88 Generation Students' member tortured by prison authority - Htay Kywe

24 Dec, 2008 (DVB) - One of the detained leaders of the 88 Generation Students, Htay Kywe has been tortured physically and mentally by authorities, according to sources close to Buthidaung prison in northwest Burma.

Htay Kywe was ordered not to be fed regularly and to reduce the amount of food given to him, a prison staff said. He has also been detained in solitary confinement and denied physical exercises on the order of Home Affairs minister Major-General Maung Oo.

The order seems to be placed with the knowledge that Htay Kywe has serious gastric problems and went through a major operation during his first imprisonment, his friends said. There is no proper medical care in Buthidaung and the nearest proper hospital is situated in Arakan state capital Sittwe, they added.

Htay Kywe was arrested on 13 October 2007 for his part in instigating the protests over commodity prices beginning in August that year. He was denied permission to attend his mother Mi Mi Lay’s funeral on 3 December 2007 in Rangoon.

Htay Kywe and other 88 Generation Students including Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi were sentenced to 65 years’ imprisonment in early November and transferred to remote facilities across Burma.

They were jailed for 65 years each – 60 years under the Electronics Law and five for a violation of the corrections department regulations.

Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi were sent to Keng Tung prison in Eastern Shan state, Pyone Cho to Kaw Thaung prison in Tenasserim division, Mya Aye to Loi Kaw in Karenni state, Aung Thu to Putao prison in Kachin state along with activist Bo Bo Win Hlaing and seven others.

Reporting by Khin Hnin Htet

READ MORE---> 88 Generation Students' member tortured by prison authority - Htay Kywe...

Political Prisoner Commits Suicide - Maung San

By SAW YAN NAING
The Irrawaddy News

A Burmese political prisoner, Maung San, committed suicide in Pegu Prison in central Burma on Dec. 19, according to sources in Pegu Division.

Maung San, who was about 35 years old, was serving a two-year prison term.

He committed suicide in a prison restroom, following the refusal of prison authorities to provide proper medical treatment outside the prison. He suffered from intestinal problems and liver disease, sources said.

A source said Maung San’s decision to take his own life stemmed from frustration over medical treatment, and his inability to talk freely with his family.

“He suffered from a serious illness, and he thought it would be better if he died instead of suffered,” said the source.

His family last visited with Maung San on Dec. 13 in Pegu Prison.

“When his family visited him in prison, his health condition was bad,” said the source. “He had asked prison authorities for proper medical treatment, but the authorities refused his request.”

Bo Kyi, joint-secretary of the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), said “The health condition of political prisoners is worse day by day. We are very concerned that they don’t receive proper medical treatment.”

“By ignoring serious illnesses, the Burmese authorities are conducting murder,” Bo Kyi said.

Sources said that Pegu Prison authorities impose many restrictions in dealing with political prisoners and their families.

In other prison news, in early December, Aung Kyaw Oo, a youth member of the opposition National League for Democracy who is serving a 19-year sentence in Pegu Prison, was savagely beaten and denied medical treatment, according to reports.

When Aung Kyaw Oo’s wife visited the prison on Dec. 3, she was denied permission to see him. She was allowed to visit him on Dec. 13.

On December 22, political prisoner Khin Maung Cho received an additional 5-year prison sentence. He is imprisoned in Yankin Township in Rangoon. He was sentenced under Immigration Act 13/1. On December 8, he was given 19 years imprisonment on a separate charge.

There are more than 2,100 political prisoners in Burma, according to human rights groups.

READ MORE---> Political Prisoner Commits Suicide - Maung San...

Korea Rejects Charge of Rights Abuse in Burma

By WILLIAM BOOT
The Irrawaddy News

BANGKOK — The South Korean government has rejected a complaint that two Korean companies have condoned human rights abuses and failed to meet international standards in Burma in pursuit of gas exploration.

The complaint alleged that industrial conglomerate Daewoo International and government-owned Korea Gas Corporation had failed to comply with guidelines on corporate responsibility and investment laid down by the Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development (OECD).

The Block A-1 gas field off the northwestern coast of Burma. Daewoo International and the Korea Gas Corporation have a 70 percent stake in three Burmese offshore gas wells including A-1. (Source: The Chosun Ilbo)
South Korea is a member of the OECD, which is made up of the world’s leading industrialized countries.

The allegation was lodged by the U.S.-based group EarthRights International (ERI) and backed by several other organizations including South Korea’s two biggest labor union federations.

Daewoo and Korea Gas are partners in a consortium developing the huge Shwe gas field off the west coast of Burma close to Bangladesh.

ERI contends that “human rights abuses have been perpetrated against local people opposing Daewoo’s Shwe Gas Project.”

It also says Daewoo’s plan to construct a trans-Burma gas pipeline to China from the Shwe field “poses an unreasonably high risk of more serious and widespread human rights and environmental impacts.”

South Korea’s Ministry of Knowledge Economy has rejected the complaint “on all counts,” ERI said on Wednesday.

“Moreover, the [ministry] opined that the general situation in Burma and specifically around the Shwe Project does not merit an investigation or arbitration between the companies and the complainants,” ERI said in a statement. “[It] flies in the face of evidence from groups and communities from within the proposed pipeline area in Burma.”

ERI alleged in its October complaint to the South Korean government that Daewoo and Korea Gas—also known as KOGAS—are in breach of at least six OECD guidelines “by failing to respect human rights, contributing to forced labor, failing to promote sustainable development, failing to disclose information about the project, failing to consult with local populations and by failing to conduct an environmental impact assessment according to international standards.”

ERI says it was only informed of the complaint rejection indirectly and unofficially via a co-complainant in South Korea.

“If Daewoo and KOGAS were to genuinely conform to the (OECD) guidelines, the Shwe Project would have to be postponed, which evidently is against the priorities of both the companies and the ministry,” said Matthew Smith, Burma Project Coordinator at ERI.

“These companies and the Korean government are now on notice that negative social and environmental impacts from this project have begun, and are likely to continue and accelerate if this project moves forward. These companies bear responsibility for these abuses, and the Korean government is failing in its obligations under the OECD guidelines to prevent these harms. The blood of the people of Burma will be on their hands.”

ERI and its supporters complained that Daewoo and Korea Gas are in breach of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Daewoo is the main developer in the Shwe consortium with a 51 percent stake. Korea Gas holds 8.5 percent.

The field has recoverable reserves of at least 6 trillion cubic feet of gas, all of which is being purchased by China.

ERI says its research indicates that the 1,100-mile gas pipeline through Burma will pass through at least 24 townships and close by several large population centers in Arakan State and four other regions including Shan State.

READ MORE---> Korea Rejects Charge of Rights Abuse in Burma...

Political Prisoner Commits Suicide - Maung San

By SAW YAN NAING
The Irrawaddy News

A Burmese political prisoner, Maung San, committed suicide in Pegu Prison in central Burma on Dec. 19, according to sources in Pegu Division.

Maung San, who was about 35 years old, was serving a two-year prison term.

He committed suicide in a prison restroom, following the refusal of prison authorities to provide proper medical treatment outside the prison. He suffered from intestinal problems and liver disease, sources said.

A source said Maung San’s decision to take his own life stemmed from frustration over medical treatment, and his inability to talk freely with his family.

“He suffered from a serious illness, and he thought it would be better if he died instead of suffered,” said the source.

His family last visited with Maung San on Dec. 13 in Pegu Prison.

“When his family visited him in prison, his health condition was bad,” said the source. “He had asked prison authorities for proper medical treatment, but the authorities refused his request.”

Bo Kyi, joint-secretary of the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), said “The health condition of political prisoners is worse day by day. We are very concerned that they don’t receive proper medical treatment.”

“By ignoring serious illnesses, the Burmese authorities are conducting murder,” Bo Kyi said.

Sources said that Pegu Prison authorities impose many restrictions in dealing with political prisoners and their families.

In other prison news, in early December, Aung Kyaw Oo, a youth member of the opposition National League for Democracy who is serving a 19-year sentence in Pegu Prison, was savagely beaten and denied medical treatment, according to reports.

When Aung Kyaw Oo’s wife visited the prison on Dec. 3, she was denied permission to see him. She was allowed to visit him on Dec. 13.

On December 22, political prisoner Khin Maung Cho received an additional 5-year prison sentence. He is imprisoned in Yankin Township in Rangoon. He was sentenced under Immigration Act 13/1. On December 8, he was given 19 years imprisonment on a separate charge.

There are more than 2,100 political prisoners in Burma, according to human rights groups.

READ MORE---> Political Prisoner Commits Suicide - Maung San...

Russia Urges Burma to Cooperate with UN

By MIN LWIN
The Irrawaddy News

Russia’s ambassador to Burma has told Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win that Moscow will be in a better position to support the Naypyidaw regime if it cooperates with UN special envoy Ibraham Gambari, according to a leaked written account of their meeting.

The secret document, leaked to The Irrawaddy by a Burmese Foreign Ministry source, said the Russian ambassador, Mikhail Mgeladze, reassured Nyan Win of Moscow’s continuing support, while urging cooperation with the UN. The two met on December 6 at Nyan Win’s office in Rangoon.

Gambari has a standing invitation from Burma’s ruling junta to visit the country, but he has shown reluctance to return in view of the regime’s recent crackdown on the pro-democracy leadership, ignoring appeals from the international community.

Last week, the UN said there was no immediate plan for Gambari to visit Burma in the near future.

“He has no plans immediately to go to Myanmar [Burma],” Michele Montas, spokeswoman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, told reporters at the UN headquarters in New York.

Ban himself was earlier scheduled to visit Burma in December, but cancelled his trip after the Burmese military junta went back on its words and intensified its crackdown on pro-democracy activists.

“He [Ban] is not going to go there just for the sake of going. He has to have some indications that his visit will mean something,” Montas said.

The Russian ambassador’s meeting with Nyan Win was seen as quiet diplomatic pressure on the regime to cooperate with the UN.

Mgeladze restated Moscow’s position, however, that the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, the opening of a dialogue between Snr Gen Than Shwe and Suu Kyi and the presence of independent monitors at the 2010 election are only internal matters, the leaked document disclosed.

The Russian ambassador also said that he would not support six-party talks on Burma along the lines of this year’s North Korea initiative. A similar Burma initiative has been proposed by some dissidents.

Nyan Win told Mgeladze that the Burmese government would not accept such a proposal. Burma and North Korea were different matters, he said.

Nyan Win told the ambassador that Burma’s two major allies, China and India, also opposed the six-party talks proposal.

The meeting between Nyan Win and Mgeladze also dealt with trade relations between Burma and the West. The two officials shared a view that France and Germany are interested in economic cooperation with the regime, although America and the UK take a tougher policy toward Burma.

The Russian ambassador assured Nyan Win that his government intended to strengthen its economic and diplomatic cooperation with the regime.

Burma and Russia celebrated this year the 60th anniversary of their mutual diplomatic relations, which were established with an exchange of notes in February 1948 at the embassy of the Soviet Union in London.

Burma’s late dictator Gen Ne Win developed a close relationship with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in the 1960s, sending socialist cadres to the Soviet Union to study socialism. Khrushchev visited Burma in 1960.

About 1500 students, mostly military officers, are currently studying in 11 institutions in Russia. Some 500 Burmese students have so far obtained degrees, including doctorates, in Russia, according to the Russian embassy in Burma.

Burma’s army chief and regime No 2, Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye, visited Russia in April 2006.

Burma has brought a 10 mega watt nuclear reactor and MiG 29 jet fighters from Russia.

READ MORE---> Russia Urges Burma to Cooperate with UN...

Than Shwe’s Dynastic Family Dream on Parade at State Function

By WAI MOE
The Irrawaddy News
December 18, 2008

A highly publicized appearance by the family of Burmese junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe at an important military function is being interpreted in some circles as further evidence that the elderly general is creating a ruling dynasty of his own.

Than Shwe’s wife Kyaing Kyaing, two of their daughters, a granddaughter and a favorite grandson were pictured by the state media in prominent positions at last week’s graduation ceremony at the Defense Service Academy in Pyinoolwin (formerly known as May Myo), Mandalay Division.

A report in the regime mouthpiece, The New Light of Myanmar, on December 13 described them as “distinguished guests” and gave them more prominence in its picture coverage than such leading members of the military government as the junta’s No 3, Gen Thura Shwe Mann and Secretary-1, Lt-Gen Thiha Thura Tin Aung Myint Oo. The report did not say whether the junta’s No 2, Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye, was present at the ceremony.

Pictures of Than Shwe’s family showed “first lady” Kyaing Kyaing sitting on a sofa next to grandson Nay Shwe Thway Aung. Daughters Dewar Shwe and Khin Pyone Shwe and granddaughter Aye Thida Shwe sat on separate sofas. It wasn’t clear from the newspaper’s report whether Than Shwe’s daughter Thandar Shwe, whose opulent wedding two years ago aroused scorn and outrage, in Burma and internationally, was present.

In The New Light of Myanmar’s coverage of the graduation ceremony, a picture of Shwe Mann, Burma’s Chief of Staff and Coordinator of Special Operations, Army, Navy and Air Force, was relegated to an inside page. A picture of Tin Aung Myint Oo was assigned an even less prominent position in the newspaper’s coverage.

Shwe Mann is tipped by the Economist Intelligence Unit to succeed Than Shwe, but Tin Aung Myint Oo, who has more seniority, is emerging as a serious rival. Their positioning in The New Light of Myanmar’s report on the graduation ceremony and the prominence given to Than Shwe’s family are being interpreted by Burma observers as a sign of uncertainty about rankings within the military leadership.

Burmese who remember the rule of late dictator Ne Win point out that members of his family stayed away from important state functions, even though he had his favorites—such as daughter Sandar Win.

“Than Shwe is disclosing his intention of creating a new Burmese dynasty by parading his family members at state functions,” said Thakin Chan Tun, a former Burmese diplomat.

READ MORE---> Than Shwe’s Dynastic Family Dream on Parade at State Function...

Tumbling Kelly!

By Ko Soe
Rangoon - Mizzima News
18 December 2008

At the time of global financial crisis, our backward and underdeveloped country Burma could not find appropriate ways and means to face this crisis. It is like sailing on the rough sea with the boat having a hole at the bottom. I can't help laughing when I see 'Billiken State, Billiken nationals, no need to worry about' article by columnist 'Kyaw Ye Min' appearing in 'The Mirror' paper.

The recession is Burma's economy is following in tandem with global economy while it is in the worst phase. This is witnessed by every Burmese in the country. But the junta doesn't lower the fuel prices, forgetting the overpriced palm oil, exporting more gas by having blackouts in former capital Rangoon, relying heavily on the UN and aid agencies for cyclone relief and rehabilitation operation and stopping their own efforts. Moreover they (junta) pretend to relax their export restriction on rice and timber only when their cronies could not do business as the prices are falling. All these activities have one and only intention. Lowering deficit in its budget!

However hard they tried, as everyone knows, the Burmese economy has crash landed from vacillating in an economic rough sea. But even at that time, it's hard to believe 'Naypyidaw' (capital city) is saying 'no rise in vegetable price, falling price cannot harm us'. Everybody knows this is unwise and unrealistic saying of an idiot.

Aren't they concerned over the farmers who have to abandon their farmland because of falling prices which resulted in huge losses to them? What will happen to our country when the farmers are starving in an agricultural economy? Now we are seeing a million dollar scam in pulses and beans trading in our country. The price of these pulses and beans fell by 60 per cent to an unprecedented level. Similarly onions and garlic prices are experiencing the same fate. Astonishingly it fell to the level between Kyat 120-240. So these farmers cannot grow these crops again.

All construction works have been stopped. The USD exchange rate has also fallen to just over Kyat 1,100 as the global economic downturn and slowdown has started to bite the Burmese economy. The car dealers can hardly sell a single car a day in the entire market. The tourism industry has almost ground to a halt with an almost 70 per cent fall. The jewellery market is at a standstill. The electronic and home appliances markets have almost stopped too with nearly 50 per cent fall in prices.

In this situation, saying electric supply is normal and the economy is good only in newspapers cannot help our economy. They should discuss with other ASEAN countries, closely monitor how the powerful economies are doing, teach the people how to overcome the current recession, how to cope with their hardships and warn them to take care.

READ MORE---> Tumbling Kelly!...

2010 game plan: Clinging to power

Mizzima News
18 December 2008

More bad news has emerged from Burma again this month. The junta is planning to showcase its so-called civilian government with their handpicked people by changing their uniforms to mufti after the junta's planned 2010 general election. In our country, there is news blackout all the time and only Senior Gen. Than Shwe has the final say in everything. The junta kept the news regarding the planning of this general election a secret. It is the 5th step of their 7-step roadmap to democracy.

Their plans do not adhere to national reconciliation, neither for establishing a peaceful and developed country, but only for clinging to power. In their secret scheme, they winked at their staunch supporters and sympathizers to conduct organizational works. The election law is not yet made public and is being enacted in order to give little time to the opposition forces in their preparation for the polls by this dilatory tactics.

There can be three probable paths to follow in the post-2010 scenario. The first one is filling all 440 seats in parliament with generals, army personnel-turned politicians and their 'Yes' men by all possible means of letting them exclusively contest in this election and vote rigging. The second way is seat sharing between armed forces and the opposition through negotiation. The third way is holding free and fair election like in 1990.

After reviewing all their activities until today, the first path will be the most likely way that will be chosen by the ruling generals led by Snr. Gen. Than Shwe. They will do their best to marginalize the 'National League for Democracy' (NLD) including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other pro-democracy forces in this general election.

In this programme, the high army posts and the National Security Council is likely to be filled with generals and senior ministers. The current serving ministers can become new ministers by contesting in this election. About 110 seats in parliament are reserved exclusively for army personnel and the remaining 330 will be filled at the choice of the ruling generals. They are designing this election to restrict the number of seats going to persons who are not of their choice. They would be the ones who are unstoppable and will not comprise more than 10 per cent.

The serving ministers and mayors who have to change their uniforms after election have started canvassing in their constituencies. Similarly some regional commanders are rehearsing to be elected as the 'Chief Minister of the Region or State' in their controlled areas.

Freedom and justice can be hardly expected from this planned election. Those who hope for reform through the new parliament can only hope.

It will be silly and naïve if the ruling generals expect to win legitimacy through this election and get recognition by the international community. Similarly they have no chance to isolate themselves as done by their predecessor Gen. Ne Win in the age of globalization and Information Technology, which have no borders. They will certainly bring big challenges and a collapse with a sad ending.

But all of these things cannot take place spontaneously and dynamically. Those who wish to transform our society to respecting human rights and open society under these changing and developing situations should make preparations well in advance.

READ MORE---> 2010 game plan: Clinging to power...

Mandalay Division NLD Secretary suffers apoplexy in prison - Kan Tun

by Than Htike Oo
18 December 2008

Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – A Mandalay Division 'National League for Democracy' (NLD) member suffered from apoplexy in prison, party sources said.

His family members realized about his health condition when they met him yesterday during a prison visit. Kan Tun (67) is serving a 12 -year prison term in Obo prison, Mandalay.

"He is apoplectic on his entire right side. He is bound to a wheelchair and cannot speak when his family members met him. He cannot move his leg and hand on his right side, they said, a person who has close contacts with Mandalay Division party members told Mizzima.

The NLD HQ spokesman Nyan Win in Rangoon also confirmed the news.

"According to news provided by our party sources in Mandalay he suffered apoplexy on in his right side. The prison is treating the ailment and providing necessary assistance. He cannot walk, cannot feed himself and cannot move his right leg and arm. That is what we heard,"he said.

Kan Tun apart, five other NLD members who are serving prison terms in Obo prison are in good health.

All of them were arrested after the saffron revolution in 2007 and sentenced to various prison terms ranging from 8 to 13 years on October 24 this year.

READ MORE---> Mandalay Division NLD Secretary suffers apoplexy in prison - Kan Tun...

Junta-backed USDA unlikely to contest 2010 election

by Mungpi
18 December 2008

New Delhi (Mizzima) – In contrast to what many observers expected, Burma's military junta plans to abolish its proxy organization - Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) - opting not to transform it into a political party for the purpose of participating in the upcoming 2010 election, sources close to the military said.

Owing to a poor public perception of the organization, particularly after its role in cracking down on peaceful demonstrators during the monk-led protests last year, the head of the military junta and the main patron of the organization, Senior General Than Shwe, has decided to scratch his original plan of making use of the USDA as a political party - a source said.

"The USDA will not exist in 2009," said a source in Naypyitaw, adding that members of the junta's proxy will instead be incorporated into political parties with different names.

"The USDA has such a bad image…and a criminal record internationally…they will not use that name… they decided at this meeting," he added, referring to the last quarterly meeting held in November.

Echoing a similar view, Burma affairs specialist Larry Jagan, a freelance journalist based in Bangkok, said the USDA is unlikely to be transformed into any political party to contest the upcoming 2010 elections.

"According to my sources, the USDA itself will not become a political party," said Jagan. But he added that at least three parties are likely to be formed under an umbrella of the discredited USDA and will make use of the former organization's funding.

However, Jagan added, "But there is a lot of speculation and none of us know for sure."

The original social organization, with several million members as claimed by the military government, has been a principle tool in attacking protesters and dissidents over recent years.

Further, the organization has established relationships with China and Vietnam through exchanging official visits.

The USDA was initiated on November 15, 1993, by the military regime. According to an official announcement in 2007, the USDA had 24 million members, mostly government servants. However, many of its members admit they enrolled in the organization in fear of any repercussions associated with denying orders from superiors.

An observer in Burma's former capital, who closely monitors the situation, said, "There is no news about the USDA in state owned newspapers and no USDA uniforms are seen in Yangon [Rangoon]."

The source in Naypyitaw explained that the regime is keen on forming regional political parties rather than a single, nationwide political party.

"All they [junta] want is the National League for Democracy and The Lady [Aung San Suu Kyi] out," the source emphasized.

According to Jagan, despite the junta's claim that it will conduct the 2010 general election freely and fairly, it is unlikely that the junta will allow detained Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi to contest the poll, as they see her as a major threat to their determination to win the election. However, it is possible that her party, the NLD, without her, might be allowed to take part.

"But it does not necessarily mean that it [the election] would be free and fair, and that they [NLD] would be able to run unhindered," Jagan further elaborated.

The NLD, meanwhile, said they have not decided on whether to participate in the 2010 election and are still in the process of discussing the situation and brainstorming ideas, after which they intend to deliver a clear statement on whether they will join the proceedings or remain on the sidelines.

Meanwhile, some respected intellectual civilians, some of whom have been accused of being apologists for the junta by the mainstream opposition, are preparing to take part in the election. And the regime itself is looking for locally respected dignitaries, such as retired teachers, to partake in the election, sources said.

Similarly, a source in the military establishment said at least nine ministers and two mayors, including Rangoon Mayor Brigadier General Aung Thein Lin, will soon resign from their current positions in preparation to contest in the general election, the military junta's fifth step of its roadmap to democracy.

Meanwhile, a report on Wednesday by Khitpyaing, a Burmese news agency based in Bangkok, reported that three army commanders have been promoted to the level of minister, but were not assigned to any ministry.

The report argues that the promotion of the Mandalay-based commander of central command, Major General Tin Ngwe, the Bassein-based commander of southwestern command, Major General Kyaw Swe, and the Monywa-based commander of northwestern command, Major General Myint Soe, could be a move to sideline them from assuming active roles in the military before the election.

While the promotion is unprecedented, it could also be a trial by the junta to use military commanders in an administrative capacity, the report suggests.

Meanwhile, a senior official in Naypyitaw told Mizzima that the electoral law, which the military is carefully designing so as to avoid it being used as a stepping stone by the opposition, is expected to be made public by the end of December or in early January 2009.

"We have to wait and see the electoral law but what I can tell you is that they will not repeat the 1990 scenario," said a senior officer in Naypyitaw.

According to Jagan, the election law would impose restrictions on the NLD and other political parties from freely campaigning.

In 1990, the National Unity Party, a transformed party of former military strongman Ne Win's Burma Socialist Party, lost decisively to the NLD, which analysts see as an unacceptable result for Burma's new generation generals.

READ MORE---> Junta-backed USDA unlikely to contest 2010 election...

Burma’s nuclear temptation —Bertil Lintner

All that is certain is that Burma has a nuclear programme. It may be years, if not decades, away from developing nuclear-weapons capability. But the fact that the country’s military leadership is experimenting with nuclear power is cause for concern

Over the past year, Southeast Asia’s diplomatic community has tried to sort fact from fiction in a stream of unconfirmed reports from Burma, the region’s most isolated and secretive country. Burma’s fledgling nuclear programme with Russian assistance and its mysterious connections with North Korea raise concern in the region about its purpose.

According to Burmese exiles in Thailand, the Russians and North Koreans assist the Burmese in developing nuclear capability. But wary of similar reports by Iraqi exiles a few years ago, which turned out to be false, the international community remains sceptical. In a research paper for Griffith University, for example, Australian scholar Andrew Selth dismisses the reports.

Nevertheless, certain facts are not in doubt. Burma first initiated a nuclear research programme as early as 1956, when its then-democratic government set up the Union of Burma Atomic Energy Centre, UBAEC, in then-capital Rangoon. Unrelated to the country’s defence industries, it came to a halt when the military seized power in 1962. New power-holders, led by General Ne Win did not trust UBAEC head Hla Nyunt.

In February 2001, Burma’s present junta, the State Peace and Development Council decided to revitalise the country’s nuclear programme, and Russia’s Atomic Energy Ministry announced plans to build a 10-megawatt nuclear research reactor in central Burma. In July 2001, Burma established a Department of Atomic Energy, believed to be the brainchild of the Minister of Science and Technology, U Thaung, a graduate of Burma’s Defence Services Academy and former ambassador to the United States. US-trained nuclear scientist Thein Po Saw was identified as a leading advocate for nuclear technology in Burma.

At a press conference in Rangoon on January 21, 2002, Vice-Chief of Military Intelligence Major-General Kyaw Win issued a statement: “Myanmar’s consideration of building a nuclear research reactor is based on the peaceful purposes getting modern technologies needed for the country, availability of radioisotopes being used peacefully, training technicians and performing feasibility study for generation of electricity from nuclear power.”

While Burma suffers from chronic power shortages, the need for a research reactor, used mainly for medical purposes, is unclear. Radioisotopes allow imaging of the brain, bones, organs, lungs and blood flow, advanced technology for Burma’s basic health services.

However, observers pointed out the Russian-made nuclear-research reactor that the Burmese authorities sought to acquire is similar to the 5-megawatt research reactor that the then–Soviet Union installed at Yongbyon in North Korea in 1965, from which North Korea later extracted plutonium for a nuclear device. Burma’s military leaders couldn’t help but notice how North Korea stood up to the US, a harsh critic of the Burmese regime, mainly due to its nuclear programme.

Reports have been murky since. In April 2007, days after the restoration of diplomatic ties between Burma and North Korea — broken since North Koreans detonated a bomb in Rangoon in 1983 — a North Korean freighter, the Kang Nam I, docked at Thilawa port. Burmese officials claimed that the ship sought shelter from a storm. But two Burmese reporters working for a Japanese news agency were briefly detained when they went to the port to investigate, indicating possible other, more secret reasons for the visit.

According to the July 2007 issue of the Irrawaddy, a Thailand-based publication by Burmese exiles: “by a strange coincidence, the 2,900-ton North Korean cargo vessel MV Bong Hoafan...sought shelter from a storm and anchored at a Burmese port last November. The Burmese government reported that an on-board inspection had ‘found no suspicious material or military equipment’. But journalists and embassies in Rangoon remained sceptical.”

At about the same time, the South Korean news agency Yonhap reported “a North Korean ship under US surveillance was believed to have unloaded self-propelled artillery at a Myanmar port.”

The deal with Russia was stalled for several years, but in May 2007, Russia’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, announced construction of the nuclear-research reactor. According to Rosatom, the reactor would use low-enriched uranium, not plutonium. Up to 350 Burmese nationals, most military personnel, trained in Russia under the initial 2001 agreement, and since then several hundred more trained at Russian institutions.

Signatories of the agreement reached in Moscow on May 15, 2007 were U Thaung and Rosatom head Sergey Kiriyenko. According to Rosatom’s press release: “The sides have agreed to cooperate on the establishment of a centre for nuclear studies in the territory of Myanmar (the general contractor will be Atomstroyexport). The centre will comprise a 10-megawatt light water reactor working on 20 per cent-enriched uranium-235, an activation analysis laboratory, a medical isotope production laboratory, silicon doping system, nuclear waste treatment and burial facilities. The centre will be controlled by IAEA.”

Despite that claim, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported on May 17, 2007, that Burma had not reported plans to build a nuclear reactor. As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Burma is required to allow inspections of any nuclear facilities. The agreement does not mention North Korea, but in November 2003, the Norway-based broadcasting station Democratic Voice of Burma, run by Burmese exiles, reported that 80 Burmese military personnel had departed for North Korea to study “nuclear and atomic energy technology”.

The report remains unconfirmed, its source unclear. If Burmese military personnel travelled to North Korea, it’s more likely for training in maintenance of missiles, which Burma then wanted to buy from North Korea but could not yet afford.

Alarm bells rang in August 2008, after India withdrew permission for a North Korean plane to fly over its airspace en route to Iran, just before taking off from Mandalay in Burma where it had made a stopover. The Il-62 carried unidentified cargo, and its destination after the stopover was unclear.

Reports of some cooperation between Burma, Russia, North Korea and Iran have also come from two Burmese nationals, an army officer and a scientist, who recently left the country. According to them, a Russian-supplied 10-megawatt research reactor is being built, at Myaing, north of Pakokku, said to be for peaceful research. But according to the defectors, another facility exists south of the old hill station of Myin Oo Lwin, formerly known as Maymyo. Three Russians supposedly work there while a group of North Koreans are said to engage in tunnelling and constructing a water-cooling system. The defectors also assert that in 2007 an Iranian intelligence officer, identified only as “Mushavi”, visited Burma. Apart from sharing nuclear knowledge, he reportedly provided advice on missile systems using computer components from Milan.

Burma has uranium deposits, and the Ministry of Energy has identified five sources of ore in the country, all low-grade uranium unsuitable for military purposes. But defectors claim that two more uranium mines in Burma are not included in official reports: one near Mohnyin in Kachin State and another in the vicinity of Mogok in Mandalay Division. The ore is supposedly transported to a Thabeikkyin refinery, conveniently located between the two alleged mines.

Until such reports can be verified, or refuted, speculations remain. But a nuclear-powered Burma would be a nightmare for all neighbours and would upset the balance of power in the region. All that is certain is that Burma has a nuclear programme. It may be years, if not decades, away from developing nuclear-weapons capability. But the fact that the country’s military leadership is experimenting with nuclear power is cause for concern. —YaleGlobal

Bertil Lintner is a Swedish journalist based in Thailand and the author of several works on Asia, including Blood Brothers: The Criminal Underworld of Asia and Great Leader, Dear Leader: Demystifying North Korea under the Kim Clan - Daily Times

READ MORE---> Burma’s nuclear temptation —Bertil Lintner...

Afro-Asian organization demands release of Burmese political prisoners

by Nam Davies
16 December 2008

New Delhi (Mizzima) – A social consortium of Asian and African non-governmental organizations (NGOs) today collectively called for the release of all political prisoners in Burma, including democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization (AAPSO), comprising over 30 NGOs and social organizations from 28 countries, demanded the release of the Burmese prisoners of conscience on Tuesday, at the conclusion of their three day congress in India.

"The resolution was passed unanimously with no objection. Though China didn't give their nod to this resolution, they didn't object to it either," Kyaw Than of the All Burma Students League (ABSL) said. ABSL is party to the AAPSO under the moniker of the Burma Democracy and Peace Council.

According to the Burma resolution, the delegates condemned the junta's brutal suppression of protesters in September 2007's Saffron Revolution and protested against the handing down of harsh prison terms to detained, innocent peaceful demonstrators. They also agreed to strive for the realization of a comprehensive and substantial dialogue through the United Nations based on the result of the 1990 general election.

"We shall present the Burma resolution to the United Nations Security Council, probably in early January next year," Kyaw Than said.

The congress was held in Hyderabad in India at the Hotel Taj Decan for three days. The delegates focused discussion on oppression in Asian and African countries, including Burma, agreeing on the need for increased cooperation among members.

AAPSO, with national committees in over 90 countries from Asia and Africa, was founded on the basis of peace, equality, human rights, development, the fight against apartheid and the anti-colonial struggle.

The first congress of AAPSO was held at its head office in Cairo, Egypt, in 1957.

READ MORE---> Afro-Asian organization demands release of Burmese political prisoners...

Junta bans popular Buddhist monk's sermon

by Myint Maung
Tuesday, 16 December 2008 19:25

New Delhi (Mizzima) – The Burmese military junta authorities in Rangoon Division have banned a sermon by abbot U Thumingla, organizers and friends said.

The ban order becomes effective when the sermon is to be held on December 18. Abbot U Thumingla became popular among religiously conscious Buddhists recently. The abbot is from Migadarwon monastery, Mandalay.

The abbot is 40 years old and has been into 20 years of monk hood. The organizers of the sermon preaching ceremonies and the monk community in Rangoon said that the authorities banned his sermons which were to be held soon in Minglataungnyunt, Mayangon and North Okkalapa Townships in Rangoon Division.

The sermons of U Thumingla entitled 'Sasana will diminish when the sermon preaching ceremonies diminish', 'be swallowed by earth fissures shortly,' 'Khat Tine Khan' and 'Need to know how to choose a good leader' are popular among the people.

U Thumingla is currently away from Mandalay and is now into sojourns in Hmawbi, Rangoon Division. His sermons are also banned in Mandalay, an abbot said when Mizzima contacted the Masoyane monastery in Mandalay over telephone.

In his 'Need to know how to choose a good leader' preached in Hlaingtharyar Township in August 2008, he told the audience that they should choose a good and reliable leader like Lord Buddha.

During this sermon the abbot said that now there were many Saturn like in ancient times. In the 'Khat Tine Khan' sermon, he said that some people wished the deadly cyclone hit them (the rulers) instead of the people. The abbot told his audience it was only because of their doing meritorious deeds which has protected them from suffering. When these good deeds are exhausted they will certainly face this sort of fate.

A local resident from Sanchaung Township also said that in 'Be swallowed by the earth fissure shortly', the abbot said that not only the higher authorities, even the lower level authorities like judges will be swallowed by earth fissures if they committed evil deeds by insulting the religion and monks. Insulting a single monk means insulting the entire order of the Sangha (monk). So I'd like to urge the 'State Sanghanaryaka Committee not to be passive in silence, the abbot preached in his sermon, the local resident said.

An official from the State Sanghamahanayaka Committee declined to say anything regarding the ban on the sermon preaching ceremonies of U Thumingla when Mizzima contacted his office over telephone.

The organizers of the religious ceremonies have to submit their applications to different levels of religious authorities from Ward, Township, and District level Sanghamahanayaka Committees in advance for their permission. They also have to sign a pledge not to include political matters in the religious sermons.

READ MORE---> Junta bans popular Buddhist monk's sermon...

Lawyer’s Testimony Highlights Distorted Justice

TWO STORIES

1) Burma: Lawyer’s Testimony Highlights Distorted Justice
ASEAN Should Monitor Jailed Activists

(New York, December 16, 2008) (HRW)- Burma's military government has used the country's legal mechanisms to intimidate political prisoners and to deny them access to justice, Human Rights Watch said today, citing new testimony from a defense lawyer who has just fled the country. In a crackdown that started in October 2008, Burma's courts have sentenced over 200 political and labor activists, internet bloggers, journalists, and Buddhist monks and nuns to lengthy jail terms.

With the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Charter having entered into force on December 15, Human Rights Watch urged ASEAN to dispatch an eminent independent legal team to monitor the trials and conditions of activists held in isolated prisons.

"The government locks up peaceful activists, sends them to remote prisons, and then intimidates or imprisons the lawyers who try to represent them," said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "This abuse of the legal system shows the sorry state of the rule of law in Burma."

Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min, a 28-year-old lawyer from Rangoon, fled to Thailand several days ago after weeks in hiding. In late October 2008, a Rangoon court sentenced him to six months in prison under Section 228 of the Burmese Penal Code for contempt of court. He failed to intervene, on the judge's order, after his clients turned their backs on the judge to protest the way they were being questioned.

Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min had been defending 11 clients, all members of the National League for Democracy (NLD). Three other lawyers - Nyi Nyi Htwe, U Aung Thein, and U Khin Maung Shein - were arrested and sentenced to terms of four to six months in prison on the same charges. Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min learned of the charges in advance and went underground.

He described to Human Rights Watch the secretive workings of the Burmese legal system and the way in which political prisoners are denied access to fair trials. He said political activists awaiting sentencing in prison can meet with their defense lawyers only at police custody centers with police and intelligence officers present. Trials are often shrouded in secrecy, with lawyers not informed when their clients are to appear in court. Lawyers representing political prisoners face arbitrary delays when requesting assistance from authorities or documents such as case files, he said.

Human Rights Watch has already documented problems with the current unfair trials, including lack of legal representation for political prisoners. Among the hundreds sentenced in recent months, in late November a Rangoon court sentenced prominent comedian and social activist Zargana to 59 years in jail for disbursing relief aid and talking to the international media about his frustrations in assisting victims of Burma's devastating Cyclone Nargis.

Many political prisoners have recently been transferred to isolated regional prisons where medical assistance is poor or nonexistent and food is scarce. During the past few weeks, authorities sent Zargana to Mytkyina Prison, in the far-north Kachin State; the '88 Generation Students leader, Min Ko Naing, was transferred to the northeast Kentung jail of Shan State; and internet blogger Nay Phone Latt, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for posting anti-government material on his website, was sent to the far-south prison at Kawthaung, across from Ranong in Thailand.

The newly-in-force ASEAN Charter sets out principles such as adhering to the rule of law and protecting and promoting human rights to which all members states, including Burma, should adhere. But compliance provisions are weak. ASEAN faces a considerable challenge in addressing Burma's lack of respect for human rights in the lead-up to multiparty elections in 2010.

Human Rights Watch urges Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan of ASEAN to dispatch an independent legal assessment team to monitor the treatment of political prisoners in Burma's courts and prisons. Human Rights Watch said ASEAN should also address Burma's lack of respect for the rule of law when it holds its rescheduled ASEAN summit meeting in early 2009.

"This is a test for ASEAN," said Pearson. "If ASEAN lets Burma get away with this farce of justice, the ASEAN Charter really is worthless."

Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min's account to Human Rights Watch

Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min was admitted to the Burmese Bar earlier in 2008. Since 2007, he has played a lead role in trying to represent activists charged under a raft of spurious laws, and he has been arrested several times for his political activities.

On October 23, he and another lawyer were defending 11 clients, members of the NLD, in Hlaingtharya Court, Rangoon on a range of charges related to peaceful political activities in 2007. Some of the defendants turned their back on the judge, U Thaung Nyunt of the Rangoon Northern District Court, to protest the unfair way defendants were being questioned by the prosecution. The judge instructed the lawyers to stop the defendants' behavior. According to Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min: "We both said to the judge, ‘We don't want to forbid our clients from doing anything, because we are defense lawyers and we act according to our clients' instructions.' The judge stopped the proceedings and set another court hearing date."

The next day, court officials informed Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min that his contempt-of-court hearing was set for October 30. Days later, at the courthouse, he saw and overheard a police officer and an assistant judge conspiring to arrest him. He fled and went into hiding.

AND MIZZIMA'S STORY
2) Fugitive lawyer defending political prisoners flees to Thai border

by Than Htike Oo
Tuesday, 16 December 2008

Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – Young lawyer Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min who represented political prisoners fled to the Thai-Burma border in the wake of an arrest warrant against him.

He was on the run after the Rangoon Northern District Court sentenced him on October 30 to six months in prison in absentia for allegedly obstructing judicial proceedings.

"If I surrender to be arrested and imprisoned under this judicial system, it would be the end of me. I came here in the belief that something can be done," Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min (29) told Mizzima.

He was handed out a prison term for contempt of court while he was representing his clients Hlaingtharyar Township 'National League for Democracy' (NLD) member Ko Thant Zin Myo and 10 others who staged protest demonstrations against rising essential commodity prices.

The bench asked him to tell his clients not to show their back to the court. But he told the court that his clients could sit as they wished. He was given a prison term for that.

"I just said I had no authority to say anything to my clients for their behaviour. But the Hlaingtharyar Township judge from Rangoon northern district court prosecuted me for it," Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min said.

His co-lawyer in this case, Ko Nyi Nyi Htwe, was arrested and imprisoned on the same grounds. Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min didn't appear before the court which would have handed out a prison term to him on that very day.

His clients were sentenced to at least seven and-a-half years in prison.

He represented about 20 clients in political cases when he was in Burma.

Other lawyers who faced a similar fate are U Aung Thein and U Khin Maung Shein who were sentenced to four months in jail on the same contempt of court charge. They are now serving their prison terms in prisons far away from Rangoon.

READ MORE---> Lawyer’s Testimony Highlights Distorted Justice...

Burma: Rohingya Stranded in Malaysia

By Sean Garcia
Refugees International

In late November, just before Thanksgiving, we visited a group of 30 Rohingya men in Penang, Malaysia. We were anxious to visit areas outside of Kuala Lumpur, where civil society is slowly improving services for Burmese refugees. We wanted to see whether refugees nationwide were receiving more attention.

Most of the men in the group we met have been living in Malaysia for over a decade. We were the first visitors that they had ever received from the international community. The group explained to us that they moved to Penang because there is more employment there than in other parts of Malaysia. However, unlike in Kuala Lumpur, where there are limited but growing services for Rohingya refugees, there are no schools or mobile health clinics that will attend to their needs. When asked if there are any civil society organizations in Penang that could help them, no one in the room could identify a single source of help.

Like most Burmese refugees in Malaysia, the greatest concern for everyone in the group was being arrested and deported to the Thai-Malaysia border. The group recounted the story of a recent immigration raid in the community that we visited, which took place three days earlier. In this raid, between 40 to 50 agents from “Rela”, a volunteer corps charged with arresting illegal migrants, combed through their neighborhood from 5pm to 6pm. They asked anyone they found on the street for identification, and six refugees ended up being detained. These raids are a regular part of life for Burmese refugees. The group said that raids happen a few times a year, with a previous one having taken place just six or seven weeks earlier.

Only a few people in the room had papers from the UN Refugee Agency, and the Rohingya we spoke with quickly agreed that they did not feel part of the larger Malaysian community that they lived in. Many of them expressed concerns that their Malaysian neighbors might contact “Rela” if they were disruptive in any way. All agreed that the ideal resolution to their problems would be a return to a safe and free Northern Rakhine State in Burma, but no one thought that was realistic in the near future. Similarly, they would all welcome the opportunity to stay legally in Malaysia, since they have already been living in the country for a long time. In the end, most of the men agreed that they would be happy to live anywhere that would allow them to live there legally, with the hope that they could someday live without fear.

READ MORE---> Burma: Rohingya Stranded in Malaysia...

Comedian says Zarganar will boost prison morale

Dec 8, 2008 (DVB)–Comedian Pa Pa Lay has said the 59-year jail term given to fellow performer Zarganar will not demoralise him and will raise morale in the prison where he is being held.

Activist and comedian Zarganar was sentenced to 59 years in prison last month and sent to the remote Myitkyina prison in Kachin state.

Pa Pa Lay, a member of the Moustache Brothers performance troupe, spent seven years in Myitkyina prison and said Zarganar’s presence was likely to boost the spirits of inmates and staff alike.

"We are concerned that he is being detained, of course, but Zarganar and I have the same mentality. We are healthy as long as we can sing, dance and joke,” he said.

"If we can crack jokes as soon as roll call is made, everyone feels better for the rest of the day,” he went on.

“We can even make the people who are giving the orders smile and that is a tonic – they even ask us to crack more jokes."

Pa Pa Lay said conditions were very difficult during his time in prison.

"I was moved to a new cell every month or two. The food was poor and there was not enough water. The roof leaked and I had to sleep on the concrete floor," the comedian said.

"The weather was bitterly cold and it was worse in the labour camps with no protection from the elements,” he said.

“As a result, we contracted skin conditions and chronic gastric diseases with bloody stools. We received no treatment from outside.”

Pa Pa Lay said the recent long-term prison sentences and transfers to remote prisons were intended to demoralise the detained activists and their families.

"I want to offer them words of encouragement, to tell them that they will be free one day,” he said.

“Those who work for the people will pray for them and for their immediate release."

Reporting by Naw Say Phaw

READ MORE---> Comedian says Zarganar will boost prison morale...

Land seized from farmers for steel factory

Dec 8, 2008 (DVB)–Over 1200 acres of land have been taken from farmers in villages between Myin Chan and Taung Tha townships in Mandalay to be used in the development of a military-owned steel factory, according to locals.

A local farmer said Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings, known locally as U Paing, had started seizing the land a few years ago.

"The government's U Paing company started seizing hundreds of acres of land from local farmers in Hnanphat, Phattaw and Sakha villages between Myin Chan and Taung Tha for a steel factory development in the area," the farmer said.

"Farmlands surrounding the factory were destroyed and the land was used for roads and electric cable towers," he said.

"They just took the land from us just like that by showing off their guns without even waiting until we’d finished harvesting our crops."

The farmers were told they would receive compensation for the loss of their land, but they have so far received nothing.

"The company promised to give us compensation for our land and we had to buy application forms for 3-4000 kyat, but in the end we didn’t receive anything from them," the farmer said.

Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings is part-owned by the Burmese ministry of defence, while the rest of the company is owned mainly by senior military officials and their families.

It is among the companies designated by the US Treasury, which means that any assets it holds within US jurisdiction will be frozen and US citizens are prohibited from conducting business with the company.

Reporting by Aye Nai

READ MORE---> Land seized from farmers for steel factory...

Asian Lawmakers Push UN Chief on Burma

By WAI MOE
The Irrawaddy News
Monday, December 8, 2008

More than 240 Asian lawmakers have called for the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to press Burma’s junta for the release of all political prisoners in the country.

The Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC), which organized this campaign, said in a press release on Monday that a total of 241 parliamentarians from Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand have sent a public letter to Ban urging him to ensure the release of all Burma’s political prisoners by December 31.

It is believed to be the first time in history that a large group of Asian lawmakers have sent a public letter to the UN.

Roshan Jason, the executive director of the AIPMC, told The Irrawaddy on Monday that the group of Asian representatives has chosen Burma’s political prisoner issue because it is an essential step in the process of national reconciliation in the country.

“The most important human rights issue is the release of political prisoners [in Burma] now,” he said.

In the letter to the UN secretary-general, the Asian lawmakers said that the Burmese junta has used prisoners of conscience as political pawns, releasing a handful during and after visits by UN envoys while avoiding a complete release that would allow pave the way for true national reconciliation.

“The suffering of the people must not be allowed to continue and the world can no longer sit idly by and only assist them when there is a devastating natural disaster,” said Kraisak Choonhavan, president of the AIPMC and a member of parliament for Thailand’s Democrat Party.

The Asian parliamentarians’ call followed a similar petition on December 3 by 112 former world leaders—including Corazon Aquino, Tony Blair, George H W Bush, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, John Howard, Chandrika Kumaratunga, John Major, Margaret Thatcher and Lech Walesa—to the head of the UN, calling for the release of all political prisoners in Burma.

However, Ban told reporters on Friday that he will not visit Burma in the near future unless political progress is evident in the country.

“At this time, I do not think that the atmosphere is ripe for me to undertake my own visit there,” he said. "But I am committed, and I am ready to visit any time when I can have reasonable expectations my visit will be productive and meaningful.”

Commenting on Ban Ki-moon’s response, Roshan Jason said that he should reconsider his decision of canceling the trip.

“He should realize that he would perhaps create a greater impact and [bring discussions over the political prisoners to the forefront of negotiations] with leaders of the regime,” the executive director of AIPMC said. “It is better to see them (the Burmese generals) in person—there will be more opportunity to talk about this particular issue and he can show his commitment to making sure prisoners are released.”

Meanwhile, analysts are skeptical of the impact of the international campaigns to free political prisoners in Burma.

“The international community highlighting the Burma crisis, such as issuing statements and petitions, is good,” said Aung Naing Oo, a Burmese commentator based in Thailand. “But the junta will think of this kind of action as just shooting them with flowers.”

Since early November, courts in Burmese prisons have sentenced more than 200 people—from pro-democracy activists to bloggers—with jail terms of up to 65 years imprisonment.

Aung Naing Oo said the junta often uses long-term imprisonment as a tool of “pre-emptive repression” to deter dissident movements.

READ MORE---> Asian Lawmakers Push UN Chief on Burma...

Asian parliamentarians urge Ban to persuade Burmese junta

by Salai Pi Pi
Monday, 08 December 2008

New Delhi (Mizzima) – Over 240 parliamentarians from Asian countries on Monday renewed calls to the United Nations chief to make a fresh trip to Burma and goad the military junta to release all political prisoners including Nobel Peace Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

The 241 parliamentarians of Asian countries including those from Korea and Japan on Monday endorsed a letter by the Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) which urged UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to visit Burma and press for the release of political prisoners and kick start political reforms, a call that Ban had earlier refused to make citing the junta's unwillingness to implement reforms.

Son Chhay, a legislator from Cambodia, a member state of the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), told Mizzima that the UN chief should not delay in dealing with Burma's military regime but find an alternative approach to mount pressure on it.

"He [Ban Ki-moon] has a mandate of the UN to a find way out for a political process in Burma," said Son Chhay, Chairperson of Committee on Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and Media of the National Assembly of the Kingdom of Cambodia.

"He cannot be into dalliance with the regime. Otherwise, it will provide an opportunity to the junta to continue to abuse the people," he said.

The UN chief last week said he will not be making a fresh trip to Burma unless there are concrete signs of 'progress' in the military-ruled country. He felt that such a trip would yield no fruit.

Ban made the statement on Thursday, after more than 120 former presidents and prime ministers around the world sent him similar petitions urging him to visit Burma and press for the release of political prisoners including those that have been recently sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

Inspite of international condemnation, Burma's military rulers in recent months have sentenced several political activists to inordinately long prison terms of up to 68 years.

Son Chhay said despite international calls "We found that there is no moving forward in the political process in Burma. On the contrary, there is a reversal."

"More and more people were arrested and sentenced to long years in prison which has only added to people's suffering," he added.

Son Chhay suggested that the UN must look out for alternative solutions to Burma's political crisis and should not allow the junta to continue to abuse and disrespect the will of the Burmese people. It must take a decision to punish the regime.

"At the same time, Ban should put pressure on Russia and China to push the regime to enter into a dialogue with opposition groups in the run up to [2010] the elections," he added.

But a Burmese observer based in Thailand said there are doubts over the UN general secretary's role in attempting to address political and human rights crisis in Burma.

"Ban Ki-moon knows that his trip to Burma won't make any difference. It will only mean disgrace for him. That's why he is refusing to go," Aung Thu Nyein, a Burmese analyst said.

Aung Thu Nyein also said only UN Security Council member countries will be able to persuade the regime to bring about change in Burma.

But the AIPMC in its letter said the UN chief needs new initiatives on Burma as calls by the United Nations Security Council, General Assembly, and Human Rights Council have all failed to yield any political break through.

READ MORE---> Asian parliamentarians urge Ban to persuade Burmese junta...

Christmas Wishes for ALL

READ MORE---> Christmas Wishes for ALL...

UN Role 'Not Enough': Ban

By LALIT K JHA
The Irrawaddy News
December 6, 2008

UNITED NATIONS — UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Friday his direct involvement was "not enough" to resolve the current political stalemate in Burma and all its neighbors must play a more assertive role.

"My good offices should not be seen as an end in itself, or as a justification for inaction,” he told reporters at the UN headquarters in New York. “In order to be able to pursue this role in an effective manner, it is necessary for all concerned parties across the spectrum to step up efforts to help my good offices move forward."

After attending a meeting of the Secretary General's Group of Friends on Burma, Ban told reporters: "While I will continue my good offices role as mandated by the General Assembly, all the countries of the membership, particularly the Group of Friends countries, should use their influence, they should use whatever available leverage and tools to impress upon the Government of Myanmar [Burma] to implement their commitment."

Ban created the Group of Friends on Burma last year to aid and advise him on the various issues related to Burma, in particular how to proceed on a path of democratization and national reconciliation.

Members are Australia, China, the European Union, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, Britain, the US and Vietnam.

The meeting was convened in the aftermath of a letter written to Ban by more than 100 former presidents and prime ministers urging him to work for the release of all political prisoners in Burma by the end of the year.

Ban said since the last meeting: "I sense not only a higher expectation but also a growing frustration that our efforts have yet to yield the results we all hope for. I share this sense of expectation and frustration."

Referring to a statement from the Burmese government that cooperation with the UN is a cornerstone of their foreign policy, he said: "We welcome it, and we look forward to continue, and we expect a concrete action by them to implement their commitment."

Giving a sense of the discussions during the meeting, Ban said: "I have taken note of the group's concern that recent actions by the Government of Myanmar risk undermining the prospects of inclusive national reconciliation, democratic transition, and respect for human rights, and more generally at the lack of sufficient response to the concerns of the United Nations and the international community."

The secretary-general urged the Burmese junta to "respond positively without further delay" to specific UN suggestions, as endorsed by the Group of Friends, in particular the release of all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and the initiation of a genuine dialogue with the opposition.

Ban reiterated that he would visit Burma only if there is a real expectation of tangible progress.

"I am ready to visit Myanmar again, to continue our consultations on various issues—humanitarian issues, and also political issues,” he said. “At this time, I do not think that the atmosphere is ripe for me to undertake my own visit there.

"But I am committed, and I am ready to visit any time when I can have reasonable expectations my visit will be productive and meaningful,” he said.

READ MORE---> UN Role 'Not Enough': Ban...

Burma’s Nuclear Temptation

Rich with uranium and desperate for control, the Burmese junta may find a nuclear option attractive

By Bertil Lintner
YaleGlobal, 3 December 2008

Burmas Nuclear Temptation 3 Dec08

View more Microsoft Word documents from Jeg .

READ MORE---> Burma’s Nuclear Temptation...

Lectures of Prof. Win : In Response to Burma Digest - Part 3

Tue, 2008-12-02 02:34
Part 3

This is the gist of lectures given to the various universities and locations in North America and Europe. These lectures are published in response to the request of Dr Tay Za of Burma Digest, whose publication is considered is one of the most balanced reporting for the ethno democratic publications. Only relevant and intelligent questions are inserted. The lectures and all answers are Prof. BT Win’s (Kanbawza Win) personal omissions and commissions and did not represent any university, organizations or movements.

This is the gist of the history of Myanmar and the non Myanmar and now the floor is open. Ask any questions regarding Burma and if I don’t know how to answer I just say I don’t know.

Q. Since, you have worked at the EU, what is the European (EU) interest in Burma?

Having a Euro Burma Office in Brussels supported by the EU does not mean that Europe is very much interested in Burma. It is just a minimal. Of course they are interested in political stability, development, and democracy. But we have to remember that EU is a soft power in Asia and seldom throw their weight around. Rather their influence is on technology transfer, trade, investment, political consultation. For reasons of geography and strategic weight, the Europeans are not as important in Southeast Asia as the United States, the ASEAN members, China and India. By their actions it seems that E U has come to the conclusion that the sanctions have not achieved their political objective and are hurting the population rather than the military government. But it would be painful for them to admit that the sanctions were a mistake, so they leave them intact, and instead seriously increased its humanitarian help both inside and outside the country.

All in all I think that the West’s policy is a perfect example of an exclusively moral policy. I am not defending the murderous Junta, whom I loath very much but if the West have live with China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, Libya and many Afro Latin American states which are not democracies, why focused on the moral outrage against Burma. How good it is to have the moral high ground, when you don’t do anything for the fall of the regime? I recollect Dr Zani’s approach when he said that if you are for the sanctions are you for democracy in Burma but if you are skeptical of their use and convinced about their damage to the people of Burma then you must be chummy with the generals. Instead we should construe Burma from the Geo strategic consideration with some compromise in the Western policies.

Burma’s social and economic conditions are mainly homegrown, but by the Western sanctions, they have greatly contributed to the sad state of the country. The West want the Burmese Junta to release Daw Suu and the political prisoners. But they did not know that once she was fully release it means the end of the Burmese Junta.

Q. Why do you think that the democratic and the human rights movement has failed in Burma for so long?

From my perspective is that the biggest flaw is the failure of democratic and human rights movements to understand and articulate the linkages between justice and politics, and how strategies can be developed to address the two simultaneously. Various forms of pressure on a political front may eventually force a military regime to give in to demands for democratic reforms, but these may also fail to account for the consequences to mechanisms of justice in a country that has been under military rule, for more than half a century.

Many years of neglect and deliberate abuse of justice institutions results in them withering and becoming all but dead. It is like a living-dead organ, existing for the purpose of supporting military rule. It is a system of injustice that has become organically linked to the equally unjust political system of the country, and one that if pressured can but work harder to support the diseased body with which it has become fully integrated.

Globally, the demands placed on military regimes are articulated in very simple terms. They often come down to the holding of an election so that a government of popular choice can be installed. There is nothing objectionable in that. However, a political system that has destroyed a country's justice mechanism cannot be changed by a mere election.

First, often elections are not honored, when the National League for Democracy overwhelmingly won the vote but was not allowed to take office. The same thing happened in Cambodia when the FUNCINPEC party won the May 1993 UN-sponsored ballot but was forced to share power with the Cambodian People's Party of Hun Sen, which later consolidated control and has effectively brought about a one-party system of the sort that preceded international intervention. There too the ruling group has used the courts to ensure firm control of parts of government not directly under the executive.

Second, the political and judicial system may be so perverted by military control that it may bring into power unlikely and unsuitable candidates and it may anyhow be impossible for whoever takes power to do anything about the institutional arrangements. This is the problem faced in Thailand, where the courts have become complicit with the armed forces and other powerful groups in the country in defeating the political party process itself. That the country is increasingly treated as ungovernable by anyone apart from an authoritarian-type leader is not a consequence of the behavior of its people or anything innate in the workings of its institutions but a consequence of a deliberate agenda towards that end by these groups who are hostile to people having a genuine say in what goes on in their lives.

Then it can be asked of why has the global human rights movement not challenged itself over these failings? Why have the real problems of military control, political power and justice remained so far removed from much of its debate? The intellectuals from the developed world, who are still the strongest players in this discourse, do not have living experience of the real problems. For them the rule of law and the institutions of justice are as part of the real world as the air they breathe or the water they drink. Their systems are sufficiently advanced that those who come into them and debate their mechanics cannot conceive, other than at a shallow intellectual level, of political and legal systems that lack all of the qualities which they take for granted. When an intellectual from a developed country comes across problems of the sort found in a country like Burma he or she may hold the view that if enough political pressure can be generated from outside in tandem with that from a local movement then surely something must budge. All the effort goes in to "regime change" when experience shows that even a short term and oversimplified goal like this often remains beyond reach, and in places where it has succeeded, such as the Philippines and Indonesia, although conditions may in certain respects improve, the forced collapse of institutions under the old regimes have lasting and intense consequences for the new ones.

Q. So you were saying that Burma first need to over hall the justice system?

Yes that is my perspective. If more people in democratic and human rights movements locally and globally adopt this sort of dual approach of politics and judicial we may have certain success. Simply by putting pressure on its military regime to hold an election and admit some superficial political reforms as they are going to do the election in 2010 with a fake constitution will not work. For instance, despite all the United Nations experts, diplomats and officials coming and going and talking about Burma, how much effort has been paid to documenting and monitoring the work of its judicial system? In terms of international standards and putting forward proposals on specific items that need to be addressed, items on which the Junta will feel some obligation to respond and on which local lawyers, human rights defenders and activists also can work in their respective ways?

The answer to this question is shorter than the question itself. No such work has been done, even with the presence of country offices like the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. Monitoring and reporting on the policing system similarly has so far amounted to nothing, other than that incidental to other research. The human rights movement has remained stuck at the point of documenting individual violations and incidents without steps to bring that work into bigger and more meaningful studies on systemic issues. Serious work in these areas could be more effective than the types of two-dimensional back and forth about political party issues that goes on at the moment. It is in this respect that we now need to develop our thinking and planning and hone our expertise if better strategies for the protection and the promotion of human rights of people in Burma are to figure in the global democratic and human rights agendas.

Q. Now that Burma problem case is already half a century and most of the country has agreed on principle that it is a threat to international community as you said, what about humanitarian intervention?

Burma poses a threat to regional stability is not a matter of interpretation. This idea often cross my mind of whether this could be a humanitarian intervention. I think in the academic circles, the theory of humanitarian intervention has not yet been put on a solid basis. But in practical terms, since the 1990s there have been many cases of humanitarian intervention, mostly accompanied by the use of an armed attack like in Bosnia, Kosovo, Srebrenica, Rwanda and so forth. My idea is whether there could be a kind of humanitarian intervention in a softer form without the use of violence. And I cannot answer that. But one thing I know the Security Council should give some advice to alleviate the difficulty of people at the grassroots—such as on infectious diseases, poverty, education, health and so forth. At the same time, the international community should intensify our humanitarian assistance using all means and in all forms. This is from my good will toward the people of Burma.

Q. What is the role of the external factors especially foreign powers?

There is no easy answer to the question of whether and to what degree external actors should intervene to trigger or force transition in extreme cases of autocratic or failed governance. Often in the zeal to hasten the demise of bad regimes inadequate consideration is given ahead of time to how the international community can best prepare a backward country for effective democratic governance. Burma – a prime case of arrested development brought about by decades of stubborn, isolationist military rule – provides ample illustration of this dilemma. The great hope for instant transition to democracy that was raised by the 1990 parliamentary elections in Burma was dashed almost immediately by the failure of the military regime to seat the elected parliament. Motivated by despair, many governments adopted policies making regime change a sine qua non for engagement with Burma, hoping this would force the military to follow through on its original promise to return to elected government.

Twenty years later, however, the military remains firmly entrenched in power and the country’s political, economic, and human resources have seriously deteriorated. Even if an elected government could be seated tomorrow, it would find itself bereft of the institutions necessary to deliver stable democratic rule.

Starting from the assumption that some degree of transition is inevitable in the not-too distant future, it must explores the depth of Burma’s deprivations under military rule, focusing on questions of how to make the country’s political, social, and economic institutions adequate to the task of managing democratic governance. It will have to identify the international mechanisms available to assist in this task, as well as innate strengths that can still be found in Burma, and it discusses what the limitations on assistance might be under various scenarios for political transition.

Q. Should outside actors intervene or force transition in extreme cases like Burma?

In countries where diverse societies have been held together by autocratic rule, which purposely exacerbates internal animosities and impedes the development of complex civil society, transition has often been plagued by internal conflict and tension, making democratic outcomes all the more difficult. In fact, Burma not only does the lack of political and civil institutions and a reliable economic structure, let alone civil tolerance among diverse ethnic and religious groups, impede and prolong transition to pluralistic governance, it often sets the scene for anarchy and reversion to autocratic rule.

There is no easy answer. If the horrors of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda taught the international community what may happen when the world lets nature take its course, then the American intervention in Iraq to topple the Saddam government can be seen as a lesson in the dangers of acting decisively to force regime change. In both cases, the international community has, to some extent, inherited the responsibility for dealing with the chaotic consequences, struggling with the extreme difficulty of fostering democratic institutions and effective free market economies in societies that have not yet learned how to negotiate among themselves. I think Burma falls into this category.

Q. Can there be a forced transition by external actors from Military to Civilian rule?

There is no easy answer to the question of whether and to what degree external actors should intervene to trigger or force transition in extreme cases of autocratic or failed governance. Often in the zeal to hasten the demise of bad regimes inadequate consideration is given ahead of time to how the international community can best prepare a backward country for effective democratic governance. Burma – a prime case of arrested development brought about by decades of stubborn, isolationist military rule – provides ample illustration of this dilemma. The great hope for instant transition to democracy that was raised by the 1990 parliamentary elections in Burma was dashed almost immediately by the failure of the military regime to seat the elected parliament. Motivated by despair, many governments adopted policies making regime change a sine qua non for engagement with Burma, hoping this would force the military to follow through on its original promise to return to elected government.

Two decades later, however, the military remains firmly entrenched in power and the country’s political, economic, and human resources have seriously deteriorated. Even if an elected government could be seated tomorrow, it would find itself bereft of the institutions necessary to deliver stable democratic rule. Starting from the assumption that some degree of transition is inevitable in the not-too distant future first we will have to explores the depth of Burma’s deprivations under military rule, focusing on questions of how to make the country’s political, social, and economic institutions adequate to the task of managing democratic governance. What are the weak points and what are the strength and how to leapfrog some of the development has to be considered and will to study the most productive policy approaches will require greater coordination and collaboration with Burma’s Asian neighbors.

Q. Do you see any peaceful transactions from Dictatorship to Democracy?

To be very frank I don’t see any. The chances for peaceful transition to stable, sustainable democracy in Burma are very slim in the near future, largely because the conditions required for sustainability are absent and there is no opening at present to
foster these conditions.

(1) The intractability of the economic situation and the regime’s refusal to entertain reforms that would begin to deal with the severe macroeconomic distortions act as a serious inhibition to political development in the broadest sense of the term.

(2) The existing government institutions are incapable of functioning effectively to maintain central administration of the country without authoritarian control.

(3) And finally, the impoverished educational system with its severe limits on political and social science, as well as onerous restrictions on civil society and public organizations, make it very difficult for the population to develop the civic institutions necessary to support democratic government.

Since 1945, most Asian countries -- notable exceptions being Burma, North Korea, and perhaps Laos -- have experienced significant, sometimes dramatic, economic and political advancement under a great variety of seemingly adverse conditions, such as foreign occupation, communism, insurgency, and partition. In all these countries the governments, even under communist and/or autocratic rule, have placed a premium on economic development, education, and building civilian communities to advance their societies. Why does the military regime in Burma not ascribe to the same values as its Asian friends and neighbours? We may never be able to answer this question fully, but the fierce desire of successive Burmese governments to prevent and expunge perceived foreign influence on Burmese society and culture has undoubtedly played a large part, along with the obsession of military regimes with maintaining comprehensive control over the population and severe restrictions on civilian activity in the name of security and internal stability. As the world around them moves forward in step with the global community, it will inevitably become impossible for future Burmese leadership to continue insulating their society from the rapid pace of economic and political modernization in Asia and starving their population for information. Technological development is already overtaking them.

Thus it is important for the international community, particularly Burma’s Asian neighbours, to understand the depth of Burma’s economic, social, and political dislocations and the measures that will be necessary to correct them. If a relatively consistent and coordinated message about the need for basic reform in political, economic and educational structures could be delivered to the country’s leadership over time, it would be much more difficult for the leadership to dismiss or ignore it, and some degree of enlightenment might eventually emerge. Just as sanctions regimes can work against our ability to help, it is also irresponsible of Burma’s friends and neighbours to conduct their relations with Burma totally in pursuit of their own interests and without regard for the Burma’s political future.

Q. Do you think that Burma will regain democracy?

That is a good question. Sure, eventually the people of Burma will regain democracy for they have tasted democracy from 1948 to 1962 and treasure it even though the mass of the rural population doesn’t know it e.g. many of the rural people in Burma do not conceptualize this forced labor as a violation of human rights, but more as a hassle and in a way a “civic duty.” The idea of rights doesn’t occur to them because they don’t know what they are.

Freedom is not different for those who have not been taught about freedom or rights. For those who can’t put into words what freedom means, it doesn’t mean that its not there—it just needs to be given a voice. I construe that Cyclone Nargis that affected Burma in May 2008 changed a lot for the country. The world became more aware of the level of hatred and cruelty present in the Burmese government as they effectively blocked off international aid to the millions of people affected by this storm, allowing (and wanting) so many of the citizens of their country to die.

But more than showing the world the true nature of the military junta, it also re-energized and showed the world that there is a vibrant civil society in Burma itself. The people of Burma desperately wanted to help each other, and the humanitarian assistance they were giving to each other was not political, but given out of a decency, love, and compassion for each other that is so present in Burma, even if this decency does not include the military government. One of the 5 benchmarks of democracy put forth by Linson Stephen in 1996 is a civil society, which is growing inside of Burma, so there is hope that a democratic society will emerge in Burma. It is what the people there want, as 90% of the population is against the current military government. I think that Nargis served an important role of giving the people inside of Burma a chance to engage and counter the actions of the military government, even if the actions were not political in nature. Therefore, the idea of freedom became proactive, an important shift for a country in which the idea of freedom has for so long been reactive. This will finally lead to democracy.

Q. What is your suggestion to solve this Burmese problem?

For the last half a century or since Burma came into being it has been proven that the Burmese people cannot solved their own problem. This was proven by the fighting between the people of Burma either ethnic or otherwise (communist). The common denominator among the ethnic and the pro democracy movement is that they vehemently hated the Burmese army, which is the strongest. If one were to knock out the Junta and its marauding army, then there would be Balkinization and the infighting among the Burmese themselves as the common joke says that if you put two Burmese together they will form three political parties. Reason and clear thinking cannot be put into the brains of not only the Junta but also among the leading ethnic leaders.

Hence the solution must be imposed by external power if were to stop the on going tragedy. A community of nations, basically the United States, the ASEAN countries, India, and China, to negotiate a package deal with the Burmese Junta and the ethnic groups including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (NLD and the democracy groups are behind her). If ASEAN can take the initiative it will be great but you might as well know of what Harn Younghwe said that that ASEAN needs more of Burma than Burma needs ASEAN. If ASEAN authoritarian leader is able to lead and talk to Generals follow up by sanctions and critical dialogue it will work.

Q. You have been going to Thailand for more than a decade. Can you give us some of your thoughts on the Thai Policy?

This is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Yes I have seen the various administration from Chaticha Choonhaven to the present administration. Except in the Chuan Leekpai administration Thailand has pursued a policy of dealing with the devil whoever was in power in Burma . I could say something about the Thasksin Administration. He was known to adopt a spongy approach toward Burma, which his critics perceived as an attempt to move away from an emphasis on democratic and human rights values to a more business-oriented stance. The economic results have been evident. Right now, Thailand is one of Burma’s most important investment partners. So, it is not surprising that Thaksin’s company, Shin Corporation, has invested extensively in Burma. Shin Corp, the third largest satellite operator in Asia, concluded a deal in 2003 with Pagan Cybertech, an internet service provider owned by Ye Naing Win, who is the son of former Prime Minister Khin Nyunt. In January 2006, Shin Corp was sold to Temasek Holdings, an investment arm of the Singaporean government. Shin Corp got away without paying 450 million U.S. dollars in taxes on the 1.85 billion dollar sale. The whole episode sparked public anger and partly led to Thaksin’s downfall.

Back in 2003, Thaksin invited Burma to participate in the Economic Cooperation Strategy (ECS) cooperative framework, later renamed ACMECS (Ayeyawady- Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy), in which Thailand offered the Burmese government generous financial assistance worth 45 million U.S. dollars. In the meantime, Human Rights Watch reported that the Thaksin regime continued to clean up Burmese refugees living along Thailand’s borders.

The Bangkok process, hosted by the Thaksin government in 2003 ostensibly to advance democracy in Burma, failed to take off and came to an end when the military Junta refused to go. To the Thai leaders, a friendly policy toward Burma was important, especially since they wanted to reconnect lost contacts that they once had with Khin Nyunt. But different sectors of the Thai establishment have different approaches. The Thai military, especially in northern Thailand, is more concerned with the real issues behind the illusion of Thai- Burmese relations, namely, the flow of drugs and refugees across the border. Therefore, the military had a less favorable view of the Burmese regime than the government in Bangkok, which was obviously more interested in business ties.

Thaksin and his advisors took at least some inspiration from former Prime Minister General Chatichai Choonhavan in turning Indochina from a battlefield into a marketplace. However, I don’t see any evidence of concerns in Thai policy toward Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos about democracy, human rights, justice and so on. So, given the public perception toward Burma, in part because of the distortion of history between the two countries, I doubt that what goes on in Burma is of much concern to most Thai people. Moreover, business opportunities in Burma are huge, and whether they are responsible, moral, or legitimate are separate questions.

Every Thai businessman—from the smallest trader all the way to Thaksin—knows that Burma is full of precious stones, gold, timber, labor, and whatnot. So against this background, I am not surprised that the Thai public at large failed to question or opposes Thaksin’s Burma policy. Meanwhile, Thaksin carefully depicted himself as a true nationalist, who strove for the greatness of the nation, stood up against the West, and also reached out for poor neighbors like Burma. In the meantime, he accused those who disagreed with his Burma policy of conspiring to keep Burma backward and underdeveloped, which he saw as not in the interests of Thailand.

Thaksin became the first ASEAN leader to visit the new capital, Naypyidaw. Burma’s biggest export and new sales to Thailand alone are worth over one billion U.S. dollars annually. which makes up about 25% of Thailand’s supply. There are also firm plans for joint hydroelectric dam projects on the Salween River. The Hugyi hydropower project is a joint venture among Burma, Thailand and China. The project is very controversial because the construction location is also home to the Karens and Kachins. No doubt from the Burmese generals’ perspective, a dam project resulting in road construction would help them better control the area. The beginning of the Hutgyi hydropower project has already forced over 20,000 local residents to be relocated from their homes because of the socio-environmental impacts. The speculation here is that Thailand in may want to invest in the new gas fields in Burma in order to resell them later to other countries. I have not study much of the new Thai government as you might as well know the changes in the Thai government.

Q. Can you elaborate the role of the NGOs in Burma?

A handful of international NGOs particularly from the West are inside Burma. They work both on their own and in coordination with the UN agency programs. Like the UN agencies, these NGOs nurture and develop local talent. The bulk of their staff is Burmese and, like the UN agencies, they work with local Burmese NGOs. It is very difficult for foreign NGOs to negotiate and conclude an MOU with the Burmese government to work in the country; the process can take three or more years. Thus there is not likely to be a large increase in INGO activity in Burma so long as the Junta is in its place.

Transition, on the other hand, will bring a plethora of new NGOs to Burma and they will compete with each other and with UN agencies for funding from donor governments to implement programs. In fact, these NGOs can play a unique role in reaching the more remote areas of the country and should be encouraged in this direction so that international assistance is not concentrated solely in the Burman areas, but also reaches the ethnic minorities.

There is no denying that UN and INGO activity in Burma over the past decade has helped the development of small local NGOs, who often serve as implementers for their programs. The rise of these NGOs has, in turn, encouraged a second layer of local NGOs and community help organizations of various types that are not necessarily connected with or financially dependent on international aid. Even before transition is underway, the international community should consider ways to support and encourage the expansion of this trend. This could be an important element in instilling a greater sense of cooperation, tolerance, and community in the Burmese civilian population. It can also help develop benevolent community activists as an alternative to the predatory USDA or Swan Arr Shin. It must be noted that many international assistance programs in South Africa during the final years of apartheid, including that of the US, emphasized the development of local civic and nongovernmental groups in the black townships in order to foster future leaders for a democratic South Africa. Many of those who came to the fore, either as politicians or senior civil servants, in the transitional South African government after 1994 got their start in local NGOs and civic groups nurtured by foreign donors. I think Burma can be on the same lines.

Q. Will non violence strategy successful in Burma?

No. the Army come to power with the gun and will have to go with the gun. While the Buddhist monk-led demonstrations briefly raised global awareness of the Burmese people's plight, it also highlighted the failure of the opposition's long-held non-violence strategy. While outwardly a spontaneous gesture in reaction to economic woes, the demonstrations were the culmination of years of planning by opposition forces inside and abroad. While the regime refused to honor the poll's results, the election provided political legitimacy to the NLD and a handful of opposition activists. Still cling to demands that the election's results be honored, but with each passing year those claims to legitimacy become less germane. Close to 40% of the elected members of parliament have been dismissed or resigned and a full 20% have died.

The vast majority of the opposition follows Suu Kyi's guidance that political change can and should be achieved through non-violence. That doctrine was further promulgated by the Albert Einstein Institute of Geneva and New York. The opposition's adherence to non-violence has given the regime a monopoly on fear that allowed it to solidify its position, condemning generations of Burmese to life (and in some cases, death) under the military regime. Additionally, limiting the prospect of violent consequences removed one aspect which may have motivated the regime to negotiate change.

The elevated principle of non-violence made it easier for group leaders to accept the bribery. The success of the regime's effort to pursue ceasefire deals continues to haunt the opposition with fragmentation and conflicting interests. Ethnic armies whose cooperation could have tilted the "Saffron" revolution to effect real change, sat and watched, perhaps out of concern that armed rebellion would jeopardize their lucrative mining or other concessions. As a result, the regime was able to focus its military might on the unarmed protesters and monks.

Incentives and self-interest affect not only limited ceasefires and peace groups, but also some ethnic armies that continue to put forces in the field against the Burmese Army. e.g. the Mon insurgents in the area are receiving payoffs from both the regime and the Thai authorities.

Q. Now that you have come to London and meet us what advice would you give us?

Through out my travels in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia I discovered that London and the United Kingdom has the most Burmese intelligentsia and most of them are well informed. In working for Unity for Victory (U2V), I would advice Unity in Diversity for Victory (UDV). Our epic struggle must be joined by both the pro democratic Myanmar nationalities and the non Myanmar ethnic nationalities. We will have to build the trust between the two groups. The ultimate solution is the Federal Democratic Union of Burma.

Ed Note. Prof. Win has given special lectures at the Simon Fraser University of Vancouver on 1st Nov, at the University of Winnipeg Women’s club on the 6th Nov. in Manitoba. At 9 rue Courat, Paris 75020 on 13th Nov and at the Burmese Buddhist Monastery in London, UK on the 22nd Nov.

(Concluded)

- Asian Tribune -

Also Read:
1 .Part 1 - Lectures of Prof. Win : In Response to Burma Digest

2. Part 2 - Lectures of Prof. Win : In Response to Burma Digest

READ MORE---> Lectures of Prof. Win : In Response to Burma Digest - Part 3...