The BurmaNet News: March 5, 1999

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------
 "Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"
----------------------------------------------------------

The BurmaNet News: March 5, 1999
Issue #1221

Noted in Passing: "The only threat to national security is if the generals
actually stay in power." - Burma Lawyer's Council (see CALL TO REPEAL LAWS TO
REPRESSION) 

HEADLINES:
==========
BBC: INTERVIEW WITH WIN AUNG 
BBC: SUU KYI REJECTS "UNITY AT GUNPOINT" 
BURMA DEBATE: DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOCRACY
BLC: CALL TO REPEAL LAWS OF REPRESSION 
ANNC: KAREN ACTIVIST RECEIVES REEBOK AWARD 
****************************************************************

BBC: INTERVIEW WITH WIN AUNG
4 March, 1999 by David Willis 

[Broadcast on BBC Asia Edition]

Burma's opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, says more ten 145 of her party's
members have been detained by the government in a series of recent round ups. 
Ms. Suu Kyi says some have been held at so-called government guesthouses where
they've been persuaded to resign from the party.  Burma's military government
denies bribing members of the National League for Democracy to resign.  But it
says there must be order in the country so progress towards democratization
can
take place.

Our correspondent David Willis has been talking to Burma's newly appointed
foreign minister, Win Aung.  He began by asking how he planned to improve the
country's battered image overseas.

Win Aung: Many many people misunderstood our country.  They thought our
country
is sort of a prison or cage, where the people are imprisoned, the people are
tortured, and the people cannot go, and the people starving, and crying.  In
fact, every perception of this kind of visions were wrong.  You can see, you
can go now to the pagodas and the Buddhist temples.  People are freely going
there, and the people are worshiping and praying there.  And the people are
going to markets.  Normal.  And the people are always smiling.  You can see.

DW: But those who aren't smiling are the NLD supporters and sympathizers who
have been rounded up and in some cases are locked away.  What do you say about
that?

WA: You know we didn't round them up and put them in prison because of their
innocence.  There were plans to try to move or to shake up the country, like
shaking up the country.  To go back [unclear] the situations where we have
passed through in 1988.  We have to protect these majority, silent majority,
the majority of the people from these effects of anarchism which could come
back to our country very easily

DW: And what about Aung San Suu Kyi whose party won the elections in 1990?
Why
are you refusing to negotiate with her?

WA:  The other side is slandering the government's efforts.  And it do
nothing,
as if the country is not moving at all, as if the country is in turmoil,
and as
if whatever the government did is not good for the people, then how can you
create a common ground?

DW: You say you have restored law and order, but it has been at a price.  Two
years after they first closed their doors, the universities remain closed.
Why
is that?

WA: We have plans to open our universities.  But we cannot say when of
course. 
We are trying to open as soon as possible.

DW: Why are they still closed?

WA: Because the students were misused by the political forces to rally, to
break down the government, law and order, to go back to the total anarchy
again. That's why we are very cautious.

DW: Doesn't the very fact that you can't reopen the doors of your universities
prove that this is a fundamentally unpopular government?

WA: We are having generations to come up, and we need to educate.
Education of
the generations is very very important.  And we don't need to close the
universities forever.  Only we are taking preventive actions from occurring
which could create anarchy back again while we are moving profoundly to the
goal of democracy.  That's all.  And we are making every effort to open
universities there and there and there and there. 

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

BBC: SUU KYI REJECTS "UNITY AT GUNPOINT"
4 March, 1999 by David Willis 

Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi says negotiation with the military
dictatorship which rules Burma is unavoidable.  She told the BBC said that
situations like Burma always end at the negotiating table and she hoped it
would happen sooner rather than later.  David Willis talks to Aung San Suu Kyi

"The more intelligent people get to the negotiation table quicker because they
know that it is unavoidable, the less intelligent people think that they can
avoid it," she said in an exclusive interview with the BBC's David Willis.

On Wednesday the NLD leader announced that 145 members of her party have been
detained by the government and persuaded to resign from the party. Ms Suu Kyi
told David Willis this is part of a 10-year process of intimidation of her
party.

"The important thing is that none of these resignations are valid because
there
is no parliament to which they can submit their resignation," she said.

The NLD won elections in Burma in 1990 by a large majority, but the military
annulled the results and Burma's leaders have consistently refused to
negotiate
with any members of the opposition.

Disunity and NLD

On Wednesday, the new Foreign Minister Win Aung told the BBC that there
must be
order and unity in Burma before progress towards democratisation can take
place.

The NLD stands accused by the government of trying to wreck that unity and
slandering government efforts to bring stability and prosperity to the
country.
Ms Suu Kyi said unity is something that comes only after a process of settling
differences.

Win Aung: Government "protects silent majority against NLD"

"What exactly do they mean by unity? If they think that unity can be
imposed by
intimidating people by guns they are very much mistaken. Unity is something
that comes from within."

Win Aung also said the Burma universities, which have been closed for two
years
and for much of the past decade, would reopen "as soon as possible". He added
that they had been closed because the students had been "misused" by political
forces "to rally and bring down the government".

Ms Suu Kyi responded that the universities are unlikely to re-open any time
soon.

"The government, the present military authorities are nervous of the students
and they know that the students have a lot to be dissatisfied about."

Finally, when asked what the NLD's plans are for the next few months, Ms Suu
Kyi would not commit herself.

"We never talk about our future plans," she said with a smile. "That would be
too dangerous." 

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

BURMA DEBATE: DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOCRACY - THE UN'S BURMA DILEMMA 
Fall, 1998 by Thomas R. Lansner 

A November United Nations initiative to promote democratic reform in Burma
reportedly ties over a billion dollars in humanitarian and development
assistance -- including World Bank funds through the United Nations
Development
Programme (UNDP) -- to the lifting of pervasive repression by the country's
army junta. The idea faces immense obstacles, however, from World Bank
requirements to junta recalcitrance, and raises key questions of UN political
and development involvement in Burma.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights cannot visit. The
International Labor Organization is banned. The Secretary General's special
envoy is allowed only occasional and grudging access. Yet the UN Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO) is accorded facilities for a regional
conference its director calls -- at least as quoted in Burma's official (and
only) news media -- "the grandest" ever. And the World Health Organization
earns front page applause in the state-run The New Light of Myanmar for
bestowing a special award to a nominally non-governmental organization headed
by the spouses of junta generals and said to be controlled by army wives to
the
village level.

Burma's ruling junta, the State Peace and Development Council, is decidedly
ambivalent about the United Nations. Some of its activities and agencies are
denounced and denied, others welcomed and feted. The junta is urgently seeking
development assistance from the United Nations while striving to utterly evade
international norms and standard practices that help ensure such aid is used
honestly and well, and that basic rights of recipients are respected. It is
also pressing the World Bank to resume lending, but refusing to pay arrears or
to make fundamental economic and financial changes that are the Bank's base
line borrowing requirements around the world.

The United Nations system appears equally at odds with itself in dealing with
Burma. The UN's political agenda is annually made explicit by General Assembly
resolutions calling on the junta to honor the results of May 1990 elections
and
for the Secretary General to work toward democratic reform in the country. The
UN special rapporteur for human rights in Burma states flatly that abuses "are
so numerous and so consistent" that they must be "the result of policy at the
highest level, entailing political and legal responsibility." And an ILO
commission of inquiry reported in July that "a system built on force and
intimidation" allows "the impunity with which government officials,
particularly the military, treat the civilian population as an unlimited pool
of unpaid forced labor and servants at their disposal."

CRONIES TO CATASTROPHE? 

Yet in the midst of an economic meltdown and a human rights catastrophe, UN
agencies like the FAO and WHO bring conferences and prizes and offer
legitimacy
to the junta and its cronies. "The secretary general has told UN specialized
agencies to coordinate their policies on Burma," complained a senior UN
official, "but it seems they refuse to listen." The FAO conference held in
Rangoon in April proceeded despite public protests from the Burmese democratic
movement, trade unionists and NGOs, and quiet pressure by some governments.
One
Western diplomat evinced little surprise, saying, "The political attitude at
the top of the FAO is not in sync with the rest of the world," adding that
sometimes UN agencies "just rush in and jump in bed with the government." The
National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), the country's
democratic government-in-exile, described the situation more pointedly: "An
FAO
meeting in Burma is particularly inappropriate," said NCGUB UN representative
Dr. Thaung Htun. "Our country's small farmers today suffer arbitrary
expropriation of their crops and forced relocation and compulsory labor at the
whims of army authorities who mock the rule of law." 

The World Health Organization's September award to the Myanmar Maternal and
Child Welfare Association (MMCWA) for "primary health care development" evoked
astonishment even among strong proponents of increased humanitarian assistance
to Burma. It was, a UNDP official marveled, "well beyond the call of duty."
The
MMCWA is headed by the wives of top junta members, and even UN documents
complain of its heavy centralization. Outside of Rangoon, its leadership is
largely a spousal mirror of the junta's military and political chain of
command. "To call it an NGO is a farce," says one expatriate who worked on
UNDP
projects in Burma.

According to Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Johns Hopkins Fogarty AIDS
International Training Program, and an expert on HIV/AIDS in Southeast Asia,
the junta "has nationalized or co-opted" all NGOs in Burma. Worse, he says,
such local groups as the Myanmar Red Cross, the Myanmar Medical Association
and
the MMCWA have been purged of known pro-democracy supporters. Membership in
the
junta's mass political organization, the Union Development Solidarity
Association (USDA), Beyrer and other observers say, is now a requirement for
joining other groups. "By forcing NGO members to join the USDA and then have
the UN work with these re-formed "NGOs," the SPDC is clearly using UN programs
to support its militia arm," Beyrer said.

The United Nations Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) is criticized even more
harshly. Critics contend it spends freely on programs that can do little in a
country where numerous independent analysts say drugs production is officially
tolerated or abetted. "The UNDCP monies have bought jeeps for (ethnic) Wa
leaders, fares, telephones and computers, and thus far, at least, done nothing
that anyone can document for the farming communities dependent on opium," said
an expatriate specialist.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Sadako Ogata,
offered another disturbing example of UN agencies publicly at cross purposes.
Commenting at a September news conference on the return of Rohingya refugees
from Bangladesh to Burma's Rakhine State, Mrs. Ogata minimized reports that
returnees are again subject to forced labor, one of the reasons many had
initially fled their homes.

"Forced labor is an old tradition," she stated, and, "I am not saying it is
good or bad." Asked if forced labor is not a human rights violation, Mrs.
Ogata
replied, "It depends on how you define forced labor and how you define human
rights violation."  Ogata's comments demonstrated not only an apparent
dismissal of the July ILO report detailing extensive forced labor under severe
conditions in Rakhine State, but also of international standards that prohibit
it anywhere. Human rights activists say her interpretation also calls into
question UNHCR practices and assessment of conditions for over 100,000
refugees
along Burma borders with Bangladesh and Thailand.

UNDP: EVALUATING GRASS ROOTS VALUES 

Even the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), whose projects are
constrained by strict donor-imposed conditions aimed at promoting grass roots
development, must operate under pervasive repression, and genuine
evaluation of
its impact is very difficult.

UNDP is today the principle international conduit for aid to Burma. A look at
its work reveals the limitations and perils of even the best-intentioned
programs in a militarized and repressive environment. The $36.9 million
earmarked for its 1999-2001 Human Development Initiative-Extension program
(which follows $52 million allocated 1996-98) is paltry compared to
international aid programs to far smaller developing countries. This reflects
the international community's strong reluctance to allow assistance to a
military regime that offers not even a facade of the accountability or
transparency that donors increasingly demand.

The UNDP's own mandate, laid out in its governing council's document 93/21,
requires that UNDP projects reach the grass roots and engage and empower local
participants. Few people, beyond the UNDP's own assessors, believe this is
happening in Burma today. A very serious problem is the lack of independent
monitoring and evaluation, according to NGO workers with experience in Burma,
who say there is often almost no access even for UNDP expatriate staff to its
own projects. An NGO representative who worked on a UNDP supported project in
Burma recalled months of wrangling and various official obstructions before
making a single visit to project site. Once there, "I had an armed military
agent in uniform who would not at any moment leave more than four feet of
space
between us. We were not introduced. I think he was an intelligence officer --
he certainly was not your usual young thug with a gun who would lurk about
when
I went on UNDP monitoring visits with program officers. I had been promised an
interpreter from UNDP but that (mysteriously) fell through at the last minute.
I had to find interpreters from among the local community, and did not have
adequate interpreting services. The intelligence agent constantly interjected
in Burmese while I was having discussions with beneficiaries (I don't know
what
he was saying and he was speaking in an agitated manner). I was not allowed to
speak with local church and monastery leaders active in the area, although
some
of them had been involved in the selection of the project beneficiaries. I was
later brought to a large town hall where the villagers were gathered.... I was
brought to the front of the hall to stand among some men, some in army gear,
and some [local junta officials]. There were some speeches in Burmese and
applause. I have no idea what they were saying, as I was not provided with
interpretation."

The external evaluation of overall UNDP's performance is also problematic.
Some
aid experts who have worked in Burma argue that little genuine assessment
takes
place, as closely monitored delegations are flown about in helicopters and
taken largely to "model projects -- UNDP 'Potemkin villages'" as one former
aid
worker said. Evaluators are appointed by UNDP headquarters, with attendant
possibilities of conflict of loyalty and interests. Despite numerous
criticisms
of its overall operations and specific projects, UNDP's hand-picked external
evaluators concluded that its governing council's instructions "were carried
out remarkably well." The NCGUB has called for truly independent
evaluations of
UNDP's work by experts appointed directly by member countries of the UNDP
executive board. "How can we believe that a report by the UNDP's own
appointees
is impartial?" asked NCGUB UN representative Dr. Thaung Htun. "Their reports
say all UNDP projects are going well, but there is no quantitative evaluation
at all."

UNDP Regional Bureau for the Asia-Pacific Director Nay Htun, interviewed by
telephone at his New York office, rejected claims of tight controls on UNDP by
the Burmese regime. He said that there is broad access, including for foreign
diplomats, to UNDP projects. "There is no hindrance whatsoever, about where
they can go, who they can meet," he insisted, adding "There is no problem
[regarding access].  This has never been the case. Perhaps sometimes people
are
temporarily not allowed for their own safety."

"Our projects are very carefully scrutinized by the U.S., by Western Europe
and
by our own executive board. We follow the guidelines scrupulously," Nay Htun
explained further. "They all deal with the poorest of the poor, water supply,
HIV/AIDS, leprosy." He also said the National League for Democracy (NLD),
other
legal parties and NGOs have been regularly briefed on UNDP activities.

However, the NCGUB and the NLD call for more involvement of NLD
representatives
in planning and monitoring UNDP programs. This position is clearly
supported by
US Congressional representatives who hold the purse strings for American
contributions to UNDP. "People in Congress who are interested in human rights
in Burma will be strongly influenced by the position of the NCGUB and [NLD
leader] Aung San Suu Kyi on this issue," said Grover Toseph Rees, staff
director of the House of Representatives International Affairs Committee
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, as he left for a
December research trip to Southeast Asia. "Unlike the people of some other
countries who have never enjoyed freedom of expression, the people of Burma
had
an opportunity to elect their leaders, and we should listen to them, even if
the junta will not."

"PARTICIPATE, DAMMIT!"

Participation of the properly elected representatives of the Burmese people --
that is, the NLD and parties that won seats in the 1990 elections -- in
planning and evaluating UNDP and other UN aid projects is a contentious
political issue. Grass roots participation of individuals and local groups who
are targets for such assistance should not be. Involvement of community based
organizations and other elements of civil society is a requirement of UNDP's
own guidelines, one its own officials and evaluators assert it is achieving.

Anecdotal evidence paints a far different picture. A resident of Burma's Shan
state said that local people were barely consulted and local contractors
ignored when UNDP launched projects there. His comments to an interviewer
reflect a widely held belief among Burma's ethnic minority peoples that
perceived policies of ethnic domination by the country's army junta are
replicated in UNDP programs. An independent health worker voiced similar
concerns of "top-down development." Local facilitators for a recent UNICEF
initiative in Karenni State, he said, were all appointed by junta officials.
Another expert claimed that participation is now mostly limited to members of
the junta's USDA. And a third NGO worker describes attending a meeting at
which
a local junta official shouted at villagers, "Participate, dammit!"

UNDP's Nay Htun was firm on UN policy regarding participation in UNDP funded
projects. "There can be no exclusion of anyone, we have made that clear," he
stated, adding that he has no knowledge of USDA entwinement with Burmese
"NGOs"
or of discrimination against NLD members. "It is up to an organization who to
admit," he said, offering the example of a Burmese wildlife NGO which he said
excludes government officials and soldiers.

It is also certain that UNDP and other UN programs, even if manipulated by the
military regime, gather useful information and are reaching some people in
dire
need of assistance. As one UNDP official said, "This is a terrible dilemma. Do
you let people die just because they have a bad government?" And he added that
recipients are not fooled by junta efforts to paint itself as their
benefactor:
"Even semiliterate peasants are not stupid. They know what's going on."

Critics contend that UN aid activities help legitimize military rule in large
and small ways; the inclusion of USDA on a UNDP calendar, or the
suppression of
a UNICEF pamphlet on AIDS prevention prepared by The National League for
Democracy are examples. "We have to walk a very fine line just to work there,"
explained another UNDP official, "and we have terrible arguments with the
government all the time."

An unusual aspect of the UNDP's work in Burma is the very close engagement of
its Asia-Pacific Director Nay Htun, a Burmese national. UN rules normally bar
any officials from substantive involvement in policy matters relating to their
own county. UNDP describes as "coincidental" Nay Htun's latest visit to Burma
in November, just after a UN reform plan was presented to the junta by UN
special envoy Assistant Secretary General Alvaro de Soto. Nay Htun himself
insists, "There is no conflict of interest. I tell all my colleagues I use two
criteria in whatever I do or decide. One, will it benefit the people? Two,
will
it benefit the country according to UNDP regulations?" One UNDP official says
Nay Htun visits Burma and meets with junta officials, because the generals
"know and trust and respect him," and that he is doing what any bureau chief
would in a difficult situation.

Some UNDP workers express private dismay at what they call Nay Htun's
"interference," and another UN official, speaking on condition of anonymity,
complained, "I do not understand why he is still permitted to travel and stick
his nose into Burma's political affairs, despite our repeated protests."

AID FOR CHANGE: NO TAKERS? 

The dual strands of international engagement with Burma -- political pressure
for respect for human rights and democratic reform, and desperately needed
international assistance for both immediate humanitarian needs and long term
development -- are woven into a new initiative by the UN. Yet UN and other
diplomatic sources insist the initiative is so far little more than an "idea"
or "concept," rising from an October meeting attended by representatives of 17
countries and the UN at Chilston Park, Britain. The not-so-big stick of
limited
economic sanctions and the Asian economic crisis have further weakened Burma's
mismanaged and corrupted economy. But the very highly conditional "carrots"
now
dangled demand that the junta radically alter its policies, its worldview,
and,
essentially, itself.

Details remain sketchy. American charge d'affairs in Rangoon, Kent Wiedemann,
told the Voice of America on December 9 that the proposal requires reforms "so
fundamental that it would result in a process leading to the end of military
rule." The concessions mooted include release of political prisoners and
permission for the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), winners of
the never-honored 1990 elections, to operate freely as a political party --
presumably with the freedoms of expression, association and movement that open
politics requires. It is hardly clear that the regime could quickly or ever
easily accept this "concept" or its attendant concessions.

Junta members appear to dismiss international aid linked to reforms. "Did the
United Nations ensure stability in Cambodia after injecting billions of
dollars? No," junta minister General Maung Maung told the International Herald
Tribune. "We welcome any unconditional assistance you are willing to give us,
but like Cambodia, we need to solve our problems ourselves." In an interview
with Asiaweek, Burma's new foreign minister, Win Aung, added, "Giving a banana
to the monkey and then asking it to dance is not the way. We are not monkeys."
And on 11 December, the regime's New Light of Myanmar commented, "National
objectives cannot be enticed and bought with the dollar. To obey such
condition
is beneath one's dignity."

FOLLOW THE MONEY 

Where a billion dollars in aid could come from is also uncertain. Short of
extraordinary changes in Burma's fiscal and economic practices needed to
qualify for World Bank loans, or a major shift in Bank policy itself, it
cannot
be the World Bank. The World Bank ceased lending to Burma in 1987 because of
the country's unsound economic policies, which have not improved since,
explained Bradley Babson, senior advisor in the office of the vice president
for the Asia and Pacific Region at World Bank headquarters in Washington, DC.
"There are two separate problems," Babson said. "Burma is now in arrears on
its
repayments to the Bank. But that money is less important than the
distortionary
macroeconomic environment that would not allow good use of external
resources."
Significant changes would be needed before any new lending, Babson emphasized.
The value of the local kyat, worth only about two percent of its official
value
on the open market, is closely watched. "The [grossly overvalued] exchange
rate
reflects protection for the privileged elite," Babson remarked, "and is a
bellwether for bad economic policy,"

The World Bank is eager to become involved in Burma, and recent changes in
Bank
philosophy, which now defines governance and corruption as economic issues,
could "expand the dynamic of bank relations" with the Burmese regime, Babson
said, adding, "Any new ideas and new solutions are welcome. The collective
frustration is that there are 45 million Burmese who are good people, and you
have to be able to work with government to solve big problems."

FRUSTRATION AND ISOLATION

Babson's frustration is shared by many other people who strongly believe that
something must be done to alleviate the suffering of so many people in Burma.
But how international assistance can be delivered without lending legitimacy
and materially strengthening the military regime is fiercely debated.

There is no doubt that many people in Burma are suffering and dying because of
misrule. The UNDP 1998 Human Development Report lists Burma's infant mortality
rate as 105 per thousand, over [triple] that of neighboring Thailand and more
in line with chronically impoverished lands like Equatorial Guinea. Military
spending is listed -- and some analysts believe grossly underestimated -- as
222 percent of health and education outlays, a ratio comparable to Iraq's.
Only
about a third of children complete primary school. Health services have
largely
broken down. UNICEF East Asia and the Pacific Director Kul Gautam warns that
with no serious anti-AIDS program, Burma faces an AIDS epidemic of
"Africa-like" proportions. NGO activists say the junta, with its claims of
less
than 2,400 AIDS cases in the entire country at the end of 1997, remains in
deep
denial over the extent of Burma's health crisis.

Burma's people clearly and desperately need international assistance. And any
initiative that brings responsible and effective use of such assistance closer
should be welcomed. Yet structures for delivering even minimal aid within the
country, and sound economic underpinning to ensure aid is not diverted or
wasted, do not yet exist. "Our concept of human rights is based on our own
values, traditions and cultures," SPDC Senior General Than Shwe declared in
October. The junta's concept of economics is equally iconoclastic, and the
values the generals impose seem much more the military's than rooted in
Burmese
tradition. Blandishments from outside -- carrots or sticks -- are unlikely to
promote quick change. "This regime has locked itself into an intellectual and
political isolation," worries an American diplomat, "and it is not clear how
anyone can force them to break out."

Thomas R. Lansner teaches at Columbia University School of International
Public
Affairs. He specializes in issues of democratization, civil society and media
in developing nations. 

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

BURMA LAWYER'S COUNCIL: CALL TO REPEAL LAWS OF REPRESSION 
4 March, 1999 from blcsan@xxxxxxxxxx 

The Burma Lawyers Council today called for the immediate repeal of all
national
security laws in Burma following the shocking treatment of elected MP's from
the National League for Democracy.

"Recently, NLD elected MPs, Naing Thaung Nyunt and Daw Khin Htay Kywe were
arrested together with Hla Maung, from the Patriotic Old Comrades League, for
simply trying to attend a meeting with other representatives elected to
Parliament in the May 1990 elections," said a spokesperson of the Burma
Lawyers
Council.

The three MP's have been charged under the notorious section 5(j) of 1950
Emergency Provisions Act, for "undermining the security of the union". This
outdated legislation is one of several national security laws applied by the
military in Burma to eliminate its opposition and to silence democracy
advocates.

National security laws are catch-all laws entitling the military to arrest and
imprison a person for any reason. The military simply needs to assert that a
threat to national security exists.

"National security laws in Burma are not proper laws as they are extremely
vague and impossible to comply with. A person will not even know they have
committed an offence under these laws until they are arrested and sentenced to
a lengthy prison term." Said the lawyers.

"In Burma, attending a meeting, making a speech, or writing an article can
result in a lengthy prison sentence. These laws attempt to legitimise the
blatant abuse of basic human rights."

The military perceives democracy as the greatest threat to national security
and targets elected MPs, members of the National League for Democracy and
other
democracy advocates for detention under the Emergency Provisions Act.

"The only emergency is the generals fear that they will lose their grip on
power. The only threat to national security is if the generals actually
stay in
power," concluded the lawyers.

The Committee Representing the Peoples Parliament, established by Aung San Suu
Kyi and the National League for Democracy in September 1998, has recommended
the repeal of the Emergency Provisions Act for its excessive and illegal
use by
the military regime in Burma.

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

ANNOUNCEMENT: KAREN ACTIVIST RECEIVES REEBOK HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD 
5 March, 1999 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Abigail Golden-Vazquez/Ruder Finn, 212 593 6425,
vazqueza@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Nancy Moss/Reebok, 781 401 7121, nancy.moss@xxxxxxxxxx

REEBOK ANNOUNCES 11th ANNUAL HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD RECIPIENTS

Extraordinary Courage, Character, and Achievements of Human Rights Activists
Honored

Stoughton, Massachusetts, March 4, 1999 - Reebok announced today the names of
the four recipients of its 11th annual Reebok Human Rights Award: A former
fetish slave fighting to free other young women in Ghana; a lawyer fighting
unjust application of the death penalty in the United States; an activist
fighting abuses committed against ethnic minorities in Burma; a student leader
fighting for democratic reforms in Kenya.

Each year the Reebok Human Rights Award focuses international attention on
specific human rights issues.  The 1999 Reebok Human Rights Award recipients
are:

Julie Dogbadzi, 24, Ghana. Julie has mounted a "one-woman campaign" against
the
sexual and labor slavery practice of  "Trokosi" found in the Upper Volta
Region
of West Africa.  At the age of seven Julie was sent to serve a Trokosi shrine
for the alleged crimes of a grandfather she never knew.  She had to work in
the
compound for the priest, fulfill his sexual demands, and with additional work,
support her two children and herself.  After 17 years, Julie fled with her
children to find sanctuary at International Needs, an organization that helps
Trokosi slaves.  Refusing to be content with her own freedom, Julie risks the
wrath of her family and indeed her life, in a tireless campaign to free other
women enslaved by the Trokosi tradition.

Tanya Greene, 28, Atlanta, Georgia.  Tanya is a national leader in the fight
for justice in the United States capital punishment system.  A graduate of
Harvard Law School, Tanya represents indigent clients throughout Alabama and
Georgia with the Southern Center for Human Rights. As most of her clients are
African Americans tried in extremely conservative communities, Tanya struggles
in her work to counter racial discrimination.  In 1996, Tanya won a
precedent-setting case defending Levi Pace, sentenced to death in Morgan
County
Alabama, by establishing a long history of racial discrimination.  Her work in
this case led to a more equitable policy on grand jury foreperson selection. 
Tanya is the Death Penalty Resource Counsel of the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers and she trains others on strategies for investigation
and mitigation in capital trials.  She also initiated the "Life Vote Project,"
which compiles information on what makes juries choose not to apply the death
penalty.

Ka Hsaw Wa, 28, Burma.  Ka Hsaw Wa is the co-founder of Earth Rights
International, a non-governmental agency that documents government-sponsored
human rights abuses.  Detained and tortured by Burmese police and forced to
flee Rangoon for involvement in the student protest movement, he rejected a
path of armed opposition.  At great risk to his life, Ka Hsaw Wa began
documenting the forced labor, rape, and other human rights abuses inflicted
upon villagers by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) troops. 
Ka Hsaw Wa's reports are recognized for their credible and thorough
documentation of rights abuses in areas of Burma virtually off-limits to
international agencies.  Ka Hsaw Wa has been instrumental in gathering
evidence
for a class action lawsuit brought against a U.S. oil company on the basis
of a
direct link between the pipeline project and SLORC abuses.  Ka Hsaw Wa has
traveled thousands of miles on foot, living and working clandestinely, to
interview scores of victims and witnesses, and has trained others to document
abuses.

Suba Churchill Meshack, 26, Kenya. Suba is Kenya's most prominent student
leader.  As the co-founder and chair of the Kenya University Student
Organization, he seeks to broaden student representation in Kenya's
universities.  Because his work exposes government corruption and human rights
abuses, Suba has been arrested eight times, tortured, and expelled from his
university in Egerton for speaking out.  Suba's work has been at the forefront
of Kenya's constitutional reform movement.  A workshop he organized as
chair of
the National Convention Executive Council brought death threats and police
intimidation, but contributed to government action on constitutional reform. 
Among Suba's many activities for human rights in Kenya, he has founded the
National Youth Convention to fight against violations of student's rights, is
teaching non-violent methods of active resistance, and seeks to create a legal
fund for students that are arrested.

Paul Fireman, Chairman of Reebok International, Ltd. said, "The vanguard of
the
human rights movement today is in the hundreds of activist grassroots
organizations and thousands of people who face abuses and refuse to accept
them.  Every year the recipients of the Reebok Human Rights Award come forward
to tell their stories to the world -- and each year we are struck by the
spirit, determination, and fortitude of these young heroines and heroes.  They
tell stories of horror and despair countered by an undaunted affirmation of
humanity and a bold pursuit of positive change, often in the face of ultimate
consequences.  It is a great honor for Reebok to support these inspiring young
human rights advocates."

Recognitions and Honors for Reebok Human Rights Award Recipients

1999 Reebok Human Rights Award recipients will be honored during the week of
March 22 in New York City.  Several events will be hosted by Columbia
University School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA). The formal
awards
ceremony will be held in Columbia University's Miller Theatre the evening of
March 24th.

The Reebok Human Rights Award

Since it was established in 1988, 56 extraordinarily courageous young people
from 28 countries have been previously honored for their significant
contributions.  All award recipients have been under the age of 30; none are
advocates of violence or belong to an organization which advocates violence;
and all are engaged in issues directly relating to the United Nations
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

Reebok Human Rights Award recipients are selected by the Reebok Human Rights
Board of Advisors.  Nominees are submitted from around the world by prominent
individuals in the human rights community and by non-governmental
organizations.

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