Seminar: Thai-Burma Trade Relations (r)

[carol@xxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Seminar: Thai-Burma Trade Relations and Progress Towards  Democracy in Burma

                ****************************************************
                THAI ACTION COMMITTEE FOR DEMOCRACY IN BURMA (TACDB)
                ****************************************************
                
                           Comments by U Tin Maung Win,
                Vice President of the Democratic Alliance of Burma, 
                        Presidum Member of the National Council, 
                        and Editor of New Era Journal, to the 
                                TACDB seminar on

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~

      ...Thai Burma Trade Relations and Progress Towards Democracy in Burma...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~

To the question 'should Thai companies be doing business with a miltiary
dictatorship that has one of the worst human rights records in the world
today?', some would say that it depends upon the situation. In my view, the
answer is clearly, without any qualifiers, "NO".

As one who was imprisoned by the military dictatorship for advocating
democracy in Burma, I can appeal to those who oppose SLORC on human rights
grounds alone. This is a terrible, terrorist regime which rules by fear.
There should be no Thai capital investment in Burma at this time.

As a businessman, I can also clearly state that the risks to long-term
capital far exceed even expected returns and therefore, again, the answer to
the question is "NO". The SLORC eceonomy is in a shambles. It's
infrastructure cannot support economic development. The leadership is
incompetent and corrupt, a situation in which Thailand has had some
experience. Sound business practise cannot be conducted under political
conditions where systematic corruption exists. To do business with a corrupt
regime, one, as a matter of course, becomes corrupt also.

There is growing consensus that business decisions should be made free from
moral judgements- that only 'the bottom line' matters. Before you adopt this
approach with Burma, you had better think again. In Burma, there are always
two bottom lines. There is a bottom line for the next quarterly earnings
statement. And, there is a very different bottom line for the following
quarter. 

If you buy stolen goods in Burma, the price is always cheap, so doing this
makes the bottom line look good. Next year, however, the owner of that
property will seek to make a legal claim against you and impose severe
sanctions upon you. Speaking further of  stolen goods, SLORC had no legal
authority to sell Thailand the teak logs of our national forests; it had no
authority to sell you fishing concessions; it had no authority to enter into
joint venture for building pipelines (supported by the military offensives
taken against the resdients living in the area); SLORC had no authority to
impose the burden of forced labor on tens of thousands of Burmese citizens
to meet the labor requiremnts of these joint ventures. Foreign businessmen
knew what was happenign in Burma. They have become, as a result, partners in
these crimes. And like SLORC, foreign business will be held accountable for
these crimes. "NO", Thai businesses should not be doing business with SLORC.

>From a national security standpoint, Thailand has not been well served by
the acts of a few wealthy Thai businessmen. There is evidence to suggest
that these businessmen have been able to convince Thai government officals
that unabounded greed and corruption can promote Thai national security. In
recent times we have seen Thai policy shift from being neutral or benignly
supportive of the Burmese pro-democracy movement, to one where they have
become close partners with the SLORC in their efforts aimed at the
destruction of every vestige of democratic opposition. In return, the way
has been paved for a few Thai businessmen to make enormous profits. Only a
fool, or and addict to near-term profit, would believe that SLORC could
every be a security buffer against China. SLORC is already a client of
China's. The only real, reliable buffer Thailand has had against aggression
from the west, was the presence of freedom fighters from the National
Democratic front along the western border. A few Thai businessmen were
instrumental in the destruction of that buffer. So, "NO", Thai companies
should not be doing business with SLORC.

Prior to the change in Thai policy that saw the government show support to,
and cooperate with the military regime in Rangoon, there was a flourishing
economy along the Thai-Burma border based on a large number of small
business enterprises. Thousands of family-owned shops and markets served the
needs of hundreds and thousands of Burmese citizens living across the
border. There was relative stability. Now, I suggest that you take a poll of
Thai merchants based along the border and ask if they are happy with the
effects of this shift in Thai policy. Their customer base has been
destroyed. Only a few wealthy investors are making a profit. Not only have
they been put out of business, they and their families have had to endure
armed attacks and plundering by SLORC forces. "NO", Thai companies should
not be doing business with SLORC because it damages the small Thai business
community along the Thai-Burma border. 

Foreign investors are keeping the military dictatorship in Rangoon in power.
It is that simple. Foreign investors are apying the Gererals bills. They are
giving the Generals an incentive to hold onto power. As long as SLORC
remains in power, there will be no economic or political stability. Only
when democracy is established will the borders be secure, long term
investments be secure, the refugee problem resolved, and real friendship
between Thailand and Burma be realized.

Only under a democratic government in Burma will we be able to begin to
seriously attack the drug problem there. Giving money and assistance for
counter-narcotic programmes in Burma today is like paying the fox to guard
the chickens house.

I want to quote Robert S. Gelbard, The United States Assistant Secretary of
State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, who wrote an
article in the Far Eastern Economic Review  in November 1996; "For the past
eight years the world's attention has been focused on the struggle for
Burma's people to gain a say in their future. A more fundamental problem is
the collapse of the rule of law. The lawlessness of authoritarian rule not
only harms dissidents; it results in the corruption and criminalisation of
the state, and entrenchment of the drug trade in Burma's poltiical and
economic life. From a drug control point of view, Burma's SLORC regime has
been part of the problem.".

Narcotics has been a key ingredient in the SLORC economy. It is the source
of millions and millions of dollars in hard currency which is laundered by
the SLORC. Doing business with SLORC is doing business with the 'front
office' of the Golden Triangle Drug Consortium. SLORC has brazenly used drug
trafficking money to finance projects that do little to improve the lot of
the Burmese people. Drug traffickers and their families are amoung the
leading backers of high profile infrastructure projects in Burma. They
launder their money with absolute impunity in banks controlled and
administered by the military junta. Burma's citizens and neighbours pay the
greatest price for SLORC defiance of this international problem.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, the argument raised today about business
investment in Burma creating a larger middle class within the coutnry, a
middle class that will call for recourse to democratic ways, is not relevant
to Burma at this stage. As you all know, politics and economics are
inter-related and inter-dependent. You cannot separate them. And without
political stability in Burma, whatever argument that you raise in defense of
Thai business in Burma, you will not be able to make a sound argument.

In conclusion, let me summarise my remarks. The answer to the question is "NO!".

Thankyou.

                                27th August, 1997, 
                                Bangkok, Thailand.
******************************************************
Thai Action Committee for Democracy in Burma (TACDB),
328 Phayathai Road,
Rajthevee,
Bangkok 10400,
THAILAND.

tel/fax:  (+662) 216 4463
email:	  carol@xxxxxxxxxx or tacdb@xxxxxxxxxx
******************************************************