3D Fund annual review meeting held
By Aye Aye Myo
GAINING trust and improving people’s lives – these are the accomplishments of the Three Diseases Fund (3DF) over the past year, donors heard last week.
The fund held its 2009 Annual Review Meeting at Sedona Hotel on October 14 to describe its fight against HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria.
In 2008, partner agencies provided 6804 people living with HIV with antiretroviral therapy (ART), representing 45 percent of ART treatment in the country. They successfully treated some 27,800 TB patients and around 712,600 malaria cases. HIV prevention reached some 633,500 people and behaviour change communication on TB 131,610 clients.
“The main achievement of the fund is that it proved it worked effectively and contributed to improving and saving the lives of thousands,” Mr Bengt Ekman, chair of the Fund Board and representative of Sweden in the Donor Consortium, said.
Doctors implementing the project have to solve a lot of problems such as transparency and language barriers. “When we survey peoples’ behaviour for HIV/AIDS among sex workers and young people, victims talk only to people they trust. So we have to work through people they are familiar with so that we can know true facts about risk percentage and mis-behaviour,” Dr Aye Sandar Aung from World Vision told The Myanmar Times.
According to Dr Aye Mar Lwin from Malteser International, the only difficulty is the language barrier. Patients talk to the doctors through interpreters. But surprisingly, people in remote areas do not shun clinics as they used to and attend when they feel ill. Only the ethnic minorities in hilly regions rarely come, she said, adding that the organisation is trying to extend their reach further into remote areas.
3DF describes itself as the biggest single-pooled fund in the health sector in Myanmar, with a commitment of US$114 million over the five-year period that began in October 2006 and will end in 2011. Donor contributions have amounted to $71.5 million on behalf of the European Commission, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
http://www.mmtimes. com/no494/ n003.htm
Thursday, October 29, 2009
3D Fund annual review meeting held
'Jungle girl' gives voice to oppressed
'Jungle girl' gives voice to oppressed
Zoya Phan is the face of the Karen people
Peter Goodspeed, National Post Published: Thursday, October 29, 2009
Zoya Phan may be destined to become as famous as Burma's detained opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.
The tiny, soft-spoken refugee is rapidly becoming the best known spokeswoman for the Karen people, Burma's second-largest ethnic group.
The author of a best-selling autobiography, Little Daughter, she has been a guest speaker at British political conventions and is a regular panelist on news shows, where she calls for international pressure to topple a military dictatorship that has ruled Burma since 1962.
Journalists and book reviewers describe Ms. Phan, 28, as "an icon of a suffering land" and "the voice of an enslaved nation."
This week she is touring Canada as the guest of Montrealbased Rights & Democracy.
Like Ms. Suu Kyi, the daughter of Burmese independence hero Aung San, Ms. Phan is the daughter of freedom fighters. Her father, Padoh Mahn Sha Lah Phan, was secretary general of the Karen National Union, before he was assassinated last year at his home in a refugee camp inside Thailand.
"He was my hero, my leader," she says.
"He was humble, a man of principle, committed to human rights and democracy. He was killed because they feared him and what he stood for."
Her mother, a gentle woman who constantly "adopted" needy children, was a former guerrilla who told her children she once killed and skinned a python to feed her platoon.
For most of her childhood Ms. Phan lived an idyllic life in bamboo huts by the banks of the Moei River.
"I was a jungle girl," she says.
Life was simple but harsh. The closest medical clinic was kilometres away and she foraged for food in the forest with her brothers and sister to supplement a diet of rice and fish paste.
But danger lurked in the shadows.
In her book Ms. Phan describes the day she discovered the bloated corpse of a slave labourer floating in the river. A Karen tribesman, forced to act as a porter for the Burmese Army, had been beaten till his back was shredded and thrown into the water.
When she was 14, the war that had raged between the Burmese Army and Karen nationalist guerrillas since 1947 finally caught up to her. Soldiers attacked her village, torched its houses and destroyed crops.
She ran for her life as mortar shells crashed nearby, then spent two years hiding in the jungle with thousands of other displaced people.
Ultimately, they ended up in a refugee camp inside Thailand.
"The camps are like prisons," she says. The Karen are not allowed to leave, to work or to farm. There is little education and food is rationed.
Ms. Phan won a scholarship from a foreign aid agency and went to university in Bangkok and later to the University of East Anglia in Britain.
"I am very lucky," she says. "Many of my friends in Burma and in neighbouring countries have had to work as prostitutes in the sex industries."
After her mother died, and she and her father escaped two separate assassination attempts, she fled to Britain, where she claimed political asylum.
"It was a big shock," she says. "A girl from the jungle stepped into the big city. It was a cultural shock, a language problem, a technology shock. I didn't even know how to use a kettle."
The change had benefits. Ms Phan learned more about Burma.
"Under the military dictatorship the practice was to divide and rule," she says. "The state owns and operates all the news media, and the people of Burma know very little of what is going on in their own country."
"It sounds strange, but I knew almost nothing about Aung San Suu Kyi," she says. "I had heard about her and seen her picture but I didn't know who she really was."
Now, Ms Suu Kyi is her hero. "She's a role model not just for women, but for the people of Burma," she says. "The strongest army in southeast Asia is afraid of her because she represents freedom; freedom of fear; freedom from ethnic cleansing; freedom from rape as a weapon of war ..."
While attending a Free Burma demonstration outside the Burmese embassy three years ago in London, Ms. Phan, dressed in traditional Karen costume, was plucked from the audience to give a speech.
Her eloquence endeared her to the news media and she became an overnight sensation.
She met Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, and addressed the British Conservative party's annual conference in 2006 and 2007.
In the absence of Ms. Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for 14 years, she has become the voice of Burma's opposition movement.
But she says, "I just see myself as a refugee and I just want to go home. I want to see peace in my homeland."
pgoodspeed@national post.com
BurmaInfo] RFA「ビルマの友だち」のご紹介
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
ビルマ市民フォーラム メールマガジン 2009/10/28
People's Forum on Burma
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
以下、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/
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
米国のビルマ国内向けラジオ放送Radio Free Asia（ＲＦＡ）は、2009年6月から新
コーナー「Friends of Burma」（ビルマの友だち）をスタートしました。
このコーナーは、ビルマ民主化運動を支援する外国人をインタビューして、関わるよ
うになった経緯や、考えていることなどについて聞く短い番組です。
2009年9月14日放送分に、ビルマ情報ネットワークの秋元由紀が出演しました。
ビルマ情報ネットワークのウェブサイトに、音声ファイルを掲載しましたのでご案内
いたします。以下のページからどうぞ。なお音声はビルマ語です。ご了承ください。
「ビルマの友だち」秋元由紀（2009年9月14日放送）
http://www.burmainfo.org/article/article.php?mode=2&articleid=496
ちなみに、第一回（2009年6月29日）には、ビルマ情報ネットワークでもエッセイを
掲載している田辺寿夫さんが出演しました。
「ビルマの友だち」田辺寿夫さん（2009年6月29日放送）
http://www.burmainfo.org/article/article.php?mode=1&articleid=494
ビルマ情報ネットワーク (http://www.burmainfo.org)
箱田徹
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
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。
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Playing With Super Powers
Playing With Super Powers
By AUNG ZAW Wednesday, October 28, 2009
If ever the Burmese regime made it clear it preferred “Made in America” to “Made in China,” it would be no surprise to see relations between China and Burma suffer a severe hiccup.
China is now keenly observing Washington’s new policy toward the Burmese regime and Burma’s opposition movement. At the same time, Beijing is observing the unpredictable Naypyidaw regime’s paukphaw (kinship) commitment to China.
Burmese military officers familiar with Western standard weaponry employed this arsenal to counter Chinese-backed insurgents in the past. They have long memories of Chinese chauvinism and Beijing’s former plan to export Communism to Burma and install there a government sympathetic to Mao Zedong’s cCommunist ideology.
Those days are long gone. China became Burma’s staunchest ally after the regime brutally crushed the pro-democracy uprising in 1988. For the past 21 years, China has adopted a paukphaw policy toward Burma and played an influential role there.
Burma has always firmly supported a “One China” policy and expressed its sympathy to Beijing at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Burma hastily issued a statement condemning the West when the Chinese embassy in the Serbian capital, Belgrade, was hit in a NATO air strike in 1999.
Perhaps Burmese leaders have had little choice but to embrace Beijing since 1988 in view of worsening relations with the West. However, it can be argued that the strength of ties between Burma and China is perhaps grossly overstated and may be just an anomaly.
Former dictator Gen Ne Win, who fought British and Japanese occupiers, was always fearful of imperialists. During his reign from 1962 to 1988 and throughout the Cold War, he played safe with world powers.
Ne Win and his top commanders were well aware of their country’s geopolitical importance, strategically located between China and India.
Ne Win’s neutralist balancing act didn’t prevent him, however, from seeking military aid from the US and Europe when Burma faced a serious threat from Communist China in the late 1960s.
Four years after coming to power in the 1962 military coup, Ne Win visited the US and had lunch at the White House in Washington with then President Lyndon Johnson.
A few months earlier, Ne Win had received US Senator Mike Mansfield, the first high-ranking US official or legislator to visit Burma since the coup.
Ne Win’s visit to Washington caused some apprehension in Beijing, although the Burmese dictator never gave cause for real Chinese concern. He was clever enough to appease and exploit Beijing.
At a Chinese National Day reception in Beijing, Burmese communist leader Ba Thein Tin was mentioned second only to Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot among distinguished guests at the main table in Beijing.
In December 1977, Ne Win made a surprise visit to Phnom Penh to meet Pol Pot, the first foreign leader welcomed to Cambodia since the Khmer Rouge takeover two years previously.
The visit was intended to break the Khmer Rouge’s international isolation. It certainly paid off, as Beijing increased its economic assistance to Burma and also ordered Burmese communists to relocate their clandestine radio station to Burmese territory.
One year after the US visit, anti-Chinese riots broke out in Burma, causing Ne Win to placate Beijing and steadily repair strained relations, while still adhering to his country’s neutralist foreign policy.
Burma’s current military strongman, junta chief Snr-Gen Than Shwe, was then an army captain temporarily serving with the Light
Infantry Division 101. He was undoubtedly an interested observer of how Ne Win was handling internal and external challenges.
Than Shwe was later assigned to lead Light Infantry Division 88 in northern Burma in countering a communist threat there in the 1980s.
Like many infantry commanders, Than Shwe and his No 2, Dep Snr-Gen Maung Aye, are known to harbor no great love for China.
Beijing somehow miscalculated the eccentric, nationalistic, independent- minded and battle-hardened Burmese army leaders. China had backed the wrong horse by wooing intelligence chief Gen Khin Nyunt, only to see him abruptly removed in 2004, thus losing one of Beijing’s most valuable friends.
Than Shwe, like many Burmese nationalists, was reluctant to see Burma becoming too dependent on China, even for the armaments his regime so badly needed. When Chinese-made jet fighters began to malfunction and crash at an alarming rate, the Burmese regime went looking for reliable arms manufacturers in Russia and Eastern Europe.
The Chinese have always found the Burmese difficult to deal with.
When Chinese President Jiang Zemin visited Burma in December 2001 on a mission to strengthen economic and strategic ties Than Shwe reportedly upset the Chinese leader by not signing an agreement allowing Chinese vessels to travel to the Bay of Bengal along the Bhamao and Irrawaddy Rivers.
The Burmese regime knows full well the extent of China’s economic and strategic interest in the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal.
Two years before Jiang Zemin’s visit, Than Shwe had been reinforcing ties with Russia, India and Pakistan, demonstrating to uneasy senior military officers that his regime is no puppet of China.
Despite Burma’s cautionary stand, China remains a staunch ally, ready to defend the regime whenever it finds itself in a cornerincluding at the UN Security Council. In return, the regime has agreed to sell gas to China and build oil and gas pipelines.
Depending solely on China is not an option for the regime, howeverand for that reason alone the junta may find the new US policy appealing at some level, as it could counterbalance China’s growing influence.
It is safe to say that the regime will cooperate with the US in the areas of drug control, health, environmental protection and the continuing search for the remains of US servicemen registered as missing in action in World War II.
This could provide an entry point for the US to further engage with the regime if pro-US engagement officers in the armed forces became powerful in the future.
However, it is doubtful that the current regime will deliver any substance in the political arena. It is highly unlikely that the regime will agree to Washington’s request for inclusive, free and fair elections and the release of all political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi.
In any case, although the new US-Burma policy outlined in Washington definitely creates a space for the repressive regime in Burma to engage more with its most vocal critic it is still uncertain whether direct engagement would yield any positive outcome.
It is interesting to note that Washington’s new Burma policy received a cautious welcome from dissidents inside and outside the country.
The policy is undoubtedly a smart one. However, Than Shwe and his junta are not only smartlike North Korea’s leaders, they are also manipulative and often skillfully employ pressure and dialogue to deceive the domestic and international communities.
Washington is well aware of Burmese deception, and Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell has made it clear that the US administration will not lift sanctions unless the regime makes concrete changes.
Campbell told a Senate sub-committee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs that the US will maintain existing sanctions until it sees concrete progress in Burma and will continue to work with the international community to ensure that those sanctions are effectively coordinated.
This means that Than Shwe will not see any lifting of sanctions any time soon. The regime doesn’t share US human rights and democracy valuesand, as a result, the new US policy may not reach any meaningful stage in coming years because of the regime’s resistance to change.
However, the US gesture to the Burmese has set alarm bells ringing in Beijing. As in the past, Burmese leaders will have more room to play one super power against the other.
This article appears in the November issue of The Irrawaddy.
http://www.irrawadd y.org/opinion_ story.php? art_id=17082
NLD Elder Holds Out for Constitutional Review
NLD Elder Holds Out for Constitutional Review
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
U Win Tin is a founding member of the National League for Democracy (NLD), which was formed in 1988. He is also a well-known journalist in Burma. He was detained in 1989 and served 19 years in prison. He was released in September 2008. He spoke to The Irrawaddy on the issues of international economic sanctions, the 2010 election, the regime’s 2008 Constitution and the current position of the NLD.
Question: How much does the lifting of Western economic sanctions on Burma relate to national reconciliation?
Answer: In our politics, these two factors are related. If there is a US dialogue, the military regime is involved in the process. The sanctions now control them somewhat. Even if the sanctions can’t be said to strengthen us [the NLD], it is at least a rein on the junta. It’s something like tying down a brutal giant with many ropes so that we can survive.
I think there are three kinds of sanctions. First, there are sanctions that can affect ordinary people. For example, the US sanction [on the importation of Burmese textile products] caused unemployment in the garment factories. Second, there are sanctions that can directly affect the military generals and their cronies. Third, there are many countries that imposed arms embargos on Burma. Among these three kinds, we don’t have anything to say about the sanctions affecting the military and its generals, but we will step in to talk about easing the sanctions that affect the people.
I think if there is an ease in sanctions, it can probably lead to national reconciliation. The new US policy will be carried out while maintaining the existing sanctions. It is a drama which will include a variety of scripts, such as sadness, pleasure, and Nhit Par Thwar [a dance with a main actor and actress]. The last script of the drama, we expect, will be Zat Paung Khan [a peaceful end]. Therefore, we can’t predict now the role of sanctions in political dialogue and reconciliation. Things will unfold more before the 2010 election.
Q: What is your opinion on the announcement of the regime to hold the election as scheduled, and their preparations?
A: on March 27, Snr-Gen Than Shwe said he will not review the Constitution. Recently, he again declared that the Constitution has already been approved by the people and the elections will be held systematically. He said that political parties must respect the Constitution, and parties that work responsibly will be protected by the government. It means that if they believe some political parties are not responsible in their work, they will take action against the parties. These two facts are significant.
His words can be translated into these points: Political parties must keep quiet. All the principles have been set out for the pre-election campaigns: don’t talk about the demands from [the NLD’s] Shwegondine Declaration. I think he also warned other politicians, including from the National Unity Party (NUP) [transformed from the former ruling Burma Socialist Programme Party], who said the Constitution can be amended in the future. It looks like the parties must follow their way.
Q: What do you think the democratic forces and ethnic organizations should do in regard to the election?
A: There is still a way out. Although they denied a review of the Constitution, I still have hope for a political dialogue. If we demand it with a united stand, I think we have a way left. I think Snr-Gen Than Shwe’s words are related to the new US Burma policy. He bluntly responded to the US demands on the election and its relations with the opposition groups. But politics is an unending process no matter how decisive the general is in his words. The situation is changing. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi also asked the US to engage with both sides. Whatever Snr-Gen Than Shwe says, I expect the US policy will open a way for relations with the regime.
Q: What are your views on some politicians who want to take part in the election?
A: Regarding this election, my stand is even a bit different from the NLD. I accept the NLD’s stand on the Shwegondine Declaration. The statement demands a release of all political prisoners, a review of the Constitution and to hold a free and fair election under international supervision. What we mainly want is political dialogue.
U Thu Wai and U Khin Maung Gyi of the NUP said that the situation will change in the next 10 to 15 years. They will take part in the election. They didn’t consult with us. I don’t agree that we should take part in the election.
We must create a situation conducive to the participation of all parties. We believe that all the parties should demand a more flexible Constitution at the outset. If the Constitution is amended, we can have a democratic space to some extend and can talk and work in parliament. If we accept the current situation, no amendments can be made, and there will be no rights for democratic forces or ethnic nationalities.
Yes, the Constitution offers a parliament where we can have a political platform from which to talk. But we must understand that under this Constitution, we can’t make any decision or move forward. That’s why I say we must demand a review of the Constitution before the election.
Q: What do you want to amend in the 2008 constitution?
A: There are about a dozen things that should be amended. What I can say now is we can’t accept the sixth basic principle of the Constitution: “the national political leadership role” of the military. The fact that more than 75 percent of the parliamentary vote is needed to amend the Constitution should be amended. Regarding the rights of ethnic nationalities, the fact that the President will appoint the chairmen of the Hluttaws (Parliament) in the Regions and States should be amended. That is important for the ethnic nationalities.
Q: What are your thoughts on the debate inside the NLD over whether the party should take part in the election?
A: Our leaders have their roots in the democratic struggle. I led a Burmese media union and spent about 20 years in jail. Therefore, I have evaluated the situation in terms of the goals of our democratic struggle. I think and talk in this way.
A central issue is the results of the 1990 election [a landslide win for the NLD]. We can’t throw away the results like a piece of paper or a leaf. In the NLD, there are people who have safeguarded the party for the past 20 years. For me, I do things based on the spirit I had during the democratic struggle in 1988. Some party leaders base their thinking on rationality. There are differences in our ways of thinking and working.
Some in the party think the regime can change its attitude, but I don’t think so. We have different views in this respect. They think the regime can become flexible and take positive steps and make some compromises. But the regime is stubborn, and it tries to do all that it can to hold on to power.
The youth organizations, monks, democratic forces and ethnic nationalities outside the country are all talking about a boycott of the election. Inside the country, there are some political groups that talk about contesting the election, but they are not a strong force even though they have important leaders.
Democratic and ethnic forces inside and outside the country are decisively saying “No” to the election. On the other hand, some so-called third forces and a few cease-fire armed ethnic groups are willing to take part.
The NLD won the election in 1990, but to date the party hasn’t been allowed to carry out the election results. At this point, if we turn our back on the 1990 election results and talk about taking part in the new election, the NLD will be shamed. In the future, the political scenario will be clearer, after the NLD finally decides whether to contest the election or not.
Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy. org
http://www.irrawadd y.org/article. php?art_id= 17083
Posts
