New Delhi (Mizzima) – Parliamentarians from South and Southeast Asia on Friday jointly urged Burma’s military junta to implement genuine democratic reforms, starting with re-drafting of a constitution where all stake holders should take part.

Parliamentarians from India, Nepal and Singapore agreed that changes in Burma are crucial for the region but admitted that it requires coordinated effort by all regional countries including India and China in pushing the Burmese generals to implement change.

They were meeting in New Delhi’s Constitution Club for the ‘Consultation meeting on Parliamentarians’ Solidarity for the Struggle of Democracy in Burma’ hosted by Indian Parliamentarians’ Forum for Democracy in Burma (IPFDB) on Friday.

The meeting that brought together Indian MPs across party lines demanded the Burmese junta release political prisoners including Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and also condemned India for its lack of interest in Burma and its struggle for democracy.

Sharad Joshi, MP and Convener of IPFDB said both the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Burma is a member and South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), of which India is a leading member, should work together for the release of all political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi and for the restoration of democracy in Burma.

“Restoration of democracy in Burma is in our [India] interest,” Joshi said.

Brinda Karat, MP and Polit-bureau member of Communist Party of India (Marxist), sharing a similar view said Indian Parliament discussions on foreign policy rarely touches on Burma while it is mainly dominated by other neighbouring countries.

“We had debates (in Indian Parliament) on India’s foreign policy related to Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, but no debates on Burma,” Karat said. “The issue of India’s policy and stand on Burma must be discussed when we discuss foreign policy.”

India, once a strong supporter of democratic changes in Burma, took a ‘U’ turn in its Burma policy in the early 1990s, saying it is in India’s national interest to engage the military rulers. India said it needed Burma’s support in cracking down on North-eastern rebels, and to counter the growing Chinese influence in the region by creating a foothold in Burma.

India also eyed Burma’s natural gas and oil reserves and began pursuing the generals in order to have stakes in the exploration, production and purchase of hydrocarbon reserves.

But China in September, announced that it has started constructing a dual gas and oil pipeline in Burma’s western state of Arakan to transport oil and gas from the offshore Shwe gas fields, which India was also in the race to obtain for purchase rights, to its South Western province of Yunnan.

Parliamentarians, during the meeting called on India to actively engage the ASEAN and the international community, including the United Nations in finding ways to urge Burma’s military rulers to implement genuine democratic changes in the country.

Charles Chong, who was representing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC), said, ASEAN’s approach towards Burma has failed to bring any changes and that it requires a coordinated effort.

“ASEAN cannot do it on its own because the military generals have made it clear that western sanctions will not have any impact so long as the two largest neighbours India and China continue to do big business with Burma,” Chong, Vice-Chair of the AIPMC, said.

A former Member of Parliament (MP) from India’s main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Chandan Mitra, in his speech at the meeting, strongly condemned India’s policy of engaging the Burmese generals saying India has not been benefitted by engaging the junta.

“I don’t think we have influence on the [Burmese] military junta. We haven’t got any economic benefits from them. India needs energy but the energy goes to China. [Burmese] Military had sold it to China,” Mitra, who is also Editor In-Chief of The Pioneer, one of India’s national newspapers said.

The Parliamentarians demanded that the Burmese military regime immediately halt hostilities against ethnic minorities and the political opposition, it called for the release of all political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi, and re-drafting of a constitution with the participation of all political stake holders and to conduct a general election based on the new constitution.

“Before the election [in 2010], the regime needs to release Aung San Suu Kyi and have a dialogue with her and the National League for Democracy. Then it also needs to talk with minority groups in Burma as the rights of ethnic groups are very crucial for unity in Burma,” Brinda Karat said.

Sharad Joshi, MP and convenor of the IPFDB, said while election in general is welcomed, it could not be held under a fraud constitution that does not reflect the peoples’ desire and aspirations.

Unless the constitution forcibly approved by the military junta in 2008 is revised and a new constitution re-drafted with the participation of all stake holders, Joshi said, “The 2010 election will be a farce and result in strengthening the military position.”

NEW DELHI, Nov 29 (Bernama) — A group of Asian lawmakers have criticised Asean and its dialogue partner India for not doing enough to resolve the human sufferings in Myanmar — the only military-ruled state in Southeast Asia.

The Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) wants Asean and India to play a constructive role to restore democracy in Myanmar by engaging genuine political dialogue among all parties in the state.

“Things are getting worse in Burma (Myanmar) instead, there are more refugees fleeing Burma,” said Charles Chong, a Singapore parliamentarian and vice-chair of the AIPMC.

“Asean cannot do on its own because the military generals have made it clear that the western sanction has no impact so long the two largest neighbours India and China continue to do big business (with Myanmar),” he added.

Chong said Asean had tried to influence the military leaders for the last 10 years but they were wasted efforts as they failed to convince the junta to restore democracy and introduce civil rule by holding elections.

Lawmakers across South Asia and Southeast Asia were debating over the role of regional powers at the “Parliamentarian Solidarity for the Struggle of Democracy in Myanmar” in Delhi last week.

Sharad Joshi, the convenor of Indian Parliamentarians’ Forum for Democracy in Burma urged regional leaders, especially from the eight-member South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to pressure the military regime to release all political prisoners.

“Asean and SAARC countries should come together for immediate release of all political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi and restoration of democracy in Burma,” he said.

Suu Kyi, the 64-year-old pro-democracy leader, has spent almost 14 of the past 20 years under house arrest.

The parliamentarians want Myanmar to hold fair and free elections next year, cease attacks against ethnic groups and review the 2008 constitution before the elections are held in 2010.

Comment by Roshan Jason  AIPMC Executive Director

The recent announcement of the United States’ revamped Burma policy, which trades isolation for a revised program of direct engagement and increasing humanitarian aid while continuing economic sanctions, has been the source of haughty self-congratulation[1] and smug claims of vindication from some in the ASEAN community, which has long argued against economic sanctions and for ‘constructive engagement’ with Burma.

Those who claim ASEAN’s ‘constructive engagement’ policy has been proven correct seem to be missing some points of clear distinction between the new U.S. policy and ASEAN’s.

In February 2009 U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed frustration at the failure of both engagement and sanctions, when pursued alone, to bring about desired reforms in Burma. The new U.S. policy seeks to rectify the inefficacy of the old sanctions-only strategy by giving Burma’s ruling generals a goal to strive for, namely repeal of the strict economic sanctions now in place and high-level channels for dialogue on issues of concern.

The policy does not forsake economic sanctions, which U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration still sees as an important tool for spurring reform among the willful generals, nor does it call for the kind of blind-eye, all out cooperation that has been the hallmark of ASEAN’s ‘constructive engagement.’

Economic ties between Burma and other ASEAN members are lucrative for the generals and powerful businessmen in the region while doing nothing to ease the suffering of ordinary Burmese citizens. ASEAN’s strong stance against economic sanctions is little more than a flimsy shield aimed at protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Finding the best possible regional strategy for encouraging democratic reforms appears to be of little concern.

The possibility that ASEAN’s economic engagement might be as counter-productive as isolation does not seem to have entered the minds of the self-satisfied trumpeters currently tooting ASEAN’s horn. Before lauding the superiority of ASEAN’s engagement policy, its proponents should stop and review the appalling state of affairs in Burma today.

The Burmese people continue to suffer in deep poverty. Preventable diseases are rampant and result in countless deaths because of the disgraceful condition of the healthcare system. Military attacks on ethnic groups continue unabated, with rape, torture and murder of civilians forming the backbone of the military’s campaigns of terror. Burma’s prisons hold over 2,000 political prisoners and suppression of opposition is as strong as ever.

The revamped U.S. policy shows a new level of dedication to securing concrete progress toward a just and democratic Burma. The opening of dialogue with the junta could breathe new life into the stalled push for genuine democratic reform in the country, but to fully capitalize on the opportunity the international community must work from a unified base and with a cohesive strategy.

The U.S. has shown its willingness to try new approaches and ASEAN should do the same. Instead of touting the rightness of their policy, ASEAN member states should be thoughtfully considering the possibility that their current Burma policy would need some adjustments, especially in terms of its free trade and investments with the country’s brutal regime.

Both ASEAN and the U.S. acknowledge the fact that the road to reform in Burma is likely to be long and fraught with many obstacles. The two will need each other’s help and guidance along the way. Both must seize the current opportunity for actual and effective cooperation, as it may currently be the Burmese people’s best hope for change in their afflicted nation.

[1] See link: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/breaking-views/38869-myanmar-asean-stands-vindicated–the-straits-times

November 17, 2009

The initiative taken by opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi in writing to junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe proposing talks has been welcomed by several regional observers.

In the letter to Than Shwe, dated Nov. 11, Suu Kyi thanked the regime for allowing her to meet with a visiting US delegation and asked for a bilateral meeting with Than Shwe.

Suu Kyi said she wanted to cooperate with the regime in efforts to end Western sanctions against Burma.

Roshan Jason, the executive director of the regional rights group Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC), told The Irrawaddy that he agreed with Burma watchers that a meeting between Suu Kyi and Than Shwe would be a very important development.

“Her initiation of this effort is indication of softening of her approach for the benefit of Burmese people and for the benefit of democracy in the country,” said Jason.
Suu Kyi should be allowed to consult leaders of her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) and ethnic political parties before any meeting with Than Shwe, he said.

In her letter, Suu Kyi also asked to be allowed to meet with her NLD executive committee colleagues at her lakeside home in Rangoon.

Ohn Kyaing, a leading NLD member, said a meeting between Suu Kyi and Than Shwe was the most important element in solving political conflict in Burma.

Ohn Kyaing said he believed the reason that political conflicts still existed was because the two decision makers do not meet regularly and negotiate in harmony.

According to official records, Than Shwe and Suu Kyi have met three times between 1993 and 2003.

Some observers, however, remain skeptical about the chances of a meeting between Than Shwe and Suu Kyi. Than Shwe might leave such a meeting to his minions, they say.

Than Shwe created a liaison minister, Aung Kyi, to conduct recent contacts with Suu Kyi.

Aye Tha Aung, chairman of the Arakan League for Democracy, said Suu Kyi and Than Shwe need to negotiate and get to understand each other first, proceeding then to discussions with the ethnic groups.

Rachada Dhanadirek

AIPMC Executive Committee Member

Thai Member of Parliament

23 November 2009, Tokyo

Tokyo Symposium – “The Shwe Gon Daing Declaration: Gateway to National Reconciliation in Union of Burma”

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of AIPMC and its President Mr. Kraisak Choonhavan, I would like to thank you for inviting me here and providing the opportunity to share my thoughts with all of you. Of course, what I would like to present here are the personal opinions of someone who is an elected member of parliament, committed to the principles of participatory democracy and the promotion of regional cooperation, peace and prosperity, someone who also would like one day to have a chance  to visit Burma as foreign minister. I do not yet have the privilege of speaking on behalf of the Royal Thai Government or the Democrat Party of Thailand.

Now is an important time to have a dialogue such as we doing today. The announcement two months ago of the United States’ revised policy towards Burma, which pairs direct engagement with tough economic sanctions, has fostered an atmosphere of cautious hope regarding the future of Burma not witnessed in recent years. The decision of the US to pursue direct, high-level dialogue with the reclusive generals, who control Burma’s government, has refocused the attention of the international community on the highly disturbing situation in the country and has spurred activities that start  a genuine dialogue of reconciliation among the opposing actors. Though it is much too early to make any claims of concrete progress, early signs from the military controlled government do give cause for hope that the people of Burma may, in the not too distant future, may see their country embark on a journey towards a more democratic and just society.

As you are well aware, a political stalemate has gripped Burma for nearly two decades. Following their defeat in the 1990 elections, the military leaders refused to allow the National League for Democracy (NLD) and other winning parties to convene the legitimately elected parliament and form a government. Party leaders and democratic activists, including NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi, were jailed, detained, and refrained from expressing their opinions. These have created a situation of conflict and polarization that has persisted to this day.

After completing a draft constitution in 2008, the SPDC announced its intention to hold a general election next year. In anticipation of this election the NLD issued the Shwe Gon Daing declaration in April of this year, outlining the conditions on which it will contest the planned elections. In the declaration the NLD called for, among other things, the release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the revision of SPDC’s 2008 constitution, which is seen as unjust and heavily skewed toward maintaining the military’s dominance, and dialogue on various issues of concern.

The Shwe Gon Daing Declaration, in my opinion, offers the opposing forces in Burma a starting point, a place of embarkation from which they can begin dialogues necessary to bring about national reconciliation and genuine reform. Through the declaration, one could say the NLD is again extending a hand, showing its willingness to compromise with the generals to bring about the changes that are in the best interest of the country, while respecting the role that each party can and must play in meaningful reconciliation.

To the outside world, dialogue as suggested in the declaration seems the best way forward for the troubled country. It identifies as its key component the revision of the SPDC’s 2008 constitution. One cannot deny that the constitution, which was written by delegates hand-picked by the military controlled government, is not quite truly based on democratic principles. The SPDC inserted various provisions into the constitution that allow the military to have significant blocs of seats in the national and local legislatures. The constitution also gives the commander-in-chief of the military extraordinary powers and allows the military to easily step in if the country is deemed to be in crisis. All of these provisions serve to entrench the role of the military in the future governance of Burma and ensure that the military elites do not lose their power to a civilian government.

Nor can it be denied that despite claims from the SPDC that the constitution was approved by nearly 94% of the voting population in a May 2008 referendum, many groups have openly voiced their opposition to the constitution. As the fundamental law of the state, the constitution must be acceptable to the citizens that it governs. The SPDC’s constitution clearly is not accepted by large segments of the Burmese population and must be revised to ensure legitimacy of any future government elected under its provisions. Only after the constitution has been adequately revised should a general election be conducted. One can understand why many consider the SPDC’s plan to hold a general election next year, under the current version of the 2008 Constitution, premature which will only result in a government devoid of legitimacy.

Additionally, the current atmosphere in the country may not guarantee that the election next year will be free, fair, or inclusive. Over 2,100 political prisoners, including the leader of the largest opposition party, are currently detained in Burma’s jails or under house arrest. The NLD and countless other domestic and international actors, including the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada, have called on the military controlled government to release all the political prisoners and ensure that they are permitted to participate as voters and candidates in the election. Others have also called for the government to allow non-government supported parties to organize, campaign, and field candidates. After the crushing defeat suffered in the 1990 elections, it is apparent that the military government certainly does not want to take any chances with the 2010 election. However, an election where opposition parties and candidates are not permitted to freely organize and campaign will only serve to further de-legitimize the electoral results.

As I mentioned earlier, there have been some early positive signs from Naypyidaw that the generals are indeed listening to the demands of the international community, if not the domestic democratic opposition. In September, Aung San Suu Kyi sent a personal letter to Senior General Than Shwe asking to be allowed to engage with Western diplomats to investigate and help determine how economic sanctions might be eased. The SPDC has responded to Aung San Suu Kyi’s request, allowing her meetings with US, UK, and EU diplomats and as well with the military controlled government’s appointed liaison. Additionally, Burmese diplomat Min Lwin announced recently during a trip to the Philippines that plans for Aung San Suu Kyi’s release were in the works. Though the government has used this claim many times in the past, frequently to ease international criticism or scrutiny, it can still be seen as a potentially positive sign.

While these positive signs are a reason for hope, one cannot be certain that progress will continue. History has shown that the SPDC can reverse its course of action when deemed necessary. Should it reassume its hard-lined stance, the NLD and other political parties and groupings will be placed in a grave dilemma: to participate or not to participate in upcoming election. To participate would mean an acceptance of a constitution they deem illegitimate; non-participation may give the SPDC the “justification” to persist with its policy control and exclusion.

For this reason, all concerned members of the international community must continue to be watchful and, to support the cause of national reconciliation in Burma in any possible

way. I believe that countries in Asia should be at the forefront of supporting reforms in Burma. Asian states, in particular the ASEAN states, Japan, China, and India, are Burma’s neighbors, and indeed some are major trading partners with and thus sources of revenue for the military controlled government and may be in a particularly strong position to effect change in the country.

Additionally, as Burma’s neighbors, Asian states are most impacted by the consequences of the SPDC’s policies. Refugees fleeing violence and seeking economic opportunity inundate Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, China, Japan and other countries in the region, straining already limited resources. Likewise, through errors of omission or commission, Burma has become a hub for heroin, methamphetamines, and communicable diseases. Because of their proximity, these issues and their related problems have drastically impacted Burma’s neighbors in the short term. In the longer term, there also issues of concern related to the lack of true democracy in Burma. One is the continuation of the process of modernization of Burma’s armed forces, which are already one of the largest in East Asia: this may trigger a regional arms race. Another is the nuclear question mark: Burma’s continued association with North Korea may cause grave concerns among ASEAN neighbors, who are committed to maintaining the region as a nuclear weapons free zone, as most lately evident in the ASEAN Charter, with Burma a signatory state thereof.

For all these reasons, I believe it is incumbent upon all of us in the international community to make every effort to bring about positive changes in Burma. As far as I am concerned, the Shwe Gon Daing Declaration is a good starting place for the process of national reconciliation. The  SPDC should be encouraged to respond positively to this initiative and begin a dialogue with the democratic opposition and the ethnic nationalities, with a view towards organizing a general election that is free, fair and inclusive, or at least as free, fair, and inclusive as possible.

Thank you

Roshan Jason

AIPMC Executive Director

Comments – International Symposium on Burma, 23 Nov 2009, Tokyo, Japan

Firstly, I would like to thank my colleagues from Burma and Japan for inviting me back to participate in yet another important symposium held here in Tokyo.

Since I was last here in 2007, much has happened and changed in Burma but at the same time nothing is significantly different in terms of political and human rights reform in a country that many of you here today come from and still have family remaining in.

I am deeply disappointed with this lack of significant progress.

Today however, there is a great opportunity for us and for the international community to secure the much-needed change for a new dawn in Burma. And as most of the speakers so far have shared, this change can only happen with the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the many others among Burma’s political and democratic elite, languishing in jails in Rangoon and many other parts of Burma. In order for a truly democratic and free Burma, led by Burma’s people of all ethnicities, the upcoming proposed elections of 2010 must only take place if there is review and reform of the regime’s 2008 constitution to a satisfactory democratic constitution.

You have heard all the arguments for this today and perhaps even before today. The question now is – what do we do it about? What should leaders of the world do about your appeals?

The role that governments in ASEAN, greater Asia and the West have in ensuring this; is crucial and vital and must be taken with full responsibility. With the recent redesigning of the United States’ approach to Burma employing three tactics, namely engagement, sanctions, and humanitarian assistance, there is now room for other nations close to Burma to themselves redesign their policies and approach on Burma. These approaches must represent a better-rounded approach than the previous policy of either engagement or isolation. In negotiating with the regime, countries such as China, Japan, Korea, Thailand and other ASEAN states must as well be strong and firm in its control of economic support to the regime. These countries cannot take for granted the will, or lack of will, of the regime and blindly trust a regime that has shown very little signs of reform and respect for its people.

The question is – will these governments do so?

What compels ASEAN – especially major states like Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia as well as other states from greater Asia like China and India to “do the right thing”? Honestly? Nothing. In fact, these countries are compelled to do the opposite of pushing for change in Burma – due solely to their self-interest given their huge business trade with Burma’s generals.

The Burma people have appealed to the conscience of regional leaders. It has obviously fallen on deaf ears given that 2 decades have passed since the 1988 bloody struggle in Rangoon, as ASEAN leaders still remain motionless in creating concrete steps and measures to allow democracy to prevail. We saw again in 2007 during the Saffron Revolution how ASEAN and other countries allow Burma’s generals to get away with murder – literally.  Has governments forgotten about the lives lost at the hands of the regime – including that of a Japanese citizen?

While ASEAN has failed Burma’s people, this is not the time for the champions of human rights and democracy from governments such as the US and EU to back down and abandon the Burmese. Any drastic change in policy must only come with drastic change by the regime. Now that Japan has with it a democratic government, promising change in Japan, they should also promise change in Burma and keep to their promise.

Regional political history and experiences in countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand and even my own country of Malaysia, has shown that when at the early stages of fighting for democracy, if one ‘negotiates’ any fundamental value and principle of democracy for the sake of “something is better than nothing” – then we are left with an even greater task of correcting repressive laws and undemocratic practices in a so-called ‘electoral-democratic state’.

To put it plainly – if one allows the regime further power (even if its 25% of the legislature) one allows for the breeding of corrupt and ruthless politics to dictate its newfound democracy. The generals will likely turn into self-serving businessmen in suits controlling the economy and legislature while ignoring poverty and lack of freedoms. Then the country becomes subservient not to guns but to powers of the economic market and globalization, only to be controlled by non-democracy believers.

Let Burma be different in ASEAN, let Burma be the one country where democracy is not a negotiated settlement by colonialists or by bloody uprisings.

ASEAN, China and Japan’s positions should not be influence by a mere 500,000 soldiers with guns and its military generals with money.

Let Burma be what the over 50 million people want it to be – and have been calling for – a true democracy for and by its people and a clean slate to start on.

This may sound idealistic but isn’t democracy an ideal we all aspire to achieve?

Thank you.

The conditions set by Burma’s opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) for its participation in the election planned for 2010 won the support of around 400 participants in a symposium in Tokyo on Monday.

The conditions, contained in the so-called Shwegondaing Declaration of April 2009, include the unconditional release of all political prisoners; a review of the provisions in the 2008 Constitution “not in accord with democratic principles”; and an all-inclusive free and fair poll under international supervision. The declaration is named after the Rangoon district where the NLD has its headquarters.

About 400 Burmese dissidents, regional activists, foreign diplomats, Japanese government ministers and parliamentarians attended the Tokyo symposium.

Several Burmese dissidents contacted by The Irrawaddy on Monday said the Shwegodaing Declaration is the only gateway to reach genuine national reconciliation in Burma. They urged the Japanese government not to support the 2010 election and called for a boycott of the poll  if the declaration’s conditions were not met.

Tin Win, a Burmese dissident living in Tokyo and one of the organizers of the symposium, said the international community, including Japan, should give a clear message to the Burmese regime that they won’t recognize the result of the 2010 elections if the junta fail to respond to the demands of the NLD.

The symposium was also attended by regional activist groups such as the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus, People Forum of Burma, members of the Japanese Trade Union  Confederation and 26 representatives of Burmese opposition and ethnic groups, mostly based in Japan.

Tin Win said Japan government ministers attending the symposium promised the Burmese dissidents to undertake a serious review of Japan’s Burma policy. He said it was especially encouraging that ministers from the newly-elected Democratic Party of Japan and Japanese scholars had been actively involved in the symposium.

Burma watcher Jeff Kingston, director of Asian Studies at Temple University’s Japan campus, said Japan’s Democratic Party was a stronger supporter of human rights in Burma than the outgoing government. Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada are both members of a parliamentary Burma study group and are therefore well-informed and sympathetic about the plight of the Burmese and political prisoners, Kingston said.

“If Aung San Suu Kyi is to play a role in lifting sanctions, the junta has to create conditions that will enable her to so do and that means restoring her political rights, allowing free and fair elections and respecting the outcome even if military proxies do not prevail,” said Kingston.