An Anniversary Written in Blood

By THE IRRAWADDY
On the third anniversary of the violent suppression of the “Saffron Revolution,” the international community should consider taking immediate concerted and focused actions to secure the human rights, dignity and future of Burma's 54 million people.

China Should Break its Silence on Suu Kyi

By THE IRRAWADDY

The removal of Aung San Suu Kyi from her home to Rangoon’s infamous Insein Prison and her trial before a secret court have sparked international outrage and condemnation, shared by world leaders, Nobel Prize winners and prominent personalities.

Two governments have remained significantly silent, however—those of Burma’s two giant neighbors, China and India.

The reasons for their silence aren’t difficult to discern.

Both countries exploit Burma’s natural resources and are major trading partners. China, in particular, profits from lively arms sales to the pariah regime.

China makes no secret of its strong ties with Burma. New Delhi, on the other hand, is a pathetic hypocrite, changing its policy from support for Suu Kyi to one of subservience to Burma’s ruling generals. India has descended a long and ignoble decline since presenting Suu Kyi with its coveted Jawaharlal Nehru Award.

It’s sad indeed to see one of the world’s largest democracies—whose commitment to democracy has just been proved in a general election—kowtowing to the bullies of Naypyidaw.

China’s stance on Burma is, by comparison, at least intriguing.

At the time of the September 2007 demonstrations, when monks and other protesters were gunned down in the streets of Rangoon, China told Burma to exercise restraint. Beijing urged the junta to restore order quickly and to address the domestic tensions that caused the unrest.

Although the regime ignored the appeals from Beijing, China remained on friendly terms with Naypidaw and used its UN veto to block a Security Council resolution on Burma in 2007.

Beijing is not blind, however, to Burma’s ongoing problems. Chinese analysts and officials have been meeting exiled Burmese and making assessments on Burma. They have suggested that Beijing is wary of political development in Burma.

China has also told the Burmese regime that it doesn’t share Naypyidaw’s description of Suu Kyi as a tool of the West, and has indicated strongly that it wants to see national reconciliation in Burma.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi visited Burma in December, he urged junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe to respect the UN’s request for an inclusive political process in Burma, and he reportedly mentioned political prisoners, including Suu Kyi.

Informed sources in Naypyidaw suggested that Than Shwe looked unhappy, while briefing his Chinese visitor on the state of the country, including its political and economic development and reconstruction work in the cyclone-hit Irrawaddy delta.

It is sad that Burmese leaders have found in China a convenient shield to hide behind whenever they face international outrage and condemnation. Again, the silence emanating from Beijing only sent a wrong signal to Than Shwe.

As in September 2007, Beijing should speak out. But this time it should exercise its political influence not only on Burma but also on the region as a whole to press for the release of Suu Kyi and the other political prisoners.

Such a move by China would be warmly welcomed by oppressed Burmese and the exiled community. It shouldn’t be forgotten that they also want to regard China as a friend.

Wanted: Surin Pitsuwan

By THE IRRAWADDY

Since the arrest and detention of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi last week, regional newspapers have published front page stories on Burma and the detention of Suu Kyi. A few Asean-member countries have also spoke out against the politically motivated and unjust detention of Suu Kyi and her companions.

But the question is: where is Surin Pitsuwan, head of Asean?

As head of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and a former foreign minister of Thailand, Surin was a ray of hope in the region, known for being media friendly, outspoken and an open and democratic-minded person. Surin’s appointment injected a new wave of optimism in the region and beyond.

He recently gained deserved kudos for his active engagement in helping Burma when the country faced a serious humanitarian disaster in May 2008. After visiting the cyclone-hit delta, he declared, "We are being baptized by Cyclone Nargis."

Indeed, Surin is no stranger to Burma. He has many admirers in Burma for his outspokenness against the military dictators in Burma when he was foreign minister of Thailand under Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai.

At this sad moment in Burma’s history, wouldn’t it be proper for Surin and Asean to forcefully and clearly speak out on human rights principles by condemning Burma in the strongest possible language?

Is Surin afraid of making enemies among the generals in Naypyidaw? We hope not.

A group of the world’s Nobel Peace Prize winners recently appealed directly to Surin for help and leadership, in a letter on May 14 signed by Desmond Tutu, Jody Williams, Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Adolfo Perez Esquivel Wangari Mathaai, Shirin Ebadi, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan Maguire.

They urged him to take action against the false imprisonment of their fellow Nobel laureate, Suu Kyi.

“It is time for Asean and the international community to join in voicing their outrage for this horrible injustice,” the letter said. “We urgently express our views to you and implore you to do everything in your power to free this internationally champion of nonviolence, human rights and democracy.”

Surin, we call on you to stand up for justice in Burma and to make Asean relevant in human rights. As of now, it is nothing more than a toothless tiger taking in circles.

Asean, UN: Silent Partners in Crime?

By THE IRRAWADDY

Aung San Suu Kyi, now under arrest in Insein Prison in Rangoon, will face politically motivated charges against her, her personal physician and two caretakers in her home in a special prison court on Monday.

Suu Kyi, 63, and her two female caretakers were arrested at her lakeside home on Thursday, following an American citizen’s overnight intrusion into her home last week.

Suu Kyi and four others involved in the bizarre incident will be tried for violating Burma’s security laws.

Her personal physician was arrested last week, along with the American intruder, John William Yettaw, 53.

Early last week, the US government urged the Burmese government to grant the country’s ailing Nobel Peace Prize laureate immediate access to proper medical care, since she was ill last week.

America and the European Union have made urgent calls for Suu Kyi’s release from house arrest and have asked the regime to give her proper medical care.

But such calls are falling on deaf ears. The authorities have charged her and the others, and Suu Kyi will likely be kept under house arrest or in prison for many years to come.

This is a dark moment for democracy in Burma. Shamelessly, there has been a lack of proper expressions of outrage by many governments in Asia, especially members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Likewise at this provocative moment, the United Nations must take more aggressive actions against Burma’s repressive rulers.

Where is the UN’s special Burma envoy Ibrahim Gambari, who should be leading a forceful UN charge to counter the military regime’s manipulation of these unfortunate events that have led to the charges against Suu Kyi, which could lead to a maximum of five years in prison?

Where is Surin Pitsuwan, Asean’s leader? As a former foreign minister of Thailand, he often criticized the junta’s abysmal human rights record. Now Asean has a human rights charter. Wouldn’t it be proper for Asean to exercise its human rights principles at this sad moment in Burma’s history by clearly and forcefully condemning Burma in the strongest possible language?

Where is Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, who has said Thailand would have “an ethical foreign policy”?

Suu Kyi will be standing in a kangaroo court on Monday. The generals have acted with impunity, knowing that previous protests against their abuses and acts of negligence have quickly faded away.

All nations should speak out now—with force. Silence and mild expressions of concern only send a signal of business as usual to the autocratic rulers of Burma.

A Nation in Need

By THE IRRAWADDY

A year ago, when deadly Cyclone Nargis slammed into Burma, the country was ill-prepared. The official death toll was at least 140,000, but some observers now say that it was even higher. We may never know the true figure, however, because the reclusive regime that at first refused to allow aid to flow freely into the cyclone-affected Irrawaddy delta has no desire for a full account of the consequences of their incompetence and callousness.

The junta eventually gave a green light to something approaching a full-scale relief effort, but it continued to assert its control in a heavy-handed manner. Military authorities hampered the delivery of aid to the delta, and local relief workers faced harassment and arrest if they failed to play by the regime’s rules. Traumatized villagers whose homes had been destroyed were told to leave temporary shelters and get back to work in their ruined fields. And foreign warships carrying aid materials were forced to withdraw because the repressive rulers in Naypyidaw feared not only an invasion, but also the very real danger that the presence of a force stronger than the Burmese military could inspire a massive uprising.

To add insult to injury, junta-controlled newspapers carried editorials reprimanding the international community for being tightfisted with its aid. They then claimed that Burma did not need help from the rest of the world, because people in the delta could easily survive on fish and frogs from nearby rivers.

The survivors of Cyclone Nargis have indeed been extremely resilient in the face of their tribulations. But it would be unspeakably cruel to use this as an excuse to deny them the assistance they so desperately need. They have lost family members, homes and livelihoods. The recovery process has been achingly slow, with recent data showing that some 500,000 people still have no permanent place to live, 200,000 have no access to fresh water and 350,000 are receiving food aid from the World Food Program.

Infrastructure—everything from schools, monasteries and churches to clinics, bridges and jetties—remains in ruins because there is not enough money to cover rebuilding costs.

The aid money is not forthcoming because of reports of extortion, misappropriation of aid and corruption in the initial stages of the relief effort and because of the regime’s horrific human rights record. The lack of accountability and transparency continues to plague pleas for more aid. According to a new recovery plan, the delta will need US $690 million in aid over the next three years, although aid groups say that it is unlikely they will be able to raise that much money.

One problem, say NGOs working inside Burma, is that some exiled Burmese groups have been lobbying against further funding for the delta. But the exiled groups deny that they are opposed to more aid; what they want, they say, are greater transparency and guarantees of accountability to ensure that aid is being used effectively and appropriately.

Foreign aid workers insist that the regime has not unduly interfered in their mission of helping the people of the delta to rebuild their lives. However, while we can readily acknowledge the value of the contributions that many NGOs inside Burma have made, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the junta remains intent on limiting their influence. International NGOs can and should continue to provide assistance; but they must also seek to expand the country’s exceedingly narrow humanitarian space, rather than merely working within the confines of what the junta considers acceptable.

Ultimately, it will be up to donor countries to decide how much they want to help the people of Burma, and how far they can trust the country’s rulers. We can only urge them to provide as much aid as possible for those in need, while advising an equal abundance of caution in dealing with the regime.

Finally, we should add that while the immediate humanitarian requirements of people in the delta are of the utmost importance, the debate over aid should not obscure the need to address Burma’s longstanding human rights issues and political impasse. After all, the regime’s disastrous response to Cyclone Nargis was not just an unfortunate mishap, but a manifestation of what happens when rulers are allowed to ride roughshod over the lives and rights of citizens for decades.

Clinton Should Speak Out on Burma

By THE IRRAWADDY

It is welcome news that Hillary Clinton has chosen Asia for her maiden voyage as US secretary of state. There is no doubt that the time is ripe for the US to refocus on Asia and talk candidly about the hot issues in the region.

She will visit four countries in Asia—Japan, South Korea, China and Indonesia. This is a departure from a previous administration that was preoccupied with Iraq, Afghanistan and its disastrous “War on Terror.”

“Clinton's decision to go to Asia for her first overseas trip underscores the growing geopolitical significance of the region and a strong desire to rebalance American engagement,” wrote Nirav Patel, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

To North Korea, Clinton has offered a peace treaty and asked the Communist regime to eliminate its nuclear program in exchange for aid and normalized relations with Washington.

On China, she said that she won’t shy away from voicing her concerns about human rights.

As we are all familiar with the fact that for more than 20 years Beijing has played a leading role in preserving the military junta and its repressive regime in Burma, we hope that Mrs Clinton finds a voice of concern for the people of Burma as well.

Clinton hasn’t spoken out on the Burma issue yet. However, it was recently reported that President Barack Obama, in a phone conversation with Chinese President Hu Jintao, outlined broad areas for international cooperation, including the world economy, climate change, Iran and non-proliferation, Darfur, North Korea and Burma.

A signal has been made that the US, after entrenching itself in the Middle East for years, will turn its eyes to the peaceful and quiet rise of China.

“On a more straightforward strategic level, because Southeast Asia has become an area of intensive Chinese commercial expansion, the best way for the new administration to subtly and responsibly counter China’s growing influence is by regularly visiting this region, which Indonesia dominates geographically in a maritime sense,” Robert Kaplan wrote in the Atlantic.

“Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and the other countries of the region all quietly appreciate America’s military and diplomatic presence, for it serves as a power buffer against China, while in no way threatening their own sovereignty, since the United States has no territorial claims here,” he added.

Analysts noted that the Bush strategy was to leverage Japan and India militarily and diplomatically against a rising China, even as it sought good relations with Beijing. The Obama team will more than likely apply the same pressure. But, as Kaplan wrote: “The difference will be in the energy applied to the task. ‘Half of life is showing up,’ as the cliché goes, and Secretary Clinton has signaled with her first trip that she plans to show up often in Asia.”

It is also vitally important that Clinton visits and addresses Indonesia. Not only because Indonesia represents a bridge toward the Muslim world, but because it is a leading member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean).

In a few weeks, Thailand will host its delayed Asean summit. It is essential that the US pass on a strong message the regional body take stronger action on Burma’s military dictators.

The US have already committed themselves by announcing the appointment of an envoy to Burma; now they must spell out their policy.

Clinton also has an opportunity while visiting Indonesia to address the issue of the Rohingya, as several boatpeople have landed or have washed up on Indonesian shores in recent weeks.

Over all, she should call for the regional powers to play a key united role in facilitating genuine transition in Burma.

The current head of Asean, Surin Pitsuwan, has become deeply involved in Burma since deadly Cyclone Nargis slammed the Irrawaddy delta last May. However, he appears shy to mention the arrest of aid workers and the ongoing crackdown in Burma.

Clinton should encourage Asean to engage more on Burma to influence political change, as well as helping the US’s targeted sanctions be more effective.

After the “Saffron Revolution,” the Bush administration further tightened sanctions on Burma’s generals and their cronies. However, it is highly assumed that the targeted individuals are able to hide their money by spreading it around banks in the region—most notably in Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan and China.

On a political and humanitarian level, Clinton has a duty to raise the issue of political prisoners in Burma, including the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and other prominent activists. She should tie in the issue of human rights with the democratization process, spelling out US expectations for the 2010 elections as well as for humanitarian aid in Burma.

As with North Korea, the US has an opportunity to set fresh conditions for normalizing ties with the regime.

Whatever Clinton says or fails to say about Burma while she’s in Asia will be carefully noted by the junta in Naypyidaw. We’ll keep our fingers crossed that the new US policy on Burma does not play into the hands of the regime.

The UN Has Failed Burma Again

By THE IRRAWADDY

Last week, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was briefed by his special envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, on the outcome of his latest visit to the country, which ended ten days ago. Ban said nothing of substance about what the trip accomplished, but through a spokesperson, reiterated a familiar diplomatic refrain: “I would again call on the government and opposition to resume substantive dialogue without preconditions and without further delay.”

Sadly, Ban’s statement demonstrates that his understanding of the situation in Burma has not improved at all. The conditions for a resumption of dialogue are completely absent in Burma, despite countless trips to the country by successive UN special envoys over the past two decades.

The reason that real political dialogue remains as remote as ever is that Burma’s jackbooted rulers have no interest in listening to anyone who doesn’t unconditionally accept their absolute right to hold on to power indefinitely. And yet, Ban’s statement seems to suggest that both the Burmese junta and the democratic opposition both need to do something to break the stalemate, as if they were on a level playing field. But with thousands of dissidents, including many of Burma’s leading pro-democracy activists, imprisoned or under house arrest, it is meaningless to suggest that the opposition is not doing enough to move the country forward.

If the UN’s Burma policy is premised on the fallacy that both sides are somehow equally guilty of stonewalling, it’s no wonder that its efforts to broker reconciliation talks have repeatedly ended in failure. What is the point of telling shackled opposition leaders that they must be prepared to come to the negotiating table when their jailers are calling all the shots?

Diplomatic observers suggest that Gambari’s latest visit was a non-event because it was merely intended to test the waters for his boss. The UN chief has shown an interest in returning to Burma as a follow-up to his visit last May, when he helped to persuade the junta to allow international aid workers into the country to assist in the Cyclone Nargis relief effort.

But Ban is reluctant to make another trip unless he feels it is likely to achieve something. And the Burmese regime, for its part, also seems less than enthusiastic about the prospect of meeting him again. When Snr-Gen Than Shwe, the junta’s paramount leader, met Ban in Naypyidaw last May, political issues were completely off the table—at the time, the urgent need to get aid into the cyclone-hit Irrawaddy delta trumped everything else. Now, however, there can be no excuse for not tackling Burma’s political problems head on.

Than Shwe doesn’t suffer international interference in Burma’s internal affairs lightly, so even if Ban made up his mind to return to the country, there is no guarantee that the top general would even deign to meet him. The most sensitive issue, of course, is the UN’s demands for the release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi. Ironically, however, it is widely believed that Than Shwe will release the iconic leaders of Burma’s democracy movement sometime before elections slated to take place next year. But he is not about to make such a move—intended to lend the far-from-free elections an air of legitimacy—before it makes good tactical sense, and certainly not at the behest of a foreign leader.

The simple fact is that Than Shwe doesn’t want to be seen as giving in to the demands of the international community. He has been especially disdainful of Gambari’s feeble attempts to voice the concerns of countries appalled by the situation in Burma. He has repeatedly refused to meet the UN envoy, whose four-day visit last week—his seventh since taking on the role of special envoy in 2006—was eclipsed on the senior general’s busy schedule of ceremonial duties by his courteous reception of three new ambassadors from the friendly neighboring nations of China, Vietnam and Laos.

Meanwhile, back at the UN headquarters in New York, Ban continued to mouth the same empty words that have gotten Burma precisely nowhere, saying he “looks forward to building on the talks to re-establish democracy and the protection of human rights in Burma.”

Referring to the briefing he received from Gambari in New Delhi shortly after the latter’s visit to Burma, Ban added euphemistically: “He had good discussions there, even though one may not be totally satisfied.”

It may not be very diplomatic to say so, but these words, if stripped of their niceties and seen in the light of what was actually accomplished, can mean only one thing: Gambari has failed once again to justify his pointless mission, which has served only as an excuse to avoid real action by the UN Security Council.

Suu Kyi Issues a New Year Challenge

By THE IRRAWADDY

News reports from Rangoon suggest that Burma's detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi commemorated the country’s Independence Day alone at her house—but this time not so quietly.

Behind the locked gates of her home, where she has been under house arrest since 2003, the Nobel Peace Prize winner played old songs, popular in the pre-independence era, according to members of her election-winning party, the National League for Democracy (NLD).

Suu Kyi has also put up a new red banner, which can be viewed from the street, with words in yellow quoting her father, independence hero Gen Aung San: “Act decisively in the interest of the nation and the people.”

Rumors are coursing through Rangoon and the diplomatic community suggesting that Suu Kyi could be released this year. If she is freed, the big question remains: who is going to ensure her safety ahead of the election in 2010?

There’s profound concern that she would again become the target of the anger of the regime and its thugs. Some Western diplomats are talking about the possibility of a “gradual freedom” for Suu Kyi in order to guarantee her safety.

Speaking to The Irrawaddy on Monday, Suu Kyi’s lawyer, Kyi Win, said Burmese authorities still have not replied to his request to meet with the detained opposition leader to discuss her appeal against her continued detention. Suu Kyi’s personal doctor, Tin Myo Win, was allowed to visit her on January 1, and he reported that she was in good health.

Two days before the doctor’s visit, nine NLD members were arrested when they staged a protest in Rangoon calling for her release. Repeated calls by world leaders and the international community for her release continue to fall on the deaf ears of the regime.

Burma entered a new year with bleak prospects for the future. In an Independence Day message, NLD Chairman Aung Shwe said candidly: “Hope for the present and future of the country is totally lacking.” Many Burmese will agree with his assessment.

Aung Shwe’s pessimism was, of course, countered by an upbeat message from junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe, who urged people to “cooperate in realizing the state's seven-step Road Map with union spirit and patriotic spirit with the firm resolution to build up a peaceful, modern and developed democratic nation with flourishing discipline”.

Than Shwe repeated his old refrain of accusing “neo-colonialists”—usually a reference to the West—of interfering in Burma's affairs.

“The entire people are duty-bound to safeguard the motherland...while keeping a watchful eye on attempts of neo-colonialists to harm the sovereignty of the country,” he said.

Than Shwe failed to appear at the Independence Day state dinner usually hosted by him and his wife, although he was seen in the cyclone-hit Irrawaddy delta a few weeks ago and gave a speech at the Defense Services Academy in Maymyo in December.

Observers ask: Was he sick or perhaps suffering from fatigue after his travels? Or is he just depressed at seeing so little support for his “road map?”

Whatever the cause of Than Shwe’s absence from the dinner table, the less he is seen on the political stage, the better for the country. A younger generation of army leaders should be taking over progressively more of his duties and undertaking work for genuine reconciliation.

Despite the discouragement that Burmese people must feel, they should not lose faith in seeing a new democratic and prosperous Burma.

On the eve of Burma's Independence Day, the US State Department wished the Burmese people well on the 61st anniversary of their independence from British rule.

“We wish to express our warmest wishes to the people of Burma on this occasion,” said a brief State Department statement. “As we reflect on Burma's independence struggle, led by Gen Aung San, we are reminded of our own history.”

The statement said the US stands with the Burmese people in honoring Aung San's vision of an independent, peaceful and democratic Burma.

It said the US also looks forward to the day when Burma's citizens will be able to enjoy the fruits of freedom and democracy. “We earnestly hope that day will come soon,” the statement said.

In reality, it is depressing to look at Burma’s political situation, and few would argue with Aung Shwe’s sober assessment.

Nevertheless, news of Suu Kyi playing old music and putting up a new banner at her home raised some hope. The message “Act decisively in the interest of the nation and the people” has a definite meaning for many Burmese, and can be interpreted as a call to the leadership and members of the NLD.

Critics lament that over the past 20 years, NLD leaders have failed to act decisively to seize and exploit political opportunities as they present themselves.

Even during the “Saffron Revolution” of 2007, some critics said NLD leaders lagged behind the mass uprising when monks and activists bravely took to the streets. Now they sit and watch from the sidelines as Than Shwe prepares to implement his “road map” to “disciplined democracy.”

Although the year 2009 begins with depressing news, Suu Kyi’s new banner demanding decisive action in the interests of the nation poses a challenge to all Burmese, including members of the armed forces—and also to world leaders and the entire international community.

UN’s ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ Won’t Work in Burma

By THE IRRAWADDY

This year we saw many twist and turns and ups and downs in Burma—but the tragedy of Burma seems to have no end in sight.

Early this year, the regime surprised the world by announcing that it would go ahead with a constitutional referendum implementing part of its seven point road map to prolong military rule. UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari accepted the proposal, while pushing for an independent monitoring body—but without considering the opposition parties’ stand, let alone the opinion of most people of Burma, who want to see regime change.

Political issues were swept away by the deadly cyclone that slammed into lower Burma in May, killing more than 100,000 people and making millions homeless.

The international community responded to the disaster with sympathy and offers of material aid. The US, Britain and France sent warships to the area, loaded with food, medicines and other supplies. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon toured the cyclone-flattened region and met leaders of the military government, urging them to allow more aid into Burma.

Not surprisingly, the junta opened the door slightly to aid agencies after dragging its heels on the dispatch of emergency relief to the cyclone victims.

At the same time, the regime went ahead with its sham referendum, claiming 92 percent approval for its proposed constitution.

Then, to the surprise of many, the regime launched its “shock and awe” strategy, handing out heavy prison sentences to prominent opposition leaders and humanitarian workers and sending them separately to remote prisons.

Now it is shocking to learn that Gambari has suggested that governments should offer Burma financial incentives to free its political prisoners, estimated to number more than 2,000—including Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi—and to initiate democratic change.

The Nigerian diplomat must be insane to think that the corrupt generals who terrorized the whole nation can be bribed into compromise.

The influential Washington Post has reported: “In the months ahead, the UN leadership will press the Obama administration to relax US policy on Burma and to open the door to a return of international financial institutions, including the World Bank.”

Several years ago, when the World Bank offered the Burmese regime US $1 billion in return for political reform, it was told, in effect: “Don’t give us bananas, we are not monkeys.”

Minutes of a meeting between Gambari and a UN Burma team led by Ambassador Kyaw Tint Swe—obtained by The Irrawaddy—seem to suggest that Gambari, a citizen of one of Africa’s failed states, is giving advice to some officials from a failed state of Southeast Asia.

The Irrawaddy reported that Gambari had told the Burmese team that if there was progress towards reconciliation in Burma before the new administration took office, Washington might modify its Burma policy.

The Washington Post, in its report, quoted the Nigerian diplomat as saying: “It cannot be business as usual. We need new thinking on how to engage with Myanmar [Burma] in a way that will bring tangible results.”

The UN, he said, cannot rely simply on “the power of persuasion with too little in the [diplomatic] toolbox.”

Gambari appears to be suffering from the “Stockholm syndrome”—held captive by the deceptions of the Burmese regime, he is in danger of succumbing to them. If he thinks that the UN and the international community can bribe the regime to free political prisoners and Suu Kyi, his understanding of Burma is indeed questionable. It clearly shows that the UN envoy is out of juice.

More dangerously, Gambari—snubbed by the regime and opposition leaders alike—appears to be deluded.

It cannot be business as usual to allow the UN and Gambari to work as normal on Burma. The UN’s engagement with the regime must be strictly monitored to ensure that it is transparent and accountable.

The Burmese generals must be laughing at Gambari and his proposal. The country’s political prisoners, however, have nothing to laugh about. They will be asking whether a more effective and better informed UN special envoy cannot be appointed.

Persuasion and bribes won’t move the captors of more than 2,000 innocent people.

No Time Like the Present

By THE IRRAWADDY

In May, when news of American warships near Burma’s shores reached survivors of Cyclone Nargis, they were immediately cheered by the possibility of humanitarian intervention. Abandoned by the Burmese regime and struggling to feed themselves, they could do little else but hope for deliveries of food and medicine from foreign troops.

In the end, they were disappointed to learn that the warships had left without coming to their assistance. Once again, the tantalizing fantasy of a sudden, dramatic collapse of tyranny in Burma vanished, leaving only lingering questions about what the international community would be willing to do to free this long-oppressed country.

Overthrowing the regime of Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his minions, who rule from their distant capital of Naypyidaw, could be accomplished in a matter of hours. Then opposition and ethnic leaders, including those who are now serving long prison sentences, could step in to form a caretaker government during a transition period that would last just a few months before elections could be held.

Unlike Iraq, Burma would not require a protracted occupation or a costly commitment to nation-building. Billions of dollars might need to be pumped into the country at first, but probably no more than what the US now spends in a single month to keep Iraq from imploding. It would be a small price to pay to see a tyrant removed from power and a free Burma reborn.

US President George W Bush, who met with exiled activists in Bangkok in August, has offered his symbolic support for the cause of democracy in Burma, but many wonder if there isn’t more he could do to help the Burmese people achieve their dream of freedom.

Unfortunately, Burma’s fate is still in the hands of Than Shwe, the man who refused to speak with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for weeks after Cyclone Nargis struck on May 2-3.

Ban, who eventually received an audience with the recalcitrant general, was careful not to raise political issues during his visit in late May. He merely appealed to Than Shwe to allow humanitarian aid workers into the country. Of course, the fate of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, who at that time was just coming to the end of her fifth year under house arrest, was completely off the agenda.

After Ban’s visit, many Burmese bitterly joked that the UN had once again saved the day—for the regime.

For Than Shwe, the visit only served to send a clear message that he remains firmly in control. In the months since Ban’s departure from Burma, the aging general has pursued his political agenda of forcing the country to accept his vision of a “disciplined democracy” with renewed vigor.

While the UN continues to demand the release of more than 2,000 political prisoners, the junta has added hundreds more to their ranks. This outrage prompted 112 former world leaders, including former US presidents Jimmy Carter and George H W Bush, former British prime ministers Tony Blair, John Major and Margaret Thatcher, and former Japanese PM Junichiro Koizumi, to call on the UN chief to return to Burma.

In a petition organized by Norway’s ex-prime minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, they urged Ban to meet with Burmese leaders to push for the release of detained activists and politicians. Even if a return trip was not possible, they said, he should “make it clear that all political prisoners in Burma must be released by the end of this year.”

Ban’s response was disappointing for Burma watchers, and devastating for the country’s political prisoners. He said that he would not visit because it would be futile to do so at this time. In other words, he conceded defeat—although all he would admit to was feeling “frustrated” by the lack of progress.

On December 5, soon after a meeting of the Group of Friends of the Secretary-General on Burma, Ban tried to put a positive spin on the latest chapter in the UN’s never-ending saga of failure in the Southeast Asian country.

Speaking to reporters, he said: “The Government of Myanmar [Burma] has officially declared that cooperation with the United Nations is a cornerstone of their foreign policy. We welcome it and we look forward to continue, and expect a concrete action by them to implement their commitment.”

It is, of course, impossible to believe anything the junta says about its willingness to “cooperate”—this is, after all, a regime that has lied repeatedly to the people of Burma and to the international community. But Ban seemed to accept it, if only because it absolved him of his duty to take more decisive action.

But Ban has not ruled out the possibility of returning to Burma when the time is right.

“I am ready to visit Myanmar again, to continue our consultations on various issues—humanitarian issues, and also political issues,” he said. “At this time, I do not think that the atmosphere is ripe for me to undertake my own visit there.”

Ban fails to acknowledge, however, that it is his responsibility to create the conditions that will make the junta more receptive to his message. It makes no sense to leave the prospect of change to the initiative of a regime that has clung to power for two decades. If the UN wants to help, it must do it now—not when it is convenient.

Political Crisis in the Kingdom Won’t Benefit Anyone

By THE IRRAWADDY

What has gone wrong in the Land of Smiles? That seems to be the question on the lips of the perplexed tourists who are stranded at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport.

Even those in the know—the political observers and players—do not appear to know what’s happening. How will this political mess end? All bets are off as political chaos unfolds in Thailand.

According to Abac Poll Research Center, some 76.5 percent of the Thai population said they felt ashamed of the political turbulence and the negative perceptions that the images portrayed to foreigners.

Interestingly, in the same poll, 92.3 percent believed the political stalemate could be resolved through the justice system and 58.4 percent said they would not take sides in the standoff.

Tuesday marks the fifth day that the yellow-shirted anti-government protesters have control of the Thai capitals’ two main airports, Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang.

It’s somewhat sad, but true to say that Thailand is shooting itself in the foot.

Where are Thailand’s famous krengchai and sabai-sabai attitudes? Now all we see is street violence, grenade attacks and political backstabbing. We all miss Thailand’s sense of tolerance and compromise.

Exiled Burmese taking refuge in the kingdom often study the subtle Thai way of solving political crises and the art of negotiation. We may even have suggested that the incompetent generals in Burma should learn from Thailand on how to reconcile with the opposition.

Indeed, if there is a Burmese version of the Abac poll, it would be safe to say that many Burmese would likewise feel ashamed about their country’s ongoing political conflict. It has been going on for decades. They are not proud to play a part in a failed state. However, they are proud to say that despite the despotic rulers in the country, they will continue fighting back.

Thai-based Burmese are hoping for a quick and peaceful solution in to the standoff in Thailand. Why? Because they believe that instability in Thailand will not benefit anyone in the region.

They don’t want to see Thais killing each other and they fear the country is being torn apart by self-serving leaders. Instead of bloodshed, they want to see political progress and a genuine compromise.

We all know that Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his clique are quietly content to see Thailand knee-deep in a crisis. Now they can warn their citizens about the importance of “law and order” and the need for “disciplined democracy.” They can point at it and say to the Burmese population: “I told you so!”

Than Shwe last weekend told members of the Union Solidarity Development Association about the need for disciplined democracy and a smooth transition. The irony is Than Shwe and his cronies have engineered mob rule and hired thugs to create anarchy by attacking monks, activists and peaceful demonstrators.

Than Shwe monitors the unfolding situation in Thailand from his throne in Naypyidaw—the same place where he wined and dined former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, arguably the instigator of the entire fiasco.

But while Than Shwe wants to see dividends, the ordinary person in Burma simply wants to see Thailand restore stability and democracy through peaceful means. By doing that, it will restore its high international image.

UN, Asean Must Speak Up

By THE IRRAWADDY

Twice in little more than a year, Burma’s rulers have earned international opprobrium for crimes they have committed against innocent people.

Last September, the world was horrified to witness the regime’s ruthless crackdown on peacefully protesting monks. Then, in May of this year, the junta demonstrated its callous disregard for human life in another way—by refusing for several weeks to allow foreign aid workers to assist hundreds of thousands of people whose lives were torn apart by Cyclone Nargis.

Compared to these outrages, the generals’ latest display of contempt for fundamental human rights seems to pale into insignificance. But the recent spate of lengthy prison sentences imposed on detained activists by kangaroo courts at Rangoon’s notorious Insein Prison deserves a much stronger response than we have seen so far.

Since late last week, there has been a steady and depressing stream of news about court decisions against some of Burma’s bravest and most capable dissident leaders. Some have been given 65-year prison sentences, signaling that the junta remains as indifferent to world opinion now as it was during the outcry over the Saffron Revolution and Cyclone Nargis.

That should not be too surprising. The junta has learned that that it can ride out any storm of international criticism as long as it has the backing of powerful supporters in the United Nations Security Council and a buffer of non-confrontational neighbors who see its atrocities as little more than occasional sources of embarrassment.

But this latest development threatens to further undermine the credibility of international efforts to hold the Burmese generals accountable, at a time when both the UN and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) are still trying to portray the regime as a serious “partner” in the Nargis relief effort.

It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Nargis tragedy that it has bestowed upon the junta the very air of legitimacy that the generals have long sought. Simply by ceasing to be as obstructive as they were during the first month after the disaster, they have suddenly been elevated to the status of responsible players on the world stage.

And now, as a further, and even more perverse, irony, it seems that the generals have been emboldened by this “partnership” to believe that it entitles them to treat their opponents any way they please.

After all, the generals may reason, would the world body and a major regional grouping be willing to stand side by side in a humanitarian endeavor with a rogue regime? If the junta can’t be trusted to dispense justice to its critics, why would some of the world’s most respected organizations be so willing to embrace it on equal terms?

Of course, it is impossible to know what is going through the minds of Snr-Gen Than Shwe and other senior members of the ruling junta. But it should not be necessary to wonder what UN and Asean leaders think about the current situation and how it impacts on their relationship with the regime.

So far, however, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has issued a single pro forma statement expressing “deep concern” about the latest round of assaults on the dignity of Burma’s pro-democracy activists, while his Asean counterpart, Surin Pitsuwan, has had nothing to say about the gross miscarriages of justice being committed in Burma.

There have also been the usual obligatory statements from human rights experts attached to the UN, calling for free and fair trials, but as we have seen time and again, these carry precious little weight with the Burmese authorities.

Like it or not, it is now up to Ban and Pitsuwan to put more of the prestige of their offices on the line, or risk sending the Burmese regime the message that it has carte blanche to continue with its criminal behavior.

Is Burma Ready for Change?

By THE IRRAWADDY

Thanks to Barack Obama’s sweeping electoral victory on Tuesday, “change” has suddenly become a word that forcefully evokes the hopes of people around the world. President-elect Obama ran on a platform of change, and as the first African-American to win the US presidency, he embodies it like no other American leader before him.

Of course, change is not always seen as a positive thing. At a time when the world is already undergoing many dramatic upheavals—from seismic shifts in the global financial system to a rapidly warming planet—Obama’s message of change brings not only hope, but also a degree of concern about the uncertainties of the future.

But for the people of Burma, the need for change is something they can readily understand. Twenty years ago, they took to the streets to demand an end to decades of military misrule, and were willing to face a life-and-death confrontation with a ruthless, reactionary regime to fulfill their desire for a break with the past.

The years before the 1988 uprising had delivered only stagnation and steady decline, culminating in the almost total collapse of Burmese society. Change—which was initially thrust upon the Burmese people by circumstances beyond their control—soon became the choice of the overwhelming majority.

But in the end, change did not come to Burma in 1988, in part because in the early days of the mass movement, it was not immediately clear to the hundreds of thousands of people who had gathered in cities around the country what direction change should take.

Then Aung San Suu Kyi emerged as a spokesperson for the aspirations of ordinary people, and the way forward became more apparent. Even the regime—after first retaking control of the streets—conceded the need for elections. It was only when they lost by a landslide to Suu Kyi’s party in 1990 that they chose to defer Burma’s democratic destiny indefinitely.

Last year, after the people of Burma again fell victim to arbitrary policies that deepened their economic hardships, Buddhist monks and their supporters revived the dream of change with massive marches in Rangoon and other parts of the country.

Obama was among those who watched as these events unfolded. In a statement released on September 26, 2007, he paid tribute to the protesters, who he said demonstrated “the power of the human spirit—and the power of non-violent protest consistent with Buddhist tradition.”

A week later—as the junta continued its crackdown on the unarmed monks against the protests of the international community—Obama offered these words:

“It is easy in this age to be cynical about the power of people to bring about change. But ordinary people armed with courage and hope are not powerless; they are history’s mightiest force, even before the guns of a brutal regime. We must remain true to their cause and honor their bravery.”

These are inspiring words, and with Obama’s success in bringing change to his own country, they probably resonate more now than they did a year ago. But while the new president’s election is regarded by many as a promise of a brave new world, most Burmese will now be watching carefully to see if it will mean anything at all in their own country, where change is as elusive now as it was two decades ago.

‘Humanitarian Space’ Still on the Agenda

By THE IRRAWADDY

The Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) called this week on the international community to build on relations with Burma’s military regime in the wake of coordinated efforts made following the Cyclone Nargis disaster.

"The massive devastation caused by cyclone Nargis has prompted a period of unprecedented cooperation between the government and international humanitarian agencies to deliver emergency aid to the survivors," the ICG said in a report titled ‘Burma/Myanmar after Nargis: Time to Normalise Aid Relations.’ The report urged the international community to "seize this opportunity to reverse longstanding, counterproductive aid policies."

In the meantime, with the support of regime apologists and business circles, some so-called experts have naively come to believe that a “space” would be opened up following the 2010 election and the enactment of provisions of the constitution.

It’s still far from clear, however, whether these expectations can be met.

Instead, because of the junta’s mishandling and mismanagement, there is little hope of a dramatic increase in the amount of aid. UN and NGO assistance, for instance, will run out at the end of April 2009.

Burma's political stakeholders, including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, believe that the release of detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners is the key to an improved, all-inclusive, substantive and time-bound dialogue as a turning point in the country's political development. “There is no alternative to dialogue to ensure that all stakeholders can contribute to the future of their country,” Ban said.

It should be noted that junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe announced a referendum on a new constitution and plans for a general election in 2010 after coming under international and regional pressure because of the regime’s brutal crackdown on last September’s demonstrations.

The "humanitarian space"—or what the ICG calls "unprecedented cooperation" between the Burmese junta and the international community—opened up in the Irrawaddy delta because of international and exiled Burmese media pressure on international governments and the UN to act to save the victims of Cyclone Nargis.

In the absence of any significant achievement, the ICG called for more comprehensive engagement with the Burmese regime rather than pressure and sanctions. It furthermore called on Western governments to "lift political restrictions on aid."

The Burmese people are pawns in the hands of the junta led by Than Shwe. Burma is a closed society strictly controlled by the military authorities, and the balance of power is still heavily weighted in favor of the army. There also is still a lack of willpower within the military towards political and economic reform.

So aid sent directly to the Burmese junta must be subject to transparency and accountability. If this is not assured it would be a big insult to those Burmese who have sacrificed their entire lives for the betterment of their homeland.

Burma Stonewalls at the UN

By The Irrawaddy

At the UN General Assembly in New York on Monday, Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win tried to appease countries concerned with Burma’s political deadlock and repression of dissidents, maintaining the regime’s "roadmap to democracy" offers the best chance for a return to civilian rule.

He said nothing about freedom for political prisoners, including Burma's democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and or a willingness to talk to the political opposition, a point raised by the UN’s ad hoc "Group of Friends of Myanmar" two days earlier.

On Saturday, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly ministerial session, the group, which includes the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), the European Union, the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, called on the junta to cooperate with the UN. The Security Council has also demanded that the military regime release all political prisoners, talk with pro-democracy groups, open up the political process and end human rights abuses.

Paradoxically, the Burmese foreign minister never referred to such calls. Instead, he demanded the international community, notably the United States and EU countries, lift "unjustified" economic sanctions, which he said, "hurt the development and progress of Burma’s people."

Nyan Win noted that Burma’s constitution was approved by a national referendum in May this year—a referendum held without independent observers—and the next step on the junta's "roadmap to democracy" would take place with national elections in 2010.

Obliquely responding to the General Assembly ministers, he said only that "the international community can best assist Myanmar's [Burma’s] democratization process by respecting the will of its people."

Respecting the will of the Burmese people?

In fact, the Burmese regime has jailed nearly 2,000 political prisoners, along with the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient.
If the regime has the will to promote a genuine transition to an elected civilian government, now is the time to create the political preconditions to allow the public to participate in the process without restraint.

Included in the process would be the release of all political prisoners, including Suu Kyi and detained ethnic leaders.

Thus far, it’s clear the generals lack the will to compromise with opposition groups, most notably the National League for Democracy and its allies who swept the majority of parliamentary seats in the voided 1990 election.

For two decades, the needs of the Burmese people have gone unmet.

Now is the time for the UN, Asean and the international community to push the generals harder than ever before to open up the political, economic and social life of the country by participating in meaningful dialogue with opposition groups and ethnic leaders.

No Happy Anniversary for Than Shwe

By THE IRRAWADDY

Burmese monks and activists who took part courageously in the September 2007 uprising will have little chance to commemorate Friday’s anniversary publicly.

Since early this month, police, intelligence officers and armed soldiers have been combing the streets of Rangoon. arresting activists, monitoring the monasteries and intimidating young monks.

Many prominent activists have been rounded up in the year since September 2007.

On September 26 last year, security forces opened fire on the thousands of monks and demonstrators who had been calling for peaceful political change, freedom, economic progress and human rights.

The peaceful demonstrations, led by monks, impressed the world community, but not Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his
bloodthirsty army leaders, who finally ordered the brutal crackdown.

Dozens died, protesters were beaten and jailed, and monks were forcibly disrobed.

Today, Burma’s military rulers are determined to prevent any public commemoration of the anniversary. The events of September 2007 must be haunting Than Shwe and other military leaders.

Than Shwe made a token gesture on the eve of the anniversary, releasing a handful of political prisoners, including the prominent journalist Win Tin, who had spent the past 19 years behind bars. The regime appeared to be trying to stem domestic and international pressure ahead of the anniversary.

Unbroken by his time in prison, 79-year-old Win Tin vowed to continue to fight for political change in Burma.
“I will keep fighting until the emergence of democracy in this country,” he said, immediately after emerging from prison.

Win Tin’s release could shape the on-going political struggle, as he was considered to be close to detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and is known to command respect among Burmese people.

Win Tin didn’t ask for mercy from the regime, refusing on several occasions to renounce politics in return for his freedom.

Neither did he ask for aid money from those international donors who naively believe a “humanitarian space” has opened up in the country following the disaster of Cyclone Nargis. Win Tin knows the establishment of democracy is a priority, because he is aware that Burma’s real problem lies in the administration system and that it has to change.

He knows how the regime detained activists involved in the humanitarian mission to bring relief to cyclone victims.

He knows how Than Shwe manipulated UN missions and deceived the international community while rewarding apologists and cronies.

Win Tin’s brave message also serves as a reminder to some international NGOs, UN agencies and regime apologists who claim the existence of a “humanitarian space,” regarding it as a window of opportunity for the 2010 election.

It’s all there to read in the minutes of a briefing Home Affairs Minister Maung Oo received from Than Shwe in July, in which the UN and international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) were described as “puppets” of the US and the Central Intelligence Agency.

The “humanitarian space” argument is nonsense, as shown by the example of Africa, where much aid money has gone into propping up authoritarian regimes, compromising the whole aid industry.

In Burma, the “humanitarian space” in the Irrawaddy Delta can be closed at any time because the regime retains the sole power to do so, at any time it chooses.

Any argument that Burma’s military leaders in Burma are “misunderstood generals” is also absurd—these men are in truth cunning, manipulative and capable of waging war against their own people and their entire country.

Today, countless people in Burma and the international community are united in their solidarity with the monks and activists who took to the streets last year, showing these brave individuals that they are not forgotten.

Than Shwe and his brutal actions are also not forgotten—or forgiven. He will undoubtedly be held accountable.

He must know that, and he must also be very aware that the people of Burma and the monks will keep fighting until the emergence of democracy. September 26 is certainly not a happy day for Than Shwe.

A Day of Shame and a Day of Hope

By THE IRRAWADDY

Today, September 18, is the anniversary of two important events in Burma’s political history. The first is the bloody coup that installed the current regime in power 20 years ago, and the second is the start of last year’s uprising by Buddhist monks who took to the streets to seek a peaceful end to decades of brutal military rule.

The coincidence of these two anniversaries serves as a sad reminder of Burma’s plight as a nation struggling for survival under rulers hell-bent on holding onto power. In the 19 years that separate these two events, Burma moved not one step closer to peace and political reconciliation. It is as if the country’s history simply collapsed on this day.

As if to underline the futility of the Burmese people’s desire for freedom, this September, too, has been a month of arrests, torture, intimidation and trials that make a mockery of the law.

The streets of Rangoon are now monitored by soldiers, police and armed thugs known as Swan Arr Shin, the Masters of Force, who are constantly on the alert against any signs of potential unrest. In recent weeks, they have arrested a number of prominent activists, including Nilar Thein, a mother who has not seen her infant daughter since she was forced to go into hiding after last year’s protests. She is now in prison and at risk of torture, according to Amnesty International.

The regime has also apprehended at least 14 other activists in recent weeks. One of the detained activists is the younger brother of the prominent activist-monk U Gambira, who is also in prison for his leading role in last year’s “Saffron Revolution.”

There is also growing concern over the fate of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s most famous torchbearer for the democratic cause. For four weeks from the middle of August, she refused to accept food deliveries to her home, where she has been under house arrest for 13 of the past 19 years. This prompted fears that she had gone on a hunger strike—something she hasn’t done since 1989, when she was first refused permission to leave her home. These fears have been confirmed by reports that she is now malnourished and receiving intravenous fluid to help her recover her strength.

Despite claims that it is moving towards democracy, the Burmese regime continues to hold more than 2,000 political prisoners. And even after signing numerous ceasefire agreements with ethnic insurgent groups, forced labor, rape and mass killings are still commonplace in border regions.

Burma’s rulers have succeeded only in placing the country near the bottom of every human development index. Burma is now among the worst countries in the world in terms of poverty, education, healthcare and corruption. The result of decades of economic mismanagement has been dire: more than a third of children in Burma are malnourished, the average household spends up to 70 percent of its budget on food, and more than 30 percent of the population lives under the poverty line, according to United Nations estimates.

It is difficult to believe that Burma’s economy was once regarded as one of the strongest and most promising in the region. But now the country’s immense natural wealth serves only to enrich the junta and a handful of cronies.

The regime is quick to blame its Western critics for Burma’s precipitous economic decline, but it refuses to acknowledge that the US and the EU have imposed sanctions for a reason. Burma’s human rights record is appalling, and the junta’s refusal to engage in meaningful reconciliation talks with the democratic opposition has sent a strong signal to the West that the ruling generals have no interest in moving the country forward.

All of this has earned Burma a place among the world’s pariah states. But the junta doesn’t seem to mind that Burma now stands alongside North Korea, Zimbabwe and Sudan as a country that routinely brutalizes its own population.

Burmese people, however, are keenly aware that their country has been dragged down to this shameful state. More than anything else, the two anniversaries that we mark today show that Burma is a nation divided between those who have no shame, and those who, despite their fear and their past failures to liberate their country, still nurture some hope for the future.

Doctor WHO?

By THE IRRAWADDY

Burmese comedian Par Par Lay regularly opens his show with a favorite gag:

“Last week I went to India, because I had a toothache.”

“‘Why didn’t you just go to a dentist in your own country,’ the dentist in India asked me.”

“I told him: ‘Because in Burma, we’re not allowed to open our mouths.’”

It’s good to know that irony isn’t dead in Burma—as was the case recently when Burmese Minister for Health Dr Kyaw Myint attended a health ministers' meeting in New Delhi.

Without a trace of a smile, Kyaw Myint told delegates that the Burmese junta was initiating an anti-tobacco law to tackle the country’s health problems.

Whether his fellow ministers thought he was cracking a joke or not, we don’t know.

What we do know is that the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), Margaret Chan, met with Kyaw Myint after the Asean round and expressed her appreciation for Burma’s efforts in coping with the cyclone relief mission and the rehabilitation of the devastated regions so quickly after the storm.

Chan concluded by saying that the WHO would continue providing assistance to the Burmese regime.

Which just goes to show—no matter how transparent the irony, there’s still some poor fool who just doesn’t get the joke.

This is not the first time the WHO has praised Burma’s military rulers for their humanitarian efforts in the wake of Cyclone Nargis—the same military rulers who refused to answer their phones or allow medics and aid workers into the Irrawaddy delta while thousands of people lay dead or dying.

On September 4, WHO emergency relief coordinator Rudi Coninx told the AFP news agency that Burma’s military rulers had provided a rapid response to victims of Cyclone Nargis last May, in spite of the criticism directed at them for shunning foreign aid.

Then the WHO deputy regional director for Southeast Asia, Poonam Singh, stepped up and said that despite media reports, the junta was “actually doing quite a lot to meet the health needs of the people.”

The WHO’s outspoken praise of the Than Shwe regime has raised many eyebrows, both in Burma and abroad.

But the fact is we all know that the Burmese generals have no shortage of friends, even at the United Nations.

Many Burmese are realizing that after so many failed UN missions led by numerous envoys over the last 20 years, the world body is not part of the solution to Burma’s ongoing crisis.

So be it.

However, the health of our citizens is a concern. The well-being of political prisoners, including Nilar Thein and Aung San Suu Kyi, is of vital importance to the country.

Last week, Nilar Thein, 36, a prominent anti-regime activist, was arrested in Rangoon. It is believed that the authorities may be torturing her.

Nilar Thein had been on the run for more than a year after the military government cracked down on activists from the 88 Generation Students group.

“She is under interrogation in Aung Tha Pyay Detention Center in Yangon (Rangoon) ... and is at risk of torture and other ill-treatment,'' London-based human rights group Amnesty International reported.

Nilar Thein's husband, Kyaw Min Yu, was arrested on Aug 22 last year as a member of the “88 Generation Students” group.

Disturbingly, they have a 16-month-old daughter who has not seen her mother and father for more than a year. Her aunt and uncle now look after her.

In connection with Nilar Thein, the regime also detained and interrogated the mother of activist Arnt Bwe Kyaw, who Nilar Thein was visiting at the time of her arrest. The woman, Tin Tin Win, is in her 70s and in poor health.

The recent arrest on Nilar Thein is part of the regime’s ongoing crackdown on activists and monks who were also involved in helping cyclone victims and survivors in affected areas.

Zarganar, a comedian and activist who was actively involved in the relief mission was arrested in July. The comedian, who was also critical of the role of UN mission in the delta region, is now under detention. He is reportedly suffering from hypertension while incarcerated.

Medical care in Burmese jails is scarce. More than 100 political prisoners have died in prison since 1988.

However, the UN has totally ignored these arrests and continues to work with the regime and its apologists.

Recently, relatives of prominent monk U Gambira were arrested in Mandalay and Rangoon by security forces. U Gambira, leader of the All Burmese Monks Alliance, has, like many others, been detained for almost a year for his role in instigating public protests in September 2007.

Then we heard the news of Aung San Suu Kyi’s deteriorating health, her refusal to meet UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari, and her legal battle against the regime.

On Sunday, Suu Kyi was allowed a visit by her family doctor, Tin Myo Win, who examined her for more than four hours. Initial reports on Monday said that the detained pro-democracy leader is malnourished after having refused food supplies for four weeks.

In protest against her unlawful detention and its draconian restrictions, Suu Kyi had refused to accept food deliveries since August 15.

She met with her lawyer over the weekend to discuss an appeal against her extended detention.

But the fresh promise by the junta to deliver personal mail, food supplies and international magazines to Suu Kyi had not been fulfilled by Monday, according to Rangoon opposition sources.

Though the earlier rumours of Suu Kyi staging a hunger strike were untrue, the health of the 63-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner is of great concern to Burmese people and her supporters around the world.

Suu Kyi remains a beacon of hope for peace, democracy and reconciliation in Burma. So do the political prisoners, including Nilar Thein, her husband and U Gambira. They are indeed the heroes of Burma—they must all be set free immediately and without preconditions. And we demand to see them in good health.

Taking the Pulse of Sick Dictators

By THE IRRAWADDY

It is always interesting to follow and watch news about dictators.

Now we’re reading and studying reports that North Korean’s leader, Kim Jong-il, is believed to be seriously ill, with US American officials even claiming that he has suffered a stroke.

Of course, North Korean officials have denied the reports. One senior North Korean diplomat was quoted by Japan’s Kyodo news agency as saying:
“We see such reports as not only worthless, but rather as a conspiracy plot.”

The international community and concerned governments naturally keep a watch on the health of dictators, particularly leaders of nuclear states such as Kim Jong-il. If they fall, their departure is likely to create chaotic power struggles, uprisings and possibly change.

The current reports arose after Kim Jong-il failed to attend a parade marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of North Korea. There is no clear indication of who would succeed him if he did disappear from the scene.

In January 2007, Burma’s paramount leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe failed to appear at an Independence Day dinner reception in January, leading to speculation that he was seriously ill and on the verge of death.

Than Shwe—whose age is put at 76—did, in fact, travel to Singapore for medical treatment, but he appears to be still in good shape. This year, he received several state visitors, including Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who went to Burma to discuss the cyclone disaster and relief efforts.

Nevertheless, rumors about Than Shwe’s health continue to circulate.

Although he and Kim Jong-il have never met, they share a striking number of characteristics.

They are both unpredictable. They keep their countries in isolation, their citizens in poverty and they are distrustful of foreigners and dismissive of international opinion. They both keep their countries’ military strong and united. And the countries under their leadership are both “outposts of tyranny.”

Intelligence sources in Burma suggest that Than Shwe admires North Korea—as well as Cuba—recommending them to his subordinates as lessons in how to survive under pressure from the West.

Shunned by western governments, Than Shwe has no qualms about embracing North Korea. Under his regime, Burma has renewed diplomatic ties with Pyongyang.

In April 2007, the two countries signed an agreement to resume diplomatic ties during a visit by North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Yong Il.

Burma severed its diplomatic ties with North Korea in 1983 after a bomb attack in Rangoon by North Korean terrorists during a visit by a South Korean delegation headed by then-President Chun Doo-hwan.

However, clandestine contacts between the two countries were re-established several years ago as Burma stepped up its search for sources of conventional weapons.

North Korean agents were often spotted in Rangoon and Naypyidaw, and dissident sources claimed that Burma sought help from North Korea to build a tunnel under the new capital.

North Korea was also involved in some bizarre events in recent years.

Last year, a cargo freighter from North Korea docked in Burma in what was believed to be the first port call by a North Korean ship since the two countries agreed to resume diplomatic relations.

In April, 2007, the Kang Nam I docked at Thilawa port, 30 km south of Rangoon, seeking shelter from a storm— or so ran the official explanation for its presence.

It wasn't the first time a North Korean ship reported running into trouble in Burmese waters.

By a strange coincidence, a North Korean cargo ship in distress anchored at a Burmese port in November 2006, and the government reported that an on-board inspection had "found no suspicious material or military equipment." But journalists and embassies in Rangoon were skeptical.

In July 2006, a dissident source told The Irrawaddy that a North Korean ship carrying a senior Korean nuclear technology expert, Maj Hon Kil Dong, had arrived in Rangoon with a biological and nuclear package.

Western analysts and intelligence sources quickly dismissed this report but conceded it was possible that Burma would seek conventional arms and technology rather than high-tech long-range missiles from Pyongyang.

Than Shwe and his hardliners are still interested in developing a nuclear reactor bought from Russia. It is not known whether the reactor is for civilian or military purposes, and news about this development remains hidden behind a veil of secrecy.

Burmese officials have said the 10MW light-water reactor employs 20 percent enriched uranium-235 and involves an activation analysis laboratory, a medical isotope production laboratory, silicon doping system, nuclear waste treatment and burial facilities.

It is hard to gauge Burma’s real nuclear ambition but its shady relationship with North Korea has fuelled speculation and growing skepticism.

Than Shwe and Kim Jong-il are birds of a feather, and it’s hoped that once they leave the scene things will be better for Burma and North Korea. Certainly the people of both countries deserve better leadership.