BURMA RELATED NEWS – DECEMBER 09, 2010
Dec 9th, 2010
9 December 2010 Last updated at 08:20 ET
Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi has offered “a hand of sympathy” to this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo from China.
Speaking in an interview with Claire Bolderson on BBC World Service Ms Suu Kyi said it was “very sad” that Liu Xiaobo will not be able to attend the award ceremony in Oslo on Friday.
Liu Xiaobo is in prison in China serving an 11 year sentence for subversion.
Aung San Suu Kyi won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, and was unable to attend herself because she was under house arrest. She describes how she felt when she heard she had won the prize.
By the CNN Wire Staff
December 9, 2010 11:38 a.m. EST
Editor’s note: Jonathan Mann profiles Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo in a special show on CNN International and on CNN.com. “Prize for Peace: Nobel 2010″: Friday 1700 CET, 2000 Abu Dhabi; Sat: 0000 HK
Oslo, Norway (CNN) — Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo will be represented Friday at the ceremony bestowing the honor by an empty chair, the second time such a symbol has been used in the event, the chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee said Thursday.
Thorbjorn Jagland told reporters that the gesture is not a protest.
“It is a signal to China that it would be very important for China’s future to combine economic development with political reforms and it is support for those people in China who are struggling for basic human rights,” Jagland said at a news conference.
Liu, a professor of literature, is serving an 11-year sentence in a Chinese prison for what the government called “inciting subversion of state power.” He was not allowed to travel to Norway to accept the prize, nor was his wife, Liu Xia.
China has responded furiously since the Nobel committee announced its peace prize winner on October 8. Officials have repeatedly called Liu Xiaobo a common criminal and declared the award a Western plot against China.
Beijing also put pressure on its allies and other countries not to attend the peace prize ceremony, and it hastily announced its own honor — the Confucius Peace Prize, which was awarded Thursday to former Taiwanese Vice President Lien Chan. That award was accepted by a 6-year-old girl on Lien’s behalf. Lien did not know about the prize, his office said.
Jagland said the pressure from China was not a surprise, and that it was up to Beijing to decide on its own behavior.
“There are several peace prizes in the world,” he said. “If someone wants to compete with the Nobel Peace Prize, I welcome that competition, it only makes us better.”
The last time an empty chair was used to represent an absent winner was when German peace activist Carl von Ossietzky won the 1935 award, according to Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute. Ossietzky was under “protective custody” in Nazi Germany and could not come to accept the award in person, nor was he represented by anyone.
Three other Nobel peace laureates were also unable to attend their ceremonies due to political reasons — human rights activist Aung San Suu Kyi, Polish trade union leader Lech Walesa, and Russian Cold War dissident Andrei Sakharov — but spouses or other relatives were able to accept the awards on their behalf.
As for China’s pressure on other countries to boycott the ceremonies, Jagland said the committee expected a “harsh reaction” from Beijing.
But “we are very glad to see that two-thirds of the nations that have embassies in Oslo will be attending the ceremony, and most of them are very big, very important countries,” he added.
Lundestad said of the 19 countries that declined to come to the ceremony Friday — including China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran — two had now reconsidered: Ukraine and the Philippines.
The ceremony will include songs by a children’s choir — a special request made by Liu through his wife, according to Lundestad. And Norwegian actress Liv Ullmann will read one of Liu’s “most interesting and beautiful texts,” Jagland said.
He predicted that keeping Liu, 54, in prison for the entirety of his 11-year sentence may prove to be impossible for China once the prize is awarded.
“The pressure from the outside world will be on China to release him. In today’s world, it is totally impossible to close a country. We already know that a lot of Chinese know about the prize, and this is creating a huge pressure on China,” Jagland said. “I believe this is one of the most influential Nobel Peace Prizes that have been awarded through the years.”
“The demand now from the world community must be that these economic reforms (by China) are being followed up by political reforms,” he added.
Several foreign news websites — including CNN and BBC — were blocked in mainland China Thursday. Broadcasts of CNN International are being blacked out intermittently, when news of the peace prize is reported, according to CNN Beijing Bureau Chief Jaime FlorCruz.
“We are required to beam our signal through a Chinese satellite station before it is broadcast to mainland China. That creates a 12-second delay. Authorities use that time to black out specific parts of the signal,” he explained.
FlorCruz said most Chinese are likely not aware that Liu has been awarded the prestigious award.
“Whatever they may have read about him has been through official talking points and state commentary,” he said.
Amnesty International said it had received report that Chinese diplomats in Norway have been pressuring Chinese residents into joining anti-Nobel demonstrations when the award ceremony is held Friday. The human rights group did not say how it learned of this, only offering that it has been “informed by reliable sources.”
Answering critics who claim that the award is based on the Western standards of human rights, Jagland said the criteria are from the universal rights and values described in the United Nations International Declaration of Human Rights.
“All the dissidents in China, they are advocating over common universal rights,” he said. “Yes, there are different parts to a democracy, but one thing is absolutely clear: You cannot have democracy without freedom of expression, and that is clearly stated in the declaration of human rights.”
by Jason Gutierrez – Thu Dec 9, 1:30 am ET
MANILA (AFP) – The Philippines confirmed on Thursday it would skip the Nobel peace prize ceremony for Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo following pressure from China, triggering anger from human rights advocates.
The decision by one of Asia’s most vibrant democracies to stay away from Friday’s event in Norway comes as it seeks to build stronger military and economic ties with communist China.
“It is confirmed that there will be no Philippine official at the ceremony,” Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman Eduardo Malaya told AFP.
He said Manila’s envoy to Oslo, Elizabeth Buencuceso, was out of Norway on an official consular mission.
“Our ambassador to Norway has a scheduling conflict,” he said.
However two senior government officials who did not want to be named said the move was meant to appease China, which had repeatedly warned governments around the world that ties would be harmed if they attended the ceremony.
China reacted furiously to the decision by the Nobel Committee to award this year’s peace prize to Liu, who was jailed for 11 years last December on subversion charges after
calling for reform of one-party communist rule.
“We do not want to further annoy China,” said a senior diplomat at the Philippines’ foreign affairs department who asked not to be named.
President Benigno Aquino’s spokesman, Herminiano Coloma, declined to comment when contacted by AFP about the decision, referring all queries to the foreign affairs department.
But another presidential palace official said Aquino “did not want another irritant” in his government’s ties with China.
The Philippines has been working hard to repair diplomatic ties with China following the botched ending of a bus hijacking incident in Manila that left eight Hong Kong tourists dead in August.
The Philippines is also seeking to buy military hardware from China — the nation’s armed forces chief, General Ricardo David, is in Beijing this week on a procurement mission.
Trade between the countries has been expanding since the 1990s, with China now the Philippines’ third largest trading partner next to the United States and Japan.
Human Rights Watch said it was “shocked and disappointed” at the Philippine decision, especially as the country had always been a leading supporter of Myanmar’s democracy heroine Aung San Suu Kyi, herself a Nobel laureate.
“The Philippines prides itself on its democratic values, which is why it is shocking to see this government turning its back on Liu Xiaobo’s non-violent struggle for free expression in China,” said Elaine Pearson, the group’s deputy Asia director.
“By declining the invitation to attend the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, the Philippines is failing to live up to its promises to promote human rights in Asia.”
Lawyer Harry Roque, chair of the Manila-based Center for International Law, also expressed outrage.
“We should not have allowed China into bullying us not to attend the ceremony. This is an abdication of our moral duty to the world as the source of people power, of liberal democracy,” Roque told AFP.
“That was a regrettable decision, because in effect what we did was to support an affront on freedom of expression.”
Calls to the Chinese embassy spokesman in Manila went unanswered on Thursday.
Vietnam and Afghanistan are other Asian nations to have declined to attend Friday’s ceremony in Oslo.
Dec. 09 2010 – 10:05 pm
Zin Linn
Mr. Kraisak Choonhavan (Member of Parliament and Deputy Leader of Democrat Party of Thailand) urge local officials of Thailand to stop pressuring Burmese refugees into returning home until and unless it has been confirmed by all fighting parties that the fighting has ended.
As Chair of the Thai national caucus for ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC), Mr. Kraisak put forward a letter dated 8 December that addressed to Director of Border Affairs Department, Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters. It is also copied and sent to Thai Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Supreme Commander, Army Chief and Third Army Commander-in-Chief.
The letter underlines that following the 7-November election in Burma, there has been a great number of instability and violence in the border areas between Burma and Thailand. Fighting between the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and ethnic non-state armed groups in Burma has assumed extraordinary proportions.
Mr. Kraisak highlights in his letter that several thousand refugees escaped into Thailand because of the eruption of fighting on and after Election Day. The sporadic fighting has displaced communities along the border several times. He keeps on telling to protection Burmese civilians under international humanitarian law as long as the conflict continues.
The Thai authorities have repeatedly sent back to Burma several hundred ethnic Burman and Karen civilians who fled from Palu and surrounding villages, raising concerns for their safety. For instance, refugees who fled to Thailand on November 27 and received assistance from Thai authorities were only permitted to stay in Thailand for one night before being compelled to return to Burma the next day.
In the course of heavy fighting on November 29, some victims rushed back to Thailand – and were again allowed them staying for one day before Thai authorities sent them back to Burma a second time. When fighting flared again on November 30, the cycle occurred a third time – temporary stay, and then forced return to Burma. Several refugees taking shelter in Thailand said to Human Rights Watch that they were too afraid to return to Burma under current conditions.
Thailand must bring to an end treating refugees running away from conflict zone in eastern Burma as “human ping pong balls” who are returned to their home country prematurely, Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned in its statement dated December 4.
In his letter, Mr. Kraisak says, “As an elected Member of the Thai parliament, I am deeply concerned about the situation of these refugees on Thai soil. According to information received, the provision of humanitarian aid and the process of repatriation of recent refugees from Burma do not abide by international humanitarian and human rights standards. Several local and international organizations have criticized Thailand for not living up to our international obligations.”
“Although the Royal Thai Government has stated that there will be no enforced repatriation of refugees until the situation stabilizes, it has been reported that refugees in Mae Sot and Pop-Phra, Tak Province, have been pressured by representatives of the Royal Thai Army into returning to Burma and that they have been told that fighting has ended. In fact, the fighting is still ongoing and such returns are premature. As a result, people have had to flee repeatedly to safety, while some have gone into hiding in Thailand out of fear of being repatriated,” he also pointed out in his letter.
According to Mr. Kraisak Thailand is not a state party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, but it has an obligation under customary international law of non-refoulement of persons to places where their life or freedom is at risk. International law also obliges Thailand to allow asylum seekers access to Thai territory to seek asylum.
He also says that he has followed the situation in Burma for many years. In his opinion, there will be no easy or immediate solution to the current conflict situation.
Kraisak Choonhavan continued to state that under current circumstances, it is very important to give temporary shelter for Burmese refugees on Thai soil until the fighting has truly been stopped. They are convinced it is safe to return to Burma. This is also the only solution that will prevent Thailand from being criticized for failing to live up to international humanitarian and human rights principles.
“To establish a cooperative mechanism between government agencies, international and local organizations to assess the situation, develop contingency plans, provide humanitarian assistance to refugees and develop standard principles for repatriation and for assistance during and after repatriation. These measures should be taken with a humanitarian commitment and in strict application of international humanitarian and human rights principles,” Mr. Kraisak Choonhavan underlines.
Mr. Kraisak Choonhavan is Deputy Leader of Thailand’s Ruling Democrat Party, Member of Parliament, Chair of the Standing Committee on Political development, mass communication and people’s participation, House of Representatives and Chair of the Thai national caucus, ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus.
22:25, December 09, 2010
Myanmar Foreign Minister U Nyan Win met with visiting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific of the United States Joseph Y. Yun in Nay Pyi Taw Thursday, Myanmar’s state radio and television reported.
The two sides discussed promotion of Myanmar-U.S. relations and matters of mutual interest.
Views on regional affairs were also exchanged, the report said.
The senior U.S. official also met with Myanmar Police Chief Brigadier-General Khin Yi, the report added.
According to diplomatic sources, Joseph is scheduled to meet Myanmar political figure Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon on Friday who was freed from house arrest on Nov. 13.
Joseph arrived in Nay Pyi Taw on Tuesday on a four-day visit to Myanmar to look into the country’s political situation in the post- election period and seek pursuit of new policy of engagement with Myanmar.
Parliament: Malaysia’s Trade With Myanmar Totals RM27.6 Billion In Two Decades
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 9 (Bernama) — The total trade between Malaysia and Myanmar from 1990 to 2009 was RM27.6 billion, Dewan Rakyat was told on Thursday.
Malaysia’s exports totalled RM22.6 billion while imports about RM5 billion, said Deputy International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Jacob Dungau Sagan during question time.
M. Manogaran (DAP-Teluk Intan) had asked about the value of trade between Malaysia and Myanmar from 1990 to 2009 as well as the items exported and imported.
Jacob said although Myanmar was rich in natural resources, its trade with Malaysia was limited.
“The highest amount of trade recorded was in 2008, which was RM1.63 bilion.
“Malaysian exports to Myanmar in 2009 was RM744 million while imports from Myanmar was RM507 million,” he said.
Among items exported by Malaysia to Myanmar were palm oil, chemical materials and products, petroleum, processed food and machine parts.
Five major imports from Myanmar were natural rubber, vegetables and roots, seafood, timber and processed food.
Source: Citizen News Service
Date: 09 Dec 2010
Constanze Ruprecht – CNS
In late October 2010, a large group of people living in and around Mae Sot, Tak province were closing in on a terrible ‘milestone’ of sorts: all of them – over 60 migrant children, women and men – were living with HIV and taking antiretroviral (ARV) drugs, which they needed to stay alive. Some were also co-infected with tuberculosis (TB), the most frequent opportunistic infection (OI) experienced by people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV).
Each group member’s daily regimen of drugs – a one-year ‘buffer’ provided by an international non-governmental organization (INGO) pulling its operations out of the country – was about to run out, with no new supplier in sight.
“We have been unable to secure a sustainable source of ARVs for our patients,” explains a staff of the Mae Tao Clinic, a clinic providing health care services to migrants and displaced people near the Thai-Burma border. “If they stop taking their medication, we face a crisis.”
DRUG RESISTANCE
Adherence to a prescribed ARV drug regimen is essential; people living with HIV and/or TB who stop taking medication for whatever reason, and even only for a few days, can develop a resistance. Drug-resistance is dangerous, because it is irreversible and the new strains of the disease can be passed on to others.
Multi-drug- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (or, respectively, MDR and XDR TB) is an even greater potential threat than HIV drug resistance in terms of impact, because unlike HIV – a blood-borne disease –, TB is transmitted from person to person through the air. A rampant increase in drug resistance can thus indeed fuel a public health crisis.
The Mae Tao Clinic representative said that “from a public health perspective TB is more difficult to handle, mainly because of time-related compliance issues. People with TB have to take medication daily for six months. If they interrupt this treatment, which happens frequently with migrants who are on the move and may stop taking drugs when they feel better, then drug resistance can occur.”
Another often under-estimated problem accompanying drug resistance is the subsequent need for different drugs to replace the first regimen. These second- or third-line drugs are much more expensive and difficult to procure – here in Thailand, for example, the main first-line ARV combination therapy (for example GPO-VIR S30) is locally produced and distributed, bringing down the cost; but second- or third-line drugs must be imported, tend to be much more expensive than first-line medicine and may require special handling, like refrigeration, which complicates delivery in unstable settings.
MIGRANTS MARGINALISED
Thais living with HIV have the right to, and usually receive, free ARVs through the National Access to Antiretroviral Program for People living with HIV/AIDS, or NAPHA. People without a Thai ID can buy ARVs for a minimum of 1,350 baht per month, although NAPHA set up a provisional extension programme to cover vulnerable populations who do not have access via regular channels like Thai social welfare card holders.
Access is inevitably restricted for individuals or families already subject to the most dire of circumstances: many migrants and displaced people along the Thai-Burma border live a day-to-day existence that may include a lack of food security and reliable shelter. This can, and does frequently lead to greater vulnerability to infection and illness. An HIV positive migrant in poor health is thus more likely to contract opportunistic infections (OI) like TB, or Hepatitis C, another highly problematic OI.
A representative of a community-based organization in northern Thailand shared that “along the Thai-Burma border abutting Shan State, in Chiang Mai province, we support 125 members of the Shan community living with HIV, of whom 50 currently receive free ARVs. Unfortunately, beginning in December 2010, any new patients will have to pay for treatment – so this will affect any of the 75 not yet on ARVs who might need them in the future.” There are about one or two new cases every month, and some of them also have TB.
She added that they “…have a limited budget aimed at helping with general hospital costs for community members, but we’ve been using it to cover ARV-related costs for our PLHIV.”
Given the existing obstacles to accessing adequate and appropriate treatment, it is not surprising that migrants may start with the TB six-month short course, but then, despite doctor’s instructions, stop taking the drugs once they feel better. Many migrants are by nature already mobile, which further complicates consistent compliance and follow up by medical staff.
It is this population – in addition to other key populations like sex workers, injecting drug users and prisoners – that should be the main beneficiary of effective prevention efforts and increased access to a regular supply of drugs.
In a country that currently receives generous funding from the Global Fun to fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM), how is it possible we cannot manage to take care of our most vulnerable fellow humans?
SERVICES AND GAPS
A representative of the Thai Northern Network of People Living with HIV stated that “local hospitals do provide ARVs to migrants and displaced people as part of NAPHA’s extension programme, but they are bound by a quota system which always favours Thai citizens over unregistered migrants.”
He admitted that “sometimes Thais who fear being stigmatized and discriminated against by colleagues will request treatment under the extension programme instead of the regular system, because this way they can remain anonymous.”
Mae Tao Clinic already offers a number of relevant services for PLHIV, including voluntary counseling and testing (VCT), home-based care and peer educators. Relatively simple preventive approaches can also be applied in the context of TB-related services, such as face-masks and better ventilation in places where people go to get tested.
“A more systematic, consistent integration of HIV and TB programmes is key,” claimed another Mae Tao Clinic staff; he went on to say that “since it was at this point beyond the clinic’s capacity to offer TB treatment, it was essential to have one group or entity able to take full responsibility for managing a comprehensive TB programme and willing to deal with problems such as non-compliance or adherence due to mobility.”
There is an international NGO currently providing TB services in Mae Sot, serving part of the area previously covered by the INGO that pulled out last year. Yet the new organisation has limited reach and cannot accept patients outside of its focal communities, including those likely to move across the border. These unfortunate ones have to look elsewhere, and more often than not, they end up at Mae Tao Clinic.
Regarding the ’stranded’ HIV-positive people, clinic staff approached the closest hospitals for help, and only Propha agreed to treat 20 people under its NAPHA extension scheme. Mae Sot, Mae Sariang and Mae Ramat hospitals were not accepting any new patients.
“We are now waiting to hear whether the Regional NAPHA Extension Unit in Pitsanuloke can help coordinate the provision of ARVs directly to Mae Tao,” said the first Mae Tao Clinic staff. “This is easier and more cost-effective than transporting a large group of patients back and forth each month.”
WHAT NOW?
It seems that drug resistance is here to stay – at least for now – and so the best response would include not only addressing the most immediate needs to mitigate impact, but also introducing some longer-term measures.
In addition to the interventions mentioned above, anti-stigma and -discrimination campaigns targeting Thai society would help PLHIV at all levels access existing ARV providers without fear of being socially outcast.
The representative of the Northern Network of People Living with HIV wondered whether “everything could be related to national security issues and that maybe there is no real will to find a sustainable solution to these urgent cross-border issues.”
Also, “there seems to be little real interest among TB service providers to collaborate more with the HIV/AIDS sector,” an independent consultant supporting HIV/AIDS-related work at national and local levels in Thailand noted. “Because TB has for so long been considered ’solved’ as a public health issue here, they do not have a sense of urgency…”
Well, it can’t get any more urgent for those people living with HIV/AIDS and TB here, and now – and who may soon become drug resistant due to apathy and ineffective programme design and interventions. Acknowledging and fully understanding the reality of this is the first step, acting decisively and comprehensively, the second. Here, and now.
Constanze Ruprecht – CNS
(The author has worked in international development cooperation since 2000. Focusing on a broad range of areas including public health, gender, advocacy and communications, politics and the environment, she supports people and programmes in Asia, Africa and Europe. She is a Key Correspondent (KC) and writes for Citizen News Service (CNS). Website: www.citizen-news.org )
The China Post – Myanmar gem fair nets record US$1.4 billion
YANGON — Gem traders in Myanmar, one of the world’s biggest producers of precious stones, took in a record 1.08 billion euros (US$1.44 billion) at a 13-day emporium last month, a government official said on Tuesday.
The fair in the capital, Naypyitaw, attracted some 6,700 traders, 4,000 of them from overseas, with 9,157 lots of jade, 273 lots of gems and 237 lots of pearls sold in auctions, said the official, who requested anonymity.
“These are the highest proceeds from a single sale of jade, gems and pearls since 1964,” he told Reuters.
Gemstones are a lucrative source of income for Myanmar’s military government, despite Western sanctions imposed on the resource-rich country, some of which outlaw the procurement and sale of Burmese stones.
Myanmar produces more than 90 percent of the world’s rubies and fine-quality jade. Most of Myanmar’s jade and gemstone mines are run by the defense and mines ministries and businessmen with close connections to the regime.
The United States Congress passed a bill in October 2007 to expand sanctions prohibiting the domestic sale of rubies, jade and other gems routed through Myanmar’s neighbors.
Experts say this has had only a limited impact on the junta because most buyers are from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
This is the first time in five years that the government has indicated how much money has been generated from the emporium, which is usually held in the biggest city, Yangon.
Officials said trade fairs held in March and October generated 400 million and 700 million euros respectively.
Myanmar recently launched a drive to attract foreign investment, particularly from Asian countries, to what it says is a market with vast potential held back by Western sanctions.
By ANITA SNOW The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 5:08 PM
NEW YORK — China’s crackdown on ethnic reporters and Iran’s sustained suppression of critics has helped push the number of journalists jailed worldwide to 145 – the highest level in 14 years, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Wednesday.
The committee counted nine fewer journalists behind bars globally at the end of 2009.
The New York-based press advocacy group said in a report released Wednesday that with 34 imprisoned journalists each, China and Iran together account for nearly half of the reporters, editors and photojournalists imprisoned worldwide.
The committee said that 17 journalists are jailed in Eritrea, 13 in Myanmar, and six in Uzbekistan.
Of those imprisoned globally, at least 64 are freelance journalists, it added.
“The increase in the number of journalists jailed around the world is a shocking development,” said committee Executive Director Joel Simon. “It is fueled largely by a small handful of countries that systematically jail journalists.”
The imprisoned journalists are most commonly held on anti-government charges, or no charge at all, the committee said. It said China and Iran both rely heavily on vague anti-government charges.
Iran’s imprisonment of journalists has extended far beyond last year’s postelection crackdown, with at least four detained in the past two months, the committee said.
In China, it said, the increase is largely due to the jailing of Uighur and Tibetan journalists for covering the off-limits topics of ethnic issues and violent regional unrest.
By Cai Muyuan (chinadaily.com.cn)
Updated: 2010-12-09 18:01 Myanmar Embassy counselor Hlaing Myint Oo confirmed that the construction of a high-speed rail connecting Yunnan’s capital Kunming city and Myanmar’s largest city will begin in two months, 21st Century Business Herald reported Thursday.
Besides, Thailand also expects to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Chinese counterparts on the high-speed rail link between the two countries early next year, Warawudh Chuwiruch, a Thai embassy official, said on Dec 8 at the East Asia Business Forum.
“China will provide the construction with technology and financing. The Chinese side will decide which enterprise will participate in the construction”, Warawudh told the newspaper
Xu Ningning, deputy secretary-general of the China-ASEAN Business Council, told the newspaper that marine transportation is currently dominating the trade between China and ASEAN. “With the trading between the two sides growing, the transportation will be diversified”, Xu told the newspaper.
The Washington Post – The danger in lifting economic sanctions against Burma
Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 6:52 PM
Burmese dictator Gen. Than Shwe has been tempting foreign investors for almost 20 years with hints that he wants to open the economy in Burma, also known as Myanmar, along the Chinese model. But contrary to Stanley A. Weiss’s suggestion ["Ending our isolation in Asia," op-ed, Dec. 3], there is no evidence that the general means it. In fact, the Burmese government continues to stifle genuinely private enterprise as thoroughly as it crushes political dissent.
Authoritarian leaders in countries such as Vietnam and China at least see some connection between their own interests and the well-being of their people, and so have promoted economic development. In contrast, the economic strategy of Burma’s leaders has long consisted of selling natural resources to foreign partners and stashing the proceeds, which are hidden from the state budget, in foreign banks. The Burmese government invests virtually nothing in health, education or infrastructure. It is massively corrupt, does not respect property rights and denies economic opportunity to all but cronies of the generals in power.
Lifting banking sanctions against Burma would not benefit ordinary Burmese, but the government would find it even easier to hide its wealth in hard currency overseas. If the United States lifted investment sanctions, the only U.S. companies likely to risk betting on Burma would be in the oil and gas industry. Such companies might thrive in Burma, but they employ few people, transfer little intellectual capital and would do about as much to promote democracy as they have in Sudan and Saudi Arabia.
If Mr. Weiss knows of firms in other industries eager to test the Burmese government’s promises, their shareholders should be grateful that sanctions are preventing them from making a costly mistake.
Tom Malinowski, Washington
The writer is Washington director of Human Rights Watch.
By KYAW ZWA MOEThursday, December 9, 2010 The year 2010 is ending and a new year is dawning. Could next year be radically different from 2010 or previous years? The future is unpredictable, but we can predict a few things to come based on the past year and Burma’s history.
January: Burma always greets the new year with a celebration of Independence Day on Jan. 4. This year marks the 63rd anniversary, but since1962, when the military staged a coup, the people have suffered oppression under Socialist and military governments for decades.
January is unlikely to be politically dynamic, but the ruling government will be making plans to finish its seven-step road map.
“Now, plans are underway to implement the two remaining steps [to convene a parliament and build 'a modern, developed democratic nation'] to hand over State power to the public,” junta head Snr-Gen Than Shwe said in his message to the people on the country’s National Day, which fell on Dec. 1, 2010.
February: This could be the last month for the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), the governing body of the ruling military regime, if the generals feel secure enough to hand over power to a new government. The 2008 Constitution says that the parliament is to be held within 90 days after the Nov. 7 election. Feb. 5 is the deadline for the country’s first parliament to convene with the newly elected candidates, which will then form a new government with the selection of a president and two vice presidents.
By the time the new government is formed, the SPDC will be terminated. Should the Burmese people feel relieved that they are no longer under military rule? You know who won in the last election: the Union Solidarity and Development Party, the junta’s party. So, the answer is clear.
Will February mark the beginning of confrontations between the ruling junta and the opposition groups? Shortly before the military regime held the last election, several prominent ethnic leaders and politicians proposed to convene a second Panglong conference for national reconciliation. Soon after Suu Kyi was released on Nov. 13, 109 people comprised of veteran politicians and ethnic leaders gave her a mandate to lead an effort to convene the conference. It was reportedly said that the conference could be held on Feb. 12, which is the 64th anniversary of Union Day, which was the day in 1947 that independence leader Aung San, the father of Suu Kyi, and selected ethnic leaders signed the Panglong agreement to gain independence from Britain.
The conference idea is good, but unrealistic, since it would lead to a head-to-head confrontation between the government and opposition groups. If the idea is actually pursued, the regime would probably launch a brutal crackdown on the opposition and ethnic groups. If that happened, the current number of political prisoners (more than 2,100) would soar, and Suu Kyi would again be detained. Surely, Suu Kyi and ethnic leaders will not risk such a confrontation.
March: Burma is likely to have a new government if everything goes smoothly in convening the parliament (though there is no time frame to form a government after convening the parliament). The new government will inaugurate a new name for the country, “the Republic of the Union of Myanmar,” changing the current name “the Union of Myanmar.”
Is it really new government? We could get a sign of that on March 13, when Human Rights Day ceremonies will be held, marking the day when Phone Maw, a Rangoon engineering university student, was killed by the then Socialist regime’s security forces in 1988. Human Rights Day was created by pro-democracy groups to mark Phone Maw’s death and has always been illegal in Burma.
The government will come out in full force on March 27 to celebrate Tatmadaw Day (armed forces day) The new government, though it is “civilian” in name, will celebrate the day in massive ceremonies in Naypyidaw, along with the new crop of military generals who have replaced those promoted to positions in parliament.
April: People will again celebrate the new year in water festival gatherings, while not forgetting the tragic bombings during the Rangoon water festival in 2010, when an estimated 20 people were killed and more than 100 injured.
The military government said terrorists were responsible for the blasts. Could bombings happen again in 2011? Of course. The background is grim: tensions have escalated on the border between government troops and ethnic armed groups. All cease-fire groups are under constant pressure to transform into a Border Guard Force controlled by the government. An ethnic Karen armed group attacked outposts of the government’s security forces in Myawaddy and Three Pagoda Pass, towns along the Thailand-Burma border.
Such attacks, including bombings of civilian targets, will go on as long as the tensions can’t be resolved through political means.
May: This month will bring memories of happiness and anger. In 1990, May 27 was the historic election day in which millions of Burmese voters got a chance to choose their elected representatives: the National League for Democracy won in a landslide. But the government was never formed with elected candidates, and now the junta’s Union Solidarity and Development Party, is convening a new parliament.
Another bitter event on this month was the deadly attack against Suu Kyi and her supporters who were ambushed by thugs organized by the military government’s civil organization, the Union Solidarity and Development Association, the mother organization of USDP. Who can guarantee that a new government led by former senior members of the USDA, won’t orchestrate another plot designed to remove her from the political arena.
June: Former student activists who took part in the 1988 uprising will never forget June 16 and 17, when demonstrating students were beaten by riot police and arrested. Many were injured and hundreds were thrown behind bars.
Aung San Suu Kyi will celebrate her 66th birthday on June 19. Here’s a beautiful dream: If Suu Kyi had been given a chance to play a key role in a government formed after her party won in the 1990 election, today’s Burma might look totally different. Twenty years can make a country politically stable, economically prosperous and developed in areas such as education and technology, all under a democratic government. Imagine no political prisoners in the country’s jails. Regionally, Suu Kyi’s role as a key leader of a government would create a better relationship with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean). Her voice on democracy, human rights and other issues would have been heard at Asean summits, which would be very likely to have had a positive impacts on Asean countries. That wasn’t the case.
Let’s back to 2011. Suu Kyi will at least be able to hold birthday celebrations with her colleagues and friends freely on June 19, provided she’s been able to avoid arrest and detention.
July: Burma has never had a historic student union building since it was blown up by late dictator Ne Win’s troops on July 7, 1962. Under a new government in 2011, will students have a chance to rebuild a Union building on the campus of Rangoon University and to form and organize a student union? Student unions have always initiated political activities since the country stood up against the British colony. Because of that, all military leaders since Ne Win have banned student unions. The new government will continue the ban and keep a watchful eye on all student activities.
July 19 is Burma’s Martyrs’ Day, when nine national leaders, including Aung San, were assassinated more than six decades ago. There are actually many more martyrs who have sacrificed their lives or lost beloved family members through their struggles ever since British rule, Ne Win’s authoritarian Socialist government and military governments. The struggle has yet to end and so, 2011 is likely to see more new martyrs.
August: The 8.8.88 (the four eights) haunts the generals who ordered troops to shoot down thousands of people on Aug. 8, 1988. Twenty-three years later, there’s always the potential for another ‘88-type uprising. And the spirit of ‘88 hasn’t diminished. Many of the current 2,100 political prisoners are from the 88 uprising generation, including the most prominent former student leader, Min Ko Naing, who is serving 65 years imprisonment. Will those political prisoners be released by August next year? Fifty- fifty. The release of all political prisoners would be a breakthrough moment. But they are “troublemakers” in the new government’s eyes. Of course, a number of political prisoners might be released in early months of 2011.
However, it’s an unimaginable scenario that 2011 could be no-political-prisoner year.
September: Monks will never forget the blood on the roads of Rangoon, Sittwe and Pakokku or how they were beaten and jailed by security forces during their peaceful
demonstrations during Sept. 2007. Saffron Revolution. About 250 monks are still serving lengthy jail terms. One leader-monk, Ashin Gambia, is serving a 63-year sentence in Kalay Prison. The war between the sons of Buddha and the people in military uniform has yet to be reconciled.
In the country’s history, two days mark important coups: Mar. 2, 1962, and Sept. 18, 1988. The latter was more bloody than the former, when Ne Win staged a coup from a civilian government. In the 1988 coup, troops killed about 3,000 demonstrators across the country and put thousands in jails. It’s quite unlikely to see a third coup unless there is another massive uprising like in 1988.
October: Nothing politically significant happened in the country’s recent history on this month. But in Oct., 2010, Cyclone Giri struck western Arakan State, killing 45 people (according to UN figures) and affected nearly 200,000 people. Giri and Cyclone Nargis, which hit Burma in 2008, were the worst natural disasters in the past several decades. There could be more such disasters as the world faces global warming. Burma has a record of ignoring or hindering national and international relief workers and groups from freely traveling and helping disaster victims. A different policy on humanitarian issues is unlikely to come from this new government.
November: The month could mark the one-year anniversary of Suu Kyi’s release. The questions would be: has she successfully created a country-wide network, as she declared shortly after her reseal on Nov. 13, 2010. Or, is she serving a new sentence under house arrest? Is she expanding a cultural-political network using social media such as Twitter and Facebook? Burma has an estimated 400,000 Internet users and around one million mobile phones. Internet users and those who have mobile phones could become a force in helping disseminate information inside and outside the country. Even though the government tends to restrict Internet users and media, such a force could create a more aware, involved group of activists, cyber dissidents and citizen journalists.
December: Will Burma have experienced any real progress in creating democratic “value change” or “radical change,” words Suu Kyi used after her release? We know that 2011 will start off with a sense of change in the air. But, if little actually changes, we’ll look back on what happened in 2011, and we’ll hope for positive changes in 2012.
Published: 9/12/2010 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News Burma has reopened the Three Pagodas Pass border checkpoint, connecting Kanchanaburi and Burma’s Phya Thonzu town, after a two-year closure.
Burma cited security reasons when it closed the frontier at Three Pagodas Pass, but it had decided to reopen it after a lull in recent fighting in the area.
Deputy Commerce Minister Alongkorn Ponlaboot said yesterday the reopening of the checkpoint followed a meeting of the joint border committee of the two countries in April at which Thailand proposed to Burma the reopening, and Burma finally agreed.
He said Thailand also proposed that Burma upgrade Sing Khon temporary checkpoint in Muang district of Prachuap Khiri Khan and Huay Ton Noon checkpoint in Khun Yuam district of Mae Hong Son as permanent border checkpoints.
Burma said the reopening results from an end to the fighting between the Burmese army and the Democratic Buddhist Karen Army in the area.
Meanwhile, Thai authorities yesterday deported about 500 Burmese to their hometown opposite Phop Phra district of Tak.
The would-be migrants flocked to Thai soil last week after fighting between Burmese soldiers and Karen troops.
By KO HTWE Thursday, December 9, 2010
Nilar Thein, who is serving a 65-year prison sentence for her opposition activities, was refused a visit by family members this week because she was on a hunger strike.
Relatives told The Irrawaddy that when they arrived at Thayet Prison in Magwe Division on Monday they were barred from seeing Nilar Thein because she was on a hunger strike.
Thandar Yu, Nilar Thein’s sister-in-law, said they had not been told by prison authorities why she was refusing food. Prison sources said Nilar Thein had begun the hunger strike on Dec. 2 after a search of her quarters by prison authorities. As a punishment, she was put in solitary confinement and family visits were banned for one month.
It wasn’t clear whether she was still on hunger strike on Thursday.
Thandar Yu was accompanied to the prison by Nilar Thein’s three year-old daughter, Nay Kyi Min Yu, who was only nine months-old when her mother was imprisoned because of her participation in August 2007 demonstrations against price rises. Nilar Thein’s parents are now looking after the little girl, who last saw her mother when members of the family visited Thayet Prison in November.
Thandar Yu told The Irrawaddy on Thursday: “I asked the prison authorities if we could meet her [Nilar Thein] for just five minutes because of her daughter but they refused.” Nilar Thein was already suffering ill health before embarking on her hunger strike, she said.
Nilar Thein, 37, spent eight years in prison from 1996 to 2003 because of her political activity.
Her husband, Kyaw Min Yu, a prominent activist and leading member of the 88 Generation Students group, who is also known as Jimmy, spent 16 years in prison after the 1988 uprising and is now also serving a 65-year sentence, in Taunggyi Prison, Shan State, for his participation in the 2007 demonstrations.
Nilar Thein joined the democracy movement as a high school student in 1988 as a member of the All Burma Federation of Student Unions.
The Czech-based People in Need organization awarded her its Homo Homini prize because of her promotion of democracy, human rights and nonviolent solutions to political conflicts.
According to the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, there are 2,203 political prisoners in Burma.
By BA KAUNG Thursday, December 9, 2010
Pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi calmed fears that she was on course for a possible confrontation with Burma’s military government regarding what she described as “an ethnic conference in conformity with the 21st Century.”
“This conference is aimed at national reconciliation. We are not attempting to form a parallel government or a parallel parliament,” Suu Kyi was quoted as saying by members of the Democracy and Peace Party (DPP) party who met her on Wednesday at her National League for Democracy (NLD) party office in Rangoon.
She was referring to the proposed ethnic conference which observers have called a “second Panglong”—a meeting of ethnic leaders and other relevant stakeholders along the lines of the 1947 Panglong Conference, which not only provided a basis for a federal union but also guaranteed the ethnic minorities a right to secede from the union 10 years after Burma won independence from Britain.
“Daw Suu said she would be merely trying to revive the Panglong spirit which has been weakened over the past decades,” said Myo Nyunt, the DPP spokesman.
“She also said that a conference can be held without a formal gathering of people at a specific location with the aid of a modern communication tool like the internet,” Myo Nyunt said, adding that his party shared concerns about possible negative consequences resulting from a “second Panglong.”
He said that even though the Nobel Peace Laureate would handle the issue cautiously, she might unintentionally find herself in a standoff with the regime since the issue was sensitive and delicate.
“We don’t think it is possible for such a conference to take place successfully without the participation of the ruling government,” he said.
Suu Kyi’s remark followed a commentary in the Burmese state-run media on Wednesday which said the proposed ethnic conference “would go against the junta’s current seven-step political road map and “bring more harm than good,”—the regime’s first public warning against her political activities since she was freed from detention last month.
The idea of such a conference was originally initiated by a group of ethnic leaders opposed to the November elections. After her release, Suu Kyi accepted the group’s call for leadership in implementing the event, raising concerns that the attempt would provide a chance for the junta to detain her again and also to launch yet another crackdown on her party which has been disbanded for failing to register in the coming elections.
On Thursday, when asked for a response to the commentary in the state-run newspaper, ethnic leaders who boycotted the elections along with NLD said that they would proceed with their efforts to set up a second Panglong conference, however.
“We will go ahead with this plan and are not daunted at all by the warning in the newspaper,” said Aye Thar Aung, an Arakanese ethnic leader, whose party won the elections in 1990 but boycotted last month elections.
Si Lone, the vice-chairman of the Chin Progressive Party, an ethnic party which did contest in the elections last month, said although the ethnic minorities had expected to seek national reconciliation from within the parliament, prospects were bleak after the junta’s proxy, the Union Solidarity and Development Party, gained a majority of parliamentary seats through vote manipulation in the election.
“We can no longer expect to work towards the establishment of a federal system from within the parliament,” he said. “But it would be great if all the ethnic and political forces, including the army, can meet together and work toward a solution that brings about national reconciliation.”
Thursday, December 9, 2010 Representatives of two ethnic armed groups traveled to Loi Tai Leng, headquarters of the Shan State Army-South (SSA-South), this week to meet with its leader for discussions aimed at expanding a new alliance of ethnic armies opposed to Burma’s ruling regime, according to a source close to the SSA-South.
The representatives, from the Karenni National Progressive party (KNPP) and a Lahu armed group, discussed the alliance with SSA-South leader Lt-Gen Yawd Serk during festivities to mark the Shan New Year, the source said on Wednesday.
“They mainly talked about military collaboration and analyzed the current political situation,” the source said, adding that other groups unable to send representatives to the gathering sent New Year’s greetings to the SSA-South.
The source said that further discussions may be held based on the outcome of the meeting at Loi Tai Leng.
The SSA-South is not part of an ethnic alliance formed on the Thai-Burmese border on Nov. 5, but may join if the ongoing negotiations are successful.
The current members of the alliance are the KNPP, the Chin National Front, the Kachin Independence Army, the New Mon State Party, the Karen National Union and the Shan State Army-North.
There was also ambassadorship training held in Loi Tai Leng from Nov. 24 to Dec. 5 for representatives of the foreign affairs department of the Restoration Council of Shan State, which is also led by Yawd Serk.
Yawd Serk is a former member of the Mong Tai Army, which was led by Khun Sa. He later formed the Shan United Revolutionary Army, which changed its name to the Shan State Army-South.
The SSA-South is estimated to have at least 7,000 troops, according to observers.
Thursday, 09 December 2010 04:23 Phanida and Salai Han Thar San
Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – All Mon Region Democracy Party, which won parliamentary seats in the election on November 7, would support calls for a second Panglong Conference, party chairman Naing Ngwe Thein has said. Meanwhile, junta mouthpieces the New Light of Myanmar and The Mirror yesterday in parallel ran a report calling such a conference “a cheap political stunt” by the opposition.
“The Second Panglong Conference will promote equality and bring self-determination for ethnic minorities. These are ideals we have demanded,” AMDP chairman Naing Ngwe Thein said.
The Panglong Agreement was reached between the Burmese government under Aung San, Suu Kyi’s father, and the Shan, Kachin and Chin peoples on February 12, 1947. Signatories accepted in principle “Full autonomy in internal administration for the Frontier Areas” and envisioned the creation of a Kachin State by the Constituent Assembly (the first post-independence parliament).
The deal came a year after the First Panglong Conference was held in the town of the same name in the south of Shan State.
U Nu, who took over the reins of Aung San’s Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League party following the latter’s assassination in July 1947, did little to implement the Panglong compact after Burma received independence in January 1948. His failure to live up to the promise of Panglong left ethnic minorities in Burma feeling betrayed.
Since 1948, ethnic minorities have had their rights and self-determination in traditional areas of control denied, leading many of the groups to armed struggle against the Burmese military junta.
The AMDP also told US deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs Joseph Yun that it would welcome the convening of a second Panglong Conference, in a meeting of the US envoy and lawmakers elected last month.
“It is in accord with our party’s policies. Then, we need to continually negotiate and conduct further talks in unison. It will promote national reconciliation to some extent,” Naing Ngwe Thein told Mizzima.
But the AMDP had failed to find a way to implement the idea to convene such a conference, he said. The party won 16 parliamentary seats in this year’s election.
“Calling for the second Panglong Conference may be a challenge to the junta. Anyway, the junta may agree to it, if there is enough political space for them. The … conference will establish true democracy and promote equality so there is no reason to reject the idea for anyone who believes in democracy”, the party chairman said.
However, the head of another ethnic minority party was not so enthusiastic. Rakhine National Development Party (RNDP) chairman Dr. Aye Maung said that although he welcomed the conference idea as it demanded equality for ethnic groups, the idea should be postponed until the time was right.
“I don’t want the idea to be fruitless. The current period is not the right time”, Dr. Aye Maung said.
A leader of Shan Nationals Democratic Party, aka the White Tiger Party, which won 59 parliamentary seats in the last month’s national elections, has also agreed that the timing was the problem.
Dr. Aye Maung said the conference idea could only be implemented if National League for Democracy general secretary Aung San Suu Kyi could successfully persuade the ruling junta to participate in bringing it to fruition. Otherwise, further ideological conflict could ensue between the MPs elected in the 1990 election and lawmakers elected this year, he added.
Zomi National Congress (ZMC) chairman Pu Chin Sian Thang on November 20 urged Suu Kyi to add to his party’s call for a second Panglong Conference to strive for racial equality and self-determination.
At their meeting on Tuesday, lawmakers elected this year told the US envoy Yun that the election on November 7 was unfair, one of the MPs-elect who attended the meeting said on the condition of anonymity.
State-run press calls Panglong II idea ‘a cheap political stunt’
Meanwhile, an article in state-run newspapers New Light of Myanmar and The Mirror said yesterday that calling for a second Panglong Conference was just a cheap political stunt by the opposition.
The article by Banyar Aung titled “Please, don’t think politics is an easy thing” said the opposition’s idea to convene a second such conference without the army and the parties that won seats in this year’s election was just “a cheap political stunt”.
It came just a few days after Suu Kyi affirmed support for the conference idea.
The ZMC held its 22nd founding day ceremony on October 24 in Kalay Township, Sagaing Division and issued its “Kalay Declaration”, which called for the convening of a second Panglong Conference to restore national reconciliation and establish an inclusive federal union.
More than 50 people including NLD leaders, ethnic leaders, prominent politicians and student leaders signed the declaration.
Despite the state-run newspaper article, ethnic leaders and other political blocs have supported calls for the second Panglong conference.
“To create a modern nation, national reconciliation is essential. So we need to convene a second Panglong conference,” Committee Representing the People’s Parliament (CRPP) secretary Aye Tha Aung said.
Pu Chin Sian Thang said, “The objective of the second Panglong Conference is to seek national reconciliation so the conference will not be one-sided. It’ll be all-inclusive … even the junta can participate.”
On November 29, Suu Kyi told Mizzima in an interview, “The purpose of the second Panglong Conference is to establish a true union spirit and as many people are participating in this process as possible would be what we are aiming towards. But this is mainly to establish a genuine spirit of union, to work for unity amongst the different ethnic nationalities of Burma”.
When asked how she thought the junta could be involved in creating unity if there were to be such as conference, she said: “The first step towards unity is to listen. To establish unity in a country like Burma where there are many different ethnic groups, you have to listen, especially if you are in a position of power. And by listening you will hear what it is that the people want, what their aspirations are, what their hopes are, what their fears are. Once you understand this then you can start building up a foundation on which we can create unity out of diversity.”
Banyar Aung wrote that the junta could seek national reconciliation through a national convention and achieve ceasefires between the junta and ethnic armed groups.
But ZMC chairman Pu Chin Sian Thang pointed out that armed conflicts were continuing between the junta and the breakaway faction of Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) in the past few weeks. He also flagged high tension between the junta and the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO).
“Although the junta said they could establish peace, we still can see armed conflicts,” Pu Chin Sian Thang added.
The article also said that after the election, the army, political parties and ethnic minorities could hold all-inclusive meetings and so claimed that the second Panglong Conference was unnecessary.
Aye Tha Aung said: “To rebuild the nation, we need a change. To make a desirable change, we need democracy and equality. If we can discuss those things in a second Panglong Conference, our nation’s future will be rosy.”
In the article, Banyar Aung went on to say that national reconciliation could be promoted in the parliaments, and otherwise it was dangerous for the country.
Aye Tha Aung countered, saying that calling for a second Panglong Conference was just seeking national reconciliation for the sake of the country, not having a head-on confrontation with the junta.
After 1988, the junta said that it could secure ceasefires between it and ethnic armed groups, but the ethnic groups said that the ceasefire agreements were not political agreements.
The estimated total troops in all of the ceasefire groups’ militia combined is in the tens of thousands. Some of the ceasefire groups have rejected the junta’s Border Guard Force plan. There are also some armed ethnic groups that have never signed the junta’s ceasefire agreements, most notably the Karen National Union.
Thursday, 09 December 2010 00:55 Ko Wild Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – The second most successful party in recent national elections, the National Unity Party, speculated yesterday that the first session of Pyithu Hluttaw (lower house of the national parliament) would convene in late next month.
“We estimate that the first session of Hluttaw [sic] has to be convened in third or fourth week of this coming January,” NUP spokesman Han Shwe told Mizzima.
According to the 2008 constitution, the Pyithu Hluttaw must be convened within 90 days of the polling date, which was November 7.
Moreover, after convening the first session of the Pyithu Hluttaw, the Amyotha Hluttaw (House of Nationalities or Upper House) must be arranged within a week. Then the joint sitting of the two chambers, called the Pyithaungsu Hluttaw (Union Parliament), has to be held within 15 days of the first session of the Amyotha Hluttaw, the provision in constitution stipulates.
Political parties and observers speculate that the main agenda to be deliberated in the forthcoming Hluttaw sessions will be placing “all ethnic armed forces … under the total control of Tatmadaw [armed forces]”.
There are currently six ethnic armed groups under ceasefire with the ruling Burmese military junta still refusing to transform their troops into junta-controlled Border Guard Forces (BGF).
“They will likely resolve the issue of transforming ethnic armies into the BGFs within the constitutional framework through deliberations in parliament because the ethnic MPs will be present in these chambers,” Han Shwe said.
The Union Solidartiy and Development Party (USDP) won 882 seats out of total 1,154 seats with more than 76 per cent of the popular vote. The NUP stands second with more than five per cent of the popular vote, with 63 seats.
The results however have been subject to widespread condemnation amid extensive reports of electoral fraud that included coercion to vote for the USDP, bribery of the electorate, ballot stuffing and a creative array of other vote-rigging techniques.
On top of that, the Burmese junta has warned that anyone who files a complaint against the November 7 elections risks a three-year prison sentence.
NUP candidates were also unsatisfied with the election result and were planning to lodge a protest by depositing one million kyat (US$1,000), the junta-designed requirement for each complaint, a NUP source said. The party had already raised election irregularities with the junta-controlled electoral watchdog, the Union Election Commission.
NUP general secretary Khin Maung Gyi attended a meeting with visiting United States deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs Joseph Yun in Rangoon on Tuesday, with other representatives from parties that won seats in the polls.
He discussed the US-Burma relationship and the prevailing situation of the new government with the US envoy, Han Shwe said.
By FRANCIS WADE Published: 9 December 2010
Refugees continue to move back and forth across Burma’s border with Thailand as fighting in Karen state shows no sign of abating. Thai authorities have been criticised for treating those who fled like ‘ping pong balls’, refusing them sanctuary and forcing their return. But although it’s a complex situation, says Burma researcher at Human Rights Watch, David Mathieson, the refugees must be given a safe haven.
Are there any signs that fighting will end soon?
No. All the signs from the past six weeks show that fighting’s either going to continue the way it has, which is sporadic outbreaks in more areas for a couple of hundred kilometres south of Mae Sot, or it will intensify. I don’t think there are any indications that it will peter out now, and that’s something that all the NGOs and communities on the ground, but also the Thai officials, have been saying in the past couple of weeks.
Is the Burmese junta looking to eliminate these groups once and for all?
Their plan seems to be to either rout the breakaway faction of the DKBA – Na Kham Mwe’s group – and the KNU/KNLA Peace Council, or take advantage of the situation and try and rout elements of the Karen National Liberation Army that operate in the area. Or maybe the whole thing is an elaborate scheme to negotiate a better deal for the Border Guard Force: how much of what we see that looks like conflict in Burma is actually the many sides manoeuvring to get better economic deals out of things? But whether it’s politics or economics, the civilians get caught in the middle and they’re the ones who have to suffer.
Is it a warning of wider conflict in the border regions?
I wouldn’t drag it out. It seems like there are a lot of people who are egging on a broadening of the conflict, but all of these conflicts have very local and specific factors and conditions behind them. Of course they are united in a national sense by the fact that it’s all happening in Burma and that the military government is the one main impediment to seeking a deal, but I would be very careful about saying that what’s happening in Karen state is going to kickstart a broader conflict throughout the country.
There’s a very good indication of why the situation in Kachin state, for example, is much more different: in Karen state they’ve got the Thais to deal with, and it’s very different because Thailand’s a lot more tolerant of the refugees, whereas China doesn’t want any refugees – it just wants to do business and keep all the troubles in Burma within its borders. I don’t therefore think that the Wa and the Kachin will start fighting – if they do then that’s going to be completely up to local dynamics.
Has Thailand’s response to the refugees been adequate?
In terms of letting them come across and providing sanctuary for them, Thailand gets a very high grade – it’s done very well over the past five weeks. Where they’ve spoiled this is in sending people back too early, so what’s happened is you’ve got this case of people crossing the border several times: they come across, and they’re allowed to come across, but the Thais prematurely say that it’s safe to go back, and whether it’s a couple of hours, days or weeks, the fighting starts again and they’re forced to come back.
Why is Thailand keen to send them back early?
I really don’t know; all evidence points to the fact that the fighting will continue and that the situation is not safe. Just because you can’t hear artillery fire doesn’t mean that the situation’s safe, and I think partly it is just wishful thinking; that Thai authorities wish it could go back to normal. In a situation like this, the last group of people you should trust are the Burmese military: if they tell you the fighting’s stopped, you’d be crazy to believe them.
Is there pressure from the Burmese junta on Thailand?
If there is any pressure it would be to try to normalise the situation by sending the refugees back. I hazard a guess that there are a couple of reasons for that: one is in terms of public relations, that the Burmese don’t want the world to be focused on the fact that there’s fighting after the elections and after Aung San Suu Kyi’s release. Second, and a more local and brutally practical reason, is that civilians in a lot of these areas provide a human shield around Burmese army troops, so if they come back to a village where the army’s set up, their opponents will be less likely to attack built-up areas. They need the people there as a resource, to carry their supplies and walk through landmines. All the things that countries have denied are happening in Burma, and who refused to support a Commission of Inquiry, well, here you go. If you went and asked one of these refugees what they are afraid of, they may not tell you that they’re suffering war crimes or crimes against humanity, but that’s exactly what it is.
Is there any international protocol that makes it illegal to send refugees back early?
Even though Thailand’s not a party to the 1961 Refugee Convention, or the 1967 optional protocol, they are bound by customary international law which says that sending people back when they’ll still face persecution or fighting in that area, is defined as refoulement, or forced return. What needs to happen is that the UNHCR has to ascertain whether cases in the past month have amounted to refoulement. I think it’s pretty clear that there have been cases that probably would.
But what’s happening is that the Thai authorities are not using violence or over-intimidation. In some cases it’s inaccurate information – if they have an assurance from the other side that there’s no fighting, then they’ll tell the village head to take the people back. It’s also got to be said that it’s a complex situation: there are people who are in the middle of the harvest season, so they want to go back and forth to check their land, and if it’s quiet for a couple of days, then they may begin harvesting.
Published: 9 December 2010
Burma is the world’s fourth-highest jailer of media workers, according to figures released by a New York-based press safety watchdog.
Except for Eritrea, which is placed third with 17, Burma has one of the highest numbers of imprisoned journalists relative to its population. The Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) puts Burma’s figure at 13, while China and Iran each have 34.
The number of journalists imprisoned worldwide has risen by nine since last year and now stands at 145, a 14-year high, with 28 countries guilty of harsh treatment of media workers.
CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon called the increase a “shocking development… fuelled largely by a small handful of countries that systematically jail journalists –countries that are at war with information itself”.
The Thailand-based Burma Media Association (BMA) however puts the figure at 22, and among these are 17 DVB journalists. A father and son who were arrested in April after photographing the aftermath of the Rangoon bombings are the latest to have admitted to being DVB staff.
According to DVB Deputy Editor, Khin Maung Win, the son, 21-year-old Sithu Zeya, had been tortured into revealing that his father, Maung Maung Zeya, was also a reporter for the Oslo-based media organisation.
Khin Maung Win added that authorities had offered to free Maung Maung Zeya if he divulged the names of other undercover DVB reporters. The two are being held in Rangoon’s Insein prison while they await a verdict.
CPJ last year branded Burma as the ‘worst country to be a blogger’, while the Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontieres ranked it 171 out of 175 countries in its latest Press Freedom Index.