BurmaNet News, July 31 - August 2, 2010

[Editor]

July 31 – August 2, 2010 Issue #4011


INSIDE BURMA
Irrawaddy: NDF leaders told to appeal past treason charges
DVB: Parties ‘afraid’ of declaring policies
Christian Science Monitor: Burma's Moustache Brothers killing audiences,
avoiding arrest

ON THE BORDER
AFP: Fears for refugees as Myanmar election looms
AP: Fabled Burmese fighters forgotten but forgiving

BUSINESS / TRADE
Wall Street Journal: Myanmar loosens yoke on farmers

HEALTH
Xinhua: Over 130,000 people carry TB in Myanmar annually: report

INTERNATIONAL
Mizzima: U.S. electoral watchdog lambasts Burma’s planned elections

OPINION / OTHER
Newsweek: India gives a big hug to Burma's junta – Jeremy Kahn
The Australian: Opportunity slipping away on Burma – U Win Tin
Hindustan Times: Beauty & the beast – Karan Thapar
Irrawaddy: Don't expect much from Burma's election – Pavin Chachavalpongpun
Mizzima: Flaws and challenges of EU policy on Burma – Javier Delgado Rivera
Nation (Thailand): India should tread carefully with Burma

PRESS RELEASE
USCB: U.S. Senators demand U.S. support for UN Commission of Inquiry in Burma



____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

August 2, Irrawaddy
NDF leaders told to appeal past treason charges – Ba Kaung

Four leaders of the National Democratic Force (NDF), a party formed by
former members of the recently disbanded National League for Democracy
(NLD), have been told they must seek a pardon for past acts of treason
before they will be allowed to run in this year's election.

Thein Soe, the head of Burma's Election Commission (EC), informed the four
at a meeting in Naypyidaw on Friday that if they want to run in the
election, they will have to submit letters of appeal to the Burmese regime
for attempting to form a parallel government in late 1990.

The letters must also state their willingness to work with the government
to achieve “national reconciliation,” Thein Soe told the NDF leaders.

The party's founder, Khin Maung Swe, and three other leading members—Tin
Aung, Tha Saing and Sein Hla Oo—have all served long prison sentences on
charges of treason for their role in efforts to form a government after
winning a landslide victory in Burma's last election in 1990. The regime
has never acknowledged the outcome of that election. The four men were all
elected in 1990.

Dr Sein Win, the cousin of NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi, fled the country
to avoid prosecution in connection with the case. He later went on to form
the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, the democratic
opposition's Washington-based government in exile.

According to Tha Saing, the NDF's chairman (1), he and the other three
former NLD members involved in the case are required to state in their
appeal letter that they have served their sentences and are no longer
involved in efforts to form a parallel government.

He added that they would consult with lawyers before responding to the
demand to submit letters of appeal. In particular, he said, they were
considering challenging the requirement on the grounds that a clause in
the 2008 Constitution states that laws cannot be applied retroactively to
past cases.

The clause is seen as a move to grant immunity to the ruling generals for
crimes committed during their more than 22 years in power.

“We regret that this has happened,” said Tha Saing. “We didn't expect it,
because the government has already approved our party, and our names were
on the list when we applied for registration.”

Asked if they would be allowed to take part in the election if they
refused to submit the appeal letters, NDF leader Khin Maung Swe said: “It
is clear that we will be allowed to run if we submit the letters, but not
if we don't. But I can't say right now how I will decide.”

Tha Saing added that he hoped to be able to retain his position in the
party even if he is not allowed to run in the election.

At the meeting in Naypyidaw, NDF leaders expressed concern that some
township-level EC officials were former members of the Union and
Solidarity Association, a regime-backed civic organization that has been
officially transformed into the Union and Solidarity Party, led by the
junta's prime minister, Thein Sein.

In response, the election officials told the party leaders that the
election commission is 90 percent perfect, but that they would try to
improve it.

The NDF is aiming to contest constituencies in Rangoon, Mandalay, Magwe
Divisions, the Eastern part of Shan State, Mon State, Chin State and
Kachin State.

Thirty-nine new political parties and five existing parties plan to
contest the elections sometime later this year. While several registered
political parties are struggling to surmount financial and logistical
constraints imposed by the election commission, USDP members led by the
regime ministers are reportedly starting to canvass support across the
country.

According to election observers in Rangoon, political parties will be
allotted only two weeks for campaigning.

On Wednesday, the opposition leader Suu Kyi said that the Burmese election
is “absolutely unlikely” to be free and fair because the election date has
not been set and political parties will not have enough time to campaign.
____________________________________

August 2, Democratic Voice of Burma
Parties ‘afraid’ of declaring policies – Ahunt Phone Myat

A number of political parties registered for elections this year,
including that of Burma’s prime minister Thein Sein, are reluctant to
publicise their intentions in the media, candidates have claimed.

The primary reason for lack of party publicity is the “climate of fear”
that parties are operating in, said Win Naing, a nationalist politician
who is trying to establish an election watchdog. He added that this would
extend to voters unless conditions inside the country are transformed.

Some 39 parties have so far registered for elections this year, although
they face significant obstacles to campaigning: election laws announced in
May prohibit parties from boosting their profile via erecting banners and
chanting in public. Moreover, any form of public canvassing can only be
done once permission is granted by the Election Commission.

Win Naing’s observations were echoed by Phyo Min Thein, chairman of the
Union Democratic Party (UDP), who said that even Thein Sein’s party, the
Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), had remained quiet about
their policies.

Another politician, Tun Aung Kyaw, who heads the Modern People’s Party,
said however that it may be down to teething problems, given the
relatively recent birth of the multiparty system.

“The people in Burma are also new to democracy and are not accustomed to
the system,” he said. “Of course, there can be [communication]
difficulties in the initial phases. But, we are in a globalization era, so
we can expect gradual progress. Countries which are newly democratised
usually face such a phenomenon.”

Instead, it is up to international media to initiate contact with
reluctant parties, said Aung Zaw, editor of the Thailand-based Irrawaddy
magazine.

“Very few of them tried to reach us,” he said. “My personal view is that
political parties and opposition parties inside the country need to get
hold of the local media as well as the media outside the country and
should report about what they are doing. They still need to do a lot more
to publicize and establish lines of communication.”

He added that media inside and outside Burma face difficulties in getting
reports from the constituencies inside the country in the pre-election
period. This may also be a problem during the election period.

Around 30 million people are eligible to vote in the elections, out of a
population of nearly 50 million. No date has yet been set, and candidates
have warned that insufficient time may be given to effectively campaign
prior to polling.

The state-run New Light of Myanmar newspaper said last month however that
progress had been made by the country’s Election Commission (EC) on the
specifics of the voting procedures.

“The [EC] chairman and the commission members
defined constituencies, made
lists of eligible voters, designated places for polling stations, and held
discussions on electoral matters,” it said, but gave no further details on
when the information would be made public.

____________________________________

August 1, Christian Science Monitor
Burma's Moustache Brothers killing audiences, avoiding arrest – Sarah Birke

Despite several arrests and prison terms, the Moustache Brothers comedy
team of Burma (Myanmar) haven’t give up their craft. They're now confined
to performing at home.

Mandalay, Burma - “Come to Burma, but don’t steal,” says the slim and
jovial Lu Maw, pausing for the punch line: “The government don’t like
competition!” The crowd of 10 tourists, including six Thai monks huddled
in a small garage in Mandalay, laugh.

Despite several arrests, prison terms, and the fact that they’re now
confined to their house, the Moustache Brothers, the infamous Burmese
comedy and performance troupe centered around three brothers, haven’t give
up their craft. Two of the three, Par Par Lay and Lu Zaw, served seven
years of forced labor after criticizing the junta during a performance at
the home of Aung San Suu Kyi in 1996, at a time when the Nobel Peace Prize
winner was not under house arrest. Their plight was later taken up by
Amnesty International.

Though they’re confined to performing at home, and in English, the
brothers have retained some of the show’s original satirical criticism of
the regime but are limited by language and a foreign audience. Most of the
show is given to jokes based on Lu Maw’s knowledge of English idioms (“My
father died; he kicked the bucket!”) and pleas for tourists to visit the
impoverished country. Those foreigners who do come inevitably end up in
the Mandalay back street, happily watching a condensed version of the
once-glorious comedy-and-dance show and buying souvenir T-shirts.

“It’s not the same as when we traveled around the country playing to the
Burmese,” says Lu Maw. Nonetheless, the brave brothers say the show must
go on. And go on it does.

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

August 2, Agence France Presse
Fears for refugees as Myanmar election looms – Rachel O'Brien

MAE LA CAMP, Thailand — Hla Hla Aye wept as she recalled leaving her son
behind when she fled Myanmar a few weeks ago -- with three other children,
she and her husband couldn't carry them all to safety.

Her family joined about 148,000 refugees from the military-ruled country
living in limbo in camps across the border in Thailand, most of whom fled
civil war-torn eastern villages.

But these newcomers have arrived at a time of growing uncertainty, with an
upcoming election in Myanmar fuelling talk in Thailand about sending the
refugees back, despite expectations that nothing will change in their
homeland.

"If the government stays like this, the country will not become peaceful,
it will get worse," said Hla Hla Aye, 28, as she breast-fed her baby in
Mae La, the largest of nine refugee camps along the border.

"If people go back it is very, very dangerous for them," she added.

Caught up in Karen state's six-decade conflict between Myanmar's military
and ethnic rebels, who seek greater autonomy, Hla Hla Aye said her husband
and other civilians were beaten for refusing to work as porters for the
state army.

"Soldiers beat him a lot on his back and his wrist. He was in a lot of
pain," she said. "We didn't dare to stay in the village, we kept having to
run away... so we decided to come here."

While the camps have provided refuge for 25 years, Thailand's National
Security Council chief Tawin Pleansri said their inhabitants would be sent
back home "if everything in Myanmar is peaceful and orderly".

"We have discussed repatriation, although we have not yet set a time
frame, and we consider that the situation is likely to improve after the
election," he told AFP.

Western countries have widely criticised the junta's preparations for
Myanmar's first elections in 20 years as a sham designed to shore up
almost five decades of military rule.

No date for the polls has yet been announced but the vote is expected in
October or November.

Activists warn that even the best-case scenario is unlikely to improve
life in the refugees' rural homeland, which is expected to remain heavily
militarised.

"The election, even if it is free and fair, won't immediately change the
situation in terms of human rights abuses in eastern Burma," said Matt
Finch of the border-based Karen Human Rights Group, using Myanmar's former
name.

Vast numbers have fled to escape the junta's counter-insurgency campaign,
which rights groups say deliberately targets civilians, driving them from
their homes, destroying villages and forcing them to work for the army.

Cases of rape, torture and execution by the military have also been
documented by rights campaigners.

While an ongoing resettlement programme has allowed tens of thousands of
refugees to move to third countries, an influx to the Thai camps of more
than 1,000 people each month means numbers have not dwindled.

Within Mae La camp, home to riverside bamboo huts and about 47,000
displaced people, a bustling, town-like atmosphere belies the uncertain
status of its residents.

Cheerful children sing folk songs in well-equipped classrooms and tear
around playing football in the monsoon season mud, while street-side
stalls offer stylish laptops, DVDs, handicrafts and even beauty
treatments.

But an overall drop in assistance had begun to afflict the "very
vulnerable" border group, according to US Assistant Secretary of State for
Population, Refugees and Migration, Eric P. Schwartz, who visited Mae La
in June.

He said he was "particularly concerned" for the refugees ahead of
Myanmar's poll, with repression and restrictions in the unfolding
electoral process unlikely to change their need for protection.

Therefore "it will be critical for authorities (in Thailand) to continue
to permit such refuge," he added.

Thailand sparked global anger in December when it used troops to forcibly
repatriate about 4,500 ethnic Hmong back to Laos, despite fears of
persecution on their return for their hill tribe's US alliance during the
Vietnam War.

The government is now cracking down on illegal immigrants, estimated to
number more than one million, most of whom are from Myanmar and allegedly
face rights abuses from a proxy state militia when they are deported.

While the majority in the camps have been registered as needing
protection, 30 percent are yet to be screened and are therefore
technically illegal migrants, according to Sally Thompson of the Thai
Burma Border Consortium.

"There is a climate of... fear, doubt, as to what will be the future for
the people in the camps," said Thompson, whose organisation is responsible
for the refugees' food and shelter.

A UN Refugee Agency spokeswoman also stressed the need for efficient
screening by Thai authorities to weed out people who lack legitimate
claims to protection, who have been entering the camps with hopes of
resettlement.

Registered camp dweller Cho Cho San, a pregnant 33-year-old who fled
eastern Myanmar early last year, said she struggled to feed her family on
the food rations provided and was worried about healthcare.

"This place is not the best place but it is better than Burma," she said.
"Even though we have some difficulties, we can stay here in safety."

____________________________________

August 2, Associated Press
Fabled Burmese fighters forgotten but forgiving – Denis D. Gray

MAE LA CAMP, Thailand — "Colonel Peacock, Major Hogan, Captain Bower ...
Shoot from the hip! Quick march! Right turn!" The names, ranks and barked
commands of World War II British officers tumble from these old Asian
soldiers' memories as if it all happened yesterday.

But the war never really ended for the Karen tribesmen who fought with the
British to drive the Japanese out of Burma, and who now live as refugees
in jungle camps astride the Thai-Myanmar border or inside their ravaged
homeland, impoverished and driven from their homes in a brutal insurgency.

These ethnic minority people, who were made promises by the British that
were fatally broken, remain virtually forgotten and unrewarded by the
outside world as the 65th anniversary of the Allied victory in Asia
approaches on Aug. 15. For them, medals, parades and joyous family
reunions all ring hollow.

Yet the Karen warriors, all in their 80s and 90s, have forgiven their
former allies — and even remember them with stirring fondness.

"As I bent down to pull him away, the bullet hit me here," recounts Sein
Aye, pointing to a reddish scar on his neck. The Japanese had ambushed his
unit, and the teenage soldier, recruited from a farming village, dragged a
gravely wounded British officer to safety under fire.

Simeon U — 91 years old, twice wounded, four times decorated — recalls
killing at least five Japanese "with my own hands" and staying behind
their lines when the bulk of the battered British force retreated in 1942.

He fought in the hills as a guerrilla with Maj. Hugh Paul Seagrim, a lanky
man nicknamed "Grandfather Longlegs."

The Japanese announced that their reprisals would end if Seagrim
surrendered, so the officer walked into their camp, only to be executed
with seven Karen companions. He remains a legend among the Karen.

"He was a great chap. We trusted him. He inspired the Karen people," says
Simeon U, squatting on the floor of a bamboo hut at Mae Rama Luang, a camp
embedded in a remote valley housing 20,000 Karen refugees.

When the Japanese invaded, the Burma Independence Army, an armed group
composed mainly of the Burman ethnic majority, joined them in hopes of
wresting independence from Britain, the colonial ruler. Among their
targets were the Karen, whom the British had much favored.

When the British retreated to India, some, like Seagrim, managed to stay
behind and later were joined by other British soldiers infiltrated back
into the country. They organized the Karen into a fighting force.

But for the Karen, the war did not end with Japan's defeat. In 1949, a
year after Burma gained its independence, the tribe rose in rebellion,
having failed to secure a state of its own as the British had promised. It
would become the world's longest insurgency.

In 1989 the country's military rulers changed the country's name to Myanmar.

The struggle has taken a massive toll: an estimated half-million people
driven from their homes in Myanmar's Karen State, some 150,000 of them
living as refugees in Thailand.

The U.N. and human rights groups have detailed widespread killings, rape,
torture, forced labor and burning of villages as the regime campaigns to
deny the rebels support from the civilian population.

"We had nothing to eat. The Burmese soldiers came and stole our rice. We
left with nothing," says Sein Aye. In his late 80s, he lives in a small
hut in Mae La Camp, existing on rations from aid groups. He lists his
worldly possessions as two sarongs, three shirts and a broken watch.

The veterans' plight was virtually unknown until 1998 when Sally Steen, a
British aid worker with ancestral roots in colonial Burma, visited the
border and met an 87-year-old ex-soldier who had served with the Burma
Rifles. He was caring for a mentally impaired daughter, suffered from
severe asthma and was destitute.

"When I asked him what I could do to help, he said, `I'd like you to
inform my officers,'" Steen recounts. "In other words, (he felt that) his
officers still had a responsibility."

Steen had to form her own group, Help 4 Forgotten Allies, because support
was not forthcoming from the British government.

"That is a dead duck. They will not give pensions. ... they are adamant,"
says Steen, who is based in England.

In the past, officials have said the Karen are ineligible because they
fought alongside the British rather than in British units.

The Burma Forces Welfare Association exists in England to help the
veterans, and used to give them annual grants of $110. The grants stopped
in 2008 but some will be renewed, Steen said. Last year, her group gave
about $65 to each of more than 150 veterans and their widows. She admits
it was a "miserable sum."

Yet, few of the veterans show any rancour.

"The British government did its best to try to give us our own state,"
says Simeon U. "Then, I did what I had to do. Now, I want the new
generation, my sons, to take over and continue the struggle."

Ka Paw Say, who helped to clandestinely distribute Steen's grants to
veterans inside Myanmar, said some of those he met imagined the British
had come back to liberate them. "They were so thankful for the money, and
they wanted some milk and bread which they had not eaten since the British
days," he said.

In the refugee camp, after telling his life story to a visitor, Dwe Maung
asks to sing a song. The words, in the Karen language, pour out loud and
clear as though he was still a young, eager trooper. "When you hear the
sounds of the buffalo horn, the soldiers will gather, ... Our flag will
rise. We will fight bravely for king and country."

Exiled, widowed, nearly blind and almost penniless, the old fighter waves
a dirty, rolled-up towel over his head and a joyous smile sweeps across
his furrowed face.

Next to him, Sein Aye rises from his chair with the help of a long cane.
Then he stands, parade-ground erect, and says goodbye to a visitor with a
flawless British Army salute.

____________________________________
BUSINESS / TRADE

August 2, Wall Street Journal
Myanmar loosens yoke on farmers

Yangon, Myanmar—Moves by Myanmar's military regime to loosen its grip on
the impoverished nation's once-mighty rice industry in advance of an
election this year have raised cautious hopes for the nation's economy.

After years of tight control and a 2008 cyclone that devastated Myanmar's
key rice-growing region, the regime last year granted private rice-export
licenses for the first time in several years and allowed the formation of
a private rice-industry association permitted to give loans to farmers and
millers, local humanitarian groups say.

The government could reverse the changes at any time, as it did with
similar changes in 2003. But its moves, following other signs of openness,
provide a rare hint of moderation by the oppressive regime and, if
sustained, could ultimately help ease global rice shortages.

The changes are notable because they cover a politically sensitive part of
the economy. Past periods of unrest in Myanmar—in the late 1980s and in
2007—coincided with high rice prices, and the regime has typically limited
exports to prevent domestic shortages and price spikes that could fuel
discontent.

Those controls proved counterproductive. Without an export market to
encourage investment, farmers spent little to boost production.

Some advocates say the loosening of export controls will have a positive
effect if farmers get enough capital to invest in seeds and equipment. "If
we could reach the near full required amount of farm credit alone we could
easily increase production," says Tin Maung Thann, president of Myanmar
Egress, a Yangon organization that works to promote economic and political
change.

The changes so far have been small, and while the state has raised the
amount farmers can borrow, the loans aren't reaching everyone. Most
farmers can obtain loans of about $10 per acre to buy seed and fertilizer
from the state agricultural bank, around a tenth of what is needed.
Farmers derisively call the government funds "tea money." Many turn to
black-market lenders, despite high interest rates.

Per capita income in Myanmar is among the lowest in the world, at around
$460 a year. Rice farmers today work much as they did centuries ago: Oxen
pull wooden plows through paddies; millers rely on decades-old equipment
that leaves rice grains broken and unsuitable for export to most markets.

Farmer U San Pe, 51 years old, says he's been unable to get any loans to
invest in his five-acre farm in central Myanmar. "I have no connections.
Life is hard," he says, conveying his wife and young children home from
the fields in an ox cart in the rain.
The secretive regime, led by Gen. Than Shwe, didn't explain why it decided
to license private exporters. Attempts to contact the government, which
rarely speaks to foreign media, were unsuccessful.

The changes come before an election, which the government says will take
place some time this year, that would be the first in Myanmar since 1990,
when opponents of the regime won a landslide victory, only to see the
results ignored by the military.

Dissidents and diplomats say the coming elections are unlikely to be free,
fair or alter the current power structure. Other analysts and some
residents say they believe the regime will at least promote piecemeal
economic and political change to curry favor with voters and foreign
governments.

The pre-election period has also seen rare and limited discussions on
economic policy. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz visited
Yangon in December, delivering a message to government officials on the
benefits of reforming Myanmar's economy, including extending rural credit,
infrastructure development and education. A Myanmar economist was recently
allowed to publish an article discussing the country's rice sector and at
least one candidate standing in the coming election has begun to talk
about rural change.

Humanitarian groups say the government has taken a more open-minded
approach to the rice sector after Cyclone Nargis in 2008 devastated the
country's farms and forced the regime to rely on international aid to feed
the population.

Some private-sector traders believe the shift on rice may be related to
the recent success of another crop: beans, which aren't as important to
domestic consumers and have been open to exports for some time.

The government—which has more than $5 billion in foreign currency
reserves, mostly from natural gas exports, according to the Asian
Development Bank—has put little of its own money into the improving the
rice sector.

It has instead recently directed private businessmen to use their own
capital. The Myanmar Rice Industry Association doled out about between $20
million and $30 million in loans to farmers and millers this year,
according to groups briefed on their operations. The need is closer to $1
billion, according to Harvard University's Ash Center. A Rice Industry
Association representative didn't respond to emailed questions.

Myanmar's rice industry led the world in rice exports in the 1930s. But
neglect and brutal repression after the country was taken over by a
military junta in 1962 left Myanmar's farmers decades behind.

The potential remains. "Burma could be in the top two or three rice
exporters in the world," says David Dapice, an economist at the Ash Center
who has visited Myanmar, also known as Burma, and made recommendations to
the government on extending credit to farmers and other changes.

Global rice prices shot up dramatically in 2008 due to shortages caused by
rapid global economic growth, and many analysts believe new sources of
exports are needed to prevent future volatility.

Mr. Dapice cautions that it could take a decade for Myanmar to become a
reliable exporter, even if it pushed a radical reform agenda, which he
sees as unlikely. Transportation infrastructure is antiquated and
electricity scarce. "It takes weeks to load a ship. They basically have
coolies carrying sacks of rice into nets," says Mr. Dapice.

____________________________________
HEALTH

August 1, Xinhua
Over 130,000 people carry TB in Myanmar annually: report

Yangon -- More than 130,000 people were infected with tuberculosis (TB)
annually, standing one of the 22 countries in the world with most
prevalence of the disease, the local Flower News reported Sunday.

According to a statistical report for 2009, of the new TB patients, 9.15
percent were found infected with both TB and HIV, and these patients are
being treated in 2010.

Sufficient TB medicines are in stock to treat the 130,000 new TB patients,
the authorities claimed.

Myanmar has been making efforts to combat TB since 1966 under a national
program, targeting to remove TB out of health issue by 2050.

Under the program, 325 townships in the country have been covered, report
said.

In order to expose more hidden TB patients, the health authorities have
been cooperating with private clinics to offer free treatment to patients
by adopting public-private-mix approach method.

Meanwhile, Myanmar has introduced two modern biosafety level-3
laboratories respectively in Yangon and Mandalay as part of its efforts in
combating TB.

The introduction of the modern labs was made in cooperation with the
Foundation for Innovative New Diagnosis, according to the Health Ministry.

Myanmar has also been applying DOTS treatment against TB at national level
since 1997, receiving aid of anti-TB medicine under GDF program from 2002
to 2009.

It was disclosed that up to one million patients have been treated with
GDF medicine.

Moreover, Myanmar is seeking new means to fight TB, one of Myanmar's three
disease of priority concern, tasking to discover new drugs, diagnosis and
vaccine through research to combat the deadly disease that is on the rise
again.

The new means also covers the task of exposing persons suffering from TB,
providing therapies with greater potency, promoting the anti-TB campaign
with the cooperation of partners, fighting TB through primary healthcare
and disseminating public health knowledge.

An annual report of the Health Ministry said the exposure rate of TB
patients reached 94 percent and treatment success rate 85 percent.

However, the discovery rate has not met the target in southern Shan state,
Chin state and some other townships, the ministry revealed, pointing out
the need to step up hunting for TB patients in those regions and remote
border and rural areas.

____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

August 2, Mizzima News
U.S. electoral watchdog lambasts Burma’s planned elections

Chiang Mai – A high-profile American organization involved in the
promotion of democratic principles around the world has concluded that
Burma’s 2010 general election, as presently structured, significantly
fails to meet criteria affording international legitimacy.

The Washington-based National Democratic Institute (NDI) on Sunday
released the findings of its research in “Burma’s 2010 Electoral
Framework: Fundamentally Undemocratic.”

Rehashing long-standing criticisms of the electoral process and the
constitution upon which polling is based, NDI concluded Burma’s 2010
election, the first in some 20 years, “is clearly designed to guarantee a
pre-determined outcome and, therefore, does not meet even the very minimum
of international standards.”

Specifically, the process is said to lack a guarantee of a government
based on the will of the people, basic human rights, freedom to stand for
election and an impartial election administration.

Referring to the impact a post-election government would have on ethnic
populations, NDI determines that newly formed government bodies at the
local level “could be a vehicle for greater participation by ethnic groups
in local governance if the new bodies reflected a genuine devolution of
power to minority groups, but there is little evidence to suggest that
that will be the case.”

Of the composition of the regime’s electoral commission, the U.S.
organization criticizes the present commission as lacking independence as
well as the process for failing to require that that commission act both
impartially and transparently.

“In sum, there is no reason to believe that the elections as currently
planned will comport with international standards. Nor are they likely to
lead to greater openness. Nothing in the behavior of the regime over the
past 20 years has signaled anything other than a commitment to hold power
at any cost,” warns the report.

NDI has observed over 150 elections across the globe over the course of
the last 25 years. However, Burma remains outside the organization’s
physical purview.

“Given the circumstances,” state the report’s authors, “even if Burma’s
law permitted international observers, NDI would not deploy them. The
constitution effectively locks in the military as rulers of the country in
perpetuity.”

As with several other American organizations involved in the promotion of
democratic principles and benefiting from government funding, NDI has come
under fire for allegedly promoting and pursuing the foreign policy
interests of Washington behind a veil of championing democratic
principles.

Ian Traynor of The Guardian, investigating the role and impact of NDI and
similar organizations in the aftermath of the Ukraine’s Orange Revolution
in 2005, surmised, “engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil
disobedience is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template
for winning other people’s elections.”

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

August 2, Newsweek
India gives a big hug to Burma's junta – Jeremy Kahn


>From Pyongyang to Khartoum, rogue regimes can usually find friends in

Beijing--naturally. China is no democracy, so why would it worry about
human rights where it can sell arms or drill for oil? This week, however,
it's not China but proudly democratic India that's rolling out the red
carpet for one of the planet's most repressive dictators. Than Shwe,
leader of Burma's military junta, is paying his second state visit to New
Delhi, and his hosts are determined to sell his government weapons and
secure new energy deals.

The two countries weren't always so chummy. India used to welcome Burmese
refugees and praise Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel-winning opposition leader
who has spent much of the past two decades under house arrest. But India
needs energy to maintain its economic growth, and Burma has massive
natural-gas reserves. New Delhi is scrambling for its share before China
snaps up everything. The United States and the European Union have long
pressured Burma with unilateral economic sanctions. Now, however, India's
embrace of the junta, not to mention China's ongoing support for the
regime, is making that policy toothless. Unless the West can persuade
Burma's neighbors to join the protest, the junta will find that the world
is not such a lonely place after all.

____________________________________

August 3, The Australian
Opportunity slipping away on Burma – U Win Tin

IN the 20 years since Burma's last free and fair election, it has become
Southeast Asia's poorest country.

It has continued the world's longest civil war, produces the highest
number of refugees per capita in the world and is home to one of the
highest numbers of child soldiers.Yet, major powers, regional governments
and international bodies seem prepared to allow the election scheduled for
this year, a hollow poll driven by the strategic needs of the military, to
go ahead and for the military to be self-legitimised as the rulers of some
55 million Burmese.

Without a firm plan of action, this is exactly what will occur.

Last month's summit of foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations in Hanoi confirms this laxity. Despite much public cajoling
and strong words behind closed doors, ASEAN has once again failed to offer
a firm approach or a regionally approved and facilitated road-map.

While demands first formalised by ASEAN in 2003 for the release of the
National League for Democracy's Aung San Suu Kyi, remain in place,
suggestions from some that she should be released and allowed to
participate in the elections have been quashed by the military. And the
possibility of a special ASEAN envoy to Burma was not pursued.

As such, these demands remain little more than paper tigers because they
are not backed institutionally by ASEAN, nor is there any formalised
process to move in any specified direction.

In the words of one senior ASEAN diplomat in Hanoi, reported in local
media: "In the end, we (ASEAN) will probably end up being a big rubber
stamp."

Meanwhile, the US dithers on the sidelines, unable or unwilling to
embolden its position. After taking months to review its Burma policy, it
then sought to maintain a policy status quo; a combination of engagement
and sanctions.

US engagement has faltered without a special Burma envoy and sanctions
have limited effect because Burma's close ties with China have tended to
surmount economic barriers to trade and investment.

As such, the US position on the elections has fallen in with that of ASEAN
- one characterised by stern words and lofty hopes but lacking the
foundation of a solid plan of action.

For the UN, it has been more than a year since the special envoy for Burma
has visited and one year since the UN's Secretary-General spoke with us in
person. Neither has been to Burma since Suu Kyi was detained yet again,
following a sham trial last year.
The Burmese regime has been able to completely ignore and repudiate
international and regional actors.

The proposed election will not lead to the reconciliation between various
forces in Burma so effectively wedged apart by the military the
international community so hopes for, and that the region so needs.

With this election, the regime is playing a zero-sum game. The goal is to
completely crush all opposition parties and to completely exclude all
relevant stakeholders in Burma's supposed journey to democracy.

The exclusion of major political participants, from ethnic groups such as
major Kachin parties to leading political figures denied access to the
elections by virtue of being imprisoned (including Suu Kyi herself), is
the ultimate in wedge politics, keeping the country on the edge of
failed-state status and denying any semblance of reconciliation.

In effect, the election will lead to more chaos in Burma. Tensions will
rise as a result of thwarted ambitions and the implications of poverty and
the continued violations of basic human rights will possibly boil over.

Increased instability in Burma - an outcome no one wants, even Burma's
patrons in Beijing - is the most likely outcome.

The NLD called for a regional dialogue on Burma some years ago. We feel
this should be driven by ASEAN, largely via the extended ASEAN Regional
Forum, and should be conducted in Asia.

The goal of such a forum is to find ways the international community and
the Burmese military can work together to initiate a sincere transition to
democracy in Burma. The bottom line is to devise a plan of action. Without
such a strategy, Burma's elections will lead nowhere. They do, however,
present an opportunity - one that the international community has so far
failed to take.

U Win Tin is co-founder of the National League for Democracy and was
imprisoned by the military for 19 years

___________________________________

August 1, Hindustan Times
Beauty & the beast – Karan Thapar

New Delhi – Have you observed how India is easily roused by military
dictators in Islamabad but is unconcerned about those that strut and fume
in Rangoon? The Pakistani variety stick in our throat. The Burmese were
hosted to a special State visit last week. You might even have noticed
General Than Shwe, with his rows of shining medals, as you were stuck in
traffic while His Nibs drove past.

Now I’m not complaining about the splendid hospitality laid on for the tin
pots from Burma. Reluctantly I’ve come to accept — although not agree with
— the argument that the swaggering generalissimos, who keep their own
citizens in a state of abject and often hungry terror, claim to contain
our Ulfa, NSCN and other rebels and, therefore, serve India’s national
interest. Sadly, even though I disagree, most of you probably believe that
interest is better served securing the support of military dictators who
have savagely crushed democracy at home rather than standing by the lady
they’ve kept in jail for almost 15 of the last 21 years.

The question I want to ask is did the Indian government, so proud of
ruling the world’s largest democracy, raise Aung San Suu Kyi with her
captor? And if they did, what did her jailor say? In fact, let me go one
step further, did our democrats attempt to use such influence as they have
to encourage the be-ribboned tyrant to turn the key and let her go?

I don’t know the answer but I fear it’s probably no. For the last decade
we’ve effectively forgotten Aung San Suu Kyi and the cause she stands for.
No longer is the voice of the world’s largest democracy heard loudly and
clearly in her support. If we do speak, its sotto voce, mumbled and
probably with a sprinkling of compliments for the generals in case they
take it amiss.

I think it’s reprehensible and shameful that India’s democracy can’t find
a way of supporting a lady who is today one of the world’s symbols of the
fight against tyranny. Other than Mandela, I can’t think of anyone who has
made a greater personal sacrifice for the cause of democracy and liberty.
Nehru and Gandhi pale in comparison. In the years since 1989, when she was
first jailed, Suu Kyi has been unable to see her husband, who died of
cancer, her two sons or her grandchildren. She’s lost her family but
remains devoted to her cause. We seem to have forgotten that Suu Kyi grew
up in India, was educated in Delhi and once considered India her second
home. In 1992 we gave her the Nehru Prize.

We’ve also forgotten that lasting relationships are built among people and
not governments. Than Shwe and his bully boys may rule the roost today but
they cannot continue forever. One day the Burmese people will be restored
to their rights. On that day Suu Kyi will be their rightful leader. Of one
thing I am certain, even if she dies in jail or is forever kept out of
elections, Than Shwe and his cohorts are not the future. It lies with Suu
Kyi or, at least, with her cause.

Alas, we seem to be unable to see ahead. We also don’t believe in helping
friends. So I wonder how Suu will look on us when the situation changes?
Will she forgive our neglect? Our silence? And our expedient support for
the oppressors who’ve kept her locked up?
____________________________________

July 31, Irrawaddy
Don't expect much from Burma's election – Pavin Chachavalpongpun

As the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) met in Hanoi last
week, one contentious topic, as predicted, was discussed: political
development in Burma and its upcoming election—the first in the country in
20 years. The issue continues to deepen the already stark differences
between Asean and the international community over what would be the most
effective way to deal with the stubborn regime.

While the international community has demanded a free and fair election
and the release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi,
the leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD), Asean has insisted
on the engagement approach. Thus, it is likely that Asean will accept the
legitimacy of Burma’s new regime without asking too many questions.

In Hanoi, the Asean approach was re-emphasized. Indonesian Foreign
Minister Marty Natalegawa said that there was a reasonable degree of hope
that the election would be part of the solution to various issues in
Burma.

Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan agreed. “Asean is very much
interested in the peaceful national reconciliation in Burma and whatever
happens there will have implications in Asean, positive or negative,” he
told reporters.

Having long performed as a rubber stamp for the military regime, Asean’s
current position does not seem to guarantee that, after the election,
there will be real changes in the Burmese political system.

Asean has rejected the West’s approach, criticizing it for demanding too
much from Burma's junta and unrealistically expecting the election to
completely transform the country from an outpost of tyranny into a
full-fledged democratic state. Meanwhile, the West complained that Asean
has failed to push for political reform in Burma and still provides a
political sanctuary for its ruthless regime.

The different approaches between Asean and the international community
have given the regime extra room to maneuver. The Burmese leaders have
exploited such differences to their advantage, using the Asean approach to
weaken the impact of Western sanctions. Unfortunately, this trend is set
to continue, even in the post-election period.

Asean observers acknowledge that Burma’s planned election is part of a
military-led transition that will install a new regime in Naypyidaw. They
also believe that the new regime will be less repressive and more civilian
in character, although not necessarily more democratic. This is simply
because, according to Burma’s new Constitution, there will be a
decentralization of power and the society will supposedly become more
pluralistic. But critics argue that the Constitution was written to
prolong the military’s political power and its promise to plant the seeds
democracy is merely symbolic.

The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), the governing body of
Burma’s military regime, claims that the country is reaching the end point
of the road map toward democratization and that the elections will be
organized later this year, although the date has not yet been announced.

The SPDC may realize that a transition is inevitable. Sooner or later, it
has to reposition itself to cope with the changing domestic and regional
environment. As a result, the junta has chosen to initiate, and then
dominate, the transitional process so that a large portion of political
power remains in the hands of the military. Therefore, the ostensibly
civilianized Burma could be considered a product of a political concession
which the military regime has offered to the opposition and the ethnic
minorities.

But this process will not be untroubled. Old problems will persist even
after Burma installs a new government. Most of these problems concern the
question of legitimacy of the new regime, which will undoubtedly be
challenged by Suu Kyi.

Suu Kyi has been barred from the election according to the Union Election
Commission Law (UECL), which states that anyone currently serving a jail
term is banned from joining a political party. The junta enacted the UECL
primarily to exclude Suu Kyi from the transitional process. Her party won
a landslide victory in the 1990 election, but was never allowed to take
power. Today, Suu Kyi is still hugely popular. The junta has learned from
the past and wants to ensure that it remains in charge.

Thus, to Suu Kyi, the electoral process lacks legitimacy. In response, her
NLD party declared that it would boycott the election. And since Suu Kyi
has been able to command the world’s opinion and is much respected in the
West, the new military-backed government will have to work hard from the
start to justify its existence in the face of various opposition groups
inside and outside the country.

The new regime will also need to fix the collapsing cease-fire agreements
which the SPDC has concluded with a number of ethnic groups over the
years. As of now, the government’s scheme of establishing a border guard
force (BGF) has not been completed. Under this scheme, ethnic armies would
be downsized into several battalions. Each would operate under the central
command of Burma’s army, or Tatmadaw, as part of the military’s
consolidation of power.

But some ethnic groups have refused to be neutralized. It was reported
that the majority of the 18 ceasefire groups, including the 30,000-strong
United Wa State Army (UWSA), Burma’s largest, have so far rejected the
scheme.

In August 2009, heavy fighting between the Tatmadaw and the ethnic Kokang
Army forced more than 30,000 refugees to cross into China, an incident
that caused friction between Naypyidaw and Beijing. Initially described as
part of a drug raid, the Tatmadaw's attack on the Kokang served as a
violent warning to other ethnic armed groups refusing to disarm and join
the national army.

Similarly, in June 2009, thousands of refugees fled into the buffer zone
inside Thailand when the Burmese army clashed with the Karen National
Union (KNU), a group that has sought independence for the past 60 years.
The civilianized regime’s urgent task will be to reorganize the power
distribution so that peace with ethnic minorities can be guaranteed.

Should the world anticipate any significant change in Burma? Probably not.
Asean is particularly excited about the upcoming election in Burma as it
will conveniently vindicate its long-held engagement approach. In reality,
however, with or without the election, the world will still live with the
same old Burma—the one that has been opposed to democracy.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a fellow at the Asean Studies Centre, Institute
of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. The views expressed here are his
own.

____________________________________

August 2, Mizzima News
Flaws and challenges of EU policy on Burma – Javier Delgado Rivera

No credible international actor deems the forthcoming national elections
in Burma as anything other than a mere act of pretence. Judging by the
European Union’s (EU) latest statements on Burma, Brussels is no
exception. Last February, the European Parliament (EP) concluded that
under the present conditions, elections in Burma cannot be free or
democratic. In this vein, the EP called on Naypyitaw to “take without
delay the steps needed to ensure a free, fair, transparent and inclusive
electoral process.”

The ultimate desire of the EU is to see a political transition in Burma in
which a democratically elected civilian government takes over from the
current repressive rule of the junta. In order to push the Burmese
military to get this process underway, the EU has since 1996 opted to go
down the road of renewing and strengthening restrictive measures against
Burma’s ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and its cronies.

The ruby success and the trade embargo spoilers

In reaction to restrictive election laws announced in March by the
military regime, last April EU foreign affairs ministers extended by
another year targeted measures against the junta. Sanctions are largely
designed to curb the junta’s acquisition of military equipment and
services, as well as to weaken business interests vital in fuelling the
generals suffocating hold over the country. The restrictions include visa
bans and asset freezes for key junta figures, their families, individuals
associated with the generals, members of the judiciary and enterprises
linked with the country’s top brass.

In particular, the EU’s ban on the import of Burmese gems regardless of
where they are transformed, in conjunction with a similar U.S. initiative,
has arguably prompted the closure of roughly 50 ruby mines. Although the
true impact of this setback on Naypyitaw’s finances cannot be fully
ascertained, Ivan Lewis, former British Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs, underlined that “the [mining] sector played a
particular role in sustaining the military and their grip on power.”

The above may well embody the sole substantial payoff of the EU’s Common
Position on Burma – the official designation of Brussels’
restrictions-based policy towards the estranged Southeast Asian country.
In fact, for over 14 years EU sanctions have achieved little to nothing in
terms of forcing Burma’s military dictatorship to open up. As an example,
Piero Fassino, EU Special Envoy for Burma/Myanmar, has been unable to get
permission to visit the country since his appointment in late 2007. In
light of such plain disregard for the calls of the EU, chances are an EU
request to send an exploratory mission to Burma in the build-up to the
country’s elections remains likely to be ignored.

A further, and similar, example was the EU’s recent cancellation of a
high-level visit to Burma after the junta rejected its petition to meet
with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. If Burmese authorities do not
even allow EU representatives to meet the detained Suu Kyi, there is not
much hope that Naypyitaw will pave the way for Brussels to nose around in
the run-up to voting, let alone on polling day.

As asserted by the European Parliamentary Caucasus on Burma, a grouping of
Members of the European Parliament critical of perceived weak EU policies
on Burma, “other EU measures, such as the decision to take away Burma’s
Generalised System of Preference trade status (back in 1997), visa-bans
and the freeze of some 70,000 Euros in assets, are more symbolic than
effective.” Burma’s generals long ago transferred their assets to
financial safe havens such as Switzerland or Liechtenstein – non-EU
states. More importantly, the resulting lessened trade links between the
EU and Burma have not hit the junta in any significant way, as the Burmese
military is far from relying on European investment to drive and boost
revenue. By trading and investing in Burma with little or no restraint,
countries such as China, India, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore
decisively spoil any EU intentions of debilitating the economic muscle of
the military regime.

Aware of such a decisive hindrance to EU policy on Burma, last February
the EP urged the governments of China, India and Russia “to use their
economic and political leverage with the authorities of Burma/Myanmar.”

The EP call, however, proved to fall on deaf ears. In early June, Chinese
premier Wen Jiabao went to Burma to meet Senior General Than Shwe and
other leaders of the junta. On this official visit, Wen Jiabao signed a
series of cooperation agreements with the dictatorship, deals devised to
heavily invest in Burma’s natural resources. The EP’s plea went on to call
on governments to “stop supplying the Burmese regime with weaponry and
other strategic resources.” But the EU’s nonexistent leverage on China was
evidenced once again when in mid-June Burma watchers brought out the news
of a recent purchase of 50 Chinese fighter jets by the generals.

The EU will keep failing in its efforts to encourage substantial reforms
in Burma unless key international and regional players agree on a common
stance towards the repressive junta. As this does not seem likely to
happen any time soon, if ever, the current EU line of promoting democracy
in Burma is cursed to trip over the same stone again and again.

Perils and promises of policing out of the box

Nonetheless, the EU still has room to manoeuvre if it is to streamline its
approach to Naypyitaw. As pointed out by Renaud Egreteau, Research
Assistant Professor at Hong Kong’s Institute for Humanities and Social
Sciences, “one of the main flaws of the EU investment ban lies in its
non-retroactivity.” This implies that all EU companies already investing
in the country prior the 1996 launch of the EU Common Position on Burma
are not affected by the ban. For instance, this allows French oil giant
Total to keep on feeding Than Shwe’s dictatorship with massive revenues.
The EU should look to bridge this gap, although Paris would certainly pull
its weight to remove such a proposal from the table.

Given the poor performance of EU policy on Burma, European policymakers
and officials would be better off if they seriously consider the revision
of their Common Position. Yet, two paramount obstacles fly in the face of
such a recipe. First of all, the EU does not really know what else can be
done beyond regularly renewing its targeted sanctions and stating its
exasperation towards the lack of compromise by the Burmese junta.
Secondly, it may prove all too burdensome to come up with a rethought out
policy on Burma and have the EU agree on it. The varying, and in some case
competing, tones existing amongst the 27 EU member states would make any
attempt to revitalise the European position on Burma an insurmountable
challenge.

Regional alliances, certain flaws in EU policy on Burma and the complexity
of the EU decision-making process are not alone in hindering the
effectiveness of the European approach to Burma. Brussels must also
realize that the junta sees no gain from giving in to EU appeals for
democracy and human rights. As University of Canberra's Dr. Christopher
Roberts rightly pointed at the June 24th Asia-Pacific Roundtable, “the EU
has not placed benchmarks for the removal if its sanctions.” If Brussels
seeks to persuade the Burmese generals to listen up, it may at least
contemplate the incorporation of some incentives in its sanctions-based
policy.”

Any such carrots must aim to ease the repercussions that sanctions on
trade and investment in Burma unfortunately do have on ordinary Burmese.
Such incentives could come in the shape of a progressive launch of
non-humanitarian aid and development programs, both currently suspended by
the Council of the EU. The arrival of such aid may well entail the
emergence of new business opportunities for a number of junta associates.
This would in turn prompt the interest of the generals’ cronies in not
allowing for the aid to be taken away, thereby unleashing a wave of
opposition to the repealing of political gains.

Needles to say, EU incentives should only be entertained once the junta
displays solid steps towards the irreversible democratisation of the
country. However, regretfully, this is not what is happening in Burma in
the run-up to this year’s general elections.

____________________________________

July 31, The Nation (Thailand)
India should tread carefully with Burma

It was a shame that India, the world's largest democracy, this week
welcomed one of the world's most notorious and ruthless leaders, General
Than Shwe, the Burmese strongman, with full honours. India can give all
the reasons it wants, but the fact is still a very simple one: A democracy
with a long history of respect for human rights and fighting for justice
must not appear to support such a regime. But India has chosen to do so
out of so-called "national interest". If that narrowly defined term is the
reason India used to host the Burmese regime, then it will not gain the
country much respect.

Sooner or later, India will find out that its sincere endeavours not to
upset the junta, because of China's overbearing presence in Burma, will
all be in vain.

No matter how one looks at it, Than Shwe's trip to India was indeed well
calculated to show the world that Burma's neighbour is open and naive
enough to support his pariah country.

It was also rather disappointing to see the Burmese junta leader visit the
country during a series of high-profile visits by world leaders. Prime
Minister David Cameron of the UK is in India this week, at the same time
as Than Shwe, and there are upcoming trips by delegations from the US,
Russia and France.

It is as if India wants to please the junta to gain favours on a par with
China. New Delhi, which is competing with China on the economic and
diplomatic fronts, says that security on the Burmese-Indian border is one
of its top national interests.

In the long run, India will have to pay a toll for unwittingly serving as
an accomplice to the Burmese regime. Look at the US and Senator Jim Webb's
initiatives as a case study. Earlier, Washington entertained high hopes
that it could convince the junta to be more flexible and break the current
political impasse, so that the US could have good reason to relax its
sanctions placed on Burma since 2003. But after nearly 10 months of
continuing effort and engagement, Washington has realised that it is a
waste of time to deal with Burma. There is little hope that any change
will be worth waiting for, for whatever reasons. Even China, which is
considered an all-weather friend of the generals, has also reviewed its
bilateral ties with Burma, due to tensions along the Burmese-Chinese
border.

The junta is not doing anything to push forward democratic reforms, even
under intense pressure from the international community. The generals know
full well that international persistence will never prevail over their
obstinacy. The international community is a paper tiger. It can do nothing
to bring about change in Burma because of preoccupation with other serious
international issues.

At this moment, Than Shwe cannot show any sign of weakness, let alone
compromise with outsiders. He enjoys playing realpolitik with the Asian
giants - India and China and the rest. So far, the regime has cleverly and
cynically played off its two giant neighbours against each other, and they
have no alternative but to play along, fearing their loss of influence in
the overall scheme of things.

India has to look to the future as a pillar of Asian democracy. If New
Delhi does not take this role seriously, it will be hard to find an
alternative. But what is certain is this: The rise of India may be
contaminated by such entertainment of the Burmese dictatorship.

____________________________________
PRESS RELEASE

July 30, U.S. Campaign for Burma
U.S. Senators demand U.S. support for UN Commission of Inquiry in Burma

Washington, DC – Two days after President Obama signed into law, the
one-year extension of U.S. sanctions against the military regime in Burma,
that was unanimously approved by both House and Senate, a bipartisan group
of 32 Senators sent a letter (as attached) to Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton today, calling for the United States government “to support the
establishment of a United Nations Commission of Inquiry to investigate
whether crimes against humanity and war crimes took place” in the
Southeast Asian country of Burma.

The United States Campaign for Burma, a leading coalition of Burmese
activists in exile and American human rights campaigners working to
promote freedom, justice and democracy in Burma, welcomes and supports the
call made by the U.S. Senators. Aung Din, former political prisoner and
Executive Director of USCB urged the Obama administration “to pay strong
and serious attention on Burma, where over 50 million people are suffering
egregious human rights violations under the most brutal military regime
for decades, and take leadership in making an UN Commission of Inquiry on
Burma a reality”.

In the letter, Senators wrote to Secretary Clinton that “While your
administration continues along a path of sanctions and pragmatic
engagement with Burma, we believe that such a commission will help
convince Burma’s military regime that we are serious about our commitment
to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law for the people of Burma”.
The letter was organized by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Judd
Gregg (R-NH) and cosigned by 30 other Senators including Michael Bennet
(D-CO), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Sherrod Brown (D-OH),
Sam Brownback (R-KS), Richard Burr (R-NC), Roland Burris (D-IL), Benjamin
Cardin (D-MD), Robert Casey (D-PA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Richard Durbin
(D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Al Franken (D-MN), Kristen Gillibrand
(D-NY), Kay Hagen (D-NC), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Frank
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Jeff
Merkley (D-OR), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernard
Sanders (I-VT), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Mark Udall (D-CO), George
Voinovich (R-OH), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and
Ron Wyden (D-OR). In June 2009, nearly 60 members of the U.S. House of
Representatives wrote to President Obama urging him to take action on
crimes against humanity in Burma at the UN Security Council.

“This letter addresses the frustration of U.S. lawmakers over the
shortcomings of Obama’s pragmatic engagement with the regime”, says Aung
Din. “Members of Congress, who have long experiences in dealing with
dictatorial regimes around the world, know very well that without
significant pressure and serious leadership, engagement will never produce
a positive outcome,” continues Aung Din.

The U.S. Campaign for Burma and allied organizations around the world have
called for the international community to establish a UN commission of
inquiry to investigate war crimes and crimes humanity in Burma since May
2009, when the report, entitled “Crimes in Burma”, commissioned by five
prominent international judges and war crimes prosecutors, and produced by
the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School, was released.
The report found that for years the United Nations has been on notice of
severe, indeed widespread and systematic abuses in Burma that appear to
rise to the level of state policy, but failed to take effective action
yet. Detailed information about crimes against humanity conducted by the
Burma’s military regime can be found at
http://uscampaignforburma.org/crimesagainsthumanityinburma.

In March, at the 13th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council in
Geneva, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in
Burma, Mr. Tomas Ojea Quintana of Argentina endorsed the call and urged
the United Nations “to consider the possibility to establish a commission
of inquiry with a specific fact finding mandate to address the question of
international crimes” in Burma. Mr. Quintana’s recommendation to establish
a UN commission of inquiry is supported by his two predecessors, Professor
Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (2000-2008) of Brazil (“End Burma’s System of
Impunity, Opinion, The New York Times, May 27, 2009), and Professor Yozo
Yokoda (1992-1996) of Japan (“Challenging Impunity in Myanmar, Opinion,
The Jakarta Post, June 6, 2010).

Since Mr. Quintana made his recommendation, at least four countries,
Australia, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, and Slovak Republic, expressed
their support for the establishment of a UN commission of inquiry. Many
other governments are also interested in potentially supporting the call,
but are waiting to see what position the United States takes, whose
Permanent Representative to the UN Human Rights Council, Ambassador Eileen
Chamberlain Donahoe said in June that “the United States was considering
supporting the proposed Commission of Inquiry into possible international
humanitarian law violations in Burma, as suggested by the Special
Rapporteur.”  As organized by the USCB, thousands of activists have sent
emails to President Obama since May, urging him to support the UN-led
commission of inquiry in Burma. However, no one has yet to receive any
response from the White House.

Media Contact: Jennifer Quigley at (202) 234 8022