Burma Update
News and updates on Burma18 April 2011
News on Burma - 18/4/11
China’s mining project put into operation in Myanmar Xinhua: Fri 15 Apr 2011 The Myanmar Taguang Taung Nickel Ore Project Mining System, with joint investment from China Nonferrous Group and Taiyuan Iron and Steel (Group) Co. Ltd. (TISCO), has been put into operation, authorities said Friday. The project’s smelting system will be put into operation within the year, said Yang Haigui, secretary of the Communist Party Committee of TISCO. The project is the biggest cooperative mining project between China and Myanmar and is expected to provide 85,000 tonnes of high grade ferro-nickel annually upon completion. “The construction of the project can help alleviate the shortage of nickel resources in China,” Yang said. Located on the bank of the Fenhe River in Taiyuan, a city in north China’s Shanxi Province, TISCO is the world’s largest stainless steel enterprise with an annual output of 10 million tonnes of steel. The company’s products include stainless steel, cold rolled silicon steel and high strength and toughness steel. Obama nominates special representative on Myanmar Agence France Presse: Fri 15 Apr 2011 Washington — President Barack Obama Thursday nominated defense official Derek Mitchell as his special representative on Myanmar to shape US policy towards the country after its criticized political transition.Mitchell, a veteran Asia hand, will assume responsibility for the US approach to a nation with which Washington has a tense relationship due to the government’s suppression of Aung San Sui Kyi’s democracy movement. Obama officially announced the move in a White House statement. Mitchell’s appointment will need to be confirmed by the Senate, in a hearing likely to give voice to Myanmar’s fierce opponents on Capitol Hill. After Obama took office in January 2009, his administration concluded that Western efforts to isolate the military-led nation had been ineffective and initiated a dialogue with the junta. But the United States has since voiced disappointment over developments in Myanmar, including an election in November widely denounced as a sham, but has said that it sees no alternative to engagement at such a fluid time. Congress approved a wide-ranging law on Myanmar in 2008 that tightened sanctions and created the special envoy position. Then-president George W. Bush named Michael Green, formerly one of his top aides, but the nomination died in the Senate due to an unrelated political dispute. Myanmar’s ruling junta officially disbanded this month, giving the country a nominally civilian government for the first time in nearly a century. But many analysts dismissed the move as top junta figures remain firmly in leadership positions, albeit without their uniforms. Aung San Suu Kyi has no voice in Myanmar’s new parliament. Her National League for Democracy was disbanded after it chose to boycott the elections, which it suspected were designed to marginalize the opposition and ethnic minorities. Ban Ki-moon learns to love regime change – Colum Lynch Foreign Policy: Fri 15 Apr 2011 At U.N. headquarters, regime change has long been viewed as a toxic phrase. Under former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, the U.N. brass cringed when American politicians and diplomats, both Republican and Democratic, revealed that their true aim in pursuing U.N. arms inspections and sanctions in Iraq was the downfall of Saddam Hussein. But in the past two months, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki moon has reversed course, fully embracing the toppling of governments in Ivory Coast and Libya. On Monday, Ban authorized a U.N. military operation, backed by French military power, to strike at key military bases, and installations under the control of Ivorian strongman Laurent Gbabgo. The operation — which included helicopter gunship attacks against army camps by blue-helmeted Ukrainian pilots — was ostensibly aimed at preventing Gbagbo’s forces from using their heavy weapons against civilians and U.N. personnel. But its impact on the conflict was decisive: The U.N. and French attacks had degraded Gbagbo’s last line of defense, clearing the way for a final offensive by followers of Ivory Coast’s president-elect Alassane Ouattara. Within 24 hours, Gbagbo’s top generals had written to the United Nations with an offer to halt the fighting and surrender their weapons, together with a request that their fighters be protected. Gbagbo remained holed up in a bunker underneath the presidential residence, under attack by Ouattara’s forces. The U.N. chief’s action in Ivory Coast is all the more surprising given his readiness throughout most of his term to accommodate some of the world’s most noxious governments, notably Burma, Sri Lanka and Sudan. Ban had bet much of his political capital upon his capacity to use personal, quiet diplomacy, to nudge the likes of Burmese junta leader Than Shwe, Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa and Sudanese leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir, to moderate their mistreatment of their own people. Ban was lambasted by human rights advocates for providing political cover for those governments by engaging in long drawn out personal discussions with those leaders without delivering sufficient political results. “He has placed undue faith in his professed ability to convince by private persuasion,” Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch wrote in the introduction to his organization’s annual report in January. “Worse, far from condemning repression, Ban sometimes went out of his way to portray oppressive governments in a positive light.” Roth cited Ban’s handling of Burma during the run-up to elections last year. “In the days before Burma’s sham elections in November, Ban contended that it was ‘not too late’ to ‘make this election more inclusive and participatory’ by releasing political detainees — an unlikely eventuality that, even if realized, would not have leveled the severely uneven electoral playing field.” Critics say Ban has applied a double standard in applying the principle on human rights, reserving his toughest criticism for countries like Iran, while sparing his criticism of the permanent five members of the Security Council whose support he needs in his reelection campaign for secretary general. His first term expires at the end of 2011 Ban failed to pres for the release of Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo, who is serving an 11- year sentence and his wife, who is under house arrest, during a meeting in Beijing with President Hu Jintao. In an official statement on the Nobel Award committee’s decision to honor Liu with its prestigious peace prize, Ban failed to congratulate Liu and praised China for improving its human rights record, a remark that seems increasingly discordant with the Chinese government currently intensifying crackdown on dissident writers, artists and human rights advocates in the wake of popular uprisings in the Arab world. A supporter of Gbagbo said it was clear that Ban was carrying out the wishes of France, Ivory Coast’s former colonial power, in deciding to escalate operations there. Zakaria Fellah, a special advisor to Gbagbo who was once accredited to the Ivory Coast mission to the United Nations, said Ban’s ultimate goal was to procure France’s vote for his re-election bid. “I have never seen the U.N. playing a role so far beyond the principles of neutrality and impartiality enshrined in the U.N. charter,” Fella told Turtle Bay. “I would say part of it is explained by the fact that Ban Ki-moon is in the midst of an election campaign. He would do anything to please the French.” But Ban’s outspoken advocacy of regime change carries risks. While most U.N. diplomats believe Ban has secured support for a second term, China, Russia and other influential council members have been unsettled by his promotion of democratic change in North Africa and the Middle East, where he has spoken out forcefully against some autocratic governments, including Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt, Bashar al-Asad’s Syria and Moammar Qaddafi’s Libya, for repressing civilian protesters. In Libya, Ban has echoed U.S. and European statements indicating that Qaddafi lost the legitimacy to rule when he launched a violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators. He has appointed a former Jordanian Foreign Minister to oversee the U.N. humanitarian response to the crisis, and, more significantly, to help lay the ground work for a political transition. Ban has also been a cheerleader for U.N. backed airstrikes. “Qaddafi has lost all legitimacy,” Ban told the Spanish daily El Mundo last month. “He cannot stay in power in Libya. Whatever happens, he has to go.” In an interview with journalist Raghida Dergham, Ban gave a biographical rationale for his tougher line on the Arab popular uprisings. “I believe this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity,” he told her in an interview that ran in Huffington Post. “I was one of the students who went out to the streets in Korea when I was young, asking for more freedom and bold reforms and changes. Then Korea achieved democratic development as well economic prosperity.” Lifting the veil on Burma’s military – Nic Dunlop Democratic Voice of Burma: Fri 15 Apr 2011 My first introduction to Burma’s crisis came when I sought refuge at the Jesuits in Bangkok. I was just starting out as a young photographer and had little money. The Jesuits kindly offered me a place to stay and it was there that I befriended Burmese students who had fled the Burma army crackdown of 1988. I remember thinking that, had I been born in Burma, I may well have been among them because we were the same generation. But the reasons for our respective exiles couldn’t have been more different; mine was voluntary – theirs was forced. All I knew about Burma was that it was ruled by a military dictatorship that crushed all dissent and waged a war against ethnic minorities. Aung San Suu Kyi, who was under her first term of house arrest, had just been awarded the Nobel peace prize for her principled stand against the military regime. When I visited the Thai-Burmese border I listened to the impassioned arguments of Western activists. Many believed that, with the right pressure, the regime would collapse and Aung San Suu Kyi would take her rightful position as leader. For the next 16 years I worked on my own photographic book about Burma’s dictatorship. I spent much time with the victims of the regime but, I wondered, how was it possible that such a reviled regime could hold onto power for so long? The regime had been vilified to such an extent that there was little room for understanding. It was as though they had descended from another planet. But what did we know of the military? The men that made up this monolithic army became the object of my interest. The Amish writer Gene Knudsen Hoffman once wrote that, “an enemy is someone whose story you haven’t heard.” Six years ago, I was introduced to Myo Myint on the Thai-Burma border. Myo Myint had grown up in a military family in Rangoon, joined the Tatmadaw (Burma armed forces) at the age of 17 and served as a soldier on the frontline of the civil war. He had been terribly injured in battle and, after his discharge, took it upon himself to challenge received truths of the military. He educated himself about Burma’s history and became politically engaged, paying a heavy price for his activism. The oppression in central Burma and the civil war were usually reported as separate and unconnected issues. The truth is that the civil war runs central to Burma’s problems. As a former soldier and activist, I realised Myo Myint’s story had the potential to address both the civil war and the quest for democratic and human rights within a single narrative, and from someone who had experienced it first hand. And it was from that meeting that the idea for the film Burma Soldier was born. There has never been a film that looks at the Burmese army. What makes Burma Soldier unique is that it looks at the crisis from a totally new perspective. With directors Annie Sundberg, Ricki Stern and producer Julie LeBrocquy we wanted to make a film that would take the audience on a journey where we actually learn something new, not just about Burma, but about ourselves. Perpetrators are always them and never us. We wanted to transcend that idea and enable people to reflect on what we might do were we to find ourselves in the place of a Burmese soldier. Can we say, with any certainty, how we would act if we were faced with atrocities committed by our comrades? By encouraging audiences to consider this, we hope that the film will stimulate debate and open new avenues for change both inside and outside the country. So few people in places like Burma have access to their own histories. This is why a Burmese version was made and why we are encouraging people to copy it and pass it along; what Julie LeBrocquy calls “reverse pirating”. The response has been extraordinary. Since it was posted on 24 March, there have been more than 27,700 plays on the internet. Activists in Rangoon have downloaded the film, burnt DVDs and left them on tables in internet cafés in Rangoon for people to take. If, as historian Thant Myint U wrote, “the answer [to Burma’s crisis] lies in part in seeing Burma differently”, it is our hope that Burma Soldier is seen as a constructive addition to the debate. Govt outlines reform agenda Myanmar Times: Thu 14 Apr 2011 PRESIDENT U Thein Sein used his inaugural address last week to outline his government’s reform agenda, promising “to open doors” and “catch up” to the outside world. Outlining a 10-point “internal affairs” policy program, he vowed to improve the “socio-economic status of the people”, industrialise the economy, fight corruption, strengthen the judiciary and enact new health, education and media laws. Other focuses of his government include amending existing laws that are contrary to the constitution, “occasionally” increasing salaries and pensions, reviewing existing agriculture and employment laws and promulgating and amending laws on environmental conservation. He said a major priority would be the implementation of a market economy, promising to keep government interference to a “minimum” and introduce policies that ensure “the fruits [of development] will go down to the grassroots level”. “We will open doors, make reforms and invite investments as necessary for development of the nation and the people,” he said. “We will exercise … control over the market to a certain degree [so] capitalists, traders and privileged persons cannot monopolise the market. “In the process, we have to ensure [there is a] proper market economy designed to reduce the economic gap between the rich and the poor, and development gap between urban and rural areas.” Reflecting his military roots, U Thein Sein said national development under his government would be based not only on politics and economics but also military strength, cautioning that unnamed “neo-colonialists” were “anxious to interfere” in Myanmar’s internal affairs. “If we do not take national defence seriously, we will fall under the rule of neo-colonialists again. I am sure you understand well that neo-colonialists are anxious to interfere in the internal affairs of our country because our country occupies [a] strategic position geographically and economically,” he said. U Thein Sein also extended an olive branch to opposition groups, saying the new government would “keep [the] peace door open” to those who are yet to accept the 2008 constitution. He urged those “who have not accepted the constitution because [they are] sceptical about the seven-step Road Map” to “discard their suspicious and play a part in the nation-building tasks”. “The union government welcomes all the efforts within the framework of the constitution and will prevent those outside the constitution,” he said. “I promise that our government will cooperate with the political parties in the hluttaws, good-hearted political forces outside the hluttaws and all social organisations,” he said. “I would like to advise the political parties to work together … although they may have different outlooks and views. “I urge the hluttaw representatives of various political parties to follow the wishes of the majority and respect the wishes of the minority in accordance with democratic practices.” Similarly, he called on foreign governments “wishing to see democracy flourish and the people’s socioeconomy grow” to cooperate with the new government. “I invite and urge some nations … [to end] their various forms of pressure, assistance and encouragement to the anti-government groups and economic manipulations.” He said the government would “work more closely with international organisations”, including UN agencies and NGOs, particularly on health and education projects. EU lifts some travel sanctions on Burma – Elizabeth Hughes The Australian: Thu 14 Apr 2011 THE European Union’s decision to relax certain restrictions on non-military members of Burma’s new, nominally civilian government has prompted a flurry of rebuttals from Burma lobbyists. An EU Council meeting on Tuesday suspended travel and financial restrictions on four ministers for one year. Those affected included Wunna Maung Lwin, the Foreign Minister, and 18 vice-ministers in Burma’s new government. The EU Council also decided to lift a ban on high-level official visits to Burma. The decisions have been interpreted as significant and are seen as the first easing of EU measures against Burma since sanctions were introduced in 1996. Yet groups such as Burma Campaign UK, which has a sister organisation in Australia, have denied the decisions can be seen as an easing of restrictions, noting that the council renewed its main tranche of restrictive economic sanctions for 12 months. Australia has not imposed trade sanctions on Burma, but the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website notes that Australia maintains an arms embargo, along with targeted financial and visa sanctions, against “members of the regime” and its supporters and associates. Non-humanitarian development assistance and government-to-government links have also been suspended. “We are watching closely Burma’s political process and will calibrate our sanctions accordingly,” a DFAT spokesperson said last night. “We will take into account the views of all relevant stakeholders, including (Nobel laureate and democracy advocate) Aung San Suu Kyi, to ensure the continued effectiveness of our approach.” Last year’s elections in Burma have been roundly condemned as a sham and the new civilian government as a front for military interests, but business interest has been sharpened by the changed nature of the new government. Sworn in on March 30, the putatively civilian administration ended almost five decades of military rule, but many of the government’s ministers are serving or recently retired military officers. In renewing restrictive measures for 12 months, the EU Council nevertheless repeated its “willingness to encourage and respond to improvements in governance and progress in the hope that the greater civilian nature of the government will help in developing much-needed new policies”. Face facts – Andrew Marshall TIME: Thu 14 Apr 2011 Are western policies failing Burma? And is our veneration of Burmese democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi partly to blame? These questions struck me at an exhibition in Bangkok by the Toronto-based photographer Anne Bayin. Amnesty International Canada called the show “a striking illustration of [Suu Kyi's] plight.” But it gave me the creeps. For some photos, Bayin asked famous people such as Desmond Tutu and Vaclav Havel to express solidarity by holding a half-mask of Suu Kyi over their faces. Other photos show someone wearing a full-face mask of Suu Kyi at apparently random locations: at a pro-Tibet rally in Toronto, for example, or swimming in the Mediterranean. Bayin says her goal was to “depict freedoms often taken for granted.” (Suu Kyi was released from her latest spell of house arrest last November.) Yet the masks suggest that our heroes are half-blinded by Suu Kyi’s image, while our own identities are subsumed into hers. Bayin is not alone in seeing Burma as, she says, “a David and Goliath story, one woman against an army and its brutal regime.” In our celebrity-obsessed age, it is perhaps inevitable that a nation’s struggle for democracy is recast as a one-woman reality show. Why, then, does Suu Kyi’s name appear just six times in a recent 21-page report on Burma’s future by the highly respected Brussels-based International Crisis Group? The report makes a seemingly unlikely proposition: that a new balance of power created by a flawed election presents the West with “a critical opportunity to encourage [Burma's] leaders down a path of greater openness and reform.” Staged a week before Suu Kyi’s release, the ballot was rigged so that the junta’s party won by a landslide. The election seemed custom-built to perpetuate military rule: a quarter of the parliamentary seats were already reserved for military appointees. But the primary function of the election, suggests the Crisis Group, is to facilitate “Than Shwe’s exit strategy.” With retirement looming, General Than Shwe, 78, Burma’s absolute ruler since 1992, wants to prevent the rise of another dictator who might threaten him and his family’s business interests. That’s why, says the Crisis Group, power in postelection Burma is now deliberately spread among four centers: military, presidency, parliament and party. All are still dominated by the military, of course, but their leaders “are neither feared in the same way [as Than Shwe] nor will they be able to wield power as capriciously,” argues the Crisis Group. “They are more likely to be given bad news … and will be more in touch with the realities of the country, which may lead to more rational policy-making.” Incremental reform could well follow. Realpolitik, though, is no match for romance. Concentrating solely on the Lady helps sustain two myths. First, that a popular protest will topple the regime. It won’t: the last uprising — the 2007 “saffron revolution” led by Buddhist monks — was efficiently crushed. Second, that the regime can be sanctioned into submission. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted in 2009 that “imposing sanctions hasn’t influenced the Burmese junta.” Yet Western nations still impose sweeping investment and trade bans on Burma. While Burma’s economic misery is due to the junta’s corruption, neglect and mismanagement, the Crisis Group says that the “failed policies of sanctions and isolation” have further impoverished ordinary Burmese. Western oil companies and giant Asian neighbors such as China and India do enough business with Burma to render any embargo ineffectual. But the E.U. and the U.S., which recently affirmed their commitment to sanctions, still take their cue from Suu Kyi. She believes sanctions have had little impact on ordinary Burmese and should only be lifted if human rights improve. I hope she’s right, since in this respect she effectively has a veto over Western foreign policy. The world has long campaigned for Suu Kyi’s release. She is free at last. Now what? Well, we must continue to demand that the Burmese government release all political prisoners, end the violent persecution of ethnic minorities and guarantee the liberty and safety of Suu Kyi and other democrats. But we must also put pressure on our own governments. They could start by dismantling the legal obstructions on delivering humanitarian aid to Burma — or explain why it gets less aid ($6 per capita) than communist Laos ($62). On April 12 the E.U. relaxed travel restrictions on 22 top Burmese officials, including the Foreign Minister, while the U.S. is appointing a new special envoy on Burma. These fresh attempts to engage an isolated regime are necessary and timely, although it’s unclear how or whether the regime might respond. Still, if there are opportunities to shape Burma’s postelectoral landscape and improve the lives of its people, let’s at least consider them. It’s time to take the masks off, and put the thinking caps on. Grasping at straws: ICG’s latest report is ill-informed, unsubstantiated and wrong-headed – Benedict Rogers Mizzima News: Thu 14 Apr 2011 The latest report from International Crisis Group (ICG), Myanmar’s Post-Election Landscape, is one of the most extraordinary documents I have read in a long time. Rarely have I seen such naïve and ill-considered analysis from an otherwise highly-respected and intelligent organisation. Riddled with inconsistencies and with no substantiation, ICG has surpassed even its own previous Burma reports in levels of idiocy. Its recognition at the beginning that the November 2010 elections “were not free and fair and the country has not escaped authoritarian rule” is welcome, but it is what then follows that stretches the boundaries of credibility. ICG argues that “it would be a mistake to conclude that nothing has changed”. The top two leaders of the former military regime, Than Shwe and Maung Aye, have “stepped aside” and “a new generation has taken over”. Both points are wrong, as even ICG itself admits later in its report. Contradicting itself, ICG notes that Than Shwe “will continue to influence events from behind the scenes” and will “exert considerable influence”. His power of patronage, “accumulated wealth” and control of business cronies “will underwrite his ongoing influence”. Exactly – so he has not “stepped aside”. The suggestion that “a new generation has taken over”, this is “a key moment of political transition” and that “the changes will have a profound impact” is absurd. Thein Sein, the new President, was prime minister under the old regime and was hand-picked by Than Shwe. Tin Aung Myint Oo, one of the new Vice-Presidents, was the number four in the old regime. Shwe Mann, the number three in the old regime, is the Speaker of Lower House of Parliament. Again, ICG contradicts itself by later noting that “these leaders have been groomed by Than Shwe not because they are necessarily the brightest and the best, but because they were the least threatening to him and his legacy”. Exactly – so where is this “new generation”? As a military intelligence officer in Rangoon told me recently, there is “no change, no change”. Noting that “a number of technocrats have been brought into the cabinet,” ICG concludes that decision-making will be “less ad hoc, less idiosyncratic, potentially more coherent and possibly more effective”. Yet of the thirty members of the new cabinet, only four are genuine civilians – the cabinet is still dominated by military. And even if the regime will now be “more effective”, we need to ask ‘more effective at what’? Suppressing dissent and eliminating ethnic opposition, most likely. Coherency and effectiveness by themselves are no virtues if they increase the suffering of the people. In another example of breath-taking contradiction, ICG has the audacity to state that in the sham elections last November, “few polling irregularities were reported”. This is patently false. There were widespread reports of ballot rigging and intimidation – as ICG then admits in its next breath, acknowledging “massive manipulation of the vote count”. You can’t have it both ways, ICG. ICG’s core objective in policy terms is to argue for the lifting of sanctions. There is a legitimate debate to be had about the effectiveness of current sanctions measures, and the international community’s use of sanctions as a strategic tool. Yet as with so many critics of sanctions, ICG has framed the debate in the wrong terms. First, they point to the West’s “failed policies of sanctions and isolation”. This is a tired and false characterisation of the purpose of sanctions. It is not about “isolation”. I don’t know anyone who wants to “isolate” Burma. The objective of sanctions is the opposite: it is to force the regime to open up, because the only language this regime understands is the language of pressure. Second, ICG trots out the ancient myth about sanctions having “a negative impact on the population”. What is the evidence for this? Yes, the people of Burma are suffering economically – but it is more likely that their poverty is a result of the regime’s corruption, greed and mismanagement of the economy, than the impact of sanctions. When there has been foreign investment in Burma, particularly in the oil and gas sectors, the revenues have gone to line the Generals’ pockets and help them buy arms, not to help the people. The regime has stashed profits in offshore bank accounts in Singapore, spent almost half its budget on the military and less than a dollar per person per year on health and education combined. ICG’s argument on aid lacks common sense. There are two aspects to the aid debate: development aid, through international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Asia Development Bank (ADB), and humanitarian aid, in-country and cross-border, for medical care, livelihood provision, education, emergency relief and poverty alleviation. Most people, including myself, are passionately in favour of increased humanitarian aid to the people of Burma, who are among the poorest in the world, provided such aid goes both in-country and to refugees and internally displaced peoples along the borders and cross-border into the ethnic areas. However, the idea that international financial institutions should start funding development projects, enabling the regime to build more roads on which to move its troops and more dams to generate electricity to sell to neighbours, resulting in more displacement and human rights violations, is highly questionable. The idea that sanctions impede humanitarian aid is nonsense. The United Kingdom has shown that it is perfectly possible to be pro-sanctions and pro-aid. The UK is among the strongest advocates of maintaining sanctions – yet it is the largest bilateral donor to Burma, having recently announced a significant increase in its aid. Over the next four years, the UK will give an average of £46 million ($75 million) a year in aid to Burma. So don’t say sanctions result in less aid. ICG argues that “a new approach urgently needs to be adopted”, and on this point I agree. However, the approach needed is one that combines more effectively all the tools at our disposal – economic pressure, diplomatic and political initiatives, high-level engagement, and aid to the most vulnerable and to pro-democracy civil society groups, in-country and along the borders. In particular, we need a UN Commission of Inquiry to investigate the regime’s crimes against humanity, as recommended by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma and supported by 16 countries so far. We also need to end the badly-informed and polarised debate about sanctions, and recognise that sanctions can only be lifted when the regime shows meaningful signs of progress: the release of political prisoners, an end to military offensives against ethnic civilians, and the beginning of a dialogue with the democracy movement led by Aung San Suu Kyi and the ethnic nationalities. The ball is in the regime’s court. What we do not need is naïve and uninformed analyses and policies that amount to surrender and appeasement and grasp at straws. We do not need any more UN and EU bureaucrats telling us to “wait and see”. A senior EU official recently admitted to me: “I really don’t know. I just cross my fingers and hope for the best,” and it appears that is ICG’s approach too. Such an approach will only help the Generals. We need a well-informed, co-ordinated, creative and proactive international strategy that supports the desire of the people of Burma for change. Rights groups caution about repatriation of Burmese refugees – Ron Corben Voice of America: Tue 12 Apr 2011 Bangkok – The United Nations High Commission for Refugees and human rights groups have raised concerns about reports that Thailand is planning to repatriate more than 100,000 Burmese refugees living in camps in Thailand. Rights groups say conflict and human rights abuses are still going on in Burma, in a region littered by land mines from decades of fighting.The UNHCR has greeted with caution reports Thailand plans to repatriate Burmese refugees living in camps along its western borderwith Burma. Rumors of plans to repatriate the refugees follow a meeting between Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his national security chief. The issue was also raised during informal talks between Thai Foreign Kasit Piromya and Burmese counterpart Wunna Muang Lwin. But Kitty McKinsey, a senior regional spokesperson for the UNHCR, says eventual repatriation of Burmese refugees should happen only when conditions of safety are met. “This is a very long term process and I note that even the Thai government official did not put any date, any time line, any deadline,” said McKinsey. “So closing refugee camps is an aim that we share. We’ve never said that these people should live in Thailand forever and ever. Nobody wants to be a refugee for their whole life.” McKinsey says the return of refugees should involve international monitoring and ensure that land mines are cleared and those returning do so voluntarily. There are around 140,000 Burmese refugees, mostly ethnic Karen, in nine camps. They fled internal conflict after decades of fighting with the central government. Some people have lived in the camps for 20 years. Thai government officials have held talks with Burma’s new government on closing the camps. But rights groups say conditions inside Burma remain unsafe. Jack Dunford, executive director of the Thailand Burma Border Consortium, an aid organization which provides for refugees’ care, says fighting is on-going inside Burma and those returning face possible rights abuses. “We all hope that the refugees can go home in the future,” said Dunfold. “We all want to see the camps closed. But the evidence suggests that actually the situation in eastern Burma has not improved; that conflict and human rights abuses continue creating more refugees at the present time rather than the situation where the refugees can go home.” Debbie Stothardt, spokeswoman for human rights group the Alternative ASEAN Network, says the Association of South East Asian Nations – of which Burma is a member – has obligations under international law to avoid possible abuses of human rights. “The reality is that these people are being pushed back into situations where they will be subjected to more war crimes and crimes against humanity,” she said.”And, the international community, Especially ASEAN countries, need to understand their international obligations under international law. They are using the elections in Burma as an excuse to push back people into harm’s way is simply unjustified.” Rights groups say the Thai government is also coming under pressure from some international donors, who say Burma’s newly elected government marks a change in the political conditions inside Burma. But the rights groups say, despite Burma’s elected parliament, the country’s military remains the dominant power and is directing policy from behind the scenes. Is Burma’s strongman really retiring? – Robert Horn TIME: Tue 12 Apr 2011 More often than not, dictators, like mafia dons, can never retire. It’s a rare strongman who can avoid an assassination, coup or revolution and fade into the sunset on his own terms rather than with a prison term. Yet according to members of Burma’s newly inaugurated government, Senior General Than Shwe, who ruled the impoverished Southeast Asian country since 1992, has hung up his epaulets and handed over power to chosen successors. Few Burma watchers, and few people in Burma, however, believe 78-year-old Than Shwe has truly called it quits. “The joke in Burma is that Than Shwe has transferred power — from his right hand to his left,” said Aung Zaw, editor of The Irrawaddy, an online magazine published by Burmese exiles in Thailand. “He still goes to his office every day. He is still the ultimate authority.” After 19 years as head of the country’s military regime, last year Than Shwe allowed the first multi-party elections since 1990. He just didn’t allow anyone except his hand-picked protégés to win them. Leading opponents, such as Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, were barred from running, and her National League for Democracy party chose not to participate claiming the rules were rigged to ensure Than Shwe’s underlings in the military would emerge victorious. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the polls “neither free nor fair,” and marred by fraud, repression and intimidation. Though some who are more friendly to Burma’s rulers, such as Surin Pitsuwan, Secretary General of the regional bloc the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), have described the elections as a “new beginning” for democracy, other critics have said the transition taking place under Than Shwe closely resembles the faux civilian rule perpetrated by his mentor, former dictator Gen. Ne Win, during the 1970s and ’80s. Ne Win had a constitution approved and a parliament of loyalists installed through sham elections. Although he resigned the presidency in 1981 and all political posts in 1988, he continued to pull the strings of power from behind the scenes. He still inspired so much fear that many Burmese would only refer to him as “Number One.” It wasn’t until Ne Win’s family, known for corruption and bullying behavior, allegedly began scheming against some in power that Than Shwe moved against his patron, sentencing his son-in-law and grandsons to prison terms for treason and condemning “Number One” to house arrest until he died in 2002. Few in Burma could have imagined such an end for a man who had wielded such absolute power. Such an end, however, isn’t beyond the imaginings of Than Shwe, considering his role those events. As time goes by, Than Shwe’s protégés will build their own power bases and may feel more emboldened. He “is aware of the risks,” said Benedict Rogers, author of the biography Than Shwe, Unmasking Burma’s Tyrant. “If enough people in the military, especially at senior levels, decided they had had enough of him, they could turn on him and his family.” Than Shwe’s ordering of soldiers to shoot Buddhist monks during an uprising in 2007 was reported to have caused some dissension within the military, but he has seemingly managed to keep officers with misgivings in line. Despite widespread poverty among Burma’s people, Than Shwe and his family have a reputation for greed and flaunting their wealth. In 2006, a video of the lavish wedding of Than Shwe’s daughter, in which she allegedly received $50 million in gifts, circulated in Burma. “The public’s disrespect and hatred toward Than Shwe’s family members are much worse than for Ne Win’s family,” said Aung Zaw. Other authoritarian leaders, such as China’s Deng Xiaoping and Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yew, successfully maintained much of their power and influence long after stepping back from official leadership roles. Than Shwe, who once headed the military’s psychological warfare department, has the skills to do the same. “He is manipulative and cunning, and he makes his moves in secrecy,” Aung Zaw said. Rogers said that Than Shwe, who often makes public displays of his generous donations to Buddhist temples, keeps at least seven fortune tellers on his staff to help him ward off any ill fortune or plots against him. Yet even they can not predict with certainty what the general’s end will be. There is no doubt, however, that Than Shwe’s detractors are hoping one of Asia’s more enduring religious principles eventually catches up with him: karma. “You reap what you sow,” said Aung Zaw. Military plays a civilian-looking game – Larry Jagan Irrawaddy: Tue 12 Apr 2011 Bangkok—A new quasi-civilian government has taken over in Burma, but diplomats, analysts and pro-democracy activists are dismissing it as nothing more than “old wine in a new bottle”. Burma analysts believe that strongman Than Shwe has only retreated to the backroom. Than Shwe recently stepped down as commander-in-chief of the Burmese army and relinquished day-to-day control of the country after nearly two decades as head of the military junta. “He is likely to be pulling the strings from behind the curtain,” said the Burmese academic Win Min, now based in the US. “He will use his influence behind the scenes, relying on personal patronage and connections.” “If anyone thinks this new government is a step towards democracy they are sadly mistaken,” said Maung Zarni, researcher at the London School of Economics. Yet there are those who see change coming to Burma, though not the sort that most Burmese people are yearning for. A new system of government has been unveiled, in which parliament will play a subsidiary part, and the executive, headed by newly elected president Thein Sein, will play the leading role. The new government was formed after elections last November, in which the pro-junta Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) won by a landslide. Most western countries, and the pro-democracy movement led by Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, have rejected the results as a sham. But there has been a clear transfer of power to a new generation. Although mainly military men or former soldiers, most of Burma’s new leaders are under the age of 60 and have a technocratic background. Even the military officers turned politicians, who occupy part of the 25 percent of parliament seats reserved for serving soldiers, have a different outlook. The new army chief, 55-year-old Gen Min Aung Hlaing, is reported to be a professional soldier keen on restoring the prestigious image of the army tainted by the repression after the uprising of 1988, and the 22 years of authoritarian rule that followed. There are other signs of change. On his recent visit, senior Chinese leader Jia Qinglin, the fourth most important man in the Communist Party’s political bureau, did not meet Than Shwe. Jia was instead hosted by Thura Shwe Mann, speaker of the Lower House and vice-president of the ruling party USDP. But there are other signs that those who have resigned or retired from the army no longer have their military stripes. Soldiers no longer guard the homes of former top military officers, including Than Shwe and the former No. 2 leader Maung Aye, either in the capital Naypyidaw or Rangoon, according to residents in these cities. The police have taken over that duty, as they do in most countries that are regarded as civilian democracies. This is a sign that Burma is moving, albeit tentatively, towards becoming a civilian-governed society. Of course, what Burma is experiencing now is a transition; it is not yet democracy and it may not yet be significant change. It is something akin to Indonesia under Suharto’s Golkar-led government. This may not be the sort of democracy that most Burmese people want, but it could be a significant step towards an Asian-style democracy. Even in Thailand the military continues to play a significant political role behind the scenes, and in the recent past shown it was not averse to intervening with force as it did in September 2006, the last time the military staged a coup. This is the critical hope for Burma – a transition similar to what has happened in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Thailand in the last 20 years. Of course, worrying signs still remain that Burma’s form of “disciplined democracy” as the military prefer to call it, may not match the minimum standards of civilian-military regimes in the rest of Asia. Too many military men and former soldiers dominate the country’s emerging political scene. Change is impossible as the military mind remains entrenched even in the new political system which pretends to be a civilian administration, according to Maung Zarni. Even if the top generals have retired to the back room, the new crops of officers are effectively clones. “The officer corps are a sub-class of society that has come to view themselves as the ruling class, feeling they are eternally entitled to rule,” Zarni said in an interview with IPS. “Whoever takes their places (Than Shwe and Maung Aye) will not be more enlightened or more progressive, simply because they have all been inculcated with thuggish, racist, sexist and neo-totalitarian leadership values, and only junior generals who are their mirror image have been promoted,” said Zarni. As yet there is still little room for discussion and dialogue – crucial elements of a democracy or an emerging civilian form of government. Parliament is yet to be a fully functioning legislature, though some questions that had been taboo before – ethnic education issues, land confiscation, the release of political prisoners – were put to the president. The parliament is now in recess and may not meet again for another year, the minimum set by the constitution. But above all there is no role as yet for Burma’s real opposition – Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD) – though the opposition leader has asked to meet the new president and government, according to senior sources in the NLD. But there is good reason to remain skeptical. Change will not happen quickly. “The train has left the station, but we don’t know where it going or how long the journey will be,” said a Burmese academic on condition of anonymity. EU maintains Burma sanctions Burma Campaign UK: Tue 12 Apr 2011 Burma Campaign UK today welcomed the decision by EU Foreign Ministers to renew European Union (EU) economic sanctions on Burma for a further year. EU Foreign Ministers met today to make the Council Decision on EU Burma policy, which has to be renewed once a year. There were no major changes. “We are pleased that the EU has maintained economic sanctions,” said Anna Roberts, Executive Director at Burma Campaign UK. “The EU should now engage with the National League for Democracy to set benchmarks, such as the release of all political prisoners, which must be met before any economic sanctions are lifted. The sanctions the EU have imposed are a tool which can be used to promote dialogue and human rights, but so far the EU has left them in the toolbox. Setting benchmarks is a vital next step to get sanctions working for change.” Germany and Italy have been using the pretext of the sham elections and release of Aung San Suu Kyi to try to persuade the EU to lift economic sanctions on Burma. Germany in particular has companies wanting to expand their business in Burma. “Once again Germany and Italy have been putting commercial interests before human rights in Burma,” said Anna Roberts. The EU agreed two new measures which they hope will promote dialogue with the dictatorship. The ban on EU ministers and heads of state visiting Burma has been lifted temporarily, for one year. This has been under consideration since 2008. Burma Campaign UK has long called for higher level political engagement with the dictatorship in Burma. Twenty years experience has shown that sending low-level envoys from the UN, EU and other countries does not work. However, given that the EU is already sending conflicting messages to the dictatorship, we are concerned that with twenty-seven different ministers possibly visiting Burma, this problem will only get worse. The EU must agree common talking points to ensure consistency of messages. Burma Campaign UK understands that all EU ministers will visit Aung San Suu Kyi each time they go to Burma. The EU has also made small changes to the visa ban list. Civilian members of the dictatorship have been added to the visa ban list as usual, but the implementation of this will be suspended for the time being. This appears to be a compromise which represents a climbdown by some EU members which wanted no ministers in the ‘new’ government to be added to the visa ban list. The Foreign Minister of Burma has had implementation of the visa ban suspended for one year, again to promote dialogue. Burma Campaign UK is very disappointed that EU Foreign Ministers failed to publicly support a UN Commission of Inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Burma, as recommended by the UN Special Rapporteur on Burma. This failure will reinforce the dictatorship’s sense of impunity at a time when it is breaking ceasefires and targeting civilians in ethnic states in Burma. Burma Campaign UK is also concerned that yet again European Commission officials are actively attempting to undermine the official EU position on Burma because they do not personally agree with the policy. This is evidenced by one EU official speaking to the AP news service yesterday, and trying to spin that the EU was relaxing sanctions, even though there is no significant change to sanctions, and economic sanctions have not been relaxed. “The EU has sent a clear message today that there has been no significant improvement in the situation in Burma, and so sanctions will be maintained,” said Anna Roberts. “The EU has also made clear it is willing to step up dialogue and respond positively to genuine improvements if they were to happen. It is now up to the dictatorship to take positive steps, but given that they are stepping up military attacks against ethnic minorities, sadly, this appears unlikely.” Since the elections last November the human rights situation in Burma has deteriorated, with the dictatorship breaking ceasefires in Karen State and Shan State, forcing tens of thousands of people to flee their homes. The Foreign Ministers Council Conclusions can be viewed at: http://burmacampaign.org.uk/images/uploads/EU-Council-Conclusions-April-2011.pdf The comments on the renewal by the British Foreign Secretary can be viewed at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=582922182 A detailed background briefing on the EU and Burma is available at: http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/index.php/news-and-reports/burma-briefing/title/the-european-union-and-burma *Note: Although the EU has not introduced the kind of strong targeted sanctions that Burma’s democracy movement has been calling for, Burma’s generals regularly complain about those sanctions that do exist, demonstrating that they are having an impact. The first sanctions that had any significant impact stopping revenue going to Burma’s generals and their cronies were only introduced in March 2008. These sanctions included an import ban on gems and timber. Friends of the Earth has exposed loopholes in these sanctions. Thein Sein urges ‘decentralization’ – Ko Htwe Irrawaddy: Mon 11 Apr 2011 In an address to his union-level, region and state ministers on Wednesday, Burma’s new president, ex-Gen Thein Sein, seemed to urge greater government decentralization while at the same time admonishing lower-level organizations to stay within the policy framework set by the central government. “Now, a new system and new era have emerged. So it is required to make changes in ideas and procedures,” said Thein Sein, according to a report of his speech by The New Light of Myanmar, a state-run newspaper. “Duties and responsibilities have been assigned to the respective ministers of states and regions,” The New Light of Myanmar reported that Thein Sein said. “The centralization has been reduced and states and regions have been entrusted with rights and powers. They will have to take charge of their own duties.” The president said that ministers need to work with “initiative, dynamism and conviction without waiting for exhortation.” Thein Sein acknowledged that there would be initial difficulties in distinguishing between the tasks to be carried out at the union level versus the state/regional level, but said that “experience would solve the problem.” No specific areas of decentralization were mentioned. Thein Sein said that that local ministers should encourage the development of private businesses in their region, and urged both union and state/regional level ministers to perform their respective duties to ensure the country’s transportation system was in good condition. And while speaking in general terms about decentralization, Thein Sein admonished the ministers to toe the national party line in carrying out their local responsibilities. “Ministries should know the national policy, objectives and goals and should always work within their framework,” Thein Sein said, while warning the ministers that they can be held accountable for what they have done. “Moreover, they should be aware of the acts that may harm the interest of the people and tarnish the reputation of the country and undermine the nation’s sovereignty.” Thein Sein also included people outside of government in his decentralization policy. He urged the people to work on a self-reliant basis for their socioeconomic development instead of relying solely on the government, saying that the only duty of the people is to work and the government on its part should create job opportunities and levy taxes. For many politicians and observers, Thein Sein’s words about decentralization have little hope of becoming a reality because, they say, he himself cannot do anything without the consent of the commander-in-chief. All Mon Regions Democracy Party chairman Naing Ngwe Thein said, “They [the government officials] have been using a word like that [decentralization] for a long time. Every important thing is controlled by the central government under the new Constitution, but they don’t mention details on decentralization.” “The new minister of Arakan State calls all the business from the state. After the discussion, he [the Arakan State minister] said that he has to inform the central government and has no right to decide on his own,” said a businessman from Arakan State. The president must make all important decisions with the agreement of the National Defense and Security Council, so Thein Sein’s speech will be remain just talk, said Aye Thar Aung, an Arakanese leader. “The authorities of the state and regional governments and legislatures are centralized and have little chance to change. If they want to change freely they will face threats under the Constitution, so state and regional governments do not dare to do this,” said Aye Thar Aung. “It is not likely he can build a decentralized system. He [Thein Sein] always capitulates to the commander-in-chief,” said Sai Leik, the spokesperson of the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy. “He [Thein Sein] can do nothing without the knowledge of Snr-Gen Than Shwe. It is not easy for his words to take shape because they have many changes to make in the ministries,” said Phyo Min Thein, a politician based in Rangoon. Don’t buy into Burma’s cosmetic reforms – Maung Zarni Al Jazeera: Mon 11 Apr 2011 When the EU reviews its position on Burma it would be wise to discard the ICG’s recent report on the country. When the European Union reviews its Common Position on Burma next week it would be wise not to buy into the Burmese junta’s cosmetic reforms. For the elaborate charade recently conducted by the Burmese junta to transfer power to former general Thein Sein as the president of a new “civilian” government, has not fooled the Burmese public at large. The entire process was, by any measure, a transparent attempt to legitimise the rule of the junta with just enough democratic window-dressing to make the country slightly more palatable to shareholders of international investment firms. While celebrating the transformation from world-class pariah tyranny to some sort of “flawed democracy,” only the deliberately naïve or shamelessly opportunistic would describe these events as progress toward real democratic freedoms. This transition to democracy, of course, does not exist – neither slow nor gradual. However that is not the conclusion that one would reach after reading the most recent report from the International Crisis Group (ICG), entitled “Myanmar’s Post-Election Landscape,” published on March 7, 2011. Putting aside for the moment the controversies over the sources of the ICG’s staggering $17mn annual budget (making it one of the largest NGOs in the world), and looking beyond reasonable disagreements over the morality of sanctions, the ICG report is intellectually dishonest. In addition to calling for a wholesale apology and removal of sanctions, the report urges policymakers to lend credibility to this farcical election. “As Myanmar enters a new political phase and General Than Shwe hands over power to the next generation of leaders, there is a critical window of opportunity to encourage greater openness and reform,” the ICG report reads. “The West must robustly engage the new Myanmar government at the highest level.” The problem with the report is not only its flawed conclusions, but also the visible assumptions behind its methodology. The authors reveal an embarrassing lack of awareness of the nature, process and record of economic development in Burma, and show no understanding of the history of political transformations of neo-totalitarian regimes across the world and even in the region. The credibility of the report is severely damaged by their inability to look beyond the state and administrative structures of the emerging military apartheid, to make any kind of comparative argument. Innocuous and donor-friendly policy buzz words such as “governance,” “do no harm,” “donor standards on accountability,” “high level dialogue on human rights” and “capacity building of civil society” are packed into the recommendations of the report, although upon closer inspection these concepts are empty husks argued without reasoning or evidence. The authors reveal their agenda to reach the preferred conclusion of engagement via selection bias of sources and evidence. On its assessment of the sanctions’ impact on Burmese society, its citations include a few Burmese businessmen, two local economists and a handful of virtually insignificant parties such as the National Democratic Front of the NLD-renegades and a handful of ethnicity-based parties that are docile and obedient to the military’s rules. When citing international figures, such as former French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, the report does not mention his economic conflicts of interest, and when quoting US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, they truncate her statements to make it seem that she was dismissing sanctions, when in fact she had also dismissed the effectiveness of engagement. The reality of the post-election landscape in Burma is quite different from the ICG’s sunny optimism, featuring a panicked surge of some 30,000 refugees into Thailand, more than 2,000 new political prisoners, and numerous violent crackdowns related to the elections. The economics of the junta have played a major role, with the generals’ massive property seizures squandering the country’s natural resource wealth of natural gas, forests and mining while public welfare is criminally neglected. Their power depends upon a feudal mafia system of enabling managers, operatives, supporters, sympathisers, proxies and legitimisers to steal, rob and misappropriate what essentially belongs to the peoples and communities in terms of land, resources and geographic locations. As such, the resumption of foreign investment is extraordinarily damaging to democratic prospects indeed. Reconciliation and the lifting of sanctions are clearly not linked, as the report crudely suggests. From the very beginning, sanctions have been meant to serve as a strategic pillar of moral support for the opposition, and conversely weaken the regime’s revenue base on which its repressive security apparatuses rests. When some of us broke the silence on sanctions back in 2003, calling for a critical reassessment, there happened to be a circle of “pragmatists” led by General Khin Nyunt who were prepared to work with the opposition, most importantly with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Instead of responding to this approach, the concept of “reconciliation” turned out not to figure into the generals’ vocabulary, and those who led the efforts were dismissed as “lackeys” of Western powers by the junta’s propaganda machine. Incremental gains by ethnic groups and the gradual inclusion of new actors have no relevance under the regime, and by emphasising and even exaggerating these imagined changes, the ICG appears unaware of the collective psyche of the Burmese ruling class, and its sense of entitlement and impunity above the rest of the society. Even back during the General Ne Win era, Western-educated technocrats were regularly co-opted to serve the regime, not change it. Further, the open disdain the generals hold toward parliamentarians and civil actors, a fundamental feature of their political culture, makes this imagined transition toward a real constitutional authority nothing more than a lurid fantasy – one that is eagerly and dangerously indulged by ICG. I can unreservedly assure readers that there is one broadly held public opinion of the people of Burma: Universal disdain for the brutal dictatorship under which we have suffered for so many decades. For an international NGO like ICG to tell us that they should be embraced with kindness as born-again democrats is a painful insult. Right at a moment in which the tides of history are making a visible swing toward popular sovereignty and democracy, the international community has a duty not to continue enabling and participating in our repression, no matter how convenient the circumstances. *Note from the author: Not out of an unwarranted and non-existent nostalgia for the by-gone British Raj in Burma, but rather as a symbolic popular defiance against half a century of military dictatorship and, more specifically, the arbitrary manner in which Burma’s reviled dictatorship changed the country’s name to Myanmar, every Burmese dissident, from Aung San Suu Kyi down to the opposition foot soldiers, insists on calling the country Burma – until such a time when the people – not the autocrats in power – have a chance to deliberate among themselves as to what they would like the world to call their country. * Maung Zarni is the founder of the Free Burma Coalition and currently a research fellow on Burma at the London School of Economics and Political Science. *The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy Military junta still controls Burma – Editorial Voice of America: Mon 11 Apr 2011 Burma’s fundamentally flawed electoral process has ensured that key military regime figures will continue to dominate the government. We urge authorities there to release all political prisoners, to recognize the legitimacy of the National League for Democracy. Burma’s rulers have shed their military uniforms and donned civilian clothes, but it is clear that the same regime that has controlled the Southeast Asian nation is still calling the shots there. The military junta, known as the SPDC, was officially dissolved and Senior General Than Shwe announced he would step down from his official role as Commander in Chief and leader of the armed forces. On March 30, a nominally civilian government of lawmakers elected last fall was sworn in. While this supposedly marks the country’s shift to democratic rule, it’s clear that Burma’s fundamentally flawed electoral process — which marginalized opposition candidates and ensured seats for military officials — has ensured that key military regime figures will continue to dominate the government and all decision making. Toward that end, the United States will continue in its approach to Burma. We urge authorities there to release all political prisoners, to recognize the legitimacy of the National League for Democracy and all democratic and ethnic opposition political parties, and to enter into a genuine and inclusive dialogue with these groups as a first step towards national reconciliation. The United States and other members of the international community have enacted economic sanctions on Burma’s leaders and their close supporters to press for democratic and human rights reforms. But we have also reached out to Burma’s leaders for increased cooperation and engagement. The United States will continue this dual-track policy. America’s expectations are clear. Substantive reforms are still needed in Burma’s government, not merely a costume change. President’s 30 unilateral powers revealed – Francis Wade Democratic Voice of Burma: Fri 8 Apr 2011 Burma’s new president will not require consent from parliament over matters ranging from the protection of war refugees to the mining of natural resources, domestic news has revealed.Thein Sein, who was sworn into office on 30 March as Burma’s first civilian leader in nearly half a century, must only consult with other MPs on seven treaties and bills, the Weekly Eleven said. It was quoting clauses in a supplement of the parliamentary law text, or Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Law. He will also have unilateral authority to dismiss asylum claims, ban nuclear research and prevent terrorism. The seemingly disparate range of extra-parliamentary powers is at first sight perplexing – he also has the final say on “cultural exchange” and “ban on use of poisonous gas in military operations” – but some of the language may be veiled, with one clause appearing to allow him total control over communication systems, including internet and telephone, and therefore the ability to shut them down without notice. Another gives the president the rights over distribution of electricity in Burma, where only 20 percent of the population have regular power access. The revelation will beg further questions of the legitimacy of a parliament which is overwhelming dominated by politicians loyal to the previous junta, and a quarter of whose seats are taken up by pre-appointed military officials. Thein Sein is very much a product of the junta that ruled Burma in various guises for decades. Analysts believe the former military general was appointed as president largely on the grounds of his loyalty to former strongman Than Shwe, as well as the clean reputation that stands him apart from many in its corrupt upper echelons. No details are given in the law text that may explain how, for instance, the president can go about “preventing terrorism”, nor the criteria he’ll use to determine a terrorist – a worrying sign given the number of peaceful activists convicted on terrorism charges. Likewise, awarding a key architect of the former junta’s campaign against ethnic armies the ultimate power to decide the fate of refugees will also trigger concern. It follows the announcement last month of the newly-created Special Funds Law, which gives the commander-in-chief, Min Aung Hlaing, supreme authority to allocate unlimited additional money to the army without any notice, and without parliamentary consent. Than Shwe continues to control Burma’s military Irrawaddy: Thu 7 Apr 2011 Despite dissolving the State Peace and Development Council and officially transferring the commander-in-chief post, Snr-Gen Than Shwe has apparently retained his grip on Burma’s military, the country’s most powerful institution, said sources at the Ministry of Defense (MoD) in Napyidaw.The MoD sources said the most recent evidence that Than Shwe is still in charge of the military is that the War Office in Naypyidaw was still sending reports marked “secret” and “confidential” to Than Shwe during the week following the announcement that the commander-in-chief position had been transferred to Gen Min Aung Hlaing. “Actually, the War Office does not need to send any reports to a retired general. But the War Office is still sending reports that are addressed to Snr-Gen Than Shwe,” said a military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Even though Snr-Gen Than Shwe does not have an office at the War Office in the Zayar Thiri area of Naypyidaw, we can read into the fact that we are still sending him reports that he is still controlling the military and still has power.” The MoD sources added that Than Shwe remains in the senior general position and his general staff officers, Maj-Gen Nay Win, Brig-Gen Soe Shein and Col Myint Kyi, remain at their positions as assistants to Than Shwe. Another military source said that although Min Aung Hlaing is authorized to handle a minor military reshuffle of regional military commands, light infantry divisions, regional operation commands and military operation commands, Than Shwe is still the one who will be in charge of any major military reshuffle. Meanwhile, Lt-Gen Myint Hein, the commander-in-chief of the Air Force, and Vice Admiral Nyan Tun, the commander-in-chief of the Navy, have reportedly been promoted to general and admiral, respectively. Following their promotion, there are now three four-star generals in Burma alongside Min Aung Hlaing. In making this move, Than Shwe apparently wanted to shift the power balance between the Amy, Navy and Air Force, said military sources. According to government staff at ministries, Than Shwe’s portrait still remains on the walls of government offices as Burma’s top general. “The senior general’s pictures are still at all government offices. No one told us to remove the picture,” said a staffer with the Ministry of Finances and Revenues in Naypyidaw. China’s sweetener to speed up pipeline through Myanmar – Saibal Dasgupta The Times of India: Thu 7 Apr 2011 Beijing: Chinese National Petroleum Corporation has offered aid worth $6 million to Myanmar for building hospitals as part of China’s efforts to persuade it to quicken the pace of laying the 878km-long crude pipeline between the two countries. China is competing with India to tap Myanmar’s oil and gas resources. Crude market uncertainties due to Libyan crisis has also forced China to expand its relationship with Myanmar’s oil industry. PetroChina, another Chinese oil major, is constructing a four billion cubic meter gas depot at Hutubi in the border province of Xinjiang to make the most of gas piped from Myanmar. The Corporation offered the package during Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference chairman’s Jia Qinglin’s recent visit to the country. The top Chinese political advisor singed several other deals with the newly-elected Myanmar government during the visit. Jia’s visit was the first by a foreign leader after the new Myanmar government took over. Jia’s visit was also meant to reassure China’s continued support to Myanmar’s new government . Jia urged it to maintain peace and stability along the 2,200-km China-Myanmar border that recently witnessed some serious disturbances. China is among few countries to support Myanmar’s government while the US and other western nations have continued to censure it. Chinese president Hu Jintao sent a congratulatory message to the new government and chided foreign leaders for criticising it. Burma needs to erase the dictatorial traditions – Zin Linn Asia Tribune: Wed 6 Apr 2011 Burma’s military regime has been publicly dissolved, according to state televisions and newspapers, after the country swore in a new president on 30 March. Referring to an order signed by junta’s chief Than Shwe, said “The State Peace and Development Council will be disbanded after the swearing-in ceremony for the new government and parliaments.” Besides, the new president also made a speech to his members of Union Government, heads of Union level organizations at a ceremony to take heed of presidential address on 31 March. In his speech, President Thein Sein underlined that the newly formed Union Government “to be a clean government.” He said, “To be a clean government, we must abstain from corruption and bribery, which tarnishes the image of the nation and the people. Therefore, we have not only refrain from it, but also ensure that the organizations stay away from it. What is very important is that we must not abuse the mandate in the interest of our friends and relatives. Only then, can our government be recognized as a clean government.” But all the governmental practices are still continuing the same as under the SPDC. Even the township and village level administrations remain the status quo. Corruptions and briberies are at large constantly. On 5 April, An alliance of democratic political parties – Friends of Democratic Parties – pushed for the new President Thein Sein’s government to start putting into practice the words made in his inauguration speeches without delay. The 10-party alliance – including Democratic Party of Myanmar (DPM), National Democratic Force (NDF) and five ethnic parties – released a statement urging the Thein Sein Government to carry out the objectives mentioned by him in his speeches on March 30 and 31 concerning the reconstruction of the nation and starting of national reconciliation. The eight-point statement signed by party leaders called for a general amnesty for political prisoners in the country and the convening of an all-inclusive union conference looking for reconciliation, as said by Democratic Voice of Burma. The statement says, “In order to implement the objectives practically, we are calling for endorsement of a general amnesty decree for all political prisoners in the country and all those who are in exile for their different political opinions. And we call for the new government to sponsor organizing of all-inclusive union convention, with everyone involved in the over six-decade long civil war. By that mean, the government should find a solution to end the conflict, said the statement.” The 10-party alliance suggests the new government to do the job as early as possible proving its true benevolence toward genuine national reconciliation. Although the junta officially transferred power to the Thein Sein government, corruption, forced-labour and land-confiscation cases are going on throughout the country. Chairman of Democratic Party of Myanmar Thu Wei recommended that governmental institutions should take the president’s speeches seriously, while political parties need to be constantly reminding them. All government departments such as administration and judicial bodies should follow these words precisely for the country, said Thu Wei. According to Thu Wei, corruption is one of the issues mainly impeding the people. So, political parties need to keep reminding the new government about such wrongdoing until action is taken. Political parties should not just depend on the government; they need to criticize them simultaneously. He also urged the Affair Committees in the Parliament to take responsibilities, scrutinizing the president’s promises and responsibilities to push for implementation of his pledge. Some of its members said, the 10-party alliance will keep an eye on the new government’s measures to find out whether the president takes adequate measures’ to implement his promises or not. The key question is that the president or the government has not enough decision-making powers. It is under the control of the National Defense and Security Council in which the military faction is the majority and the commander-in-chief has the supreme authority. So, people cannot enjoy freedom of information, freedom of association and freedom of communication at all. The new government cannot start practicing of power sharing among the respective admin departments. Even a department head or a high-court judge daren’t to make a decision by themselves rather than waiting an instruction from a high-ranking official. Most of the government officials and employees are used to obey the instructions of the military officers. They also believe that taking bribe is a birthright opportunity for government officials. It is obvious; Burma’s new government has new civilian clothes but it still keeping on the old inexcusable practices. Burma may not change straightforwardly into a democratic society without erasing the dictatorial traditions. Still a pariah despite dogged declarations of change – Aung Zaw Bangkok Post: Wed 6 Apr 2011 If you read The New Light of Myanmar hoping to find signs of change in Burma, you can be forgiven for feeling a bit despondent. Retired general Thein Sein’s inaugural speech as the country’s newly minted president gave no indication that his government sworn-in on March 30, has any intention of breaking with the policies of the past two decades. The new wolves of respectability: Newly appointed President Thein Sein is flanked by his vice presidents Tin Aung Myint Oo (left) and Sai Mauk Khan Maung (right), in this picture distributed by the Burmese government in Naypyidaw on April Fools’ Day. The central message was clear: the army remains in charge, and real reform, if it ever comes, will only be at a pace that Burma’s entrenched military rulers approve of. Among other things, President Thein Sein laid out his foreign policy in his address to Parliament. Vowing to stand firm as a respected member of the global community, he invited nations wishing to see “democracy flourish” in Burma to cooperate with his government. To this end, he called on foreign governments to end “various forms” of pressure on Burma, “including assistance and encouragement to the anti-government groups and economic manipulations”. But Thein Sein, a staunch loyalist of strongman Than Shwe, head of the now-dissolved State Peace and Development Council, is not likely to get his wish. Shortly after his speech, the US State Department’s acting deputy spokesman Mark Toner dismissed the nominal transfer of authority in Burma from military to civilian figures as “immaterial”. Military leaders are still in control, he said, meaning that sanctions would remain in place, even as the Obama administration continues to try to engage the Burmese authorities. Mr Toner told Voice of America that the United States urges the Burmese authorities to release all political prisoners, recognise the legitimacy of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy Party, and enter into a genuine, inclusive dialogue with all democratic and ethnic-based opposition groups “as a first step toward reconciliation”. He also said that Burma remained politically oppressive. There was nothing in Thein Sein’s speech to suggest that any of this would happen anytime in the foreseeable future. So Burma’s longstanding pariah status in the international community looks set to continue. It’s doubtful that Thein Sein will ever exercise his executive power to free Burma’s more than 2,000 prisoners of conscience, grant an amnesty for political dissidents, recognise the existence of opposition parties that decided not to contest in the 2010 election and order an end to the army’s aggression toward ethnic groups. Even if he wanted to do any of these things, it really isn’t in his power to do anything without the approval of his boss, (retired Senior General) Than Shwe. Although Than Shwe has slipped into the shadows and is no longer the face of the ruling military clique, it is clear that he is still very much in command. As the de facto leader, he will continue to steer the country along the same course as he has since first taking the helm in 1992. Most Burmese are now thoroughly convinced that the country’s military supremo, Than Shwe, has indeed handed over power _ from his right hand to his left hand. That is the joke now circulating inside Burma, and for most observers, it comes much closer to the truth than the more laughable claims coming from some quarters that real change is afoot in the country. In the months since last year’s bogus elections, Than Shwe has systematically consolidated his hold on power. His long-time loyalist Thein Sein has been named president, and military hardliner Tin Aung Myint Oo has assumed one of two vice-presidential positions _ the other going to a token ethnic Shan candidate from the junta’s proxy party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party. Prior to the first session of Burma’s new parliament, Than Shwe signed a law that gives the commander-in-chief of the military _ the position he held until recently _ absolute authority to use unlimited “Special Funds” in performing duties of protecting the constitution and preserving national sovereignty. These funds, which are in addition to a US$2 billion budget for military, will be permanently at the military’s disposal to ensure that it need never worry about losing its half-century-old grip on Burma. What this means in concrete terms is that there will be no compromise with the West. Instead, China will continue to exercise growing influence over Burma as its rulers look to Beijing as their chief source of foreign support. To underline this fact, Jia Qinglin, the fourth highest-ranking leader in the Chinese politburo hierarchy, visited Burma and met with country’s new president and senior government officials. China is the first country to meet Burma’s new president and his cabinet members. Chinese President Hu Jintao also sent a congratulatory message to the new government in Burma. China has also praised the new government for promoting democracy and denounced other countries for criticising Burma’s new administration. Offering China’s congratulations to the new Burma government, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu was quick to warn other countries not to meddle in its neighbour’s internal affairs. China, Burma’s close political ally and largest investor, has already invested heavily in Burma’s “transition” by endorsing the outcome of last year’s bogus elections, so it should come as no surprise that it is eager to lend as much legitimacy as it can to Thein Sein’s puppet government. So where does this leave Western policy-makers, particularly in Washington, which has taken the lead in imposing tough penalties on the Burmese regime? Having already ruled out the possibility of lifting sanctions under the current circumstances, the US may now consider even more stringent measures, including more targeted sanctions. This could happen even if blanket sanctions are eventually lifted. The US will soon appoint a full-time special representative and policy coordinator on Burma, as authorised by the 2008 JADE Act. President Barack Obama will soon appoint the first US special envoy on Burma: Derek Mitchell, a veteran policy-maker on Asia who now serves at the Pentagon, will be nominated for the position. The appointment will signal a renewed effort to pry open the nation after its much-criticised political transition. Such a move would show that Washington is serious about making democratic reform in Burma a foreign policy priority, including allegations of Burma’s nuclear ambitions, and could add impetus to its efforts to engage the Burmese authorities and opposition members. It is expected that the special US envoy will actively engage regional players including Asean nations and China. Political observers in Washington predicted that the expected appointment would give momentum to Burma policy provided that the administration gives him enough space to manoeuvre. After Mr Obama took office in January 2009, his administration initiated a dialogue with the regime in Burma after reviewing the policy on Burma. But US officials were disappointed after seeing no political progress in Burma and felt that the regime had failed to take opportunity of the US’ engagement policy and failed to repair the relationship with Washington. Thus, political pundits and opposition members believe that the US could take a more multilateral approach, including stepping up its efforts to win more support for a United Nations Commission of Inquiry into the military regime’s war crimes and crimes against humanity. Although Burma’s military rulers have already granted themselves immunity from prosecution under the 2008 Constitution, it is important to remind them that they are still accountable under international law for any atrocities they committed while in power. This would send a strong message to Naypyidaw that simply swearing in a new government is not going to wipe the slate clean, much less convince anybody that democracy has returned to Burma. In any case, whatever the West decides to do about Burma, it will be up to the country’s rulers to decide for themselves if they can afford to remain pariahs forever. If Thein Sein truly wants Burma to take its place in the community of nations, he will have to do more than tell the rest of the world to change their policies. KNU calls on new government to negotiate cease-fire – Kyaw Kha Democratic Voice of Burma: Tue 5 Apr 2011 Chiang Mai – The Karen National Union (KNU), which has fought the Burmese army for more than 60 years, has called for the new government to negotiate a cease-fire and hold a political dialogue with ethnic armed groups. ‘The KNU strongly urges the government to order the army to leave ethnic areas, to end the violence against civilians and to hold a serious political dialogue with the opposition’, said a KNU statement issued on Monday, April 4. The statement called on the United Nations to put pressure on Burma’s government to negotiate a cease-fire and to engage in reconciliation dialogue. Last year, there were 1,083 military engagements between the Burmese army and the KNU, in which 618 Burmese soldiers were killed, 1,304 were injured and 16 were captured by the KNU, according to the KNU annual report published in late 2010. Nine KNU soldiers were killed and nine were injured, the report said. China promises assistance for Myanmar United Press International: Tue 5 Apr 2011 Naypyitaw,, Myanmar — China pledged further assistance to its neighbor Myanmar, where the military recently announced transferral of power to a civilian government. The assurance came from visiting Chinese top political adviser Jia Qinglin in his meeting with Myanmar President Thein Sein, China’s state-run Xinhua news agency reported. Jia said his government will continue to provide assistance within its capacity for the development of its southwestern neighbor, the report said. He said China supports Myanmar’s development mode, chosen in accordance with the country’s own conditions. Thein Sein was quoted as saying Jia is the first foreign leader to visit Myanmar since the formation of the new government and assured his government’s policy toward China will remain unchanged. The military junta, which has ruled Myanmar, formerly called Burma, since 1962, recently announced the election of a civilian government led by Thein Sein, 65, a retired general and former prime minister under the Senior Gen. Than Shwe-led junta. China has been a close ally of the isolated country. Jia said further development of bilateral relations conforms to the fundamental interests of the two countries and the two peoples. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said last week the military rulers in Myanmar must demonstrate their latest transfer of power is a genuine move away from military rule and stressed that “democratization and respect for human rights remains essential to laying the foundations for durable peace and development in the country.” Myanmar’s new Parliament convened in February after elections in November that were widely criticized as designed to keep the military in power. The role of the Third Force in the Junta’s diplomatic offensive – Aung Lynn Htut Irrawaddy: Tue 5 Apr 2011 After listening to a commentary about Burma’s election and new Parliament written by Dr Thant Myint-U, the grandson of the late UN Secretary-General U Thant, on the Voice of America, I was reminded of a comment given by Snr-Gen Than Shwe when I was serving at the Burmese Embassy in Washington, D.C. The junta chief, who used to be part of the military regime’s Psychological Warfare Department, said, “Your organizing efforts should target family members of prominent people in order to compare with that woman.” “That woman” was, of course, Aung San Suu Kyi.Linn Myaing, the then Burmese ambassador to the US, through his brother Kyaw Myaing and a female professor who emigrated to the US, was able to get in touch with U Thant’s family members and sons of a minister who served for a previous government led by the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League in the 1950s. He could also contact Aung San Oo, Suu Kyi’s elder brother, and his wife living in San Diego, California. The regime has used them in launching its diplomatic offensive against the international community and psychological warfare against Suu Kyi. The senior general knew that those aforementioned people might not have forgotten their golden age in Burma, and so he brought them and their family members to Rangoon and treated them well. In return, the generals gained even more support from them than they expected. We smiled at them because they did not know they were being lured by the regime, which made them think that they were actual heroes who could save the country. I would like to touch on the subject of how those family members were exploited by the regime at the UN. Actually, the regime’s leaders did not understand much about international relations until 2000. They just did whatever they wanted in their county and didn’t care what anyone else thought. They didn’t pay attention to the international community or the image of their government in the international arena. Than Shwe, whose way of thinking about such matters was particularly crazy, often pushed his fellow generals into tight corners. There were a number of cases in which regime officials were put in an awkward situation because of his lack of international knowledge. Than Shwe did not understand that the recruitment of child soldiers, forced labor and forced relocation of villages were prohibited by international conventions. He did not know which UN treaties the successive Burmese governments had signed and/or ratified. The then foreign minister, who was aware of those treaties, tried to explain these things to him, but he did refused to listen. Since around 1997, Burma’s human rights situation has attracted increasing attention at the UN. It was around this time that the senior general also started to think about how to tackle this problem. Consequently, a strategy for a diplomatic offensive was developed with advice from Joseph Verner Reed, a famous US politician and senior official, in order to garner support within the international community. According to the plan, prominent Burmese people living abroad became major targets of the regime, followed by young Burmese intellectuals and non-Burmese scholars with an interest in Burma. Family members of U Thant were considered the first target of the offensive. At the beginning, the regime was worried that it would not be welcomed easily by U Thant’s family because they had actively worked for pro-democracy activists following the nationwide pro-democracy uprising in Burma in 1988, and the army had killed innocent civilians when U Thant’s funeral turned into an uprising known as the “U Thant Affair.” The regime, however, did not face much difficulties in dealing with the family of the late UN secretary-general. After the regime complimented members of U Thant’s family on their significance in Burmese politics and in the pursuit of democracy, each of them reportedly visited Burma as guests of the state. It seemed that the regime thoroughly won them over, because on their return they did not appear to have any hatred towards the army. Indeed, ever since then, they have been speaking for the regime almost as if they have become its overseas representatives. Following Reed’s advice, since around 1997, Burmese ambassadors to the US, UK, Canada, Switzerland and France have been spending several months each year in New York, lobbying foreign diplomats on behalf of the regime during the UN General Assembly period from August to November. However, there was a suggestion that lobby efforts for a government by non-government actors could be more effective, so the regime began to establish a “third force” around 2002 by combining its first, second and third targets. Using U Thant’s name was beneficial to the regime in its diplomatic offensive and advocacy efforts. Likewise, his family members were very useful for the regime in international relations. The efforts of the so-called third force stopped temporarily following the purge of Gen Khin Nyunt, the former Burmese prime minister and military intelligence chief, in October 2004. Later, Than Shwe allowed the elements of the third force within and outside the country to resume their work after U Thaung, a former Burmese ambassador to the US, told him that the regime should lobby the administration of US President Barack Obama. One third force group that has steadily taken shape since the ouster of Khin Nyunt is Myanmar Egress. In early 2000, an ambassador from a Western country in Burma played a key role in the emergence of the third force in the country. The stance of the third force was questioned by domestic and exiled pro-democracy groups because they openly lent their support to last year’s November election. The meeting between Htay Oo, the general secretary of the Union Solidarity and Development Party, and Thant Myint-U in Bangkok was reportedly co-organized by Myanmar Egress. When Vijay Nambiar, the special envoy of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, visited Burma for two days in November last year, members of the third force reportedly managed to meet with him and share their views on different situations. Before Ibrahim Gambari, the former UN special envoy to Burma, made his first trip to the country in May 2006, there was a secret meeting on Burma held at the UN office in New York. Most of those present were non-Burmese so-called “Burma experts” and UN officials. Thant Myint-U also joined the meeting. The significance of the meeting was that some participants urged others to forget the role of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burmese politics. The UN envoy, however, reportedly said at last that it was impossible to do so. The military regime has changed its approach a bit. It held the election and now wants international recognition of its new Parliament and government. One thing that hasn’t changed, however, is that the regime still attacks Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy, and continues to oppose economic sanctions. And everyone is still dancing to Than Shwe’s tune. What I would like to request of the members of the third force, both within and outside Burma, is that they, as intellectuals and respected people, should be very careful about being exploited by Than Shwe. They should listen to the views of ordinary civil and military personnel, instead of what high-ranking officers and wealthy people are saying. If they really love Burma, they should be brave enough to criticize not only the democracy forces, but also the regime. If they just speak for the regime, I will say they are only making trouble for the country. * Aung Lynn Htut is a former major who served as a counter-intelligence officer and deputy head of mission at the Burmese embassy in Washington, D.C. He sought political asylum in the US in 2005. On Aung San Suu Kyi and the Future of Democracy in Burma – Khant Nwe Win American Chronicle: Mon 4 Apr 2011 On November 13 of 2010, Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest where she had been in isolation for 15 out of the last 21 years. The only daughter and third child of Aung San, the man credited with the formation of modern Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi is the central figure in the movement for democracy and human rights in her birth country. It is around her that those seeking change in Burma rally, and it is her comment to non-violent protest that has been her legacy.Burma today is dauntingly poor. The average citizen earns between 300 and 1000 US dollars a year. Cost of basic necessities makes life a struggle and average person lives between 62 and 67 years. The power of the country is held by the military, as are most of the major industries, including fuel supplies and vital services for modern business. Those in the top ranks of military power possess vast wealth that might be in part funded by sales of opium. Given the conditions that exist, from the extreme fear of reprisal by the junta, to the very corrupt and black market riddled economy, it is very easy to see why the people of Burma would cling to the light and hope that Aung San Suu Kyi provides them. She is the voice that speaks to the world, keeping their plight in the limelight. She is the one that can organize their splintered movements into a unified network with the power to create change. It is under her vision that perhaps democracy will ripple to the surface and create real change. Since her house arrest has been lifted, Aung San Suu Kyi has been quietly working to unify her people against the false veneer of democracy that the last elections put into place. It is a task that must happen slowly as to not alarm anyone, because past protests have had serious repercussions on the health of the movement. To avoid being placed under arrest again, which the government can do to any person it wishes for up to six years without a trial, Aung San Suu Kyi must walk a careful path that promotes both change and a sense of calm. Some of her recent activity, as reported by the associated press on March 8th of 2011, includes speaking with college students of Burmese descent in Berkley over the phone, urging them to do more in remembering their roots, including raising money to help the poor in Burma. The talk was organized by students of Burmese politics and the larger Burmese population in the Bay Area. In getting her voice out and asking for the world at large to show its continued support, Aung San Suu Kyi impresses upon her countrymen that the path to democracy is one worth taking. Since her release from house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi has also met with a few reporters who have braved traveling to Burma. Among these is David Pilling, the Asian managing editor for Financial Times Limited. He reported in late January (January 28th, 2011) some insight as to what Aung San Suu Kyi´s plans and goals were. In her interview with him, she revealed that she was working steadily to unite the small splinter groups scattered across Burma, and that even with government restrictions on Internet use, the technological revolution is making inroads there, slowly but surely. Current popular support for Aung San Suu Kyi appears to be at an all time high, across the spectrum of the population in Burma. This is something that the Lady herself admits and uses to unify the movement. On the other hand, she says that her supporters have become aware that the responsibility for change must rest in each of them as well. While she might be the glue that connects them together, it will be individuals like them working together that will create lasting change. She does not see the past ´revolutions´ like the one in 1988 that started her on this path, or the Saffron Revolution in 2007, as anything overly important. Having the monks stand up for the rights of the people might have opened some eyes, but it is not where change will take place. Where the rest of the world points at the peaks of violence and uprisings in protest at major events, Aung San Suu Kyi views both of these as minor bumps in a movement that is still gathering steam. It is not the protests that have been done in the past that will create real change, in Aung San Suu Kyi eyes, but the slow alteration in attitude brought about through Internet linkups that are spreading through Burma´s underground culture. It is the ability to post transgressions by the military and police almost as they happen that is creating a sense of power in the average young person. This creates a new form of peaceful protest that starts with not remaining silent about what is happening. In part, the Internet in 2007 was the huge reason why the larger global community knew about the protests. Individual posted pictures and blogs and braved government arrest of their own to post what was going on. Much of the western world´s knowledge about what happened in 2007 was provided by these very brave individuals. The worldwide echoing Saffron Revolution protests that sprouted up in sympathy are indication of how powerful Aung San Suu Kyi´s new protest movement can be. It is this legacy that Aung San Suu Kyi wishes to pass on, the power of communication that can create change. Even through her isolation, her voice was not silenced and even now in the face of uncertainty and the fear that her supporters have that she may be assassinated, her will remains strong in getting the message out. It is not on her that the fate of her country lies, but on the actions of the people who chose to open their eyes and take responsibility for change. Departing strongman of Burma Than Shwe unlikely to fully relinquish power – Elizabeth Hughes The Australian: Mon 4 Apr 2011 Bangkok – After presiding over nearly two decades of asphyxiating military rule, Than Shwe has retired as leader of Burma’s military junta.The army strongman has shed his title of Senior General and will now be known as the civilian U Than Shwe – but few believe he will relinquish his influence over national affairs. Ma Khin Omar, of the Thai-based Forum for Democracy in Burma, said Than Shwe’s continuing grip on power was obvious, regardless of any formalities regarding his retirement. “It’s good that he leaves,” she said. “But the reality on the ground is that he isn’t leaving.” Ms Ma noted that Than Shwe’s replacement as commander-in-chief of the Burmese army, General Min Aung Hlaing, was 54 and considerably junior to Than Shwe in army rank. “He won’t interfere,” she said. “That’s the plan; that’s the game.” Burma’s civilian President, Thein Sein, will be in charge of a new 11-member National Defence and Security Council intended to oversee Burma’s military affairs. Than Shwe will not sit on the council, but Mr Thein Sein is seen as a loyal henchman, and analysts believe Than Shwe will continue to manipulate defence strategy. And if Than Shwe sees that influence as insufficient, there is a military reservist law, introduced before last year’s widely condemned elections, that ensures officers can return to the army with the same rank within five years. The law is thought to be an insurance policy for Than Shwe, allowing him to easily return to power if he sees the need. With untold wealth accrued from his years in power, the 78-year-old may feel he has earned the right to relax. But Aung Naing Oo, a former Burmese student leader and now an exiled political analyst living in Thailand, said observers were not sure how far he would step back from the levers of power. “Things are quite murky at the moment,” he said. Best known for its appalling economic mismanagement and blanket human rights abuses, the “State Peace and Development Council” military junta was formally dissolved last week. Power was transferred to a new, nominally civilian government, and the democratic opposition holds a handful of seats in the strictly-controlled parliament. But many of Than Shwe’s generals simply shed their uniforms to contest last year’s elections and many retain their powerful government portfolios. |
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
