BurmaNet News, December 20, 2007

[Editor]

December 20, 2007 Issue # 3367

INSIDE BURMA
Irrawaddy: ‘We will not turn back—whatever happens’: 88 Generation Students
Bangkok Post: Karen rebels kill 8 in Burma bus attack
The Economist: Burmese maze
DVB: Military raids on gold mining village
DVB: NLD member jailed after refusing official order

ON THE BORDER
The Nation: Crisis on the Burma border

BUSINESS / TRADE
Xinhua: U.S. Senate passes act forbidding import of Myanmar's gems, timber

INTERNATIONAL
Irrawaddy: Ban Ki-Moon forms “Group of Friends” on Burma
Mizzima: Aung San Suu Kyi awarded "Rome for Peace and Humanitarian Action"
prize
Xinhua: International community should play constructive role on Myanmar
issue
Daily Times of Pakistan: Little hope of change in Myanmar
Bangkok Post: European Commission gives aid to Burma
International Herald Tribune: EU says China pressure on Myanmar key but
limited

OPINION / OTHER
International Herald Tribune: Beijing's dictatorship diplomacy
Seven Magazine: The Future of Burma

____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

December 20, Irrawaddy
‘We will not turn back—whatever happens’: 88 Generation Students – Saw Yan
Naing

Despite ongoing arrests of activists in Burma, the 88 Generation Students
movement will continue its struggle for democracy, the group announced on
Thursday.

“We [88 Generation Students] will continue our struggle for the country,
even if we face arrest and torture. We will not turn back—whatever
happens; whatever difficulties or pressures we face,” said Htun Myint
Aung, a member of the 88 Generation Students movement who spoke to The
Irrawaddy from his hiding place in Rangoon on Thursday.

Six members of 88 Generation Students group: Khin Moe Aye, Kyaw Soe, Zaw
Min, Min Min Soe, Htun Htun Win and Myo Yan Naung Thein—all former
political prisoners—were arrested on Sunday for their activities against
the Burmese government, confirmed Htun Myint Aung.

“The government should realize that they can not solve the conflict in
Burma by arresting, torturing and jailing people. It is not the way.
History has proved this. To achieve national reconciliation the only way
for the Burmese generals to engage is by means of dialogue,” said Htun
Myint Aung.

He said that his colleagues were now separated inside an interrogation
centre in Insein prison. They were arrested because they were linked to
the activists who, in late September, filmed the September uprising and
spoke to exiled media about human rights abuses and arbitrary torture
under the Burmese regime, claimed Htun Myint Aung.

At the same time, seven activists—including Aung Aung, Aung Gyi, Myat Hsan
and Win Maw, also former political prisoners— were also arrested by
authorities for trying to send video footage of the uprising to
international media.

Meanwhile, sources in Rangoon claimed that authorities are presently
planning to arrest university students suspected of involvement in the
September protests if the students return to sit their examinations.

Family members and colleagues of Aye Aye Mon—another detained member of
the 88 Generation Students group—were prohibited from visiting her in
Insein prison starting Wednesday.

Members of the activist group have also expressed deep concerns over
detained colleagues who have been in poor health and are forced to share
cells with criminals.

The parents of teenager Dee Nyein Lay, a member of the All Burma
Federation of Students Unions, say their son was forced to stay in the
same cell as a criminal and that they were very worried about him.

Detained 88 Generation student leaders—including Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi,
Mya Aye and Jimmy—were moved by prison authorities from Insein Annex
Prison to Insein main prison on Monday night and were also forced to share
cells with criminals.

Meanwhile, local residents in Taunggok Township in Burma’s western Arakan
State said that, at the moment, members of the National League for
Democracy are being frequently harassed and interrogated by the local
authorities.

____________________________________

December 20, Bangkok Post
Karen rebels kill 8 in Burma bus attack

Karen rebels have attacked a passenger bus in eastern Burma, killing eight
people and injuring another six, state media reports claimed Thursday.

On Tuesday members of the Karen National Union (KNU) detonated a mine
under the passenger bus as it drove from Kawkareik to Myawady in the Karen
State and then fired on passengers, said The New Light of Myanmar, a
government mouthpiece.

The state-run newspaper blasted the KNU for "constantly committing all
destructive acts such as undermining stability of the State, community
peace and tranquillity and prevalence of law and order, killing and
bullying innocent people, detonating bombs, armed robberies, collecting
extortion money, and burning public property."

The KNU is one of Burma's oldest, longest-lasting insurgencies.

It has been fighting for the autonomy of the Karen State since 1949, the
year after Burma won its independence from Great Britain.

While Burma's state-controlled media occasionally reports about the petty
acts of sabotage committed the KNU, it steadfastly ignores the atrocities
committed by the Burmese military against Karen villagers including rape,
forced labour and an offensive in their state that has been described as
genocidal by outside observers.

____________________________________

December 20, The Economist
Burmese maze

For Muslims and other minorities, the monks' battle was not their fight.

IN THE streets surrounding the Sule Paya pagoda in downtown Yangon,
Burmese Muslims ply their trade, selling sweetmeats, calligraphy or
spectacles. When the military junta opened fire on protesters led by monks
in September, the Muslims had an excellent view of the violence. But for
all the expletives they threw at the government, many refrained from
joining the protesters. “It's a Burmese problem,” says a grizzled old man,
lolling outside the mosque opposite the pagoda. “Let them deal with it.
They don't think of us as being of their country.” The sense of being
apart from Myanmar is an example of the religious and ethnic divisions
that will persist, even if military rule eventually gives way to
democracy.

The complexities of national identity are starkest in Sittwe, the capital
of Rakhine (formerly Arakan) state in western Myanmar, bordering
Bangladesh. Sittwe's Muslims, who form anywhere from a third to half of
the local population (official estimates of Muslim numbers are notoriously
unreliable), are a mixed lot. Some claim descent from Indian and Bengali
immigrants, who arrived in the once-thriving port when Burma was still a
place where fortunes could be made. Others belong to the Rakhine ethnic
group. Still others claim a distinct Rohingya ethnicity (a designation the
junta does not recognise). But on one point, all agree: the government,
being Buddhist, discriminates against Muslims. “The infidels are cruel to
us and beat us,” goes a common refrain.

Severe poverty—the sight of ten people living under a single roof without
electricity is as common as that of forced labour on the roads along the
marshy sea—exacerbates Muslim resentment, particularly given the false but
intractable belief that Myanmar's Buddhists are getting rich. Although
incidents of outright violence have decreased, relations between Muslims
and Buddhists remain tense. Some Muslims take satisfaction from the
government's crackdown on the monks. “They [the junta] put them on a
pedestal and now they're the ones having a problem,” grins one local imam.
Amongst Sittwe's Muslims, the otherwise universal admiration for Aung San
Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition, is tempered. “She can't help being
an improvement on the current government,” says the imam. “But she's
Buddhist too. She's probably not very good on the Muslim question.”

Religion is not the only source of division. Race plays a powerful role.
Sittwe's Muslims, like its rarer Hindus, find it almost impossible to
travel outside Rakhine state. Even inside it, paperwork and perpetual
inspections can make a simple fishing trip harrowing. Most attribute these
restrictions to the government's belief that Rakhine is plagued by illegal
immigrants from India and Bangladesh who do not deserve citizenship or the
right to travel.

Such oversimplifications miss the demographic complexities of Sittwe. Some
residents are Indians who were born there. Others are products of mixed
marriages. Many have family members in other parts of Myanmar whom they
might never see again. “There have been Muslims here since before the
British ever came to Burma,” says a local teacher. “And yes, a lot of the
people here did come over from Bangladesh. But that was years and years
ago.” Small wonder that most of Sittwe's people nowadays just want to
leave. “I'd go to Malaysia or even Bangladesh,” says a young man who was
born of a Bengali father and Rakhine mother. “But I don't have the money.”

Though it is most potent amongst Muslims, the idea of not belonging is
common among other ethnic and religious minorities. Sittwe's Hindus also
say they are locked out of the labour market. Buddhists in Rakhine often
identify themselves as belonging “Not [to] Myanmar, but the Arakan kings”
(a reference to the ancient Rakhine empire). Forging a single national
identity from these disparate ethnic and religious groups will be a
challenge for any Burmese government. Already, disunity may have harmed
the prospects for democratic change. “Where were the ethnic armies?” asked
one resident of Yangon, plaintively, of the uprising against the junta in
September. “If the Shan and Kachin had come, we might have got somewhere.”
Perhaps, like the Rakhine and Muslims, they felt it was not their fight

____________________________________

December 20, Democratic Voice of Burma
Military raids on gold mining village – Nan Kham Kaew

A gold mining village in Mandalay division's Thar Si township was raided
last week by government troops who seized valuable items and cash,
according to locals.

Leh Pyin village, located on a railway line half way between Thar Si and
Kalaw township in Shan state, is well known among people in the gold
business for its mines and is populated by informal gold diggers.

There are about 150 households in the village.

Village residents said that around 70 soldiers from the government's
Defence Services Command and General Staff College in Kalaw township, led
by major Myat Htun, raided the village on 14 December and seized items
from several gold shops.

"Several gold and cash stashes and about four television sets from Ye Nyi
Naung gold shop were seized, as well as gold-purifying equipment and other
property from Lwan Moe Aung gold shop, and about 1.4 million kyat and 294
grams of gold from Shwe Thazin gold shop," one local resident said,
speaking on condition of anonymity.

"They seized satellite dishes and other personal belongings from the
villagers as well."

The resident said that gold diggers who pay 100,000 kyat a month to local
authorities to work in the gold mine were not targeted in the raids.

Thar Si township authority was unavailable for comment.

____________________________________

December 20, Democratic Voice of Burma
NLD member jailed after refusing official order – Aye Nai

A National League for Democracy member in Hlaing Tharyar township who
rejected the authorities’ demands to leave the party has been sentenced to
three years in prison for possession of a weapon.

On 2 December, soon after turning down the order, U Win Myint picked up a
passenger in his trishaw at around 7am, according to his colleagues.

When he reached a bus stop, the passenger ran away and disappeared onto a
bus, but Win Myint found that police and ward authorities were waiting for
him at the stop.

They searched his trishaw and found a nine-inch knife, which Win Myint
explained must have belonged to his passenger.

But the police refused to believe his story and took him into custody.

He was charged at the township court with possession of a weapon, and was
sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on 18 December.

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

December 20, The Nation
Crisis on the Burma border – Ashley South

The brutal and ongoing suppression of the "saffron revolution" has
refocused international attention on the appalling human rights and
political situation in Burma

Civilised people have been shocked by the images of Buddhist monks and
other civilians being arrested and killed in Rangoon and other cities.

Understandably, revulsion at the actions of the SPDC regime has led to
calls for firm action to be taken against the generals who have mismanaged
Burma for nearly half a century (since the military takeover of 1962).

The challenge facing the international community is how to persuade the
junta to better respect the human, civil and political rights of citizens.
Whether this requires reform of the military government - and some kind of
gradual transition to democracy - or a more abrupt form of regime change
is debatable. What is clear, however, is that Burma needs change - and
soon.

In the meantime, for people in rural areas, not much has changed.
Communities continue to be subject to a range of abuses committed by the
Burmese military and government, and sometimes by armed non-state groups.
The situation is especially difficult for ethnic people in areas affected
by armed conflict, or who are threatened by the construction of
large-scale infrastructure projects such as dams, and whose livelihoods
have been undermined by natural resource extraction (logging and mining),
or because their land has been confiscated by the army or other powerful
actors.

It is of the utmost importance that the international community does not
forget the plight of these people. Today in Burma, more than 500,000
internally displaced people (IDPs), most of whom come from the Karen,
Karenni, Mon, Shan and other minority groups, are among the most oppressed
and needy people in the country. Also of concern are 150,000 refugees
living in ten camps in Thailand, as well as some two million migrant
workers in the kingdom (most of whom also come from Burma).

In recent weeks, some international donors have responded to the situation
in Burma by committing additional money to humanitarian projects inside
the country, implemented by international and local agencies working in
government-controlled areas. This is an entirely appropriate response.
Burma receives much less foreign aid per capita than other countries with
similar development and poverty indicators. I have long argued that more
aid should be targeted at needy groups in Burma, and that assistance
projects should be implemented in partnership with local civil society
networks, and - where appropriate - with some state agencies, such as the
departments of health and education.

However, foreign aid to Burma should not be seen as a zero-sum game.
Assistance to vulnerable groups inside the country should not be provided
at the expense of communities in the border zones. Refugees and IDPs in
eastern Burma and Thailand remain in need of international protection and
assistance. However, the international NGOs which have for over two
decades supplied the refugee camps in Thailand, and directed international
awareness of the plight of IDPs in Burma, are currently experiencing a
serious funding crisis.

The Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC) is the main NGO responsible
for providing food and shelter to displaced people from Burma. Over the
past few years, the TBBC and other NGOs have worked with the refugee
communities to ensure a greater degree of participation in the governance
of the camps, on the part of women and various minority and non-elite
groups. Today, the refugee regime on the border stands as an example of
"best practice": the various communities represented in the camps enjoy a
degree of ownership over administration and the distribution of relief
supplies, which is unusual in refugee situations around the world.
However, these achievements are in danger of being undermined, as the TBBC
is being forced to cut supplies to the refugee camps due to a chronic lack
of funding.

The donors who have for so many years supported the TBBC and other NGOs
working with refugees along the Thailand border should continue to do so.
With increasingly large numbers of refugees taking up the "durable
solution" of resettlement in third countries, the camps may be closed
within a decade. In the meantime however, thousands of people still flock
to the border every month - although the Thai authorities are making it
increasingly difficult for them to gain access to the refugee camps.

Since the late 1990s, the civil war in Burma has entered its final stage.
The few remaining armed groups still at war with the SPDC are facing a
desperate situation, and the civilian populations living in areas under
their influence or control are more vulnerable than ever. Given the dire
humanitarian situation along the border, IDPs and refugees in and from
Burma deserve our continued support. Now is not the time to abandon the
long-suffering people of the borderlands.

____________________________________
BUSINESS / TRADE

December 20, Xinhua
U.S. Senate passes act forbidding import of Myanmar's gems, timber

The U.S. Senate passed on Wednesday an act forbidding the import of gems
and timber from Myanmar and imposes fresh financial sanctions and travel
restrictions on leaders of the country.

The legislation also creates a position of special representative and
policy coordinator for Myanmar who would work with the Southeast Asian
nation's neighbors and the European Union to press for change in the
country.

"The message to the people of Burma today is clear: the United States
stands with you as you seek a peaceful, negotiated transition to
democratic civilian rule," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman Joseph Biden. Burma is an old name of Myanmar.

The Senate approved the act after the House of Representatives passed
similar legislation last week. The final bill is expected to be signed by
U.S. President George W. Bush.

The United States, which has long imposed a trade and investment ban on
Myanmar, has twice tightened sanctions since conflicts between the
country's military government and protests in September, leading eight
protestors reportedly shot dead and 42others injured in Yangon.

Bush signed an executive order on Sept. 27 to tighten sanctions, freezing
assets of 14 Myanmar's military government officials under U.S.
jurisdiction and forbidding U.S. citizens or groups to do financial
transactions with them.

The Bush's administration released another round of sanctions on Oct. 19
on Myanmar, including tighter restrictions on the export of dual-use goods
and computers to Myanmar, visa bans and asset freezes on 11 of Myanmar's
leaders.

____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

December 20, Irrawaddy
Ban Ki-Moon forms “Group of Friends” on Burma - Lalit K Jha

With his special envoy on Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, seen to be making little
visible progress in negotiations with the Burmese military government, UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on Wednesday constituted a 14-member “Group
of Friends” to assist him in achieving his goal of restoring democracy and
protecting human rights in Burma in close consultation with both the
military generals and pro-democracy leaders.

The first meeting of this 14-member “Group of Friends of the
Secretary-General on Myanmar [Burma]” was held behind closed doors at the
UN in New York on Wednesday afternoon. The members were addressed by Ban
himself and Gambari.

The group is comprised of the five permanent members of UN Security
Council (the US, Britain, China, Russia and France); four Asean members
(Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam); the EU, represented by
Portugal; three major regional players—India, Japan and Australia; and
Norway.

Coming out of the conference, the US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay
Khalilzad, told The Irrawaddy that the meeting was held in an informal
setting with a view to helping Burma move in the right direction with
regard to the goals that were presented in the October 11 statement of the
Security Council president, including release of political prisoners and
dialogue with the opposition. “We discussed how we can be helpful to the
Secretary-General,” Khalilzad said.

Following the meeting, which lasted 90 minutes, Gambari said: “It was a
good first meeting. There are many more to come.” The UN special envoy is
expected to return to Burma next month.

The main purpose of such a group, according to the Secretary-General’s
spokeswoman, Michele Montas, is to enhance the capacities of the special
adviser and the Good Offices of the Secretary-General. “It was just an
exchange of views. It was a closed meeting, so nothing can be said about
the content of it. But, what we discussed essentially were the ways to
support and better the Gambari mission,” she said.

The Secretary-General asked for the creation of this group to strengthen
the offices of Gambari. Most of the countries around the table were those
that have an impact on Burma in one way or another, Montas said.

The British ambassador to the UN, Sir John Sawers, like many other
ambassadors who attended the meeting, said he would not expect  immediate
results, but that this was a move in the right direction.

“There was a range of views expressed,” Sawers told The Irrawaddy. “Some
of us were most concerned that the developments inside Burma have been
disappointing by the lack of real results and there is a need to apply
pressure and also offer some incentives for the leadership—the regime—in
Burma to move forward and to pursue in a much more inclusive way the
constitutional dialogue. Others, including some of the neighbors of Burma,
advocated patience and encouragement instead of pressure.”

Terming it as a preliminary meeting, the Indian ambassador to the UN,
Nirupam Sen, said everyone spoke broadly along the lines of their own
national policies.

As such, the differences between the key countries on how to handle the
Burma issue, or the way forward, continue to remain as they were within
the Security Council. “Of course, things do not change [so quickly],” a
senior EU diplomat said. “But now, we have a place to meet and a format to
work together,” he added.

The Japanese ambassador to the UN, Yukio Takasu, who was seen actively
participating in discussion and having consultations with ambassadors of
the Security Council, said: “The Secretary-General thinks it is useful to
have a group of friends. It is much more informal, much more free and it
is not against Burma.”

____________________________________

December 20, Mizzima News
Aung San Suu Kyi awarded "Rome for Peace and Humanitarian Action" prize

Detained Burmese icon for democracy Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been awarded
"Rome for Peace and Humanitarian Action" prize for 2007, sponsored by the
City of Rome, Italy for her relentless commitment to and struggle for
democracy and human rights in military-ruled Southeast Asian country.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, mostly known as Aunty Suu to the Burmese, has spent
over 12 of the past 18 years in Burma in detention for her non-violent
campaign for democracy in the country which has been plagued by the
military dictators for over four decades.

The City of Rome, in recognition to her commitment, has announced Daw Aung
San Suu Kyi as the recipient of the 2007 Peace and Humanitarian award.

The prize will be received by Dr. Sein Win, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's cousin
brother and also the Prime Minister of Burma's government in exile – the
National Coalition Government of Union of Burma (NCGUB) – during a
ceremony in Rome on Thursday, as she remains under house arrest in Burma's
former capital city of Rangoon.

"I am happy and proud to receive this award on her [Daw Aung San Suu Kyi]
behalf. I am happy not only for her but for all the Burmese people who are
suffering because with this honour it [the city of Rome] is showing its
solidarity with us," Sein Win told Mizzima over telephone as he prepares
to attend the award giving ceremony in Rome.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of Burma's independence hero General Aung
San, came to be known as the leading opposition figure during her visit to
Burma to see her ailing mother in 1988. The year coincided with the
popular uprising for democracy led by students, which the military junta
brutally crushed, killing at least 3,000 students, and civilians.

Despite her party – the National League for Democracy – winning a
landslide victory in the 1990 general elections the current military
clique refuse to hand over power but instead she has been kept under house
arrest.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who was announced recipient of the US Congressional
Gold Medal by the Congress earlier this week, has received several awards
including the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her relentless pursuit to the
cause of democracy and human freedom.

Following a military coup by Gen. Newin in 1962, which is the beginning of
the rule of military dictatorship in Burma, the country has been plagued
by severe economic deterioration.

While successive military dictators have suppressed voices of opposition
calling for political changes, it has failed to implement economic reforms
that brought down the status of Burma, which was once known as the rice
bowl of Asia to the United Nations list of Least Develop Countries (LDCs).

In August, the people's suffering quadrupled with the junta's unannounced
fuel price-hike leading to the people peacefully taking to the streets
demanding economic stability. However, when the country's revered Buddhist
clergies led the protests, the junta brutally suppressed the protests
killing more than a dozen and arresting at least 4,000 people.

"Burma urgently needs a political solution. The junta must initiate a
dialogue with the election winning party and with ethnic groups in order
to avoid the country going to deeper despair," Sein Win said.

"If they [the junta] want to see country regaining its place in the world
map again they must release Aung San Suu Kyi immediately and start
negotiations," Sein Win added.

____________________________________

December 20, Xinhua
International community should play constructive role on Myanmar issue

China on Thursday said that the final settlement of the Myanmar issue
would reply on the efforts of the government and the people of Myanmar,
stressing the international community should play a constructive role with
respect to the sovereignty and opinions of the Myanmar government.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Qin Gang made the remarks ata regular
press conference on Thursday afternoon, noting that how to realize true
dialogue and reconciliation should be negotiated and determined by the
Myanmar government and other relevant parties in Myanmar since Myanmar
itself is a sovereign country.

Qin said China concerns very much about the peace, stability and
development of Myanmar and would like to see a stable, democratic,
reconciled and developing Myanmar.

China supports special adviser of the UN Secretary General Ibrahim
Gambari's mediation work, supports a bigger role to be played by the ASEAN
(the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), and is willing to strengthen
communication with relevant parties including the European Union to play
joint and active role in properly resolving the Myanmar issue, said Qin.

____________________________________

December 20, Daily Times of Pakistan
Little hope of change in Myanmar – Rene Slama

The best hope for Myanmar is to wait for the inevitable transition in
leadership

BUDDHIST monks risked their lives to defy Myanmar’s military junta,
leading mass protests in a “saffron revolution,” but the lack of progress
since suggests little hope of swift reform.

No one could have predicted the spectacular demonstrations that unfolded
in Yangon and in other towns around the country in September - although
the military’s deadly response was depressingly familiar. The protests
began in anger at an overnight hike in fuel prices on August 15 which left
many unable to afford even the bus fare to work. The movement swelled
three weeks later after soldiers beat a group of monks in the religious
centre of Pakokku and then refused to apologise.

After that, monks around the country began marching in the streets in
their distinctive-coloured robes - hence “saffron revolution” - against
the regime in what snowballed into the biggest threat to the junta in
nearly 20 years. At the peak of the demonstrations, tens of thousands of
monks led large crowds of protesters through the streets of Yangon on
September 24 and 25. But when the military decided to crack down, the
repression was brutal as security forces opened fire.

The government’s official toll is 10 dead, including a Japanese
journalist, but a UN investigator said 31 had been killed with 74 missing.
Amnesty International estimates that of the thousands arrested, 700 remain
behind bars along with 1,150 political prisoners already in detention.
Many monasteries are now closed or simply stand empty. “The process of
change in Myanmar is going to be long, painful and evolutionary. There
simply isn’t a silver bullet,” said Zarni, a Myanmar exile and professor
at Oxford University who goes by one name.

The best hope for Myanmar, he said, is to wait for the inevitable
transition in leadership, as the 74-year-old military supremo Than Shwe
eventually hands power to a younger clique that could be more open to
change. “In the short term, there’s no reason for optimism,” one diplomat
said. The flare-up echoed student-led protests in 1988 which were also
violently put down, with rights groups saying 3,000 people died in that
crackdown.

“Many young monks in Yangon went back to their hometowns, and most of them
decided not to take their exams because they were afraid of being
arrested. It’s so sad,” one abbot told AFP. Authorities have been
compiling files identifying the protesters. But laws are applied so
arbitrarily that the entire population lives in constant fear of arrest -
making it difficult to envisage a new uprising, a UN official said.

In the immediate aftermath of the suppression, military trucks scoured the
near-deserted streets of Yangon with loudspeakers warning that protesters
had been identified and would be arrested. Nearly three months on, despair
and resignation weigh down the people, but even the regime has been
traumatised by what it did against the monks, who are considered
inviolable in mainly Buddhist Myanmar, the UN official said.

Hoping to ease international outrage at the violence, the junta has made
several diplomatic gestures, allowing UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari to visit
the country twice and appointing a liaison who has held three meetings
with detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Yet the meetings with the
Nobel peace prize winner have produced few visible results, and UN
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned on December 10 that the international
community was “running out of patience.”

But Myanmar has remained defiant, blocking a briefing by Gambari to a
Southeast Asia summit and expelling the UN’s top diplomat in Yangon,
Charles Petrie. On December 3, the regime ruled out any role for Aung San
Suu Kyi in the process of writing a new constitution. If the United
Nations tries to take a tougher stand and bring Myanmar back before the
Security Council, close ally China could use its veto to block any
international action, as it has in the past.

The United States and the European Union have toughened their sanctions
against the regime, but so far it has just made the already reclusive
generals feel more embattled, said the diplomat.

_______________________________________

December 20, Bangkok Post
European Commission gives aid to Burma

The European Commission on Thursday allocated another 18 million euros (26
million dollars) of its assistance program to the country.

The new aid allocation from the commission comes in the wake of a brutal
crackdown on peaceful protests in Rangoon last September that has prompted
the US to slap new economic sanctions on Burma's military leaders.

The EU maintains that its aid program does not assist the government but
attempts to address the country's humanitarian crises.

"Recent events suggest that there is no immediate end in sight for the
country's hard-pressed population," said Louis Michel, who heads the
Commission's Humanitarian Aid department (ECHO) in Burma.

"More than ever, humanitarian aid, delivered by organisations like the
International Red Cross (ICRC) and NGOs is needed to save lives, reduce
suffering and protect vulnerable people," said Michel.

The main beneficiaries of Commission-supported relief programmes in Burma
will be more than a million highly vulnerable rural people living in
remote frontier areas, who have no access to basic social services in
places such as the Sakhine, Shan, Mon and Kayin states, Sagaing and
Thanintaryi divisions.

The other main target group is around 138,000 Burmese refugees living in
camps in Thailand.

The European Union has been providing humanitarian aid to Burma since
1994. It has allocated more than 100 million euros to the country since
2000.

____________________________________

December 18, International Herald Tribune
EU says China pressure on Myanmar key but limited – Lindsay Beck

China's support has been vital to achieving initial steps towards national
reconciliation in military-ruled Myanmar, an EU envoy said on Thursday,
but added that Beijing would not directly pressure the junta to reform.

China, a major trading partner of Myanmar and one of its only allies, is
seen as one of the few voices that could wield influence with the junta,
which is under pressure to reform following massive anti-government
protests this year.

But Piero Fassino, EU special envoy on Myanmar, also known as Burma, said
Chinese officials had told him they would not directly push for the
release of political prisoners or that of detained opposition leader Aung
San Suu Kyi.

"During my meetings with the Chinese authorities, they made clear that the
way ahead regarding the Burmese crisis stands with the Burmese
themselves," Fassino told a news conference.

"Of course I believe that it's our duty to encourage Burmese leaders to go
along that direction, and in that regard the release of Aung San Suu Kyi
and the main political leaders are very positive steps," he said. "But
what the Chinese say is that it's up to them to take the final decision."

Earlier this year, pro-democracy protesters led by Buddhist monks staged
the country's largest anti-government demonstrations in nearly 20 years.

The official death toll from the junta's resulting crackdown is 31, but
some Western diplomats say the figure is much higher.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Beijing supported dialogue and
hoped to see a stable Myanmar, but repeated that it opposed efforts to
force the regime's hand.

"The international community should respect the Myanmar government's
sovereignty and opinions when looking at its problems," spokesman Qin Gang
told a news conference.

Fassino said that despite its opposition to sanctions, China was playing a
"very important role" in steps toward a resolution to the crisis. These
include talks between the junta and United Nations special envoy Ibrahim
Gambari, and Myanmar's naming of a go-between with Suu Kyi.

"We are aware that in order to achieve these first steps, the Chinese
intervention has been essential," he said.

But China opposes sanctions as a means of pressuring the regime and is
loath to compromise its investments in Myanmar's natural resources, which
include natural gas and timber.

By contrast, the European Union has adopted sanctions against 1,027 firms
in Myanmar and expanded visa bans and asset freezes on its rulers. Last
week, EU leaders said they were ready to tighten sanctions if the
government did not ease repression.

"I made clear (to the Chinese) that these are not our goal, they are a
tool," said Fassino, who held talks with Chinese Assistant Foreign
Minister He Yafei and the head of the Communist Party's International
Department, Wang Jiarui.

Fassino said he had requested from Myanmar that he be allowed to visit in
March and that Gambari hoped to return in January. He denied that, months
after the demonstrations had been put down, the window of opportunity for
change there had closed.

"Actually I do not believe the Burmese crisis is over," he said. "To the
contrary, we have to engage on the Burmese issue when the situation is not
overheated."

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

December 20, International Herald Tribune
Beijing's dictatorship diplomacy – Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt and Andrew
Small

China is often accused of supporting a string of despots, nuclear
proliferators and genocidal regimes, shielding them from international
pressure and thus reversing progress on human rights and humanitarian
principles. But over the last two years, Beijing has been quietly
overhauling its policies toward pariah states.

It strongly denounced North Korea's nuclear test in October 2006 and took
the lead, with the United States, in drafting a sweeping UN sanctions
resolution against Pyongyang. Over the past year, it has voted to impose
and then tighten sanctions on Iran and, before the publication of the
latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, had provisionally agreed to
support another UN resolution. It pushed the Sudanese government into
accepting the deployment of a UN/African Union force in Darfur. And it
condemned a brutal government crackdown in Burma.

The shift has been driven in part by China's changing calculation of its
economic and political interests. With its increased investments in pariah
countries over the past decade, China has had to devise a more
sophisticated approach to protecting its assets and its citizens abroad.
It no longer sees providing uncritical and unconditional support to
unpopular, and in some cases fragile, regimes as the most effective
strategy.

But an even more important motivator has been the West's heightened
expectations for China's global role. Faced with the 17th Party Congress
last October, the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and presidential elections in
Taiwan also later this year, Chinese officials would have preferred to
think about avoiding trouble at home rather than about developing a new
foreign policy. But the nuclear crises in North Korea and Iran and
international outcry over developments in Darfur and Burma have forced
their hand. China's fears of a backlash and the potential damage to its
strategic and economic relationships with the United States and Europe
have prompted Beijing to put great effort into demonstrating that it is a
responsible power.

Burma, for example, is a strategically important client. Nonetheless,
Beijing's patience with the Burmese junta has been wearing thin recently.
For several years, Beijing encouraged it to undertake economic and
political reforms in order to help the regime consolidate its rule, ensure
stability and regain international acceptability. It supported former
Prime Minister Khin Nyunt, whom it considered a Deng-style reformist -
only to see him ousted in 2004.

As the Burmese regime hardened further, China's confidence in its
willingness to reform faded. Its support was put to the test by a UN
Security Council resolution condemning the regime, which China vetoed
along with Russia. But after the veto, Beijing let the junta know that its
protection depended on a greater willingness to move forward with
political reforms. China also deepened its ties with Burmese democratic
and ethnic opposition groups.

When massive protests broke out in Burma this fall, Beijing supported a
Security Council statement strongly deploring the junta's use of violence,
acquiesced to the passing of a condemnatory resolution in the UN Human
Rights Council, and pushed the Burmese government to receive the UN
special envoy Ibrahim Gambari and grant him access to senior generals and
the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

However, throughout the demonstrations, while the Chinese government urged
restraint on the junta, Beijing stressed that its first priority was to
prevent another "color revolution." Despite China's concerns about its
international reputation, Beijing neither wants nor really can ask the
Burmese regime to "commit suicide," in the words of one Chinese analyst.
China fears the establishment of a democratic government with a
pro-American tilt.

As the Burma example suggests, there are inherent limits to the shifts in
Beijing's approach to pariah states. For one thing, China's diplomacy
reflects not a fundamental change in its values but a new perception of
its interests. Its main motivations remain energy security and economic
growth. Beijing is not subordinating its economic aims to other goals; it
is simply devising more sophisticated means to secure them.

Another important limit is set by the military and commercial sectors,
which see to it that whatever the changes in China's diplomatic stance,
there is no commensurate effort to rein in arms sales or economic ties.
Even when China presses pariah states toward (limited) political and
economic reform, it holds up its own experience to show that reform and
economic opening need not lead to democracy. And respect for state
sovereignty remains the bedrock of many of China's key alliances.

The challenge for the United States will be to make the most of China's
shifting sense of its interests while realizing that China's broader
policies toward authoritarian regimes do not align with their own. Beijing
is not likely to become a consistent partner of the West in dealing with
dictatorships, but it is becoming an increasingly important part of the
solution in many problematic cases.

Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt was an international affairs fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations in 2006-2007. Andrew Small is a program
associate at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. A longer
version of this article appears in the January/February issue of Foreign
Affairs.

____________________________________

December 20, Seven Magazine
The Future of Burma – Martin F.

The Union of Myanmar, or Burma, as it is more commonly known, is one of
the poorest and most isolated countries in South East Asia.

While Burma may engender associations to Aung San Sui Kyi, George Orwell
and British colonialism, media coverage of the country, its political
situation and its people, is somewhat scarce to the untrained eye.

Inevitably, Israeli air strikes of southern Beirut and the horrors caused
by the latest sectarian bomb blast in Baghdad will be more likely to make
the headlines.

Yet despite its peripheral status as a news item, Burma is a country in
great need of elevated attention from the international community.

The Burmese military leadership has monopolised political power for more
than 40 years and reigns with an iron fist over what constitutes one of
the most enduring dictatorships in modern times. In an attempt to preserve
the unity of the nation, the generals in power have reserved the privilege
of exclusive access to the political realm and the people of Burma are
asked to linger at the sidelines.

In 1988, the military staged an internal coup and replaced one set of
generals with another. Under the auspices of Aung San Sui Kyi's National
League for Democracy (NLD), thousands of people took to the streets in
protest. The military leadership responded with violence and the protests
culminated in the death of more than 1000 protesters with countless others
injured, imprisoned or forced into exile.

After dealing the NLD a significant blow, the junta felt confident enough
to allow for democratic elections in 1990. However, the generals were
grossly mistaken as an overwhelming majority of the Burmese people voted
in favour of Aung San Sui Kyi and the NLD. The generals disqualified the
election results and have maintained their grip on power ever since.

Since 1990, Aung San Sui Kyi has remained under house arrest where she has
spent most of her days since. Dissident groups in Burma, including those
opting for democratic change, remain under constant scrutiny by the regime
and whenever the status quo is challenged the generals respond swiftly
with force.

Today, Burma is undoubtedly one of the most oppressive countries in the
world with a leadership which denies its people basic political freedoms
and aspirations for democratic change. The regime's military spending
consumes up to 50 per cent of its annual budget, civil society is
curtailed and human rights violations are common place.

The political situation in Burma has ignited an international debate over
how democratic change ought to be encouraged and promoted. The US and the
EU are united in their desire to isolate the regime and actively push for
a UN Security Council resolution urging Burma to move towards democracy.

By contrast, Asean countries neighbouring Burma adopt a stance of
'constructive engagement' thereby aiming to promote change through
dialogue. US and EU pressure, including economic sanctions, has not
achieved its intended objectives. The leading English newspaper in Burma,
The New Light of Myanmar, persistently accuses the West of neo-colonialism
and has it labelled as a 'disruptive external element'. The generals'
animosity towards the West has engendered further isolation from the
international community at large.

Meanwhile, countries such as China, India and Thailand continue to invest
in Burma rendering Western pressure relatively ineffective. This said, the
Asean approach of 'constructive engagement' has also proved to have
limited success. However, the Asean members have recently stepped up their
efforts seeking to convince the regime that change is needed. The generals
have responded that democratic change will be implemented gradually when
the new constitution has been completed in the relatively near future. It
remains a rather uncontroversial proposition to state that the generals'
priority will be to consolidate power and in turn pay lip service to any
de facto prospect for democracy. Voluntary handover of power is highly
unlikely. Nevertheless, a policy of engagement with the Burmese regime is
required by the international community. It may be far from ideal but it
is necessary.

In a historical comparison, countries such as Cuba and North Korea provide
examples of states that have been subject to Western interests advocating
regime change. As a tool of political leverage, isolation and economic
sanctions have consistently failed to topple leaders. On the contrary,
Castro and Kim Jong Il have proved themselves to be resilient leaders
while trade embargos have had a tendency to have a more severe impact on
already marginalised groups under their rule.

In light of this observation, the prospect for democratic change in Burma
must come from dialogue with the regime. Clearly, dialogue can never
justify or recognise the generals' current modus operandi; the objective
is rooted in pragmatism reflecting how external pressure can most
adequately foster change. The international community has the choice of
stepping up diplomatic efforts and attempting to promote change at the
negotiating table. By offering incentives, the international community can
have more leverage than by implementing punitive economic sanctions which
mainly affect people living in poverty.

Ultimately, change must come from within and the responsibility of the
international community should be to simultaneously support Burmese civil
society and exile groups working towards democratic change. By achieving
interdependence, the international community has a window of opportunity
to assist the Burmese on the road to a better future. The first step in
that direction remains to tell the story of Burma and its people. It is a
story which truly deserves a more central position on the stage of world
affairs.