Michele Bohana is the PeaceJam Board representative for Aung San Suu Kyi and she sent out an email with the following articles. There's a lot of information in here but it's all very important, so please check it out.
* Mizzima (Commentary): Powerless against The Lady
* (UK) Telegraph: Thousands flee Burmese army offensive
* VOA: Thailand Confirms Thousands of Karen Villagers Fleeing Fighting in Burma
* Irrawaddy: Junta No 3 Reportedly in China
* Irrawaddy (Commentary): Burma Challenges Thailand with its Border Offensive
* Mizzima: Second defense witness to testify in Suu Kyi trial
* Democratic Voice of Burma: Burma's unravelling web of deceipt
* IPS: Jurists Want Security Council to open war crimes probe
* Media Stakeout: Secy Clinton and Indonesia FM Wirajuda
Mizzima (Commentary): Powerless against The Lady
by May Ng
Tuesday, 09 June 2009 14:31
Signs that the government in Burma is losing its power are everywhere. While the latest collapse of a pagoda recently re-anointed with help from the wives of Army generals may provide a sign of diminishing divine right for the military junta, other important clues come from the reason why a military government armed to the teeth is very afraid of the gentle lady who speaks softly from behind bars as well as barefoot monks who pray peacefully.
Some observers justify military rule in Burma with an assumption that without the Army there will be a power vacuum and chaos will ensue. Aside from the obvious question of whether temporary stability provided by a bloody tyrant is to be preferred over the long term struggle toward a meaningful political reconciliation, the urgent question in Burma is what if the military has already lost its power and legitimacy. What if the Burmese government no longer has the power or capacity to rule without the constant use of violence? Can an Army which clings to power through the barrel of the gun still be considered a legitimate source of power?
The source of legitimacy originates from the people. As the government in Burma has failed to justify its rule in meeting the wishes of the people, the ruling military desperately seeks external sources of legitimacy from sources like the United Nations and ASEAN. The seduction of wealth accrued from Burma too often influences the world to forget lessons learned from the past – for example American support for the Shah of Iran. A belief that through friendly encouragement powerful nations can help the military in Burma liberalize and democratize is not as innocent as it may sound.
Burma is an important reason why ASEAN and the United Nations appear to be weak and irrelevant today. ASEAN often protest that if it dares speak out against the Burmese generals it will push Burma further into the lap of China. At present, ASEAN and the United Nations have not been able to muster enough courage to stand up for principles, preferring to instead cling to the status quo while the Burmese people continue to wait.
Some observers believe that without a decisive military victory against the Burmese generals or intense pressure from international forces, the military will never give up its monopoly on power. But in recent history, few countries have gained democracy from military victories or powerful intervention from abroad despite the many nations that have managed to gain democracy in the last half century.
In addition, few military victors relinquished power after obtaining it in the name of freedom and democracy. And more importantly, historical evidence quashes the myth that only a government with a strong grip on power, even if it relies heavily on violence, is capable of providing stability and development. More recent evidence suggests, on the other hand, that a government formed following a military coup is likely to continually struggle for power and in such an atmosphere peace is only temporary. The use of violence alone to maintain power denotes weakness not strength. A brutal government is a weak government and is dangerous not only to the people in Burma but also to neighboring countries in its potential to cause regional instability.
It is possible that the Burmese military mistakenly believes that the appearance of democracy in the 2010 election is equal to the appearance of legitimacy. But democracy and legitimacy are not the same and should not be confused. True democracy may confer legitimacy but a lack of legitimacy cannot easily be glossed over with a make-believe election.
The use of force is a clear sign of the lack of persuasive power, resulting in ever more coercive measures employed against its own citizens. Ashin U Gambira, the intellectual leader of the Saffron Revolution, is imprisoned under charges of telling the people that the military dictatorship cannot survive without support from the people and outside world. Further, the military is now getting ready to put Aung San Suu Kyi – daughter of the founding father of modern Burma, in notorious Insein Prison following an outrageous accusation that she committed a crime because Army cadres near her home were unable to stop an American man from entering her compound.
Ashin U Gawsita, the frontline Saffron Revolution monk featured with his loudspeaker in the movie ‘Burma VJ’, said that when peaceful people are forced at gunpoint on the street of Rangoon by the government as seen during the 2007 Saffron Revolution, it becomes obvious that the Burmese regime is no longer a legitimate power but a group of terrorists or thugs. Additionally, U Pyinya Zawta, the executive leader of the All Burma Monks Alliance from the Saffron Revolution, said that for every violent force there is an equal force for peace in the universe. He teaches that if all those who believe in peaceful change in Burma -- from inside the country and from other nations -- can act in unison, there will be a strong enough force to end Burma's military oppression.
It is not a question of what China or Russia will do to prolong the military oppression in Burma. It is a question of what the Burmese people and the rest of the world are willing to do to help end the reign of terror in Burma, where the military generals are powerless against The Lady who knows no fear.
###
June 9, 2009 (UK) Telegraph: Thousands flee Burmese army offensive
Around 4,000 refugees have fled a Burmese army offensive and crossed into Thailand in the biggest exodus across the war torn frontier for a decade.
By Thomas Bell, South East Asia Correspondent
They began fleeing last week when the Burmese army bombarded Ler Per Her refugee camp, the home of families from the Karen ethnic group displaced by decades of civil war.
Many are believed to have sought safety in forests on the Thai side of the border. Others may still be trapped inside Burma, unable to reach even the limited safety of Thailand.
In the past, the Burmese army has shot and raped civilians and conscripted them as military porters and human mine-sweepers.
The Burmese offensive is aimed at several camps of the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), which has been waging the world's longest civil war, fighting for autonomy for the Karen people since the Japanese occupation of Burma during the 1940s. The latest exodus is the biggest since 1997, according to the Karen Human Rights Group. Some 100,000 Karen refugees already live in Thailand, while another half million are displaced inside Burma itself.
For decades, Burma was wracked by dozens of separatist insurgencies, but since 1989 most groups have signed ceasefire agreements with the military regime. The KNLA, with its political wing the Karen National Union, is the only major group still fighting.
According to Aung Naing Oo, a Burmese political scientist in Thailand, the offensive is part of an official campaign to bring the armed groups within the political system ahead of controversial elections planned for next year.
"I think that by attacking the KNU, the military can give a better deal to groups that already have ceasefires," said Aung Naing Oo.
Under the proposals, groups with ceasefire agreements will act as "border guards" controlling the lucrative frontier trade.
###
VOA: Thailand Confirms Thousands of Karen Villagers Fleeing Fighting in Burma
By Daniel Schearf
Bangkok
09 June 2009
Thailand has confirmed reports that thousands of ethnic Karen villagers have fled into the country to escape fighting in neighboring Burma.
Karen civilians take shelter on the bank of the Moei river after fleeing the fighting between Burmese soldiers and Karen guerrillas in Tha Song Yang district of Tak province, Thailand, 06 June 2009
Karen civilians take shelter on the bank of the Moei river after fleeing the fighting between Burmese soldiers and Karen guerrillas in Tha Song Yang district of Tak province, Thailand, 06 June 2009
Rights groups and aid organizations were the first to report as many as 3,000 ethnic Karen villagers fled from Burma to Thailand, in the past week. The groups say villagers crossed Thailand's western border to escape escalating fighting between Burmese forces and Karen rebels.
Thai government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn confirmed the reports for VOA. He says it was not the first time fighting in Burma had forced villagers to flee to Thailand and would not be the last.
"We believe that, with the experience of Thailand handling this situation in the past two decades, where at times there were several hundred thousand came over the Thai borders - this is, on one hand, serious issue," said Panitan. "But, on the other hand, I think Thailand is capable of handling this. And, there shouldn't be any problem."
Panitan says the Thai authorities have emergency procedures to handle large flows of villager refugees. He says they will be given temporary shelters and medical care, while immigration authorities decide what to do with them.
Thailand has tens of thousands of refugees living in camps along its borders. Many of them fled fighting in Burma.
This latest flood of villagers came as Burmese forces moved in on rebel fighters from the Karen National Union.
Burma has been increasing pressure on Karen rebels to end decades of fighting, ahead of next year's controversial Burmese elections. Burma's military-run government wants the country's many ethnic groups to support the elections.
Thailand has been acting as a go-between for the Burmese authorities and the KNU to try to end the fighting, but with little success.
Burma's last elections were in 1990, when the party of democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi won by a landslide. The military ignored the results and placed her under house arrest.
Aung San Suu Kyi is now on trial for allowing an uninvited guest to stay in her house without official permission and is expected to be sentenced to up to five years in prison.
###
Irrawaddy: Junta No 3 Reportedly in China
By WAI MOE Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Burmese junta is busy making diplomatic approaches to neighboring countries after the crisis in international relations over the charges against pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
The Burmese military junta’s third highest ranking general, Thura Shwe Mann, the joint chief of staff, is reportedly visiting China, while Singaporean former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong is in Burma for an official visit.
According to intelligence sources, Shwe Mann visited neighboring China accompanied by Lt-Gen Tin Aye, who is chief of ordnance production.
Neither Beijing and Naypyidaw have made an official announcement about Shwe Mann’s trip to China. Shwe Mann, however, has made three unannounced visits to China, the junta’s closest ally, in the last two years. His last visit was in April 2009.
“He [Shwe Mann] can make unannounced trips to China anytime, as he has done in the past,” said Win Min, a Burmese researcher in civil-military relations, who is based in Chiang Mai, Thailand. “According to Burmese military sources, he reportedly went to China for more than 10 days in April. Then he flew to North Korea.”
Burma observers say that there could be three reasons behind of Shwe Mann’s trip to China. These concern ongoing political conditions in Burma, in particular Suu Kyi’s trial.
“The Burmese junta has to brief its ally China on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial,” said Aung Kyaw Zaw, a Burmese analyst who lives on the Sino-Burmese border. “Gen Shwe Mann also went to Beijing following mass demonstrations in September 2007.”
After the September mass protest in 2007, the junta sent Foreign Minister Nyan Win to brief Beijing about the situation. Nyan Win went there as the special envoy of the junta head, Snr-Gen Than Shwe.
The second reason for Shwe Mann’s trip could be to discuss the situation on the Sino-Burmese border. Since late 2008, tension between the junta and ethnic groups has been rising as the generals push to disarm ethnic groups ahead of the 2010 elections.
In April, the junta outlined its plan to disarm ethnic groups by transforming them into “border guard forces.” Under the outline, the Burmese military will also manage the day-to-day work of the armed ethnic groups. The deadline for the ethnic groups to respond is at the end of June.
Although some armed ethnic groups agreed to follow the junta’s outline, many groups including the United Wa State Army (UWSA), the biggest non-state armed group in Burma, disagreed with the disarmament plan.
This week, Lt-Gen Ye Myint, chief of the Military Affairs Security of the Burmese armed forces and secretary of the transformation committee for ceasefire armed groups, is now in northern Shan State.
In the previous few days, he visited the headquarters of the UWSA and the Kokang armed group called the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), but he failed to convince Wa and Kokang leaders to accept the junta’s disarmament plans.
Today, Ye Myint is reportedly in Mongla, Shan State, to talk with another ceasefire group, the National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA).
Aung Kyaw Zaw said the third matter on Shwe Mann’s trip could be China’s concern about the closer relationship between Burma and North Korea in recent years.
In a notice on the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Chinese language Web site, the junta’s Deputy Chairman Maung Aye is scheduled to visit China in the near future.
Officials from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) have also been visiting China recently. According to China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak visited China last week and met with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing on June 4.
Thailand’s Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya is also scheduled to go to China in the near future, said diplomat sources.
In recent years, the international community has been making increasing efforts to bring about positive changes in Burma by trying to get Burma’s neighboring countries such as China, India and Asean members to put pressure on the junta for change.
Meanwhile, Goh Chok Tong is scheduled to meet with the head of the junta, Than Shwe, in Naypyidaw today along with Vice Snr-Gen Maung Aye. Goh will also meet with Thura Tun Tin, a former prime minister under Ne Win’s Burmese Socialist Program Party regime.
Analysts say Goh’s agenda in Burma includes talks on Asean’s concerns on Suu Kyi and the Burmese political situation.
###
Irrawaddy (Commentary): Burma Challenges Thailand with its Border Offensive
By YENI Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The news that nearly 4,000 Karen refugees have abandoned their temporary villages in eastern Burma to seek refuge in Thailand comes amid increasing international pressure on the Burmese regime to release opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Since last week, the Burma Army and its militia, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), have been shelling the main base of Brigade 7 of the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) and the Ler Per Her camp for internally displaced people, which is located two miles from the nearest KNLA base.
The camp was evacuated and its residents crossed the border Moei river on Friday to look for refuge in Thailand. But, according to Karen sources, the Thai government is reluctant to allow them to enter established refugee camps, forcing them to seek shelter at Buddhist monasteries in Tha Song Yan province, about 62 miles (100 km) north of the Thai-Burmese border town of Mae Sot.
The unusual military operation—generally the Burma army mounts its offensives in the dry season—could be a response to pronouncements on Burma by the Thai government.
A public statement on Suu Kyi’s trial issued on May 19 by Thailand, as current Asean chair, evoked an anger response from the Burmese junta. The Burmese regime's rebuttal, carried by The New Light of Myanmar and other state-run newspapers, blasted Thailand, saying the statement was "tantamount to interfering in the internal affairs" of Burma.
Burmese high-ranking officials then launched a diplomatic offensive against mounting international pressure. Foreign Minister Nyan Win, his deputy Maung Myint and Deputy Defense Minister Maj-Gen Aye Myint, attending separate meetings in the region, urged governments not to interfere in their "internal affair."
However, knowing that the international and regional pressure was not letting up, the junta needed to give a warning sign to Thailand’s Democrat-led government by attacking Karen rebels.
Knowing that Thailand’s last Democrat-led coalition supported democracy in Burma, the ruling generals were not comfortable when Thailand's new coalition government, headed by the Democrat Party, unveiled a Burma policy. Kasit Piromya, the new foreign minister, last year declared: ''No personal business deals will shape our foreign policy. Our government will not mix business and politics.''
Napyidaw always wanted to enjoy the kind of relationship it had with Thai politicians like former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the billionaire premier who revealed his affinity for business opportunities in Burma at the expense of pushing for democratic reforms and strengthening human rights.
However, many other members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) have backed the current Thai position on Burma. At a meeting of Asean Foreign Ministers in Phnom Penh last month, Singapore and a number of other members of the grouping, fully associated itself with the Thai statement on Suu Kyi.
Singapore, one of Burma's biggest foreign investors, has close relations with the Burmese junta, and several generals have sought medical treatment in the wealthy island republic.
That is why—instead of Asean's current secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan, who is a Thai democrat—Singaporean Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is currently visiting Burma and is scheduled to meet Snr-Gen Than Shwe. They are expected to discuss Asean’s perspective on the Burmese political situation.
Not only the issue of releasing Suu Kyi and political prisoners, but also the recent flight of the Karen refugees—following the hundreds of Rohingya refugees and asylum seekers who died at sea trying to reach Thailand and Indonesia—should harden Asean’s stand on Burma.
The continuing serious violations of human rights in Burma reflect in part the region's failure. Unless a concrete plan is drawn up to tackle the Burmese generals, Burma will continue to pose a "hot potato" issue, leading to disunity among Asean’s member states and threatening the core values of the Asean Charter.
###
Mizzima: Second defense witness to testify in Suu Kyi trial
by Mungpi
Tuesday, 09 June 2009 18:10
New Delhi (Mizzima) - The Rangoon Divisional Court on Tuesday decided to allow a second defense witness to testify in the trial against pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
The decision came following a request by defense counsels to reinstate three witnesses – Tin Oo, Win Tin and Khin Moh Moh – previously barred by the District Court in Insein Prison.
Nyan Win, a member of Aung San Suu Kyi’s legal team, said, “The court has allowed only Daw Khin Moh Moh to testify, despite our appeal to reinstate all three of the witnesses.”
Earlier the District Court in Insein Prison allowed only one defense witness – Kyi Win – to testify, barring the other three, while allowing 14 prosecution witnesses to take the stand.
“I really do not know the reasons given by the court today [for their decision]. The court just said that since two of the witnesses have been barred by the District Court in line with the law, they are rejecting them,” Nyan Win recounted of the appellate court’s decision.
But Nyan Win said he, along with the other three members of Aung San Suu Kyi’s legal team, believes the Divisional Court’s decision was unfair and not in line with the law.
“We will take the case further to the High Court and request a review of the decision of the Divisional Court,” he said.
Meanwhile, the court in Insein Prison has fixed the next hearing of the case for Friday, June 12. Only then, according to Nyan Win, will they know when Khin Moh Moh will be allowed to testify.
“Probably, the court will adjourn and appoint another date, as we are going to appeal to the High Court concerning the reinstatement of the other two defense witnesses,” he added.
He said at its current speed, the trial will continue for some time yet, as the case will be subjected to possible further reviews.
“Only when the issue of reinstating the witnesses is over will the case resume in the Insein Court,” he concluded.
###
Democratic Voice of Burma: Burma's unravelling web of deceipt
Francis Wade
June 9, 2009 (DVB)–The trial of Aung San Suu Kyi has made transparent the ease with which the ruling junta has sculpted Burmese law into a framework in which war crimes are legal and dissent is the most heinous of offenses.
If any positive can come of current events, it is that the hermit state has been pitched onto the world stage, the full extent of its corrupt system plain to see and, we hope, ever vulnerable to mounting pressure. Even prior to the trial the country ranked at the tail-end of virtually every political freedom barometer in circulation, its media environment suffocated by some of the world’s strictest censorship laws and its citizens placed under the crippling watch of a Soviet-style surveillance system. Perhaps most frighteningly, its courts of law, the very institution in which citizen and state crimes are supposedly scrutinized and punished, are under the direct control of the country’s paranoid generals.
Despite regular statements from the government suggesting otherwise, the Burmese courtroom is little more than the junta’s legal wing, with judges usually handpicked by the generals. Those who aren’t are regularly subject to intimidation by higher authorities: in March the brother-in-law of the All Burma Monks Alliance (ABMA) leader, U Gambira, was sentenced to five years imprisonment with hard labour under immigration laws after marking the anniversary of the founding of ABMA. The judge had told his sister there wasn’t enough evidence to sentence him, but was forced by Burma’s chief judge to hand down the guilty verdict.
Trials, particularly those of would-be political prisoners, are often held inside closed prison courts, with no access granted to media. Lawyers who present an articulate case in defence of pro-democracy individuals have been threatened with allegations of contempt of court - indeed, 16 of the country’s 2,100 political prisoners are lawyers. In March a renowned activist lawyer, Pho Phyu, was sentenced to four years after helping farmers file complaints of land confiscation by the army to the International Labour Organisation (ILO). He was charged under the Unlawful Associations Act, despite belonging to no organization.
Such spurious charges are common under Burmese law. Earlier this year six students were sentenced under charges of sedition for collecting and burying the rotting corpses of victims of last year’s cyclone Nargis. Numerous aid workers and journalists who reported on the disaster were imprisoned in a wave of sentencing following the cyclone.
It is in this context that we once again find ourselves penning the verdict of Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial even before the courts announce their decision, so foregone is the conclusion. That in the same breath they will sentence John Yettaw for trespassing and Suu Kyi for sheltering a foreigner, two ‘crimes’ that, despite their obvious ridiculousness, surely anyway contradict one another, shows the extent to which Burmese law is itself unlawful.
Even before Suu Kyi was brought to the courtroom, the government had broken both international law and its own stated law by keeping her in detention beyond five years. There is little else they can do with the lady, her stubborn non-violent ideology stumping a regime whose method of governance only works when dialogue is reduced to the level of thuggery. In the face of Suu Kyi the generals have proved themselves almost impotent, forced to rewrite their own words in a desperate snatch at retaining power.
Yet they do this all too easily. The constitution, the bedrock of the country’s legal system, was ratified last May barely two weeks after the cyclone, one of Asia’s worst recorded natural disasters. With 140,000 people dead, and the southern region of the country in tatters, the government rejected a call from the UN to postpone the referendum. Somehow, despite being scathed by international leaders for its antipathy towards victims of the cyclone, the government claimed 92.4 per cent approval of the constitution, with a 99 per cent voter turnout.
But it is in this forest of legal jargon that the discrepancies between what is supposedly right and wrong in Burma come flooding out. The authors make no bones about the fact that what is essentially deemed a legal activity is one that props up authoritarianism, while a ‘crime’ attempts to counter, or even merely question, it.
Thus, what is ‘illegal’ is for the daughter of Burma’s founding father, whose party won a landslide victory in the 1990 elections, to run for government office because she was married to a foreigner. Paradoxically, the ILO last week voiced concern about a clause in the constitution that makes use of forced labour legal when the government deems it necessary. Cases of forced labour documented by the ILO include recruitment of child soldiers and recruitment of civilians to walk in front of army patrols as ‘minesweepers’, ensuring that it is not government troops who take the full force of a mine exploding at their feet. International jurists, British MPs and exiled Burmese lawyers have all said in recent months that such cases amount to war crimes.
Corruption, absence of judicial independence, and state-sanctioned human rights abuses are perhaps all-too predictable byproducts of military rule left to fester behind closed doors. One silver-lining Suu Kyi’s trial has generated is that Burma has been brought out of reclusivity, dragging behind it the entrails of its pitiful legal system for all the world to see. While the generals will no doubt breeze into the next decade on the back of a fraudulent election victory, their behaviour is being recognized as quite shocking, even by its hardened Asian neighbours, and they are showing increasing signs of unease.
The head of the regime, Than Shwe, is well-known to be fearful of being indicted by the International Criminal Court, and his minor concessions, such as allowing journalists sporadic entry to the Suu Kyi trial, are seen by some observers as a tactic to placate his demons. There are few methods of intimidation that have made headway in Burma - sanctions have achieved little, while engagement has proved futile - but it is with this tool, with this threat that he will be brought to a court whose rule of law is unfamiliar to him, that the international community could start to influence change in Burma.
###
June 8, 2009
IPS: Jurists Want Security Council to open war crimes probe –
Marwaan Macan-Markar
Thanks to support from China and Russia, Burma’s military regime has
escaped harsh criticism at the U.N. Security Council. But this diplomatic
deal could come under pressure following the release of a report
commissioned by leading international jurists, accusing the regime of
committing "war crimes."
"We call on the U.N. Security Council urgently to establish a Commission
of Inquiry to investigate and report on crimes against humanity and war
crimes in Burma," wrote the five jurists from Britan, Mongolia, South
Africa, the United States and Venezuela in the introduction to the report,
‘Crimes in Burma.’
"The world cannot wait while the military regime continues its atrocities
against the people of Burma," added the jurists, who include South
Africa’s Richard Goldstone, Britain’s Sir Geoffrey Nice and Venezuela’s
Pedro Nikken. "The report’s findings are both disturbing and compelling."
The report, which was released in late May, accuses the regime in Burma,
or Myanmar, of perpetrating "epidemic levels" of forced labour, the
recruitment of tens of thousands of child soldiers, widespread sexual
violence, extrajudicial killings and torture, and displacement of more
than a million people.
The scale of violence - as the Burmese military continues its decades-long
campaign to crush ethnic rebel movements in the eastern corner of this
Southeast Asian nation - has also left a trail of destruction that has
parallels with the brutal civil war in Sudan.
"One statistic may stand out above all others, however: the destruction,
displacement or damage of over 3,000 ethnic nationality villages over the
past 12 years - many burned to the ground," the report revealed. "This is
comparable to the number of villages estimated to have been destroyed or
damaged in Dafur."
Prodding the Security Council to consider the violations in Burma as it
has done with Dafur is only one part of the argument being pushed in this
initiative to trigger a probe. The other is the source of the details
revealed about the on-going violations in Burma. The information was
culled from reports submitted over the years by U.N. special envoys
assigned as part of a monitoring mechanism to inform the world body about
the situation in Burma.
"U.N. mechanisms have noted there are widespread abuses in Burma," says
Tyler Giannini, a co-author of the report that was prepared by the
International Human Rights Clinic at the law school of the U.S.-based
Harvard University. "There is a prima facie case for the U.N. Security
Council to set up a commission to investigate crimes against humanity in
Burma."
U.N. General Assembly resolutions on Burma reflect this. "Discrimination
and violations suffered by persons belonging to ethnic nationalities of
Myanmar [include] extrajudicial killing, rape and other forms of sexual
violence persistently carried out by members of the armed forces," stated
one resolution before the General Assembly in 2007.
But, for the Security Council to issue a binding resolution to establish a
special commission of inquiry is a daunting task. "It is a very tough
job," says Thaung Htun, U.N. affairs representative for the National
Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), the
democratically-elected government forced into exile.
"The Security Council is very much divided on Burma, with France, the U.S.
and U.K. in one camp and Russia and China in another," Htun told IPS.
"Russia and China continue to say that the situation in Burma is not a
threat to international peace and security."
That argument by the Burmese junta’s strongest backers in the Security
Council embodies the hurdles that have been placed ahead of any resolution
calling the regime to account for its litany of abuses. The first
breakthrough was in 2006, when the Burmese situation was placed for
discussion on the Council’s agenda.
That was followed in late 2007 by a statement released by the president of
the Council following a harsh crackdown of peaceful, pro-democracy
protesters led by thousands of Buddhist monks in September 2007.
In late May this year, the Council issued a unanimous press statement
calling for the release of the over 2,100 political prisoners in Burma -
including that of democratically-elected prime minister and pro-democracy
icon Aung San Suu Kyi. The statement also expressed concern over the
recent trial Suu Kyi has been subject to.
This slight opening in the Council to comment on Burma came after the
other available U.N. mechanisms proved ineffective. The military regime
has barely demonstrated a shift in policy since 1992, when resolutions
critical of the regime began to be placed annually at the General
Assembly. The junta responded with a similar cold shoulder when hauled up
for violations at the U.N. human rights body in Geneva.
But there was no mention of war crimes being committed by the regime in
those U.N. reports and resolutions spanning the last 16 years.
Consequently, the Harvard University report commissioned by the five
international jurists marks a watershed.
"There has been some talk within the Burmese democracy movement about this
issue of war crimes but it did not result in a report like the Harvard
one," says Khin Ohmar, foreign affairs secretary at the Forum for
Democracy in Burma, a network of Burmese political exiles. "This is the
first time such a case has been made formally."
"But we should not let this move overshadow the need for dialogue and
reconciliation in Burma," she said in an interview. "I see it as two
separate issues. This is all about justice. Seeking justice cannot be
undermined by the political process."
Another factor has also helped in placing the Burmese regime in this new
line of fire - the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
in 2002 in The Hague.
Currently the ICC - which has the authority under the international treaty
that created it to investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes - is
probing violations in Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, the Central African Republic and Dafur.
"The emergence of a new international justice order is a factor to push
for a probe into crimes against humanity in Burma," says David Scott
Mathieson, the Burma consultant for Human Rights Watch, the New York-based
rights watchdog. "And the international community now knows more of what
is now happening in Burma."
###
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON HOLDS A MEDIA AVAILABILITY WITH INDONESIA’S MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS NOER HASSAN WIRAJUDA
JUNE 8, 2009
CLINTON: Well, good afternoon. And it is a pleasure to welcome Indonesia’s foreign minister. Mr. Wirajuda and I have already met in Jakarta. We’ve talked on the phone on important matters. And it’s a very wonderful part of, you know, my position to be able to have him here to continue the productive conversation we started in February.
Today, we renewed our commitment to build a comprehensive partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interests. We are working together on a number of common concerns for our two countries, the region, and the world.
You know, Indonesia and the United States share a vision for a peaceful and prosperous Southeast Asia. We also share a commitment to democratic values, human rights, and a vibrant civil society. The American people have the greatest respect for what the Indonesian people have accomplished in the last decade.
Indonesia is now the world’s third-largest democracy. And it is taking the lead on a broad range of regional and international issues, including the promotion of democracy.
Through their commitment to democracy, religious freedom, and women’s rights, Indonesians uphold the values that President Obama described in his speech last week in Cairo, values that are fundamental, fundamental to Indonesia and the United States: justice, progress, tolerance.
Earlier today, I met with activists working to support democracy and human rights across the Middle East and North Africa, as well as with leaders who are advocating for religious freedom across the world. And for all who work hard and risk a great deal to stand up for these universal values, the example of Indonesia gives hope and confidence of a brighter future.
Today I am pleased to announce that we are deepening our cooperation and committing $10 million in higher education funding for Indonesia this fiscal year, including projects for English-language teaching and encouraging U.S.-Indonesia educational linkages.
Also, a group of American educators will travel to Indonesia this summer to explore additional opportunities for collaboration between our universities. Just as it is in the United States, education is the key to expanding economic opportunity in Indonesia and allowing people to live up to their full potential. And these people-to-people connections will further bind our countries together.
We also discussed the importance of ASEAN for regional stability and prosperity, our countries’ mutual interests in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and I thanked the foreign minister for Indonesia’s leadership in supporting democratic values and underscored our commitment to the Bali Democracy Forum.
We also discussed the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi. Let me again reiterate that the charges against her are baseless, and we call for her immediate release.
Indonesia, like other ASEAN countries, have also spoken out about her plight and urged her immediate release. And we greatly appreciate that.
I look forward to continuing to work with the foreign minister and the Indonesian government on all of these issues. And I’m confident that our relationship will grow stronger and deeper in the future.
Thank you so much, Minister.
WIRAJUDA: Thank you very much, Secretary Hillary Clinton, for your kind remarks, including on the progress that we made in Indonesia during the past 10 years of reformasi, we call it.
The focus of my working visit to Washington is to follow up our discussions during the visit of Secretary Clinton to Jakarta last February, during which we agreed to develop a comprehensive partnership between Indonesia and the United States.
By the comprehensive partnerships, we mean agreements to expand and deepen the bilateral relation between Indonesia and United States. Indonesia strongly believes, as we do, share fundamental values of democracy, human rights, and pluralism. We have more reasons to be able to develop a stronger relations with the United States.
In fact, as we are continuing our discussions on the format, as well as the substantive coverage of the partnerships, we agreed to start working on the promotions in areas that we hope we could start develop productive cooperation (inaudible) in the promotions of people-to-people exchange on education. And grateful that the United States has expanded assistance of $10 million U.S. dollars to support the program.
But, likewise, we are very encouraged that as immediate translations of President Obama’s message and call made in Cairo that the U.S. government is intending to develop a bilateral dialogue by interfaith dialogue and cooperation, something that we are in Indonesia proud of, of our various initiatives in promoting both bilateral regional or inter-regional dialogues with many countries and regions. And I think this is noble effort to help create better understanding among peoples around the world.
We follow attentively -- and I personally read the statement made by President Obama. We welcome the statement. And I thought (inaudible) if I may claim that the message is also ours. And I thought that Indonesia could be a good partner in the U.S. efforts to reach out to the Muslim world.
After all, the call for democracy, respect for human rights, including the rights of women, and to promote democracy and Islam to go hand in hand is something that we have been doing in Indonesia. This adds to more reasons why we should develop a partnership with the United States.
The secretary of state has just mentioned that we discussed other issues of concern, including the unfortunate development in Myanmar, in particular the decisions of the military junta to bring Aung San Suu Kyi to trial.
Of course, this unfortunate development, because, actually, we were expecting that the case of arbitrary detentions of Aung San Suu Kyi should have been reviewed last month with a view to release her.
So that’s why we strong -- we issued a very strong statement on the current case of Aung San Suu Kyi, and we remind Myanmar of its obligation under the new ASEAN charter, but likewise to the previous calls by our leaders to immediately release Aung San Suu Kyi.
We thank the secretary of state’s statements on the U.S. to support our Bali Democracy Forum. I think it’s important and very strategic that Indonesia and United States works closely together in sharing our experience and best practices in countries, in particular in the regions of Asia.
Thank you very much.
CLINTON: Thank you so much. |