BurmaNet News, February 12, 2008

[Editor]

February 12, 2008 Issue # 3400


INSIDE BURMA
AFP: Aung San Suu Kyi's party calls for 'fair political climate' in Myanmar
Mizzima News: Swan Arr Shin members patrol Rangoon
Mizzima News: Veteran Chin politician criticizes junta's announcement
Irrawaddy: Junta tightens passports for NGO staff
Irrawaddy: KNPP challenges child soldiers report
Irrawaddy: Union Day protest in Rangoon
CSM: Burma promises democratic elections

ON THE BORDER
DVB: Leading monk flees Burma for Thailand

ASEAN
Reuters: Asean Chief: Burma charter vote a first step

REGIONAL
Gulf News: Symbiotic ties bind India and Myanmar

OPINION / OTHER
The Nation: Little hope in Burmese junta's democratic bluster
Mizzima News: The junta's electoral gambit
IPS: Resistance to constitutional referendum builds up
Bangkok Post: Rethinking Beijing's Burma policy
DVB: Lawlessness, the stuff that binds in Burma

STATEMENTS / PRESS RELEASES
All Burma Monks’ Alliance: Rejection of the Burmese military junta’s
announcement
Ethnic Youths' Network Group: Announcement of the 61st anniversary of
Union Day
The 88 Generation Students: Statement of Union Day

____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

February 12, Agence-France Press
Aung San Suu Kyi's party calls for 'fair political climate' in Myanmar

Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy on Tuesday urged the
military government to create a "fair political climate," after the regime
announced a constitutional referendum for May.

The party did not directly mention the junta's plans for a referendum,
which is meant to clear the way for elections in 2010, but repeated its
long-standing call for a dialogue with the junta on national
reconciliation.

"The (junta) has the main responsibility to realise national
reconciliation, which is essential for the country," the party said in a
statement, read out by senior member Than Tun.

"Moreover, it also has the responsibility to create a fair political
climate and environment," the statement added.

The party also repeated its call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, who
has spent 12 of the last 18 years under house arrest, as well as her
deputy Tin Oo and 1,800 other political prisoners believed held in the
country.

Tin Oo is also under house arrest, and the military is expected to
announce an extension of his confinement this week.

The party released the statement at its headquarters in Yangon to mark
Union Day, which commemorates a declaration of unity among Myanmar's many
ethnic groups during the struggle for independence from Britain.

The military held a ceremony for the holiday at its remote capital
Naypyidaw in central Myanmar, but junta leader Than Shwe did not attend.

The 74-year-old military supremo, whose health is believed to be
weakening, is rarely seen in public. He also missed celebrations last
month marking the 60th anniversary of independence.

A statement from Than Shwe was read out during the nationally televised
ceremony, accusing western countries of using sanctions to derail the
military's "road map" to democracy.

The United States, which last week tightened sanctions against the regime,
denounced the junta's election time table as a "sham" vote that makes a
mockery of global calls for democratic reforms.

"They are imposing sanctions against the nation to create a large-scale
disruption to national progress," Than Shwe said in the statement.

The regime's foes are "driving a wedge among national races, misleading
the people, and aiding and abetting anti-government groups to weaken and
break up the union," it said.

Than Shwe's statement also said that the people of Myanmar were "pursuing
the state's seven-step road map ... for a transition to a modern,
developed democratic nation with flourishing discipline."

If held, the proposed elections would be the first since 1990, when Aung
San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) won a landslide victory
that was ignored by the junta.

The regime announced its timetable for elections amid mounting
international pressure over its crackdown on peaceful demonstrations led
by Buddhist monks in September, when the United Nations says at least 31
were killed.

But the generals have ignored calls to free Aung San Suu Kyi and open a
political dialogue, instead sticking to their own "road map" plan, which
critics say will enshrine the military's rule.

____________________________________

February 12 , Mizzima News
Swan Arr Shin members patrol Rangoon

Local residents in Rangoon, Burma's former capital, say security has
apparently tightened. They report seeing members of Swan Arr Shin, a
junta-backed civil organization, patrolling the city.

Soldiers, police and Swan Arr Shin members can be seen conducting security
checks on vehicles entering Rangoon, according to local residents.

"We don't know why, but the authorities have been checking licenses and
recording the number plates of vehicles as they enter Rangoon. And in the
city about three truckloads of soldiers, with red ribbons around their
necks, are on patrol," a local resident of Kyuaktad Township told Mizzima.

"And in Ahlone and Kyimyindine Townships authorities have taken young
people and made them put on Swan Arr Shin uniforms and patrol the city at
night. The kids are excited as they are given uniforms and taken in
vehicles to go on patrol," he added.

____________________________________

February 12, Mizzima News
Veteran Chin politician criticizes junta's announcement

An ethnic member of parliament, elected in the 1990 election, today openly
accused the Burmese junta of constantly striving to prolong its rule and
neglecting the formation of a true federal system.

Shing Pe Ling (Ghing Phai Ling), MP and Chairman of the Chin National
League for Democracy (CNLD) in Mindat Township of Chin State, in a
statement today criticized the junta's February 9 announcement that it
plans to conduct a referendum over its draft constitution.

"The military junta not only denied the ethnic nationalities' aspiration
for a federalist system that will guarantee greater autonomy and equality,
but the announcement also violates the Panglong agreement and the Panglong
spirit," Shing Pe Ling said in his statement.

The statement, on Tuesday, comes as Burma observes the 61st anniversary of
Union Day. Burma's Union Day came into existence when ethnic leaders
joined hands with General Aung San to sign the historic Panglong agreement
on February 12, 1947.

Under the Panglong Charter, ethnic leaders and General Aung San agreed to
safeguard self-determination and autonomy, along with the essence of
democracy, to ensure the peaceful co-existence of Burma's many ethnic
groups.

____________________________________

February 12, Irrawaddy
Junta tightens passports for NGO staff – Wai Moe

The Burmese regime appears to be tightening access to passports for
Burmese staff members of international nongovernmental organizations,
according to Rangoon sources.

Burmese staff members with UN organizations and international NGOs who
have applied for a passport renewal at the passport office, which is under
the Ministry of Home Affairs, report longer than usual delays and other
problems, sources told The Irrawaddy on Tuesday.

A Burmese passport is only valid for six months after the date of issue,
according to information on the passport office Web site. If it is not
used within six months, it must be renewed for another six months.

If the bearer cannot depart within the second six-month period, they must
apply for a new passport from the very beginning.

The passport office has told some Burmese staff of international NGOs that
their passports could be seized if they return home from a foreign trip.
The passport office is also refusing to issue passports to some Burmese
staffers, according to sources who asked for anonymity.

“The office said that if a staffer wants to travel abroad, they should
apply for a passport three months in advance,” said one source.

“Officials at the office said the restrictions were ordered by Maj-Gen
Maung Oo, the minister of home affairs,” she said.

A Burmese staff member with a UN organization said many of his colleagues
have been waiting for a passport renewal for months.

“I think all Burmese working for UN organizations have been affected by
the tighter regulations,” he said.

“They [the passport office] said ‘if you want to go again, you have to
apply for a passport again,’” he said. “I am not sure whether they will
issue a new passport to me again or not.”

One source said a passport renewal usually took about ten days.

“But now some staff at my NGO have waited for more than two months,” she
said. “But there’s been no response. The passport office told us there is
some problem. But they do not give any details.”

The passport of one NGO worker, the husband of a Burmese staff member at
the US embassy, was recently seized by authorities at Rangoon’s Mingaladon
International Airport when he returned from abroad, said a source.

The Myanmar Passport Issuing Office was not available for comment when
contacted by The Irrawaddy. The office is run by the Police Special
Branch, which handles intelligence.

Meanwhile, since late 2007, the junta has also tightened visa regulations
on Western diplomats, their family members and NGO employees working in
Burma.

In some cases, the regime has refused to renew or extend visas for some
staff of Western embassies and their family members.

Foreign NGO workers traveling to project sites in the country must have a
special permit from authorities, according to a junta decree regulating
NGOs.

In 2005, the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
cancelled its program in Burma, saying the travel regulations prevented it
from accomplishing its mission.

____________________________________

February 12, Irrawaddy
KNPP challenges child soldiers report – Violet Cho

Burma’s Karen National Progressive Party (KNPP) on Tuesday challenged a UN
report claiming its armed wing, the Karenni Army, is recruiting child
soldiers.

The Karenni Army was among nine non-state groups named in a special report
by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon deploring “grave violations” of
children’s rights in Burma.

The KNNP issued a press statement claiming the report lacked credibility
and calling on Ban Ki-moon to remove the Karenni Army from the list. The
statement charged that the UN had failed to ascertain the situation on the
ground before writing the report.

The KNPP said it had invited representatives from UNICEF and other UN
agencies to visit areas controlled by the Karenni Army and assess the
situation on the ground, but had received no response.

The KNPP declared that it had a commitment to adhere to international
conventions against the use of child soldiers. It said it had worked hard
to eliminate the recruitment of young people into its forces.

KNNP Vice-Secretary Khu Oo Reh said the UN report was biased and lacked
“fairness.” There was no justification for the inclusion of the Karenni
Army, he said.

The UN report listed nine non-state groups accused of recruiting child
soldiers: the United Wa State Army, the Karen National Liberation Army,
the Karenni Army, the Kachin Independence Army, the Karenni National
Liberation Front, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army, the Shan State
Army-South, the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance and the Karen
National Liberation Army Peace Council. The Burmese Army was also accused
of recruiting child soldiers.

A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report issued in October 2007 said the Karenni
Army had indeed stopped recruiting children, and recommended its removal
from the UN list. The HRW report also noted that the Karen National
Liberation Arm had taken steps to end the recruitment of children.

However, the HRW report said that children were still serving in other
ethnic armies and in the Burmese army. Children as young as 10 were
recruited by force into Burma’s army, it charged, quoting former soldiers
who said that in many military training camps, children made up more than
30 percent of new recruits.

____________________________________

February 12, Irrawaddy
Union Day protest in Rangoon – Saw Yan Niang

More than 30 protesters dressed in the blue uniforms worn by prison
inmates staged a protest in Rangoon on Tuesday, demanding the release of
political prisoners and respect for UN resolutions on Burma.

The protesters gathered for about 40 minutes outside the Rangoon
headquarters of the opposition National League for Democracy, where Union
Day ceremonies were being held. Riot police and plain clothes security
officials were deployed outside the building and took pictures of the
protesters on film and video, but no arrests were made.

An eyewitness said the protesters held posters and flags of ethnic groups.
They voiced dissatisfaction with the pace of national reconciliation and
accused the regime of wasting time in arranging talks between NLD leader
Aung San Suu Kyi and a government mediator, Aung Kyi.

Hundreds of people, including NLD leaders and prominent ethnic leaders
such as Cin Sian Thang and Aye Thar Aung took part in the Union Day
celebrations, one of the participants reported.

Union Day marks the date of the Panglong Agreement signed by Burma’s
central government and representatives of various ethnic groups, such as
Shan, Kachin and Chin nationalities, on February 12, 1947. Burma
subsequently gained independence from Britain on January 4, 1948.

The Burmese regime’s observance of Union Day took place in Naypyidaw,
where junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe urged people to work for the
emergence of a lasting State Constitution laid down by the National
Convention.

Than Shwe also urged people to supports implementation of the “seven-step
road map.”  The third stage of the “road map”—drafting a state
constitution—was under way, he said.

In a Union Day statement issued by the 88 Generation Students group on
Tuesday, the regime was accused of violating the fundamental rights of
Burmese and ethnic people and civilians in Burma even though the country
had won its independence from colonial rule more than 60 years ago.

Soe Htun, a leading member of the 88 Generation Students group, told The
Irrawaddy on Tuesday that the military government had ignored the crisis
affecting the Burmese people, who lacked democracy, equality,
self-determination and a federal union.

Soe Htun accused the regime of trying to implement a “one-sided
constitution.” He urged the Burmese people to “cooperate in order to
gaining democracy, equality and a federal union.”

The 88 Generation Students group pointed out that a three-way dialogue was
the best way to solve the Burma crisis.

Last week, the Burmese military regime announced that general elections
will be held in 2010 following a referendum this May on a new constitution
being written under the junta's guidance and expected to entrench its role
in government.

____________________________________

February 12, Christian Science Monitor
Burma promises democratic elections – Simon Montlake

Military rulers in Burma (Myanmar) said this weekend they would hold a
national referendum in May to approve a new constitution, followed by
democratic elections in 2010, the first since 1990. The country's military
junta was rebuked by the United Nations Security Council last October
after violently repressing pro-democracy marches sparked by economic
hardship. Since then, leaders have held sporadic talks with detained
opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and hosted a senior UN envoy, while
sticking to its own "road map" to restore democratic rule.

Burma is plagued by armed conflicts along its ethnically diverse borders
and lags far behind most of its neighbors in economic development. It's
also a major source of illicit drugs, including heroin and amphetamines.
Its repression of its political opposition has soured ties with the United
States, which, along with Europe and Australia, recently tightened
sanctions on the regime. But Burma's natural resources have proved
attractive to China, India, and other Asian countries.

Burmese state media carried a statement Saturday that promised "multiparty
democratic elections" in 2010, the BBC reported.

It is suitable to change the military administration to a democratic,
civil administrative system, as good fundamentals have been established.

The country's basic infrastructure has been built, although there is still
more to do in striving for the welfare of the nation.

A spokesman for the National League for Democracy, the party led by Suu
Kyi that won the 1990 ballot only to see its victory annulled, told the
BBC that the statement was "vague, incomplete, and strange," given that
the election date was conditional on the constitution passing the
referendum.

The New Light of Myanmar, a state-owned newspaper, carried in full two
decrees issued by the State Peace and Development Council, as the junta is
called, for the referendum and the 2010 elections.

The junta's handpicked convention finished its work on the proposed
constitution last year but the contents remain largely unknown, the
International Herald Tribune reports. The few details that have emerged
suggest that the military would strongly guide any civilian government,
with one-quarter of seats in parliament reserved for them. Criticizing the
process of drafting the document is a criminal offense.

Some analysts speculated that the generals may have yielded to pressure
from China, Myanmar's second largest trading partner after Thailand. China
appears to be concerned about a small but vocal movement to boycott the
Beijing Olympics in August partly because of China's support for Myanmar.

There are also three bills being considered by the U.S. Congress that
would toughen sanctions on gemstones from Myanmar and that could force
Chevron, the U.S. oil company, to divest from its partial ownership in a
Myanmar gas pipeline. The generals may have calculated that announcing
elections would forestall those bills, one of which is sponsored by
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain.

Burma's announcement has received a cool response from Australia and
Britain, which have long argued that the military must include Suu Kyi and
other dissidents in any meaningful political reforms, says the Associated
Press. Even Japan, which takes a more conciliatory line and is a longtime
aid donor to Burma, expressed doubt, though in more temperate language
than Western critics.

"We're frankly very skeptical. We're not persuaded that this is anything
more than a cynical sham," said Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith.

"Any genuine movement towards democracy or respect for human rights can
only be done in cooperation with the international community and also with
the political leaders in Burma," he said.

A warmer response came from Singapore, a trading partner of Burma and the
current chair of the10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations,
Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports. Singapore said Burma's election timetable
was a positive development that it hoped would result in "peaceful
national reconciliation."

On a visit to Burma that ended Sunday, Indian Foreign Minister Shivshankar
Menon gave his backing to holding more talks with Suu Kyi, Bloomberg
reports. The UN has pressed India to play an active role in supporting the
democracy process in Burma, with which shares a 907-mile border. UN
special envoy Ibrahim Gambari, whom the Security Council has dispatched
twice to Burma since October, visited India two weeks ago as part of his
mission to drum up regional support for his mediation.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Mr. Gambari has been told by the junta
to stay away from Burma until mid-April. It says the US is growing
impatient at the sluggish pace of UN-brokered efforts and has proposed
that the Security Council should back Gambari's mandate with more
pressure. Democracy activists want the UN to impose an arms embargo on
Burma.

In addition to the political opposition led by Suu Kyi, Burma also faces
the task of pleasing restless ethnic minorities, who make up about 30
percent of the population. The Financial Times reports that many ethnic
groups remain unhappy that the draft constitution doesn't provide for
local autonomy on issues such as education, resource revenues, and
culture. This dissatisfaction, coupled with the fallout from last year's
widespread protests, could influence the planned referendum vote.

The Irrawaddy, a news service run by exiled Burmese, says many analysts
remained skeptical of this road map and the fairness of any voting.

Aung Naing Oo, a Burmese political commentator in Thailand, said the [two]
announcements were probably tactics to prolong military rule and a way to
avoid meaningful pro-democracy dialogue, as called for by the
international community.

"It means the junta does not want to compromise with dissidents," he said.
"Dialogue is death [to the junta] and [without dialogue] the Burmese
conflict goes to a more dangerous level. The result is there will be only
a nominal democracy or a 'disciplined democracy'," as the military has
called for.


____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

February 12, Democratic Voice of Burma
Leading monk flees Burma for Thailand – Than Win Htut

U Pyinya Zawta, a monk from Rangoon’s Maggin monastery and a leader of the
All-Burmese Monks Alliance, arrived at the Thai-Burma border recently
after more than four months in hiding.

U Pyinya Zawta, who is 48 years old, said that he stayed constantly on the
move to evade government authorities seeking to arrest him.

"I stayed hidden inside Burma by moving from place to place every four or
five days with the assistance of my lay followers,” U Pyinya Zawta
explained.

“All the other monks in my group were in the same situation as I was. I
finally decided to come out after realizing I was putting my followers in
more and more danger by hiding at their places."

U Pyinya Zawta criticised the government’s decision to close down Maggin
monastery on 29 November last year.

"Maggin monastery is a lecturing monastery which was teaching Buddhist
wisdom to a lot of Sangha,” he said.

“It also provided food and shelter for HIV/AIDS victims from across the
country. It was a great loss for both the Sasana and HIV patients when the
government decided to close it down."

Maggin monastery had been targeted for raids and arrests prior to its
closure due to the involvement of its monks in the September protests last
year.

U Pyinya Zawta highlighted the regime’s harassment of monks in the
aftermath of the demonstrations, and said that the National Head Monks
Association had failed in its responsibility to solve the dispute with the
government and protect fellow monks.

"A lot of monks were arrested after the 2007 September protests, and some
were even sent to remote prison work camps in various locations
afterwards,” he said.

“That makes the monks feel like the government is trying to wipe them out."

U Pyinya Zawta was sceptical about the government’s recently-stated plans
for a referendum on the proposed constitution in May this year.

"In 1974, general Ne Win's Burma Socialist Programme Party wrote a new
constitution and forced a national referendum on it, resulting in the
country sinking deep into poverty,” he said.

“Now the SPDC government is doing the same thing again and this is going
to push the nation to rock bottom. All the people of Burma should play
their part in opposing this referendum."

____________________________________
ASEAN

February 12, Reuters
Asean Chief: Burma charter vote a first step – Nopporn Wong-Anan

Burma's ruling generals should be given the benefit of the doubt if they
are serious about moving the country toward democracy, Surin Pitsuwan,
chief of Association of Southeast Asian Nations, said on Tuesday.

"It has to begin somewhere and now it has a clear, definite beginning,"
Surin said of the junta's planned May referendum on an army-written
constitution, followed by elections in 2010.

"I think it is a development in the right direction," the former Thai
foreign minister told Reuters on the sidelines of a business seminar in
Bangkok.

The announcement by the military, which has ruled Burma in various guises
since 1962, has been derided as a "sham" by the United States and
pro-democracy activists who say the vote will be held in a "climate of
fear."

Surin said the international community's growing frustration at Burma's
intransigent generals was understandable, but he said they should be given
a chance to fulfill their pledges.

"Everybody has their own agenda on the issue," said Surin, who leads one
of the few international groupings that allow Burma into the club.

"We have to wait and see how things are going to develop and unfold.
Whether these steps are going to lead to true national reconciliation
which is what people inside have been asking for and the international
community has been waiting for," he said.

The army held elections in 1990, but refused to hand over power to Aung
San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, which boycotted the
constitution-drafting process while its leader remained under house
arrest.

Although not yet completed, snippets of the charter revealed in
state-controlled media suggest the army commander-in-chief will be the
most powerful figure in the country, able to appoint key ministers and
assume power "in times of emergency."

Surin said Burma's announcement would be discussed by Asean foreign
ministers meeting in Singapore later this month.

"I am sure they will be very keen to ask some questions and to consult
among themselves how they can contribute or help," said Surin, who was
critical of Burma when he served as Thailand's foreign minister from
1997-2000.

Western governments have called on Burma's neighbors—Asean, India and
China—to put pressure on the generals after they ordered the army to crush
the biggest pro-democracy protests in 20 years last September.

Despite rare expressions of discomfort at last September's crackdown, in
which at least 31 people were killed, Burma's neighbors refuse to
contemplate sanctions, saying words are more effective tools.

____________________________________
REGIONAL

February 12, Gulf News
Symbiotic ties bind India and Myanmar – Jyoti Malhotra, Special to Gulf News

As the rest of the world focuses on Pakistan's President General (retd.)
Pervez Musharraf, undertake a new electoral journey at home, India is
quietly preparing a new diplomatic offensive with the military junta in
the east, in Myanmar.

Over the past few days, India's Foreign Secretary Shivshanker Menon has
been in Naypidaw, the new outpost doubling up as the nation's capital in
the heart of Myanmar, within breathing distance of the ancient imperial
capital of Pyinmana. Meanwhile, General Maung Aye, the number two military
strongman, looks ready to visit India in April.

Clearly, India and Myanmar are engaging in a new diplomatic dance that has
some Western capitals biting their nails in nervousness. Or, are they? The
UN Secretary-General's special envoy, Ebrahim Gambari's visit to Delhi
last week indicates that the United Nations Secretary-General, and by
proxy, his chief benefactor the US, are actually okay with India carving
out a bigger role in Myanmar, especially if it balances the other
influential power, China.

Only a few weeks ago, Myanmar awarded India the right to "build, operate
and use'' the port of Sittwe, strategically located in the Bay of Bengal,
at a cool $120 million.

The money is not the point, of course. The reason Menon, also a consummate
Sinologist, has kept his joy well under control these past days is because
he knows it's far too easy to express happiness at the fact that India has
won one over China.

In fact, the journey to Myanmar is all about reiterating the symbolism of
power and responsibility. When the monks came out in the streets of Yangon
in September to protest the mindless brutality of the military regime,
they had their begging bowls turned downwards. That was such a powerful
symbol of self-denial and abnegation, the likes of which the world has
rarely seen, on par with the fasts Mahatma Gandhi often undertook to
purify himself as well as the enemy.

In their saffron robes, the colour of sacrifice, and barefoot, the monks
were doing exactly the same thing. Their gesture of protest sent a
collective shudder through India. The government came out with more than
one statement of criticism.

Diplomatic billing

So what does one make of the diplomatic billing and cooing that has since
returned? In the new year, Myanmarese Foreign Minister Nyan Win turned up
to meet the Indian establishment. Days later, India's Commerce Ministry
exultantly announced it had won the right to develop the Sittwe port. By
the end of January, Gambari was making a special trip to Delhi to meet the
Indian establishment.

In a conversation with this reporter, Gambari said he hoped "India would
do more than what it had been doing so far. (India) should work on Myanmar
to make the diplomatic process more inclusive and dialogue with the
Opposition parties more dialogue-oriented.''

Adding that he was impressed with India's "growing influence'' on Myanmar,
Gambari said India should use this leverage to become a trustworthy and
effective conduit to both source information as well as send messages to
the Myanmarese government.

And so, the penny dropped. Like China, India would not support the
imposition of sanctions against Myanmar, just as the US and the European
Union wanted. Like the US and the EU, however, India would invoke its
democratic credentials to put out that political reconciliation between
the military and Aung San Suu Kyi's party was the only alternative to
pressure-cooker outbursts within a divided population.

And so a new great game, with Myanmar as the lucrative prize this time, is
unfolding on the Indochina chessboard.

Above all, India must maintain a fine balance on Myanmar. With China
unveiling its "string of pearls'' strategy across the Indian Ocean, one
which envisages a series of bases and ports in friendly countries such as
Pakistan and Myanmar - Gwadar, off the Baluchistan coast, and the Coco
Islands, Hianggyi, Khaukhphyu, respectively - so as to protect its energy
flows, India knows it can hardly afford to play with a straight bat.

After all, in August last year, the Myanmarese junta withdrew the
state-owned Gas Authority of India's "preferential buyer'' status on
certain offshore gas field blocks and declared it would instead sell to
PetroChina.

The Sittwe award also indicates that Myanmar wanted to expand ties, beyond
China. But Delhi also compromised by agreeing to change the terms of the
project from "build, operate and transfer (BOT)'' to "build, operate and
use (BOU).''

Once India agreed that control would rest with Myanmar and it would only
be able to "use'' the port - which includes making the Kaladan river in
Myanmar navigable all the way upto adjoining Mizoram - it was well and
truly on the way to making parts of the North-East "directly connect''
with other parts of India. Especially since Bangladesh had steadfastly
rejected Delhi's requests for transport rights of passage.

When General Maung Aye comes to India in April, then, a formal signature
on Sittwe is expected. By then, Gambari will have hopefully made a third
visit to Myanmar, to press the regime to put the democratic reconciliation
back on track.

If the map suddenly seems blurred, and international allegiances confused,
here's another nugget to confound the apparent illusion : All three
countries, India, Myanmar and China, are deeply Buddhist in one way or
another. Perhaps, with a little bit of help from the UN, they could all
learn to strive towards the middle path.

Jyoti Malhotra is the Diplomatic Editor of the NewsX TV channel

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

February 12, The Nation
Little hope in Burmese junta's democratic bluster – Dr. Pavin
Chachavalpongpun

The Burmese government's announcement that it plans to hold a referendum
on the new constitution in May and general elections in 2010, paving the
way for a transition from a totalitarian to a democratic regime, is even
more unimaginable. Burma is a country where democracy has been alienated
since 1962.

On Saturday, Burmese state radio and television broadcast the surprising
news of a proposed date for a nationwide referendum and announced a time
frame for general elections, signalling the end of the military government
that refused to hand over power to the winner of the 1990 election - the
National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi. Since then
Suu Kyi has been in and out of house arrest and barred from the National
Convention, which was first convened in 1993.

Why has the international community reacted to Burma's announcement of a
referendum and election with such indifference? Some of Burma's neighbours
rushed to congratulate the country, regarding its decision as "a positive
political development". Beyond the diplomatic niceties, however, the same
neighbours also remarked on the dangers of Burma's ongoing political
process, which has remained exclusive to certain power groups, especially
those in the military.

Therefore, the process of inclusiveness, whereby all political factions
are supposed to partake in the move towards democracy, is still open to
scepticism. Political camps, including the NLD and ethnic minority groups,
are being left out. The Burmese military government has failed,
deliberately or otherwise, to reconcile with the opposition. It has
continued to disregard engaging in dialogue as being key to a political
breakthrough.

At the heart of this failure lies the state's reluctance to surrender its
political power. As a result, Burma has slipped into a political and
economic coma. The regime has been notorious for its appalling
human-rights record. The national economy is on the verge of collapse,
leaving most Burmese in deep poverty and some near starvation.

This latest political move must also be viewed with suspicion because of
the overflowing level of confidence within the Burmese leadership
regarding a successful political transition. The military government is so
confident of the constitution being approved in the referendum that it has
already set a date for national elections in 2010.

Nyan Win, spokesman of the NLD, said the party was astounded by the
announcement. "I am surprised that they set a date for an election when no
one has seen the final version of the proposed constitution."

The government-appointed commission in charge of drafting the new
constitution consists mainly of military men or those with connections to
the junta. As Nyan Win emphasised, "This one-sided proposal means that the
military junta will continue its rule in Burma".

One of the main points in the constitution is the guarantee that the
military's role in politics will continue. Having been a domineering force
in national politics for almost 50 years, the military has made it known
that it will not give up power easily. Moreover, the fact that certain
segments of the international community have acknowledged the necessity of
the military's involvement in the country's political transition has
strengthened its political ambitions because it can now consider itself an
indispensable factor in the political development process.

But the reality is that the military is dispensable. Little attention is
paid to the able men in the Burmese bureaucracy. These civil servants have
been behind major administrative works involving infrastructure,
transportation and education as well as foreign affairs while top military
leaders are indulging themselves with power politics in the jungle of
Naypyidaw.

This explains why there are rumours that General Than Shwe, the chairman
of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), is badly informed on
the real situation in his country. Apparently, he does not believe that
the Burmese are living in the harsh conditions alleged by foreign
governments. This ignorance of Than Shwe is, of course, highly debatable.
He must at least have some idea of how much money from the sale of
lucrative gas and oil has passed through his hands and how little has been
left for the people.

The junta's unexpected announcement on Saturday could signify an attempt
to delay the political transition rather than to speed up the
democratisation process even when the dates of the referendum and election
have been fixed.

The junta is using the new political timeline to prolong its political
well-being, covering itself with the empty promise that the country's
military era has come to an end. Unfortunately, this era will not end
unless Suu Kyi and the ethnic minorities are part of the political change.

The decision to announce early elections could also be linked to
international politics. Burma has tried hard to alleviate intense
sanctions from the global community, especially after its crackdown on
street protesters in September last year. In the past few months, Western
powers have called for harsher sanctions against cronies and supporters of
the military regime. Economic punishments, which have long been a cause of
severe hardship for ordinary Burmese, are now being felt by the top
echelons in the military regime.

China is also believed to be behind the sudden Burmese inclination towards
democracy. But Beijing is not necessarily playing the good guy here.
Acting in its own interests, it has recently embarked on a mission to
eliminate negative publicity ahead of the Beijing Olympics in August,
including the downplaying of the Burmese issue.


A democratic Burma in 2010? It is still highly inconceivable.
Pretentiously democratic states in the region, and in Burma's own
neighbourhood, exemplify how democracy, no matter how precious, could be
an unwanted asset for certain power-holders.

Dr Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a visiting research fellow at the Institute
of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. The views expressed here are his
own.
____________________________________

February 12, Mizzima News
The junta's electoral gambit – Dr. Sein Myint

The recent message Daw Aung San Suu Kyi delivered through National League
for Democracy senior colleagues, "to prepare for the worst," could be a
warning to the people of the government's decision to push through with
their roadmap without the participation of the NLD and ethnic parties.

There should be no surprise of the government's announcement. Their draft
constitution has long been completed, and their proposed election date of
2010 can be changed if they feel unsure of the result.

By setting the dates for a referendum and election, the junta has again
employed their old trick of throwing the international community and the
United Nations off-balance, as they have consistently been asking the
generals to set a timetable for the implementation of their roadmap.

Now, they have cleverly put the ball in the opposition democratic parties'
court, as to whether or not they are prepared to participate in an
election under the government's terms.

If the NLD refuses to accept the May referendum and boycotts the 2010
election, the NLD will put their fate in the hands of the international
community and United Nations, calculating that neither will endorse the
outcome of the junta's roadmap.

Certainly the United States and key European Union members would not
recognize the results of May's referendum without the participation of the
NLD. However regional superpowers China and India, along with Russia and
ASEAN members, are likely to accept and recognize the referendum results
if the process is monitored by the UN. A similar scenario played itself
out in Cambodia in the 1990s, when despite accusations of foul play and
voting irregularities, the international community approved of elections
under UN supervision.

Singapore is already calling the announced timetable a positive
development. Likewise many pro-engagement proponents, such as the
International Crisis Group, have been supportive, in their view hoping to
establish political space that will eventually lead to reform.

The junta seems confident of getting a majority of "YES" votes on the
referendum in May, a timeline which also provides little opportunity for
any verification, clarification or amendment of the draft constitution.

Thus this referendum in May will likely be a repetition of the 1974
affair, which also rubberstamped a junta constitution, and it is only a
question of whether the UN will be on hand or not to make it look legal.

A last fact that could play a role in the dates of both the referendum and
election is the health of Senior General Than Shwe. Succession within
Burma's military has never been clearly outlined. It is thus uncertain
what the future hierarchy of the military may look like, and how those in
power would handle elections.

But without sufficient international pressure on the question of the
legality of the referendum and electoral processes, the junta may yet
succeed with their roadmap.

____________________________________

February 12, Inter-Press Service
Resistance to constitutional referendum builds up – Marwaan Macan-Markar

‘’This is the declaration of war by the military regime against the people
of Burma,’’ says Nilar Thein in a statement released Monday. They are
strong words from a woman on the run and forced into hiding for over five
months in the military-ruled country.

‘’We are ready to stand up to intimidation. We are ready to confront the
Burmese military junta and its violence and brutality,’’ continues the
statement by the 35-year-old pro-democracy activist. It was also signed by
two others, Tun Myint Aung and Soe Htun, who, like Nilar, are taking
refuge in a safehouse in Rangoon to avoid arrest by the junta.

It is a statement that carries significant political weight in a nation
that has been under the grip of successive military dictatorships for over
45 years. For the trio who issued it belong to the ‘88 Generation,’ a
highly respected group of former university student leaders who led a
pro-democracy uprising that was brutally crushed by the military in August
1988. Nilar and the others paid a heavy price for their political beliefs
after that. They were imprisoned for years in Burmese jails; nine years,
in the case of Nilar.

The ominous tone in the statement was the strongest reaction among Burmese
pro-democracy groups and opposition parties to a sudden announcement over
the weekend by the junta that it plans to conduct a referendum in May to
approve a new constitution. The State Peace and Development Council
(SPDC), as the junta is officially known, also announced plans to have
‘’multi-party democracy elections’’ in 2010.

‘’The upcoming constitutional referendum will be a major battle field
between the military regime, which wants to rule the country forever, and
the people of Burma, who want to be free from military rule,’’ warned the
two-page statement by the ‘88 Generation Students’. ‘’We urge the people
of Burma to reject the military junta’s sponsored constitution in the
upcoming referendum.’’

And the Burmese junta will not be able to take such words lightly, since
this group of former university students have demonstrated their capacity
-- even in the face of harsh restrictions -- to galvanise public support
challenging the junta. It was the ‘88 Generation that first took to the
streets to protest the 500 percent spike in oil prices in mid-August,
triggering a peaceful demonstration of thousands of Buddhist monks and
civilians in September, which was brutally crushed by the junta.

Such a repetition of force leading up to the May referendum may not be
easy, say analysts, since the regime is hoping to use the plebiscite as a
way of reducing the international pressure it is under following the
September crackdown. ‘’The statement shows how frustrated the people are,
and any attempt to silence this public anger will not help the junta,’’
says Win Min, a Burmese expert on national security at Payap University,
based in Thailand’s northern town of Chiang Mai. ‘’The junta needs to hold
the referendum to get the heat from the international community off its
back.’’

The strong words by the ‘88 Generation only confirm what the junta will be
up against in the coming weeks, a ‘’period of unease and tension,’’ he
added during an interview. ‘’The junta may have hoped otherwise, trying to
rush through the referendum before the opposition gets organised.’’

The junta’s quest to introduce the country’s third constitution is rooted
in an effort to marginalise the pro-democracy groups and to perpetuate the
power of the military. The process began in 1993, when the junta set up a
national convention to draft the constitution. That came after the
generals refused to recognise the results of a 1990 parliamentary
election, where the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) won 81
percent of the 485 seats up for grabs.

This 14-year exercise to draft the charter, which ended last year, was
marked by the harsh restrictions imposed on the over 1,000 members to the
convention who had been hand-picked by the junta. Notorious among them was
law No 5/96, which prohibited participants from criticising the draft of
the charter that had been written by the SPDC. Violators were threatened
with a 20-year prison term.

The NLD, led by Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, had refused to
participate under such threatening conditions. It also had reservations
about some key features of the constitution, one of which was a clause to
reserve 25 percent of all seats in the new parliament to military officers
appointed by the commander-in-chief.

The prospect of Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for 12 of the
past 18 years, emerging as the democratically elected leader of the
country during the proposed 2010 election is also remote. For the junta,
fearing her universal popularity, has a clause in the constitution that
forbids a Burmese married to a foreigner -- Suu Kyi was married to a
British academic, who died in 1999 -- from running for the post of
president.

‘’Even now, very few people know what the new constitution guarantees,
since the public have been denied access to the draft document in the same
way they were shut out from the national convention,’’ Zaw Min, spokesman
for the Democratic Party for a New Society, a political party banned by
the junta, told IPS. ‘’The climate today is worse than when Burma had its
last referendum in 1974 to approve our second constitution. There was a
little more openness then.’’

International support for such an oppressive political exercise will
further inflame feelings inside Burma, says Debbie Stothard of ALTSEAN, a
regional human rights lobby campaigning for political freedom in Burma.
‘’If the international community sits back and welcomes this referendum
without knowing how the constitution was drafted and the prevailing
restrictions, it will reinforce the feeling among the Burmese that they
have been let down again.’’

The ‘88 Generation’s warning to the junta is more than a hint of the rage
from a people who have had enough of the junta’s oppression and deception
to stay in power, she explained in an interview. ‘’This is a do or die
time for them.’’

____________________________________

February 12, Bangkok Post
Rethinking Beijing's Burma policy – Jason Qian & Anne Wu

As a political ally and key economic partner of Burma's military
government, China should not only continue to actively engage the Burma
junta, but also delicately reach out to opposition groups. In recent
years, China's use of peaceful diplomatic ''soft power'' has won it much
applause around the world. But one risk is that such applause at times
comes from the elites without a grassroots echo.

In dealing with a country like Burma, China should consider how its own
interests would be affected by a change in that neighbour's political
landscape.

China is cautiously taking initiatives to avoid potential setbacks. When
China's special envoy Wang Yi visited Burma last November, he urged the
government to resolve the political crisis through dialogue and to attain
political stability soon.

It was also reported that China maintains relations with several former
rebel groups that now have made peace with the government, and that China
is willing to listen to opposition groups.

These are encouraging signs that China is shifting its Burma policy to be
more flexible.

China should stay in the driver's seat amid international efforts to spur
change in Burma, using the United Nations at times as a forum to gauge
international concerns, to nurture positive cohesion, and to measure steps
to take.

No country chooses to have its domestic issues internationalised. But
Burma may accept UN intervention as a makeshift strategy to subdue
international criticism. There is a risk to China that if it lets other
countries take the initiative on Burma, it could end up being sandwiched
between Burma and other major powers.

China would want to avoid choosing sides in Burma, so as not to compromise
its holistic interests. A more effective route is to manage relations with
all to maximise common interest. To achieve this, the motto of ''there are
no permanent friends or enemies in international relations'' is the key.

China is seen as see-sawing. On the one hand, it insists on
non-interference in Burma's internal affairs. Last January, China used its
veto power _ for the fifth time in history _ to defeat a UN Security
Council resolution condemning Burma's human rights situation.

On the other hand, China helped facilitate two visits to Burma by Ibrahim
Gambari, special envoy of the UN secretary-general, after the crackdown
late last year on the monks' demonstration. Ironically, the latter
resulted from the former, because China's influence stems from its
credibility in making friends and refraining from pointing fingers at
other countries' domestic affairs.

A ''no-preaching'' style only increased China's influence.

A peaceful Burmese domestic situation and positive Sino-Burma relations
are important for China's strategic and economic interests. China and
Burma share a 2,100km border.

As in the case of North Korea, China does not want the problems of a
neighbour like Burma spilling over into its own territory. Burma is also
part of China's strategic configuration with other regional and
international players.

Economically, China has become Burma's second-largest trading partner, and
the two countries are collaborating on several major projects, including a
2,300km oil and gas pipeline that connects China's landlocked Yunnan
province to Burma's coast.

This pipeline will directly transport oil and gas from the Middle East and
Africa into China, therefore circumventing the problems of passing the
Malacca Strait. Such a strategic project is both a liability and an asset
as China tries to leverage Burma, given China's thirst for energy and
Burma's hunger for development.

Because of the inter-locking interests, China sees Burma as more a
problematic neighbour than a threat to international peace and security _
which explains China's aversion to UN Security Council actions.

But this also underlines the importance of a more proactive policy by
Beijing itself.

China's Burma policy is facing a bigger challenge with the approach of the
Olympic Games. China cannot afford another source of instability in its
foreign affairs.

Beijing should pursue an active diplomacy of ''intervening without
interfering'', and try to steer Burmese authorities toward greater
engagement with the opposition and the international community for the
purpose of national reconciliation.

Not the least of the advantages for China of such a policy is that it will
keep a door slightly open to future alternative prospects in Burma.

Jason Qian is a fellow at the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law
School. Anne Wu is an associate at the Belfer Centre for Science and
International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government.

____________________________________

February 12, Democratic Voice of Burma
Lawlessness, the stuff that binds in Burma – Basil Fernando

Last week, the Asian Human Rights Commission issued three appeals on cases
of concern from Burma which illustrate the “un-rule of law” that pervades
in the country.

The first described how Paing Hpyo Aung, a boy of less than 14, was
recruited into the armed forces. He was 15 when in 2005 a military
tribunal sentenced him to ten years for desertion.

He is still in jail in Arakan State, where he has just spent his 18th
birthday. His parents have died, but his aunty, who only learnt of his
fate recently through a former inmate, has appealed for his release.

The second revealed that Htun Htun Naing, a convicted gambler, was taken
from Insein Prison in June 2006 and sent to work as an army porter in
Karenni State.

At the end of the year a military officer came and told his family that he
had died from malaria.

They were not given death or medical certificates, but in January the next
year were sent a notice that they would be paid compensation for his
death: to the grand total of 7200 Kyat, which these days is worth less
than six US dollars. They have requested more, so far to no avail.

The third recounted the imprisonment of Khin Sanda Win, a young woman
detained after the protests of last September and accused of carrying
illegal arms.

Although she was released from the Kyaikkasan interrogation camp in
October after signing a pledge, she was rearrested in November and charged
with endangering human life.

Inexplicably, Judge U Thaung Lwin in the Kyauktada Township Court
initially granted bail at an amount far beyond what should have been set
then unilaterally retracted it.

Each of these cases falls into a different conventional category of human
rights discourse: child soldiers; forced labour; political prisoners. But
in fact, each is bound to the other by a common cause: the utter
lawlessness which pervades all aspects of Burma's judicial and political
administration.

Last December, a unique study took up this feature of life in Burma.
Describing the country as suffering from "political psychosis and legal
dementia", it approached lawlessness as the symptom of an administrative
and judicial system gone mad; a condition that impinges daily not only on
the lives of those persons that are the subjects of typical human rights
interventions and media interest, such as political leaders and prisoners
of conscience, but of all persons everywhere within its borders.

Yet despite the extent to which in Burma transactions and abuses alike are
characterised by what has been described as the "un-rule of law", this
hallmark attracts relatively little interest.

We know that the courts are not independent, but we don't properly
understand how. We know that the police are militarised and the fire
brigade has policing functions, but we have not sought to understand these
things in detail.

We know that all types of rights violations are linked to the lack of
avenues for complaint and redress yet we divide them into classes that
emphasise their differences rather than draw upon their similarities.

Neither Paing Hpyo Aung's aunty nor Htun Htun Naing's wife are known to
have received replies to their written requests for relief. Khin Sanda
Win's lawyer keeps pushing her bail petition from one court to the next
with a predictable lack of success. Whether struggling to deal with a
jailed boy, a dead husband or an irrational judge, the consequences are
the same.

Naturally, no one accepts such things happily. Out of sheer frustration
and necessity, people take to protest in even the most adverse
circumstances. Discontent wells up and spills out, as it did last year;
and as the causes for such dissatisfaction persist, so too will its
consequences.

Those who challenge abuse and protest wrongdoing will find the ways and
means to continue to do so, as they must. For the rest of us, the task is
to understand properly why it is that they must.

This depends first upon us acknowledging that widespread unease is born of
common grievances, and second, upon our ability to comprehend and further
the struggle for change not primarily in terms of discrete categories of
rights but in terms of their universality.

Basil Fernando is Executive Director of the Asian Human Rights Commission,
based in Hong Kong, China.

____________________________________
STATEMENTS / PRESS RELEASES

February 12, All Burma Monks’ Alliance
Rejection of the Burmese military junta’s announcement 1/2008 and 2/2008

(A) In 1974, then-dictator General Ne Win and his regime had redrawn the
1947 State Constitution and forced the people to endorse it. Therefore,
rule of the one-party dictatorship was stronger and the people of Burma
were poorer. Then Burma became the world least developing country (LCD).

(B) Under the one-party dictatorship, national economy had been
deteriorated and as general population were not able to tolerate the
situation, they came to the streets to launch the 1988 popular democracy
uprising.

(C) After the current military regime took over power from the previous
regime, it held the multi-party generations in 1990. As this military
regime fails to keep its own promise that it would hand over the power to
the election winning party in 1990, we believe that its recent
announcement of schedule to hold a general election in 2010 is not
necessary.

(D) As did by the previous dictator Ne Win, planning to hold the
referendum without respecting the real desire of the people of Burma is
another insult to the people and will worsen the situation of the country.

(E) Current situation of the people of Burma under the social, economic
and political crises as well as severe oppression, imprisonment, torture
and killing by the regime is mush worse than before 1988.

(F) We believe that a tripartite dialogue between the election winning
party National League for Democracy, the military regime and ethnic
representatives will be the only way to solve the national crises and lead
the country towards to democracy.

(G) As per above-mentioned facts, we denounce the military regime’s
announcement 1/2008 and 2/2008 as these statements are unable to realize
the real desire of the people and just intend to perpetuate the military
dictatorship.

(H) We, All Burma Monks’ Alliance (ABMA), announce that we, along with all
democracy forces and grassroots people, will continue our struggle to help
the people of Burma to be free from general difficulties.

____________________________________

February 12, Ethnic Youths' Network Group (Myanmar)
Announcement of the 61st anniversary of Union Day

(1) 61 years ago, on 12 February 1947, General Aung San and ethnic
national leaders signed on the historic "Pinglon Treaty" and consequently
the Union of Burma was established beginning from 4 January 1948.

(2) Major essence of the Union, political equality and self determination,
are not realized yet in practice and actually lost under the rule of
current military dictatorship.

(3) According to the constitution, which will be the third in Burma and is
drawn and proposed by the military regime, we are now facing the trouble
of losing not only rights of ethnic nationalities but also democratic
rights.

(4) After 61 years when General Aung San bravely promised to promote the
ethnic nationalities' rights in 1947, His daughter Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
courageously and clearly assured to give constant and serious
considerations to the interests and opinions of our ethnic nationality
races. We are encouraged by her assurance and we hope to regain the rights
we have been missing for many years soon.

(5) As we consistently believe that the true Union should be with equality
among all ethnic nationalities and self-determination, we announce that we
will not bow to the military dictatorship who is trying to rule the
country forever.

____________________________________

February 12, The 88 Generation Students (Myanmar)
Statement of Union Day

Today marks the 61st anniversary of the Panglong Agreement, which was
signed without any discrimination between the central government and
ethnic frontiers, and with union spirit. However, the essence and meaning
of the Union has been deteriorating so far.

Under the military dictatorship not only the ethnic rights, but for basic
rights of all citizens have been brazenly violated.

The true Union should not be even a dream under the military dominated
rules. Only with the state government and the national constitution which
respect and guarantee for human rights and democracy, the union principles
such as equality, self determination and ethnic minority rights can be
realized and existed.

With the common interest of Anti-Colonialism and National Independence,
Gen Aung San and ethnic leaders could get the national solidarity. With
this effort, Burma gained national independence from colonial rules.

Currently, all ethnic nationalities of the Union are fully responsible to
overcome the general crisis what all nationalities are now facing and to
bring the democracy, human rights and to emerge a genuine Union.

It is important to bring genuine peace and long-term interest of all
nationalities rather than the short-term remedies/opportunities. So, the
best and only way to solve all problems is Triple-type dialogue amongst
the military government/SPDC, democracy groups and ethnic forces. But, the
SPDC is forcibly moving on the path of their own political road map
without any consent of other groups.

Therefore, with the historical lesson of Union leaders in national
independence movement, we sincerely and respectfully urged our ethnic
nationalities to work together with democracy groups led by Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi for anti-military dictatorship, national freedom and bringing the
genuine Union, while we all should avoid both the chauvinism and
narrow-minded nationalism.