re nytimes, WP, IHT editorial 31 7

[cd@xxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: re nytimes, WP, IHT editorial 31 7 96

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------3B80BCA33E7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

for free burma readers, from euro-burmanet, paris, dawn star

--------------3B80BCA33E7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="IHT31796.TXT"

<hr>
Headline: Washington Post, New York Times & IHT Editorial:  " 'Engaging' With Burma: Democrats Betrayed "
Keyword: National League for Democracy (NLD), Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, political prisoners, human rights, Slorc abuses, IHT (editorial), ASEAN, France, Britain, foreign investment, Unocal, TOTAL, Washington, US Senate, sanctions, US President Bill Clinton, European Parliament, Washington Post (editorial),
Date: July 31,1996
Source: Euro-Burmanet, International Herald Tribune (New York Times)
Section: ebn
Rubrique: main

The Burmese dissident leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's quiet eloquence and courage have always spoken louder than her government's attempts to silence her. But this month that government won a double victory over the dissident. Her voice, it seems, cannot be heard over the rustle of money.

Earlier this month, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi called for international economic sanctions against Burma for the first time. In May, the State Law and Order Restoration Council, as the government is known, arrested 262 members of her party, and the arrests go on. The crackdown is business as usual for a regime that put Daw Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for five (sic.six) years after her party won elections in 1990.  The regime's brutality and opium trafficking have made Burma an outlaw state.

But Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's courage has produced a collective international shrug. This month Burma assumed observer status at the Association of South East Asian Nations, a step toward membership. And "constructive engagement ", seeking to opeen the nation gradually through trade and investment.

"Constructive engagement " in this case is not a satisfactory policy.

Asian investment in Burma is growing. Given ASEAN's membership, whichc inccludes the authoritarian governments of Indonesia, Vietnam, Brunei and Singapore, the indifference to democracy is not surprising.

The Burmese regime's second victory came in Washington when the Senate rejected a pullout of American investment in Burma proposed by (Senator) Mitch McConnell and (Senator) Daniel Patrick Moynihan. After intensive lobbying by Unocal, the American company with the largest financial interests in Burma, the Senate approved a threat of sanctions that can be imposed by the president if there is further harrassment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters.

The Clinton administration, which had been showing promising rhethorical gumption toward Burma, must ensure that the Senate vote is not a dodge as well. Sanctions are not an all-purpose weapon, but President Bill Clinton must use them forcefully here. The European Parliament has approved a nonbinding sanctions resolution. The big investors, Britain and France, are under increasing pressure to pull out.

American investment in Burma during the last five years was $245 million, mostly in oil and gas. Most projects are joint ventures with government or military companies. The biggest American project is Unocal's stake in a proposed as pipeline, also financed by the regime.

The Senate's willingness to bow before this minimal American investment shows the risks of " constructive engagement ". Instead of American engagement changing Burmese values and policies, the engagement seems to be affecting Washington. The United States has softened its policies toward an outlaw nation and let down a leader who deserves its full support. ( The New York Times)

Yes to Sanctions

The U.S. Senate voted for sanctions against the repressive military regime of Burma last week. The measure, while not perfect, would put Congress clearly on the side of Burma's long-suffering democrats. The House should support the sanctions.

The situation in Burma enjoys the unfortunate distinction of being free of any moral ambiguity ; there is no mistaking the good guys from the bad. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace laureate, led her democratic party to victory in a 1990 election, attracting a phenomenal 82 percent of the vote. Burma's military regime refused to transfer power, instead arresting her and jailing hundreds of her supporters. Since then the regime has press-ganged 2 million Burmese into slave labor, according to Human Rights Watch/Asia. These shackled workers act as porters and human cannon fodder for the swollen Burmese military in its wars against ethnic minorities, and help build the infrastructure to attract tourism and foreign investment.

The Senate-approved measure would codify an existing ban on most foreign aid to Burma, instruct the US government to oppose any World Bank loans, and bar entry visas to Burmese officials. It encourages Washington to promote a multilateral strategy for Burmese democracy - a less quixoticc goal than many suppose, given grrowing European sentiment for sanctions. And it would impose a ban on further U.S. investment in Burma if the military regime steps up its repression against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi or other leaders of the democratic opposition.

The measure misguidedly exempts anti-drug money from the ban on aid. Burma is the source of 60 percent of the heroin imported into the United States, so it is understandable  that Congress would want to extend U.S. counter-narcotics efforts to that Asian country. But all available evidence suggests that the regime has no interest in controlling the drug trade. Until a democratic government takes its rightful place, funneling anti-drug money to Burma will only strengthen the regime.

Forty-five senators backed a measure calling for sanctions now. There is indeed a danger that the approved compromise could lead to an acceptance of the unaccepable status quo in Burma. But the partial sanctions approved by the Senate may deter the regime from more outrageous repression as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi seeks to promote a dialogue. The Clinton administration argued for this compromise, saying that flexibility in the law would help U.S. diplomats enlist allies in the campaign for  Burmese democracy. The House should join with the Senate and give the administration a chance to make good on its promise of redouble efforts.
(The Washington Post)








--------------3B80BCA33E7--