The BurmaNet News: July 24, 1998 (p

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

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

The BurmaNet News: July 24, 1998
Issue #1056 (Part 2 of 2)

HEADLINES:
===========
(Part 1)
NCGUB: PM CONDEMNS BLOCKADE 
THE NATION: IF NOT A HANDSHAKE, WHAT? 
ABFSU: STATEMENT ON JUNTA ATTACK 
PORG: MYANMAR BARTERS TO BUY CRUDE 
THE NATION: THAIS DEFEND PROPOSAL 
(Part 2)
THE NATION: BLOODIED BUT STILL STANDING 
THE NATION: DECLARE VICTORY AND RETREAT 
BSGM: ASEAN URGED TO IMPLEMENT 
ANNOUNCEMENT: "DEMOCRACY TREES" COMMEMORATION 
ANNOUNCEMENT: RFA MATERIALS ON THE WEB
****************************************************************

THE NATION: BLOODIED BUT STILL STANDING 
23 July, 1998 By Walden Bello and Ehito Kimura

Despite the jostling from the big boys, Asean's programme of renewal is
dear. But, will Asean's member countries have the political will to follow
through on it, ask Walden Bello and Ehito Kimura.

When the Asean foreign ministers come together for their annual conference
in Manila this week, they will do so under vastly different circumstances
from those that surrounded their meeting in Kuala Lumpur last year.

For Asean is probably at the nadir of its 31-year history. Economics have
collapsed throughout the region. Indonesia and Thailand have lost the last
shred of their economic sovereignty, being under stabilisation programmes
that are strictly implemented and monitored by the International Monetary
Fund (IMF). Malaysia, long the government most critical of hegemonic
powers, is focused inward as it seeks to prevent its economy from
unraveling a la Thailand and Indonesia. And the Philippines, after
stumbling drunkenly toward the abyss for a year, is poised for a freefall.

There is, fortunately, a silver lining to Asean's time of troubles. The
organisation has stepped out of President Suharto's long shadow. For over
30 years, the disgraced Indonesian dictator called the shots in the
organisation. To shore up his regime, Suharto identified criticism of
Indonesia's lack of democracy and respect for human rights with
"intervention", and proceeded to enshrine "non-intervention" defined thus
as one of Asean's basic "principles". It was also Suharto who pushed Asean
to commit one of its worst blunders: admitting the Burmese junta as a
member in 1997.

Instead of non-intervention, Thailand, a democratic state, is now taking
the lead in articulating "flexible engagement", which would make criticism
of another government's policies on human rights and democracy a legitimate
enterprise. Even the weak-kneed Philippine foreign affairs secretary,
Domingo Siazon Jr, who allowed Suharto last year to manipulate the
Philippine government into taking a high-profile role in legitimising the
Burmese junta's entry into the regional body, is now talking flexible
engagement.

But the emergence of flexible engagement as an alternative principle of
Asean solidarity is the one bright spot in an otherwise bleak picture.

In Indonesia and Thailand, Washington is unashamedly using the IMF to push
its decade-long bilateral agenda of dismantling the trade and investment
barriers US goods and investments in Asean. Asean Free Trade Area (Afta),
which was designed to create a regional market benefiting mainly producers
and consumers in the area, has been rudely pushed to the side by an
IMF-directed trade and financial liberalisation programme that promotes the
interests principally of northern transnational corporations and banks.

What Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has characterised as the
"new colonialism" sweeping the region has implications for security and
diplomacy.

Washington is using Asean weakness not only to push its economic interests.
It is also taking advantage of the situation to promote its military and
political goals. It is not fortuitous that the United States is pressing
the Philippines hard at this time to pass the Visiting Forces Agreement
(VFA) that would pave the way for the re-entry of large numbers of US
troops into the country. It is also not surprising that the Americans are
also currently pushing Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia to conduct more
joint military exercises with US troops, allegedly "to improve their
security capabilities."

MAJOR IMPLICATIONS

The economic crisis has major implications for one of Asean's most
important projects, the Asean Regional Forum, which will begin its meetings
on June 28, after the Asean foreign ministers' meeting.

The ARF brings Asean's nine member countries together with about 10 other
Asia-Pacific countries for an annual dialogue on security issues.

The ARP has been principally an initiative of Asean, but for a number of
years, several governments, specifically South Korea, Japan, and the US,
have been chafing at Asean's leadership of the process. One can only expect
these countries to make use of the Asean's current disarray to dilute its
leading role.

The US, in particular, has been vocal about Asean's goal to make ARF the
multilateral arena for settling security and security-related disputes in
the Asia-Pacific. Washington's position has always been that the ARF should
simply be an adjunct to the US military presence, which it considers the
cornerstone of regional security. It is now expected to more aggressively
"put ARF in its place" at the coming meeting.

The Americans have also had a non-constructive attitude toward another
Asean initiative, the Asean Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ). By refusing
to be a signatory to the treaty, Washington has undermined it, giving an
excuse for China and other nuclear powers to also refrain from signing on.

One of Washington's priorities in the coming meeting is to shelve further
discussion of this institution, which it seas as potentially constraining
its ability to move its forces about at will in the Asia-Pacific.

In Asean's effort to construct a multi-lateral order for peace and
security, Japan is, unfortunately, no help at all. Its own economic
troubles have made Tokyo even more subservient to Washington. From Japan's
perspective, the US-Japan Security Treaty, not the ARF, is the axis of
Asia-Pacific security, and Tokyo is proposing its recent Access and
Cross-Servicing Agreement (Acsa) with Washington, which commits Japan to
logistical support of US military operations outside Japan, as a model for
other countries in the region, including the Philippines.

As for China, it has lately been more sympathetic to Asean's aims for the
ARF. Unfortunately, it continues to insist that its dispute with four Asean
countries over the Spratly Islands is not a subject for multilateral
discussion with Asean but a matter for bilateral resolution.

If there was any moment that Asean needed solidarity, it is now. As the old
saying goes, Asean countries must hang together or they will hang
separately tomorrow.

Fortunately, the elements of a programme that would counter the current
disarray and serve as the base for renewing and reinvigorating Asean are
clear.

First, on the economic front, the Asean countries must withdraw from their
programmes with the IMF, which have only worsened the regional financial
crisis. Breaking with the Fund does not mean being forced into a
go-it-alone strategy. The real alternative to the IMF is transborder
coordination of macroeconomic, trade, exchange rate, and foreign debt
repayment policies.

In addition, the Asean countries must push Japan to revive its proposal for
an "Asian Regional Fund", which would deploy the reserves of Japan, China,
Taiwan and other reserve-rich countries in defending the Asian currencies
against attacks by international speculators. The IMF would also serve as
an alternative source of emergency, debt and development financing to the IMF.

And, of course, Asean must also move to make Afta a reality as a base for
regional import substitution industrialisation that would eventually deepen
the region's industrial structure as well as buffer the region's producers
and consumers against the vagaries of international trade and capital flows.

Second, on the security front, Asean must defend its leadership role in the
ARF. It must freeze discussions of VFA's or Acsa's with the United States
and suspend military exercises with US troops. These activities only serve
to derail the ARF from its objective of being the key arena for the
resolution of security disputes.

Asean must strongly press India and Pakistan to give up their nuclear
weapons programmes. But it must also press the US and other nuclear powers
to sign the NFWZ as quickly as possible. Moreover, it cannot afford to be
hypocritical. It must advance the perspective that while the India-Pakistan
nuclear arms race is destabilising, only total nuclear disarmament led by
US and other massively armed nuclear powers will ultimately guarantee the
region and the world against nuclear war.

Pushing this economic and security agenda will be an uphill battle. Asean
is, however, likely to be more successful pushing a programme of
democratisation and human rights promotion, which would be largely directed
at its member countries.

Here, the priorities are clear: promoting flexible engagement instead of
non-intervention as the key Asean principle toward member states;
suspension of the Burmese junta until it makes serious moves to end its
repressive practices and democratises; fixing of a timetable toward early
elections in Indonesia; and an immediate resolution of the East Timor issue
on the principle of self-determination by the people of that tragic country.

The elements of Asean's programme of renewal are clear. The question is:
Will Asean's member countries have the political will to follow through on it?

(Walden Bello is professor of Public Administration and Sociology at the
University of the Philippines. He and Ehito Kimura are members of Focus on
the Global South which is one of the co-sponsors of the Asia-Pacific
Alternative Security Network Conference which takes place until Friday at
the Bayview Hotel. 

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

THE NATION: DECLARE VICTORY AND RETREAT 
23 July, 1998 By  Suthichai Yoon

Thai Talk

So, the trick did work. Thailand hurled in "flexible engagement" as the new
spirit of Asean -- and a few members got so scared that they instructed
their senior officials to slug it out. In Manila on Tuesday, they even had
an "intense discussion". And, encouragingly enough, the Asean senior
officials did fail to reach a consensus.

The initial objective -- to get member states to talk frankly about things
they don't agree upon -- had been achieved. It would have been a disastrous
beginning had the senior officials agreed on the proposed "flexible
engagement" concept in their first brainstorming session.

After all, if I get it right, Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan's idea was to
kick off frank talks about frankness among member nations. The whole grand
plan is for Asean members to abandon sweet-talking as an unshakeable
principle and start arguing, disagreeing and toughening it out like good
old mature and grownup people do.

If that's the real rationale behind this highly controversial idea, the
fact that the senior officials were involved in arguments whether it's an
appropriate practice or not was a very positive sign indeed. For one
things, it would once and for all disprove longstanding allegations from
ill-intentioned critics from the west that Asean is nothing but a club for
social gathering where members only pat one another on the back and avoid
at all costs any remarks that may sound remotely negatively.

Now, those detractors will have to take us more seriously. We will be
"engaging one another more flexibly" from now on. If they are confused as
to what that really means, that's their business. Asean will be embarking
on a path that will put them to shame because we will be adopting a
"heart-to-heart" approach.

"Constructive engagement" was just a temporary diplomatic cover. We weren't
quite sure what to do with Burma at the time. We had to find an explanation
as to why we didn't condemn the not-so-democratic system in a country that
was to become a member. But then, not every existing Asean member could
boast about being very respectful of the people's wishes in the first
place. The western hypocrites were putting pressure on us. We scurried for
the "non-interference" shelter and we insisted that it was our founding
principle.

For a while, we thought we could get away with just "engaging" our members
in a "constructive" way. It was a nice way of saying that we didn't want to
confront our friends on sensitive issues and if we had to say something
politically correct at home about our neighbours' misbehaviour (by our
standards, of course), we could always say that our remarks were meant to
be "constructive".

If our neighbours got angry over our comments, of course, we could always
say we didn't mean it that way. It was all a misunderstanding.

But then, Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia hit on a bright idea. He told a weekly
magazine (not his boss, the prime minister) that Asean was being too
"passive" with "constructive engagement". It carries no muscle, no teeth.
He suggested that the regional organisation should launch an offensive
along the line of "constructive intervention".

It wasn't exactly a bombshell because we in Asean would never admit to
being surprised by our friends -- because showing surprise would be
tantamount to offending your neighbours. You wouldn't dream of asking a
friend why he had made a certain remark without consulting you first.

You would pat him on the back and utter something like, "Well said, old
chap. That's a great statement." You would then turn to another Asean
friend whispering: "Did you hear that? What the hell did he mean?"

Nobody is quite sure what Anwar meant when he proposed that Asean should
start to "intervene" -- and do it in such a way that it could be
interpreted as "constructive".

But then, the disastrous haze from Indonesia was creating trouble in
Malaysia, Singapore and the southern part of Thailand -- and no one in
Asean had the guts or clout to "engage" Jakarta "constructively" enough to
do something about the worsening problem. Some of us in Asean cheered Anwar
on. We thought he would carry the burning torch and get Asean to
"intervene" rather than "engage".

We badly needed someone to force Asean to launch an offensive among
ourselves. The traditional defensive posture had given us a bad name -- and
we were all too afraid to scream and shout when some of our neighbours
weren't behaving very responsibly. The line between "domestic affairs" and
"regional issues" had blurred. If you don't put out the fire in your house,
it would very soon spread through the neighbourhood -- and if your friends
came charging in with fire distinguishers and engine into your home, you
can't really say the have "interfered" in your domestic problem.

But the Malaysian deputy premier didn't carry the "constructive
intervention" scheme very far. His proposal, true to the Asean style, was
simply not commented upon. It was as good as dead. And nobody had to fire a
single shot to kill that bright idea. But one could never suppress a great
idea.

Soon, Thailand caught the "tomyam kung disease" and the contagion spread
like wildfire. Nothing in Asean could be considered "domestic" anymore.
Perhaps, out of a sense of guilt for having caused all the trouble, the
Thai foreign ministry revived the concept of "constructive intervention" so
that every Asean member may feel free to blame another country, when their
own citizens start pointing accusing fingers at their respective
governments for the worsening economic ills.

Officially, the rationale for this proposal is to provide Asean member
countries with greater opportunities to become involved in issues occurring
in another member country. "Non-intervention", it was argued, was becoming
old-fashioned. And what's "constructive" about the ongoing regionwide
economic crisis? But again, in line with the good old Asean spirit, the
slogan was watered down to appease everybody: if the word "constructive"
was considered overused and ineffective, then "flexible" would offend
nobody. And if the time for "intervention" hasn't really arrived yet, then,
there is always the fallback position on "engagement".

"Flexible engagement" was probably debated intensely in Manila on Tuesday
but I suspect it will not be adopted. The ruse may have worked -- the
proposal got the senior officials to drop the old reservations and fight a
fierce verbal battle. In that sense, Thailand could claim an initial
success in luring other Asean members into an open debate about
differences. But "flexible engagement" is neither here nor there. If it's
flexible, it's not clear, not transparent and far from being principled. If
it's only "engagement", there can be no commitment.

Under the circumstances, there is no better way to save face, Asean style,
by declaring victory, however dubious it may be, and retreat.

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

BURMA SOLIDARITY GROUP MALAYSIA: ASEAN URGED TO IMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTIVE
INTERVENTION 
21 July, 1998

Burma Solidarity Group Malaysia (BSGM) 
C/o: 77, Jalan 20/9, 46300 Petaling Jaya. 
Tel/fax: 03-7739985 

YB Datuk Abdullah Badawi
Foreign Minister of Malaysia 
Foreign Ministry of Malaysia 
Wisma Putra, Kuala Lumpur.

21st  July, 1998

Your Excellency YB Datuk,

Re: ASEAN is urged to implement Constructive Intervention policy on Burma 

The Burma Solidarity Group of Malaysia urges the Malaysian government to
pursue the policy of 'Constructive Intervention' among member countries of
ASEAN, particularly on Burma among ASEAN member states. This idea was first
proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister, YAB Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim in
July, 1997.

The policy of Constructive Intervention proposed by YAB Dato' Seri Anwar
Ibrahim has received excellent response from those concerned with the
crisis on Burma. Thai Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan proposed a similar
approach "flexible engagement" last month.

After Burma's admission into ASEAN, the human rights situation in that
country has deteriorated tremendously. Almost all the universities in Burma
are still closed, the forced relocation of millions of people (in Shan,
Karenni, Karen and Rohingya) has exacerbated the food crisis there, more
than one million people slaved under forced labour condition,  and the
poverty and sufferings of the people have increased.

The serious economic mismanagement of the military has pushed the economy
to the edge of collapse. The consequences have spilled over into
neighbouring countries which are in a poor position to absorb the hundreds
of thousands of Burmese refugees and migrant workers. More disturbing still
is the millions of amphetamine tablets being produced by Burma every day.

On the democratic participation of people, the opposition party that won
the elections in 1990, National League for Democracy (NLD) continue to be
subjected to increasing attacks, including threats and physical attack
against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

Despite the military government's change of name from SLORC to SPDC, there
has been no change of policy toward the NLD, and the SPDC has no sincerity
to dialogue with NLD and ethnic minorities in order to solve the country's
problem. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been publicly threatened with death and
almost 80 elected MPs have been forced to stay within their district and
report to the authorities twice a day.

We are extremely concerned that if the regime does not engage in
constructive dialogue with the NLD leadership very soon and convene
Parliament by August 21, the political situation in Burma might be further
destabilized. The Burmese military junta, SPDC, should be made to
understand that the worsening Burmese political situation and the danger of
violence is a threat to ASEAN stability. We are of the opinion that any
instability in the region will affect efforts to achieve regional economic
recovery.  The possible instability of Burma will definitely undermine the
original objective of ASEAN, which is development, democracy and peace.

We sincerely hope that Malaysia can take a bold lead to call for
"constructive intervention" in Burma during the ASEAN ministerial meeting
in Manila on July 24-25, and to form a monitoring commission to monitor and
promote the advancement of the situation of democracy and human rights in
that country. We urge the Malaysian government can take a more decisive
stand on Burma for the sake of the betterment of democracy and the
livelihood of the suffering people in Burma.

Yours truly,

Mohd Shahrulazilan Said Coordinator of BSGM

The memorandum is endorsed by: 

1. Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) 
2. ALIRAN 
3. Community Development Centre (CDC) 
4. Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC) 
5. DAP Socialist Youth (DAPSY) 
6. DAP women 
7. Education and Research Association of Consumers E.R.A.
(Consumer) 
8. Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) 
9. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Malaysia 
10. Perak Consumers' Association (PCA) 
11. Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall  (SCAH) 
12. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) 
13. Tenaganita

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

ANNOUNCEMENT: "DEMOCRACY TREES" COMMEMORATION OF 8-8-88 
24 July, 1998 from <maje@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear World-wide friends of Burma,

Ten years ago, the people of Burma rose up in peaceful protest to demand
their full human rights and democracy. The military regime brutally
suppressed that campaign, but has never been able to destroy the
aspirations of the people of Burma. The high-water mark of the movement ten
years ago was the auspicious date of August 8th, 1988 (8/8/88); it was also
a date of massive killings of unarmed demonstrators by the military. This
year we are giving special attention to that date in August, to honor the
bravery of those cut down, and to show the strength of world-wide support
for the democracy movement that lives on in Burma.

As a commemoration on August 8th, 1998, we are asking that caring people
around the world come together to plant "democracy trees". On or near that
day, please plant a tree of any kind which is appropriate in your
environment. You may do this by yourself, or you may do this in a
ceremonial gathering with other people who care about Burma, human rights
and nature. If you plant the tree in a group, let everyone who wishes to
help shovel soil around the roots. You may sing a song, and send
wishes/prayers to the courageous people of Burma. People who participated
in the 88 movement may wish to share their experiences, and other people
can speak of their thoughts and hopes with the group.

We hope that you will participate in this simple action, which will add a
lasting "forest" that is useful and beautiful to our earth, to honor Burma.
This Burma "forest" in gardens, parks, university campuses, and other
locations all around the world will grow tall and majestic, just as the
democracy movement of Burma with its deep roots will grow stronger and
stronger to shelter all the people under its leafy branches.

For Freedom,

Project Maje, USA Kalayamitra Council, Thailand National Coalition
Government of the Union of Burma (Aus.) Australia Burma Council Burmese
Women's Union Free Burma: No Petro Dollars for SLORC Free Trade Unions of
Burma (Aus.) Burma Support Network Canadian Friends of Burma, Burma Action
Committee, USA

Tips for tree-planting:  Select a tree with healthy looking leaves.. Use a
plant appropriate for your area.. Avoid trees with badly tangled roots or
dead branches.. Loosen the roots.. Dig a hole that is twice as deep and
wide as the roots and place the dirt near the hole.. Put some of the loose
dirt in the bottom of the hole and add water to it.. Place the tree in the
hole with its roots spread out.. Slowly fill the hole with dirt and push
the dirt down gently. Build up some dirt around the tree in a ring to form
a "watering basin.". Gently water the tree by pouring water into the ring
around the base, and add mulch (loose crushed bark or leaf mixture) around
the base.. Water the new tree during the dry season. (tips from Friends of
Trees & Wetlands Conservancy) 

If you wish, send news of your 8/8 tree-planting activities to Project Maje
(maje@xxxxxxxxxxx). Please spread the word of this activity, and spread the
international forest of Burma's freedom. If you live in a place where a
tree-planting is not possible, "adopt" a smaller plant in honor of Burma
and take care of it in your home, or donate one to a hospital or school for
others to take care of.

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

ANNOUNCEMENT: RFA MATERIALS ON THE WEB 
24 July, 1998 from <burma@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Additional materials transcribed from Burmese broadcast (Radio Free Asia)
can be found at

http://www.yuyu.net/RFA/

As before you need to use Netscape Communicator 4.0 or later to view them
in Burmese.

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