The BurmaNet News, August 28, 1997

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------     
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"     
----------------------------------------------------------     
 
The BurmaNet News: August 28, 1997        
Issue #807

HEADLINES:        
========== 
AUSAID: AUSTRALIA AIDS BURMA OVER RECENT FLOODS
RANGOON RADIO MYANMAR: RESIGNATION OF NLD MP
BKK POST: US DENIES SUU KYI SEEKING RESIDENCY
BKK POST: REGION'S TOP JUDGES DELIBERATE ON BURMA
NATION: CROP-SUBSTITUTION SCHEME TO AID DRUG WAR
THE HINDU: CHINA FOR CLOSE FINANCIAL TIES WITH SE ASIA
SCMP: JUNTA 'THREATENS TO DEBASE ASEAN' 
WASHINGTON POST: BOSTON'S STAND ON HUMAN RIGHTS
SLORC: RESPONSE TO WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE
BURMA OFFICE: DEMONSTRATION HELD IN SYDNEY
SLORC: THE VIEW FROM THE EMBASSY OF MYANMAR
INDEPENDENT RESPONSE TO SLORC'S 'LESSON FROM HISTORY'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

AUSAID: AUSTRALIA AIDS BURMA OVER IMPACT OF RECENT 
FLOODS
August 26, 1997
	
The Australian Government today announced a contribution of $50 000 in 
emergency assistance to help cope with recent monsoonal flooding in 
Burma.

The flooding has caused widespread loss of life and displaced thousands 
of people from their homes.

Heavier than usual monsoon rains have led to flooding throughout Burma 
causing the deaths of up to 100 people and extensive damage to houses, 
livestock and agricultural equipment.

Although flood waters are now receding, serious health problems remain 

The aid money will go to buy medicine, rice, clothing, blankets, mosquito
nets and cooking utensils.

Australia
Media Inquiries: MarkGiffard (AusAID) (02) 6206 4966

[AusAID, 25 August 1997]

******************************************

RANGOON RADIO MYANMAR: COMMISSION ACCEPTS RESIGNATION OF NLD MP FROM SANDOWAY 
August 22, 1997 [translated from Burmese]

U Tun Yi of the National League for Democracy [NLD], an elected member of
the People's Assembly in Thandwe [Sandoway] Township Constituency, Arakan
State during the Multiparty Democratic General Elections, has submitted his
resignation of his own volition to withdraw as an elected representative as
he has already resigned from the NLD.
The Multiparty Democratic General Election Commission has accepted his
resignation effective today in accordance with Section 11, Subsection E of
the People's Assembly Election Law.

********************************************

BKK POST: US DENIES SUU KYI SEEKING RESIDENCY
August 27, 1997
AFP

Washington - The United States and Burmese dissidents here dismissed a
report on Monday that Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi was seeking
a US residency permit. 
     
"I've not heard any discussion of a green card for Aung San Suu Kyi," State
Department spokesman James Rubin said, alluding to the immigration permit
that allows foreign nationals to live and work here.

A spokesman here for the National Coalition Government of the Union of
Burma, Burma's government in exile, also rejected the report.

***********************************************

BKK POST: REGION'S TOP JUDGES DELIBERATE ON BURMA
August 27, 1997
Manila, AFP

Watchdogs in Manila urge 'moral pressure'

Human rights groups urged Asia-Pacific chief justices gathered here
yesterday to exert "moral pressure" on Burma's judiciary to immediately
resolve numerous cases of human rights violations in the military-run state.

"We are articulating these sentiments due to our perception that there is
growing tolerance for injustice and increasing violation of the rule of law
within the Asia Pacific region, particularly [among] member countries of
Asean," the Free Burma Coalition said in a statement.

Three Filipinos allied with the coalition handed to U Aung Toe, chief
justice of Burma, copies of their statement and a list of cases involving
Burmese arrested by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc), as
the ruling junta is known.

"We hope you can consider these cases as priority issues of human rights in
your country," Mercy Ferrer of the Initiatives for International Dialogue
told a visibly surprised Aung Toe, who was not expecting the delegation.

Aung Toe received the statements but told the group to give a copy of the
papers to the Burmese embassy.

Aung Toe refused further comment on the statements made by the Free Burma
Coalition.

Chief justices of the Asia-Pacific region held their seventh meeting
yesterday, and are to attend a three day conference of the Law Association
for Asia and the Pacific beginning today.

The Free Burma Coalition noted that the Burmese judiciary could still not
rule that popular opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi of the National League
for Democracy won the 1993 elections held in Burma.

"This alone puts the judiciary in a very questionable position, whether it
is independent from the Slorc or not," said Max de Mesa, deputy secretary
general of the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates.

The victory by the National League for Democracy in the elections has not
been recognised by the ruling junta.

"There is no law at all. There are still arbitrary arrests and no
independent judicial system," said one of the leaders of the All-Burma
Students League, a Burmese who asked to be identified only as Maung.
     
The Free Burma Coalition also highlighted the Association of South East
Asian Nations' propensity towards strong authoritarian rule.

***************************************************

THE NATION: JOINT CROP-SUBSTITUTION SCHEME TO AID DRUG WAR
August 27, 1997

THAILAND and Burma will join in the fight against the cultivation of drugs
along their common border for the first time through a crop-substitution
programme, a senior Thai government official said yesterday. 
     
PM's. Office Minister Veerakorn Kamprakob said agro-business conglomerate
Chareon Pokphand will also participate in 'the programme by donating crops
to minority groups, many of whom are engaged in opium growing and heroin
trafficking along the border. Veerakorn said a Thai government delegation
will depart for Rangoon late next month to meet with the Burmese Interior
minister to discuss ways to reduce cultivation areas and combat drug
trafficking.

Prayont Pantsri, general secretary of the Office of the Narcotics Control
Board (ONCB), yesterday said Thailand and Burma will discuss a wide range of
issues pertaining to cooperation in the fight against illegal drugs,
including the exchange of information.

Prayont said the ONCB yesterday updated the Cabinet about the agency's
operation launched on Aug 22, known as "Strategy North Star", aimed at
suppressing drug trafficking in the northwestern region of the country.

He said the operation, which will last until October, included patrolling a
160km-long stretch of border between Burma and Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai
provinces covering 67 spots to identify and check trafficking routes.

Thai and foreign narcotics officials said the price and production of raw
opium along the Thai-Burmese border has increased from Bt4,000 per 'joint'
(1.6 kg) to about Bt20,000 since Burma's drug kingpin Khun Sa and his Mong
Tai Army surrendered in early 1996.

About 90 per cent of this raw opium is converted into heroin, they said.

[excerpts from related article]
------------------------------------------
BKK POST: BURMA VOWS TO HELP FIGHT NARCOTICS
August 27, 1997
Cheewin Sattha 

Chiang Rai-- Burma has promised to join with Thailand in an attempt to wipe
out the border narcotics trade. 
	In return, the Burmese asked the Thais to take action against illegal logging.
	Other issues raised for discussion were smuggling, border demarcation and
the repatriation of Burmese refugees.
	According to a report by the northern anti-narcotics suppression agency,
there are a number of amphetamine factories across the border from Chiang
Rai, Chiang Mai and Mae Hong Son, jointly run by Thai and Burmese gangsters.

************************************************

THE HINDU: CHINA FOR CLOSE FINANCIAL TIES WITH SE ASIA
August 27, 1997
By V. Jayanth

The Chinese premier, Mr, Li Peng, today called for close cooperation
between his country and Southeast Asia in the financial sector, to ward
off speculation and financial risks.

Addressing a meeting of businessmen organized by the Singapore Trade
Development Board, Mr. Li said: "We are soberly aware that compared with the
developed countries, the economic strength of countries and regions like
ours is still relatively weak and the financial system not adequate, thus
bearing financial risks which make it susceptible to the impact of the
turbulence of the international financial market".

He called for intensifying cooperation and coordination in the field of
finance and stepped  up exchanges of information. "We should seriously
draw lessons from previous financial crisis in the world, keep a high
degree of vigilance, strengthen the financial regulation, improve the
financial system so as to foster on and reduce financial risks to the
minimum and insure a sound growth of the economy," he said.

************************************

SCMP: JUNTA 'THREATENS TO DEBASE ASEAN' 
August 27, 1997
by William Barnes 

Human rights, education and international relations have deteriorated in
Burma since its entry into Asean last month, a report by non-governmental
groups in the region says.

The report undermines the claim that constructive engagement would soften
the junta, the Alternative Asean Network on Burma said.

"We do not hold out any hope that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
will change Burma.

"We now worry that by lowering the group's informal benchmarks of behaviour
the military junta will actually degrade Asean," said Debbie Stothard, the
network's co-ordinator.

"The danger is that the tail will wag the dog."

The report said human rights, the refugee situation, treatment of the 
opposition, education and international relations had all "deteriorated".

Only Thai-Burma relations were "slightly better", it said.

Barely two weeks after Burma became the group's ninth member it launched a
fresh and vigorous offensive against ethnic Karen rebels fighting for autonomy.

*********************************************

WASHINGTON POST: BOSTON'S STAND ON HUMAN RIGHTS
August 25, 1997
By Fred Hiatt

Is the European Union about to slap economic sanctions on the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts? It may come to that, in a case that helps 
explain this nation's ambivalence about its place in a globalizing economy 
-- an ambivalence that will come to the fore in Washington next month, 
when President Clinton seeks expanded trade negotiating powers from 
Congress.

This particular story begins on the other side of this interconnected
globe, in the beautiful but sad Asian land of Burma. The narco-thug junta
of military bullies who misrule that nation may qualify, against stiff
competition, as the world's most odious regime. By the same token, the
woman who should be Burma's leader, Aung San Suu Kyi -- whose party 
won an election seven years ago but never was permitted to take office and 
who has been under house arrest pretty much ever since -- is unsurpassed 
in courage, dignity and determination.

The contrast hasn't gone unnoticed. A grass-roots movement in this 
country has persuaded a dozen cities, including San Francisco and New 
York, and one state -- Massachusetts -- to adopt economic sanctions of 
their own. Modeled explicitly on laws designed to help Nelson Mandela 
and the South African anti-apartheid movement, the Massachusetts law 
bars any state procurement from companies doing business in Burma. As 
in the South Africa case, the law is having an effect; supporters claim that 
Apple Computer, PepsiCo, Eastman Kodak and other major firms have 
pulled out of Burma rather than risk losses in the United States.

But wait. While Massachusetts was debating the Burma bill, the United
States (in 1994) joined the World Trade Organization, a new Geneva-based
body intended to promote fair, universal rules of commerce. As part of the
package, Congress signed on to an international code on government
procurement, to which most states (but no cities) voluntarily acceded. In
so doing, they promised to award contracts based solely on merit, not on
extraneous political or cultural factors.

Aha! said the European Union last June (joined by Japan a month later):
Massachusetts's Burma law is in clear violation. Following WTO 
procedure, the Europeans requested "consultations" and may now demand 
a three-judge panel to hear their case. If it wins, the WTO would demand a 
change in the Massachusetts law or, as an alternative, economic 
compensation -- perhaps targeted, if possible, at the Bay State.

Why would the Europeans hand Burma's thugs this kind of moral support,
especially when the European Parliament claims to back Burma's 
democrats? Many Europeans are fed up with what they see as America's 
growing habit of seeking to impose its own foreign policy by punishing 
European companies that do business in Iran, Libya, Cuba, Burma or 
elsewhere. Because they couldn't stop Congress from acting this way, 
they're picking on Massachusetts, kicking Aung San Suu Kyi along the 
way.

The administration says it will defend the Massachusetts law. As he asks
Congress for wider authority to shape new trade agreements, the last thing
Clinton wants is confirmation that the WTO impinges on local 
sovereignty.

But while they're defending the Massachusetts law, administration officials
haven't gone so far as to label it defensible. In the long run, some will
admit privately, they don't think it would be so bad if states and cities
were nudged out of the foreign-policy business. And they point to the
advantages U.S. firms gain from an international code on procurement,
suggesting it's worth giving up something along the way. To the
administration, in fact, and to defenders of the globalizing trade regime
in general, the WTO not only can help U.S. multinationals sell more, but
can also help spread the American way throughout the world: the rule of
law, the sanctity of contract, the opportunity for anyone to compete based
on hard work and quality, rather than personal connection or corruption.
Trade talks these days focus less and less on tariffs and quotas and more
on how societies organize themselves -- in environmental or copyright law,
health and safety standards, local zoning and national cultural protection.

WTO critics on both the left and the right see danger precisely in that
drive toward uniformity. They don't want to cede local control on such
basic issues, especially when they believe the benefits flow mostly to
large corporations.

For Michael Shuman, a lawyer at the Institute for Policy Studies, the
Massachusetts law on Burma is a case in point. The U.S. Constitution may
assign foreign-policy powers to Washington, but states and local
governments always have nibbled at the edges, he says. "A large number of
voices on foreign policy helps democratize the process," he says, adding
"creativity and diversity."

In truth, the WTO can't force Massachusetts to change its law, nor can it
force Washington to make Massachusetts back down, as trade lawyer Alan
Wolff points out. The WTO can only hold the United States to what it 
agreed to and extract a price if our country falls short -- exactly as the 
United States has demanded of many other countries.

But the U.S. trade representative, trying to appease the Europeans, already
has pressed other states not to follow the Massachusetts example. And 
some in Massachusetts aren't pleased about the pressure.

If the WTO had been around 10 years ago, argues Burma activist Simon
Billenness, "Nelson Mandela might still be in jail today." He doesn't think
the Massachusetts legislature will back down.

"Here in Boston," Billenness says, "there's a certain tradition of not
letting European bureaucrats impinge on our decisions regarding taxes and
spending."

The writer is a member of the editorial page staff. 

**********************************************

SLORC: RESPONSE TO WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE
August 26, 1997

THE FOLLOWING IS THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE
"Boston's Stand on Human Rights", by Fred Hiatt,
 THE WASHINGTON POST (25-8-97)

Date: August 26, 1997
Sir,
Re: Boston's Stand on Human Rights, by Fred Hiatt (August 25, 1997)

The attempt by Massachusetts to restrict business ties with Myanmar is an
ill-considered move. The United States is a large and diverse country with
global responsibilities. It does not take a fertile imagination to consider
what would happen if local governments are allowed to carry parochial
concerns to the international stage. The failure of the US to speak with one
voice and live up to international agreements can have disastrous
repercussions. Obviously, state and local governments are not appropriate
bodies for foreign policy making.

While the measure taken by Massachusetts may succeed in pressing a few US
business entities to withdraw from Myanmar so as to be eligible for business
in the state, such action will only undermine efforts at the federal level
to promote US business globally.

What is the international community to make of a super-power that signs an
agreement only to have local governments challenge it at the urging of
activists such as Simon Billenness who in their clamor for human rights
forget that their actions will end up depriving a nation of its right to
development? In the circumstance, it is not surprising that the European
Union and Japan are seeking to redress the situation by demanding a three
judge panel to hear the case in accordance with WTO procedures.

Fred Hiatt recycles propaganda in referring to the Myanmar government as
"narco-thug junta of military bullies". It is one thing to perceive the
situation in Myanmar as a "good" versus "evil" situation ripe for
indignation, but it is quite another to denigrate the leaders of a nation.

The problem of narcotic drugs is a problem that transcends borders and is
one that can be solved only with the cooperation of both the drug-producing
countries and drug-consuming countries. While the US accuses Myanmar of
being the biggest producer of opium in the world, it has not lifted a finger
to help Myanmar overcome the menace posed by drugs. In fact, since 1988, the
US has suspended all assistance to Myanmar, notwithstanding Myanmar's
willingness to cooperate with the US in ascertaining the yield of opium in
remote areas.

Tying counter-narcotics assistance to human rights performance will not end
the problem.

The government of Myanmar has been waging a relentless war against drug
traffickers. Thousands of Myanmar soldiers have sacrificed life and limb in
combatting the scourge of narcotic drugs.

Since the advent of the current government, thousands of kilos of opium,
heroin, morphine, opium oil, liquid opium, marijuana, and precursor
chemicals have been destroyed in public on 11 occasions, witnessed by
representatives of international organizations and the diplomatic corps.

The Myanmar government's sole interest is to lead the country to a stable
and prosperous future.

Yours etc.

Thaung Tun
Minister-Counsellor,
Deputy Chief of Mission


The Editor
Washington Post
Washington, D.C.

*********************

BURMA OFFICE: DEMONSTRATION HELD IN SYDNEY
Organization: NCGUB
August 27, 1997

Demonstration in Sydney

>From 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. on 26 August 1997, the Australia Burma Council
(ABC) organised and staged a demonstration in front of the Grace Hotel,
77 York Street, Sydney, where the ASEAN AT 30 seminar was held.  
About 50 activists joined the demonstration.

The Following is Press Release from the Australia Burma Council.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DICTATORS CLUB COMING TO TOWN

Despite opposition from all over the world ASEAN has admitted SLORC,
along with Laos, to be their newest members.  THE DICTATORS CLUB 
has now increased to nine.

ASEAN policy of constructive engagement has failed miserably.  Since the
open market economy was introduced in Burma, inflation sky rocketed, the
poor getting poorer while only the elite few within the inner circle
gets richer beyond their wildest dreams.

ASEAN knew SLORC does not have the mandate to represent Burma and 
her people.  One can only conclude ASEAN's decision to allow Burma to 
be their member is purely economical with total disregard for human rights
abuses, democratic principles and the general welfare of the people of
Burma.

If ASEAN believes in constructive engagement, why did they not approach
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD, the party which the people of 
Burma chose to represent them?

What good is it to be a member of ASEAN if the legitimate Government
cannot represent the country?

What good is it to be a member of ASEAN when the sole intention of the
rest of the member countries is to exploit Burma's political situation
for their own benefits?

CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH SLORC IS DESTRUCTIVE 
ENGAGEMENT FOR BURMA.

HANDS OFF BURMA.  BOYCOTT BURMA.

**************************************************

SLORC: THE VIEW FROM THE EMBASSY OF MYANMAR, 
OTTAWA (Vol.9 No.15)
August 22, 1997

A  LESSON  FROM  HISTORY

        For countries in political evolution, although it is usual,
particularly 
by the popular media, to attribute present day problems to present day 
actions of political leaders and governments, most historians and 
visionaries tend to  rationalize on the basis that the prevailing situation 
today could be a reaction to the deeds of yesteryears.   Therefore,  to 
impose solutions to current crises simply by transplanting a course of 
action that worked in another part of the world, may be seen as unwise, 
risky and even amounting to dangerous experimentation at others expense.       
In this context in an editorial of this Embassy's News Release (No. 13  of  
25, July 1997)  we mentioned a certain documentary on British TV that 
chronicled an "intriguing conspiracy" between the elements of post world 
war II British Conservative Government and  certain political figures of 
Myanmar found to be guilty assassinating General Aung San and his 
cabinet on July 19, 1947.

The complicity of the colonialist government that attempted to install its 
political ally immediately before granting "Independence" by violently 
eliminating the true national leader who could possibly keep the country 
united have been suspected all throughout Myanmar's post independent 
history by many scholars.   But this is the first time more confirmatory 
evidence (papers classified as "sensitive") have been released from credible 
British sources.       The death of General Aung San and the British 
instigators that prompted and supported the "Karenistan"  concept,  
according to these documents, were almost certainly responsible for the 
train of historical events that ultimately led to the present day requirement 
of a strong military force to keep the country united and the almost 
sisyphean task of getting the Karen National Union (KNU) to return to the 
legal fold. 

        While over 90% of the former insurgents have abandoned their 
policies of armed struggle and returned to join the real "Union" with the 
rest of Myanmar -- it is not impossible that some of those "invisible forces"
and their conspirators are still supporting one way or the other the last 
vestiges of the pro-colonialist insurgency that they themselves organized 
and created fifty years ago.   Without a doubt, it was a neatly veiled attempt 
by the colonial government to retain its hold on the resource rich country.   
But then, truth cannot be concealed forever and the historical data on 
which historians may rationalize  the present day events are now evident 
and clear.
	The new spine-chilling evidence in these "sensitive" documents with some
pages still deleted, obtained and revealed in a broadcast by Fergal Keane on
this case also appeared in-print in the Guardian weekly on July 27, 1997
entitled "Was Britain behind Aung San's death?".   Certain crucial passages
are hereby  excerpted to elucidate the circumstances that the present
Government of  Myanmar has called  "The  great responsibility  
that  history  bestowed on  the Tatmadaw" (Thamaing-Pay-Tar-Wun)  and 
what in western perspective is seen as "repression".
        According to Mr. Keane "Burma's nationalist hero, Aung San and 
five of his ministers were murdered at 10:37 in the morning of July 19, 
1947, during a cabinet meeting.  With his murder Burma was plunged into
political chaos, the ultimate result of which would be the ride to power of 
the military and decades of isolation and repression"
        "Aung San was deeply dissatisfied (with the Japanese Military 
Administration) and planned to join the Allies.   Churchill was appalled.  
He regarded Aung San as the "traitor rebel of a quisling army."
        .....At the end of the war Aung San was indisputably the most 
significant figure in Burmese policies.    In 1947, he negotiated Burma's 
independence from Britain with Clement Attlee.   His assassination was 
one of the most catastrophic political murders of modern times -- in 
relative terms more destructive even than the killing of John F. Kennedy.   
And, like that more famous death, it is also shrouded in mystery.
              The official history says a rival Burmese politician motivated by
revenge and jealousy killed Aung San.  But recently declassified British 
government documents and new witnesses have thrown new light on the 
mystery.
        .... These weapons and the guns that killed Aung San and his cabinet 
were soon traced to thefts arranged by two serving British army officers, 
Captain David Vivian and Major Henry Young.   But the plot went far 
wider than this.
                ......... U Saw wrote a letter to John Stewart Bringley, British
Council representative in Rangoon.
                The contents of the letter were explosive: in it U Saw
threatened 
to make "disclosures that would have international repercussions".   He
sounded an even more ominous note in a later letter when he demanded
Bingley's assistance on the grounds that he had "taken a grave risk as 
advised".
        .....Meanwhile, Carlyle Seppings (British CID) was turning up 
evidence of the involvement of other British officers, but was ordered to 
stop his investigation.   The police chief told him: "This is getting too big
for both you and me, and if we are not careful we are going to tread on
some very important corns."   U Saw was convicted of conspiracy to
murder and sentenced to death.  He always publicly denied his guilt.
                Two days before the execution, Seppings went to visit him in 
prison to ask why he had not fled after the murders."  ....... He said,
'Government House told me things would be all right'.  U Saw was hanged
on May 1, 1948.
        After the hanging came the trial of Captain Vivian charged with
arranging arms thefts and conspiracy with U Saw. ................
He was convicted and sentenced to five years but escaped the following
year. .........
                One file on the affair in the Public Record Office was made 
available in 1996.   In a top secret memo to Whitehall by the British 
Ambassador in Rangoon, Carlyle Sepping's  former boss.   Tun Hla Oung 
(Chief of Police) is reported as being "now virtually convinced that there 
was British connivance in the assassinations"/   Tun Hla Oung believes U 
Saw was working with British support for the overthrow of Aung San's
government.   He thinks John Stewart Bringley was the middleman 
between U Saw and a powerful group of people in London led by a former 
Governor of Burma and Conservative cabinet minister, Sir Reginald 
Dorman Smith.
                Two days after the assassination, the Labour MP Tom Driberg 
stood up in the House of Common and said: "The moral guilt of the 
assassinations attaches less, perhaps, to the brutal gunmen in Rangoon 
than to the comfortable Conservative gentlemen here who incited U Saw to 
treachery and sabotage."
        ............. Other documents released by the Foreign Office reveal a
conspiratorial group of Conservative politicians, soldiers and other public 
figures who were devoted to the overthrow of the government of 
independent Burma before and after the transfer of power in 1948. The 
documents show that the group -- the Friends of the Burma Hill Peoples -- 
was formed in February 1947, five months before Aung San was killed and 
while U Saw was in London. .....................
       The key figure was Sir Reginald Dorman Smith, who had ruled the 
country through U Saw when he was prime minister there during the war.
        The group believed in separate independence for some of Burma's 
ethnic minorities, especially the Karens, who had been adamant of gaining
independence from Burma since the end of the war, and not without
reason.   In 1942, when Aung San led his Burmese Independence Army 
into Burma with Japanese, many Karens remained loyal to the British.
        Dorman Smith and his friends felt strongly that they should not let 
down their loyal wartime allies. They also felt that Aung San and the 
nationalist leadership might take Burma into the communist bloc, whereas 
the Karens would unquestionably remain pro-Western.   The territory the 
Karens claimed, Karenistan, included some of Burma's richest mineral and 
metal deposits.
                The Friends  thought they were pursuing a noble cause. But if 
they were involved in the killing of Aung San, as the evidence suggests, 
they were responsible for the single most damaging act in the history of
Burma.  It is a lesson we would do well to remember: that today's 
repression can be rooted in yesterday's short-sighted political 
manipulation."
Yes, the great Aung San died and by 1949 the then Union of Burma 
descended into decades of vicious in-fighting.    Still, similar horrific 
scenarios were later replayed by another world power in Vietnam, Laos 
and Cambodia, turning South East Asia's "Indochina" into an unparalleled 
battle ground with a cruel display of its destructive power using massive 
bombs, napalm, agent orange etc. before it was forced to abandon its 
misguided objective. Myanmar, grappling with its own multi-coloured 
insurgencies, managed to stay out of the raging wars by observing strict 
political and economic neutrality while retaining full diplomatic ties with 
all major powers and international organizations.   Even this period, 
dubbed "isolation" by the western media, had a strong historical reason 
related to the fear of recurrent big power domination and their proxy wars.  
Of course, there was a price for it to be paid for in economic terms.

 But the Karen insurgency is still alive, although having to fight for its 
survival, along a small strip of Myanmar's border in the remote and 
malarious jungles.   They have lost practically all support within their own 
country and even among their own nationality (barely 10% of Kayin 
people).   They are being sustained only by their so-called "friends" abroad.

It may now be interesting for investigative reporters to look into whether 
the designs of present day "Friends of Burma" are in any way similar to 
that of the "Friends of Hill Peoples of Burma" who had been sowing the 
seeds of discord among the nationalities of Myanmar since 1947.

These "friends" would do well to remember the lesson from Fergal Keane's
story.   It is especially true for those in a country that is sensitive to
its own 
unity issue.

If ever a lesson from history is to be put to good use, this is the time to 
discourage any short sighted political manipulations in the internal affairs 
of all developing countries.

******************************************

INDEPENDENT RESPONSE TO SLORC'S 'LESSON FROM HISTORY'
August 23, 1997

Rebuttal to "The View from the Embassy of Myanmar (Burma) in Ottawa"

By an observer                                                     

        One of the gravest error against which all writers of history must 
guard is the temptation to impose current standards or norms and ideas as 
the "quote" true meaning of history and thereby justify a "new" view or 
perspective" of historical events.  In doing so what frequently happens is 
that the author ignores or transforms factual evidence for the sake of 
projecting a more favorable view of his/her position.
        Unfortunately such a tendency to ignore or transform factual evidence 
to conform to a new view of history is nothing more than propaganda and 
covers up the real misdeeds that happened.  It is rather like exhuming the 
body of a supposed crime victim only to find it died of natural causes and 
then reinters the corpse and gloss over the facts produced by the  re-
examination.
        That is what this author has done to the history of Burma since the 
end of World War II, but it goes beyond this callused treatment of well 
documented history (See Prof. Hugh Tinker's compilation of British 
records - Burma:  The Struggle for Independence) and also documents 
housed in the National Archives of the US Government under the category 
- US Department of State - Rangoon Embassy.  This author would not even 
dignify his/her contribution by appending his/her name as the author.  This 
failure alone should alert any serious minded student of history that what 
follows should be regarded skeptically.  So let us see just what the phantom 
author is trying to do.

       1.  My first critique is that the author tries to link the Karens to
the assassination of Aung San.  In all of the documents which I have seen 
in both the British and American records there is not one hint of any Karen
 involvement in any way, shape, or fashion.  I have looked at hundreds of
documents alluded to by the author and none show any involvement by the
Karens.  In fact all of the participators of the crime are Burmans, a fact
made clear in the publication "Who Killed Aung San" by Kin Oung - 
whose father was the Burman Chief of Police in Rangoon at the time of the
assassination.
        Therefore to link the Karen independence movement to this using a 
pejorative term - "Karenistan" is sheer fantasy.  In actual fact the term 
Karenistan is first used in the report by the Head of the High Court of the 
post World War II Dorman Smith administration wherein he refers to the 
Karen appeal to His Majesty for an Independent State or to remain within 
the British Empire rather than be a part of a new Burman dominated 
Burma.  This appeal was rejected by the Conservative controlled Colonial 
administration which only makes the author's attempt to link Karens to the 
assassination even more pathetic as the Karens had more to lose than any 
group by the assassination of Aung San et.al. as we shall see.

      2.  The author goes on to cite new evidence for his/her revisionist
theories, but never cites the source or documents upon which this new 
history is based.  Anyone can write or rewrite history.  All you have to do 
is to develop a theme and write a story for history is a story of human 
activity every bit as intriguing as fiction which this becomes without the 
documentary references.  Beginning in paragraph 2 the author cites 
"Certain crucial passages which supposedly he/she excerpted.  Yet as I 
look over the so called passages I find that the author has taken out of 
context Sir Winston Churchill's opposition to Aung San.  Churchill's 
opposition was well known of even before the end of the war-see the 
article-"Burma-Gem of the Empire" by Nicholas Tarling.  As matter of fact 
Churchill's opposition was even more reactionary than his Conservative 
colleagues including Gov.Dorman Smith, who drew up a plan to grant 
Burma independence as a part of the Commonwealth within 5-7 years of 
the end of the war.  (See Tinker) This plan envisioned a gradual shift from 
colonialism to independence so as to enable a peaceful transition and to 
rehabilitate the economy of Burma which had under gone massive 
destruction in 2 viscous military campaigns.  How serious this destruction 
was can be seen from the result of the scorched earth policy applied to the 
oil fields of Yenangchaung.  Those fields have never been able to be 
rehabilitated even with the expertise of western technology.  BUT like
any other proud and independently minded people the Burmans had a 
legitimate wish to be totally independent-not an unreasonable desire even if 
it was not sound economics.  What the Burman governments have done 
since independence with respect to the economy of Burma only underscores 
their incompetence in economic matters.

     3.  The most definitive statement about the assassination of Aung San
has been provided by Kin Oung- "Who Killed Aung San".  At no time does 
he suggest the Karens had anything to do with the assassination.  
Furthermore the fact that the Karens would have gained their end- 
independence from Burma- had the coup been successful should as a 
matter of historical reference be regarded as a co-incidence and not as a 
causal link.  As a matter of fact had Aung San lived the Panglong 
Agreement would have been implemented even though there was 
significant and determined resistance to the plan within the AFPFL.  
Under this plan the minorities would have had a chance to opt for 
independence after a trial run of union with Burma.  Whether Karens 
would have gone along with this or not and whether the plan would have 
been implemented is a matter of pure speculation.  However, what is not 
speculation is that the only factions within Burman political circles to gain 
from the assassination was the Burman political party the AFPFL which
now emerged dominate and whose program meant the dismantling of non-
socialist types of organizations such as placing all education under the state 
control.  See the political program of the AFPFL which PM. U Nu 
promulgated upon independence- a program mostly drawn up by Thakin 
Thein Pe Myint the man regarded as the "Father of Burmese Communism" 
when he was still part of the AFPFL and whose writings along with those 
of U Ko Ko Gyi were studied by the military personnel before the take over 
by Gen. Ne Win. (see Gen. Aung Gyi's statement prior to the SLORC take 
over).  These related to the complete re-organization of Burma.  The shift 
in Burmese political history is radical and dramatic.

        4.  The whole social, political and economic structure was changed.  
These changes were so far reaching that they have reverberated down the 
years causing massive human rights abuses by the Tatmadaw under the 
direction of the government beginning with U Nu and now under the 
SLORC.  It was this factor which the Karens understood would take place 
once the state came under the domination of the Burmans through the 
AFPFL.  It was this fear that drove them to appeal to HMG to be allowed to 
separate from Burma.  They feared the Burman program of Burmanization 
would extinguish their cultural heritage which for example included the 
requirement to teach in Burmese rather than their own language as they 
had been doing very successfully before through their church schools.  In 
fact these schools had enabled the Karens in great numbers to reach the top 
of the social, economic and political ladder in pre-war Burma.  The 
attempt by the  governments of Burma to impose this new society has 
resulted in military campaigns against all the minorities which do not want 
it and clearly would have opted out of the Union of Burma it the Panglong 
Agreement had been implemented as Aung San had wished.  What is also
now clear is that even Burman citizens agree the Military is unfit to be the
government and thus in 1990 voted overwhelmingly to replace it as the
government.

        5.  Now the author has again ignored the facts of history and failed to
bring the history into modern times.  Had he/she done so what must her 
now concede is the will of the people not just of the minorities upon whose
shoulders he/she is trying place all the blame for Burma's post war 
problems.  Plain common sense reveals how base and crass this attempt to 
re-write history is.  I would suggest that this person find another profession 
than that of historical writing.  If the military is so dedicated to the people
why should it not trust the people?  The only answer is to realize that
should the military trust the people and turn the government over to them 
the heads of numerous military persons would likely roll for their gross 
human rights abuses.  The military is not competent to run a civil 
government, nor to plot the best economic course for a free society which 
goes along with a free and democratic society and is least able of all 
Burman institutions to deal with ethnic diversity.  The efforts of the 
SLORC and its handmaiden, the Tatmadaw, to control and administer 
Burma is like a child trying to fit round pegs into square holes.  The more 
it tries the more frustrated it becomes and the dumber it looks since it has 
no vision other than a military solution.

*********************************