American Enterprise Institute

October 16, 2007

[Edited transcript from audio tapes]

11:45 a.m	Registration and luncheon
12:00 p.m.	Panelists:	Dan Blumenthal, AEI
		Aung Din, U.S. Campaign for Burma
		Tom Malinowski, Human Rights Watch
		Bo Hla Tint, National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma
	Moderator:	Joshua Muravchik, AEI
1:30	Adjournment

Proceedings:

Joshua Muravchik:  Good afternoon.  I’m Joshua Muravchik of AEI and I have the honor of being the moderator of this discussion.  Thank you, thank you all for coming.  Sorry for the discomfort of making you eat lunch on your laps because we have a shortage of space, but I hope you all enjoyed the food which I thought was pretty good.

 I want to thank also the four very important speakers that have agreed to speak to us this afternoon.  I also want to thank Charlie Szrom, my assistant, who is the man who put this event together.  Charlie has been with AEI just for a couple of months and he has been a fabulous addition to the AEI staff.  I’m very grateful to have you, Charlie, and thank you for organizing this event.

 A couple of weeks ago, I got an Internet e-mail from a group that I had never heard of before.  I do get occasional e-mails from various Burmese organizations.  This was from a group called AVAAZ.  I could not recognize the term and I assumed that it was a Burmese word and it said, “Please sign our petition.  We are trying to get a million signatures on a petition to support the monks who are protesting.  And please circulate it.”  So I signed the petition and I sent it to my whole address book and many people responded and said thank you for alerting me.  But one person wrote me and said, “Do you know this group that is sponsoring this petition that you are circulating?  AVAS is actually something created by MoveOn.org.” 

MoveOn.org is not an organization with which I very often make common cause and I was a little surprised to discover that.  But I was not dismayed because it seems to me that the issue of the struggle of the Burmese people for their freedom and for democracy and the repeated ruthless suppression of them by the military regime that has ruled them for much too long is something that is very black-and-white, as Tom Malinowski has pointed out.  It is something I saw him quoted as saying and it, I think, unites Americans across a very wide spectrum of left to right.  It is a moral issue in which the rights and wrongs are unusually crystalline.

 Burma is a country, according to this year’s Freedom House Report, of the 194 independent countries in the world, it is the fourth most repressive regime in the world.  Only North Korea, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have worse ratings.  Freedom House now has taken to publishing the detailed counting that it uses that it never used to publish, so you can make an even finer distinction among countries than used to be possible. 

Burma was the fourth worst and it is a country that has, on the broader gauge of Freedom House scale of 1 to 7, received a rock bottom 7 for nearly 20 consecutive years now.  There was a moment surrounding the 1988 elections that were quickly suppressed in which Burma rose to get a 6 ½.  But with the suppression of the elections, it reverted to a rock-bottom 7 and it has had that for 20 years. 

There are very few other countries in the world that are that repressive.  Even countries like communist China, to use a quaint term, or Saudi Arabia these days get a 6 ½.  You do not have to have a lot of freedom in your country to get off the 7 number in the Freedom House ratings, but Burma for 20 years has not had even that much.

 The questions that we hope our four highly-qualified speakers will enlighten us about this afternoon are essentially three:  Updating us on what has been happening in Burma these last few weeks, telling us about what the international community has done so far, and telling us also what more can be done to give more support to the Burmese people and put more pressure on their rulers who are so cruelly and thoroughly suppressing them.

 Each of these four speakers has a very distinguished biography; we have made those available on all the seats.  I do not want to take time to read them all, but you will be impressed with who they are if you take the time to read it.

 The first speaker we are going to hear from is Bo Hla Tint who was elected to the parliament in Burma, the one time that the Burmese people got a chance to vote and was soon thrown in jail as a result of that victory.  He now serves as one of the leaders of the Burmese government-in-exile.  Mr. Hla Tint.

 Bo Hla Tint:  Thank you Josh.  And good morning -- good afternoon or should I say ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for showing up.  First of all, I would like to thank the American Enterprise Institute for organizing this very crucial forum on Burma at this very crucial moment for my country.  The military junta in Burma recently resorted to brute force, killed and jailed scores of monks and other protesters to stop the pro-democracy uprising, all demonstrations.  And it is now claiming to have quashed the pro-democracy movement.

 I’m here today, the first thing I want to talk you is that the people’s movement inside Burma for democracy is very much alive and our people in Burma are ready for democracy.  This is the first point I would like to make.  As Josh mentioned, over the decade and a half since the military junta rejected or refused to honor the 1990 elections’ outcome and jailed, killed and forced the elected members of parliament - including myself - into exile, thousands of Burmese activists, academics, politicians and others have been working in concert to plan for a democratic future for Burma.  So the peaceful protest against the military junta the last two months by thousands of monks, hundreds of thousands of people which took to the streets and chanting slogan is only part of the ongoing endeavors to push change in Burma; the test being decades-long struggle of Burmese people. 

Even though these recent protests, you know people are saying that it has no significant effect on the junta; at least, they transformed the once nonchalant young Burmese generation who were children when the similar mass uprising in Burma in 1988 transformed into a potent dissident force which will continue the struggle for democracy in Burma.  This is very important.  A new generation is taking place.  Most of the people taking to the streets in Burma is a new generation.  So this is how our people are dedicated for democracy, even though they were children in 1988 when we started. 

So now they are taking the banner for democracy and struggle.  And this event is effectively stripping off the little legitimacy the military have.  This is already destroying or put in jeopardy of the military plan to install the permanent military dictatorship in Burma; that is the key event, what is the message to the international community.

 And reports are coming out still because -- it is still coming out that military is rounding up thousands of people, that [indiscernible] are dying in custody, after being tortured and crematoriums are running through the nights, and monks disappearing from the monastery at night and with only a bloodstain left behind.  This adds, on the top of years of oppression of the population, years of detaining the people’s elected leaders; most well known is Aung San Suu Kyi.  And it is also well documented ethnic cleansing effort against the Burmese ethnic nationalities.

 So today, I come here to specify what should be the United States and the international community response to that call by the Burmese people.  We believe that the first thing I would like to touch is depriving the legitimacy to the military junta because as everybody might realize that the military junta is saying that they will continue with their so-called roadmap plan and they will already recently completed their so-called national convention which is not democratic, which is not participatory, which is not transparent process.  So we want the United States government, not only saying that they cannot, they will not welcome any outcomes from these so-called national convention. 

At its present stage, it refused to reform to be a democratic and more transparent and participatory then the political parties, democratic movement or ethnic nationalities can have their say for the future of their own country.  So that is the first point we want the international community, along with the United States to send a clear message to the regime -- that they will not accept these undemocratic, unparticipatory, and not leading to the democracy and national reconciliation of Burma.  That is why they cannot accept any outcomes from that so-called national convention, the first point.

 Secondly, as I mentioned, we believe that every democratic nation around the globe should keep up the pressure against the military junta.  So people are arguing how to push change in Burma.  Some people engagement, some people diplomatic pressure, some others are saying that pressure through the sanction.  I would say that all are important and used intelligently, can together help bring changes in Burma quickly and effectively. 

Sanction is one of the most important tools for the international community to express its condemnation to the repressive nature of brutal crackdown of the military junta and also to register their disapproval with the junta.  So sanction is now the only key tool to take away the financial resource of the junta, so we welcome the European Union’s recent decision to make a tougher sanction against the junta.  We are welcoming the moves by the United States government to take the full measure against the military junta, but we are saying that it should be very smart and targeted to the interests of military and its institution; its crony, not the people of Burma.  That is the way we are supporting the pressure and sanction.

 And at the same time, diplomatic measure two levels we are engaging - bilateral level, multilateral level.  Bilateral level, we want all the government in our region or around the globe to send a very strong and clear message to the junta that their performance at this point of brutality, of brute oppression is unacceptable and they have to stop right away.  So that is kind of bilateral level.  We do not want government to engage in the mediation effort or the convincing effort. 

We want that government to lead the United Nations, the most important mechanism of the world, to take care of this in convincing approach or in a diplomatic initiative.  So that is why we welcomed this week the presidential statement by the Security Council, but we still believe that it should be followed up by action because the military is saying now they will continue their own roadmap and they do not care what U.S. is saying and what the international community is saying.  So that it is important for the United Nations Security Council to consider unitedly, not separate way, so that is in terms of diplomatic pressure, I want to say. 

But it is more important is without having the credible and capable democracy movement, Burma cannot be in a democratic state anyway even with international community [indiscernible] and working together.  So we want the world, including United States, to systematically and effectively help the democracy movement of Burma, inside, around the border, and outside of Burma. 

So, in three ways, they can directly in terms of financial assistance, I will say, in terms of political support.  For example, within the United Nations, they can take initiative by challenging the legitimacy of the military junta; it has been a long time, taking the place of the people elected by the people.  And at the same time, formally meeting with the democratic leadership, recognizing their jobs and kind of working with them very closely and endorsing or taking initiative for the multilateral sanction or arms embargo against the military junta if they do not abide by what the presidential community or statement is saying this week. 

At the same time, logistical support, like we want the United States government to use its most modern or sophisticated communication technology or intelligence technology because the communication lines and Internet access and things like that of our movement inside now are totally cut off.  So we want the United States to help the movement in that way; providing all these technological assistance and all these highly, for example, cameras or video equipment or such things will be very helpful for us.  We know that this is our court, so we will continue by ourselves, but we need U.S. assistance; we need international assistance in those areas.

 Lastly, the kind of engagement -- we are not against engagement but we are against any engagement with junta.  We want the international community engaged with the people of Burma.  We do not want engagement with junta at the cost of providing recognition or legitimacy or financial resources that are deeply needed.  So we do not want the international community engaged with the junta alone; we want them engaged with the people’s democracy movement and elected leadership inside and out of the country.

 And finally, as I mentioned before, we, Burmese politicians, academicians and all people are now thinking inside and out.  We are ready for democracy.  We are ready to take responsibility of how to govern, how to create a smooth transition into democratization or the democracy process.  We are ready to work with the military.  We are not absolutely rejecting the military out of the picture. 

We know that military and the ethnic nationalities so that we want international community especially the United States to help us for the smooth transition to establish the democratic institutions in Burma.  At the same time, not only helping us but also organizing international especially our giant neighbors, to work with them, to work with democracy movement.  That will be the message today I would like to deliver.

 Thank you very much for this opportunity providing me then.  Thank you again, Josh.

 Joshua Muravchik:  Thank you very much Bo Hla Tint.  Our second speaker has spent time in prison.  He spent four years in prison.  Aung Din is the policy director and co-founder of the U.S. Campaign for Burma.  He was a student leader in the 1988 uprising.

 Aung Din:  Thank you.  Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today.  And I appreciate the American Enterprise Institute for holding this event at this very critical period.  The title of the event is “Burma’s Saffron Revolution:  How Should the World Respond?”  While the courageous people of Burma briefly came to the streets to call for the democratic reform against the bullets and brutal violence of the military junta, what will I do, ask ourselves:  “How should the world respond to the people of Burma?”  And we should have the answer as soon as possible before more people are killed, more people are arrested and more damages are done.

So today I would like to present the current situation in Burma and I would like to present how the international responded to the current situation in Burma and how the military junta is acting against the will of the international community.  Then I want to make policy suggestions.

I was a student leader in the 1988 popular uprising and, I, along with many other student leaders, managed to organize millions of people to the streets, calling for the military government to make the political reform and end this single-body rule.  The same military junta gunned down dozens of demonstrators in the street in cold blood.  And thousands more were arrested; thousands more were forced to flee from their country to become refugees. 

But the international community did not pay much attention to the situation in Burma.  That is why we were helpless then.  The military junta came from the killings without having any punishment or issue from the international community.

But this time it is different.  I found that this time is a huge difference.  With the help of the information technology and the skills of the younger generation of students and [indiscernible] journalists, photos and video images of the protest as well as the brutal responses by the Burmese military junta came out of the country and drew that to the attention of the international community. 

The Saffron Revolution became the headline news of the world media and the response was loud.  With the governments around the world, with the international media organizations and social and religious groups, the world leaders, Nobel peace laureates all praising the peaceful and disciplined action of the Burmese demonstrators and also condemning the brutal responses of the Burmese military junta.

The United Nations Human Rights Council called emergency session in Geneva and they adopted to bind a resolution in which the Human Rights Council called for the Burmese military junta to stop using violence against the peaceful demonstrators.  And two days ago, United Nations Security Council issued a press release statement after five days of careful deliberation in which they also called for the Burmese military junta to stop using violence against the peaceful demonstrators. 

So we welcome the presidential statement even though it does not have the binding capacity like the resolution.  But anyway, this is the first ever unanimous action of the Security Council and the first ever unanimous decision of all members of the council, including China and Russia.  But we insist that this is not enough.  The military junta will not listen to the advice of the Security Council unless there is concrete action beyond that statement. 

It turns out that our concerns are coming true.  A few days ago, the National League for Democracy issued a statement announcing a list of the members of NLD who were arrested during the protest.  According to the NLD, altogether 216 members of NLD, including four leaders from the NLD headquarters and 15 members of parliament later were arrested during the protest.  This is just a list of what they can compile.  Actually the actual number of the arrested NLD members might be more than expected.

And then from the day when the draft statement was submitted by the U.S., U.K. and France at the Security Council and to the day when the Security Council agreed to issue a Presidential Statement or order by letter [sounds like], within a week almost 50 people were arrested in Yangon alone.  Most of them are young students and a famous movie star and social activist, Kyaw Thu and his wife, were arrested.  A mother and a mother-in-law of a female activist were also arrested as hostages because the police cannot find their target.  And a woman named Ma Sha Ma [phonetic] was arrested in [indiscernible] together with her two-year-old daughter.  In October 10, one of the remaining student leaders, Hla Myo Naung, was arrested while he was trying to go to an eye specialist to get a treatment for his poor eyes.

And Win Shwe, NLD member from Chavaron [phonetic] township from Mandalay division was killed in detention.  He was arrested on September 26 along with five other activists.  And out of the night, the police came to his house and told his wife that Win Shwe died in detention from a heart attack which he never ever had.  And also the police informed his wife that his body was already cremated.  So there is no evidence to find out what caused to make him die. 

According to many sources who -- soldiers, many people in detention had been killed by torture and also lack of medical treatment to treat to their wounds.  So one of them was U Than Aung, 48-year old who died in Kyaikkasan detention center on September 30 as medical treatment to cure his injuries and internal bleeding was denied.  So interrogators use excessive force, homosexual rape, electric shock at genitals, water bloating, [indiscernible] and many other grim methods.

On October 13, the military junta issued a statement in response to the U.N. Security Council Presidential Statement.  This statement simply said that it regrets the statement of the president of the Security Council as the situation in Burma does not amount to the threat to the peace and security.  And also it said that this statement is contrary to the opinion of the entire people of Burma who had at least support the government’s seven-step roadmap; therefore, the military junta continues that.  They will continually work for democracy through its seven point roadmap. 

Now the military junta is holding mass rallies in every major city, forcing students and civil servants and civilians to participate in these rallies.  On October 12 they arrested, they raided one of the hiding places of the student leaders and arrested three more student leaders Htay Kywe, Aung Thu Yen, and [indiscernible], also known as Mie Mie [phonetic].  They have been hiding for two months.

So the military junta reaction to the call from the international community, it is quite clear they do not care.  They will continue playing their game with their own plan without negotiating with the democratic forces led by Aung San Suu Kyi and without heeding to the request from the international community.  Clearly the Security Council’s presidential statement is not enough.

So I would like to suggest some policy options.  First, United Nations Security Council should adopt a binding resolution on Burma and adopt Chapter 7, instructing the military junta to stop using violence against the peaceful demonstrators, stop arresting and imprisoning the protesters, and treat all detainees humanely and provide them with the proper medical care, and release all political detainees including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.  Engage in a meaningful political dialogue with the militant forces led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the leadership for the second national reconciliation and transition to democracy and civilian rule.

The U.N. Security Council should also impose stronger sanctions which include arms embargo and a travel ban of the top generals and their family members and a ban on investment and threat with stronger sanctions if the military junta failed to fulfill the instructions of the Security Council.  For the United States, on September 25th, President Bush announced at the U.N. General Assembly that the United States will impose additional sanctions against the generals and their financial sources. 

So according to this statement the tightened sanctions will apply to the property and the interest and property of certain leaders of the regime and individuals who provide financial backing for the regime.  Such a financial sanction is quite effective if implemented aggressively and actively and produce a result as quickly as possible.  That is why I would like to encourage U.S. government to effectively implement the financial sanctions against the generals and their family members and their financial business people who are supporting their financial income [sounds like] to these generals.

But do not forget the Singaporeans who give safe haven for the generals and their families and their cronies.  Singapore is their tourist destination, their shopping there.  They devoted their illegal earnings in Singapore banks.  So the United States must pressure the Singapore government to fully cooperate in this regard. 

Recently the European Union has strengthened its common [sounds like] position recently.  So we welcome this initiative but we want EU to do something.  EU is actually the major sponsor of the UNHRC [phonetic] resolution on Burma so now they are going to draft a resolution.  So I would like to ask EU to put a provision calling for the U.N. Security Council to adopt a binding resolution with targeted sanctions against Burmese military junta and the draft resolution to be submitted to General Assembly.

And ASEAN can play a very important role in Burma; although, they are denying their responsibility to control the bad behavior of the military junta.  So ASEAN summit will be held in November in Singapore.  Also they will celebrate for the anniversary.  So to serve stability and to prove the ASEAN’s responsible and respect of the organization, ASEAN should pressure the regime to choose one option; either implement the political reform recommended by the U.N. Security Council or leave the ASEAN.

And China is significant for the end of the situation in Burma.  It is a major arms supplier and trade partner and investor in Burma.  It is also a major exploiter of Burma’s natural resources and a key defender of the Burmese military junta in the international arena.  The Burmese military junta has survived to this because of the unanimous support from the Chinese government.  China is also responsible for killing the Burmese in Burma as equally as Burmese military junta. 

So without China’s participation, we cannot expect collective and effective action from the international community.  That is why we would like to encourage the United States and the European Union to apply all leverage they have to put China to work together with them.  I remember a line from an opinion piece written by Fred Hiatt in Washington Post.  I quote, “China can have its Olympic Games or it can have its regime in Burma.  It cannot have both.”

Thank you very much.

Joshua Muravchik:  And thank you very much, Aung Din.  Our next speaker is Tom Malinowski who is the Washington Director for Advocacy of Human Rights Watch.  Once and occasionally, I have had Tom as a sparring partner but most often, although we start out from different places, I find myself very much in agreement with him.  I think he is a widely knowledgeable and thoughtful advocate and analyst of human rights issues.  Tom?

Tom Malinowski:  Thank you.  Thank you, Josh and thanks for having me. 

Well, I guess Burma discussions are sometimes boring because people agree too much and I’m afraid I’m going to continue to agree with much of what has been said.  Let me say a few things about what is going on in Burma right now and what I think we ought to do about it; how to get to a better place.

First of all, I think we should have no illusions about what is happening right now in this country.  The demonstrations that we saw a few weeks ago, massive nationwide outpourings of people’s desire for democracy and for change were brutally suppressed.  As we speak, in the cities and towns of Burma, thugs are going door to door hunting down everybody they can find who was in any way associated with leading or organizing those demonstrations. 

Those people are being taken to detention centers where they are being brutally tortured.  Bodies are showing up in rivers.  Hundreds, if not thousands of people have been detained, they have disappeared, people do not know where they are.  The International Committee for the Red Cross which usually has the access to prisoners in Burma no longer does.  And people are profoundly afraid and fear is a powerful motivator; brutality does work up to a point. 

And as a result of all of these facts, I think you know a number of people look at the situation and they are very pessimistic.  They think, “Well, there is another brief Burmese spring and it was and now it is over.  This regime remains impervious to the attitudes of use of its people, impervious to pressure from the outside world; there is not much that we can do.”

I do not share that assessment, as awful as the situation inside Burma is right now.  I agree with Bo Hla Tint that the situation has changed in fundamental ways, both in terms of the internal political dynamic in Burma and the international dynamic surrounding Burma.  I do not know what is going to happen next, but I do believe that the situation is not going back to what it was before the start of the most recent protests. 

In terms of the internal dynamic, I think it is important to remember that this regime has become more and more isolated from its own people in recent years.  The move of the capital to this bizarre place that they are building in the middle of the jungle is both symbolic of their isolation and a cause of their isolation.  And I think a regime that is completely isolated from its people and from reality is showing signs of losing its ability to hold on. 

I also think that the Burmese government crossed a very important line when they attacked the monks because of the very sacred role that monkhood plays within Burmese society.  And I think it has created a problem for them that they have no idea how to solve.  I do not think that a government in Burma can keep the monasteries, the Buddhist monasteries of the country closed forever.  I do not think it can keep the institution of the monkhood down forever. 

And yet, if it opens the monasteries and loosens its grip, it will find itself opposed in precisely the ways in which it was opposed before, which is intolerable to the regime.  I think that is the dilemma that they cannot solve.  And I think that the implications of that are going to be seen probably over a period of weeks and months.  And we really do not know what they are yet.

In terms of the international scene, I think there has been fundamental change as well.  For many, many years, Burma’s neighbors in Southeast Asia, the members of ASEAN have largely protected the dictatorship in Rangoon.  They are not doing so anymore; they have issued demands for the release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, a political dialogue democratic transition.  They have expressed, in their words, “revulsion” at what has happened; extraordinary statements from countries that until recently were protecting this regime. 

The U.N. Security Council where a resolution on Burma was vetoed by China and Russia several months ago has issued a consensus statement with the consent of China and Russia, essentially echoing the demands of the demonstrators in Rangoon.  The issue will remain on the Security Council agenda and that is again a breakthrough, particularly because of what it says about China’s discomfort with what is going on.  China has actually called for a democratic process in Burma, which is almost surreal when you think about it.

Now, I think the men who run this regime, sitting in their isolated jungle palaces do not comprehend these changes, and so they act each and everyday as if the changes have not happened.  But that does not mean that the changes have not happened and that they do not have implications for the future of Burma.

So what is the solution to this and how do we get there?  Clearly, the regime right now shows no willingness to compromise with its opposition, if you read the daily newspaper of the country.  It is an extraordinary thing; it is a throwback to sort of the worst Stalinist propaganda that we thought does not exist in the world anymore except perhaps in North Korea -- calls for unity and discipline and crushing the foreign elements that are sowing disorder in the country and so forth. 

But I do think that even now, the government is profoundly worried about the pressure that it faces both from the inside and from the outside.  And I think there are things that we can do to bring them to a point where they feel that the price of continued intransigence is even higher than the very high price they would pay from their point of view of compromising with their opposition.

This is where the discussion of sanctions comes in.  On the one hand, critics of sanctions point out that they have not worked thus far.  They point out that if we, for example, push more international companies out of Burma, the oil and gas firms like Chevron and Total, their place will be taken by other companies from Asia and the Burmese government will continue to earn the money that it is earning today.  And they are right. 

They point out that if we ban the importation of more Burmese goods, like timber and gems; Burma will eventually find other buyers elsewhere in the world for those goods.  And they may be right there, too.  They might as well point out that even if we got rid of all those sources of income for the regime, there is still the drug trade.  And there is no international sanction that has ever worked against the trade in heroine and amphetamines. 

But I think we have also learned a lot about sanctions over the years, not just in our experience with Burma but other countries.  And we have learned that there is a smarter way of going about placing economic pressure on a regime like this, and that is not to go after the sources of the government’s income but to go after the income itself through the banking system, which is something that very few people who do foreign policy really understand.  I barely understand it; I’m beginning to as I try to look for ways to find a way out of this impasse in Burma.

The bottom line is no matter what your sources of income are, whether it is selling teak wood or gems or drugs or doing oil and gas deals, at the end of the day, the result is the same: You are going to deposit the proceeds of that transaction, preferably from your point of view, in hard currency, preferably in an offshore bank account.  And that is where this regime is particularly vulnerable. 

An analogy here would be to North Korea.  The international community has maintained broad-based economic sanctions on North Korea for decades which have had very little impact on the behavior or psychology of the regime in Pyongyang.  But when the United States, acting essentially alone, caused one bank in Macau to freeze one bank account belonging to the leadership of the country, they came to the table pretty quickly.  There is something about losing your money that focuses the minds, I think, of even the most recalcitrant leaders.

Now the Bush administration has taken the first step towards imposing those kinds of sanctions as others mentioned; they named 14 Burmese leaders and those targeted financial sanctions will be applied to those.  My understanding is that the list will be expanded as it needs to be to cover family members of those leaders, as well as the so-called tycoons of Burma; a handful of elite business people who have been allowed to get rich by the government and who handle many of the economic transactions on behalf of the government.

It is also extremely important that the EU follow suit.  The EU has done some sanctions on gems and timber; I do not think they fully understand yet that there is a distinction between those traditional sanctions and the financial measures that may actually be effective with this regime.  We are working to persuade the EU to follow suit with what the United States has done. 

It is particularly important because if you are going to go after bank accounts and currency transactions in the international financial system, you need to get both dollar transactions and euro transactions if you want to be effective; otherwise, the Burmese will get around the restrictions of the U.S. Treasury by doing their business in Europe. 

So that is particularly important but I think if we can get that done, and if we can ensure, encourage the administration here and the EU to implement these sanctions in a very vigorous way, following the money around the world, coming to work every single day with a single-minded determination to track down these people, their money, their transactions and to stop them, to have them frozen, I think we can get to a point where the diplomatic efforts that are now under way by the United Nations, by ASEAN, perhaps by China behind the scenes, can bear fruit.

Ideally you get to the point where the general’s family members barge into his office in the morning and say, “What on earth have you done?  Where is our money?”  And if you read the stories of dictatorships in their dying days, there are a lot of moments like that.  Those are the moments that, in the real world, I think lead to change. 

And I think we do have the power to do this.  We have an administration now in Washington that I’m a big critic of on a lot of issues but they care profoundly about this, between the First Lady and the President.  I think we have a moment of opportunity for that reason because of the engagement now of the U.N. and ASEAN, because of the images that have been broadcast from Burma and the fact that they have captured the imagination of people around the world.  We have a moment, perhaps a brief one, where targeted, focused, determined effort on sanctions combined with the diplomacy that is under way can actually bring us to the point where this government compromises with its people and we see a transition.  Thank you.

Joshua Muravchik:  Thank you very much, Tom.  Our final speaker is Dan Blumenthal who is a resident fellow in Asian Studies at AEI.  He joined AEI about three years ago, coming over from the Department of Defense and has been a wonderful addition to our foreign policy program here.  Dan?

Dan Blumenthal:  Well, thank you very much Josh and I commend you for having this event. 

I’m going to be a little bit boring but hopefully a little bit interesting too because I’m going to agree with some of what Tom said on some of the actions that the United States can take.  But I’m going to disagree on optimism about China, about the U.N. and how far they will go to remedy this situation.

I think it is a sad state of affairs that we have come to a point that both the United States and the EU call upon China constantly to remedy human rights wrongs, or remedy, in the case of North Korea, both human rights and security wrongs.  I mean, let’s be clear:  This is a country that today is protesting vigorously against another Buddhist monk’s visit, the Dalai Lama, to Washington; has pulled out of talks on Iran over that issue; who has revealed that 15 Tibetan boys who called for the Dalai Lama’s return were brutalized and thrown into Chinese prison. 

The Chinese do not care a whit about monks and how they are treated in Burma.  They care about the Olympics, and they care about international reputation and there is the 17th Party Congress going now there.  No one wants any trouble so they will move just enough to try to get people off their backs.  But they will not move to do what they can to stop the killing in Burma.  And let’s be clear; they can. 

I mean this is basically a satellite state of China in terms of arms supplies, in terms of trade in natural resources in timber.  The Chinese, once again as with North Korea, prop this country up.  They watered down as is their pattern in the U.N. sanctions; I think I agree that Chapter 7 sanctions, we are never going to get them with China in the U.N.

So when people talk about us and China coming to some sort of agreement on what it means to be a responsible stakeholder, this huge gap - and put the EU on our side on this, too - of what constitutes responsible behavior in the international community I think remains so long as China has this attitude towards human rights issues at home and abroad.  I do not mean to just beat up on China.  I think it is disappointing that the Indians and the Japanese, who espoused democratic ideals, have been rather tepid.  The Indians have a big role to play or play a big role in Burma and, of course, if the Indians and the Japanese together decided not to be tepid, China would be all the more isolated in propping up the military dictatorship.

ASEAN has moved a bit but in terms of the base from where they started it is -- yes, it is good but the base where they started is letting Burma in without any conditions.  We had the secretary general of ASEAN the other day say he was against regime change in Burma. 

The EU foreign ministers from France and Britain came out with an op-ed the other day calling for an end to military dictatorship.  We are on different sides of this issue.  There is no solution to -- what the United States and EU are calling for as an end to military dictatorship.  Call it regime change, call it whatever you will but that is the objective we are seeking. 

So I think we have to get out of the business of relying on China to solve these issues.  They are simply not going to do it.  And there is something a little pathetic about going around the world and asking China to help with North Korean refugees or Darfur or Burma.  They simply do not care. 

The U.S. does have, the U.S. and the EU.  I guess it is up to the West again, unfortunately by itself, to express its outrage and do have some of the options that were outlined beforehand, the types of financial sanctions that worked on the BDA issue, and the North Koreans are a new sophistication in the way we are able to do financial sanctions and be able to track moneys coming in and out of regimes and really to put pressure on dictatorships.  It really was working in North Korea.  I think we have a little bit of a problem because we pulled those sanctions so quickly out of North Korea after convincing the world to go ahead and cooperate with us, but I think there are things we can do. 

I think we need to, as was mentioned before, we have some intelligence and other types of military assets that can be -- first, collecting information, a database on criminals who perpetrated these crimes for when the day of reckoning comes, collect the database and put it somewhere, just put some intelligence resources on that, as well as if counter jamming.  I think that was not too difficult to do in terms of getting the Burmese people to be able to talk with one another again and get an Internet and e-mail and so on.  It is very true that we are living in a different time than 1988 in that sense.  So there are some things that I think we will have to do by ourselves and maybe with some EU support. 

I think the larger issue, in terms of the longer term issue, is we have over the past year witnessed a coup in Thailand and a massacre in Burma.  And basically, the world has either not had the will or just simply does not care about those two blows to human rights and democracy in Asia.  Now just imagine if the same happened in Europe.  Europe has such well-developed institutions of democracy and human rights that the pressures on European governments and international governments to do the right thing are immense.  Asia has nothing of the sort and I think it is time to ask ourselves why.  There are flourishing democracies in Asia. 

I have a theory.  The president in APEC in September called for an Asia-Pacific democracy partnership.  It landed like a thud and nobody paid any attention.  Part of it is because it was not well fleshed out or operationalized but part of it is people are so fearful of China’s reaction.  Why should we be fearful of China’s reaction in forming a democracy institution in Asia?  What is the difference between Europe’s attitudes or aspirations towards human rights and democracy and Asian’s attitudes?  I thought we solved this issue of Asian values years ago.  Asians care about democracy and human rights as much as Europeans do. 

And so this notion that we should not go forward and try to lead in creating a real institution in Asia that mirrors some of the things that have gone on in Europe because we are fearful of China’s reaction, I think, is wrong headed.  There are many reasons to do this sort of thing, including getting a more institutional response to activities such as what happened in Burma beyond China’s concerns.  And I think that is the real work we have ahead of us in Asia; that is our strategic interest.  It will help the democracies mature.  It will help countries that are at least espousing their identities as democracies to do something about it such as Japan and India.  It is ripe and I think it would be a way for Asians to express their outrage together in a real way and work to actually be able to do something about it. 

Thanks.

 Josh Muravchik:  Thank you very much, Dan.  Well, we have heard from our four speakers and now it is your turn.  When I call on you, please wait for the microphone and please identify yourself before you ask your question.

 Male Voice:  Hi, my name is --

 Josh Muravchik:  It is on.  It is on, just speak --

 Masaya Uchino:  Hi, my name is Masaya Uchino.  I am from the Genocide Intervention Network.

 Joshua Muravchik:  Just hold it close to your mouth.

 Masaya Uchino:  My name is Masaya Uchino.  I am from the Genocide Intervention Network.  Thank you very much for speaking today.  I just wanted to raise the point that given the awareness that has been raised on the brutality of the military junta and the regime, I think it is really important to contextualize it and look beyond the immediate crisis to what is going on in the more remote areas of the country where, you know, 3000 villages are burned, 650,000 people are displaced. 

There is massive widespread human rights violations going on that have not been reported in the press as much as the protest which are obviously of concern and people need to know about it.  But what can we do to raise awareness of the more, you know, the wider concerns that should be addressed I think.  And in the immediate term what can we do to protect the civilians that are being targeted to such abuse?

 Aung Din:  Thanks for raising this important point.  Yes, situation in Burma is not only about the protest in Rangoon, Mandalay and major cities but also in the ethnic minority area as well.  As you said, over 3,000 villages were burned down by the Burmese military junta.  Millions of people were driven out from their homes to become refugees and more than 500,000 ethnic minorities are hiding in jungle and mountains as internally displaced persons. 

Last week we held a joint press conference with the American Association of Advance Science which have undertaken to have the satellite imageries in the eastern Burma area especially in Karen state and Bago Division.  So we have about 27 images of which we can identify where the villages were burned down by the soldiers and where the relocation camps were secured yet [sounds like].  After the press conference I think we have the media attention. 

We have the press coverage during the protest in September.  And then we have informed to the United Nations [indiscernible] authorities about these images.  Tomorrow I am going to New York.  I will have the presentation with the U.S. special reporter on human rights situation in Burma [indiscernible].  We will present these satellite imageries to him which will be included in his report to U.N. General Assembly on October 24. 

So we are trying many ways to raise these issues and that is we call from the beginning situation in Burma is amounting to the threat to the peace and security not only for the political [indiscernible] and stability, but also the military junta continue offensive attacks in the ethnic minorities area.  We will try our best to raise these issues and we also need assistance from people and organization like you all. 

Thank you.

 Josh Muravchik:  [Inaudible]

 Bo Hla Tint:  So one quick point that to area I would like to add that at the first that as I mentioned, the advance technology collecting this or closely monitoring through the satellite and U.S. can do that.  Because of the U.N. mechanism, human rights council and other things international closely monitoring situation, sending the investigator special report is one thing.  But at the same time we can use or U.S. can help us to closely monitor the ethnic remote area, what is really going on through their technological resources if they can share. 

And at the same time to prevent -- because without the effective concrete measure, the military will not stop.  That is why one thing I forgot but now I got opportunity because you raised the question, we want the legal remedies for those human rights victims and especially those -- you know, firstly the military junta committed and continue to commit their crime against humanity.  So that particular torture, extrajudicial killing or this kind of things, the U.S. and all the democratic nations can work together, especially U.S. -- in the U.S. we recommend to enact a legislation allowing these victims of those crime to sue the individual generals or their agents and the regime in the U.S. court. 

That is, without the legal action somewhere in the world, this crime against humanity cannot be stopped, so we want the U.S. as example take a lead to enact legislation to allow these victims, human rights victims or racial victims to sue these juntas and its member who engaged in this and committed all these crimes against humanity.

 Josh Muravchik:  Tom, would you want to add?

 Tom Malinowski:  Sure, I will just add a couple of words.  First of all you are right that the suffering in the ethnic minority areas has been even greater than what we have seen in the cities and has been going on for decades.  We have been pushing the idea of a United Nation’s Commission of Inquiry to investigate and find the answer to the obvious question of crimes against humanity and where crimes have been committed in the campaign against those ethnic minorities.  Commissions of inquiry in the past have been precursors to international war crimes trials either by a separate tribunal or by the International Criminal Court. 

I want to do that partly because it is the right thing to do but also because I want the generals to understand that this is also something that has changed in the international community in the last 20 years or 30 years -- that dictators today at least stand the chance of dying in prison or worse, as we have seen recently.  And because I want them to eventually come to understand that their only way to avoid that fate is to bargain with about the only person in the world who is willing to forgive them for what they have done, and that is Aung San Suu Kyi. 

I want to do this in part because I think it will give the opposition one extra piece of leverage in negotiations that will ultimately need to be held to solve this problem politically inside Burma.  And, of course, that is the only solution to the violence in the ethnic minority areas in the long run.

 Josh Muravchik:  Dan?

 Dan Blumenthal:  Yeah, I would just add to that.  I think that that is the way to go and that is something the United States can contribute to it.  As I said before - as someone mentioned before - times have changed incredibly in terms of the information out there and in terms of our ability to just devote some resources to collecting information on the criminals because there will be a day of reckoning.  And then after that, actually letting them know in Burma that that information is being collected and that can be done.  I am confident of that.

 Josh Muravchik:  Next question, David Yang.

 David Yang:  Thank you, Josh.  I am David Yang from the U.N. Development Program.  I have two quick questions, one regarding sanctions and one regarding humanitarian aid provided by the international community.  The first is regarding sanctions.  Mr. Bo, you said at one point that international sanctions should be targeted at regime rather than the people.  Tom, you spent a big part of your presentation on smart sanctions versus traditional sanctions.  I would like to push the panel to see if there is a new growing consensus among people like you that traditional sanctions should be rolled back and the focus should be on smart sanctions or should both be in place at the same time? 

My second question, somewhat related, is, can, in your view, view of the panelists, international humanitarian aid, can it be provided effectively without legitimizing the regime?  My own agency, UNDP works very closely, consults very closely with the NLD to make sure that our very small program in Burma does not cross the line, but it is an issue and I am curious about your views as well.  Thank you.

 Josh Muravchik:  Who wants to go on this?

 Tom Malinowski:  I’ll give it a go.

 Josh Muravchik:  Tom.

 Tom Malinowski:  Well, you are right David.  Our focus is on financial sanctions that are targeted on regime, its leaders, families, et cetera.  I think those are the ones that stand the chance of being effective.  I would not want to roll back the existing bans on investment and trade because I think it just symbolically and politically that would send an awful message right now.  Even as we are expressing our condemnation and tightening sanctions in leadership to open the door for companies to go in there, it would defeat the purpose of what we are trying to do with the banks.  I do not think that the traditional sanctions are nearly effective enough to get us to where we want to get to.  I do not think you can be effective unless you get the money, but I would not want to roll those back. 

In terms of humanitarian aid, I think, you know, absolutely yes so long as we are really sober and realistic about what it is we are treating and can achieve.  People in Burma are suffering.  They are hungry.  They are sick.  You can relieve some of the hunger.  You can give people medicine to relieve some of the sickness. 

But the notion that some people have that you can promote economic development in Burma right now or increase the standard of living in a way that will create a middle class and a way that will lead them to political change, I think you have to completely suspend everything we have learned about development and humanitarian assistance around the world in the last 50 years to believe that you can do those things in a country that is run not just by a bad government but by the worst government, by a government that is essentially parasite on Burmese society and the Burmese economy. 

It is just, you know, perhaps there were some people who did development in the 1940s who might have believed that based on the limited evidence they had thus far, but everything we have learned in the last 50 years suggest to me that is just impossible even if we thought that somehow were it to be possible, it would be helpful politically.

 Josh Muravchik:  Bo, you want to comment?

 Bo Hla Tint:  Yes, the first point is we are not saying to roll back the sanction; we are asking for additional.  But at the same time you are right, that you will have to analyze current measure in closing the loopholes because a lot of loopholes, even in 1997 or 2003, we can see the loophole.  So for the sake of effectiveness you have to analyze the whole measures and reviewing the whole measure in closing all the loophole and additional measure because of argument from other sides. 

We are clearly saying that we targeted to the military juntas and its crony, not the people of Burma.  So at this point we are not saying the first point is not rolling back the existing sanction but additional measure should be smart, especially targeting the military juntas and its crony, and that is the first question to our position.  So we have to review that. 

And at the same time humanitarian - we as elected or government in exile - we never say no to humanitarian package since the beginning because as a result of mismanagement and corruption and incompetence or ignorance by the regime, crisis is there.  So we are for the humanitarian package, but at the same time we always remind the international donors, you know, without addressing the political situation or political solution, just providing and proving humanitarian cannot escape Burma from those tragedies.  So that we want the humanitarian agency around the globe or donors agency to think about that. 

No, we are not saying that humanitarian assistance should be used as a tool for change, but at the same time without addressing the root or cause so we can never be reached the goal of the Burmese people deserve.  So we are for the humanitarian package at this crisis level but very, you know, not undermining the political -- finding political effort by other countries and international agency or Burmese people.  Thank you.

 Aung Din:  Regarding with the humanitarian assistance, I agree with Bo.  We all agree to have this humanitarian assistance and we all are happy with the international humanitarian organizations running in our country, which may be even to help our people in need.  But the situations on the ground make your organizations unable to assist and deliver your assistance to the people in Burma. 

I think you might notice that a few months ago, ICRC president issued a statement which is unusual; ICRC is not a political organization but the government shut down its operation and stopped visiting to the prisons and detention center as well as other offices.  So you look at to the ICRC statement, you will know how difficult for them to operate in Burma under the severe restriction imposed by the military junta. 

It is now one of the recommendations made by Ibrahim Gambari to the Burmese military junta is to lift all the restrictions imposed upon the international humanitarian organizations.  So I believe the situation on the ground only made your organization ineffective in delivering your assistance; that we have to solve this problem first.

 Diamond Liu [phonetic]:  Diamond Liu.

Josh Muravchik:  Is it turned on?

Diamond Liu:  Diamond Liu.  It is a short comment and then two questions.  Tom mentioned that it is surprising that China mentioned democracy for Burma.  Actually, if you note the Chinese struggle for democracy it is not surprising.  The fight here is not over democracy but over who controls democracy and what the definition of democracy is.  And that is something, we, as international community has to watch out. 

I have been watching the Burma Saffron Revolution with great interest and heartbreak.  The pictures are traumatic but we also have to be realistic.  People forget.  Does the Burmese community have plans for the worst scenario and if you do, would you mind talking about them? 

Second, this is addressed to human rights and to policy areas.  Now, we talked about many of the traditional solutions, sanctions, U.N. Security Council resolution and so forth and that has been largely ineffective.  Now for instance, some of the new issue that Dan talked about was that the Asian value discussion.  We do not hear about Asian values any longer because the idea was defeated by the organized effort of Asian NGOs, but we do not have -- again, the debate of ideas in the international communities is very, very important but we do not have an arena where such ideas can be protected and implemented.  For instance, the Commission on Human Rights is totally useless because China largely destroyed it by padding the membership to the commission. 

The question to both the human rights and foreign policy experts, are there new ideas?  Are there new institutions that we must create to ensure that tragedy like Burma does not occur?

 Josh Muravchik:  [Inaudible]

 Dan Blumenthal:  I think you made my point for me in a more articulate way.  The Asian values debate was defeated I thought, and so I am wondering why what is good enough for Europe is not good enough for Asia.  And what I’m talking about is there are flourishing democracies in Asia who are not stepping up on issues such as Burma.  What I’m explicitly arguing for are there is a democracy institution modeled after those you have in Europe, whether it is European Union-like or I mean just a host of institutions. 

I think there are active NGOs but an institution -- now, our President has talked about one, but it got no traction.  You could talk about one at APEC recently, you got no traction partly because our own government did not prepare the groundwork and partly because people are so fearful of China’s reaction, because no matter what you say, as soon as you mention the words “democracy” and “institution” together China says, “Oh, well, you are just trying to contain us.”  Well, that is ridiculous.  Asia should have the same types of democracy institutions that allow the democracies in Asia to consolidate, to mature and to speak with one voice in outrage on human rights issues that the EU does. 

We have been too long in the system in Asia where we have a set of bilateral relationships, uncoordinated bilateral relationships.  Asia is ripe for a political democracy institution and I will argue very strongly for that and I think it would stop our reliance on China and all its failures we are talking about, which is stopping our reliance on China to solve some of these human rights questions, stopping our reliance on the U.N. 

We would have an institution to go to, like the EU is doing right now, to express its outrage, to coordinate its policies, coordinate its own sanctions to set conditions on joining.  All the things that have been successful in the European situation, there is no reason in the world why it cannot be successful in the Asian setting because like you said the Asian values debate is over.  Asians want the same things that Europeans want. 

And I agree completely also on the democracy issue.  When China says democracy, they mean democracy of the party, for the party and by the party.  They use the word “democracy” all the time.  They have a democracy white paper, in fact, that they put out, but they mean the election of party cadres within the CCP.  So again we have to be very realistic as you said about looking at the nature of China and rethinking whether depending upon China to solve these issues for us is the way to go.  And I think the answer is a clear “No.”

 Josh Muravchik:  [Inaudible]

 Male Voice:  Yes.

 Josh Muravchik:  We are running short on time, so quick answer.

 Aung Din:  I will just try to respond to your question about how the opposition prepare for the worst case scenario.  I think I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some misconception from some international community.  I heard [sounds like] from Chinese government that if the democracy in Burma is built at once then Burma will become kind of Iraq or the Yugoslav of Asia.  The Singaporean foreign minister also said that.  Actually, democratic opposition in Burma lead by Aung San Suu Kyi never called for the regime to remove from the power at once.  They are talking about dialogue between the election winning party with the other new representatives and military dictatorship. 

From the dialogue everything can happen, maybe power sharing, maybe something which will be acceptable by everybody.  So the democratic opposition never ever has the intention to remove the military from power and we know that [indiscernible] strong military forces will not disappear from our political scenario.  We have to work with them together.  We have to live with them together for a long time.  So that is why the democratic opposition in Burma never ever calls for the regime change.  We are just calling for the political dialogue to have the some political mutually acceptable solution.  So if we go by that way, you go now, we will not face that kind of scenario like you mentioned, Yugoslav of Burma. 

But if you let the regime to allow and to continue its own plan, then it may happen because regime claim that they already have the ceasefire agreement with the assembly [indiscernible] group.  They are ready to go back to the jungle if they cannot agree in this national convention in working out the constitution.  So far their expectations [sounds like] are not met in this constitution.  That is why if international community let the regime to continue its own longer [sounds like] plan, yes, we can face the kind of scenario.

 Bo Hla Tint:  Very quick, very quick.  So as I mentioned in my statement as well we are being -- it is the last scenario or the worst scenario if regime ignore all the international call and international community leadership because of veto owners like Russia and China if we cannot take effective or concrete measure against junta.  The worst scenario, two things: longer military rule in Burma, another 40 years, or there would be civil war in Burma, revolt by the people, by itself. 

So, we, as a democratic leadership we have been educating our own people.  This is our cause, not the cause of Chinese or American or United Nation.  So we have to prepare for our own solution as well if the world cannot provide the most desirable solution for us. 

So at the same time, constitutionally, we are prepared.  We have a very agreed by all the ethnic nationalities.  We have a constitutional process already finished for the democratic and federal union for Burma.  We have our legal teams.  We have expert economist team and people are ready to build up the very smooth transition in Burma.  So that is why we are requesting the international leadership to find the best solution; otherwise when we choose -- as military choose their own path, when the Burmese people have to choose their own path there will be very more tragic situation inside Burma.  But our people, our movement dedicated for democracy and we will do our best and we are prepared at this point for the worst scenario even.  But we need that democratic assistance from the democratic nation around the globe.

 Josh Muravchik:  Thank you.  This gentleman right here --

 Mike Myazar [phonetic]:  Thank you.  Mike Myazar, a quick question for American speakers.  SPDC [indiscernible] SPDC has been ignoring the results of the 1990 elections; and therefore, has been subjected to the criticism and sanctions by the United States.  President Abbas of Palestinian Authority, he ignored the results of the 2006 elections and he fired Prime Minister Hanya who happens to be from Hamas and President Musharraf of Pakistan has raised a military coup and expelled the democratically elected Prime Minister Sharif. 

My question is what is the rationale for this administration to follow this kind of apparently very different standard?

 Tom Malinowski:  Well, I have always thought that there is only one kind of perfect consistency possible in international politics, and that is to be consistently unprincipled.  You are never going to have a policy that is consistently principled in every possible case.  So I will take what I can get.

 Josh Muravchik:  I’m going to add my own answer to that question even though I am not a speaker, which is in Pakistan and in the Palestinian Authority it is very easy to imagine rulers much worse than Musharraf or Abbas.  I do not think it is equally easy to imagine anything much worse than the current ruling regime in Burma. 

And having taken advantage of that opening to get in one word of my own, we are out of time.  I want to ask you to join me in thanking our panel.  Thanks to my assistants Charlie  Szrom and Thomas Brugato and thank you all for coming.

[End of file]

[End of transcript]