BurmaNet News, March 20, 2008

[Editor]

March 20, 2008 Issue # 3426

INSIDE BURMA
Irrawaddy: Referendum: “no” vote gaining momentum
Irrawaddy: Referendum sub-commissions formed by local authorities
DVB: ILO to discuss forced labour in Burma
DVB: New group formed to oppose referendum
Mizzima News: Veteran Burmese writer banned from writing again
Mizzima News: Junta approves FM station for Mandalay

BUSINESS / TRADE
Mizzima News: Burma urged to legalize exiled trade union
Xinhua via COMTEX: Roundup: Myanmar strengthens cooperation with GMS
member countries

REGIONAL
VietNamNet: Nation supports UN role, respects Myanmar sovereignty

INTERNATIONAL
Time Magazine: Envoy disappointed with Burma trip

OPINION / OTHER
Irrawaddy: Burmese friends of Thailand
Human Rights Watch via Guardian Unlimited: Off the radar
UPI Asia: Burma's rocky roads
Shan Herald Agency for News: Policy Paper: Vote “no,” we will win

STATEMENT
Members of the Committee Representing the People’s Parliament (CRPP)

____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

March 20, Irrawaddy
Referendum: “no” vote gaining momentum – Saw Yan Naing

A vote “No” movement is gaining momentum throughout Burma as the May
referendum date—still yet to be announced—draws near.

Various activists and citizens in Rangoon, Mandalay and Kachin and Arakan
states are urging the public to take a stand against the military-crafted
draft constitution, which has still not been made public.

Protesters stage a die-in to depict the alleged political situation and
the plight of political prisoners in Burma on March 13 in front of the
Burmese Embassy in Manila. (Photo:AP)
The military regime announced on February 9 it would hold a national
referendum on the draft constitution in May and a multi-party election in
2010.

Public reaction to the referendum has been colored by the 2007 uprising,
in which the UN said at least 31 protesters including monks were killed by
security forces.

Nyi Nyi, a businessman in Sittwe in Arakan State, said, “There is no
reason to support the junta. I will not vote “Yes” in the referendum
because there is no justice.”

A resident in Mandalay, the second largest city, predicted that almost all
Mandalay citizens would vote “No” in the referendum.

“It’s not because they don’t understand the constitution,” he said, “but
because they dislike the military regime.”

Even government staffers are saying they will vote ‘No,’” he said.

An elderly housewife in Sittwe was coy when asked by The Irrawaddy how she
would vote. “I’ve decided to vote, but it is early to tell,” she said.
“Let’s see when we vote. You will realize what I mean.”

In Myitkyina, many residents told The Irrawaddy that they would vote “No,”
while others said they would boycott the referendum.

Ma Brang said, “I will vote ‘No.’ Many people—almost all—in Myitkyina
think like me.”

Another Myitkyina resident said, “I will not vote in the referendum. If
authorities try to talk to me, I’m ready to complain to them.”

He said the constitution process was a “fake” and it failed to guarantee
the rights of ethnic groups in Burma. The constitution will only guarantee
that the junta is able to hold on to power, he said.

A Rangoon resident told The Irrawaddy that most of his friends are
prepared to vote “No” while others they will boycott the referendum.

“For me, I will not support the referendum for sure. I’m deciding whether
to vote “No” or not to vote.”

Meanwhile, Burmese activists in Rangoon have launched new anti-government
campaigns against the national referendum, urging people to boycott the
referendum.

Activists have also distributed VCDs filled with jokes aimed at the
junta’s referendum by the well-known a-nyeint comedy troupe, Thee Lay Thee
& Say Young Sone.

Meanwhile, the Burmese regime has launched its own publicity campaigns in
support of a “Yes” vote on the referendum.

In early March, local authorities in Rangoon, including the Township Peace
and Development Council and the Ward Peace and Development Council, were
ordered to lobby residents to vote “Yes” by the chairman of the Rangoon
division of the Peace and Development Council, Brig-Gen Hla Htay Win, and
Home Minister Maung Oo, according to sources in the former capital.

Local authorities in Rangoon and other regions, especially in ethnic
states, have also offered temporary citizen identification cards to adults
while urging them to vote “Yes,” sources said.

Some residents who have openly spoken out against the referendum have been
threatened by authorities, sources told The Irrawaddy.

The regime recently enacted a new law that calls for up to three years
imprisonment and a 100,000 kyat (US $91) fine for anyone convicted of
making anti-government statements or distributing posters opposing the
referendum. The law also bans monks and nuns from voting.

Despite the restrictions, a Burmese migrant worker in Singapore, who asked
for anonymity, said, “I will vote in the referendum because if I don’t
vote, I will loose my vote. But I will vote “No.”

Meanwhile, the All Burma Monks Alliance released a statement this week
calling on all citizens and Buddhist monks to remember the September 2007
crackdown and to boycott the May referendum and the state-run religious
examinations to be held this month.

____________________________________

March 20, Irrawaddy
Referendum sub-commissions formed by local authorities – Wai Moe

Burma’s military government has organized township sub-commissions to
prepare for the referendum on the constitution in May, staffed mainly with
officials from the townships’ ruling councils and regime supporters, USDA
sources say.

The junta did not include executive members of its mass organization, the
Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), on the local
sub-commissions.

USDA sources told The Irrawaddy on Thursday that local authorities formed
sub-commissions recently made up of the head of each Township Peace and
Development Council and Village Peace and Development Council. Officials
of township administrations will serve as secretaries of sub-commissions
across the country.

Sources said USDA executive members from townships were told by
authorities they would not be named to the sub-commissions, but regular
USDA members would be appointed instead.

Officials from immigration offices and other government services would
also be included on the sub-commissions, a source close to the USDA said.

Authorities have still not released any detailed information about the May
referendum voting process to sub-commission members, said the source.

The regime’s main referendum commission is chaired by Aung Toe, the chief
of justice and head of the constitution drafting committee.

According to a news report in the state-run Myanma Alin on Thursday, a
central secretary of the USDA, Brig-Gen Kyaw Hsan, who is also the
information minister, met with members of the USDA from Mingalar Thaung
Nyunt Township in Rangoon.

The election commission and sub-commissions appointed during the 1990
nationwide election included local residents and ordinary citizens. Local
observers say the current sub-commissions do not represent a cross-section
of the public.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Special Envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari,
briefed the UN Security Council on March 18 on his latest trip to Burma. 
He expressed disappointment in the outcome but vowed to keep the crisis on
the Security Council’s agenda.

“Whereas each of my previous visits produced some results that could be
built upon, it is a source of disappointment that this latest visit did
not yield any immediate tangible outcome,” Gambari told the 15-member
council.

The UN’s proposals for Burma included an inclusive national reconciliation
process with UN involvement; genuine dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi; and
measures to address political, human rights, economic and humanitarian
issues. The ruling junta snubbed the UN proposals during Gambari’s visit.

The US Ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, told reporters, “We are
disappointed by the lack of any concrete achievement.” Gambari’s visited
to the Southeast Asian country from March 6 to 10.

_____________________________________

March 20, Democratic Voice of Burma
ILO to discuss forced labour in Burma – Htet Aung Kyaw

The International Labour Organisation will hold a forum on Burma tomorrow
at its Geneva headquarters to discuss forced labour issues and the
extended agreement with the Burmese regime to stop the practice.

Kari Tapiola, executive director of the ILO Standards and Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work Sector, said the meeting would focus on
three main topics.

“One of them is of course the extension of the trial period [of ILO
cooperation with the government], which we are reporting and explaining
that during the next year, issues like education, information and
publication should take place and we should be able to extend our
activities,” he said.

Tapiola said the forum would also look at people in detention and the need
for the Burmese government to make a clear political commitment to stop
using forced labour.

He also mentioned the case of U Thet Wei, the National League for
Democracy chairperson in San Chaung township who was arrested for
possession of reports on forced labour to be passed to the ILO.

“The case of Thet Wei was provisionally solved. We trust that the
government will honour its commitments and will not harass him any more,”
he said.

Steve Marshall, the ILO liaison officer in Rangoon, said that the ILO’s
agreement with the Burmese regime gives him the right to investigate the
complaints he receives.

“The understanding gives people the right to complain. It also makes
provision that people exercising that right to complain have got
protection from harassment,” he said.

“It also gives me the right, on receiving a complaint, to travel around
the country as required, to assess those complaints, to decide whether
they are actually a justifiable complaint which I should then raise with
the government.”

Marshall stressed the need for people to report forced labour complaints
to the ILO so that he could begin to take action.

“Now the critical issue is that people understand they have the right to
complain, and the protection under this agreement to complain,” he
explained.

“But the first point is that somebody must actually make a complaint to
us. Then I have the authority to assess that complaint and take it further
on their behalf.”

____________________________________

March 20, Democratic Voice of Burma
New group formed to oppose referendum – Naw Say Phaw

A statement from a group called the People’s Movement Committee (National
League for Democracy) said the group would lead people’s movements across
Burma to fight against the military dictatorship.


The statement said the PMC-NLD was formed in response to the military
government’s failure to honour the promises they made to the Burmese
people when they seized power in 1988 by ignoring the results of the 1990
elections.

“The SPDC government has completely failed to comply with the
international community’s efforts to solve problems in Burma, abusing the
power they hold and announcing plans for a sham national referendum,” the
statement said.

“
The PMC-NLD vows to lead people's movements across Burma to fight
against the military dictatorship, for a development of democracy and to
achieve a tripartite dialogue on discussion of the results of the 1990
elections.”

The PMC-NLD is not known to be linked with the official NLD party, but
does share some members.

Ko Khin Htun, youth coordinator of the NLD (Lower Burma) said that he was
not involved with the group.

"I heard about the statement but am not going to claim any responsibility
for it," he said.

Khin Htun said there were some NLD youth members and township level
organising committee members involved in the new group but that he did not
want to comment on other people doing what they believed was right.

"But I assume this might bring us some unnecessary attention from the
government authorities," he said.

U Aye Thar Aung, secretary of the Committee Representing the People’s
Parliament, said he did not know much about the group, but shared their
aims.

“We heard about the forming of the NLD People’s Movement Committee but we
don’t know the details yet,” he said.

“But I would say we don’t intend to make any arguments about it since they
have said they are against the national referendum, which is the same as
our opinion.”

____________________________________

March 20, Mizzima News
Veteran Burmese writer banned from writing again – Nem Davies

The infamous Burmese censors are at work again and have banned veteran
Burmese writer Ludu Sein Win from publishing his works. The writer who has
faced several bans in the past has once again been targeted.

Ludu Sein Win, who has been critical of the Burmese military junta, was
banned from publishing his articles in two of Rangoon's Weeklies –
'Akhwint Alan Journal' and 'Weekly Eleven Journal' – sources in the
Burmese literary community said.

The authorities might have targeted him for his recently circulated audio
file in which he spoke critically of the ruling junta, the sources said.

"That is the most likely reason for banning his works. His articles were
not included in both the journals. But Saya [Ludu Sein Win] did not say
anything about it," an editor of a local journal told Mizzima.

In early March, Ludu Sein Win, in his letter to revolutionary comrades,
said there are no dictators who abandon power by themselves and urged the
people to uproot the legacy of military rule in Burma.

While the Burmese censorship board has not sent a notice to Ludu Sein Win
banning his articles, Ludu Sein Win said that he is unshaken by the
junta's acts, sources in the literary community said.

Many literary figures in Burma express their gratitude and respect for
Ludu Sein Win, who is known for his outstanding works as well as
commitment to adhere to the truth.

"Saya always stands for truth. We in the literary circle praise him and
admire him for his work and his stance. We support his stand because he is
always so upright," a Burmese writer, who wished not to be named, told
Mizzima.

In a similar instance, Ludu Sein Win was banned from publishing his
writings for a month for contributing an article, titled 'The Burmese
People Can't Wait Much Longer', to the International Herald Tribune, in
May 2006.

____________________________________

March 20, Mizzima News
Junta approves FM station for Mandalay – Solomon and Than Htike Oo

Burma's ruling junta has granted a rare permission to operate a
Mandalay-based radio program to Forever Group, a business consortium
thought to be closely aligned with Burma's generals.

Forever Group, one of Burma's few multi-media companies and widely
believed to have close connections with the junta's Information Minister
Brigadier General Kyaw Hsan, will commence production on April 3, a staff
from the company said.

The source added that Forever Group will head the business interest, which
is a joint venture between the company and the Mandalay City Development
Committee (MCDC).

In Burma, with the junta keeping tight control over media operations, only
a few companies, who maintain close relations with the ruling generals,
enjoy the opportunity to operate.

Forever Group, which launched the television channel MRTV – 4 in 2005 in
collaboration with Myanmar TV, is widely rumored to be owned by the son of
the junta's Information Minister.

However the company source denied the rumor, saying, "Most of the company
shares are owned by a private businessman named Win Maw."

Meanwhile, a Rangoon-based journalist said that Dr. Tin Tun Oo is also one
of several other businessmen holding shares of Forever Group.

Dr. Tin Tun Oo additionally holds a stake in one of Burma's leading
English weeklies, The Myanmar Times, which is run by Australian
businessman Ross Dunkley, who in turn obtained his publishing license
through former partner Sonny Swe.

Sonny Swe was stripped of his license when he was arrested in 2004 along
with his father, then Burmese Prime Minister and Intelligence Chief Khin
Nyunt.

While it is unclear what, if any, involvement Kyaw Hsan's son has with
Forever Group, Rangoon-based journalists say it is likely that the Burmese
Information Minister's son maintains a stake in the group.

"Forever and Kyaw Hsan maintain a very cozy relationship, so it is
possible that the Minister might have a stake in the company," a
Rangoon-based journalist, who wished to remain anonymous, told Mizzima.

Mandalay City FM, which follows Yangon City FM as the country's second FM
station, will begin airing a daily program on April 17 on the frequency
91.9MHz.

Forever Group, established in 1995, is involved in a number of government
multi-media projects, including the building and maintaining of the MRTV-3
website.

Additionally, Forever Group offers computer training courses in both
Rangoon and Mandalay.

The company source said the new FM station will mainly broadcast
entertainment and music programs, with a range extending at least 50 miles
beyond Mandalay city.

____________________________________
BUSINESS / TRADE

March 20, Mizzima News
Burma urged to legalize exiled trade union

An arm of the International Labor Organization (ILO) has arrived at a
verdict in favor of detained rights activists aligned with the outlawed
Federal Trade Union of Burma (FTUB).

The ILO's Committee on Freedom and Association, on Wednesday, reached a
decision against the incarceration of six human and trade rights activists
associated with the FTUB and arrested last year.

According to the case brought before the ILO, the six were arrested, and
subsequently sentenced to over 20 years incarceration, for their part in
assisting in celebrations and speeches for last year's International Labor
Day on May 1. The festivities were arranged to take place at the American
Center in Rangoon.

The Committee, noting that Burma is a signatory to the 1948 Convention
(No. 87) on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to
Organise, concluded that no Burmese citizen should suffer hardship at the
hands of officials "for exercising his or her rights to freedom of
association, opinion and expression."

Drawing attention to "the total absence of a legislative framework and
climate sufficient to enable trade unions to exist in Myanmar," the
working group also determined that it is essential that the Burmese
government permit the involvement of exile organizations in the process,
inclusive of the FTUB.

Attention was further drawn to the ILO's position that the Burmese
government has repeatedly failed to honor its international commitments
under Convention No. 87.

Consequently, the Committee's recommendations are that all six detainees
should be immediately released, the FTUB recognized as a legal body and
that the authorities make a committed effort to recognize the people's
right to public association.

On its side, the Burmese government argues that those arrested were
detained as a result of their having illegally left and re-entered the
country, the arrests having nothing to do with May Day or workers rights.

Specifically, the six in question are charged with membership in a
terrorist group, FTUB. The junta accuses the FTUB of financially
supporting and partaking in terrorist acts inside Burma.

According to the government, "the defendants received monetary support
from illegal associations such as the NLD(LA) [National League for
Democracy – Liberated Areas] and the FTUB, arranged and facilitated the
dissemination of information about these associations to workers in
Myanmar and acted in defaming the Government in the course of these
activities."

Though the government maintains the arrests were not related to trade
union rights, the government's response to the ILO inquiry inferred that
since the six were neither factory workers nor in fact employed anywhere,
they could not be expected to accurately represent the desires of true
workers and to speak on their behalf.
The FTUB, which maintains an office in the United States, states its
objectives as the restoration of democracy and human and trade union
rights in Burma, in addition to the goal of equal distribution of wealth.

____________________________________

March 20, Xinhua via COMTEX
Roundup: Myanmar strengthens cooperation with GMS member countries

Myanmar, a member of the six- country Greater Mekong Subregion
(GMS)-Economic Cooperation, has worked for closer economic ties together
with other members of the grouping by taking part in the implementation of
the GMS program.

Myanmar Prime Minister General Thein Sein is due to attend a two-day Third
GMS Summit scheduled for March 30-31 in Vientiane, Laos. Together with
other heads of government, Thein Sein is expected to consult sharing of
efforts in boosting economic cooperation among the GMS member countries.

Initiated by the Asian Development Bank, the GMS-Economic Cooperation was
founded in 1992 to bring together China, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand
and Vietnam along the Mekong river.

Since then, Myanmar has joined in signing several GMS agreements, under
which the six participating countries have prioritized some 100 projects
in eight sectors including investment, trade, transport, tourism,
telecommunications, energy, environment and human resources development.

Covered by the Mekong project in the transport sector, Myanmar has built
some major roads in its border areas such as Lashio-Muse road,
Lashio-Hsipaw-Loilem-Kengtung road, and Tachilek-Kengtung- Mongla road.

Aimed at developing the international passenger and cargo transportation,
trade and tourism on the Lancang-Mekong river, Myanmar joined three other
countries located in the upper reaches of the Mekong river -- China, Laos
and Thailand, in signing a commercial navigation agreement in April 2000
in Myanmar's Tachilek.

Under the agreement, which provides for vessels of any signatory country
to sail freely between Simao in China and Luangprabang in Laos. Myanmar
opened two ports along with three other signatories for the move. The
Lancang-Mekong international waterway was officially opened to commercial
navigation in June 2001.

As part of its bid to boost arrivals of world tourists and those from the
third countries visiting the two border areas, Myanmar had the Wan Pon
port checkpoint in Tachilek upgraded in January 2007 along with the Ban
Muang Mom checkpoint from the Lao side to meet international standard.

With regard to cross-border transportation, Myanmar also joined five other
GMS nations in signing an agreement and a protocol in April 2004 in Phnom
Penh.

Moreover, Myanmar has been engaged in a plan to build a bridge crossing
the Mekong River to link Laos. The bridge, which will be the first
connecting the two countries, is projected near Kengkoke on the
Myanmar-Lao border linking with the R-3 road section connecting Thailand's
Chiangmai and China's Kunming.

Similar to the R-3 section, the R-4 section connecting Kunming and
Myanmar's Lashio and Kengtung provides access for the GMS countries to
cross into Myanmar.

____________________________________
REGIONAL

March 20, VietNamNet
Nation supports UN role, respects Myanmar sovereignty

A Vietnamese representative to the United Nations said on March 18 the
country supports the UN’s role in resolving the Myanmar issue and respects
Myanmar’s independence and sovereignty.

Ambassador Le Luong Minh, Permanent Representative of Vietnam to the
Security Council, made the statement at a council meeting where Ibraham
Gambari, Special Myanmar Adviser to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,
reported his March 6-10 visit to the country.

The ambassador applauded the Myanmar Government for facilitating the
meeting between special adviser Gambari and opposition leader Aung San Suu
Kyi, and committing to keep a channel of communication between the
government and Suu Kyi as well as a dialogue mechanism between Myanmar and
the UN.

He cited Myanmar's seven-step Road Map toward democracy, its announcement
to hold a national referendum on the country's constitution in May 2008
and a general election in 2010 as positive progress in the country.

Minh said Vietnam advocates efforts to promote dialogue between all sides
in Myanmar toward national reconciliation.

He affirmed that Vietnam will continue to contribute to efforts to resolve
the Myanmar issue that supports the UN’s intermediation role, particularly
the role held by special adviser Gambari, and respecting Myanmar’s
independence and sovereignty.

____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

March 20, Time Magazine
Envoy disappointed with Burma trip – Edith M. Lederer

Ibrahim Gambari was rebuffed when he suggested that the military junta
amend its "roadmap to democracy" to include input from the country's
pro-democracy movement and other political parties.

The junta also rejected a U.N. role in its referendum in May on a new
constitution, which is to be followed by a general election in 2010, key
steps in the seven-point roadmap.

Gambari told the U.N. Security Council that his five-day visit did provide
an opportunity to prod the government to engage the opposition to move
forward toward "a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Burma with full respect
for the human rights of its people."

But during Gambari's visit, which ended on March 10, the junta again
rebuffed his efforts to meet with its chairman, Senior Gen. Than Shwe —
just as it did during his last visit in November. The U.N. had described a
meeting with Than Shwe as one of the main goals of his visit.

While Gambari met twice with detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu
Kyi, the military rulers turned down U.N. suggestions that they free
political prisoners including Suu Kyi and accelerate a dialogue with her
to foster political reconciliation. The Nobel Peace Prize winner has been
detained for 12 of the past 18 years.

Burma has been ruled by the military since 1962. The current junta seized
power in 1988 and refused to honor the results of a 1990 general election
won by Suu Kyi's party.

Gambari expressed regret that he was not able to meet Burma's senior
leadership, the 88 Generation Students group whose street protests ignited
last year's massive pro-democracy demonstrations that were put down by the
army in September, representatives of ethnic minorities and the 1990s
MPs-elect.

"Moreover, whereas each of my previous visits produced some result that
could be built upon, it is a source of disappointment that this latest
visit did not yield any immediate tangible outcome," Gambari said.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad expressed disappointment at "the lack of
any concrete achievement" during Gambari's visit.

He called the constitutional process and referendum seriously flawed —
stressing that the draft constitution hasn't been circulated and can't be
debated because of laws that prohibit the right to assembly.

While the text has not been made public, the guidelines on which the
constitution is based were drawn up by a convention established by the
military and include clauses that would bar Suu Kyi from public office and
perpetuate the army's leading role in politics.

Khalilzad said the United States plans to introduce a new draft statement
to the council "based on our concerns and the lack of progress with regard
to the key issues," including the upcoming referendum.

Burma's U.N. Ambassador U Kyaw Tint Swe told the council that "no Security
Council action is warranted with regard to Burma."

Expressing admiration for Gambari, he insisted the National Convention
that laid down the principles for the constitution was "inclusive" — with
635 delegates from ethnic nationalities, representatives of political
parties, and 17 insurgent groups "that have returned to the legal fold."

The government, he added, "has come a long way and has made significant
strides in our seven-step political roadmap."

Swe said he was "gratified that many of our neighbors, who see the
situation as it really is, acknowledged the progress made in this recent
visit."

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya, whose country has close ties to
Burma, said "I think real progress is being made and many council members
argue that it is not up to the council to dictate to other people whether
they should have an election or referendum..."

"Definitely, the seven-stage proposal from the authorities represents a
good progress," Wang said. "But it is not perfect. It can be improved. So,
definitely, I think we all want a more inclusive process."

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

March 20, Irrawaddy
Burmese friends of Thailand – Aung Zaw

Newly elected Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej’s kind words on Burma’s
leaders drew mixed reactions from people in the military-ruled country.
While the generals in Naypyidaw were undoubtedly delighted to hear their
own words coming out of Samak’s mouth, most other Burmese were appalled by
his ignorant assessment of the personal virtues of their nation’s brutal
rulers.

Samak’s take on the endearing qualities of his hosts during his recent
visit to Burma didn’t play very well at home, either. An editorial in the
Bangkok-based English-language daily, The Nation, described Samak’s
comments as evidence of “Thailand’s naiveté and its leader’s foul mouth.”

While Thais may be queasy about Samak’s fulsome praise of Burma’s ruling
generals, Burmese taking refuge in Thailand have the greatest cause for
uneasiness. The sweet deals that Samak brought back from Naypyidaw no
doubt spell trouble for Burmese exiles and non-governmental organizations
working on Burma issues on Thai soil.

Thailand’s relations with Burma since the current regime seized power in
1988 have often cast the Kingdom in an unflattering light. The blood on
the streets of Rangoon had hardly had a chance to dry before Bangkok was
arranging high-level visits to cement a new relationship based on economic
cooperation with the Burmese junta.


>From the time of late Prime Minister Chatchai Choonhavan to the current

Thai government, Bangkok has pursued a policy of “constructive engagement”
with Burma. Only during the two terms of former Prime Minister Chuan
Leekpai has Thailand’s Burma policy been guided by principles other than
economic self-interest.

In 1993, the Chuan government allowed Nobel Peace Laureates, including
Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, to visit Thailand to lobby for
the release of detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and to
highlight the need for democracy in Burma. The regime in Rangoon was
furious and the relationship was strained.

During his second term from 1997 to 2001, Chuan took an even tougher
stance toward the generals in Burma. He declined to pay an official visit
to Burma and he put Thailand’s defense in the hands of then-Army Chief Gen
Surayud Chulanont and then-Third Army Commander Lt-Gen Watanachai
Chaimuenwong—two hawks who looked askance at their neighbors to the west.
Gen Surayud was also known to be sympathetic to Burma’s ethnic minorities.

As a result, troops from both sides amassed on the border, leading to
serious skirmishes and repeated border closures. Relations were then at
their lowest ebb.

All this changed when Thaksin Shinawatra became the Thai prime minister in
2001. The billionaire premier quickly restored a business-based approach
to relations with Rangoon. But the “win-win” relationship between Thaksin
and the Burmese generals produced many losers. Burmese living along the
border and in the Kingdom came under intense pressure. Several NGOs and
activist groups were forced to close their offices, either temporarily or
permanently.

In March 2005, Human Rights Watch Asia released a statement which noted
that “Since Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra took office in 2001, the
Thai government has put the improvement of business and political
relations with Burma’s State Peace and Development Council at the top of
its agenda at the expense of individual rights.”

After Thaksin was deposed by a military coup in October 2006, relations
with Burma were put on the back burner. Surayud Chulanont returned to a
position of influence, this time as Thailand’s interim leader, and Bangkok
kept its distance from Burma. Surayud condemned the regime’s bloody
crackdown on Buddhist monks and activists last September. He also called
for a concerted international process to deal with Burma, modeled on the
six-party talks which successfully persuaded North Korea to abandon its
nuclear weapons program.

Ironically, Surayud—who came to power through a military takeover—has
taken a stronger interest in Burma’s national reconciliation process and
transition to democracy than his democratically elected successor, Samak.

While government-to-government relations between Thailand and Burma have
tended to seesaw over the past two decades, other relationships have
formed between people of these two countries which have only grown
stronger over time. Burmese and ethnic people from Burma have made many
Thai friends, including government officials, NGOs, civil society groups
and opposition parties.

Burmese dissidents also have many powerful friends in other countries,
including the United States. These influential connections also have a
bearing on Thai-Burmese relations. For example, US Congressman Mitch
McConnell and Republican presidential hopeful John McCain have both issued
statements urging Thai authorities to stop harassing Burmese groups
whenever they faced an imminent crackdown in Thailand.
Thailand also has many friends in Burma, who would welcome an opportunity
to enter into a normal relationship with their neighbor. But these friends
are not the generals who made such a favorable impression on Samak during
his one-day trip to Naypyidaw.

Thailand’s real friends in Burma are the dissidents locked up in prisons,
hiding in the jungle or fleeing the latest crackdown. These are the people
who can foresee the day when Thailand and Burma will embrace each other as
equals, as neighbors who can relate to each other as one democracy to
another.

____________________________________

March 20, Human Rights Watch via Guardian Unlimited
Off the radar – Steve Crawshaw

None of this should have been a surprise. The Burmese generals sent
Ibrahim Gambari away empty-handed. The military rulers treated Gambari,
special envoy to Burma and under secretary general of the UN, with
unconcealed contempt.

Gambari - who is due to report back to the security council in the next
few days - was not allowed to meet General Than Shwe or other senior
leaders when he visited Burma this month. He met with opposition leader
Aung San Suu Kyi, in a (presumably bugged) government guest house. But the
regime refused to make any of the concessions that Gambari asked for,
including international observers and technical support for the May
referendum on the generals' draft constitution aimed at cementing their
hold on power. Instead, they described the ultra-cautious Gambari as
"biased".

The question now is: will the world finally wake up to the dangerous games
which the Burmese generals like to play? Right now, there is depressingly
little sign of that.

For a few brief moments, while gunfire echoed around Rangoon last
September, world leaders sat up and took notice - just as the lethal
violence in Lhasa in recent days has forced politicians partly to
acknowledge the human rights nightmare of Tibet for the first time in many
years. In response to the Burmese crackdown, there was outspoken criticism
of a government which was (again) murdering its citizens on its streets.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, declared his abhorrence, the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations expressed "revulsion", and even the
UN security council, after much grinding of diplomatic teeth, agreed to
"strongly deplore" the killing.

Once the immediate violence was off the television screens, however,
things went back to business as usual. Than Shwe and his fellow generals
made a few symbolic concessions - including perfunctory meetings with Aung
San Suu Kyi and allowing Gambari into the country. Key governments, such
as China and India, began to insist that things were now on the right
track, and that further pressure would be inappropriate. Little has
happened since, as Burma quickly faded from the international agenda.

Burma is a country which yearns for things to be different. In the past 30
years, I have lived and worked in many countries where the secret police
hold sway. Never, however, have I seen the combined fear and astonishing
defiance that one encounters in Burma. The mass protests led by monks last
year gave voice to that defiance. The courage of ordinary Burmese people
deserves support and pressure on the regime - including, for example,
targeted measures such as banking sanctions and travel bans on the
leadership.

Now Burma's ruling generals are hoping to divert attention by laying out
an alleged roadmap to democracy, including the announcement of a
referendum on a draft constitution in May followed by elections in 2010.
But what meaning can a referendum have when public debate is prohibited
and a casual word of criticism can land you a long prison sentence?

How can the will of the people be known when much of the political
opposition, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the charismatic, Nobel
prize-winning leader of the National League for Democracy, is in prison or
under house arrest? How can a vote be held on a constitution for all of
Burma's people when members of many ethnic groups are excluded from the
process? How can a vote take place without an electoral roll, a census, or
an independent election commission?

The generals also want to make people forget how little regard they have
for human life. Burma remains among the worst violators of the
international prohibition against child soldiers. In the border areas
where armed conflict with ethnic groups continues, the army commits
widespread summary executions and rapes and uses forced labour.

Outside armed conflict areas, the situation also remains bleak. An unknown
number remain in detention following the brutal suppression of last year's
pro-democracy protests. Torture is widespread. Last month two more
journalists were arrested and held without charge for collecting
information about the international response to last year's crackdown. The
sad irony is that the international response of late has
been: not much.

The Beijing Olympics begin on August 8 2008, 20 years to the day after
mass demonstrations in Burma led to the slaughter of thousands. China has
enormous commercial and political clout in Burma, but is determined not to
use that influence to benefit the Burmese people. China helped Gambari
gain a visa to get back into Burma, but, as we saw again in recent days,
that tiny step changes little or nothing on the ground.

China seems determined to allow the generals a free pass, even though the
underlying instability caused by the continuing repression does China
little good. Anti-Chinese sentiment inside Burma is running high, partly
because of a perception that China is turning a blind eye to the generals'
crimes.

South Africa, a current security council member, lards its speeches on
Burma with implausible words like "optimistic", "progress", "encouraging"
and "significant impact." Meanwhile, the 14-government "group of friends",
which Ban Ki-moon set up, has met just twice to "review developments" to
little obvious effect.

The way forward is not a sham referendum, but a substantive dialogue with
the political opposition and ethnic groups, the release of an estimated
1,800 political prisoners, a free press, and room for ordinary people to
meet and talk freely. The population needs an end to fear and violence.

Burma stands at a turning point: 2008 could be the year of change for the
better. But that will not happen unless powerful players - at the security
council and in the region - make clear that the time for waiting is over.
After decades of repressive rule, the Burmese people deserve no less.

____________________________________

March 20, UPI Asia
Burma's rocky roads – Awzar Thi

The latest report of a United Nations independent expert has rightly
inferred that the deepening poverty of millions is the most endemic human
rights abuse in Burma today.

The report, by Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, notes that even government figures
reveal that citizens spend around 73 percent of their disposable incomes
on food alone, while international agencies estimate that one child in
three aged under five is malnourished.
The preponderant cause of this misery is the government itself.
Pinheiro observes that, for instance, the confiscating of land is often
followed by new big projects which in turn bring more suffering. He points
to seven new hydroelectric schemes in the north that have been accompanied
by military demands for labor, money and goods from people living in their
vicinity, to say nothing of the environmental damage caused.

All of this is very far removed from the unceasing images in state-run
media of generals standing resolutely above new dams, cutting ribbons at
the entrances of schools, and strolling over carpets of petals strewn by
maidens across big bridges. In their world, national development is
measured in terms of cubic meters of concrete poured and machines
itemized. What can be seen to have been done is what matters.

The propaganda is striking because it is in these fields that the regime
is failing spectacularly. The new bridges span rivers which are reached by
roads of such poor condition that hire vehicles refuse to travel them.
Schools have classrooms and chairs but lack teachers, and for that matter,
students. Power lines run to houses without metering devices, and the dams
anyhow are not supplying those with
them: households boil rice with charcoal because constant outages mean
that an electric cooker switched on for dinner may not be ready until
breakfast.

Moreover, as Burma's people have been forced to continue treading rocky
roads, so too has the U.N.'s expert.

Eight years ago, Pinheiro got off to a good start. He took the job
seriously and his preliminary reports were expansive and thoughtful.
He built some bridges of his own and was able to do what his predecessors
had not: visit the country. He accessed government ministries and prisons,
but when he found a microphone under a table in an interview room during
March 2003, he left. He was unable to come back until last year, when the
authorities reluctantly conceded him a visit in the aftermath of the
September uprising.

In the interim, Pinheiro continued to research from abroad and release
findings annually, but his interest seemingly waned. His early attempts at
getting a grip on things gave way to straightforward documenting,
alongside frustrated comments about his inability to do more. By last year
he had already exceeded his tenure, and would, like those before him have,
quietly slipped away, but for the protests.

Pinheiro's final report embodies both the usefulness of the work that he
has done in these years as well as its profound flaws. On the one hand,
the report establishes the commonality of humanitarian and human rights
problems in Burma and correctly asserts that the unaccountability of state
officials is a cause of rural poverty. It also argues that judicial
non-independence is one reason for the growing gap between rich and poor,
and calls for more research into land and resource management.

On the other, it stops short of exploring precisely how indigence is
exacerbated by impunity and what international groups working in Burma can
try to do about it. It glosses over problems of the judiciary before going
on to talk about political prisoners, and does not draw lines between
these cases and bigger issues of perverted criminal procedure. It iterates
concern for the "continued misuse of the legal system" without examining
what this really means.

Ultimately, the report encapsulates the enduring problem of the
international community in dealing with Burma: we know what is going on,
but we don't. Incidents are documented, but their significance not
properly understood. The linkages of human rights and humanitarian
concerns are acknowledged, but no serious attempts are made at devising a
common understanding of them, let alone a comprehensive strategy to
address them. So things go on as usual, even if people pretend otherwise.

Human rights work can't be assigned numerical value, so it's not possible
to conclude whether or not Pinheiro's eight years were in balance worth it
or not. But as an epitaph to his time served and a reminder to those
continuing the job we have the following, not from his most recent report
but from his statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
(now Human Rights Council) in 2004:

"I am convinced that this commission must act fast to strengthen the
credibility of its special procedures. What is the value of making
recommendations if member states neglect most of what we report or
recommend? I must confess that I have made efforts always to include in my
reports, recommendations that are both concrete and realistic... I must
nonetheless report that the implementation of my recommendations by the
government has been limited."

Indeed.

____________________________________

March 20, Shan Herald Agency for News
Policy Paper: Vote “no,” we will win – Kanbawza Win

After 14 years of broken promises, the Burmese Junta announce that it is
finally introducing a constitution, with a referendum due in the 1st week
of May followed by a full fledge elections in 2010.

The Generals has learnt their bitter lessons, when in the 1990 elections,
the people show their vehement hatred and obviously will not take any
chances, especially after the killing of the revered Buddhist monks in
September. Hence to wink the people of Burma, as well as to the
international community, they now come up with the sly idea of referendum,
which was partially copied from the Communist. It announced the
referendum, while withholding details of the draft Constitution from the
public, a scheme unheard of in the world. Moreover a reward of two decades
in jail for any one discussion the constitution (see Law 5/96) was
augmented.

The faux democracy will enshrine only the dictators who are holding the
country hostage. Written by delegates cherry-picked by the government and
lacking the input of the opposition party or the ethnic nationalities, the
constitution will reserve 25 percent of parliamentary seats for the
military and the 75% the ex brass. Through a well-crafted technicality, it
not only also bars the pro Burmese democracy leader Nobel Peace Prize
laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, but also all the NLD members that won the
elections.   If the constitutional referendum goes through as planned, it
will help the government falsely legitimize these consistently repressive
policies. It will give a leading political role for the military.
According to the draft constitution, the commander in chief of the armed
forces is entitled to fill 110 seats in the 440-seat parliament with
appointees from the ranks of the armed forces. Moreover, the commander in
chief will occupy a position on the same level as that of the two
vice-presidents. And in the event of a "state of emergency", which the
military can declare at any time, the commander in chief will assume full
legislative, executive and judicial powers. A limited role for ethnic
nationalities, if the 17 ethnic groups which currently have cease-fire
agreements with the regime want to participate in the election planned for
2010, they will probably be required to lay down their arms once and for
all. The ethnic nationalities will have to decide. An even more limited
role for various democracy groups as the constitution will impose
stringent restrictions on any activities deemed inimical to national
unity, which would include any of the normal functions of a parliamentary
opposition party. Civilians will be permitted to enter parliament, but
only if they show that they know their place.

A constitution is as immovable as the military itself. Just in case
anybody was thinking of making changes once the constitution is in place,
Section 4 (a) of the chapter "Amendment of the Constitution" effectively
rules that out. Even if an opposition party, such as the NLD, were to win
every single seat not filled by military appointees, it would be unable to
make any amendments, which would require the approval of more than 75% of
all members of parliament. Basic human rights are not guaranteed and the
power concentrates very much on the president who must have military
experience while the Minister of Defense reports directly to him. In other
words is a government within a government and surely will not lead to a
democracy – ‘disciplined’ or otherwise.

However there are divergent views as how to approach the current political
situation.  The so-called “Self Appointed Third Force” in Burma­a group
founded during the International Burma Studies conference in Singapore in
mid-2006, which is neither pro or anti Junta are anti-sanctions. They
argue that regardless of whatever the outcome of the referendum, it was
certain that the constitution would ultimately be rectified, and hence
should vote Yes. This will prove that Daw Suu is not confrontational,
avoid disenfranchised and a sort of a good will gesture. This appeasement
policy was very much echoed by the former ABSDF leaders based in Chiang
Mai, as a way to stop living in the past or a sort of a compromise for
national reconciliation. Some hook nose farang reasoned that something is
constitution is better than nothing, forgetting that the people of Burma
longed for a long term guaranteed for their future and real democracy and
freedom.

“By announcing plans to hold a referendum on a draft constitution in May,
the regime has given Burma and the world a classic non-choice,” writes
Kyaw Zwa Moe. The Burmese people should be smart enough and set their
emotions aside and as in 1990 elections must act as one. The Junta’s plan
is to steal and abuse the real desire of the people. According to the
announcement 1/90, the Junta claimed that elected representatives are
solely responsible for writing the constitution. However, in violation of
their own law, the Junta did not allow the elected representatives to
participate in writing the constitution. The basic and fundamental
principles were illegally adopted by the Junta-sponsored mass rallies, in
which all the attendees were forced to participate. The national
convention was just for show to approve these principles written in
advance by the Junta. Submissions by ethnic cease-fire groups were
ignored. The Junta’s order 5/96 threatens to punish with 20 years
imprisonment the people who criticize the national convention and the
constitution. Freedom of expression and media are severely restricted. The
Referendum Law, issued on Feb 28, 2008, is also not in line with
international and ASEAN standards. There is no clear indication of what
the Junta will do if the majority of the voters reject the constitution.
The Junta is apparently planning to win anyhow. Hence every one should
vote No and must not stay without voting.

For example if the majority of the people stay put and being a sham
constitution and will not vote, the Junta will not care and say if a few
hundreds Swa Arr Shin USDA were bribed to vote Yes! Then the Junta, will
say that he got so and so vote for Yes and the unpublicized constitution
will be installed. So every homosapien residing in Burma must vote No.

We should vividly visualize that this constitution is designed to protect
and promote the interests and security of Generals and their cronies.
Ordinary soldiers, who are actually sons and daughter of the people, would
become. an elite class, and will have more privileges than ordinary
citizens, who are the root of them. This constitution will allow the
military dictatorship to perpetuate in Burma. If this constitution is
approved the people of Burma will be abused and oppressed more by the
Generals, their families and their cronies. They will also monopolize the
state economy and they will have a “License to Oppress”. No doubt the
people of Burma will become slaves of the military for generations.

One should heed the 8888 generation call of, “Let us transform the Junta’s
sham national referendum into the National Show of the Peoples’ Desire”.
Only then we can prevent the country from falling into the depths with the
Junta’s one-sided roadmap. “People Power” will prevail. With our 'No'
votes, we will clean the blood and dirt stained on the bodies of our
revered monks by the soldiers," said the 8888 generation. By voting
against this constitution it will demonstrate the enormous power of the
people and that we need not afraid of the military for the rest of our
lives for the future generations of Burma. Every person who is eligible to
vote, should go to pooling stations and put “No” votes in the ballot
boxes.

The main objective of voting “No” and mobilizing the people is not to
defeat the Junta’s constitution or to validate it through the referendum;
it is just to promote democracy because people’s participation in the
political process is basic to every democracy. It has been proved that the
ordinary person was not able to participate in either the National
Convention or the drafting of the new Constitution, hence the referendum
is the only opportunity for the people to participate and we should missed
this chance.. Participation will reinforce the concept that the people
have a right to decide their own future and who they want as their
government.  If they want this regime to continue let them vote “Yes” if
not vote “No.” Hence the simple message should be given to the man in the
street, who doesn’t know, who is who and what is what, that if they like
this government they should vote “Yes” but if they don’t like this
government they should vote “No”. Let the ordinary working people and the
struggle lot decides. This is what we call in Burmese “À Thae Kyar Ka Mae
Ta Pyar” literally translated is the vote from your heart and liver.

The people should be urged to vote their conscience taking into account
their personal security. They may be forced to vote “Yes” then they have
the choice abstaining from voting. Vote manipulation by the military
regime is a high possibility. But even if it does, it cannot totally
ignore the will of the people. The number of “No” votes will determine the
level of engagement and compromise the Junta may be willing to negotiate
in the future. Mobilizing the people for the referendum is also a trial
run for mobilizing the people for the elections in 2010. The objective is
to mobilize people and reinforce their understanding that participation in
the political life of their nation is the basic right of every citizen.

Obviously the Junta will try to claim that this constitution is approved,
despite a majority voting “No”. History has proved it after one-party
system constitution in 1974, there were mass protests in 1974, 1975 and
1976 and in 1988, and under the deluge of mass demonstration the
constitution was abolished. The history of our country has already proved
that any constitution, which does not reflect the desire of the people,
would not last long and is no more than a piece of paper. If the people
fail to do generation and generations will be under the boots of the
military.

The voting is sure to be rigged as the Junta had flatly refuse Gambari’s
suggestion of International monitors. Probably it will repeat the 1974,
the military organized referendum, when the eligible voters to cast their
votes the boxes were set apart just to see whether the voter walked
towards the ‘Yes’ box or a ‘No’ box. And if he votes “No” he is ear marked
for persecution. Of course like any other Burmese administration,
Burmanization has to be implement because the constitution is only in
Burmese language when 40% are ethnic nationalities whose mother tongues is
not Burmese.

The Junta’s version is that voting will be conducted in line with the
international systems. Arrangements have been made for every eligible
voter not to lose the right to vote referendum. The law on voting has
already been issued both in Burmese and English newspapers. The National
Convention of 1993 laid down, 15 chapters and 104 basic principles.
Arrangements have also been made for every eligible voter not to lose the
right to vote. It also claims that voting will be conducted in line with
the international systems. Stipulated ballot box shall be placed at a
conspicuous place for public to enable voters to cast votes conveniently.
Counting of votes will be carried out in the presence of witnesses.
Arrangements have been made for eligible voters to cast votes at another
place if there occurs any unfair and unjust voting (e.g., in the face of
natural disasters). There include provisions that action shall be taken
against those who get involved in rigging the votes and causing
disturbances. According to the provisions it is obvious that it is a fair
and free voting in accord with the international standard rules and
regulations.

The Junta hypothesis is that that world community has not objected to
Thailand's new constitution, passed last year, despite the lack of
participation by Thai opposition parties in the drafting process, nor the
recent constitutions passed in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the lack of
participation by their opponents, including Moslem militants with al-Qaeda
links and the Taliban, respectively.

Suppose if the regime had accepted some of Gambari’s proposal (the 35th
trip by a UN envoy to Burma since 1990, with a record of 31 UN
resolutions), it would have muted criticism and the legitimacy of the
entire road map process has been gone through, that will finally led to
the marginalization of opposition groups and official nullifying the 1990
elections and the military’s draft constitution would be accepted as
legitimate.

The UN efforts have been ignored. At the other end, China and India, as
Burma's two major supporters, view Naypyidaw’s timetable as concrete
progress. International pressure to link the summer Olympic Games in
Beijing with China's Burmese policy is increasing by the day, but it will
not yield any results. Through targeted banking sanctions which the United
States has ordered but which the European Union, China and other countries
have so far been too timid or self-interested to pursue seems to be a
paper tiger.

At the moment, there is no uniform approach by ASEAN towards the Burmese
crisis only the Philippines has maintained a hard-line approach seeking
the release of Suu Kyi and other political prisoners as well as improved
human rights. Indonesia has been critical of Burma, but has not gone as
far as the Philippines. Jakarta is presently focused on drafting the terms
of reference that will produce a respectable and independent human-rights
body in ASEAN. This would serve as a prerequisite for the Charter's
ratification by the grouping's largest member. Singapore's attitude
towards Burma has been the most intriguing. After orchestrating the
strongest statement ever to come from an AMM (ASEAN Ministerial Meeting)
since Burman joined the group in 1997, the island nation has apparently
thrown in the towel after failing to move the national reconciliation
process forward as it had hoped at the last ASEAN Summit. Any change in
ASEAN's attitude towards Burma will be the responsibility of the next
ASEAN chair, Thailand, which will succeed Singapore in July. ASEAN
Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan has set a cautious tone by saying it was
a good beginning.

With the current government under Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, the
Thaksin policy has been revived. Samak on his return from Burma admitted
that both Thailand and Burma have half baked constitutions as perhaps both
the ugly duckling and the bull dog themselves may themselves be half
baked.  Bangkok seems to be determined to back the Burmese road map that
the political situation there was an internal matter - were uncalled for,
as they completely overlooked the international dynamics of the situation,
including the UN's mediating role. The successive Thai administration
except Chun Leekpai has betrayed its people and the people of Burma
always. It could be recalled that at the ASEAN Summit held in Phnom Penh
in 2003, it was Thaksin Shinawatra who successfully convinced other ASEAN
leaders to give newly installed Prime Minister Khin Nyunt, a chance to
prove his leadership and his democratic road map. Another important factor
is the growing confidence the new members are showing in shaping future
ASEAN policies, especially as regards the non-interference principle. The
drafting of the ASEAN Charter and its outcome demonstrated the tenacity
and iron will of new members towards protecting the status quo it looks
that the Junta will again enjoy a win-win situation with the heartless
ASEAN.

It is evident that the Junta is intent on pushing ahead quickly with its
own roadmap without any concessions to either the Security Council or the
Human Rights Council. It is too late for the Council to ensure that the
May referendum is credible and inclusive.  The UN should be wise
initiating a mechanism based on the concept of the North Korea six-party
talks­with key parties like China, the US, India, and some ASEAN
countries­which would be able to offer a package of carrots and sticks to
the top brass just for a break through. This will give a psychological
boost from being treated as a pariah in the international community gives
them the prestige that they are somebody else to be reckoned with and this
what the Burmese Generals extremely craves. But at the same time the UN
must be unanimous for an iron hand with a velvet glove for binding
resolutions, including official sanctions might be coming if this little
naughty boy “Myanmar” does not behave.

China has also made it clear that it would reject sanctions no matter
about the Olympics and does not believe that pressure will solve the
problems and this view is shared by the Asian countries on the Council,
Vietnam and Indonesia, who also shared the sentiment that Burma is not a
threat to international peace and security. UN bodies such as the Human
Rights Council are in a better position to do so.  There are also
differences among members on how to react to the announcement of a date
for the referendum and whether there is actually real movement in the
Junta’s roadmap. Some other members feel that the process is a sham and
should not be encouraged. One thing is sure the Junta will play off the
members of the Council with one another and will not seriously take the UN
advice if it is divided. The UNSC will decide with Vladimir Putin laughing
in his sleeves.

But the most troubling aspect in this scenario is that even though NLD
says “The citizens must be able to read the draft of the Constitution in
advance of the referendum then people would know more about the
Constitution and could decide which way to vote,” it has stopped short, of
advocating a boycott or a “No” vote for the draft constitution. Neither
United Nationalities Association (UNA) - coalition of ethnic parties that
won the 1990 elections and the Shan (SNLD) the largest election winning
party after NLD nor the cease fire army of the North or the fighting South
has declared their position. NMSP has and the KIO has rejected the
referendum. If there is no compromise and did not speak in one voice as
the people then we might as well bite the bullet and let the Junta’s
referendum prevail. It must be remember that for two decades both inside
and outside the country had endeavors to stop this legalizing the cruel
Burmese army perpetual rule over the people of Burma, which can be liken
to a heavy object moving to its goal. Since we cannot stop it, go with
this object and push it in the direction that will not reach its
destination and that is by voting “No”. The majority of the ethnic
nationalities will vote “No”, many of the pro democracy forces such as the
UBs including the women (WLB), youths (SYCB and NY Forum) the ENC and FDB
have echo to this clarion call, the only time that ethnic and pro
democracy forces stand in solidarity in this epoch making time and it
would be naïve if any group or NLD did not join the bandwagon.

Unlike the leaders of the pro democracy movement the military Junta
understands the game of ‘realpolitik” very well. They knew when they
announced a plan to hold a national referendum in May and an election in
2010 that there would be a mixed chorus of support and dissent. In the
end, they gathered that it does not matter what transpires so long as the
regime shows there is some movement - at a snail's pace though it might be
- towards democracy. This is the strategy the Junta leaders have mastered
since losing the election in May 1990. They certainly hope that they will
be able to muddle along and in the process gain more space and time to
work on their own schemes.

Even though the majority of Burmese people, whether at home or abroad,
regard the military government’s constitution as a sham constitution that
shut the door of national reconciliation. It is a fact that a constitution
will not go away. If we vote “No” there is every possibility that the
generals will just try and try again. There may be another referendum, and
so on and on until they get their way with each version modifying a bit.
The UN and several Western countries have already tarnished their
diplomatic credibility. “Whatever the outcome of the upcoming referendum,
it is going to leave a nasty aftertaste,” predicts Kyaw Zwa Moe. But the
people of Burma are a hardy lot. We have bore the tyranny for half a
century of the Burmese Military brutality why should we give up now. Let
us all unanimously vote “No”and one day surely we will win.

____________________________________
STATEMENTS

March 20, Members of the Committee Representing the People’s Parliament
(CRPP)

1. The entire population is aware of the fact that the government has
adopted the dictatorship system and ruled the country from the year 1962
to date.

2. To prolong and entrench the system of military dictatorship the
military government has issued its Order Number 1/2008 pronouncing that a
referendum will be held in May to confirm its biased draft constitution.

3. To make the people confirm this draft constitution the writing of which
was not by the elected representatives of the people is against the wishes
and desire of the people.

4. The legally constituted CRPP, legally elected People’s Representatives
and the members of the National League for Democracy’s State and Division
Organising Committees still exist to implement the wishes of the people
and have a duty and the mandate to fulfill their legal obligations to the
people.

5. Therefore we declare that there is no way, absolutely no way, that we
can accept or confirm a draft constitution that will firmly establish a
military dictatorship form of government. Together with the entire
population of the country we will continue the fight for democracy.

Members of the Committee Representing People’s Parliament (CRPP)
Elected People’s Representatives
Members of NLD State and Division Organising Committees

(Unofficial Translation)