Tai4Freedom - News & Articles

12 June 2008 : Burma News Extra

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UN: 10,000 pregnant women need care in Myanmar
Responsibility to protect: Burma's golden alternative
New York Times: The end of intervention – Madeleine K. Albright
Making sovereignty a right
UN: 35,000 pregnant women need care in Myanmar
Myanmar releases relief critics, ASEAN team to have full access in the country

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UN: 10,000 pregnant women need care in Myanmar
AP
11 June 2008

Ten thousand pregnant cyclone survivors are in urgent need of proper care in Myanmar, a U.N. expert said Wednesday, as relief agencies again raised concerns about the junta's willingness to accept foreign aid.

Pregnancy and childbirth were already relatively risky before Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar, one of Asia's poorest countries, said William A. Ryan, a spokesman for the U.N. Population Fund.

More than 100 women give birth every day in the area affected by the cyclone, he told reporters in Bangkok, Thailand.

"The destruction of health centers and loss of midwives have greatly increased the risks," he said. "It is clear that many pregnant women do not have anywhere to go to deliver with skilled assistance."

Ryan said that wrecked health facilities should be rebuilt and there is also a need for trained midwives.

The maternal mortality rate in Myanmar before the May 2-3 storm was 380 per 100,000 births — almost four times the rate in Thailand and 60 times the rate in Japan, Ryan said.

He said the U.N. Population Fund has provided supplies to Myanmar's Health Ministry for distribution to health clinics in 10 affected townships, including hospital equipment and rubber gloves.

Meanwhile, international aid agencies said the government's new guidelines for delivering relief to cyclone survivors could slow their response.

The rules, distributed Tuesday by the government at a meeting with U.N. agencies and private humanitarian organizations, would require a large amount of paperwork and repeated contacts with government agencies.

"Additional steps for seeking approval may unnecessarily delay the relief response," the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said in a report.

U.N. agencies were assessing the new guidelines, said Amanda Pitt of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

The guidelines require most activities by the foreign agencies to be cleared by a government ministry and local authorities. It also requires approval from the so-called Tripartite Core Group, comprising representatives of the government, U.N. agencies and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nation, of which Myanmar is a member.

The U.N. estimates that Nargis affected 2.4 million people and that more than 1 million of them, mostly in the Irrawaddy delta, still need help. The cyclone killed at least 78,000 people, according to the government.

Foreign aid organizations have faced a series of hurdles in trying to provide help for victims of the storm, starting with the government's reluctance to grant anything but a handful of visas to foreigners.

Although helicopters have been allowed — with some delay — to fly supplies to the delta, aid agencies say the government has continued to stall visa applications and delayed allowing foreigners access to the most devastated areas.

Also Wednesday, a state-controlled newspaper, the New Light of Myanmar, said the military rulers were breaking no laws by holding democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for a sixth straight year.

The junta's recent decision to extend her detention by one year sparked international outrage, with the Nobel Peace laureate's party and foreign defense lawyers arguing she could legally be held for only five years.

A commentary in the newspaper said detentions are permissible for as long as six years under a 1975 law.

Suu Kyi has been detained for more than 12 of the last 18 years at her home in Myanmar.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Responsibility to protect: Burma's golden alternative
The Nation - Published on June 12, 2008

Burma gained the spotlight in world news in September 2007 when the Saffron Revolution erupted. Surprisingly, we heard arguments against democratisation from politicians, statesmen, scholars, so-called Burma experts and even some Burmese in exile who have never set foot on their native soil or who have been out of touch with reality for decades.

They claimed that a substitute for the military junta would be, of all things, the devil's alternative.

Now, after Cyclone Nargis, people around the world are denouncing the regime and equating its stubborn refusal to allow free access of international relief assistance to the urgently needed victims - not in thousands but in millions - as a criminal act. Many say that it is time for humanitarian intervention by the United Nations under the "Responsibility to Protect" principle.

As the Burmese people suffer, the debate over this principle continues. Those who oppose the principle said Burma will become lawless and chaotic - a Balkanisation of a sort.

But no matter how one looks, lawlessness is not an exaggeration when making reference to Burma. The killing of the highest spiritual leaders of society must be considered the most brutal form of lawlessness. Refusal of international life-saving assistance to millions of cyclone victims is a crime against humanity, the worst offence in the civilised world.

In Burma, there is no rule of law. What comes out of the mouths of selfish, greedy, deceitful generals becomes law and is acted upon by spineless cohorts. This is the best culture for crime and chaos to flourish. Drug cartels and crime syndicates prosper most under egomaniac despots. The self-seeking military junta is the sole cause of chaos and civil war in Burma. The junta's militarisation of the country has brought poverty, unprecedented chaos, and mismanagement and social conflict matched only by a few failed states on earth.

Unlike Yugoslavia or some African countries, Burma's more than 2000-year history shows no precedence for Balkanisation. Bloody religious or racial conflicts common to Yugoslavia or African countries were unheard of. Past wars were caused mainly by feudal monarchs annexing adjacent territories just like feudal rulers of any country in ancient times. Pre-independence and post-independence communal riots were hangovers of colonial divide and rule policies.

The junta's disinformation on the meaning of federalism has failed among the people who now realise the futility of denying other ethnic peoples their rights in accordance with universal norms. Only one obstacle remains for the formation of a genuine and peaceful Union of Burma - that is the military junta.

Balkanisation is not the only option in the world.

Czechoslovakia experienced a peaceful "velvet separation". Balkanisation and anarchy in Burma can come about by the fall of the junta which could disintegrate into multiple rival fiefdoms controlled separately by junta generals and regional commanders turning into war-lords as in post-Siad Barre Somalia, post-Najibullah Afghanistan or post-Mobutu Congo. Unlike them, Burma fortunately has a legitimate and popular democratic leadership well-prepared and highly competent to take over.

Burma's opposition leaders, both democratic and ethnic, are undoubtedly more competent, qualified and broad-minded than the junta leaders. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, all the atrocities and terror in Burma has been committed by the State Police and Development Council (SPDC). There are no extremists or terrorists among the opposition. Hence merely checking and removing the SPDC will prevent further bloodshed.

The Junta's senseless, paranoid economic policies are making everyone poor except the generals. Even Singapore's senior statesman Lee Kuan-yew has dubbed them "dumb" with regard to economics. No globalisation beneficial to the country's people, local businessmen or foreign investors could take hold in Burma. In contrast, the democratic and ethnic groups have been upgrading its leaders and rank-and-file with world level capacity in all issues, anticipating to ride the globalisation tide like China and Vietnam. Exiled democratic and ethnic forces are also versed in international efficiencies of a peaceful nature after years of training and study abroad.

The important thing is that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD) are not calling for abrupt regime change but rather a negotiated settlement taking into account the Burmese military's role, and finally replacing it in the not too distant future.

In February 2006, the NLD offered a transition plan which would recognise the military junta as a de jure government for a transitional period that would be legitimised by the parliament elected in 1990. Also in August, 2007, ninety-two elected members of parliament proposed an alternative road map offering the SPDC a significant role in the constitution- drafting and transition processes along with elected NLD and ethnic members of parliament.

"Everything is negotiable," Aung San Suu Kyi has said. The army is to be retained but the military dictatorship must go, this is the opposition's consensus view. The arrogant generals with diplomatic protection of China simply turned down all the proposals.

Engagement with the junta has also been called or initiated by many countries including Asean, China and Japan. There have been the Wilton Park seminars in the UK favouring engagement as well. The military responded by snubbing the Asean chairman when he visited Burma in 2006; by killing a Japanese reporter during the Saffron Revolution; and by ignoring Japan's demand to have a proper investigation. It is clear that all this has resulted in more clampdowns with more refugees and more migrants to neighbouring countries and of course the spread of diseases, forced labour and rapes in the country.

So what can you expect from shoring up a junta that is prepared to kill the most revered section of the nation and also prepared to allow millions of its own people, the cyclone victims, to suffer or die helplessly devoid of much needed life-saving relief assistance? Will it be moral or feasible to maintain the status quo or engage with the junta to prevent an imaginary and improbable Balkanisation and chaos?

To prevent such a scenario there is no alternative for the international community, especially Asean members, but to lead and initiate a stronger and more concerted international effort for democratic transition in Burma and by taking the lead in stronger critical engagement, not the kind of unconditional engagement with the military regime which has proved to be an utter failure.

Teddy Buri, MP-elect, chairman, Members of Parliament Union-Burma (MPU)
Manko Ban, MP-elect, chairman of the United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD-LA)
Sann Aung, MP-elect, member, National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/06/12/pda/opinion_30075310.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
New York Times: The end of intervention – Madeleine K. Albright
Wed 11 Jun 2008
Filed under: News, Opinion, Other

THE Burmese government’s criminally neglectful response to last month’s cyclone, and the world’s response to that response, illustrate three grim realities today: totalitarian governments are alive and well; their neighbors are reluctant to pressure them to change; and the notion of national sovereignty as sacred is gaining ground, helped in no small part by the disastrous results of the American invasion of Iraq. Indeed, many of the world’s necessary interventions in the decade before the invasion — in places like Haiti and the Balkans — would seem impossible in today’s climate.

The first and most obvious reality is the survival of totalitarian government in an age of global communications and democratic progress. Myanmar’s military junta employs the same set of tools used by the likes of Stalin to crush dissent and monitor the lives of citizens. The needs of the victims of Cyclone Nargis mean nothing to a regime focused solely on preserving its own authority.
Second is the unwillingness of Myanmar’s neighbors to use their collective leverage on behalf of change. A decade ago, when Myanmar was allowed to join the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, I was assured by leaders in the region that they would push the junta to open its economy and move in the direction of democracy. With a few honorable exceptions, this hasn’t happened.

A third reality is that the concept of national sovereignty as an inviolable and overriding principle of global law is once again gaining ground. Many diplomats and foreign policy experts had hoped that the fall of the Berlin Wall would lead to the creation of an integrated world system free from spheres of influence, in which the wounds created by colonial and cold war empires would heal.
In such a world, the international community would recognize a responsibility to override sovereignty in emergency situations — to prevent ethnic cleansing or genocide, arrest war criminals, restore democracy or provide disaster relief when national governments were either unable or unwilling to do so.

During the 1990s, certain precedents were created. The administration of George H. W. Bush intervened to prevent famine in Somalia and to aid Kurds in northern Iraq; the Clinton administration returned an elected leader to power in Haiti; NATO ended the war in Bosnia and stopped Slobodan Milosevic’s campaign of terror in Kosovo; the British halted a civil war in Sierra Leone; and the United Nations authorized life-saving missions in East Timor and elsewhere.

These actions were not steps toward a world government. They did reflect the view that the international system exists to advance certain core values, including development, justice and respect for human rights. In this view, sovereignty is still a central consideration, but cases may arise in which there is a responsibility to intervene — through sanctions or, in extreme cases, by force — to save lives.

The Bush administration’s decision to fight in Afghanistan after 9/11 did nothing to weaken this view because it was clearly motivated by self-defense. The invasion of Iraq, with the administration’s grandiose rhetoric about pre-emption, was another matter, however. It generated a negative reaction that has weakened support for cross-border interventions even for worthy purposes. Governments, especially in the developing world, are now determined to preserve the principle of sovereignty, even when the human costs of doing so are high.

Thus, Myanmar’s leaders have been shielded from the repercussions of their outrageous actions. Sudan has been able to dictate the terms of multinational operations inside Darfur. The government of Zimbabwe may yet succeed in stealing a presidential election.

Political leaders in Pakistan have told the Bush administration to back off, despite the growth of Al Qaeda and Taliban cells in the country’s wild northwest. African leaders (understandably perhaps) have said no to the creation of a regional American military command. And despite recent efforts to enshrine the doctrine of a “responsibility to protect” in international law, the concept of humanitarian intervention has lost momentum.

The global conscience is not asleep, but after the turbulence of recent years, it is profoundly confused. Some governments will oppose any exceptions to the principle of sovereignty because they fear criticism of their own policies. Others will defend the sanctity of sovereignty unless and until they again have confidence in the judgment of those proposing exceptions.

At the heart of the debate is the question of what the international system is. Is it just a collection of legal nuts and bolts cobbled together by governments to protect governments? Or is it a living framework of rules intended to make the world a more humane place?

We know how the government of Myanmar would answer that question, but what we need to listen to is the voice — and cry — of the Burmese people.

Madeleine K. Albright was the United States secretary of state from 1997 to 2001.
http://www.burmanet.org/news/2008/06/11/new-york-times-the-end-of-intervention-%e2%80%93-madeleine-k-albright/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Making sovereignty a right
Myanmar crisis raises security concerns, initiates R2P
Joe Kornelsen
http://www.uniter. ca/view.php? aid=40444

A massive cyclone has rolled through Burma (Myanmar) leaving the people of the country needing disaster relief that their government has been slow to provide and slow to accept from the international community.

On May 2 cyclone Nargis moved across Burma leaving 78,000 dead and another 56,000 missing.

In the weeks since the disaster, countries and aid agencies from around the world have offered aid to Burma but the government has accepted only limited supplies and is still refusing entry to most foreign aid experts.

The president of the Chin Student Union of North America, Salai Za Ceu Lian, is a long-time activist for democracy in Burma and is very concerned about the unfolding crisis there.

“[Burma does] not have enough resources both human and material to meet the challenges,” he said.

Salai believes that the military junta ruling the country does not want foreigners in for two reasons: “they do not want the Burmese people inside Burma to connect with the outside world for fear of foreign influences [and] they do not want the outside world to see [the military junta’s] rampant violations of human rights.”

Calls are now being made for the United Nations to use the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect to help the people of Burma

Based on a report issued in 2001 and written into the UN protocol, Responsibility to Protect or R2P is a principle that makes a country’s sovereignty a right. A country relinquishes its right to sovereignty if it is unable or is unwilling to protect its own people; in this situation, the international community has the responsibility to use force if it will prevent substantial loss of human life.

During and after his time as foreign affairs minister, the current University of Winnipeg president, Lloyd Axworthy, was a strong backer of the adoption of the principle of R2P by the UN. He believes that the situation in Burma is a good time to make use of the principle.

“R2P should be used because it will broaden the scope of the principle,” said Axworthy adding that this crisis is part of a broader concern for human security.

“Increasingly risks are becoming globalized,” he said.

Salai would also like to see the principle used.

Fearing what may happen if aid is not allowed to get to the Burmese people Salai said, “The world should not wait to see a man-made catastrophe claiming millions of lives in Burma.”

The hardest hit region is the Irrawaddy Delta located in southern Burma. The delta is on a wide peninsula that extends out into the Andaman Sea. Currently much of the delta remains submerged in seawater.

The delta is the most important agricultural region for both rice and other crops making it critical to the Burmese economy.

On May 22 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with the Burmese leaders to see the damage done by cyclone Nargis. According to press reports he flew over the cyclone affected regions and was very concerned about what he saw.

“I think it’s very important that he’s there. He can bring the message that Burma is a pariah in the international community,” said Axworthy, “I hope that he would use the language of R2P..”

The UN estimates that nearly 2.5 million people have been seriously affected by the cyclone. Only 25 per cent of that number has received aid from the UN agencies operating in the area.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UN: 35,000 pregnant women need care in Myanmar
AP
1 hour, 49 minutes ago

Up to 35,000 pregnant cyclone survivors are in urgent need of proper care in Myanmar, a U.N. expert said Wednesday, as relief agencies again raised concerns about the junta's willingness to accept foreign aid.