Border guards in Bangladesh refuse entry to Rohingya refugees from Myanmar in November 2012. Credit: Anurup Titu/IPS

By AJ Correspondents
DOHA, Aug 15 2013 (Al Jazeera)

An activist has been arrested in Myanmar after posting photos on Facebook from violent clashes between displaced Muslims and security forces in the country’s restive state of Rakhine, police and an activist have said.

It was not immediately clear what charges Than Shwe, a 29-year-old Rohingya Muslim, would face.

A police officer who refused to give his name because he was not authorised to speak to the media said on Wednesday that the man was trying to cause trouble during a visit by U.N. special rapporteur on human rights Tomas Ojea Quintana.

Quintana, who was touring the region after the deadly clashes, has urged the state government to release the activist, Thailand-based The Irrawaddy newsmagazine reported.

Aung Win, a well-known Rohingya activist, said that Than Shwe’s wife called Quintana on Tuesday and told him that her husband had been detained.

“He [Quintana] told our community leaders that he had already told the government to release all people who have been detained, included Than Shwe,” said Aung Win, according to the newsmagazine.

At least one person was killed and around 10 were injured after the clash in a camp for dispossessed Rohingya Muslims Friday Aug. 9, in the latest violence in Rakhine state, the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR said.

Police torture

The most recent unrest occurred after the body of a fisherman was found in a creek near Ohn Taw Gyi camp, said Rakhine state spokesman Win Myaing, who called it a drowning.

But rumours quickly spread that the man had been beaten to death by police.

“He was bleeding from both ears. It looked like he had been smashed in the face by a rifle butt, all his teeth were gone,” said Aung Win, who saw the body before burial.

“This wasn’t a drowning. He was pretty clearly beaten and tortured.”

A dispute over the death and custody of the body sparked several riots, which were broken up by police who fired first into the air and then into the crowd, Win Myaing said.

Than Shwe, who works for an organisation that delivers food and supplies to camps for Rohingya Muslims, was accused of posting images of the dead and injured online, Aung Win said.

Twenty officers went to his home on Monday Aug. 12 and brought him to the police station, Aung Win said.

The United Nations has called for dialogue following the latest unrest.

“UNHCR is reiterating its call for peaceful dialogue and confidence-building between the [internally displaced persons] and government,” spokesman Adrian Edwards said in Geneva.

Myanmar, a predominantly Buddhist nation that only recently emerged from decades of isolation and military rule, has been wracked by sectarian violence in the last year, with more than 250 people killed and 140,000 others displaced.

Published under an agreement with Al Jazeera.

While Aung San Suu Kyi enjoys iconic status in Myanmar (also known as Burma), women remain invisible in this country steeped in Buddhist tradition and emerging from decades of military rule.

“Her (Suu Kyi’s) image suggests that there is space for women,” Ma Thida, a surgeon who is also a director of the ‘Myanmar Independent’ weekly newspaper published from Yangon (also Rangoon), tells IPS. “She is a great example for all Burmese women.”

Ma Thida was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment in 1993 on charges of “endangering public peace, having contact with illegal organisations and distributing unlawful literature.” She was released after five years in the notorious Insein prison.

“Today, the overall situation seems better compared to two or three years ago, but it’s far from ideal,” says Ma Thida, one of thousands of women who have contributed to bringing about changes towards democracy in Burma.

According to the Assistance Association of Political Prisoners, an independent non-profit founded by former political prisoners living in exile and based out of the border town of Mae Sot in Thailand, there are 18 females among the 473 political prisoners in Myanmar.

On paper, women suffer no discrimination with restrictions on civil liberties applying equally to all, regardless of gender.

Myanmar has ratified the international convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW), but the 2008 constitution does not quite conform to it.

For example, in appointing or assigning duties to civil services personnel the constitution prescribes that there be no discrimination “based on race, birth, religion, and sex”, but it also says that “nothing shall prevent appointment of men to the positions that are suitable for men only.”

“At the moment we cannot still talk or discuss freely about gender discrimination or gender equality,” says a female rights activist who prefers not to be named because of her involvement in the campaign against the construction of the Myitsone dam on the Irrawaddy River.

The controversial hydroelectric project, developed jointly by Myanmar’s power ministry, the privately-owned Asia World Company of Burma and China Power Investment Corporation, was suspended by Myanmar authorities last year, following protests.

“That controversial decision to suspend construction, which was welcomed by environment groups, was the result of protests held mostly by women,” the activist said.

“When Burmese official media reported the decision to suspend construction the women seemed to have disappeared because they were asked to sit on the ground while the cameras focused on government officials,” she said. “The presence of women in our society is extensive but we are still invisible.”

The same paradox extends through Myanmar’s political life in which women have been struggling behind the lines for years and are happy to take a back seat when it comes to leadership roles.

“Sometimes it’s not so easy to raise these kinds of issues even within women’s groups as the majority of women think that their role is within the family and that their role in society cannot change,” says Mon Mon Myat, a writer and women’s rights activist.

“In a male-dominated, Theravada Buddhist society there are many cultural barriers that limit women’s behaviour and functioning,” Mon Mon Myat told IPS.

“Female journalists, for example, cannot take pictures or videos of the audience, because they are not allowed to go up to vantage positions because as women they cannot stay above men or Buddhist monks,” explained Mon Mon Myat.

That cultural barrier contrasts sharply with the images of Suu Kyi waving or talking to people from a balcony at her house or at a party office.

Suu Kyi, according to Mon Mon Myat, is an exception because she is the daughter of Gen. Aung San, a venerated national hero closely associated with Myanmar’s independence movement.

In fact, Suu Kyi takes care to prefix her father’s name to hers, although the custom in Myanmar is for women to use their own given names through life without taking on the name of father or husband.

“Though she is a woman, Suu Kyi is a symbol of peace and democracy in our country. That is why we can see big crowds of monks and men strongly showing their support for her,” Mon Mon Myat said.

“The outlook of the country has to change if this country is going to be democratic, but for that there has to be more freedom in the media first,” says ‘Vic’, a 24-year-old writer who goes by that pen name.

Women activists and journalists who dared oppose the junta paid a heavy price with many of them systematically tortured, raped or killed by troops fighting a long war against ethnic militias in the Shan, Kachin and Karen states.

In 2002, the Shan Women’s Action Network denounced the systematic use of rape by the Burmese military in a report where some found the courage to speak out about their own experiences.

“It is still not possible to talk freely about rape cases committed by Burmese soldiers on ethnic women in remote areas,” said Mon Mon Myat.

In many cases, she said, women do not think of rape as gender discrimination but as a problem “of fate in a society that frowns on the weaker sex wearing inappropriate dress or going to inappropriate places.”

“In Myanmar, families may prefer to be silent about a rape, making it difficult for the victim to seek justice in the courts,” said Mon Mon Myat.

Women inside and outside Myanmar have been able to network through the Women’s League of Burma, an organisation of women drawn from 13 different ethnic groups that is “working for the advancement of the status of women towards a peaceful and just society.”

“Changing mindsets, especially among mid-level administrators and ordinary people is essential,” says Grace Swe Zin Htaik, a former actress who devotes herself to campaigning for health and gender issues. “It will take a long time before we achieve gender equality in Burma,” she told IPS.

Though poorly represented in legislative bodies and government positions, women like Mon Mon Myat draw hope for the future from the fact that females slightly outnumber males in Myanmar’s population, presently estimated at 55 million.

There is also the memory of better times before British colonial rule (1824–1948) when Myanmar followed a matriarchal system and women held rights to own property and hold high office.

As governments around the world continue to discuss how to ease sanctions in Myanmar, fears are increasing that a sudden massive influx of foreign investment could be detrimental to the delicate ongoing transition.

“I see a rush of over-investment, to the extent that things that can be done to slow down investment may be in the long-term interest of the country,” Lex Rieffel, an economist and Southeast Asia expert with the Brookings Institution, said Thursday at the Council on Foreign Relations, in Washington.

“I can assure you that even if we keep sanctions in place, there is going to be plenty of investment in this country. But what we will probably see is underinvestment in people – the government is currently meeting with every Tom, Dick and Harry, but there is no time being set aside for important decision-making or implementation.”

Recent weeks have seen a flurry of investment-related moves surrounding Myanmar, kicked off by two critical events on Apr. 1. First were parliamentary by-elections in which opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won 43 seats. That included one for Suu Kyi, who finally made her first formal entrance into the government on Tuesday.

Several major governments, including those of the U.S. and U.K., used the electoral outcome to begin to draw down the economic sanctions that have been in place for years. These had successfully cut Myanmar off from much of the rest of the world, making much foreign investment exceedingly difficult if not impossible.

Second and simultaneous with the election, the Myanmar government took long-overdue steps to allow its currency, the kyat, to trade freely.

For three-plus decades, government officials had kept the kyat pegged to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) global rate. While this left the country’s official exchange rate at between six and eight kyat to the U.S. dollar, black market rates hovered between 700 and 1400 kyat to the dollar.

Such a discrepancy created a huge impediment to doing business aboveboard.

“The currency decision was a more important step than the by- election,” Rieffel says, “in terms of its potential to affect the lives of ordinary people of Myanmar.”

Even prior to the elections, over the past year foreign business representatives had begun flocking to Myanmar, as the country implemented a series of contested but significant reforms. Reports suggest that inbound flights and high-end hotel rooms in Yangon have been abnormally full, particularly with potential investors.

Already, competition has heated up. According to a letter by the U.S. business community sent to President Barack Obama last week, “U.S. companies are starting from a disadvantage, as numerous entities from Europe and elsewhere in Asia have substantially stepped up their engagement in recent months.”

The letter, signed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council and others, including the American Petroleum Institute, called for “lifting the financial services facilitation and transactions sanctions in conjunction with easing the investment ban”.

The sanctions issue has been a divisive one for Myanmar watchers for years, and the overall efficacy of the multiple international sanctions regimes remains debated today. With most agreeing that the time has come to revisit the various financial and other bans in place, however, the conversation has shifted to the rate at which these measures should be rolled back.

“We do not agree with the business community’s approach,” Jennifer Quigley, with the U.S. Campaign for Burma, told IPS. “They think they should be allowed into all sectors, with no restrictions. The argument seems to be, ‘Everyone else is being let in, so we don’t want to be left out.’ But it’s too early for U.S. companies to go in.”

In an economy as devastated as that of Myanmar, the country’s complete lack of regulation spooks many as international investors begin to line up. The U.S. Campaign for Burma and many others are currently pushing for the adoption of a framework by the U.S. and other major international actors on how to encourage investment that positively impacts on the people of Burma.

Critical among these are ensuring buy-in by local communities, particularly long-marginalised ethnic communities. Given that much of Burma’s natural resources are found in areas dominated by ethnic minorities, Quigley says, “Ethnic groups feel that the regime is engaging in talks for economic benefit – so, right now, ceasefire negotiations are very fragile.”

Other reforms notwithstanding, violent conflicts are continuing between ethnic minority groups and the government, as are related human rights violations.

The sanctions issue also remains one of the most important points of leverage for the international community – simultaneously its greatest stick and carrot.

“If we go in and allow foreign investment, there won’t be any motivation for the government towards political resolution,” Quigley says.

Others see economics as having come dangerously close to eclipsing more pressing concerns.

“The United States needs to be very stingy about removing sanctions, as once sanctions are removed the Burmese military government (now in civilian clothes) is likely to dump Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD and the pro-democracy forces,” Kyi May Kaung, an analyst based in Washington, told IPS.

“The U.S. has to be very careful that it does not place human rights on the back burner, as it seems to be doing in the case of Chen Guangcheng in Beijing.”

Political reforms unfolding in Myanmar (or Burma) are giving health workers a chance to address a resurgence of drug-resistant falciparum malaria in the war-torn ethnic minority enclaves along the country’s eastern borders.

Carrying medical aid in backpacks they have been dodging bullets and avoiding mines to deliver healthcare to villagers in the remote border areas that are home to ethnic minorities such as the Karen, Shan and Kachin.

“Due to recent political changes, our health workers have more freedom to access areas formerly restricted by the Burmese army,” Mahn Mahn, secretary of the Back Pack Health Worker Team (BPHWT), a non-profit that has been attending to the health needs of nearly 200,000 ethnic minority people in Myanmar for over a decade, told IPS.

Improved healthcare along eastern Myanmar could not have been timed better because of emerging concern over possible genetic mutation of the Plasmodium falciparum that makes the deadly parasite resistant to artemisinin, the most effective anti-malaria drug.

Researchers from the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit, on the Thai-Myanmar border, which is supported by the Tropical Medicine Research Programme of Oxford University and the Bangkok-based Mahidol University, have concluded that there is now a resurgence of the deadly strain of falciparum malaria.

The researchers arrived at that conclusion after studying 3,202 patients with falciparum malaria who were on oral artesunate (an artemisinin derivate). The study, conducted along the Thailand-Myanmar border, spanned a 10-year period that ended in 2010.

According to a study published in the British medical journal ‘Lancet’ in April, the longer time taken for oral anti-malaria drugs to act on parasites in the bloodstream suggested increasing resistance.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has called for more attention to be paid to Myanmar – in addition to Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam that are under watch – to manage resistance to artemisinin and its derivates.

WHO stated its concerns ahead of World Malaria Day, on Apr. 25. “The four countries most affected by resistance to artemisinin resistance are Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and Myanmar. Of these Myanmar has by far the greatest malaria burden.”

“Given its extensive migrant population, the widespread use of oral artemisinin-based mono therapies and its close geographical proximity to India, Myanmar is critical to the success of efforts to prevent the emergence of artemisinin resistance globally,” the WHO adds.

But programmes to combat the spread of malaria in remote ethnic areas – often among the most vulnerable – need to address the link between disease prevalence and human rights violations in Myanmar, says Bill Davis, Burma project director for Physicians for Human Rights, a United States-based global campaigner for health and rights.

“Research done in the Karen state a few years ago showed that people who had experienced human rights violations were more likely to be positive with malaria than those who did not experience rights abuse,” he told IPS of a region where government troops and Karen rebels have been locked in an ethnic conflict spanning 60 years.

“Human rights abuses have a direct impact on public health,” he asserted. “Forced labour, having food stolen, forced displacement, all have negative effects on health.”

According to the WHO, there were 2.4 million malaria cases reported in 2010 in South and Southeast Asia, of which three countries accounted for over 90 percent of the confirmed cases. India accounted for 66 percent, Myanmar 18 percent and Indonesia 10 percent.

WHO studies reveal that close to 40 million people, nearly 69 percent of the population, live in malaria endemic zones in Myanmar. Of that, some 24 million people live in high-transmission areas – where BPHT operates.

In 2010, Myanmar reported 650,000 cases and 788 malaria-related deaths, according the WHO.

Myanmar dominated the other two Asian countries in the spike in malaria cases over a 10-year period, from 2000 to 2010, according to the ‘World Malaria Report 2011’. It recorded the highest increase in cases – 250 percent – because of “the changes associated with a large increase in the external diagnostic testing,” the report adds.

The spectre of artemisinin resistance in this corner of Southeast Asia affirms why it has been labelled the “epicentre of drug-resistant malaria in the world.”

The battle to contain the malaria parasite’s resistance to chloroquinine, once the drug of choice, was lost in these parts. Malaria resistance to chloroquinine was first detected in Pailin, a war-torn corner along the Thai-Cambodian border, from where it spread around the world.

“The threat of drug resistance must be taken seriously,” Shin Young-soo, regional director for the WHO’s Western Pacific division, said this week in a message to mark Malaria Day. “A particular concern is that artemisinin resistance will also develop in Africa, which has the world’s greatest malaria burden.”

“Our task is to prevent and to protect the gains that have been achieved by continuing artemisinin resistance containment efforts in the affected areas, and by preventing the development of resistance in other areas,” he added. “In the countries with detected artemisinin resistance, elimination of resistant parasites is vital.”

Mahn Mahn hopes that the government will give border-based organisations like the BPHWT, that have been providing much needed humanitarian assistance for many years, recognition, “so that we can improve our healthcare programmes and activities in remote areas.”

“We are unable to purchase medicines and supplies inside Burma because we are not an organisation registered with the government,” he said.

By Correspondents and - -
DOHA, Qatar, Apr 23 2012 (IPS)

Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s pro-democracy leader, and newly elected MPs from her National League for Democracy (NLD) party have refused to attend the opening session of parliament over a dispute regarding the wording of the parliamentary oath.

Suu Kyi and other members of her party refused to travel to the capital Naypyidaw to enter parliament on Monday.

The NLD wants the phrasing in the politicians’ oath changed from “safeguard the constitution” to “respect the constitution”.

Al Jazeera’s Wayne Hay, reporting from Naypyidaw, said: “The National League of Democracy is not calling it a boycott, although it is really exactly that.

“They have not turned up to the parliamentary sessions today. They have not even made the trip from the former capital Yangon to Naypyidaw.

“We have had one session already of the Upper House and there was no sign of NLD. The issue of the boycott was not even on the official agenda of the Upper House.”

The NLD has petitioned the constitutional court to change the oath, and Suu Kyi has written to Thein Sein, Myanmar’s president, asking him to reword the vow of allegiance.

Historic by-elections

Suu Kyi, who spent much of the past two decades locked up by the country’s military leaders, campaigned in by-elections on a pledge to amend the country’s constitution, which was drawn up the country’s former government.

Her party won 43 out of 45 seats in the historic by-elections that gave the Nobel Laureate her first seat in parliament.

Sein said on Monday during a five-day visit to Japan that he had no plans to change the oath.

The president told reporters in Tokyo he would like to “welcome” Suu Kyi to parliament, but that it was up to her whether or not she took up the seat.

Analysts say the Myanmar president needs the opposition in the parliament, dominated by the military-backed party, to get international legitimacy.

Myanmar’s military rulers ceded power to a quasi-civilian government after a November 2010 election marred by opposition complaints of rigging, and won by a party set up by the military.

The new government headed by Sein has released hundreds of political prisoners and introduced a wave of reforms including loosening media controls, allowing trade unions and protests, talks with ethnic minority rebels and sweeping economic changes.

‘Sense of betrayal’

Bridget Welsh, associate professor at Singapore Management University, told Al Jazeera: “The international community may see this exactly for what this is, and that seems rather petty. It’s about a word and not necessarily on principles.

“Most of the international community recognises that there are much more serious problems facing the country, poverty, development and so forth.

“This could lead to backlash in the international community. Also it could lead to a backlash domestically, because I think it will be very hard to translate it to ordinary people who voted for her, they may feel a sense of betrayal.

“Finally, of course, this could jeopardise the trust relationship that’s been moving the process forward.”

The oath is in an appendix to the constitution, and it is unclear whether it can be changed without the approval of 75 percent of parliament.

The constitution automatically allocates 25 percent of the parliamentary seats to unelected representatives of the military, and Suu Kyi’s party maintains that is undemocratic.

It also bars people from the nation’s presidency if they, or any of their relatives, are foreign citizens; that effectively prevents Suu Kyi from ascending to the presidency because she married a British national.

The potential parliamentary impasse comes as Japan announced it would waive about 3.7 billion dollars of Myanmar’s debt and resume suspended assistance to the country.

The European Union has announced it is suspending most sanctions on the country as a result of its “remarkable” reforms.

*Published under an agreement with Al Jazeera.

Excerpt:

As multilateral lending agencies prepare to seriously re- engage with Myanmar for the first time in decades, observers at the spring meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are warning that a poor understanding of ground conditions in the country could jeopardise many of the early opportunities created by government-initiated reforms.

While international economic sanctions, particularly those put in place by the United States and European Union, have significantly limited the ability of multilateral agencies to operate in Myanmar, recent weeks have seen several governments move to ease these measures. This week the U.S. announced a second round of loosening, while officials in both Australia and the EU are currently engaged in similar discussions.

The decisions follow a year of controversial reforms in Myanmar, where a new quasi-civilian parliament was seated in early 2011. Since then, led by President Thein Sein, the government has allowed for an unprecedented series of openings, including the release of hundreds of political prisoners, a relaxation of media censorship, and a strengthening of opposition political parties.

This culminated in highly anticipated parliamentary by-elections on Apr. 1, in which the long-jailed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi won a seat.

Although Myanmar has been a member of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) since 1955, until last year the Fund engaged in nothing more than routine annual meetings with the government. The last major World Bank project, meanwhile, ended two decades ago.

Currently, however, both the Bank and Fund, as well as the Asian Development Bank, are laying the foundation for re-engagement. Indeed, the IMF has been ramping up preliminary technical assistance since February, when the U.S. began to relax its sanctions regime.

Since then, the IMF has been invited by the Myanmar government to advise on changes in laws regarding the country’s monetary and foreign exchange transactions.

While the details of any new multilateral engagement with this resource-rich country remain to be decided upon, observers are clear on what should not take place. According to Sean Turnell, a long-time Burma observer, financial assistance itself should not be considered at this time.

“Burma and its government do not lack money,” Turnell told a forum on the sidelines of the World Bank-IMF spring meetings on Wednesday. “It’s currently pulling in about three billion dollars from its gas reserves, which has allowed foreign reserves to be close to eight billion dollars. That’s going to increase dramatically next year, once a new gas pipeline comes onboard.”

Burma does not need technical solutions, Turnell, an economics professor, said. “What it does need is an attack on the fundamental problems that are really holding the country back – not a lack of financial resources but a lack of will.”

The issue of will goes to the heart of the highly debated reforms process. For the moment, Turnell and many others have noted, those reforms have not only been relatively meagre but, more importantly, have been confined mostly to the realm of economics.

“The current reforms have not addressed security and justice issues, and I think that’s going to cause a major challenge for all of the international community,” notes Khin Ohmar, the coordinator of Burma Partnership, an umbrella of civil society organisations, based along the Thai-Burmese border.

“We are very concerned with the prospect of foreign direct investment, (international financial institution) re-engagement, peace-building, etc., going forward without a real understanding of the deep-rooted problems of our country,” she said.

While Ohmar concedes that local-level consultations have begun as the IMF and others have re-entered Myanmar, she warns that a “pattern of selectiveness” has appeared, in which foreign missions are relying only on government-registered NGOs for views on ground realities.

Particularly notable has been an absence of representation from within Myanmar’s conflict areas, where most of the country’s ethnic minorities live.

In Karen state and other such areas, “People are still living in fear,” says Paul Sein Twa, executive director of the Karen Environmental and Social Action Network. “Withdrawing troops from these areas would immediately help people to go back and farm – without waiting for any money from the international community or the government.”

Instead, Sein Twa contends, the government’s focus in dealing with armed ethnic groups has been simply to “secure” the areas for large- scale economic projects, including the creation of special economic zones, several of which are currently in the works.

“The government gives allowances to companies to own large areas of land, which leads to conflict between the local people and the government,” he says.

Similar outbreaks of violence have erupted when foreign companies, acting with the government’s permission, have moved construction materials into or through areas claimed by armed ethnic groups.

Assuming that Myanmar’s economy and broader society continue to open for the first time in more than a half-century, the worry for many is that a rushed focus on macroeconomics over – or instead of – issues of more relevance to local communities could lead to a continuation or even exacerbation of conflicts that have lasted for decades.

For any new multilateral programmes, however, the critical process of prioritisation will depend on the Myanmar government’s own priorities – and few claim to know where exactly those lay.

Long Southeast Asia’s black sheep, Myanmar is enjoying an image change following its landmark Apr. 1 by-elections. Tongues are now wagging about the region’s new beacon of hope for democratic change.

The just concluded summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the Cambodian capital revealed hints of the new image of Myanmar (also known as Burma) as it embraces political reform after 50 years of military dictatorships.

Activists and opposition politicians point to the landslide victory of Myanmar’s pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party as a sign of openness – absent in ASEAN countries such as Laos, Vietnam and Brunei and under siege in Cambodia and Singapore.

“In Cambodia, we are already taking Burma as a good example of a democratic feature: justice will prevail,” Mu Sochua, parliamentarian from the country’s opposition Sam Rainsy party, told IPS. “If Burma can do it, why not Cambodia?”

“In Vietnam, freedoms and human rights are not even discussed in the country as it is considered treason,” she added. “When I was in Singapore as a guest of the opposition Democrat party that has no seats in parliament, the meeting was cancelled and the organisers continue to be questioned even two years later.”

Others expect Myanmar’s small steps towards democracy to reverberate across ASEAN, whose other members include Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand.

“The reform in Myanmar will not be limited to its borders but holds out the possibility of spilling over across the rest of ASEAN,” says Yuyun Wahyuningrum, senior advisor at Indonesia’s non-governmental organisation, Coalition for International Human Rights Advocacy (HRWG), who attended the regional summit on Apr. 3 – 4 in Phnom Penh.

“More people in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and even Singapore are talking of this possibility,” she told IPS from HRWG’s office in Jakarta. “I am looking forward to this moment in the sub-region.”

But there are other implications from the democratic dividend that Myanmar’s President Thein Sein is enjoying after his one-year old quasi-civilian government held the by-elections, where the NLD party of Nobel Peace laureate Suu Kyi, won 43 of the 45 seats contested.

In easing the pressure off a reforming Mynamar, ASEAN will lay open the democratic deficits of its other members who have not been exposed for their harsh treatment of opposition figures, of suppressing the media or refusing the rights of political and civil liberties.

“For many years the non-democratic countries in ASEAN had been hiding in a very comfortable place behind Myanmar, evading international criticism,” reveals Yuyun. “Now I think they will begin to panic since they will soon be exposed for their human rights record and practices.”

“Eyes will move to Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and the rest,” she added. “Until 2010 Vietnam spoke on behalf of Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and itself, especially when Myanmar faced criticisms.”

ASEAN’s attempt to improve its image through an intergovernmental human rights commission and drafting an ASEAN human rights declaration will add heat on these countries, says Sinapan Samydorai, director of Think Centre, a Singaporean think tank. “They will be exposed to more critical reviews in terms of civil and political rights.

“Lack of freedom of expression and association, corruption and the abuse of political power and the lack of the rule of law will place Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam in an awkward corner,” Samydorai told IPS. “Civil society groups in Cambodia and in other ASEAN countries have begun to express this view.”

The singling out of Myanmar as an embarrassment began in 2001, four years after it joined a bloc that has two communist-ruled countries, Vietnam and Laos, and an absolute monarchy, Brunei. ASEAN also has one-party authoritarian states such as Cambodia and Singapore.

Malaysia and Thailand have democratic credentials that are under a cloud, leaving Indonesia and the Philippines as the only ASEAN members with claims to being robust democracies.

ASEAN summits typically end with a statement on the political situation in Myanmar, under ‘Regional and International Issues’. ASEAN summits, with the United States as dialogue partner, were under pressure to get the junta in Myanmar to ease its iron grip on power.

Myanmar as a diplomatic embarrassment even precipitated tension within the bloc as governments talked of “constructive engagement” and “flexible engagement” to shield their regional neighbour from Western criticism.

“ASEAN has now reached a stage where it is not possible to defend a member when that member is not making any attempt to cooperate or to help itself,” a visibly frustrated former Malaysian foreign minister Seyed Hamid Albar said in 2006. And in 2007, ASEAN expressed “revulsion” at the brutal crackdown on protesting Buddhist monks in Myanmar’s cities.

“It is easy to find black sheep in this region,” says Pavin Chachavalponpun, associate professor at the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies at Kyoto University, in Japan. “As much as ASEAN liked to support political developments in Burma, it was content to see the global attention being paid only to Burma all along.

“This way they could get away with certain behaviours that potentially undermined democracy,” the academic told IPS. “Thailand I think is a country that could also be exposed, because the 2006 coup weakened democratic institutions by the concentration of royal power.”

Japan’s plan to resume official development assistance (ODA) to Myanmar, announced this week, is problematic for a country faced with a dauntingly large disaster recovery budget for areas hit by the earthquake and tsunami last year.

But proponents of renewing ODA to Myanmar (also known as Burma) argue that the move is important for Japan, a country that seeks to boost its diplomatic clout in the world through development funding.

In an editorial in December 2011, the ‘Nikkei’, Japan’s leading financial daily, criticised the nation’s falling aid budget – Japan has slipped to sixth place from being topmost international donor in the 1990s – pointing out that ODA has traditionally earned the country international respect and economic growth.

The editorial said that “the resumption of foreign aid for Myanmar is expected to further promote democratisation of the southeastern country as well as to help Japanese firms establish a foothold in that market.”

The contrasting viewpoint, however, questions the prudence of hiking ODA against Japan’s own economic problems – growth for the past decade hovers at less than two percent of gross national product.

Critics point to the looming expenditure, estimated to be over 222 billion dollars to rebuild damaged infrastructure and business in the earthquake and tsunami devastated northeastern coastal areas, as a key national priority.

Indeed, former prime minister Naoto Kan had declared after the Mar. 11 disaster last year that Japan will be cutting its foreign aid budget of around five billion dollars further to help fund a supplementary budget for reconstruction.

Japan has been slashing its ODA budget for the past 14 years to cope with increasing public expenditure to meet the needs of an ageing population, reducing fiscal debt and a high value yen that is encouraging Japanese companies to move to cheaper manufacturing sites abroad.

Prof. Kei Nemoto, expert on Myanmar and Southeast Asia, contends that domestic pressures will mean Japan will pledge ODA to Myanmar on a piecemeal basis rather than go ahead with large new commitments.

“Taking a decision to extend aid to Myanmar is an extension of Japanese diplomacy that is closely aligned with Western policies that support the democratic process in the country by investing in its economic development,” said Nemoto who teaches at the Sophia University in Tokyo.

“Yet, Japanese support will be cautious given its own domestic restraints,” Nemoto added.

Japan is planning to announce a restart of yen loans to Myanmar when its civilian leader, President Thein Sein, visits Tokyo later this month to attend the Japan-Mekong Summit.

Under review also is the cancelling or partial waiver of Myanmar’s debt of 5.8 billion dollar development loan extended for projects before aid – both loans and grants – was frozen in 2003.

Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba, commenting on the latest election results in Myanmar, said Japan is committed to backing democracy and national reconciliation based on political and economic reforms now enacted in the country.

Gemba praised the victory of the National League for Democracy, led by opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, in the by-elections held over the weekend.

Analyst Toshihiro Kudo at the Institute of Developing Economies, a quasi-government think-tank, forecasts a fast developing bilateral relationship between Japan and Myanmar that will focus on promoting economic ties.

“Cooperation with Myanmar is important for Japan that is attracted to the country’s natural resources and young labour that can support Japanese companies that are investing abroad,” he opined.

On the democratic and human rights front, Kudo explained that Japan will be supporting more reforms but, in keeping with its traditional stance of pushing for compromise politics, will prefer to wait for results rather than take a hardline approach.

“In contrast to the Western push for human rights improvements, Tokyo’s diplomacy with conflict-ridden countries follows a more carrot approach with promises of rewards for democratic steps,” he said.

A step in this direction is Tokyo’s plan to provide funds to set up a Japan friendship centre in Yangon that will serve as a platform to promote technological and cultural cooperation.

Experts view the new structure, to be established later this year, as setting the stage to include educational projects to foster the modernisation and globalisation of the isolated country.

The gentler approach, according to Nemoto, will serve Japan to regain its presence in Southeast Asia, a thrust that is needed against the growing influence of China during the past decade.

Grassroots organisations based in Tokyo that have worked long on environment destruction in Myanmar and human rights violations among its ethnic minorities hope that the resumption of Japanese aid will be linked to development that respects people.

Yuki Akimoto, expert on Myanmar at Mekong Watch, a Japanese non-governmental organisation that works to prevent negative environmental and social impacts of development in the region points to stoppage of Japanese aid for hydro-electricity projects in keeping with the international aid embargo.

“We assume Japanese yen loans will be earmarked to revisit the construction of the (Salween) dam, a project that will be monitored closely by us,” she said.

Many of the latest reforms came in the wake of Clinton's visit late last year to Myanmar, during which she met Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Credit: State Department photo/ Public Domain

By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Apr 4 2012 (IPS)

Two days after hailing Sunday’s parliamentary by-elections in Myanmar, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that Washington would begin a process of “targeted easing” of longstanding economic sanctions against the Southeast Asian nation.

“The United States is committed to taking steps alongside the Burmese government and people as they move down the road of reform and development,” she said, adding that the administration will very soon name an ambassador to Yangon, establish an in-country U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) mission, and support a “normal country programme” for Myanmar by the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP).

In addition, it will permit U.S.-based non-governmental organisations to undertake a variety of programmes, ranging from democracy promotion to health and education, in Myanmar, and facilitate visits by selected government officials and parliamentarians to the U.S., she said.

Perhaps most significantly, she said Washington will begin “the process of a targeted easing of our ban on the export of U.S. financial services and investment as part of a broader effort to help accelerate economic modernisation and political reform.”

“Sanctions and prohibitions will stay in place on individuals and institutions that remain on the wrong side of these historic reform efforts,” she added, stressing that Washington will “stand with reformers and democrats, both inside the government and in the larger civil society” going forward.

Her announcement comes in the wake of the landslide victory of the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi in Sunday’s by-elections.

In addition to winning in her rural constituency, the NLD reportedly swept 43 of the 45 seats that were contested in the elections, the latest in a series of steps taken by the government of President Thein Sein over the past several months that have encouraged the administration here that its “engagement” policy is working.

In addition to freeing hundreds of political prisoners and legalising the NLD, the government has also enacted labour reforms, relaxed media censorship, and engaged Suu Kyi herself in an intensive dialogue that some analysts believe may result in her being asked to accept a cabinet-level position.

The government has also consulted with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a process that has resulted, among other things, in ongoing reforms in the country’s extremely restrictive foreign investment regime and in Monday’s float of the national currency, the kyat, in what is widely regarded as the most far-reaching step yet in integrating Myanmar into the global economy.

Many of these reforms came in the wake of Clinton’s visit late last year to Myanmar, the first trip by a secretary of state to the country in nearly 60 years. Myanmar had been ruled by the military from 1962 until Thein Sein, himself a former general, was inaugurated as president last March.

Clinton’s trip, during which she met separately with both Suu Kyi and Thein Sein, marked the culmination of the administration’s “engagement” policy led by its special envoy, Derek Mitchell, who is expected to be nominated as Washington’s first ambassador to Myanmar in 20 years, and is currently in Europe consulting with his counterparts.

Reaction here to Clinton’s announcement was mixed, with some groups praising the action and others criticising it as premature.

“Today will be the best day for the Burmese regime, which is still killing innocent civilians in ethnic areas in Burma,” said Aung Din, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Burma and a former political prisoner, who noted that, despite its sweeping victory Sunday, the NLD will hold only a small fraction of the 664-seat parliament.

“What they have achieved from the United States for giving seven percent of seats in the Parliament to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is enormous,” he complained.

“We also suddenly learned today from the secretary’s statement that the United States has already changed its policy on Burma, from the dual track policy of sanctions and engagement to the policy of engagement, which is the perfect match for the Burmese regime’s policy of ‘give little and get more’,” he noted, adding that the administration will draw out its “targeted easing” policy to ensure that the reform process has become irreversible.

After Sunday’s elections, the Campaign urged Washington to wait to see to what extent the government would co-operate with Suu Kyi and the NLD before easing or lifting sanctions.

Human Rights Watch (HRW), a harsh critic of Myanmar’s human rights record, was more positive. “I think it’s good,” said Tom Malinowski, the director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch. “It’s essentially what we recommended they do.”

“It’s a calibration, rather than a lifting of sanctions,” he told IPS. “The idea is to try to give a boost to civilians and reformers while continuing to sanction the military and military-owned businesses.”

According to a senior administration official who briefed reporters on the announcement, “The principle I think we’re going to be using to underline anything we do in terms of easing is what has the most benefit for the average Burmese. And so what sectors can provide the greatest bang in terms of employment and development for those who have been hurt by the system for so long?

“And certain sectors I think jump out at you. I mean, agriculture is one. I think many have looked at tourism as another. Some have looked at potentially telecommunications as another.”

The official noted that, “Burma is one of the few countries in the world where you cannot use a credit card, and it makes it extraordinarily difficult for some of the most basic kinds of economic exchanges. And we think some small steps will allow businesses to flourish, certain opportunities to take hold.”

The administration expects the European Union (EU), which has generally followed Washington in imposing sanctions against the regime, to take similar measures when its foreign ministers meet in Brussels Apr. 23 to coordinate their reaction to the latest events in Myanmar.

Both the EU and the U.S. were urged to immediately lift all sanctions on Myanmar by the leaders of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) when they met in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Wednesday. Myanmar, which was admitted to the group over Western objections in 1997, is scheduled to chair it in 2014.

“We called for the lifting of all sanctions on Myanmar immediately in order to contribute positively to the democratic process and economic development in that country,” they said in a communiqué read by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen.

But in her statement, Clinton was clear that Washington is not yet prepared to do so. “This reforms process has a long way to go,” she said. “The future is neither clear nor certain. …We will continue to seek improvements in human rights, including the unconditional release of all remaining political prisoners and the lifting of conditions on all those who have been released.”

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama Monday hailed Sunday’s parliamentary by-election in Myanmar, also known as Burma, which the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi won in a landslide.

In a written statement, White House spokesman Jay Carney described the election as “an important step in Burma’s democratic transformation. (W)e hope it is an indication that the Government of Burma intends to continue along the path of greater openness, transparency, and reform.”

But he failed to say what steps Washington may take to further its rapprochement with Myanmar that gained considerable momentum late last year when Hillary Clinton met separately with President Thein Sein and Suu Kyi during the first trip by a secretary of state to Myanmar in nearly 60 years.

Her visit was followed by the government’s release in January of hundreds of political prisoners, one in a series of steps, including Sunday’s by-elections, that the administration said could lead to full normalisation of relations between the two countries.

While State Department officials hinted that some reciprocal gestures – including the anticipated nomination of an ambassador to Yangon – could be expected, Clinton herself suggested Washington would proceed cautiously.

“Going forward, it will be critical for authorities to continue working toward an electoral system that meets international standards, that includes transparency, and expeditiously addresses concerns about intimidation and irregularities,” Clinton said at a press conference in Istanbul Monday in response to some reports of problems at polling places.

“It is too early to know what the progress of recent months means and whether it will be sustained,” Clinton had said late Sunday when the poll results were first announced. “There are no guarantees about what lies ahead for the people of Burma…”

If the administration reacted cautiously, three major U.S. business associations interested in Myanmar’s abundant natural resources, including oil and gas, urged deeper engagement in a joint statement.

Calling the election an “important milestone” in Myanmar’s reform process, the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council called for the “continuation and expansion” of “the enhanced U.S. diplomatic engagement with Myanmar” – the name given the country by the ruling military junta that ignored the NLD’s landslide victory in the 1990 elections and subsequently imprisoned most of its leadership.

The three groups, which collectively represent the most important U.S. companies with interests in Southeast Asia and which have long opposed economic sanctions against Myanmar, called explicitly for the administration to name a U.S. ambassador “as soon as possible”.

“We believe that such engagement has been, and will be, crucial in encouraging and supporting further reform,” they said.

Of the 44 seats that were up for grabs in Sunday’s elections, the NLD reportedly won at least 40 and possibly as many as 43, including the rural seat contested by Suu Kyi herself, according to the latest reports. While some minor opposition parties participated in 2010 elections, this was the first contested by the NLD since the 1990 poll.

Whether the NLD’s victory will translate into real political power, however, remains to be seen. Even if it wins 43 seats, the NLD will hold just over six percent of the 664-seat Union Parliament, which remains dominated by the military that has effectively controlled Myanmar’s government since 1962. Without support from the government, the party will be unable to pass laws on its own, let alone amend the military-designed constitution.

Nonetheless, veteran Myanmar observers here have been pleasantly surprised by the reforms initiated by the government since Thein Sein, himself a former general, was inaugurated as president last March.

In addition to freeing hundreds of political prisoners and legalising the NLD, the government has also enacted labour reforms, relaxed media censorship, and engaged Suu Kyi herself in an intensive dialogue that some analysts believe may result in her being asked to accept a cabinet-level position.

The government has also consulted with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a process that has resulted, among other things, in ongoing reforms in the country’s extremely restrictive foreign investment regime and in Monday’s float of the national currency, the kyat, in what is widely regarded as the most far-reaching step yet in integrating Myanmar into the global economy.

Pending changes in the rules governing foreign trade and investment could radically transform the local economy, which has been among the world’s most highly protected for decades.

In addition to providing foreign investors with tax holidays and easing regulations requiring them to partner with local businesses, draft legislation would permit foreign companies the right to lease land and import their skilled workers.

U.S. companies are eager to take advantage of these reforms as soon as possible. In order to do so, however, Washington will have to lift a raft economic sanctions – including a ban on new investment – that have been in effect for some 15 years.

The European Union (EU) has imposed similar – albeit not quite as far-reaching – sanctions. The EU, however, has recently resumed providing aid to Myanmar, and its top trade official Monday indicated the group was ready to lift some economic sanctions.

According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Obama has the authority to waive many of the sanctions without Congressional approval, and one of the major questions in the wake of the election and enactment of the pending economic reforms will be whether he will do so.

He could also ask Congress to amend existing legislation, but initial reaction from lawmakers who have been particularly outspoken against the military in Myanmar was not encouraging.

“Now is not the time for the international community to rush toward lifting pressure on Burma,” said Rep. Joe Crowley, a New York Democrat who congratulated Suu Kyi on her electoral success but noted that “far too many political prisoners are still locked behind bars,” while conflict between the military and the country’s ethnic minorities persists.

Similarly, Aung Din, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Burma and a former political prisoner himself, said Washington should be patient.

“The United States and EU should not reward the regime simply because the NLD has some seats in the Parliament,” he said. “They should wait until we see clearly how these newly elected MPs are treated by the (ruling party) and the military in the Parliament.”

He added that the West should “send a clear message to the regime that their failure to co-operate with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in the Parliament will not be acceptable.”

Joshua Kurlantzick, a Southeast Asia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, also advised caution in an essay posted at cfr.org Monday.

“In the wake of the election, the United States and other leading democracies should continue to move slowly in engaging with Myanmar,” he wrote, urging increases in aid, particularly to ethnic minority regions.

But “Washington and other actors should not lift sanctions on trade and investment with Myanmar now,” he added, suggesting that they wait until the end of this year or next “to see how the NLD and Suu Kyi are treated in parliament, what kind of freedom they have to criticize and push legislation, and whether the planned 2015 national elections are likely to go forward.”

But pressure from the business lobby, which has been frustrated as Chinese, Indian and Southeast Asian companies have taken full advantage of western sanctions by increasing their stake in Myanmar, is likely to be intense.

In addition, growing geo-strategic competition between Beijing and Washington in Southeast Asia over the past two years has intensified the Pentagon’s interest in Myanmar.

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

Following her historic victory in Sunday’s by-elections Aung San Suu Kyi takes on a new role as opposition lawmaker, after a 22-year existence as Myanmar’s most famous political prisoner.

The 66-year-old’s presence in parliament will be fortified by other candidates from her National League for Democracy (NLD) triumphant in the landmark mini-poll on Apr.1. An informal tally by NLD has shown the party winning 40 of the 45 seats up for grabs in the 664-member bicameral legislature.

“It is not so much our triumph as a triumph of the people, who have decided that they must be involved in the political process of this country,” the beaming Nobel Peace laureate told thousands of cheering supporters gathered outside the party’s headquarters in Yangon, the former capital, on Monday.

“We hope this will be the beginning of a new era when there will be more emphasis on the role of the people in everyday politics of our country,” she added.

The voters who ensured her place in the third elections in Myanmar (also called Burma) in 50 years come from the Karen ethnic minority. It was in the Kawhmu township, home to this impoverished ethnic community on the southwestern fringes of Yangon, that Suu Kyi contested for her first seat in the 440-member ‘Pyithu Hluttaw’ (Lower House).

Suu Kyi has set her sights on the need for the rule of law and to amend the 2008 constitution among her priorities in the legislature, a body dominated by Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), a proxy of the Southeast Asian nation’s last military junta, and a bloc of non-elected military officers.

In the Lower House, the USDP has 219 seats following a fraud-plagued 2010 general elections – which the NLD boycotted – and the military bloc enjoys 110 seats. And, in the ‘Amyotha Hluttaw’, the Upper House, the USDP controls 123 seats and the military bloc, 56 seats.

The small numbers on the opposition benches will include the National Democratic Force (NDF), a breakaway faction of the NLD, and a clutch of ethnic minority parties and independents.

While the NLD will only add marginal weight to the opposition numbers, it is Suu Kyi’s performance in parliament that analysts say will serve as a yardstick to measure how much space a “loyal opposition” will enjoy in Myanmar’s changing political landscape under President Thein Sein.

And besides the reformist Thein Sein, whose one-year-old quasi-civilian government has been dismantling five decades of oppressive military rule, Suu Kyi will also have to engage with the powerful speaker of the Lower House, Shwe Man, a former general like Thein Sein, who is also competing for the reformist’s mantle.

“All sides will have to adjust to the new realities to pursue the current pace of reform,” says Aung Naing Oo, deputy director of the Vahu Development Institute, a think tank helping to shape public policies in Myanmar. “The government will have to come to terms with a strong voice like Aung San Suu Kyi’s in parliament for the first time.”

She will have to negotiate with the USDP and the military bloc if she wants to “expand her role from being a minority member in parliament to introducing new laws,” he told IPS. “This means even reaching out to the army chief (Gen. Min Aung Hlaing) who directs the votes of the military bloc in the parliament.”

The “surprising” presence of reform-minded parliamentarians within the pro-government camp will be a fertile ground for Suu Kyi to establish her opposition credentials, adds Win Min, a Myanmar national security expert. “She had a friendly meeting with Shwe Man during a recent visit to Naypidaw (the capital).”

She could also play a “balancing role” to help “reduce the ongoing tension between the parliament and the president since both need her,” he explained in an interview. “The president will need her to help lift the (economic) sanctions (imposed by the United States and the European Union) and the speaker will need her to increase its power in a non-threatening way.”

For Myanmarese like Zinn Linn a vibrant opposition in parliament harks back to an era before the 1962 military coup. “They were known for their passionate debates and open challenges to the then prime minister U Nu,” said the 65-year-old who lives in exile in Bangkok. “The government’s programmes came in for severe scrutiny.”

The opposition heroes of that era, including Aung Than, an uncle of Suu Kyi, were part of the left-leaning bloc that was challenging the U Nu administration, elected to power as the country’s first government after colonial rule ended.

“The political and parliamentary culture of that time was shaped by British traditions, so the role of an opposition was accepted,” Zin Linn told IPS.

There were few expectations of such a revival following the return of opposition politics after the 2010 general elections. The previous British parliamentary traditions had, after all, given way to the dominant military culture that had crushed all dissent since 1962.

Yet Suu Kyi’s arrival could change the equation following the by-elections. “The government has permitted that space and it has been received positively,” says David Scott Mathieson, Burma researcher for the global rights campaigner Human Rights Watch.

“The opposition is not in any way close to being robust, but what they have done, using the legislative process in a limited way, has surprised many people,” he explained to IPS. “Suu Kyi joining these ranks would help in this transition.”

The celebrations started even before the polls opened on Apr. 1. The mood has been festive in Yangon and surrounding districts for the past few days, with jubilant revellers, sporting National League for Democracy (NLD) logos parading on open trucks, motorbikes, rickshaws, chanting party slogans and blasting patriotic songs made especially for the occasion.

Crowds of supporters in front of the NLD headquarters, as preliminary results are announced. Credit: Preethi Nallu/IPS.

It is a first time since 1990 that masses have taken to the streets during elections, to vocalise their political views in such large numbers, and to openly support their ‘Lady’ Aung San Suu Kyi.

Suu Kyi won the presidential elections with a landslide victory in 1990 – and was subsequently placed under house arrest by the Junta for over 14 years.

In Kawhmu district, Suu Kyi’s constituency for these by-elections, a massive rally took place hours before polls opened. Suu Kyi herself reached the otherwise sleepy town amidst tens of thousands of supporters who stood on the streets for a chance glimpse of their famous leader.

“They (the ruling Union Solidarity Development Party, USDP) know very well she is going to win and that the NLD is going to win by a large margin,” a 20-year-old who currently attends Yangon University, shouted out, as he pointed to the nearby USDP supporters who were muted in comparison.

The expectations of millions of Burmese across the country were realised with preliminary results from polls indicating a landslide victory of 41-43 out of the 45 seats for the opposition party.

While the NLD confirmed Suu Kyi’s victory early in the evening election day, the administration will officially announce poll results on Apr. 8. The NLD won at least four seats in Naypyidaw, a USDP stronghold.

The NLD is riding high. “There is no turning back for the NLD,” Tin Oo, chairman of the party, told IPS.

He remained unclear about the party’s collective position on Aung San Suu Kyi potentially accepting a ministerial position. But, regardless of the impending decisions, the party has delineated an agenda geared towards long-term reform.

“This is a flicker of democracy we are seeing today. We will continue to push for key elements such as rule of law and transparency from the government,” Tin Oo said.

The chairman also stated that without ethnic minority inclusion in the democratic process, “there will be no peace at all.” He added that the different ethnic groups must be given “equal rights under a federal government” and that their educational and health needs must be met by the USDP.

“There are endless opportunities but there are significant sources of concern,” said Aung Naing Oo. “The legacy of military rule is still present and some departments lack capacity and exposure, while others have vested interests and a highly bureaucratic culture.”

The conviction and confidence that radiated in the faces of a majority of Burmese at rallies in urban centres such as Yangon and Mandalay is evidence of a changing political culture and unprecedented openness towards expressing views that were considered controversial and a ‘risk to safety’ just a year ago.

But despite Suu Kyi’s victory, which is of historic importance to the country, these elections are far from a tectonic shift in the political landscape of Myanmar.

The election result will not materialise in a change in power-balance in Naypyidaw, and Suu kyi will be limited in terms of wielding political leverage, even if she decides to sit in the parliament with a ministerial portfolio.

Khin Zaw Win, a former political prisoner who currently heads the Tampadipa Institute in Yangon predicted that the government will attempt to “isolate and contain” Suu Kyi’s realm of influence.

“If she were savvy enough, she could form cross-cutting alliances with MPs from other parties. A high degree of political astuteness is going to be called for,” Khin Zaw Win explained in an interview for IPS.

Even if the NLD is granted a significant number of seats, the electoral laws and distribution of power in the legislature will need significant remodelling for a truly democratic process to emerge.

Ninety percent of constituencies in the country have been formed along ethnic lines, whereby a clear majority ethnic group is present in each constituency, thereby dictating the politics of that particular region. This has inevitably lead to localised loyalities and divisive politics.

The European Union which has already eased sanctions on Burma this year, announced that it is set to possibly lift sanctions over the month of April, provided the poll results reflect a “free and fair” process.

An EU election observer in Yangon, Malgorzata Wasilewska, stated to reporters that this latest polling process is indicative of “remarkable signs” of progress.

Aung Naing Oo, co-director of Vahu Development Institute, corroborates the EU’s emerging view that sanctions have crippled the middle classes and lower socio-economic strata in the country over the past decades.

“Indefinitely delaying lifting of sanctions might bring back the hardliners or conservatives in the administration to the forefront,” Aung Naing Oo warns.

Although he hopes to shift base to Yangon in the future based on his positive experiences of being in different parts of Burma, and a freedom of movement that is a first in several decades, he acknowledges that changes in the different sectors are dependent on individual ministries and officials heading them.

“There are some ministries that are never in the limelight but have silent revolutions of their own. But there are many that are very bureaucratic and dealing with monetary issues such as the mining ministry that have been accused of rampant corruption. It will take time for changes across the board.”

A major concern over lifting sanctions has been the lack of preparedness on part of the government in handling an influx of large-scale investments, and ethical concerns in terms of ensuring that masses benefit from such an opening.

David Mathieson, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW) says that lifting sanctions immediately, based on election results, will be premature and irresponsible.

“There are two reasons why sanctions should not go anytime soon,” he told IPS. “The first is political calculation. The punitive measures must not be removed until they see that the government is genuine in terms of reform and improving human rights. The second point is that it is impractical to remove them anytime soon.”

The European Union, United States, Canada and Australia are currently the main sanctioning entities.

By Marwaan Macan-Markar and - -
BANGKOK, Mar 23 2012 (IPS)

For thousands of ethnic Kachins who fled fighting between government troops and rebels and survived a bitter winter in the refugee camps that dot northern Myanmar (or Burma), another test of survival looms – gale force winds.

From April, seasonal gales followed by heavy monsoon rains sweep through the rugged, snow-capped mountain terrain close to Myanmar’s border with China. Here, in territory held by the rebel Kachin Independence Army (KIA), over 45,000 villagers are hunkered down in makeshift bamboo huts.

Another 20,000 villagers – displaced since the current round of clashes between Myanmar troops and the KIA erupted in June last year – are housed in Myitkyina, capital of the resource-rich Kachin state, and Bhamo, both in government-controlled areas.

An estimated 10,000 Kachins have crossed into China to live as “unrecognised refugees in squalid, improvised and jungle camps,” according to the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW).

“It is important that all the victims of the conflict get assistance before the monsoon breaks,” says Barbara Manzi, head of the United Nations Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Yangon (or Rangoon). “It is very critical.”

“The heavy winds break the tarpaulin that provides shelter for the displaced and the monsoon rains make access to the victims difficult,” she said over telephone from the former colonial capital. “The roads are small and are difficult to drive on to deliver assistance.”

But for that, a more troubling question is crying for an answer: Will President Thein Sein, who heads a one-year-old quasi-civilian government, permit U.N.-led relief efforts reach humanitarian aid to thousands of internally displaced in rebel-held territory?

It comes in the wake of a scathing report released this week by HRW accusing the Thein Sein administration of blocking relief to Kachin refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) who are in “desperate need of food, medicine and shelter.”

“The government’s longstanding unwillingness to allow domestic and international humanitarian agencies to provide assistance in KIA and other rebel-controlled areas has deterred some humanitarian groups from seeking formal approval from the Burmese authorities to access certain areas,” says HRW in a new 83-page report.

“These agencies, all with an interest in expanding humanitarian space, have expressed concern that even making such requests could result in government reprisals against their other officially approved projects in the country,” adds the report, ‘Untold Miseries: Wartime Abuse and Forced Displacement in Burma’s Kachin State’.

The administration’s roadblocks allowed a trickle of relief, two trucks loaded with food packages, to flow to Laiza, a town deep in KIA-controlled territory, last December.

Following this initial presence of U.N. relief, six months after fighting began, the prospect of a humanitarian corridor emerged.

The United Nations Children’s Fund was among agencies operating in the still military-dominated country that had hoped the breakthrough in December would lead to “additional relief supplies (being) allowed to reach the most vulnerable people displaced in and around Laiza.”

But an OCHA report released early March conveys the limited success U.N. agencies have had in securing a change of heart from the Myanmar government.

Efforts by the U.N. humanitarian coordinator in June last year for government permission to assist all the victims opened a corridor to assist IDPs in government-controlled areas and “hard-to-reach areas in December 2011,” states the ‘Humanitarian Situation and Response Plan in Kachin’.

“However, sustained access for provision of assistance for relief and eventually recovery operations is yet to be achieved,” it adds.

“There is no doubt that the government is denying aid access,” Mathew Smith, lead author of the HRW report, told IPS. “They have prevented U.N. aid convoys gaining access to the displaced in the KIA-held areas.”

The looming humanitarian crisis undermines the reformist image being projected by Thein Sein, adds Smith. “The decision to prevent aid going into the Kachin state is a political decision made in (the new capital of) Naypidaw”.

Since August last year, Myanmar has gone from being an international pariah to a country convulsed by change, marking an end of 50 years of military dictatorships.

Thein Sein has been its principle architect, easing the iron grip military regimes have had on the local media, freeing political prisoners, permitting political dissidents to openly campaign for the Apr. 1 by-elections and holding peace talks with some ethnic rebel groups.

And he was even spared from total blame for the conflict and the human rights violations in the Kachin state. The president’s defenders said that the former general had no control over the Southeast Asian nation’s powerful army – including the military campaign against the Kachin.

For the Kachins, it is a contradiction that exposes the Thein Sein presidency. “His policies to deny humanitarian aid have been exposed,” Col. James Lum Dau, deputy chief of foreign affairs for the KIA’s political wing, told IPS. “They are causing much hardship. Refugees, mothers and children, are being forced to eat less, to share food.”

The current plight the Kachins face is reminiscent of the humanitarian crisis and human rights abuses the country’s ethnic minorities have faced over the past five decades, during which conflicts between government troops and ethnic rebels forced close to 500,000 people to flee their homes and live as IDPs for years.

The clashes since June last year brought to an end a ceasefire that Kachin leaders signed with military leaders of the then Burma in 1994, one of many peace deals struck with 17 other ethnic separatists since the early 1990s.

“It was the Burmese troops that started the fight in June. They broke the ceasefire,” asserts Lum Dau. “They thought they could crush us in a few weeks. But we will not surrender.”

Excerpt:

By Marwaan Macan-Markar and - -
BANGKOK, Mar 16 2012 (IPS)

In a move expected to deepen political reform, the quasi-civilian government in Myanmar (also known as Burma) is permitting the distribution of leaflets that will help thousands of people in the country’s ethnic enclaves learn to resist forced labour.

The leaflets offer residents in the ethnic minority areas a chance to raise the alarm with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) about the horrors they endure at the hands of government troops deployed in their areas.

The Shan ethnic minority is the first to benefit from this new measure, one among a growing list of reform policies – including freeing political prisoners, easing the iron grip on the media and permitting public campaigns by political dissidents – that President Thein Sein has ushered in during his first year in office.

The one-page, A-4-size sheets of paper that have been flowing from Yangon (also known as Rangoon), the former capital, to the Shan state since January has been hailed by the ILO for using the local Shan language – stepping away from the policy of previous military regimes to suppress ethnic languages.

Following the distribution of nearly 30,000 leaflets in the Shan state over the past two months, the ILO has set its sights on raising awareness about its “complaints mechanism for forced labour” in six other ethnic areas, where Burmese troops have been fighting separatist rebels.

“The government agreed this year for the production of the ILO’s awareness raising materials on the complaints mechanism for forced labour in other languages, including Karen, Kachin, Chin, Rakhine and Mon,” says Steve Marshall, the Geneva-based body’s representative in Myanmar.

“It is hoped that these will be available for distribution very shortly,” Marshal said.

“This dramatic change is clearly linked to the new government’s response to the issues ILO is raising, reflecting the change of leadership, philosophy and priorities of the government,” Marshall said in an interview in Bangkok.

But reaching this milestone has been tough. The ILO office in Rangoon began pushing the case following a March 2008 decision by the ILO governing body to raise the need for “the production of awareness raising materials on forced labour, explaining the agreed ILO complaints mechanism in the country.”

Then military strongman Senior Gen. Than Shwe permitted the brochures to be printed only in Burmese, the language of the country’s largest ethnic group and it It took two years of negotiations between the military regime and the ILO to “get agreement to the wording”.

Since its June 2010 distribution in the central region, which is home to majority ethnic Burmese in the country of 55 million people, the ILO noticed a steady increase in cases being lodged.

While a mere drop when compared with the scale of such human rights violations, the over 1,160 forced labour complaints that the ILO has received in the past four years offer a glimpse into who the victims are and the abuse they have been subjected to.

The majority of cases from the dominant Burmese side have been children forced to swell the ranks of the military, according to the ILO.

The few complaints of forced labour lodged by ethnic communities have ranged from villagers compelled by troops to help build public works, carry goods and ammunition for the Burmese army and clear land.

But, human rights groups have long accused the Burmese military of more violations in areas where battles with ethnic separatist groups have raged since 1949. They have included slave-like duties to clean military camps, build military structures and walking ahead of troops in terrain infested with landmines.

“Whether it is carrying supplies for the army, building their camps, standing sentry duty along roads or serving as vassals for under-supplied and poorly disciplined garrison battalions, the Burmese army as it currently stands is a burden to local communities,” says David Scott Mathieson, Burma consultant for Human Rights Watch (HRW), the New York-based global rights lobby.

Consequently, the plight of forced labour victims in the ethnic areas was not forgotten during the early round of peace talks that the country’s largest rebel groups – the Karen and the Shan – have had with the Thein Sein administration since late last year.

The Karen National Union (KNU) demanded an immediate end to “forced labour, arbitrary taxation and extortion of villagers” as the sixth item in an 11-point plan for peace talks with Burma’s railway minister, Aung Min, head of the government negotiating team.

“Fighting in the Karen area has resulted in a lot of forced labour, so we wanted it included in the early round of talks,” David Tharckbaw, KNU vice-president and head of the movement’s peace committee, said during a telephone interview from the Thai-Burma border. “They (the Burmese government) accepted these concerns in principle.”

But complaints have continued, given the presence of nearly 200 military camps in the Karen state, near the Thai border. “As of February 2012, forced labour was ongoing in five villages in the Tantabin township,” revealed the Karen Human Rights Group in a Mar. 12 field report.

A similar picture prevails in the Shan state. “Forced labour was discussed during the talks but never put on the agenda,” says Khuensai Jaiyen, editor of a Shan news agency and a member of the Shan negotiating team in talks with the government.

“It is time the Burmese army mends its ways to build up trust among local ethnic populations,” he explained during a telephone interview from northern Thailand. “They should end forced labour.”

The government’s nod to the ILO taps into such a prospect. “This initiative will be valuable support to ongoing ceasefire and peace talks,” says ILO’s Marshall.

Excerpt:

By Marwaan Macan-Markar and - -
CHIANG MAI, Thailand, Mar 10 2012 (IPS)

When he returned home after over two decades as a political exile, Aung Zaw, a prominent figure among Burma’s exiled media community, was served a slice of truth by the country’s notorious censorship board.

Aung Zaw, editor, 'The Irrawaddy' Credit: 'The Irrawaddy'

It was just one of the many encouraging experiences of Aung Zaw during his five-day visit in February. Another was freedom to travel and meet contacts and dissidents, including pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, without being tailed by government spies.

The openness and sense of hope he felt in the Burma under its quasi-civilian government was in stark contrast to the climate of oppression that had gripped the country in 1988, the year he fled, hiding in remote villages, till he reached the Thai border.

In 1993, this trenchant critics of the military junta launched ‘The Irrawaddy’ on a shoestring budget to cover political events in Burma. The publication’s two-decade presence, first as a monthly and then as a website with daily updates, set the tone for the growth of the exiled media – a new phenomenon in Burmese journalism. It now has close to 20 media outlets in Norway, India, Bangladesh and Thailand.

“I don’t see ourselves as exiled media now, after the government lifted the restrictions to access our website inside Burma,” he said during an interview in his editorial office in Thailand’s northern city of Chiang Mai.

Excerpts from the interview follow:

Q: You returned to Burma after 24 years in exile, during which time you set up ‘The Irrawaddy’ to expose the oppression by military regimes back home. Are the days of military dictatorships since the 1962 coup drawing to an end? A: Burma is changing, it is going through a transition period; it is at a crossroad, definitely. But if this change is not managed well, not done intelligently, in a more creative way, I am afraid we are going to lose this period of transition. That would be a shame. This is a golden opportunity for Burma.

Q: Among the places you visited was Naypidaw, the new administrative capital, to meet officials of President Thein Sein’s government. What did that visit feel like, since your publication was scathing in its coverage of the former junta’s plans to build this new seat of power? A: I got a call on my first morning in Rangoon from the government asking me to come to Naypidaw as soon as possible. I was expecting to make this journey at the end. So, I went immediately.

It was a funny journey (laughs) as I talked with the others in the vehicle about the number of stories we had written about this secret, jungle hideout, how much money was spent and the kinds of clandestine operations and deals struck by the military regime in the past. And then finally to see it – looked like a place in China; I felt it in the style of the buildings.

But I had a very warm, incredible reception with the officials from the president’s office. We had extensive talks, didn’t beat around the bush.

Q: Like what? A: Media laws in Burma, press freedom and the censorship board – when are they going to abolish it. How much freedom the media inside the country has and the changing media landscape since last year and will there be more openness.

Q: Does it mean you are planning to relocate The Irrawaddy to Burma? A: I did talk about our intentions to go back, at some point, and launch our publication at home. But is that possible? How much freedom will we have? These are questions of concern about the media space for us, because inside the country the cronies, the tycoons and family members of the military dominate and control the media, the many layers of publishing, even contents and editorial policies.

But I think there is potential for journalism to grow, for more professional journalism to take root. There are groups of people who are committed and very dedicated, very determined; they are relatively small. They need support and I see them as partners to reeducate journalists about what is good journalism, independent journalism, press freedom, and the role journalists have to achieve this.

Q: And will the government permit this possible flowering of a vibrant, independent media inside Burma? A: Actually, since last year, the government has relaxed media controls a lot. There is more space to publish and report. I also think the government wants to see a more professional media. They are very disappointed with the state of the media. They even asked at one point what we can do to help them with training.

Q: That would be something, given how you have been seen as an enemy by the military regimes all these years. Would the ministry of information and information minister Kyaw Hsan, your nemesis, be able to stomach it? A: (Laughs)… I only had a brief handshake with Kyaw Hsan, but I did meet the deputy minister (Soe Win) and he was very expressive as if he was meeting a long lost friend. He admitted being a big reader of the Irrawaddy. I was surprised (laughs).

Q: One of the problems exiles around the world face when they return to their country at peace after years of conflict or, in your case, decades of military oppression, are feelings of resentment by those who stayed back and felt the full force of domestic turmoil. You will face this, won’t you? A: Definitely, definitely. I think my first visit was a honeymoon. Even movie stars who had followed my work, seen me on our TV programmes, came and said hello to me in restaurants, as did other people I met in the markets, on the streets of Rangoon and even in the shops in Naypidaw. But the more exiles start making inroads in the professional fields, they will encounter resentment. It is natural.

Q: So is it time for exiles in professions such as journalism, health, education, finance to go back and deal with this reality check? A: I think it is time for a visit; get a feel for the change. But time will come for them to do more, to go back and help. And I think the government – there is a problem – also has to do something to welcome exiles back. They have to create incentives for people who left the country since 1960s to return and not be seen as people coming back to disrupt the society.

Excerpt:

The United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC), an umbrella for Myanmar's armed ethnic factions, laid out its agenda for a successful ceasefire. Credit: Preethi Nallu/IPS

By Preethi Nallu
THAI-BURMA BORDER, Mar 9 2012 (IPS)

“Our past experiences have demonstrated that a mere ceasefire agreement will not result in the durable peace that we have long sought. Political peace is the only way forward.”

This was the overriding sentiment expressed by the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) at its latest press conference held Feb. 28 on the Thai-Burma (Myanmar) border.

The UNFC was formed last February as an umbrella group that would collectively represent all the ethnic resistance groups in comprehensive peace talks with Myanmar’s military.

This reunification was particularly significant in terms of the merger between the ceasefire and non- ceasefire parties.

The membership initially comprised six armed ethnic groups – the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO), the Karen National Union (KNU), the New Mon State Party (NMSP), the Shan State Progressive Party (SSPP), the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP) and the Chin National Front (CNF), representing six distinct ethnic minority groups, each with a unique relationship with the state government and armed resistance since the formation of a Burmese state in 1948.

By November 2011, right ahead of Myanmar’s first elections in 20 years, the alliance expanded with the membership doubling to 12 groups, when the Palong State Liberation Front (PSLF), Lahu Democratic Union (LDU), Arakan National Council (ANC), Wa National Organisation (WNO), Pa’o National Liberation Organisation (PNLO) and Kachin National Organisation (KNO) joined the group.

The founding members explained that the formation of the umbrella started in early 2010, well before the November polls, in response to the then-military regime’s insistence that the ceasefire groups merge with the Border Guard Force (BGF) that would become part of the state military apparatus.

Given the recent bout of skirmishes in Karen State and Shan State throughout the month of February, despite the signing of initial ceasefire agreements between these ethnic armed groups and the government, the UNFC reiterated its ‘starting points’ for any meaningful dialogue to continue.

Nine representatives opened the press conference by stating that talks cannot progress without cessation of all military offensives against members of the UNFC by the Mynamar military.

The spokesperson for the New Mon State Party, Nai Hong Sar, explained key prerequisites for talks to proceed.

First, “We demand a nationwide ceasefire before any substantial dialogue takes place. We also demand a nationwide conference with leaders of all mainstream ethnic opposition groups to have substantive political dialogue with the goal of solving our crisis in (Myanmar),” Nai Hong Sar explained.

Meanwhile, President Thein Sein himself reiterated during his latest speech to the Union Parliament in Naypyidaw that “an all-inclusive peace process” was his immediate priority.

“It is necessary that we, the current government, help to end the misunderstanding and mistrust between ethnic groups and the government,” the President stated during his Mar. 1 speech.

Another critical demand of the UNFC members has been a call for comprehensive dialogue with all parties upon establishment of a viable truce to last throughout the peace talks. However, continued local skirmishes and fighting in Kachin State in Northern Myanmar, bordering China, have greatly impeded progress on talks.

The joint-secretary of UNFC, Hkun Okker, explained that all groups are collectively demanding an end to hostilities in Kachin State as an immediate precondition for talks.

“The government asked us to give them a list of areas from where we want their forces to withdraw so we gave it to them. We don’t know if they are going to follow up on that with action,” La Ja, secretary- general of the KIO, told IPS.

When asked about continued fighting in Kachin State, despite the President’s orders to troops stationed in the area, La Ja pointed to divisions between the civilian members of the government and the military wing, as well as splits between ‘reformists’ and ‘hardliners’ in the administration.

“It is someone higher up from the army side that is making these decisions. It seems like the government, the Hluttaw (legislature) and the army are different. This is the question we are asking, whether they (all parts of the government) really want to negotiate politically in order to solve this ethnic issue,” he explained.

Despite peace talks progressing between the union-level delegations and the Karen, Shan, Mon and Chin armed groups, continued fighting in Kachin State, where an estimated 50,000 civilians are displaced, points to inconsistencies in government objectives.

Though Thein Sein called for cessation of hostilities in the Kachin fighting areas in December 2011, and negotiations took place between the two sides on the Chinese side of the border in January and February of this year, the desired result of a tentative ceasefire has not yet been achieved.

Concerns over constitution’s ‘military bias’

Yet another hurdle to the negotiations has been the 2008 constitution, which the UNFC rejects as the political basis for peace talks.

“We cannot accept a dialogue based on the 2008 constitution. The government requires that the constitution can only be amended in the parliament (but) we reject (the notion) that all political dialogue must be in the parliament,” Okker explained at the conference.

The 2008 constitution’s mandate has been criticised by opposition parties and exiled Myanmar activists because of the inordinate power granted to the military. Twenty-five percent of the seats in both houses of parliament are reserved for members of the security forces with key ministerial positions held by military personnel.

The UNFC delegation acknowledged the positive changes taking place in the political arena inside the country and described their reaction as “cautiously optimistic.”

But they stressed that the leadership itself has not changed dramatically since elections, adding to their suspicion about government intentions in abiding by peace agreements.

“We see that President Thein Sein has taken initiative and so far he looks sincere on some of these changes. But we don’t know if the military wing is going to listen to him…we don’t know whether behind the scenes, perhaps Than Shwe (chairman of the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and Commander-in-Chief of the Burmese Armed Forces until 2011) is playing both Thein Sein and the Army,” Okker elaborated.

Despite the unprecedented level of peace talks begun this year, complete disarmament in the conflict- riddled areas does not appear to be an immediate option for either side.

The UNFC created the Federal Union Army (FUA) as means of collective defence whereby troops would be stationed even during a ceasefire period. On the other hand, state military outposts continue to remain in place. Approximately 200 outposts are estimated to continue operating in Eastern Karen State, despite the signing of an initial ceasefire agreement on Jan. 12 this year.

Decades of mutual distrust between the ethnic armed groups and the state military, who continue to operate within close proximity of each other and are often susceptible to localised skirmishes, has tampered with the process of negotiating peace.

Achieving a concrete ceasefire agreement is expected to take up to two years according to both government officials and ethnic minority representatives.

Despite these obstacles, representatives from the ethnic armed groups acknowledge that the negotiations initiated by the government are different from previous years and offer a more equitable platform.

“All previous agreements were top-down initiatives from the Government. They would set the terms and conditions for peace. So we had no room to make decisions. This time the tone is different as they invited us to make peace instead of just asking us to accept their terms and conditions,” explained Colonel San Aung representing the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), formerly allied with the Burmese Armed Forces.

All members of the UNFC reiterated that ‘self-determination and equality’ have been and continue to be their main objectives.

“We are not terrorists, we are not separatists, we are just fighting for our rights,” concluded Sai Soe Aung, representing the SSPP at the conference.

Excerpt:

As ‘positive’ news flows out of Burma – release of political prisoners, ceasefire talks in ethnic areas, increased freedom, formation of labour unions – people inside the country and exiles have been in heated discussion. What does ‘reform’ entail and are the changes going to be fully implemented?

At a port of entry into Burma from Thailand. Credit: Preethi Nallu/IPS

Reform initiatives under President Thein Sein, leading a military backed, nominally civilian government that replaced two decades of army rule last year, are being heralded by observers as the most progressive since the 1962 coup.

The planned by-elections in April are the ‘big litmus test’ of how much political space will be created for the opposition. The extent to which the human rights situation improves, especially in the ethnic areas, will also indicate the willingness of the government to achieve lasting peace.

With the National League of Democracy (NLD), the major opposition party led by the iconic pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, registering for elections the stage is set for a contest with the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) for 50 seats in the 664-seat parliament.

The NLD had boycotted the 2010 elections on the premise that the process was ‘undemocratic’, especially with Suu Kyi still under house arrest at the time, and hence ineligible to contesting under election rules.

Suu Kyi’s present bid to contest a seat is of historic importance, says Khin Zaw Win, a former political prisoner and director of Tampadipa Institute based in Rangoon (also Yangon). “It will be the first time in more than two decades that the two mass organisations will meet head on in elections,” he commented in a phone interview with IPS from Rangoon.

Prior to registering as USDP in June 2010, the Burmese government’s mass organisation was called the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) with junta leader Gen. Than Shwe as its official patron.

While Zaw Win predicts that Suu Kyi will be offered a ministerial position, he estimates that the NLD will only have limited presence in parliament.

“You have to differentiate between the government as such and certain powerful elements in the USDP, the party in power. It is clear that the government has gained in opening up to Suu Kyi; the USDP party bosses think otherwise,” says Zaw Win.

Maung Maung Lay, vice-president of the Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, provides a more optimistic perspective. “Up to now the government has acted quite seriously to gain the trust of the people.

“In political and economic scenarios, they have made the people feel more comfortable, but the main credit goes to the President,” he told IPS over telephone.

Tangible reforms initiated by Thein Sein include the legalisation of labour unions and starting a dialogue with the hugely popular Suu Kyi.

Maung Lay said the USDP is already “jittery” and that the election results may well turn out to be overwhelmingly in favour of the opposition.

Suu Kyi started her campaign tour in January in Dawei, southern Burma, where she was greeted by masses reminiscent of the 1990 election campaign. These turnouts suggest a comfortable victory for the opposition leader.

Even if the by-elections are fair and free, the number of seats being contested being small, the impact in parliament will be limited. Also, President Thein Sein is widely expected to try and form alliances with the opposition.

“I personally think that the President himself will be gaining a ‘friend’ and an ‘ally’ within his circle of ‘reformists’ and will try to consolidate his position,” Maung Maung Lay said. “The hardliners understand the new world order and will want to avoid the type of situation that the Middle Eastern countries are experiencing.”

While individual countries such as Norway have already lifted embargoes, the United States and the European Union are currently reassessing their policies towards Burma in the direction of easing sanctions.

The international community is now vested with the responsibility of acknowledging the government’s positive steps while maintaining the pressure to keep the momentum going in the right direction. It is a delicate balance and one that has divided the different camps.

While the Burmese government has expressed willingness to address a range of human rights issues from political prisoners to labour unions and rectify its abysmal record in terms of forced labour and child soldiers, the culture of impunity is entrenched in the military.

Khin Ohmar of the Chiang Mai-based Burma Partnership, a network of organisations working for peace and human rights in Burma, says the current negotiations are far from transparent and do not offer imminent political solutions.

“The most worrying element is that the regime approaches the ethnic conflict with economic solutions (special economic zones, industrial zones), and creating jobs for the ethnic resistance movement, as if the struggle of ethnic people for the past 50-60 years is because they didn’t have jobs,” she said.

“Lifting embargoes is good,” said Zaw Win. “But we have to be careful that it doesn’t benefit only the fat cats and leaves the rest of the populace out. The economic structure is unbalanced and fragile.”

The new administration has displayed signs of pragmatism and rational decision-making, at times sidestepping the hardliners in the administration so that reconciliation with opposition parties and ethnic groups can proceed.

In a press release, issued after U.S. secretary of state Hilary Clinton’s visit to Burma early December 2011, the London-based rights watchdog Amnesty International (AI) called for investigations into current and previous war crimes against ethnic minorities.

“The U.S. must not allow Burma to mischaracterise Clinton’s visit as a reward, rather than a challenge,” explains Benjamin Zawacki, lead researcher at AI.

In recognition of the latest ‘positive’ changes initiated by the government, the U.S. eased sanctions on Feb. 7 by allowing ‘limited technical assistance’ by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to help rebuild the country’s economy.

*This is the second of a two-part series on Burma’s transition from decades of dictatorship.

Moves by the Burmese government to settle ethnic conflicts in the country, notably with the Karen in the mountainous eastern part of the country, have caught most observers by surprise.

When the government and the Karen National Union (KNU) held ceasefire talks on Jan. 12 aimed at ending the 62-year-old Karen insurgency – the world’s oldest running ethnic conflict – there was scepticism as to whether the powerful Burmese military would honour conditions laid down by the rebels.

The government agreed to all 11 points put forth by the KNU at the historic meeting, making the initial round a success. But a ceasefire ‘agreement’ has not yet been reached, the current truce being tentative and dependent on future negotiations at a national level.

The KNU has outlined “trust building through dialogue, discussion and pulling out/reduction of government troops” and “collaboration with other ethnic national nationality forces at the stage of political dialogue and negotiation” as key demands.

“There are still no guarantees, but the fact that they (government) are addressing the problems is a shock and positive surprise in itself,” explains Kim Jolliffe, a research consultant specialising in conflict and displacement who is based on the Thai-Burma border.

Jolliffe said the situation remains relatively stable and the parties are keen to uphold the conditions laid down at the January talks between the KNU and the pro-reform government of President Thein Sein.

“The KNU has ‘welcomed’ the government’s acceptance of its 11-point proposal and says it will continue ‘concrete discussions’ on how the terms and conditions will ‘materialise on the ground’ before both sides can agree on a final agreement,” Jolliffe elaborated.

Through its militant wing, the Karen National Liberation Army, the KNU has been fighting successive governments to secure independence or greater autonomy for the Karen since 1949, a year after Burma gained independence from British colonial rule.

Burma’s military, which has ruled the country since a 1962 coup, responded with repressive measures that included systematic rape, evictions, forced labour, torture and murder.

A crackdown on student protests in 1988 and refusal to honour the results of elections held in 1990, overwhelmingly in favour of the National League for Democracy, prompted two decades of sanctions by the European Union and the United States.

Representatives on both sides acknowledge that it will take a cumbersome process before ‘everlasting peace’ is achieved in a region riddled by conflict for over six decades.

At a press conference in Rangoon (also Yangon) before the ceasefire talks, Aung Thung, minister for industry and head of the government’s negotiating group, estimated that “it will take up to three years to reach peace agreements with all armed ethnic groups.”

An agreement has been reached with rebels of the Shan State Army (southern faction) that seeks to establish an autonomous Shan state in the north-eastern part of the country.

However, negotiations have not borne positive results in a third major ethnic area, the northern Kachin state that shares a long border with China.

Talks with the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) have been derailed by continued fighting, despite orders by President Thein Sein, last month, to end military operations in the Kachin state.

According to the New York-based watchdog Human Rights Watch (HRW), the number of civilians displaced in Kachin state has risen over 50,000 in the fighting that erupted in June 2011, ending a 17-year ceasefire between the KIA and the Burmese military.

Despite the fragility of the situation activists such as Aung Naing Oo, director of the Chiang Mai-based Vahu Development Institute, feel that significant momentum has been generated for peace efforts with a new perspective.

“It is not only because of the new government’s policy, but also prevailing conditions such as general political progress, release of political prisoners, improved international relationships and, above all, greater political space,” explains Aung Naing Oo, a leader of the failed student-led uprising of 1988 that left 3,000 people dead.

A positive effect of the ceasefire talks is that unlike previous years, when deliberate displacement campaigns and burning down of villages by the state military were common over the winter months, there has been relative calm in Karen state.

But the situation remains frail and disagreements between the government and KNU could erupt over economic development plans, especially around the exploitation of natural resources that are attractive to foreign investors.

Jolliffe says the Karen leadership will claim to “become key economic stakeholders in order to maintain relevance in a modern political environment and continue making demands on behalf of the people they aim to represent.”

“Most important of all, I think we need a new roadmap for reconciliation with armed ethnic groups because we have to create a proper and comprehensive peace process,” says Aung Naing Oo.

According to HRW, human rights abuses continued through 2011. “The Burmese military continues to violate international humanitarian law through the use of extrajudicial killings, torture, sexual violence, beatings, abusive forced labour, antipersonnel landmines, and pillaging of property, particularly in Kachin, Shan, and Karen states,” says a January press release from HRW.

Khin Ohmar, of the Thailand-based Burma Partnership, believes that the international community should maintain pressure on the regime to “put an end to attacks on ethnic communities” and keep this as a “key benchmark while considering lifting of sanctions.”

The ceasefire talks between the Karen and the Burmese military were followed by the release of about 300 political prisoners on Jan. 13, many of them high-profile dissidents or political leaders. But, Ohmar is sceptical about political freedom for those released, in upcoming elections.

“Given that laws prohibiting free expression remain in place, speaking out against the regime could lead to a return to prison,” she said.

Former Burmese army captain Nay Myo Zin, arrested under the infamous Electronics Act – that bans Burmese citizens from using the Internet to send information critical of the government to foreign audiences – was re-arrested within two weeks of the January amnesty.

*This is the first of a two-part series on Burma’s transition from decades of dictatorship.

As he dismantles a 50-year military dictatorship without a shot being fired, Burmese President Thein Sein is resorting to the political art of compromise.

The raft of reforms the former general has unveiled in less than a year has been reciprocated by Aung San Suu Kyi, the respected icon of the Southeast Asian nation’s pro–democracy movement, who has spent 15 of the past 22 years as a political prisoner.

Most significant was the Nobel Peace laureate’s act on Jan. 18 registering herself as a candidate for parliamentary by-elections on Apr. 1. In doing so, the head of the National League for Democracy (NLD), the country’s most popular anti-junta party, healed a decades-long, festering political wound.

It meant that the 66-year-old Suu Kyi was prepared to move on from a major reason for her personal and her party’s political struggle – the refusal of the military junta to let the NLD govern after it had won a thumping majority at the 1990 general elections.

Suu Kyi’s decision to support the new political environment in Myanmar, as the country is also called, received a shot in the arm from a highly respected group of former university leaders – the 88 Generation Students Group – days after its members were released from prison.

The 88 Generation “will participate to the fullest extent with the government led by the president, the parliament, military, political parties and ethnic minority groups for the emergence of democracy, peace and development,” declared a statement released by the group during a press conference held over the weekend in Rangoon, the former capital.

“There are those who want to carry out reforms and those who are averse to reforms. We promise that the 88 Generation Students will side with the reformists,” Min Ko Naing, the legendary student leader who was slapped with a 65-year prison sentence for his politics, said at the Jan. 21 event, according to an Associated Press (AP) report.

Even Western leaders who were trenchant critics of the juntas that preceded the current administration are lavishing praise on the quiet, unassuming 66-year-old Thein Sein that would have been improbable a year ago.

“I’m convinced that he (Thein Sein) is a genuine reformer, and more importantly, so does Aung San Suu Kyi,” United States Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, a hardliner on U.S. policy towards Burma, told the AP following his visit to the country last week.

In some Southeast Asian capitals, comparisons are being made between Thein Sein and two international figures who played pivotal roles in ending oppressive regimes: Mikhail Gorbachev, whose reforms led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and F.W. de Klerk, who presided over the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Such political stardom for Thein Sein, since becoming president of the quasi-civilian government in March last year, contrasts with a pedestrian record during his 40-year stint in the army.

“His fighting experience was not well-known in the army,” says Win Min, a Burmese national security expert currently living in exile. “He had a reputation for being obedient, a good manager, modest and less ambitious and less corrupt than others.”

“Yet, many of us believed that after he became president he would just follow what (former junta leader) Than Shwe would tell him as was the case when he was the prime minister,” Win Min said in an interview. “We felt he won’t bother taking such initiatives like he has done over the recent months. So it is a big surprise to me.”

After he set the tone for reforms during his maiden speech in the country’s first parliament in 50 years, Thein Sein eased the country’s repressive censorship laws, supported laws to legalise trade unions and engaged with many actors to shape the country’s economic and development policies.

Most significantly, Thein Sein also opened dialogue with Suu Kyi, her pro-democracy movement and leaders of ethnic rebel groups.

But as the ‘Wikileaks’ cables revealed, there were early hints of Thein Sein turning political reformer during military rule.

U.S. embassy officials in Rangoon reported back to Washington in June 2008 that Thein Sein, then prime minister of the junta headed by strongman Than Shwe, was portrayed as “smart” and “pragmatic” by Nay Win Maung, a leading member of Burmese civil society, who died this month.

The confidential diplomatic dispatch that followed the devastating Cyclone Nargis, which killed over 150,000 in May that year reads: “Nay Win Maung said it was Prime Minister Thein Sein who had appealed to Than Shwe to secure the Senior General’s permission to allow international and humanitarian staff to travel to affected areas.”

It is this record of Thein Sein that appears to have won over the Burmese rather than another glaring reality – the president’s tenure is underwritten by the country’s military, which has not completely eased the iron grip with which it has held power since 1962.

“This is our moment of change. A new dawn for our country,” Maung Thura – the country’s most famous dissident comedian, better known by his stage name of Zarganar – told IPS in Bangkok following his release from prison. “We should cooperate. We should look forward.”

The release of 651 prisoners, a process which started this month, is being seen as a victory for activists and families who have had to contend with Burma’s notorious prison system.

But, while state media reported, ahead of the first releases on Jan. 13, that the prisoners were being freed to allow them to participate in ‘nation building’, there was no word on conditions set for their release.

At least 300 of those ordered released are political prisoners granted amnesty by the government and include such high-profile figures as the Shan ethnic leader Khun Tun Oo, journalist Zaw Thet Htwe and U Gambira, leader of the All-Burma Monk’s Alliance.

Geraldine May, who heads the Free Burma VJ (video journalists) campaign, told IPS that her work will not be complete until there is substantive proof that the government will allow the freed prisoners to participate in public life and in the upcoming elections without interference.

“The campaign can’t end now. We need to make sure they’re safe and help them in reintegrating their lives,” May explained. She said “conditions” have been set on freed reporters, such as in the case of video journalist Sithu Zeya who must serve out his full 18-year sentence if caught committing “any crimes in the future.”

Zeya reported for the Thailand-based Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), a leading Burmese exile media organisation responsible for many of the gripping images and videos that were transmitted to the world during the ‘Saffron Revolution’ in 2007.

In all 13 journalists associated with the DVB, incarcerated for breaching draconian media laws while covering the Saffron Revolution and Cyclone Nargis in 2008, are due to be released as part of the amnesty.

Supported by the France-based Reporters Without Borders, DVB launched Free Burma VJ in May 2011, demanding immediate release of its journalists who had been arrested while operating as part of an underground network inside Burma.

Hla Hla Win, 27, one of five reporters named by the campaign and arrested under the infamous electronics media act, that prohibits ownership and usage of video equipment, was among the first to walk free on the morning of Jan. 13 with her 27-year prison sentence cut short by presidential pardon.

While the last prisoner release in October 2011 was granted under article 201(b) of the constitution that allows amnesties with the recommendation of the National Defence and Security Council headed by the president, the latest round was authorised under article 401 which does not require the permission of the council.

While such a release might indicate a loosening of the council’s grip on matters of national importance, it could also mean that the releases are ‘suspensions’ that could later be reversed.

Activists point to discrepancies in the estimated number of political prisoners, and international human rights groups such as Amnesty International (AI) have, for many years, called on the government to form a United Nations-led panel to define terms to compare different lists.

“This would be toward not only finding common ground – or perhaps identifying significant differences – but also ensuring that no political prisoner is forgotten by the stroke of a pen,” explains Benjamin Zawacki, AI’s lead researcher on Burma.

The number of political prisoners remains a matter of controversy due to lack of access to information and the justice system for decades.

While the Thailand-based Assistance Association of Political Prisoners alleges that 1,260 political prisoners remain behind bars, the country’s opposition party National League for Democracy (NLD) has a more modest estimate of 300. Officially, the government denies the existence of political prisoners, classifying all people in jail as criminals.

But, even the staunchest opposition groups recognise that the present round of releases will have far- reaching implications and shows that the new administration is more willing to reconcile with opposition groups.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the country’s best-known opposition leader who was under house arrest for 14 consecutive years, herself welcomed the release as “a positive sign.” She has announced plans to contest a seat in parliament in the by-elections scheduled for Apr. 1.

The profiles of the released prisoners also suggest willingness by the government to forge better relationships on a domestic level and internationally.

“Many released this time can be considered leaders in one way or another – leaders of the 88 Generation group, of the Saffron Revolution, of the Shan NLD,” Zawacki said.

The international community has responded with positive endorsement of the latest moves.

Governments that have traditionally supported sanctions against the military regime and divestment in Burma have begun opening ties in response to reform-minded changes that have taken place over 2011.

While U.S. secretary of state Hilary Clinton promised “to meet action with action” during a press conference on Jan. 13, Norway has lifted its embargoes on Burma with the aim of encouraging private companies to invest in Burma.

Views on sanctions are mixed among human rights groups. AI has no official stance on sanctions, while exile groups such as the Burma Partnership say sanctions maintain pressure on the government to move towards democracy, universal human rights and unconditional release of all remaining political prisoners.

Burma, often referred to as a closed country and ranked low in the press freedom indices, has experienced significant reform in the area of free speech over the past year.

The publishing of editorials by Suu Kyi, lifting of bans on international news organisation and exiled media, including DVB, largely uninterrupted protests opposing controversial hydropower projects and the latest prisoner release are important conciliatory steps for a country long captive to antiquated and oppressive laws.

However, human rights advocates continue to press for the release of all remaining political prisoners. The New York-based Human Rights Watch has called upon the Burmese government to allow international monitors to ascertain the whereabouts and numbers of political prisoners.

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama Friday hailed the release by the Burmese government of hundreds of political prisoners, suggesting that it went far toward satisfying Washington’s conditions for fully normalising ties between the two countries.

Dissident leader Aung San Suu Kyi at the Bayda Institute in Rangoon Nov. 30, 2011. Credit: Burma Democratic Concern (BDC)/CC By 2.0

“I have directed Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton and my Administration to take additional steps to build confidence with the government and people of Burma so that we seize this historic and hopeful opportunity.”

For her part, Clinton, who met last December with President Thein Sein and the country’s most famous dissident, Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, during the first trip by a U.S. secretary of state to Burma in nearly 60 years, called the releases “a substantial and serious step forward in the government’s stated commitment to political reform”.

She added that the administration will soon send an ambassador to Burma, among other measures, to “strengthen and deepen our ties with both the people and the government”.

She also praised a ceasefire agreement reached Thursday between the government and the six-year-old Karen National Union (KNU) insurgency as an “important step forward”.

At the same time, she stressed, as did Obama in his statement, that full normalisation will depend on continuing progress on all fronts, “including taking further steps to address the concerns of ethnic minority groups, making sure that there is a free and fair by- election, and making all the releases from prison unconditional, and making sure that all remaining political detainees are also released.”

International human rights group echoed the administration’s praise but also warned against a rush toward normalisation, noting that the 651 political prisoners to be freed by the amnesty announced Friday may still leave as many as 1,000 behind bars.

“Today’s release of some of Myanmar’s political prisoners was the result of concerted, sustained pressure by the international community and bold leadership by the United States,” said Suzanne Nussel, executive director of the U.S. chapter of Amnesty International (AIUSA).

“While we welcome the releases, thousands more remain behind bars. Pressure for progress on the remaining prisoners and other human rights concerns in Myanmar must not abate,” she said.

“The risk is that the restoration of ties between the two countries may be premature and could weaken the pressure to address critical areas of unfinished business in addressing serious human rights abuses in Myanmar.”

“The United States has demonstrated that engagement combined with pressure can deliver important breakthroughs, and must sustain both elements of its approach.”

Similarly, New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) hailed the release as a “crucial development in promoting respect for human rights in Burma” but called for all remaining political prisoners to be freed “immediately and unconditionally”.

“The latest releases are wonderful news for the individuals and their families, but foreign governments should continue to push for the release of all political prisoners, and for international monitors to verify the process,” said HRW’s deputy Asia director, Elaine Pearson.

“The next step for Burma’s government is to allow international monitors to verify the whereabouts and conditions of remaining political prisoners.”

Among the prisoners released Friday were a number of leaders of the 1988 student uprising, of Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) party that swept the 1990 parliamentary election, and of the 2007 “Saffron Revolution”. Some detainees had been in prison for more than 20 years.

The U.S. recalled its ambassador to Burma after the 1990 elections, whose results were ignored by the ruling military junta which subsequently renamed the country Myanmar.

Beginning in 1997, Washington has imposed a series of economic sanctions, including a ban on imports and new investments by U.S. companies. It has also encouraged the European Union to impose sanctions, although they have not been nearly as far-reaching.

But the result, according to the sanctions’ critics, is that Burma’s economy has become increasingly dependent on China, which has invested heavily in exploiting Burma’s abundant natural resources, including its off-shore oil and gas fields. It has also been building hydroelectric dams, much of whose power is then transmitted into China itself.

Increasingly alarmed by the growth in Chinese influence, India and Burma’s Southeast Asian neighbours which, over U.S. objections, made Rangoon a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1999, have long called for Washington to engage the regime instead of isolating it.

That became possible when the military junta initiated a transition to a civilian-led government, and Thein Sein, a former general, was inaugurated as president last March.

Although still dominated by former generals, the government took a number of steps, including an initial release of some 200 political prisoners, enactment of labour reforms, a relaxation of media censorship, consultations with the International Monetary Fund, engaging Suu Kyi in an intensive dialogue and legalising the NLD.

Perhaps most intriguingly and unexpectedly, it also suspended a planned Chinese-funded and -directed dam project designed to harness the hydroelectric power of the Irrawaddy River, that persuaded the administration to send Clinton to Burma.

Building on the work of Washington’s special envoy, Derek Mitchell, Clinton reportedly mapped out a series of conditions – most importantly, the release of all political prisoners; free and fair elections; serious efforts to reconcile with Burma’s many ethnic minorities, including the Karens; and full disclosure of its alleged military and nuclear transactions with North Korea – that, if met, would permit the U.S. to fully normalise bilateral relations.

In that respect, the ceasefire agreement announced Thursday, combined with the prisoner released announced Friday, takes the rapprochement to a new stage. U.S. officials have said that the government has also been forthcoming on the North Korean question.

Sen. Jim Webb, one of the most outspoken and effective advocates of engagement and who in 2009 was the first member of Congress to visit Burma since sanctions were first imposed, said Friday he was very encouraged by the latest developments.

“Throughout my time in the Senate, I have repeatedly called for the United States to adjust its policies toward Burma as part of a wider strategy of reinvigorating our relations in East Asia,” he said. “It is in our national interest and the interest of regional stability to bring Burma back into the international community in a positive way.”

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.