The junta's announcement that it will put its tailor-made constitution to the vote should not deceive anyone

Any remaining illusion that Burma's ruling junta might make any concessions to UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari (now in Rangoon), and permit some semblance of opposition participation, has been well and truly demolished by the uncompromising stand of the generals in the last few days.

The Burmese regime has firmly rejected the UN proposal for serious dialogue, and amendments to the draft constitution. Information minister Brig-Gen Kyaw Hsan, who met with Gambari on March 7, said it was "impossible to revise or rewrite" a government-drafted constitution that will be submitted to a national referendum in May. Once again, the UN envoy has been humiliated by never even getting near a senior general.

Hopes for a normalisation in Burma were triggered by the recent announcement of general election to be held in 2010. The last election was 1990.

In September 2007, there was a global outcry over the killing of Buddhist monks and other protestors, and the brutal suppression of peaceful mass demonstrations to end more than 40 years of military rule.

Western governments professed a renewed determination to use sanctions against the regime. The UN security council appointed Gambari, to promote reform and reconciliation in the wake of widespread bloodshed in the streets and temples. The UN reported 31 dead, but human rights bodies have placed death toll figures far higher.

The Buddhist monks have been stopped from marching. Many were detained last September - others shot dead by the junta's bullets. Many temples have almost been emptied of saffron-robed monks. Thousands are still in hiding, arrests continue. UN diplomacy and Asean's policy of "constructive engagement" have clearly failed to bring about any significant changes.

This new constitution is a very old saga - 14 years and six months in the making to be precise - perhaps a candidate for Guinness Book of World Records. Dating back to the 1990 general election, which was won overwhelmingly by the NLD - National League for Democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi, their revered leader and Nobel laureate and still under house arrest.

The generals changed the rules, ignored the results and instead proceeded to organize the drafting of a new constitution, which began in 1993 and continued till 1996, when the NLD walked out in protest. Since then all delegates have been selected by the generals.

So what are the citizens of Burma being offered with this constitution? Certainly not civilian rule. The generals have arrogated to themselves the leading political role. According to the draft constitution, the commander in chief of the armed forces is entitled to fill 110 seats in the 440-seat parliament with appointees from the ranks of the armed forces. And in the event of a "state of emergency," the commander in chief will assume full legislative, executive and judicial powers.

It allows stringent restrictions on any activities deemed "inimical to national unity" which covers a whole gamut of criticism and dissent. Civilians will be permitted to enter parliament, but only if they show due deference to the men in uniform.

San Suu Kyi is excluded from running for the presidency by virtue of her marriage to British scholar Michael Aris. Not surprisingly, opponents of the regime have dismissed it as a sham.

Monks and the opposition are calling for a "no" vote. There are indications that the regime will try to coerce a "yes" vote by threats of punishment against those who either boycott the referendum, or vote no.

The Rangoon regime expects that once the referendum is passed, China, India and South-East Asian countries that provide Burma with vital economic investment and financial support, will accept this as evidence of a return to the rule of law. China has already endorsed the referendum as a "positive step".

Inside the Asean 10-nation grouping, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia hotly oppose western sanctions, which is understandable given their interest in extracting maximum commercial profit from resource-rich Burma. Their concern is not democracy or human rights, but the return to stability inside the country.

Burma at the beginning of the 1960s was one of southeast Asia's leaders and one of the best-educated. It was far ahead of neighbouring Thailand and Singapore. Then came the 1962 military coup and the nation was plunged into four decades of darkness.

In spite of western calls for sanctions, there are still glaring loopholes. US oil giant Chevron is exempt from US sanctions on a legal technicality (the so-called grandfather clause). French oil company Total is also spared partly thanks to Bernard Kouchner's special report in their favour, prior to becoming President Sarkozy's foreign minister.

More pressure could be brought to bear on Asean countries to opt for a tougher line on their delinquent member - Burma. The UN also has to accept that diplomacy is not going to work without some kind of sanctions. U Awbata, a dissident Buddhist monk who fled from Burma after the crackdown, says the world community should support an arms embargo.
"I would like to appeal to the international community here today to work together and urge those countries selling arms to Burma to stop them from doing so," he told a recent human rights conference in Jakarta.

Nobody should be fooled by this figleaf of sham constitutionalism that the Burmese generals are doing anything more than pursuing a strategy to parry and deflect pressure from the outside world and prolong their stay in power.

After 46 years of seeing their beautiful country reduced to one of the region's poorest, its teak forests and natural resources decimated by its neighbours, its health and education systems starved of funding, and HIV/Aids reaching epidemic proportions - surely the people of Burma deserve a break?

A constitution tailored to the needs of the junta is no solution At all. A break for the Burmese and all the ethnic minorities means nothing less than a permanent break from military rule.