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

The BurmaNet News, May 21, 1997




------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------     
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"     
----------------------------------------------------------     
     
The BurmaNet News: May 21, 1997     
Issue #727
   
HEADLINES:     
==========   
THE WHITE HOUSE: THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BURMA
THE WHITE HOUSE: PRESIDENT LETTER TO CONGRESS 
REUTER: BURMESE REBEL LEADER ATTACKED IN THAILAND
KYODO: JAPAN, THAILAND AGREE TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY
REUTER: THAI PM SAYS URGED BURMA GENERALS TO EASE UP 
MOSCOW ITAR-TASS: MOSCOW RESPECTS ASEAN DECISION 
KYODO: BURMA URGES JAPANESE INVESTMENT 
WASHINGTON POST: THINKING GLOBALLY,PUNISHING  
THE NATION: SLORC MAKES BIG GAINS FROM HANDOVER OF LI
NEW LIGHT OF MYANMAR: ADRIFT AND WASHED ASHORE
-----------------------------------------------------------------   

THE WHITE HOUSE: THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BURMA
May 20, 1997

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                              May 20, 1997

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -

PROHIBITING NEW INVESTMENT IN BURMA


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including section 570 of the
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208) (the "Act"), the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)
(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et 
seq.), and section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code;

 I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America,
hereby determine and certify that, for purposes of section 570(b) of the
Act, the Government of Burma has committed large-scale repression of the
democratic opposition in Burma after September 30, 1996, and further
determine that the actions and policies of the Government of Burma
constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security
and foreign policy of the United States and declare a national emergency
to deal with that threat. 

 Section 1.  Except to the extent provided in regulations, orders,
directives, or licenses that may be issued in conformity with section
570 of the Act and pursuant to this order, I hereby prohibit new
investment in Burma by United States persons.

 Sec. 2.  The following are also prohibited, except to the extent
provided in section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)) or in
regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant
to this order:

 (a)  any approval or other facilitation by a United States person,
wherever located, of a transaction by a foreign person where the
transaction would constitute new investment in Burma prohibited by this
order if engaged in by a United States person or within the United
States; and 

 (b)  any transaction by a United States person or within the United
States that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding,
or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions set forth in this order.

 Sec. 3.  Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit the entry
into, performance of, or financing of a contract to sell or purchase
goods, services, or technology, except:

 (a)  where the entry into such contract on or after the effective date
of this order is for the general supervision and guarantee of another
person's performance of a contract for the economic development of
resources located in Burma; or

 (b)  where such contract provides for payment, in whole or in part, in:

 (i)  shares of ownership, including an equity interest, in the economic 
development of resources located in Burma; or

 (ii)  participation in royalties, earnings, or profits in the economic 
development of resources located in Burma.

 Sec. 4.  For the purposes of this order:

 (a)  the term "person" means an individual or entity;

 (b)  the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint
venture, corporation, or other organization;

 (c)  the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, 
permanent resident alien, juridical person organized under the laws of
the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the
United States;

 (d)  the term "new investment" means any of the following activities,
if such an activity is undertaken pursuant to an agreement, or pursuant
to the exercise of rights under such an agreement, that is entered into
with the Government of Burma or a nongovernmental entity in Burma on or
after the effective date of this order:

 (i)  the entry into a contract that includes the economic development
of resources located in Burma;

 (ii)  the entry into a contract providing for the general supervision
and guarantee of another person's performance of a contract that
includes the economic development of resources located in Burma;

 (iii)  the purchase of a share of ownership, including an equity
interest, in the economic development of resources located in Burma; or

 (iv)  the entry into a contract providing for the participation in
royalties, earnings, or profits in the economic development of resources
located in Burma, without regard to the form of the participation;

 (e)  the term "resources located in Burma" means any resources,
including natural, agricultural, commercial, financial, industrial, and
human resources, located within the territory of Burma, including the
territorial sea, or located within the exclusive economic zone or
continental shelf of Burma;

 (f)  the term "economic development of resources located in Burma"
shall not be construed to include not-for-profit educational, health, or
other humanitarian programs or activities.

 Sec. 5.  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the functions
vested in me under section 570(c) and (d) of the Act, to be exercised in
consultation with the heads of other agencies of the United States
Government as appropriate. 

 Sec. 6.  The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including
the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers
granted to me by section 570(b) of the Act and by IEEPA, as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this order.  The Secretary of the
Treasury may redelegate the authority set forth in this order to other
officers and agencies of the United States Government.  All agencies of
the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate
measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this
order.

 Sec. 7.  Nothing contained in this order shall create any right or
benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the
United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or
employees, or any other person.

 Sec. 8.  (a)  This order shall take effect at 12:01 a.m., eastern
daylight time, May 21, 1997.

 (b)  This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in
the Federal Register.


  WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,
    May 20, 1997.

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

THE WHITE HOUSE: PRESIDENT'S LETTER TO CONGRESS ON SANCTIONS
May 20, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 20, 1997

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Message Creation Date was at 20-MAY-1997 16:37:00

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

____________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                              May 20, 1997

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Pursuant to section 570(b) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208) (the
"Act"), I hereby report to the Congress that I have determined and
certified that the Government of Burma has, after September 30, 1996,
committed large-scale repression of the democratic opposition in Burma. 
Further, pursuant to section 204(b) of the Inter-national Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1703(b)) (IEEPA) and section 301 of the
National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), I hereby report that I have
exercised my statutory authority to declare a national emergency to
respond to the actions and policies of the Government of
Burma and have issued an Executive order prohibiting United States
persons from new investment in Burma.

 The order prohibits United States persons from engaging in any of the
following activities after its issuance:

-- entering a contract that includes the economic development of
resources located in Burma;

-- entering a contract providing for the general supervision and
guarantee of another person's performance of a contract that includes
the economic development of resources located in Burma;

-- purchasing a share of ownership, including an equity interest, in the
economic development of resources located in Burma;

-- entering into a contract providing for the participation in
royalties, earnings, or profits in the economic development of resources
located in Burma, without regard to the form of the participation;

-- facilitating transactions of foreign persons that would violate any
of the foregoing prohibitions if engaged in by a United States person;
and 

-- evading or avoiding, or attempting to violate, any of the
prohibitions in the order.

Consistent with the terms of section 570(b) of the Act, the order does
not prohibit the entry into, performance of, or financing of most
contracts for the purchase or sale of goods, services, or technology. 
For purposes of the order, the term "resources" is broadly defined to
include such things as natural, agricultural, commercial, financial,
industrial, and human resources.  However, not-for-profit educational,
health, or other humanitarian programs or activities are not considered
to constitute economic development of resources located in Burma.  In
accordance with section 570(b), the prohibition on an
activity that constitutes a new investment applies if such activity is
undertaken pursuant to an agreement, or pursuant to the exercise of
rights under an agreement that is entered into with the Government of
Burma or a non-governmental entity in Burma, on or after the effective
date of the Executive order.

 My Administration will continue to consult and express our concerns
about developments in Burma with the Burmese authorities as well as
leaders of ASEAN, Japan, the European Union, and other countries having
major political, security, trading, and investment interests in Burma
and seek multilateral consensus to bring about democratic reform and
improve human rights in that country.  I have, accordingly, delegated to
the Secretary of State the responsibilities in this regard under section
570(c) and (d) of the Act.

 The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the  Secretary of
State, is authorized to issue regulations in  exercise of my authorities
under IEEPA and section 570(b) of the Act to implement this prohibition
on new investment. All Federal agencies are also directed to take
actions within their authority to carry out the provisions of the
Executive order.

 I have taken these steps in response to a deepening pattern of severe
repression by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) in
Burma. During the past 7 months, the SLORC has arrested and detained
large numbers of students and opposition supporters, sentenced dozens to
long-term imprisonment, and prevented the expression of political views
by the democratic opposition, including Aung San Suu Kyi and the
National League for Democracy (NLD).  It is my judgment that recent
actions by the regime in Rangoon constitute large-scale
repression of the democratic opposition committed by the Government of
Burma within the meaning of section 570(b) of the Act.

 The Burmese authorities also have committed serious abuses in their
recent military campaign against Burma's Karen minority, forcibly
conscripting civilians and compelling thousands to flee into Thailand. 
Moreover, Burma remains the world's leading producer of opium and
heroin, with official tolerance of drug trafficking and traffickers in
defiance of the views of the international community.

I believe that the actions and policies of the SLORC regime constitute
an extraordinary and unusual threat to the security and stability of the
region, and therefore to the national security and foreign policy of the
United States.

 It is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the
United States to seek an end to abuses of human rights in Burma and to
support efforts to achieve democratic reform. Progress on these issues
would promote regional peace and stability and would be in the
political, security, and economic interests of the United States.

The steps I take today demonstrate my Administration's resolve to
support the people of Burma, who made clear their commitment to human
rights and democracy in 1990 elections, the results of which the regime
chose to disregard.

I am also pleased to note that the Administration and the Congress speak
with one voice on this issue, as reflected in executive-legislative
cooperation in the enactment of section 570 of the Foreign Operations
Act.  I look forward to continued close consultation with the Congress
on efforts to promote human rights and democracy in Burma.

In conclusion, I emphasize that Burma's international isolation is not
an inevitability, and that the authorities in Rangoon retain the ability
to secure improvements in relations with the United States as well as
with the international community.  In this respect, I once again call on
the SLORC to lift restrictions on Aung San Suu Kyi and the political
opposition, to respect the rights of free expression, assembly, and
association, and to undertake a dialogue that includes leaders of the
NLD and the ethnic minorities and that deals with the political future
of Burma.

In the weeks and months to come, my Administration will continue to
monitor and assess action on these issues, paying careful attention to
the report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur appointed by the U.N. Human
Rights Commission and the report of the U.N. Secretary General on the
results of his good offices mandate.  Thus, I urge the regime in Rangoon
to cooperate fully with those two important U.N. initiatives on Burma.

I am enclosing a copy of the Executive order that I have issued.  The
order is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time, May 21, 1997.

       WILLIAM J. CLINTON

	THE WHITE HOUSE,
    	May 20, 1997.

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

REUTER: BURMESE REBEL LEADER ATTACKED IN THAI BORDER TOWN 
May 20, 1997

MAE HONG SON, Thailand, May 20 (Reuter) - A senior member of an ethnic rebel
group and his daughter were injured when a group of armed men said to be
Burmese soldiers attacked them in this town on the Burma border, rebel
sources said on Tuesday. 

They said Jealae Pawla, a senior official in the Karenni National Progress
Party (KNPP), and his 12-year-old daughter were wounded when the men fired
on their house late on Monday. 

The men sprayed the house, which had seven occupants, with M-16 and AK-47
rifles for about five minutes before retreating to the Burmese side of the
border, a rebel source said. 

Pawla, a minister of the prime minister's office of the KNPP, was wounded in
the arm. His daughter was listed in critical condition with stomach injuries. 

``Burmese soldiers were responsible for attacking the house,'' said Aung
Mya, the commander of the KNPP guerrillas who are now living in a refugee
camp in Thailand. 

A Thai army officer based on the border said it was not yet certain who was
responsible for the attack. 

``For the time being we still unable to say who was responsible for the
attack,'' Colonel Decha Satithangkul told reporters. 

The KNPP is a small rebel faction that has been fighting for greater
autonomy for their people from Rangoon. 

The KNPP signed a brief ceasefire agreement with the Burmese military
government in March 1995. But fighting resumed after the KNPP accused
Rangoon of violating the truce by sending thousands of troops into the areas
under KNPP control. 

After the fighting resumed, more than 10,000 Karenni fled Burma and sought
refuge in camps in Thailand. 

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

KYODO: JAPAN, THAILAND AGREE TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY IN BURMA
May 20, 1997

TOKYO, May 20 (Kyodo) - Japan and Thailand agreed Tuesday to cooperate on
promoting democracy in military-run Myanmar, Japanese officials said. 

Foreign Minister Yukihiko Ikeda told Thai Foreign Minister Prachuab
Chaiyasan that he hopes Myanmar's junta will take measures to allow
pro-democracy groups to take part in the process of drafting a new
constitution, Foreign Ministry officials said. 

Ikeda was quoted as telling Prachuab that the State Law and Order
Restoration Council (SLORC) should give more importance to the National
League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Peace
Prize laureate, because the NLD won the 1990 general election. The junta
refused to recognize the election results. 

Prachuab, who arrived here on a five-day visit earlier in the day, said
Thailand is seeking measures to create jobs in Myanmar in order to realize
its wish to repatriate some one million Myanmar nationals who are currently
working illegally in Thailand. 

On bilateral relations, Prachuab informed Ikeda of Thai Prime Minister
Chavalit Yongchaiyudh's plan to make an official visit to Japan in October,
according to the officials. 

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

REUTER: THAI PM SAYS URGED BURMA GENERALS TO EASE UP 
May 19, 1997 [abridged]
By Deborah Charles 

BANGKOK, May 19 (Reuter) - Thai Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh said on
Monday that during his recent visit to Burma he urged the country's ruling
generals to allow more freedom in the country. 

Chavalit said during his two-day visit to Rangoon, which ended on 
Saturday, he had discussions with Burma's prime minister, General Than 
Shwe, who is also head of the ruling State Law and Order Restoration 
Council (SLORC). 

``I told him that people want to see the Myanmar (Burmese) government 
slowly release freedoms,'' Chavalit said. ``I told him...release some 
freedoms, it's something all the world wants to see. I said people want 
to see something on human rights and freedoms.'' 

Chavalit, a general who has close ties to Burma's leaders dating back to 
his time as army chief, said Than Shwe listened but had no comment. 

Chavalit said he told Burmese leaders that Thailand supported Burma's
entry into ASEAN as soon as possible. 

Burma is due to join the regional organisation, which groups Brunei, 
Indonesia, Malayisa, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, 
sometime this year along with fellow observer nations Cambodia and Laos. 

``This year or next year, I don't know, it depends on the preparations,''
Chavalit said when asked when the three might be admitted. ``We want them to
join simultaneously... We want to accept them as soon as possible, the
sooner the better.'' 

Chavalit also reaffirmed ASEAN's policy of ``constructive engagement'' 
with Burma and said it would not get involved in the political affairs 
of its neighbour. 

He said he did not meet Suu Kyi during his visit because there was no 
reason to. 

``Why would I do that? It's none of my business,'' he said. ``I don't 
want to meet her. It wouldn't make any people happy.'' 

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

MOSCOW ITAR-TASS: MOSCOW RESPECTS ASEAN DECISION TO ADMIT BURMA AS MEMBER 
May 16, 1997
By Stanislav Bychkov

SINGAPORE, May 16 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia will "treat with respect" the
decision of the Association of South-East Asian Nations" (ASEAN) to admit
Myanmar to its ranks and is prepared to share its vision of the principles
of resolving international territorial problems, Russian deputy foreign
minister Grigoriy Karasin said here today.  He has arrived in Singapore to
attend consultations between the foreign ministries of the two countries.
"We understand the full importance of human rights", the deputy
minister told Itar-Tass, "but we are not supporters of lop-sided and
one-sided solutions or any kind of sanctions." The ASEAN, which embodies
Brunei, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the
Philippines, announced its decision to admit Myanmar together with Cambodia
and Laos this year.  The decision was critically taken in the United States
and a number of Western countries, which accuse the Myanmar authorities of
violating the human rights.
Washington imposed economic sanctions on Yangown [Rangoon] last month.
 According to Russian foreign ministry, "there is a need to work
profoundly, with a glance at the future and try to find out from a positive
point of view ways to influence the situation with the human rights."
The deputy minister also said that Moscow "is attentively watching the
development of the situation" around the disputed Spratly Archipelago in
the South China Sea.  Its islands and reefs are either fully or partly
claimed by Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia, China, Taiwan and the Philippines as
their own.
Lately conflicting situations have emerged between Vietnam and China,
the Philippines and China.  Grigoriy Karasin noted that the Russian foreign
ministry is "prepared, if need be, to share its vision of the principles of
resolving similar international disputes".  It has the experience "in this
sphere", he said.

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

KYODO: BURMA URGES JAPANESE INVESTMENT AMID U.S. SANCTIONS  
May 15, 1997

Tokyo, May 15 Kyodo -- Myanmar's [Burma's] top investment official
criticized the United States on Thursday for banning further investment in
his country and appealed for more direct investment from Japan. 
"It is hoped that Japan would make more direct investment in Myanmar," Brig.
Gen. Maung Maung told an international conference in Tokyo on the future of
Asia. 
The head of the Myanmar investment commission said Japan, which has been
urged by the U.S. to implement economic sanctions of its own against
Myanmar, has mostly restricted its investment to the pooling of resources
with other countries. 
Maung Maung's appeal to Japan is aimed at countering the impact of the
sanctions announced April 22 by U.S. President Bill Clinton in response to
what Washington calls "large-scale repression" by Myanmar's ruling junta. 
He said the sanctions "will have little impact on Myanmar's economy" despite
the fact that the U.S. has been its fourth largest investor after France,
Singapore and Thailand. 
The Clinton administration has vowed to press its Asian and European allies
to join it in isolating Myanmar's military regime. 
In the wake of the U.S. move, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said it is
"greatly concerned about the current situation in Myanmar" but that Japan is
"not contemplating imposing sanctions on Myanmar at the present time." 
Maung Maung said the U.S. action "smacks of hypocrisy and double standards"
and vowed that his government "will resist all pressure under the guise of
'democracy and human rights."' 
Maung Maung was apparently referring to the fact that the U.S. imposes
economic sanctions on relatively weak countries such as Myanmar and Cuba but
merely complains about abuses in larger and more strategically important
ones such as China and Indonesia. 
Washington has responded to such criticism by saying it has "consistent
principles and flexible tactics." 
Maung Maung said that since Myanmar's investment law was promulgated in
1988, approved foreign investment has climbed to 6.05 billion dollars. But
economists estimate only around half of planned projects have been implemented. 

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

WASHINGTON POST: THINKING GLOBALLY,PUNISHING  
LOCALLY:A SPECIAL REPORT ON LOCAL SANCTIONS WORKING  
May 16, 1997 
By Paul Blustein 
 
States, Cities Rush to Impose Their Own Sanctions, Angering Companies

and Foreign Affairs Experts 
 
Here is a multiple choice question. Foreign policy is made by: (A) the  
federal government; (B) state governments; (C) local governments. 
 
To people familiar with the Constitution, "A" might seem the obvious  
answer. But lately, "all of the above" looks like the correct response, in  
view of the rapid spread of economic sanctions imposed by state and local  
governments against foreign regimes they consider objectionable. 
 
This week, the New York City Council approved a ban on city government  
purchases from any company doing business in Burma because of human- 
rights abuses by the Burmese military government (which calls the country  
Myanmar). The bill is subject to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's signature. 
Meanwhile, the City Council's powerful speaker, Peter Vallone (D), also  
introduced a bill aimed at China and 14 other countries in which  
Christians are allegedly persecuted for their religious beliefs. That bill  
would prohibit the city from awarding contracts to companies that do  
business in those nations and would shift city funds out of banks doing  
business with offending regimes. 
 
The developments in New York marked a major escalation in a movement  
that has gone far beyond the "nuclear-free zones" passed years ago by  
Berkeley, Calif., Takoma Park, Md., and other relatively small  
jurisdictions. 
 
Massachusetts and San Francisco have banned official purchases from  
companies doing business in Burma, and similar bills are pending in  
several state legislatures, including those of California, Texas and  
Connecticut. 
 
The Massachusetts legislature is considering adding Indonesia to its list of  
countries that must be eschewed by companies doing business with the  
state. Rhode Island also is weighing an anti-Indonesia bill, and the  
Oakland, Calif., City Council is considering similar action against Nigeria. 
 
Such laws are raising alarm among foreign affairs experts and business  
lobbyists, who fear a crazy quilt of local legislation that will undermine the  
coherence of U.S. foreign policy and damage U.S. economic interests.  
"This is the democratization of foreign policy run amok," fumed Richard  
N. Haass, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution. 
 
The laws raise the specter of multinational companies being forced to make  
costly choices between giving up lucrative contracts with government  
agencies or forgoing business in some of the world's most promising  
markets. Some firms have pulled out of Burma in part because of local  
government sanctions.  While Burma is too poor to matter much to most 
multinationals, penalties aimed at fast-growing and large economies 
such as China or Indonesia could hurt them badly. 
 
Under Vallone's proposed bill, for example, if PepsiCo Inc.  doesn't stop  
conducting business in China, New York City would stop buying soft  
drinks from the company for its school cafeterias, Vallone said.  
 
"The City of New York has the fourth-largest [government]  budget in the  
country," Vallone said in a telephone interview. "So you're talking about a  
lot of money, and we're going to use what influence we have to try and  
correct an evil that we see going on." 
 
Vallone, who pointed out that similar local laws were passed during the  
last decade against the pro-apartheid regime in South Africa, said he was  
stirred to action by tales he heard about alleged persecution of Christians. 
 
"Our preliminary indication is that the PLA -- the [Chinese] People's  
Liberation Army -- as recently as last month was killing thousands of  
people," he said. Asked what incident he was talking about, Vallone  
corrected himself, saying, "In that case, it was hundreds of people." Aides  
later conceded that their boss "misspoke," though they cited several articles  
and congressional resolutions asserting that from three to eight Christian  
clergymen and evangelicals had been killed by Chinese authorities over the  
past year. A Chinese Embassy spokesman called Vallone's allegations  
"ridiculous" and said the nation's constitution guarantees freedom of  
religion. 
 
All this poses a multijurisdictional nightmare for business lobbyists. They  
already had their hands full trying to combat a growing tendency by  
Congress and the Clinton administration to use trade sanctions as  
punishment against various regimes. 
 
"We were very concerned about the proliferation of sanctions at the federal  
level," said Howard Lewis, vice president for trade at the National  
Association of Manufacturers, who argues that unilaterally cutting off U.S.  
economic ties with countries such as Burma simply causes the target nation  
to switch its trade to French, German or Japanese companies. "The fact 
that we're now beginning to see an explosion of sanctions at the state and  
local levels clearly underlines that this thing has just gone too far." 
 
But supporters of sanctions assert that states and cities have a perfect right  
to dispense their money as they see fit, and that they have a moral duty to  
act when Washington hangs back. 
 
"The real threat to effective foreign policy is not the 50 states," said Simon  
Billenness, an analyst at Franklin Research & Development Corp., a  
Boston investment firm that buys shares only in companies it deems  
socially responsible. "It's the Fortune 500." 
 
Many state and local governments are imposing sanctions -- or are  
considering them -- against foreign regimes they consider objectionable.  
The sanctions usually involve banning govern-ment purchases from  
companies that do business in the offending country. 
 
CALIFORNIA 
Sanctions against Burma: 
                         * Alameda County 
                         * Berkeley 
                         * Oakland 
                         * San Francisco 
                         * Santa Monica 
                         * State of California (pending) 
 
Sanctions against Nigeria: 
                         * Oakland (pending) 
 
COLORADO 
Sanctions against Burma: 
                         * Boulder 
                         *State of Colorado (pending) 
 
TEXAS 
Sanctions against Burma 
                         (pending) 
 
MICHIGAN 
Sanctions against Burma: 
 
                         * Ann Arbor 
 
WISCONSIN 
Sanctions against Burma: 
 
                         * Madison 
 
NORTH CAROLINA 
Sanctions against Burma: 
 
                         * Carrboro 
                         * Chapel Hill 
                         * State of North Carolina (pending) 
 
MASSACHUSETTS 
Sanctions against Burma;  
Sanctions against Indonesia (pending) 
 
NEW YORK CITY 
Sanctions pending against Burma and countries that allegedly persecute  
Christians (Including China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan ) 
 
RHODE ISLAND 
Sanctions against Burma, Indonesia (pending) 
 
CONNECTICUT 
Sanctions against Burma (pending) 
 
SOURCE: State and Municipal Sanctions Report 
 
****************************************************** 

THE NATION: SLORC MAKES BIG GAINS FROM HANDOVER OF LI
May 19, 1997

Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh would have us believe his two-day 
visit to Burma was a milestone that also won the return of fugitive drug 
kingpin Li Yun Chung.

Further, he wanted to demonstrate that his good personal relations with the
leaders of the State Law and Order Restoration Council are paying off in a
big way. 

The Slorc leaders understand the Thai mentality well. 

The government was in dire need of a public success after months of being
besieged by economic problems. 

For Burma, returning Li was like shooting two birds with one stone. 

First, Thai leaders would be happy to have him back; it was their
recklessness that allowed the alleged narco-trafficker to escape in the
first place. 

Better still, it also puts the onus on Thailand, which must now decide what
to do with Li, and relieves Rangoon of pressure from the US, which is
looking to extradite him on drug charges. 

Finally, the Slorc leaders wanted to send a message to Washington that it
needs them in its efforts to combat drug trafficking. 

They also used the occasion to stress the point that the total eradication
of narcotics is a national task in Burma. 

It was sweet retaliation for the Slorc leaders after the US slapped a ban on
new investment in Burma last month. 

It could also give Congress something to think about as it contemplates 
more sanctions against Slorc. 
 
One has to keep in mind, though, that Burma plays host to many famous 
drug kingpins, most notably Khun Sa, who is wanted by the US. 

That is not all. The handover of Li also serves as a classic example of how
the military leaders of Thailand and Burma collaborate and complete their
deals. Certainly, it brings into sharp focus the close relationship between
Army Commander-in-chief Gen Chetta Thanajaro and Slorc's First 
Secretary Khin Nyunt. 

The return of Li was arranged weeks before Chavalit's visit. Since it would
be the highlight of the trip, Burma was able to impose sanctions against the
accompanying press corps not to go out of its way to report on the
opposition, especially Aung San Suu Kyi. 

One small issue, however, escaped public scrutiny: the situation at Doi Lan
and Doi Huay Ha, where the armed forces of the two countries are 
confronting each other. 

Thailand's earlier request for both sides to withdraw from the disputed area
was turned down as the Burmese insisted that their positions in the areas
were correct. At the meeting in Rangoon, Slorc, however, agreed in 
principle to pull back its troops. This could be another potential flash point 
along the volatile border some time in the future. 

But the fact is, the leverage Thailand can apply against Burma on key 
issues has now been diminished. 

It would not be surprising if Burmese troops encroach on Thai territory to
flush out Karen rebels again in the future. In addition, repatriation of the
estimated 800,000 illegal Burmese workers in Thailand appears unlikely. 
For the time being, they are here to stay. (TN)

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

NEW LIGHT OF MYANMAR: ADRIFT AND WASHED ASHORE
May 9, 1997 [excerpts only]
by Po Yaygyan 
 
Those who value own country, own race, own culture and the traditions and
customs of own race are also the possessors of patriotism and nationalism.
Once a person comes to love own country, own race and own kith and kin one
comes to posses the virtue of safe-guarding own race. 
Those who cannot be true to one's own race and marry a foreigner, then they
tend to lack loyalty towards own race.  
The person who had turned one's own back on own native land and married a
foreigner in a foreign land and got adrift there and betrayed own race is
none other than Bogadaw Suu Kyi. The reason for omitting the first two words
from her name which are "Aung San" is because she is not 
worthy of them.  
Children are entitled to inherit money, riches and property from their
parents. The Bogadaw is not worthy to inherit the name of Bogyoke Aung San,
who was an anti- colonialist and architect of country's independence whom
the Myanmars greatly respected. Bogyoke Aung San was a person 
who fought the Englishman colonialists and regained Myanma's independence.
As for his daughter Suu Kyi she has bestowed her life and body to an
Englishman of colonial race and is making efforts to lose back Myanma's
independence.  
According to Myanma customary law and Myanma Dhamma Rules, a bad and evil
offspring shall not have the right to get inheritance from one's parents.
The Bogadaw has lost her right to inherit her father's name "Aung San".
According to English custom there is no reason to even call her Suu Kyi. She
should be called Daw Michael Aris or Mrs. Michael Aris.  
In what bad and evil manner did the Bogadaw behave to lose the right of
inheriting her father's name? The most simple answer is that in the plot to
assassinate her father, it was the Englishmen who pulled the strings from
behind the scene and provided assistance and it is because Suu Kyi had 
married an Englishman and given birth to two sons.  
In Myanmar community, Myanmar Buddhist law the children owe five obligations
towards their parents. The children must constantly serve the parents
according to these obligations without fail. Suu Kyi had left her mother in
Yangon and went and lived in the western country. She 
received assistance from her mother but she never served and waited upon
her. She did not serve and wait upon her mother and managed her mother's
affairs. She is a person who arrived only when her mother was about to die.  
She never lived in the manner of having the right to inherit from her parents.
The fifth obligation of the children towards their parents is to safeguard
own race. As for Suu Kyi, who is the daughter of no ordinary person but a 
National Leader, instead of preserving the race of her parents, the Myanmar
race which the father greatly loves, she destroyed it by mixing blood with
an Englishman.  
It is quite obvious that some people of the West bloc, organizations and
some journalists, who do not see correctly, do not say good and write good
about Myanmar Naing-Ngan, do not know that Suu Kyi is the spouse of an 
Englishman.  

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