BurmaNet News, February 10, 2009

[Editor]

February 10, 2009, Issue #3649


INSIDE BURMA
Irrawaddy: Tension mounts between Wa and Burmese army
Irrawaddy: Who is Kyaw Thu?
DVB: ABFSU leaders jailed for three years

ON THE BORDER
Mizzima News: Bangladesh deports 26 Rohingya to Burma
Narinjara News: Demonstration in favour of detained Burmese in India
Xinhua: Myanmar, Laos regional border committee meet in Tachilek

BUSINESS / TRADE
Mizzima News: Junta tells financial institutes to check for fake kyat notes

ASEAN
DPA: Rohingya refugees to be raised on sidelines of ASEAN summit

REGIONAL
Bernama (Malaysia): Rohingya can go to third country, says Thailand

INTERNATIONAL
Czech Happenings (Czech Republic): Czech Republic to receive further
refugees from Burma
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia): Rohingya advocates say tales of sea
tragedy were exaggerated

OPINION / OTHER
Mizzima News: Burma's policy debate: polarisation and paralysis – Benedict
Rogers

INTERVIEW
DVB: Roundtable: Strategies for 2010


____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

February 10, Irrawaddy
Tension mounts between Wa and Burmese army – Saw Yan Naing

Rising tension between the United Wa State Army (UWSA) and Burmese
government forces is reported by sources in Shan State and along the
Sino-Burmese border.

Saeng Juen, assistant editor of the Thailand-based Shan Herald Agency for
News, said the Burmese army had deployed an estimated 2,000 reinforcements
since the middle of January in Mong Ping, Mong Hsnu, Tang Yan and Kunlong.

The reinforcements included troops under Military Operation Command 16, he
said.

The sound of weapons fire was reported from around Hopang and Panlong,
regions close to the Sino-Burmese border where the tension between Burmese
army and Wa troops is mounting. Border-based analyst Aung Kyaw Zaw said a
Wa unit based in Hopang had tested its weapons two days ago.

Aung Kyaw Zaw said that although the Burmese army was on the alert there
was no military activity involving government forces or Wa troops at the
moment.

Saeng Juen said Burmese authorities had halted the construction of a
bridge on the upper Salween River in Shan State after the UWSA prohibited
further work.

Aung Kyaw Zaw said tension between the UWSA and Burmese forces had been
increasing for several reasons, including a Wa announcement in January
describing Wa-controlled areas as a special autonomous region known as the
“Government of Wa State, Special Autonomous Region, Union of Myanmar.”

Tensions also reportedly rose after the Wa ignored a Burmese government
demand for drug dealer Aik Hawk to be handed over.

In a recent raid in Rangoon, a Burmese special drugs force arrested
several associates of Aik Hawk, also known as Hsiao Haw, following the
seizure of a quantity of heroin. Aik Hawk is the son-in-law of UWSA
chairman Bao Youxiang.

The Burmese government believes Aik Hawk is being protected by Wa forces
in Panghsang, headquarters of the UWSA, which is heavily involved in the
drugs trade.

Another cause of rising tension was an incident on January 19, when a
30-member Burmese delegation led by Lt-Gen Ye Myint, chief of Military
Affairs Security, was forced to disarm during a visit to Wa-held territory
in Shan State.

An estimated force of 20,000 UWSA soldiers is currently deployed along
Burma’s borders with Thailand and China, while an estimated 60,000 to
120,000 Wa villagers inhabit areas of lower Shan State.

____________________________________

February 10, Irrawaddy
Who is Kyaw Thu? – Min Lwin

Amid a series of as-yet unannounced reassignments in the top ranks of
Burma’s military government, many political observers are paying close
attention to the fate of former Deputy Foreign Minister Kyaw Thu, who
gained prominence last year as the ruling junta’s liaison with the
international community in the Cyclone Nargis relief effort.

Since last May, when Cyclone Nargis devastated much of the Irrawaddy
delta, Kyaw Thu has served as the chairman of the Tripartite Core Group
(TCG), consisting of representatives of the Burmese regime, the United
Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Kyaw Thu, who is in his late 50s, is said to be close to Vice Snr-Gen
Maung Aye, the junta’s second-most powerful figure. Like Maung Aye, he is
a graduate of the elite Defense Services Academy (DSA).

His father, the noted scholar Dr Maung Maung, who briefly assumed the
position of president at the height of the 1988 pro-democracy uprising,
published a book entitled “To my Soldier Son” in 1974, soon after Kyaw Thu
graduated as a member of the DSA’s 13th Intake.

Former military intelligence sources said that Kyaw Thu had a reputation
for being forthright with his superiors.

In 1997, when he was commander of Light Infantry Division (LID) 22, based
in Pa-an Township, Karen State, he got into an physical altercation with
his boss Maj-Gen Myint Aung, then commander of the Southeast Regional
Command.

According to the intelligence sources, Kyaw Thu’s straightforward manner
made him a favorite of Maung Aye. Instead of being disciplined for
insubordination for fighting with a superior officer, he was assigned to
the foreign ministry.

His first overseas posting was as ambassador to South Africa. According to
some former Rangoon-based Burmese diplomats, Kyaw Thu was suspected of
corruption during his time in Pretoria from 1999 to 2002.

He was later assigned to head the Burmese embassy in Paris, but the French
government refused to recognize his credentials because of his connection
to LID 22, which has been linked to human rights abuses.

LID 22 was notorious for its role in the crackdown on peaceful protests in
1988, and has been accused of press-ganging civilians to construct roads
used in the Burmese army’s campaign against ethnic Karen rebels.

Kyaw Thu became ambassador to India in 2003, but was called back to
Rangoon in late 2004 to become deputy foreign minister following the purge
of Prime Minister Gen Khin Nyunt.

Last year he gained an even higher profile when he was named chairman of
the TCG, coordinating international relief operations in the
cyclone-stricken Irrawaddy delta. Aid workers who met him described him as
down-to-earth and cooperative.

Kyaw Thu continued to act as deputy foreign minister until last week, when
he was named chairman of the Civil Service Selection and Training Board,
an inactive post.

The move came as a surprise to many who had worked with him on
Nargis-related projects.

“As far as I could tell, he was very effective in his foreign ministry
role, serving in a professional and friendly manner,” said one aid worker.

Although Kyaw Thu attended a TCG meeting in Bangkok on Monday, he is
expected to be replaced as chairman of the group in the near future.
____________________________________

February 10, Democratic Voice of Burma
ABFSU leaders jailed for three years – Naw Say Phaw

All Burmese Federation of Student Unions leaders Kyaw Ko Ko and Nyan Linn
Aung were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment each by Rangoon's
Mingalar Taung Nyunt township court yesterday.

Judge Tin Latt sentenced the two to the maximum term under the Video Act.

Kyaw Aye, Kyaw Ko Ko's father, said the sentence was politically motivated.

"Under the law my son should be released because when they caught him,
they only seized a mobile phone from him and the special police had
already testified that all the exhibits presented belonged to Nyan Linn
Aung," Kyaw Aye said.

"They could have just let him pay the 100,000 kyat fine instead of giving
him the maximum three-year punishment, but I can't really complain now as
there were political motives behind the sentence."

Kyaw Aye said Kyaw Ko Ko was suffering from jaundice and he was worried
his son might be transferred to another prison before he gets better.

Kyaw Ko Ko, who is studying for a Master’s degree in economics, played a
significant role in the September 2007 demonstrations.

He and Nyan Linn Aung, a final-year year economics student, were arrested
together on 16 March 2008.

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

February 10, Mizzima News
Bangladesh deports 26 Rohingya to Burma – Solomon

The Bangladesh Rifles, the Bangladeshi border security force deported 26
Rohingya to Burma on Monday after they were arrested for illegally
entering Bangladesh, a source said.

Tin Soe, Editor of the Kaladan Press Network based in Bangladesh's
Chittagong, who claims to have met border security force officers, told
Mizzima that the Rohingya, who illegally entered Bangladesh through the
border on February 8, were deported to Burma on Monday.

"All of them were male and all were deported," said Tin Soe adding that
the security on the border these days has been beefed up by both
countries.

While the reason for the 26 Rohingya crossing the border remains unknown,
Tin Soe said, Rohingya, living along the porous border of Burma and
Bangladesh frequently, come over to Bangladesh for various purposes
including treatment, in search of jobs and seeking refugee status under
the United Nations mandate.

However, he said most Rohingya, who cross the border, need to bribe the
border security officials as well as touts, who help them in negotiating
with the officials. A huge amount of money changes hands in order to allow
them to enter.

"The border security officials told me they are doing their duty but they
refused to give further information," said Tin Soe.

Tin Soe said, "The officer told me that they are aware of the sufferings
of the Rohingya in Burma but at this point of time he want to see them
staying wherever they have been coming from."

The deportation of the Rohingya came as regional countries – Thailand,
Indonesia, and India – faces problems in dealing with several hundreds of
Rohingya boatpeople, who have landed on their coast.

Since December, batches of Rohingya boatpeople have been rescued
separately at India's Andaman Island, Indonesia's Sabang Island, and on
Thailand's coast.

While Thailand has rejected the possibility of opening a new refugee camp
for the Rohingya, Indonesia said it will allow the United Nations Refugee
Agency to assess the boatpeople to see if they would need international
protection.

Indian authorities in Andaman, meanwhile, said it is planning to send the
boatpeople back to where they originally boarded the boats – Bangladesh.

About 20,000 Rohingya are reportedly in two refugee camps and remain as
refugees under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
protection in Bangladesh. About 200,000 Rohingya remain undocumented and
are living outside the camps.

____________________________________

February 10, Narinjara News
Demonstration in favour of detained Burmese in India

The pro-democracy Indian civil society groups and the exile Burmese in
India have come together to raise voice for the detained 34 Burmese
freedom fighters in Kolkata for their immediate release from the
Presidency Jail and to mount pressure on the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees for granting refugee status to those detainees.

On Wednesday to mark a decade long illegal detention (of those Burmese),
the Burmese Democratic Forces in India has organized a protest
demonstration program in the national capital, New Delhi. Simultaneously a
book on Burma will also be released at Jantar Mantar. Dr Tint Swe, a
minister of National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (in exile)
will release the book titled 'Rough Agent', which has been published by
the Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. The author of the book (also a reputed
human rights lawyer) Nandita Haksar will also address the February 11
gathering.

It's been 11 years since the 34 Burmese freedom fighters (most of them are
Arakanese) were arrested in Andaman Island (on February 11, 1998). They
are currently lodged in Presidency Jail of Kolkata. All the 34 Burmese
activists were arrested by a corrupt Indian intelligence officer, Lt Col
VJS Grewal who betrayed them. Moreover, Lt Col Grewal is responsible for
the death of six leaders of the group, said M. Kim, a New Delhi based
Burmese exile.

Talking to this writer from the Indian national capital, Kim also informed
that a memorandum has been prepared for submission to the Indian Prime
Minister Dr Manmohan Singh by the civil society groups of the country on
the same occasion. The memorandum highlights the role of New Delhi in
supporting the Burmese people's movement for the restoration of democracy
in the past.

"We recall that India was also the first neighboring country that extended
the support to the Burmese democracy movement after the 1988 Up-rising.
New Delhi also recognized Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's peaceful and non-violent
struggle and conferred the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International
Understanding to the great lady in 1993," said in the memorandum.

Burma (Myanmar) is reeling under military dictatorship for the last 47
years and any form of dissidents against the military government at Nay
Pie Taw are responded in the most repressive and inhuman ways by the
military junta. The Nobel laureate Suu Kyi remains under house arrest for
many years now. Her party National League for Democracy won the 1990
general election, but the junta denied power transfer to the elected
government. Since then the National Coalition Government of the Union of
Burma has been functioning in exile.

"The people of Burma were also in negotiation with the Government of India
through Lt Col V.J.S Grewal for a base in India in 1995 and after two
years of negotiations they were invited to come to Landfall Island in
Andaman. However on their arrival to Landfall Island on February 10
(1998), 36 of the Burmese freedom fighters were arrested while six of them
were killed the same day. Out of the 36 arrested two had gone missing from
the Andaman Jail. The others were kept for 9 years in Port Blair and later
transferred to Presidency Jail, Kolkata and continue to be imprisoned
there," the memorandum to the Indian Prime Minister revealed.

____________________________________

February 10, Xinhua
Myanmar, Laos regional border committee meet in Tachilek

A regional border committee of Myanmar and Laos at deputy foreign minister
level have met in Myanmar's border town of Tachilek to step up bilateral
cooperation in dealing with border affairs, the official local-language
newspaper New Light of Myanmar reported Tuesday.

The first Myanmar-Laos regional border committee meeting, respectively
represented by their deputy foreign ministers U MaungMyint and Bounkeut
Sangsomsak, took place in the border town in eastern Shan state on Sunday,
the report said.

The meeting covered the issue of security along the border of the two
countries, promotion of border trade and exchange of visits of peoples of
the two countries, the report added.

In November last year, Myanmar and Laos had held its 8th meeting of the
border authorities at the central level in Nay Pyi Taw seeking enhancement
of cooperation in development of the two countries' border areas.

In January 2007, Myanmar and Laos upgraded the two countries' respective
border check points of Wan Pong in Tachilek of Myanmar's eastern Shan
state and Ban Muang Mom on the Lao side to meet international standard to
boost arrivals of world tourists and those from the third countries
visiting the two border areas.

The Mekong River flows between the two towns as a border line.

The two sides stressed effective use of more check points in Wan Pong and
Ban Muang Mom border regions for security purpose.

Meanwhile, Myanmar and Laos have also been placing emphasis on cooperating
in drug control and preventing trafficking of drugs and psychotropic
substances.

____________________________________
BUSINESS / TRADE

February 10, Mizzima News
Junta tells financial institutes to check for fake kyat notes

In a secretly circulated document, Burma's Central Bank in Naypyitaw has
acknowledged that fake 500 kyat currency notes were circulating in the
market and it has sent an eight-point guideline to all financial
institutes to check for fake notes.

The document, a copy of which is in Mizzima' possession, said a study in
the wake of the seizure of fake 500 kyat notes in Nam Hkam township in
Northern Shan State in November 2008 reveals that the fake notes are waxed
and it is extra-smooth to the touch.
It says that the fake notes do not have the 'Security Tread' and there is
inconsistency in the font type and sizes. The fake currency note has a
yellowish tinge.

A source close to the Bank said the Financial Department of the Central
Bank, which circulated the document, instructed all financial institutions
including private banks to keep the above points in mind while checking
for fake 500 Kyat notes.

But when contacted, a few banks in Rangoon said they had not received any
instruction regarding counter-checking of fake 500 kyat notes.

The source, however, said the document is being kept a secret so as to
avoid panic among the public. The authorities have warned that there
should be no leak about the fake 500 kyats in circulation.

On the contrary, the source said, the government, in a bid to counter the
fake 500 kyat notes, had considered printing more of 1000 Kyat notes but
later backed off  when it found out that printing 1000 kyat notes was
expensive.

However, the information cannot be independently verified as yet.

____________________________________
ASEAN

February 10, Deutsche Presse Agentur
Rohingya refugees to be raised on sidelines of ASEAN summit

The issue of Rohingya refugees is to be raised at the South-East Asian
summit to be held this month in Thailand, which has been accused of
abusing the rights of the Myanmar minority group, officials confirmed
Tuesday.

The summit of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) set for
February 27 to March 1 is to pursue the theme 'ASEAN for the ASEAN people'
and start the process of establishing an ASEAN human rights body by the
end of the year to handle regional human rights issues, such as the
problem posed by thousands of Rohingya boat people seeking refuge and work
outside Myanmar.

'Definitely, there will be some sort of a side meeting, and we will
discuss the possibilities of more cooperation on the Rohingya,' Thai
Foreign Minister Kasit Pirobya said of the summit to be held at the Hua
Hin and Cha-am beach resorts, about 130 kilometres south-west of Bangkok.

The Thai Navy was accused of abusing the human rights of Rohingya boat
people beginning in December by towing more than 10 vessels out to the
highs seas and leaving the migrants in engineless boats without sufficient
food and water.

Thailand has denied the allegations that navy personnel also beat the
refugees and tied them up before putting them in the boats. Of the 1,000
estimated Rohingya allegedly pushed back to sea from southern Thailand,
hundreds are still missing and feared drowned.

Survivors of the ordeal found in Indian and Indonesian waters have
detailed the abuses they received at the hands of the Thai military.

The Rohingya are a stateless people. Although many originate from Arakan
state in northern Myanmar, Myanmar's military junta has refused them
citizenship, claiming they are the recent offspring of Arab traders and
Bangladeshis and don't qualify as an ethnic minority group.

In the early 1990s, an estimated 250,000 Rohingyas fled government
crackdowns to Bangladesh, where they continue to languish in refugee
camps.

Indonesia is reportedly considering allowing the Rohingya, who are
predominantly Muslim, refugees status, which would qualify them for
resettlement in third countries under the auspices of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Thailand, which claims to have 20,000 Rohingyas working illegally in the
kingdom, has thus far refused to classify them as refugees.

‘Thailand is not ready to accept them as refugees,' Thai Prime Minister
Abhisit Vejjajiva said. 'But if the UNHCR has resettlement offers for the
Rohingyas, we are ready to help.'

Thailand has proposed tackling the Rohingya refugee issue on a regional
basis with participation from Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar.

____________________________________
REGIONAL

February 10, Bernama (Malaysia)
Rohingya can go to third country, says Thailand – D. Arul Rajoo

Thailand reiterated Tuesday that it is not ready to offer refugee status
to the Rohingya people but is willing to deport them to a third country if
there is a request.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Thailand was worried that more flow
of Rohingya would occur if those detained in Ranong were given refugee
status.

"The Rohingya people who came by boat are not refugees, but economic
migrants. As such, we are not ready to take them in, but other countries
can take them if they are ready," he told reporters here.

Abhisit said the Thai government would continue to work closely with the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Asean members
Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar to find a solution to the Rohingya people
issue which came to the fore following allegations of mistreatment by Thai
Navy.

Hundreds of Rohingya rescued in India and Indonesia since December had
claimed that the Thai Navy had towed their boats to sea after they were
arrested in Ranong. Most of them were transiting in Thailand before trying
to smuggle into Malaysia.

The Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic group, originated from the northern Arakan
state of western Myanmar but are considered stateless people by the
Myanmar government.

Later, during the countdown to the 14th Asean Summit, Foreign Minister
Kasit Piromya said the issue would be discussed on the sidelines of the
summit in Hua Hin from Feb 27 to March 1.

"We need cooperation from all Asean member countries to solve this problem."

Furthermore, he said, a regional meeting involving Thailand, Myanmar,
India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and the UNHCR would be held soon to
find a solution to the issue, probably first in Bangladesh and then in
Geneva.

"I even discussed the matter with the UNHCR Commissioner in Geneva last
month. The ministry's permanent secretary already met ambassadors from
Myanmar, India, Indonesia and Malaysia to look into the matter," he said.

In his speech at the countdown, Abhisit said Asean leaders would discuss a
variety of issues, with highlight on the global economic crisis and the
grouping's future, following the adoption of the Asean Charter which has
come into effect.

He said the leaders would deliberate on recommendations to be put forward
by Asean Finance Ministers who are scheduled to meet in Phuket on Feb 22
to discuss measures to mitigate the economic crisis which is already
taking its toll on the region, with thousands of people losing their jobs.

According to Abhisit, the summit, which was originally slated for last
December but was postponed due to the political crisis in Bangkok, would
be the turning point in the grouping's aim to transform itself from a
loose association into a rule-based and people-centric organisation.

"As a founding member, Thailand is pleased to welcome back the summit to
its birthplace," he said.

____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

February 10, Czech Happenings (Czech Republic)
Czech Republic to receive further refugees from Burma

The Czech Republic will receive another group of 16 refugees from Burma
who will arrive in Prague on Thursday and will be granted asylum right
afterwards, the Interior Ministry told CTK today.

The ministry organised the arrival of the first, 23-member group of
Burmese refugees last year.

The fresh group of refugees will after arrival move to an asylum centre to
prepare over a period of several months for life in the Czech Republic.

The Burmese refugees now stay in Malaysia where there are thousands of
them and where their status is problematic.

Malaysia is not a signatory of the convention on the legal status of
refugees and therefore their rights are not guaranteed.

The refugees moving to the Czech Republic have been chosen by Czech clerks.

"The Czech Republic joins the solution to global problems of refugees not
only on the national, but also international level," the ministry said.

Help to refugees is offered by Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and
Norway, among others.

The Czech Interior Ministry organised in the past similar projects for
expatriates from the countries of the former Soviet Union. Last year it
accepted a group of Cuban refugees.

Czech diplomacy has for long criticised the hard military regime in Burma.
____________________________________

February 10, Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
Rohingya advocates say tales of sea tragedy were exaggerated – Tom Allard

CLAIMS that more than 20 Rohingya asylum-seekers died during a perilous
sea journey to Indonesia after being rounded up by the Thai military were
deliberately exaggerated, according to an aid group.

The Arakan Project, which advocates for the Rohingya, a Muslim minority
group from Burma, said the misleading account which gained headlines
around the world was made by a people-smuggler on the vessel, the only one
of 198 Rohingya on board who could be understood because he spoke Malay.

But the group has since interviewed four of the genuine boat people who
landed in Indonesia last week after fleeing alleged repression in Burma.
They used a translator who spoke the men's obscure Bengali dialect.

While rebutting aspects of the initial account, their testimony still
detailed brutal beatings by the Thais and confirmed that the men were set
adrift in a flimsy wooden craft by the Thais during January.

At the time there was international condemnation about earlier instances
of pushing Rohingya boat people back out to sea, and the Thai Government
was insisting such behaviour was not part of its policy.

The false claims were first made by Indonesian naval officers based on the
testimony of the only Malay-speaker on board the vessel, a man named
Rahmat. Malay is almost identical to Bahasa Indonesia.

Rahmat then gave interviews with the international media, telling how, as
the boat drifted for almost three weeks, one person died every day from
starvation or dehydration.

He also said that the boat that was rescued off Aceh last week was one of
nine vessels containing 1200 people set adrift by the Thais, that many of
those on board had lived in Thailand for some time, and that they had been
detained for two months on an island before being set adrift.

All of these claims were untrue, Chris Lewa, co-ordinator of the Arakan
Project, said.

"The people who we spoke to say 22 people did not die; maybe two or three
or four tried to swim to shore," Ms Lewa said. "They weren't adrift for
three weeks but about two weeks, and there was no other boat towed out."

Ms Lewa said the asylum-seekers she interviewed said they were beaten and
deprived of food and water before being towed out to sea. The claims of
beatings have been backed by Indonesian doctors who have examined the men.

Indonesia has made thinly veiled complaints about the treatment of the
Rohingyas by both the Burmese and Thai authorities and, unusually for
Jakarta, granted the United Nations permission to assess their claims for
refugee status.

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

February 10, Mizzima News
Burma's policy debate: polarisation and paralysis – Benedict Rogers

Burma is one of the world's worst human tragedies. A beautiful nation,
with talented people, rich in natural resources, it was once "the rice
bowl of Asia". Today, it is one of the poorest countries in the world,
ruled by a regime which does not just brutally suppress its people
politically, but callously denies them humanitarian aid. The junta spends
almost half its budget on the military, and less than $1 per person per
year on health and education combined. The world witnessed the regime's
astonishing refusal, and subsequent restriction, diversion and
manipulation, of aid and access for aid workers following Cyclone Nargis.
A similar pattern of criminal neglect is currently played out in Chin
State, where a famine caused by a plague of rats has gone largely
unreported and unaided.

In addition, the military regime is guilty of every possible violation of
human rights. The junta has imprisoned more than 2,000 dissidents, and
Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has spent over 13 years under house
arrest. A campaign of ethnic cleansing, amounting to crimes against
humanity and bordering on a form of genocide, is being conducted against
the Karen, Karenni and Shan in eastern Burma, and gross violations
continue in Chin, Kachin and Rakhine areas. The Rohingya Muslim people are
targeted for ethnic and religious persecution, and denied citizenship
despite having lived in northern Arakan for generations.

One would think that the scale of the crisis in Burma would cause people,
within the country and in the international community, to put aside petty
differences and unite. But instead, Burma's tragedy is compounded by the
intensely polarised nature of the debate about Burma. This polarisation
has led to a paralysis – giving the regime the upper hand. Its biggest
strategy is divide-and-rule, and it has played it to great effect at every
level. Small divisions between Burmese activists become huge rifts; petty
squabbles among factions within each ethnic group have been widened by the
regime, in some cases causing groups to fragment and some to do deals with
the junta; and among the international community, the debate about
sanctions versus engagement grows ever more weary.

It is not for me to comment more on the divisions within the Burmese and
ethnic movements, except simply to observe that disunity are a problem. If
the different Burmese groups could recognise that what they have in
common, their desire for freedom, is infinitely more important than the
small policy differences or personal rivalries they may have, then they
will be much the stronger for it. If they had one umbrella group, instead
of multiple alliances, their cause would be advanced. But it is the
international debate that concerns me here.

Critics of sanctions are rearing their heads again in a significant way,
and it is tiresome. It seems bizarre that after two of the worst years in
Burma's recent history, some people are seriously proposing lifting
sanctions. The regime put its character on full display when it beat and
shot Buddhist monks peacefully demonstrating in September 2007. Its sham
referendum on a new constitution last May was so blatant it was laughable.
Its initial response to Cyclone Nargis – a failure to prepare people
before the cyclone hit, and a deliberate denial and diversion of aid
afterwards – should not be forgotten. And before the end of last year,
several hundred dissidents were jailed, some for more than 65 years. Yet
there are voices within the UN, NGOs and academia who say now is the time
to end international pressure, normalise relations with the regime and
legitimise the planned elections in 2010.

Advocates of sanctions such as myself have however not always got it right
either. There has been an almost religious affiliation to sanctions, and a
refusal to hear criticism. Sanctions have become a litmus test of devotion
to democracy. Advocates of sanctions have tended to demonise opponents. I
admit that this is wrong. While there are some critics of sanctions who
have aligned themselves so much with the junta that they are not credible,
there are some who cannot be easily dismissed as pro-regime. Some whose
credentials in fighting for democracy are well-proven are starting to
question the effectiveness of sanctions. Those of us who continue to
believe in sanctions should listen to such people, and seek to find common
ground.

I do not buy the argument that sanctions have not worked. It is too
simplistic. It depends totally on what our definition of effectiveness is,
and what timeframe we are working to. While we can agree on the obvious –
that the current sanctions regime have not yet delivered the change we
would like to see – there are several points to make. The first is that
many of the sanctions in place are the wrong ones. I have always advocated
targeted sanctions, aimed at the Generals and their assets. But it is only
in the past year that the US has introduced targeted financial sanctions,
and the European Union placed a ban on the gems and timber sectors. Until
2007, the sanctions in place were either too broad, or too symbolic. The
EU banned investment in a pineapple juice factory, but continues to allow
money to flow into the oil and gas sectors. But the junta is built on oil
and gas, not fruit juice. And critics claim we have had 20 years of
sanctions – but in reality, the only really tough sanctions were
introduced in the past ten years, and particularly since 2003. So they
need more time to work. Thirdly, sanctions are only one tool in the
toolbox anyway. No advocate of sanctions that I know has ever suggested
that sanctions alone will change the situation. They are an important
ingredient in the policy mix – but they need to be used alongside other
methods.

Two myths about the pro-sanctions lobby continue to be put about the
critics, both of which are misrepresentative and deeply destructive. The
first is that they frame the debate as one of engagement versus isolation,
and they describe themselves as 'pro-engagement'. But this is totally
misleading. I am pro-engagement too. The objective is not the isolate the
regime, but rather to draw it out and force it to enter dialogue. Pressure
is the only language the regime understands. The idea that investment will
open things up is not only naïve, it has been tried. Britain held trade
fairs in Rangoon in the 1990s, and that did not seem to make the regime
any nicer. No one I know wants to isolate the regime, and it is
pro-sanctions campaigners who have led calls for the UN Secretary-General
and Security Council to get involved, and the process recommended is all
about engagement. So it is not a debate about whether to engage, but
rather about what type of engagement – how, when, about what and with whom
should we engage.

The second myth is that we oppose aid. This is manifest nonsense, but it
continues to be put about. No one campaigned harder for increased aid to
Burma by Britain's Department for International Development (DfID) than my
own organisation, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, and the Burma Campaign
UK. Our efforts resulted in pressure on DfID by the House of Commons to
increase its Burma budget. It was DfID officials, backed up by so-called
pro-engagement types, who actually resisted it. They did not want to
increase the Burma budget. Ultimately, DfID responded to political
pressure and doubled the budget. We campaigned both for in-country aid and
cross-border aid to the displaced people. So please, don't tell me I am
anti-aid. Like engagement, the debate is not about whether to provide aid,
but how.

If the critics of sanctions agree to stop spreading such misperceptions,
and advocates of sanctions cease demonising their opponents, there are
still three remaining questions. Some of the most naïve critics of
sanctions propose actually lifting them now, regardless of whether the
regime offers any sign of progress. They portray themselves as bold fresh
thinkers, but such an approach is sheer folly. To lift sanctions now,
unconditionally, would send the regime the worst possible signal. The
regime will have won, and they can have their rule – and their legitimacy
internationally – sewn up. So I am vigorously opposed to such an approach.
But more sensible critics of sanctions argue we should review specific
measures, and question their effectiveness. I have an open mind on this.
While I am totally opposed to lifting sanctions as a whole, there is merit
in looking at each measure and asking how they could be improved. A debate
about improving, sharpening, strengthening and more carefully targeting
sanctions would be healthy. We might even find some areas of agreement
between the two sides in the polarised debate. But we should ensure that
such a debate is not timeless. A debate, within a specific timeframe,
about how to sharpen sanctions must lead to an outcome. It should not
result in a continuation of the current exhausting, pointless and endless
debate that achieves nothing except further entrenchment and polarisation.
And once the debate has been had, the issue should be parked and we should
seek other creative means of bringing about change in Burma in addition to
sanctions. Critics of sanctions should agree to stop dredging the issue up
again and again, and advocates of sanctions might agree – provided we
succeed in obtaining sharper, targeted, effective measures in place – to
channel their energies into seeking other solutions. In fact, that is what
sanctions advocates have already been doing, but their critics keep
popping up with the sanctions debate. It is becoming an unhealthy
distraction and consumes far too much emotional energy.

It will not be easy, but both sides in this debate need to move out of
their respective camps. If we cannot engage with each other, how are we to
have a hope of seeing the regime engage? There are voices on the fringes
of both camps who deserve little respect and should be ignored. There are
some with vested interests or outdated experience who are now irrelevant.
But there are others who may disagree over certain approaches, but who
should be treated more seriously. Common ground should be sought, and
perhaps a division of labour agreed. There are individuals who have a
particular role to play in, for example, quiet diplomacy with Asian
neighbours, strengthening ethnic unity or building civil society, and they
should not be written off. However, they do themselves no favours when
they spend their time undermining the efforts of campaigners by vocally
and publicly opposing not only sanctions, but any form of international
pressure in defeatist tones. If such people were to focus on what they are
good at, and keep their reservations about international pressure to
themselves, they would earn much more respect. Similarly, if those of us
who advocate pressure recognised more explicitly the value of other
approaches, particularly in building civil society, strengthening ethnic
unity and in lobbying countries in the region, we would advance the cause
further.

There is in my mind no contradiction at all between pressure and
engagement. If properly coordinated, they are two sides of the same coin.
This was outlined in a paper published by The Burma Campaign UK a few
years ago, called "Pro-Aid, Pro-Sanctions, Pro-Engagement". Our critics
should read that paper, we should seek to understand our more sensible
critics, and together we can try to break the paralysis that has come from
the polarisation of the debate. Only when we combine our efforts, diverse
but coordinated and complementary, will we have any chance of seeing
change in Burma.

Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist working for Christian
Solidarity Worldwide, which recently launched the Change for Burma!
campaign. He is the author of 'A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide
of Burma's Karen people (Monarch Books, 2004). He has travelled 28 times
to Burma and its borderlands, and is currently writing two new books on
Burma.

____________________________________
INTERVIEW

February 10, Democratic Voice of Burma
Roundtable: Strategies for 2010 – Htet Aung Kyaw

The military regime’s planned 2010 election has aroused fierce debate
within the Burmese political community between those who reject the idea
of participation outright and others who advocate a pragmatic approach.

While the National League for Democracy has condemned the holding of an
election without recognising the result of the previous election in 1990,
other political figures have argued that, since the election will be held
regardless of any opposition, the only option is participation.

DVB asked a range of political figures for their views on participation in
the upcoming elections and the prospects for change.

Shan leader Shwe Ohn said he did not support the election, but felt that
participation was the most practical course of action.

SO: "I have said from the beginning that I don't like it, I don't support
it. But I have to accept it inevitably. Supporting it is different from
accepting it. We shouted out against the referendum. But it's finished. We
do not like the way it finished. But we have no strength to destroy it. I
think it will hurt us more if we keep on shouting when there is no
possibility of change. In politics it is called a 'fait accompli'. It has
happened. It has nothing to do with whether we like it or not. Even if we
do not like it we have to accept it if we can't dismantle it. In politics,
it's called realpolitik. We can't keep on imagining things are the way we
want them to be, good and useful to people. Realpolitik is doing things
based on the actual circumstances.

"We say that our aim is to reach Nirvana but instead we have turned up in
hell. When in hell, we have to behave in accordance with the rules of
hell. But we will continue to reach for Nirvana. Things will go completely
awry if we act like we are in Nirvana while we are still in hell."

87-year old Shwe Ohn attended 1947 Panglong conference as a reporter and
has been involved in politics ever since.

He was also arrested with other renowned Shan leaders such as Khun Tun Oo
in 2005 for discussing Shan affairs and the national convention, and
placed under house arrest for a year.

But his critics say that he has recently been focusing more on his solo
efforts and distributing leaflets than on working for collective
interests.

Aye Lwin, leader of the rival 88 Generation Students group, said the
election was the only hope of bringing about change.

AL: "The 88 pro-democracy struggle is not over and there are many reasons
for that. They are talking about the 2008 referendum, about 2010, about
the 1990 election. By just talking about it, we are not going to become a
democratic country. People are talking about it because it is not
happening.

“In reality, the people need to have a political arena where they can
represent themselves. That will only happen when there is an election – we
can hold it and get the results. By just saying what we want about a
hopeless matter and having nothing in our heads, we will get nowhere. By
combining what we want with the conditions in 2010, we will be able to see
the end of military rule and the beginning of the path to a multi-party
system. We believe that we will be able to do these two things. We
understand this as the pragmatic way."

Sai Leik, a leader of the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy, said
that the SNLD would not consider participating in the election unless
detained party leaders were released.

SL: "No election law has come out for the 2010 election yet. Even when the
law does come out, we won't consider it unless our chairman Khun Tun Oo
and secretary Sai Nyunt Lwin and others are released. Currently, we are
neither thinking about nor preparing for the election. Whatever we do,
unless political prisoners are released and talks are held, there can be
no political solution."

Arakan League for Democracy leader Aye Thar Aung, who is also secretary of
the Committee Representing the People’s Parliament, completely rejected
the idea that the election could bring about democracy in Burma.

ATA: "It is unacceptable to do nothing after holding an election and start
planning a new one. The 2010 election cannot be seen as a democratic
election. The 2010 election must be seen in connection with the
constitution ratified in 2008. The election can't benefit the people or
the ethnic nationalities."

Senior NLD leader Win Tin said any election based on the 2008 constitution
would be unacceptable.

WT: "I reject the constitution. I have no faith in it. Not only the
constitution, I reject the military government's gilded national
convention. In 1993, I told US congressman Bill Richardson [that] I would
not accept the constitution that emerged from that convention. You need
not talk to me about that. I will not give any thought to the election to
this day. But due to the wisdom and consideration expected from a leader,
I have to moderate myself into reconsideration.

“Although the constitution was ratified by a referendum, it has not yet
been confirmed. It will only be confirmed after the election is called and
the parliament is convened. The country doesn't like this constitution
which has not been ratified and we do not like it either. The world
doesn't like it either. In this situation, we advised them to revise and
amend it. There has been no response to our offer. As long as there is no
response and the constitution is unacceptable, we will neither think nor
talk about the election."

Chan Tun, a veteran politician and former diplomat, said the opposition
should only participate if certain conditions were met to ensure the
election was fair.

CT: "It is nothing to do with experience. There is only demand and that’s
what we won't get. In fact, it is a question of doing what is possible.
They say they will hold the election in 2010. What I want to say is that
the government has to release all political prisoners including Daw Aung
San Auu Kyi, U Tin Oo, Dr Zaw Myint Maung, students such as Min Ko Naing,
Ko Ko Gyi and so on – more than 2000 prisoners in all. After their
release, they must be allowed to form political parties and rally people.
The law that says that those who have married foreigners must not take
part in politics must be abolished.

“During the elections in Bangladesh, around 200,000 observers were
allowed, including about 2000 or 3000 foreigners. In Burma too, foreigners
must be allowed to observe and all journalists from the world media must
be allowed to come. If this is the case, we should contest the election.
Or, we must dare to protest with a big crowd of, let's say, 80,000-100,000
people, and dare to be arrested. At least 20,000–30,000 could be arrested.
We need to dare do it or be able to do it. Or, we must dare to fight with
arms. If this is not the case, we must contest the election and demand our
rights."

Dr Khin Zaw Win, a former political prisoner who now concentrates on
social work, said he had not yet decided with to take part in the
election.

KZW: "I haven't decided whether to take part as no law has been issued. As
I am a former political prisoner, I might not be allowed to contest even
if I want to. Things didn't turn out as people expected in 88. But it also
depends on us. We have had many opportunities in the past, but we lost
them. It is harder to regain them now. Generally, the interest of people
[in politics] is very low. We have to try very hard to make people
interested again. I have very low expectations. People are very poor and
have to struggle to survive. A [Union Solidarity and Development
Association] member said that his interest was very low. ‘Nothing has
happened in the past and what can happen now?’ he said. People will focus
on their struggle for survival. Even if the road to politics is open, you
have to try very hard to get the people to participate."

The ALD’s Aye Thar Aung came back to the idea of political pragmatism.

ATA: "Some people joined and worked with the [Burma Socialist] Programme
Party in the past with the hope that they could change the party or
individual members [from within]. In reality, they were unable to change
the BSPP or its leading figures. In this day and age, if you think that
you will get democracy and ethnic national rights by going along with the
2010 election, you are living in a dream world – no – you are just giving
excuses, that's how I see it."