BurmaNet News, November 17, 2010

[Editor]

November 17, 2010 Issue #4086

INSIDE BURMA
AP: On the streets of Myanmar, little hope for change
SHAN: ‘Release of imprisoned ethnic leaders my priority’: The Lady
Myanmar Times: In Yangon, mixed emotions as voters head to the polls
New Light of Myanmar: Political parties can remonstrate with UEC about
representatives-elect in accordance with rules and regulations

ON THE BORDER
The Nation (Thailand): Burma seeks humanitarian aid for fleeing people
Irrawaddy: Mae Tao Clinic to relocate

BUSINESS / TRADE
AFP: Suu Kyi release could boost Myanmar's economy

HEALTH
Mizzima: Suu Kyi visits NLD home for people living with HIV

INTERNATIONAL
Irrawaddy: UN Security Council to discuss Burma issue

OPINION / OTHER
Financial Times: Sanctions against Burma should stay – Editorial
New York Times: Why single out Myanmar for sanctions? – Brahma Chellaney
Boston Globe: In Burma, opportunity for the US – Suzanne DiMaggio
Irrawaddy: Victory is yours, Than Shwe
Christian Science Monitor: A new US-China dance over Burma after release
of Aung San Suu Kyi – Editorial
Bangkok Post: Economic dependence subjugates policy – Thitinan Pongsudhirak





____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

November 17, Associated Press
On the streets of Myanmar, little hope for change

Yangon, Myanmar – The shopkeeper, a thin, jittery man who has spent nearly
half his life in prison, wishes change were coming to Myanmar.

But the recent elections were a sham, he says, and the promises of
democratic reform are empty words. He celebrated the release of
pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, but dismissed the
idea it heralds a change in this secretive military-ruled nation.

"This is not a new era," said Bo Bo Oo, 46, in sentiments echoed around
the country, which is also known as Burma. "The generals will not change."

Globalization reached the long-isolated nation while Bo Bo Oo was in
prison, serving 20 years for helping organize pro-democracy protests in
1988. Amid Myanmar's withering poverty, you can now buy knockoff iPhones
at the Mobile World shop in Mandalay and browse for lingerie at the Sexy
Girl store in Yangon. You can live in a high-rise condo and watch CNN on
satellite TV.

But belief in political change is much harder to find. This is a country
battered by its own government, its pessimism shaped by decades of
experience. In conversations with dozens of people farmers, business
owners, monks, journalists, housewives and activists little was heard but
anguish.

"The government has the power, and it does not want to give it up," an
elderly Buddhist monk said in the quiet riverside town of Amarapura. He
was sitting on a wooden bench in the carefully swept dirt yard of the
monastery where he has lived for more than 70 years, not far from the
central city of Mandalay.

He remembers the days of British colonialism, and the Japanese occupation
during World War II. He can talk about fleeing into the forests when
Allied bombs began falling around the town, and the first military coup,
in 1958. In 2007, he watched as monks were arrested and even killed during
anti-government protests dominated by the Buddhist clergy.

He sees modern Myanmar as the darkest time.

"It's like a twisting road that just goes on and on," he said, his robes
wrapped tightly around him because of a winter chill, as chickens
scrabbled in the dirt behind him. "I don't know if it will ever stop
twisting."

Like most people in Myanmar, he spoke on condition he not be identified,
fearing retribution from the ruling junta's agents and the "Tatmadaw," as
the army is called.

A few analysts do see signs of change. At the very least, they say, the
elections will create new clusters of power in Naypyidaw, the capital
city.

In Mandalay, a young businessman also sees a sliver of possibility in the
elections.

"I don't believe in these generals. I cannot see them giving up any
power," he said, walking through the city on a recent evening. "But maybe
some new people (in the government) will change something. I hope so."

Bo Bo Oo, though, sees no hope.

"All this is just about publicity," he said of the Nov. 7 elections and
Suu Kyi's release last weekend. He owns a little grocery store in Yangon,
the former capital once known as Rangoon, and runs a small art gallery
with his wife.

Like many, he notes that Suu Kyi's release came just a week after the
first elections in 20 years, giving the junta a desperately needed
publicity boost. While the military claims the vote will usher in a
democratic government, much of the international community decried it as
political burlesque that will entrench the generals behind proxy
politicians.

"They want the world to think that this is becoming a democracy. But the
Burmese people know the truth," he said.

Fourteen months after his release from prison, Bo Bo Oo still finds
himself startled by freedom. He is nervous handling keys. His hands are
often shaky. He jumps when doors suddenly open.

"I don't like to lock doors," he said, sitting on a bamboo chair in the
art gallery. "I hate being out on the street."

Myanmar holds nearly 2,200 political prisoners in an archipelago of
crumbling prisons. Some of the country's minority ethnic groups, who have
faced brutal repression, back a string of militias that have fought the
generals for decades.

The government's political agenda is seldom clear. Little is known about
Than Shwe, the general who heads the junta, beyond rumors and gossip.
International officials can go years without meeting him, and new
ambassadors, who get a few minutes with him when they present their
credentials, are grilled for insights.

His most visible moment came in 2006, when smuggled video footage showed
him and his daughter on her wedding day, with her draped in long strings
of diamond-encrusted jewelry.

Despite such wealth among the leadership, the country was almost entirely
cut off from the outside world until the late 1980s, leaving the economy
in ruins. Companies were nationalized, outside investment discouraged and
tourists limited to short visits. Today, the country has a per-capita
income of about $1,100, and a third of the population lives below the
poverty line.

In recent years, that has begun to change. Myanmar is now an increasingly
important regional trading hub and has become an ally of both China and
India, where energy-hungry companies are desperate for Myanmar's natural
gas and hydroelectric resources.

While poverty remains widespread, the two main cities now have a veneer of
modernization.

At luxury hotels in Yangon and Mandalay, pianists play easy-listening
versions of Simon and Garfunkel songs in marbled lobbies, entertaining
Chinese businessmen and wealthy tourists. The colonial buildings of old
Rangoon are disappearing, replaced by malls and housing complexes those
businessmen are funding.

It has become a country where you can buy 50-cent bootleg DVDs of "Beach
Sex Party" on the streets of Yangon, but go to prison for owning a copy of
"Rambo IV," which has Sylvester Stallone's character battling the junta.

Such restrictions are part of the daily background of life.

Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail are blocked, along with exile websites, though
anyone Internet-savvy knows ways to get around the barriers.

The main English-language newspaper of the junta, The New Light of
Myanmar, is filled with Stalinist rhetoric. Almost every day, it promises
that democracy is coming.

The New Light recently dismissed previous civilian governments as "like
the water that flowed away in complete disorder," while insisting "the
Tatmadaw government's military rule was aimed at guiding the nation to
discipline-flourishing democracy."

On the streets, though, they just don't believe it.

"Nothing is immortal, even the generals," said a young journalist in
Mandalay, who asked that his name not be used. "But I think people have
given up hope for change."

____________________________________

November 17, Shan Herald Agency for News
‘Release of imprisoned ethnic leaders my priority’: The Lady – Hseng Khio Fah

Recently freed Burma’s pro-democracy icon, Daw Aung San Su Kyi said, when
meeting ethnic representatives from the United Nationalities Alliance
(UNA) that the release of imprisoned ethnic leaders is one of her main
concerns as well, according to meeting participants.

“She said she would work for the release of political prisoners including
the ethnic leaders,” said Sai Tin Hlaing, spokesperson of the defunct Shan
Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD), Burma’s second largest winning
party and the winning party in Shan State in the 1990 elections, which was
dissolved by the ruling military junta for failing to apply for the
recently held elections.

SNLD is one of the member parties of the UNA which is a coalition of 1990
election winning ethnic parties.

On 16 November, members of the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and different representatives from UNA met at NLD’s
Shwe Gone Dine office for about one and-a-half hours from 13:00 to 14:30
(local time).

The participants were Pu Cin Xian Thang, Chairman of Zomi National
Congress (ZNC), U Htaung Ko Htan, U Aye Tha Aung, leading member of Arakan
League for Democracy (ALD), Nai Ngwe Thein, Mon National League for
Democracy (MNLD), Saw Harry – Kayin (Karen) and Sai Shwe Kyu and Sai Tin
Hlaing from SNLD.

On the NLD side were U Win Tin, U Tin Oo, U Than Tun and U Hla Pe, besides
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

“The main issue being discussed was about the October 24 Kalay statement
which called for a second Panglong Conference, to be in line with the 21st
century state of affairs,” said Sai Tin Hlaing.

“She also mentioned about conducting a workshop on the Panglong spirit
because most of the people are not aware of it.”

Other news agencies have added that the 21st century Panglong II
Conference means all should take advantage of the Internet in order to
exchange ideas about how best to form a new union.

____________________________________

November 15 – 21, Myanmar Times
In Yangon, mixed emotions as voters head to the polls – Matrix

THE sun has not even started coming up in Yangon and there are few people
on the streets. But Ko Nay Lin, 33, is panicking, unable to find the
polling station where he has been told to vote.

“If I woke up as early as I intended, I would not have got lost on my way
to the polling station,” he murmurs nervously. “But last night I went to
bed late because the [English] Premier League foot ball matches were so
good.”

Ko Nay Lin is preparing to play his part in a more predictable contest:
Myanmar’s first election in more than 20 years. More than 40,000 stations
opened at 6am on November 7 so that millions of citizens could cast their
votes and hopefully have a say in the country’s future direction.

“How can I get to polling station 1? Please give me some directions,” asks
Ko Nay Lin, who works at Kandawgyi Garden, which is operated by Yangon
City Development Committee (YCDC). While he was still asleep, Ko Nay Lin’s
colleagues had left for the polling station at 5am to vote before work.

“When I woke up, they had all gone so I had to go to the polling station
in Bahan on my own. Now it’s nearly six o’clock,” he says.

“Our supervisor is a very motivated person – he asked the hundreds workers
at Kandawgyi to go to the polling station as early as possible,” he says,
adding that he planned to vote for the Union Solidarity and Development
Party (USDP) like all his colleagues.

There were few buses and cars on the roads in Yangon but a steady stream
of voters headed to polling stations across the city, which had been set
up inside schools, dhammayone, stadiums, theatres and other buildings.

While Ko Nay Lin had already decided to vote USDP, 42-year-old Ko Aung
Than Oo from Pazundaung township was instead planning to vote for the
National Democratic Force (NDF).

“Actually, it’s difficult to choose a candidate. The problem is that we do
not know the people who lead the opposition parties very well. However, my
idea is if we vote for the opposition parties, they will provide a kind of
counterbalance to the other parties in the parliament. So the elected
party will not do what they like in the parliament,” he said, adding that
he believes Myanmar has no potential leaders other than those in the
military.

The participation of the “bamboo hat party”, as the NDF is known, in the
November 7 poll was a popular talking point among voters in markets,
groceries stories and teashops, as it was one of the few symbols voters
are familiar with.

Even if they’d already decided which party to support, many voters –
particularly those voting for the first time – were surprised to find they
had to put ballots in three separate boxes in the polling station, while
some members of ethnic minorities voted four times.

“At first I didn’t understand [what to do] when I saw the three boxes. I
realised after I had filled out the ballot form – it is a little bit
complicated,” said Daw Aye Myint, a 40-year-old resident of Bahan township
who voted early on November 7.

“I gave one vote to each of the three main parties; one for the USDP, one
for the NDF and one for the [National Unity Party]. I want all of them to
win,” she said.

“I know the USDP will win the election. Everybody knows that, so I hardly
had to wrack my brain when I went to vote. It might have been difficult
for others but not for me – USDP, that’s it,” said Daw Tin Wai, 50, from
Pabedan township.

Some saw the election as an opportunity to make extra money.

“I am really happy to work as a member of a polling booth team in Tarmwe
township because I received K4000 for my efforts,” said Ko Hla Maung, who
voted for the USDP.

Later that night, state television announced the names of 57 candidates
who had already won in their constituencies, including 40 representing the
USDP. Most were running unopposed but in two Pyithu Hluttaw constituencies
– Cocogyun and Seikkan – USDP candidates had been declared the victor
after all votes were tallied.

“You know the lion,” said Ko Hla Maung, referring to the USDP’s logo. “I
told you they would win, didn’t I?”

____________________________________

November 17, New Light of Myanmar
Political parties can remonstrate with UEC about representatives-elect in
accordance with rules and regulations

Nay Pyi Taw — The Union Election Commission has informed the political
parties today that if they want to remonstrate with the commission about
the representatives-elect, they can do so in accordance with the rules and
regulations.

In the letter of UEC sent to the political parties dated November 16, the
commission said Myanma Radio and Television and dailies have made public
the names of the representatives-elect and numbers of votes the candidates
gain. The letter said the political parties are to send a letter of
objection to the commission in accordance with the Election Rule 87 and
Articles 67 and 68 of the respective Election Laws if they want to object
a representative-elect or to claim the voting in the constituency is
unfair.

Some political parties made allegations through foreign radio stations and
print media on the grounds that their candidates were not elected in the
elections, the letter said, and such allegations go against the Article 64
of the respective Election Laws.

And the political parties are therefore advised to make the objection in
accordance with rules and regulations if they want to remonstrate the
commission with a representative- elect or to claim the voting in the
constituency is unfair, the letter said. – MNA

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

November 17, The Nation (Thailand)
Burma seeks humanitarian aid for fleeing people – Marisa Chimprabha

Burma has asked Thailand to help people fleeing clashes between Burmese
troops and ethnic rebels, because they believe the conflict will continue
for some time yet.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said he had told his Burmese counterpart,
Thein Sein, that Thailand would do what it can to help the displaced
persons.

Abhisit, Thein Sein and leaders of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam were in
Phnom Penh for the Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation
Strategy (Acmecs) summit.

At a press conference, Abhisit said he had raised the subject of the
conflict with Thein Sein on the sidelines of the summit, because the
clashes were affecting Thailand as people fled across the border to safety
and the conflict spilled over into Thai soil.

“The Burmese premier told me the fighting would continue for quite a
while. He also asked me to help provide humanitarian assistance to the
Burmese refugees,” the premier said.

“I informed the Burmese PM we were willing to help the people. Most of the
thousands who had earlier escaped to Thailand have already returned home.”

Abhisit also told Thein Sein it was clear the conflict spilling over into
Thai soil was unintentional. When asked about his thoughts on the recent
release of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, Abhisit said the
matter had been mentioned in the summit.

“Burma said Aung San Suu Kyi had been released as per the law once her
detention period expired,” he said.

Suu Kyi was released on November 13, shortly after the junta held its
first general election in two decades. Results of the election, which the
West branded as a sham, saw most of the parliamentary seats being won by
the military-controlled party.

Commenting on his earlier statement that Suu Kyi’s release would help ease
tension with the West, Abhisit said western nations had not clarified
their stance on the release. However, he admitted, the decision to free
Suu Kyi could be considered a response to the call by international
communities to release her.

____________________________________

November 17, Irrawaddy
Mae Tao Clinic to relocate – Sai Zom Hseng

Mae Tao Clinic in Mae Sot, Thailand, will move to a new location because
of financial challenges, according to Dr. Cynthia Maung, the founder of
the clinic.

Speaking to The Irrawaddy on Wednesday, Cynthia Maung said, “I’m sure that
the new place is not going be perfect at the beginning. We have to take it
step by step.”

She said the cost of rent at the current clinic location is 200,000 baht
(US $6,680) per month.

She said some international donors have cut the amount of their
contribution, adding to the clinic's financial woes. A source close to the
clinic said that some donors have reduced their contributions by 20 to 30
percent.

The clinic is supported by about 10 organizations including USAID, Norway,
Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada and Italy.

The strategic focus of many international donors began to change about two
years ago when they shifted their first priority to organizations working
inside Burma, said observers.

The Mae Tao clinic provides free treatment to Burmese migrants and
refugees in Thailand, in addition to many Burmese residents of Karen State
who cross the border to receive treatment.

According to Dr. Thiha Maung, a former vice chairman of the clinic, “Many
patients are from Karen and Mon State, but there were some patients from
upper Burma who need eye treatment. About 400 patients came to the clinic
for treatment every day.”

Mae Tao clinic began in 1989. In 2008, after Cyclone Nargis, the clinic
sent a medical team to treat cyclone victims in the Irrawaddy delta.

____________________________________
BUSINESS / TRADE

November 17, Agence France Presse
Suu Kyi release could boost Myanmar's economy

The release of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi could pay off economically
for Burma's junta even though Western nations are unlikely to ease trade
and other sanctions soon, analysts said.

For years, the military regime of resource-rich Burma has blunted the
impact of US and European punitive measures by cultivating trade and
investment links with neighbours led by Thailand, China, India, Singapore
and Malaysia.

Suu Kyi's freedom and this month's rare election may reduce the stigma of
doing business with Burma, even though her party boycotted the vote and
the results were dismissed as a sham by much of the outside world.

"It is a welcome sign. We hope this is the start for a change and that it
will encourage more investments in Burma," said a senior official from the
Malaysian trade ministry who declined to be named.

But opponents of the junta fear that any increased money flowing into the
impoverished country will not improve the lives of ordinary people.

Burma is one of the world's least developed countries, with nearly a third
of the population living below the poverty line as the generals and their
associates exploit raw materials for their own benefit.

Asian neighbours China, India, and Thailand already overlook human rights
concerns in favour of engagement with Burma, which boasts oil, gas and
other natural resources as well as tremendous tourism potential.

India gave Burma leader Than Shwe a red-carpet welcome in July and the two
countries signed pacts on border security, road building and finance.

But for India, as the world's largest democracy, Burma's recent moves
could ease domestic political pressure not to prop up the regime.

"The release of Aung Sang Suu Kyi gives India a greater diplomatic space
to engage with Burma without the fear of being criticised while dealing
with the military dictatorship regime," said C. Uday Bhaskar, director of
the New Delhi think-tank National Maritime Foundation.

Thailand is another top investor and trading partner, importing over 90
percent of all of Burma's natural gas exports.

A major Thai construction firm recently signed an eight-billion-dollar
infrastructure deal with the military-ruled country, including the
construction of a giant deep sea port in the impoverished nation.

China, a single-party state often criticised for its own human-rights
record, is also expected to forge closer economic ties regardless of the
political situation as it scours the world for natural resources to feed
its fast-growing economy.

Indeed, it recently became the largest foreign investor in Burma this
year, state media in Beijing reported. Among projects already under way,
China National Petroleum Corp. is building an oil and gas pipeline from
Burma's Kyuakryu port to southwestern China.

"Both the junta and Chinese Communist Party have an understanding that
whatever the West and rest of the world thinks about human rights and the
Nobel prize, it will not really have an impact on the development of ties
and support for each other," said Professor Ian Holliday at the University
of Hong Kong.

Burma watchers said it was too early to say if the developments could lead
to an easing of Western sanctions on the regime, which is still holding an
estimated 2,200 political prisoners, and they underscored the crucial role
to be played by Suu Kyi.

Alistair Cook, a fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies in Singapore, said Western nations will await "feedback" from Suu
Kyi, who plans to consult the people of Burma.

"Should they want an end to the economic sanctions, then I am sure Aung
San Suu Kyi and other pro-democracy leaders will articulate this. It will
be then up to those states imposing economic sanctions to respond
accordingly."

Suu Kyi led her party to a landslide win in Burma's 1990 elections, but
the military never recognised the result and kept the Nobel peace prize
laureate in detention for 15 of the past 21 years.

Critics of the sanctions say they have done little to undermine military
rule and instead aggravated the deprivation of ordinary people in Burma.

The United States bans trade with companies tied to the junta in Burma. It
also freezes such firms' assets and blocks international loans to the
state.

The European Union also has sanctions freezing assets and businesses of
junta figures, and blacklisting their travel, but it has continued some
trade and investment such as in oil.

____________________________________
HEALTH

November 17, Mizzima News
Suu Kyi visits NLD home for people living with HIV – Khai Suu

New Delhi – Aung San Suu Kyi visited a community home for people living
with HIV today to offer them encouragement and promised them a better
supply of the medicine they are lacking, a party spokesman said.

Pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi walks among residents of a National
League for Democracy community home for people living with HIV in South
Dagon Township, Rangoon, handing out roses to each of them, before
offering encouragement and the promise of a better medicine supply, on
Wednesday, November 17, 2010. Photo: Mizzima.

Pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi walks among residents of a National
League for Democracy community home for people living with HIV in South
Dagon Township, Rangoon, handing out roses to each of them, before
offering encouragement and the promise of a better medicine supply, on
Wednesday, November 17, 2010. Photo: Mizzima.
She met more than 100 residents at a compound holding three HIV/Aids
“salvation centres” established by National League for Democracy (NLD)
young people led by NLD central committee member Phyu Phyu Thin and funded
by the party’s social aid wing today at 2 p.m.

Mizzima heard Suu Kyi offer the following over the phone in real time:
“Everybody has their own values so you don’t need to be discouraged. You
must uplift your spirits and strength. I say these words not only to the
patients but also to everybody 
 high and low status depends only on each
person. Everybody needs to know that they can consider themselves a
dignified person.”

Burma’s most prominent democracy leader gave each resident a rose, which
apparently they greatly appreciated.

“Ahmay [mother] Suu 
 told us not to be in low morale and said she would
supply us with medicine. We are encouraged. All of the patients were very
encouraged to see that another person, Daw Suu, is with us besides Ma Phyu
[Phyu Phyu Thin] before 
 We hold these roses in very high esteem and
shall keep them forever, even after they’ve dried up”, 31-year old
resident Win Win Naing told Mizzima.

Phyu Phyu Thin said the salvation centres accommodated an average of more
than 100 residents at a time and that new patients were arriving daily.

“We can’t give medicine to new patients. NGOs first gave medicines to the
patients and then stopped 
 when they didn’t have enough funding. So the
availability of medicines for these patients is on and off. We are still
face medicine shortages,” Phyu Phyu Thin said.

There are more than 360,000 HIV patients in Burma. According to UN Aids
statistics, the junta’s Health Ministry spends about US$100,000 annually
on its Aids eradication campaign.

By contrast, neighbouring Thailand spent 4.9 billion baht (US$122.90
million) on HIV/Aids treatment and programmes in 2004 (six years ago), a
UN Aids report also said.

____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

November 17, Irrawaddy
UN Security Council to discuss Burma issue – Lalit K. Jha

Washington—For the first time in several months, the United Nations
Security Council will hold consultations on Burma on Thursday.

The 15-member body is expected to discuss the current situation in Burma
in the aftermath of the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro-democracy
leader, and the completion of  parliamentary elections, which the world
has termed illegitimate.

Britain is the president of the UN Security Council for the month of
November.

Meanwhile, the former first lady, Laura Bush, has said that she hoped that
the release of Suu Kyi is unconditional, and that she would not be put
under house arrest again.

“For most of the past two decades, the leader of Burma's democracy
movement and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was a prisoner in her own
home. The free world rejoiced this week at her release, but it came only
after she was banned from participating in Burma's recent elections,” said
Laura Bush, who during the Bush administration was instrumental in shaping
the US policy towards Burma.

“She's been released before, only to be placed back under house arrest by
the military regime. This time, we hope that Aung San Suu Kyi's freed
without condition, and that she's allowed to continue her peaceful work
until the day when all of Burma's citizens live in freedom,” Laura Bush
said.

 “Around the world, all of us who live in freedom have the obligation to
condemn barbaric acts against women, because an electorate that shuts out
women is not a democracy, and a population that denies the rights of
women is not a free society,” said the former First Lady said.

Suzanne DiMaggio, the director of Asia Society's Task Force on US Policy
Towards Burma, said that Burmese military leaders are "spinning" Suu Kyi's
release.

"It is more likely an attempt to deflect attention away from widespread
reports of voter fraud and rigging in an election where the junta-backed
Union Solidarity and Development Party claims to have won 80 percent of
the vote," she said.

DiMaggio sees Suu Kyi’s release as an opportunity for the Obama
administration, but the process of change through engagement threatens to
be protracted. “China and India should lend their weight to this, but will
they?” she asked.

"In his address to India’s Parliament last week, when he voiced support
for India’s seat on the U.N. Security Council, President Obama called on
Delhi to play a more positive role in Burma. The gap with China on this
issue seems as large as ever as Beijing hailed the elections as a critical
step in Burma’s ‘transition to an elected government' ignoring the
widespread irregularities and intimidation that took place prior to the
election,” DiMaggio said.

"The key to understanding this weekend's release of Aung San Suu Kyi,"
said Sheridan Prasso, an Asia Society associate fellow who interviewed
Aung San Suu Kyi in 1998, "is that she has been released twice before, has
agitated many times before for further political change—as she is doing
once again—and then was re-detained for pushing the limits too far. We can
surely expect a repeat of this tension-filled history: she won't be silent
while more than 2,000 members of her party remain in prison under
authoritarian rule; and the generals who recently cemented their power
with a farcical election have no interest in sharing power or in letting
Daw Suu loosen their grip."

Suu Kyi has been called Asia's Nelson Mandela, but in a recent op-ed for
the International Herald Tribune, Bertil Lintner, an Asia Society
associate fellow and author of seven books on Burma, wrote "many foreign
observers are wondering whether her release will bring Myanmar's 'Mandela
moment'—the beginning of the end of repression and the first, tangible
step toward national reconciliation. But this is a skewed analogy. There
are fundamental differences between the transition to majority rule in
South Africa and Myanmar's struggle for democracy."

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

November 17, Financial Times
Sanctions against Burma should stay – Editorial

Something has long been rotten in the state of Burma. But for a few hours
on Saturday, all seemed sweeter as crowds and garlands greeted the release
of Aung San Suu Kyi on the streets of Rangoon. The clamour contrasted with
the hush a week before, during Burma’s sham election.

Under arrest for 15 of the past 21 years, Ms Suu Kyi was a totemic figure
opposing a repressive regime. Now the real statecraft begins. Ms Suu Kyi
must juggle the wishes of her people with the need for substantive reform
at the top. She has already said she will “consider” recommending that
western powers lift trade restrictions. Sanctions are Ms Suu Kyi’s best
card. She must not play it too soon. The embargo should hold until Burma’s
junta enacts more than cosmetic reform.

The fate of Ms Suu Kyi has long been allied with sanctions. Human rights
abuses provoked the first restrictions by the US in 1988. Sanctions were
then toughened when Ms Suu Kyi was arrested. But her release is only a
small step. There are 2,000 more political prisoners in Burma. The regime
rigged its only election in 20 years. The junta still controls the pillars
of the economy. The government has yet to prove non-Burmans will be heard
in new regional assemblies. It is too soon to lift the ban.

Sanctions are a blunt tool. They often damage the livelihoods of ordinary
people more than they do ruling regimes – per capita gross domestic
product in Burma is less than $600. The Rangoon trade ban is also poorly
enforced; oil companies pump gas with impunity. The crackdown on Burmese
generals’ financial assets should be harsher, as it is with North Korea.

Sanctions are never the desired outcome of international relations; at
best they are a lever. And while the west hopes to prod the generals into
action by withholding investment, China and India rush to trade with their
neighbour. Beijing has pumped more than $8bn into the country this year,
according to Burma’s official statistics.

By holding an election, Burma bowed to the pretence of change. There are
some real – though gradual – shifts. And the 65-year-old’s freedom is
already inspiring a reaction – unusually, newspapers carried news of her
release. The west should now signal Ms Suu Kyi has the power herself to
deliver what the generals desire: the lifting of sanctions.

The last two weeks have seen some choreography in the theatre of
statecraft. But the real performance is yet to come. The actors are ready.
Let the play now begin.

____________________________________

November 17, New York Times
Why single out Myanmar for sanctions? – Brahma Chellaney

New Delhi — With the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from prolonged house
detention, it is time for the United States and its European partners to
moderate their sanctions policy against Myanmar (Burma) so as to create
incentives for greater political openness and to insulate its citizens
from the rigors of the punitive actions.

There is no reason why a weak, impoverished Myanmar should continue to be
held to a higher human-rights standard than an increasingly assertive
China. Why deny Myanmar the international-trade opportunities that have
allowed the world’s biggest executioner, China, to prosper?

The defining events that led to the crushing of pro-democracy forces in
Myanmar and China actually occurred around the same time more than two
decades ago, yet the West responded to the developments in the two
countries in very different ways.

China’s spectacular economic rise owes a lot to the Western decision not
to sustain trade sanctions after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre of
pro-democracy protestors. The Cold War’s end facilitated Washington’s
pragmatic approach to shun trade sanctions and help integrate China with
global institutions through the liberalizing influence of foreign
investment and trade.

That the choice made was wise can be seen from the baneful impact of the
opposite decision in favor of sustained sanctions against Myanmar, which
brutally suppressed pro-democracy demonstrators 10 months before Tiananmen
Square and subsequently refused to honor the outcome of a national
election in 1990. Had the Myanmar-type approach of escalating sanctions
been applied against China internationally, the result would have been a
less prosperous and a potentially destabilizing China today.

By contrast, the continuation of sanctions and their subsequent expansion
against Myanmar snuffed out any prospect of that country emulating China’s
example of blending economic openness with political authoritarianism.
Indeed, the military’s attempts to open up the Myanmar economy in the
early 1990s fizzled out quickly in the face of Western penal actions.

Today, the release of Aung San Suu Kyi offers the U.S. and Europe an
opportunity to recalibrate the sanctions policy by drawing on the lessons
of the past two decades.

The first lesson is that the economic sanctions, even if justified, have
produced the wrong political results. Years of sanctions have left Myanmar
without an entrepreneurial class or civil society and saddled with an
all-powerful military as the sole functioning institution.

A second lesson is that the expansion of sanctions has not only further
isolated Myanmar, but also made that country overly dependent on China, to
the concern of the nationalistic Myanmar military. At a time when the
United States is courting Communist-ruled Vietnam as part of its “hedge”
strategy against a resurgent China, it makes little sense to continue with
an approach that is pushing a strategically located Myanmar into China’s
strategic lap.

Yet another lesson is that the sanctions have hurt not their intended
target — the military — but ordinary citizens. By cutting off investment
and squeezing vital sectors of the Myanmar economy, from tourism to
textiles, the sanctions have lowered the living conditions of the Burmese
and shut out liberalizing influences.

The blunt fact is that after being in power for nearly half a century, the
military has become too fat to return to the barracks. In fact, it won’t
fit in the barracks.

With no hope of a “color revolution” in Myanmar, demilitarization of the
polity can at best be a step-by-step process. In that context, the recent
elections, although far from being free or fair, have helped revive a
long-dormant political process, given birth to new political players and
institutions (including a bicameral national Parliament, 14 regional
parliaments and the impending appointment of a president and civilian
federal government), and implicitly created a feeling of empowerment among
the people.

With the military now in the throes of a generational change, the revived
political process has created new space for the democracy movement, as
symbolized by Aung San Suu Kyi’s release. But with the opposition badly
splintered and the military’s grip on power firm as ever, Aung San Suu Kyi
cannot bring about tangible democratic reforms without building bridges
with the armed forces.

Now is the time, with Myanmar in transition, for the United States and its
allies to get out of a self-perpetuating cycle of sanctions and help carve
out greater international space in that nation. Each step toward greater
political openness in Myanmar ought to be suitably rewarded.

More broadly, democracy promotion should not become a geopolitical tool
wielded only against the weak and the marginalized.

Going after the small kids on the global block but courting the
most-powerful autocrats is hardly the way to build international norms or
ensure positive results.

An uncompromisingly penal approach against Myanmar has had the perverse
effect of weakening America’s hand while strengthening China’s. This was
best illustrated during the Bush administration, which, after slapping the
harshest sanctions on Myanmar, turned to Beijing as a channel of
communication with the Burmese junta.

President Barack Obama began on the right note by exploring the prospect
of a gradual reengagement with Myanmar. Yet on his recent visit to India,
Obama attacked Myanmar three times, reflecting his frustration with the
painfully slow movement to create a democratic opening in that nation.

Despite Aung San Suu Kyi’s release, the seeds of democracy will not take
root in a stunted economy. External penal actions without constructive
engagement and civil-society development in a critically weak country
defeat their very purpose.

Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based
Center for Policy Research, is the author, most recently, of “Asian
Juggernaut.”

____________________________________

November 17, Boston Globe
In Burma, opportunity for the US – Suzanne DiMaggio

DEMOCRACY ICON Aung San Suu Kyi’s long-awaited release from house arrest
has stirred cautious hope in people worldwide, and Burma’s military
leaders are spinning the event as part of their seven-step program to
“disciplined democracy.”

It is more likely an attempt to deflect attention away from widespread
reports of fraud and vote-rigging in this month’s election, in which the
junta-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party claims to have won 80
percent of the vote. Suu Kyi has been in some form of detention for 15 of
the last 21 years. With the elections now behind them, Burma’s rulers
apparently are confident that her freedom will not interfere with the
pre-engineered results — a new government overwhelmingly dominated by the
military and retired senior officers, with a sprinkling of representation
from opposition and ethnic groups.

Even so, Suu Kyi’s release represents an opportunity for the Obama
administration, in part because it is bringing renewed international
attention to the Burmese people’s plight. During this transitional period,
the United States, which long sought to isolate the country, should
prepare for a protracted period of active engagement. This approach is
more likely to help Burma, also known as Myanmar, move away from
authoritarian rule and into the world community.

For two decades, the United States had extremely limited channels of
communication not just with Burmese military leaders, but also with
important segments of the Burmese population. The Obama administration has
already taken a step to reverse this approach, by announcing a new policy
of “pragmatic engagement’’ in 2009.

This new policy, to be sure, has yet to yield any concrete results. In
September 2010, Kurt Campbell, the assistant secretary of state for East
Asia, told a gathering in Washington that, after a year of attempting to
engage Burma’s military leaders in dialogue on a variety of issues, the
lack of a constructive response was deeply disappointing. Nevertheless, he
recognized that, after the election, new players, power relationships, and
government structures might lead to an improvement in conditions in Burma.

In this changed environment, the United States should quickly recharge
efforts to engage with Burmese officials and press for the release of
political prisoners. This should include interactions with elected
politicians and civil servants alike. More contact will help the United
States assess developments on the ground there and decide where it can
make positive contributions.

At the same time, the United States must reach out more to democratic
forces and to the full variety of ethnic groups inside Burma.

The United States should closely coordinate its policy toward Burma with
other governments. Burma’s Asian neighbors are directly threatened by
instability along the country’s borders, including the violent clashes
between the junta’s forces and ethnic minorities and the outflow of
refugees and narcotics. Beyond this, rumors of cooperation between Burma
and North Korea on military and nuclear technology are unsettling both to
the United States and to countries throughout the region.

Even so, a big challenge will be convincing India and China — Burma’s key
military backers and trading partners — to use their leverage. In his
recent address to India’s Parliament, President Obama voiced support for a
permanent seat for India on the UN Security Council, but he also rebuked
Delhi for not doing more to help in Burma. The gap with China on Burma
seems as wide as ever; Beijing hailed the compromised elections as a
critical step forward in Burma’s “transition to an elected government.”

Even as the United States re-engages with Burma, US officials must keep an
eye on the junta’s behavior. Burma’s ruling generals have released Suu Kyi
in the past, only to imprison her again when she engaged in political
activity. If this turns out to be another ploy to re-detain her, the
United States should move swiftly to tighten financial sanctions against
Burma’s junta and press for an international inquiry into potential war
crimes and crimes against humanity by Burma’s military leaders.

Suzanne DiMaggio is director of policy studies at the Asia Society and
leads the group’s task force on US policy toward Burma.

____________________________________

November 17, Irrawaddy
Victory is yours, Than Shwe

The final results are not yet in, but we trust it is not too soon to
congratulate Burma's ruling regime on  its impeccable orchestration of a
landslide victory for the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) in
the Nov. 7 election and its canny decision to “free” pro-democracy icon
Aung San Suu Kyi less than a week later.

Although a few finishing touches remain to be made to the outcome of the
polls, it's safe to assume that the junta will not have any cause to
regret its decision to call an election again, after putting it off for
the past 20 years. The release of Suu Kyi on Saturday will only make it
easier for the world to swallow the bitter pill that is likely to come in
the next few days, when the USDP may claim up to 90 percent of the seats
in the new pseudo-civilian Parliament.

Years of painstaking planning have gone into this tour de force of
political puppetry, which dispels once and for all any doubts we might
have had about the regime's ability to pull off a stunt so brazen and
far-reaching in its implications that it is difficult to believe it has
actually happened.

Two decades after the regime's former supremo, the erratic and delusional
Snr-Gen Saw Maung, dropped the ball on Burma's last election, his
successor, Snr-Gen Than Shwe, has finally shown the world that the
country's ruling generals are not a bunch of brutal bumblers. The brutal
part may still hold true, but the days when it looked liked like this
regime could do nothing right are over.

Initially regarded as something of a cipher when he took the helm from Saw
Maung—a man barely in command of his own faculties, much less in full
control of a country still in a very revolutionary mood after the ruthless
crackdown on the nationwide pro-democracy uprising of 1988—Than Shwe has
proven to be a man of real vision.

In 1993, a year after he assumed the top spot, he established two bodies
that have been an integral part of his campaign to correct the course of
history after the disastrous detour it took in 1990, when Suu Kyi's
National League for Democracy (NLD) deprived the regime of victory in the
last election: the National Convention to draft a new constitution and the
Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), which earlier this
year became the USDP.

The National Convention, consisting of around 1,000 handpicked
members—notably excluding representatives of the NLD—finally completed its
work in 2007. In a referendum held the following year, 99 percent of the
population supposedly voted 93 percent in favor of the new national
charter, according to the official tally.

The fact that this referendum took place just months after the Saffron
Revolution, Burma's largest show of popular unrest since 1988, and a mere
week after Cyclone Nargis, the country's worst natural disaster ever, is
testament to Than Shwe's steely determination to get on with the job of
commandeering the democratic process to cement the military's hold on
power.

But what is a democracy without the participation of the masses? Even with
a Constitution guaranteeing military appointees a quarter of the seats in
Parliament, Than Shwe recognized that there was always the danger of
dissent rearing its ugly head in the halls of power without the people
firmly in his pocket. Hence the need for the USDA.

With nearly half the country's population as its members, the USDA was
divided into two main groups: the millions of civil servants,
schoolchildren and others who were forced to join, and the hardcore
members who took it upon themselves to do the junta's bidding whenever
called upon to do so. Generally, this meant keeping the opposition in its
place, either through intimidation or by outright violence.

In 2003, the USDA proved its true worth to Than Shwe. On May 30 of that
year, it mounted a murderous assault on Suu Kyi's supporters during her
travels in Upper Burma. Not only did this send a chilling message to the
broader public—it also sufficed as a pretext for putting Suu Kyi back
under house arrest, where she remained for the next seven and a half
years.

Now that the election is a fait accompli and the Lady is ostensibly free,
it is anybody's guess what Than Shwe's next move will be. But you can rest
assured that he has a plan for keeping international critics and the
demands of the Burmese people at bay, while he expertly choreographs the
dance of the longyi-wearing generals.

But what of the growing unrest among the ethnic armed groups? The
short-lived siege of Myawaddy by remnants of the Democratic Karen Buddhist
Army (most of whose ranks were absorbed into the junta's   border guard
force, or BGF) on election day has been seen by some as a sign that Than
Shwe's well-laid plans could easily unravel because of his failure to
co-opt the ethnic rebels.

That is assuming, however, that Than Shwe actually cares about bringing
these armed groups “into the legal fold.” It is entirely possible that he
expected the BGF scheme to fall apart, and has put in play the conditions
for returning Burma to a more or less permanent war footing—a development
that would serve to further enhance the military's role in the country's
politics.

In short, Than Shwe has shown us all that he is nobody's fool and that he
never plays any games that he knows he can't win. It's almost enough to
make you admire the man, although—to be clear—we still regard him as one
of the most reprehensible individuals ever to darken Burma's political
stage.

But with so many successes to his credit, sometimes you can't help but
wish he was on our side.
____________________________________

November 17, Christian Science Monitor
A new US-China dance over Burma after release of Aung San Suu Kyi – Editorial

Economic sanctions helped release Aung San Suu Kyi. That suggests the
regime is ready for a deal. Does it want to take Burma (Myanmar) out of
China's tightening orbit?

In his tour of Asia last week, President Obama made sure to visit only
democratic countries. It was a subtle message to Beijing that the US is
building up a regional partnership of freedom-loving nations to counter
China’s bully tactics and model of authoritarian rule.

Just as he finished his trip to India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan,
Mr. Obama was faced with a fresh opportunity to bring one more nation to
the long chain of democracies surrounding China. On Saturday, the military
rulers in Burma (Myanmar) released Aung San Suu Kyi after seven years of
house arrest.

By setting free the popular daughter of Burma’s founder to once again
rally the people, the ruling junta may be sending a signal that it is
ready for a new relationship with the United States and the West.

Specifically, Burma might want to break out of China’s tightening grip –
big Chinese investments in Burma’s natural resources, the rising border
trade, a critical oil pipeline, and a key naval port. If that’s the case,
Obama has difficult choices ahead.

Should he seek to lift Western economic sanctions on Burma? Should he not
support a UN investigation of Burmese leaders for crimes against humanity?
Will he negotiate directly with Gen. Than Shwe, the regime’s military
leader?

Ms. Suu Kyi herself hints at compromising with the regime. She may ask the
West to ease or repeal its sanctions. “If the people really want sanctions
to be lifted, I will consider this,” the Nobel Peace Prize winner told
reporters after her release.

While Obama could easily follow her cue on sanctions, the stakes are
higher for the US. Burma, a nation of 53 million people under the boot of
the military since 1962, has suddenly become the latest strategic
battleground in a contest between the US and China for dominance in Asia.

Burma’s new political dynamic also represents a test for Obama’s
willingness to promote democracy around the world – a mission that goes
back to Woodrow Wilson but fell out of favor with Democrats when George W.
Bush took that American cause to Iraq.

Just last week, after Burma’s regime held rigged elections Nov. 7 to keep
the military in control, the US again reiterated that it will maintain
sanctions until an estimated 2,100 political prisoners are released. In
fact, it’s likely the sanctions forced the regime to release Suu Kyi. If
that’s the case, then she and the US have every reason to use the prospect
of reduced sanctions as a bargaining chip.

But negotiating with a regime that is so secretive, isolated, and often
paranoid is not easy. The military competes with Suu Kyi for popularity
and in claiming the mantle of legitimacy from her father, Aung San, a
general killed in 1947 while fighting for independence from Britain. In
fact, Suu Kyi said she wants to probe the widespread allegations of fraud
in the recent elections.

Obama may be ready to deal with Burma more forthrightly.

He briefly met its prime minister last year at a regional summit. And he
chastised India during his visit there for not being more outspoken on
abuses in Burma – abuses that include the killing of protesting Buddhist
monks and serious government neglect of victims of cyclone Nargis in 2008.
Up to now India has competed with China for influence in Burma, but hasn’t
been much of a champion for democracy or supporter of the sanctions.

Enlisting Asia’s democracies to come up with a new offer to Burma’s
dictators would be Obama’s best response to the release of Suu Kyi. If the
regime really wants to stay out of China’s tightening orbit, it may be
open to a no-sanctions-for-democracy deal.

Better to join the club of Asian democracies than be stuck in China’s grip.

____________________________________

November 17, Bangkok Post
Economic dependence subjugates policy – Thitinan Pongsudhirak

In one short week over two long decades, Burma has returned to a window of
potential political transition not seen since its last elections in 1990
were hijacked by the military.

This time, the orchestrated polls on Nov 7 have overwhelmingly sent
military-backed representatives of the Union Solidarity and Development
Party to parliament.

On electionday, renewed fighting between the Burmese army and ethnic
minority groups flared up along the Thai-Burmese border.

Less than a week later, the iconic leader of Burma's opposition, Aung San
Suu Kyi, was freed from house arrest where she had been confined for 15 of
the last 21 years.

The implications from these momentous times in Burma are immense for
Thailand, Southeast Asia and beyond.

The contrast between the responses to the election results from the West
and Burma's near-abroad was conspicuous. China and India's comments were
muted. Both Asian giants have vested interests in Burma's economic
development, having courted and competed for the ruling generals in
Naypyidaw for strategic assets and natural resources.

As Southeast Asia's main regional organisation, the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations's receptive reaction was a foregone conclusion.
The elections were the culmination of Asean's longstanding policy of
"constructive engagement" and its now-proven rationale for accepting the
generals' Burma back in 1997. Notwithstanding dissenting voices from
Indonesia and the Philippines, Asean will now want to tick the electoral
box on Burma's democratic checklist and move on.

As the country most directly affected by events in Burma, Thailand also
revealed its hand well before the elections. Prime Minister Abhisit
Vejjajiva's initial reaction to the polls was to stick to the stated
time-frame of the military-sponsored constitution of a three-month period
before power is transferred to the elected government.

Although his predecessor and mentor, former prime minister Chuan Leekpai,
made a point of not setting foot on Burma's soil in the late 1990s when
the State Peace and Development Council was ensconced in power, Mr Abhisit
not only visited Naypyidaw but came home with a multi-billion-dollar port
development deal.

The Democrat Party-led government leader did not even visit Burma then,
but his successor a decade later has now reversed course. Thailand's
relative emphasis on human rights and democracy as its foreign policy
underpinnings have gone out the window. But if pragmatism and material
interests are to dictate Thailand's Burma policy, they should be
rethought.

Thailand needs to come up with a longer-term energy outlook and a
forward-looking immigration policy.

The port deal at Dawei (Tavoy) should be seen as part of a broader package
of Thailand's growing energy dependence on Burma. More than 70% of Thai
electricity generation derives from natural gas, and nearly half of that
portion is imported from Burma's gas pipelines, with the rest made up of
coal, hydro and petroleum sources. Renewable energy sources such as wind
and solar are negligible. Nuclear power would be a viable alternative, as
Vietnam's imminent construction of two nuclear power plants attests.

But for Thailand, nuclear power will need broad-based public discussions
and hearings to promote trust and confidence and allay civil society
concerns. Nuclear power is thus many years in the distance _ if it ever
materialises.

Thailand, in short, is beset by energy insecurity. On a per-capita basis,
Thailand's electricity consumption is in the range of the developed
economies in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). And its foreseeable energy future is reliant on natural gas. Until
it can tap into reserves in unexplored areas in the Gulf of Thailand,
particularly the overlapping claims with Cambodia, Thailand's gas
dependence on Burma will grow.

In turn, such dependence will constrain Thai foreign policy vis-a-vis Burma.

The fluid and precarious post-election interplay in Burma should prompt
Thai leaders to start thinking about longer-term energy security.

Another serious challenge will be the demographics of economic growth.
More than two million migrant workers from Burma are reportedly resident
in Thailand, without corresponding rights to education and health care.
Many of these migrant workers, now in their second generation, are
unlikely to return to Burma even if peace and stability are restored.

A long-term comprehensive immigration policy, as opposed to the current ad
hoc registration, could provide them with residency rights with access to
proper education and health care. They now form the backbone of the
back-breaking work in service industries, particularly construction,
processed food and fisheries. If they continue to be excluded from the
system and preyed on by Thai authorities for extortionist gains, they may
become a source of social problems and crime in the years to come, owing
to a lack of access to education and career mobility. The Thai economy can
no longer thrive without these essential workers.

The more immediate demographic challenge will take place along the
Thai-Burmese border.

Mr Abhisit's crass and myopic three-month reference for Burma's power
transfer does not conduce to the logistical and humanitarian preparations
that should be put in place.

The armed conflicts between the Burmese army and the ethnic minorities may
well go on indefinitely. Largely unrepresented in parliament both at the
national and regional levels following the polls, the major ethnic groups,
such as the Karen and the Shan, are unwilling to lay down arms and be
absorbed into the border guard forces controlled by the Burmese armies.

The growing spectre of civil war should lead Thai policy-makers and
military commanders to start thinking about longer-term refugee
sanctuaries along the border. It is not sustainable to receive the
displaced ethnic refugees one day and repatriate them the next.

International relief agencies should be allowed and encouraged to share
the burden. A longer-term refugee policy and accommodation, which has been
a trademark in Thailand's foreign dealings in the past, should be
formulated immediately.

The drugs production and trafficking associated with minority groups'
war-financing will also need to be checked and deterred.

Burma after elections stands at a precipice. It could turn out well over a
long transition, or very badly in relatively short order. The risks of
continued military rule fronted by a bogus electoral regime on the one
hand clashing with a pent-up and long-suffering opposition bent on going
for "too much, too soon" will grow.

Thailand needs to be better prepared by providing safe havens along the
border, relying less on Burma's natural gas and accommodating Burmese and
Burmese minority workers who are contributing to the Thai economy for the
long haul.

The writer is Director of the Institute of Security and International
Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.