Isolation or Engagement? It’s Than Shwe’s Choice

By: Aung Zaw

(Courtesy: The Irrawaddy Magazine, First Published on Monday, December 15, 2008)

Since Gen Ne Win seized power in 1962, Burma has proudly proclaimed its neutrality in international affairs. Under Snr-Gen Than Shwe, the country’s “active and neutral” foreign policy remains in place, although many question whether this accurately describes the way Burma now relates to the rest of the world. Than Shwe’s regime has long been a target of Western sanctions, which include a visa ban that prohibits the paramount leader himself from traveling to the West. Relations with neighboring countries are, however, more cordial. This has produced a foreign policy that is more selective than neutral.

Last week, the general who routinely snubs visiting UN envoys welcomed Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, who received Than Shwe’s special envoy, Foreign Minister Nyan Win, in September 2007 amid the brutal crackdown on monk-led protests. State-run papers reported that Than Shwe briefed the Chinese minister on Burma’s domestic situation, including the progress of reconstruction work in the cyclone-hit Irrawaddy delta. More importantly, the general reported on the country’s “democratic process and economic development, based on the principles of independence and self-determination,” according to China’s Xinhua news agency.

The junta chief also reassured his visitor that Burma continued to value its paukphaw (fraternal) friendship with China. Burmese leaders have traditionally used the term “paukphaw” to refer to relations with China. This special relationship has, however, been subject to numerous strains over the years. This was especially true in the 1960s and 70s, when China aided the Communist Party of Burma (CPB).

Although the “big brothers” in Beijing dubbed Ne Win a “fascist,” the Burmese strongman was pragmatic and visited China several times to repair ties. He held high-level talks with Chinese leaders and maintained a good relationship. In return, leaders from China also paid several state-level visits to Burma. But as Ne Win dined with leaders in Beijing, Than Shwe and other mid-ranking officers posted in the northern frontier region in the 1970s and 80s continued the fight against Chinese-backed communists. They would never forget China’s efforts to overthrow the government in Rangoon.

Today the CPB is gone, and its troops never did march down to Rangoon. China has been the regime’s major ally since the military coup of September 1988, supplying the regime with military and economic aid. Border trade between the two countries has also expanded, to an estimated annual level of US $1.5 billion. Now China is planning to build a gas pipeline in 2009, linking Sittwe on the Arakanese coast with China’s landlocked province of Yunnan. China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) will head the $2.5 billion pipeline project with a 50.9 percent stake, while Burma’s state-run Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) will hold the rest. Besides the MOGE’s stake in the project, Beijing will also be counting on the regime to keep armed groups along the China-Burma border under control.

Although military leaders in Burma have expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of some of the military hardware and jet fighters they have purchased from China, they still appreciate Beijing’s unwavering support, including exercising its veto at the UN Security Council. However, it is important not to overestimate China’s influence over Burma. China could also be looking for an alternative to Than Shwe, and like everyone else, Chinese officials are looking at the post-Than Shwe era and beyond the planned 2010 election. Chinese know that the aid policy and economic cooperation over the past 20 years has not paid off much.

Chinese remain skeptical that the aid, economic cooperation and investment in Burma will translate into meaningful economic development. It is obvious that Burma is descending into a failed state. China is only helping to preserve the regime.

It is unfortunate that China, which once sought to overthrow the Ne Win regime, is now backing one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Than Shwe often tells his generals that as long as he can count on three countries—China, India and Russia—for backing, his regime will survive. Of these three, China is obviously the most crucial. Increasingly, however, the junta has been looking beyond China for new friends, new markets and economic cooperation.

This month, Burma confirmed that it will open an embassy in Kuwait. Tomorrow marks the tenth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between Burma and Kuwait. Kuwaiti Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser al-Mohammed al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-Sabah visited Burma in August and signed an agreement on economic and technical cooperation between the two countries.

During a meeting with the visiting prime minister, Than Shwe informed him of his “road map” to “disciplined democracy” and explained the need for the army to safeguard Burma’s unity and stability. Deputy Foreign Minister Maung Myint visited Kuwait recently looking to expand Burma’s trade and business activities there. This is not the first time the regime has looked to the Middle East to expand its diplomatic relationships. In 2006, Iran’s deputy minister for oil paid a visit to Burma to express his country’s interest in cooperating with the junta.

In April of last year, we also saw Burma formally restore its ties with North Korea. Relations between the two countries had been severed for more than two decades after North Korean state-sponsored terrorists launched a deadly bomb attack on a high-ranking South Korean delegation of politicians who were visiting Rangoon. However, a clandestine diplomatic relationship had been restored as early as the 1990s. In recent years, North Korean technicians have been seen in Rangoon and in the newly built capital. Well-informed sources reported that North Korean agents usually stay at state-owned guesthouses on the outskirts of Rangoon. The lack of transparency surrounding the North Korean agents’ frequent visits to Burma has fueled rumors about the nature of the cooperation between these two “outposts of tyranny.”

But even as Than Shwe looks to broaden Burma’s diplomatic horizons, it is clear that he remains very selective when choosing potential allies. In May, Cyclone Nargis offered an opportunity to forge friendlier ties with the US and the West, but Than Shwe opted to spurn their offers of assistance because they came in warships. The paramount leader doesn’t really count the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) as an ally, but maintains a normal relationship with the regional grouping. His regime’s recent decision to send prominent dissidents to jail demonstrated his disregard for the principles laid out in the Asean charter.

With regard to Burma’s closest neighbor, Thailand, we have seen many ups and downs in the relationship over the past two decades. Thaksin Shinawatra, the billionaire Thai prime minister who was ousted in 2006, cultivated close business ties to the Burmese junta. But even during the relatively amicable period of Thaksin’s rule, Burma felt compelled to buy state-of-the-art MiG 29 jet fighters from Russia to counter the Thailand’s F16 jet fighters. When looking for new friends, Than Shwe steers clear of countries that take are likely to take issue with his regime’s human rights record. His treatment of the democratic opposition and detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and 2,000 other political prisoners are also taboo topics.

To return to Ne Win—the charismatic leader frequently visited Western countries for medical treatment or annual vacations. Ne Win and the ministers and generals who served under him acquired a taste for the finer things the West had to offer, even if they had no appetite for Western democratic values. Ne Win had bank accounts in Switzerland and liked to stay in London. He and top leaders had TVs and video players long before Burma officially introduced these marvels of technology in the late 1980s. Top leaders and their wives were encouraged to go to hospitals in Europe when they needed to have check-ups—not to Singapore, where Than Shwe regularly visits for medical examinations.

Ne Win and his senior ministers often visited Europe to get aid and loans. The former Federal Republic Germany, or West Germany, was a favorite destination. Germany’s Fritz Werner Company helped Burma to build an arms industry as early as the 1950s to suppress ethnic insurgency. Thanks to his “engagement” with the West, Ne Win even received military assistance from the US to suppress narcotics in the 1970s. US-made helicopters were also used to attack ethnic civilians and insurgents, but there was no protest from Washington.

Under Ne Win, Burmese army officers were not only sent to Asian nations but also to the US and UK for military education. Under former spy chief Gen Khin Nyunt, dozens of army officers were CIA or UK-trained. Ne Win and Than Shwe all benefited from this sort of engagement and cooperation from the West. Until 2004, Burma’s feared secret police agency ran a ruthless and efficient spy network inside and outside of the country. Ironically, this would not have been possible without the contributions of countries that now regard Burma’s current rulers as international pariahs.

Every time Than Shwe shakes hands with a visiting state leader or foreign diplomat, critics of his regime shake their heads in dismay at the willingness of many in the world to ignore his egregious crimes against the people of Burma. Than Shwe’s occasional forays into international diplomacy may help him to stay in power, but they will do nothing to improve the plight of Burma’s oppressed people.

***************************************

UN Secretary General refused to visit Burma without substantial progress

(UN Secretary General - Ban Ki-moon, Photo Courtesy: UN)

According to the press briefings of spokesperson of the UN Secretary General – Michele Montas released on 3^rd December 2008 at UN Headquarters in New York, the UN Secretary General has refused to visit Burma ‘without any substantive progress and meaningful outcome’ of assurance given by the Junta towards democratic reforms and freedom of Nobel peace laureate- Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The Spokesperson also informed that, the UN Secretary General – Ban Ki-moon ‘reiterated his pledge to remain fully engaged, both personally and through his Special Adviser, Ibrahim Gambari’ for concrete reform and would like to visit Burma, if any substantive progress achieved by the government.

It is noteworthy that earlier more than one hundred Head of State urged the government in Burma to immediately release the Nobel laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi incarcerated in house arrest and the concerned letter had been also sent to the UN Secretary General. The Spokeswoman also confirmed that the Secretary-General received that letter as well as also received a phone call on 3^rd of December morning from former Prime Minister - Kjell Magne Bondevik of Norway, the coordinator of that initiative, Montas added. They discussed the letter, which asks the Secretary-General to visit Burma and to urge the release of all political prisoners by the end of this year. And, the Secretary General has consistently said that the primary responsibility lies with the Government in Burma to deliver substantive results, including freeing political prisoners and holding a dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, Ms. Michele Montas added. Even when asked about Mr. Gambari’s travels, the Spokeswoman noted that, “he would not travel to Burma unless there was a real possibility of moving forward there.”

**********************

Erratum Regarding Previous Post

One of my Muslim scholar friend suggested not to use the word ‘Islamic Terrorism’ while analyzing ‘terrorism’, which can be only defined as an act of violence against humanity and it can’t be related with any religion. And by coining it with any religion gives it more powerful legitimacy against the ethos of holy text. I agree to his views and apologies for my silly mistake and it should be read only as ‘terrorism’. Moreover, ‘terrorism’ in any form or ideological framework is a heinous crime against humanity, which Indian plural and composite culture doesn’t support.

Rajshekhar, Burma Review

Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation and Burma: A Meeting of ‘Common Faith’ (Part-II)

Before and after the signing of India-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation on 10^th of October 2008, there had been articles by leading Indian strategic experts in Indian press negatively visualizing the growing ‘US-India relations (Please see the article of Mr. MK Bhadrakumar entitled, “India and the World of Tomorrow” (a distinguished Senior Indian diplomat served in Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Turkey, Uzbekistan) published in The Hindu English daily, later re-published in the ‘Mainstream’ weekly, published from New Delhi on October 11, 2008, however later he modified the approach towards US by writing article entitled, “Coming to terms with Barack Obama” in 22^nd of November 2008 issue of ‘Mainstream’ weekly), and the article by – Mr. Brahma Chellaney (he had been close with Atal Bihari Bajpayee Administration during his Prime Ministership) in Hindi daily – ‘Dainik Jagran’ on 13^th November 2008 entitled, “America ki Nigah Main Bharat’ (India in the visions of America) and many other’s by left thinker’s which is quite natural. As I wrote earlier, that, I can understand left political party’s criticism, which could be assessed by frequent trips to Beijing by senior CPI and CPM leaders.

Mumbai Terror Attack, US, UK, China, Pakistan, Burma and the ‘Common Faith’:

However before dwelling upon the points of two leading strategic experts from India; which could influence Indian Foreign Policy. It is noteworthy to see after the tragic cowardice terrorist attack on Mumbai on 26^th of November 2008, that the first world reaction of cooperation to fight against terrorism and strong condemnation of attack came from US and British administration including the strong statements from new elected President – Mr. Barack Obama that, ‘terror can’t defeat democracy in India’, fulfilling the ethos of ‘common faith’ reflected in the earlier statement by President – Mr. George W. Bush that, ‘US and India are natural partners’. Moreover, the statement from Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama came, when US administration was totally unaware that whether any American’s had been trapped, killed or not? And, it can’t be proposed that it was taking into the view of impending deaths of American or British national as the statement came long before media started reporting that, so called terrorists are searching for American, British and Israel’s national’s? Moreover, the press statement of US Secretary of State on 3^rd of December evening in New Delhi, that, “non-state actors act of terrorism is responsibility of state” reflects the ethos of common faith against menace of terrorism, which India, Pakistan and USA should share together. Later on statements of condemnation came from Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Iran, Sri Lanka and other countries. Most importantly, the statement of condemnation of standing with India in her hours of need also came strongly from Burma’s Government in exile, which is engaged in fighting for the restoration of democracy and freedom of Nobel peace laureate and leading light of non-violence in Asia - Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s journey of common faith.

UK’s reaction with India had been the mirror of long existing strong bondage of ‘common faith’ despite UK being part of US strategic alliance from the time of India’s first Prime Minister - Jawaharlal Nehru and Non-Aligned Movement. Which even her daughter - Mrs. Indira Gandhi didn’t disturb while riding twenty years of friendship with Soviet Union. That was also reflection of the training of building ‘human personal linkages’ of balancing act in international relations, which Mrs Indira Gandhi learned from her father Nehru ji by accompanying him in various foreign trips, which Nehru learned at the feet of Mahatma Gandhi.

Chinese late reaction of condemnation of Mumbai terror attack was unnoticed in electronic news channel of India, which was published in ‘Hindustan Times’ daily. However, interestingly Chinese mainstream official media agency like - Xinhuanet etc. didn’t give suitable place to official condemnation voice of China against Indian terror attack. Moreover, as reported by different Indian electronic news channel of evidence of using Chinese ordinance factory made ‘grenades’ by terrorists is a cause of serious concern, which Indian enforcement agency must be working to decipher besides Pakistan’s linkages. Because it may be possible of proliferation of arms from a democratic society/nations but it is difficult to believe that how it could be possible from the ordinance factory of regimented society like – China or whether China made grenades were in the list of arms purchase of Pakistan or not? And if it has been purchased by Pakistan (which has least possibility because Pakistan has capability to manufacture grenades and the cooperation is more focused in missile technology) then China should refrain from providing arms & ammunition to unstable nations of world community, which could ultimately reach to terrorists hands.

Moreover, the timing of Mumbai terrorist attack happened, when Burma’s ruling military junta had been intensely engaged in awarding lengthy prison sentences to peaceful non-violent protestors despite call given against it by the UN Secretary General and world community. In turn resulting into the world wide condemnation against the long term prison sentences, as well as by the UN General Assembly third committee voting on 21^st of November, and the latest by Netherland’s Foreign Minister’s strong condemnation on the sentences of leading comedian of Burma. The issue of long term prison sentences in Burma had soon attracted worldwide focus on the suppression of non-violent peaceful protestors. However, the gruesome terrorist attacks on Mumbai shifted the attention of world community from Burma to the problem of world-wide menace of international terrorism. The diversion from the issue of Burma’s long term prison sentences to non-violent protestors may have resulted into the sigh of relief for one of the key Asian major power? How much the issue of Burma’s democratic agenda had been uncomfortable to one of the major key powers of Asia could be ascertained from her reaction during August-September Saffron 2007 revolution in Burma? I had already indicated in my earlier post that, US by mistake considering Pakistan as her strategic arm in South Asia but foolishness of defence establishment in Pakistan made her strategic arm of China in pursuing politics of rivalry with India without any control of Pakistan’s political leadership.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister was prompt in responding of standing with India and was a welcome step but later terrorist’s left documentary evidences and linkages with Pakistan based organization took away gestures of Pakistan government. Indian External Affairs Minister – Mr. Pranab Mukherjee and Prime Minister – Dr. Manmohan Singh had been rightly harsh on Pakistan as the evidence suggested but they should also know that Pakistan’s defence forces and intelligence agency are not in full control of Pakistan’s political leadership, which gets reflected in frequent military coup in Pakistan. Moreover many senior officers of Pakistan’s army and intelligence may have linkages with Chinese defence establishment (might be without any knowledge of Pakistani leadership) and lacks political vision and commitment of the maker of Pakistan – Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who wanted to make a strong democratic Pakistan. Jinnah’s dream of strong democratic Pakistan guarantee’s individual freedom of expression, and not the regimented ideology of governance of religious fanaticism and the examples of the brutal suppression of student’s democratic protest, which happened in China in 1989 at Tianmann Square. Jinnah - the maker of Pakistan carved a nation from British Empire on religious ground but Jinnah by nature and his political vision was one of the greatest personalities of modern scientific outlook and strongly hated religious dogmatism.

The writings and ethos of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s political vision also supported strong mutual friendship with India, which was unfortunately missed by the later political leadership of Pakistan. The democratic Pakistan and India shares many things in common and both nations can’t afford to remain aloof. It is for Pakistan’s benefit that, it should cooperate with India related with the Mumbai terrorist attack, Prisoners of War issues and on other social, economic and cultural issues as two brothers can’t remain distanced for long time on traditional pity issues. Pakistan’s political leadership should also understand that the certain forces inside Pakistan doesn’t want better relations with India against the political visions of ‘common faith’ of makers of India and Pakistan viz.- Mahatma Gandhi and Jinnah.

Moreover, these so called forces of ‘cult of violence’ couldn’t take any lessons of history and poorly trained in the ‘art of political complaining’ foolishly resorts to the act of ‘violence’ as an easy way to disseminate their views on religious and political ideological plank harming their own society and their target nation’s innocent people against the political visions & higher intellect of Gandhi and Jinnah. They can’t understand the structures & powers of modern nation state and its redressal & suppression mechanism and change from a situation of conventional warfare system of second-world war to high technology warfare of 21^st century. Does anyone could think or imagine rationally of successfully completing a long march like - Mao Tse-tung in 2008, which was accomplished in 1934-35 against Chiang Kai-shek regime on the ideology of violence to change the state structure?

Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah had been not a common politician like – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma and were well trained in the ‘art of political complaining’. Although unfortunately Burmese military junta couldn’t comprehend Daw Suu Kyi’s political vision of united Burma and want to play only a subservient secondary role of China and Russia. If Burma’s military Junta thinks that, Daw Suu after freedom would play a secondary role of USA and western powers like they are playing with China then they have not understood her political vision well.

The topic of ‘cult of violence’ needs special serious attention, which will be tackled in later post. In brief as I earlier wrote that Gandhi ji was right in his observation that, “Asian’s are very poor in the ‘art of political complaining’ which also applies to the contemporary emerging problem of violence in Southeast Asia, Africa and West Asia. Regarding the specific question of Iraq and violence associated with Islamic terrorism, it would be not wise to comment on it as the present post doesn’t focuses on the concerned issue. However, besides many other factors it is also a problem and crisis of vacuums of intellectual Islamic political leadership in international stage and lack of personality like – Mustafa Kamal Pasha of Turkey and Jinnah of Pakistan in Islamic society. It is unfortunate that due to the spirit of vengeance and lack of modern political intellectual leadership in Islamic society the leadership of Islam had been taken by destructive forces against the basic ethos of holy Quran. It also happened because the earlier famous universities or higher educational institution of Islamic world like- Cairo University, Aligarh Muslim University lost its world-wide reputation and many who went to the western world’s reputed educational institutions didn’t return to take the political leadership of their respective nation.

The Strength of Democratic India in Common Faith:

The strength of vibrant Indian democratic traditions found extempore unified outburst of Indian people against the Mumbai terrorist attack including voices from eminent persons, business class and film stars in many cities of India. One of the important points of rich democratic ethos could be seen in the fifty-nine hours ordeal 'of fierce gun battle between NSG commandos and terrorists, where more than two thousand people remained standing day and night to cheer commandos with the vocal voice – ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ (Hail Mother India) despite repeated request by Mumbai police to leave the place for safety. It was the same tragic situation, which happened on 11 September 2001 in USA and US enforcement agencies found tremendous support of local American people without fear in rescue operations in their journey of ‘common faith’.

(Continued….)

(This article is second part of the posts first published on 14^th of October 2008, earlier I couldn’t focus on the concerned topic because of my intense engagement with the present job giving little time to react on developments in world politics, infrastructural bottlenecks, so many of my earlier promised post hasn’t appeared till date, the next post will be the concluding one answering the questions raised by India’s two leading strategic experts. Rajshekhar, Burma Review)

***************************

Cartoon: Junta’s Holy Ladder of ‘Roadmap to Democracy’

Title: Junta’s Holy Ladder of ‘Roadmap to Democracy’

Artist: Pawan, Burma Review

***************************

Burma's Government in Exile Condemns Mumbai Attack

(By: Mungpi, Courtesy: Mizzima News, first published on Friday, 28 November 2008)

New Delhi (Mizzima) – The Burmese government in exile – National Coalition Government of Union of Burma – on Thursday strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in Mumbai that killed over 100 people and injured over 200, calling it 'cowardice and a foolish' act. Dr. Tint Swe, Minister of the Prime Minister office of the NCGUB, who is based in New Delhi, said "We condemn any act of terrorism, no matter who the perpetrators are. And if the attacks are carried out for political motives it is cowardice and a foolish act."

On Wednesday evening terrorists carried out at least 10 separate attacks on India's commercial hub of Mumbai killing at least 100 including 14 police and injuring more than 200 people. The terrorists, armed with AK 47, grenades and low intensity bombs stormed Mumbai’s busiest and most opulent sites including the century old railway station Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal (CST), the former Victoria Terminus, Hotel Taj Palace and The Trident hotel, both of which had guests including foreign tourists. According to reports, the terrorists, who began attacking since Wednesday night, continue to be holed up at with least 30 hostages in the Trident Hotel on Thursday and have left nearly 2000 guests stranded in the Taj hotel.

While the terrorist group did not make any demands, an Islamic group 'Deccan Mujahideen' a group that was previously unheard of claimed responsibility for the attacks, according to reports. A similarly named 'Indian Mujahideen' had earlier claimed responsibility for several blasts across the country including the 21 bomb blasts in Ahmedabad in July that claimed 56 lives. Till the time of filing the story, at least five to seven terrorists are still holed up in the Taj hotel and bomb blasts were also heard from inside the Hotel, while terrorists were said to have held at least 30 hostages in the Trident hotel, according to an Indian TV Channel NDTV.

In the course of a gun battle, up to 14 police including Maharashtra state's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) chief Hemant Karkare, Additional Commissioner Ashok Kamte and encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar were killed, reports said. The police in turn killed at least five terrorists during the shootout. Dr. Tint Swe said India like several other countries has its own sets of problems and conflicts but resorting to violence and conducting terrorist attacks are unacceptable.

“It is understandable that groups have diverse ideologies and countries have their own conflicts. But resorting to violence is unacceptable,” said Dr. Tint Swe, extending his deep concern and solidarity towards the victims of the attacks. While condemning the attacks, Dr. Tint Swe said terrorism seems to be spreading fast within the region and that governments including India should handle it with utmost importance.

“If we look at the past few months or even a year, we can see that there have been several blasts across India. Similarly, there were also blasts occurring in India's neighbouring country Burma and in several other south and southeast Asian countries," Dr. Tint Swe said. “Looking at this, we can say terrorist attacks are becoming a trend these days, and that governments needs to resolve them with utmost importance,” he added.

Similar to India, which has witnessed several bomb attacks in the past one year, Burma also witnessed increasing bomb blasts in the past year with perpetrators targeting mainly the former capital city of Rangoon. The latest blast in Rangoon took place on October 19 at a house in Rangoon's suburban township of Shwepyithar, killing a man, whom the military government said was the perpetrator himself. In September alone, at least four blasts occurred in Rangoon, injuring at least seven people. But, the military government, which has maintained a tight rule over the country since 1962, are quick at pointing a finger at opposition groups, including members of detained Nobel Peace Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's party – the National League for Democracy (NLD), and border-based ethnic armed rebel groups who are fighting for self-determination, each time a blast occurs.

Dr. Tint Swe, while condemning the terrorist attacks, praised India's freedom of press, which has enabled citizens to keep abreast of the latest situation on the ground. “Unlike Burma, India's freedom of press has allowed the media to cover the full extent of the event unfolding. But in Burma, since the media has been blacked out, information related the blasts seems to be out of reach to the people,” he added.

********************************

Burma Review strongly condemns terrorist attacks in Mumbai

Burma Review strongly condemns the cowardice terrorist attacks in Mumbai and stands with the family members who suffered huge loss of losing their innocent loved ones. It also pays deepest tribute to the members of different enforcement agencies of India and their families who lost their dear ones in the supreme act of sacrifice for the nation. Any terrorist outfits in whatever names, if they think that, India can be bogged down with any act of terrorism then they have not understood the Indian culture and civilization well. If India stands with the principles of non-violence, it doesn’t mean that, Indian people can’t stand against heaviest of violent cowardice attacks, which was even reflected in the interview given by a very common women belonging to the poor fishermen ‘Koil’ community to ‘India TV’ news channel that, if she would have known that they are terrorist, She & her community would have first acted to finish them.

Moreover, ‘the cult of violence’ in any religious uniform or ideological garb to resolve any world problem or issues is a misguided and foolish act of harming the society as well as the community for which they claim to serve. If anyone who holds any grudge against any policies of any government then there are many ways to bring those issues in mainstream debate and this principle applies for any part of the world. The only thing needed is to develop ‘the art of political complaining’, which Gandhi ji used to say that, ‘Asian’s are very weak in these arts’ and I think his observation still applies in contemporary society generating foolish ‘cult of violence’ in the name of religious or ideological garb.

*************************

India, China & Russia’s Voting with Junta in UN General Assembly Third Committee Meeting: Right or Wrong?

On 21^st of November 2008, in another historic 44th & 45th Meetings of United Nations General Assembly Third Committee on the draft resolution concerning situation of human rights in Burma (document A/C.3/63/L.33), three important nations of world community – India, China & Russia once again sided with Burma’s ruling military junta. However despite siding with junta as usual by India, China and Russia, the draft resolution which attempts to restore situation of dialogue and human rights with Burma’s infamous military regime got approved and passed with a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 29 against, and 63 abstentions. The countries which abstained and remain absent also helped diplomatically the resolution passed smoothly and should be considered as a sympathetic to the cause of freedom of Nobel laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi suffering more than thirteen years in house arrest. Most importantly, it also raises the question to debate that the argument of Junta or the decision of India, China and Russia going with that argument by voting with Junta is right or wrong or the argument of USA, EU etc. are right in proposing the human rights resolution concerning Burma?

India, China, Russia, and Burma’s official Argument:

While participating in the debate, India officially said that, “his country had consistently emphasized the importance of the promotion of human rights through dialogue and cooperation. Initiatives on the human rights situation in Myanmar should begin from a “forward-looking” standpoint and be conducted in a ‘non-confrontational manner’. Additionally, recent steps taken by the Government of Myanmar, specifically in terms of progress in political reforms, must be recognized. The draft resolution did not reflect those positive steps taken, nor was it in line with the Secretary-General’s mission to develop his good offices, with a view to improving the situation on the ground. Instead, it seemed to have a tone of condemnation about it and, as such, his delegation had voted against the resolution.” China repeating the same argument of previous year said that, “her delegation had always opposed to the practice of using country-specific resolutions to exert pressure on a developing country. With the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review mechanism in operation, countries concerned about violations of human rights in particular regions should refrain from introducing country-specific resolutions in the Third Committee. In addition, she noted that the co-sponsors had generated strong doubt over their desire to build consensus and real dialogue, because of the exclusive nature with which they conducted consultations on the draft.” Russian Federation said that, “drafts of “selective, politicized and one-sided” country-specific resolutions often led to confrontations among Member States. The creation of the Human Rights Council and the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review offered new opportunities now to establish better international cooperation on human rights. With that in mind, the consideration of country-specific situations should now be conducted within the framework of the Universal Periodic Review, and not the Third Committee.”

Burma said that, “the draft resolution was flawed procedurally and in terms of substance, and was part of a ‘yearly ritual’ meant to put political pressure on his country under the pretext of promoting and protecting human rights. Compared to last year, it was a harsher text, which attested to the desire of its co-sponsors to maintain that political pressure. It had even attempted to politicize the tragic humanitarian disaster resulting from Cyclone Nargis.”

The gist of Indian, Chinese, Russian and Burmese Argument’s:

From the positions taken by India, China, Russia and Burma following points emerges to vote with Junta in UN General Assembly third committee meeting, which also emerged in the same manner last year in UN Security Council meeting against Anglo-US resolution.

First, it should be through ‘dialogue and cooperation and begin from a forward looking stand point’. Second, it should be in a ‘non-confrontational manner’ and ‘consensus’ based. Third, indicating towards the constitutional referendum held in May 2008, it also stressed to recognize the recent positive steps taken by Junta. Fourth, it should go with Secretary General’s good office initiatives and avoid condemnation. Fifth, the resolution should be not country specific and exert pressure on developing country but utilize the offices of Human Rights Council and its universal periodic review mechanism (both Chinese and Russian argument). Sixth, it should not be “selective, politicized and one-sided” country-specific resolutions, which often led to confrontations among Member States.

Opposition to the Resolution: Right or Wrong?

Now, we come to the first point of argument of voting with Junta on the theme of ‘dialogue and cooperation’ and ‘forward looking stand point’. The proposer’s of this argument misses the point that, how a real dialogue could take place, when you put the leader of NLD and most of its executive members behind prison bars? Any political party in any nation and its leader functions taking opinions of its key executive working committee members, whereas in Burma; the leader of NLD – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is in house arrest for more than thirteen years and restricted to meet her fellow party members. In May 2008, during the referendum month, the junta extended her house arrest for another term despite appeals of freedom made by UN Secretary General and many ASEAN ministerial meetings official resolutions giving a strong psychological message of suppression to the Burmese people of result of even non-violent political protest. Burmese people knew that what would be their fate by going against referendum, when even world’s celebrated personality could suffer in a prolong house arrest, so the outcome of referendum could be well assumed? Moreover, the referendum had been held when Burma was suffering with worst gigantic scale natural disaster – Cyclone Nargis. Last year when Junta extended the house arrest, the honourable foreign minister of Burma- Mr. Nyan Win said to his Japanese counterpart – Taro Aso in Hamburg, Germany during the ASEM (Asia Europe Meeting) that, ‘it had been a very difficult decision’ to neutralize the criticism in ASEM. But this year in May 2008, they extended the house arrest a day after Junta’s Supremo General Than Shwe met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon making mockery of the office and prestige of the UN Secretary General’s office.

Moreover, the said extension even violated the Junta framed country’s state protection law, enacted in 1975, which allows one year extensions of a house arrest only for up to five years. In addition the choice of ‘dialogue and forward looking stand point’ doesn’t rest with Daw Suu Kyi, who is in a prolonged house arrest. And junta started the so called dialogue after the September 2007 mass uprising of monks by appointing Labour Minister –Mr. Aung Kyi as a liaison minister and the schedule of meeting with concerned liaison minister doesn’t rests with Daw Suu kyi but on the whims of Junta without ‘any fixed time frame’. In addition till now only five meetings had taken place and the last one being held in January 2008. So the forward looking point can’t be achieved without the freedom of Daw Suu Kyi and her political co-workers. The military regime which considers – Daw Suu Kyi and Min Ko Naing as a ‘bubble political leaders’ has got any attitude of political dialogue could be well understood (please see article written by Yebaw Tin Shwe entitled, “For successful completion of National Convention, The New Light of Myanmar, 20 May 2007, p.7)?

The Second point of debate revolves around the ‘confrontational’ attitude of west and USA and should be consensus based. This point has been a hot issue since long relating even with economic sanction policy of west and some even went to writing in ‘The Guardian’ newspaper of UK recently that, Daw Suu and NLD took confrontational attitude due to the western nations support. This point is also related with the sixth point of argument of Russia. Although, every time I read this argument, I felt surprised that how a lady who has been said in Junta’s mouthpiece – ‘The New Light of Myanmar’ that, “The restrictions will never be lifted until she abandons her practice of liberal policy. Even if the restrictions on her are lifted in such a situation, the release will bring no changes…today Myanmar is practicing the national politics, not liberal policy. So, she should give the first priority to the national cause and the second priority to democracy,” holds confrontational attitude and who are actually confrontational? (The New Light of Myanmar, 18 October 2006 also published earlier on 5^th of July 2006, two times repeat publication of the same article written by Maung Cetana entitled, “She Who Turned Alien or Danger to the Nation” reflects the secondary priority towards democracy of the regime).”

Moreover, the USA started imposing economic sanctions on Burma’s military regime after the enactment of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 pursuant to section 8 (b) (3) of PL 108-61, long years after the May 1990 elections, in which NLD of Daw Suu won landslide victory and Burmese military regime’s refusal to start a dialogue with NLD and Daw Suu Kyi. In addition, Daw Suu is not controlling the sanctions issue, its decision rests with EU and US house of Congress and Senate. The confrontation issue which has been projected by Russia and China had been creation of China & Russia itself by which military gets emboldened to refuse release of political prisoners in Burma. The regime which doesn’t recognize political prisoners in Burma itself reflects who wants confrontation?

The confrontation issue is also related with referendum issue and NLD’s refusal in accepting the results, which is also related with the third point of the argument of India, China Russia and Burma. But neutral observers should also took note of the point that, how can NLD or Daw Suu accept the so called referendum results as a positive steps by Junta, when it was conducted against the many resolution of the same Human Rights Council, UN General Assembly resolution and official ASEAN resolutions, which specifically asked first for the release of all political prisoners including Daw Suu Kyi and taking view of different political groups and ethnic communities?

The fourth point that, “it should go with Secretary General’s good office initiatives and avoid condemnation” is a sarcastic joke on Secretary General’s good office itself. Does Russia and China forgot or intentionally attempted to forget that few days before the concerned meeting of GA third committee, on 12^th of November 2008, the UN Secretary General – Ban Ki-moon, “expressed his deep concern at reports that authorities in Myanmar have issued lengthy jail terms to some participants in last year’s peaceful demonstrations in the Asian country” and he called, “once again for the release of all political prisoners and all citizens of Myanmar to be allowed to freely participate in their country’s political future as part of an inclusive national reconciliation process (please see UN SG Press Release of 12^th November 2008).” Again on 18^th of November 2008, the five independent United Nations experts on human rights demanded that, “authorities in Myanmar hold fair and open re-trials for dozens of prisoners of conscience sentenced to lengthy prison terms and immediately release their jailed defence counsels, but instead of listening to the voice of UNSG and UN experts, the junta continued with awarding long prison terms to non-violent political protestors including Burma’s famous artists and comedian’s.” Now it clearly reflects that how much Junta regards the institution of UNSG? Junta might feel great by thinking that they have succeeded in getting votes of India, China and Russia in UNGA third committee but they foolishly missed the great golden diplomatic opportunity of freeing Daw Suu Kyi, when it was announced that UNSG would visit Burma in December 2008 and welcoming in advance for his journey to the golden land.

The argument of fifth point by Junta’s supporters that it should be not country specific is in utopian paradigm. If any problem exists with particular country then naturally concerned country’s specific name will emerge. And it is not the first time that UN bodies have taken a country specific resolution concerning Burma. There are numerous examples in which even Russia and China took the country specific resolution in UN history. And particularly here in Burma, the ruling military council had been given temporary role to play by then Prime Minister – Mr. U Nu having faith on his military commanders but military snatched the power in 1962, and later exploited to remain in power even after achieving the concerned goal and May 1990 elections. The tactics of attaching developing word in country’s name by China is an old Chinese diplomatic tactics of cajoling developing nations since the time of Chou-en-Lai. As far as the Human Rights Council mechanism and its Universal periodic review mechanism are concerned. One should not forget that, Burma’s military regime, which hasn’t taken a notice of UNSG appeals a few days back and repeated appeal by earlier UN Secretary General – Mr. Kofi Annan and many ASEAN and UN official resolutions due to the Chinese and Russian instigation to Junta, how could work with Universal Periodic review mechanism? Russia and China knows that more the restoration of democracy problem remains’ in Burma in the guise of Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review meetings of delaying tactics, which also avoids the road of UN Security Council resolutions, the more they will get the opportunity in grazing the economic fields of Burma?

The sixth point of confrontation issue has been already explained and regarding “selective, politicized and one-sided” agenda point of Russia. It is one sided because West and USA etc. are raising the important issue of house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi against ethos of Human Rights Charters. Whether Russia and China can refuse that they had also demanded release of Daw Suu but Junta’s refusal doesn’t harm their economic interest, so it fits their diplomatic maneuverings?

However, unfortunately Junta emboldened by these supports feel that they have been successful in cornering Western Bloc’s initiatives without realizing that Burmese ethos rests with individual freedom & democracy and denigrating their own world’s celebrated personality like - Daw Suu Kyi will ultimately harm Burma’s long term prestige. Because Daw Suu Kyi is not less patriotic than any Burmese soldiers. Junta may think about - Daw Suu Kyi as her enemy but they should also accept the fact that Daw Suu Kyi’s vision of non-violent political struggle for the restoration of democracy has saved lives of many talented Burmese people, soldiers and military leaders. Likewise, Burma’s ethnic leaders involved with futile arms struggle should also misses the point that, a united and strong Burma will serve better for all and they should give an open call to world media / press that, they are ready to surrender their arms before Daw Aung San Suu Kyi defeating the propaganda of certain military commanders that, they are the saviors’ of Burma. India, which could have diplomatically avoided going with Junta by even abstaining (even if it has not reached to the point of abandoning constructive engagement with Junta by voting against the military) as world’s largest democracy like – Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, South Africa etc. and ASEAN Members like – Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia or followed absent like – Cambodia, but India unfortunately voted with Junta. If ASEAN+1 and BIMSTEC prevent India to oppose the Junta then they should have taken note that only – LAO PDR, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei from ASEAN went with Junta and Sri Lanka’s going with Junta is after the emergence of new honeymoon with China after the recent criticisms of Sri Lanka on Tamil issues by Prime Minister – Dr. Manmohan Singh’s due to the internal politics and DMK pressure. There are many instances in Modern Indian history that, Gandhi ji used to always keep with himself his worst critics to resolve his own mistakes and preventing himself to fall into wrong path of his experiments but probably Burma’s ruling military council prefers sycophants’ foreign policy experts to get more and more exploited of their resources?

(By: Rajshekhar, Burma Review)

****************************

(Document: GA/SHC/3940)

Voting pattern on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar (GA THIRD COMMITTEE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS, Sixty-third General Assembly, 44th & 45th Meetings, dated 21^st of November 2008.

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/63/L.33) was approved by a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 29 against, with 63 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Against: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Russian Federation, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.

Absent: Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Madagascar, Micronesia (Federated States of), Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, and Tunisia.

***********************************