Burma Underground

Myanmar: Lessons for America Part II

The Editor — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:00:00 -0700

By Anonymous

Ignorance
In 1988, when students and monks were massacred in Myanmar, Universities were closed and the education system completed its deterioration. A whole generation of young people were left without a means of education. Many students found ways to teach themselves, but in general the lack of higher education along with the system of memorization used in elementary through secondary levels resulted in a huge loss of the potential human resources of the country. In this way the younger generations were handicapped, taught to accept and internalize the twisted histories and other lies fed to them in state run schools instead of being taught how to use their brains, how to think, and how to question. They were taught fear instead. The news and media surrounding them was always manipulated and controlled by the Junta. Myanmar is a country in which rumors fly as no where else. When the US invaded Iraq this last time, many respectable Burmese sincerely believed that the US had tanks lined up on the border of Myanmar and Thailand, finally coming to free them. In reality, the US government marked Myanmar down on their black-list as a dangerous country harboring evil terrorists out to destroy the American people.

When I look at what the education system in the United States of America has become it doesn’t seem very different from that in Myanmar. We are not being taught how to think but only to accept what we are given. Even at our University levels we are rewarded for parroting back what we are fed. It is now common knowledge that our media is controlled by a few groups whose purpose is to keep us in fear of the outer world. It has just been over the last couple years that the majority of Americans have realized this. Still today, many of us believe everything we see on the news. We are constantly surrounded by commercialism and fed mind-dulling nonsense about what is healthy for our bodies, and then told the opposite the next day. This keeps us all confused and in fear of cancer, terrorists, bad-credit, other religions, fires, tornadoes, you name it, that we dare not think for ourselves any more.

Myanmar: Lessons for America

The Editor — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:00:00 -0700

By Anonymous

While exploring the markets and tea-shops of various cities in Myanmar I have had some interesting discussions with people from all over the country. As we all know, Aung San Su Kyi, Myanmar’s elected President who has been under house arrest for more than a decade, requested that tourists not come to Myanmar in order to boycott the military regime. I have done a lot of low-budget traveling around Myanmar, and I have worked in the tourist industry for extended periods of time. In light of the recent events in Myanmar I am compelled to put forth my perspective, and to pass on what many Burmese citizens from all over Myanmar have discussed with me.

The first time I visited Myanmar was in 1996, the last time I was there was the end of 2006. Please excuse me if the writing is sometimes disjointed as the images I have seen on YouTube of the thousands of Monks marching in the street, brings up strong emotions in me of terror, amazement and vast respect for what they are doing.

Tourism in Myanmar
What I have seen in regards to the tourist industry in Myanmar is that there are basically two categories. The major one being package tour groups. These are generally older people, and they mostly come from Europe—from Italy and Germany. These package tours visit Myanmar for ten days. They go from Inle Lake to Bagan to Ngapali, they stay at the same hotels, eat at the same restaurants and shop at the same tourist shops. They are guided around by the same tour guides and their money does indeed support the military and their cronies. As a result I have seen some incredibly decadent hotels built in these areas of the country in the last five years. This type of tourist never sees the real Myanmar or interacts on the local level with Burmese people. I wouldn’t be surprised if these tour groups had never heard of Aung San Su Kyi or her request not to support the military regime.

Material Support Waived for Chin Refugees

The Editor — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:25:02 -0700

It's not often I come across apparently good news relating to Burma that doesn't make me think, "Hmm...well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see...". Burma being added to the UN Security Council Agenda? Well, we'll just have to wait and see what happens when the paper tiger roars. ASEAN rebukes junta? Yeah, well, we'll just have to wait and see how that goes.

But, the recent news that the US Secretary of State has waived application of the material support clause to ethnic Chin refugees? Well, that's great news. I won't stand up and praise the government for undoing something that should have never been done, but I am unreservedly happy for Chin people all over Asia. This most recent waiver seems to have come about after the visit of the Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey's visit to Southeast Asia in August to review the refugee situation. While the US government pats itself on the back for it's commitment to "freedom and human dignity", we should give credit where credit is due - to the hardworking lawyers, human rights professionals, activists and citizens around the world who have been struggling to clean up after and change the mess that this administration created in its effort to label anything that moves or talks funny a terrorist. I'm sure there's a few people in Malaysia who would want to shake your hand right now, Tyler Giannini.

What this means now is that the UNHCR will be able to resume its normal registration process for Chin people in Malaysia, and that the IOM will also be able to get involved in the registration and resettlement process to bring Chin people to the U.S. There have been reports/rumors that the U.S. is looking to resettle a sizable group of Chin refugees, but there is no particular reason to think that this waiver will do anything to improve the already cumbrous and drawn out application process for refugee status and resettlement. There are many many refugees from Burma who are not Chin or Karen, but who face the same circumstances and are equally in need. There are also many Chin refugees in India and Bangladesh who the UNHCR is not reccommending or processing for resettlement, and who will gain little from this.

The waiver may also be cold comfort for the 500 Chin people who have recently been arrested by Malaysian authorities.

There I go again qualifying my good news with cynicism. I'm not sure why the US government seems intent on meting out waivers peicemeal to specific ethnic groups, and I am tyring my best not to think that they are giving preference to those groups that are predominately Christian. But we should all take a moment to appreciate the good news and the hope that it will bring to many Chin people.

Condoleeza Waives Material Support Provision for Karens

The Editor — Mon, 08 May 2006 14:41:19 -0700

The Bush administration has finally gotten around to authorizing a waiver of the material support clause for 9,300 Karen refugees in Thailand.

Perhaps the Burmese junta's recent attacks against the Karen and the KNU, which have so far displaced 13,000 people in a matter of months, caused the white house to take care of this matter a bit more expeditiously.

It's certianly a positive step, and at least we know now that someone up there is paying attention to this situation - but it's still only a small, temporary fix. As I had suspected, the waiver does not apply to anyone who was actually a member of the KNU, or any other armed group, for that matter:

Material Support Update

The Editor — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:15:51 -0700

It's a bit of a coincidence that having posted a reminder of the 'material support' petition last night, I just today received a forwarded email from the US Campaign for Burma regarding some new developments on the issue.

Currently, four senators are sponsoring or co-sponsoring the Coleman-Leahy amendment to H.R. 4393. Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) are sponsoring the Act, while current co-sponsors are Lisa Murkowsky (R-Alaska) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland).

The amendment is for the Immigration and Nationality Act and reads as follows:

Purpose: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide an exception for refugees who have been forced against their will by terrorist organizations to provide support to such organizations.

More on "Material Support"

The Editor — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:51:23 -0800

The L.A. Times has an editorial today from George Rupp of the IRC on the horrifying beauracratic screw-up that is the Patriot Act and the Real ID act, in relation to the defintion of terrorism and the 'material support' clause. He offers a few examples of people who have suffered the consequences of the Department of Homeland Security's incompetence.

A Sierra Leonean woman's house was attacked by rebels in 1992. A young family member was killed with machetes, another minor was subjected to burns and the woman and her daughter were raped. The rebels kept the family captive for days in their own home. Homeland Security has placed the case on hold for "material support" concerns because the family is deemed to have provided housing to the rebels. Under this interpretation, it does not matter whether the support provided was given willingly or under duress.

Also, a petition version of the previous 'Letter to the President' is now availabe to be signed online. The petition for "Exemption for Refugees from "Material Support" Prohibition" will be forwarded to the relevent government officials and departments when it has ammassed a reasonable amount of signatures.

A few links:

LIRS Action Alert
Refugees International message form online
Letter from Senators Kennedy and Lieberman to Michael Chertoff

Letter to the President

The Editor — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:21:27 -0800

As per my previous post on the "material support" issue, here is a letter that I encourage you to copy and paste and send to the government. You could print it and mail it if you feel so inclined, or fax it, although email is probably easiest. I wonder if one particular method might get more attention than another, but I have no way of knowing. Many computers can send faxes, so I'd recommend giving it a go, because it seems like a fax might be harder to ignore. Either way, just be sure to fill in the appropriate salutation, and add your own name to the bottom so it looks like it came from a real person. Also, feel free to edit any part of the letter as you want, particularly if you are not a U.S. citizen/resident. This is an important issue that effects many nationalities, so everyone should be speaking up about it.

Material Support: The Government is Retarded.

The Editor — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:18:23 -0800

If you closely follow the news relating to Burma, or the US governments policy relating therein, you've probably come across this issue of the "material support clause". More specifically, the issue of this material support clause being used to bar resettlement in the US to thousands of refugees, mainly from Burma and Colombia. But it seems to be news that has been quietly lurking around for awhile, and hasn't really caught on in any mainstream press. I first caught wind of this back in December sometime, from a smart and politically active friend from Burma, but we both had concluded that it was not such a big deal - the idea that Burmese opposition groups could be labeled terrorists seemed so illogical and absurd given the US's support for democratic and ethnic activists there, that we figured it would be sorted out properly in the course of its apparently pending review.

Link Post

The Editor — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:32:08 -0800

As usually happens when I find a new issue to debate relating to Burma, I look at the few most recent articles and editorials and then blog about it. Afterwards, I start to google a bit and find that the same debate has been going on for years. The sanctions issue is case and point. In the interest of not being dogmatic, I don't want to reject outright the 'sanctions only hurt the people' argument. But I find that the same rationale get recycled and applied to every country that's ever faced sanctions, and has similarly been re-used over the years in relation to Burma. Perhaps that implies some validity to the argument, but I'd like to see someone come up with some more case-specific examples and reasoning as to why US sanctions are responsible for the economic woes of Burma. Many of the anti-sanction arguments, like 'US constitutes only 10% of foreign investment in Burma', (thus providing no impact when taken away) could actually be used both against and for sanctions.

Anyway, here are some links to both older and recent articles on the issue, which are worth a look-see.

Burma Sanctions: The Case For
Burma - Sanctions vs. Humanitarian Aid
Economic change is not enough to reform Burma
Do sanctions against Burma work?

In other news, there are a few new links in the side bar worth checking out. The Kachin News Group has been around for a while, but just recently revamped their site in English. Their focus, obviously, is on Kachin issues and news from Burma, and the site looks set to become a valuable news resource.

The Independent Mon News Agency is another new site I've come across. At least, it looks new to me, I don't know if I've just missed it until now, or if they have also just recently started an English language page. Either way, it also looks good. So check it out.

And finally, you'll notice the nifty little ad to the right here, for World of Good. Its a fair trade shop, and if you click on the ad and buy something Burma Underground will get an 8% commission. I previously had a little google ad down below but decided to switch because tracking the burma and myanmar ads I didn't want was too much trouble. But anyway, the 8% we get will go to support a few projects currently under development, including an online network to provide free hosting and website development for Burmese Civil Society Organizations and individuals, as well as the Books for Burma Project.

Sanctions, to Lift or Not to Lift?

The Editor — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:46:40 -0800

The founder of the Free Burma Coalition, Zar Ni, recently released a statement regarding the negative impact of sanctions on Burma’s people. The Free Burma Coalition was the original driving force behind the campaigns to boycott companies and to institute sanctions. In the first place, Zar Ni and the FBC deserve some recognition for having the humility to reconsider their strategy in the face of evidence that its been unsuccessful. As he states, sanctions are too ‘simplistic’. To quote, “[Western approaches]...overemphasise democratisation above other important aspects of nation building, and seek to affect regime change through pressure and sanctions which are in many ways doing more harm than good.” This sentiment was also expressed by Ian Halliday, a professor at the City University of Hong Kong who has apparently done some research into the issue of economic engagement in Burma. Halliday said this, “At present, too much faith is placed in quick political fixes. Burmese activists and Western commentators in liberal think tanks frequently insist that with just one more ratcheting up of sanctions, the junta will fall and a transition to democracy will ensue.” Although I’m a little reticent to lump Zar Ni and Halliday together in this instance, namely because Halliday seems to be a conservative who also said this:

“Take, for instance, the involvement of Western oil corporations in the Yadana gas project. Though highly controversial, Western oil corporations have created well paid jobs, established microcredit schemes to boost indigenous entrepreneurship, and reached out to local communities. They have made considerable investments in education and health care, on a local and nation scale.”

Rethinking Burma

The Editor — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:26:21 -0700

I came across an interesting article over at the Freedom Institute recently, concerning the need to rethink our strategic approach to Burma. You can read the full text here: Myanmar: Time for a rethink. The article made a few salient points, namely, that sanctions alone aren’t working, and the conflicting approaches of various nations are counterproductive. Which is, I suppose, what most of us have come to realise, isn’t it? But still, I find it encouraging that there seems to be some kind of dialogue/discourse developing on the topic.

But, I also find the article interesting for other reasons as well, in particular the way it represents a typical outsider/western viewpoint on the problems in Burma. As tends to be the case with outside perspectives, it can miss important details that are obvious from the inside. As tends to be the case with ‘Western’ perspectives, it takes a somewhat short-sighted view of the history and politics of the region. Coming from ‘modern’ nations, where our national identity tends to be linked more with the present and future than the past, we often forget the depth of history in Asia, and the importance it plays in the minds of the people. Don’t get me wrong, the author of the aforementioned article is obviously intelligent, and its a decent piece, but I will still proceed to poke holes in it.