Posted by: “Edith Mirante” maje@hevanet.com   emirante
Tue Jan 6, 2009 10:04 am (PST)

January 5, The Nation (Thailand)
Understanding new Thai policy towards Burma – Kavi Chongkittavorn

AFTER EIGHT YEARS, it will not be easy to undo the Thai foreign policy towards Burma initiated by the Thaksin-led government and its nominees. A complete overhaul of the Burma policy is out of the question. However, some major shifts by the current government could be forthcoming that would firm up bilateral ties and strengthen Bangkok’s voice on Burma within Asean. Additional principled guidelines, drawing from the Asean Charter, are imperative aimed at supporting the international community’s effort to promote an open society there.

Gone quickly would be the preponderance of one-man decisions on key policies, especially those dealing with cross-border security, investment and trade cooperation.

In the past few years, Thailand has been rather compromising in its security considerations in exchange for economic benefits, which often went to individuals rather than the country as a whole. In particular,
from 2001 to 2006, the Thai side allowed the Burmese side greater leeway along the 2004-km border such as issues related to Burmese migrant workers, illegal cross-border activities and harassment of minorities and Burmese exiles.

Picking up the pieces of Burmese policy where the Democrat-led government left off in early 2001, this time around the Thai foreign policy will be decided in a transparent way without any hanky panky as in the past. Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said succinctly that from now on, Thailand will deal with Burma in a straightforward manner without any dubious deals or transactions based on “four-eye meetings”, which was the trademark of Thaksin’s personalised diplomacy.

Prior to the return of the Democrat-led government, Thai-Burmese relations were very superficially closed, representing no real national agenda.  Thai leaders were myopic, deluded in thinking that defending the Burmese regime within Asean and the international community would help them win favours from the junta leaders and subsequently secure the country’s future energy and natural resources need. Indeed, the energy dependence on Burma was exaggerated to justify Thailand’s closer ties with Burma, including its passivity.

Throughout the year 1999-2000, before Thaksin came to power, the Burmese people’s struggle for democracy and open society was at its peak with all the support of the international community. Asean was far more united as far as peer pressure on Burma was concerned. Thailand dutifully played the leading role on Burma throughout by bringing in the international community. Former foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan, currently the Asean secretary-general, pushed Asean to engage in enhanced dialogue with Burma as well as emerging transnational issues affecting the region.

However, soon after the arrival of the Thaksin-led government in early 2001, Thai policy towards Burma turned upside down. After a few weeks of border tension and tough talks on Burma’s role on cross-border illegal drugs trade, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra unexpectedly softened his Burmese policy, much to the chagrin of the international community. Since then, Thailand’s credibility on Burma has disappeared.

During the Cambodian conflict, Thailand’s role in Asean as a frontline state was well recognised as it was pursued based on the region’s interest, not tempered with vested personal interests. Asean helped to
internationalise the conflict playing out at the UN continuously for nearly a decade, which gave Asean an international voice, before the Paris peace agreement in 1989. In Burma’s case, it was the opposite. Thailand failed miserably to assert itself in the Asean overall approaches albeit it was the most affected by the Burmese growing oppression. Bangkok’s willingness to play second fiddle to Burma further divided Asean and stymied broader cooperation with international community.

Subsequent revelations by Surakiart Sathiratai, foreign minister in the Thaksin government, showed that investment and commercial deals with Burma at that time were not honest as they were coaxed with conflict of interest.

The scandal over the Export and Import Bank of Thailand’s Bt4-billion loan to the junta was just one example. Like rubbing more salt into the wounds, former prime ministers Samak Sundravej and Somchai Wongsawat made ridiculous remarks defending Burma.

Samak was the most embarrassing as he praised the military junta leaders as peace-loving leaders and boasted about their closed friendship. Under the Surayud Chulanont government (2006-7), Thailand maintained a strict policy of no new contacts or improvement of existing ties.

Burma could have made a transition to democracy if the Thai governments in question had not indulged in personalising, nationalising and making the Burmese problem bilateral. The leader’s personal and group interests linked to Burma weakened not only Thai credibility, it also belittled Bangkok’s voice within Asean. That helps explain why in the absence of a Thai role, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia have become more pro-active in shaping the grouping’s views and positions on Burma.

Coming to power at this juncture poses serious challenges to both Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Foreign Minister Kasit on Burmese policy. They have to revitalise and synergise the role of Thailand, Asean and the international community to move the situation in Burma forward.

At present, the Asean Charter, imperfect as it is, will serve as a useful tool to encourage reluctant Asean countries to get more involved on issues of human rights and democracy. The rumblings over the charter’s ratification in Indonesia and Philippines were indicative of the strong desire for such endeavour.

As the Asean chair, Thai leaders will adopt a comprehensive strategy on Burma that put together various parts and needs from within region. Furthermore, this strategy must also work in tandem with the current
international efforts, especially through the offices of the United Nations and related agencies and its special envoy.

After all, the Burmese quagmire is not the problem of any particular country or regional community. It must be kept at the multilateral level so that all stakeholders can work together to end the current impasse and sufferings.

 

Burma Fuels Thailand, Bangkok Post

Posted by: “Edith Mirante”

Tue Apr 8, 2008 1:10 pm (PDT)
April 8, Bangkok Post
Burma fuels Thailand

Natural gas exports to Thailand alone earned the country $2.7 billion,accounting for a 2007 trade surplus of $3.1 billion.

In 2007, Burma’s total trade hit an historic peak of $8.7 billion, splitinto 5.9 billion exports and 2.8 billion in imports, leaving the countrywith a trade surplus of $3.1 billion, said the Myanmar Times weekly, citing government officials.

Burma’s exports last year were driven primarily by natural gas, which earned the impoverished country $2.7 billion, or 45 per cent of its total exports.

“The major reason why Burma’s trade volume is increasing is the massive contribution form the energy sector – the export of natural gas to Thailand,” said Maung Maung, an economist and researcher from Economic Studies and Research Institute, the Union of Burma Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industries (UMFCCI).

Natural gas exports have risen dramatically since 2002, when Burma first opened a pipeline to deliver gas from offshore reserves in the Gulf of Martaban to Thailand.

“As a result, Burma has enjoyed consecutive trade surplus since 2002,” said Burma’s Commerce Minister Brigadier General Tin Naing Thein in a recent interview.

Besides natural gas, Burma’s main export items last year included agricultural products, amounting to $572 million in earnings, gems and jewellery to 561 million, and fishery products to 366 million.

The country’s main imports were fuel, which cost $471 million, followed by textiles at $276 million, palm oil at $251 million, machinery parts at $243 million, and automobiles at $192 million.

Most multilateral lenders such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank severed their programmes with Burma in 1988 following a brutal military crackdown on a pro-democracy movement that left more than 3,000 people dead.

The US forbade its private sector from investing in the country in the early 1990s, after the ruling junta refused to acknowledge the outcome of the 1990 general election, and the European Union has placed visa restrictions on the regime’s rulers.

US and EU sanctions were tightened after another crackdown on protesters in September, when a sudden doubling of fuel prices prompted demonstrators, led by Buddhist monks, to take to the street on Rangoon.

The latest incident left at least 31 dead, according to the official media. (dpa)

Edith Mirante is the author of Down the Rat Hole: Adventures Underground on Burma’s Frontiers and Burmese Looking Glass. The above article was first posted on her newsgroup burmaoil@yahoo.com

 

Total & Kouchner see eye to eye on Burma – Oliver Dours

March 25, Bakchich.info
Posted by: Edith Mirante

maje@hevanet.com emirante

Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:58 pm (PDT)

In Asia, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs never misses a chance to lend a hand to his pals at Total, who are getting bogged down in the Buddhist monks’ rebellion.

Total’s CEO, Christophe de Margerie, is determined to protect his company’s assets in Burma. On October 16, 2007, he rambled somewhat senselessly before the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs Commission. In answer to a question put by Commission Chair Axel Poniatowski, de Margerie claimed that neither Aung San Suu Kyi nor representatives of the Burmese opposition had ever, “asked Total to leave.” He also boasted about the “opinion shared by a great number of people on the spot (i.e. in Burma) as well as all of the eyewitnesses who have been there, that Total’s activities are essential, and should be sustained in the interests of the Burmese people, for whom they are directly beneficial.”

Bizarre notions that the Burmese Prime Minister-in-exile, Dr. Sein Win, and his UN representative, Than Htun were quick to dispel during their recent stay in Paris, late last October. In actual fact, as far back as 1992, Burmese pro-democracy forces asked Total to abandon its project for a natural-gas pipeline from Burma to Thailand to produce electricity. To make matters worse, since it was put into service in 2000, they have never stopped pleading for the suspension of this financial windfall, which has
already brought in some $3 billion to the Burmese generals’ regime. For the opposition, it is abundantly clear that Total has been indeed been essential… to the change in the junta’s status on the international scene, from disreputable “narco-dictatorship” to the more presentable “gas-pipeline-dictatorship.” At a press conference in Paris last
October, Messrs. Sein Win and Than Htun expressed surprise that the letter they had
addressed to the French government just before the meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg on October 8 had not been taken into account. In it, the Burmese government-in-exile requested the establishment of effective sanctions – which inevitably meant seizure or international control of natural-gas revenues. In actual fact, the European Ministers made haste to exclude fossil fuels from the scope of the sanctions. Decision which can surely be blamed on pressure from the French.

When asked, “Who is your leader ?”, certain monks have been known to confess under torture, “His name is Siddhartha.” As the agitator’s identity and description was passed through the ranks of the uniformed hierarchy, in order to establish a warrant for his arrest anywhere in the country, one officer – slightly cleverer than the rest – realized that Siddhartha is the name of the historical Buddha born 2,500 years ago in
Kapilavastu, now part of Nepal…

To console his woes, Christophe de Margerie can always go sob on Bernard Kouchner’s shoulders : after all, once upon a time, the high-spirited French Minister of Foreign Affairs was a consultant for Total-Burma. This week, the French doctor performed a strange belly dance in a neighboringcountry he was visiting. In Singapore on October 29, he came up with another suggestion based more on smoke and mirrors than true substance : a funding project for Burma that would allow the international community to finance micro-credits to assist the country’s development, on condition that the junta become more democratic. All under the auspices of the World Bank… which can no longer operate in Burma since the Americans vetoed it.

On October 30, 2007, in Bangkok, Kouchner laid it on even thicker by singing the praises of Total’s pipeline, which, he said, was beneficial for the people of Burma and Thailand. And again, on October 31 in Beijing, he tried to sweet talk Chinese leaders – to get them to reason with their Burmese protégés – by offhandedly mentioning that French president Nicolas Sarkozy could be convinced not to receive the Dalai Lama during his planned visit to Paris in August 2008. Unlike a certain George W. Bush. During his visit to Beijing in December 2007, President Sarkozy asked his Chinese counterpart to intercede with his Burmese protégés in order to have visas granted to Bernard Kouchner and Rama Yade, his Secretary of Human Rights –raising snickers in diplomatic circles around the region, but otherwise to no avail…

Translated by: Regan Kramer

__________

========================================================

EarthRights International has an open letter to the CEO of Chevron,
Dave O’Reilly, and a petition to him, regarding the brutal crackdown on
peaceful protests in Burma:
The Petition to sign is here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/urgeChev/petition.html