BurmaNet News, April 7, 2009

[Editor]

April 7, 2009, Issue #3686


INSIDE BURMA
Irrawaddy: 88 Student group sends ‘open letter’ to junta
IMNA: Members of major Mon political party report increased monitoring
SHAN: Founding of Wa army to be celebrated

ON THE BORDER
New Light of Myanmar: Anti-government broadcasting stations airing
fabricated news to harm China-Myanmar friendly ties

BUSINESS / TRADE
Press Trust of India: Tata Motors to set up CV plant in Myanmar
Japan Times: Visitors to Myanmar dip on crackdown, typhoon

HEALTH / AIDS
Irrawaddy: Arsenic found in two traditional Burmese medicines

ASEAN
Xinhua: Myanmar PM to attend ASEAN summits with other regional countries

INTERNATIONAL
BBC News: Capturing Burma's protests on film
Politico (US): Obama-era goodwill for Rice at U.N.

OPINION / OTHER
Mizzima News: Obama – Appeaser-in-Chief? – Enzo Reale
FEER: Will change come to Burma? – Aung Din


____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

April 3, Irrawaddy
88 Student group sends ‘open letter’ to junta – Wai Moe

Burma’s influential dissident group, the 88 Generation Students group,
said on Monday that respect for human rights in Burma by the ruling junta
could lead to an end to international economic sanctions.

The group said in an open letter to the ruling State Peace and Development
Council that if the junta respected human rights and moved toward
democratic changes in the interest of the country, the international
economic sanctions against Burma would be lifted.

“The Western democracies have placed economic and social sanctions on
Burma to protest against human rights violations by the Burmese junta, so
the junta should show its respect for human rights and for the Burmese
people,” said Tun Myint Aung, a spokesperson for the group.

The student group also endorsed the four goals of the political opposition
group, the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Nobel laureate Aung
San Suu Kyi, as a way to resolve the ongoing political stand-off in the
country.

The four goals are the unconditional release of all political prisoners
including Suu Kyi; the convening of parliament; genuine political
dialogue; and a review of the 2008 constitution.

The letter said that the junta had failed to recognize the opposition’s
proposals and has continued repressive measures such as restricting
political movement and arresting pro-democracy and human rights activists.

The 88 Generation Students group played a key role in the protests against
a hike in fuel prices by the military regime in mid-August 2007, which led
to massive demonstrations in the country in September 2007.

Most of the group’s leaders, including Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi and Phyoe
Cho, were arrested, convicted of crimes against the state and are serving
long prison sentences.

A day after the 88 group’s open letter, a pro-junta group, the “Anti
Sanctions Campaign at Home and Abroad 2009,” held a press conference at
the City Star Hotel in Rangoon, in which it blamed Suu Kyi for the
economic sanctions on Burma, according to a source at the press
conference.

The group said in a statement that economic sanctions are a
non-humanitarian policy and they only delay a democratic transition in
Burma.
____________________________________

April 7, Independent Mon News Agency
Members of major Mon political party report increased monitoring – Tala
Lawi, Mon Son and Blai Mon

The Burmese military intelligence appears to have stepped up surveillance
and monitoring of actions by the New Mon State Party (NMSP), according to
party members and officials who say they are being increasingly watched
and questioned.

“I feel that now Burmese authorities are suspicious of us more than in
past times now that NMSP announced it will not participate in the 2010
election,” a party member in Moulmein, Mon State’s capital city, told
IMNA.

The NMSP announced it would not participate in the elections following a
Party Congress in January, citing objections to Burma’s new constitution.
The constitution was approved in May 2008, and both the document and the
referendum process used to approve it have been widely condemned as
undemocratic.

“Whenever exile media covers a story about Moulmein, [the Burmese
authorities] think that the NMSP gave information to the media
 The Sa Ya
Pha [Military Affairs Security] phones to ask, ‘Did I talk with media? Did
I have contact with media?’” added the Moulmein party member.

Burmese authorities have undoubtedly always monitored the party, but the
source in Moulmein as well as party members and officials elsewhere told
IMNA they feel these efforts have increased in comparison to the past.

“Now, whenever I go outside, to buy something in the market for instance,
I can see them following me,” continued the Moulmein party source.

“They plan to counter any Mon anti-government activity before and during
the upcoming election,” Nyan Tun, a major in the NMSP’s armed wing the Mon
National Liberation Army (MNLA) told IMNA from the Thai-Burma border.
“They are worried that a lot of the armed ethnic groups will try to block
the process.”

Though the NMSP has said it will not join in the election, chief of
Military Affairs Security Lt. Gen. Ye Myint has pushed the party to
participate. In the first week of March, a group of three party leaders
including Chairman Nai Htaw Mon met with Lt. Gen. Ye Myint at the
Southeast Command headquarters in Moulmein to discuss the election.
According to a source with knowledge of the meeting, the general again
asked the party to join the election, and requested a chance to meet with
the entire NMSP central and central executive committees, the decision
making bodies of the party.

Soon after, in a regularly scheduled meeting of NMSP central and central
executive committee members, IMNA sources with intimate knowledge of the
meeting reported that the party decided to again meet with Lt. Gen. Ye
Myint, though no actual meeting date has been set. Though this information
was confirmed by other sources close to the party, it was strongly
repudiated by party spokesman Nai Ong Mange in an article published by the
Mizzima a few days later.

Other ethnic armed groups have also come under increased pressure to join
the election and disarm their armed wings or bring them under junta
control as “border guards.” The highest degree of tension has been
reported in areas controlled by the United Wa State Army (UWSA), where a
delegation lead by Lt. Gen. Ye Myint was forced to disarm in January.

No conflict has been reported between NMSP officials or MNLA soldiers and
Burmese authorities, and Nai Ong Mange described the March meeting at the
Southeast Command as conciliatory. “They said we should not be worried
concerning disarmament,” quoted Mizzima. “It seems they were trying to
console us.” Nai Ong Mange appeared to be referring to questions about the
status of the MNLA, which the party has been repeatedly careful to say
will not become an SPDC-affiliated border guard force.

Whether there has actually been an increase in surveillance is impossible
to confirm, as is the motivation for any increased monitoring. What is
clear, however, is that some party members feel there has been a change.

“I’ve noticed spies following me on motorbikes wherever I go. And
sometimes, I’ve seen new faces amongst them,” a party member in Three
Pagodas Pass, on the Thai-Burma border, told IMNA. The source went on to
say that he felt the monitoring had increased following the party’s
announcement that it would not join the election, and surmised that SPDC
is gathering information in preparation for potential renewed conflict
with the NMSP or new splinter groups.

“In Ye Town, whenever I went outside I saw Sa Ya Pha around me,” said
another party member in Three Pagodas Pass who moved from Ye a few weeks
ago. “When I was drinking tea with my friends in the tea shop, Sa Ya Pha
also were sitting around us. I think they were listening to what we were
saying.”

Another NMSP member in Thanbyuzayart agreed and said he is facing the same
problem, with Burmese authorities even querying him about what occurs in
the area NMSP liaison office. “Since the 2008 referendum, the authorities
in Thanbyuzayart had had more contact with our office,” said the party
member, who described seeing increased monitoring at the area’s Mon
National Day celebration, held in the second week of February.

“Whatever we are doing or talking about with other armed groups, they want
us to inform to them,” continued the source in Thanbyuzayart. As an
example, the source described receiving calls from Burmese authorities
interested in discussions between the NMSP and the ethnic Karen armed
cease-fire group the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA). The Mon and
Karen groups had been discussing a DKBA request to open gambling
operations during the Mon National Day celebration, a request that the
NMSP subsequently refused.

____________________________________

April 7, Shan Herald Agency for News
Founding of Wa army to be celebrated

The United Wa State Army will be celebrating the 20th anniversary of its
founding on 17 April, regarded by many Asian countries including Burma as
the New Year’s Day, according to sources on the Sino-Burma border.

Scanty details say festivities will begin on Wednesday, 15 April.

Security has been tightened and no individual outsider, without strong
recommendations “from those responsible,” will be allowed entry, according
to a security officer in Panghsang, the Wa capital opposite Menglian,
Yunnan province.

It is not known how many news agencies will be represented there.

Since 14 March, hundreds of non-permanent residents without residence
permits were ordered to leave the city, following reports that attempts
would be made to sabotage the celebrations. “You will also be fined Y
1,000 ($147) if you can’t show any temporary stay cards,” said a Shan
truck driver. “I know that, because I was among those who had to pay the
fine.”

The heightened security in Panghsang is on a par with the increasingly
strained relations between the Wa and Naypyitaw that has demanded the
former’s disarmament. “The Wa are practically under siege now,” said an
officer from its southern ally, National Democratic Alliance Army-Eastern
Shan State (NDAA-ESS). “So are we.”

The Wa mutiny on 17 April 1989 followed the rebellion by its northern
neighbor Kokang on 11 March 1989, a month earlier. The two incidents had
put down the 4-decade long armed struggle waged by the Beijing-backed
Communist Party of Burma (CPB). The two and their allies since then have
been on an uneasy truce with the country’s military rulers.

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

April 6, New Light of Myanmar
Anti-government broadcasting stations airing fabricated news to harm
China-Myanmar friendly ties

Some broadcasting stations aired in the last of week of March that a piece
of news about Myanmar was broadcast in a Yunnan Province TV programme on
25 March 2009.

What is true is that the news was not broadcast in the Yunnan Province TV
programme but it was aired by private-run Feng Hung TV (a) Phoenix TV
Station based in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region at 9.40 pm on 28
February and 6 am and 4 pm respectively on 1 March.

Based on Kowloon Peninsula of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
Phoenix TV Station has branches in Beijing, Shenjiang, Kunming and Taiwan.
As Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the mainland China, and
according to the policy of "One country, two Systems", mainland China
controls foreign affairs and the defence sector only. And the Hong Kong
SAR government has the right to deal with other sectors freely.

Anti-government broadcasting stations and groups, taking advantage of news
reports aired by Phoenix TV, manufactured a-fabrication as if the news
about Myanmar was aired by the Yunnan Province TV Station which is under
the supervision of the Chinese government. Actually, the attempt was to
jeopardize China-Myanmar friendly ties.

____________________________________
BUSINESS / TRADE

April 7, Press Trust of India
Tata Motors to set up CV plant in Myanmar

Tata Motors on Tuesday said it will set up in Myanmar a heavy truck
manufacturing facility with a capacity of 1,500 units per annum. The plant
is being set up following an agreement between Indian and Myanmar
governments.

New Delhi had offered a line of credit of USD 20 million (about Rs 100
crore) to the South East Asian country. "The two governments had
approached Tata Motors to set up the plant under this credit line for the
assembly of Tata Heavy Trucks,'' a Tata Motors spokesperson said, adding
after initial discussions with Myanmar officials, the company is now
progressing towards implementation of the project.

He said the company is in the process of garnering a proper understanding
of the project scope. "This plant is being planned with a production
capacity of 1,500 trucks per annum, but will have provision for ramping up
as the demand picks up,'' he sai d.

The spokesperson, however, did not specify by when the plant will be
operational. The official said there was no capital commitment from Tata
Motors towards the project, and is being entirely funded by the Indian
government through the line of credit.
____________________________________

April 7, Japan Times
Visitors to Myanmar dip on crackdown, typhoon

The number of Japanese tourists who visited Myanmar plunged 55 percent
last year, according to the latest available official data.

Some 4,413 Japanese arrived on tourist visas at international airports in
Myanmar from January to December, down from 9,889 in 2007, figures from
the Central Statistical Organization show.

Last year, 261,472 international tourists visited Myanmar, down 17 percent
from 314,224 in 2007.

Tourism suffered due to the military crackdown on prodemocracy protesters
in September 2007 and Cyclone Nargis, which hit in May 2008 and left more
than 130,000 people dead or missing.

____________________________________
HEALTH / AIDS

April 7, Irrawaddy
Arsenic found in two traditional Burmese medicines – Wai Moe

Burma’s Ministry of Health has issued a public warning that two brands of
traditional medicine contain dangerous levels of arsenic.

The warning, carried by Myanma Alin and other state media on Tuesday,
identified the two brands as Daw Tway and the children’s medicine Daw
Kyin. The official announcement said the medicines were “unfit for human
use” because they contained arsenic.

Traditional medicine shops in Rangoon contacted by The Irrawaddy said they
had already withdrawn the two brands from their shelves. Business people
in the Thai-Burmese border town of Mae Sot, however, said the tainted
medicines were still being sold there.

“The demand for traditional medicine is still high among Burmese migrant
workers,” said a grocery shop owner in Mae Sot.

In March, local newspapers in the US town of Fort Wayne reported that 32
Burmese refugee children who had been resettled there from the Mae Sot
area had excessive levels of lead in their blood.

“At first, it was thought that these lead levels were brought about during
their stay on the Thai-Burma border,” Burmese doctor Khin Mar Oo told
Salem-News.com, a US online news site. She said arsenic had been found not
only in refugee children from Thailand but also in some US-born Burmese
children.

Traditional medicine is popular in Burma because it’s cheap compared to
the cost of recognized prescription drugs.

In March, the Burmese Ministry of Health announced that more than 100
brands of a popular Burmese pickled tea contained a dangerous chemical
dye, Auramine 0.

Singapore and Malaysia authorities then banned sales of imported Burmese
pickled tea leaves.

____________________________________
ASEAN

April 7, Xinhua
Myanmar PM to attend ASEAN summits with other regional countries

Myanmar Prime Minister General Thein Sein will attend some summits of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with other regional
countries as well as the United Nations scheduled to take place in
Pattaya, Thailand, an official announcement from Nay Pyi Taw said Tuesday
without specifying the date of his attendance.

The last 14th ASEAN Summit was held in Hua Hin, Thailand in February-March
this year which Thein Sein also attended at the invitation of his Thai
counterpart Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Myanmar has called for boosting economic cooperation among ASEAN members
to win more development in the region.

Hailing some outcome of the last 14th ASEAN Summit, Myanmar said "ASEAN
countries can enjoy greater regional development in the near future if
they keep on boosting trade and investment cooperation in the economic
sector in accordance with the fine tradition of their unity".

Noting that ASEAN is now trying hard to boost regional economic
cooperation as part of the drive for establishing ASEAN economic community
by 2015, Myanmar pointed out that being rich in natural and human
resources, ASEAN region has economic opportunities and attracts the
attention of investor.

Also taking note of that ASEAN members have endorsed the Declaration on
Roadmap for ASEAN Community, Myanmar predicts that when ASEAN community
emerges, the peoples of ASEAN members will be able to enjoy progress in
the sectors of peace, stability, prosperity, social affairs and culture.

The Hua Hin ASEAN summit held discussions on the implementation of ASEAN
Charter and exchanged views on regional and international issues, global
financial crisis, disaster management, food and energy security, and
regional and international situation.

At the summit, the ASEAN heads of government signed the Declaration on
Roadmap for ASEAN Community.

More agreements were also inked which are -- ASEAN Petroleum Security
Agreement, ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, ASEAN Comprehensive Investment
Agreement, Protocol to Implement the 7th Package of Commitments under
ASEAN Framework Agreement on Service, and three programs for mutual
recognition of ASEAN Quality.

Myanmar, which joined the ASEAN along with Laos in July 1997, ratified the
ASEAN Charter in July last year.

Myanmar has urged its people to strive together in building the ASEAN
community, anticipating that the future emergence of the ASEAN community
by 2015 will benefit Myanmar citizens along with other regional members in
sharing the fruits of peace and stability, prosperity and socio-cultural
development.

ASEAN's three pillars are known as political security community, economic
community and socio-culture community.

ASEAN comprises Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

April 7, BBC News
Capturing Burma's protests on film – Philippa Fogarty

A monk looks into a camera at a monastery in Rangoon. His face is bruised
and swollen.

Troops came during the night, he says. They beat the monks and took dozens
of them away. He doesn't know where they are.

Outside, the camera records pools of blood on the floor, shards of glass
and rubble.

The date was 27 September 2007 and the man behind the camera was Aung Htun.

He was one of a network of people working as undercover reporters for an
Oslo-based NGO and opposition broadcaster, the Democratic Voice of Burma,
when a fuel price hike triggered anti-government protests.

The protests spread from activists to monks and students, and became an
uprising - the most significant challenge to Burma's generals in almost
two decades.

Most foreign journalists are banned from Burma and the military government
censors all media.

But the undercover reporters used small hand-held cameras to record what
was happening. Even as troops brutally suppressed the unrest, they took
enormous risks to send the pictures out of the country.

Media organisations used them to report on the unfolding crisis and the
footage was broadcast around the world, defying government efforts to hide
events from international eyes.

Hope and fear

The camcorder material - and the story of the journalists' efforts to
obtain it - has now been turned into a film by Danish director Anders
Ostergaard.

Called "Burma VJ", the docu-drama gives a powerful visual record of how
the uprising unfolded.

Some scenes are reconstructed - telephone conversations between the
journalists, scenes involving the central character, Joshua, as he leaves
Burma to co-ordinate coverage from Thailand. Identities of the journalists
are concealed.

But the footage from Burma is at the heart of the film. Some of it has
never been shown before.

Large groups of monks march through Rangoon as crowds clap and cheer from
pavements, windows and roofs. An elderly woman watches the column, her
face a mixture of excitement, hope and fear.

Days later, the atmosphere is tense. Troops block the road in front of the
marchers. Shots are heard and protesters flee, dozens of them crowding
into a stairwell to escape.

The violence escalates; a monk's body is found in a river. Hundreds of
monks are detained, and rumours abound of more deaths.

Before September 2007, Mr Ostergaard had been planning to work with Joshua
to make a short programme about day-to-day life inside Burma.

But that all changed when the protests erupted. "We had to revise
everything when we realised that we had this incredible footage coming
in," he said.

'Knew they would shoot'

Aung Htun filmed some of the most memorable material.

He started working for DVB shortly before the protests. He was fed up with
state censorship and wanted to "find a way to show the daily life of
Burmese people".

He had a week of training with the camcorder and then got to work. The
reporters did not all know each other. They communicated via mobile phone
or the internet.

When the protests erupted, he went to film them, regardless of the risk.
Someone told him about the raid on the monastery, so he went there and
persuaded the monks to talk to him.

Later that day he went downtown. He was one of at least three secret
cameramen in the crowd when a soldier shot Japanese journalist Kenji Nagai
- who was also filming - at close range.

"We could hear [the soldiers cocking] their triggers, so we knew they were
going to shoot," he said. "But I couldn't see him very well, we were in
the smoke and the tear gas."

Aung Htun was not caught by the authorities. But some of his colleagues
paid a high price for their covert work.

As troops ended the uprising, the reporters' headquarters in Rangoon was
discovered and raided. Three people are now in prison; many others had to
flee. The network broke up in disarray.

'Inspire others'

Back in Denmark, Anders Ostergaard's team began putting the material
together.

Some footage arrived straight away via DVB. But more was still arriving
months later, smuggled out of Burma into Thailand.

Some of it arrived with no information on date or location. So the
producers used satellite images from Google Earth to identify places and
held painstaking consultations to establish the chronology.

"It was crucial to understand what was going on when, both for [a record
of] the uprising and to understand the emotion of the time," Mr Ostergaard
said.

Deciding how much to show - places, faces in the crowd or among the
marchers - was a constant dilemma, but he had to find a balance. Showing
faces was "something you have to do if you want to tell this story", he
said.

Mr Ostergaard hopes that the film will reignite international interest in
Burma and "let people know we have not forgotten them". It has already won
several awards.

DVDs of the film have also been sent into Burma. "If we expose ourselves
[by doing this], we are not sure if we will face more danger," says Aung
Htun. "But we are sure it will inspire more people to work with us."

That is already happening. The protests politicised a new generation, says
Mr Ostergaard, and a new, larger network of video journalists has now been
established. He believes this could help bring changes.

"DVB leaders said that the fact much less people were killed this time
around [compared to the 1988 uprising] could be due to the generals'
awareness that things were being filmed," he said.

"In that way, the film is part of a media development around Burma that is
highly significant."

(Aung Htun and Joshua are pseudonyms)
____________________________________

April 7, Politico (US)
Obama-era goodwill for Rice at U.N.

It is, says Susan Rice, "a good time to be American ambassador to the
United Nations."

Rice, a foreign policy veteran at the age of 44, is positioned to be one
of the administration's key national security voices. She has access to
the president, a restored Cabinet seat and a place on the National
Security Council's Principal's Committee. She's also broadened her
Washington presence, with an expanded office at the State Department.

Rice is, said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry,
"playing a central role in the team that's been assembled."

Perhaps more than any other American official, Rice also is negotiating
day to day the meaning of President Barack Obama's promise of a new era in
American foreign policy, one in which openness doesn't mean weakness and
engagement can be combative.

Some of the earliest moves have been symbolic, like making the
controversial decision to rejoin the troubled U.N. Human Rights Council —
where, Rice said, the United States will battle "the anti-Israel crap."
She also said the administration is still considering attending the
controversial anti-racism conference this month, where U.S. pressure has
won a "substantially improved" draft text.

On a larger scale, Rice has been part of a renewed push to end the killing
in Darfur and an administration drive to prevent a North Korean missile
test.

"There's just enormous goodwill and optimism," Rice told POLITICO. "I'd
say even excessive expectations about President Obama and what his
administration can bring."

Rice also forcefully rejected what has emerged as an early knock on
Obama's foreign policy: that his team, notably Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, has appeared to downplay human rights concerns, from China to
Turkey to Egypt, in favor of more practical issues.

"The whole point is we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same
time. We don't have the luxury of viewing every issue, every country,
every challenge in black-and-white terms. That was, in my opinion, part of
the fallacy of the Bush administration," she said. "But there are ways and
means of accomplishing that. It's not always in every instance most
productive to do it on a huge stage beating a drum — sometimes it is."

"Whether it's Russia or Egypt or China or Zimbabwe, strong advocacy for
human rights and democracy will be part of our approach."

Rice is, in the meantime, settling into what one of her predecessors,
Madeleine Albright, described to POLITICO as "one of the all-time great
jobs — especially if you are working for a president who believes in
having an approach that recognizes the importance of other countries." An
assistant secretary of state for African Affairs under President Bill
Clinton, Rice was an early foreign policy adviser to Obama.

Albright has known her since Rice was a child, when she served on a school
board with Rice's mother. She praised in particular one of the
ambassador's early moves — re-establishing her Mission's Washington
presence with a nine-person staff at the State Department — and dismissed
suggestions that the move riled Secretary Clinton as "made up."

Back in New York, Rice already has hosted a round of receptions for nearly
every other U.N. ambassador (the old "axis of evil" is still out) at the
ambassador's traditional residence at the Waldorf, and she has installed
herself in the substantially less glamorous, faded office at the mission's
temporary East Side headquarters.

Rice admitted to enjoying the grand Waldorf quarters, though they can be
"pretty big and hollow if you're rattling around there by yourself." Her
husband, an ABC News producer, and her children remain in Washington. Her
11-year-old son "wants to know what the Libyans are doing this week,"
while her daughter, 6, is a bit less of a wonk.

"When she's trying to jack me up, she calls me 'Ambassador Momma,'" Rice
said.

Rice said she's setting into the Ambassador's traditional routine of
high-gloss — but also very practical -— dinners at the residences of other
Security Council members and dignitaries. The ambassador is sometimes a
bit of a New York society figure, and Rice places herself somewhere
between former Ambassadors Richard Holbrooke, a prince of the dinner party
circuit, and John Bolton, a U.N. critic who turned in early and spent as
little time as possible in New York.

"On the glitz glam spectrum, I'm not at the Holbrooke end," she said, "and
I don't put myself on anything with John Bolton."

Rice's predilection for straight talk and the occasional sharp elbow,
though, has just a touch of Bolton — though Bolton made himself
particularly unwelcome at the international body by joking that it would
make no difference if the U.N. headquarters "lost 10 stories."

Bolton sneered at the decision to rejoin the Human Rights Council as
"genuflecting" to the fantasy that mere American presence would make a
difference.

Rice dismissed that criticism.

"We have a record of abject failure from having stayed out. We've been out
for the duration and it has not gotten better. It's arguably gotten
worse," she said. "We are much better placed to be fighting for the
principles we believe in — protection of human rights universally,
fighting against the anti-Israel crap and for meaningful action on issues
that we care about and ought to be the top of the agenda, things like
Zimbabwe, Sudan [and] Burma — by leading and lending our voice from
within."

A similar logic is at play with the anti-racism conference, scheduled for
April 20 in Geneva, the successor to a 2001 conference in Durban, South
Africa, that featured sharp condemnations of Israel. The U.S. delegation
pulled out of preparatory talks for the conference after negotiators
produced a 63-page draft text that featured more condemnation of Israel
and demands for reparations for the slave trade.

That withdrawal seemed to prove the Bush administration's point. "While we
got a lot of love, we didn't get any progress on the document," Rice said
of the early talks, calling the draft "rife with anti-Israeli and other
problematic substance" and "not a credible basis for a responsible
outcome."

Since then, however, an American willingness to return to the table has
been met with deep concessions and a new, 17-page draft has that dropped
all reference to Israel, though there is still tension over a line
reaffirming the outcome of the previous meeting in Durban. "We haven't
taken a decision about our participation or actual involvement in the
negotiations at this stage, [but] we're pleased that this document has
substantially improved and is already much better. But [it] has a
remaining significant problem," Rice said.

If the Durban outcome is an early signal that Obama-style diplomacy can
bear results, the ongoing violence in Darfur is grimmer, with no
resolution in sight. Rice declined to talk about the situation in detail
because a presidential envoy, Scott Gration, is currently in the region.
But she said the U.S. is currently working to bolster confidence in a
north-south peace agreement, which she described as essential to
confidence in a separate agreement between the government and Darfurian
rebels.

She also said the notion of a no-fly zone, which some human rights
advocates support, remains "under consideration," though the immediate
effort focuses on reversing the expulsion of aid groups, which exacerbates
"what was already a massive amount of killing and genocide."

"As the [Sudanese] government has demonstrated, there's a lot it can do
quickly unilaterally, and the international community has to decide what's
the best leverage to change its behavior," she said.

Rice also said she would continue to work on a favored Bush administration
cause, improving the function of the United Nations, though perhaps in a
different spirit.

"They didn't invent U.N. reform — they gave it a bad name, but they didn't
invent it," Rice said of her predecessors. "This is an institution that,
despite its evident flaws, we are much better off having function
effectively."

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

April 7, Mizzima News
Obama – Appeaser-in-Chief? – Enzo Reale

Almost ignored by the mainstream media, Stephen Blake’s (Director of the
State Department's Mainland Southeast Asia Office) recent visit to
Naypyidaw highlights the U.S. foreign policy turnabout under the
Obama/Clinton ticket.

Even if Washington maintains a U.S. Embassy in the former Burmese capital
of Rangoon and low intensity diplomatic relations with Burma has never
been cut off, it was the first time that a high-level official headed for
the new jungle capital to confer with military regime Foreign Minister.
The official New Light of Myanmar newspaper emphasized the meeting as a
cordial discussion “on issues of mutual interest and promotion of
bilateral relations”: a sudden shift in tone compared with the fierce
anti-American propaganda of the last decade.

The day after the visit, U.S. State Department tried to pour oil on
troubled waters, making it clear that it was just a diplomatic routine and
in no way it should have been interpreted as an indication of an imminent
turning point in bilateral relations. But it’s important to weigh Blake’s
mission in the light of Hillary Clinton’s remarks about an incoming review
of U.S. sanctions policy against the Burmese regime, branded as
“ineffective”. Actually, some significant elements point out that the
current sanctions system - strengthened many times since 1997, when it was
first introduced - is going to be eased or even revoked in the future. One
indirect confirmation has come from a Burmese opposition representative
that, after a talk with Blake, revealed that U.S. could withdraw some
general measures while keeping operative other targeted provisions. And,
at the end of last week, insiders at Foggy Bottom reaffirmed that U.S.
would be open to direct talks with the junta, either in form of bilateral
contacts or in a framework similar to the fruitless six-nation talks on
North Korean nuclear issue.

If this were the case, U.S. State Department officials will have to
explain very well the cause-and-effect relationship between mitigating
sanctions and promoting democracy in Burma. At first sight, that
connection looks quite obscure. In fact, if it’s true that embargoes have
hardly ever helped democratic transitions, it’s also indisputable that
sanctions removals per se have never achieved such result, without a clear
and verifiable commitment in terms of liberalization and genuine reforms
from the implicated regimes.

So, the fundamental question is: in exchange for what is Obama holding out
his hand to the same generals who stifled and impoverished a once
prosperous nation?

In Burma, repression is today harsher than ever, political opponents’ are
being convicted in secret trials in spite of international appeals, and
power consolidation plans by the military are in full progress (see 2010
electoral farce). In such a context, Western sanctions have made no
difference for Burmese people, whose situation was extremely precarious
even before their application: thus, in Burma’s case “collateral damages”
rhetoric cannot be pleaded. If effectiveness of sanctions has been
seriously curtailed by economic support from Asian neighbours, the ethical
reasons that suggested their imposition are still sound: to hit the
businesses and the grip on power of a regime that monopolize the whole
economy of the country. But, instead of pushing for a widespread
enforcement of the embargo – a step that could really change its outcome
-, Obama profits from its alleged failure to offer the dictators his
cooperation: a discouraging message sent to freedom fighters and human
rights activists inside and outside Burma, apart from the real purposes of
the new strategy.  It’s however possible that Washington, still lacking an
overall plan, is just trying to show a less uncompromising picture in
order to get some apparent diplomatic success, for the benefit of the
international community. Aung San Suu Kyi’s release from house arrest
could serve the purpose, a card the ruling junta has repeatedly played in
the last 20 years to ease international pressure: with more than 2000
political prisoners behind bars and an opposition reduced to its lowest
ebb, Sr. Gen. Than Shwe could afford to free her for the third time,
before or soon after next year’s rigged elections. At that point the U.S.
and Western countries will be able to light-heartedly fill Burmese
general’s strongboxes again.

Enzo Reale is a freelance journalist. He writes about South-East Asia
issues for Italian online newspapers and magazines. He edits two blogs
(http://1972.splinder.com and http://asiaedintorni.blogosfere.it).

____________________________________

April 6, Far East Economic Review
Will change come to Burma? – Aung Din

When I visited Thailand in February, my colleagues, exile Burmese
activists there, asked me the following: How will the United States change
its policy on Burma? When I was in Japan last month, many people,
including some Japanese MPs, asked the same question. When I call my
friends inside Burma, they too ask how will President Barack Obama change
America’s Burma policy? All await the U.S. policy review on Burma with
concern, frustration and expectation.
In February, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that sanctions
applied by the U.S. and the European Union, as well as the policy of
constructive engagement by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(Asean) and Burma’s neighbors, were not working and a policy review was
necessary.

Since then, many people have raised their voices to be heard by policy
makers in Foggy Bottom. Some individuals have encouraged the U.S.
government to lift some or all of the sanctions in an attempt to influence
the generals. The humanitarian community has lobbied to increase
humanitarian assistance without conditions. Some even call for direct
engagement with the regime by offering development assistance.

Secretary Clinton is absolutely correct that neither sanctions nor
engagement have brought about a democratic transition in Burma. But why? 
Since 1997, the U.S. and the EU applied limited economic sanctions, which
were incrementally strengthened as the regime increased its brutality. A
major, multilateral diplomatic effort to get Asean members and Burma’s
neighbors on board with those sanctions was never fully implemented.

Meanwhile, Burma’s neighbors—including China, India and Asean
members—carried out a policy of constructive engagement. Clearly,
sanctions had little chance of success while those who Burma depends on
most carried on talking and trading with the regime. In truth, the policy
of “engagement” was a façade to mask their economic interests. When they
secured business concessions from the regime, their call for positive
change in Burma disappeared, they defended the regime and blamed Western
countries for using punitive measures.

Sadly, after all these years, sanctions and engagement, necessary tools in
every country’s foreign-policy arsenal to attempt to change the murderous
behavior of a regime, have not been appropriately employed in the case of
Burma. So, how can we make sanctions and engagement dually effective?

First, the U.S should maintain its current sanctions. Lifting sanctions
unilaterally will only strengthen the regime and weaken and hurt the
democratic opposition inside Burma. Sanctions prove that the world’s
democratic nations actively denounce the regime’s crimes against humanity
and that they fully support the courageous actions of Burma’s democrats
and ethnic nationalities.

Second, the U.S. should work with its key partners in Asia to make
progress in Burma. China, Burma’s closet ally, is a major weapons supplier
and defender of the regime. China claims that Burma is a matter for Asean,
while Asean argues that China should persuade the regime to change. By
doing so, they wash their hands of dealing with the regime. The U.S.
should not wait until they settle their dispute.

Instead, the Obama administration and its EU partners should work directly
with the governments of Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and the
Philippines, all of which have stated their willingness to see positive
change in Burma and their desire to mediate between the U.S., the EU and
the regime. These governments have also expressed sympathy for Burma’s
democracy movement, eagerness to improve the image of Asean, and perhaps
most importantly, they have good relations with the regime. For these
reasons they should be made key partners to assure both sanctions and
engagement are effective in Burma.

China and India have clearly demonstrated that their first and only
priority in Burma is their economic interests and not the welfare of the
people of Burma. Let them be shamed not embraced as partners—eventually,
perhaps, they will choose to take part as they will not want to be
sidelined.

Third, we also support U.S. direct engagement with the regime. However,
direct engagement should only be with the regime’s sole decision maker,
Senior Gen. Than Shwe. Meetings with other officials, who are not involved
in decision making, will not produce results. Direct engagement should be
aimed at solving problems in Burma, while bearing in mind the regime’s
desire to hold on to power at all costs. An under appreciation of this
reality is one of the main reasons for the failure of the United Nations’
engagement in Burma over 18 years.

The Obama administration must realize that setting a new policy toward
Burma is extremely important because it will affect the policies of other
nations. Still, the policy review is most important for the people of
Burma, who have time and again courageously expressed their desire to be
free from military dictatorship—in the popular democracy uprising of 1988;
the elections of 1990; the subsequent protests of 1991, 1996, 1998, 2000
and August 2007; and of course in the powerful demonstrations led by
Buddhist monks and nuns in September 2007, known as the Saffron
Revolution.

The Burmese people have proved their willingness to obtain democracy and
human rights with their blood—and they will do so again and again until
the international community takes effective and collective action.

Aung Din served over four years in prison in Burma, as a political
prisoner between 1989 and 1993. He is now the executive director of the
Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Campaign for Burma, which advocates the U.S.
Congress and administration regarding U.S. policy on Burma.