BurmaNet News, September 1, 2009

[Editor]

September 1, 2009 Issue #3788


INSIDE BURMA
Mizzima News: Monks under close surveillance
Mizzima News: Ten-party alliance drafts electoral policy
Irrawaddy: Rangoon opinions differ on Kokang assault
Xinhua: Myanmar replants over 1 mln trees in cyclone-hit division

ON THE BORDER
Kachin News: Another 3,000 Burmese civilians head for China border
AP: China says Myanmar promises border stability
New York Times: China silent on Burmese refugees
Irrawaddy: Burmese officials travel to Kunming

BUSINESS/TRADE
SHAN: Activists say clashes may be linked to Salween dam with Chinese
investments

INTERNATIONAL
AP: UN, West pressure Myanmar for change from within
Washington Post: U.N. Chief's 'quiet' outreach to autocrats causing discord

OPINION / OTHER
Times of London: Burma refugees carry lesson in imperialism to China –
Carl Mortished
Irrawaddy: Offensive elections? – Aung Moe Zaw

STATEMENT
U.S. Department of State: DOS: Urging an end to the violence in Eastern
Burma – Ian Kelly





____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

September 1, Mizzima News
Monks under close surveillance

New Delhi – As the second anniversary of the Saffron Revolution draws
near, arrests, searches and monitoring of monks have been stepped up by
the authorities in monasteries in Buddhist majority Burma.

Three policemen and an officer from the Religious Department of Magwe
division on August 30 raided the room of the head monk U Yaywada of Ngwe
Taung monestry in Chauk Township, Magwe Division in Central Burma.

“They came and searched the monastery at about 4.30 p.m. on Sunday. The
chief monk was not present when they came and started searching. He has
been on a trip for a long time. They searched the chief monk’s room and
directed us to inform them when he comes back,” a young monk close to the
monestry told Mizzima.

“U Yarwada was said to be active during the Saffron Revolution. I wonder
whether that was the reason why they came and searched,” he said.

Similarly, monks from monasteries in Chauk Township said that some
monasteries were being watched by policemen in plain clothes.

“We knew the police were from Chauk Township as soon as we saw them. They
are found in houses and street corners near the monasteries. Their hand
phones are tucked at the waist. Almost all the monasteries are being
monitored,” said a monk.

In 2007 September, monk-led demonstrators chanted Metta Sutra and marched
on the streets of Rangoon, Mandalay and other big cities.

The demonstrators demanded a dialogue between the military regime and
opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. But the junta cracked down brutally on
the demonstrations, using the army, which killed at least 10 people.

Meanwhile, the authorities arrested an assistant chief monk form Shwe
Zaydi Parli University monastery in Yenanchaung Township, Magwe division
and a young monk from Mandalay monastery in Pakkokku on August 27 and 28.

“I saw the chief monk being arrested and taken in a car. The police from
Magwe division and the chairman of the Quarter Peace and Development
Council were present,” an eyewitness close to Shwe Zaydi monastery told
Mizzima. Later, the chief monk was taken to Rangoon.

____________________________________

September 1, Mizzima News
Ten-party alliance drafts electoral policy – Nem Davies

New Delhi – The alliance of 10-political parties in Burma started drafting
its electoral policy since Sunday, as part of its preparation to contest
in the junta proposed 2010 general elections.

The 'National Politics Alliance League' also referred to as the 'Third
Force' in Burmese political circles will complete drafting its policy and
manifesto for the elections within a week.

"We are mainly drafting our policy, rules and regulations. What we can do
for Burma, our objectives, our attitude towards the Tatmadaw (armed
forces), our attitude towards farmers and workers, our culture, religion,
among others," Central Committee member Ohn Lwin told Mizzima.

The alliance has accepted the political change being led by the military
junta and accepted the controversial 2008 Constitution.

"We prefer peaceful and smooth transition from military rule to civilian
rule without fighting and conflicts. We shall take this opportunity of
contesting the elections," he said.

This alliance is comprised of the National Politics NLD Youth (Meiktila)
which is a breakaway group of the main opposition the 'National League for
Democracy' (NLD), Patriotic National Politics Organization (Taung Dwin
Gyi), Peace and Progress Organization, National Politics Rakhine State,
Demo NLD (Sagaing Division), National Politics Instigators, G-7, Students
of Political Economy New Generation, independents and some National
Convention delegates.

MP Kyi Win from Mingaladon constituency (1) told Mizzima that the G-7
group comprises of seven elected MPs, who were expelled from NLD in 1999
and are part of the 10-party alliance which was formed in Meiktila,
Mandalay Division last July.

Elected MPs in the 1990 general election Kyi Win (Mingaladon 1), Tin Tun
Maung (Mingaladon 2), Thein Kyi (Taung Dwin Gyi), Mya Hlaing (Twante) and
Hla Soe (Minbu) are members of the G-7 group. They are trying to persuade
another expelled MP-elect Than Tun (Dadeye) to join them, it is learnt.

Political observers have predicted that the election commission law for
the 2010 election will be enacted and announced after the forthcoming
Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) Congress is held in
Naypyidaw next month.

"We found election commission signboards being whitewashed while we were
walking in Thanlan in Hlaing Townshi," Aye Lwin from the pro-junta New 88
Generation Students and Youth (Union of Burma) said.

The NLD, which won the 1990 general elections, issued a statement after
its recent party congress at the end of May and called for review of the
2008 Constitution and its amendment, engaging in dialogue with the
opposition and releasing all political prisoners including Aung San Suu
Kyi.

The opposition forces of the Sangha (monk) and students, who do not accept
the forthcoming election, expressed their determination and commitment to
anti-election campaigns.

The junta held general elections in 1990 and the NLD won over 83 per cent
of the total seats in what was a landslide victory but the junta still
refuses to honour the election results and transfer power to the winning
party. After which the junta drafted the new Constitution envisaging a
leading role by the army.

____________________________________

September 1, Xinhua
Myanmar replants over 1 mln trees in cyclone-hit division

YANGON -- The Myanmar authorities has replanted over 1 million trees in
cyclone-hit Ayeyawaddy division to replace those collapsed during last
year's May cyclone storm, the local Weekly Eleven reported Tuesday.

The trees include betel trees, coconut trees and other plants, the sources
said.

A total of 35,000 hectares of mangrove were destroyed and about63 percent
of farms and 43 percent of pools in the division were flooded by salt
water then, it said.

Meanwhile, the authorities has also replanted more than
100,000shade-providing trees in the Yangon municipal area which was also
hit by Nargis, an earlier report said.

The cyclone storm brought down about 20,000 tress including old-aged ones
in Yangon division.

The stem roots of downed trees of 30 to 100 years of age have been
auctioned to both domestic and foreign entrepreneurs for use in sculpture
and decoration.

Making use of the stem roots and branches of downed trees, Myanmar has
created a wood garden at the People's Square in Yangon.

Deadly cyclone Nargis, which occurred over the Bay of Bengal, hit five
divisions and states -- Ayeyawaddy, Yangon, Bago, Mon andKayin on May 2
and 3 last year, of which Ayeyawaddy and Yangon inflicted the heaviest
casualties and massive infrastructural damage.

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

September 1, Kachin News
Another 3,000 Burmese civilians head for China border

Another 3,000 Burmese have fled to the China border since yesterday night
from the United Wa State Army’s (UWSA’s) northern territory, contiguous to
the territory of the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), a
Kokang ceasefire group, said local sources. There were repeated clashes
between the Burmese Army and the Kokang Army before the latter’s base was
overrun.

The refugees are ethnic Lahu, Akha, Kachin and Wa from the villages around
Hopang and Panglong areas in Wa territory. They are fleeing to Chinese
territories, near the Chinshwehaw border gate, sources close to a Chinese
border refugee agency said.

The civilian refugees from these areas are heading for the China border
because of the simmering tension between Burmese soldiers and ethnic Wa
troops after the military junta took control of the Kokang's capital
Laogai on August 24, said Wa sources.

During clashes between Kokang fighters loyal to chairman Peng Jiasheng and
the Burmese troops, Wa sent about 3,000 troops to the Kokang's Chinshwehaw
areas, bordering its territory, said sources close to Wa.

A local Burmese military observer told KNG today, the Burmese Army was
transporting heavy weapons and mortars in several military trucks along
with soldiers to Panglong in Wa territory since last night.

He was of the opinion that Burmese troops are preparing to fight UWSA and
the 4th Brigade of the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) based on Loikang
west of Salween River bordering the northern Kokang territory.

Sources close to UWSA said, yesterday its troops destroyed a hydropower
plant in Namti River (also spelt Nam Ting) located between Hopang and
Kunlong, which was mainly distributing electricity to Kokang's capital
Laogai and other villages.

Last night, Burmese soldiers forcibly detained about 60 villagers from
villages where ethnic Wa, Kachin, Shan, Lahu and Akha live, around Hopang
and Panglong for porter duty, said village sources.

The junta has now deployed seven Light Infantry Divisions (LID) including,
Pa-an based LID No. 22, Ywataung-based LID No. 33, Kalaw-based LID No. 55,
Meiktila-based LID No. 99, and more than five army battalions in Kokang
territories, said local Burmese military observers.

Over 30,000 civilian refugees from Kokang territory fled to areas near
Nansan border town in China's Yunnan province following the tension
between the Burmese Army and the Kokang ceasefire group since August 8,
border sources said.

____________________________________

September 1, Associated Press
China says Myanmar promises border stability – Ng Han Guan

NANSAN, China — Myanmar has pledged to restore peace to a border area
where its troops battled ethnic rebels, in fighting that sent more than
30,000 refugees fleeing into China, Beijing said Tuesday.

The comments by China's Foreign Ministry came as authorities pulled down
tent camps after thousands of the refugees went home Monday. The number
leaving appeared to fall sharply Tuesday.

While the deadly fighting reportedly has ended in Myanmar's northern
Kokang region, monitoring groups have warned it could resume.

Myanmar's ruling junta thanked China for caring for its citizens during
the crisis, China Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a regularly
scheduled news conference in Beijing.

"Myanmar also promised to restore peace and stability along the border,"
Jiang said.

Myanmar's border regions have for decades been the scene of fighting
between ethnic armies and the ruling military, conflicts that have
displaced hundreds of thousands of people.

Myanmar, also known as Burma, is largely estranged from the West, but
China, with its policy of noninterference in the politics of its allies,
has maintained close economic and diplomatic ties with the junta. Large
numbers of Chinese citizens have migrated to Myanmar for business and
major state companies are big investors in the country's oil and gas
industries.

The crisis, however, prompted a rare request from Beijing that Myanmar
calm the situation.

Last week's fighting broke out after hundreds of Myanmar soldiers moved
into Kokang to pressure wary rebels to give up their arms and become
border guards. The junta wants stability with its several armed ethnic
groups before next year's national elections, the first in nearly 20
years.

The junta said the three days of fighting killed 26 government soldiers
and at least eight rebels.

Chinese authorities housed the refugees in makeshift camps in Yunnan
province, and about 4,000 returned home on Monday. But many thousands
remained, and it was not clear whether they intended to stay. Some camped
in unfinished buildings, their laundry hanging from the frameless windows.

"Chinese people don't really want to stay over there anymore," said Zhang
Suzhen, a Chinese citizen heading back to Kokang to look after her shop.

"Some of the people have lost everything they own," she said.

Officials in Yunnan refused to release updated information on the status
of the refugees and ordered foreign journalists to leave the area.

The Foreign Ministry's Jiang said China was providing "necessary
humanitarian assistance" to the refugees, but gave no figures on numbers
remaining or a schedule for closing the camps.

She repeated an earlier statement that Myanmar had apologized for the
death of one Chinese national from three artillery shells fired into
Chinese territory.

"After what happened, China and Myanmar have kept in close
communications," Jiang said.

Aung Din, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Burma, said Myanmar
forces were continuing to pour into the northeast, as a prelude to more
fighting.

Despite its policy of nonintervention, China may try to persuade Myanmar
to hold its fire to ensure border stability ahead of the Oct. 1
celebrations of the 60th anniversary of communist China, said Lai-Ha Chan,
a researcher on China at Australia's University of Technology, Sydney.

Chan said more serious political steps are unlikely, adding, "Myanmar
still holds ideological and material value for China."

____________________________________

September 1, New York Times
China silent on Burmese refugees – Michael Wines

BEIJING — Chinese officials imposed an information blackout Tuesday on the
situation along its border with Myanmar and began taking down tents that
had sheltered some of the estimated 30,000 people who fled into China to
escape the recent fighting between Myanmar’s military and ethnic rebels.

But news reports stated that many thousands of refugees remained in China,
unwilling or unable to return to Myanmar, formerly called Burma, and it
was not clear how the Chinese government intended to address their plight.

The Chinese authorities withheld comment on the border situation Tuesday,
aside from saying, in a Foreign Ministry briefing, that “necessary
humanitarian assistance” was being provided. And they began ordering
foreign journalists to leave the area around Nansan and Genma, Chinese
towns on the mountainous border where the refugees have been housed in
seven separate camps.

While about 4,000 refugees had returned to Myanmar on Monday, the day
after the fighting ended, the pace has since slowed dramatically. Only
about 30 people crossed the border into Myanmar in a half-hour period on
Tuesday morning, The Associated Press reported.

“It seems to be slowing down,” one foreigner near Nansan said in a
telephone interview on Tuesday. “There’s still a large number of refugees
in and around Nansan, both in the camps and hanging around.” The
foreigner, who refused to be identified, said Chinese Army troops had
stepped up patrols in the area.

An unknown number of those who fled to China during the fighting are
Chinese citizens who have been conducting business in Myanmar, where China
is building dams and other projects and has extensive mining ventures.
They are unlikely to return soon.

China has insisted that northern Myanmar’s Kokang region is safe and
stable after the fighting last week, in which hundreds of government
troops overwhelmed an armed ethnic group, breaking a cease-fire that had
prevailed for two decades. Human rights groups and others have warned that
the junta’s actions could ignite a wider conflict in the area, where
other, better armed ethnic groups also are resisting government control.

Both Thai newspapers and The Irrawaddy, an independent magazine that
focuses on Myanmar, have reported that the government is sending fresh
troops into the northern state of Shan in an attempt to consolidate its
control there. The army wants the rebels to disarm and join a government
border patrol force, as required under a new constitution. Most of the
rebels have resisted the order, which would effectively place them under
government control.

Myanmar’s military junta apparently seeks to take control of the region
before elections, the first in almost 20 years, that are scheduled for
next year. Outside monitors accuse the military junta of brutal human
rights violations as part of its effort to stay in power. The Myanmar
government has said that 26 of its soldiers and at least 8 rebels died in
three days of battles.

The Myanmar conflict has thrust the Chinese government, one of the
government’s only staunch backers, into an awkward situation. China has
provided diplomatic support to the junta in exchange for access to its
considerable mineral wealth and cooperation in efforts to suppress a
growing cross-border trade in heroin and other illicit drugs. The flood of
refugees prompted the Chinese to issue muted criticism of the junta,
calling on Friday for it to secure Myanmar’s borders.

____________________________________

September 1, Irrawaddy
Burmese officials travel to Kunming – Saw Yan Naing

Five high-ranking Burmese officials visited Kunming, the capital of
China’s Yunnan Province, on Monday, days after clashes between Kokang and
junta troops sent thousands of refugees flooding into China, according to
sources on the Sino-Burmese border.

The delegation, led by Deputy Minister for Home Affairs Brig-Gen Phone
Swe, traveled to Kunming on Monday and returned to Burma the same day
after meeting with unidentified Chinese officials, the sources said. No
further details were available.
Kokang refugees making their way back to Burma walk toward the border
gates in Nansan in southwest China’s Yunnan Province. (Photo: Ng Han Guan)

Meanwhile, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters at
a regular press conference in Beijing today that the Burmese regime had
thanked the Chinese government for helping thousands of its citizens who
fled into China during the crisis.

“Myanmar [Burma] also promised to restore peace and stability along the
border,” Jiang said.

The Foreign Ministry statement came as Chinese authorities were shutting
down temporary camps set up to house more than 30,000 Kokang refugees who
started fleeing to China last Monday.

Thousands of refugees began returning to Burma yesterday, after around 700
Kokang troops surrendered their weapons to Chinese officials over the
weekend.

In a press briefing on Sunday, Meng Sutie, Yunnan’s chief of police, said
that three shells fired by Burmese government troops landed in the Chinese
countryside, killing one Chinese citizen and injuring two others.

He also said that the recent clashes in northern Shan State killed one
Chinese national and injured 13 others on the Burmese side of the border.
He added that the Burmese regime apologized for the Chinese casualties on
the Chinese side.

According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, the Chinese authorities
have spent 10 million yuan (about US $1.4 million) in providing
humanitarian assistance to the Kokang refugees.

____________________________________
BUSINESS/TRADE

September 1, Shan Herald Agency for News
Activists say clashes may be linked to Salween dam with Chinese
investments – Hseng Khio Fah

Heavy clashes between August 27 to 29, between the Burmese Army and Kokang
rebels could be linked to China’s proposal of building the Upper Salween
Dam, also known as the Kunlong Dam in northern Shan State, near Kokang
territory, according to Sai Khur Hseng, spokesperson of the Shan Sapawa
Environmental Organization.

Today, the Shan Sapawa together with the Salween Watch coalition of
environmental groups released a statement urging China to immediately halt
all its investments in the dam.

The recent clashes, which killed about 200 people and led to over 30,000
civilians fleeing to China, occurred just east of the town of Kunlong,
about 15 km from the planned dam site, said the statement.

“The renewed conflict and refugee influx into Yunnan should be a wake-up
call for Chinaabout the risks of investing in Burma,” said Sai Khur Hseng.

The statement said a team of Chinese and Burmese technicians have been
conducting feasibility studies for the proposed dam, 25 km from the
Chinese border. The hydro power plant is estimated to produce 2,400 MW of
electricity. The studies followed after the plans to construct the dam
were announced in April 2007, by two Chinese companies, Hanergy Holding
Group (formerly Farsighted Investment Group) and Gold Water Resources
Company.

“Trees were being felled for the construction site,” Sai Khur Hseng said.

The Kunlong dam is one of the five mega dams proposed on the Salween in
Burma, by the ruling military junta, the Chinese and Thai companies. The
electricity produced is to be sold to China and Thailand. The other mega
dam being planned in Shan State is the giant 7,110 MW Tasang dam, 100 km
from the Thai border.

In early August, more than 10,000 villagers from townships near the Tasang
dam site were forcibly relocated and over 500 houses were burnt down by
the junta’s recent scorched earth campaign.

Similarly, if China still plans to continue with the project, many people
would be forced to relocate and die as both the investors and the military
junta will clear everything that comes in the way of their plans, Sai Khur
Hseng said.

“China would halt its investments in the dam if it had not been working
hand in glove with the junta during the offensive against Kokang,” he
added.

The clashes between the Burmese Army and Kokang followed after the former
sent troops, ostensibly to investigate reports of Kokang forces operating
an arms factory on August 8.

Tension between the ceasefire groups and the ruling military junta has
been escalating since April, when the former were asked to transform into
Burmese Army run Border Guard Forces.

____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

September 1, Associated Press
UN, West pressure Myanmar for change from within – John Heilprin

UNITED NATIONS — Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday that elections
in Myanmar must be free and fair, amid mounting concerns that they won't
be.

"We need to work more for the democratization of Myanmar," Ban told a
press conference in Oslo, Norway, with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens
Stoltenberg. "This election in 2010 must be a fair and credible and
inclusive one."

Ban said he was working hard to keep the pressure on General Than Shwe and
other of Myanmar's leaders to live up to their commitments to hold
legitimate elections in 2010. At a minimum, the U.N. wants Suu Kyi and
2,000 other political prisoners released. A transcript of Ban's remarks
were made available at the U.N. in New York.

Than Shwe has resisted U.N. demands to open up democratically, ignoring
four Security Council statements and direct entreaties by Ban and a top
envoy. Suu Kyi has been in detention for 14 of the last 20 years since her
pro-democracy party won in the polls but was denied power.

Myanmar's government has given no indication it will release her or the
200 political prisoners that Ibrahim Gambari, Ban's top envoy, told The
Associated Press he expected would be freed after Ban's most recent trip.

Western and U.N. diplomats increasingly view Myanmar as intent on holding
staged elections to enshrine its military dictatorship next year, with few
other than the government or neighboring China able to steer an alternate
course.

"It's the Burmese leadership that have to take the decision to move
forward, rather than to keep their country held back in a state of lack of
freedom, military regime and an environment in which there's going to be
very little international investment," British Ambassador John Sawers said
in an AP interview.

China and Russia, two of Myanmar's main weapons suppliers and trading
partners, oppose the idea of a U.N.-backed international arms embargo, and
they also blocked the council from making anything more than a tepid
protest of Suu Kyi's return to house arrest on Aug. 11.

____________________________________

September 1, Washington Post
U.N. Chief's 'quiet' outreach to autocrats causing discord – Colum Lynch

UNITED NATIONS -- U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has a message for
despots and dictators: We can talk.

The world's top diplomat has had more face time with autocratic leaders
than any of his recent predecessors, jetting off for tete-a-tetes with
Burma's senior general, Than Shwe, and pulling aside Sudanese President
Omar Hassan al-Bashir at summits for discreet chats.

Ban has said he is confident that his trademark "quiet diplomacy" can help
nudge the most recalcitrant leaders to mend their ways. He says he has
pried open the door for aid workers in cyclone-ravaged Burma, gotten
thousands of international peacekeepers into Darfur and helped raise the
international profile of climate change.

"It is human relationships which can make a difference," Ban said in a
recent interview, adding that he doesn't find it productive to scold
foreign leaders in public but won't shrink from delivering tough messages
in private. "Some might think I have been quite soft, but I have been
quite straight, very strong in a sense."

The approach, however, has recently exposed the U.N. chief to criticism
that he too often remains silent in the face of atrocities by the very
leaders he seeks to cultivate, and that he has exaggerated his
accomplishments. His frequent contacts with unsavory leaders have
contributed to the United Nations' reputation as a forum for grubby
compromises, detractors say.

"The main image people have of him is sitting down with the bad guys and
getting nothing," Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch,
said of Ban.

As the Obama administration explores the merits of engagement with its
adversaries, including Iran, North Korea and Syria, Ban's diplomatic
strategy offers insights into some of the political risks of haggling with
the world's most difficult political leaders. Halfway through his first
term, Ban is facing a leadership crisis as U.N. civil servants and
diplomats here increasingly portray him as an ineffective administrator
whose reluctance to hold outlaw leaders to account for bad behavior has
undercut the United Nations' moral authority.

For Ban, perhaps the greatest test of engagement as a policy came earlier
this year.

In Sri Lanka, where the government was pushing to crush the ruthless
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the secretary general reached out to
President Mahinda Rajapaksa to persuade him to show restraint to protect
the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians forced to serve as the
Tigers' human shields.

In an effort to maintain a cordial working relationship with Rajapaksa,
Ban and his top advisers withheld criticism of the government, advising
U.N. human rights officials not to publish U.N. estimates of the civilian
death toll in the conflict, arguing that they were not convinced of their
credibility, according to officials familiar with the discussions. In the
end, Ban's diplomatic intervention achieved a brief weekend pause in the
fighting but did little to stem to slaughter, which cost the lives of
7,800 to 20,000 civilians.

Ban says he won commitments from Sri Lankan leaders to improve conditions
for displaced people and to pursue reconciliation, but his handling of
such crises has raised questions among some U.N. diplomats about his
viability for a second term.

Norway's U.N. ambassador, Mona Juul, wrote that Ban is a "spineless and
charmless" leader who has failed to convey the U.N.'s "moral voice and
authority," according to a confidential memo to Norway's foreign minister.
Juul, whose husband, Terje Roed-Larsen, serves as one of Ban's Middle East
envoys, sharply criticized Ban's handling of the crises in Sri Lanka and
Burma in the memo, which was first published in the Norwegian newspaper
Aftenposten.

"The Secretary-General was a powerless observer to thousands of civilians
losing their lives and becoming displaced from their homes," Juul wrote of
Ban's role in Sri Lanka. "The moral voice and authority of the
Secretary-General has been missing."

Ban has been stung by the criticism and said he is striving to improve his
performance. But he suggested that the criticism stemmed from a
misunderstanding in the West of his Asian diplomatic approach. "We need to
be able to respect the culture, tradition and leadership style of each and
every leader," Ban, a former South Korean foreign minister, told reporters
in a visit to Oslo on Monday. "I have my own charisma, I have my own
leadership style."

Mission to Burma

Despite the criticism, Ban still enjoys the support of the United Nations'
most powerful countries, including the United States, China and Britain,
and of the U.S. Congress, which has recently voted to pay off American
debt to the United Nations.

Ban's advisers say the criticism is patently unfair and does not take into
account his willingness to speak out against abuses. Ban infuriated China
by criticizing its treatment of ethnic Uighurs in western China, he has
spoken out against Iranian President Mamhoud Ahmedinijad's nuclear
ambitions and his frequent anti-Israeli remarks, and he has publicly
scolded the powerful Group of Eight industrial powers for not committing
to steeper emissions cuts.

Still, U.N. officials and diplomats are concerned that the criticism of
Ban's political mediation is overshadowing what they believe is his most
important accomplishment: rallying international support for a treaty that
would reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

The Obama administration has publicly praised Ban's performance. But
before joining the administration, Samantha Power, the White House's top
U.N. specialist, was a sharp critic of Ban's diplomatic style,
characterizing his handling of the Darfur crisis as "extremely
disappointing."

"Can we afford to do without a global figure, a global leader?" she told
the New Statesman, a British magazine, last year.

U.S. officials say that Power's comments do not reflect the views of the
administration and that they were made before she had an opportunity to
work closely with Ban.

"Secretary General Ban has one of the most difficult jobs in the world,"
Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in a
statement. "I believe he is principled, hard-working, cares deeply and is
willing to take risks to carry out his mission." Rice also credited Ban
with increasing the number of women in senior posts and "bringing
countries together to tackle challenges such as climate change and global
health."

But Rice has differed with Ban over his engagement strategy, and she
cautioned him against traveling to Burma in July. Rice argued that a
high-profile meeting with the Burmese military ruler would make him look
weak unless he extracted a clear commitment to democratic reform,
according to U.N. officials.

During his visit, Than Shwe bluntly rejected Ban's appeal to release
opposition leader Aung San Su Kyi; Ban's request to meet with her also was
denied. Five weeks later, a Burmese court sentenced Suu Kyi to 18
additional months under house arrest, ensuring that she will not
participate in the country's national elections next year.

But Burma's ruler subsequently allowed another visitor, Sen. James Webb
(D-Va.), to meet with Suu Kyi and to take home a U.S. citizen, John
Yettaw, who had been sentenced to seven years in prison for paying an
unauthorized visit to her villa.

Ban bridles at the suggestion that his trip was a failure, saying he has
established a vital personal channel to the Burmese leader. Ban said he
also prevailed upon Than Shwe to allow him to address a gathering of
Burmese officials, academics and relief groups, where he sharply
criticized Burma's human rights record and publicly chided Than Shwe for
rebuffing his request to see Suu Kyi. "That was unprecedented," Ban said.

Burmese opposition leaders say that while they appreciate Ban's efforts,
they do not think he has moved the country toward democracy. "I don't want
to say it was totally nothing," Burma's exiled prime minister, Sein Win,
said during a recent visit to U.N. headquarters. "When you look at the
immediate impact, of course, we could not see anything."

'Spotlight' on Sri Lanka

In Sri Lanka, Ban and his advisers sought to perform a delicate balancing
act. They pressed the country's leader in private to halt the shelling of
civilian zones, while avoiding an open confrontation with cautiously
worded public statements about the violence.

Human rights advocates faulted Ban for not pressing hard enough to hold
Sri Lanka accountable for its actions. Days after the war ended, the
secretary general signed a joint agreement with Rajapaksa committing Sri
Lanka to pursue political reconciliation with ethnic Tamils and to release
hundreds of thousands of displaced ethnic Tamils in government-controlled
camps.

In exchange, Ban dropped a U.N. push for an independent investigation into
war crimes, leaving it to Sri Lanka to determine whether its military was
responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in the final
offensive. Two days later, Sri Lankan diplomats, citing the agreement,
quashed a proposal by the top U.N. human rights official to create an
independent commission of inquiry to probe war crimes in the country.

Some diplomats have defended Ban's handling of the crisis, saying he
pushed far more aggressively to protect Sri Lankan civilians than did any
government, including the United States, India, China, Russia and key
European powers.

"He put a spotlight on what was happening in Sri Lanka," said John Sawers,
Britain's U.N. ambassador. "So it's not perfect in Sri Lanka; far too many
civilians got killed and there is still an outstanding problem with the
civilians in the [Internally Displaced Persons] camps. But I believe Ban's
engagement made the situation less bad than it would otherwise have been."

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

September 1, Times of London
Burma refugees carry lesson in imperialism to China – Carl Mortished

For China, the cost of oil and gas has just doubled. You will not find
this new oil price quoted anywhere, but its burden will weigh heavily on
the leadership in Beijing.

It is not an oil price that can be measured in dollars per barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange. There has been no cutback by Opec, nor has a
hurricane toppled offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. It is China's
oil price; the cost of oil for the People's Republic is now measured in
refugees, in tens of thousands of people fleeing Burma into China.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees said on Friday that as many as
30,000 people had crossed the Burmese border into Yunnan province in
southwest China. An assault by the Burmese Army on the Kokang militia, an
ethnic Chinese rebel group in Shan state, started the flight, but the
refugees mean much more than a spot of trouble on the border. The brazen
assault by Rangoon threatens to wreck China's carefully drawn strategy to
transform Burma into a trading corridor of highways and oil and gas
pipelines bringing energy and minerals into China's heartlands.

It is trouble for Beijing because the refugees are ethnic Chinese, traders
who have established small businesses in remote northeast Burma. About
7,000 Burmese troops moved to the border and reports suggest that they
pursued the rebels on to Chinese soil.

Wrong-footed by the unexpected assault by an ally, a government on which
Beijing has lavished military aid, China's response has been timid. A
spokesman for the Chinese Government urged Burma to protect the legal
rights of Chinese citizens and said Beijing hoped that Myanmar could
"appropriately solve its relevant internal problems and safeguard the
stability of the China-Myanmar [Burma] border".

China's loss of face might not have been so obvious had it not been for
Daewoo's announcement of last week. The South Korean conglomerate
trumpeted its participation in the Shwe gas project, a $5.6 billion (£3.4
billion) venture to exploit an offshore gasfield in the Bay of Bengal and
pipe the gas to fuel-hungry cities in southwestern China. It is a massive
undertaking, a steel tube stretching more than 1,000km across Burma and
into the mountainous Yunnan province. The Shwe partners, which include
Moge, the Burmese state oil company, have to supply gas to CNPC, the
Chinese state oil group, for 30 years.

China outbid India for the right to buy the gas and the Shwe venture is
only one of a gamut of Chinese collaborations with one of the world's
detested regimes. America has banned investments in Burma by US citizens
since the 1988 pro-democracy protests and the imprisonment of Aung San Suu
Kyi, the opposition leader. The European Union prohibits military sales
and has imposed a visa ban and asset freezes on the Burmese generals.

China has no such qualms. There are plans for an oil highway, a second
pipeline that would link southwest China to the Burmese coast. The link
would provide cheaper and safer transport for Middle Eastern and African
crude, avoiding a lengthy and dangerous passage through the
pirate-infested Straits of Malacca. Chinese companies are sinking cash
into Burmese mines, logging its forest and digging up its precious stones.

After the bloody suppression of the monks' street protest in 2007, the
West banged the table and harangued the generals, but for China it was
business as usual. Foreign direct investment in Burma rose fivefold last
year to almost $1 billion; almost all of the money was Chinese.

Last week the lapdog bit its master's hand, not badly but a wound that
will, nonetheless, create embarrassment and expense for Beijing. In London
and Washington, there will be smirks as Beijing's cynical realpolitik gets
its just desert.

We should not be too smug.

Britain was recently slapped by a general who turned out to be no poodle.
We wanted lots of things from Libya - an end to its support for terrorism,
diplomatic friendship, oil and gas deals and petrodollar investment. We
may get some of those things but, in the embarrassing celebrations on the
return to Tripoli of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie
bomber, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has reminded us that we have no right to
presume; in diplomacy, everything is negotiable.

China's calculation over Burma is unlikely to be so different from our
Government's assessment of Libya. Arguably, China is more realistic, less
prone to moral histrionics. Burma's generals have waged war for decades
against the country's ethnic minorities. Its Government is engaged in an
intermittent but brutal campaign to subjugate a constellation of tribal
groups whose stubborn independence mocks the generals' claim to dominion
over the state that they renamed Myanmar.

Beijing knows the history, geography and ethnography better than we do -
the warring tribes, the heroin trade, Rangoon's dubious peace deals with
opium warlords on the Thai and Chinese borders. The ceasefire between the
Burmese Army and the rebels appears to be unravelling and we could
speculate as to the reasons. As Burma's links with China multiply, as
roads are built, as pipe is laid, the risk posed by the rebels and the
drug trade become more inconvenient than the short-term profit. Burma's
new friend is not keen on insurrection and it might be prepared to look
away while the Burmese Army cracks a few heads on Chinese soil.

We looked away; we dumped Burma, abandoning its people to their fate in a
fit of righteous indignation over the pigheaded behaviour of the generals,
a violent clique who showed not the slightest interest in bowing to the
teachings of former colonial masters. We had Tony Blair's "ethical foreign
policy" and Burma was the pilot test, the first and last occasion when we
put morality before money. Premier Oil, a small British company, was told
to quit Burma. Eventually, it did. Burma turned its face East and found
bigger friends.

Our writ no longer runs east of Suez. It is China's dominion and one good
outcome of this Burmese refugee crisis is that Beijing must begin to
acknowledge that, if it wishes to plunder the world like a colonial power,
it must police it, too. Power brings responsibility and refugees. A more
civilised Burma would bring Beijing less trouble and more profit.

The same can be said of Libya. Our new "ally" is a staging post for
African migrants who make their way in leaky boats to Sicily. It is a flow
that could easily turn to a flood. As Burma is to China, Libya is our
southern border. It is there, an opportunity for profit and for trouble,
whether we like it or not.

____________________________________

September 1, Irrawaddy
Offensive elections? – Aung Moe Zaw

The fighting that broke out on August 27 between the Burmese regime’s army
and the Kokang militia clearly signals the fragility of the ceasefire
agreements that have been in place in Burma’s border regions for the past
two decades. It also raises concerns of a return to a full-scale civil war
unless the regime seriously works together with the ethnic armies,
compromising its position as necessary in order to achieve an inclusive
political process.

There is an undercurrent of tension flowing between the ceasefire
organizations and the regime due to the flawed writing and approval
process of the 2008 constitution. The regime’s desire to transform the
ceasefire armies into border security guards, thus bringing them directly
under the control of the national army, will almost certainly further
these tensions and lead to more fighting.

The return to armed conflict also brings into question the credibility of
the regime’s 2010 elections. It proves once again that the unilateral
implementation of the 2010 elections as part of the regime’s seven-step
roadmap cannot be regarded as a viable political solution paving the way
to peace and stability.

In fact, the junta’s insistence on holding elections based upon a
military-backed and military-supporting constitution is inviting armed
conflict and unrest on a large scale in the near future. The international
community, including Asian neighbors, should not support the election, but
must rather stand firm in calling for an inclusive political process that
involves reconciliation with Aung San Suu Kyi and ethnic leaders.

The Kokang, Wa, Mon, Kachin, Shan and other ceasefire ethnic groups have
positively cooperated with the regime’s seven-step roadmap. They
participated in a national convention to lay down the basic principles to
draft a national constitution. The ethnic leaders proposed the necessary
principles for the protection of ethnic rights and for a federal
constitution. They compromised, they modestly made recommendations, and
they worked within the limited space provided by the regime’s national
convention.

In May 2004, some major ceasefire groups submitted a letter to the
chairman of the National Convention Commission suggesting that the basic
principles of the constitution should be reviewed and revised and that
inappropriate decrees such as 5/96, which outlaws discussions on
constitutional affairs, be abolished. When the regime reconvened the
National Convention in 2005 and 2006, major ceasefire organizations tried
their best to correct the basic principles to make them more democratic
and based on a federal system within a legal framework. However, they all
had to face refusals from the regime time and time again.

This refusal to listen had serious consequences. The first was that the
New Mon State Party (NMSP) downgraded the status of its delegation to the
National Convention. The second was the decision of several major
ceasefire organizations not to participate in the 2010 elections. Although
some ethnic groups have not yet decided what their position will be, even
those that are inclined to participate are constrained by the absence of
election rules.

It is under these circumstances that the regime is trying to finalize its
roadmap in order to strengthen its claims to legitimacy through the 2008
constitution and 2010 elections. As preparation, in April 2009 the regime
started its integration plan, which involves the transformation of
ceasefire armies into border security guards. This plan has increased
tensions and heightened ceasefire groups’ worries about their future
status. As expected, major ceasefire groups have declined the regime’s
proposal of integration.

Since the rights that they have been struggling for are not guaranteed by
the 2008 constitution, the ceasefire groups don’t dare give up their
armies. They know that the limited autonomy that they have enjoyed since
entering into ceasefire agreements with the junta have been due solely to
the fact that they have maintained their armies. Some groups with smaller
armies have already been forced to surrender. Protecting their
organizations and their armed groups is their last line of defense. The
Kokang were just the first to fight to retain their army and territory;
others may follow.

Ignoring such political realities and the root cause of Burma’s ethnic
conflicts, some advocates, including the International Crisis Group, a
respected think tank, are recommending that the international community
should press all stakeholders to participate in the forthcoming elections.

It is true that the 2008 constitution establishes a federal form of
government with a bicameral legislature as well as 14 regional governments
and assemblies, ostensibly operating under civilian rule. However, in my
opinion, all those spaces and changes will be extremely fragile, with far
too much depending on the military. Indeed, I think that offering only
limited spaces with too many restrictions is actually creating fertile
ground for armed conflict and unrest. To avoid that outcome, the regime
must seek political solutions together with all stakeholders before the
elections.

The conflict may arise first from within. Transforming ceasefire armies
into border security guards under the national army was just one major
step in preparation for the elections. The army also has to fill its
legislative and administrative quotas. The commander in chief needs to
appoint at least 1,000 middle- and high-ranking officers to seats reserved
for the military in the state, divisional and national assemblies. He must
also select thousands of other officials to fill positions at various
levels of the administrative mechanism as well. Who will go to the
legislature? Who will remain in the armed forces? Moreover, in a country
which will be run by the commander in chief according to its constitution,
who from the army will want to serve the nation as president? Who will try
to remain in the army as commander in chief? Conflicts may emerge even
within the army itself.

We are aware that these flaws may present opportunities for the opposition
to exploit, but we are also concerned about the potentially explosive
nature of these flaws and the likelihood that they may lead to dangerous
and bloody conflict situations.

Under such fragile circumstances, the extralegal armed groups of ceasefire
ethnic nationalities will continue to exist even after unilateral
elections in 2010. The recent fighting between the regime and the Kokang
is evidence that the political problems which need to be solved with
ethnic nationalities are not being addressed satisfactorily by the
political arrangement of the regime. The political problems between the
regime and pro-democracy forces will also remain even after the elections.
The election results, already written, will also not serve to address and
solve the social and economic situation created by the regime.

Sadly, the country is marching towards an even more chaotic situation and
to even more suffering for the people. The regime must be pressured to
seek a political solution among all stakeholders and to desist from the
path of its unilateral roadmap. To avoid further years of strife and
conflict born of an unjust and one-sided election and constitution, the
international community must be steadfast in insisting that the regime
reconciles with Aung San Suu Kyi and all other stakeholders.

Encouraging the current non-democratic election of 2010 is inviting
further unrest, uprising and the return of armed conflict in Burma.

Aung Moe Zaw is the chairman of the Democratic Party for a New Society, a
Burmese political party based in exile.

____________________________________
STATEMENT

August 31, U.S. Department of State
DOS: Urging an end to the violence in Eastern Burma – Ian Kelly

The United States is deeply concerned over the attacks by the Burma Army
in eastern Burma against several ethnic nationality groups, and we
continue to monitor developments carefully.  The brutal fighting has
forced thousands of civilians to flee their homes for safety in Thailand
and China, and reduced both stability and the prospects for national
reconciliation.  We urge the Burmese authorities to cease their military
campaign and to develop a genuine dialogue with the ethnic minority
groups, as well as with Burma’s democratic opposition.