BurmaNet News, March 19, 2008

[Editor]

March 19, 2008 Issue # 3425


INSIDE BURMA
DVB: Detainee on hunger strike to protest ill-treatment
DVB: Military requisitions cattle and drivers
Mizzima News: Monks Alliance urges monks to boycott religious examinations
Mizzima News: Previously banned weekly cleared for publication
Shan Herald News Agency: Junta authorities coax, threaten civilians to
support charter

ON THE BORDER
Irrawaddy: Funding shortfall reduces food rations in refugee camps
Democratic Voice of Burma: Burmese military scorches border island

BUSINESS / TRADE
Energy Bangla: Gas resource of Myanmar: Beyond Bangladesh reach?
Irrawaddy: Thailand’s business plan for Burma
The Financial Express (India): Close window print story strengthening
relations with Myanmar

DRUGS
ISN: Myanmar's Shan state: Faint sign of volatility

ASEAN
Bangkok Post: Surin advises Samak on Burma attitude
IPS: Thailand queers ASEAN's Burma pitch

INTERNATIONAL
BBC News: UN envoy disappointed over Burma
Bangkok Post: US backs election observers for Burma

OPINION / OTHER
Bangkok Post: Burma policy needs rethink
Irrawaddy: Will Burmese migrants be able to vote?
UN Human Rights Council: Human Rights Council reviews mandate of Special
Rapporteur on situation of human rights in Myanmar


____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

March 19, Democratic Voice of Burma
Detainee on hunger strike to protest ill-treatment – Aye Nai

Ko Myo Thant, a political inmate in Insein prison who was arrested after
the public protests in September 2007, has been on a hunger strike for the
past four days, his sister said yesterday.

Ma Thi Thi Soe, Myo Thant’s younger sister, saw her brother at his court
hearing on Monday and said had been put in solitary confinement in the
prison's canine unit on 2 March after having an argument with prison
authorities.

She said he was now staging a hunger strike in a protest against abuses
and rights violations of prisoners.

"My brother was put in solitary confinement on 2 March after he and
another political detainee, Ko Kyi Phyu, were suspended from taking
showers and walking due to an information leak from inside the prison,"
said Thi Thi Soe.

"But it didn't really have anything to do with them."

She said Myo Thant had also been blindfolded during his period of
confinement and is now suffering aches on the side of his body due to poor
living conditions.

Myo Thant, also known as John Nawtha, is a member of the Human Rights
Defenders and Promoters Network and was arrested in relation to public
protests against fuel price hikes in September 2007.

He was later charged with defaming the government, along with seven other
activists.

The next court hearing for their case is due to be held on 25 March.

____________________________________

March 19, Democratic Voice of Burma
Military requisitions cattle and drivers – Naw Say Phaw

Villagers in Bago division’s Shwe Kyin township have complained that
government soldiers have taken carts, cattle and drivers from the villages
to use for mobilising troops.

Government troops requisitioned around 50 carts from local villagers,
along with cattle and drivers for their move from Kat Ne outpost near Than
Sate village to Gaw Thazin outpost between Shwe Kyin and Kyauk Kyi
townships.

A local villager said the soldiers took the carts on Sunday and still had
not returned them.

“On 16 March in the early morning, the military requisitioned about 50
carts with drivers and cows from Than Sate village and some other villages
on the west bank of the river,” he said.

“They took them to move troops to a different outpost, and they said it
was an emergency.”

The journey between the two outposts usually takes about five hours, but
the carts have still not been brought back.

The local said that villagers in the area have often been subjected to
forced labour despite the government’s claims that the practice has been
stopped.

____________________________________

March 19, Mizzima News
Monks Alliance urges monks to boycott religious examinations – Than Htike Oo

The 'All Burma Monks Alliance' (ABMA) on Tuesday urged monks to boycott
the religious examinations of Dhama Sariya and Pali. The religious
examinations are to be held on March 24.

"During the saffron revolution, we announced the ex-communicative boycott
of the regime. This boycott will remain in force as long as it is not
withdrawn by another religious rite. So the boycott is still continuing.
We urge our fellow monks to continue the boycott and obey the religious
diktat," U Pyinyar Zawta, patron of ABMA told Mizzima.

"During the saffron revolution, the regime beat up monks, tied them to the
lamppost, arrested them and imprisoned them. This is an insult to the
Buddhist sasana (religion). So we issued this statement with the intention
of urging our fellow monks to boycott the religious examinations held by
the regime," he added.

The ABMA statement issued on Tuesday called for the boycott of the
religious examinations and also said that the boycott will not terminate
the Buddhist Sasana, only beating of monks and destroying religious
buildings can terminate the Sasana.

The religious examinations are held simultaneously across the country
every year.

In the wake of the saffron revolution, the regime allowed a limited number
of monks to stay in their learning monasteries and many of the monks are
sent back to their native places.

The local abbots in Mandalay and Pakokku said most of their student monks
will not sit in for the examinations. Maso Yein (New monastery) is in
Mandalay and four learning monasteries including Bodimannaing monastery
are located in Pakokku.

"Most student monks from Pakokku did not enroll for the examinations. In
the September unrest they went back to their native places and missed the
lessons. So they won't sit for the tests this year," an abbot from Pakokku
learning monastery told Mizzima.

Of a total of 1,000 student monks of the East, West, Central and
Bodimanning learning monasteries, only 200 will sit in this year's
examinations, the abbot added.

"During the September unrest, some missed the chance to submit examination
forms and failed to enroll in time. They also missed the lessons," an
abbot from Mandalay Maso Yein monastery said.

There are currently about 1,400 monks in Mandalay Phayagyi monastery, of
which about 1,000 enrolled for the examination before the senior abbot,
the local abbot said without revealing his name.

The ABMA was formed in Mandalay on September 9, 2007.

____________________________________

March 19, Mizzima News
Previously banned weekly cleared for publication – Than Htike Oo

The Burmese censorship board on Tuesday permitted the Rangoon-based
'Myanmar Nation Journal' to recommence publication, after being banned for
a month.

The 'Myanmar Nation Journal', which rented a publishing license from an
individual named Myat Soe, was banned by the Burmese censorship board on
February 18.

However the Burmese censorship board, yesterday, once again permitted the
journal to be printed after license owner Myat Soe agreed to take over
publication.

"So, it will not be renting the license from Myat Soe. Rather the
publication will see Myat Soe himself joining the editorial staff. And in
some cases he will directly lead the publication," a source close to the
Burmese weekly told Mizzima.

On February 15, authorities, during a raid on the journal's headquarters,
found a report by UN Human Rights expert Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, a book
titled Let Us Build an Unbroken Union by ethnic Shan leader Shwe Ohn and a
Video CD of September's Saffron Revolution.

Following the raid, Editor-in-Chief Thant Zin and Manager Sein Win Maung
were arrested, charged and ultimately detained in Burma's notorious Insein
prison, where they remain to date. At this time the journal was also
banned from publication.

"After the editor and manager were arrested, the [authorities] ordered the
journal to stop publication and even banned the distribution of previous
issues of the journal. Then, when the authorities decided to again allow
publication, the editor's wife could not handle editorial tasks alone, so
at this point Myat Soe came on board and assisted, with others, in the
publication," added the source close to the journal.

____________________________________

March 19, Shan Herald News Agency
Junta authorities coax, threaten civilians to support charter – Kwarn Lake

In an attempt to get public approval of the draft constitution,
authorities of State and Peace Development Council (SPDC) are pushing for
and threatening civilians to vote ‘Yes’ during the constitutional
referendum in coming May, according to the sources from Eastern Shan
State.

Since 9 March, local government officials in Tachilek, eastern Shan State,
have gone from one house to another and asked the people of their opinion
on the draft constitution, said a resident of Tachilek.

"They [authorities] also threaten the people by saying, "If you boycott or
say no to this new constitution leading to its defeat, you will lose all
the rights stated in it. Moreover the problems and the difficulties
currently faced by the people will not be solved," ” he added.


>From early this month, in Pongpakhem, the sub-township of Mong Ton,

eastern Shan State, high school teachers and officers from several
governmental departments are ordered to urge villagers to vote ‘yes’
during constitutional referendum, said a source from Thai-Burma border.

"Teachers and officers are forbidden from taking their summer holidays and
ordered to win over villagers [during referendum in May]. Now they are
travelling from one village to another and persuading the villagers to
give support [to the draft constitution]".

"I have never voted and never known anything about a referendum and voting
system. They [teachers and officers] just told us to go and vote for it,
but they told us nothing about how to vote or didn’t explain anything
about the constitution," said a 28-year-old resident of Pongpakhem.

A respected politician from southern Shan State has counselled that the
constitutional referendum should not be boycotted 'at least for the sake
of one’s own safety and well being.'However, according to the referendum
law promulgated on 26 February, secret ballot is allowed and votes will be
immediately counted after voting in the presence of the voters.

“If so,” he advises, “we should all vote.” As for saying yes or no to the
draft constitution, “which 99.9% of the people have never seen,” let alone
understand the contents,“The core of the constitution is the continuation
of the military rule. Please ask yourself if you want it? If you do, just
mark ‘Yes’. If you don’t want it, just mark ‘No’.”

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

March 19, Irrawaddy
Funding shortfall reduces food rations in refugee camps – Violet Cho

Rising commodity prices, the strengthening of the Thai baht and budget
shortfalls are raising concerns for the welfare of Burmese refugees along
the Thai-Burmese border.

The Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC) has not been able to raise
sufficient funds to sustain its refugee assistance program and has been
forced to cut food rations and other aid, according to Jack Dunford, the
TBBC executive director based in Bangkok.

A global rice shortage has led to a price increase of more than 20
percent, said Dunford. “However, key foreign exchange rates against the
Thai baht also continue to weaken and in combination, since early this
year, the TBBC financial situation has worsened by 100 million baht (US
$3.2 million).

According to the Karen Refugee Committee (KRC) in Masaring, TBBC’s funding
shortfall has led to cuts in food rations like sugar, chili, fish paste
and bean cake. Non-food items like building supplies, soap and mosquito
nets have been drastically reduced.

A member of the KRC, expressing his concern, said, “We are worried for
people who might arrive following a military operation in an ethnic area,
and whether the relief organization can raise more funds.”

In a cover letter attached to the TBBC report obtained by The Irrawaddy,
Dunford said the cuts could have a serious impact on refugees’ well-being,
especially in areas such as health and education.

The group is seeking more funds, he said, but the budget shortfall
represents a serious challenge.

The TBBC currently gives food and other assistance to about 130,000
refugees in seven camps along the border. About 14,636 refugees departed
for resettlement in 2007 and about 17,000 are expected to leave in 2008.

According to the report, the number of unregistered refugees has increased
in the camps since the last Ministry of Interior (Thailand)/United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees registration in 2005.

Based on a TBBC survey, there are an estimated 20,000 unregistered people
in the refugee camps. TBBC’s assistance estimates include both registered
and unregistered residents.

Provincial Admissions Boards in Thailand cleared the non-registered
population in the camps in 2005. There has been no effective procedures in
place to screen new entrants since then.

TBBC’s funding crisis in 2007-2008 has been compounded by an unwillingness
of some donors to increase funding in the absence of a long-term strategy,
the report noted. On the other hand, some major grants have been received
earmarked to offset deteriorating foreign exchange rates and rising
prices.

After supporting the refugee community for nearly 24 years, the TBBC
report said some donors want to see more concrete steps taken to make
refugees more self-reliant and to reduce the need for assistance. TBBC is
in the process of designing a five-year plan to address the issue.

____________________________________

March 19, Democratic Voice of Burma
Burmese military scorches border island – Maung Too

Burmese military troops set fire to an island in the Thaung Yin river
between Burma and Thailand yesterday, clearing huts built by illegal
settlers, locals said.

The mid-river island is located between the Burmese town of Myawaddy in
Karen state and Thailand's Mae Sot district.

A Myawaddy resident who watched the scorching of the island said Burmese
army soldiers, accompanied by the township police, burnt down huts built
by illegal settlers on the island at around 7am yesterday.

"The Burmese military personnel and the police went on to the island at
around 7am and cleared it by burning down the huts," said the Myawaddy
resident.

"They did not give any advance warning of the clearing to the settlers on
the island."

The small island, which occasionally provokes argument between Thai and
Burmese authorities because of questions over its ownership, is inhabited
for much of the year by smugglers of drugs and other illegal goods.

Sources from Mae Sot said that Thai officials went to the island after it
was cleared yesterday to check on its status, but that the Burmese
military’s actions did not seem to have caused any tension between the
authorities of the two countries.

____________________________________
BUSINESS / TRADE

March 19, Energy Bangla
Gas resource of Myanmar: Beyond Bangladesh reach? – Khondkar Abdus Saleque

In the wake of serious energy supply situation Bangladesh made initial
proposal to its Southeastern neighbor Myanmar for importing gas from the
adjacent off shore gas field. But Myanmar government appeared to have
politely regretted to consider the proposal for the time being stating
that Myanmar is committed to export most of its gas to China and India.
According to them at this moment there is no spare gas over and above
those already committed or in the process for export to China and India.
Myanmar started exporting gas to Thailand for a while. The gas export to
China or India has not started yet. Gas pipeline to China and India will
be much longer than that to Bangladesh.The A-1 and A -3 gas fields in the
Bay of Bengal in Rakhaine Province is pretty adjacent to Bangladesh. Yet
Myanmar prefers China and India as Bangladesh is very late to propose for
this gas. Bangladesh has also initiated actions to let off PSCs for 28
offshore blocks in shallow and deep waters in the Bay of Bengal. India and
China commencing exploration for Gas and oil much later than Bangladesh
have already managing several off shore PSCs in offshore , many of these
are in the Bay of Bengal adjacent to Bangladesh coast. These they did
without demarcating maritime boundary and Exclusive economic zone. There
have been thoughts some of the Indian and Myanmar blocks may have
encroached Bangladesh territory. No Bangladesh government after the
Bangabandhu Government ever made any effort to explore in the deep waters
of Bay of Bengal. Excepting the Feeble protest by Engr. Mahmudur Rahman no
Bangladeshi authority ever protested the action of neighbors about
probable encroachment of Bangladesh territorial water while exploring for
petroleum. All these make the current Bangladeshi effort to let out PSCs
in the Bay of Bengal very challenging.

Myanmar made significant Gas discovery in A1 block, which lies under the
Bay of Bengal offshore from the Myanmar town of Sittwe and is only about
100 KM from Technaf coast of Bangladesh and few hundred Kms from
Kolkata.Other Myanmar fields are also not very far .Yet the government of
Myanmar has reportedly decided to pipe its prolific offshore natural gas
to China.

Situation in Januray 2007

State Owned Myanmar Oil & Gas Enterprise (MGOE) and China National
Petroleum Corp (CNPC) are jointly studying routes for a planned oil and
gas pipeline according two officials of two companies. “A joint survey
team comprising Myanmar and Chinese personal are carrying out a
pre-feasibility  survey of a gas pipeline route,” U mint Kyi, MD, MGOE ,
said at the Sino- Asian oil and Gas Pipeline Projects Cooperation Forum.
The route was expected from Kyauk Phyu, a location for deep sea port , to
Muse , a China –Myanmar border town. The source of gas from any specific
field was not made known at that time. “China approached us for 600 MMCFD
of gas supply through the pipeline in the initial phase, which would later
increase to 1 billion cubic feet per day “according to MD, MGOE. CNPC &
MGOE was also jointly studying building an oil pipeline using the same
route as the gas pipeline. The oil pipeline would have an annual capacity
of 20 million metric tons. The oil for the pipeline would be shipped to
Myanmar deep sea port from Middle East and Africa. The gas pipeline would
speed up Chinese efforts to tap gas reserves in Myanmar   to meet its
strong domestic demand, while oil pipeline would boost security of China’s
oil imports from Middle East and Africa reducing its sole dependence on
Malacca Strait. Vice President of Petro China Han Jinkuan felt,
“Technically speaking, the oil and gas pipelines should be built art the
same time, given the complicated geopolitical situation in the mountainous
areas of Myanmar.”

China at that stage was also actively considering setting up of a refinery
near Kunmin, the capital city of Southwestern Yunnan province, to refine
oil imported through the above pipeline. However, no time schedule for
construction of the pipeline was made known at that stage. By middle of
January 2007 China signed PSC with MGOE to explore for oil & gas in 3
offshore Myanmar blocks.

Situation in March 2007

China offered to construct  a pipeline from Myanmar’s A-1 and A-3 gas
fields in the Bay of Bengal to the Chinese border , a distance of around
900 KM. A-1 alone holds an estimated 4.8 TCF of gas and would produce
about 635 MMCFD. Works for concluding the ultimate recoverable reserve of
A-3 was still ongoing at that time. However, Myanmar committed to export
about two –third of fields total production. The government of Myanmar
reportedly decided to accept Chinese proposal. The news particularly
disappointed India and South Korea, both of which are heavily dependent on
energy imports   and have been seeking to diversify their energy sources.
India earlier proposed to build a pipeline to Kolkata and South Korea had
proposed to develop facilities to export the gas by sea.

The Myanmar Military Junta’s decision is likely to have been influenced by
political factors, given the close economic and military ties with China.
As permanent member of UN Security Council China successfully shields
Myanmar’s military regime from international censure and intervention.
China possibly like that the political status quo in Myanmar is
maintained, dimming prospect of democratization.

Indian and South Korean Companies hold major stakes in A1 and A3 gas
fields. Daewoo of Korea , which is the operator of field owns 60% stakes
which two Indian Companies Gas Authority India LTD ( Gail) and subsidiary
of  Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC ) hold 30% and the remaining 10%
is held by KoGas of South Korea. These companies would jointly spend US$
2-3 bn to develop the fields.

Tri Nation Gas Pipeline

The concept of Tri Nation Gas pipeline from Myanmar across Bangladesh to
India was basically initiated by a Bangladeshi Company Mohona Holdings
Ltd. The company Chairman noted CPS Officer and thinker Mr. Mizanur Rahman
( Shelly) and Veteran Pipeliner Mr. K.B. Ahmed after years of hard efforts
could make the energy ministers of three countries meet at Yangoon in
Januray 2005. This was followed by a meeting of technical experts at
Yangoon in February 2005. he author was privileged  to participate as
Bangladeshi Representative. After almost two days of extensive discussion
we managed to initial the draft minutes of Understanding .Very strong and
demanding Indian contingent could be persuaded to include Bangladeshi
points of interest in the MOU. The agreed proposal for open access
pipeline had provision for injection and siphoning off gas from
Bangladeshi and Indian Gas fields along the way. The meeting liked the
author’s proposal to route the pipeline through Teknaf, Cox’sbazar,
Chittagong and follow BkB- CTG, A-B, and B-B pipeline on way to West
Bengal. The MOU also recommended letting an international consortium not
having any representation of the participating country develop the
project. It also had provision for Bangladeshi company GTCL to operate the
Bangladesh Segment of the pipeline. The segment of the pipeline within
Myanmar was much less about 290Km compared to that in case of gas pipeline
to Chinese border. During our stay at Myanmar we observed Mohona holding
had very strong influence over MGOE. On return to Bangladesh the author
made very extensive report for the Bangladesh government. An inter
ministerial committee was formed to further the issue. But narrow vision
Bangladesh Government could not progress our good work and apparently lost
the momentum we achieved. The author was subsequently made victim of
circumstances and made to leave Bangladesh gas sector. The benefit that
Bangladesh could obtain from the Tri Nation pipeline is possibly lost for
ever. Now it appears that Bangladesh will have to depend on the good
gestures of India and China to have any access to Gas Resources of Myanmar
if that happens at all.

Natural gas is Myanmar’s most important export, accounting for US$ 1.4 bln
in 2006 or about 37% of country’s total export revenue. Myanmar's gas
export is about 15% of the country’s GDP. The military regime gave us
impression during our visit that they could not wait long for India and
Bangladesh to take decision about the Tri Nation pipeline as the military
government may need to give way to democracy sooner or later.

The pipeline to China will invariably strengthen Myanmar/s economic
relationship with China. Myanmar depends so heavily on Chinese commodities
that about 30% of Myanmar’s import comes from that country while China
accounts for about 7% of Myanmar's export. China is likely to import 219bn
– 365bn CFT gas a year from Myanmar over the next two decades according to
RAW India. Bangladesh’s weak capacity to pay for Myanmar gas very likely
did not attract any attention of Myanmar.

But Bangladesh must be very firm in dealing with Myanmar and India while
demarcating the maritime boundary and EEZ. It must not compromise at all
if any of the already contracted out Myanmar or Indian offshore block
appear to encroach Bangladesh territory. Energy resources in such cases
must be developed under Joint Development Agreement. The international
Convention must be followed in such cases.
____________________________________

March 19, Irrawaddy
Thailand’s business plan for Burma – Wai Moe

Thailand’s main information technology and service company, Loxley Plc,
plans to launch the first convenience store in Burma in partnership with
one of the Burmese junta’s cronies, Dagon Win Aung, according to a report
in the Bangkok Post.

The report said that Win Aung, also known as “Dagon” Win Aung, the owner
of the Dagon Shopping Center in Rangoon, will send a survey team to
Thailand in April to learn the business of convenience store management.
Jingjai Hanchanlash, a Loxley director, said he would ask Win Aung to
visit the “108” shopping chain as a possible format.

Jingjai, the director of the Greater Mekong Subregion Committee, said that
retailing was one of many ventures Loxley would pursue this year to enjoy
favorable factors under the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) co-operation
program that includes Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam and
Southern China.

Dagon Win Aung, a Burmese tycoon who made his fortune in the timber trade,
construction and import-export businesses, is expected to be in the next
targeted sanctions list by the United States’ administration.

Meanwhile, Thai businesspeople are queuing up to take advantage of the
market in Burmese gems.

A recent business report by Agence France-Presse said that jewelers in
Thailand are buying highly coveted rubies and jade at an official auction
this week in Burma which is offering about US $153 million worth of gems.

The AFP report said that after the junta’s deadly crackdown on
pro-democracy protests led by Buddhist monks in September, leading
jewelers, including Tiffany, Cartier and Bulgari, are refusing to stock
Burmese precious stones in protest. The boycott is backed by the European
Union’s tightened sanctions.

Quoted in the report, Vichai Assarasakorn, president of the Thai Gem and
Jewelry Traders’ Association said, “Sanctions over trade in gems from
Burma by the US or the European Union will certainly hurt some gem and
jewellery exporters in Thailand.”

Burma sells more than $300 million worth of stones annually, with Thailand
and China the two biggest customers.

Thailand’s new Prime Minister, Samak Sundaravej, visited Burma last week
with business interests a priority on his agenda, reports said. During the
meeting Thailand vowed to develop the Tavoy deep-sea port in southern
Burma to help open up trade and business links between the two countries.

Meanwhile, critics say neighbors of Burma focus more on trading with the
repressive regime than promoting democratization in the country.

“I think that the Thai foreign policy on Burma should also consider the
promotion of human rights and democracy in Burma and not only the business
benefits,” Somchai Homlaor, the general secretary of the Human Rights and
Development Foundation said recently.

__________________________________

March 19, The Financial Express (India)
Close window print story strengthening relations with Myanmar – Prabir De

India shares an abundance of economic interest with Myanmar today,
particularly in the backdrop of India’s Look East Policy. Myanmar is
important for India because the country holds over 1.5 million People of
Indian Origin (PIO)—largest outside India.

Why is Myanmar so keen to renew its relationship with India? First, heavy
migration of mainland Chinese people over the last few decades has forced
Myanmar to seek an alternate partnership in the region. Second, Myanmar
does not want to experience any more the awful side of free trade–the
dumping and transit ground of cheap foreign goods and services.

Instead, Myanmar wants to enjoy the good side of globalisation–to become a
prosperous nation. Third, India has been providing higher market access to
Myanmar, which has been helping them to build resource-based domestic
industry and to enjoy comparative advantages of its energy resources.
Finally, military ruler of the country wants to give a taste of democracy
to its people from 2010 onwards.

How is the relationship then growing better and better between India and
Myanmar? India is witnessing rising trade in goods with Myanmar. India is
now Myanmar’s fourth largest trading partner, next to Singapore, China and
Thailand. The bilateral trade in goods was about $750 million in 2006, up
from $227.23 million in 2000, of which India’s export to and import from
Myanmar were $38 million and $612 million respectively.

India’s import from Myanmar is about 4.5 times higher than its export to
that country. India sources mostly raw materials from Myanmar, of which
two commodity groups, namely, edible vegetables and related products, and
wood and wood products, share 63% and 34% of India’s total import from
Myanmar, respectively. Compared to import, India’s export to Myanmar is
diversified, mostly finished goods, such as pharmaceuticals, iron and
steel, electrical machinery and equipment, among others.

India provides higher market access to Myanmar, compared to China (see
table). Myanmar’s export to India ($555.10 million in 2006) was higher
than Myanmar’s export to China ($229.70 million in 2006). India has also
provided over $50 million Line of Credit to Myanmar in the past five years
in order to help that country to expand its exports to India. However, the
Myanmar’s trade structure with China will change completely once export of
gas to China is resumed later this year.

India’s trade and investment with Myanmar will increase if barriers are
removed. First of all, even though the two countries share a border they
do not trade at the border. India–Myanmar should resume full-fledged trade
at the border. Compared to ocean trade, border trade in value terms has
been only 1% ($3.5 million in 2004) of the total bilateral trade.

The present form of border trade is restricted and not the MFN type.
Border trade between the two countries is conducted at Moreh (India)–Tamu
(Myanmar), which was opened in 1995. The second border trade point at
Zowkhathar–Rhi, opened in 2004, is not active. To improve border trade,
India has offered assistance to construct the Rhi-Tiddim and Rhi-Falam
roads along the Chin-Mizoram border.

India is relatively restrictive to Myanmar’s exports. India’s weighted
average tariff in 2005 on imports from Myanmar was about 17.48% with the
exchange of 270 tariff lines, whereas the same in case of Myanmar on
imports from India was only 2.62% with the exchange of 2,071 tariff lines.
India’s higher tariff is negating the distance advantage and escalating
trade costs.

Indian investment in Myanmar is very small till date. Only one Indian
company, Tractors India, has set-up a manufacturing unit in Myanmar.
However, in order to attract overseas investments, Myanmar has to carry
out large scale, domestic reforms in the money and banking sector.
Otherwise, wage, resource and locational advantages will not generate any
substantial dividend to Myanmar.

Modernisation of Land Customs Station at Moreh in Manipur would pave the
way in formalising the informal rent-seeking local economy. In this
regard, the proposed Integrated Check Post (ICP) at Moreh is certainly a
good beginning. At the same time, India and Myanmar also need to simplify
customs procedures and agree to the transit arrangement following their
commitments in WTO.

Setting up a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) at the border will give a boost
to the local economy at both sides of the India–Myanmar border. This will
attract FDI in resource-based industries, such as newsprint, wood and wood
products, agriculture and food processing, among others.

Cross-border projects are essential to foster mutually beneficial
cooperation. In order to take the bilateral relationship forward, India
has major responsibilities. India should link Manipur and Mizoram with its
mainline railway corridor (NF Railway) and help Myanmar re-establish its
railway network. Without a modern and harmonised railway system in
Myanmar, India’s dream to link Delhi with Hanoi or to hook up with the
Trans-Asian Railway (TAR) will be unfulfilled.

India has shown keenness to modernise the Myanmar railway network. In
2003, during the visit of India’s vice president to Myanmar, the offer of
a $57 million Line of Credit (LC) was announced for upgradation of
Myanmar’s railway network from Yangon to Mandalay.

There is some progress on Kaladan multimodal transportation project.
Coming month will see the BTU (Build, Transfer and Use) agreement signed
for $120 million Kaladan project. When completed, it will give an ocean
access to India’s Northeast (starting with Mizoram) at Sittwee port in
Myanmar.

Sittwee is 250 km from the Indian border on the north-western coast of
Burma, where the Kaladan river joins the Bay of Bengal.

Overland connectivity is another important aspect of bilateral relation.
India is implementing BIMSTEC Highway, which will provide an uninterrupted
transportation linkage between South and Southeast Asia through India’s
Northeast and Myanmar.

The successful upgradation of the 160-km Tamu-Kalay-Kalewa road (northern
part of this highway) by India is a good beginning.

Myanmar has an abundance of offshore natural gas resources. Current
engagement between the two countries in the energy sector is limited, but
opportunities are plenty. The Essar Group is about to start drilling test
well to explore natural gas at an inland block in Myanmar’s western
coastal Rakhine state later this year.

OVL and GAIL are already involved in similar activities at Blocks A-1 and
A-3 in the same offshore area in partnership with South Korean companies.
India and Myanmar are working together for the development of a
hydroelectric project at Tamanthi. This project has the potential of
generating between 600 mw and 1,000 MW of electricity.

As India considers its future role in Asia, the rise of Myanmar would then
represent a positive opportunity to advance this country’s Asian and
global interests. It would be in India’s strong interest to see Myanmar
develops a lasting growth. Offering membership in SAARC to Myanmar will
certainly build mutual trust and confidence. Building a deeper cooperation
with Myanmar should be one of the India’s highest priorities.

—This author is Fellow, Research and Information System for Developing
Countries. The views expressed are personal. Email: prabirde at ris.org.in

____________________________________
DRUGS

March 19, International Relations and Security Networks
Myanmar's Shan state: Faint sign of volatility – Ryan Clarke

There has been much fanfare about rising opium production in Afghanistan
but little attention paid to Myanmar’s Shan State. Nonetheless, the region
has seen a spike in production levels of both heroin and amphetamines,
with China presently bearing the brunt of this ‘boom’. This may have a
knock-on effect in Northeast India as well as Thailand, Ryan Clarke writes
for RSIS.

When discussing heroin trafficking in Asia, policymakers, analysts, and
scholars have placed an enormous emphasis on Afghanistan. This is
understandable given the fact that Afghanistan produces roughly 92 percent
of the world's opium with over 3,600 tonnes per year and that much of the
revenue is used to fund the Taliban as well as several other insurgent
groups in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and several Central Asian nations.

Shan state as a volatile spot
While the international spotlight has shifted to Afghanistan, opium
production levels have quietly risen in Myanmar's Shan State bordering
China and Thailand. The Shan State comprises a volatile mix of
drug-traffickers and their private armies, pro and anti-government
militias, the Burmese Army and several marginalized minority groups.

The area is the former home of the recently deceased drug kingpin Khun Sa
and has been granted a significant degree of autonomy from the central
government, now based in Nay Pyi Taw, in exchange for the cessation of
insurgent activity by several groups.

As such, criminal syndicates in the state have continued with their
cultivation and trafficking of heroin relatively unabated, become involved
in smuggling methamphetamines (AST), and have refused to lay down arms.
Needless to say, this has proven to be a very bad deal for the junta.

Trafficking into China
At present, it appears that most of Myanmar's heroin and AST flow into
China, which has become a major consumption and transit point. This is an
unintended consequence of its economic boom and globalization drive.

As Beijing continues to invest billions into China's more underdeveloped
provinces such as Yunnan and several others near India’s Northeast,
Myanmar's heroin and AST production is likely to rise to meet the
increasing demand in a more prosperous China.

Although India should indeed applaud this effort undertaken by the Chinese
to raise income levels and living standards, reduce poverty, and improve
civilian infrastructure, it would be prudent for New Delhi to consider the
consequences that this may have on the various insurgencies in the
Northeast. Due to Beijing's strict anti-drug policies and heavy security
presence near its border with Myanmar, heroin sourced from Myanmar is
considerably more expensive than its Afghan competitor.

If successfully smuggled into China, this translates into much higher
profit yields as overhead costs remain low while street value is high.

Refuge for Indian insurgent groups
Myanmar is well-known for corruption, particularly within the military
establishment, and is consistently ranked at the bottom in terms of
government transparency.

The military is the only functional institution and has a virtual
stranglehold on nearly all economic activities ranging from natural gas
production to the export of precious stones.

Myanmar is currently divided into fiefdoms with a high-ranking officer
being granted jurisdiction over a particular area. In the area bordering
India's Northeast, some military officials have permitted insurgent groups
based in India to take refuge in Myanmar for a price.

Once inside Myanmar, these militants could gain access to production
centers as well as smuggling routes in Myanmar and China, especially given
the ethnic and linguistic links that many share with both nations.

If these insurgent groups were able to even gain a minor stake in the
increasing heroin and AST trade in Myanmar, it would greatly increase
their operational capacities as it would allow them to purchase more
sophisticated weaponry, communications equipment, and increase both the
quality and frequency of their training.

India may need to use its influence in Myanmar to head off this potential
problem and to encourage the junta to not only crack down on those within
the establishment who are involved in sheltering Indian insurgent groups,
but to also make greater efforts to rein in the drug trade in the Shan
State. This has to be the case as it could serve as a vital source of
revenue for militant groups in the future.

For this to occur, India will undoubtedly have to coordinate efforts
through the Chinese, thus providing New Delhi with an opportunity to
improve relations with its neighbor while cutting off a potential economic
lifeline for terrorist groups.

Implications for Thailand
Given Thailand's geographic proximity to Myanmar and its porous borders,
it is one of the first nations to feel the impact of this recent
development. Recognizing this, the recently elected administration of
Samak Sundaravej has announced that it will be launching a nationwide
crackdown on the drug trade within Thailand and has warned the public
about the potential for large amounts of casualties.

As was the case when a similar strategy was employed by former Prime
Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2003-2004, this will be a temporary fix to
an issue that requires long-term, sustainable solutions.

Without permanently containing production areas and establishing some kind
of security arrangement with the junta, it will only be a matter of time
before Myanmar's narcotics began to flood into Thailand once again. Such
agreements will have to include intelligence-sharing as well as
cooperative and coordinated efforts on the border.

However, none of this will be possible unless the junta can be convinced
that it is in their best interest to work with Thailand and other regional
states to extinguish a long running, narcotics-fuelled insurgency within
their own territory.

Ryan Clarke is a visiting researcher with the Centre for Political
Violence and Terrorism Research, S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies (RSIS) and a Ph.D. candidate at the Centre of International
Studies at the University of Cambridge. He advises several hedge funds in
the region and has previously worked in law enforcement in the United
States.

____________________________________
ASEAN

March 19, Bangkok Post
Surin advises Samak on Burma attitude

Asean secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan has advised Prime Minister Samak
Sundaravej to be prudent before commenting on issues involving Burma. Mr
Surin stressed the need to approach the political situation in Burma with
an in-depth understanding and respect for its sensitivity.

The government should gauge its readiness to explain Burma to the world,
he said.

His comments followed Mr Samak's offer on his Sunday television programme
to mediate with the international community.

Mr Samak said Westerners are overly critical of Burma and he has new-found
respect for the junta following his visit to the country last Friday.

Mr Surin, who was foreign minister during the Democrat-led coalition
government from mid-1997 to 2001, said Asean _ the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations _ supports reconciliation in Burma, the role the
United Nations is handling until Asean member countries find solutions and
the Burmese junta opens itself to Asean's help.

The junta has been condemned by the international community for its
crackdown on peaceful street protests against the military regime in
September.

In a related development, Burmese police raided an island underneath the
Thai-Burmese Friendship Bridge in Tak's Mae Sot district yesterday and
arrested seven suspected Burmese gang members.

Around 100 armed Burmese police and volunteers burned down the shelters
and took away the suspects, while Thai authorities were told to stand
guard on the Thai side.

Burma moved at the request of Tak governor Chumporn Polarak who said
Burmese gangs on the island in the Moei river wielded much influence.

They trafficked speed pills and attacked Thai and foreign tourists at the
Thai border market.

A gang of Burmese illegals occupying the island is believed to have been
behind the attack on Pol Sgt Ake-kachai Biewnoi. The Thai policeman was
shot in the torso on the island on March 3.

____________________________________

March 19, Inter-Press Service
Thailand queers ASEAN's Burma pitch – Marwaan Macan-Markar

By openly coming to the rescue of Burma’s military regime, Thai Prime
Minister Samak Sundaravej has queered the pitch of moves by regional
governments to prod the junta into genuine political reform.

Following his first visit to Burma, Samak made statements that have had
many Burma watchers in Thailand and across South-east Asia reacting in
disbelief. ‘’Killings and suppressions are normal there but we have to
know the facts,’’ the premier said on Sunday during his weekly TV
programme, ‘Samak’s Talk’.

He then went on to praise the Burmese dictator, Sr. Gen. Than Shwe, who
ordered Burmese troops and riot police to fire at the peaceful street
protests, led by thousand of Buddhist monks, in September last year,
leaving scores dead. ‘’And Senior (Gen) Than Shwe practices meditation. He
says he prays in the morning ... and the country has been in peace and
order,’’ said Samak, who spent one-day, Mar. 14, visiting Thailand’s
western neighbour.

The flaws in such a reading of Burmese politics even prompted a response
from Surin Pitsuwan, a former Thai foreign minister who is currently the
secretary-general of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN).
He ‘’advised’’ Samak to be ‘’prudent before commenting on issues involving
Burma,’’ reports Wednesday’s ‘Bangkok Post’ newspaper. ‘’Surin stressed
the need to approach the political situation in Burma with an in-depth
understanding and respect for its sensitivity.’’

Samak’s comments, in fact, stand in sharp contrast to the measured view
expressed days earlier by officials in Singapore, currently the chair of
the 10-member regional bloc ASEAN, of which Burma and Thailand are
members. ‘’The (Burma) issue is complex and demands immense patience and
sustained effort,’’ said a foreign ministry spokesman in the city-state.

Singapore has thrown its weight behind the efforts of United Nations
special envoy Ibrahim Gambari to persuade the Burmese regime to open its
political process, including offering a significant role for Aung San Suu
Kyi, the opposition leader who has been in detention for over 12 of the
past 18 years. ASEAN is also backing Gambari’s diplomatic efforts, the
Singapore official added.

But the Burmese regime gave Gambari a hostile reception during his last
visit this month, the third to the country following last September’s
brutal crackdown of the pro-democracy street protests in Rangoon and other
cities. Gambari confirmed this on Tuesday, telling the U.N. Security
Council in New York that he was disappointed with the lack of progress.

ASEAN’s other members include Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia,
Philippines and Vietnam. Of them, the more democratic countries, Indonesia
and the Philippines, have turned the most heat on the Burmese regime for
its harsh measures to retain its grip on power. Philippines President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has said that her country would not ratify a new
ASEAN charter if Burma did not restore democracy and free Suu Kyi.

‘’The Philippines and Indonesia want to see lot more change in Burma,
while Singapore has said the problems cannot be ignored and Malaysia has
issued some statements about human rights,’’ Roshan Jason, spokesman for
the ASEAN Inter-parliamentary Caucus, a network of parliamentarians from
across the region, told IPS. ‘’There are different levels of conformity
within ASEAN regards Burma.’’

Thailand’s decision to pursue a more friendly neighbour policy is rooted
in Bangkok’s economic interests in Burma. This was confirmed during
Samak’s visit, where a business deal was struck to expand Thailand’s
position as Burma’s third-largest trading partner. In addition to
supplying a four-billion-baht (125 million US dollars) loan to the junta,
Bangkok also agreed to push ahead with building a controversial hydropower
dam on the Salween River and finance other infrastructure projects.

Such an approach to Burma was defined by the administration of former Thai
prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted from power in a
September 2006 coup. During his five-and-a-half-year term, Thaksin offered
a helping hand to the Burmese regime when it came under fire from Western
governments and even from ASEAN members since 2003, when the junta
attacked and detained Suu Kyi.

The People Power Party (PPP) that Samak heads is the successor to the Thai
Rak Thai (Thais Love Thai - TRT) party, which Thaksin led. The PPP won the
most seats at last December’s general election. The TRT was disbanded in
mid-2007 by a special military tribunal and 111 party executives,
including Thaksin, were banned from politics for five years.

‘’The new Thai government’s diplomacy is unlikely to be different from
Thaksin’s business-oriented diplomacy before he was ousted,’’ writes Kyaw
Zwa Moe in ‘The Irrawaddy,’ a current affairs website published by Burmese
journalists living in exile in northern Thailand. ‘’Thaksin was a friend
of Burma’s military regime when he was prime minister from 2001 to 2006.
He was often criticised for courting the junta through business
concessions and his defence of the military leaders.’’

Yet Thailand is taking a political gamble in pursuing such a policy in the
wake of the international outrage that followed the brutal crackdown last
September, says Debbie Stothard of ALTSEAN, a regional human rights lobby.
‘’For a long time Thailand has tried to increase its prestige and standing
in international diplomacy. So Prime Minister Samak’s recent comments are
ill considered.’’

Such open praise for the Burmese junta will place a new diplomatic hurdle
for ASEAN, she said in an interview. ‘’Burma has always been a divisive
issue in ASEAN, and Prime Minister Samak’s comments will deepen the
divide.’’

____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

March 19, BBC News
UN envoy disappointed over Burma – Matthew Wells

The United Nations special envoy to Burma says that his recent trip to the
country yielded no concrete results. However, addressing the UN Security
Council, Ibrahim Gambari promised that dialogue with the military-led
government would continue.

He also made it clear that relations between Burma and the international
community will not improve without Aung San Suu Kyi's release.

Mr Gambari met the detained opposition leader on his visit earlier this
month.

The UN is trying to influence the Burmese government's plans to hold a
referendum on a new national constitution in May, on the road to what the
leadership says will be "multi-party democratic elections" in 2010.

However, the military-led government is insisting on taking a bloc of
seats in parliament, and exercising a veto over some parliamentary
decisions.

Suu Kyi ban

Mr Gambari said his trip earlier in the month had been difficult and
frustrating at times, and no tangible progress had been made:

"Whereas each of my previous visits produced some result that could be
built upon, it is a source of disappointment that this latest visit did
not yield any immediate tangible outcome," Mr Gambari said.

He added that there was no room for despair, and although talks had failed
this time, there would be other opportunities.

His words were supported by Burma's ambassador to the UN, U Kyaw Tint Swe,
who said the government would continue to co-operate.

But on the issue of Ms Suu Kyi, agreement seems as far away as ever.

The government continues to insist that she is ineligible to take part in
the referendum, because she was married to a foreigner.

____________________________________

March 19, Bangkok Post
US backs election observers for Burma

The United States on Tuesday asked the UN Security Council to pressure the
military government in Burma to allow international election observers for
a constitutional referendum planned for May.

US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the preparations for the vote are
reason for concern, citing the fact that the text of the proposal had not
yet been released.

The Burmese ruling junta has pledged to hold a referendum to seek public
approval for a draft constitution that will then pave the way for a
general election sometime in 2010.

The military-appointed national convention set up by the regime to draft
the constitution - a process that took 14 years - has been judged a sham
by many international observers.

United Nations special envoy Ibrahim Gambari, who was in Burma last week,
requested that the regime allow for international monitors to observe the
referendum process and assure it is free and fair.

His request was rejected.

The Security Council is divided over the next step, with China opposing a
public statement on the issue.

Since 1962, Burma has been ruled by a military regime which hs turned the
country into one of the world's worst human rights violators, including
two brutal crackdowns on pro-democracy movements in 1988 and last
September. Thousands of political dissidents, including Nobel Peace Prize
laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, have been arrested under their rule.

The last general election held in Burma was in 1990. The National League
for Democracy (NLD) party led by Suu Kyi won by a landslide, but the
military simply ignored the polls.

Suu Kyi has spent 12 of the past 18 years under house arrest in her
Rangoon home.

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

March 19, Bangkok Post
Burma policy needs rethink

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej's remarks last Sunday on his weekly
television talk show were ill-considered, even for one who has made it
something of a trademark to leave his listeners scratching their heads.

In justifying expanding economic ties with Burma, Mr Samak dismissed that
country's horrible record on human rights by saying: "Burma is a Buddhist
country. Burma's leaders meditate. They say the country lives in peace."
Coming just six months after the ruling junta ordered the brutal
suppression of peacefully protesting Buddhist monks and their followers,
Mr Samak's statement is an affront not only to Buddhists but to all people
of conscience.

The remarks came after a courtesy visit last Friday by Mr Samak to top
Burmese generals including Senior General Than Shwe in Naypidaw, the new
Burmese administrative capital, in which several development projects were
discussed.

Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama said on Saturday that Thailand will push
ahead with construction of the Tasang hydropower dam on the Salween River
in Burma's Shan State, about 130km from the Thai-Burmese border. According
to Salween Watch, the reservoir will flood hundreds of square kilometres
of land. Also discussed were the Tavoy deep-sea port on Burma's Andaman
coast to open trade and investment links with western Thailand.

While Mr Samak's words on the talk show may not have been well thought
out, clearly that is not the case with this government's policy on Burma,
which is pretty much a resumption of the one under deposed prime minister
Thaksin Shinawatra, although Mr Thaksin at least had the good sense to
keep it very low profile. The new out-in-the-open relationship will put
the country squarely at odds with the European Union and United States,
two of Thailand's most important strategic and trading partners. Japan
also has begun to take a tougher stance on Burma since the September
crackdown, which left a 50-year-old Japanese journalist dead.

Meanwhile, the International Labour Organisation office in Burma has
reported an upsurge in the military conscription of children, some as
young as 10 years old. It can be argued that constructive engagement would
be more productive than a total blacklisting of Burma. Yet there is no
indication that any concessions to human rights or democracy were sought
by Mr Samak, or that the junta would honour such concessions if they were
given.

With the mission of the UN special envoy to Burma having ended in failure,
the international community is wondering what can be done to pressure the
junta to pay more heed to the plight of its own citizens. One possibility
would be a high-profile visit by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The
generals have shown they are sensitive to international pressure if the
spotlight is bright enough.

In that regard, human rights activists are of the view that rather than
boycott the Beijing Games, it would be better to turn the Olympic Village
into a globally televised free speech zone on issues like Tibet, Darfur
and Burma. Mr Samak's comments may have earned Thailand a centre-stage
position at that very dramatic venue.

____________________________________

March 19, Irrawaddy
Will Burmese migrants be able to vote? – Jackie Pollock

Most countries provide some form of absentee voting for nationals who live
abroad or facilitate voting for internal migrants who have returned home
to vote.

Migrants represent a constituency that can be a powerful lobby in
referendums and elections, and can, sometimes, determine an election’s
outcome.

In Zimbabwe, The Congress of Trade Unions has called on 3 million
Zimbabweans living and working in South Africa to return home to vote in
the March 29th election.

In a recent election in Kelantan, Malaysia, the Barisan Nasional Party
blamed its defeat on the failure of a large number of Kelantanese living
outside the state to return home to vote.

In Thailand, Section 99 of the 2007 Constitution enshrines the right of
Thai nationals who reside outside their constituency or outside the
country to vote. In the December national election, polling booths for
absentee voters were set up a week before the vote. For Thai migrants, who
returned home to vote, a public holiday was declared to allow more time to
travel.

In Burma, with a referendum on the constitution scheduled in May, Burmese
migrants are wondering will they be able to exercise their right to vote?

Burmese migrants have never had the opportunity to vote, although many
have grown up hearing stories from their parents about voting in the 1990
election, only to have the vote ignored by the junta.

While migrants fear the same thing may happen this time, they will never
know unless they are able to vote.

There are many hurdles for Burmese migrants to overcome, if they are to be
allowed to vote. The deck, as usual, seems stacked against them.

The first hurdle entails knowing how to register to vote. Embassies are
usually the best source of information for overseas nationals on such
issues, but it is no easy task to get any information from the Burmese
embassy in Bangkok.

Families in Burma are being instructed to tell their migrant relatives to
return home quickly to be included on the voting registrar and obtain an
ID card to be eligible to vote.

If successful, that could entail making two trips home: one to register
and one to cast a “No” or “Yes” vote. Such trips would not only cost
migrants precious money and time, but could also cost them their legal
status in Thailand.

When migrant workers in Thailand register for a temporary work permit they
are legally confined to the province where they register. Crossing a
provincial border could lead to the loss of their legal status and
crossing the border into Burma would automatically render the migrant
illegal under current laws.

Some 367,834 Burmese migrants in Thailand hold a work permit that will
expire on June 30th. Registration to extend the permit for another year
begins on June 1. If these migrants choose to return home to vote, would
they be able to return to Thailand to register for a work permit again?

Even if the Thai government decided to support the migrants’ right to vote
and facilitated their return, migrants would have another hurdle to
overcome: their employers.

Employers of migrant workers are usually reluctant to give migrants time
off from work; would they support a week off to return home to vote? Would
their jobs be there when they returned?

According to a recent article in The Bangkok Post, Thai Foreign Minister
Noppadon Pattama said: “If Myanmar [Burma] wants assistance from Thailand
(on the referendum), we are ready to offer help as a friendly country.” 
Thailand’s help is badly needed by the 360,000 registered Burmese migrants
and 1.2 million unregistered migrants.

If the Burmese embassy in Bangkok becomes a polling station, Thailand’s
help would be needed to issue migrants temporary travel passes to go to
Bangkok to vote.

The Burmese regime could also set up polling stations located close to the
Thai border specifically for migrants as they do on the American-Mexican
border. In this scenario Thailand would need to provide some sort of
document or amnesty on travel restrictions to allow migrants to travel
safely to and from the border.

If the regime demands that migrants return home first to register and then
to vote, Thailand’s assistance would be needed to provide travel documents
or border passes and to ensure that employers grant workers time off to
perform their civil duty and guarantee their jobs upon their return.

The Burmese regime has provided almost no information about the referendum
process, the actual voting or the contents of the constitution.

If Thailand is open hearted and willing to aid Burmese migrants who want
to vote in the referendum, it will be necessary to act quickly. And if
Asean is truly a caring community, it will actively support systems for
Burmese migrants in Malaysia and Singapore to also be able to vote. The
future of Burma depends on it.

Jackie Pollock is a founding member of the Chiang Mai-based Migrant
Assistance Program, MAP Foundation.

____________________________________

March 19, UN Human Rights Council
Human Rights Council reviews mandate of Special Rapporteur on situation of
human rights in Myanmar

On March 17, the Human Rights Council conducted a review, rationalization
and improvement of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation
of human rights in Myanmar. It also concluded its interactive dialogue
with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan.

Slovenia, introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human
rights situation in Myanmar and speaking on behalf of the European Union,
said the European Union was deeply concerned about the situation in
Burma/Myanmar, particularly related to continued imposition of
restrictions on the freedoms of movement, expression, assembly and
association, the prevalence of a culture of impunity, ongoing summary
executions, torture, and forced labour practices, recruitment of child
soldiers and sexual violence. As regards the announced Constitutional
referendum, the Constitutional drafting process had not been an all
inclusive national process. Deep concerns were expressed about the great
number of political prisoners who had been detained without charge and
political leaders who were not allowed to move freely, such as Ms. Suu
Kyi, who continued to remain under house arrest for years. The European
Union supported the extension of the mandate.

Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights
in Myanmar, said that he had visited Myanmar seven times during his
tenure. Between the years 2003 to 2007, he had not been granted access to
the country by the authorities. Subsequent to the sixth Special Session he
had been able to conduct a visit in November of last year. Since his
appointment he had created his own channel of information though reliable
civil society organizations. He had sought a constructive dialogue with
the authorities. As had been witnessed over the last years, the existence
of this mandate had allowed those inside the country to overcome internal
obstacles and to voice their concerns. This mandate had also helped the
international community to be aware of the human rights situation in the
country. He believed that the reports he had submitted highlighted the
worsening situation of human rights in the country. There was an absolute
need for the continuation of this mandate, in order to monitor the reform
process and the implementation of the seven-step road map.

Myanmar, speaking as a concerned country said that although it did not
think it was appropriate to establish the mandate, the Government of
Myanmar had shown its willingness to cooperate with the United Nations by
extending invitations to the Special Rapporteur to see the true situation
on the ground. This testified to Myanmar's effort and readiness to
cooperate with the human rights mechanisms. Despite such cooperation,
Myanmar continued to be subjected to unjust and unwarranted criticisms.
The reports of the Special Rapporteur contained many unfounded allegations
based on rumors and unreliable sources. Moreover, they contained
unrealistic recommendations. The objectivity and impartiality of this
mandate was questionable. As Myanmar would also be reviewed under the
Universal Periodic Review, it was not necessary to have a country specific
mandate for Myanmar.

Speaking in the general debate about the mandate of the Special Rapporteur
on the human rights situation in Myanmar were the delegations of Pakistan
on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Switzerland, the
Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea, Canada, Brazil, Peru, Japan,
China, Sweden, Argentina, Panama, the United States and Sudan.

Also speaking on the subject of the mandate on Myanmar were
representatives of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development and
Conectas Direitos Humanos.

The Human Rights Council, in its morning meeting, heard the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan, Sima Samar, present
her report. (For further details, see press release HRC/08/30 of 17
March).

Sudan, speaking as a concerned country in response to the presentation,
expressed its surprise at some of the findings in the report. For
instance, the summary mentioned that women in Sudan were imprisoned for
not paying the dowry or for criminal acts committed by any member of her
family. However, this was against Sudan's Constitution, law and
traditions. Another surprising claim was that women in Sudan were second
class citizens. In fact, according to the national Constitution, women
enjoyed equal legal, financial and political competence as men. The
Government also denounced the report for containing hazy and vague phrases
on acts of torture. With regards to the situation in Darfur, the
Government of Sudan was cognizant that the conflict brought about a
situation not conducive to the promotion and protection of human rights.
The Government had spared no effort to arrive at a peaceful settlement to
the Darfur crisis.

During the interactive dialogue on the situation in Sudan, delegations
said that the report did rightfully point out that there had been positive
steps taken by Sudan in the area of human rights. The international
community was urged to provide technical assistance to Sudan. At the same
time, Sudan had to implement the recommendations of the Special
Rapporteur. The international community could and had to play an important
role in bringing a lasting peace and security in the country. There could
be no impunity for crimes that were committed.

Ms. Samar, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan,
in concluding remarks highlighted the need for a constructive dialogue
with the Government of Sudan in order to promote and protect human rights
in Sudan. Technical assistance by the international community was needed
in Sudan in order to build the capacities of various institutions,
including the police and in the establishment of a human rights
institution. The United Nations and the African Union troops had to take
different measures to protect civilians and to provide support to women to
prevent gender-based violence throughout Darfur and especially for
internally displaced persons. It was clear that the Darfur crisis did not
have a military solution. All the parties had to come together to find a
political solution for the people.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the report of the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan were the delegations
of Algeria, Pakistan on behalf of the Arab Group, Qatar, Egypt on behalf
of the African Group, the African Union, Kenya, Pakistan on behalf of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference, Switzerland, New Zealand, Syria,
Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, India, the United Kingdom,
Japan, Belgium, Panama, Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Canada, the
League of Arab States, Malaysia, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China,
Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, the Russian Federation,
Bahrain, Yemen, Mauritania, Djibouti, Zimbabwe and the United States.

Also speaking on Sudan were representatives of the World Organization
against Torture, United Nations Watch, Human Rights Watch, Femmes Africa
Solidarite, Hawa Society for Women, Sudan Council of Voluntary Agencies
(SCOVA), World Federation of Trade Unions, Action internationale pour la
paix et le développement dans la région des Grands Lacs (AIPD) in a joint
statement with African-American Society for Humanitarian Aid and
Development, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), in
behalf of severals NGOs(1), and Conectas Direitos Humanos.

When the Council resumes its work at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 18 March, it will
continue with its review, rationalisation and improvement of mandates
process concerning the Special Procedures on racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; African descent; and
follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

Statement by Concerned Country

ABDUL DIEM ZUMRAWI (Sudan), speaking as a concerned country, renewed its
readiness and commitment to preserve the spirit of partnership and
constructive dialogue. Nevertheless, Sudan expressed its surprise at some
of the findings of the report. For instance, the summary mentioned that
women in Sudan were imprisoned for not paying the dowry or for criminal
acts committed by any member of her family. However, this was against
Sudan's Constitution, law and traditions. Women did not pay the dowry in
Sudan. Another surprising claim was that women in Sudan were second class
citizens. In fact, according to the national Constitution, women enjoyed
equal legal, financial and political competence as men. Gender balance was
fully maintained in all different levels of civil service with women now
occupying various posts such as advisors to the President, cabinet
ministers, Supreme Court and Constitutional Court judges, doctors,
ambassadors, army and police officers. Moreover, women currently
represented 60 percent of the total number of students enrolled in
Sudanese universities. With regards to the new Election Act, women were
allotted 25 percent of the total parliamentary seats in observance of the
principle of positive discrimination. The Government also denounced the
report for containing hazy and vague phrases on acts of torture. No names
or concrete information on instances of torture were provided in the
report. Confident of its clean torture record, the Government readily
allowed the Special Rapporteur to visit any prison, including detainees,
without any restrictions whatsoever.

With regards to the situation in Darfur, the Government of Sudan was
cognizant that the conflict had brought about a situation not conducive to
the promotion and protection of human rights. The Government had spared no
effort to arrive at a peaceful settlement to the Darfur crisis. In order
to mitigate the impact of the conflict, the Fast Track Agreement that
secured the speedy flow of humanitarian assistance had been renewed. On
the issue of the deployment of United Nations/African Union hybrid forces,
the Government signed the Status of Mission Agreement (SOFA) as a legal
framework in which the duties and obligations of each party were
elaborated. In addition, the report ignored the logistical shortcomings
that had impeded the smooth functioning of the hybrid forces due to the
fact that donor countries had not honoured their commitments. The security
situation in Darfur had generally improved, particularly in North and
South Darfur.

Furthermore, the democratic transformation in Sudan was taking deeper and
wider strides. The incumbent Government was comprised of ten political
parties and preparations for general elections next year were presently
under way. Also, final touches had been made for the promulgation of the
Election Act and the Human Rights Commission Act. Finally, the Government
of Sudan reiterated its commitment to constructive dialogue and
partnership and, above that, the enjoyment of all human rights by each and
every Sudanese national.

Interactive Dialogue with Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights
in Sudan

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that the Special Rapporteur's report was
unavailable either in French or Arabic. The recent signed agreement was
welcomed, but Algeria was worried over the fact that the hybrid force was
still lacking adequate equipment such as helicopters. The fact that the
opposition groups had fragmented was making the situation even more
complex. Reporting in sensational terms was not a right thing to do.
Algeria wondered how many lives could be saved if there were policies of
national reconciliation applied in conflict situations.

MOHAMMAD ABU-KOASH (Palestine), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group,
stated that Sudan was striving for a peaceful solution in the country, was
committed to the peace process and was taking steps in that regard. The
Arab Group was of the view that the report did rightfully point out that
there had been positive steps taken by Sudan in the area of human rights.
There were also positive developments with regard to the work of
non-governmental organizations in the country. Sudan supported all African
initiatives, including the Abuja agreement. It was difficult to negotiate
with those splinter rebel groups which did not sign this agreement. Sudan
was completely cooperating with the former Commission on Human Rights as
well as with the current Council.

ABDULLA FALAH ABDULLA AL-DOSARI (Qatar) said that Qatar fully endorsed the
Palestinian statement, on behalf of the Arab Group, regarding the
situation in Darfur. Sudan was commended for fully accepting the presence
of the hybrid forces, in which 20,000 soldiers of the African Union and
the United Nations would be deployed in the field. The Government was also
pleased to note that Sudan had accepted all other African peace
initiatives. With 26 different rebel movements, it was indeed a difficult
task to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Qatar also
appreciated the fact that Sudan had accepted the appropriate Security
Council resolution and urged the international community to respect its
commitments, including the provision of helicopters to help protect
innocent civilians currently caught in the Darfur conflict.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that
the African Group was pleased that the Special Rapporteur had visited
Sudan. This was a reflection of the openness of the Government of Sudan.
The report contained a mere listing of a selective number of events which
had taken place during the period of her visit. The African Group had
rather expected an objective and analytical evaluation of the overall
situation in the report. Any country in the situation of Sudan could not
be expected to fully realize its human rights objectives overnight. What
had the Special Rapporteur specifically done to help Sudan in this regard?
The efforts undertaken by the Sudanese Government were appreciated and the
African Group hoped that Sudan would continue its efforts. The African
Group noted with satisfaction the beginning of the operation of the hybrid
force. The international community was requested to provide assistance.

USMAN SARKI, of the African Union, said the African Union remained well
aware of the serious challenges marking the human rights situation in
Sudan and recalled that the promotion and protection of human rights was
the way to overcome these challenges. The Government of Sudan had always
cooperated with different United Nations mechanisms and international
humanitarian and human rights now prevailed in the country. The Abuja
agreement should make it possible to overcome the human rights problems in
the country. The African Union encouraged the Government of Sudan to
overcome its difficulties and offered assistance to Sudan towards
improving the human rights situation in the country.

PHILIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya) expressed Kenya's appreciation to the
Government of Sudan for the cooperation that it had extended to the
African Union and the United Nations human rights mechanisms. The
commitment of Sudan to implement the peace agreement would be a crucial
step to strengthening the peace process in Darfur.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of
the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the OIC had noted the efforts of
the Sudanese Government. The efforts had to be encouraged. It was always
challenging to respect human rights in a peacebuilding situation.
International support and encouragement was needed. Sudan's political
authority should always be respected. Efforts needed to be made to stop
illegal weapons supplies to the outlaws. Objective media reporting was
also needed. In Darfur, all parties had to be encouraged to sign the peace
agreement.

NATALIE KOHLI (Switzerland) noted, as had the Special Rapporteur, that the
progress in Sudan on the situation of human rights had been minimal.
Switzerland was extremely concerned about the human rights situation of
the civilians in Darfur and about the continuing attacks. Humanitarian
access was extremely restricted despite the signing of the joint
communiqué. Darfur was not the only region in the country which required
an improvement of human rights. Switzerland supported the recommendations
of the Special Rapporteur to improve the widespread abuse of human rights
throughout the country. The issue of freedom of expression was an issue of
concern given the upcoming elections next year. Only real political will
would guarantee the effectiveness of the support being afforded to Sudan.
The Special Rapporteur was asked what she believed were the most urgent
measures to be taken to ensure that next year's elections would be free
and fair.

WENDY HINTON (New Zealand) thanked the Special Rapporteur for her report
on the human rights situation in Sudan. New Zealand was concerned that
human rights abuses continued to occur in the country. The Government of
New Zealand wanted further explanations about the persistence of violence
in Darfur. New Zealand also supported all the recommendations of the
report and called on all parties of the conflict to respect both human
rights and international humanitarian laws. Furthermore, New Zealand
welcomed efforts surrounding the current peace process. In a question to
the Special Rapporteur, New Zealand asked if there were further steps that
the Sudanese Government could take, taking into consideration the numerous
derogations it had committed regarding its international legal
obligations?

RANIA AL RIFAIY (Syria) said that Sudan was currently deploying increased
efforts and it had to be able to get out of this conflict. The
international community should respect Sudan's willingness. Sudan's
cooperation with the Council was welcomed.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said
the report of the Special Rapporteur provided the best possible view of
the situation of human rights in Sudan. The European Union regretted all
difficulties regarding free access that the Special Rapporteur had faced
during her last mission. While the situation was not improving, the
Special Rapporteur was asked if she could further explain the human rights
challenges with regard to the Sudan as a whole. She was also asked how the
much needed humanitarian aid could reach those most in need, given the
obstacles facing humanitarian operations in Darfur. The Special Rapporteur
was also asked how to effectively address the prevailing impunity gap and
if there was a way the police in Sudan could receive and investigate
complaints more effectively and really bring perpetrators to justice. The
Special Rapporteur was finally asked how to promote and ensure the freedom
of press and safety of journalists and what legal measures could be put in
place in that regard.

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said that India valued its long-established and
diverse relations with Sudan. Consistent with this, India had endeavoured
to contribute to the economic and social development of Sudan, including
through assistance in human resource development, capacity building
through bilateral cooperation programmes and through the extension of
lines of credit to finance the execution of projects in the energy,
agriculture, educational and other spheres. It was India's preference that
the humanitarian situation in Sudan was resolved peacefully and it
considered that mutual consultations between the United Nations and the
Government of Sudan were important. India did not believe that sanctions
would be a productive course of action.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said that the international community
could and had to play an important role to bring a lasting peace and
security in Sudan. There could be no impunity for crimes that were being
committed. The United Kingdom noted with satisfaction that the Special
Rapporteur had visited a range of areas in all parts of the country. The
United Kingdom was profoundly concerned about some of the conclusions
presented in the report. The situation of human rights had not
fundamentally changed. There had been little implementation of the
recommendations of the Working Group. The Special Rapporteur's particular
focus on women's rights was welcomed. At the opening of this session, the
Secretary-General had called on the Council to remain vigilant and to
address crises as they occurred and thus it was seen important to continue
to monitor the situation in Sudan.

MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan) said Japan supported the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan and was of the view
that the Special Rapporteur should continue efforts to improve the human
rights situation in that country. Japan was concerned about the escalation
of the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Justice and
Equality Movement as well as the deterioration of the humanitarian
situation. Japan had requested the Sudanese Government to take proper
measures in the region. Japan had been supporting the democratization of
the Darfur peace process, with financial assistance for the Darfur-Darfur
Dialogue and Consultation, so as to ensure that the views of the people of
Darfur could be well reflected in the peace process. Japan hoped that the
efforts would lead to encourage both the Sudanese Government and the
opposition to act favourably for the peace process.

JOCHEN DE VYLDER (Belgium) said that the Special Rapporteur's report on
the human rights situation in Sudan demonstrated the vulnerability of the
civilian population, not only in Darfur but in other regions of the
country as well. Women in particular were the victims of daily atrocities
and were often subjected to acts of sexual violence. In a question to the
Special Rapporteur, Belgium asked if she could indicate whether the
victims of sexual violence could get to medical services and whether
complaints procedures were available to these victims. In resolution 6/34,
the Human Rights Council requested that the Special Rapporteur provide a
follow up to the report's recommendations during the ninth session to be
held next September. In the interim, the Belgian Government wondered
whether she could provide any preliminary results from her ongoing
dialogue with the Sudanese Government.

UNA ALFU DE REYES (Panama) said that Panama appreciated the measures taken
by the international community to help better the situation in Sudan.
Panama was particularly concerned about the protection of children in
armed conflicts. Panama hoped that Sudan would be able to reconstruct
itself as a strong nation in full respect of all its national identities.
Panama hoped that the peace mission would bring an end to the conflict.
Cooperation with the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur should
continue. The civilian population had to be protected. Also, Panama
believed that resolutions should be combined with action.

MARGRIET KUSTER (Netherlands) said the report of the Special Rapporteur
underlined the need for the Council to remain seized of the human rights
situation in Darfur. It sketched a pattern of ongoing serious human rights
violations while the perpetrators were not brought to justice. Moreover,
it showed that concrete improvements of the human rights situation could
be achieved, as many of the necessary laws, decrees, instructions and
institutions were in place or almost in place, but these were not
implemented and improvements did not occur. The Netherlands was deeply
concerned about the targeted attacks against the civilian population,
including by aerial bombardments, mentioned in the report. The Netherlands
reiterated its concern about the implementation of the recommendations of
the Darfur Expert Group, a large part of which related to the protection
of civilians. As international assistance was required, the Netherlands
stood by ready to contribute to this. The Special Rapporteur was asked
whether she would elaborate with her contacts with civil society and
whether she planned to visit Darfur to monitor the implementation of the
recommendations. It was clear that the human rights situation in the whole
of Sudan gave rise to profound concern.

CHANG DONG-HEE (Republic of Korea) said that despite some progress noted
in the Special Rapporteur's report, the Republic of Korea remained deeply
concerned that there had been little improvement in the human rights
situation of Sudan. The fate of the Sudanese people and especially the
people of Darfur, in humanitarian and human rights terms, continued to be
alarming, demanding special attention from the Human Rights Council and
requiring action on the part of the Sudanese Government. Of particular
concern was the renewed violence in West Darfur witnessed in the last few
weeks. Serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian
law continued to affect the civilian population and particularly the most
vulnerable segments of society: internally displaced persons, women,
children and activists. Furthermore, humanitarian workers were often
impeded from carrying out their relief work and worse still, they had
become the targets of attacks. The Republic of Korea therefore urged the
Sudanese Government to fully assume its human rights obligations and to
intensify its efforts to implement the recommendations identified by the
Group of Experts.

JULANAR GREEN (Canada) said that Canada was deeply concerned by the human
rights situation in Sudan. Canada urged Sudan to implement all the
recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. Canada was concerned about the
gender-based violence and it urged Sudan to cooperate with the
International Criminal Court. This would contribute to establish a lasting
peace. All parties in the conflict were called upon to respect their
obligations under humanitarian law. What actions did the Special
Rapporteur recommend to ensure greater access by humanitarian workers to
the affected populations?

SAAD ALFARARGI, of the League of Arab States, noted that the League of
Arab States had been the first international and regional organization
which had made efforts to solve the crisis in Sudan in 2004 and supported
the efforts of the United Nations in the Abuja talks which led to the
agreement in 2006. The Sudanese Government was cooperating fully to put an
end to the crisis, but armed opposition groups were impeding those
efforts, as well as humanitarian assistance. The international community
should put pressure on these rebel groups to sit down at the negotiating
table. The report of the Special Rapporteur did not correspond to the
reality on the ground

NOR'AZAM MOHD IDRUS (Malaysia) welcomed the progress achieved by the
Government of Sudan in improving its legislation and the rule of law
despite mounting economic, environmental and technical challenges.
Malaysia also welcomed the acceptance of the Government of a renewal of
the mandate of the Special Rapporteur at the sixth session of the Council.
Malaysia reiterated its call to all parties involved in the conflict to
remain on board the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Observance of the
obligations of international human rights and humanitarian law should be
maintained while a lasting and effective solution was being strived for.
In this regard, Malaysia also called upon all international partners to
fulfil their respective commitments, financially and politically, to
bolster the capacity of the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur
forces.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) said that the report of the Special Rapporteur
mentioned that the protection of human rights in Sudan continued to be an
enormous challenge. Which concrete steps would the Special Rapporteur
suggest for the international community, and especially for the Council
and its Special Procedures? Among her recommendations was the request that
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United
Nations Mission in Sudan continue to provide technical assistance to the
Southern Sudan Human Rights Commission. What concrete steps might be taken
in the coming months to this end?

ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia) said Saudi Arabia attached
particular importance to the human rights situation in Darfur and looked
forward to improvement in this area. Saudi Arabia praised the Government
of Sudan for the positive steps it had taken to improve the situation in
the country, which was manifested in its cooperation with the Group of
Experts and the signing of the Abuja Peace Agreement, among other
measures. This clearly demonstrated the commitment of the Government to
overcome its difficulties. However, many challenges remained to bring
about peace and stability in Darfur, in particular the failure of certain
parties to sign the peace agreement and efforts to improve the
humanitarian assistance. The Government should be given assistance in this
regard. Saudi Arabia reiterated its support to the Council to promote
human rights in Darfur.

YURY GALA (Cuba) recalled the Darfur Peace Agreement, signed in Abuja in
2006, and called upon all parties to respect this agreement. Cuba also
recognized the important role of the African Union and the efforts made by
the Sudanese Government to resolve this delicate and complex situation.
However, the international community needed to provide greater resources
to deal with poverty, underdevelopment and environmental scourges facing
the people of Sudan. All of these scourges were caused by colonialism. In
conclusion, Cuba preferred cooperation and dialogue and stated that what
Sudan needed for the moment was both support and solidarity from the
international community.

QIAN BO (China) said that China appreciated the fact that the Government
of Sudan had stayed in close contact with the Special Rapporteur. There
had been positive developments, and the United Nations-African Union
Mission in Darfur was one of these. The solution for a long lasting peace
was still hindered by major obstacles. A persistent refusal of some
factions to participate in peace talk was one of these. Darfur was a long
running problem. Its solution could only be found in the efforts of the
whole international community and it should continue its efforts. The
tripartite consultations should continue to play their primary role. The
international community should provide more humanitarian aid. China was
deeply concerned over the situation and it had been working in various
ways to support the peace process. It had deployed a special envoy to the
area. It had also provided humanitarian aid to the region and had deployed
an engineering unit in the region. China was committed to peace and
stability in the whole area.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said since the publication of the
report of the Special Rapporteur some positive developments had taken
place in Sudan which should be encouraged and welcomed. Among them was the
signing by the Government of Sudan of the Status of Forces Agreement,
which was an important milestone in establishing a basis of trust for the
gradual deployment of United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur
troops throughout this year, up to a maximum of 26,000 troops. The
successful implementation of the Status of Forces Agreement would be
crucial in ensuring the safety and protection of the civilian population.
Indonesia was confident that the Government of Sudan would continue its
cooperation with the Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights in a positive spirit. All efforts must be geared towards
ensuring a successful and constructive run-up to the 2009 elections in
order that they take place democratically and peacefully.

OBAID SALEM SAEED AL ZAABI (United Arab Emirates) said that the Sudanese
Government had been making great efforts to resolve the Darfur conflict by
fully cooperating with the United Nations/African Union hybrid forces.
This demonstrated the Government's efforts to bring about peace and
security in the area. Moreover, the members of the Human Rights Council
should work together with the Sudanese Government to help support it on
the positive path that it had embarked upon.

FUAD AL-MAJALI (Jordan) said that Jordan remained concerned over the
volatile situation in Darfur. Jordan recognized the constructive approach
of the Sudanese Government. The Government was dealing with a very
difficult situation. Sudan should continue its collaboration with the
Council and the whole international community. The Abuja agreement should
be further promoted; it constituted a framework for peace. Helping the
protagonists to better understand each other's views would help the peace
process.

YURY BOICHENKO (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation was
satisfied by the high level of cooperation between the Government of Sudan
and the Special Rapporteur which was confirmed by the large number of
meetings the Special Rapporteur held during the course of her visit. It
was hoped that this cooperation would be developed and would lead to an
improvement of the human rights situation in various parts of the country.
The Russian Federation agreed with the conclusions of the Special
Rapporteur that abiding by Security Council resolutions would be an
important stabilizing factor to lower the level of confrontations in the
Darfur region. Everything must be resolved between the United Nations, the
African Union and the Government of Sudan. Steps had been taken with
regard to the bolstering of institutional systems aimed to protect human
rights.

ABDULLA ABDULLATIF ABDULLA (Bahrain) endorsed the statements made by the
representatives of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab
Group. Bahrain praised the efforts of the Sudanese Government to push
forward the peace process and in signing the Abuja Agreement. It also
called upon those who had not signed the agreement to do so. In addition,
Bahrain hoped that the Fast Track Agreement would resume soon. Finally, it
noted with satisfaction that the Government of Sudan was cooperating
positively and that it had expressed its willingness to cooperate with the
Human Rights Council. The Council should therefore recognize and
appreciate Sudan's readiness to cooperate.

ABDULMALEK ABDULLAH MOHAMMAD AL-ERYANI (Yemen) said that Yemen appreciated
the cooperation of the Government of Sudan with the Special Rapporteur.
The African initiatives were welcomed. It was difficult for Sudan and the
international community to carry out the negotiations with all the
involved parties. Sudan was now passing through an important political
stage after the deployment of the hybrid force and the signing of the
peace agreement. This stage required persistence and help from the
international community.

MOUNINA MINT ABDELLAH (Mauritania) said Mauritania regretted the negative
elements referred to in the report, which in many cases were not factual.
The situation of poverty and that of women should be considered.
Mauritania called on the international community to fulfill its
commitments in Sudan to lead to an improvement in the human rights
situation in the country, in particular with regard to the situation of
women.

MOHAMED-SIAD DOUALEH (Djibouti) thanked the Special Rapporteur for her
report on the situation of human rights in Sudan. Though the security
situation had generally improved in the Northern and Southern parts of
Darfur, it remained critical in the West. The proliferation of arms and
the insufficient level of international assistance and rehabilitation were
of particular concern. Djibouti also called upon the parties that had not
signed the Abuja Agreement to do so as it was the only way to ensure the
complete cessation of hostilities. Lastly, it fully recognized the
encouraging efforts made by the Government of Sudan to promote a peaceful
resolution to the conflict in its territory.

MARGARET CHIDULAN (Zimbabwe) noted the positive developments and the
cooperation with the Special Rapporteur. The efforts of the Government and
the international community were commended. Although the situation
remained challenging, the positive developments were noted, under which
were the peace agreement and the deployment of the hybrid force. The
proliferation of arms and the sensational media reports were among the
elements which were negatively affecting the situation. The parties should
commit themselves to end the hostilities, in order to resolve the human
rights and humanitarian situations.

MICHAEL S. KLECHESKI (United States) said the United States remained
deeply concerned about violence and insecurity in Sudan, particularly in
Darfur. The United States called on the Government of Sudan to end its
obstructionist behavior and instead facilitate the rapid deployment of the
robust United Nations/African Union peacekeeping operation – UNAMID. The
United States urged the members of the Government of National Unity to
quickly and fully implement the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The
United States agreed with the Special Rapporteur that in Darfur gross
violations of human rights continued to be perpetrated and it echoed her
calls regarding respect for women's rights in Sudan, in particular in
light of the ongoing violence against women and girls in Darfur and other
parts of the country.

ISOBEL RENZULLI, of the World Organization Against Torture, in a joint
statement, urged the Human Rights Council to support the mandate of the
Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan. The human
rights situation in Darfur remained dire. A sharp escalation of violence
in Western Darfur in recent weeks had caused massive new displacement,
with homes looted and burnt, and many killed. Millions of displaced
persons remained vulnerable to abuses like arbitrary arrest, torture,
rape, and forcible relocation. Impunity for the grave crimes that
continued to be committed remained unchallenged by the Government of
Sudan, which continued to shield those accused of crimes against humanity
and war crimes. Those particularly vulnerable to such abuses were human
rights defenders, political opponents to the ruling National Congress
Party, students and displaced persons. The Special Rapporteur should
provide her assessment on the likelihood of positive steps being taken by
the Government of Sudan in the near future.

GIBREIL HAMID, of United Nations Watch, said that the truth could be found
in the Special Rapporteur's report. It showed how the Government of Sudan
was violating human rights and international humanitarian law with
physical assaults, harassment, intimidation, abduction and rape. The
report also showed how the violence against women was continuing. There
was no improvement, no justice, the attackers were enjoying immunity.
Sudan was urged to end attacks against innocent civilians. The Council was
asked to stop praising Sudan for its cooperation.

OLAF HENRICSON BELL, of Human Rights Watch, recalling that the High
Commissioner last week expressed serious concerns about the Sudanese
Government's recent ongoing bombardment of villages in West Darfur, said
Human Rights Watch welcomed the Special Rapporteur's outspoken
condemnation of Government actions and urged the Human Rights Council to
support her work by calling upon the Government of Sudan both to cease
further attacks on civilians and to investigate and hold accountable those
responsible, and to provide a detailed accounting of the bombing in West
Darfur. The resurgence of major military operations in Darfur had
heightened the insecurity and vulnerability of the region's civilian
population. The Special Rapporteur was asked whether the Government of
Sudan had provided specific measures taken towards the prevention and
prosecution of sexual violence crimes in Darfur, beyond those documented
in the Group of Experts' November 2007 report. Information on Government
efforts to root out impunity for perpetrators of human rights violations
was also sought.

MONA ELSHARIEF, of Femmes Africa Solidarite, was deeply concerned about
the recent escalation of violence in Darfur which resulted in mass
killings, property destruction and the massive secondary displacement of
people. The organization also strongly condemned all acts of violence
against civilians and the negative impact of this violence on vulnerable
groups. It expressed further concern by the lack of a strong voice for
women in the peace negotiation efforts for Darfur. Finally, it urged the
warring groups to stop the conflict immediately and requested the United
Nations to nominate a Gender Advisor to the United Nations and African
Union Darfur peace mediation teams.

ABLA ABDELMONIEM, of Hawa Society for Women, called upon the international
community and the Human Rights Council to carry out efforts to bring peace
to Sudan. All the parties should be pressured to end the conflict. They
were far from knowing all that happened it Sudan, and the reality of the
situation for women in the country. The Special Rapporteur should deal
with the facts as they were.

HAFIEZ ADUM, of Sudan Council of Voluntary Agencies (SCOVA), said the
Sudan Council endorsed what was said in the report of the Special
Rapporteur. As regards the legal situation of women in Sudan, referring to
the civil code, it was recalled that dowries must be paid by the man and
not the woman; however, women were often imprisoned for such acts,
contrary to Sudanese law. The Sudan Council of Voluntary Agencies appealed
to all parties to work together to improve the situation in Darfur. It was
necessary for the Special Rapporteur to visit Darfur, which would put her
in a position to carry out her work effectively. Pressure should also be
put on all parties in order to find a lasting solution to the crisis.

OSIRIS OVIEDO, of the World Federation of Trade Unions, in a joint
statement, said that without any doubt the humanitarian conflict in Darfur
continued to cause harm to local civilians and was of great concern to the
international community. While slow progress had been made, the World
Federation recognized the formation of the national State and the peace
agreement signed in order to halt hostilities. Furthermore, it welcomed
the willingness of the Sudanese Government to cooperate with the United
Nations and the Human Rights Council and called upon all parties to work
collectively towards a lasting peace agreement that would ensure the
safety and security of the Sudanese people.

MAURICE KATALA, of Action internationale pour la paix et le développement
dans la région des Grands Lacs (AIPD), said that the current situation in
many African countries was one of conflict. This had led to the illegal
exploitation of children soldiers. A moratorium on trade in weapons should
be established. It was important to establish disarmament programmes
throughout Africa and to demobilize child soldiers.

Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human
Rights in Sudan

SIMA SAMAR, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan,
in concluding remarks, highlighted the need for constructive dialogue with
the Government of Sudan in order to promote and protect human rights in
Sudan. Technical assistance by the international community was needed in
Sudan in order to build the capacities of various institutions, including
the police and in the establishment of a human rights institution. The
international community had to fulfill its pledges to the United
Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur; because of its slow deployment
people were affected on the ground in Darfur. The United Nations and the
African Union troops had to take different measures to protect civilians
and to provide support to women to prevent gender-based violence
throughout Darfur and especially for internally displaced persons. More
public awareness through the media and workshops and training was required
to allow people to exercise their political rights. The people of Sudan
should be empowered in order to elect their future leaders.

It was clear that the Darfur crisis did not have a military solution, the
Special Rapporteur stated. All the parties had to come together to find a
political solution for the people. The establishment of a human rights
commission was an integral part of the peace process and essential to
promote and protect human rights on the ground. On the Group of Experts,
it was announced that the Government indicated that they would provide
further information to the Group on 25 May 2008, with specific
information. It was hoped that an update would be provided at the
forthcoming session of the Council. The implementation of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement was also of utmost importance, and would
ultimately improve the situation of human rights in all of Sudan, and
particularly in Darfur. As to the issue of equal rights for women, this
had to become a reality on the ground everywhere in Sudan.

Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandate of Special Rapporteur
on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar

ZIVA NENDL (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union and
introducing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, commended the Special
Rapporteur for his courageous and tireless efforts for almost eight years.
It was however regrettable that the Special Rapporteur was not able to
enter the country for several years. The European Union hoped that the
mandate holder would be able to enter the country in accordance with
resolution 6/33. It thanked Mr. Pinheiro for all his reports which were
very comprehensive while regretting the very pessimistic situation on the
ground. The European Union shared deep concern with the Special Rapporteur
regarding the situation in Burma/Myanmar, particularly related to
continued imposition of restrictions on the freedoms of movement,
expression, assembly and association, the prevalence of a culture of
impunity, ongoing summary executions, torture, and forced labour
practices, recruitment of child soldiers and sexual violence.

As regards the announced Constitutional referendum, the Constitutional
drafting process was not an all inclusive national process. The European
Union was concerned that the Constitution that had recently been drafted
did not include guarantees concerning respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms as set out in the international human rights
instruments that Burma/Myanmar had ratified. The European Union shared
deep concerns about the great number of political prisoners who had been
detained without charge and political leaders who were not allowed to move
freely, such as Ms. Suu Kyi, who continued to remain under house arrest
for years. It also remained deeply concerned about ongoing large scale
arbitrary land confiscation which inevitably caused internal displacement
and forced migration, which could have a large negative impact on the
ecological, political and economic situation in the county.

In view of the review, rationalization and improvement process of the
mandate of the Special Rapporteur, the European Union said that it would
appreciate any further suggestions from Mr. Pinheiro that may enhance the
effectiveness of his mandate.

PAULO SÉRGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights
in Myanmar, said that the mandate had been established in 1992. He had
visited Myanmar seven times during his tenure. Between the years 2003 to
2007, he had not been granted access to the country by the authorities.
Subsequent to the sixth Special Session he had been able to conduct a
visit in November of last year. Despite the denial of access he had
regularly submitted reports to the Commission, the Council and the General
Assembly. Since his appointment he had created his own channel of
information though reliable civil society organizations. He had sought a
constructive dialogue with the authorities. As had been witnessed over the
last years, the existence of this mandate had allowed those inside the
country to overcome internal obstacles and to voice their concerns. This
mandate had also helped the international community to be aware of the
human rights situation in the country. He believed that the reports he had
submitted highlighted the worsening of the situation of human rights in
the country. There was an absolute need for the continuation of this
mandate, in order to monitor the reform process and the implementation of
the seven-step road map. One piece of advice he gave the Human Rights
Council was that it had to discover ways to follow up on resolutions.
Without this, resolutions would have no meaning for the people on the
ground.

U. WUNNA MAUNG LWIN (Myanmar), speaking as a concerned country, said
although Myanmar did not think it was appropriate to establish the
mandate, the Government of Myanmar had shown its willingness to cooperate
with the United Nations by extending invitations to the Special Rapporteur
to see the true situation on the ground. Since the creation of the mandate
in 1992, the Government of Myanmar had invited the Special Rapporteur 11
times in total. This testified to Myanmar's effort and readiness to
cooperate with the human rights mechanisms. Despite such cooperation,
Myanmar continued to be subjected to unjust and unwarranted criticisms.
The reports of the Special Rapporteur contained many unfounded allegations
based on rumors and unreliable sources. Moreover, they made unrealistic
recommendations. Myanmar's genuine desire was that its cooperation with
the human rights forum and invitations to the Special Rapporteur to
Myanmar would help the international community to understand the real
situation in Myanmar. As it did not turn out that way with the Special
Rapporteur's reports stepping on the internal affairs and sovereignty of
Myanmar, it was the view of Myanmar that the objectivity and impartiality
of this mandate had become questionable.

As Myanmar would also be reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review,
Myanmar was of the view that the Council should have equal footing with
other Member States and that it was not necessary to have a country
specific mandate for Myanmar. Myanmar was in the process of political
transition with a view to establishing a peaceful and stable democratic
country for 54 million people consisting of 100 national races. Currently,
the Government had been proceeding with a momentum to hold a National
Referendum for the approval of a draft State Constitution in two months
time. The draft State Constitution contained about 50 articles relating to
the rights of the people of Myanmar. Thee rights enshrined in the
Constitution would protect and promote the fundamental rights of the
people of Myanmar. In light of the important developments achieved in
Myanmar, the Human Rights Council should protect Myanmar from any undue
pressure exerted by the powerful countries under the pretext of human
rights obligations. As the Universal Periodic Review process would soon
begin and some country specific mandates had already been terminated, the
remaining country specific mandates, including Myanmar, should not
continue.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of
the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the OIC had always expressed its
strong opposition to the country mandates. The OIC's position was based on
the experience that led to the demise of the Commission on Human Rights.
It hoped that the past approach of selectivity and double standards would
be replaced by a cooperative, transparent and universal review of the
human rights situations under the new Council. The newly created mechanism
of the Universal Periodic Review provided a useful opportunity for the
review of the commitments of Member States to human rights. The OIC was of
the view that a change in approach with regard to Myanmar was needed.
Finally, it supported the efforts by the Government of Myanmar to promote
human rights in the country and urged the international community not to
politicize this case for extraneous reasons.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said that the situation in Myanmar was serious
and it had gained the attention of the Council several times. The last
resolution by the Council called on Myanmar to collaborate with the
Special Rapporteur. The Special Procedures were an important tool to help
the population. The renewal of the mandate was essential.

VLADIMIR ZHEGLOV (Russian Federation) said the work of the Special
Rapporteur should be focused on reinforcing the positive steps taken by
the Government of Myanmar in ensuring the implementation of an improved
situation for human rights. The Special Rapporteur should abstain from any
steps which might increase tension, nor should he go beyond the framework
of his mandate by referring to military aspects. The Government should be
provided with technical assistance towards the path to reform.

LEE SUNG-JOO (Republic of Korea) said that the Republic of Korea was
seriously concerned by the lack of significant improvement in the
situation of human rights in Myanmar. During the presentation of the
report of the Special Rapporteur last week, it was clear that the
situation remained grave. Human rights abuses in Myanmar required the
attention of the Human Rights Council and the international community at
large. The creation of a new Constitution, if anything, required greater
monitoring of that country to make sure that any new legislation
corresponded with international human rights norms. The Republic of Korea
fully supported the continuation of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur
on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.

JESSICA BLITT (Canada) said that Canada supported the continuation of the
mandate. The regime of Myanmar was continuing its persistent human rights
violations. Arbitrary detentions and persecution of minorities were
frequent practices and there were a large number of political prisoners.
This situation was preventing the exercise of fundamental rights, like
freedom of association. The violent repressive measures used by the regime
demonstrated that it was not complying with the demands of the
international community. The international community had to face the
situation. The role of the Special Rapporteur continued to be vital.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said Brazil expected that Myanmar
should make concrete progress in the promotion and protection of civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights. There continued to be a
problem of forced labour and a lack of political will in the country, and
it was necessary to overcome the current problems. It was the view of
Brazil that States in the region and regional organizations should be more
engaged in the human rights situation in Myanmar. Brazil supported the
continuation of the mandate.

ALEJANDRO NEYRA SANCHEZ (Peru) said that Peru was a co-sponsor of the
resolution on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar. Peru
regretted that despite signs of contact, it was not able to follow up on
resolution 6/33. The Government agreed with the position of Special
Rapporteur that the recommendations of the report needed to be followed up
to ensure that they were being actively implemented. The renewal of this
mandate was crucial to supporting the Burmese people and the time had come
to turn these recommendations into reality.

MAKIO MIYAGAWA (Japan) said that Japan appreciated the work of the Special
Rapporteur. The decision of the Government to hold a referendum on the
Constitution was welcomed. While recognizing positive moves, the
international community still had concerns over the improvement of the
human rights situation. It was essential that the Human Rights Council
continued to help the improvement of the human rights situation in
Myanmar. Japan thus supported the continuation of the mandate.

QIAN BO (China) said, in principle, China was opposed to country specific
mandates. The past experiences of the Commission on Human Rights showed
that these types of country mandates did not create positive impacts; on
the contrary they provoked conflicts. It was the view of China that all
parties should stick to the spirit of cooperation and dialogue to address
this situation positively. As a neighbour of Myanmar, China hoped that
Myanmar would become stable and that all parties would contribute to
democratic stability and development. It also hoped that the international
community would support Myanmar in facing its difficulties so that the
country could continue with its political reconciliation.

HANS DAHLGREN (Sweden) thanked the Special Rapporteur for his work
throughout the years, despite often adverse conditions. The Myanmar
Government did not cooperate with the Special Envoy of the United Nations
Secretary-General and had refused entrance to the Special Rapporteur on
Human Rights, despite a special decision by this Council. The regime had
also ignored, for years on end, a large number of resolutions by the
United Nations General Assembly and by the Human Rights Council. The
military regime did not want outside witnesses to the consequences of
their rule. Finally the Government of Burma/Myanmar was in contravention
of international law and in contempt of this Council. The mandate was
badly needed in order to protect ordinary people and it should be renewed.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said that Argentina had co-sponsored the
resolution for the Special Session on Myanmar as it was concerned about
the situation in that country. There were no signs that the Government was
implementing the recommendations of the Council. Argentina supported the
renewal of the mandate.

UNA ALFU DE REYES (Panama) said Panama had been closely following the
reports of the Special Rapporteur and the situation in Myanmar and joined
others in supporting the renewal of this mandate. It was important that
Myanmar allow international observers in the upcoming referendum. The
inclusion of the opposition in the referendum, including Aung San Suu Kyi,
was the only way to demonstrate the Government's transparency and
credibility in its democratic reform efforts. Myanmar was urged to
cooperate fully with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General and the
countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations should do their
part to assist Myanmar on the path to reconciliation.

MICHAEL S. KLECHESKI (United States) said that the United States strongly
supported the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights in Burma. That mandate played a vitally important role in ensuring
continued international awareness of and attention to human rights abuses
in Burma. The United States regretted that the Burmese regime had not
cooperated with the current Special Rapporteur, Professor Pinheiro, in
carrying out his mandate. The report on that country remained deeply
troubling and underlined the urgent need for continued international
engagement on that country's human rights situation. The fact that the
regime announced plans to hold a referendum in May 2008 in an environment
of fear and intimidation made the renewal of this mandate all the more
necessary. The United States urged the Council to fully support the
preservation of this particular mandate.

ABDUL DIEM ZUMRAWI (Sudan) said that Sudan appreciated the efforts
undertaken by Myanmar to improve the human rights situation in the
country. It was important to ensure that what happened in Myanmar was
monitored. It was important to have a dialogue rather than a
confrontation.

GIYOUN KIM, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA),
in behalf of severals NGOs(1), said it had been 16 years since the mandate
was established and it was disturbing that the most recent report of the
Special Rapporteur was similar to the first report in 1993. A lack of
cooperation by the authorities of Myanmar was a common element of both.
The Human Rights Council was urged to enhance the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur in the future, paying particular attention to the need to
ensure effective implementation of the recommendations produced by the
mandate holder. The work of the Special Rapporteur should be geared
towards critically engaging the State Peace and Development Council to
fulfill its human rights duties and obligations to the people of Myanmar.
Among other things, it should lead to a fact-finding mission of various
mandates relevant to the situation and establish a field presence of the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Myanmar.

KAM VIDA, of Conectas Direitos Humanos, said that it was here today to
offer a voice to all the people of Burma, especially Buddhist monks who
had been silenced by a cruel military dictatorship. Today in Burma, the
most fundamental human rights, the right to speech and assembly, were
denied. As the Special Rapporteur said in his statement to the Human
Rights Council on 14 March, "between 3,000 and 4,000 people had been
arrested in September and October 2007". To ask, even peacefully, for
respect and common human decency was to invite attack, torture and even
death from the military junta. In addition, the organization called upon
all Governments to stop selling weapons to a junta that had no external
enemies and used guns against its own citizens, its monks, students,
farmers and workers. Lastly, the organization asked that the world support
a genuine transition to a Government in Burma that respected basic human
rights and was accountable to its peoples and also that the Council renew
and strengthen the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Burma.

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights
in Myanmar, in concluding remarks, said that in response to the comments
of the Russian Federation, everything that he had done had been within the
framework of his mandate, concerning civil and political rights, and that
in carrying out his duties, he had never intended to intervene in the
affairs of the State. The Special Rapporteur was the voice of dialogue.
The first Special Rapporteur mandate that had been established by the
Human Rights Commission was the one on Chile. For all of Latin Americans,
the work of this Special Rapporteur had been decisive for the promotion
and protection of human rights and for the transitional process towards
democracy. Also it was a bad joke to say that he was collecting
information for the enemies. He came from the South and he had no interest
to be against the Government of Myanmar. He was against selectivity.
Country mandates had to take place in a framework of dialogue. The mandate
should not be killed, there were many people and Governments in the world
that were happy about the work of the Special Rapporteurs. On the seven
step roadmap, it was very much valued and the Human Rights Council should
be content that the Government was discussing and heading towards a
transition to democracy.

ZIVA NENDL (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the
European Union was very grateful for the discussion which was useful to
assess the mandate, and which provided a valuable tool to assess the
mandate. The mandate was bound to help countries achieve the necessary
standards for the protection of human rights. The European Union
reaffirmed its commitment for the promotion and protection of human rights
equally in all regions throughout the world. The European Union was
committed to the implementation of human rights without selectivity and
double standards. The situation of human rights in Myanmar was grave and
was not improving. It was regrettable that the Special Rapporteur had not
been able to enter the country for several years. The international
community could not ignore the systematic and widespread human rights
violations. The European Union reiterated that the institution building
package did not do away with the country specific mandates. These mandates
allowed for the continued monitoring of human rights situations in certain
countries. Much needed to be done for a lasting peace and respect for the
rule of law in Myanmar. It was for this reason that the European Union
supported the extension of the mandate.

Note

(1) Joint statement: Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development
(Forum-Asia); Worldview International Foundation; International NGO Forum
on Indonesian Development; Ain O Salish Kendro (Ask) Law and Mediation
Centre; People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy; Lawyers for a
Democratic Society; and Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development.