BurmaNet News: 25 June, 1995 [#190]

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Received: (from strider) by igc2.igc.apc.org (8.6.11/Revision: 1.12 ) id EAA07476; Sun, 25 Jun 1995 04:01:27 -0700
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 04:01:27 -0700




------------------------- BurmaNet ---------------------------
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The BurmaNet News: 25 June 1995
Issue #190

Contents:

NOTED IN PASSING:

          "They are human rights violators of the first order. 
          We are going to bed with the heavyweight champions of
          repression.'' 
               Representative Bill Richardson, US Congress <See REUTERS:
               U.S. TO INCREASE COOPERATION WITH BURMA ON DRUGS


REUTER: U.S. TO INCREASE COOPERATION WITH BURMA ON DRUGS
REUTER: THAILAND SHRUGS OFF BURMESE CALL TO BOYCOTT GOODS
NYT: UNITED STATES PLANS SLIGHT GAIN IN BURMESE DRUG ACCORD
TIME: ALLIES BUT NOT FRIENDS
KRC: STATEMENT ON THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THE QUESTION OF REPATRIATION 
NCCA: NCCA CALLS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION ON THAI-BURMA BORDER CRISIS



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

REUTER: U.S. TO INCREASE COOPERATION WITH BURMA ON DRUGS
June 21, 1995
    
  By Robert Green 

    WASHINGTON, June 21 (Reuter) - The United States will increase
cooperation with Burma in an effort to stem heroin smuggling, President
Bill Clinton's chief anti-drug official said on Wednesday. 

    Lee Brown, director of the president's Office of Drug Control Policy,
said the moves would be taken without undermining U.S. efforts to promote
political reform and curb human rights violations in military-ruled
Burma. 

    ``Since approximately 60 percent of the heroin sold in the U.S. comes
from Southeast Asia, and particularly Burma, our primary heroin control
priority will be to reduce this flow,'' Brown told a hearing of the House
(of Representatives) International Relations subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific. 

    He said the United States would hold discussions with Burmese
officials on counternarcotic strategies, exchange information on
anti-drug
operations and provide in-country counternarcotics training to
specialised
Burmese
units. 

    ``We will continue to employ a range of activities to address U.S.
counternarcotics concerns without undermining other vital U.S.
objectives,
including efforts to promote political reform and reconciliation and curb
human rights violations,'' Brown said. 

    He said cocaine still posed the most serious drug problem in the
United States but heroin use was increasing sharply due to larger crops
from Asia and South America. His statement was denounced by
Representative
Bill
Richardson, a New Mexico Democrat and a leading critic of Burma's
military
government. 

    ``This is a terrible signal to send,'' he told the hearing. ``They
are
human rights violators of the first order. We are going to bed with the
heavyweight champions of repression.'' 

    Richardson has visited Burma three times in recent years and has
urged
the government to end the house detention of democracy leader Aung San
Suu
Kyi, held since July 20, 1989. 

    Brown said the United States was also working with Thailand, Pakistan
and Turkey to reduce heroin traffic. 

    Assistant Secretary of State Robert Gelbard said on Tuesday that drug
trafficking was a problem throughout Asia. 

    ``What was previously treated basically as a Burma and Thailand
problem
has now evolved into an issue that threatens all the countries in the
region,'' Gelbard told a news briefing after returning from a two-week
trip
to Asia. 

    ``Trafficking routes have spread like a cancer to all these
countries.
China now rivals Thailand as a passage for the transshipment of Burmese
heroin,'' he said. 

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

REUTER: THAILAND SHRUGS OFF BURMESE CALL TO BOYCOTT GOODS
June 22, 1995

      BANGKOK, June 22 (Reuter) - Thailand is not worried that a Burmese
boycott campaign against Thai goods will affect its efforts to build good
relations with its western neighbour, a senior government official said
on
Thursday. 

     Senior Foreign Ministry spokesman Poldej Worachat told Reuters it
was
a
local-level problem that would be solved. ``Time will show that this
problem
is only a regional problem,'' Poldej said. 

    ``We have mechanisms to solve these problems, a joint committee and
so
on, and we will use these mechanisms to solve it,'' he said. 

    Poldej said the Thai Embassy in Rangoon had informed Bangkok about
the
boycott campaign before Burmese traders arriving in a Thai border town
this
week reported seeing posters in Burmese towns urging people not to buy
Thai
products. 

    The posters told people to buy Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysian and
Singaporean goods instead of imports from Thailand. 

    No reason was given for the boycott call but it follows months of
strained relations between the neighbouring countries. 

    Since the beginning of the year, Thailand has complained to Burma on
several occasions about encroachment into Thai territory by Rangoon
forces
or
fighters allied to the Burmese army. 

    Burma responded by accusing Thailand of assisting ethnic guerrillas
fighting Burma's military government for autonomy. 

    Both sides have strengthened forces along their common border. 

    Thailand is a leading advocate of constructive engagement with
Burma's
military government, arguing that closer business ties are more likely to
prompt democratic improvements than isolation, which is backed by Burmese
dissidents and some Western governments. 

REUTER
************

NEW YORK TIMES: UNITED STATES PLANS SLIGHT GAIN IN BURMESE DRUG ACCORD
June 22, 1885

WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration has decided to increase
anti-narcotics cooperation with Myanmar slightly, ending a six-month tug
of
war in which federal drug officials pushed for much more cooperation
while
human rights officials opposed it, administration officials said
Wednesday. 

Even though Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, produces more than 60
percent
of the world's heroin, human rights officials in the administration
fought
against stepped-up cooperation on the ground that it would help
legitimize
Myanmar's repressive military government. 

According to administration officials, the new policy calls for a modest
expansion in training Burmese narcotics officials and in financing United
Nations efforts to encourage Burmese farmers to substitute other crops
for
opium. 

The new policy also calls for increased cooperation with ethnic groups in
Myanmar to persuade them to stop opium output. 

With human rights groups criticizing the new policy, White House
officials
sought to emphasize Wednesday that President Clinton was ordering only a
modest change in policy and that none of the money for increased
cooperation
would go to Myanmar's military government, which is called the State Law
and
Order Restoration Council. 

TIME MAGAZINE INTERNATIONAL: ALLIES BUT NOT FRIENDS 
May 29, 1995

The U.S. wants nothing to do with the generals, but it needs their help
to
fight an influx of heroin

BY WILLIAM DOWELL/BAKYAN

>From the air, the Bakyan mountain ridge looks astonishingly like a
flashback
to the Vietnam War, right down to the "Huey" helicopters circling
anxiously
through the mist and the foxhole-scarred firebases hacked into lush
mountaintop vegetation. Yet appearances are deceiving. This is not
Vietnam
but Burma, renamed Myanmar by its military rulers. The driving force
behind
this conflict is not cold-war ideology but cold cash and hard drugs.

The fortified bases in Bakyan, captured only a few weeks ago from drug
warlord Khun Sa, are being shown off to foreign journalists by Burma's
ruling
military junta in order to boost its antidrug image. The junta, known as
the
State Law and Order Restoration Council, hopes the message will be heard
in
Washington. That is not an unreasonable expectation: after years of
taking
second place to cocaine as America's "drug of choice," heroin is staging
a
comeback, and more than 60% of the new supply hitting U.S. streets--purer
than the 1960s version and at a fraction of the price--comes from Burma.

But the U.S. is in a bind. Though it clearly has an interest in stopping
Burmese heroin, Washington wants nothing to do with SLORC and its odious
reputation. The junta jails political opponents, coerces Burmese peasants
into unpaid labor and has kept the country's most popular political
figure,
Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest since 1989.
"Until Aung San Suu Kyi is released," says a foreign diplomat based in
Burma,
"there is not going to be any relationship with SLORC."

Maybe not. But with the threat of a new heroin boom, some U.S.
foreign-policy
experts are beginning to question how long Burma can safely be ignored.
When
the country gained independence in 1948, its annual output of opium was
30
tons. Now satellite image--based assessments by the U.S. of opium poppy
fields put this year's harvest at 2,500 metric tons. Profits are
enormous,
and they've helped make Khun Sa's 15,000-man Mong Tai army better
equipped
than Burma's troops. "The longer nothing is done to stop the warlords,"
says
a foreign diplomat, "the stronger these groups are going to become."

Indeed, SLORC's main motive for striking at Khun Sa is political. Having
smashed resistance from Karen rebels earlier this year, SLORC is eager to
bring other fractious ethnic minorities under its control. But Khun Sa,
the
self-styled leader of the Shan State as well as one of the world's major
drug
dealers, is an elusive target whose forces often pass through Thai
territory.
A few months ago, U.S. drug-enforcement experts were boasting that Khun
Sa
was on the run. Several of his key henchmen were arrested in Thailand and
are
in the process of being extradited to the U.S. Under heavy American
pressure,
Thailand finally sent troops to seal off key infiltration routes to and
from
Burma. An intercepted letter from Khun Sa to contacts outside Thailand
pleading for money seemed to indicate that the drug lord was suffering
severe
cash-flow problems.

The border turned out to be much more porous than American experts
realized.
Burmese intelligence reports that Khun Sa moved groups of 600 and 800 men
through Thailand on chartered tourist buses in March. The routes taken
were
along major highways deep inside Thailand. Brigadier General Kyaw Win,
the
Burmese regional commander, claims that on one occasion Khun Sa's men
made
cash payments of $26,000 to Thai border police to guarantee free passage.
The
Burmese were even more outraged when one of Khun Sa's raiding parties
shot
up
the border town of Tachilek in mid-March. Television newsmen had been
tipped
off to the raid and filmed it from the Thai side of the border.

The Burmese assault on Khun Sa's positions in Bakyan came in late April,
several weeks after the Tachilek raid. Heavy mortars and recoilless
rifles
had to be carried in by foot on a three-day forced march along
treacherous
mountain paths. In the end, most of Khun Sa's men simply melted away.
Without
air transport and with logistics lines stretched to the limit, Burmese
troops
were unable to give chase. SLORC has been arguing that if the U.S. really
wants to stop Khun Sa's narcotics activities, it is going to have to
provide
military hardware and support.

U.S. diplomats disagree. Why, they ask, have the 32 planes and
helicopters
supplied by the U.S. for antidrug operations back in the '80s never been
used
against the drug lords? And what about the deal SLORC has cut with the Wa
tribal minority allowing it to continue trafficking in opium and heroin
in
exchange for recognition of the junta's authority? SLORC insists it is
merely
giving the Wa time to find cash crops to replace opium, but experts point
out
that the tribe's production has  passed Khun Sa's.

Crop substitution appears to be a sound heroin-fighting strategy, but as
a
foreign military attache puts it, "Opium doesn't weigh much, and the
buyer
comes to the farmer. If you want to get a bulky crop like potatoes to
market,
you need roads." The U.N. has started a modest program to help build
roads
and provide alternate crops that peasants can grow. Some observers in
Yangon
(formerly Rangoon), the capital, see a recent Japanese grant of $11
million
for roads and similar projects as the opening wedge to normalization of
relations with the rest of the world. But the amount of aid needed to get
quick results is not likely to materialize until SLORC agrees to release
Aung
San Suu Kyi. With both sides at an impasse on that issue, the one safe
prediction is that heroin will continue flowing out of Burma.


KRC: STATEMENT ON THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THE QUESTION OF REPATRIATION
June 20, 1995
                                    
     STATEMENT OF THE KAREN REFUGEE COMMITTEE ON THE 
           PRESENT SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THE KAREN REFUGEE 
                PROBLEM AND THE QUESTION OF REPATRIATION


In light of the present situation and the views expressed by
certain quarters on possible repatriation of the Karen refugees,
the Karen Refugee Committee, is obliged to express its views on
the situation with regards to the Karen Refugee problem and
define its stand on the question of repatriation.

The Committee begs to refer briefly to the situation in 1984 when
through the permission of the Royal Thai Government and the kind
auspices of the Coordinating Committee for services to Displaced
persons in Thailand (CCSDPT), a simple but effective relief
operation began with the support of a small group of NGOs to
provide for the need of some 10,000 Karen who fled into Thailand
because of heavy fighting that broke out then along the Moei
stretch of the Thai-Burma border. The Karen Refugee Committee has
a small role since then in this relief operation with a system
that ensured that basic needs were met but self reliance and
self-respect maintained.

The number of refugees grew steadily during the past ten years or
more and the total numbers of refugees in the various Karen
refugee camps in Thailand is 69,348 as of May 1995. The system of
providing assistance has been maintained and expanded
proportionate to the need.


Review of the current situation
-------------------------------

Following the series of attacks on Karen refugees camps in Tak
and Mae Hong Son provinces during the summer of 1995 by armed
intruders directed and actively supported by the SLORC, the Karen
situation has come under review, especially the question of how
to provide security for the refugees. The Thai authorities have
now taken a new measure to consolidate the refugee camps in
larger locations which can more easily be made secure.

The Karen Refugee Committee is of the same opinion that security
has become a very urgent issue and thus it is cooperating with
the Thai authorities in resettling the refugees in larger and
more controlled camps where security can be better and more
effectively provided.

The Committee is however greatly concerned about the question of
repatriation as SLORC has made it known that it believes that the
refugees should be returned to Burma and the question is being
asked in Thailand as to how long the refugees should stay on in
the camps before they return to Burma. The situation is now more
complicated because of the internal conflict of the Karens and
some refugees have returned to Burma. The Karen Refugee Committee
has made it very clear to everyone in the camps that they are
free to choose between going or staying. It has cautioned them
however to be more careful in making decisions.


Cause of the refugees problems
------------------------------

The Karen Refugee Committee wishes to state clearly its belief
that it is in the best interest of the refugees that they should
ultimately return to Burma. The Committee has never attempted to
prevent refugees from returning to Burma but it believes that the
return must be voluntary and it must be to a situation of safety.

This raises the question of how the safety of returning refugees
can be assured. The Committee has stated on various occasions
that fighting in Burma is not the only reason why refugees leave
their homes and flee into Thailand. In fact, lack of respect for
human rights and activities associated with it had caused tens of
thousands of civilians from even outside the war zones to flee
from the their country. They had suffered incidental as well as
systematic persecutions under the country's military rulers. This
is shown by the fact that refugees continue to stream into
Thailand even during periods of little or no actual fighting.

People free from their homes and villages in Burma for many
others apart from actual fighting. Some of the reasons most
commonly attributed to the cause of their flight into Thailand
for refuge are:

-Persecution, brutality and intimidations;
-Consistent demand for so-called voluntary labour and forced      
 labour;
-Extortion of money and property;
-Lack of respect for the lives and property of the civilian       
 populations;
-Lack of respect for the fundamental rights and privileges of     
 individual or groups;         
-Forced relocation.

The Karen Refugee Committee believes that the Karen refugees have
fled from systematic persecution and they qualify as refugees
with the rights of refugees as recognised by the international
community. Consequently, safe voluntary repatriation of the refugees to
Burma can be achieved only with the ending of this systemic
persecution. In it recent consideration in March, 1995, of the
question of human rights abuses in Burma, the UN Commission on
Human Rights, once again expressed its grave concern at the
violation of human rights in 'Myanmar' which remains extremely
serious, in particular the practice of torture, summary and
arbitrary executions, forced labour, including forced portering
for the military, abuse of women, politically motivated arrests
and detention, forced displacement of the population, the
existence of important restrictions on the exercise of fundamental
freedoms including the freedom of expression and association, and
the imposition of oppressive measures directed, in particular, at
ethnic and religious minority groups.


Conditions for safe, voluntary repatriation
-------------------------------------------

Given this view of the current situation in Burma, the Karen
Refugee Committee would therefore like to propose the conditions
which should be met in order that the safe, voluntary return of
Karen refugees to Burma can be achieved.

1. The refugees must have access to reliable information about
the situation inside those areas of Burma from which they came
and, or to which they would return.

2. There must be effective protection and support for the
refugees after they have returned to Burma.

3. There must be a real possibility of the refugees returning
safely to their place of choice with access to assistance through
which to reconstruct their sheltered communities.

4. There must be a continuing access to refuge in Thailand if
they are subject to attack or further persecution.


Proposal of the Karen Refugee Committee
---------------------------------------

The Karen Refugee Committee therefore proposes that in order to
allow for the safe voluntary return of Karen refugees to Burma,
the following steps should be taken.

1. An appropriate independent body must be designated or created
with the possibility of systematically monitor the situation
inside those areas of Burma from which the refugees came and to
which they would return and systematically provide to the
refugees the information obtained.
    
2. When it becomes clear that on the basis of such information
there are refugees clearly willing to return to Burma, there
should be a careful, stage by stage process of moving willing
refugees to temporary camps inside Burma, where they can be
provided with assistance and protection as a means of building
confidence. For this to be achieved, there should be a formal
guarantee from SLORC that the refugees will not be attacked or
harassed, there should be provision of humanitarian support from
across the border similar to that provided to the refugee camps
in Thailand, and there should be continuing monitoring of their
situation by the independent body. There should also be a clearly
expressed willingness by the Thai authorities to allow the
refugees access to refuge in Thailand should they be attacked or
harassed.
  
3. When it becomes clear that SLORC is willing to cooperate and
the refugees have confident to return further inside Burma, there
should be a process of identifying specific areas from which
refugees have fled and to which they are willing to return and
which are considered safe by the independent monitoring body.
Provision should then be made to resettle the refugees in these
areas with continuing guarantees of food supplies until they can
become self-sufficient as well as the support necessary for
rebuilding their farms and villages. Provision should be made for
their access to basic health and educational services. Again,
there must be provision for monitoring the well-being of the
these refugee area by the independent monitoring body and to
provide assistance to such refugees communities from across the
border in Thailand until such time as it can be shown that such
assistance can be provided satisfactorily from inside Burma.

The Karen Refugee Committee sees monitoring inside Burma as the
key to establishing whether SLORC is sincere regarding its stated
desire for the refugees to return to Burma. For its part the
Karen Refugee Committee would welcome the presence of an
appropriate independent monitoring body in the camps in Thailand
with the responsibility of informing the refugees concerning the
situation inside Burma and establishing which refugees are
willing to return.

In Closing, the Karen Refugee Committee humbly expresses its
sincere gratitude to the Thai authorities and to the people of
Kingdom of Thailand for their kindness in granting refuge to the
Karens and other displaced people from Burma who are in trouble
and need. The Committee is fully aware of the fact that this
kindness and understanding is vital for the survival and welfare
of these people during their time of refuge in Thailand. This
noble gesture of goodwill is sincerely appreciated and will
always be remembered by the Karens of Burma. The Committee also
expresses its gratitude to the individuals and agencies for their
help and support in many ways through these long years to keep
the relief operation from coming to a halt. The commitment of all
those concerned in this mission of mercy is also appreciated.


NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES IN AUSTRALIA
REFUGEE AND MIGRANT SERVICES:  
NCCA CALLS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION ON THAI-BURMA BORDER CRISIS
MAY/JUNE 1995

[Following report is from National Council of Churches in Australia
Refugee and Migrant Services May/June 1995. This newsletter is
available from the NCCA National office, Jodie Trimble,
Administration/Information, Private BAg 199, QVB Post Office,
Sydney 2000. Tel (02) 299 2215, Fax (02) 262 4514. I post this
without their knowledge, but sure the RMS wouldn't mind. U Ne Oo]

------------------------------------------------------------
Following recent attacks by SLORC and the Democratic Karen
Buddhist Army on Burmese refugee camps inside Thailand, the
National Council of Churches in Australia has called on the
Australian Government to take immediate steps to pressure the
Thai authorities to prevent any further incursions and ensure
the protection and security of the refugees concerned.

Bands of up to 200 Junta and rebel Karen fighters were attacking
the camps and refugee sources report that camp inhabitants were
being forced to flee into nearby jungles to escape.

Presently there are 77,107 official ethnic minority refugees
from Burma in 20 refugee camps inside Thailand. Each camp has a
population of between 4,000 and 5,000 people many having fled
Burmese Army persecution in December, 1984.

The Coordinator of the National Council of Churches' Refugee and
Migrant Services, Hermine Partamian, said, "The NCCA is gravely
concerned that the present crisis is disrupting delivery of
vital assistance by partners and other non-government
organisations."

Mrs Partamian also warns that the possibility of the Thai
military pushing refugees back into Burma could lead to
genocide.

These anxieties were not allayed by comments attributed to Thai
military General Wimol Wongwanich in the April 30 edition of the
Bangkok Post. According to the report, General Wimol said,"If we
were not afraid of being criticised by the world community on
humanitarian grounds and if it would not give the country
problems, then this army chief would take only one week to push
them all out, regardless of how many hunderds of thousands of
Karen were now in the country."

"I used to do this with over 40,000 Cambodian refugees. If we
were able to do the same with Karens, I would finish the task in
just one week."

*******************
Burma Perspectives
*******************

BURMA AT A GLANCE (Burma named Mynamar by SLORC government.)

POLITICS: State Law and Order Restoration Council(SLORC)
military dictatorship. Democratically elected leader Aung San
Suu Kyi (National League for Democracy Party) under house arrest
since 1990.

HUMAN RIGHTS: Execution, torture, detention without trial,
forced labour on development projects, army porters and human
minesweepers. 40,000 women trafficked into sex industries in
neighbouring countries.

ECONOMY: GNP per capita US$150 ($10 black market rate).
EXPORTS: Fish forest products, base metals, ores. Burma now
produces more heroin than any other country.
IMPORTS: Most are smuggled in and sold on the black market.
Thailand and China are major trading partners.
        SLORC encourages foreign investment through state-based
joint ventures managed by its Department of Defence and would
like to secure foreign aid for priorities assisting the
maintenance of SLORC control.

POPULATION: 44 million
CULTURE: Most Burmans are Theravada Buddhist, Hindu, Christian
and Muslim minorities.
ETHNIC GROUPS: Chinese, Indians, Karens, Shan, Chins, Kachins,
Mons, Arakanese and Karenni.

REFUGEES: 250,000 fled to Bangladesh (5,000 repatriated to Burma
weekly). 93,600 in Thailand, 15,000 in China, 6,000 in India.
Half million people displaced within Burma.
(Source: Burma NGO forum)
**********

Burma Background
----------------
Civil war has plagued Burma since 1948. At any one time there
have been up to twenty different groups fighting for increased
autonomy form the burmese military government. Many of these are
ethnic groups such as the Karen and Mon who live in mountainous
regions on the border of Burma and Thailand.

In 1962 the Burmese military over threw the democratically
elected government and has remained in control ever since. Under
military misrule what was once most prosperous country in Asia
has plunged into poverty and stagnation, the United Nations
recognising it as one of the world's "Least Developed Countries"
in 1987. Burma has one of the most repressive state security
systems in the world.

In  1988  there  were nationwide pro-democracy uprisings against
the military and it looked as  if  their  twenty  six  years  of
mismanagement and oppression was about to end. However the
military brutally suppressed the uprisings and declared a new
junta called the State Law and Order Restoration Council
(SLORC). Following the military crackdown approximately 10,000
mostly young, democracy activists fled to the Thai/Burma border
where they joined ethnic independence groups in the jungle. Some
joined a huge refugee population in Thailand of 70,000 Karen and
Mon families who had fled the Burmese military's annual
offensives.

Despite an election in 1990 where the National League for
Democracy Party of opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won 82% of
the people's vote, the SLORC continues to hole an iron grip. It
has discarded its socialist rhetoric for the free market
allowing foreign business to flow in benefiting the army
officers, their families and friends who have had three decades
to entrench themselves in the positions of economic dominance.

The picture for ethic and democratic opponents of the Junta
remains bleak. In January 1995 the SLORC broke a two-year-old
ceasefire with one of the main ethnic opposition groups, the
Karen, storming the opposition headquarters of Manerplaw.
Thousands of villagers fled tthe violence, many with horrific
tales of abuse, being used as human mine sweepers and bearing
scars of forced labour.

The total number of refugees on the border soared to over 90,000
people. The majority of these people are seeking refuge in
temporary shelters and are relying on NGOs for the provision of
food and basic medicines. As these people are not recognised as
refugees by the Thai government, they are living with the
constant fear of being pushed back across the border into SLORC
controlled areas. Conditions along the border have become much
more difficult with the latest influx of refugees. In crowded
camp conditions, disease can easily spread and there are only
limited medical supplies.

The All Burma Students Democratic Front (ABSDF) is also based in
border camps. ABSDF comprises of young, dissident students who
fled from Burma in 1988 with the aim of resisting the Burmese
military government. When the SLORC launched the recent attack
on Manerplaw, ABSDF headquarters was also attacked and the
student troops were forced to withdraw with no alternative but
to relocate on the Thai side of the border.

As a result of the SLORC's brutality and inability to keep their
own self-declared ceasefire, thousands of people have geen
forced to leave their homes and are now living with fear and
uncertainty for their future. they are now relying on the aid
agencies operating at the border but their safety is ultimately
dependent upon the cooperation and goodwill of the Thai
Government. As the Thai Government is not signatoru to the
United Nations Convention of Protocol ensuring protection to
refugees, the Burmese are considered "illegals".

In a recent report in the Bangkok Post, the ABSDF and the
opposition government to SLORC, the National Coalition
Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB) expressed concern for
the safety of refugees on the Thai/Burma border following an
incident in late February when Burmese troops attacked Karen
refugee on Thai territory, leaving two Karen women (one of whom
was pregnant) and a Thai driver dead. Ten other people were
seriously wounded including four childern. The NCGUB urged the
Thai government to provide more security for the refugees "...
given the ease with which the armed SLORC troops can enter
refugee camps in thailand...". It appears that refugees are more
than justified in their fears for their security.

In a response to the situation, a programme was established by
the Australian Government for the resettlement of displaced
Burmese in Thailand who are subject to substantial
discrimination in Burma. For the 1993/4 period, 50 places were
made available and this number has been increased to 100 for the
1994/5 period.

Burma has had a low media profile and only now the Australian
public is aware of the Burmese refugee crisis. The participation
of church groups in needed to bring awareness of the human
rights violations, to pressure the Australian government to
address the situation in Burma and to be involved in the
resettlement of reufgees admitted to Australia under the Special
Assistance Category (SAC).

Your community can assist by direct sponsorship or by
contributing funds to a loans schemen established by the
National Council of Churches. For further information please
contact the RMS representative in your state - see back page for
details.

Teresa O'Shannassy and Marc Purcell
Burma Support Group, Melbourne.
*******************

Hidden Behind the Human WAll
----------------------------
The following report is written by James Isbister, the Refugee
and Migrant Services' Policy/Education officer. He recently
visited the Thai-Burma border on behalf of the National Council
of Churches to monitor aid programs providing basic needs to
refuges in camps along the border.

        My recent visit to the Thai-Burma border followed the
well publicised attacks on the refugee camps along the border by
the rebel Karen group the DKBO (Democratic Karen Buddhist
Organization). The DKBO broke away from the main Karen army, the
KNU (Karen National Union), at the end of last year and have now
been shown to have close ties to SLORC. SLORC is believed to be
responsible for financing and arming the DKBO, and encouraging
them to attack the KNU in Burma and refugee camps along the
border.

SLORC  forged  this  split  within  the Karen movement so the
international community and the Burmese people would see the

fighting along the border as factional infighting amongst the
ethnic Karen. However, since the end of the Second World War
various Burmese regimes have been trying to crush the many
ethnic groups in Western Burma who have been struggling for
greater self determination.

These recent incursions and attacks by the DKBO on the refugee
camps inside Thailand, follow the heavy attacks by the DKBO and
SLORC on the KNU strongholds in Mannerplaw and Kawmoora last
December and February. These attacks forced a further ten
thousand refugees to flee into Thailand for protection.

Last month's DKBO attacks on refugee camps involved the
kidnapping and killing of many Buddhist and christian religious
leaders. A number of the camps were either partially or
completely burnt down, rice stores for the rainy season and
hundreds of houses were destroyed.

        SLORC AND THE DKBO'S RATIONALE IS TO TRY AND FORCE THESE
        REFUGEES BACK INTO BURMA THUS OVERCOMING THE BURMESE
        JUNTA'S EMBARRASSING POLITICAL SITUATION WHERE THE
        BORDER SITUATION IS A CONTINUAL REMINDER TO THE
        INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OF THE HORRENDOUS HUMAN RIGHTS
        ABUSES OCCURRING INSIDE BURMA.

While I was at the Thai-Burma border thousands of refugees were
being forced to move up to 50km to relocate their camps after
losing everything in the attacks. Along the road I saw thousands
of refugees carrying their rice provisions for the next few
weeks and necessary building materials such as bamboo and
thatch. In expressing to one women my horror of their present
situation she shocked me in responding "we are used to this, in
Burma we often have our villages attacked and burnt by SLORC".
The Burmese military often enters camps and forces many fo the
boy and men to act as porters for them, carrying their munitions
and proviwions. It is also common for the military to enter and
destroy villages they feel could be sympathising with ethnic or
other dissident groups in the area.

Hearing stories from the refugees and camp leaders and seeing
the evidence of human rights abuse by the Burmese military, only
further highlighted to me the immediate need for change to occur
within Burma. However desperate the situation on the border is ,
however urgent the need to provide security, shelter and
essential foods, the larger issue of the reason behind the
movement of refugees and the military's human rights abuses only
kilometres inside Burma must be the ongoing focus of the
international communities work.

This most recent refugee crises must not be left, as too often
happens due to the media portrayal, as another refugee crisis
where little more can be done than sending money and supporting
those organisations presently assisting on the bord4er. The
refugees themselves are asking the international community to
look behind their human wall stretching along the border. There
is evidence enough from this tragedy to emphasise to us the
urgency in finding a solution to the oppressive situation inside
burma today.

There is no question that we must continue to assist and fund
agencies working on the border, nevertheless the medium to long
term focus and action for Australian churches and communities is
to work for a change in the political situation within Burma.
With the recent arrival in Australia of Burmese students
involved in the 1988 pro-democracy uprising it is a real
opportunity for many church and community groups to work with
Burmese effected by the regime on campaign calling for democracy
in Burma. There needs to be more lobbying of the Australian
Government and other international organisations, such the UN to
pressure SLORC to adhere to the results of the democratic
elections in 1991.



/END