BurmaNet News, October 26, 2005

[Editor]

October 26, 2005 Issue # 2831

INSIDE BURMA
Mizzima: Burma’s nuclear ambitions: progression or threat?
DVB: NLD to open a new communication channel with Burma junta

ON THE BORDER
Mizzima: Reporters give a voice to displaced people

INTERNATIONAL
Ottawa Citizen: Canada urged to condemn Myanmar military regime

OPINION / OTHER
Daily Telegraph: Civilised world has turned a blind eye to Burma for too long
Bangkok Post: Asean must put junta on agenda

____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

October 26, Mizzima News
Burma’s nuclear ambitions: progression or threat? - Alison Hunter

Confirmation from Russia’s atomic agency Minatom this month that talks had
resumed with the Burmese military over the development of a nuclear
research reactor in the central of the country sent a shockwave through
the international community.

The news sparked fears that Burma’s ruling junta was on a path to nuclear
proliferation. While the military government said in 2000, they wanted the
facility for medical research purposes, many observers are suspicious.

The planned facility, reportedly a 10 megawatt pool-type nuclear research
reactor, would be built in Kyaukse, Mandalay division and would be a joint
project between experts from Burma and the independent Atomstroyexport
group under Minatom.

A spokesperson from Atomstroyexport confirmed today talks were ongoing.

The planned US $150-million facility’s construction would be handled by
Burmese authorities while the fuel and expertise for the project would
come from Moscow.

Talks only resumed this month after the project stalled as the Burmese
government was unable to afford it a Minatom spokesperson confirmed. While
some argue the construction of the facility could lead to government’s
involvement in nuclear proliferation, the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) told Mizzima, safety standards are the primary concern.

Melissa Fleming, Head of the IAEA Media and Outreach Section, said a Peer
Review Mission on Upgrading Radiation Protection Infrastructure sent to
Burma in November 2002 found Burma’s standards sub-par.

“The mission concluded that the radiation protection infrastructure is not
meeting expected international safety standards of the Agency . . .” she
said.

Burma is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and has a
safeguards agreement with IAEA making it subject to regular inspections if
it was to create such a facility. The agency said if the facility goes
ahead, they will urge Burma to sign additional agreements.

“The IAEA will urge [Burma], as it does any country interested in
obtaining nuclear installations, to have a sufficient nuclear safety
infrastructure in place,” Fleming said.

But according to leading independent British nuclear consultant John
Large, the long term degradation of safety standards is more concerning
than initial protection infrastructure.

Large told Mizzima countries such as Burma, which are developing in a
technological and nuclear sense, are reliant on other countries for
ongoing maintenance expertise.

“. . . The technicians leave, the trainers go and then the system then
decays into a new substandard safety level. Now whether Burma has the
sufficient technological background to actually maintain that, in the
event that the sponsor would leave is a problem,” Large said.

Large also said the possibility of misuse of the facility was ‘quite high’.

The Burmese government has been tight-lipped about the project and while
officials from the Nuclear Medical Research Division under the Department
of Health said they knew of the plan, staff at the Department of Atomic
Energy which is leading the project refuse to admit its existence.

Large said it was possible the facility would be used to create components
for nuclear weapons and while it was unlikely Burma would itself produce
weapons, due to the high amounts of infrastructure required, there was a
risk the facility could be used to create either unrefined or
weapons-grade plutonium that could be sold to a second country.

“That’s why, when you look at countries like Burma developing nuclear
facilities, you have to be very careful to make sure that nuclear facility
is not just one piece of a jigsaw that fits into a geo-political region. .
.”

According to several sources, a 10 megawatt pool-type reactor could be
used to produce plutonium needed for nuclear weapons. The fuel needed for
a facility of this type is enriched uranium.

“What you may be seeing in Burma is the laying down of the seeds of a
long-term nuclear weapons program,” Large told Mizzima.

But IAEA said it would take a significant amount of time after the reactor
was built for this to happen. It would have to be supplied with fuel and
fully operational for several years before enough irradiated fuel was
produced for reprocessing.

IAEA’s Melissa Fleming dismissed concerns that the proposed facility would
be misused by the Burmese military saying, “. . . it is premature at this
stage to consider any scenario for misuse of the facility, since the
facility does not exist.”

Large said it was possible the planned research reactor, which are, in
most cases, used for medical research and the production of radioisotopes
used medical imaging, the treatment of cancer and heavy industry, could be
a bid by the Burmese government to get a foot in the door of a booming
regional radiopharmaceutical market.

“It could be a commercial step. What’s happening in that particular region
is that the race is on to produce radiopharmaceuticals. There’s a pretty
fruitful market, with the increasing use of radiopharmaceuticals in the
Far East, then there is a demand for domestic manufacture and this reactor
could provide them with that facility,” he said.

Japan is considered by many to be the leading Asia-Pacific producer of
radiopharmaceuticals along with Australia. Many big US producers of the
medicine also keep offices in Asia.

But Large said the problem remains that the same technology used to save
lives and streamline industrial production, could also be used to help
create nuclear weapons.

“If you install a nuclear reactor and all the nuclear gismos and widgets
and, particularly the technicians and the way you train and educate the
technicians . . . you have everything you need to [create nuclear weapons
components],” he said.

____________________________________

October 26, Democratic Voice of Burma
NLD to open a new communication channel with Burma junta

Burma’s main opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), is
contriving to open up a new communication channel with the ruling military
junta, State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) so that political
dialogues between the two sides could start as soon as possible.

The statement came at the end of a three-day long meeting between party
central executive committee (CEC) members and elected representatives from
all the divisions and states, except Kayah (Karenni) State.

“We mainly discussed the intensifying of national reconciliation efforts
in Burma,” said one of the NLD spokesmen Myint Thein. “Therefore, only
when we can talk to each other openly and satisfactorily, would there be
the national reconciliation, and that we are facing difficulties because
there is no working communication process for the dialogues to happen at
the moment. Therefore, how are we going work towards the emergence of the
communication channel and how are we going to find the new methods, we
discussed mainly these subjects. As for the representatives from the
division and states, there are signs they are ready to take part in any
kind of national reconciliation process to be taken up by the NLD.”

When asked if the communication channel between the two has been cut off
since the arrest of former prime minister Gen Khin Nyunt and how they are
going to open the channel, Myint Thein said:

“We do not want to go that way. We only talked in terms of policy. What I
mean is in order to have the dialogue, we are demanding the policy of
‘wiping clean the slate of the past’. We asked repeatedly. The other side
(the junta) neglected and we are still demanding and if they keep on
neglecting our demand, there is no reason to have progress. We will only
lose time. The situation is, as they say, ‘only the monk passes away’. We
have to find a way between the two to find the solution by communicating.”

The CEC is taking the responsibility of finding a communication channel
and solving other pragmatic matters. Myint Thein said that the NLD will
use all available means to find a way to communicate with the junta.

The meeting was the first time all the ‘unfettered’ NLD MPs living inside
Burma, were able to meet face to face with one another since the notorious
Dipeyin incident occurred in upper Burma on 30 May 2003 in which NLD
supporters and leaders including Aung San Suu Kyi were brutally attacked
by thugs hired by the junta. Scores died and hundreds wounded and
arrested.

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

October 25, Mizzima News
Reporters give a voice to displaced people - Sarah Maung

When at sixteen, he left his village somewhere in Karenni State and began
living in a refugee camp along the Thai-Burma border in 1993, Beh Reh had
never seen a journalist before.

Later he did meet some and said he was so in awe of their freedom that he
decided to learn how to write. He joined a three-month course in
journalism and, with several friends, founded the independent Kantarawaddy
Times on October 2004.

Kantarawaddy Times is one of several news organisations run by Burmese who
left their country to escape political persecution, poverty and armed
conflict. In exile, they publish newsletters, newspapers and magazines,
develop news websites, and produce radio drama and documentaries, telling
stories that are otherwise ignored by the heavily censored or
state-sponsored news publications in Burma.

Some of the publications, like the Kantarawaddy Times , target specific
ethnic groups. Despite their differences, the news organisations try to
support the struggle for democracy in Burma.

"Kantarawaddy," the other name of Karenni State, refers to a place with
forests and mountain. But Karenni State is far from idyllic due to clashes
between the Burmese military and armed groups like the Karenni National
People's Liberation Front (KNPLF), and the Karenni National Progressive
Party (KNPP) and its armed group the Karenni Army. The KNPP is fighting
for autonomy, abandoning its earlier aim of secession.

Long term peace continues to elude Karenni State as a ceasefire between
the KNPP and other groups was short-lived. People continue to trek to the
refugee camps along the Thai-Burma border while the Burmese army launches
massive relocation programs of the state's communities in an attempt to
thwart to resistance.

There are currently more than 20,000 refugees living in two camps just
inside the Thai border at Mae Hong Son in Thailand. They received support
from international humanitarian groups and Karenni non-government
organisations.

Kantarawaddy Times, which publishes twice a month in Burmese language,
positions itself both as a voice of Karenni refugees and also a source of
news from inside Karenni State. But it is not easy, as Beh Reh, the deputy
editor, and his colleagues have found out.

Without legal status or Thai-government issued identification cards, the
staff of Kantarawaddy Times cannot move freely to interview Thai
officials.

"We cannot present our news organisation. They would say, you're a
refugee, you have to stay in the camp," said Beh Reh.

It is also difficult to get information from inside Burma. If there are
reports of clashes between the Burmese army and ethnic armed groups in
Karenni State, it is hard to verify claims of casualties. The insurgents
sometimes use satellite phones but they are not always available. On the
other hand, the Burmese military simply ignore requests for information.

Sometimes they try to get information from traders crossing Burma and
Thailand. But many do not want to be quoted or give information, not even
on the weather.

"One time we asked them about floods in Burma and they were afraid to give
information," said Beh Reh.

"We want to be balanced and fair but that is not always possible," he said.

Both Beh Reh and his colleague, Targaychild, said that Kantarawaddy Times
is not an opposition newspaper. "We are independent," said Targaychild.

But there are some issues they feel strong about. For example, their
newspaper carries the complaints of families in the refugee camps about
rations and health services. They also wrote about a refugee who was
beaten by a Thai soldier. Some of these stories had no bylines to protect
the writers from harassment.

Targaychild said they were careful about reporting on NGOs that in turn
are careful in dealing with reporters. Beh Reh said NGOs would insist
reporters translate the news to English and show it to them before
publication. Beh Reh thinks that NGOs don't treat them as professionals.

He says NGOs are worried about bad press and are cautious about appearing
in the news. They also want face to face interviews, which, while it is
good journalism practice, for Beh Reh and his colleagues who are without
ID cards, is difficult to do.

Beh Reh and Targaychild want their news organisation to grow and increase
their circulation, currently at around 200 copies distributed in the
refugee camps and some areas in Karenni State. They have been inspired by
feedback and letters from funding agencies, friends and readers.

The letters have been posted on the wall at their office in Mae Hong Son,
northern Thailand.

_____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

October 26, Ottawa Citizen
Canada urged to condemn Myanmar military regime - Kerry MacGregor

Exiled Burmese prime minister Sein Win says it is time for Canada to
"support the democratic cause" by acting on a motion to "condemn more
forcefully" the actions of his country's military regime for human rights
violations.

The motion cited such abuses as "arrests and imprisonment without trial,
summary and arbitrary executions, torture, rape, kidnappings of women, men
and children, forced labour" and the denial of fundamental freedoms.

The motion passed Parliament on May 18, but Mr. Win says there is still
more work to be done. He hopes meetings with government officials in
Ottawa over the last two days will result in Canadian pressure on the
United Nations Security Council to lend their support.

"We want to see this motion implemented," says Washington-based Mr. Win.
"We want to put this on the UN Security Council agenda and we need
Canadian support even though Canada is not a member of the council."

This year marks the 15th anniversary of the multi-party election in the
former Burma, a vote allowed by the country's junta in reaction to a
rising pro-democracy movement.

Mr. Win's party, the National League for Democracy, won a large majority
of the vote, but the military -- calling themselves the State Peace and
Development Council and calling the country Myanmar -- refused to
acknowledge the party's claim to power.

Many members of the elected government were subsequently jailed. Nobel
Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, the secretary general of the NLD and
Mr. Win's first cousin, was placed under house arrest for what the
military has described as her own protection, says Mr. Win.

Others were exiled and fled to countries like Thailand, Finland and the
United States.

Ms. Suu Kyi has spent much of the last 15 years in detention and has
become a symbol of the fight for democratic freedom in that part of the
world. Some have described her as the Nelson Mandela of Asia.

The Canadian government should care about Burma, says Mr. Win, "first, in
general terms, about the human rights violations because I think Canadians
are very sensitive on this point.

"The Burma problem is very big. The brutality is very, very intense."

And although the country's plight may not be as well known as those of
South Africa and Sudan, he says, the human rights violations that are
happening at the hands of the military should still be a concern, he said.

"In Burma, it happens in the jungle. There is no international community
(looking on)," he says. "But it happens."

Political conflict matched with fear mongering, it seems, is not new to
the country. In 1947, while the cabinet met on the eve of Burma's
independence, the fathers of Mr. Win and Ms. Suu Kyi -- U Ba Win and Gen.
Aung San -- were assassinated by what were described as "political
rivals."

Mr. Win, a mathematician who studied in Germany, became involved in
politics in 1988 when the military began cracking down on Ms. Suu Kyi's
pro-democracy movement.

When he left Burma in 1993 as part of a delegation to the UN General
Assembly, he says, the junta pressured Thailand to ban him from
re-entering that country, which is the only way back into his homeland.

Now Mr. Win speaks through organizations such as Rights and Democracy and
Canadian Friends of Burma to get the word out about the political conflict
in his country.

If Canada and other members of the international community can convince
the UN Security Council to become involved, Mr. Win hopes that Myanmar's
current military regime could be convinced to share power with the
country's elected officials until, eventually, another election can be
held.

_____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

October 26, The Daily Telegraph
Civilised world has turned a blind eye to Burma for too long – John Bercow

This week, Aung San Suu Kyi will have spent a total of 10 years in
detention in Burma. The brutal military dictatorship, overwhelmingly
defeated by her National League for Democracy in the 1990 elections,
refused to give up power and has instead sought to crush by foul means the
person it could not beat by fair. This great Nobel Laureate has long since
been barred from contact with members of her family and representatives of
the international community. Her post is intercepted, her telephone line
is routinely unavailable and medical treatment has been denied her.

At the Millennium Summit in September, the UN accepted collective
responsibility to protect populations from genocide and war crimes,
promising timely and decisive action through the Security Council. If this
is to prove anything but the most sanctimonious twaddle, let it start with
Burma, whose long-suffering people have been shamefully abandoned by the
international community.

There are at least five factors that should precipitate UN action. First,
a military regime overthrew a democratically elected government in 1962,
failed to accept its own rejection by the people of Burma and has instead
systematically harassed, jailed, tortured and killed its opponents.

Second, serious protracted fighting has continued between the ruling
junta, the so-called State Peace and Development Council, and ethnic
national groups seeking freedom from oppression.

Third, the junta has committed grave, systematic and widespread human
rights abuses against civilians. Rape as a weapon of war, compulsory
relocation, forced labour, use of child soldiers, human mine sweepers,
water torture, religious persecution and the wanton destruction of
villages all testify to the bestial character of the regime. These
violations surely constitute crimes against humanity.

Fourth, almost 700,000 refugees have fled Burma in recent years as a
result of the instability, terror and hardship created by the government.
In one of the poorest countries in the world, the regime spends 50 per
cent of the national budget on the military and spares, only a derisory
19p per person for healthcare.

Fifth, Burma is one of the world's worst drug barons, producing and
trafficking vast quantities of heroin and amphetamines. Given that the
Security Council has accepted that HIV/Aids threatens international peace
and security, it is alarming that Burma is a primary contributor to the
spread of the disease in south-east Asia. Moreover, the flourishing sex
industry is a conduit for the growth of an HIV/Aids pandemic in Burma
itself.

Of course, the Security Council already has the powers to confront the
Burmese regime, if only it had the will to do so. Under Chapter VII,
Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council possesses sole
authority to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach
of the peace, or act of aggression". In the words of Article 33, whenever
the council "deems necessary" at "any stage" of a dispute, it may
intervene "to ensure prompt and effective action". Relying on Chapter VII,
the Security Council has intervened in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Haiti,
Yemen, Rwanda, Liberia and Cambodia. Each of those countries exhibited
some of the characteristics evident in Burma, but none suffered all of
them.

Why, then, has Burma been able to tyrannise with impunity? The answer is
depressingly predictable. China trades enthusiastically with Burma. It
enjoys cordial relations with the genocidal generals and sees no reason to
get worked up about the matter. France is no better. One of its
multinationals, Total Oil, has a $400 million investment in the country
and it will not allow respect for human rights to get in the way of its
commercial interests. Less than 48 hours ago, Vera Baird MP and I, as
co-chairs of the All-Party Burma Group, met Total representatives, whose
claim that they were helping the people of Burma we found utterly
unconvincing. Their paltry $12 million spent on philanthropic projects
cannot possibly outweigh the harm done by the hundreds of millions they
are channelling to this abhorrent regime.

Britain's stance is feeble. The Foreign Office continually resists
requests to put Burma on the agenda of the Security Council, with
ministers limply protesting that there is no consensus on the issue. The
ultimate logic of this position is that no country should bother to raise
any issue unless it can be certain of winning. At present, it is an open
secret that members of the Security Council are using the "pocket veto" to
prevent discussion of Burma.


>From now on, Britain should force the issue on to the agenda. Then, either

Burma's silent apologists will be named and shamed for the
collaborationists they are, or they might just decide that they will not
blemish their national reputations to stick up for the corrupt sadists in
Rangoon, especially as they must have bigger fish to fry.

The UN Security Council should now adopt an explicit resolution on Burma.
That resolution should demand that the military dictatorship provide
unhindered access for the UN to deliver humanitarian aid, release Aung San
Suu Kyi and all prisoners of conscience at once, and set out a clear
timetable for the restoration of democracy.

If the junta responds with its usual mix of abuse, bluster and
procrastination, the international community should cease its
hand-wringing and take decisive action - apply robust sanctions against
the oil, gas, gems and timber sectors, which would hit the sources of
funds to the military; undermine the totalitarian state apparatus and
hasten the process of change; impose an arms embargo, so that the
government stops slaughtering its own people; and press for the referral
of Burma to the International Criminal Court, where it should be
investigated for suspected war crimes, crimes against humanity and
attempted genocide.

Britain should now lead a campaign within the UN to force the SPDC to stop
subjugating its citizens and start liberating them. If the UN is to retain
its credibility, it must stop averting its gaze from barbarism. Let it
resolve that it will no longer be a symbol of passive acceptance of the
status quo, but instead a powerful vehicle for necessary change. Dealing
with Burma would show that it means business.

John Bercow is Conservative MP for Buckingham

_____________________________________

October 25, Bangkok Post
Asean must put junta on agenda

Host Malaysia appears to have finalised the agenda for the December
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) meeting to be held in Kuala
Lumpur. Malaysia's Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said on Monday that
Asean's long-held policy of non-interference in each other's affairs would
be upheld. He added that the meeting's focus will be on economic issues
and the integration of Asean and it won't be discussing specific issues or
human rights.

By stating ''specific issues'', Mr Syed Albar clearly is indicating the
issue of Malaysia-Thai border problems and that of democracy in Burma and
the future of Ang San Suu Kyi, who remains under house arrest, will not be
on the agenda. While the Thai-Malaysia problem is a bilateral one which
should be able to be resolved between neighbours, the issue of Burma is
much more complicated.

Mr Syed Albar perhaps forgets that Malaysia was the country instrumental
in pushing for Burma's inclusion as a member of Asean and it was accepted
in 1997. At the time, Malaysia argued that by utilising constructive
engagement with the military junta in an Asean environment, it may help in
the international push towards democracy in that country. It said
constructive engagement would be far better and more effective than
expanding international sanctions as was then being suggested by the
United States and European Union.

''Asean is not in the habit of discussing a particular country in an
agenda,'' Mr Syed Hamid said on Monday, but he said leaders, who are all
conscious of the Asean tradition, were free to raise any issue on the
sidelines of the summit. Unfortunately, the Burma junta's refusal to adopt
democratic reforms simply cannot be adequately addressed ''on the
sidelines''. If this is the attitude of Asean, it is clear that it has no
intention of really addressing the situation in Burma.

This is disappointing to much of the populace of the region, who
especially sympathise with democracy icon Suu Kyi, whose supporters
claimed this week that Burma's democratically elected leader had now spent
10 years of her life under house arrest. But it is also a slap in the face
of the United Nations. Late last year, then UN's special envoy to Burma,
Razali Ismail, specifically called on Asean to do more to speed up
democratic reforms the junta had promised to carry out. He said there
would be no change in Burma unless Asean members accept that
responsibility.

Last year in Bangkok UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed his concern
over the slow pace of democratic reform and the junta's failure to free
Mrs Suu Kyi. According to then government spokesman Jakrapob Penkair, Mr
Annan said that ''Thailand as a neighbouring country must find the right
way to help achieve this''.

Despite much publicised sanctions put in place by Western countries, the
leading suppliers of goods to Burma are nations who also have similar
ideologies in regards to their government opponents. The main suppliers of
goods to the junta are China 28.9%, Singapore 20.8%, Thailand 14%,
Malaysia 9.3%, South Korea 5.5%, Taiwan 5.1% and Japan 4%, and business
people from these countries throng to Rangoon in search of continuing that
trend.

Today, with the ousting of prime minister Khin Nyunt, who is apparently
under house arrest, and the much-touted seven-point road map to change at
a complete dead-end, the Burmese junta is further away from democracy than
it has been in years. New Prime Minister Soe Win, according to the BBC,
commanded an infantry division which helped crush the democracy party in
1988 following Mrs Suu Kyi's overwhelming election victory. The BBC also
suggests that he was behind the attack on Mrs Suu Kyi's convoy in 2003.

But since taking the chair on Oct 19 last year, Soe Win has given no time
frame to a completion of the road map.

It is not too late for Asean to place the issue of Burma on its agenda. In
doing so it can show the world that it is facing up to its moral
obligation and responsibility to address the suffering and exploitation
incurring in its member nation.