[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

REPORT ON COMMUNICATIONS



Received: by pilot.physics.adelaide.edu.au (5.61+IDA+MU/UA-5.23)id AA03088; Sun, 11 Dec 1994 15:34:52 +1030



To  : reg.burma-list subscribers

Date: December 12, 1994.

Note: Please do not repost to the public networks. Followings are
      the communications which I am happy to share with our subscribers.

      #1 A Letter to the Amnesty International
      #2 A Letter from Australian Government to the CRDB(Australia)
      #3 A Letter from Human Rights for Burma and the reply.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1 REQUEST LETTER TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

International Secretariat
1 Easton Street
London WC 1X 8DJ
UNITED KINGDOM.

\date{October 7, 1994.}

Dear Secretary:

Re:Protection for Displaced Burmese and the Voluntary Repatriation Programme
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to thank you, firstly, for your September 1994 report
regarding with the general situation of asylum-seekers in the Kingdom of
Thailand. I firstly read the report through Internet - and already have
quoted in my report that is enclosed for you - and the local Amnesty Office
in Adelaide kindly sent me the actual copy of it. Thank you so much for your
considerations.

As a temporary solution for those displaced Burmese and refugees, to have
the international protection and relaxations in the Royal Thai Government's
asylum policy are most important and therefore please continue helping us
in this regards. I particularly wish the Amnesty to support in promoting
the tripartite agreements that are mecessary for organized repatriation
of these refugees to Burma.

For longer term solution for these refugees and displaced people, the
suggestions have been made to tackle the underlying human rights
violations in order to create a safe environment for the returning
refugees. In particular, the various parties in the conflicts are urged
to promote a peaceful solution. I believe the support from the
international community is most important element in promoting such
a solution. I wish the Amnesty to support the deployment of civilian
peace-keeping mission in Burma in this UN General Assembly.

Finally, I, as a member of Amnesty, am very grateful, and so proud,
for the organization's contribution for promoting the greater respect
for human rights throughout the globe.

Yours sincerely,
(U NE OO)
cc. Kathy Kingston, President, Amnesty International (South Australia).
endletter/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2 THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT'S CURRENT POLICY ON BURMA

Following is the letter from the Senator Gareth Evans, the Australian
Minister for Foreign Affairs, to Dr Raymond Tint Way, the Chairman of the
Committee for Restoration of Democracy in Burma, dated 17 November 1994.
The letter is reproduced from the CRDB Australian Chapters' newsletter,
the "News & Views", November/December 1994 issue.

                ------START COPY---------

                                   Senator the Hon Gareth EVans QC
                                   Minister for Foreign Affairs
                                   Leader of the Government in the Senate
                                   Parliament House
                                   CAnberra ACT 2600

17 Nov 1994

Dr Raymand Tint WAy
Chairman
The Committee for REStoration of Democracy
in Burma (Australia) Inc.

Dear Dr Tint WAy,

Thank you for your letter of 8 August regarding developments in Myanmar and
the Australian Government's policy response. I apologise for the delay in
replying.

The Government remains very concerned about the political and human rights
situation in Myanmar, and the State Law and Order Restoration Council
(SLORC) is under no illusions about the strength of Australia's concerns on
these issues.

My meetings on 24 July with Myanmar Foreign Minister U Ohn Gyaw at the
ASEAN post ministerial Conference (PMC) in BAngkok, and on 5 October at the
United Nations in New York, offered the opportunity to convey directly to
the SLORC Australia's concern about the political and human rights
situation in Myanmar. While acknowledging that some progress has been made
(including the release of political prisoners, the commencemant of a
constittueional reform process, megotiations with the ethnic insurgents and
the 20 September meeting between the SLORC and DAw Aung San Suu Kyi), I
expressed concern about many aspects of the situation in Myanmar, including
the lack of genuine progress in the context of the National Convention.
I also called on the Myanmar authorities to release Aung SAn Suu Kyi and
sustain a dialouge with her on a substantive political issues.

My discussions with a range of key interlocutors at the ASEAN PMC revealed
considerable common ground on Burma between ASEAN and dialogue partner
countries. There was general acceptance that any progerss in Myanmar would
be achieved through dialogue and engagement by the international
community, rather than through confrontation and isolation; that the idea
of benchmarks provided a means of gauging movement in Myanmar; and that
there should be a relationship between concessions to the SLORC and
progress in Myanmar.

Apart from the unconditional release of Aung Suu Kyi, I suggested that
benchmarks might include the following;

-  the commencement of a serious dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi about the
   political and constitutional evolution of the country;

-  access to political prisoners by the International Committee of the REd
   Cross, UN Special Rapporteur and othe outsiders;

-  a review and reduction of sentences imposed for political activity;

-  significant progress in the proposed dialogue between the SLORC and UN;

-  a clear timetable for the constitutional process with delegates able to
   participate more freely;

-  agreement by the SLORC to the inclusion of transitional provisions in
   the new constitution permitting further constitutional development;

-  the provision of legal guarantees for the rights of the ethnic
   minorities;

-  the cessation of forced labour and porterage beyond what are traditiona
   practices; and

-  the repeal of censorship and state protection legislation.

You mention the issues of trade and exploitation of Myanmar's natural
resources. THe Australian Government's policy is neither to encourage nor
discourage commerce with Myanmar.

You also mention concerns about the National Convention and the continued
use of forced labour. The Australian Government Shares these concerns. I
have raised my concerns about the substance and form of national Convention
directly with the Myanmar Foreign Minister U Ohn Gyaw. The Australian
Government has also made representations about the SLORC practice of using
forced labour in infrastructure development and in support of military
activities.

ON the question of the SLORC's relationship with the UN, the Government is
encouraged by the continuing access permitted the Special Rapporteur, and
recent signs that a dialogue with the UN is commencing following meetings
in New Youd in October between Under-Secretary-GEneral Goulding and Foreign
Minister U Ohn Gyaw.

The Australian Government's position on defence sales to Myanmar is well
known. While there is no international embargo on such sales, Australia has
implemented its own ban on defence exports, and has urged countries known
to supply arms to Myanmar to discontinue such exports.

Against this background, I can assure you that the Government supports your
aim of securing a more participative system of government in Myanmar and
respect for internationally accepted standards of human rights. Australia
will continue to word hard, in concert with the international community, to
promote positive change in Myanmar.

Your Sincerely,

GARETH  EVANS
------------------------------END COPY---------------------------------

#3 CONCERN ON LEGITIMACY OF SLORC: VIEWS EXPRESSED BY
       HUMAN RIGHTS FOR BURMA INC. WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Following is a letter from Mr P. deRosario, the President of Human Rights
for Burma Inc, concerning with my letters of 3 August 1994, and 6 April
1994 to Thailand. Although the concerns raised are not entirely applicable,
probably mis-interpret the letters, nontheless are important issues which 
needs clarifications. My reply is included.

               ----------START COPY------

                                    Human Rights for Burma(INc.)
                                    P.O. Box 775, Cannington
                                    Western Australia 6107
                                    14 August, 1994

Dear U Ne Oo,

We acknowledge receipt of your letters of August 3, 1994 with many thanks.
we read your letter with mixed feelings and was not too sure of your
intentions.

We were puzzled as to why you wanted DAB to ceasefire with SLORC. From the
Human Rights point of view, we are obliged to advise you that SLORC does
not have the mandate to rule the country. This regime has refused to honour
the 1990 general election. They promised the people democratic rights but
up until now there is no freedom of speech, press, assembly and
information. This authoritarian junta has deceived the people too many
times and cannot be trusted. Therefore for any one to enter into ceasefire
agreement with SLORC is a very risky proposition. We believe the ethnic
minorities at the border do know what they are doing and we believe they
will do the right thing for the country. We, therefore, strongly advise
that you do not persuade the ethnic minorities to comply with SLORC.

We were further very disappointed with your letter of April 6, 1994 to
Prime Minister Chaun Leekpai of Thailand. Why are you asking the Thai
government to force the ethnic rebels to enter into cease fire agreements
with SLORC. Why are you suggesting that the Thai Government repatriate the
Burmaes nationals back to Burma. The SLORC is not of the people, is not by
the people and is not for the people, Therefore it is very wrong to ask the
Thai Government to help repatriate the Burmese nationals. You further
advised the Thai Prime Minister that it was a wise move to invite Burma to
the ASEAN Meeting. WE strongly disagree with your statement and we request
you not to write such letters in future as it tends to legitimise the
military junta. All these matters are complax issues and if we do not
understand the whole issue, we should not write negative things
particularly to the Thai government who themselves are not well regarded by
the world communities and democratic countries.

If you are interested in advancing democracy in Burma, we suggest that you
write to the military regime and request that they accede to the wishes of
the people and hand over power to the people where it really belongs. SLORC
should serve the people and not force the people to serve them.

Yours faithfully,
Human Rights for Burma (Inc.)

P deRosario
President.
-------------------------- THE REPLY --------------------------------


Mr P deRosario
The President of Human Rights for Burma Inc.
P.O. Box 775, Cannington WA 6107.

\date{August 22, 1994.}

Dear Mr deRosario,

Thank you for your letter dated 14 August 1994. I am very glad to receive
such a critical letter from the compatriots and I respect your views.
Although you may have doubts about my ways & means, I am sure that we
share the same aspiration for freedom and democracy for all people of
Burma. Followings are why I have invoked the Royal Thai Government on
the issue of Burmese refugees. I think the difference between me and you
is not of the final objectives, but is, rather, the means of achieving it.

Firstly, my proposal is not of 'persuading the ethnic minorities to comply
with SLORC'. You may well know that General Bo Mya have stated in his speech
last April that the DAB wish to talk with SLORC with presence of outside
observers. I can't think of any better observer than United Nations.
General Bo Mya has also urged to the ministers of ASEAN countries to
mediate the peace-talks in July. I believe this is what DAB want: to
make the political settlement, i.e. to form Federal Union, with
Burmese military through international mediations. Therefore, the
suggestions in my August 3 letter is essentially reflections of these ethnic
freedom fighters' views. Of course, when we make political moves, this kind
of coordinated display of supports are quite necessary.

Senator Evans have tried to  mediate between SLORC and DAB/NCGUB in 1992,
which SLORC did not accept. SLORC is not going to transfer power to NLD on
a straight away whatever the people outside may say. So what can we do?

When you try to mediate  internal conflicts like this, there is in the
UN Charter that 'no country or group of countries interfere the internal
political affairs of the member state'. That is why all Burmese actually
got into problem and have to suffer for so long: the UN can only pass
the resolutions, there is no legal framework for UN to make
intervention on Burma's internal political affairs (only recently
UN changed its position, such as on Haiti). The SLORC do not honour
the 1990 election results, and that is the violation of Human Rights
( worse still, Burma is not a party to the ICCPR), and that is internal
political affairs. The fighting between minorities and SLORC is also
an internal political affairs. That is why the UN was unable to do
anything positively in the last 4 years.

Therefore, the only legitimate way for the UN to be involved in this internal
affairs is through refugees. Even then, the Thais are very much against this
idea. They(RTG) firstly forced the KNU and MNSP to make the cease-fire,
and the Thai NSC and MOI are very much hardline in this matter. There were
a lot of works required even to hold-on to this stage; I mean if
the Thais are absolutely tough, the minorities  will not have any
choice. Thanks to Australian Senators, that they have to talk a lot with
RTG and ASEAN, especially last July. Hopefully, the UN become involved
in this matter soon and make improvements to humanitarian situation,
influence on the writing of the constitution and also mediate between
ethnic rebels and Burmese military.

I think the refugee problem is more justified to solve if we look at
things in humanitarian perspective. The Burmese nationals have been begging
on the streets of Bangkok - which nobody should overlook about this.
The Burmese boat people are already arriving  Malaysia, looking for jobs.
The humanitarian situation within the country hasn't been any better;
people from Sagaing area are reportedly queued along railways line
begging for food- which reflect the extent of poverty in the countryside.
Nobody like to see Burma's situation developed into Somalia or Rwanda;
if we do not tackle the problems now, there is possibility of a complete
social breakdown occurring in Burma. The country's political problem
should be left to solve by political parties. But no administration,
legitimate or illegitimate, must  violate human rights of normal citizens
and forcing them to flee from the country. By the way, I am also a
refugee in Australia, and I myself do not like to live in other country.
That why I am doing these things that much as I have so much empathy
about their plights.

Well, I now hope that you have enough information on this initiative. If we
succeed, this will be the end of civil war and a new federal union to be
formed-which is what the ethnic minorities want. The democratic
forces at the border are not quite well informed as we are here,
simply because of they had to operate in a clandestine settings. There
is nothing wrong to give suggestions to them. I would even more
worried, if no one informed them of how to participate in the
movement, there is a true danger of democratic forces being
disappeared politically.

The invitation of Burma to ASEAN is a controversial one: the Americans don't
like it. But I think the outcome would be positive in longer run - we
have the danger of being overrun, economically, by big brother at the
north. And SLORC is not getting the membership tomorrow.

Well, SLORC is truly hard headed one. They are not quite likely to listen a
person like me( which they consider an absconder) and writing to them would
not have much effect. They have for 4 years ignored all serious diplomatic
representations,  UN resolutions and the protests by international
community. Any way, if we want something to get done in Burma,
it is not simply enough just asking SLORC to do. We must find ways to
give pressure upon SLORC. That thing, after all, have becomes politics.

Thanks for exchanging views and very open letter. I like this very much.
Even if the means might still be unclear, I hope you are having no doubt
of my honesty and good intention on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

(U NE OO)

ENDREPORTS/
\end{letter}
\end{document}