Robert Chesal and the RN Internet desk, 23 November 2004 (boxun.com)

<ÍƼö£ºÔ·ÑÆð¼Û$4.99£¬Ãâ·Ñ´ó½»Ø²¦ºÅÂë¡¢ÈÎÑ¡ÃÀ¡¢¼Óµç»°ºÅÂë.µã»÷ÕâÀï¼ÓÈëÓÐ5ÃÀÔªÕÛ¿Û>

Robert Chesal interviews Debbie Stothard about the situation in Burma

Burma's military regime seems unable to make up its mind. Last Friday it announced that some 4,000 political detainees were to be freed from jail, but it's already halted the programme way before that target was reached. Only last month, then prime minister Khin Nyunt - who was seen as representing the more moderate wing of the authoritarian junta - was removed from his post and placed under house arrest, a move which seemed to indicate a shift back to domination by the hardliners. In that light, last week's news of the prisoner release came as a surprise, although some alleged it was window-dressing in the run-up to an upcoming conference of the South-East Asian nations alliance, ASEAN. Barely three days later, however, and the releases have been halted, leaving some people wondering if the regime actually knows what it is doing, or whether it may be riddled with division.

To find out more about what's going on in Burma, and whether the promised release of political prisoners actually got anywhere before it was stopped, Radio Netherlands spoke to Debbie Stothard from the alternative ASEAN network on Burma.

Last week, the military regime announced that they would release nearly 4,000 prisoners who had been jailed by the National Intelligence Bureau. Now, of this number, only a handful are actually political prisoners. Most of the people who are being released are actually petty criminals, business rivals of the military intelligence who are aligned with the current hardliners, military personnel who were arrested in connection with the coup plot in 2002, and even members of the notorious United Wa State Army - a drug cartel."

"So it appears that the political prisoners that were released, including Min Ko Naing the famous student leader, are very much in the minority. And now we hold grave concerns that the promised releases have not actually happened, and that the prison doors seem to have been shut."

RN: "It's puzzling what you say about the military junta suddenly stopping their release programme. That suggests that they're really acting in quite an ad-hoc way, and not really aware of the consequences of what they are doing as they do it."

"It is very possible that the regime is actually still in a situation of internal conflict, where certain members of the hardliners in power want to deliver some good news to show they are far better than the military intelligence leader Khin Nyunt, who was the former prime minister. And there are other people who will be very concerned about the kind of political space that will be created, the kind of optimism that will be created in terms of democracy and reform."

RN: "We understand that there are some outside factors which may be putting pressure on the regime, including the ASEAN conference in Laos. Do you expect this sort of regional pressure to have any kind of lasting effect on the regime?"

"If the regime had actually delivered and released all the political prisoners that they promised, then definitely they would have an easier time of it at the ASEAN summit. Now, by promising a massive release and then releasing only a handful of political prisoners, they are making things much more difficult for themselves in Laos next week."

"So far, they've been able to weather some of the pressure that's come from Europe and from North America. However, they've always depended on China and South-East Asia to be a buffer zone to international pressure, and to offset the effects of sanctions."

RN: "And is this now a thing of past, this buffer from Asia?"

"Well, by making a significant promise of a mass release and then backing out, it's definitely going to cause a great deal of disappointment amongst the leaders at the ASEAN summit, and definitely among the leaders of the various governments who have been applying quiet pressure on the regime."

RN: "We know that China, for instance, has long had a policy of non-intervention in international affairs. Is there any real sign that Beijing is likely to change its tune when it comes to Burma and really play a more active role in trying to steer things there?"

"You know, this whole principle of non-interference is pretty much a red herring, because engaging with the military regime is interfering with the will of the people of Burma, who voted for the National League for Democracy. But, realistically speaking, the Chinese government had often relied on General Khin Nyunt, the ousted prime minister, as an interlocutor and as a negotiator, a liaison point on matters related to Burma, and they were quite shocked and perturbed when he was arrested and ousted in such a dramatic turn of events last month. So, I think while China has not made any public pronouncements, the feedback that we've received is that China has made some very strong objections in private, as has Singapore and a number of other ASEAN countries as well." (boxun.com)