Aug 15, 2008 (DVB)–A former child soldier who escaped from a hard labour camp after being jailed for desertion has been re-arrested while trying to compile a case to submit to the International Labour Organisation, his uncle said.
Maung Htut San Oo’s uncle Ye Tun Zaw claimed his nephew was recruited into Burma’s armed forces at the age of 11 and tried to escape on several occasions.
“Maung Htut San Oo was born on 10 October 1987 and lived with his mother Daw Ni Ni Lwin in Hlaing township's ward 1, his father having passed away when he was very young,” Ye Tun Zaw said.
"In early May 1999, when he was 11, he went swimming at Insein swimming pool and was abducted by a soldier on his way back home – he was later taken to a soldier recruitment center where he was enlisted as a soldier," he went on.
"The soldier first took him to Insein railway station's police station and asked him to choose whether he wanted to go into jail or to go with him," he said.
"Htut San Oo was scared and he decided to go with the soldier who took him to Mingalardon soldier recruitment centre."
Ye Tun Zaw said that at first, Htut San Oo was given menial tasks to do, but shortly after his recruitment he was sent on a military training course.
"For a first few days they only let him work as a servant in military officials' houses – on 24 May, they sent him on a four-month soldier training programme in Pyinmana," Ye Tun Zaw said.
"After the training, he was posted to air defence artillery battalion 13."
Htut San Oo made two attempts to escape from the military, the second of which was successful, but when he turned 16, he reenlisted at South Dagon's soldier recruitment centre after learning that the government hunted down military deserters.
Ye Tun Zaw said officials at the South Dagon recruitment centre changed his date of birth on his registration papers to say that he was 21, the minimum legal age for enlistment being 18.
After reenlisting, Htut San Oo was sent to Hle Gu officer training camp outside Rangoon, and was then signed up for an advanced training program which lasted for two and a half months.
“He came home for a visit when he was given leave but he never went back to the army,” Ye Tun Zaw said.
“About two years later, when he was 18, he was arrested for deserting the army and was sentenced to two years in prison,” he said.
“He was assigned to hard labour on a private rubber plantation. The prisoners were given no holiday or benefits and were beaten when they couldn’t work.”
Ye Tun Zaw said Htut San Oo managed to escape from the work camp when Cyclone Nargis hit Burma in early May, and began to assemble documents to report his case to the ILO.
He was arrested at his local ward Peace and Development Council office where he went to get a copy of his householder list.
He is now being detained in Insein prison's ward 4, cell 8, where he is being kept in shackles.
Reporting by Aye Nai
Saturday, 16 August 2008
Next guest: Kemal Dervis, head of the UN Development Program
Posted by Daniel Altman in Q & A, General
(Blogs-ITH)-Loyal readers, this week we’re very excited to bring you yet another pre-eminent guest from the world of economic development. Kemal Dervis, administrator of the United Nations Development Program and chair of the United Nations Development Group, will be taking your questions.
Few people have the breadth of experience that Dr. Dervis boasts at both the national and international levels. Formerly a parliamentarian and minister for economic affairs in Turkey, he was also vice president of the World Bank for the Middle East and North Africa, and later the bank’s vice president for poverty reduction and economic management. He has worked with virtually every important international institution that deals with economic issues, from the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund to the Commission on Growth and Development.
In particular, Dr. Dervis would like to answer your questions on these two topics:
1. how to better integrate poverty reduction with the climate change agenda; and
2. the need for greater policy cooperation in the world economy.
Please leave your questions as comments on this blog entry, or send them to me directly at daltman@iht.com. All questions MUST include your real, full name and country of residence, or they will not be used. I’ll collect your questions through Friday, August 1 - thanks in advance!
(Blogs-ITH)-Loyal readers, this week we’re very excited to bring you yet another pre-eminent guest from the world of economic development. Kemal Dervis, administrator of the United Nations Development Program and chair of the United Nations Development Group, will be taking your questions.
Few people have the breadth of experience that Dr. Dervis boasts at both the national and international levels. Formerly a parliamentarian and minister for economic affairs in Turkey, he was also vice president of the World Bank for the Middle East and North Africa, and later the bank’s vice president for poverty reduction and economic management. He has worked with virtually every important international institution that deals with economic issues, from the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund to the Commission on Growth and Development.
In particular, Dr. Dervis would like to answer your questions on these two topics:
1. how to better integrate poverty reduction with the climate change agenda; and
2. the need for greater policy cooperation in the world economy.
Please leave your questions as comments on this blog entry, or send them to me directly at daltman@iht.com. All questions MUST include your real, full name and country of residence, or they will not be used. I’ll collect your questions through Friday, August 1 - thanks in advance!
On Currency Exchange Losses, UN Starts Cover-Up in Myanmar and Beyond
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED NATIONS, August 14 -- Despite an internal UN memo admitted a "serious 20% loss" of aid money in currency exchanges required by Myanmar's government which led to an admission of $10 million in losses, on Thursday the UN cut its losses to $1.5 million, then refused to explain. The UN Development Program has for weeks refused to disclose how much money it has converted in Myanmar, nor in which other of the 160 countries it does business in its loses money in government-required conversions. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, whose director John Holmes initially took the lead in admitting the losses, has similarly declined to provide information about any other countries, despite Holmes' July 28 commitment to do so. As is too frequent in the UN, exposure of a problem has been followed not by reform but by cover-up and stonewalling.
In fact, despite a clear written and video record, the UN now claims that the problem wasn't exposed at all, but rather was "first raised" by John Holmes on July 24. But Inner City Press asked Holmes about the losses on July 9, 10 and 11, just as it had asked UNDP about the losses as far back as June 26. In minutes of a conference call that day, which whistleblowers showed to Inner City Press, a "serious loss of 20%" was admitted to. Inner City Press subsequently quoted from and then published the minutes.
On August 14, after reading out a statement that losses were "only" 4.5%, UN Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq refused to answer Inner City Press' question about how the 20% loss admitted in the internal memorandum had been changed, without explanation, in this new public figure. "Internal conference calls are internal discussions," Haq said. When Inner City Press asked that someone come to a press conference to answer questions about the new numbers, Haq said he's check "if Holmes is interested in talking," but that Holmes is not available now. Video here, from Minute 12:11.
Inner City Press sent written questions to Holmes' office and to Haq, stating that on the record answers were being sought on deadline:
"of how the 20% loss referred to both in the Teleconference minutes and elsewhere was changed to a 4.5% loss, and by whom. I am told, by a participant in the estimate-reduction exercise, that UNDP took the lead; I would like a confirmation or denial of that. I have asked UNDP the following, and hereby ask OCHA (and spending under OCHA's control), on deadline
how much money has OCHA / the UN converted through Foreign Exchange Certificates in Myanmar in the past one, five and ten years? At what rates? With what losses? If any, how were these disclosed? And, please any and all other countries in which OCHA / the UN has faced currency exchange losses of over 5%, and what you have done and, separately, will do about it? And when will Mr Holmes (and separately Mr. Baker, in light of his July 10 statements) hold press conference(s) at UN HQ on these topics?" I trust you remember that Mr. Holmes said he saw no reason not to make public a list of countries in which OCHA / the UN suffers currency exchange losses. So, please do.
Eight hours later, no answer of any kind had been received. UNDP, as noted, has had the questions before it since June 26, multiply reiterates since then. On August 14, rather than providing the numbers about how much money UNDP has converted in Myanmar, UNDP's Spokesman Stephane Dujarric wrote:
On Myanmar, you received extensive answers on the currency exchange question at the noon briefing. With regards to our programme in Myanmar, UNDP does not have a regular country programme in Myanmar. Since 1993, all assistance from UNDP to Myanmar has been governed by a restrictive mandate from UNDP's Executive Board, which stipulates that assistance must be focused at the grass-roots level, particularly in the areas of primary health care, environment, HIV/AIDS, training and education and food security.
Extensive controls are in place to ensure compliance with the UNDP Executive Board mandate in Myanmar and the Executive Board receives regular reports. Independent assessments have all found that the programme is in full compliance with the Executive Board mandate: i.e., that it is effective in addressing the needs of the poor and vulnerable in rural areas of Myanmar, and that all projects operate independently of the government. The full 2005-2006 assessment, including the budget, is available online on the Executive Board website www.undp.org/execbrd/adv2006-second.htm .
But the questions, asked of Mr. Dujarric and in his absence of UNDP's Christina Lonigro and, in great detail, Stanislav Saling, included how much money was been in UNDP's account at the Myanmar Foreign Exchange Bank, how much was converted and at what loss. Also, Dujarric entirely ignores the wider question posed to him and to UNDP Administrator Kemal Dervis, to disclose "any and all other countries in which UNDP has faced currency exchange losses of over 5%, and what you have done and, separately, will do about it?"
This is a question that, as to OCHA, John Holmes said on July 28 there was no reason he would not answer. But despite repeated reminders, the question has not been answered by him and OCHA, nor UNDP, nor the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, to which Ban Ki-moon's Spokesperson passed the buck (DPKO in turn has said it has asked the UN Controllers Office, just as it passes from the UK's Warran Sach to a new Controller from Japan). DPKO has promised an answer, and we'll wait for it and publish it on this site.
Inner City Press has been contacted by other whistleblowers concerned with the UN system's currency losses. But is the only way to get any change to shame UN officials and point out their mis-statements? We'll see.
Watch this site. And this (on South Ossetia), and this --
UN Claims only $1.5 Million Lost in Cyclone Relief Effort
By SAW YAN NAING
The Irrawaddy News
The United Nations estimated that it has lost only US $1.56 million—not $10 million, as earlier cited—in relief funds for Burmese cyclone survivors due to foreign exchange rules imposed by the country’s military regime.
UN spokesperson Farhan Haq disclosed the figure in a statement released on Thursday. He said that the amount represented 4.5 percent of local expenditure, or 1 percent of total contributions to the relief effort.
He noted that an earlier estimate of $10 million, cited by John Holmes, the UN’s under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, following a visit to Burma in late July, was based on a very rough, preliminary calculation.
The UN spokesperson also said that the new figure was the maximum amount that could have been lost.
Following his visit to Burma in July, Holmes acknowledged that the loss of aid funds through the government’s exchange rate mechanism was “a very serious problem.”
Daniel Baker, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Burma, also said that the discrepancy was a source of double concern.
“We are not getting the full value of dollars donated for emergency relief, and donors are extremely worried and keen to see that this issue is resolved,” said Baker in a joint statement by the UN, Burmese government and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Meanwhile, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) announced on Thursday that the Canadian government has contributed an additional $11 million to help victims of Cyclone Nargis, which hit Burma on May 2-3, affecting an estimated 2.4 million people.
CIDA also pledged to provide more than $30 million in aid for victims of a massive earthquake that struck China’s Sichuan Province in May.
Conrad Sauve, secretary general of the Canadian Red Cross, which received $2 million of Ottawa’s aid for Burma, said that the money will be used to help affected communities to rebuild houses, schools and clinics, as well as to support community-based health initiatives and provide economic support for those who have lost their livelihoods.
The Canadian government has so far contributed a total of $25 million to the Burmese relief effort. The latest contribution was in response to a pledge to match the value of private donations by Canadians.
“We are very pleased with Canada’s quick response to the cyclone victims in Burma,” said Tin Maung Htoo, executive director of Canadian Friends of Burma.
The Irrawaddy News
The United Nations estimated that it has lost only US $1.56 million—not $10 million, as earlier cited—in relief funds for Burmese cyclone survivors due to foreign exchange rules imposed by the country’s military regime.
UN spokesperson Farhan Haq disclosed the figure in a statement released on Thursday. He said that the amount represented 4.5 percent of local expenditure, or 1 percent of total contributions to the relief effort.
He noted that an earlier estimate of $10 million, cited by John Holmes, the UN’s under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, following a visit to Burma in late July, was based on a very rough, preliminary calculation.
The UN spokesperson also said that the new figure was the maximum amount that could have been lost.
Following his visit to Burma in July, Holmes acknowledged that the loss of aid funds through the government’s exchange rate mechanism was “a very serious problem.”
Daniel Baker, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Burma, also said that the discrepancy was a source of double concern.
“We are not getting the full value of dollars donated for emergency relief, and donors are extremely worried and keen to see that this issue is resolved,” said Baker in a joint statement by the UN, Burmese government and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Meanwhile, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) announced on Thursday that the Canadian government has contributed an additional $11 million to help victims of Cyclone Nargis, which hit Burma on May 2-3, affecting an estimated 2.4 million people.
CIDA also pledged to provide more than $30 million in aid for victims of a massive earthquake that struck China’s Sichuan Province in May.
Conrad Sauve, secretary general of the Canadian Red Cross, which received $2 million of Ottawa’s aid for Burma, said that the money will be used to help affected communities to rebuild houses, schools and clinics, as well as to support community-based health initiatives and provide economic support for those who have lost their livelihoods.
The Canadian government has so far contributed a total of $25 million to the Burmese relief effort. The latest contribution was in response to a pledge to match the value of private donations by Canadians.
“We are very pleased with Canada’s quick response to the cyclone victims in Burma,” said Tin Maung Htoo, executive director of Canadian Friends of Burma.
Junta Braces for Anniversary of Monk-led Uprising
By VIOLET CHO
The Irrawaddy News
The mayor of Rangoon has confirmed that security will be heightened in the former capital in the coming weeks, as Burma approaches another sensitive anniversary, this time marking last year’s monk-led uprising against military rule.
Speaking to local journalists on August 13, Rangoon mayor Brig-Gen Aung Thein Linn said that the number of security forces in Burma’s largest city would be increased in response to reports of a terrorist threat.
The military presence in Rangoon has been noticeably greater since late July, according to local residents, who said that soldiers and riot police in full uniform had been deployed around the city center in advance of the 20th anniversary of the “Four Eights” uprising of August 8, 1988.
“The soldiers and police that have been deployed since the end of July are still in sight,” said one Rangoon resident. “It looks like the tightened security will continue because the anniversary of the monks’ uprising is coming.”
In addition to barricades and security forces wielding batons or assault rifles, residents have reported seeing plainclothes agents near university campuses, monasteries, pagodas and other public areas that have traditionally served as focal points for protests.
“The security around Shwedagon, Kabar Aye and Kyaik Ka San is very tight right now, with soldiers and riot police everywhere,” said another local resident, naming three pagodas that were at the center of last year’s demonstrations, the largest since 1988.
Meanwhile, four Buddhist monasteries in Pakokku, where harsh handling of protesting monks last August fueled much larger demonstrations the following month in Rangoon, are also being closely watched by local military authorities.
According to an abbot at one of these monasteries, monks have continued to refuse alms from military leaders and their families since the army crushed last year’s uprising. More than 3,000 protesters were arrested and at least 31 people killed in the crackdown, according to UN estimates.
In Rangoon, pictures of four alleged terrorists, along with an offer of a 2.5 million kyat reward for information leading to their arrest, have been posted to alert residents of the threat to their security.
However, most observers believed that the scare tactics were little more than a pretext for increasing the military presence in Rangoon ahead of the sensitive anniversary.
“Terrorists are coming, so everyone must be on high alert,” said a skeptical Rangoon-based lawyer, noting that Burma’s military rulers have used such tactics many times in the past since seizing power in 1962.
Kyi Wai and Aung Thet Wine contributed to this story from Rangoon.
The Irrawaddy News
The mayor of Rangoon has confirmed that security will be heightened in the former capital in the coming weeks, as Burma approaches another sensitive anniversary, this time marking last year’s monk-led uprising against military rule.
Speaking to local journalists on August 13, Rangoon mayor Brig-Gen Aung Thein Linn said that the number of security forces in Burma’s largest city would be increased in response to reports of a terrorist threat.
The military presence in Rangoon has been noticeably greater since late July, according to local residents, who said that soldiers and riot police in full uniform had been deployed around the city center in advance of the 20th anniversary of the “Four Eights” uprising of August 8, 1988.
“The soldiers and police that have been deployed since the end of July are still in sight,” said one Rangoon resident. “It looks like the tightened security will continue because the anniversary of the monks’ uprising is coming.”
In addition to barricades and security forces wielding batons or assault rifles, residents have reported seeing plainclothes agents near university campuses, monasteries, pagodas and other public areas that have traditionally served as focal points for protests.
“The security around Shwedagon, Kabar Aye and Kyaik Ka San is very tight right now, with soldiers and riot police everywhere,” said another local resident, naming three pagodas that were at the center of last year’s demonstrations, the largest since 1988.
Meanwhile, four Buddhist monasteries in Pakokku, where harsh handling of protesting monks last August fueled much larger demonstrations the following month in Rangoon, are also being closely watched by local military authorities.
According to an abbot at one of these monasteries, monks have continued to refuse alms from military leaders and their families since the army crushed last year’s uprising. More than 3,000 protesters were arrested and at least 31 people killed in the crackdown, according to UN estimates.
In Rangoon, pictures of four alleged terrorists, along with an offer of a 2.5 million kyat reward for information leading to their arrest, have been posted to alert residents of the threat to their security.
However, most observers believed that the scare tactics were little more than a pretext for increasing the military presence in Rangoon ahead of the sensitive anniversary.
“Terrorists are coming, so everyone must be on high alert,” said a skeptical Rangoon-based lawyer, noting that Burma’s military rulers have used such tactics many times in the past since seizing power in 1962.
Kyi Wai and Aung Thet Wine contributed to this story from Rangoon.
May Thet, Myanmar, “I feel like crying when I see my friends going to school”
Photo: Lynn Maung/IRINMay Thet - one of scores of young people badly affected by Cyclone Nargis – has managed to become the family breadwinner by collecting and selling discarded plastic water bottles distributed by the humanitarian community
MAWLAMYINEKYUN (IRIN), Three months after Cyclone Nargis struck, most of the estimated 2.4 million storm-affected people are still struggling to rebuild their lives. May Thet, a teenage girl, has become the chief family breadwinner, collecting empty water bottles to sell in Mawlamyinekyun, one of the hardest-hit areas.
“My job is to collect the empty plastic water bottles that people dump on the ground and sell them to a bottle-buyer in our town… Sometimes, I make about 3,500 kyat [US$3] per day.
“Now I can afford to send my little sister to school, and at the same time provide enough income so my mother has no serious financial worries… My mother has re-opened her road-side noodles shop, but earns just US$1 per day.
“We can't think of rebuilding our house yet, because money for food and for school is a first priority. My mother always told me she wanted me to go to school, but couldn’t afford the school fees for both my sister and me.
“I feel like crying when I see my friends going to school, but, I have to console myself. It's my destiny. There are a lot of us who can’t go to school because we have to help our parents.
“See that student over there? Just look how pleased he is with the books he has received from his teacher. I envy him a lot, but if I ask my mother to send me to school, it would only put her in deeper debt. I just don’t want to talk about it any more. Earning the family income is much more important right now than going to school.
“My mother said no [to my going to Yangon to look for work as a housemaid], because she was afraid I would be sexually assaulted or trafficked into the sex industry. I'm also afraid of being sold or raped. But my mother told me I cannot go there. I have to listen to my mother's orders."
im/bj/cb
What Lessons do we get from Georgia in the Burmese Context?
Prof. Kanbawza Win
(Asian Tribune) - Now that the world media is highlighted by the Beijing Olympics and the conflict in Georgia, and as a teacher of the history of Imperialism may I take this opportunity to highlight some of the facts and figures of the Georgia crisis especially to the pro ethno democratic forces and draw lessons as we can no longer afford the trial and error method. A country living under the shadow of the evil Chinese empire must be able to see things clearly and visualise all the trappings for the future of Union of Burma.
Washington is no innocent bystander in this bloody struggle, which provoked a response by Russia that now dominates the news. Long before Aug. 8, Georgia, a country in the Caucasus Mountains south of Russia, attacked a small autonomous region known as South Ossetia. Georgia’s military assaulted the city of Tskhinvali the capital of Ossetia destroying the parliament building, the university and the main hospital.
According to AP interviews with survivors, there was hardly a single building left undamaged. Eduard Kokoity, the South Ossetian leader, estimated that more than 1,400 civilians were killed in the assault (Reuters, Aug. 8). Russian military forces then struck back at Georgia’s military bases, airfields and the main Black Sea port of Poti. Most news coverage in the West, however, is slanted to give the impression that Russia initiated the conflict with Georgia.
Of course Washington does not claim credit for the invasion of South Ossetia ordered by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, especially now that his forces have been routed. But the White House made clear its political support for Saakashvili and had sent Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State. Georgia has been closely allied with the U.S. military in its war in Iraq.
Everybody knows the U.S. and NATO have heavily armed and trained the Georgian military. There are U.S. military “advisers” in Georgia today. A thousand U.S. Marines from the Third Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment just finished three weeks of joint manoeuvres there called “Operation Immediate Response.” In the period leading up to Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia, the Pentagon had supplied Georgia with hundreds of tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery weapons, rocket launchers and dozens of combat helicopters and anti-aircraft missile systems. Hundreds of other weapons systems have poured in from other NATO members and from Israel. (Interfax, Aug. 7) In exchange Georgia had provided the third-largest military force in the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But on Aug. 10 the U.S. began ferrying the 2,000 Georgian troops out of Iraq to the war zone in Georgia. Along with the “advisers” and U.S. troops sent for manoeuvres, U.S.-origin mercenaries and privatized military trainers function in Georgia. Tens of thousands of “civil society” operatives, international consultants, policy experts and technical assistants operate in Georgia, Ukraine and other former Soviet Republics.
Now in the Burmese context, Prof. Dr Khin Mg Kyi has said we are but in name, that Burma is an autonomous region of China, the Generals has secretly sell the country long ago to the Chinese in return to support the Junta to maintain in power. Hence if we were to take the covert support from the West, particularly form the US, to make a coup de grace which I have highlighted in my previous article, what will China do is food for thought? The country under the occupation of the Chinese army will be worst that the marauding Burmese Generals. Shall we jump out of the frying pan into the fire? But this does not mean that we have to accept the status quo.
The media’s war reporting on Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia has echoed the kind of misinformation that characterized the reporting on the U.S. invasion of Iraq. One must know that Georgia is at the centre of U.S. imperialism’s moves to control the oil-rich Caspian Sea region. Georgia is the energy highway for Europe, with at least two major pipelines passing though it. These pipelines are emerging to rival the Russian oil pipelines that have been Europe’s primary source for natural gas and oil. Until 2005, the only pipeline from the Caspian oil centre of Baku in Azerbaijan was through Russia. In 2005, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline opened. Owned by British Petroleum and Unocal, this pipeline goes through Georgia to the Turkish port city of Ceyhan.
The BP consortium also owns the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline, which opened in 2007. Another pipeline, named Western Early, goes through Georgia passing the border of South Ossetia to the Georgia port city of Supsa. Hence s the oil that was once the most valuable resource of the former Soviet Union is now going to market through facilities controlled by U.S. and its allies.
With Iraq’s oil resources conquered, and Iran’s under threat of blockade or bombardment, the U.S. is determined to also control the Caspian oil fields. By removing Russian control over these oil fields, the U.S. would deliver a major blow to the possible emergence of Russia as a capitalist power. For all its flowery words of democracy and freedom, the U.S. ruling class has no intention of freeing Burma or allowing Russia to become an imperialist rival, like Europe and Japan. The U.S. has been working covertly and overtly to break up Russia and the states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, concentrating on the states around the Caspian oil fields. The Caspian Sea has two huge oil fields. One is east of Baku. The other is the Tengiz oilfield, on the Caspian’s northwest shore in Kazakhstan.
In addition there are massive reserves of natural gas throughout the Caspian region. It is the primary supplier of natural gas to Europe. The known reserves of Caspian oil are larger than the oil fields of Nigeria or Libya, putting the Caspian oil fields in the same league as the fields of Iran or Kuwait.
A consortium of 11 major oil corporations set up outposts on the Caspian. Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Pennzoil, Philips Petroleum, Texaco and BP Amoco spent billions of dollars buying up Soviet-era oil interests and drilling rights. But the Caspian Sea is landlocked. The oil must be transported out of the region by pipeline. Whoever controls the pipelines will ultimately control the oil. South Ossetia is but one of the targets.
Within the United Nations Security Council, U.S. and British representatives blocked a Russian-drafted resolution calling on Georgia and South Ossetia to immediately put down their weapons. The U.S. rejected the three-sentence statement that would have required both sides “to renounce the use of force.” It was a clear confirmation of U.S. support for Georgia’s continued “use of force” against the small Ossetian nationality. However, Russia succeeded in repelling Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia. So as of Aug. 13, Georgia and Russia agreed to a “peace plan” brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
This is the true story, at least from my humble perspective. The point which I am driving it is that will the Chinese stand by now that the construction of the oil pipe line from Arakan to Kunming is being implemented? With the current situation in Burma, it will not be so much of a problem to deliver a coup de grace to the Burmese Junta. But after that what? Has the ethnics and the pro democracy group has come to a broad understanding? The ethnics have their own fighting force whereas the pro democracy has the masses. Have they ever made an attempt to thrash out their different perspective for a common good of the country?
The Burmese resistance (including the ethnics) have lacked the most important factor and the joke, that if two Burmese were put into the cell they will form three political parties captures a shameful truth. In other words these numerous resistance group actions are indicating that they would prefer the Burmese military Junta then come to agreement with each other. Every resistance leader knows that once they become a united political force under one umbrella then the Junta will fall and yet they would not lift a finger to help that unity.
Until and unless these two groups have an understanding of each other, I don’t see any bright future for the Union of Burma. We must present to the international community that we are the better alternative than the Junta. If the Maha Bama drives it to the position prior to 1962, surely the ethnic will not join and there is the danger of Balkanization. On the other hand the Chinese will give credence to the Maha Bama headed by the Junta and the Burmese revolution will be driven back for a couple of decades and the people will continue to suffer. I think Burmese democracy starts in our hearts and if we don’t agreed and compromise with each other after more than half a century Burma will set up a record of being a century under the heels of the military. It is far better to reach a sort of understanding an agreement than relying on the imperialistic power or the evil empires or the cutthroat neighbouring countries as the example of Georgia unfold before our eyes.
- Asian Tribune -
(Asian Tribune) - Now that the world media is highlighted by the Beijing Olympics and the conflict in Georgia, and as a teacher of the history of Imperialism may I take this opportunity to highlight some of the facts and figures of the Georgia crisis especially to the pro ethno democratic forces and draw lessons as we can no longer afford the trial and error method. A country living under the shadow of the evil Chinese empire must be able to see things clearly and visualise all the trappings for the future of Union of Burma.
Washington is no innocent bystander in this bloody struggle, which provoked a response by Russia that now dominates the news. Long before Aug. 8, Georgia, a country in the Caucasus Mountains south of Russia, attacked a small autonomous region known as South Ossetia. Georgia’s military assaulted the city of Tskhinvali the capital of Ossetia destroying the parliament building, the university and the main hospital.
According to AP interviews with survivors, there was hardly a single building left undamaged. Eduard Kokoity, the South Ossetian leader, estimated that more than 1,400 civilians were killed in the assault (Reuters, Aug. 8). Russian military forces then struck back at Georgia’s military bases, airfields and the main Black Sea port of Poti. Most news coverage in the West, however, is slanted to give the impression that Russia initiated the conflict with Georgia.
Of course Washington does not claim credit for the invasion of South Ossetia ordered by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, especially now that his forces have been routed. But the White House made clear its political support for Saakashvili and had sent Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State. Georgia has been closely allied with the U.S. military in its war in Iraq.
Everybody knows the U.S. and NATO have heavily armed and trained the Georgian military. There are U.S. military “advisers” in Georgia today. A thousand U.S. Marines from the Third Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment just finished three weeks of joint manoeuvres there called “Operation Immediate Response.” In the period leading up to Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia, the Pentagon had supplied Georgia with hundreds of tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery weapons, rocket launchers and dozens of combat helicopters and anti-aircraft missile systems. Hundreds of other weapons systems have poured in from other NATO members and from Israel. (Interfax, Aug. 7) In exchange Georgia had provided the third-largest military force in the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But on Aug. 10 the U.S. began ferrying the 2,000 Georgian troops out of Iraq to the war zone in Georgia. Along with the “advisers” and U.S. troops sent for manoeuvres, U.S.-origin mercenaries and privatized military trainers function in Georgia. Tens of thousands of “civil society” operatives, international consultants, policy experts and technical assistants operate in Georgia, Ukraine and other former Soviet Republics.
Now in the Burmese context, Prof. Dr Khin Mg Kyi has said we are but in name, that Burma is an autonomous region of China, the Generals has secretly sell the country long ago to the Chinese in return to support the Junta to maintain in power. Hence if we were to take the covert support from the West, particularly form the US, to make a coup de grace which I have highlighted in my previous article, what will China do is food for thought? The country under the occupation of the Chinese army will be worst that the marauding Burmese Generals. Shall we jump out of the frying pan into the fire? But this does not mean that we have to accept the status quo.
The media’s war reporting on Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia has echoed the kind of misinformation that characterized the reporting on the U.S. invasion of Iraq. One must know that Georgia is at the centre of U.S. imperialism’s moves to control the oil-rich Caspian Sea region. Georgia is the energy highway for Europe, with at least two major pipelines passing though it. These pipelines are emerging to rival the Russian oil pipelines that have been Europe’s primary source for natural gas and oil. Until 2005, the only pipeline from the Caspian oil centre of Baku in Azerbaijan was through Russia. In 2005, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline opened. Owned by British Petroleum and Unocal, this pipeline goes through Georgia to the Turkish port city of Ceyhan.
The BP consortium also owns the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline, which opened in 2007. Another pipeline, named Western Early, goes through Georgia passing the border of South Ossetia to the Georgia port city of Supsa. Hence s the oil that was once the most valuable resource of the former Soviet Union is now going to market through facilities controlled by U.S. and its allies.
With Iraq’s oil resources conquered, and Iran’s under threat of blockade or bombardment, the U.S. is determined to also control the Caspian oil fields. By removing Russian control over these oil fields, the U.S. would deliver a major blow to the possible emergence of Russia as a capitalist power. For all its flowery words of democracy and freedom, the U.S. ruling class has no intention of freeing Burma or allowing Russia to become an imperialist rival, like Europe and Japan. The U.S. has been working covertly and overtly to break up Russia and the states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, concentrating on the states around the Caspian oil fields. The Caspian Sea has two huge oil fields. One is east of Baku. The other is the Tengiz oilfield, on the Caspian’s northwest shore in Kazakhstan.
In addition there are massive reserves of natural gas throughout the Caspian region. It is the primary supplier of natural gas to Europe. The known reserves of Caspian oil are larger than the oil fields of Nigeria or Libya, putting the Caspian oil fields in the same league as the fields of Iran or Kuwait.
A consortium of 11 major oil corporations set up outposts on the Caspian. Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Pennzoil, Philips Petroleum, Texaco and BP Amoco spent billions of dollars buying up Soviet-era oil interests and drilling rights. But the Caspian Sea is landlocked. The oil must be transported out of the region by pipeline. Whoever controls the pipelines will ultimately control the oil. South Ossetia is but one of the targets.
Within the United Nations Security Council, U.S. and British representatives blocked a Russian-drafted resolution calling on Georgia and South Ossetia to immediately put down their weapons. The U.S. rejected the three-sentence statement that would have required both sides “to renounce the use of force.” It was a clear confirmation of U.S. support for Georgia’s continued “use of force” against the small Ossetian nationality. However, Russia succeeded in repelling Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia. So as of Aug. 13, Georgia and Russia agreed to a “peace plan” brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
This is the true story, at least from my humble perspective. The point which I am driving it is that will the Chinese stand by now that the construction of the oil pipe line from Arakan to Kunming is being implemented? With the current situation in Burma, it will not be so much of a problem to deliver a coup de grace to the Burmese Junta. But after that what? Has the ethnics and the pro democracy group has come to a broad understanding? The ethnics have their own fighting force whereas the pro democracy has the masses. Have they ever made an attempt to thrash out their different perspective for a common good of the country?
The Burmese resistance (including the ethnics) have lacked the most important factor and the joke, that if two Burmese were put into the cell they will form three political parties captures a shameful truth. In other words these numerous resistance group actions are indicating that they would prefer the Burmese military Junta then come to agreement with each other. Every resistance leader knows that once they become a united political force under one umbrella then the Junta will fall and yet they would not lift a finger to help that unity.
Until and unless these two groups have an understanding of each other, I don’t see any bright future for the Union of Burma. We must present to the international community that we are the better alternative than the Junta. If the Maha Bama drives it to the position prior to 1962, surely the ethnic will not join and there is the danger of Balkanization. On the other hand the Chinese will give credence to the Maha Bama headed by the Junta and the Burmese revolution will be driven back for a couple of decades and the people will continue to suffer. I think Burmese democracy starts in our hearts and if we don’t agreed and compromise with each other after more than half a century Burma will set up a record of being a century under the heels of the military. It is far better to reach a sort of understanding an agreement than relying on the imperialistic power or the evil empires or the cutthroat neighbouring countries as the example of Georgia unfold before our eyes.
- Asian Tribune -
THAUNG HTUN: 888 has dark significance in Yangon
Thaung Htun
(ST) - WE could all appreciate the cute symmetry of 08-08-08. But Friday's Olympic opening ceremony was poorly timed. Aug 8, 1988 -- "08-08-88" -- was the date of a brutal crackdown in Myanmar, which killed some 3,000 people, mostly students and monks, and is a deep notch marking Myanmar's descent into hell since the military coup in 1962.
Even as the games chug on, it's worth considering some truly extraordinary numbers.
Let's look first at the economy. Indeed important because it was the devaluation of the kyat that led to the 1988 protests and also because an increase in fuel prices led to the Saffron Revolution demonstrations from September last year.
In most places, economics is important. In Myanmar, it's a matter of life and death. Myanmar has the 10th largest reserves of natural gas in the world. The military government is reported to receive some US$150 million (RM495 million) per month in gas export revenues alone.
These are good numbers, of course. The sort suggesting a thriving, albeit somewhat unbalanced, economy. Yet, these upbeat statistics are mugged by a gang of less than savoury data.
A look at just where that money goes reveals the shadowy truth. Myanmar is, next to Somalia, the world's most corrupt country.
The generals and their cronies may have the world's stickiest fingers.
As the scandals over aid funding in the aftermath of the May cyclone that ravaged the Irrawaddy region tend to confirm, the military generals have no scruples in diverting Myanmar's vast resources' wealth into their own offshore accounts.
These diversions include buying themselves all the latest military toys. Between 1988 and 2006, the generals spent about US$23 million a month directly on military hardware.
Overall, the military spending money on itself accounts for some 40 per cent of total budgetary outlays, among the highest such ratios in the world. Meanwhile, around three per cent of government spending is on education. Ninety per cent of Myanmars live on less than US$1 a day.
Average household incomes are roughly five per cent less than the average cost to feed a family.
Children, as always, suffer most. In Chin state, for example, the rate of underweight children below the age of 5 was 60 per cent. In eastern Myanmar, one in five children dies before the fifth birthday.
Many of these deaths are from malaria, an easily preventable disease. Myanmar has the second-highest child mortality rate in Asia.
Up to 150,000 children die every year, mainly from preventable diseases. If the children make it to a certain age, they are likely to be recruited for the military's deadly games.
There are 70,000 child soldiers in Myanmar, the most of anywhere in the world. Here, the children can spend their formative years fighting the world's longest-running war, in the east of the country.
Should they survive this, they may, as adults, join the hundreds of thousands who flee the country every year to eke out an existence as refugees in neighbouring countries.
In the decade to 2005, the flow of refugees from Myanmar increased 800 per cent. Myanmar is the world's third-biggest source of refugees.
Or, if they chose to stay and their pain at this treatment turns vocal, they may end up among the nearly 2,000 political prisoners in Myanmar. Since last year, there has been a 65 per cent increase in political prisoners in the last year.
The sum of all these numbers is more unrest, more demonstrations, and more struggle to achieve Myanmar's democratic destiny.
Nearly 90 per cent of the population voted for democratic change the last time something like a free poll was held in Myanmar, in 1990. That's a number the military cannot deny. It's a number they fear.
But, while the world can get together to organise a massive show like the Olympics, we cannot find consensus in solving problems like those in Myanmar. Even an Olympic medal, it seems, has two sides.
Dr Thaung Htun is the representative for United Nations Affairs with the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, Myanmar's government-in-exile
(ST) - WE could all appreciate the cute symmetry of 08-08-08. But Friday's Olympic opening ceremony was poorly timed. Aug 8, 1988 -- "08-08-88" -- was the date of a brutal crackdown in Myanmar, which killed some 3,000 people, mostly students and monks, and is a deep notch marking Myanmar's descent into hell since the military coup in 1962.
Even as the games chug on, it's worth considering some truly extraordinary numbers.
Let's look first at the economy. Indeed important because it was the devaluation of the kyat that led to the 1988 protests and also because an increase in fuel prices led to the Saffron Revolution demonstrations from September last year.
In most places, economics is important. In Myanmar, it's a matter of life and death. Myanmar has the 10th largest reserves of natural gas in the world. The military government is reported to receive some US$150 million (RM495 million) per month in gas export revenues alone.
These are good numbers, of course. The sort suggesting a thriving, albeit somewhat unbalanced, economy. Yet, these upbeat statistics are mugged by a gang of less than savoury data.
A look at just where that money goes reveals the shadowy truth. Myanmar is, next to Somalia, the world's most corrupt country.
The generals and their cronies may have the world's stickiest fingers.
As the scandals over aid funding in the aftermath of the May cyclone that ravaged the Irrawaddy region tend to confirm, the military generals have no scruples in diverting Myanmar's vast resources' wealth into their own offshore accounts.
These diversions include buying themselves all the latest military toys. Between 1988 and 2006, the generals spent about US$23 million a month directly on military hardware.
Overall, the military spending money on itself accounts for some 40 per cent of total budgetary outlays, among the highest such ratios in the world. Meanwhile, around three per cent of government spending is on education. Ninety per cent of Myanmars live on less than US$1 a day.
Average household incomes are roughly five per cent less than the average cost to feed a family.
Children, as always, suffer most. In Chin state, for example, the rate of underweight children below the age of 5 was 60 per cent. In eastern Myanmar, one in five children dies before the fifth birthday.
Many of these deaths are from malaria, an easily preventable disease. Myanmar has the second-highest child mortality rate in Asia.
Up to 150,000 children die every year, mainly from preventable diseases. If the children make it to a certain age, they are likely to be recruited for the military's deadly games.
There are 70,000 child soldiers in Myanmar, the most of anywhere in the world. Here, the children can spend their formative years fighting the world's longest-running war, in the east of the country.
Should they survive this, they may, as adults, join the hundreds of thousands who flee the country every year to eke out an existence as refugees in neighbouring countries.
In the decade to 2005, the flow of refugees from Myanmar increased 800 per cent. Myanmar is the world's third-biggest source of refugees.
Or, if they chose to stay and their pain at this treatment turns vocal, they may end up among the nearly 2,000 political prisoners in Myanmar. Since last year, there has been a 65 per cent increase in political prisoners in the last year.
The sum of all these numbers is more unrest, more demonstrations, and more struggle to achieve Myanmar's democratic destiny.
Nearly 90 per cent of the population voted for democratic change the last time something like a free poll was held in Myanmar, in 1990. That's a number the military cannot deny. It's a number they fear.
But, while the world can get together to organise a massive show like the Olympics, we cannot find consensus in solving problems like those in Myanmar. Even an Olympic medal, it seems, has two sides.
Dr Thaung Htun is the representative for United Nations Affairs with the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, Myanmar's government-in-exile
New UN envoy upbeat after Insein visit
LARRY JAGAN
(Bangkok Post) - Burma's human rights record is again under scrutiny by the international community, almost a year after the junta cracked down on the anti-inflation street protests led by the country's Buddhist monks. The UN's new human rights rapporteur for Burma, Tomas Ojea Quintana, has finished his first mission to Burma and feels certain that the regime is ready to cooperate with him. On his inaugural trip to Burma, political prisoners were his top priority, Mr Quintana told the Bangkok Post, after his five-day visit ended last weekend.
''The prison conditions of the political prisoners I saw were not so bad,'' he said after visiting only five renowned activists being held in Rangoon's notorious Insein prison, where hundreds are in detention. The country's longest serving political prisoner, journalist and writer Win Tin, had been allowed a hernia operation in the last three months, he added.
This assessment is, of course, in stark contrast to the views of his predecessor, Paul Sergio Pinheiro, who constantly told journalists that although the conditions of political prisoners had improved during his seven-year tenure as special rapporteur on human rights in Burma which ended in April_ the conditions remained appalling and unacceptable.
Even the new envoy himself seems to have understood that conditions were far from adequate. One of the political prisoners, Thurein Aung, complained that he had been denied dental care for more than a year, and after Mr Quintana raised it with the prison authorities, a dentist was allowed to treat him.
The five political prisoners he saw were U Win Tin, Thurein Aung, Kyaw Kyaw, Su Su Nway and the revered monk, U Gambira. The envoy declined to reveal what they talked about on the grounds that these were private conversations and he wanted to protect them. But he conceded that ''the monk was very angry; after all, he was detained for exercising his rights''.
The regime seems keen to appear at least to be making some concessions to the human rights envoy.
''On the day of Quintana's visit to the political prisoners in Insein, they were given increased food rations,'' said Bo Kyi, the head of an organisation that promotes the cause of Burmese political prisoners, based in Thailand. ''But the next day after his visit they went back to their meagre rations.''
Over the last 12 months Burma's human rights record has gone from bad to worse, including the conditions endured by political prisoners.
''If anything, conditions in Insein [jail] have got worse in the past year since September's uprising,'' said Zin Linn, a former political prisoner now in exile in Thailand.
''Since the Red Cross stopped their prison visits, conditions have deteriorated. No proper medical care, no soap to wash with, less food rations and no one to courier letters between them and their families,'' he said.
This was part of the package provided by representatives of the International Committee for the Red Cross on their regular visits to the political prisoners. They suspended their prison visits more than two years ago because of government interference.
''The best thing the new envoy can do is to urge the junta to allow the Red Cross to resume their prison visits as soon as possible,'' said Zin Linn.
Although the UN envoy is relatively upbeat about his first visit, he did accept that it was largely ''an introductory mission _ a getting to 'know you' trip'', he said.
''I wanted to get to know the government and for them to see where I was coming from. My main purpose was to see if we could start a dialogue, for that we had to meet face to face.''
Now it is in the generals' hands to see where the process goes. But the omens are not good _ he failed to meet any real high-ranking officials of the government or military.
He met Aung Kyi, who is in charge of relations with the detained opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, and has met with her five times in the past year. ''My visit comes at a very important time in Burma as it moves under the new constitution to civilian rule after the elections planned for 2010,'' the envoy said.
''What is important now is the interim period and I told the Burmese government that I planned to draw up a detailed proposal on how human rights issues should be treated and that I expected them to implement it,'' Mr Quintana said.
More pie in the sky, according to the former political prisoner Zin Linn.
''The international community has been telling the junta now for more than 20 years to release political prisoners and stop human rights abuses _ without any appreciable success,'' he added.
There are still more than 2,000 political prisoners languishing in Burma's prisons, according to the British-based human rights organisation Amnesty International.
Although some political prisoners are periodically released, others are then detained, according the Burmese political activist Bo Kyi.
Earlier this week two MPs elected in the 1990 polls _ which Aung San Suu Kyi's party the National League for Democracy (NLD) convincingly won but was never allowed to form a government _ were detained by the authorities.
No reason was given when the NLD MPs, U Nyi Pu and Dr Tin Min Htut, were arrested, according to the party's spokesman, Nyan Win.
They both had signed a petition of parliamentarians opposing the planned elections in 2010, which was sent to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The UN envoy also did not try to see Aung San Suu Kyi, on the grounds this was a sensitive issue best avoided on his first visit to Burma.
But he did ask the military authorities to allow her to see her lawyer to discuss her detention.
On Friday, the NLD's U Kyi Win was permitted to see her for three hours at her lakeside residence where she is currently under house arrest. NLD sources believe that this was another concession to the envoy.
It now seems clear that Aung San Suu Kyi has had her house arrest extended for another year _ until the end of May 2009. Her detention order was renewed last May, but at the time it was unclear whether it was for six or 12 months. Next May she will have been in detention for six years, which many legal experts in Burma believe is the maximum permitted under regulations that have been used to lock her up. The first time she was placed under house arrest, she was freed in July 1995 for a few days before the end of her sixth year under house arrest.
Aung San Suu Kyi has spent more than 13 years of the last 19 under house arrest. Mr Quintana said he could not clarify the conditions of her detention, but planned to study her case and the Burmese laws so he could discuss it fully with the Burmese authorities next time he visits the country.
Mr Quintana plans to return to Burma in February 2009, to help prepare for his submission to the UN Human Rights Council next March. The authorities seemed to be willing, he said, ''but let's wait and see''.
Many of his predecessors, particularly Mr Pinheiro, found making follow-up missions virtually impossible. In the meantime Mr Quintana is working on his report to the General Assembly of the UN in November.
The Burmese regime is keen to be seen cooperating with the UN, not just over the international recovery plans for the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, which hit Rangoon and the Irrawaddy delta to the west of the former capital in May, leaving massive damage.
The UN envoy for Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, is expected to make his sixth visit to the country in the last three years within the next two weeks, to discuss a variety of political issues, including the regime's roadmap to democracy, the 2010 elections and Aung San Suu Kyi's release from house arrest.
(Bangkok Post) - Burma's human rights record is again under scrutiny by the international community, almost a year after the junta cracked down on the anti-inflation street protests led by the country's Buddhist monks. The UN's new human rights rapporteur for Burma, Tomas Ojea Quintana, has finished his first mission to Burma and feels certain that the regime is ready to cooperate with him. On his inaugural trip to Burma, political prisoners were his top priority, Mr Quintana told the Bangkok Post, after his five-day visit ended last weekend.
''The prison conditions of the political prisoners I saw were not so bad,'' he said after visiting only five renowned activists being held in Rangoon's notorious Insein prison, where hundreds are in detention. The country's longest serving political prisoner, journalist and writer Win Tin, had been allowed a hernia operation in the last three months, he added.
This assessment is, of course, in stark contrast to the views of his predecessor, Paul Sergio Pinheiro, who constantly told journalists that although the conditions of political prisoners had improved during his seven-year tenure as special rapporteur on human rights in Burma which ended in April_ the conditions remained appalling and unacceptable.
Even the new envoy himself seems to have understood that conditions were far from adequate. One of the political prisoners, Thurein Aung, complained that he had been denied dental care for more than a year, and after Mr Quintana raised it with the prison authorities, a dentist was allowed to treat him.
The five political prisoners he saw were U Win Tin, Thurein Aung, Kyaw Kyaw, Su Su Nway and the revered monk, U Gambira. The envoy declined to reveal what they talked about on the grounds that these were private conversations and he wanted to protect them. But he conceded that ''the monk was very angry; after all, he was detained for exercising his rights''.
The regime seems keen to appear at least to be making some concessions to the human rights envoy.
''On the day of Quintana's visit to the political prisoners in Insein, they were given increased food rations,'' said Bo Kyi, the head of an organisation that promotes the cause of Burmese political prisoners, based in Thailand. ''But the next day after his visit they went back to their meagre rations.''
Over the last 12 months Burma's human rights record has gone from bad to worse, including the conditions endured by political prisoners.
''If anything, conditions in Insein [jail] have got worse in the past year since September's uprising,'' said Zin Linn, a former political prisoner now in exile in Thailand.
''Since the Red Cross stopped their prison visits, conditions have deteriorated. No proper medical care, no soap to wash with, less food rations and no one to courier letters between them and their families,'' he said.
This was part of the package provided by representatives of the International Committee for the Red Cross on their regular visits to the political prisoners. They suspended their prison visits more than two years ago because of government interference.
''The best thing the new envoy can do is to urge the junta to allow the Red Cross to resume their prison visits as soon as possible,'' said Zin Linn.
Although the UN envoy is relatively upbeat about his first visit, he did accept that it was largely ''an introductory mission _ a getting to 'know you' trip'', he said.
''I wanted to get to know the government and for them to see where I was coming from. My main purpose was to see if we could start a dialogue, for that we had to meet face to face.''
Now it is in the generals' hands to see where the process goes. But the omens are not good _ he failed to meet any real high-ranking officials of the government or military.
He met Aung Kyi, who is in charge of relations with the detained opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, and has met with her five times in the past year. ''My visit comes at a very important time in Burma as it moves under the new constitution to civilian rule after the elections planned for 2010,'' the envoy said.
''What is important now is the interim period and I told the Burmese government that I planned to draw up a detailed proposal on how human rights issues should be treated and that I expected them to implement it,'' Mr Quintana said.
More pie in the sky, according to the former political prisoner Zin Linn.
''The international community has been telling the junta now for more than 20 years to release political prisoners and stop human rights abuses _ without any appreciable success,'' he added.
There are still more than 2,000 political prisoners languishing in Burma's prisons, according to the British-based human rights organisation Amnesty International.
Although some political prisoners are periodically released, others are then detained, according the Burmese political activist Bo Kyi.
Earlier this week two MPs elected in the 1990 polls _ which Aung San Suu Kyi's party the National League for Democracy (NLD) convincingly won but was never allowed to form a government _ were detained by the authorities.
No reason was given when the NLD MPs, U Nyi Pu and Dr Tin Min Htut, were arrested, according to the party's spokesman, Nyan Win.
They both had signed a petition of parliamentarians opposing the planned elections in 2010, which was sent to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The UN envoy also did not try to see Aung San Suu Kyi, on the grounds this was a sensitive issue best avoided on his first visit to Burma.
But he did ask the military authorities to allow her to see her lawyer to discuss her detention.
On Friday, the NLD's U Kyi Win was permitted to see her for three hours at her lakeside residence where she is currently under house arrest. NLD sources believe that this was another concession to the envoy.
It now seems clear that Aung San Suu Kyi has had her house arrest extended for another year _ until the end of May 2009. Her detention order was renewed last May, but at the time it was unclear whether it was for six or 12 months. Next May she will have been in detention for six years, which many legal experts in Burma believe is the maximum permitted under regulations that have been used to lock her up. The first time she was placed under house arrest, she was freed in July 1995 for a few days before the end of her sixth year under house arrest.
Aung San Suu Kyi has spent more than 13 years of the last 19 under house arrest. Mr Quintana said he could not clarify the conditions of her detention, but planned to study her case and the Burmese laws so he could discuss it fully with the Burmese authorities next time he visits the country.
Mr Quintana plans to return to Burma in February 2009, to help prepare for his submission to the UN Human Rights Council next March. The authorities seemed to be willing, he said, ''but let's wait and see''.
Many of his predecessors, particularly Mr Pinheiro, found making follow-up missions virtually impossible. In the meantime Mr Quintana is working on his report to the General Assembly of the UN in November.
The Burmese regime is keen to be seen cooperating with the UN, not just over the international recovery plans for the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, which hit Rangoon and the Irrawaddy delta to the west of the former capital in May, leaving massive damage.
The UN envoy for Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, is expected to make his sixth visit to the country in the last three years within the next two weeks, to discuss a variety of political issues, including the regime's roadmap to democracy, the 2010 elections and Aung San Suu Kyi's release from house arrest.
Monday, 11 August 2008
Policy Paper: Will America ever wake up to the Burmese Clarion Call?
By Prof. Kanbawza Win
(Asian Tribune)- US President George W Bush, who has never been to Burma, has at least learnt to pronounce the name of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi correctly for which the Burmese activist dumped him, as well informed has delivered a major policy speech in Thailand and liaise with Burmese dissidents, while the first lady Laura Bush had visited Mae La, the biggest Burmese refugee camps (60,000 souls unofficial figure) to see things for herself.
To an average Burmese dissident this is heartening, but if President Bush means business we are wondering of why the USS Essex and other US naval ships withdrew from their positions near Burmese waters, when both Britain and French warships were ready to join the US in the Nagris Cyclone relief operations and end the Burmese dictatorship once and for all?
The entire Burmese people had pinned their hopes on Bush that he would invoke the UN’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and together with the Western nations would order his naval force into the delta, where every Burmese would welcome them as saviour and give them every necessary help. This raises the most serious question about Bush’s administrations support for Burmese pro-democracy movement: Is there any real political will on the part of the US to effect substantive change in Burma, or is Washington simply offering moral support to the victims of a heinous regime to burnish its image as a defender of freedom is in the minds of every Burmese?
The 21 hour stop in Bangkok or Mae Lah camp seems Bush’s stance on Burma is merely a distraction from the troubling consequences of other facets of his foreign policy, others suggest that ultimately, the US is seeking to use Burma to “contain” China, which has become the Burmese regime’s most important ally. Now going to Beijing, where the word Burma and Tibet are taboo.
President Bush's Olympic odyssey started with a game of political one-upmanship, as his blunt critique of the host country prompted Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang, saying "We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues." The rhetorical barbs were likely to recede quickly as the games began and Burma together with Dafur and Tibet will be forgotten and will be forced to witness the extravaganza of Chinese Communist’s progress. Perhaps he did not recollect of what he told Olympians at the White House last month that they are more than sports competitors. He called US Olympians "ambassadors of liberty" who represent America's "regard for human rights and human dignity."
Despite numerous organizations and activists pushing for the President to make a political statement out of the Games, specifically referencing China's continued economic and political support for the Burmese regime, Bush remains adamant that he will not politicize the Beijing Games missing the fact that an aesthetic of political memorization, reflected in the host government’s declared aim that China should win more gold medals than any country; the world will once again be made to witness a triumph of the totalitarian will, because of its superb dictatorial communist system. We know that there is little more that the Burmese people can hope in Bush administration’s last Hurrah!
Will the torch of President Bush’s statement at the Map room of the White House “to let the people of Burma know that the United States of America hears their voices” be carried on by the President hopeful of Barrack Obama and John McCane? Politics, at least peripherally, have always been part of the Olympics. This time, too. In four days in Beijing, Bush will confer with Chinese President Hu Jintao, and other Chinese leaders to tussle over trade deficits, currency policy and other issues of bilateral mutual benefits. Bushes (his father, former President George H.W. Bush, who was once an American ambassador) will help dedicate a shimmering new U.S. embassy and definitely Burma will be in a forgotten agenda. History will remember him as the first U.S. president to ever attend a Genocide Olympics on foreign soil even though he may not sit together with the Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein.
Thank You America
Admittedly in his eight years of unstinting support, which even the most sceptical Burmese like myself, have had to acknowledge as a major contribution to our cause and we thank President Bush when he uttered
August 8
is not only a day to recognize China’s achievements,
but also an occasion to recall
the unfulfilled aspirations of the Burmese people
We know that the United States has always strongly supported the efforts of Burma’s people achieve freedom from military rule. The current administration has been no exception. Though often criticized at home and abroad for his foreign policy, Bush has won the respect of most Burmese for his firm stance on the repressive regime in Naypyidaw.
In 2003, the US introduced the Freedom and Democracy Act in response to a ruthless attack on Daw Aung Suu Kyi and her supporters in the central Burmese town of Depayin (a name derived from the Portuguese decedents). In 2005, Bush identified Burma as one of the world’s “outposts of tyranny,” together with Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Belarus.
Last year, following the crackdown on the September uprising, he blasted the regime and tightened sanctions against the generals and their cronies. As a further sign of support, the US Congress awarded its highest civilian honour, the Congressional Gold Medal, to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi last December. And just this week, Bush signed into law the Burma Jade Act, which restricts the import of precious stones from Burma and extends existing import sanctions.
Bush is not a visionary and his tendency to see complex issues in black and white, just like any self style Burmese foreign experts who tend to equate with any other country and refused to see that Burma is unique. But while many condemn him for trying to impose his political vision on Iraq, few can argue that in the case of Burma, he has taken a genuinely principled stand that is perfectly consistent with reality.
We warmly acknowledge that both Bush and his wife, Laura, who has been a real driving force in keeping Burma at the top of the world’s political agenda. She has met with Burmese activists in Washington and New York on a number of occasions and held video teleconferences with prominent exiles. She has also participated in several roundtable discussions on Burma with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his special envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari. When the Burmese regime crushed protests last year, she called Ban to discuss the situation—a rare move by an American first lady, and one that shows the depth of her concern for the fate of Burma’s people.
In May of this year, it became evident just how much the bull dog face General Than Shwe has staked on the ultimate success of this deeply flawed political process, which promises only a continuation of military rule under another guise. But one week before a planned referendum on a military-drafted constitution when the country was hit by its worst natural disaster in living memory, the American response to this disaster was markedly different from that of the rulers in Naypyidaw. The US moved quickly to temporarily suspend its sanctions against Burma so that it could assist in the relief effort, offering aid and the use of military aircraft to transport international emergency relief supplies into the country. But this did not stop the Junta going ahead with its rigged referendum, putting politics ahead of the lives of millions of people. No doubt humanitarian workers in Burma praised the Bush administration for its bold decision to send C-130 flights into Rangoon with relief items, setting aside politics for the sake of saving lives. Our profound and sincere thanks go to Bush Administration for keeping the Burmese cause alive at least morally.
The Realization
We are but halfway through 2008 yet it has already been witness to a sizeable shift in global power. The default Western mindset remains that the Western writ rules. That is hardly surprising; it has been true for so long there has been little reason for anyone to question it, least of all the West. The thinking of the Americans has changed that they live in the greatest country on earth and construe that they have the right to disregard the opinions of other countries and can impose our values on everyone else - after all, why should anyone complain about having greatness thrust upon them? But lamentably the estimate of their worth far outstrips its real-world value. They now see that the Vietnam Syndrome will soon be replaced by the Iraq Syndrome. It's not just that the world is fed up with U.S. foreign policy; it has become blind to its relative decline. Some construe that unwittingly, the US is the rogue elephant that will not cooperate with the rest of the world. No to Kyoto, no to arms control, no to negotiations and so on and is afraid to take the right action on Burma. I recall the lines in “Raiding the War Chest”, Miriam Pemberton writes that "our country has a massive international-relations repair job ahead in the post-Bush years. This job comes down to acknowledging that our military-led response to 9-11 has made us less safe by creating more terrorists than it has defeated. Furthermore, we must convince the rest of the world's peoples that we are ready to engage with them in a different way. Whatever is said along these lines won't be credible unless, as the saying goes, we put our money where our mouth is."
The assumption is that might and right are invariably on its side, that it always knows best and that if necessary it will enforce its political wisdom and moral rectitude on others. There is, however, a hitch: the authority of the self-appointed global sheriff is remorselessly eroding. There have been two outstanding examples so far this year and the first was Burma. The question facing the rest of the world in the aftermath of the cyclone, however, was how to assist the millions of victims of a humanitarian disaster. China, India and ASEAN — who largely make up the region — were opposed to the use of military force and President Bush bow down to them. If he had followed this instinct in Iraq and use the unilateral action with the whole West backing up President Bush the result would be much rosier. US leaders were living in a time warp: the knee-jerk responses of old, freshened up by the short-lived era of liberal interventionism, have become a stock response. It was not long before the bellicose talk subsided and the West was obliged to channel its aid via ASEAN.
The fact that the West could not understand the geopolitical realities of Asia, now the largest economic region in the world — and adapt its policies accordingly revealed that old assumptions and attitudes run very deep indeed. Burma has demonstrated was the limits of Western power, the need for the West to understand those limits. The second example is Zimbabwe. This episode has revealed British — and Western — impotence in its starkest form. After much grandstanding at the G8 summit, the Anglo-American attempt to toughen sanctions foundered in the UN Security Council, where it was vetoed by Russia and China and opposed by South Africa and two others. Meanwhile, President Thabo Mbeki, whose efforts to broker some kind of deal have been widely and patronizingly scorned, has scored a major diplomatic triumph. The Southern Africa Development Community's appointed mediator for Zimbabwe, Mbeki managed to bring both Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC to the negotiating table. All the Western bluster and invective now look just that: the route to a possible solution has been the work of South Africa, the SADC and the African Union alone. This is yet a further illustration of a shift in global authority. The two big bullies China and Russia which has just occupied Georgia seem to indicate that NATO (No Action Talk Only) is just a lame duck.
Western power can no longer deliver in the face of the growing power, competence and self-confidence of developing countries. Instead of universal Western power, we are witnessing the rise of regionalization and regional solutions. This reflects broader changes in the global economy. BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and a growing number of developing economies, now account for less than half of global GDP and that share is steadily falling. Such economic shifts are the irresistible prelude to parallel changes in political power. The two examples discussed are classic instances of this process: Burma involved China and India, together with the ASEAN countries, while Zimbabwe featured South Africa, with Russia which has taken advantage of the Beijing Olympic to invade Georgia, and especially China, emboldened in this instance to play a more assertive role on the global stage. They illustrate what might be described as the growing "Bricisation" of global politics.
They also underline the comprehensive failure of Anglo-American foreign policy. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, no thought was given to the idea that Western economic power was on the wane. Never underestimate the ability of political leaders to misread history on a monumental scale. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have both served to hasten Western decline: they have both failed to achieve their objectives and in the process demonstrated an underlying Western impotence. In contrast, those other "rogue" states, namely North Korea, Zimbabwe, and perhaps even Iran, show strong signs of responding in a positive manner to a very different kind of treatment. Liberal interventionism has failed. But as yet the West shows no sign of either understanding the new world or being able to live according to its terms. The West has refused to recognize the diminution in its own authority and, as a result, seemingly incapable of adapting to the new circumstances and coming up with an innovative response especially in terms of economics.
United Nations
Currently, U.N. Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari is scheduled to return to Burma to pave the way for a return visit of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon later this year. The time has come for the United Nations to measure success by outcomes alone, not merely by the engagement in process. Were success to be measured by engagement alone, it would have already been achieved. Special envoys and Rapporteur have made literally dozens of trip to Burma over the years, with minimal effect. Unless tangible and specific outcomes are actually achieved from this visit -- including the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, which is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue -- then it is time for the Security Council to take further action. Specifically, it should escalate the pressure on the junta by adopting a binding resolution to transform its recommendations from its presidential statement into demands. Pressure has been increasing from numerous ASEAN countries, which now view Burma as holding back the development of the bloc. And pressure has been sustained by the United States, United Kingdom and France. But all members of the Security Council -- including China, Russia, and South Africa, which had opposed prior action on Burma -- must be reminded of their subsequent agreement with this roadmap.
Foreign investment in Myanmar plummeted by 77% over the past fiscal year as investments in the oil, gas and electricity sectors were significantly lower even in the Burmese official figures. In the 12 months to March 31 2008, total income for the three sectors was $ 172.72 million. That compares with 2006-07, when 11 enterprises invested $471.48 million in oil and gas, and $281.22 million dollars in electricity, the National Planning and Economic Development ministry said. The figures showed neighboring India is the biggest investor in Myanmar with $ 137 million in the oil and gas sector this year, followed by Thailand with $ 16.22 million dollars. Germany invested $2.5 million in manufacturing, South Korea had $12 million in fisheries and Singapore invested $5 million into mining.
The Junta has also brazenly used the cyclone to its further advantage. The United Nations recently reported that aid groups have lost some 20% of the money they have brought in to Burma because of arbitrary foreign exchange rules imposed by the junta. Not only does the junta retain these funds as its own “tax” on relief operations, but this also reduces the aid provided to those most in need.
What ever the diplomatic pressure is on, Burma will not budge, and knowing full well there is nothing ASEAN can do. Of course, what the Junta is doing is to ensure that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is isolated from the political process. The Junta will hold the planned election in 2010 and it will be a fait accompli. The generals will use all kinds of trickery to maintain their power and dodge international sanctions. If the national referendum in May was any indication, the future poll will certainly be rigged. Burma's ratification of the ASEAN Charter was timed for maximum benefit. For the first time, the pariah state was able to say it is committed to the values and norms of ASEAN. In the 11 years since Burma joined ASEAN, it has caused only headaches for the group. Now, ASEAN and the international community are committed to help revitalize Burma after Cyclone Nargis.
Synchronizing the Foreign and Domestic policy
In deciphering the future policy of Burma one need to know not only that realities on the ground are somewhat different from the reports we are having in the West. Must be able to construed the broad picture and not be distorted with emotions. In astronomy it is called "gravitational lensing", where light was distorted because of gravity.
Hence most of the ethno democratic forces of Burma are often than not blinded by emotions. Johan Alvin rightly asserts that Burma problem is not just the failure of the tyrannical Burmese Generals but `also that of the opposition and the international community. We would rather label it as a collective failure from President Bush on to the lowest resistance Burmese fighter.
The moral approach of the West particularly America and EU, the mainstream rational approach by the UN and the economic approach by ASEAN of the so called Constructive Engagement and the Hegemonic approach by China and India have all failed and one is forced to admit that Burma is unique. What we are clamouring is a collective responsibility approach.
A Burmese intelligentsia will not be fooled by clever Public Relations stance of the US President, because one can almost guarantee the US would place China on its list of priorities above that of Burma. If anything, the US would sacrifice Burma at the altar of vast Chinese economic advantage. Everybody knows that if China drops its support for the Burmese regime today it will collapse tomorrow. What we are emphasizing is that the Burmese ethno democratic movement alone cannot change the Chinese government and the people sitting on the Dragon throne, that's why we are asking the international community particularly the US to meet them and give another chance to talk. We are soliciting your help.
Burma's generals have long drawn the ire of the international community, over the brazenly deliberate attempt to restrict the handling of relief operations in the wake of Cyclone Nargis resulting in the death and disappearance of some 140,000 Burmese citizens and turning two million refugees into hostages. It is paradoxical that Bush did not raise this issue to the ten-country consortium of ASEAN that has consistently balked at considering comprehensive sanctions against Burma's generals, instead preferring a policy melded around engagement.
Coup de Grace
Every Burmese know that the regime is mortally wounded. It is difficult to overstate the outrage felt by almost all Burmese Buddhists at the brutalization of the monks. Monks are integrated into all levels of Burmese society. Monks give babies their names; they provide astrological charts for the newborn; in the almost complete absence of medical care in rural Burma (i.e. for eighty per cent of the population) they give traditional medical care in the monasteries, and general help and advice.
Monks and pagodas are just about the most conspicuous things in Burma. The regime has 450,000 soldiers but there are 500,000 permanent monks. If you add the temporary monks (and all Burmese boys become monks for at least a few weeks in their lives) then at times there are more than two million of them. Monks were quite an organized group to provide effective help after the cyclone, handing out what little food was available and sheltering people in monasteries until the regime forced them out to return to their destroyed homes and villages.
Hence the brutalising of the monks, along with the aftermath of the typhoon has mortally wounded the regime. There is now a complete understanding between the monastic order and the nation that the present regime is beyond the pale. The danger is that the universal hatred of the generals, now turned into outrage at a sort of sacrilege, combined with rage at their astonishing indifference to the suffering caused by the storm, could lead to a violent eruption. What we need is just acoup de grace.
I often quoted that we don't need a drop of American blood or anybody's blood to shed for Burma, we Burmese will do the dirty job of finishing the Junta and its cronies. Just give us coveted support of arms and ammunition to implement our job, be it a CIA or whatever. This is the policy we are opting for. Now, after two decades, every body is convinced that non violent approach is not paying in as much as the world has not confronted Adolph Hitler for a non violent. The Junta knows only one language and when he sees the guns (the prospect of an American navy coming up the delta) is very upset and sends cold shrills through the spines of the Generals.
The ethnic armies even though badly bruised, is still capable of fighting, if properly armed and with the entire supported of the Burmese people and the international community could easily knocked out the Junta's forces. What more the ENC has already draw up a rough Federal Constitution not to mention the several declarations made by the Burmese ethnic forces that what they want is autonomy in the genuine Union of Burma and not separatism. This action alone proves the ridiculous claim of the Junta that they alone can keep the country together and prevent Balkanization. Remember the crux of the Burmese problem is ethnicity; there won't be any military coup, if the civilian government can handle the ethnic problem in 1962. And if there is no military coup there is no need for the struggle of democracy. Democratic struggle and ethnic problems are two sides of a coin. Yet, when President Bush met the Burmese dissidents there are only two ethnic representatives while the rest are democracy advocates with their megaphone diplomacy. America needs to change its advisers on Burma especially who stay hands in glove with the Arr Loo (literally translated potatoes) leaders and help solve the Burmese problems from its roots if the Union of Burma were not to repeat the mistakes prior to 1962.
Candidly also that among the ethnic leaders there are several racists who would never lift a finger for the prevalence of democracy and human rights and narrow on its ethnic right and federalism. The extremists from both sides, the Mahar Bama who construe that all Burmese ethnics should follow their lead and the racist ethnic leaders who opted for Balkanization still needs to be weeded out once and for all. Now the start has made with the coming of the Bushes, it need a snowball effect which we are quite positive will solve the Burmese problems once and for all.
The ethnics believe in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi like her daddy is the only person whom the ethnic leaders trust. She is manifestly more intelligent and better educated than they are, a better speaker, and beautiful: She is also the daughter of Burma's national hero, Aung San, who created the very army that now keeps her under house arrest. Her beauty and charm combined with her birth, her gentleness stand out against the stupidity and sheer brutishness of the Burmese Generals. There is a general belief that she speaks for the whole country and that no one else does so or even could do so. She has offered compromises to the regime. The army can keep some sort of political role if it goes back to the barracks. The top generals can even leave the country taking their loot with them. There is absolutely nothing that an intelligent, patriotically minded military has to fear from her. But the regime construes her as a nymph that comes to haunt them.
On the other hand the Burmese army better known as Tatamadaw has become a Mudane Thatmadaw (translated rapist not satisfied with killing). The whole strategy of the Burmese army is to divide and rule and turn one group against another. There is no claim to legitimacy, no program, no ideology, nothing except the immeasurable fear that it will lose its power and material gains. Add to that that many Burmese see it as handing over the country to its Chinese protectors (and Mandalay is called as 2nd Peking) and don’t harbor any semblance of being patriotic.
Than Shwe is an object of ridicule and contempt. He inherits the paranoia and weirdness of the Ne Win regime but not its measure of credibility. The regime has cocooned itself away from public opinion, and appears to have given up politics completely in favor of simple military rule. The regime's lack of response to the typhoon, its actual obstruction of both foreign and domestic aid, its determination to go ahead with a bogus referendum designed to legitimize its power in the midst of the emergency have produced exactly the mix of ingredients which can cause a regime to fall. The regime's 450,000 soldiers have families of their own, many of whom will have suffered, and are themselves (apart from the officers) not well paid. It is a proven fact that the commanding officer in Mandalay refused to order his men to fire on the demonstrators in September, and was replaced. Many Burmese will tell you with confidence that many of the young officers of the army hate the ruling clique.
Mussolini absurdly tried to impose a martial, Fascist mentality upon the Italians and failed and something similar is happening in Burma. What we need is a little push for the Junta to fall off over the cliff. Will the new American president see this before ringing in the New Year bells?
(Asian Tribune)- US President George W Bush, who has never been to Burma, has at least learnt to pronounce the name of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi correctly for which the Burmese activist dumped him, as well informed has delivered a major policy speech in Thailand and liaise with Burmese dissidents, while the first lady Laura Bush had visited Mae La, the biggest Burmese refugee camps (60,000 souls unofficial figure) to see things for herself.
To an average Burmese dissident this is heartening, but if President Bush means business we are wondering of why the USS Essex and other US naval ships withdrew from their positions near Burmese waters, when both Britain and French warships were ready to join the US in the Nagris Cyclone relief operations and end the Burmese dictatorship once and for all?
The entire Burmese people had pinned their hopes on Bush that he would invoke the UN’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and together with the Western nations would order his naval force into the delta, where every Burmese would welcome them as saviour and give them every necessary help. This raises the most serious question about Bush’s administrations support for Burmese pro-democracy movement: Is there any real political will on the part of the US to effect substantive change in Burma, or is Washington simply offering moral support to the victims of a heinous regime to burnish its image as a defender of freedom is in the minds of every Burmese?
The 21 hour stop in Bangkok or Mae Lah camp seems Bush’s stance on Burma is merely a distraction from the troubling consequences of other facets of his foreign policy, others suggest that ultimately, the US is seeking to use Burma to “contain” China, which has become the Burmese regime’s most important ally. Now going to Beijing, where the word Burma and Tibet are taboo.
President Bush's Olympic odyssey started with a game of political one-upmanship, as his blunt critique of the host country prompted Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang, saying "We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues." The rhetorical barbs were likely to recede quickly as the games began and Burma together with Dafur and Tibet will be forgotten and will be forced to witness the extravaganza of Chinese Communist’s progress. Perhaps he did not recollect of what he told Olympians at the White House last month that they are more than sports competitors. He called US Olympians "ambassadors of liberty" who represent America's "regard for human rights and human dignity."
Despite numerous organizations and activists pushing for the President to make a political statement out of the Games, specifically referencing China's continued economic and political support for the Burmese regime, Bush remains adamant that he will not politicize the Beijing Games missing the fact that an aesthetic of political memorization, reflected in the host government’s declared aim that China should win more gold medals than any country; the world will once again be made to witness a triumph of the totalitarian will, because of its superb dictatorial communist system. We know that there is little more that the Burmese people can hope in Bush administration’s last Hurrah!
Will the torch of President Bush’s statement at the Map room of the White House “to let the people of Burma know that the United States of America hears their voices” be carried on by the President hopeful of Barrack Obama and John McCane? Politics, at least peripherally, have always been part of the Olympics. This time, too. In four days in Beijing, Bush will confer with Chinese President Hu Jintao, and other Chinese leaders to tussle over trade deficits, currency policy and other issues of bilateral mutual benefits. Bushes (his father, former President George H.W. Bush, who was once an American ambassador) will help dedicate a shimmering new U.S. embassy and definitely Burma will be in a forgotten agenda. History will remember him as the first U.S. president to ever attend a Genocide Olympics on foreign soil even though he may not sit together with the Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein.
Thank You America
Admittedly in his eight years of unstinting support, which even the most sceptical Burmese like myself, have had to acknowledge as a major contribution to our cause and we thank President Bush when he uttered
August 8
is not only a day to recognize China’s achievements,
but also an occasion to recall
the unfulfilled aspirations of the Burmese people
We know that the United States has always strongly supported the efforts of Burma’s people achieve freedom from military rule. The current administration has been no exception. Though often criticized at home and abroad for his foreign policy, Bush has won the respect of most Burmese for his firm stance on the repressive regime in Naypyidaw.
In 2003, the US introduced the Freedom and Democracy Act in response to a ruthless attack on Daw Aung Suu Kyi and her supporters in the central Burmese town of Depayin (a name derived from the Portuguese decedents). In 2005, Bush identified Burma as one of the world’s “outposts of tyranny,” together with Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Belarus.
Last year, following the crackdown on the September uprising, he blasted the regime and tightened sanctions against the generals and their cronies. As a further sign of support, the US Congress awarded its highest civilian honour, the Congressional Gold Medal, to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi last December. And just this week, Bush signed into law the Burma Jade Act, which restricts the import of precious stones from Burma and extends existing import sanctions.
Bush is not a visionary and his tendency to see complex issues in black and white, just like any self style Burmese foreign experts who tend to equate with any other country and refused to see that Burma is unique. But while many condemn him for trying to impose his political vision on Iraq, few can argue that in the case of Burma, he has taken a genuinely principled stand that is perfectly consistent with reality.
We warmly acknowledge that both Bush and his wife, Laura, who has been a real driving force in keeping Burma at the top of the world’s political agenda. She has met with Burmese activists in Washington and New York on a number of occasions and held video teleconferences with prominent exiles. She has also participated in several roundtable discussions on Burma with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his special envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari. When the Burmese regime crushed protests last year, she called Ban to discuss the situation—a rare move by an American first lady, and one that shows the depth of her concern for the fate of Burma’s people.
In May of this year, it became evident just how much the bull dog face General Than Shwe has staked on the ultimate success of this deeply flawed political process, which promises only a continuation of military rule under another guise. But one week before a planned referendum on a military-drafted constitution when the country was hit by its worst natural disaster in living memory, the American response to this disaster was markedly different from that of the rulers in Naypyidaw. The US moved quickly to temporarily suspend its sanctions against Burma so that it could assist in the relief effort, offering aid and the use of military aircraft to transport international emergency relief supplies into the country. But this did not stop the Junta going ahead with its rigged referendum, putting politics ahead of the lives of millions of people. No doubt humanitarian workers in Burma praised the Bush administration for its bold decision to send C-130 flights into Rangoon with relief items, setting aside politics for the sake of saving lives. Our profound and sincere thanks go to Bush Administration for keeping the Burmese cause alive at least morally.
The Realization
We are but halfway through 2008 yet it has already been witness to a sizeable shift in global power. The default Western mindset remains that the Western writ rules. That is hardly surprising; it has been true for so long there has been little reason for anyone to question it, least of all the West. The thinking of the Americans has changed that they live in the greatest country on earth and construe that they have the right to disregard the opinions of other countries and can impose our values on everyone else - after all, why should anyone complain about having greatness thrust upon them? But lamentably the estimate of their worth far outstrips its real-world value. They now see that the Vietnam Syndrome will soon be replaced by the Iraq Syndrome. It's not just that the world is fed up with U.S. foreign policy; it has become blind to its relative decline. Some construe that unwittingly, the US is the rogue elephant that will not cooperate with the rest of the world. No to Kyoto, no to arms control, no to negotiations and so on and is afraid to take the right action on Burma. I recall the lines in “Raiding the War Chest”, Miriam Pemberton writes that "our country has a massive international-relations repair job ahead in the post-Bush years. This job comes down to acknowledging that our military-led response to 9-11 has made us less safe by creating more terrorists than it has defeated. Furthermore, we must convince the rest of the world's peoples that we are ready to engage with them in a different way. Whatever is said along these lines won't be credible unless, as the saying goes, we put our money where our mouth is."
The assumption is that might and right are invariably on its side, that it always knows best and that if necessary it will enforce its political wisdom and moral rectitude on others. There is, however, a hitch: the authority of the self-appointed global sheriff is remorselessly eroding. There have been two outstanding examples so far this year and the first was Burma. The question facing the rest of the world in the aftermath of the cyclone, however, was how to assist the millions of victims of a humanitarian disaster. China, India and ASEAN — who largely make up the region — were opposed to the use of military force and President Bush bow down to them. If he had followed this instinct in Iraq and use the unilateral action with the whole West backing up President Bush the result would be much rosier. US leaders were living in a time warp: the knee-jerk responses of old, freshened up by the short-lived era of liberal interventionism, have become a stock response. It was not long before the bellicose talk subsided and the West was obliged to channel its aid via ASEAN.
The fact that the West could not understand the geopolitical realities of Asia, now the largest economic region in the world — and adapt its policies accordingly revealed that old assumptions and attitudes run very deep indeed. Burma has demonstrated was the limits of Western power, the need for the West to understand those limits. The second example is Zimbabwe. This episode has revealed British — and Western — impotence in its starkest form. After much grandstanding at the G8 summit, the Anglo-American attempt to toughen sanctions foundered in the UN Security Council, where it was vetoed by Russia and China and opposed by South Africa and two others. Meanwhile, President Thabo Mbeki, whose efforts to broker some kind of deal have been widely and patronizingly scorned, has scored a major diplomatic triumph. The Southern Africa Development Community's appointed mediator for Zimbabwe, Mbeki managed to bring both Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC to the negotiating table. All the Western bluster and invective now look just that: the route to a possible solution has been the work of South Africa, the SADC and the African Union alone. This is yet a further illustration of a shift in global authority. The two big bullies China and Russia which has just occupied Georgia seem to indicate that NATO (No Action Talk Only) is just a lame duck.
Western power can no longer deliver in the face of the growing power, competence and self-confidence of developing countries. Instead of universal Western power, we are witnessing the rise of regionalization and regional solutions. This reflects broader changes in the global economy. BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and a growing number of developing economies, now account for less than half of global GDP and that share is steadily falling. Such economic shifts are the irresistible prelude to parallel changes in political power. The two examples discussed are classic instances of this process: Burma involved China and India, together with the ASEAN countries, while Zimbabwe featured South Africa, with Russia which has taken advantage of the Beijing Olympic to invade Georgia, and especially China, emboldened in this instance to play a more assertive role on the global stage. They illustrate what might be described as the growing "Bricisation" of global politics.
They also underline the comprehensive failure of Anglo-American foreign policy. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, no thought was given to the idea that Western economic power was on the wane. Never underestimate the ability of political leaders to misread history on a monumental scale. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have both served to hasten Western decline: they have both failed to achieve their objectives and in the process demonstrated an underlying Western impotence. In contrast, those other "rogue" states, namely North Korea, Zimbabwe, and perhaps even Iran, show strong signs of responding in a positive manner to a very different kind of treatment. Liberal interventionism has failed. But as yet the West shows no sign of either understanding the new world or being able to live according to its terms. The West has refused to recognize the diminution in its own authority and, as a result, seemingly incapable of adapting to the new circumstances and coming up with an innovative response especially in terms of economics.
United Nations
Currently, U.N. Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari is scheduled to return to Burma to pave the way for a return visit of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon later this year. The time has come for the United Nations to measure success by outcomes alone, not merely by the engagement in process. Were success to be measured by engagement alone, it would have already been achieved. Special envoys and Rapporteur have made literally dozens of trip to Burma over the years, with minimal effect. Unless tangible and specific outcomes are actually achieved from this visit -- including the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, which is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue -- then it is time for the Security Council to take further action. Specifically, it should escalate the pressure on the junta by adopting a binding resolution to transform its recommendations from its presidential statement into demands. Pressure has been increasing from numerous ASEAN countries, which now view Burma as holding back the development of the bloc. And pressure has been sustained by the United States, United Kingdom and France. But all members of the Security Council -- including China, Russia, and South Africa, which had opposed prior action on Burma -- must be reminded of their subsequent agreement with this roadmap.
Foreign investment in Myanmar plummeted by 77% over the past fiscal year as investments in the oil, gas and electricity sectors were significantly lower even in the Burmese official figures. In the 12 months to March 31 2008, total income for the three sectors was $ 172.72 million. That compares with 2006-07, when 11 enterprises invested $471.48 million in oil and gas, and $281.22 million dollars in electricity, the National Planning and Economic Development ministry said. The figures showed neighboring India is the biggest investor in Myanmar with $ 137 million in the oil and gas sector this year, followed by Thailand with $ 16.22 million dollars. Germany invested $2.5 million in manufacturing, South Korea had $12 million in fisheries and Singapore invested $5 million into mining.
The Junta has also brazenly used the cyclone to its further advantage. The United Nations recently reported that aid groups have lost some 20% of the money they have brought in to Burma because of arbitrary foreign exchange rules imposed by the junta. Not only does the junta retain these funds as its own “tax” on relief operations, but this also reduces the aid provided to those most in need.
What ever the diplomatic pressure is on, Burma will not budge, and knowing full well there is nothing ASEAN can do. Of course, what the Junta is doing is to ensure that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is isolated from the political process. The Junta will hold the planned election in 2010 and it will be a fait accompli. The generals will use all kinds of trickery to maintain their power and dodge international sanctions. If the national referendum in May was any indication, the future poll will certainly be rigged. Burma's ratification of the ASEAN Charter was timed for maximum benefit. For the first time, the pariah state was able to say it is committed to the values and norms of ASEAN. In the 11 years since Burma joined ASEAN, it has caused only headaches for the group. Now, ASEAN and the international community are committed to help revitalize Burma after Cyclone Nargis.
Synchronizing the Foreign and Domestic policy
In deciphering the future policy of Burma one need to know not only that realities on the ground are somewhat different from the reports we are having in the West. Must be able to construed the broad picture and not be distorted with emotions. In astronomy it is called "gravitational lensing", where light was distorted because of gravity.
Hence most of the ethno democratic forces of Burma are often than not blinded by emotions. Johan Alvin rightly asserts that Burma problem is not just the failure of the tyrannical Burmese Generals but `also that of the opposition and the international community. We would rather label it as a collective failure from President Bush on to the lowest resistance Burmese fighter.
The moral approach of the West particularly America and EU, the mainstream rational approach by the UN and the economic approach by ASEAN of the so called Constructive Engagement and the Hegemonic approach by China and India have all failed and one is forced to admit that Burma is unique. What we are clamouring is a collective responsibility approach.
A Burmese intelligentsia will not be fooled by clever Public Relations stance of the US President, because one can almost guarantee the US would place China on its list of priorities above that of Burma. If anything, the US would sacrifice Burma at the altar of vast Chinese economic advantage. Everybody knows that if China drops its support for the Burmese regime today it will collapse tomorrow. What we are emphasizing is that the Burmese ethno democratic movement alone cannot change the Chinese government and the people sitting on the Dragon throne, that's why we are asking the international community particularly the US to meet them and give another chance to talk. We are soliciting your help.
Burma's generals have long drawn the ire of the international community, over the brazenly deliberate attempt to restrict the handling of relief operations in the wake of Cyclone Nargis resulting in the death and disappearance of some 140,000 Burmese citizens and turning two million refugees into hostages. It is paradoxical that Bush did not raise this issue to the ten-country consortium of ASEAN that has consistently balked at considering comprehensive sanctions against Burma's generals, instead preferring a policy melded around engagement.
Coup de Grace
Every Burmese know that the regime is mortally wounded. It is difficult to overstate the outrage felt by almost all Burmese Buddhists at the brutalization of the monks. Monks are integrated into all levels of Burmese society. Monks give babies their names; they provide astrological charts for the newborn; in the almost complete absence of medical care in rural Burma (i.e. for eighty per cent of the population) they give traditional medical care in the monasteries, and general help and advice.
Monks and pagodas are just about the most conspicuous things in Burma. The regime has 450,000 soldiers but there are 500,000 permanent monks. If you add the temporary monks (and all Burmese boys become monks for at least a few weeks in their lives) then at times there are more than two million of them. Monks were quite an organized group to provide effective help after the cyclone, handing out what little food was available and sheltering people in monasteries until the regime forced them out to return to their destroyed homes and villages.
Hence the brutalising of the monks, along with the aftermath of the typhoon has mortally wounded the regime. There is now a complete understanding between the monastic order and the nation that the present regime is beyond the pale. The danger is that the universal hatred of the generals, now turned into outrage at a sort of sacrilege, combined with rage at their astonishing indifference to the suffering caused by the storm, could lead to a violent eruption. What we need is just acoup de grace.
I often quoted that we don't need a drop of American blood or anybody's blood to shed for Burma, we Burmese will do the dirty job of finishing the Junta and its cronies. Just give us coveted support of arms and ammunition to implement our job, be it a CIA or whatever. This is the policy we are opting for. Now, after two decades, every body is convinced that non violent approach is not paying in as much as the world has not confronted Adolph Hitler for a non violent. The Junta knows only one language and when he sees the guns (the prospect of an American navy coming up the delta) is very upset and sends cold shrills through the spines of the Generals.
The ethnic armies even though badly bruised, is still capable of fighting, if properly armed and with the entire supported of the Burmese people and the international community could easily knocked out the Junta's forces. What more the ENC has already draw up a rough Federal Constitution not to mention the several declarations made by the Burmese ethnic forces that what they want is autonomy in the genuine Union of Burma and not separatism. This action alone proves the ridiculous claim of the Junta that they alone can keep the country together and prevent Balkanization. Remember the crux of the Burmese problem is ethnicity; there won't be any military coup, if the civilian government can handle the ethnic problem in 1962. And if there is no military coup there is no need for the struggle of democracy. Democratic struggle and ethnic problems are two sides of a coin. Yet, when President Bush met the Burmese dissidents there are only two ethnic representatives while the rest are democracy advocates with their megaphone diplomacy. America needs to change its advisers on Burma especially who stay hands in glove with the Arr Loo (literally translated potatoes) leaders and help solve the Burmese problems from its roots if the Union of Burma were not to repeat the mistakes prior to 1962.
Candidly also that among the ethnic leaders there are several racists who would never lift a finger for the prevalence of democracy and human rights and narrow on its ethnic right and federalism. The extremists from both sides, the Mahar Bama who construe that all Burmese ethnics should follow their lead and the racist ethnic leaders who opted for Balkanization still needs to be weeded out once and for all. Now the start has made with the coming of the Bushes, it need a snowball effect which we are quite positive will solve the Burmese problems once and for all.
The ethnics believe in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi like her daddy is the only person whom the ethnic leaders trust. She is manifestly more intelligent and better educated than they are, a better speaker, and beautiful: She is also the daughter of Burma's national hero, Aung San, who created the very army that now keeps her under house arrest. Her beauty and charm combined with her birth, her gentleness stand out against the stupidity and sheer brutishness of the Burmese Generals. There is a general belief that she speaks for the whole country and that no one else does so or even could do so. She has offered compromises to the regime. The army can keep some sort of political role if it goes back to the barracks. The top generals can even leave the country taking their loot with them. There is absolutely nothing that an intelligent, patriotically minded military has to fear from her. But the regime construes her as a nymph that comes to haunt them.
On the other hand the Burmese army better known as Tatamadaw has become a Mudane Thatmadaw (translated rapist not satisfied with killing). The whole strategy of the Burmese army is to divide and rule and turn one group against another. There is no claim to legitimacy, no program, no ideology, nothing except the immeasurable fear that it will lose its power and material gains. Add to that that many Burmese see it as handing over the country to its Chinese protectors (and Mandalay is called as 2nd Peking) and don’t harbor any semblance of being patriotic.
Than Shwe is an object of ridicule and contempt. He inherits the paranoia and weirdness of the Ne Win regime but not its measure of credibility. The regime has cocooned itself away from public opinion, and appears to have given up politics completely in favor of simple military rule. The regime's lack of response to the typhoon, its actual obstruction of both foreign and domestic aid, its determination to go ahead with a bogus referendum designed to legitimize its power in the midst of the emergency have produced exactly the mix of ingredients which can cause a regime to fall. The regime's 450,000 soldiers have families of their own, many of whom will have suffered, and are themselves (apart from the officers) not well paid. It is a proven fact that the commanding officer in Mandalay refused to order his men to fire on the demonstrators in September, and was replaced. Many Burmese will tell you with confidence that many of the young officers of the army hate the ruling clique.
Mussolini absurdly tried to impose a martial, Fascist mentality upon the Italians and failed and something similar is happening in Burma. What we need is a little push for the Junta to fall off over the cliff. Will the new American president see this before ringing in the New Year bells?
20th Anniversary of 8.8.88 – Two decades of ASEAN failing the people of Burma
(2008-08-08), Kuala Lumpur, 08 August, (Asiantribune.com): The ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) in solidarity with the people of Myanmar / Burma reminded all ASEAN leaders that the bloody events of the 1988 uprising in Burma has yet to be addressed by ASEAN till this day.
ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus in a statement said, "ASEAN has further ignored the plight of the Burmese people who again in 2007, demonstrated against the injustices perpetrated against them.
The statement continued to add : “The ‘Saffron Revolution’ of 2007 was also brutally suppressed and ASEAN has yet to hold the Burmese junta accountable for its actions.
“Conditions have since worsened in Burma as a result of the devastation left by Cyclone Nargis and the poor management of this crisis, by the present military junta, leaves the people of Burma living in deplorable conditions.
“AIPMC disappointingly notes that to date the measures taken by ASEAN leaders to address the humanitarian and political crisis in Burma have been insufficient and unsatisfactory.
AIPMC President Kraisak Choonhavan said, “Burma continues to face rampant inflation, poor healthcare, the unceasing use of child soldiers and the continued imprisonment of political prisoners. ASEAN leaders have failed to ensure that, with the inclusion of Burma into ASEAN, the junta are compelled to respect the rights of its people.
AIPMC strongly urged ASEAN to compel Burma’s junta to engage in genuine political, economic and social reforms. Failing which, ASEAN should no longer protect the junta from international action. Without these comprehensive reforms, especially politically, regional lawmakers fear that Burma will continue to plunge in a downward spiral that would be especially damaging to countries in Southeast Asia.
“We want ASEAN leaders to ensure that the military junta is held accountable for all the Injustices perpetrated by establishing an ASEAN Human Rights mechanism to look into this matter. This must be done in accordance to international human rights standards and principles found in the ASEAN Charter,” added AIPMC senior adviser Loretta Rosales.
As stated in the preamble of the ASEAN Charter, AIPMC again reminds ASEAN leaders that they have agreed to adhere to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. There is no reason for ASEAN to delay the implementation of their promises.
ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus in a statement said, "ASEAN has further ignored the plight of the Burmese people who again in 2007, demonstrated against the injustices perpetrated against them.
The statement continued to add : “The ‘Saffron Revolution’ of 2007 was also brutally suppressed and ASEAN has yet to hold the Burmese junta accountable for its actions.
“Conditions have since worsened in Burma as a result of the devastation left by Cyclone Nargis and the poor management of this crisis, by the present military junta, leaves the people of Burma living in deplorable conditions.
“AIPMC disappointingly notes that to date the measures taken by ASEAN leaders to address the humanitarian and political crisis in Burma have been insufficient and unsatisfactory.
AIPMC President Kraisak Choonhavan said, “Burma continues to face rampant inflation, poor healthcare, the unceasing use of child soldiers and the continued imprisonment of political prisoners. ASEAN leaders have failed to ensure that, with the inclusion of Burma into ASEAN, the junta are compelled to respect the rights of its people.
AIPMC strongly urged ASEAN to compel Burma’s junta to engage in genuine political, economic and social reforms. Failing which, ASEAN should no longer protect the junta from international action. Without these comprehensive reforms, especially politically, regional lawmakers fear that Burma will continue to plunge in a downward spiral that would be especially damaging to countries in Southeast Asia.
“We want ASEAN leaders to ensure that the military junta is held accountable for all the Injustices perpetrated by establishing an ASEAN Human Rights mechanism to look into this matter. This must be done in accordance to international human rights standards and principles found in the ASEAN Charter,” added AIPMC senior adviser Loretta Rosales.
As stated in the preamble of the ASEAN Charter, AIPMC again reminds ASEAN leaders that they have agreed to adhere to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. There is no reason for ASEAN to delay the implementation of their promises.
Friday, 8 August 2008
Myanmar crackdown remembered
(Aljazeera)- The people of Myanmar are marking exactly 20 years since a military crackdown on a student-led democracy uprising left an estimated 3,000 dead.
But after last year's large-scale rallies that were also brutally crushed, the ruling generals were taking no chances on Friday and the only protests were likely to be outside the country.
Extra police and government supporters that critics call thugs, have been stationed at strategic points and Buddhist monasteries around Yangon, the country's biggest city.
Most of the surviving leaders of the seven-month long 1988 uprising - the biggest challenge to army rule stretching back to 1962 - were arrested last August at the start of fuel-price protests that grew into anti-government demonstrations.
They remain behind bars along with an estimated 1,100 political prisoners.
Protests
Outside the South-East Asian nation, however, human rights groups and activists who fled the crackdown on the 1988 protests planned demonstrations at Myanmar and Chinese embassies.
The latter are being targeted on what is also the opening day of the Beijing Olympics because of China's commercial and diplomatic ties to the generals, gate-keepers of Myanmar's plentiful reserves of natural gas and other resources.
But protests were likely to be muted in Singapore, which has also been accused of supporting Myanmar's military government for business opportunities.
Myo Myint Maung, a Myanmar national, said at least three activists who were involved in an illegal protest last year against Myanmar's military government, had been forced to leave Singapore after their visas were not renewed.
A Singapore interior ministry spokeswoman said "foreigners who work or live here are expected to at least respect the law and local sensitivities".
On Thursday, George Bush, the US president, used a visit to neighbouring Thailand, home to more than 100,000 Myanmar refugees and more than a million migrant workers, to call again for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader and Nobel laureate.
"The American people care deeply about the people of Burma and dream for the day the people will be free," he told dissidents and former political prisoners at an hour-long lunch.
However, Bush also heard criticism of Washington's stance towards Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, for forcing the generals into isolation.
Aung Naing Oo, a former student activist who fled for his life 20 years ago, said he asked Bush "to engage with the Burmese military".
"It's only Than Shwe and a few other generals who want to isolate Burma, so I told him engagement was very important," he said.
Cyclone devastation
Meanwhile, The Associated Press reported that conditions in Myanmar's Irrawaddy delta that was devastated by Cyclone Nargis in May, were far worse than the government and even the UN said.
Three months after a disaster that claimed nearly 140,000 lives, thousands of villagers are still getting little or nothing from their government or foreign aid groups, AP reported.
But after last year's large-scale rallies that were also brutally crushed, the ruling generals were taking no chances on Friday and the only protests were likely to be outside the country.
Extra police and government supporters that critics call thugs, have been stationed at strategic points and Buddhist monasteries around Yangon, the country's biggest city.
Most of the surviving leaders of the seven-month long 1988 uprising - the biggest challenge to army rule stretching back to 1962 - were arrested last August at the start of fuel-price protests that grew into anti-government demonstrations.
They remain behind bars along with an estimated 1,100 political prisoners.
Protests
Outside the South-East Asian nation, however, human rights groups and activists who fled the crackdown on the 1988 protests planned demonstrations at Myanmar and Chinese embassies.
The latter are being targeted on what is also the opening day of the Beijing Olympics because of China's commercial and diplomatic ties to the generals, gate-keepers of Myanmar's plentiful reserves of natural gas and other resources.
But protests were likely to be muted in Singapore, which has also been accused of supporting Myanmar's military government for business opportunities.
Myo Myint Maung, a Myanmar national, said at least three activists who were involved in an illegal protest last year against Myanmar's military government, had been forced to leave Singapore after their visas were not renewed.
A Singapore interior ministry spokeswoman said "foreigners who work or live here are expected to at least respect the law and local sensitivities".
On Thursday, George Bush, the US president, used a visit to neighbouring Thailand, home to more than 100,000 Myanmar refugees and more than a million migrant workers, to call again for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader and Nobel laureate.
"The American people care deeply about the people of Burma and dream for the day the people will be free," he told dissidents and former political prisoners at an hour-long lunch.
However, Bush also heard criticism of Washington's stance towards Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, for forcing the generals into isolation.
Aung Naing Oo, a former student activist who fled for his life 20 years ago, said he asked Bush "to engage with the Burmese military".
"It's only Than Shwe and a few other generals who want to isolate Burma, so I told him engagement was very important," he said.
Cyclone devastation
Meanwhile, The Associated Press reported that conditions in Myanmar's Irrawaddy delta that was devastated by Cyclone Nargis in May, were far worse than the government and even the UN said.
Three months after a disaster that claimed nearly 140,000 lives, thousands of villagers are still getting little or nothing from their government or foreign aid groups, AP reported.
Bush Calls in Beijing for Freedom of Speech in China
By BEN FELLER / AP WRITER
The Irrawaddy News
BEIJING — Speaking in China on the day the Olympic Games open, US President George W. Bush prodded the communist country on Friday to reduce repression and "let people say what they think."
The president's challenge, issued as he dedicated a massive new US embassy in Beijing, capped a volley of sharp exchanges between the two nations this week about China's human rights record.
But Bush also offered balance, praising China's contributions to society and embracing its relationship with the US as strong, enduring and candid.
"We strongly believe societies which allow the free expression of ideas tend to be the most prosperous and the most peaceful," Bush said at the official opening of the US $434 million embassy.
"Candor is most effective where nations have built a relationship of respect and trust," Bush said. "I've worked hard to build that respect and trust. I appreciate the Chinese leadership that have worked hard to build that respect and trust."
Bush said the vast American diplomatic complex—the second largest in the world, after the heavily fortified compound in Baghdad—is symbolic of China's importance to the United States.
"It reflects the solid foundation underpinning our relations," Bush said. "It is a commitment to strengthen that foundation for years to come."
Bush came to Beijing mainly to watch US athletes compete and enjoy the spectacle of the summer games, but a round of political one-upmanship has heavily defined his trip to Asia. He bluntly criticized China's human rights record in a speech in Thailand, which prompted China to warn the US president to stop meddling in its business.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang admonished Bush just before he got to China.
"We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues," he said. The spokesman added that "Chinese citizens have freedom of religion. These are indisputable facts."
The rhetorical barbs were expected to recede quickly as the games began. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said she did not think they would overshadow Bush's trip at all.
"We've had these back-and-forths with China for years," she said. The White House says its cooperation with China on security and economic matters should not be overlooked.
The new American embassy in Beijing, situated on 10 acres (4 hectares) in a new diplomatic zone, is wrapped in freestanding transparent and opaque glass. Bush got a look at it on Friday as the pollution over the city cast a white haze in all directions.
The president attended the dedication of the embassy with his father, former President George H W Bush, who in the 1970s served as chief of the US liaison office during a critical period when the US was renewing ties with China.
Also in attendance was Henry Kissinger, who was the US secretary of state during the Nixon presidency when Washington began diplomatic relations with China.
The former US president reminisced about his days in the city, then called Peking, when a young George W Bush rode a bicycle around the city.
The current president said the last time he was in China he had the opportunity to break in a mountain biking course. He joked that he contemplated entering Olympic bike events, but that his wife, first lady Laura Bush, reminded him that "they don't give any medals for last place."
Bush's presence is a precedent. He will be the first US president ever to attend an Olympics on foreign soil when he soaks up the splendor of the opening ceremony.
"I'm looking forward to cheering our athletes on," Bush said. "I'm not making any predictions about medal counts, but I can tell you the US athletes are ready to come and compete in the spirit of friendship."
Bush was having lunch with other world leaders on Friday and then meeting members of the US Olympic Team for a presidential pep talk. At night comes the elaborate opening ceremony.
On Saturday, Bush meets with Olympic sponsors and watches women's basketball. He and family members will likely choose other events to attend.
On Sunday, he will attend a Protestant church and then speak to reporters about religious freedom, the same practice he followed during his last visit to China in 2005. He then plans to take in some men's and women's Olympic swimming.
Business takes over briefly on Sunday afternoon. Bush will meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao at his presidential compound and then hold sessions with China's vice president and premier. Then it’s back to sports on Sunday night: the much-anticipated US-China basketball game.
On Monday, the president will attend a practice baseball game between the US and China.
He is expected to add in other sporting events before flying back to Washington that day.
The Irrawaddy News
BEIJING — Speaking in China on the day the Olympic Games open, US President George W. Bush prodded the communist country on Friday to reduce repression and "let people say what they think."
The president's challenge, issued as he dedicated a massive new US embassy in Beijing, capped a volley of sharp exchanges between the two nations this week about China's human rights record.
But Bush also offered balance, praising China's contributions to society and embracing its relationship with the US as strong, enduring and candid.
"We strongly believe societies which allow the free expression of ideas tend to be the most prosperous and the most peaceful," Bush said at the official opening of the US $434 million embassy.
"Candor is most effective where nations have built a relationship of respect and trust," Bush said. "I've worked hard to build that respect and trust. I appreciate the Chinese leadership that have worked hard to build that respect and trust."
Bush said the vast American diplomatic complex—the second largest in the world, after the heavily fortified compound in Baghdad—is symbolic of China's importance to the United States.
"It reflects the solid foundation underpinning our relations," Bush said. "It is a commitment to strengthen that foundation for years to come."
Bush came to Beijing mainly to watch US athletes compete and enjoy the spectacle of the summer games, but a round of political one-upmanship has heavily defined his trip to Asia. He bluntly criticized China's human rights record in a speech in Thailand, which prompted China to warn the US president to stop meddling in its business.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang admonished Bush just before he got to China.
"We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues," he said. The spokesman added that "Chinese citizens have freedom of religion. These are indisputable facts."
The rhetorical barbs were expected to recede quickly as the games began. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said she did not think they would overshadow Bush's trip at all.
"We've had these back-and-forths with China for years," she said. The White House says its cooperation with China on security and economic matters should not be overlooked.
The new American embassy in Beijing, situated on 10 acres (4 hectares) in a new diplomatic zone, is wrapped in freestanding transparent and opaque glass. Bush got a look at it on Friday as the pollution over the city cast a white haze in all directions.
The president attended the dedication of the embassy with his father, former President George H W Bush, who in the 1970s served as chief of the US liaison office during a critical period when the US was renewing ties with China.
Also in attendance was Henry Kissinger, who was the US secretary of state during the Nixon presidency when Washington began diplomatic relations with China.
The former US president reminisced about his days in the city, then called Peking, when a young George W Bush rode a bicycle around the city.
The current president said the last time he was in China he had the opportunity to break in a mountain biking course. He joked that he contemplated entering Olympic bike events, but that his wife, first lady Laura Bush, reminded him that "they don't give any medals for last place."
Bush's presence is a precedent. He will be the first US president ever to attend an Olympics on foreign soil when he soaks up the splendor of the opening ceremony.
"I'm looking forward to cheering our athletes on," Bush said. "I'm not making any predictions about medal counts, but I can tell you the US athletes are ready to come and compete in the spirit of friendship."
Bush was having lunch with other world leaders on Friday and then meeting members of the US Olympic Team for a presidential pep talk. At night comes the elaborate opening ceremony.
On Saturday, Bush meets with Olympic sponsors and watches women's basketball. He and family members will likely choose other events to attend.
On Sunday, he will attend a Protestant church and then speak to reporters about religious freedom, the same practice he followed during his last visit to China in 2005. He then plans to take in some men's and women's Olympic swimming.
Business takes over briefly on Sunday afternoon. Bush will meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao at his presidential compound and then hold sessions with China's vice president and premier. Then it’s back to sports on Sunday night: the much-anticipated US-China basketball game.
On Monday, the president will attend a practice baseball game between the US and China.
He is expected to add in other sporting events before flying back to Washington that day.
Searching for Democracy Twenty Years On - Editorial
The Irrawaddy News
Two decades have passed since the streets of Burma were filled with hundreds of thousands of triumphant demonstrators chanting over and over again, "We want democracy."
Unfortunately, their calls for creating a democratic, free and prosperous nation fell on the deaf ears of the power-crazy generals who only saw the wishes and desires of the demonstrators as a threat to their very existence.
August 8, 1988, known as “the day of four eights [8.8.88],” when a nationwide pro-democracy uprising broke out across the country, was a major turning point in Burma's political history. An estimated 3,000 protestors were killed on the streets, shot by the security forces to quell the nationwide outcry.
Although 20 long years have passed since then, the country is still ruled by a clique of generals whose hands are stained with the blood of unarmed civilians, monks and young students. In August 2008 and in the following years, the Burmese regime locked up nearly 2,000 political prisoners, along with the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi.
Paradoxically, the regime led by Snr-Gen Than Shwe thought it could save the country from "disintegration" and "anarchy." The most disturbing thing is the generals' stubbornness and unwillingness to make the courageous decisions that are imperative if national reconciliation is to be brought about in Burma. The army, in power since 1962, has presided over a dramatic political and economic decline, and Burma is now one of Asia’s poorest states.
Whenever the people of Burma call for change, however, they meet only further brutality and state-sponsored violence.
The last time demonstrators took to the streets, in monk-led protests in September 2008, the regime again reacted with uncompromising violence, cracking down with its customary brutality. Homes were raided, prominent members of the 88 Generation Students group and other activists were seized and ruthless manhunts were unleashed to capture those who escaped the terror.
Then came Cyclone Nargis in May this year, and again the regime displayed little concern for the people, making totally inadequate and delayed attempts to help the victims. Even now thousands are homeless and face a daily struggle for food.
The junta has not yet shown any real commitment to political reform, despite its announcement of 2010 elections, while the economy stagnates and society remains crippled.
The past 20 years have shown the Burmese army, the Tatmadaw, to be the world's most corrupt armed forces, commanded by generals who have no moral or legal authority to govern Burma, while practicing barbarism, tyranny, anarchy, militarism and enslaving Burmese citizens.
Yet some of Burma’s neighbors—notably Thailand, China and India—are keen to keep on good terms with the Burmese generals for their own business interests, while the UN Security Council has yet to take any effective action against Burma’s ruling generals.
Twenty years on, the blood on the Burmese generals’ hands is still warm, and those who shaking these stained hands should realize they are dealing with one of the cruelest and most brutal regimes in the world. They should recognize the words of the courageous Burmese people who sacrificed their lives for their country, words which have lingered on through 20 years of oppression: "We want democracy."
Two decades have passed since the streets of Burma were filled with hundreds of thousands of triumphant demonstrators chanting over and over again, "We want democracy."
Unfortunately, their calls for creating a democratic, free and prosperous nation fell on the deaf ears of the power-crazy generals who only saw the wishes and desires of the demonstrators as a threat to their very existence.
August 8, 1988, known as “the day of four eights [8.8.88],” when a nationwide pro-democracy uprising broke out across the country, was a major turning point in Burma's political history. An estimated 3,000 protestors were killed on the streets, shot by the security forces to quell the nationwide outcry.
Although 20 long years have passed since then, the country is still ruled by a clique of generals whose hands are stained with the blood of unarmed civilians, monks and young students. In August 2008 and in the following years, the Burmese regime locked up nearly 2,000 political prisoners, along with the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi.
Paradoxically, the regime led by Snr-Gen Than Shwe thought it could save the country from "disintegration" and "anarchy." The most disturbing thing is the generals' stubbornness and unwillingness to make the courageous decisions that are imperative if national reconciliation is to be brought about in Burma. The army, in power since 1962, has presided over a dramatic political and economic decline, and Burma is now one of Asia’s poorest states.
Whenever the people of Burma call for change, however, they meet only further brutality and state-sponsored violence.
The last time demonstrators took to the streets, in monk-led protests in September 2008, the regime again reacted with uncompromising violence, cracking down with its customary brutality. Homes were raided, prominent members of the 88 Generation Students group and other activists were seized and ruthless manhunts were unleashed to capture those who escaped the terror.
Then came Cyclone Nargis in May this year, and again the regime displayed little concern for the people, making totally inadequate and delayed attempts to help the victims. Even now thousands are homeless and face a daily struggle for food.
The junta has not yet shown any real commitment to political reform, despite its announcement of 2010 elections, while the economy stagnates and society remains crippled.
The past 20 years have shown the Burmese army, the Tatmadaw, to be the world's most corrupt armed forces, commanded by generals who have no moral or legal authority to govern Burma, while practicing barbarism, tyranny, anarchy, militarism and enslaving Burmese citizens.
Yet some of Burma’s neighbors—notably Thailand, China and India—are keen to keep on good terms with the Burmese generals for their own business interests, while the UN Security Council has yet to take any effective action against Burma’s ruling generals.
Twenty years on, the blood on the Burmese generals’ hands is still warm, and those who shaking these stained hands should realize they are dealing with one of the cruelest and most brutal regimes in the world. They should recognize the words of the courageous Burmese people who sacrificed their lives for their country, words which have lingered on through 20 years of oppression: "We want democracy."
Low Salaries Contribute to Corrupt Officials
Maungdaw (Narinjara): Officials from the bottom to the top of the chain of command in western Burma's Maungdaw Township are involved in corruption because the salary paid by the government is insufficient for their daily survival, said a retired officer from the immigration department.
He said, "In Maungdaw Township, all government servicemen are involved in corruption because they are unable to maintain their families' survival with a government salary."
U Hla Win, Chairman of Maungdaw District, is being interrogated by high officials after he collected 150,000 kyat from each village tract chairman in his district. He claimed the money would be used for the district office fund.
According to local official sources, U Hla Win went to Naypyidaw recently to address the problem before high military officials, but he is expected to be dismissed from his position.
Another high official from the taxation department is also now under a "Department Enquiry", as he sold government tax stamps to local businessmen at an inflated price.
"His name is Man Pound, the In-Charge of the taxation department, and he is now being interrogated by the high authority because he was selling government stamps to businessmen at double the price of the government determined rated," the retired official said.
He added, "It is not only those two officials but also other officials, including doctors, teachers, and custom officials, that are involved in corruption."
A trader from Maungdaw said that the average person needs at least 7,000 kyat to obtain a testimonial from a doctor in order to be admitted to the general hospital in Maungdaw. If someone is sick and unable to pay that amount, it will be impossible for them get admitted to the hospital for treatment.
The Maungdaw government hospital does not allow anyone to be hospitalized without a doctor's medical testimony.
At government schools of all levels in Maungdaw Township, teachers collect from 5,000 to 10,000 kyat in additional "entrance fees" from individual students. The teachers keep this money for their own interests.
A female trader who carries goods between Maungdaw and Teknaf in Bangladesh said that there are five official organizations at the Maungdaw border gate that collect money from traders crossing into Bangladesh.
The five organizations mentioned are: Customs, Nasaka, the jetty authority, Sarafa, and a combined force made up of the district authority, township authority, and the police.
Many police constables and riot police are involved in unlawful activities in Maungdaw, and some police officials are even known by residents to be involved in drug smuggling to Bangladesh.
According to a local source, in Maungdaw Township the price of rice is double what it is in other areas of Arakan State. A 50 kilogram sack of Pawsan Mwe brand rice is 35,000 kyats, while other regular standard rice brands are nearly 30,000 kyat per sack. A bag of rice is now equivalent to an ordinary government employee's monthly salary. #
He said, "In Maungdaw Township, all government servicemen are involved in corruption because they are unable to maintain their families' survival with a government salary."
U Hla Win, Chairman of Maungdaw District, is being interrogated by high officials after he collected 150,000 kyat from each village tract chairman in his district. He claimed the money would be used for the district office fund.
According to local official sources, U Hla Win went to Naypyidaw recently to address the problem before high military officials, but he is expected to be dismissed from his position.
Another high official from the taxation department is also now under a "Department Enquiry", as he sold government tax stamps to local businessmen at an inflated price.
"His name is Man Pound, the In-Charge of the taxation department, and he is now being interrogated by the high authority because he was selling government stamps to businessmen at double the price of the government determined rated," the retired official said.
He added, "It is not only those two officials but also other officials, including doctors, teachers, and custom officials, that are involved in corruption."
A trader from Maungdaw said that the average person needs at least 7,000 kyat to obtain a testimonial from a doctor in order to be admitted to the general hospital in Maungdaw. If someone is sick and unable to pay that amount, it will be impossible for them get admitted to the hospital for treatment.
The Maungdaw government hospital does not allow anyone to be hospitalized without a doctor's medical testimony.
At government schools of all levels in Maungdaw Township, teachers collect from 5,000 to 10,000 kyat in additional "entrance fees" from individual students. The teachers keep this money for their own interests.
A female trader who carries goods between Maungdaw and Teknaf in Bangladesh said that there are five official organizations at the Maungdaw border gate that collect money from traders crossing into Bangladesh.
The five organizations mentioned are: Customs, Nasaka, the jetty authority, Sarafa, and a combined force made up of the district authority, township authority, and the police.
Many police constables and riot police are involved in unlawful activities in Maungdaw, and some police officials are even known by residents to be involved in drug smuggling to Bangladesh.
According to a local source, in Maungdaw Township the price of rice is double what it is in other areas of Arakan State. A 50 kilogram sack of Pawsan Mwe brand rice is 35,000 kyats, while other regular standard rice brands are nearly 30,000 kyat per sack. A bag of rice is now equivalent to an ordinary government employee's monthly salary. #
Burma’s Saddam: General Than Shwe
By Nyo Ohn Myint
Aug 7, 2008 (DVB)–In the twenty years of iron rule of Burma since 1988, conventional methods of developing democracy have not brought results.
Countries that are strong supporters of Burma are growing tired of considering what strategies should be used. Urging compromise and asking the generals to deal with opposition groups are fanciful ideas. In fact, forcing the generals to review their role in supporting Burma’s absolute power holder senior general Than Shwe might offer a solution.
According to information leaked from inside sources, officials within the State Peace and Development Council are considering a future political landscape for Burma: a Burma without senior general Than Shwe. For many reasons, the regime is developing a political scenario which excludes Than Shwe after the 2010 election.
Currently, the senior general undeniably dictates the SPDC’s future. Disturbingly, Than Shwe’s tyrannical rule over Burma resembles the late Saddam Hussein’s despotic rule over Iraq. While Saddam’s practices of killing and torture were more visible and shocking to the international community, Than Shwe has used marginally more civilized methods when the eyes of the international community are upon him. But beyond the reach of the media and witnesses, both can be equally blamed.
Than Shwe not only eliminates his opponents, but also eradicates colleagues and subordinates who express an alternative view. Within the SPDC, two major purges occurred when Than Shwe disagreed with and felt threatened by other senior officials. First, the brigadier general Zaw Htun’s recommendation for an alternative economic strategy resulted in his retirement and disappearance from the SPDC lineup. Second, former prime minister Khin Nyunt was sentenced to over forty years of imprisonment for working in his own style. In addition to incarcerating Khin Nyunt, Than Shwe had many of Khin Nyunt’s subordinates physically tortured, some of whom were tortured to death. These harsh punishments gave Than Shwe even more power.
Similarly, during Saddam’s rule, Saddam asked his cabinet for candid advice. After health minister Ibrahim suggested that Saddam temporarily step down to allow for peace negotiations during the 1980-84 Iran-Iraq war, pieces of Ibrahim’s dismembered body were delivered to his wife the next day. Although Than Shwe did not kill his senior ministers in the same way, in the example of brigadier general Zaw Htun, Than Shwe severely punished Zaw Htun as well as the entire military intelligence division.
As a Burma watcher explained when comparing Than Shwe to Saddam, “both men refused to compromise and maintained power through reward and punishment. The primary objective of both dictators was to maintain his interests and dominance.” This reward and punishment system has caused administrators in both countries to fear the dictator’s harsh punishment and thus provide false information when competing for their leader’s approval.
Saddam’s cabinet members and aides competed for Saddam’s approval in their genocide; they competed for who could kill more people, who could perform the most gruesome torture and so on.
Similarly in Burma, the regional commanders, who are also military council members, compete for Than Shwe’s approval. For example, commanders competed during the referendum for the most votes in favour of the SPDC constitution. The area commanders who presented less than 90 percent Yes votes in their results were forced to retire or transferred to inactive positions, said sources.
The recent referendum results demonstrate that Than Shwe’s subordinates work to please their dictatorial leader. Certainly, Than Shwe enjoys the pro-SPDC, pro-Than Shwe results that his subordinates falsely provide. However, while the junta’s mouthpiece media attempts to please Than Shwe by showcasing Burma’s new roads and bridges and the country’s “prosperity”, Than Shwe may not realise that it was this kind of misinformation and false representation of reality that resulted in the demise of Saddam’s regime.
Even if both leaders claim to love their countries, they indisputably love themselves and their power more. According to one Burma watcher, “Burma’s authorities now primarily work to attain the senior general’s approval in order to avoid harsh punishment. As long as the senior general continues to use Saddam’s tactics, the other generals within the SPDC will fear opposing him.”
Aug 7, 2008 (DVB)–In the twenty years of iron rule of Burma since 1988, conventional methods of developing democracy have not brought results.
Countries that are strong supporters of Burma are growing tired of considering what strategies should be used. Urging compromise and asking the generals to deal with opposition groups are fanciful ideas. In fact, forcing the generals to review their role in supporting Burma’s absolute power holder senior general Than Shwe might offer a solution.
According to information leaked from inside sources, officials within the State Peace and Development Council are considering a future political landscape for Burma: a Burma without senior general Than Shwe. For many reasons, the regime is developing a political scenario which excludes Than Shwe after the 2010 election.
Currently, the senior general undeniably dictates the SPDC’s future. Disturbingly, Than Shwe’s tyrannical rule over Burma resembles the late Saddam Hussein’s despotic rule over Iraq. While Saddam’s practices of killing and torture were more visible and shocking to the international community, Than Shwe has used marginally more civilized methods when the eyes of the international community are upon him. But beyond the reach of the media and witnesses, both can be equally blamed.
Than Shwe not only eliminates his opponents, but also eradicates colleagues and subordinates who express an alternative view. Within the SPDC, two major purges occurred when Than Shwe disagreed with and felt threatened by other senior officials. First, the brigadier general Zaw Htun’s recommendation for an alternative economic strategy resulted in his retirement and disappearance from the SPDC lineup. Second, former prime minister Khin Nyunt was sentenced to over forty years of imprisonment for working in his own style. In addition to incarcerating Khin Nyunt, Than Shwe had many of Khin Nyunt’s subordinates physically tortured, some of whom were tortured to death. These harsh punishments gave Than Shwe even more power.
Similarly, during Saddam’s rule, Saddam asked his cabinet for candid advice. After health minister Ibrahim suggested that Saddam temporarily step down to allow for peace negotiations during the 1980-84 Iran-Iraq war, pieces of Ibrahim’s dismembered body were delivered to his wife the next day. Although Than Shwe did not kill his senior ministers in the same way, in the example of brigadier general Zaw Htun, Than Shwe severely punished Zaw Htun as well as the entire military intelligence division.
As a Burma watcher explained when comparing Than Shwe to Saddam, “both men refused to compromise and maintained power through reward and punishment. The primary objective of both dictators was to maintain his interests and dominance.” This reward and punishment system has caused administrators in both countries to fear the dictator’s harsh punishment and thus provide false information when competing for their leader’s approval.
Saddam’s cabinet members and aides competed for Saddam’s approval in their genocide; they competed for who could kill more people, who could perform the most gruesome torture and so on.
Similarly in Burma, the regional commanders, who are also military council members, compete for Than Shwe’s approval. For example, commanders competed during the referendum for the most votes in favour of the SPDC constitution. The area commanders who presented less than 90 percent Yes votes in their results were forced to retire or transferred to inactive positions, said sources.
The recent referendum results demonstrate that Than Shwe’s subordinates work to please their dictatorial leader. Certainly, Than Shwe enjoys the pro-SPDC, pro-Than Shwe results that his subordinates falsely provide. However, while the junta’s mouthpiece media attempts to please Than Shwe by showcasing Burma’s new roads and bridges and the country’s “prosperity”, Than Shwe may not realise that it was this kind of misinformation and false representation of reality that resulted in the demise of Saddam’s regime.
Even if both leaders claim to love their countries, they indisputably love themselves and their power more. According to one Burma watcher, “Burma’s authorities now primarily work to attain the senior general’s approval in order to avoid harsh punishment. As long as the senior general continues to use Saddam’s tactics, the other generals within the SPDC will fear opposing him.”
Understanding the Bush interest in Burma
By Sein Win
7 August 2008
(Mizzima) "President George Bush will meet Burmese activists during Thailand trip" – dominated headlines among Burma's exile community. It appeared to offer new hope after but the latest episode of sadness and frustration inside their motherland – the military government's stubborn and incapable efforts in the Nargis relief effort.
The message from the President spellbound and morally encouraged Burmese everywhere; as one of the best known personages in the world would personally be standing with the Burmese democratic movement. The message was clear: "You are with me."
But in truth, this period is not a happy one. On the 8th of August, Burma's democratic supporters will commemorate the 20th anniversary of the 8-8-88 people's uprising. Yet, two decades later, there are no distinct signs of reconciliation between the military generals and opposition camps. And in a further indication of the rift, both domestic and international aid for cyclone victims is falling dramatically.
And wait a minute! What is even more is that Bush's term in office will finish on January 20, 2009.
I cannot help but ask why Bush did not lunch with Burmese activists seven years ago? Maybe I am being too cynical, but a lot of questions creep into my mind regarding the motivation and impact of Bush's overture to Burmese dissidents at this time.
The Bush administration's foreign policy clout was at its peak after the September 11 terrorist attacks during the early months of his first term. If he had acted then, he could have done much on promoting democracy and freedom in Burma. However, a country like Burma was not a priority.
Additionally, back in Burma in 2001, Nobel Laureate and democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was freed from her second stint of house arrest and negotiation talks commenced – even if of an on-again/off-again nature. It could have provided the best opportunity ever for a U.S.-led democratic consortium to pressure the Burmese regime to hasten democratic reforms.
I have no doubt of Bush's well-intentioned and heartfelt agenda of promoting democracy across the globe and "ending tyranny in our world." However, he has failed to transform personal politics into an effectual and prioritized state policy with regard to Burma.
Of course the President and First Lady, Laura Bush, have on occasion held personal meetings and video conferences with some Burmese activists. But the political landscape of the latter half of 2001 had since changed. The Iraq war of 2003, which has proven a distinct failure in bringing democracy and stability to Iraq, has caused the once unchallenged position of the United States in the post-Cold War era to quietly, but increasingly, be challenged by the likes of China and Russia.
It would be premature to say a multi-polar world has come into existence, but China and Russia have reigned in the early days of a United States taking the fight to the world's illiberal regimes.
In Burma too, 2003 was a fateful year. It was then that the Depayin killings occurred. In the ensuing fallout, possibly the most moderate general in the Burmese junta and a potential force for reform, Khin Nyunt, was ousted by senior hardliners – who have since enacted an ever more radical political line. Increasingly, it appears that Burma's generals can hide, protected, behind neighboring big brother China within the context of global politics.
The onset of active interest on the part of the President and First Lady in the wake of the Depayin massacre demonstrated just how distant Burma had been a foreign policy priority of the United States.
Laura Bush had to have a press conference with a Burma map in her background, while the President struggled with the correct pronunciation, and order, of Aung San Suu Kyi's name.
But the President and First Lady's outward interest in the plight of Burma in the waning days of their time in the White House is not entirely an act without potential long-term – and positive – repercussions.
The next United States administration can learn from the experiences of the Bush years, and by raising the profile of Burma in the last months of his administration, Bush has raised the political costs of the ensuing President should he or she fail to follow-up on Burma. Lastly, Bush himself – in his retirement – can keep fighting for democracy and reconciliation in Burma through continuing and building on this agenda through his democracy foundation.
Good things can materialize from this week's Presidential stopover in Thailand. But it remains vital, especially for the Burmese opposition, to assess the words and actions of this brief episode within their proper context.
7 August 2008
(Mizzima) "President George Bush will meet Burmese activists during Thailand trip" – dominated headlines among Burma's exile community. It appeared to offer new hope after but the latest episode of sadness and frustration inside their motherland – the military government's stubborn and incapable efforts in the Nargis relief effort.
The message from the President spellbound and morally encouraged Burmese everywhere; as one of the best known personages in the world would personally be standing with the Burmese democratic movement. The message was clear: "You are with me."
But in truth, this period is not a happy one. On the 8th of August, Burma's democratic supporters will commemorate the 20th anniversary of the 8-8-88 people's uprising. Yet, two decades later, there are no distinct signs of reconciliation between the military generals and opposition camps. And in a further indication of the rift, both domestic and international aid for cyclone victims is falling dramatically.
And wait a minute! What is even more is that Bush's term in office will finish on January 20, 2009.
I cannot help but ask why Bush did not lunch with Burmese activists seven years ago? Maybe I am being too cynical, but a lot of questions creep into my mind regarding the motivation and impact of Bush's overture to Burmese dissidents at this time.
The Bush administration's foreign policy clout was at its peak after the September 11 terrorist attacks during the early months of his first term. If he had acted then, he could have done much on promoting democracy and freedom in Burma. However, a country like Burma was not a priority.
Additionally, back in Burma in 2001, Nobel Laureate and democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was freed from her second stint of house arrest and negotiation talks commenced – even if of an on-again/off-again nature. It could have provided the best opportunity ever for a U.S.-led democratic consortium to pressure the Burmese regime to hasten democratic reforms.
I have no doubt of Bush's well-intentioned and heartfelt agenda of promoting democracy across the globe and "ending tyranny in our world." However, he has failed to transform personal politics into an effectual and prioritized state policy with regard to Burma.
Of course the President and First Lady, Laura Bush, have on occasion held personal meetings and video conferences with some Burmese activists. But the political landscape of the latter half of 2001 had since changed. The Iraq war of 2003, which has proven a distinct failure in bringing democracy and stability to Iraq, has caused the once unchallenged position of the United States in the post-Cold War era to quietly, but increasingly, be challenged by the likes of China and Russia.
It would be premature to say a multi-polar world has come into existence, but China and Russia have reigned in the early days of a United States taking the fight to the world's illiberal regimes.
In Burma too, 2003 was a fateful year. It was then that the Depayin killings occurred. In the ensuing fallout, possibly the most moderate general in the Burmese junta and a potential force for reform, Khin Nyunt, was ousted by senior hardliners – who have since enacted an ever more radical political line. Increasingly, it appears that Burma's generals can hide, protected, behind neighboring big brother China within the context of global politics.
The onset of active interest on the part of the President and First Lady in the wake of the Depayin massacre demonstrated just how distant Burma had been a foreign policy priority of the United States.
Laura Bush had to have a press conference with a Burma map in her background, while the President struggled with the correct pronunciation, and order, of Aung San Suu Kyi's name.
But the President and First Lady's outward interest in the plight of Burma in the waning days of their time in the White House is not entirely an act without potential long-term – and positive – repercussions.
The next United States administration can learn from the experiences of the Bush years, and by raising the profile of Burma in the last months of his administration, Bush has raised the political costs of the ensuing President should he or she fail to follow-up on Burma. Lastly, Bush himself – in his retirement – can keep fighting for democracy and reconciliation in Burma through continuing and building on this agenda through his democracy foundation.
Good things can materialize from this week's Presidential stopover in Thailand. But it remains vital, especially for the Burmese opposition, to assess the words and actions of this brief episode within their proper context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)