy in 1962, has cautioned against the selling of assets primarily to individuals close to the regime. The party now champions a market economy and privatization, although it still supports state regulation of certain businesses and intervention in the economy. Outside of parliament but still a political force, the National League for Democracy issued a similar statement on January 4, claiming that the privatization policy is creating monopolies controlled by a select group of elites and the generals’ business cronies. There remain big impediments to greater foreign participation and competition, including not least US-led economic sanctions, a distorted official exchange rate regime and questionable rule by law. As the power play against Dunkley’s investment has revealed, contractual obligations are easily broken and foreign investments are at risk of forced takeovers. Until that changes, Myanmar’s privatization drive will remain mostly a domestic affair of questionable reform value. * Clifford McCoy is a freelance journalist. US talks with Myanmar’s Suu Kyi about aid Associated Press: Wed 23 Feb 2011 Yangon, Myanmar – The top U.S. diplomat in Myanmar said Wednesday he has begun talking with pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi about what sort of aid Washington should offer the military-dominated nation. Charge d’Affaires Larry M. Dinger said the U.S. is also talking to the government and others about the issue, which hinges around long-standing sanctions Washington has applied because of human rights abuses by the country’s junta and its failure to institute democracy. Parliamentary rule was nominally restored last month, but a new civilian government has yet to be officially installed. The constitution and last year’s elections were organized under the guidance of the military to preserve its influence. Dinger said he began talks with Suu Kyi on Tuesday aimed at helping formulate U.S. policy toward Myanmar. Washington’s relations with Myanmar have been strained since the military crushed pro-democracy demonstrations in 1988, and the U.S. still refers to the country by its old name, Burma, which was changed by the junta. It also demonstrates its disapproval of the government by not posting a full ambassador in the country. Han Tha, an executive member of Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party, confirmed that Suu Kyi had talked with Dinger for 1 1/2 hours at his residence, but declined to reveal the details of the talks. The Obama administration has been exploring ways of engaging with the government, while Suu Kyi’s party has cautioned against lifting sanctions too quickly. Suu Kyi’s party earlier this month broadly endorsed retaining international sanctions against Myanmar. However, it also called for discussions with the United States, the European Union, Canada and Australia on when and how sanctions might be modified in the interests of democracy, human rights and the economy. In response, a commentary in a state newspaper warned that Suu Kyi and her party would meet “tragic ends” if they move against recent political reforms and criticized her for failing to end her support of sanctions. Myanmar’s state-dominated press had avoided its usual harsh criticism of Suu Kyi since she was freed shortly after the November elections, which were touted by the ruling junta as bringing democracy. The U.S. has called the balloting “fatally flawed.” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the commentary suggested that if Suu Kyi proceeds with plans to reconstitute her party, “she could be in some danger.” He said the commentary was of “great concern” because it was published in a state-run newspaper, “so one would assume there’s actually something behind this.” Burma snatches power from judges – Joseph Allchin Democratic Voice of Burma: Wed 23 Feb 2011 Burma’s Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the responsibility of judges to decide who can attend court hearings held inside prisons, a move described by legal experts as “astounding”. The ruling came as a result of an appeal filed by Phyo Wei Aung, who is facing murder charges over the series of grenade attacks in Rangoon during the Thingyan festival last year. He had appealed to judges to allow his family to attend the trial, but was denied by Insein prison authorities. Judges and legal experts were then unable to overturn the decision. The Hong Kong-based Asia Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said that the trial further highlights serious problems with the justice system in Burma. “Whereas a judge in a courtroom outside a prison in Burma may not conduct a trial fairly, at least she has nominal authority over the premises: by contrast, her counterpart inside a prison does not even have this. “He is in an Alice in Wonderland scenario, perched in a courtroom over which he has no control, deciding on a case in which a decision has already been made: a non-judge occupying a non-courtroom in a non-trial”. It added in a statement that the decision showed “just how far logic has departed” from Burma’s judicial system and “underscores the extent to which the judiciary in Burma has abdicated its authority in favour of the security services”. That sentiment was echoed by David Mathieson, Burma analyst at Human Rights Watch, who told DVB that “this is another example that the courts in Burma serve the military junta, not the people or justice.” AHRC further highlighted concern over the fact that the accused are often not presented with the charges brought against them, concluding that “the judicial system in Burma has been reduced to nonsense and doublespeak.” Phyo Wei Aung is accused of carrying out the attack on the X20 pavilion in April 2010 in which nine people died, but was repeatedly denied legal aid despite that being a right under Burmese law. Why haven’t the Burmese joined the recent wave of pro-democracy protests? – Russ Wellen Huffington Post (US): Wed 23 Feb 2011 One of the of the Burma ruling junta’s more despised adversaries is David Tharckabaw. He serves as the vice president of the Karen National Union, which is dedicated to fighting for the rights of, and providing services for, one of Burma’s oppressed minorities, the Karen people, who live near the border with Thailand. In his most recent statement/press release, Tharckabaw asks, “Why Are There No Protests in Burma?”Thus far Burma’s military dictatorship been immune to the uprisings to which the world has been witness to — or engaged in — elsewhere. Perhaps that’s because Burma comes in a close second to North Korea as the most merciless administration in the world. You think Bahrain and Libya have been barbaric in their responses to protests? One shudders to think how North Korea (where, actually, an opposition movement is unimaginable) and Burma’s ruling junta would react. Tharckabaw, though, sees a ray of hope. He begins by citing all the nations where mass protests have been mounted and criticizing the United States both for supporting rulers such as Mubarak and failing to switch their support to the protesters in timely fashion. He then writes that: . . the generals of the SPDC military junta . . . are among the most repressive in the world [including] ethnic cleansing . . . committed against minority groups. The theft of Burma’s natural resources by the junta, its cronies, and their international partners, is also so severe that it is in the first tier, financially, of worldwide corruption. It is therefore a surprise that there have not been any demonstrations in the country. . . . As a long-time Burma analyst and activist, I personally do not understand the popular inaction. Obviously, there is fear and a multitude of other factors. But still, one would expect some sort of response. At first glance, sounds suicidal. Tharckabaw explains: The crackdown on the Saffron [monks] Uprising in 2007 only occurred after the junta was able to bring troops from border areas to Rangoon. The local commanders did not want to fire on the protestors. It has also been revealed that some leading generals opposed the crackdown. There is significant dissent and factionalism within the junta. Really, everyone is positioning for power in advance of the demise of the top general . . . Than Shwe. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the regime’s response to renewed demonstrations would be muted, particularly in light of the precedent set by the Egyptian military. Bear in mind that Tharckabaw wrote that before Gaddafi’s brutal suppression in Libya. He presents another reason, though, that the junta’s reaction to new protests might not be as harsh as we’ve come to expect from it. In addition, a new crackdown would end the hesitancy to launch war crimes prosecution against the SPDC. Perhaps more to the point, Tharckabaw suggests that a crackdown by the junta could meet with an armed resistance that was absent in previous protests. Right now, the resistance groups in Burma are working to establish a federal army. The generals have already exhibited an inability to move against them singly. As a coordinated front, [the resistance groups] will become much more powerful. As for specific tactics he recommends that this time: . . . the Burmese should avoid marches. As the protestors in Egypt illustrated, it is better to choose a central location, with many access points and surrounded by buildings for video documentation to rally. In Rangoon, one such area is Bandoola Park/Square. The generals can hide in Naypyidaw [the new capital], but their rule will be a sham once the people of Burma control Rangoon [the old capital]. There will then be a coup against Than Shwe, or he and his family will flee to China or Singapore. The people of Burma will be through with the likes of [them]! . . . Democracy has a cost as the adage says “No Pain, no Gain”. The secret is to know when to spend it. That time is now. For her part, Aung San Suu Kyi has offered cautious support for the Egypt protests, while telling the Toronto Globe and Mail that she’d like to link up with pro-democracy activists via Facebook and Twitter. “I think we need to — what do you call it — raise the megabyte?”Meanwhile in a piece for Irrawaddy, The Dictator’s Survival Guide, the Burmese exile publication’s managing editor Kya Zwa Moe ponders why the junta has lasted for almost 50 years. What are some of the secrets to a dictator’s survival? Here are some that Than Shwe and the Burmese generals have practiced: – Crush all protests as soon as possible – Consolidate all security forces, especially the military, under one command – Apply divide and rule techniques among dissidents and the public – Show no sympathy toward any dissent (as Tunisian leader Ben Ali did for the street vendor.) – Never negotiate with opponents – Pay no attention to pressure or suggestions from the international community Than Shwe has applied these techniques since taking power and they are still working well for him. His recent formation of a “civilian government,” following the convening of a “civilian parliament,” appears to be his attempt to plant his seed of power in Burma and watch it grow even from beyond the grave. If you think that Burma sounds like a horror movie, you’re right. Perhaps, though, should mass protests re-occur there, the urge to keep from jeopardizing its developmental and commercial deals with China and India would be enough to keep the junta from responding to mass protests with killings, torture, and imprisonment as it has in the past. * First posted at the Foreign Policy in Focus blog Focal Points. Army seizes 30,000 acres of farmland – Nang Kham Kaew Democratic Voice of Burma: Tue 22 Feb 2011 Farmers in central Burma have filed a complaint to the UN’s International Labour Organisation (ILO) after troops there confiscated more than 30,000 acres of arable land. The reasoning behind the seizure in May last year was that the land was needed to expand on an ordinance production factory, said Than Soe, one of the affected farmers. Now, however, those behind the confiscation are preparing the land to grow wet-season crops. “Farmers from all 13 villages filed reports to the ILO,” he said, adding that the chief of the factory, Major Nyo Myint, was “preparing the land by force”. Some 500 acres of land in the same area of Magwe division’s Aunglan district were seized in 1999 to make way for the early stages of the factory project. Back then, farmers were forced to help with the construction, Than Soe said, adding that the latest confiscation has left them with no land to till. Than Soe was among a group farmers who in 2009 were sentenced to a minimum of four years in jail for filing complaints to the ILO, which is the only international body in Burma with a mandate to tackle issues of land confiscation and forced labour. A lawyer representing the farmers, Pho Phyu, was also handed a four-year sentence after being charged under the Unlawful Associations Act, while one of the farmers was given five years in a remote hard labour camp. They were given early release in 2010 however, following pressure from the ILO and international media, despite being warned by the government not to make contact with overseas press. Government authorities in Aunglan are now said to be issuing threats against a group of around 50 residents who complained to the ILO that they were forced to work on a teak plantation owned by the son of Shwe Mann, one of the Burmese regime’s top officials and now a parliamentary speaker. Kyaw Linn is one of those who was forced to work on the land. He told DVB that “not a penny” was paid to the men, who were threatened with eviction from their village by staff from the Zay Kabar company, headed by Toe Naing Mann, if they refused. “[Toe Naing Mann] is accompanied by [Burmese army] soldiers and policemen when he comes here,” Kyaw Linn said. After filing complaints in mid-January this year, the residents were summoned to a meeting with former army sergeant Tin Maung Swe, who is coordinating Zay Kabar’s teak project, where one man claims they were threatened with a gun. Burmese authorities have a history of heavy-handedness towards complaintants of land confiscation and forced labour. In December last year a Rangoon man was threatened with jail after allegedly “trespassing” on land that had been seized from him by the army. China tops Thailand as biggest investor in Myanmar The Associated Press: Tue 22 Feb 2011 Yangon, Myanmar – China, already Myanmar’s closest diplomatic ally, is now also the country’s largest foreign investor, a report said Monday.The Myanmar-language Weekly Eleven says that China poured more than $3 billion into the country from November last year through January this year, bringing its cumulative investment since 1988 to $9.6 billion, compared to Thailand’s $9.56 billion. A junta that took power in 1988 after violently quashing pro-democracy demonstrations opened up the country to foreign investment after more than two decades of economic isolation. Parliamentary rule was nominally restored last month. Thailand had been the largest investor for the past seven years, mostly in the energy sector. Hong Kong is the third biggest investor, with $5.9 billion. Monday’s news report, citing an unnamed official from the Union of Myanmar Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said China’s major new investments were in hydropower projects. Several of its large-scale hydropower projects have been criticized for allegedly uprooting thousands of people from their homes and harming the environment, hurting people’s ability to make a living. Another major Chinese investment is the Shwe natural gas project in Myanmar’s western Rakhine State, which involves China importing gas from offshore Myanmar wells and oil from tankers from the Middle East through a 750-mile (1,200 kilometer) oil and gas pipeline. There have been no major new Western investments in recent years because of tough economic sanctions imposed by the United States and Washington to pressure the military government to restore democracy and improve its human rights record. Burma’s report to UN ‘is fictional’ – Francis Wade Democratic Voice of Burma: Tue 22 Feb 2011 Legal experts have accused the Burmese junta of submitting a “fictional” report to the UN that details a superficially rosy picture of its human rights record.Known as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the report was compiled by the Myanmar Human Rights Committee, led by home affairs minister Maung Oo, and sent to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) earlier this year. But a scathing analysis of the report by the Hong Kong-based Asia Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) claims it contains “deliberate misrepresentations”, and that the junta’s record of abuses has not improved. “Despite the meticulous and professional documentation submitted from numerous credible sources to the UPR process, the Government of Myanmar persisted with its usual approach, treating the process not as an opportunity for dialogue but as an opportunity for the making of fiction,” it said. Among the many falsities are its evaluation of the 2010 elections, as well as the treatment of people in northern Arakan state and sexual violence by Burmese troops. While Burma is not technically a member of the UNHRC, it has been given ‘Special Procedure’ status by the Council to address human rights violations in the country. As part of this it was assigned a UN special rapporteur, Tomas Ojea Quintana, to investigate rights abuses in the country. He filed a high-profile report to the Security Council last year calling for a UN investigation into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Burma. But during an attempted visit to the country in august last year, Quintana was denied a visa. His assistant, Hannnah Wu, the UN’s human rights officer in Bangkok, told DVB at the time that “the [Burmese] government was busy at the time he requested. It’s not good to speculate – they had their reasons”. What impact the recent UPR will have on policymakers within the UN is unclear, but the director of ALRC, Basil Fernando, thinks there is a way to go before Western governments and politicians really understand the gravity of Burma’s human rights situation. “The part they don’t understand very much is that Myanmar [Burma] doesn’t have a judicial system; this doesn’t exist in the mind of Myanmar,” he told DVB. The fabrication of so-called facts in the UPR was, he said, an attempt by the junta “to show they have changed” and garner some respect from the UN after years of isolation. “But it’s just a showpiece and there is no freedom for anybody – no one is allowed to speak or organise themselves around an issue, and in terms of [access to] food, water, and so on, Burma’s situation are among the worst in Asia.” Why Aung San Suu Kyi wants to keep sanctions on Burma – Simon Montlake Christian Science Monitor: Tue 22 Feb 2011 Bangkok, Thailand — Three months after her release from house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi is back in the spotlight in Burma (Myanmar) over her support for Western sanctions, a stance that is increasing tensions between her political party and the military government.Ms. Suu Kyi emerged as a democracy leader during a popular uprising in 1988 that was later put down by the military. She has long been a thorn in the side of Burma’s ruling generals, who held elections in November for a new parliament that is dominated by a junta-backed party. In 2007, a monk-led protest movement in several cities sparked by rising fuel prices met a violent end. In an interview last week with Canada’s Globe and Mail, Suu Kyi praised Egypt’s Army for refusing to fire on crowds during recent protests there. But she said Burmese people were unlikely to take to the streets as in Egypt, for now, given their own Army’s willingness to crack down. Think you know Asia? Take our geography quiz “But on the other hand, one cannot say that the Burmese Army is always going to shoot at the people,” she told the Globe and Mail. Burma’s media have blocked all news about Egypt and other revolts, according to analysts and diplomats. The row over sanctions Since her release in November, Suu Kyi has focused on rebuilding her National League for Democracy (NLD) party and has made few public speeches. She hasn’t traveled outside Rangoon, the former capital, to meet supporters, but has said she wants to use new media to reach Burmese youths. The row over sanctions comes as Burma takes its first steps toward constitutional rule after decades of military dictatorship. Critics say the transition is a sham that keeps the military in control. Other observers argue that new power centers are emerging and represent a form of partial democracy. The US government is among those applying economic and political sanctions to Burma over its human rights record, though it also favors diplomatic engagement. The European Union, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have also imposed strict curbs on trade and development assistance. Last month, opposition parties in the parliament called for an end to sanctions as a way of easing the economic burden on Burma, which ranks among the poorest countries in Asia and yet receives a fraction of the international aid spent in countries like Laos and Cambodia. In an internal review, the EU recently found that its sanctions had failed to achieve their political goals and had “undoubtedly contributed to the stagnation and continuing impoverishment of the people.” The EU review, which was obtained by the Monitor, also concluded that nonstatutory curbs on multilateral aid to Burma, such as World Bank loans, had primarily affected the rural poor. But the NLD has argued that it was too soon to lift sanctions. In a Feb. 8 statement, it claimed that economic conditions had “not been affected by sanctions to any notable degree” and blamed the military for acute poverty and poor governance. It said it was ready for talks with Western governments on how the restrictions could eventually be modified with a view to improving human rights. Suu Kyi’s leverage? Analysts say Suu Kyi sees sanctions as her political leverage in Burma, since the US and other governments take a lead from her stance. “She wants to show that she is modern and understands the needs of the country, but she doesn’t want to let go of the sanctions card,” says the Western diplomat. Her supporters argue that the regime desperately wants to lift sanctions and had hoped that her release would trigger a change in Western policy. They say this explains why state media went on the offensive against the NLD when it stuck to its guns. A Feb. 13 commentary that ran in several newspapers attacked the NLD’s pro-sanctions stance and warned of a “tragic end” for the party and its leader. In response, a US State Department spokesman said the regime “was up to its old tricks” by threatening Suu Kyi. However, one expert said the original Burmese-language expression used was less menacing and may have been taken out of context. Some analysts warn that Suu Kyi’s strategy may lose steam as Burma relies on its Asian neighbors for trade and investment. China is building an oil and gas pipeline and is likely to invest in a new Thai-led industrial zone. By contrast, American and European companies have a limited presence in Burma and have been the target of campaigns by exiled Burmese groups allied to the NLD. Thant Myint-U, a historian, said the government’s wish to see sanctions lifted must be set against Western demands for political reforms. “I think their default approach will be to try and make Western sanctions irrelevant, through expanding ties with China and the rest of the region,” he says. Another longtime Burma watcher, who requested anonymity ahead of a scheduled visit there, said financial sanctions against regime members were more effective than blanket trade bans. He argued that the upheaval in the Middle East showed the dangers of doing business with such people. “Going after the money of the leaders, tracking it, tracing it, sends the signal to potential business partners that their best interests aren’t served by their support or proximity to the regime,” he wrote by e-mail. Is Suu Kyi being protected? – Thea Forbes Mizzima News: Fri 18 Feb 2011 Chiang Mai – Recent unabashed threats in Burma’s state-run newspaper ‘The New Light Of Myanmar’ have raised the issue of security for pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders.In the junta’s first direct criticism of Suu Kyi since her release from house arrest in November, a commentary article read as if she and other NLD leders would ‘meet their tragic end’ if they continued to endorse economic sanctions against Burma, the BBC reported last week. The Burmese article said Suu Kyi and the NLD were ‘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’ and claimed that they were going the wrong way’. There have been serious concerns about Suu Kyi and her fellow NLD members safety since she was released from house arrest four months ago and has begun appearing at events in Rangoon. NLD lawyer and spokesperson Nyan Win told Mizzima that the NLD has its own security team and that some security members are stationed at Suu Kyi’s house on University Avenue. “We are very concerned about the security of the Lady,” Nyan Win told Mizzima. He said the NLD security team is made up of youth members and they had no plans to hire a private security firm. Suu Kyi’s security team is made up of NLD youth staff, who also are stationed at her lakeside home in Rangoon. (Photos: Mizzima) Suu Kyi’s security team is made up of NLD youth staff, who also are stationed at her lakeside home in Rangoon. (Photos: Mizzima) The NLD head of security, Win Htein, said on Friday that Suu Kyi has not received any threats and that comments like the recent one in the ‘New Light Of Myanmar’ have been ‘happening since our party was formed in 1988’. Suu Kyi’s security team has about 20 NLD youth members, he said, some of whom are permanently assigned to her home, and the rest make up a mobile team accompanying her when she travels to events or appointments. Win Htein said that the security team routinely analyses events and has internal discussions on the best way to deal with Suu Kyi’s security. Asked if Suu Kyi or other NLD members had any plans to travel outside of Rangoon in the near future, NLD lawyer Nyan Win told Mizzima, ‘At present, there are no intentions to leave Rangoon’. He noted the 2003 Depayin Massacre in which Suu Kyi and her entourage were attacked and more than 70 NLD supporters were beaten to death by thugs who belonged to the government-backed Union Solidarity and Development Association (a now defunct, state-run ultra-nationalist organisation). Nyan Win said that the government had never fulfilled its duty to conduct an inquiry into that bloody attack. Three generals who have been accused of orchestrating the massacre ran for Parliament in the election last year and all won seats. Citizen diplomacy through tourism? – Andrea Valentin Democratic Voice of Burma: Fri 18 Feb 2011 Burma remains at the centre of a 15-year-old boycott debate. Since Aung San Suu Kyi called for a tourism boycott in a response to the junta’s ‘Visit Myanmar Year 1996’, human rights groups, politicians, the tourism industry and the media have not ceased to argue whether travelling to Burma can be in any way ethical, or whether it is unethical by definition. But, in an unprecedented move, the Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) last month signalled a policy change on tourism.The NLD modified their stand in a potentially significant clarification of previous statements. Along the lines of ‘Yes we want tourists, but please only the politically aware, ethical type’, the party shows hope and commitment to make political use of the pervasive nature of tourism. After all, tourism, like a virus, can spread widely throughout a host. If travellers are politically informed, know the real situation and try to compensate for their ‘footprint’ in a way that the NLD deems appropriate, pervasive can be a good thing. But if one’s visit does not benefit the local community, such a journey should have some sort of democratic compensation. Economically, tourism in Burma is relatively insignificant, partly due to uncertainty amongst investors. As of now, tourism is a small source of income compared with gas and gems, but the advantages of developing tourism are vast for both the military and the democracy movement. International investors are sitting on the fence, and so are the democracy activists. According to government statistics, arrivals to Burma reached 792,000 in 2010, up from 657,000 in 2004. Such a growth rate is partly due to the often overlooked but significant cross-border tourist income. Overall, tourism in Burma increased 21 percent in the past six years. Foreign arrivals at international airports in Burma have been rising to 311,000, a plus of 29 percent. Over the same period, neighbouring Thailand welcomed 16 million visitors, which accounts for 95 percent more tourist arrivals than in Burma. There is absolutely no doubt that the economic potential of developing tourism in Burma is immense. Suu Kyi has long stated that tourists can be useful, depending on what they do and how they go about it. But she has also warned against deception: “Tourists have to be careful not to deceive themselves; if they want to see the country, they can find all sorts of excuses for doing so. But what they have to understand is how far their visits really go to help the people. You go a long way towards deceiving yourself.” Today’s signal is clear: the NLD aims to develop a politically sustainable tourism policy – sustainable in the sense of the democratic movement. “We are going to work out a policy on tourism as to what kind of tourists and in what way we would welcome tourists to come; how they should come and how they should go about the country; what kind of hotels they should use and what kind of facilities they should use and what they should look out for,” the Nobel laureate recently said. A review of tourism policy can mark the start of a new era. It could represent an attempt to engage ethically with the military after years of arguably failed isolation, by using the force of politically-informed tourists. Many democracy movements in the world overlook the immense potential of tourism, yet the NLD recognised its political value early on. Nowhere else do we examine the tourist so critically than when he travels to Burma. On the surface, the issues seem obvious: in Burma visitors support a regime that has committed human rights abuses in the name of tourism and refused to hand over power to the winning party in the 1990 election, but then held an orchestrated ‘democratic’ election 20 years later. The problem of developing a sound tourism policy is deeply rooted in the flaws of the current political situation. As the NLD calls for a continuation of sanctions’ policy with modifications, the regional ASEAN bloc will continue investment to boost further ties in the now ‘democratic’ state of Burma. The problem continues with a general lack of awareness among mainstream tourists and the fact that contemporary alternative tourism is largely incorporated into mainstream tourism. Also, the tourism boycott is only known to few people, and only some of them agree with it. Many critics mention the hypocrisy of selective moralization; if one applied such thinking to all destinations in the world, then there would not be many countries left to visit. Where is the line to politically unethical destinations, and who would have authority to draw such a line? Would a tourism boycott make any difference to countries such as China, anyway? And why do boycott activists keep on ignoring the largest group of travelers to Burma, namely Asians? Considering that successful boycotts in the past have been relatively short, pro-boycott arguments may have run their course. The boycott is very effective in raising awareness about Burma, but it does not solve the problem. Quite the contrary, much disagreement remains about its consequences, and many activists are in a stalemate. They can see that the many years of boycotting have not affected change. The debate should not be about whether or not people should go, but instead what kind of tourism is best for Burma. Tourism is going to happen anyway. Mystique outweighs morality and democracy activists might as well use this situation. There is much scope for ethical tourism, but such policy needs careful consideration and ongoing dialogue. Most travelers romanticise Burma; many escape politics when they travel. Others are scared to even mention politics, and many do not know what they could do to help. Many tourists imagine Burma like it is portrayed in glossy tourist brochures. The time is ripe to develop a tourism policy that benefits the people, rather than the powers that be. Nothing is permanent – even tourism and the way we travel can change. * Dr Andrea Valentin taught at the Department of Tourism, University of Otago in New Zealand for five years. She focused her PhD on the political awareness of travellers, using Burma as a case study. She is in the process of founding a civil society organisation in Chiang Mai, Thailand, called Tourism Transparency, which advocates responsible tourism to Burma. Ethnic parties at the mercy of the ‘lion’ – Htet Aung Irrawaddy: Thu 17 Feb 2011 At first glimpse, February has been a month of peaceful, disciplined transition from 22 years of military rule in Burma to a hybrid civil-military government, with the decentralization of the power structure from the central to regional governments. With the creation of state legislatures and governments headed by chief ministers, Burma’s seven ethnic states will be in a position to shape their own political identities for the first time in history. The ethnic minorities in the country’s underdeveloped frontier areas contested the Nov. 7 election with great expectations of a new political role under the Constitution. Despite winning some notable election victories in their respective states, however, the ethnic leaders have gained neither a dignified role in forming the regional legislative and administrative bodies, nor the power to significantly contribute to the future development of ethnic populations. When the first national and regional parliaments were simultaneously convened on Jan. 31, the winning ethnic parties dreamed that the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), despite its unilateral control over the bicameral Parliament, would heed their demand to consider electing a deputy house speaker in either of the houses of the national legislature and a vice-president of the new government from the ranks of their ethnic parties as a conciliatory gesture to remedy the country’s deep-rooted distrust between the military and the ethnic minorities. None of their dreams have come true. Instead, the USDP made a token gesture to ethnic minorities by choosing Dr Sai Mauk Khan, an ethnic Shan medical doctor with no political or administrative experience, as a vice-president. Although he is a member of one of Burma’s largest ethnic minority groups, he does not belong to an ethnic party. Like every other person occupying a key position in Parliament, he is a member of the USDP, serving as an MP in the Amyotha Hluttaw, or Upper House. USDP loyalists have been appointed to virtually every position of importance in the new administration, including chief justice, chairperson of the Constitutional Tribunal, chairperson of the Union Election Commission, attorney-general and auditor-general. At the regional level as well, no member of any ethnic party has been appointed speaker or deputy speaker—much less chief minister—of any of the state legislatures. But in a show of mercy by “the Lion” (as the USDP is sometimes known because of its official symbol), the chief ministers appointed by Thein Sein as president of the new government shared some regional cabinet positions with ethnic parties in Shan, Mon, Arakan, Karen and Chin states. The Shan Nationalities Democratic Party (SNLD), which won 36 seats in the Shan State Parliament, got two ministerial positions in the state government, while the Rakhine Nationalities Development Party (RNDP), which won 19 seats in the Arakan State Parliament, got three ministerial positions in the state government. The All Mon Region Democracy Party (AMRDP), which took nine seats in the Mon and Karen state assemblies, got four positions in the Mon and Karen state governments, while the Phalon-Sawaw Democratic Party, based in Karen State, got one position in the Karen State government. In the Chin State government, the Chin National Party and the Chin Progressive Party got one ministerial position each. Did the ethnic parties feel proud of securing this opportunity as result of their electoral success? “At the state level, we will be given the unimportant ministerial positions such as cultural and education ministries,” said Nai Ngwe Thein, the chairman of the AMRDP. “In my opinion, it is better to stand as the opposition party, rather than taking these ministerial positions.” “Despite our majority in the state legislature, only three of our party’s representatives were nominated for ministerial positions,” said an state MP from the RNDP. “The USDP, on the other hand, secured five of nine ministerial positions, while another one went to a military appointee.” For the two ministerial positions of the SNDP, the Shan State chief minister nominated the party’s chairman, Sai Eik Paung, and Sai Nauk Khan, said an official from the party. What is worse is that when the USDP chief ministers formed their state governments, they made their choices of ministers from ethnic parties without any consultation with the leadership of those parties. As a result, the ethnic parties lost their right to nominate appropriate candidates for ministerial posts from within their own parties. There is growing discontent among ethnic political parties with the way they are being manipulated by the USDP, but also a growing awareness that they are too weak to do anything about it. Although the USDP has made “national re-consolidation” its top political priority, it is becoming increasingly clear that it has merely inherited this policy from the junta as political propaganda. No one can be truly surprised by this ridiculous political puppet show, but it will be sad to see ethnic leaders lose all credibility with their own people, which is what will happen if they passively dance to the junta’s tune and keep giving false hope of real change. China, Myanmar sign new cooperation accord Xinhua: Wed 16 Feb 2011 Nay Pyi Taw – China and Myanmar Wednesday signed a supplementary contract to a memorandum of understanding on Kyaukphyu economic and technical development zone and related port and railroad development projects.The contract between the CITIC Group of China and Myanmar Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development was signed in Nay Pyi Taw, witnessed by Chinese Vice Minister of Commerce Zhong Shan and Deputy Minister of National Planning and Economic Development U Thurein Zaw. On the same day, First Secretary of the State Peace and Development Council U Tin Aung Myint Oo met with the Chinese delegation, led by Zhong Shan, Chinese Vice Minister of Commerce and vice leader of the Chinese delegation for international trade negotiation. At the meeting, the Myanmar first secretary expressed satisfaction over the current status of development of Myanmar- China bilateral trade and hope for future prospects. According to Chinese official statistics, bilateral trade between China and Myanmar totaled 4.444 billion U.S. Dollars in 2010, an increase of 53.2 percent correspondingly. A tale of two Burmas – Jared Genser Irrawaddy: Wed 16 Feb 2011 It has become fashionable lately in some circles to emphasize the “positive” developments in Burma and the “opportunities” for engagement with its “new government.” The narrative goes something like this: In 2008, the people of Burma approved a new constitution and just two years later the country held its first democratic elections in more than 20 years, which allowed for the participation and election of some pro-democracy candidates. National League for Democracy (NLD) leader Aung San Suu Kyi has been released from house arrest. And with the imminent transfer of power to a civilian government, there is a new generation of more outward-looking and reform-minded leaders in charge. Because of these important developments, the international community should remove sanctions, invest in Burma, and vigorously engage with these newly elected leaders and government-approved civil society organizations to take full advantage of the real opportunities this exciting transition has provided.This alternate reality, however, is nothing more than a fantasy—a carefully constructed image that the Burmese junta has been peddling to the international community both directly and through its proxies. Lets examine the indisputable facts. The new Constitution was drafted in a one-sided process that excluded the views of the NLD and ethnic peoples. It provides permanent immunity for the military from prosecution for any prior or future acts and enables a military veto of decisions by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The Constitution was adopted in a fraudulent national referendum rejected by all reputable international observers as having been neither free nor fair. The elections themselves were also deeply flawed. Beyond having prohibitively expensive registration requirements for candidates and no credible international monitoring, the junta excluded all political parties, including the NLD, which refused to support the 2008 Constitution. Ultimately, the biggest “pro-democracy” party that was allowed to participate in the election won just 12 of the 664 seats in the parliament. The very same players have just taken on slightly differently roles in the “civilian” regime. Newly elected President Thein Sein served as the junta’s prime minister for the last four years. Snr-Gen Than Shwe has announced he will chair an extra-constitutional “State Supreme Council,” which by its name makes clear who will be really in charge regardless of formal state institutions. And of the 30 new cabinet members, only four are strictly civilian; the rest are ex-military. And not a single one is a woman. Burma remains, in short, an authoritarian military dictatorship. Such a conclusion is reinforced by the state-run media’s chilling threats directed at Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD that they will meet their “tragic end” if they persist in pursuing their current policies, including support for sanctions. But beyond persisting in repressing political dissent, the junta has also failed to honor any of the democracy movement’s specific demands, including the release of all political prisoners; the cessation of all violence directed by the regime against ethnic peoples; and the initiation of a genuine dialogue process between the junta, the NLD and ethnic groups leading to national reconciliation and the restoration of democracy to the country. So what should be done? I believe there are five key steps the international community should take to support the legitimate aspirations of the Burmese people. First, the United Nations should immediately and proactively initiate tripartite dialogue between the regime, the NLD and ethnic groups. Second, consistent with the NLD’s recent statement, those countries with sanctions imposed on the regime should collaborate to provide benchmarks to the regime that could lead result in their modification, but only if meaningful and irreversible steps were taken. Third, the international community should impose an arms embargo on the regime. Fourth, consistent with the call of UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Myanmar, the United Nations should establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed in Burma. And finally, the international community should substantially increase its support for cross-border humanitarian assistance as well as human rights and democracy funding, especially for informal civil society groups operating in Burma. Many sympathetic observers who don’t follow the situation closely have been fooled by the recent elections and release of Aung San Suu Kyi into believing that the situation is fundamentally better. On Feb. 15, I participated in a conference in Prague sponsored by the Czech Republic Foreign Ministry and People in Need entitled “Elections in Burma/Myanmar and the European Policy.” The consensus that emerged from this conference was clear and unequivocal—it is incumbent on those of us who know better to speak up, loudly, and remind the international community that the challenges in Burma persist and the time for action is now. * Jared Genser is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and facilitator of the European Burma Network. The views expressed here are his own. Ghosts of Panglong may haunt parliament – Simon Roughneen Irrawaddy: Tue 15 Feb 2011 BANGKOK—The anniversary of the Feb. 12, 1947 Panglong Agreement is focusing some minds on the prospects of reform in Burma, days after the meeting of the new Parliament and the emergence of Thein Sein as the new President. While the National Democratic Front (NDF) and other small, like-minded parties in Burma’s new government may try to discuss issues such as political prisoners and press freedom, it remains to be seen how far they will be able to push these measures. With the junta-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) dominant in the legislature—backed by a 25 percent bloc representation from the country’s army—it will be numerically impossible to pass any laws that the USDP and its allies do not agree with. However the challenge facing Burma’s reform-minded parliamentarians is not just to try to get legislation passed, but to get motions discussed in Parliament in the first place. According to Moe Zaw Oo, from the National League for Democracy, the new parliament’s rules and procedures will make it difficult for opposition groups or anyone else to introduce any motions that might be anathema to the USDP, which won 76 percent of the vote in the November 7 elections last year. The USDP functions as the party front for the military junta, which is set to formally relinquish power in the coming weeks. Irrespective of what transpires in the new Upper and Lower Houses, real power in the parliamentary system in Burma will lie with the president, who is not answerable to Parliament in any case. The new president, Thein Sein, will chair the new National Defence and Security Council, an 11-member committee that has been compared with the politburos of countries such as China and Vietnam. It is not clear how the new structures will alter the existing relationship between the government and the country’s ethnic minorities, many of which have been at war with the Burmese army, off and on, since the country became independent from British rule in the late 1940s. Improving relations between the Burmese rulers and the ethnic groups is key to longterm peace and stability in Burma, says Kheunsai Jaiyen, who heads a news agency focusing on Burma’s largest ethnic minority, the Shan, which number around 6 million people. “Today, unlike in the past, leaders from all the main ethnic parties agree with Aung San Suu Kyi that a new Panglong deal is needed to pacify the country,” he said. He added that Suu Kyi was the only figure capable of overcoming the historic distrust between the majority Burmans and the ethnic minorities that make up almost 40 percent of the country’s population and whose territories constitute around half of area of Burma. “The main ethnic opposition parties followed Daw Suu’s lead in boycotting the election,” he said. “After their submissions to the National Convention that led to the 2008 Constitution and the new political system were completely ignored by the junta”. Suu Kyi has called for a “21st Century Panglong Agreement,” along the lines of the 1947 deal between her father, Aung San, who emerged from World War II as the leading Burmese political figure, and representatives from some of Burma’s main ethnic minority groups. However, Khin Maung, an Arakanese activist speaking as representative of one of the groups who did not participate in the original Panglong deal, said that the idea of federalism and decentralized power is anathema to the Burmese military, which took control of the country in 1962 after the 1961 Taunggyi Conference, which he described as “a Second Panglong.” “Almost all the main ethnic groups were at Taunggyi,” he said. “But the federal principles that emerged surely alarmed the military and led to the coup the following year.” Suu Kyi’s call for a 21st-century Panglong was criticized by the military government, and it remains to be seen if the NDF or others will or even can promote the concept in Parliament. The United States and some European countries have called for a loosely defined “national reconciliation” dialogue in Burma, as a prelude to any relaxing of sanctions on the Burmese rulers, and it is conceivable that the a Panglong-style process could play a major role in implementing such a dialogue. However, the junta has taken a number of steps, dismissed by many as window-dressing, which could be used to undermine requests for any such reconciliation gathering. The appointment of a Shan vice-president, Sai Mauk Kham, and the creation of 14 regional legislatures means that the Burmese government can say it has worked to alleviate the concerns of ethnic minorities. However, the ongoing stand-off between the Burmese army and the ethnic militias, who have been told to stand down and merge with the army, simmers on in the borderlands, with the Kachin Independence Organisation and the New Mon State Party labeled as “insurgents” by the government, signaling a deterioration of relations. In the days after the Nov. 7 elections, armed clashes forced thousands of mainly ethnic Karen refugees into Thailand, and armed skirmishes and stand-offs have continued in border areas since then. Burma’s authoritarian avatar – David Scott Mathieson Bangkok Post: Tue 15 Feb 2011 If Burma’s newly formed parliament seems eerily familiar, that’s because most of its members are. As the new national and regional assemblies formed last week, many of the generals who have ruled the country for years assumed nominally civilian roles in the new power structure. All are from the Union Solidarity and Development Party, which won more than 77% of the votes in the November 2010 elections widely derided as completely rigged. The new president is former Prime Minister Thein Sein, also party leader of the USDP. His two vice-presidents are General Tin Aung Myint Oo, chosen from the quarter of parliamentary seats reserved for the military, and Dr Sai Mauk Kham, a party member from the upper house of parliament. The speaker of the Lower House is Thura Shwe Mann, a highly decorated former army chief of staff, who retired to run as a governing party candidate from the capital, Naypyidaw, whose residents largely consist of military personnel and civil servants. The speaker of the Upper House is also a retired general and former culture minister, U Khin Aung Myint, once the head of the military psychological warfare department. The governing party is essentially the avatar of the soon to be defunct State Peace and Development Council, a parliamentary puppet of the Burmese military, or Tatmadaw. Standing in reserve is the all-powerful Senior General Than Shwe, having no clear formal role in the reshuffle but widely believed to maintain total control over Burma’s authoritarian system. Where did the USDP come from, and why did the military create it? The new party was originally formed as a mass-based organisation by Than Shwe in 1993, and called the Union Solidarity and Development Association. It was registered as a ‘’social-welfare” movement to skirt laws against civil servants being members of political parties. The membership grew to 26 million by 2008. Many civil servants, teachers, students, and local elites joined _ not all of them willingly. By the late 1990s, it was the chief organisation in a sprawling military controlled complex of ”government organised non-governmental organisations” (aka GONGOs), which also include the Myanmar Women’s Affairs Federation, the Myanmar War Veterans Association and others. Than Shwe was its official patron, though it was led by U Htay Oo, a general who also happened to be the minister of agriculture and irrigation. The organisation amassed considerable financial power, investing in _ or in some cases, merely seizing or expropriating with local military help _ land for farming, market spaces, bus routes and other purposes. Such investments enabled it to buy legitimacy by giving local branches both income and the ability to bestow concessions and favours on local communities. The organisation has taken credit for building roads, and conducted training for journalists and bureaucrats, often thinly disguised indoctrination. In 2008, it claimed credit for disaster relief after Cyclone Nargis, when in fact it was Burmese civil society groups that did most of the difficult work. The group’s philosophy and aims mirrored the military’s word for word. Its symbol, the temple guardian dragon, or chinthe, became the central picture on Burmese banknotes in 1995, replacing Aung San Suu Kyi’s father, the independence hero General Aung San. Members throughout Burma were corralled into surreal mass rallies, all in white-shirted uniforms, to criticise Western sanctions, denounce Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters, and raise funds for local development that the military controlled. The movement rapidly developed a dark side: its paramilitary groups were involved in violent attacks against opposition members in 1996, and in 2003 hundreds of its cadres staged a violent assault on Mrs Suu Kyi’s motorcade in the upper Burma town of Depayin, killing about 70 of her supporters. In 2007, during the demonstrations led by Buddhist monks in Rangoon, the group’s thugs assisted military and riot police forces to quash the marches and arrest thousands of activists. It was no surprise when the group was transformed into the new party in March 2010 as the military prepared for elections. Prime Minister Thein Sein took control, and scores of senior generals resigned to run as candidates for the party throughout Burma. The party also inherited the majority of the group’s membership, all those of voting age, and the association’s infrastructure: offices, staff, business interests and bank accounts. Military-crafted electoral laws made it almost impossible for opposition parties to run, and prohibitively expensive to register a candidate. The party was the only one to field candidates in almost all of the 1,160 electorates. It is a bespoke political wing of the military, carefully crafted to assume parliamentary control. In the unlikely scenario that the party deviates from the Tatmadaw line, the 2008 constitution grants the military the authority to take over the government _ effectively a constitutional coup d’etat _ a threat reportedly made by Than Shwe in a secret meeting of senior military commanders in late January. The Tatmadaw have crafted a methodical fix of democratic illusion. That great chronicler of Sicilian politics, Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, wrote in his classic novel The Leopard that in order for everything to stay the same, everything had to change. The Burmese military have adopted that credo wholeheartedly, and the new party is their avatar for presenting a more palatable image to Burma and the world. * David Scott Mathieson is a Senior Researcher in the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch. |
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
