Mixed reaction to Myanmar opposition party boycott
Tue Mar 30, 10:00 am ET
YANGON, Myanmar (AP) – Many residents of Myanmar's largest city Tuesday backed the decision by democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi's party to boycott elections, but others called it a blunder leaving little choice in the military-organized balloting.
In a bold gamble, the National League for Democracy on Monday decided to opt out of the country's first election in two decades. The party, which swept the 1990 vote but was barred from taking power, now faces dissolution under new election laws imposed by the junta.
The NLD's pullout will further call into question the credibility of the vote, and with it the junta's "roadmap for democracy" to transition from 48 years of military rule — which critics say will only entrench the military's supporters in power. The government has said the polls will be held this year, although no date has been set.
Last week, Nobel laureate Suu Kyi, who is under house arrest, denounced the laws guiding the election as undemocratic and recommended the boycott, for which the NLD's 113 executive members then voted.
Despite tight controls that make people leery of commenting on politics in Myanmar, many Yangon residents approved of the decision.
"(Suu Kyi) is our icon and our leader, and she is the only person who can reflect the feelings of the public. We are with her and we support her decision," said 55-year-old nurse, Khin Zaw.
"The majority of the people will follow the decision because of their deep respect for (Suu Kyi), and the legitimacy and credibility of the elections will be thoroughly undermined," said Thakin Chan Tun, a retired ambassador and veteran politician.
There is no requirement that citizens in Myanmar vote in elections, so the move could prompt opposition supporters to stay away from the polls. Still, many supporters of the party saw the decision as a setback — not just for hope of reform in Myanmar but for the NLD, which Suu Kyi helped found 22 years ago in the wake of a failed popular uprising against military rule in Myanmar, also known as Burma.
"It is devastating that the NLD has chosen to boycott the election. Who should I vote for when the election comes?" said 46-year-old university teacher Myint Myint Thein.
"I think the NLD has made a major blunder by not contesting in the election. We are all set to vote for NLD candidates and now we are left without any choice," said Mie Mie, a jewelry shop owner.
Such dismay at a lack of choice may indicate that voters will be afraid to exercise their right not to vote in a country tightly controlled by the military.
The party, which has long faced fierce repression, now risks being further marginalized. As well as barring Suu Kyi and other convicted political prisoners from taking part, the new election laws stipulate that parties failing to register for the upcoming vote are to be dissolved.
The party's leaders and members have often faced detention and closure of party offices. Now the country's principal opposition movement could face virtual eradication since it will no longer be a legal organization.
"Without parliamentary representation, the NLD runs the risk of losing its substantive political following and being reduced to a 'silent majority,'" said Professor Monique Skidmore, a Myanmar expert at the University of Canberra. "But it's a crafty political decision and it is fundamentally a moral one."
Since the election laws were only enacted this month, there has been little time for parties to form and mobilize, and so the election lineup in this ethnically diverse nation is still unclear. But it appears the military will field a party against a number of small ones, some of them pro-military.
"The NLD's boycott represents an act of bold leadership and a call for solidarity among actors in civil society who are opposed to the regime. But it is a dangerous and risky strategy," said John Dale, a conflict resolution specialist at Virginia's George Mason University.
The junta hopes holding the vote will ease pressure for political reforms and accommodation with the country's pro-democracy movement. Yet international doubts over the fairness of the polls are now likely deepen despite recent efforts by the United States and other governments to engage more actively with the junta.
"The NLD's boycott is a call to the international community to shake a stick where the carrot of recent political engagement has failed," Dale said.
U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters that U.S. officials "understand and respect" the NLD decision. "This is a reflection of the unwillingness of the government in Burma to take what we thought were the necessary steps to open up the political process and to engage in serious dialogue," Crowley said.
Tue Mar 30, 10:00 am ET
YANGON, Myanmar (AP) – Many residents of Myanmar's largest city Tuesday backed the decision by democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi's party to boycott elections, but others called it a blunder leaving little choice in the military-organized balloting.
In a bold gamble, the National League for Democracy on Monday decided to opt out of the country's first election in two decades. The party, which swept the 1990 vote but was barred from taking power, now faces dissolution under new election laws imposed by the junta.
The NLD's pullout will further call into question the credibility of the vote, and with it the junta's "roadmap for democracy" to transition from 48 years of military rule — which critics say will only entrench the military's supporters in power. The government has said the polls will be held this year, although no date has been set.
Last week, Nobel laureate Suu Kyi, who is under house arrest, denounced the laws guiding the election as undemocratic and recommended the boycott, for which the NLD's 113 executive members then voted.
Despite tight controls that make people leery of commenting on politics in Myanmar, many Yangon residents approved of the decision.
"(Suu Kyi) is our icon and our leader, and she is the only person who can reflect the feelings of the public. We are with her and we support her decision," said 55-year-old nurse, Khin Zaw.
"The majority of the people will follow the decision because of their deep respect for (Suu Kyi), and the legitimacy and credibility of the elections will be thoroughly undermined," said Thakin Chan Tun, a retired ambassador and veteran politician.
There is no requirement that citizens in Myanmar vote in elections, so the move could prompt opposition supporters to stay away from the polls. Still, many supporters of the party saw the decision as a setback — not just for hope of reform in Myanmar but for the NLD, which Suu Kyi helped found 22 years ago in the wake of a failed popular uprising against military rule in Myanmar, also known as Burma.
"It is devastating that the NLD has chosen to boycott the election. Who should I vote for when the election comes?" said 46-year-old university teacher Myint Myint Thein.
"I think the NLD has made a major blunder by not contesting in the election. We are all set to vote for NLD candidates and now we are left without any choice," said Mie Mie, a jewelry shop owner.
Such dismay at a lack of choice may indicate that voters will be afraid to exercise their right not to vote in a country tightly controlled by the military.
The party, which has long faced fierce repression, now risks being further marginalized. As well as barring Suu Kyi and other convicted political prisoners from taking part, the new election laws stipulate that parties failing to register for the upcoming vote are to be dissolved.
The party's leaders and members have often faced detention and closure of party offices. Now the country's principal opposition movement could face virtual eradication since it will no longer be a legal organization.
"Without parliamentary representation, the NLD runs the risk of losing its substantive political following and being reduced to a 'silent majority,'" said Professor Monique Skidmore, a Myanmar expert at the University of Canberra. "But it's a crafty political decision and it is fundamentally a moral one."
Since the election laws were only enacted this month, there has been little time for parties to form and mobilize, and so the election lineup in this ethnically diverse nation is still unclear. But it appears the military will field a party against a number of small ones, some of them pro-military.
"The NLD's boycott represents an act of bold leadership and a call for solidarity among actors in civil society who are opposed to the regime. But it is a dangerous and risky strategy," said John Dale, a conflict resolution specialist at Virginia's George Mason University.
The junta hopes holding the vote will ease pressure for political reforms and accommodation with the country's pro-democracy movement. Yet international doubts over the fairness of the polls are now likely deepen despite recent efforts by the United States and other governments to engage more actively with the junta.
"The NLD's boycott is a call to the international community to shake a stick where the carrot of recent political engagement has failed," Dale said.
U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters that U.S. officials "understand and respect" the NLD decision. "This is a reflection of the unwillingness of the government in Burma to take what we thought were the necessary steps to open up the political process and to engage in serious dialogue," Crowley said.
********************************************************
US voices disappointment on Myanmar polls
Mon Mar 29, 2:23 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States on Monday blamed Myanmar's junta for the opposition's decision to boycott upcoming elections, saying the regime missed an opportunity to move forward.
State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said that the situation in Myanmar was "disappointing" but indicated that the United States would maintain its policy of engaging the longtime US pariah.
"This is a reflection of the unwillingness of the government in Burma to take the necessary steps to open up the political process," Crowley told reporters, using Myanmar's former name.
"We think this is an opportunity lost in terms of Burma's ability to demonstrate that it is willing to contemplate a different course of action, a different relationship with its own people," he said.
The National League For Democracy, which swept the last elections in 1990 but was never allowed to take power, decided Monday to boycott the polls that are expected later in the year.
The move came after the junta introduced a law that would have forced the party to oust democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi as its leader.
The United States has sharply criticized the law, saying that it would make the upcoming election a mockery of democracy.
But Crowley indicated that the United States would continue dialogue despite its failure to persuade the junta to change course on the election.
"I don't know that we expected necessarily everything to be resolved in one or two or three meetings," Crowley said.
President Barack Obama's administration, which has made reaching out to adversaries a signature policy, last year opened talks aimed at bringing Myanmar out of its isolation.
A senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the administration's thinking had not changed.
"We will talk to Burma because we think it's in our interest to talk to Burma," the official said. "We recognize that other things we've done in the past had not been successful."
The United States has maintained economic sanctions on Myanmar but said it would be willing to lift them eventually in return for progress.
Japan has called for the Group of Eight major industrial nations, who meet Monday in Canada, to send a strong signal to Myanmar on democratization.
Mon Mar 29, 2:23 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States on Monday blamed Myanmar's junta for the opposition's decision to boycott upcoming elections, saying the regime missed an opportunity to move forward.
State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said that the situation in Myanmar was "disappointing" but indicated that the United States would maintain its policy of engaging the longtime US pariah.
"This is a reflection of the unwillingness of the government in Burma to take the necessary steps to open up the political process," Crowley told reporters, using Myanmar's former name.
"We think this is an opportunity lost in terms of Burma's ability to demonstrate that it is willing to contemplate a different course of action, a different relationship with its own people," he said.
The National League For Democracy, which swept the last elections in 1990 but was never allowed to take power, decided Monday to boycott the polls that are expected later in the year.
The move came after the junta introduced a law that would have forced the party to oust democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi as its leader.
The United States has sharply criticized the law, saying that it would make the upcoming election a mockery of democracy.
But Crowley indicated that the United States would continue dialogue despite its failure to persuade the junta to change course on the election.
"I don't know that we expected necessarily everything to be resolved in one or two or three meetings," Crowley said.
President Barack Obama's administration, which has made reaching out to adversaries a signature policy, last year opened talks aimed at bringing Myanmar out of its isolation.
A senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the administration's thinking had not changed.
"We will talk to Burma because we think it's in our interest to talk to Burma," the official said. "We recognize that other things we've done in the past had not been successful."
The United States has maintained economic sanctions on Myanmar but said it would be willing to lift them eventually in return for progress.
Japan has called for the Group of Eight major industrial nations, who meet Monday in Canada, to send a strong signal to Myanmar on democratization.
********************************************************
Brown brands Myanmar elections unfair
39 mins ago
LONDON (AFP) – Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said Tuesday there was "no prospect" of Myanmar's first elections in two decades being "free, fair or inclusive".
Brown said the country's military rulers had "squandered" the opportunity for national reconciliation, and called for opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to be allowed to participate.
The National League For Democracy said Monday it would boycott polls expected later this year, after the country's military rulers introduced a controversial new election law.
Aung San Suu Kyi's party decided to refuse to register for the elections, a move that would have forced it to oust its detained leader and recognise the junta's constitution in the country formerly known as Burma.
"Sadly, the Burmese regime has squandered the opportunity for national reconciliation," Brown said. "Aung San Suu Kyi must be allowed to take her rightful place at the heart of Burmese politics."
His spokesman added: "Regrettably, recent announcements mean there is no prospect of (the elections) being free, fair or inclusive."
39 mins ago
LONDON (AFP) – Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said Tuesday there was "no prospect" of Myanmar's first elections in two decades being "free, fair or inclusive".
Brown said the country's military rulers had "squandered" the opportunity for national reconciliation, and called for opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to be allowed to participate.
The National League For Democracy said Monday it would boycott polls expected later this year, after the country's military rulers introduced a controversial new election law.
Aung San Suu Kyi's party decided to refuse to register for the elections, a move that would have forced it to oust its detained leader and recognise the junta's constitution in the country formerly known as Burma.
"Sadly, the Burmese regime has squandered the opportunity for national reconciliation," Brown said. "Aung San Suu Kyi must be allowed to take her rightful place at the heart of Burmese politics."
His spokesman added: "Regrettably, recent announcements mean there is no prospect of (the elections) being free, fair or inclusive."
********************************************************
AI leader speaks up for Suu Kyi's party
Published: March. 30, 2010 at 7:07 AM
YANGON, Myanmar, March 30 (UPI) -- The decision by the party of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi to boycott Myanmar's elections was not unexpected, says a human rights expert.
Writing in Britain's Daily Telegraph, Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International in the United Kingdom, said: "Ever since the ruling military junta passed the constitution two years ago, the party led by Aung San Suu Kyi has been trapped between a rock and a hard place. The new election laws passed just a few weeks ago appear to have been the final straw."
The National League for Democracy, led by the 64-year-old Suu Kyi, announced Monday it will stay out of the elections because of restrictions issued by the ruling junta. Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for most of the past two decades and cannot take part in the elections.
Suu Kyi's NLD won a huge victory in the previous elections in 1990, but the military rulers never accepted the results.
Allen said the NLD's decision to stay out of the election may have cost the party a chance to have some influence in the day-to-day running of Myanmar.
"On the other hand, had they participated the NLD would risk adding legitimacy to a constitution and a process Amnesty International firmly believes to be flawed."
Allen wrote that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had been dismayed by the election process, even before the NLD decision.
The situation in Myanmar is bleak and the junta's election laws "hint at further repression to come," but there remains hope with the elections planned, Allen wrote.
Published: March. 30, 2010 at 7:07 AM
YANGON, Myanmar, March 30 (UPI) -- The decision by the party of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi to boycott Myanmar's elections was not unexpected, says a human rights expert.
Writing in Britain's Daily Telegraph, Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International in the United Kingdom, said: "Ever since the ruling military junta passed the constitution two years ago, the party led by Aung San Suu Kyi has been trapped between a rock and a hard place. The new election laws passed just a few weeks ago appear to have been the final straw."
The National League for Democracy, led by the 64-year-old Suu Kyi, announced Monday it will stay out of the elections because of restrictions issued by the ruling junta. Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for most of the past two decades and cannot take part in the elections.
Suu Kyi's NLD won a huge victory in the previous elections in 1990, but the military rulers never accepted the results.
Allen said the NLD's decision to stay out of the election may have cost the party a chance to have some influence in the day-to-day running of Myanmar.
"On the other hand, had they participated the NLD would risk adding legitimacy to a constitution and a process Amnesty International firmly believes to be flawed."
Allen wrote that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had been dismayed by the election process, even before the NLD decision.
The situation in Myanmar is bleak and the junta's election laws "hint at further repression to come," but there remains hope with the elections planned, Allen wrote.
********************************************************
EarthTimes - ANALYSIS:Myanmar's election run-up gives scant hope for change
Posted : Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:06:48 GMT
Yangon - The withdrawal of the National League for Democracy (NLD) opposition party from an election planned this year has added to the perception that the polls would bring no change to Myanmar's political landscape, other than in the clothing of the generals who run the country. Myanmar, which has been under military dictatorships since 1962, last held an election in 1990. Those polls were won handsomely by the NLD, which secured 85 per cent of the parliamentary seats and more than 60 per cent of the popular vote against more than 200 contesting parties.
The landslide victory was attributed largely to the tremendous popularity of NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of Myanmar independence hero Aung San and a courageous critic of the military establishment.
Myanmar's ruling junta has had two decades to make sure the NLD would not win again.
Over that period, it has blocked the NLD from power and jailed hundreds of elected NLD members of parliament, including Suu Kyi, who has spent 14 of the past 21 years under house arrest. It also drafted a pro-military constitution that was endorsed by a 2008 referendum, which was criticized internationally as a sham. Most recently, it passed election laws that appeared designed to destroy the NLD as a political force.
The newly enacted Party Registration Law, for instance, specified that people currently serving prison terms are not allowed to be members of political parties. That clause would effectively force the NLD to expel its leader if it wishes to contest the polls because Suu Kyi is now serving her latest sentence, an 18-month house detention term, which is expected to expire in November.
On Monday, the NLD executive committee decided not to register to contest the polls, which means the party would soon cease to exist as a legal entity.
"If we stand for elections without Aung San Suu Kyi, we will not get any votes, so the NLD would go down the drain anyway," NLD deputy leader Tin Oo told the German Press Agency dpa.
Myanmar's junta chief, Senior General Than Shwe, was no doubt pleased to have the NLD out of the way on his seven-step road map to "discipline-flourishing" democracy.
The regime was expected to transform its Union Solidarity and Development Association, a pro-junta mass movement that claims to have 26 million members out of Myanmar's population of 57 million, into a political party soon.
With the NLD out of the picture, there are few other serious contenders against a handful of pro-junta parties in this year's election, a date for which has not yet been set.
"Most of the new parties seem to have rather old leaders and not many members," said one Western diplomat who asked to remain anonymous. "It's difficult to imagine them waging an effective election campaign."
One such party, the soon-to-be-registered Union Democratic Alliance, is led by 88-year-old Shwe Ohn, an ethnic Shan whose Democratic Party for the Shan State Nationalities contested and lost the 1990 polls.
Shwe Ohn is realistic about his prospects this time round.
"The military have the power, they have the money and they have been mobilizing for the election for more than a year now," Shwe Ohn said. Despite the odds and his advanced age, Shwe Ohn said he is determined to join the fray again.
"Anything can happen if you live long enough," he said.
One worry for the military this election season remained the ethnic minority groups, several of whom have refused to comply with the junta's demand to transform their armies into border forces under the army's control before the polls.
In August, after the Kokang group refused to change its small army into a border force, the Myanmar military invaded its territory, sending 40,000 refugees fleeing into neighbouring China.
But the military might have second thoughts about invading territory under the control of the Wa, which claims an army of 20,000. But the lack of a solution was not expected to derail the election.
"The military could decide to label these areas security threats, so there will be no election held there," one diplomat said. "The pro-junta parties are not likely to do well in these regions anyway."
Given the non-participation of the NLD and probable non-participation of many ethnic minority parties, voter boycotts of the election were expected.
This too might serve the junta well, judging by its deft handling of the May 2008 national referendum on the military-drafted constitution.
Ninety-eight per cent of the voters supposedly approved the highly unpopular charter, a dubious result and a warning about the likely freeness and fairness of the 2010 polls.
"They will exchange their military uniforms for politicians' suits," Tin Oo predicted.
Posted : Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:06:48 GMT
Yangon - The withdrawal of the National League for Democracy (NLD) opposition party from an election planned this year has added to the perception that the polls would bring no change to Myanmar's political landscape, other than in the clothing of the generals who run the country. Myanmar, which has been under military dictatorships since 1962, last held an election in 1990. Those polls were won handsomely by the NLD, which secured 85 per cent of the parliamentary seats and more than 60 per cent of the popular vote against more than 200 contesting parties.
The landslide victory was attributed largely to the tremendous popularity of NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of Myanmar independence hero Aung San and a courageous critic of the military establishment.
Myanmar's ruling junta has had two decades to make sure the NLD would not win again.
Over that period, it has blocked the NLD from power and jailed hundreds of elected NLD members of parliament, including Suu Kyi, who has spent 14 of the past 21 years under house arrest. It also drafted a pro-military constitution that was endorsed by a 2008 referendum, which was criticized internationally as a sham. Most recently, it passed election laws that appeared designed to destroy the NLD as a political force.
The newly enacted Party Registration Law, for instance, specified that people currently serving prison terms are not allowed to be members of political parties. That clause would effectively force the NLD to expel its leader if it wishes to contest the polls because Suu Kyi is now serving her latest sentence, an 18-month house detention term, which is expected to expire in November.
On Monday, the NLD executive committee decided not to register to contest the polls, which means the party would soon cease to exist as a legal entity.
"If we stand for elections without Aung San Suu Kyi, we will not get any votes, so the NLD would go down the drain anyway," NLD deputy leader Tin Oo told the German Press Agency dpa.
Myanmar's junta chief, Senior General Than Shwe, was no doubt pleased to have the NLD out of the way on his seven-step road map to "discipline-flourishing" democracy.
The regime was expected to transform its Union Solidarity and Development Association, a pro-junta mass movement that claims to have 26 million members out of Myanmar's population of 57 million, into a political party soon.
With the NLD out of the picture, there are few other serious contenders against a handful of pro-junta parties in this year's election, a date for which has not yet been set.
"Most of the new parties seem to have rather old leaders and not many members," said one Western diplomat who asked to remain anonymous. "It's difficult to imagine them waging an effective election campaign."
One such party, the soon-to-be-registered Union Democratic Alliance, is led by 88-year-old Shwe Ohn, an ethnic Shan whose Democratic Party for the Shan State Nationalities contested and lost the 1990 polls.
Shwe Ohn is realistic about his prospects this time round.
"The military have the power, they have the money and they have been mobilizing for the election for more than a year now," Shwe Ohn said. Despite the odds and his advanced age, Shwe Ohn said he is determined to join the fray again.
"Anything can happen if you live long enough," he said.
One worry for the military this election season remained the ethnic minority groups, several of whom have refused to comply with the junta's demand to transform their armies into border forces under the army's control before the polls.
In August, after the Kokang group refused to change its small army into a border force, the Myanmar military invaded its territory, sending 40,000 refugees fleeing into neighbouring China.
But the military might have second thoughts about invading territory under the control of the Wa, which claims an army of 20,000. But the lack of a solution was not expected to derail the election.
"The military could decide to label these areas security threats, so there will be no election held there," one diplomat said. "The pro-junta parties are not likely to do well in these regions anyway."
Given the non-participation of the NLD and probable non-participation of many ethnic minority parties, voter boycotts of the election were expected.
This too might serve the junta well, judging by its deft handling of the May 2008 national referendum on the military-drafted constitution.
Ninety-eight per cent of the voters supposedly approved the highly unpopular charter, a dubious result and a warning about the likely freeness and fairness of the 2010 polls.
"They will exchange their military uniforms for politicians' suits," Tin Oo predicted.
********************************************************
New York Times - Myanmar Opposition Party's Vote Boycott Angers Some
Published: March 30, 2010
YANGON (Reuters) - An election boycott by democracy icon Aung San Suu Ki's party is a gamble that could backfire, some Burmese in Myanmar's largest city said on Tuesday, though others backed the move.
Members of the National League for Democracy party (NLD) voted unanimously on Monday to skip the country's first election in two decades to send out a strong message that the army-orchestrated political process was "unjust" and "unfair.
But some said an opt-out by democracy's brightest ray of hope in the junta-ruled country was foolhardy and played into the hands of power-hungry generals.
"I'm so sorry the NLD used their hearts, not their heads. It was an irretrievable policy blunder," said a high school headmaster in Yangon.
"The whole nation will regret this. It shows the NLD are not qualified politicians. They lack the guts to go ahead without Aung San Suu Kyi."
Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who has been detained for 15 of the past 21 years because of her pro-democracy fight, said last week she "would not dream" of registering the NLD for the election. She insisted her comment was not an instruction to NLD members ahead of a party vote on the issue.
Election laws announced this month had angered the NLD, because they prevented political detainees from running in the election. Many of the NLD's most prominent members, including Suu Kyi, are behind bars.
WHAT CHOICE LEFT?
Some believed there was no chance of any move towards genuine democratic reform now the NLD had decided against registering. The party faces dissolution for not running in the much-derided polls that critics say aim to legitimise a military dictatorship.
"They should have decided to run in the elections even without Aung San Suu Kyi and just focussed on making the elections free and fair," said a retired university professor.
"I doubt the NLD will be able to carry out any political activities after its dissolution. They could have tried to include her in the party after her release," he said.
Yangon resident Kyaw Win, 65, believed the laws were unfair but criticised the NLD for rejecting a rare chance to become a stakeholder in the country's future.
"Everybody would have voted for the NLD, with or without Aung San Suu Kyi. We all know this party is hers," he said.
Fruit stall owner Than Than, 42, said he fully supported the boycott, but admitted there were few options remaining for the Burmese people now that the only viable alternative to army rule was out of the equation.
"I couldn't agree with the NLD's decision more," he said. "But I just don't know who to vote for now in upcoming elections without the NLD."
Published: March 30, 2010
YANGON (Reuters) - An election boycott by democracy icon Aung San Suu Ki's party is a gamble that could backfire, some Burmese in Myanmar's largest city said on Tuesday, though others backed the move.
Members of the National League for Democracy party (NLD) voted unanimously on Monday to skip the country's first election in two decades to send out a strong message that the army-orchestrated political process was "unjust" and "unfair.
But some said an opt-out by democracy's brightest ray of hope in the junta-ruled country was foolhardy and played into the hands of power-hungry generals.
"I'm so sorry the NLD used their hearts, not their heads. It was an irretrievable policy blunder," said a high school headmaster in Yangon.
"The whole nation will regret this. It shows the NLD are not qualified politicians. They lack the guts to go ahead without Aung San Suu Kyi."
Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who has been detained for 15 of the past 21 years because of her pro-democracy fight, said last week she "would not dream" of registering the NLD for the election. She insisted her comment was not an instruction to NLD members ahead of a party vote on the issue.
Election laws announced this month had angered the NLD, because they prevented political detainees from running in the election. Many of the NLD's most prominent members, including Suu Kyi, are behind bars.
WHAT CHOICE LEFT?
Some believed there was no chance of any move towards genuine democratic reform now the NLD had decided against registering. The party faces dissolution for not running in the much-derided polls that critics say aim to legitimise a military dictatorship.
"They should have decided to run in the elections even without Aung San Suu Kyi and just focussed on making the elections free and fair," said a retired university professor.
"I doubt the NLD will be able to carry out any political activities after its dissolution. They could have tried to include her in the party after her release," he said.
Yangon resident Kyaw Win, 65, believed the laws were unfair but criticised the NLD for rejecting a rare chance to become a stakeholder in the country's future.
"Everybody would have voted for the NLD, with or without Aung San Suu Kyi. We all know this party is hers," he said.
Fruit stall owner Than Than, 42, said he fully supported the boycott, but admitted there were few options remaining for the Burmese people now that the only viable alternative to army rule was out of the equation.
"I couldn't agree with the NLD's decision more," he said. "But I just don't know who to vote for now in upcoming elections without the NLD."
********************************************************
Hoa Sen Group eyes investment in Myanmar
15:47' 30/03/2010 (GMT+7)
VietNamNet Bridge – Binh Duong-based steel-maker Hoa Sen Group will invest about US$300 million into its first overseas investment project in Myanmar next year, primarily to manufacture corrugated iron, steel and construction materials.
The plan was approved at a shareholders meeting held in the city on Saturday. The US$300 million project will be completed in four phases. The first phase will cost US$10-30 million.
Representatives from Hoa Sen Group and several other Vietnamese companies will accompany the Prime Minister on an official visit to Myanmar to sign a memorandum of understanding concerning the project with the country's Ministry of Industry. The group will also establish a representative office in Myanmar's capital.
According to Hoa Sen Group's board of directors, the potential market in Myanmar, with support from the two governments, will create favorable conditions for the project.
The group has already visited Myanmar to gauge investment opportunities. Le Phuoc Vu, the group's chairman and general director, said that Myanmar was a good match for Hoa Sen Group's products. He added that Myanmar's government would create favorable conditions for Vietnamese businesses to invest in areas that will benefit both sides.
Hoa Sen Group began exporting to Myanmar in October last year with great success, according to the group.
At the meeting, shareholders also approved the second phase of the Hoa Sen-Phu My corrugated steel mill project, worth VND850 billion, in the southern province of Ba Ria-Vung Tau. The project's first phase worth VND2,231 billion will be finished this year.
The first phase project includes South East Asia's first Non-Oxidization Furnace (NFO) technology steel-plating assembly line, with a 450,000 ton annual capacity as well as a color-plating assembly line which will produce 180,000 tons per year. The group will also build five steel coolant-laminating assembly lines with a one million ton annual capacity.
The group's new steel mill at Phu My 1 Industrial Park, also in Ba Ria-Vung Tau, produced its first hot-rolled galvanized iron coils, using its new non-oxidizing furnace technology, mid this month.
The mill will meet the domestic market's demand for thick-coated high-quality steel products. Hoa Sen Group expects its 15,000 to 20,000 tons monthly production will boost the group's revenue to nearly VND5 trillion in the fiscal year 2009-2010. "The group will increase its galvanized iron export proportion to 20-30% of output instead of the current 4% of total production," Vu said.
The group received credit worth VND450 billion from Vietcombank's Binh Duong and Vung Tau branches and Eximbank's Binh Duong branch.
Hoa Sen Group issued nearly 12 million shares worth VND538 billion to STIC Investments (Korea), FPT Securities Joint Stock Company and Bong Sen Fund Management Co. in early March in a bid to mobilize capital for the Hoa Sen-Phu My project.
The group's sales reached VND2,831 billion with a VND189 billion net profit in the 2008-2009 fiscal year. This fiscal year, they aim to reach VND5,000 billion in sales and VND520 billion in net profits - a 76% and 175% increase respectively compared with last year.
In the past four months, the group has made VND1,428 billion in sales and VND185 billion in net profits, 29% and 36% of its target respectively.
15:47' 30/03/2010 (GMT+7)
VietNamNet Bridge – Binh Duong-based steel-maker Hoa Sen Group will invest about US$300 million into its first overseas investment project in Myanmar next year, primarily to manufacture corrugated iron, steel and construction materials.
The plan was approved at a shareholders meeting held in the city on Saturday. The US$300 million project will be completed in four phases. The first phase will cost US$10-30 million.
Representatives from Hoa Sen Group and several other Vietnamese companies will accompany the Prime Minister on an official visit to Myanmar to sign a memorandum of understanding concerning the project with the country's Ministry of Industry. The group will also establish a representative office in Myanmar's capital.
According to Hoa Sen Group's board of directors, the potential market in Myanmar, with support from the two governments, will create favorable conditions for the project.
The group has already visited Myanmar to gauge investment opportunities. Le Phuoc Vu, the group's chairman and general director, said that Myanmar was a good match for Hoa Sen Group's products. He added that Myanmar's government would create favorable conditions for Vietnamese businesses to invest in areas that will benefit both sides.
Hoa Sen Group began exporting to Myanmar in October last year with great success, according to the group.
At the meeting, shareholders also approved the second phase of the Hoa Sen-Phu My corrugated steel mill project, worth VND850 billion, in the southern province of Ba Ria-Vung Tau. The project's first phase worth VND2,231 billion will be finished this year.
The first phase project includes South East Asia's first Non-Oxidization Furnace (NFO) technology steel-plating assembly line, with a 450,000 ton annual capacity as well as a color-plating assembly line which will produce 180,000 tons per year. The group will also build five steel coolant-laminating assembly lines with a one million ton annual capacity.
The group's new steel mill at Phu My 1 Industrial Park, also in Ba Ria-Vung Tau, produced its first hot-rolled galvanized iron coils, using its new non-oxidizing furnace technology, mid this month.
The mill will meet the domestic market's demand for thick-coated high-quality steel products. Hoa Sen Group expects its 15,000 to 20,000 tons monthly production will boost the group's revenue to nearly VND5 trillion in the fiscal year 2009-2010. "The group will increase its galvanized iron export proportion to 20-30% of output instead of the current 4% of total production," Vu said.
The group received credit worth VND450 billion from Vietcombank's Binh Duong and Vung Tau branches and Eximbank's Binh Duong branch.
Hoa Sen Group issued nearly 12 million shares worth VND538 billion to STIC Investments (Korea), FPT Securities Joint Stock Company and Bong Sen Fund Management Co. in early March in a bid to mobilize capital for the Hoa Sen-Phu My project.
The group's sales reached VND2,831 billion with a VND189 billion net profit in the 2008-2009 fiscal year. This fiscal year, they aim to reach VND5,000 billion in sales and VND520 billion in net profits - a 76% and 175% increase respectively compared with last year.
In the past four months, the group has made VND1,428 billion in sales and VND185 billion in net profits, 29% and 36% of its target respectively.
********************************************************
ABC Online - Burma elections cannot be free or fair: Smith
By Washington correspondent Kim Landers and staff
Posted Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:50am AEDT
Australia's Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith, says elections in Burma cannot be considered free or fair if the opposition party is not involved.
The National League for Democracy (NLD) says it will not take part in Burma's first poll in two decades, citing unjust electoral laws.
The laws recently announced by the ruling junta require the NLD to expel detained leader Aung San Suu Kyi because she has a criminal record.
Mr Smith says the NLD has been put in a very difficult position.
"But unless something fundamental or substantial changes, regrettably I think it does put paid to what slim prospects we had, hopeful prospects we had earlier this year that we might make some progress on the democracy front in Burma," he said.
Meanwhile, the United States is blaming Burma's military rulers for the opposition's decision to boycott this year's elections.
The US has criticised the law and described the situation in Burma as "disappointing".
However, state department spokesman PJ Crowley says the US will maintain its policy of trying to engage with Burma despite its failure to persuade the country's military leaders to change course on the election.
By Washington correspondent Kim Landers and staff
Posted Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:50am AEDT
Australia's Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith, says elections in Burma cannot be considered free or fair if the opposition party is not involved.
The National League for Democracy (NLD) says it will not take part in Burma's first poll in two decades, citing unjust electoral laws.
The laws recently announced by the ruling junta require the NLD to expel detained leader Aung San Suu Kyi because she has a criminal record.
Mr Smith says the NLD has been put in a very difficult position.
"But unless something fundamental or substantial changes, regrettably I think it does put paid to what slim prospects we had, hopeful prospects we had earlier this year that we might make some progress on the democracy front in Burma," he said.
Meanwhile, the United States is blaming Burma's military rulers for the opposition's decision to boycott this year's elections.
The US has criticised the law and described the situation in Burma as "disappointing".
However, state department spokesman PJ Crowley says the US will maintain its policy of trying to engage with Burma despite its failure to persuade the country's military leaders to change course on the election.
********************************************************
Washington Post - Decision time in Burma for democracy's advocates
By U Win Tin
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Burma's military regime has forced our party, the National League for Democracy, to make a tough decision on whether we will continue to operate legally.
The ruling generals, known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), issued a set of unjust electoral laws this month that threatened to abolish our party if we did not re-register at the election commission within 60 days.
We know the cruel nature of the regime. We did not expect the electoral laws it established would offer a semblance of fairness. But we also did not expect that the regime would use its laws to remove our leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and all political prisoners from the political process. Once again the regime has defied the will of the people of Burma and the international community by disregarding their call for transparent, free and fair elections that include all parties.
The Political Party Registration Law bans all political prisoners from participating in elections by voting and contesting, forming a political party, or joining a party. Parties must make sure that political prisoners are not included in their membership and must pledge in writing that they will obey and protect the country's constitution and abide by its election laws. They are also required to participate in the election. Failure to comply with these restrictions will lead to abolishment of the party.
For me, the decision was simple: No. We cannot expel Aung San Suu Kyi and others who are or have been imprisoned under this corrupt and unfair legal system. Without them, our party would be nothing. They are in prison because of their belief in democracy and the rule of law. Their immediate release and participation in Burma's political process are necessary for a credible democratic process.
We do not accept the regime's unilaterally drafted constitution, designed to legalize permanent military dictatorship. The referendum to ratify this constitution was conducted on the heels of Cyclone Nargis in 2008; it was "approved" by force and fraud. Our objective is to reject this sham constitution and create one that will guarantee democracy, human rights, justice, the rule of law and equality among all ethnic nationalities through an all-inclusive, genuine political dialogue. We cannot pledge to obey the sham constitution. True democracy will not come from this process.
It is not easy to make such a decision for an organization. Aung San Suu Kyi said she would "not even think" of registering her party for the polls. Yet as a leader who believes in democracy, she stressed that she would let the party decide for itself. On Monday, all of my colleagues agreed to confront these injustices together.
Some believe that the continued legal status of our party is more important. If our party is not legal, the thinking goes, how can we work for the people of Burma? The United Nations and some countries have asked the regime to change these unfair laws and to allow Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners to participate in the election.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a meeting of his "Group of Friends on Myanmar" to discuss the situation in Burma. We have also heard that the U.S. government is "closely considering" the recent report and recommendations made by U.N. Special Rapporteur Tomás Ojea Quintana, including his suggestion that the United Nations establish a "commission of inquiry" to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity in our country. This latent support from international voices may not be enough. My colleagues may have justifiable concerns that international voices and statements are not complemented by effective measures to change Burma's political crisis.
Our party was born out of the 1988 popular democracy uprising with the noble intention to carry out the unfinished work of those who sacrificed their lives for freedom, justice and democracy.
We won a landslide victory in the 1990 election and have been the leader of Burma's democracy movement for more than two decades. But because we refuse to bow to these unjust election "laws," our party will be abolished by the regime soon. Still, the NLD will not disappear. We will be among the people, with the people. We will continue to fight for democracy, human rights and equality among all ethnic nationalities, by peaceful means.
I hope the international community will stand with us. The governments of the world should declare that they reject the regime's election and prearranged outcome, and pressure the regime to make substantive and positive change for Burma, beginning with the immediate release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and the cessation of the regime's military campaign against ethnic minorities. The regime should negotiate with Burma's democracy forces, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and ethnic representatives for a peaceful solution toward national reconciliation and true democracy.
U Win Tin is a member of the Central Executive Committee and a founder of Burma's National League for Democracy party. He was a political prisoner from 1989 to 2008.
By U Win Tin
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Burma's military regime has forced our party, the National League for Democracy, to make a tough decision on whether we will continue to operate legally.
The ruling generals, known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), issued a set of unjust electoral laws this month that threatened to abolish our party if we did not re-register at the election commission within 60 days.
We know the cruel nature of the regime. We did not expect the electoral laws it established would offer a semblance of fairness. But we also did not expect that the regime would use its laws to remove our leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and all political prisoners from the political process. Once again the regime has defied the will of the people of Burma and the international community by disregarding their call for transparent, free and fair elections that include all parties.
The Political Party Registration Law bans all political prisoners from participating in elections by voting and contesting, forming a political party, or joining a party. Parties must make sure that political prisoners are not included in their membership and must pledge in writing that they will obey and protect the country's constitution and abide by its election laws. They are also required to participate in the election. Failure to comply with these restrictions will lead to abolishment of the party.
For me, the decision was simple: No. We cannot expel Aung San Suu Kyi and others who are or have been imprisoned under this corrupt and unfair legal system. Without them, our party would be nothing. They are in prison because of their belief in democracy and the rule of law. Their immediate release and participation in Burma's political process are necessary for a credible democratic process.
We do not accept the regime's unilaterally drafted constitution, designed to legalize permanent military dictatorship. The referendum to ratify this constitution was conducted on the heels of Cyclone Nargis in 2008; it was "approved" by force and fraud. Our objective is to reject this sham constitution and create one that will guarantee democracy, human rights, justice, the rule of law and equality among all ethnic nationalities through an all-inclusive, genuine political dialogue. We cannot pledge to obey the sham constitution. True democracy will not come from this process.
It is not easy to make such a decision for an organization. Aung San Suu Kyi said she would "not even think" of registering her party for the polls. Yet as a leader who believes in democracy, she stressed that she would let the party decide for itself. On Monday, all of my colleagues agreed to confront these injustices together.
Some believe that the continued legal status of our party is more important. If our party is not legal, the thinking goes, how can we work for the people of Burma? The United Nations and some countries have asked the regime to change these unfair laws and to allow Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners to participate in the election.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a meeting of his "Group of Friends on Myanmar" to discuss the situation in Burma. We have also heard that the U.S. government is "closely considering" the recent report and recommendations made by U.N. Special Rapporteur Tomás Ojea Quintana, including his suggestion that the United Nations establish a "commission of inquiry" to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity in our country. This latent support from international voices may not be enough. My colleagues may have justifiable concerns that international voices and statements are not complemented by effective measures to change Burma's political crisis.
Our party was born out of the 1988 popular democracy uprising with the noble intention to carry out the unfinished work of those who sacrificed their lives for freedom, justice and democracy.
We won a landslide victory in the 1990 election and have been the leader of Burma's democracy movement for more than two decades. But because we refuse to bow to these unjust election "laws," our party will be abolished by the regime soon. Still, the NLD will not disappear. We will be among the people, with the people. We will continue to fight for democracy, human rights and equality among all ethnic nationalities, by peaceful means.
I hope the international community will stand with us. The governments of the world should declare that they reject the regime's election and prearranged outcome, and pressure the regime to make substantive and positive change for Burma, beginning with the immediate release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and the cessation of the regime's military campaign against ethnic minorities. The regime should negotiate with Burma's democracy forces, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and ethnic representatives for a peaceful solution toward national reconciliation and true democracy.
U Win Tin is a member of the Central Executive Committee and a founder of Burma's National League for Democracy party. He was a political prisoner from 1989 to 2008.
********************************************************
S’pore says not too late for all parties to reach compromise in Myanmar polls
Channel NewsAsia - 2 hours 57 minutes ago
SINGAPORE: Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has expressed disappointment over the announcement by the National League for Democracy that it will not register to participate in the forthcoming elections in Myanmar.
An MFA spokesman said in a statement: "We are disappointed that the new election laws have led to this result. This will make it harder for national reconciliation to be achieved."
The spokesman said Singapore has always held that national reconciliation among the stakeholders is a critical element for the legitimacy of the elections, and this would require the participation of the National League for Democracy and other political parties.
"It is still not too late for all parties to reach a compromise and we urge them to do so," the spokesman said.
Channel NewsAsia - 2 hours 57 minutes ago
SINGAPORE: Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has expressed disappointment over the announcement by the National League for Democracy that it will not register to participate in the forthcoming elections in Myanmar.
An MFA spokesman said in a statement: "We are disappointed that the new election laws have led to this result. This will make it harder for national reconciliation to be achieved."
The spokesman said Singapore has always held that national reconciliation among the stakeholders is a critical element for the legitimacy of the elections, and this would require the participation of the National League for Democracy and other political parties.
"It is still not too late for all parties to reach a compromise and we urge them to do so," the spokesman said.
********************************************************
The National Interest - Nuclear Rangoon
by Doug Bandow
03.30.2010
For years the West has treated Burma as primarily a humanitarian crisis. Now the issue is complicated by evidence that the ruling junta is interested in nuclear energy, and perhaps even in nuclear weapons. Still, the idea of an atomic arsenal in Rangoon is both distant and far-fetched. The more immediate challenge for Washington is dealing with one of the most repressive regimes ruling over one of the poorest peoples. The United States should promote more democratic governance and increased international engagement, which ultimately would reduce any incentive for Burma, also known as Myanmar, to consider atomic options.
Burma has suffered under military rule for five decades. The junta foolishly held an election in 1990, which was won overwhelmingly by Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy. The regime voided the poll and arrested numerous democracy activists. The so-called State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has brutally suppressed human rights ever since. Suu Kyi, a Nobel Prize Laureate, has spent decades under house arrest. The SPDC now is preparing to hold elections organized to ensure permanent military control.
Promised autonomy by the British, ethnic groups like the Karen, Karenni, Chin, Shan, Kachin, and Wa long have battled the central government. Fighting in the nation’s east has killed and injured tens of thousands, forced hundreds of thousand to flee over the border into Thailand, and displaced millions more within Burma.
In recent years the regime has reached cease-fire agreements with several groups, but basic political issues remain unresolved and tensions have been rising. The government is pressing groups to disarm and disband, without offering any political protections. Karen National Union General Secretary Zipporah Sein warns that there is the “greatest possibility of renewed conflict.” The Burmese army and ethnic forces are preparing for renewed hostilities.
In 2008 Cyclone Nargis ravaged Burma, killing an estimated 140,000 people and leaving more than three million homeless. The country remains desperately poor, with a per capita GDP estimated to run no more than $1,200. Yet this tragically misgoverned and impoverished nation has been accused of developing nuclear weapons.
Last year the Sydney Morning Herald reported: “Rumors have swirled around refugee circles outside Burma about secret military installations, tunnels dug into the mountains to hide nuclear facilities, the establishment of a ‘nuclear battalion’ in the army and work done by foreign scientists.”
Defectors cite plans to construct nuclear bombs. Last year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced concern over possible nuclear cooperation between North Korea and Burma.
Discerning the SPDC’s capabilities and intentions is not easy. After all, the fanciful claims of Ahmed Chalabi’s famed defector, “Curveball,” helped justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Author Catherine Collins acknowledges that “the evidence of malfeasance so far is slight” but worries that similar whispers of Israeli nuclear activity in the 1950s turned out to be accurate.
In fact, Burmese interest in nuclear power runs back decades. That does not, however, mean the regime has an interest in developing nuclear weapons.
Burma is a most unlikely nuclear weapons state. It has only about half of North Korea’s per capita GDP. Lack of funds is thought to have held up planned Russian construction of a nuclear research reactor—which would operate under international safeguards.
The regime must spend heavily on the army to suppress domestic protest and ethnic resistance, purposes for which atomic weapons would be useless. And the regime faces no serious outside threats.
What of paranoia and prestige? Author Bertil Lintner contends: “There is no doubt that the Burmese generals would like to have a bomb so that they could challenge the Americans and the rest of the world.” Perhaps, though just being thought to have the possibility of making one might have some deterrent value. And Andrew Selth of the Griffith Asia Institute points to “a siege mentality among Burma’s leaders. Even now, they fear intervention by the United States and its allies—possibly even an invasion—to restore democracy to Burma.” However, he believes that at most “a few Burmese generals envy North Korea’s apparent ability to use its nuclear weapons capabilities to fend off its enemies and win concessions form the international community.”
In fact, the best evidence is against a nuclear weapons program. The Irrawaddy News Magazine cites understandable suspicions, but opines: “It is admittedly premature to conclude that Burma intends to undertake the complicated and perilous process of reprocessing uranium to get weapons-grade plutonium.”
A recent report from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) concluded that Burma:
has no known capabilities that would lend themselves to a nuclear weapons program, apart from limited uranium deposits and some personnel who have received nuclear training overseas. If it is built, a 10 MWt research reactor and associated training from Russia could provide the basis for an eventual civilian nuclear power program, but few of the skills required for such a program are readily transferable to nuclear weapons development. Specialized reprocessing or enrichment facilities would be necessary to produce weapons-usable fissile material, and any attempt to divert plutonium from the reactor is likely to be detected by IAEA inspectors.
Are there secret facilities? Noted a January study from the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C.: the “sheer number of alleged secret sites
posited by these defectors by itself raises doubts about their claims.” North Korea has assisted the SPDC in building tunnels near its new capital of Naypyidaw, but the little available intelligence suggests that they have non-nuclear purposes. Concluded the ISIS: “Despite the public reports to the contrary, the military junta does not appear to be close to establishing a significant nuclear capability. Information suggesting the construction of major nuclear facilities appears unreliable or inconclusive.”
In past years the Singapore government said the possibility was “unlikely” and the British government found no evidence of uranium reprocessing or enrichment. Washington consistently has excluded Burma when discussing nonproliferation issues.
America and other states still have reasons to be watchful and wary. There is no crisis, however. Noted the ISIS: “Because Burma’s known program is so small, the United States and its allies have an opportunity to both engage and pressure the military regime in a manner that would make it extremely difficult for Burma to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, let alone nuclear weapons.”
Unfortunately, the West’s ability to influence the SPDC in any regard is quite limited. The regime places its survival above all other objectives, while the U.S. and EU already apply economic sanctions against Burma. Most of Burma’s neighbors invest in and trade with the regime. Russia and China have blocked UN sanctions; the latter also has helped arm the junta. Regime change obviously is desirable for the people of Burma as well as Western governments, but if the junta believes that it faces a military threat—one reason it apparently rejected American cyclone aid sent via U.S. warships—it is likely to be less willing to consider political reform and more willing to pursue a nuclear weapons program. Thus, Washington should seek to reduce the junta’s fears.
Andrew Selth makes a reasonable argument that the “aggressive rhetoric, open support for opposition figures, funding for expatriate groups and military interventions in other undemocratic countries have all encouraged the belief among Burma’s leaders that the America and its allies are bent on forcible regime change.” The United States should continue to press for improved human rights, but should demonstrate by word and deed that there are no plans to take military action against Burma. In fact, Selth believes that “the SPDC’s fears of an invasion seem to have diminished in recent years.”
At the same time, America, the EU, Canada, and Australia should together offer to relax trade and diplomatic sanctions if the regime takes steps which genuinely open the political system and reduce ethnic conflict. At the same time, the Western states should encourage India, Japan, South Korea, and the ASEAN states to apply coordinated diplomatic and economic pressure on the SPDC, backed by the threat of imposing targeted sanctions against junta leaders and business partners. The pain should be personalized against decision-makers rather than applied against the entire population. Washington should use the potential, however slim, of a Burmese nuclear program to encourage greater Indian and Russian involvement, in particular.
Both nations routinely resist intervention to promote human rights, but they might be more willing to press for political reform if doing so would reduce the likelihood of nuclear complications.
The United States should similarly engage China. American officials should make the argument that Beijing, too, is harmed by instability in Burma, especially if the latter becomes a nuclear state. China recently was angered by a Burmese military offensive which pushed refugees across its border. Surely Beijing does not want another isolated, unpredictable nuclear weapons state as a neighbor.
Moreover, promoting political change in Burma would enhance China’s international reputation. Washington also should pledge—a promise worth repeating for North Korea—that that United States would not take military advantage of any Burmese liberalization. There would be no American bases, naval deployments, or training missions irrespective of the government.
Burma might not respond positively. Yet in the months after Cyclone Nargis the International Crisis Group reported that “it is possible to work with the military regime on humanitarian issues.” Frank Smithuis of Doctors Without Borders similarly said that “the military at times has actually been quite helpful to us.”
Burma is one of the world’s greatest international tragedies. Nuclear weapons would turn it into one of the greatest international challenges. Unfortunately, current U.S. policy is doing nothing to help the Burmese people. It is time to try a different approach in an attempt to simultaneously aid political liberalization and end talk of a Burmese Bomb.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Reagan, he also is the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance and the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire (Xulon).
by Doug Bandow
03.30.2010
For years the West has treated Burma as primarily a humanitarian crisis. Now the issue is complicated by evidence that the ruling junta is interested in nuclear energy, and perhaps even in nuclear weapons. Still, the idea of an atomic arsenal in Rangoon is both distant and far-fetched. The more immediate challenge for Washington is dealing with one of the most repressive regimes ruling over one of the poorest peoples. The United States should promote more democratic governance and increased international engagement, which ultimately would reduce any incentive for Burma, also known as Myanmar, to consider atomic options.
Burma has suffered under military rule for five decades. The junta foolishly held an election in 1990, which was won overwhelmingly by Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy. The regime voided the poll and arrested numerous democracy activists. The so-called State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has brutally suppressed human rights ever since. Suu Kyi, a Nobel Prize Laureate, has spent decades under house arrest. The SPDC now is preparing to hold elections organized to ensure permanent military control.
Promised autonomy by the British, ethnic groups like the Karen, Karenni, Chin, Shan, Kachin, and Wa long have battled the central government. Fighting in the nation’s east has killed and injured tens of thousands, forced hundreds of thousand to flee over the border into Thailand, and displaced millions more within Burma.
In recent years the regime has reached cease-fire agreements with several groups, but basic political issues remain unresolved and tensions have been rising. The government is pressing groups to disarm and disband, without offering any political protections. Karen National Union General Secretary Zipporah Sein warns that there is the “greatest possibility of renewed conflict.” The Burmese army and ethnic forces are preparing for renewed hostilities.
In 2008 Cyclone Nargis ravaged Burma, killing an estimated 140,000 people and leaving more than three million homeless. The country remains desperately poor, with a per capita GDP estimated to run no more than $1,200. Yet this tragically misgoverned and impoverished nation has been accused of developing nuclear weapons.
Last year the Sydney Morning Herald reported: “Rumors have swirled around refugee circles outside Burma about secret military installations, tunnels dug into the mountains to hide nuclear facilities, the establishment of a ‘nuclear battalion’ in the army and work done by foreign scientists.”
Defectors cite plans to construct nuclear bombs. Last year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced concern over possible nuclear cooperation between North Korea and Burma.
Discerning the SPDC’s capabilities and intentions is not easy. After all, the fanciful claims of Ahmed Chalabi’s famed defector, “Curveball,” helped justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Author Catherine Collins acknowledges that “the evidence of malfeasance so far is slight” but worries that similar whispers of Israeli nuclear activity in the 1950s turned out to be accurate.
In fact, Burmese interest in nuclear power runs back decades. That does not, however, mean the regime has an interest in developing nuclear weapons.
Burma is a most unlikely nuclear weapons state. It has only about half of North Korea’s per capita GDP. Lack of funds is thought to have held up planned Russian construction of a nuclear research reactor—which would operate under international safeguards.
The regime must spend heavily on the army to suppress domestic protest and ethnic resistance, purposes for which atomic weapons would be useless. And the regime faces no serious outside threats.
What of paranoia and prestige? Author Bertil Lintner contends: “There is no doubt that the Burmese generals would like to have a bomb so that they could challenge the Americans and the rest of the world.” Perhaps, though just being thought to have the possibility of making one might have some deterrent value. And Andrew Selth of the Griffith Asia Institute points to “a siege mentality among Burma’s leaders. Even now, they fear intervention by the United States and its allies—possibly even an invasion—to restore democracy to Burma.” However, he believes that at most “a few Burmese generals envy North Korea’s apparent ability to use its nuclear weapons capabilities to fend off its enemies and win concessions form the international community.”
In fact, the best evidence is against a nuclear weapons program. The Irrawaddy News Magazine cites understandable suspicions, but opines: “It is admittedly premature to conclude that Burma intends to undertake the complicated and perilous process of reprocessing uranium to get weapons-grade plutonium.”
A recent report from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) concluded that Burma:
has no known capabilities that would lend themselves to a nuclear weapons program, apart from limited uranium deposits and some personnel who have received nuclear training overseas. If it is built, a 10 MWt research reactor and associated training from Russia could provide the basis for an eventual civilian nuclear power program, but few of the skills required for such a program are readily transferable to nuclear weapons development. Specialized reprocessing or enrichment facilities would be necessary to produce weapons-usable fissile material, and any attempt to divert plutonium from the reactor is likely to be detected by IAEA inspectors.
Are there secret facilities? Noted a January study from the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C.: the “sheer number of alleged secret sites
posited by these defectors by itself raises doubts about their claims.” North Korea has assisted the SPDC in building tunnels near its new capital of Naypyidaw, but the little available intelligence suggests that they have non-nuclear purposes. Concluded the ISIS: “Despite the public reports to the contrary, the military junta does not appear to be close to establishing a significant nuclear capability. Information suggesting the construction of major nuclear facilities appears unreliable or inconclusive.”
In past years the Singapore government said the possibility was “unlikely” and the British government found no evidence of uranium reprocessing or enrichment. Washington consistently has excluded Burma when discussing nonproliferation issues.
America and other states still have reasons to be watchful and wary. There is no crisis, however. Noted the ISIS: “Because Burma’s known program is so small, the United States and its allies have an opportunity to both engage and pressure the military regime in a manner that would make it extremely difficult for Burma to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, let alone nuclear weapons.”
Unfortunately, the West’s ability to influence the SPDC in any regard is quite limited. The regime places its survival above all other objectives, while the U.S. and EU already apply economic sanctions against Burma. Most of Burma’s neighbors invest in and trade with the regime. Russia and China have blocked UN sanctions; the latter also has helped arm the junta. Regime change obviously is desirable for the people of Burma as well as Western governments, but if the junta believes that it faces a military threat—one reason it apparently rejected American cyclone aid sent via U.S. warships—it is likely to be less willing to consider political reform and more willing to pursue a nuclear weapons program. Thus, Washington should seek to reduce the junta’s fears.
Andrew Selth makes a reasonable argument that the “aggressive rhetoric, open support for opposition figures, funding for expatriate groups and military interventions in other undemocratic countries have all encouraged the belief among Burma’s leaders that the America and its allies are bent on forcible regime change.” The United States should continue to press for improved human rights, but should demonstrate by word and deed that there are no plans to take military action against Burma. In fact, Selth believes that “the SPDC’s fears of an invasion seem to have diminished in recent years.”
At the same time, America, the EU, Canada, and Australia should together offer to relax trade and diplomatic sanctions if the regime takes steps which genuinely open the political system and reduce ethnic conflict. At the same time, the Western states should encourage India, Japan, South Korea, and the ASEAN states to apply coordinated diplomatic and economic pressure on the SPDC, backed by the threat of imposing targeted sanctions against junta leaders and business partners. The pain should be personalized against decision-makers rather than applied against the entire population. Washington should use the potential, however slim, of a Burmese nuclear program to encourage greater Indian and Russian involvement, in particular.
Both nations routinely resist intervention to promote human rights, but they might be more willing to press for political reform if doing so would reduce the likelihood of nuclear complications.
The United States should similarly engage China. American officials should make the argument that Beijing, too, is harmed by instability in Burma, especially if the latter becomes a nuclear state. China recently was angered by a Burmese military offensive which pushed refugees across its border. Surely Beijing does not want another isolated, unpredictable nuclear weapons state as a neighbor.
Moreover, promoting political change in Burma would enhance China’s international reputation. Washington also should pledge—a promise worth repeating for North Korea—that that United States would not take military advantage of any Burmese liberalization. There would be no American bases, naval deployments, or training missions irrespective of the government.
Burma might not respond positively. Yet in the months after Cyclone Nargis the International Crisis Group reported that “it is possible to work with the military regime on humanitarian issues.” Frank Smithuis of Doctors Without Borders similarly said that “the military at times has actually been quite helpful to us.”
Burma is one of the world’s greatest international tragedies. Nuclear weapons would turn it into one of the greatest international challenges. Unfortunately, current U.S. policy is doing nothing to help the Burmese people. It is time to try a different approach in an attempt to simultaneously aid political liberalization and end talk of a Burmese Bomb.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Reagan, he also is the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance and the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire (Xulon).
********************************************************
ReliefWeb - Burma: G8 Summit Should Tackle Burma Rights Crisis
Source: Human Rights Watch (HRW)
Date: 25 Mar 2010
Leaders Should Take Collective Stand for Reform Ahead of Polls
RELATED MATERIALS:
Letter to the Foreign Ministers of the G8 on Initiating a Formal Discussion on Burma
(New York) - Members of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations should put Burma on the agenda of the G8 Summit in Toronto in June, Human Rights Watch said in a letter to foreign ministers of G8 countries today. The foreign ministers of G8 countries are meeting March 29 and 30, 2010, in Gatineau, Quebec to discuss major issues affecting international security and finalize the summit's agenda.
Human Rights Watch urged the G8 nations to support a United Nations commission of inquiry to investigate war crimes in Burma, to better coordinate targeted sanctions against the ruling military junta, and to collectively press for reforms in Burma that would make planned 2010 elections credible.
"High-profile leadership from the G8 is urgently needed to convince Burma's military government to protect the rights of its people," said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The G8 summit should take up accountability for war crimes, as well as targeted sanctions. G8 leaders should also press for credible elections to be held this year."
The G8 consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
In the letter, Human Rights Watch calls on G8 nations to support the March 8, 2010 report of UN Special Rapporteur Tomás Ojea Quintana on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. The report asks the UN to consider establishing a commission of inquiry into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Burma. The UN has long documented patterns of systematic and widespread human rights abuses committed with impunity in Burma, including relocation of the civilian population, sexual violence against women and girls, forcible recruitment and use of child soldiers, and the widespread use of torture and extrajudicial killings in conflict zones.
"For too long Burma's military has committed serious abuses against ethnic minorities without any accountability," said Pearson. "The G8 should act on the findings of the UN's independent expert on Burma, and should back an independent inquiry into crimes by all sides."
Human Rights Watch pointed out that several G8 countries have targeted sanctions in place against Burma's military government, but that poor coordination and implementation has made these ineffective. Human Rights Watch urged G8 leaders to increase coordination on targeted financial sanctions against the military leadership and their close business associates. The G8 should also back the imposition of a UN Security Council arms embargo on Burma. An arms embargo would limit the military government's access to weapons technology and infrastructure, and circumscribe Burma's growing military relationship with North Korea and other arms suppliers.
Human Rights Watch said that elections scheduled for this year in Burma are unlikely to be free, fair, and open, or to bring democratic change without concerted international pressure for reform. The 2008 Burmese Constitution contains provisions designed to ensure military dominance in any civilian administration, with reserved seats for serving military officers and reservation of key ministerial portfolios. Electoral laws released in recent weeks are also designed to limit the participation of longstanding opponents of military rule by forcing political parties to expel any members currently serving prison sentences or face de-registration. There are more than 2,100 prisoners currently behind bars in Burma on politically motivated charges.
"G8 leaders should take a collective stand in coordinating sanctions against Burma so they are more effective," said Pearson. "With elections this year, the timing is crucial for the G8 to send a clear message what the military government needs to do to make them credible."
Source: Human Rights Watch (HRW)
Date: 25 Mar 2010
Leaders Should Take Collective Stand for Reform Ahead of Polls
RELATED MATERIALS:
Letter to the Foreign Ministers of the G8 on Initiating a Formal Discussion on Burma
(New York) - Members of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations should put Burma on the agenda of the G8 Summit in Toronto in June, Human Rights Watch said in a letter to foreign ministers of G8 countries today. The foreign ministers of G8 countries are meeting March 29 and 30, 2010, in Gatineau, Quebec to discuss major issues affecting international security and finalize the summit's agenda.
Human Rights Watch urged the G8 nations to support a United Nations commission of inquiry to investigate war crimes in Burma, to better coordinate targeted sanctions against the ruling military junta, and to collectively press for reforms in Burma that would make planned 2010 elections credible.
"High-profile leadership from the G8 is urgently needed to convince Burma's military government to protect the rights of its people," said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The G8 summit should take up accountability for war crimes, as well as targeted sanctions. G8 leaders should also press for credible elections to be held this year."
The G8 consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
In the letter, Human Rights Watch calls on G8 nations to support the March 8, 2010 report of UN Special Rapporteur Tomás Ojea Quintana on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. The report asks the UN to consider establishing a commission of inquiry into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Burma. The UN has long documented patterns of systematic and widespread human rights abuses committed with impunity in Burma, including relocation of the civilian population, sexual violence against women and girls, forcible recruitment and use of child soldiers, and the widespread use of torture and extrajudicial killings in conflict zones.
"For too long Burma's military has committed serious abuses against ethnic minorities without any accountability," said Pearson. "The G8 should act on the findings of the UN's independent expert on Burma, and should back an independent inquiry into crimes by all sides."
Human Rights Watch pointed out that several G8 countries have targeted sanctions in place against Burma's military government, but that poor coordination and implementation has made these ineffective. Human Rights Watch urged G8 leaders to increase coordination on targeted financial sanctions against the military leadership and their close business associates. The G8 should also back the imposition of a UN Security Council arms embargo on Burma. An arms embargo would limit the military government's access to weapons technology and infrastructure, and circumscribe Burma's growing military relationship with North Korea and other arms suppliers.
Human Rights Watch said that elections scheduled for this year in Burma are unlikely to be free, fair, and open, or to bring democratic change without concerted international pressure for reform. The 2008 Burmese Constitution contains provisions designed to ensure military dominance in any civilian administration, with reserved seats for serving military officers and reservation of key ministerial portfolios. Electoral laws released in recent weeks are also designed to limit the participation of longstanding opponents of military rule by forcing political parties to expel any members currently serving prison sentences or face de-registration. There are more than 2,100 prisoners currently behind bars in Burma on politically motivated charges.
"G8 leaders should take a collective stand in coordinating sanctions against Burma so they are more effective," said Pearson. "With elections this year, the timing is crucial for the G8 to send a clear message what the military government needs to do to make them credible."
********************************************************
March 28, 2010
CNN News - Blacklisted: CNN reporter deported from Myanmar – again
Posted by: CNN Correspondent, Dan Rivers Posted: 207 GMT
There can't have been anyone more surprised than me to get a journalist visa for Myanmar since I've had a rather checkered past with the Junta.
The military government has clearly been stung by some of my previous reporting from the country and I understood that I was on the notorious journalist "blacklist," which includes much of the Bangkok, Thailand-based press pack.
Perhaps before I explain what happened this time, I should explain my "past form" with the Junta.
When I first arrived in Bangkok in 2006, I was unknown to them. My first taste of the country many still call Burma, was in 2007 when our CNN team was officially invited to cover Armed Forces Day.
I was struck by the time-warp feeling that envelops you as you walk around the streets of Yangon, bereft of development as a result of Western sanctions, and, arguably the regime's own actions.
We covered the "set-piece" military parade in the new capital Naypyidaw, which felt more like the set of "The Truman Show." We also managed to film in a hospital in a small town outside of Yangon, and the scenes were pitiful and outrageous.
Myanmar spends less on health care than almost any other country on Earth, and it showed. After leaving, I understood that the authorities were incensed by my reporting at the hospital.
Later that year I was unable to report first hand on the pro-democracy rallies, dubbed the Saffron Revolution after the orange gowns of the monks who led the unrest. I was on air constantly from Bangkok, commentating on incredible footage emerging from citizen journalists among the crowds on the streets of Yangon. It would have no doubt further irritated the Junta.
But it was while covering the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis in 2008, that I probably invoked the rage of the generals. CNN was one of the few western TV networks inside the country, and the only one to go live from the Irrawady Delta.
I felt strongly about the appalling scenes I was seeing and the obstruction of the Junta, which was blocking aid from getting to storm-ravaged areas. CNN decided to raise the profile of our coverage by allowing me to report on camera from inside the worst-affected areas.
After several days of playing cat and mouse with the Junta, which had gone so far as distributing my photo to checkpoints to try to catch me, I decided to leave. The Police Special Branch stopped me as I boarded the plane and I was officially deported.
Read: Myanmar's ruler warns against foreign influence
So when I was told I was being given a journalist visa to cover this year's Armed Forces Day I was flabbergasted.
We flew in on the same flight as most of the press pack from Bangkok. All of them managed to breeze through immigration without a hitch, but as soon as I presented my passport, the attitude of the smiling female immigration clerk changed.
Suddenly officials in uniform emerged from an office and took my passport away, urging me to "please wait."
As the minutes ticked by I became ever more pessimistic about my chances of being allowed in. It appeared my name had been "flagged" on their computer system and I was convinced I would be immediately put back on the plane and forced to leave. I was therefore completely wrong-footed when after 45 minutes an officer emerged and gave me my passport saying I was free to go.
We didn't hang around, in case they changed their mind. We spent the afternoon talking to sources, before embarking on the five-hour drive to the remote new capital, Naypyidaw.
Everything went smoothly and our guide seemed confident there would be no problems. We checked into a government-run guest house late Thursday. The next morning we followed our instructions and assembled at the Ministry of Information to get our accreditation for the military parade scheduled for Saturday.
But it soon became clear there was a problem. All of the other journalists received their documents without much of a delay. Finally only a BBC journalist, my cameraman and I remained in the ministry. More than an hour had passed and there was no sign of our accreditation. Then without warning I was asked to go into a room next door for a "meeting."
Inside were four military officers and two special branch policemen. I shook their hands and smiled, handing out my business card, hoping that a sunny disposition would soothe their stern appearance. It didn't. I was brusquely told that I had to leave "immediately."
There was no explanation, no apology and no hanging around. I was ushered to collect my possessions and then taken to a battered station wagon for the long drive back to Yangon International Airport.
The two special branch police officers sat alongside me. An immigration officer was in the front passenger seat, another crammed into the trunk. Throughout our journey, the men were polite and courteous. They asked about my family and where I lived. I was unsure whether I was being gently interrogated or whether this was simply polite conversation to fill the silence.
At the airport I was whisked through immigration and my passport was taken. I sat guarded by an immigration officer for 90 minutes, and then at the last minute I was given back my passport and marched onto the airplane. The entire episode was filmed by the special branch officers.
When I finally breathed a sigh of relief I check my passport. "Deportee" had been stamped alongside my visa; the second time I have been kicked out of the country.
I can only presume the embassy in Bangkok had made a mistake in issuing the visa in the first place.
It is perhaps a microcosm of the mismanagement of the entire country that has been ailing under a military dictatorship since 1962.
Civil servants are terrified of their bosses, and their bosses in turn are paralyzed with fear of the generals above them. Small errors go uncorrected because no one dares to speak out.
It was fairly obvious that my name was on the "blacklist" - perhaps even at the top of it. But once the visa was in my passport, it would require somebody to assert an opinion, which in Myanmar is a dangerous thing to do.
Perhaps someone from the top finally grasped the nettle and ordered me out.
CNN News - Blacklisted: CNN reporter deported from Myanmar – again
Posted by: CNN Correspondent, Dan Rivers Posted: 207 GMT
There can't have been anyone more surprised than me to get a journalist visa for Myanmar since I've had a rather checkered past with the Junta.
The military government has clearly been stung by some of my previous reporting from the country and I understood that I was on the notorious journalist "blacklist," which includes much of the Bangkok, Thailand-based press pack.
Perhaps before I explain what happened this time, I should explain my "past form" with the Junta.
When I first arrived in Bangkok in 2006, I was unknown to them. My first taste of the country many still call Burma, was in 2007 when our CNN team was officially invited to cover Armed Forces Day.
I was struck by the time-warp feeling that envelops you as you walk around the streets of Yangon, bereft of development as a result of Western sanctions, and, arguably the regime's own actions.
We covered the "set-piece" military parade in the new capital Naypyidaw, which felt more like the set of "The Truman Show." We also managed to film in a hospital in a small town outside of Yangon, and the scenes were pitiful and outrageous.
Myanmar spends less on health care than almost any other country on Earth, and it showed. After leaving, I understood that the authorities were incensed by my reporting at the hospital.
Later that year I was unable to report first hand on the pro-democracy rallies, dubbed the Saffron Revolution after the orange gowns of the monks who led the unrest. I was on air constantly from Bangkok, commentating on incredible footage emerging from citizen journalists among the crowds on the streets of Yangon. It would have no doubt further irritated the Junta.
But it was while covering the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis in 2008, that I probably invoked the rage of the generals. CNN was one of the few western TV networks inside the country, and the only one to go live from the Irrawady Delta.
I felt strongly about the appalling scenes I was seeing and the obstruction of the Junta, which was blocking aid from getting to storm-ravaged areas. CNN decided to raise the profile of our coverage by allowing me to report on camera from inside the worst-affected areas.
After several days of playing cat and mouse with the Junta, which had gone so far as distributing my photo to checkpoints to try to catch me, I decided to leave. The Police Special Branch stopped me as I boarded the plane and I was officially deported.
Read: Myanmar's ruler warns against foreign influence
So when I was told I was being given a journalist visa to cover this year's Armed Forces Day I was flabbergasted.
We flew in on the same flight as most of the press pack from Bangkok. All of them managed to breeze through immigration without a hitch, but as soon as I presented my passport, the attitude of the smiling female immigration clerk changed.
Suddenly officials in uniform emerged from an office and took my passport away, urging me to "please wait."
As the minutes ticked by I became ever more pessimistic about my chances of being allowed in. It appeared my name had been "flagged" on their computer system and I was convinced I would be immediately put back on the plane and forced to leave. I was therefore completely wrong-footed when after 45 minutes an officer emerged and gave me my passport saying I was free to go.
We didn't hang around, in case they changed their mind. We spent the afternoon talking to sources, before embarking on the five-hour drive to the remote new capital, Naypyidaw.
Everything went smoothly and our guide seemed confident there would be no problems. We checked into a government-run guest house late Thursday. The next morning we followed our instructions and assembled at the Ministry of Information to get our accreditation for the military parade scheduled for Saturday.
But it soon became clear there was a problem. All of the other journalists received their documents without much of a delay. Finally only a BBC journalist, my cameraman and I remained in the ministry. More than an hour had passed and there was no sign of our accreditation. Then without warning I was asked to go into a room next door for a "meeting."
Inside were four military officers and two special branch policemen. I shook their hands and smiled, handing out my business card, hoping that a sunny disposition would soothe their stern appearance. It didn't. I was brusquely told that I had to leave "immediately."
There was no explanation, no apology and no hanging around. I was ushered to collect my possessions and then taken to a battered station wagon for the long drive back to Yangon International Airport.
The two special branch police officers sat alongside me. An immigration officer was in the front passenger seat, another crammed into the trunk. Throughout our journey, the men were polite and courteous. They asked about my family and where I lived. I was unsure whether I was being gently interrogated or whether this was simply polite conversation to fill the silence.
At the airport I was whisked through immigration and my passport was taken. I sat guarded by an immigration officer for 90 minutes, and then at the last minute I was given back my passport and marched onto the airplane. The entire episode was filmed by the special branch officers.
When I finally breathed a sigh of relief I check my passport. "Deportee" had been stamped alongside my visa; the second time I have been kicked out of the country.
I can only presume the embassy in Bangkok had made a mistake in issuing the visa in the first place.
It is perhaps a microcosm of the mismanagement of the entire country that has been ailing under a military dictatorship since 1962.
Civil servants are terrified of their bosses, and their bosses in turn are paralyzed with fear of the generals above them. Small errors go uncorrected because no one dares to speak out.
It was fairly obvious that my name was on the "blacklist" - perhaps even at the top of it. But once the visa was in my passport, it would require somebody to assert an opinion, which in Myanmar is a dangerous thing to do.
Perhaps someone from the top finally grasped the nettle and ordered me out.
********************************************************
Bangkok Post - Opinion: Suu Kyi throws a spanner in junta's poll plan
Published: 30/03/2010 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News
Senior General Than Shwe is known to be a fan of Chinese movies pertaining to the Shaolin martial arts. Burma's opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, on the other hand, reads books on philosophy and works of world literature. But she has just delivered the junta leader a sidekick worthy of a kung fu master.
According to her lawyer Nyan Win, "Suu Kyi would not even think of registering under these unjust [election] laws." This probably means that leaders of Burma's main opposition party, the National League for Democracy [NLD], will decide not to contest the planned general election.Earlier, Mrs Suu Kyi expressed her unhappiness with the election laws, saying they are unfair because they excluded her and other political prisoners. According to Nyan Win, "She said she did not think the regime would release such a terrible law."
Indeed, the election (or "the only game in town") is in jeopardy as Mrs Suu Kyi's powerful message will influence many faithful members in her party and beyond. Many ordinary Burmese who despise the generals and have little faith in the coming election and the repressive election laws are likely to support Mrs Suu Kyi's stance.
Her message indicates that Mrs Suu Kyi wants to make her stance vis-a-vis the election laws and the planned election crystal clear to regional governments and the international community.
Mrs Suu Kyi knows well that the member governments of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are divided on the issue. The foreign minister of Indonesia is to visit Burma shortly to discuss the election laws with the regime.
Mrs Suu Kyi is also aware that the US administration and other Western governments are closely watching developments within Burma and are keen to know the intentions of Mrs Suu Kyi and her NLD party.
Speaking to the Irrawaddy last week, US Assistant Secretary of State, Kurt Campbell, said: "We are deeply disappointed with the political party law, which excludes all of Burma's more than 2,000 political prisoners from political participation. We are also troubled that the law appears to bar National League for Democracy (NLD) leader Aung San Suu Kyi from running. It may also prohibit her membership in her own party. This is a step in the wrong direction. These laws compound the already oppressive political atmosphere in Burma."
This week, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has invited his "Group of Friends on Burma" and representatives of Security Council countries to a meeting to discuss the regime's election plans.
On the domestic front, Mrs Suu Kyi's message was aimed in two directions.
One target was those NLD leaders who want the party to contest the election; the other was her captors.
The NLD itself faces a split and could divide into two main groups: pro-election and anti-election. Party chairman Aung Shwe and Dr Than Nyein are known to favour participation in the election. Deputy chairman Tin Oo and Win Tin head a number of NLD leaders who oppose the unjust election laws and participation in the election.
Win Tin, 80, who spent 19 years in prison, said, "If the NLD decides not to contest the elections, two things can happen. Either the NLD will cease to be a valid and registered party or the regime will outlaw the party, causing it to lose its identity and party flag. The dignity of the party will increase immensely when we show we are not giving in to the junta's unjust law.
"We will also have a broader space to operate with the public because we will show that the principles the party stands for are more important than its mere existence."
Lawyer and senior NLD member Nyan Win said that Mrs Suu Kyi had been considering her political future and strategy and had been following the international dimension of what was occurring in Burma.
So what is the NLD's future if the party refuses to register for the election? Will the regime outlaw the party or clamp down on its members? If it does so, will the NLD become an underground party?
The NLD has never been able to function as a legal opposition party in the past and Mrs Suu Kyi and like-minded party leaders who oppose the unjust election laws will need a new strategy to keep the party and movement together.
Burma watchers say the NLD could become a kind of social movement rather than a legal political party. Last week Mrs Suu Kyi reportedly told her lawyers that if the imprisoned former student leader Min Ko Naing could fight for democracy in Burma without a political "signpost", she could do the same.
Charismatic Min Ko Naing and several student activists of the "88 Generation Students" group were arrested in 2007 and sentenced to long prison terms.
Knowing fully well that the regime leaders will prevent her anyway from taking part in politics in Burma, the Nobel Peace laureate replied by snubbing the election and election laws.
Perhaps Gen Than Shwe's next step is to drive divisions deeper within the NLD and welcome disgruntled defectors to take part in the election.
But what about Mrs Suu Kyi, hardcore members of her party and her other supporters? The strife will undoubtedly continue. It could indeed prove endless - and endlessly confrontational.
Aung Zaw is founder and editor of the Irrawaddy magazine.
Published: 30/03/2010 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News
Senior General Than Shwe is known to be a fan of Chinese movies pertaining to the Shaolin martial arts. Burma's opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, on the other hand, reads books on philosophy and works of world literature. But she has just delivered the junta leader a sidekick worthy of a kung fu master.
According to her lawyer Nyan Win, "Suu Kyi would not even think of registering under these unjust [election] laws." This probably means that leaders of Burma's main opposition party, the National League for Democracy [NLD], will decide not to contest the planned general election.Earlier, Mrs Suu Kyi expressed her unhappiness with the election laws, saying they are unfair because they excluded her and other political prisoners. According to Nyan Win, "She said she did not think the regime would release such a terrible law."
Indeed, the election (or "the only game in town") is in jeopardy as Mrs Suu Kyi's powerful message will influence many faithful members in her party and beyond. Many ordinary Burmese who despise the generals and have little faith in the coming election and the repressive election laws are likely to support Mrs Suu Kyi's stance.
Her message indicates that Mrs Suu Kyi wants to make her stance vis-a-vis the election laws and the planned election crystal clear to regional governments and the international community.
Mrs Suu Kyi knows well that the member governments of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are divided on the issue. The foreign minister of Indonesia is to visit Burma shortly to discuss the election laws with the regime.
Mrs Suu Kyi is also aware that the US administration and other Western governments are closely watching developments within Burma and are keen to know the intentions of Mrs Suu Kyi and her NLD party.
Speaking to the Irrawaddy last week, US Assistant Secretary of State, Kurt Campbell, said: "We are deeply disappointed with the political party law, which excludes all of Burma's more than 2,000 political prisoners from political participation. We are also troubled that the law appears to bar National League for Democracy (NLD) leader Aung San Suu Kyi from running. It may also prohibit her membership in her own party. This is a step in the wrong direction. These laws compound the already oppressive political atmosphere in Burma."
This week, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has invited his "Group of Friends on Burma" and representatives of Security Council countries to a meeting to discuss the regime's election plans.
On the domestic front, Mrs Suu Kyi's message was aimed in two directions.
One target was those NLD leaders who want the party to contest the election; the other was her captors.
The NLD itself faces a split and could divide into two main groups: pro-election and anti-election. Party chairman Aung Shwe and Dr Than Nyein are known to favour participation in the election. Deputy chairman Tin Oo and Win Tin head a number of NLD leaders who oppose the unjust election laws and participation in the election.
Win Tin, 80, who spent 19 years in prison, said, "If the NLD decides not to contest the elections, two things can happen. Either the NLD will cease to be a valid and registered party or the regime will outlaw the party, causing it to lose its identity and party flag. The dignity of the party will increase immensely when we show we are not giving in to the junta's unjust law.
"We will also have a broader space to operate with the public because we will show that the principles the party stands for are more important than its mere existence."
Lawyer and senior NLD member Nyan Win said that Mrs Suu Kyi had been considering her political future and strategy and had been following the international dimension of what was occurring in Burma.
So what is the NLD's future if the party refuses to register for the election? Will the regime outlaw the party or clamp down on its members? If it does so, will the NLD become an underground party?
The NLD has never been able to function as a legal opposition party in the past and Mrs Suu Kyi and like-minded party leaders who oppose the unjust election laws will need a new strategy to keep the party and movement together.
Burma watchers say the NLD could become a kind of social movement rather than a legal political party. Last week Mrs Suu Kyi reportedly told her lawyers that if the imprisoned former student leader Min Ko Naing could fight for democracy in Burma without a political "signpost", she could do the same.
Charismatic Min Ko Naing and several student activists of the "88 Generation Students" group were arrested in 2007 and sentenced to long prison terms.
Knowing fully well that the regime leaders will prevent her anyway from taking part in politics in Burma, the Nobel Peace laureate replied by snubbing the election and election laws.
Perhaps Gen Than Shwe's next step is to drive divisions deeper within the NLD and welcome disgruntled defectors to take part in the election.
But what about Mrs Suu Kyi, hardcore members of her party and her other supporters? The strife will undoubtedly continue. It could indeed prove endless - and endlessly confrontational.
Aung Zaw is founder and editor of the Irrawaddy magazine.
********************************************************
The Nation - Opinion: Burma's coming poll raises hopes,fears
Published on March 29, 2010
Some see value in even a flawed election, others that it legitimises the junta
There is a growing sense of hopelessness inside Burma and within the international community regarding the future of Burma. The Rangoon junta leaders know full well how the international system operates and the value of its commitment. So, they will go along at certain times and then walk away at another time. The case in point is the on-going US-Burma engagement. Just watch the way the military junta manipulates the US eagerness to make progress in its policy on Burma and non-proliferation.
The junta would not commit another silly mistake by having an inclusive election, as in 1990, when it suffered heavily at the poll. For the past 20 years, the regime has continued to perfect the art of political oppression and pursue unwaveringly its seven-point roadmap over the past five years. The remaining two steps - election and establishment of a new government - would become a reality within this year.
Within Burma, the sentiment of the Burmese people is very mixed. They are people who know how to view the election, albeit deviant and flawed, as an opportunity to change the status quo in Burma. These segments of society want to move on, knowing full well that the regime would try every possible way to stay in power. They hope that an election would allow other non-military candidates or even those who are handpicked by the military junta to represent their votes. Obviously, these groups of people also think that if elected candidates have any political moral and consciousness, they would respond to the voters' needs, transcending all ideological barriers. However, they are concerned that the political space inside, which had been broadened a little during the Nargis cyclone's rehabilitation period, is shutting down again. It would not surprise anyone if the election day is being set after international communities and relief officials leave the country after their assistance contracts expire in June.
At the same time, opponents of a planned election argue that it would provide legitimacy to the pariah regime much needed since 1988. Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of National League of Democracy, has made clear she would not support the election. But she would leave the decision to the party as to participate in it or not. Burmese living in exile obviously have no reason to support the polls.
Internationally, growing pressure on Burma continues. Major players have not coordinated their sanctions very well. The US and European Community continue to be steadfast on the position, other countries are less enthusiastic. China and India continue their shameless zero-sum game in Burma despite growing global condemnation of their affinity towards the regime. Without their common shifts of policy, the Burmese logjam would not be removed. Once again, Asean would be under the world's microscope. Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines have commented on the election laws. Other members continue to be blind over Burma's intransigence. The current chair of Vietnam has yet to say a word or give any indication that the Burmese political crisis and the planned election would top the Asean summit's agenda in Hanoi.
The current effort to bring the junta leaders to the International Criminal Court of Justice for their past activities, which could be treated as crimes against humanity, is gaining momentum. Pressure is building at the United Nations for the establishment of a commission of inquiry to investigate war crimes inside Burma. To succeed, the international community and UN must redouble their effort and commitment. Otherwise, we just have to watch with tears in our eyes as the Burmese crisis unravels.
Published on March 29, 2010
Some see value in even a flawed election, others that it legitimises the junta
There is a growing sense of hopelessness inside Burma and within the international community regarding the future of Burma. The Rangoon junta leaders know full well how the international system operates and the value of its commitment. So, they will go along at certain times and then walk away at another time. The case in point is the on-going US-Burma engagement. Just watch the way the military junta manipulates the US eagerness to make progress in its policy on Burma and non-proliferation.
The junta would not commit another silly mistake by having an inclusive election, as in 1990, when it suffered heavily at the poll. For the past 20 years, the regime has continued to perfect the art of political oppression and pursue unwaveringly its seven-point roadmap over the past five years. The remaining two steps - election and establishment of a new government - would become a reality within this year.
Within Burma, the sentiment of the Burmese people is very mixed. They are people who know how to view the election, albeit deviant and flawed, as an opportunity to change the status quo in Burma. These segments of society want to move on, knowing full well that the regime would try every possible way to stay in power. They hope that an election would allow other non-military candidates or even those who are handpicked by the military junta to represent their votes. Obviously, these groups of people also think that if elected candidates have any political moral and consciousness, they would respond to the voters' needs, transcending all ideological barriers. However, they are concerned that the political space inside, which had been broadened a little during the Nargis cyclone's rehabilitation period, is shutting down again. It would not surprise anyone if the election day is being set after international communities and relief officials leave the country after their assistance contracts expire in June.
At the same time, opponents of a planned election argue that it would provide legitimacy to the pariah regime much needed since 1988. Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of National League of Democracy, has made clear she would not support the election. But she would leave the decision to the party as to participate in it or not. Burmese living in exile obviously have no reason to support the polls.
Internationally, growing pressure on Burma continues. Major players have not coordinated their sanctions very well. The US and European Community continue to be steadfast on the position, other countries are less enthusiastic. China and India continue their shameless zero-sum game in Burma despite growing global condemnation of their affinity towards the regime. Without their common shifts of policy, the Burmese logjam would not be removed. Once again, Asean would be under the world's microscope. Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines have commented on the election laws. Other members continue to be blind over Burma's intransigence. The current chair of Vietnam has yet to say a word or give any indication that the Burmese political crisis and the planned election would top the Asean summit's agenda in Hanoi.
The current effort to bring the junta leaders to the International Criminal Court of Justice for their past activities, which could be treated as crimes against humanity, is gaining momentum. Pressure is building at the United Nations for the establishment of a commission of inquiry to investigate war crimes inside Burma. To succeed, the international community and UN must redouble their effort and commitment. Otherwise, we just have to watch with tears in our eyes as the Burmese crisis unravels.
********************************************************
The Nation - Thailand faces up to non-proliferation challenges
By Kavi Chongkittavorn
Published on March 29, 2010
US PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA issued a last minute invitation to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva recently to attend the Global Nuclear Summit in Washington DC scheduled on 12-13 April. Visiting Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, delivered Obama's letter to Abhisit when he made a courtesy call on 12 March. Abhisit will join over 40 world leaders as Obama's guests to discuss ways to reduce nuclear threats in sustainable ways as well as the control of fissile materials.
It is highly perplexing why Thailand has been included in the summit which is supposed to be the gathering of the world's most powerful nations with nuclear arsenals, as well as developed and developing countries linked to nuclear issues. In the earlier planning meetings, Thailand was not in consideration at all.
Washington's change of heart towards Thailand must have something to do with the latest assessment of the country's strategic location and role, which will soon witness the growing use on nuclear energy.
Within Asean, Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia have already announced plans to build nuclear power plants. Burma is building one now with the assistance of Russia.
Recently, even Singapore's Economic Strategies Committee said that in the long run, nuclear energy should not be ruled out.
As one of the five US alliances, Thailand's peaceful use of nuclear energy and strict adherence to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) will positively impact on Washington's grand strategy, announced in Prague last April by Obama.
The current US administration wants to prevent nuclear terrorism and secure all vulnerable nuclear material in four years.
Like the US, Thailand has yet to ratify the CTBT. But Bangkok's delay has been due to bureaucratic red tape. In the case of the US, the Senate is not in the mood to do so.
A few senators have argued that arms control should not be part of the US nuclear policy option and want the US to withdraw from the CTBT. Indonesia, Brunei and Burma also have not ratified the CTBT.
Since the crux of Obama's nuclear strategy is to secure the non-spreading of vulnerable nuclear materials and prevent acts of nuclear terrorism, Thailand's location in the continental Southeast Asia linking South and North East Asia becomes even more significant. Quite often illegal transport of components and parts of weapons of mass destruction pass through Thailand undetected.
Back in June 2003, the seizure of cesium-137 in Surin was headlined in newspapers around the world as it demonstrated how this isotope, common found in medical and industrial equipment, could become an object of illicit trafficking and trading. Furthermore, Thailand has become a transit point for regional terrorist groups and the hub of illegal weapons trade.
The seizure of arms shipments from North Korea in December at Don Mueang airport was a case in point. In this case, Thailand acted in compliance with relevant UN resolutions to prevent arms sales with North Korea.
At the nuclear summit, Obama and Abhisit could hold a four-eye meeting to strengthen bilateral issues including the Thai-US cooperation in nuclear non-proliferation.
A senior Thai foreign ministry official said that both sides are working hard to materialise the meeting. "The chance is very good," he said. If the nuclear non-proliferation cooperation is realised, it would mark a new chapter of Thai-US strategic relations.
For the past decade, both countries have been looking for a new paradigm to add value to their alliance.
To bolster their alliance, Thailand might sign the Proliferation Security Initiative, which was initiated under the Bush administration in 2003, aiming to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The Thai Foreign Ministry supports this effort and has recommended the government join the framework.
The previous Thai governments, however, failed to do so due to concern over the delicate situation in the southern provinces. Thailand and US are scheduled to hold the third round of strategic dialogue in the second half of this year.
On a broader regional context, Asean supports nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
All ten Asean members signed the historic Treaty of Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (SEANWFZ) in 1995 in Bangkok. In the past 15 years, Asean has continued to woo all major nuclear powers to sign the protocol.
Other nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan, which are not NPT members, have nevertheless expressed similar interests. There is a good chance that Asean could accomplish that goal in the near future. Asean has already discussed with the US the possibility of its ascension. Washington signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in last July.
On the surface, Asean has maintained its solidarity that all members are members of NPT, even though Brunei and Laos have not yet joined the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Philippines is chairing the upcoming NPT Review Conference in New York in May.
Deep down, there is a growing concern among Asean members concerning Burma's future nuclear strategies.
Their anxieties have increased followed several reports by Western nuclear experts and intelligence sources confirming Burma's nuclear ambitions.
Further clarification from Rangoon would help to clear up any suspicion that this impoverished nation is increasing its capacity to build fissile materials that can lead to building nuclear weapons. So far, the Burmese junta leaders are indifferent.
By Kavi Chongkittavorn
Published on March 29, 2010
US PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA issued a last minute invitation to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva recently to attend the Global Nuclear Summit in Washington DC scheduled on 12-13 April. Visiting Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, delivered Obama's letter to Abhisit when he made a courtesy call on 12 March. Abhisit will join over 40 world leaders as Obama's guests to discuss ways to reduce nuclear threats in sustainable ways as well as the control of fissile materials.
It is highly perplexing why Thailand has been included in the summit which is supposed to be the gathering of the world's most powerful nations with nuclear arsenals, as well as developed and developing countries linked to nuclear issues. In the earlier planning meetings, Thailand was not in consideration at all.
Washington's change of heart towards Thailand must have something to do with the latest assessment of the country's strategic location and role, which will soon witness the growing use on nuclear energy.
Within Asean, Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia have already announced plans to build nuclear power plants. Burma is building one now with the assistance of Russia.
Recently, even Singapore's Economic Strategies Committee said that in the long run, nuclear energy should not be ruled out.
As one of the five US alliances, Thailand's peaceful use of nuclear energy and strict adherence to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) will positively impact on Washington's grand strategy, announced in Prague last April by Obama.
The current US administration wants to prevent nuclear terrorism and secure all vulnerable nuclear material in four years.
Like the US, Thailand has yet to ratify the CTBT. But Bangkok's delay has been due to bureaucratic red tape. In the case of the US, the Senate is not in the mood to do so.
A few senators have argued that arms control should not be part of the US nuclear policy option and want the US to withdraw from the CTBT. Indonesia, Brunei and Burma also have not ratified the CTBT.
Since the crux of Obama's nuclear strategy is to secure the non-spreading of vulnerable nuclear materials and prevent acts of nuclear terrorism, Thailand's location in the continental Southeast Asia linking South and North East Asia becomes even more significant. Quite often illegal transport of components and parts of weapons of mass destruction pass through Thailand undetected.
Back in June 2003, the seizure of cesium-137 in Surin was headlined in newspapers around the world as it demonstrated how this isotope, common found in medical and industrial equipment, could become an object of illicit trafficking and trading. Furthermore, Thailand has become a transit point for regional terrorist groups and the hub of illegal weapons trade.
The seizure of arms shipments from North Korea in December at Don Mueang airport was a case in point. In this case, Thailand acted in compliance with relevant UN resolutions to prevent arms sales with North Korea.
At the nuclear summit, Obama and Abhisit could hold a four-eye meeting to strengthen bilateral issues including the Thai-US cooperation in nuclear non-proliferation.
A senior Thai foreign ministry official said that both sides are working hard to materialise the meeting. "The chance is very good," he said. If the nuclear non-proliferation cooperation is realised, it would mark a new chapter of Thai-US strategic relations.
For the past decade, both countries have been looking for a new paradigm to add value to their alliance.
To bolster their alliance, Thailand might sign the Proliferation Security Initiative, which was initiated under the Bush administration in 2003, aiming to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The Thai Foreign Ministry supports this effort and has recommended the government join the framework.
The previous Thai governments, however, failed to do so due to concern over the delicate situation in the southern provinces. Thailand and US are scheduled to hold the third round of strategic dialogue in the second half of this year.
On a broader regional context, Asean supports nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
All ten Asean members signed the historic Treaty of Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (SEANWFZ) in 1995 in Bangkok. In the past 15 years, Asean has continued to woo all major nuclear powers to sign the protocol.
Other nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan, which are not NPT members, have nevertheless expressed similar interests. There is a good chance that Asean could accomplish that goal in the near future. Asean has already discussed with the US the possibility of its ascension. Washington signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in last July.
On the surface, Asean has maintained its solidarity that all members are members of NPT, even though Brunei and Laos have not yet joined the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Philippines is chairing the upcoming NPT Review Conference in New York in May.
Deep down, there is a growing concern among Asean members concerning Burma's future nuclear strategies.
Their anxieties have increased followed several reports by Western nuclear experts and intelligence sources confirming Burma's nuclear ambitions.
Further clarification from Rangoon would help to clear up any suspicion that this impoverished nation is increasing its capacity to build fissile materials that can lead to building nuclear weapons. So far, the Burmese junta leaders are indifferent.
********************************************************
The Nation - GONE: The mighty Mekong
By PONGPHON SARNSAMAK, Chiang Rai
Published on March 31, 2010
Whether it's China's fault or just drought, and whether the giant catfish will survive, we still don't know. But people are very worried
Cleaning her fishing net, Ann Srida, 58, gazes out at the no-longer-mighty Mekong River. "How can I make any money if there are no fish to catch?" she wonders.
The water level in the river has dropped drastically in recent weeks, and the fishermen of Chiang Khong district in Chiang Rai are worried.
Ann is out in her boat from early morning to late afternoon, but most days now she comes home virtually empty-handed.
"I might catch a fish day," she says. "I'm only earning around Bt700 a month."
She's fished for a living all her life, and as recently as five years ago was earning a good income. She has no idea what else she could do for money.
"If there's no other choice I'll go to the city and work as a labourer."
The nets and boats lie idle in the nearby villages of Pak Ing and Pong Kham.
"We've stopped fishing temporarily - we have to wait until the river is higher," says Sak Khamdang, 48, who's ready to look for a city job if the water isn't replenished soon.
Across the Mekong in Laos, 40-year-old Pisai Chankhao hasn't caught a fish in two months. He makes the rounds of area towns to buy his fish for dinner.
Niwat Roikaew of the local conservation group Rak Chiang Khong blames Chinese dams on the upper Mekong for depleting the current in the lower reaches.
China isn't releasing enough water downstream, he says, and the water is just over a third of a metre deep in Chiang Khong, the lowest level in 50 years.
It's a claim that's hotly debated - particularly by the Chinese.
Fisheries expert Chavalit Vittayanont warns that the low levels are ruining the sites where fish migrate to lay their eggs, especially the giant catfish.
Pisit Wannatham, president of the Ban Hat Khrai Giant Catfish Association, hasn't seen the Mekong run this low in two decades and frets that it might not recover like it did in 1992. The problem then was drought, but the giant catfish still spawned as usual that April and May.
Their extinction is unlikely, though, he says, because if they can't spawn this spring, they'll still return during the rainy season. And Thai fisheries raise giant catfish too that can be released into the river if necessary.
Suparp Kaewla-aied, who manages Chiang Rai's freshwater fishery, says spawning fish require water that's at least two metres deep, but he backs up Pisit's optimism about a rainy-season crop of eggs.
Freshwater biologist Chavalit Witayanon acknowledges that the Mekong's low levels are harming the fish habitat.
The giant catfish, he notes, swims against the current from the Lee Phee Waterfall in Laos to spawn around the islet of Khon Phi Long in Chiang Khong. The water level is just too low there now, he says, and this was their only opportunity to lay egg this year.
"Giant catfish will be at risk of becoming extinct if this situation continues," Dr Chavalit says.
Beijing's embassy in Bangkok insists that the reduced water volume in the lower Mekong is not a result of the new dams China has built.
Embassy counsellor Chen Dehai has said China is not diverting any current along the Mekong watershed and doesn't plan to, due to its often-towering banks and to limited industrial and agricultural demand for the water.
"The Chinese government has been accused without evidence," Chen said at a press conference.
"Our water-resource utilisation focuses mainly on hydropower development - the demand for the water itself is rather limited."
Chen pointed out that severe drought has gripped the entire Mekong basin for months - the Mekong River Commission has blamed drought too - and southwest China is suffering as well.
He cited data from hydrological stations in China's Yunnan province, Chiang Saen in Thailand and Luang Prabang in Laos showing a significant drop in rainfall since September.
Chiang Saen recorded just 20 millimetres of rain in November and December, compared to the long-term average of 52mm, Chen said.
The Mekong commission established by Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam is holding its first summit in Hua Hin this weekend. China and Burma will be represented.
Thai, Lao and Vietnamese academics will convene separately tomorrow to discuss the situation, says Suwit Kularbwong of the Human Rights Information and Peace Centre of the Northeast.
But Suwit says 300 demonstrators are also expected to gather in front of the Chinese Embassy in Bangkok on Saturday and lodge a formal protest over the Mekong dams.
By PONGPHON SARNSAMAK, Chiang Rai
Published on March 31, 2010
Whether it's China's fault or just drought, and whether the giant catfish will survive, we still don't know. But people are very worried
Cleaning her fishing net, Ann Srida, 58, gazes out at the no-longer-mighty Mekong River. "How can I make any money if there are no fish to catch?" she wonders.
The water level in the river has dropped drastically in recent weeks, and the fishermen of Chiang Khong district in Chiang Rai are worried.
Ann is out in her boat from early morning to late afternoon, but most days now she comes home virtually empty-handed.
"I might catch a fish day," she says. "I'm only earning around Bt700 a month."
She's fished for a living all her life, and as recently as five years ago was earning a good income. She has no idea what else she could do for money.
"If there's no other choice I'll go to the city and work as a labourer."
The nets and boats lie idle in the nearby villages of Pak Ing and Pong Kham.
"We've stopped fishing temporarily - we have to wait until the river is higher," says Sak Khamdang, 48, who's ready to look for a city job if the water isn't replenished soon.
Across the Mekong in Laos, 40-year-old Pisai Chankhao hasn't caught a fish in two months. He makes the rounds of area towns to buy his fish for dinner.
Niwat Roikaew of the local conservation group Rak Chiang Khong blames Chinese dams on the upper Mekong for depleting the current in the lower reaches.
China isn't releasing enough water downstream, he says, and the water is just over a third of a metre deep in Chiang Khong, the lowest level in 50 years.
It's a claim that's hotly debated - particularly by the Chinese.
Fisheries expert Chavalit Vittayanont warns that the low levels are ruining the sites where fish migrate to lay their eggs, especially the giant catfish.
Pisit Wannatham, president of the Ban Hat Khrai Giant Catfish Association, hasn't seen the Mekong run this low in two decades and frets that it might not recover like it did in 1992. The problem then was drought, but the giant catfish still spawned as usual that April and May.
Their extinction is unlikely, though, he says, because if they can't spawn this spring, they'll still return during the rainy season. And Thai fisheries raise giant catfish too that can be released into the river if necessary.
Suparp Kaewla-aied, who manages Chiang Rai's freshwater fishery, says spawning fish require water that's at least two metres deep, but he backs up Pisit's optimism about a rainy-season crop of eggs.
Freshwater biologist Chavalit Witayanon acknowledges that the Mekong's low levels are harming the fish habitat.
The giant catfish, he notes, swims against the current from the Lee Phee Waterfall in Laos to spawn around the islet of Khon Phi Long in Chiang Khong. The water level is just too low there now, he says, and this was their only opportunity to lay egg this year.
"Giant catfish will be at risk of becoming extinct if this situation continues," Dr Chavalit says.
Beijing's embassy in Bangkok insists that the reduced water volume in the lower Mekong is not a result of the new dams China has built.
Embassy counsellor Chen Dehai has said China is not diverting any current along the Mekong watershed and doesn't plan to, due to its often-towering banks and to limited industrial and agricultural demand for the water.
"The Chinese government has been accused without evidence," Chen said at a press conference.
"Our water-resource utilisation focuses mainly on hydropower development - the demand for the water itself is rather limited."
Chen pointed out that severe drought has gripped the entire Mekong basin for months - the Mekong River Commission has blamed drought too - and southwest China is suffering as well.
He cited data from hydrological stations in China's Yunnan province, Chiang Saen in Thailand and Luang Prabang in Laos showing a significant drop in rainfall since September.
Chiang Saen recorded just 20 millimetres of rain in November and December, compared to the long-term average of 52mm, Chen said.
The Mekong commission established by Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam is holding its first summit in Hua Hin this weekend. China and Burma will be represented.
Thai, Lao and Vietnamese academics will convene separately tomorrow to discuss the situation, says Suwit Kularbwong of the Human Rights Information and Peace Centre of the Northeast.
But Suwit says 300 demonstrators are also expected to gather in front of the Chinese Embassy in Bangkok on Saturday and lodge a formal protest over the Mekong dams.
********************************************************
The Irrawaddy - UN, US 'Respect' NLD Decision
By LALIT K. JHA - Tuesday, March 30, 2010
WASHINGTON—The United States and the United Nations on Monday said that they respect the decision taken by Burma's main opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), not to participate in a general election this year.
Referring to a statement made by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week, his spokesman, Martin Nesirky, told reporters at the UN headquarters in New York that the international community would need to respect any decision that was taken by Aung San Suu Kyi and her party with regard to the election.
“But clearly, what he [Ban] has also said is that, if the election is to be considered credible and fair, it needs to be as inclusive as possible,” the spokesman said. The UN secretary-general expressed his concerns and expectations in this regard last week when he convened the Group of Friends on Myanmar [Burma], he added.
At the Foggy Bottom headquarters of the US State Department, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley said the Obama administration respects the NLD’s decision.
“That was a decision for the NLD to make, and we think it’s regrettable that this is a reflection of the unwillingness of the government in Burma to take what we thought were the necessary steps to open up the political process and to engage in serious dialogue with not only key figures like Aung San Suu Kyi, her political movement, others, as well as the various ethnic groups that want to have a say in Burma’s future,” Crowley said in response to a question.
Last year, the US government adopted a new policy of simultaneous engagement and sanctions on the military regime, following which it had two rounds of discussions with the Burmese junta to date.
“We offered our views on that,” Crowley said. “We think it is inadequate and disappointing. I’m not aware that we’ve had further direct discussions with Burma since then. I wouldn’t rule those out in the future. But we obviously think that the electoral law, as it was announced by Burma, is not the right way to go,” he said.
The US State Department official said the Obama administration believes that this is an opportunity lost in terms of Burma’s ability to demonstrate that it is willing to contemplate a different course of action on a different relationship with its own people and other groups within its borders.
“That will remain our view and that will be something that we will be talking to Burma about, and we’ll deliver that clear message when it’s appropriate,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Washington-based US Campaign for Burma, a leading coalition of Burmese activists in exile and American human rights campaigners, on Monday announced it supports the NLD decision to boycott the election.
“This is a courageous call by the NLD leaders and I am very proud of them,” said Aung Din, the executive director of the US Campaign for Burma. “They all choose to continue to stand together with Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, as well as the people of Burma by rejecting the regime’s sham election. They made history,” he added.
By LALIT K. JHA - Tuesday, March 30, 2010
WASHINGTON—The United States and the United Nations on Monday said that they respect the decision taken by Burma's main opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), not to participate in a general election this year.
Referring to a statement made by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week, his spokesman, Martin Nesirky, told reporters at the UN headquarters in New York that the international community would need to respect any decision that was taken by Aung San Suu Kyi and her party with regard to the election.
“But clearly, what he [Ban] has also said is that, if the election is to be considered credible and fair, it needs to be as inclusive as possible,” the spokesman said. The UN secretary-general expressed his concerns and expectations in this regard last week when he convened the Group of Friends on Myanmar [Burma], he added.
At the Foggy Bottom headquarters of the US State Department, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley said the Obama administration respects the NLD’s decision.
“That was a decision for the NLD to make, and we think it’s regrettable that this is a reflection of the unwillingness of the government in Burma to take what we thought were the necessary steps to open up the political process and to engage in serious dialogue with not only key figures like Aung San Suu Kyi, her political movement, others, as well as the various ethnic groups that want to have a say in Burma’s future,” Crowley said in response to a question.
Last year, the US government adopted a new policy of simultaneous engagement and sanctions on the military regime, following which it had two rounds of discussions with the Burmese junta to date.
“We offered our views on that,” Crowley said. “We think it is inadequate and disappointing. I’m not aware that we’ve had further direct discussions with Burma since then. I wouldn’t rule those out in the future. But we obviously think that the electoral law, as it was announced by Burma, is not the right way to go,” he said.
The US State Department official said the Obama administration believes that this is an opportunity lost in terms of Burma’s ability to demonstrate that it is willing to contemplate a different course of action on a different relationship with its own people and other groups within its borders.
“That will remain our view and that will be something that we will be talking to Burma about, and we’ll deliver that clear message when it’s appropriate,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Washington-based US Campaign for Burma, a leading coalition of Burmese activists in exile and American human rights campaigners, on Monday announced it supports the NLD decision to boycott the election.
“This is a courageous call by the NLD leaders and I am very proud of them,” said Aung Din, the executive director of the US Campaign for Burma. “They all choose to continue to stand together with Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, as well as the people of Burma by rejecting the regime’s sham election. They made history,” he added.
********************************************************
The Irrawaddy - NLD to Survive as 'Political Movement,' Leaders Say
By SAW YAN NAING - Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Leaders of Burma's National League for Democracy (NLD) say that if Monday's decision not to participate in the planned general election results in the party being banned it will still survive as a political movement.
The NLD executive committee decided unanimously on Monday not to register the party for the election. The election laws promulgated by the regime state that any party that fails to register by a deadline in early May will cease to exist legally.
Observers say the regime is sure to outlaw unregistered parties and to proceed with the general election, expected to take place in October or November.
“Our party can die, but not our political movement,” said the NLD's key spokesman, Nyan Win.
The NLD executive committee's decision not to register was prompted by the election laws, which members described as unjust and unlikely to result in a fair and inclusive election.
The laws excluded from participation in the election anyone serving a criminal sentence—a provision that barred Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. In order to participate in the election, the NLD would have had to expel Suu Kyi from the party.
Veteran NLD leader Win Tin said the election laws and the 2008 Constitution would entrench military rule for another 20 years.
Win Tin said this year's election would repeat the injustice of the 1990 poll, when the regime ignored an overwhelming victory by the NLD, which contested under official restrictions.
If the party had decided to forget the result of the 1990 election and had chosen to contest this year's poll it would have sacrificed its dignity, Win Tin said.
Although the party's future is now in doubt, veteran Rangoon politician Thakin Chan Htun said it would develop a secret strategy.
Support for the central committee's decision came from the prominent Rangoon-based ethnic Arakanese politician Aye Thar Aung, who is secretary of the Committee Representing the People's Parliament (CRPP). He said the decision was in line with CRPP policy and would allow the party to perform more effectively than if it had agreed to contest the election.
Aye Thar Aung also said the 2008 constitution would not protect the rights of Burma's ethnic minorities.
Pessimism, however, was expressed by Shwe Ohn, a long-time ethnic Shan politician who formed a coalition of ethnic political parties, the United Nationalities League for Democracy.
“The role of the NLD is slowly disappearing,” he said.
Win Tin, however, disagreed and said the NLD would still command massive popular support. The image of Suu Kyi would certainly not disappear, he said.
Win Tin said the party would work together with grassroots people such as workers, farmers and ethnic leaders who are members of the CRPP. It would also seek the support of the international community.
David Scott Mathieson, a Burma expert with Human Rights Watch, said the international community, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, should send a strong message opposing the Burma election.
“They [international and regional community] needs to come up with a united and strong message that the environment for the election is not inclusive,” Mathieson said.
By SAW YAN NAING - Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Leaders of Burma's National League for Democracy (NLD) say that if Monday's decision not to participate in the planned general election results in the party being banned it will still survive as a political movement.
The NLD executive committee decided unanimously on Monday not to register the party for the election. The election laws promulgated by the regime state that any party that fails to register by a deadline in early May will cease to exist legally.
Observers say the regime is sure to outlaw unregistered parties and to proceed with the general election, expected to take place in October or November.
“Our party can die, but not our political movement,” said the NLD's key spokesman, Nyan Win.
The NLD executive committee's decision not to register was prompted by the election laws, which members described as unjust and unlikely to result in a fair and inclusive election.
The laws excluded from participation in the election anyone serving a criminal sentence—a provision that barred Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. In order to participate in the election, the NLD would have had to expel Suu Kyi from the party.
Veteran NLD leader Win Tin said the election laws and the 2008 Constitution would entrench military rule for another 20 years.
Win Tin said this year's election would repeat the injustice of the 1990 poll, when the regime ignored an overwhelming victory by the NLD, which contested under official restrictions.
If the party had decided to forget the result of the 1990 election and had chosen to contest this year's poll it would have sacrificed its dignity, Win Tin said.
Although the party's future is now in doubt, veteran Rangoon politician Thakin Chan Htun said it would develop a secret strategy.
Support for the central committee's decision came from the prominent Rangoon-based ethnic Arakanese politician Aye Thar Aung, who is secretary of the Committee Representing the People's Parliament (CRPP). He said the decision was in line with CRPP policy and would allow the party to perform more effectively than if it had agreed to contest the election.
Aye Thar Aung also said the 2008 constitution would not protect the rights of Burma's ethnic minorities.
Pessimism, however, was expressed by Shwe Ohn, a long-time ethnic Shan politician who formed a coalition of ethnic political parties, the United Nationalities League for Democracy.
“The role of the NLD is slowly disappearing,” he said.
Win Tin, however, disagreed and said the NLD would still command massive popular support. The image of Suu Kyi would certainly not disappear, he said.
Win Tin said the party would work together with grassroots people such as workers, farmers and ethnic leaders who are members of the CRPP. It would also seek the support of the international community.
David Scott Mathieson, a Burma expert with Human Rights Watch, said the international community, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, should send a strong message opposing the Burma election.
“They [international and regional community] needs to come up with a united and strong message that the environment for the election is not inclusive,” Mathieson said.
********************************************************
Shwe Mann visits Kachin State
Tuesday, 30 March 2010 20:53 Phanida
Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – Gen. Thura Shwe Mann, Joint Chief of Staff of Operations of the Burmese junta visited Kachin State last week for two days even as tension continues to mount between the regime and the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) over transforming its armed wing into the Border Guard Force.
The General, who ranks number 3 in the junta’s hierarchy, visited Northern Command in Myitkyina, Kachin State on March 24. He also visited Hopin, Tanai and Puta-O and returned to Nay Pyi Taw the next day.
“The main purpose of the visit seems related to military affairs. It may be because of the current situation in Kachin and Wa controlled areas along the border,” Civil-Military Relation analyst Win Min said.
Gen. Thura Shwe Mann was accompanied by 10 other high-ranking military officers including Bureau of Special Operation (BSO) commanders Lt. Gen. Thar Aye and Maj. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, Win Min said.
Lt. Gen. Thar Aye handles military operations in Kachin State, Sagaing Division and Mandalay Division and Maj. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing handles operations in Shan State and Kayah State.
“They came from Bamao. He told people to put pressure on the KIO to transform its armed wing the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) into the BGF,” a KIO official said.
But he did not meet any KIO leaders during the visit.
The Northern Command Commander Maj. Gen. Soe Win met KIO Chairman Zau Hara, Secretary Dr. Laja and Col. Gwan Mau at the Northern Command Headquarters on March 21.
He made inquiries with the KIO on the seizure of 33 bombs from two villagers in Kum Ban village, Bamao town by the Drug Enforcement Special Police Force on March 13.
The KIO responded saying though the bombs belonged to KIO, the villagers possessing the bombs had nothing to do with it, a KIO official said.
The KIO also responded to the junta representative Military Affairs Security (MAS) Chief Lt. Gen. Ye Myint on the BGF issue saying that they could not accept converting their army into BGF, which will be under the direct control of the Burmese Army and would like to stay as a Kachin Army under the newly elected government.
Tuesday, 30 March 2010 20:53 Phanida
Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – Gen. Thura Shwe Mann, Joint Chief of Staff of Operations of the Burmese junta visited Kachin State last week for two days even as tension continues to mount between the regime and the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) over transforming its armed wing into the Border Guard Force.
The General, who ranks number 3 in the junta’s hierarchy, visited Northern Command in Myitkyina, Kachin State on March 24. He also visited Hopin, Tanai and Puta-O and returned to Nay Pyi Taw the next day.
“The main purpose of the visit seems related to military affairs. It may be because of the current situation in Kachin and Wa controlled areas along the border,” Civil-Military Relation analyst Win Min said.
Gen. Thura Shwe Mann was accompanied by 10 other high-ranking military officers including Bureau of Special Operation (BSO) commanders Lt. Gen. Thar Aye and Maj. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, Win Min said.
Lt. Gen. Thar Aye handles military operations in Kachin State, Sagaing Division and Mandalay Division and Maj. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing handles operations in Shan State and Kayah State.
“They came from Bamao. He told people to put pressure on the KIO to transform its armed wing the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) into the BGF,” a KIO official said.
But he did not meet any KIO leaders during the visit.
The Northern Command Commander Maj. Gen. Soe Win met KIO Chairman Zau Hara, Secretary Dr. Laja and Col. Gwan Mau at the Northern Command Headquarters on March 21.
He made inquiries with the KIO on the seizure of 33 bombs from two villagers in Kum Ban village, Bamao town by the Drug Enforcement Special Police Force on March 13.
The KIO responded saying though the bombs belonged to KIO, the villagers possessing the bombs had nothing to do with it, a KIO official said.
The KIO also responded to the junta representative Military Affairs Security (MAS) Chief Lt. Gen. Ye Myint on the BGF issue saying that they could not accept converting their army into BGF, which will be under the direct control of the Burmese Army and would like to stay as a Kachin Army under the newly elected government.
No comments:
Post a Comment