David Fullbrook does a wonderful outline of Burma's "Buying Spree" in the Asia Sentinel. Burma continues to fuel their arms build up as a carbon copy of the largest supporter, China.
There are plenty of eager sellers even to pariah states if they have the money. In the latest turn of events, General Thura Shwe Mann, Burmese Army chief of staff, is suspected of sealing a deal for Indian military equipment when he visited India’s Eastern Command earlier in December. Indian spokesman, Wing Commander R K Das, would only confirm they discussed joint exercises and training.That trip followed a meeting between Air Chief Marshal S P Tyagi, commander of the Indian Air Force and Senior General Than Shwe, head of the military junta, in Naypyidaw, the new capital of Burma, on 22 November. Human Rights Watch claims Mr Tyagi was there to offer light attack helicopters, better avionics for combat jets, and naval surveillance aircraft.
On what terms is unclear, but reports say New Delhi is hoping to persuade Rangoon to finally get tough with Indian rebels using Burma as a base to battle for the independence of states in troubled northeastern India.
Recently Mizzima released a report that stated Burma would act against those deemed to be hostile to India.
The Burmese military junta has assured that it would not allow "negative elements" to use its territory for carrying out hostile activities against India as the two countries have agreed to cooperate on security issues, drug trafficking and border management.
India also plans to help build a new railway in Burma through China and into Russia
Fullbrook goes on to comment on Burma relations with it's neighbors. It is well known Malaysia is one of Burma's strongest critics and they have repeatedly called for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.
Thailand’s traditionally close cooperation with America also keeps doubts smoldering in Rangoon. Moreover General Surayud Chulanont, installed as Thailand’s prime minister after a coup in September, is no fan of the junta.In addition to the Indians, South Korean firms have been in hot water lately, accused by public prosecutors in Seoul of illegally supplying equipment and helping to build an artillery munitions factory worth $133.8 million in Burma. Cases are now being prepared against 14 executives from seven firms, including Lee Tae-yong, president of Daewoo International.
A Toward Freedom report states that
Thailand’s new Energy Minister Piyasvasti Amranand has said he intends to reassess, and possibly abandon, the previous Thai government's controversial joint-plans with Myanmar’s military junta to build five hydroelectric dams along the Salween River.
14 officials from seven South Korean companies were charges with dealing with the Burmese government but it is suspected that this crack down is small in comparison with deals that went through.
Fullbrook continues,
Burma’s navy is also expanding, buying small combat vessels from China to complement ships being built in yards near Rangoon. Electronics and weapons come from the usual scrum of suppliers based in China, Russia, North Korea, India, Israel, and say some reports, Italy.... Though Burma’s best kit comes from Russia and Ukraine, its primary supplier remains China. Jared Genser, a visiting fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy, testified to the US-China Economic and Security Review Committee in Washington in August 2006 that China has provided 90 percent of the Burmese military’s equipment in two deals since 1989.“Without China’s $1.6 billion in military assistance and naval modernization, Burma would not have been able to create the second largest military, behind Vietnam, in Southeast Asia,” said Genser.
It seems UN pressure is giving Burma generals an excuse to build up. The US and UK back resolution has been pushed back until early next year, as I expected.
Fullbrook also qoutes Global Witness for the millions of dollars being made illegally selling timber to China but their most recent report dated April 2006 states China began blocking sales. As they say,
The question Global Witness is now asking is whether this signals a permanent change in policy or merely an intermission.
