News & Articles on Burma-Wednesday, 23 March, 2011

News & Articles on Burma
Wednesday, 23 March, 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanctions must stay in place: Myanmar's Suu Kyi
Burmese Tuning in to Events in Libya
Suu Kyi says sanctions must remain
Thai investments to focus on Dawei: NESDB
It takes a village to support a military intervention
Refugees reject ‘insurgent, criminal’ claims
Shouldering China’s toxic burden
Burmese minister says Thailand prolonging conflict
Burma Says Thailand Can Do More to Stop Karen Insurgents
--------------------------------------------



STRAITS TIMES: Mar 23, 2011
Sanctions must stay in place: Myanmar's Suu Kyi

BERLIN - MYANMAR'S opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi said on Wednesday that sanctions against the military junta in her country should remain, as the European Union prepares to decide whether to lift the action.

In an interview with German daily Frankfurter Rundschau, the Nobel peace laureate insisted: 'Sanctions must remain in place. Sanctions should only be lifted when something has changed here.'

The EU is poised to decide in April whether to continue sanctions against the regime for human rights abuses following Ms Suu Kyi's release from house arrest in November.

Last week, EU diplomats held talks with Ms Suu Kyi, 65, about the possibility of lifting Western sanctions, which global think-tank International Crisis Group recently criticised as 'counterproductive.'

Supporters of the trade and financial sanctions say they are the only way to pressure the military rulers of Myanmar, where there are believed to be about 2,200 political prisoners behind bars.

Despite the restrictions on Western businesses, Asian companies, especially from China, India, Thailand and South Korea, have overlooked the political situation and human rights abuses to invest in resource-rich Myanmar. -- AFP http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_648347.html
---------------------------------------------------
Burmese Tuning in to Events in Libya
By KO HTWE Wednesday, March 23, 2011

The Burmese people, many of whom are hungry for a revolution of their own, are watching closely the events taking place in Libya and the attacks by coalition forces on that country, while at the same time soberly realizing that they are not likely to receive the same type of international military support.

UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorizes a no-fly zone in Libya and the prevention of attacks on Libyan civilians, is popular in Burma.

But Chan Tun, a veteran politician based in Rangoon, told The Irrawaddy on Wednesday that the international policy on Burma is totally different from Libya. In particular, he pointed out that because China and India support Burma, they would not allow foreign intervention as has happened in Libya, so the people of Burma believe that the ability to create change in the country is in their own hands.

“Burma gets support from India and China, but how people in Burma suffer is not their concern. Those countries only look out for their own interest. They will form a relationship with the government in hand,” said Chan Tun.

Without the involvement of the Burmese Army, change will not occur and the revolution in Burma will not reach its goal, he added.

But Phyo Min Thein, another politician based in Rangoon, pointed out that conditions could lead to the type of revolution that has occurred in several Arab countries.

“If the Burmese people's standard of living gets worse in the future, then an uprising may take place,” he said.

Authorities assume the culprits of the recent “Just Do It Against Military Dictatorship” campaign launched on the social network Facebook are eminent politicians and so are watching their steps, he added.

The Burmese junta appears also to be paying close attention to events in Libya. The state-run newspaper on Wednesday highlighted an address delivered by Snr-Gen Than Shwe on the 65th Anniversary Armed Forces Day, in which he said: “It is an absolute necessity to avoid relying on external powers.”

In addition, an article in the state-run The New Light of Myanmar on Tuesday said: “Old and neo-colonialists are casting a covetous eye on rich deposits of natural resources in Myanmar [Burma] and leveling accusations against the Tatmadaw [Burmese armed forces].”

The desire of Burmese citizens to watch the American-led military operation launched in Libya is fueling the demand for satellite receivers and dishes in Burmese cities, said an employee of an electronics sales center in Rangoon.

Speaking to The Irrawaddy on Tuesday, the electronic sales center employee said demand has doubled and possibly tripled, and residents are buying even more satellite receivers than during the 2010 World Cup season.

“These days, people set up 8-ft satellite receivers and dishes that will cost nearly 30,000 kyat (US $ 34.09). But many like the 2 foot UBC receiver and dish because of better reception,” said the electronics center employee.

Satellite dishes are popular because an 8-ft dish and receiver made in Burma costs about 100,000 kyat ($113.64) and the regular monthly or annual fees demanded by other pay-television services are not applicable.

However, many news lovers from Burma cannot afford to set up the satellite, so they watch the news in tea shops and other places.

“Many Burmese concentrate on world affairs. Most of them envy the coalition of forces launching military operations in Libya,” said a politician from Rangoon.

Many have to rely on news from a satellite because Burmese state-run television does not air and Rangoon–based journals don't publish some of the news about military operations in Libya.

The Burmese government ordered a massive hike in annual satellite television license fees in January, from 6,000 kyat ($6.82) to 1 million kyat ($1,136). However, payment of the licenses has yet to be enforced.

Most of the state-run television channels in Burma, including TV Myanmar, Myawaddy TV, MRTV 4 and International Myanmar, normally broadcast the regime's propaganda and opinions.

Although the pay-television services provided by Shwe Than Lwin and Forever Group feature CNN and other foreign news channels, reports on Burma and the military regime are subject to censorship.

Shwe Than Lwin is in collaboration with the military regime's Ministry of Information and Myanma Posts and Telecommunications, while the Forever Group is widely believed to have close ties with incumbent Information Minister Brig-Gen Kyaw Hsan.

The Irrawaddy reporter Linn Thant contributed to this article.
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=20994
---------------------------------------------
Suu Kyi says sanctions must remain
By AFP
Published: 23 March 2011

Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi said on Wednesday that sanctions against the military junta in her country should remain, as the European Union prepares to decide whether to lift the action.

In an interview with German daily Frankfurter Rundschau, the Nobel peace laureate insisted: “Sanctions must remain in place. Sanctions should only be lifted when something has changed here.”

The EU is poised to decide in April whether to continue sanctions against the regime for human rights abuses following Suu Kyi’s release from house arrest in November.

Last week, EU diplomats held talks with Suu Kyi, 65, about the possibility of lifting Western sanctions, which global think-tank International Crisis Group recently criticised as “counterproductive”.

Supporters of the trade and financial sanctions say they are the only way to pressure the military rulers of Burma, where there are believed to be about 2,200 political prisoners behind bars.

Despite the restrictions on Western businesses, Asian companies, especially from China, India, Thailand and South Korea, have overlooked the political situation and human rights abuses to invest in resource-rich Burma.
http://www.dvb.no/news/suu-kyi-says-sanctions-must-remain/14898
--------------------------------------------------
Thai investments to focus on Dawei: NESDB
By Nalin Viboonchart
The Nation
Published on March 23, 2011

Narongchai Akrasanee, a former commerce minister and director of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), said there was more opportunity for Thai companies to invest in Burma than in Thailand.

Narongchai made the remarks as keynote speaker at a seminar on the Asean Economic Community (AEC) held by the Federation of Thai Industries and the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion.

He said the NESDB saw bleak prospects in Thailand for heavy-industry investments such as upstream steel projects, as well as for the Southern Seaboard project. Thus those investments will go to Dawei (formerly known as Tavoy), which provides more opportu?nity for Thai industrialists.

"We used to talk about the Southern Seaboard and Pak Bara deep-seaport projects in the past. But now, we'll forget them," he said. "Thailand's major investments, such as upstream steel projects, will absolutely head to Dawei. Thai people have protested against those projects, so we cannot go any further anyway."

The uncertain political situation in Burma will not be a concern for Thai investments in Dawei, since the Burmese government has announced the region will become a special economic zone, he added.

Narongchai said the country's plan to concentrate on investments in Dawei would harmonise with the country's intention to benefit from the AEC, which will be fully implemented in 2015.

The countries in the Greater Mekong Subregion will be important production bases for Thailand because those countries have resources that Thailand can access to increase production capacity, he said.

The AEC will allow Thailand to allocate its resources for maximum benefit. The country will move out of businesses that it does not have expertise in, he said.

Narongchai said Thailand had three main areas with potential to benefit from the AEC: services, industry and agriculture-related business.

The 11th National Economic and Social Development Plan team believes the service industry has the most potential with regards to the AEC. Development and government support will focus on this seg?ment from now on.

The next sector to benefit will be agriculture-related industries.

Narongchai said conflict between Thailand and Burma was a concern that could hinder cooperation among Asean countries. Regional agreements might not succeed if the two countries still had border prob?lems.

Anurut Vongvanich, chief executive officer of the British Dispensary, said at the same seminar that Thai businesspeo?ple should be aware of the AEC and identify prompt action to take if they wanted to be suc?cessful once the AEC was in place.

"We have to change our mindset and open ourselves to others. If we have to set up joint ventures with other companies to benefit our businesses, we must do that," he said.

Anurut said building brands might not be difficult for Thai companies. Seeking strategic alliances to expand market channels and doing regional business were now concerns, he said. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/03/23/business/Thai-investments-to-focus-on-Dawei-NESDB-30151515.html
--------------------------------------------------
Libya
It takes a village to support a military intervention

Mar 21st 2011, 16:15 by M.S.

EVERYBODY'S uncertain over the military intervention in Libya, including myself, but as Jonathan Chait says, a lot of people are uncertain for the wrong reasons. As Mr Chait sums it up, the argument is basically that we shouldn't intervene in Libya because we're not intervening in lots of other places where worse things are happening. He points to Andrew Sullivan, who says "we have done nothing in Burma or the Congo and are actively supporting governments in Yemen and Bahrain that are doing almost exactly—if less noisily—what Qaddafi is doing," and to Ezra Klein, who says "Every year, one million people die from malaria. About three million children die, either directly or indirectly, due to hunger. There is much we could due to help the world if we were willing. The question that needs to be asked is: Why this?" (Jeffrey Goldberg has the weakest version of the argument: "I've been wondering just exactly why armed intervention in Libya is so urgently sought by the West, and why armed intervention in other places that are suffering from similar man-made disasters (Yemen, the Ivory Coast, and the big enchilada, Iran, to name three) is not." Perhaps because Iran is 10 times the size of Libya and the government seems to command the fervent support of about half the population?) Mr Chait's response is that "the Libya question is only about Libya":

Should we also spend more money to prevent malaria? Yes, we should. But I see zero reason to believe that not intervening in Libya would lead to an increase in in American assistance to prevent malaria. Why not intervene in Burma or Yemen or elsewhere? I would say the answer is prudential: for various political, geographic, and military reasons, the United States has the chance to prevent slaughter in Libya at reasonable cost, and does not have the chance to do so in Burma.

Mr Chait has a very strong argument here, and in fact it's stronger than he makes it sound. He should have gone into specifics on those political and geographic reasons, or rather, into one big specific: the Arab League's support for Euro-American intervention in Libya. As Hillary Clinton said last week, Arab League support for a no-fly zone changed the diplomatic landscape, soothing Western qualms about outside intervention in yet another Arab country and quieting Chinese and Russian objections to violations of sovereignty. But this really isn't just about a diplomatic shift making it easier to get a resolution through the UN Security Council. The regional context is the single most important factor differentiating successful from unsuccessful military interventions. The US-led coalition effort to reconquer Kuwait from Iraq in 1991 was successful, and led to the re-establishment of a stable Kuwaiti state, because it was supported by the Gulf states and the major Arab countries, and not opposed by Iran. The NATO and UN interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were hardly shining triumphs, but they basically stabilised the Balkans and arguably triggered Serbia's transition to democracy, mainly because the former Yugoslavia is in Europe, and the overwhelming political dynamic for Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo and Macedonia is the relationship with the EU and NATO.

In contrast, interventions in Somalia, Afghanistan and (the second time around) Iraq have been crippled by unfriendly regional environments. Euro-American objectives in Afghanistan cannot be accomplished without Pakistan. Euro-American objectives in Iraq cannot be accomplished without Iran. Western countries cannot simply parachute into these parts of the world and reshape the political landscape. Things are different in Libya in great measure because Egypt, Tunisia and their Arab League fellows don't want to see Muammar Qaddafi win; they've never much liked the guy, even before the revolt, and they don't want to have an unstable, post-civil-war pariah state in North Africa. Their unwillingness to supply any meaningful military support to the intervention is a problem, and it's not clear how deep their commitment runs. But the fact that they're spontaneously committing to the intervention, that the regional attitude is friendly towards a popular revolt to overthrow Mr Qaddafi and towards UN-approved intervention to protect that revolt, makes a huge difference. That doesn't mean that the intervention in Libya will be a success, but it helps a lot.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/libya_0
-------------------------------------------------
Refugees reject ‘insurgent, criminal’ claims
By NAW NOREEN
Published: 23 March 2011

Karen refugees in Thailand have spoken of their anger at claims made by Burma’s information minister that the majority of those living in Thai camps are insurgents or subversives.

Kyaw Hsan made the comments yesterday during a parliamentary session in which he also questioned why the Thai government wasn’t doing more to help curb protracted civil in Karen state.

Questioned about aid and assistance to refugees in Karen state, where ethnic armed groups have been battling a 60-year conflict against the Burmese army, he said that the government had so far spent 6.8 billion kyat ($US773,000) on healthcare, food and education for victims of the fighting.

But referring to assistance offered to the 150,000-odd who have fled Burma and now live in refugees camps along the Thai border, Kyaw Hsan said that “most of them are remnant insurgents and their families, expatriates and those who fled after committing crimes”.

A spokesperson for the Karen Refugee Committee said however that “there is no ground to support” those claims.

Saw Htun Htun, chairperson of Mae La camp, Thailand’s biggest refugee camp for Burmese, said that the 45,000-strong population there “are refugees who fled our homes due to persecution from the war”.

That claim was supported by Sally Thompson, deputy director of the Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC), who said that domestic instability was the key reason behind the exodus of Karen to Thailand over the past two decades.

The conflict between the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) and the Burmese government is thought to be the world’s longest-running. More than half a million are displaced inside eastern Burma, largely due to the fighting, while hundreds of thousands have fled the country.

Kyaw Hsan’s comments follow claims made by the governor of Thailand’s Tak provice, which borders Karen state, that the Burmese were angry at Thailand for its perceived sheltering of Karen insurgents.

Samart Loifah said that Burma believed the border town of Mae Sot and the surrounding area had become a second home for the KNLA, which has a number of bases on the Burmese side of the porous frontier with Thailand, where cross-border movement is easy.
http://www.dvb.no/news/refugees-reject-%E2%80%98insurgent-criminal%E2%80%99-claims/14880
--------------------------------------------------
Shouldering China’s toxic burden
By FRANCIS WADE
Published: 23 March 2011

Four years ago a World Bank report landed on the desk of the Chinese health ministry containing shocking statistics on pollution-related deaths in the country, so much so that Beijing promptly engineered the removal of a third of it over fears that the findings, if they went public, could spark “social unrest”. Around 750,000 people die each year of pollution-related illnesses, the report said, many of whom fall victim to China’s distinction as the world’s leading coal consumer. The findings were smothered for years, with the final report, “Cost of Pollution in China”, resorting to abstract gauges such as the economic burden of premature deaths, rather than the cold, hard figures.

Fast forward to now and this burden has taken on a new form: China has begun to fear that the by-products of rapid industrialisation and surging growth rates are now “a serious obstacle to social and economic development”, as environmental minister Zhou Shengxian said last month, and has positioned the battle against pollution as a key priority in the government’s five-year plan. On the surface this will come as welcome news to many, with Beijing acknowledging the need to look for slower, more sustainable forms of growth, but beneath lurks a different reality.

The inconvenient truth is that China’s swelling middle class and its soaring demands for energy, rising at nine percent each year, are an impediment to Zhou’s ambitions and, further down the line, the progress of the country. If energy consumption continues to increase at current rates, by 2020 China will require twice as many dams, coal-fired power stations, nuclear plants and other power sources. Factor in rapidly depleting natural resources, and a conundrum forms for the rising superpower: can it continue with its aggressive expansion of its domestic energy industry, to the detriment of its environment and people, or does it look for alternatives?

The alternatives may not be the sustainable measures mooted by Zhou, but something more sinister: China has been increasingly out-sourcing its pollutive and ecologically destructive industries to regional neighbours, relying on their flimsy environmental regulations and suppression of public disquiet on which to lump the burden. This co-opting of resource-rich smaller states like Laos and Burma has been aggressive, and shows little sign of abating; instead, the alarm bells recently sounded by Zhou could give it a further prod as Beijing looks to shift the by-products of its growth elsewhere.

Already the China National Heavy Machinery Corporation Company (CHMC) is the main economic thrust behind Burma’s largest open-pit coal mine and coal-fired power plant in Tigyit, Shan state, that a report in January said had triggered skin infections among half of the 12,000-strong local population and caused the forcible displacement of more than 320 households; people that receive no benefits from the project, given that the energy produced from the 2000 tonnes of lignite mined each day is shipped to a nearby cement factory for use in dam construction. A 600 megawatt coal-fired power plant, part-operated by the China Guodian Corporation, is also under construction in Sagaing division, with the power slated to be sent to Burma’s largest copper mine in nearby Monywa, operated by Chinese weapons giant Norinco. The output from Monywa will go to feed China’s booming electronics manufacturing sector, with a statement last year on the Norinco website tellingly boasting that the deal would “enhance the influence of our country in Myanmar [Burma]”. A similar agreement will also see China’s Taiyuan Iron and Steel (Group) Company, the largest steel manufacturer in the world, mine Sagaing division for nickel.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg for the pariah, pockmarked as it is by Chinese dams, mines and pipelines, and whose dependency on its northern neighbour for capital risks further subservience to Beijing’s needs. In 2009 Burma was added to a special ‘watch list’ of resource-rich (and easily exploitable) countries drawn up by Beijing’s Ministry of Land and Resources, and environmental experts from the Burma Rivers Network warned in January this year that China will take nearly half of the electricity produced by planned hydropower projects in Burma, with Thailand and India accounting for the majority of the remaining output. Around 10 percent will go to the Burmese military, largely for the construction of ventures like the Shwe dual pipeline project, which will transport Burmese gas and Middle Eastern oil offloaded on Burma’s western coast to China, while one percent will be used for domestic consumption. This is despite the fact that only one-fifth of the Burmese population have regular access to electricity.

This pattern is becoming increasingly common across Southeast Asia and indeed the world, with China behind more than 100 large dam projects in nearly 40 countries. Beijing’s heavy upstream damming of the Mekong River is seen as largely responsible for record low water levels last year in downstream nations, with Laotian capital Vientiane reporting major shortages and Burma, Thailand and Cambodia all suffering droughts. This did little to aid China’s projection of a brotherly relationship with its smaller siblings and threatened a public relations disaster, yet still Beijing is planning six more dams along the river, and has pumped significant capital into several projects mooted for Laos and Cambodia; overall, it is estimated that Chinese companies will be behind the development of 40 percent of hydropower projects along the Mekong, outside of China. Environmental groups in Cambodia, whose fledgling economy is dependent on the Mekong, have reacted strongly to the prospect of the 3,300 megwatt Sambor dam, which a 1994 study estimated would displace over 5,000 people and add another knot to the country’s drip feed.

Yet as environmentalist Steve Green, who has monitored the impact of Chinese expansion on Southeast Asia, points out, the exporting of its mega-projects sees China “simply out-competing with the Western countries that established the model of unsustainable consumerist growth in the first place”. Industrialising Britain set the trend for emerging economies as it farmed out industry to the Orient, where cheap labour and a lax regulatory system made it an attractive, and obvious, platform on which to drive its own growth. Indeed this kind of exploitative practice continues today, with a recent investigation uncovering toxic levels of water pollution in Baotou, Inner Mongolia, where the world’s largest source of rare-earth metals is being mined by Chinese companies to make magnets for, ironically, the wind turbines now ubiquitous along Britain’s ‘green’ coasts.

This quasi neo-colonialist venture being undertaken by Beijing is reflective of two things: one, that China simply won’t be able to support its population if current growth rates continue, or more ominously, that the hidden costs of growth are paradoxically spelling the end for a sizeable chunk of its population; and two, that China sees the strengthening of its presence in strategically important regional countries like Burma as crucial to its rise. The two issues overlap considerably, with China’s increasing dependence on foreign energy reserves providing a pretext for its encroachment over Southeast Asia, which brings with it the political and economic stranglehold on a region so integral to an emerging superpower. The trans-Burma Shwe pipeline is perhaps the most obvious example of where these two necessities align, providing as it does a means to avoid the Malacca Straits beneath Singapore and thus the potential for patrolling US warships to cut China’s main sea route to key oil-producing nations in the event that Beijing and Washington fall out.

But as Zhou referenced, there is a strategic importance to promoting environmental regulation, which China half acknowledged when it drew up domestic laws requiring Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for potentially damaging projects inside the country; these however are less well defined when applied to overseas ventures, and to date nothing has been made binding. This has meant that when, for instance, logging was banned in Yunnan province in the late 1990s following heavy erosion and flooding, the sourcing shifted south to Kachin state in Burma, where the junta has long turned a blind eye to the threat faced by the world’s last natural teak forest.

With a key mantra of Chinese investors to make previously inaccessible resources accessible, China has exploited remote and politically sensitive areas, while its blanket governmental policy of not interfering in domestic affairs of other countries has, like the majority of other Asia-Pacific countries, provided one excuse for it to continue business in pariah states like Burma. The EIAs that Beijing asks of its companies are cosmetic at best, with fines capped at a maximum of only around $US25,000 if the developer ignores this, and more importantly, no demand that they withdraw from the area once the project has begun.

So with growing disquiet at home about China’s environmental crisis – 16 of 20 most polluted cities are in China, while environmental authorities receive around 630,000 letters each year seeking environmental redress – China needs to act quickly to avoid the social unrest it has forewarned. While Zhou’s fears show that public opposition has made an impact on energy policy, elsewhere in countries like Burma, citizen voices are not heard. This, combined with a void in state-directed environmental regulations, makes industrial out-sourcing an all-too convenient solution for a country and a business sector caught in such a critical dilemma.
http://www.dvb.no/analysis/shouldering-chinas-toxic-burden/14885
-------------------------------------------------
Burmese minister says Thailand prolonging conflict

Last Updated: 10 hours 54 minutes ago

Burma's Information Minister has blamed Thailand for prolonging the conflict between the Burmese military government and Karen rebels.

Minister Kyaw San has described refugee camps in Karen State as insurgent bases, which he says are supported by Burma's neighbour in the region. Although he did not name any country directly, the eastern State borders Thailand's west.

The Minister was responding to a question in parliament about the government's plan to end the insurgency in Karen state, and the rebels role in any peace agreement. http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201103/3171049.htm?desktop
------------------------------------------
Burma Says Thailand Can Do More to Stop Karen Insurgents
VOA News March 22, 2011

Karen villagers carrying relief supplies flee Burma soldiers in Karen State, Burma, January 8, 2010 (file photo)
Share This

Burma's information minister says neighboring Thailand could do more to help curb a decades-old insurgency in Burma's east.

Burma's state-run New Light of Myanmar newspaper said Information Minister Kyaw Hsan told a parliamentary session Monday that if Thailand stood as a friendly nation, the problems in Burma's Karen State would soon be solved.

The information minister did not mention Thailand by name, but referred to it as "the neighbor" of Karen state.

Thailand hosts thousands of ethnic Karen refugees from Burma.

Karen people are Burma's largest ethnic minority group. Armed rebel groups in Karen state have fought Burma's military government for decades as they seek autonomy from the central government.

Kyaw Hsan said the insurgents use refugee camps in Thailand as their base to launch attacks on the Burmese army. He said the insurgents remain active with the assistance of certain super powers, international non-governmental organizations and Thailand. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/-Burma-Says-Thailand-Can-Help-Prevent-Karen-Insurgents-118458879.html