[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
News Fron The Nation Newspaper
The Nation
Trade disrupted as Burma shuts border passes
The Nation
BURMESE officials closed all border passes opposite Mae Sot district in
Tak province yesterday, resulting in a disruption of cross-border trade.
Army Commander Gen Chettha Thanajaro said he was perplexed by the move,
but stressed that the closure was ''not a serious problem because we
don't have any conflict. A border dispute is a small incident. Don't
exaggerate this matter because that would affect trade and relations
between the two countries."
Burmese officials gave no warning of the impending closure. Even members
of the Joint Border Committee working closely with Burmese border
officials said they were mystified as to why it occurred.
Maj Rijirawat Vongsariyanarong, the head of the Thai-Burmese
Coordinating Committee, said Lt Col Sai Phone, the commander of Burma's
275th Infantry Division, informed him of the reason for the border
closure after it had occurred.
Maj Rijirawat quoted Lt Col Sai Phone as saying security problems
prompted the move and that Burma would like to reorganise regulations
concerning border crossings and goods trafficking.
Maj Rijirawat said Burma had neglected to officially notify Bangkok of
the closure. According to the Thailand-Burma Treaty on Trade and
Investment Cooperation, if either country wishes to close a border pass,
it must notify the other country at least three months in advance.
Border officials said they believed the closure resulted from the
dispute over Burmese dredging of the Moei River, which Rangoon claims
has changed course, resulting in a loss of Burmese territory.
Gen Chettha said the Army will not take any action at present but will
wait for the results of the next round of talks between Joint Border
Committee representatives, scheduled in Rangoon at the end of the month.
Burmese troops set up dredging equipment in the Moei River opposite Ban
Rim Moei early last month, near Wat Phrathat Khok Chang in Tambon Tha
Sai Luad. They apparently intended to change the river's course back to
where it was before flooding altered it.
Both sides refused to give ground. Burma insisted that their dredging
plan was based on an aerial map and photographs taken in 1989, while
Thai authorities refused to accept a claim that had expanded from 150
rai to 300 rai.
Early attempts to resolve the dispute failed as both sides insisted on
their original proposals. The third round of talks, which took place on
Tuesday, ended with the Burmese delegation headed by U Aye Lwin walking
out of the meeting.
The spontaneous closure has affected Tak's cross-border trade, which
consists of 100 metric tonnes of consumer goods exported to Burma every
day, Panithi Tangphati, the vice president of Tak's Chamber of Commerce,
said.
''Yesterday, around 50 trucks arrived at the border passes and were
stuck here. Many of them had to drive back because they don't have
warehouses here," he said.
Panithi said the unexpected nature of the closure will shake the
confidence of Thai traders along the border, as well as foreign
investors in Burma.
Goods stranded as Thai-Burmese border closed
posted at 17:00 hrs (Bangkok time)
BANGKOK, June 13 -- Burma's sudden closure of a strategic stretch of its
border with Thailand amid a tense territorial dispute will block
millions of dollars in trade between the two neighbours, officials said
Friday.
The governor of Thailand's northern Tak province, Pongpayome Vasatuti,
told AFP that Burma had Thursday indefinitely and unilaterally shut four
border posts in the province's Mae Sot area, leaving scores of trucks
stranded.
''The closure of the border will have a major impact on border trade
between the two countries as goods worth an average of 10 million baht
(400,000 dollars) cross the frontier every day,'' he said.
''The Burmese officials did not say how long the border posts will be
closed,'' Pongpayome said, adding that neither local officials nor the
Thai foreign ministry had been officialy informed of the closure until
Friday.
The shutting of the posts, about 400 kilometers (250 miles) west of
here, has left goods-laden lorries stranded on the Thai side of the
usually bustling frontier, the governor said.
He said Burmese officials had said the surprise closure was a
''temporary'' measure to give Burma time to ''re-arrange'' the
crossings. The Burmese authorities in their letter to Mae Sot's district
chief had not however elaborated on the motivation for the closure.
Media reports here have however said the shutdown was an escalation of a
simmering border dispute between the two neighours and over a Thai ban
on the export of a small onion native to Burma.
The governor added that senior Thai military officers were meeting
Friday with their Burmese counterparts to discuss the border block in
Mae Sot as Thailand required more information on the move.
The closure came after Burma and Thailand reportedly failed to reach
agreement in talks over a contested stretch of their border along the
Moei River which divided the two countries in the Mae Sot region.
The dispute flared up last month when heavily-armed troops from both
sides were deployed along the river as both countries staked their rival
claims to the territory.
The argument began several years ago when the river changed course after
a bout of severe flooding in the area.
The Thais insisted the border had shifted -- in their favour -- along
with the course of the river, while the Burmese said it should remain
where it had been prior to the floods.
In May, Thai troops were sent to the area to try to stop Burmese workers
from digging canals in a bid to divert the Moei River back to its
original pre-flood course.
The move sparked a similar deployment by Burmese troops, with both sides
facing each other armed with tanks and heavy weapons.
The two sides have been holding talks over the issue, but all attempts
to broker a diplomatic solution have ended in deadlock.
Thailand sent an aide-memoire to Burma on November 23, 1995, setting out
the country's claims to the area.
Thailand's director for Treaties and Legal Affairs has held discussions
with his counterpart but Burmese officials refused to accept the Thai
position.
Officials in Mae Sot said the volume of border trade between Burma and
Thailand totalled 1.24 billion baht (48 million dollars) between January
and May this year.
Goods from Thailand include mainly consumer items and construction
materials, while agricultural products and household goods from China
are traded in the opposite direction. (AFP)
PTT denies public access to contract for gas pipeline
BY PENNAPA HONGTHONG
KANCHANABURI The Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) declined to
reveal the contents of the Yadana gas pipeline contract to members of
the public yesterday, but did give a copy to Kanchanaburi's governor,
who chairs a provincial sub-committee set up to monitor the project's
impacts.
''We are happy to reveal all information, including the contract, but it
must go through the sub-committee first," PTT vice-president Suwanant
Chartudompan said after giving a copy of the contract, signed by the
state enterprise and the Burmese government, to Kanchanaburi Governor
Kwanchai Wassawong.
Suwanant said a specialist in international law and commerce would be
needed to explain the contract to committee members. ''The contract's
wording is in English and includes technical terms, so it's hard to
understand," he explained.
Pinan Chotirosseranee, who leads a group opposing the project, asked
Kwanchai to make a copy of the contract and give it to her. ''It will
take a lot of time to clarify the contract so I want him to bring it and
read it at my house," she said.
Kwanchai refused her request, saying that Pinan, other environmentalists
and the media will be allowed to read the contract, but will not be
permitted to copy it.
''It's very complicated and sensitive because it involves international
relations, so we should be careful about revealing the contents," he
said.
He added that anyone seeking details about the contract can ask him or
the working group on contracts and regulations which will be established
by the sub-committee.
''However, I must consult with the project developer, the PTT, about
which parts of the contract can be revealed to the public," he added.
The sub-committee includes several representatives of local groups and
non-governmental organisations, but Pinan, a former member, quit the
board to protest at a lack of transparency in the project.
There was a tense atmosphere at yesterday's meeting of the sub-committee
as Kanchanaburi residents waited in vain for three hours for the PTT to
give them a copy of the contract.
Pinan, who left the meeting before it was concluded, said she would
submit a letter of protest to Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh if
she is not given a copy.
''The prime minister said at Wednesday's meeting that the contract
belongs to the public and I came here to receive it," Pinan said. ''The
PTT has not followed his orders."
Songkiert Tansamrit, director of the PTT's public relations division,
said the state enterprise had not disobeyed the premier's orders. ''The
contract is now in the hands of Kanchanaburi's governor, anyone can ask
him for permission to read it," Songkiert said.
Editorial & Opinion
Don't push Rangoon into Beijing's orbit
n
By admitting Burma into its fold, Asean is countering China's influence
on the buffer country.
Defying US objections, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has
voted to admit Burma. When asked why they took this controversial step,
Asean leaders referred repeatedly to ''strategic considerations".
''Strategic" is a code word for China. The Southeast Asians fear that
Burma is becoming a Chinese satellite; it is a fear that Washington
should share.
The Clinton administration has imposed tougher economic sanctions
against Burma, citing continued human rights abuses by the junta in
Rangoon. It is a morally satisfying and politically popular initiative.
It is also bad policy.
It is not often that the theatre of world affairs produces a drama of
good versus evil as pure and gripping as the one being played out in
Burma. This is a government that has massacred pro-democracy
demonstrators in 1988, suppressed political dissent, engaged in
large-scale forced labour, probably collaborated in heroin trafficking
and annulled the results of a democratic election while imprisoning the
leader of the democratic movement, Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.
Not surprisingly, US policy toward Burma has reflected moral outrage.
Washington has regularly condemned the actions of the ruling State Law
and Order Restoration Council, has halted all bilateral economic and
military aid, has suspended trade privileges, has opposed lending by
international financial institutions and has tried to rally support for
such policies among other countries, including a proposed international
embargo on arms shipments to Rangoon. Members of Congress have vied with
editorial writers in urging still harsher, more punitive sanctions.
Since the earliest days, US foreign policy has exhibited two often
conflicting tendencies. The first is a normative, ''idealist" impulse to
use policy to further American political values, notably democracy and
human rights. The second is a geopolitical ''realist" approach that
stresses the pursuit of national interest defined largely in terms of
power and economic advantage.
In the case of Burma, the normative approach has governed policy for
most of the last decade in a uniquely pure form. This has been possible
because the United States has viewed Burma as geopolitically irrelevant.
There have been no significant national-interest costs to a policy of
principle.
But this is changing and the agents of change are China and Asean.
Following the upheaval in 1988, the beleaguered and ostracised regime in
Rangoon turned to the one country more than ready to overlook its
transgressions: China. Beijing has become a near monopoly supplier of
military equipment to Burma while the country's north has been flooded
with Chinese consumer goods and immigrants. Chinese engineers are
building roadways and bridges in Burma and press reports suggest the
presence of Chinese intelligence installations on the coast. In short,
Burma is becoming something very close to a Chinese satellite. This has
occurred at a time when the strategic landscape in Asia has begun to
shift with the growth in Chinese economic and military power. Chinese
leaders have increasingly portrayed Southeast Asia as China's natural
sphere of influence.
All this has been watched with growing concern in Southeast Asia.
Uneasiness concerning China's strategic aims is the principal motive
behind Asean's decision to admit Burma. Asean is trying to offer Burma a
strategic alternative to its dependency on China before the dragon's
embrace becomes unbreakable. But this effort at ''constructive
engagement" conflicts with Washington's policy of pressure and
ostracism. In this there is no small irony because the American
strategic interest vis-a-vis China in Southeast Asia is identical to
Asean's. Someone is not thinking clearly, and it is not Asean.
Any policy, if it is to be maintained, must meet a basic test. Is it
working? Does it have a reasonable prospect of doing so? The current
policy of isolation and sanctions fails that test. The essential
repressive character of the Burma regime has remained unchanged over
three decades despite heavy foreign pressure. Deeply unpopular and
oppressive, it nevertheless holds apparently firm control over the army
and ethnic Burman population.
Quarantining Burma has simply reinforced the regime's xenophobia.
Ironically, successful sanctions would weaken an already vulnerable
economy, leaving the junta with little choice but to rely more heavily
on Chinese support and on revenue generated from increased opium and
heroin production.
Isolation is further obviated by a host of US friends and allies in
Asean that increasingly oppose that policy.
Burma is not an Asian reincarnation of South Africa. The South African
white elite was vulnerable to Western sanctions for a number of reasons,
including the fact that the surrounding black African states supported
their imposition. No such regional support exists in Southeast Asia.
Washington can and should remain outspokenly critical of abuses in
Burma. But there are security and other national interests to be served.
Let's recognise that present US policy is not working and has no serious
prospect of working. It is time to think seriously about alternatives.
Marvin Ott is a professor of national security policy at the US National
War College. The views expressed are his own. The article first ran in
the Los Angeles Times.
"THERE WILL BE NO REAL DEMOCRACY IF WE CAN'T GURANTEE THE RIGHTS OF THE
MINORITY ETHNIC PEOPLE. ONLY UNDERSTANDING THEIR SUFFERING AND HELPING
THEM TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS WILL ASSIST PREVENTING FROM THE
DISINTEGRATION AND THE SESESSION." "WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THEIR
STRENGTH, WE CAN'T TOPPLE THE SLORC AND BURMA WILL NEVER BE IN PEACE."
---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------