BurmaNet News, November 3, 2010

[Editor]

November 3, 2010 Issue #4075


INSIDE BURMA
AFP: To vote or not to vote? Myanmar youth take to streets
Irrawaddy: Junta win may already be secured

ON THE BORDER
Asia Times: The war to come in Myanmar
DVB: Storm warning issued as Thailand floods
Guardian (UK): Rohingya refugees watch Burmese elections nervously

BUSINESS / TRADE
WSJ: Myanmar's muted election

REGIONAL
Asian News International (India): Protest against upcoming Myanmar polls
in New Delhi

INTERNATIONAL
AP: UN Chief urges China help on Myanmar, Sudan

OPINION / OTHER
Philippine Daily Inquirer: The gall of Burma – Editorial
Guardian (UK): Burma's USDP is heading for election victory, by hook or by
crook – Andrew Heyn
Council on Foreign Relations: Myanmar's elections offer glimmer of change
– Joshua Kurlantzick

INTERVIEW
Channel News Asia: The UK does not recognise the elections in Burma as
being legitimate




____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

November 3, Agence France Presse
To vote or not to vote? Myanmar youth take to streets – Dave Major

Yangon — In the dead of night in army-ruled Myanmar, Aye Aung Lin and his
team don their motorcycle helmets, leap on their bikes and risk their
freedom to blitz four towns with their bold graffiti.

Like all of those aged under 38, these activists have never voted in a
general election before, but getting the nation's youngsters into the
polling booths on Sunday is exactly what they are trying to prevent.

One of their scrawled slogans has a big 2010 crossed out. Another simply
says: "No vote".

"I believe that the election will not change anything because the
political prisoners are not released and there are limitations," said
24-year-old Aye Aung Lin, whose name has been changed to protect his
safety.

It is a stance that meets with much agreement across most Western nations,
where Myanmar's rare poll has been widely criticised as a ploy to dress up
military rule in civilian clothing.

But by advocating a boycott through through their subversive street art,
poetry and hip hop music, the young radicals in this nationwide network,
known as "Generation Wave", risk substantial jail terms if they are
caught.

Twenty out of roughly 50 of them are already locked up, along with more
than 2,000 political prisoners. Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is
under house arrest and has been detained for most of the past 20 years.

"We believe that we will succeed one day but we need to keep trying," said
Aye Aung Lin. "We want to reach out to people through the arts."

He is not the only youngster trying to sabotage the controversial poll,
which has been boycotted by Suu Kyi's now disbanded National League of
Democracy (NLD) after she was effectively excluded from the process.

"Our main objective is getting people not to vote," said Ko Yin Thit, an
activist with the NLD's youth branch, who is distributing leaflets and
photos of Nobel peace prize winner Suu Kyi to convince fellow citizens not
to vote.

"This is to show the world that the new government won't be elected by the
majority of the people and the whole thing is a set-up," said the
31-year-old, whose name has also been changed.

In recent days, Myanmar's state media has stressed that citizens must vote
this weekend and warned those inciting a boycott that they face jail terms
or fines.

"We could die or be put in prison, but I'm prepared for that," added Ko
Yin Thit.

Suu Kyi, who has said she herself will not vote, swept her party to power
in Myanmar's last election in 1990 despite being under house arrest, but
the results were never recognised by the ruling generals.

This time around the junta is taking no chances: Suu Kyi is again under
house arrest, a quarter of parliamentary seats are reserved for the army,
and regime-backed candidates have enjoyed hefty advantages over
"pro-democracy" parties.

Yet not all of the younger generation dismiss the poll.

Some are spreading the message that, despite its many flaws, this election
offers hope of gradual change in a country that has been under iron-fisted
military rule for nearly five decades.

"The election is very important for our country and could lead to
democracy. That is the reason why we want to give education about the
voting process," said an ethnic Kachin woman, who gave the alias of Ester.

She and her friends have been travelling to meet some of the millions who
have never seen a ballot box -- not to tell them to vote, but to explain
the electoral process and point out that they can make a conscious choice.

"We have to participate whether it is fair or not. We will have another
election -- maybe (in) 2015, 2020," said the optimistic 23-year-old in
Yangon, just returned from a voter education trip in northernmost Kachin
state.

The election could also help the country's youth to realise they have a
duty to pressure the authorities for democratic reforms, according to
Myanmar analyst David Mathieson of Human Rights Watch.

"It's unfortunate that their first experience of democracy is so bitter,"
he said. "But something positive might come out if the kids are watching
how the process works and how it is flawed."

____________________________________

November 3, Irrawaddy
Junta win may already be secured – Wai Moe

Burma’s first election in two decades is still four days away, but the
military junta may have already obtained a majority vote for its proxy
party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), through its
efforts to obtain advance votes.

USDP sources said that key junta members and USDP party leaders have
ensured Than Shwe that the USDP has already secured at least 30 percent of
the seats in parliament through advance voting. And according to USDP
data, the party is also guaranteed to win in 52 constituencies where there
is no other party contesting.

In addition, under the 2008 Constitution, 25 percent of the seats in the
Upper House and Lower House of the Union Parliament, and in the 14
regional and state parliaments, will be military officers directly
appointed by the commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Burma’s armed
forces).

The advance votes have been collected from groups such as soldiers,
government ministry employees, citizens living outside of Burma, prisoners
and hospital patients.

However, the apparent 55 percent of the vote already obtained by the USDP
will not be enough to satisfy junta chief Snr-Gen Than Shwe.

USDP sources said Than Shwe has told his aides repeatedly, since even
before the election was announced, that he wanted at least 85 percent of
the vote in order both to control parliament and to rewrite history and
wipe-out the lingering memory of the National League for Democracy's
landslide victory in the 1990 elections, which was ignored by the junta.

“Than Shwe wants to overturn the NLD's 1990 election results, when they
won over 80 percent of the constituencies. So he wants 84 or 85 percent of
the seats in each of the parliaments. But unless they use false votes,
this will be quite difficult for the USDP,” said Win Min, a Burmese
political and military researcher.

“Than Shwe has talked about [how to secure a landslide election victory]
at the four-monthly meetings with military commanders and ministers for a
long time. But he has issued detailed instructions since early 2008,” said
a USDP candidate who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“Than Shwe was very happy about the results of the constitutional
referendum in 2008, when more than 92 percent of votes were in favor of
the Constitution. And he ordered that the 2010 election be organized like
the 2008 referendum,” he said.

Although the USDP and regime leaders may not have Than Shwe's desired 85
percent actually in hand, they are confidant that they will when the polls
close.

USDP General Secretary Htay Oo, who is also the minister of agriculture
and irrigation, said at a Nov. 27 press conference in Rangoon that the
USDP is confident of winning because it has 16-18 million members out of
Burma's 29 million voters.

In addition, the USDP is contesting 1171 seats, 171 more than the second
largest party, the National Unity Party, which was previously called the
Burmese Socialist Programme Party and was founded by former dictator Gen
Ne Win.

The junta and USDP also have plans to secure block votes on polling day.
Under one method, the “representing vote,” military commanders and senior
officials in government ministries will vote on behalf of lower-ranking
soldiers and junior staff, respectively. Another method would have
government staffers going to the polls together on Nov. 7 to vote as a
group.

“It is a repeat of the 2008 referendum, when authorities, ministries
officers and polling officers voted for others,” said a government staffer
in Naypyidaw. “Now the regime is using the same tactics to secure votes in
the election.”

To bolster their efforts to secure advance and group votes, military
commanders and USDP leaders who are also government ministers have
resorted to intimidation and threats.

During their tours of government projects and industrial zones in Rangoon,
Mandalay and other large cities, some openly told constituents that the
USDP was “the Tatmadaw’s party.”

“Maj-Gen Tin Ngwe [chief of the Bureau of Special Operations-5], Rangoon
Commander Brig-Gen Tun Than and Rangoon Mayor U Aung Thein Lin told
workers at my factory that we must vote the Tatmadaw’s party because it
will remain the most important one in power,” said a factory owner from
Hlaing Thar Yar Industrial Zone, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

According to local sources from Magway region, officials from a Defense
Industry station in Myothit Township threatened villagers with forced
relocation unless they vote for the USDP.

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

November 3, Asia Times
The war to come in Myanmar – Tony Cliff

LAIZA, Myanmar - With her pretty face shaded by camouflage green leaves
falling from her kepi and a semi-automatic rifle rested on her shoulder,
Labang Hkawng Nyoi could be a perfect poster model for a Kachin
Independence Army (KIA) recruitment campaign.

The 19-year-old woman is one of 130 new recruits and volunteers who in
recent days were sweating under the late afternoon heat in a KIA training
camp in remote northern Myanmar, also know as Burma.

Dressed in khaki, they all wear a white number on a red patch stitched on
their left pocket. At turn, they break ranks into small groups, run to a
large open field, throw themselves to the ground and, while imitating the
sound of a machine gun, crawl with their gun aimed at the imaginary enemy.

"I was summoned by the KIA to leave my village and attend training," says
Labang Hkawng Nyoi with a determined look. "We have not gained our
freedom, it's our responsibility to serve, to fight for our nation."

For now, the enemy is a red flag on a bamboo post and, to conserve
ammunition, the empty guns remain silent, their muzzles obstructed with
pieces of wood. But soon the enemy could take the human form of Myanmar
military soldiers as this area of the Kachin state braces for new
hostilities after a 16-year ceasefire.

The volunteers arrived two weeks earlier in this camp set up on the road
to Laiza, a town of 10,000 people in a narrow valley on the Myanmar-China
border. They will train for another six weeks under the supervision of KIA
officers. Some will join the 6,000-strong KIA (an official but credible
number according to independent observers), while others will go back to
their village as members of civil defense forces.

After a two-hour drive from Laiza on a rugged road winding along the
Chinese border though the jungle and climbing the mountain up to 2,400
meters, Laisin camp, formally the Pajau KIA headquarters, emerges from a
range of bare hills. On a hilltop bunker and trench network, Kachin
soldiers watch a Myanmar army position dug in on an opposite hill.

Fixed in a hole, an old Chinese made anti-aircraft machine gun points at
the government troops. Lahtaw Awng, a KIA Mobile Brigade captain, does not
harbor any balance-of-power illusions: "With this weapon, we can target
helicopters but probably not the Burmese MIG fighter jets." He added: "We
don't want to fight, we don't like war; we just ask for our rights. But if
the government starts it, we will respond."

Strategic documents from the KIA and its political wing, the Kachin
Independence Organization (KIO), have reportedly been moved to safer
locations and soldiers dispatched to positions all over Kachin State. Many
KIA soldiers carry an unusual type of AK-47 rifle with green or brown
parts made of plastic. Soldiers here refer to it as the "AK-81", a AK-47
type gun fabricated in a secret KIA armory.

Labang Hkawng Nyoi, the young female volunteer, was hardly three years old
when in 1994 the KIO/KIA signed a ceasefire with Myanmar's ruling junta.
These types of agreements were initiated by the government from 1989
onwards with the United Wa State Army (UWSA) and other ethnic insurgent
groups.

They were the brainchild of General Khin Nyunt, the regime's former head
of intelligence. In exchange for ending their armed struggle, ethnic
groups were allowed to keep their names, uniforms, weapons, and parts of
their claimed territory and commercial interests. They were also permitted
to set up ceasefire areas where armed Myanmar soldiers would not be
allowed to enter without the group's authorization.


>From 1989 to 1995, about 15 groups signed ceasefire deals with the

government. Some have held up, while others have dissolved back into armed
hostility. For the Kachin, the agreement seemingly put an end to more than
30 years of war against government-backed forces.

Exceptional ethnic
The Kachin have always been an exception in Myanmar's complex ethnic
jigsaw. Their state, at 89,000 square kilometers, or more than twice the
size of Switzerland, is one the country's largest administrative entities.
With an estimated population of just 1.36 million, according to most
recent official statistics, it's also among the least inhabited - the
country's has a population of up to 55 million people. It only takes a
quick look at the map to realize that more than half of Kachin is filled
with hard-to-navigate mountains.

The predominantly Christian Kachin ethnic population is estimated at 1.2
million, half of whom live in Kachin State and the other half elsewhere in
the country. About 300,000 Kachin also live in neighboring China, where
they are known as "Jinpo". For historical reasons, the Kachin have managed
to develop a strong social and educational system, which has made them one
of the country's most sophisticated ethnic groups.

Today, 16 years after its signing, their ceasefire agreement with the
government has never looked more fragile. Major General Gam Shawng, KIA's
chief of staff, sitting in his Laiza home, says unequivocally that "these
years have been totally negative. The main idea behind the ceasefire, to
reach a political solution, was never achieved."

Major Chyana Zau Awn, commander of KIA Brigade 5, says: "There was never a
relation of trust with the Burmese. As soon as we talked about politics,
they looked down upon us. We were enemies, we stay enemies." Contrary to
their organization's name, the KIA, as well as other ethnic insurgent
groups (ceasefire and non-ceasefire), no longer strive for total
independence but rather the establishment of a federal state with genuine
prerogatives for ethnic governance.

The ceasefire has certainly brought some social stability and economic
development to Kachin State. "We could develop infrastructure such as
roads, schools, clinics," says Sin Wa, KIO Central Committee joint
secretary 1. "About every family could create an income and sustain a
livelihood, which we were never able to do during the war because people
had to move all the time."

Still, many others point to the limitations of that stability. "The
Burmese did not promote life for local people," comments Naw Ja, a 42-year
old villager attending the military training as a volunteer. "For
instance, they open many schools but there was not enough support for
teachers. Often there were only two or three teachers for an entire
school."

The Kachin have also lost a great deal of territory and related business
during the ceasefire. For instance, control over the world famous Hpakant
jade mines was handed to the Myanmar government in 1994, depriving the KIO
of a rich source of revenue.

Gam Awng, a jade businessman, says that "95% of the jade extracted from
Hpakant is sold in Yangon through private and military auctions. The
remaining 5% is smuggled through Laiza." Out of 164 companies operating in
Hpakant, only four are in the hands of Kachin businessmen; all of the
others are Myanmar-China joint ventures, he says.

Forced integration
Kachin patience was tested in April 2009 when the government, ahead of
elections on November 7, ordered ceasefire groups to transform into
so-called Border Guard Forces (BGF), new ethnic battalions that would be
under government command. The Kachin, as well as other groups along the
Chinese border, such as the UWSA, the New Mon State Party (NMSP) and a
faction of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) on the Thai border,
rejected the order.

After a series of postponed deadlines and aborted alternative proposals,
talks between the junta and the KIO/KIA came to an halt in August. This
coincided with the sidelining of Lieutenant-General Ye Myint, the Myanmar
army officer in charge of negotiating the BGF with the ethnic groups. To
date, Ye Myint has not been replaced.

"In the BGF process, the Burmese only talk about soldiers' salary and
other details but never about development plans and other important
subjects," says Major Kumbu Din La, second in command of KIA Brigade 5.
"They try to corner us, to isolate us, they want the end of the KIO," adds
Sin Wa.

Since their rejection of the BGF, the Kachin have been subjected to new
restrictions and incidents of intimidation. "Some development projects in
remote areas had to be stopped, some of our servicemen cannot go back to
their villages, and so on," said a young KIA officer.

The Kachin's rejection of the BGF has widened a generation gap between
young KIA officers keen to go to war and elder KIO leaders who still
believe in compromise. Government authorities' refusal to allow the
registration of a Kachin political party under the leadership of Maham Tu
Ja, a former KIO Vice Chairman 2, was a blow to Kachin aspirations and
further weakened the more moderate political wing's position.

"I appreciate that there are more young radicals," said Major General Gam
Shawng. "This shows a willingness to stand for justice, it's a good sign
for us - without justice there cannot be true peace.”

But the government has seemingly underestimated the Kachin's resolve. "The
BGF issue has mobilized the people for the KIO," says a non-governmental
worker with extensive experience in the Kachin State.

"These last years, the KIO had lost a lot of support, particularly because
of the loss of revenue from jade. The organization had to find other
business activities and gave many logging, mining and hydropower business
concessions to the Chinese, causing massive forest depletion in the state,
which upset a lot of people."
KIA preparations for a potential conflict after this weekend's national
elections are visibly ramping up. Officers are well-aware that none of
their soldiers has seen combat in at least 16 years. Still, they are
confident about their fighting chances.

"Since 2009, after the Kokang incident [in which the Myanmar army routed
the Kokang, another cease-fire group who rejected the BGF], we have
increased the level of training," says Major Chyana Zau Awn.

According to KIA officers, the Myanmar army has around 10,000 troops
stationed in Kachin State and has not recently reinforced its positions.
Echoing some army experts, the KIA also believes that the Myanmar army's
strength, often estimated at 500,000 foot soldiers, is overestimated.

General Gam Shawng remains realistic: "We won't be able to defeat them but
they cannot defeat us either. We can survive, so a return to the guerrilla
warfare is the most likely tactic." Besides the AK-81, the KIA will rely
on a variety of homemade grenades, landmines and mortars.

Kachin leaders say that they are prepared to lose the infrastructure built
during the ceasefire years, including Laiza, a booming city and the
group's main gateway to China. "These are small investments compared to
the cost of a whole nation," says Hting Nan, KIO Central Committee
Secretary 2.

However, the prospect of renewed hostilities is known to worry neighboring
China. Kachin leaders are cognizant of the subtle game that Chinese
authorities, squeezed between their regional (Yunnan Province) and
national (Beijing) interests towards Myanmar, have to play in order to
maintain good political and commercial relations with all sides.

"To maintain Chinese business here, the regime must be stable and the
regional people must be pleased,” says Sin Wa. "There is a balance between
the business and local people's welfare. It could help to prevent a war."

Beyond destabilizing the area's economy, a new war would also likely drive
waves of refugees across the border into China, as happened during the
Kokang incident in August 2009. According to a KIA leader who is in
regular contact with Yunnan-based authorities, "the Chinese have already
prepared camps for the refugees".

It's believed in Laiza headquarters that an attack from the Myanmar army
can only occur between the elections and the formal transfer of power from
the military to a new civilian administration, which must take place
within three months of this Sunday's vote. "They have to clean up the
situation before a new government starts to work," predicts one KIA
officer at the group's war ready camp.

Tony Cliff, a pseudonym, is a Bangkok-based freelance photojournalist.

____________________________________

November 3, Democratic Voice of Burma
Storm warning issued as Thailand floods – Aye Nai

An area of low pressure over the Andaman Sea could intensify into a
depression as it heads towards the southeastern coast of Burma,
meteorologists warn.

Areas of southern Thailand have been left flooded as heavy rains caused by
the low-pressure zone crossed over Hat Yai on Monday. Burmese
meteorologist Dr Htun Lwin said that a close eye was being kept on how the
storm develops.

“It is crucial [we know] which direction it’s heading in. If it’s moving
northwest, we will feel its effects within 48 hours,” he said.

A weather report aired on Burmese state radio said that “strong easterly
winds with moderate to rough seas are likely” and “surface wind
speed
reach (35) mph” along the coastline bordering Mon state and
Tennasserim division in Burma’s southeast.

Residents of Tennasserim division’s Kawthaung town said there has been no
official warning on the storm yet, but one man said: “It looks as if the
wind is about to start blowing and clouds are forming.”

The country’s western Arakan state is still reeling from cyclone Giri,
which destroyed some 15 buildings and left 81,000 homeless when it slammed
into the coastline on 22 October. The UN has estimated 45 deaths, but
reports on the ground claim much higher.

Burmese migrant workers living in Thailand’s Hat Yai said that streets
were submerged under four feet of water. “The storm hit the town around
9:30pm and the whole town was already underwater by 10pm,” said one.

____________________________________

November 3, Guardian (UK)
Rohingya refugees watch Burmese elections nervously

Those in Bangladesh who fled Burma see a semblance of hope in the minority
Muslim group being given the right to vote, but few expect an end to
persecution

Polling station assistants during a demonstration of the voting process in
Burma Polling station assistants during a demonstration of the voting
process in Burma, where elections will be held on 7 November. Photograph:
Nyein Chan Naing/EPA

Despite restrictions on movement, marriage and education, Rohingya in
Burma's northern Rakhine State have been given the right to vote in
Burma's 7 November elections, and many of the more than 200,000 Rohingya
refugees in neighbouring Bangladesh see in this a semblance of hope.

"We didn't come to Bangladesh to make a life. We came here for justice,"
said Shira Banu, an undocumented Rohingya who arrived in Bangladesh 15
years ago when the Burmese army seized her land.

"If the government in Burma removes the restrictions and if the Jatishanga
[UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR] comes with us, then we would like to go home,"
the 50-year-old said. "Our only hope is if Aung San Suu Kyi comes to
power. Her father was a good leader so she will be too."

IRIN interviewed more than 20 Rohingya from the Cox's Bazar area who
expressed similar opinions.

But the iconic Burmese Nobel laureate, whose party the National League for
Democracy (NLD) won the last elections more than two decades ago, has been
under house arrest for 11 of the past 16 years, and won't be participating
in the elections.

"Despite the violation of their human rights, the Rohingya [in Burma and
Bangladesh] see this as their only shot at freedom and they want to take
it," Chris Lewa, head of the Arakan Project, a human rights organisation
specialising in the Rohingya, told IRIN.

Some say the Rohingya vote is being vied for by others.

Monks

In 2007 the Rakhine Buddhist monks showed their opposition to the State
Peace and Development Council (SDPC – the official name given to the
junta) mainly in Sitwe, the capital of Rakhine State, and the regime is
unsure whether the monks will support the military-backed Union Solidarity
and Development Party (USDP), which would like to take over from the SDPC.

"The Rohingya were given the vote earlier this year by the regime to try
and manipulate the ballot box by promising freedom and citizenship.
However, few expect a shift in policy," said Fayas Amed, editor of the
Kaladan Press, a Bangladesh-based e-magazine covering the Burmese
elections.

In 2007 the SDPC introduced a new constitution which reserves a quarter of
seats in both houses of parliament for officers, and effectively bars Aung
San Suu Kyi from holding office.

Under an election law passed in early 2010, the Electoral Commission is
chosen solely by Burma's military rulers. Those holding temporary
registration cards, including the Rohingya, will be allowed to vote.

Lewa points out that the government move to give the Rohingya the vote,
does not mean the community's lot will improve.

"You have to consider the Rakhine Buddhist population in Rakhine State
too, who have already protested over the possibility of Muslim Rohingya
being granted citizenship. So even if the government is willing to make
some concessions, you will always have opposition [to the Rohingya] from
them [the Rakhine State Buddhist population]," she said.

Hostility to Rohingya in Bangladesh

Meanwhile, the Rohingya face similar hostility in Bangladesh, too. Many
locals compete for jobs with the refugees, who are often willing to work
for less than Bangladeshis.

Others worry that armed extremist gangs are radicalising the youth of this
marginalised, leaderless community, and there are suspicions of drug
smuggling and an increase in petty crime – rumours which are fuelled by
the local press, resulting in anti-Rohingya sentiment.

"We were tortured in Burma, we are tortured in Bangladesh. The locals
snatch our firewood and beat us. I've got stitches on my head to prove it.
They break our water jugs on the way back from the tube well and even rape
us. We thought we'd come here to Bangladesh, a Muslim country, but we
suffer the same abuse here," she said.

"If I'd known the situation was the same in Bangladesh I would never have
come. Now I can't go back or the Nasaka [Burmese military] will imprison
me," she said.

There are 28,000 documented Rohingya living in two government-run camps in
the southeastern Bangladesh district of Cox's Bazar – remnants of a mass
influx of this ethnic, linguistic and religious minority when 250,000 fled
Burma in 1991.

Hundreds of thousands of others – fleeing from state-sponsored persecution
– have arrived since. They live in Chittagong and Cox's Bazar districts,
some in unofficial camps, but are undocumented and so have few rights.

____________________________________
BUSINESS / TRADE

November 3, Wall Street Journal
Myanmar's muted election

MANDALAY, Myanmar—It doesn't feel much like the first election in 20 years
is about to take place here.

There are no television commercials or campaign workers with loudspeakers
blaring slogans from street corners. None of the city's many billboards
for skin cream, construction materials and wedding dresses have been
replaced with candidates' faces. There aren't loud rallies in town
squares.

Myanmar, led by a secretive military junta regarded as one of the most
oppressive in the world, is holding a closely watched—and controversial—
election on Nov. 7. The government says the vote is part of a "road map to
democracy" that will replace generals with civilian leaders and give the
public more say in public affairs than at any time in decades.

But during a five-day visit to the country recently, across two of
Myanmar's biggest cities, the only evidence this reporter saw of the
election race was a small campaign poster for an obscure ethnic party
hanging on a shopkeeper's wall in a muddy and trash-strewn Yangon outdoor
market. Government television stations and newspapers featured some
coverage, but it was heavily censored. It included a series of 15-minute
segments in which party candidates sat at desks passively reading policy
statements approved by government minders.

To the extent anyone discussed the election, it was mainly in the form of
quiet whispers in tea houses or in private residences. Locals say there
are small gatherings of candidates and voters. The exiled media have
reported that campaign signs, mostly for the government-backed parties,
appear here and there.

Some were impressed when tThe largest opposition party, the National
Democratic Force, did take out a full-page advertisement in a private
newspaper. The simple ad showed the party's logo, a bamboo hat and a giant
black check mark. In small type, it reads: "The Hope for Democracy: NDF
for the People."

Strict election rules make it tough to do more. Candidates are barred from
chanting, marching, or saying anything at political events that could
tarnish the state's image. To register to run, they have to pay $500, a
huge sum for average Myanmar citizens. Those restrictions—and the
government's detention of more than 2,000 critics in prison, according to
human-rights groups—have left some candidates unable or reluctant to do
more than quietly ask friends and allies for support.

Myanmar's pitiful living conditions—caused by what analysts describe as
misguided economic policies combined with Western sanctions— form a grim
backdrop to the vote. Western anachronisms such as push-pedal sewing
machines and carbon paper are still critical to the economy and are found
readily for sale. Electricity is spotty, and those who can afford
appliances such as refrigerators complain that voltage surges burn out
motors.

Yet the select few who have benefited from the regime's patronage live
large. Next to long-abandoned weed-covered colonial buildings sit massive
new palaces owned by property and gem tycoons, including some the U.S.
government and others believe have links to the Myanmar junta. One home
has a Lamborghini and a BMW parked prominently for all to see.

Attempts to reach the Myanmar government to comment were unsuccessful.

The country seems divided on what the vote means. Some see it as a way for
the regime to solidify its power and confer a sheen of legality to a
government that ignored the results of the last vote 20 years ago, which
it lost to supporters of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

Other residents, self-described pragmatists, see the elections as a small
opening that could eventually lead to genuine reform. There will be a new
parliament, and it is widely believed that at least a few opponents of the
regime will win seats. It is also possible that some of the country's
seniormost generals will retire, opening the door for new leaders more
open to reforms.

Those competing narratives have sharply divided the limited opposition
that exists. Ms. Suu Kyi, who has remained under house arrest in Yangon
much of the past two decades, has called for a boycott. Her National
League for Democracy, the most prominent opposition group, has been
disbanded by the government after it declined to register for the vote. A
new constitution reserves a quarter of the seats for the military, and the
two pro-regime parties are the only ones contesting many of the 1,157
constituencies in play.

But some opposition leaders are trying to push ahead, albeit quietly and
within the constraints imposed by the government. The National Democratic
Force, a splinter group from Ms. Suu Kyi's party that is considered the
leading opposition group in the vote, is contesting 163 seats. Its
supporters believe a boycott plays into the government's hands, allowing
it to claim more seats without a fight.

To better understand the debate, take the views of two former school
chums—a businessman and a doctor—who sat down recently in the corner of a
hotel-lobby bar in this city of faded royal palaces and crumbling colonial
buildings. The two men, in their 40s, declined to be named.

One is an importer-exporter who bridles at the regressive policies the
regime places on the economy—including restrictions on the export of key
commodities such as rice—that analysts say benefit a few chosen allies of
the regime. A dysfunctional banking system means there is no credit.
Policies that restrict the supply of cars and cellphones make the cost of
doing business prohibitive. A mobile phone costs $1,500. A 20-year-old
rusty Japanese sedan trades hands for $20,000.Despite his misgivings about
the military, however, he feels the election is an opportunity to insert
dissident voices into what has been a closed system.

"Even though the parliament will be a rubber-stamp one, we should vote in
our people," he says. The alternative, he says, is to "keep silent for the
next 10 years of the same."

He says those elected from the opposition, even if they are in the
minority, will have some freedom to speak out and influence decision
making, because repressing them would boost the opposition's standing
among the public.

"If they kick out 10 people from parliament, then we will have 10 junior
Aung San Suu Kyis," he says.

His friend, the doctor, says he will stay home on Election Day. "People
are very exhausted. This is their election—the regime's," he says. "If I
vote, I'm part of their legalization process."

The doctor argues that trying to implement change within the government's
rules doesn't get to the root cause of the problem, which is that the
regime that intends to hold on to power no matter what.

"My friend, he wants to treat the symptom of what is wrong, but not to
cure the system, which is rotten," he says.

While they debate, the rest of Asia, from China to India, powers ahead,
leaving behind Myanmar, whose economy is trapped in the past.

____________________________________
REGIONAL

November 3, Asian News International (India)
Protest against upcoming Myanmar polls in New Delhi

India-based Myanmar activists staged a sit-in demonstration here on
Wednesday to protest against the upcoming polls in Myanmar beginning from
November 7.

Military-ruled Myanmar will hold its first election in two decades on
November 7, but critics say it would be a sham, resulting in no
substantial transfer of sovereign power.

The activists said that the protest was a wake-up call to the Indian
Government, where they demanded that the world's largest democracy
protests the happenings in Myanmar, instead of signing bilateral
agreements with the Dictator General Than Shwe on July 19, 2010.

"The main point that we are raising is that India should not accept this
Burma (Myanmar) election since it has no guarantee for the people of
Burma. As a largest democracy in Asia or around the world, India should
respect the democratic principle," said Kim, a protestor.

"India should support the way of the Gandhian movement, which our leader
San Suu Kyi (Aung San Suu Kyi) is practicing," he added.

The protestors claimed that human right violations are common in Myanmar,
and about 3,000 political activists have been taken prisoner.

They also called for reviewing the constitution founded in 2008.

"We have three benchmarks, which is, first of all, to release all the
political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi, and the second one is to
recognize the rights of the ethnic people in Burma, and the third one is
to review the 2008 Constitutions, which the Junta have their own policy,"
said Alana Golmei, another protestor.

"So, we are calling them, you know, to review this policy. This is one of
the main agenda that we are doing," he added.

The protestors, with support from organizations all over the country, have
submitted a memorandum to Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh calling the
elections in Myanmar to be undemocratic.

The elections are being held in Myanmar after two decades. The last
election was held in 1990 in which the main opposition party, National
League for Democracy - NLD had won 392 of the 485 parliamentary seats. The
NLD was not allowed by the military junta to take over and the results
were ignored.

Under the 2008 constitution there are two houses of parliament at the
centre (instead of one as before) and there will be 14 State/Regional
assemblies.

Elections are to be held for 440 seats in the lower house or People's
Assembly (Pyithu Hluttaw) and 224 seats in the upper house or
Nationalities Assembly (Amyotha Hluttaw) and about 900 seats in the 14
state/regional assemblies.

However with 25 percent of the seats in each of these assemblies reserved
for the military, the seats up for grabs get reduced to 330, 168 and 665
respectively.

Each voter will be casting a vote for each of these three assemblies.

____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

November 3, The Associated Press
UN Chief urges China help on Myanmar, Sudan

Beijing — UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Security Council
member China to help with contentious polls in Sudan and Burma, but
skirted the issue of Beijing's human rights record.

Ban said China, a close ally of Khartoum, could help ensure a peaceful
outcome to Sudan's January referendum over whether the south will secede
from Africa's largest country.

Activists holding placards stage a rally against UN's handling of Burma
issue in front of the United Nation office during UN Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon's one-day stop over in Bangkok, Thailand, on Oct. 26. (Photo: AP)
"I asked your government's help in assisting the two sides find their way
to a peaceful future, recognizing their shared interests," Ban said in a
speech Tuesday at the ruling Communist Party's central training institute.
A text of the speech was viewed on the website of the UN mission to China
on Wednesday.

In addition to diplomatic engagement, Ban said China, which has a
substantial peacekeeping mission in Sudan, could help with logistical
tasks of transport and technical support in the voting.

He also asked that China use its influence with its southern neighbor
Burma to ensure it moves in a positive direction following the
military-run government's staging of the country's first elections in two
decades on Sunday.

"I see it as an important test. Will the vote perpetuate an untenable
status quo? Or will it set the country on course toward a more open,
democratic and inclusive political future?" Ban said.

"As a trusted neighbor and friend, China's role will be critical in
helping the UN to help Myanmar [Burma] find its way forward."

Ban has been criticized by advocacy groups for failing to raise specific
human rights issues either publicly or in private meetings with President
Hu Jintao and other top leaders. Rights groups have expressed particular
disappointment that he did not broach the case of imprisoned dissident
writer Li Xiaobo, who last month was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in a
move that embarrassed and enraged the Chinese leadership.

The closest Ban came to such appeals was in a reference to the importance
of recognizing that "achieving the shared goals of human rights around the
world is more than an aspiration, it is a foundation of peace and harmony
in our modern world.

"So too is respect for freedom of expression and the protection of its
defenders," Ban said.

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

November 3, Philippine Daily Inquirer
The gall of Burma – Editorial

Burma has again figured in the ASEAN summit in Vietnam chiefly because it
is holding elections on Nov. 7, the first in 20 years, which many expect
would be a sham and merely an exercise to sugarcoat the military junta’s
repressive rule and to provide a legal fig leaf to the dictatorship. The
fears have validity inasmuch as the last time the junta held a national
election, it refused to recognize its results and instead jailed Nobel
Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi who clearly won the ballot. She has since
been kept under house arrest and the junta has refused to release her. Her
party is boycotting the election, dealing a severe blow to the credibility
of the exercise.

Ironically, the election is intended by the junta to be the answer to
criticisms of its anti-democratic character. The criticisms came to a head
in 2007 when Burma was forced to forfeit its turn on the ASEAN rotating
presidency because of its poor human rights record, and the Philippines
was compelled to take over and hold the summit in Cebu. Manila has
historically been particularly trenchant in its criticism of the human
rights record of Burma, and it joined with Singapore later that year in
scheduling a briefing by the United Nations special representative to
Burma, only to be overruled by the majority of the ASEAN leaders who sided
with Burma, worried that the briefing would violate the ASEAN policy on
non-interference of each other’s internal affairs.

President Benigno Aquino III has continued with the policy tack of his
predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, on pressing Burma to show concrete
gestures of democratization. He told Burmese leaders during the summit of
the importance of having free and honest elections and asked that Aung San
Suu Kyi be immediately released. Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo later
warned that a sham election in Burma would undermine the ASEAN.

But the Philippines is the lone voice in the wilderness. The Vietnam
summit has further widened the rift that was seen in the Singapore
meeting: it has shown the cracks in the veneer of ASEAN unity over Burma.
When push comes to shove, the majority of the ASEAN will side with a
dictatorship.

While mainly an economic club, ASEAN is also a gathering of tightly
controlled political regimes that, while not as bluntly repressive as the
military
junta of Burma, are understandably uncomfortable with any hint of
democratization elsewhere that may have some ripple effect on their own
totalitarian set-ups. For most members of the ASEAN, like host Vietnam
which cracked down on protesters before the summit’s opening, Burma’s is a
strangely familiar face: it’s a mirror of their own debased selves that
they would like to forget but keep coming back to.

But ASEAN risks losing its credibility and imperiling its members’
attempts at democratization and liberalization by letting Burma continue
with its depredations. Its largely soft approach on Burma has not been
effective and it should be quickly discontinued, especially since it would
strike a discordant note to the charter the members signed in Singapore
which seeks to bring regional economic integration to a higher level,
similar to the European Union’s, but also with the promise of political
reforms. The charter commits ASEAN members, including Burma, “to
strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law and to
promote human rights and fundamental freedom.”

ASEAN by now should be uncomfortable with the insolence of Burma’s
military junta and its refusal to play by the rules and introduce measures
to democratize the country. It has the gall to call for an election
without releasing Aung San Suu Kyi so she can organize the opposition.
Burma wants to have its cake and eat it, too. Rangoon has practically shut
itself from all the world’s pleadings: its military dictatorship is
committed to perpetuating itself in the new century with the assurance of
a cold-blooded killer.

ASEAN had the confidence long ago to take in Burma as a member, believing
that it would be able to exert gentle pressure on it to reform and pave
the way for democratization. The belief has largely proven to be blind
faith, even naïve and quite misguided. It must now adopt a hard-line
approach to force Rangoon to relent and release Aung San Suu Kyi and hold
credible and fair elections. If that fails, Burma’s membership in the
ASEAN should be suspended. ASEAN should not allow itself to be used as a
camouflage for repression.

____________________________________

November 3, Guardian (UK)
Burma's USDP is heading for election victory, by hook or by crook – Andrew
Heyn

In his third blog post, the British ambassador to Burma finds the people
resigned to a fixed result on 7 November.

As we approach the elections and I get out talking to ordinary people
about their voting intentions, I am often met by two apparently illogical
statements. The first is that there is a strong sense that the regime's
proxy party, the USDP, will win the elections; the second is that none of
my contacts have met anyone who will willingly vote for the USDP.

The solution to this apparent contradiction is obvious. People here
believe that the vote will somehow be fixed, just as the result of the
constituitional referendum was widely alleged to have been in 2008. The
only thing they are not sure about is how this will be done.

There is no shortage of ways a system that exerts such rigid control over
the election process could manipulate the vote.

I have heard many reports that soldiers and public servants have been
ordered to vote for the USDP. Advance voting, where voters' intentions are
taken ahead of the poll (often on their behalf rather than directly), was
rife in 2008 and may well be happening again now.

I have first-hand accounts of people who have been warned by local
officials that if they don't vote for the USDP there will be trouble for
them and their families.

People are hearing rumours that ballot papers will be numbered and
traceable back to individual voters. The USDP has gone on a major
recruitment drive this year and several of my contacts have told me that
as people sign on the dotted line for this "offer they can't refuse",
their vote is automatically cast for the USDP.

A local bicycle taxi driver was detained and questioned for hours by
police last Thursday night simply because he had accepted a leaflet
offered to him by a genuine opposition party candidate. There are other
similar reports of abuses too numerous to list here.

I wrote in an earlier post about the different streams of opinion among
voters – basically, those who will make their protests clear by abstention
and those who will do so by casting a vote for anyone but the USDP. The
problem is that in a number of rural constituencies, voters wishing to
vote for an opposition candidate have no one else to vote for.

Because the election laws have made it so difficult for opposition parties
to put up candidates, in some constituencies the USDP will be running
unopposed; in many others, the only alternative will be the National Unity
Party (NUP), which was the proxy party of General Ne Win's regime in 1990.
It was trounced by Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD party.

People remain suspicious of the NUP's claims to be a broadly pro-regime
but nevertheless genuine alternative to the USDP, but it is true to say
that I have spoken to a lot of people who say that if the NUP is the only
alternative on offer, they will vote for them simply to register their
protest against the USDP.

It is truly extraordinary situation where a party that seems to be so
universally disliked by so many voters is still seen as certain to win.

According to people I talk to, in 1990 the then regime fixed the electoral
arrangements in advance to such an extent that they believed they could
allow a free and fair process on the day and still come out comfortably on
top. It was a huge miscalculation. People came out in droves and voted
against the regime's party and in favour of the NLD.

It is hard to imagine that the regime's current manifestation will make
the same mistake. And indeed, the way the opposition parties have been
restricted means that, according to the figures I have seen, they have
been able to run candidates only in some 38% of seats. Against this
background, majority opinion here is that by hook or by crook the USDP
will come out on top.

Such an outcome would only serve to deepen people's distrust of their
rulers and their sense of frustration and helplessness.

____________________________________

November 3, Council on Foreign Relations
Myanmar's elections offer glimmer of change – Joshua Kurlantzick

Myanmar will hold its first national election in two decades on November
7. The poll is almost certainly not going to be free and fair: While there
may be little outright fraud, the ruling military junta has so controlled
the run-up to the election that it has made it nearly impossible for
opposition pro-democracy parties to gain a fair say. Most major
international human rights groups have condemned the polls in advance.

Yet the election will not be totally meaningless. Though the leading
pro-democracy opposition party, Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for
Democracy, is boycotting the vote, a number of other pro-democracy parties
are contesting. Even the major challenger to the regime's favored
party--composed of other former military men loyal to old strongman Ne Win
but separate from the loyalists to current junta leader Than Shwe--appears
willing to embrace some limited liberal reforms that the junta would never
have considered.

No Election Day Surprises

The last time Myanmar held an election, in 1990, the pro-democracy parties
organized around Suu Kyi and the NLD trounced the military-backed party
that the junta had assumed would win. The NLD won 392 out of 492 seats,
but the army, which has ruled Myanmar in various guises since 1962, never
allowed Suu Kyi's party to take office, instead claiming that Myanmar had
to draft a new constitution before any parliament could be seated--a
process the junta dragged out for nearly two decades. In the interim, the
armed forces more than doubled in size, gained a vast new source of
revenue from petroleum sales to China and other neighbors, and tightened
their already tough hold on the country, using vicious tactics to fight
ethnic minority insurgent groups. They also brutally repressed any hint of
public protest, including the 2007 "Saffron Revolution" in which tens of
thousands of monks gathered in Yangon, the largest city.

The junta will not be caught by surprise this time. It has used every tool
it has, including control of the media, harassments and arrests of
opposition activists, and electoral laws that strongly favor the Union
Solidarity and Development Party. Before the election, the junta placed so
many restrictions on the opposition that, last spring, Suu Kyi and the NLD
leadership chose to boycott the poll. Despite the almost universal
devotion to Suu Kyi, that decision was controversial among activists. For
many younger democracy activists, any opportunity presented by an
election, no matter how slim, should be taken. But some older NLD members,
who remembered the election of 1990 and how it was denied, are far less
willing to just give up the moral high ground that came with triumph and
contest a new, slanted poll.

Compared to 1990, too, the population in Myanmar is far more disengaged
and apathetic about the polls this time. That apathy stems not only from
the regime's manipulation of the pre-election process but also from
Myanmar's grinding poverty. In addition, many Burmese really believed
that, after that election, their country would set forth on the path to
democracy. Few have such illusions this time.

An Inkling of Change

Still, there is some hope for change. The National Unity Party, led by
acolytes of longtime former dictator Ne Win, who ultimately fell out with
the current ruling regime (he is now deceased) may not seem like an ideal
vehicle for change, given that many of its candidates backed or
participated in past iterations of the brutal military regime. But as
noted by the Irrawaddy, a leading Myanmar publication, the NUP is posing a
challenge to the USDP and may ultimately ally with some of the small
pro-democracy parties led by dissenters from Suu Kyi's decision to
boycott. Some NUP candidates have promised that, if elected, they would
liberalize the climate for speech, media, and organization, and unlike the
small pro-democracy parties, the NUP is running nearly as many candidates
in nearly as many districts as the regime's favored party.

On Election Day, the regime may very well allow voting to be relatively
free and fair, as it did in 1990. The junta has said that it will allow
all parties contesting the election to have observers watching the
counting. The UDSP is not going to lose outright, and even if it loses
some seats, Than Shwe and other senior military leaders are going to
continue to pull the strings for the government from behind the scenes. In
recent years they also have privatized some state assets to put them into
the hands of their families and regime cronies, creating a local version
of Russian oligarchs.

Still, the NUP and these smaller pro-democracy parties, as well as some
more liberal parties representing Myanmar's ethnic minority groups, may
deliver a handful of relatively independent-minded legislators. Though
their freedom to act in parliament will still be constrained by the
military, these legislators could build the foundation for a
civilianization of the country and, down the road, a greater opening of
the political system. At the very least, a greater civilianization of the
government might allow some degree of real economic reform, long
encouraged by Myanmar's neighbors, including its powerful patron China;
such reform, at least, could prevent Myanmar's continuing slide down
global development indicators. That is probably, for now, the most that
could be hoped for from the elections.

The Outsiders' Role

The junta has rejected outside observers for its elections, and has thus
far strictly controlled media coverage of the run-up to the poll. Still,
even given limited leverage the regional response to the polls has been
embarrassing. With a few exceptions, like the Philippines, most countries
in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have said almost nothing
about the election. ASEAN itself, though it has made some rhetorical
efforts to pressure the junta to allow a free poll, has sought to avoid
the topic. Recently, too, the Thai government has aggressively courted
Myanmar, with Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva recently traveling to
the capital to meet with top junta leaders.

The United States, too, has limited leverage over a regime which
Washington has maintained sanctions on for over a decade and which seems
to care little about its international image. After taking office in 2009,
President Barack Obama decided to use Myanmar as his Asian experiment in
reversing Bush administration policy. As it did with Iran and Sudan, the
Obama administration decided to engage with the junta, accused of massive
human rights abuses including forced labor, widespread rape, and summary
executions--though the White House did not push Congress to jettison
sanctions in place since the late 1990s.

Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell has pursued vigorous efforts to
get the two sides talking about critical issues, but he has mostly been
rebuffed, and administration officials are beginning to believe that
engagement will produce few results. Instead, the White House recently has
supported an international inquiry into crimes against humanity committed
in Myanmar, as well as other tougher measures. Still, other than isolating
the junta's bank accounts in places like Dubai, which are viable options,
there is relatively little more the Congress and the White House can do to
punish the regime.

Given the United States' limited leverage, it will need to work with
Myanmar's neighbors, including, potentially, China, to produce any change.
While condemning the slanted and fraudulent operation of the election,
U.S. officials could still try to highlight, and potentially work with,
the small numbers of more independent and liberal candidates that emerge.
In addition, if the election does produce greater civilianization of the
government, it may make it easier for the United States and other outside
actors to increase aid flows to Myanmar, focusing on relatively
noncontroversial areas like building the banking sector, combating
HIV/AIDS and other infectious disease, and primary education.

In addition, the United States will have to work with China and other
regional actors to avoid a potential humanitarian emergency in the months
after the election. In conjunction with the poll, the Myanmar junta has
prodded ethnic insurgent groups operating in northern and eastern Myanmar
to give up their arms and join a junta-controlled border guard force. The
ethnic armies mostly have refused, creating the potential for large-scale
renewed conflict in some areas. Along with China, Thailand, and other
regional powers, Washington needs to boost its ties to the ethnic armies,
to increase the region's capacity for handling refugees and delivering
cross-border aid into Myanmar, without having to run the assistance by the
junta.


Joshua Kurlantzick is a Fellow for Southeast Asia.

____________________________________
INTERVIEW

November 3, Channel News Asia
The UK does not recognise the elections in Burma as being legitimate

Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne discussed the elections in Burma on
Channel News Asia on 2 November.

Speaker: Minister for Human Rights Jeremy Browne

Female Interviewer: So let me ask you firstly what is the British
Government’s position for the upcoming Myanmar elections?

Jeremy Browne: Well we don’t recognise the elections as being legitimate.
There are over two thousand political prisoners in Burma; people who would
wish to stand for election are not able to do so, so it is not an accurate
reflection of the view of the people of Burma, and for that reason we
don’t think the elections are a legitimate process.

Interviewer: Do you not think though that this is a step in the right
direction by the military rulers?

JB: Well I think you either have a proper set of elections or you don’t
have a proper set of elections and we’ve looked at these elections and we
don’t regard them as a proper set of elections. I mean what are the
purpose of elections? They are to express the, the views of the population
of that country and to have a parliament, a government, that reflects the
views of the people who voted in that country.

Now if you have a distorted process at the beginning, you have
restrictions on who can be candidates, you have more than two thousand
people in prison for their political beliefs, then you’re not able to get
an outcome that is an accurate reflection of popular sentiment.

Interviewer: So would you support then, obviously some party to be NLD
obviously Aung San Suu Kyi’s party are, are, well they’re, they’re being
sensitive about it, they’re suggesting a boycott. Would you, does the
Government support a boycott?

JB: Well I think that’s for people to decide themselves, some people will
wish to express their views on the regime by choosing not to vote, others
will wish to vote for candidates who they feel most closely reflect their
own views. And I can see why different people would take different
opinions and that’s for the individuals concerned to decide for
themselves.

Interviewer: Do you think it would be helpful if the opposition groups
were more united?

JB: Well again I think it’s for them to decide for themselves, but I mean
we, we the British Government have a, a clear position. It’s not for, for
any country to decide how a country is run, there are lots of different
ways that a, a democracy can take shape and some countries can have a
democracy with a left wing government and some can have democracies with a
right wing government and some might have greens in it and some might, you
know, there’s lots of different ways that different countries come to
different decisions.

I suppose the, the central point for us is does the Government actually
reflect the, the opinions, the views, of the people in the country? And if
it doesn’t reflect the views of the people in the country we don’t feel
that the process is legitimate and fails in its core function. So you
know, would we like to see people in Burma try and bring about a process
which did reflect the views of people in Burma, regardless of quite what
form those views took? Yes we would. I mean that would seem to us to be a
healthy process, not just for us of course but more importantly give to
the people of Burma.

Interviewer: Well it seems that the UK then is at odds with UN Chief Ban
Ki Moon. He said that’s it’s not too late for, for free and fair
elections.

JB: Well it’s pretty soon to the polling day. I mean I’m speaking to you
here in London in the middle of the week, it’s this weekend, the polling
day, so I think, you know, let’s, let’s be realistic. The, the mould is
pretty set in terms of the elections, in terms of the people who are
allowed to be candidates, in terms of the positions that have been taken
in terms of the political prisoners who are not allowed to stand for
election themselves.

So I don’t think it’s possible at this hour to suddenly conjure up
something that represents a, a full blown democratic process and the
election, we can see what the, what the election is and for us, the
British Government, you know the test for an election is does it
accurately reflect popular opinion, popular sentiment, within the country.
And I don’t think you can have popular opinion reflected if people who
represent strands of opinion, who have popular support, are not allowed to
stand and in some cases are kept in prison simply because of their
political beliefs.

Interviewer: Well moving on then, would you look to see the ASEAN nations
take more of a robust role?

JB: Well I’ve, I’ve been really enthusiastic since I became a Minister six
months ago about the potential for ASEAN as a whole. I mean if ASEAN were
one country, and I know, you know, lots of different countries have
different traditions, but were it one country it would be you know
knocking on the door of super power status. It is a really exciting,
dynamic part of the world, its economies are, are in many cases growing
strongly, and there’s a really good news story to tell about ASEAN.

And I think ASEAN nations as a whole probably have cause to reflect on, on
the situation in Burma and think, you know, is that the situation that we
want to say to the rest of the world? Are the ASEAN nations held back by
having Burma as part of their team? And I think they are, and it would be
good for ASEAN as a whole to recognise the benefits of having a free,
fair, open, democratic Burma as part of the ASEAN family. It would be good
for the neighbouring ASEAN countries, but most importantly of all it would
be good for Burmese people themselves.

Interviewer: Well some ASEAN nations, notably the Philippines, have been
quite vocal about how the group should be doing more and, and would take
your point and say yes, you know, they, they let us down. Would you though
really be looking for a bit more concrete action? The, the group seems
very divided.

JB: Well I mean, yes I think is the short answer to that which is that,
you know, ASEAN is a set of countries with different traditions and, you
know, different rates of progress, different levels of prosperity, but
they are collectively working more and more together and it is a part of
the world which is rising in importance and rising in prominence. And I
think the ASEAN countries, as they become more important, with that
greater power become, comes greater responsibility as well.

And, and one of those responsibilities is to look at the ASEAN countries
as a whole and say, are those countries ready to step up to the next level
and does a Burmese regime in their midst with their appalling record on
human rights, with their unwillingness to hold a proper open democratic
election, does that reflect well on ASEAN as a region? And I think there
are lots of people in the ASEAN region who would think it doesn’t.

Interviewer: Well moving on then. So you said you could comment on China,
I believe your, your Prime Minister is, is off with a very large
delegation next week.

JB: He is. He’s going with our Finance Minister, our Chancellor of the
Exchequer, but also our Business Secretary, our Climate Change Secretary
and our Education Secretary. So five Members of the British Cabinet
travelling to China, what would be a really important high level
opportunity. It’s the first time since he became Prime Minister that our
Prime Minister has visited Beijing and it’s a really good opportunity for
us to further strengthen the relations between Britain and China. We want
to have a partnership for growth between our two countries, we recognise
the amazing progress that has been made in economic terms in China, now
the second biggest economy in the world, but also of course there’s a long
way to go. It’s an enormous country with an enormous population.

We think there are real opportunities for our countries to work closely
together, particularly in the economic sphere and trade sphere, but in
other areas as well in terms of educational links, cultural ties, and
trying to make sure that we protect the environment. So there’s a, there’s
a big shared agenda and the Prime Minister really gets, you know, focused
to that agenda by being in person in Beijing, meeting the leading people,
the leading figures, in the Chinese Government, and we’re optimistic it
will be a very successful visit.

Interviewer: Getting some advice about the Olympics do you think?

JB: Well I was in China myself a couple of months ago and I visited the
Birds Nest Stadium in Beijing and it’s extremely impressive, it’s iconic
actually. I stood on, I crouched on the starting line where Usain Bolt
started his, his race, which sort of blasted him in to history. And it’s a
great, it’s a great stadium, architecturally, British company involved in
the design and construction, perfect example of the two countries working
together.

And of course we’re looking forward to having the Olympics here in 2012
and you know a different target, every, every Games is different, Athens
before that, Sydney before that, different Games, but obviously they
passed the Olympic baton on to us and we want to put on a big show.

Interviewer: Although we won’t have the budget that they have had.

JB: Well I think the, each Games will, will be different and each country
that hosts the Games is in a different point in its own development. But,
you know, Britain has an amazing sporting and Olympic heritage. We hosted
the Games just after the Second World War, that’s the last time we hosted
the Games in this country. Now obviously the world has changed and moved
on a lot since then, but what we are hoping is that people come to London
and to the other places in Britain where the Games are being held in 2012
and they see a country that is confident, that is doing well, and we are
looking forward to welcoming people from right around the globe and making
it a real celebration of sport.

Interviewer: Well this is a surprise question which I think’s going to
come as a bit of a disappointment now. Perhaps I gave it too much of a
build up. But around this time of the year with people that we interview
we often ask for our year ender for them to look in to the future and I
wonder if I could ask you as a member of the Government, also obviously
the Foreign Office, if you could look at 2011 and, and sort of describe a
little bit what you think the big challenges for Britain will be next year
in, in 2011.

JB: Well I think there’s some specific challenges. We have taken the
difficult measures necessary as a new Government in London to get to grips
with our terrible budget deficit that we inherited in May. And I think
that people will see in 2011 Britain being increasingly a confident
country economically, the best place to invest in the developed world, our
economy growing, us pulling out of the global recession, but also getting
our public finances under control.

And we will be confident players on the world stage, and that world is
changing very rapidly. We have big growth rates in Asia, we obviously have
established economies like Japan, but we have the economies that are
growing strongly like China, like South Korea, like many of the ASEAN
economies as well. So it, the world is taking a new shape. We have the G20
Summit happening in South Korea a few weeks from now and that will set the
tone as well for 2011.

And I think the, the, the task for Britain is to make sure that we play a
leading constructive enlightened role in what is an exciting change to the
world order. And Asia is becoming a more prominent, more important part of
the world. And we don’t resent that, it’s fantastic what is happening in
terms of the opportunities for hundreds of millions of people around Asia
whose prosperity is increasing, whose opportunities to, to live a life
that would have been unimaginable for their parents and grandparents.

And that is, that’s exciting for them, it’s exciting for us, and we want
to be, we want to be part of that in a positive way. We want to improve
trade links, we want to improve cultural links, and we want to make sure
that, that Britain and Europe more generally is part of that emerging and
growing Asian success story in 2011 and beyond.

Interviewer: Well I think you just secured a, a very warm reception in
Singapore with that answer.