Crackdown on Burmese Dissidents in Chiang Mai

By THE IRRAWADDY

Thai police officers on Sunday raided the offices of several exiled Burmese opposition groups including the Human Rights Education Institute of Burma, the Burmese Women’s Union and the National Health and Education Committee.

A Burmese source confirmed that 10 Burmese women from the Burmese Women’s Union who were attending a capacity-building workshop in Chiang Mai were apprehended and are now in custody.

The police came with information and photos of the locations of Burmese offices. The arrests took place on Sunday when many offices were closed for the weekend.

The offices of several Chiang Mai-based Burmese opposition groups and media organizations have remained temporarily closed on Monday. The motive for the arrests and the reason why Burmese human rights workers and dissidents have been targeted is not yet known.

Several exiled Burmese and foreign groups have opened NGOs and advocacy offices in Chiang Mai in recent years.

Burmese groups faced the most repressive times under Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s administration in the early 2000s. Many offices were shut down for several weeks due to fears of intimidation and crackdowns.

International human rights groups and Western governments expressed concern for the safety of exiled Burmese dissidents living in Thailand at the time.

Under the current Thai government, Burmese groups in Thailand have enjoyed relative freedom without any major harassment.

According to diplomatic sources, Western embassies in Bangkok are closely watching the situation.

Burma Newscasts - Crackdown on Burmese Dissidents in Chiang Mai
Monday, September 14, 2009

READ MORE---> Crackdown on Burmese Dissidents in Chiang Mai...

Punishment for a dream – the price of Burmese conscience

by Nay Tin Myint

Mizzima News - William Harvard wrote: "The greatest glory of a free-born people is to transmit that freedom to their children." This is the dream that I had for Burma in 1988, and I still have the same dream today. As a university student in 1988, I never imagined that I would spend the next fifteen years of my life in Burma’s notorious prisons for daring to hope for a better future.

It all began on a beautiful spring day, March 13, 1988, when I was a 21-year-old Rangoon University Zoology student in my senior year. Some Burma Socialist Program Party (BSPP) soldiers shot and killed an engineering student at the campus. Adding insult to injury, afterward the army denied any wrongdoing and ignored the students’ request for an investigation, eventually leading the students to strike.

During the ensuing crackdown, armed government soldiers savagely attacked unarmed student demonstrators, stole their possessions and gang-raped hooded female students in custody. According to eyewitnesses, armed soldiers also threw students into Inya Lake and ponds, watching many students drown. Since that day the "White Bridge" of Rangoon Arts and Science University, where soldiers attacked the unarmed innocent university students, was famously renamed the "Red Bridge" for the blood spilt during those tragic times.

By August 8, 1988, the momentum of the students' strike in the spring mushroomed into a nationwide uprising, with Burmese fed up with the government's negligence rising up against the abusive military junta. During these demonstrations, as one of the founders of the Tri-color Youth Organization, I gave a speech condemning the BSPP ruling party's mismanagement of the country. I demanded justice for the army's brutality and for the government to tell us what happened to the Rangoon University students who disappeared in March. The ruling junta immediately arrested me.

Right after the arrest, government agents began to torture me with the aim of breaking my silence. They forced me to kneel down and crawl over sharp stones with hands cuffed behind my back. Then they hung me from my handcuffs with my legs barely touching the ground while I continued to bleed all night. The tormentors placed a tin bucket on my head and beat it until blood ran down my ears. They offered me no food until the third day, when they brought foul and inedible food accompanied by a scant amount of water. They continued to beat me and torture me with electric shock to force me to disclose the names of my associates. I refused to give up their names, either to stop the torture or to gain my release. I was prepared to die alone under torture rather than to subject other innocent political activists to the same brutal punishments.

The courts in Burma were as lawless and fraudulent as other institutions under military rule. An army colonel, the head of a martial court, asked, "Do you think what you are doing is right?" I answered, "Yes, what I am doing is right and I have a lot of support from the people." I continued to point out the failures of the ruling party and promised that one day they would be defeated. He apparently already had orders to sentence me to three years of hard labor in prison, but after my reply, furious, he increased it to four years. He then asked whether I would like to comment on anything else. I replied, "Yes," but they refused to let me speak and dragged me away.

Similar to other leading political prisoners, they kept me alone in an eight by twelve foot cell in notorious Insein Prison near Rangoon. Although according to the official prison handbook prisoners have the right to take a walk twice a day and to have fifteen bowls of water for bathing, prison authorities locked me in my cell in clear violation of those rights. No prison in Burma followed the guidelines written in the prison manual. When, at the close of 1989, I demanded my rights according to the prison manual, they transferred me to another notorious prison, Tharawaddy, in Pegu.

In Tharawaddy, prison officials made me work in the plantation area. When they assigned me to collect toilet bowls, a job for criminal inmates, I refused, since I was not a criminal. Although I knew that my prison term would be reduced if I obeyed their rules I refused to be humiliated or degraded. Instead, I firmly held on to my convictions and did not surrender my political conscience for personal comfort or freedom.

Next, in an attempt to break my spirit further, they shackled my ankles and placed a metal bar between my legs. They continued to beat and kick me, even while I was shackled. During an episode of solitary confinement my toilet bowl was not collected for a month, and insects began crawling out of it and climbing onto me while I slept with no mattress or blanket on a concrete floor. I was not allowed to own clothing other than what I wore. After one month, my skin became infected and I suffered from stomach pain, but the prison warden refused treatment or for my family to bring any medication. When I tried to report this violation they transferred me to yet another prison, Myingyan, in central Burma in early 1991.

While at Myingyan prison they again immediately placed me in solitary confinement. They supplied only a small amount of food and allowed a bath once every three weeks. I could not wash clothes because there was not enough water. Therefore, I stood on my clothes while bathing and squeezed the water out to wash again. As a punishment for cleverly bathing and washing clothes at the same time, they added a second metal bar to my shackle. They also forced me to crawl over sharp stones with the shackle on, while two prison guards savagely struck me. The shackle stayed on for more than one year, and when it finally came off I was suffering from partial paralysis. I was not able to walk because my shackled legs had been held in an awkward position for so long and from the weakness caused by a general lack of nutrition.

Eventually I saw a prison doctor, but I still received no treatment for my paralysis. Finally, after a long interval, my family was allowed to visit and was permitted to supply medication. Although I was paralyzed I kept exercising my legs and I continued to discipline my mind. I needed to live, not to die in prison. I was determined not to let the military junta triumph over me. To keep my mind focused and sharp, I continued to meditate according to Burmese Buddhism.

In 1992, at the end of my four-year prison term, I was released only because of my physical disability. I spent the next six months in a hospital for medical treatment and physical rehabilitation. During this time I was invited to a meeting between National League for Democracy leaders Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and U Win Tin and the United Nations special representative to Burma. I agreed to have my name submitted to the United Nations for the purpose of this meeting. Soon after, the SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council) regime announced that a National Convention would be held to draw up a new constitution for Burma.

Since the ploy to draw up a new constitution came only after the army lost the 1990 general election, it was clear the generals were just buying time instead of genuinely preparing for a transfer of power. A constitutional convention dominated by handpicked delegates from the military and close associates of the army clearly was not intended to be free or fair. Not surprisingly, the junta intensified the crackdown on political dissidents and elected politicians, even while pushing for the National Convention on the pretext of writing a new constitution.

As democracy activists including myself began organizing with university students for a nationwide movement against the unlawful National Convention, SLORC henchmen came and raided my home, confiscated my personal possessions and arrested me for the second time on charges of distributing protest pamphlets and meeting with United Nations representatives. At my trial in October 1993, the judge told me, "You have been a leader during the 1988 unrest, and now you are protesting against the National Convention with the intention of demeaning the dignity of the country." Along with a false accusation of my conspiring with armed rebels, he sentenced me to twenty years in prison with hard labor.

After holding me in Insein Prison for a few months they again transferred me to Myingyan. Gradually it became clear to me that by sending political prisoners like me to Myingyan again and again, the ruling junta intended not only to torture and break our political will but also planned to systematically kill and eliminate all political opposition without leaving any trace of evidence behind. This plan was instituted with the same efficiency as the plan for ethnic cleansing in remote jungle villages hidden from the view of the international community.

With this understanding, I approached the Myingyan Prison entrance with great apprehension. Upon arrival, I was blindfolded and severely beaten with my hands cuffed behind my back. The beating continued even after I fell to the ground. They shackled my legs and ordered me put in solitary confinement for another seven years.

It all began again with no bath for three months, a small amount of stale food and insufficient drinking water. To make life even more miserable the guards inside continually harassed political prisoners. To prevent contact between political prisoners when one of us was in the aisle, all other political prisoners were forced to sit in an extremely awkward position called "ponzan" at the back of their cells. On one occasion a prison guard savagely knocked me down in the shower after accusing me of making eye contact with other political prisoners, forcing me to crawl back to my cell.

Routine and cold-blooded assaults on political prisoners were meant as part of the punishment. For instance, frequently after I had finished cleaning the floor of my cell with my only sarong, a prison guard would blow the dust back in, subsequently striking me for not properly cleaning my cell. Subsisting all the while on a meager diet of foul rations contaminated with stones and un-hulled paddy grains added misery to our anguished years inside the prison and, consequently, political prisoners in Burma often succumbed to deteriorating health behind bars. When family members brought even a small amount of salt to alleviate the misery, prison authorities often punished the prisoners with more beatings.

According to the official prison manual, family visitations were allowed for up to 15 minutes. However, political prisoners were allowed only three minutes with family members who had often traveled long distances. The ruling junta also created an atmosphere in which family members and friends were forced to put pressure on prisoners to give up politics altogether. The junta frequently imposed penalties on innocent family members in an attempt to break down the political prisoners’ final defenses – forcing them to watch family members suffer by being forced to travel to remote prisons for visitations that tested strength beyond the endurance of even the most dedicated democrats.

I was not allowed to read any book from 1994 to 2000. When the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) came to visit in 2000, restrictions were slightly eased, with authorities allowing us more food and longer showers. After the ICRC chief representative came to meet me in prison and recorded my prison experiences, I was further allowed a few books for reading. I was also able to see a prison doctor and was allowed to do some physical exercise.

In 2001, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the SPDC's General Khin Nyunt reached an agreement to work together. During that time, military intelligence (MI) frequently paid me visits and asked myself and other political prisoners to sign a pledge to never again engage in any political activity, in exchange for our release. Those of us who refused remained locked up in prison.

In early 2005, I was sent to Mandalay prison in upper Burma, where they immediately put me in solitary confinement for another six months. When authorities transferred me back to Myingyan for another stint in violation of my rights, I decided to go on hunger strike. On the sixth day of my hunger strike I was offered some water but the guards subsequently broke the water pot. After four more days without water I became unconscious. The Director General of the Penitentiary Department from Rangoon heard about me, immediately paying me a visit. I was brought to the hospital where I vomited blood and passed out. I was sustained only by the belief that my tormenters "can control me physically, but they cannot control my mind. My mind does not belong to them. My mind belongs to me."

I was eventually released on July 6, 2005, after over 15 years of imprisonment and nearly seven years in solitary confinement. "RELEASED" was just a statement on paper. Inside Burma I was never really free, since government agents continued to follow and watch my every move. Nevertheless, my mind was still occupied with 1988 and democratic aspirations for our people.

The generals in Burma wanted the Burmese people and the world to see that the army had the power to take away our lives, our liberty and our happiness at any time they chose. They wanted everyone to see the scars, the pain and the deaths of those who dared resist their brutal domination.

But even after 15 years in their infernal prisons, the SPDC was not able to make me obey their authority. My vow to continue struggling for democracy remained unbroken and I never wavered from my commitment toward freedom for Burma.

Countless people in Burma have sacrificed their lives and all that they held dear in the name of freedom for their children. The generals in Naypyitaw must see that our leaders, Aung San Suu Kyi and others who are still in prison will never give up their dream for democracy or exchange their political conscience for a life of luxury under the military regime.

Our real leaders know that there would not be an India without Gandhi, a South Africa without Nelson Mandela and an Obama without Martin Luther King, Jr. They also believe that Burma will overcome its troubles one day. Only for now, they need our help to make their dreams come true.

Nay Tin Myint escaped from Burma to Thailand in 2007. He was granted political asylum in the United States in 2008 and is the Secretary of the National League for Democracy – Liberated Area, USA branch.

READ MORE---> Punishment for a dream – the price of Burmese conscience...

US Senator’s mercy mission to Burma may start a new process

by Larry Jagan

Bangkok (Mizzima) - The American senator, Jim Webb may have started something significant, but at this stage everything to do with his visit is still shrouded in mystery. Even at his two press conferences in Bangkok on consecutive days, the usually garrulous and talkative politician was overtly coy, dodging questions and being continually non-committal. “He appears frightened and is hiding something,” said a senior western diplomat who closely follows Burmese affairs. “He knows more than he’s telling, something is surely afoot.”

This was certainly no ordinary or even private visit, despite senior state department officials insisting the senator visited Burma in a personal capacity. The US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, rang him last night to talk about the trip, Webb let slip during his encounter with the press on Monday. This only adds to the increasing suspicion that something significant may be happening beneath the public gaze. After all that is how serious diplomacy takes place.

Senator Webb, it must be remembered, is a rising political star in Washington, close to the Clintons and Barack Obama, according to sources on the Hill. He is also tipped to become the next secretary of defense, when the Bush-appointee Bill Gates stands down in around two years’ time. So the US could not have had a better envoy – even if unofficially -- than this conservative Democrat from Virginia.

One of the key messages Webb passed onto Than Shwe was that Aung San Suu Kyi should be released before the 2010 election, and allowed a political role. “We will just have to wait and see how the Myanmar government responds,” he told Mizzima. “I am hopeful that they will give my recommendation [that she be freed] serious consideration,” he added.

The pro-democracy opposition abroad is still complaining that Webb’s visit gave the Burmese military leaders international credibility, and even a measure of legitimacy. This accusation at least the senator dismisses. “I am not pro-Myanmar, but I believe the Burmese people deserve better than they are getting now. Isolation is only preventing them from developing economically and politically,” he told journalists on Sunday. A day later he was still loath to call his visit a success – the jury is still out, he implied. “It’s now in the hands of the Myanmar government,” he said.

Sensibly the senator is distancing himself from what many want to dub as his key success: bringing the American intruder, John Yettaw, out of Burma after he was officially deported on Sunday. It was Yettaw whose unwanted visit to Aung San Suu Kyi’s residence some three months ago resulted in the detained opposition leader being put under house arrest for a further 18 months. “Mr Yettaw’s actions were regrettable,” Webb said. “But the Myanmar government responded favourably to my request to release him on humanitarian grounds.”

The American was sentenced to seen years in jail with hard labour – and his family feared that given his ill-health he would not cope with conditions in a Burmese jail. In fact during his imprisonment while the trial as on he frequently needed medical attention and was hospitalised at least once. Many analysts saw the harsh sentence as an open invitation to Washington to open discussions with the military government.

Yettaw is now in a Bangkok hospital undergoing an intensive medical check-up before returning to the US. “He's got severe medical problems, and had a relapse and fit this [Sunday] after he was handed over to US embassy officials,” a senior American state department diplomat told Mizzima on condition of anonymity.

The hapless American’s release was one of three major requests the US senator made during his crucial meeting with the junta's reclusive leader, General Than Shwe. The other two were to be permitted to see the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and to strongly urge the regime to release her and allow her to fully participate in the country's political process. “He granted my first two requests during our meeting, and there is yet to be a response to my third,” he told journalists at a press conference in Bangkok.

In fact it is the two meetings – the one with Than Shwe and the other with Aung San Suu Kyi – that may yet prove to be more significant than the release of the hapless American visitor. The senator remained coy about the details of the talks he had with the two, though he said he had an extensive exchange with both on the current political process, which the junta calls its roadmap to disciplined democracy. “Without Aung San Suu being released and allowed to participate in the elections, the US and the international community would find it impossible to accept the process as free and fair,” he told General Than Shwe.

The pro-democracy leader preferred to wait until she and her party had formulated a detailed policy towards the elections, before issuing a statement, he told Mizzima. On sanctions we had a long and vigorous discussion, he added. “It was my impression that she was not opposed to lifting some sanctions, that is all I will say as I do not want to misquote her,” he said. He declined to give further details. This seems to be an admission that the detained Nobel Laureate may have given the new US administration the green light to consider dismantling some of the sanctions.

Many analysts believe that it is the senator’s support for a change in US policy towards Burma and his opposition to the sanctions’ approach that encouraged the regime to invite him. That and the fact that he is a former soldier, a marine who fought in the Vietnam War would also have been important. Burma’s military rulers mistrust all civilians.

Senator Webb’s visit is the first by an American Congressman in more than 10 years. But US officials, and Webb himself, played down any suggestion that he was an envoy for the Obama administration or that he was an interlocutor between the two governments. “I went in a private capacity – and in my role as chairman of the Senate foreign affairs East Asia and the Pacific sub-committee,” he told journalists in Bangkok. “But I will be reporting back on the visit to the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, on a wide variety of issues, including increasing humanitarian assistance,” he said. In fact Clinton could not wait until he returned and phoned him in Bangkok on Sunday evening.

Apart from conveying Aung San Suu Kyi’s best wishes to President Barack Obama, Webb said he had only his own impressions and general issues to report back to the White House. But all this will be part of the mix as the new administration mulls over what kind of policy changes might best help encourage the regime to introduce genuine political reform and make its roadmap internationally credible, according to senior state department officials. Many people are optimistic that the administration is planning significant if not radical changes to US policy towards Burma.

“Webb is after ‘aggressive engagement’, like Senator Lugar's report on US-Cuban relations,” seasoned Burma-watcher, Derek Tonkin told Mizzima. “The US and Burma should now look for areas of mutual interest on which they can start talking -- narcotics, even US certification, international terrorism, piracy around SE Asia and off Somalia, communicable diseases, conservation -- the list is endless,” he said.

What is now needed is quiet diplomacy, a senior European diplomat with experience in behind-the-scenes exchanges and negotiations in Asia told Mizzima on condition of anonymity. Webb seems to be optimistic: “maybe this trip has helped to start the ball moving forward,” he said. But it is yet to be seen whether Webb’s trip is a one-off visit or the start of a new serious policy of engagement by Washington.

But more importantly, perhaps the visit and the outcomes show a new approach on the part of the junta. Senator Webb was given a ceremonial reception – with all the top generals – that is usually reserved only for visiting heads of state. Shown prominently on the state-run television, it clearly shows Burma’s military rulers now crave international, especially American, recognition, said a long-time foreign resident in Rangoon.

If the Burmese military regime really does want to engage with the international community, it may even heed some of its concerns, and then they will have no alternative but to deal with Aung San Suu Kyi. Than Shwe, at the behest of some of its Asian allies, especially Singapore and China, is keen to improve relations with the US, according to military sources in the Burmese capital Naypitdaw. The senator’s visit makes this extremely evident.

“You cannot fail to see in this that the junta is keen to tell the world that sanctions do not work and we are open to dialogue – at least with other governments, if not Aung San Suu Kyi and the pro-democracy movement inside the country,” said a western diplomat based in Rangoon.

But in the end the regime will proceed with its plans for a disciplined democracy no matter what the international community thinks. But what Webb’s visit does show is that Than Shwe is getting ready to push the process forward. The next step will be the creation of an interim government, according to senior Burmese military sources. Than Shwe plans to announce this soon and it will take control of the government for a year, possibly from September, a Burmese official told Mizzima. Aung Thaung, the minister and a close confidante of Than Shwe’s, recently told his deputies that there would be a new government soon, and he may no longer be the minister. Most other ministers have also told their staff that they will not be in their current posts by the end of the year.

“According to Than Shwe’s plans, all the current ministers will have to resign, if they are to join a political party and fight the forthcoming elections,” said the independent Burmese academic, Win Min based in Chiang Mai. So far there have been no hints as to who will be in the interim administration. Some analysts speculate that it may even include a senior member of the NLD.

But most diplomats and analysts in Rangoon remain skeptical that Than Shwe plans any real change, even the formation of an interim government may be intended to deflect international criticism. The end result of all these changes is clearly to make sure the military retains political control.

“There have been abundant signals that the roadmap is not an inclusive process and the referendum [in May last year] dispelled any remaining doubts – this is a hyper-flawed process that will not lead anywhere, it’s simply a consolidation of the military’s control of the state,” the former UN human rights rapporter for Burma Professor Paulo Pinheiro recently told Mizzima.

But there may still be surprises in store. Never underestimate the generals’ cunning and ability to wrong-foot the opposition by doing the unexpected. Than Shwe is already planning to release political prisoners, including some high-profile activists, in the near future, according to a senior government source close to the junta leader.

After all, Than Shwe promised the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon when he visited Burma last month that political prisoners would be released. The Burmese Ambassador to New York re-iterated this when he told the UN Security Council last month that political prisoners would be released before the elections and allowed to participate – though did not say how many or who would be included.

So it should not be a surprise if Aung San Suu Kyi is freed before the elections – and maybe even sooner than that. Senator Webb’s coyness during his encounters with the press in Bangkok gives the impression he is definitely hiding something. A western diplomat who follows Burma closely believes the US senator may have been given some form of assurances or undertakings that the pro-democracy leader will be freed in the near future -- but has to keep mum for the time being.

READ MORE---> US Senator’s mercy mission to Burma may start a new process...

Burmese Puzzled and Angered by Yettaw’s Release

By WAI MOE
The Irrawaddy News

The release of John W Yettaw, the American who got Aung San Suu Kyi into trouble by intruding into her home, has puzzled and angered many Burmese.

Bo Kyi, joint-secretary of the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, a Burmese human rights group based on the Burmese-Thai border, said Yettaw’s release came as no surprise. “I think the regime just wanted to use him. Everybody knows that the regime wanted Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, not Yettaw.”

Bo Kyi was accused by the regime of sending the American to Burma, where he entered Suu Kyi’s home illegally at the beginning of May and gave the regime a pretext for arresting her and putting her on trial. She was sentenced to three years hard labor, but had her sentence cut to 18 months house arrest.

Yettaw was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, but a US senator, Jim Webb secured his release after a meeting with junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe.

Several Burmese, both within the country and in exile, likened the drama to a Hollywood farce.

One wrote on the Web site of The Irrawaddy: “Webb’s performance reminds me of Patti Page's song ‘How much is that (Yankie) doggie in the window” and [a] ‘Saving Private Yettaw’ movie directed by Than Shwe. Perhaps, they might win Oscars next year.”

A Rangoon physician said it was “unreasonable that the main culprit in the case was released but Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who is totally innocent, is still detained.”

Win Tin, a prominent opposition leader said the Burmese were interested not in the release of Yettaw but in Suu Kyi’s fate.

Aung Naing Oo, a Burmese analyst based in Chiang Mai, Thailand, said the junta killed two birds with one stone by freeing Yettaw. “Now the regime successfully keeps Daw Aung San Suu Kyi under arrest and then they may reopen engagement with Washington.”

A veteran Rangoon journalist speculated that Webb’s success in securing Yettaw’s release was “part of the packages from America to restore a normal relationship with the regime.”

Speculation continued that Yettaw’s venture had been orchestrated—also with help from the US—to create a legal case against Suu Kyi. There were suggestions, not supported by hard evidence, that Yettaw had been paid by the regime to undertake it.

Yettaw claimed he entered Suu Kyi’s home to warn her after dreaming that she was in danger of assassination.

For his part, Senator Webb said in Rangoon: “I believe he (Yettaw) was probably motivated by good intentions but he committed a very serious violation in this country.”

Webb found good words to say to the regime about its role in the drama. “It was a good gesture from your country to our country for humanitarian reasons to allow him [Yettaw] to return to his family,” he told the junta.

Not only Yettaw’s family rejoiced at his release. One source at Insein Prison, where Yettaw spent the past three months—much of the time in the prison hospital—told The Irrawaddy anonymously: “He complained all the time.”

READ MORE---> Burmese Puzzled and Angered by Yettaw’s Release...

Mae Sot Reacts to Suu Kyi Verdict

By ALEX ELLGEE
The Irrawaddy News

News of Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial verdict spread through Mae Sot’s Burmese community last week, sparking outrage at her extended 18-month house arrest.

Having read the news on the Internet, heard it on the radio or via word of mouth, everyone in Mae Sot was almost instantly aware that the democracy leader would spend the 2010 election campaign in her crumbling two-story house in Rangoon.

For many, Mae Sot acts is the bridge between the tight fists of the junta and Thailand’s democracy. Many political dissidents, who run the risk of lengthy prison sentences in Burma, flee to Mae Sot to operate in relative safety. As a result, many feel especially connected to their hero, Suu Kyi.

Political activists were deeply angered by the Insein Prison court’s verdict, seeing it as the work of a corrupt, dictatorial government.

“I think it is extremely unfair and a brutal act of the military regime,” said a leader of a prominent youth activist group. “It’s clearly all a trap, and we are likely to see trap after trap until the very end.”

In the lawyer community that has been forced to flee to Mae Sot as a result of challenging the junta’s legal system, many are fuming at the court proceedings.

“I am so angry with their behaviour” said Nyi Nyi Hlaing a prominent lawyer now working in Mae Sot. “They said no one is above the law, and then days later they act like they are above the law.”

“The verdict is not legal because they used the 1974 constitution law which was broken in 1988, so they don’t have any law to judge the case on,” said Nyi Nyi Hlaing.

“The government was not chosen by the 1974 constitution, making them an illegal government so they cannot judge Aung San Suu Kyi. I don’t need to say whether the verdict is illegal or not legal because the whole ordeal has been illegal since they arrested Suu Kyi.”

The same sentiments were reiterated by U Myo, a spokesman for the Burma Lawyer council.

“I think that the verdict is entirely wrong in a legal aspect and totally unfair,” said U Myo.

“The charge upon her itself is completely wrong since the responsibility lies upon the security personnel guarding her house.”

A major grievance among the lawyer community is Snr-Gen Than Shwe’s interference with the court proceedings, which they argue is an illegal act.

U Myo explained that the Criminal Procedure Code Section 401 (5) stipulates that only the president is allowed to exercise his or her power over the court.

“Than Shwe is not the president of state because the 2008 Constitution will come to life only after the first session of the 2010 Parliament” said U Myo. “So no one can affirm whether Than Shwe is president now. Thus he could not exercise the power in the said Code to put her under house arrest for one and half year. He has acted in total disregard of the judiciary and has interfered in a case which ought to be acquitted in higher courts. This verdict shows that there is no rule of law in Burma.”

Ko Bo Kyi, a joint-secretary of the Mae Sot-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners in Burma, had another view on why Than Shwe intervened in the court proceedings.

“Than Shwe was just playing, because many high-ranking officers don’t agree with the verdict, and he wants to try to please them. He also wants other countries to be pleased and ease some of the pressure. Because he is an expert in psychological warfare, we can tell he is just doing it for psychological reasons not for the good of Burma.”

One of the major concerns in the Mae Sot activist community is that without Suu Kyi there can be no real democracy or fair elections in Burma.

“If Aung San Suu Kyi is not included in Burma’s political process, then Burma will not get peace and it will be difficult for national reconciliation” Ko Bo Kyi said.

The Karen communities have also followed the news closely, seeing Suu Kyi as the only way out of their decades-long conflict with the SPDC in Karen State. Although not all Karen wholeheartedly trust her, they see her as a beacon of hope that there may one day be national reconciliation.

David Thackrabaw, vice president of the Karen Nation Union, told The Irrawaddy that he saw the trial as “a plot by the junta to exclude Suu Kyi from the coming election.”

“Her verdict has created even more mistrust of the junta because they cannot treat the Burmese political organizations fairly, so it’s absolutely sure that they will not treat the ethnic organizations fairly” he said.

For the KNU and all Karen people her continued detention is a sign that Karen will continue to be pitted against Karen, all for the benefit of the SPDC. It’s also a sign that thousands of villagers will continue to flee the armed clashes, leaving behind everything they know and own to settle on Thai soil.

News of the trial has spread through the refugee camps surrounding Mae Sot. An English teacher working in the Mae La refugee camp told The Irrawaddy he was surprised to hear that so many of his students had already heard about the verdict.

Asked how she felt about Suu Kyi being sent back to house arrest, a 20-year-old Karen girl said that she “felt so sorry because she is an old lady, but we are not surprised because she is such a massive threat to the generals.”

The migrant worker community that has settled in Mae Sot, forced out of Burma as a result of economic hardships, see their future as being closely tied with the future of Suu Kyi.

“If Suu Kyi is released then all our country’s problems will be resolved” said a woman from Mon State who works in a knitting factory. “If she is freed and is our leader, then I can leave Thailand and live happily in Burma with my family.”

News of the verdict also swept through the brothels in Mae Sot. Like other migrant workers, sex workers left Burma with the hope of making money to send back to their family, but many young girls end up in the sex industry.

One 23-year-old sex worker from Karen State said doubted the government would allow Suu Kyi to participate in the elections even if she was released.

“We know the government is so unfair they will not share their power with her,” said the sex worker.

Even the poorest people in the Mae Sot community, people who work in the rubbish dump to make enough money to survive, have followed the events.

One woman from Karen State, who settled around the rubbish dump five years ago with her family, recalled how many people from the dump sat around a radio, waiting for the announcer to give the verdict.

“When they announced that Suu Kyi was to be sent back to house arrest, we got so angry we lost our minds and begun cursing the radio,” she said.

Mae Sot also has an artist community that followed the news closely.

Tee Lay Tee, a seven-man comedy troupe that was formed in 1998 with the help of the famous comedian Zarganar, who is now serving a 35-year prison sentence, performed at a large show in Rangoon in 2007 where they acted out a joke highlighting the government’s oppression. The Democratic Voice of Burma broadcasted the joke, forcing the group to flee to Thailand to avoid the same fate of their mentor, Zarganar

“When we were living in Burma, we were unable to make shows the way we wanted because there is no freedom of speech,” said a member of the group, now based in Mae Sot. “The moment we criticized the government even the slightest we were forced to leave behind our families and country to come to Thailand.”

He said Suu Kyi is so highly respected that even though the government sentenced her to further house arrest, it can only control her body and is unable to control her soul and the love she has from the Burmese people.

“The government can only imprison Suu Kyi’s body; it will never arrest her mind or spirit” he said.

The Burmese communities in Mae Sot continue to have high hopes for Suu Kyi and remain confident that she is the one person who can bring peace to Burma.

A construction worker summed up the feelings of many people who admire her.

“Like everyone I know in Mae Sot,” he said, “I would take her punishment any day so that she can save our country.”

READ MORE---> Mae Sot Reacts to Suu Kyi Verdict...

UN Security Council fails to slam Aung San Suu Kyi's conviction

(Channel News Asia) -UNITED NATIONS: The UN Security Council on Thursday opted not to condemn the extended detention of Myanmar's democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi but unanimously issued a fresh call to the military regime to free all political prisoners.

After two days of closed-door bargaining, the 15-member body could only agree on a watered-down statement expressing "serious concern at the conviction and sentencing of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and its political impact" and reiterating "the importance of the release of all political prisoners."

Britain's UN Ambassador John Sawers, the council chair this month, described the non-binding statement as "an important expression of serious concern about the outcome" of the Suu Kyi trial.

A court at Yangon's notorious Insein Prison on Tuesday sentenced Suu Kyi to three years' imprisonment and hard labour for breaching the terms of her house arrest following an incident in which a US man swam to her lakeside residence in May.

Than Shwe, head of the ruling junta, commuted the sentence to 18 months under house arrest but the trial and the verdict have created international outrage.

"I think we all know that different members of the Security Council have different views on the situation there and that the strong views in various Western capitals are not entirely shared in countries elsewhere," Sawers noted as he sought to explain why an initial US draft was watered down.

The tougher US draft which would have condemned Suu Kyi's conviction ran into opposition from China, a key ally of Myanmar, as well as from Russia, Vietnam and Libya.

The four countries invoked the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of a UN member state.

The text approved on Thursday noted the decision by the Myanmar government to reduce Suu Kyi's sentence and urged the military regime "to take further measures to create the necessary conditions for a genuine dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all concerned parties and ethnic groups in order to achieve an inclusive national reconciliation."

It also affirmed the council's

"commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Myanmar" and reiterated that "the future of Myanmar lies in the hands of all its people."

On Tuesday, the council's 15 ambassadors adjourned formal, closed-door consultations without agreement on a condemnation of San Suu's extented detention.

Veto-wielding council member China urged the international community to "fully respect Myanmar's judicial sovereignty."

In a related development, the European Union on Thursday broadened its sanctions against Myanmar in the wake of the Suu Kyi trial.

Brussels imposed a visa ban and asset freeze on members of the judiciary and in what it called "targeted measures," the 27 EU nations widened the bloc's existing assets freeze to cover businesses "owned and controlled by members of the regime" and their associates.

Suu Kyi has been confined for 14 of the past 20 years, ever since the military regime refused to recognise her National League for Democracy's landslide victory in the last elections held in 1990.

Unless she qualifies for an amnesty, the 64-year-old opposition leader and Nobel peace laureate will not be able to contest elections planned for next year. - AFP/de

READ MORE---> UN Security Council fails to slam Aung San Suu Kyi's conviction...

FREE EAST TURKESTAN

PLEASE CIRCULATE

By Roland Watson
Dictator Watch Org
July 27, 2009

(Note: We recommend the history of China given in the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party.)

The Uyghur people in East Turkestan are restless. Throughout history, Chinese emperors and warlords has repeatedly invaded their land, only to be pushed back. In the modern era, China took control in the late 19th century. East Turkestan was renamed the "New Territory." Excepting two short periods when they again won their freedom, the Uyghur people have been under increasingly restrictive dictatorial rule ever since. Since 1949, they have been under the boot of the Communist Party of China (CCP).

As the name of their homeland implies, the Uyghur are a Turkic people. They share ethnic and language characteristics with similar peoples across Central Asia all the way to Turkey itself. But, whereas these other peoples now have their own nations, the Uyghurs, because they were conquered by the Chinese, do not. East Turkestan is a colony of China.

The CCP's policy has been to dilute the Uyghur population in East Turkestan and hence their argument that it is their land. Uyghurs have been sent to China as factory workers, and Han Chinese moved in. In both cases, the Uyghurs have been the victims of discrimination. In China, Uyghur workers must slave away under terrible labor conditions. In East Turkestan, they are denied good jobs, government posts, the right to be educated in their own language, and to carry on their cultural traditions.

A basic question is if the Chinese conquest of the Uyghur constitutes genocide. Historically, it was a land grab, no different from innumerable such conquests over the ages. In the modern context, the CCP has realized that East Turkestan is also valuable for it oil and mineral resources, its barren sections - which were used for China's atomic tests and now its space program, etc. The CCP is loathe to return the conquered territory, to prevent the loss of this plunder.

According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,

"genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

It is difficult to argue that the CCP's treatment constitutes genocide, although it is guilty to some degree of the first four conditions. Rather, what the communists are doing in East Turkestan is equivalent to their actions in Tibet, which the Dalai Lama has described as Cultural Genocide. The Uyghurs, like the Tibetans, may survive, but their culture will not.

This year the CCP has been destroying the Old Quarter of Kashgar, one of the most important stopping points on the ancient Silk Road. The Party says that this is because of the risk to the Quarter from earthquakes, even though it has survived for thousands of years. The destruction of Old Kashgar is a cultural atrocity no less profound that the destruction in Afghanistan of the Bamiyan Buddhas. And, it is being accompanied by the forced relocation of 220,000 Uyghur people. The real reasons for the destruction are simple: cultural genocide combined with armed robbery of Uyghur property.

The Chinese say that the Uyghurs are ungrateful for "development." This development is really "theft."

The latest unrest in East Turkestan - the Uyghurs have protested numerous times in recent decades, only to be met with CCP massacres - followed the killing of Uyghur laborers in China. Some 3,000 Uyghurs protested peacefully in East Turkestan's capital, Urumqi, (videos of the march are widely available) only to be shot by CCP "security forces" when night fell (yet another massacre). The Uyghurs fled and some of the protesters turned their anger on Chinese immigrants. The Chinese then retaliated.

As also occurred with the Tiananmen Square massacre twenty years ago, the CCP has yet to give a truthful accounting of the events of the unrest and of the numbers of Uyghurs and Chinese who died. Instead, the CCP blamed the Uyghurs for everything, which is the classic propaganda strategy of "blaming the victim." Rapists blame the women who they rape, and the CCP blames everyone. (The Party never accepts any responsibility itself.) The actions of the Uyghur groups that attacked the Chinese were reprehensible, but as with all cases where both sides in a conflict commit atrocities, it is essential to recall how the problem began. The Uyghurs are upset because they were invaded by the Chinese. This began a more than one hundred year pattern of increasingly severe repression. It is the Chinese - since 1949 the CCP - that bears all the blame for the problems in East Turkestan.

The Chinese people have been conditioned by the CCP to view the Uyghurs as backward, if not savages. They are the enemy. When Chinese police confront protesters in China, they make arrests. With Uyghurs, they commit cold-blooded murder. Because of the conditioning, the Chinese people accept such extreme prejudice as completely justifiable.

This is consistent with the unprecedented brainwashing that has been perpetrated by the CCP on the people of China since the Party was formed. (The term "brainwashing" was coined to describe CCP "thought-reform" torture techniques.)

The CCP is based on the ideology of "struggle," specifically, class struggle against "class enemies." The people must fight and cleanse wayward social elements (the "black" classes) to establish a utopian state. The real goal of never-ending struggle, though, is (1) to justify the CCP's rule; (2) to purge elements within the Party and society at large that oppose its abuses; and (3) more generally to terrorize everyone through arbitrary persecution, and hence create the greatest possible conformity.

Starting under the leadership of Mao Zedong, the CCP blamed one group after another for China's perceived problems, and launched "movements" against them. There have been countless such movements. Their targets have included landowners and rich farmers in the countryside; capitalists in towns and cities; "reactionaries" and "counter-revolutionaries"; "rightists"; intellectuals (anyone well-educated); religious groups; etc.

(When the CCP targeted landowners and capitalists, including by banning private property, they effectively stole the entire nation of China, just as through invading East Turkestan and Tibet they stole these lands as well.)

Mao said that, "after chaos the world reaches peace, but in seven or eight years, the chaos needed to happen again." In other words, China required regular civil wars. In each such conflict, the CCP followed a 5%/95% formula. Five percent of the people were labeled class enemies, and who should be killed. The rest were designated "acceptable classes," and charged with doing the killing. This created a perpetual state of fear, which continues today, because you can never be certain that your class will remain acceptable.

Through this the CCP promoted the idea of "collective guilt." If you had an unacceptable class origin, you - and your entire family - were flawed, and fully deserving of capital punishment. Even the babies and the elderly in the black classes were killed.

The CCP, for six decades, has encouraged the Chinese people to kill each other. In the worst cases, such as during the Cultural Revolution, the murder became competitive, as a means to improve one's revolutionary standing.

This history has dehumanized the Chinese people. It has further caused Chinese society to be permeated by fear.

There have also been unspeakable atrocities. The use of public executions in some cases led to public displays of cannibalism, of the organs such as the heart and liver of the executed class enemies, and then to cannibalistic feasts. The last were even held in front - and with the participation - of children, many of whom became deranged.

Under CCP rule the Chinese people have suffered upwards of eighty million unnatural deaths, from murder, starvation, etc. The CCP's tyranny is without question the greatest crime ever perpetrated in human history, surpassing the crimes of Hitler and the Nazis, Imperial Japan, and Stalin.

This crime, or rather series of crimes, is also completely unpunished. The Chinese people, and the many other victims of the CCP, have yet to receive any justice.

Because of this, the CCP further is entirely unreformed. Its strategy has worked and it is still in power. While as mentioned people generally are no longer murdered publicly in China itself, millions have been unjustly sentenced to the Laogai (forced labor and reeducation camps), and where death is common. And, the enemy-creation movements continue, including against the students at Tiananmen; followers of the spiritual discipline, Falun Gong; the Tibetans; anyone who spoke up for human rights in the run-up to the Olympics: pro-democracy activists such as the signers of the Charter 08 document; and now the East Turkestanis.

For the Falun Gong, which the CCP despises because it promotes tradition and morality, the Party has killed a documented 3,900 practitioners, although the true number is many times this, because of the great number of practitioners who have simply "disappeared." Most of these murders involved torture, and of an extraordinarily wide variety (over 100 techniques have been identified), including beating of the genitals, electric shock, flaying of the skin and then being drenched with salt water, etc. Many women have been stripped naked and then thrown into cells with criminals to be gang-raped. And, once dead, the victims’ organs are stolen for transplantation.

In East Turkestan the CCP has launched a series of Strike Hard movements, against the so-called Three Evils of separatism, extremism and terrorism. Thousands of Uyghurs have been imprisoned, tortured and killed.

What is surprising about this history is that the Chinese people are for the most part ignorant of it. The CCP has the largest censorship and propaganda program in the world, including its Great Internet Firewall, which an army of technicians maintains (by blocking websites, censoring blogs, fabricating and disseminating lies, etc.). Moreover, the fear in China, even though it is now less publicly apparent, is still so strong under the surface that most people simply do not want to know.

The greatest recent development has been the international targeting of CCP propaganda at Chinese residents of other countries, the media, and foreign governments. For example, the propaganda has led to an explosion in ultra-nationalism, which was particularly evident with the harassment of Chinese CCP critics during the Beijing Olympics. (The height of all ironies is that the CCP fancies itself to be a new China Empire, and surely this is what Mao had in mind, even as he criticized, and destroyed the remnants of, former empires.) Similarly, many expatriate Chinese, particularly in the United States, have engaged in espionage on behalf of the Party back home.

Indeed, these developments raise an important question: What does it mean to be Chinese?

"Chinese" is a complex identity. You are Chinese, wherever you live in the world, if you are a member of the ethnic group. But, you are also Chinese if you are from China itself, even if you are a member of one of its other groups. Finally, in addition to ethnicity and nationality, there is a cultural identity as well, if you associate with and take pride in Chinese history and traditions. The CCP has destroyed traditional Chinese culture, and replaced it with Party culture. Further, an explicit goal of its propaganda campaign has been to get all ethnic Chinese worldwide to identify with this culture: with the new "Rising China," under the eternal leadership of the CCP.

The CCP is trying to create a global Chinese culture, where all ethnic Chinese people, wherever they may live, are loyal to the Communist Party.

The efficacy of CCP propaganda is also evident with other international parties, with the press and foreign governments, where the basic story line is that the CCP has been reformed, and that it is an acceptable partner in trade and diplomacy. These are lies as well, but for a variety of reasons they have achieved great traction.

For the press, and returning to East Turkestan, journalists have consistently reported the lies of the "State Media" about the events of early July, as if they were truth. They have presented the casualty count, and the breakdown between Uyghur and Chinese victims, as truth even though these figures are completely fabricated. One reason for this is that many journalists are sloppy, and accept the CCP's arguments and statistics as they are given. Another is that some journalists are willing to repeat the "party line," to preserve access.

It was extremely telling that during the unrest in Iran that followed the stolen election, most media qualified their reports by mentioning Iranian government restrictions on journalists and the Internet. Such disclaimers have been rare for coverage of East Turkestan.

Similarly, for foreign governments, China is now such an important economic factor that they appear willing to forgive the CCP virtually anything, if not work actively on its behalf. For East Turkestan, some neighboring states, notably Kazakhstan, have allied with the CCP even though the Kazaks are Turkic people as well (and with a long history of friendship with the Uyghurs). The Kazakh government recently signed a $10 billion deal with China. Identical relationships also exist with other members of the Shanghai Co-operation Organization, including East Turkestan's neighbors Kyrgystan and Tajikistan. And finally, Western partners including the United States and Europe have also been silent on East Turkestan, not only the current repression but the entire history of Communist Party domination.

The communists believed that they had history on their side: that their socialist utopia was inevitable. They were wrong. The real historical imperative lies with democracy.

Ultimately, the CCP will relinquish power and democracy in China will flourish. As part of this, China will decolonize.

While the Communist Party will oppose the loss of its colonies with all its might (just as the buyers of the art looted by the Nazis have done everything possible not to return the art to its original owners or heirs), China one day will break up. East Turkestan will be returned to the Uyghurs and also Tibet to the Tibetans and Southern Mongolia to the Southern Mongolians. Communism is a defeated ideology, as is dictatorship more generally in all its different forms. Human rights will prevail. A basic right at the group level is the right of self-determination. The Uyghurs, Tibetans and Southern Mongolians will secure this right.

The people, governments and media of the world should support this right. It will be much easier to attain if they do.

When China, finally, is freed from the grips of the CCP, the people of the country will be able to confront their past, and seek justice for the wrongs that they have suffered. But, this should extend not only to the specific atrocities of the communists, but more generally to China's imperial, authoritarian tradition, which the communists publicly rejected but in practice simply reinvented.

The entire history of China has been based on the ideal of the unconditional acceptance of authority. (This is known as the “philosopher-king” or "benevolent dictatorship." Plato argued that it was the best form of government.) When rulers are good, this approach works: The society is at peace. But blind acceptance of authority also opens oneself to the risk of power-mad tyrants. There were bad emperors in China in the past, but no one has ever rivaled the likes of Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and now Hu Jintao. The bad emperors were overthrown, and some day - soon - the communists will be so as well. However, it is only through rejecting the underlying authoritarian tradition that has governed China for millennia, that the people of the country will ever achieve – and preserve – their freedom.

READ MORE---> FREE EAST TURKESTAN...

US Offer Won’t Lead to Suu Kyi’s Freedom: Opposition Leaders

By SAW YAN NAING
The Irrawaddy News

Opposition leaders on Thursday expressed doubt that a US offer of economic investment in Burma in return for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from prison would lead to the pro-democracy leader’s freedom.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday in Phuket, Thailand, that the US would expand relations with Burma if the military government released opposition leader Suu Kyi, who is now on trial.

“If she [Suu Kyi] were released, that would open up opportunities, at least for my country, to expand our relationship with Burma, including investments in Burma. But it is up to the Burmese leadership,” Clinton said while attending a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean).

Burmese political opposition leaders urged the military regime to consider the offer as a way to encourage national reconciliation.

Khin Maung Swe, a spokesperson for Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), said that Clinton’s statement shows how much the international community supports the release of the detained opposition leader, who has been under house arrest for 13 of the past 19 years.

If the Burmese generals followed up on the US offer, it would be a win-win situation with both Burma and the US benefiting from better economic and diplomatic cooperation between the two countries, said Khin Maung Swe.

“The Burmese generals should consider this carefully,” he said.

He said regional leaders should not only talk but also take actions to bring the Burmese regime to the “table of negotiation.”

Win Tin, the most prominent Burmese opposition politician after Suu Kyi, told The Irrawaddy that the Clinton’s statement displayed the weakness of US policy on Burma.

“What about reconciliation dialogue, the election [in 2010] and ethnic issues?” Win Tin asked. “Don’t they know that they would detain her again?”

Win Tin himself spent 19 years in prison and was unexpectedly released late last year.

Chan Htun, a Rangoon-based, veteran politician and former ambassador to China, said Clinton’s statement was positive.

“I would like to urge the Burmese generals to seriously consider the future of the country and cooperate with the offer,” Chan Htun said. “But, that’s only my wish. The Burmese regime will do whatever it wants and will listen to nobody.”

He said he doesn’t believe Burma’s No 1 general, Snr-Gen Than Shwe, will consider the offer.

A prominent Mon politician, Nai Ngwe Thein, who is vice president (1) of the Mon National Democratic Front in Mon State in southern Burma, said, “It is a good offer. But, I don’t think they [the generals] will follow up on it.”

At a press conference on Wednesday, Clinton said the US is seriously concerned about the closer military cooperation between Burma and North Korea, and Burma’s possible pursuit of “offensive weapons including nuclear weapons.”

The US imposed economic sanctions on Burma in 1997, preventing new US investment in the military-ruled country. It tightened economic sanctions that banned importing goods from Burma again in 2003, following an attack on Suu Kyi's convoy by regime-backed thugs in northern Burma.

A veteran journalist who works at a foreign wire service in Rangoon said that he doesn’t believe the regime will consider the US offer.

“You can’t go and bribe the regime [in exchange for Suu Kyi’s release],” he said.

But the correspondent said that there has been growing optimism among the Burmese people that Suu Kyi’s prison sentence might be reduced because of the pressure from the international community.

“People are saying that the regime will put her back under house arrest with a three-year sentence,” he said. “They [the junta] still want to take her out of the election in 2010.” If convicted, she could receive up to a five-year prison sentence.

Asked to predict whether the regime might consider freeing Suu Kyi anytime soon, he said, “We are dealing with a very peculiar regime. They are unpredictable.”

READ MORE---> US Offer Won’t Lead to Suu Kyi’s Freedom: Opposition Leaders...

Die Hard’ spirit of 7-July; Burmese activists vow to march ahead

by Mungpi

New Delhi (mizzima) - Burmese activists and Indian supporters on Tuesday reiterated their call to the Indian government to stop supporting Burma’s military regime and instead support the movement for democracy in the country.

Marching along Parliament Street in New Delhi, India’s capital, scores of Burmese and Indian activists held protest rallies on Tuesday marking the 47th anniversary of 7-July, on which day in 1962 Burma’s military rulers’ cracked down on student protesters in Rangoon University.

Protesters said, with the world witnessing the latest injustice by the Burmese regime - the trumped-up charge and trial of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi - India and China should stop adhering to their soft stand on the regime but join the global outcry and pressurize the junta.

While with the spirit of ‘7-July’, Burmese students will continue the fight for human rights and democracy in Burma, it is crucial for the international community, particularly neighbouring countries, to keep up their support in order to usher in changes in Burma, the protestors said.

The protesters, many of them former students in Burma, who fled the junta’s brutal crackdown, urged India to be a responsible neighbour and called on Russia and China to refrain from exercising their veto power to block a Security Council resolution against the regime.

Students have played a vital role in the history of Burma, from the time the people fought for independence from British rule, to the most recent protests in September 2007.

On July 7, 1962, scores of university students staged a protest in the Students’ Union building in Rangoon University. They were mainly protesting against the strict rules imposed by the General Newin led new military regime, which grabbed power in a military coup on March 2, 1962.

The protests, however, were met with brute force by the Burmese Army, which opened fire, killing scores of students. The new regime, threatened by the protests, on July 8, secretly ordered the Student Union building to be blown up.

The blowing up of the Union building marked a new era of suppression and repression of Burmese students, who have been in the forefront of all Burmese movements in the past. Since then, Burma’s students have had no other Union building till date.

The military regime under Newin had particularly targeted students as they were viewed as a threat to their rule. Despite the regime’s repressions, Burmese students have led several protests including the popular uprising of August 8, 1988, which put an end to the Newin regime.

Maintaining the legacy of Newin, the present military dictators continue to suppress students by arresting and sentencing student activists to long prison terms and also by dividing university campuses, which effectively divides the student mass to hold convenient meetings.

But protesters in New Delhi said, despite all the suppression, students will continue fighting against military dictators and urged India and China to stand by them, and not seek short-term temporary national interests by cooperating with the regime.

READ MORE---> Die Hard’ spirit of 7-July; Burmese activists vow to march ahead...

Ban Ki-Moon's remarks on Burma

by Mizzima News

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
REMARKS ON MYANMAR TO DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS,
UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES, INTERNATIONAL AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Yangon, 4 July 2009

Excellencies,

Distinguished guests and colleagues

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is my second visit to Myanmar in just over a year. Both visits have been at critical times for the country’s future.

My first visit was in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis. This devastating natural disaster, which took so many lives and created so much hardship, touched hearts across the globe. In Myanmar’s moment of need, the world responded generously.

I want to personally thank everyone here today for your remarkable contributions to the relief and recovery effort.

You have saved lives, rejuvenated communities and made it possible for many thousands of people to reclaim their livelihoods. You have helped Myanmar to overcome adversity. It is important that this work continues.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I felt the tragedy of Cyclone Nargis deeply -- as a fellow Asian and as Secretary-General .

I am Asia’s second Secretary-General. The first was Myanmar's U Thant. I revere his memory. I also recall his wise words.

U Thant said: “The worth of the individual human being is the most unique and precious of all our assets and must be the beginning and end of all our efforts. Governments, systems, ideologies and institutions come and go, but humanity remains.”

This is why I have returned.

As Secretary-General, I attach the highest importance to helping the people of this country to achieve their legitimate aspirations.

The United Nations works for people – their rights, their well-being, their dignity. It is not an option. It is our responsibility.

I have come to show the unequivocal shared commitment of the United Nations to the people of Myanmar.

I am here today to say: Myanmar – you are not alone.

We want to work with you for a united, peaceful, prosperous, democratic and modern Myanmar.

We want to help you rise from poverty.

We want to work with you so your country can take its place as a respected and responsible member of the international community.

We want to help you achieve national reconciliation, durable peace and sustainable development.

But, let me emphasize:

neither peace nor development can thrive without democracy and respect for human rights

Kyae zoo tin bar tae.

Myanmar is no exception.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The challenges are many. But they are not insurmountable.

We know from experience that securing Myanmar’s peaceful, democratic and prosperous future is a complex process.

None of Myanmar’s challenges can be solved on their own. Peace, development and human rights are closely inter-related.

Failure to address them with equal attention will risk undermining the prospects for democracy, durable peace and prosperity.

However, we also know that where there is a genuine will for dialogue and reconciliation, all obstacles can be overcome.

The question today is this:

how much longer can Myanmar afford to wait for national reconciliation, democratic transition and full respect for human rights?

The cost of delay will be counted in wasted lives, lost opportunities and prolonged isolation from the international community.

Let me be clear: all the people of Myanmar must work in the national interest.

I said this yesterday when I met with representatives of Myanmar’s registered political parties and with those armed groups that have chosen to observe a cease-fire. I encouraged them respectively to honour their commitments to the democratic process and peace.

Nonetheless, the primary responsibility lies with the Government to move the country towards its stated goals of national reconciliation and democracy.

Failure to do so will prevent the people of Myanmar from realizing their full potential.

Failure to do so will deny the people of Myanmar their right to live in dignity and to pursue better standards of life in larger freedom.

These principles lie at the core of the United Nations Charter, whose opening words are “We the peoples”.

The founding Constitution of independent Myanmar echoes these noble words. We must work together to ensure that Myanmar’s future embodies these principles too.

With this in mind, I bring three messages.

First, respect for human dignity is the precondition for peace and development everywhere.

Myanmar was one of the first United Nations Member States to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It subscribed early on to the consensus that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is indispensable to political, economic and social progress.

Unfortunately, that commitment has not been matched in deed. Myanmar’s human rights record remains a matter of grave concern.

The Government has articulated its goals as stability, national reconciliation and democracy.

The upcoming election –the first in twenty years – must be inclusive, participatory and transparent if it is to be credible.

Myanmar’s way forward must be rooted in respect for human rights.

This is why I say that all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, should be released without delay.

When I met General Than Shwe yesterday and today, I asked to visit Ms. Suu Kyi. I am deeply disappointed that he refused.

I believe the government of Myanmar has lost a unique opportunity to show its commitment to a new era of political openness.

Allowing a visit to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi would have been an important symbol of the government’s willingness to embark on the kind of meaningful engagement that will be essential if the elections in 2010 are to be seen as credible.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi must be allowed to participate in the political process without further delay.

Indeed, all the citizens of Myanmar must be given the opportunity to contribute fully to the future of this country.

National reconciliation cannot be complete without the free and active participation of all who seek to contribute.

The country must embark on a process of genuine dialogue that includes all concerned parties, all ethnic groups and all minorities.

People must be free to debate and to engage in political dialogue, and they must have free access to the information that will help them participate meaningfully in the democratic process.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Any transition is difficult. Myanmar has already undergone transitions from sovereign kingdom, to occupied colony, and now independent State.

This history carries a twin legacy of armed conflict and political deadlock, including recent painful events: the repression of demonstrators in 1988, the cancellation of the 1990 election results, and the clampdown on peaceful dissent that continues to this day.

At the same time, there have been some positive efforts that should be recognized.

Although still fragile, the cease-fire agreements between the Government and armed groups have reduced the level of conflict. The United Nations has wide-ranging experience in making such gains irreversible.

Sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity are legitimate concerns for any government.

We contend that opening and broadening the political space is the best way to ensure that each group and each individual becomes part of the greater collective project.

The military, all political parties, ethnic minority groups, civil society, and indeed every son and daughter of Myanmar has a role to play in this country’s transition.

Only mutual compromise, respect and understanding can lay the foundations for durable peace, national reconciliation and democracy.

My second message is on addressing the humanitarian needs of Myanmar’s people.

I am glad I have been able to return to see the progress made in the Irrawaddy Delta. The loss of some 130,000 people was tragic, but the rebuilding I saw today was impressive. (JEG's: ??? who for? the new settlers? or the real victims?)

The tragedy showed the resilience of the people of Myanmar. It also demonstrated that people throughout the world care deeply about Myanmar and its people.

Above all, the response to Cyclone Nargis proved the value of engagement over isolation.

The unprecedented cooperation between Myanmar, the United Nations and ASEAN through the Tripartite Core Group, with the support of the donor community, has demonstrated that humanitarian imperatives and the principles of sovereignty do not conflict.

Humanitarian assistance -- in Myanmar as elsewhere -- should never be held hostage to political considerations. We can and must work together to ensure access to humanitarian and development assistance to all those in Myanmar who need it.

This brings me to my third message. It is time for Myanmar to unleash its economic potential.

Myanmar sits in the middle of Asia’s economic miracle. Harnessing Myanmar to the rapid advances taking place around it is the surest way to raise living standards.

I welcome the Government’s policy of opening up to outside trade and investment, and its efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, control HIV, combat human trafficking and curtail opium production.

But the reality is that millions continue to live in poverty. Standards of living in Myanmar remain among the lowest in Asia.

The people of Myanmar need jobs, they need food security and they need access to health care.

We must work to ensure that the people of Myanmar can benefit from and contribute to the regional and global economy.

We must recognize that the region and the world have much to gain from a stable, prosperous and democratic Myanmar. We must work together for that goal.

The Government of Myanmar must seize the moment.

It must take advantage of the opportunities that the international community is prepared to offer to the people of Myanmar.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I came here as a friend.

My duty is to uphold the ideals and principles of the United Nations Charter.

My role is to encourage all of you – the Government, political parties, ethnic groups, civil society – to move forward together as one people and one nation.

Nothing is insurmountable or impossible when the people’s interest is placed above divisions.

The region and the world are changing fast. Myanmar only stands to gain from engagement -- and from embarking on its own change.

The Government of Myanmar has repeatedly stated that cooperation with the United Nations is the cornerstone of the country’s foreign policy.
We ask it to match deeds with words.

The more Myanmar works in partnership with the United Nations to respond to its people’s needs and aspirations, the more it affirms its sovereignty. (JEG's: this is something to think about... sovereignty through partnership... read the hidden message)

Similarly it is incumbent on the international community as whole to work together to help Myanmar meet our shared goals: a united, peaceful, prosperous and democratic future, with full respect for the human rights of all the country’s people.

Kyae zoo tin bar tae.

READ MORE---> Ban Ki-Moon's remarks on Burma...

Burmese women react to brutality with inspiring courage and dignity

By Laura Bush

(SMH) -For two weeks, the world has been transfixed by images of Iranians taking to the streets to demand the most basic human freedoms and rights. Watching these courageous men and women, I am reminded of a similar scene nearly two years ago in Burma, when tens of thousands of Buddhist monks peacefully marched through their nation's streets. They, too, sought to reclaim basic human dignity for all Burmese citizens, but they were beaten back by that nation's harsh regime.

Since those brutal days Burma's suffering has intensified. In the past 21 months, the number of political prisoners incarcerated by the junta has doubled. Within the past 10 days, two Burmese citizens were sentenced to 18 months in prison. Their offence: praying in a Buddhist pagoda for the release of the jailed opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

That is only the tip of the regime's brutality. Inside Burma, more than 3000 villages have been "forcibly displaced" - a number exceeding the mass relocations in Darfur. The military junta has forced tens of thousands of child soldiers into its army and routinely uses civilians as minesweepers and slave labourers. It has closed churches and mosques; it has imprisoned comedians for joking about the Government and bloggers for writing about it. Human trafficking, where women and children are snatched and sold, is pervasive. Summary executions pass for justice, while lawyers are arrested for the "crime" of defending the persecuted.

Rape is routinely used as a "weapon of war". In 2006 I convened a roundtable at the United Nations to address the situation in Burma and listened as the Burmese activist Hseng Noung described the rape victims she had aided. The youngest victim was eight; the oldest was 80. Her words silenced the room.

Yet time and again, the women of Burma, often the regime's chief targets, have responded to this brutality with inspiring courage. I will never forget visiting the remote and crowded refugee camps on the mountainous border between Burma and Thailand. There I watched the tireless efforts of Dr Cynthia Maung to provide life-saving medical aid for hundreds of Burmese. I sat with victims of landmines who had lost legs or feet and were waiting quietly, often for hours, for basic care.

Last year it was my great privilege to present a Vital Voices award to 17-year-old Charm Tong, who testified before UN officials and eloquently described the systematic military campaign of rape and abuse waged against women in Burma's Shan state. She spoke unflinchingly, even though her audience included representatives of the very regime she condemned.

More of us in America should make such courage our courage. At this moment, Suu Kyi, 64 and in fragile health, faces sentencing on trumped-up charges. The junta leaders wish to undermine the Nobel Peace laureate's influence before next year's elections. Leaders from around the world have called forcefully for the junta to release Suu Kyi and the 2100 other political prisoners it is holding. But the world must do more than express concern.

A new report from Harvard Law School asks the UN Security Council to establish a commission of inquiry into crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma. Harvard's panel of international law experts has catalogued the junta's "widespread and systemic" human rights violations. The Security Council has already referred the crisis in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. It should do the same for Burma.

With the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, planning to visit Burma, it is crucial he press the regime to take immediate steps to end human rights abuses, particularly in ethnic minority areas. There have been 38 UN resolutions condemning these abuses, yet the horrors continue unabated.

But Aung San Suu Kyi's continued example of civil courage - like those brave protesters in Iran - reminds all of us that no matter how callous the regime, it cannot lock up what she stands for: the fundamental desire of all people to live in freedom and with dignity. During the brief moments that foreign diplomats were allowed to observe her show trial, Suu Kyi calmly apologised for having to greet them in a prison, saying, "I hope to meet you in better times." We should all share her hope - and add our voices to those who risk so much to protest tyranny and injustice in Burma and beyond.

The Washington Post
Laura Bush is the former first lady of the United States.

READ MORE---> Burmese women react to brutality with inspiring courage and dignity...

Global protests to mark Aung San Suu Kyi on birthday

(The Australian) - THE US and European Union led calls to free Myanmar's detained democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi as her admirers around the world and online celebrated her 64th birthday today.

In Washington, Myanmar exiles toasted the opposition leader at a birthday party on Capitol Hill while in London the wife of Prime Minister Gordon Brown hosted a screening of a film dedicated to her.

But the Nobel laureate herself was spending her birthday at Yangon's notorious Insein prison, where she is being held on charges of violating her house arrest after an American man swam to her lakeside house.

Aung San Suu Kyi has spent 13 of the last 19 years in detention since the ruling junta refused to recognise the landslide victory of her National League for Democracy (NLD) in 1990 elections.

European Union leaders are set to make a 64-word call today for her release at the end of a two-day summit in Brussels. They will say she “tirelessly defended the universal values of freedom and democracy,” according to a draft statement.

The US State Department, in a birthday message, urged the junta to free Aung San Suu Kyi “immediately” and hailed her as a woman who has “dedicated her life to achieving democratic change and promoting progress in Burma”.

“We, along with all of her admirers in Burma and abroad, look forward to the day when she will be able to celebrate her birthday in freedom,” the State Department statement said, using Myanmar's former name.

Campaigners across the world planned to mark the day with events ranging from live music and speeches in Malaysia, evening vigils in Ireland and Australia and debating forums in Thailand.

On the internet, famous names including Britain's Gordon Brown, footballer David Beckham and US actors George Clooney and Julia Roberts offered support on the site “64 for Suu.”

Other women Nobel laureates including Iran's Shirin Ebadi wrote in a joint message on the website that they looked forward to the day their “sister” would be free.

In London, Brown's wife Sarah Brown hosted a private screening of a new film on Myanmar, the first-ever such awareness event at the prime minister's Downing Street offices, officials said.

At least one minister and various charity bosses were to attend the showing of “Burma VJ”, which a Foreign Office spokesman said “exposes the atrocities and injustices that have been taking place under the military regime”.

The birthday was not to go unmarked in Yangon, where NLD members were making preparations at party headquarters for a similar celebration to those in previous years, including giving breakfast to Buddhist monks.

“We have to hold the birthday party without the host again. We would be very happy if she could be released, we are hoping and praying for this,” senior party member Lei Lei told AFP.

Aung San Suu Kyi faces five years in jail if convicted in her trial, which resumes on June 26. The court case has provoked international outrage and has been described as a “show trial” by US President Barack Obama.

A global petition was delivered on Monday to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, signed by more than 670,000 people from 220 countries, calling for the release of all Myanmar's political prisoners, especially Aung San Suu Kyi.

At the US Capitol complex, Myanmar exiles and activists clinked glasses in salute to the opposition leader.

“We are sad that she is not in her house and not free, but we are not giving up our struggle and we will go on until she is released,” Sein Win, Myanmar's “prime minister-in-exile” and a cousin of Aung San Suu Kyi, told the gathering.

US Congressman Joe Pitts said it was “astonishing” that some nations “continue to enable the brutal dictators of Burma to continue their attacks against their people.”

He did not name countries, but China has been the key political, commercial and military backer of Myanmar.

“We must be more than 'concerned' or even 'deeply concerned.' The international community on behalf of the people of Burma must make it clear that the oppressive leaders of Burma will no longer be tolerated,” he said.

Article from: Agence France-Presse

READ MORE---> Global protests to mark Aung San Suu Kyi on birthday...

Neeti Gobeshona Kendro Press Release asking for Suu Kyi's release

‘Neeti Gobeshona Kendro’, a research organization working on human rights has demanded
for stopping the show trial based on fake charges and unconditional release of Aung San Suu
Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and the leader of the democratic movement in Burma.

SPDC show trial based on fake charges

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Magazines & Newspape suu kyi neeti

READ MORE---> Neeti Gobeshona Kendro Press Release asking for Suu Kyi's release...

After The Lady Is Jailed

By YENI
The Irrawaddy News

Closing arguments and a verdict in the trial of Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi have been delayed again. But that won’t change the outcome.

Ignoring global outrage and international diplomatic pressure, the court in Insein Prison will find the Nobel Peace Prize laureate guilty of “harboring” an American tourist who allegedly swam across Inya Lake to her residence.

She will be sentenced for up to five years behind the walls of one of the world’s most notorious jails.

Assuming that imprisonment in Insein would be unbearable for anyone, we are forced to contemplate how long a frail 63-year-old woman can survive in this hell-hole.

Brought up in relative comfort, she will be in the hands of ill-mannered and thuggish prison authorities. Her living conditions could be comfortable though degrading; but they could also be inhumane. Her diet and level of physical comfort will be drastically depreciated.

By treating her as any other political prisoner, the sadistic generals of Naypyidaw no doubt hope to break her spirit as well as her health.

Already suffering from low blood pressure, dehydration and digestion problems prior to her arrest, many believe the democracy icon will suffer more bouts of ill-health in jail.

Last week, a statement by her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), said it was "gravely concerned" about the Nobel Peace Prize laureate's health, saying she cannot sleep well because she was suffering from leg cramps.

"As a woman, I have concerns about her," Khin Ohmar, a leading exiled activist, said during a recent interview with The Irrawaddy. "She is going to be 64 …I can imagine the extent to which she can receive healthcare when she has the health problems that a woman usually has. I can imagine the hatred she receives under the junta’s atrocious behavior."

No doubt. A weakened Suu Kyi means a collapsing NLD and this is exactly what Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his gang desire.

Political observers have suggested that in prosecuting Suu Kyi on a trivial security clause, the Burmese junta has found an excuse to keep her detained through the 2010 elections and this has finished off any faint hopes of breaking the political stalemate.

In a policy statement dubbed the “Shwegondaing Declaration” released in early May, the NLD indicated that it would take part in elections next year if the junta responds positively to a set of three basic requirements: the unconditional release of all political prisoners; amendment of any provisions in the 2008 constitution “not in accord with democratic principles”; and an all-inclusive, free and fair poll under international supervision.

Now it seems clear that the party that won a landslide victory in the 1990 polls is being given no alternative but to boycott the junta's rigged elections.

"If the military government unfairly finds Daw Aung San Suu Kyi guilty, all means and possibilities for people and political parties to participate in the 2010 election will be undermined," Win Tin, a veteran journalist and prominent opposition leader of the NLD, told The Irrawaddy.

However, the boycott option is not straightforward—it represents a serious threat to the political parties, especially the NLD.

According to the 1990 election law, a political party which can not provide candidates for at least three constituencies must disband. After disbanding, the military would not hesitate to crack down on the members, regardless of the reaction of the international community—the UN Security Council or anyone else.

If the party is abolished by the military government, it is believed that most of party's elder leaders would resign in order to avoid imprisonment while many younger members would flee into exile or face arrest.

Due to a fear that security forces will raid the party's headquarters in Rangoon sometime soon, sources close to the NLD have said the party's central executive members want to quickly utilize the party's fund on anti-poverty programs, especially humanitarian projects in the delta region devastated by deadly Cyclone Nargis last year.

These days, pro-democracy supporters in Burma feel helpless and hopeless, knowing that so many would fear taking to the streets in defiant protest against the injustice perpetuated against a woman most love and respect.

In a country where torture and violence are institutionalized by ruling authorities, many people are still living in fear and are haunted by the memories of the government's bloody crackdown against the Buddhist monk-led uprising in 2007.

A Rangoon-based businessman recalled his experience of how Burmese are afraid of the military government. He said that Rangoon used to be very noisy with car horns, but when Rangoon's municipal authorities announced that whoever honked their horn would be “punished severely,” he said. “Immediately Rangoon fell into silence.”

READ MORE---> After The Lady Is Jailed...