Study: Women lawmakers best men
Erika Lovley Erika Lovley
Tue Sep 15, 5:46 am ET
Are women more effective lawmakers than men?
That’s the preliminary conclusion of a study conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the University of Chicago, who say that on average, women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.
The study, which examined the performance of House members between 1984 and 2004, found that women delivered roughly 9 percent more discretionary spending for their districts than men.
For instance, during Rep. Judy Biggert’s first two-year term, Illinois’s 13th District received $382 million in federal funds, $70 million more than it received during the final term of her predecessor, Rep. Harris Fawell.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren delivered around $859 million to her district, compared with $541 million brought in by her predecessor, Rep. Don Edwards, during his final term, the researchers said.
And during then-Rep. Connie Morella’s first term, Maryland’s 8th District received $780 million, $183 million more than predecessor Rep. Michael Barnes brought in during his final term, they said.
While there are obviously variables beyond gender — seniority, party affiliation, majority/minority status and the differing priorities of a freshman and a veteran lawmaker — the researchers say they’ve accounted for those in making their male-to-female comparisons.
“You could easily make the argument that a politician who is on his way out, or someone who is sitting on a really powerful committee, is in a different position than someone just coming into office,” said Stanford researcher Sarah Anzia. “Not every example will cover every alternative explanation, but we control for all of those factors in the study.”
The researchers also found that women introduced more legislation than men who served in their same districts, often hitting the ground running in their first terms.
“We find that, on average, women sponsor about three bills more per Congress per term than their male counterparts,” said Anzia. “They co-sponsor more bills than other members, and they also obtain more co-sponsors for their own bills.”
Since 1789, women have constituted just 2 percent of the total congressional population. The ratio of female to male representatives has increased in recent years, but the pace is still fairly glacial: Nearly 17 percent of House members are women today, compared with about 3 percent in 1979.
Researchers say the small number of female members may have something to do with their effectiveness. Women who run and win are likely the most politically ambitious and talented of their pool, having potentially overcome hurdles including voter bias and self-doubt about their ability to win. Female candidates also tend to attract more challengers. Politically eligible women tend to doubt their ability to get elected and raise money more than men do, multiple studies have indicated. Large majorities of both men and women in candidate feeder pools, such as law offices and political organizations, believe there is a bias against women in elections, according to Lawless and Fox studies in 2005 and 2004.
Once women get to Capitol Hill, those hurdles may drive them to perform better, on average, than male counterparts who have faced a less contentious road.
“Research shows that even though women have similar success rates in primaries and elections as men, they are likely to face more challengers,” said Hartwick College political science department chairwoman Laurel Elder. “The results might be the same, but they might have to work harder to get those same results.”
“People ask, ‘Are you going to be strong enough? Are you going to be a fighter for us?’” said Rep. Judy Biggert, who beat five men in the initial Illinois Republican primary in 1998. “That’s always the way I’ve been treated.”
Biggert said she was told during her early days in law school at Northwestern University that she was a student by mistake — a man should have been in her seat.
“That has always given me the drive to work two, three times harder than men,” Biggert said.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a rising GOP star and female-candidate recruiter for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said it took several “taps on the shoulder” before she decided to run for office.
“Women seem to wait for someone who plants the idea and gives them confidence,” McMorris Rodgers said. “I had individuals who shared their confidence in me, and it helped erase some of the self-doubt.”
“Running for Congress is no walk in the park,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who has served in the House since 1995. “It’s a tough business, and people who do it successfully stand trial by fire.”
Lofgren entered the 1994 Democratic primary in California as the ultimate underdog against a favored male candidate, San Jose Mayor Tom McEnery. On primary night, television crews and reporters crowded her opponent’s headquarters, awaiting the presumed winner’s victory speech, while a lone photographer sat at Lofgren’s offices, waiting to snap a photo of the loser. But in an upset, Lofgren won the primary and then the election. Despite her victory, she faced additional hurdles on Capitol Hill that have continued to drive her daily work efforts. Her initial committee requests were ignored, she said, and she struggled to break through some of the old boys’ networks.
“There were some older male members who had a tough time accepting that there were women members,” said Lofgren, an immigration lawyer who now serves on the powerful House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees.
However, political science professor Jyl Josephson, director of the Rutgers Women’s Studies Program, cautions not to make too much of gender differences on the Hill — particularly among members who’ve been there for a while.
“We spend a lot time measuring gender differences rather than similarities,” Josephson said. “But there are many studies that show similarities, and they don’t get discussed nearly as much.”
Read More Stories from POLITICO
Revolving door for health care aides
Moran: Obama called Kanye a 'jackass'
Politics trumps policy in health debate
The Huddle: Culture wars
Dems to vote on Wilson sanction
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.Questions or CommentsPrivacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCopyright/IP Policy
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Are women more effective lawmakers than men?
ビルマ市民フォーラム メールマガジン 2009/9/15
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
ビルマ市民フォーラム メールマガジン 2009/9/15
People's Forum on Burma
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
9月13日付、ビルマ情報ネットワーク（BurmaInfo）からのメールを転送させていただき
ます。
（重複の際は何卒ご容赦ください。）
ＰＦＢ事務局 宮澤
http://www1.jca.apc.org/pfb/
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
国民民主連盟（NLD）中央執行委員のウィンティン氏（80）による、米ワシント
ン・ポスト紙への寄稿を紹介します。
来年予定の総選挙に関するNLDの最新の立場表明です。
この中でウィンティン氏は「（ビルマを訪問した米上院議員の）ウェッブ氏は私た
ち（NLD）に対し、長期的な政治戦略の一環としてこの『選挙』への参加を検討する
よう望んでいる。しかし軍事政権が予定する見せかけの選挙とは、わが国の国民が求
める自由を完全に押し潰すものであり、軍事独裁政権の恒久化を実現するものだ」と
し、参加の可能性をはっきり否定しています。
掲載から数日後の12日に、ウィンティン氏は数時間、当局に拘束されました（12日
AFP）。
日本語訳をビルマ情報ネットワークのウェブサイトに掲載しました。ご覧くださ
い。
ビルマ国民に不要な「選挙」
http://www.burmainfo.org/article/article.php?mode=0&articleid=493
原文（英語）
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/08/AR2009090802
959.html
ビルマ情報ネットワーク（http://www.burmainfo.org）
秋元由紀
========================================
ビルマ国民に不要な「選挙」
ウィンティン
ワシントン・ポスト（寄稿）
2009年9月9日
ジェームズ・ウェッブ米上院議員が私の母国を最近訪問し、タンシュエ上級大将
と会談したこと、そしてノーベル平和賞受賞者アウンサンスーチー氏が投獄されたこ
とに多大な関心が寄せられている。個人的には、ビルマの現政権との実質的な対話を
求めるウェッブ氏の強い思いは理解できる。だが残念なことに、ウェッブ氏の努力
は、私たちの民主化運動に悪影響を及ぼしており、誤った問題に焦点を当てている。
その問題とは「選挙」の可能性のことだ。ウェッブ氏は私たちに対し、長期的な政治
戦略の一環としてこの「選挙」への参加を検討するよう望んでいる。しかし軍事政権
が予定する見せかけの選挙とは、わが国の国民が求める自由を完全に押し潰すもので
あり、軍事独裁政権の恒久化を実現するものだ。
わが国で最後に行われた（訳注：1990年の）自由選挙では、ビルマ国民は国軍の
支配を拒絶し、私たちの政党・国民民主連盟（NLD）に対して、8割以上の議席を割り
当てる圧倒的な勝利をもたらした。にもかかわらず国軍はNLDの政権樹立をいまだ拒
んでいる。選挙からこれまでの19年間、ビルマの民主化活動家は投獄や脅迫、拷問、
そして死に直面してきた。正義、個々や民族の権利、ビルマ全国民を代表する民主政
権を平和的に訴えたことがその理由だ。
私たちNLDは民主化運動を断固として継続する一方で、現政権と話し合いのチャネ
ルを開き、対話を開始する可能性を絶えず探ってきた。平和と相互信頼に基づき、ビ
ルマの抱える政治問題と同時に社会問題を対処するための対話を目指してきた。誤解
のないようにしておかなければならないが、この二つの問題はつながっているのだ。
ビルマはかつてアジアの米所だった。だが今日では、軍政が国軍支配の維持を目的と
して破壊的な経済政策と弾圧を実施してきたために、ビルマは壊滅的なダメージを受
け、貧困が蔓延する国になってしまった。
軍政は見せかけの「選挙」を行うことで薄っぺらい合法性を纏おうとし、「規律
ある民主主義」が来年には制度化されると喧伝している。だが2008年5月には、巨大
サイクロンがビルマに未曽有の被害を与え、10万人以上の命を奪った直後であるにも
かかわらず、政府は実にばかげたプロセスを実施し、投票者の93％が憲法を承認した
と発表した。この憲法は国軍支配を恒久化するほか、定義のない「外国との関係」を
持つ人物が公職に就くことを禁じている。これはスーチー氏と民主化活動家が公職に
就くことを妨害するために設けられたご都合主義的な条項だ。
国際的な観測筋の一部には、来年に予定されているこの選挙をチャンスと捉える
向きもある。だが国軍製の憲法が押しつけられている状況下では、選挙はいんちきな
ものにしかならない。わが国に自由をもたらす一縷の望みもないプロセスに参加する
ために、数百万のビルマ国民がデモに参加し、逮捕され、拷問され、命を落として求
めてきた民主主義に関する諸原則をあっさり捨て去ることなど、私たちにはありえな
い。
NLDの諸要求には筋が通っている。この4月に、私たちは国軍との話し合いの実現
に向けて新たな宣言を発表し、全政治囚の釈放、憲法の全面的な見直し、すべての
NLD支部の再開、結社の自由を求めた。軍政はこれに対し、スーチー氏ら2,000人の活
動家を引き続き投獄し、民族集団に対する軍事的攻勢を強化し、民主主義を封じ込め
る規則を適用することで応えた。
国際社会はどのようにして実質的な役割を果たすことができるだろうか。まず
ウェッブ氏のような当局者は中国脅威論を唱えるのを止めるべきだ。ウェッブ氏は中
国の封じ込めと、それに対してビルマ軍政の協力を求めることを主張しているが、こ
れは時代遅れで非現実的な見解に基づいている。スーチー氏はウェッブ氏に対して次
のように述べ、こうした考え方を退けている。「私たちは相手がどこであれ、恐怖や
不安を抱えて接することはありません。私たちはどの国とも、中国であれ米国であれ
インドであれ、平等かつ友好的に接します。近隣国を選ぶことはできないのですか
ら、中国とよい関係を持つ必要があることは認識しています。」第二に、NLDは他国
や国際機関に対して、ビルマ軍政指導部と接触し、私たちNLDと同時にビルマの民族
集団と話し合いを行うよう説得することを求めている。米国など多くの国々がビルマ
に制裁措置を実施している。これは各国の独自の判断によるものであり、私たち皆が
心から大切にしている民主的な価値観に対し各国が示す正当な連帯とも調和してい
る。現政権がNLDと民族集団の代表者とまともに向き合い、政治囚を釈放し、少数民
族への攻撃を停止し、真の民主国家建設に向けた追加的な処置をとるならば、これら
の制裁は適切な時に解除されるだろう。
それまでは、私たちの決意が揺らがないことをはっきりさせておきたい。NLDは、
ビルマ社会の反映だ。私たちは、私たちの闘争の目標である自由をビルマ国民から
奪ってしまう、致命的な欠陥のある政治プロセスに、脅迫や強制によって参加するこ
とはない。私たちにはいつでも話し合いに応じる用意がある。だが私たちには、あれ
ほど多くの人々が自らの命と自由を犠牲にし、獲得しようとしてきた民主的な価値観
を求める闘争を継続するという固い決意があるのだ。
＊ウィンティン氏はビルマの国民民主連盟（NLD）中央執行委員で創設者の一人。
1989年から2008年まで政治囚として投獄されていた。
出典：U Win Tin, “An 'Election' Burma's People Don't Need,” Washington
Post (op-ed), September 9, 2009.
日本語訳 ビルマ情報ネットワーク（翻訳・掲載許可取得済）
========================================
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
配布元 ビルマ情報ネットワーク（BurmaInfo） http://www.burmainfo.org
連絡先 listmaster@burmainfo.org
バックナンバー http://groups.yahoo.co.jp/group/burmainfo/
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
▽転載について
・ビルマ情報ネットワーク（BurmaInfo）のメールマガジンの転載・再配布は、必ず出典を明記したうえで行ってください。
・不特定多数に配付する印刷物や、新聞、雑誌、機関紙（誌）などに掲載の際は、必ずご連絡ください。
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
▽メーリングリストの参加・退会・アドレス変更について
以下のＵＲＬをご覧ください。
http://www.burmainfo.org/about/mailmagazine.php
※原則として手動での変更手続は行っておりませんが、どうしても解決できない
問題があるときや、疑問点がある場合は管理者宛にご連絡ください。
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Three Daughters Form Democratic Party
Three Daughters Form Democratic Party
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The formation of a new political party—the Democratic Party—to contend the 2010 Burmese elections was announced at a press conference in Rangoon on Monday. The party will be headed by the daughter of late Prime Minister U Nu, along with two other daughters of former political leaders.
The Democratic Party Chairman Thu Wai announced that the new party will be headed by: Mya Than Than Nu, the daughter of U Nu; Nay Yee Ba Swe, the daughter of late Prime Minister Ba Swe; and Cho Cho Kyaw Nyein, the daughter of late Deputy Prime Minister Kyaw Nyein.
He said the three would act as secretaries of the party and that it is prepared to participate in the upcoming election.
Veteran politician and former political prisoner Thu Wai made the announcement after a seminar titled “Analytic Discussion of the State of the Union 2010,” which was held on Monday at the Dolphin restaurant on Nat Mauk Street, Bahan Township, in Rangoon.
He said the Democratic Party has been formed in order to pursue democracy and to participate in the 2010 elections, which will transform Burma from decades-long authoritarian rule into a new system and toward a new era. He said the party will abandon all personal grudges, and defuse conflicts relating to politics, party, religion, race and the factionalism of Burma past.
He said the party will pursue democracy through the means of the parliament. If the Democratic Party were in power, it would seek to release all political prisoners and to fulfill the peoples' desires, he added.
The seminar at the Dolphin restaurant was chaired by Thu Wai and well-known politician [Amyotheryei ] Win Naing. Another 30 participants attended, including officers from the Police Special Branch and journalists.
Win Naing said that the 2010 elections offer few prospects for the pro-democracy forces in Burma, since the pro-democracy groups are divided on whether to run in the elections or not.
According to the 2008 constitution, the military will officially and permanently control 25 percent of both the Upper House and Lower House seats in parliament with the defense services personnel nominated by the Commander-in-Chief.
Win Naing suggested that the ruling junta would also form some political parties in order to nominate representatives in various constituencies. More importantly, the junta's candidates will “apply various means to win” the election, he said.
One of the options for resolving Burma's crisis is "the sharing of administrative power" between politicians and the armed forces, Win Naing said.
"We can share administrative power. In the post-election government, the military could take 60 percent of the positions of power while politicians occupy 40 percent,” he said. “Then in the next term, the power ratio between the military and the politicians would be 50-50. Then, after a third term of elections, the ratio could be 40 percent military and 60 percent for the politicians. This would mean a gradual decrease in military involvement in national politics and the open the door to a peaceful transition.”
Win Naing warned, however, that a "power-sharing proposal" could be unacceptable for the National League for Democracy (NLD), which won the 1990 elections by a landslide.
Thu Wai said he wanted to convince others to first achieve power through the ballot box to fill the remaining 75 percent of parliamentary seats. He said he considered this a priority for all pro-democracy groups.
"If we were in power after the elections, we would propose rewriting the laws and regulations that are contradictory to democracy,” he said. “But the most important thing is: first we must be in power.”
However, a journalist from Rangoon told The Irrawaddy that he believed Thu Wai's policies were impractical and difficult to implement.
"To revise the constitution, the proposed amendment needs at least 75 percent support from the representatives of the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (Upper House), and thereafter with the votes of more than half of eligible voters at a nationwide referendum. But first and foremost, the pro-democracy camp could hardly expect to win 75 percent of representatives’ votes,” he said.
The newly formed Democratic Party announced it would have 17 central executive members and 10 central committee members. It said it would be recruiting in the cities and some other regions.
Well-known businessman Ye Tun, the son of post-independence architect U Chan Tun, will serve as vice-chairman of the party.
Responding to rumors that his party would run as a proxy of Kyaw Myint of the Canada-based United Democratic Party (UDP), Thu Wai said the Democratic Party has no connection with the UDP and is receiving no funding from the exiled group.
At the seminar, both leading panelists stayed away from making comments about the 1990 general elections.
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org
Chinese Blood on Burmese Soil
Chinese Blood on Burmese Soil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, September 14, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peng Jiasheng is the Kokang leader whose residence was raided by government troops on August 8, setting off a regime offensive and leading to the loss of the Kokang region to junta troops. He was interviewed by The Irrawaddy on the reasons for the offensive, the role of China, the allegations of illegal drug trafficking, the borders guard force and the future of ethnic minorities in Burma.
Question: How would you describe the current situation in the Kokang region?
Answer: The incident on August 8 was the junta’s excuse. It wanted to do away with the local ethnic minority army a long time ago. A larger nationality wants to eliminate a smaller one. This is typical nationalistic chauvinism. This was a massacre.
Peng Jiasheng (Photo: Tom Kramer)
In order to avoid further harm to the Kokang people, the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) retreated. This is not what we wanted and also it is not what the people in the international community who support our people would like to see.
Now the situation in Kokang is even more complicated. Currently, the situation is very bad. The government troops took over the Kokang area for about 10 days, but there were many reported cases where their soldiers committed robbery, rape and killed civilians. Many people are still afraid to go back home. Most of the shops owned by Chinese businessmen were either destroyed or robbed. This is a calamity. The prosperous environment of Kokang of only a few months ago no longer exists. People are living in deep distress.
This conflict has brought great trauma to the Kokang people. The war will be long. It will be impossible to end soon.
Q: The ceasefire agreement you signed with the regime in 1989 has collapsed. What do you believe was the motive behind the offensive and the regime’s attempt to arrest you?
A: In March 1989, the Kokang people agreed to peace and development. In the same year, 17 other local ethnic armed forces also started peace talks with the junta. This brought to an end the large scale of armed conflict in the country.
The alliance army is also one of the legal ethnic armed forces that were recognized by the military government. Over the past 20 years of peace and development, the Kokang was the first group in the country to promise the international community that we would stop drug production. We enforced the ban on poppy cultivation in 2002 in our area. The anti-drug production effort and success were recognized by the UN and the international communities. With help from the World Food Programme, the Chinese government and other international aid agencies, we implemented a lot of poppy substitution projects, mainly to grow sugar crane, tea, walnuts and other crops. We achieved very good progress in the poppy substitution.
Step by step, the people in our area began to work their way up from poverty. This can be seen by everybody. However, as the military government wants to achieve their goal of controlling the whole country, it felt it needed to take action against the peace and the ceasefire groups.
Q: Soon after the government troops captured Laogai, the state-run-media repeatedly accused you of involvement in illegal arms factories and drugs. How do you respond to those allegations?
A: Burma is still a country without a real government. The army cannot represent the government. After the election in 1990, the junta usurped power in the country. Ever since then, there has been no proper government in our country. The international community has never officially acknowledged them as the government. Burma is currently a country managed by a temporary council that was set up by the junta. It was called the State Law and Order Restoration Council and was later changed to the State Peace and Development Council. The government army is also an ethnic armed force, so it can not represent this country.
In 1989, for the sake of the peace and welfare of the country, the Kokang people took the initiative to approach the junta-controlled council. This was to protect peace in the country, and to let the people live in peace. Over the past 20 years, we trusted the junta and have been respectful of them. Our political proposition is always the same: support the central government, take the road to peace and development, maintain nationality unification, guard national unity and strive for the autonomous rights of the Kokang people. We never wanted to separate from the country; we only wanted a recognized position for the Kokang people among all of Burma’s nationalities.
Q: How many people were killed in the latest conflict?
A: In this conflict, the Kokang people suffered great loss. We had 14 alliance army soldiers killed in battle, but what we do not know is the number of civilians killed. For example, some na?ve young people joined with the traitor Bai Suocheng and his army. In the battles, they were to be used by the government troops to fight against us. These young people refused because they were Kokang and could not kill their own people. The government troops took their weapons away and shot them with machine guns. On Aug. 27, 27 Kokang youth were killed together.
Q: Why did the junta decide to single out your group? Was there any reason other than the regime’s allegation of your involvement in opium and illegal drugs?
A: A lot of things happened over the past month that we never thought could happen. The Kokang alliance army is one of the legal armed forces in the country. All our weapons are old and the ammunition is left over from the days of the Burmese Communist Party. Many of these weapons are in need of repair. It is reasonable to have a factory to repair weapons. This factory is well known by all the SPDC officials in Kokang. They have visited it before. But now they used it as an excuse to take action against us.
The motivation behind this is obvious. They want to eliminate the Kokang and other ethnic armed forces and achieve their goal of a junta-managed “unified” country. It goes without saying that the junta will not stop with the Kokang. They will take the war to other groups with all kinds of excuses. If you want to condemn something, you can always find a charge. The government army is the strongest in the country. It can crack down on whichever ethnic groups it wishes. It can accuse any ceasefire group of drugs, or weapons…anything. The current situation on drugs, for example, in the four special regions in Shan State is that there is no poppy cultivation, according to investigations by the international agencies. However, in SPDC-controlled areas, there is more than 250,000 mu [Chinese land unit: 667 square meters] of poppy cultivation. This is the work of the junta, and this is how it behaves.
Q: Several ethnic ceasefire groups including the MNDAA rejected the junta's proposal for a Border Guard Force (BGF). Why did you reject the BGF plan?
A: We are not really against the idea of transferring the army to a BGF, but the terms and conditions were too rigorous. For example, all the officers above 50 would be forced to retire and find their own livelihood. The key leaders of the local government and the commanders of the army would also be appointed by the junta. These proposals are not acceptable to any of the ceasefire groups. It is also not acceptable to the local people. Our requirements were simple: we want to have a high level of national autonomy to protect the interests of the Kokang people.
Q: The Kokang and other ethnic groups are unhappy with the 2008 constitution. What do you see as its faults?
A: Regarding the constitution proposed by the junta in 2008, it is all about the power and interest of the junta. We do not believe that any rights and interests of the minorities are ensured in the constitution. How can we accept such a constitution that does not represent the people of the country? on the approval of this constitution, there are things that happened that few people know about. For example, in some of the Kokang villages, the junta sent people to vote in the referendum. The local people did not want to participate, so the junta officials themselves wrote [out] all the votes. There were villages where about 100 people voted No, but on their ballots it was reported that more than 3,000 people voted Yes. This is how it was approved.
Q: You merged with the CPB in the past and led the successful mutiny in 1989. You went to Beijing and you were closely associated with Chinese officials in the past. Today, China is the closest ally of the regime as well as a good friend of ethnic groups along the Sino-Burmese border. What was China's role in the recent conflict in the Kokang region?
A: During the Aug. 8 incident planned by the junta and the armed conflict afterwards, the Chinese government did not give us assistance. We could not talk to the Chinese government about protection and asylum. However, as the Kokang are in fact Chinese, when the refugees fled to China the local authorities took very good care of them. That we really appreciate.
Q: What is your message to Chinese leaders who plan to build a gas pipeline through the Kokang region?
A: What I want to say here is no matter what happens in Burma, we are ethnic Chinese and our roots are in China. This we will never forget. For the sake of the rights and position of the Chinese in Burma, we will continue our struggle.
Q: How do you see the future of Burma and the ethnic minorities?
A: Regarding the future of the ethnic minorities in Burma, this is a complicated issue. If Burma does not set up a democratic government that is elected by the people and therefore really represents the people, the future of the minorities in Burma will get worse.
Q: Did you receive any political backing or military support from other ethnic groups along the border? Are they united in their goals?
A: All the minority ceasefire groups along the China-Burma border areas have good relations with each other and have supported each other over a long period of time. Our fate and experiences are the same. But due to certain difficulties, our alliance is not as strong as it should be. Therefore the junta had its opportunity, and now the Kokang area is under junta control.
Q: Are you worried about losing your personal property and your businesses in Burma and China?
A: Currently, all my personal property has been confiscated by the junta. My property in China was also taken away by the relevant department of the Chinese government. This is a problem that I can not solve by worrying about it.
Q: Please describe the refugee situation. There were reports of government officials and soldiers attacking Chinese nationals? Was the recent attack designed to demonstrate that the government is not a puppet of China?
A: I think the reason why the junta attacked the Kokang is because of the following:
First, the junta wanted to develop better relationships with America, India and some Western authorities, in particular with America. In order to improve the relationship with America, the junta is eager to prove that the junta is not a puppet government supported by the Chinese government. That is why the junta chose the Kokang to fight against.
They also wanted to test the response of the Chinese government. The Kokang and the Chinese have a blood relationship. The Kokang people are basically Chinese; they are part of the Chinese family. The Chinese in Burma were not officially recognized by the Burmese and therefore for centuries they lived in a very low economic and social position. Only after the meeting in Ninakan in 1947, after the national government’s recognition, were the Chinese living in these areas called Kokang. But as a matter of fact, the Kokang people are Chinese. We are the descendants of the Yellow emperor. The anti-Chinese movement in 1967 in Burma feels like yesterday.
Even today, many Chinese living in Burma still do not dare to declare that they are Chinese. In 1989, when the Kokang Alliance Army was established, all the Chinese in Burma looked at the Chinese armed forces as the “lighthouse.” Now the ‘”lighthouse” has gone off.
The second reason I think is that the SPDC forces were already in Kokang for more than 10 years, and they understood the situation in Kokang, including the relationships among the Kokang leaders.
They therefore bought off the traitors Bai Suocheng and Wei Chaoren. This resulted in an internal split in Kokang before the war broke out. Bai Suocheng and Wei Chaoren betrayed their people and surrendered to the junta.
Now the junta has taken over the Kokang area, and it is clear about the response of the Chinese government. So their next step will be to reinforce the policy of cracking down on other minority groups along the border. The junta will act recklessly and become more unbridled.
Q: Where are you living now?
A: For many years, I worked in Kokang. I never had a chance to travel to the big cities in Burma. Now that I have more time, I am travelling in the big cities in Burma. I really feel that my country is beautiful, and it deserves a government that can represent the people by building and developing the country. I currently have no plans to go back to Kokang.
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org
Beijing’s Influence on Junta ‘Overstated’: ICG
Beijing’s Influence on Junta ‘Overstated’: ICG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By WAI MOE Monday, September 14, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A leading political think tank, the International Crisis Group (ICG), said on Monday that although many believe China is the key to pushing the Burmese junta toward political reform, its influence is overstated.
In a new report covering Sino-Burmese relations, the Brussels-based NGO said that Beijing’s influence on the Burmese junta is clearly limited, a fact highlighted by the Burmese government forces’ invasion of the Kokang region, an act that caused some 37,000 refugees to flee to China.
Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, left, holds a welcoming ceremony in honor of Gen Maung Aye, right, vice-chairman of Burma’s ruling junta at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on June 16, 2009. (Photo: www.english.cpc.people.com.cn)
Titled “China’s Myanmar Dilemma,” the ICG report was written by ICG staffers in Beijing, Jakarta and Brussels.
“Simply calling on Beijing to apply more pressure is unlikely to result in change,” the ICG report said. “The insular and nationalistic leaders in the military government do not take orders from anyone, including Beijing.”
It said that “after two decades of failed international approaches to Myanmar [Burma], Western countries and China must find better ways to work together to push for change in the military-ruled nation.”
The Kokang conflict highlighted the complexity of China’s relationship with Burma, and that Beijing was unable to dissuade the Burmese generals from launching their bloody campaign, said the report.
It also noted that the relation between Beijing and Naypyidaw is “best characterized as a marriage of convenience rather than a love match.”
ICG, which is frequently contracted to advise world bodies such as the UN, the EU and the World Bank, said that while China sees major problems with the status quo [in Burma], particularly with regard to economic policy and ethnic issues, Beijing’s preferred solution is a gradual adjustment of policy by a strong central government, not federalism or liberal democracy, and certainly not regime change.
The ICG noted in its report that unstable Burmese factors on the Chinese border, such insurgency, drugs and diseases, affect China’s interests in the country.
It said that Beijing’s interest in Burma was mainly economic.
However, to highlight the close ties, the report said that from 2003 to June 2009, leaders of the Chinese government and the Burmese junta met 30 times, 15 of which were after the Burmese regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators in September 2007.
ICG has published two reports regarding Burma within the last two months. A report titled, “Myanmar: Towards the Elections” was released on August 20. It said the 2010 elections are likely to create opportunities for generational and institutional changes despite major shortcomings.
However, it questioned whether the elections could solve the conflict in Burma, including the clashes at the Sino-Burmese border.
Posts
