[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
Burma Net News: June 5, 1996. #433
- Subject: Burma Net News: June 5, 1996. #433
- From: strider@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 22:29:00
Received: (from strider) by igc2.igc.apc.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA18193; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 22:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 22:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"
----------------------------------------------------------
The BurmaNet News: June 4, 1996
Issue: # 433
Noted in Passing:
Take your stand, America. What side are you on? When that cry
goes out from people who are being oppressed, never should
we say we are on the side of the dictators, we are on the side
of the oppressors.
- US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (Republican, California)
(See US CONGRESSMAN CALLS FOR TOUGHER STAND
ON BURMA)
HEADLINES:
==========
THE NATION: DEFY SLORC, URGE REBELS
THE NATION: RANGOON'S VOLATILE GENERALS HOLD KEY TO PROGRESS
BKK POST: US CONGRESSMAN CALLS FOR TOUGHER STAND ON BURMA
BKK POST: STUDENTS' RELEASE DEMANDED
BKK POST: LAOS LAUDS SLORC FOR PEACE POLICY
MYINT THAN : SLORC RANTINGS AN ANACHRONISM
MYINT SHWE : HE WASN'T THERE
FEER: BURMESE BUNGLING
FEER: GOVERNMENT BY SLORC
FEER: THE BUSINESS OF AMERICA
REUTER : SANWA BANK TO OPEN OFFICE IN RANGOON
DR. KYAW TINT : LETTER TO EDITOR, MAINICHI DAILY NEWS
REUTER : BURMA SAYS OPPOSITION TOO CRITICAL FOR TALKS
UNOCAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORS
------------------------------------------------------------
THE NATION: DEFY SLORC, URGE REBELS
June 4, 1996
Reuter
BURMA'S jungle-based opposition yesterday called for a campaign
of defiance against the military government in Rangoon, saying
the administration was pushing the country into danger with its
refusal to negotiate.
The National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB) said in a
statement the government's recent verbal attacks on Aung San Suu
Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party showed the
generals were unwilling to open a dialogue on resolving Burma's
political problems.
The Slorc has attacked Suu Kyi and her party in the state-
controlled media since the May 26 to May 28 NLD meeting at her
Rangoon home.
She has been branded a tool of imperialists and a traitor, and
the authorities have vowed to crush what they term
"destructionists." The Slorc's actions " show it has no
willingness to resolve the basic political problems of the
country through negotiation and dialogue," said the NCUB.
"It shows that Slorc is dementedly attempting to consolidate the
military dictatorship and is pushing the country senselessly
towards a very dangerous state," the opposition alliance said.
The NCUB called on "patriots" in the Burmese army, civil service
and the Slorc's mass organization to adopt a "struggle of
defiance.... to totally refuse to do as the Slorc commands". (TN)
*************
THE NATION: RANGOON'S VOLATILE GENERALS HOLD KEY TO PROGRESS
June 4, 1996
RANGOON - No matter how hard Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu
Kyi pushes for democracy, whatever changes come to Burma -
peaceful, violent, or none - will depend on her nemesis, the
Slorc.
With an acronym worthy of a James Bond foe, the 21 generals
comprising the State Law and Order Restoration Council run one of
world's most feared and mysterious regimes.
They exercise absolute control inside Burma and show utter
disdain for outside criticism. Neither the carrot of potential
foreign investment nor the stick of threatened sanctions show
much sign of making them budge.
What do they want? Where will their confrontation with Suu Kyi
take Burma after the round up of 262 people to prevent an
opposition congress drew international attention to the regime?
"Perhaps you can tell us," Suu Kyi remarked to journalists.
The junta doesn't say, through it started releasing some
detainees last week. State-run newspapers reveal two main policy
goals: to attract foreign investors to develop Burma's economy,
and to permit nothing else foreign - like democracy - to slip in.
The odd office tower or hotel pops up in. Rangoon courtesy of
foreigners seeking profit in one of Asia's most backward
economies, but the people are always fearful of the secret
police.
Suu Kyi kept the heat on last week by pledging to hold more
opposition congresses. It was an implicit dare for the generals
to crackdown again and reap fresh attention for the struggle she
resumed after her release from six years of house arrest last
July.
The generals let her know the dialogue she wants will have to
wait. State-run media called her a puppet of Western powers. They
haven't yet arrested Suu Kyi - a move that would cross a line for
many investors and governments. But diplomats privately express
worries that the regime may feel backed into a corner and fret
about how the generals will react if Suu Kyi mounts another
congress.
The junta could let it proceed and lose face at home - perhaps
the generals' biggest fear. They could arrest more Suu Kyi
supporters, but they eventually will run out and be stuck face-
to-face with Suu Kyi.
Or, they could launch a harsher crackdown. No one in Burma has
forgotten 1988, when troops killed hundreds of democracy
demonstrators in Rangoon. Street massacres would create an
international backlash.
The US Senate already is considering a near total trade embargo.
Analysts say just a few industrial nations adopting sanctions
would be a blow to the government, which they believe is deeply
in debt from building up the military. Those who know the
generals describe them as ruthless and corrupt, but also
pragmatic, disciplined and charming.
They almost never give interviews, but appear nightly on
television signing new contracts or visiting religious shrines.
Analysts speculate about who might be a "close visionary" - a
Slorc version of South Africa's last apartheid president, FW de
Klerk, who could bring himself to negotiate with Suu Kyi, the
Burmese Nelson Mandela.
No such general seems on the horizon, but Suu Kyi does not rule
out one emerging. "People must remember that de Klerk was once a
hardliner, too," she says.
An effective visionary would have to be one of the four generals
who wield true power:
Gen Than Shwe, is the undisputed leader as prime minister and
Slorc chairman. Reputedly practical, religious and tough, he
began freeing more than 2,000 political prisoners after coming to
power in 1992 and allowed Suu Kyi family visits. He called on her
twice himself. But he took four years to free her.
Lt Gen Khin Nyunt, the junta's first secretary and secret police
chief, is regarded as the most intelligent of the four and has a
reputation as a workaholic who does not smoke, drink or womanise.
Chroniclers of the 1988 uprising allege Khin Nyunt emptied jails
to create anarchy and justify the generals' seizure of power.
Lt Gen Maung Aye, like Than Shwe, saw combat against communist
and ethnic insurgents. As junta vice chairman, Maung Aye is first
in line to succeed Than Shwe. The only top Slorc member who
graduated from Burma's elite military training school, he is
popular with the troops.
Lt Gen Tin Oo, like Maung Aye, has at times threatened to
"annihilate" Suu Kyi. The military chief of staff, he has more
combat experience than Than Shwe and Maung Aye and has their
respect. (TN)
**************
BKK POST: US CONGRESSMAN CALLS FOR TOUGHER STAND ON BURMA
June 4, 1996
The following are excerpts from US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher
(Republican, California) speech on the House floor on May 23,
1996 concerning the political situation in Slorc's Burma.
IN the last 48 hours, there has been a vicious attack on the
cause of democracy in the country of Burma. Burma is a country
you do not hear much about.
In fact, Burma is a country with 48 million people in Southeast
Asian - a country that now is suffering under the heel of one of
the world's most vicious dictatorships.
And over these last few years, many of us who have been active in
the human rights movement have tried to work and do our best to
see that perhaps Burma could evolve out of this dictatorship.
The military dictatorship in Burma is called Slorc. It is a name
that basically fits the regime because it sounds like it is right
out of "Star Wars", where the freedom fighters are fighting
against the evil empire.
This evil empire in Burma is repressing the people. But there is,
you might say, a champion of freedom, a hero to the world who
lives in Burma and has tried to bring democracy to that country.
It is Aunt San Suu Kyi.
Aunt San Suu Kyi, of course, was a Nobel prize winner two years
ago. She was arrested by the Slorc regime. Then last year she was
set free and many of us hoped that there would be lessening of
the repression in Burma.
But what has happened in the last 48 hour is that the military
dictatorship in Burma, Slorc, has rounded up almost 200 members
of the democratic opposition in Burma and arrested them. Anyone
who is meeting with Suu Kyi, anyone who is involved in the
democratic movement, is being arrested.
Dr. Sein Win, the prime minister of the democratic government in
exile, testified in the Senate yesterday (May 23) that the
situation in Burma is one of despair and despotism. Today his
brother, who is not even a member of the democratic movement, was
arrested on retaliation for what Prime Minister Sein Win
testified about here on Washington.
I have introduced a piece of legislation hopefully that will
discourage Americans from doing business in Burma. It is H.R
2892, and we would hope that the American people and American
businessman recognised that here is a country that, if anywhere,
we should take a stand for freedom. If anywhere in the world we
could take a stand and it will not hurt us and we just show that
we believe in freedom, it could be Burma.
And there is no excuse for us not to do so. There is no strategic
interest there, there is no huge commercial interest, but what is
there are 48 million people suffering under the heal of
despotism, crying out to the United States for US to take a
stand.
Take your stand, America. What side are you on? When that cry
goes out from people who are being oppressed, never should we say
we are on the side of the dictators, we are on the side of the
oppressors.
This country, this dictatorship in Burma, has financed its war on
its own people by selling off its teak forests, which have been
decimated, by basically selling its natural resources, its gems,
to foreigners who have come in and extracted it, and the Slorc
has put the money into their own pockets and into their own
coffers, and now it is even willing to sell its natural gas
resources to American companies.
And where do these monies go? They go into the purchase of weapon
systems of military equipment and militarisation of this country
that is used to repress their own people. Furthermore, this
monstrous regime that represses its own people in Burma has
taken its resources also by becoming involved in the drug trade.
Many people in our country wanted us to actually cooperate with
the government of Burma, with its dictatorship, thinking that we
could together stand against drugs. Others of us believed, as I
think has been reconfirmed, that the dictatorship in Burma is up
to their necks in the drug trade. They have not refrained from
becoming involved in growing opium and selling heroin because of
some kind of morality.
If they had any morality, they would not be murdering their own
people, and that was brought home more recently when the drug
lord Kung Saw (Khun Sa), who was famous in the US, or I should
say infamous in the US, he was put out of business by the
military dictatorship, and what has happened?
Kung Saw, he may have gone into retirement; of course, he is not
in jail. He is in retirement in Rangoon, but the drug trade and
the drug production from his area, which is now under government
control, continues at the level that it was.
Aung San Suu Kyi, this hero of freedom, this women who in our
time shows and example to the world of what we should be like as
Americans, champions of freedom has asked us to put economic
sanctions on this regime because it now has shown its true
colours.
It does not, Burmese regime, the Slorc regime, does not want
reform. It instead is seeking further repression and will grasp
on to power until the last desperate time, what they have, is
gone, until they are forced from power by pressure from the
outside or by perhaps revolution from their own people.
Unfortunately the Slorc regime is being bolstered by a military
that is being supplied by Communist China. Communist China has
sold Burma the weapons it needs to maintain a dictatorship. In
fact, is becoming a client state of China. The Red Chinese
regime is doing all it can to keep its buddies, its gangster
buddies, in power in Rangoon.
Congress will soon take up the issue, interestingly enough, of
most-favoured-nation status to China. This is an important piece
of legislation. But let us make sure that, as we move forward
when we are talking about Burma, that we can make a stand in
Burma, and ... I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in basically
outlawing any further Americans investment through supporting H.R
2892 and opposing any further American investment in Burma. (BP)
***************
BKK POST: STUDENTS' RELEASE DEMANDED
June 4, 1996
Bangkok Post
THE Student Federation of Thailand (SFT) yesterday called for the
release of 20 Burmese students arrested last week outside the
Burmese Embassy in Bangkok.
In an appeal submitted to Deputy Interior Minister Sornchai
Montriwat, the SFT said police had violated "international human
rights, causing the Thai government to violate the UN charter
with the regard to refugees."
The students were arrested on May 27 as they protested against
Rangoon's bid to disrupt the congress of the National League for
Democracy by detaining more than 200 party members and
supporters.
The Burmese students were held for one day at a station in Nong
Khaem before being transferred to the Immigration Detention
Centre in central Bangkok, where they have since remained.
The SFT's appeal was the second the Interior Ministry had
received in the last week. Six Thai and Burmese groups,
consisting mostly of students, submitted a joint appeal to Prime
Minister Banharn Silpa-archa on may 28.
That appeal said 22 Burmese, including four female students and a
six-year old child, had been detained despite their residency of
a safe area in Ratchaburi for young Burmese who fled the military
crackdown on a pro-democracy uprising in Burma in 1988.
"They came to Bangkok to express their freedom of expression and
give support to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD party," the
groups said in their letter to Banharn. (BP)
****************
BKK POST: LAOS LAUDS SLORC FOR PEACE POLICY
June 4, 1996
by Saritdet Marukatat
LAO President Nouhak Phoumsavanh has praised Rangoon for pursuing
a policy line which would bring about peace and prosperity in
Burma, state-run Radio Vientiane reported yesterday.
He made the remark on Thursday during a visit by Burmese Minister
Attached to the Office of the Slorc, Lieutenant General Min
Thein, Radio Vietiane said.
The Lao head of state said efforts made by Slorc towards national
reconciliation would boost peace and economic development in
Burma.
He said these efforts would pave the way for Burma to play a
large role on both the regional and international stages, the
report monitored in Bangkok said.
The Burmese minister was expected in Laos as a guest of Defence
Minister Chummaly Sayasone, who visited Rangoon last October.
Lt Gen Min Thein told Nouhak his visit sought to strengthen the
cooperative relationship between the two countries' armed forces.
The report did not specify the duration of Lt Gen Min Thein's
visit.
Nouhak's support of Rangoon at a time when the ruling military
regime is under intense international scrutiny underlines the
close relationship between the two countries, which have
exchanged visits at all levels over the past few years.
The Lao president visited Burma in May, one year after Slorc
leader Than Shwe travelled to Vientiane in his first overseas
trip since the council seized power in 1988.
Lao prime Minister Khamtay Siphandone in February 1992 became the
first government leader to visit Burma after Slorc nullified the
results of democratic elections in Burma. (BP)
******************************************
SLORC RANTINGS AN ANACHRONISM
4.6.96/Bangkok Post/ Post Bag
SIR: No amount of venomous ranting against Aung San Suu Kyi and
the peoples' representatives can help the SLORC avert the winds
of change howling ever louder in Burma.
The kind of jargon being used by the SLORC to denigrate their
perceived enemies belong to another era and bears no meaning or
relevance to contemporary reality.
To wit: "Stooges of foreign powers", "Dancing to the tune of
colonialists", "Daughter-in-law of the White Face". Come on!
SLORC should wake up to two basic facts of life in these last
days of the 20th century:
*The age of colonialism is long dead, and
*The age of militarism and dictatorship is in its final gasps.
Closer to home, the Burmese Tatmadaw (armed forces) no longer has
the respect of the citizenry. It has become a lawless element
that intimidates, kills, slaughters, rapes and maims its own
people it had sworn to serve and protect. These facts are too
well known to the international community to deny. You want to
play an important role in the future of the government and occupy
25 percent of the seats of government Go ahead and scream. You'll
only look more and more ridiculous.
Myint Than
Chiang Mai
********************************************
HE WASN'T THERE
Myint Shwe
4.6.96/Bangkok Post/Post Bag
SIR: I feel very sick with U Aung's lengthy balderdash concerning
the current political developments in Burma. (Bangkok Post, May
28). His writing only reveals two things First, it shows that he
knows nothing of the real during the pre- and post-1990 election
months. Secondly, despite his high sounding and irrelevant
quotations from Churchill and Gandhi, his diversified themes in
the articles imply only one thing: that he wants to blame the
pro-democracy forces (led by the NLD) for pulling all the weights
tirelessly as if it is better doing nothing than making mistakes
and making SLORC more angry.
I was a voter in the 1990 Burmese election. I voted for NLD
despite the fact I was a member of the League for Democracy and
Peace (LDP), a party patronised by Burma's venerated ex-prime
minister U Nu, U Aung's father. I did it because nobody on our
side of the barricades in Burma at that time wanted votes to be
dispersed among a dozen major pro-democracy political parties. We
even sent our comrades, the LDPs, to the NLD and had them run to
become NLD MPs.
The Burmese people did not allow themselves to be deceived again
by SLORC and they behaved in the election as if it were a
revolution, not a voting event. This was the essence of the 1999
election and SLORC was beaten despite its threats, manipulation
and actual harassment.
U Aung missed that (because he was in exile, and safe). The
Burmese people did all this under the bayonets of SLORC and the
general fear since the bloody September coup, Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi was already in custody and those left outside could have been
crushed like ants its unjust gestures, like U Aung is doing now,
far away from Slorc.
Myint Shwe
Toronto
*****************************************
FEER: BURMESE BUNGLING
New crackdown in Rangoon
June 6, 1996
Remember the saying about the execution of the Duc d'Enghiem,
that it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder? That's how we
feel about Burma's Slorc, which as we go to press has detained
262 members of the opposition National League for Democracy in an
effort, ultimately futile, to prevent the latter from holding a
convention. Led by Aung San Suu Kyi, the convention was designed
to mark the sixth anniversary of election in which Suu Kyi's
followers captured 82% of the vote but were prevented from
forming a government.
When it comes to trade we part company with Suu Kyi's called for
foreign investors to forsake Burma until it has a functioning
democracy; along with Burma's immediate neighbours in Southeast
Asia, we believe that Burmese hopes for liberty have a far
greater chance of taking root where there is economic engagement
and not isolation. That said, however, if Slorc really wants the
investment it says it does, it will find that the price of that
involvement will be increasing world scrutiny.
In response to suggestions that this latest crackdown will only
invite sanctions from the West, Brig-Gen Win Tin, minister for
finance and revenue, resorted to bravado, nothing that Burma has
been isolated" since 1988 and we have grown with our resources."
True enough. Obviously, however, there were problems with that
isolation or else the Slorc would not have moved to open its
economy and link up with Asean neighbours. Suu Kyi has long
demonstrated that she is willing to pay the price for her
principles. And in going ahead with her party congress, she will
likely succeed in making Slorc pay the price for theirs. (FEER)
***************
FEER: GOVERNMENT BY SLORC
Junta's latest crackdown draw a strong backlash
June 6, 1996
By Bertil Lintner in Bangkok
When Burma's junta decided to crackdown on the country's
revitalized democracy movement, it probably didn't anticipate the
response. True to its old ways, the Slorc began arresting
delegates to a Rangoon conference that the opposition National
League for Democracy had scheduled for May 26-29. Scores of
people were detained, and the official media published vitriolic
attacks on the NLD's secretary-general, Aung San Suu Kyi, calling
her a "sorceress" and a "Snake" hungry for power.
But this time, the heavy-handed approach proved
counterproductive. On May 25, soon after the arrests began,
record crowds showed up for the weekly Saturday speech Suu Kyi
delivers outside her home on University Avenue. Meanwhile,
governments across the world condemned Slorc's actions, NLD
sympathizers marched in Japan and in other countries, and the US
moved ever closer to tightening economic sanctions.
So the first round went to Suu Kyi and the NLD. But can they
translate a moral victory into political concessions from Slorc?
Given the junta's traditional intransigence, probably not.
For starters, the regime has zero tolerance for people who
challenge its very existence. The NLD meeting itself was timed as
a reminder of the regime's dubious right to power: It coincided
with the sixth anniversary of the general election in which the
NLD captured 392 of parliament's 485 seats - only to be denied a
chance at government. Of the 258 delegates Slorc arrested, 238
were MPs-elect. All had converged on Rangoon to demand that Slorc
recognized the results of the 1990 vote. (By the time the meeting
actually convened, its 300-odd participants included only 17
original delegates.)
"It was a direct challenge to the very legitimacy of the present
military-led government," says a Rangoon-based analyst. "And
that's non-negotiable as far as Slorc is concerned."
If so, Slorc and popular sentiment are on sharply divergent
paths. Despite official warnings to stay away, more than 5,000
people showed up to hear Suu Kyi on May 25. That's twice the
crowd she has attracted on most weeks since her release from
house arrest in July last year.
"I had not planned to come here today," a 65-year-old woman in
the crowd told Reuters news agency. "But since I heard the
government was trying to prevent their meeting I purposely made
sure I came." said another: "Nobody likes this military
government. They are very bad."
Foreign governments seem to agree. In Washington, State
Department spokesman Nicholas Burns lambasted the arrests as "yet
another in along series of outrageous and oppressive measures
against democrats."
In Tokyo, Japanese Foreign Minister Yukihiko Ikeda called on his
visiting Burmese counterpart, Ohn Gyaw, for the immediate release
of all those detained. In Geneva, the Burmese representative to
the UN, U Aye, was summoned by Joe Ayala-Lasso, high commissioner
for human rights, who expressed his "profound concern" over the
arrests.
The European Union prepared a response, and Canberra went as far
as awarding Suu Kyi the Order of Australia, its highest honour.
Given the new Australian government's recent conciliatory
attitude toward Slorc, that seems a significant move. Even
Thailand, which rarely comments on internal developments in
Burma, said through Foreign Ministry spokesman Surapong Jayanama
that it was "concerned about the ongoing arrests, which we
consider counterproductive to the democratization and
reconciliation process."
Says a Rangoon-based Western diplomat: "Never before have so many
countries come out to criticise the Burmese government's action
in such strong terms. This is unprecedented."
But is Slorc listening? In Bangkok, a Burmese embassy spokesman
insisted that "there have been no arrests, only questioning....
we're trying to stop any disturbances. The government will take
every responsible measure to prevent the country from plunging
into chaos."
Burmese state radio and TV continued to praise the present regime
and broadcast news about the necessity of "annihilating all
destructive elements." There was no indication of willingness
even to talk to the opposition.
Slorc may monopolize power, but the crisis in Rangoon has
nevertheless revealed how vulnerable is Burma's fragile economy
to changes in the political climate. As the arrests began, the
value of the Burmese kyat tumbled on the blackmarket, where the
exchange-rate jumped to 135 to the US dollar from 120. The price
of a pyi, a small basket of rice, surged to 70 kyats from 40.
Even without unrest, the cost of living continues to rise in
Burma's urban areas, which could be another reason more people
are showing up for Suu Kyi's Saturday rallies. "People who work
for foreign companies and are being paid in US dollars used to be
able to live quite comfortably," says a recent visitors to
Rangoon. "But even they now complain that it's becoming
increasingly difficult to make ends meet."
Despite domestic and international contempt for Slorc, its record
shows little inclination for compromise. And Slorc has the means
to defend itself: a 300,000 strong military machine that it has
never hesitated to use against the opposition. Says a former
Asian ambassador to Burma: "Nothing will change as long as the
military remains united - and there is no indication that it
won't." (FEER)
**************
FEER: THE BUSINESS OF AMERICA
June 6, 1996
By Michael Vatikiotis in Bangkok
The top story in The New Light of Myanmar on May 24 wasn't the
mass detention of National League for Democracy members. Instead,
Burma's official English-language newspaper led with a meeting
between Roger Truitt, president of American oil company Atlantic
Richfield, and Maung Aye, vice-chairman of the Slorc.
Arco had just agreed with Myanmar Oil & Gas Enterprise to explore
an offshore natural-gas concession and share production. In the
benign images of Truitt signing contracts and dining with Burma's
generals was a not-so-subtle message: Whatever Burma's domestic
travails, business would go on as usual.
But will it? Even as Arco inked its deal, an angry Washington was
moving closer to tightening sanctions against Slorc. The US
already withholds aid from Burma and denies it export-financing
and loan guarantees. But two bills moving through Congress would
outlaw new US investment in Burma altogether. When Congress
considered similar measures last year, "pro-engagement" forces
prevailed; this time around- partly because this is an election
year - congressional sentiment is clearly running towards a
harder line.
"The stakes are much higher," says Michele Bohana, director of
the institute for Asian Democracy in Washington. "This year
there's a lot of bipartisan support for sanctions."
Sen. Mitch McConnell, co-sponsor of the senate sanctions bill,
thinks it can pass Congress "before the congress adjourns,"
meaning by November.
Even so, it's doubtful that unilateral US action would have much
impact on Slorc so long as other countries remain free to invest
in Burma. There's no shortage of people eager to do so. A Rangoon
conference on investment opportunities organized by the Economist
Intelligence Unit in March attracted 135 participants, mostly
Western multinationals. Another such conference convened in
Rangoon just as the junta began detaining NLD members. It
attracted more than 180 people.
The crackdown has done little to dim investors interest in Burma.
Although some firms might delay their plans, says a participant
in the May conference," the consensus was that we've seen this in
Asia before and we're here for the long term, so we're not
deterred."
For Americans, however, the battle to do business in Burma is
being fought not in Rangoon but in boardrooms and congressional
lobbies back home. Human-rights campaigns aimed at forcing US
companies to divest from Burma are beginning to have an effect.
"Pepsi can take the red off its cans, but Pepsi can't wash the
blood from its hands," ran a student slogan calling for the soft-
drink giant to pull out of Burma. Stung by cancellation of a $1
million contract to supply soft drinks to Harvard University, and
an image problem that hurt its youth-oriented advertising
campaign, PepsiCo said in April it would sell its 40% stake in
Pepsi products Myanmar.
Through student protests and commercial boycotts, pro-democracy
activists have inflicted minor but costly pinpricks on companies
engaged in Burma, and some manufacturers sourcing products from
the country have severed their links. "We've taken the war from
the jungle into the boardroom," says a pro-democracy activists in
Thailand.
To date, four US cities - Berkeley and Santa Monica in
California, Madison in Wisconsin and Ann Arbor in Michigan - have
passed legislation barring official purchases of products or
services supplied by US companies that do business in or with
Burma.
Pro-democracy activists are also fine-tuning their use of
shareholder resolutions. Simon Billenness, who works for Boston-
based investors Franklin Research & Development, says activists
are pushing for broader code-of-conduct rules that would be
harder for companies to ignore.
So far, companies have fended off such resolutions with little
difficulty. They are also hitting back, some with costly
publicity campaigns and hired lobbyists. Unocal, which has a
28.3% share in Burma's $1 billion Yadana gas pipeline project,
has hired lobbyists to combat selective-purchasing legislation in
several American states. US activists claim the Yadana project,
now under construction, relies on forced labour and will line the
pockets of military leaders. Unocal calls the project "a positive
development" that "introduces new ideas, business standards and
democratic principles" to Burma.
More broadly, US companies in Asia argue that the benefits of
engagement far outweigh the ill-effects. "Isolationist approaches
ad economic sanctions have seldom if ever persuaded those in
power to change their ways," says Bangkok-based Robert Wilson,
chairman of the Asia-Pacific Council of American Chambers of
Commerce. He and others cite Taiwan and South Korea as countries
where engagement by the Western business community helped
liberalize not only markets but political systems too.
Lost in all the argument over Burma is the fact that actual
American investment there is still minuscule - and shrinking. The
world Bank says realized US investment in Burma declined to $16.5
million a year earlier. Says a Western diplomat in Rangoon: "This
is a continuing trend." (FEER)
*******************************************
SANWA BANK TO OPEN OFFICE IN RANGOON
By Rika Otsuka
SYDNEY, June 3 (Reuter) - Leading Japanese banks see more potential
for profitablity in Asia than in Europe or the United States and plan to
continue to boost operations in the region, Japanese banking executives
said on Monday.
"Our bank is going to expand business more and more in Asia in the
future," Minoru Eda, deputy president of Sanwa Bank Ltd, told Reuters in an
interview at the International Monetary Conference in Sydney.
"Business for Japanese banks in Asia is more profitable than business
elsewhere outside Japan," he said.
Other bankers said they planned to expand operations in Asia at a
greater pace than in the U.S. or European markets.
They said margins in Asia were much more favourable as deals were
generally smaller, meaning the same amount of funds could generate more
fees than larger deals elsewhere.
The banks were also following Japanese manufacturers into the Asian
region as they escaped a firm yen at home and took advantage of strong
regional economies.
"We have tried hard to expand our office network in Asia in the past
one to two years," said Toru Hashimoto, president of Fuji Bank Ltd.
"We are now opening an office in Bombay in India after opening a Hanoi
office in order to meet demand from Japanese customers who want to increase
business there," he said.
Hashimoto said his bank also wanted to open a branch in Beijing and a
representative office in Rangoon.
Sanwa's Eda said Sanwa had unofficially been told by the Burmese
government that the bank would be able to open a representative office in
Rangoon.
Unlike the 1980s when Japan enjoyed a booming economy and Japanese
banks were busy expanding their workforce and facilities everywhere, some
banks were now choosing to shift their workforce, especially Japanese
employees, to Asia from more mature markets, bankers said.
Yoshiki Soga, managing director of Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan Ltd,
said the bank had been localising management in much of Europe and the
United States and was sending Japanese bankers with international
experience to Asian countries.
An increasing presence in Asia and the gathering of information there
was important for Japanese clients as well as Western customers since
Westerners were increasingly interested in Asia, said Soga, chief executive
of LTCB's U.S. operation.
In addition, many Asian governments wanted to attract Japanese banks
with their huge funds to help turn their cities into regional financial
centres, bankers said.
For example, several banking officials said the Chinese government had
asked them if they would set up a second branch in Shanghai for local
currency dealing on an experimental basis.
For such a large benefit, Japanese banks would increase their presence
and support the local economy, the bankers said.
"All those factors that have seen Japanese banks push into Asia
emerged all at once," said one bank executive who declined to be named. "So
this expanding trend in Japanese banks' presence in Asia would continue for
a while."
REUTER
********************************************
LETTER TO EDITOR, MAINICHI DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, June 4, 1996
Readers Forum: "Coverage of Burma"
To the Editor:
I thank you for reporting the activities of the Japanese business
federation Keidanren in Burma ("Business group upgrades ties with Burma,"
May 29, 1996). As one who studied in Japan for more than a decade, I
sincerely want to see Japan assume the role of advocate and leader of
democracy and human rights in Asia, particularly in Burma. But upgrading
Keidanren's ties at a "bad time" without "turning back" is sharply counter
to expectations for Japan's role in my country.
Advocates of resuming official development assistance (ODA) to Burma have
made it sound reasonable by first offering assistance to a nursing school.
However, the truth is otherwise. Actually, this project is heavily ironic,
since it means giving money to the very same military regime that brutally
gunned down nurses at Rangoon General Hospital in 1988. Although one might
get the impression that ODA is used solely for humanitarian purposes, the
facts are to the contrary.
Of Japan's ODA prior to 1988, virtually nothing -- nearly zero percent --
went to health, medicine or social welfare projects. Apart from this single
"showcase" nursing school project, ODA from Japan will be for infrastructure
and serve to extend the military's oppressive rule. The Burmese people's
lives will not be enhanced; their sufferings will actually be prolonged.
Consider this "humanitarian" project itself, for a moment. Given current
health care standards in Burma, Japan's aid will be wholly ineffective.
Why? Because the impoverished majority can never afford treatment at
existing hospitals. A patient must pay about 100 kyats per day in a
hospital, not including medication or surgery. One day's hospitalization is
more than one-tenth of a civil servant's entire monthly salary. Obviously,
the shortage of nurses and doctors, which sharply worsened after 1989 when
thousands left the country, is not the underlying problem.
The real issue is whether or not the military regime will respect the will
of the Burmese people, whether it will stop fighting against its own people.
I do not think Japan should side with the military against the people of
Burma. Obviously, the question is not simply a matter of money, as Japanese
business likes to claim. This is a matter of morality, right and wrong, one
about which civilized people should care.
Since the problem goes deeper than ODA money or simple diplomacy, the
Japanese political community should make an effort to understand the
National League for Democracy's position. I am sure the opposition does not
want to open a new front against the flow of Japanese business. U Kyi
Maung, the NLD vice-chairman, always cites the beauty of Japanese culture
and the marvel of Japan's great progress in his speeches. He and others
like him do not want to turn their energies against Japanese money; they
want Japan to understand Burma's reality. To me, the social and economic
conditions in Burma today are actually very similar to conditions in early
1988. Injustice persists all over the country. The superficial "boom"
economy has only made the injustices more acute.
As an aside, I urge the leaders of Japanese business not to be taken in by
the promises of a regime that keeps no promise. Please understand that you
money will certainly keep Burmese people crying longer.
Japan has frequently expressed to the military regime its disgust for human
rights abuses, its despair at failure to honor the elections, and its
disappointment over reform. At this critical time, I urge the Japanese
government to respect the will of Burmese people, by not prematurely
resuming ODA to Burma before any meaningful progress has taken place.
DR. KYAW TINT
Alhambra, California
*****************************************
BURMA SAYS OPPOSITION TOO CRITICAL FOR TALKS
SYDNEY, June 4 (Reuter) - A senior member of Burma's military government
has told Radio Australia that talks with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi
are not possible until she softens her attitude towards the country's rulers.
Tourism Minister General Kyaw Ba said the State Law and Order
Restoration Council (SLORC) was prepared to hold talks with Suu Kyi if she
stopped criticising it.
``If she agree on that matter I think that can be dialogue, but it will
take time,'' Kyaw Ba said in an interview broadcast on Monday.
``To dialogue with her we must consider how she will go with her
attitude and we can not know what is in her mind,'' he said.
``She is always confronting us and also she is criticising to us, and we
know, we understand that it won't make any progress when we hold dialogue
with her,'' Kyaw Ba said in English.
``So the only thing is we must concentrate on our work only. Not
talking,'' he said.
The general said SLORC would allow Suu Kyi to continue to hold rallies
as long as she does not incite people against authorities.
``If she not insulting, arousing the people to go on the street, we will
not say anything, it will depend on her attitude and activity,'' he said.
Asked if authorities would re-detain Suu Kyi to prevent opposition to
the military's plans, he said: ``We do not want to do such things. If our
country is going to be disintegrated we must consider that matter.''
Asked to comment on plans by Suu Kyi's opposition to write a
constitution, the general said: ``The constitution can not be written by one
party. All the levels of the people must be involved in the constitution.''
22:48 06-03-96
*****************************************
UNOCAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORS
The following question was asked of Unocal CEO Roger Beach at June 3's
contentious shareholder's meeting:
Question for Unocal Corp.:
1) Numerous US companies, including $30 billion PepsiCo, have divested
from Burma. The United Nations and US State Department cite credible
evidence of the massive and systematic use of forced labor on
infrastructure projects in Burma. This forced labor is accompanied by
rape, torture, forced relocation and extrajudicial execution, according to
a UN report from just this past February. The UN is very careful and
cautious in researching and reporting such disturbing facts.
Unocal is a partner with the Burmese military in the largest
infrastructure project in Burma since the violent suppression of Burma's
democracy movement, yet you have repeatedly denied that there is any
forced labor related to your project, including the construction of roads
and barracks for nine extra battallions of pipeline security forces. A
report released this past week in Rangoon quotes refugees and clandestine
observers as directly contradicting Unocal's denials. A one hour
documentary called "Inside Burma, Land of Fear" aired in Britain last
month, and will air in the US this year. This report also contradicts
Unocal's denials. If we were talking about allegations of beach pollution
in Mexico, would anyone accept your denials at face value? Obviously not.
Instead, scientists would be sent into the area to confirm the facts, and
make public their conclusions, subject to peer review of the methodology
and conclusions of the study. That's how good science is done. You often
cite Unocal or Total "studies" that conclude only "we saw no evidence of
human rights violations" but do not say who did the study, where they
looked, or how the study was done.
Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch Asia have offered to
provide experienced human rights monitors to examine the situation in the
pipeline zone. You use an outside accountancy firm, and inspector of
election (to tally shareholder votes) for credibility. Why not do the same
regarding evidence of forced labor, etc. in the pipeline zone. There is a
need for independent, scientific examination of the situation in the
pipeline area, subject to peer review.
Will you commit Unocal to assist and support such a study?
Beach said Unocal would like to do this, but had two problems, he said.
One, he felt the human rights groups would be unwilling to focus only on
the Unocal project, but would want to broaden the inquiry.
Two, he said the "Myanmar government was 'skittish' on this issue."
Mr. Beach said follow-ups should be made through Pres. John Imle's office.
Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility is seeking a meeting with
Imle on this issue in the near future.
LD
----------------------------------------------------------
BURMANET SUBJECT-MATTER RESOURCE LIST
BurmaNet regularly receives enquiries on a number of different
topics related to Burma. If you have questions on any of the
following subjects, please direct email to the following
volunteer coordinators, who will either answer your question or
try to put you in contact with someone who can:
Campus activism: zni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Boycott campaigns: [Pepsi] ai268@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Buddhism: Buddhist Relief Mission:
brelief@xxxxxxx
Chin history/culture: plilian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fonts: tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
History of Burma: zni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
International Affairs: Julien Moe: moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kachin history/culture: 74750.1267@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Karen history/culture: Karen Historical Society:
102113.2571@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mon history/culture: [volunteer needed]
Naga history/culture: Wungram Shishak:
z954001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Burma-India border [volunteer needed]
Pali literature: "Palmleaf": c/o
burmanet@xxxxxxxxxxx
Rohingya culture Kyaw Oo: myin@xxxxxxxxx
Shan history/culture: Sao Hpa Han: burma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shareholder activism: simon_billenness@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Total/Pipeline Dawn Star: cd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tourism campaigns: bagp@xxxxxxxxxx "Attn.
S.Sutcliffe"
World Wide Web: FreeBurma@xxxxxxxxx
Volunteering: christin@xxxxxxxxxx
[Feel free to suggest more areas of coverage]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---
The BurmaNet News is an electronic newspaper covering Burma.
Articles from newspapers, magazines, newsletters, the wire
services and the Internet as well as original material are
published.
It is produced with the support of the Burma Information Group
(B.I.G) and the Research Department of the ABSDF {MTZ}
The BurmaNet News is e-mailed directly to subscribers and is
also distributed via the soc.culture.burma and seasia-l
mailing lists. For a free subscription to the BurmaNet News, send
an e-mail message to: majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx
For the BurmaNet News only: in the body of the message, type
"subscribe burmanews-l" (without quotation marks).
For the BurmaNet News and 4-5 other messages a day posted on
Burma issues, type "subscribe burmanet-l"
Letters to the editor, comments or contributions of articles
should be sent to the editor at: strider@xxxxxxxxxxx
*****************************************************************