Archive for the ‘Religion’ category

The World Must Not Give Up!

December 4, 2007

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) 

******************************    

A Girl from Golden Land Wins ASEAN Design Competition

November 25, 2007

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)  

*********************************** 

Letter of Richard Mookerdum for Military Rulers and My Answers!

November 23, 2007

On 21st 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 

ASEAN-INDIA-CHINA accepts Democracy or Not?

November 22, 2007

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)   

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

GA Third Committee approves Burma Resolution despite India’s dissent

November 21, 2007

According to the Press Release (GA/SHC/3909) of the United Nations Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, New York issued on 20th of November 2007, the United Nations Sixty-Second General Assembly “Third Committee” (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) in its day-long 49th and 50th 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 19th – 20 November was only a tactical move to manage 40th  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 20th November 2007 entitled: “THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES THREE COUNTRY-SPECIFIC TEXTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS DESPITE OPPOSITION LED BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES”)   

 

(THE END)  

 

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

CARTOON: JUNTA READY TO COOPERATE WITH UN

November 17, 2007

Junta Ready to Cooperate with UN

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

********************* 

Burma under close review, deplores prisoners detention: UN Security Council

November 15, 2007

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 14th 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 8th 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 8th 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)

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