News Related to Burma (r)

[nyeinchan@xxxxxxxxxxx]

(Bangkok Post)
June 11, 1997
Thai-Burma talks deadlocked

Third round of talks on river's course fail

Supamart Kasem 
Mae Sot


There was still no progress yesterday after the third round of talks 
between Thai and Burmese authorities to settle a border dispute over 
Burma's dredging of the Moei River opposite Mae Sot district.

Both sides refused to give ground over a change in the river's course 
near Wat Prathat Khok Chang Phuek in Tambon Tha Sai Luad.

Representing Thailand in the talks was Treaties and Legal Affairs 
Department Director-General Somboon Sa-ngiambutr. The Burmese team was 
headed by U Aye Lwin.

The two sides rejected each other's proposals for breaking the deadlock. 
Burma insisted that their dredging plan was correctly based on an aerial 
map and photographs taken in 1989.

Mr Somboon said the Burmese delegates came up with nothing new and just 
proposed their dredging plan to the Thai negotiators in the third round 
yesterday afternoon. Earlier, Burma had informed that its dredging plan 
would be based on an aerial map taken in 1994, but it later changed its 
mind.

Thai authorities could not accept Burma's latest proposal as the 
disputed area would expand from 150 rai to 300 rai.

"The expansion of the disputed area would create more trouble in the 
future. Hence, the Joint Border Committee of the two countries will hold 
another round of talks in Rangoon to settle the problem by the end of 
this month," said Mr Somboon.

Sources said the blame for the border dispute near Wat Prathat Khok 
Chang Phuek should fall squarely on a Thai investor wanting to build a 
10-million-dollar hotel and casino in the area.

The investor and his three Chinese business partners had met Burma's 
Hotel and Tourist Minister Lt Gen Kyaw Ba in Rangoon on May 11 this year 
to discuss the plan, added the source.

>From The Diplomatic Pouch

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Burma's entry to Asean 'is of strategic importance' 

When it comes to allowing Burma to join Asean Ambassador Reynaldo 
Arcilla says constructive engagement is necessary. And he says the West 
should not be so ready to criticise - it once dealt with the apartheid 
regime in South Africa before it was swept away. 

Ambassador to the Philippines H. E. Reynaldo O. Arcilla 


Myanmar's entry into Asean will most likely grab the headlines once 
again when the Asean Foreign Ministers hold their annual meeting next 
month in Kuala Lumpur to, inter alia, formalise the decision they took 
on May 31. 

Perhaps this is as good a time as any to express some of my personal 
views on the issue. The decision of the Asean foreign ministers to admit 
Myanmar is but a natural extension of Asean's policy of "constructive 
engagement" vis-a-vis that country, a policy much criticised by the 
United States and the European Union.

"Constructive engagement" was not invented by Asean. Some of those same 
countries from the West, which now criticise, did it. Their erstwhile 
advocacy of constructive engagement towards the now-defunct apartheid 
regime in South Africa is too recent to be overlooked and forgotten. 
Apartheid was an institutionalised mechanism for the suppression of 
human rights. It was so abhorrent and repulsive to man's conscience that 
the international community decided to suspend the racist regime's 
membership in the United Nations.

Certainly, the Myanmar of today cannot possibly be equated with what 
South Africa was before President Nelson Mandela.

As I said, the policy of constructive engagement is not new. When 
President Bill Clinton decided recently to again extend Most Favoured 
Nation (MFN) status to China, the very same China accused by the US of 
human rights violations, he said: "We're more likely to have a positive 
influence on China by engaging them than we are by trying to isolate 
them." Need one say more?

Will the admission of Myanmar bring problems to Asean? Maybe, but not in 
the way envisaged by those who do not agree with Asean's decision. As 
our Foreign Secretary, Domingo L. Siazon, Jr., said Myanmar, once 
admitted, will "probably realise there are certain norms that have to be 
met for a better world reflection of Asean."

I strongly disagree with the view that the Philippines' support for 
Myanmar's admission is inconsistent with our policy and record on human 
rights. The Philippines continues to adhere to the principle of 
inviolability of human rights - everywhere. We believe, however, that to 
promote and protect human rights in Myanmar, one must engage and 
persuade her officials and people, rather than isolate them. Besides, 
Myanmar's entry is not one-dimensional insofar as Asean is concerned. 
There are other strategic realities that had to be considered and I 
believe the wisdom of our decision will be borne out by our perception 
of those realities.

Thailand and the Philippines, as well as other members of Asean, have 
clearly manifested, with the group's decision, their solidarity and 
unity in protecting the member countries' strategic interests. It is 
important to remember that closer integration in Southeast Asia is 
achievable only through Asean. A larger and stronger Asean is imperative 
to the maintenance of peace and stability in the region. The voice of 10 
countries speaking in unison will definitely be louder and better heard.

Many have also challenged the wisdom of admitting Cambodia, Laos and 
Myanmar (CLM) into Asean at this time, citing the "backward" state of 
their economies. We in Asean say it would be worse to find a Southeast 
Asia divided into a prosperous Asean and a less developed non Asean CLM. 
Let us not forget that the European Union had, at different stages, 
accepted countries whose respective levels of economic development were 
below those of the original members.

The Asean decision has given CLM the prospect, otherwise and hitherto 
unavailable, of creating a more favourable economic and political 
environment for their people. When they join Afta, their people will 
gain greater access to consumer products and their markets will open to 
goods and services from other parts of the world. The investment flows 
will create jobs for their people.

I am hopeful that at the forthcoming Post-Ministerial Conferences (PMC) 
and other related meetings in July between Asean and its dialogue 
partners, the latter, or at least some of them, will look more 
positively at the Asean decision as an opportunity to conduct informal 
talks with the officials of Myanmar. I certainly think it would be a 
mistake if the United States were to shun these meetings, as speculated 
in some quarters. As the world's only superpower, the United States has 
a big stake in the region and for her to adopt a policy towards Myanmar 
that is apparently driven more by domestic considerations than by 
strategic interests, could be shortsighted. It should be remembered that 
no less than the American Chambers of Commerce in Hong Kong and 
Thailand; as well as former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, have 
voiced support for the policy of constructive engagement, noting that 
what is good for China should also work for Myanmar.

In two years, on the 14th of June 1999, the Philippines and Thailand 
will have the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic 
relations between them. Over the years, both countries have worked 
closely together and through joint efforts, established a special 
relationship that will stand the test of time. With a common vision, our 
leaders took part in the founding of Asean, now a vibrant and dynamic 
community of seven countries, playing a significant role in the 
promotion and maintenance of peace, security and economic prosperity in 
Southeast Asia.

We have strengthened cooperation in various fields, including 
agriculture, air services, tourism, education, scientific and technical 
matters, cultural exchanges and trade and investment. The Philippines 
and Thailand have endeavoured to attain a two-way trade volume of US$2.4 
billion by the year 2000. Today, trade between the two countries stands 
at US$1.18 billion. Over the last five years, total trade between them 
grew remarkably at an annual average of 40 percent.

Both countries have also agreed to further increase investments in each 
other's economies. (Thailand was the second biggest foreign investor in 
the Philippines in 1995.) Through concerted planning, we hope to 
accomplish this in the near future.

The Philippines looks forward to participating in the youth volunteers 
exchange programme proposed by Thailand to promote people-to-people 
contact. This is consistent with the proposal first enunciated by 
President Fidel V. Ramos during the 1996 Asia-Europe Summit Meeting 
(Asem) in Bangkok.

I served in Thailand from the late 1960s until the mid 1970s as a junior 
foreign service officer. What struck me most on my return as ambassador 
in mid-1995 was the transformation of Bangkok into a mega-city. Looking 
closely, however, one marvels at the way the country strikes a balance 
between the demands of a fast developing country and the preservation of 
tradition and a cultural heritage dearly embraced by Thais. Amidst the 
towering skyscrapers remain splendid monuments, temples and palaces, 
reminding everyone of the majesty of the country's early architecture.

The Thai people's innate respect for the country's rich traditions and 
historical past is coupled with a deep awareness of the challenges of 
the future. And with a dearly loved and highly revered monarch, His 
Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, whose benevolence and wisdom are 
admired the world over, there is no doubt they will successfully meet 
these challenges.

The Thais and the Filipinos have gone through painful experiences in 
their quest for democracy. Both, having achieved great strides in this 
respect, remain vigilant in their efforts to preserve and protect it. 
Let us hope our citizens will continue to enjoy the fruits of freedom 
and prosperity as we together traverse the path to closer cooperation.

(The Nation)
Academics, NGOs criticise policy on Burma 



YINDEE LERTCHAROENCHOK 

The Nation 

THAILAND's foreign policy towards Burma came under fire from Thai 
academics and non-government organisations (NGOs) yesterday for seeking 
to exploit its neighbour's economic potential while ignoring the lack of 
its political, social and human rights developments. 

They urged policymakers to review their stand on Burma and consider all 
aspects of the situation there. 

Public input on policies towards Burma should be allowed in view of the 
country's approach towards its Western neighbours, they said. 

However, the Thai side defended current policy, arguing that it is 
well-formulated and implemented on the basis of Thailand's national 
interests and security concerns. 

Deputy Army chief of staff Lt Gen Chokechai Hongthong and National 
Security Council chief Gen Boonsak Kamhaengrittirong said the Army's 
consistent engagement and close relations with the Burmese generals had 
earned the junta's trust in the Thai Army and had helped resolve mutual 
border problems, such as territorial claims, refugee issues and the 
illicit drug trade. 

During his term as defence minister, Prime Minister Gen Chavalit 
Yonghchaiyudh was the first to lift international sanctions on Burma. 

The critics countered that Burma's ruling State Law and Order 
Restoration Council (Slorc) is more comfortable dealing with their Thai 
military counterparts than the Thai government, the make up of which is 
inconsistent. 

These two contrasting views were prominent throughout a lively one-day 
seminar on ''Thai-Burmese Relations in the 21st Century" held yesterday. 
It was the first seminar organised by the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee's subcommittee on Thai-Burmese relations in the next century. 

The seven-member sub-committee, led by Democrat MP MR Sukhumbhand 
Paribatra, plans to submit its report to the government for future use 
in formulating Thailand's policy towards Burma. 

Sujit Boonbongkarn, dean of Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of 
Political Sciences, said fellow academics from the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) think that Burma's admission will weaken 
the economic grouping's credibility. 

With Burma on board, Asean's relations with its dialogue partners would 
be jeopardised when both sides meet during annual Asean regional forums 
and post ministerial meetings. 

Sujit said a bigger Asean, with 10 members, does not necessarily mean a 
better Asean, as it will be harder to reach a consensus on important 
issues affecting each country's national interests. 

Both Sujit and fellow Chulalongkorn University academic Gothom Arya, 
representing local human rights' group Forum Asia, were sceptical that 
Burma's admission would help overcome bilateral problems with Thailand. 

They said that apart from military relations, there is a need to promote 
contacts and ties in other areas of Thai and Burmese society including 
academics, religious figures, cultural troupes, social workers and the 
people. 

Invited to discuss the impression created abroad by Thailand's policy on 
Burma, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Surapong Jayanama said the 
international community is disappointed as Thailand's support for 
Burma's admission was based purely on economic concerns and neglected 
the country's democratic progress. 

Surapong said the rest of the world is also sceptical of Asean's 
argument that membership would help bring about political and human 
rights improvements in Burma, saying Slorc has, over the past five to 
six years, refused to introduce any democratic reforms or engage the 
democratic opposition in dialogue for the sake of national 
reconciliation. 

He added that in a broader perspective, having Burma in Asean does not 
help to resolve pending Thai-Burmese bilateral problems and on the 
contrary, Thailand's bargaining power will be further weakened. 

According to Charnvit Kasetsiri of Thammasat University's Faculty of 
Arts, political turmoil and human rights abuses in Burma have caused a 
massive influx of refugees into Thailand. 

Thailand will, in the long run, have to shoulder ''a heavy social cost" 
creating ''an explosive problem" as the illegal immigrants pose greater 
social and health-care burdens to the country, he said.

(Letter to the Nation)
Where's the news? 

The understatement of the week is one sentence from a report by the 
French news agency about a Thai policeman who was wounded and who killed 
two of nine illegal workers he tried to smuggle from Burma to Bangkok 
when his truck crashed after he fell asleep. 

First the report says that ''the seven surviving Burmese workers were 
taken to hospital for treatment and also arrested for being illegal 
immigrants". This line is followed by a journalistic masterpiece: 
''There was no immediate indication of legal action against the 
policeman" (who was also in the hospital). 

To further explain the Thai smile to the European public, this factual 
report from Bangkok winds up: ''A government programme to legalise 
foreign labourers on a temporary basis in certain sectors had registered 
only a few hundred thousand workers as Thai companies do not want to 
take responsibility for their whereabouts nor pay legal wages and 
benefits, researchers said. Illegal workers in the Thai capital receive 
as little as Bt700 baht per month." 

What surprised me was that I found nothing about this in The Nation. Did 
you run out of ink or are you already practising your bow to the new 
censor panel? 
Joe Argusoog 

BANGKOK


"THERE WILL BE NO REAL DEMOCRACY IF WE CAN'T GURANTEE THE RIGHTS OF THE 
MINORITY ETHNIC PEOPLE.  ONLY UNDERSTANDING THEIR SUFFERING AND HELPING 
THEM TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS WILL ASSIST PREVENTING FROM THE 
DISINTEGRATION AND THE SESESSION."  "WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THEIR 
STRENGTH, WE CAN'T TOPPLE THE SLORC AND BURMA WILL NEVER BE IN PEACE."



---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------