Issue 49 Vol III, October 15, 2007

A N A L Y S I S

The Blinding Curtain
Gobind Thukral

Sixty years after we achieved independence, we are still haunted by archaic laws, many draconian in nature. One such law is official Secrets Act of 1923. Its very existence in a much touted democracy of ours is a matter of shame. It looks we have wasted the enormous sacrifices made by our patriotic people during those harsh years of freedom struggle.

Under this law, anyone possessing a small piece of official paper on which a worthy babu has written words: ‘secret’ or ‘top secret’ can be hauled up and jailed. I have observed an extra intelligent official of the Punjab police had once marked top secret on a file that contained nothing more than a summary of newspaper comments of the day. I was also told that it was a routine practice to mark even newspaper clippings and market rates as ‘secret’.

According to a veteran journalist and former editor of The Hindustan Times, B.G.Verghese, maps of Indian rivers, freely available on the internet and in shops were actually covered under this law. Information is power and that is why the bureaucrats want to deny citizens information. Now after the new Information Act, the government keeps this on the stature book. It sounds ridiculous. It threatens individual freedom and liberties and is often used as a tool to deny information. As Moushumi Basu, an associate professor at the centre for international politics, Jawaharlal University in Delhi learnt to her dismay. During her doctoral research on the World Bank, she was shocked to learn that the loan agreements executed by India with the World Bank to bail itself out of its financial crisis in 1991 were state secrets. Interestingly these papers were laid in parliament. But any one possessing these could be arrested as these were marked secret.

Under the Official Secretes Act 1923, much is left vague by design. Our masters, the British had deliberately designed it in that matter. Our present day elected rulers, perhaps, need it that way. They continue to relish this law. Under, "all-inclusive" provisions; anyone can be prosecuted for sharing even harmless information. What is "secret" has not been defined, leaving scope for mischief .Any document can be deemed secret on the opinion of an "expert."  The whole Act is heavily loaded against the accused and only Section 5 has a provision for bail which is rarely granted. It is mostly used as a vendetta tool to book whistleblowers and tame upright officials.

Take the recent case of Major General V.K. Singh, a retired officer who also served with India’s  external intelligence agency, RAW. His crime is that he dared to write a book detailing instances of corruption, nepotism and negligence within RAW. The book—India's External Intelligence was published three months ago and Outlook on July 2, 2007 brought to light. He has been arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation that is CBI and charged with revealing official secrets. He faced the onslaught of this agency that raided his house and questioned him for hours. The Cabinet Secretariat which is supervised by the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has accused him that he has leaked classified information in his book. He faces years in jail if convicted. He is lucky that the court has granted him bail throwing mud on the face of his prosecutors. But his travails are from over as yet. Interestingly his book is still in the market as it has not been banned.

Now the CBI is all set out to gather "evidence" against the former army officer who served RAW with distinction. Not many legal experts and journalists find the book revealing any secrets. Instead of taking cognisance of the concerns raised in the book, the government has decided to nail him. The government seems to be upset with his revelation that a communication system meant for the PM's security was bought from a private company bypassing mandatory procurement rules and at a higher cost. V.K.Singh has also objected to the government sharing the tapes of general Pervez Musharraf’s conversation with his chief of staff about kargil was massive blow to Indian capability of collecting sensitive information through new technology.  Basically the book exposes to reform the working   of this premier agency. There are dozens of books very critical of the CIA in America and even some in Pakistan, where most of the time military has ruled.

By all accounts it looks to be a case of vendetta.  V.K.Singh has not spared the present boss of the RAW.  For instance, he cites the case of a senior officer going on leave without authorisation to protest being overlooked for promotion. According to CBI sources, the officer is none other than the present RAW chief.

But there are many other instances where this law has been used to harass people and deny them the information. Ajay Kumar, a low-level functionary in the Indian Parliament, was hauled up for possessing parliamentary reports that had already been tabled. The prosecution chose to ignore the fact these were on sale in Parliament.  He was charged with possessing a hand-written map of a cantonment that even the army officers have said on record does not have any position authenticated. He is still fighting the case.

There are many such cases and almost in each state even when leaders from all the political parties; the Congress, the BJP and the Communists have been asserting that this law must go. Now this tool has been criticised by the Administrative Reforms Committee. This Committee in its first report a few months ago, called it a bad law enacted in the colonial India. The Committee chairman Veerappa Moily [a former chief minister of Karnataka and a writer] is unequivocal in his demand that the Act be repealed. He says, "After the enactment of the Right to Information Act this law has no place to survive and even its relics may no longer remain."

But in India instead of taking corrective measures we usually shoot the messenger.  When V.P. Singh was prime minister he had set up two committees. One was to examine whether the intelligence agencies could be brought under parliamentary oversight and the second to review this hideous law. There is a unanimous opinion among the people  that the British model of parliamentary oversight should be accepted.  May be the arrest of the former army general could prove a law nail in the coffin of this draconian law. Shall the iron fig leaf finally go?

BACK

Burma: Security Council Should Impose Arms Embargo

THE United Nations Security Council should impose and enforce a mandatory arms embargo on Burma because of continuing massive violations of human rights. Human Rights Watch wanted India, China, Russia, and other nations which are supplying Burma with weapons that the military uses to commit human rights abuses and to bolster its ability to maintain power, should stop this.

Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch maintains, "It's time for the Security Council to end all sales and transfers of arms to a government that uses repression and fear to hang onto power. Instead of continuing to protect Burma's abusive generals, China and Russia should join other Security Council members to cut off the instruments of repression."

India appears to be one of the two main suppliers of advanced modern arms to the Burmese military. Earlier this year, India sold Burma two BN-2 Defender maritime surveillance aircraft that India had bought from the United Kingdom in the 1980s. The aircraft were delivered in August despite the British government's objections that they were being supplied to a country under a European Union arms embargo.

Later this year, India sold T-55 tanks and 105mm artillery pieces to the Burmese military. As it wages war against ethnic insurgents, the military routinely uses weapons such as artillery and mortars in conflict areas to destroy villages and exact retributions against civilian settlements.

India is currently preparing to send Burma aircraft, artillery, armored personnel carriers, tanks, ships, and a host of small arms in the next year. Perhaps most alarming, India has offered to sell newly developed Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH) to Burma, manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautical Limited (HAL). These helicopters, if delivered, would give the Burmese military a sophisticated weapon platform to fire rockets and guns, which could be used with devastating effect against political demonstrations in urban areas or rural villagers.

According to a recent report from Saferworld and Amnesty International, the Advanced Light Helicopters use superior European rockets and guns, as well as powerful French engines. Human Rights Watch urged the manufacturers and countries where these products are made to call on the Indian government to end sales to Burma and to ensure proper monitoring and implementation of end-use agreements.

"India's close relationship with the Burmese military is a discredit to the 'world's largest democracy,'" said Adams. "The Indian authorities should be leading the efforts to end the supply of arms being used against the democracy movement in Burma."

China is the other main arms supplier. It has supplied Burma with advanced helicopter gunships, arms production technology, and support equipment such as trucks and vehicles. Chinese-manufactured Mi-8 helicopter gunships have been photographed supporting Burmese military actions in eastern Burma where Burmese troops have committed numerous war crimes against civilians and massive displacement in its attacks on ethnic minority separatist groups.

Beijing has also supplied small arms, including mortars, landmines, and assault rifles, as well as assistance in setting up an indigenous small-arms production capability. China has supplied a vast array of advanced military hardware to Burma, including fighter planes, naval vessels and tanks, and other infantry support weapons.

"China says it wants stability and a peaceful solution to the crisis in Burma," said Adams. "But as long as Beijing continues to arm the Burmese military and give it political cover, the situation in Burma will remain violently unstable."

Russia is also a noted supplier of arms to Burma, which includes a deal for MiG-29 fighter planes in 2002.

South Korean companies including Daewoo International Corporation and several others have been accused of illegally boosting the capacity of the Burmese army to produce weaponry. Daewoo reportedly supplied technology and equipment to build a factory to produce mortar rounds near the town of Prome, leading to South Korean investigations and indictments against company officials.

North Korea has supplied truck-borne multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) and artillery pieces to Burma. North Korean engineers have also been contracted to build an underground tunnel complex at the new national capital at Nay Pyi Daw in central Burma, where the military leadership is based.

Burma has also reportedly received weapons from Israel. In 2005, Israel was reported to have sold 150 Brazilian EE-9 Cascavels light tanks to Burma.

Human Rights Watch said that an arms embargo should also include a ban against training the Burmese military, paramilitary, and police forces, all of which have been used to crush the pro-democracy movement in Burma. According to information received by Human Rights Watch, there are hundreds of Burmese defense forces officers being trained in military academies in Russia on nuclear physics, artillery techniques, and computer technology. Exiled Burmese media groups report that cyber-warfare activities that hacked their sites in the past week originated in Moscow. Russia and the Ukraine also have a number of technical staff based in Burma to train Burmese air force and army personnel. Australia has included Burmese police and military officers in its counterterrorism training workshops at centers in Indonesia.

Other nations involved in training the Burmese military include China, which continues to train fighter pilots following the sale of F-7 Airguard fighter planes in the 1990s. The recent sales of advance weaponry from India will also require training assistance. India has also offered Special Forces training to Burmese military units to aid joint operations along the shared border along northeast India and western Burma.

"The nations of the world are arming and training the Burmese military at the same time that they condemn Burma's human rights violations," Adams said. "These countries should back up their rhetoric with actions to avoid complicity in attacks on the Burmese people."

The Burmese spend an estimated 40 percent of the government budget on the military, while combined health and education expenditure is among the lowest in Asia. Military-run hospitals and schools are the best in the country, while civilian hospitals are poorly funded and cannot respond to the widespread health crisis in HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. While Burma's people are among the poorest in the region, senior military officials live lavish lifestyles.

Instead of working to improve the lives of its people, the military also routinely seizes land from civilians for defense establishments and frontline bases, using forced labor in construction.

"The world should insist that the Burmese government address the country's massive poverty and build up its health and education infrastructure," said Adams. "Instead, many countries are draining Burma of its limited resources through military sales, profiting handsomely while many Burmese struggle to put food on the table."

BACK

Myanmar: Foreign Investment Finances Regime

WHO is helping the ruthless military junta in Myanmar or Burma survive these long nearly five decades and indulge in worst carnages of killing thousands and jails many more. It has also kept the country backward, open to exploitation by foreign capital and denied all civil rights.

These are first the neighbouring countries like China, India and South East Asian countries. They provide much needed legitimacy to a group of military dictators who have nearly been crushing any democratic movement and denied legitimate elections and winners their right to govern in a democratic manner. These countries have been supplying arms to the military junta. In a way these countries enjoying a degree f democracy are helping the military crush democracy in a small poor country like Burma.

Then are the Chinese, Indian, Thai, and other companies doing business in Burma should ensure their operations do not contribute to or benefit from human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said today. The military government in Burma has launched a violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators that so far has led to many deaths, enforced disappearances, and mass arbitrary arrests.

Arvind Ganesa, director of the Business and Human Rights Program at Human Rights Watch is disturbed. He finds "Companies doing business in Burma argue their presence is constructive and will benefit the Burmese people, but they have yet to condemn the government's abuses against its own citizens .Keeping quiet while monks and other peaceful protesters are murdered and jailed is not evidence of constructive engagement."

Human Rights Watch said that companies operating in Burma should use their influence with the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) to put an end to ongoing human rights abuses. In the current environment, companies should urge the SPDC to halt the crackdown, release all political prisoners, and open a real dialogue with opposition and ethnic groups. If the situation does not improve, companies should be prepared to reconsider their operations in the country.

Human Rights Watch finds  no transparency in Burma about how much the government receives in oil and gas payments, nor clarity about how the funds are spent. The military receives the largest share of the official budget and the SPDC allocates only a pittance to social programs including health and education.

Foreign investment in Burma's oil and natural gas sector is especially significant. Sales of natural gas account for the single largest source of revenue to the military government. Gas exports accounted for fully half of the country's exports in 2006. Burma's gas business brought in revenue of US$2.16 billion in 2006 from sales to its main buyer, Thailand. These funds flow directly to the government and provide the junta with a major source of financing that is completely independent of its citizens.

Current investors in Burma's oil and gas industry include companies from Australia, the British Virgin Islands, China, France, India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Russia, and the United States. The SPDC has greatly expanded investment in Burma's oil and natural gas industry in recent years. Allowing foreign investment in oil and gas is apparently aimed at bringing in more revenue to keep the government afloat at a time when economic mismanagement and profligate spending on the military and the building of a new capital at Nay Pyi Taw have drained government finances. Natural gas exploration, development and production projects are under way in approximately 30 different gas fields. These projects are organized as joint ventures with the Burmese government's Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE).

"Outside investment in Burma's oil and gas industry has thrown a lifeline to the country's brutal rulers," added Ganesan. "The businesses that help finance the military shouldn't argue that the government's crackdown is not their problem."

Details of the Deals: At present the SPDC receives the bulk of its gas money from the onshore "Yadana" and "Yetagun" gas fields. The Yadana consortium is led by Total of France and includes UNOCAL (now Chevron) of the United States and Thailand's state-controlled PTT Exploration and Production Co Ltd (PTTEP). The Yetagun consortium, led by Malaysia's state-owned Petronas, includes Japan's Nippon Oil as well as PTTEP. PTTEP, a subsidiary of the largely state-owned PTT Public Co Ltd (PTT) of Thailand, buys the gas for export to Thailand.

Major offshore natural gas projects are under development. A consortium of South Korean and Indian firms, in partnership with the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, has made a large gas find off the coast of Arakan State in western Burma. Known as the "Shwe" gas project, it is expected to produce massive revenues once it is in production. Estimates of the gas yield of the Shwe deposits range between US$37 to US$52 billion, and could lead to a total gain in revenues to the junta or future Burmese governments of US$12 to US$17 billion over 20 years.

The Shwe gas consortium is composed of the South Korean company Daewoo International, state-owned companies from India and South Korea, and the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise. Some of the foreign partners also have separate deals with the Burmese government entity for other concessions.

On September 24, for example, India's state-controlled Oil and Natural Gas Co (ONGC), whose subsidiary ONGC Videsh is a partner in the Shwe consortium, signed a deal with Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise to explore for gas in three more offshore blocks. Under the deal, Oil and Natural Gas Co pledged to invest US$150 million through ONGC Videsh.

India's Office of the President holds nearly 75 percent of the shares in Oil and Natural Gas Co. India's minister for oil, Murli Deora, traveled to the Burmese capital last week to sign the agreement as thousands of protesters in Burma took to the streets to call for political freedom, an end to the SPDC's abuses, and economic improvements.

India, like China and Russia – which are also major investors in Burma's natural gas sector – has provided political and military support to the SPDC. India and China are in competition to buy the Shwe gas. In August, a top Burmese energy official publicly confirmed that China was strongly favored to buy the gas, but indicated that a sales agreement was not yet final.

Chinese firms are also actively seeking to build oil and gas pipelines in Burma. One proposed pipeline would transport gas from the offshore Shwe project to China. A second pipeline would carry Middle Eastern oil across Burma into China, bypassing the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Malacca. These proposals to build overland pipelines across Burma have raised serious human rights concerns, in light of past experience. Major controversies arose in the 1990s over construction of pipelines and associated infrastructure to transport Yadana-Yetagun gas. UNOCAL and Total were sued in the US and France, respectively, by Burmese villagers who accused them of complicity in atrocities by the Burmese army during operations to remove villagers from areas slated for development and to facilitate pipeline construction. The companies ultimately settled the lawsuits.

Two Chinese companies that have shown strong interest in the proposed new Burma-China pipeline projects are Sinopec and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). Both are Chinese state-owned oil companies and are involved in gas exploration in Burma as well. They also are official "partners" (major sponsors) of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and are under increased scrutiny for the human-rights impact of their investments in Sudan and Burma. India and China have been reluctant to criticize the recent crackdown. Russia joined China in blocking UN Security Council action on Burma.

BACK