The worst thing is that we live in a contaminated moral environment. We fell morally ill because we got used to saying something different from what we thought. We learned not to believe in anything, to ignore each other, to care only for ourselves. Concepts such as love, friendship, compassion, humility and forgiveness lost their depth and dimension, and for many of us they came to represent only psychological peculiarities, or to resemble long-lost greetings from the ancient times, [...] None of us is just its victim: we are all also its co-creators. [...] We must accept this legacy as a sin we committed against ourselves. If we accept it as such, we will understand that it is up to us all, and up to us alone, to do something about it. We must not blame the previous rulers for everything, not only because it would be untrue but also because it could blunt the duty each of us faces today, that is, the obligation to act independently, freely, reasonably, and quickly[...] Freedom and democracy require participation and therefore responsible action from us all.

It has been some time since I have received an email from a government institution or official. In the past they have all been extremely supportive of my meager efforts here to spread awareness about the situation in Burma. This has not been my first website on Burma, but what I have learned is that they are two kinds of people who read this type of blog - Those who already know what is written here, and most importantly, the second group - those who stumble across this site through search engines seeking out information on the subject. The latter is the audience I tend to target.

This email was different. Though it was polite is was clearly an effort to stand in defense of the Bush Administration and the actions taken by the United States towards Burma in the last few years. As if I need to be informed and/or assured.

Here is a portion of the email from the Public Affairs Office at the United States Mission to the United Nations;

"We are actively engaging the UN Special Adviser, Ibrahim Gambari, and the Security Council to push the government of Burma for a release of political prisoners and detainees. We are also pressing the military regime to begin the process of national reconciliation and democratization.

The United States has repeatedly emphasized the importance of ending violence and assisting the people of this troubled region. President Bush recently called for both the UN and all nations to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom. To this end, the United States introduced sanctions aimed at members of the military regime and the EU is considering an expansion of its own sanctions. The president also underscored the importance of supporting humanitarian groups working in the region. Mrs. Bush, the First Lady, is deeply committed to this issue, recently discussing the situation with the Secretary General of the UN."

It was some years ago that I made a decision in my life to let "them" have their Bureaucracy. It is a rampant disorder that not only plagues the political system but also the profession I am in school to aspire towards.

Bureaucracy and lack of resolve has been an important motivation for me to climb many mountains and to attain potential I did not know I had. My personal trinity is one of Character, Solid Judgment and Responsibility. And as I get older I come to appreciate more and more the emphasis on Individual Responsibility.

The very definition of a bureaucracy is that is tends to become more concerned with its stagnant operations than it's original purpose and reasonable attainability of efficient results.

This email reminded of this cartoon published in Irrawaddy in Dec. of 2006.

The perfunctory performance of the United States as well as the United Nations in regard to Burma has been nothing short of the result of a system mired in hierarchal time tables, an abundant lack of creative thinking and an utter refusal to follow the best path towards stabilization in one of the most oppressed nations on this small earth.

Let me reiterate my position;

U.S. support for sanctions makes no sense when our most highly valued trading partner is China, the life line to the fanatical regime. A democratic Burma is a stable Burma. A stable Burma is fully in China's economic interest. The UN Security Council cannot pass any measures due to China and Russia.

The People's Republic of China, which has provided massive military and economic aid, and Russia, which has provided cover at the U.N. Security Council, are the junta's primary enablers. We can also add India's name to that list who is matching China's support for the Burma military with great enthusiasm.

The United States should lead an effort to isolate Burma diplomatically. No such efforts have been made. Until the United States and other "democratic" nations Strongly engage with China, India, and the ASEAN nations to make democratic reconciliation in Burma a priority the situation in Burma will not improve.

But don't take my word for it. Here is an excerpt from the article Asia's Forgotten Crisis in the Nov/Dec issue of Foreign Affairs:

"The United States could begin to influence both nations' (India and China) thinking by making Burma a higher priority in bilateral dialogues. In discussions with Beijing, Washington could make China's Burma policy another test of its readiness to be a "responsible stakeholder," much as it has already done in regard to Darfur.

With New Delhi, Washington could make India's Burma policy an important component of the two governments' evolving strategic dialogue and nascent partnership on international issues, including democracy promotion and regional stability.

Even more important, the U.S. government should initiate a new approach with ASEAN, Japan, and actors outside of Asia, such as the European Union, which has had a long-standing interest in political reform in Burma. ASEAN alone does not have the cohesion or the clout to shape China's or India's policy toward Burma. But with help from the United States and others, it could take a leading role in spearheading a new coordinated, multilateral approach that neither Beijing nor New Delhi would be able to ignore.

China was reluctant to host the six-party talks on North Korea at first, but it eventually preferred to take on that role rather than leave the job of dealing with Pyongyang's nuclear activities to the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Once a new multilateral approach to Burma begins to take shape, China will not want to be viewed as obstructing progress on an issue of importance to its neighbors."

Since the cyclone in Burma the topic of intervention has been widely discussed. Most of this discussion has been to focus on the habits of the junta. They have forced survivors to leave aid camps and return home where there was no home to return to. They have even confiscated relief supplies and sold them to the highest bidder.

But I have heard something else that I have long hoped not to hear. From first and second generation Burmese immigrants I have heard one word - Iraq.

I have feared the surfacing of this talking point since the global exposure that followed the September Uprising. As the United States approaches an election with two candidates having polar opposite positions on Iraq, this talking point will only be reinforced. There is an over-generalized fear that any U.S. supported intervention, of any course, is predestined to end in failure and the deaths of millions.

I fear this will lead to a great convenience for the U.S. as well as the rest of the world to assume total nonintervention, placated by superficial remarks, as a reasonable choice.

I fear new diplomatic strategies will not be considered by the next administration concerning Burma, and perhaps the administration following that. This not only hurts the next generation of those suffering in Burma but it will also hurt the next generation of all those in the free world.

The inability to experience and recognize ones place as a citizen of the world only perpetuates neglect as an informal agenda and detains the acquisition of creative thought. Without which problem solving resolves to dumb luck. So we are left negotiating daily expenses of moral excursions and are bound in the preoccupation of our limited expectations.

The regime's mouthpiece is repeatedly asserting that they have not broken any laws by extending Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's detention for yet another year. The current law under which Daw Suu Kyi is being held, for "safeguarding the state from dangerous elements", only allows for five years of detention without trial. Daw Suu has just entered her sixth consecutive year. This current period of house arrest began after the assassination attempt on her life during a speaking tour in 2003. Daw Suu Kyi traveled the country despite advice from her security and political associates. She was detained, the military claimed, for her own protection.

The regime has further stated that Aung San Suu Kyi deserves to be "beaten like an errant child for threatening national security" and that the government was the "parent of the people" and is acting with "great patience" .

The National League for Democracy will appeal this extension.

"If the State Peace and Development Council assumes that the extension of the detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was in accordance with the law, we ask them to accept the appeal and open the case in accordance with the law."

It is unlikely a trial will ever result despite the NLD's best efforts.

In New York at Ralph Bunch Park across from the United Nations, there have been peaceful demonstrations pleading for global action regarding the failing relief efforts following the cyclone.

The Voice of America has been running an interesting series of radio interviews with Aung Lin Htut, former Major serving in Myanmar's Defense Services Intelligence Agency, who was granted asylum in the United States in 2005.

Aung Lin Htut has asserted what we already knew. The chaos surrounding the Depayin massacre in 2003, was orchestrated for the sole purpose of killing Aun San Suu Kyi.

The East - West Center has released its Asia Pacific Security Survey for 2008. The 44 page report is the product of a survey by 128 security analysts. The information was gathered in the last few months of 2007. The result in an attempt to provide general assumptions collected among anonymous security experts.

The document mostly covers;

• Terrorism and internal instability - With a focus on Pakistan and Burma/Myanmar
• Global Warming
• U.S. China relations - with a concern for a breakdown in U.S. policy towards China in the near future.
• North Korea
• Iraq

Though those surveyed are anonymous, the report does constrast and compare views from participants from different regions.

As the report was just released. The East - West Center conducted a follow up poll as to what action they would recommend in response to the humanitarian crisis in Burma / Myanmar following Cyclone Nargis.

The 61 who responded were fairly evenly divided between Western and Asian analysts.

A little more than half supported some form of international intervention, while the remainder backed diplomatic approaches.

Western responders broke heavily in favor of intervention (most preferring UN authorization), while Southeast Asian analysts tended to favor diplomatic actions - negotiations with the Burma / Myanmar regime - over intervention.

The analysts from North and South Asia were evenly split between the two options.

Baker noted, however, that while the Southeast Asian analysts were cool to the idea of aggressive intervention, they were far from calling for a passive international stance.

"In most cases (they) favor quite active diplomatic efforts in this situation," Baker said. "It is the use of international sanctions or forceful intervention that gives most of these analysts pause."

The report assumes the objective opinion that the role and influence of ASEAN has greatly improved over the last few years. Charts indicate that they believe the greatest causes for concern, compared to the same question being asked two years ago, are India - Pakistan relations and the economic outlook for the region. Though they state domestic instability has worsened they believe China's continual political and economic rise is not a threat to general stability.

This post is a must read; Sexing Up Disasters by Dianne Sharma-Winter

Smugglers from the Bay of Bengal smuggled what they could into the area. They didn't wait for international approval, they didn't dick around with diplomatic double speak. Their response may have been a drop in the vast ocean of despair that swamped Irrawaddy basin, but it was heroic and human all at once.

According to the BBC (graphic video), while the Tsunami in 2004 was twice as deadly as Cyclone Nargis, victims of of the Tsunami received 160 times more aid from the international community.

I'm currently reading Frontier Mosaic: Voices of Burma from the Lands In Between by Richard Humphries. I highly recommend this page turner. Not only is it astonishingly well written but it gives a faithful and true insiders look at the boderlands of Burma. I'm only the first chapter in but the author has already created an image of the Thai Burma Border as country unto itself and I feel as though he is preparing to take me there.

I should really be reading Perfect Hostage: A Life of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's Prisoner of Conscience. I should have finished that some time ago. The publisher sent me a free copy so that I would write a review here. Sorry. I'll get to that next.

Another reason why you should buy Frontier Mosaic. All auther royalties are donated back to the border community, particularly Dr. Cynthia Maung's Mae Tao Clinic. So not only are you buying what I promise is not a rehash of Burma stories told and retold, but your helping a great cause.

I avoid personal opinion on my website for several reasons. One, some of my opinions may seem extreme or impractical. Two, some of my opinions may alienate others who genuinely care about the well being of the people of Burma. Also, to delve too deep into these issues without well prepared 300 page reports sponsored and legitimized by some international NGO will just make my opinion a rant, nothing more. Also, to raise some topics is to certainly antagonize questions that can not be answered by conventional means. But such is the nature of the problems in dealing with Burma.

But I have been pretty busy lately. I've been building two new websites. This is taking some time because I lack the expertise of website development but there are other reasons as well. The first website I am creating is a specific campaign. I tend hold my tongue on what I think of other prominent campaign's which claim to be out for the best interest of Burma but lack good taste, solid judgment and transparency. And again, to voice my opinion would alienate the allegiance such "organizations" claim to have acquired. As I said, it would take not an insignificant investigation and assessment to truly release such opinions.

This first website I am building is philosophically independent. I have thoroughly analyzed the practicality of such a campaign and have found it to be good. But, along its development I discovered some overhead would be required, so I have put a temporary halt to the project until I can find a way to make this campaign 100% finance-free. There are a few more issues to work out but they are minor in comparison. And with the recent explosion of online advocacy it is difficult at this time to tell if a more educational and information-outreach oriented campaign would be well received.

The second website I have been building has just been heartbreaking. It is topic specific. I have been debating for sometime if a site devoted to such a subject is even appropriate. In my research thus far, I have not come across anything I did not already know, but to focus so deliberately on such egregious human rights abuses has left me somewhat marked. It has changed me.

It is as though the veil has been lifted - to use a religious analogy. And I can not help but see the world in the condition it is truly in. Not only has this been an emotional challenge but it has also altered the subtly of my national identity. That, assuming we are ingrained with a national identity whether we are aware of it or not.

I will put this in very simple and under supported terms. It's the circle of life. The United States trades with China. American citizens buy Chinese goods every where we go, one would be very hard pressed to avoid it. In the first three months of this year alone we have purchased $72,728.2 million dollars in goods from China. China is no longer Burma's largest trading partner, Thailand is, but Chinese trade with Burma is still very significant and China is still the top arms provider to Burma.

Very simply put. In reality. If we lift the veil. U.S. citizens buy good's that puts money into China's pocket, that money is then spent in Burma to provide for their military needs, then the military launches it campaign's of genocide, systematic mass rape of women and children, torture in prisons, children losing their legs stepping on landmines as they run to escape the Burmese army and political oppression.

U.S. citizens don't pull the trigger; we just pay for the ammunition. The circle of life.

The deeper question is; does knowing this, the inability to claim ignorance, make one an active participant and an accessory during the fact? I believe it does.

But being an American I am well aware of the consequences of saying such a thing to another American. We can not live without Chinese goods. And thanks to U.S. trade policy with China, the Chinese rural class is seemingly rising out of poverty.

But the U.S. has strong trade sanctions against Burma, right? This hasn't stopped the ever increasing trade deals with China, Thailand, India and the rest of Southeast Asia. Europe, though they too blow the democratic trumpet and salute the abstract entitlement to freedom, in reality sit on the fence. Many top level corporations in Europe would be doing business with Burma at a moment's notice, with the blessing of their respective governments if it were not for legitimate public outcry and the unavoidable relation one would create with human rights abuses as one creates a relationship with Burma.

The United Nations? The British and the United States are fully aware that the United Nations Security Council will never pass measures to assure the basic safety of the people of Burma. Most of what "Democracies" around the world comment on Burma is save-face-rhetoric.

I believe the only way the international community can bring change in Burma is for a widespread, genuine and wholehearted diplomatic engagement to convince the Chinese that a democratic Burma is in their best financial interest. Why the Chinese? Because they are the superpower of the pacific. They have the political clout and diplomatic strength to force the junta to hold Free and Fair Democratic elections and to coerce (behind the curtain) the junta into retirement. Thailand has no such relationship with Burma. Their relationship is one of economic opportunism. India? Out of the question. Not only are they not an established partner with Burma but many feel that proactive economic engagement will encourage prosperity and democratic reform in Burma. But that to me seems as likely as the military loosening its grip on power because of U.S. sanctions. It looks good on paper. But in reality; poverty soars, the women and children are being raped, unknown numbers are dying from easily treated diseases. And the worldwide spread of a capitalist morality (what's most important is what stimulates my self-interest) simply makes the problems of Burma's people inconvenient.

I have been saying the same thing for many years now. Truly Creative Thinking can solve many issues. What has our adroit citizens of the world so preoccupied? I ask this because it seems it is only the adroit individual that can be of some assistance. The U.S. is now subject to its own devises finding itself another victim of financial dependency (modern colonialism). Not to mention the well received debt to China we own from the war in Iraq. We are in no position to negotiation and will be doing no such thing anytime soon. And so I wonder, what of the adroit individuals - who put the other before the self. What are they up to?

Continue reading "A personal note on the crisis in Burma" »

Panel DIscussion
Co-organized by the Open Society Institute Date:
Time: June 9th
8:00 - 8:30 am: registration and breakfast; 8:30 - 10:00 am: panel discussion / audience Q & A
Location: New York
Asia Society and Museum, 725 Park Avenue, New York
Cost: Free admission; limited seating. Advance registration is highly recommended
Buy Tickets Online
Phone: 212-517-ASIA
Web: http://www.asiasociety.org/resources/cyclone/

Continue reading "Burma's Agony: The International Humanitarian Response (with live webcast)" »

Rethinking International Engagement in Post-Cyclone Burma
The East-West Center in Washington Conference room- 12:30- 2:30 PM
June 12, 2008

Continue reading "Democracy & Human Rights Seminar - June 12, 2008" »

The Associated Press is saying that reflief organizations are still stuck in Rangoon and have not been able to get to some of the hardest hit areas. Mizzima is reporting that, according to Doctors Without Borders, these organziations have been given permission but due to logistics and restriants from the military everything is moving at a "snails pace".

Relief officials say they are poised to:

- Set up dozens of drinking water treatment plants in the delta and operate hand pumps and other equipment to desalinate wells and fields contaminated by the saltwater tidal surge.

- Send in health and nutrition experts to track disease and to identify acute cases of malnutrition, particularly in children, and mental health counselors.

- Join local teams to conduct emergency assessments of just what help is most needed, including food, water, shelter and medicine, and how many schools and other public facilities are required. UNICEF said Friday that more than 4,000 schools serving 1 million children were either damaged or destroyed

Meanwhile, Burma's military leaders are evicting cyclone victims from relief camps and forcing them back to their homes make shift tents.

A UN official said on Friday the government was making cyclone survivors leave the camps and "dumping" them near their devastated villages with virtually no aid supplies.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will soon be announcing whether or not U.S. ships will abandon Myanmar relief efforts and leave the Burma coast.

Clearly, as always, there is a great disconnect between the U.S. public desire to assist in Burma and government actions. It truly makes this video appear as nothing more than wishful thinking.

A better case has been made; in the matter of forced humanitarian intervention - who's sovereignty would we be violating?

The military junta in Burma has been left empowered by Cyclone Nargis. The international community has had to refrain from the obvious circumstances to build a case for the junta's human rights abuses as three weeks passed before UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon "convinced" the junta to let aid workers in unconditionally. While this is still unlikely to happen to the satisfaction of humanitarian groups it has provided a commanding elevation on the world stage for the junta as we are forced to play by their rules.

Though the destruction from Nargis - manna from heaven for the junta - is not why Daw Suu's sentence was extended, that would have happened anyways. Still, it cast an even tighter foundation for the junta's ruthless disregard for any and all diplomatic obstacles with even the slightest appearance of respect for rule of law.

This current extension is in violation of the junta's own law which states that an individual can not be held without trial for more than five years.

Nyan Win of the National League for Democracy, has said they plan to appeal.

Jared Genser, President of Freedom Now, was recently quoted,

"if General Than Shwe refuses to release her, it will be a slap on the face of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the ASEAN diplomats who will be at hand to hear the junta's request for $11 billion of international assistance"

While this may indeed be a "slap on the face", that isn't the issue. As Aung Zaw wrote in the Bangkok Post,

In military-ruled Burma, citizens must be prepared to spend years behind bars for discussing politically sensitive issues. For visiting dignitaries, the penalty is not quite as harsh, but the ban on talking politics is every bit as absolute.

During his recent visit to Burma, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was careful to respect the generals' reticence about any subject that touched upon their claims to legitimacy, lest he leave the country empty-handed.

We can remember the words of Aung San Suu Kyi;

"The only real prison is fear, and the only real freedom is freedom from fear."

See also - The Depayin Massacre, Five Years Later