(First published on burmareview.org on 30th October 2009)

By: Vijay ‘Bidrohi’

A curious student, hungry for knowledge, asked his teacher a very difficult question – “how to follow Gandhi’s philosophy in current materialistic world to serve humanity”? After a little pause & thought, the teacher replied, it is very simple, start saying – apple – an apple, mango – a mango, monkey – a monkey but don’t make a monk & spiritual person like –Holy Dalai Lama – a thief!

Then equally difficult student asked, if I have to say – a Dragon – a Rabbit, a Monkey – a Parrot, a Mango – an Apple, a Chimpanzee – a Fox, a lovely tender Rose – a Stone, what I would do? The teacher replied – “become an Ambassador or join diplomatic service” or “membership of ruling political party of walled kingdom”. Then, the curious student unsatisfied with the answers of his master asked again – “diplomatic services of which country”? The teacher quickly replied – Ambassadorship of any country will work, art of contemporary diplomacy is very scientific. It can make very simple thing appear complicated and complicated thing appear very simple. Student little confused with the answers, asked again – how come political party of walled kingdom figures into this? The teacher replied – ‘don’t you see my loved one, that, sometime, detention & house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi loved by the people of pagoda kingdom becomes an international problem for walled kingdom and sometimes an internal one! Student satisfied with answers, thanked his master, left him & walked towards countryside to spread the message singing – “Say apple – an apple, mango – a mango, monkey – a monkey, don’t make a monk thief…don’t make a monk thief…don’t make a monk thief…o…o…o…Great Holy Dalai Lama accept my salute!”

*********************

Burma Review is back on web at blogger.com / Google facilities as – burmareview.org / burmareview.blogspot.com web site. The journey of Burma Review was started on 5^th of December 2006 at wordpress.com as burmareview.wordpress.com and later

shifted to the domain name: burmareview.com (which has been now taken by the other interested group to destroy the purpose of the concerned domain name, so now please don’t visit burmareview.com, the story of losing domain name on word press would be explained on other occasions, the forces behind it could be well understood) The old posts of Burma Review will remain available at bumareview.wordpress.com

***********************************

BY: Richard, Editor, Burma Dialogue (www.freesuukyi.org/blog )      

While we sit back and watch the junta predictably jump back and forth concerning the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi’s level of involvement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7150488.stm)  in the masquerade they call a “road to democracy” we can at least say those who stood up will be remembered in the back pages of Time’s internet pages(http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/article/0,28804,1690753_1690758_1693514,00.html).    

Once again ASEAN, the UN, the US and the EU all seem to be under pressure to bring the regime under grand consequence, or the future will simply have no hope for us humanitarians. If my sarcasm is not obvious let me point it out for you. Negligence is the statue in which we embark to resolve.    Though we have done one thing I suppose. The United States passed a Bill(http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN1962807620071220) ending financial support for the flow of Burmese rubies and timber.  China will be happy to oblige. The real Burma timber market is going to China anyways.  The always reliable Telegraph (yes, more sarcasm) stated that in 2007 blogs (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=FXQWANC3XA4L3QFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/10/01/wburma201.xml) helped the Burmese revolution.

They stated three, only one of which is actually a blog.    What the uprising of 2007 has taught me is that, it is not the action or inaction of any government or institution that plays any real role in the fight for freedom for the people of Burma. It is the individual, inside or outside of Burma that makes the case for his and her own freedom according to that which they are prepared to lay down. I have done a little here and there. I would like to do more. But no one has done as much as those in Burma, who were seen publicly, had their pictures taken and their names put on a list for questioning and imprisonment as thoroughly as the Nazi’s did it.    

But Time hides such human courage in the back pages, and names Putin, one of the junta’s largest supporters “Man of the Year”. It is clear we are on our own in this fight. I’m not saying anything new. Others know and are simply waiting for the right….Time.    

(The End)  

************************

(This post was scheduled to appear on 5^th of December but due to the internet support facilities failure it is appearing today)  

Burma Review has completed its one year journey on the web. On the completion of its twelve months journey of Burma Review, I would like to thank all those valuable esteemed readers of Burma Review, who have made significant contribution in its one year journey through their many comments, writings and suggestions to keep alive the flame of Burma burning for freedom and correct historical interpretation of the great nation of Asia suffering under military dictatorship.

In future, it will be more vigilant to face and unmask the claims of certain historians that it is a “democracy jihad”. In its journey towards people’s freedom, Burma Review has been able to attract more than thirty-six thousand six-hundred hits and many comments on its fifty-six posts. The visit of more than thirty-six thousands six-hundred viewers on Burma Review also indicates towards the contemporary historical reality of Burma that people sitting across the globe and inside Burma are not going to forget plight and suffering of people’s queen of Asia – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Moreover, in its journey of one year, Burma Review has witnessed the greatest courage of Burmese people’s desires towards democracy in their August-September 2007 revolution against illegitimate ruling military regime known as – State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), which failed to recognize the May 1990 election results. It might have appeared to the ruling military regime that, Burma Review is working against them as it talks about the freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners of Burma. But in fact, I have never thought that, military hasn’t got role in any nation and basically every democratic leaders of Burma & senior NLD people with whom I met, they also accepts military’s role in the nation but problem lies that, military doesn’t understands the role of personalities like Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in nation building negating the desires of the people in the lust of remaining in power.      

Most importantly, the biggest historical failure and blunders of SPDC is to understand the political-social vision of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (DASSK) on ethnic issues, which resulted in recent junta supported series of statements from ethnic groups. However, both (SPDC and DASSK) believes ultimately in “union spirit” like Bogyoke Aung San, U Nu, Dr. Ba Maw etc. However, it is few ethnic leaders, who defined the February 1947 Panglong agreement in a wrong way going beyond the ultimate historical visions of the makers of Burma like – Bogyoke Aung San, Dr. Ba Maw, U Ottama, U Nu creating not only the problem for Daw Aung Suu Kyi and NLD but also helped military rulers to perpetuate their rule in the name of “Union Spirits”. I will write in details on ethnic issues in future posts in Burma Review. For a moment in brief, Burma Review and any Indian Scholar believes in the “United and Strong Burma” because great makers of Burma like – Bogyoke Aung San also wished, worked and thought for that.  And, as far as I have understood Daw Aung San Suu Kyi through her writings, speeches and interviews, she also want to make Burma strong on the same visions of Bogyoke Aung San giving respectable space to different ethnic views to protect their culture, customs, language in the great Indian and Asian ethos of “Unity in Diversity”.

I don’t know, what has happened in the United Nations Security Council meetings on the issue of arms embargo on Burma? But I would like to remind the member nations of the world’s largest body that, ten years back on the occasion of the 53rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Geneva, held on 8th of April 1997, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi had made an appeal, which is still to be fulfilled and realized.  In which, She spoke with pain that, “The main obligation of the international community is to do every thing it can to implement the terms of the General Assembly resolution.  As I said earlier it is a good resolution but it shouldn’t just remain on paper, it needs to be implemented.  And since it was passed unanimously I think the international community does have an obligation to try to implement its terms. To take it seriously, not just to regard it as a piece of paper.” However the event in Burma suggests that, it is still remained on paper. Furthermore, it is a mockery of world institutions like UN and ASEAN that despite their many official calls for the freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, she is still in house arrest and not allowed to meet the world press.         

Burma Review has a special important role to play as it is also a “Voice from India” for the freedom of Burmese people and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, analyzing Modern Burmese history on the correct perspective of the vision’s of Burma’s great leaders like- Bogyoke Aung San, U Nu, Dr. Ba Maw and many great sons and daughters of Burma on the basis of available historical facts. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is very special for India, not only because she has spent some years in India during her studies, but because she has been also a great disciple of our great father of the nation – Mahatma Gandhi and truly following the path of non-violence against heaviest odds. There have been many posts on Burma websites concerning themes that, “Don’t forget Burma” and many like these words, so in the next post Burma Review will analyze on this very important issue utilizing the research tools of historiography taking examples of Asian history. I have also not finished the second and concluding part of the comparisons of “Quit India Movement with 8888 Quit Dictatorship Movement” post, which will appear in January 2008.     

Once again thanking you all for visiting Burma Review,   

Rajshekhar

Editor, Burma Review 

INDIA

5th of December 2007  

*******************************       

Press Release: Human Rights Watch, December 5, 2007 

Human Rights Watch, in its press release issued today, has appealed to the United Nations Security Council to impose an arms embargo on Burma in response to the Burmese military government’s continued recruitment of children for its national army. Human Rights Watch further stressed that, Burma’s ruling military regimes claim to redress the problem of child recruitments are wholly insufficient.    

The press release has been issued addressed to the tomorrow’s meeting of the UN Security Council’s working group on children and armed conflict, which is scheduled to discuss the recent report submitted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, that has found well documented “grave violations” against children in Burma, including patterns of underage military recruitment.     

According to the Press Release issued today by HRW, the UN secretary-general has issued five reports since 2002 citing Burma’s national army, the Tatmadaw, for violating international law prohibiting the use of child soldiers. The reports have also cited several non-state armed groups in Burma for recruiting children, including armed opposition groups. 

“Burma’s army has recruited thousands of children to fill its ranks,” said Jo Becker, children’s rights advocate for Human Rights Watch. “The Security Council needs to show Burma’s generals that they cannot get away with such horrendous practices.” The Security Council’s working group on children and armed conflict must now consider what action the Security Council should take in response to the secretary-general’s new report on violations in Burma. In past resolutions on children and armed conflict, the Security Council has stated that it will consider targeted measures including embargoes on arms and other military assistance – in cases where governments and armed groups fail to end their use of child soldiers.    

It is important to note that, in a report released in October, Human Rights Watch documented how children as young as 10 are recruited by force into Burma’s army. At recruitment centers, officers falsify documents to register new recruits as age 18, even if they are clearly underage. Former soldiers reported that in many training camps, children made up more than 30 percent of new recruits.  After putting children through military training, the Burmese army uses them in combat against ethnic armed opposition groups, and sometimes to participate in human rights abuses against civilians. Children who try to escape are typically beaten, re-recruited, or imprisoned.     

The army’s forced recruitment is designed to fill personnel shortages as a result of both increased desertion rates and army expansion. This expansion includes new units established to utilize arms purchased from China, India, Russia, and Ukraine. Under Burma’s national law, the recruitment of anyone below age 18 is prohibited. The recruitment and use of child soldiers below the age of 15 is considered a war crime under international law.     

In 2004, the military government, known as the State Peace and Development Council, established a high-level committee to prevent the recruitment of underage soldiers. Human Rights Watch’s investigation found that the committee had taken little action to end child recruitment, and instead repeatedly denied outside reports of child soldier use by government forces. There is no independent oversight of this committee, nor is there monitoring of recruitment centers or access to military bases throughout Burma’s hinterland, where many child soldiers are deployed.     

In addition, Human Rights Watch advocate for Children’s right – Mr. Jo Becker has pointed that the, “The Security Council should not be fooled by Burma’s repeated promises to address the army’s use of child soldiers,” and stressed that, “Nothing short of an arms embargo is likely to make Burma’s military government end all recruitment and use of children.”    

Non-state armed groups in Burma also use child soldiers, though practices vary widely. Some groups actively recruit and use children in armed conflict, while others, including the Karenni Army and Karen National Liberation Army, have taken steps to end the recruitment of children into their forces. In its report, Human Rights Watch noted that cooperation by the Karenni Army and its efforts since 2002 to end the use of child soldiers had eradicated the practice, and recommended the armed group be removed from the UN secretary-general’s list of parties using child soldiers.     

Mr. Jo Becker further said that, “Burma’s diplomatic supporters in the Security Council, China and Russia, are also its main arms suppliers. These countries sell weapons to Burma with scant regard for the impact on the civilian population.”      

(The End)   

***************************************

Burma’s ruling military junta officially known as State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), bolstered by the recent successful trip of the two ASEAN member nations – Cambodia and Vietnam of their Seven-step road map of democracy organized a Press Conference (No. 2/2007) yesterday, which has been published in today’s official media – The New Light of Myanmar;  once again reiterated that, they believed August-September 2007 people’s revolution “were the results of timely conspiracies of  western powers and anti-government groups inside and outside the country as well as at the border.”  Most interesting part of today’s published press conference is related with the news of fine contradictions of Junta appointed Daw Aung Suu Kyi’s liaison minister for Labour’s – U Aung Kyi’s statement with the statement of Information Minister – Brigadier General Mr. Kyaw Hsan’s statement in the same news report published on page number ten. While answering to the question of Nikei Newspaper correspondent, that, “Is there prospect of the negotiation between NLD led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the government or is there any progress for the negotiation?”, the Information Minister replied that, “Before thinking about the prospect of the negotiation, we should see the progress in the meetings of Minister U Aung Kyi and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi first. Regarding the negotiation, the Government issued the announcement No 1/2007. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has not yet responded to the announcement. The announcement No 1/2007 is the basic for all,” proving that the media reported three meetings of liaison minister’s talks with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has not resulted in any positive outcome and progress.        

It is important to note that, earlier Burma’s ruling military junta had announced on 4^th of October 2007 through their announcement No. 1/2007 (published on 5^th of October of the New Light of Myanmar) that, “If Daw Aung San Suu Kyi declares to give up exerting efforts for Confrontation, Utter Devastation, and Imposing All Kinds of Sanctions including Economic Sanction against Myanmar then the Senior General – Mr. Than Shwe will personally meet her.” 

However, it is noteworthy that till now only one statement of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been published in the world press through the efforts of the United Nations Special Envoy of Burma – Mr. Ibrahim Agboola Gambari issued at Singapore on 8^th of November 2007, in which she clearly welcomed, “the appointment on 8th of October of Minister Aung Kyi as minister for relations,” and said that, “Our first meeting on 25th October was constructive and look forward to further regular discussions. I expect that this phase of preliminary consultations will conclude soon so that a meaningful and time bound dialogue with the SPDC leadership can start as early as possible.”  She further reiterated in her 8^th of November statement that, “In the interest of the nation, I stand ready to cooperate with the government in order to make this process of dialogue a success and welcome the necessary good offices role of the United Nations to help facilitate our efforts in this regard.”

However, today’s published statement by the Information Minister indicates and proves that, Junta’s intention of negotiation is nothing but fooling the world community, UN and ASEAN member nations, whereas Daw Aung San Suu Kyi seriously wants to cooperate with the military junta towards genuine democratic transformation.       

In the same news report published today, when Reuter’s news Agency correspondent – U Aung Hla Tun asked liaison Minister for Labour – Mr. U Aung Kyi, that, “Is there time frame for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to respond to the announcement No 1/2007 as she has not yet responded to the announcement? Can we expect that she will respond to the announcement? I want to know the progress of the meetings between U Aung Kyi and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi”, the liaison minister replied that, “I met with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for three times. We have made progress at the meetings. The first meeting was aimed at gaining understanding between us. The second meeting was to discuss frameworks for the future. The third meeting was to discuss the facts that should be included in the framework. We will release information related to the meetings when necessary. Regarding the time frame, we will continue to hold meetings with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. We need to consider “what” to discuss and “why”. We are choosing “What” and “Why”. So, we will take “Where”, “How” and “When” into consideration in the future”, indicating the whole structure of negotiations is an attempt  of buying time to go-ahead with their planned seven-step roadmap of democracy and well designed move to suppress the democratic forces led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.     

If after two months of the appointment of liaison minister, Daw Suu Kyi is not allowed freely to meet world press and still suffering under house arrest and SPDC is still wavering on “What”, “Why”, Where, “How”, and “When”, then the time has ripped now to act sternly on Burma with firm hands by the United Nations and ASEAN?       

(Note: For reader’s clear understanding of the issue, please find below the announcement No. 1/2007 as well as the statement of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi released on 8^th of November by the UN Special Envoy of Burma at Singapore on 8^th of November 2007) 

****************************    

DOCUMENT No. 1: Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s Statement released at Singapore by the UN special envoy – Mr. Ibrahim Gambari on 8^th of November 2007.  

As you know, I have just completed a mission to Myanmar from 3 to 8 November, where I met today with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. In my capacity as Special Advisor to the Secretary-General for Myanmar. I was authorized by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to make the following statement on her behalf:  

1. I wish to thank all those who have stood by my side all this time, both inside and outside my country. I am also grateful to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, for his unwavering support for the cause of national reconciliation, democracy and human rights in my country.

2. I welcome the appointment on 8^th of October of Minister Aung Kyi as minister for relations. Our first meeting on 25th October was constructive and look forward to further regular discussions. I expect that this phase of preliminary consultations will conclude soon so that a meaningful and time bound dialogue with the SPDC leadership can start as early as possible.

3. In the interest of the nation, I stand ready to cooperate with the government in order to make this process of dialogue a success and welcome the necessary good offices role of the United Nations to help facilitate our efforts in this regard.

4. In full awareness of the essential role of political parties in democratic societies, in deep appreciation of the sacrifices of the members of my party and in my position as General Secretary, I will be guided by the policies and wishes of the National League for Democracy. However, in this time of vital need for democratic solidarity and national unity, it is my duty to give constant and serious considerations to the interests and opinions of as broad a range of political organization and forces as possible, in particular those of our ethnic nationality races.

5. To that end, I am committed to pursue the path of dialogue constructively and invite the government and all relevant parties to join me in this spirit.

6. I believe that stability, prosperity and democracy for my country, living at peace with itself and with full respect for human rights, offers the best prospect for my country to fully contribute to the development and stability of the region in close partnership with its neighbors and fellow ASEAN members and to play a positive role as a respected member of the international community.

   ********************************   

DOCUMENT No. 2: SPDC’s Announcement No. 1/2007 issued on 4^th of October 2007 published on 5^th of October 2007 in the New Light of Myanmar:   

The Government of the Union of MyanmarAnnouncement No. 1/20078th Waning Day of Tawthalin, 1369 ME

(4^th October 2007)  

1. In the Union of Myanmar, the Government and the people are striving hand in hand to build up a new democratic nation. 

2. However, starting from 28th August 2007, there occurred demonstrations of some monks. The demands made by the demonstrators in the beginning were only to bring down commodity prices but later the demands made by them were nothing to do with monks and it was found to be the wishes of a political party and other organizations aspiring to create unrest. Unrests occurred due to the attempts of those who want to grab power through short-cut and that of some foreign nations to destabilize the nation. 

3. The unrests are now totally under control by authorities for ensuring stability and the rule of law, with the cooperation of Sanghas and people who do not want any unrest. 

4. Due to lopsided broadcasts by some international media, some member nations of the United Nations Organization were worried about Myanmar’s situation and the UN Secretary-General sent his Special Envoy Mr Ibrahim Agboola Gambari to Myanmar to make urgent investigation and submit a report. 

5. Myanmar is grateful to some member nations of the UN for their understanding upon Myanmar’s situation and their principled stances. 

6. Mr Gambari arrived Myanmar on 29th September. He witnessed the situation has returned to normalcy and he had an opportunity to pay a courtesy call on State Peace and Development Council Chairman Senior General Than Shwe. Mr Gambari also had opportunities to meet with those worthy to be met for enquiring the situation. 

7. At the courtesy call, State Peace and Development Council Chairman Senior General Than Shwe mentioned Mr Gambari that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been exerting efforts for Confrontation, Utter Devastation, and Imposing All Kinds of Sanctions including Economic Sanction against Myanmar. If she declares to give them up, the Senior General will personally meet her. 

8. At present, the people of various States and Divisions all over the country are convening mass rallies to support the National Convention and welcome the forthcoming Constitution as well as to denounce recent unrests. 

9. Hence, the Government, with the support and in response to confidence and aspiration of the people, will continue to build up the nation into a discipline flourishing genuine democratic one in accordance with the seven-step Road Map.  

By order,

(Signed)Thant Shin

ColonelSecretary

The Government of the Union of Myanmar    

*************************************

By: Min Khin Kyaw 

(The author is 88 Generation leader, poet and artist)  

I have been inspired by the international pressure on the junta so far. More recently, both England and France and the US keeps reminding the dialogue must go ahead and for that the pressure on the junta is not waning. Unfortunately, the junta is still refusing to negotiate with the United Nations – let alone with democratic movement as more arrests have been there. And sending troops to KNU and tensions with others insurgent groups also indicates the resurfacing disagreement of the junta over the political developments – is another rejection of the totalitarian rule.

We have seen in Singapore that, how the junta has tried to treat – Mr. Gambari like other special UN envoys to Burma. Unlike previous envoys, he seems to possess a special quality but he still has to outwit the junta even though the international pressures are supporting his mission.   We certainly have to see the dialogue between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and U Than Shwe. This is the tasks and main objective. However, he has no motive for dialogue and not even responding to let her see her team again. So it’s sure she will not be released – despite EU and ASEAN has asked in Singapore summit. It’s crystal clear that the junta will not give up its ground even an inch.    

Instead of worry, we only have one condition – to push ahead no matter what. I want to see people more united and trying to do just for that. As long as the general population of Burma can boycott the authorities in various ways or showing defiance, I hope the authorities themselves will become inspired and sometimes in the future they would side with the people. The monks must keep leading the way of defying.   

On the other hand, Mr. Gambari must not give up despite knowing how the scenario between him and the junta will develop. I think both NLD and the generals must give their roadmap plans to Mr. Gambari: what to discuss and how to discuss with a timeframe so he will be able to develop a workable structure; and also he can discuss the plan with the concern parties including ASEAN countries. Even if the junta wouldn’t give its plan to Mr. Gambari, as it’s about to push the seven step roadmap ahead as China seems to be happy with it, Mr. Gambari should get the plans of NLD and develop it into the framework for discussion.   It seems the neighbours of the junta are giving no real pressure, although they warmly welcomed Mr. Gambari. I think he has more works to do with them. If necessary, he should ask them to speak with the junta as far as the region concerns; if they don’t, then there is no real pressure – especially from China.   

Apart from above, we need that the international community should ask junta to pardon all activists arrested recently.   

ASEAN with Burma Issue  

It is good that, ASEAN still thinks that there is a chance for good change. However, the idea of giving humanitarian aids to the junta, the Cambodian view as a member of ASEAN, is just another repetition. But the lesson of the past is forgotten, that, if a support is not for itself, the junta simply doesn’t accept?

I think, it appears as ASEAN is still hopeful that humanitarian effort of the good offices would be accepted. As ASEAN insists the junta needs support – then, ASEAN has to push the junta to accept such supports and if it ever happens, this effort of ASEAN will not be forgotten. It’s true the people of Burma need humanitarian aids: medical supply and education about various diseases, especially HIV; and the sooner this happens, the better. Therefore, both UN and ASEAN should insist the junta to do just for this.

However, the forced closure of a monastery that provided HIV patients is a contradiction to this idea unfortunately; and also the effort HIV doctor Ma Phyu Phyu Thin was disrupted and now she is detained despite the wishes of international community to keep restraints in further arrests. Yet, ASEAN can do the push and it will be a good task for ASEAN to seek this through firm realistic commitment. But what if the junta denies again? Before any attempt, ASEAN should have alternative ideas.  

If ASEAN is happy about this idea, it must develop the plan agreed by its members as soon as possible. It must include the consideration of refugees along the borders, Burmese workers in ASEAN countries and political developments with various insurgent groups who will have to give up fighting, when they get peace and security of their peoples.   

And ASEAN should consider how politics of all ethnic groups can be improved by humanitarian efforts; it’s true that the ethnics are desperate to get attention from regional countries. As soon as an agreement for peace between the junta and the ethnic groups, especially the Karens, as a fresh fighting between the two sides is looming, the dream of a democratic country of united ethnics of Burma will become closer to be true.   Politically, ASEAN has to be more careful than ever as the seven step roadmap effort of the junta is a serious issue. As the junta is denying to see and free political leaders to participate in the process of reconciliation and composing future constitution, there people cannot accept any development that made by the junta alone with its 54 misrepresentatives of the people. Hence, ASEAN must not show any gesture that can be interpreted as agreement or support to the foul effort of the junta.   Even though Democracy in Burma and peace in the region will certainly benefit every country that has relationship with Burma, as long as the ASEAN is more content with current situation than to be busy with an attempt for a better future, Burmese people will not have equal share of any good things in the region. 

Business with the Junta  

Once again, the debate of doing business with the ruling military junta has re-emerged that, it is ethical or not? And the case of TOTAL is always remain a good example! Recently the management of TOTAL has argued that, “We feel the country would have evolved much more if more responsible companies had remained… Development of human rights goes along with the development of the economy.”   Then how many people are currently employed by TOTAL and how much do they get paid has to be answered by TOTAL? It is also necessary to know that, how much junta receives every year from TOTAL and how much does the junta spends for the people from that income? In the areas where TOTAL operates, do all people get the similar benefits or how have they been affected because of TOTAL’s operations or are they affected to get worse? Now how can TOTAL calculate it gives better life for the people where it operates?  By the argument ‘Development of human rights goes along with the development of the economy’, TOTAL has to come up with a statement how it can improve the entire Burma with its operations with the junta that the junta will comply with the idea of development. And TOTAL has to provide evidences that the junta is doing just that.   And also, as TOTAL has argued for all business tied with the junta by its statement on economy provides human rights development, TOTAL has to prove that all other companies are doing the same to develop the local communities.

But how long will the people of Burma have to wait for the human right development made by this kind of business-bound efforts. Can TOTAL calculate year-by-year improvement that happened in past few years? How many years have passed and what have happened for the sake of the people and are they sufficient enough to be desirable?   And does TOTAL care about entire Burma or just a local where it operates? It’s clear that by its own words, TOTAL cares only about its operation but ignoring the entire Burma and the concern of wider community.  

We all know that many people were forced to move and lost their livelihoods as consequence of business projects. Now also, the dam projects in Burma will make everything bad luck to the local people. TOTAL cannot deny this. Even in China, dams are causing problems every year. There is no regulation in Burma that the project must conduct properly so it will be worse. As doing business in Burma, anything happening in Burma is directly related to TOTAL whilst the entire country is fighting against the junta which TOTAL is supporting. But not only TOTAL, all other businesses that link with the junta are a main concern of income for the junta. As TOTAL and all other companies in Burma cannot improve Burma in a few years, they must leave; the reason is once there is no income, the junta will fall in a year.   

If TOTAL (and any other companies) is really concerned about human rights, it must work with democratic side and oppose the junta. Unless TOTAL changes side, its argument is only a self-serving rhetoric. TOTAL, as a major gas company has to explain, why the junta imposed the price hikes on fossil fuels that caused the recent political movements?

(The End) 

******************************    

Burma, which is officially known as Myanmar since 1989 has witnessed a significant change over the years in its foreign policy endeavours. It has been often said by Western Scholars as well as by some Asian Scholars, which popularized the notion’s that, after independence, Myanmar followed the course of ‘Neutralism’ during U Nu’s democratic era, ‘Isolationism’ under General Ne Win’s military rule under SLORC till 1987, then the course of ‘Independent and Active’ foreign policy after 1988 democratic upsurge till today with the world community. These notions have been developed due to the analysis of outcome of unstable internal political situation of Burma during U Nu’s democratic rule and accepting military junta’s definition of foreign policy directed to mitigate the prolonged demand for restoration of democracy under Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in the land of pagodas.

Is it ‘Neutralism’ and ‘Isolationism’ during early phase?

Although interestingly Myanmar’s present military dictators of State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) are not definite in defining their foreign policy postures of SLORC rule and they officially in some documents describe General Ne Win’s rule as a period of ‘Isolationism’ and in some documents as ‘independent and non-aligned’ foreign policy. As Burma’s contemporary Ministry of Foreign policy direction (of Year 2006) clearly states that, “Beginning in 1971 Myanmar transformed its independent and non-aligned Foreign policy to an independent active foreign policy.”[i] Whereas their official document entitled, “Political Situation of Myanmar” describes SLORC rule of General Ne Win’s Burmese way to Socialism as, ‘During this period Myanmar more or less stayed away from the regional and international crisis with doors partly closed eventually leading her to a self-imposed seclusion in pursuit of her own ideals.’[ii] Even the Government of India’s External Affair’s Ministry documents till today accepts that, “During the Ne Win era, Myanmar followed an ‘isolationist’ policy withdrawing even from NAM in 1979.”[iii] However before analyzing the true nature of Isolationism under General Ne Win’s military rule, it is important to asses briefly the first phase of ‘Neutralism’ popularly phrased as ‘Everybody’s friend but nobody’s ally’ during early democratic rule under Burma’s first Prime Minister U Nu.

When Burma got independence on 4^th January 1948 under U Nu’s leadership, the nation was in pain with the assassination of maker of modern Burma & ‘Tatmadaw’ (military) Bogyoke Aung San on 19^th July 1947 with six of his cabinet colleagues. The tragic assassination happened just after eleven days; Burma established their diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom (UK) on 07^th July 1947. However after this assassination, soon Burma established diplomatic relations with Pakistan on 1^st of August 1947 and then United States of America (USA) on 19^th of September 1947 before their independence. However, Aung San’s successor U Nu, after completion of the Constituent Assembly work on 24 September 1947, later decided secession from British Commonwealth in his mid-October 1947 trip to London. Burma’s early endeavour to establish diplomatic relations with Pakistan was result of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s effort to secure distant East Pakistan and diplomatic relations with UK & USA’s before independence was the outcome of second world war.

Although Burmese leadership under U Nu was not late to realize the Asian message of neutralism & struggle against colonialism, which was reflected in first Asian Relations Conference held at New Delhi in March-April 1947. And when Burma became independent on 4^th January 1948, it pursued the path of neutralism & non-alignment of India and established diplomatic relations with her on Independence Day. Burma during U Nu’s democratic era truly enjoyed the policy of neutralism and non-alignment with strong relations with India also due to her association with Indian leadership during nationalist movement and personal rapport of U Nu with then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, which didn’t allow Pakistan to find space in Burma’s politics against India’s national interest. When Burma’s great assassinated leader, Aung San’s wife – Daw Khin Kyi (Mother of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi) took the ambassadorial position of Burma in India, it saw more closeness with the land of Pagodas. So during democratic era of Burma, from 4^th January 1948 to March 1962, the golden land enjoyed further strengthening of relations between India and Burma. So, Democratic Burma’s closeness with India was natural reflection of the past cultural-historical-political relations existing between two countries since time immemorial.

During Burma’s democratic era of neutralism, India always helped Burma in its hour of need by providing weapons to the Burmese government when the insurrection began in 1948, by informing Burma of a plot between two English adventurers and the Karen prior to the Karen revolt, and by offering Burma a substantial loan during its financial crisis of 1955.[iv] Burma became founder member of NAM with India and tried its best to cooperate with Afro-Asian nations in United Nations on international problems.

Although even during its neutralism period, Burma struggling with her nationwide communist insurgency problem also established bilateral diplomatic relations with western cold war blocs or North Atlantic Treaty organizations (NATO) like – Belgium (1953), the Netherlands (1948), West Germany (1954), Canada (1958), as well as Union Soviet Socialist Republic (1948) or Warsaw Security Pact countries and its allies like – Hungary (1956), Bulgaria (1956), Poland (1955), Romania(1956), Czechoslovakia (1956). In addition, it was among first list of countries to recognize People’s Republic of China in 1949, after Mao Zedong’s successful communist revolution. Burma’s growing relations with many important Warsaw pact countries in 1956 was the result of Khrushchev & Bulganin’s visit to Burma in 1955, in which Soviet leadership promised to build a sports stadium and a technical institute for training Burmese in agricultural research and to establish tractor factory. Burma’s initiative to forge links with Warsaw pact countries in 1956 also made it possible for U Nu to get US aid in 1956 through US Economic Co-operation Administration to sell $ 21 million worth of surplus agricultural products for Burmese currency. The initiative of American help in 1956 facilitated the neutral partner of Afro-Asian nation to stand with the Western nations at United Nations in 1956 on the question of Russian brutality in Hungary and went with Western bloc on United Nations report on the Hungarian uprising in September 1957.[v] However despite Burma’s siding with Western Bloc’s on Hungary’s question in 1956, it remained neutral to cold-war politics and cooperated with India in world politics till the military take-over by General Ne Win in March 1962.

However foreign policy of Burma radically changed after the military takeover in 1962. Now for the new military rulers under General Ne Win, it was more important for the regime to find reliable political friends to stay in power to suppress internal discontent for the restoration of democracy in Burma rather than promoting & strengthening historical-cultural ties with any nation including India till 1988 democratic revolution. In this difficult situation to gain diplomatic support with armaments, China and its military arm in South Asia – Pakistan (Although, US policy think tanks are blundering to considers Pakistan as their trustworthy partner in South Asia) provided more homogeneity with Burma’s military General’s than any nations in the first act of diplomacy.

Moreover the more pronounced Burma/Myanmar’s foreign policy period of ‘Isolationism’ was not actually the ‘era of seclusion’ as it was projected to the world community by military regime and even officially accepted by many western nations including India. The country’s leaving of NAM in 1979 on the pretext of considering the movement to have strayed from its original course was well designed diplomatic move by SLORC regime to strengthen the perception of ‘Isolationism’ to avoid criticism by fellow NAM partners for the restoration of democracy in Burma, which had been witnessing continued student protests for democracy after 1962 coup. It was also necessary for the military regime to come out of NAM as Burma’s former premier U Nu and many of his political colleagues were alive and active at that time and enjoyed good rapport with the NAM leaders, who could pressurize Burma for democratic reforms. It was false perception of ‘Isolationism’ because during this period from 1962 to before 18^th September 1988 declaration – 3/88 of State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) of independent and active foreign policy, Military regime not only continued their policy of strengthening relationship with China but also established diplomatic relations with twenty four countries including – Cuba, Iran, Syria, Albania, Nigeria etc. And also for the first time Burma tried to break the ice to establish diplomatic bilateral cooperation with Latin American countries like – Argentina (1975), Chile (1982), and Brazil (1982) during this so called isolationism phase.[vi]

China followed the policy of stick & carrot in dealing with General Ne Win’s new military government in 1962. It first acted positively on 4^th March 1962, only two days after the coup to recognize the Ne Win’s regime and then also permitted comrades of Communist Party of Burma (CPB) exiles in China to issue their first public statement against new military regime on 01^st of August 1962. However, later on Burma’s relations with China improved during military regime apart from few exceptions on the issue of supporting communist movement inside Burma. The volume of Burma’s imports from China increased from Kyats 57.4 million in 1970-71 to Kyats 61.5 million in 1971-72, and further to Kyats 78.8 million in 1972-1973. Similarly, exports to China increased from only Kyats 3.4 million in 1970-71 to Kyats 5.5 million in 1971-72, and further jumped to Kyats 56.7 million in 1972-73.[vii]

Whether Burma is following ‘Independent & Active’ Foreign Policy under SPDC?

After the democratic revolution of 8.8.88, Burma officially adheres to pursue the independent and active foreign policy in world affair with the promulgations of the SLORC declaration – 3/88 of 18 September 1988 to mitigate strong demand of restoration of democratic movement. Burma’s contemporary official document on foreign policy directives states that, “Myanmar practices the Independent and Active Foreign Policy in accordance with the following principles: (a) respect of and adherence to the principle of equality among peoples and among nations and the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence (Panchshila) ; (b) taking a non-aligned, independent and just stand in international issues; (c) maintaining friendly relations with all nations, and good-neighbourly relations with neighbouring countries; (d) continued support of, and active participation in, the United Nations and its affiliated organizations; (e) pursuance of mutually beneficial bilateral and multilateral cooperation programmes; (f) regional consultation and beneficial cooperation in regional economic and social affairs; (g) active participation in the maintenance of international peace and security and the creation of an equitable economic order and opposition to imperialism, colonialism, intervention, aggression and hegemonism; and, (h) acceptance of foreign assistance which is beneficial to national development, provided there are no strings attached.”[viii]

However it is interesting to note that Burma’s foreign policy had been always active serving internal needs of supporting stability of Tatmadaw (military) rule in changing scenario in world affairs. And 1988 pronouncement of pursuing independent and active foreign policy was more related with the outcome of the entry of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in Burmese politics in 1988 and her national & international stature as well as support to her from international community, which was lacking in force in pre-88 period. During this contemporary active & independent phase of foreign policy, Burma has been successful in establishing diplomatic relations with twenty-six countries, exceeding only two nations compared with earlier isolationism period reaching presently the total number of Ninety-three nations including great move to become part of ASEAN in 1997. In this active phase, Burma established relations with African countries like – Ghana (1995), South Africa (1995), Kenya (1997) etc. and with break-away nations of Soviet Union like – Ukraine (1999), Azerbaijan (1999), Georgia (1999), Kazakhstan (1999), Kyrgyzstan (2000), Uzbekistan (2001) etc. and strengthened her relationship with South America developed during so called – ‘Isolationism’ phase by establishing relationship with Peru (1989) and Venezuela (1990).[ix]

Burma officially wants to establish relations with all nations based on ‘Panchshila’, but the available facts shows her relying more on China and its partner nations like – Pakistan and now Russia (In 2001 ‘Russia-China Good Neighbourly Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation’ signed in July 2001 to cooperate on bilateral ties & major international issues including Myanmar) to counter American, European Union and Western powers pressure to negotiate with Daw Suu Kyi, suffering under prolonged house arrest and National League of Democracy (NLD) party, the winner of May 1990 elections.

Although, presently Burma enjoys diplomatic relations with Ninety-three countries and junta’s official declarations shows that most of the foreign direct investment to Myanmar comes from Asian countries up to September 2006, consisting 79.5 percent of total FDI, worth $ 11,012 million US dollars. After Asian countries, it is ASEAN+3 countries, which has $ 10,462 million US dollars of FDI, then, ASEAN countries – which has $ 9,861 million US dollars of investment in Myanmar in various sectors. Among different nations till September 2006, military junta’s recent FDI data shows that, USA has investment worth $ 244 million US dollars, then, Japan with $ 215 million US dollars, China with $ 194 million US dollars, Republic of Korea with $ 192 million US dollars, Australia with $ 82 million US dollars and India & Russia’s FDI respectively with $ 35 and $ 33 million US dollars.[x] However, one should be very careful in accepting military junta’s Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development data about the nation’s economic achievements and trade ratios with different countries as it lacks transparency and accuracy or probably intentional to create confusion to counter US economic sanctions as part of their diplomacy.

Moreover, the recent economic data of SPDC up to September 2006 intentionally attempts to undermine the presence of Chinese FDI in Myanmar valuing to US $ 194 million making it even lower than USA and Japan’s FDI. But other official sources of Myanmar government itself contradicts later projections, as the government reported data of 2004 itself says only about one Chinese province – Yunnan’s investment in Myanmar, that, “Yunnan currently has capital totaling $ 406 million US dollars invested in Burma/Myanmar”, as well as, “Myanmar made up just US $ one billion of China’s US $ 78.25 billion trade with ASEAN in 2003 and trade between Myanmar and Yunnan province reached US $ 490 million last year (2003), an increase of eighteen percent over 2002.”[xi]

However interestingly Burma’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, economic data showing FDI till 31^st December 2002 that, Singapore & Britain as first and second largest investor in Burma valuing US $ 1566.626 millions & US $ 1404.011 millions with 71 & 37 enterprises respectively. And placing China at fifteenth place worth US $ 64.151 (sixty-four point one hundred fifty one) millions with only thirteen enterprises after Singapore (1st), Britain (2^nd), Thailand (3^rd), Malaysia (4^th), United States (5^th), France (Sixth), Netherlands (Seventh), Indonesia (Eighth), Japan (Ninth), Philippines’ (10^th), Hong Kong (11th), Republic of Korea (12^th), Australia (13^th), Austria (14^th), and interesting to find India at 20^th place with $ 4.50 million US dollars.[xii] Although, for year 2001, the Chinese official media – “the People’s Daily” reports differently of Chinese investment in Myanmar. It says that, “In the year 2001 first ten months, the bilateral trade volume amounted worth $ 499 million US dollars, registering 3.1 percent year-on-year growth. And in the first ten months of 2001, Chinese companies signed 87 project deals, totaling US $ 186 million and by the end of 2000, there were 752 contract agreements between Chinese and Myanmar companies with a value of $ 1.786 billion US dollars.[xiii]

According to the another latest figures released by the SPDC’s Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development in the second week of April 2007, “Myanmar has been successful in attracting $ 14.4 billion US dollars since the country opened in late 1988. The concerned FDI related with 408 projects, came from twenty-eight countries among which – Thailand, Singapore, United Kingdom and Malaysia were taking the lead. It also says that, the highest annual contracted foreign investment of $ 6.065 billion US dollars in 2005-06 fiscal years came from Thailand with $ 6.03 billion dollars in the 7,110 MW Tar-hsan hydropower project on the Thanlwin River in eastern Shan state’s Tachilek area. In which it was successful in inviting 34 percent in Oil and Gas sector, 20 percent in manufacturing, 13.7 percent in real estate, 13.3 percent in hotels and tourism and rest of the investments in mining, livestock & fisheries, transport communication, industrial estates, construction and agriculture. But once again it shows surprising minimal investment data about China investment – Seven Lakhs US dollars in mining totaling around $ 35 million US dollars.[xiv] However Ministry of Commerce data of Myanmar government reported in the official media says that, China-Myanmar bilateral trade achieved US $ 1.46 billion in 2006, up 20.7 percent from 2005. And of the total, China’s exports to Myanmar comprised US $ 1207 billion, up 29.2 percent, while it imported $ 252 million worth of goods from Myanmar, down 7.9 percent and China gained a trade surplus of US $ 955 million during this year.[xv] Furthermore, reliability of Myanmar’s economic data could be assessed from the Asian Development Bank’s recent Asian Development Outlook 2006 observation that, “an assessment of Myanmar’s economic development is handicapped by incomplete information and by deficiencies in the reliability of data. Official estimates suggest that the economy grew quickly in financial year 2004, but this is not supported by trends in inputs. Inflation appeared to rise to double-digit rates in 2005 and significant improvements in economic performance are unlikely in view of structural weakness in domestic policies, which include the monetization of fiscal deficits and a dual exchange rate.”

Apart from intensive economic engagement with China, Myanmar’s military junta also enjoys deep defence cooperation with Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and investment in strategic sectors like – Railways and Telecommunications. In the last week of January 2007, Myanmar’s military Chief of Staff and member of the ruling Myanmar State Peace and Development Council – Thura Shwe Mann visited China and met with Premier Wen Jiabao to enhance existing friendly and cooperative ties between the two armed forces. During Myanmar’s Prime Minister, General Soe Win’s visit to China in February 2006, China’s Telecommunications Corporation Director, Mr. Liang Niu discussed cooperation in the telecommunication sector and Chinese Assistant Railway Minister, Mr. Lu Dongfu called for close cooperation in rail transport with Myanmar’s Rail Transportation minister – Mr. Maj-Gen Aung Min. China has earlier donated 130 rail coaches (2005) to Myanmar and interested in construction of railroad from Kunming in Yunnan to Tali and plans to build railway up to Shweli, the border of the two countries and rail route development up to Lashio.[xvi]

The SPDC’s major concession to China in economic & strategic sectors to the level of tilting balance of trade in subjugation to Chinese economy has undermined military junta’s contemporary core objective of foreign policy which states that, “acceptance of foreign assistance which is beneficial to national development, provided there are no strings attached.” However giving concession to China as well as to Russia has been of great benefit to junta recently in successfully vetoing US-UK backed United Nations Security Council Resolution against their rule on 12^th of January 2007 in its 5619^th meeting. In which, China together with Russia vetoed a draft resolution (the first use of multiple vetoes at the Council since 1989) against Burma to release all political prisoners including Daw Suu Kyi, and to start widespread dialogue and end its military attacks and human rights abuses against ethnic minorities.

In its present active and independent phase of foreign policy, Burma has also tried to follow the footsteps of China in its diplomatic engagement with world community as well as to check future resolution vote against their rule in UN Security Council from present African member nations. After the Beijing summit on the ‘Forum on China-Africa Cooperation’ (FOCAC) in the first week of November 2006, Myanmar also intensified its engagement with African nations established in 1990’s. And, from 1^st to 18^th February 2007, Myanmar’s Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. U Kyaw Thu made a goodwill trip to four African nations viz. – South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana and Congo to enhance cooperation.[xvii] It is interesting to note that, South Africa voted in favour with China and Russia on 12^th of January 2007 UN Security Council resolution sponsored by USA & UK and Congo abstained with Indonesia and Qatar, whereas Ghana voted against Myanmar with Belgium, France, Italy, Panama, Peru and Slovakia.

However despite USA’s & European Union’s opposition & pressure to the military junta for democratic reforms, Myanmar has been able successfully to forge close cooperation with Thailand, Malaysia, Laos, Vietnam and Singapore in ASEAN as well as with India. In recent year’s, India’s engagement with Myanmar’s military rulers is based on 1992’s initiated Look East policy departing from earlier position of open support to the democratic movement led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi of Indira Gandhi & Rajiv Gandhi era. However, India’s look east policy found real ground after January 2000 visit of Vice Chairmen, SPDC, Gen. Maung Aye to India. And since then, many high level visit’s had been taken place between Myanmar and India, including the visit of the Chairman of SPDC – Senior General – Mr. Than Shwe to India in October 2004 and Indian President – Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam’s visit to Myanmar in March 2006. For present policy makers of India, Myanmar is a gateway to ASEAN, BIMST-EC, Mekong Ganga Cooperation as well as strategic to India’s sensitive Northeastern region sharing 1400 KM’s of borders with Indian states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram. India’s engagement with junta is also guided to seek cooperation from General’s to control rising Northeast insurgency, drug trade, and smuggling as well as to check Myanmar falling into Chinese and Pakistani embrace and to exploit economic opportunity in energy, transportation, space technology and other trade sectors. For Burma’s General’s support from world’s largest democratic nation – India, has immense propaganda value at the United Nations and other international forums to negate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in national politics as well as to propagate their sincerity towards seven-step roadmap of disciplined democracy.

However over the periods, it has been proved that, Indian expectation has been not fulfilled seriously by military junta. India’s export volume to Myanmar in the year 2005-06 was US $ 489.10 million and import in the same year was worth US $ 80.07 million, which is an insignificant volume compared with China. Although for Indian Foreign Secretary’s view, India’s relations with Burma should be not looked as India-China rivalry in Burma as it is not appropriate to look for India-China rivalry at every nook and corner of Asia and India-Myanmar relations stand on their own.[xviii] In reality, northeast insurgency, drug trade and smuggling have increased during look east phase of constructive engagement with military junta. In July 2004, Government of India’s Border Security Force in Tripura seized a huge consignment of drugs smuggled from Burma borders into India and in August 2004, India’s Assam state Chief Minister – Tarun Gogoi had openly accused Myanmar of fueling insurgency in northeast India.[xix] The situation become alarming on northeast insurgency facilitated Indian External Affairs Minister, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee to visit Yangon in January 2007, in which Myanmar General once again promised not to allow its territory to be used for activities inimical to India. However Myanmar and India has MOU signed in January 1994 of Cooperation between the Civilian Border Authorities to organize National Level Meetings (NLMs) and Sectoral Level Meetings (SLMs), in which NLM is led by the Home Secretary and SLM by the concerned Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs to maintain peace and tranquility all along the border including to check insurgency activities. Although few weeks before the trip, India’s leading Newspaper – The Times of India reported on 21^st December 2006 about POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) based Islamic terrorist organization – Lashkar-e-Taiba’s have bases in Manipur having connections inside Myanmar borders.

India, China and Russia’s support to military regime has certainly provided required life-line to the military governance in Burma with successfully attaining the ultimate aims of its ‘independent and active diplomacy’ delaying the restoration of democracy and release of noble laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest. It has also given positive message to other nations including ASEAN members to easily escape from questions of democratic reforms in Burma, taking refuge in the ASEAN ‘Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia’ signed at Bali on 24^th February, 1976, Article -2 (C) and of Panchshila ideals of – “Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another”. But how long freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners of Burma in reality would wait for ASEAN and UN to act firmly to fulfill its officially announced statements?

Endnotes:

[i] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Myanmar, Yangon, Foreign Policy Directions: Foreign Policy – Independent and Active Foreign Policy, Year 2007, p.3.

[ii] Political Situation of Myanmar, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Myanmar, Yangon, Year 2002, p.15.

[iii] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi report on Myanmar, Bilateral Relations with Myanmar from the web site: < mea.gov.in/foreign/myanmar.htm >, accessed on 22 March 2007.

[iv] George McTurnan Kahin, General Ed., Government and Politics of Southeast Asia, written by Josef Silverstein – Part II: Burma, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, Year 1961, p.145.

[v] Ibid, pp.145-146.

[vi] List of Countries Having Diplomatic Relations With The Union of Myanmar, Permanent Mission of the Union of Myanmar to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva, Switzerland website:

< mission.itu.int/MISSIONS/Myanmar/basicfacts/DipRelations.htm > accessed on 11 March 2007.

[vii] Kalyani Bandyopadhyaya, Burma and Indonesia: Comparative Political Economy & Foreign Policy, South Asian Publishers, New Delhi, Year 1983, pp. 176-177.

[viii] Notes-1, p.3

[ix] Notes-6.

[x] Amount of Foreign Direct Investment in Myanmar (Nation wise, up to September 2006), The New Light of Myanmar, 18 December 2006, Volume XIV, No. 246, p.6.

[xi] Moe Zaw Myint, Myanmar and China aim to increase trade to $ 1.5 b by 2005, The Myanmar Times & Business Review, April 26-May 2, 2004, Volume 11, No.213.

[xii] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Myanmar, Yangon, Foreign Direct Investments in Myanmar up to 2002.

[xiii] China, Myanmar Trade Keeps Growing, People’s Daily, Beijing, 12 December 2001.

[xiv] Foreign investment in Myanmar hits 14.4 b US dollars in 19 years, People’s Daily Online, Beijing, 11 April 2007.

[xv] Ye Lwin with Xinhua, Myanmar Inks Deals With China’s Yunnan, The Myanmar Times & Business Review, April 2-8, 2007, Vol. 18, No. 361.

[xvi] Myanmar Information Committee, Yangon Information Sheet, Govt. of Myanmar, Yangon, No. D-3592 (I), 21 February 2006.p.3

[xvii] Deputy Foreign Minister Winds up Four-Nation Tour, The New Light of Myanmar, 24 February 2007, Vol. XIV, No. 314, p.8.

[xviii] Press Briefings by Foreign Secretary, Mr. Shyam Saran, on the visit of President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam to Myanmar and Mauritius, 8-13 March 2006, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, From the web site of < ministry: mea.gov.in/pressbriefings/2006/03/07pb01.htm > accessed on 10 April 2007.

[xix] Surajit Khaund, Assam CM Demand Sealing of Indo-Burmese Border, Mizzima News, 27 August 2004.

(Important Note: The article first appeared in the Indocentric Foreign Affairs Monthly Journal entitled, “World Focus” (published from New Delhi) in its June 2007 special issue on Myanmar/Burma besides me, the other experts who contributed in this special issue on Burma from India are: Dr. Udai Bhanu Singh ( Research Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses – IDSA), New Delhi, Prof. Ganganath Jha (Professor, Southeast Asian and Southwest Pacific Studies Division, School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi) and Ms. Paramita Das (Senior Research Scholar, SIS, JNU, New Delhi), Sonu Trivedi (Lecturer of Political Science at Zakir Husain College, University of Delhi, Dr. Langpoklakpam Suraj Singh (Faculty Member, Department of Political Science, DM College of Arts, Imphal, Manipur), and Mr. Dipanjan Roy Choudhary (a Delhi based journalist, who regularly writes on security and terrorism issues), the concerned special issue can be purchased by writing to – World Focus, B-49, (Ground Floor) Joshi Colony, IP Extension, Delhi – 110092, India : Rajshekhar, Editor, Burma Review, India. )

(THE END)

****************************************

In a recent economic survey published last month (October 2007) by the prestigious research Institute of Iceland – Iceland Research Centre RSE, Burma ranks lowest in economic freedom list in pursuing and establishing business. Every year RSE publishes economic freedom lists report based on various factors to conduct business. The released economic survey is based on forty-two different factors used to determine “freedom index” for convenient business and economic environment to do business. According to the released reports of RSE the main factors for achieving highest ranks in freedom index are based on entrepreneur’s individual freedom of choice to do business, freedom for economic activity and competition and the protection of ownership of the enterprise. In the concerned list evaluating the situation of one hundred forty one countries, Hongkong tops in the “freedom index” followed by Singapore and New Zealand. Burma’s ranking lowest in the freedom index negates the theory propounded by the present military regime in ASEAN and other regional forums like – ACD (Asia Cooperation Dialogue) and international institutions that, it has successfully pursued the economic policy of free market economy and privatization after post-88 political scenario.

Moreover, it  supports the view that, Burma’s economy which recently faced the worst economic crisis of inflation and price rise of essential commodities could be only redressed properly with genuinely elected government as demanded by NLD (National League of Democracy Party) and other democratic groups.  

It also contradicts the official statement given by the Governor of the Bank of Burma – Mr. Hla Tun to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on 22^nd of October 2007 proving inflation as moderate and relating it with salary enhancement and rising oil prices that, “Inflation has remained moderate. However, it is on the rising trend due to the raise of the salaries of civil servants last year and increase in energy prices this year.”♠   

************************* 

ENDNOTES:  

♠ IMF Press Release J, No. 13, October 22, 2007, Statement by the Hon. HLA TUN, Governor of the Bank for MYANMAR at the Joint Annual Discussion with IMF, Board of Governors Meeting, 2007, Annual Meetings, Washington D.C., USA.    

(The End)  

******************************************       

According to the media information of IMF (International Monetary Fund) released today, the next article IV consultation♠ of IMF with Burma would take place tentatively on 28^th of November 2007. Earlier IMF article IV consultation with Burma took place in October, 6, 2006, 25 March 2005, and 17 March 2004. Most importantly, as of October 2007, Burma is also eligible for Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) programme help of the IMF with other Seventy-Seven countries of the developing and under-developed nations, which includes –Angola, Albania, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Vietnam, Lao PDR, Cambodia, India etc.

IMF established the PRGF programme in September 1999 to make the objectives of poverty reduction and growth themes more central to lending operations in its poorest member countries. But here, IMF should also take care of the contemporary situation in Burma under military dictatorship, which lacks any public account mechanism without any elected institutions to direct funds towards poverty reduction. And there have been serious concern raised by many observers of Burma events, that, it might go to the other areas of spending serving little to the core objectives of PRGF of serving poor and needy people of the Burma in its forthcoming article IV consultation.      

It is important to note that, recently in an article published in the military’s official newspaper – “The New Light of Myanmar” of 24^th of November entitled, “Duty of All Who Love Motherland Myanmar” by Kyaw Min Aye (page no. 5) wrote about the IMF data on Burmese economy that, “Well, let me point out some facts regarding the present economic situation of Myanmar. A report of IMF says that at the end of 2006-2007 fiscal, it is estimated that Myanmar’s economy would grow by seven percent (7)”. However, according to the latest 2007 World Economic Outlook report of IMF about Burma’s economy released on 17^th of October 2007, says that the real GDP figures of Burma in the year 2007 is of 5.5 percent growth rate, and projected growth rate of real GDP for the year 2008 falling to 4 (four) percent.      

Moreover, the announced PRGF programme of IMF has three core objectives. First in principle as a central theme is of “broad public participation and greater country ownership”, which totally lacks in the present circumstances in Burma under military rule. The second priority is that, “each country’s poverty reduction and growth priorities” policies should be taken care of and it is well known that, the present military leadership in Burma is more focused on selling petroleum resources and gems and jewelries to business houses rather then following IMF’s core objectives. Most crucial is the third priority of PRGF programme, which is focused on “strengthening governance”, in order to assist countries’ efforts to design targeted and well-prioritized spending. In which, special emphasis has been given to improve public resource management, transparency, and accountability. And, all the three things – “public resource management, transparency and accountability in governance” are missing in Burma and it couldn’t develop without the freedom of expression and elected institutions in Burma, which present ruling military regime wants to control through proposed drafting of constitution by bringing unelected element of military in Burma’s forthcoming Parliament. The military regime, which has recently faced the human rights resolution in the third committee of UN General Assembly regarding the freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Burma has not even obeyed the wishes of international institution like UN, and earlier ASEAN ministerial meetings joint communiqués. It is true that, the concerned human rights resolution of GA third committee is non-binding; but it doesn’t imply that, the concerned nations should avoid the moral accountability of obligations of international institutions like – third committee of UN General Assembly to perpetuate authoritarian rule and suppressing independent observation including economic verification of governance by visiting remote areas of the country.      

The PRGF eligibility is based principally on the IMF’s assessment of a country’s per capita income, drawing on the cutoff point for eligibility to World Bank concessional lending (currently 2005 per capita gross national income of $1,025). And, loans under the PRGF carry an annual interest rate of 0.5 percent, with repayments made semiannually, beginning 5½ years and ending 10 years after the disbursement. An eligible country may normally borrow up to a maximum of 140 percent of its IMF quota under a three-year arrangement, although this may be increased to 185 percent of quota in exceptional circumstances. In each case, the amount will depend on the country’s balance of payments need, the strength of its adjustment program, and its previous and outstanding use of IMF credit.    

And, as per the recent IMF data released on 31^st of October 2007, Burma’s financial position in the IMF in General Resources Account of Quota and Fund holding of Currency is – 258.40 million SDR♣ to each segment.  And Net Cumulative allocation in SDR department is – 43.47 million SDR. It is important to note that, Burma joined the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on 3^rd of January 1952 during the democratic era of Prime Minister- U Nu.

*************************************  

ENDNOTES:     

♠ IMF Article IV Consultation: Under Article IV of the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, the IMF holds bilateral discussions with members, usually every year and a staff team visits the country, collects economic and financial information, and discusses with officials the country’s economic developments and policies. On return to headquarters, the staff prepares a report, which forms the basis for discussion by the Executive Board. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Managing Director, as Chairman of the Board, summarizes the views of Executive Directors, and this summary is transmitted to the country’s authorities.     

♣ SDR: Special Drawing Right (SDR) as an International reserve asset created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement to existing reserve assets. Under SDR’s allocation, distribution of SDRs to members is taken by the decision of the IMF. A “general” allocation requires a finding by the IMF that there is a global need for additional liquidity. And the currency valuation of SDR is determined daily by the IMF by summing the values in U.S. dollars, based on market exchange rates, of a basket of four major currencies—the euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling, and the U.S. dollar. The SDR valuation basket is normally reviewed every five years. The last review, which took place in 2000, resulted in a revision of the weights assigned to each currency in order to take into account the introduction of the euro on January 1, 1999 and the growing role of international financial markets. The revisions in the valuation basket became effective on January 1, 2001.      

(Note: Based on the reports of International Monetary Fund (IMF) entitled, “A Factsheet October 2007 – The Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) programme, 2007 World Economic Outlook Reports of IMF released in October 2007 and the official – The New Light of Myanmar, 24^th of November 2007 of Burma.)    

(THE END)    

*************************************  

According to the news published by the Rangoon based “Myanmar Times & Weekly Review” (19-25 November 2007) reports by Nyunt Win, a ten year primary school girl student of the Golden Land – Ma Su Nandar Zaw Win, a grade-five student of Basic Education Primary School (2) in Botahtaung township of Rangoon, won the 2007 Postcard Across ASEAN Design Competition.  

The concerned ASEAN design competition was organized by the Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Singapore Art Museum and was part of the recently concluded celebrations to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the founding of ASEAN.    

What are striking in Miss Ma Su Nandar Zaw Win’s drawings, are the features of Burmese traditional dances, snack foods and toys from Burma, reflecting a mixed growth of tradition with modernity in contemporary Burma’s new talented generation of artist? In the Asean design contest, students from six to twelve years of age group had been invited to draw a design something to share their country’s unique heritage in any medium, as well as to introduce him or her on the postcards. And the competition involved distributing 10,000 blank postcards to each of the ten ASEAN member nations posing a tough challenge for Southeast Asian student participants.   

However, the award money is of little value of one hundred Singaporean dollars but the prestige associated with it indicates the creative talents of Burmese girls, whose seniors like – Mrs. Mie Mie, Mrs. Nilar Thein, Naw Ohn Hla etc. actively and courageously participated in large numbers in August-September 2007 monks protests in Burma against the authoritarian rule and freedom of Nobel laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.       

(The End)  

*********************************** 

The issue of children’s recruitment in the Burmese army against the basic norms of human and civil society has once again resurfaced and acknowledged by the United Nations Secretary General – Mr. Ban Ki-moon’s report submitted to the UN Security Council as per the UN News Centre Press release issued on 23^rd of November 2007. UN Secretary General has said that, “Although there has been progress in terms of dialogue with the Government of Myanmar and two non-State actors, but the State and non-State actors continue to be implicated in grave child rights violations,” and appealed to the military government in Burma to take immediate measures to address the problem which is common to both State and non-State actors.    

Apart from recruitment of children’s in the army, what is most alarming in the report by the UN press release is of “credible but unverified reports of rape perpetrated by Government forces and armed groups”? It is important to note that earlier in May 2002, the Shan Human Rights Foundation and the Shan Women’s Action Network published an extensive report of rape by army entitled, “Licence  To Rape” documenting details of 173 incidents of rape and other forms of sexual violence, involving 625 girls and women in only Shan State area of Burma.    

The report submitted by Mr. Ban Ki-moon to the Security Council documents “patterns of underage recruitment” by the Government, including those involving “poor and unaccompanied street children who are vulnerable to promises of food and shelter.” Other children picked up by the police for not having a national identification card are offered the “choice” of either being arrested or going into the army.   

However, UN Secretary General also notes progress in a number of areas, including the commitment by the Government that no child under the age of 18 will be recruited and the signing by two non-State actors – the Karen National Union and the Karenni National Progressive Party – of Deeds of Commitment to cease the recruitment and use of children.  

Other actors cited in the report in connection with the recruitment of children includes – the United Wa State Army; the Karen National Union/Karen National Liberation National Progressive Party/Karenni Army; Kachin Independence Organization/Kachin Independence Army; Karenni National People’s Liberation Front; Democratic Karen Buddhist Army; Shan State Army-South and Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army; and the Karen National Union/Karen National Liberation Army Peace Council. UN Secretary General has also appealed to the military government to accede to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and to adjust national legislation accordingly.   

In the report submitted to the Security Council, UN Secretary General also recommends that the SPDC government should allow international and humanitarian organizations access for delivery of humanitarian services, and to accept the proposal of the UN refugee agency’s Assistant High Commissioner for Operations for an inter-agency humanitarian needs assessment in the country.     

(Source: UN News Service, UN News Centre Press Release, Secretary-General reports ‘grave violations’ of children’s rights in Myanmar, New York, 23^rd of November 2007.)     

(The End)   

**************************************      

On 21^st of November 2007, after uploading the news-article entitled, “GA Third Committee approves Burma Resolution despite India’s dissent”, I received a comment from one person named Mr. Richard Mookerdum supporting military regime. Even earlier, I had received his one comment but I couldn’t publish it because of the abusive nature of his logics supporting military junta but I feel that by doing so I’m committing a heinous crime against Gandhian principles of running away to answer even the worst form of criticism. So, I have published his comment and attempted to answer all his points, which could be viewed at the end of the post – “GA Third Committee approves Burma Resolution despite India’s dissent” in the comment section.  

Rajshekhar

Editor, Burma Review 

By: Min Khin Kyaw  

(The author is 88 Generation leader, poet and artist)

Introduction:  

When the saffron revolution started, the whole region seemed taken by surprise; the junta was expected that it would take tough actions unreasonably though. The UNSC (United Nations Security Council) members gathered in immediacy to discuss about the August-September 2007 events; however, it couldn’t persuade the junta not to crack down the demonstrations with violence, as predicted by many Burmese. People from free societies bitterly responded. But we are not really sure what encouraged the junta to dare such way? But we know China was opposing UNSC not to take any tough decision. And India also followed China by signing oil import agreement worth several millions. Both of them have been bluntly opposing any democratic change simply for self-interests sharing the benefits with the military junta. Even though the people of Burma expected peaceful negotiations with the junta, the two countries didn’t even care about this and eventually the crack-down started – many died and 3000 arrested according to the junta, however it didn’t includes figures of arrests in other parts of Burma.     

When the pressures from the west and the intensive efforts of the UN have yielded some results in Burma, we see some progresses, to hope for democracy to come sooner. In this respect, the international sanctions and all other pressures have been significant. We have made some worry to the junta mainly in its financial sector; this worry is certainly a necessary reaction from the junta criticizing west reflecting such pressures. Hence, it’s quite clear we have to keep this momentum.  Therefore, we have to target all incomes and stop them. When we look around, we can only find two major inflows: one from ASEAN and one from China. We have to pursue the withdrawal of China or the pressure of ASEAN. Once any of these happened, the junta will come to the table of dialogue for real. This can be expected as the survival of the generals will become only negotiation when no more money left for keeping themselves in powers. We can only let the junta one choice; that is to start dialogue sincerely.   

So now all we have to pursue is either China’s or ASEAN’s good action. Rather wasting time and delaying real opportunity for changes, both China and ASEAN must work together with the people of Burma decisively.    

Chinese leaders know that Burma issue being related to the image of China is a bad advertisement. Once China accepts reality of Burma and offers real friendship to the people of Burma, China will become a good neighbour. When China provides a good relationship to the people of Burma, Burma will provide it a pathway to the Indian Ocean for its economic interests.   

India’s Dilemma:  

India is in the same position like China. It is true that, once India was a good friend of the people of Burma. But Indians leaders sacrificed this for oil and maintaining good relationship with the junta. Still Indian leaders are hoping that the junta might come to them for support when the pressures increases. But can Indian leaders rescue the junta by all necessary efforts? Do they really believe that, they can ever able to persuade the junta from China? It is true that the junta signed an agreement with India for oil export, but India is still far behind China. And once the junta could ever overcome international pressure with the help of China, then India will have no way to achieve and would be sidelined again. Indian government has yet to learn from ASEAN-Myanmar relationship. So it is important that, Indian government should preserve the past good relationship with the people of Burma rather then engaging with military junta.  

ASEAN’s Role:  

ASEAN is certainly on the transitional line, as it has been drafting for a better change. It has all the rights to pursue its regional and global interests. It knows what best for its image and member countries – this is not the interests of a country or a few countries. ASEAN should not bow to any hijacker or Burma’s junta in this matter; however, ASEAN has yet to show its strength or its good intention for Burmese people. It has become clearer now that ASEAN is part of the answer for democracy, human rights and peace for Burma. ASEAN has become a very important part to take very serious responsibility for the future of Southeast Asia. ASEAN has sided with the junta and helped it in various incidents; and now again ASEAN leaders have using the same tones which were able to buy time for the generals – contrasting their recent condemnation.    

Both China and ASEAN can do whatever they like but this time, it should be for the people of Burma. The military junta has become weaken by the west with tough sanctions. It seems it might not be able to go on all alone without the rescue from ASEAN. Once the financial and diplomatic supports from a few neighbours: China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand evaporates, the generals will certainly have only one choice – to negotiate with the people of Burma. Once again, the UN will be able to achieve another victory the good of the region.   Comprehensively, ASEAN is critical and essential in changing the region. ASEAN has responsibility to do this. ASEAN must force the junta to do a good sincere job – instead, ASEAN has failed by going backward as supporting the junta. Burma has to change for the better future and this must be prioritized as an interest of this region.  ASEAN should concentrate its energy here. ASEAN must provide security of every people in the region. ASEAN leaders can do this and should do this sooner than later. The changes inside Burma are rather to make itself an opportunity for all investments and access of all different countries.    

Obviously, there will be no regrettable outcomes from implementing democracy and peace in Burma. Unfortunately, ASEAN has never met the leaders of the people. Then it’s best not to criticize them and rather not assume that Burma will be worse-off when they get the powers or change toward democracy too fast.    

Is there any better way to convince ASEAN leaders? How should the people Burma provide the proofs that Burma will be better-off? What is the real reason to claim the freedom to grow crops, freedom to sell them with market price and pay income tax to the country will make Burma worse-off? And also how all sorts of freedoms in all parts of Burma will bring the Union of Burma down?    

Burma has been selling all her natural resources to the world through its neighbours for fifty years. Can ASEAN leaders provide any evidence how the people of Burma ever benefited with this trade? And has any neighbour ever provided any good advices to the dictators of Burma how the people of Burma can benefit and improve the living standards? Will ASEAN leaders make a good advice to the junta in the next ASEAN meeting?   There are many examples in world history that with the end of dictatorship people start enjoying freedom and prosperity. This will certainly happen in Burma too and this is what the majority is primarily fighting for? The change is to develop Burma in various ways and once the people have the chance, they will do just that. This can be done with the money equivalent to the income of the junta from selling oil, gems and other natural resources.   

Task of Burmese People:   

What else the people of Burma must do? Off course, one will be building the neediest infrastructure for transportation, such as rail-networks and seaports that will be used by all neighbouring countries – including Laos. This will simply guarantee long-term income, though would be no much, like Suez Canal. China will need this to link to Indian Ocean. ASEAN and India will need this to exchange trade. More importantly, the security and trade paths provided democratic Burma will become a major advantage for all three regions which the current junta cannot. Prosperity will bring stability to Burma. It will educate young and new generations. This can happen within five years if good efforts will be able to make. Then all three regions will be well-connected.     On the other hand, the drug and human trafficking have to be stopped or lowered. Once, the farmers are provided alternative incomes, they will be able to avoid this unclean source. The UN made some efforts but as the junta cannot provide any alternative and initiative, this effort seems already has failed. All neighbouring countries have been silent. They have taken no further actions apart from blaming the farmers and traders. Instead, the region should emphasize the conditions that squeezing out the drugs.    

Now it’s clear that the people of Burma desperately need everything changed – whatever that will do the task, we accept it. It’s not the time to argue – we don’t care whatever our future become after the fall of this military junta. This is our destiny and we have chosen this path. We don’t want any country or any organization arguing against our choice. And we have made clear: we want sanction and sanction alone against the junta. We don’t want any constructive engagement or anything alike that prolonging our suffering.    

Time for Action: 

This is the time for action and we don’t want arguments. All countries having business link with the junta must stop their activities at once. This is the will of all peoples of Burma. The will of the dictators are to gain more supports from China and ASEAN only to hold on power as long as they survive. The differences between the will of the people and the will of the dictators are not compactable. The will of people is to improve the country. The will of the dictators is to make themselves fat. Therefore, all suggestions to provide aids to the junta’s own sake alone can no longer be reasonable.    

Actually, the side of constructive engagement party has never ever had any plan to bring Burma to democracy so far. Apart from their benefits from trading Burma’s natural resources, they have had no significant to claim Burma’s peoples have benefited from their engagement policies. Worst of all, they sold arms that will be used no external enemies but against the peoples of Burma. Hundred of villages have been destroyed and thousands displaced. But the engagement side never ever raises a question or quarry or suggest not doing so. This is the plain truth and it stinks.   

Thailand had come with dialogue plans twice but the first one was well placed-aside and the second was rejected by the military junta in spite of the willingness of the leaders of the people of Burma. Thailand has no prospect to achieve anything politically over the junta as there was no support or pressure from within ASEAN itself.    

As a matter of fact, ASEAN never ever had any plan of its own to make the region a better place. Apart from its rhetoric favouring trade with brutal dictators, ASEAN has never clearly showed its own way of achieving a better future of the group – let alone democracy in Burma. ASEAN has had no plan at all to pursue the freedom of the people of Burma since it made Burma a member but it has only pursued its own objective of economic advantages over other countries, and provided solutions to the junta how to keep powers ever more.   

Result of ASEAN Membership to Burma:  

There was no evidence Burma’s people ever achieved any benefit from the membership. But since Burma became ASEAN member, the people of Burma have to suffer more. This is the truth. Even then (even the group itself has closely evidenced the problems which the peoples of Burma have been unable to avoid) the leading countries of ASEAN which have benefited most from Burma have become the mouthpieces of the junta although they know nothing to back their claims. Even recently, Singapore transmitted that the generals believe Burma has democracy – this is ridiculous. It’s clear that ASEAN would never join the world to pose sanction on the junta the only effect the junta fears. Or is it a fear of ASEAN itself if it wouldn’t be able to monopolize the junta over the resources of Burma? Worse, the ASEAN doesn’t seem to come up with any truthful conversation about Burma at all.    

Whatever words the engagement side had included in their repeating rhetoric, they have no situation to achieve anything politically. Yet the future of this dialogue is not very certain because the junta has been receiving more income supports from its trading partners. Therefore, it has been so far clear evident that the engagement side has utterly failed any political process in Burma in the past and now that these trading partners are undermining the efforts of the UN good office even though they have cooperated with Mr. Gambari however. Imagine how a two-headed horse eats from two stacks grass at the same time.   

Moreover, to make dialogue between the two opposite sides really happen, what else the world should do? What has made the junta to accept Mr. Gambari and Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi for dialogue? This is certainly not any effect of any effort of any engagement but pressures. To make dialogue between the two opposite sides really happen, what else the world should do whence the pressures have yielded some results when engagement policies have just undermined them? One thing we have certainly to do is to take all possible actions against any companies or any countries that support the junta until they abandon their supports.     

The result of 19 years rule of the junta with kleptomaniac economic activities of its generals and their supporters is obvious. Nothing else can ever make Burmese people into a state like this. ASEAN should congratulate the junta for such achievement as it wants such recognition. It’s true that Burma has now more refugees, significant brain-drains, more political prisoners, more deaths in jails, severer poverty, more uprising and also more denials from the supporters of the junta.   

What Burmese achieved in Present Scenario?    

What have the people of Burma achieved from ongoing tension caused by recent uprising against the military? We get supports from many countries with tough sanction against the junta, the pressure from the UNSC and mass arrests in Burma. What has the junta received from their brutality against the peaceful population? Serious sanctions from the west and Australia, verbal revulsion from ASEAN and more economic supports from its trading partners. What have the people of Burma got from ASEAN? Nothing! Not even the right to demonstrate in Singapore in front of Burmese embassy! Double taxation is still there!    It’s clear that the problem of political and economic crises in Burma seem to be necessary to go on like this so that the beneficiaries can exploit the situation as usual. They will do whatever they can to keep this. Well, do we still have to wait and see what might change in the 13th ASEAN Summit and East Asia summit? This is not acceptable. Therefore, all peoples of Burma have to oppose all the supporters of their common enemy in all forms. The voice of the people of Burma is clear, whether the military junta and its trading partners can accept this or not? ‘We Want Democracy!’ And human rights and human dignity all together in one package! So we must fight on against the witty kleptomaniac junta.    

ASEAN misinformed about National Convention and Facts?     

ASEAN has been never ever informed, how the National Convention (NC) was held and how it was democratic? ASEAN never ever questioned the generals how the NC was democratic but supported it anyway. Even then the ASEAN argued the generals made some progresses so engagement worked somehow when sanction and pressures have failed. Further, ASEAN never ever explained why they said, that the generals were making progresses? However, the people of Burma claimed that, the NC was a sham, as it was done with undemocratic process. But ASEAN failed to hear the people of Burma let alone to support us.    

Now the military junta has started drafting new constitution for Burma. Certainly, the people of Burma will not be able to have a say. But ASEAN might again claim a new progress being started. ASEAN has yet to explain how its economic engagement is really achieving goals toward genuine democracy? 

On the other hand, the ASEAN leading countries have claimed direct progress to democracy in Burma might make a chaos the way it happens in Iraq. Those who oppose the change in Burma cannot clearly explain why – and they also failed to accept the reality of 1990 election results and the leadership of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi. Again, the people of Burma have shown their unity and plans how they can keep peace and stability. Even then, ASEAN has failed to support this and find ways to improve the lives of the people of Burma. And ASEAN leaders would never dream of meeting any ethnic leaders even though they pretend to worry if chaos be there when the junta falls.   

In contrast, the ASEAN leaders didn’t fail to attend the funeral of a murderer Mr. Soe Win to say how he was their close friend – indeed, this must be true. It happened just after Singapore’s condemnation to the junta for its killing of the monks and peaceful demonstrators. This truly has proved ASEAN is a true friend of the most brutal regime against its own people but not a friend of the people of Burma. This kind of approach against the Burmese people is outrageous and obviously one-sided.  It’s true the involvement of ASEAN in human rights issues in Burma is limited but it has hurt the people of Burma significantly for more than a decade by prolonging the misrule of the junta.  

India’s Mistakes:  

Indian government is also making its own reputation over the bloodshed in Burma. Whilst China signaled they’d nothing against the junta, India was fast enough to sign with the junta for oil supply – and sooner, ten people were killed and many monasteries were raged. Indian government is thus also responsible as it has encouraged the junta for another massacre to take place in Burma. Since then, Indian government has never supported democracy in Burma – apart from a meeting with Mr. Gambari. It seems it has silently declared war against democracy in Burma. Definitely, the people of Burma will not forget this. We will keep our belief that India and China triggered the military junta to kill the monks and peaceful people, including a Japanese reporter.

Once some of top ASEAN leaders were supreme pro-Burma’s military junta but now most of them are retired; however, their legacies will go along the history of Burma’s democratic struggles. Nothing last forever, it’s true but the good actions of the leaders last longer than anything else in human history with gratitude from the people who were looked after; and also the powerful villains parallel to these good leaders will be known all along for their villainy. This is what the junta and its supporters have to know. We don’t want the follow kind of democracy.   

But we want True Freedoms! True Democracy! Government run by the people; especially by the rule of majority wishes. A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A political unit that has a democratic government, which should capitalized: the principles and policies of the successful Democratic Party of the U.S, Where the common people, especially when constituting the source of political authority finds absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.   We want this kind of Democracy! And we want it now. We don’t want any country or any company prolonging the lifespan of the kleptomaniac cunning junta. Yes, we know Afghanistan, East Timor, Iraq and Bali. The ethnics of Burma will unite and share the union peacefully.     

(THE END)   

************************************  

According to the Press Release (GA/SHC/3909) of the United Nations Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, New York issued on 20^th of November 2007, the United Nations Sixty-Second General Assembly “Third Committee” (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) in its day-long 49^th and 50^th meetings approved a draft resolution on the Situation of human rights in Burma by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 24 against, with 66 abstentions despite Government of India’s note of dissent and going against the resolution♣. Earlier, in the same day vote on the motion to adjourn debate was taken up, in which India favored unsuccessfully adjournment of the debate with military junta♥.    

By going against the resolution with China, Russia and Pakistan, India once again lost the golden diplomatic opportunity to review its Burma policy of constructive engagement with infamous junta started since 1992 under the banner of “Look East Policy”. If India’s South Block diplomatic core is facing problem in suddenly breaking-up the full grown economic engagement with the military regime, then it could have avoided it with fineness by abstaining from resolution rather then voting against it like – Thailand, South Africa, Brunei Darussalam, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore etc. or neighbouring SAARC countries like – Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan? Another SAARC country – Maldives remain absent from the resolution and Afghanistan voted with Japan, EU, UK, USA, Turkey etc. facilitating the welcome step of the adoption of Human Rights resolution on Burma.   

While participating in the GA Third Committee resolution debate, unfortunately; the India representative said that, “His country had consistently maintained that all initiatives vis-à-vis Myanmar should be forward-looking, non-condemnatory, and seek to engage the Government in a non-intrusive and constructive manner.  By adopting a condemnatory, intrusive and unhelpful tone, the draft resolution would not contribute to, or strengthen, the initiatives being taken by the United Nations; in fact, it might prove to be counterproductive.  It also did not reflect the positive steps being taken by the Government of Myanmar, including the visit of the Special Rapporteur and meetings between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the Government’s specially appointed minister for relations with her.  India had no option but to vote against – L.41/Rev.1”.  

It is unfortunate, because many a times, India has officially spoken and maintained the position of freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from House arrest, apart from many world leaders demand and the United Nations Secretary General’s  appeal to immediately release all political prisoners in Burma without any pre-conditions. And the draft resolution’s texts stated that, “General Assembly would strongly call upon the Government (Burma) to desist from further arrests and violence against peaceful protesters, and to release all political prisoners without conditions, including the leaders of the NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi and Tin Oo. The Government would also be called upon to lift all restraints on peaceful political activity, to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, and to immediately ensure safe and unhindered access to all parts of Myanmar for the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations.”   

In addition, Burma’s military regime’s showing news and photograph of meeting of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi with Government appointed minister on 19^th – 20 November was only a tactical move to manage 40^th  anniversary ASEAN meeting and adjourn voting in GA third committee, as they have continued side by side their propaganda of negating Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD in their official mouthpiece – “The New Light of Myanmar (NLM)” (even in today’s NLM) through government supported ethnic groups.     

Moreover major countries of Nordic region, Latin America, Africa, Asia remain either in favour or abstained or remain absent and not going against resolution facilitating the adoption of resolution. Although, many democratic groups are criticizing the role played by many ASEAN countries or Asian countries for abstaining from voting but practically it also helped in realizing the adoption of resolution seeking freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Tin Oo and other political prisoners of Burma. Although, the position of many Asian countries while abstaining from voting that, “they oppose country specific resolution” is erroneous. They should also understand that, the beginning of Second World was country specific problem and recent rise of Taliban in Afghanistan was also the outcome of country specific problem. And the brutal suppression of monk’s non-violent protests in August-September 2007 by military regime is a proof that, Burmese regime requires a country specific resolution.     

It is also important for the success of United Nations as an upholder of the institution of democratic values as enshrined in the United Nations Charter, that the adopted resolution including the freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi gets implemented without any delay and pre-condition by Burmese military authority. Now it doesn’t matter that which country voted with or abstained or absent or against on the resolution, it is now important that the act of world’s largest body finds its implementation or not? Or, it finds death like the earlier appeal of Mr. Kofi Annan or present UN Secretary General appeared in January 2007 to immediately release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners without delay?     

ENDNOTES:  

♣ ANNEX VI: Vote on Situation of Human Rights in Burma

The resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/62/L.41/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 24 against, with 66 abstentions, as follows: 

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu. 

Against:  Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe. 

Abstain:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia. 

Absent:  Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Madagascar, Maldives, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, and Tunisia.  

♥ ANNEX V: Vote on Motion to Adjourn Debate:  

The motion to adjourn the debate on the resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/62/L.41/Rev.1) was rejected by a recorded vote of 88 against to 54 in favour, with 34 abstentions, as follows:  

In favour:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, India, Iran, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.  

Against:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu. 

Abstain:  Belize, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, and Tuvalu. 

Absent:  Algeria, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, and Tajikistan.    

(Source: United Nations, Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, New York, Press Release (GA/SHC/3909) issued on 20^th November 2007 entitled: “THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES THREE COUNTRY-SPECIFIC TEXTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS DESPITE OPPOSITION LED BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES”)   

(THE END)  

***********************************

Artist: Pawan, Burma Review

Note: Please click on the cartoon to see full picture.

Burma Review is happy to introduce art work of Mr. Pawan, an ace cartoonist from India to its esteemed readers. Born in 1977, Mr. Pawan belongs to a new generation of cartoonist from the Bihar State of India, who soon found a respectable place in different national media organizations. He has drawn more than thousands cartoons till now on different streams of contemporary Indian social and political life for many reputed Indian media organizations like – The Times of India (English Daily), Navbharat Times (Hindi Daily), Dainik Jagran (Hindi Daily), Prabhat Khabar (Hindi Daily), Aaj (Hindi Daily) and a series of cartoons on Children’s rights for UNICEF entitled, “Crytoons”, which became soon talk of the town for his social-political concerns. His other famous brush strokes are on India’s leading politician, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and present honorable Minister for Railways – Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav titled, “Laloo Toons”, “Laloo Lila” and “Kholna Mana Hai”. Once India’s mainstream English daily – “The Times of India” wrote about him that, “He doodled his way into the world of cartoons. This talented boy knew that all he could do was to satirise and the passion continued.” Mr. Pawan is presently associated with India’s leading Hindi daily newspaper – “Hindustan”. I hope readers of Burma Review will see regularly his masterly strokes of brush to unfold the true picture of a great nation of Asia suffering under military rule and where ‘people’s queen’, Nobel laureate & disciple of Mahatma Gandhi – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is incarcerated under the umbrella of Gun.    

Rajshekhar

Editor, Burma Review

INDIA

********************* 

Given below is the complete text and open letter of Mr. Brad Adams, Executive Director, Asia Division of “Human Rights Watch” to the ASEAN Secretary General Mr. Ong Keng Yong, which was issued yesterday regarding impending signing of the new ASEAN Charter at the 13th ASEAN Summit in Singapore from November 18-22. Burma Review also hopes that honourable ASEAN Secretary General would take proper measures related with the suggestions made by Mr. Brad Adams and prevent dilution of Human Rights issues in the forthcoming historical ASEAN Charter:

November 15, 2007

H.E. Ong Keng Yong
Secretary General
The ASEAN Secretariat
70A, Jalan Sisingamangaraja
Jakarta 12110
Indonesia

Re: ASEAN Charter

Dear Secretary General,

Congratulations on the impending signing of the new ASEAN Charter at the 13th ASEAN Summit in Singapore from November 18-22. We are hopeful that the long-awaited signing of the Charter may lead to a commitment among ASEAN members to protect human rights. We especially welcome the provisions of the Charter pledging all signatories to abide by international law and enacting a regional human rights mechanism. We urge you and other ASEAN Foreign Ministers to establish specific deadlines for implementing a binding human rights mechanism as part of the new Charter.

We also urge ASEAN members to use the opportunity of signing the Charter to pressure the military junta of Burma to end abuses and to embark on serious, structured, and time-bound negotiations with opposition parties and ethnic groups to create democratic, civilian rule as soon as possible. We welcome ASEAN’s strong statement delivered on September 27 in New York on the crackdown upon peaceful protestors that “expressed their revulsion… over reports that the demonstrations in Myanmar are being suppressed by violent force.” It is now time to turn these words into action.

Human Rights and the New Charter

One of the purposes of ASEAN set out in the draft Charter is to strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law and to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, with due regard to the rights and responsibilities of the Member States of ASEAN. Another purpose is to ensure that the peoples and Member States of ASEAN live in peace in a just, democratic, and harmonious environment. Substantively for ASEAN to achieve these purposes, the draft Charter establishes a series of principles to which each State must adhere to. These include respect for fundamental freedoms, the promotion and protection of human rights and social justice as well as the renunciation of aggression and of the threat or use of force or any actions in any manner inconsistent with international law, and upholding international law.

You have stated that the Charter will make “ASEAN a more rules-based organization and… will put in place a system of compliance monitoring and, most importantly, a system of compulsory dispute settlement for noncompliance that will apply to all ASEAN agreements.” We welcome this vision, yet are concerned that there is no clear mechanism to take action against states, such as Burma, that simply ignore the Charter’s human rights provisions.

The Charter lacks any procedures to implement its principles and contains weak compliance provisions. Violations of the Charter’s principles are simply referred to the next ASEAN summit for discussion, suggesting a slow deliberation process that will become entwined in politics and national vetoes.

We are also concerned that the terms of reference for the proposed regional human rights body in the Charter is to be decided at a separate meeting of foreign ministers, a process which could drag on for years given that ASEAN has been deliberating on a regional human rights mechanism since 1993.

While we see the Charter as a step in the right direction, much more is needed if the Charter’s aims of protecting and promoting human rights are to be achieved. The Charter’s list of principles are quite vague, and only commit ASEAN Member States very broadly to do what they are already bound to do under international law and the UN Charter. The ASEAN Charter sets out the principles; what is needed is fast action to create a mechanism to turn these principles into reality for ASEAN’s people.

ASEAN should reach agreement on a timeframe for an independent and transparent mechanism to enforce the Charter’s commitments by the time it enters into force, which is 30 days after the Charter is signed.

For the human rights provisions of the new Charter to function effectively, ASEAN should:

(A) Ask all Member States to sign and ratify the core human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention Against Enforced Disappearances and their optional Protocols where they exist;

(B) Adopt regional human rights institutions, with committees assigned to address specific issues such as those protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;

(C) Review the human rights records of all Member States on a regular basis.

Burma:
 

On July 24 2007, you told reporters that the Charter will help ASEAN’s relationship with Burma, adding that it would “stress responsibility and obligation of the membership,” compared to current discussions on compliance which are “more persuasive, more informal.” The draft Charter states that the ASEAN Summit shall address emergency situations affecting ASEAN by taking appropriate action. We strongly urge ASEAN Member States to act on the Charter by addressing the emergency situation is Burma as a test case.

Indeed, recent events in Burma show the need for a strong Charter to deal with grave human rights violations, such as the killings of monks and peaceful protestors and the detention of thousands. ASEAN’s welcome expression of “revulsion” should act as a guide for its future dealings with the Burmese State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). Since its admission in 1997, Burma has continuously embarrassed ASEAN by breaking one pledge after another to make progress on national reconciliation and the transition to a civilian government. In the absence of a functional regional human rights mechanism, when Burma signs the ASEAN Charter at this Summit, we urge all ASEAN Member states to take immediate action against Burma for its violation of human rights. We call on ASEAN to do more to urgently protect the rights of Burmese people as citizens of ASEAN.

In particular, we urge you to convey a strong message to the Burmese junta on behalf of ASEAN to outline the steps the SPDC must take immediately, including:

(1) Release all political detainees and prisoners and account for all “disappeared” persons;

(2) Embark on serious, structured, and time-bound negotiations with opposition parties and ethnic groups to create democratic, civilian rule as soon as possible;

(3) Cease all violations of international humanitarian law in the conflict with ethnic minorities;

(4) Cease restrictions on humanitarian aid and the activities of UN agencies and international NGOs in Burma.

In addition, ASEAN itself should take firm action to encourage needed reforms in Burma and improve human rights protection, including as follows:

(a) Support UN Security Council resolutions calling for sanctions or other collective action to address the crisis in Burma;

(b) In the absence of Security Council-imposed sanctions, ASEAN (along with its member countries) should act to impose targeted sanctions to encourage an end to ongoing repression:

(1)Ban new investment and prohibit the importation of select products, such as gems and timber, from Burma;

(2) Prohibit business partnerships with or payments to entities owned or controlled by the Burmese military, or whose revenues are largely used to finance military operations (as opposed to social spending).

(3) Implement an ASEAN arms embargo on Burma;

(4) Support the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burma to investigate human rights abuses committed during and after the August and September protests;

(5) In line with the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers ensure the protection and fundamental rights of migrant workers from Burma, particularly in Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore.

For too long, ASEAN Summits have been viewed merely as “talk shops” at which little is done substantively to resolve the urgent human rights and other issues affecting ASEAN’s people.

ASEAN now has a real opportunity to set an example for other regions of the world on how a human rights mechanism can function effectively to protect human rights. We would hope ASEAN can provide a model in implementing an effective regional human rights mechanism.

Yours sincerely,

Brad Adams

Executive Director
Asia Division

Cc: Foreign Ministers, ASEAN Member States

(The End)

*************************************

In a press release issued today by the United Nations Department of Public Information, News & Media Division and referring to the press statement of the Security Council issued on 14^th November 2007 (SC/9171) stated that, “The members of the Security Council confirm their intention to keep developments in Myanmar under close review.” In addition, the Security Council while welcoming the recent positive developments in Burma, strongly deplored the continued detention of political prisoners in Burma and showed concern towards continuing new arrests of democracy activists in Burma. In its opinion, the members of the Security Council also expressed concern regarding “the fate of protesters arrested during recent demonstrations that are still unaccounted for”.

It is important to note that the arrests of those who protested in Burma during last August-September orange revolution of monks have not stopped even during the high profile visit of UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, Mr. Sergio Paulo Pinheiro, which concluded today. In its press release, it once again reiterated that, “the members of the Security Council stress the need for the Government of Myanmar to create conditions for dialogue and reconciliation by relaxing, as a first step, the conditions of detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and by pursuing the release of political prisoners and detainees.”

Furthermore, the Security Council also acknowledged the important role of the Association of South-East Asian Nations countries supporting role in the democratic transformation of Burma and facilitating the United Nations good offices mission to the crisis. The press release also stressed the importance of the forthcoming ASEAN Summit in the democratization of Burma.

However, it is important to note that despite one recent freedom given to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to meet party workers, she still doesn’t have any freedom to address media and surprisingly her press statement appears at Singapore through the special envoy of UN Secretary General – Mr. Ibrahim Gambari on 8^th of November 2007? It would have been real positive development in Burma, if Asia’s symbol of democracy – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest would have ended and allowed to address international media without any threat of intimidation and meet party workers freely? Otherwise, all the attempts from military junta’s side of showing positive developments and permitting UN special envoy & UN Special Rapporteur would be of buying some more time to publish more stories like yesterday’s propaganda news of the New Light of Myanmar (Page No. 9) that, “No Longer want to be members of NLD, Fourteen of Pathein, Myaung Townships NLD quit.”

Moreover, the recent statement released by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi through the UN Special envoy to Burma on 8^th of November that, “In the interest of the nation, I stand ready to cooperate with the Government in order to make this process of dialogue a success and welcome the necessary good offices role of the United Nations to help facilitate our efforts in this regard,” shows her continued commitment towards the philosophy of “non-violence” and love towards Burma and the institution of United Nations.

(The End)

*********************************

(The article was scheduled for publication on 28^th of October 2007 but due to the failure of internet support facilities, it is appearing today – Rajshekhar, Editor, Burma Review, India)     

Introduction:   

On 11^th of October 2007, Mr. Yoichi Yamaguchi, a former Japanese ambassador to Burma and high profile diplomat of Japanese foreign policy establishment came out with a thesis entitled, “Foreign Countries’ one sided erroneous views on Myanmar Affairs” against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and ongoing democratic movement in Burma in a reputed Japanese media – “Shukan Shincho Weekly Journal”. The article written by Mr. Yamaguchi suited the purpose of Burma’s ruling military junta – State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), which had been desperately seeking international support to restore their lost legitimacy of rule through guns in Burma and was finely reproduced in Burma’s official state controlled media – “The New Light of Myanmar” on 23^rd of October 2007. The article unfortunately tried to prove that, Asia’s symbol of democracy and Burma’s much loved people’s icon– Daw Aung San Suu Kyi had been working on the strategic designs of the United Sates of America like SPDC’s regular false accusations. It also attempted to prove that, over the years; she has lost the popular support among Burmese people and the August-September 2007 monks and people’s protests figures had been much hiked by foreign media.

Moreover, shockingly it also started with an attempt to prove that his fellow countrymen and versatile Japanese journalist – Mr. Nagai Kenji’s brutal death by riot police of SPDC on 27^th September 2007 was mere accident. So now it becomes important to analyze, that, why Mr. Yamaguchi came with mud-slinging against Daw Suu Kyi and its reality, even denying the facts of the involvement and shocking death of his fellow Japanese journalist by Burmese riot police?     

Timing of Yoichi’s Article:  

If we re-visit the timing of the article by Mr. Yamaguchi appearing on 11^th October in Japanese media, we can easily find that, the article was well timed to generate support for Burma’s infamous ruling military junta – SPDC in Japanese Foreign policy establishment and international institutions, which had been shocked by the brutal suppression of August-September 2007 monks protests, the death of maverick Japanese AFP photographer and grappling with the national demand to cut-off their business and aid support policy with Burma’s military junta together with international demand for the freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and restoration of democracy in Burma.

It is also important to see that, after the betrayal of Russia and China on vetoing Burma’s question of democracy on 12^th January 2007 in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), it was once again on 11^th October, that, the issue of freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners resurfaced in UNSC presidential texts. In its 5757^th afternoon meeting on 11^th of October 2007, the UN Security Council strongly deplored the use of violence against peaceful demonstrations in Myanmar and welcomed Human Rights Council resolution S-5/1 of 2 October 2007, which aimed to create the necessary conditions for a genuine dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all concerned parties and ethnic groups, in order to achieve an inclusive national reconciliation with the direct support of the United Nations.[i]    

Moreover, it was on 11^th October that, UN Department of Public Information came out with the news that, UN Secretary General – Mr. Ban Ki-moon has decided to dispatch his special envoy on Burma – Mr. Ibrahim Gambari back to the region over the weekend for consultations with regional partners starting with Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, China and Japan as well as lastly to Rangoon.[ii] Earlier, Human Rights Council had already taken tough stand against military junta on 2^nd of October 2007, which had been also celebrated as UN International Day of Non-violence and openly UN Secretary General accepted in his speech referring to the recent wave of peaceful protests witnessed in Burma that, “we have witnessed lethal force being used against unarmed and non-violent marchers who exemplified the very spirit of the Mahatma’s teachings.”[iii] Even on 5^th of October 2007, the UN Secretary General – Ban Ki-moon, in his address to the UN Security Council boldly stated that, “I am deeply concerned about the recent events in Myanmar and the reports of continued human rights violations.  I must reiterate that the use of force against peaceful demonstrators is abhorrent and unacceptable… Now more than ever before, the Government of Myanmar should take bold actions towards democratization and respect for human rights.  The national reconciliation process must be accelerated and be made as broad-based, inclusive and transparent as possible.”[iv]     

Now, for Mr. Yamaguchi, who had served Japan’s diplomatic position in various capacities at national and international institutions could easily guess the unfolding direction of world opinion towards freedom in Burma and he timely thought it better to defend cornered military regime, like his earlier ones, first at national Japanese media then making it known to the world. However, whether he was aware of the 11^th of October forthcoming UNSC Presidential texts condemning military junta and Ban Ki-moon’s decision to dispatch Mr. Ibrahim Gambari to the region or not to write his thesis; can’t be assessed with surety? But one should be aware with the recent news of Democratic Voice of Burma that one high official of UN is helping and leaking reports to military junta has already appeared in media. And if it is true then Mr. Yamaguchi must have been aware of the forthcoming unfolding event of 11^th of October 2007 of UNSC and Secretary General’s decision on Burma to dispatch Mr. Gambari to write his article to defame Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and restoration of democratic movement in Burma.     

Moreover, on 12^th of October 2007, press briefings, the Japanese government welcomed the UNSC decision of 11^th of October[v] and Mr. Yamaguchi would have been aware well before of new developing Japanese foreign policy position being a senior Japanese diplomat, which was slowly moving towards the policy of cutting of aid to Burma’s military regime, which ultimately happened and known to the world on 16^th of October, when Japan, Burma’s largest aid donor cancelled a grant worth $ 4.7 million US dollars to the military regime.[vi]

It is important to note that two months before on 31^st of July 2007, the Government of Japan had decided to provide up to 552 million yen worth of assistance to the education project in Rangoon and which aimed to teach Japanese language, Japanese economy and business studies in one of the universities in Yangon.[vii]   

After the death of Japanese journalist – Mr. Kenji Nagai on 27^th September during monk’s mass protests, Japanese foreign policy establishment had been working hard till 2nd of October to get the body of the deceased journalist amidst questions from the media on imposing sanctions on Burma. When Japanese Deputy Press Secretary of ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tomohiko Taniguchi was asked by media on 2^nd of October 2007, that, “Has the Japanese Government been contemplating some kind of sanction against Myanmar because of this latest incident”, Taniguchi replied that, “That is one of the issues we have to discuss with Mr. Yabunaka (Mr. Mitoji Yabunaka, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan) upon his arrival at the Ministry.” Moreover, the body of the deceased journalist – Mr. Kenji Nagai remained in Burma for six days after brutal killing trapped in official procedure of red-tapism of military junta despite constant demand of Japan for the early release of the coffin. And after much Japanese diplomatic endeavour, the deceased body was permitted and scheduled to arrive in Japan on 3^rd of October 2007.[viii] The Japanese Ministry of Foreign affairs accepted officially on 12^th October 2007, after the legal autopsy of Mr. Kanji Nagai in Japan that, “Mr. Nagai died of blood loss due to hepatic injury caused by a perforating bullet wound.”[ix]       

It is important to note that, after the gruesome killing of the Japanese journalist – Mr. Kenji Nagai, the visiting Japanese Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs – Mr. Mitoji Yabunaka met with senior officials of the SPDC at Naypyidaw, which included – Mr. U Maung Myint, Deputy Foreign Minister; Colonel Aye Ko, Deputy Chief, Office of Chief of the Military Security Affairs (OCMSA), Ministry of Defense; and Brigadier-General Kyaw Hsan, Minister for Information on 1^st of October 2007. During his trip, Mr. Mitoji Yabunaka also tried to meet with incarcerated democracy leader – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi but he was not permitted to do so. Mr. Yabunaka even unsuccessfully tried to meet with then visiting UN special envoy to Burma – Mr. Ibrahim Gambari but due to his tight schedule he couldn’t meet him.[x]     

Other Purpose of the Yoichi’s article:   

Apart from the timely appearance of the Yamaguchi’s article to defend infamous military regime of Burma, the other purpose of former ambassador of Japan was to maintain developing cozy economic relationship of Japan with military General’s, which suddenly become topsy-turvy after the brutal death of Mr. Kenji Nagai by SPDC’s riot police. The diplomatic relation between Japan and Burma was established in 1954 during democratic era of U Nu. From the year 1988 to 2003, Japan’s direct investment in Burma constituted around $212.57 million US dollars. In the year 2004 alone, Burma’s trade with Japan constituted exports of marine products (esp. prawn), sesame, pulse, and timber etc. of 19.4 billion yen and imports of transportation and construction machinery worth 11.3 billion yen.[xi]

And according to the press briefings of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 2^nd October 2007, in the fiscal years of 2005 and 2006, the Government of Japan gave Burma, the grant assistance of US $14.6 million and US $11.5 million, respectively and in the fiscal year of 2004, the amount was around US $26.8 million.[xii]      

Moreover, the man who initiated the pace of rising economic and aid partnership between Japan and Burma’s infamous military junta since 1995 was none other then – Mr. Yoichi Yamaguchi. During his ambassadorial tenure in Rangoon (1995-97), who also happens presently to be the patron of Japan-Myanmar Friendship Association, in one of the symposium held jointly by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and the Japanese Foreign Ministry in the year 1996 at Rangoon, Mr. Yamaguchi lamented that, participating 93 Japanese Corporations are called “NATO” in Burma, which stands for “No Action, Talking Only”, and said that, “there have been a lot of business talks that fell short of turning into contracts.”[xiii]  

Earlier, in the same year in June 1996, due to the active support of Mr. Yamaguchi, the Myanmar Securities Exchange Company Ltd. was inaugurated at the Sule Pagoda Road, Rangoon with the Japanese collaboration of Daiwa Securities Co. Ltd. and Myanmar Economic Bank. It is important to note that, the inauguration of the Myanmar Securities Exchange Centre Co. Ltd. was the first organization in Burma to launch a securities exchange business to provide brokerage services as well as advisory services for investment and to realize future Stock Exchange in Burma under military regime.[xiv]    

Even the web site of Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its list of VIP visits depicts high profile visits of Burmese leaders since 1995, the year when Yamaguchi was appointed ambassador of Japan to Burma, which starts from Vice-Chairman of the State Law and Order Restoration Council now SPDC, General Maung Aye’s visit to Japan in October 1995 to the visit of – Mr. U Nyan Win, Foreign Minister of Burma’s visit to Japan in May 2005.[xv]   

In December 2000, Mr. Yamaguchi led a goodwill delegation of Japan-Myanmar Friendship Association (JMFA) to Rangoon as an advisor to the JMFA and met with senior officials of SPDC.[xvi] Even in the December 2003, Mr. Yamaguchi visited Rangoon with Japan-Myanmar Economic Cooperation President – Mr. Chigemoto Okuda and discussed promotion of air transport between the two countries and development of Burma’s tourism industry with then Prime Minister – General Khin Nyunt, and also present at that time were Burmese Foreign Minister – U Win Aung, Deputy Ministers – U Khin Maung Win and U Kyaw Thu, then Burmese ambassador to Japan – U Saw Hla Min, Director General – U Soe Tint of Government office and Director General – U Aung Bwa etc. of ASEAN affairs department.[xvii]    

Nothing New in Allegation against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi:    

Even on earlier occasions, Mr. Yoichi Yamaguchi has been involved in writing against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and restoration of democracy movement as he wrote on 11^th of October and reproduced by SPDC on 23^rd of October in the official New Light of Myanmar to defame her. He wrote a book entitled, “Real State of Myanmar” in 1999 defending military junta to protect business interests of some Japanese corporate sectors doing business in Burma and accused western countries of double standards and said that, “Mrs. Suu Kyi is losing support from the people,” and advocating, “Japan should resume aid positively.”[xviii]   

Most surprisingly, he even went to the extent of refusing military regime as a dictatorial power and any corruption in the SPDC rule. When Mr. Kazuya Sato, the reporter of The Sekai Nippo, asked him in November, 1999, that, “Is there any differences between the present military government and Pak government of Korea or Suharto government of Indonesia,” he replied that, “The biggest difference is the Myanmar military government is not dictatorial system by a man of absolute power, it is taking a group leading system. Its supreme organization – State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) is organized by 19 members practically; Chairman Than Shwe, Vice Chairman Maung Aye, Secretary One – Khin Nyunt and Secretary Two – Tin Oo, who decide the will with consensus of these 4 members. They did not take the power by their desires, but have strong will of mission, and working on construction of the country without any self-interest or personal gain. There are almost no corruptions.”[xix]    

On 4^th of January 2000, Mr. Yoichi Yamaguchi, wrote article entitled, “Most Mass Media Ignores Yangon Reality,” in the reputed Japanese media, “The Japan Times”, which was then reproduced in the Burma’s military government official media. In which, he writes that, “A wide gap exists, however between the political realities in Myanmar and the news usually reported by most of the mass media in Western countries and Japan. News about Myanmar is quite often based on a fixed pattern: The military junta (the bad guys) versus Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD (The good guys). Suu Kyi has become a global heroine of democracy, with the image of a modern Joan of Arc, whereas the military clique is always described as oppressing democracy movements, disrespecting human rights and clinging to power in order to maintain their rules…In reality, members of the military junta are far from clinging to power for selfish motives.”[xx]  

However, Mr. Yamaguchi forgets one important fact while writing in the year 2007, 11^th of October that, his constant support and hope that military regime would be not interested in clinging to power has not realized even after his writings appeared seven-eight years ago in “The Japan Times” and “The Sekai Nippo”.     

Role of Japan-Myanmar Friendship Association in negating genuine democratic forces in Burma:     

Moreover, Mr. Yamaguchi who is closely associated with Japan-Myanmar Friendship Association (JMFA) and visited Rangoon as an advisor of the JMFA in December 2000 played important role in enhancing business interests of certain corporate houses of Japan and weakening democracy movement lad by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. As acknowledged by the noted Burmese affairs scholar and anthropologist Mr. Gustaaf Houtman that, “within Japan, the Japan-Myanmar Friendship Association has furthermore played a role in supporting the Myanmar Embassy in converting key political opponents back towards the regime in Japan. For example, in the regime’s Information Sheets the story is told of the political conversion of U Win Naing. He arrived in Japan under the sponsorship of a member of the Friendship Association in 1980, but took part in anti-regime demonstrations in 1988, becoming chairman of the Burmese Association in Japan (BAIJ) and a member of the Burma Democratic Council (Chicago). He describes his formal abandonment of his ‘confrontational political activities’ from 11 November 1996, because now the Burmese regime emphasizes development through foreign investment. He is now organizing ‘Myanmar and Japanese friends in Japan to promote such investments in Myanmar’. His conversion was facilitated by Mr Kuwabara, an executive of the Japan-Myanmar Friendship Association, who featured Win Naing’s original renunciation prominently in the association’s publication, a document later published verbatim on the regime’s own Internet site.  In the regime’s replication of this article it added the following after the title, ‘The warm rays of sun light are more suitable than the chill wind from the north for the better future of Myanmar, the motherland’, bearing out the regime’s happy acceptance of what Seekins characterized as Japan’s views on development.”[xxi]      

Alleged Connection of Daw Suu Kyi, Democracy with Foreign, USA and Western Powers:   

Now the next question emerges from Mr. Yamaguchi’s article to analyze the alleged connection of NLD and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi with foreign, USA and Western Powers and the reality behind it? It is also important to explore, because, it has been played on and off in junta’s official mouthpiece – the New Light of Myanmar etc. like Mr. Yamaguchi’s thesis since so many past years.      

Mr. Yamaguchi following his earlier writings of 1999 and 2000, wrote again on 11^th of October 2007, that, “The European and Japanese media are still regarding Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as the hopeful star. However, the attitude of Myanmar people toward Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has changed a lot. The reason is that the majority of Myanmar people have come to know that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has received cash and kind as well as the instructions from the US… When I was the Japanese ambassador to Myanmar in Myanmar Daw Aung San Suu Kyi frequently contacted Albright of the US Administration and received anti-government instructions as well as cash and kind.”[xxii] However, like a true Gandhian and former research student of Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla (India), and worked on the topic of comparative study of nationalist movement of India and Burma, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi had been well aware of the forthcoming allegations against her of western sponsorship, which many Indian nationalist leaders like – Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose etc. faced in their struggle for freedom. Perceiving the allegation like Yamaguchi’s and military dictatorship, she wrote in her book – “Freedom From Fear”, that, “It was predictable that as soon as the issue of human rights became an integral part of the movement for democracy the official media should start ridiculing and condemning the whole concept of human rights, dubbing it a western artifact alien to traditional values,”[xxiii] and Yamaguchi’s is not outside the ambit of official media perception of military junta mentioned by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in her writings.   

And even for a moment, if we accept that USA, Britain, EU, Nordic nations together with many countries of Asia are supporting and in the forefront of helping democratic movement in Burma led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi then what is wrong in it? The official newspaper of military junta proves that SPDC leadership has not missed even a single opportunity in sending greetings to western European nations in their national day as well as by visiting and maintaining diplomatic relations with the western powers. It is another matter that, western nations have been not fooled by their tactics to bury democracy. Why SPDC become member of ASEAN in July 1997, the regional group which is closely linked with western economies? Moreover, why SPDC is keen to participate in Asia-Europe meetings, if they feel western nations are with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi?     

It is a general nature of any people’s movement that if it is suppressed with the bayonet’s of gun, it tries to find a friend which comes first to render the help. In Burma’s situation, where the national leadership like – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been forced to remain in house arrest since last twelve years and many political prisoners languishing in jail without recognition as a political prisoner and rest of the leadership had been forced to flee from the country, then it is quite natural that, the remaining democratic forces look for those who comes first with the genuine concern for help. When nations like – India took the lead in 1988 under the Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership, the whole Burmese democratic forces looked for India’s help and aligned themselves with India? When India started keeping silence since 1992 look east policy in the name of pursuing pragmatic foreign policy and western nations came forward to help them, they shifted their hope more towards western nations, however on every occasion, they relied on their own strength; which was once again proved in August-September 2007 mass protests by monks and refusal by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to follow the dictates of military junta to surrender.      

Moreover, Mr. Yamaguchi being a diplomat intentionally fails to understand that if the character of leadership is national in any socio-political movement then concerned movement remains confined to the national boundaries and if the quality of leadership has international outlook then no forces can suppress it to cross the national boundaries. Here the leadership of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi like Gandhi had been shaped through higher education attended at reputed institutions of Asia and Europe for international outlook. So, it is quite natural that their struggle finds its echo crossing national boundaries in western capitals together with many Asian-African, Latin-American cities. This is the reason which differentiates the Burmese movement for democracy gaining wide international support compared with many unknown socio-political upheavals in other countries of the Globe?

In addition, it is not new even in many modern Asian political movements including Burma to seek foreign support. Even Bogyoke Aung San for a moment sought support from Japan to establish freedom of thought and rights in Burma while organizing group of “thirty comrades” and later realizing his tactical mistakes aligned with British Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces Louis Mountbatten.     

During Indian independence movement, even Gandhi enjoyed close friendship and connections with many Europeans, which included – C.F. Andrews (British missionary popularly known as Deenbandhu or friend of the poor), Miss Madeleine Slade or Mira Behn, noted author and philosopher Romain Rolland, Swiss couple – Mr. and Mrs. Edmond Privat, French author – M. Richard Paul, Rev. Joseph J. Doke (worked with Gandhi in South Africa), Mr. Pollack and many more Europeans who stood with Gandhi in his struggle for freedom. So, even if it is true that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has contacted Miss Albright of US administration then what is wrong in it? She has not contacted Miss Albright to build a house at USA and migrate there but to establish home, freedom of speech, job and food for every Burmese in her struggle for freedom in Burma like Gandhi made connections with many Europeans or Europeans contacted Gandhi in his struggle for freedom.

Apart from Gandhi, there is a long list of Indians from Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Dadabhai Naroji, popularly known as grand old man of India, Vivekananda, Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore, Jawaharlal Nehru, Shyamji Krishna Varma (who started “Indian Sociologist” from London), Madam Cama (who started “Bande Mataram” from Paris), Virendranath Chattopadhyay (who started “Talvar” from Berlin) etc. had rich contacts with Europeans and Americans in their journey to establish freedom and equal rights including right to protests against unjust policies.       

Conclusion:   

Regarding Mr. Yamaguchi’s allegation of hiked figure of mass demonstration by western media of August-September 2007 monks protests. The Japanese diplomat intentionally fails to mention spontaneous protests, which took place in the many cities of Burma like – Chauk, Shwebo, Mongwa, Taung Dwin Gyi, Ye Nan Chaung, Pakokku, Mandalay etc. and confines his arguments to Rangoon, which had  been seen burning red with orange robes world over on television screen against military junta.    

Lastly, the suspension of $ 4.7 million US dollars aid to military junta by Japan on the issue of Burmese democratic questions has once again proved that, the ‘land of rising sun’ can’t become refuse of any diplomatic tactics, even if it comes from the fellow countrymen and senior diplomats like – Mr. Yamaguchi. The welcome step of Japan of suspending aid to Burma, once again redeemed her earlier pledge expressed in March 1997 that, “Government of Japan believes that SLORC should seek for ways and means to initiate dialogue with Suu Kyi’s NLD and should incorporate the NLD in the process of drafting a new state constitution,”[xxiv] and again reiterated on 29^th of November 2005, that, “Japan strongly hopes that the Government of Myanmar should expedite the democratization process, including the early release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.”[xxv]

It is also in tune with her foreign policy stand taken last year on 29^th of May 2006, which advocated that, “Japan deems it regrettable that the Government of Myanmar has not yet lifted the detention under house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, although the Government of Myanmar accepted the visit of Dr. Ibrahim Gambari, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs and permitted a meeting with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Japan strongly hopes that the Government of Myanmar will activate talks with the international community including those restarted with the United Nations, and that it will expedite the democratization process, including the early release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, and resume dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.”[xxvi]   

ENDNOTES:     

[i] SECURITY COUNCIL DEPLORES VIOLENCE USED AGAINST MYANMAR DEMONSTRATORS, STRESSES IMPORTANCE OF EARLY RELEASE FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS, Presidential Statement Reaffirms Strong Support For Recent Good Offices Mission, Early Return to Facilitate Tangible Results, Security Council, Press Release No. SC/9139, Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, United Nations, New York, Also UNSC Presidential Text No. S/PRST/2007/37, 11^th of October 2007.

[ii] Secretary-General sends special advisor back to Asia for consultation on Myanmar, Secretary-General Press Release No. SG/SM/11214, Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, United Nations, New York, 11^th of October 2007.

[iii] Ban Ki-moon, Gandhi’s message of non-violence needed now more than ever – Ban Ki-moon, UN News Service Press Release, United Nations, UN News Centre, New York, 3^rd of October 2007.

[iv] Speed up Myanmar Reconciliation Process Urges Secretary General as his special advisor briefs Security Council on recent visit, Security Council 5753^rd Meetings, Security Council Press Release No. SC/9136, United Nations, UN News Centre, New York, 5^th of October 2007.

  [v] Media FAQ, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Press briefings on 12^th October 2007, International Press Division, Kasumigaseki 2-2-1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8919, Japan.

[vi] AP News, Japan Cancels Burma Aid in Protest, Time Magazine in partnership with CNN, 16^th of October 2007, from the web site: time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1671969,00.html > Accessed on 16^th of October 2007. 

[vii] Media FAQ, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Press briefings on 19^th October 2007, International Press Division, Kasumigaseki 2-2-1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8919, Japan.

[viii] Tomohiko Taniguchi, Deputy Press Secretary, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, The Situation in the Union of Myanmar, Press Conference 2^nd of October 2007, International Press Division, Kasumigaseki 2-2-1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8919, Japan.

[ix] Note No. 5.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Japan-Myanmar Relations, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Information Sheet, October 2007, International Press Division, Kasumigaseki 2-2-1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8919, Japan. 

[xii] Note No. 7.

[xiii] Takashi Sakamoto, Japan Still Cautious Over Investing in Myanmar, Daily Yomiuri, Japan, 1^st of March 1996, Also available on Burmanet News, 7^th of March 1996, No. 356, From the web site: 

< ibiblio.net/obl/reg.burma/archives/199603/msg00062.html > accessed on 27^th of October 2007.

[xiv] Daw Ryi Ryi Hla, The Inauguration of the Myanmar Securities Exchange Centre Co. Ltd., from the official website of the government of Myanmar: myanmar.gov.mm/Perspective/persp1996/6-96/co.htm > accessed on 25^th  of October 2007.

[xv] Note No. 10.

[xvi] The New Light of Myanmar, 19^th of December 2000, Rangoon, Burma.

[xvii] Prime Minister General Khin Nyunt receives members of House of Representatives and Councillors, Japanese Friends, The New Light of Myanmar, 15^th of December 2003, Rangoon, Burma.

[xviii] Kazuya Sato, Real State of Myanmar, The Sekai Nippo, 27 November 1999, from the web site:      <ibiblio.org/obl/reg.burma/archives/199912/threads.html#00261> accessed on 26^th of October 2007.

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] Yoichi Yamaguchi, Most Mass Media ignores Yangon reality, The Japan Times, Tokyo, 4^th of January 2000.

[xxi] Gustaaf Houtman. Mental Culture in Burmese Crisis Politics. ILCAA Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia & Africa, Monograph Series 33, Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1999, ISBN 4-87297-748-3, p152/392.

[xxii] Yoichi Yamaguchi, Foreign Countries’ one sided erroneous views on Myanmar Affairs, The New Light of Myanmar, 23^rd of October 2007, Rangoon, Burma.

[xxiii] Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom From Fear and other writings, Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, Year 1995 (First Published in 1991), p.174.

[xxiv] Japan’s position regarding the situation in Myanmar, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Information sheet, March 1997, Kasumigaseki 2-2-1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8919, Japan.

[xxv] Statement by the Press Secretary/Director-General for Press and Public Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Press briefings, on the continuation of the detention under House Arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, November 29, 2005, Kasumigaseki 2-2-1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8919, Japan.

[xxvi] Statement by the Press Secretary/Director-General for Press and Public Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Press briefings, on the continuation of the detention under House Arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 29^th of May 2006, Kasumigaseki 2-2-1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8919, Japan.      

(THE END)  

*******************************************

According to the UN News Service reports released today, The United Nations Special Envoy for Burma – Mr. Ibrahim Gambari and Senior Japanese officials has appealed to the Burma’s ruling military junta to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the opposition party to resolve the ongoing crisis there. Ibrahim Gambari told media persons in Tokyo, that, “The Government and the opposition must sit down together and discuss the future of their country.”    

While in Tokyo, Mr. Gambari held meetings with the Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, Foreign Minister Masahiko Koumura, Vice-Foreign Minister Osamu Uno, and Deputy Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka to solve the deadlock on Burma. As per the UN News, Mr. Gambari and the Japanese government appealed the Burma Government to utilize the available opportunity generated by the recent crisis to start a meaningful dialogue with the opposition without delay and pursue an inclusive process of national reconciliation.. 

They also discussed Japan’s readiness to contribute to international efforts to assist Burma in meeting the humanitarian and socio-economic needs of its people as the country takes concrete steps to accelerate its transition to democracy. It is important to note that recently on 16^th of October Japan suspended its $ 4.7 million aid planned for a business education centre at the Rangoon University campus after the gruesome killing of AFP Japanese photographer – Mr. Kenji Nagai on 27th of September 2007. 

Before arriving in Japan, Mr. Gambari earlier met with leaders in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, India and China. As per the earlier news, he is expected to return to Burma in the first week of November. Which would be his second visit to the country since the military junta began using brutal force to respond to peaceful reverend monks protests in August-September.   

UN Secretary General’s Concern:    

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who dispatched Mr. Gambari as his Special Envoy to consult with regional leaders on Burma, has also called on the Government to “seize the opportunity to take bold actions towards democratization and respect for human rights.” 

UN Secretary General further said while releasing human rights report that, “Unless the Government decides to open up and broaden the process that is to define Burma’s future, the demands for greater inclusiveness, participation and transparency in order to accelerate the transition to democracy and civilian rule are likely to continue.”  

The Secretary-General further adds that recent events constituted a “serious setback” for the country, as the Government’s repressive response to the demonstrations comes at a time when Burma is striving to move forward towards national reconciliation and the restoration of democracy.     

According to the UN News wire, the Secretary-General feels deeply concerned about reports of continued human rights violations, particularly the excessive use of force and arbitrary detentions in the wake of the demonstrations, and the large number of individuals arrested without due process.    

Right to Protests in Burma:   

The Secretary-General’s Special Representative on the situation of human rights defenders – Hina Jilani also expressed her concerns about the ongoing situation in Burma, calling it “the most glaring illustration of the suppression of the freedom to protest.”    In the same news release of UN, She said yesterday that, “Exercise of the right to protest plays an important role both for the promotion and the protection of human rights.” She was speaking at the General Assembly committee dealing with social, humanitarian and cultural issues, known as the Third Committee. She further adds that, “Where States have enabled the realization of these right, values of democracy; pluralism and tolerance have gained support widely and successfully.”    

(The End)   

*********************************************

Today, Burma’s ruling military junta’s official newspaper – “The New Light of Myanmar” (NLM) has published photo news of a meeting between “People’s Queen” and “Asia’s Symbol of Democracy”– Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Mr. U Aung Kyi, the recently appointed liaison minister of ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). According to the New Light of Myanmar of 26^th of October 2007, the yesterday meeting between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and liaison Minister of Labour of ruling SPDC took place at Seinle Kantha Guest House in Rangoon from 2 pm to 3.15 pm.

However, the meeting of junta’s appointed minister with Daw Suu Kyi had been reported yesterday evening in various media reports but the official acceptance of much needed meeting had been missing. Burma’s leading and authentic news group based at Chiang Mai, Thailand, ‘the Irrawaddy’ reported today that, spokesperson of Burma’s main opposition and Daw Suu Kyi’s party  National League of Democracy (NLD) – Nyan Win has welcomed the talks held on 25^th of October and said that, the meeting shows progress and was the first in a series of dialogues. But he also demanded transparency in the meeting process and clarified that, unfortunately NLD is unaware of the topics of the yesterday meeting. He also said, that, “before the meetings, we want our leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to be allowed to meet with her colleagues first and also be set free from house arrest.”    

US official reaction on 25^th of October meeting:   

Meanwhile, reacting on the said meeting between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Junta’s minister, the US Department of State (USA) Spokesman – Mr. Sean McCormack, in his daily press briefings on yesterday (25^th of October) evening said that, “first of all, I asked some folks about this and we haven’t been able to confirm that that, in fact, happened. We’ve seen the news reports. We’re trying to nail it down. Look, I think President Bush, the First Lady, Secretary Rice have been very clear about our desire to see meaningful democratic political dialogue and to see the Burmese people actually represented by a government that reflects their will and desires, which they don’t have that right now.”   

Military Junta’s lacking warm:     

However despite the positive step towards much demanded dialogue between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and SPDC for genuine national reconciliation from international community and high office of the United Nations Secretary General, the military junta has continued today with its propaganda tactics of indirectly defaming NLD without naming it in its lead article entitled,   “May Buddha Sasana be flourishing and perpetual-III,” written by – Po Ye Chan, which shows lack of warmness towards meeting process and difference in words and deeds.

Without naming NLD, the article written by Po Ye Chan on 26^th of October in NLM says, that, “Certain internal politicians and various party groups have employed all means to organize the monks. They have instigated the monks to make them take interest in politics and participate in the political activities under their control.” It further negating the truth of deep rooted simmering discontent towards military rule in Burma goes to the old method of even abusing reverend Monks who participated courageously in August-September revolution towards freedom in Burma. And, accuses reverend Monks of bribery against basic ethos and principles of Theravada Buddhism and great vision of Bogyoke Aung San on monk’s role in world history. It writes that, “One day protester monks of about 300 were walking in procession from north to south on Botahtaung Pagoda Road. On reaching the point between Merchant Street and Strand Road a monk with fair complexion and plump body was seen distributing K 1000 notes to each of the monks,” as the world’s media footage of large scale participation of monks could be only realized through money?      

Moreover, it has also continued today with publishing military sponsored propaganda news of support rallies for National Convention and drafting of constitution towards democracy stair of so called seven-step genuine democracy, which shows lack of genuine warmness in the objectivity of meeting between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Junta appointed minister. It is also important to note that, on 23^rd of October 2007, the NLM published  article appeared in Japanese media – ‘Shukan Shincho Weekly’ to defame people’s queen of Burma- Daw Aung San Suu Kyi through the former Japanese ambassador to Myanmar – Mr. Yoichi Yamaguchi’s writings entitled, “Foreign Countries one sided erroneous views on Myanmar Affairs.” Burma Review will shortly publish, answer and unearth the grand strategy of Japanese career diplomat – Mr. Yoichi Yamaguchi’s intention of writing against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and truth behind Mr. Yamaguchi’s thought, which is far from reality as proposed in the said article.      

(THE END) 

************************************************

On 18^th of October 2007, first time, military junta’s official mouthpiece – “The New Light of Myanmar” recognized Daw Aung San Suu’s writings and her analysis on Bogyoke Aung San views on politics and religion to persuade reverend Buddhist monks of Burma to remain silent on the question of Burmese people’s freedom and defend their crime against humanity under the Shadow of Lord Buddha. In an article published in the name of Pothudaw Yay Chan entitled, “Elements harmful to Dhamma and political opportunists”, while quoting, Daw Suu’s book – “Freedom From Fear”, it attempted to prove that, monks should not get involved in politics as even Bogyoke Aung San desired for that.[I] So it becomes important to explore and analyze that, what was Burma’s maker – Bogyoke Aung San’s vision on reverend monk’s role in the society and what is Buddhism all about on this issue, as well as what Daw Suu wanted to tell Burmese people and world in “Freedom from Fear and other writings”?     

Although, these sorts of propaganda tactics is not new in Burma by authoritarian rulers like SPDC to present half facts and distorted views on different issues including monk’s role in Politics. It is distorted, because the author took one paragraph of Daw Suu’s “Freedom from Fear”, which was serving his masters objectives (SPDC) against the basic ethos and teachings of Buddhism and leaving other finer points of “Freedom from Fear” away from reader’s eye as it goes against his masters dictates. Despite its masterly propaganda tactics, I’m thankful to the author as he bothered to read “Freedom from Fear” and it would be a great job if other respected General’s read it minutely to understand her views on the role of tatmadaw (army), NLD, democracy, ethnic issues and people of Burma.     

However by burying Daw Aung San Suu Kyi alive while keeping in detention and away from peoples, media and party, they are doing great national disservice to Burma and world. Because her detention against the principles and great teachings of Theravada Buddhism not only made Burma aloof of her world visions, but it has been also preventing Asia to come closer to Western civilization as pronounced in the philosophy of Asia Cooperation Dialogue and in many Asia Europe Meetings.       

Bogyoke Aung San’s vision on Religion and Politics:   

But then important questions emerges that, what is the correct view of Bogyoke Aung San on Monk’s role in Burma? The great Bogyoke Aung San was very clear about his vision on monk’s role in the society. He expected that, great Burmese Buddhist monk’s should not only play an important role of high politics in Burma’s history but also in world history, which they also did in August-September 2007 revolution to protests like earlier occasions as wished by Bogyoke Aung San and established their golden mark in Modern Asian and World History. While speaking at the inaugural address at the AFPFL (Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League) convention in January 1946 in his speech entitled, “Problems for Burma’s Freedom”, Bogyoke Aung Said, that, “Reverend Sanghas! You have a tremendous role to play in world history, and if you succeed, you will be revered by the entire mankind for ages to come. This is one of the high functions ordained by your religion and this is the highest politics which you can do for your country and people. Go amongst our peoples, preach the doctrine of unity and love, carry the message of higher freedom to every nook and corner of the country, freedom of religious worship, freedom to preach and spread the Dharma anywhere and anytime, freedom from fear, ignorance, superstitions; teach our people to rely upon themselves and reconstruct themselves materially, spiritually and otherwise. You have these and many more noble tasks before you. Will you or will you not rise equal to your tasks? The answer lies doubtless with you.”[II]       

As mentioned in the above speech of Bogyoke Aung San, one can clearly see that maker of Burma wanted that reverend Monks should work to establish “freedom from fear” not only in Burma but also in world to truly achieve the basic ethos of Buddhism. It is a naked truth that, how threatening pledges has been imposed and daily taken from the monks and people, who recently protested against the views expressed by Bogyoke Aung San on Sangha’s role to establish “Freedom From Fear” and “message of higher freedom to every nook and corner of the country”.       

Bogyoke Aung San as a maker of national defence forces had been long aware of the danger of army taking over the rights of freedom of people in Burma. So in explaining ‘a system of social responsibility’, he said, that, “The original conception of the “state” as a solution of the growing problems of “society”, the “state” holding power derived from “society”, this original conception gradually become lost to view in the course of social history. The cause is the tendency of the “state” to rise higher and higher above the heads of the people, until “State” and “Society” becomes totally divorced.” He further stresses that, “If the state is personified in one or group of persons arrogating to itself and itself alone, forever, the powers which in fact were delegated to it by the people, then the original concept that the state after all is a creation of the people becomes lost.”[III]  Here, SLORC or SPDC, as a group of people, who has even not derived power from the people through election, has turned into “state” higher and higher above the heads of the people as feared by Bogyoke Aung San. The junta wants to bring un-elected elements of the army in proposed Burmese parliament or Pyithu Hlutaw through reservation as pronounced in National Convention in the name of genuine democracy to control “state” against the wishes of Bogyoke Aung San.        

On 19^th of October 2007, through the announcement no. 2/2007 of SPDC, a fifty-four member commission for drafting Burma’s proposed constitution was formed.[IV] But it is important to know that what type of constitution Bogyoke Aung San wished for Burma.  Not even two months before his death, on 23^rd of May 1947 address at the AFPFL  convention held at the Jubilee Hall in Rangoon, he said, that, “The kind of constitution the new democracy would envisage is one which would place power in the hands of the masses through their elected representatives from top to bottom. If they have no confidence in their representatives they must have the power to recall them. This will make a clean sweep of the existing bureaucratic form of government.”[V]       

Now, I again return to the theme of Daw Suu’s writing on Bogyoke Aung San’ socio-political vision of monks role in politics. Whether Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is wrong in her historical analysis of Bogyoke Aung San thoughts on Monk’s role because in her book “Freedom from Fear”, she wrote that Bogyoke Aung San desired that, “Monks should not get involved in politics” and I have quoted Bogyoke Aung San’s original speech as Monks should play a greater and higher role of politics? No, the answer is absolutely not. She is right in her analysis, but her later analysis in the same book was intentionally left by the author of the New Light of Myanmar  (or may be not understood) reveals that, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Bogyoke Aung San both desired a greater social-political role for monks in modern history, which was missed by Pothudaw Yay Chan. It is well undrstood by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in the same book that, “weak logic, inconsistencies and alienation from the people are common features of authoritarianism.”[VI]      

Both, Bogyoke Aung San and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi wanted that in normal condition when politics is playing its true role of serving people, then Monks should refrain from politics and religion should be not mixed with politics, and even India’s greatest leader and father of nation – Mahatma Gandhi also believed on these values. But here comes the “BIG NORMAL SITUATION”, when politics is truly serving the people. But in present day Burma, freedom of speech, thoughts and actions had been freezed with the force of the barrel of gun and by an un-elected group taking the role of “State” as warned by Bogyoke Aung San. Most importantly, the whole leadership of the nation, elected in the May 1990 elections by the people’s mandate had been forced to flee from the country and those who remained had been put under the prison cells and many died in their journey to establish freedom in Burma. So in this extraordinary situation of Burma, what would be the monk’s and other peoples role in Burmese history has been said clearly by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi defining teachings of Buddhism, in “Freedom from Fear,” and I quote, “The teachings of Buddhism which delve into the various causes of sufferings identify greed or lust – the passion for indulging an intemperate appetite – as the first Ten Impurities or Dasa-Kilesa which stand in the way of a tranquil, wholesome state of mind. On the other hand, much value is attached to liberality or generosity, which heads such lists as the Ten Perfections of the Buddha or Dasa-paramita, the ten Virtues which should be practiced and the Ten Duties of Kings,” unquote. She further clarifies, “This emphasis on liberality should not be regarded as a facile endorsement of alms-giving based on canny calculations of possible benefits in the way of worldly prestige or other –worldly rewards,” which can be easily seen in SPDC’s General’s giving alms and titles to Sangha and Monks to perpetuate their authoritarian rule. Daw Suu Kyi, further quotes, the great Sayadaw of the famous Mahagandharun monastery of Amarapura – Sayadaw Ashin Janaka Bivamsa’s saying, that, “Liberality without morality cannot be pure. An act of charity committed for the sake of earning praise or prestige or a place in a heavenly abode tantamount to an act of greed.”[VII]    

How Bogyoke Aung San differentiated “politics of serving people” with religion’ could be understood from the following speech of Burma’s maker? Yes, he draws a line between the politics and religion but line is drawn when politics must see that the individual also has his rights, including the right to freedom of religious worships as Bogyoke Aung San says, “Religion is a matter of individual conscience while politics is a social science,” and stresses that, “Of course, as a social science, politics must see that the individual also has his rights, including the right to freedom of religious worship. Here we must stop and draw the line definitely between politics and religion.”[VIII] Now the question comes that whether as a discipline of social science under military rule in Burma “politics is serving the purpose of insuring individuals rights of freedom from fear” as said to Sangha by Bogyoke Aung San or it is dirty politics played by military junta to perpetuate their rule through reserving seats for tatmadaw in forthcoming Burmese parliament and debarring Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to contest the election of 1990 and future elections?          

Bogyoke Aung San never wanted that, Burmese people should remain aloof from politics. He wanted that politics should be changed for freedom and better life. In his speech to Burmese people, he says, “You have to live and get certain things that are yours for your living, and this is your politics. This is your everyday life; and as your everyday life changes, so change your politics. It is for you to have such opportunities for your livelihood and a better life that we say there must be freedom, freedom to live, freedom to create and develop nationally and individually, freedom which can raise your and our standards without effecting others! This is politics. Politics, then, is quite human! It is not dirty. It is not dangerous. It is not parochial. It is neither magic nor superstition. It is not above understanding.”[IX]     

However the reality is that, in contemporary Burma, politics has become dangerous and above understanding. If one raises voice to establish freedom and people’s rights, it turns out to be dangerous and those who speak including reverend Monks, find themselves behind prison, torture and deaths against teachings of Lord Buddha.       

Politics in Burma has become above understanding against Bogyoke Aung San’s vision of politics, because junta does not want to talk to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi without any pre-condition attached to it, despite United Nations, ASEAN and world communities many appeals. And even when a minister was appointed as a messenger between the government and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, it is said that it was done because of UN envoy’s appeal.  Why there is a need to appoint a communicator, when both Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Senior General Than Shwe lives few miles away and if the intentions are good? Those who thinks, that, by visiting Daw Aung San Suu without any pre-condition, would make them small; then, they have not understood the true teachings of Lord Buddha and Buddhism. It shows that politics in Burma from junta’s part is not above understanding as wished by Burma’s great leader Bogyoke Aung San.      

Moreover, even today’s article (20 October 2007) in the New Light of Myanmar (NLM) on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi written by Chan Mya Aye, attempts to belittle Daw Suu’s and NLD’s role in modern history of Burma, while first claiming to be her supporter then turning to be a critique like a fine propagandist.[X] It is bizarre and most heinous crime against the percepts of Theravada Buddhism like earlier ones that, junta publishes articles in the New Light of Myanmar against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi directly addressed to her but does not gives her chance to respond freely to the concerned articles in different media. It also indicates that, appointed minister to talk with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is a mere eye wash and buying time tactics of military junta from the International Institutions like – UN, UNSC, ASEAN etc. and they want to prolong dialogue till Beijing Olympics.        

Junta’s acceptance of awarding Capital Punishment on mere Protests against Lord Buddha’s teachings and International Law:     

In addition, in yesterday’s official newspaper – NLM (19^th of October 2007), it is accepted by junta’s writer – Mi Khin Thant, that even saying a words against government and freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and political prisoners can lead to violation of Section 121-122 and according to these laws “capital punishment” can be given.[XI] Now question emerges, that, whether these sorts of freedom Bogyoke Aung San desired for Burma and in these conditions what should be the roles of monks in Aung San’s said vision? It also indicates towards the blatant violation of international law and United Nations Charter by junta by their acceptance on awarding capital punishment for mere protest to their rule. It also proves that many faceless innocent people and reverend monks of Burma would have suffered capital punishment through these inhuman laws in their struggle for freedom as outlined by Bogyoke Aung San.     

So, it is important to revisit, that, what was Lord Buddha’s original teaching on capital punishment? Lord Buddha clearly denounces capital punishment and taking away life of anyone by anyone. Referring the thoughts of The Light of Asia, the former President and modern Asia’s greatest philosophers of oriental thought Shri S. Radhakrishnan writes that, “Lord Buddha declares in ‘Samyutta Nikaya’ that, Anyone, O Sariputta, who lays down this body and takes another one, I call blameworthy.”[XII] Although SPDC shows great reverence towards the Sangha by donating alms and gifts together with titles but awards capital punishment to their fellow citizens for mere protests and demand of freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Burma.     

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi understood well then any other leaders of Burma about junta’s tactics and strategy of defaming the democracy movement as a western ploy well before her detention, which is presently appearing daily in official media – NLM, in the name of “people’s desire” accusing DVB, RFA, BBC, VOA, AFP etc for instigating the protests. And she writes in her essay entitled, “In Quest of Democracy,” that, “It was predictable that as soon as the issue of human rights became an integral part of the movement for democracy the official media should start ridiculing and condemning the whole concept of human rights, dubbing it a western artifact alien to traditional values,”[XIII] and relating it with great teachings of Lord Buddha against capital punishment and importance of human life like Bogyoke Aung San, She elaborates that, “Buddhism, the foundation of traditional Burmese culture places the greatest value on man, who alone of all beings can achieve the supreme state of Buddhahood. Each man has in him the potential to realize the truth through his own will and endeavour and to help others to realize it. Human life is therefore is infinitely precious…But despotic governments do not recognize the precious human component of the state, seeing its citizens only as a faceless, mindless – and helpless – mass to be manipulated at will.”[XIV]     

Probably, for a moment, it is good for Burma, that national capital has been shifted to “Nay Pyi Taw” by military junta, now at least the great holy Shwedagon Pagoda of Rangoon, where Lord Buddha’s bright light exists, is not there to witness orders of crime of capital punishment committed against humanity under laws like Section 121-122 or in the name of Bogyoke Aung San’s social-political vision. 

ENDNOTES:   

[I] Pothudaw Yay Chan, Elements harmful to Dhamma and political opportunists, The New Light of Myanmar, 18^th of October 2007, Volume XV, Number-185, , Rangoon, Burma, p.6.

[II] Josef Silverstein, The Political Legacy of Aung San, Data Paper No. 86, Southeast Asia Program, Department of Asian Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, June 1972, p. 55-56.

[III] Ibid, p.93.

[IV] Commission for Drafting State Constitution formed, The New Light of Myanmar, 19^th of October 2007, Volume – XV, Number- 186, Rangoon, Burma, pp.1, 3, and 4.

[V] Note No. 2, p.95.

[VI] Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom From Fear and other writings, Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, Year 1995 (First Published in 1991), p.175.

[VII] Ibid, p.242.

[VIII] Note No. 2, p.55

[IX] Ibid., p.54.

[X] Chan Mya Aye, Aunty Suu, we are living in hope or Our only wish is to see a win-win situation -1, The New Light of Myanmar, 20^th  of October 2007, Volume XV, Number-187, , Rangoon, Burma, p.8-9.  [XI] Mi Khin Thant, Don’t get yourselves used by unscrupulous elements, The New Light of Myanmar, 19^th of October 2007, Volume XV, Number-186, , Rangoon, Burma, p.6-7.  

[XII] S. Radhakrishnan, Eastern Religions and Western Thought, A Galaxy Book, Oxford University Press, New York, 1959, p.182.

[XIII] Note No. 6, p.174.

[XIV] Ibid, p.174.

(THE END)

********************************************************************

Yesterday, the Thai Prime Minister, Mr. Surayud Chulanont had proposed a four party mediation to solve the impending Burma crisis to the visiting UN envoy – Mr. Ibrahim Gambari. The proposal seeks to engage members of ASEAN including Burma, China, India and United Nations to solve the political and economic crisis on the pattern of North Korean six-party mediation. Thailand, through this proposal, which had been popularly known in Asia for its swift silk diplomacy in maintaining independence even during colonial days, appears that, it wants to propose a slippery road for Burma’s long cry for democracy.       

Although, the Thai Prime Minister was honest in admitting before Mr. Gambari’s visit on 12^th of October in a weekly television programme Perd Baan Phitsanulok, that, “I cannot preach too much about democracy if our government is not an elected one. If the Burmese junta shoots back with the question, who put me in this position, what would I say? He further explained honestly that, “Please don’t forget that I am not an elected prime minister.”        

Moreover, the said Thai proposal had been not new of multi-party talks, which was also earlier indicated by Mr. Surayud on 12^th of October by limiting the role of the United Nations in Burma crisis. But, now question emerges that, if United Nations is unable to solve the Burma crisis then, how come China, India and ASEAN will solve the question of freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners? It has been said many a times that, presently, ASEAN hasn’t got any rules to expel its any errant member nations and China closeness with the military regime is a well known fact. The proposal has other limitations too, that it has not spelt out any clear points, that, how UN or ASEAN will take part in the negotiations? Whether the office of UN Secretary General will represent the UN in Thai Proposal or United Nations Security Council will represent the UN or any representative like Mr. Gambari would represent the UN? Likewise, ASEAN Secretary General will represent the ASEAN or any representatives nominated by ASEAN will represent the four party talks? However regarding ASEAN, there are indications that all ten member nations will participate in the Thai proposal as it has been said that, Burma is included in ASEAN. But if Burma’s military regime gets the chance to be represented on negotiation table then why largest democratic groups representation NLD or NCGUB etc. of Burma are left out?  Although, the UN Secretary General’s Special envoy on Burma – Mr. Gambari had not spell out any thing on Thai proposal. And, if China can participate separately in mediation, apart from her status of permanent membership of UNSC, then why not  USA and UK together with EU?       

Since last weeks, one of the positive and realistic approaches to the problem has come from the British Prime Minister – Mr. Gordon Brown, that, if military junta agrees towards genuine democracy, then, G-7 group of industrialized nations, EU, Portugal, China, India, IMF, World Bank and ASEAN could work towards economic recovery of the country and Britain would take lead in the concerned rebuilding of Burma. However, Burma’s yesterday’s official newspaper – The New Light of Myanmar’s (16^th October 2007), once again reiterated that it doesn’t care for the response of international community and United Nations Security Council presidential text of 11^th of October 2007.  Furthermore, it intentionally tries to convey repeatedly with the support gained from Russian and Chinese veto in January 2007, that, “there is no one in Myanmar who is in prison for political reasons” (The New Light of Myanmar, 16 October 2007, page-6), as if Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other thousands behind bars had been there for ‘trading or committing crime’ in Burma? Yes, in the eyes of military junta, which SPDC accepts nakedly before international institutions like UNSC and ASEAN in their official newspapers, that, those who speak freely are criminals, those who gather to question government policies non-violently are criminals?      

The whole world knows that, curfews in Burma are only for those who questions lost legitimacy of the military government of May 1990 elections and freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Does world community has become blind that, they can’t see regular photographs appearing from 1^st of October in the New Light of Myanmar in support of Junta sponsored  support rallies for National Convention with thousand arranged chairs in Stadium? Everybody knows that a person who participates in rallies does not come with Chairs, arranged tables with table clothes? Even if one looks minutely to the photograph of pro-junta rally in support of proposed National Convention can easily identify the same size and stand with new flags. Whether any common mass has got the factory to prepare new flags and same size of flag stands? The spontaneous peoples support could be seen in August-September democratic monks and peoples protests, where new flag stand or flags and arranged chair had been missing from the protests scene and streets. Earlier, BBC had also reported that, Junta orders with threatening messages to family, organization, factories to send given number of people to send them for rallies in support of National Convention. Common people in Burma knows that, no-body or UN is presently coming as their saviours, so follow the authoritarian dictates, otherwise they will loose another family member.       

Moreover, today’s official newspaper – The New Light of Myanmar (page no. 1), clearly accepts that, “Those who led, got involved in, and supported the unrest which broke out in September were called in and are being interrogated,” and “Out of 2284 persons who were called in from Yangon up to date, 2094 were already released on pledge and there are 190 persons left. Similarly, out of 643 persons who were called in from the states and divisions so far, 365 were already released after they had taken the pledge and there are 278 left. Some are still called in for questioning and those who should be released will be released.” And naturally interrogation with the protestors had been not going on with serving coffee and tea but with threatening and third degree treatments. In addition, those who had been released are common masses and not the leaderships as demanded many a times by the former Secretar-General of the United Nations (UNSG) or present UNSG. Moreover, on 2^nd of October 2007, Human Rights Council special meetings had also endorsed the right to peaceful assembly. Does, vetoing nations of January 2007, China and Russia are not seeing that, junta is not allowing this right, which they endorsed on 2^nd of October and is engaged in taking threatening pledges from protestors?        

Even Gandhi ji had stated many times during Indian independence movement that, common mass has not got immense strength to fight for longer times, so we need rest for the movements. He further stresses that, it doesn’t mean that movement and masses have been marginalized. So how long, world community would wait for proposal’s like silk diplomacy to act on Burma? Or, it wants to wait for the moment to see Burma, once again bleed like – Rwanda, Ivory Coast etc. to discuss the matter in air-conditioned meeting halls of United Nations Security Council? If UNSC and United Nations can’t solve the Burma problem as spoken by the Thai Prime Minister then, what is the need of maintaining such an international institutions with huge costs, let it also fail like ‘League of Nations’?        

(THE END)  

********************************                          

On 15^th of October 2007, Burma’s official media “The New Light of Myanmar” came up with a fabricated news story written by Kyaw Min Lu (Shwepyitha) entitled, “Attempts to harm amicable ties” (page no. 8-9), on the killing of Japanese journalist – Mr. Kengi Nagai to cover up the brutal killing’s and to maintain emerging friendly relations with Japan, as well as seeing impending visit of UN Special envoy Mr. Ibrahim Gambari this weekend to Tokyo on UN Secretary General’s special mission to solve Burma crisis.

While explaining the incident Mr. Kyaw Min Lu unknowingly accepts that, Security forces fired bullets on peace protestors, in which monks had been participating in large numbers. He writes, that, “It is impossible for security members to know who is who and to differentiate between nationals and foreigners in handling a protest. Indeed Myanmar’s and Japanese are the same, Asians, so the security members could not know immediately he was a Japanese and whether he was a protester or a correspondent. What is sure in that regard is that security members had to target the ones in the front of the crowd to stop the protest? The Japanese correspondent caused his tragic end by getting among the protesters.” However earlier, the SPDC had been constantly denying to international community, UN and ASEAN that, any harsh measures had been taken to suppress the peace protestors in Burma for rising commodity prices and freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi & other political prisoners.

Although, the ruling military junta has tried their best of intellectual ability to cover up the gruesome shocking incident, however, their explanation that, “Myanmar’s process to disperse protesters is somewhat different from that of other countries and security forces have to show great patience in handling such cases,” shows the real story behind the scene, as if Myanmar Security forces under SPDC had been of other Galaxies. Interestingly, the story further says that, the Japanese reporter came on tourist visa, so he should have acted like tourists. However, it is a well known fact that, when protests had been going on in Rangoon in the months of August-September 2007, how difficult had been for foreign correspondents to get journalist visa to cover the news? Junta’s article also suggests certain journalistic norms to be followed by reporters and shockingly says, that, “I do not think any correspondent without evil spell would go there at such a time. I am sure ordinary correspondents would try to collect news, from a safe place”, so world media should also learn that, in future they should close their foreign news desks and request junta to send news from safe places?

In addition, regarding Mr. Nagai’s family members request of returning his Sony Video Tape recorder, it says, that, “It is very hard to identify how his tape recorder was lost amidst the protesters who were in disorder due to security forces dispersing the crowd. Security forces did not collect it. I understand the desire of his family that wants to get back the recorder to be kept for remembrance.”

Moreover, apart from RFA, VOA and BBC as saboteurs, airing skyful of lies, one new international media was also added in the military junta’s propaganda list, which is now AFP news agency, from which great Japanese photographer, true to his profession – Mr. Kengi Nagai belonged and I hope many more international media will be added in near future.

(THE END)

***********************************************

As mentioned in the previous post that, one of the esteemed reader’s of “Burma Review” by the name – Maung Sit Naing send his opinion entitled, ‘Operation Grave Diggers’ as a strategy to fight against incorrigible military regime in Burma popularly known as State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). However, Burma Review in spite of having respect to the views expressed by the author of ‘Operation Grave Diggers’ does not agree to the strategy put forward by Maung Sit Naing, as it does not fit with the core principles of non-violence as well as the political-social vision of Asia’s symbol of Democracy – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Although, Burma Review understands the feelings of Maung Sit Naing and many others of their sufferings and its natural outcome of hating ‘Tatmadaw or military’ and totally negating socialization with the members of the family of Burmese Defence forces.      

However, the students and practitioner of non-violence knows that basic foundation of its strategy rests with the struggling against evil deeds not the evil doer. That’s why Mahatma Gandhi struggled against British colonial policies and not against British people and members of the family of British bureaucracy during colonial time, which was also reflected in his acceptance of the daughter of British Commander – Miss Madelaine Slade popularly known as Mira Ben as his close disciples. Although, in general it looks bizarre but power of non-violence could be only realized through practice, which is naturally very difficult for common mass, that’s why leaders like Gandhi and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi are not born everyday in any nations history, which SPDC fails to understand.

Moreover, if Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is generating such international support, it is only with her commitments to the grand political strategy of non-violence, otherwise it would have been very easy to kill her for any military leadership like it happened in many countries under military dictatorship and also many bright political leaders of Burma died while following violent political strategy. Likewise, here general military personnel’s of Burmese defence forces are only following orders of their commanders or SPDC and they are not against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi or genuine democracy. Otherwise, like earlier occasion Burmese military or junior officers would have not refused to fire against protesting people, which had also happened in the last months of August-September protests, when on 28^th of September, soldiers from the Light Infantry Division No. 66 have turned their weapons against SPDC soldiers and possibly police in North Okkalappa township in Rangoon in defending the protesters and also soldiers in Mandalay had refused to act against monks/peoples protesters.[I]     

The main purpose of publishing ‘Operation Grave Diggers’ is to prove that, how great farsighted was Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, that, she could visualize the growing hatred of people like- Maung Sit Naing and other Burmese people against military nineteen years back in her first mass political rally held at holy Shwedagon Pagoda, Rangoon on 26^th of August 1988 and her second public appearance.♣ In which, while quoting her father and maker of Burma and tatmadaw– Bogyoke Aung San, she said, “The armed forces are meant for this nation and this people, and it should be such a force having the honour and respect of the people. If instead the armed forces should come to be hated by the people, then the aims with which this army has been built up would have been in vain.”[II] The same view, she expressed in her 24^th April 1989 BBC interview, that, “it was not the intention of the NLD ‘to cause a rift between the Defence Forces and the people, and we do not want the Defence Forces to break up’.”[III]   

And, when she says about ‘national devastation’ it is in this context and not in the context which certain old element or General’s of tatmadaw wants to present in their official media – “The New Light of Myanmar” etc. It is like the same lie and distorted view, which SPDC announced in its “Announcement No. 1/2007” on 4^th of October 2007 and published on 5^th of October 2007 in the New Light of Myanmar, that, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is exerting efforts for “CONFRONTATION”, otherwise Senior General Than Shwe will personally meet her. Long back in 1994, she had clearly explained to the military and world about the meaning of ‘dialogue’, which SPDC translates as Confrontation till today. When Bill Richardson, a democrat congressman from New Mexico asked her on 12^th February 1994, that, “What conditions do you think are meaningful? She replied, “Dialogue…Dialogue can lead to a lot of things…I want to confront them (the SLORC) across a table, and I think that’s what they mean when they say I’m confrontational, because I’ve never asked for any other sort of confrontation at all. It seems to me very strange that they’re prepared to talk to armed insurgents but not to legal political parties.”[IV]     

Her attachment, love and desire for a unified strong Burmese army or tatmadaw could be also proved, which SPDC fails to understand, when she says, “Let me speak frankly. I feel strong attachment for the armed forces. Not only were they built up by my father, as a child I was cared for by his soldiers. At the same time I am also aware of the great love and affection which the people have for my father. I am grateful for this love and affection. I would therefore not wish to see any splits and struggles between the army which my father built up and the people who love my father so much. May I also from this platform ask the personnel of the armed forces to reciprocate this kind of understanding and sympathy? May I appeal to the armed forces to become a force in which the people can place their trust and reliance?”[V]     

One of the consistent mistakes, which SPDC has been committing, is of wrongly analyzing political-social vision of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and placing it in a different scenario before Burmese people in their official media. However, it is the great maturity of the Burmese people that they understands the truth behind it and decipher the true meanings between the said official propaganda. Furthermore with due regards to the philosophy of ‘operation grave diggers’, how can a political strategy of refusing marriage proposals by Burmese women to defence forces personnel find a place in a vision of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, when we find her words, that:   

“Parents of Burma

You must give birth to heroes

Like Boh Aung San…

He will make history