I do think it is good, in a way, that the PAD have been very clear about their beliefs and aims, no matter how radical some of them are. Even today, Somsak (the temporary leader of the PAD party) still maintains that some of the MPs should be appointed rather than elected. Somsak also added that three of the most honest PMs he’s seen (Anand, General Prem, can’t remember who’s the other one he mentioned) were appointed rather than elected. While all this sounds ridiculous to me, I still encourage the PAD party to stick to whatever they believe and make sure these issues are mentioned in their election campaigns. It’s a lot better than listening to politicians going on and on with the same boring promises about things that we all know are impossible to happen.
Of course we could argue that the PAD aren’t actually being that honest, like how they haven’t revealed who ‘really’ backs them, etc. But at least, to have a party with some sort of clear agenda on the Thai political scene is a very refreshing thing.
(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations
But given what I quoted earlier, doesn’t the Rome Statute contradict itself with this caveat?
How much of an obstacle is the Tatmadaw to the UNSC taking action? Could it be provocative? Could China, by voting for a referral, provoke a ‘cornered animal’ reaction? How will an arms embargo on Myanmar make it significantly less militarized?
To be honest, I thought with the UN discussing Myanmar frequently, altogether this would constitute an ‘inquiry’, but obviously not. A ‘Commission of Inquiry’ seems much more significant than I had thought, but it’s still depressing to think of how much bureaucracy has to be waded through to reach anything proactive being done. Hopefully with the UNSC having more experience with these situations, as outlined in the Harvard Law School report in the precedents section, means that they are more efficiently carried through.
How does the UN reconcile its values of national self determination vs good governance?
I don’t see where what I’ve said is erroneous in relation to article five of the Rome statute, and given your points – there has possibly been an error in your reading of what I’ve written. I’m not sure whether what you’ve written is a critique of my comment or whether you are just commenting generally.
From Article 19 of the Rome Statute:
2. Challenges to the admissibility of a case on the grounds referred to in article 17 or challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court may be made by:
(c) A State from which acceptance of jurisdiction is required under article 12.
From Article 12
1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.
Myanmar is not a party to the statute on any level for the statute to have any applicability to Myanmar in relation to article 5. Where is what I’ve said erroneous? The ICC is not the UNSC!?
I didn’t say there couldn’t be a resolution called for a commission, I said maybe there could be a commission, and then questioned its usefulness which was related to my view on the sentiment of people looking from the outside to see immediate action. Sure, maybe there would be teeth spawned through a commission that document evidence for sanctions or eventually, criminal trials, but how are those teeth going to make an imprint without people in Myanmar overwhelmingly determining that those teeth should make an imprint?
In regards to intervention, the world summit fact sheet you’ve kindly linked states at the beginning of the Responsibility to Protect part with ‘Clear and unambiguous’. Responsibility to protect is an unclear and ambiguous term applied to four very clear actions in article five of the Rome Statute.
The instability caused by external governments ‘acting responsibly’ by intervening in the region would quite easily be tabled as irresponsible given the myriad of other military engagements and financial crises that UNSC governments are involved in at the moment. Is it not irresponsible of the UN to set out a ‘get out of jail’ reference for peoples treated inhumanely, without having the resources to pursue its objectives? Indeed, intervention could be least irresponsible for China – if China shared a more mutual global outlook with the US and European UNSC members.
However, looking for China to immediately act in accordance with a decision made at the world summit of 2005 is premature. Given China’s behaviour over the past 30 years, you surely cannot expect China to change or make an immediate exception to it’s whole foreign policy directive of non interference because of an unrealistic UNSC agreement made in 2005. Again, responsibility to protect is a flowery notion. I’d sign up to it too and even buy the superman cape, but that doesn’t mean I’d be running off to save people from their hells willy nilly just because I bought the cape and signed the paper. It would take internal will for me to do that. Maybe buying the cape and signing the paper signals a change of direction, but given the norm of non interference posturing, there would be many other hypocrisies to take care of before actually changing tack.
Are you suggesting that based on ‘Responsibility to Protect’, intervention can be made where there is any form of ‘crime against humanity’? Which crime against humanity is more significant than the other? Which should be the first on the list of crimes against humanity that the UNSC decides to act on, or should they act on all of them at once as the moral beacons of humanity?! The UNSC could even ‘act responsibly’ with the USA and water boarding! The facetious possibilities here are probably endless.
Furthermore, I don’t think the UN is going to give precedence to the notion of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ over a nations sovereign right to self determine. What sort of peace or justice would we have if some external body decided we needed to be ‘protected’? Perhaps we’d have the sort of peace and justice that is found in Myanmar today….
Stephan, perhaps what you’ve written is blunt out of the frustration for action – and I’m sorry if this is antagonistic. I don’t see how it’s possible to be hopeful in relation to this. I’d like to be hopeful though.
This op-ed by Niken and Nice is based on a report by Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program which was commissioned by them and three other jurists, Richard Goldstone (South Africa), Patricia Wald (U.S.), and Ganzorig Gombosuren (Mongolia). The report (http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/hrp/newsid=59.html), “Crimes in Burma,” compiles information from UN bodies exclusively and comes to the conclusion that human rights abuses in Burma are widespread, systematic, and part of state policy. The recommendation for a Commission of Inquiry is based on the legal analysis that the nature of these abuses may constitute crimes against humanity and war crimes which are prosecutable under international law.
The report is significant for several reasons. There is actually a lot of documentation of the human rights violations, much of it collected at great risk by local community based organizations. Human rights report from these groups get dismissed (unfairly, I think) for bias since they come from the communities experiencing the violence. Calling for the UN to act based exclusively on the reports that the UN itself has generated takes that excuse not to act off the table. As Stephen rightly points out, the UN Security Council can authorize a Commission of Inquiry.
Where that would lead is not clear, nor should it be at this point. There is enough evidence to suspect that the violence in Burma rises to the level of crimes which have been determined to be so severe they are of concern to all of humanity. A Commission of Inquiry is designed to come to an official determination about that suspicion and to recommend ways forward. A whole range of options beyond any kind of prosecutorial action could then be considered which are difficult to push for now: an arms embargo, targeted sanctions against those responsible for the crimes, etc.. There is also the issue of the Right to Truth, which is articulated in the UN’s Updated Principles on Impunity (see http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1&Lang=E), meaning that knowing what is occurring, for the sake of knowing (especially on the part of victims and their loved ones) is a right in and of itself.
It may be late to come to this party, but the intervening period has not been kind to High’s position. Jim was correct that the issue was quite clear in terms of the impact of resettlement on maternal and child health, mortality, nutrition, domestic violence, and numerous other social indicators. The impact of the ill-conceived and badly executed opium eradication policy has only reinforced the previous weight of evidence. That not every resettlement is totally disasterous is rather like saying not every patient dies after being bled with leeches. It may be true, but hardly a good recommendation for quality medical practice. In reading Baird & Shoemaker (either the article or the original paper), I was never under the impression that they sought to keep people in the hills against their will. The real issue is allowing uncoerced choice. That some resettled people are hopeful is a good thing, but many more are not. For those advocating a benign view of most resettlement in Laos, it is the triumph of hope over experience.
wow,
this happening was very amazing one. the old pagoda was already a legentry and connected to unvisible world, I mean Royal Ghosts.the pagoda site was named TIKE GROUND, under world kingdom.The name Danok was “pulling sward from human body after bettle.People call this event due to Saturn .the pagoda name.,place name,,township names are in Saturn names.the pagoda also collepsed on Saturday.So this was bad sign for current kingdom in myanmar.the ruling kingdom are building so many pagodas to grantee their powers,but Unvisible powers were like that.I think they cant rule unseen world.
There are a number of errors in your post, Column. Much can be clarified by reading the Rome Statute.
1. The UN Security Council can issue a resolution calling for a Commission of Inquiry into Crimes against Humanity in Burma/Myanmar without the country being a signatory to the Rome Statute.
2. Crimes against Humanity were universally accepted at the 2005 UN World Summit as one of four crimes falling under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine for which the UNSC may take action.
3. China may very well block such a resolution. However, given its acceptance of the R2P doctrine, China could not justify its veto on the grounds that Crimes against Humanity are an internal issue.
The question then becomes whether there are/were Crimes against Humanity committed in Burma. Here is a relevant quotes:
The weight of evidence therefore suggests that some of these violations [in eastern Burma] constitute crimes against humanity and that the impunity prevailing in the country for such crimes has contributed to further human rights crises.
(Amnesty International, June 2008)
However, a relevant questions may by whether a Commission of Inquiry would a positive step for Burma. The Peace vs. Justice debate surrounding ICC action in Africa would be a relevant point of comparison.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the idea that the PAD did everything they could to topple three democratically elected governments is unfairly overly simplistic, if that is what is being implied. Those three so-called democratically elected governments were nothing short of puppet clones put into office by Thaksin’s machinery – whether that machinery be overwhelming public support for his lying schemes or what many assume to be honest elections.
The PAD, I believe, if we look at the really long term and what Thailand is and has been devoid of, is change to a relatively honest form of government. Of course, in government per se who is going to achieve this?…but on the other hand, let’s not sell the PAD short because they are not in and of themselves the needed change but only part of it.
and what I am trying to tell you is – that it was NOT PAD who as achieved something, but rather all those who were behind them. you though continue being stubborn and say that it is PAD who has achieved something.
PAD is NOTHING, I repeat.
and it has already realized that itself quite well – even before attempt on Sondhi’s life, and especially after they have voiced it themselves, that they were USED by those whoever used them, and then discarded.
yet you continue trying to push on the idea that PAD is something …
it is totally FAKE as a political movement, only may be as some sort of millenarian fundementalist sect – at MOST. they don’t even have any substantial political agenda even now, when they already decided to become a political party, rather than some anarchist (or more precisely fascist) mob as they are. they were pulled together by a giant propaganda machine (ASTV) which now is almost bankrupt (on their website Chamlong himself has placed add asking people to make donations to pay salary to staff) and therefore very unlikely to be as sucessful in mass-brainwashing as last year, when they had almost UNLIMITED funds.
so, now they are able to continue existing ONLY because there are still some who consider them useful.
you comparing PAD and UDD is totally unappropriate. because one is a reactioany anti-democratic (aka “New politics”) force comprised by “muddle-class” and elitist and another is a grass-root movement – using your own words “whether you like it or not” – which naturally has NO ANY such support of any of those powerful backers.
you say “you can say that the red-shirts had support from crooked politicians, police, gangsters and Thaksin’s wealth and friends but didn’t manage to achieve much at all”
well, first of all – I would NOT say that, it is you who “can say” that.
second – please name those who support “red-shirts” ?
“Thaksin’s wealth” ? any realiable sources of reference?
so, “red-shirts”/ UDD do NOT have any such GIANT backing and financial support as PAD DID have (lat year – not any longer, as now).
also UDD are supressed and practically and literally enslaved people in they own country by those very their country-men who comprise and support PAD.
therefore it is not at all surprising that as you say they “didn’t manage to achieve much at all” !!!
of course ! and they will not achieve anything for many more years. because it will take GENERATIONS to change their submissive and obedient mindset. although the fact they they now at least DARE to raise their voices – it is already a huge achievement !
but of course I bet you do not realise this achievement at all, or concsiously overlook it.
I suggest you read for example books by Pira Sudham (as “Moonson country” and “Forces of karma”) to at least get SOME idea of the peasants and slaves mentality, even perhaps now still. THEN perhaps, may be, you will get some realization of the UDD’s ACHIEVEMENT of much greater scale than PAD could ever accomplish: the awakening of the grassroot people and CHANGE in their “maimed minds” as P. Sudham terms it.
and this change is that very “genie” which has came out of the bottle and not going back.
taking into consideration the “culture” (aka brutal propaganda and brainwashing of “reconciliation, unity, non-violence”) which tells the peasants and common people to bow down and accept their fate, as well as the ruthless power of thail military and all those blood-suckers (middlemen, corporations, money lenders, all sorts of mafia etc) – it will take a very long time before the real change will happen (aka social welfare state, as at very least in UK) !
but the fact is : this change is INEVITABLE, irreversible and unstoppable now.
that is why we can see so much depserate efforts by army (ISOC) and Amart to control all the media more than ever, as well as BRUTAL supression of protesters by “Democrat” government ! because all those blood-suckers DO KNOW (unlike you) this achivement of UDD : the CHANGE in the mentality of slaves ! and what the consiquence for “masters” this change will bring.
so, you can go on believing that PAD has achieve something. 😀
hopefully there will emerge some INTELLIGENT and progressive people among the middle-class, elite and perhaps even military (well, Chamlong after all, even being a former General himself, has made SOME help back in 91, while he was still pro-democratic – although now I wonder – was he ever at all ?) .
let’s hope it will be so, and Thailand will be able to skip the painful (or more exactly – bloody) development stage as elsewhere, most recently in Cambodia under Pol Pot, when peasants has mass-slaughtered all the blood-suckers.
I really do help Thailand can learn from the history lessons provided by examples of pther countries.
however the chance is very slim – seeign the very strong reactionary clashback time and again, whenever “voiceless” dare to attempt to raise their voice.
Legally, there are obvious grounds for a range of charges against the regime. These can be under the Torture convention (which nearly got Pinochet), under the ICC (which can be used for non-signatories like Sudan if – and a big if – the UNSC approves) or in the future when the convention on Enforced Disappearances comes into force. There are must more vague grounds on genocide, but it would be difficult 9but not impossible) to prove that the regime intends to destroy an ethnical group. The UNSC can act under Chapter 7 powers if they consider there are threats to international peace and security – refugee flows across borders, widespread and systematic human rights violations, border violations.
However, politically none of these actions are likely to occur. China and perhaps Russia will veto any UNSC action, which wipes out the ICC and chapter 7 powers. The Convention against torture (CAT) is more hopeful: if a member of the regime, for whom there is good evidence that they commissioned or allowed torture to occur, is in any country that has agreed to it, then he can be arrested. Countries now include Thailand, but not Singapore. These countries can be requested by a third State to either try these pople, or extradite them to a coutry which will try them. But who would accept? Spain would if it was a Latin American Country. USA and England won’t, as won’t any ASEAN country, Australia rather gutless when it come to something like this.
A commission can be set up by anybody. The UN is rather reluctant about entering these now – far too expensive and not widely supported. If ASEAN had a commission you could almost write the findings now – concern, but no consequences
Well it would undoubtedly be better for Burma for its population to assert itself through weight of numbers or logical argument. In a situation where that is not at all possible, let he/she who lives by superstition also succumb to it. Hell might actually be something more like wallowing in the cess of one’s own stupidity and greed than a place of eternal damnation. In any case, let the Junta rot in it!
I meant to mention that. No – I don’t think you can obtain a (free) electronic version of that paper, but you should be able to access it electronically via public or university library. It’s also available in print from ANU. Sorry I can’t send any links I don’t have proper access here in Burma. What I could find was a link (you’ll need to be going through a library system with access) to another Selth paper “Burma’s Muslims and the War on Terror” which is a work that is based on the paper I originally suggested.
Maybe there can be a commission into crimes against humanity in Burma, but the UNSC is never going to do anything with the inquiry because Myanmar poses little, if any threat to other nations. An official commission or inquiry would determine that there were crimes against humanity being committed officially in a Humphrey Appleby sort of way. The threat that Myanmar does pose internationally relates to refugee issues and I think there was tension with Bangladesh? But overall, this is not particularly aggressive external behaviour for the UNSC to be unanimously passing resolutions from evidence gathered in an inquiry about domestic issues.
Furthermore in relation to not fully participating in the international community, Myanmar is not yet a signatory to the Rome statute of the ICC (not the cricket council) and Than Shwe or whoever they wanted to prosecute could not be prosecuted simply because they’ve not signed up. There would have to be an uprising first, and then the next government in Myanmar could sign up and have people prosecuted — so as not to interfere with sovereignty. I am echoing (and greatly simplifying) this position from an argument made by Blessing Miles Tendi a while ago on the Guardian that answered calls for ZANU leadership to be prosecuted.
Nikken and Nice use Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Darfur as examples of cases that the UN have had commissions into previously, but I would think that these commissions would have been launched in regards to genocide which, to my understanding, is not happening in Myanmar. Additionally, in relation to this, the commission concerning Darfur and condemning Omar al-Bashir which ultimately lead to the ICC arrest warrant issued for him in March, Sudan became a signatory to the ICC in February (along with Zimbabwe).. Again, I have a limited and confused understanding, but this is how I think it works.
The UNSC is not a moral body, it is a body that keeps order. Some may consider maintaining order to be of moral value, but try telling that to a fellow wallowing in Junta sponsored destitution. Maybe what Nikken and Nice are looking for is an international body of virtuous intervention, something I feel sure they would say is long overdue too.
Sidh: Thanks. I had thought that you were referring to the March-April phone-ins. Any idea where the one for 25 January might be available? I googled a bit and couldn’t find it. Maybe it is blocked in Thailand?
The upcoming red shirt rally was, at one time, planned to begin on 24 June. That isn’t a coincidence.
I previously checked out the link to the Andrew Selth article that you’ve mentioned here, but as far as I can tell there’s no electronic version available on the site. Is this only available in print? Or is an electronic version accessible elsewhere?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
New Politics ready to party
Sorry, I was wrong about Somsak. He made that comment (about appointed MPs and honest PMs) back in September 2008, not recently.
New Politics ready to party
I do think it is good, in a way, that the PAD have been very clear about their beliefs and aims, no matter how radical some of them are. Even today, Somsak (the temporary leader of the PAD party) still maintains that some of the MPs should be appointed rather than elected. Somsak also added that three of the most honest PMs he’s seen (Anand, General Prem, can’t remember who’s the other one he mentioned) were appointed rather than elected. While all this sounds ridiculous to me, I still encourage the PAD party to stick to whatever they believe and make sure these issues are mentioned in their election campaigns. It’s a lot better than listening to politicians going on and on with the same boring promises about things that we all know are impossible to happen.
Of course we could argue that the PAD aren’t actually being that honest, like how they haven’t revealed who ‘really’ backs them, etc. But at least, to have a party with some sort of clear agenda on the Thai political scene is a very refreshing thing.
Lasang Awng Wa Group at the Manau
Hi Nicholas,
These photos are very interesting.
I am trying to find out more about Sipsongpanna etc for a possible fiction book.
Kyi May
Crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma
Patrick & Stephan,
From Article 13:
(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations
But given what I quoted earlier, doesn’t the Rome Statute contradict itself with this caveat?
How much of an obstacle is the Tatmadaw to the UNSC taking action? Could it be provocative? Could China, by voting for a referral, provoke a ‘cornered animal’ reaction? How will an arms embargo on Myanmar make it significantly less militarized?
To be honest, I thought with the UN discussing Myanmar frequently, altogether this would constitute an ‘inquiry’, but obviously not. A ‘Commission of Inquiry’ seems much more significant than I had thought, but it’s still depressing to think of how much bureaucracy has to be waded through to reach anything proactive being done. Hopefully with the UNSC having more experience with these situations, as outlined in the Harvard Law School report in the precedents section, means that they are more efficiently carried through.
How does the UN reconcile its values of national self determination vs good governance?
Crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma
Stephann,
I don’t see where what I’ve said is erroneous in relation to article five of the Rome statute, and given your points – there has possibly been an error in your reading of what I’ve written. I’m not sure whether what you’ve written is a critique of my comment or whether you are just commenting generally.
From Article 19 of the Rome Statute:
2. Challenges to the admissibility of a case on the grounds referred to in article 17 or challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court may be made by:
(c) A State from which acceptance of jurisdiction is required under article 12.
From Article 12
1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.
Myanmar is not a party to the statute on any level for the statute to have any applicability to Myanmar in relation to article 5. Where is what I’ve said erroneous? The ICC is not the UNSC!?
I didn’t say there couldn’t be a resolution called for a commission, I said maybe there could be a commission, and then questioned its usefulness which was related to my view on the sentiment of people looking from the outside to see immediate action. Sure, maybe there would be teeth spawned through a commission that document evidence for sanctions or eventually, criminal trials, but how are those teeth going to make an imprint without people in Myanmar overwhelmingly determining that those teeth should make an imprint?
In regards to intervention, the world summit fact sheet you’ve kindly linked states at the beginning of the Responsibility to Protect part with ‘Clear and unambiguous’. Responsibility to protect is an unclear and ambiguous term applied to four very clear actions in article five of the Rome Statute.
The instability caused by external governments ‘acting responsibly’ by intervening in the region would quite easily be tabled as irresponsible given the myriad of other military engagements and financial crises that UNSC governments are involved in at the moment. Is it not irresponsible of the UN to set out a ‘get out of jail’ reference for peoples treated inhumanely, without having the resources to pursue its objectives? Indeed, intervention could be least irresponsible for China – if China shared a more mutual global outlook with the US and European UNSC members.
However, looking for China to immediately act in accordance with a decision made at the world summit of 2005 is premature. Given China’s behaviour over the past 30 years, you surely cannot expect China to change or make an immediate exception to it’s whole foreign policy directive of non interference because of an unrealistic UNSC agreement made in 2005. Again, responsibility to protect is a flowery notion. I’d sign up to it too and even buy the superman cape, but that doesn’t mean I’d be running off to save people from their hells willy nilly just because I bought the cape and signed the paper. It would take internal will for me to do that. Maybe buying the cape and signing the paper signals a change of direction, but given the norm of non interference posturing, there would be many other hypocrisies to take care of before actually changing tack.
Are you suggesting that based on ‘Responsibility to Protect’, intervention can be made where there is any form of ‘crime against humanity’? Which crime against humanity is more significant than the other? Which should be the first on the list of crimes against humanity that the UNSC decides to act on, or should they act on all of them at once as the moral beacons of humanity?! The UNSC could even ‘act responsibly’ with the USA and water boarding! The facetious possibilities here are probably endless.
Furthermore, I don’t think the UN is going to give precedence to the notion of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ over a nations sovereign right to self determine. What sort of peace or justice would we have if some external body decided we needed to be ‘protected’? Perhaps we’d have the sort of peace and justice that is found in Myanmar today….
Stephan, perhaps what you’ve written is blunt out of the frustration for action – and I’m sorry if this is antagonistic. I don’t see how it’s possible to be hopeful in relation to this. I’d like to be hopeful though.
Crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma
This op-ed by Niken and Nice is based on a report by Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program which was commissioned by them and three other jurists, Richard Goldstone (South Africa), Patricia Wald (U.S.), and Ganzorig Gombosuren (Mongolia). The report (http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/hrp/newsid=59.html), “Crimes in Burma,” compiles information from UN bodies exclusively and comes to the conclusion that human rights abuses in Burma are widespread, systematic, and part of state policy. The recommendation for a Commission of Inquiry is based on the legal analysis that the nature of these abuses may constitute crimes against humanity and war crimes which are prosecutable under international law.
The report is significant for several reasons. There is actually a lot of documentation of the human rights violations, much of it collected at great risk by local community based organizations. Human rights report from these groups get dismissed (unfairly, I think) for bias since they come from the communities experiencing the violence. Calling for the UN to act based exclusively on the reports that the UN itself has generated takes that excuse not to act off the table. As Stephen rightly points out, the UN Security Council can authorize a Commission of Inquiry.
Where that would lead is not clear, nor should it be at this point. There is enough evidence to suspect that the violence in Burma rises to the level of crimes which have been determined to be so severe they are of concern to all of humanity. A Commission of Inquiry is designed to come to an official determination about that suspicion and to recommend ways forward. A whole range of options beyond any kind of prosecutorial action could then be considered which are difficult to push for now: an arms embargo, targeted sanctions against those responsible for the crimes, etc.. There is also the issue of the Right to Truth, which is articulated in the UN’s Updated Principles on Impunity (see http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1&Lang=E), meaning that knowing what is occurring, for the sake of knowing (especially on the part of victims and their loved ones) is a right in and of itself.
Internal resettlement in Laos: a response
It may be late to come to this party, but the intervening period has not been kind to High’s position. Jim was correct that the issue was quite clear in terms of the impact of resettlement on maternal and child health, mortality, nutrition, domestic violence, and numerous other social indicators. The impact of the ill-conceived and badly executed opium eradication policy has only reinforced the previous weight of evidence. That not every resettlement is totally disasterous is rather like saying not every patient dies after being bled with leeches. It may be true, but hardly a good recommendation for quality medical practice. In reading Baird & Shoemaker (either the article or the original paper), I was never under the impression that they sought to keep people in the hills against their will. The real issue is allowing uncoerced choice. That some resettled people are hopeful is a good thing, but many more are not. For those advocating a benign view of most resettlement in Laos, it is the triumph of hope over experience.
Superstition and the Danok Paya collapse
New Mandala guest contributor Kyaw Kyaw has an excellent analysis of Danok and other supernatural recent happenings in Myanmar, over on Crikey:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/03/letter-from-myanmar-of-generals-dissidents-and-diamonds/
Superstition and the Danok Paya collapse
wow,
this happening was very amazing one. the old pagoda was already a legentry and connected to unvisible world, I mean Royal Ghosts.the pagoda site was named TIKE GROUND, under world kingdom.The name Danok was “pulling sward from human body after bettle.People call this event due to Saturn .the pagoda name.,place name,,township names are in Saturn names.the pagoda also collepsed on Saturday.So this was bad sign for current kingdom in myanmar.the ruling kingdom are building so many pagodas to grantee their powers,but Unvisible powers were like that.I think they cant rule unseen world.
New Politics ready to party
Comment #1,
I am glad you can see honesty in the PAD, even though the leadership ( Sondhi etc) are amongst the most corrupt of the corrupt elite.
It just doesn’t fit, no matter which way you want to jam it.
Crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma
There are a number of errors in your post, Column. Much can be clarified by reading the Rome Statute.
1. The UN Security Council can issue a resolution calling for a Commission of Inquiry into Crimes against Humanity in Burma/Myanmar without the country being a signatory to the Rome Statute.
2. Crimes against Humanity were universally accepted at the 2005 UN World Summit as one of four crimes falling under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine for which the UNSC may take action.
3. China may very well block such a resolution. However, given its acceptance of the R2P doctrine, China could not justify its veto on the grounds that Crimes against Humanity are an internal issue.
The question then becomes whether there are/were Crimes against Humanity committed in Burma. Here is a relevant quotes:
However, a relevant questions may by whether a Commission of Inquiry would a positive step for Burma. The Peace vs. Justice debate surrounding ICC action in Africa would be a relevant point of comparison.
New Politics ready to party
3 June 2009
Not to beat a dead horse, but the idea that the PAD did everything they could to topple three democratically elected governments is unfairly overly simplistic, if that is what is being implied. Those three so-called democratically elected governments were nothing short of puppet clones put into office by Thaksin’s machinery – whether that machinery be overwhelming public support for his lying schemes or what many assume to be honest elections.
The PAD, I believe, if we look at the really long term and what Thailand is and has been devoid of, is change to a relatively honest form of government. Of course, in government per se who is going to achieve this?…but on the other hand, let’s not sell the PAD short because they are not in and of themselves the needed change but only part of it.
PAD tries a political party
@les abey #10
and what I am trying to tell you is – that it was NOT PAD who as achieved something, but rather all those who were behind them. you though continue being stubborn and say that it is PAD who has achieved something.
PAD is NOTHING, I repeat.
and it has already realized that itself quite well – even before attempt on Sondhi’s life, and especially after they have voiced it themselves, that they were USED by those whoever used them, and then discarded.
yet you continue trying to push on the idea that PAD is something …
it is totally FAKE as a political movement, only may be as some sort of millenarian fundementalist sect – at MOST. they don’t even have any substantial political agenda even now, when they already decided to become a political party, rather than some anarchist (or more precisely fascist) mob as they are. they were pulled together by a giant propaganda machine (ASTV) which now is almost bankrupt (on their website Chamlong himself has placed add asking people to make donations to pay salary to staff) and therefore very unlikely to be as sucessful in mass-brainwashing as last year, when they had almost UNLIMITED funds.
so, now they are able to continue existing ONLY because there are still some who consider them useful.
you comparing PAD and UDD is totally unappropriate. because one is a reactioany anti-democratic (aka “New politics”) force comprised by “muddle-class” and elitist and another is a grass-root movement – using your own words “whether you like it or not” – which naturally has NO ANY such support of any of those powerful backers.
you say “you can say that the red-shirts had support from crooked politicians, police, gangsters and Thaksin’s wealth and friends but didn’t manage to achieve much at all”
well, first of all – I would NOT say that, it is you who “can say” that.
second – please name those who support “red-shirts” ?
“Thaksin’s wealth” ? any realiable sources of reference?
so, “red-shirts”/ UDD do NOT have any such GIANT backing and financial support as PAD DID have (lat year – not any longer, as now).
also UDD are supressed and practically and literally enslaved people in they own country by those very their country-men who comprise and support PAD.
therefore it is not at all surprising that as you say they “didn’t manage to achieve much at all” !!!
of course ! and they will not achieve anything for many more years. because it will take GENERATIONS to change their submissive and obedient mindset. although the fact they they now at least DARE to raise their voices – it is already a huge achievement !
but of course I bet you do not realise this achievement at all, or concsiously overlook it.
I suggest you read for example books by Pira Sudham (as “Moonson country” and “Forces of karma”) to at least get SOME idea of the peasants and slaves mentality, even perhaps now still. THEN perhaps, may be, you will get some realization of the UDD’s ACHIEVEMENT of much greater scale than PAD could ever accomplish: the awakening of the grassroot people and CHANGE in their “maimed minds” as P. Sudham terms it.
and this change is that very “genie” which has came out of the bottle and not going back.
taking into consideration the “culture” (aka brutal propaganda and brainwashing of “reconciliation, unity, non-violence”) which tells the peasants and common people to bow down and accept their fate, as well as the ruthless power of thail military and all those blood-suckers (middlemen, corporations, money lenders, all sorts of mafia etc) – it will take a very long time before the real change will happen (aka social welfare state, as at very least in UK) !
but the fact is : this change is INEVITABLE, irreversible and unstoppable now.
that is why we can see so much depserate efforts by army (ISOC) and Amart to control all the media more than ever, as well as BRUTAL supression of protesters by “Democrat” government ! because all those blood-suckers DO KNOW (unlike you) this achivement of UDD : the CHANGE in the mentality of slaves ! and what the consiquence for “masters” this change will bring.
so, you can go on believing that PAD has achieve something. 😀
hopefully there will emerge some INTELLIGENT and progressive people among the middle-class, elite and perhaps even military (well, Chamlong after all, even being a former General himself, has made SOME help back in 91, while he was still pro-democratic – although now I wonder – was he ever at all ?) .
let’s hope it will be so, and Thailand will be able to skip the painful (or more exactly – bloody) development stage as elsewhere, most recently in Cambodia under Pol Pot, when peasants has mass-slaughtered all the blood-suckers.
I really do help Thailand can learn from the history lessons provided by examples of pther countries.
however the chance is very slim – seeign the very strong reactionary clashback time and again, whenever “voiceless” dare to attempt to raise their voice.
$ufficiency economy
@ ralph kramden, c.7
& @ Srithanochai, c.8
i prefer work to arguments. as i said, let’s talk ab it in 2-5 years.
Crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma
Legally, there are obvious grounds for a range of charges against the regime. These can be under the Torture convention (which nearly got Pinochet), under the ICC (which can be used for non-signatories like Sudan if – and a big if – the UNSC approves) or in the future when the convention on Enforced Disappearances comes into force. There are must more vague grounds on genocide, but it would be difficult 9but not impossible) to prove that the regime intends to destroy an ethnical group. The UNSC can act under Chapter 7 powers if they consider there are threats to international peace and security – refugee flows across borders, widespread and systematic human rights violations, border violations.
However, politically none of these actions are likely to occur. China and perhaps Russia will veto any UNSC action, which wipes out the ICC and chapter 7 powers. The Convention against torture (CAT) is more hopeful: if a member of the regime, for whom there is good evidence that they commissioned or allowed torture to occur, is in any country that has agreed to it, then he can be arrested. Countries now include Thailand, but not Singapore. These countries can be requested by a third State to either try these pople, or extradite them to a coutry which will try them. But who would accept? Spain would if it was a Latin American Country. USA and England won’t, as won’t any ASEAN country, Australia rather gutless when it come to something like this.
A commission can be set up by anybody. The UN is rather reluctant about entering these now – far too expensive and not widely supported. If ASEAN had a commission you could almost write the findings now – concern, but no consequences
Superstition and the Danok Paya collapse
Well it would undoubtedly be better for Burma for its population to assert itself through weight of numbers or logical argument. In a situation where that is not at all possible, let he/she who lives by superstition also succumb to it. Hell might actually be something more like wallowing in the cess of one’s own stupidity and greed than a place of eternal damnation. In any case, let the Junta rot in it!
Burmese Hajj mission
Hi Stephen,
I meant to mention that. No – I don’t think you can obtain a (free) electronic version of that paper, but you should be able to access it electronically via public or university library. It’s also available in print from ANU. Sorry I can’t send any links I don’t have proper access here in Burma. What I could find was a link (you’ll need to be going through a library system with access) to another Selth paper “Burma’s Muslims and the War on Terror” which is a work that is based on the paper I originally suggested.
Dylan
Crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma
Maybe there can be a commission into crimes against humanity in Burma, but the UNSC is never going to do anything with the inquiry because Myanmar poses little, if any threat to other nations. An official commission or inquiry would determine that there were crimes against humanity being committed officially in a Humphrey Appleby sort of way. The threat that Myanmar does pose internationally relates to refugee issues and I think there was tension with Bangladesh? But overall, this is not particularly aggressive external behaviour for the UNSC to be unanimously passing resolutions from evidence gathered in an inquiry about domestic issues.
Furthermore in relation to not fully participating in the international community, Myanmar is not yet a signatory to the Rome statute of the ICC (not the cricket council) and Than Shwe or whoever they wanted to prosecute could not be prosecuted simply because they’ve not signed up. There would have to be an uprising first, and then the next government in Myanmar could sign up and have people prosecuted — so as not to interfere with sovereignty. I am echoing (and greatly simplifying) this position from an argument made by Blessing Miles Tendi a while ago on the Guardian that answered calls for ZANU leadership to be prosecuted.
Nikken and Nice use Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Darfur as examples of cases that the UN have had commissions into previously, but I would think that these commissions would have been launched in regards to genocide which, to my understanding, is not happening in Myanmar. Additionally, in relation to this, the commission concerning Darfur and condemning Omar al-Bashir which ultimately lead to the ICC arrest warrant issued for him in March, Sudan became a signatory to the ICC in February (along with Zimbabwe).. Again, I have a limited and confused understanding, but this is how I think it works.
The UNSC is not a moral body, it is a body that keeps order. Some may consider maintaining order to be of moral value, but try telling that to a fellow wallowing in Junta sponsored destitution. Maybe what Nikken and Nice are looking for is an international body of virtuous intervention, something I feel sure they would say is long overdue too.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Sidh: Thanks. I had thought that you were referring to the March-April phone-ins. Any idea where the one for 25 January might be available? I googled a bit and couldn’t find it. Maybe it is blocked in Thailand?
The upcoming red shirt rally was, at one time, planned to begin on 24 June. That isn’t a coincidence.
Burmese Hajj mission
Dylan,
I previously checked out the link to the Andrew Selth article that you’ve mentioned here, but as far as I can tell there’s no electronic version available on the site. Is this only available in print? Or is an electronic version accessible elsewhere?