US monitoring Myanmar on NKorea sanctions: envoy
1 hr 56 mins ago
BANGKOK (AFP) – A top US diplomat said Friday Washington was monitoring Myanmar's stated commitment to enforcing UN sanctions on North Korea, after reports of possible nuclear cooperation between the Asian nations.
Last month US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed a pledge by military-ruled Myanmar to abide by a UN resolution on the sanctions, following a rare meeting between US and Myanmar officials at an Asian summit.
But reports in recent weeks have said that Pyongyang is helping Myanmar to build a secret nuclear reactor and plutonium extraction plant, and to build an atomic bomb within five years, causing regional concerns.
"The Burmese government did make a commitment during the course of the ARF (Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum) meetings in Phuket to implement the resolution," Ambassador Philip Goldberg, the US coordinator for the implementation of recent UN sanctions on Pyongang, said in Bangkok.
"We hope and expect that that will be the case but it is something that will require further discussion," he told reporters. US officials refer to Myanmar by its former name, Burma.
Goldberg was in Bangkok as part of an Asian trip aimed at strengthening support for the UN Security Council resolution passed in July in response to North Korea's May 25 underground nuclear test and subsequent missile firings.
The expanded sanctions include tougher inspections of cargo suspected of containing banned missile and nuclear-related items, a tighter arms embargo and new targeted financial curbs to choke off revenue for Pyongyang's nuclear and missile sectors.
Goldberg said Myanmar also had an obligation to adhere to the sanctions resolution because it was a member of the United Nations.
"We will continue to verify that everybody has been abiding by that obligation," Goldberg said.
Suspicions about Myanmar and North Korea escalated in June after a US Navy destroyer began tracking a suspect North Korean ship reportedly heading for Myanmar. The ship eventually turned back to North Korea.
Goldberg also reiterated comments made in Singapore urging Southeast Asian financial institutions to remain vigilant in monitoring transactions that could boost North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes.
He is later due to head to South Korea and Japan. He has already travelled to Malaysia, China, Russia and the United Nations to coordinate global efforts to implement the sanctions.
1 hr 56 mins ago
BANGKOK (AFP) – A top US diplomat said Friday Washington was monitoring Myanmar's stated commitment to enforcing UN sanctions on North Korea, after reports of possible nuclear cooperation between the Asian nations.
Last month US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed a pledge by military-ruled Myanmar to abide by a UN resolution on the sanctions, following a rare meeting between US and Myanmar officials at an Asian summit.
But reports in recent weeks have said that Pyongyang is helping Myanmar to build a secret nuclear reactor and plutonium extraction plant, and to build an atomic bomb within five years, causing regional concerns.
"The Burmese government did make a commitment during the course of the ARF (Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum) meetings in Phuket to implement the resolution," Ambassador Philip Goldberg, the US coordinator for the implementation of recent UN sanctions on Pyongang, said in Bangkok.
"We hope and expect that that will be the case but it is something that will require further discussion," he told reporters. US officials refer to Myanmar by its former name, Burma.
Goldberg was in Bangkok as part of an Asian trip aimed at strengthening support for the UN Security Council resolution passed in July in response to North Korea's May 25 underground nuclear test and subsequent missile firings.
The expanded sanctions include tougher inspections of cargo suspected of containing banned missile and nuclear-related items, a tighter arms embargo and new targeted financial curbs to choke off revenue for Pyongyang's nuclear and missile sectors.
Goldberg said Myanmar also had an obligation to adhere to the sanctions resolution because it was a member of the United Nations.
"We will continue to verify that everybody has been abiding by that obligation," Goldberg said.
Suspicions about Myanmar and North Korea escalated in June after a US Navy destroyer began tracking a suspect North Korean ship reportedly heading for Myanmar. The ship eventually turned back to North Korea.
Goldberg also reiterated comments made in Singapore urging Southeast Asian financial institutions to remain vigilant in monitoring transactions that could boost North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes.
He is later due to head to South Korea and Japan. He has already travelled to Malaysia, China, Russia and the United Nations to coordinate global efforts to implement the sanctions.
*********************************************************
Myanmar vote give opportunity for change: think tank
1 hr 10 mins ago
BANGKOK (AFP) – Elections in Myanmar next year are set to alter the political landscape despite not being free and fair, with a chance that leaders of the ruling junta could step aside, a think tank said Friday.
The polls will give local and international stakeholders an opportunity to push for change despite a constitution that entrenches the military's role in politics, the International Crisis Group said.
Myanmar's generals have vowed to hold the elections some time in 2010, the first national vote since 1990 when they refused to recognise an overwhelming victory by the party of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi.
The ICG report said that the recent extension of Suu Kyi's house arrest by another 18 months, after a bizarre incident in which an American man swam to her home, had returned attention to repression in Myanmar.
"But while the elections will not be free and fair... the constitution and elections together will fundamentally change the political landscape in a way the government may not be able to control," the report said.
The influential think tank said junta leader Than Shwe, 76, and his ageing deputy Maung Aye "may soon step down or move to ceremonial roles, making way for a younger military generation" after the polls.
"All stakeholders should be alert to opportunities that may arise to push the new government toward reform and reconciliation," the Brussels-based group said.
The report also urged Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, which has said it will only take part in the elections if the constitution is changed, to participate.
"A boycott could play into the hands of the military government, since it would not prevent the election from going ahead and would mainly deprive non-government candidates of votes, potentially narrowing the range of voices in future legislatures," it said.
The constitution, approved in a controversial referendum in May 2008 just days after a devastating cyclone hit Myanmar, prevents Suu Kyi from standing for president, even if she were not imprisoned.
It also gives the military a dominant political role, with a quarter of the seats in the upper and lower houses of parliament to be appointed by the army's commander-in-chief.
1 hr 10 mins ago
BANGKOK (AFP) – Elections in Myanmar next year are set to alter the political landscape despite not being free and fair, with a chance that leaders of the ruling junta could step aside, a think tank said Friday.
The polls will give local and international stakeholders an opportunity to push for change despite a constitution that entrenches the military's role in politics, the International Crisis Group said.
Myanmar's generals have vowed to hold the elections some time in 2010, the first national vote since 1990 when they refused to recognise an overwhelming victory by the party of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi.
The ICG report said that the recent extension of Suu Kyi's house arrest by another 18 months, after a bizarre incident in which an American man swam to her home, had returned attention to repression in Myanmar.
"But while the elections will not be free and fair... the constitution and elections together will fundamentally change the political landscape in a way the government may not be able to control," the report said.
The influential think tank said junta leader Than Shwe, 76, and his ageing deputy Maung Aye "may soon step down or move to ceremonial roles, making way for a younger military generation" after the polls.
"All stakeholders should be alert to opportunities that may arise to push the new government toward reform and reconciliation," the Brussels-based group said.
The report also urged Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, which has said it will only take part in the elections if the constitution is changed, to participate.
"A boycott could play into the hands of the military government, since it would not prevent the election from going ahead and would mainly deprive non-government candidates of votes, potentially narrowing the range of voices in future legislatures," it said.
The constitution, approved in a controversial referendum in May 2008 just days after a devastating cyclone hit Myanmar, prevents Suu Kyi from standing for president, even if she were not imprisoned.
It also gives the military a dominant political role, with a quarter of the seats in the upper and lower houses of parliament to be appointed by the army's commander-in-chief.
*********************************************************
The New York Times - Myanmar Troops Gain on Rebels as Villagers Flee
By THOMAS FULLER
Published: August 20, 2009
MAE SALID, Thailand — For the first time in at least a decade, Myanmar’s central government controls most of its own border with Thailand. By the standards of most countries this might not be considered a major accomplishment. But Myanmar has been fighting ethnic Karen rebels along the mountainous border for nearly as long as it has existed as an independent country.
Two of about 200 Karen who fled fighting in Myanmar and now live in a refugee camp in Tha Song Yang, Thailand.
Col. Bothien Thientha, 48, of the Karen National Liberation Army, was injured during fighting in June against a militia allied with the Myanmar government.
The Myanmar military and a local proxy militia undertook an assault in June that led to the capture of seven military camps run by the Karen National Union, a rebel group that once so dominated parts of the 1,100-mile Thailand-Myanmar border that it collected customs duties at its own checkpoints.
The June offensive surprised the Karen forces partly because it took place during the muddy monsoon season, usually a time of a climate-induced truce. Hundreds of rebels fled into the jungles infested with malaria-carrying mosquitoes.
The Karen have led one of the most resilient insurgencies in Asia. They once proposed to their British colonial overlords that they create an independent “Karenistan.” But they now appear understaffed, under-equipped and divided, according to Bertil Lintner, a Thailand-based expert on ethnic groups in Myanmar, formerly called Burma. “They have lost most of their military strength,” he said.
The main losers of the most recent fighting, however, were not combatants but villagers, many of them children, forced to flee their homes in the remote and impoverished Karen hills. The Karen Human Rights Group, an organization that monitors the conflict, counted 4,862 villagers who crossed to the Thai side of the border, where already crowded refugee camps hold more than 120,000 people.
After six decades of independence from Britain, much of that time marked by civil war, Myanmar is still a long way from controlling all of its borders. Karen militants still occupy some camps along the Salween River, north of the border with Thailand. The Kachin and Wa ethnic groups, among others, have their own significant armies on the border with China. They have resisted a proposal that they become border guards controlled by the central government.
But the victories along the Thai border in June brought the military a step closer to its goal of national consolidation before parliamentary elections next year, an event that the military says will usher in the first civilian government in almost five decades.
“If you look back 20 years, every year the Karen have lost more and more territory,” said Win Min, an expert on Myanmar at Payap University in Chiang Mai, in northern Thailand. Mr. Win Min doubts, however, that the government will be able to eliminate all Karen resistance.
The June offensive may have been partly inspired by the success of the Sri Lankan government in using force to rout Tamil Tiger rebels in May, crippling or perhaps ending that long-running insurgency. Sri Lanka’s president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, visited Yangon, Myanmar’s main city, in June. Both governments have been criticized by human rights groups and Western nations for the treatment of civilians during the offensives.
Unlike the Tamil rebels, however, the Karen today remain a fighting force, albeit dispersed and demoralized, according to Mr. Win Min.
Naw Zipporah Sein, the general secretary of the Karen National Union, says the group has at least 4,000 men under arms, most of them hiding in remote locations. The number is impossible to verify.
“Our soldiers are still deep inside,” Ms. Sein said in an interview on the Thai side of the border. “We still have our strength from the people.”
The area’s isolation remains an advantage for the Karen rebels, allowing them to carry out guerrilla attacks on the military and to lay land mines on footpaths. There are few roads in the Karen hills. Many villages lack electricity and telephone service, and families still sometimes keep elephants for transportation and to haul logs, according to Paw Paw, a midwife who lives in the Butho district, a six-hour walk from the Thai border. She periodically treks across the border to stock up on medical supplies.
Karen villagers remain sympathetic to and supportive of insurgents, she said, and terrified of government troops, notorious for pressing villagers into serving as porters and guides through heavily mined areas.
Dr. Cynthia Maung, who runs a clinic on the Thai side of the border, says that many young Karen have fled to Thailand for fear of being recruited, leaving the old behind. “The community structure is being destroyed,” she said.
The Karen are largely Christian and were favored by British colonialists for top posts in the government. This and other factors are the seeds of conflict with the majority Burman, most of whom are Buddhist and today hold the reins of power in Myanmar’s military junta.
The conflict between the Karen National Union and the central government dates from 1949, a year after independence from Britain. The latest round of fighting started June 2, when the Burmese military attacked with mortars and large-caliber weapons, according to Col. Bothien Thientha, 48, of the Karen National Liberation Army, the military wing of the National Union.
The Myanmar government’s local ally, the Democratic Kayin Buddhist Army, led the charge toward his camp at Mae Salid, across the river from the Thai town of the same name. Colonel Thientha tried to launch a rocket-propelled grenade but it backfired, injuring his shoulder and blowing off four fingers of his left hand. He and 90 other soldiers abandoned their camp.
The colonel’s injury highlights a major problem for the Karen rebels: a dwindling stock of weapons, which are aging.
Colonel Thientha says his unit’s members keep their weapons wrapped in plastic bags hidden in the jungle. “We don’t have enough, but we use them in moderation,” he said.
The timing of the offensive was particularly bad for the children of the Lay Klo Yaw elementary and middle school. Financed by an American missionary family, the school was inaugurated on June 1. The next day, when mortar shells began exploding in the distance, 125 schoolchildren fled across the Moei River to Thailand carrying their blankets, sleeping mats and books.
Ehganyaw, a teacher from the school who uses only one name, now watches with binoculars as soldiers of the pro-government Buddhist militia slowly take apart the spoils of war across the river: plank by plank, the school and church are being disassembled.
“They’ve taken all the wood,” Mr. Ehganyaw exclaimed as he peered across the river with a journalist’s telephoto lens. “The church is gone!”
By THOMAS FULLER
Published: August 20, 2009
MAE SALID, Thailand — For the first time in at least a decade, Myanmar’s central government controls most of its own border with Thailand. By the standards of most countries this might not be considered a major accomplishment. But Myanmar has been fighting ethnic Karen rebels along the mountainous border for nearly as long as it has existed as an independent country.
Two of about 200 Karen who fled fighting in Myanmar and now live in a refugee camp in Tha Song Yang, Thailand.
Col. Bothien Thientha, 48, of the Karen National Liberation Army, was injured during fighting in June against a militia allied with the Myanmar government.
The Myanmar military and a local proxy militia undertook an assault in June that led to the capture of seven military camps run by the Karen National Union, a rebel group that once so dominated parts of the 1,100-mile Thailand-Myanmar border that it collected customs duties at its own checkpoints.
The June offensive surprised the Karen forces partly because it took place during the muddy monsoon season, usually a time of a climate-induced truce. Hundreds of rebels fled into the jungles infested with malaria-carrying mosquitoes.
The Karen have led one of the most resilient insurgencies in Asia. They once proposed to their British colonial overlords that they create an independent “Karenistan.” But they now appear understaffed, under-equipped and divided, according to Bertil Lintner, a Thailand-based expert on ethnic groups in Myanmar, formerly called Burma. “They have lost most of their military strength,” he said.
The main losers of the most recent fighting, however, were not combatants but villagers, many of them children, forced to flee their homes in the remote and impoverished Karen hills. The Karen Human Rights Group, an organization that monitors the conflict, counted 4,862 villagers who crossed to the Thai side of the border, where already crowded refugee camps hold more than 120,000 people.
After six decades of independence from Britain, much of that time marked by civil war, Myanmar is still a long way from controlling all of its borders. Karen militants still occupy some camps along the Salween River, north of the border with Thailand. The Kachin and Wa ethnic groups, among others, have their own significant armies on the border with China. They have resisted a proposal that they become border guards controlled by the central government.
But the victories along the Thai border in June brought the military a step closer to its goal of national consolidation before parliamentary elections next year, an event that the military says will usher in the first civilian government in almost five decades.
“If you look back 20 years, every year the Karen have lost more and more territory,” said Win Min, an expert on Myanmar at Payap University in Chiang Mai, in northern Thailand. Mr. Win Min doubts, however, that the government will be able to eliminate all Karen resistance.
The June offensive may have been partly inspired by the success of the Sri Lankan government in using force to rout Tamil Tiger rebels in May, crippling or perhaps ending that long-running insurgency. Sri Lanka’s president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, visited Yangon, Myanmar’s main city, in June. Both governments have been criticized by human rights groups and Western nations for the treatment of civilians during the offensives.
Unlike the Tamil rebels, however, the Karen today remain a fighting force, albeit dispersed and demoralized, according to Mr. Win Min.
Naw Zipporah Sein, the general secretary of the Karen National Union, says the group has at least 4,000 men under arms, most of them hiding in remote locations. The number is impossible to verify.
“Our soldiers are still deep inside,” Ms. Sein said in an interview on the Thai side of the border. “We still have our strength from the people.”
The area’s isolation remains an advantage for the Karen rebels, allowing them to carry out guerrilla attacks on the military and to lay land mines on footpaths. There are few roads in the Karen hills. Many villages lack electricity and telephone service, and families still sometimes keep elephants for transportation and to haul logs, according to Paw Paw, a midwife who lives in the Butho district, a six-hour walk from the Thai border. She periodically treks across the border to stock up on medical supplies.
Karen villagers remain sympathetic to and supportive of insurgents, she said, and terrified of government troops, notorious for pressing villagers into serving as porters and guides through heavily mined areas.
Dr. Cynthia Maung, who runs a clinic on the Thai side of the border, says that many young Karen have fled to Thailand for fear of being recruited, leaving the old behind. “The community structure is being destroyed,” she said.
The Karen are largely Christian and were favored by British colonialists for top posts in the government. This and other factors are the seeds of conflict with the majority Burman, most of whom are Buddhist and today hold the reins of power in Myanmar’s military junta.
The conflict between the Karen National Union and the central government dates from 1949, a year after independence from Britain. The latest round of fighting started June 2, when the Burmese military attacked with mortars and large-caliber weapons, according to Col. Bothien Thientha, 48, of the Karen National Liberation Army, the military wing of the National Union.
The Myanmar government’s local ally, the Democratic Kayin Buddhist Army, led the charge toward his camp at Mae Salid, across the river from the Thai town of the same name. Colonel Thientha tried to launch a rocket-propelled grenade but it backfired, injuring his shoulder and blowing off four fingers of his left hand. He and 90 other soldiers abandoned their camp.
The colonel’s injury highlights a major problem for the Karen rebels: a dwindling stock of weapons, which are aging.
Colonel Thientha says his unit’s members keep their weapons wrapped in plastic bags hidden in the jungle. “We don’t have enough, but we use them in moderation,” he said.
The timing of the offensive was particularly bad for the children of the Lay Klo Yaw elementary and middle school. Financed by an American missionary family, the school was inaugurated on June 1. The next day, when mortar shells began exploding in the distance, 125 schoolchildren fled across the Moei River to Thailand carrying their blankets, sleeping mats and books.
Ehganyaw, a teacher from the school who uses only one name, now watches with binoculars as soldiers of the pro-government Buddhist militia slowly take apart the spoils of war across the river: plank by plank, the school and church are being disassembled.
“They’ve taken all the wood,” Mr. Ehganyaw exclaimed as he peered across the river with a journalist’s telephoto lens. “The church is gone!”
*********************************************************
Bangkok Post - Opinion: Garbled utterings and naive expectations
Writer: KYAW ZWA MOE
Published: 21/08/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News
It was an upbeat story after a string of depressing events - a little like a caged bird being set free. A momentary sense of freedom, of compassion.
Still incarcerated: Protesting against Beijing’s support of the Burmese junta, an activist holds a picture of Aung San Suu Kyi outside the Chinese embassy in Bangkok last Sunday.
Everyone can share in the good fortune of John Yettaw's release after he was sentenced to seven years' hard labour for intruding into the lakeside home of Burma's pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in May.
Mr Yettaw, a wayward, misguided US citizen, set off an unfortunate chain of events leading to a further 18-month sentence under house arrest for Mrs Suu Kyi.
Amid the hoopla of Mr Yettaw's release, many Burma observers, policy-makers and foreign media have praised US Senator Jim Webb, who managed to meet Senior General Than Shwe and Mrs Suu Kyi during his Burma mission, calling his visit a "success" - a potential game-changing moment in US-junta relations.
Not so.
For the record, let me summarise the pertinent facts: Mrs Suu Kyi's detention was due to expire on May 27: the junta was searching for an excuse to extend her detention beyond the 2010 election. The eccentric Mr Yettaw, who believed he was "sent by God" to save her from assassination, was arrested on May 3. As a main defendant, he was sentenced along with Mrs Suu Kyi, who received a three-year sentence on Aug 11.
Mr Yettaw was released on Aug 16. To see Mr Yettaw walk out of prison wasn't a surprise, but it reeked of bitter irony.
Senator Webb was Mr Yettaw's saviour; Mr Yettaw was the junta's saviour. In twisted logic, the junta might even have seen his release as a reward for being the "Godsend," the unwitting tool of Gen Than Shwe's devious plotting.
Behind this deeply dramatic story, however, there are two specific moments that we must not forget. Before May 3, Mrs Suu Kyi was scheduled to be released; after Aug 11, she is under a new period of house arrest until 2011.
That is the real story.
So, how much importance should we give to the recent clamour about a potential "breakthrough" moment in US-Burma relations?
The US and Western countries could lift sanctions on the regime, open up economic engagement, lift visa bans on the generals, and so on. But the wise observer should not expect anything in return: no release of Mrs Suu Kyi and the 2,100 political prisoners, no full participation of opposition parties in the election, no free and fair election.
Any quid pro quo offer is not in the cards with the junta. It's never "give-and-take" with the generals; it's always "give-and-give". If you don't believe it, look at the generals' history.
Already, they are revelling in their good fortune. On Tuesday, the junta's state-run newspapers called Senator Webb's visit a "success".
An opinion piece in The New Light of Myanmar said, "The visit of Mr Jim Webb is a success for both sides as well as the first step to promotion of the relations between the two countries."
It is interesting to see that the junta and Senator Webb on are the same page in their views of the events.
More interestingly, Senator Webb told reporters in Bangkok on Sunday: "I don't want to misrepresent her [Suu Kyi's] views, but my clear impression is that she is not opposed to the lifting of some sanctions."
But the next day that interpretation began to unravel. What Mrs Suu Kyi said to Senator Webb was that "interaction" between the junta and the domestic opposition must occur before sanctions are lifted.
The senator may have believed that the "interaction" referred to the junta and the international community's sanctions, according to Nyan Win, a spokesperson of her party, the National League for Democracy, who met with Mrs Suu Kyi on Monday.
"She told me that when she met with Senator Webb she reiterated the need for the Burmese regime to first interact 'inside the country'. She said only when that happens 'will Burma benefit from relations with the international community'," Mr Nyan Win told The Irrawaddy.
He said the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who is regarded as a strong supporter of economic sanctions, also told Senator Webb: "She was not the one who imposed sanctions against the Burmese regime. She is not in a position to lift those sanctions."
A ‘‘breakthrough’’? US Senator Jim Webb, whose ‘‘successful’’ visit to Burma may bring a thaw in junta-Washington ties.
Understandably, the international community is anxious to know exactly what Mrs Suu Kyi said.
The New York Times, in its Wednesday editorial, wrote: "We would like to hear her views directly," referring to Senator Webb's statement that she "is not opposed to lifting some sanctions".
Thus, Mrs Suu Kyi's clarification is important for international policy-makers, including the Obama administration, in order for it to shape its policy on the reclusive regime.
So what's the bottom line on this sorry episode?
You can be happy that Mr Yettaw, an ill man, is not in notorious Insein Prison, but mourn the day the eccentric American decided to swim to Aung San Suu Kyi's rescue, offering the junta a golden opportunity to extend her house arrest.As for US Senator Jim Webb's "breakthrough", there is no such thing.
The future will be more of the same: a manipulative junta set in its ways, determined to form a military-dominated parliament next year, determined to ignore the calls of the international community.
Kyaw Zwa Moe is Managing Editor ofThe Irrawaddy Publishing Group.
Writer: KYAW ZWA MOE
Published: 21/08/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News
It was an upbeat story after a string of depressing events - a little like a caged bird being set free. A momentary sense of freedom, of compassion.
Still incarcerated: Protesting against Beijing’s support of the Burmese junta, an activist holds a picture of Aung San Suu Kyi outside the Chinese embassy in Bangkok last Sunday.
Everyone can share in the good fortune of John Yettaw's release after he was sentenced to seven years' hard labour for intruding into the lakeside home of Burma's pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in May.
Mr Yettaw, a wayward, misguided US citizen, set off an unfortunate chain of events leading to a further 18-month sentence under house arrest for Mrs Suu Kyi.
Amid the hoopla of Mr Yettaw's release, many Burma observers, policy-makers and foreign media have praised US Senator Jim Webb, who managed to meet Senior General Than Shwe and Mrs Suu Kyi during his Burma mission, calling his visit a "success" - a potential game-changing moment in US-junta relations.
Not so.
For the record, let me summarise the pertinent facts: Mrs Suu Kyi's detention was due to expire on May 27: the junta was searching for an excuse to extend her detention beyond the 2010 election. The eccentric Mr Yettaw, who believed he was "sent by God" to save her from assassination, was arrested on May 3. As a main defendant, he was sentenced along with Mrs Suu Kyi, who received a three-year sentence on Aug 11.
Mr Yettaw was released on Aug 16. To see Mr Yettaw walk out of prison wasn't a surprise, but it reeked of bitter irony.
Senator Webb was Mr Yettaw's saviour; Mr Yettaw was the junta's saviour. In twisted logic, the junta might even have seen his release as a reward for being the "Godsend," the unwitting tool of Gen Than Shwe's devious plotting.
Behind this deeply dramatic story, however, there are two specific moments that we must not forget. Before May 3, Mrs Suu Kyi was scheduled to be released; after Aug 11, she is under a new period of house arrest until 2011.
That is the real story.
So, how much importance should we give to the recent clamour about a potential "breakthrough" moment in US-Burma relations?
The US and Western countries could lift sanctions on the regime, open up economic engagement, lift visa bans on the generals, and so on. But the wise observer should not expect anything in return: no release of Mrs Suu Kyi and the 2,100 political prisoners, no full participation of opposition parties in the election, no free and fair election.
Any quid pro quo offer is not in the cards with the junta. It's never "give-and-take" with the generals; it's always "give-and-give". If you don't believe it, look at the generals' history.
Already, they are revelling in their good fortune. On Tuesday, the junta's state-run newspapers called Senator Webb's visit a "success".
An opinion piece in The New Light of Myanmar said, "The visit of Mr Jim Webb is a success for both sides as well as the first step to promotion of the relations between the two countries."
It is interesting to see that the junta and Senator Webb on are the same page in their views of the events.
More interestingly, Senator Webb told reporters in Bangkok on Sunday: "I don't want to misrepresent her [Suu Kyi's] views, but my clear impression is that she is not opposed to the lifting of some sanctions."
But the next day that interpretation began to unravel. What Mrs Suu Kyi said to Senator Webb was that "interaction" between the junta and the domestic opposition must occur before sanctions are lifted.
The senator may have believed that the "interaction" referred to the junta and the international community's sanctions, according to Nyan Win, a spokesperson of her party, the National League for Democracy, who met with Mrs Suu Kyi on Monday.
"She told me that when she met with Senator Webb she reiterated the need for the Burmese regime to first interact 'inside the country'. She said only when that happens 'will Burma benefit from relations with the international community'," Mr Nyan Win told The Irrawaddy.
He said the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who is regarded as a strong supporter of economic sanctions, also told Senator Webb: "She was not the one who imposed sanctions against the Burmese regime. She is not in a position to lift those sanctions."
A ‘‘breakthrough’’? US Senator Jim Webb, whose ‘‘successful’’ visit to Burma may bring a thaw in junta-Washington ties.
Understandably, the international community is anxious to know exactly what Mrs Suu Kyi said.
The New York Times, in its Wednesday editorial, wrote: "We would like to hear her views directly," referring to Senator Webb's statement that she "is not opposed to lifting some sanctions".
Thus, Mrs Suu Kyi's clarification is important for international policy-makers, including the Obama administration, in order for it to shape its policy on the reclusive regime.
So what's the bottom line on this sorry episode?
You can be happy that Mr Yettaw, an ill man, is not in notorious Insein Prison, but mourn the day the eccentric American decided to swim to Aung San Suu Kyi's rescue, offering the junta a golden opportunity to extend her house arrest.As for US Senator Jim Webb's "breakthrough", there is no such thing.
The future will be more of the same: a manipulative junta set in its ways, determined to form a military-dominated parliament next year, determined to ignore the calls of the international community.
Kyaw Zwa Moe is Managing Editor ofThe Irrawaddy Publishing Group.
*********************************************************
Newsweek - Same Old Song and Dance
Burma's exiled prime minister explains how Aung San Suu Kyi is dealing with her sentence—and argues that, as long as the junta is around, Burma has no hope.
By Ginanne Brownell | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Aug 21, 2009
The guilty verdict handed down last week came as no surprise to those following the bizarre case brought against Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi by the country's military government. The junta—in power since 1962—claimed that the Nobel Peace Prize winner broke the rules of her house arrest when she allowed American John Yettaw into her house after he swam across a lake to see her last May. Her original sentence was three years' hard labor, but in a PR play, Gen. Than Shwe, the junta leader, commuted it to 18 months' house arrest.
Suu Kyi, who was elected prime minister in 1990 when her National League for Democracy party won the elections, has been under house arrest for 14 of the past 20 years. Her first cousin Sein Win—who in January was re-elected prime minister of the exiled Burmese government—was in Indonesia last week to launch the Movement for Democracy and Rights for Ethnic Nationalities, a coalition of major Burmese ethnic and pro-democracy parties, both exiled and within Burma. Returning back to his home base in suburban Maryland this week, Win spoke by telephone with NEWSWEEK's Ginanne Brownell about the verdict, the upcoming elections, and how his cousin is handling her latest sentence.
BROWNELL: What was your reaction when you heard the verdict—were you surprised or did you expect it?
WIN: Not really surprised, no. From the very beginning we took this to be as a political plot. And of course we all are looking to whether she could be included in the 2010 elections. By this act, she is definitely excluded.Why do you think Gen. Than Shwe commuted her sentence?
They have to be careful about internal outrage within Burma. She is the daughter of Aung San, who was the founder of the Burmese Army; this kind of sentence, if people hear about it, it will cause outrage. And their main objective is not the sentence—their main objective is to exclude her from the political process.
John Yettaw's wife suggested that her husband's arrest actually was a positive thing, because it raised awareness of her plight. What do you think of that?
That is going too far. Suu Kyi already has international attention. It's not fair.
Are you mad at him?
If he did this a few years ago, we would have been mad at him. But the timing is so coincidental that even if he didn't do it, the military would have found an excuse to detain her further. But he should really keep away from these politics.
There were some rumors that the junta purposely let him in, egged him on to go.
As far as we know, she asked him to get out. As you know, he is a crazy guy, so she did not have the heart to push him out.
Do you wish that Sen. Jim Webb, who was able to get Yettaw released from his sentence, had tried to get Suu Kyi released as well?
We knew that Senator Webb could not negotiate for her release. Of course they will not release her because Webb made one visit. And his statement that was very vague. [It's a good thing] that Gen. Than Shwe spoke to Senator Webb, [but it would be even better] if Than Shwe were talking to Aung San Suu Kyi in order to solve our problems.
Are you in touch with your cousin? Do you know how she feels about last week's verdict?
No, we study things from her statements, from her lawyers' statements. But I do not have direct communication with her.
Burma seems to have the support of China and Russia on the Security Council to block things like an arms embargo. Have you tried to lobby these governments to change their minds about their relationship with the military regime?
We send our opinion directly when it is possible. China is our big neighbor. We say to China, "What you want in Burma is stability and development, and this military regime will not and could deliver."
Why is the junta planning elections that will obviously not be free or fair?
They are thinking, "The international community will receive us if we go about in this way." They are the elected government, they think, so what is the use of putting sanctions on Burma?
So the elections are just for show?
They will not change anything. The winning party and the Parliament itself are very weak. So the system will remain the same.
Burma's exiled prime minister explains how Aung San Suu Kyi is dealing with her sentence—and argues that, as long as the junta is around, Burma has no hope.
By Ginanne Brownell | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Aug 21, 2009
The guilty verdict handed down last week came as no surprise to those following the bizarre case brought against Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi by the country's military government. The junta—in power since 1962—claimed that the Nobel Peace Prize winner broke the rules of her house arrest when she allowed American John Yettaw into her house after he swam across a lake to see her last May. Her original sentence was three years' hard labor, but in a PR play, Gen. Than Shwe, the junta leader, commuted it to 18 months' house arrest.
Suu Kyi, who was elected prime minister in 1990 when her National League for Democracy party won the elections, has been under house arrest for 14 of the past 20 years. Her first cousin Sein Win—who in January was re-elected prime minister of the exiled Burmese government—was in Indonesia last week to launch the Movement for Democracy and Rights for Ethnic Nationalities, a coalition of major Burmese ethnic and pro-democracy parties, both exiled and within Burma. Returning back to his home base in suburban Maryland this week, Win spoke by telephone with NEWSWEEK's Ginanne Brownell about the verdict, the upcoming elections, and how his cousin is handling her latest sentence.
BROWNELL: What was your reaction when you heard the verdict—were you surprised or did you expect it?
WIN: Not really surprised, no. From the very beginning we took this to be as a political plot. And of course we all are looking to whether she could be included in the 2010 elections. By this act, she is definitely excluded.Why do you think Gen. Than Shwe commuted her sentence?
They have to be careful about internal outrage within Burma. She is the daughter of Aung San, who was the founder of the Burmese Army; this kind of sentence, if people hear about it, it will cause outrage. And their main objective is not the sentence—their main objective is to exclude her from the political process.
John Yettaw's wife suggested that her husband's arrest actually was a positive thing, because it raised awareness of her plight. What do you think of that?
That is going too far. Suu Kyi already has international attention. It's not fair.
Are you mad at him?
If he did this a few years ago, we would have been mad at him. But the timing is so coincidental that even if he didn't do it, the military would have found an excuse to detain her further. But he should really keep away from these politics.
There were some rumors that the junta purposely let him in, egged him on to go.
As far as we know, she asked him to get out. As you know, he is a crazy guy, so she did not have the heart to push him out.
Do you wish that Sen. Jim Webb, who was able to get Yettaw released from his sentence, had tried to get Suu Kyi released as well?
We knew that Senator Webb could not negotiate for her release. Of course they will not release her because Webb made one visit. And his statement that was very vague. [It's a good thing] that Gen. Than Shwe spoke to Senator Webb, [but it would be even better] if Than Shwe were talking to Aung San Suu Kyi in order to solve our problems.
Are you in touch with your cousin? Do you know how she feels about last week's verdict?
No, we study things from her statements, from her lawyers' statements. But I do not have direct communication with her.
Burma seems to have the support of China and Russia on the Security Council to block things like an arms embargo. Have you tried to lobby these governments to change their minds about their relationship with the military regime?
We send our opinion directly when it is possible. China is our big neighbor. We say to China, "What you want in Burma is stability and development, and this military regime will not and could deliver."
Why is the junta planning elections that will obviously not be free or fair?
They are thinking, "The international community will receive us if we go about in this way." They are the elected government, they think, so what is the use of putting sanctions on Burma?
So the elections are just for show?
They will not change anything. The winning party and the Parliament itself are very weak. So the system will remain the same.
*********************************************************
The Jakarta Post - RI supports Myanmar in its development of nuclear technology
Lilian Budianto , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Fri, 08/21/2009 2:05 PM | National
Indonesia will support Myanmar in its development of nuclear technology for civilian use, despite controversies over the junta's poor human rights records, a top official said.
Rezlan Ishar Jenie, the Foreign Ministry's director general for multilateral diplomacy, said Friday that the international community should not mistake Myanmar's desire to develop a nuclear program with peaceful intentions for an attempt to commit more violations of human rights.
"Myanmar is a signatory to the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty)...Members of the NPT have the right to develop nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes'', he said.
However, Australian authorities have exhibited wariness toward Myanmar's nuclear ambitions, and claim that basic nuclear technology could be fleshed out into a comprehensive program to develop weapons of mass destruction with help from North Korea.
Lilian Budianto , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Fri, 08/21/2009 2:05 PM | National
Indonesia will support Myanmar in its development of nuclear technology for civilian use, despite controversies over the junta's poor human rights records, a top official said.
Rezlan Ishar Jenie, the Foreign Ministry's director general for multilateral diplomacy, said Friday that the international community should not mistake Myanmar's desire to develop a nuclear program with peaceful intentions for an attempt to commit more violations of human rights.
"Myanmar is a signatory to the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty)...Members of the NPT have the right to develop nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes'', he said.
However, Australian authorities have exhibited wariness toward Myanmar's nuclear ambitions, and claim that basic nuclear technology could be fleshed out into a comprehensive program to develop weapons of mass destruction with help from North Korea.
*********************************************************
Channel NewsAsia - Washington debates about engagement with Myanmar
By Channel NewsAsia's US correspondent, Malcolm Brown | Posted: 21 August 2009 1609 hrs
WASHINGTON: The debate in Washington about whether and how to engage with the military government in Myanmar is gathering pace following the recent, high-profile visit by US Senator Jim Webb.
The access granted to the prominent lawmaker and the release of American citizen John Yettaw are prompting talk about the prospects of a thawing of relations between the two countries.
But while state media in Myanmar heralded the Webb trip as a "success for both sides", back in Washington, expert opinion is divided about its significance.
David Steinberg, a Georgetown University scholar, has spent decades studying and writing about Myanmar. He said that Senator Webb's visit could mark the start of something promising.
"This is the first step in a very prolonged stage in trying to work out a reasonable relationship with the government in Myanmar," said Professor Steinberg.
However, others saw Senator Webb's trip and the release of Yettaw, now back in the US, as less significant.
Walter Lohman, director of the Asian Studies Centre, The Heritage Foundation, said: "I think that the Burmese government saw an opportunity to make an impression both on their neighbours and on their populace with Senator Webb's visit and, in exchange, they gave him somebody they probably would have released in the not-too-distant future anyway."
The best indication of whether the US government sees a potential turning point will come when the results of its review of Myanmar policy are announced. Until then, Washington continues to press long-standing concerns.
Philip Crowley, US State Department spokesman, said: "We remain very concerned about the continued detainment of Aung Sun Suu Kyi and more than 2,100 prisoners that are in detention. We continue to look for signs that the Burmese government is prepared to embark on a meaningful dialogue with Aung Sun Suu Kyi, along with the rest of the democratic opposition.
“And obviously, Burma needs to have a dialogue with a full range of ethnic minority leaders in Burma, and move towards a peaceful transition to genuine democracy and national reconciliation."
Professor Steinberg saw the US policy review as an opportunity to build on recent developments.
He said: "What we've seen is a very, very careful kind of waltz. Now what has got to happen as a result of the Webb trip, which was very useful, is that there has to be a series of steps taken by each side in response to each other; very specific ones about improving relations."
Those who did not see the Webb trip as part of a significant warming trend pointed to other signals coming from Washington.
Mr Lohman said: "The stronger indication is US President Obama signing into law sanctions against the Myanmar government; twice within the last two months."
As for a more comprehensive indication of US policy going forward, it remains a waiting game.
A US State Department official said the review continues and gave no date for when the results might be announced.
By Channel NewsAsia's US correspondent, Malcolm Brown | Posted: 21 August 2009 1609 hrs
WASHINGTON: The debate in Washington about whether and how to engage with the military government in Myanmar is gathering pace following the recent, high-profile visit by US Senator Jim Webb.
The access granted to the prominent lawmaker and the release of American citizen John Yettaw are prompting talk about the prospects of a thawing of relations between the two countries.
But while state media in Myanmar heralded the Webb trip as a "success for both sides", back in Washington, expert opinion is divided about its significance.
David Steinberg, a Georgetown University scholar, has spent decades studying and writing about Myanmar. He said that Senator Webb's visit could mark the start of something promising.
"This is the first step in a very prolonged stage in trying to work out a reasonable relationship with the government in Myanmar," said Professor Steinberg.
However, others saw Senator Webb's trip and the release of Yettaw, now back in the US, as less significant.
Walter Lohman, director of the Asian Studies Centre, The Heritage Foundation, said: "I think that the Burmese government saw an opportunity to make an impression both on their neighbours and on their populace with Senator Webb's visit and, in exchange, they gave him somebody they probably would have released in the not-too-distant future anyway."
The best indication of whether the US government sees a potential turning point will come when the results of its review of Myanmar policy are announced. Until then, Washington continues to press long-standing concerns.
Philip Crowley, US State Department spokesman, said: "We remain very concerned about the continued detainment of Aung Sun Suu Kyi and more than 2,100 prisoners that are in detention. We continue to look for signs that the Burmese government is prepared to embark on a meaningful dialogue with Aung Sun Suu Kyi, along with the rest of the democratic opposition.
“And obviously, Burma needs to have a dialogue with a full range of ethnic minority leaders in Burma, and move towards a peaceful transition to genuine democracy and national reconciliation."
Professor Steinberg saw the US policy review as an opportunity to build on recent developments.
He said: "What we've seen is a very, very careful kind of waltz. Now what has got to happen as a result of the Webb trip, which was very useful, is that there has to be a series of steps taken by each side in response to each other; very specific ones about improving relations."
Those who did not see the Webb trip as part of a significant warming trend pointed to other signals coming from Washington.
Mr Lohman said: "The stronger indication is US President Obama signing into law sanctions against the Myanmar government; twice within the last two months."
As for a more comprehensive indication of US policy going forward, it remains a waiting game.
A US State Department official said the review continues and gave no date for when the results might be announced.
*********************************************************
Myanmar reports two dozen A/H1N1 flu cases in nearly two months
www.chinaview.cn 2009-08-21 12:13:29
YANGON, Aug. 21 (Xinhua) -- Two dozen people have been infected with new influenza A/H1N1 in Myanmar in nearly two months since the country reported the first case of the influenza in late June, according to a compiled report of Friday's official newspaper New Light of Myanmar.
The last patient, who is a 23-year-old man, was found infected with new influenza A/H1N1 virus after returning from Singapore by flight No. MI-520 on last Sunday. He was brought to a special hospital on Wednesday after she was found ill.
She was confirmed by the National Health Laboratory to have been infected with the virus.
A total of six family members are kept in home quarantine, while 128 passengers and 131 airport staff are under surveillance.
Of Myanmar's 24 flu patients, 19 have fully recovered and were discharged from hospitals, the report claimed.
Myanmar reported the first case of new flu A/H1N1 in the country on June 27 with a 13-year-old girl who developed the symptoms after coming back home from Singapore a day earlier.
The authorities continue to take preventive measures against the possible spread of the global human flu pandemic, advising all private clinics in the country to report or transfer all flu-suspected patients, who returned from abroad, to local state-run hospitals or health departments for increased surveillance.
www.chinaview.cn 2009-08-21 12:13:29
YANGON, Aug. 21 (Xinhua) -- Two dozen people have been infected with new influenza A/H1N1 in Myanmar in nearly two months since the country reported the first case of the influenza in late June, according to a compiled report of Friday's official newspaper New Light of Myanmar.
The last patient, who is a 23-year-old man, was found infected with new influenza A/H1N1 virus after returning from Singapore by flight No. MI-520 on last Sunday. He was brought to a special hospital on Wednesday after she was found ill.
She was confirmed by the National Health Laboratory to have been infected with the virus.
A total of six family members are kept in home quarantine, while 128 passengers and 131 airport staff are under surveillance.
Of Myanmar's 24 flu patients, 19 have fully recovered and were discharged from hospitals, the report claimed.
Myanmar reported the first case of new flu A/H1N1 in the country on June 27 with a 13-year-old girl who developed the symptoms after coming back home from Singapore a day earlier.
The authorities continue to take preventive measures against the possible spread of the global human flu pandemic, advising all private clinics in the country to report or transfer all flu-suspected patients, who returned from abroad, to local state-run hospitals or health departments for increased surveillance.
*********************************************************
News & Analysis
Travel Weekly - Burma travel loophole tightened
Edward Robertson
(21 August 2009)
Tourism Concern has welcomed the closure of a legal loophole targeted at operators offering tours of Burma.
Director Tricia Barnett said the Burma/Myanmar (Financial Restrictions) Regulations 2009 makes it an offence for UK firms, including tour operators, to provide financial benefits for prominent members of the country's military regime and their associates. It is one of a series of measures deployed by the European community in a bid to force Burma's military junta to introduce democratic reform in the country.
While Barnett admitted it is hard to enforce the legislation because of the difficulty in proving who is financially benefitting from tourism, she hoped it would deter UK operators from dealing with the regime.
She added: "This issue highlights the opaque, complex overlap between government and business interests in Burma, which makes it impossible to travel to the country without the military regime financially benefiting. "Tourism Concern welcomes these positive steps by the government, which signals its recognition of the important role that tourism plays in propping up Burma's oppressive regime."
The change in legislation comes as a row broke out over comments allegedly made by Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi concerning tourism.
The Daily Telegraph last week reported Suu Kyi had changed her stance against tourism, instead claiming it could benefit the country providing tourists stayed away from state-owned properties.
However, the UK supporters' organisation of the opposition, the National League for Democracy - Liberated Areas, has denied any change in stance by the party.
Travel Weekly - Burma travel loophole tightened
Edward Robertson
(21 August 2009)
Tourism Concern has welcomed the closure of a legal loophole targeted at operators offering tours of Burma.
Director Tricia Barnett said the Burma/Myanmar (Financial Restrictions) Regulations 2009 makes it an offence for UK firms, including tour operators, to provide financial benefits for prominent members of the country's military regime and their associates. It is one of a series of measures deployed by the European community in a bid to force Burma's military junta to introduce democratic reform in the country.
While Barnett admitted it is hard to enforce the legislation because of the difficulty in proving who is financially benefitting from tourism, she hoped it would deter UK operators from dealing with the regime.
She added: "This issue highlights the opaque, complex overlap between government and business interests in Burma, which makes it impossible to travel to the country without the military regime financially benefiting. "Tourism Concern welcomes these positive steps by the government, which signals its recognition of the important role that tourism plays in propping up Burma's oppressive regime."
The change in legislation comes as a row broke out over comments allegedly made by Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi concerning tourism.
The Daily Telegraph last week reported Suu Kyi had changed her stance against tourism, instead claiming it could benefit the country providing tourists stayed away from state-owned properties.
However, the UK supporters' organisation of the opposition, the National League for Democracy - Liberated Areas, has denied any change in stance by the party.
*********************************************************
The Economic Times - Hyderabad police arrest 8 illegal immigrants from Myanmar
20 Aug 2009, 2208 hrs IST, PTI
HYDERABAD: Eight illegal immigrantsfrom Myanmar, who were staying in Hyderabad for the last few years, were arrested, a senior police officer
said.
Sleuths of Commissioner's Task Force held the Myanmarese nationals in the age group of 18-35 from a hotel at Bahadurpura during anti-sabotage checks in view of the coming Ganesh festival, Task Force DCP V B Kamalasan Reddy said.
The illegal immigrants had entered India by crossing the border near Ketiliya in Manipur without any documentation and checking. They moved to Hyderabad and were staying here since long, he explained.
"One Mohammed Anwar, who is also an illegal immigrant of Myanmar and came to Hyderabad about 15 years back, encouraged the illegal immigration and helped settle and work as daily labourers in Kishanbagh," the police officer said.
"After ascertaining their nationality and illegal entry into India, we are handing over them to Bahadurpura Police for taking necessary action under Foreigners Act 1946," he added.
20 Aug 2009, 2208 hrs IST, PTI
HYDERABAD: Eight illegal immigrantsfrom Myanmar, who were staying in Hyderabad for the last few years, were arrested, a senior police officer
said.
Sleuths of Commissioner's Task Force held the Myanmarese nationals in the age group of 18-35 from a hotel at Bahadurpura during anti-sabotage checks in view of the coming Ganesh festival, Task Force DCP V B Kamalasan Reddy said.
The illegal immigrants had entered India by crossing the border near Ketiliya in Manipur without any documentation and checking. They moved to Hyderabad and were staying here since long, he explained.
"One Mohammed Anwar, who is also an illegal immigrant of Myanmar and came to Hyderabad about 15 years back, encouraged the illegal immigration and helped settle and work as daily labourers in Kishanbagh," the police officer said.
"After ascertaining their nationality and illegal entry into India, we are handing over them to Bahadurpura Police for taking necessary action under Foreigners Act 1946," he added.
*********************************************************
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Manilla Times - Asean backs calls for Suu Kyi’s release
JAKARTA: Senior Asian officials on Friday backed a proposal to issue an unprecedented call for amnesty for Myanmar democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, Indonesia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said.
The officials from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), which includes Myanmar, discussed the “joint appeal” for Suu Kyi’s release from house arrest during two days of talks in Indonesia, he said.
The officials had agreed to the petition in principle and would take the proposal back to their capitals for consideration at ministerial level.
“The senior officials’ meeting agreed to give recommendations to their ministers to convey their position to Myanmar related to the problem of Aung San Suu Kyi,” spokesman Teuku Faizasyah told Agence France-Presse.
“In principle it has been accepted as a joint appeal in the framework of the senior officials’ meeting. This is a positive development which will be submitted to the foreign ministers.”
Indonesia backed issuing a tough statement calling for Suu Kyi’s immediate release, he said.
Myanmar’s junta recently extended the Nobel Peace laureate’s confinement for 18 months after a trial widely seen as a sham.
First time
Asean has never before called for Suu Kyi’s release although the bloc last year ratified a new constitution enshrining democratic principles and basic standards of human rights.
Any joint appeal for Suu Kyi’s release would signal a toughening of the bloc’s attitude toward the junta and would be a departure from Asean’s principle of non-interference in members’ internal affairs, analysts said.
“They will not expel Myanmar or sanction it—not yet—but they will not sit impassively if the regime continues to act in this manner,” Singapore Institute of International Affairs Chairman Simon Tay said Thursday.
“If followed up, and the regime does respond, it can signal a diplomatic opening.”
Thailand said on Friday it was pushing for a consensus among member states to ask Myanmar’s military rulers to pardon Suu Kyi. Faizasyah said the initiative also had the full support of the Indonesian government.
Suu Kyi led her National League for Democracy to a landslide victory in elections in 1990, but the junta has refused to recognize the result and has kept her locked away in her lakeside home for 14 of the subsequent years.
Besides Myanmar and Indonesia, Asean also groups Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
The Manilla Times - Asean backs calls for Suu Kyi’s release
JAKARTA: Senior Asian officials on Friday backed a proposal to issue an unprecedented call for amnesty for Myanmar democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, Indonesia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said.
The officials from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), which includes Myanmar, discussed the “joint appeal” for Suu Kyi’s release from house arrest during two days of talks in Indonesia, he said.
The officials had agreed to the petition in principle and would take the proposal back to their capitals for consideration at ministerial level.
“The senior officials’ meeting agreed to give recommendations to their ministers to convey their position to Myanmar related to the problem of Aung San Suu Kyi,” spokesman Teuku Faizasyah told Agence France-Presse.
“In principle it has been accepted as a joint appeal in the framework of the senior officials’ meeting. This is a positive development which will be submitted to the foreign ministers.”
Indonesia backed issuing a tough statement calling for Suu Kyi’s immediate release, he said.
Myanmar’s junta recently extended the Nobel Peace laureate’s confinement for 18 months after a trial widely seen as a sham.
First time
Asean has never before called for Suu Kyi’s release although the bloc last year ratified a new constitution enshrining democratic principles and basic standards of human rights.
Any joint appeal for Suu Kyi’s release would signal a toughening of the bloc’s attitude toward the junta and would be a departure from Asean’s principle of non-interference in members’ internal affairs, analysts said.
“They will not expel Myanmar or sanction it—not yet—but they will not sit impassively if the regime continues to act in this manner,” Singapore Institute of International Affairs Chairman Simon Tay said Thursday.
“If followed up, and the regime does respond, it can signal a diplomatic opening.”
Thailand said on Friday it was pushing for a consensus among member states to ask Myanmar’s military rulers to pardon Suu Kyi. Faizasyah said the initiative also had the full support of the Indonesian government.
Suu Kyi led her National League for Democracy to a landslide victory in elections in 1990, but the junta has refused to recognize the result and has kept her locked away in her lakeside home for 14 of the subsequent years.
Besides Myanmar and Indonesia, Asean also groups Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
*********************************************************
SILive - Malaysian faces 35 years' jail for human smuggling
8/20/2009, 11:16 p.m. EDT
JULIA ZAPPEI
The Associated Press
(AP) — KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - A Malaysian man faces up to 35 years in prison for smuggling 12 people from Myanmar into the country, while his two sons and their maid pleaded not guilty to the crime, an official said Friday.
The four were the latest to be charged with human trafficking since June, when the U.S. State Department marked Malaysia as one of the world's worst offenders.
Sahaidi Salleh, a jobless man, pleaded guilty to trafficking nine adults and three children from Myanmar, said Mohamad Zaidi Che Morad, an immigration official in northern Kelantan state.
Sahaidi's two sons, 19 and 21, and their maid, 25, pleaded not guilty and were expected to stand trial, he said.
Trafficking in children carries a minimum jail term of three years and maximum term of 20 years. Smuggling adults is punishable by up to 15 years in jail.
Sahaidi was imprisoned pending sentencing on Sept. 15, Mohamad Zaidi said. The other three were also jailed after failing to post bail of 11,000 ringgit ($3,100) each, he said.
The Myanmar nationals were smuggled into the country across a river from neighboring Thailand, Mohamad Zaidi said.
The group, including five ethnic Rohingyas and two ethnic Chin, were rescued from Sahaidi's house in Kelantan on Aug. 9 and are now staying in a shelter. They will not be charged with entering Malaysia illegally because they are considered victims of human trafficking. The youngest child is 2.
Mohamad Zaidi said investigations revealed they paid up to 2,000 ringgit ($570) each for the journey from Myanmar to Malaysia. Saihaidi received up to 500 ringgit ($141) per migrant.
"We're still trying to investigate. It's a wide connection ... It's transnational," Mohamad Zaidi said, adding it was difficult to go after human traffickers in Thailand and Myanmar. He said the network also involved express bus operators in Malaysia who ferry the illegals.
The United States is reviewing Malaysia's efforts to fight human trafficking until October after it gave the Southeast Asian country a low ranking in this year's "Trafficking in Persons Report."
Activists estimate that hundreds of thousands of people from Myanmar live illegally in Malaysia in addition to 140,000 legal Myanmar migrant workers. The United Nations refugee agency recognizes 43,500 as refugees. Many of those are Chin and Rohingya, who face discrimination in their home country because of their ethnicity and religion.
8/20/2009, 11:16 p.m. EDT
JULIA ZAPPEI
The Associated Press
(AP) — KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - A Malaysian man faces up to 35 years in prison for smuggling 12 people from Myanmar into the country, while his two sons and their maid pleaded not guilty to the crime, an official said Friday.
The four were the latest to be charged with human trafficking since June, when the U.S. State Department marked Malaysia as one of the world's worst offenders.
Sahaidi Salleh, a jobless man, pleaded guilty to trafficking nine adults and three children from Myanmar, said Mohamad Zaidi Che Morad, an immigration official in northern Kelantan state.
Sahaidi's two sons, 19 and 21, and their maid, 25, pleaded not guilty and were expected to stand trial, he said.
Trafficking in children carries a minimum jail term of three years and maximum term of 20 years. Smuggling adults is punishable by up to 15 years in jail.
Sahaidi was imprisoned pending sentencing on Sept. 15, Mohamad Zaidi said. The other three were also jailed after failing to post bail of 11,000 ringgit ($3,100) each, he said.
The Myanmar nationals were smuggled into the country across a river from neighboring Thailand, Mohamad Zaidi said.
The group, including five ethnic Rohingyas and two ethnic Chin, were rescued from Sahaidi's house in Kelantan on Aug. 9 and are now staying in a shelter. They will not be charged with entering Malaysia illegally because they are considered victims of human trafficking. The youngest child is 2.
Mohamad Zaidi said investigations revealed they paid up to 2,000 ringgit ($570) each for the journey from Myanmar to Malaysia. Saihaidi received up to 500 ringgit ($141) per migrant.
"We're still trying to investigate. It's a wide connection ... It's transnational," Mohamad Zaidi said, adding it was difficult to go after human traffickers in Thailand and Myanmar. He said the network also involved express bus operators in Malaysia who ferry the illegals.
The United States is reviewing Malaysia's efforts to fight human trafficking until October after it gave the Southeast Asian country a low ranking in this year's "Trafficking in Persons Report."
Activists estimate that hundreds of thousands of people from Myanmar live illegally in Malaysia in addition to 140,000 legal Myanmar migrant workers. The United Nations refugee agency recognizes 43,500 as refugees. Many of those are Chin and Rohingya, who face discrimination in their home country because of their ethnicity and religion.
*********************************************************
Mizzima News - Campaigners call for commission of inquiry into junta crimes
by Mungpi
Thursday, 20 August 2009 23:00
New Delhi (Mizzima) - Campaigners say now is the time for the international community, particularly the United Nations, to call on the Security Council to establish a commission of inquiry into crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by Burma’s military rulers.
With the recent sentencing of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and the continued cleansing of minorities in remote areas of the country, Burma’s military rulers have clearly demonstrated their ruthlessness and stubbornness in ignoring calls for reform, three campaign group said on Wednesday.
Debbie Stothard, coordinator for the Alternative Asean Network on Burma (Altsean Burma), one of the three groups that has called on the Security Council to establish a commission of inquiry, said the international community, while offering condemnation through rhetoric, has done little practical to push the junta to implement changes in Burma.
“It is high time that the international community stop accepting the junta’s actions and stand up,” Stothard told Mizzima on Thursday.
Altsean Burma, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Burma Lawyers Council (BLC) in their statement on Wednesday called on the European Union, which tightened economic sanctions on the junta in the wake of the sentencing of Aung San Suu Kyi, to support their call in setting up a commission of inquiry.
The statement said the new sanctions imposed by the EU are totally inadequate in the face of the worsening human rights situation and ongoing atrocities against ethnic nationalities in Burma.
“These sanctions reflect the political unwillingness of the EU to take a firm stance on this issue and increase dangerously the risk that the regime will consider this as a green light to continue committing international crimes,” said Souhayr Belhassen, President of FIDH, in the statement.
On August 11, a special court in Rangoon’s Insein Prison announced the verdict of the over two-month trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, finding her guilty and sentencing her to three years of prison with hard labor.
But the country’s military Supremo, Senior General Than Shwe, intervened the court session via a special order and commuted the sentence by half, contingent upon good moral behavior, while also allowing her to serve her time at her lakeside home.
Following the sentencing several countries have issued statements condemning the junta, though a few have hailed the junta for its apparent leniency in commuting Aung San Suu Kyi’s sentence.
“The EU must not be fooled by the SPDC’s [Burma’s military government] phony attempt to show leniency on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The SPDC has fulfilled its strategy to keep Daw Aung San Suu Kyi out of the picture while, at the same time, the SPDC tells the world that Burma is on the path to democracy. How can the SPDC’s planned elections be given any credence when war still rages in Eastern Burma?” Stothard questioned.
Stothard said several thousand ethnic citizens in eastern Burma are currently being displaced as a result of fresh atrocities committed by the junta’s soldiers.
“If the junta is sincere in their plans and want to implement changes, the junta must stop killing the ethnics. Burma’s politics is not just about Aung San Suu Kyi and the regime but it is also the issue of ethnic nationalities,” Stothard emphasized.
Stothard added that the international community, particularly the United Nations, has not been taking effective measures to force the junta to cease their behavior.
“The UN has very little or no pressure at all on the SPDC. And the SPDC knows that they can continue playing around with international politics,” she said, referring to the junta’s official name of State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).
Meanwhile, the US-based Global Justice Centre (GJC), in a press statement, denounced UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for his reaction over the Burmese junta’s sentencing of Aung San Suu Kyi, the only detained Nobel Peace Laureate.
The GJC said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s remarks on the sentencing of Aung San Suu Kyi are totally at odds with his mandate under the UN Charter.
“As a Representative of the UN, and given these circumstances, international law requires Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to call for an end to impunity, not convey his ‘disappointment’ and call for ‘reconciliation’,” argued the GJC in their statement.
The GJC said instead of calling the verdict “disappointing” and “deplorable”, Ban should refer the situation in Burma to the International Criminal Court, concluding that Ban’s remarks “undermine the rule of law.”
by Mungpi
Thursday, 20 August 2009 23:00
New Delhi (Mizzima) - Campaigners say now is the time for the international community, particularly the United Nations, to call on the Security Council to establish a commission of inquiry into crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by Burma’s military rulers.
With the recent sentencing of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and the continued cleansing of minorities in remote areas of the country, Burma’s military rulers have clearly demonstrated their ruthlessness and stubbornness in ignoring calls for reform, three campaign group said on Wednesday.
Debbie Stothard, coordinator for the Alternative Asean Network on Burma (Altsean Burma), one of the three groups that has called on the Security Council to establish a commission of inquiry, said the international community, while offering condemnation through rhetoric, has done little practical to push the junta to implement changes in Burma.
“It is high time that the international community stop accepting the junta’s actions and stand up,” Stothard told Mizzima on Thursday.
Altsean Burma, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Burma Lawyers Council (BLC) in their statement on Wednesday called on the European Union, which tightened economic sanctions on the junta in the wake of the sentencing of Aung San Suu Kyi, to support their call in setting up a commission of inquiry.
The statement said the new sanctions imposed by the EU are totally inadequate in the face of the worsening human rights situation and ongoing atrocities against ethnic nationalities in Burma.
“These sanctions reflect the political unwillingness of the EU to take a firm stance on this issue and increase dangerously the risk that the regime will consider this as a green light to continue committing international crimes,” said Souhayr Belhassen, President of FIDH, in the statement.
On August 11, a special court in Rangoon’s Insein Prison announced the verdict of the over two-month trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, finding her guilty and sentencing her to three years of prison with hard labor.
But the country’s military Supremo, Senior General Than Shwe, intervened the court session via a special order and commuted the sentence by half, contingent upon good moral behavior, while also allowing her to serve her time at her lakeside home.
Following the sentencing several countries have issued statements condemning the junta, though a few have hailed the junta for its apparent leniency in commuting Aung San Suu Kyi’s sentence.
“The EU must not be fooled by the SPDC’s [Burma’s military government] phony attempt to show leniency on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The SPDC has fulfilled its strategy to keep Daw Aung San Suu Kyi out of the picture while, at the same time, the SPDC tells the world that Burma is on the path to democracy. How can the SPDC’s planned elections be given any credence when war still rages in Eastern Burma?” Stothard questioned.
Stothard said several thousand ethnic citizens in eastern Burma are currently being displaced as a result of fresh atrocities committed by the junta’s soldiers.
“If the junta is sincere in their plans and want to implement changes, the junta must stop killing the ethnics. Burma’s politics is not just about Aung San Suu Kyi and the regime but it is also the issue of ethnic nationalities,” Stothard emphasized.
Stothard added that the international community, particularly the United Nations, has not been taking effective measures to force the junta to cease their behavior.
“The UN has very little or no pressure at all on the SPDC. And the SPDC knows that they can continue playing around with international politics,” she said, referring to the junta’s official name of State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).
Meanwhile, the US-based Global Justice Centre (GJC), in a press statement, denounced UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for his reaction over the Burmese junta’s sentencing of Aung San Suu Kyi, the only detained Nobel Peace Laureate.
The GJC said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s remarks on the sentencing of Aung San Suu Kyi are totally at odds with his mandate under the UN Charter.
“As a Representative of the UN, and given these circumstances, international law requires Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to call for an end to impunity, not convey his ‘disappointment’ and call for ‘reconciliation’,” argued the GJC in their statement.
The GJC said instead of calling the verdict “disappointing” and “deplorable”, Ban should refer the situation in Burma to the International Criminal Court, concluding that Ban’s remarks “undermine the rule of law.”
*********************************************************
Mizzima News - Webb visit challenges opposition assumptions
by Joseph Ball
Thursday, 20 August 2009 18:51
Mizzima News - The fallout from U.S. Senator Jim Webb’s recent visit to Burma sheds light on inherent fissures and miscommunication both internal to Burma’s leading pro-democracy alliance and between the opposition and at least one of its primary international backers. If the country’s pro-democracy opposition, in its existing constitution, is to maximize its chances of success – these cracks in the foundation demand immediate attention.
In short, Burma’s democratic opposition has crippled itself by relying far too heavily on two assumptions: 1) – that it necessarily understands and acts in accordance with the strategic thinking of National League for Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and 2) – concluding that the interests of the United States intrinsically align themselves with those of the democratic opposition.
Taking the second point first, the interests of the United States in Burma have not changed in 20 years and ideologically have their roots in the first half of the 20th century. The Obama administration’s approach to Burma, put succinctly, is a continuation of well-established U.S. policy to the region. The primary goal remains unaltered – containment of possible rival powers on the greater Eurasian landmass.
It should not be lost on interested parties, despite modest success toward Indian national interest, the importance of New Delhi in failing to significantly dent Chinese influence in Burma – for example, two years previously with the inability of India to secure contracts relating to the shipment of natural gas from Burma’s Shwe gas field. Such a counter by a democratic/military U.S. ally to Beijing’s growing clout was viewed by Washington as a critical development, despite New Delhi’s lukewarm support for Burma’s own democracy movement.
What has changed regarding U.S. foreign policy to Burma is the acceptable approaches to achieving America’s overriding goal. While rhetoric relating to “democracy” and “human rights” has been and will remain en vogue – and sanctions are by no means to disappear overnight, the truth is far less idealistic and far more abrasive: the United States is concerned first and foremost with the national interests of the United States, to which democracy and human rights, as with elections, are tools to be used when convenient to confer legitimacy upon a favored policy and/or personality in pursuit of an American agenda.
If Burma’s democratic opposition is solely concerned with the final outcome, then there remains little to differentiate their and U.S. interests. But, for considerable and influential portions of the aforementioned opposition bloc, the means to the end has come to be held just as sacrosanct as the end itself. This is wherein lies the present tension between Burma’s pro-democracy opposition and the United States.
While the Bush administration for eight years – a stretch of time which dominates the recent post-’88 history of involvement by Washington in Burmese affairs and was in accord with the dominant hardline voice of Burma’s democratic opposition – stood content with cries of ‘right’ versus ‘wrong’ and publicly sought the immediate overthrow of Burma’s ruling generals as a means of countering Chinese – and to a lesser extent Russian – influence and presence in Burma, the Obama administration, while promoting the same goals, appears at least willing to explore alternative currents in support of American priorities.
Senator Webb himself is said to have drawn attention, during his tête-è-tête with Aung San Suu Kyi, as to his – and what can reasonably be said to be his country’s – fear of growing Chinese dominance inside Burma. It was a succinct and brutally honest appraisal of U.S. interest in Burma, sounded by a ranking member of the Washington establishment and delivered to Burma’s opposition leader.
Significantly, the affront was reportedly brushed aside by Burma’s democracy icon, who expressed the opinion that there was nothing to fear from China and that the regional hegemon remained vital to the future of Burma and should, accordingly, not be vilified.
The response effectively signals that Suu Kyi is out of step with Washington’s paramount interest in her country – though she may very well have spoken appropriately as a Burmese citizen and to the best interests of her motherland.
This leads to the second critical misstep of Burma’s democratic opposition: convincing itself that it can speak for Aung San Suu Kyi.
Though recent months have seen a slight uptick in opposition interest to positively engage China, the by far dominant message to be taken from opposition activists and organizations during Suu Kyi’s lengthy detention has been one of unabated condemnation and ridicule of Beijing and its policies.
It then follows that the attention, time and money directed at demonizing China has been used counter to the wishes of Burma’s democracy icon and, accordingly, against what she perceives as in the best long-term interests of Burma. This is not to say that Burmese and Chinese interests are one and the same, but that the sowing of an antagonistic relationship between Rangoon/Naypyitaw and Beijing is counterproductive to the interests of the Burmese people.
China, as with the United States, is concerned with Chinese interests. By outwardly threatening Chinese investment and interests in Burma, the country’s democratic opposition has served to diminish its own leverage.
Not of coincidence, the strong vitriol directed against Beijing by Burmese opposition parties does serve the stated interests of one country in particular – the United States. This is a fact not lost in the halls of Beijing or Naypyitaw, assisting – rightly or not – in painting the opposition as an arm of U.S. foreign policy and thereby an enemy to Burmese nationalism, the principle purview of Burma’s men in arms.
Perhaps even more telling than the exchange regarding China, however, was the revelation at a press conference in Bangkok by Senator Webb following his visit, during which he inferred Suu Kyi may be accepting to the loosening of the sanctions noose. This sentiment sent shock waves through the opposition community as sanctions remain the cornerstone of their policy in confronting the junta.
It is unlikely that Senator Webb attempted to falsely misrepresent Suu Kyi on the issue of sanctions. What is far more likely is that opposition elements sought immediate word to the contrary from The Lady herself in order to patch over a potential momentous gap in the opposition’s foundation.
Yet, tellingly, Suu Kyi’s apparently unequivocal rebuttal of Senator Webb’s assessment of China was again evidently accompanied by language of nuanced ambiguity as to the issue of sanctions – a choice of words then regurgitated and spun by the international media as proof that she stands firmly behind a sanctions regime.
The truth, as is usually the case, is not so simple.
As related via second-hand quotes, her sentiment that sanctions cannot be addressed until the regime first interacts “inside the country” can easily be interpreted as either accepting of an inevitable softening in sanctions as political reconciliation progresses or as steadfast support for an ongoing sanctions policy until opposition victory is relatively assured.
Both Webb and the democratic opposition took from Suu Kyi’s musings what they wanted, the former as a convenience to providing flexibility in United States policy and the latter as necessitated by its already having invested so much in upholding an unbending sanctions policy attributed to be in agreement with the thinking of Suu Kyi.
Barring the advent of the acceptable means to the end of Burma’s political deadlock as envisioned by Burma’s pro-democracy opposition, is the community capable of reorienting itself to alternative strategies to secure the same end result if both its assumptions of internal leadership and external relationships prove compromised? Will the legacy of Aung San Suu Kyi be formed by The Lady herself or held hostage to those, as well-intentioned as may be the case, purporting to speak and act in her name? Can tough decisions be made in the name of and prioritizing national interest and realpolitik as opposed to “international norms” and moral absolutes?
In suggesting that Senator Webb’s visit was ill-founded due to the “imperfect” nature of the 2008 Burma Constitution, the letter by three opposition groups directed to Webb and questioning his decision to visit Burma held but the latest indications of an opposition anchored to an irreconcilable, absolutist project. Constitutional perfection, as remarked upon by Thomas Jefferson, is a project in futility – which is far from saying that the constitutional process is not just that, an evolutionary cycle demanding of regular reassessment in the construction of a better constitution than the last.
What is urgently needed from Burma’s opposition community is a substantive policy and strategic review, reflective of international relations and power politics as practiced, respective of existing avenues of communication and sensitive to the fact that the means to the end demands flexibility in order to maximize the chance of success.
Austere adherence to doctrinal rigidity – especially that premised on dubious assumptions – is ultimately a sign of weakness, not strength.
by Joseph Ball
Thursday, 20 August 2009 18:51
Mizzima News - The fallout from U.S. Senator Jim Webb’s recent visit to Burma sheds light on inherent fissures and miscommunication both internal to Burma’s leading pro-democracy alliance and between the opposition and at least one of its primary international backers. If the country’s pro-democracy opposition, in its existing constitution, is to maximize its chances of success – these cracks in the foundation demand immediate attention.
In short, Burma’s democratic opposition has crippled itself by relying far too heavily on two assumptions: 1) – that it necessarily understands and acts in accordance with the strategic thinking of National League for Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and 2) – concluding that the interests of the United States intrinsically align themselves with those of the democratic opposition.
Taking the second point first, the interests of the United States in Burma have not changed in 20 years and ideologically have their roots in the first half of the 20th century. The Obama administration’s approach to Burma, put succinctly, is a continuation of well-established U.S. policy to the region. The primary goal remains unaltered – containment of possible rival powers on the greater Eurasian landmass.
It should not be lost on interested parties, despite modest success toward Indian national interest, the importance of New Delhi in failing to significantly dent Chinese influence in Burma – for example, two years previously with the inability of India to secure contracts relating to the shipment of natural gas from Burma’s Shwe gas field. Such a counter by a democratic/military U.S. ally to Beijing’s growing clout was viewed by Washington as a critical development, despite New Delhi’s lukewarm support for Burma’s own democracy movement.
What has changed regarding U.S. foreign policy to Burma is the acceptable approaches to achieving America’s overriding goal. While rhetoric relating to “democracy” and “human rights” has been and will remain en vogue – and sanctions are by no means to disappear overnight, the truth is far less idealistic and far more abrasive: the United States is concerned first and foremost with the national interests of the United States, to which democracy and human rights, as with elections, are tools to be used when convenient to confer legitimacy upon a favored policy and/or personality in pursuit of an American agenda.
If Burma’s democratic opposition is solely concerned with the final outcome, then there remains little to differentiate their and U.S. interests. But, for considerable and influential portions of the aforementioned opposition bloc, the means to the end has come to be held just as sacrosanct as the end itself. This is wherein lies the present tension between Burma’s pro-democracy opposition and the United States.
While the Bush administration for eight years – a stretch of time which dominates the recent post-’88 history of involvement by Washington in Burmese affairs and was in accord with the dominant hardline voice of Burma’s democratic opposition – stood content with cries of ‘right’ versus ‘wrong’ and publicly sought the immediate overthrow of Burma’s ruling generals as a means of countering Chinese – and to a lesser extent Russian – influence and presence in Burma, the Obama administration, while promoting the same goals, appears at least willing to explore alternative currents in support of American priorities.
Senator Webb himself is said to have drawn attention, during his tête-è-tête with Aung San Suu Kyi, as to his – and what can reasonably be said to be his country’s – fear of growing Chinese dominance inside Burma. It was a succinct and brutally honest appraisal of U.S. interest in Burma, sounded by a ranking member of the Washington establishment and delivered to Burma’s opposition leader.
Significantly, the affront was reportedly brushed aside by Burma’s democracy icon, who expressed the opinion that there was nothing to fear from China and that the regional hegemon remained vital to the future of Burma and should, accordingly, not be vilified.
The response effectively signals that Suu Kyi is out of step with Washington’s paramount interest in her country – though she may very well have spoken appropriately as a Burmese citizen and to the best interests of her motherland.
This leads to the second critical misstep of Burma’s democratic opposition: convincing itself that it can speak for Aung San Suu Kyi.
Though recent months have seen a slight uptick in opposition interest to positively engage China, the by far dominant message to be taken from opposition activists and organizations during Suu Kyi’s lengthy detention has been one of unabated condemnation and ridicule of Beijing and its policies.
It then follows that the attention, time and money directed at demonizing China has been used counter to the wishes of Burma’s democracy icon and, accordingly, against what she perceives as in the best long-term interests of Burma. This is not to say that Burmese and Chinese interests are one and the same, but that the sowing of an antagonistic relationship between Rangoon/Naypyitaw and Beijing is counterproductive to the interests of the Burmese people.
China, as with the United States, is concerned with Chinese interests. By outwardly threatening Chinese investment and interests in Burma, the country’s democratic opposition has served to diminish its own leverage.
Not of coincidence, the strong vitriol directed against Beijing by Burmese opposition parties does serve the stated interests of one country in particular – the United States. This is a fact not lost in the halls of Beijing or Naypyitaw, assisting – rightly or not – in painting the opposition as an arm of U.S. foreign policy and thereby an enemy to Burmese nationalism, the principle purview of Burma’s men in arms.
Perhaps even more telling than the exchange regarding China, however, was the revelation at a press conference in Bangkok by Senator Webb following his visit, during which he inferred Suu Kyi may be accepting to the loosening of the sanctions noose. This sentiment sent shock waves through the opposition community as sanctions remain the cornerstone of their policy in confronting the junta.
It is unlikely that Senator Webb attempted to falsely misrepresent Suu Kyi on the issue of sanctions. What is far more likely is that opposition elements sought immediate word to the contrary from The Lady herself in order to patch over a potential momentous gap in the opposition’s foundation.
Yet, tellingly, Suu Kyi’s apparently unequivocal rebuttal of Senator Webb’s assessment of China was again evidently accompanied by language of nuanced ambiguity as to the issue of sanctions – a choice of words then regurgitated and spun by the international media as proof that she stands firmly behind a sanctions regime.
The truth, as is usually the case, is not so simple.
As related via second-hand quotes, her sentiment that sanctions cannot be addressed until the regime first interacts “inside the country” can easily be interpreted as either accepting of an inevitable softening in sanctions as political reconciliation progresses or as steadfast support for an ongoing sanctions policy until opposition victory is relatively assured.
Both Webb and the democratic opposition took from Suu Kyi’s musings what they wanted, the former as a convenience to providing flexibility in United States policy and the latter as necessitated by its already having invested so much in upholding an unbending sanctions policy attributed to be in agreement with the thinking of Suu Kyi.
Barring the advent of the acceptable means to the end of Burma’s political deadlock as envisioned by Burma’s pro-democracy opposition, is the community capable of reorienting itself to alternative strategies to secure the same end result if both its assumptions of internal leadership and external relationships prove compromised? Will the legacy of Aung San Suu Kyi be formed by The Lady herself or held hostage to those, as well-intentioned as may be the case, purporting to speak and act in her name? Can tough decisions be made in the name of and prioritizing national interest and realpolitik as opposed to “international norms” and moral absolutes?
In suggesting that Senator Webb’s visit was ill-founded due to the “imperfect” nature of the 2008 Burma Constitution, the letter by three opposition groups directed to Webb and questioning his decision to visit Burma held but the latest indications of an opposition anchored to an irreconcilable, absolutist project. Constitutional perfection, as remarked upon by Thomas Jefferson, is a project in futility – which is far from saying that the constitutional process is not just that, an evolutionary cycle demanding of regular reassessment in the construction of a better constitution than the last.
What is urgently needed from Burma’s opposition community is a substantive policy and strategic review, reflective of international relations and power politics as practiced, respective of existing avenues of communication and sensitive to the fact that the means to the end demands flexibility in order to maximize the chance of success.
Austere adherence to doctrinal rigidity – especially that premised on dubious assumptions – is ultimately a sign of weakness, not strength.
*********************************************************
The Irrawaddy - The Story of a Child Soldier
By SAW YAN NAING, Friday, August 21, 2009
PAPUN, Karen State—Sixteen-year-old Htun Htun Oo, looked relieved and happy when he learned he would be leaving the conflict zone controlled by the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) soldiers on the Burmese bank of the Salween River, opposite Thailand’s Mae Hong Son province.
The prospect of going to study instead of facing more military duties gave him new hope.
Told he could leave, Htun Htun Oo quickly packed his clothes in a sling bag, put on a watch, applied some Thanaka (Burmese traditional makeup) to his cheeks and said goodbye to the Karen soldiers who had temporarily taken care of him.
Speaking quietly against a background of birdsong and eddying water in the fast flowing Salween River, he told us his story before he left.
Htun Htun Oo escaped from the Burmese Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 341 in Papun District in northern Karen State in July, making his way through the forest eastwards, even though he was not sure whether he would be killed when he reached KNLA-controlled territory.
Before he escaped, senior officers had regularly warned the troops that they would be tortured and killed if they surrendered to Karen rebels.
“Whether I lived or died didn’t matter anymore,” Htun Htun Oo said, “All I wanted to do was escape. I was ready for anything so long as I didn’t have to stay another day in that battalion.”
He said that he had to sleep rough in the jungle for three days before he reached the KNLA area.
“When I arrived on the Burmese side of the Salween River, I started to swim across,” he said, pointing to the waters swollen with monsoon rain streaming by.
“The water was too fast and I was drifting downstream, trying to swim,” he said, “Luckily a boat came along and picked me up.
“The Burmese officers would continually punish us and order us to do additional duties—we were no better than slaves,” he said.
“They didn’t give us enough food, and when we were too exhausted to follow orders, they liked to beat us. I was beaten three times for falling asleep when I was on guard duty at night.
“Every morning we had to get up at five and do military exercises,” Htun Htun Oo said. “Around three in the afternoon we would be ordered into the jungle to cut bamboo and collect leaves to make temporary shelters.
“We didn’t get enough time to sleep as we had guard duty at night. I couldn’t take it any more and decided to run away,” he said.
Htun Htun Oo earned 21,000 kyat [US $19] a month, but said he only got about 7,000 kyat [$6.40] after senior officers made deductions.
Htun Htun Oo said he saw child soldiers in other Burmese battalions, and he knew of eight other child soldiers in LIB 341 alone.
During military training, he said he spoke with a younger comrade called Ye Thew, who told him he had been sexually abused by higher ranking officers on several occasions.
Htun Htun Oo was seized by the Burmese army at a railway station in June 2007 while he was on his way to visit his uncle, who was a policeman in Rangoon,.
“A Burmese soldier asked me for my ID card, but I didn’t have one because I hadn’t applied for one by then. So they took me away,” he said.
Htun Htun Oo’s case is not untypical. The recruitment of child soldiers in Burma is still widely practiced by the Burmese army, according to Aye Myint, a leader of Guiding Star, a Burma-based social and labor rights group.
In the last three months, more than 20 children who say they were forced by Burmese officials to serve as soldiers were helped by Aye Myint’s group and the International Labour Organization to return to their families.
Commenting in early August on reports that the Burmese government had released some children from the military, the UN’s special representative for children and armed conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy, was quoted by Reuters as saying: “We still are not sure how comprehensive that is and the extent of it.
And so I am dispatching a team [to Burma] at the end of this month.”
The team would hold talks with the Burmese regime and rebel groups, said Coomaraswamy.
In a report in June, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon accused the Burmese military government and “ethnic rebel militias” of recruiting children to serve as fighters, saying that there had been “grave violations” against children in Burma.
According to a 2002 report by the Washington-based Human Rights Watch, there is no precise figure of the number of child soldiers serving in the Burmese army, but it was estimated that 35-45 percent of new recruits were children, some as young as 11, who were forcibly conscripted and brutally treated during training.
The report estimated that as many as 70,000 recruits were under the age of 18.
Htun Htun Oo said, “I have only one message for the youth of Burma—don’t even think about joining the Burmese army. It is like being in a living hell. You will go so far from home that you will forget it even exists.”
Asked about the Burmese regime’s announcement that the military did not recruit child soldiers, he said, “They are lying.”
By SAW YAN NAING, Friday, August 21, 2009
PAPUN, Karen State—Sixteen-year-old Htun Htun Oo, looked relieved and happy when he learned he would be leaving the conflict zone controlled by the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) soldiers on the Burmese bank of the Salween River, opposite Thailand’s Mae Hong Son province.
The prospect of going to study instead of facing more military duties gave him new hope.
Told he could leave, Htun Htun Oo quickly packed his clothes in a sling bag, put on a watch, applied some Thanaka (Burmese traditional makeup) to his cheeks and said goodbye to the Karen soldiers who had temporarily taken care of him.
Speaking quietly against a background of birdsong and eddying water in the fast flowing Salween River, he told us his story before he left.
Htun Htun Oo escaped from the Burmese Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 341 in Papun District in northern Karen State in July, making his way through the forest eastwards, even though he was not sure whether he would be killed when he reached KNLA-controlled territory.
Before he escaped, senior officers had regularly warned the troops that they would be tortured and killed if they surrendered to Karen rebels.
“Whether I lived or died didn’t matter anymore,” Htun Htun Oo said, “All I wanted to do was escape. I was ready for anything so long as I didn’t have to stay another day in that battalion.”
He said that he had to sleep rough in the jungle for three days before he reached the KNLA area.
“When I arrived on the Burmese side of the Salween River, I started to swim across,” he said, pointing to the waters swollen with monsoon rain streaming by.
“The water was too fast and I was drifting downstream, trying to swim,” he said, “Luckily a boat came along and picked me up.
“The Burmese officers would continually punish us and order us to do additional duties—we were no better than slaves,” he said.
“They didn’t give us enough food, and when we were too exhausted to follow orders, they liked to beat us. I was beaten three times for falling asleep when I was on guard duty at night.
“Every morning we had to get up at five and do military exercises,” Htun Htun Oo said. “Around three in the afternoon we would be ordered into the jungle to cut bamboo and collect leaves to make temporary shelters.
“We didn’t get enough time to sleep as we had guard duty at night. I couldn’t take it any more and decided to run away,” he said.
Htun Htun Oo earned 21,000 kyat [US $19] a month, but said he only got about 7,000 kyat [$6.40] after senior officers made deductions.
Htun Htun Oo said he saw child soldiers in other Burmese battalions, and he knew of eight other child soldiers in LIB 341 alone.
During military training, he said he spoke with a younger comrade called Ye Thew, who told him he had been sexually abused by higher ranking officers on several occasions.
Htun Htun Oo was seized by the Burmese army at a railway station in June 2007 while he was on his way to visit his uncle, who was a policeman in Rangoon,.
“A Burmese soldier asked me for my ID card, but I didn’t have one because I hadn’t applied for one by then. So they took me away,” he said.
Htun Htun Oo’s case is not untypical. The recruitment of child soldiers in Burma is still widely practiced by the Burmese army, according to Aye Myint, a leader of Guiding Star, a Burma-based social and labor rights group.
In the last three months, more than 20 children who say they were forced by Burmese officials to serve as soldiers were helped by Aye Myint’s group and the International Labour Organization to return to their families.
Commenting in early August on reports that the Burmese government had released some children from the military, the UN’s special representative for children and armed conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy, was quoted by Reuters as saying: “We still are not sure how comprehensive that is and the extent of it.
And so I am dispatching a team [to Burma] at the end of this month.”
The team would hold talks with the Burmese regime and rebel groups, said Coomaraswamy.
In a report in June, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon accused the Burmese military government and “ethnic rebel militias” of recruiting children to serve as fighters, saying that there had been “grave violations” against children in Burma.
According to a 2002 report by the Washington-based Human Rights Watch, there is no precise figure of the number of child soldiers serving in the Burmese army, but it was estimated that 35-45 percent of new recruits were children, some as young as 11, who were forcibly conscripted and brutally treated during training.
The report estimated that as many as 70,000 recruits were under the age of 18.
Htun Htun Oo said, “I have only one message for the youth of Burma—don’t even think about joining the Burmese army. It is like being in a living hell. You will go so far from home that you will forget it even exists.”
Asked about the Burmese regime’s announcement that the military did not recruit child soldiers, he said, “They are lying.”
*********************************************************
The Irrawaddy - Burmese Released from Malaysian Detention Center
By KO HTWE, Friday, August 21, 2009
Eighty Burmese migrants have been released from an immigration detention center near Kuala Lumpur International Airport with the help of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee office (UNHCR).
Yante Ismail, a spokesperson for the UNHCR in Kuala Lumpur, confirmed that the refugees and asylum-seekers were released from the detention facility on Tuesday.
Recently, 28 detainees escaped from the detention center. Six have been rearrested by authorities. The detention center has inadequate food and water, according to sources who asked not to be identified.
There are nearly 7,000 foreigners in immigration detention centers in Malaysia. Burmese detainees number around 2,800, according to the Bangkok Post, an English-language newspaper.
In January 2009, there were 1,200 Burmese in detention centers. The number has increased to 2,800 because of a worsening economy in Burma.
According to the Kuala Lumpur-based Burma Workers’ Rights Protection Committee, about 500,000 Burmese migrants work in Malaysia, both legally and illegally.
By KO HTWE, Friday, August 21, 2009
Eighty Burmese migrants have been released from an immigration detention center near Kuala Lumpur International Airport with the help of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee office (UNHCR).
Yante Ismail, a spokesperson for the UNHCR in Kuala Lumpur, confirmed that the refugees and asylum-seekers were released from the detention facility on Tuesday.
Recently, 28 detainees escaped from the detention center. Six have been rearrested by authorities. The detention center has inadequate food and water, according to sources who asked not to be identified.
There are nearly 7,000 foreigners in immigration detention centers in Malaysia. Burmese detainees number around 2,800, according to the Bangkok Post, an English-language newspaper.
In January 2009, there were 1,200 Burmese in detention centers. The number has increased to 2,800 because of a worsening economy in Burma.
According to the Kuala Lumpur-based Burma Workers’ Rights Protection Committee, about 500,000 Burmese migrants work in Malaysia, both legally and illegally.
*********************************************************
The Irrawaddy - USDA Leader in Japan
By WAI MOE, Friday, August 21, 2009
A key leader of the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), the junta-backed mass organization, Maj-Gen Htay Oo, who is also the minister of Agriculture and Irrigation, is on an official visit to Japan, the first Burmese senior official to visit the East Asia nation in four years.
Akamatsu Takeshi, a press secretary of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told The Irrawaddy that Htay Oo arrived on Thursday at the invitation of the Japanese government.
“We are talking about possible cooperation with Burma’s agriculture and irrigation sector—that is the main reason for his visit,” the Japanese press official said.
Htay Oo was accompanied by senior officials from the ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation.
Japanese government officials said they will raise issues affecting Burma during Htay Oo’s one week visit.
“Of course, we are talking about the situation in Myanmar [Burma] because he is a part of the Myanmarese [Burmese] Government,” he said.
“I can say that we are hoping for the genuine democratization of Myanmar, and we are taking about it to Mr Htay Oo as well,” he said.
Yuki Akimoto, a Japanese researcher on Burma, said, “The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs may have wanted to communicate to the SPDC that even though Japan expressed concern about the trial and verdict [against Aung San Suu Kyi], Japan is still very much a friend of the SPDC.”
From the Japanese side, the last visit to Burma was by Deputy Foreign Minister Mitoji Yamuna following Japanese the death of journalist Kenji Nagai, who was killed during the junta’s crackdown on the monk-led mass protests in September 2007. The last Burmese official to visit Japan was in 2005 when Foreign Minister Nyan Win met with Japanese officials.
Burmese and Japanese foreign ministers recently met during the Asean Regional Forum in Phuket, Thailand, in July. Hirofumi Nakasone briefed his counterpart Nyan Win on Burmese politics, including the detention of Suu Kyi and planned 2010 elections.
After the Suu Kyi verdict, the Japanese foreign minister said in statement that Japan was deeply disappointed and called for the release of Suu Kyi and other political prisoners.
Japan is one of Burma’s main donor nations. Japan provided Burma with more than US $2.96 billion from 1999 to 2006 in Official Development Assistance (ODA), according to Japan officials.
After Japanese journalist Kenji Nagai was killed, Japan temporarily stopped its ODA to Burma.
By WAI MOE, Friday, August 21, 2009
A key leader of the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), the junta-backed mass organization, Maj-Gen Htay Oo, who is also the minister of Agriculture and Irrigation, is on an official visit to Japan, the first Burmese senior official to visit the East Asia nation in four years.
Akamatsu Takeshi, a press secretary of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told The Irrawaddy that Htay Oo arrived on Thursday at the invitation of the Japanese government.
“We are talking about possible cooperation with Burma’s agriculture and irrigation sector—that is the main reason for his visit,” the Japanese press official said.
Htay Oo was accompanied by senior officials from the ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation.
Japanese government officials said they will raise issues affecting Burma during Htay Oo’s one week visit.
“Of course, we are talking about the situation in Myanmar [Burma] because he is a part of the Myanmarese [Burmese] Government,” he said.
“I can say that we are hoping for the genuine democratization of Myanmar, and we are taking about it to Mr Htay Oo as well,” he said.
Yuki Akimoto, a Japanese researcher on Burma, said, “The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs may have wanted to communicate to the SPDC that even though Japan expressed concern about the trial and verdict [against Aung San Suu Kyi], Japan is still very much a friend of the SPDC.”
From the Japanese side, the last visit to Burma was by Deputy Foreign Minister Mitoji Yamuna following Japanese the death of journalist Kenji Nagai, who was killed during the junta’s crackdown on the monk-led mass protests in September 2007. The last Burmese official to visit Japan was in 2005 when Foreign Minister Nyan Win met with Japanese officials.
Burmese and Japanese foreign ministers recently met during the Asean Regional Forum in Phuket, Thailand, in July. Hirofumi Nakasone briefed his counterpart Nyan Win on Burmese politics, including the detention of Suu Kyi and planned 2010 elections.
After the Suu Kyi verdict, the Japanese foreign minister said in statement that Japan was deeply disappointed and called for the release of Suu Kyi and other political prisoners.
Japan is one of Burma’s main donor nations. Japan provided Burma with more than US $2.96 billion from 1999 to 2006 in Official Development Assistance (ODA), according to Japan officials.
After Japanese journalist Kenji Nagai was killed, Japan temporarily stopped its ODA to Burma.
*********************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment