Save Burma

ျပည္သူေတြဆီမွာ လြတ္လပ္မႈနဲ႔ တန္းတူညီမွ်မႈ အရင္ဆံုး ရွိေနမွ ဒီမိုိကေရစီ စံႏႈန္းရွိတာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

Posts Tagged ‘Dictator Watch

WHERE IS VICE SENIOR GENERAL MAUNG AYE?

leave a comment »

DICTATOR WATCH
(www.dictatorwatch.org)

Contact: Roland Watson, roland@dictatorwatch.org

WHERE IS VICE SENIOR GENERAL MAUNG AYE?

October 23, 2010

Please forward.

Dictator Watch has received information that the number two general in Burma’s military junta, Vice Senior General Maung Aye, was placed under house arrest on August 27th. We have had this information for some weeks, but did not publish it earlier because there was no confirmation. While we still do not have confirmation, Maung Aye’s absence from the SPDC’s media since this date makes us increasingly inclined to believe that it is true. A silent purge has been conducted by Senior General Than Shwe of his subordinate officer, under the cover of a broad military reshuffle.

It is revealing how the reshuffle developed. First, it was reported on August 27th that both Than Shwe and Maung Aye would retire. Then, the next day it was reported that they had in fact retired. But, a list of personnel changes published on September 1st failed to confirm this. Instead, it was reported that Than Shwe would retire sometime in September, which event did not occur, and with no mention of Maung Aye. Now, in late October, it has been reported that some of the generals who were forced to resign are upset that the top two generals have not yet
done so.

We have previously reported that there was a split at the top of the SPDC between Than Shwe and Maung Aye, over the latter’s unwillingness to retire. As we understand it, Maung Aye was also more inclined to support negotiation with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and resisted attacking the
ceasefire groups that refused to transform to Border Guard Forces. Such ideas are anathema to Than Shwe. He will never talk to Daw Suu, and he wants to attack the Wa and the Kachin, among others. Now, with Maung Aye out of the way, it appears that he has prevailed. Impending conflict is therefore much more likely, and may be funded by the new $4 billion dollar loan from China, notwithstanding Beijing’s supposed reluctance to see conflict across its border.

Than Shwe’s purging of Maung Aye and his refusal to retire also has significance for the upcoming election. He has no intention whatsoever of allowing any truly democratic developments in Burma, and will retain absolute control until he dies. Anyone who believes that good can come
from the election is like a deer in a truck’s headlights waiting to be run over and killed. The only appropriate response is to oppose the election: to boycott the vote.

It is essential that Burmese pro-democracy media, including DVB, Irrawaddy, Mizzima, BNI, etc., secretly monitor polling places and calculate how few people vote and therefore how the entire exercise, and the individuals supposedly elected to office, are frauds.

………………..

Written by Lwin Aung Soe

October 23, 2010 at 11:39 pm

Burma’s Nuclear Mystery

leave a comment »

A mysterious silence surrounds the Obama administration’s failure to disclose the extent of Burma’s nuclear threat as required under US law

Burma’s Nuclear Mystery

By Scott Johnson  Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Allegations of Burma’s nuclear ambitions hit the newswires on June 3rd with a report by a former U.N. nuclear expert claiming the military regime is seeking to develop an atomic bomb.

Commissioned by the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), the report clearly raised the stakes about this newest threat to international security and peace, which previously had been recognized only within intelligence circles and Burma’s pro-democracy movement. In response, US Senator Jim Webb even cancelled his planned trip to the Burmese capital where he was due to meet the generals in charge. Thus it’s clear the nuclear allegations are serious and yet there has long been a deafening silence about Burma’s nuclear ambitions.

In 2008 an Act of Congress was promulgated in the United States requiring the US State Department to disclose findings on Burma’s nuclear capabilities. The initial date for this mandatory annual disclosure was January 2009, and at this stage there should have been two such reports. To date, though, the Administration has been silent. The law in question is the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008. Its intent is to promote human rights, and it includes sanctions and embargoes on such things as halting gemstone profits to Burma’s repressive dictatorship. The law also includes measures supporting democratic reforms and humanitarian needs for the people of Burma.

More specifically, however, in Section 10 of the Act there is a requirement that the State Department publicly report to Congress about Burma’ military programs and suppliers, including their “weapons of mass destruction and related materials, capabilities, and technology, including nuclear, chemical, or dual use capabilities.” This requirement extends to the ominous task of listing the countries that provide such aid to Burma and that such be reported by none other than the US Secretary of State.

Yet it’s as if the JADE Act never existed. All is silent from Secretary Clinton, President Obama, the State Department, Congress and most everyone else in Washington. Those concerned with US law and nuclear proliferation have seemingly gone into hibernation.

Well, not all however, there are some pro-democracy groups – “Dictator Watch” for one, that has been publishing evidence of Burma’s nuclear ambitions for years. Their latest move was in April 2010, months before the DVB report was released, when they filed a freedom of information act application (FOIA) to the US State Department. The application specifically demanded why Section 10 of the JADE Act is being ignored.

I spoke to Roland Watson, the director of Dictator Watch, about this action and he provided a chilling description of Burma’s nuclear ambition. He also congratulated the Democratic Voice of Burma for getting their report in the public eye, for he believes Burma’s nuclear proliferation has been ignored far too long. He believes international action is needed to curtail Burma’s plans as it poses a multiple threat to international security. The regime is not only trying to acquire nuclear weapons; there is good evidence that it is selling refined uranium (yellow cake) to North Korea and perhaps even Iran. Watson’s organisation has conducted extensive research on the Burma nuclear issue, and has accumulated intelligence from ten different sources. These include Burmese military defectors who were trained in Russia on nuclear and related military technologies. The key to unlock the mysterious silence on the JADE Act is intricately linked to Burma’s dealings with North Korea, Russia, China and Iran.

Watson states that the Burmese military rulers first expressed an interest in becoming a nuclear power in the 1960s but that things escalated in 2001 when the regime, then under the dubious name SLORC, “struck a deal with Russia to buy a reactor.” The Burmese regime, now called the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), was due in 2010 to have already completed this reactor. Hard evidence of this is lacking, though, but the deal with Moscow has long been public and ever since the SPDC has been sending military officers to Russia for training. The SPDC refers to this training as their State Scholar Program and Watson reports they have “sent anywhere from 3000 to 5000 officers to Russia, where they’ve been studying sciences related to tunnelling, aviation, ships, missiles, and all sorts of military related technologies.” These studies include nuclear sciences.

Dictator Watch has had access to information from two defectors of the SPDC’s State Scholar Program who had exposure to the nuclear program. These defectors reported that the SPDC is pursuing uranium enrichment, and also that it has acquired equipment for “plutonium activation,” from North Korea. The two sources of fissionable material for an atomic weapon are highly enriched uranium, and plutonium that is produced as a reactor by-product. It appears that Burma is following both tracks towards developing a bomb.

Watson provided a summary of Burma’s nuclear evidence. “First, Burma has uranium deposits and they have long admitted it themselves.” The SPDC in fact published such on their own Ministry of Energy website, identifying numerous sites. He reiterated that not only have commercially viable uranium deposits been found and are being mined, but that they are “being milled into yellow cake and offered for sale on the black market to anybody willing to pay the price.” Indeed, Watson said “Dictator Watch has information about such sale attempts.”

The international customers for Burma’s yellow cake include North Korea and some intelligence sources suggest Iran as well. It is believed that the large quantity of yellow cake that Iran purchased from South Africa in the 1970s has run out. Iran’s enrichment program is substantial, and growing, and Tehran clearly needs to secure new uranium supplies.

Burma’s links to Iran and North Korea are extremely troubling, and it was in 2009 that a publicized incident occurred between the US Navy and a North Korean vessel – a known weapons carrier called the Kang Nam I. This North Korean ship was reportedly carrying advanced weaponry (possibly nuclear technology) destined for Burma and a US Destroyer was dispatched to interdict it. The Kang Nam I eventually turned back to North Korea with cargo intact. Watson reports, however, that the ship had already gone to Burma at least once, possibly two times previously and unloaded its cargo at Rangoon – at night. On one of those occasions the Kang Nam I continued on to Iran. In 2008 the United States through diplomatic requests to India also blocked a cargo flight from North Korea from flying to Iran after it stopped in Burma.

It is further believed that the interdicted Kang Nam I shipment from 2009 was successfully delivered to Rangoon port in April 2010.

Dictator Watch has evidence that North Korea has long been selling Burma an array of weaponry, including missiles and nuclear technology. The weapons include Scud missiles (short range ballistic missiles), and the SPDC is reportedly pointing them towards military bases in Thailand.

With all this nuclear and weapons skulduggery going on it’s a wonder why Burma hasn’t been brought before the United Nations Security Council. For Watson the threat is clear, “If you have uranium mining, milling and then bartering of yellow cake to North Korea and Iran you have a significant threat to international security and peace, including divergent rogue trafficking of yellow cake to terrorists.” However, China and Russia are permanent members of the Security Council and have historically protected the SPDC from international repercussions. On Beijing’s role Watson laments, “The Chinese are the godfathers of Kim Jong Ill and Than Shwe and on an issue as big as this they couldn’t work together if China didn’t say ok.”

One thing seems clear, the world does not need another rogue nuclear state, especially one with a human rights record as brutal as Burma’s. As for the long silence on Burma’s nuclear mystery, the DVB report and Senator Webb’s cancelled visit suggest it may be unravelling. The JADE Act has been ignored however, and thus only time will tell if Dictator Watch’s FOIA filing too will be brushed aside.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25055

//
//

Written by Lwin Aung Soe

July 7, 2010 at 3:47 am

နအဖ စစ္ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြ ဗုဒၶသာသနာကို ဖ်က္ဆီးၾကေလၿပီ

leave a comment »

Written by Lwin Aung Soe

June 19, 2010 at 4:11 pm

Dictator Watch: Guide to Social and Environmental ACTIVISM

with one comment

Please click the following link to read ACTIVISM written by Roland O. Watson.

http://www.activism101.org/ActivismGuide.pdf

Roland-Activism

Table of Contents:

Forward

1. Introduction

2. Opposition 101

3. Activist causes

4. Institutional tactics against activists

5. Activist tactics – general issues

6. Thirteen types of activism

7. Activism and the media

8. Advanced activist issues

9. Activism and the law

10. Introduction to chaos theory

11. Social evolution and chaos

12. Activist ethics

13. Social goals

………………………………………………………….

Written by Lwin Aung Soe

June 17, 2009 at 2:07 pm

FILM REVIEW by Dictator Watch: BURMA VJ

leave a comment »

.

DICTATOR WATCH
(www.dictatorwatch.org)

Contact: Roland Watson, roland@dictatorwatch.org

FILM REVIEW: BURMA VJ

March 8, 2009

Please forward.

This is a review of the film, Burma VJ, by Anders Ostergaard. Its subject is the “Saffron Revolution,” or the Buddhist monks’ uprising in Burma in September 2007. The primary focus, though, is not the actual uprising. Instead, it is the efforts of underground videojournalists who covered the event (hence the VJ in the title), for the Democratic Voice of Burma media group.

This approach raises an obvious criticism, which applies to much of modern journalism. The main subject is regularly the journalists who work a story, not the story itself. Mr. Ostergaards’s film is yet another manifestation of Marshall McLuhan’s famous statement: “The medium is the message.”

Still, Burma VJ does give an accurate portrayal of the uprising. The only noticeable shortcomings are the lack of coverage of the many other activists, from the 88 Generation Students and the National League for Democracy, who protested following the SPDC’s energy price hikes (in the film, only NLD member Su Su Nway and her immediate associates are featured); and the fact that the demonstrations took place throughout Burma, not only in Rangoon.

The film is also useful for the political analysis it enables. It covers, briefly, the triggering events: the price increases, the student and NLD demonstrations, the initial support by the monks, and the SPDC’s brutality against monks in Pakokku. The main focus is the large-scale involvement of monks that followed in response to the last. The film does not address why the uprising failed. However, a careful appraisal of its content yields a series of strong clues.

The uprising was not planned. It developed quickly, and largely in a reactive fashion. There was never an overall program with freedom as its goal. The initial protest subject was the price rise. With the beatings in Pakokku, this changed to a demand for an apology from the SPDC. It was only when the number of monks marching grew to the tens of thousands, and they openly invited the people to join them, that the objective of freedom began to surface. This was then reinforced by the appearance of the Fighting Peacock flag.

When the people joined the monks, they implicitly accepted their stance of non-violence. The idea was to be completely passive: “If enough of us demonstrate, surely the generals will realize the errors of their ways, and yield.”

I am not criticizing the monks, or anyone else who took part. Their actions were heroic. I just want to reemphasize that no uprising script was in place, and which included contingency planning. For instance, the monks apparently did not prepare for the possibility that their monasteries would be attacked, in the dead of night.

The film also shows that opportunities for action were missed. As one example, when the monks marched to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s house, and she came to the gate, there were only a few soldiers present. It would have been straightforward to charge the gate, “unarrest” Daw Suu (as the monks did earlier with a DVB cameraperson), and occupy her compound. Such an action would have electrified the nation, and set the stage for massive popular resistance. But, the opportunity was not grasped, and the following day a hundred soldiers were on guard at the gate.

There was only one forceful action against the SPDC, when young men threw rocks at soldiers manning a road blockade. (The film showed the soldiers throwing the rocks back.) This raises an obvious question. If this was a revolution, where were the protestors’ own barricades, and the storming of government offices (not everything has been moved to Pyinmana)? And where was the revolutionary graffiti!? (Many blank walls were shown.)

It was called a revolution, but more accurately it was a collection of peaceful demonstrations. Even so, it caused local SPDC commanders to hesitate. Had a proper revolution ensued, Burma would likely be free today.

The diplomats of the world, and many exile advocacy groups, present the situation in Burma as one that can be resolved through negotiation and dialogue. This is not true (and, we need to examine why they act as if it were). Than Shwe will not go quietly. Some form of force will be required.

Many Burmese now understand that the world is not going to help. If their country is to be freed, they are going to have to do it themselves. But, in reaching this conclusion, they should not forget its corollary. If Burma is going to be free, the people must go on the offensive. Waiting for Than Shwe to give up power will accomplish nothing.

Burma VJ, ultimately, is a very sad film. The uprising failed. The SPDC, yet again, got away with murder. The country now has another 1,000 political prisoners. It is, on the other hand, an interesting film, because of the portrayal of the activities of an underground media group. What Burma needs, though, are underground revolutionary groups, which are willing to fight back.

It would be nice if pacifist strategies would work, and perhaps in some places they do. But not in Burma! The monks have an important role to play, but it is not the only role. Real revolution is required. The country needs to be seriously destabilized. This is the only way to split the junta, and – by putting its financial interests at risk – to force the International Community to intervene.

Closing Note: The above is not an impersonal analysis. Some of our associates are now in prison. Others have been killed. It is still difficult to accept that the uprising failed. (It is unbelievable that the U.S. and Europe just stood by, and refused to do anything.) When the people of Burma are once again organized to renew mass resistance against the SPDC, they must be prepared to be completely self-reliant. And, there must be plans in place, and which anticipate moves by the junta, such that success is the only possible outcome.

Also, we fully understand that some of the exile groups do not promote revolutionary change because it would jeopardize their funding. Their hands are tied. If they want to continue their activities, they have to toe the pacifist line (at least in public).

Roland Watson

Written by Lwin Aung Soe

March 8, 2009 at 9:41 am