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

The BurmaNet News: July 19, 1999



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

The BurmaNet News: July 19, 1999
Issue #1317

Noted in Passing: "The only way to deal with these people is to execute
them on the spot." - Kachadpai Burusapatana, Secretary-General of the
National Security Council (Thailand) (see REUTERS: THAILAND SHOULD KILL
TRAFFICKERS AT BORDER) 

HEADLINES:
==========
NATION: BURMA, ASEAN, DEMOCRACY, DREAMS, AND REALITIES 
NATION: SUKHUMBHAND WAY OFF THE MARK WITH SUPPORT 
NATION: MILITARY CAN'T HOLD OUT FOREVER IN BURMA 
IRRAWADDY: MANDELA - THE MAN OF THE HOUR? 
XINHUA: MYANMAR DENIES ARMS SUPPLY TO TAMIL REBELS 
NATION: BID TO RETURN ALL BURMESE ON THAI BORDER 
REUTERS: THAILAND SHOULD KILL TRAFFICKERS AT BORDER
*****************************************************

THE NATION: BURMA, ASEAN, DEMOCRACY, DREAMS, AND REALITIES 
16 July, 1999 by Sukhumbhand Paribatra 

In reply to Burmese Nobel Peace Prize laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's
article, "Nudge Burma Towards Democracy," which appeared in the Nation's
"Voicing My Thoughts" column (July 13), Deputy Foreign Minister Mr
Sukhumbhand Paribatra presents his own perspective on Burma, Asean and
democracy. 

Not everyone voicing his or her thoughts is listened to with great interest
by the world at large. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Noble Peace Prize laureate, is
obviously one of those selected few whose opinions invariably gain
considerable attention in all parts of the globe. So, most likely, her
latest article, "Nudge Burma Towards Democracy," to do more to help the
"people of Burma" in [their] quest for democracy", will provoke all sorts
of responses, both positive and contrary, from all sorts of people far and
wide. 

As we approach the second anniversary of Burma's Asean membership, it may
be appropriate to consider some of the points Daw Aung San Suu Kyi raised
in this article, particularly concerning the role of Asean. 

First of all, it is clear that many people throughout the world, millions
across geographical, social and economic divides, share her sentiments
regarding democracy. 

In this connection, it must be pointed out that after over sixty years of
our own, largely unassisted struggle for democracy, we in Thailand have now
reached a consensus that democracy, despite its imperfections, is the best
form of governance in a less-than-perfect world. We also now know that
democracy, far from being a western concept or a western value, can be
planted and nurtured to full growth in our own way, in our own conditions,
in accordance to our own expectations, priorities and needs. We are fully
committed to political reform, which will serve to strengthen the
fundamentals of our democratic system, namely participation, good
governance, accountability, transparency and the rule of law. 

Because millions of people through out the world share Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi's sentiments regarding democracy, it is perfectly natural and
understandable that she should encourage the international community to
support her cause. Conversely, it is also perfectly natural and
understandable that some members of the international community would wish
to extend a helping hand to her and her National League for Democracy (NLD)
supporters. 


But good intentions do not always lead to wise judgements, appropriate
actions or just rewards. 

Many governments and organisations have advocated a policy of exclusion,
including economic sanctions, to pressure for change in Burma. But the
efficacy of this policy option is open to debate. 

Economic sanctions against a foreign country can be useful as a means of
responding to domestic constituencies' heartfelt sentiments. A decision to
this end is a matter of moral conscience or domestic political exigency.
However, economic sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy seldom work;
witness the cases of China in the 1950s and 1960s, Cuba since 1960 and
present-day Iraq. 

One necessary condition for success is that all the great powers concerned
and all the key neighbours of the targeted county are persuaded to support
such sanctions. This condition seldom exists in real life. South Africa
seems to be a notable exception. But the case may be sui generis, for the
domestic struggle for liberation was truly heroic, and in a predominantly
black country and black continent, white rule and apartheid could hardly be
permanently sustainable arrangements. At the same time, one should indeed
not forget that change in that great country finally came when all the
major powers concerned reached a level of consensus regarding its future,
and not before. 

It is a fact of life that economic sanctions seldom work. It is also a fact
of life that the main victims of economic sanctions are, more often than
not, innocent civilians, ordinary men, women and children who happen to be
living, working and playing in the wrong country at the wrong moment of
history. 

Many have also called on the Asean countries to bring their collective
influence to bear on Burma and push for far reaching changes in the
country. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi wrote, in the same article, that "we believe
that support from Asean ... is crucial to our quest for democracy. If Asean
can persuade or put pressure on the present regime to convene the
Parliament that was elected by the people, this could be the first step
towards democratisation." The association's reluctance to do so, she
attributed to only the Asean members' concerns that "there may be some
aspects of their countries that might invite criticism". 

Unfortunately, this is a mistaken notion. 

As a founding member of the association, Thailand would dearly love to see
a convergence of values, beliefs and interests among all the Asean
countries, for this would surely make the task of regional cooperation and
integration much easier. 

As a forward-looking and open society, Thailand will applaud any positive
domestic political, social and economic changes in a fellow member country.
Indeed, where Burma is concerned, we have been openly urging all parties
concerned to engage in a sustained process of dialogue without any
preconditions, with a view towards bringing about national reconciliation
in the country. 

As a country fully committed to Asean regionalism, Thailand wished to see
the resolution of all the contradictions, which prevent member countries
from contributing to the cause of regionalism to their greatest potential.
We are certain Burma, the seat of a great and ancient civilisation with
immense natural and human resource bases, one day can make an enormous
contribution to the region. 


There are dreams. There are hopes, desires and expectations. There are
also realities. All dreams, hopes, desires and expectations ultimately must
be subjected to reality tests. 

One reality is that Asean was created as and remains a framework and
mechanism for cooperation in a region of great political, social, cultural
and economic diversity. It was never intended to be a collective security
regime, which has a collective vision of what is right, just and moral in
all things and can impose changes at will upon its member countries in
accordance to this vision. 

>From the beginning, the principle of non-interference, along with
perceptions and conceptions of common interests, has been the glue keeping
Asean together. 

All principles can of course be modified through changing time and
circumstances. Today, with rapidly growing global and regional
interdependence, the dividing line between purely domestic issues, on the
one hand, and domestic issues with international, regional or transnational
implications, on the other is becoming difficult to discern, as the recent
financial crises, environ mental disasters, and problems of drugs, diseases
and illegal migration demonstrate. 

So, it is only appropriate that Asean should be able to expand the agenda
of regional concern to include issues, which a few years ago would have
been considered purely domestic issues and hence "untouchable" as far as
other members are concerned. 

Thailand first called this process of expansion "flexible engagement". Now,
the official Asean label is "enhanced interactions."

But modification is one thing, abandonment quite another. We believe that
the principle of non-interference should be adapted to suit the changing
times and circumstances. But to abandon it is to tear Asean asunder. 

The reality is that Asean cannot be a proactive promoter of changes in the
existing political arrangement of any member country. To advocate such a
role is to misinterpret the genesis and nature of Asean in a very
fundamental way. 

Another reality is that, even if the Asean countries collectively or
individually should wish to act as a proactive promoter of changes in the
existing political arrangement of a fellow member country, their capacity
to do so is severely limited. 

Reason and persuasion sometimes work, but unfortunately mainly in cases
which do not involve vital principles or interests. If reason and
persuasion fail, what than? Economic sanctions? Can they work if non-Asean
neighbours of the targeted country do not comply? Expulsion from Asean
membership? Would expulsion make the lot of the people in the targeted
country better? Air strikes a la Kosovo? Or would an invasion by ground
forces be more appropriate? 

For Thailand, the existence of all these constraints means that there is
only a choice between exclusion and engagement where the policy towards
Burma is concerned. 

We reject exclusion because we believe that isolation will simply reinforce
the status quo, heighten whatever sensitivity to the outside world there
is, and increase the suffering of the common people. We also reject
exclusion because Thailand and Burma share a 2,400 kilometre-long land
boundary, where close contacts and good relations between the two sides
directly benefit the security and well being of all the common people
living on both sides of the border. 


For us, there is no alternative to engagement. 

Engagement is a must because Burma is already an Asean member. This has
been a fact of life since July 1997, and in real life the clock cannot be
turned back. As a fellow Asean member, Burma is a close friend and partner
and must be encouraged to contribute to the cause of regional cooperation. 

Engagement keeps all the doors open for the conduct of quiet diplomacy and
[ ... ], information and ideas to be conveyed, not only between Rangoon and
Bangkok, but also between Rangoon and the rest of the outside world.
History suggests that access to greater knowledge of the outside world
inspire change more often than closed doors. 

And engagement forms the basis for the management of the numerous bilateral
issues which affect the security and well-being of Thailand and Burma and
by extension also the security and wellbeing of the region. As Minister of
Foreign Affairs Dr Surin Pitsuwan has said on many occasions, unlike many
countries advocating exclusion and pressure, Thailand does not have "luxury
of distance" but is faced with the "burden of proximity".

For us, there is no alternative to engagement. But we also recognise that
engagement will not work unless it is as constructive as possible. Only
through constructive engagement, can we hope to cultivate a growing habit
of collaboration, to bring about expanding areas of common interests, and
to reintegrate Burma into the mainstream of international cooperation. For
this reason, we have endeavoured to enhance interactions with our neighbour
to the West in a number of ways.

Bilaterally, we have striven for more extensive cooperation in preventing
and suppressing trade in narcotics and have established a mechanism for
addressing the issue of displaced persons and illegal workers. We have
encouraged Rangoon to allow the UNHCR to have a role on both sides of the
border to help manage the problem of displaced persons. We have engaged
Burma in multilateral dialogues on irregular migration and human rights. In
the near future we must find ways and means of encouraging Burma's more
active participation in the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) and the ARF
inter-sessional activities, which cover a broad range of issue-areas.

Such engagement is not glamorous. It is not dramatic. It provides no
headline news. It does not inspire crusading zeal or fiery rhetoric. It
cannot bring apocalyptic changes. It requires time, resources, patience,
endurance and stamina - the kind of commodities and attributes of
diplomacy, which a democracy is often reluctant to yield. 

But it is the only way. 

There is an old Chinese proverb that says: "Let us light a candle instead
of cursing the darkness."

Thailand will continue to follow the situation in Burma very closely. 

We will continue to encourage all our friends in that country to engage in
a sustained process of dialogue without any preconditions, with a view
towards bringing about lasting national reconciliation, for such a
development will surely benefit everyone in the region. 

We will continue to encourage new initiatives, such as the ones taken by
the UN Secretary-General last October and the European Union a few days ago. 


As a close neighbour, we will not hesitate to express our concerns and to
make constructive suggestions, if and when questions arise which affect the
region's and Thailand's security and well-being. 

As a democratically elected government, we will have to allow, listen to,
acknowledge, and accept a wide rage of opinions concerning Burma and our
policy towards her. 

However, where the question of democratisation in the region is concerned,
in the words of Dr Surin, as a democratically elected government, we will
continue to be well-wishers of democracy-loving people everywhere, but we
can be active champions of only our own democracy. 

Thailand is a democracy and proud of it. But this is the reality.

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

THE NATION: SUKHUMBHAND WAY OFF THE MARK WITH SUPPORT OF JUNTA
17 July, 1999  

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Mr Sukhumbhand Paribatra's long-winded reply to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's call
to Asean to do more to bring democracy to Burma [July 16] is an exercise in
sheer sophistry. "Good intentions do not always lead to wise judgements,"
the minister says quite sanctimoniously. 

But as far as Thailand and Asean are concerned their actions towards the
Burmese people had neither good intentions nor were they marked by wise
judgement. 

The sad truth is that despite his repeated insistence that Thailand is a
democracy and upholds democratic values, successive Thai governments since
the late eighties have helped maintain the Burmese military dictators in
power through a combination of sustained economic and political support
especially on the international diplomatic front. 

Would Burma's entry into Asean have been possible at all without Thai
support? 

Not at all, and for the minister to now talk about Burma's Asean membership
as a "fact of life" is disingenuous because it was Thailand that gave birth
to this monster membership. 

The "engagement" with the Burmese regime that the minister talks about
sounds more like cohabitation with the generals. 

As far as Asean's much-vaunted policy of "non-interference" is concerned in
the case of Burma, this is clearly a cruel joke. All of Asean's so-called
engagements with the illegitimate Burmese government are nothing but
blatant interference with the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people. 

True non-interference is possible only when Asean leaves Burma alone
without propping up the generals with diplomatic support. Or is it the case
that in the Asean version of democracy, generals always matter more than
ordinary people? 

Socrates, Bangkok 

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

THE NATION: MILITARY CAN'T HOLD OUT FOREVER IN BURMA 
17 July, 1999 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

According to the opinion piece by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi which appeared in
The Nation [July 16], she says that if Asean can persuade or put pressure
on the present military regime in Burma to convene the parliament that was
elected by the people in 1990, then this could be the first step towards
democracy. I believe that the government leaders in Asean know well that
the solution to Burma's problem is to convene the people s parliament,
which was freely and fairly elected by the people of Burma. 


If these Asean leaders really value and love democracy and cared about the
Burmese people, they would push for the convening of the Burmese parliament
and join pro-democracy organisations around the world which are already
strongly calling for that action. By continuing to support the Burmese
junta, many Asean leaders are supporting a government which abuses and
kills its citizens all the time. The International Labour Organisation
(ILO) has just decided that Burma is the worst abuser of forced labour in
the world. 

By convening parliament, it will be possible to reach the people's desired
goal (return of democracy) through compromise between the Burmese military
junta and elected members of Parliament, striking some kind of balance
between them. By taking this step, both sides can proceed to a good future
for Burma. The return of democracy in Burma will lead to a good
relationship between all Asean members. The fall of Suharto's dictatorship
in Indonesia shows that it is not possible for a military to hold on to
power forever because eventually they must return the mandate to the people
For a real dialogue to take place, the people on both sides of the dialogue
should respect each other. Also, the international community must be
involved. 

The problem right now is that the minds of the generals who lead the State
Peace and Development Council (SPDC) junta do not want change. They are not
sincere because they really do not want dialogue. Maybe they cannot even
understand what dialogue really means. The Burmese army must be for the
people, by the people, of the people The ordinary Burmese people provide
tax for allowances, uniforms, food, arms, equipment and every other type of
supplies for the army. A real democratic Burmese army would think that
whatever the army wants to do, it must first see whether the people agree
with that action or not. 

In order to set up a democratic country, the Burmese junta must move
forward and take real steps to have an honest dialogue with the National
League for Democracy. They should start by allowing parliament to convene
immediately.

Thet Oo 
Secretary, Data and Research Department, 
Federation of Trade Unions-Burma 
Washington, USA 

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

THE IRRAWADDY: MANDELA - THE MAN OF THE HOUR? 
June, 1999 by Aung Zaw 

Vol7, No5

Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has often been likened to Nelson
Mandela, the recently retired President of South Africa who was long a
symbol of resistance against the injustices of apartheid. His decision this
June to invite Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt to the inauguration ceremony of his
successor raised many eyebrows amongst pro-democracy activists, but now
some are wondering if Mandela can help Suu Kyi find her F. W. de Klerk.
Aung Zaw writes. 

Recently, in a surprise move, the South African government invited Burmese
military leaders to attend the inauguration ceremony of their new
president, Thabo Mbeki. Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt, Burma's powerful military
intelligence chief and Secretary One of the State Peace and Development
Council (SPDC), accompanied Foreign Minister Win Aung on his trip to South
Africa.


Shunned by the international community for its poor human rights record
and facing increasing external pressure, the ruling junta exploited the
invitation in its state-run press and hailed the relationship between South
Africa and Burma. Just before the intelligence chief left Rangoon to attend
the inauguration ceremony, a South African diplomat based in Bangkok said
that outgoing president Nelson Mandela would consider acting as a mediator
to break a political deadlock between the SPDC and Aung San Suu Kyi.

The military junta and the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Suu
Kyi are locked in a standoff. The NLD won a landslide victory in 1990 but
the outcome hasn't been honored. Since last year, hundreds of NLD members
have been forced to resign from the party and many remain in prisons.

The South African diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous, said Mandela
would need a formal request from Aung San Suu Kyi's pro-democracy
opposition. "Maybe the opposition should be seriously considering making a
concerted effort to deliver a serious message of invitation."

Suu Kyi, who was placed under house arrest for almost six years and
released in 1995, often speaks of her admiration for Mandela. Many
activists both inside Burma and abroad pondered the motive of the
invitation, though no official comment came from Suu Kyi herself. Some
activists are not too sanguine. 

Mandela made his first official visit to Southeast Asia in 1997, seven
years after his release in 1990 from 27 years in an apartheid-era prison.
During his 10-day tour the then president emphasized the need for deeper
economic engagement with the region. He also said that he would continue to
forge closer ties with the region despite Burma's controversial application
to join the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean). Months later,
against strong opposition from critics of the country's military regime,
Burma was admitted to the Asean fold. 

Not surprisingly, many activists and other advocates of democracy,
including the regional press, were shocked by Mandela's comment that
Asean's policy of "constructive engagement" with Burma would not prevent
his government from seeking closer trade ties with the grouping. Sanctions
against the racist government of South Africa were instrumental in bringing
an end to apartheid. 

By contrast, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Bishop Desmond Tutu, who played a
more active role than Mandela in bringing South Africa's anti-apartheid
struggle into the international arena, came out strongly in favor of
sanctions against the regime. "It is now time to admit that the policy of
constructive engagement with the (junta) is a failure," he wrote in 1993.
"International pressure can change the situation in Burma. Tough sanctions,
not constructive engagement, finally brought the release of Nelson Mandela
and the dawn of a new era in my country."

Now Mandela seems ready to re-enter the fray, this time, according to the
Bangkok-based diplomat, as a peace-broker. He indicated that South Africa
is prepared to play its part if the countries of the world mount a
concerted effort to alter the junta's crippling mindset. 


"He has indicated he is willing to act as an international peacemaker, and
the Burma issue is one of concern not only to South Africa but to the
international community," said the diplomat. "The belief in South Africa is
that there is no need to isolate someone, to demonize a government if the
channel to negotiating a peaceful settlement exists."

Gestures from Rangoon

Recently some interesting gestures have emerged from Rangoon. Opposition
leaders Aung San Suu Kyi and deputy chairman of the NLD Tin Oo said that
lower level dialogue is possible.

"I think they (the SPDC) are trying to find a way to come up with dialogue
with the NLD," Tin Oo recently told Reuters in a telephone interview. "We
are quite optimistic that they will come up with dialogue. We have our door
open. If they are genuine and sincere about democracy, it can be dialogue
at any time."

He added: "It does not matter whether it starts from a lower level or
higher level."

Last year, the junta invited the party's chairman, Aung Shwe, to enter
talks without Suu Kyi, but the NLD refused to play by these rules,
insisting that it had the right to choose its own representatives for
negotiations. Many analysts suspect that this overture was intended to
fail, as the regime knew that its terms would not be acceptable to the
opposition. In a recent interview, Suu Kyi said that the generals would
only create further conditions to avoid a serious dialogue if the NLD gave
in to their demands that she be excluded. 

In a rare interview with a foreign journalist, Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt told a
reporter from a French magazine that the SPDC regards dialogue not as a
single event but as a process involving several stages. He added that a
confidence-building process was necessary before beginning substantive
discussions. 

Khin Nyunt also accused the NLD of being insincere. "They are actually not
sincere and are not interested in meaningful and genuine dialogue and are
trying to create obstacles in the path to discussions between the two
sides," he said.

Creating an atmosphere of mutual trust will not be easy. While both sides
seem willing to wave olive branches at each other, substantive discussions
will only be possible if long-term goals take clear precedence over
publicity gains. Previous meetings between the military government and NLD
leaders, including Suu Kyi, were highly publicized and thus regarded only
as a means of reducing international and domestic pressure on the regime.

Dr. Thaung Htun, a representative of the Burmese government in exile,
believes that dialogue is inevitable but will only be sustainable if it is
undertaken in good faith. "Neither side should exploit the initial
dialogue. If one side begins to use it, that shows its insincerity."

Another risk is that raised expectations could easily end in
disappointment. If Mandela enters the picture, many may expect him to side
strongly with pro-democracy forces, a scenario that would doom his
involvement from the start. But this seems unlikely in any event, as his
record shows. Mandela has never demonstrated much interest in imposing
sanctions against the world's dictators, some of whom he is on quite good
terms with. There is even speculation that Mandela's close associate,
Libyan leader Moamar Ghadafi, is seeking business opportunities in Burma,
raising the question of whether Mandela might end up playing the middleman
between two of the world's most notorious regimes. In any case, it is safe
to assume that his stance will not be that of a typical human rights
activist. 


Nonetheless, there is some hope that Mandela's history of struggle against
oppression in South Africa will incline him to help the oppressed peoples
of Burma. Kiru Naidoo, a South African activist working for the Free Burma
Campaign, recently issued a statement saying, "We are cautiously optimistic
that our esteemed father and outgoing president, Nelson Mandela will
consider lending his support to international efforts aimed at the
restoration of democracy in Burma."

There are also others in South Africa who hold out similar hopes, including
members of the country's small Burmese community. Dr. Thein Win of the Free
Burma Campaign said that Burmese living in South Africa were preparing to
send an appeal letter to Khin Nyunt. "After visiting and seeing South
Africa's national reconciliation progress we would like to ask General Khin
Nyunt to consider to open a dialogue with the NLD," he said in a statement.
Thein Win and his group also plan to keep the new president, Thabo Mbeki,
informed about developments in Burma.

Thein Htike Oo, a former Burmese activist who is now a Washington-based
radio journalist, said that he wasn't certain what Mandela could be
expected to achieve if he got involved in Burma's political impasse. He
said, however, that he hoped Mandela could "persuade Khin Nyunt and the
hard-liners to open a political dialogue."

At best, perhaps, Mandela can help Suu Kyi find a Burmese equivalent of
F.W. de Klerk, the white South African leader who paved the way for a
political transition that is slowly beginning to heal the damage done by
apartheid. Some believe that person is already available for negotiations.
"Weird as it may sound, Khin Nyunt is the best hope for Burma," said one
Rangoon-based western diplomat recently. But Khin Nyunt and Suu Kyi will
not be sharing a Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon unless the regime finally
starts offering invitations to talk that actually begin to ring true. 

Aung Zaw is the editor of the Irrawaddy.

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

XINHUA: MYANMAR DENIES ILLEGAL ARMS SUPPLY TO SRI LANKAN TAMIL REBELS 
15 July, 1999 

COLOMBO (July 15) XINHUA - Myanmar will never allow Sri Lankan Tamil rebels
operating on its soil nor allow illegal arms supply through its territorial
waters, said visiting Myanmar Foreign Minister U Win Aung Thursday. 

"It's not our policy to interfere into other country's domestic affairs,"
said U Win Aung, the first Myanmar foreign minister to visit Sri Lanka. 

U Win Aung arrived here Wednesday night for a two-day visit as the first
leg of his tour of South Asia and Southeast Asia. He will also visit
Bangladesh, Singapore and other countries later this month. 

Myanmar and Sri Lanka can cooperate to curb illegal arms supply to Tamil
rebels by sharing information, the minister told a press conference. 

Sri Lanka has been battling separatist Tamil rebels who demand a homeland
for minority Tamils in the north and east of the country. 

Illegal arms supply to Tamil rebels is believed to prolong the 16-year-old
war and has aroused serious concern of the Sri Lankan government. 


As to the speculation of illegal arms supply to Tamil rebels, U Win Aung
said, "If direct source is us, we will tackle this problem." 

Thursday morning, U Win Aung met with Sri Lankan acting Foreign Minister
Lakshman Kiriella. 

During the meeting, he proposed to activate a joint commission set up in
1993 to enhance the cultural, economical and trade ties between the two
countries.

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

THE NATION: BID TO RETURN ALL BURMESE ON THAI BORDER 
16 July, 1999 by Piyanart Srivalo

Thailand will repatriate all displaced Burmese people living along the
border within the next three years with the assistance of the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, National Security Council chief Kajadpai
Burutpat said yesterday. 

Kajadpai said he would raise the matter at the UNHCR's annual meeting, to
be held in Geneva in October. 

His aim was to bring the problem of the presence of Burmese on Thai soil to
the attention of the international community now that the Kosovo conflict
had ended Currently, it is estimated that about 90,000 displaced Burmese --
roughly divided into 30,000 Kayas and 60,000 Karens -- have taken shelter
along the Thai border following bloody domestic fighting.

But for many the attitude of the Burmese government remains a problem and
there are fears that those who return may be endangered. 

In a bid to allay the fears that the Burmese could face prosecution upon
returning home, Kajadpai said Rangoon has given a positive gesture that it
is willing to receive the Burmese. 

"Recently, Rangoon had indicated that it was willing to accept the
displaced people and had prepared settlement areas for them. We regard
these as positive signs from Burma," Kajadpai said. 

He said UNHCR assistance might come in the form of an office inside Burma
which would guarantee the safety of the returnees. 

The NSC chief did not reveal the procedures of the repatriation that would
see all the displaced Burmese disappear from the border. In principle, the
repatriation has to be conducted on a voluntary basis. 

Thailand has shouldered the burden of supporting thousands of Burmese who
fled here following years of internal fighting between the Burmese
government and dissidents seeking independence. 

Kajadpai said Asean should also shift to a more offensive strategy by
seeking direct dialogue with Burma's ruling junta and get rid of the old
practice of using excuses for failing to bring Rangoon to the negotiating
table. 

Asean groups Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Burma and Cambodia. Burma joined the grouping in
1997. Ever since, Asean has been criticised for turning a blind eye to
widespread human rights violations allegedly carried out there. 

The refugees are minority groups who since 1984 have been fleeing bloody
fighting inside Burma. They have been supported by the UNHCR and various
NGOs. 

Meanwhile, the committee set up to solve security problems in southern
border areas met yesterday to revise its policy for the period 1999-2003.
Its main objectives are to encourage more participation by the public and
private sectors, to improve the environment and human resources and to
forge closer cooperation between the various parties. 


The policy revision comes in the wake of a rise in the number of narcotics
offences although the security threats from armed separatists had ceased.

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

REUTERS: THAILAND SHOULD KILL TRAFFICKERS AT BORDER - NSC 
16 July, 1999 

BANGKOK, July 16 (Reuters) - Thailand's National Security Council chief
said on Friday troops should be stationed on the border with Myanmar and
kill drug traffickers on the spot. 

"Alien drugs traffickers from a neighbouring country are becoming
increasingly rampant. The only way to deal with these people is to execute
them on the spot," Kachadpai Burusapatana, the NSC's secretary-general,
told a seminar on national security. 

"Their first offence is smuggling drugs into the country and the second
offence is violating the sovereignty of the nation. So these people deserve
to die by execution on the spot," he said. 

Kachadpai, whose name in Thai means "get rid of danger," proposed replacing
the Thai border police with troops. 

But police sources told Reuters that the shoot-to-kill policy advocated by
the NSC chief has already been in operation for some time now at the border
area to discourage traffickers. 

Thai Narcotics Suppression Police had shot and killed 29 alleged alien drug
traffickers on the common border with Myanmar over the past three months,
they said. 

Myanmar is one of the world's largest sources of heroin. 

Thailand's Office of Narcotics Control Board (ONCB) has accused the United
Wa State Army (UWSA) which operates in northeastern Shan state of producing
and smuggling millions of amphetamine tablets into Thailand. 

The ONCB estimates that more than 300 million amphetamine tablets have been
produced in the infamous Golden Triangle opium producing area by the UWAS
annually. 

The Golden Triangle straddles the borders of Myanmar, Thailand and Laos. 

The UWSA, a former Myanmar rebel group which has reached a ceasefire with
the Myanmar government, has taken over the drug producing and trafficking
activities of former drug warlord Khun Sa after he surrendered to Myanmar
authorities in 1995.

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