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

Burmese press ridicules WB dialogue



Subject: Burmese press ridicules WB dialogue offer

HEADLINES
Drug list takes a political turn
Opposition policy units created
Rights awards stir hope for future
Burmese press ridicules WB dialogue offer
Vietnam's and Asean's stake in the summit
Parties decry 'Burma-style' arrests

News
Drug list takes a political turn
It is time for the annual battles over the US presidentís list of countries on
the drug trail to America. Each year at this time, national feelings get
bruised over what should be a straightforward and informative exercise. This
year, President Bill Clinton has produced a list of nations that is almost
free of controversy - but not quite. That is because of two countries which he
has left off the list, and why he did so. 
This year, there were 28 countries listed as drug-producing or drug-transit
nations. It is official US opinion that Thailand and 27 other countries are,
so far as can be determined, the source of significant amounts of illicit
drugs into the United States. America is the worldís largest user of illegal
narcotics. 
Each year since 1961, the president has listed where the drugs are coming
from. In fact, he is required by law to do so. The necessity has its roots in
the days of the Cold War. Many US congressmen were suspicious that the
administration was cosying up to governments that were less than savoury in
the name of fighting communism. Such governments ranged from next-door Mexico
to far-off Laos - a nation much on the mind of then-president John Kennedy. 
The annual list is supposed to be a clear and non-controversial tally of
countries where drugs are grown, manufactured or shipped. The president is
required to state, for each such country, that the government is - or is not -
committed to stopping such drug flows. America, of all nations, knows that a
government which is committed to fighting drugs still faces a major uphill
battle against drug traffickers. The US is home to major producers of almost
all drugs, barring heroin and cocaine. 
Many nations misunderstand this primary purpose of the list, either honestly
or for reasons of domestic politics. Last year, for example, Malaysia was
outraged to be named as a country where illegal drugs transit. For weeks, the
Malaysian government and press railed against the Americans for naming their
country. This is despite the fact that anyone who pays attention realises that
Malaysia is, in fact, a country through which illegal drugs pass. On top of
that, the country has a major drug-addiction problem with narcotics which are
smuggled into the country. 
Mr Clinton has removed Malaysia from this yearís list. He claimed to congress
there is no evidence that drugs smuggled through Malaysia affect the United
States ? they only affect Malaysia, Europe and Australia. US officials insist
Malaysia was not removed because it complained so loudly last year. 
One other country was removed from this yearís list. Mr Clinton said Iran is
no longer a major poppy-producing country thanks to government efforts. He
also said the large drug smuggling in and out of Iran, like that in Malaysia,
does not directly affect America. US officials insist Iran was not removed
because of a slow warming of relations between the two countries. 
If the annual list of countries involved in the drug trade is to have meaning,
it must be seen to be scrupulously honest. No one can doubt that the Malaysian
and Iranian governments are righteously opposed to drug traffickers. Both
countries have gone to great lengths to combat the sale, manufacture and
smuggling of drugs. 
But so has Thailand, Hong Kong and Taiwan, just to name three of the nations
on Mr Clintonís list. These three are lumped in with the likes of Burma, Haiti
and the Bahamas, where there is ample evidence of high-level corruption in
illicit narcotics. It is entirely fair to name Thailand as a country with a
drug problem. But then, so do Malaysia and Iran. If the US list is to have any
meaning, it must be trustworthy. Otherwise it would be fair to stop producing
it. 
BANGKOK POST - DEC 11, 98


Opposition policy units created
YANGON: The opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) has defied the
military government by announcing the formation of 10 separate policy groups
under its ``Committee Representing the Parliament''. 
The NLD, led by Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, said the sub-
committees would decide on a range of issues from finance, international
relations to social affairs. 
Ms Suu Kyi was named Secretary of Nationalities Affairs while NLD deputy
leader Tin Oo would lead a sub-committee on military affairs. 
The new groups are likely to provoke an angry response from the military
government, which has accused the NLD of trying to subvert the constitution by
setting up the committee. 
The NLD says the committee represents MPs elected at Myanmar's last democratic
elections in 1990. The NLD won that poll by an overwhelming margin but the
result was ignored by the military. 
The opposition party threatened in August to convene the parliament but the
military government responded with a swift crackdown, detaining many hundreds
of NLD members and representatives across the country. 
The military regime has launched a manhunt for seven Buddhist monks who
participated in an anti-government demonstration in Mandalay in November, a
monks group said. 
``Military intelligence agents are demanding that the abbots of monasteries
hand over the monks,'' the All Burma Young Monks Union said. 
A spokesman for the military government did not immediately respond to the
monk-union's allegations. 
The Buddhist group said the seven hunted monks were among some of the 300-400
who staged an anti-government protest in the central city, 560 kilometres
north of Yangon, on the evening of 23 November. 
HONG KONG STANDARD - DEC 12, 98


Rights awards stir hope for future
EDITORIAL: THOSE who believe in and accept the universality of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights would surely have been heartened by the five
special prizes awarded at the start of the special session of the United
Nations General Assembly in New York. 
The winners came from five countries _ the United States, Brazil, the Czech
Republic, Sri Lanka and Uganda. A quick look at a world map will reveal that
the winners were from five continents. They were all frontline activists
trying to foster a respect for and obedience to human rights by states and
peoples alike. 
These special awards made by the UN Secretary-General to mark the 50th
anniversary of the human rights declaration for outstanding work in human
rights show that somewhere in some continent people wish to expose and correct
injustices by governments towards their citizenry or by one group of people
towards another. 
That is what makes fundamental human rights universal. There is a basic
acceptance, irrespective of cultural, racial and religious differences that
certain values are common to mankind and hence universal. 
Admittedly there will be differences in emphasis, some societies underlining
the importance of the individual and others the common good. But whatever the
emphasis no civilised society can accept the arbitrary taking of life, the
torture of an individual or denial of fair trial. 
In recent times there have been attempts to play up the importance of economic
development over individual rights. However, even many of those Third World
countries that seem to incline to this view voted in 1986 for the UN
resolution which underlined the importance of human rights in development
itself. 
In short the UN, supported by developing countries, resolved that human rights
as set out in the declaration can help rather than retard the development
process. 
If mankind is to progress to greater levels of civilised behaviour all nations
should help convert the pious hopes in the declaration to universal truths. 
HONG KONG STANDARD - DEC 12, 98


Burmese press ridicules WB dialogue offer
RANGOON -- Burma's state-run newspapers said on Friday that the government
can't be bought off with a World Bank offer of US$1 billion in aid to open a
dialogue with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. 
Burma's military government has been officially silent on the offer, which was
revealed last month, but commentaries in the military-controlled press are
believed to reflect the thinking of at least some members of the government. 
''National objectives cannot be enticed and bought with the dollar,'' said a
commentary in the New Light of Myanmar. ''To obey such condition is beneath
one's dignity.'' 
The commentary questioned who would benefit from spending a billion dollars to
install ''the bogadaw,'' or the wife of a white alien, on the political stage.
Suu Kyi is married to a British academic, which the military rulers have said
disqualifies her from political office or becoming a national leader. 
US charge d'affaires in Rangoon Kent Wiedemann said on Voice of America radio
on Thursday that the US would help fund the World Bank assistance. 
The military has ruled Burma since 1962 during which time the resource-rich
country has become one of the world's poorest nations. 
The generals have adamantly refused to talk with Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Peace
Prize winner and leader of the country's embattled democracy movement. 
The only time they chose to meet her face to face was when they had her under
house arrest for six years from 1989-95. 
Suu Kyi's party won 82 per cent of the seats in parliament in a 1990 election
the military refused to honour. 
In an interview with the BBC to mark the 50th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Suu Kyi said ''every single article'' of the
declaration was being violated in her country. 
''The international community should recognise the fact that the present
regime in Burma is breaking every single article of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and they should take action in accordance with this
knowledge,'' she said. 
Asked if she still had popular support, she replied: ''If we don't have the
support of the Burmese people, why is it necessary to put our people in jail? 
''Why don't they just let them out? There's nothing we can do. If we don't
have the support of the people it doesn't matter how many of us are running
around, we'd be quite ineffectual. 
''The very fact that they are putting our people in jail and forcing them to
resign shows that they know very well that we have the support of the
people.'' 
She added that democracy workers in Burma realised that to work for human
rights meant living ''in fear and insecurity''. 
''I'm afraid that nothing comes free,'' she said. ''I've always been honest
with the people of Burma about that. 
''And if you want something that is valuable then you have to make payment
accordingly.'' 
As for herself, and the restrictions placed on her by the Burmese junta, Suu
Kyi said: ''I never think of myself as sacrificing myself. I am doing
something I believe in. 
''If you're doing something you believe in you do not have the right to say
I'm sacrificing myself. I think that's very, very presumptuous.'' 
She concluded: ''The tide of history is in favour of democracy, is in favour
of the rule of people. 
''I think the international community must think of a country as its people,
and the aspirations of its people. I think too many governments are inclined
to thing of a country in terms of its government.'' 
The BBC added that its reporter had been arrested, stripped and deported after
the interview. 
THE NATION - DEC 12, 98


EDITORIAL: Vietnam's and Asean's stake in the summit
THE solidarity of Asean at the most crucial juncture of its 32 years of
existence was founded on its members' concern over regional threats emanating
mainly from Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia between 1978 and 1991. 
Ironic as it may seem, this time around, Vietnam is also a catalyst but for
different reasons. On Monday, the leaders of Asean countries will converge on
Hanoi for their sixth meeting. They hope that the grouping can reinvent itself
to meet growing internal discords and external challenges. 
Vietnam is considered brave in volunteering to host this summit. When it was
certain that it would become a member of Asean back in 1995, Vietnam made the
overture to host the summit and consulted Brunei Darussalam, which was
supposed to host the sixth summit. 
After three years of membership, Vietnam is convening the most important
meeting in its modern history. Although the Francophone summit was held last
year, its political implications were considered to be of less significance
than the Asean summit. 
Vietnam has a very high stake in the summit. It also has multi-pronged tasks
to make this summit a successful and memorable one. First, Vietnam is eager to
demonstrate to Asean and the international community that its membership has
contributed to the strength and cohesiveness of the grouping. 
Secondly, the success of Asean would boost the legitimacy of the ruling
Communist Party, which has suffered setbacks of late due to the economic
slowdown and sluggish foreign investment. This year, the capital inflow from
outside has decreased by 40 per cent. 
Finally, Vietnam has a self-serving interest to keep its political and
societal system intact despite the ongoing economic reforms. A successful
summit will convince the region and the world at least that Vietnam's socio-
political reality is not an obstacle to fulfil its obligations under the Asean
framework. 
These objectives are attainable if Vietnam along with other Asean leaders are
willing to discuss frankly and openly. Leaders of Singapore, the Philippines,
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have already engaged in enhanced interactions
over the past several months. But such a habit has not been acquired by other
new members, including Laos and Burma. 
In order to do so, Vietnam must have an open mind. Hanoi's officials expected
at least 3,000 journalists from Asean and East Asia to register for coverage
of the event. With a large media presence, it would be difficult to keep
information on Vietnam wrapped up. Indeed, Vietnam can utilise this summit to
show off its successful economic reforms and current structural reforms. 
Failure to do so would further weaken Asean, which has lost its economic clout
since the financial meltdown hit the region last July. Can a closed society
advocate openness and transparency and rejuvenate Asean's economic recovery
and cooperation? Vietnam believes it can. That will help explain why Vietnam
has decided to take up the issue of enhanced interaction in order to define
its scope and limitation. It also played an active role in concretising the
Hanoi Plan of Action to be adopted at the summit. This is a good sign. 
Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai is going to Hanoi with a sense of mission to
instill the much-needed expression of unity among the Asean leaders. Unlike
the previous summit meetings, there are more new leaders, who have different
outlook and preferences, than ever before. 
Only in Asean, can one find the whole gamut of systems of government, ranging
from a sultanate with absolute power as in Brunei and an absolute totalitarian
regime in Burma, to semi-free countries as Laos, Vietnam to burgeoning
democracies as in Thailand and the Philippines. Whether this diversity is a
strength or a weakness would depend on the wisdom of the Asean leaders. 
If history is any judge, it is certain that the Asean leaders will choose the
most practical road to economic recovery and measures to fulfil the Asean 2020
vision of turning the grouping into an open and caring society. 
The Nation, DEC 12, 98



Parties decry 'Burma-style' arrests 

REUTERS 
Malaysian opposition parties yesterday denounced the arrest of four senior
opposition leaders for distributing pro-democracy pamphlets on UN Human Rights
Day. 
Three leaders of Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) (People's Party of Malaysia) and
a member of the Democratic Action Party (DAP) were freed on police bail early
yesterday after seven hours of questioning. 
The four were arrested on Thursday night in the southern city of Johor Baharu
for distributing party pamphlets promoting reform and protection of democracy.
"While welcoming the release, PRM strongly condemns the arrest," party
president Syed Husin Ali said. 
Parliamentary opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said the arrests of the four
leaders on Human Rights Day showed that Malaysia was "getting closer to the
human rights record of the Burmese military junta". 
"It is shocking that when the world is commemorating the 50th anniversary of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . . the Malaysian Government
should be arresting political activists for exercising the very fundamental
rights enshrined in the declaration - the right to freedom of expression and
peaceful assembly," he said. 
Mr Lim, who is secretary-general of the DAP, said the Government was "behaving
and conducting itself as if its hold on power is so fragile that it is even
frightened at the distribution of pamphlets".
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST - DEC 12, 98