BurmaNet News, November 6-7, 2010

[Editor]

November 6-7, 2010, Issue #4078

INSIDE BURMA
AP: Myanmar holds rare elections amid heavy criticism
NY Times: Turnout appears light in Myanmar’s election
The Nation: Burmese opposition says voters being 'cheated
Irrawaddy: Electoral irregularities rampant
Irrawaddy: Low turnout in Mon state
DVB: Diplomats snub election booth ‘tours’
DVB: N Korean diplomats observe polling

ON THE BORDER
DVB: DKBA renegades seize border town
DVB: Japanese reporter for APF arrested

INTERNATIONAL
DPA: Myanmar elections not free and fair, Obama says
Nuneaton News: Hague slams 'unfair' Burma election

DVB: Suu Kyi ‘very relevant’ despite absence
Irrawaddy: Worldwide demonstrations against Burma election

OPINION / OTHER
Irrawaddy: Now's the time to defy the regime (Editorial)
Outlook India: We hear you, Michael Aris, loud And clear - Amartya Sen

____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

November 7, The Associated Press
Myanmar holds rare elections amid heavy criticism

Yangon, Myanmar - Voters in the secretive military-ruled nation of Myanmar
cast their first ballots in 20 years on Sunday, as slim hopes for
democratic reform faced an electoral system engineered to ensure that most
power will remain in the hands of the junta and its political proxies.

While it remained unclear when results would be announced officials would
only say they would come "in time" there was little doubt that the
junta-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party would emerge with an
enormous share of the parliamentary seats, despite widespread popular
opposition to 48 years of military rule.

Many voters said they simply wanted to cast their votes against the
junta's politicians.

"I cannot stay home and do nothing," said Yi Yi, a 45-year-old computer
technician in Yangon, the country's largest city. "I have to go out and
vote against USDP. That's how I will defy them (the junta)."

Voting against them, though, may not matter very much.

The junta's proxy party, which is led by a just-retired general and has
the government's enormous financial resources at its disposal, is fielding
1,112 candidates for the 1,159 seats in the two-house national parliament
and 14 regional parliaments.

The largest anti-government party, the National Democratic Force, is
contesting just 164 spots.

Election rules were clearly written to benefit the USDP, with hundreds of
potential opposition candidates including pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu
Kyi, whose party won a landslide victory in the last election in 1990 but
was barred from taking office under house arrest or in prison. Many other
potential candidates in the poverty-wracked nation were simply unable to
raise the $500 registration fee.

Several parties say many voters were already strong-armed into casting
ballots for the junta's proxy party in a system of advance voting.

No matter the election results, the constitution sets aside 25 percent of
parliamentary seats for military appointees.

Suu Kyi has dismissed the election as rigged and urged her party, the
National League for Democracy, to boycott the vote, leading to its
dissolution.

Few observers expected surprises from the election.

"The only real surprise result would be that one pro-establishment party
would beat an even more pro-establishment party" British Ambassador Andrew
Heyn told The Associated Press on Sunday. He was referring to the USDP's
closest rival, the National Unity Party, which is backed by supporters of
the country's previous military ruler.

Heyn called the election a "huge missed opportunity" for democratic change.

Speaking Sunday to a group of college student in Mumbai, President Barack
Obama said the elections were "anything but free and fair."

Obama, who is on a tour of Asia, said that "for too long the people of
Burma have been denied the right to determine their own destiny."

Despite the storm of criticism, some voters and experts on Myanmar, also
known as Burma, said the election could herald a modicum of change from
the decades of iron-fisted rule and gross economic mismanagement of the
resource-rich nation.

"The elections, for all their farcical elements, have already achieved
something: Burmese people are listening and talking more about politics
than they have for a long time," said Monique Skidmore of the Australian
National University. "It seems likely that the very small public political
space will be widened and this is probably the best outcome we can hope
for from the election."

Optimists say even a handful of opposition parliamentarians could allow
for limited government oversight, and possibly pave the way for more
political change in the years to come.

Voting passed quietly across the Southeast Asian nation, with no reports
of violence or major protests.

Voter turnout appeared light at many Yangon polling stations. Some
residents said they were staying home as rumors circulated that bombs
would explode.

Riot police were deployed at a handful of key junctions, though the junta
appeared anxious to keep its massive security apparatus in the background
on voting day, and very few soldiers could be seen on the streets.

The regime earlier banned foreign journalists and international poll
monitors from the election.

Democracy advocates are now looking toward the coming few days. Officials
have indicated that Suu Kyi could be freed from house arrest sometime
after the election, perhaps as early as Nov. 13.

Suu Kyi has been locked up in her Yangon villa on and off ever since the
ruling generals ignored the 1990 poll results. They hold a total of some
2,200 political prisoners.

The regime has also been criticized for its brutal treatment of ethnic
minorities seeking greater autonomy.

In the wake of rising tension before the election, the junta canceled
voting in 3,400 villages in ethnic minority areas and has increased its
military presence in the countryside. About 1.5 million of the country's
59 million people have thus been disenfranchised.

Some ethnic minority groups, like the Karen, have been fighting the
government since the country gained independence from Great Britain in
1948. Others, including the powerful Wa and Kachin, had forged cease-fire
agreements that now appear in jeopardy amid fears that the constitution
activated by the elections would quash their hopes for a federal system.

With ethnic minorities making up about 40 percent of the population, the
outbreak of a full-scale civil war would have disastrous economic,
political and humanitarian consequences. Some 600,000 ethnic minority
people have already sought refuge in neighboring countries.

"We fear an increase in violence in many parts of Burma after the election
and more refugees fleeing to the border with Thailand. There will be no
change, no end to suffering, for the people on the ground," said Charm
Tong, an exiled activist from the Shan minority.

For many people in Myanmar, the election brought little but fear.

"I voted for (Suu Kyi's party) in 1990. This is my second time to vote,"
said a 60-year-old man in Yangon, Tin Aung, when asked which party he had
voted for.

He then looked around and added: "I am really scared."

____________________________________

November 7, New York Times
Turnout appears light in Myanmar’s election

YANGON, Myanmar — Polling places appeared nearly empty around Yangon on
Sunday as the rest of the city went about its business in the first
election in this closed and tightly controlled nation in 20 years.

The process was expected to cement military rule behind a civilian facade
but also to open the door slightly to possible shifts in the dynamics of
power.

“It was an empty room,” said one voter who emerged from a polling place
where he said he had spoiled his ballot in protest, here in the country’s
commercial capital.

Though the Constitution guarantees the military a leading role in the
state apparatus, this will be the first civilian government in the former
Burma since a military coup in 1962. With votes being tabulated locally,
it was not known if results would be announced Sunday or later.

The appearance of electoral legitimacy and civilian institutions may make
it easier for Myanmar’s neighbors to embrace what has been a pariah, but
it was unlikely by itself to ease a policy of isolation and economic
sanctions among Western nations.

Both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
condemned the election Sunday.

Speaking in Mumbai, India, the president said: “There are elections that
are being held right now in Burma that will be anything but free and fair,
based on every report that we are seeing. ”

He added, “for too long the people of Burma have been denied the right to
determine their own destiny. ”

Mrs. Clinton, speaking in Melbourne, Australia, said: “You look at Burma
holding flawed elections today that once again expose the abuses of the
military junta.” In an hour’s tour of Yangon Sunday morning, there was
very little sign on the streets or at polling places of a police or
military presence.

Half a dozen voting centers appeared almost empty and a resident of the
country’s second city, Mandalay, said voting was light there as well.

“None of my friends or family voted,” said a shopkeeper. “Aung San Suu Kyi
is number one.”

He was referring to the detained pro-democracy leader, Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi, whose party was not contesting the election and had called for a
boycott.

Voters were electing a 665-member, two-chamber national Parliament and 14
regional Parliaments. A total of 25 percent of those seats will be
reserved for the military, and several senior military officials have
resigned to run as civilians. Military officers are to head the key
Ministries of Interior, Defense and Border Affairs, and the commander in
chief of the armed forces will have power to take control of the country
in times of emergency.

Thirty-seven parties were on the ballot, but the military appeared to have
taken pains to assure the victory of parties it supports by severely
restricting campaigns, setting high fees for candidacy, censoring
political statements, controlling the media, excluding voters in unstable
ethnic minority areas and barring outside election monitors. Hundreds of
the strongest potential opposition candidates were in prison or under
house arrest.

Each candidate was given 15 minutes on national television, but the
censored, pretaped speeches had the feel of confessions at a Stalinist
show trial.

Speaking in Bangkok on Thursday, Britain’s ambassador to Myanmar, Andrew
Heyn, said, “These elections are going to be neither free, nor fair, nor
inclusive. There is nothing in these elections themselves that could give
us grounds for optimism.”

Kurt M. Campbell, the United States’ assistant secretary of state for East
Asia and Pacific affairs, said in Washington in September that it appeared
the vote would lack international legitimacy, but that it might create
“new players, new power relationships, new structures inside the country”
that would bear watching.

The military appeared to be trying to avoid the pitfalls of the last
election, in 1990, which it annulled after the party it backed was
trounced by a democratic opposition led by Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi.

In what could be the first sign of a backup plan if this election also did
not go the military’s way, Myanmar’s state media, which has been urging
people to vote, warned of the possibility of the election’s being
“aborted,” in which case, it said, “the ruling government will have no
choice but to keep taking state responsibilities until it holds another
election.”

Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, now 65, has been held under house arrest for most
of the time since the past election.

Her latest term of detention ends one week after the election, and the
junta has hinted that she could be released. It has often made similar
hints in the past, and there was no way to know what restrictions might be
imposed if she is set free.

Her party chose not to take part in what it called a sham election and was
therefore forced to disband.

Sunday’s elections are the first for a large share of voters. Anyone 37 or
younger was not eligible to vote two decades ago. With half of the
population of Myanmar 26 or younger, many voters seemed puzzled by how the
process actually worked. Newspapers have run articles giving step-by-step
instructions to voters, and many residents of Yangon have received fliers
from candidates or seen the sparse collection of election posters.

But in smaller towns and villages, where the vast majority of Myanmar’s
estimated 53 million people live, some people anticipated confusion at the
polls. A restaurant owner in Bago, the former royal capital 42 miles north
of Yangon, said his staff of about dozen workers did not fully understand
voting procedures. “I told them you have to tick a box and that’s it,” the
owner said.

Some voters said they were afraid to go to polling stations because they
were intimidated by election officials and assumed that their names and
choices would be recorded, he said. The election has also engendered more
general fears of unrest among some families, with households hoarding rice
and other staples, the restaurant owner said.

But half an hour from Bago, amid the golden stalks of rice paddies ready
for harvest, a family of farmers said they understood the system well
after daily broadcasts on state radio instructing them on how to vote. The
father knew the voting hours and how many candidates were running.
Concerns about the overall fairness of the elections were widespread.
Phone Win, an independent candidate running for a parliamentary seat in
Yangon, said a major unknown in the election was the number of people,
especially civil servants or police and military, who took part in advance
voting.

The actual vote counting was to be done with representatives of each
candidate present, but pre-voting takes place out of sight of election
officials, Mr. Phone Win said.

He added that many people might stay away from the polls for a familiar
reason in Myanmar. “People are afraid,” he said.

Seth Mydans contributed reporting from Bangkok.

____________________________________

November 7, The Nation (Bangkok)
Burmese opposition says voters being 'cheated

Rangoon, Burma: Armed police patrolled the streets and shops in the
capital were closed for business yesterday as Burma prepared for its first
election in two decades amid a growing outcry over voter intimidation.

Security was tight on the eve of today's poll as the junta looked to clamp
down on any potential disruption to the process, which has been widely
criticised as a charade to camouflage army rule.

Two parties aligned to the military are together fielding about two-thirds
of the total candidates and the weakened opposition has slim chance of
success with democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi locked up.

The National Democratic Force (NDF) and Democratic Party (Myanmar) have
led accusations that the junta-backed Union Solidarity and Development
Party (USDP) was "cheating" and "threatening" voters.

The NDF filed an official letter of complaint to the Union Election
Commission on the eve of the poll charging the party with illegally
collecting advance ballots, following a similar move by the Democracy
party.

It said that in one village in Shan State, east Burma, an official had
instructed the entire population to vote for the USDP and reported similar
incidents in other regions across the country.

The letter also accused authorities of accepting ballots from children as
young as seven.

Ethnic minority groups added their voices to the complaints.

The Chin Human Rights Organisation reported that in a ward in Chin State,
in western Burma, one polling station was at an army checkpoint.

"How can people feel free to vote for the party of their choice if
soldiers are watching them?" programme director Salai Za Uk Ling said.

All Mon Region Democracy Party, in Mon State in the southeast, and Rakhine
National Development Party (RNDP), in Rakhine State in the west,
threatened to boycott the result over alleged USDP abuses, exile website
Irrawaddy reported.

One USDP member, campaigning in a five-vehicle convoy in Rangoon, said he
had not collected advance votes in his area as he did not want any
"misunderstandings".

The USDP, formed by ministers who retired from the military in April, has
allegedly been helped by local authorities to force people, from teachers
to factory workers, to pick the junta party. "I voted yesterday as I will
be on duty on election day. Of course, I voted for the lion [USDP], I have
no choice," a government worker in the capital Naypyidaw said.

In Rangoon, authorities conducted house-to-house visits at night to check
on residents while armed police patrolled the streets as security was
tightened. "They are very concerned about election day," a civil servant
in Naypyidaw said, adding that shops in the capital were ordered to close
on Friday night and not reopen until after the vote.

The junta was also feared to be intentionally blocking access to
information, with the Internet down across Rangoon on Friday. The military
and its proxy party enjoy huge advantages in the polls: a quarter of seats
in the new legislature are reserved for the army, while opposition parties
have encountered major obstacles.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Suu Kyi, who has been detained for much of the
past 20 years, remains under house arrest and sidelined from the election
while her now-disbanded National League for Democracy (NLD) is boycotting
the process.

Suu Kyi won a landslide election victory in 1990 but the generals never
allowed her to take power.

Many people in Burma, where almost one-third of the population lives below
the poverty line, prioritise basic needs over politics, while a lack of
choice has fuelled disillusionment in the election.

In many constituencies the poll is a two-horse race between the USDP and
the National Unity Party (NUP), the successor to late dictator Ne Win's
party. Few outsiders will bear witness when up to 29 million eligible
voters cast their ballots. Foreign observers and international media have
been barred from entering the country for the election, while European
diplomats have snubbed official polling station visits.

____________________________________

November 7, Irrawaddy
Electoral irregularities rampant

The Burmese people, for the first time in 20 years, began heading to the
polling stations on Sunday to cast votes for candidates from 37 political
parties running for the new bicameral national legislature and regional
parliaments. The polls opened at 6 a.m. Burmese local time.

However, reports of electoral irregularities which began last week have
increased. The Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) led by the
incumbent Prime Minister Thein Sein has reportedly abused the electoral
law with the help of local authorities and the election commissions at
various levels.

The Irrawaddy offers a briefing on electoral irregularities sent in by its
reporters, correspondents, political party members and citizen voters.

Ballot Stuffing: Ballot boxes in polling stations in Mandalay in Mandalay
Division and Bogale in Irrawaddy Division were filled with advanced
ballots.

Unsafe Ballot Booths: The ballot booths at  polling stations in Thanlyin,
Ahlone, Kyemyindine, Sanchaung, South Okkalapa, Dagon Myothit (North), and
Dagon Myothit (South) townships in Rangoon Division did not provide for a
secret voting process.

Faulty Voter List: Many voters in different townships complain that they
have lost their right to vote because their names are not in the voter
list.

Unsealed Ballot Boxes: Many ballot boxes were not sealed or were secured
only with plastic tape in Naypyidaw and Irrawaddy Division.

Polling Station Officers' Bias: Polling officers urged voters to vote for
the junta-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) in
Thingangyun, Thaketa and Kayan of Rangoon Division, in Thabeikkyin in
Mandalay Division and in Kamma in Magwe Division.

Illegal Campaigning: In breach of the election law, USDP members on Sunday
morning told voters to vote for the USDP inside the polling station in
Kawkalay village and Mudon Township in Mon State. In Rangoon's Botahtaung
Township, campaign posters for the USDP candidate were placed near the
entry to the polling station, in breach of the electoral law which
prohibits posters within 500 yards (457 meters) of polling stations.

Party Members Interfer in Polling Station Functions: In breach of the
election law, some USDP party agents assumed the role of polling station
guards or were involved in the functions of the polling stations in
Amarapura Township in Mandalay Division.

Voting Cheating: Some polling station officers in Kyaukse Township in
Mandalay Division cast votes for the USDP on behalf of the voters.

____________________________________

November 7, Irrawaddy
Low turnout in Mon state - Lawi Weng

Voting was reported to be light in Mon State, where the All Mon Regions
Democracy Party (AMRDP) nevertheless predicted it would win 75 percent as
long as the  regime-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP)
refrained from trying to fix the result.

Sein Thee, a member of the AMRDP election committee in Mudon Township,
said: “The people are not going to polling stations in the numbers we had
hoped.”

A Moulmein Township resident toured polling stations on Sunday morning and
later reported: “It is quiet here. There are no crowds at the polling
stations.

“The people say it's already known who will win the election and that's
why they are not voting.”

A Thanbyuzayat Township resident, Nai Tin Aung, shared that view, saying
“The people aren't keen on voting. They're just not interested. They know 
their votes will not change anything.”

The AMRDP is competing against the USDP and the National Unity Party in
Mon State.

Alleged breaches of the election laws by the USDP were reported from
polling stations in Moulmein and Mudon Townships.

In one case, a woman candidate for the USDP in Nyaungkon, Mudon Township,
Soe Hlaing, was accused of filling in ballot papers with appeals to vote
for her.

A member of the Mon Literature and Culture Committee in Thanbyzayat
Township complained that her vote for the AMRDP had been rendered invalid
because the polling officer in Kyaungpain had not endorsed her ballot
paper.

____________________________________

November 6, Democratic Voice of Burma
Diplomats snub election booth ‘tours’ - Dan Withers

European diplomats in Rangoon are rebuking offers to visit polling
stations during Burma’s elections tomorrow, claiming the strict rules
surrounding the inspections have forced them to withdraw.

British, German, French and Italian diplomats yesterday issued a statement
on behalf of the EU declining to take part in the visits, which British
Ambassador Andrew Heyn earlier dismissed as a “choreographed tour”, AFP
reported.

Selected polling stations in Burma have been told to expect visits from
diplomats and local representatives of international news agencies, while
the majority of domestic reporters are banned from going within 50 meters
of the ballot box. It was unclear at the time of writing whether
representatives of other missions would be attending the tours.

Foreign journalists and election monitors have been forbidden from
entering the country to observe the polls, which critics claim are a
cynical exercise aimed at putting a civilian facade on continued military
rule. Burma’s election commission chief, Thein Soe, has said that the
presence of foreign media is unnecessary when diplomats in the country
could perform the same scrutinising function.

He has also claimed Burma, which last held polls in 1990, has “abundant
experience in holding elections”. Foreign representatives of international
news agencies have been allowed to remain in the country, though they will
be expected to accompany diplomats on the mandatory tours decried by
Ambassador Heyn.

Somsri Hannanuntasuk, director of election watchdog Asian Network for Free
Elections (ANFREL), said she was unsurprised the diplomats were shunning
the visits. “If I was them, I would decline too,” she said.

Election observers needed full access to every aspect of the polling
process, said Somsri, whose own organisation has been denied permission to
observe the elections. “You have to understand the process and you have to
have knowledge about observation. And you need freedom: freedom of
movement, freedom of expression.”

There have already been numerous accusations of electoral fraud in the
polls, particularly with regards advance voting. Merely observing voting
at selected polling stations would not allow observers to judge if
elections were free and fair, Somsri said.

____________________________________

November 7, Democratic Voice of Burma
N Korean diplomats observe polling

A delegation of more than 20 Rangoon-based foreign diplomats observed the
elections today in Mandalay, according to embassy sources.

The majority were from regional Southeast Asian countries, and included
the ambassador of North Korea, Kim Sok Chol.

While the junta has issued an invite to all foreign diplomats in the
country to attend selected polling stations, a number of western countries
declined.

British ambassador Andrew Heyn said yesterday that he had rejected the
offer to take part in a “choreographed tour” of ballot stations. He was
supported by officials from the German, French and Italian embassies, who
penned a joint statement.

The majority of domestic reporters are banned from going within 50 meters
of the ballot box, while foreign journalists and observers are banned.

All of Burma’s close neighbours, including North Korea and China, have
maintained warm relations with the ruling junta, and have refused to echo
international condemnation of the polls.

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

November 7, Democratic Voice of Burma
DKBA renegades seize border town - Naw Noreen

A group of defectors from the pro-junta Democratic Karen Buddhist Army
(DKBA) have taken control of a major border crossing and military and
police posts in eastern Burma.

The head of the faction, Brig-Gen Na Kham Mwe, told DVB that the group had
seized the Thai-Burma Friendship Bridge entrance in Karen state’s
Myawaddy, as well as police, army and intelligence offices.

“They [Burmese army] announced that they will shoot people who don’t vote
[in today’s elections]. So people called on us to seize the town,” he
said.

“In order to win votes in the elections, [the junta] is bullying and
forcing people to vote. But the people want to boycott [the vote], so the
soldiers are holding them at gunpoint and our troops had to intervene and
take sides with the people.”

The breakaway DKBA group, comprised of former junta loyalists who refused
to transform into a Border Guard Force, has some 1000 troops in Myawaddy,
Na Kham Mwe said.

The DKBA now “has control of every location” and police and Burmese troops
have withdrawn from the town, he added. Myawaddy acts as a major crossing
point for trade between Thailand and Burma, but the checkpoint has been
closed since July following a dispute between the two governments.

Na Kham Mwe said that around 200 troops from the Border Guard Force had
this morning defected to his faction, while opposition Karen National
Liberation Army (KNLA) troops arrived today to aid the renegades.

A Japanese journalist was arrested early this morning in Myawaddy after
illegally crossing the border. It is not clear whether he is being held in
one of the said police stations.

____________________________________

November 7, Democratic Voice Burma
Japanese reporter for APF arrested

Police have confirmed that a Japanese journalist from the Tokyo-based APF
news agency was arrested this morning after crossing into Burma on foot
over the Thai border.

Tony Masamoto, 49, was detained at 9am today in Burma’s eastern border
town of Myawaddy, in Karen state. The town is a major crossing point from
Thailand’s Mae Sot.

The reporter is rumoured to be the former boss of Kenji Nagai, who was
shot dead in Rangoon by a soldier as he documented the September 2007
monk-led uprising. It is believed that he was arrested after being seen
taking photographs in Myawaddy, and remains in detention.

Belongings, including a pen camera, international mobile phone and Thai
mobile phone, a passport and an APF press card, have been confiscated.

Foreign journalists and observers have been banned from entering Burma
during the elections.

Correction: original story said the reporter was from Agence
France-Presse. This is not the case, and AFP confirm they have no
journalists on the ground in Myawaddy.

____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

November 7, Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Myanmar elections not free and fair, Obama says

New Delhi - US President Barack Obama said Sunday's elections in
military-ruled Myanmar would be "anything but free and fair".

An estimated 29 million people were eligible to vote in the polls, the
first since May 27, 1990. The elections are seen as a scripted vote
between two junta-backed political parties in the fray.

"We must remember that in some places the future of democracy is still
very much in question," Obama said at a meeting with students at a college
in Mumbai.

"Just to give you an example, the elections that are now being held in
Burma that will be anything but free and fair based on every report that
we are seeing".

"And for too long the people of Burma have been denied the right to
determine their own destiny," he added.

Obama is in India on the first leg of his four-nation Asia tour.

The two main military-backed parties in the Myanmar polls are the Union
Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) and the National Unity Party
(NUP).

Both have former military leaders and businessmen linked to the military
regime in their ranks.

The country's best-known opposition party, National League for Democracy,
was dissolved by the government. Its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, remains
under house arrest.

Myanmar's polls have been widely criticized by UN Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon and western democracies for not being free, fair and inclusive.

____________________________________

November 7, Nuneaton News
Hague slams 'unfair' Burma election

Foreign Secretary William Hague has condemned the "flawed elections" which
have taken place in Burma.

Voters in the south-east Asian country went to the polls for the first
time in 20 years, but Mr Hague said the result was a "foregone conclusion"
and that the ballot was not "free, fair or inclusive".

And he vowed the UK would "stand by" the people of Burma by keeping up
sanctions on the ruling military regime until "real progress" on
democracy, governance and human rights could be secured.

Candidates linked to the ruling junta are expected to secure a landslide
victory in the much-criticised election, with around a quarter of seats
reserved for the army.

Aung San Suu Kyi's main opposition party, the National League for
Democracy, boycotted the poll and other opposition groups have fallen
victim to complex election rules.

"We know the result of these elections is already a foregone conclusion,"
Mr Hague said.

"They will not be free, fair or inclusive. More than 2,100 political
prisoners remain incarcerated, opposition and ethnic parties have been
refused the right to stand and a quarter of the seats are already reserved
for the military.

"Holding flawed elections does not represent progress. For the people of
Burma, it will mean the return to power of a brutal regime that has
pillaged the nation's resources and overseen widespread human rights
abuses, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, rape and
torture.

"The British Government will stand by the people of Burma and will
continue to maintain pressure on the regime until we see real progress on
democracy, governance and human rights."

Earlier, US President Barack Obama
said the elections were "anything but free or fair", adding: "For too long
the people of Burma have been denied the right to determine their own
destiny."

____________________________________

November 7, Democratic Voice of Burma
Suu Kyi ‘very relevant’ despite absence - Dan Withers

The British ambassador to Burma has defended the opposition National
League for Democracy party’s decision to boycott today’s elections,
describing the polls as a “missed opportunity” for Burma’s military
regime.

Speaking from Rangoon, Andrew Heyn told DVB that Aung San Suu Kyi and the
NLD remained “very relevant”, despite sitting out the polls which closed
at 6pm today. “Any reasonable person would understand their decision not
to participate based on the conditions that were placed upon them,” he
said.

The junta’s refusal to release Burma’s 2,200 political prisoners –
including Suu Kyi – in advance of the vote, coupled with election laws
forbidding prisoners from competing in the polls, contributed to the NLD’s
decision to boycott. The party also felt participation would legitimise
the 2008 constitution, which it claims does not reflect the will of the
people of Burma.

The British would continue to push for Suu Kyi’s release, which is
scheduled to take place on 13 November, said Heyn. “I think the fact that
people are talking about it and are so interested in her release shows
that the NLD remain very relevant.”

The election was not free, fair or inclusive, he said. “The UK and other
countries aren’t going to turn their backs on Burma, we’re going to
continue to press the authorities to make fundamental changes in the
fields of human rights, the economy, democracy and national
reconciliation,” he said. “If there is progress on the ground, we’ll
respond to that, but these elections do not represent progress on the
ground, they represent a missed opportunity.”

The UK, as well as the US, Australia and other EU nations, declined to
take part in official foreign ministry tours of polling stations, citing
concerns about the conditions which applied. At least 20 diplomats, mostly
from Asian nations, observed voting in Mandalay today.

The British mission had nevertheless tried to gain a picture of what was
going on in Rangoon and around the country. “We have had a number of
reports of concerns around advance voting beforehand, and a certain sense
of intimidation of voters by the USDP,” said Heyn.

There was none of the sense of anticipation and excitement that might be
expected in a country which has not held elections for two decades, he
said. There were no queues outside polling stations. Flawed election laws,
the constitution and the way the campaign was run were reflected in the
public mood, which Heyn described as “pretty low key”.

____________________________________

____________________________________

November 7, Irrawaddy
Worldwide demonstrations against Burma election - Saw Yan Naing

Demonstrations have been held in several countries across the world to
protest against the general election taking place on Sunday in Burma.

In one of the largest demonstrations, about 700 members of 16
organizations, including ethnic groups, marched through London, condemning
what they called the "sham election."

One of the protestors, Win Naing, of the National League for Democracy –
Liberated Area Europe said: “We strongly condemn this regime’s sham
election and want to make it clear that this is a complete sham, and will
not lead to any kind of democratic change that people want. The only
intention of this election is to legalize military rule with a civilian
front.”

The demonstrators said the 2008 constitution undermines federal democracy
in Burma, ignores the agreed upon principle of ‘unity in diversity’ and
effectively denies the ‘right of self-determination’ of the ethnic
nationalities.

They also called on the international community to reject the result of
the election and support the call for a UN-led effort to secure genuine
tripartite dialogue in Burma.

“We urge the United Nations to use its power to pressure the regime to
immediately enter into genuine inclusive dialogue to solve the problem in
Burma,” said an ethnic Kachin activist, Duwa Mahkaw Hkun Sa, of the Kachin
National Organization, based in London.

A group of about 500 Burmese dissidents in Japan also demonstrated on
Sunday, calling on world governments to reject the results of the
election.

One protestor, Than Swe, said: “This election is a fake to only trick the
world. The entire process of the election is managed by the junta. So, we
don’t accept the result.”

The demonstrators also called for the release of political prisoners and a
dialogue to include all stakeholders, including ethnic leaders. Pictures
of detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi were displayed, and mock
ballot boxes and copies of the 2008 constitution were set on fire.

In Thailand, a group of more than 40 Burmese activists, dissidents and
migrant workers demonstrated against the election in the Thai-Burmese
border town of Mae Sot, Thailand.

One Mae Sot activist, Htet Kaung, said: “We [migrant workers] don’t
recognize the outcome of the sham election, which will  grant no rights to
the people and workers in Burma.”

In the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, about 100 Burmese activists and
dissidents staged an anti-election protest in front of the Burmese Embassy
on November 4. The demonstrators said the election will not be free and
fair and called for an election boycott, said Thura Aung, a Malaysia-based
activist.

Meanwhile, the Karen National Union (KNU) declared on Sunday that the
election would bring neither change nor peace to Burma. The KNU said the
election is being held merely for a cosmetic change—from the direct rule
of a military council of generals to military rule behind a civilian
façade—in order to legally continue the oppressive military domination and
permit human rights violations against ethnic nationalities to continue.

In Australia, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the election was
deeply flawed and was a sign of “heartbreaking” repressive conditions in
Burma, according to a report by The Associated Press.

In a speech to Australian university students, Clinton said the United
States would continue to support an international inquiry into human
rights abuses in Burma.

“We hope that perhaps out of these elections some leaders will emerge who
know that Burma has to take a different track and cannot continue to do
the same thing and realize the potential of their people,” she was quoted
as saying.

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

November 6, Irrawaddy
Now's the time to defy the regime (Editorial)

Burma’s turbulent political history and decades of military rule teach us
not to be optimistic. We don’t have that privilege. But we do have our
thoughts to share.

Burma goes to the polls on Sunday in an election where 29 million eligible
voters have a chance to make their choice, The election won't be free,
fair and inclusive, however. The process is not only deeply flawed but
also anti-democratic—an election held in a prevailing climate of fear,
intimidation, harassment, rampant advance voting, and in the absence of
independent media and monitors—all signs that the military and its proxy
party will remain in charge.

Long before election day, critics wrote off this central part of the
regime's “road map” to “disciplined democracy” as a charade to maintain
the status quo and perpetuate military rule in civilian clothing. The
military is clearly not prepared to return to the barracks.

The election will be held while more than 2,000 political prisoners remain
behind bars and Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house arrest, although 
rumored to be freed shortly after the election.

Suu Kyi and her 1990 election-winning party, the National League for
Democracy (NLD), are boycotting the election, a courageous decision but
the subject of controversy in some quarters.  Even if the NLD had decided
to participate in the election, the Election Commission, handpicked by the
regime, would have been unlikely to register the opposition party.

Western governments have maintained their stand that the election lacks
international legitimacy, suggesting that Burma’s diplomatic isolation and
sanctions will continue in the post-election period.

The regime-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) is assured
of victory on Sunday, so why do the junta leaders need to manipulate the
election process?

Advance voting, intimidation and other blatant attempts the fix the
election clearly show that the hugely unpopular regime is actually nervous
about the outcome and is determined to make sure by hook or by crook that
the USDP wins.

The regime campaign is also boosted by state media appeals to the
electorate to perform their “democratic duty” and vote. The appeals are
coupled with warnings not to heed “fabricated news” from international and
exiled media.

Whatever the result on Sunday, it's likely that the military will be
accused for a long time to come of cheating and manipulating the outcome.

What is certain is that the turnout on Sunday will be low compared to the
more than 70 percent of the electorate who voted in 1990. Voters are
receiving mixed signals from various campaign groups inside and outside
Burma, advising them whether or not to vote. In reality, they are left
with little choice.

Young people and some politicians who decided to stand and who are seen as
pro-election are not necessarily pro-regime; they are also fed up with
Burma's ongoing political stalemate and want to see genuine change.

Although the the script has been written prior to the election,
congratulations go out to a number of small, newly established opposition
and ethnic parties and individuals who continued to campaign vigorously
because they believe they have the right to express their views and engage
in a political contest in support of their stand. Their courage and
inspiration is exemplary.

But critics and dissidents who urge a boycott of the election also have a
case.  They are right in supporting their stand on the grounds that the
election is only designed to maintain military control.

Nevertheless, it is still better to seize any opportunity to topple the
brutal, feudal rulers of Burma, even if it means voting in a sham
election.

We believe it's likely on Sunday that a majority of voters will withhold
their support from the USDP and other regime proxy parties. In ethnic
regions, we expect minority communities will vote in favor of several
ethnic parties that are not associated with the regime parties. They have
every right to do so, in defiance of the intimidation to which they are
subjected.

Change will come to Burma not because of a sham election but because of
the people’s inspiration. Now is the time to shake up Burma’s military
dictatorship and politics of stalemate.

____________________________________

November 7, Outlook India
We hear you, Michael Aris, loud And clear - Amartya Sen

The Nobel laureate takes India to task for tolerating tyranny in Burma and
asks the world to call the bluff on its sham election

It is difficult for me to talk about Burma without a deep sense of
nostalgia. My earliest memories are all of Burma, where I grew up between
the ages of three and six. My father was a visiting professor at the
Agricultural College in Mandalay, on leave from Dhaka University. My first
memory of striking natural beauty is that of sunrise over the Maymyo hills
seen from our wooden house at the eastern edge of Mandalay. It was a
thrilling sight even for a young boy. My first recollections of warm human
relations stretching beyond my own family are also of kindly Burmese
society. Mandalay was a lively city in the 1930s, and Burma a magically
beautiful country. The richness of the land and the enormous capacity of
the Burmese people to be happy and friendly shone brightly through the
restraining lid of British colonialism.

After a short period of independence from British rule and a brief
experience of democracy, Burma has been in the grip of a supremely
despotic military rule for almost half-a-century now. The country is now
one of the absolutely poorest on the globe. Its educational and health
services are in tatters. Medicine is difficult to get, and educational
institutions can hardly function. There is viciously strict censorship,
combined with heavy punishment for rebellious voices. The minority
communities—Shans, Karens, Chins, Rohingyas and others—get particularly
cruel and oppressive treatment. There are shockingly plentiful cases of
arbitrary imprisonment, terrifying torture, state-directed displacement of
people, and organised rapes and killings. And when the population faces a
catastrophe, like in the hurricane Nargis in May 2008, the government not
only does not want to help at all, its first inclination is to ban others
in the world from helping the distressed people in the country.

The military rulers have renamed Burma as Myanmar, and the renaming seems
perhaps understandable, for the country is no longer the Burma that
magnificently flourished over the centuries. New Myanmar is the hell-hole
version of old Burma.

What is striking is that tyranny has grown steadily in Burma precisely
over the decades in which democracy has made major progress across the
globe. One of the foundational questions is how has the long process of
the Burmese descent into hell been possible in a world that has been
moving exactly in the opposite direction. What does it tell us about
global relations?

Individuals and groups act on the basis of reasoning in undertaking
reflected actions. These reasonings often go by the name of “incentives”.
When we are concerned with changing behaviours and policies, we have to
examine carefully what incentives the different agents involved—the
Burmese government, the citizens, the neighbouring countries and the world
at large—have in contributing to changing things in Burma.

First the Burmese government. If one thing is clear from the experiences
of the past, it is that the military rulers in Burma see the division
between “we”—the rulers—and “they”—the people—to be an almost unbridgeable
gap. The control of news and the censorship make open public discussion
impossible. If democracy is “government by discussion”, as John Stuart
Mill made us understand, there is an uncrossable barrier as things stand
in Burma. The military rulers have renamed Burma as Myanmar. Apt, for new
Myanmar is a hell-hole version of old Burma.

Does the Burmese government have any reason to remove or relax this
barrier? It is hard to think that there is an endogenous force in that
direction. What about exogenous influence? The pressure for this is
unlikely to come from Burma’s powerful neighbours—China in particular but
also India and Thailand (more on that presently)—but with the fears and
anxieties that the Burmese government often displays, the global community
can do something here, if they include the subject of censorship and news
control among the conditions to be negotiated in any negotiation between
the Burmese government and, say, the United Nations. It is not enough for
weak-voiced UN emissaries to assure us that the Burmese government has
promised to lift the harshness of the regime, and it is not adequate for
the ASEAN leaders to announce cheerfully that they gave the Burmese
leaders “an earful”. There is a real need for insisting on concrete steps,
with effective arrangements for verification and assessment.

There is much evidence that the Burmese military rulers are concerned
about world opinion. This brings us to the peculiar issue of the elections
that are being planned for November 7. Why do the military rulers want
this? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the only reason is to
whitewash the regime in the eyes of the world. If they have no serious
reason to change things in Burma now, they will have no more—indeed even
less—reason to do anything positive later, after a bewildered world, fed
by well-meaning but confused hopes of the supporters of this phoney
election, sees a pre-arranged victory of the regime in the elections to be
some kind of an endorsement of the misery that is Myanmar today. It is
important to bear in mind that Burma has had an election earlier, in which
the restraints were far less than they are for this year’s planned voting.
On May 27, 1990, voters, even though pressed to vote for the regime (with
the opposition facing many constraints), gave a decisive defeat to the
regime. The National League for Democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi got 392
of 485 seats, with the militarists—Ne Win’s Burma Socialist Programme
Party, now renamed National Unity Party—getting only 10. The electoral
result was, of course, ignored altogether by the military regime, which
continued its fierce domination over Burma, keeping Suu Kyi and many other
leaders in confinement most of the time.

The regime has learned something from that experience. Military dictators
are not always particularly intelligent in their thinking, but it would
strain one’s credulity severely to think that the military rulers of Burma
have not based their new arrangements for the upcoming elections, with
reserved seats for the military rulers, with prohibitory exclusion of real
opposition, with forbiddance of open discussion, and keeping the leaders
of opposition totally confined, in a reasonably cogent way from their
brutally limited perspective.

What, then, can the world do? Nothing perhaps is more important right now
than global public discussion on the real nature of the electoral fraud.
The expressions of pious hopes that things will change after the elections
are totally contrary to reasoned analysis of what is going on in Burma,
despite what the apologists for the regime are trying to put into the
domain of public understanding. A propaganda victory for the regime by
muddying the water for democracy can put things back hugely, for the real
battle that has to be waged for the long-suffering Burmese people at
large, of all ethnic groups within the country.

Organisations like the Human Rights Watch, and many analysts of Burmese
affairs, have called for a United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Burma.
The need for making some announcement at this time is extremely strong. If
the elections go ahead, with the world in a kind of penumbra of confounded
hope, which may not be realisable but which would appear expectable, it
would be very hard to go for what would look like a very impatient step.
The call “let us watch and see what happens in the elections” will, it is
fair to guess, then be replaced by a new call of “give them time”. This
will be nothing short of continuing the suffering and oppression of the
Burmese people for a long time to come. The time for an announcement, or
at least serious indications, about a commission of inquiry for Burma is
right now.

Can the world do anything unilaterally? This brings me to the subject of
sanctions and embargoes. If the reasoning presented so far is correct,
then it is right to expect that the regime would worry least about those
embargoes that harm the general population, and most about those that
affect their own interests. What is needed is identification of targeted
sanctions aimed at the interests of the rulers, and the replacement of
general restrictions—like those on garment exports from Burma—that can
hurt the population.

So what are these more specialised restrictions? At the top of the list
must be an embargo on arms and armaments of all kinds, and the removal of
any military assistance that the Burmese government get in a direct or an
indirect way. Similarly, financial restrictions can impact on those trades
in which the regime leaders are themselves particularly involved. This is
a large list, varying from particular minerals and gems to oil and gas,
and there would obviously be a strong need for examining the pros and cons
of each of these putative candidates for restriction, taking into account
the impact of the contemplated actions both on the general population,
which has to be avoided as much as possible, and on the tyrannical
leaders, who are the beneficiaries to be aimed at.

Travel bans on individuals running the regime are also among the important
areas of action that can be contemplated. Some of the top leaders of the
military regime are eccentric enough to have no interest in travel outside
Burma, but many of the active operators are interested in being able to
move freely across the world, which can help them to get specialised
medical attention, and also allow them to conduct business profitable to
themselves and to the regime.

What about the responsibilities of particular countries, rather than of
the world at large? The roles of the neighbours are particularly
important. The Chinese government has done business with the regime for a
long time and has provided indirect patronage to the regime. And given its
veto power in the Security Council, its support is especially important
for the Burmese rulers.

To emphasise the special role of China is not, however, any reason for not
scrutinising the roles of other countries in the region, particularly
India and Thailand. Both these countries have extensive business relations
with Burma, seek trade agreements from the regime, and—in the case of
India—also get Burmese help in dealing with some rebellions in the
northeastern region that borders on Burma and from where the rebels tend
to move and seek shelter and support from within Burma. At one level, it
is not hard to see why India and Thailand, in addition to China, have been
tolerant of the Burmese regime and indeed supportive of it. And yet the
violation of political morality in these relations is extraordinarily
acute and palpable. I have to say that as a loyal Indian citizen, it
breaks my heart to see the prime minister of my democratic country—and one
of the most humane and sympathetic political leaders in the world—engaged
in welcoming the butchers from Myanmar and to be photographed in a state
of cordial proximity.

Public discussion on the Burmese situation and on India’s Burma policy has
been conspicuous by its near absence in India. This is not because there
is any kind of governmental restriction on such discussion, or any fear of
public penalty for expressing disapproval of India’s stand on Burma. The
newspapers are quite ready to carry any such critique, and I know from my
own personal experience that when I expressed my total disagreement with
the Indian government’s policy on Burma at a public meeting chaired, as it
happens, by the prime minister himself, the papers were perfectly willing
to report fully my concerns. The problem arises rather from a change of
the political climate in India in which narrowly defined national
interest—or what is taken to be national interest—gets much loyalty, and
in which India’s past propensity to lecture the world on global political
morality is seen as a sad memory of Nehruvian naivety. It is worth
remembering that after the military takeover of Burma, the government of
India did for a great many years provide support to the democracy movement
in Burma, and particularly to Aung San Suu Kyi, who also happens to be a
graduate of Delhi University, before she went to Oxford. As India
redefined itself, partly in imitation of China, the country has
increasingly been dominated by much narrower national concerns than those
that moved Gandhi and Tagore and Nehru.

If there is going to be a change here, the best hope for it in India lies
certainly in arousing public interest in this issue. And here too global
public discussions can make a big difference, since they do get attention
in discussions within India as well. The findings of a United Nations
Commission of Inquiry on the happenings in Burma could make a substantial
difference to the political dialogue within India.

Three final observations. First, it is hard to persuade governments like
India, Thailand, or for that matter China, that their policies regarding
Burma are valuationally crude and gross, if the western countries, which
are sharp on rhetoric in denouncing Myanmar’s rulers, do not do what is
entirely within their power to do with their own Burmese involvement.
Several European countries as well as countries elsewhere have strong
business relations with Burma, for example, extensively in oil exploration
and use. At a different level, neither the European Union, nor the United
States, nor indeed Switzerland, Australia or Canada, has used the power of
financial sanctions against the regime, demanding substantial change in
their policies. This makes it harder to press the offending neighbours,
when global action is so limited.


Stormed! When disasters like Hurricane Nargis strike, the government’s
inclination is to ban foreign aid

Second, prudential reasoning for any country’s so-called national interest
calls not only for thoughts regarding here and now, but also about the
future. This applies as much to China as to India and Thailand. Given the
history of oppressive regimes in the world, the tyrants of Burma will,
sooner or later, fall. The memory of betrayal of the Burmese people by
particular countries would, however, last well beyond that.

Third, there is a kind of defeatism about Burma which seems to have got
hold of the thinking of a great many people in the world. I think we have
to be more confident that with reasoned public discussion and concerted
global action a great deal more can be achieved than is happening right
now.

Towards the end of March of 1999, when I was at Trinity College in
Cambridge, I received a phone call one morning from one of my old friends
from Oxford, Michael Aris, the husband of Aung San Suu Kyi. I knew that he
was extremely ill with prostate cancer then. Michael told me, as he had
done many times earlier, that the one focus of his life was to help Suu
Kyi. Despite his illness, he sounded adamant, and explained to me, even as
his voice was fading over the phone, the need for focus in confronting the
Burmese tyrants. “Make no mistake, Amartya,” Michael told me, “this
disease will not—it cannot—kill me. I have to recover and be active again.
I have to help my Suu and my Burma.” This was around March 24. I received
a call on March 27 that Michael had died: it was also his birthday.

Michael Aris is no longer here to tell us that we must have focus in our
action. But his parting message is important. We can confront the tyrants
and do our duty to Burma only if we do not lose focus. The need for that
concentration has never been greater than it is today, when the
monstrosities of the regime continue undiminished, when sops like
preordained electoral arrangements confuse and confound well-meaning
people, and when the world seems at a loss about what can be done to help
the Burmese people. There is everything to fight for—with clarity and
reason.

(Adapted from a speech delivered recently by Sen at a conference on Burma
in Washington DC.)

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267765#comments