Aug 22, 2008 (DVB)–The parents of one of the leaders of the All-Burmese Federation of Student Unions, Ko Sithu Maung, have been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment by Hlaing township court for obstructing police investigations.
U Peter and Daw Nu Nu Swe, who are both in their 50s, were found guilty of three charges, including harassing officers on duty and inciting a riot in their ward.
The couple was arrested in October last year after they delayed answering the door to police who came to their house looking for their son.
In their defence, U Peter and Daw Nu Nu Swe testified in court that the police had knocked on their door late at night with no warrant and had not been accompanied by local officials and so they had not let them in at first because they did not know who they were.
But the court found them to have acted illegally and handed down six-year prison terms to the couple.
Ko Sithu Maung was arrested on 9 October last year from a safehouse along with two other ABFSU leaders.
He is now in Insein prison awaiting trial.
Reporting by Htet Aung Kyaw
Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Arakan youth issues ultimatum on detained activists
Aug 25, 2008 (DVB)–Young people in Arakan State have threatened to use public pressure against the government if five young activists imprisoned after a peaceful march on 8 August are not released.
The five National League for Democracy youth members were sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment after marching to Buddhist temples to pray on the 20th anniversary of the 8888 uprising.
Ko Moe Naing Soe, Ko Maung Maung Thet, Ko Chit Maung Maung, Ko Than Lwin and Ma Ni Ni Nay Myint were among a group of 43 people who joined the silent march.
NLD youth members, activists and students in Taunggok decided to issue the ultimatum at a meeting held on 22 August, and pledged that they would use the strength of the masses to pressure the government if their demand was not met.
One young person who attended the meeting said the group wanted to secure the release of all political prisoners, including those arrested on 8 August.
“The youths who were arrested were innocent, they were walking peacefully and did not curse or threaten anyone,” the youth said.
“As Buddhist youths they have the right to go to temples peacefully without asking for permission,” he said.
“We issued the statement in the name of all youths in Arakan state. Our objective is to gain the unconditional release of all political prisoners who are being detained unlawfully.”
The youth said the group had set a deadline for the government to respond to its request.
“If they are not released by the anniversary of the Saffron Revolution all available means will be used to pressure the SPDC government,” he said.
“First, we will make our demands peacefully. If that does not succeed, the follow-up action will depend on the situation.”
Security has been tightened in Taunggok since the evening of the youth meeting and authorities have been monitoring the homes of the 43 young people who were arrested on the 8888 anniversary, the Arakan youth representative said. (JEG's: very wise, there is where the economy goes, monitoring people instead of feeding them or providing healthcare)
Reporting by Yee May Aung
The five National League for Democracy youth members were sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment after marching to Buddhist temples to pray on the 20th anniversary of the 8888 uprising.
Ko Moe Naing Soe, Ko Maung Maung Thet, Ko Chit Maung Maung, Ko Than Lwin and Ma Ni Ni Nay Myint were among a group of 43 people who joined the silent march.
NLD youth members, activists and students in Taunggok decided to issue the ultimatum at a meeting held on 22 August, and pledged that they would use the strength of the masses to pressure the government if their demand was not met.
One young person who attended the meeting said the group wanted to secure the release of all political prisoners, including those arrested on 8 August.
“The youths who were arrested were innocent, they were walking peacefully and did not curse or threaten anyone,” the youth said.
“As Buddhist youths they have the right to go to temples peacefully without asking for permission,” he said.
“We issued the statement in the name of all youths in Arakan state. Our objective is to gain the unconditional release of all political prisoners who are being detained unlawfully.”
The youth said the group had set a deadline for the government to respond to its request.
“If they are not released by the anniversary of the Saffron Revolution all available means will be used to pressure the SPDC government,” he said.
“First, we will make our demands peacefully. If that does not succeed, the follow-up action will depend on the situation.”
Security has been tightened in Taunggok since the evening of the youth meeting and authorities have been monitoring the homes of the 43 young people who were arrested on the 8888 anniversary, the Arakan youth representative said. (JEG's: very wise, there is where the economy goes, monitoring people instead of feeding them or providing healthcare)
Reporting by Yee May Aung
Riot police clash with youths in Sittwe
Aug 25, 2008 (DVB)–A soldier from the riot police was killed and two others hospitalised after a fight broke out between the officers and about 30 local youths in the Arakan state capital Sittwe, locals said.
A Sittwe resident said the fight had started on Friday at around 9pm after police officers became abusive towards locals in Kathe ward.
“On that day, the three riot police personnel were drunk and they came to the ward and started shouting profanities at people around and chasing them around,” the resident said.
“So the local youths in the neighbourhood lost patience and came out of the ward and started beating them up,” he said.
“As of [yesterday], there is a military and police presence at every electricity pole and also heavy security in the wards near monasteries.”
Lieutenant Saw Myo Htun was killed on the spot, while sergeant Zayar Thaw and another unidentified sergeant were admitted to Sittwe hospital’s emergency unit.
The three were from riot police battalion 12, which is stationed in the Lawka Nandar pagoda compound.
After the incident, three military trucks came to Kathe ward and surrounded the neighbourhood while military personnel went round the houses of the youths who were involved in the fight.
When they were unable to find the young people, they arrested women from their families and elderly relatives instead.
Three youths turned themselves in at the police station on Saturday morning, but some of the family members remain in detention in Sittwe police station 1.
Sittwe police station 1 and officials at Naypyidaw were unavailable for comment.
Authorities are said to be particularly conscious of security in the run-up to the anniversary of the Saffron Revolution, and there have been rumours around the town that monks are planning to start new protests.
The area where the fight took place is close to monasteries where protests began on 28 August last year.
The heavy security presence remained as of Sunday evening, and locals described the atmosphere as tense.
Reporting by Htet Aung Kyaw
A Sittwe resident said the fight had started on Friday at around 9pm after police officers became abusive towards locals in Kathe ward.
“On that day, the three riot police personnel were drunk and they came to the ward and started shouting profanities at people around and chasing them around,” the resident said.
“So the local youths in the neighbourhood lost patience and came out of the ward and started beating them up,” he said.
“As of [yesterday], there is a military and police presence at every electricity pole and also heavy security in the wards near monasteries.”
Lieutenant Saw Myo Htun was killed on the spot, while sergeant Zayar Thaw and another unidentified sergeant were admitted to Sittwe hospital’s emergency unit.
The three were from riot police battalion 12, which is stationed in the Lawka Nandar pagoda compound.
After the incident, three military trucks came to Kathe ward and surrounded the neighbourhood while military personnel went round the houses of the youths who were involved in the fight.
When they were unable to find the young people, they arrested women from their families and elderly relatives instead.
Three youths turned themselves in at the police station on Saturday morning, but some of the family members remain in detention in Sittwe police station 1.
Sittwe police station 1 and officials at Naypyidaw were unavailable for comment.
Authorities are said to be particularly conscious of security in the run-up to the anniversary of the Saffron Revolution, and there have been rumours around the town that monks are planning to start new protests.
The area where the fight took place is close to monasteries where protests began on 28 August last year.
The heavy security presence remained as of Sunday evening, and locals described the atmosphere as tense.
Reporting by Htet Aung Kyaw
Former Maggin abbot banned from collecting alms
Aug 25, 2008 (DVB)–Elderly monk U Nandiya, who was forced out of Maggin monastery when it was closed down in November last year, has been prevented from collecting alms by local authorities.
U Nandiya was the temporary head monk at Maggin monastery at the time of its closure on 29 November last year, having taken over when his son, the previous abbot, was arrested.
U Nandiya was forced to leave Maggin monastery and was sent to Myo Thit in Taungdwingyi township, Magwe division.
Ko Aung Ko, a resident of Taungdwingyi, said the pressure from the authorities had made it difficult for U Nandiya to support himself.
"The monk is facing a lot of trouble receiving alms from villagers as he has been forbidden from doing that by the local authorities who are also pressuring villagers not to donate anything to him," Ko Aung Ko said.
"He is very miserable at his age with no one to take care of him and provide him with medical support."
Residents said the monk had been finding ways to make ends meet, but was still struggling due to the authorities’ restrictions.
U Nandiya is currently staying in a monastery compound in Shwe Kyaung Gon village.
Reporting by Yee May Aung
U Nandiya was the temporary head monk at Maggin monastery at the time of its closure on 29 November last year, having taken over when his son, the previous abbot, was arrested.
U Nandiya was forced to leave Maggin monastery and was sent to Myo Thit in Taungdwingyi township, Magwe division.
Ko Aung Ko, a resident of Taungdwingyi, said the pressure from the authorities had made it difficult for U Nandiya to support himself.
"The monk is facing a lot of trouble receiving alms from villagers as he has been forbidden from doing that by the local authorities who are also pressuring villagers not to donate anything to him," Ko Aung Ko said.
"He is very miserable at his age with no one to take care of him and provide him with medical support."
Residents said the monk had been finding ways to make ends meet, but was still struggling due to the authorities’ restrictions.
U Nandiya is currently staying in a monastery compound in Shwe Kyaung Gon village.
Reporting by Yee May Aung
Authorities extort money from cyclone victims
Aug 25, 2008 (DVB)–Villagers in Irrawaddy division have complained that local authorities have continued to extort money from cyclone victims under various pretexts, despite a letter of complaint they sent to SPDC leaders to report the practice.
U Than Zin, chairman of Mangay Kalay village Peace and Development Council in Dadaye township, PDC members and U Khin Kyaw (also known as U Htin Kyaw) of the township land survey department extorted money from villagers for receiving aid from donors.
U Ba Kyi, a farmer from Mangay Kalay, said locals had been forced to pay for diesel fuel that had been donated to them.
“There were 1383 gallons of diesel, and they collected 500 kyat a gallon from us – so 919,000 kyat,” U Ba Kyi said.
“But these were actually given to us as donations.”
U Ba Kyi said each household was also told to pay money to help cyclone victims.
“They collected 500 kyat each from 432 families on the pretext of helping the storm victims,” he said.
“We had to pay 216,000 each time and we had to pay four times, totaling around 864,000.”
The authorities reportedly told villagers they needed to collect money to fund the accommodation and hospitality for donors.
“Not satisfied with that, they collected 8000 kyat each from 212 farmers in order to buy fertiliser from the state agricultural organisation – 742 bags of fertilizers – amounting to exactly 1,696,000,” U Ba Kyi said.
“They have been misappropriating the money they have collected.”
The villagers sent their letter of complaint, which they had each signed and given their national identity card number, to junta leader senior general Than Shwe, prime minister general Thein Sein, the social and relocation minister and hotel and tourism minister, and the commander of Western Command, but no action has so far been taken by the authorities.
Similarly in Talokehtaw village in Rangoon division’s Twante township, the village authority chairman and members of the Union Solidarity and Development Association and the Women’s Affairs Federation have been profiting from aid, a villager told DVB.
“In Twante’s Talokehtaw village, when they’re distributing rice or medicine, there have been incidents when they have failed to give out the aid or extorted money,” the villager said.
The villager said that goods had mainly been distributed to people who supported the authorities, while others had to pay to receive materials.
“One day, they gave things out using a raffle ticket system, but each house had to pay 300 kyat to enter the raffle,” the villager said.
“Even if you won something you had to pay 1500 kyat [to receive it],” he said.
“U Maung Thaung, U Aye Thaung and Daw Cho are the main people involved in that.”
Reporting by Aye Nai
U Than Zin, chairman of Mangay Kalay village Peace and Development Council in Dadaye township, PDC members and U Khin Kyaw (also known as U Htin Kyaw) of the township land survey department extorted money from villagers for receiving aid from donors.
U Ba Kyi, a farmer from Mangay Kalay, said locals had been forced to pay for diesel fuel that had been donated to them.
“There were 1383 gallons of diesel, and they collected 500 kyat a gallon from us – so 919,000 kyat,” U Ba Kyi said.
“But these were actually given to us as donations.”
U Ba Kyi said each household was also told to pay money to help cyclone victims.
“They collected 500 kyat each from 432 families on the pretext of helping the storm victims,” he said.
“We had to pay 216,000 each time and we had to pay four times, totaling around 864,000.”
The authorities reportedly told villagers they needed to collect money to fund the accommodation and hospitality for donors.
“Not satisfied with that, they collected 8000 kyat each from 212 farmers in order to buy fertiliser from the state agricultural organisation – 742 bags of fertilizers – amounting to exactly 1,696,000,” U Ba Kyi said.
“They have been misappropriating the money they have collected.”
The villagers sent their letter of complaint, which they had each signed and given their national identity card number, to junta leader senior general Than Shwe, prime minister general Thein Sein, the social and relocation minister and hotel and tourism minister, and the commander of Western Command, but no action has so far been taken by the authorities.
Similarly in Talokehtaw village in Rangoon division’s Twante township, the village authority chairman and members of the Union Solidarity and Development Association and the Women’s Affairs Federation have been profiting from aid, a villager told DVB.
“In Twante’s Talokehtaw village, when they’re distributing rice or medicine, there have been incidents when they have failed to give out the aid or extorted money,” the villager said.
The villager said that goods had mainly been distributed to people who supported the authorities, while others had to pay to receive materials.
“One day, they gave things out using a raffle ticket system, but each house had to pay 300 kyat to enter the raffle,” the villager said.
“Even if you won something you had to pay 1500 kyat [to receive it],” he said.
“U Maung Thaung, U Aye Thaung and Daw Cho are the main people involved in that.”
Reporting by Aye Nai
Burmese Protests Not Allowed in Singapore
By MIN LWIN
The Irrawaddy News
Myo Tun, one of three Burmese activists who took part in political activities in Singapore, says “Now I have no future.” He is among three activists who were ordered to leave Singapore for demonstrating against the junta.
On August 2, the Singapore government declined to renew visas permits or extensions for Myo Tun and two other Burmese activists for participating in public protests illegally.
Public demonstrations are not allowed in Singapore without a police permit.
In addition to Myo Tun, Soe Thiha and Hlaing Moe were also forced to leave the country. Myo Tun had resided in Singapore for nine years.
The activists were part of a larger group of people who demonstrated against the Burmese junta in November 2007 during the Asean Summit meeting in Singapore.
“I didn’t break any of Singapore’s criminal laws,” Myo Tun said. “The Singapore government’s treatment of us was unjustified.”
Myo Tun, 38, was jailed three times in Burma as a political prisoner following the 1988 pro-democracy uprising. “It is apparent the Singapore authorities wanted to punish Burmese activists for working for democracy in Burma,” he said.
Burmese activists who are long-time residents of Singapore stepped up their pro-democracy activities following the September 2007 uprising.
In April and May of this year, activists staged demonstrations in front of the Burmese embassy in Singapore against the new constitution.
Hlaing Moe, a part-time student who is now living in Malaysia, said Burmese activists did not commit any crimes against Singaporean law.
“The Singapore Immigration and Checkpoint Authorities didn’t give any reason or explanation for rejecting the renewals or extensions of our visas and permits,” he said.
Kyaw Soe, a member of the Overseas Burmese Patriots (OBP), a group of about 50 Burmese activists, said nine other activists, all permanent residents of Singapore, who participated in public protests in November are not sure their future.
“The Singapore government forced me to leave Singapore as quickly as possible,” Kyaw Soe told The Irrawaddy on Monday.
Meanwhile, The Strait Times newspaper reported on Saturday that Singapore's Ministry of Home Affairs has warned Burmese political activists not to ignore repeated police orders to stop illegal public protests and anti-Burma activities.
A ministry spokesperson said that the right of a foreign national to work or stay in Singapore is not a matter of entitlement or a right to be secured by political demand and public pressure, and the activists repeatedly ignored requests from government officials to meet to discuss the group's conduct, according to the newspaper.
A spokesperson singled out the OBP which he said “has chosen to [conduct demonstrations] in open and in persistent defiance of our laws.”
The Irrawaddy News
Myo Tun, one of three Burmese activists who took part in political activities in Singapore, says “Now I have no future.” He is among three activists who were ordered to leave Singapore for demonstrating against the junta.
On August 2, the Singapore government declined to renew visas permits or extensions for Myo Tun and two other Burmese activists for participating in public protests illegally.
Public demonstrations are not allowed in Singapore without a police permit.
In addition to Myo Tun, Soe Thiha and Hlaing Moe were also forced to leave the country. Myo Tun had resided in Singapore for nine years.
The activists were part of a larger group of people who demonstrated against the Burmese junta in November 2007 during the Asean Summit meeting in Singapore.
“I didn’t break any of Singapore’s criminal laws,” Myo Tun said. “The Singapore government’s treatment of us was unjustified.”
Myo Tun, 38, was jailed three times in Burma as a political prisoner following the 1988 pro-democracy uprising. “It is apparent the Singapore authorities wanted to punish Burmese activists for working for democracy in Burma,” he said.
Burmese activists who are long-time residents of Singapore stepped up their pro-democracy activities following the September 2007 uprising.
In April and May of this year, activists staged demonstrations in front of the Burmese embassy in Singapore against the new constitution.
Hlaing Moe, a part-time student who is now living in Malaysia, said Burmese activists did not commit any crimes against Singaporean law.
“The Singapore Immigration and Checkpoint Authorities didn’t give any reason or explanation for rejecting the renewals or extensions of our visas and permits,” he said.
Kyaw Soe, a member of the Overseas Burmese Patriots (OBP), a group of about 50 Burmese activists, said nine other activists, all permanent residents of Singapore, who participated in public protests in November are not sure their future.
“The Singapore government forced me to leave Singapore as quickly as possible,” Kyaw Soe told The Irrawaddy on Monday.
Meanwhile, The Strait Times newspaper reported on Saturday that Singapore's Ministry of Home Affairs has warned Burmese political activists not to ignore repeated police orders to stop illegal public protests and anti-Burma activities.
A ministry spokesperson said that the right of a foreign national to work or stay in Singapore is not a matter of entitlement or a right to be secured by political demand and public pressure, and the activists repeatedly ignored requests from government officials to meet to discuss the group's conduct, according to the newspaper.
A spokesperson singled out the OBP which he said “has chosen to [conduct demonstrations] in open and in persistent defiance of our laws.”
Cyclone Victims Turn to Towns for Handouts
A woman walks amongst the debris of homes still being occupied in the Irrawaddy Delta. (Photo: AFP)By AUNG THET WINE
The Irrawaddy News
RANGOON — Economic hardships have forced a growing number of survivors of Cyclone Nargis to leave their homes in rural parts of the Irrawaddy delta to seek assistance in Rangoon and other urban centers, according to local sources.
“I came to Rangoon to look for donors,” said a 50-year-old man from Kyone Chin, a village in Dedaye Township. “We don’t have enough food in our village, and our farming and fishing businesses have still not recovered. We need assistance badly.”
Kyone Chin village lost 50 of its 1,400 inhabitants and ninety percent of its structures in the deadly cyclone, according to the man. He added that food supplies and other assistance from UN agencies and the government have been dwindling over time.
“The whole village was terribly destroyed. The worst thing is that now we are facing hunger,” he said, explaining why he had come to Rangoon to find support for his village.
Private donors played an important role in the early stages of the relief effort, but nearly four months later, their numbers have fallen. Due in part to government efforts to control movements in the cyclone-stricken region, few trucks carrying privately donated relief supplies are now reaching remote villages, say local people.
Other cyclone-hit villages in Dedaye Township, including Leik Kyun, Hmae Bi, Lay Ywa, Mae Kanan, Taw Pone and Yae Pu Wa, are also facing severe shortages of foodstuffs and other basic supplies, according to local residents.
They are not alone in waiting for aid. A volunteer from Rangoon who has been involved in relief and rebuilding efforts in the delta said that many villages in Kungyangone Township, including Taw Kha Yan Gyi, Taw Kha Yan Kalay, Mayan, Maezali and Hti Pha, are also desperate for additional assistance.
“The situation is hard to say,” said the volunteer. “They do get a little assistance from the government and they have received some from UN agencies. But it’s not enough.
“There are still many people living under make-shift temporary shelters constructed with bamboo posts and tarpaulins sheets. Some can’t get rice to eat, so they are just surviving on what little food is available to them,” the volunteer added.
A local journalist who recently returned from Laputta Township said that farmers there were also struggling, as seeds planted late in the season have not been growing well. Fishermen are also worried about their future food security, as poor-quality nets and boats provided by the government have proven to be almost useless.
“In Laputta, there is no immediate concern about rice, since it is mainly provided by the UN,” said the journalist. “The problem is with rebuilding livelihoods. The farmers are not doing well because the tillers provided by the government are often broken, and seeds are not growing properly. Fishermen also have trouble because the boats they received after the cyclone often need fixing, and the nets are useless for fishing.”
The journalist added that much of the aid that does reach some of the more remote villages soon ends up in the hands of village officials, as little effort has been made to rein in widespread corruption.
Meanwhile, in Mawlamyainggyun Township, there are also reports of severe food shortages in the villages of Yae Twin Kone, Pet Pyae, Ta Zaung, Alae Yae Kyaw, Myit Kyi Toe and Pya Leik.
According to a resident of Alae Yae Kyaw, some local villages have sent small groups to Laputta to appeal for aid from local relief organizations based there. The results of their efforts have been disappointing, however.
“When we asked an NGO in Laputta for assistance, they provided just 3 pyi (about 750 ml) of rice per person for the whole month.”
Little aid ever reaches the villages of Mawlamyainggyun Township because of their inaccessibility. Villages located on the boundary of Mawlamyainggyun and Laputta townships, such as Yae Twin Kone, Pet Pyae, Ta Zaung, Alae Yae Kyaw, Myit Kyi Toe and Pya Leik, are especially deprived because they can only be reached by chartered boats and are reportedly not on the government’s list of villages eligible for support.
If villagers in these areas do not receive aid to rebuild their lives soon, the hunger and destitution they face now could result in more severe problems in the future, said a local volunteer who has witnessed the situation.
“Unless they receive some means of surviving, the hunger of these villagers could lead to killings and robbing. If we can’t heal a small sore now, we may face more serious harm in the long run,” said the volunteer.
Suu Kyi Refuses to Accept Food: Exiled NLD
The Irrawaddy News - Detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi refused to accept a food delivery to her home one week ago, according to the exiled National League for Democracy-Liberated Area. It isn’t clear if she has started a hunger strike.
The exiled group released a statement on Monday saying that Suu Kyi has refused to accept food from members of her party for nine days.
However, the NLD headquarters in Rangoon has yet to confirm the news. Nyan Win, a spokesperson for the NLD, told The Irrawaddy on Monday that the party was trying to confirm the report.
Suu Kyi told an NLD member, Myint Soe, who regularly delivers her food not to bring any more after the middle of this month, according to her family lawyer, Kyi Win, who was allowed to meet her twice on August 8 and 17 to discuss legal issues surrounding her continued detention.
One senior NLD member in Rangoon also said that Suu Kyi had a plan to “cut food supplies” unless her demands to meet her lawyer for further discussions were met by the military authorities.
Suu Kyi was concerned with restrictions imposed on her by the regime, the lawyer told The Irrawaddy over the phone from Rangoon on Monday.
The lawyer explained that under restriction (a), Suu Kyi is not allowed to meet and hold talks with diplomats or political organizations. Under restriction (b), she is not allowed to leave her house.
Under these restrictions, Suu Kyi could not, according to the regime’s own rules, meet Gambari or any visiting UN envoys. Kyi Win said that the way the UN officials called her to come out of her house with a loudspeaker would have forced her to violate the restrictions.
Two of Gambari’s aides shouted with a bullhorn in front of Suu Kyi’s house that the envoy wanted to meet her last Friday, the last scheduled day of his sixth visit to Burma for national reconciliation talks between the regime and the NLD. Gambari later added a day to his trip.
Observers said that Suu Kyi’s refusal to meet the UN envoy last week showed her disappointment with his failed attempts to broker a solution to the country’s decades-old political standoff.
Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for 13 of the past 19 years. During most of this time, her food has been supplied exclusively by her colleagues.
In 2003, soon after Suu Kyi’s motorcade was attacked by junta-backed thugs in Upper Burma, the US State Department said that she had started a hunger strike.
The exiled group released a statement on Monday saying that Suu Kyi has refused to accept food from members of her party for nine days.
However, the NLD headquarters in Rangoon has yet to confirm the news. Nyan Win, a spokesperson for the NLD, told The Irrawaddy on Monday that the party was trying to confirm the report.
Suu Kyi told an NLD member, Myint Soe, who regularly delivers her food not to bring any more after the middle of this month, according to her family lawyer, Kyi Win, who was allowed to meet her twice on August 8 and 17 to discuss legal issues surrounding her continued detention.
One senior NLD member in Rangoon also said that Suu Kyi had a plan to “cut food supplies” unless her demands to meet her lawyer for further discussions were met by the military authorities.
Suu Kyi was concerned with restrictions imposed on her by the regime, the lawyer told The Irrawaddy over the phone from Rangoon on Monday.
The lawyer explained that under restriction (a), Suu Kyi is not allowed to meet and hold talks with diplomats or political organizations. Under restriction (b), she is not allowed to leave her house.
Under these restrictions, Suu Kyi could not, according to the regime’s own rules, meet Gambari or any visiting UN envoys. Kyi Win said that the way the UN officials called her to come out of her house with a loudspeaker would have forced her to violate the restrictions.
Two of Gambari’s aides shouted with a bullhorn in front of Suu Kyi’s house that the envoy wanted to meet her last Friday, the last scheduled day of his sixth visit to Burma for national reconciliation talks between the regime and the NLD. Gambari later added a day to his trip.
Observers said that Suu Kyi’s refusal to meet the UN envoy last week showed her disappointment with his failed attempts to broker a solution to the country’s decades-old political standoff.
Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for 13 of the past 19 years. During most of this time, her food has been supplied exclusively by her colleagues.
In 2003, soon after Suu Kyi’s motorcade was attacked by junta-backed thugs in Upper Burma, the US State Department said that she had started a hunger strike.
UN wants to continue mission
UNITED NATIONS (ST)- THE UN said on Monday it wanted to continue its good offices mission in Myanmar and refused to say why special envoy Ibrahim Gambari failed to meet with pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi during his recent trip.
A UN spokeswoman said that Ms Aung San Suu Kyi, who is under house arrest, was unable to attend a scheduled meeting with Mr Gambari but that the UN envoy met members of the National League for Democracy (NLD), the opposition party she leads.
'It was Mr Gambari's intention to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, as he did on all previous visits, and the government made arrangements for such a meeting,' Ms Marie Okabe said.
'To his regret, the meeting did not take place. We are not going to speculate as to why she was not able to attend the meeting, but Mr Gambari did meet the NLD party twice.' Mr Okabe warned against judging the Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon's good offices mission by one individual visit.
'We have been saying all along that the Secretary-General's good offices is a process, not an event,' she said. 'One should not make judgment on the process based on each individual visit.'
'The Secretary-General has made clear upon returning from his own visits that he expects his good offices to deepen and broaden through the continued engagement of his special advisor.'
Asked when Mr Ban himself would make another visit to Myanmar, Ms Okabe said the UN chief had 'expressed his intention to go back when conditions are right,' and that part of Mr Gambari's mission was to prepare for any future visit by the secretary general.
Mr Gambari visited Myanmar on August 18-23, in an attempt to restart dialogue between Ms Aung San Suu Kyi and the ruling military regime. He was unable to meet with senior figures in the regime but held talks with the prime minister.
A spokesman for the NLD called Gambari's visit 'a waste of time.' -- AFP
A UN spokeswoman said that Ms Aung San Suu Kyi, who is under house arrest, was unable to attend a scheduled meeting with Mr Gambari but that the UN envoy met members of the National League for Democracy (NLD), the opposition party she leads.
'It was Mr Gambari's intention to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, as he did on all previous visits, and the government made arrangements for such a meeting,' Ms Marie Okabe said.
'To his regret, the meeting did not take place. We are not going to speculate as to why she was not able to attend the meeting, but Mr Gambari did meet the NLD party twice.' Mr Okabe warned against judging the Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon's good offices mission by one individual visit.
'We have been saying all along that the Secretary-General's good offices is a process, not an event,' she said. 'One should not make judgment on the process based on each individual visit.'
'The Secretary-General has made clear upon returning from his own visits that he expects his good offices to deepen and broaden through the continued engagement of his special advisor.'
Asked when Mr Ban himself would make another visit to Myanmar, Ms Okabe said the UN chief had 'expressed his intention to go back when conditions are right,' and that part of Mr Gambari's mission was to prepare for any future visit by the secretary general.
Mr Gambari visited Myanmar on August 18-23, in an attempt to restart dialogue between Ms Aung San Suu Kyi and the ruling military regime. He was unable to meet with senior figures in the regime but held talks with the prime minister.
A spokesman for the NLD called Gambari's visit 'a waste of time.' -- AFP
Aiding Burma's Recovery
VOA - 24 August 2008
Aiding Burma's Recovery - Download (MP3)
Aiding Burma's Recovery - Listen to (MP3)
As Burma recovers from the devastation of the May 2nd, Cyclone Nargis, the United States and other international donors continue to provide needed help. The worst disaster in Burma's recorded history, Cyclone Nargis killed up to one-hundred-thousand people. Thousands more are still missing. Damage is estimated at over four-billion dollars.
Relief agency officials say that by now almost all of the more than two-million survivors of the storm and seawater surge have received some food aid. About half of the estimated four-hundred-eighty-eight-thousand households have received some building materials. But the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that despite the delivery of more than twenty-five-thousand tons of food assistance, people in remote areas, "are still living in dire conditions."
To help those most in need, the U.S. Agency for International Development is supporting nonprofit partners, such as Church World Service and the Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development, a non-governmental organization based in France, to resume agriculture and other kinds work in vulnerable areas.
Already, eight-hundred drinking ponds that were fouled with salt water have been filtered and cleared of debris, dead animals, and, most tragic, human bodies. Work is underway to repair nine-hundred schools and establish four-hundred temporary safe learning places for sixty-thousand children.
Relief workers are distributing fishing nets as well as seeds and other agricultural inputs in time for the monsoon-planting season, which will end this month. After a tardy response that put many Burmese at risk, the Burmese government has gradually opened the country to outside help.
The U.S. government has given fifty-million dollars in disaster aid to Burma. From May 12 to June 22, the U.S. flew one-hundred-eighty-five airlifts of U.S., Thai, United Nations and non-governmental organization relief supplies from Thailand to Burma. At an August 7 meeting with Burmese democracy activists during his visit to Bangkok, Thailand, President George W. Bush said he is "pleased that a lot of the aid that we paid for is actually getting to the people themselves."
Aiding Burma's Recovery - Download (MP3)
Aiding Burma's Recovery - Listen to (MP3)
As Burma recovers from the devastation of the May 2nd, Cyclone Nargis, the United States and other international donors continue to provide needed help. The worst disaster in Burma's recorded history, Cyclone Nargis killed up to one-hundred-thousand people. Thousands more are still missing. Damage is estimated at over four-billion dollars.
Relief agency officials say that by now almost all of the more than two-million survivors of the storm and seawater surge have received some food aid. About half of the estimated four-hundred-eighty-eight-thousand households have received some building materials. But the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that despite the delivery of more than twenty-five-thousand tons of food assistance, people in remote areas, "are still living in dire conditions."
To help those most in need, the U.S. Agency for International Development is supporting nonprofit partners, such as Church World Service and the Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development, a non-governmental organization based in France, to resume agriculture and other kinds work in vulnerable areas.
Already, eight-hundred drinking ponds that were fouled with salt water have been filtered and cleared of debris, dead animals, and, most tragic, human bodies. Work is underway to repair nine-hundred schools and establish four-hundred temporary safe learning places for sixty-thousand children.
Relief workers are distributing fishing nets as well as seeds and other agricultural inputs in time for the monsoon-planting season, which will end this month. After a tardy response that put many Burmese at risk, the Burmese government has gradually opened the country to outside help.
The U.S. government has given fifty-million dollars in disaster aid to Burma. From May 12 to June 22, the U.S. flew one-hundred-eighty-five airlifts of U.S., Thai, United Nations and non-governmental organization relief supplies from Thailand to Burma. At an August 7 meeting with Burmese democracy activists during his visit to Bangkok, Thailand, President George W. Bush said he is "pleased that a lot of the aid that we paid for is actually getting to the people themselves."
Will it be A Paper Tiger?
Prof. Kanbawza Win
(Asian Tribune) - The UN's special envoy Ibrahim Gambari's fourth visit to Burma had come to a dead end and left the country empty-handed. Even Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, has refused to see him knowing full well that nothing would come out of it as his actions speaks more louder than words. From the very beginning why was he chosen? A man bent on keeping his job rather than laying down the platforms for trouble shooting was proven, when he did not have the guts to tell the Generals face to face but instead chose to make a public statement appealing military leaders to put aside their differences and work together on national reconciliation. This infuriated the regime.
Choosing the wrong man at the wrong time had a snowball effect and now his failure to accomplish anything at all, raises serious doubts about the future role of the UN and its mediation efforts in Burma. In other words has the UN become a paper tiger that cannot roar or bite?
If Gambari, is trying to prepare the ground for the forthcoming visit of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon before Christmas "to deal solely on country's political situation," as declared, then he has done his job very badly and is bound to fail, as there is not a single teeth in the tiger. The Secretary General’s first trip in May was met by the supremo Than Shwe, only because he concentrated on relief and reconstruction in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, where the regime demanded 11 billion dollars most of which will line their pockets and let the people die. Mr Ban Ki-Moon will have to make it very clear the hypothesis of either or if the UN were to have some semblance in Burma or elsewhere in the world.
The Backdrop
The Afro-Asian countries, which have thrown the yoke of colonialism, construe humanitarian intervention, as the most sinister plot of imperialist power and a grave threat to their sovereignty. Can nations, acting through the UN Security Council, fulfil a “responsibility to protect” innocent civilians? Or is such a doctrine of a Trojan horse for great power abuse and more mendacity? Are just some of the common questions often asks. No doubt when nations send their military forces it is not only “humanitarian” purposes but often than not pursue their narrow national interest – grabbing territory, gaining geo-strategic advantage, or seizing control of precious natural resources. Leaders hope to win public support by describing such actions in terms of high moral purposes – bringing peace, justice, democracy and civilization to the affected area. In the era of colonialism, European governments all cynically insisted that they acted to promote such higher commitments – the “white man’s burden,” “la mission civilisatrice,” and the likes. There have been some instances in the recent past where countries have opened up to outside aid in the aftermath of natural disasters, but sovereignty remains a sticking point. However, the Burmese case is different.
Even though the UN Charter does not say anything about intervention in matters relating to domestic jurisdiction of any state, the Genocide Convention of 1948 also overrode the nonintervention principle to lay down the commitment of the world community to prevent and punish. Yet inaction in response to the Rwanda genocide in 1994 and failure to halt the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia highlight the complexities of international responses to crimes against humanity, and now the case of Burma is clearly on that category.
In 2000, the Canadian government and several other actors announced the establishment of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) to address the challenge of the international community's responsibility to act in the face of the gravest of human rights violations, while respecting the sovereignty of states. It sought to bridge these two concepts with the 2001 Responsibility to Protect (R2P) report.
A year later, the co-chairs of the commission, wrote: "If the international community is to respond to this challenge, the whole debate must be turned on its head. The issue must be reframed not as an argument about the 'right to intervene' but about the 'responsibility to protect.'" (See Foreign Affairs) The document says it was every state's responsibility to protect its citizens from "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." If a state fails to do so, the document says, it then becomes the responsibility of the international community to protect that state's population. This document was unanimously adopted by all member states but is not legally binding. The doctrine was hailed by international affairs specialists as a new dawn for peace and security marking the end of a 350-year period in which the inviolability of borders and the monopoly of force within one's own borders were sovereignty's formal hallmarks. This adoption begins to resolve the historic tension between human rights and states' rights in favor of the individual.
The Burmese Case
Following Burma’s cyclone the regime was incapable of providing relief to millions of affected citizens and it refused to let in international aid and aid workers at the most crucial period and let the people die. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner suggested the United Nations invoke the R2P doctrine as the basis for a resolution to allow the delivery of international aid even without the Junta’s permission. But the French proposal faced opposition from Security Council members Russia, China, and South Africa. China's UN ambassador, Liu Zhenmin, argued it was not an issue for the Security Council.
Some contend that R2P is a Western or Northern invention, being imposed on the global South. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the first two African Secretaries-General of the United Nations -- Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan -- who first explored evolving notions of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. And now it is the turn of an Asian Ban Ki-moon to follow it up to the predecessor’s footsteps and implement it in Burma.
Please recollect that it was the African Union has been explicit: in the year 2000, five years before the Summit declaration, the African Union asserted “the right of the Union to intervene in a member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely: war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity” Hence it is not at all that the right of intervention is a Western notion.
Equally incorrect is the assumption that the responsibility to protect is in contradiction to sovereignty. Properly understood, R2P is an ally of sovereignty, not an adversary. Strong States protect their people, while weak ones are either unwilling or unable to do so. Protection was one of the core purposes of the formation of States and the Westphalian system. By helping States meet one of their core responsibilities, R2P seeks to strengthen sovereignty, not weaken it. This clearly indicates that the Chinese ambassador to the UN Liu Zhenmin’s argument that Burma is not an issue of the UN Security Council is totally wrong. Every intelligent Burmese knows that this is part and parcel of the Chinese Communist imperialistic design for the whole of Southeast Asia. The definition of the R2P has clearly defined that "overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes, where the state concerned is either unwilling or unable to cope, or call for assistance, and significant loss of life is occurring or threatened."
Again the proponents of the doctrine say another way to raise pressure for action in Burma is to focus on rebuilding the country. Those who helped write the 2001 report emphasized that R2P embraced not just the "responsibility to react" but the "responsibility to prevent" and the "responsibility to rebuild" as well. If so has any of these responsibilities has been accepted by the Burmese military Junta? For the Burmese government is unlikely to handle reconstruction responsibly given its lack of concern over immediate assistance for cyclone victims. For two decades it has proven beyond doubt that it has no policy whatever (domestic or foreign) but to continue to stay in power by hook or by crook.
If Burma were to be compared with other countries, the question arises whether the Burmese Generals have a human heart at all or just power maniacs. In the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, one of the worst-hit areas was Indonesia's Aceh Province, where the government had been fighting a secessionist movement for more than four decades. The province, under martial law, was off-limits for most international human rights groups, aid organizations, and reporters. But after initial hesitation, the Indonesian government allowed international aid in what Elizabeth Ferris and Lex Rieffel label as "one of the largest disaster recovery and reconstruction efforts in modern times, as well as the peace agreement which led to the election of a former secessionist leader as governor of the province."
Similarly, after a powerful 2005earthquake rocked the long-disputed Kashmir region dividing India and Pakistan, the Pakistani government decided to give access to international relief agencies. Moreover, it accepted food and relief aid from neighboring India, with which it has fought three wars over Kashmir. The move was significant enough for regional experts to ask if this could lead to peace. More recently, an earthquake in China's Sichuan Province in May 2008 led Beijing to make unprecedented moves to open up. The Chinese government, which in the past has spurned foreign aid, accepted international aid publicly, opened a hotline for the U.S. military to have increased communication with its Chinese counterparts, and eased media restrictions. Yet when it comes to Burma the international community bow down to the Illogical argument of the Burmese Generals, Why? Is it because of the Hypocritical Chinese Dragon breathing smoke over it?
In the past two decades, more than 200 million people per year have been affected by natural disasters, "As the earth’s population increases and its atmosphere warms, floods, typhoons and hurricanes will undoubtedly occur more often, and will certainly have political consequences," according to Ferris and Rieffel of Brookings. At present the world community has limited options for responding to these humanitarian crises. UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182 formed guiding principles for the international community's response to humanitarian disasters and was central to the establishment of the office of the UN emergency relief coordinator and the development of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee. Why it is not implemented in the Burmese case?
It is to be admitted that ASEAN played an active role in changing the bull headed Burmese Generals, to let in international aid after the initial refusal, experts say. But "if our methods short of armed force have no impact and we are not willing to threaten to use military action, there are no good options," says Stewart M. Patrick, CFR senior fellow and director of the program on international institutions and global governance. The UN Secretary General on this trip must make it very clear to the Burmese men in uniform that in the political negotiations that if they continue to do as the last two decades they will have to face military action and short of nothing else.
Some people argue that the government may be guilty is a crime of omission rather than commission and that in matters of humanitarian disasters everyone's first concern is for the victims and if one chooses to use force assistance would only make the victims worse off as. But one must remember that Burma is unique, the Generals are notoriously cunning, skilful manipulators, cruel and insincere. They are treating the people much worse than cyclone Nagris? Hence the use of armed forces by the UN is very justified not only for the people of Burma which are desperate but also for the geopolitical factors, including the relevance of the country to the world community, regional stability, and the attitudes of other major players. If there is a big wound the best thing to cure is taking the pus out by a surgeon’s knife (military action) then followed by medication. I recollect David Rieff‘s writings "Use any euphemism you wish, but in the end these interventions have to be about regime change if they are to have any chance of accomplishing their stated goal." ( New York Times Magazine).
Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
R2P is not a new code for humanitarian intervention. Rather, it is built on a more positive and affirmative concept of sovereignty as responsibility -- a concept to be distinguished from its conceptual cousin, human security. The latter, who is broader, posits that policy should take into account the security of people, not just of States, across the whole range of possible threats. Besides this concept of responsibility to protect is more firmly anchored in current international law and adopted by the 2005 World Summit and was subsequently endorsed by both the General Assembly and Security Council. R2P was successfully tested for the first time earlier this year following the elections in Kenya. The combined efforts of the African Union, influential Member States, the United Nations and the esteemed predecessor, Kofi Annan, were instrumental in curbing the post-election violence. As the 2005 Summit recognized, there are times when persuasion and peaceful measures fall short. Then a big stick of military action becomes inevitable.
It is the Secretary General’s obligation that United Nations rules, procedures and practices are developed in line with this bold declaration. In other words, the responsibility to protect does not alter the legal obligation of Member States to refrain from the use of force except in conformity with the Charter. Rather, it reinforces this obligation. By bolstering United Nations prevention, protection, response and rebuilding mechanisms, R2P seeks to enhance the rule of law and expand multilateral options. We know that the United Nations was built on ideas, ideals and aspirations, not on quick fixes, sure things or cynical calculations. Burma has been tried for the last two decades and found it is wanting. But the people of Burma have, nevertheless, kept their faith in the UN because it never tires of trying to accomplish the impossible.
The successive humanitarian disasters in Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Kosovo and now Darfur, Sudan, have concentrated attention not on the immunities of sovereign Governments but their responsibilities, both to their own people and to the wider international community.
There is a growing recognition that the issue is not the “right to intervene” of any State, but the “responsibility to protect” of every State when it comes to people suffering from avoidable catastrophe — mass murder and rape, ethnic cleansing by forcible expulsion and terror, and deliberate starvation and exposure to disease. And there is a growing acceptance that while sovereign Governments have the primary responsibility to protect their own citizens from such catastrophes, when they are unable or unwilling to do so that responsibility should be taken up by the wider international community — with it spanning a continuum involving prevention, response to violence, if necessary, and rebuilding shattered societies. The primary focus should be on assisting the cessation of violence through mediation and other tools and the protection of people through such measures as the dispatch of humanitarian, human rights and police missions. Force, if it needs to be used, should be deployed as a last resort as it is clear in the case of Burma.
The UN so far has been neither very consistent nor very effective in dealing with these cases, very often acting too late, too hesitantly or not at all. Burma will be a test case for Ban Ki Moon’s visit in Christmas. At a time when China was eulogizing itself in the success of Beijing Olympics and when the Georgia episodes reveals that that the sphere of influence is very much appreciated by the Ta Yoke (the Burmese word for Chinese because he is Yoke Mar) and Kalar (the Burmese word for Indian derived from degrading Hindi word Kar Loo) as none of them say a single word against the Russian bully, the fate of the Burmese people is still in peril. The nefarious and paradoxical aspect, which every Burmese could not comprehend is why the UN so keen on fait accompli by intending to help the unlawful elections of 2010 derived from the illogical Constitution and did not recognise the lawful elections of 1990?
Prof. Kanbawza Win, the incumbent Dean of the Students of the AEIOU Programme, Chiangmai University, Thailand and Professor at the School of International Studies, Simon Fraser University, of British Columbia, Canada can be reached at the SFU Harbor campus in Vancouver.
- Asian Tribune -
(Asian Tribune) - The UN's special envoy Ibrahim Gambari's fourth visit to Burma had come to a dead end and left the country empty-handed. Even Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, has refused to see him knowing full well that nothing would come out of it as his actions speaks more louder than words. From the very beginning why was he chosen? A man bent on keeping his job rather than laying down the platforms for trouble shooting was proven, when he did not have the guts to tell the Generals face to face but instead chose to make a public statement appealing military leaders to put aside their differences and work together on national reconciliation. This infuriated the regime.
Choosing the wrong man at the wrong time had a snowball effect and now his failure to accomplish anything at all, raises serious doubts about the future role of the UN and its mediation efforts in Burma. In other words has the UN become a paper tiger that cannot roar or bite?
If Gambari, is trying to prepare the ground for the forthcoming visit of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon before Christmas "to deal solely on country's political situation," as declared, then he has done his job very badly and is bound to fail, as there is not a single teeth in the tiger. The Secretary General’s first trip in May was met by the supremo Than Shwe, only because he concentrated on relief and reconstruction in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, where the regime demanded 11 billion dollars most of which will line their pockets and let the people die. Mr Ban Ki-Moon will have to make it very clear the hypothesis of either or if the UN were to have some semblance in Burma or elsewhere in the world.
The Backdrop
The Afro-Asian countries, which have thrown the yoke of colonialism, construe humanitarian intervention, as the most sinister plot of imperialist power and a grave threat to their sovereignty. Can nations, acting through the UN Security Council, fulfil a “responsibility to protect” innocent civilians? Or is such a doctrine of a Trojan horse for great power abuse and more mendacity? Are just some of the common questions often asks. No doubt when nations send their military forces it is not only “humanitarian” purposes but often than not pursue their narrow national interest – grabbing territory, gaining geo-strategic advantage, or seizing control of precious natural resources. Leaders hope to win public support by describing such actions in terms of high moral purposes – bringing peace, justice, democracy and civilization to the affected area. In the era of colonialism, European governments all cynically insisted that they acted to promote such higher commitments – the “white man’s burden,” “la mission civilisatrice,” and the likes. There have been some instances in the recent past where countries have opened up to outside aid in the aftermath of natural disasters, but sovereignty remains a sticking point. However, the Burmese case is different.
Even though the UN Charter does not say anything about intervention in matters relating to domestic jurisdiction of any state, the Genocide Convention of 1948 also overrode the nonintervention principle to lay down the commitment of the world community to prevent and punish. Yet inaction in response to the Rwanda genocide in 1994 and failure to halt the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia highlight the complexities of international responses to crimes against humanity, and now the case of Burma is clearly on that category.
In 2000, the Canadian government and several other actors announced the establishment of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) to address the challenge of the international community's responsibility to act in the face of the gravest of human rights violations, while respecting the sovereignty of states. It sought to bridge these two concepts with the 2001 Responsibility to Protect (R2P) report.
A year later, the co-chairs of the commission, wrote: "If the international community is to respond to this challenge, the whole debate must be turned on its head. The issue must be reframed not as an argument about the 'right to intervene' but about the 'responsibility to protect.'" (See Foreign Affairs) The document says it was every state's responsibility to protect its citizens from "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." If a state fails to do so, the document says, it then becomes the responsibility of the international community to protect that state's population. This document was unanimously adopted by all member states but is not legally binding. The doctrine was hailed by international affairs specialists as a new dawn for peace and security marking the end of a 350-year period in which the inviolability of borders and the monopoly of force within one's own borders were sovereignty's formal hallmarks. This adoption begins to resolve the historic tension between human rights and states' rights in favor of the individual.
The Burmese Case
Following Burma’s cyclone the regime was incapable of providing relief to millions of affected citizens and it refused to let in international aid and aid workers at the most crucial period and let the people die. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner suggested the United Nations invoke the R2P doctrine as the basis for a resolution to allow the delivery of international aid even without the Junta’s permission. But the French proposal faced opposition from Security Council members Russia, China, and South Africa. China's UN ambassador, Liu Zhenmin, argued it was not an issue for the Security Council.
Some contend that R2P is a Western or Northern invention, being imposed on the global South. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the first two African Secretaries-General of the United Nations -- Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan -- who first explored evolving notions of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. And now it is the turn of an Asian Ban Ki-moon to follow it up to the predecessor’s footsteps and implement it in Burma.
Please recollect that it was the African Union has been explicit: in the year 2000, five years before the Summit declaration, the African Union asserted “the right of the Union to intervene in a member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely: war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity” Hence it is not at all that the right of intervention is a Western notion.
Equally incorrect is the assumption that the responsibility to protect is in contradiction to sovereignty. Properly understood, R2P is an ally of sovereignty, not an adversary. Strong States protect their people, while weak ones are either unwilling or unable to do so. Protection was one of the core purposes of the formation of States and the Westphalian system. By helping States meet one of their core responsibilities, R2P seeks to strengthen sovereignty, not weaken it. This clearly indicates that the Chinese ambassador to the UN Liu Zhenmin’s argument that Burma is not an issue of the UN Security Council is totally wrong. Every intelligent Burmese knows that this is part and parcel of the Chinese Communist imperialistic design for the whole of Southeast Asia. The definition of the R2P has clearly defined that "overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes, where the state concerned is either unwilling or unable to cope, or call for assistance, and significant loss of life is occurring or threatened."
Again the proponents of the doctrine say another way to raise pressure for action in Burma is to focus on rebuilding the country. Those who helped write the 2001 report emphasized that R2P embraced not just the "responsibility to react" but the "responsibility to prevent" and the "responsibility to rebuild" as well. If so has any of these responsibilities has been accepted by the Burmese military Junta? For the Burmese government is unlikely to handle reconstruction responsibly given its lack of concern over immediate assistance for cyclone victims. For two decades it has proven beyond doubt that it has no policy whatever (domestic or foreign) but to continue to stay in power by hook or by crook.
If Burma were to be compared with other countries, the question arises whether the Burmese Generals have a human heart at all or just power maniacs. In the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, one of the worst-hit areas was Indonesia's Aceh Province, where the government had been fighting a secessionist movement for more than four decades. The province, under martial law, was off-limits for most international human rights groups, aid organizations, and reporters. But after initial hesitation, the Indonesian government allowed international aid in what Elizabeth Ferris and Lex Rieffel label as "one of the largest disaster recovery and reconstruction efforts in modern times, as well as the peace agreement which led to the election of a former secessionist leader as governor of the province."
Similarly, after a powerful 2005earthquake rocked the long-disputed Kashmir region dividing India and Pakistan, the Pakistani government decided to give access to international relief agencies. Moreover, it accepted food and relief aid from neighboring India, with which it has fought three wars over Kashmir. The move was significant enough for regional experts to ask if this could lead to peace. More recently, an earthquake in China's Sichuan Province in May 2008 led Beijing to make unprecedented moves to open up. The Chinese government, which in the past has spurned foreign aid, accepted international aid publicly, opened a hotline for the U.S. military to have increased communication with its Chinese counterparts, and eased media restrictions. Yet when it comes to Burma the international community bow down to the Illogical argument of the Burmese Generals, Why? Is it because of the Hypocritical Chinese Dragon breathing smoke over it?
In the past two decades, more than 200 million people per year have been affected by natural disasters, "As the earth’s population increases and its atmosphere warms, floods, typhoons and hurricanes will undoubtedly occur more often, and will certainly have political consequences," according to Ferris and Rieffel of Brookings. At present the world community has limited options for responding to these humanitarian crises. UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182 formed guiding principles for the international community's response to humanitarian disasters and was central to the establishment of the office of the UN emergency relief coordinator and the development of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee. Why it is not implemented in the Burmese case?
It is to be admitted that ASEAN played an active role in changing the bull headed Burmese Generals, to let in international aid after the initial refusal, experts say. But "if our methods short of armed force have no impact and we are not willing to threaten to use military action, there are no good options," says Stewart M. Patrick, CFR senior fellow and director of the program on international institutions and global governance. The UN Secretary General on this trip must make it very clear to the Burmese men in uniform that in the political negotiations that if they continue to do as the last two decades they will have to face military action and short of nothing else.
Some people argue that the government may be guilty is a crime of omission rather than commission and that in matters of humanitarian disasters everyone's first concern is for the victims and if one chooses to use force assistance would only make the victims worse off as. But one must remember that Burma is unique, the Generals are notoriously cunning, skilful manipulators, cruel and insincere. They are treating the people much worse than cyclone Nagris? Hence the use of armed forces by the UN is very justified not only for the people of Burma which are desperate but also for the geopolitical factors, including the relevance of the country to the world community, regional stability, and the attitudes of other major players. If there is a big wound the best thing to cure is taking the pus out by a surgeon’s knife (military action) then followed by medication. I recollect David Rieff‘s writings "Use any euphemism you wish, but in the end these interventions have to be about regime change if they are to have any chance of accomplishing their stated goal." ( New York Times Magazine).
Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
R2P is not a new code for humanitarian intervention. Rather, it is built on a more positive and affirmative concept of sovereignty as responsibility -- a concept to be distinguished from its conceptual cousin, human security. The latter, who is broader, posits that policy should take into account the security of people, not just of States, across the whole range of possible threats. Besides this concept of responsibility to protect is more firmly anchored in current international law and adopted by the 2005 World Summit and was subsequently endorsed by both the General Assembly and Security Council. R2P was successfully tested for the first time earlier this year following the elections in Kenya. The combined efforts of the African Union, influential Member States, the United Nations and the esteemed predecessor, Kofi Annan, were instrumental in curbing the post-election violence. As the 2005 Summit recognized, there are times when persuasion and peaceful measures fall short. Then a big stick of military action becomes inevitable.
It is the Secretary General’s obligation that United Nations rules, procedures and practices are developed in line with this bold declaration. In other words, the responsibility to protect does not alter the legal obligation of Member States to refrain from the use of force except in conformity with the Charter. Rather, it reinforces this obligation. By bolstering United Nations prevention, protection, response and rebuilding mechanisms, R2P seeks to enhance the rule of law and expand multilateral options. We know that the United Nations was built on ideas, ideals and aspirations, not on quick fixes, sure things or cynical calculations. Burma has been tried for the last two decades and found it is wanting. But the people of Burma have, nevertheless, kept their faith in the UN because it never tires of trying to accomplish the impossible.
The successive humanitarian disasters in Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Kosovo and now Darfur, Sudan, have concentrated attention not on the immunities of sovereign Governments but their responsibilities, both to their own people and to the wider international community.
There is a growing recognition that the issue is not the “right to intervene” of any State, but the “responsibility to protect” of every State when it comes to people suffering from avoidable catastrophe — mass murder and rape, ethnic cleansing by forcible expulsion and terror, and deliberate starvation and exposure to disease. And there is a growing acceptance that while sovereign Governments have the primary responsibility to protect their own citizens from such catastrophes, when they are unable or unwilling to do so that responsibility should be taken up by the wider international community — with it spanning a continuum involving prevention, response to violence, if necessary, and rebuilding shattered societies. The primary focus should be on assisting the cessation of violence through mediation and other tools and the protection of people through such measures as the dispatch of humanitarian, human rights and police missions. Force, if it needs to be used, should be deployed as a last resort as it is clear in the case of Burma.
The UN so far has been neither very consistent nor very effective in dealing with these cases, very often acting too late, too hesitantly or not at all. Burma will be a test case for Ban Ki Moon’s visit in Christmas. At a time when China was eulogizing itself in the success of Beijing Olympics and when the Georgia episodes reveals that that the sphere of influence is very much appreciated by the Ta Yoke (the Burmese word for Chinese because he is Yoke Mar) and Kalar (the Burmese word for Indian derived from degrading Hindi word Kar Loo) as none of them say a single word against the Russian bully, the fate of the Burmese people is still in peril. The nefarious and paradoxical aspect, which every Burmese could not comprehend is why the UN so keen on fait accompli by intending to help the unlawful elections of 2010 derived from the illogical Constitution and did not recognise the lawful elections of 1990?
Prof. Kanbawza Win, the incumbent Dean of the Students of the AEIOU Programme, Chiangmai University, Thailand and Professor at the School of International Studies, Simon Fraser University, of British Columbia, Canada can be reached at the SFU Harbor campus in Vancouver.
- Asian Tribune -
Ghosts amid the wreckage in Myanmar
By Seth MydansAugust 25, 2008
BANGKOK (IHT): Nearly four months after the cyclone, the Irrawaddy Delta in Myanmar is a flat, dark expanse of ruin populated by dazed survivors, unburied bodies and visions of wandering, moaning ghosts.
The region seems to have avoided mass starvation and epidemic, and people are rebuilding their precarious lives in this vast and often flooded marshland where the margin between survival and death has always been thin.
Within that thin margin, recent visitors say, many of the survivors seem to have lost their spark of life, and some of the dead seem not yet to have disappeared as they haunt the minds of those they left behind.
"There is a weariness in people's eyes here," said a photographer who has been chronicling the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, which struck on May 3. He spoke on condition of anonymity because access to the region is forbidden to foreign journalists.
"There's a lost feeling that you get," he said. "People are physically, mentally and emotionally exhausted. Some of them don't have the strength to start over."
After an international furor over the government's refusal to admit foreign relief workers, a tightly controlled system has been put in place, and aid is reaching much of the area, where the United Nations says 2.4 million people were affected.
The cyclone left 138,000 people dead or missing and 800,000 homeless, according to UN figures, after tremendous winds and a storm surge that resembled a tsunami.
It leveled most of the fragile thatch homes in its path, uprooted trees, swept away the livestock and fishing boats that provided a livelihood and polluted many rice fields with salt.
For those fields that survived, this year's planting season has now passed, and experts say it may be more than a year before many people see their next decent harvest.
Although some houses are being rebuilt and some fields are being worked, the delta remains a vista of ruin and debris, where human and animal bones and the last decomposing bodies still cluster at the edges of waterways.
Fantastical tales circulate among the survivors, the photographer said, weaving a tapestry of stories from this world and the next.
There is the tale of the boy who survived by clinging to the back of a crocodile, and the story of the boatload of people stranded at low tide who sat waiting on the silt for the water to rise, surrounded by stranded corpses.
There is the story of the mother who was reunited with her baby after it was swept away in a washtub, and the story of the woman who gave birth as the cyclone hit and pulled her baby from the water by its umbilical cord.
And there are the stories of wandering ghosts, whose cries for help can be heard at night in haunted places that no villager dares to enter.
Among these phantoms and traumas, international relief workers have become the survivors' lifeline, delivering aid to all but the most remote parts of the delta.
More than 1,800 visas have been issued to these workers, aid officials say, though access to the hard-hit delta is slowed by an ever-more-complicated process of permissions and paperwork.
By now, most survivors have received aid, said Andrew Kirkwood, country director for the aid group Save the Children. "But very few people have received enough assistance to get them through the next three months, and almost no one has received enough assistance to enable them to rebuild their lives."
He said the reconstruction of schools, clinics and other infrastructure, which should be well under way by now, still lagged because of delays in delivering basic emergency assistance.
The xenophobic military junta that holds Myanmar in its grip prevented large-scale foreign aid deliveries for the first three crucial weeks after the cyclone, then loosened its controls only gradually and partially. It never did allow U.S. and French naval vessels to bring in tons of aid and equipment.
But despite the early demands from around the world that the government permit open deliveries of aid, the United Nations says that nearly half the assistance pledged by foreign donors has yet to appear. Recently it said it had received $339 million in international donations, a shortfall of $300 million.
But life has always been bitter for the people of the Irrawaddy Delta, with 8 out of 10 families living in poverty even before the cyclone, according to Save the Children.
For many people, the harshness of life today may not be so very different from the harshness of the life they have always known.
"They live on a thin line, every day of every year of every decade," the photographer said. "And that is what they are doing now. They just keep going, day by day by day."
Monday, 25 August 2008
Template for peace is inclusion
Paul Keating
August 25, 2008, (SMH)- We are living through one of those rare yet transforming events in history, a shift in the power in the world from West to East. For 500 years Europe dominated the world; now for all its wealth and population it is drifting into relative decline.
Will our understanding of this transformation, and our acceptance of its equity for the greater reaches of mankind, lead us to a position of general preparedness of its inevitability, or will we cavil at it in much the same way as Europe resisted the rise of Bismarck's creation at the end of the 19th century?
We can see, with this the 29th Olympiad, the questioning of China and the resentment at its pretensions about being one of us. Even becoming one of us!
The Western liberal press featured, generally in critical terms, the world-long torch relay, juxtaposing all that it represents and is good about it with what it sees as China's democratic defects, viewing it almost exclusively through the prism of Tibet.
Saying, almost, that the aspirations of this massive nation, a quarter of humanity, a legatee of a century of misery, dragging itself from poverty, is somehow of questionable legitimacy, because its Government's attitude to political freedoms and in specific instances, human rights, are not up to scratch. Ignoring the massive leaps in progress, of income growth, of shelter, of the alleviation of poverty, of dwindling infant mortality, of education, of, by any measure, the much better life now being experienced by the great majority of Chinese.
The Western critic feeling the epicentre of the world changing but not at all liking it, seeks to put down these vast societies on the basis that their political and value systems don't match up to theirs.
Henry Kissinger made the point recently when he said, "We cannot do in China in the 21st century what others thought to do in the 19th - prescribe their institutions for them and seek to organise Asia."
And he went on to pose the question: do we split the world into a union of democracies and non-democracies, or must there be another approach key to regional and historic circumstance?
There is a view that should China become a democracy, a real one, many tensions in the global system would go; that democracies find peace with other democracies; that the former political-military state first turns itself into a trading state and as wealth and opportunity rise so, too, do democratic values.
But what we must remember is that even if all the states of the world became democratic, the structure of the international system would remain anarchic.
The greatest challenge we face, whether for managing incidents or easing the new economic tectonic plates into place, will be to construct a truly representative structure of world governance which reflects global realities, but which is also equitable and fair.
For two Clinton presidential terms and two George Bush terms, the world has been left without such a structure; certainly one able to accommodate Russia and the great states such as China and India.
Instead Clinton and Bush left us with the template of 1947; the template cut by the victorious powers of World War II, the one where Germany and Japan were left on the outside, and still are 60 years later, and in which China and India are tolerated and palely humoured.
Sixteen critical years have already been lost. And it is not as if we are dealing with a world where things are the same now as they were 16 years ago. The world is dynamic: 16 years ago China was not a world power; today it is. Sixteen years ago, Russia was collapsing; today it is growing and strongly.
We are now sitting through, witnessing, the eclipse of American power. Yet for those 16 critical years, two American presidents did nothing to better shape the institutions of world governance.
And there has been no help from the old powers; Tony Blair's Britain and Jacques Chirac's France. After all, they had box seats to the event, courtesy of being on top in 1947.
But Blair's contribution was not anything new or free-thinking, rather he thought being an American acolyte was all that was required. Chirac was simply incapable of adding any strategic value to the equation.
The fact is we are again heading towards a bipolar world. Not one shaped by a balance of terror like the old one, but certainly not a multipolar one - in fact, one heavily influenced by two countries; the United States and China.
Russia's economy, while growing in strength from the burnt-out wreck it was in 1990, will not be in the league of that of the US or of China.
But Russia will still be wealthy; wealthy enough to continue to field its massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. So whether you attribute to Russia full "pole" status or not, you can certainly attribute to it huge strategic standing.
It is more the pity then, that following that unexpected epiphany in 1989, the Clinton administration rashly decided to ring-fence Russia by inviting the former Warsaw Treaty states of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to join NATO.
By doing so, the US failed to learn one of the lessons of history: that the victor should be magnanimous with the vanquished.
At some time the US will be obliged to treat Russia as a great sovereign power replete with a range of national interests of the kind that other major powers possess.
In the meantime, the great risk of this sort of adventurism is that with NATO's border now right up to western Ukraine, the Russians will take the less costly military option of counter-weighing NATO's power by keeping their nuclear arsenal on full operational alert.
This posture automatically carries with it the possibility of a Russian nuclear attack by mistake. The years of Russia's economic poverty, certainly since the collapse of its economy in the first half of the 1990s, has meant the Russians have allowed their surveillance and early warning systems to ossify. To compensate, they are keeping their nuclear arsenal on full operational alert.
This leaves the rest of the world relying more on the generals, the battlefield commanders and intelligence assessors to restrain a nuclear response than it does the Russian President or his Government. This means that while the Cold War is over, the risk of a mistaken pre-emptory response has increased.
Many people will think and some will say that with communications and the globalisation of economic wealth being what it is, an outbreak of a major conflict seems more and more remote. That global interdependence and the shrinking of the world makes war a decidedly unproductive way of resolving foreign policy differences.
People should be reminded that that was said at the time of the last great intensification of trade between Britain, France and Germany along with the growing US economy before 1914.
The lesson is that when the strategic bits go wrong, the economic bits soon follow. Certainly not the obverse: when the trade goes well, the strategic wrinkles get ironed out.
The structure of the international system is anarchic. Was anarchic; remains anarchic. This condition cannot be remedied but structures to mitigate its most violent manifestations can be put into place.
Against this backdrop remains the open question about "the West" and its fibre. The question that was resoundingly answered by that generation who suffered the Depression and the Second World War and who delivered us into a new era of peace and prosperity.
Is our culture a culture made compliant by too much coming too easily; producing a state of intellectual and spiritual lassitude which can only be shaken by the gravest threats, be they economic, environmental or indeed, strategic?
As that pendulum swings from West to East, are the motivations for the West's former primacy swinging with it? Has the bounty of science and industrialisation with its cornucopia of production and wealth encouraged us too far away from simpler requirements and concern for the needs of all?
As societies, have we taken our eye off public affairs for way too long?
Can we, all of us, assimilate, adjust ourselves to a constancy of peace and prosperity without lessening our regard for those enlivening impulses of truth and goodness?
A new international order based on truth and justice founded in the recognition of the rights of each of us to live out our lives in peace and harmony, can, I believe, provide the only plausible long-term template.
The old order of victorious powers, of a compromised United Nations, a moribund G8 with major powers hanging on to weapons of mass destruction, is a remnant of the violent 20th century. It cannot provide the basis for an equitable and effective system of world governance.
Just as world community concern has been ahead of the political system on issues such as global warming so, too, world community concern needs to galvanise international action to find a new template for a lasting peace, one embracing all the major powers and regions.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant said some day there will be a universal peace; the only question, he said, is will this come about by human insight or by catastrophe, leaving no other outcome possible.
Humankind demands that that proposition be settled in the former and not the latter.
Paul Keating was prime minister from 1991 to 1996. This is an edited extract of a speech delivered to the Melbourne Writers' Festival on Saturday.
August 25, 2008, (SMH)- We are living through one of those rare yet transforming events in history, a shift in the power in the world from West to East. For 500 years Europe dominated the world; now for all its wealth and population it is drifting into relative decline.
Will our understanding of this transformation, and our acceptance of its equity for the greater reaches of mankind, lead us to a position of general preparedness of its inevitability, or will we cavil at it in much the same way as Europe resisted the rise of Bismarck's creation at the end of the 19th century?
We can see, with this the 29th Olympiad, the questioning of China and the resentment at its pretensions about being one of us. Even becoming one of us!
The Western liberal press featured, generally in critical terms, the world-long torch relay, juxtaposing all that it represents and is good about it with what it sees as China's democratic defects, viewing it almost exclusively through the prism of Tibet.
Saying, almost, that the aspirations of this massive nation, a quarter of humanity, a legatee of a century of misery, dragging itself from poverty, is somehow of questionable legitimacy, because its Government's attitude to political freedoms and in specific instances, human rights, are not up to scratch. Ignoring the massive leaps in progress, of income growth, of shelter, of the alleviation of poverty, of dwindling infant mortality, of education, of, by any measure, the much better life now being experienced by the great majority of Chinese.
The Western critic feeling the epicentre of the world changing but not at all liking it, seeks to put down these vast societies on the basis that their political and value systems don't match up to theirs.
Henry Kissinger made the point recently when he said, "We cannot do in China in the 21st century what others thought to do in the 19th - prescribe their institutions for them and seek to organise Asia."
And he went on to pose the question: do we split the world into a union of democracies and non-democracies, or must there be another approach key to regional and historic circumstance?
There is a view that should China become a democracy, a real one, many tensions in the global system would go; that democracies find peace with other democracies; that the former political-military state first turns itself into a trading state and as wealth and opportunity rise so, too, do democratic values.
But what we must remember is that even if all the states of the world became democratic, the structure of the international system would remain anarchic.
The greatest challenge we face, whether for managing incidents or easing the new economic tectonic plates into place, will be to construct a truly representative structure of world governance which reflects global realities, but which is also equitable and fair.
For two Clinton presidential terms and two George Bush terms, the world has been left without such a structure; certainly one able to accommodate Russia and the great states such as China and India.
Instead Clinton and Bush left us with the template of 1947; the template cut by the victorious powers of World War II, the one where Germany and Japan were left on the outside, and still are 60 years later, and in which China and India are tolerated and palely humoured.
Sixteen critical years have already been lost. And it is not as if we are dealing with a world where things are the same now as they were 16 years ago. The world is dynamic: 16 years ago China was not a world power; today it is. Sixteen years ago, Russia was collapsing; today it is growing and strongly.
We are now sitting through, witnessing, the eclipse of American power. Yet for those 16 critical years, two American presidents did nothing to better shape the institutions of world governance.
And there has been no help from the old powers; Tony Blair's Britain and Jacques Chirac's France. After all, they had box seats to the event, courtesy of being on top in 1947.
But Blair's contribution was not anything new or free-thinking, rather he thought being an American acolyte was all that was required. Chirac was simply incapable of adding any strategic value to the equation.
The fact is we are again heading towards a bipolar world. Not one shaped by a balance of terror like the old one, but certainly not a multipolar one - in fact, one heavily influenced by two countries; the United States and China.
Russia's economy, while growing in strength from the burnt-out wreck it was in 1990, will not be in the league of that of the US or of China.
But Russia will still be wealthy; wealthy enough to continue to field its massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. So whether you attribute to Russia full "pole" status or not, you can certainly attribute to it huge strategic standing.
It is more the pity then, that following that unexpected epiphany in 1989, the Clinton administration rashly decided to ring-fence Russia by inviting the former Warsaw Treaty states of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to join NATO.
By doing so, the US failed to learn one of the lessons of history: that the victor should be magnanimous with the vanquished.
At some time the US will be obliged to treat Russia as a great sovereign power replete with a range of national interests of the kind that other major powers possess.
In the meantime, the great risk of this sort of adventurism is that with NATO's border now right up to western Ukraine, the Russians will take the less costly military option of counter-weighing NATO's power by keeping their nuclear arsenal on full operational alert.
This posture automatically carries with it the possibility of a Russian nuclear attack by mistake. The years of Russia's economic poverty, certainly since the collapse of its economy in the first half of the 1990s, has meant the Russians have allowed their surveillance and early warning systems to ossify. To compensate, they are keeping their nuclear arsenal on full operational alert.
This leaves the rest of the world relying more on the generals, the battlefield commanders and intelligence assessors to restrain a nuclear response than it does the Russian President or his Government. This means that while the Cold War is over, the risk of a mistaken pre-emptory response has increased.
Many people will think and some will say that with communications and the globalisation of economic wealth being what it is, an outbreak of a major conflict seems more and more remote. That global interdependence and the shrinking of the world makes war a decidedly unproductive way of resolving foreign policy differences.
People should be reminded that that was said at the time of the last great intensification of trade between Britain, France and Germany along with the growing US economy before 1914.
The lesson is that when the strategic bits go wrong, the economic bits soon follow. Certainly not the obverse: when the trade goes well, the strategic wrinkles get ironed out.
The structure of the international system is anarchic. Was anarchic; remains anarchic. This condition cannot be remedied but structures to mitigate its most violent manifestations can be put into place.
Against this backdrop remains the open question about "the West" and its fibre. The question that was resoundingly answered by that generation who suffered the Depression and the Second World War and who delivered us into a new era of peace and prosperity.
Is our culture a culture made compliant by too much coming too easily; producing a state of intellectual and spiritual lassitude which can only be shaken by the gravest threats, be they economic, environmental or indeed, strategic?
As that pendulum swings from West to East, are the motivations for the West's former primacy swinging with it? Has the bounty of science and industrialisation with its cornucopia of production and wealth encouraged us too far away from simpler requirements and concern for the needs of all?
As societies, have we taken our eye off public affairs for way too long?
Can we, all of us, assimilate, adjust ourselves to a constancy of peace and prosperity without lessening our regard for those enlivening impulses of truth and goodness?
A new international order based on truth and justice founded in the recognition of the rights of each of us to live out our lives in peace and harmony, can, I believe, provide the only plausible long-term template.
The old order of victorious powers, of a compromised United Nations, a moribund G8 with major powers hanging on to weapons of mass destruction, is a remnant of the violent 20th century. It cannot provide the basis for an equitable and effective system of world governance.
Just as world community concern has been ahead of the political system on issues such as global warming so, too, world community concern needs to galvanise international action to find a new template for a lasting peace, one embracing all the major powers and regions.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant said some day there will be a universal peace; the only question, he said, is will this come about by human insight or by catastrophe, leaving no other outcome possible.
Humankind demands that that proposition be settled in the former and not the latter.
Paul Keating was prime minister from 1991 to 1996. This is an edited extract of a speech delivered to the Melbourne Writers' Festival on Saturday.
Sunday, 24 August 2008
UN can send Burma a strong message
(Boston.com) - ALTHOUGH THE indicators of achievement for United Nations special representative Ibrahim Gambari's mission in Burma are appropriate and commendable goals, your Aug. 18 editorial "Begging won't save Burma" failed to note a key reason why Gambari has not been able to meet these indicators.
The UN has refused to provide Gambari with any meaningful tools that might persuade the military junta to listen to his message. In fact, for years China has used its Security Council veto to block any use of UN enforcement mechanisms against the Burmese junta, and other governments, eager to sustain trade interests and investments in Burma, have stood in the way of meaningful sanctions.
But the UN can send a meaningful message to the junta that cannot be blocked. During the upcoming session of the General Assembly, the representatives of the Burmese people elected during the 1990 elections, in coordination with a coalition of groups fighting for democracy in Burma, will mount a credentials challenge in the General Assembly.
Through this longstanding procedural mechanism, they will seek to unseat the wholly illegitimate military junta and take their rightful place as the true representatives of the Burmese people. The people deserve at long last to have their voice heard in the UN.
MAUNG MAUNG
General Secretary
National Council of the Union of Burma
Mae Sot, Thailand
The UN has refused to provide Gambari with any meaningful tools that might persuade the military junta to listen to his message. In fact, for years China has used its Security Council veto to block any use of UN enforcement mechanisms against the Burmese junta, and other governments, eager to sustain trade interests and investments in Burma, have stood in the way of meaningful sanctions.
But the UN can send a meaningful message to the junta that cannot be blocked. During the upcoming session of the General Assembly, the representatives of the Burmese people elected during the 1990 elections, in coordination with a coalition of groups fighting for democracy in Burma, will mount a credentials challenge in the General Assembly.
Through this longstanding procedural mechanism, they will seek to unseat the wholly illegitimate military junta and take their rightful place as the true representatives of the Burmese people. The people deserve at long last to have their voice heard in the UN.
MAUNG MAUNG
General Secretary
National Council of the Union of Burma
Mae Sot, Thailand
Friday, 22 August 2008
Burma's children still forced into army
by Ring Aung & Htoo Htoo SanKNG, 30 Jul'08 - He said that he came from a very poor family and at the age of seven or nine, he started working. While he was on the way to sell garden produce in Rangoon, he was recruited.
“I lost my travel pass from the ward leader, and at Bago railway station and some soldiers came on board and asked everyone for ID cards. I realized I'd lost my recommendation letter, and they took me in. The same day they sent me to the Mingaladon Su Saun Yay in handcuffs”.
The Burmese government claims that its army is an all-volunteer force and the minimum age for recruitment is 18. However the New York based HRW testified in the report that the majority of new recruits are conscripts, and that a large number of them are children.
The HRW report findings are confirmed by the Human Rights Education Institute of Burma (HREIB) deputy Director Mike Paller who says “Thousands of children throughout Burma continue to be recruited into the Burmese Army. They are recruited while going to school or the market, while waiting for the buses or trains, or simply while hanging out with friends”.
Mike Paller says “Children are attractive recruits because they have long-term investment potential and they are susceptible to intimidation”.
Despite international pressure on the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) to stop recruiting and using child soldiers, the SPDC has been continuously violating child rights to recruit or use child soldiers in its army, says Mike Paller.
“Although there is a lot of pressure on the SPDC to stop recruiting and using child soldiers, evidence suggests that children are still being recruited and used in Burma's armed forces”.
Unfortunately, the military regime has not made enough progress with regard to putting an end to this grave violation of child rights.
The SPDC said in a letter sent to the HRW on September 2007 that they have formed a committee for the Prevention of Recruiting Child Soldiers and preventing forced recruitment of under-age children as soldiers and ensuring adherence to orders and instructions issued for the protection of under-age children.
In spite of the SPDC letter the recruitment of child soldiers continue.
HRW's World Report in 2008 found “The recruitment of children into the armed forces continues as a result of high desertion rates and chronic understaffing. Recruiters and civilian brokers used coercion, threats, and physical force to recruit children as young as 10”.
Several ethnic armed groups are still fighting against the SPDC, and some have alliance with them. And they have continually recruited and used child soldiers although the numbers were much lower than the Burmese Army, according to the HRW's world report and Child Soldiers Global Report 2008 by the Southeast Asia Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers (SEACSUCS).
Most ethnic armed groups denied recruiting of children into the army and use of child soldiers.
David Taw, a spokesperson for the Karen National Union (KNU) says, “We have a policy not to recruit children into the army and we take action against soldiers who flout the order”.
He continued that the KNU has an agreement with the international community not to use child soldiers in the army and the KNU invites them to investigate whether the KNU uses child soldiers.
The Shan State Army says they also have a policy against recruitment of child soldiers.
“We don't have a policy to recruit children into the army,” says Sai Hseng Merng, a spokesperson for Shan State Army (SSA). “We even let orphans attend school and open schools for them”.
The SSA says it recruits soldiers between the ages of 18 and 45. The SSA has also invited the international community to investigate their army regarding the use of child soldiers. The SSA-South is fighting against the SPDC to achieve autonomy for Shan State.
Khu Oo Re, a spokesperson of the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP) says “We are sure that there are no child soldiers in our army and we don't have a policy to recruit children into the army. Even adults join the army voluntarily”.
“We have already released a statement thrice regarding the use of child soldiers in the army and we invite the international community to investigate if we are using child soldiers,” added Khu Oo Re.
The KNPP, based along the Thai-Burma border, was founded in 1955 to secure independence from the Burmese state.
While most ethnic groups denied the use of child soldiers in its armies, the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) has been quoted in the HRW report, “Sold to be Soldiers” as saying that the KIA and its political arm the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) have no formal policy on child soldiers.
“We have child soldiers but not intentionally. We do not purposely mobilize children. In many cases child soldiers come and ask to join the KIA because they are from poor families. There is no minimum age in the KIA,” said a senior KIA officer.
According to Child Soldiers Global Report 2008 by SEACSUCS, “an unknown number of former child soldiers continue to flee to Thailand after deserting from the Burmese Army. But as fast as the children desert, agents and brokers working for the army recruit replacements”.
Junta commander: Thailand violating Burmese sovereignty
19 August 2008, (Shan) - In a public speech given to the local officials and people yesterday at a location in Shan State’s Mongton township, opposite Chiangmai, the Burma Army commander of the Triangle Region Command had charged Thailand of “violating the territorial integrity” of Burma, according to sources on the border.
Maj-Gen Kyaw Phyoe, who was appointed to his new post in June, succeeding the outgoing Min Aung Hlaing, added, “Just as they (Thailand) have unilaterally taken possession of the Cambodian territory, they are doing the same at Loilang (the 32 square kilometer disputed area between Burma’s Monghsat and Thailand’s Mae Ai). The time will come when we’ll have to deal with the issue properly.”
The general, a graduate of legal affairs from India and military affairs from UK, according to him, was referring to the ongoing border dispute over the Preah Vihear temple area between Thailand and Cambodia.
Kyaw Phyoe had been on an inspection trip on the Thai-Burma border since 16 August.
He also charged the kingdom of employing the anti-junta Shan State Army (SSA) South of Col Yawdserk as a buffer against the Burma Army.
“As for Yawdserk, we are open to talks with him anytime he’s ready,” he said. “But there is only one condition for him: he has to exchange arms for peace (a euphemism for surrender).”
Kyaw Phyoe left for Mongton, 53 miles from the border, at 18:00.
The SSA South has 5 main bases along the Thai-Burma border:
* Loi Wa Her - opposite - Maehongson
* Loi Taileng - opposite - Maehongson
* Loi Lam - opposite - Chiangmai
* Loi Hsarmsip - opposite - Chiangmai
* Loi Gawwan - opposite - Chiangrai
Loilang, under the now defunct Mong Tai Army (MTA)’s control since 1982, was taken over by the Thai Army in 1987.
The issue, after reportedly debating at length at the Regional Border Committee (RBC) #25 meeting in Chiangrai, 6-8 August, has now been forwarded to the respective governments for resolution, according to Bangkok Post. The Burmese side, which included Kyaw Phyoe, had demanded “full rights” over the disputed territory.
Maj-Gen Kyaw Phyoe, who was appointed to his new post in June, succeeding the outgoing Min Aung Hlaing, added, “Just as they (Thailand) have unilaterally taken possession of the Cambodian territory, they are doing the same at Loilang (the 32 square kilometer disputed area between Burma’s Monghsat and Thailand’s Mae Ai). The time will come when we’ll have to deal with the issue properly.”The general, a graduate of legal affairs from India and military affairs from UK, according to him, was referring to the ongoing border dispute over the Preah Vihear temple area between Thailand and Cambodia.
Kyaw Phyoe had been on an inspection trip on the Thai-Burma border since 16 August.
He also charged the kingdom of employing the anti-junta Shan State Army (SSA) South of Col Yawdserk as a buffer against the Burma Army.
“As for Yawdserk, we are open to talks with him anytime he’s ready,” he said. “But there is only one condition for him: he has to exchange arms for peace (a euphemism for surrender).”
Kyaw Phyoe left for Mongton, 53 miles from the border, at 18:00.
The SSA South has 5 main bases along the Thai-Burma border:
* Loi Wa Her - opposite - Maehongson
* Loi Taileng - opposite - Maehongson
* Loi Lam - opposite - Chiangmai
* Loi Hsarmsip - opposite - Chiangmai
* Loi Gawwan - opposite - Chiangrai
Loilang, under the now defunct Mong Tai Army (MTA)’s control since 1982, was taken over by the Thai Army in 1987.
The issue, after reportedly debating at length at the Regional Border Committee (RBC) #25 meeting in Chiangrai, 6-8 August, has now been forwarded to the respective governments for resolution, according to Bangkok Post. The Burmese side, which included Kyaw Phyoe, had demanded “full rights” over the disputed territory.
Burmese Dissidents Call United Nations for Openness and Accountability
Daya Gamage – US National Correspondent Asian Tribune
Washington, D.C. 22 August (Asiantribune.com): While US Campaign for Burma (USCB), a Washington-based dissident group, accuses United Nations of “misrepresenting” its recent mission to Burma (Myanmar), the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) called for UN Special Envoy to Burma Ibrahim Gambari to call for tripartite talks with opposition groups, the release of political prisoners and to deliver frank accounts of his meetings with opposition groups and Burmese officials.
The USCB refuting the UN press statement of Gambari’s visit to Burma says that during the first four days of his five-day trip, Gambari appears to have spent most of his time meeting and dining with low level officials of the regime and pro-regime groups, with the exception of three hours of meetings with the UN Country Team, foreign diplomats and ICRC officials, while spending only 20 minutes with Central Executive Committee Members of the NLD on August 20, 2008, from 3:00 to 3:20 PM.
The UN press statement released August 20 said:
(Begin Text) the top United Nations envoy to Myanmar met with the country’s planning and health ministers today to discuss ways to tackle the socio-economic conditions in Myanmar on the third day of his five-day trip.
Ibrahim Gambari, Special Adviser on Myanmar, also held 10 separate meetings focusing on the need for national inclusive dialogue and a credible political process, as well as the country’s socio-economic challenges.
Participating in the meetings were political parties, civil society groups, including members of the National League for Democracy (NLD), student representatives and elected individuals from the 1990 elections.
August 19, Mr. Gambari also visited the delta region affected by Cyclone Nargis, and met with members of the State Peace and Development Council to exchange views on a range of issues, including the release of political prisoners. (End Text)
The USCB refutes this United Nations claim in the following press statement:
(Begin Text) This statement is not only misleading but patently false -- Gambari did not meet with "political parties and civil society groups," With the exception of the NLD. Instead, the UN Envoy met with nine Burmese groups, all of which are supporters and proxies of Burma's military regime.
For example, Gambari met with the Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (UMFCCI), the major funder of the regime's brutal militia "Swan-Arr-Shin". This group led the regime's efforts in attacking and killing peaceful monks and democracy activists during and after last September's Saffron Revolution. Gambari also met with the notorious Union Solidarity and Development Association, a group comparable to Hitler's "Brown Shirts," that carried out an assassination attempt on Nobel Peace Prize recipient Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in May 2003. During that attack dozens of her party members were killed.
Gambari also met with the National Unity Party, the military-backed political party that lost severely to the NLD in 1990 elections -- gaining only 10 out of 485 seats in parliament. He also met with the 88 Generation Students and Youth, another pro-junta group, which had campaigned to support the regime’s constitution. This group is not related to the major dissident group, the “88 Generation Students”; instead, it is a front group formed by the regime to counter the activities of real student activists. (End Text)
The statement further notes: “This statement is not only misleading but patently false -- Gambari did not meet with "political parties and civil society groups," With the exception of the NLD. Instead, the UN Envoy met with nine Burmese groups, all of which are supporters and proxies of Burma's military regime."
Contrary to what the UN said, the USCB noted, Gambari did not meet with Burma's most influential opposition groups, including:
1) All Burma Monks’ Alliance (ABMA), a powerful organization of young Buddhist monks which led peaceful protests in September of last year. Many leaders of ABMA, including Ashin Gambira, are now in prison, sentenced to death.
2) 88 Generation Student Group, prominent dissident group comprised of former student leaders who have spent 10 to 16 years in prison for their belief in democracy and human rights. Many leaders of the group, such as prominent figure Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, Pyone Cho, Mya Aye and Htay Kywe, are in prison.
3) The Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD), a major ethnic political party that won the second largest seats in the Parliament in the 1990 election. Its leaders Hkun Htun Oo and Sai Nyunt Lwin are in prison.
4) The Committee Representing the People's Parliament, a group of parliamentarians that represent Burma's last democratically elected parliament.
5) A key group of 92 members of parliament-elect, who have sent letters to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and UN Security Council, among them, two, U Nyi Pu and Dr. Tin Min Htut, were recently arrested. Others important figures -- U Pu Chin Sian Thang, U Thein Pe and Dr. Myint Naing -- are available in Rangoon but have not been contacted by Gambari.
Meanwhile the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) issued the following statement:
(Begin Text) Burmese dissidents called for UN Special Envoy to Burma Ibrahim Gambari to call for tripartite talks with opposition groups, the release of political prisoners and to deliver frank accounts of his meetings with opposition groups and Burmese officials Bo Kyi, the joint secretary of the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), said, “He [Gambari] must do what he should do. After meeting with Burmese officials and the opposition, he should give frank accounts to the public.”
"For example, if the junta is stubborn and doesn’t want to negotiate, he must frankly report that so the UN can clearly understand the issues," said Bo Kyi.
Han Thar Myhint, a National League for Democracy spokesperson, said the party’s office was told by authorities to prepare for a meeting with the UN envoy, but did not indicate the day or time of the meeting.
The UN envoy met with Burma’s Foreign Minister Nyan Win on Monday in hope of continuing the stalled talks between the junta and pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
He also met with representatives of the diplomatic corps, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the UN Tripartite Core Group and was briefed by the UN country team, according to a UN report.
Cin Sian Thang, the chairman of the Zomi National Congress in Rangoon, said ethnic leaders have had little input into Gambari's past trips to Burma and knew little about his current five-day visit.
"We only knew that Gambari came to Burma and went back," he said. "We don’t know whether he would like a chance to meet with us or not," said Cin Sian Thang.
"We heard that he will meet with opposition leaders and ethnic leaders. So, we are hoping to meet him, and we are ready to discuss issues with him as well. We are now waiting for him, but we haven’t heard whether he will meet us."
On Tuesday, Gambari visited Kungyangone Township in southern Rangoon, one of areas most affected by Cyclone Nargis which struck on May 2-3 and left more than 140,000 dead and missing. Gambari met with Information Minister Brig-Gen Kyaw Hsan in Rangoon, according to a spokesperson with the UN Information Center in Rangoon.
Lian H Sakhong, the secretary-general of the Thailand-based Ethnic Nationalities Council, on Tuesday urged Gambari to try to persuade the military regime to create a tripartite dialogue that includes the government, opposition leaders and ethnic leaders.
Meanwhile, the Burma Campaign UK on Monday urged Gambari to make the release of political prisoners a top priority during his visit.
"The release of political prisoners will be the benchmark by which Gambari and Ban Ki-moon will be judged," Wai Hnin, a political prisoners advocate at Burma Campaign UK, said in a statement.
"It’s a normal, first step when a country enters into political reform," he said. "If the regime is genuine about their claims, they will reform. They should release all political prisoners immediately."
The statement said conditions in Burma's prisons are deteriorating as authorities deny medical treatment to political detainees including leaders of the 88 Generation Students group such as Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, Mya Aye as well as Myo Yan Naung Thein, a student activist, who are all in Insein Prison.
"The United Nations Security Council has said the political prisoners should be released, and Gambari and Ban Ki-Moon must make that happen," he said. "We have had 20 years of envoys going back and forth with nothing to show for it. It is time they delivered concrete results." (End Text)
- Asian Tribune -
Washington, D.C. 22 August (Asiantribune.com): While US Campaign for Burma (USCB), a Washington-based dissident group, accuses United Nations of “misrepresenting” its recent mission to Burma (Myanmar), the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) called for UN Special Envoy to Burma Ibrahim Gambari to call for tripartite talks with opposition groups, the release of political prisoners and to deliver frank accounts of his meetings with opposition groups and Burmese officials.
The USCB refuting the UN press statement of Gambari’s visit to Burma says that during the first four days of his five-day trip, Gambari appears to have spent most of his time meeting and dining with low level officials of the regime and pro-regime groups, with the exception of three hours of meetings with the UN Country Team, foreign diplomats and ICRC officials, while spending only 20 minutes with Central Executive Committee Members of the NLD on August 20, 2008, from 3:00 to 3:20 PM.
The UN press statement released August 20 said:
(Begin Text) the top United Nations envoy to Myanmar met with the country’s planning and health ministers today to discuss ways to tackle the socio-economic conditions in Myanmar on the third day of his five-day trip.
Ibrahim Gambari, Special Adviser on Myanmar, also held 10 separate meetings focusing on the need for national inclusive dialogue and a credible political process, as well as the country’s socio-economic challenges.
Participating in the meetings were political parties, civil society groups, including members of the National League for Democracy (NLD), student representatives and elected individuals from the 1990 elections.
August 19, Mr. Gambari also visited the delta region affected by Cyclone Nargis, and met with members of the State Peace and Development Council to exchange views on a range of issues, including the release of political prisoners. (End Text)
The USCB refutes this United Nations claim in the following press statement:
(Begin Text) This statement is not only misleading but patently false -- Gambari did not meet with "political parties and civil society groups," With the exception of the NLD. Instead, the UN Envoy met with nine Burmese groups, all of which are supporters and proxies of Burma's military regime.
For example, Gambari met with the Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (UMFCCI), the major funder of the regime's brutal militia "Swan-Arr-Shin". This group led the regime's efforts in attacking and killing peaceful monks and democracy activists during and after last September's Saffron Revolution. Gambari also met with the notorious Union Solidarity and Development Association, a group comparable to Hitler's "Brown Shirts," that carried out an assassination attempt on Nobel Peace Prize recipient Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in May 2003. During that attack dozens of her party members were killed.
Gambari also met with the National Unity Party, the military-backed political party that lost severely to the NLD in 1990 elections -- gaining only 10 out of 485 seats in parliament. He also met with the 88 Generation Students and Youth, another pro-junta group, which had campaigned to support the regime’s constitution. This group is not related to the major dissident group, the “88 Generation Students”; instead, it is a front group formed by the regime to counter the activities of real student activists. (End Text)
The statement further notes: “This statement is not only misleading but patently false -- Gambari did not meet with "political parties and civil society groups," With the exception of the NLD. Instead, the UN Envoy met with nine Burmese groups, all of which are supporters and proxies of Burma's military regime."
Contrary to what the UN said, the USCB noted, Gambari did not meet with Burma's most influential opposition groups, including:
1) All Burma Monks’ Alliance (ABMA), a powerful organization of young Buddhist monks which led peaceful protests in September of last year. Many leaders of ABMA, including Ashin Gambira, are now in prison, sentenced to death.
2) 88 Generation Student Group, prominent dissident group comprised of former student leaders who have spent 10 to 16 years in prison for their belief in democracy and human rights. Many leaders of the group, such as prominent figure Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, Pyone Cho, Mya Aye and Htay Kywe, are in prison.
3) The Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD), a major ethnic political party that won the second largest seats in the Parliament in the 1990 election. Its leaders Hkun Htun Oo and Sai Nyunt Lwin are in prison.
4) The Committee Representing the People's Parliament, a group of parliamentarians that represent Burma's last democratically elected parliament.
5) A key group of 92 members of parliament-elect, who have sent letters to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and UN Security Council, among them, two, U Nyi Pu and Dr. Tin Min Htut, were recently arrested. Others important figures -- U Pu Chin Sian Thang, U Thein Pe and Dr. Myint Naing -- are available in Rangoon but have not been contacted by Gambari.
Meanwhile the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) issued the following statement:
(Begin Text) Burmese dissidents called for UN Special Envoy to Burma Ibrahim Gambari to call for tripartite talks with opposition groups, the release of political prisoners and to deliver frank accounts of his meetings with opposition groups and Burmese officials Bo Kyi, the joint secretary of the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), said, “He [Gambari] must do what he should do. After meeting with Burmese officials and the opposition, he should give frank accounts to the public.”
"For example, if the junta is stubborn and doesn’t want to negotiate, he must frankly report that so the UN can clearly understand the issues," said Bo Kyi.
Han Thar Myhint, a National League for Democracy spokesperson, said the party’s office was told by authorities to prepare for a meeting with the UN envoy, but did not indicate the day or time of the meeting.
The UN envoy met with Burma’s Foreign Minister Nyan Win on Monday in hope of continuing the stalled talks between the junta and pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
He also met with representatives of the diplomatic corps, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the UN Tripartite Core Group and was briefed by the UN country team, according to a UN report.
Cin Sian Thang, the chairman of the Zomi National Congress in Rangoon, said ethnic leaders have had little input into Gambari's past trips to Burma and knew little about his current five-day visit.
"We only knew that Gambari came to Burma and went back," he said. "We don’t know whether he would like a chance to meet with us or not," said Cin Sian Thang.
"We heard that he will meet with opposition leaders and ethnic leaders. So, we are hoping to meet him, and we are ready to discuss issues with him as well. We are now waiting for him, but we haven’t heard whether he will meet us."
On Tuesday, Gambari visited Kungyangone Township in southern Rangoon, one of areas most affected by Cyclone Nargis which struck on May 2-3 and left more than 140,000 dead and missing. Gambari met with Information Minister Brig-Gen Kyaw Hsan in Rangoon, according to a spokesperson with the UN Information Center in Rangoon.
Lian H Sakhong, the secretary-general of the Thailand-based Ethnic Nationalities Council, on Tuesday urged Gambari to try to persuade the military regime to create a tripartite dialogue that includes the government, opposition leaders and ethnic leaders.
Meanwhile, the Burma Campaign UK on Monday urged Gambari to make the release of political prisoners a top priority during his visit.
"The release of political prisoners will be the benchmark by which Gambari and Ban Ki-moon will be judged," Wai Hnin, a political prisoners advocate at Burma Campaign UK, said in a statement.
"It’s a normal, first step when a country enters into political reform," he said. "If the regime is genuine about their claims, they will reform. They should release all political prisoners immediately."
The statement said conditions in Burma's prisons are deteriorating as authorities deny medical treatment to political detainees including leaders of the 88 Generation Students group such as Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, Mya Aye as well as Myo Yan Naung Thein, a student activist, who are all in Insein Prison.
"The United Nations Security Council has said the political prisoners should be released, and Gambari and Ban Ki-Moon must make that happen," he said. "We have had 20 years of envoys going back and forth with nothing to show for it. It is time they delivered concrete results." (End Text)
- Asian Tribune -
Trials open for U Gambira and Htin Kyaw
Aug 21, 2008 (DVB)–Prominent monk U Gambira and activist Ko Htin Kyaw, who led demonstrations against commodity price hikes last August, appeared before the district court inside Insein prison yesterday.
U Gambira was arrested in November last year for his role in instigating public protests in September and is now facing 10 charges.
U Gambira’s trial began with the cross-examination of the defendant with regard to the charge of violating the electronic communications act, U Gambira’s lawyer U Aung Thein said.
The other charges against U Gambira include unlawful assembly and bringing the Sasana into disrepute, as well as violating the Unlawful Associations Act, the Illegal Border Crossing Act and the printing law.
The remaining charges will be heard at township courts outside the prison, in Kamayut, Kyauktada, Dagon, Ahlon and Kyimyintaing, U Aung Thein said.
“We will find out how they are going to allocate the charges on the day of the hearing,” U Aung Thein said.
When U Aung Thein was allowed to speak to U Gambira, the monk emphasised the fact that he had been forcibly and unceremoniously disrobed without the appropriate religious procedures.
“If they want to disrobe him, they should do it through his abbot or the Sanghamahanayaka [supreme monks’ council],” U Aung Thein said.
“Now they did not do that but just disrobed him and took him to the court [like a layman] and he said this was very damaging for the Sasana,” he said.
“He told me to tell the court that it should not happen like that; this matter is the concern of monks.”
In Ko Htin Kyaw’s case, which is being heard by the same judge, the court heard testimony from the prosecution about the protest in Thingangyun township.
The prosecution is deliberating whether to also bring charges for demonstrating in Rangoon’s Pabedan township last year.
Some witnesses in Htin Kyaw’s case could not make it to the court and so their testimony was rescheduled for the next day.
Reporting by Aye Nai
U Gambira was arrested in November last year for his role in instigating public protests in September and is now facing 10 charges.
U Gambira’s trial began with the cross-examination of the defendant with regard to the charge of violating the electronic communications act, U Gambira’s lawyer U Aung Thein said.
The other charges against U Gambira include unlawful assembly and bringing the Sasana into disrepute, as well as violating the Unlawful Associations Act, the Illegal Border Crossing Act and the printing law.
The remaining charges will be heard at township courts outside the prison, in Kamayut, Kyauktada, Dagon, Ahlon and Kyimyintaing, U Aung Thein said.
“We will find out how they are going to allocate the charges on the day of the hearing,” U Aung Thein said.
When U Aung Thein was allowed to speak to U Gambira, the monk emphasised the fact that he had been forcibly and unceremoniously disrobed without the appropriate religious procedures.
“If they want to disrobe him, they should do it through his abbot or the Sanghamahanayaka [supreme monks’ council],” U Aung Thein said.
“Now they did not do that but just disrobed him and took him to the court [like a layman] and he said this was very damaging for the Sasana,” he said.
“He told me to tell the court that it should not happen like that; this matter is the concern of monks.”
In Ko Htin Kyaw’s case, which is being heard by the same judge, the court heard testimony from the prosecution about the protest in Thingangyun township.
The prosecution is deliberating whether to also bring charges for demonstrating in Rangoon’s Pabedan township last year.
Some witnesses in Htin Kyaw’s case could not make it to the court and so their testimony was rescheduled for the next day.
Reporting by Aye Nai
Authorities order chanting to ward off bad luck
Aug 21, 2008 (DVB)–Authorities in Sagaing division's Kathar township have ordered local residents to chant protective incantations to ward off bad luck during this rare month of two new moon days.
According to Burmese traditional beliefs, when there are two new moon days in the same month, which occurs rarely in the Buddhist calendar, it bodes ill for the rulers of the country.
Believers cite the example of King Thibaw, the last Burmese monarch, who was overthrown by the British during such a month.
Locals in Kathar said the township's Sasana administration had directed the government-elected township monk leader to organise the chanting of incantations to prevent bad luck.
Although the authorities claimed that the chanting was for the protection of Kathar residents, a monk in Kathar said locals believed it was in fact intended to protect the SPDC leaders from bad luck.
"That particular script of the incantations they were asking people to chant was written to protect the king's rule," the monk said.
"The authorities ordered that the chanting should be led by 10 monks and followed by 10 people from every ward in town and should last for ten days."
A resident of Kathar said the chanting which lasted for ten days was already done on the last full moon day.
"On the first few days we were chanting the incantation, we were not aware that it was a particular one to protect the rulers," said the resident.
"But over the next days we found out what it was and became uncomfortable chanting it," he said.
"While we were doing it we were praying in our minds that they would fall soon."
Reporting by Naw Say Phaw
According to Burmese traditional beliefs, when there are two new moon days in the same month, which occurs rarely in the Buddhist calendar, it bodes ill for the rulers of the country.
Believers cite the example of King Thibaw, the last Burmese monarch, who was overthrown by the British during such a month.
Locals in Kathar said the township's Sasana administration had directed the government-elected township monk leader to organise the chanting of incantations to prevent bad luck.
Although the authorities claimed that the chanting was for the protection of Kathar residents, a monk in Kathar said locals believed it was in fact intended to protect the SPDC leaders from bad luck.
"That particular script of the incantations they were asking people to chant was written to protect the king's rule," the monk said.
"The authorities ordered that the chanting should be led by 10 monks and followed by 10 people from every ward in town and should last for ten days."
A resident of Kathar said the chanting which lasted for ten days was already done on the last full moon day.
"On the first few days we were chanting the incantation, we were not aware that it was a particular one to protect the rulers," said the resident.
"But over the next days we found out what it was and became uncomfortable chanting it," he said.
"While we were doing it we were praying in our minds that they would fall soon."
Reporting by Naw Say Phaw
International Text Messaging Approved in Burma
By MIN LWIN
The Irrawaddy News
Mobile phone users in Burma can now send and receive e-mail and short messaging system text (SMS) outside the country through the E-Trade Company Web site, according to an E-Trade Myanmar Company staff member.
The Burmese government approved the international text messaging service several months ago, and about 1,000 customers are now registered with the company, according to the staff member.
Currently, the Burmese government bans transmission of short messaging system texts (SMS) and voice mail from GSM to GSM mobile phones outside the country.
“GSM phones in foreign countries can now send test messages to Burma,” he told The Irrawaddy on Thursday. “Before to use GSM all users had to register with a Web site abroad.”
To use the E-Trade Web site service, a user must register as a member. A membership fee is 5,000 kyat (US $4) and prepaid user charges are available at 15,000 and 20,000 kyat.
“Inside Burma, a text message cost 100 kyat for local GSM to e-mail,” he said, “SMS text messages cost from 216 kyat to 600 kyat according to the country the text is sent to.”
After learning about the service, a student at Singapore University said he would advise users to be careful when sending text messages using the company’s service since all messages are retained in the company’s server.
“It (registration with a company inside Burma) can intrude on your privacy because every message is saved in their server,” he said.
Information technology students in Burma note that the military government controls all communication, phone and Internet activity.
GSM phones were introduced by Myanmar Post and Telecom in 2002. Despite being more expensive, they’ve quickly become more popular than CDMA and cell phones because they more functions over a greater area.
“The Burmese mobile telephone market flourishes, and there are more than 200,000 GSM phones in use in Burma,” said a mobile phone shop owner. The price of a GSM phone now is about 1.1 million kyat (US $916).
The Irrawaddy News
Mobile phone users in Burma can now send and receive e-mail and short messaging system text (SMS) outside the country through the E-Trade Company Web site, according to an E-Trade Myanmar Company staff member.
The Burmese government approved the international text messaging service several months ago, and about 1,000 customers are now registered with the company, according to the staff member.
Currently, the Burmese government bans transmission of short messaging system texts (SMS) and voice mail from GSM to GSM mobile phones outside the country.
“GSM phones in foreign countries can now send test messages to Burma,” he told The Irrawaddy on Thursday. “Before to use GSM all users had to register with a Web site abroad.”
To use the E-Trade Web site service, a user must register as a member. A membership fee is 5,000 kyat (US $4) and prepaid user charges are available at 15,000 and 20,000 kyat.
“Inside Burma, a text message cost 100 kyat for local GSM to e-mail,” he said, “SMS text messages cost from 216 kyat to 600 kyat according to the country the text is sent to.”
After learning about the service, a student at Singapore University said he would advise users to be careful when sending text messages using the company’s service since all messages are retained in the company’s server.
“It (registration with a company inside Burma) can intrude on your privacy because every message is saved in their server,” he said.
Information technology students in Burma note that the military government controls all communication, phone and Internet activity.
GSM phones were introduced by Myanmar Post and Telecom in 2002. Despite being more expensive, they’ve quickly become more popular than CDMA and cell phones because they more functions over a greater area.
“The Burmese mobile telephone market flourishes, and there are more than 200,000 GSM phones in use in Burma,” said a mobile phone shop owner. The price of a GSM phone now is about 1.1 million kyat (US $916).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)