Ministerial Statement on Burma-
http://ping.fm/pMe6S
Monday, 8 February 2010
Source: Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID); Government of Australia
Date: 08 Feb 2010
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
STEPHEN SMITH
Mr Deputy Speaker.
I wish to update the House on developments in Burma.
On 4 January, Burma's Independence Day, Burmese Senior General Than Shwe announced that plans were under way to conduct elections in Burma this year.
Elections have long been foreshadowed under the Burmese military's so-called 'Roadmap to Democracy'.
If elections do take place, they will be the first in Burma in 20 years.
This year will, therefore, be an important one for Burma, and an important one for the international community's engagement with Burma.
Australia has long been appalled both by the Burmese military's suppression of the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people and by its disrespect for their human rights.
It is worthwhile recalling some important events in this longstanding suppression.
A military regime, in some form, has ruled Burma since 1962, nearly 50 years.
We recall the bloody put down of pro-democracy protests in 1988, just over 20 years ago.
Since 1988 Australia has had in place visa restrictions against senior members of the Burmese regime and their associates and supporters.
Following the failure to implement the outcome of the 1990 elections, in 1991 Australia introduced a ban on defence exports to Burma.
This is a ban on the export to Burma of controlled goods as listed on the Defence and Strategic Goods List.
In October 2007, financial sanctions were introduced in response to the violent crackdown on democracy protesters.
These various sanctions - travel sanctions, defence sanctions and financial sanctions - have the common purpose of exerting pressure on Burma's military regime.
At the same time, Australia has recognised that engaging the Burmese authorities serves important national, regional and international interests.
We live in the same region. Through regional forums like the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference, the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Human Trafficking and Transnational Crime, Australia has had the opportunity to engage Burma on challenges like counter-narcotics, trafficking in people, disaster relief and pandemic disease.
As well, Australia has for many years sought to help the Burmese people through a program of humanitarian assistance targeting the most vulnerable.
This program, now worth nearly $30 million in 2009-10, assists with fighting infectious diseases such as avian influenza, HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis; provides food aid and agricultural expertise to alleviate rural poverty; protects displaced people; and supports children to attend and remain in primary school.
ASEAN, through its humanitarian work in Burma after Cyclone Nargis, has been vital in facilitating assistance from Australia and members of the international community to the Burmese people.
Common membership of regional organisations also allows us at Ministerial level to directly advocate democratic reform and national reconciliation - as I did when I met my counterpart Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win during the ASEAN-related meetings in Thailand in July 2009.
Mr Deputy Speaker.
On 12 August 2009 I addressed the House on Burma after Aung San Suu Kyi's conviction on spurious charges, leading to her ongoing house arrest.
I set out then that Aung San Suu Kyi's sentence effectively removed the prospect of her participation in any proposed 2010 elections and would detract from the credibility of those elections.
Since that time, there have been a number of important developments both within Burma and in the international community's approach to Burma.
On 17 September 2009 the Burmese authorities released 128 political prisoners in an amnesty. This was a welcome, tentative step in the right direction.
Repression however continues.
On 31 December, 15 activists were sentenced to up to 71 years imprisonment each. There regrettably remain close to 2000 political prisoners in Burma, including Aung San Suu Kyi.
Australia again calls on Burma's authorities to release them and allow them to participate fully and freely in the upcoming elections.
In September 2009, in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, I joined ten other Foreign Ministers and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a Ministerial-level meeting of the Secretary-General's Group of Friends of Myanmar.
The participation in this meeting was evidence both of the international community's desire to see progress in Burma and of its willingness to both work together and with the Secretary General towards this end.
At the meeting, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon identified three areas for future unity of purpose and action:
First, to urge Burma to work with the United Nations to ensure an inclusive process of dialogue and create the conditions for credible elections.
Second, to uphold the role of the United Nations in Burma.
And third, to signal the international community's willingness to help the people of Burma, but noting that Burma's military regime needed to respond to international concerns in order for this to occur.
My visit to New York for the General Assembly coincided with the announcement of the United States policy review on Burma.
The United States Administration concluded that a sanctions-only policy to isolate Burma's military has not worked and that future US policy would combine engagement, appropriate sanctions and humanitarian assistance.
US Secretary of State Clinton said that any debate that pits sanctions against engagement created a false choice, and that the international community would need to employ both of these tools.
Australia has welcomed this approach, as has the international community generally.
As to developments within Burma, on 25 September 2009 Aung San Suu Kyi wrote to Senior General Than Shwe offering to work with the Burmese authorities on the withdrawal of international sanctions, and asking to meet representatives of the European Union, the United States and Australia.
The fact that Australia was one of these three was significant and reflects the longstanding interest Australians have in Burma.
The authorities agreed to this request.
On 9 October 2009 Australia's Chargé d'Affaires, together with the UK Ambassador and the US Chargé d'Affaires, met Aung San Suu Kyi in Rangoon.
The meeting was the first opportunity for a substantive discussion between an Australian representative and Aung San Suu Kyi since February 2003.
Australia's Chargé conveyed a message from the Prime Minister which expressed the support of the Australian Government and the people of Australia for Aung San Suu Kyi and her struggle for democracy in Burma.
This was warmly welcomed by Aung San Suu Kyi.
Australia welcomed the subsequent visit to Burma in early November by United States Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and the meetings he held with the Burmese authorities, with Aung San Suu Kyi and with representatives of a number of ethnic minorities.
Aung San Suu Kyi wrote further to Senior General Than Shwe on 11 November 2009 requesting contact with her party's Central Executive Committee.
In response to her request, she was permitted to meet three of the Central Executive Committee's elders, including Chairman U Aung Shwe, on 16 December 2009.
Australia hopes that a meeting with the full Executive will take place soon.
This is the first substantial contact which Aung San Suu Kyi has had with the leadership of the National League for Democracy since 2007, and is warmly welcomed by the Australian Government as essential to democratic and political progress in Burma.
Australia hopes these initial engagements between Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese authorities and the international community are the beginning of a process of genuine dialogue.
Elections
Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Burmese authorities have embarked on the so-called 'Roadmap to Democracy', a strictly controlled process of potential political change.
It was a matter of great regret that they pushed ahead with a constitutional referendum, the fourth step in their Roadmap, in the midst of the disaster of Cyclone Nargis in May 2008.
That referendum was a regrettable sham.
Not surprisingly, political parties in Burma, including the National League for Democracy, and parties representing ethnic groups, are carefully considering whether to participate in the 2010 elections.
Burma's authorities have an opportunity to engage the people, to ensure the full and free participation in the elections of the Burmese opposition, nascent political parties, and ethnic groups.
For Burma's longer-term stability and security, the coming political process needs to address the concerns of the country's diverse ethnic minority groups.
While, of course, given the history of these matters, there are long standing reservations, Australia will not pre-judge the process and the outcome of these elections.
Australia urges Burma's authorities to seize this opportunity to genuinely move their country forward.
Development Assistance
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia has long provided humanitarian assistance to Burma.
In the 2009-10 Budget, the Government allocated nearly $30 million in humanitarian assistance, a significant increase in base funding over the previous year.
This will help address the pressing needs of the Burmese people.
Half of Burma's almost 50 million people live in extreme poverty.
Child mortality rates are among the highest in the world.
Decades of military rule have eroded civil society and civilian institutions.
Skills have been lost and infrastructure has deteriorated.
At some stage into the future, Burma will have a civilian Government, which will face great challenges.
At some stage into the future, the regional and international community will be asked to help in the rebuilding of Burma's economic and social structures.
Australia's view therefore is that the international community help prepare Burma for the future.
Burma's capacity cannot be allowed to completely atrophy to the ultimate disadvantage and cost of its people.
The international community needs to start the rebuilding now.
This is not a reward for Burma's military, but a recognition of the immense task faced by current and future generations of Burmese.
At around $4 per head per annum, international aid to Burma is less than a tenth of that received by Cambodia and a sixteenth of that received by Laos.
Australia will accordingly increase its assistance to Burma over the next three years to around $50 million annually, a 40 per cent increase.
Alleviating humanitarian needs will remain an important goal and focus of this expenditure.
But the Government has decided that Australia's program will also include capacity building elements, addressing the long-term challenges facing the Burmese people.
This will involve carefully targeted interaction in areas of great need like health, education and agriculture.
Our assistance will continue to be delivered in partnership with international organisations, such as UN agencies, ASEAN, other donor nations and non-government organisations.
We will expand existing initiatives in basic health care, including child and maternal health. We will work to improve the delivery of basic health services by equipping health clinics, training nurses, health care staff and administrators and providing better community health education and information.
At the village level, we will assist primary health care workers, including midwives, with critical training and medical supplies to help arrest the decline in health outcomes for vulnerable and isolated people.
We will continue to support the delivery of vital treatment, prevention and screening services for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, including through the Three Diseases Fund supported by Australia, the European Commission, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Fund aims to reduce these three diseases in Burma.
We will also address critical water, sanitation and hygiene needs through:
the construction and rehabilitation of ponds and wells;
building latrines for community schools and rural health centres; and
working to provide equitable access to clean water.
In 2008-09 Australia's assistance contributed to the basic education of over 400,000 children in Burma. We will increase our support to enable more poor and disadvantaged children to go to primary school.
Australian assistance will improve teaching and mentoring skills, both in the classroom and at home. Working closely with United Nations agencies, Non Government Organisations (NGOs) and other donors, we will support training programs for early childhood development workers, primary teachers and township education officials.
We will also continue to support vulnerable communities in the Irrawaddy Delta to restore their crop and fishing businesses, and in other areas of protracted need such as northern Rakhine State where the situation of the Rohingyas is very dire.
Australia will provide $20 million over the next four years to assist poor communities in Burma to:
improve access to credit, seeds, and tools;
provide training in small enterprise;
help farmers diversify their production and gain access to markets.
I have also asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and AusAID to explore a scholarship scheme for Burma.
Australia will liaise with partners such as the European Union, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of whom have scholarship schemes for Burma, to learn from their experience.
It is proposed that a new scholarship scheme will target Burmese with the potential to build civil society and improve service delivery, including in health, education and agriculture.
As a start, 10 postgraduate scholarships and short term professional development placements will be made available, beginning in 2010-11.
We will work with the UN to carefully identify suitable candidates.
This assistance will be in addition to Australia's significant contribution for relief and recovery efforts following Cyclone Nargis in May 2008.
Australia's post-Nargis assistance continues to be delivered through effective and trusted aid partners such as the United Nations and Australian NGOs and includes:
agricultural inputs to help farmers restore their crops and livestock;
helping fishermen by providing nets and repairing boats;
repairing over 1,200 damaged schools and providing books and materials for over 360,000 children;
reducing disease risk by constructing 50,000 latrines and providing one million mosquito nets; and
supplies and shelter for vulnerable communities.
Burma is a difficult operating environment, but the collective experience in Burma over many years shows we can deliver assistance effectively to improve the lives of ordinary Burmese without benefiting the military authorities.
Sanctions
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia urges Burma's military to respond positively to Aung San Suu Kyi's recent offer to work towards the lifting of international sanctions.
Such a positive response would help make meaningful progress towards democratic reform, respect for human rights, and national dialogue and reconciliation.
Until we see significant change from Burma's authorities, the Australian Government will maintain a policy of targeted financial sanctions.
We agree with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's observation that to lift sanctions now would send the wrong signal.
However, an expansion of sanctions at this time would send a confusing signal.
In view of the nascent discussions between the authorities and Aung San Suu Kyi, I have decided that sanctions should not be expanded at this time.
As a result, the sanctions list I announced in October 2008 will remain in operation for the present.
Diplomacy
Mr Speaker.
I earlier referred to my discussions on Burma in New York in September 2009.
These discussions again revealed the region's and the international community's great frustration with the Burmese authorities' treatment of the political opposition, their self-imposed isolation, and the circumstances of the Burmese people.
My discussions also revealed that the international community is increasingly prepared to draw on a wide range of diplomatic tools, including both sanctions and engagement, to press for change in Burma.
Neither Australia nor the international community should however have any illusions that progress in Burma will be quick or easy.
Australia will continue to work closely with ASEAN and its member countries, including by continuing to support ASEAN's much-needed humanitarian efforts in Burma.
We will cooperate closely with the United States as it pursues greater engagement with Burma, and with other major donors like the United Kingdom, to ensure our combined assistance does the greatest amount of good for the Burmese people.
We will also continue to support the work of the United Nations and the Secretary General.
We endorse UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's call for the international community to support UN efforts to promote respect for human rights, inclusive political dialogue and development in Burma.
Australia strongly supported the role of Ibrahim Gambari as the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative on Burma. His term concluded at the beginning of this year, and we look forward to working closely with his successor.
Conclusion
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia and the international community stand ready to assist Burma.
But it is not a one way street.
Australia urges the Burmese authorities to respond in good faith both to international engagement and to Aung San Suu Kyi's recent approach to it on sanctions and on dialogue.
In moving towards dialogue and genuine national reconciliation, Burma's authorities can end their isolation.
Australia has always considered the Burmese people our friends.
When Cyclone Nargis struck, Australia responded generously, despite our political differences with the Burmese authorities.
That was the right decision then, and it is the right decision now, together with the international community, to do more for the long-term future of Burma's people.
Date: 08 Feb 2010
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
STEPHEN SMITH
Mr Deputy Speaker.
I wish to update the House on developments in Burma.
On 4 January, Burma's Independence Day, Burmese Senior General Than Shwe announced that plans were under way to conduct elections in Burma this year.
Elections have long been foreshadowed under the Burmese military's so-called 'Roadmap to Democracy'.
If elections do take place, they will be the first in Burma in 20 years.
This year will, therefore, be an important one for Burma, and an important one for the international community's engagement with Burma.
Australia has long been appalled both by the Burmese military's suppression of the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people and by its disrespect for their human rights.
It is worthwhile recalling some important events in this longstanding suppression.
A military regime, in some form, has ruled Burma since 1962, nearly 50 years.
We recall the bloody put down of pro-democracy protests in 1988, just over 20 years ago.
Since 1988 Australia has had in place visa restrictions against senior members of the Burmese regime and their associates and supporters.
Following the failure to implement the outcome of the 1990 elections, in 1991 Australia introduced a ban on defence exports to Burma.
This is a ban on the export to Burma of controlled goods as listed on the Defence and Strategic Goods List.
In October 2007, financial sanctions were introduced in response to the violent crackdown on democracy protesters.
These various sanctions - travel sanctions, defence sanctions and financial sanctions - have the common purpose of exerting pressure on Burma's military regime.
At the same time, Australia has recognised that engaging the Burmese authorities serves important national, regional and international interests.
We live in the same region. Through regional forums like the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference, the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Human Trafficking and Transnational Crime, Australia has had the opportunity to engage Burma on challenges like counter-narcotics, trafficking in people, disaster relief and pandemic disease.
As well, Australia has for many years sought to help the Burmese people through a program of humanitarian assistance targeting the most vulnerable.
This program, now worth nearly $30 million in 2009-10, assists with fighting infectious diseases such as avian influenza, HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis; provides food aid and agricultural expertise to alleviate rural poverty; protects displaced people; and supports children to attend and remain in primary school.
ASEAN, through its humanitarian work in Burma after Cyclone Nargis, has been vital in facilitating assistance from Australia and members of the international community to the Burmese people.
Common membership of regional organisations also allows us at Ministerial level to directly advocate democratic reform and national reconciliation - as I did when I met my counterpart Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win during the ASEAN-related meetings in Thailand in July 2009.
Mr Deputy Speaker.
On 12 August 2009 I addressed the House on Burma after Aung San Suu Kyi's conviction on spurious charges, leading to her ongoing house arrest.
I set out then that Aung San Suu Kyi's sentence effectively removed the prospect of her participation in any proposed 2010 elections and would detract from the credibility of those elections.
Since that time, there have been a number of important developments both within Burma and in the international community's approach to Burma.
On 17 September 2009 the Burmese authorities released 128 political prisoners in an amnesty. This was a welcome, tentative step in the right direction.
Repression however continues.
On 31 December, 15 activists were sentenced to up to 71 years imprisonment each. There regrettably remain close to 2000 political prisoners in Burma, including Aung San Suu Kyi.
Australia again calls on Burma's authorities to release them and allow them to participate fully and freely in the upcoming elections.
In September 2009, in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, I joined ten other Foreign Ministers and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a Ministerial-level meeting of the Secretary-General's Group of Friends of Myanmar.
The participation in this meeting was evidence both of the international community's desire to see progress in Burma and of its willingness to both work together and with the Secretary General towards this end.
At the meeting, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon identified three areas for future unity of purpose and action:
First, to urge Burma to work with the United Nations to ensure an inclusive process of dialogue and create the conditions for credible elections.
Second, to uphold the role of the United Nations in Burma.
And third, to signal the international community's willingness to help the people of Burma, but noting that Burma's military regime needed to respond to international concerns in order for this to occur.
My visit to New York for the General Assembly coincided with the announcement of the United States policy review on Burma.
The United States Administration concluded that a sanctions-only policy to isolate Burma's military has not worked and that future US policy would combine engagement, appropriate sanctions and humanitarian assistance.
US Secretary of State Clinton said that any debate that pits sanctions against engagement created a false choice, and that the international community would need to employ both of these tools.
Australia has welcomed this approach, as has the international community generally.
As to developments within Burma, on 25 September 2009 Aung San Suu Kyi wrote to Senior General Than Shwe offering to work with the Burmese authorities on the withdrawal of international sanctions, and asking to meet representatives of the European Union, the United States and Australia.
The fact that Australia was one of these three was significant and reflects the longstanding interest Australians have in Burma.
The authorities agreed to this request.
On 9 October 2009 Australia's Chargé d'Affaires, together with the UK Ambassador and the US Chargé d'Affaires, met Aung San Suu Kyi in Rangoon.
The meeting was the first opportunity for a substantive discussion between an Australian representative and Aung San Suu Kyi since February 2003.
Australia's Chargé conveyed a message from the Prime Minister which expressed the support of the Australian Government and the people of Australia for Aung San Suu Kyi and her struggle for democracy in Burma.
This was warmly welcomed by Aung San Suu Kyi.
Australia welcomed the subsequent visit to Burma in early November by United States Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and the meetings he held with the Burmese authorities, with Aung San Suu Kyi and with representatives of a number of ethnic minorities.
Aung San Suu Kyi wrote further to Senior General Than Shwe on 11 November 2009 requesting contact with her party's Central Executive Committee.
In response to her request, she was permitted to meet three of the Central Executive Committee's elders, including Chairman U Aung Shwe, on 16 December 2009.
Australia hopes that a meeting with the full Executive will take place soon.
This is the first substantial contact which Aung San Suu Kyi has had with the leadership of the National League for Democracy since 2007, and is warmly welcomed by the Australian Government as essential to democratic and political progress in Burma.
Australia hopes these initial engagements between Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese authorities and the international community are the beginning of a process of genuine dialogue.
Elections
Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Burmese authorities have embarked on the so-called 'Roadmap to Democracy', a strictly controlled process of potential political change.
It was a matter of great regret that they pushed ahead with a constitutional referendum, the fourth step in their Roadmap, in the midst of the disaster of Cyclone Nargis in May 2008.
That referendum was a regrettable sham.
Not surprisingly, political parties in Burma, including the National League for Democracy, and parties representing ethnic groups, are carefully considering whether to participate in the 2010 elections.
Burma's authorities have an opportunity to engage the people, to ensure the full and free participation in the elections of the Burmese opposition, nascent political parties, and ethnic groups.
For Burma's longer-term stability and security, the coming political process needs to address the concerns of the country's diverse ethnic minority groups.
While, of course, given the history of these matters, there are long standing reservations, Australia will not pre-judge the process and the outcome of these elections.
Australia urges Burma's authorities to seize this opportunity to genuinely move their country forward.
Development Assistance
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia has long provided humanitarian assistance to Burma.
In the 2009-10 Budget, the Government allocated nearly $30 million in humanitarian assistance, a significant increase in base funding over the previous year.
This will help address the pressing needs of the Burmese people.
Half of Burma's almost 50 million people live in extreme poverty.
Child mortality rates are among the highest in the world.
Decades of military rule have eroded civil society and civilian institutions.
Skills have been lost and infrastructure has deteriorated.
At some stage into the future, Burma will have a civilian Government, which will face great challenges.
At some stage into the future, the regional and international community will be asked to help in the rebuilding of Burma's economic and social structures.
Australia's view therefore is that the international community help prepare Burma for the future.
Burma's capacity cannot be allowed to completely atrophy to the ultimate disadvantage and cost of its people.
The international community needs to start the rebuilding now.
This is not a reward for Burma's military, but a recognition of the immense task faced by current and future generations of Burmese.
At around $4 per head per annum, international aid to Burma is less than a tenth of that received by Cambodia and a sixteenth of that received by Laos.
Australia will accordingly increase its assistance to Burma over the next three years to around $50 million annually, a 40 per cent increase.
Alleviating humanitarian needs will remain an important goal and focus of this expenditure.
But the Government has decided that Australia's program will also include capacity building elements, addressing the long-term challenges facing the Burmese people.
This will involve carefully targeted interaction in areas of great need like health, education and agriculture.
Our assistance will continue to be delivered in partnership with international organisations, such as UN agencies, ASEAN, other donor nations and non-government organisations.
We will expand existing initiatives in basic health care, including child and maternal health. We will work to improve the delivery of basic health services by equipping health clinics, training nurses, health care staff and administrators and providing better community health education and information.
At the village level, we will assist primary health care workers, including midwives, with critical training and medical supplies to help arrest the decline in health outcomes for vulnerable and isolated people.
We will continue to support the delivery of vital treatment, prevention and screening services for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, including through the Three Diseases Fund supported by Australia, the European Commission, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Fund aims to reduce these three diseases in Burma.
We will also address critical water, sanitation and hygiene needs through:
the construction and rehabilitation of ponds and wells;
building latrines for community schools and rural health centres; and
working to provide equitable access to clean water.
In 2008-09 Australia's assistance contributed to the basic education of over 400,000 children in Burma. We will increase our support to enable more poor and disadvantaged children to go to primary school.
Australian assistance will improve teaching and mentoring skills, both in the classroom and at home. Working closely with United Nations agencies, Non Government Organisations (NGOs) and other donors, we will support training programs for early childhood development workers, primary teachers and township education officials.
We will also continue to support vulnerable communities in the Irrawaddy Delta to restore their crop and fishing businesses, and in other areas of protracted need such as northern Rakhine State where the situation of the Rohingyas is very dire.
Australia will provide $20 million over the next four years to assist poor communities in Burma to:
improve access to credit, seeds, and tools;
provide training in small enterprise;
help farmers diversify their production and gain access to markets.
I have also asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and AusAID to explore a scholarship scheme for Burma.
Australia will liaise with partners such as the European Union, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of whom have scholarship schemes for Burma, to learn from their experience.
It is proposed that a new scholarship scheme will target Burmese with the potential to build civil society and improve service delivery, including in health, education and agriculture.
As a start, 10 postgraduate scholarships and short term professional development placements will be made available, beginning in 2010-11.
We will work with the UN to carefully identify suitable candidates.
This assistance will be in addition to Australia's significant contribution for relief and recovery efforts following Cyclone Nargis in May 2008.
Australia's post-Nargis assistance continues to be delivered through effective and trusted aid partners such as the United Nations and Australian NGOs and includes:
agricultural inputs to help farmers restore their crops and livestock;
helping fishermen by providing nets and repairing boats;
repairing over 1,200 damaged schools and providing books and materials for over 360,000 children;
reducing disease risk by constructing 50,000 latrines and providing one million mosquito nets; and
supplies and shelter for vulnerable communities.
Burma is a difficult operating environment, but the collective experience in Burma over many years shows we can deliver assistance effectively to improve the lives of ordinary Burmese without benefiting the military authorities.
Sanctions
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia urges Burma's military to respond positively to Aung San Suu Kyi's recent offer to work towards the lifting of international sanctions.
Such a positive response would help make meaningful progress towards democratic reform, respect for human rights, and national dialogue and reconciliation.
Until we see significant change from Burma's authorities, the Australian Government will maintain a policy of targeted financial sanctions.
We agree with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's observation that to lift sanctions now would send the wrong signal.
However, an expansion of sanctions at this time would send a confusing signal.
In view of the nascent discussions between the authorities and Aung San Suu Kyi, I have decided that sanctions should not be expanded at this time.
As a result, the sanctions list I announced in October 2008 will remain in operation for the present.
Diplomacy
Mr Speaker.
I earlier referred to my discussions on Burma in New York in September 2009.
These discussions again revealed the region's and the international community's great frustration with the Burmese authorities' treatment of the political opposition, their self-imposed isolation, and the circumstances of the Burmese people.
My discussions also revealed that the international community is increasingly prepared to draw on a wide range of diplomatic tools, including both sanctions and engagement, to press for change in Burma.
Neither Australia nor the international community should however have any illusions that progress in Burma will be quick or easy.
Australia will continue to work closely with ASEAN and its member countries, including by continuing to support ASEAN's much-needed humanitarian efforts in Burma.
We will cooperate closely with the United States as it pursues greater engagement with Burma, and with other major donors like the United Kingdom, to ensure our combined assistance does the greatest amount of good for the Burmese people.
We will also continue to support the work of the United Nations and the Secretary General.
We endorse UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's call for the international community to support UN efforts to promote respect for human rights, inclusive political dialogue and development in Burma.
Australia strongly supported the role of Ibrahim Gambari as the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative on Burma. His term concluded at the beginning of this year, and we look forward to working closely with his successor.
Conclusion
Mr Deputy Speaker.
Australia and the international community stand ready to assist Burma.
But it is not a one way street.
Australia urges the Burmese authorities to respond in good faith both to international engagement and to Aung San Suu Kyi's recent approach to it on sanctions and on dialogue.
In moving towards dialogue and genuine national reconciliation, Burma's authorities can end their isolation.
Australia has always considered the Burmese people our friends.
When Cyclone Nargis struck, Australia responded generously, despite our political differences with the Burmese authorities.
That was the right decision then, and it is the right decision now, together with the international community, to do more for the long-term future of Burma's people.
Mock Tribunal to Highlight Crimes against Women in Burma
8 February 2010: An event planned for March 2nd in New York will be highlighting state-organized crimes against women in Burma. Deliberately planned to coincide with the meeting of United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York, the event is aimed at raising international awareness of the plight of women, as well as, the ongoing crises in Burma.
Spearheaded by the Nobel Women’s Initiative in conjunction with the Women League of Burma (WLB), the event will showcase a mock trial in which members of Burma’s ruling military regime will be made to answer for their crimes against women in Burma.
A mock trial, the “International Tribunal on Crimes against Women of Burma” will be performed by eminent judges, including the Nobel laureates, and women representatives from Burma who will provide testimonies from personal experiences of having lived through a range of human rights abuses under the military regime.
Designed to support existing calls for an indictment of Burma’s ruling military regime for War Crimes and Crime against Humanity under the auspices of the UN Security Council, the mock trial will feature expert testimonies, as well as, real time accounts of women victims on how Burma’s ruling military regime and its security apparatus systematically committed crimes against women.
The mock Tribunal will also hear witness testimonies via video from Burmese women currently sheltering in neighboring countries on a range of state-orchestrated violations, including rape, trafficking, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced labor, portering and forced relocation.
The Nobel Women’s Initiative is an organization founded by five Nobel Peace laureates in 2006 to advance the cause of women around the world. Detained Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Peace laureate, is an honorary member of the group.
The planned event adds momentum to existing international efforts to have the United Nations Security Council establish a special Commission of Inquiry to investigate serious breach of human rights in Burma.
An independent investigation by the Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic concluded in May last year that based on the UN own documents, there might be enough evidence to prosecute Burma’s military regime for War Crimes and Crime against Humanity under international law.
Parliamentarians from several countries have since signed petitions calling for an international investigation into state-sanctioned crimes in Burma.
Chinland Guardian
Spearheaded by the Nobel Women’s Initiative in conjunction with the Women League of Burma (WLB), the event will showcase a mock trial in which members of Burma’s ruling military regime will be made to answer for their crimes against women in Burma.
A mock trial, the “International Tribunal on Crimes against Women of Burma” will be performed by eminent judges, including the Nobel laureates, and women representatives from Burma who will provide testimonies from personal experiences of having lived through a range of human rights abuses under the military regime.
Designed to support existing calls for an indictment of Burma’s ruling military regime for War Crimes and Crime against Humanity under the auspices of the UN Security Council, the mock trial will feature expert testimonies, as well as, real time accounts of women victims on how Burma’s ruling military regime and its security apparatus systematically committed crimes against women.
The mock Tribunal will also hear witness testimonies via video from Burmese women currently sheltering in neighboring countries on a range of state-orchestrated violations, including rape, trafficking, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced labor, portering and forced relocation.
The Nobel Women’s Initiative is an organization founded by five Nobel Peace laureates in 2006 to advance the cause of women around the world. Detained Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Peace laureate, is an honorary member of the group.
The planned event adds momentum to existing international efforts to have the United Nations Security Council establish a special Commission of Inquiry to investigate serious breach of human rights in Burma.
An independent investigation by the Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic concluded in May last year that based on the UN own documents, there might be enough evidence to prosecute Burma’s military regime for War Crimes and Crime against Humanity under international law.
Parliamentarians from several countries have since signed petitions calling for an international investigation into state-sanctioned crimes in Burma.
Chinland Guardian
Democracy decline: Crying for democracy*
Democracy decline: Crying for democracy*
February 8, 2010
Given that democracy is unlikely to advance, these days, through the
military of economic preponderance of the West, its best hope lies in
winning a genuinely open debate. In other words, wavering countries, and
sceptical societies, must be convinced that political freedom works best.
So how does the case in defence of democracy stand up these days? As many a
philosopher has noted, the strongest points to be made in favor of a free
political contest are negative. Democracy may not yield perfect policies,
but it ought to guard against all manner of ills, ranging from outright
tyranny (towards which a “mild” authoritarian can always slide) to larceny
at the public expense.
Transparency International, a corruption watchdog, says that all but two of
the 30 least corrupt countries in the world are democracies (the exceptions
are Singapore and Hong Kong, and the are considered semi-democratic).
Autocracies tend to occupy higher rankings on the corruption scale and it is
easy to see why. Entrenched political elites, untroubled by free and fair
elections, can get away more easily with stuffing their pockets. And
strongmen often try to maintain their hold on power by relying on public
funds to reward their supporters and to buy off their enemies, leading to a
huge misallocation of resources.
Yet it is easy to find corrupt democracies – indeed, in a ramshackle place
like Afghanistan elections sometimes seem to make things worse. Or take the
biggest of the ex-Soviet republics. Russia is authoritarian and has a
massive problem with corruption; Ukraine is more democratic – the
forthcoming elections are a genuine contest for power, with uncertain
results – but it too has quite a big corruption problem.
What about the argument that economic development, at least in its early
stages, is best pursued under a benign despot? Lee Kuan Yew, an ex-prime
minister of Singapore, once asserted that democracy leads to “disorderly
conduct”, disrupting material progress. But there is no evidence that
autocracies, on average, grow faster than democracies.
For every economicall successful East Asian (former) autocracy like Taiwan
or South Koera, there is an Egypt or a Cameroon (or indeed a North Korea or
a Myanmar) which is both harsh and sluggish.
The link between political systems and growth is hard to establish. Yet
there is some evidence that, on average, democracies do better. A study by
Morton Halperin, Joseph Siegle and Michael Weinstein for the Council of
Foreign Relations (CFR), using World Bank data between 1960 and 2001, found
that the average annual economic growth rate was 2.3% for democracies and
1.6% for autocracies.
Believers in democracy as an engine of progress often make the point that a
climate of freedom is most needed in a knowledge-based economy, where
independent thinking and innovation are vital. It is surely no accident that
every economy in the top 25 of the Global Innovation Index is a democracy,
except semi-democratic Singapore and Hong Kong.
What about the argument that autocracy creates a modicum of stability
without which growth is impossible? In fact, it is not evident that
authoritarian countries are more stable than democracies. Quite the
contrary. Although democratic politicians spend a lot of time vacillating,
arguing and being loud and disagreeable, this can reinforce stability in the
medium term; it allows the interests and viewpoints of more people to be
heard before action is taken.
On the State Fragility Index, which is produced annually by George Mason
University and studies variables such as “political effectiveness” and
security, democracies tend to do much better than autocracies. Tito’s
Yugoslavia was stable, as was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – but once the
straitjacket that held their systems together came off, the result of a
release of pent-up pressure, and a golden opportunity for demagogues bent on
mayhem.
At the very least, a culture of compromise – coupled with greater
accountability and limits on state power – means that democracies are better
able to avoid castastrophic mistakes, or criminal cruelty. Bloody nightmares
that cost tens of millions of lives, like China’s Great Leap Forward or the
Soviet Union’s forced collectivisation programme, were made possible by the
concentration of power in a small group of people who faced no restraint.
Liberal democratic governments can make all manner of blunders, but they are
less likely to commit mass murder. Amartya Sen, a Nobel prize-winning
economist, has famously argued that no country with a free press and fair
elections has ever had a large famine. And research done by CFR scholars
found that poor autocracies were at least twice as likely as democracies to
suffer an economic disaster (defined as a decline of 10% or more in GDP in a
year).
With no noisy legislatures or robust courts to hold things up, autocracies
may be faster and bolder. The are also more accident-prone.
For all its frustrations, open and accountable government tends in the long
run to produce better policies. This is because no group of mandarins, no
matter how enlightened or well-meaning, can claim to be sure of what is best
for a complex society.
Autocracies tend to be too heavy at the top; although decisions may be more
easily taken, the ethos of autocracies – their secrecy and paranoia – makes
it harder for alternative views to emerge. Above all, elections make
transfer of power legitimate and smooth.
Tyrannies may look stable under one strongman; but they can slide into
instability, even bloody chaos, if a transitioni goes awry. Free elections
also mean that policy mistakes, even bad ones, are more quickly corrected.
Fresh ideas can be brought in and politicians thrown out before they grow
arrogant.
Source: The Economist
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/02/08/democracy-decline-crying-for-democracy/
February 8, 2010
Given that democracy is unlikely to advance, these days, through the
military of economic preponderance of the West, its best hope lies in
winning a genuinely open debate. In other words, wavering countries, and
sceptical societies, must be convinced that political freedom works best.
So how does the case in defence of democracy stand up these days? As many a
philosopher has noted, the strongest points to be made in favor of a free
political contest are negative. Democracy may not yield perfect policies,
but it ought to guard against all manner of ills, ranging from outright
tyranny (towards which a “mild” authoritarian can always slide) to larceny
at the public expense.
Transparency International, a corruption watchdog, says that all but two of
the 30 least corrupt countries in the world are democracies (the exceptions
are Singapore and Hong Kong, and the are considered semi-democratic).
Autocracies tend to occupy higher rankings on the corruption scale and it is
easy to see why. Entrenched political elites, untroubled by free and fair
elections, can get away more easily with stuffing their pockets. And
strongmen often try to maintain their hold on power by relying on public
funds to reward their supporters and to buy off their enemies, leading to a
huge misallocation of resources.
Yet it is easy to find corrupt democracies – indeed, in a ramshackle place
like Afghanistan elections sometimes seem to make things worse. Or take the
biggest of the ex-Soviet republics. Russia is authoritarian and has a
massive problem with corruption; Ukraine is more democratic – the
forthcoming elections are a genuine contest for power, with uncertain
results – but it too has quite a big corruption problem.
What about the argument that economic development, at least in its early
stages, is best pursued under a benign despot? Lee Kuan Yew, an ex-prime
minister of Singapore, once asserted that democracy leads to “disorderly
conduct”, disrupting material progress. But there is no evidence that
autocracies, on average, grow faster than democracies.
For every economicall successful East Asian (former) autocracy like Taiwan
or South Koera, there is an Egypt or a Cameroon (or indeed a North Korea or
a Myanmar) which is both harsh and sluggish.
The link between political systems and growth is hard to establish. Yet
there is some evidence that, on average, democracies do better. A study by
Morton Halperin, Joseph Siegle and Michael Weinstein for the Council of
Foreign Relations (CFR), using World Bank data between 1960 and 2001, found
that the average annual economic growth rate was 2.3% for democracies and
1.6% for autocracies.
Believers in democracy as an engine of progress often make the point that a
climate of freedom is most needed in a knowledge-based economy, where
independent thinking and innovation are vital. It is surely no accident that
every economy in the top 25 of the Global Innovation Index is a democracy,
except semi-democratic Singapore and Hong Kong.
What about the argument that autocracy creates a modicum of stability
without which growth is impossible? In fact, it is not evident that
authoritarian countries are more stable than democracies. Quite the
contrary. Although democratic politicians spend a lot of time vacillating,
arguing and being loud and disagreeable, this can reinforce stability in the
medium term; it allows the interests and viewpoints of more people to be
heard before action is taken.
On the State Fragility Index, which is produced annually by George Mason
University and studies variables such as “political effectiveness” and
security, democracies tend to do much better than autocracies. Tito’s
Yugoslavia was stable, as was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – but once the
straitjacket that held their systems together came off, the result of a
release of pent-up pressure, and a golden opportunity for demagogues bent on
mayhem.
At the very least, a culture of compromise – coupled with greater
accountability and limits on state power – means that democracies are better
able to avoid castastrophic mistakes, or criminal cruelty. Bloody nightmares
that cost tens of millions of lives, like China’s Great Leap Forward or the
Soviet Union’s forced collectivisation programme, were made possible by the
concentration of power in a small group of people who faced no restraint.
Liberal democratic governments can make all manner of blunders, but they are
less likely to commit mass murder. Amartya Sen, a Nobel prize-winning
economist, has famously argued that no country with a free press and fair
elections has ever had a large famine. And research done by CFR scholars
found that poor autocracies were at least twice as likely as democracies to
suffer an economic disaster (defined as a decline of 10% or more in GDP in a
year).
With no noisy legislatures or robust courts to hold things up, autocracies
may be faster and bolder. The are also more accident-prone.
For all its frustrations, open and accountable government tends in the long
run to produce better policies. This is because no group of mandarins, no
matter how enlightened or well-meaning, can claim to be sure of what is best
for a complex society.
Autocracies tend to be too heavy at the top; although decisions may be more
easily taken, the ethos of autocracies – their secrecy and paranoia – makes
it harder for alternative views to emerge. Above all, elections make
transfer of power legitimate and smooth.
Tyrannies may look stable under one strongman; but they can slide into
instability, even bloody chaos, if a transitioni goes awry. Free elections
also mean that policy mistakes, even bad ones, are more quickly corrected.
Fresh ideas can be brought in and politicians thrown out before they grow
arrogant.
Source: The Economist
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/02/08/democracy-decline-crying-for-democracy/
Nuke body baffled by junta move
BURMA'S secretive military rulers - suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapons program - want to join an Australian-led nuclear safety body.
The move comes amid calls for greater scrutiny of Burma's nuclear activities and its links with equally secretive and nuclear-armed North Korea.
Analysts say Burma's interest in joining the Asia/Pacific Safeguards Network, an international group chaired by Australia, could be a hint of tentative openness by the notoriously paranoid regime - or another smokescreen.
And while Australia may be sympathetic to Burma joining the network, other members of the 14-nation body remain deeply suspicious of its motives.
Burma is under international surveillance following widespread reports last year that it was secretly building a nuclear reactor as part of a North Korean-backed effort to build a nuclear bomb.
While Australia and other nations insist the reports are unconfirmed, the federal government has expressed concern that a nuclear-armed Burma would seriously threaten regional and international security.
Burma's interest in joining the safeguards network is revealed in a new report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a respected non-government group.
The network, initiated by Australia and launched last October, has yet to consider if Burma should be allowed in, the institute's report said.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade declined to say what Australia's attitude would be to the Burmese move, as it had not formally applied to join and decisions on membership were made by consensus.
''Australia will consider the question of Burma joining APSN, in consultation with other APSN members, if the matter arises,'' the spokeswoman said.
The Sunday Age understands at least one key member of the safeguards network - Japan, the target for North Korea's periodic nuclear sabre-rattling - is sceptical of Burma's intentions and could resist its entry to the group, due to hold its first formal meeting in Jakarta in April.
Members are Australia, Canada, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam and the US.
The network does not carry out inspections, but aims to promote nuclear safety by sharing information and co-operating in training and other areas.
An Australia-based Burma analyst, who asked not to be identified, said Burma's interest in joining the network added another puzzle to the mystery surrounding the regime's nuclear plans.
''It would seem curious that they're taking up this initiative to join up with a group like that, if they were in fact pursuing weapons of mass destruction,'' he said.
''It could be a smokescreen, there's always that. These guys are not beyond doing things of that nature, but it would seem a bit odd.''
David Albright, director of the Washington institute that revealed Burma's interest in joining the network, said he hoped Burma would be allowed to join.
''I would allow Burma in, so you can start meeting these people. They're not going to learn how to cheat in a group like this,'' Mr Albright told The Sunday Age.
''It makes sense to meet them, start to engage them, and start to educate them about what's needed. We need transparency, and one way is to get them to participate.''
The new ISIS report calls for greater international focus on Burma's nuclear activities.
While it says there is no concrete proof the regime is building secret reactors, there were ''sound reasons'' to suspect Burma of pursuing a strategy to make nuclear weapons.
http://ping.fm/FiooF
The move comes amid calls for greater scrutiny of Burma's nuclear activities and its links with equally secretive and nuclear-armed North Korea.
Analysts say Burma's interest in joining the Asia/Pacific Safeguards Network, an international group chaired by Australia, could be a hint of tentative openness by the notoriously paranoid regime - or another smokescreen.
And while Australia may be sympathetic to Burma joining the network, other members of the 14-nation body remain deeply suspicious of its motives.
Burma is under international surveillance following widespread reports last year that it was secretly building a nuclear reactor as part of a North Korean-backed effort to build a nuclear bomb.
While Australia and other nations insist the reports are unconfirmed, the federal government has expressed concern that a nuclear-armed Burma would seriously threaten regional and international security.
Burma's interest in joining the safeguards network is revealed in a new report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a respected non-government group.
The network, initiated by Australia and launched last October, has yet to consider if Burma should be allowed in, the institute's report said.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade declined to say what Australia's attitude would be to the Burmese move, as it had not formally applied to join and decisions on membership were made by consensus.
''Australia will consider the question of Burma joining APSN, in consultation with other APSN members, if the matter arises,'' the spokeswoman said.
The Sunday Age understands at least one key member of the safeguards network - Japan, the target for North Korea's periodic nuclear sabre-rattling - is sceptical of Burma's intentions and could resist its entry to the group, due to hold its first formal meeting in Jakarta in April.
Members are Australia, Canada, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam and the US.
The network does not carry out inspections, but aims to promote nuclear safety by sharing information and co-operating in training and other areas.
An Australia-based Burma analyst, who asked not to be identified, said Burma's interest in joining the network added another puzzle to the mystery surrounding the regime's nuclear plans.
''It would seem curious that they're taking up this initiative to join up with a group like that, if they were in fact pursuing weapons of mass destruction,'' he said.
''It could be a smokescreen, there's always that. These guys are not beyond doing things of that nature, but it would seem a bit odd.''
David Albright, director of the Washington institute that revealed Burma's interest in joining the network, said he hoped Burma would be allowed to join.
''I would allow Burma in, so you can start meeting these people. They're not going to learn how to cheat in a group like this,'' Mr Albright told The Sunday Age.
''It makes sense to meet them, start to engage them, and start to educate them about what's needed. We need transparency, and one way is to get them to participate.''
The new ISIS report calls for greater international focus on Burma's nuclear activities.
While it says there is no concrete proof the regime is building secret reactors, there were ''sound reasons'' to suspect Burma of pursuing a strategy to make nuclear weapons.
http://ping.fm/FiooF
British Government: As long as the elections are contested on the current constitution, whatever the outcome they cannot be recognised by the international community
British Government: As long as the elections are contested on the current constitution, whatever the outcome they cannot be recognised by the international community
01 February 2010
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) today welcomes the British Government stands on Burmese junta’s 2008 constitution and planned 2010 election.
Written in the Hansard, Mr. Ivan Lewis, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that “The constitution that underpins the election is deeply flawed. It is designed to perpetuate military rule in Burma. As long as the elections are contested on the current constitution, whatever the outcome they cannot be recognised by the international community.” And he went on saying that “It must be clear that without the release of political prisoners and a commitment to an inclusive process in respect of opposition and ethnic groups, the forthcoming elections in Burma will not be recognised by the international community-indeed, they will be entirely illegitimate.”
Mr. Lewis said that “We continue to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. We have made it clear that the elections cannot be credible if political prisoners are not free and able to engage in an inclusive process. We have lobbied China, India and Association of South East Nations members to recognise that only free and fair elections will lead to a stable and secure Burma. We support the UN Secretary-General's continued engagement. Tough EU sanctions will remain in place in the absence of any progress. It is equally important that the entire international community gives a united response to any election outcome. If there were any suggestion that some members of the international community attempted in any way to legitimise that outcome, that would be very dangerous in terms of strengthening the regime. What we seek to achieve is maximum unity of response on the basis that the election will be fought on a flawed constitution.”
Myo Thein, the Director at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “We are very glad to learn British Government’s clear stand on democratisation of Burma and significantly they do not playing into the junta’s illegal 2010 election. We hope that other democratic countries around the world would follow the lead of British Government listening to the genuine voices of people of Burma.”
Junta plotted the ploy and imprisoned Aung San Suu Kyi which is tantamount to turning back on dialogue and ultimately national reconciliation.
With reference to United Nations’ responsibility on democratisation of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi said that “United Nations should demand the military regime to do national reconciliation first before holding the 2010 election. Otherwise the elections will be illegal, unjust and lack of credibility if it is held before facilitating to take place the national reconciliation”.
A tremendous responsibility rests upon the United Nations Organization to a far better end, and we are looking for a more positive and bolder lead of the United Nations as military regime is trying to nullify the results of the 1990 elections by planning to hold sham election in 2010 even though National League for Democracy (NLD) clearly stated their position in the “Shwe-Gone-Dine” declaration that need to place in order to have genuine national reconciliation in Burma.
Khin Maung Win, the Director at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “The vital issue here is that 1990 election results are still yet to be honoured and the planned elections will be held in accord with 2008 constitution. The essence of the 2008 Constitution is to guarantee impunity indefinitely and the 2010 election will implement it. Moreover, it is systematically designed to entrench military rule in Burma.”
U Tint Swe Thi Ha, the Patron at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “As long as military regime is in power in one form or another, Burma will not be a peaceful state and moreover it will threaten regional stability leading to destabilizing of peace in the world at large since junta has the ambition of possessing nuclear weapons.”
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar, the Patron at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “In addition, the suffering of people of Burma will be never-ending since junta will always extinguish democratic principles and ethnics’ rights with brutal force in order to hold on power. The free and democratic world has a moral responsibility to intervene on behalf of humanity. We want to build democratic Burma prevailing peace, prosperity and progress in the country where everyone can enjoy the freedom of speech, press, beliefs, assembly and rule of law that emphasizes the protection of individual rights.”
For more information please contact Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) at;
Myo Thein 00-44-787-788-2386
Khin Maung Win 00-1-941-961-2622
U Tint Swe Thi Ha 00-1-509-582-3261
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar 00-1-509-586-8309
Notes to Editor:
1. Burma Constitutional Conference was held in UK, London on 19/20 December 2009 organised by Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) and FBE-UK attended by delegates based in UK
Watch Video Here
2. Burma Constitutional Conference unanimously adopted the working strategy resolution
Burma-Constitutional-Conference-Working-Strategy-Resolution
3. Burmese delegation from NLD-LA-UK, Burma Lawyers’ Council, Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) and Women of Burma (UK) met with FCO officials on 21 December 2009 in order to explain current situation of Burma, the importance of 1990 election results, junta’s 2008 constitution, and planned 2010 election after the Burma Constitutional Conference
4. Gordon Brown has sent a letter to Aung San Suu Kyi on 30 Dec 2009 by saying that “If the scheduled elections proceed under a rigged constitution, with opposition leaders excluded and with no international oversight, the military rulers will be condemning Burma to more years of diplomatic isolation and economic stagnation”
Gordon Brown Letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
5. Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) launched “Yes We Can” Campaign on 4th January 2010 in order to speed up to implement 1990 election result in Burma, to change junta’s sham 2008 constitution and to Boycott junta’s planned sham 2010 election
Click here for Statement
6. Hansard (the Official Report) is the edited verbatim report of proceedings in both Houses. It is an edited record of what was said in the British Parliament
Hansard (the Official Report)
7. Global Action for Burma (GAB), the coalition of 141 Burmese democratic and ethnics organisations around the world based inside and outside Burma working collectively together to bring about genuine democracy, human rights and rule of law in Burma, on 26 January 2010 call for United Nations Security Council to declare junta’s 2008 constitution as NULL & VOID
Global Action For Burma Statement
8. 14th Forum of Burmese in Europe was held in Germany, Frankfurt on 16/17 January 2010 attended by Burmese delegates from around the Europe. The FBE conference adopted the Burma Constitutional Conference working strategy resolution unanimously
9. Foreign office minister Bill Rammel said on 01 May 2009 that “The regime has pressed ahead with its flawed roadmap process, which looks set to bring about elections in 2010 that entrench military rule”
Foreign office minister Bill Rammel
10. Aung San Suu Kyi said on 24 July 2009 that “United Nations should demand the military regime to do national reconciliation first before holding the 2010 election. Otherwise it will be illegal, unjust and lack of credibility if it is held before facilitating to take place the national reconciliation”
Click here for Aung San Suu Kyi's Speech on Video
01 February 2010
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) today welcomes the British Government stands on Burmese junta’s 2008 constitution and planned 2010 election.
Written in the Hansard, Mr. Ivan Lewis, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that “The constitution that underpins the election is deeply flawed. It is designed to perpetuate military rule in Burma. As long as the elections are contested on the current constitution, whatever the outcome they cannot be recognised by the international community.” And he went on saying that “It must be clear that without the release of political prisoners and a commitment to an inclusive process in respect of opposition and ethnic groups, the forthcoming elections in Burma will not be recognised by the international community-indeed, they will be entirely illegitimate.”
Mr. Lewis said that “We continue to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. We have made it clear that the elections cannot be credible if political prisoners are not free and able to engage in an inclusive process. We have lobbied China, India and Association of South East Nations members to recognise that only free and fair elections will lead to a stable and secure Burma. We support the UN Secretary-General's continued engagement. Tough EU sanctions will remain in place in the absence of any progress. It is equally important that the entire international community gives a united response to any election outcome. If there were any suggestion that some members of the international community attempted in any way to legitimise that outcome, that would be very dangerous in terms of strengthening the regime. What we seek to achieve is maximum unity of response on the basis that the election will be fought on a flawed constitution.”
Myo Thein, the Director at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “We are very glad to learn British Government’s clear stand on democratisation of Burma and significantly they do not playing into the junta’s illegal 2010 election. We hope that other democratic countries around the world would follow the lead of British Government listening to the genuine voices of people of Burma.”
Junta plotted the ploy and imprisoned Aung San Suu Kyi which is tantamount to turning back on dialogue and ultimately national reconciliation.
With reference to United Nations’ responsibility on democratisation of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi said that “United Nations should demand the military regime to do national reconciliation first before holding the 2010 election. Otherwise the elections will be illegal, unjust and lack of credibility if it is held before facilitating to take place the national reconciliation”.
A tremendous responsibility rests upon the United Nations Organization to a far better end, and we are looking for a more positive and bolder lead of the United Nations as military regime is trying to nullify the results of the 1990 elections by planning to hold sham election in 2010 even though National League for Democracy (NLD) clearly stated their position in the “Shwe-Gone-Dine” declaration that need to place in order to have genuine national reconciliation in Burma.
Khin Maung Win, the Director at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “The vital issue here is that 1990 election results are still yet to be honoured and the planned elections will be held in accord with 2008 constitution. The essence of the 2008 Constitution is to guarantee impunity indefinitely and the 2010 election will implement it. Moreover, it is systematically designed to entrench military rule in Burma.”
U Tint Swe Thi Ha, the Patron at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “As long as military regime is in power in one form or another, Burma will not be a peaceful state and moreover it will threaten regional stability leading to destabilizing of peace in the world at large since junta has the ambition of possessing nuclear weapons.”
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar, the Patron at the Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) said, “In addition, the suffering of people of Burma will be never-ending since junta will always extinguish democratic principles and ethnics’ rights with brutal force in order to hold on power. The free and democratic world has a moral responsibility to intervene on behalf of humanity. We want to build democratic Burma prevailing peace, prosperity and progress in the country where everyone can enjoy the freedom of speech, press, beliefs, assembly and rule of law that emphasizes the protection of individual rights.”
For more information please contact Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) at;
Myo Thein 00-44-787-788-2386
Khin Maung Win 00-1-941-961-2622
U Tint Swe Thi Ha 00-1-509-582-3261
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar 00-1-509-586-8309
Notes to Editor:
1. Burma Constitutional Conference was held in UK, London on 19/20 December 2009 organised by Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) and FBE-UK attended by delegates based in UK
Watch Video Here
2. Burma Constitutional Conference unanimously adopted the working strategy resolution
Burma-Constitutional-Conference-Working-Strategy-Resolution
3. Burmese delegation from NLD-LA-UK, Burma Lawyers’ Council, Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) and Women of Burma (UK) met with FCO officials on 21 December 2009 in order to explain current situation of Burma, the importance of 1990 election results, junta’s 2008 constitution, and planned 2010 election after the Burma Constitutional Conference
4. Gordon Brown has sent a letter to Aung San Suu Kyi on 30 Dec 2009 by saying that “If the scheduled elections proceed under a rigged constitution, with opposition leaders excluded and with no international oversight, the military rulers will be condemning Burma to more years of diplomatic isolation and economic stagnation”
Gordon Brown Letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
5. Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) launched “Yes We Can” Campaign on 4th January 2010 in order to speed up to implement 1990 election result in Burma, to change junta’s sham 2008 constitution and to Boycott junta’s planned sham 2010 election
Click here for Statement
6. Hansard (the Official Report) is the edited verbatim report of proceedings in both Houses. It is an edited record of what was said in the British Parliament
Hansard (the Official Report)
7. Global Action for Burma (GAB), the coalition of 141 Burmese democratic and ethnics organisations around the world based inside and outside Burma working collectively together to bring about genuine democracy, human rights and rule of law in Burma, on 26 January 2010 call for United Nations Security Council to declare junta’s 2008 constitution as NULL & VOID
Global Action For Burma Statement
8. 14th Forum of Burmese in Europe was held in Germany, Frankfurt on 16/17 January 2010 attended by Burmese delegates from around the Europe. The FBE conference adopted the Burma Constitutional Conference working strategy resolution unanimously
9. Foreign office minister Bill Rammel said on 01 May 2009 that “The regime has pressed ahead with its flawed roadmap process, which looks set to bring about elections in 2010 that entrench military rule”
Foreign office minister Bill Rammel
10. Aung San Suu Kyi said on 24 July 2009 that “United Nations should demand the military regime to do national reconciliation first before holding the 2010 election. Otherwise it will be illegal, unjust and lack of credibility if it is held before facilitating to take place the national reconciliation”
Click here for Aung San Suu Kyi's Speech on Video
United Nations must enforce military Junta to honour the 1990 election result now, not another 2010 election in Burma
Burma Democratic Concern today called for United Nations to change their stand on Burma. They must have the clear vision. Military Regime declared to hold the referendum in May 2008. The regime manipulated the international community and misled by declaring the new election which will be taken place in 2010. United Nations seem to deem its vision on Burma by asking for inclusive 2010 election and transparent 2008 referendum.
http://ping.fm/5odgX
Burma Democratic Concern today called for United Nations to change their stand on Burma. They must have the clear vision. Military Regime declared to hold the referendum in May 2008. The regime manipulated the international community and misled by declaring the new election which will be taken place in 2010. United Nations seem to deem its vision on Burma by asking for inclusive 2010 election and transparent 2008 referendum.
http://ping.fm/5odgX
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) is the global campaigning and lobbying organisation to restore democracy, human rights and rule of law in Burma where everyone can enjoy the freedom of speech, press, beliefs, assembly and rule of law that emphasizes the protection of individual rights. Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) have the firm determination, dedication and devotion to keep on working until the democracy restore in Burma.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) believes that the solution for the crisis of Burma is restoring democracy, human rights and rule of law. Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) is equipped with participants who had political background and in depth knowledge of Burma issues. They had experiences in the past and engaging in current activities. http://www.bdcburma.org
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) believes that the solution for the crisis of Burma is restoring democracy, human rights and rule of law. Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) is equipped with participants who had political background and in depth knowledge of Burma issues. They had experiences in the past and engaging in current activities. http://www.bdcburma.org
Life of U Thiha Tint Swe (Patron of BDC)
" MEMO-NON-VIOLENT DISCORDING"
On 6th,Feb,2010,I had to view back the portrait of Taw Phu Yar Galay,was the patron of our National Politic Front(N.P.F,Reg.No:120) together with U Win Tin &Daw Myint Myint Khin at 4th,Taw Phu Yar Galay's literacy ceremony on Moemakha Web.site from U.S.A.
When my reviewing of his portrait with his wife-Daw Khin Mae(Mae),I with my family had to depart from Burma to U.S.A for 7.years and when Taw Taw's departing period from his comrades & friends,had to hear his funeral news from Thailand and so had no rights on worship to his funeral ceremony but worshiped his noble historical dignity from far away.
In here,I recognized the quotation of the writter-BaMoa Tin Aung that's " the man's value will have to measure with the ruler how many had been responsibilitied the duties of his crossed historical era" and so we could talk about our patron-Taw Phu Yar Galay who could responsibilitied fully the duties of Peace,Democracy & National solidarity struggling of long time military detector ship system because he participated in the internal peaceful committee of Thakhin Ko Taw Mhile with Bojoke-Kyaw Zaw in1963 and then was sentenced with Political act-5/J on organization of Peoples' party to get Burma's Peace,Democracy & National solidarity in Bo Ne Win era and then participated back in our National Political Party(N.P.F,Reg.No;120) had been born by the greatest 8888-democratic movement.
On 16th,June,1989,I with Taw Taw,U Tin Oo & Daw Aung Sann Su Kyi had non-violent disordered anti-unjust command-orders of S.L.O.R.C(Burma Junta Regime) at our office of National Politic Front(N.P.F),Thatipahtan street,Kyakmyaung,Tamawae Tsp,Rangoon,Burma.In it,we hanged the bright red slogan" Let us non-violent disorder gradually all unjust commands & orders of S.L.O.R.C" in front of our N.P.F among over 60000 peoples and then I announced the program of ceremony as the chief of it and then Taw Taw spoke bravely long time with non-violent disorder ed tactic of Mahatama Ghandi and then U Tin Oo continued to explain systematically the soldiers' discipline of Bojoke Aung Sann on the peoples and then Daw Aung Sann Su Kyi continued to speak bravelyto non-violent disorder gradually all unjust commands &orders of S.L.O.R.C and so the soldiers of 6 military cars frighted & commanded us to stop suddenly our ceremony with their guns and also A.B.S.D.F's students prepared to defense the peoples and our ceremony became hardly more & more tension and so Daw Aung Sann Su Kyi told anxiety me to save the peoples' ceremony but promised back her to save the peoples' ceremony and then she came in front of N.P.F to save & speak the peoples nearest uprising and then we had to stop successfully our ceremony with the leaders' speech of Peoples' Progressive Party(P.P.P),Democratic Party for New society (D.P.N.S) & The Party of New blood (P.N.B) and then saw Taw Phu Yar Galay with the clothes package for prison and so I brought back him with U Tun Tin to Taw Phu Yar Galay's house,near Mon's Damayone building,Shwedagone pagoda road.At that moment, Taw Taw's wife-Daw Khin Mae receipted warmly kindly us and then I with Taw Taw arrested & sentenced by Bojoke Myo Nyunt,the chief commander of Rangoon division on 15th,July,1989 and his hand was broken at No.4 cell(10"x10") Insein prison and then Taw Taw released early more than me and then wrote the historical researched books( Ruby with carnal Salaydin).
Best regard;
(U ThiHa Tint Swe)
On 6th,Feb,2010,I had to view back the portrait of Taw Phu Yar Galay,was the patron of our National Politic Front(N.P.F,Reg.No:120) together with U Win Tin &Daw Myint Myint Khin at 4th,Taw Phu Yar Galay's literacy ceremony on Moemakha Web.site from U.S.A.
When my reviewing of his portrait with his wife-Daw Khin Mae(Mae),I with my family had to depart from Burma to U.S.A for 7.years and when Taw Taw's departing period from his comrades & friends,had to hear his funeral news from Thailand and so had no rights on worship to his funeral ceremony but worshiped his noble historical dignity from far away.
In here,I recognized the quotation of the writter-BaMoa Tin Aung that's " the man's value will have to measure with the ruler how many had been responsibilitied the duties of his crossed historical era" and so we could talk about our patron-Taw Phu Yar Galay who could responsibilitied fully the duties of Peace,Democracy & National solidarity struggling of long time military detector ship system because he participated in the internal peaceful committee of Thakhin Ko Taw Mhile with Bojoke-Kyaw Zaw in1963 and then was sentenced with Political act-5/J on organization of Peoples' party to get Burma's Peace,Democracy & National solidarity in Bo Ne Win era and then participated back in our National Political Party(N.P.F,Reg.No;120) had been born by the greatest 8888-democratic movement.
On 16th,June,1989,I with Taw Taw,U Tin Oo & Daw Aung Sann Su Kyi had non-violent disordered anti-unjust command-orders of S.L.O.R.C(Burma Junta Regime) at our office of National Politic Front(N.P.F),Thatipahtan street,Kyakmyaung,Tamawae Tsp,Rangoon,Burma.In it,we hanged the bright red slogan" Let us non-violent disorder gradually all unjust commands & orders of S.L.O.R.C" in front of our N.P.F among over 60000 peoples and then I announced the program of ceremony as the chief of it and then Taw Taw spoke bravely long time with non-violent disorder ed tactic of Mahatama Ghandi and then U Tin Oo continued to explain systematically the soldiers' discipline of Bojoke Aung Sann on the peoples and then Daw Aung Sann Su Kyi continued to speak bravelyto non-violent disorder gradually all unjust commands &orders of S.L.O.R.C and so the soldiers of 6 military cars frighted & commanded us to stop suddenly our ceremony with their guns and also A.B.S.D.F's students prepared to defense the peoples and our ceremony became hardly more & more tension and so Daw Aung Sann Su Kyi told anxiety me to save the peoples' ceremony but promised back her to save the peoples' ceremony and then she came in front of N.P.F to save & speak the peoples nearest uprising and then we had to stop successfully our ceremony with the leaders' speech of Peoples' Progressive Party(P.P.P),Democratic Party for New society (D.P.N.S) & The Party of New blood (P.N.B) and then saw Taw Phu Yar Galay with the clothes package for prison and so I brought back him with U Tun Tin to Taw Phu Yar Galay's house,near Mon's Damayone building,Shwedagone pagoda road.At that moment, Taw Taw's wife-Daw Khin Mae receipted warmly kindly us and then I with Taw Taw arrested & sentenced by Bojoke Myo Nyunt,the chief commander of Rangoon division on 15th,July,1989 and his hand was broken at No.4 cell(10"x10") Insein prison and then Taw Taw released early more than me and then wrote the historical researched books( Ruby with carnal Salaydin).
Best regard;
(U ThiHa Tint Swe)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
