BurmaNet News, October 5, 2004

[Editor]

October 5, 2004, Issue # 2573

REGIONAL
AP: Myanmar junta leader to make state visit to India this month
Indian Express: North-East heat puts Yangon-Delhi talks on the frontburner

INTERNATIONAL
AFP: US calls on Myanmar to let in UN envoy to discuss democratic reforms
AFP: ASEM summit likely to herald more EU-ASEAN bickering over Myanmar
AFP: Ireland puts Myanmar ambassador plan on hold
Third Sector: Burma group slams Comic Relief

OPINION / OTHER
Irrawaddy: Beyond the National Convention
Irish Times: EU must stand firm against Burma
_____________________________________
REGIONAL

October 5, Associated Press
Myanmar junta leader to make state visit to India this month

The head of Myanmar's ruling junta will make a state visit to India later
this month, the first by a Myanmar leader to the South Asian giant in 24
years, diplomatic sources said Tuesday.

Senior Gen. Than Shwe will meet Indian leaders during the Oct. 24-29
visit, said the diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity. They said
only that bilateral issues would be discussed.

Meanwhile, visiting Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran held wide-ranging
talks Monday with Prime Minister Gen. Khin Nyunt and other Cabinet
members, a statement from the Indian Embassy said.

Both sides "expressed satisfaction that the bilateral relationship had
grown in content and scope," it said.

Saran was India's ambassador to Myanmar in 1997-2001.

Than Shwe's visit is the strongest evidence yet of warming relations
between the two countries. The last Myanmar head of state to visit India
was the late Gen. Ne Win in 1980, while the late Rajiv Gandhi visited
Yangon as prime minister in December 1987.
Links between the two nations, which share a 1,331-kilometer (830-mile)
border, became strained in 1988 when Myanmar's military junta violently
crushed a pro-democracy uprising.

Ties have improved with visits by senior officials of both countries since
2000, and with India's policy to build stronger economic ties with
fast-growing East Asian economies after decades of ignoring them.

India is now one of Myanmar's major trading partners and is the
second-largest market for Myanmar goods after Thailand. The countries have
set a target of US$1 billion (euro 814 million) worth of trade by 2006.

_____________________________________

October 5, Indian Express
North-East heat puts Yangon-Delhi talks on the frontburner

The issue of dismantling camps of North East insurgents in Myanmar,
especially after the series of blasts across Assam and Nagaland, will be
high on the agenda for talks with Yangon's head of state Senior General
Than Shwe when he arrives in New Delhi on October 25. As head of the
powerful State Peace and Development Council, the junta which rules
Myanmar, Than Shwe is also commander-in-chief of its Defence forces.

Official sources said that though there had been suggestions for military
cooperation, similar to what was achieved with Bhutan, the blasts in
Nagaland and Assam have added to the urgency of coming up with ''methods
that will be workable'' along a border over 1,600 km long. In the run-up
for Than Shwe's visit, Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran reached Yangon
yesterday. He was to hold consultations with the Myanmar Foreign Office
today, highlighting the need for cooperation in tackling North East
insurgents.

Four hotlines exist between the armies of the two countries, the highest
at the level of Corps Commander in the bordering areas. Sources said that
reactivation of these lines could be the first step towards developing a
more coordinated approach. Operational options that have been mooted so
far at different levels include simultaneous flushing out of insurgents
from either side and then trapping them along the border.

There is also a view that the border be patrolled jointly and a combined
operation launched only after completing the groundwork. But officials
pointed out that implementing these is not so easy on the ground. And this
figured in the discussions Home Secretary Dhirendra Singh had today with
visiting Myanmar Deputy Home Minister Brigadier General Bhon Swe today.

While the two sides agreed to cooperate closely on ''tackling
insurgents'', sources said, a large part of the four-hour discussion
focused on overcoming hurdles in the way of joint action to dismantle
insurgent camps. ''We know of close links between Indian insurgents and
Myanmarese rebels. Joint operations will have to take place. It is just a
matter of time. The modalities will have to be fine-tuned,'' said a senior
Home Ministry official.

For the record, both sides also agreed to cooperate in dealing with armed
smugglers and drug traffickers. Here too, the links between Indian and
Myanmar insurgents have been established. ''Myanmar rebels ensure that
drugs are reach Tamu on the Indo-Myanmar border. Indian insurgents take
over from there and push the drugs inland. Arms from Thailand are also
being smuggled to insurgent units through the Indo-Myanmar border,'' the
official said.

_____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

October 5, Agence France Presse
US calls on Myanmar to let in UN envoy to discuss democratic reforms

The United States on Monday urged Myanmar's military rulers to accept the
return of a UN special envoy to discuss democratic reforms in the country,
saying it was troubled by the continued detention of opposition leader
Aung San Suu Kyi.

The call followed a meeting last week between UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan and his special envoy to Myanmar, Razali Ismail, and "concerned"
members of the global body on the lack of progress toward democracy and
national reconciliation in Myanmar.

"We urge the Burmese authorities to allow Ambassador Razali to return to
Burma without delay and to conduct follow-up visits as he deems
necessary," deputy US State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said.

Myanmar's previous name was Burma.

"We hope that the secretary general will remain focused on this matter and
that his engagement will generate more international community
international community cooperation on this vital issue," Ereli said.

The United States, he said, "remains deeply concerned" by the continued
detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and the failure of the junta to permit her
National League for Democracy (NLD) to open its offices nationwide and
operate freely.

Ereli said Washington was also dismayed by the the junta's refusal to
release over 1,000 political prisoners, and by the recent arrest of
political activist U Ohne Thant and sentencing of four NLD members for
illegal political activities.

"Our position is clear: The Burmese people's desire for a national
reconciliation and the establishment democracy must be respected," he
said.

In recent months, Annan has stepped up the pressure on Myanmar with
statements critical of the junta's national forum on democracy, which he
said could not be credible without opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Her NLD has boycotted the national convention and Suu Kyi has been under
house arrest for more than a year, the third time the 1991 Nobel Peace
Prize winner has been detained.

The NLD won elections in 1990 by a landslide but their victory was ignored
by the military, which has ruled Myanmar since a 1962 coup.

Ismail, a former top Malaysian diplomat, was last permitted to enter
Myanmar in March, when he urged all parties "to turn over a new page for a
credible democratic transitional process."

He also met with Aung San Suu Kyi, who said she and her NLD colleagues
"should be released and allowed to resume political activities," according
to a UN statement. She also pressed for the NLD's offices to be reopened.

But hopes of Aung San Suu Kyi's release fizzled out and the junta
proceeded with the national convention without the opposition.

The United States in recent months has stepped up pressure on the junta to
release Aung San Suu Kyi after imposing wideranging sanctions on the
impoverished country.

The US Congress last week called for UN Security Council action against
Yangon while seven major US groups cancelled their trips to Myanmar in
response to a call for a boycott of tourism to the country by NLD.

_____________________________________

October 5, Agence France Presse
ASEM summit likely to herald more EU-ASEAN bickering over Myanmar

A new round of diplomatic bickering is expected at this week's summit of
European and Asian leaders in Hanoi over the deep inter-regional divisions
on how to push through democratic change in Myanmar.

Although European diplomats insist the political situation in the
military-ruled country will not overshadow the two-day Asia-Europe Meeting
(ASEM), which opens here on Friday, they say it will be on the agenda.

"It's not going to be the centre of attention but it will certainly be
raised and dealt with. We will convey our continuing sense of deep concern
to the ASEAN side," said one Hanoi-based diplomat.

Myanmar's refusal to allow political freedoms has haunted relations
between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the
European Union (EU) since the country formerly known as Burma joined the
bloc in 1997.

Its junta enjoys a large measure of understanding and tolerance from its
fellow ASEAN governments, who strictly observe a much-criticised ban
against interference in other member nations' affairs.

Germany's ambassador to Vietnam, Christian-Ludwig Weber-Lortsch, tacitly
acknowledged last week that the rift remains unresolved.

"There have been some problems between the EU and ASEAN over the Myanmar
issue, but I believe they will not hijack or overshadow the global
summit."

The fifth edition of the biennial meet was almost scuppered as a result of
the EU's boycott threat in protest at Myanmar's planned attendance.

The 10-member ASEAN bloc had wanted its newest members -- Cambodia, Laos
and Myanmar -- to be included in the summit in return for the
participation of 10 new EU members who joined in May.

The EU only agreed to attend on September 3 on the condition that Myanmar
sends a lower-ranking delegation.

But it also warned that it would tighten the tough sanctions already in
place unless the military dictatorship bows to its pro-human rights and
pro-democracy demands by the summit's opening day.

In particular, the EU has threatened to expand a visa blacklist against
junta officials, oppose international lending to Myanmar, cut investment
in state firms and clamp down on "illegal logging", said to be a mainstay
of the country's economy.

Diplomats say this tightening of the screw now appears inevitable,
particularly after the junta reshuffled its cabinet last month,
strengthening the hand of hardliners. Among those who lost their jobs was
foreign minister Win Aung, who was considered a relative moderate.

"ASEAN is well aware that the new sanctions are coming. It seems highly
unlikely that the EU's demands will be met, but the intention was to get
this out of the way before the summit starts," the European diplomat said.

The EU has demanded the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi from
continued house arrest, an end to harassment of her National League for
Democracy (NLD) party and allowing genuine political debate.

Myanmar's junta, which has ruled the country with an iron fist since 1962
despite the NLD's landslide victory in 1990 elections, launched a national
convention earlier this year which it billed as the first step in its
"roadmap" to democracy.

This process has been rejected as a sham by many Western governments.

Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman Marty Natalegawa lamented the fact
that the controversy over Myanmar's participation's this week "has tended
to deflect attention away from what the actual forum is all about".

"So we, as far as Indonesia is concerned, would like to bring the ASEM
process back on track," he told AFP.

_____________________________________

October 5, Agence France Presse
Ireland puts Myanmar ambassador plan on hold

Ireland has put on hold a plan to exchange ambassadors with Myanmar as a
result of lack of political progress in the southeast Asian country,
according to Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern.

Ireland established diplomatic relations with Myanmar's military junta in
February and its ambassador to Malaysia, Daniel Mulhall, was to have been
accredited there on a non-resident basis.

At the time Ireland held the six-month revolving presidency of the
European Union and then-foreign minister Brian Cowen argued that the
appointment of an ambassador would increase Ireland's "influence and
credibility" in pushing for human rights and democratic reform.

Ahern, in an official comment published on the Internet at the weekend,
said Ireland remained strongly critical of the continued house arrest of
opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the absence of political progress,
persistent human rights abuse and the lack of fundamental freedoms in the
country.

"It is very much to be regretted that the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and
other positive developments which were widely expected to take place in
Burma earlier this year were not forthcoming," Ahern said in a written
answer to a parliamentary question.

"The decision to establish diplomatic relations was taken in the context
of increased engagement leading to anticipated progress.

"Given the lack of such progress, the exchange of ambassadors between
Ireland and Burma has been put on hold."

In March, during Ireland's EU presidency, a meeting of the European Burma
Network in Dublin adopted six objectives on Myanmar including a return to
democracy.

Four years ago Dublin awarded Suu Kyi the freedom of the city, its highest
accolade, for her "bravery in standing up for democracy and the fact that
(her party) had won the election and had not been allowed to lead the
government".

Myanmar's military junta has ruled the country with an iron fist since
1962 despite the landslide victory in 1990 elections of Suu Kyi's National
League for Democracy.

_____________________________________

October 5, Third Sector
Burma group slams Comic Relief

The Burma Campaign has publicly censured Comic Relief over its refusal to
end its contract with DHL, the Deutsche Post-owned logistics company that
has a joint venture with Burma's state-owned Myanma Post and Telecoms.

Burma Campaign's media and campaigns officer Mark Farmaner said the
decision to name and shame Comic Relief had been 'difficult' because it
was a fellow charity. But he said that despite being given extra leeway to
comply with the Burma Campaign's demand, Comic Relief had refused to
budge.

'We've given it several months to consider its involvement and make a
decision,' Farmaner said. In comparison, corporate entities receive just
one month's notice that they are to be included on the 'dirty list' of
organisations that have links to Burma. That has been sufficient notice
for companies, including the global advertising group WPP, to change their
policy, he added.

'Frankly, we've got better responses from some corporations, than we've
had from Comic Relief.'

He explained that Comic Relief had not been added to the 'dirty list'
because that was confined to companies.

The Burma Campaign has written to and met with Comic Relief, and had
discussed an August deadline for the charity to cease its involvement with
DHL. It even complied with Comic Relief's request to keep the issue out of
the public eye until its board of trustees had reviewed the issue.

Comic Relief's only response has been that DHL's presence in Burma is
unclear, despite the fact that DHL's website lists a Rangoon office, said
Farmaner. A DHL spokesman said: 'Comic Relief is fully aware of the
operation's presence and it fully understands our position.'

Farmaner accused Myanma Post and Telecom of bugging telephone lines,
intercepting mail, and cutting off the phone and postal services of
Burma's opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Comic Relief said that people with concerns over its partner organisations
should contact the companies directly.

_____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

September 30, Irrawaddy
Beyond the National Convention - Ashley South

Burma’s ceasefire groups look ahead

It is never wise to try and second-guess the turn of events in Burma, but
it’s safe to say that the current constitution-drafting National
Convention is widely perceived as illegitimate—both inside Burma and
abroad. This perception won’t change unless the process is broadened to
include meaningful participation on the part of the National League for
Democracy, or NLD, and the United Nationalities Alliance, or UNA, a
coalition of ethnic nationality parties elected in 1990, which has always
worked closely with the NLD.

Despite the legitimacy deficit of the constitution-drafting exercise, the
convention has emerged as the most important political arena since the
1990 election—and perhaps even since the military takeover of 1962. For
Burma’s ethnic nationalist communities in particular, it represents a
milestone in efforts to have their concerns registered on the national
political stage.

Ceasefire groups speak

The 1,076 delegates to the convention are divided into eight categories:
political parties, representatives-elect (MPs from 1990), national races,
peasants, workers, intellectuals, state service personnel and
representatives of 28 armed ethnic groups which have agreed to ceasefires
with Rangoon since 1989.

The ceasefire groups are a mixed bunch, enjoying varying degrees of
legitimacy. Nevertheless, they share several common concerns and have
developed coherent positions on several key issues. Despite their
reservations about the process most groups are attending the convention in
good faith, in the hope of registering their aspirations on the national
political agenda.

Can those insurgent groups which have “returned to the legal fold” use the
ceasefire agreements to address some of the key issues which have
structured armed conflict in Burma for over five decades? Participation in
the convention seems at last to have created opportunities to focus on the
“ethnic question” in Burmese politics.

Over the past few years, the Kachin Independence Organization, or KIO, and
New Mon State Party, or NMSP, have taken the lead among a group of
politically engaged ceasefire groups, in developing common positions on
the main issues to be included in any negotiations with the military
government—and the NLD.

In contrast however, several ex-communist and other militias in northern
Burma have been accused of following the junta’s line and of steering
clear of politics, in order to concentrate on local community and economic
development programs (including, in some cases, the drugs trade). Some
analysts have expected the junta to offer further concessions to the
ceasefire groups, in exchange for their support (or at least,
acquiescence) in efforts to complete the convention.

However, since late 2003, the United Wa State Army, or UWSA, and other
ceasefire groups in northern Shan State have adopted positions very
similar to the KIO and NMSP—i.e., that the “sixth objective” of the
convention, which guarantees “military participation in the future state”,
is unacceptable, and that amendments are necessary to some of the 104
articles of the proposed constitution (agreed between 1993-96, before the
original convention was suspended).

Despite the military government’s longstanding policies of “divide and
rule” in regards to the ethnic nationalities, the representatives of
ethnic ceasefire groups currently seem more united that at any time in
recent years. It is unlikely, however, that their concerns will be
formally acknowledged at the convention.

In June representatives from 13 ceasefire groups made a joint submission
to the convention outlining their main demands. This document calls for
the promulgation of state constitutions (to grant state governments
significant legislative and administrative powers), proposes that all
residual powers lie at the state level (rather than with central
government), and requests a “bill of rights for ethnic nationalities”, as
well as the formation of local ethnic security forces (a new role for the
ceasefire armies). Crucially, the document calls for a federal union of
Burma, under the rubric of “ethnic or national democracy”.

Soon afterwards, however, representatives of the most politically active
ceasefire groups were summoned by the convention’s Convening Work
Committee, headed by Chief Justice U Aung Toe, and informed that their
proposals would not be included on the convention’s plenary agenda. U Aung
Toe reminded the ceasefire groups that the convention was recalled merely
to conclude the work suspended in 1996, and to propagate the regime’s 104
proposals. As the ceasefire groups’ submission fell outside of this remit,
it would be forwarded directly to the prime minister, Gen Khin Nyunt. But
it remains to be seen if he can accede to the ceasefire groups’ demands or
if junta chairman Sr-Gen Than Shwe will block such a move.

Leaders of the 13 ceasefire groups which signed this document—as well as
several others, including the UWSA, which submitted parallel proposals
that also rejected the 104 principles—await the government’s next move
with great interest. In the meantime, the convention has been suspended
since July 9, supposedly for a two-month period of reflection and
consolidation. It is not clear when the convention will reconvene—the last
time the convention adjourned, it did not re-open for nearly eight years!

A win-win situation?

Despite this set back, the early outlook for the ceasefire groups looks
good. If any of their demands are accepted for inclusion in a draft
constitution, it would represent a small victory for the ethnic
nationalist cause and would highlight the desire of elites within Burma’s
minority communities for self-determination.

The danger here is that the regime may attempt to buy the ceasefire
groups’ support for the convention process by offering concessions over
the issues of most concern to ethnic nationalist communities—such as
regional autonomy, language use, local control over resources—in exchange
for the ethnic nationalist bloc’s acceptance of ongoing military control
of the central government. This strategy would expose long-standing
tensions between the post-1988, predominantly urban-based “democracy
movement”, and the movement for ethnic rights, initiated in the early
years of independence. (The regime may also attempt to dilute ethnic
state-level demands, by offering concessions to several relatively small
ethnic groups in Shan State and elsewhere.)

Alternatively, the junta will reject most—perhaps all—of the ceasefire
groups’ demands. In this case, they will have to review their tactics and
make a critical decision: whether to continue to take part in a bankrupt
forum or to walk out on the process.
This second scenario looks bleak. But whether or not their demands are
accepted, in expressing their concerns on the national political stage the
ceasefire groups have laid the groundwork for the future. Regardless of
the outcome of the convention, it will never again be possible for ethnic
nationalist proposals to be ignored when political elites discuss the
future of Burma.

Whether a future government is dominated by the NLD, the Tatmadaw, or
Burmese armed forces, or some combination of the two—or perhaps even a
fantastical US “provisional authority”—the ceasefire groups will have
begun to place their aspirations on the national political agenda. Any
future arrangement regarding the country’s future will have to take these
into account. It should therefore no longer be possible for the
international community to demand a resolution of the NLD-junta conflict
first, before addressing “the ethnic question”.

The case of the Karen

The last time Burma’s ethnic nationality constituencies were
systematically canvassed as to how they should be governed was probably
during the Frontier Areas Commission of Enquiry, implemented by the
departing British colonial power in 1946-47. Unfortunately, the Karen
community in particular was notable for the diversity and fatal
contradiction of the views expressed by its (often unrepresentative)
leaders. This confusion played directly into the hands of those who sought
to “divide and rule” the ethnic nationality groups. History may be on the
verge of repeating itself.

Official Karen participation at the convention is restricted to a handful
of small groups, most of which are easily dominated by the regime; the
militarily strongest of these groups, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army,
has almost no political leadership. Although a number of prominent Karen
individuals, including a well-known doctor and several lawyers, are
attending the convention as representatives of “national races”,
“intellectuals” and “state service personnel”, the Karen National Union,
or KNU, is not—despite the announcement in December 2003 of a “gentleman’s
ceasefire agreement” with the Tatmadaw.

One of the last significant insurgent groups in Burma, today’s KNU is heir
to 55 years of dogged resistance to the Tatmadaw, giving the Karen ethnic
nationalist movement a special symbolic weight in Burmese politics.
Although the KNU currently has no place at the convention, if Karen
leaders in exile and inside Burma can grasp the moment, they may yet be
able to engage politically with the junta, while addressing the urgent
needs of Karen society. But if they fail to act carefully and in unison,
Karen leaders may forfeit the historic opportunity represented by the
ongoing ceasefire talks.

Meanwhile, debates continue within other ethnic communities over the
relative advantages and disadvantages of the ceasefires and over
participation in the convention. The main arguments are outlined below:

Post-ceasefire achievements: a limited “peace dividend”
•	Generally, the Tatma-daw perpetrates fewer acute human rights abuses in
ceasefire areas than in zones of armed conflict.
•	There are greater opportunities for travel and local trade in and
adjacent to the ceasefire zones.
•	The expanded role of civil society: local NGOs and community-based
organizations have implemented a number of important development programs
in ceasefire and adjacent government-controlled areas. These include
often-impressive local education projects, refugee and internally
displaced persons resettlement initiatives, and some reconstruction of
conflict-affected communities, such as in Kachin State.

Post-ceasefire disappointments: missed opportunities for “peace building”
•	Extensive militarization, and the forcible mobilization of local
communities, in the context of Tatmadaw expansion into previously
contested areas. Widespread land confiscation—especially well-documented
in Mon State—illustrates the need to address the Tatmadaw’s self-support
policy, and to de-militarize areas of former armed conflict.
•	Rampant post-ceasefire natural resource extraction and environmental
degradation undermines livelihoods, often resulting in population
displacement—especially well-documented in Kachin State. (Villagers also
migrate due to the dire socio-economic climate, often moving to get access
to education and other services.)
•	The junta’s attitude towards development and trade in the ceasefire
areas is one of neglect, or active obstruction. Where infrastructure
development does occur, it often results in “development”-induced
displacement, or other abuses like forced labor.
•	Lack of political progress at the national or state levels has resulted
in frustration within nationalist communities. Since signing truces with
Rangoon, the KIO and NMSP in particular have made repeated calls for
political engagement with the military government. Despite obvious flaws,
the convention remains the first forum in which they can air their demands
since the 1960s.

Ashley South is author of the book The Golden Sheldrake: Mon Nationalism
and Civil War in Burma.

_____________________________________

October 5, Irish Times
EU must stand firm against Burma - John Boorman & Peter McDonagh

Europe should not legitimise a nasty regime

At the end of this week European Union leaders will meet their Asian
counterparts in Hanoi at the biennial Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM). A
fundamental test of the credibility of the EU's oft-stated commitment to
supporting human rights and democracy is at stake - the participation of
Burma in that meeting. If allowed, it will mark the failure of the EU to
undertake substantive actions against a cruel and oppressive military
dictatorship.

Most people in Ireland know little about Burma other than the name of Aung
San Suu Kyi, whose extraordinarily courageous leadership of the Burmese
democracy movement led to her being awarded the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize.
Today she remains under house arrest and she and the Burmese people are
suffering under one of the nastiest regimes in recent history.

Apart from the systematic harassment and imprisonment of pro-democracy
activists, the regime is responsible for extrajudicial killings, forced
labour, and the use of rape as a political weapon. In an army of 450,000
there are 70,000 child soldiers. While the people live in extreme poverty,
over 50 per cent of the state budget is spent on defence and intelligence.
And Burma is one of the biggest exporters of heroin in the world.

The people have made very clear that they want democracy. Despite serious
intimidation, they voted overwhelmingly for Aung and her National League
for Democracy (NLD) in elections in 1990, which were ignored by the
regime. Over subsequent years of repression, they have remained true to
this choice each time they have had the opportunity to demonstrate it.

A regime such as this should be an international pariah, with democratic
countries refusing to have anything to do with it. Unfortunately the
reality is quite different.

Certain south-east Asian nations have, for the most shameful reasons, been
seeking to use the ASEM summit to force European nations to engage with
the Burmese regime. Specifically, they have said that they would block
attendance by 10 new EU members if Burma was also kept away, a demand
which rightly caused consternation in the EU.

External Relations Commissioner Mr Chris Patten responded forcefully that
the regime is presiding over a "calamitous" deterioration in the life of
Burma's already impoverished people and has failed to deliver on any
promise of reform.

After much debate, agreement was reached under the Irish presidency that
the EU would not agree to the attendance of Burma at the summit unless
three basic conditions were met: that Aung and other NLD leaders be freed;
that the NLD be allowed to freely participate in a national convention
proposed by the regime; that the convention allow real democratic
participation and have a deadline for action. There has been absolutely no
progress on any of these points.

Aung and the NLD have also been very clear that they want serious external
pressure put on the regime.

But early last month the European Council revisited the issue. Although
all agreed there had been no progress, and with the British and the Czechs
opposing any backtracking, concern for French and German business
interests and the desire not to abandon the summit led to a complete
capitulation, with the EU accepting Burma's participation.

The council's fig-leaf was the introduction of a new deadline - October
8th - for the three demands and a call on the Commission to propose new
measures against the regime. These might include an extended travel ban on
senior military officers, a ban on investment in state-owned companies,
and the vetoing of loans from international institutions to Burma. The
Council also said that it will use the summit to confront Burma with its
concerns on human rights.

Friday's deadline represents a moment of truth for the EU. There can be no
more hiding behind lofty resolutions. Either it acts, or it will be
complicit in a plan to legitimise a regime which, as Vaclav Havel wrote
recently, would shame the world.

The EU has at other times been willing to take strong actions against
repressive governments. The flourishing democracies of South Africa and
East Timor are testament to the fact the tough measures can force real
change. Now the EU must do the same on Burma.

John Boorman, the film director, is president of Burma Action Ireland.
Peter McDonagh served as special adviser to the Taoiseach 2000-2002