[theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: Ap

[theburmanetnews-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Reply-To: theburmanetnews-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: April 3, 2000 

  ________________ THE BURMANET NEWS _________________
/        An on-line newspaper covering Burma           \   
\_________________ www.burmanet.org ___________________/


April 3, 2000
Issue # 1500



*Inside Burma


THE NATION: 1,500 KARENS FLEE TO THAI SAFETY 

MIC: SO-CALLED "2000 REPORT ON LABOUR PRACTICES IN BURMA" REJECTED

SHAN: SHAN STATE ARMY?  '¶NEGOTIATIONS HAVE NOT BEGUN

UNITED NATIONS: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL 
RAPPORTEUR FOR 
MYANMAR


*International


AFP: MYANMAR EXILES ASK THAILAND TO DEPORT LEADER TO THIRD COUNTRY
	
ASIAWEEK: BACK WITH A VENGEANCE

BANGKOK POST: OUTLOOK STILL BLEAK FOR SOUTHERN FLEET


*Opinion/Editorial


NATION: THAI DIPLOMACY FIGHTS AGAINST FISHY BUSINESS

NATION: JUSTICE DEMANDS UN DROP RECOGNITION OF BURMA JUNTA
	
BANGKOK POST: BURMA HAS CHANCE TO REFUTE ILO CASE



___________________ INSIDE BURMA ______________________
	


THE NATION: 1,500 KARENS FLEE TO THAI SAFETY 

The Nation 3rd April, 2000.

TAK ?  '¶'¶ About 1,500 Karen refugees fled to safety in Thailand 
yesterday from heavy fighting in Burma between the military 
government''s troops and rebels from the Karen National Union, a 
district official said. 

About 300 soldiers from Burma''s 77th Brigade and 101st Battalion 
launched an allout attack against the union''s 7th brigade yesterday 
opposite Tak province''s Tha Song Yang district, said 
the district''s chief Veera Phothisuk. 

An ethnic Karen living in Thailand, Moh Kyijae, also known as Yord 
Chai, was shot dead by Burmese troops while watching over cattle 
feeding along the border, Veera said. 

Junta and rebel troops suffered high casualties from a heavy exchange 
of shelling, officials on the Thai border said. 	

Border officials are looking after the 1,500 refugees, but will not 
allow them to join other Karens in area refugee camps, they said. 

Instead, the refugees will be sent back to Burma as soon as fighting 
stops, they said. 

The flood of refugees came one day after the governor of nearby Mae 
Hong Son province, Poj Utana, ordered a curfew on four refugee camps 
over fears they would be attacked by the Democratic Karen Buddhist 
Army, a proRangoon Karen splinter group. 

The curfew order came after the government received information that 
the group would attack the camps, which are located between five and 
eight kilometres inside the border. 

About 100,000 Burmese refugees, mostly ethnic Karens, live in scores 
of camps along the border. 

The Karen National Union is one of the largest rebel groups refusing 
to surrender or enter a ceasefire agreement with Burma''s military 
junta. 

The Nation  
_______________________________________________
		


MIC: SO-CALLED "2000 REPORT ON LABOUR PRACTICES IN BURMA" REJECTED

FOREIGN RELATIONS

>From "News and Views from Myanmar" distributed via the Internet on 
April 3, 
2000


          The United States Department of Labour issued a so-
called "2000 Report on Labour Practices in Burma" which in no manner 
represents the true situation in Myanmar. In this connection, the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Myanmar issued a Press 
Release on 16 March 2000.

    Following is the full text of the Press Release:

          "Myanmar regrets that the United States Department of 
Labour issued a report on labour conditions in Myanmar which in no 
way represents the true situation. The report charges that "forced 
labour is used with impunity and apparently on a widespread basis... 
to support tourism, in military operations, and for commercial 
ventures of the military." The fact is that these allegations are 
totally false. Any objective person who has observed the true
situation in Myanmar will see that there are no forced labour used at 
all either to support tourism or for commercial ventures of the 
military.

          Regarding the accusations of use of forced labour in 
military operations, the report ignores the fact that seventeen armed 
groups have come back to the legal fold and that peace and stability 
prevail all over the country. As such there are no need for major 
military operations, and contrary to the report, no major military 
operations have taken place  in recent years. The allegation that 
children are used as human minesweepers and shields is so absurd and 
ridiculous that there is no need to dignify them
with a response.

The Myanmar Army is a very well disciplined and structured 
institution and there also exist strict regulations which prohibit 
the recruitment of minor children as soldiers. Indeed, as shown by 
recent events and the news reports written by western journalists, it 
is the insurgent groups which are using child soldiers.

          The accusations regarding forced labour completely ignore 
the positive actions taken by the Government of the Union of Myanmar, 
including the issuance of Order 1/99 on 14 May 1999 by the Ministry 
of Home  Affairs under the direct instruction of the State Peace and 
Development Council, which forbids the use of forced labour in very 
clear terms and states that "Any person who fails to abide by this 
Order shall have action taken against him under the existing law." 
This Order which has the force of law  brought the Myanmar's 
legislation regarding labour in line with ILO  Convention No. 29 
concerning Forced Labour.

          That the report is politically motivated is revealed by the 
timing as well as by the political overtones contained in it - 
political insinuations that have noting to do with labour. It has 
been timed to coincide with the meetings of the ILO Governing Body 
and the Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

           The Government of the Union of Myanmar therefore completely
rejects the so-called "2000 Report on Labour Practices in Burma" 
released by the United States Department of Labour and its false and 
malicious allegations."
	
_______________________________________________
		

SHAN: SHAN STATE ARMY?  '¶NEGOTIATIONS HAVE NOT BEGUN

Shan Herald Agency for News 
2 April 2000 
 
No: 4 - 2 
 
Shan State Army: Negotiations Have Not Begun 
A highly placed source from the Shan State Army South of Yawdserk 
has  denied there were any negotiations with the junta, as reported 
earlier by several agencies. 

Orntern, regarded as Yawdserk's spokesman, told S.H.A.N. yesterday 
what had  transpired so far was only some exchanges of messages 
between the Shan  State Army South's 727th Brigade and the area 
commander in Mongton  Township. "Negotiations have not begun at all, 
although we are prepared for them, if there are going to be any," he 
said. 

 
According to the Shan State Army's statement No. 2/2000 on 6 March,  
Rangoon, after receiving the SSA's Statement No. 1/2000 dated 25 
January,  stating its desire to resolve problems by peaceful means, 
had dispatched a  delegation to the former with "4 truce terms": 
acknowledgement of the SSA's  right to bear arms, the right "to trade 
in whatever they like", the right to be free of other armed groups in 
the areas where the SSA is active and  to surrender their arms in 
future along with other ceasefire groups.
 
 
In response, the SSA stated its own conditions on 3 March, as 
follows: 

1. That the SPDC troops remain in the urban areas;
 
2. That the SSA retains the right to manage its own educational and  
financial programs;
 
3. That there be no use of force to resolve problems;
 
4. That there be no levying of either porters or provisions in the 
SSA's area; 

5. That the SSA has the right to freely communicate with other groups 
for  
the peace and development of future Shan State; and 

6. That the SSA shall solicit approval by the people of Shan State 
prior to  agreement to surrender. 

It also set the deadline for Rangoon's response as end of April. 
However,  another bulletin from SSA on 18 March that rendered a 
translation of  Yawdserk's letter to Senior General Than Shwe, 
Chairman of the State Peace  and Development Council, fixed the 
latest date for reply to 31 March instead. 
 
In the letter, the SSA demanded the negotiations take place in 
Thailand  with "authorities from at least two countries" as 
witnesses. 
 
Referring to it, Orntern said, "So far we have received only a 
request to  wait as the authorities in Rangoon are still in session 
to decide on the matter." 
 
Militarily, the junta's activities in the SSA's operational zones 
are, on  the whole, still in abeyance, according to him.

	
_______________________________________________
	

UNITED NATIONS: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL 
RAPPORTEUR FOR 
MYANMAR

March-April 2000


[This section is drawn from the Special Rapporteur's full report]

V.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A.  Conclusions

59.     The Special Rapporteur, as in his previous reports to the 
General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, regrets that in 
spite of the Government's recent indications that "serious 
consideration" would be given to a visit by him, he has not so far 
been given permission to enter the country.

He therefore has to rely on his personal interviews with refugees or 
other displaced persons as well as valuable information given to him 
by various organizations and institutions, both governmental and non-
governmental, as well as by individual Governments.

60.     A most welcome feature has been the resumption of cooperation 
by the Government in relation to the valuable work of the 
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) which is now able to 
operate in accordance with its own procedures, as the Special 
Rapporteur has already been able to highlight in 
his last interim report to the General Assembly.

61.     No concrete progress, most unfortunately, can be reported on 
the general situation of human rights in Myanmar.  On the contrary, 
repression of political and civil rights continues in Myanmar, 
including summary or arbitrary executions, abuse of women and 
children by soldiers and the  imposition of oppressive measures 
directed in particular at ethnic and religious minorities,
including the continuing use of forced labour and relocation.

62.     Persecution of the democratic opposition, in particular 
members of the NLD, continues as in previous years, including long 
prison sentences and the use of intimidation and harassment.

63.     Well-documented reports and testimonies continue to be 
received by the Special Rapporteur which indicate that human rights 
violations continue to occur, as in the last decade.

These include extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, torture,
portering and forced labour, particularly in the context of 
the "development" programmes and of counter-insurgency operations in 
ethnic areas.

64.     With regard to the exaction of forced or compulsory labour, 
the Special Rapporteur reiterates, as in his previous reports, that 
information he has received from refugees and displaced persons 
indicates that the practice of forced labour continues, although 
there is an official order directing that the offending provisions of 
the the Village Act and the Town Act should not be
enforced.  No law has been passed to make forced labour an offence 
and no prosecution against those exacting forced labour is possible.  
Impunity remains
a serious problem.

B.  Recommendations

65.     As no concrete progress can be discerned from the totality of 
the
information provided to the Special Rapporteur, he considers it 
necessary to
reiterate the recommendations he made in paragraphs 80 to 83 of his 
last report to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1999/35) and 
paragraphs 50  to 55 of his last interim report to the General 
Assembly (A/54/440).




___________________ INTERNATIONAL _____________________
		

	
AFP: MYANMAR EXILES ASK THAILAND TO DEPORT LEADER TO THIRD COUNTRY
				

   MAE SOT, Thailand, April 3 (AFP) - Exiled Myanmar students on 
Monday called on Thailand to release one of their top leaders from 
prison and send
him into political asylum in a third country.

   Mothee Zun is awaiting trial after he was arrested last week in 
the departure lounge of Bangkok international airport. He is accused 
of using a fake Myanmar passport, a fake Thai visa stamp, and of 
illegal entry.    The All Burma Students Democratic Front (ABSDF) 
called on the government to send him to a country other than Myanmar.

   "We will submit a letter to the Thai government to ask for 
political asylum for Mothee Zun in a third country," the ABSDF said 
in a statement.

   Mothee Zun is one of the most high-profiled activists based in 
Thailand opposed to the military regime in Yangon.

   A former chairman of the ABSDF, he is currently a member of the 
group's executive committee.

   A source, who did not wish to be identified, told AFP that Mothee 
had  obtained a visa from the US embassy in Bangkok in order to 
travel to a conference in North America.

   Myanmar dissidents in Thailand have come under increasing scrutiny 
from the Thai authorities in recent months following two hostage 
dramas.

   In January, a group of armed Myanmar rebels seized a hospital in 
Ratchaburi, west of Bangkok.

   The siege ended when Thai special forces stormed the building, 
killing all 10 hostage takers who had been holding hundreds of 
patients and staff.

   Last year a group of Karen rebels called the Vigorous Student 
Burmese Warriors seized the Myanmar embassy in Bangkok.

   The siege ended peacefully when the rebels were given a helicopter 
to escape to the Myanmar border.

   Thailand is home to more than 120,000 refugees from Myanmar. There 
are thousands more illegal immigrants who are the target of periodic 
government campaigns to send them home.


_______________________________________________
		


ASIAWEEK: BACK WITH A VENGEANCE

April 7, 2000




A group of Myanmar migrants who got malaria drugs in one town were 
later 
found to suffer HIV.
At Thailand's northern borders, a persistent microbe is gathering 
strength - the malaria parasite. The consequences may be disastrous
 
By JOSHUA KURLANTZICK Bangkok 
 
Call it an unfortunate confluence of conditions. The thick forests 
along the northern borders of Thailand are excellent breeding grounds 
for anopheles mosquitoes, which infect people with a disease-causing 
parasite. Rugged terrain and heavy rainfall limit the use of sprays 
to control the insect. Transient communities move back and forth 
across the land - refugees, traders, migrant workers and tribal 
peoples - and the stream swells to a flood every so often.  
 
Coupled with poor living environments and activities like mining 
which create new habitats for mosquitoes, these conditions have 
helped revive a scourge that Thailand all but eliminated 50 years 
ago - malaria. In 1997, for example, there were about 100,000 
documented cases in the country. Compared to Africa, where 90% of the 
world's one million or so malaria deaths occur each year, those 
numbers seem puny. But the parasites aren't. "Thailand's borders now 
have the most [drug] resistant malaria in the world," says Dr. 
Nicholas White, an expert who has spent years in the 
country. Some doctors even describe the border provinces as the 
global epicenter of malaria 
resistance. 
 
Indeed, the first ever signs of immunity to the historic remedy, 
quinine, surfaced in the country in the late 1950s. Thailand, too, 
was where parasites began to show resistance to chloroquine, the 
cheapest and safest malaria drug. By 1990, the same was happening 
with mefloquine, one of the last useful drugs. The only resistance-
free remedy(for now): derivatives of artemisinin, the Chinese herbal 
cure extracted from the wormwood plant or artemesia annua. How super-
virulent strains of malaria arise is not fully understood, but 
officials acknowledge that indiscriminate use of medicines is a 
contributing factor.

The disease is caused by four types of plasmodium, a single-cell 
parasite transmitted via mosquitoes. Of these, Plasmodium falciparum 
produces the greatest number - and the most lethal - of infections. 
These parasites enter the body in a threadlike form 
called sporozoite when a female mosquito gets its drink of blood 
(males feed on plant juices). These then travel to the liver, where 
they multiply and turn into a different kind of spore call merozoite. 
What happens next is not unlike a scene from Alien. In the 
bloodstream, the parasites penetrate the red corpuscles, reproduce 
rapidly and eventually burst out, killing the 
blood cells. 
 
Malaria is curable if caught early. The first symptoms are headaches 
and pain in the joints, followed by alternating periods of high 
fevers and chills. And because the parasite gobbles up 
hemoglobin in red blood cells, victims become severely anemic. Over 
time, the recurrent fevers damage the kidneys, liver and brain, 
causing coma. Eventually, the patient dies. Particularly 
vulnerable: children, who account for two-thirds of deaths, and 
pregnant women, who are twice 
as likely to die. 
 
Treatment at the frontier provinces, however, is all the more 
difficult because of the sufferers' uncertain status. Many are 
illegal workers from Myanmar and Cambodia or tribes fleeing armed 
conflict. Healthcare resources are scarce. In the worst cases, 
migrants have no contact with physicians. And even if doctors and 
remedies were available, the victims are often reluctant to 
seek treatment because that would involve some kind of record - and 
the risk of being tracked down and deported. 
 
The government generally tolerates the thousands of migrants who 
sneak into northern Thailand daily in search of better-paying jobs. 
After all, they provide cheap labor for many industries. But 
political pressure to protect jobs for locals and diplomatic 
considerations regularly induce crackdowns on this underground 
community.  
 
Language barriers can compromise diagnosis and treatment. For 
instance, a group of Myanmar migrants who got malaria drugs in one 
town were later found to suffer HIV - after a translator 
became available. Often, patients fail to complete the course of 
drugs, either because they don't understand the instructions or have 
no experience taking medicines. This builds immunity in 
parasites, and as different strains come into contact when infected 
people travel, stronger varieties emerge. (Some 70% of patients 
suffering drug-resistant malaria are foreign nationals.) 
 
The Thai government recognizes the gravity of the situation. Says a 
senior health official: "There may come a day where no drugs are 
effective. [This is] potentially disastrous." Besides, the 
authorities are realizing that borders can't be completely sealed to 
migrants - and certainly not to microbes. Professor Supang 
Chantavanich of Chulalongkorn University notes: "Control of 
malaria is a shared problem. Diseases do not know borders." Indeed, 
the ease of travel (so-called airport malaria is a recent phenomenon) 
and milder climates means even developed nations can't 
be safe from the superstrains. 
 
Over the years, the malarial hothouse in Thailand has drawn many of 
the world's experts. "This country is the perfect case study; it has 
complex forms of the disease as well as quality nurses 
and medical staff," says one researcher based in the trading town of 
Mae Sot. Under such collaborative efforts as the Wellcome-Mahidol 
University tropical medicine research program, 
top malariologists have been working with migrants and other high-
risk populations in border settlements. At Mae Sot, these efforts are 
showing some results. The falciparum parasite is being 
checked in refugee centers and there has been no increase in 
resistance to mefloquine in Karen camps since 1994. In part, this is 
due to prevention campaigns and better compliance with drug 
regimens (it's easier to supervise a stationary population). But 
realizing the failure of one-drug strategies, doctors have also begun 
to make an impact using "cocktails" (mainly artemisinin 
derivatives in combination with older medicines like mefloquine). 
 
Thailand being the arena in the fight against the most potent 
malarias, some physicians believe that the first vaccine will be 
developed there. Research is concentrated on three types of vaccines: 
anti-sporozoites, which seek to prevent infection in 
humans; blockers, which are designed to act against transmissible 
forms of the parasite; and anti-asexuals, which reduce the 
most severe symptoms of the disease. Dr. Pratap Singhasivanon, who 
directs vaccine trials at Mahidol University in Bangkok, is hopeful 
that doctors will achieve their goal by 2015.  
 
Promising research in Germany and the U.S. suggests that a malaria 
vaccine may arrive sooner. But no one is underestimating the wily 
parasites. They have a complex life cycle in the human 
body and can quickly take on new guises by changing their protein 
coats, making it enormously difficult to develop effective weapons 
against them. Meanwhile, Thai scientists have come up 
with other lines of attack. Among them: dihydroartemisinin, a new 
drug derivative in the process of registration, and a treatment using 
insect fungi.
			

_______________________________________________
		


BANGKOK POST: OUTLOOK STILL BLEAK FOR SOUTHERN FLEET

Gloom as Burmese waters stay closed
Onnucha Hutasingh 

Ranong
The outlook is bleak for Thai fishermen, at least for the next two 
months, as Rangoon shows no sign of lifting the suspension of fishing 
agreements prompted by the occupation of the Burmese 
embassy last October.				

The latest attempt by Thai authorities to restore fishing concessions 
was futile and the delegation led by Agriculture Minister Pongpol 
Adireksarn returned home empty-handed on March 20.

"Burma says that it needs time to reorganise its own fisheries and 
the process could take about two months," said a source at the Thai-
Burmese fisheries co-ordinating centre.

Burma's Oct 6 revocation of fishing rights is the fifth such ban 
since Thai fishermen began perating in Burmese waters two decades ago.

The last time Rangoon scrapped the fishing agreements was in August 
1995, following the murder of a Burmese crewman by a Thai colleague.
			

It was not until November 1997 that Rangoon agreed to again grant 
fishing concessions, even though it agreed to open border crossings 
in March 1996.	
	

According to the source, reorganisation could mean Burma is in the 
process of tackling corruption problems or is trying to let Burmese 
operators, who run 200-300 trawlers, try to carry 
out fishing by themselves.

It could also mean Burma wants time for fish stocks to replenish 
before allowing the Thai fleet back in.

It has been speculated that if Thais are allowed to continue fishing 
in Burmese waters, fish stocks 
could be depleted in as little as three to five years.		

"Probably Burma is concerned about the depletion so they decided to 
delay things," the source said.Whatever the reason, the fact remains 
that about 500 Thai trawlers are with nowhere to fish.

Burmese waters have long been a treasure trove for Thai fishermen, 
who pay about two billion baht yearly in concession fees to Burmese 
authorities, not to mention other expenses, or "tea money", to secure 
contracts and conveniences during their operations.

The Thai fleet has been struggling to survive although they see 
Burmese waters as their best choice.				
			

Following the scrapping of the agreements, the fleet switched to 
waters off Phuket and Phang-nga, only to find it was not worth the 
cost and natural resources have shrunk significantly.

Therefore, they sailed south to Indonesia, which charges only 30,000-
40,000 baht per month per trawler in concession fees compared to 
300,000-500,000 baht per month per trawler charged by 
Rangoon.		

Soon there were more than 1,000 Thai vessels operating in northern 
Indonesian waters.Before long a fleet of 60 trawlers was arrested on 
charges of encroaching on Indonesian waters and forging fishing 
licences.

More than 40 trawlers are still impounded by an Indonesian court, 
while 16 have been released, bringing 1,000 fishermen home.

Later, about 50 Thai boats were set ablaze inside Indonesian waters. 
Investigations showed that local fishermen were furious and saw Thai 
fishermen as a threat to 
their livelihoods.

Many Thai fishermen have returned home, not because of these 
incidents but because fishing in Indonesian waters was not worth the 
investment.

The total earning from fishing in Indonesian waters, fishing in Thai 
waters and illegal fishing in Thai-Burmese waters, is still less than 
10% of what they earned from fishing concessions in 
Burma alone, the source said.

"They have returned home and pray that Burma will reopen its waters," 
said Ruengrit Bunsayarat, managing director of S D & S International 
Co, one among those which lost the fishing permit.
"In previous suspensions, there was still a way. We used personal 
relationships to resolve the situation. But this time every door 
seems to have been locked," he 
said.
A number of Thai-owned trawlers registered as Burmese were also 
struggling because they could not bring their catch to Thailand, he 
said.

Now, Thai fishermen are said to be eeing Vietnamese waters where 
natural resources were once before depleted by the Thai fleet.

Indian waters were another target but deep-sea fishing would require 
new investment, which is considered impossible in the current 
situation.

In the wake of the suspensions, Ranong's economy has been badly hurt 
as the province largely depends on fisheries.

One operator said the catch has decreased by 70% since the revocation.

"In fact, what I am doing here is just trying to run my business in a 
way to keep losses from 
mounting," he said.				

Manas Sukvanichpichai, president of the provincial chamber of 
commerce, said the sector is 
likely to lose 200 million baht in advance concession fees paid to 
Burma.

"At first there was a hope that they would get the money back. But 
they all now believe that is 
not going to happen," he said.

Other fisheries-related businesses have suffered huge losses and 
several of them have already 
closed down.

Before October last year, Ranong's border trade was valued at eight 
billion baht, of which 30 million baht came from fisheries alone. 
After October, the economy 
dropped 70%.

Bangkok Post (April 3, 2000)



________________ OPINION/EDITORIALS __________________

			

NATION: THAI DIPLOMACY FIGHTS AGAINST FISHY BUSINESS

EDITORIAL

April 3, 2000

Thai trawlers are a pain in the neck. They roam the seven seas. In 
the process, they violate numerous territorial waters and disregard 
international laws and the territorial integrity of other 
countries. 
Each year they haul in millions of tons of illegal catches. But 
thousands of trawlers and their crews are not so lucky. They are put 
in jail, and their boats are seized. Even so, they continue to send 
their fishing fleets anywhere, everywhere. 
Thailand is improving its international profile. It is also playing 
for high international stakes, so it does not look good to have Thai 
trawlers using all every trick in the book to 
catch fish in neighbouring countries. Until recently, Burma has been 
the biggest problem. But no more, since the Rangoon junta has halted 
all Thai fishing cooperation. The junta leaders had already exploited 
the hungry Thai trawlers to the maximum. Local Burmese authorities 
issued fake licences to Thai operators which could be revoked any 
time depending on the political pulse of the day. At the moment, 
thousands upon thousands of trawlers are lying idle on the west 
coast. The fishermen simply want to go 
out and feed their families, many of them foreigners from nearby 
countries. The Chuan government is under pressure from the fishing 
industry -- well-connected with local politicians -- to negotiate 
with Burma for more fishing concessions. But political conditions do 
not allow this. In fact, the Foreign Ministry has realised this 
immense problem and is trying to help organise cooperative fishing 
ventures with foreign countries. 

Last week the ministry held a seminar that brought together 
representatives from the private sector and government authorities. 
Fishermen were urged to respect international laws and the 
territorial integrity of other countries, especially those which 
share maritime boundaries with Thailand. Without honesty, the 
ministry would find it hard to find fishing partners overseas. 
Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan told fishing representatives that 
they had to equip themselves with knowledge and technical know-how so 
that the Thai fishermen could operate efficiently in foreign waters. 
Surin knows full well how these fishing trawlers 
have tainted Thailand's reputation overseas. 
Of major concern are the growing number of Thai trawlers caught 
violating the territorial waters of Indonesia. Last year thousand of 
trawlers were seized and subsequently released after paying hefty 
fines. Indonesia has been very cordial to Thailand because 
both of them are democratic countries. But Jakarta's generosity is 
running out fast because the government of President Abdulrahman 
Wahid can no longer ignore the continued depletion of its maritime 
resources. The Jakarta government has told the Thai 
government that Thai trawlers must behave themselves and respect the 
rule of law while they are in Indonesian waters. This friendly 
warning is a very serious one. 
During the seminar Surin also warned fishermen that it would in 
future be extremely 
difficult to negotiate with Indonesia if Thai trawlers continued to 
encroach on their 
territorial waters. Democracies do not go to war, but they do use 
force to stop illegal 
fishing in their waters. Everything must be done to avoid any armed 
clashes between 
naval patrols and Thai fishing fleets. If history is any judge, 
Thailand's relations with its 
maritime neighbours, such as Malaysia and Burma, have been very 
rough. Thai forces 
clash with these two countries from time to time. 
Thai trawler-owners are selfish and have no regard for anyone's 
interests except their 
own. The government must continue to work with the fishing industry 
and improve their understanding and awareness of their role in 
promoting Thailand's 
best interests. They 
probably thought that poaching fish from other waters was in the 
country's interest. But 
no, Thai fishermen must become more civilised and obey international 
law. 

The Nation (April 3, 2000)


_______________________________________________
		


NATION: JUSTICE DEMANDS UN DROP RECOGNITION OF BURMA JUNTA

April 2, 2000

>From reports of what took place at the beginning of last month in 
Seoul on the question of how 
to nudge the military rulers in Burma towards transferring power to 
the people, it seems quite 
clear that new ideas were in short supply and no one stepped forward 
to lead the world in finding 
a solution.

Just prior to the meeting, the Burmese military rulers felt confident 
enough in their growing 
involvement in Asean affairs to try to persuade Thailand not to 
participate; they quickly found 
out that the Thais still had minds of their own and the will to 
resist their neighbour's entreaties.

A divide, which has been apparent for a long time, between the US and 
the European states on 
one side, the Asean states on the other and Japan, which moves from 
side to side, continued at 
this meeting. When the meeting ended, no state or bloc of states was 
reported to have offered any 
new approaches to the problem and none placed new money on the table 
or renewed previous 
offers as inducements to the Burma military leaders to halt their 
human rights violations and 
transfer power to the people's representatives. Equally as important, 
no strong leader emerged to 
unite the two groups around a plan which all would embrace and work 
to achieve.

Burma did not attend and a spokesman for its ruling junta was 
reported to have said that its 
position on such efforts remained unchanged, rejecting any offers of 
help which it interpreted as 
interference in the nation's internal affairs.

Can Burma continue to depend on differences between states to persist 
and paralyse them from 
taking any comon action which might induce the military rulers to 
loosen their iron grip and 
allow some sort of political change to occur?

Also, can Burma's ruling junta continue to trump the efforts of 
states which seek to use economic 
and political power to force the Burma rulers to make changes by 
continuing to offer the 
country's natural resources for exploitation and business 
opportunities in exchange for financial 
help, political backing and avoiding bankruptcy, economic collapse 
and political isolation? 

It is time for members of the international community, who are 
genuinely concerned about the 
human rights and political situation in Burma, to take a more 
activist approach. Such an 
approach should begin by doing three things: to find a strong leader 
of leaders to unite and hold 
together the members of the international community; win the backing 
of key states which, until 
today, either have not been interested in seeing the unanimously 
adopted United Nations General 
Assembly Burma resolutions realised or have been ambivalent on the 
issue; to develop new and 
stronger methods for achieving the twin goals of ending military rule 
and restoring democracy. 

A state or states to lead this effort will not be easy to find. Most 
are absorbed with their own 
affairs. Burma dose not command consistent attention either from 
world leaders or the 
international press. When, in the past, Burma was placed on the 
internal agenda of a neighbour 
or distant state and its government did not have a strong position, 
the attentive public's interest 
was divided between those who listened to their business leaders 
oppose criticism and activism 
against Burma on the grounds that free trade and investment 
eventually will have a trickle down 
effect on the Burmese people, inducing the government to move away 
from human rights 
violations and eventually contribute to political change while those 
individuals and groups 
opposing that line of argument want their government to seriously 
take up the Burma cause and 
earnestly pursue the purposes and principles of the UN Charter - 
especially the third - "To 
achieve international co-operation in solving international problems 
of economic, social, cultural 
or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect 
for human rights and for 
fundamental freedoms for all"

The latter group rarely triumphs when governments have no overriding 
interest in the affairs of 
Burma and no assurance that any peaceful action by the international 
community will achieve the 
desired ends.

It is for this reason, more than any other, that strong and 
continuous leadership is necessary.

There are several candidates for leadership who have the material and 
moral resources and could 
attract supporters. A group of no more than four, drawn from various 
parts of the world and the 
United Nations would be ideal. It should include at least one strong 
state, such as the United 
States, whose government, regardless of which party is in power, has 
been seized by the Burma 
issue since 1988, and has consistently supported all international 
efforts to bring peaceful 
political change to Burma.

Others to be considered are the Philippines and South Africa. The 
Philippines, an obvious choice 
because of its location in Southeast Asia and membership in Asean, 
has shown a strong interest 
in the problem. In addition, its people and leaders knodw what it 
means to live under a terrible 
dictatorship and see political change come peacefully. Its experience 
provides a hopeful beacon 
for Burma to follow.

The choice of South Africa stems from the fact that it also went 
through a major political trauma 
of four-plus decades of apartheid and racial politics; today its 
people are trying to free 
themselves from the nightmare of their past through a healing process 
they devised and call, truth 
and reconciliation, that consists of dialogue, confession and 
forgiveness; it could be a model for 
Burma once political change really takes place.

There also should be a UN representative in the leadership coalition 
representing the world body. 
The UN General Assembly has kept the Burma issue on its agenda almost 
from the day the 
Burma military violently put down the people's peaceful revolution. 
The UN Human Rights 
Commission followed shortly thereafter; it appointed a rapporteur 
whose reports have been 
crucial in providing information and shaping world opinion. In 
response to a request item in a 
General Assembly resolution, the secretary-general became involved 
and he in turn appointed a 
representative to be his link to the Burma government. Until last 
year, Alvaro DeSoto, 
represented the secretary-general. He now holds a new job and the 
secretary-general is in the 
process of naming his successor. The new envoy also should have the 
confidence of the Security 
Council and the General Assembly so that he will have the backing of 
the widest constituency 
possible.

These do not exhaust the possibilities; there are other equally well 
qualified nations from which 
to draw persons to serve in the leadership group.

The immediate and leadership most difficult task facing the 
leadership committee will be to win 
the support of states which, until now, have given no more than 
nominal or even reluctant 
support for the UN resolutions. Instead, they have provided weapons, 
aid, trade and political 
support to the Burma military rulers. China, a major and influential 
power in the world, has been 
the largest supplier of weapons to Burma and a major source of trade 
and investment. It has 
important influence in Rangoon and if it could be persuaded to change 
its position and strongly 
support the leadership group and the UN General Assembly resolutions, 
it would represent a 
major shift in the efforts to bring change to Burma. The Burma 
military rulers have few friends 
in the international community and the loss of one as important as 
China would be a major blow.

India, too, must be encouraged to become a strong supporter. It, like 
China, shares a common 
border with Burma and is a major force in Asia and world affairs. In 
1988, India was the only 
state in South Asia to openly support the 1988 peaceful revolution of 
the Burmese people. 
However, in the middle of the last decade, fear of growing Chinese 
influence in Burma and the 
possibility that Burma might provide the Chinese government with an 
important outlet to the 
Indian Ocean seemed to have influenced the Indian government to 
change its policy and move 
toward the Burma rulers; it increased trade and military co-operation 
in their common border 
area. It must be encouraged to rejoin the world effort to bring 
peaceful change in Burma. Such a 
move would be an important addition to the efforts to bring political 
change in Burma.

Japan, as Burma's major source of aid before 1988, has played an 
independent role. Because of 
their close contact during the Second World War, the Japanese 
government, the business 
community and the people regard the nation's relations with Burma as 
special and in he post 
World War II period, it has had great influence in Rangoon. 
Officially, it has stood firm in 
support of the restoration of democratic rule in Burma: after the 
tragic events in 1988, it 
suspended all aid, except humanitarian, and has supported the UN 
position.

But Japan has not always signalled a consistent policy. The 
government often speaks one way 
while the Japanese private sector, which has power and influence in 
governing circles, speaks 
another. It is eager to return to Burma and make large investments, 
become involved in 
development projects and work with its friends among the military 
rulers. While it has not 
broken ranks with the US, European Union and the UN, Japan has not 
always been convinced 
that their policies were correct. But its independent actions have 
not always been successful 
either. If it could be convinced that by giving whole-hearted support 
to a collective effort to  
persuade the Burma rulers to return power to the people it also could 
become a powerful force 
for change. 

Finally, the leaders must adopt a clear sanction in order to convince 
the Burmese rulers of their 
serious concern and determination.. In the past there was no 
sanction: the resolutions of the UN 
sought change through persuasion and those nations which adopted 
sanctions applied them 
individually, thus leaving gaping holes in the unity of the states 
seeking to pressure the Burma 
rulers to transfer power. There is need for an UN-backed non-violent 
sanction to demonstrate the 
resolve of the world community.

The most significant action that could be taken would be to remove 
the representative of Burma's 
rulers from the nation's seat in the General Assembly. Such a step 
would be based on two facts: 
that an election was held in Burma a decade ago to choose leaders to 
forma a Pyithu Hluttaw 
(national parliament) and to date, the elected leaders have not been 
permitted to carry out their 
obligation. Also, in the Burma military rulers' Declaration 1/90, 
issued on July 27, 1999, they 
informed the world that their legitimacy came not from the Burmese 
people but from 
international recognition.

By their vote on May 27, 1999, the people overwhelming rejected the 
military rulers' surrogate 
party, the National Unity Party, and gave the clearest proof possible 
that they wanted the 
restoration of a free democratic government. But the military ignored 
the popular vote and their 
obligation under the election law and continue to the present to rule 
by force alone. Meanwhile 
the legitimate leaders of the people are harassed, jailed, murdered 
and pressured to desert their 
party.


According to Article 6 of Declaration 1/90, "The Slorc, the Defence 
Services, is not bound by 
any constitution... [it rules] the coutry with martial law... the 
Slorc is a military government and 
that it is a government recognised by countries of the world and the 
United Nations." 

If, in the minds of the military rulers, their legitimacy comes from 
their recognition by foreign 
states and the UN, then it is time for the General Assmbly to remove 
their representative from 
the Burma seat in the UN. That action would demonstrate that the 
world community stands with 
the people of Burma and does not recognise the present regime in 
Burma as the legitimate 
government. It would also say to the military leaders in Burma and 
usurpers of power elsewhere 
in the world, that "power does not come from the barrel of a gun". It 
belongs to the people to 
exercise as their right.

The seat should remain empty until a representative of the elected 
government is sent to fill it.

Recently, in her response to the Dublin Award she received, Daw Aung 
San Suu Kyi said "...we 
would like the international community to take the terms of the UN 
General Assembly 
Resolutions (on Burma) seriously. It is not enough to pass a 
resolution."

The international community can help the people recover their freedom 
through stronger 
peaceful collective action. The peoples of Burma will do the rest.

The Nation (April 2, 2000)


_______________________________________________
		


BANGKOK POST: Burma has chance to refute ILO case
In action unprecedented in the International Labour Organisation's 
(ILO) 80-year history, the 
United Nations-sponsored group is to put a motion to its June 
conference to "sanction" Burma 
for its continued use of its citizens as forced or compulsory labour. 
The ILO, which comprises 
174 member states, is to vote on whether to invoke, for the first 
time, article 33 of its constitution 
and "take such action as it may deem wise and expedient to secure 
compliance" by Burma for its 
grave and persistent violations of international labour standards.
It says forced or compulsory labour in Burma is in violation of 
national law and is used in actual 
practice in a widespread and systematic manner with total disregard 
for the human dignity, 
safety, health and basic needs of the people. The world has feared 
these activities may be going 
on in Burma but there has been little real evidence and the 
allegations were denied on Friday by 
Burma's military junta.
The ILO has based its assumption on a report from its "special 
rapporteur", Rajsoomer Lallah, 
who has never been allowed inside Burma. Therefore the junta's 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs is 
justified in saying the report is based on information received "from 
the elements outside the 
country... whose objective is to tarnish the image" of Burma. But the 
junta, in its rebuttal, has not 
denied that forced labour, forced portering, cultivating food for the 
army, the use of forced 
labourers as messengers, sentries and builders, and the use of 
females for forced sex for the 
military is a regular and continuing occurrence. These allegations 
are the gist of the ILO's 
argument. Instead, the junta says the ILO "is ignoring the fact that 
the entire population is 
enjoying peace, stability and better living standards for the first 
time in their life".
By saying this the junta is contradicting an earlier UN report which 
stated that 1 million children 
in Burma suffer from malnutrition and that there is increasing use of 
heroin and an alarming 
spread of HIV/Aids. The ILO also says ethnic and religious minorities 
such as the Karen, 
Karenni, Shan and Rohingyas continue to suffer severe abuses, 
including arbitrary arrest, 
killings, forced labour in the army and controlled trafficking of 
women.
The question is, who are we expected to believe-the ILO or the junta? 
As a reputable 
international body, it is improbable that the ILO would go to such 
dramatic lengths and suggest 
the invoking of a yet-to-be-used rule against Burma if it did not 
possess hard, clear evidence. The 
junta has barred the ILO's special rapporteur from its country as if 
it fears allegations could be 
proven. If the junta has nothing to hide the special rapporteur 
should be welcome.
This is not the first time the ILO and the junta have clashed. In the 
years leading up to the 1999 
ILO conference, the labour body voiced concerns about the use of 
forced labour to the junta but 
received little response. At last year's conference, it was decreed 
that "the attitude and behaviour 
of the junta are grossly incompatible with the conditions and 
principles governing membership 
of the organisation".
If the ILO conference in June passes this resolution it will add 
further to Burma's woes. The 
decision will mean that the ILO will actively enlist the support of 
all 174 member states, the 
United Nations, national governments and international organisations 
worldwide to review their 
dealings with Burma to ensure that by their involvement they are in 
no way contributing to the 
perpetuation of this alleged human rights abuse.
Between now and June, the junta should welcome the ILO and its 
rapporteur to its country to 
refute the allegations and prove to the world that Burma does not use 
forced labour. If it doesn't, 
the 174 member states will know which way to vote come June.

_______________________________________________
		

________________

The BurmaNet News is an Internet newspaper providing 
comprehensive coverage of news and opinion on Burma  
(Myanmar).  

For a subscription to Burma's only free daily newspaper, 
write to: strider@xxxxxxx 

You can also contact BurmaNet by phone or fax:

Voice mail +1 (435) 304-9274 

________________




\==END======================END=======================END==/



------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOW RATE, NO WAIT!
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!  Get rates 
as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. 
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2122/4/_/713843/_/954818197/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
theburmanetnews-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx