13 April 2011 Last updated at 06:35 ET
BBC News – EU eases Burma sanctions on some civilian ministers

The EU has relaxed some of its sanctions against members of Burma’s government, signalling a more flexible approach by the West.

Travel and financial restrictions have been suspended on four ministers – including the foreign minister – and 18 vice-ministers in the new government.

It is the first easing of curbs since they were imposed in 1996 in response to abuses by the military junta.

It follows the swearing-in last month of a new nominally civilian government.

Following Burma’s first elections in 20 years, it was the final stage in a long road to what the country’s military leaders have called a “disciplined democracy”.

However, critics have labelled the new so-called civilian administration a sham, since it is made up of former generals, some serving military officers and a handful of technocrats.
‘Essential interlocutor’

The EU decision to relax its measures against Burma was taken at a meeting of foreign ministers from 27 states late on Tuesday.

The EU Council said in a statement that the application of a visa ban and asset freeze for “certain civilian members of the government” would be lifted for a year, especially for Burma’s foreign minister “as an essential interlocutor” with the West.

“We recognised that there have been changes in the government and we will judge the new government by its actions,” said David Lipman, the EU’s ambassador to Burma.

All those who have had their restrictions suspended have never served in the military – or, as in the case of Foreign Minister Wunna Maung Lwin, left the army more than a decade ago.

The Council also said a ban on high-level EU visits to Burma would be lifted.

However, restrictions against the rest of the country’s ministers will be maintained, and trade and financial sanctions will remain in place for at least another year, the statement said.

Analysts say the argument for or against economic sanctions in Burma is a controversial subject both inside and outside the country.

Those wanting sanctions lifted, who have gained a stronger voice after Aung San Suu Kyi’s release, say they hurt everyone, rather than just the leaders they target; or that they have little impact, as foreign trade with countries like Thailand and China goes on anyway.

Those in favour of sanctions say they do hurt Burma’s leaders and help pressure for an end to human rights violations.

The banned party of Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy (NLD), has said it wants international talks on “modifying” sanctions.

In an interview with foreign media last month, Aung San Suu Kyi said: “Sanctions must remain in place. Sanctions should only be lifted when something has changed here.”

Asian Correspondent – EU must seriously watch Burma’s human rights abuses while relaxing sanctions
By Zin Linn Apr 13, 2011 10:29PM UTC

In his address to the union-level, region and state ministers on 6 April, Burma’s new president Thein Sein looked like urging to improve government decentralization whereas all together gave a warning toward lower-level organizations to stay inside the policy structure set by the central government.

However, critics have branded the new self-styled civilian government an imitation, in view of the fact that it is made up of former generals plus military officers and a handful of technocrats.

The United States has said in a report that Burma had far more to do to improve human rights after freeing Aung San Suu Kyi. The US also said last month that calls to ease sanctions on Burma were untimely.

At the same time, the EU has relaxed some of its sanctions against new government members of Burma, indicating a more flexible stance by the West.

In the statement of 3082nd Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg, dated 12 April 2011, it says, “ The application of the visa ban and asset freeze will be suspended for certain civilian members of the Government, including the Foreign Minister as an essential interlocutor, for a period of one year, subject to continued review. The ban on high level visits to the country will also be lifted, anticipating access to senior levels of the Government, and to key opposition figures. The EU will assess the new Government by its deeds, and will review the set of restrictive measures accordingly”.

Travel and financial restrictions have been suspended on four ministers – including the foreign minister – and 18 vice-ministers in the new government. It is the first reducing of restriction since they were imposed in 1996 in response to human rights violence by the military regime. It comes after the swearing-in last month of a new nominally civilian government led by President Thein Sein who is a former general.

The European Union’s statement also said that in deciding on this approach, the EU has listened carefully to a broad range of stakeholders, including civil society, opposition groups, ASEAN members and regional and international partners. The EU did again to develop a high-level dialogue with the new institutions and with opposition figures, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. It also wanted to further strengthen its dialogue with ASEAN and other regional neighbors of Burma/Myanmar.

The banned National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi, has said it wants consultation with international stakeholders to solve out sanction issue.

The NLD has constantly said sanctions primarily affect Burma’s military leaders, not the common public – but it has not said whether it wants them dropped or strengthened. On Radio Free Asia’s questions and answers section, Aung San Suu Kyi replied to a fellow citizen that some persons and groups apply the sanction issue as a political tactic while some others sincerely consider it hurts the ordinary people.

So, the NLD has to survey the genuine situation with true facts in order to get an appropriate answer to the lifting of sanctions, she said. EU also has to watch human rights abuses in the country where civil war going ahead with rapes, murders, robberies, child-soldiers and forced-labors.

THAILAND-MYANMAR: Concern over refugee camp closure plans

BANGKOK, 12 April 2011 (IRIN) – Aid agencies in Thailand are concerned about a government plan to close a string of Burmese refugee camps along its western border.

According to the Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC), a group of INGOs operating along the 1,800km-long border, about 142,000 Burmese refugees live in nine government-run camps.

“Any plans to close the camps at this point would be premature,” Jack Dunford, executive director of the TBBC, which provides food and shelter in the camps, told IRIN on 11 April.

“We all want the camps to close and for the people to return. But that can only happen when things in Burma change, allowing people to return in safety and dignity.”

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), which has officially registered about 100,000 Burmese refugees in Thailand, agrees.

“It’s logical that the camps close in the future; however, the conditions need to be right on the other side,” said Kitty McKinsey, a spokeswoman for the agency.

Their comments follow media reports on 10 April that Bangkok planned to close the camps following the recent handover of power to a new government in Myanmar.

“They [the Burmese refugees] have been in Thailand for more than 20 years and it became our burden to take care of them,” National Security Council chief Tawin Pleansri reportedly said.

“I cannot say when we will close down the camps but we intend to do it,” he said, speaking after a meeting of the government security body chaired by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

“We are now in the process of discussion with the Myanmar government.”

According to UNHCR, there are about 100,000 registered refugees in Thailand, and some 9,000 asylum-seekers in Thailand.

Most refugees are ethnic minorities from Myanmar, mainly Karen and Karenni. The bulk of assistance at the camps is provided by NGOs, while UNHCR focuses on protection activities and programmes to ensure they are safe in the camps.

The agency also advocates that the refugees be given greater liberty to come and go from the camps, particularly to work in Thailand’s labour-short economy.

Since the launch of a third-country resettlement programme in 2005, more than 58,000 Burmese refugees have been resettled from the camps, mostly to the United States, Canada and Australia.

Resettlement features prominently in UNHCR’s strategic plan for assisting Burmese refugees in Thailand.

April 13, 2011
Hornbill Unleashed – Detained and deported by Burma, sued by Taib

One candidate, among the 213 vying for 71 seats in Sarawak’s state election, has had the experience of having been deported from Burma.

See Chee How, Keadilan (PKR) candidate for Batu Lintang in Kuching, was among 18 foreign human rights activists detained by the Burmese military junta on August 8, 1998.

The ten men and eight women were interrogated for five days in jail in Rangoon. Eventually, the Burmese home ministry, in response to international concern, announced the activists would be freed and deported.

The foreigners – six Americans, three Malaysians, three Thais, three Indonesians, two Filipinos and an Australian – were representatives of 13 human rights NGOS from around the Asia-Pacific region.

The activists had been handing out leaflets to ordinary citizens on the streets of Rangoon, promising them the rest of the world had not forgotten the Burmese people’s torment.

This act of defiance and solidarity marked the tenth anniversary of the August 8, 1988 uprising in Burma against the military regime, commemorated as ‘Four Eights Day’, or 8888.

On that day in 1988, the Burmese army had opened fire on peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators. The official death toll was a few dozen, but human rights groups said thousands had been murdered in the massacre, and in the brutal crackdown that ensued.

The leaflets bore a simple but moving message:

“We are your friends from around the world.

We have not forgotten you.

We support your hopes for human rights and democracy.

8888 – don’t forget – don’t give up.”

According to the Malaysian opposition leader at the time, Lim Kit Siang (right), the activists were not “attempting to incite unrest”, as the Burmese government had claimed, unless aspirations for democracy, freedom and justice were a crime.

The group of detainees comprised academics, students and lawyers.

They called themselves the Alternative Asean Network on Burma.

One spokesperson said the activists were “well aware they might be arrested”, but added that being detained was not their goal.

See recalls that Thai and American diplomats were instrumental in securing the activists’ release.

Wisma Putra, he says, was ambivalent about supporting the three jailed Malaysians. In fact, the Malaysian government confiscated See’s passport after his return, and he has been unable to travel abroad, ever since 1998.

Today, the door to See’s modest office in Kuching carries a sign that reads: “Free Burma Now”. He wears his travel restrictions lightly, and shrugs off the inconvenience of being prevented from taking his family for a vacation in Thailand, Indonesia, or further afield.

Death on the Baram River

See confronted death on another occasion, when he joined a civil society fact-finding mission in Baram in 1994. The team was investigating reports of killings and violence perpetrated by logging companies and the security forces against Penan and other Orang Ulu standing peacefully at anti-logging blockades.

The team gathered damning evidence against the loggers and police field force, who had invaded the Baram forests.

But the mission ended in tragedy when the team were wearily making a long journey on the huge Baram river. An outboard engine cut out while their longboat was negotiating the currents, and the boat capsized.

One volunteer, Justin Louis, a video documenter from Pusat Komas, drowned at the age of 30. See and other members survived, by clinging desperately to debris from the boat.

See has honoured Justin’s memory. He has persevered in his commitment to the Penan communities. He was a crucial figure in establishing the 2008 national ministerial taskforce probe that confirmed the rape of Penan schoolgirls by loggers in Baram.

After the police refused to investigate the rapes, citing an insufficient budget as an excuse, See and other NGO members of the Penan Support Group (PSG) launched their own fact-finding mission last year.

The PSG report identified political patronage in the logging industry, and the marginalisation and subjugation of the Penan, as the root causes of the sexual abuse.
Land rights and politics

As a partner in Baru Bian Solicitors and Advocates, See has represented Iban, Malays, Bidayuh, and Orang Ulu in over a hundred Native Customary Rights cases. The law firm has won a series of landmark court victories.

The lawyers have offered pro bono assistance, too, to Chinese smallholders threatened with compulsory land acquisition by the government, including those in Bako.

See spearheaded the establishment of two pre-schools for Penan children, funded by donors from throughout Malaysia. See and Baru lobbied for RM90,000 from the Selangor and Penang governments for a four-wheel-drive vehicle to allow Penan children in Baram to travel to school without being attacked by logging company employees.

In 2007, See distributed leaflets on the streets in Kuching, describing a Malaysiakini report on allegations of corruption and kickbacks to Taib’s family from Japanese timber importers.

Taib (right) was unable to deport him like the Burmese military did in 1998, but he did file a defamation lawsuit against See andMalaysiakini. The case drags on in the courts.

When asked about See’s NGO work, Muhin Urip, a local land rights NGO leader, replied: “For those in a position to search the internet, it’s easy enough. Google his name, and you’ll see a record of a person who has been consistent, someone who has always stood up for others.

“Chee How’s involvement in Sarawak and Burma is consistent with his belief in championing the rights of minorities, and speaking out against dictators. He’s a humble person, and yet he’s courageous. He risks himself but doesn’t seek publicity, nothing for himself,” he smiled.

“He’s travelled to the most remote parts of the state, serving Sarawakians. There are no barriers to his reaching out to others – not race, language, distance, physical difficulties. Not even fear.”

The New Straits Times – Time for another look at Myanmar’s sincerity
2011/04/13

LAST week saw the culmination of a series of events which, had this not been Myanmar, where attitudes have had plenty of time to harden, would have caused quite a stir.
Senior General Than Shwe stepped down after two decades as armed forces commander-in-chief and all-round dictator. On March 30, the military junta that had directed the country in various guises since 1962 was dissolved. A putatively parliamentary government took over, completing a decades-long “road map” to civilian rule.

Yet news of potentially earth-shaking change in the way Myanmar is run was greeted with a tsunami of disbelief. Website The Irrawaddy, peering through the curtain of secrecy around Naypyidaw from Chiang Mai, Thailand, gleaned that Than Shwe was still puppet master of the power plays in the purpose-built capital.

Staff officers still reported to him. His portraits had not been taken down from government premises. He was surrounded by minions and cronies in high authority. Among constitutional arrangements stacked in favour of the military, he had personal insurance — a law permitting the enlistment of retired officers at their previous rank in case of emergency.

Neither was the convening of Parliament from Jan 31 anything to write home about for its newly-chosen representatives from across the country, including some of the most fractious regions and minorities.

In Asia Times Online on March 24, Aung Din, executive director of the Washington-based US Campaign for Burma was millimetres short of parody in his depiction of MPs sitting in sessions lasting only 15 minutes.

In Myanmar’s “discipline-flourishing democracy”, he said, “parliamentarians are allowed to enter only two meeting halls, two canteens and restrooms. If they venture to other parts of the compound, they risk arrest. No journalists are allowed to enter the compound, let alone cover the parliamentary meetings.”

To rub in the military’s distrust of elected office, carried over from its 1962 coup 14 years after independence, the MPs could not bring in computers or handphones. With more than 75 per cent of the lower and upper houses controlled by the proxy Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) and an additional quarter of seats reserved for the services, the legislature so far exists in name only. It rubber-stamped a budget approving 25 per cent of expenditure for defence and just one per cent for health.

However, despite signs that the dictatorship was merely morphing into something fractionally more presentable, enough had taken place to create a disturbance beneath the surface calm of long-held convictions. Even the sceptical Irrawaddy conceded that Than Shwe’s withdrawal or otherwise, and whether it made a difference at all to the perpetuation of military dominance, was “on everyone’s lips”.

Others went further to break out of static modes of thought in measured accordance with what they have been able to observe on the ground. One of them is the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), which reported on “Myanmar’s Post-election Landscape” on March 7.

While attesting to the rigging of the November elections and seeing much of the transition as only a switch of clothes by the military from khaki to civvies, the ICG nevertheless felt the country was on the cusp of a future without Than Shwe.

“As Myanmar enters a new political phase, the international community should seize the opportunity to encourage greater openness and reform,” it said in a media statement.

“The longstanding and serious failures of the Myanmar government have resulted in a country that faces multiple crises. But international policies are also failing Myanmar and its people,” it concluded.

“Chronically low levels of aid, a lack of vital technical assistance and capacity-building, and a stubborn insistence by some within the West to cling to failed policies of sanctions and isolation, have only served to exacerbate the negative impacts of poor governance.”

To those willing to give it a serious try, Parliament is no fig leaf. An MP from the Shan community, quoted by the Economist on March 31, said “space” for the opposition had increased, and he went as far as to suggest that a majority could be gained at the next election in 2015.

Ranged against them are the articulate dissident groups who make up influential lobbies in the West.

“My compatriots are squashed among the dictatorship that prostitutes the country and her natural resources for their own power, glory and wealth, the global resource extractive industry and greedy neighbours such as China, Thailand, Singapore and India,” said Maung Zarni, research fellow on Myanmar at the London School of Economics.

“Faulting the sanctions regime for the sins of these three entities in the name of the Burmese public welfare is at best factually incorrect and at worst delusional,” he said.

Democracy doyen Aung San Suu Kyi, who, in another unexpected turn from the generals’ infamy, remains free, has been wisely vague on the fraught subject of sanctions.

In a much-quoted speech to the Davos World Economic Forum in January, she seemed to presage the ICG by urging conscientious foreign investment into Myanmar.

“I would like to request those who have invested or who are thinking of investing in Burma to put a premium on respect for the law, on environmental and social factors, on the rights of workers, on job creation and on the promotion of technological skills,” she said.

As usual with so pivotal a figure, both sides in the sanctions schism claim Suu Kyi’s acquiescence or at least her neutrality.

What they do agree on is that the Western embargo has not worked and may well be moot. Myanmar can still do business with Asian countries, the benefits of which are anyway beyond most of the agrarian population.

The European Union, in its annual evaluation of the country this week, has tended to pragmatism by pledging to listen to all views, including those of the token opposition in parliament — the lot of whom have appealed for an end to the trade boycott. America has already indicated that it was open to dialogue.

Inaction would be the wrong response. No matter how richly earned the biases, Myanmar after last week warrants a rethink — even if only to affirm that cherished beliefs remain rooted in reality.

Rights Groups Caution About Repatriation of Burmese Refugees
Thailand News.Net
Tuesday 12th April, 2011 (VoA – News)

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees and human rights groups have raised concerns about reports that Thailand is planning to repatriate more than 100,000 Burmese refugees living in camps in Thailand. Rights groups say conflict and human rights abuses are still going on in Burma, in a region littered by land mines from decades of fighting.

The UNHCR has greeted with caution reports Thailand plans to repatriate Burmese refugees living in camps along its western borderwith Burma.

Rumors of plans to repatriate the refugees follow a meeting between Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his national security chief. The issue was also raised during informal talks between Thai Foreign Kasit Piromya and Burmese counterpart Wunna Muang Lwin.

But Kitty McKinsey, a senior regional spokesperson for the UNHCR, says eventual repatriation of Burmese refugees should happen only when conditions of safety are met.

“This is a very long term process and I note that even the Thai government official did not put any date, any time line, any deadline,” said McKinsey. “So closing refugee camps is an aim that we share. We’

Council on Foreign Relations (blog) – Thailand to Myanmar Refugees: Drop Dead
Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2011
by Joshua Kurlantzick

According to reports by AFP and other news agencies, Thailand’s National Security Council head, Tawin Pleansri, told reporters after a meeting of the council that Thailand wants to close the refugee camps for over 100,000 Burmese refugees, who have fled the country over the past twenty years. Most of the Burmese refugees live in camps on the western Thailand-Burma border; their housing is basic, but it is better than living in eastern and northeastern Burma, where they are prey to regular campaigns of attacks and even mass rape by the Burmese military, and retribution attacks by armed ethnic militia groups. In one comprehensive report, a group focusing on Chin State in Burma documented the use of rape as a weapon of war by the Burmese military.

Thailand has never really wanted to house the Burmese refugees, but over successive administrations Bangkok has tolerated the refugee presence. Undocumented Burmese also frequently enter Thailand itself, providing a source of cheap and easily exploitable labor for many Thai companies. Now, however, Bangkok appears willing to use the fiction that Burma had a real election last fall to repatriate these refugees, most of whom will return against their will. Though the election last year may improve the quality of governance in Burma marginally, it was hardly a free or fair poll, or suggestive of the kind of dramatic change on human rights that would make it safe to return refugees.

There are other reasons for Thailand’s suddenly harder line. Leading Thai company Ital-Thai is in the process of making the largest-ever Thai investment in Myanmar, at over $13 billion. And overall, the government of PM Abhisit has tried to foster rapprochment with its neighbor. Too bad that over 100,000 refugees are going to be treated as a pawn in this relationship.

Apr 13, 2011
Straits Times – Myanmar raises security at New Year’s festivities

YANGON – MYANMAR has kicked off its traditional New Year’s celebrations with water fights, live music and tighter security after deadly bombings marred last year’s festival.

The four-day festival that started on Wednesday marks the traditional New Year on the lunisolar calendar also used in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia.

In Myanmar last year, three bombs ripped through a celebration in the largest city Yangon, killing 10 people and injuring 170 others.

Media reported that police, firefighters and Red Cross workers will be deployed around Yangon and at large stages that are erected for dancing and water fighting.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The Daily Star – Civilian rule in Myanmar: Prospects for us

Myanmar state television made an unscheduled announcement, on March 30, signed by Senior General Than Shwe, approving a new president and 30 ministers for five-year terms.
Thein Sein 65, a retired military officer and a former prime minister, was sworn in as the president who heads the military-backed majority party in a newly elected parliament.

“The legislative power, jurisdictional power and administrative power being exercised by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has been transferred to the Union level government,” it said.

Myanmar’s military government, which called itself SPDC, made way for a new government, ushering in a new era of civilian rule dominated by former generals who have ruled the country for nearly two decades.

Members of the SPDC retained prominent roles, with its former members taking posts as president, vice-president, parliament speakers, cabinet ministers or regional chief ministers. The incoming government includes three serving military officers, 23 ministers with a military background and four civilian technocrats.

There was a landslide victory for the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) in the November elections. The opening marks one of the final steps in the military’s so-called “roadmap to democracy,” in accordance with the 2008 constitution.

The National Democratic League led by Nobel Laureate Suu Kyi boycotted the election, claiming the process was unfair and undemocratic. Her party was dissolved. Recently, she wanted to revive the party through a court but the court rejected her petition.

It may be recalled that, on January 31, Myanmar’s 440-seat lower house and 224-seat upper house met under security for the first time in the capital Naypyitaw (meaning Abode of Kings), about 460 km north of Yangon (Rangoon), where the administration moved in 2008.

The army has a reserved quota of a quarter of the seats in both chambers, as well as in regional parliaments. That leaves parliament dominated by serving or retired soldiers loyal to the present regime. Currently, the military and its allies hold more than 80% of seats in both houses of parliament.

The new government dissolved the powerful State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). It provided an exit strategy for 78-year-old paramount leader Senior General Than Shwe, ending months of speculation of his retirement. Experts agree he is likely to maintain broad behind-the-scenes influence on the government.

The installation of the nominal civilian government is seen as a new era, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hopes that it leads to the formation of a more inclusive civilian government that is broadly representative of all parties relevant to national reconciliation and more responsive to the aspirations of the people of Myanmar.

Suu Kyi has sought urgent talks with the new government about a bigger role for pro-democracy forces and a reconciliation process with armed ethnic groups. She hopes relations with the new government will be better.

Priscilla A. Clapp, Chief of Mission at the US Embassy from 1999-2002, has reportedly said that the new structure of government spreads power through a broader base and opens the way, at least, to new ways of thinking.

She also said: “I think we have now to begin making distinction between uniformed military and the ex-military who find themselves elected and/or appointed to civilian positions. Although they are cut from the same cloth, there is nonetheless a big psychological and practical difference in their minds between the two camps.”

“There is a critical window of opportunity to encourage greater openness and reform. Unfortunately, this opportunity is likely to be squandered,” the International Crisis Group said in a report, adding some “countries apply a higher priority in appearing tough on Myanmar than being effective.”

Analysts say that the political scenario in Myanmar is a question of glass half empty or half full from the perspective of a country which wants to engage with the new government. It is a question of whether political opposition within Myanmar will grow and how the Western powers continue to engage with the new government.

The end of formal military rule is seen as an opportunity to tap the rich natural resources of a country that just over 50 years ago was one of Southeast Asia’s most promising and wealthiest countries, and the world’s biggest rice exporter and major energy producer. Its proven gas reserves, for instance, doubled in the past decade to 570 billion cubic meters.

China’s Communist Party’s fourth-highest ranking official, Jia Qinglin, arrived on April 2 for a four-day visit and pledged cooperation for political and economic development. He is the first high-ranking foreign visitor to meet with Myanmar’s new president since a civilian government took office.

Western nations are expected to seek engagement with the new government after decades of frosty ties with the earlier military government. It is reported that US will appoint a special envoy for Myanmar.

One of the planks of Bangladesh’s “Look to the East” foreign policy is to be implemented by accelerating economic growth, social progress and cultural development between South and South East Asian countries. Geography, resource endowments and inter-connectivity of the region are keys to the region’s peace and prosperity.

The Bangladesh government has consolidated good and friendly relations with Myanmar, the only other neighbour, through the visit of its foreign minister in May 2009 and January 2011. During the visit, cooperation in many areas, such as road and rail link, direct air and shipping services, hydro-power projects, trade, and agriculture, had been discussed and agreed.

The government may follow up and reinforce its engagement with the new government through a visit at the highest political level to Myanmar. Time has come now for the two neighbours to work together to achieve their potentials for progress, prosperity and peace in the region.

The writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.

Asian Tribune – Blood is thicker than Water
Wed, 2011-04-13 11:12 — editor, Article
Prof. Kanbawza Win

The people of Burma especially the middle age person who had gone through the Burmese Socialist days clearly understands the psyche and rationale of the Burmese Generals who construe themselves that they are the only ones, that really love the country while the rest are parasites that does not harbour a pale of patriotism in them and hence it is their bounden historical duty to take power into their own hands.

Leading Burmese intelligentsia like Dr Zarni, a Research Fellow at the London School of Economics and U Aung Zaw the chief editor of the Irrawaddy who all had gone through the Ne Win Era are convinced that this so called discipline democracy and the new government by the Junta is but a hoax.

The self appointed hook nose, Farang Burmese experts who have no choice but being compelled to dance according to the pull of the strings of their corporate patrons have to laud the Burmese Junta with their theories, lest they may not be able to do any business with the Junta in exploiting the human and natural resources of Burma or are sore afraid that Than Shwe and his henchmen might become another Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast If these experts are sincere, truthful and have an ounce of moral character they should have supported Daw Aung San Suu Kyi a counter part of Alassane Ouattara ( now the legal president of Ivory Coast) for she is legally chosen by the people of Burma. But none of the self appointed Burmese Experts dares to make this comparison. Obviously if it were not for the patron like China and Russia, the dictatorial countries that sits smart in the United Nations Security Council and continue to arm the Burmese regime with their military hardware including the nuclear reactors, Than Shwe and his henchmen should have been in the grave long ago.

What more China has praised Burma’s new government for promoting democracy when she herself is not a democracy and is greatly afraid of its own people less they take a leaf out of the Arab revolutions? Beijing denounced the international community criticizing the new Burmese which was just sworn in and instead offered congratulations to the new Burma government.

What hypocrisy to witness that Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu was quick to warn other countries not to meddle in her neighbour’s internal affairs. Obviously China, which has close political, military and economic ties with Burma and has long been a staunch defender of its dictatorial partner did not want to see a thriving democracy at its back door.

The landscape surrounding sanctions against Burma is still seems to be heavily contested. ASEAN, the International Crisis Group and Chatham House have recently renewed calls for an end to sanctions against the country, which was echoed by the pro Junta five newly elected ethnic groups claiming sanctions should be abandoned because of their impacts on regional development. Yet they closed the blind eye on the sanctions imposed by the military Junta on the country and its own people.

Singapore authorities spearheaded by ISEAS (Institute of South East Asian Studies) that articulate elements from with Burma’s local political and commercial elites (has given the Singapore Peninsula Plaza to the Burmese cronies) and an advocate for the normalization of “aid relations even view the NLD (National League for Democracy) and its influential leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, as a key obstacle to business engagement, economic development and even incremental reforms. But this is to be expected when they are one of the architects of the notorious Constructive Engagement Policy and their national character can be measured by dollars and cents. The Burmese saying goes Shwe Htwet Hlian A Mae Na Phu Taung Pauk Sein Nin Pauk Mye (a&$xGufvSsiftarhESzl;awmifaygufqdefESifhaygufrnf ) literally interpreted means that if gold comes out of the forehead of his own mother they would not hesitate to crack open it with the axe indicating that they are so engross in economic aspect that they become blind to other aspects..

It is predictable that Than Shwe, who has so far shown no signs of leaving, will remain in power in the foreseeable future. Even if he does leave, he has selected a “new leadership” whose sole role is maintaining the status quo. No new generation has taken over power in Burma. It is just old wine in a new bottle. Its lamentable that the so called think tank groups and self appointed Burma experts faces its own moral crisis, and has been forced to please their respective corporate bosses brought on by its failure to acknowledge Burma’s real political problems and conflicts. All of this is going on without any outside scrutiny, as reporters are prevented from entering the Parliament buildings and coverage of the proceedings by the state-run media is heavily censored. Local audiences say that these broadcasts remind them of Burma’s socialist era, when Parliament existed merely to rubber stamp Ne Win’s whims, while others compare the country’s new legislature to the military-sponsored National Convention that drafted the 2008 Constitution.

Thus Dr Zarni wrote that every time Burma’s military dictatorship is framed as “new,” is the lingo of corporate advertising as currently what David Steinberg and its henchmen are doing in New York. The spoils of the positive public relations are shared as it were between the experts and their organizations that prostitute themselves by spinning for their neo-liberal governmental patrons and corporate “donors” in the West and Burma’s despotic regime. While the underlying power structures have shifted significantly, dramatic change is highly unlikely in a country like Burma. No doubt that this is an insult to the common sense of the ordinary men and women of Burma, if not to the commercial and political elites who have concluded that they have more to gain by collaborating with the dictatorship than by standing against it. The loose network of local and global actors framing what the Burmese public knows first-hand to be the same old dictatorship in new garb as something genuinely new needs to be subject to empirical scrutiny in terms of these framers’ ideologies, interests, and the substance of their arguments or lack thereof.

It seems that the Chatham House Burma is also hard at work extolling what they considers the virtues of these new structures in “post-election” The argument seems to amplify the accusation that the NLD, not the country’s dictatorship, disenfranchised Rangoon’s political elite with its decision to boycott the generals’ election. This really prove that these people have little or no idea of the Burmese Generals’ Obsession

The notorious intellectual prostitute Robert H. Taylor since the days of Ne Win, who is the founder of the pro Junta Myanmar Egress, sometime adviser to Britain’s Premier Oil and former London University School of Oriental and African Studies together with Derek Tonkin, former British Ambassador to Thailand and one-time Burma investor for whose UK-based Network Myanmar expert and whose analyses, comments and interviews tend to paint the picture that have played, wittingly or unwittingly, roles as academic white-washers for decades of the Burmese Generals. The simple logic is if Qaddafi’ is influential in the network of academics and their institutions that spanned across the Atlantic, the Burmese dictatorship and their “normalizers” are not doing too badly, either.

It would be intellectually dishonest, not to point out the all-too-obvious direct connection between Burma’s massive potential for commercial and aid-business opportunities and the calls for “normalizing aid relations” with the Burmese dictatorship. Jacob Ramsay, the senior Southeast Asia analyst at Control Risks, an independent risk consultancy, was more honest when he said, “Everyone knows that fortunes will be made here once the sanctions are lifted and the economy opens up.” This is the hidden agenda and so no wonder that ICG, Chatham House, ASEAN, China, India and the likes who championed the Asian values blamed Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD.

Lots of silly ideas are doing the rounds again about ending sanctions on Burma. That’s largely because the generals swore in a new “civilian” government, which was the outcome of a flawed election last November. Never mind, at least it was an election. So, it is important to give this government a chance. Of course, people who oppose sanctions may not admit that this government is a puppet regime of General Than Shwe, who has been in control of Burma for over two decades. No doubt he will continue to do so in the foreseeable future in different forms. One example, just look at the way he has positioned himself above all power structures, electoral or not, in the new political system. No doubt, sanctions hurt the Burmese people but they will hurt the ruling elite even more.

Germany the architect of dictatorship and the origins of the two world wars is full of self-interest in calling for the lifting of sanctions because they want to gain access to Burma’s huge consumer and energy market. Berlin has been active in pushing for an end to sanctions.

Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been fighting for democracy inside Burma, has urged the international community to continue with sanctions because the regime, even with a new face-lift, has not changed at all. Humanitarian assistance is all right if it helps the Burmese people, especially with education and health-care. It is clear from official statements in recent days that the new government is ignoring opposition groups. The Burmese leaders know that time is on their side. Western countries face a multitude of problems and their attention is not really focused on Burma’s ongoing crisis. So, is now the time to call for a halt to sanctions? There are lots of Burmese apologists, opportunists, psychopaths, Junta cronies ready to do that. Some of them are inside Burma while some are based overseas led by the betrayers if the revolution composed mainly of old ABSDF leaders who have a good record of turning the 20,000 strong student’s army to 200.

Dr Than Myint Oo, brought up and educated in America obviously thinks like an American and could not comprehend of what was life in Burma and even could not comprehend of what really happens in his grandfather’s funeral, will obviously prefer to end sanctions. It is no wonder that such a person born with a silver spoon in his mouth only because of the accident of birth called himself a Burmese will produce such pro junta theory.

ASEAN is giving the new government a new lease of life as economic is their barometre and obviously do not want to say anything because their political systems are not much better than Burma’s. Burma has been a pariah member of the regional grouping ASEAN since its admission in 1997. It has never complied with ASEAN’s common calls. But ASEAN prefers no sanctions as Burma’s long-running political crisis has made the group look really bad. By all means, sanctions should stay. If the current Burmese government releases all political prisoners and guarantees freedom of expression for all Burmese and ethnic nationalities today, the sanctions could end tomorrow.

It is irresponsible, if not illogical and inhuman that these so called foreign Burmese experts, corporate puppets and ASEAN to call for the removal of Western sanctions when the Junta itself has imposed 17 economic sanctions on its own people. Why it did not mention that the Junta has imposed heavy sanctions on its own country and people by restricting the flow of goods from one township to another. How can there be progress and the economy grows with such sanctions and fixed election with a fixed Parliament that is actually the hostage of the military?

Footnotes

VOA News 31 March 2011 also appeared in the Google Alert

Menager;Jacqueline New Mandala Sanctioning Burma’s Prospects in New Mandala 1-4-11

There are 17 kinds of internal sanctions and restrictions and taking goods and staple food from one township to another

Irrawaddy Editorial Misreading Burma’s Crisis 18-3-11

Asian Tribune – EU to Renew Economic Sanctions Against Burma & Call For An End To Impunity
Thu, 2011-04-14 00:21 — editor

London, 14 April, (Asiantribune.com): European Union (EU) Foreign Ministers agreed to renew economic sanctions on Burma for another year when they met to decide the EU’s Burma policy yesterday. They also agreed new measures aimed at promoting dialogue with the regime in Burma.

Key measures, including an asset freeze, an arms embargo and a ban on trade and investment in timber, gems and precious metals will continue to be imposed. A ban on high-level EU ministerial visits to Burma has been lifted temporarily, for one year, in order to facilitate opportunities for dialogue with the regime and the democracy movement, and although civilian members of the dictatorship have been added to the visa ban list, enforcement of the ban will be temporarily suspended.

EU Foreign Ministers welcome the UN Human Rights Council’s call for an end to impunity for human rights violations, and urge the regime to co-operate fully with the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma. However, the EU failed to provide explicit support for the UN Special Rapporteur’s recommendation for a Commission of Inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Burma, even though twelve European countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary and Ireland have already expressed support.

The human rights situation in Burma has continued to deteriorate since the elections last November, during which there were widespread reports of harassment, intimidation, violence and arrests in several of Burma’s ethnic states. The dictatorship has since broken the ceasefires in Karen and Shan States, forcing tens of thousands of people to flee their homes. Reports this week from Shan State provide evidence of continuing violations, including the use of rape as a weapon of war, forced labour, torture and killings.

Benedict Rogers, East Asia Team Leader at Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), said, “We welcome the EU’s decision to maintain key economic sanctions, which sends a strong message that the regime’s behavior continues to be unacceptable and must not be rewarded. Until there is meaningful change, including the release of political prisoners, an end to the offensives against ethnic civilians and a meaningful dialogue process between the regime, the democracy movement led by Aung San Suu Kyi and ethnic nationalities, sanctions must remain in place.

“We also welcome efforts to promote dialogue with the regime. We have always advocated a policy that combines pressure, engagement and humanitarian aid. We urge the EU to go further and express support for the UN Special Rapporteur’s proposal for a Commission of Inquiry to investigate crimes against humanity. If the EU is serious about welcoming the UN’s call for an end to impunity, it needs to support the UN Rapporteur’s own recommendation for how that can be achieved.

At UN meetings during the course of this year, the EU should actively promote the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry”, said Benedict Rogers.”