_ by Benedict Rogers
[Mr. Rogers is a writer and human-rights activist for Christian Solidarity Worldwide, based in London. He is the author of A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide of Burma’s Karen People. He is also Vice Chair of British Conservative Party Humanrights Commission.]

For the first time in 18 years, the people of Burma will go to the polls this month, in a referendum on a new constitution. But this ballot is very different from the elections in 1990 which saw Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, win 82% of the parliamentary seats.

The referendum this month could not be more of a sham. For a start, no one had seen the full proposed constitution until very recently—only the guidelines were available. Secondly, it is published only in Burmese—making it very difficult for Burma’s ethnic minorities, who make up 40% of the population and inhabit 60% of the land, to understand what they are voting for. But most significantly, it is illegal to campaign against the constitution or even criticize it. Opponents are subject to a jail sentence of at least three years—and Law 5/96 imposes prison terms of up to 20 years for discussing the constitution process.

Several million Burmese will be completely disenfranchised. There are about half a million Buddhist monks in Burma today, almost equivalent to the size of the Burma Army, but monks and nuns are not allowed to vote in the referendum. Religious leaders from other faiths are also excluded. The Muslim Rohingyas, treated as noncitizens and therefore stateless, are denied a vote, and so are the 500,000 or more internally displaced peoples. Millions living in conflict zones in the ethnic states, as well as refugees who have fled to neighboring countries and exiles further afield, will also be unable to vote.

The regime has refused the United Nations’ request that international monitors be permitted during the referendum. Voters can therefore have little confidence that their ballots will be cast in secret. In a previous military-run referendum in 1974, voters were required to cast their votes in a “Yes” box or a “No” box, set apart from each other and visible to all. It is therefore abundantly clear that the regime will simply use the referendum to rubberstamp its new constitution— which, in turn, will enshrine military rule. The constitution drafting process completely excluded Aung San Suu Kyi, the nld and the major representatives of the ethnic groups. Most of the members of parliament elected in 1990 are in prison or in exile. Suu Kyi remains under house arrest, where she has spent more than 12 years, and apart from the occasional appearance with U.N. envoys, she is held virtually incommunicado. The regime has rebuffed appeals for dialogue. The delegates at the National Convention, which drew up the guidelines for the constitution, were handpicked by the junta. There was no debate, and none of the proposals made by the few ethnic representatives who did participate were adopted. Indeed, one participant told me it was like a religious ceremony where the delegates listened to the “sermon,” and then went home.

The end product is a constitution that explicitly excludes political prisoners from contesting elections, and requires that the president be someone with military experience. A person who has been married to a foreigner, or has children who are foreign citizens, is barred from standing. On all three counts, Suu Kyi is automatically ruled out. Although elections for a legislature are scheduled by the regime for 2010, under the new constitution the commander-in-chief of the Burma Army will appoint 25% of the national legislators and 33% of the regional and state legislators. He will also appoint the country’s defense minister, who will report to him. The military will have independent powers, including control of its own budget, and although the president will be able to decide the national budget, the army chief can seize power constitutionally at any point, if he happens to believe that national security is threatened. There will be no independent judiciary.

It is true that the democracy movement has decided to participate, and— courageously— to campaign for a “No” vote, instead of a boycott, but that should not be interpreted as legitimization. The democracy movement decided that, however flawed the process is, it presents a rare opportunity to promote democracy and mobilize its supporters.

It is worth reflecting on the context in which this plebiscite is held. The regime, now known as the State Peace and Development Council, is one of the most brutal and illegitimate in the world. The military originally seized power in Burma in a coup in 1962, when Ne Win deposed the elected government. On several occasions since then, notably in 1988, the regime has violently crushed peaceful popular uprisings. The most recent example, of course, was in September 2007 when thousands of Buddhist monks and civilians took to the streets in what became known as the Saffron Revolution. True to form, the regime launched a bloody crackdown, arresting, beating, torturing and killing monks and raiding monasteries. Although the constitution-drafting process has been underway on and off since 1993, it is believed that the regime announced the May referendum on Feb. 9 this year, in an attempt to present a veneer of change, thus deflecting international pressure. The international community should not be fooled.

Burma’s ruling junta is guilty of every conceivable violation of human rights. In addition to the suppression of democracy, the detention of more than 1,800 prisoners of conscience and the widespread use of horrific torture, the regime is perpetrating a campaign of ethnic cleansing in eastern Burma which amounts to crimes against humanity. Since 1996, more than 3,200 villages have been destroyed by the Burma Army, hundreds of thousands of people driven from their homes into hiding places in the jungle, often without adequate food, medicine or shelter. The use of rape as a weapon of war is widespread, systematic and well-documented. Forced labor, forced relocation, land confiscation and the use of human minesweepers are common features of the military’s conduct. Civilians are targeted ruthlessly, women and children shot at point-blank range and often grotesquely mutilated as a warning to others. Landmines are laid at the entrance of villages after an attack, to stop the inhabitants returning to their homes.

In western and northern Burma, the situation is no better. Forced labor, land confiscation, torture and rape are daily features. And for religious minorities— especially the Christian-majority Chin and Kachin populations, and the Muslim Rohingya—their faith has become a target of war. While the regime does not hesitate to slaughter Buddhist monks who rise up against it, at the same time it ostentatiously wraps itself in the image of Buddhism and misuses religion for its own ends. Christians in Chin State, for example, have been forced to tear down crosses and churches, and build Buddhist pagodas in their place, sometimes having to contribute the costs of the construction as well as the labor. Children from Chin Christian families have been lured from their homes and placed in Buddhist monasteries, forced to become novice monks. Christians are denied promotion in government service. Mosques are destroyed and Muslims discriminated against. Burma also has one of the highest numbers of forcibly conscripted child soldiers in the world, thousands of children have been taken off the streets and forced to join the military. One told me that when he made his escape he did so in the full knowledge that he would be killed if caught but, he said, “Life in the Burma Army had become so bad that I did not want to live anymore.”

In the face of this catalogue of horror, and the regime’s plans to achieve some degree of legitimacy through the referendum, how should the world respond?

Firstly, it is vital that Burma remain on the international agenda. For a few weeks last September Burma broke through the media silence that has existed for too long, and dominated the headlines. The Saffron Revolution woke the conscience of the world—and the world cannot afford to go back to sleep. There are six major players who need to step up to the mark. The United States and the European Union have already been doing their part. The U.S. has the toughest sanctions of all, and last month approved a measure to award Suu Kyi the highest civilian honor in that country, the Congressional Medal of Honor. The eu has strengthened its previously weaker position since the recent demonstrations, and has banned investment in and imports of gems, metals and timber. Now it is time for China, India, Japan, Russia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—particularly Thailand and Singapore— to exercise greater responsibility, and for the U.N. to raise its game.

At the U.N., it is time to recognize that Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari’s efforts have failed, and that the secretary-general himself should play a larger role. A resolution should be passed at the Security Council mandating Ban Ki-moon to go to Burma to facilitate talks between the regime, the nld and the ethnic nationalities. If there is still no will for a resolution, then there should be another Presidential Statement—similar to the one passed last October, with China’s support, but tougher. The Security Council should also impose a universal arms embargo on the regime in Burma. The regime spends almost 50% of its budget on the military, and less than 2%  on health and education combined—and with no external enemies, it only uses arms to crush its own people.

China is the junta’s biggest friend. Since 1989, China has provided some $2 billion worth of arms at below market prices, including tanks, fighter aircraft, coastal patrol ships, small arms and light weapons, logistical and transportation equipment and military advisers. With this support, the regime has quadrupled the size of its army to 450,000. China is one of the largest investors in Burma, with projects exceeding $2.1 billion and direct investment of more than $281 million. In 2003, China provided the regime with $200 million of economic assistance. Although some argue that China facilitated Mr. Gambari’s visit to Burma, in truth China has blocked all meaningful action. Despite calls from the U.N. General Assembly, 14 U.N. rapporteurs, a dozen Nobel laureates, 59 former presidents and prime ministers, the U.S., the eu, Japan and Asean for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, China persists in calling her detention an internal matter. In this Olympics year, as it faces pressure on Tibet and Darfur, China should use its influence with Burma to break the deadlock, secure Suu Kyi’s release and open up dialogue. Thailand’s imports from Burma—primarily natural gas—rose to $2.7 billion last year, amounting to 45% of Burma’s total exports.

Thai investment in Burma reached $1.34 billion, and looks set to rise further. The new government in Bangkok shows every sign of offering the junta even greater cooperation. Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej signed a new investment deal with the regime on his visit in March, and returned describing Burma’s senior generals as “good Buddhists” because they “meditated,” ignoring the slaughter of Buddhist monks last September. In February the general secretary of the Karen National Union, the largest armed ethnic resistance group, was assassinated on the orders of the regime in his home in Thailand—an act most analysts believe could not have happened without at least a nod from the Thai authorities. In March, Thai police raided 14 Karen organizations in Mae Sot—a sign that Thailand is increasingly appeasing the junta.

India has reportedly stopped selling arms to the regime, yet continues to invest in Burma and remains relatively silent on human rights. Russia, which is training the regime in nuclear technology and transferring equipment and arms, opposes any further action by the Security Council, including another Presidential Statement. Japan continues to be the largest donor of official development assistance (oda) to Burma among the Group of Eight leading nations, and the aid flow has continued even after the bloody crackdown in 2007. Little aid, however, is directed to victims of the military regime’s abuses in Burma’s border areas. Japan is also a significant investor, with a 19.3% stake in the Yetagun natural-gas field and several other major projects. Meanwhile, Singapore is the generals’  preferred destination for banking, investments, shopping, medical care and education for their children, as well as a channel for arms.

It is unrealistic to expect these countries to impose sanctions on Burma, however desirable it may be. However, they should be pressured to cease some of their more irresponsible policies such as arms sales and technology transfers, and Singapore could introduce targeted banking sanctions on individual senior members of the regime and their families. Furthermore, all of these countries—even if they continue to trade and invest—should use their influence to push the regime to change. They should be willing to speak out, both publicly and privately, and to end their policies of appeasement. At the very least, they should reject the farcical referendum next month and call for meaningful and inclusive dialogue.

[This article was first published in Far Eastern Economic Review, and is re-published here to help highlight the irregularities in Burma's constitutional referendum.]