Tuesday, March 26, 2019

The Irrawaddy Magazine

The Irrawaddy Magazine

Ex-Gov’t Figures Back Together—and Back in Uniform—for a Day

Posted: 26 Mar 2019 07:38 AM PDT

YANGON—It has been nearly nine years since the last time former General Thein Sein was in military uniform. His presidency in 2011 saw him wearing civilian suits. Constitutionally, the same was true for his fellow generals and senior military officials who took Union ministerial posts in his administration until March 2016.

But they were their former military selves on Tuesday—for a while—donning military outfits to attend a ceremony.

A flock of former senior military officials mostly from the previous administration, including former general and ex-president U Thein Sein, gathered at a statue unveiling ceremony in Naypyitaw. The ceremony was held to honor the six holders of the prestigious military title "Aung San Thuriya" (all are deceased) and was joined by the current military chief, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, and other serving officials.

Among the attendees were former Union minister U Ohn Myint, a former lieutenant general who used to threaten people by saying, "I can go around and slap everyone's face… If anyone insults or opposes the government," when he was the head of the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development in 2014. The others included ex-brigadier general and former immigration minister U Khin Yi, and U Tin Aye, a former Union Election Commission chairman and ex-lieutenant general.

On Tuesday, they were all in olive green uniforms. Back in military uniform, the "slapping minister" took pictures with his wife and posted them on Facebook with the caption, "I became a soldier again when I met my seniors, friends and juniors [at today's event]."

Their appearance in their old outfits seemed unusual because, apart from attending the annual military parade on Armed Forces Day every March 27, they rarely show up in their uniforms. It's also interesting to speculate on why nearly everyone in the previous government suddenly appeared en masse in their former uniforms at a statue unveiling ceremony.

The statue unveiling ceremony in progress / Office of the Commander-in-Chief of Defense Services

Yangon-based political analyst U Maung Maung Soe said it was not unusual for veterans to attend a military-related ceremony in full dress uniform.

"But it's strange when nearly everyone from the previous administration appears at once," he said.

He pointed out that their appearance coincides with a popular campaign across the country to amend the Constitution, initiated by the NLD. The military and the Union Solidarity and Development Party have complained that the NLD's approach is unconstitutional.

"Probably, they just wanted to make a show of force. Who knows?" he said.

Dr. Min Zaw Oo, a Myanmar affairs expert, said that it is not surprising that all the former generals have gathered in the capital for the Armed Forces Day ceremony to be held Wednesday, and that maybe they happened to come in to show solidarity. But he added that it “could be that [the reason] is to show that former and existing personnel want to demonstrate that they pay attention to their heroes, regardless of their ethnicities,” as four of the six service men with the Aung San Thuriya title were ethnic Karen, Chin and Gurkha.

But Brigadier-General Zaw Min Tun, a military information officer, told The Irrawaddy that Tuesday's ceremony at the Mausoleum for the Fallen Heroes was to honor the six servicemen from 1948 to 1950s who have received the nation's highest military honor, which is awarded for gallantry in protecting the country's sovereignty. For veterans in uniform, he said, it's normal.

"As in other countries, they just want to show how seriously they take these heroes," he said.

The post Ex-Gov't Figures Back Together—and Back in Uniform—for a Day appeared first on The Irrawaddy.

Ferryman Reportedly Shot Dead by Soldiers in Northern Rakhine

Posted: 26 Mar 2019 07:02 AM PDT

YANGON — A ferryboat operator in northern Rakhine State's Rathedaung Township was shot dead Monday morning by soldiers stationed at a temporary military base in the area, according to a local resident.

U Maung Win, a resident of Ahmyet Taung Village, identified the man as U Maung Chay, 33, a casual laborer and father of two from the same village.

He said U Maung Chay had dropped off two passengers from Ye Soe Chaung Village on the banks of the river of the same name and was heading back to the opposite shore when some soldiers from the military tactical operations base in Ye Soe Chaung called after him to turn back. But he said U Maung Chay probably could not hear them over the noise of the boat’s motor and kept going, at which point about four of the soldiers opened fire.

U Maung Win said U Maung Chay was hit by two bullets, on in the back and one in the arm, and that his body was taken to Rathedaung General Hospital Tuesday morning.

He said there was no fighting in the area between the military and rebel Arakan Army (AA) and that the military, which controls the area, had not informed locals that any locations were off limits.

Residents of Min Byar Township’s Kalarma Tuang Village reported a similar incident on Monday as well.

Ko Khine Thura Hein said his brother, Maung Win Htay, was driving his boat across a local river with four passengers heading home to Kalarma Tuang Village from the neighboring town of Myebon when about 10 soldiers crossing a nearby bridge at the time opened fire on the boat. He said a bullet hit Maung Win Htay in the leg and that his brother then docked the boat near the bridge.

According to Ko Khine Thura Hein, the soldiers, from Light Infantry Battalion 380 based in Min Byar, said they had whistled at the boat to stop for inspection and then fired warning shots into the air, not at the boat.

Ko Khine Thura Hein said he was not aware of any official restrictions on movement in the area.

"They should not target innocent civilian like this," he said.

Brig. Gen. Zaw Min Tun, a spokesman for the military, said he was not aware of any shooting in Min Byar on Monday.

He said soldiers from the tactical operations base in Ye Soe Chaung did exchange fire for a few minutes that day with AA fighters who ambushed them from a mangrove forest and that the boatman was likely caught in the crossfire.

Last week, soldiers shot dead five civilians in Buthidaung Township’s Say Taung Village and wounded eight others, driving the more than 2,000 residents from their homes for refuge in nearby urban areas. Locals said the shooting was unprovoked. The military said it was responding to AA attacks.

The post Ferryman Reportedly Shot Dead by Soldiers in Northern Rakhine appeared first on The Irrawaddy.

Distinctive Ethnic Cultures and Misty Mountain Towns — Destination Guide to Western Myanmar

Posted: 26 Mar 2019 04:55 AM PDT

Ngapali

People walk along the shore at Ngapali Beach. / The Irrawaddy

Usually accessed by flight from Yangon and with many high-end hotels, Ngapali is known as a more upscale seaside getaway. Sunsets can be especially spectacular from this beach which has been dubbed one of Asia's best. Though you're likely to spend most of your time relaxing on the white-sand beaches or under the shade of coconut trees dining on fantastic seafood, visitors can also go snorkeling, diving or take a boat trip.

Sittwe

Strand Road in Sittwe is where locals go to exercise and relax in the early mornings and evenings. / Marie Starr

Usually only visited on the way to Mrauk-U, Sittwe is the capital of Rakhine State and the center of Arakanese culture. Arakanese food—all fresh green chilies and juicy seafood—is loved far beyond the state and is a must-try while you're in town. In the morning, check out the bustling central market and in the evening join locals walking along the beach at sunset.

Mrauk-U

Koe Thaung Pagoda in Mrauk U which is preparing for nomination for UNESCO World Heritage Site status. / Marie Starr

Mrauk-U is currently prone to outbreaks of conflict between Myanmar's military and the Arakan Army and visitors should not travel to the area until it is officially declared safe.

Arguably one of the most special places in Myanmar, Mrauk-U was once the capital of the Arakan Kingdom which was a regionally powerful realm between the 15th and 18th centuries which is when most of the temples were built. Though some shoddy conservation work has been carried out, inside the most famous Shitthaung Pagoda is a series of tunnels lined with thousands of colorful carvings of religious and historical Arakan figures. Unlike Bagan, life in the vicinity of the temples remains as it always has been with farmers grazing their herds and kids fishing in the streams right next to the ancient structures.

Mount Victoria and Mindat/Kanpetlet

Some ethnic Chin women with traditional facial tattoos still live in southern Chin State. / Marie Starr

In southern Chin State, Mount Victoria is rising in popularity as an easygoing trekking destination set in a beautiful national park with wild orchids, cherry blossoms and rhododendron trees. Travelers usually base themselves at Mindat or Kantpetlet and drive to the base from where the trek to the peak takes two to three hours. There are now plenty of accommodation options, especially at Kantpetlet. Southern Chin State is where traditional facial tattoos are still seen on older women today.

Hakha and Falam

Wooden houses built at the mountain's edge in the town of Falam in Chin State. / Marie Starr

Falam is a typical example of remotest ethnic Myanmar with an unstable electricity supply, minimal modern construction, basic infrastructure and strong cultural and religious values. And these are just some of the factors which make it such a special place to visit. The hilly streets and incredible mountain views in every direction are unforgettable. Hakha is the capital of Chin State located about four hours south of Falam. The cold, often foggy weather and conifer trees and cherry blossom in the winter make it feel like these towns are in a different country altogether.

Tedim and Rih Lake

Rih Lake is a famous heart-shaped lake close to the Indian border. / The Irrawaddy

Tedim in northern Chin State is a small Christian town set around a peak among the beautiful blue Chin mountains. There's not much to do in the town apart from admiring the view. Hiking to Kennedy Peak, Chin State's second highest mountain located 90 minutes from Tedim, is not too taxing and worth it for the views. Nearby, Siansawn is a unique village on a neighboring hillside where the people have created their own religious sect and marriages are arranged by the village leader. Rih Lake is a famous heart-shaped lake four hours' drive from Tedim and close to the Indian border.

The post Distinctive Ethnic Cultures and Misty Mountain Towns — Destination Guide to Western Myanmar appeared first on The Irrawaddy.

New Tanintharyi Chief Minister Pledges to Tackle Power, Land Issues

Posted: 26 Mar 2019 02:30 AM PDT

YANGON—The new Tanintharyi Region chief minister has vowed to address power shortages and land disputes in the region.

As he took the oath of office as the region's new chief minister on Monday, U Myint Maung promised "to return to local farmers the farmland that private companies have left idle, for the development of the entire region."

On Friday, the Tanintharyi regional parliament approved U Myint Maung, who previously served as the minister of natural resources and environmental conservation, as the new chief minister, replacing Daw Lei Lei Maw, who was arrested on corruption charges earlier this month.

U Myint Maung also promised to ensure fair power rates in Tanintharyi, where electricity is mainly supplied by private suppliers, making it expensive.

The government's anti-graft body found that the Global Grand Services company, whose directors were arrested along with Daw Lei Lei Maw on corruption charges, broke a contract with the regional government and owes 8 billion kyats (US$5.2 million) to the Ministry of Electricity and Energy for natural gas it purchased to generate the power it supplied in Tanintharyi.

The new chief minister also talked about developing the region's tourism and fishery industries, promoting regional security and the rule of law, and ensuring responsible extraction of natural resources.

"I will build a clean, transparent, responsible and accountable government," he said.

U Myint Maung, who is also the National League for Democracy's secretary for Tanintharyi Region, had been serving as acting chief minister since Daw Lei Lei Maw was arrested on March 10.

He was elected to the regional parliament from Kawthoung Township in the 2015 general elections.

"His appointment is acceptable. We are taking a wait-and-see attitude. We dare not expect much from him," said Dawei resident Ko Wai Phyo.

The Tanintharyi Parliament on Tuesday also approved the three new regional ministers to fill vacant posts.

Daw Yi Yi Cho, regional lawmaker from Myeik Constituency 2 and U Aung Thura, regional lawmaker for Tanintharyi Constituency 1, were appointed as the regional ministers of planning and finance; and electricity and energy, respectively. Their predecessors resigned last week.

The former ministers, U Phyo Win Tun and U Kyi Hlaing, remain lawmakers for Myeik Constituency 1 and Pulaw Constituency 2.

U Hla Htwe, the regional lawmaker for Yebyu Constituency 1, was appointed minister of natural resources and environmental conservation to succeed U Myint Maung.

The Tanintharyi parliament has 21 elected lawmakers, all of whom are NLD members, and seven military appointees.

The post New Tanintharyi Chief Minister Pledges to Tackle Power, Land Issues appeared first on The Irrawaddy.

A Conversation With US Ambassador Scot Marciel 

Posted: 25 Mar 2019 10:30 PM PDT

On March 8, The Irrawaddy's editorial team invited US Ambassador Scot Marciel to our office in Yangon to participate in a conversation on a range of issues, particularly the many challenges Myanmar is facing. The ambassador offered his frank views in response to questions from senior editors. Here are excerpts from the interview:

The Irrawaddy: Welcome to The Irrawaddy office Mr. Ambassador. We appreciate your accepting our invitation to discuss issues relating to Myanmar and the region. We thought we'd ask you if you'd like to kick start the session?  

US Ambassador Scott Marciel: I was at Dagon University this morning to give a speech to the students on US policy toward Myanmar. I emphasized two points: One is [that] US policy toward Myanmar is in the context of US policy in the broader Indo-Pacific region.   This is a policy of engagement and support for ASEAN and democracy, peace and prosperity. We have been very consistent, going as far back as the 1988 uprising, to support people's efforts to build democracy, as well as peace and prosperity.

Two is that – and I think it will be surprising to some people— much of these discussions in Washington over the years have been as much from the heart as from the head. What I mean by that is that we recognize Myanmar is strategically important, but for the most part over the years, the tremendous interest and support for democracy in Myanmar has been out of our admiration and respect for the incredible sacrifices that so many people here have made in the struggle to bring about human rights and democracy and rule of law. That has been a really important factor, and remains a very important factor in our policy. Those are two of the points I made this morning, and I stressed that despite some challenges and disagreements, particularly over the last 18 months, the goal of our policy is still consistent:  to support efforts to build democracy and peace,  democratic federalism, and prosperity, as well as friendship between our two countries.

We are curious about your thoughts on constitutional amendment in Myanmar? 

Of course, we're following it with great interest. We have said many times that there are many elements in the current Constitution that are not really consistent with full democracy.

Obviously it is up to the people of Myanmar to decide what they want in terms of amendments. We don't want to get involved in the political debate over this. But we think efforts to try to bring about reforms, to develop and strengthen democracy, seem to be what the public wants. And that is the positive thing.

We don't know how it is going to play out, of course. But it is quite interesting to see.  And if it results in more dialogue, discussions, debates, and a stronger constitution, a stronger more democratic constitution, that's a good thing.

How would you characterize Myanmar-US relations under President Donald Trump's administration? 

Well, I think it remains very much about us doing everything we can to support the efforts of people here.  As I said, our policy has consistently been to build democracy, and build prosperity, support peace, and federalism. So we are doing all of those things just as we were in the previous administration. Obviously, we have had some challenges and some disagreements, particularly over things like Rakhine, in the last 18 months, but the underlying commitment to support the democratic transition and development of rule of law remains strong. We are still doing all of our programs to support this; [they] remain funded going ahead.

As you know, China is gaining increasing leverage in terms of the peace process, investment and its Belt and Road Initiative. What is your opinion on this? 

Well, this is really up to the government and people of Myanmar. China is very active here. It's promoting a lot of big projects. And the US Government is not here because of China, or against China. We are here to support Myanmar. For me, what's important is what the people of this country want.

When it comes to big economic projects – whether funded by China or by anybody else – what I hear from the people here and what I hear from the government is: "Is this in Myanmar's interest? Is it a good project? Is it going to the follow rules? Is it going to hire local people to do the work? Is it going to protect the environment? Is it going to lead to debt?"  Those are questions that I would think, and that I am pretty confident, that the government is asking, not only for Chinese-funded projects, but for any big projects.

We are here trying to do what we can to support the country and build our friendship. Myanmar has China as a neighbor. So it is normal and natural that the Government of Myanmar has spent a lot of time working on that relationship.

We have learned that China is not happy with your recent visit to the northern part of the country, especially to Kachin State.

I am the ambassador to the Union of Myanmar, and I am accredited to the entire country. My job is to represent the United States in your entire country, and that's what I've been doing, and what I will continue to do. I don't think any country wants a third country to tell it who can visit within its own borders.

State Counselor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was once a darling of the West, and the US was one of the strongest advocates of ending her house arrest under the previous Than Shwe regime. Are you surprised to see Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's administration moving so much closer to China? Are you surprised by that?

I am not surprised that this government or any government would feel that it is in Myanmar's interest to make sure to have a good relationship with China. And I think that is normal and appropriate.

Obviously some things have happened—particularly the Rakhine crisis—that have created some challenges in the relationship between this government and the West. But again for us, what matters is what Myanmar country going to do, not is this country going to have a good relationship with China.

We are not in a contest here, or in the rest of the region.  There would never be a situation where we say: "Choose between us and China." There is no reason to choose between the two. Myanmar should have a good relationship with China. We hope Myanmar also has a good relationship with us and with other countries.

But what we want to focus on is what we can do to support Myanmar's democratic transition, and to support human rights. Sometimes this leads us to be fairly outspoken in our criticism, which can be popular at times and not so popular at other times. We think it is: a) true to our own values, and b) necessary for Myanmar to succeed as a democracy.  Just as we in the United States have to deal with some problems we had internally with our treatment of some of our people.

Nowadays the United Nations Human Rights Council and some Islamic organizations are pushing to have Myanmar brought before the International Criminal Court. In the coming years the international pressure will likely grow. You have already met with foreign officials here. What impression do you get from them? Do they think this effort is serious? 

I don't want to speak for other governments, but for us, we think that after the August 2017 ARSA [Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army] attacks—which of course we condemned as did most other governments—the military's response was disproportionate and resulted in widespread human rights violations. What we've been urging since then is access, and a full and credible independent investigation to get out all the facts of what happened. And then accountability to the extent that investigations show there were significant human rights violations.

This is normal, particularly for such a large-scale crisis that resulted in 700,000 people fleeing the country. Unfortunately, access was largely denied and there was no investigation. Many different bodies have tried to find out as much as they could – what the facts were, what the evidence was – but they have been handicapped by the lack of access inside the country. And so what we are still really hoping for is for the truth to come out about what happened.

We hope the people of this country, as well as the international community, could all generally agree on what the facts are. That is the goal. Once we have the facts, then for there to be accountability for those abuses that took place; there'd be some justice.

Ideally this would be led by a Myanmar domestic investigation, done in a way that is credible. Not only credible in the eyes of the international community, but also credible to the people in general. The hope all along is that the facts come out in a credible way, and that there be some justice based on those facts. That is what this is really all about.

The goal isn't to pressure Myanmar just to pressure Myanmar; it is to try to get the facts out. Unfortunately, as I said, access has not been allowed and there hasn't been a credible investigation. We hope that the independent commission's inquiry can produce these facts as much as possible. I think that will be good, not only for the international community, but for Myanmar.

With regard to your support for peace and democracy, you have been supporting civil society groups and ethnic groups. What is your assessment or impression of the current formal peace process? 

I would say a couple things. First, as you know, Myanmar has maybe the most complicated peace process, certainly the most complicated set of conflicts that I've seen. I always try to be careful because I understand that this is complex, and not easy to resolve. There are so many different actors involved, and that is really challenging.

We have supported the formal peace process from the beginning, including the NCA [Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement], and the idea for political dialogue which produce some commitments on federalism and democracy. Obviously it is really challenging and there are many difficulties to achieving progress. In some ways, this is to be expected. What's important is to keep the dialogue going as much as possible, and to minimize any conflicts that happen while the dialogue is ongoing.

My own view is that there is still a lot of work to do to really, fundamentally understand the thinking and the goals of the different groups. I think there's still a pretty wide gap between the different sides about what the fundamental issues are. That presents a huge challenge, and it is going to take more time and a lot more dialogue.

Despite these challenges, we hope that people will keep trying and bring more people into the discussions, not necessarily formally, but informally as well.

You mentioned the domestic actors. Turning to the international actors, you know that under former President U Thein Sein's government, we had different players in the peace process. Then-US Ambassador Derek Mitchell was there, the Chinese were there—sometimes in the back seat and sometimes in the front seat. We have seen other international players performing very important roles as messengers, including the UN special envoy, who was here engaging with stakeholders. They tried to contain the conflict. But now it seems this messaging is missing, and the key actors have disappeared. Now it is much more confusing and complex. China seems to be coming to the forefront, and in some ways to have hijacked the whole peace process. Would you agree?

I only want to speak for my government, though I think several other governments feel the same way. We want the peace process to succeed. We want to support it any way we can. It is a peace process led by the Myanmar government, and we respect that. We are constantly asking the government and others what we can do to help, and are willing to help in any way we can. We keep a regular dialogue with a lot of the actors in the peace process.

We don't ever tell the Myanmar Government what to do, or say "you should do this" or "you should do that." We simply encourage continued dialogue and as much restraint as possible. Meanwhile, we are doing a lot of work with ethnic political parties and sometimes particularly with the signatories [to the NCA], to provide training on federalism and build capacity for negotiations.

In addition to this, we remain ready and willing to help any way we can.

You went to Rakhine State recently and met with state lawmakers. What were their views on the fighting between the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army (AA)?  

I don't want to speak on behalf of the [state] speaker. But what I would say is we met with a lot of people from the Rakhine community, including political figures, and the main message we got was that there seems to be quite a bit of support among the Rakhine community for the Arakan Army.

There was concern about what they allege were human rights violations [by] the Tatmadaw in the conflict with the AA. What we heard the same thing we had heard before the Arakan Army really increased its activity, which is complaints that the ANP [Arakan National Party] had won the election in 2015 but did not feel like they had sufficient voice in the government. I am not agreeing or disagreeing. I am just sharing that this is what we heard in general. A lot of frustration.

Did they tell you anything about their political stand? Whether they take the side of the AA or the government? 

Not specifically. The overall message we heard was quite a bit of unhappiness with Naypyitaw and with the Tatmadaw. Again, not surprising, and nothing you don't already know. But I don't want to suggest that this unhappiness means they refuse to be part of the country. It was disappointment and frustration, but nobody was saying, "We don't want to be part of this country."

You have used the term "dialogue" several times. In fact there has been no actual dialogue in our country over the past 30 years, though we have seen many meetings. I am talking more about the high-level meetings between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the chief of the Myanmar military (or Tatmadaw). They have had more than a dozen meetings. But we cannot call this dialogue; maybe they met to create the impression of dialogue. It is a type of deception aimed at the world and the Myanmar people. We have not seen any concrete reason. What is the solution for our country?

That is a good question. It is obviously a big question. For 50 years, the people of this country did not really have the ability to talk about issues in any kind of open way. We all know that. So even though a lot of things have changed, and there is a lot more ability to talk these days than there was, change does not happen quickly. It does take a long time, and it takes time to develop a habit of dialogue that goes beyond just reading official points. I have been in a lot of negotiations, and you never resolve problems by reading your points.

You usually make progress over dinner, where you put away your formal notes and talking points, and begin to have conversations and build trust. It takes a certain amount of trust and some listening to really understand the other side's perspective, and once you have that trust, you can begin to make progress. As I said before publically, progress requires going into the conversation acknowledging that maybe your view isn't always 100 percent correct, acknowledging that maybe the other side has some valid points. If it's just a debate, you know it is not going to resolve too much. I don't want to sound arrogant here, because we don't always go into conversations with this mindset either. Going back to our civil rights movement, we didn't make much progress for a very long time. We made some progress, and then we realized we still have a long way to go.

Through informal dialogue we're giving people exposure to different communities, different ethnic groups, and hopefully building more understanding, so that over time we'll build trust and empathy that will help to achieve progress in the formal talks. Maybe you don't agree 100 percent with another position, but you will at least understand what their view is. It takes time, and it takes a lot of work to actively bring different people together, not just for formal talks, but for dinner and at other informal settings.

In that case, it would seem that political will is the key. 

Sure.

We have been talking about the formal peace process—the visible proceedings—and you have mentioned the need to bring in other stakeholders in more informal ways. Talking to people who are very close to the peace process, "informal" seems to mean different things to different people. The ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) have one definition, and the government side has another. They don't have a common understanding on that. When they say "informal meetings" there are always conflicts that don't get resolved. I know there are differences from one country's peace process to another, and definitions of "informal negotiations" vary, but what are the possible definitions? 

It is a really interesting question. Informal meetings should mean that ideally you [have] an informal setting. The idea is that you can talk a little bit more openly. You are not negotiating, so you can just exchange ideas and offer some ideas that you are not bound by later. You haven't committed to something; maybe you can try this.

To me it means people sitting around, ideally away from a formal negotiating table, and exchanging ideas and trying to build a little bit of trust. It has to mean people have to feel comfortable that whatever they say isn't going to be repeated by the spokesperson the next day to the other side. They feel confident sharing ideas or expressing their concerns; that to me is "informal meeting" and in any negotiating process, including peace process, you have to have a lot of those discussions.

You have regular contact with some of the ethnic groups. People always say they are working for their people's interest, when there is also another interest of their own. What should the armed groups—including both the Tatmadaw and the EAOs—what kind of comprise should they seek to overcome the current deadlock in the peace process and peace building?  

Well, it is a challenge, because of the history and the way things have developed. You have ethnic armed groups who are speaking on behalf of their whole ethnic group. And in an ideal world, you would have political parties doing that, but that is not the way your history has evolved. So it's best for them to be consulting extensively with their own communities.

In the previous election, we saw a lot of funding and support for independent media as they sought to raise critical issues. But over the last two years, we see that a lot of embassies here have curtailed that and are now shifting their resources more into the civil society arena. What is the strategy here? When your government, and others like yourself, look at the upcoming election, and two or three years ahead, do you see the media playing a crucial role?

Those are good questions. On the first, while I am not sure what other embassies are doing, we can continue to give strong support to independent media. It is absolutely critical. For us, it is not media vs. civil society. Both have a crucial role in any democracy, so we will continue to support both, as well as continuing to support the Union Election Commission, because they also have to do all the technical work — voter lists and everything else. We, along with other embassies, are already engaging directly with the Union Election Commission. I want to stress, our engagement is only on the technical support side, not getting involved in politics, per se.  Because I think the 2015 election generally was quite good — not perfect, but quite good. Our elections also aren't perfect. And we certainly want to do what we can to help on that front.

We believed that the Ministry of Information—particularly under this elected government—would be downgraded to an Information Department. But the opposite has happened. The ministry is still spending a lot of money on propaganda.

I've heard that same concern from plenty of people and I think this is a very legitimate issue for the public to debate, and going into the election, it's not for me as a foreign official to say there should be or should not be this ministry. I think it is part of the democratic debate; what do we mean by free media, independent media, what is the role of government? And it is not surprising in a new democracy to have a debate. I expect many people will talk about it in the lead-up to the elections.

What do you think about press freedom in our country? Is the current situation worse than under former President U Thein Sein's administration? 

I think about it a couple ways. I think it is dramatically better than it was from the first few times that I visited here in 2005, 2006, and 2007 of course. I try to remember that. I guess, we've expressed concerns about some restrictions on press freedom and the arrest of journalists for what in our view is doing their jobs as journalists. Whether it is 66(d) [of the 2013 Telecommunications Law] or other provisions of the laws, it's a concern. We have said consistently that an independent free media is essential to building democracy, so we are concerned about that for sure.

Last year The New York Times published a report on the military's shadowy Facebook campaign, run by an operation based outside of Naypyitaw. There is a cyber battalion stationed there. They use infotainment and entertainment websites to attract thousands of followers and can turn these into hate campaigns. According to the NYT, the Tatmadaw is behind it. Would you comment?

Yes, certainly. There are a couple of issues here. One is hate speech and disinformation through social media, which is present in Myanmar and other countries—including the United States—as one problem. The second is the extent to which officials, military or otherwise, you know, for officials to speak up publicly is part of their jobs. To the extent that the officials, including military personnel, are behind the scenes anonymously, sending out messages meant to divide or create political tension, that is deeply troubling and really should be of concern to everybody, I think. It is absolutely inconsistent with rule of law, democracy and the appropriate functions of any government.

Have you raised the issue with your counterparts or even with military officials? 

I don't think I've raised exactly that point, but I've certainly raised concerns about hate speech – and, again, we have it too in the United States — but hate speech by anybody is always troubling. But particularly if it turns out people in the government and military are behind it, that is even more troubling.

What percentage of US humanitarian support to the Indo-Pacific region goes to Myanmar?

We have a couple of different categories. Overall USAID assistance, which is broadly development assistance, is about US$120 million [183.7 billion kyats] a year in grants. That mostly goes to health, anti-malaria, anti-tuberculosis, maternal and child health, those sorts of issues. In the agriculture sector, a lot of it is working directly with farmers. And then a fair amount is what we call broadly "governance," which is support for independent media, civil society, some federalism workshops—those sorts of things, some capacity building for parliament, work with the attorney-general's office and supreme court; again it is capacity-building. $120 million generally is for development assistance.

We have a small amount of separate money from the State Department that goes to work with some of the police who are doing anti-narcotics, or anti-human trafficking, those sort of programs, and a separate budget, relatively small, for exchange programs and scholarships.

And then we have humanitarian assistance, and there is not a set number for that. It depends on the situation. So if any country has a natural disaster or something, there is a general pool of money that we can pull from to try to address that.

We put in a fair amount of money, tens of millions of dollars, this year for IDPs in Kachin, northern Shan, Rakhine and those still in the southeast as well. And then separately, literally hundreds of millions of dollars for people who fled this country as refugees, not only in Bangladesh, but still a lot of support for Karen, Shan, Kayah refugees in Thailand.

The idea of a narrative is a big problem in this country; we are missing a national narrative whenever we have a crisis. And surprisingly, particularly under this government, when you look at the Rakhine crisis, it seems there is a missing narrative.

I agree. As I said earlier, this crisis happened; without getting into all the details, there clearly was significant violence and a large number of people fled. And unfortunately a year-and-a-half later, we still have a Myanmar narrative of what happened and an international narrative of what happened, and they are very far apart. That makes it really hard to make progress.

My own view is, ARSA carried out the initial attacks. That's a fact. We've condemned it. It was a disaster both because they attacked police and because of what it led to. There was a disproportionate response. Of course any country has the right to respond to an attack like that; nobody would suggest that they should have done nothing. It was the way in which it was done – rather indiscriminately and quite brutal, and with subsequent denial – that was really, really troubling.

Myanmar's not the first country whose security forces have had human rights violations.  Ours have too. What we would have hoped to see is more recognition that some things went terribly wrong. This is separate from the question of "are these people citizens?" That is a separate, important, but separate issue. Regardless of citizenship, they are human beings, so the question is, to what extent did widespread abuses happen? I think we still have this huge gulf unfortunately between the views of the Myanmar people and the views of the international community. Somehow, we need to find a way, as I said earlier, to have at least general agreement on the facts of what happened.

As a former ambassador to Indonesia, you have a lot of knowledge of ASEAN. Much has been written on the decline of democracy in this region, the rise of authoritarian governments, as well as the rise of China. And President Trump came to this region twice, on the North Korean issue, to Singapore and Vietnam. What is the level of US engagement? Has there been a disruption in US engagement with the Indo-Pacific in general?

Well, this administration is continuously engaged in the region pretty intensively. And there are always going to be differences. As you said the president was just in Vietnam; Secretary of State [Mike Pompeo] went to Manila for extensive talks and there was a lot of discussion when Vice President [Mike Pence] was in Singapore late last year, including meeting with your State Counselor, which was very important. I think the engagement is still there and commitment to support democracy is still there.

There have been setbacks, sadly. But, that is a fact, and when those setbacks happen, we express our concerns but we also think, "OK, how do we try to help move things forward?" You obviously have upcoming elections in Thailand, you have upcoming elections at the end of this month in Indonesia, which has remained democratic. You have elections here of course, next year.

My experience goes back a long way. I started my career in the Philippines and my first year there, President Marcos fell to "people power". This is how old I am. So you know things change. For us, it's the commitment to try to support democracy, not only the election part of it, because that is important, but all the other things that are so important for a strong court system that people have faith in the justice system, effective police forces, you know, the role of civil society and the independent media. So we are continuing to support those. Some of the details change, but the overall approach remains very consistent.

The Yangon regional government is trying to build a "New City". Did any US companies approach the committee implementing the project about possible involvement? This is a huge and controversial project with significant Chinese involvement. 

I can't say for sure whether any US companies have approached that committee about it. It is possible they have. But I would say I am not aware of any company involved in a big way. As you said, the lead seems to be the China Communications and Construction Company.

I think the experiences around the world and in the region suggest that there are some elements of Belt Road Initiatives that seem to bring real benefits to the recipient country. And others seem to be quite problematic. I think that is just what we see.

It is really important to do due diligence and have maximum transparency. And then the people of Yangon, in this case, express their view—this is a good idea or not a good idea.  But I think transparency and [knowing] the details of these projects would be useful. I don't know if this is going to be a good project or not. I am not qualified to make that judgment. It obviously takes a lot of discussion and debate and I think that is healthy.

We would also like to ask your view on the Kyauk Phyu Special Economic Zone project. It is a strategically important area and the Western Companies and a lot of people have expressed concerns about security and other issues. It is a huge project, some people even told me that the police there are Chinese-trained. Right next to a Navy base, a deep-sea port is going to be built. Myanmar people are very concerned about the Kyauk Phyu SEZ and the lack of transparency and accountability surrounding it, as well as the future of the project and Chinese involvement. What is the position of Western governments, including the US?

Well, we don't have a position on the Kyauk Phyu port. It is up to the Myanmar government and the Myanmar people to decide if something is in the interest of Myanmar. I can't answer that question.

I know there has been a lot of discussion about it. And I think that is good. And I guess the other point I will make is that around the world, in places like Djibouti and so on, we have seen what started out of commercial projects become a little bit more than that.

And again, it's not for the US to say this is what should happen, but my impression is the Myanmar government understands that and it is important that these deals be negotiated and—if there is a deal—that Myanmar decides this is in the interest of Myanmar, the interests of the people of Myanmar, and does not compromise sovereignty. That would seem to me [to be] fundamental. It is really up to the Myanmar government. We don't want to say, "Oh, because of Chinese involvement it's bad." No, that is really not how we look at it. It's [a question of]: what's the nature of the project?

For the sake of argument, let's say the Chinese were to build a military base near Kyauk Phyu. From a maritime security point of view, what would the US think?

We don't expect that to happen. I think the Myanmar government has made it very clear, publicly, many times that it is not looking for foreign—not just Chinese, but foreign—military bases, and I believe that is true.

Thank you Mr. Ambassador!

The post A Conversation With US Ambassador Scot Marciel  appeared first on The Irrawaddy.

The Original Panglong

Posted: 25 Mar 2019 10:07 PM PDT

Today marks the 73rd anniversary of a conference held in advance of the historic 1947 Panglong. The 1946 conference, which ran through March 28, also in Shan State’s Panglong Township, has been recognized as the first Panglong but is less known than the one that followed.

Though the conference was organized by the British with the intention of establishing a Shan State, U Nu, the vice-chairman of the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League criticized the empire’s divide-and-rule policy. Shan, Kachin, Chin and Karenni chieftains signed an agreement at the historic Panglong Conference in on Feb. 12 the following year to collectively seek independence for the so-called frontier areas from Burma proper. The day is marked as Union Day on the Myanmar calendar.

In Myanmar politics, Panglong is synonymous with national unity. State Counselor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of independence hero Gen. Aung San, has co-opted the name for her government's peace talks with ethnic minorities, calls the 21st Century Panglong.

The post The Original Panglong appeared first on The Irrawaddy.

India to Auction Fugitive Billionaire’s Art Collection

Posted: 25 Mar 2019 10:06 PM PDT

MUMBAI — Indian tax authorities are hoping for a windfall with the auction on Tuesday of rare oil paintings that were once part of fugitive billionaire jeweler Nirav Modi’s collection and have been seized by the government.

Auctioneers say the sale is the first of its kind in a country where tax authorities have usually auctioned property, gold and luxury items, but not art.

After a court order allowing the auction to take place, tax authorities, who are pursuing Modi over the country’s largest bank fraud, appointed professional auction house Saffronart.

The sale in Mumbai of some 68 works is expected to fetch anywhere between 300 million and 500 million rupees ($4.4 million-$7.3 million).

“Until a few years ago, the tax authorities really didn’t know the value of art,” said Farah Siddiqui, an art adviser who is advising clients eyeing Modi’s collection.

The 48-year-old Modi, whose diamonds have sparkled on Hollywood stars, is one of the prime accused in a $2 billion loan fraud at state-run Punjab National Bank. Modi denies the charges and believes they are politically motivated.

The auction comes just weeks before a national election and as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi faces pressure to bring back Nirav Modi (no relation), who fled the country last year and has been residing in the United Kingdom.

He was arrested last week by British authorities and remanded in custody after he appeared before a London court. India asked Britain last August to extradite Modi.

The auction includes works by Raja Ravi Varma, a 19th century painter considered among India’s finest, and V.S. Gaitonde, a modern artist known for his abstract and often monochromatic paintings.

“We believe that the collection’s intrinsic value will garner a positive response from collectors,” said Saffronart Chief Executive Dinesh Vazirani.

India Law Alliance, a law firm representing the company controlled by Modi that owns the artwork, said it was challenging the court order that allowed the auction. The case will be heard by the Bombay High Court on Wednesday, a lawyer at the firm told Reuters.

Vijay Aggarwal, a lawyer for Modi, declined to comment.

The post India to Auction Fugitive Billionaire’s Art Collection appeared first on The Irrawaddy.

EXPLAINER—Why Thailand’s Election Results are so Murky

Posted: 25 Mar 2019 09:58 PM PDT

BANGKOK—Two days after an election that was meant to restore democratic rule and stability, Thailand has plunged deeper into uncertainty thanks to a complex parliamentary system that critics say the military junta devised to trip up its rivals.

The Election Commission has been accused of incompetence and even complicity in cheating in Sunday’s poll, and it might take another six weeks to publish official results for the 500-seat lower house.

The commission on Monday announced the winners of 350 seats of the House of Representatives but the remainder will not be announced until May 9.

Until then, it will be unclear whether the next government will be formed by the party that wants junta leader and former military chief Prayuth Chan-ocha to stay on as prime minister or the “democratic front” led by the party ousted in a 2014 coup.

Why are the full results taking so long?

Partly because of complex election rules written by supporters of the junta three years ago, and partly because the Election Commission has yet to finalize a full count.

Most parties in fact estimate their rough share of the seats from partial results and both sides have begun negotiating to put together a coalition on that basis.

Prayuth’s party probably has enough votes to keep him on as prime minister, but it needs coalition partners in the House of Representatives, the lower house of parliament, to form a stable government.

What will it take to win the election?

Officially, the magic number for choosing the next prime minister is 376 votes—a majority of a combined vote between the 500-seat House of Representatives and the 250-seat Senate.

But the challenge of getting to 376 votes is different for the two camps.

Because the Senate is appointed entirely by the junta, Prayuth’s party needs only about 126 House seats, either on its own or with coalition partners.

But the “democratic front” of parties led by loyalists of ousted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra need to win 376 of the 500 House seats to choose the prime minister because it cannot count on many, or even any, Senate votes.

Constituency seats vs party seats

Only 350 seats in the House of Representatives are directly elected “constituency seats” where the candidate with the most votes wins the district in a first-past-the-post system.

The winners of those seats were announced on Monday.

The pro-Thaksin opposition Pheu Thai party won 137 House seats while the pro-junta Palang Pracharat party, which wants to keep Prayuth in power, won 97 seats.

The non-aligned Bhumjaithai party, which has officially aligned with neither camp, won 39 seats. The Democrat party, which said it won’t side with Pheu Thai, won 33 seats.

A new progressive party, Future Forward, won 30 seats. It would be part of an anti-junta democratic front.

Other parties won 14 seats.

Party seats

The remaining 150 “party seats” in the lower house are allocated under a complicated formula based on the total number of votes cast and each party’s share of the nationwide vote.

The formula divides the total number of votes cast nationwide by the 500 seats in the House of Representatives. So, if 40 million people were to vote, the “value” of one House seat would be 80,000 votes.

The formula effectively caps the number of seats any one party can gain. If a party has already reached or is close to its limit in constituency seats, it cannot get any more party seats.

The exact allocation of party seats won’t be known until the Election Commission releases unofficial results, which are expected on Friday. That will show total votes cast and the parties’ share of them.

However, the definitive numbers won’t be released until May 9, when the official results are published. That said, partial results up to 94 percent released on Sunday night offer clues.

Because Pheu Thai already has 137 constituency seats, it may well have exceeded its seats “cap” and therefore will be unlikely to get any party seats.

But Palang Pracharat has only 97 constituency seats, and since it was also leading the national popular vote, it is likely to gain 15-25 more party seats.

Adding the seats together would put Palang Pracharat very close to the 126 seats it needs to vote Prayuth in as prime minister, which is why many assume the junta leader will stay on.

So who gets to form a government?

Technically either side would need just more than 250 seats, or half of the 500-member lower house, to form the next government.

However, the “democratic front” would need 376 seats in the House to first get one of the prime ministerial candidates from its side approved, since it could not rely on members of the junta-appointed Senate to endorse its candidates.

Palang Pracharat, assuming all Senate members vote in line, will be close to the 126 seats needed to get Prayuth to stay on. However, it will need coalition partners able to rely on more than 250 seats in the House to form a stable coalition government

The post EXPLAINER—Why Thailand’s Election Results are so Murky appeared first on The Irrawaddy.

Myanmar’s Top Court to Hear Reuters Reporters’ Appeal in Official Secrets Case

Posted: 25 Mar 2019 09:39 PM PDT

NAYPYITAW — Myanmar’s Supreme Court was scheduled on Tuesday to hear the appeal of two Reuters journalists imprisoned for breaking a colonial-era official secrets law, in a case that has raised questions about Myanmar’s progress towards democracy.

Reporters Ko Wa Lone and Ko Kyaw Soe Oo have spent more than 15 months in detention since they were arrested in December 2017 while investigating a massacre of Rohingya Muslim civilians involving Myanmar soldiers.

A judge found the two guilty under the Official Secrets Act in September and sentenced them to seven years in prison.

Both remain separated from their young daughters. The wife of 32-year-old Ko Wa Lone gave birth to their first child last year while Ko Wa Lone was behind bars. Ko Kyaw Soe Oo celebrated his 29th birthday in Yangon’s Insein jail this month.

Their convictions were heavily criticized by press freedom advocates and Western diplomats, putting additional pressure on Myanmar leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel laureate who took power in 2016 amid a transition from military rule.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said in September, the week after their conviction, that the reporters’ case had nothing to do with press freedom as the men had been jailed for handling official secrets, not because they were journalists.

At the Supreme Court in the capital Naypyitaw on Tuesday, a judge will hear arguments for and against their appeal, alongside 17 other cases, according to a listing published on the court’s website.

“Myanmar’s Supreme Court has the opportunity to correct the serious miscarriage of justice inflicted on Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo for the last 15 months,” Reuters Editor-in-Chief Stephen J. Adler said in a statement.

“They are honest, admirable journalists who did not break the law, and they should be freed as a matter of urgency.”

The appeal, submitted last month, cited lack of proof of a crime and evidence that the pair was set up by police.

During eight months of hearings, Ko Wa Lone and Ko Kyaw Soe Oo testified that two policemen they had not met before handed them papers rolled up in a newspaper during a meeting at a Yangon restaurant on Dec. 12. Almost immediately afterwards, they said, they were bundled into a car by plainclothes officers.

A police captain testified that, prior to the restaurant meeting, a senior officer had ordered subordinates to plant documents on Ko Wa Lone to “trap” the reporter.

The prosecution said the reporters were caught holding secret documents at a routine traffic stop.

The high court in Myanmar’s largest city Yangon rejected an earlier appeal in January.

Before their arrest, Ko Wa Lone and Ko Kyaw Soe Oo had been working on a Reuters investigation into the killing of 10 Rohingya Muslim men and boys by security forces and Buddhist civilians in western Myanmar’s Rakhine State during an army crackdown that began in August 2017.

The operation sent more than 730,000 Rohingya fleeing to Bangladesh, according to United Nations estimates.

The post Myanmar’s Top Court to Hear Reuters Reporters’ Appeal in Official Secrets Case appeared first on The Irrawaddy.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)