September
15 - October 1, 2005
READERS’
FRONT
MON
URGE NMSP NOT TO GIVE UP ARMS
EXILE
SHAN GOVERNMENT SEEKS
ALLIANCE
MON
POLITICAL PRISONER DIES IN PRISON
2
MILLENIUM OF MON TRADITION
just
the Basics for burmese migrantS
GAS
LEAK NEAR
MON
VILLAGE
CARS
FOR A TOTAL SURRENDER
MEMORIAL
SERVICE FOR DR. VUM SON
LOVE
IS A MANY SPLENDOUR THING: KANBAWZA WIN
READERS’
FRONT
Dear
Readers,
We
invite comments and suggestions on improvements to Kaowao newsletter. With
your help, we hope that Kaowao News will continue to grow to serve better the
needs of those seeking social justice in
Burma
. And we hope that it will become an important forum for discussion and debate
and help readers to keep abreast of issues and news. We reserve the
right to edit and reject articles without prior notification. You can use a
pseudonym but we encourage you to include your full name and address.
Regards,
Editor
kaowao@hotmail.com,
www.kaowao.org
_________________________________________________
Dear
Editor,
Thank
you for posting news about NMSP’s cease-fire situation. As a Mon, I am
really concerned if the NMSP has no choice and have to surrender. I was
informed that overseas Mon from
Thailand
, US and
Canada
are planning to support the NMSP or any group if they fight against the
military junta. The
Mons
in exile should meet, build a united front and support the cause back home.
Regards,
Kun
Mon (
Malaysia
)
-
MON
URGE NMSP NOT TO GIVE UP ARMS
- (Kaowao:
October 1, 2005)
Sangkhalaburi
-- Mon communities have called upon the New Mon State Party not to lay down
their arms to the SPDC, as other ceasefire groups in the north have done,
sources from Mon state reported.
Upon
hearing the rumors that the NMSP was going to give up their firearms,, the
Buddhist monks in Mon State directly questioned the NMSP President Nai Htaw
Mon whether the party was going to agree to lay down their arms to the SPDC or
not and advised them not to do so.
“We
have sacrificed so much for so many years, the SPDC will surely take away
what’s left of our rights if the NMSP gives up their arms. In 1958,
the Mon Peoples’ Front handed over its arms to U Nu’s parliamentary
government, but we were cheated and all our leaders were arrested. The
Mon movement had to start from zero again,” recalled a senior Mon monk from
Ye.
“During
that time we had some cultural and political rights. But after the
surrender, our rights in teaching the Mon language in the government schools
were taken away and all the national and political movements were
restricted,” he explained.
“Giving
up our arms was the worst thing to do,” he admits. “Haven’t we learned
from the past,” he added.
The
Mon population in Karen state
and Kyaik Mayaw of
Mon
State
is
growing increasingly frustrated with the actions of the SPDC toward the NMSP,
especially when the party members are prevented from moving around the
country.
Recently,
the SPDC Township Military Intelligence ordered the village headmen in Kyaik
Mayaw this week to closely watch the movements of NMSP, said a village headman
who attended the meeting.
The
village headmen in
Kyaik
Mayaw
Township
were told to ask about the daily activities of the people in their villages.
““We
are ordered to keep track of what the NMSP is up to and draw up a list of all
NMSP members in our villages. The authorities ordered to record the
identity and the activities of the Mon armed groups, those who leave the
village, and those who work in foreign countries,” the headman said.
A
source from the capital of Mon state,
Moulmein
, said that the SPDC had cut off funding of three millions Kyats to the NMSP
and requested the party for a detailed financial report.
However,
the NMSP liaison office on the Thai Burma border reaffirmed the position of
the NMSP that it would not surrender over their arms.
Relations
between the NMSP and the SPDC have been strained since General Khin Nyunt was
ousted.
-
EXILE
SHAN GOVERNMENT SEEKS
ALLIANCE
- (Kaowao:
September 30, 2005)
Calgary
-- The exile Shan government is seeking to build an alliance to raise
awareness, Kaowao learned during an interview with Hso Khan Pha, the leader of
the Shan Government.
“The
Shan People are ready to act and we will be successful. We are
in the process of seeking recognition from foreign countries and the United
Nations. The ISG have met with some countries that are willing
to recognise and support us internationally. We are appointed by the
majority of the 48 out of 54 Counties or Townships of Shan State following
four years of secret canvassing and have the peoples' support.
Without that support the ISG would have been yet another meaningless
self- appointed group and I would not have agreed to participate or serve in -
though many did by trying to say in the beginning that the ISG are
nothing more than a bunch of elderly Shans dreaming of past
glories,” said the eldest son of Burma’s first President during an
interview with Kaowao on September 24, 2005.
“Our
aim is to make political and military alliances with all the National Ethnic
States for co-ordination between us that is so far lacking in spite
of good intentions of the ENC (Ethnic Nationalities Council). We have an
agreement with the Karenni and would like to see this extended to include
the Arakan, Chin, Kackin, Mon and Karen also - an "E-U" like
grouping not an empire like the Burmese "colonies", that the
Burmese pretend to be a "Union".
Asking
about the military action, the Shan leader claimed that fighting continues
inside
Shan
State
. “Our Commanders estimate kill ratios of 5:1, we are doing much
better.”
Prince
Hso Khan Pha is the eldest son of Sao Shwe Thike, first President of Burma
after
Burma
's
Independence
from British colonial rule. Sao Shwe Thike handed over the presidency in
1952 and was arrested when the late dictator General Ne Win took power in
1962.
In
April 2005, a group of Shan led by Hso Khan Pha declared independence for the
Shan
State
. The move has angered
Burma
’s military junta which has denounced the group illegal, saying people who
help it will face up to five years in prison.
Nonetheless,
some overseas community including US based Monland Restoration Council (MRC)
and
Australia
based Mon National Council (MNC) support the Shan declaration. In their
statements, the
Mons
fully support the Shan because the Burman government has broken its promise to
establish a federal union.
-
MON
POLITICAL PRISONER DIES IN PRISON
- (Independent
Mon News Agency: September 29, 2005)
A
Mon political prisoner, Nai Ong Lorn, who was arrested in connection to
assassination attempts on Burmese military leaders, died yesterday, according
to a New Mon State Party source in
Moulmein
.
Nai
Ong Lorn was in his mid forties and was sentenced to life imprisonment after
he was arrested by the SPDC’s Military Intelligence on July 2003 along with
other suspects, including Nai Yekha, a middle rank NMSP leader.
According
to sources, he died about 9:00 a.m. yesterday morning. A military government
leader notified NMSP authorities to look after the body and to prepare it for
a funeral ceremony.
Sources
believe he may have died of some kind of disease. He had received treatment in
a private hospital in
Rangoon
with the permission of military government, but after he recovered, he was
sent back to Inn-sein prison.
Nai
Ong Lorn is survived by his wife Mi Tin Hla and their two children in
Moulmein
, in Myaing-thar-yar quarter. His family traveled to
Rangoon
this evening for his funeral ceremony.
According
to a NMSP leader, Nai Yekha is also suffering from poor health. His family is
restricted from providing him food to improve his health. Nai Yekha was
faint in August due to lack of nutritious foods, he lost consciousness for
about two hours in the toilet.
Nai
Ong Lorn was arrested when he went to
Rangoon
with Nai Yekha, about another 8 people were also arrested at that time.
Among
them, the 3 Mon prisoners, Nai Than Tun, Nai Shwe Marn (Youth leader in Pegu)
and Nai Min Kyi (Mon National Democratic Front leader) were released. They
were arrested after the SPDC accused them of contacting the International
Labour Organization and providing them with mis-information on the use of
forced labour.
Following
the arrest of the whole group, including Nai Yekha, all were sentenced to
death. The military government held a press conference and explained the
reasons for their arrest and detention.
According
to the released prisoners, they said they were not culprits of the
assassination attempt on the lives of SPDC leaders and were not connected to
the explosions in Rangoon, saying that, “The accusation against us were
totally made-up by the Military Intelligence. All the weapons, explosives and
ammunitions shown in the conference were arranged by the military intelligence
of SPDC.”
-
2
MILLENIUM OF MON TRADITION
- (Kaowao:
September 15, 2005)
The
Mon community in
Calgary
organized a third fund raising event for a
Buddhist
Temple
on September 10.
The
Mon Buddhist Temple Association, Canada, organized its 3rd fund
raising event at Southview Community Association Hall from 7:00 pm to
midnight, with about eighty in attendance.
“Unfortunately,
the weather kept everyone at home, it was not a good night to come out, but we
were able to raise almost a thousand dollars,” said Ms. Ai Nondae, Secretary
of the event.
Despite
the dreary weather, the Mon put on an energetic cultural performance,
accompanied by Mon music and refreshments, including Mon curries and popular
noodle dishes that date back to over a thousand years. Later, Karaoke was set
up for all to enjoy later in the evening.
Buddhism
flourished when adopted by Mon culture around the 5 century A.D. The majority
followed the teaching of Theravada Buddhism, which strongly influenced
cultural development in their old kingdoms in lower
Burma
and central
Thailand
.
In
the centuries following the adoption of Buddhism, the Mons were the most
skilled craftspeople in Southeast Asia and their expertise in metalworking,
stone and woodcarving, architecture, and literature, were in huge demand and
their skills as Southeast Asia’s most expert craftspeople were sought after
by the Burmese and Thai for centuries right up until the 19 century.
The
Mon continue to be devoted Buddhists in the exile communities and have been
active in recent years in plans to build Buddhist temples in
Los Angeles
,
Akron
and
Fort Wayne
,
USA
.
-
just
the Basics for burmese migrantS
- (Zahan
Ong, Kaowao: September 25, 2005)
Bangkok
--
Leaders of the Mon Youth Community (MYC) met with the director of the
non-formal Education Department at
Thailand
’s Education Ministry, September 15, to discuss basic education rights for
migrant workers from
Burma
.
Nai
Ong Banjun, Chairman of the Mon Youth Community, led a delegation of 8 members
from the Mon community, including some teachers who run a Mon
literacy-training program at Bangkadee. The group met with Dr Komrit
Chankhajorn, the director, and several officials from the non-formal Education
Department.
In
his presentation to the Education Department, Nai Ong explained about the
situation of migrant workers living in
Thailand
, especially that of children, who work in the seafood factories and who have
little opportunity to go to school since they work full time shifts, and other
young migrants who face many problems from not having access to a proper
education.
In
response to Nai Ong and NYC’s plan for assistance, the Education Director
explained the policy of the Thai Education Ministry in that it is not easy to
get financial assistance for migrant workers. However, he added, that he
would try his best and ask the factory owners to provide some support for the
publication of textbooks and some other minor expenses. Dr Kirt R. Person from
SIL International, who participated in the meeting, shared his experience on
the development of indigenous languages around the world.
Nai
Sunthorn Sripanngern, Vice-President of MYC, said that, “It is very
important that migrant workers have the opportunity to learn the Thai language
so they are able to better communicate with their employers.” However, he
added, “But is also even more important that they study their mother tongue,
so they are well prepared to return home, when
Burma
finally achieves peace, and in which they will have to both create and find
employment.” Adding that, “Bilingual education makes the students smarter
and aware and it’s a global trend. For example, students in
Mudon
Township
,
Mon
State
, are bilingual in Mon and Burmese and are at the top of their class in the
university entrance examinations."
Many
migrant workers in
Thailand
are ethnic Mon who fled human rights abuses and land confiscation committed by
the Burmese military. Many also leave to escape poverty and the lack of job
opportunities. Once in
Thailand
, they find work in whatever comes their way for survival, in mining, fishing,
and construction industries. Many, especially women, also work in the
restaurants and in the many thousands of fish processing factories that line
the port of Mahachai, these factories hire thousands of women and children
because of their manual dexterity in cleaning and handling shellfish in a
timely manner, others work as household servants.
They
get low-pay for their labor and stay confined in rooms, often living and
working in an unhealthy environment.
Since
2001, the Thai government has registered migrant workers throughout the
country. In Samut Sakhorn alone, the number of Mon migrant workers is more
than 70,000. In 2002, the non-formal Education Department published several
textbooks on learning the basics of the Thai language for the Mon-Burmese
migrant community in Samut Sakhorn where the fish processing factories are
located.
-
GAS
LEAK NEAR
MON
VILLAGE
- (IMNA:
September 27, 2005)
The
Kanbauk-Myaingkalay gas-pipeline has ruptured once again near Kwanhlar
village,
Mudon
Township
, at the end of August 2005, said an eyewitness.
The
gas was released at night in Tadar-ne
and flowed into a river beside the railway.
“Currently,
the military government authorities are repairing the pipeline after the
gas-pipeline patroller informed the local military commander in
Thanpyuzayar
Township
,” a Kwanhlar villager said.
On
August 29, the pipeline leaked gas in the same place due to unskilled Burmese
engineers who were connecting the pipelines.
In
Mon
State
, the gas pipeline has ruptured regularly and released gas, which had ignited
a couple of times last year.
“If
the gas pipeline continues to rupture and release gas, it will cause damage to
the environment around the area, even though we can’t see any effects now.
But in the future, it would harm us,” explained Ms. Mi Paing Sorn, an
environmental worker in
Mon
State
. “Some grown plants near the gas pipeline route are not healthy.
The soil has become saturated with gas and the soil is ruined,” she added.
The
environmental workers say that cumulative concentrations of gas will pose a
serious health risk to the people who live along the gas pipeline, once in the
food chain the gas will poison the drinking water, soil, and plants.
Due
to the gas leak, the local military authorities had to dump out all the gas
from the pipeline to connect the pipes; it had ignited into a huge fireball.
After that, the plants around the fire had all died, according to Wae-rak
villager in
Thanpyuzayat
Township
.
The
gas pipeline crosses through villages, towns, plantations, and paddy farms
where local people are living. Land was confiscated from local
farmers when the pipeline was built in 2000.
Kanbauk-Myaingkalay
gas pipeline transports gas from Yadana Gas Station in Tenasserim to supply
gas to a cement factory in Karen state.
-
CARS
FOR A TOTAL SURRENDER
- (KaoWao:
September 25, 2005)
If
the Buddhist monks want their seized vehicles back, they will have to persuade
the cease-fire group to surrender totally to the Burmese government, according
to a source in
Mon
State
.
“If
the monks want their cars back from SPDC they need to convince the New Mon
State Party (NMSP) to give up their arms,” said a woman right’s trainer
who arrived to the Thai Burma border.
However,
a source close to the party said that members of the NMSP have no intention on
giving up their arms, but will instead continue the armed struggle. They argue
that they are willing to fight to regain their rights for self-determination.
Recently,
the movement of the party has been restricted by the SPDC in different areas
of
Mon
State
, which has prompted some to take action. ‘The main checkpoints in Mon
state such as in Moulmien and Mudone township are being closely watched, in
particular, they are watching the movement of the NMSP members by
interrogating them while they travel through,’ she added.
“Some
NMSP soldiers are selling their possessions, such as land and homes, and are
making plans to return to the jungle. Many have decided to do this after
hearing their senior leader’s interview with the international radio
station,” she added.
''The
Mon community inside
Burma
want the NMSP to pull out of the ceasefire agreement with the SPDC,” said a
senior monk from Ye township. Public support has declined and the people
were disappointed because the NMSP has no power to defend human rights
violations land confiscation by the Burma Army after the cease-fire agreement.
According
to a source close to the NMSP inside
Burma
, the party is closely monitoring the situation of other cease-fire groups in
northern area to decide their own future.
-
MEMORIAL
SERVICE FOR DR. VUM SON
- (Reported
by Tg. Dong Khan Khup:
Maryland
,
USA
)
Silence
and sorrow overshadowed the brightly lit summer day as hundreds of mourners
converged at the community hall in Gaithersburg, MD, USA on September 25, 2005
to pay their last respects to Pu Dr. Vum Son Suantak in an atmosphere filled
with poignant grief.
Many
Friends, Families, Relatives, and Community Leaders, politicians had flown in
from many parts of the United States and from several countries to mourn Pu
Dr. Vum Son Suantak?s departure. At the same time, thousands were sobbing
their hearts out across the globe.
Many
of the leaders of Zomi/Chin, Mizo across the United States, representatives
from various organizations were amongst the mourners included the Burma Exile
Prime Minister Dr. Sein Win, Pu Lian Uk and Pu Ngo Nang (good friends) and Pu
Defence Lalawng, Chairman of the Chin Community of USA, Inc. Many of
condolence messages were read by sorrow and farewell speeches were voiceless.
The
Memorial Service of Pu Dr. Vum Son Suantak was the most tearful in years. The
Memorial Service was led by Pa Khai Cin Pau, began at 11:30 AM with the
opening prayer by Rev. Rollin Vanbik, followed by special prayer of Pastor
Rualchhina Vangchh in the middle and ended up at 2:30 PM by the prayer of Rev.
C.Duh Kam. The meal was prepared by Zomi Innkuan DC and served after the
blessing of Rev. James Lian Khen Thang. While the Memorial Service,
hundreds of relatives and friends were raining tears.
On
the body viewing night of Sept 24, 2005 at
Bethesda
,
MD
,
USA
, hundreds of young and old said their goodbyes to Pu Dr. Vum Son Suantak in
deep sorrow with tears rolling over their cheeks. They paid their tribute in
respect and dignity, painfully realizing that Pu Dr. Vum Son Suantak was no
longer amongst them. At the same time, they comforted the daughters, the
grandson and the family of the brother with their sweetest. They praised how
great he was, how he tried to unite all his people to be a solid one community
and so on.
"We
feel we have become orphans" was the common anguish on the lips of almost
everyone, as the impact of this gigantic loss began to sink in. Masses of
emails, faxes and phone calls all reverberated the same sentiment.
During
his 68 years life span, he had touched thousands, making each feel special,
and those thousands and more were deeply touched by his death. This was a
unique Memorial Service in the history of the Chin/Zomi, Mizo Community. Never
before such grief, emotion, and out pouring of tributes have been seen in
especially the Chin/Zomi, Mizo Community in the
United States
which he tireless called *Zo* people.
He
always said, " there is no one else to take care of our homeland and our
own people". One of his greatest visions is that all his people to be
united and work together while we live our human life in this world. Are we
ready to fulfill his dreams?
-
US
policy on
Burma
in the Katrina context
-
LOVE
IS A MANY SPLENDOUR THING
- Kanbawza
Win
Hurricane
Katrina has painted the real picture of the mass suffering of people and for
the first time the Americans have witnessed it, while in Burma, the people
have been used to this scene as it was repeatedly played again and again for
one and half decades of Burmese Military Rule. The only difference is that
there is no television camera to beam it to the world for this man made
Katrina. The pangs of Katrina if compared to the agony of the Burmese people
is equal, for over 3 million people fled the country with one million refugees
in Thailand alone (subjected to persecution) and hundreds of thousands of
ethnic people are in forced labor as the latest report of the Amnesty
International indicates.
President
Bush authorized the dispatch 40,000 troops and we witnessed the soldiers
helping the people everywhere in the disaster hit area. However, in Burma
whenever the people see the soldier approaching their way, they just sprint
off knowing that trouble is ahead for they will either loot, rape or forcibly
recruited them to be used as porters, as the latest reports of Amnesty
International indicates. Here, in America we behold the soldiers giving
medical aid to the people but in Burma it is just the opposite and in one
occasion in 1988 the soldiers went into the Rangoon General Hospital, shot up
the nurses and doctors, a scene, which no Burmese could ever forget. Such is
the general character of the Burmese soldiers if compared to an American GIs.
Unlike
the Katrina victims there is no relief of any sort, for the poor 3,000 Burmese
workers suffered in Tsunami floods in
Thailand
. Worst many of the families did not even dare to claim the bodies of their
loved ones lest they would be arrested and deported back
Burma
where they will be persecuted or die of starvation. The compassionate and
sympathetic NGOs, such as the World Vision that tried to help them were
arrested and persecuted. The most paradoxical aspect was that the Burmese
workers were even prevented from performing the last rites for their beloved
ones. When I was in Phuket area I attended that ``hush hush`` ceremony in the
midst of the rubber plantation, where they cried their heart out without
anybody hearing. I asked them, what do they wish for in times like this and
according to the Buddhist believe, they unanimously replied that in the next
life they should be born away from the tyrannical Junta. Because they
construed that all these inhuman suffering fell upon them because of the
Burmese military regime. But the worst fate was suffered in the coastal
regions of
Burma
where there is no sort of relief, as the military government would not allow
any of the international relief to come to their aid.
The
suffering images of the people beam directly over the television in the
Katrina hurricane made the American realize of what the Burmese people are
going through. The Burmese army, when it took power in 1988 firing into the
crowds killing some 10,000 in six major cities is the same Junta that is
ruling
Burma
. The continuous carnage has been going on for one and a half decades up till
now, and nobody heard the clarion call of the Burmese people. Is it time to
lend their ears to a pathetic call of the 50 million plus people of a far away
country with an entirely different culture?
Burma
needs
America
Since
"May Flower" carrying
the Puritans landed in 1620 seeking, "freedom," has been the
cornerstone of American values as it permeates in every aspect of the American
society, which is
guaranteed
in the constitution and protected by the judicial system. This was followed by
self-reliance, equality of opportunity, hard work and competition. President
George Bush's speech to the Czech Republic last November said `We
share the common values of freedom, human rights and democracy,'
that was very much echo by the Burmese people both inside and outside the
country. Unwittingly the US has won over the hearts and minds of the people of
the world particularly the Burmese in this aspect of universal values and now
it is left for the US administration to follow up with actions.
Even
though "values” is one of the more contentious and frustrating parts of
the foreign-policy debate, it has played a pivotal part in themselves and in
their influence on the conduct of a nation's affairs. And the Burmese are just
waiting of how these values will transcend on to
Burma
. The people of
Burma
seem to remember George Washington words, "Observe
good faith and justice toward all nations… worthy of a free… nation to
give to mankind the magnanimous… guided by an exalted justice and
benevolence."
Burma
can be considered as the onset of what Samuel Huntington calls the "third
wave" of global democratization. The global trend towards democracy is
both exciting and gratifying to peoples everywhere, especially to the Burmese
who value freedom, but freedom in third world countries are shallow, fragile,
and in need of support. Even if
Burma
gets federal democratic government it still needs to institute the rudiments
of democratic institutions. Effective control over the military may need to
weigh every policy and action. Political parties lack substantial organization
and resources, meaningful ties to major interest groups and grassroots
constituencies, and the political skill and experience to govern effectively.
Also lacking, typically, is the cultural and civic infrastructure that
sustains democracy: a strong positive commitment to democracy that is widely
shared among elites and citizens; a variety of democratic associations and
interest groups that are autonomous from the state and can hold it
accountable; a vigorous, independent, and pluralistic mass media.
If
so, why should the
America
bother with
Burma
? Why spend American energies and resources to promote democracy in
Burma
?
Are just some of the
legitimate questions to ask? With the extinction of communism and the waning
of the Soviet threat, what should be the purpose of American national interest
lie? This debate is as old as
America
itself, and has been of particular prominence since the
US
became a global power at the start of this century. This explicitly means not
only completing the agenda for strategic and conventional arms control
agreements, but also halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction and
promoting democracy in the world including
Burma
.
There
are compelling reasons to reject this cold calculus of
"realpolitik." One reason is moral. It has to do with what most
distinguishes the
United States
as a people and a nation – the American commitment to political and economic
freedom, to openness, pluralism, democracy, and the rule of law is paramount.
This is what the Burmese admired and are requesting for help at least just to
get their freedom. The
US
in concert with its democratic allies, has enormous power to aid and empower
the struggles for democracy around the world especially
Burma
.
The
Burmese people has seen that the American diplomatic pressure apparently
played an important role in facilitating the transition to democracy in South
Korea 1987, by dissuading President Chun Doo Hwan from unleashing massive
repression against the widespread popular mobilization for democracy. Who can
forget that it was
US
criticism of Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship that finally conceded to the
presidential "snap election" that unraveled his grip on power? In
Chile
, when substantive pressure was threatened by the 1985 multilateral loan
abstentions -- the dictator quickly lifted the state of siege. The American
Administration deserves praise and gratitude from democrats worldwide for
forcing Noriega out of power in
Panama
and Saddam Hussein out of
Kuwait
. Both the Administration and the Congress are to be applauded for greatly
increasing funding to promote democracy and to support new and emerging
democracies. We think that it is now the turn of
Burma
to be helped.
U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, meeting her Burmese counterpart U Nyan
Win, in
New York
with member countries of ASEAN just looks at him directly and chided for the
need to speed up political and human rights reform. But this is not enough,
and will have to be followed up by concrete actions. Ms Rice words will just
fall on deaf ears of the Junta as they are bent on keeping the power to
themselves - no matter if millions of Burmese people died of starvation, Aids
and diseases.
There
are several reasons of why the American should be interested in
Burma
. There are international issues, that relate to refugees, then there are the
questions of illegal labor, health and HIV, and prostitution and worst of all
the country was run by narco related economy. All of these have effects on the
countries around
Burma
and so
Burma
is no longer isolated case. In July, a report by the
Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based think tank, painted a bleaker
picture -- that Burma is the main source of all strains of HIV that have
spread across Asia, from Kazakhstan on one end to southern Vietnam, on the
other. In some northern parts of the country, HIV infection rates were ''as
high as 77 percent,'' the report revealed, and added further that heroin
routes originating from
Burma
and crossing the region have been the ''greatest contributor of new types of
HIV in the world''. This will get worst with no help from Global Fund.
American
Policy Towards
Burma
Current
U.S.
policy toward
Burma
authentically reflects American political values and is morally validated by
the long record of human rights outrages by the Burmese regime. Overall
US
policy objectives in
Burma
remain unchanged: the immediate and unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi,
U Tin Oo, Hkun Htun Oo and all political prisoners; the re-opening of all NLD
party offices and the start of a meaningful dialogue leading to genuine
national reconciliation and the establishment of democracy. The US policy
goals include the establishment of constitutional democracy, respect for human
rights and religious freedom, the repatriation of refugees with monitoring by
UNHCR, the return home of internally displaced persons (IDPs), cooperation in
fighting terrorism, regional stability, a full accounting of missing US
servicemen from World War II, combating HIV/AIDS, eliminating trafficking in
persons, ending forced labor, and increased cooperation in eradicating the
production and trafficking of illicit drugs. In fact US officials persistently
requested meetings with Aung San Suu Kyi and U Tin Oo. The Junta prohibited US
and other diplomats in
Burma
from visiting them either. It also published a series of newspaper articles
attempting to intimidate diplomats, including American Embassy personnel, who
visited NLD headquarters or met with other pro-democracy leaders.
It
is understood that the
United States
will continue to maintain extensive sanctions including an arms embargo, bans
on new investment and imports, an asset freeze, and a prohibition on the
exportation of financial services to
Burma
and the provision of financial assistance to the military regime. The
Department of State maintained visa restrictions on the Junta members;
Government ministers and other senior Burmese Government officials; military
officers above the rank of Colonel; all officials of the Union Solidarity and
Development Association (USDA); civil servants above the rank of Director
General; and managers of state-owned enterprise and this will remain. Until
there is significant progress toward political transition and genuine respect
for human rights or until a democratically elected government in
Burma
requests that they be lifted.
In
2004-2005, the
US
provided $2 million to address the growing HIV/AIDS epidemic in
Burma
by funding international non-governmental organizations to undertake
prevention and care activities. It also seeks greater commitment to more
effective prevention, treatment, and care programs, including for pregnant
mothers and high-risk groups. In addition, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria - which receives one-third of its funding from the
American government - has made grant commitments totaling $35 million over two
years to fight the three diseases.
Pressure
from the
United States
and other nations has not yet eased repression in
Burma
, and therefore will have to work out more aggressively. While people can
differ about some aspects of the sanctions debate, there is no denying that
the aim is to compel the regime to change. The most important aspect was that
it must not make it impossible to provide humanitarian aid to the Burmese
people who are really in need. The country is indeed suffering a
humanitarian crisis, including an uncontrolled HIV/AIDS epidemic, a
deteriorating health care system, and growing malnourishment and the outdated
education system. There is a clear consensus that it needs help from the
outside world to meet basic humanitarian needs. But this not indicates that
sanctions stands in the way. Indeed, UN agencies like
UNICEF and UNDP along with a number of non-governmental organizations are
present in
Burma
. It must be through the military that aid should be channeled. The only
restriction they impose is that no aid can be channeled through the Burmese
government and the military sponsored agencies.
It
is not the international community’s fault that aid does not reach to the
desired needy people of
Burma
but rather a series of Burmese military government's policies that stunt
development and impede the relief of suffering. So much so that Global Fund
stop the funding and hurt the people. Hence the cause of
Burma
’s humanitarian emergency is not a lack of aid but that of the military
regime that is hampering the aid.
There
are additional issues about the private sector, about how it will or will not
operate-questions about how to change a centrally planned economy into a more
open one.
Burma
is not a communist economy but a centrally planned one nevertheless, and one
that has had a stormy relationship with the private sector. The Junta’s
dismal economic policies have resulted in widespread poverty and the flight of
most foreign investors.
But
Washington
must ask itself whether current policy meets two other tests. Firstly, does it
have any realistic prospect of success in altering the character of the
Burmese regime? And secondly does it jeopardize the
US
strategic and foreign policy interests in Southeast Asia, particularly as they
relate to
China
and ASEAN? The most important external pressure exerted on
Burma
is
China
.
China
has moved into
Burma
in a way that has upset the other neighbouring countries.
China
has built a great deal of infrastructure-road infrastructure, airport
infrastructure, bridge construction, and
China
has modernized the Burmese army in terms of equipment. The Chinese have also
moved into
Burma
economically.
Northern Burma
is tied to the Yunnanese economy. For officials in
Washington
,
Burma
is something of a foreign policy free good comparable to
Cuba
and in contrast with
China
or
North Korea
.
Beijing
’s increasing military, political and economic prowess may create a
situation that would leave the
United States
without stable or reliable allies in this vital region, which is essential to
America
’s economic stability and national security. The people of
Burma
are ready to help the Americans in their pursuit of international terrorism
and the spread of nuclear weapons and they expect the American to help them in
throwing off the tyrannical Junta who does not care for the spread of AIDS and
the gap between rich and poor
Burmese
Doubts
President
George W. Bush speech at his second inaugural address pledged that
"all` who live in tyranny and
hopelessness can know the
United States
will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for
your liberty, we will stand with you." And not only in spirit:
"We will defend ourselves and our
friends by force of arms when necessary." The Burmese
ethno-democratic forces were encouraged and invigorated by those words coming
from the leader of the free world, and the. Greatest superpower. However, the
president did not utter a word about
Burma
on his trip to
Southeast Asia
.
The
Burmese people knew that American government has a long and sometimes
questionable actions of encouraging opposition groups, only to stand by and
watch tanks or helicopters mow them down. In 1956, Secretary of State John
Foster Dulles pledged to the opposition in
Hungary
"to all those suffering under
Communist slavery, let us say you can count on us." But we
witness thousands of Hungarians were slaughtered. In 1991, during the first
Iraq War, the first Bush administration pursued a "murky" policy by
encouraging the Shiite Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein, but never
help them when the Shiites were slaughtered, and the Bush policy was roundly
denounced as morally bankrupt. Now Bush II has pledged in an open forum "all
who live in tyranny and hopelessness." How will it apply to
the Burmese scene is still to be seen. We just hope and pray that President
Bush is not just perpetuating the legacy of broken promises.
Supposing
Taiwan
decides to declare its independence, will the
United States
"defend our friends by force of arms."
If so, will it even serve the
US
national interest? Bush has expanded the National Endowment for Democracy,
which helps opposition groups across the globe. It provides training, funds,
and other support to them including many Burmese opposition parties.
Sometimes, we ploy with the imagination that President Bush didn't really mean
it and is just a throwaway speech, a chance to rattle on about lofty principle
and encourage the democracy promotion project. Imagine he intends to adhere to
real politik with countries where the
US
have an interest in stability. Bold pronouncements and faltering action is
what the Burmese are afraid of the Bush administration. Is it right to
encourage and fund opposition groups, to pledge openly that the
United States
will stand with them, and then to step aside when it matters? Take, for
example, the Orange Revolution in
Ukraine
. These are just some of the thoughts, which an average Burmese harbors and
the Bush administration has to prove it otherwise in the wake of Katrina
tragedy.
Burmese
Military Version
The
Burmese military is determined to retain power at any cost even killing
millions of people directly or indirectly by diseases. It may civilianize but
it will not have a civilian government it does not control. The Military it
has expanded in numbers and armaments have increased-some US$2 billion worth
of new arms since 1988. It has effectively neutralized a large part of the
ethnic nationalities opposition. There have been about 17 cease-fires that are
fragile, but now the military is not losing troops except on Karen front. The
Communist Party has disintegrated. Hence the military is in a strong position.
The NLD is in a weaker position than it has been in the past. The military is
out to destroy the National League, to isolate Aung San Suu Kyi from the
League and to make sure they never come to power. The military thinks it has
the moral authority to interfere in society in a way that would suits their
need. It intervene in the media, control what you read, what you say, with
whom you associate in all aspects. It affects the economy, civil right, human
rights and it means.
The
military believes that it is the only group holding the country together.
``The monarch of all I survey attitude``. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It has
destroyed all the other groups that might have done so. Then it believes that
foreigners are out to divide the country. Historically this is substantiated
as the British supported the Karen; the Americans the KMT; the Chinese the
Burma Communist Party; the Thai four or five different groups to create buffer
states between conservative Bangkok and radical Rangoon; the Bangladeshis
supported the Rohingyas, and the Nagas and Mizo operated on both sides of the
India border. So they say look, all you guys are out to destroy us. The NGOs
operating inside
Burma
are just meddling in their affairs and letting the cat out of the bag. Who
knows they may be looking just for a pretext to destroy
Burma
, hence thy put on restraint to them.
But
times have changed. None of the separations are viable. The ethnic
nationalities now, don't want independence but they want some form of
federalism. The military is stuck in an earlier view of
Burma
-a view of two generations ago. It also believes that the ethnic nationalities
want to split off and become independent and it doesn't really trust them. But
the most important aspect is that the military really believes that the
National League for Democracy is a tool for foreigners. In so far as there is
foreign support for the National League for Democracy, the argument makes some
sense to the military. No doubt Daw Suu is tough, strong, brave and very
determined to do what she thinks is in the interests of the country and what
she believes in, but the military doesn't believe in that.
It
seems that the military has changed its position. It has now become an
ideology.
One
has had a different set of ideologies over time. When the military came to
power in 1962 the economy was then in the hands of foreigners and socialism
was the natural way to get the Burmese back into control of the country. There
was a parallel development in
Tanzania
. Then there was an odd combination of Buddhism and Marxism; the focus was
then the Burmese Socialist Party. It was rigidly socialist. All of that failed
and now the Burmese military has created itself as the ideology holding the
country together. If one read the Burmese language press, one will get the
feeling that the military is now calling itself the cohesive intellectual and
ideological focus of that society. And it is rewriting history to demonstrate
that this is true. It believes that civilians have been corrupt, incompetent,
and should in no way control society any longer. It believes that the role of
economic development in the private sector is to enable the government to
continue its control. There is nothing inherent in the private sector or in a
liberal market economy of value in itself. It is a means for the military to
retain power. It very strongly feels the threat of retribution if it
relinquishes power-the Pinochet syndrome. The military feels the threat of
losing the perquisites of power from which it now benefits.
Ethnic
Nationalities
The
ambiguity in the date for the resumption of National Convention deliberations,
so trumpeted by the Junta, is symptomatic of the confusion the process has
generated abroad, where the demand for hard information and precise dates is
heard. The insistence on clarity is, of course, a political weapon used by
those excluded from the constitutional drafting process inside and outside the
country. The "Divide and Rule"
policy over the ethnic nationalities has been successful as some of them enter
ceasefire with the Burmese army while other continues to fight.
The
Ethnic Nationalities became the main criteria of eventually establishing a
civilian administration, following years of military rule is simply that if
the convention should fail and no agreements are reached, the prospect of
renewed armed conflict cannot be excluded. There is thus a lot at stake for
the people of the country, as well as to the ethnic nationalities. It is known
that the 28-armed groups have put forward 18 separate papers on aspects of
power sharing between their regions and the central government. But most of
the ethnic delegates are more experienced guerilla fighters than
constitutional lawyers and of course many of them did not reflect the people's
wishes. However, they are still under the umbrella of ENSCC and some main
ethnics such as the Karen, Shan and Chin are still fighting the military
government.
While
the West and the Burmese Diaspora insist that Daw Suu and
the NLD must be a part and parcel of the that
the convention, the ceasefire ethnic nationalities at the convention see the
crucial question as being how they will share constitutional authority with
the armed forces, hence, to the ethnic leaders, the offer of - 25 per cent of
the seats in any future legislature to be held by the armed forces, and other
measures to protect the autonomy of the armed forces as well as its concerns
for the integrity of the state - is a deal worth doing, at least as the next
step in Burma's journey to constitutional government. For them half a loaf is
better than none. In addition
Burma
's neighbors have a stake in the outcome for stability in the country's border
areas is critical for the security of the wider region. As long as the threat
of the break-up of the Union of Burma is posed by potential insurgency, many
people inside and outside the country will concede the need for a strong,
authoritarian government.
On
the other hand the NLD believe the military is out to destroy them, and wants
to split Aung San Suu Kyi from the National League from Democracy. Not
surprisingly, the National League for Democracy calls for continued sanctions,
but not now on all humanitarian assistance, as long as the SPDC organizations
do not benefit. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi since then has modified her position on
humanitarian assistance. The League has responded to the military by creating
a set of confrontations with the military to gain support. All this created
very strong international and national support for the NLD. The economy is
very weak but unlikely to collapse. The NLD is sustained by international
support; but the more international support it gets, the more it is accused of
being the axe-handle of foreign imperialists out to destroy the country.
Hence
this was the backdrop of the current Burmese scene. By the end of this year
there is every possibility that the rubber stamp National Convention will be
completed and if successful the pro democracy forces led by NLD will be
acutely marginalized. The dictatorship of the Burmese army will become
legitimate government and will have more teeth and force.
Federal
Democratic Republic
The
American devotion to democracy is one of our greatest (if most intangible)
assets in world affairs. This is only one respect in which the commitment to
promote democracy abroad has real political and strategic -- not just moral,
idealistic -- ramifications. Freedom will not be completely secure anywhere in
the world so long as it quashed or threatened in any part of it.
Burma
, a remote country in
Southeast Asia
is struggling for democracy and federalism. This is truer today, in a
shrinking world, than ever before. But it has always been the case that
despots and tyrannies have seen democracies as a threat to their own
hegemonies of power, and have tried to undermine them. As long as there are
military and ideological challengers to
free states
, democracy will not be completely secure.
A
more democratic world will be a safer, saner, more prosperous, receptive, and
friendly world for Americans. Democratic countries do not go to war with one
another. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not
build weapons of mass destruction to use on or threaten one another. So what
kind of
Burma
do the Americans want?
Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partners
with one another. They offer in the long run better and more stable climates
for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must
answer to their own citizens who organize to protest the destruction of their
environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties, because
they value legal obligations, and because their openness makes it much more
difficult to breach them in secret. Precisely because within their own borders
they respect competition, civil liberties, rights of property, and the rule of
law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which we can build a new
system of international security and prosperity. We want our beloved country
Burma
to be in that category.
By
the same token, the absence of pressure can be taken as a sign of tacit
support from which an authoritarian regime may draw strength and this is what
the Junta's apologist are striving for. Americans take pride in being
democratic and believe it is the best form of government. And they know that a
world free of corrupt, abusive, cynical, and unpredictable dictatorships will
not only be a better and more decent world, but also a safer one.
Even
those who do not want or admire democracy may reconcile themselves to it if
they believe there is no other way to remain in power, or to increase the
international standing of their country. It is by now widely accepted that the
democratic requirement for membership in the EEC was "an important
incentive for the consolidation of democratic processes in the Iberian
Peninsula,"
Greece
, and now
Turkey
. Some African regimes are liberalizing now not only because of indigenous
pressures but because they rightly perceive the climate of international
opinion. This kind of pressure should be maintained formalized and escalated
in the case of
Burma
. All aids, with the exception of emergency humanitarian aid, should be
conditioned on respect for human rights and movement towards democracy.
Implementing
stringent sanctions is the most effective policy in seeking political change
in
Burma
. Like many other military regimes in
Southeast Asia
’s history, power and access to riches go hand in hand. The same is true for
Burma
, except military control is even more formal. The Union of Myanmar Economic
Holdings (UMEH) and the Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC) are the two major
industrial conglomerates controlled by the military, and they have managed to
dominate many of the key economic sectors of the country. The junta’s
domination of the economy is intended to enable it to outflank any sort of
pressure to share political power. For a regime whose power is based on the
repression of human rights and political aspirations of the people, economic
growth and prosperity is seen as an alternative source of legitimacy. Economic
sanctions and campaigns against foreign investment in
Burma
have effectively prevented this strategy for political legitimacy from
succeeding in
Rangoon
.
Moreover,
sanctions create pressure against the SPDC’s base of its political power by
threatening the military leadership’s relationship with the middle and lower
level officer corps. In an army where forced conscription and child soldiers
are common, maintaining control means keeping the loyalty of the officers.
Economic sanctions reduce the size of the "economic pie" from which
the SPDC can slice pieces for its patronage networks, and creates additional
hardship for low- and mid-level military families.
Furthermore,
when the economy is weakened by sanctions, pressure grows on the Burmese army
to rely increasingly on seizures of land and property, and forced labor
projects—mostly agricultural—to supplement the incomes of officers.
Economic repression in these areas creates additional popular resentment
against the military, and builds support for political change. The dearth of
foreign investors also has a psychological effect that strikes at the Burmese
army's perception of self as highly competent managers of national affairs,
creating further pressure for change from the general populace and,
potentially, from within the military.
Sanctions
have forced the Western Companies to force out and the Junta reliance on the
Chinese firms is increased. Rather than a negative, this trend should be
viewed as positive, since it serves to increase resentment of the general
populace, as well as nationalistic Burma Army officers, against the leadership
of the SPDC that is making policy. Steinberg points this out, when he says,
"If the Burmese perceive that Chinese control is too great, they may take
out their anger against their own government…" If Chinese economic
investments are threatened, and international opinion continues to move
strongly against the SPDC, it cannot be discounted that behind-the-scenes
Chinese government pressure may be forthcoming to improve political conditions
as a way to defuse building anti-Chinese pressure.
Extension
of economic sanctions also provides critical bargaining leverage to internal
Burmese democrats, led by the NLD. In a bargaining situation where the NLD has
only principles and popular support (one which is ignored by the regime, and
the second which cannot be mobilized without casualties), the power to reduce
the burden of international sanctions is a significant bargaining chip. Most
observers agree that Aung San Suu Kyi’s words matter greatly in Western
capitals, and influence North American and European policy toward
Burma
.
Global
Village
Burmese
people has hope that the UN would one day act to end their sufferings under
the repressive military regime in Rangoon has proved to be wrong, even though
it is heartening to hear the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's opening speech
at UN Summit in New York when he comment that “ Burma
is a country where political freedoms continue to be unacceptably restricted.”
But the Security Council did not even mention
Burma
. Now the honest has fallen on the
US
.
As
the world shrinks and international exchanges intensify, "Freedom"
will not be completely secure anywhere in the world, so long as it quashed or
threatened in any part of it and in this aspect
Burma
is a major threat to the world. But it has always been the case that despots
and tyrannies have seen democracies as a threat to their own hegemonies of
power, and have tried to undermine them. As long as there are military and
ideological challengers to
free states
, democracy will not be completely secure. A more democratic world will be a
safer, saner, more prosperous, receptive, and friendly world for Americans.
The world will not be safe where
most people are getting poorer and persecuted poverty further exacerbated by
global warming and global trade alike. The democracy movement of
Burma
both inside and outside the country today is still weak, fragmented and
overburdened.
Hurricane
Katrina has amply demonstrated that we are in one world no matter whether one
is big or small a minor or a super power. In a remarkable role reversal, some
of the world's poorest developing nations are offering help.
El Salvador
offered to send soldiers to help restore order, and offers of aid have come
from
Bosnia
, Kosovo and
Belarus
. The former Soviet
republic
of
Georgia
has donated $50,000 to the Red Cross, and beleaguered
Sri Lanka
, which has received $133 million in tsunami relief from the
United States
, has donated $25,000 to the Red Cross and even North Korean express their
sympathy. The leaders of
Cuba
and
Venezuela
, both at odds with the
United States
, pledged support. Cuban President Fidel Castro offered to send 1,100 doctors,
each carrying emergency medical supplies amounting to tons of relief aid.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez offered to send fuel, humanitarian aid and
relief workers to the disaster area. French President Jacques Chirac, one of
Europe
's most outspoken critics of Bush, dispatched a handwritten note to the White
House expressing his "deep distress." French, Italian, German,
Russian and Chinese officials have offered millions of dollars in aid. All
these demonstrate that there is love.
In
the case of
Burma
, US can do a lot other than half-hearted sanctions (allowing the American Oil
Companies to work in
Burma
). The
U.S.
must develop a proactive policy to deal comprehensively on
Burma
. The
U.S.
needs to expand efforts to de-legitimize the Burmese Junta internationally and
must work with allies to apply economic and political pressure on the junta.
The
U.S.
should support stronger action at the United Nations as expelling them from
the UN or taking the problem to the Security Council. It should toughened
multilateral sanctions, in concert with the ILO and call for governments to
critically review their relationships with
Rangoon
. Given the flood of heroin entering the
US
from
Burma
, the administration should invoke a national security exemption (citing the
Government Procurement Agreement) with regard to the World Trade Organization
to fend off future attempts to overturn selective purchasing laws. Grassroots
activists will certainly continue a concerted campaign of trade-related
tactics to target US, European, and Asian companies invested in
Burma
, and the
US
government should not put obstacles in their way, based on misguided appeals
to free trade.
One
of the first steps the
US
should take is to increase resources for cross-border humanitarian assistance
(food and medicine) to the internally displaced population while marshalling
greater international attention to the plight of the ethnic peoples of
Burma
.
Washington
should also proactively work with the Royal Thai government to broaden its
definition of a refugee, allow Shan camps to be established, and ensure that
no involuntary repatriations occur.
US
policy correctly urges a tripartite dialogue between equals—the Junta the
NLD, and ethnic leaders. As Daw Aung San Suu Kyi wrote that dialogue should be
aimed at achieving a “negotiated
settlement acceptable to major political forces in our country".
The main issue for
U.S.
foreign policy towards
Burma
is to use more forceful political economic and military leverage to accomplish
a sustained dialogue leading to a just settlement. In this aspect it is to be
noted that the Junta will never negotiate unless from the position of
strength. So the US must strengthen the ethno-democratic forces in several
ways including showering resources to the multi ethnic unified forces to stand
up to the onslaught of the Burmese army. Daw Suu has amply said that the
question of sanctions could be easily thrashes out once the NLD and the Junta
sits down and talks but the Junta refused. Hence to bring these men in
uniforms to the negotiation table the ethno-democratic forces needs a certain
amount of leverage and a fang to show that it can bite.
Other
than the moral aspect the NLD inside
Burma
cannot do much because of the severe restrictions. The choice is now on the
peripherals and the Burmese Diaspora. In the meantime the EN groups has grown
and it seems that soon they will be in a position to take the initiative as
they infuse more intelligentsia community into it. It is still to be seen of
how they will co-operate with the numerous
Burma
groups.
The
US
must spend more, to assist new and struggling democracies and to support the
development of democratic institutions in government, politics, and society.
All three forms of aid for democracy -- development assistance, political
assistance, and short-term economic relief -- are urgently needed in the
struggling countries and
Burma
is not the exception. All require higher levels of funding than this country
has been willing to commit in recent years. Hurricane Katrina has amply
demonstrated, not only the sufferings of an average Burmese but also by the
international response to the tragedy of a superpower, which we are all in the
global village. We as human beings are bound by the strings of love, for after
all "Love is a Many Splendour Thing" With not so much effort it is
high time for the American to show love to the persecuted people of Burma and
lead the international community to a more holistic life.
Vancouver
