Launch of Burma Human Rights Report and Video

BANGKOK, THAILAND - On the eve of the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the Human Rights Documentation Unit (HRDU) of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB) today released the 2006 Burma Human Rights Yearbook, which comprehensively documents the continuing and systematic perpetration of human rights violations in Burma as they occurred throughout 2006.

Dr Sann Aung of the NCGUB drew on two examples that highlighted the systematic nature of abuses within the country. He stated that the "Persecution of HIV/AIDS activists in Rangoon and the shoot on sight policies directed at IDPs in northern Karen State are two sides of the same coin, both designed to suppress independent action which could potentially threaten the perpetuation of military rule."

He added that "The National Convention must be viewed within this framework, of a regime which is fully prepared to commit untold and egregious abuses against the people of Burma for the very purpose of maintaining its grip on power. To offer support to the National Convention process in its present form is to support the entrenchment of military rule and abuse within Burma."

In conjunction with the release of HRDU's report, Burma Issues screened its production "Shoot on Sight", a riveting video putting a human face on the ethnic minorities forced to flee ongoing military incursions into their areas, resulting in swelling numbers of internally displaced persons, a new exodus of refugees to Thailand, and further potential impacts to regional stability.

"This situation is not confined to Burma, it threatens the peace and security of all of us in the region," explained Khun Somsri Hananuntasuk, of Thai Action Committee for Democracy in Burma, stating "The destruction and relocation of villages, forced labour, systematic rape, child soldiers, and other such grave human rights abuses have created one of the world's worst situations of internally displaced persons and flow of refugees to neighbouring countries." She added "Thai's are a compassionate people. We cannot turn a blind eye to the plight of our suffering neighbours and those who seek as a last resort of survival, asylum in Thailand."

Saw Taw Nay Htoo, Video Project Coordinator with Burma Issues noted that "25,000 people face starvation, and this figure could increase dramatically if the Burmese army's offensive carries on for another year. The army is under orders to shoot on sight anyone in the offensive area, including unarmed civilians."

This offensive is unprecedented in its gravity and severity for the villagers living within the offensive area. What makes this so different from previous incursions are the:

- continuous and deliberate attacks against civilians over the past 18 months through both the dry and rainy seasons;
- systematic hunting down of fleeing civilians;
- searching for and destroying of hidden food stores;
- increased militarization and establishment of at least 33 new military bases in the area; and
- increased roads, built through forced labour, in the offensive area, thereby consolidating the army's presence and power in the area.

Saw Taw Nay Htoo noted that " The world, Burma, and the ethnic people cannot afford for this situation to continue or get worse. We know that if the international community is united the State Peace and Development Council of Burma will listen." He appealed today for support for the following call for immediate action.

1. ASEAN, China and India to pressure the State Peace and Development Council to immediately stop the offensive in Eastern Burma;

2. Thailand to enable and support potential donor countries in providing cross-border aid to communities inside Burma, especially for women and children; and

3. Governments of Asia and ASEAN to support a UN Security Council resolution on Burma.

Refugees from Burma

Thailand (in camps): 150,000

Total in SE Asia as of December 2006: 725,500

Source: World Refugee Survey 2006

Internally Displaced Persons as of December 2006

Burma: at least 1,000,000

Eastern Burma (Thai/Burma border): 500,000

- 287,000 living in ceasefire areas; 118,000 in SPDC-controlled relocation sites and 95,000 in hiding in forests

- Approximately 27,000 newly displaced IDPs during 2006

Source: Thailand Burma Border Consortium November 2006 Survey

Destroyed / relocated / abandoned villages

No comprehensive data exists for the number of destroyed villages or new army camps constructed countrywide.

2005-2006 : 232

Source: Thailand Burma Border Consortium November 2006 Survey

Source: HRDU - 25 June 2007

Always sad to see instances of humanity stripping itself of humaneness, JD.

Jaidee

thanks for sharing this with us....

I went to the Burma Women's day (also celebration of Aung San Suu Kyi Bday), and there was a mix of feelings....on one hand theres always the despair, especially when you see things dont change....one journalist asked some ASEAN parliamentarians....."whats ASEAN going to do about it...cos the way I see it is we will be here again next year celebrating her birthday but still demanding her release"

I can understand that sentiment...for some people they have been covering the issue for many many years, and not much change.....its like moving around in a square (slightly better than circle...cos for limited time you feel like you are moving forward..then things take a turn...another few steps..then another turn...until you complete the sqaure...and well...)

anyhow....on the other hand...you meet and talk to or mostly hear about the numerous of people in and outside of Burma/Myanmar who continue to do what they do day after day, year after year.....educating even if its one person at a time...helping the plight of one woman at a time......and htey continue on....... I gotta not only admire that.....but also admit that yes IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE

an old Senator from the Philippines shared her experience...telling us how way back when...when they were protesting against their own government....things also seemed hopeless at the time....and yes it took a great number of years...but they still rid themselves of the corrupt era.....

so hopeless and useless as things may seem....we still have to continue to support those who are trying to bring about change...cant give up...if we stop...then that would be the end

to borrow from the signature of my computer exper .....

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good (wo/)men do nothing. Edmund Burke

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good (wo/)men do nothing. Edmund Burke

Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

A very old quote, MIG. Now a few hundred years down the road and we're still dealing with the same problem. Makes you wonder what understanding is lacking regarding our human existence that keeps us in this seemingly endless loop of perpetrating violence upon ourselves.

Win the struggle in Burma today and be sure that the same atrocities will crop up elsewhere in the world tomorrow where it presently is not now. 200 years from today will a future generation be reading our similar quotes?

Perhaps we already have answers to age old questions and yet the truth is too unbelievable to accept?

The story of the genocide of hill tribes, especially Karen, by the Burmese army, is largely unheard. I did notice that they took notice of it in the international news for a couple of days several months ago, but I bet most forgot and don't realize it is ongoing and has been going on for many years.

this one deserves a bump

so I will do it with this article making reference to a certain report:

Systematic sexual violence became visible in Burma when the Shan Women’s Action Network (SWAN) and the Shan Human Rights Foundation (SHRF) published Licence to Rape , which documents 625 cases of rape committed by the military in eastern Burma between 1996 and 2001. The report noted that nobody had been prosecuted.

full article at Project Syndicate here.....

the report is here

not new....but still need to be heard....

PS. what I wonder is the amount of time we can spend doing useless things and debates on trivial things...where if even a fraction of our energy is channeled into highlighting the plights of these women or others like them...they will have even a tiniest bit more of a chance.......

You can help, MIG . . . donate your vast stores of chocolate!

I'm risking a bit of lightheartedness on a serious topic, I know. Question: How does one eradicate suffering in the world when suffering exists in one's own heart? Is that possible?

Open for comment.

certainly Tip....

we each are going through some form of suffering....all relative arent they....

but for majority of us its quite unlikely that we will be suffering, either emotionally or physically, on a constant continuous basis.

for me...it helps to take my mind off my own troubles (usually small in comparison) ...when I can channel my energy into either: 1. actual physical help / advice of some (even if very very small)

2. highlighting / bringing the issues or sufferage to the attention of those who can make a difference either through their action, or through creating a ripple effect of pressure

sorry not very good at putting my thoughts across into words...so maybe Im not doing such a good job of bringing things to attention of others afterall...but the key is we can each try

tip......all the best to you....and now you can donate chocolates to me (without chocolates I get cranky...thats a form of suffering too)

You're getting across just fine, MIG. And your heart is certainly in the right place.

Just wondering whether our personal sufferings, whatever their scale, do indeed add to, and in a way promulgate, the mass suffering of the world. Perhaps the thought is a tad abstract but somehow I think it's a valid question. If true, though, then I think it points the answers in a very definite direction.

Cheers and all the best to you, too, MIG.

Now, I would be more than happy to donate my chocolate but am having a bit of concern about all of the stories I hear regarding the misappropriation of charitable contributions. Are you willing to match contributions?

Are you willing to match contributions?

but who will it go to? Jaidee??

JaiDee? As long as it's strictly chocolate I would feel rather safe. Given another consumable commodity I'd feel extremely worriesome.

Red Cross Denounces Myanmar for Abuses

GENEVA -- In a rare departure from its usual diplomatic restraint, the International Red Cross denounced Myanmar's military government Friday, saying it commits abuses against civilians and detainees that cause "immense suffering."

The regime makes thousands of detainees serve as porters for the military, exposing them to the danger of combat and other risks, the Red Cross said. It also alleged repeated abuses by the military against men, women and children living along the Thai-Myanmar border, including the large-scale destruction of food supplies.

The United Nations and Western countries have long accused the junta of human rights abuses, such as forcing people to do unpaid manual labor and haul supplies as army porters.

Myanmar's government regularly rejects allegations of rights abuses and says it is making progress toward democracy.

Usually the Red Cross complains confidentially to governments about such abuses, leading to criticism of the neutral agency for failing to disclose severe violations. Its silence during the Holocaust was an extreme case, but more recently it was criticized for failing to go public with its knowledge of U.S. abuses in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

In denouncing Myanmar, also known as Burma, Red Cross President Jakob Kellenberger said the organization had repeatedly complained to the government about the abuses, "but the authorities have failed to put a stop to them."

"The persistent use of detainees as porters for the armed forces is a matter of grave humanitarian concern," Kellenberger said. "The actions of the authorities have also resulted in immense suffering for thousands of people in conflict-affected areas."

Myanmar's military has severely restricted freedom of movement in combat areas along the Thai border, "making it impossible for many villagers to work in their fields," he said.

The armed forces have also committed "numerous acts of violence," including murder, against civilians in these areas, the Red Cross said. "They have also forced villagers to directly support military operations or to leave their homes."

The Red Cross said it based its complaints on observations made by the group's delegates and numerous allegations of abuse collected during private interviews with thousands of civilians and detainees.

"Many detainees used as porters have suffered from exhaustion and malnutrition and been subjected to degrading treatment," it said. "Some have been murdered."

Kellenberger said government restrictions on Red Cross staff made it impossible for them to move independently and hampered the delivery of humanitarian aid.

The Red Cross report made no mention of Myanmar's most prominent detainee, Nobel laureate and pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has spent more than 11 of the past 18 years in detention and is currently under house arrest.

The State Department said Thursday that Eric John, a deputy assistant secretary of state, met Tuesday in Beijing with Myanmar's ministers of foreign affairs, culture and information to urge the release of Suu Kyi.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said, however, "I don't think we saw anything coming out of them that would indicate, unfortunately, that they had changed their basic opinions."

Myanmar's military took power in 1988 after crushing democracy demonstrations. When Suu Kyi's party won a general election by a landslide in 1990, junta leaders refused to hand over power, insisting the country first needed a new constitution.

Associated Press Writer Foster Klug in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

Published by the Washington Post - 28 June 2007

UN talks to Burma, Red Cross raps it

United Nations special representative Radhika Coomaraswamy concluded a five-day trip to Burma Friday on an optimistic note, saying she had initiated a dialogue with the ruling junta on the issue of child soldiers.

But in Geneva, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) lashed out at the same regime for ongoing violations of human rights of detainees and civilians.

"This visit is a beginning in seeking to address some of the important issues relating to child protection in Myanmar," Coomaraswamy said, using the regime's name for the country.

She left Friday after an official visit that included meeting with several senior junta officials.

Coomaraswamy was in Burma to discuss the possibility of setting up a UN task force to prepare and verify information about the use of children soldiers by the Burmese military and various insurgent groups in the country.

The report will be examined by the UN Security Council Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict in November 2007.

Burma, which has been under military rule since 1962, has one of the world's worst records in human rights abuses, whether it be of child soldiers, forced labour, use of prison labour and abuse of civilians, especially those in conflict areas.

The regime has traditionally shown more concern for its relations with the UN than with other international organizations, not to mention governments.

On the same day that the UN's special representative Coomaraswamy was sounding upbeat about opening a dialogue with the junta on the issue of child soldiers, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) blasted the regime for ongoing human rights violations and demanded it take urgent action to end its abuses.

"I urge the government of Myanmar to put a stop to all violations of international humanitarian law and to ensure that they do not recur," committee president Jakob Kellenberger said in a statement released in Geneva.

He also encouraged the international community to put more pressure on Burma's ruling junta to end its systematic abuse of the human rights of prison detainees and of civilians in Burma's war zones.

According to Red Cross field investigations, Burma's junta is forcing thousands of prison detainees to act as porters for the armed forces in their campaigns against a separatist insurgency by ethnic Karens in eastern Burma, subjecting them to exhaustion, malnutrition and murder.

"The persistent use of detainees as porters for the armed forces is a matter of grave humanitarian concern," Kellenberger said. "The ICRC has repeatedly drawn attention to these abuses, but the authorities have failed to put a stop to them."

Burma's junta also continued to abuse the basic human rights of men, women and children living in the conflict areas along the Thai-Burma border in Karen state, where the military has been carrying out an offensive since November 2005 to wipe out the Karen insurgency, which has been fighting for the autonomy of the Karen state for the past six decades.

Atrocities in the border area have included large-scale destruction of food supplies and of means of production and preventing the border populations from working in their fields, aggravating an already precarious humanitarian situation, the Red Cross said.

The armed forces have also committed numerous acts of violence against people living in these areas, including murder and arbitrary arrest and detention. They have also forced villagers to support military operations and have forced them out of their homes.

"Despite repeated entreaties by the ICRC, the authorities have consistently refused to enter into a serious discussion of these abuses with a view to putting a stop to them," Kellenberger said.

The Red Cross, famed for its pragmatic diplomacy in most conflict areas, has been forced to scale back its field operations in Burma because of increasing restrictions imposed on the humanitarian agency over the past two years after a change in the junta's power structure.

The downfall of General Khin Nyunt, the former prime minister and head of military intelligence, in late 2005 has led to a souring of relations between the junta and Red Cross, informed sources said.

"The continuing deadlock with the authorities has led the ICRC to take the exceptional step of making its concerns public," Kellenberger said.

Source: DPA - 29 June 2007

not as new as Jaidee's news...but perhaps still ok to share this?

letter from former Philippines President Corazon Aquino to Senior General Than Shwe appealing for the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

QUOTE

May 8, 2007

SENIOR GENERAL THAN SHWE

Naypyidaw

Burma

Dear Senior General Than Shwe:

We are writing this public letter to call for the immediate release of the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. Her most recent term of house arrest is scheduled to and on May 27, 2007.

On January 8, 2007, new United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on you to release Aung San Suu Kyi. May 27, 2007 affords an excellent opportunity to respond to this request.

Indeed, the UN General Assembly, former UN Commission on Human Rights, ASEAN, European Union, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Japan, and many other countries have called for Aung San Suu Kyi's immediate release.

The 2006 UN General Assembly resolution on Burma, which passed overwhelmingly, expressed a "grave concern" at "the extension of the house arrest of the General Secretary of the National League for Democracy leaders Aung San Suu Kyi" and strongly called upon your government to "release all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally, including National League fro Democrary leaders Aung San Suu Kyi and U Tin Oo.

Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma, but rather peaceful, non-violent dialogue between the military, National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups. The UN General Assembly resolution, and 15 previous resolutions also support this approach.

We strongly urge you to respond to the United Nations and countless other countries and regional groupings around the world by releasing Aung San Suu Kyi before May 27th and committing to participate in peaceful tripartite dialogue as outlined by the General Assembly.

Sincerely,

CORAZON C. AQUINO (sgd.)

Former President of the Philippines (1986-1992)

END QUOTE

there are numerous other like the above...from other ASEAN leaders, EU, etc etc.....

some people just dont listen do they...

Aung San Suu Kyi meets with lawyer in Myanmar

The detained Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has met with her lawyer for the first time in five years, one of her colleagues said Sunday.

Nyan Win, a spokesman for Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party, said she had consulted her lawyer about the detention law under which she had been confined without trial for more than 12 of the past 19 years. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate has been detained continuously since May 2003, most of the time under house arrest.

Nyan Win quoted the lawyer as saying that Aung San Suu Kyi appeared to be in very good health when they met Friday. She was last seen by her doctor in May.

Her house arrest was extended by one year in May, even though the action seemed to defy a law that stipulates that no one can be held longer than five years without being released or put on trial.

But a commentary in June in the state-owned New Light of Myanmar newspaper, which closely reflects government opinion, said detentions were permissible for as long as six years under a 1975 "Law Safeguarding the State from Dangers of Subversive Elements."

The conditions under which the meeting with the lawyer was arranged were unclear, since Aung San Suu Kyi is allowed virtually no contact with outsiders, aside from occasional meetings with fellow party executives. Late last year, however, the military government appointed a Cabinet-level official to serve as a liaison for her contacts with the outside.

The National League for Democracy has sought to challenge the extension of Aung San Suu Kyi's detention, but the government refuses to accept the appeal.

Her party told an envoy from the United Nations visiting Myanmar recently that the junta's decision to keep her under house arrest for a sixth year violated her human rights.

Myanmar has been under military rule since 1962. The current junta came to power in 1988 after crushing a nationwide pro-democracy uprising, killing as many as 3,000 people. It called elections in 1990 but refused to honor the results after Aung San Suu Kyi's party won overwhelmingly.

Source: International Herald-Tribune - 11 August 2008

A long but interesting read:

Will America ever wake up to the Burmese Clarion Call?

US President George W Bush, who has never been to Burma, has at least learnt to pronounce the name of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi correctly for which the Burmese activist dumped him, as well informed has delivered a major policy speech in Thailand and liaise with Burmese dissidents, while the first lady Laura Bush had visited Mae La, the biggest Burmese refugee camps (60,000 souls unofficial figure) to see things for herself.

To an average Burmese dissident this is heartening, but if President Bush means business we are wondering of why the USS Essex and other US naval ships withdrew from their positions near Burmese waters, when both Britain and French warships were ready to join the US in the Nagris Cyclone relief operations and end the Burmese dictatorship once and for all?

The entire Burmese people had pinned their hopes on Bush that he would invoke the UN’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and together with the Western nations would order his naval force into the delta, where every Burmese would welcome them as saviour and give them every necessary help. This raises the most serious question about Bush’s administrations support for Burmese pro-democracy movement: Is there any real political will on the part of the US to effect substantive change in Burma, or is Washington simply offering moral support to the victims of a heinous regime to burnish its image as a defender of freedom is in the minds of every Burmese?

The 21 hour stop in Bangkok or Mae Lah camp seems Bush’s stance on Burma is merely a distraction from the troubling consequences of other facets of his foreign policy, others suggest that ultimately, the US is seeking to use Burma to “contain” China, which has become the Burmese regime’s most important ally. Now going to Beijing, where the word Burma and Tibet are taboo.

President Bush's Olympic odyssey started with a game of political one-upmanship, as his blunt critique of the host country prompted Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang, saying "We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues." The rhetorical barbs were likely to recede quickly as the games began and Burma together with Dafur and Tibet will be forgotten and will be forced to witness the extravaganza of Chinese Communist’s progress. Perhaps he did not recollect of what he told Olympians at the White House last month that they are more than sports competitors. He called US Olympians "ambassadors of liberty" who represent America's "regard for human rights and human dignity."

Despite numerous organizations and activists pushing for the President to make a political statement out of the Games, specifically referencing China's continued economic and political support for the Burmese regime, Bush remains adamant that he will not politicize the Beijing Games missing the fact that an aesthetic of political memorization, reflected in the host government’s declared aim that China should win more gold medals than any country; the world will once again be made to witness a triumph of the totalitarian will, because of its superb dictatorial communist system. We know that there is little more that the Burmese people can hope in Bush administration’s last Hurrah!

Will the torch of President Bush’s statement at the Map room of the White House “to let the people of Burma know that the United States of America hears their voices” be carried on by the President hopeful of Barrack Obama and John McCane? Politics, at least peripherally, have always been part of the Olympics. This time, too. In four days in Beijing, Bush will confer with Chinese President Hu Jintao, and other Chinese leaders to tussle over trade deficits, currency policy and other issues of bilateral mutual benefits. Bushes (his father, former President George H.W. Bush, who was once an American ambassador) will help dedicate a shimmering new U.S. embassy and definitely Burma will be in a forgotten agenda. History will remember him as the first U.S. president to ever attend a Genocide Olympics on foreign soil even though he may not sit together with the Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein.

Thank You America

Admittedly in his eight years of unstinting support, which even the most sceptical Burmese like myself, have had to acknowledge as a major contribution to our cause and we thank President Bush when he uttered

August 8 is not only a day to recognize China’s achievements, but also an occasion to recall the unfulfilled aspirations of the Burmese people

We know that the United States has always strongly supported the efforts of Burma’s people achieve freedom from military rule. The current administration has been no exception. Though often criticized at home and abroad for his foreign policy, Bush has won the respect of most Burmese for his firm stance on the repressive regime in Naypyidaw.

In 2003, the US introduced the Freedom and Democracy Act in response to a ruthless attack on Daw Aung Suu Kyi and her supporters in the central Burmese town of Depayin (a name derived from the Portuguese decedents). In 2005, Bush identified Burma as one of the world’s “outposts of tyranny,” together with Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Belarus.

Last year, following the crackdown on the September uprising, he blasted the regime and tightened sanctions against the generals and their cronies. As a further sign of support, the US Congress awarded its highest civilian honour, the Congressional Gold Medal, to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi last December. And just this week, Bush signed into law the Burma Jade Act, which restricts the import of precious stones from Burma and extends existing import sanctions.

Bush is not a visionary and his tendency to see complex issues in black and white, just like any self style Burmese foreign experts who tend to equate with any other country and refused to see that Burma is unique. But while many condemn him for trying to impose his political vision on Iraq, few can argue that in the case of Burma, he has taken a genuinely principled stand that is perfectly consistent with reality.

We warmly acknowledge that both Bush and his wife, Laura, who has been a real driving force in keeping Burma at the top of the world’s political agenda. She has met with Burmese activists in Washington and New York on a number of occasions and held video teleconferences with prominent exiles. She has also participated in several roundtable discussions on Burma with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his special envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari. When the Burmese regime crushed protests last year, she called Ban to discuss the situation—a rare move by an American first lady, and one that shows the depth of her concern for the fate of Burma’s people.

In May of this year, it became evident just how much the bull dog face General Than Shwe has staked on the ultimate success of this deeply flawed political process, which promises only a continuation of military rule under another guise. But one week before a planned referendum on a military-drafted constitution when the country was hit by its worst natural disaster in living memory, the American response to this disaster was markedly different from that of the rulers in Naypyidaw. The US moved quickly to temporarily suspend its sanctions against Burma so that it could assist in the relief effort, offering aid and the use of military aircraft to transport international emergency relief supplies into the country. But this did not stop the Junta going ahead with its rigged referendum, putting politics ahead of the lives of millions of people. No doubt humanitarian workers in Burma praised the Bush administration for its bold decision to send C-130 flights into Rangoon with relief items, setting aside politics for the sake of saving lives. Our profound and sincere thanks go to Bush Administration for keeping the Burmese cause alive at least morally.

The Realization

We are but halfway through 2008 yet it has already been witness to a sizeable shift in global power. The default Western mindset remains that the Western writ rules. That is hardly surprising; it has been true for so long there has been little reason for anyone to question it, least of all the West. The thinking of the Americans has changed that they live in the greatest country on earth and construe that they have the right to disregard the opinions of other countries and can impose our values on everyone else - after all, why should anyone complain about having greatness thrust upon them? But lamentably the estimate of their worth far outstrips its real-world value. They now see that the Vietnam Syndrome will soon be replaced by the Iraq Syndrome. It's not just that the world is fed up with U.S. foreign policy; it has become blind to its relative decline. Some construe that unwittingly, the US is the rogue elephant that will not cooperate with the rest of the world. No to Kyoto, no to arms control, no to negotiations and so on and is afraid to take the right action on Burma. I recall the lines in “Raiding the War Chest”, Miriam Pemberton writes that "our country has a massive international-relations repair job ahead in the post-Bush years. This job comes down to acknowledging that our military-led response to 9-11 has made us less safe by creating more terrorists than it has defeated. Furthermore, we must convince the rest of the world's peoples that we are ready to engage with them in a different way. Whatever is said along these lines won't be credible unless, as the saying goes, we put our money where our mouth is."

The assumption is that might and right are invariably on its side, that it always knows best and that if necessary it will enforce its political wisdom and moral rectitude on others. There is, however, a hitch: the authority of the self-appointed global sheriff is remorselessly eroding. There have been two outstanding examples so far this year and the first was Burma. The question facing the rest of the world in the aftermath of the cyclone, however, was how to assist the millions of victims of a humanitarian disaster. China, India and ASEAN — who largely make up the region — were opposed to the use of military force and President Bush bow down to them. If he had followed this instinct in Iraq and use the unilateral action with the whole West backing up President Bush the result would be much rosier. US leaders were living in a time warp: the knee-jerk responses of old, freshened up by the short-lived era of liberal interventionism, have become a stock response. It was not long before the bellicose talk subsided and the West was obliged to channel its aid via ASEAN.

The fact that the West could not understand the geopolitical realities of Asia, now the largest economic region in the world — and adapt its policies accordingly revealed that old assumptions and attitudes run very deep indeed. Burma has demonstrated was the limits of Western power, the need for the West to understand those limits. The second example is Zimbabwe. This episode has revealed British — and Western — impotence in its starkest form. After much grandstanding at the G8 summit, the Anglo-American attempt to toughen sanctions foundered in the UN Security Council, where it was vetoed by Russia and China and opposed by South Africa and two others. Meanwhile, President Thabo Mbeki, whose efforts to broker some kind of deal have been widely and patronizingly scorned, has scored a major diplomatic triumph. The Southern Africa Development Community's appointed mediator for Zimbabwe, Mbeki managed to bring both Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC to the negotiating table. All the Western bluster and invective now look just that: the route to a possible solution has been the work of South Africa, the SADC and the African Union alone. This is yet a further illustration of a shift in global authority. The two big bullies China and Russia which has just occupied Georgia seem to indicate that NATO (No Action Talk Only) is just a lame duck.

Western power can no longer deliver in the face of the growing power, competence and self-confidence of developing countries. Instead of universal Western power, we are witnessing the rise of regionalization and regional solutions. This reflects broader changes in the global economy. BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and a growing number of developing economies, now account for less than half of global GDP and that share is steadily falling. Such economic shifts are the irresistible prelude to parallel changes in political power. The two examples discussed are classic instances of this process: Burma involved China and India, together with the ASEAN countries, while Zimbabwe featured South Africa, with Russia which has taken advantage of the Beijing Olympic to invade Georgia, and especially China, emboldened in this instance to play a more assertive role on the global stage. They illustrate what might be described as the growing "Bricisation" of global politics.

They also underline the comprehensive failure of Anglo-American foreign policy. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, no thought was given to the idea that Western economic power was on the wane. Never underestimate the ability of political leaders to misread history on a monumental scale. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have both served to hasten Western decline: they have both failed to achieve their objectives and in the process demonstrated an underlying Western impotence. In contrast, those other "rogue" states, namely North Korea, Zimbabwe, and perhaps even Iran, show strong signs of responding in a positive manner to a very different kind of treatment. Liberal interventionism has failed. But as yet the West shows no sign of either understanding the new world or being able to live according to its terms. The West has refused to recognize the diminution in its own authority and, as a result, seemingly incapable of adapting to the new circumstances and coming up with an innovative response especially in terms of economics.

United Nations

Currently, U.N. Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari is scheduled to return to Burma to pave the way for a return visit of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon later this year. The time has come for the United Nations to measure success by outcomes alone, not merely by the engagement in process. Were success to be measured by engagement alone, it would have already been achieved. Special envoys and Rapporteur have made literally dozens of trip to Burma over the years, with minimal effect. Unless tangible and specific outcomes are actually achieved from this visit -- including the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, which is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue -- then it is time for the Security Council to take further action. Specifically, it should escalate the pressure on the junta by adopting a binding resolution to transform its recommendations from its presidential statement into demands. Pressure has been increasing from numerous ASEAN countries, which now view Burma as holding back the development of the bloc. And pressure has been sustained by the United States, United Kingdom and France. But all members of the Security Council -- including China, Russia, and South Africa, which had opposed prior action on Burma -- must be reminded of their subsequent agreement with this roadmap.

Foreign investment in Myanmar plummeted by 77% over the past fiscal year as investments in the oil, gas and electricity sectors were significantly lower even in the Burmese official figures. In the 12 months to March 31 2008, total income for the three sectors was $ 172.72 million. That compares with 2006-07, when 11 enterprises invested $471.48 million in oil and gas, and $281.22 million dollars in electricity, the National Planning and Economic Development ministry said. The figures showed neighboring India is the biggest investor in Myanmar with $ 137 million in the oil and gas sector this year, followed by Thailand with $ 16.22 million dollars. Germany invested $2.5 million in manufacturing, South Korea had $12 million in fisheries and Singapore invested $5 million into mining.

The Junta has also brazenly used the cyclone to its further advantage. The United Nations recently reported that aid groups have lost some 20% of the money they have brought in to Burma because of arbitrary foreign exchange rules imposed by the junta. Not only does the junta retain these funds as its own “tax” on relief operations, but this also reduces the aid provided to those most in need.

What ever the diplomatic pressure is on, Burma will not budge, and knowing full well there is nothing ASEAN can do. Of course, what the Junta is doing is to ensure that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is isolated from the political process. The Junta will hold the planned election in 2010 and it will be a fait accompli. The generals will use all kinds of trickery to maintain their power and dodge international sanctions. If the national referendum in May was any indication, the future poll will certainly be rigged. Burma's ratification of the ASEAN Charter was timed for maximum benefit. For the first time, the pariah state was able to say it is committed to the values and norms of ASEAN. In the 11 years since Burma joined ASEAN, it has caused only headaches for the group. Now, ASEAN and the international community are committed to help revitalize Burma after Cyclone Nargis.

Synchronizing the Foreign and Domestic policy

In deciphering the future policy of Burma one need to know not only that realities on the ground are somewhat different from the reports we are having in the West. Must be able to construed the broad picture and not be distorted with emotions. In astronomy it is called "gravitational lensing", where light was distorted because of gravity. Hence most of the ethno democratic forces of Burma are often than not blinded by emotions. Johan Alvin rightly asserts that Burma problem is not just the failure of the tyrannical Burmese Generals but `also that of the opposition and the international community. We would rather label it as a collective failure from President Bush on to the lowest resistance Burmese fighter.

The moral approach of the West particularly America and EU, the mainstream rational approach by the UN and the economic approach by ASEAN of the so called Constructive Engagement and the Hegemonic approach by China and India have all failed and one is forced to admit that Burma is unique. What we are clamouring is a collective responsibility approach.

A Burmese intelligentsia will not be fooled by clever Public Relations stance of the US President, because one can almost guarantee the US would place China on its list of priorities above that of Burma. If anything, the US would sacrifice Burma at the altar of vast Chinese economic advantage. Everybody knows that if China drops its support for the Burmese regime today it will collapse tomorrow. What we are emphasizing is that the Burmese ethno democratic movement alone cannot change the Chinese government and the people sitting on the Dragon throne, that's why we are asking the international community particularly the US to meet them and give another chance to talk. We are soliciting your help.

Burma's generals have long drawn the ire of the international community, over the brazenly deliberate attempt to restrict the handling of relief operations in the wake of Cyclone Nargis resulting in the death and disappearance of some 140,000 Burmese citizens and turning two million refugees into hostages. It is paradoxical that Bush did not raise this issue to the ten-country consortium of ASEAN that has consistently balked at considering comprehensive sanctions against Burma's generals, instead preferring a policy melded around engagement.

Coup de Grace

Every Burmese know that the regime is mortally wounded. It is difficult to overstate the outrage felt by almost all Burmese Buddhists at the brutalization of the monks. Monks are integrated into all levels of Burmese society. Monks give babies their names; they provide astrological charts for the newborn; in the almost complete absence of medical care in rural Burma (i.e. for eighty per cent of the population) they give traditional medical care in the monasteries, and general help and advice. Monks and pagodas are just about the most conspicuous things in Burma. The regime has 450,000 soldiers but there are 500,000 permanent monks. If you add the temporary monks (and all Burmese boys become monks for at least a few weeks in their lives) then at times there are more than two million of them. Monks were quite an organized group to provide effective help after the cyclone, handing out what little food was available and sheltering people in monasteries until the regime forced them out to return to their destroyed homes and villages.

Hence the brutalising of the monks, along with the aftermath of the typhoon has mortally wounded the regime. There is now a complete understanding between the monastic order and the nation that the present regime is beyond the pale. The danger is that the universal hatred of the generals, now turned into outrage at a sort of sacrilege, combined with rage at their astonishing indifference to the suffering caused by the storm, could lead to a violent eruption. What we need is just acoup de grace.

I often quoted that we don't need a drop of American blood or anybody's blood to shed for Burma, we Burmese will do the dirty job of finishing the Junta and its cronies. Just give us coveted support of arms and ammunition to implement our job, be it a CIA or whatever. This is the policy we are opting for. Now, after two decades, every body is convinced that non violent approach is not paying in as much as the world has not confronted Adolph Hitler for a non violent. The Junta knows only one language and when he sees the guns (the prospect of an American navy coming up the delta) is very upset and sends cold shrills through the spines of the Generals.

The ethnic armies even though badly bruised, is still capable of fighting, if properly armed and with the entire supported of the Burmese people and the international community could easily knocked out the Junta's forces. What more the ENC has already draw up a rough Federal Constitution not to mention the several declarations made by the Burmese ethnic forces that what they want is autonomy in the genuine Union of Burma and not separatism. This action alone proves the ridiculous claim of the Junta that they alone can keep the country together and prevent Balkanization. Remember the crux of the Burmese problem is ethnicity; there won't be any military coup, if the civilian government can handle the ethnic problem in 1962. And if there is no military coup there is no need for the struggle of democracy. Democratic struggle and ethnic problems are two sides of a coin. Yet, when President Bush met the Burmese dissidents there are only two ethnic representatives while the rest are democracy advocates with their megaphone diplomacy. America needs to change its advisers on Burma especially who stay hands in glove with the Arr Loo (literally translated potatoes) leaders and help solve the Burmese problems from its roots if the Union of Burma were not to repeat the mistakes prior to 1962.

Candidly also that among the ethnic leaders there are several racists who would never lift a finger for the prevalence of democracy and human rights and narrow on its ethnic right and federalism. The extremists from both sides, the Mahar Bama who construe that all Burmese ethnics should follow their lead and the racist ethnic leaders who opted for Balkanization still needs to be weeded out once and for all. Now the start has made with the coming of the Bushes, it need a snowball effect which we are quite positive will solve the Burmese problems once and for all.

The ethnics believe in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi like her daddy is the only person whom the ethnic leaders trust. She is manifestly more intelligent and better educated than they are, a better speaker, and beautiful: She is also the daughter of Burma's national hero, Aung San, who created the very army that now keeps her under house arrest. Her beauty and charm combined with her birth, her gentleness stand out against the stupidity and sheer brutishness of the Burmese Generals. There is a general belief that she speaks for the whole country and that no one else does so or even could do so. She has offered compromises to the regime. The army can keep some sort of political role if it goes back to the barracks. The top generals can even leave the country taking their loot with them. There is absolutely nothing that an intelligent, patriotically minded military has to fear from her. But the regime construes her as a nymph that comes to haunt them.

On the other hand the Burmese army better known as Tatamadaw has become a Mudane Thatmadaw (translated rapist not satisfied with killing). The whole strategy of the Burmese army is to divide and rule and turn one group against another. There is no claim to legitimacy, no program, no ideology, nothing except the immeasurable fear that it will lose its power and material gains. Add to that that many Burmese see it as handing over the country to its Chinese protectors (and Mandalay is called as 2nd Peking) and don’t harbor any semblance of being patriotic.

Than Shwe is an object of ridicule and contempt. He inherits the paranoia and weirdness of the Ne Win regime but not its measure of credibility. The regime has cocooned itself away from public opinion, and appears to have given up politics completely in favor of simple military rule. The regime's lack of response to the typhoon, its actual obstruction of both foreign and domestic aid, its determination to go ahead with a bogus referendum designed to legitimize its power in the midst of the emergency have produced exactly the mix of ingredients which can cause a regime to fall. The regime's 450,000 soldiers have families of their own, many of whom will have suffered, and are themselves (apart from the officers) not well paid. It is a proven fact that the commanding officer in Mandalay refused to order his men to fire on the demonstrators in September, and was replaced. Many Burmese will tell you with confidence that many of the young officers of the army hate the ruling clique. Mussolini absurdly tried to impose a martial, Fascist mentality upon the Italians and failed and something similar is happening in Burma. What we need is a little push for the Junta to fall off over the cliff. Will the new American president see this before ringing in the New Year bells?

Source: Asian Tribune - 11 August 2008