March 3, 2009
March 2, 2009
Climbing the Summits
By YENI
The summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) ended in Thailand on Sunday with a short statement calling on Burma, the grouping’s most troublesome member, to release its political prisoners and engage in an “all-inclusive process” as the country moves toward a general election in 2010. Conspicuously absent from the statement was any mention of detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
At a press briefing, Thailand’s Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said: “The Asean leaders encouraged Myanmar [Burma] to continue cooperation with the United Nations and to make sure that the roadmap continues according to plan, and that the process would be as inclusive as possible, which includes, of course, the continuation of the release of prisoners or political detainees and also the participation of political parties in the upcoming election.”
Abhisit’s words were delivered in the characteristic tone that Asean members use when discussing the affairs of fellow members. There was no hectoring or threat of pressure—just a polite, and slightly pleading, request for cooperation. “The Asean way,” after all, is all about friendly, fraternal advice, non-interference, and the avoidance of anything that might sow seeds of dissension.
But this did not stop Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi from expressing some dissatisfaction with the attitude of the Burmese delegation. During a closed-door exchange among Asean leaders, Gen Thein Sein, the junta’s prime minister, bluntly told his counterparts that Burma would deal with the United Nations, and not Asean, in talks about the country’s political future. Badawi told reporters afterwards that the regional club, which has provided the Burmese regime with diplomatic cover since it admitted Burma in 1997, “will not be the interlocutor” in efforts to end the country’s international isolation.
Far from seeking a more active role in pushing for political reforms in Burma, Asean seemed more interested in counseling the UN to move cautiously with its own efforts. Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon against returning to the country prematurely, because doing so would “raise unrealistic expectations that cannot be met and would be counter-productive.”
This is a danger that the UN chief understands all too well. Speaking to reporters following a meeting of the so-called Group of Friends of Myanmar, Ban recently said: “I will try to visit, but there may be some issues. First of all, I have to discuss with the Myanmar government about timing, about agendas which I would be able to discuss, but nothing has yet been discussed.”
In the meantime, there are indications that the regime may be willing to make at least one concession to the UN. The Bangkok Post, quoting a senior Thai official, said that Thein Sein told the Thai prime minister that Burma would allow UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari and UN staff to observe a national election slated to take place in 2010.
Asean has also had to make some conciliatory gestures. After two civil society representatives—Khin Ohmar of Burma and Pen Sommoly of Cambodia—were barred from a meeting between representatives of Southeast Asian civil society and the 10 Asean heads of state, Thai PM Abhisit met them later to make up for the snub.
But it will take far more than this to convince the world that Asean is serious about becoming a credible defender of fundamental rights. If Asean wants to fulfill its ambition of creating an Asean Community by 2015, it will need to take bold steps to overcome its image as a grouping that is constantly at the mercy of controversies caused by a member that doesn’t seem to care how its actions affect others.
The summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) ended in Thailand on Sunday with a short statement calling on Burma, the grouping’s most troublesome member, to release its political prisoners and engage in an “all-inclusive process” as the country moves toward a general election in 2010. Conspicuously absent from the statement was any mention of detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
At a press briefing, Thailand’s Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said: “The Asean leaders encouraged Myanmar [Burma] to continue cooperation with the United Nations and to make sure that the roadmap continues according to plan, and that the process would be as inclusive as possible, which includes, of course, the continuation of the release of prisoners or political detainees and also the participation of political parties in the upcoming election.”
Abhisit’s words were delivered in the characteristic tone that Asean members use when discussing the affairs of fellow members. There was no hectoring or threat of pressure—just a polite, and slightly pleading, request for cooperation. “The Asean way,” after all, is all about friendly, fraternal advice, non-interference, and the avoidance of anything that might sow seeds of dissension.
But this did not stop Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi from expressing some dissatisfaction with the attitude of the Burmese delegation. During a closed-door exchange among Asean leaders, Gen Thein Sein, the junta’s prime minister, bluntly told his counterparts that Burma would deal with the United Nations, and not Asean, in talks about the country’s political future. Badawi told reporters afterwards that the regional club, which has provided the Burmese regime with diplomatic cover since it admitted Burma in 1997, “will not be the interlocutor” in efforts to end the country’s international isolation.
Far from seeking a more active role in pushing for political reforms in Burma, Asean seemed more interested in counseling the UN to move cautiously with its own efforts. Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon against returning to the country prematurely, because doing so would “raise unrealistic expectations that cannot be met and would be counter-productive.”
This is a danger that the UN chief understands all too well. Speaking to reporters following a meeting of the so-called Group of Friends of Myanmar, Ban recently said: “I will try to visit, but there may be some issues. First of all, I have to discuss with the Myanmar government about timing, about agendas which I would be able to discuss, but nothing has yet been discussed.”
In the meantime, there are indications that the regime may be willing to make at least one concession to the UN. The Bangkok Post, quoting a senior Thai official, said that Thein Sein told the Thai prime minister that Burma would allow UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari and UN staff to observe a national election slated to take place in 2010.
Asean has also had to make some conciliatory gestures. After two civil society representatives—Khin Ohmar of Burma and Pen Sommoly of Cambodia—were barred from a meeting between representatives of Southeast Asian civil society and the 10 Asean heads of state, Thai PM Abhisit met them later to make up for the snub.
But it will take far more than this to convince the world that Asean is serious about becoming a credible defender of fundamental rights. If Asean wants to fulfill its ambition of creating an Asean Community by 2015, it will need to take bold steps to overcome its image as a grouping that is constantly at the mercy of controversies caused by a member that doesn’t seem to care how its actions affect others.
Burmese PM Agrees to Election Monitors
By MIN LWIN
Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein reportedly said he would allow United Nations officials and developed countries to monitor the military-sponsored 2010 election during a meeting with his counterpart Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva at the Asean Summit in Thailand.
The Burmese junta will allow United Nations officials to observe its long-awaited general election next year, the Thailand-based Bangkok Post newspaper said on Sunday.
The newspaper quoted Thai deputy government spokesman Suphachai Jaisamut who said Thein Sein told PM Abhisit Vejjajiva that Burma would allow UN special Burma envoy Ibrahim Gambari and the UN staff to observe the election.
Burma also wanted observers from developed countries to monitor the election, the newspaper reported. No countries were named.
The move was seen by some as an effort to move the momentum for the election forward, in the face of strong criticism from democracy groups inside and outside Burma.
“Before we even talk about monitoring the election, there has to be a constitutional review; there has to be a release of [political] prisoners,” said Debbie Stothard, the coordinator of the Alternative Asean Network, speaking to The Irrawaddy on Monday. “There has to be freedom of association and freedom of expression.”
“Otherwise, there is no free and fair [election]—there is no need to hold an election,” she said.
Meanwhile, many Burmese opposition groups have said they will not take part in the election unless the recently approved constitution is reviewed and amended.
The National League of Democracy (NLD), Burma’s main opposition party, has declared it will not take part in the election unless the regime releases all political prisoners, starts a dialogue between pro-democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi and the junta’s leader and reviews the 2008 constitution.
Recently, the NLD said it did not agree with a joint-statement by UN special envoy Gambari and Japan Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone, saying international countries should encourage the Burmese junta to hold general elections in 2010 in a form that would be accepted by the international community.
Nyan Win, an NLD spokesperson, told The Irrawaddy that the joint statement was not consistent with NLD positions as well as resolutions by the UN General Assembly which honor the 1990 election results, which were not implemented by the military regime.
Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein reportedly said he would allow United Nations officials and developed countries to monitor the military-sponsored 2010 election during a meeting with his counterpart Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva at the Asean Summit in Thailand.
The Burmese junta will allow United Nations officials to observe its long-awaited general election next year, the Thailand-based Bangkok Post newspaper said on Sunday.
The newspaper quoted Thai deputy government spokesman Suphachai Jaisamut who said Thein Sein told PM Abhisit Vejjajiva that Burma would allow UN special Burma envoy Ibrahim Gambari and the UN staff to observe the election.
Burma also wanted observers from developed countries to monitor the election, the newspaper reported. No countries were named.
The move was seen by some as an effort to move the momentum for the election forward, in the face of strong criticism from democracy groups inside and outside Burma.
“Before we even talk about monitoring the election, there has to be a constitutional review; there has to be a release of [political] prisoners,” said Debbie Stothard, the coordinator of the Alternative Asean Network, speaking to The Irrawaddy on Monday. “There has to be freedom of association and freedom of expression.”
“Otherwise, there is no free and fair [election]—there is no need to hold an election,” she said.
Meanwhile, many Burmese opposition groups have said they will not take part in the election unless the recently approved constitution is reviewed and amended.
The National League of Democracy (NLD), Burma’s main opposition party, has declared it will not take part in the election unless the regime releases all political prisoners, starts a dialogue between pro-democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi and the junta’s leader and reviews the 2008 constitution.
Recently, the NLD said it did not agree with a joint-statement by UN special envoy Gambari and Japan Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone, saying international countries should encourage the Burmese junta to hold general elections in 2010 in a form that would be accepted by the international community.
Nyan Win, an NLD spokesperson, told The Irrawaddy that the joint statement was not consistent with NLD positions as well as resolutions by the UN General Assembly which honor the 1990 election results, which were not implemented by the military regime.
Laputta Villagers Face Water Crisis
By LAWI WENG
More than 20 coastal villages in Laputta Township in the Irrawaddy delta are facing freshwater shortages due to saltwater contamination in pools and sources, according to a nongovernmental organization (NGO) based at the Thai-Burmese border.
Mahn Mahn, a spokesman for the Emergency Assistance Team (EAT-Burma), said a water crisis is pending as reserves of freshwater run out during the hot season (March to May) while other sources of freshwater remain affected by the surge of seawater from Cyclone Nargis last year.
At the moment, he said, many people were using water which is mixed with seawater.
In December, Merlin, an international NGO that provides cyclone relief in the Irrawaddy delta, warned that some 78,000 people will be affected by water shortages.
A doctor currently working in Laputta told The Irrawaddy that a villagers were allocated only two bottles of drinking water per day per family plus one gallon of non-potable water for daily needs, such as cleaning clothes, bathing and toilets.
The sources said the water crisis started last month and will continue to get worse as there is no desalination project in the area.
“I treated several children with diarrhea at my clinic last month,” said the doctor. “I expect many more as the season gets hotter and water runs out.”
NGOs working in the delta currently hire trucks to transport water to people in affected areas. The sources said that the NGOs are planning to hire a ship to transport clean water to villages.
A local resident in Laputta said that locals were paying 600 kyat (US $0.50) for a gallon of water that they could order from a public ferry. However, local authorities allegedly ordered the ship to stop selling water to villagers.
Save the Children, a UK-based NGO working with cyclone survivors, said in December that they were worried about water shortages would be a threat to survivors in the summer.
Save the Children said that when the dry season kicks in, people will have fewer options to find clean water and there will be an increased risk of disease.
Many ponds and wells were destroyed by seawater when Cyclone Nargis and its subsequent tidal wave hit Laputta on May 2-3. At least 138,000 people were killed in the disaster.
More than 20 coastal villages in Laputta Township in the Irrawaddy delta are facing freshwater shortages due to saltwater contamination in pools and sources, according to a nongovernmental organization (NGO) based at the Thai-Burmese border.
Mahn Mahn, a spokesman for the Emergency Assistance Team (EAT-Burma), said a water crisis is pending as reserves of freshwater run out during the hot season (March to May) while other sources of freshwater remain affected by the surge of seawater from Cyclone Nargis last year.
At the moment, he said, many people were using water which is mixed with seawater.
In December, Merlin, an international NGO that provides cyclone relief in the Irrawaddy delta, warned that some 78,000 people will be affected by water shortages.
A doctor currently working in Laputta told The Irrawaddy that a villagers were allocated only two bottles of drinking water per day per family plus one gallon of non-potable water for daily needs, such as cleaning clothes, bathing and toilets.
The sources said the water crisis started last month and will continue to get worse as there is no desalination project in the area.
“I treated several children with diarrhea at my clinic last month,” said the doctor. “I expect many more as the season gets hotter and water runs out.”
NGOs working in the delta currently hire trucks to transport water to people in affected areas. The sources said that the NGOs are planning to hire a ship to transport clean water to villages.
A local resident in Laputta said that locals were paying 600 kyat (US $0.50) for a gallon of water that they could order from a public ferry. However, local authorities allegedly ordered the ship to stop selling water to villagers.
Save the Children, a UK-based NGO working with cyclone survivors, said in December that they were worried about water shortages would be a threat to survivors in the summer.
Save the Children said that when the dry season kicks in, people will have fewer options to find clean water and there will be an increased risk of disease.
Many ponds and wells were destroyed by seawater when Cyclone Nargis and its subsequent tidal wave hit Laputta on May 2-3. At least 138,000 people were killed in the disaster.
Mon Party Ponders the Constitution and Election
By THE IRRAWADDY
Naing Han Thar is general-secretary of the New Mon State Party (NMSP), a major ethnic armed group based in Mon State. The party signed a cease-fire agreement with the military regime in 1995. Naing Han Thar talked with The Irrawaddy about the party’s policies, the constitution and its view of the 2010 general elections.
Question: Would the NMSP join the election if the military regime reviewed and amended the constitution?
Answer: We continue to wait and see the extent to which the new constitution is allowed to be amended, even if they talk about a review. We will decide whether we join the upcoming election depending on how far or near the amended constitution meets our needs.
Q: What would the NMSP want to see changed [in the constitution]?
A: Currently, the constitution is designed to form a unitary state. There are no ethnic rights. There is no special power though the ethnic states have their administrative autonomy. But Burmans have their rights. The ethnic people don’t have their national, cultural and literature freedoms. Based on these factors, it will be impossible for the constitution to bring about national reconciliation. This is one fact that we are not satisfied with.
Another fact is that there is very little about human rights and democracy in the constitution. The future Burma won’t be a democracy under this constitution. If we were allowed to amend it, the first thing we would do would be to create a democratic system in the constitution. The current constitution gives 25 percent of the seats [to the military] in the House of Nationalities, House of Representatives and the Parliaments in the states. It shouldn’t do that and should be amended. If the military wants to have seats in the parliament, enter the election. The military is actually made up of civil servants.
Also, the military leaders take special powers. They take the positions of some ministries. The commander-in-chief of the military has the special right to appoint these positions in accordance with his desire. That is not a democratic practice. Also, it is not reasonable that the National Security Council has the right to make a coup [rescind the government], if necessary. All these factors should be amended.
Regarding the ethnic nationalities, they should have the right to build their own states. There would be eight, or more than eight [separate] nationalities, with their literature and other characteristics.
The states must have an equal autonomy and administrative power. Some minority ethnic groups also must have administrative powers to govern their own ethnic people.
Q: What is your future strategy if the regime doesn’t offer any concession to your proposals?
A: I can’t say. Our stand is to discuss the problem on the table. We don’t want an armed conflict between us. We will maintain the cease fire as long as we can. For the time being, I can only say what I’ve said.
Q: Do you think the 2010 election can solve any problems?
A: We have no rights in accordance with the current constitution. Therefore, even if we had people elected, what kind of special chance do we have? Our political problems can’t be solved if the election will be held in accordance with this constitution.
Q: What do you say if other cease-fire groups join the election?
A: Do as you wish. We don’t have anything to say. Even if Mon [some] ethnic people enter the election, we don’t criticize them. In the opinion of our party, the current constitution is neither beneficial nor special to us.
Q: At the last NMSP party conference, was an election strategy discussed?
A: We reviewed the constitution in the conference. Then, we discussed our future stands. Nobody discussed the fact that we should enter the election.
Q: Are there factions that want to break away from the NMSP and join the election?
A: We don’t see it for now and don’t think it will happen.
Q: How long will the cease-fire agreement remain in place, if the NMSP doesn’t take part in the election?
A: The principle of a cease-fire is to seek solutions to political problems. This is the right policy. But the opportunity to solve the political problems and achieve mutual cooperation hasn’t occurred after making the cease-fire. We were urged to attend the National Convention to try to seek political solutions. But the majority of participants at the convention were those they handpicked. The [constitutional] principles are their work. The cease-fire armed groups presented their needs, but the regime recognized nothing. In this situation, we didn’t have any more options.
Q: Are there ongoing discussions among the cease-fire groups?
A: Yes, we have regular discussions.
Q: After Gen Khin Nyunt was sacked, who do you now communicate with in the military regime?
A: Currently, we meet with the regional commander of the Southeastern Military Division. Sometimes, we met with his representatives. Mostly, we meet with the regional commander, and our relationship is good.
Q: After issuing statements that didn’t support the National Convention and the constitution, did you experienced any pressure from the regime?
A: No. We did it carefully. And we only talked about our political positions. It didn’t change things, because they have their position and we have our position.
Q: How has the NMSP benefited from the cease-fire?
A: There are some benefits from this cease-fire. Before that time, villagers didn’t live peacefully, and they were on the run. They were forced to be porters and were beaten. There were no economic opportunities. Now, they have a better chance to earn incomes. In some places, roads were built and transportation has improved, resulting in the growth of real estate values. The produce from the farmlands can be transported and sold in the markets of the cities.
Another point is that our party now has better access to the Mon people living in the towns and cities. We have discussions with them about politics and are able to form a consensus. We can also promote the education sector. In the health sector, we can give training to health workers. The NMSP also helped the villagers to regain some of the land that was confiscated by the regime.
Q: What are the difficulties remaining after 14 years of cease-fire?
A: Many difficulties. But we tolerate the situation as much as we can. We need to receive more financial assistance for our people. Currently, we can barely cope with the situation. It is not enough. We tolerate as much as we can for the sake of the people.
Q: Do you think international pressure is effective?
A: In my opinion, some [economic] sanctions affect the regime, and some don’t. There is no consensus among them. Our neighboring countries approach the regime to exploit the country’s natural resources. The pressure is not effective because of a lack of unity.
From the side of the regime, the economic sanctions have prevented an international dialogue. But due to sanctions, the regime is facing difficulties. They also must consider the future. Given these facts, the economic sanctions can’t be said to be ineffective.
Naing Han Thar is general-secretary of the New Mon State Party (NMSP), a major ethnic armed group based in Mon State. The party signed a cease-fire agreement with the military regime in 1995. Naing Han Thar talked with The Irrawaddy about the party’s policies, the constitution and its view of the 2010 general elections.
Question: Would the NMSP join the election if the military regime reviewed and amended the constitution?
Answer: We continue to wait and see the extent to which the new constitution is allowed to be amended, even if they talk about a review. We will decide whether we join the upcoming election depending on how far or near the amended constitution meets our needs.
Q: What would the NMSP want to see changed [in the constitution]?
A: Currently, the constitution is designed to form a unitary state. There are no ethnic rights. There is no special power though the ethnic states have their administrative autonomy. But Burmans have their rights. The ethnic people don’t have their national, cultural and literature freedoms. Based on these factors, it will be impossible for the constitution to bring about national reconciliation. This is one fact that we are not satisfied with.
Another fact is that there is very little about human rights and democracy in the constitution. The future Burma won’t be a democracy under this constitution. If we were allowed to amend it, the first thing we would do would be to create a democratic system in the constitution. The current constitution gives 25 percent of the seats [to the military] in the House of Nationalities, House of Representatives and the Parliaments in the states. It shouldn’t do that and should be amended. If the military wants to have seats in the parliament, enter the election. The military is actually made up of civil servants.
Also, the military leaders take special powers. They take the positions of some ministries. The commander-in-chief of the military has the special right to appoint these positions in accordance with his desire. That is not a democratic practice. Also, it is not reasonable that the National Security Council has the right to make a coup [rescind the government], if necessary. All these factors should be amended.
Regarding the ethnic nationalities, they should have the right to build their own states. There would be eight, or more than eight [separate] nationalities, with their literature and other characteristics.
The states must have an equal autonomy and administrative power. Some minority ethnic groups also must have administrative powers to govern their own ethnic people.
Q: What is your future strategy if the regime doesn’t offer any concession to your proposals?
A: I can’t say. Our stand is to discuss the problem on the table. We don’t want an armed conflict between us. We will maintain the cease fire as long as we can. For the time being, I can only say what I’ve said.
Q: Do you think the 2010 election can solve any problems?
A: We have no rights in accordance with the current constitution. Therefore, even if we had people elected, what kind of special chance do we have? Our political problems can’t be solved if the election will be held in accordance with this constitution.
Q: What do you say if other cease-fire groups join the election?
A: Do as you wish. We don’t have anything to say. Even if Mon [some] ethnic people enter the election, we don’t criticize them. In the opinion of our party, the current constitution is neither beneficial nor special to us.
Q: At the last NMSP party conference, was an election strategy discussed?
A: We reviewed the constitution in the conference. Then, we discussed our future stands. Nobody discussed the fact that we should enter the election.
Q: Are there factions that want to break away from the NMSP and join the election?
A: We don’t see it for now and don’t think it will happen.
Q: How long will the cease-fire agreement remain in place, if the NMSP doesn’t take part in the election?
A: The principle of a cease-fire is to seek solutions to political problems. This is the right policy. But the opportunity to solve the political problems and achieve mutual cooperation hasn’t occurred after making the cease-fire. We were urged to attend the National Convention to try to seek political solutions. But the majority of participants at the convention were those they handpicked. The [constitutional] principles are their work. The cease-fire armed groups presented their needs, but the regime recognized nothing. In this situation, we didn’t have any more options.
Q: Are there ongoing discussions among the cease-fire groups?
A: Yes, we have regular discussions.
Q: After Gen Khin Nyunt was sacked, who do you now communicate with in the military regime?
A: Currently, we meet with the regional commander of the Southeastern Military Division. Sometimes, we met with his representatives. Mostly, we meet with the regional commander, and our relationship is good.
Q: After issuing statements that didn’t support the National Convention and the constitution, did you experienced any pressure from the regime?
A: No. We did it carefully. And we only talked about our political positions. It didn’t change things, because they have their position and we have our position.
Q: How has the NMSP benefited from the cease-fire?
A: There are some benefits from this cease-fire. Before that time, villagers didn’t live peacefully, and they were on the run. They were forced to be porters and were beaten. There were no economic opportunities. Now, they have a better chance to earn incomes. In some places, roads were built and transportation has improved, resulting in the growth of real estate values. The produce from the farmlands can be transported and sold in the markets of the cities.
Another point is that our party now has better access to the Mon people living in the towns and cities. We have discussions with them about politics and are able to form a consensus. We can also promote the education sector. In the health sector, we can give training to health workers. The NMSP also helped the villagers to regain some of the land that was confiscated by the regime.
Q: What are the difficulties remaining after 14 years of cease-fire?
A: Many difficulties. But we tolerate the situation as much as we can. We need to receive more financial assistance for our people. Currently, we can barely cope with the situation. It is not enough. We tolerate as much as we can for the sake of the people.
Q: Do you think international pressure is effective?
A: In my opinion, some [economic] sanctions affect the regime, and some don’t. There is no consensus among them. Our neighboring countries approach the regime to exploit the country’s natural resources. The pressure is not effective because of a lack of unity.
From the side of the regime, the economic sanctions have prevented an international dialogue. But due to sanctions, the regime is facing difficulties. They also must consider the future. Given these facts, the economic sanctions can’t be said to be ineffective.
Summit Happened—But We Don’t Know What
By DAVID PAQUETTE
By Saturday afternoon, any expectations we had of Burma issues being addressed at the Asean Summit went out the window.
Myriad versions of the old politician’s maxim, “We’re keeping the process moving forward,” consumed every press conference and photo-op. Discussions were frequently said to have been “candid and open,” and “conducted in a spirit of cooperation and consultation.”
In a single 10-minute statement to the press, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva managed to squeeze in “advancing,” “pushing ahead,” “reaching further,” step by step,” “shoring up confidence,” “restoration of confidence,” “pushing ahead” and “stepping towards building a framework” with seamless ease.
Rather than running back to the media center to file their stories post-haste, journalists milled around after each press conference, scratching their heads, exchanging pained looks with their colleagues and staring blankly at their notes.
The message we were being asked to relay back to the public was clear—this Asean summit was more than just a schmooze fest with nice wine and a chance for the wives to compare evening gowns. There was some serious progress going on behind the scenes.
Asean General-Secretary Surin Pitsuwan was positively buoyant. “You just have to trust us,” he seemed to be saying, suppressing a wink. Even if reporters’ questions weren’t being addressed, he hinted, you could be sure the delegates were addressing the issues.
But you had to hand to it the assembled press. Whatever the subject, be it bilateral talks with Brunei or the signing of an agreement to allow Southeast Asian dentists to, I don’t know, perform root-canal surgery across the region, I guess—ultimately the press conference came back to the Rohingya issue.
Speaking in a rather adorable Essex accent, the Thai premier managed to smile, skip and sidestep all questions on the Rohingya issue at three successive press conferences, finally prompting one gritty reporter from the Bangkok Post to ask: “Is ‘Rohingya’ a taboo word at this conference?”
“Not at awwll,” replied the premier in his David Beckham lilt and then proved it by employing the word in every sentence thereafter—a departure from the semantic stumbling block that had beleaguered delegates for days, with the Burmese government apparently only willing to accept terminology such as “Bengalis” or “Illegal Migrants in the Indian Ocean.”
Not that we had the opportunity to catch a glimpse of Gen Thein Sein or others from the Burmese delegation. By keeping the 1,200 registered members of the press penned up at the Sheraton while the Asean delegates had the run of the Dusit some two kilometers down the beach, the Thai authorities ensured that the delegates could avoid nosy journalists while their spouses had the pool to themselves.
Some 5,700 extra police had been pulled into Cha-am for the summit and reporters had to be shuttled back and forth through security checkpoints into the Dusit grounds in CNG minivans. Several times a day the highway that was the artery linking us to the summit was blocked, such as when members of the Thai royal family came and went or when one of the delegates passed through town.
Ten kilometers away in Hua Hin, elderly Scandinavian tourists stood under trees on the sidewalk in the scorching sun, unable to cross the road to get to the beach while traffic was halted for an hour at a time.
On Saturday morning, a protest against the Burmese government gathered just 15 activists on bicycles, surrounded by dozens of policemen, onlookers and reporters. For lack of juicy news from the summit—and with not a red-shirt in sight—the Bangkok dailies ran the protest on their front pages.
Back at the summit, a Thai government spokesman told the assembled press that the 10 Asean heads of state had met a delegation of civil society representatives for the first time in Asean’s 41-year history. Whether this was supposed to be a landmark coming-together of politicians and activists, or a photo-op for the new and improved “people-oriented” Asean, the meeting failed to cast anything other than a shadow over the summit, even before it began.
First, the Burmese and Cambodian delegates threatened to boycott the meeting because they didn’t like the NGOs that were attending. They succeeded in having two of the civil society representatives—including Burma’s Khin Ohmar—banned from the meeting. Then they asked the NGO leaders to take their shoes off before entering the meeting, in fear that they might toss their sandals at a head of state. The request was revoked, but not before it caused ripples of laughter from the press corps back at Base Sheraton.
We held out for something—a breakthrough. While business matters surrounding the global financial crisis appeared to have been dealt with neatly and swiftly in Bangkok the weekend before, you couldn’t help but get the impression that the Asean leaders were resting on their laurels and that slippery matters such as the human rights body, stateless refugees dying at sea and political prisoners in Burma could all wait for another day.
In the end, we had to settle for acting as stenographers for the Asean ministers’ press releases. I had visions of news headlines around the world blurting out: “Asean Ministers Conduct Candid Talks in a Spirit of Cooperation and Consultation.”
One veteran reporter on Burma, who had arrived late, summed it up with one slow 360-degree scan of the press room. “I smell sound bites,” he mumbled, “but no news.”
By Saturday afternoon, any expectations we had of Burma issues being addressed at the Asean Summit went out the window.
Myriad versions of the old politician’s maxim, “We’re keeping the process moving forward,” consumed every press conference and photo-op. Discussions were frequently said to have been “candid and open,” and “conducted in a spirit of cooperation and consultation.”
In a single 10-minute statement to the press, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva managed to squeeze in “advancing,” “pushing ahead,” “reaching further,” step by step,” “shoring up confidence,” “restoration of confidence,” “pushing ahead” and “stepping towards building a framework” with seamless ease.
Rather than running back to the media center to file their stories post-haste, journalists milled around after each press conference, scratching their heads, exchanging pained looks with their colleagues and staring blankly at their notes.
The message we were being asked to relay back to the public was clear—this Asean summit was more than just a schmooze fest with nice wine and a chance for the wives to compare evening gowns. There was some serious progress going on behind the scenes.
Asean General-Secretary Surin Pitsuwan was positively buoyant. “You just have to trust us,” he seemed to be saying, suppressing a wink. Even if reporters’ questions weren’t being addressed, he hinted, you could be sure the delegates were addressing the issues.
But you had to hand to it the assembled press. Whatever the subject, be it bilateral talks with Brunei or the signing of an agreement to allow Southeast Asian dentists to, I don’t know, perform root-canal surgery across the region, I guess—ultimately the press conference came back to the Rohingya issue.
Speaking in a rather adorable Essex accent, the Thai premier managed to smile, skip and sidestep all questions on the Rohingya issue at three successive press conferences, finally prompting one gritty reporter from the Bangkok Post to ask: “Is ‘Rohingya’ a taboo word at this conference?”
“Not at awwll,” replied the premier in his David Beckham lilt and then proved it by employing the word in every sentence thereafter—a departure from the semantic stumbling block that had beleaguered delegates for days, with the Burmese government apparently only willing to accept terminology such as “Bengalis” or “Illegal Migrants in the Indian Ocean.”
Not that we had the opportunity to catch a glimpse of Gen Thein Sein or others from the Burmese delegation. By keeping the 1,200 registered members of the press penned up at the Sheraton while the Asean delegates had the run of the Dusit some two kilometers down the beach, the Thai authorities ensured that the delegates could avoid nosy journalists while their spouses had the pool to themselves.
Some 5,700 extra police had been pulled into Cha-am for the summit and reporters had to be shuttled back and forth through security checkpoints into the Dusit grounds in CNG minivans. Several times a day the highway that was the artery linking us to the summit was blocked, such as when members of the Thai royal family came and went or when one of the delegates passed through town.
Ten kilometers away in Hua Hin, elderly Scandinavian tourists stood under trees on the sidewalk in the scorching sun, unable to cross the road to get to the beach while traffic was halted for an hour at a time.
On Saturday morning, a protest against the Burmese government gathered just 15 activists on bicycles, surrounded by dozens of policemen, onlookers and reporters. For lack of juicy news from the summit—and with not a red-shirt in sight—the Bangkok dailies ran the protest on their front pages.
Back at the summit, a Thai government spokesman told the assembled press that the 10 Asean heads of state had met a delegation of civil society representatives for the first time in Asean’s 41-year history. Whether this was supposed to be a landmark coming-together of politicians and activists, or a photo-op for the new and improved “people-oriented” Asean, the meeting failed to cast anything other than a shadow over the summit, even before it began.
First, the Burmese and Cambodian delegates threatened to boycott the meeting because they didn’t like the NGOs that were attending. They succeeded in having two of the civil society representatives—including Burma’s Khin Ohmar—banned from the meeting. Then they asked the NGO leaders to take their shoes off before entering the meeting, in fear that they might toss their sandals at a head of state. The request was revoked, but not before it caused ripples of laughter from the press corps back at Base Sheraton.
We held out for something—a breakthrough. While business matters surrounding the global financial crisis appeared to have been dealt with neatly and swiftly in Bangkok the weekend before, you couldn’t help but get the impression that the Asean leaders were resting on their laurels and that slippery matters such as the human rights body, stateless refugees dying at sea and political prisoners in Burma could all wait for another day.
In the end, we had to settle for acting as stenographers for the Asean ministers’ press releases. I had visions of news headlines around the world blurting out: “Asean Ministers Conduct Candid Talks in a Spirit of Cooperation and Consultation.”
One veteran reporter on Burma, who had arrived late, summed it up with one slow 360-degree scan of the press room. “I smell sound bites,” he mumbled, “but no news.”
Singapore’s Lee Urges Burma to Engage Int’l Community
By THE IRRAWADDY
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong urged Burma’s military leaders to engage the international community during an interview at the Asean Summit in Thailand on Sunday.
“We see a window of opportunity for Myanmar [Burma] to engage the US and the international community,” he said. “Myanmar can capitalize on this opportunity by cooperating with the United Nations,” Singapore’s Straits Times reported Lee as saying.
The Singaporean prime minister also noted that during a recent visit to the region, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that both sanctions and engagement have failed to achieve results in Burma.
Lee also urged the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) to support the mission of UN special envoy to Burma. Ibrahim Gambari. But he added that Asean should not encourage a visit to the country by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “unless there are concrete deliverables.”
“A visit will raise unrealistic expectations that cannot be met and would be counter-productive,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Burmese junta on Friday agreed to take back boatpeople if they are identified as “Bengalis,” rather than as Rohingya, according to a report in The Nation, a Thai English-language daily.
The Nation quoted Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya as saying that his Burmese counterpart took the view that “The Burmese government does not recognize the Rohingya people as one of 135 minority ethnic groups and it would accept only those who can be identified as Bengalis residing in the country.”
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong urged Burma’s military leaders to engage the international community during an interview at the Asean Summit in Thailand on Sunday.
“We see a window of opportunity for Myanmar [Burma] to engage the US and the international community,” he said. “Myanmar can capitalize on this opportunity by cooperating with the United Nations,” Singapore’s Straits Times reported Lee as saying.
The Singaporean prime minister also noted that during a recent visit to the region, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that both sanctions and engagement have failed to achieve results in Burma.
Lee also urged the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) to support the mission of UN special envoy to Burma. Ibrahim Gambari. But he added that Asean should not encourage a visit to the country by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “unless there are concrete deliverables.”
“A visit will raise unrealistic expectations that cannot be met and would be counter-productive,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Burmese junta on Friday agreed to take back boatpeople if they are identified as “Bengalis,” rather than as Rohingya, according to a report in The Nation, a Thai English-language daily.
The Nation quoted Thai Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya as saying that his Burmese counterpart took the view that “The Burmese government does not recognize the Rohingya people as one of 135 minority ethnic groups and it would accept only those who can be identified as Bengalis residing in the country.”
Cambodia PM Testimony Sought at Khmer Rouge Trial
By SOPHENG CHEANG / AP WRITER
PHNOM PENH — Attorneys have asked the UN-backed Khmer Rouge genocide tribunal for permission to interview Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and former King Norodom Sihanouk, according to confidential documents obtained Monday.
The request was made by the defense team for Nuon Chea, the main ideologist of the regime whose 1975-1979 rule left an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians dead.
The long-delayed tribunal begins its first trial later this month, while the trial for Nuon Chea—charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity and facing life imprisonment—is expected to begin later this year.
The confidential court documents obtained by The Associated Press also request testimony from current senate president Chean Sim and assembly president Heng Samrin. Both men, along with Hun Sen, were members of the Khmer Rouge regime but defected to Vietnam before it was ousted.
"They are likely in possession of much relevant information to the pending judicial investigation," one of the documents said. All have denied any role in atrocities.
Hun Sen, who has ruled Cambodia for more than two decades, was a former Khmer Rouge soldier who fled to Vietnam in 1977 and became prime minister of a Vietnamese-installed communist government after the regime's fall.
Son Arun, Nuon Chea's Cambodian attorney, confirmed the authenticity of the documents but said he had not personally filed the request, an apparent effort to distance himself from the move to put Cambodia's strongman on the stand.
The defense team said that the 86-year-old former King Sihanouk, who briefly served as a symbolic head of state after the Khmer Rouge took power, had "rare access to the Khmer Rouge leadership, their strategies and policies" and was "privy to a range of sensitive information."
The tribunal's first trial, scheduled to begin March 30, is for 65-year-old Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Duch, who headed the Khmer Rouge's largest torture center. Later trials will be held for Khieu Samphan, the group's former head of state; Ieng Sary, its foreign minister; and his wife Ieng Thirith, who was minister for social affairs.
PHNOM PENH — Attorneys have asked the UN-backed Khmer Rouge genocide tribunal for permission to interview Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and former King Norodom Sihanouk, according to confidential documents obtained Monday.
The request was made by the defense team for Nuon Chea, the main ideologist of the regime whose 1975-1979 rule left an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians dead.
The long-delayed tribunal begins its first trial later this month, while the trial for Nuon Chea—charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity and facing life imprisonment—is expected to begin later this year.
The confidential court documents obtained by The Associated Press also request testimony from current senate president Chean Sim and assembly president Heng Samrin. Both men, along with Hun Sen, were members of the Khmer Rouge regime but defected to Vietnam before it was ousted.
"They are likely in possession of much relevant information to the pending judicial investigation," one of the documents said. All have denied any role in atrocities.
Hun Sen, who has ruled Cambodia for more than two decades, was a former Khmer Rouge soldier who fled to Vietnam in 1977 and became prime minister of a Vietnamese-installed communist government after the regime's fall.
Son Arun, Nuon Chea's Cambodian attorney, confirmed the authenticity of the documents but said he had not personally filed the request, an apparent effort to distance himself from the move to put Cambodia's strongman on the stand.
The defense team said that the 86-year-old former King Sihanouk, who briefly served as a symbolic head of state after the Khmer Rouge took power, had "rare access to the Khmer Rouge leadership, their strategies and policies" and was "privy to a range of sensitive information."
The tribunal's first trial, scheduled to begin March 30, is for 65-year-old Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Duch, who headed the Khmer Rouge's largest torture center. Later trials will be held for Khieu Samphan, the group's former head of state; Ieng Sary, its foreign minister; and his wife Ieng Thirith, who was minister for social affairs.
Muslim Nations Seek Closer Ties in Economic Crisis
By ZAKKI HAKIM / AP WRITER
JAKARTA — Muslim nations need to forge closer ties to meet challenges posed by the global financial crisis, Indonesia's president said Monday at the opening of the annual World Islamic Economic Forum in Jakarta.
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono proposed creating a Muslim support fund, noting that Islamic nations account for nearly half of the 50 least-developed and heavily indebted countries in the world.
He also said oil-exporting countries should help cushion the economic blow for developing countries by investing more in their agricultural sectors.
"Muslim countries with vast reserves but without a real agricultural sector can come to the rescue," he told the delegates. "And since they are food importers, they will also be securing their own food supply needs."
Yudhoyono said the financial crisis also opened up new opportunities for Islamic banks in oil-exporting countries, noting that they have not been as severely affected as their Western counterparts because they did not invest in "toxic" assets or in leveraged funds.
Yudhoyono also touched on climate change, energy security and food shortages.
This is the fifth meeting of the World Islamic Economic Forum. This year nearly 1,600 participants from 36 countries — including the leaders of Malaysia and Morocco, as well as senior government ministers and corporate leaders — are attending the three-day event.
JAKARTA — Muslim nations need to forge closer ties to meet challenges posed by the global financial crisis, Indonesia's president said Monday at the opening of the annual World Islamic Economic Forum in Jakarta.
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono proposed creating a Muslim support fund, noting that Islamic nations account for nearly half of the 50 least-developed and heavily indebted countries in the world.
He also said oil-exporting countries should help cushion the economic blow for developing countries by investing more in their agricultural sectors.
"Muslim countries with vast reserves but without a real agricultural sector can come to the rescue," he told the delegates. "And since they are food importers, they will also be securing their own food supply needs."
Yudhoyono said the financial crisis also opened up new opportunities for Islamic banks in oil-exporting countries, noting that they have not been as severely affected as their Western counterparts because they did not invest in "toxic" assets or in leveraged funds.
Yudhoyono also touched on climate change, energy security and food shortages.
This is the fifth meeting of the World Islamic Economic Forum. This year nearly 1,600 participants from 36 countries — including the leaders of Malaysia and Morocco, as well as senior government ministers and corporate leaders — are attending the three-day event.
Do We Need a ‘Diplomat Watch’?
By SIT NAING THU
I congratulate The Irrawaddy for publishing an interview with British Ambassador Mark Canning (“Mark My Words”). Canning said that, “...while the search for a political solution goes on, the people of this country should not be made to suffer further.” I completely agree with him.
I live in the country, and I notice that we now have fewer professional foreign diplomats based in Rangoon. Canning is a rare species—he seems focused, and he understands the situation. Before him, I remember Martin Morland as a courageous British ambassador who stood up against the Saw Maung regime. Former US Ambassador Burton Levin was also a strong supporter of the democracy uprising in 1988—the indiscriminate killing took place in front of the US embassy when people marched there to protest against the Ne Win regime.
But those days are gone. The US has downgraded its diplomatic tie with the regime since the 1988 massacre and since then many people see the quality and professionalism of diplomats posted in military-colonized Burma as something of a mixed bag. Some Asian ambassadors are known to be sympathizers with the regime and the generals—to name a few: India, China, Thailand, Singapore and Japanese embassies enjoy “friendly” relations with the regime. It is a shame and a disgrace in the history of Myanmar [Burma], and one day we will all remember.
But these Asian diplomats should not be disappointed. There are those in the West who share their views. In Burma, as recently as last year, a Western embassy invited only pro-junta people and regime sympathizers to one reception. The embassy claimed that it do not want a pro-democracy crowd. The US and UK missions are still popular among Burmese, but the postings of some diplomats have been controversial.
We all know diplomats and ambassadors based in Bangkok are also responsible for Burma. Those postings are difficult jobs as far as I understand. Burmese exiled groups and people friendly with the dissident movement have to deal with people in new postings about every three year. They find some good friends, but they tell me they also some who have differing views. Rumors circulated that these days some Bangkok-based diplomats and ambassadors support the 2010 election, and they naively believe that Burma is going to change after 2010. Is it true?
Some diplomats have, I was told, been “brainwashed” and ignore the plight of the Burmese people, refugees and displaced people along the border and inside. They have never traveled to the border zone to learn firsthand. Is it true? If it is, then it is sad news. The quality of diplomats working on Burma has gone down, I think.
My Burmese colleagues told me they hope for more diplomats who have real knowledge and a more balanced view on Burma.
Is there a complaint mechanism if Burmese supporters inside and outside the country believe that some ambassadors and diplomats aren’t professionally competent?
Are they happy giving their credentials to “Naypyidaw Than Shwe,” who in return offers them a political lecture? Since The Irrawaddy has a “Than Shwe Watch,” is it time for a “UN Watch or Gambari Watch?” Maybe it’s time for a “Diplomat Watch.”
Sit Naing Thu is an independent Burmese observer of politics and civil society in Burma.
I congratulate The Irrawaddy for publishing an interview with British Ambassador Mark Canning (“Mark My Words”). Canning said that, “...while the search for a political solution goes on, the people of this country should not be made to suffer further.” I completely agree with him.
I live in the country, and I notice that we now have fewer professional foreign diplomats based in Rangoon. Canning is a rare species—he seems focused, and he understands the situation. Before him, I remember Martin Morland as a courageous British ambassador who stood up against the Saw Maung regime. Former US Ambassador Burton Levin was also a strong supporter of the democracy uprising in 1988—the indiscriminate killing took place in front of the US embassy when people marched there to protest against the Ne Win regime.
But those days are gone. The US has downgraded its diplomatic tie with the regime since the 1988 massacre and since then many people see the quality and professionalism of diplomats posted in military-colonized Burma as something of a mixed bag. Some Asian ambassadors are known to be sympathizers with the regime and the generals—to name a few: India, China, Thailand, Singapore and Japanese embassies enjoy “friendly” relations with the regime. It is a shame and a disgrace in the history of Myanmar [Burma], and one day we will all remember.
But these Asian diplomats should not be disappointed. There are those in the West who share their views. In Burma, as recently as last year, a Western embassy invited only pro-junta people and regime sympathizers to one reception. The embassy claimed that it do not want a pro-democracy crowd. The US and UK missions are still popular among Burmese, but the postings of some diplomats have been controversial.
We all know diplomats and ambassadors based in Bangkok are also responsible for Burma. Those postings are difficult jobs as far as I understand. Burmese exiled groups and people friendly with the dissident movement have to deal with people in new postings about every three year. They find some good friends, but they tell me they also some who have differing views. Rumors circulated that these days some Bangkok-based diplomats and ambassadors support the 2010 election, and they naively believe that Burma is going to change after 2010. Is it true?
Some diplomats have, I was told, been “brainwashed” and ignore the plight of the Burmese people, refugees and displaced people along the border and inside. They have never traveled to the border zone to learn firsthand. Is it true? If it is, then it is sad news. The quality of diplomats working on Burma has gone down, I think.
My Burmese colleagues told me they hope for more diplomats who have real knowledge and a more balanced view on Burma.
Is there a complaint mechanism if Burmese supporters inside and outside the country believe that some ambassadors and diplomats aren’t professionally competent?
Are they happy giving their credentials to “Naypyidaw Than Shwe,” who in return offers them a political lecture? Since The Irrawaddy has a “Than Shwe Watch,” is it time for a “UN Watch or Gambari Watch?” Maybe it’s time for a “Diplomat Watch.”
Sit Naing Thu is an independent Burmese observer of politics and civil society in Burma.
March 1, 2009
US Envoy Highlights Burma Issues at the Asean Summit
By WAI MOE
CHA-AM, Thailand — The United States continued to highlight Burma in informal conversations with delegates at the 14th Summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), the US Special Envoy to Asean, Scot Marciel, told The Irrawaddy on Saturday.
“My main focus is to talk about our relations with Asean as a whole. But of course, in conversations, we continue to highlight our hope that Asean members will encourage progress in Burma,” he said.
“Generally speaking, most of them [Asean members] would like to see Burma move in a more positive direction.”
Among the 10 Asean countries, Indonesia is often considered the role model for the Burmese military junta to emulate in a transition to democracy. When the new US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Indonesia on February 18-19, the Indonesian foreign minister, Hassan Wirajuda, said that his country is willing to use its experience to help Burma change.
This offer came despite his public criticism of Burma on February 6 for its abuse of the Rohingyas, after nearly 400 Rohingya refugees were rescued off the coast of Sumatra in January.
“I think Burma has a lot to learn from Indonesia and other countries in the region,” Marciel said.
About the Burmese elections scheduled for 2010, the US envoy said that Burma can only progress if the regime engages in dialogue with the opposition and makes its political process inclusive. However, Marciel said, next year’s election in Burma is “not being based on this kind of broad generous dialogue.”
According to an interview with Asean Affairs magazine prior to the US election last year, Marciel expressed hope that that the US’s “intensive engagement” with Southeast Asia would continue and said that there had been strong bipartisan support for that involvement.
Mrs Clinton’s decision to visit East Asia as her first official mission sent a message that the new US administration was prioritizing Asian relations in its foreign policy. The Secretary of State later said that she would review US-Burma policy, saying neither sanctions nor engagement is working for change in Burma.
“She announced a review of our policy on Burma and we are [working toward making] our policy more effective. We have not yet made any decision,” said Marciel.
In July 2008, the US signed into law the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act 2008. The act has three aims: to impose new financial sanctions and travel restrictions on the leaders of the junta and their associates; to tighten the economic sanctions imposed in 2003 by outlawing the importation of Burmese gems to the US; and to create a new position of “US Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma.”
Marciel said that the US is still following the JADE act. However, he emphasized that the US “wants Burma to be a strong, prosperous, free country.”
The US Asean envoy added that working together with Burma’s neighbors to bring about change in Burma is part of the US-Burma policy.
CHA-AM, Thailand — The United States continued to highlight Burma in informal conversations with delegates at the 14th Summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), the US Special Envoy to Asean, Scot Marciel, told The Irrawaddy on Saturday.
“My main focus is to talk about our relations with Asean as a whole. But of course, in conversations, we continue to highlight our hope that Asean members will encourage progress in Burma,” he said.
“Generally speaking, most of them [Asean members] would like to see Burma move in a more positive direction.”
Among the 10 Asean countries, Indonesia is often considered the role model for the Burmese military junta to emulate in a transition to democracy. When the new US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Indonesia on February 18-19, the Indonesian foreign minister, Hassan Wirajuda, said that his country is willing to use its experience to help Burma change.
This offer came despite his public criticism of Burma on February 6 for its abuse of the Rohingyas, after nearly 400 Rohingya refugees were rescued off the coast of Sumatra in January.
“I think Burma has a lot to learn from Indonesia and other countries in the region,” Marciel said.
About the Burmese elections scheduled for 2010, the US envoy said that Burma can only progress if the regime engages in dialogue with the opposition and makes its political process inclusive. However, Marciel said, next year’s election in Burma is “not being based on this kind of broad generous dialogue.”
According to an interview with Asean Affairs magazine prior to the US election last year, Marciel expressed hope that that the US’s “intensive engagement” with Southeast Asia would continue and said that there had been strong bipartisan support for that involvement.
Mrs Clinton’s decision to visit East Asia as her first official mission sent a message that the new US administration was prioritizing Asian relations in its foreign policy. The Secretary of State later said that she would review US-Burma policy, saying neither sanctions nor engagement is working for change in Burma.
“She announced a review of our policy on Burma and we are [working toward making] our policy more effective. We have not yet made any decision,” said Marciel.
In July 2008, the US signed into law the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act 2008. The act has three aims: to impose new financial sanctions and travel restrictions on the leaders of the junta and their associates; to tighten the economic sanctions imposed in 2003 by outlawing the importation of Burmese gems to the US; and to create a new position of “US Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma.”
Marciel said that the US is still following the JADE act. However, he emphasized that the US “wants Burma to be a strong, prosperous, free country.”
The US Asean envoy added that working together with Burma’s neighbors to bring about change in Burma is part of the US-Burma policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)