Speaking out on the future of Burma

By JEFF KINGSTON
Special to The Japan Times

As Burma heads toward its 2010 elections, Jeff Kingston asks political observers about prospects for reform

These are tough times for the people of Burma. They have endured decades of economic mismanagement, low living standards and brutal political oppression under an incompetent and negligent military junta that shows no signs of relinquishing its grip on power.
Indeed, as the country approaches elections in 2010, the regime has cracked down on its opponents, imposing prison terms of 65 years on relief workers, comedians, writers, intellectuals, monks and others.

Aung Zaw, editor of Irrawaddy in Burma JEFF KINGSTON PHOTOS

No challenges to the junta are allowed and thus those who joined peaceful demonstrations in the Saffron Revolution of 2007 or tried to help the survivors of Cyclone Nargis in 2008 were targeted by the regime for sentences that in many cases ensure the imprisoned will die behind bars. The number of political prisoners has more than doubled since 2007 and stands at 2,100.

The junta has sent a message to prodemocracy activists that they should not confuse the upcoming 2010 elections with an opportunity to build democracy in Burma. Unlike in 1990 when the military was embarrassed by a landslide victory for Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, a result it has steadfastly ignored, this time around the results will be rigged.

The model for this sham-in-the-making is the constitutional referendum staged in May 2008 when an unbelievable 92 percent of voters approved a document that almost nobody had seen. There were widespread and credible reports of gross irregularities and there is a consensus that the referendum was not remotely free or fair.

As a result, the new constitution imposed by the regime that preserves political power for the military and excludes Suu Kyi has zero credibility, further undermining the legitimacy of a government that is overwhelmingly despised by it citizens.

And why wouldn't they despise it? In cracking down on the Saffron Revolution in 2007 — a monk-led, grassroots response to dreadful and declining living standards — the military murdered, imprisoned and tortured many monks, a transgression that trampled cultural taboos, triggering outrage and a smoldering resentment. People were seething at the sheer brutality of the junta, but were totally unprepared for the government's mind-boggling response to Cyclone Nargis.

In early May 2008, Cyclone Nargis ripped through the Irrawaddy Delta region, claiming an estimated 138,000 lives, displacing some 800,000 survivors and leaving some 2.5 million people desperately in need of food, shelter and medical treatment. Any government would be hard-pressed to respond effectively to such a massive natural disaster, but instead of focusing on relief efforts the government prioritized the constitutional referendum. As a result, the government was slow to respond and even impeded relief efforts by international agencies by withholding approval of visas for relief specialists.

Aung Naing Oo, a Burmese political analyst based in Chiang Mai, Thailand

The world looked on in disbelief as the junta devoted scarce resources to a sham referendum while ignoring the needs of survivors.

In the wake of Cyclone Nargis, there has been renewed debate about how the international community should respond and whether punitive sanctions and isolation are working to promote reform. Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has indicated that the United States is reviewing its hard line policies toward the regime.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) provides in-depth analysis of conditions in Burma, but is often criticized for being overly solicitous of the military junta. The principal author of the ICG reports, Morten Pedersen, argues that the current strategy of imposing sanctions and isolating the military junta is not working, creating a stalemate that shows no signs of resolution. He asserts that sanctions and isolation actually strengthens the junta's grip on power, allowing them to pose as defenders of the nation. In his view, the military leaders will not bow to pressure for political reform and are well insulated from economic sanctions, especially with rising LNG revenues.

The problem is that the people of Burma are not insulated from the usual problems of endemic poverty — the United Nations estimates that 30 percent of the population faces acute poverty — and many are swept up in a gathering humanitarian crisis. Yet, despite appalling conditions, international aid to Burma is only about 5 percent per capita of what comparable developing nations typically receive. The ICG advocates broader, sustained engagement and a sharp increase in aid to fund "sustainable humanitarian development."

Win Min, a Burmese political commentator, also based in Chiang Mai

Pedersen acknowledges the brutality and venality of the military regime, but does not think that regime change is a viable option because government institutions have withered during four decades of military rule, meaning across-the-board capacity deficits that amplify the difficulties of coping with Burma's staggering challenges. The military is the strongest institution in a country known for its pervasive disfunctionalities and as such, he asserts, must continue to play a key role in any transition scenario.

In October 2008, the ICG issued a report arguing that the Nargis experience demonstrates the need to normalize aid relations and suggests a way forward out of the stalemate. The ICG points out that after the initial fumbling response, a normal relief operation was apparent by July 2008 and goes on to argue that the donor community now has an opportunity to build on this enhanced cooperation to transform and expand the aid agenda.

Credit for this turnaround goes to the Trilateral Core Group (TCG), a problem-solving task force that has one representative each from the Burmese government, the U.N. and ASEAN. The TCG, according to the ICG, proved effective in addressing operational problems and cutting through red tape, allowing aid organizations to conduct their projects as they would in any similar situation and monitor how development aid was used.

Yuki Akimoto, director of Burma Info in Tokyo

Yuki Akimoto, director of Burma Info in Tokyo, is more skeptical about the TCG and disputes the ICG's assessment, arguing, "The TCG has a built-in limitation in that one of the three parties is the military regime. The ICG assessment lacks credibility because it misrepresents the reasons why Burma is suffering socio-economically and not receiving development assistance. It is one thing to advocate for increased engagement with the regime, but it is an entirely different matter to defend the military regime, as the ICG assessment effectively does.

"ICG avoids holding the military regime accountable for the situation the regime itself has caused through its brutally self- interested actions and policies, which have enriched the generals and their cronies while impoverishing the nation."

Thant Myint U, former U.N. diplomat and currently a Visiting Fellow with the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, believes that the Nargis relief operations have helped build a better working relationship between the junta and international donors, saying, "The Nargis relief efforts have led to a big shift in attitudes. Now many in the government understand that there is no great danger in providing access to international aid workers, while on the reverse side many donors see the possibilities of working in Burma while meeting international standards of transparency and accountability."

The ICG, in calling for normalizing aid as a strategy for promoting change, maintains that the TCG can be the model for broader engagement elsewhere in the country, presenting it as a task-based, problem-solving approach that nurtures capacity-building, transparency and accountability. The ICG also argues that, "aid cannot be used as a bargaining chip, but should be seen as a valuable instrument in its own right for improving governance and promoting socioeconomic change."

Thant Myint U is less optimistic about copying the TCG model for expanded aid efforts elsewhere in Burma: "What is certain about the TCG is that it has been an invaluable mechanism for delivering emergency aid to affected people in the Nargis-affected areas. The international aid community has been given unprecedented access and it appears that space for ongoing relief and recovery operations can be sustained. Whether it can be expanded to other parts of the country is unlikely. We need creative solutions and shouldn't be tied to the TCG model. What's important is not the mechanism per se but finding ways to deliver aid in a way that meets basic international norms."

In early February one of the ministers who served as Burma's leading representative in the TCG was transferred, and some analysts see this as a sign that the junta is withdrawing its support from the TCG. However, a senior diplomat (who like several others interviewed for this story did not wish to be named) suggests that this speculation is off the mark: "His promotion should not be seen as the junta pulling back from the process. Rather, his promotion to the ministerial level will make it easier for him to act and push the process."

Bertil Lintner, a journalist who has covered Burma for more than two decades

Bertil Lintner, a veteran journalist who has written numerous articles and several books on Burma since the mid-1980s, is one of the most eminent critics of the ICG analysis. He told The Japan Times at the end of 2008 that the ICG report shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the military and Burma, rejecting as "naive in the extreme the proposition that adopting a more respectful tone toward the junta, understanding their worldview and not making an issue of past misdeeds will make it more likely to act rationally and engage in substantive dialogue."

According to Lintner, "The generals are not listening. They are doing what they want and ignore pressure, sanctions and engagement. Neither isolation or engagement have worked and there is no reason to believe that engagement and expanded aid will change their ways. They are happy to have the ICG doing their bidding. In Burmese they have a derogatory word for such people; they are not taken seriously."

In Lintner's view, the TCG does not offer a promising model for expanded engagement elsewhere in Burma, a point supported by several Burmese exiles in Thailand.

Aung Zaw, editor of Irrawaddy, the leading source of critical information about Burma, called it an "ivory-tower perspective written for people who want to increase aid programs. In reality it won't work and advocates should be ashamed of themselves for looking for any excuse to work with an authoritarian regime. But let them come and [Senior General] Than Shwe will teach them a lesson just like the Red Cross. He is good at using and manipulating international organizations and they are good at fooling themselves. He created a small opening in the delta, but can shut them down anytime he wants."

Zaw also scoffs at the ICG's assertion that the junta is able to exploit sanctions to portray itself to the public as defenders of the nation against foreign enemies, suggesting that the ICG has a condescending and inaccurate view of how gullible the people are. He acknowledges that Burmese do suffer from the sanctions and isolation, but says they see them as symbolically important, boosting people's morale because they know the junta is humiliated and that other countries care.

A U.S.-trained Burmese economist points out that the TCG was effective because there were only three ministries involved and each had talented representatives: "There is limited competence in the government and this makes it impossible to see how the TCG model can be expanded elsewhere. And, the government has made sure to insulate the rest of the country from the TCG opening. There is no political backing for an expanded TCG process, it is only for the delta. I can't imagine, for example, the government allowing such a process in Chin state where there is a famine and desperate need for relief."

Dr. Lian Sakhong, an ethnic Chin who is general secretary of the Ethnic Nationalities Council (ENC), also doubts the government will allow relief operations in his homeland and thinks the TCG process will not be extended to any of the ethnic areas where development aid is urgently needed. In his view, the regime is interested in pacification and assimilation, trying to impose a mono-ethnic, centralized model that fails to recognize Burma's rich ethnic diversity.

The military remains allergic to a federal model, but Sakhong, winner of the Martin Luther King Prize in 2007, insists greater autonomy is the only way to create lasting stability in a nation where ethnic groups constitute 40 percent of the population living in 60 percent of the land area.

Win Min, a Burmese political commentator based in Chiang Mai, notes that the ICG has developed cozy relations with midlevel officers and bureaucrats, but doubts this will lead to political reform because there is no top level political backing for reform. He thinks that the ICG is being manipulated and worries that expanding engagement and aid "is unlikely to lead anywhere while conferring legitimacy and stature on a regime that deserves neither."

In contrast, Aung Naing Oo, a Burmese political analyst also residing in Chiang Mai, says "possibilities exist only for programs that don't threaten the military. I agree with the ICG about a long-term gradual process of opening and reform and it's worth trying.

"The problem is that Burmese political culture tends toward extremes. There are no quick solutions and the problem is that the government and opposition have become mirror images of each other, unwilling to compromise.

"Sanctions have prevented change because the regime sees the West standing behind Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy. These are targets they can hit. What you have to understand is that many military officers do want better relations with the U.S. They want to have a modern military and know they cannot rely on China."

"After the 2010 elections," he says, "Burma will need and seek lots of help. This is an opportunity for the West. Not just throwing money at the opposition, but in terms of capacity building across the board. The nitty-gritty of training programs is the basis for long-term engagement that will help the people."

A Burmese economist, fresh from running a project management workshop for Burmese monks, also suggests an engagement strategy that emphasizes technical assistance programs aimed at capacity building. He notes that monks play a critical role in filling gaping holes in providing social welfare services in Burma, including running orphanages and clinics. In his view, the Nargis response exposed just how inefficient and weak the government is.

Dr. Lian Sakhong, general secretary of the Ethnic Nationalities Council and winner of the 2007 Martin Luther King Award

"International disaster relief specialists who arrived found just how little institutional infrastructure there is to mount an effective operation," he says. "The lack of capacity is endemic and a major obstacle to raising living standards." Over the last 20 years, he observes, living standards have improved throughout Southeast Asia, except in Burma.

In his view, more happened in terms of engagement and capacity building in the second half of 2008 than in the past six years combined. He suggests building on this with a brick-by-brick approach, using technical assistance projects as a basis for incrementally ramping up capacity while raising living standards. Expanded technical assistance programs, he believes, would help shape the internal dynamics of the junta and improve prospects for the post-Than Shwe era.

When it comes to the 2010 elections, Byo Kyi, cofounder of Burma's Assistance Association of Political Prisoners, expects little and argues that if the junta is serious about democratization they can start by releasing all of the prodemocracy activists they have rounded up. He contends that "the military does not want to listen to the will of the people because they know it is against them."

David Scott Mathieson, Human Rights Watch's Burma expert, argues that the recent crackdown on dissidents was a mistake because it undermines the credibility of the elections: "Apart from being incredibly brutal, the regime was incredibly stupid in sentencing more than 300 dissidents to long prison sentences. Had they not done so, it might have been able to present this sham process as a legitimate, disciplined approach to democracy, giving the outside world grounds for working with it. Under the circumstances, HRW will not endorse the elections because they offer no glimmer of change. They are a dead-end."

His fear, shared by many other observers, is that several governments are eager to use the elections, even if deeply flawed, as a fig-leaf justifying resumption of normal ties. Mathieson believes, however, that major donors will now find it much harder to "ignore the absurdity of the elections."

Michael Green, a professor at Georgetown University and former director of Asian Affairs on the National Security Council during the Bush Administration, warns, "The junta has been adept at sowing division and exploiting the lack of coordination."

He worries that the elections have high potential for dividing the international community even if they are a sham, because they would provide cover for some countries eager to normalize relations with Burma. Given this risk, Green asserts it is crucial to quickly clarify and build an international consensus on what is minimally required for the elections to be recognized as legitimate by the international community.

A prominent Burmese observer suggests that forging this consensus will be difficult because the U.S. emphasis on human rights and democracy is at odds with the Indian and Chinese emphasis on maintaining stability in border regions. He also has a slightly more optimistic view about the elections: "In 2010 the junta will do as it says, hold elections and allow for the creation of a new government by the end of 2010. This will not represent a clean break with the past and the new government may well include some of the current leadership. But it is important not to underestimate the significance of this transition.

"There will be a generational change in the political leadership and there will be a slight broadening of the political base of the government as it attempts to bring more people and groups under its tent."

He worries less about the elections providing an excuse to engage than as a reason to continue isolation: "It may well turn out that the elections are deemed unacceptable by some Western donors and this would lead to a continuation of current policies and the stalemate. It would also mean a decline in Western involvement and influence in shaping outcomes in Burma and this would be regrettable for the Burmese."

"If there were free and fair elections," he adds, "any party led by Suu Kyi would win a sizable vote and probably a clear majority."

Alas, nobody thinks she will get this opportunity; thus the Burma tragedy will persist unless various stakeholders think creatively about exploiting opportunities the elections may create.

Jeff Kingston is director of Asian Studies at Temple University, Japan campus.

READ MORE---> Speaking out on the future of Burma...

U Kyaw Min: An Imprisoned : Rohingya MP without Citizenship

By Ahmedur Rahman Farooq

Burma, a resource-rich country of 678,500 sq. km and 57.6 million people which the military rulers have turned into a secret state of terror during its 47 years of unbroken despotic rule and where a Nobel Peace Laureate like Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and many other elected members of parliament are languishing in detention or jails years after years, the issue of U Kyaw Min can not usually make a story.

But the case of U Kyaw Min alias Master Shamsul Anowarul Hoque deserves special attention as it is different in nature from legal point of view and it carries a different perspective which is related to the fate of 3.5 million Rohingya ethnic minority of inside and outside Arakan, Burma.

U Kyaw Min is a Rohingya by ethnicity. He has been sentenced to 47 years imprisonment and at the same time his wife Daw Tiza, his two daughters Kin Kin Nu and Way Way Nu and his son Maung Aung Naing have also been sentenced to 17 years imprisonment respectively. Now all of them have been passing a nightmarish life in the jail in Burma. The National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB) which is serving as a government in exile with its headquarter in Washington D.C., states about him:

"U Kyaw Min(age 54), the representative-elect (MP) of Butheetaung Township constituency (1), belongs to the National Democratic Party for Human Rights (NDPHR) and a member of the CRPP, was detained on 17 March 2005, A statement was released by CRPP on last Union Day, in which U Kyaw Min took in active part. Besides, he met with ILO delegation, which visited Burma on 21st to 23rd of February 2005.

He was sentenced to 47 years imprisonment on 29 July 2005. His wife, two daughters and a son were also sentenced to 17 years respectively. The junta banned the NDPHR under order No. 8/92 on 18 March 1992, and at that time U Kyaw Min was a member of the party's Central Executive Committee. U Kyaw Min received a Bachelor of Economics degree from the Rangoon Institute of Economics in 1968, and in 1969 he began working as a teacher. In 1983, he received a Diploma in Education and served as the Deputy Head of Buthidaung Township Educational Department. In 1985 he became a middle school principal but was dismissed from the position in 1989 because of his involvement in the August 1988 uprising. U Kyaw Min received 30,997 valid votes or 74 % in the 1990 elections." (Source: National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma)

U Kyaw Min was born in the village "Mikyanzay" under Buthidaung Township in Arakan State of Burma in 1944. In 1988, he led anti government democratic uprising as the chairman of "Democracy Fighting Committee" of the Mayu Division and at the same time he was the executive member of Arakan State Peace Commitee whose chairman was the then Head Monk of Arakan State and which was maintaining the law and order situation in the whole Arakan State during the two months of chaotic and volatile period of 1988 when there was virtually no governance in Burma. He was also the adviser to the " 88 Generation of Mayu Division".

However, after the landslide victory of U Kyaw Min in the general election of 1990, the military rulers took it as a big dust on their eye. In 1992, he was put in detention for 3 months in the custody of the military intelligence during operation "prataya".

He was again put in detention for 15 days when a senior official of the UN visited Buthidaung in Arakan State. In 1994, an insurgent group launched several offensives in western Arakan, then the military intelligence again put him in detention for 45 days eventhough he has never supported any separatism or armed struggle and has continuously raised his voice for the communal harmony and peaceful coexistence of all communities of Arakan particularly the Rohingyas and Rakhines under the Union of Burma. Finally, in March 2005, he was arrested from his residence in Rangoon and was charged under Section 18 Citizenship Law 1982 and section 5(j) Anti State Emergency Law.

Mentionably, after he joined the CRPP (Committee Representing the People's Parliament) in 1998 at the invitation of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to represent the Rohingya ethnic minority, the main pro-regime party"NUP" (National Unity Party) invited him to join NUP to support military backed national convention and to resign from CRPP. But he did not agree and this has caused serious wrath of the military rulers and the ultimate consequence was the handing of 47 years imprisonment.

From February 21 to 23.2005, a high power delegation of ILO (International Labor Organization) has visited Burma and they have held an exclusive meeting with him and after the visit of that delegation, Burma was suspended from ILO and then the military rulers suspected him to have played an active role in the suspension of Burma from the ILO.

However, the imprisonment of U Kyaw Min under the allegation of not being the citizen of Burma, is a part of systematic persecutions of Rohingya ethnic minority of Arakan. U Kyaw Min has got his graduation from the Rangoon University on the subjects of Bachelor of Economics. As per the Burmese law, this subject is not allowed to study for foreigners. For 18 years, he has held a number of different positions in the government job, which is not allowed for someone who is not the citizen of Burma. It is also true that the Election Commission of Burma never allows a foreigner to participate in a general election. But despite the Election Commission knew it very well that he is a Rohingya, he was allowed to run the election after scrutinizing his nationality status.

Mentionably, an amendment to the Burma citizenship law in 1982 deprived the Rohingyas of citizenship, suddenly making them illegal immigrants in their ancestral motherland where they have been living centuries after centuries and whose presence in the region can be traced back to the 7th Century. However, this amendment has reduced them to the status of a Stateless Gypsy Community of the world.

The Burmese military rulers do not want to know and let others know that the Rohingyas have a long history, a language, a heritage, a culture and a tradition of their own that they had built up in Arakan through their long history of existence there and in order to garner support among the Buddhist majority Burma, the military rulers have continuously run their criminal propaganda against the Rohingyas to such a level that many people still believe that Royhingyas are foreigners and that they do not belong to Burma.

Particularly since the takeover of General Ne Win in 1962, the Burmese military rulers have been continuously stepping up their systemic program to ethnically cleanse the Rohingyas from their ancestral homeland and they have been altering the demography of the region through extermination and displacement of the Rohingya population, demolition and confiscation of Rohingya properties and construction of Pagodas and monasteries on the demolished sacred sites of the Rohingyas to obliterate the identity of the Rohingyas.

In Arakan there is a vast number of written and unwritten discriminatory rules which govern the lives of Rohingyas. They are subjected to severe restrictions of movement, which affect their ability to trade and to seek employment as well as limit their access to health care and education. The Rohingyas must apply for written permission to travel out of their home villages, and another permission document to sleep overnight in another village.

Akyab (Sittwe), the capital city of Arakan, is totally off limits to them. Marrying without permission – and permission is often denied or delayed – can bring hefty fines and prison sentences and turns children of such "illegal" marriages into stateless non-persons. For the decades-long downtrodden and poverty-stricken Rohingyas, complying with the myriad restrictions requires an onerous and mostly unofficial payment every step of the way. Arbitrary confiscation of land without compensation continues, either to provide land for new Buddhist settlers or to build and enlarge military camps, including plantations to grow crops for the military for their own food as well as for commercial purposes.

Since the promulgation of the new Burma Citizenship Law 1982, the Rohingya students are denied their basic rights to education outside Arakan. It is important to point out that all professional institutes are situated outside Arakan. Thus, the Rohingya students are unable to study there because of such travel prohibition. In recent years, the Rohingya students are prohibited from even going to Akyab (Sittwe) to attend Sittwe University for their studies. These draconian measures barring Rohingyas from attending universities and professional institutes are marginalizing them as the most illiterate section within the Burmese population. They are forced to embrace a very bleak future for them.

Traditionally, the Rohingyas are a farming community that depends on agricultural produce and breeding of cattle and fowls. Unfortunately, they are forced to pay heavy taxes on everything they own: cattle, food grains, agricultural produce, shrimp, tree, and even roof of their homes. Even for a minor repair of their homes, they are forced to pay tax. They are required to report birth and death of a livestock to the authority while paying an arbitrary fee. Extra-judicial killing and summery executions, rape of women, arrest and torture, forced labor, forced relocation, confiscation of moveable and immoveable properties, religious sacrileges, etc., are regular occurrences in Arakan.

As a result, severe poverty, unemployment, lack of education and official discrimination are compelling the Rohingyas to lead an inhuman life, causing a negative affect to each Rohingya, especially its youths and workforces.. The future of the community remains bleak and exodus into neighboring Bangladesh and other countries like Thailand or Malaysia has become a recurrent phenomenon. The new arrivals unfortunately often face arrests and/or pushback from the Bangladesh security forces. And there is no international agency to look after the interest of these stateless Rohingyas. Because of their lack of legal identity, they are not allowed to work or hold work permit by any name. To survive, many work as illegal workers in different countries of the world where in many places they and their children are deprived of basic human rights.

However, in response to the efforts of the UNHCR to facilitate the survival of Rohingyas, the military rulers have agreed by middle of 2007 to issue Temporary Registration Certificate (TRC) for a limited number of Rohingyas, enabling them to inland travel from township to township or to apply for marriage permission. The UNHCR is present in northern Arakan state for the past 15 years, monitoring the welfare of more than 230,000 Rohingya former refugees who returned from next-door Bangladesh from 1992 onwards.

Nevertheless, after the resignation of the rest three Rohingya MPs under the pressure of the military regime, U Kyaw Min who proved to have the courage to stare at the eye of death, remained the only elected member of parliament among 3.5 million Rohingya Community to represent the political future of the Rohingyas in the National Parliament of Burma, in different strata of the state level of Burma and also to represent the Rohingya community in the UN and other World Bodies. He is a visionary leader and an illustrious son of the soil of Arakan. His ideal remains a luminary for the Rohingyas to build up a future even standing in the debris.He inspired hundreds of thousands of Rohingya youths to think as to how to emancipate the stateless Rohingya community from their decades-long sufferings.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyie is regarded by the people of Burma as well as Rohingyas as the icon of peace and liberty and at the sametime U Kyaw Min is regarded by the Rohingyas as the ray of hope as well as the crown of their respect which has been reflected in his landslide victory in the 1990 General Election and which has been recognized as a significant landmark for representation and which came after 26 years of military dictatorship. In fact, it was the first time when the people of Burma got an opportunity to vote for a government of their choice. It was one of the free and fair elections that had taken place in the South-East Asia region at that decade. He made unprecedented contributions for the cause of emancipation of the whole Rohingya community and as a great Rohingya scholar, he has shown the Rohingya community the road to emancipation through the restoration of communal harmony between Rohingyas and Rakhines under the Union of a democratic government of Burma.

U Kyaw Min tried his level best to inject the spirit of brotherhood among all communities of Arakan particularly the Rohingyas and Rakhines to work shoulder in shoulder for the build up of a prosperous future. He lives with dignity in the hearts of tens of thousands homeless Rohingyas. By imprisoning him on the charge of being an alien, the military rulers will not be able to wipe out his name from hearts of Rohingyas as well as other democratic forces of Burma. They have rather set with it another example of forcefully snatching away the rights of Rohingyas to citizenship and thus to compel them to born, live and die in this world without having the basic rights as stipulated by the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

- Asian Tribune -

READ MORE---> U Kyaw Min: An Imprisoned : Rohingya MP without Citizenship...

Junta takes census in Wa, Mongla territory

By Hseng Khio Fah
Shan Herald Agency for News

More than 80 officials from several civil and governmental departments with 7 trucks in Kengtung, are reported to have started taking census in the areas under the control of United Wa State Army (UWSA) and its ally Mongla-based National Democratic Alliance Army-Eastern Shan State (NDAA-ESS) since February 26.

The census is being carried out by officials from departments such as immigration, police, special bureau, township peace and development councils (TPDC). They were divided into four groups.

However, one group of 27 officials along with 2 trucks, going into Mongpawk, south of the Wa capital Panghsang, were not allowed to pass into the area due to lack of permission from the top, said a local resident.

They were stopped by the Wa at Khosoong gate, the boundary line between the Wa and Mongla. The group returned to Kengtung on the following day.

The remaining 3 groups conducted census in the Mongla region. So far, they have collected family lists in the Hsalue-based 369th Brigade, Yang Nguen (Akha village), Yangkawng, southeast of Mongla, said a source.

However, there has been no information as to what kind of cards villagers will receive.

“They [authorities] told us that they would give ID cards. But we don’t know what type and color we will get,” a local resident told SHAN.

In 2008, there were many temporary ID cards of different colors that the authorities had issued to the people such as yellow, green and white.

Some border watchers say the junta is trying to complete the national census before the 2010 elections.

The returned group has reportedly appealed to the Triangle Regional commander to discuss with the leaders of Panghsang. However, the commander replied that he could not do that without orders from Nay Pyi Taw, said a source close to the junta.

“The reason we did not admit the junta’s officials was because of tight security restrictions before the celebrations,” a source quoted a Wa officer saying.

Wa and Mongla stopped junta officials from issuing temporary cards in their regions in March 2008, according to SHAN report in April 2008.

Census is also being conducted in Mon State, Independent Mon News Agency (IMNA) reported yesterday.

READ MORE---> Junta takes census in Wa, Mongla territory...

Myanmar refugee speaks out for Muslim group

By SETSUKO KAMIYA

(Japan Times) -A Muslim refugee from Myanmar urged the government Tuesday to grant political asylum to other members of his minority group, the Rohingya, who have fled the oppression of the ruling military junta.

"They are victims of systematic, persistent and widespread human rights violations," asserted Zaw Min Htut, who in 2002 became the first Rohingya to be granted refugee status by Japan.

Members of the ethnic minority from western Myanmar were rendered stateless by the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law.

The group recently became a focus of international attention when the Thai military began turning away hundreds of Rohingya boat people in December.

Their plight was even discussed at the ASEAN meeting in Thailand that ended Monday.

Speaking at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan in Tokyo, Htut said the Rohingya, who are a target of religious and political persecution, have been forced to flee their homeland for countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and even the United Arab Emirates. A large majority, however, reside in Bangladesh.

About 200 Rohingya are in Japan, both legally and illegally, he said.

According to Htut, only 11 Rohingya have been granted refugee status by Japan, while 27 have received special residence permission on humanitarian grounds. About 70 family members of the permit holders reside in Japan, while 92 are currently seeking refugee status.

Shogo Watanabe, a lawyer who represents Myanmar asylum seekers in Japan, including Rohingya, said many of those seeking refugee status have entered Japan illegally on fake passports, largely due to their statelessness. Despite the political situation back home, they can face deportation to Myanmar, he said.

About 30 of the 92 asylum seekers already have been turned down and are filing lawsuits against the government to overturn the decision, Watanabe said.

"Rohingya are persecuted just because they are Rohingya, and they are stateless and should not be deported back to Myanmar," Watanabe said. "It's very hard to understand why the government keeps rejecting them, because surely they know the situation the Rohingya are in."

A Justice Ministry official, however, said ethnicity is not a criteria for granting political asylum. "Internationally, the criteria is whether the person is politically persecuted" and thus each applicant is reviewed according to his or her activities, she said.

READ MORE---> Myanmar refugee speaks out for Muslim group...

Generation Wave activists sentenced - Nyein Chan and Aung Ko Min

(DVB)–Generation Wave members Nyein Chan and Aung Ko Min were handed down jail terms by Sanchaung township court on 27 February for distributing leaflets marking the one-year anniversary of the group’s formation.

The two are currently being held at Insein prison and will be transferred to remote prisons.

Nyein Chan was sentenced to eight years under section 6 of Unlawful Associations Act and section 17(1) of Immigration Act. He still faces further charges.

Aung Ko Min was sentenced to five years with the Unlawful Association Act, a relative of theirs said.

They were arrested at home on 10 October 2008, a day after the first anniversary of the formation of GW. Eight more members were arrested on the same day, GW member Moe Thway said.

"We distributed leaflets on 9 October to mark the anniversary and they were arrested in connection with that,” he said.

“Others arrested were Zin Min Aung, Aung Paing, Yeh Khaung Htut from south Okkalapa. Arkar (also known as Kyaw Thu Myo Myint) was arrested three or four days later and sentenced to 10 years.”

They were all transferred to remote jails at Kawthaung, Taungoo, Kyaukpyu and Mong Sat.

Reporting by Nan Kham Kaew

READ MORE---> Generation Wave activists sentenced - Nyein Chan and Aung Ko Min...

The Death of Justice for Rohingyas

By Ahmedur Rahman Farooq
Asian Tribune

On Feb 27,2009, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) said it will send hundreds of Rohingya boat people back to military-ruled Burma. Meeting at its 14th annual summit, the 10-member bloc agreed to compile and pool information and interviews on the Rohingyas, who washed up on the shores of Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia having fled oppression in Burma.

At the same time, quoting the Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win, the Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said, Burma is ready to take back the Rohingya migrants if they can prove they are of Bengali descent, which is a recognized ethnic minority there. Truly, there can be no appropriate word in the vocabulary to denounce such farcical statement of the Burmese Foreign Minister. The fact is, the Burmese military regime has snatched away Rohingyas' right to citizenship of Burma simply branding them as the descendants of the Bengalese and thus denied them of their ethnic status.

However, on March 28,2008, the then Prime Minister of Thailand Samak Sundaravej said, the Thai Navy is exploring a deserted island to place all the Rohingyas living in Thailand mostly as undocumented refugees. He made the statement after emerging from a two-hour long meeting of the country's National Security Council.

And in continuation of such policy, the Rohingya boat people have been recently dumped into the deep sea so that they get perished there beyond anybody's notice. But fortunately or unfortunately, they all did not perish. Some of them survived to draw international attention and thus cause a big headache not only for Thailand but for the ASEAN bloc. So, in order to remove their headache, the ASEAN leaders found it the best way to hand over the Rohingyas to the Burmese army so that they can solve their problem of 'Rohingya headache' once and for all by cutting the heads of the Rohingyas.

However, on Jan 27,2009, Thailand said Rohingyas do not face persecution in Burma. They said the Rohingyas caught in Thai waters are illegal immigrants, not refugees, and will never be let into the country.

"There is no reasonable ground to believe that these migrants fled from their country of origin for well-founded fear of being persecuted," the government said in a statement defending its treatment of the Rohingya boat people.

The definition of 'persecution' might be different for the Thai authority. But the Rohingyas have been fleeing Burma because of extreme human rights violations unleashed by the Burmese military regime to annihilate the entire Rohingya populations from Arakan which is a state under the Union of Burma. They have been subjected to severe persecutions including denial of their citizenship, a ban on marriage without government permission, severe restrictions of movement, religious persecution, extortion, land confiscation and restrictions on access to education. Arakan State is a closed zone for the media and so there is no scope for the world media to cover what is going on on the Rohingyas inside Arakan.

However, these unfortunate Rohingya refugee boat people have already suffered a lot. They have come back to life from the mouth of death after passing several weeks in the deep sea without food and water. And hundreds of them have perished in the deep sea after the Thai navy has left around 1,000 Rohingya refugees adrift in the ocean in boats without engine or food or water.

Being crowded in hundreds in rickety wooden boats, they have tried to escape persecutions and grinding poverty and washed ahore in Thailand and Indonesia. And again, while fleeing to Thailand, a group of these boat people were intercepted by the Burmese navy and the navy sailed their boat south toward Thailand. The survivors said soldiers from four boats boarded their vessel with wooden and metal rods and beat them.

A group of 78 refugees who survived being at sea for a month, then being beaten and burned, and later washed ashore in Thailand were having serious burns and wounds after their boat had been attacked and detained by the Burmese navy and then set on fire in the deep sea. There were many injuries on their backs, legs and many other parts of their body.

Later, a Thai court convicted those barefoot, disheveled Rohingyas on the charge of illegally entry to the country. A Ranong provincial court judge fined each defendant 1,000 baht ($30) a sum that none of them could produce. So he sentenced them to five days in prison. There were twelve minors who were too young to be tried in the court.

It is also true that even though the Rohingyas have been continuously mutilated by the Burmese regime from all sides of their life because of their Muslim religion, but their Muslim identity has never been able to draw minimum sympathy of the Muslim countries.

Indonesia is the largest Muslim majority-nation of the world. Thailand and Brunei are two powerful Muslim countries of the world. They are also the members of the ASEAN. In order to sign the capital punishment for the Rohingyas for causing headache to them, they have also happily joined their hand with other ASEAN leaders on their decision to hand over the Rohingyas to the military regime.

Rohingyas are one of the most liberal Muslim communities of the world. Therefore, they love and prefer to introduce themselves with their secular ethnic name 'Rohingya' which does not bear minimum significance of their religion.

But inspite of this, the Rohingyas have been continuously subjected to the worst human rights violations and a systematic genocidal operations because of their Muslim religion and also because of being majority in many townships of Arakan Sate of Burma before (now Rohingyas are majority only in two townships in Western Arakan ).

Through the century-long persecutions, the entire Rohingya community has been reduced to a skeletal human group. Sub-human standard is the standard of their living. Most of them live like packs of rats in a sewer with half naked body which is full of hunger and grief. Most of them appear to be haggard and emaciated. Every day they struggle to arrange two meals a day for themselves and for their malnourished children. They leave their wives and children behind while they set out on perilous sea journey to find refuge and work in some other country.

Of course such wretched condition of the Rohingyas is a matter of great amusement for the Burmese military regime. On Feb 9,2009, the Burmese Counsel Ye Myint Aung in Hong Kong, in a letter to his fellow diplomats, termed the "Rohingyas as ugly as ogres" meaning that the Rohingyas cannot qualify as Burmese citizens because of their appearance.

"You will see in the photos that their complexion is dark brown," said the Burmese Counsel, referring to the Rohingya boat people. He went on to describe the complexion of Burmese as "fair and soft, good looking as well."

Once the Rohingyas believed that it is only Burma which is a hell for them and if they can some how escape to somewhere outside Burma or if their luck can help them reach Thailand or Malaysia or Indonesia through the sea route, then they will find sanctuary and will be able to save the life of their hungry family. But the decision of the ASEAN leaders has clearly demonstrated that those who will brave to go to them will be pushed back to the mouth of death of the military regime.

There are huge nice and promising words in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also in different international laws or conventions which have been adopted to ensure justice and protection of the persecuted human beings. But for the Rohingyas those words are something like dreams. Their experience has made them clearly understand that those caluses or law or by-laws are not meant for the Rohingyas. They also clearly understand that their cry for justice and human rights will never save their life.

They also understand that they were born to live as parasites of the human society. Today, they are forced to believe that it is only 'Pity'..only 'Pity' which can save their life. And that is why one Rohingya boat tragedy survivor Mamoud Hussain, pleaded to the Thai court: "Have pity on us. They [Burmese army] will kill me and my family if I go back."

- Asian Tribune -

READ MORE---> The Death of Justice for Rohingyas...

Northern commander amasses wealth fleecing drug smugglers

The junta's new Northern Regional Command Commander Maj-Gen Soe Win promises people in Kachin State that he will eradicate drugs in the State. Photo: Kachin News

Maj-Gen Soe Win, the northern regional or Kachin State command commander of the Burmese ruling junta has amassed a huge amount of money by fleecing drug smugglers, said sources close to him.

In Kachin State, every northern regional command (Ma Pa Kha) commander has earned money from jade mines, gold mines, timber, illicit drugs, and giving out a variety of business permits. Now, however, the amount of income from illicit drugs has topped the list for northern commanders starting from former northern regional commander Maj-Gen Ohn Myint to the present commander Maj-Gen Soe Win.

According to local Kachin businessmen, the northern regional commander is the most powerful man in the command. However they cannot make vast amounts of money from other business ventures in Kachin State except from illicit drug trade because other business ventures are directly under the control of Naypyidaw, the capital of the country.

Local reliable sources close to Maj-Gen Soe Win said, he has already received some 600 million kyats in cash which is equivalent US $ 606,061 each from two major drug smuggling gangs in the country as bribe. And the bribes are for permission from the commander Maj-Gen Soe Win to freely distribute different kinds of drugs in Kachin State.

The two drug smuggling syndicates trade in heroin, Yama or also called Methamphetamines and other kinds of drugs except opium from the Burma’s northeast Shan State bordering China to Hpakant jade mining city in Kachin State. This is one of the largest drug markets in the country, said local sources close to drug smugglers.

According to sources close to drug smugglers in Kachin State, heroin and Yama are mainly transported from Muse, the country’s largest border trade zone with China to Hpakant jade mining city along three main tracks such as Muse-Mandalay-Mogaung (Hopin during Summer)-Hpakant, Muse-Pyi Oo Lwin-Mogaung (Hopin during Summer) and Kambaiti-Myitkyina-Hpakant.

A Kachin businessman in Hpakant told KNG, “There are tens of thousands of jade miners from different areas in Burma in Hpakant jade mining areas and they all consume heroin or Yama or opium, daily. The illicit drugs are available everywhere in Hpakant and easy to get hold of. It is impossible to have an abundance of such drugs in Hpakant without the involvement of the local Burmese military from top to bottom.”

Local sources close to drug smugglers said, Kachin State has to import drugs from other areas because now there are “higher number of drug users and less local drugs.” The number of local farmers and businessmen in Kachin State turning to cultivating poppy in Hukawng (Hugawng) Valley, Sadon or also known as Sadung areas and Putao district is also on the rise.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) also said, poppy cultivations has increased in Burma’s Shan and Kachin States.

READ MORE---> Northern commander amasses wealth fleecing drug smugglers...

More hi-tech gimmicks for the Army

Photo: Lianozovo Electromechanical Plant (LEMZ)

By SHAN
Shan Herald Agency for News

An unknown number of the radar sets were transferred to the Army in Rangoon on 23 February and 25 February (2009) , according to the report.

One of them is due to be installed at Loi Mwe, 20 miles south of Kengtung and 82 miles north of Maesai.

The radar provides a maximum range of 350 km (218.75 miles). Besides, it has the advantages of “low cost, high reliability, simplicity and friendliness of operation control” plus “Built-in identification ‘friend or foe’ (IFF) interrogator,” according to its catalogue.

The Russians already have an improved updated model: 1L117M.

SHAN reported in January that the Burma Army has put to use the UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) maps and has been training in another Russian-made lgla MANPADS (Man portable Air Defense System).

READ MORE---> More hi-tech gimmicks for the Army...

Do We Need a ‘Diplomat Watch’?

By SIT NAING THU
The Irrawaddy News

I congratulate The Irrawaddy for publishing an interview with British Ambassador Mark Canning (“Mark My Words”). Canning said that, “...while the search for a political solution goes on, the people of this country should not be made to suffer further.” I completely agree with him.

I live in the country, and I notice that we now have fewer professional foreign diplomats based in Rangoon. Canning is a rare species—he seems focused, and he understands the situation. Before him, I remember Martin Morland as a courageous British ambassador who stood up against the Saw Maung regime. Former US Ambassador Burton Levin was also a strong supporter of the democracy uprising in 1988—the indiscriminate killing took place in front of the US embassy when people marched there to protest against the Ne Win regime.

But those days are gone. The US has downgraded its diplomatic tie with the regime since the 1988 massacre and since then many people see the quality and professionalism of diplomats posted in military-colonized Burma as something of a mixed bag. Some Asian ambassadors are known to be sympathizers with the regime and the generals—to name a few: India, China, Thailand, Singapore and Japanese embassies enjoy “friendly” relations with the regime. It is a shame and a disgrace in the history of Myanmar [Burma], and one day we will all remember.

But these Asian diplomats should not be disappointed. There are those in the West who share their views. In Burma, as recently as last year, a Western embassy invited only pro-junta people and regime sympathizers to one reception. The embassy claimed that it do not want a pro-democracy crowd. The US and UK missions are still popular among Burmese, but the postings of some diplomats have been controversial.

We all know diplomats and ambassadors based in Bangkok are also responsible for Burma. Those postings are difficult jobs as far as I understand. Burmese exiled groups and people friendly with the dissident movement have to deal with people in new postings about every three year. They find some good friends, but they tell me they also some who have differing views. Rumors circulated that these days some Bangkok-based diplomats and ambassadors support the 2010 election, and they naively believe that Burma is going to change after 2010. Is it true?

Some diplomats have, I was told, been “brainwashed” and ignore the plight of the Burmese people, refugees and displaced people along the border and inside. They have never traveled to the border zone to learn firsthand. Is it true? If it is, then it is sad news. The quality of diplomats working on Burma has gone down, I think.

My Burmese colleagues told me they hope for more diplomats who have real knowledge and a more balanced view on Burma.

Is there a complaint mechanism if Burmese supporters inside and outside the country believe that some ambassadors and diplomats aren’t professionally competent?

Are they happy giving their credentials to “Naypyidaw Than Shwe,” who in return offers them a political lecture? Since The Irrawaddy has a “Than Shwe Watch,” is it time for a “UN Watch or Gambari Watch?” Maybe it’s time for a “Diplomat Watch.”

Sit Naing Thu is an independent Burmese observer of politics and civil society in Burma.

READ MORE---> Do We Need a ‘Diplomat Watch’?...

Burmese PM Agrees to Election Monitors

“Before we even talk about monitoring
the election,
there has to be a constitutional review;
there has to be a release of
[political] prisoners,” --by Debbie Stothard

By MIN LWIN
The Irrawaddy News

Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein reportedly said he would allow United Nations officials and developed countries to monitor the military-sponsored 2010 election during a meeting with his counterpart Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva at the Asean Summit in Thailand.

The Burmese junta will allow United Nations officials to observe its long-awaited general election next year, the Thailand-based Bangkok Post newspaper said on Sunday.

The newspaper quoted Thai deputy government spokesman Suphachai Jaisamut who said Thein Sein told PM Abhisit Vejjajiva that Burma would allow UN special Burma envoy Ibrahim Gambari and the UN staff to observe the election. (JEG's: passing over the "what she said, what he said... has Sein confirmed the Elections Monitoring?)

Burma also wanted observers from developed countries to monitor the election, the newspaper reported. No countries were named.

The move was seen by some as an effort to move the momentum for the election forward, in the face of strong criticism from democracy groups inside and outside Burma.

“Before we even talk about monitoring the election, there has to be a constitutional review; there has to be a release of [political] prisoners,” said Debbie Stothard, the coordinator of the Alternative Asean Network, speaking to The Irrawaddy on Monday. “There has to be freedom of association and freedom of expression.”

“Otherwise, there is no free and fair [election]—there is no need to hold an election,” she said.

Meanwhile, many Burmese opposition groups have said they will not take part in the election unless the recently approved constitution is reviewed and amended.

The National League of Democracy (NLD), Burma’s main opposition party, has declared it will not take part in the election unless the regime releases all political prisoners, starts a dialogue between pro-democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi and the junta’s leader and reviews the 2008 constitution.

Recently, the NLD said it did not agree with a joint-statement by UN special envoy Gambari and Japan Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone, saying international countries should encourage the Burmese junta to hold general elections in 2010 in a form that would be accepted by the international community.

Nyan Win, an NLD spokesperson, told The Irrawaddy that the joint statement was not consistent with NLD positions as well as resolutions by the UN General Assembly which honor the 1990 election results, which were not implemented by the military regime.

READ MORE---> Burmese PM Agrees to Election Monitors...

Climbing the Summits

By Yeni
The Irrawaddy News

The summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) ended in Thailand on Sunday with a short statement calling on Burma, the grouping’s most troublesome member, to release its political prisoners and engage in an “all-inclusive process” as the country moves toward a general election in 2010. Conspicuously absent from the statement was any mention of detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

At a press briefing, Thailand’s Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said: “The Asean leaders encouraged Myanmar [Burma] to continue cooperation with the United Nations and to make sure that the roadmap continues according to plan, and that the process would be as inclusive as possible, which includes, of course, the continuation of the release of prisoners or political detainees and also the participation of political parties in the upcoming election.”

Abhisit’s words were delivered in the characteristic tone that Asean members use when discussing the affairs of fellow members. There was no hectoring or threat of pressure—just a polite, and slightly pleading, request for cooperation. “The Asean way,” after all, is all about friendly, fraternal advice, non-interference, and the avoidance of anything that might sow seeds of dissension.

But this did not stop Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi from expressing some dissatisfaction with the attitude of the Burmese delegation. During a closed-door exchange among Asean leaders, Gen Thein Sein, the junta’s prime minister, bluntly told his counterparts that Burma would deal with the United Nations, and not Asean, in talks about the country’s political future. Badawi told reporters afterwards that the regional club, which has provided the Burmese regime with diplomatic cover since it admitted Burma in 1997, “will not be the interlocutor” in efforts to end the country’s international isolation.

Far from seeking a more active role in pushing for political reforms in Burma, Asean seemed more interested in counseling the UN to move cautiously with its own efforts. Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon against returning to the country prematurely, because doing so would “raise unrealistic expectations that cannot be met and would be counter-productive.”

This is a danger that the UN chief understands all too well. Speaking to reporters following a meeting of the so-called Group of Friends of Myanmar, Ban recently said: “I will try to visit, but there may be some issues. First of all, I have to discuss with the Myanmar government about timing, about agendas which I would be able to discuss, but nothing has yet been discussed.”

In the meantime, there are indications that the regime may be willing to make at least one concession to the UN. The Bangkok Post, quoting a senior Thai official, said that Thein Sein told the Thai prime minister that Burma would allow UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari and UN staff to observe a national election slated to take place in 2010.

Asean has also had to make some conciliatory gestures. After two civil society representatives—Khin Ohmar of Burma and Pen Sommoly of Cambodia—were barred from a meeting between representatives of Southeast Asian civil society and the 10 Asean heads of state, Thai PM Abhisit met them later to make up for the snub.

But it will take far more than this to convince the world that Asean is serious about becoming a credible defender of fundamental rights. If Asean wants to fulfill its ambition of creating an Asean Community by 2015, it will need to take bold steps to overcome its image as a grouping that is constantly at the mercy of controversies caused by a member that doesn’t seem to care how its actions affect others.

READ MORE---> Climbing the Summits...

Summit Happened—But We Don’t Know What

“I smell sound bites,” he mumbled, “but no news.”

The press pack awaits another sound bite.
(Photo: The Irrawaddy)

By DAVID PAQUETTE - The Irrawaddy News

LETTER FROM CHA-AM

By Saturday afternoon, any expectations we had of Burma issues being addressed at the Asean Summit went out the window.

Myriad versions of the old politician’s maxim, “We’re keeping the process moving forward,” consumed every press conference and photo-op. Discussions were frequently said to have been “candid and open,” and “conducted in a spirit of cooperation and consultation.”

In a single 10-minute statement to the press, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva managed to squeeze in “advancing,” “pushing ahead,” “reaching further,” step by step,” “shoring up confidence,” “restoration of confidence,” “pushing ahead” and “stepping towards building a framework” with seamless ease.

Rather than running back to the media center to file their stories post-haste, journalists milled around after each press conference, scratching their heads, exchanging pained looks with their colleagues and staring blankly at their notes.

The message we were being asked to relay back to the public was clear—this Asean summit was more than just a schmooze fest with nice wine and a chance for the wives to compare evening gowns. There was some serious progress going on behind the scenes.

Asean General-Secretary Surin Pitsuwan was positively buoyant. “You just have to trust us,” he seemed to be saying, suppressing a wink. Even if reporters’ questions weren’t being addressed, he hinted, you could be sure the delegates were addressing the issues. (JEG's: which issues were those???)

But you had to hand to it the assembled press. Whatever the subject, be it bilateral talks with Brunei or the signing of an agreement to allow Southeast Asian dentists to, I don’t know, perform root-canal surgery across the region, I guess—ultimately the press conference came back to the Rohingya issue.

Speaking in a rather adorable Essex accent, the Thai premier managed to smile, skip and sidestep all questions on the Rohingya issue at three successive press conferences, finally prompting one gritty reporter from the Bangkok Post to ask: “Is ‘Rohingya’ a taboo word at this conference?”

“Not at awwll,” replied the premier in his David Beckham lilt and then proved it by employing the word in every sentence thereafter—a departure from the semantic stumbling block that had beleaguered delegates for days, with the Burmese government apparently only willing to accept terminology such as “Bengalis” or “Illegal Migrants in the Indian Ocean.”

Not that we had the opportunity to catch a glimpse of Gen Thein Sein or others from the Burmese delegation. By keeping the 1,200 registered members of the press penned up at the Sheraton while the Asean delegates had the run of the Dusit some two kilometers down the beach, the Thai authorities ensured that the delegates could avoid nosy journalists while their spouses had the pool to themselves.

Some 5,700 extra police had been pulled into Cha-am for the summit and reporters had to be shuttled back and forth through security checkpoints into the Dusit grounds in CNG minivans. Several times a day the highway that was the artery linking us to the summit was blocked, such as when members of the Thai royal family came and went or when one of the delegates passed through town.

Ten kilometers away in Hua Hin, elderly Scandinavian tourists stood under trees on the sidewalk in the scorching sun, unable to cross the road to get to the beach while traffic was halted for an hour at a time.

On Saturday morning, a protest against the Burmese government gathered just 15 activists on bicycles, surrounded by dozens of policemen, onlookers and reporters. For lack of juicy news from the summit—and with not a red-shirt in sight—the Bangkok dailies ran the protest on their front pages. (good idea...)

Back at the summit, a Thai government spokesman told the assembled press that the 10 Asean heads of state had met a delegation of civil society representatives for the first time in Asean’s 41-year history. Whether this was supposed to be a landmark coming-together of politicians and activists, or a photo-op for the new and improved “people-oriented” Asean, the meeting failed to cast anything other than a shadow over the summit, even before it began.

First, the Burmese and Cambodian delegates threatened to boycott the meeting because they didn’t like the NGOs that were attending. They succeeded in having two of the civil society representatives—including Burma’s Khin Ohmar—banned from the meeting. Then they asked the NGO leaders to take their shoes off before entering the meeting, in fear that they might toss their sandals at a head of state. The request was revoked, but not before it caused ripples of laughter from the press corps back at Base Sheraton.

We held out for something—a breakthrough. While business matters surrounding the global financial crisis appeared to have been dealt with neatly and swiftly in Bangkok the weekend before, you couldn’t help but get the impression that the Asean leaders were resting on their laurels and that slippery matters such as the human rights body, stateless refugees dying at sea and political prisoners in Burma could all wait for another day.

In the end, we had to settle for acting as stenographers for the Asean ministers’ press releases. I had visions of news headlines around the world blurting out: “Asean Ministers Conduct Candid Talks in a Spirit of Cooperation and Consultation.”

One veteran reporter on Burma, who had arrived late, summed it up with one slow 360-degree scan of the press room. “I smell sound bites,” he mumbled, “but no news.”

READ MORE---> Summit Happened—But We Don’t Know What...

Singapore’s Lee Urges Burma to Engage Int’l Community

The Irrawaddy News

Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong urged Burma’s military leaders to engage the international community during an interview at the Asean Summit in Thailand on Sunday.

“We see a window of opportunity for Myanmar [Burma] to engage the US and the international community,” he said. “Myanmar can capitalize on this opportunity by cooperating with the United Nations,” Singapore’s Straits Times reported Lee as saying.

The Singaporean prime minister also noted that during a recent visit to the region, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that both sanctions and engagement have failed to achieve results in Burma.

Lee also urged the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) to support the mission of UN special envoy to Burma. Ibrahim Gambari. But he added that Asean should not encourage a visit to the country by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “unless there are concrete deliverables.”

“A visit will raise unrealistic expectations that cannot be met and would be counter-productive,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Burmese junta on Friday agreed to take back boatpeople if they are identified as “Bengalis,” rather than as Rohingya, according to a report in The Nation, a Thai English-language daily.

The Nation quoted Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya as saying that his Burmese counterpart took the view that “The Burmese government does not recognize the Rohingya people as one of 135 minority ethnic groups and it would accept only those who can be identified as Bengalis residing in the country.”

READ MORE---> Singapore’s Lee Urges Burma to Engage Int’l Community...

Biting the hand that feeds the nation

By Pascal Khoo-Thwe

(DVB)–As Peasants’ Day is marked in Burma on 2 March, the plight of farmers in the country remains desperate.

Farmers or 'peasants', including tribesmen, are one of the most abused, exploited and overlooked social denomination in Burma – and they are often taken for granted not only by the ruling elites but also by the opposition groups.

Yet they make up the majority of the population, and the ruling elites are mostly of peasant stock.

Whenever there is political instability or power struggles among the ruling elites, rural areas are where they always go to rally for support. Villagers are forced to join willy-nilly at their own risk and irrespective of the outcomes.

After the coup in September 1988, preceded by the nationwide uprising, students and activists fled into the jungles to avoid arrests. Villagers gave us shelters, fed us and guided us through the dangerous jungles, feared by us so-called educated people. But as soon as we were out of danger, it was the villagers who bore the brunt of the wrath of the army, and their villages were burnt down, crops destroyed, and they themselves were imprisoned, tortured or even killed.

During the parliamentary democracy period from 1948 to 1962, many farmers were recruited as cannon fodder for various factions of the rebels fighting U Nu's government, which also recruited villagers. When asked by U Nu why so many farmers had joined the Burma Communist Party, someone reportedly replied that had the prime minister looked after the farmers better, there would not be much support for the communists.

The late dictator General Ne Win exploited the weakness of U Nu by enticing farmers with favours and actively promoting the myth of noble peasants on the one hand and meting out brutality towards those who opposed his myth with the other. As a result, the communists were driven out of their strongholds in central Burma, but sympathy for the communists never went away, even though most of them do not believe in Communism. Once he achieved his aim of gaining absolute power, Ne Win treated the farmers with same disdain as his predecessors and ignored their plight.

The situation was no better for farmers during the colonial period either. When ex-monk Saya San led farmers – mostly armed with amulets, spears and agricultural tools – against their foreign masters during the 1930s, the British ruthlessly crushed the rebellion with a campaign that treated the farmers no better than dacoits. They were imprisoned, hung and shot. The rebellion was said to be caused by money lending Chettiars from India who monopolised the rice market and sucked the blood of farmers dry with high interest rates, which was also exacerbated by the Great Depression.

But many, including those who lived under colonial rule, argue that the situation for present-day farmers is worse than that under the British. They are certainly not wrong, if not completely right. In place of Chettiars are now companies owned by the army and relatives and cronies of the generals, who are using all available means and tricks to bleed the farmers dry. Farmers are eking out a life no better than that of slaves as their best farms, crops, communal pastures and jungles are confiscated by the army, and they are commandeered into forced labour for 'government projects'. And their children are still forcibly recruited into the army.

Their remaining children cannot afford to go to school, and some of them have sold their ancestral farmlands to look for jobs in cities and neighbouring countries, or to join the rebels. When the guardians of Burmese rural life are forced to leave their homes due to the impacts of globalisation and greed, their old communities are left derelict and lifeless.

But it is hard to imagine the rise of a new Saya San in the near future for farmers as it is harder to fight your own flesh and blood than foreign 'bloodsuckers'. It will take more than Seven Samurais to get rid of the cancerous climate of fear and its agents in Burma, as the military itself is merely an agent of powerful neighbouring countries which only are mainly interested in getting cheap natural resources from Burma.

At the same time, farmers and the children of farmers who became soldiers, doctors, engineers and the like must change or at least improve our ways of thinking and modus operandi if we are to retain a hint of our traditions and identity. Burma is like a burning house and we can't save everything. What makes it worse is, most of us affected have been playing the crying and blaming game while the house burns.

Then again, in the past no one dared to think that peasants in China could defeat the mighty Chiang Kai Sheik government or that the mighty Shah of Iran could be overthrown by a religious figure. Look at the works of history and find in them hope or despair. But I do doubt if the majority of farmers would benefit from a successful revolution – which is one of the reasons why the farmers themselves are very reluctant to rebel against a government armed to the teeth. In any case, the farmers have too many things to do on the farms to survive and the best policy for any sensible government would be to leave them alone and let them do their jobs in peace. But will they? Paddy fields, jungles and villages have been the battlegrounds of greed and hatred for more than half a century in Burma and there is no sign that it will stop to be so.

Meanwhile, whether there is a government-appointed Peasants' Day in Burma or not – which incidentally is marked on the same day that Ne Win staged the military coup in 1962 – the role of the farmers is still being overlooked by all those involved who are wasting their time on theoretical matters which lead us nowhere and not taking action.

It's also time to think carefully whether it is successive constitutions and elections that have been feeding Burma every day or the 'peasants' and other hardworking people, and to look for more pragmatic strategies to help the country.

But one thing is certain – farmers will be the true inheritors of the earth for bad or for worse, as we will still have to eat the food they grow and the animals they feed.

READ MORE---> Biting the hand that feeds the nation...

Asean and civil groups: revealing a fast learning curve

By Kavi Chongkittavorn
The Nation

AROUND MIDNIGHT Friday, the 14th Asean Summit was hanging in the balance. That same evening, Cambodia and Burma had already threatened to boycott the planned first dialogue between Asean leaders and Asean civil society groups at lunchtime. Suddenly, senior Foreign Ministry officials were having second thoughts about their whole endeavour to broaden the participation of civil society organisations. As the summit's host, when push came to shove, a choice had to be made. In this case, it was clear the Asean leaders would have precedence over the civil society representatives. After all, this was their summit.

But disaster was averted at the last minute when the civil society leaders soften their stands. Cambodia's and Burma's representatives withdrew from the list of 10 participants at the interface. Laos and Brunei did not have any representatives listed.

To make amends, Abhisit agreed to meet the two representatives at a separate place later on. I was in the room along with Pen Sommoly and Khin Omar, the two activists barred from the historic meeting 40 minutes earlier.

The conversation was amicable. Abhisit listened calmly to Omar, who told him of her plight and the struggle of the Burmese people. She pointed out that Burma had not committed itself to the Asean Charter. She urged the prime minister to continue his efforts and fight for Asean.

Pen, who was next to speak, was trying to overcome his shyness. His subject of concern was important, as it involved the future of Asean youth.

In response to their concerns, the prime minister said both sides had to work together and strike a balance between the state and non-state actors.

"We have to be partners and walk together - low and high," he said.

He stressed that since this is the first time for an extensive face-to-face dialogue between Asean leaders and civil group leaders, both sides were on a fast-track learning curve.

At that moment, on reflection, I knew that the dialogue between them would survive and become more institutionalised. He asked the civil society leaders to work out a modality for a proper channel. He was confident.

Such openness and optimism have been rarely seen within the Asean circle in the past four decades. Somehow, the Asean Charter and in particular Article 14 - the mandate to establish the Asean Human Rights Body - have become a new all-weather instrument to prod sensitive issues ahead. Despite the charter's imperfections, it has given the current Asean chair more room to exercise strategy and pave the way for the grouping's future.

One positive trend emerging from the summit was the fresh attitude of the incoming Asean chair, Vietnam. President Nguyen Minh Triet made a brief but sharp intervention during the interface with the civil society leaders. Apart from the chair, Triet was the only Asean leader to comment.

The Vietnamese President surprised everybody by welcoming the dialogue between his colleagues and the civil society sector - very much to the latter's amazement. He urged them to work out a modality for the institutionalisation of the interface - one of the civil society groups' demands.

Indeed, it was a smart comment as it certainly would generate a positive image and favourable comments for Vietnam in coming months.

Now that Vietnam has set itself a new benchmark, the Asean-based civil society groups will follow-up on his comment by increasing their engagement with Vietnam's nascent but active 2,000 civil society organisations, which are still dominated by government-linked groups.

Now the Asean civil groups are hopeful that with Asean under his chairmanship next year, voices of independent and progressive civil organisations would be heard and reflected in the summit's normal discourses.

One additional development to be discerned is the awakening of Asean lawmakers within the grouping. For decades, they have completely left it to their executive branches to handle.

A selective group of Asean legislators got together to form a caucus on Burma five years ago in Kuala Lumpur because they wanted to contribute to Asean's policy towards its pariah member, which keeps suppressing its peoples.

Now with the Asean Charter in force, Asean lawyers, mainly from more democratic members, have suddenly realised they cannot stand idle as before. They have to do more.

Back to back with the Asean Summit, six lawmakers from ruling and opposition parties in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Cambodia met over the weekend in Cha-am/Hua Hin to establish a new inter-parliamentary caucus on rights and freedom of expression.

The new caucus will fulfil the pledges in the Asean Charter and the three blueprints concerning political and security, economic and socio-cultural fields. These lawmakers have studied the blueprint for the Asean Political and Security Community in detail. They resolved to accelerate its action plans to transform the Asean Community with Asean citizens at the centre within 2,129 days.

Obviously, Asean bureaucrats no longer hold a monopoly on power in shaping the future of Asean like before. From now on, they have to reach out to the lawmakers and civil society groups and listen to their voices.

Abhisit has done a remarkable job at this summit. He and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya went out to build trust among the non-state actors, risking the chair's reputation. His fingers almost got burnt. But then common sense prevailed. Both sides acknowledged quite reluctantly that there are things they can do and cannot do in their future engagements. The key is to balance and respond in proportionate ways.

Abhisit's opening speech on Saturday said it all, that after the promulgation of the Asean Charter, Asean citizens have been awoken and they want a greater share, ownership and role in the Asean process. No more looking back for them.

READ MORE---> Asean and civil groups: revealing a fast learning curve...

Burma: US gem sanctions bite

By Robert Karniol

(ST) - With Washington rethinking its policy towards the military-run regime in Burma, there are signals that Rangoon is being hard hit by tightened US sanctions on its lucrative gem trade.

The policy review currently under way is aimed at addressing a dreary conundrum acknowledged by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a Jakarta press briefing on February 18. "Clearly, the path we have taken in imposing sanctions hasn't influenced the (Burma) junta. But reaching out and trying to engage them hasn't influenced them either," she said.

Speaking by telephone from Washington, state department spokesman Rob McInturff explained the US objective. "We're going to be looking at all aspects of our relationship (with Burma). The goal is to make the policy effective, to have improved actions on the part of the regime," he said.

American economist Jeffrey Sachs, writing in the Financial Times in 2004, said: "Economic sanctions should be lifted because they do not work." He argued for increased diplomacy and humanitarian aid instead.

Pro-democracy activists instead favour a combined effort. Brian Leber, a Chicago jeweller at the forefront of the gem sanctions campaign, is among those advocating a carrot-and-stick approach. "Economic sanctions and the support of diplomatic efforts working towards reform can go hand in hand," he said.

The key, he added, is to finely target sanctions against a specific sector, company and individual. He, together with others in the US and elsewhere, find in Burma's gem trade the perfect fit.

According to reports citing government data, the gem trade was Burma's third most important export earner in fiscal year 2007/08 with a value of US$647.5 million. It was topped by natural gas at $2.6 billion and agricultural products at $1.1 billion, with forestry and marine products in fourth and fifth place respectively. However, the official figures are somewhat skewed as they fail to account for substantial smuggling activity of unknown worth.

Together with its contribution to state coffers, the gem trade provides specific benefit to Burma's military. Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted in a report last year that the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), or ruling junta, "has a direct stake in many mines, in some cases through joint ventures with private entrepreneurs".

It added: "It also has a direct ownership interest in many of the country's top gem businesses, including state-run firms such as Myanmar Gems Enterprise and Myanmar Pearl Enterprise. In addition, the military-owned conglomerate Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Company owns many businesses...including in the lucrative gem-mining sector (so the) gem industry is dominated by the SPDC."

Several countries have imposed sanctions against Rangoon, some broadly based and some more specific. The European Union (EU) sanctions, for example, include more than 400 named individuals and nearly 1,300 state- and military-run companies. The EU, US and Swiss sanction regimes are particularly important because of the substantial markets these represent. But there remains significant trade with China and Japan, and with the gem processing centres in India and Thailand.

The US initiative is especially noteworthy, partly because of Washington's leadership role and partly due to the monetary impact. Its import of ruby and jade alone, according to industry estimates, was previously worth more than $100 million annually. But the broad US sanctions introduced in 2003 were flawed, not least because they included a loophole allowing the import of ruby and jade from Burma if these were processed through cutting and mounting in a third country.

The US Congress moved to tighten its sanctions and shut the loopholes with an amendment to the 2003 law called HR 3890. This was approved last July and came into force two months later, with another month set aside by the US Customs and Border Protection as a buffer period.

Bangkok gem traders began to notice the impact even before HR 3890's implementation last October, as the market anticipated change. "We've been hard hit by the US sanctions and are unable to unload our stockpiles," one trader complained to The Straits Times. "Jade and ruby are particularly affected but less so with sapphire, which isn't specified in the new law."

The Chiang Mai-based periodical Irrawaddy, meanwhile, noted in a recent article that "Mogok, the historic centre of (Burma's) gem industry, is struggling to cope with the effects of (tightened) US sanctions". Citing a source there, it reported that "at least 50 mine sites in the area have decreased production and several have closed completely".

"Our view is that sanctions have a role. The gem ban, together with targeted financial sanctions, are effective," said Arvind Ganesan, director of HRW's business and human rights programme, in a telephone interview from Washington.

Hopefully, Mrs Clinton is listening.

READ MORE---> Burma: US gem sanctions bite...

Door closed for Cambodia, Myanmar reps

By Lilian Budianto
THE JAKARTA POST

CHA-AM, THAILAND - The governments of Cambodia and Myanmar have banned two representatives from their own countries from meeting with Southeast Asian state leaders during the official meeting between ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and civil society organizations scheduled Saturday at Cha-am.

Cambodia has refused to let in Pen Somony, a program coordinator for the Cambodia Volunteers for Civil Society. The Myanmar junta has barred the door for Khin Ohmar, the Bangkok-based chair of the Network for Democracy and Development. The two will not be able to join their seven counterparts in the meeting, held as part of the 14th ASEAN Summit program.

The injunction from Cambodia came as a last-minute surprise. Country representatives voiced their objection only a day before the meeting though the list of representatives had been submitted to the ASEAN Secretariat last November, said Yuyun Wahyuningrum of the Bangkok-based Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, which represented Laos and Brunei.

Yuyun said they had anticipated the ban from military-ruled Myanmar but had not expected Cambodian to follow suit, especially since the latter did not specify any reason for a ban that could undercut freedom of expression in the region.

“The Cambodian [NGO] representative feels a bit threatened by the ban and fears returning to his country and has concerns for his safety. The Myanmar representative is based in Thailand and had expected the government’s ban because it frequently limits civil society voices this way,” she said.

She added only groups from eight of the 10 ASEAN countries had sent representatives to attend the 30-minute meeting, which included statement reading and a question-and-answer session.

“Laos did not participate because of concerns over government crackdowns on activists and Brunei Darussalam did not delegate a representative because it may not have any civil groups,” said Yuyun, who was delegated to represent the two absent countries.

She said the meeting – attended by the 10 ASEAN state leaders and the six representatives from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam – ran smoothly despite the bans. Yuyun expressed regret afterward that only Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung answered the five questions put forward by the civil society leaders.

The Malaysian NGO representative, Wathshlah G. Naidu from Asia Pacific International Women’s Rights Action Watch, said their questions included public participation in the good governance process, representation on the ASEAN human rights body, migrant workers, the status of Burma (Myanmar) and gender issues.

“In response to the question on the ASEAN human rights body, they said they realized civil society leaders needed to be involved. They also recognized the [current bylaws] draft had no protective mechanisms. They affirmed that, in subsequent discussions, protections should be incorporated within the ASEAN human rights charter as part of its terms of reference,” Naidu said.

Naidu said further Abhisit had not responded directly on the issue of Burma but mentioned that ASEAN leaders would have an open discussion to address it. Yuyun added the Thai government had said they would ensure that political development in Burma would continue.

Yuyun also said the Vietnamese government had said it supported the participation of the civil society in community building but it should be within the scope of the ASEAN principle of noninterference.

“Prime Minister Abhisit agreed there is a deficit in the people’s participation in ASEAN forum that he wanted to improve. Hopefully, in the future, ASEAN is moving forward into a single society under the new charter,” she said, referring to the charter put into force last December.

“However, he emphasized that cooperation between civil society organizations and the ASEAN should be based on the principle of respect for national sovereignty and noninterference.”

READ MORE---> Door closed for Cambodia, Myanmar reps...