View previous stories
	Democracy in Burma: Does Anybody Really Care? by Amitav Acharya   September 21, 2005   "Burma needs UN help for democratic reform", by Peter Lloyd. (ABC News)   A new report has called for United Nations intervention to bring democratic reform to Burma.   The report was commissioned by former Czech president Vaclav Havel and retired South African archbishop Desmond Tutu.   They compared the situation in Burma with seven other countries, including Haiti, Afghanistan, Cambodia and Rwanda, in which the Security Council had previously intervened with military force.   The pair said the situation in Burma was "far worse" and labelled years of quiet diplomacy as a failure.   The report said Burma's problems now reach beyond its borders and pose threats to the region and the international community. It recommended that the UN Security Council adopt a resolution compelling Burma to work with Secretary General Kofi Annan in implementing a plan for national reconciliation, the release of political prisoners and a restoration of a democratically-elected government.   Singapore: 1 September 2005 (Yaleglobal)   ASEAN wants to push the issue under the carpet, while the West is content with grandstanding..   A July 2005 agreement among the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that Burma would relinquish its turn at the chairmanship has averted a major diplomatic crisis for the organization. Western nations, including the United States and the European Union, who attend the annual ASEAN meetings as "dialogue partners," had threatened to boycott the 2006 meeting if Burma was in the chair.   Founded in 1967, ASEAN now includes 10 countries of Southeast Asia. Under its rotational leadership, Burma, which joined the group in 1997, was due to assume the chairmanship of its Standing Committee in 2006.   The Western dialogue partners of ASEAN are protesting against continued political repression and human rights abuses by the Burmese regime, which has ruled the country since 1962. The regime has refused to accept the result of the 1990 national election, which was won by the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD). The party leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, has since spent most of her time under detention.   By giving up its claim to lead ASEAN in 2006, the junta managed to take the heat off the question of domestic reform. And ASEAN avoided a Western boycott of its 2006 meeting. But without more focused action by ASEAN and the international community to move Burma towards democracy, the move will be little more than ASEAN's traditional practice of sweeping problems under the carpet.   The discussion in Laos was not about how to improve the political situation in the country. The issue was Burma's leadership, rather than membership in ASEAN. ASEAN has not made Burma's continued membership of the association subject to political reform.   ASEAN has been reluctant to push Burma towards political reform out of deference to its doctrine of non-interference. The Burmese junta has started drafting a new constitution, due to be completed in 2007, which it says would lead to political liberalization. Presumably, this would make Burma eligible to assume the leadership in ASEAN.   ASEAN members agree and hope that this will be the case. But its Western partners dismiss the constitution-drafting process. Suu Kyi and her party have boycotted the National Convention drafting the constitution, whose delegates were hand-picked and tightly controlled by the junta. The Bush administration in May 2004 stated that because "Rangoon's constitutional convention has not allowed for substantive dialogue and the full participation of all political groups, including the NLD, it lacks legitimacy." If approved by a popular majority in the electorate in a free and fair referendum – which is by no means guaranteed – the constitution would still accord the military a privileged position in the political system, including sole claim to the presidency.   ASEAN's role in Burma has been very different from its role in the Cambodia conflict during the 1980s, when it led efforts to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute, which resulted in the Paris Peace Agreement in 1991. That conflict was originally a civil war, although it had been internationalized by Vietnamese intervention and occupation of Cambodia. There has been no outside intervention in Burma, which is one justification for ASEAN's hands-off policy. But Burma has proven to be a major embarrassment for ASEAN.   ASEAN's diplomatic options in dealing with Burma are limited by intra-mural differences within the grouping over how to deal with the junta. Some members – Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Singapore – are increasingly concerned about the group's relationship with Western nations, if not its international public reputation per se. Thus, these ASEAN countries want to see the association play a role in nudging the junta to reform. Others, like Vietnam, stick to the principle of non-interference, and are worried about setting a precedent of allowing regionalist pressure for domestic political reform – a precedent that would likely come back to haunt them.   ASEAN's capacity for inducing political reform in Burma is also constrained by the fact that the junta has secured backing from both China and India, its two most powerful neighbors, playing them against one other. Hence, the junta can ignore any demand for political change that ASEAN may bring to bear on it.   China and India are critical to any intervention by the international community in Burma. But is the West really interested in advancing political change in Burma? There is no serious diplomatic effort ongoing today – of the kind one finds in Sri Lanka or Aceh – that might help bring about political reconciliation in Burma. The Bush administration snubbed ASEAN by canceling Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's attendance at the Vientiane meeting. But this posturing was almost entirely cost-free, thanks to good bilateral relations with key Asian nations, as indicated by a separate Rice stopover in Bangkok before the Vientiane meeting. Diplomatic snubs and economic sanctions are no substitute for a policy of seeking a solution to Burma's political woes.   Burma's strategic location or economic potential may be apparent to India and China, but not to the US. Burma is not regarded by the Bush administration as a terrorist haven, although it claims to side with the US on the war on terror, supposedly against extremist elements among its Rohingya muslim minority. When asked by the author as to why the US is not actively seeking a role in the Burma problem, a senior official in the first Bush administration replied that because there is no significant domestic interest or constituency in the United States pushing for such a role. The administration's democracy-promotion agenda does not extend to Burma, despite the fact that Secretary Rice named Burma as one of six "outposts of tyranny" during her Senate confirmation hearing in January.   Yet, a diplomatic effort backed by the US and involving Burma's giant Asian neighbors would be necessary and timely. Denying Burma the chairmanship of ASEAN is good posturing, but it does not advance the cause of democratic transformation in the country. If the US could engage in six-party negotiations involving China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea to deal with the North Korea problem, why should it not encourage a similar move involving China, India, and ASEAN to deal with the Burma issue?   The international community needs to prove that while taking a moral high ground on Burma's crisis; it must also offer concrete ideas and approaches to advance the democratization and national reconciliation process beyond the current policy of sanctions and boycott. A necessary step in that direction would be a new diplomatic initiative to persuade the Rangoon regime to broaden the constitution-drafting process – with the participation of freed opposition leaders and a firm time-table for internationally-supervised elections. Such an initiative could be spearheaded jointly by ASEAN, China and India, with the backing of the US and the EU and other members of the international community.   Ultimately, ASEAN must come out of its non-interference closet and address the issue head-on. Otherwise, its hands-off approach will continue to cloud its legitimacy and credibility as a regional organization with a mandate for seeking "regional solutions to regional problems."   (Amitav Acharya is Deputy Director and Head of Research at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University). Visit the related web page
	Civil Society Groups launch website to spur discussion of 2005 UN World Summit. by UN News / AllAfrica Global Media   17 August 2005   Civil Society Groups launch website to spur discussion of 2005 UN World Summit. (UN News)   With some 170 heads of State and government expected in New York in less than a month for the United Nations 2005 World Summit, civil society groups working with the UN Department of Public Information (DPI) have launched a Website to voice their views on how to strengthen the world body as it confronts the challenges of extreme poverty and global security.   The Website, at www.undpingoconference.org, features an interactive discussion area, which went live Monday, to debate issues that will be addressed at the 58th Annual DPI/NGO (non-governmental organization) Conference, “Our Challenge: Voices for Peace, Partnerships and Renewal,” scheduled to take place at UN Headquarters in New York from 7-9 September.   That event kicks off one week ahead of the 2005 World Summit, which will run from 14-16 September and where world leaders gathered to mark the Organization’s 60th anniversary are expected to take advantage of what Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called a "once in a generation opportunity" to forge a global consensus on development, security, human rights and UN renewal.   While the NGO Conference will be closed to the general public, the Website will enable social activists from around the world to participate in the discussion of issues as set forth in Mr. Annan’s report “In Larger Freedom,” which urged world leaders to take decisive action during the Summit on a "bold but achievable" blueprint for making the UN more efficient at tackling global problems.   The website also aims to increase the number of NGO Conference participants from around the world, especially NGO activists, youth, the media and the general public.   During the Conference, online participants will also be able to pose questions which may be addressed to panel speakers to enable real-time, virtual participation. The online discussion area for comments, questions and answers will be available before, during and after the Conference.   The discussion forum will feature several thematic issues based on the Secretary-General’s report, including development issues, peace and security, human rights and rule of law, strengthening the UN and the role of civil society in the United Nations. Each topic will be launched by a series of questions by a moderator, who will check the discussions daily. Special online sessions with high-level UN officials or NGO representatives will be announced separately.   (The Website will host live a webcast of the panel discussions, which will feature Shirin Ebadi, 2003 Nobel Peace Prize Winner; Ann Veneman, Executive Director, UNICEF; Juan Somavía, Director-General, International Labour Organisation; Anwarul Chowdhury, UN High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States; Fatou Bensouda, Deputy Prosecutor, International Criminal Court; Gareth Evans, President and Chief Executive, International Crisis Group; Paul van Tongeren, Executive Director, European Centre for Conflict Prevention; and Bill Pace, Executive Director, World Federalist Movement).   August 16, 2005   Youth delegates call for Equality and Justice in the UN. (AllAfrica)   Delegates of the 16th World Youth and Students' Festival in Caracas, Venezuela, unanimously called for revolutionary reform of the United Nations (UN) in order to restore equality and justice in the international system.   During a debate on the need to reform the UN as proposed by Secretary General Kofi Annan, Venezuelan representative Carlos Wimmer said all nations of the world had a duty to create a United Nations where they could be represented equally.   Wimmer even suggested that a new organisation outside the UN should be created so that it could be more equitable.   He said UN reforms were necessary to bring about equality so that fundamental decisions are not taken just by a few nations. Wimmer suggested that the right to veto by Security Council permanent members should be abolished because the countries with that right were abusing it.   Canadian youth representative Julian Ikin Colect said it was clear from the way the US waged the wars in Iraq that it had overstepped the UN system. He said the kind of unilateralism being exhibited by the US suggested that the US believes that might is right. Colect said the US only goes to the UN when it wants to use it as its own power base and not otherwise.   Nigerian delegation leader Victor Akinjo said it was high time the UN reverted to its initial role of ensuring world peace, fighting poverty, hunger and disease as opposed to tolerating wars and other calamities.   Akinjo said the African continent had not forgotten how the UN watched without doing anything the massacre of nearly one million people in Rwanda in 1994. He said Africa had not forgotten how the UN ignored the problem of apartheid in South Africa, just as the continent had not forgotten about the crises in Liberia and Sierra Leone.   Akinjo said as a result of all this, it is clear that the UN must be reformed so that it reflects equity and justice and not just to serve the interests of a few nations. He said permanent seats on the Security Council must be open to all UN members and not just a few countries.   Cuban youth, Perla Payana Masso Soler, said the transformation of the UN would not come automatically unless the youth voiced their concerns and acted. Soler said there was need to defend the existence of the UN based on the basic principles on which it was originally set up. She said the UN should shoulder the responsibility of inequality and wars in the world.   Soler said with efficient and well-designed strategies, the UN could be reformed so that the voice of the people could be equally represented and heard in the international system. Visit the related web page
	View more stories