While noting the recent actions taken by the Government of Myanmar, members of the Group also further encouraged it to work more closely with and respond more positively with the United Nations good offices to address key issues of concern to the international community, especially the release of political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and the initiation of an all-inclusive dialogue between the Government and the opposition. Members of the Group encouraged all parties in Myanmar to seize the opportunity of the UN good offices, while stressing the responsibility of the Myanmar Government to demonstrate its stated commitment to cooperation with the good offices through further tangible results.

Extracts: “What I would say very clearly and without brooking any compromise is that the engagement of the Secretary-General has been decisive in the humanitarian progress which has been made and that his continued engagement is, I think, essential in order to achieve further progress. The precise nature of that engagement is for him, but I think I speak for all the Friends of Burma and anyone sensible who looks at the situation there in saying that the direct engagement of the Secretary-General is very much to be welcomed and is essential to progress.

 I think that the most important decision was for the UN’s role embodied in the Secretary-General and his Special Adviser needs to remain active and engaged. I hope that there are no Governments who would say they were “on the side of the Junta” in your [a correspondent's] words, of the regime, I would hope that all members of the Security Council would be on the side of the people of Burma who have suffered a humanitarian trauma of quite incalculable proportions and suffer from a brutal political regime as well. Our very strong view is that the basic demands of the Security Council for the release of political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi, for an end to the oppression of the minorities and for a proper reconciliation process that builds an inclusive political system are the absolute essentials, not just for political progress but for economic and social progress as well and that’s what the people of Burma deserve……

If there was a magic solution to this, someone would have waved their magic wand already. The truth is that the regime holds on to power jealously, it guards the power it has, and it’s vital that first, we don’t fall for the electoral and constitutional facade which has been erected over the last year, and second, that  the UN remains determined in its support for the UN Security Council Resolutions * that have been passed, and that’s what the Secretary-General’s very difficult role is, but it’s one he’s carrying out with huge skill and also the role of the Special Envoy.”

* David Miliband was no doubt referring to the two UN Security Council Presidential Statements and one Press Statement which have been agreed. The only draft Resolution on Myanmar was vetoed in January 2007 by China and Russia.

Extracts:   “The Secretary-General played a critical role in helping the Myanmar people after Cyclone Nargis, it was a difficult process which ASEAN played a critical role in. It worked out very well, there was no second wave of deaths or disease or starvation, and in that cooperation there’s hope for the future. We know it’s going to be a difficult, tortuous process, but at least there’s a timetable to the Roadmap now……  

“There’s also a view among a number of us that the economic agenda should not be neglected. In a deadlock we can often enable new paths to be opened up with economic development, and economic development has a way of dissolving all divisions, all differences, giving hope to the people, giving a sense of optimism for the future. This is something about which there is no agreement among some countries, obviously, because there’s still an embargo going on, but certainly from Myanmar’s neighbours, including ASEAN, we see economic engagement as something which continues to be important and we will encourage Myanmar on the road of economic reform and opening up……..

Derek Tonkin, Chairman of Network Myanmar  [click for pdf version]

An article by Wai Moe of “The Irrawaddy” has attracted my attention. Leaked documents, presumably from Nay Pyi Taw, are a rarity, so that a 14 page document classified "Confidential" and claiming to be the “Minutes” of a briefing session delivered by the Home Affairs Minister Maj-Gen Maung Oo in July 2008 was, I felt, well worth close attention.   

Taking the article section by section and commenting in turn on each section, we should note:

Extract: Burma’s military leaders know they cannot stand alone in the world, but will react according to each situation with a view to balancing their relations with the world’s superpowers, said Home Affairs Minister Maj-Gen Maung Oo at a meeting of his ministers in July. According to a confidential document acquired recently by The Irrawaddy detailing the minutes of a July 6 meeting, Home Ministry officials were briefed on relations with the United States, China and Indonesia, as well as the junta’s policy toward the 2010 elections, the National League for Democracy (NLD) and how the junta would react to future demonstrations.” According to the leaked minutes of the meeting, Maj-Gen Maung Oo told Home Ministry officials that in reaction to the global influence of the US and the West, Burma would continue to pursue “strong relations” with China, but that didn't mean that the junta was pro-Beijing. “In the modern world, we cannot stand alone,” Maung Oo reportedly said.

Comment: That the Home Affairs Minister gave a briefing on foreign policy issues might surprise many. Ministers, in any case, do not normally give briefings themselves, but invite departmental experts to make the presentation, and then add their comments. The Minister is not known for his foreign policy expertise, and it is not known to me who his “Ministers” might be as he only has one Deputy Minister, Brig-Gen Phone Swe.

Extract: The leaked document also revealed that the regime plans to deploy riot police in the event of future protests or civil unrest. “The international community criticized us for using the armed forces to crack down on [last September’s] demonstrators,” the Home Minister is quoted as saying. “Therefore we need to reorganize our riot police.” He also warned officials to be prepared for the coming elections in 2010. On foreign policy, Maung Oo criticized the US for “using humanitarian issues and democracy as a policy to overthrow governments that it disliked.” Maung Oo slammed the US for using the UN and the “Responsibility to Protect” paradigm as part of an agenda to accuse the Burmese government of “Crimes against Humanity.” He also said the UN and associate international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) were “puppets” of the US and the CIA. According to the minutes of the meeting, Maung Oo forewarned his subordinates of the possibility of a third UN Security Council resolution on Burma and subsequent economic sanctions and an embargo. “In the event of a third presidential statement,” Maung Oo said. “There could be a resolution that the 192 members of the UN will have to follow-led by the US.”

                  Post Cyclone Nargis scenes from the Ayerawady Delta by Oliver Esser Soe Thet and Ruedi Weber

Comment: In point of fact, the US is not all that keen on the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. It was rather the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner who pressed the point in the Security Council, and while other Members were willing at least to receive a briefing on the relevance of R2P relating to the devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis, the ultimate consensus was that the application of R2P was not relevant, and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates went so far as to say on 1 June that he and other regional defence ministers meeting in Singapore were opposed to any plan to violate Burmese sovereignty and forcibly supply relief supplies. Nor has the US Government ever accused the Burmese Government of “crimes against humanity” which has particular implications, like “genocide”, and which could entail international repercussions. The UN Security Council in its Resolution 1674 of 2006 affirmed its responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.  Robert Gates did however claim there had been “criminal neglect” on the grounds that tens of thousands of people had reportedly died because relief aid had been rejected, though such a figure has never been confirmed and indeed now appears to have been unsubstantiated. Quite why there might be a “third presidential statement” which would be, or could be a “resolution” which UN members would have to follow is likewise not clear when China and Russia have already exercised their veto at the time of a January 2007 draft Resolution. Foreign affairs may not be the Minister’s strong point, but I doubt he would have made such a mistake as to confuse non-binding PRSTs (Presidential Statements) with Security Council Resolutions which could be binding and lead to enforcement measures (sanctions) in the event of non-compliance provided the Resolution is approved under Article VII of the UN Charter as a threat to the peace.  

Extract: According to the 14-page document, Maung Oo went on to accuse the US, the UN and INGOs of pushing Burma to the top of their agendas. On the Cyclone Nargis disaster, the home minister accused US relief items of providing aid to the victims “just for show” and said the US only delivered drinking water, instant noodles and medicine. The minister is reported to have accused international aid agencies of spending humanitarian aid money on themselves and not on the cyclone victims. “We told them to send construction materials instead of instant food,” Maung Oo continued. “But nobody did.” He also expressed the regime's skepticism and resentment that aid was not delivered through government channels, so the authorities could not see what was being delivered.

Comment: The Minister would then have taken comfort that President Bush's speech to the UN General Assembly on 23 September managed only one reference to Burma: “There should be a stronger effort to help the people of Burma live free of the repression they have suffered for too long.” , though there were 30 references to terror and terrorism, which convinces me that the US is more concerned with the latter than the former. Home Affairs officials attending the meeting would also be aware even more than the Minister of the detail and diversity of US Cyclone Nargis Assistance to Myanmar, amounting to some US$ 28,506,180 across the broad spectrum of materials, equipment and food aid. Ministers are not normally in the habit of giving their expert officials inaccurate data.  

Extract: Regarding the US naval ships’ inability to deliver aid to cyclone survivors in the Irrawaddy delta, Maung Oo is reported as saying that the Burmese junta denied the request because the regime believed the US military would find an excuse not to leave until after the 2010 elections. He also pointed out that although the Burmese government calculated that about US $11.7 billion was needed in relief after Cyclone Nargis, the Tripartite Core Group - comprising the UN, Asean and the Burmese regime - only approved about $0.9 billion in aid, which was 12 times the difference of the junta’s calculations.

                             HMS Westminster (left) being resupplied by USS Essex  -  Le Mistral (right) with escorts  

Comment: There would be few people in either Myanmar or outside who might have thought that the denial of the offer of relief assistance by the US Navy, as well as by the UK and France, had anything to do with the 2010 Elections. These elections were dependent on the results of the Referendum on the new Constitution which was not completed until 24 May 2008 and the Constitution itself was not ratified until 29 May 2008. The Burmese refusal to accept US, British and French aid had everything to do with Burmese concerns about the real and immediate intentions of two amphibious assault vessels (USS Essex and  “Le Mistral”), one British frigate HMS Westminster, one US destroyer and two US naval supply vessels off the coast of Myanmar which caused the Burmese Armed Forces, according to the Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo, to deploy in defence, to the detriment of its relief and rehabilitation tasking in the Delta. The US$ 11.7 billion originally estimated was seen as a purely ball-park figure for longer term rehabilitation and construction, later revised by the ASEAN-Myanmar-UN PONJA Group down to US$ 4 billion. There was never any suggestion that the emergency relief figure represented any longer-term commitment, which is likely to be the subject of tough bargaining. 

Extract: The Ministry’s minutes of the July 6 meeting also make reference to the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD). Maung Oo reportedly said the regime was “not scared” of the opposition winning the election, but said that they would have to be careful because the party was backed by the US, British and French embassies. According to the leaked document, the home minister also referred to the diplomatic standoff between Burma and Indonesia. He reportedly confirmed that there were currently no relations between the two countries at an ambassadorial level and that the first step was for the Indonesian parliament to endorse Burma's ambassador to Jakarta.  

Comment: I would not have thought that any backing by the US, British and French Embassies in Yangon was of any consequence with respect to the results of any elections held in 2010. Nor would the passing hiccup over the appointment of a new Burmese Ambassador to Jakarta, U Nyan Lynn, who has already presented his credentials, and which was caused by the decision of the Indonesian House of Representatives to “delay” his agrément, appear to have influenced Indonesian support in any way for critical and continuing engagement with Myanmar in the UN context and Indonesian determination to work with Myanmar in the search for solutions to outstanding problems. There are excellent reasons why China, India, Indonesia, Myanmar and the UN comprise the “Focus Group” on Myanmar in the United Nations.  

Conclusions  

Frankly, I am not sure what to make of this report in “The Irrawaddy”. It seems inherently unlikely that the Home Affairs Minister would have said many of the things he is reported to have said to his officials. The “Minutes” of the meeting seem to have been prepared in the first person, and in rather colloquial style, which is not the way that records are normally kept. The Minister also devoted considerable attention to foreign affairs issues which are outside his ministerial remit.

It would in the circumstances not be unreasonable to ask to what extent the document is genuine. It seems designed to aggravate relations between the US and Burmese Governments, between Myanmar and Indonesia, as well as with the UN and INGOs. Such objectives would not be in the  Burmese Government’s best interests. Ministers do not normally give briefings to departmental experts which cover both general policy and technical issues, though departmental experts would normally welcome the political gloss which Ministers might need to give. It is I suppose possible that there was a Cabinet document prepared for the use of all Ministers to brief their departments, but in that case the document would not have been a record of a meeting in the first person.

All in all, a very strange affair. “The Irrawaddy” might feel they should offer a note of clarification, as my scepticism about the document knows no bounds. Indeed, my own conclusion is that the article is a mischievous piece of disinformation, but by whom I am not sure. Maybe it is designed simply to cause confusion.