[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
The Irrawaddy Newsletter
************************Posted by BurmaNet************************
"Appropriate Information Technologies--Practical Strategies"
******************************************************************
Note: This is the first issue of the Burma Information Group's
Irrawaddy newsletter to appear in electronic form. Due to time
constraints, it has been produced from a draft of the next issue,
which has not yet been printed. There are still a few typos in it
which will be edited out of the final printed version. If you are
offended by typos, blame BurmaNet because we wanted to get this on
to the net as quickly as possible.
One other problem to be aware of is that BIG's mailing address in
Thailand is no longer safe. The publisher of the Irrawaddy is on
a "blacklist" of Burmese activists who have been targeted for
deportation by the Thai government. Staff from the Rajathevee Post
Office in Bangkok have informed him that officers from the Thai
army have been coming by the post office about once a week to pick
up the Burma Information Group's mail. So far, the intercepted
mail has not been returned to the BIG. If you need to contact the
BIG, use the address in the United States or contact BurmaNet for
an alternate mail address in Thailand.
Strider
***************************************************************
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} THE IRRAWADDY {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
Independent News and Information
Published by the Burma Information Group
P.O. Box 14154
Silver Spring, MD 20911
P.O. Box 22
Rajathevee Post Office
Bangkok 10401
Thailand
Vol. 2 No. 2
April 18, 1994
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
CONTENTS
WHEN A HANDFUL MAKES A MISTAKE/DECISION
IS SLORC THE WINNER?
A WASTE OF TIME
Editorial, Bangkok Post,
April 10, 1994
RANGOON'S REFORMS A DAY LATE AND A KYAT SHORT
SEIN KYAW HLAING
15 April 1994
The Nation
A BURMESE BENEFIT DINNER IN TOKYO
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
LATE NEWS: PRESIDENT OF KARENNI REBELS DIES
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
WHEN A HANDFUL MAKES A MISTAKE/DECISION
"The situation in Burma is very confusing" was the comment by the
Thai officials when soldiers opened fire on peaceful demonstrators
in Burma in August and September of 1988. This comment may be first
big mistake by Thai officials observing Burma's democracy movement.
A harder line was not long in coming. Thai Army Commander in Chief
Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh was the first high-ranking foreign
official to visit Burma in December 1988. This was just two months
after the Burmese military purged country-wide pro-democracy
uprisings and staged a bloody coup. His visit was followed by other
senior Thai military officers and politicians including Deputy
Foreign Minister Prapas Limpabandhu. By April 1989 a grateful Slorc
Chairman Gen Saw Maung dubbed Thailand a "true friend." The visits
continue, Thai National Security Council (NSC) officers, Generals
from Thai Army and other high-ranking officials including Foreign
Minister Prasong Soonsiri paid dozen of visits to Burma in the past
year.
The Burmese and world community, however, were not confused with
the Thai government's move because they understood what was behind
it. The open-secret was economic deals between the Thai and Slorc.
Burma's military leaders, of course, were hungry for recognition
and dollars in order to rebuild, not the country, but their own
power and control. At the same time as the Thais, other Asean
businessmen greedily eyed Burma's virgin resources untouched over
26 years. There is a great opportunity to exploit Burma's resources
logs, fish, gas, timber are not alone even the water. Thus many
observers and Burmese criticised Asean's attitude - "They were
motionless while Burmese military killed and crushing all its
opponents but they took full advantage to make business." After
Thailand Singapore became Slorc's most important trade partner. An
analyst says about relationship between Slorc and Singapore "Even
to ship the ammunition from black market to Rangoon."
How did Burmese civilians react to these burgeoning relations? In
Rangoon, in the February of 1989, posters appeared in several
townships urging people to boycott Thai merchandise as a protest
against logging and fishing deals. The Slorc easily crushed this
protest.
The second issue drawing anger form the Burmese was the
repatriation of students who had fled to political exile into
Thailand. After Gen Chavalit's meeting with Gen Saw Maung in
December 1988 a repatriation centre was established in Thailand Tak
province. About 300 students were sent back from this centre, some
were executed, others were tortured.
Thailand and Asean label their policy towards Burma "Constructive
engagement". Thai law professor, Vitit Muntabhorn is more
circumspect and calls it "Destructive Derangement". The policy
clearly does not favor the Burmese people but the Slorc. Thai
Foreign Minister Prasong Soonsiri maintains the policy is aiming
"not to isolate Burma". However, but an analyst, pointed out "The
policy appears to be based more firmly on what Thailand can get out
of Burma rather than what Thailand can contribute to a peaceful and
equitable settlement of the current situation." It is clear that
the Slorc gained confidence and legitimacy within the region from
this policy.
Aside from business opportunity Asean countries favored Slorc
because they possess similar less hard-line authoritarian
government, one diplomat put it bluntly - "Indonesia has East
Timor, Singapore is a little police state, and Thailand has a
quasi-democracy under military domination." Proof of this is while
the UN General Assembly condemned Slorc human rights records in
December 1993 Asean inviting Slorc to as an observer in it
forthcoming summit. A recent flurry of diplomatic activity saw
Indonesia's Foreign Minister in Rangoon in February 1994, and Thai
Foreign Minister Prasong visiting Manila and Brunei pushed strongly
for Burma's entry to Asean. "There should be no problem" in regards
to an invitation to Slorc.
Asean is clearly pleased with Slorc's window-dressing limited
economic freedom, cease-fire talks with armed ethnic groups, and
the Slorc-organised national constitutional convention in Rangoon.
Indeed, Asean is ready to take action against Burmese democracy
opponents who are residing in their territories. In Singapore a
Karen Foreign Minister, Dr. Em Marta was deported in September
1993. The Prime Minister of the Burmese government in exile Dr Sein
Win and his UN lobby team have been stranded in USA as the Thai did
not grant them a re-entry visa. In Thailand Burmese students have
experienced a wave of arrest. Continuous detention of some Burmese
activist students in Special Detention Centre in Bangkok. "They may
not be released till Asean summit has finished" a Thai student
said. Of course Thai officials does not want any embarrassing
events in Bangkok against brutish Slorc. Ethnic Mon refugees were
forced back across the border within Slorc's reach. According to
one Burmese expatriate they (Asean) are "driving more nails into
Burma's coffin."
Additionally, the NSC proposed that Slorc call an amnesty in order
to send back all dissidents. An expatriate Burmese, Harn Yawnghwe,
son of Burma's first president, criticises the NSC"s analysis is
seriously flawed then he argues that "the NSC has underestimated
the strength of the movement within Burma. It assumes Aung San Suu
Kyi has no real support and she is only being used by Western
nations to advance their own agenda." This idea originated from
Slorc Secretary (1) Lt Gen Khin Nyunt. Thus cynics might say that
even Suu Kyi was killed Asean would maintain this is an internal
affair.
Slorc has no intention of giving up power but to continue to rule
against the will of the Burmese people. And Asean, it seems, has no
desire for Burma to become free democratic country. Indeed they may
be happy to offer their model of rule to the Burma military. Slorc
Secretary 1 Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt has claimed Burma will learn about
Indonesia's military-controlled Golkar party is particularly
appealing to the Slorc.
The Thais and Asean leaders are being deaf and blind to Burma's
plight. Human rights, freedom and democratisation are not issues
but sweet-heart business deals and solidarity among authoritarian
regimes.
A Burma Watcher, based in Australia.
IS SLORC THE WINNER?
Observing the current situation in Burma, it seems that the Slorc,
in their many clever manoeuvres, consistently has the upper hand.
Meanwhile the beleaguered opposition is consistently playing
catch-up and losing its battle for democracy and justice for all
the people of Burma. "The situation in Burma is depressing," is
uttered frequently by Burmese and foreigners alike who are
sympathetic to the plight of Burma. They often feel that Slorc is
winning and there will be no genuine democratic reform or change.
While Slorc is making "progress" for their survival and their grip
on power, what is the opposition doing? The Kachin have signed a
peace agreement with Slorc; the Mon may sign in the near future and
the Karen are certain to follow. The exiled opposition groups are
scattered and losing their effectiveness. Any leftover opposition
inside is silenced in prison or held in the grip of fear. The
Slorc's divide-and-rule strategy appears, from some perspectives,
to be successful. Perhaps now is the time to reconsider previous
plans and forge a new strategy. The end of armed conflict, the
return of some leaders to Rangoon and the carrying out of
"constructive engagement" need not be factors for further
disunity. In fact, this may be the chance the opposition groups,
all ethnics included, may have been waiting for, the opportunity is
taken. The Burmese opposition should show they are with the people
fighting for their cause and should show a united front. There
should not be any more day-dreaming or infighting. Enough is
enough. If they are really proud of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi they
should listen to her recent message, "They (opposition groups)
must stop squabbling among themselves. We must be united if we want
to get democracy, it's not going to do us any good if people keep
condemning each other." Definitely, time is getting late, but it
is still worth a try if one is serious about the plight of the
Burmese people. If the opposition believes that they have an
obligation to the Burmese people who are seeking democracy and
freedom, then they should look at the reality and find a better
way to solve Burma's problems from a united front. They should
express their solidarity among themselves publicly so that they can
win the trust of the Burmese people. The Burmese people have lost
their faith in the opposition as time after time the Slorc takes
the offensive while the opposition is only responding and reacting.
Burma does not need any more new political organisations or rival
governments. But what the Burmese need is a well-organised
opposition, a united front and good leadership supported against
the current regime. It is time to rethink what the opposition has
done thus far and where the movement is going. If the opposition
can not change its strategy and stop the internal fighting, the
Slorc may just rule for another 6 or 60 or 600 years.
---The Editors
A WASTE OF TIME
Editorial, Bangkok Post,
April 10, 1994
AFTER the 1988 uprising in Burma, it is was said that the Thai
Ambassador to Rangoon was summoned to the Burmese Foreign Minister
and berated for something he had not done and had no control over-
- Thai press reports of the Rangoon government's atrocities and
persecution of its people in the aftermath of the Slorc takeover.
When the ambassador entered the office of the Burmese minister, the
latter reportedly slammed a copy of one of Thailand's English-
language dailies on the table before the Thai envoy could take a
seat, and demanded "What's the meaning of this? Why does your
government allow the press in your country to publish lies about
us?" The Thai diplomat was stunned by such behaviour coming from
a high-ranking official. He had not even had time to calmly reply
that there is such a thing as freedom of the press in his country.
It seems, however, the words of a Thai diplomat hold no water in a
country where the word freedom is rivalled by its powerful nemesis-
-imprisonment. Now we hear that the Thai Foreign Minister has
invited Burmese Information Minister Myo Thant to Bangkok on
Wednesday to explain the government's policy on a free and liberal
press.
The invitation is aimed at erasing Rangoon's doubts that the
government supports press criticism of the SLORC, according to
sources in the Interior Ministry. The sources added that the visit
will provide Brig-Gen Myo Thant the opportunity to see that the
Thai press has the freedom to express its opinion without
government control. How the Government is going to do this, we do
not know, but one thing we do know is that it will be a waste of
the Thai government's time, money and energy to expect a non-
believer in basic human rights to understand what freedom of speech
means.
As members of the press, we strongly object to the government's
plans to display us like freaks in a sideshow to the Burmese
military, while at the same time pursuing a policy of "constructive
engagement" with the so-called Burmese government, which has been
shunned by most of the international community. We do not believe
in the staging of a Richardson-Suu Kyi-like circus to try to fool
the world into thinking that authoritarianism does not exist in
Burma, when in fact it does. In short, don't use the press like
Khin Nyunt does, for his own selfish reasons. If freedom of the
press does exist in this country, as the government claims, then
there is no reason to shout it for the rest of the world to hear,
especially Burma, which is calling itself Myanmar and has changed
its flag without the consent of its people.
The Thai press knows how much freedom it has and where to draw the
line when reporting on events that affect national security or when
criticising a high-ranking government or military official. This is
called responsible journalism or self-censorship, depending on how
one looks at it. It is said that the press in Thailand is the most
free of all those in the Asean countries. We praise the government
for showing such a high degree of tolerance for the fourth estate.
The Rangoon government already knows the Thai press has the freedom
to air its opinions, if and when it sees fit, without government
control, even when criticising Burma or other countries. This paper
has even assailed Foreign Minister Prasong Soonsiri's decision to
invite Rangoon to attend the Asean conference in July as guest of
the host country.
The generals in Burma also know that the press in Thailand has a
voice of its own because it refuses to address that country as
Myanmar and its capital as Yangon, despite the acquiescence of this
government and the United Nations. The Bangkok Post and The Nation
have turned down repeated requests by the Burmese Embassy on Pan
Road to stop calling its country Burma. We choose not to comply
with their request because doing so would mean recognising an
illegitimate government. As one prominent Thai editor put it "Burma
remains Burma until the Burmese people decide for themselves after
elections whether the name of their country should be changed." So
if this government is to invite the Burmese Information Minister
here just to prove that there is a free press in this country, then
it is wasting its time. It's plain stupidity to cast pearls before
swine, or as the Burmese themselves say, to woo a buffalo with the
melodious sounds of the harp. Instead, we suggest that the
invitation be extended to the silenced members of the Slorc-
controlled media. They would appreciate the change to see for
themselves how their counterparts in Thailand practice journalism
in a free society without interference or intimidation from the
powers that be. (BP)
RANGOON'S REFORMS A DAY LATE AND A KYAT SHORT
SEIN KYAW HLAING 15 April 1994, The Nation
The military junta which took power in Burma in 1988 following
nationwide demonstrations against Gen Ne Win's regime pledged to
replace the collapsed socialist economy with a market-based one.
Since then, continued accusations of human rights violations have
isolated the country economically and resulted in the suspension of
international aid. Relations between Burma and the British
government have cooled, as well. It was somewhat of a surprise,
then, when the British ambassador designated the last week in March
as "British Week," inviting UK firms to visit Burma and conducting
seminars in Rangoon. Does "British Week" signal the adoption of an
Asean-style "constructive engagement" towards Burma? If so, is this
the right time for British firms to be looking to this country?
Despite certain reforms, the Burmese economy if still rife with
corruption and improper dealings. While trading has been
liberalized, allowing a few local firms to prosper in importing and
exporting, the number of exportable goods in this country is small.
Unconfirmed letters of credit, dodgy methods of payment, and the
fact that bank enquiries are not allowed may make business
transactions unappealing to many foreign traders, not to mention a
lack of infrastructure that can delay transactions, make shipping
schedules hard to organize and cause a host of other problems.
These problems notwithstanding, trade links do exist between the
two countries, mostly involving private UK firms and Burmese
government departments. Bunnie and Partners, for example, has been
supplying the Yangon City Development Committee with water pipes.
The YCDC has been making payments in rice. In order to expedite
such a transaction the UK firm needs a third-party buyer to take
the rice. Burmese authorities require that the buyer purchase the
rice at Burmese government rates, which are usually $50 per ton
higher than the world market price. The UK firm generally has no
choice but no offer to refund the $50 per ton to its buyer, which
usually results in inflated prices on the original product, not
just to cover the refund costs but the payoff of Burmese officials
which is often necessary as well. On top of all this, firms such
as the London-based Export Credit Guarantee Department have
reported outstanding payments on the part of Burmese government.
Identifying a potential market is a main objective of any investor
and many foreign companies have sent economic feelers into Burma
despite failures by the military junta to respect the results of
the 1990 elections. It is vitally important therefore that the
Burmese Foreign Investment Law (FIL) reflects the rights and
obligations of potential investors. Understanding the legal
environment is one of the major concerns of foreign investors in
any country. As it stands, Burmese FIL seems comparable to
Vietnamese FIL, especially in the areas of technology transfer and
the right to profit from repatriation of foreign currency. This is
in part why major foreign investments have flowed into Vietnam in
recent years. According to official statistics, total authorized
foreign investment in Burma during 1992/93 was $850 million, but
paid-up capital was only $625 million. These figures resulted in a
lack of credibility on the part of the military junta's claims that
it had made significant economic strides, and the withdrawal of
many joint ventures in 1992. The highly artificial official
exchange rate of about 6 kyats per US dollar, (the free market rate
is about 120 to 1) further complicates negotiations between
investors and authorities and makes proper appraisal of the values
of imported machineries and capital goods difficult. Local currency
problems are particularly pressing in light of the fact that
foreign investors do not yet have the right to repatriation in
foreign currency. Profits, generated locally in kyats, can only be
converted into foreign currency by purchasing local goods and
exporting them to a third country. The only way to keep these
problems from discouraging foreign investment is to adopt an FIL
that embodies a legal framework concerning re-investment so that
enterprises with foreign-invested capitals are entitled to reinvest
profits earned in Burmese currency in other investment projects. In
the case of joint venture garment factories set up between the
government and foreign companies, the government could provide
land, labour, construction and electricity while machinery, raw
materials and know-how were invested by the companies. Only 10
percent of the textile products are sold locally; the other 90
percent goes on the US market, as Burma is eligible for duty-free
export. Hopes of a US market for textiles produced in Burma became
much dimmer, however, when the US Administration decided not to
renew a bilateral textile agreement in 1990 over a perceived lack
of worker's rights there. Furthermore, many of the foreign
companies that established joint ventures in the early stages of
economic reform are reluctant to bring in their portion of paid-up
capital as there has been no indication of improvement on the side
of government in promoting business development. Some Asean members
such as Thailand are gaining profits from Burma in terms of
trading, but the size of direct foreign investment in Burma by
Asean is inappreciable.
A BURMESE BENEFIT DINNER IN TOKYO
BURMESE Relief Center (Japan) will include a full-course dinner of
delicious and authentic Burmese dishes, classical Burmese music,
traditional cultural performances, and spirited auction of Burmese
arts and other choice items. All proceeds from this event will
benefit Burmese students and refugees on Burmese borders. This is
the fourth anniversary of the May 27 election in Burma, won
overwhelmingly by the National League for Democracy, but nullified
by the military. Burmese Relief Centre --Japan is commemorating the
occasion with a call for the unconditional release of the winner of
the elections, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, now
in her fifth year of house arrest, and for the restoration of
democracy in the country. It's will be held on May 28 in Tokyo.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To see who's right and who's wrong in Burma, just read the faces of
Suu Kyi and Khin Nyunt.
Michael Kozel
Diderse, Germany
As a Burmese who has witnessed and experienced 30 years of
totalitarian rule, I see the situation from an entirely different
perspective. The Burmese people no doubt appreciate the efforts of
U.S Congressman Bill Richardson to effect Suu Kyi's unconditional
release from house arrest, but it would have been more helpful if
he had been accompanied by experts who know the Burmese problem is
depth and can read the psyche and rationale of the Burmese military
junta. Richardson may have unwittingly fallen into the junta's
trap. The actions of the junta speak louder than its words. There
is a Burmese saying that is the equivalent of "A leopard can't
change its spots"; "The dog's tail will remain straight only as it
is put in a pipe." T he junta is the enemy of democracy.
Kanbawza Win
Bangkok
NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION
Burma's Thingyan water-throwing festival is the traditional time to
drench a stranger, and to speak out boldly on any topic. In the
light-hearted spirit of the season, we propose 1) Senior General
Than Shwe challenges Aung San Suu Kyi to a game of golf, followed
by a piano contest, for control of the army; 2) SLORC rotates the
national capital among the ethnic states; 3) Portly Karen leader Bo
Mya takes up aerobics; 4) Ne Win crowns himself King.
LATE NEWS
PRESIDENT OF KARENNI REBELS DIES KARENNI rebel president Saw Maw
Reh died of heart failure Monday at the Thai-Burmese border village
of Ban Huay Surin in Khun Yuam District here, a Karenni rebel
officer said yesterday. He is survived by his wife and six
children. A Christian burial ceremony was held at Na On village
inside Burma near his headquarters on Wednesday. Saw Maw Reh, 74,
the president of the ethnic Karenni government since 1992, formerly
served in the British army until 1948. He later joined the ethnic
Karenni rebel group to fight for self-rule from Burma. Saw Maw Reh
began suffering heart problems last year. He died on his return
from the provincial town where he had received medical treatment,
said the officer.