PDP Party's Reasoned Critique of the Call for UN Security Council Action on Burma This FBC Posting contains: 1). A REASONED CRITIQUE OF THE CALL FOR UN SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION ON BURMA BY THE PDP PARTY 2). UN: Security Council Should Take Up Burma's Human Rights Crisis - Human Rights watch Press Release A REASONED CRITIQUE OF THE CALL FOR UN SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION ON BURMA BY THE PDP PARTY Date: 18th October 2005 Ex-President Havel/Bishop Tutu Report It is interesting to note that some political groups in Burma have come to a settled position that the ending of military rule in Burma will come from intervention from outside the country especially the developed countries. This has been particularly so for the NLD in the past 15 years, which has passively been sloganising 'democracy and freedom' with little or no action to worry the SPDC. The reaction of the NLD to the ex-President Havel/Bishop Desmond Tutu Report in supporting with alacrity its recommendations to the UN Security Council without careful thought despite the dangerous consequences of the action under Chapter VII and Article 41 to Burma and to its neighbours is a matter great concern to those who want a resolution of the situation in Burma in the foreseeable future. Big power rivalry in the region which at present is maintained by an unspoken equilibrium or at arms length in international relations, the current latent balance would be thrust to the front in the vortex of geopolitical active competition, for strategic control or influence in this vital strategic country, whose borders are shared by principal competitors and overlooks the important critical gateway to the Sea lanes of the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The implications of the President Havel/Tutu recommendations deserve careful analysis by any responsible political party before making any substantive dispassionate comment which is why the Parliamentary Democracy Party did not jump to make a response. The PDP has now had the opportunity to study the Report, which , though defective in many areas of fact and which led to flawed conclusions, we nonetheless welcome, their contribution to this long running political problem of military rule in Burma. Its biggest achievement will be to put Burma's situation to scrutiny on the world stage and perhaps, generate on-going discourse. In our objective view of the Report, it is unlikely to secure any UN Security Council support and will probably bring tensions among the key strategic players among the permanent members. Report Neither Objective nor Realistic The PDP agrees with some commentators that the Havel/Tutu Report taken as a whole, it is neither objective nor is it realistic in its conclusions and recommendations. It is not objective because it recycles many allegations and claims made by certain groups over a number of years but does not take account of UNODC 2003 Opium Survey, Irrawaddy Vol.11 No.4, 17 May 2003, UNODC Opium Survey 2004 and US Government published figures, which support the UNODC conclusions in its respective yearly Surveys. It is unrealistic and naïve because in view of the geopolitical strategic considerations of the region, to expect such a flawed Resolution pregnant with adverse consequences for some regional and global players, such as India, China and Russia to remain indifferent and allow it to pass muster when tabled in the Security Council for discussion is patently misconceived. The higher interests of these powers will assert themselves by preventing this Resolution being put on the Agenda of the Security Council, let alone, see it discussed as proposed and recommended by the worthy duo. Threat to Peace Misconceived It is ridiculous to suggest that HIV/AIDS and the flow of refugees into Thailand and India and trafficking of narcotics are issues, which constitute "a threat to peace" warranting action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. But the report does not even suggest one country in the region which has been affected by such vicissitudes. It is impossible to see how the countries in the region will support such a radical UN action whose consequences are far reaching and have negative long-term effects. Without their support, no action will succeed in the UN Security Council. The position of Britain and the US, France as permanent Security Council members is equally problematic and it is doubtful, whether China and Russia, the other two Security Council members, will agree to such a radical approach. More likely than not, they will veto such a resolution if it made it to the Security Council Agenda. To informed diplomatic observers and practitioners in international relations and taking into account of the regional geopolitical realities, there is utterly no realistic prospect of such a radical UN Resolution being put on the Security Council Agenda, let alone, being successfully passed by it, even though some members might be sympathetic to what the resolution seeks. The PDP believes that as long as the UN Security Council remains as it is presently constituted, a resolution of this import whatever the situation inside Burma might be and whatever its effects are in the neighbouring countries, it is unlikely to see the light of day in view of the competing strategic considerations of the permanent members. The Myth That No Other Parties Exist in Burma There is a myth here about the reactions of the opposition groups in Burma including the rump of the now discredited NLD whose members have taken-flight because of its failure in the past 15 years to achieve or bring about democracy, freedom, and to solve the economic and social problems the country has been facing by removing the military junta from power . In its much weakened political situation, the NLD response to the Havel/Tutu report is instructive in what it has not said about other opposition political parties such as the PDP party and others, as it is revealing in its lack of understanding of the implications and serious consequences of such a radical step in the Security Council, which could destabilise Burma as well as its neighbours for many years to come. And the resulting instability could easily become not only a 'threat to peace' but also, a threat to 'world peace', as the big powers strategic interests would be at stake. Big Power Competing Interests The Havel/Tu Tu Report and its major recommendations if they were taken to the Security Council, it would expose for all to see their individual divergent strategic competing interests of the US, China, Russia, and India, which are at present hidden under the table or diplomatic code words of democracy, freedom and humanitarian work. China, Russia, and India will see such a move with suspicion about both the short and long-term intentions of the US and its allies, even though there might not be any malign intentions. Has anybody considered what type of democracy and freedom these powers wish for Burma? Will it be the same as the people of Burma want or will it be qualified as in Afghanistan, Egypt, and Bosnia to serve particular interests? We in the Parliamentary Democracy Party are clear and know what we require for our Motherland – authentic democracy, freedom of speech, economic, and social development, and the Rule of Law to underpin all the areas of our economic and social transactions. As a matter of necessity, anything which arouses China's and Russia's suspicions of US intentions and its allies in the region, will be blocked even before it is put on the Security Council Agenda through informal channels. Yet the NLD Central Committee blithely says that the report is "detailed and accurate" and then goes on to plead that "when this subject (Burma) is brought before the Security Council, we urge and solicit all members to unite and cooperate and work together for a successful outcome and to refrain from exercising their veto powers". What the NLD is in fact advocating is UN Security Council intervention in Burma under Chapter VII and with all the consequences of Articles 39 and 41 – sanctions, possible military action etc. What a hell of a contradiction! If you want to alleviate the economic and social problems faced by the people of Burma with so-called humanitarian work, Chapter VII and Article 41 of the UN Charter are not the diplomatic or political instruments that you choose to use, as the result will make these problems worse than they are. It is therefore puzzling that some contributions to the debate are erroneously suggesting that "neither the NLD nor the CRPP specifically refer to the recommendation for action under Article VII of the UN Charter nor do they refer to any threat to peace. This is an extraordinary claim , which defies paragraph 5 of the NLD Central Executive Committee Statement dated the 21st September, 2005, which says: "When this subject (Burma) is brought before the Security Council we urge and solicit all members to unite and cooperate and work together for a successful outcome and refrain from exercising their veto powers". This statement clearly supports directly the Havel/Tutu draft UN Security Council Resolution and action under Chapter VII and Article 41 of the UN Charter, but to suggest otherwise, is not to advance informed debate about politics in Burma. Calamitous and Inept Response The humiliation that the NLD had to be rescued from its calamitous and inept statement of 21st Sep 2005, support on the Havel/Tutu Report on Chapter VII of the UN Charter Resolution by an outsider was and still is, a damning confirmation of the perceptive and courageous contribution of Mr.Aung Zaw's review of the political state of the NLD and its leadership since 1990 - the respected independent Editor of the Irrawaddy Magazine of 5th May 2005, which brutally but honestly exposed the political failure and incompetence of not only Daw Aung San Suu Kyi but also of the whole NLD leadership. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's political record of delivery and leadership has little to recommend it nor that of the entire NLD leadership despite the enormous financial resources given them by Western countries. Yet an outsider, contrary to the official NLD Central Executive Committee which it issued on the 21st September 2005, suggests in response to the Havel/Tutu Report that it did not mean what it says in paragraph 5 of its statement. This paragraph clearly says that and we quote verbatim "When this subject (Burma) is brought before the Security Council we urge and solicit all members to unite and cooperate and work together for a successful outcome and to refrain from exercising their veto powers", end of quotation. Then, the contributor makes another statement in relation to the US administration's likely attitude to the Havel/Tutu Report whether it would find it useful in its discussion of the issues involved with China and Russia. And we quote "On the other hand, the statesmanlike and conciliatory statements by the NLD and the CRPP are far more persuasive and might have influence with both China and Russia", end of quote. This statement is inconsistent with the known facts regarding the NLD's political culture nor can it be said that its statement of the 21st September 2005 is anything but statesmanlike and conciliatory Given that the Editor of the Irrawaddy Magazine is an experienced professional journalist who has followed the ebbs and flows of opposition political parties in Burma for many years and speaks the language and probably more languages of the people and lives among them and is in touch. Are we now seriously being asked to disbelieve his well researched, objective and independent magisterial conclusions and judgement about the political performance of the NLD in the past 15 years vis a vis, the military junta? Mr.Aung Zaw has done a great service to the people of Burma by exposing the myth of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD. What he says is well-considered, rigorous, and objective, proportionate, balanced, informed, sober conclusions and independent judgement without fear or favour but the Havel/Tutu Report has completely ignored this landmark devastating independent report, which would have helped it make their report objective. Are we to believe that this Irrawaddy Magazine Report was not accessible to them? We doubt it. Why then, completely cover up the important facts produced by independent Burmese professional researchers and journalists who have no axe to grind. Do we want a free and independent press in Burma or not? The Western countries are constantly urging developing countries to adopt democracy, accountability, freedom of speech, transparency, free press, remove corruption, the rule of law, which the PDP totally agrees with as these principles and values, were inculcated into the party's psyche in the 1960s by Premier U Nu. These are not new values to us because they are bed-rock principles. However, we are bemused by the conduct of some Western countries encouraging autocratic and authoritarian tendencies of censorship of news that does not fit their pre-determined purpose, support corrupt political parties which have received tens of millions of Pounds Sterling over the past 15 years. What have they done with this money? What have they achieved? Why have they not accounted for its use? Yet, some Western countries are supporting these corrupt politicians and party in one breath, but in another, condemn developing countries for corruption? Is corruption, lack of transparency, news censorship acceptable as long as it serves the particular interests of some countries? The Beginning of a Free Press As the PDP has said before, the Editor should be congratulated for his confident, fearless and truthful exposure of the total failure and incompetence of the leaders of the NLD and by implication, that freedom and democracy to the people of Burma will not be brought about by the leader and other leaders of the NLD. No wonder that its members have deserted it, and the party has become moribund. Its leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the other leaders, whose capacities are not up to the task of removing the military junta from power and to bring democracy and freedom to the people. This magisterial judgement has not only been corroborated by many thousands of NLD members who have deserted the party but also, by a considerable number of independent political observers not aligned to any particular party or group. These are the irrefutable facts and cannot be wished away by attempts to paint a positive picture of an active organisation, where none exists but in name. It is a cruel deception to the long-suffering people of Burma whose overriding intention 15 years ago has and still is, to get rid of the military junta from power and to bring to democracy as well as to be relieved of the many economic and social ills, which they have endured for so long. For the Havel/Tutu Report and some contributors to continue to suggest that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is competent and the NLD is alive and effective and will deliver when their joint political track record is zero, deprives the Report of any objectivity and balance. The intriguing question is why and for what motives is this contributor gainsaying the objective observation of an independent practitioner at the frontline of politics and who was a strong supporter of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD before he became disillusioned after 15 years? People are rightly asking, since Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has failed in 15 years to remove the junta from power and to bring democracy and freedom, what can she now do? The NLD has collapsed, riddled with corruption and internecine struggle for power. Sein Win, the Prime Minister in exile has carved his own influence outside the NLD. Only the People of Burma Will Liberate the Motherland The content and scope of the NLD Executive Committee calamitous and inept statement issued on the 21st September 2005 was an intriguing piece of political confusion, which revealed much about the organisation and the calibre of those who lead it and whose mentality, believes that, the international community will come post-haste to liberate the people of Burma from the military junta. We are afraid that, the international community owes Burma nothing, and as the PDP has repeatedly said, "the liberation of Burma from military rule, will only be brought about by the efforts and sacrifices of the people of Burma and not by outsiders". Of course, the international community has a role to play but not in the sense or expectation in which the rump of the NLD wants through coercive Chapter VII and the allied Article 41 and Article 39 of the UN Charter. The PDP's stand is that we have no God given right to expect others to die for our freedom and democracy when we ourselves, are not prepared to do so, nor have we demonstrated unified focused, persistent active resistance and efforts to free ourselves from military rule, except repeatedly mouthing passive empty platitudes for "freedom and democracy and give us our 1990 Election Mandate". The lessons from history and other parts of the world ought to be our guide and inspiration. Which is why the PDP had a dual strategy for the liberation of our Motherland. Yes, moral support and in kind, is appropriate. The most devastating critique of the NLD is the fact that its leadership and strategy over the 15 years did not even adjust their strategy when it became clear that it was not working or that the military junta was not going to give up power quietly! Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's and the NLD leadership individual and collective political incompetence and failure, to adjust or change their strategy was a breach of the political compact which the people of Burma gave her and the party namely the task of removing the military junta from power and to bring democracy and freedom with economic benefits of employment and social progress. It was reasonably foreseeable that by renouncing the use of other means of resistance, she had effectively disarmed, tied her hands and those of the NLD party towards failure in delivering and fulfilling the people's mandate. This was a grave error of judgement and negligence for which she must accept responsibility. Intervention Will Compromise Sovereignty Of course the PDP is aware of the geopolitical forces whose eyes and intentions are focused on Burma for its strategic position, and because of this, we have to negotiate pragmatically in these political waters in our international dealings, so as not to disturb the latent existing balance of Burma's interconnectedness with South East Asia, and the rest of the world, which calls for imaginative policy approaches to exchange knowledge, harmonise trade and markets, integrate regional policies and above all, learn from democracy principles of our neighbours. But the PDP believes that this is not sufficient and we must take lessons from Britain, the fountain of democracy and the Rule of Law to underpin our political and constitutional architecture. Now more than ever, we need to revist the democratic principles, hopes and ideas that prevailed pre-1962 in Premier U Nu's Government, which were so forward looking and advanced at the time. His and the party's belief in sovereign equality, interdependence, and cooperation between and among states regardless of their economic and social systems were cardinal values which he believed will protect and give present and future generations palpable peace with our neighbours and within our country and economic development to underpin democracy under the Rule of Law. In International Relations Premier U Nu believed and held fast to the principles of International Law and was adamantly opposed to breaches of national sovereignty whatever the circumstances and demanded full respect for the United Nations Charter by all its members. The PDP party with this rich heritage still subscribes to these principles and values, which is why unlike the NLD it is opposed to the intervention by the UN under Chapter VII and the consequent Article 41 action and Article 39 as it derogates from the national sovereignty of Burma. We do not want people with hidden agendas to turn Burma into a cauldron of West-East rivalry in which the people who will suffer most are the people of Burma and their neighbours for many years to come. And most probably, their independence and sovereignty would be seriously compromised. While British Colonial rule brought some undoubted benefits to Burma, which the PDP as a political party, still cherish and has preserved and intend to introduce them when in government, we are however opposed to any putative foreign imperial power to impose its will on Burma under whatever guise or the coat-tails of the UN Chapter VII misconceived alleged "threat to peace" as recommended by Havel/Tutu Report. The PDP is the only party which is confronting the SPDC with confidence to bring about democracy and freedom. It defies commonsense that the report of President Havel + Bishop Tutu says that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi be made Prime Minister because the NLD won the 1990 General Election. True, this fact is not disputed but to go on to suggest that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD should be given the opportunity to form the government, is a political leap too far. It is 15 years now and the NLD has nothing to show for its stewardship notwithstanding the difficult circumstances, but this is the stuff of political leadership which demands a high order of effective communications, effective strategy and political vision to drive the campaign against the military junta until it is removed form power. The NLD is in a condition of terminal organisation collapse and it is virtually moribund in many areas of Burma. It is risible to argue in the face of the facts, which demonstrate failure that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is a democracy leader, when her party the NLD is so undemocratic that people who express contrary views are expelled from the party peremptorily. Other Opposition Parties' Advice Rejected The arrogance of the Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Dr.Sein Win and the NLD leadership repeatedly rejected constructive political advice from other opposition political parties which had subordinated their political action to support the NLD on how to conduct the opposition to the military junta. It was simply dismissed by the arrogant curt manner that "we know what we are doing". Now that the political chickens have come home to roost, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD must not be allowed to escape the responsibility of total failure in removing the junta from power and introducing freedom and democracy in Burma. The self-delusion of the NLD and it leadership is staggering. Dr.Sein Win is the only politician or person in Burma who believes that his stewardship as Prime Minister has delivered a political dividend to the people. The rank and file of the NLD have deserted it because they have become disillusioned that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD are not up to the job and they cannot win against the junta, after all, in 15 years, there is absolutely no success to show. NLD defectors to the PDP conceded that it was a mistake to have continued to support the NLD. Why should people now continue to support it when 15 years has not produced any political results and if anything, the position of the people has become dire and frightening, while the military junta has strengthened itself even more. No Political Skills Informed political observers of Burma politics now recognised that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has no political skills and competence to lead a party, as she had never had political activism. She is a political trophy whose symbolism, has manifestly failed and caused untold suffering to the people of Burma. Even her former ardent supporters now recognised that she cannot deliver and despair is so deep that they are leaving the party in droves. We Want True Democracy The Havel/Tutu Report has by its rather defective aspects in matters of facts, overlooked the most urgent issues, about what the people of Burma want with urgency, the ending of military rule and introduction of democracy and freedom, which will begin to take measures that will deal with the real problems facing the people. If the Havel/Tutu Report recommendations are accepted and Chapter VII action taken which triggers Article 41 enforcement in a situation where the junta fails to comply, the resulting turmoil and mayhem will continue to cause suffering to the people of Burma and its neighbours for many years to come. This approach will and does not work just look at the Balkans, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, and Iraq. The PDP does not run away from unpalatable situations if needs must we confront them strategically consistent with our capacity. We have made concrete proposals for the short term once the military junta voluntarily gives up power to a civilian multiparty Interim Government before a General Election is held. We also have a settled future policy after a General Election. If the PDP wins an overall majority of seats in Parliament or National Assembly, it will form a Government of National Unity rather than a Government on its own. This is because we are aware of the frightening wounds that our people of all ethnic backgrounds have suffered and endured for so long which we want to begin to heal them. It is also because we in the PDP dream of an everlasting peace in Burma leading to reconciliation. It is also because we dream of a Burma not plagued by illiteracy, poverty, rampant disease, food shortages, corruption and lack of ambition among the young whose life chances have been blighted by military rule. It is because we dream of rejuvenating the educational system by providing universal primary education, University Education in all it facets of affordable fees so that our young people can spread their wings and fly so as to create a vision and reality of a vibrant economic and political culture in Burma which will meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Last but not least, the PDP will bring about social and economic programmes to assist the mature and old to help them make a tolerable living from their endeavours. The Military Junta is Illegal The Havel/Tutu Report is in International Law correct in saying that the 1962 coup in Burma should be perceived as current in 2005, but its claim that it is "a threat to peace" is flawed. It is also correct and reasonable in law by reason of the continuity of the institution of the military junta to imply that the present military junta in Burma came to power in 1962 which overthrew the democratically elected Government of Premier U Nu. Further, the report is correct in International Law in saying that the 1962 coup in Burma should be perceived as current in 2005 as continuity of the illegality to usurp constitutional power from a legitimately elected government in a democratic election has continued. This illegality does not end simply because the illegal military junta with its panoply of armed coercive weapons, arbitrary rule, lack of freedom of speech, free press, in control of all the resources of life and death, no elected parliament in free and fair election, which is in constitutional terms is an illegal entity per se, is incapable of transmuting itself into a constitutional order. The mere fact that it was purporting to frame "a new Constitution in 1973 allegedly designed to bring the post-coup period of unconstitutional rule to an end, which was approved in a national referendum and came into effect in 1974" in a coercive environment without freedom of speech, does not make it legal. It is sad to note that such an eminent contributor could bring himself to accept such a flawed, dishonest and illegal process by an illegal regime held in a coercive environment to regard it as a constitutional qualitative change, is puzzling as it is inexplicable. Also, the mere fact that the junta changed its name from Revolutionary Council to a National Assembly on 1974 does not change its inherent illegality nor did the 1988 coup which merely demonstrated the continuity of the illegality of military rule, and cannot invest it with legality. Deficiencies in Material Facts There are many deficiencies in the Havel/Tutu Report which we believe have vitiated its objectivity and possible impact. Deficient though it is, it is nonetheless a creditable attempt to deal with a complex political situation stretching 43 years, in a sympathetic fashion to bring the plight of the people of Burma before the UN Security Council for possible action, albeit without having first analysed and distilled the probable consequences flowing from their recommendations to the people of Burma, their neighbours, and to West-East relations. This could turn the region into a zone of conflict by surrogates and confrontations by the principal powers with serious results to the world economy, international trade, and world peace and security Researchers Lack of Diligence The PDP believes that President Havel/Bishop Tutu have been let down by the lack of diligence by their researchers and analysts handling of historical facts and current facts. The researchers have either, from the outset decided that the conclusions they were going to reach, regardless of material facts and evidence, will be based on the most selective approach as to focus only on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD, or they have been unbelievably incompetent. The researchers have simply ignored much fertile evidence, which conveys a negative view of the NLD and its leaders. More particularly, they have inexplicably overlooked the Irrawaddy Magazine of 5th May, 2005 in which the Editor wrote a comprehensive objective analytical review of the NLD political condition, its leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and whether their performance and effectiveness has achieved their original objective of removing the military junta and bringing democracy to Burma. The Editorial was highly critical of the failure of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders of her party to deliver any tangible political progress after 15 years, if anything, they have only brought disillusion, despair to the people and their members. For example, the Report completely fails to mention the Editorial of the Irrawaddy Magazine of the 5th, 2005, which forensically reviewed and analysed the performance of Daw Aung Suu Kyi, the NLD, other NLD leaders, the state of the military junta, members leaving the NLD, debate and ideas from young people not welcomed, those who persist with inquisitiveness are sidelined, and those who persist to question or attend meetings of other groups are expelled from the party. The Editorial concluded that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was naïve and without political skills to deal with the hard and cunning military junta, and she is unlikely to bring about democracy and freedom. Why suppress this information after all, we want democracy, freedom of speech, and a free press? Failures and successes need to be exposed and leaders to be held accountable for their stewardships especially after 15 years. Why don't democratic countries in the West practice what they preach? Do those of us in developing countries have to accept a caricature of democracy as in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Georgia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia and Iraq conducted in less than free and fair environments flooded with enormous sums of money to buy votes as it was done in these countries through the NGOs and Youth Organisations which sprang up like mushrooms in a short space of time. Burma Does Not Want Phantasy Democracy The PDP with a proud heritage of democratic principles and values, we totally reject such practices and schemes to be introduced into the politics of Burma under the guise of humanitarian work and NGO's and youth organisations. We want to re-introduce democratic principles and values as practised in Britain. We will not accept phatansy democracy brought about by favoured parties rich with money to buy votes at elections and to propel them into winning the Elections. Is buying votes in an election not corruption? Why do some governments discourage corruption but at the same time practice it in funding corrupt parties? These are facts, which we have not invented, they have been widely published in the British, American, German, French media frequently. For example, no where in the Report does the name of other political parties appear nor does the NCGUB Dr.Sein Win, the Parliamentary Democracy Party – PDP and others. We are told only about the NLD as if it is the only party in the country. Most serious, we are not told about the demise of the NLD nor do they say anything about the magisterial review in the Irrawaddy Magazine of the NLD by the courageous and fearless independent Editor, which would have told them the prevailing situation in Burma. Despite these shortcomings, the Report has stimulated debate on Burma, which is to be welcomed. Perpetual Mandate The big question to ask the NLD is why does it still claim that it won the 1990 General Election and wants its mandate handed over to it to form a government 15 years after the Election? Does it not know that an election mandate has a time limit? It cannot claim a perpetual mandate. It has to account for its stewardship of what it has achieved during these years. Clinging stubbornly to this warped logic is, we are afraid, undemocratic and exhibits an authoritarian tendency characteristic of dictatorships. If an election mandate has no finite period, then the mandate should be returned to the party of Premier U Nu – the PDP who was overthrown by Gen.Ne Win in 1962 coup de-tat. Premier U Nu won a landslide General Election in 1960, which is the rightful claimant. However, the PDP as a democratic party, has consistently said that it does not want a mandate returned to it to form a government after such a long time, but it is prepared to competitively contest a multiparty General Election with other parties for the mandate to form a Government. And let the best party that wins an overall majority of seats with a good political programme that wins an overall majority of seats have the mandate. This is what the NLD should be doing and not making itself an exception to the rule of a finite governance mandate in a democracy. This is most important. Democratic Opposition The PDP totally opposes such a claim and we are asking those well-meaning people overseas, not to encourage such a dictatorial element in our politics. The NLD should contest elections in a General Election and if the people give it sufficient support to win the election then it can legitimately and democratically proceed to form a government. No one will argue about that but we totally oppose the attempt by outsiders to give Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD a mythical mandate after 15 years of failure, which does not exist. Dr.Sein Win as Prime Minister in exile discredited by his arrogance which his alienated many supporters, his vanity has been a major obstacle to any sensible and rational political discussion or dialogue about what was needed to be done to remove the junta from power. As long as Dr.Sein Win and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi remain in office, saving face and personal dignity will take priority over ending the suffering of the people of Burma as soon as it can be practically done. You have had your opportunity to lead for 15 years but you have failed to deliver what the people have long craved for – democracy and freedom with economic opportunities. Leadership may be a proper ambition for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to have but the leadership of Burma ought to be decided on something more important than wining in 1990 a General Election then failing to use that position to remove an illegal military junta from power. Time has moved on. The NLD leadership has aged without giving opportunities to young men and women to carry on the struggle. The leaders have virtually run out of ideas and are just marking time as if waiting for some miracle from outside to hand them power on a plate without any sacrifice. Election Mandate Expired However much we are opposed to the military junta and its oppressive rule we are, on the question of the Election Mandate in agreement with it as it has reason and political rationale on its side. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD the mandate 15 years ago in the 1990 General Election but this has expired a long time ago. The NLD and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi have been after any 8 years no different from any other political group opposing the junta. Even those who want to see the military junta removal from power, recognise that the weakened condition of the NLD and its neutered leader cannot deliver democracy and freedom to the people of Burma, as since 1990, on the objective facts of their political performance, they have proved not up to the job in bringing about democracy and freedom in which their hopes and aspirations were heavily invested. These are facts which cannot be washed away and those outsiders who are attempting to give an impression of competence and achievement by the NLD and its leaders are doing a great disservice to the people of Burma and are likely to prolong their suffering rather than end it in the foreseeable future. Correct Conclusions However, the innate native instinct of the people of Burma has helped them to draw the correct conclusions of failure, incompetence, ineffectiveness and the rampant rivalry corruption within the NLD fuelled with money to buy influence. It is no wonder that the Havel/Tutu Report has completely removed Dr.Sein Win, the Prime Minister in exile of the NCGUB from the political scene as if he did not exist and was not a prominent political figure in the NLD! This focus on one individual – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi by outsiders to the exclusion of other NLD leaders has significantly contributed to the party's collapse and failure in challenging the military junta. There is a saying among the people of Burma, which suggests that "we shall not allow outsiders to choose our General twice especially after that General has led us to defeat" In politics, failure means exit from centre stage and make way for others to lead who will probably be able to realise the peoples long delayed hope and aspirations of democracy and freedom. This is the honourable thing to do after 15 years and people will applaud such a telling move of democratic accountability and responsibility. For example, in Britain Mr. Michael Howard, M.P. the leader of the Conservative Party was defeated by Mr. Tony Blair in the British General Election in May 2005. Mr. Howard has acknowledged that as a failed leader he is resigning from the leadership. An election of the leader of the Conservatives is now in progress. This is democracy at its best. Why are some people trying to manipulate the political process in Burma to promote a failed leader who for 15 years has delivered nothing? Misguided Criticism To those people in Burma who accuse the PDP party of attacking Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD, when we criticise them, we want to tell you that this is not only the characteristic of freedom of speech, but also of the democratic process for which all of us are fighting to realise when we remove the military junta from power. We do not make personal attacks as individuals but criticise them because of the party leadership positions they occupy on whom the hopes and aspirations of the people for democracy and freedom have been placed for them to deliver. Because they have failed to deliver democracy and freedom during the 15 years they have been leader and the military junta has become even stronger now before, what realistic prospect is there for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders, have got of succeeding in the future? Absolutely none. Is not the case that other people in the NLD with a different strategy to get rid of the SPDC unlike that passive approach of the current NLD leaders which has been proved an utter failure, should be given the opportunity to do so? May we draw the attention to all the people of Burma, in Britain, the US and Germany, where they not long ago had General Election in each country, Mr. Michael Howard the leader of the Conservative Party has severely criticised Mr. Blair the Labour Prime Minister for his alleged policy failures, in the US, George Bush was and still is, being severely criticised for the 'War on Terror' by Democrats and some members of his own Republican Party – this is the essence of Democracy and Freedom of speech, which is healthy in conducting our public affairs. The PDP welcomes criticism but ought to be informed that is factual rather than based on imaginary facts. President Havel/Bishop Tutu Innocent To the extent that the Havel/Tutu Report has been weakened by a number of factual inaccuracies and distortions, which cannot stand up to forensic scrutiny, but the PDP believes that, the conclusions reached by the distinguished personages together with the recommendations, they have made, are a direct consequence of the flawed researchers selective sources of information, manipulation of which President Havel/BishopTutu could reasonably have not been aware of. Had they been, they would certainly not have lent their names to such a discreditable enterprise, after all, they are first and foremost fearless uncompromising democrats, who fought tyrannical regimes and practices without consideration to their own lives. They were prepared to die for their political beliefs if necessary, so that others many live in a democracy and freedom. We are proud to declare that the PDP and its members critique of the Report is not directly and personally meant to refer to President Havel/Bishop Tutu but those researchers who have deliberately played loose and fast with the facts to suit their predetermined objective of acting as cheer leaders of the NLD, a political party in mortal decline, but without telling the truth to the distinguished democrats. The PDP Central Committee further declares that we hold President Havel/Bishop Tutu in highest esteem for their unrivalled contribution to democracy and freedom and we are concerned that the recommendations they have made, had they known of the selective nature of the information and the deliberate exclusion of other material facts, they would not realistically, have made them. Our respect to them has not been diminished by these inaccuracies, and we dedicate ourselves to aspire to live up to the highest standards of integrity to secure democracy for Burma and reconciliation with our tormentors – the military junta, fellow citizens whatever their ethnic allegiance and political persuasion, to rebuild and restore democracy and freedom in our country. SPDC's Response Self-Serving The Military junta's response to the President Havel/Tutu Report is self-serving, as it is predictable. What the junta has said are the make-believe achievements as far as political progress is concerned, and is a falsification of material facts. The oppressive and arbitrary rule is continuing to stifle the people's development and to make the country a pariah of the international community. The PDP's opposition to the SPDC is well known but we do not intend to engage in discussing the military junta in this report, as our objective is to discuss the President Havel/Bishop Tutu Report. Democratic Transformation and The Rule of Law In conclusion, the Parliamentary Democracy Party – PDP we are committed to the liberation of our Motherland from military rule by all means necessary, so as to bring about democracy, freedom, the Rule of Law, and multiparty politics where competition for political office in free and fair elections in which the electorate will vote for the party, which closely represents their hopes and aspirations, rather than, because they have been given money to do so. Further, our vision is to strive to achieve mutual trust and co-operation between and among all the diverse communities of our Motherland and transform it into a country where long-term political stability and economic reconstruction, development and social transformation can be achieved to satisfy the people's long-term thwarted aspirations in employment, education, health-care, business and community building. We recognise that the diverse communities of our Motherland are its most precious and valued asset and resource. Central Committee Parliamentary Democracy Party (Burma) GHQ (Liberated Area) E-mail: pdp_office@yahoo.com Web page: www.pdpburma.net =============================== Alertnet UN: Security Council Should Take Up Burma's Human Rights Crisis 13 Oct 2005 19:20:19 GMT Source: Human Rights Watch (United Nations, October 14, 2005)-The United Nations Security Council should urgently consider the human rights and political situation in Burma in order to address widespread and systematic abuse of human rights by the military government, Human Rights Watch said today. Human rights groups have long urged the Security Council to take up Burma as a critical international problem. The possibility of putting Burma on the Security Council agenda has been boosted by a recent report, "Threat to Peace - A Call to the UN Security Council to Act in Burma." The report was commissioned by Nobel Peace Prize laureates Vaclav Havel, former president of the Czech Republic, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa. It calls for "an urgent, new and multilateral diplomatic initiative" on Burma and for Security Council action. Havel and Tutu say they took up the cause of Burma in part because of the continued mistreatment and house arrest of fellow Nobel laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the only Nobel winner persecuted for peaceful political dissent. "There is ample precedent for the Security Council to take up the human rights and political situation in a country with as horrific a record as Burma – especially when suffering spills across borders," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "After years of inaction while the military government has decimated the political opposition in Rangoon and targeted ethnic groups in border areas, there is no longer any excuse for the Security Council to duck this problem." Human Rights Watch also said that it was time for a U.N. Commission of Inquiry to be established to investigate the longstanding dire human rights situation in Burma and the possibility that war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed. Burma remains one of the most repressive countries in Asia, despite promises for political reform and national reconciliation by its authoritarian military government, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). The SPDC restricts the basic rights and freedoms of all Burmese. It continues to attack and harass the winner of the 1990 elections, the National League of Democracy, and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who remains under house arrest. It also continues to commit systematic, widespread, and well-documented abuses in ongoing conflicts with ethnic minority rebel groups, including extrajudicial executions, rape, torture, forced relocation of entire villages, and forced labor. As of late 2004, an estimated 650,000 people were internally displaced in eastern Burma alone, and at least 240 villages have been destroyed, relocated or abandoned since 2002. Some 2 million Burmese have moved to Thailand, including 145,000 refugees living in camps. "The Security Council has taken up urgent human rights and political problems in more than 20 countries this year," said Adams. "If China moves to block this effort they should explain to Aung San Suu Kyi and average Burmese people why their concerns are less important." The United States has announced that it will support the move. The United Kingdom, France, and Romania are also expected to agree. However, China and Russia have made it clear in private that they oppose putting Burma on the agenda. China has deep political, military, and economic ties to the military junta in Rangoon, while Russia opposes such discussions because of its record in Chechnya. "China is trying to portray itself as an emerging and responsible global power," said Adams. "But continuing to offer unconditional support to one of the world's most odious regimes makes it impossible to take such claims seriously. Now is the time for China to set a new course for itself in its foreign policy." There are concerns that other Security Council members, such as the Philippines, may also oppose the move. Human Rights Watch called on democracies on the Council to put aside diplomatic and other interests and urgently take up the plight of the Burmese people. Human Rights Watch endorsed the call of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus for the Security Council to act. As the caucus said: "The deteriorating situation in Myanmar is affecting not only those within the country but people outside its borders as well. Quite apart from its truly disgraceful human rights record, Myanmar's troubles ranging from ethnic conflicts and refugee outflows to drugs and the unchecked spread of HIV/AIDS have become a serious cause for concern for ASEAN and the international community." "Democracies like the Philippines should be ashamed if they try to block discussion of Burma at the Security Council," said Adams. "Burma has embarrassed ASEAN over and over again. Instead of offering political cover for the junta, elected leaders of other countries should be standing side by side with Aung San Suu Kyi and others in Burma fighting for their rights." Because of continued political support and trade with China, India, Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries, the military government in Rangoon has remained largely impervious to sanctions by the United States and European Union. The U.N. Secretary-General's Special Envoy, Rizali Ismail, and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, have failed to persuade the government to open up the political process or improve the human rights situation. Rizali, a Malaysian with close ties to the Malaysian government, has not been allowed back into Burma since March 2004. Pinheiro, a Brazilian lawyer, has not been allowed into Burma since November 2003, when he cut short a visit after discovering a listening device in what was supposed to be a private interviewing room in Burma's notorious Insein prison. For the Security Council to discuss a country situation, nine members must agree to put it on the agenda. Unlike with resolutions, permanent Security Council members cannot exercise a veto over this process. As the Asian Center for Human Rights has pointed out, "in 2005, the Security Council, among others, discussed the following country situations: Middle East situation, including the Palestinian question, Sudan, Burundi, Iraq, Liberia, Afghanistan, Eritrea-Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, Burundi, Timor-Leste, Guinea-Bissau, Georgia, Zimbabwe, Central African Republic, Somalia, Bougainville, Cyprus, Haiti, Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro), Western Sahara, Iraq-Kuwait, Middle East-Lebanon." "The Burmese people shouldn't have to wait another generation for the killing to end and democracy to begin," said Adams. "The generals have ignored all other demands to end the abuse. It is time for the collective voice of the Security Council to be heard in Rangoon." ~