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

The BurmaNet News - 6 March, 1998



------------------------------ BurmaNet -----------------------------
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BurmaNet News, 6 March, 1998
Issue #950

HEADLINES:
==========
World Activism Special

North America - 
BOSTON GLOBE: TRADE GROUP TO CHALLENGE MASS. LAW IN
REPORT: SOMERVILLE (MA) ENACTS 20TH BURMA LAW
REPORT: ARCO RECRUITERS "GREETED" BY UCLA FREE BURMA 
RP: BURMESE STUDENTS' CONFERENCE IN CANADA

Norway -
DVB OSLO: NORWEGIAN COMPANY CANCELS TRIP TO BURMA
NTB: MORE THAN 30 COMPANIES TRADE WITH BURMA
NTB: PRESIDENT OF EKORNES ASKS FOR CLEARER BURMA

Japan -
REPORT: ACTIVISTS VISIT FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO DECRY JAPAN'S
REPORT: PRO-DEMOCRACY ACTIVISTS INFORM GUESTS,

Yadana Pipeline -
BKK POST / OUTLOOK: TESTING TIMES
RAINFOREST RELIEF MEDIA RELEASE: UNOCAL PIPELINE

Announcement -
FREE BURMA COALITION: CHILD LABOUR FORUM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

BOSTON GLOBE: TRADE GROUP TO CHALLENGE MASS. LAW IN BURMA 
24 February, 1998 / page D06
by Theo Emery, Globe Correspondent

Will file lawsuit over targeting of firms doing business with nation

Raising the stakes of debate over unilateral sanctions, a trade group
representing a coalition of more than 600 major US corporations said
yesterday it plans to challenge Massachusetts over a first-in-the-nation
law targeting companies that invest in Burma. 

In a Feb. 4 memorandum to members of the USA Engage coalition, Frank D. 
Kittredge, president of National Foreign Trade Council, said the trade
council planned to file suit by March 30 challenging the constitutionality
of the Bay State law, which handicaps companies conducting business in
Burma that also compete for state contracts. 

"The current thinking is to file in two different jurisdictions," Kittredge
wrote to the 660-member USA Engage, an ad hoc coalition of business and
trade organizations that oppose federal, state, and local sanctions against
foreign governments. 

Kittredge also said in the memo - printed last week in the Arlington,
Va.-based trade policy newsletter Inside US Trade - that a second lawsuit,
as yet undetermined, will be filed possibly in April or May. That suit,
according to Inside US Trade, could target cities and counties outside of
Massachusetts that have similar laws sanctioning countries accused of human 
rights violations. 

USA Engage officials were not available to comment. 

There are more than 40 state, city, and county boycott laws sanctioning
countries such as China, Burma, and Nigeria, according to the nonprofit
Investor Responsibility Research Center. Twenty of those laws - including
an ordinance passed in Somerville two weeks ago - target Burma's governing 
junta. Sixteen other laws are pending, including a Massachusetts law aimed 
at the government of Indonesia. 

If the suit, which could cost NFTC $600,000 to $800,000, succeeds, it 
could deal a blow to human rights activists who see such laws as a weapon 
for punishing governments with poor human rights records. At the height 
of the antiapartheid movement, 71 state and local selective purchasing 
laws leveled sanctions against South Africa. 

While several laws targeting South Africa were challenged in the 1980s,
federal courts have never definitively ruled on the constitutionality of
such laws, according to Robert Stumberg, a Georgetown University law
professor who has analyzed the Burma law. 

 The Burma law, said Stumberg, is "just the tip of the iceberg."

"State and local governments are aware that the world economy is much more
integrated than it was. Their consumer choices will either help or hurt the
interests of democracy, and the economic or moral interests of state
taxpayers," said Stumberg. "This is pretty gray turf we're on here. It's
not black and white.''

Representative Byron Rushing, a Democrat from the South End and sponsor of
the law, said the National Foreign Trade Council is using Massachusetts as
a test site for sweeping such laws off the books nationally, and he
believes the effort will backfire. 

"The major concern we have is that this suit represents a new attitude on
the part of American corporations," said Rushing. "The signal that is going
to go out to human rights activists is that these corporations are not
going to work with people who are trying to restore human rights. I think
this is going to be a public relations nightmare for these companies."

Lawmakers passed the "selective purchasing" law in 1996 in response to
Burma's long history of human rights abuses and suppression of a
prodemocracy movement. Modeled on laws aimed at South Africa's former
apartheid system, the Commonwealth's Burma law was the first statewide
boycott law - and the largest - to penalize companies doing business in
Burma, also known as Myanmar, that compete for contracts with Bay State
agencies. 

Several major firms, including Apple Computer, Hewlett-Packard, and
Motorola, subsequently severed ties to the Southest Asian nation, citing
the law among their reasons. 

As the number of boycott laws have grown, so has opposition. 

Massachusetts has come under fire from members of the World Trade
Organization, who say the Burma law violates voluntary trade commitment
known as the General Procurement Agreement. Japan and the European Union 
have sought to form a WTO dispute panel to determine if the law violates 
the agreement. Earlier this month, Massachusetts lawmakers met with EU 
and British officials in Boston to discuss the conflict. 

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

REPORT: SOMERVILLE (MA) ENACTS 20TH BURMA LAW
13 February, 1998 

On February 12, Somerville, Massachusetts, became the 18th city and 20th
locality to enact a Burma selective purchasing law.

The Legislative Affairs Committee had planned to consider the ordinance on
February 12. However, since the committee lacked a quorum that night, the
ordinance went straight to the full Board of Aldermen who enacted the
ordinance on a vote of 10-4. The Alderman even went one step further and
voted not to revisit the ordinance.

Congratulations are due to two Somerville residents: Shalini Nataraj
<snataraj@xxxxxxxx> who testified in favor of the ordinance on February
12th and Rebecca Pearl <reb.pearl@xxxxxxxx> who organized the campaign 
from start to finish.

Simon Billenness, * for the New England Burma Roundtable *
Franklin Research & Development

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

REPORT: ARCO RECRUITERS "GREETED" BY UCLA FREE BURMA ACTIVISTS 
11 February, 1998

Recruiters for ARCO Corporation were "greeted" by Free Burma Activists at 
a Career Fair at UCLA today. The FBC activists distributed approximately 
100 "Free Burma, Boycott ARCO" leaflets and talked to many of the students 
who stopped at the ARCO table.

Many students were interested in finding out more about ARCO's involvement 
in Burma and many said that they would no longer be interested in working 
for ARCO. Eventually, at the urging of the ARCO recruiter, the FBC 
activists were escorted from the room by UCLA security.

Before leaving, however, the activists were able to learn of other events
which ARCO planned to attend.

As long as ARCO continues in its partnership with the murderous,
narco-regime in Burma, they can continue to expect to see FBC activists at
events like these.

Kevin Rudiger, Burma Forum, Los Angeles
Campaign for Corporate Withdrawal

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

RP: BURMESE STUDENTS' CONFERENCE IN CANADA
29 December, 1997
RangoonP@xxxxxxx

TORONTO - About 50 students who led democracy movements in Burma in 1988 
later left the country to seek international community to support the 
movements held the first student conference in Toronto from December 26 
to 29. The attendees discussed political situations in Burma after the 
regime renamed State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).

They also formed Burmese Students Democratic Organization (BSDO) and 
elected several student leaders.  A student leader Ko Tin Maung Htoo, 
one of the most vocal critics of the students against the regime, told 
the students in the conference that Burma under the present regime will 
be worsened. 

"However, everyone has to pay close attention to not only the SPDC but 
also UN and other officials who are dealing with the regime," he said.
"Some were confused by a remark of UN Secretary  Mr. Annan, in which he 
said he would encourage the regime to hold a new election in Burma," the
student leader said.

The regime held a free and fair election in 1990, and Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi's party, National League for Democracy, NLD, won 82% of the
parliamentary seats. But the regime refused to hand over power to the
elected representatives. 

Ko Tin Maung Htoo said that the UN Resolution on Burma indicates only to 
honor the 1990 election results and to hold dialogue with the democratic
forces, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi; Opposite to the resolution, Mr.
Annan's remark turned many questions. The student leader also warned that 
the present move of the SPDC was very strange, of which he said the regime 
might seek to install Indonesia model in Burma. 

"Whatever the SPDC does, only pressures will enforce the regime to enter
to the dialogue table," he said. 
 
Another student leader, Ko Toe Kyi, the longest time political prisoner
in Special Detention Center in Bangkok, Thailand, led the conference to 
adopt the organization's policies over the regime. He said, he preferred 
"total isolation" that the U.S. and Canada put on Burma. He emphasized 
the policy over Burma conducted by ASEAN, Australia, and EU.

"The Australian ruled "Benchmark" policy," he said. He said that the 
benchmark does not impact on the regime. "It means the Australian does 
not have a clear-cut policy on the regime," he said.

He said the ASEAN's policy of "constructive engagement" toward Burma has
nothing to do with restoration of democracy in Burma.

"The ASEAN is only exploiting our natural resources by doing business with
the present regime," he said. He said, " EU does not have a strong policy;
therefore, the isolation is the most powerful weapon  to change Burma, and 
the students must cooperate with the Canadian and American governments," 
Ko Toe Kyi urged.

Ko Toe Kyi also wants the organization carry on 1980s South Africa model. 

The conference was successfully ended on Dec. 29, and the students
elected Ko Tun Shwe as a chairman, Ko Yin Naing as vice-chairman, Ko 
Toe Kyi as a general secretary, and Ko Tin Maung Htoo as a secretary. 
Their headquarter is going to be set in Toronto. The BSDO will launch 
political campaigns in Canada soon, and it will also encourage the 
Canadian government to implement its idea of setting "a contact group" 
by international community.

Rangoon Post

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

DVB OSLO: NORWEGIAN COMPANY CANCELS TRIP TO BURMA
26 February, 1998 [translated from Burmese]

Bangkok/Oslo (NTB): The Kongsberg-group has made a u-turn and will 
not be taking part in a fair in dictatorship-state Burma after all. 
Both the Norwegian prime minister and the minister of trade advised 
the partly state-owned enterprise to cancel its participation.

Kongsberg Simrad planned to participate in a fair in Burma at the end 
of this month. Last Tuesday (17.02.98) the management changed their 
decision, but are still waiting for the government to make their view of 
trade with Burma clear. Trade with Burma is not yet illegal, but the 
government is advising Norwegian enterprises against.

MUST MAKE THEIR VIEW CLEAR
"We have understood that this is an important issue for the Norwegian
government, so we have decided not to participate. We urge, however, 
the government to clarify its point of view, so the Norwegian enterprises,
at all times know which rules to relate to," General Manager of the
Kongsberg-group, Mr. Jan T. Jørgensen, says to NTB. 

The Norwegian state is the largest owner of the Kongsberg-group. 
Mr. Jørgensen thinks it is difficult for an enterprise with widespread
international involvement to react "according to this type of news that
suddenly pops up." He promise however that the enterprise will act
according to Norwegian regulations and laws. In a meeting last Tuesday,
Minister of Trade, Mr. Lars Sponheim, met the management of the
Kongsberg-group, where he urged the enterprise not to take part in the
fair in Rangoon.
 	
"I made the management of the Kongsberg-group aware of the government's 
request to the Norwegian enterprises not to have any economical relations
with Burma. I expect them to follow our request," Sponheim says to NTB.

"The government has been clear about its attitude towards the military
regime in Burma, and we have asked Norwegian companies to keep away. 
That half of the company's shares is owned by the state, is no reason 
to listen extra poorly," says Mr. Sponheim.

NORWATCH
It was NorWatch, the "surveillance unit" of the environmentalist
organization the Future in Our Hands, who first exposed the 
participation of the Kongsberg-group in the Myanmar Oil & Gas 
Expo '98. The military hopes the fair will draw foreign investors 
to their country.

Kongsberg Simrad Pte. Ltd., an enterprise registered and operating in
Singapore, was to represent the state-owned Norwegian concern, and were
hoping for contracts.

"The Kongsberg group is an international company, and our business in
Singapore is responsible for marketing in Asia. We are already in the 
Asian market, and off course we want to participate in the Myanmar Oil 
& Gas Expo, General Manager in Kongsberg Maritime," Mr. Jan Erik 
Korssjøen, told NorWatch.

PROVOKING
Mr. Korssjøen had no hesitations about doing business in Burma, despite
Prime Minister Mr. Kjell Magne Bondevik's requests. "Let the politicians
deal with politics, and businessmen do business," the Kongsberg-manager 
said to NorWatch. It was Norwegian participation also in the 1996 oil 
fair in Burma. Kværner participated through their Malaysia-based company,
Kvaerner Process Systems Asia Pacific, but later they chose not to trade 
with Burma.

Shortly after, Norway's general consul to Burma, James Leander Nichols, 
was thrown in jail by the military regime. Two months later he died 
behind prison walls, after being tortured and denied vital medication.

THE ENGAGEMENT OF MR BONDEVIK
One of the first things Mr. Bondevik did after being elected Prime
Minister, was to put Burma on the Government's agenda. The Prime 
Minister repeated his predecessors request to Norwegian enterprises 
to stay away from dealing with the dictatorship. He also had a survey 
made, issued last week, which showed that 30 Norwegian companies trade
with Burma.

In an interview with NTB in Thailand last week, Bondevik said that a
Norwegian boycott of trade might be of current interest.

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

NTB: MORE THAN 30 COMPANIES TRADE WITH BURMA
12 February, 1998 [translated from Norwegian, slightly edited]
by Lars M. Hjorthol

OSLO -- Norway imports both wood products and clothes from Burma. 
Well-known furniture companies as well as clothing companies are 
on the list of companies that import from Burma. 

The Norwegian Directorate for Customs and Duties (Toll- og 
avgiftsdirektoratet) is publishing the list of Norwegian companies 
that deal with Burma, after first having refused both the Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Prime Minster access to 
such information. 

The Directorate has about 40 transactions on its list. Among the 
importers are clothing companies like Hennes & Mauritz, Kappahl, 
Adidas Norge, Intersport and several others. Ekornes (a leading 
furniture store), Lied Møbler and several other wood products 
companies are listed as importers of teak and other wood products. 

MODEST
The export from Norway to Burma is far more modest. Elsafe International 
in Trøndelag, Central Norway, sold armoured safes for NOK 1.1 million. 
In addition, the German company KG Rederei Roth is listed as an exporter 
from Norway to Burma without it being mentioned what the products were.

Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik asked for an overview last Fall of 
all Norwegian companies involved in Burma. The list was to be used to 
contact the firms directly in order to present Norway´s policy towards 
Burma, a country that Mr. Bondevik himself calls one of the worst 
military dictatorships in the world. 

But the Directorate for Customs and Duties and the Central Bureau of 
Statistics (SSB) refused to make such an overview, stating that such 
information was a business secret and part of the professional secrecy 
of the Customs Law. 

PROFESSIONAL SECRECY
The law department of the Ministry of Justice reviewed the refusal, and 
decided that information about which countries a company deals with is 
not such as to be covered by professional secrecy. At the same time, 
the Statistics Law allows SSB to keep the same information confidentially. 

"We have made note of the decision," says customs director Frida Nokken 
to NTB. The Directorate has now released the list. Mrs. Nokken does not 
believe the list will weaken the confidence of the companies to the capacity
of the directorate to deal confidentially with the many informations they
receive?. (the rest has been lost electronically) 

[NTB is a Norwegian news agency]

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

NTB: PRESIDENT OF EKORNES ASKS FOR CLEARER BURMA-RULES
12 February, 1998 [translated from Norwegian]

Ålesund (NTB): Its not enough to say "shame on you", President of 
Ekornes furniture company, Jens Petter Ekornes, says, while asking 
for more political courage and acting power in the Burma-issue. He 
believes that if it is wanted that Norway should not trade with Burma, 
the authorities should make sure a common set for rules are enforced 
for all companies. 

The Government has urged Norwegian companies to refrain from trading 
with the regime in Burma, but the president of the furniture producer 
Ekornes is somewhat sceptical to what he thinks are only half-made 
decisions, Sunnmørsposten writes. 

HAVE TO MAKE UP THEIR MIND
"As long as the authoroties don't put a formal ban on trade with for 
example Burma, it is difficult for industries and trades to relate to 
what the politicians say. Either they should make up their mind, or 
they should leave us alone. We have the right to demand a certain 
courage also from the people who make decisions in our country," Ekornes
tells the newspaper. 

"We can't decide about our competitors. But Bondevik (the Prime Minister) 
can, through a common united set of rules. But, having said that, I 
clearly see the point in having the industries to a certain degree 
supervise themselves in such matters. But it's not fair of the Prime 
Minister to expect that we should start all alone," he continues. 

A UNITED SET OF RULES
Ekornes point to the fact that it can be difficult for furniture 
producers to know where every single piece of wood comes from. But 
it's not necessarily an impossible task, he believes. 

"By prohibiting trade and demand certifications, we can decide exactly 
on the country of origin. But this demands a common set of rules that 
everybody has to follow," the furniture president says. 

Norway buys both wood products, furniture and clothes from Burma. 
Well-know companies are on the list of companies dealing with Burma. 
 
[NTB is a Norwegian news agency]

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

REPORT: ACTIVISTS VISIT FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO DECRY JAPAN'S RESUMPTION 
OF BURMA AID
4 March, 1998 

A group of pro-democracy activists visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
in Tokyo March 3 to protest Japan's plans to resume ODA to the Burmese
military junta.  The activists submitted a petition, signed by 13 groups 
and 34 individuals, opposing the decision and urging the Japanese government
to reconsider its plan to disburse ¥2.5 billion (about $20 million) to repair 
a runway at Mingaladon Airport in Rangoon. 

The group met with two officials from the Southeast Asia Development 
Section and one from the ODA Policy Section, who defended the Minstry's 
decision on the grounds that the loan is not new but previously approved 
aid and therefore not technically a "resumption."  The officials added that
they were also responding to complaints from All Nippon Airways and Japan
Airlines about the safety of the airport.  If an accident occurred because
of the runway's poor condition, they said, the Japanese government would be
responsible.  

The pro-democracy activists countered that the Foreign Ministry should 
abide by Japan's ODA policy charter, which states that aid should not 
support military regimes or governments which spend large amounts of 
their budgets to buy arms and that it should promote democracy. The 
current regime clearly fails to meet these criteria, the activists said. 
The ministry officials claimed that there was some progress toward 
democracy, although they failed to provide any evidence, and said they 
intend to disburse the loan before the end of May.  The activists argued 
that this ODA will benefit neither the Japanese nor Burmese people, nor 
will it encourage the military regime to engage in dialogue with Daw Aung 
San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition.

Pro-democracy activists plan to keep up the pressure on the Japanese
government by holding a demonstration in front of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs on March 13, Phone Maw Day.

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

REPORT: PRO-DEMOCRACY ACTIVISTS INFORM GUESTS, IRRITATE ORGANIZERS 
AT MYANMAR INVESTMENT PROMOTION SYMPOSIUM IN TOKYO
27 February, 1998

A small but enthusiastic group of pro-democracy activists scored a 
victory for free speech against fierce opposition when they leafletted
an investment promotion symposium organized by the Burmese Embassy on 
February 24 in Tokyo.

Six activists from Burma, Japan and the United States handed leaflets 
to participants bound for the "Symposium on Industrial Development and 
Reforms in Myanmar" as they entered the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and 
Industry building in Hibiya (see program below). The handouts, written 
into Japanese, expressed opposition to investment with the military regime 
and support for selective purchasing legislation and consumer boycotts 
against companies engaged in such investment.  (English version of 
text follows this article.)

Most of the approximately 100 symposium participants cheerfully accepted
the leaflets (it's their money at risk, after all), but its organizers 
were less enthusiastic. U Soe Win, the Burmese ambassador to Japan and 
one of the symposium's speakers, raised his hands in the air and refused 
to take a handout from the activists as he fled into the building, 
betraying either the military regime's fear of truth or its low level 
of literacy.

At the request of the Burmese Embassy, organizers barred the Burmese
correspondent for Radio Free Asia's Tokyo bureau from entering the
symposium, raising questions about the state of press freedom in Japan 
as well as in Burma.  The organizers also physically restrained an 
activist who tried to pass leaflets directly outside the symposium 
reception area inside the building.  When she refused to go quietly,
the organizers called half a dozen security guards to escort her 
outside the building.

Despite the obstructions, the activists were encouraged to learn from a
source inside the symposium that organizers began the meeting with an
announcement denying responsibility for the rogue handouts and disclaiming
any association with Burma Youth Volunteer Association and People's Forum 
on Burma.

The symposium, sponsored by the Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 
the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Sasakawa Peace 
Foundation, was the second of its kind. The first was held in Rangoon 
in November 1997.

The organizers plan to launch the "Japan-Myanmar CCI Business Cooperation
Committee" in Tokyo in March.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

[English text of handout]

February 24, 1998

To Guests of the Joint Symposium on Industrial Reforms and Development 
in Myanmar:

We respectfully remind you of the following:

* We support the government the Burmese people elected in 1990, 
led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy.

* We oppose the Burmese military junta and deplore your embrace of it.

* We support international sanctions against the military junta, including
selective purchasing legislation passed by the State of Massachusetts and
other U.S. localities, as well as consumer boycotts against companies doing
business with the military junta, as a means of pressuring the military
junta to engage in dialogue with Daw Suu and the NLD.

* We oppose efforts by Japanese companies to defy the will of American
voters by pressuring the World Trade Organization to rule against the
Massachusetts and similar legislation.

* We oppose efforts by Japanese companies to denigrate Daw Suu and 
the NLD and to prop up the military junta for the purpose of 
exploiting Burma's people and resources.

We vow to continue exercising our rights as citizens and consumers in
support of Daw Suu, the NLD and the Burmese people, and we will not 
rest until democracy and human rights are restored to Burma.

Burma Youth Volunteer Association
People's Forum on Burma

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

BKK POST / OUTLOOK: TESTING TIMES 
20 February, 1998 [feature]
by Atiya Achakulwisut

ENVIRONMENT: THE SUSPENSION OF THE NAM CHOAN DAM 10 YEARS AGO IS 
CONSIDERED A WATERSHED FROM WHICH THE THAI ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT 
FLOWS. FROM THAT VICTORIOUS MOMENT TO THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY
OVER THE YADANA GAS PIPELINE PROJECT, WHAT CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED 
TO ENVIRONMENTALISM IN THAILAND?

Five or six years ago, there was a saying that if a Thai finds
himself driving through a forest, he should turn back: he has
probably entered another country.

Obviously, environmental degradation in Thailand is no laughing
matter, especially when considering the hardship and pain of
people involved in the uphill struggle to stop it. A decade ago,
many opponents of the Nam Choan dam were beaten and arrested:
quite a few died as a result of conflicts over resource
utilisation and conservation.

In Kahchanaburi today, a small group of people is holding on to
what many view as a last ditch effort to halt the Yadana gas
pipeline's passage through the forest. Of course, the project
involves a very high cost, 46 billion baht to be exact. Yes, its
impacts both on the environment and public safety remain unclear.

The Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) has been steadfast in
not disclosing the production sharing agreement it has signed
with its Burmese partner, which specifies the benefits gained by
both parties. Whether Thailand will really benefit from the
project, therefore, remains doubtful.

Nevertheless, only a handful of people have come out to question
the project, and the protests in the forest have not attracted
participation from green activists or the public at large.

Although 62 non-governmental organisations and 16 conservation
groups are officially in a coalition to support the protest, the
sitin, led by local conservationist Phinan Chotiroseranee,
remains a lonely pursuit. Few people from the alliance really
have their boots on and are canvassing for support. Backing from
academics and the urban middle class has been scant until a
recent visit to the camp site led by Chiang Mai University
lecturer, Professor Nithi Eawsiwong.
     
The apparent slackness that prevails over the pipeline protest
stands in sharp contrast to the enthusiasm and widespread
involvement of the movement against the controversial Nam Choan
dam, also in Kanchanaburi, 10 years ago. In fact, most academics
and NGO representatives agree that the Nam Choan dam campaign
marked a new chapter- a breakthrough -in the modern green
movement in Thailand.

NAM CHOAN DAM CAMPAIGN

The brainchild of the Electricity Generating Authority of
Thailand (EGAT), the Nam Choan dam would have been the largest 
hydroelectric dam in the country. Planned to be built in the
Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary, the dam would have added
580 MW, or two percent, of electricity to the national generating
capacity. Its elongated reservoir, however, would have flooded an
area of about 200 square kilometres in the middle of the
biologically-diverse sanctuary -basically cutting it in two.

The disparate voices opposing the Nam Choan dam were gradually
consolidated in the early 1980s. They comprised local people in
Kanchanaburi province; civil servants, especially from the
forestry department; urban based students, academics and
non-governmental organisations including the Project for
Ecological Recovery and Wildlife Fund Thailand. The Nam Choan
debates were also extensively reported in the media, making
occasional front page headlines.

Philip Hirsch, author of The Political Ecology of Environment in
Thailand, wrote that the Nam Choan dam campaign "provided lessons
and a level of confidence for actors at various levels, but in
part the politics of environment have continued to reflect an
emerging political economy based on increasingly diverse and
fluid coalitions of interests, together with continued tensions
and opportunities arising from the incorporation-of peripheral
areas and their populations into national structures and
discourses." 

If the Nam Choan dam debate is really a watershed from which
environmentalism in Thailand flows, as agreed by
environmentalists, then the pipeline  campaign, which has
-galvanised less participation, may reflect changes in the
country's green movement- hailed as the strongest in the region.

After the Nam Choan dam was shelved 10 years. ago, the
environmental movement was considered a progressive force in
society. Today, however, questions are being asked whether the
movement has lived up to its promise.

Chainarong Sethachua, from Wildlife Fund Thailand, said that part
of the success of the Nam Choan dam campaign was due to the
historical importance of Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary in
Thai people's perception. 

"Thung Yai became known when military officers using army
helicopters and weapons to hunt crashed there, revealing their
wrongdoing. The event led to the popular uprising | on October
14, 1973. After that, Thung Yai  was somehow turned into a symbol
for conservation, something people would not allow to be
touched."

DIFFERENT TIMES, DIFFERENT ISSUES

While Nam Choan, as with many later dams, was strongly linked
with people's livelihood -the fear of flood, relocation and
earthquake -the Yadana gas pipeline appears to deal with a more
abstract struggle to protect a forest, which is common property.

Another distinction between the two projects is that Nam Choan
represented a local national disagreement, whereas the gas
pipeline involves conflicting interests on local, national and
international levels. The issues are further obscured by the fact
that information on many key points, particularly the main
contract between the PTT and its  Burmese partner, is not
available to the public. 
     
One thing that both campaigns have in common, however, is active
participation from local residents. According to Phinan
Chotiroseranee, an activist during the Nam Choan campaign and a
core member of the protest against the Yadana pipeline, Nam Choan
allowed people in the area much more time to get organised and
galvanise support.

"We knew about the Nam Choan dam project since they conducted the
first field survey, thanks to sympathetic officials in the
sanctuary. We had about seven years to get organised and fight
against the project. On the contrary, we heard about the pipeline
only one year before the construction began," Phinan said.

Although many people, including Premier Chuan Leekpai, dismiss
the anti-pipeline movement, saying it came too late, Phinan
disagrees.

"We are not slow to move. The problem is no one listens to us.
The PTT seems to be more powerful than the government. They
exerted much more power than EGAT, paving their way with money."

Phinan added that while the Nam Choan campaign inspired
confidence and happiness in her, the pipeline protest has brought
only heavy-heartedness. No harm was done to the environment in
Nam Choan, but here the damage is evident. The sound of chain
saws is hurtful, she said.

According to Witoon Permpongsachareon, director of Towards
Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliances (TERRA), a successful
environmental campaign must be based on popular support from
different levels of society. There should also be a division of
labour -a local network which alerts the public about
environmentally harmful projects, and academics and
non-governmental organisations to disseminate information and
convince people to take action.

Putting the right person in the right job is democratisation in
Witoon's view. And it was the key to Nam Choan's success. The
spirit of cooperation, however, is not easily duplicated.

This time, locals might have lit the green torch, but there seems
to be no-one to pass it on to. Boonsong Jansongrassamee, a
leading member of the Kanchanaburi Conservation Club, observed
that the Nam Choan campaign involved more outspoken academics and
government officials than the pipeline protest. ,,

Witoon acknowledged that the pipeline opponents' limited
coalition is a lesson that environmental groups and individuals
need to review and learn from. The green movement, loosely-allied
and case-specific as it is, has suffered from differences of
opinion on many key issues, including leadership, conservation
ideology and ways of working.

The dissent widened in debates on community forests. One faction,
led by the Thammanart Foundation and other wildlife conservation
groups, believed that the best way to preserve the forest is to
keep it off-limits to humans.

The other faction, led by human rights and rural development
organisations, argued that forest can be managed for uses that
will sustain both the ecology and human needs. Co-existence, they
argued, is a source of invaluable knowledge such as that of
medicinal herbs.

NEED FOR BROADER SUPPORT

Witoon observed that one of the weaknesses of the gas pipeline
campaign is that too much importance is placed on individual
leaders so that there is little room for other people to become
involved -for example, town-based locals in Kanchanaburi or
environmental organisations that may have widened the discussion
on the project's pros and cons.

Anek Nakabutara, director of the Local Development Institute,
said that when dealing with a multilevel and complicated conflict
of interest like that of the gas pipeline, an impartial public
forum would help  bring information into the open. In the absence
of such a forum, supporters and opponents of the project,
therefore, are compelled by the situation to confront each other.

"So far, there have been only forums that deepen the divide. Both
sides are deeper in animosity, like two boxers engaged in a fist
fight. There is just no room for those who would like to know
what is going on and why."

The polarisation, Anek added, vicariously forces organisations or
individuals who want to take part in the pipeline debate to take
sides. Many of them, thus, hesitate to join the protest because
they think the issues at hand are too complex for premature
partisanship.

Prof Nithi Eawsiwong, an architect of the ongoing public hearing
on the pipeline, agreed that the issue was framed in a narrow and
confrontational way-one side to go on building it and the other
to try to stop it - which deters the public from learning about
other, more important things.

"Many times, when there are conflicts about large-scale projects,
they are framed in a conservation-versus-development way. People
who stand up to oppose these grand schemes are branded
anti-development.

"Most environmental issues, the Pak Moon dam for example, are
reduced to a take-it-or-leave-it dilemma No dam, no electricity,
which was not entirely the case. There are options, information
and implications that the whole society has to learn about in
order to rethink and decide what is crucial for the community and
nation.

"In this light, the result of the hearing, whether the pipeline
will be stopped or re-routed, is not as important as the process
of tabling all the information for the public to know. The
society must receive something back from this. If we have to lose
all  the trees and forest, and the society remains as ignorant as
ever, that is sad and dangerous," Prof Nithi said. 
     
Conflicts over large-scale  projects will only increase in the
future. Likewise, competition to win support from different
echelons of society will only be more intense as seen in the
PTT's pro-active approach and massive investment in public
relations. Under these circumstances, the media will play a key
role both in giving the necessary information and leading
people's opinions. Unfortunately, the media's reliance on
advertising make it an easy target for co-optation by big
businesses.

In this light, the green movement needs to readjust itself to the
new situation, remarked Prof Nithi. A public forum is much
needed. Unless we learn to settle these conflicts with knowledge
and participation, the society is bound to be belligerent, Prof
Nithi noted.

The pipeline campaign might have posed questions about the
homogeneity and continuity of the green movement. However, Prof
Nithi warned that a homogeneous movement is not necessarily a
successful one.

"An extremely homogeneous movement has its own merits and flaws.
Like a communist party, a highly uniform organisation  is prone
to rigidity and dominance. It is also easily coopted," Prof Nithi
remarked.

An ideal situation would be to recruit as many individuals and
groups as possible with diverse backgrounds. and interests onto
the green bandwagon. Witoon, however, warned that a lot of
differences within the movement need to be addressed first.

"The targets we set ourselves to achieve are not easy. Goodwill
is not enough. I have never doubted that people who have been
part of the environmental movement gave all their hearts.

"To maintain the momentum and continuity, however, the movement
must be more expansive, reaching out and engaging a variety of
people in the process: It is the only way we can succeed," Witoon
concluded. 

*************************************************************
               
RAINFOREST RELIEF MEDIA RELEASE: UNOCAL PIPELINE DESTROYING WILD 
ELEPHANT HABITAT
13 February, 1998

Thai Environmentalists Face Danger in Calling for New Impact Study

Bangkok, February 12, 1998 -- A coalition of Thai environmental groups 
has halted the construction of a controversial natural gas pipeline for 
the second time, after several herds totaling 50 wild elephants were 
driven from their habitat in lush forest by pipeline construction. 

The environmental groups have photographed and video-taped the elephants 
and are making this vivid, dramatic documentation available to the 
international press. Scores of activists are camping along the pipeline
route to stop the forest destruction, and thousands more attended a rally
in Bangkok on Feb. 1.  They are calling for a new environmental impact
study, since the previous study was rushed through against the wishes of
the Thai environmental board and without public scrutiny, and failed to
note the presence of some of the nation's last endangered Asian elephants
in the area. 

The $1.2 billion pipeline is a joint project of El Segundo-based Unocal,
Total of France, the military junta of Burma, and Thailand's Petroleum
Authority (PTT).  Influential voices in Thailand, including leading
academics and the Nation and Bangkok Post newspapers, question whether
the project is in Thai national interests, and whether the plunging Thai
economy still needs the gas.  The pipeline debate is widely seen as the
first test of Thailand's new commitment to transparency after the onset 
of the Asia financial crisis last July.

"There have been kidnap threats and threats of violence coming from
powerful sources" says Ms. Bhinand Jotiroseranee, a local leader of 
the protesting group "The Thai Army has moved 200 soldiers into the 
area, and the demonstrators fear that they will encourage a 
confrontation." 

Unocal, which has sold assets and jettisoned employees to finance 
its Asian expansion, has remained silent on the demonstrations. 
"Unocal's unwillingness to rein in its partners is part of a pattern 
of irresponsibility.  They are accountable for this environmental
destruction, and are showing disrespect to local people who have 
cherished elephants for centuries," says Ms. Bhinand. 

Thailand, once a land of endless forest, is now severely deforested.  
The rare pristine forest under threat is also home to the endangered 
Kitti bats, the smallest mammal on earth.  "Is this the image that 
Thailand wants to send the world?  Destroying forests and killing 
elephants? Abusing peaceful environmental demonstrators?" asks 
environmentalist Pam Wellner of the International Rivers Network.
She notes that activists are considering launching a tourism boycott 
against Thailand because of the pipeline debacle.

To get copies of the video and photographs of Thai wild elephants at risk
from the Unocal pipeline, contact Kanchanaburi Conservation Club at
pipob@xxxxxxxxxx, tel. +662-9506601-3 fax +662-5803711, or Pam Wellner,
International Rivers Network, 415-695-1956

RAINFOREST RELIEF 
Dedicated to the Conservation of the  
World's Rainforests
Email:  relief@xxxxxxx
Web:  www.envirolink.org/orgs/rainrelief

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

FREE BURMA COALITION: CHILD LABOUR FORUM
5 March, 1998 

The International Centre for Trade Union Rights, Australian National
Committee has organised a conference on child labour.

Speakers include representatives from Amnesty International, the ACTU, Mr
Peter Sams, Secretary of the NSW Trades and Labor Council and more.

Date:  	14th March 1998
Time: 	 8.30 AM  - 4.30 PM
Place:	 NSW Teachers Federation Auditorium
 	300 Sussex Street, Sydney 3000
Cost:	$50.00 employed, $20.00 unemployed. 

It would be great to have a large Burma contingent present.

Free Burma Coalition, Australia
Working for the:
National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma
Federation of Trade Unions, Burma
Australia Burma Council

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