Commentary: Burma's diplomatic stalemate

By

-

September 7, 2008

Aung Htoo

Sep 7, 2008 (DVB), If we compare United Nations special envoy Ibrahim Gambari's visit to Burma to a chess game, we can say that during his latest trip from to 23 August he attempted to sacrifice a queen for five pawns.

The five pawns that Gambari wanted from the State Peace and Development Council military regime in return for the extinction of the National League for Democracy were the release of political prisoners, talks between the SPDC and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, development of economy, the opening of a UN liaison office in Rangoon and the visit of UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon to Burma in December for political discussions.

Why do I refer these five points as pawns?

The call for the release of political prisoners is no longer new or surprising. It had been repeatedly demanded by Burma's pro-democracy moment as a whole well before Gambari mentioned it. As a representative of the UN, he should ask for more than political prisoners' freedom. Gambari should have talked about the elimination of repressive laws and the improvement of the legal and judiciary systems in the country to ensure that there would be no more arbitrary detentions in the future.

Instead of meeting between the SPDC and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Gambari should have asked the military regime to formally arrange a genuine political dialogue with political party leaders, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, whose parties won in the May 1990 elections.

Gambari's call to the SPDC for economic development in Burma will go nowhere since the regime does not have any capacity to bring it about.

The opening of a UN liaison office in Rangoon is also not a surprise – it is a normal procedure for the UN.

As for the visit of the UN secretary-general to Burma in December for political discussions, it is not in itself something to be much pleased about. The important thing is what he is going to talk about when he meets the junta.

I have previously suggested that Gambari's visit to Burma in August could make the situation worse for the country. I predicted that he might try to urge the SPDC to make the elections in 2010 free and fair. This kind of attempt is actually to the military regime's advantage because it supports the regime's effort to legitimise the elections.

When Gambari met with the NLD leaders in his recent trip, he actually tried to convince them to go along with his efforts regarding the 2010 elections. He tried to convince them to accept the SPDC's 2010 elections. In reality, the recognition of the 2010 elections is equivalent to the elimination of the 1990 election results and the acceptance of the 2008 state constitution. Gambari had five pawns in mind, but even before he got them he tried to undermine the queen by talking the NLD into accept the 2010 elections. We cannot condemn those who criticise Mr Gambari for doing what the SPDC wants him to do.

However, the NLD leaders could protect the queen by stating their strong demands to the military. The fact that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been at the forefront of Burma's pro-democracy movement like a queen, refused to meet with Gambari was absolutely the right step to take diplomatically.

But this diplomatic struggle was just the beginning. We should learn from it and ensure we are well prepared to continue to fight in this arena.

Our defensive line for the diplomatic struggle is the 1990 elections result. We should never take a step back from that line. Our main offensive target is the SPDC's 2008 state constitution. It is not the 2010 elections because the elections will be held on the basis of the constitution. The 2010 elections will bring the 2008 constitution into effect. If we can overturn the 2008 constitution, the 2010 elections will automatically be abandoned. Therefore, if we can let the whole world know the reasons why we cannot accept the 2008 constitution, we will be able to oppose the legitimacy of the 2010 elections very effectively.

As far as I see the situation, we still do not have a systematic working strategy to get our message out to the world of why we cannot accept the 2008 state constitution. It is worrisome to note that international governments, especially the European Union, ASEAN and Japan, have echoed Mr Gambari's views on the upcoming elections in Burma in 2010.

It is difficult for people inside Burma to find out about and understand the SPDC constitution. The military regime has never allowed its citizens to learn about the constitution and continues to prevent its people from discussing the constitution. Decree 5/96, violation of which can lead to up to 20 years' imprisonment, is still in effect.

Although activists and political leaders have studied the constitution to some extent, it has not been in enough depth due to the lack of reference books and information and the many restrictions. The constitution booklets have still not reached many townships and villages in remote areas. The majority of people in Burma have not yet read the SPDC's 2008 state constitution. It is almost impossible to access constitution-related books and papers in order to make a comparative study of the SPDC constitution against international norms.

The SPDC has intentionally created this situation. The regime does not want its people to know anything about the constitution. Nor does it want its people to study, analyse and criticise the constitution. If people don't know anything about the constitution, the regime can easily lie to them and use the constitution against them.

Therefore, on one hand the SPDC obscures constitutional issues from its people. But on the other hand, the regime tries to push for what it wants within and outside the country by claming that the new constitution has been adopted. For instance, ceasefire organisations have come under pressure to go along with the 2008 constitution. Political parties have been asked to register in order to contest the 2010 elections. Moreover, the SPDC has been calling widely for the recognition of the state constitution not only in the international arena but also at the UN, and assistance in implementing the processes set out by its own constitution.

The SPDC uses the same strategy of obscuring constitutional issues from the international community. So far, there has been no official translation of the 2008 constitution available for public use. The military regime has said it has already had an English version of the constitution prepared but this has not been made public.

Foreign countries have the capacity to study the SPDC constitution by translating it into English or their own languages but most countries have not yet done so because of the time, money and professional expertise they would have to invest. Up to now, Burma's opposition has still not come up with an exact translation of the constitution in English. There have been some analytical papers on the 2008 constitution but they have not been published in full in English. Even with the material that has been published in English, the opposition has still not been able to distribute it widely. This means that the international community cannot yet form an opinion of whether and why the SPDC constitution is good or bad. The military regime has benefited from the fact that the international community has limited knowledge about its constitution.

Conversely, I would like to point out the negligence of those who understand the 2008 constitution but go along with the SPDC by pretending they don't know where it is leading Burma. One of them is the UN special envoy Gambari. Constitutional experts at the UN office in New York have already explained the SPDC's 2008 constitution to him. Basically, Gambari must have already realised that democracy in Burma will never prevail if we follow the path of the SPDC constitution.

Understanding the motivations of Gambari, who urges people to accept the 2010 elections despite their uncertainties, is another matter. What we, the people of Burma, need to do is to tell Gambari and his superior Ban Ki-moon very firmly that we cannot accept any political process that includes the 2010 elections based on the SPDC's 2008 state constitution. If we cannot be straightforward with them, the situation of our country will worsen far more than we can imagine.

It is time to develop without further delay an inclusive working strategy to make governments all over the world understand our unwavering stance and accept our analysis of the SPDC constitution, and to convince them to support our approach.

Pakokku monk vows to continue regime boycott

By

Staff Reporter

-

September 6, 2008

2

Sep 7, 2008 (DVB), Young monks from Pakokku will continue to refuse alms from government officials until they apologise for beating, insulting, killing and imprisoning monks during the Saffron Revolution last year, a local monk said.

A young Pakokku monk said the government's crackdown had cut the number of monks in his monastery significantly.

"Last year, there were about 600 monks. This year, there are only just over 500 left. It is better for the Sasana when there are more monks," the monk said.

"We young monks are still maintaining the boycott. I am not sure about the older ones," he said.

"It is not good to torture monks like that. Even normal people do not like to be beaten up. People should even avoid harming animals."

The monk said regime officials could begin to redeem themselves by apologising to the monks.

"Beating up monks is a mortal sin. If they think about that it is a frightening prospect for them," the monk said.

"If they do not apologise, despite knowing they have sinned, they will pay for it. If they apologise, that is another matter," he said.

"We are still feeling saddened. They know themselves that evildoers won't last long. Those would act as kings have to follow the ten rules that bind kings."

Reporting by Nan Kham Kaew

What do the Thai demonstrations mean for Burma?

By

Staff Reporter

-

September 5, 2008

189

Htet Aung Kyaw

Sep 5, 2008 (DVB), Political tensions are running high in Thailand, with demonstrators from the People's Alliance for Democracy calling for the resignation of the government led by Samak Sundaravej.

While the likely outcome of the protests is not yet clear, any new developments could have a significant impact on Thai-Burmese relations and on the political situation in Burma.

Kavi Chongkittavorn, editor of the Nation, said he did not expect the demonstrations to lead to another coup.

"I don't think the army will stage a coup this time. They will stay as observers for the moment, keeping a carefully eye on developments. For the moment, the police have a very important role in keeping public order and I think, in the end, it is Samak who has to decide whether to give in or not, because at the moment it seems to me that there is a deadlock, with no way out.

"But with the resignation of foreign minister Tej Bunnag [on 3 September], Samak's position is getting weaker every day. I don't think Samat's cabinet will last for long because the government has lost credibility , the foreign minister is one of the most respected officials in the Thai government."

Irrawaddy editor Aung Zaw said it was too early to tell what the outcome of the demonstrations would be.

"We can't say anything definite yet. The reason is that PAD also has to relent. If the two sides continue to square off, I think there could be the prospect of bloodshed. But, what is extraordinary about this is, in this country, is that even if there is a big uprising like this, there is no unilateral crackdown. Diplomats in Bangkok say that if it were in Burma, it would only last about two days.

"[In 2006] there was a military coup and people said it would not happen again, but the situation favours a military coup. Although they are saying that there will not be another coup, no one, including political experts, can say exactly what will happen in the future. But in this country, even if there is a coup, people regard it as a national holiday. No one believes it is as bad as it would be in Burma."

Aung Zaw contrasted the brutal crackdowns of the Burmese army on demonstrators with Thailand's bloodless coup in 2006, where people welcomed soldiers with flowers.

"Although a state of emergency has been declared, the restrictions that brings only apply to areas where there are demonstrations while in other areas the situation is continuing as normal.

"These are the differences between the Thai army and the Burmese army, Thai politics and Burmese politics, and the thinking in the two countries."

But since neither Samak nor his predecessor Thaksin came to power in a coup but through democratic elections, some international observers have questioned why the protestors are trying to bring down elected representatives.

Kavi said he believed the Thai people had a particular concept of democracy.

"For Thai people, democracy is more than the electoral process. In many countries, the electoral process is one of the most important yardsticks for democracy. But in Thailand it is only a part of it. And I think a lot of it has to do with the Thais' concerns about the morals of their leaders and the leaders' good governance. In the case of Samak, I think his character is highly questionable. There are many court cases pending at the moment.

"I think Thailand looks at elections as part of a broader conception of the democratic process but not the only component, while in many foreign countries, the electoral process is sacred. If you win by one or two votes you have won, and others have to wait for the next round of election to come back to challenge the incumbent. And I think in Thailand, people do not have that kind of patience, so they demonstrate, to expose the government's mismanagement, corruption and all that.

"That explains why a lot of people continue to join in the demonstrations , even though from time to time they are threatened with arrest or the use of force, they keep coming out in large numbers."

Aung Zaw said the situation in Thailand could have a major impact in Burma.

"It has a great impact. General Than Shwe and his clique like Thaksin, Samak and so on – we know this from internal sources. General Than Shwe once said that he could play politics of Burma with various tricks, by taking out the Thai-Burmese border trades.

"Moreover, prime ministers Thaksin and Samat have made much of defending Burma in Thailand, as [Samak] did recently when he went to Burma and said that the general meditates and is religious and a good person and the like. He has a reputation as an ambassador for Burma, and the government of Burma is very worried that his government will collapse."

Military analyst Htay Aung, who is based on the Thai-Burmese border, believes that an end to the Samak government could lead to a cooling of relations between Thailand and the junta.

"If Samak's government falls, the relationship between the Burmese military government and Thailand may not be as warm as it has been in the past. For example, when Thaksin first came to power, he changed some infantry chiefs and the commander of Brigade 3 whom the Burmese government didn't like.

"If this government falls and a new government takes over, the pressure on the Thai army will decrease and the relationship with Burma's military government could become tense."

Htay Aung said that a victory for the Thai protestors could have a psychological impact in Burma and could boost moral among opposition activists.

"If the Thai people are successful, this could be a source of encouragement for the people of Burma, and the strength of the opposition against the military government could increase."

Directive orders monks to avoid political activity

By

Staff Reporter

-

September 5, 2008

0

Sep 5, 2008 (DVB), A directive has been sent by the state Sangha Maha Nayaka committee to monasteries and lecturing colleges in Chauk, Magwe division, ordering monks not to take part in political activities.

The directive was issued as new monks scholars arrived at the monasteries around the time of the one-year anniversary of the Saffron Revolution.

A Chauk monk said that the rules stated that monks could not get involved in party politics or join or participate in the activities of any organisations that are not sponsored by the Sangha Maha Nayaka.

The directive also urged monks to concentrate on their religious duties and not to act in a way that could tarnish the reputation of the Sangha.

The rules stated that swift action would be taken against any monks found to be breaking the law.

The monk said the directive had come from Magwe Division Sangha Maha Nayaka.

Security has been tightened around monasteries in Chauk and monks are being closely watched, the monk said.

"Last year the Sangha Maha Nayaka issued directives as instructed [by the authorities]. It is the same this year but security in both Pakokku and Chauk is quite tight," he said.

"These Swan Arr Shin and USDA are shaving their heads. I don't know whether they are going to beat up monks or not if we protest, but they are looking at us as if they are going swallow us alive when we go out to collect alms."

Monks in Chauk are continuing their boycott of government officials by refusing alms from them and they have told the abbots of the Sangha Maha Nayaka to speak out against the SPDC for forcibly disrobing, imprisoning and torturing monks.

"The abbots must know one way or another that the authorities are torturing, killing and imprisoning their own monks," the monk said.

"If they don't admonish wicked rulers, or if the other party doesn't accept it or take it seriously, the abbots themselves have a duty to carry out a religious boycott," he said.

"The Sangha Maha Nayaka must be held accountable."

Reporting by Aye Nai