The BurmaNet News: January 26, 1999

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

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

The BurmaNet News: January 26, 1999
Issue #1193

Noted in Passing: "If your organisation does convene a parliament and you were
one of those cooperating and giving voluntary service and we come in and
arrest
you. What will you do?" - SPDC "discussion" question put to NLD member (see
NLD
STATEMENT 11 - INTERVIEW Q&A) 

HEADLINES:
==========
FEER: PLAYING TO THE CROWD 
NLD: STATEMENT 11 - INTERVIEW Q&A 
ASIAN AGE: DRUG LORD KHUN SA BED RIDDEN 
SHAN STATE ARMY: STATEMENT 1/99 
REUTERS: THAIS EYE WATER FROM RIVERS IN MYANMAR 
TIME: US PULLS AWAY FROM NLD TO SHORE UP STABILITY 
FEER: GROWING PAINS 
****************************************************************

FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW: PLAYING TO THE CROWD
28 January, 1998  by Bertil Lintner

Is the Burmese military stepping up its pressure on Aung San Suu Kyi and her
opposition party, the National League for Democracy? Not according to its
official spokesmen, who are telling the world that the junta wants to
cooperate
with the NLD. But inside Burma, the official tone is radically different.
State
TV has started lambasting Suu Kyi as an "ogre," a "maggot," and worse. The
message to the Burmese people is clear: Stay away from Suu Kyi, who
deserves to
be deported, and from the NLD, which is likely to be banned.

The junta is doing its utmost to appear reasonable on the international front.
It has hired public-relations firms to soften its image in the West, and is
sending its suave new foreign minister to regional meetings. Win Aung, a
former
ambassador to Britain, Germany and Singapore, replaced Ohn Gyaw as foreign
minister in November. At a press conference in Rangoon in early January, Win
Aung said: "I hope that friendship and cooperation with the European Union and
its members and the United States could be regained as in previous years."

When Suu Kyi told members of her party on December 26 that she wouldn't allow
the junta to deport her, the authorities responded with an unusually
well-written English-language statement: "We hope the NLD will contribute in a
positive and meaningful way to achieve a better, fuller life ... and take a
more responsible, constructive attitude to-wards cooperation rather than
resorting to whimsical and symbolic gestures designed merely to attract
attention and create seasonal sensational headlines."

The. statement said the junta had no plans to deport Suu Kyi or ban the NLD.

Sensible? Yes, but the rhetoric meant for international consumption remains a
world apart from the vitriol fed to the Burmese public through the
military-control-led press and state TV. Inside Burma, Suu Kyi is described as
an "axe-handle of the neo--colonialists," "a maggot" and "a treasonous
element"
who deserves to be deported immediately.

The junta has also taken its intimidation campaign to the streets. Civil
servants have been sent on door-to-door missions to ask known NLD activists if
they still support Suu Kyi and are still party members. "If residents answer
affirmatively, the civil servants intimidate them, warning that the NLD
will be
outlawed very soon," says a Burmese source with links to the opposition.

Between October 16 and December 31 the military shut down 43 NLD offices,
according to opposition sources. Says a Western diplomat recently based in
Rangoon: "It's obvious that they are trying to isolate Suu Kyi by dismantling
her party locally." If they succeed, that could hurt more than any insult.

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

NLD: Statement NO: 11(1/99)
19 January, 1998  

Statement NO: 11(1/99)

1.  Sovereign power that vests in the people was transferred to their
representatives in multi-party democratic elections held in the month of May
1990. The National League for Democracy was given a whole hearted mandate by
the people.

2.  The responsibility of elected representatives to the Hluttaw (Parliament)
is to assemble together and deliberate on state matters for the welfare of the
country but this Hluttaw did not materialise so these representatives
endeavoured to convene a Pyuthu Hluttaw (People's parliament) as was their
bounden duty. The only response by the "holders of power", (the Military
Intelligence units) was to illegally and unjustly seize and incarcerate all
NLD
parliamentarians-elect, and organising committee members of the NLD starting
from the Central Committee right down to the level of the wards and villages,
and ordinary members. 

3.  Instead of admitting their illegal and unjustifiable actions, these
"holders of power" are falsely, shamelessly and deliberately claiming and
broadcasting that discussions are being held with these persons (whom they
have
incarcerated). "Discussion" is a word with a good connotation suggesting
future
benefit. Nothing of the sort is happening. 

4.  The following questions and answers bear witness to the fact that no such
"discussions" have taken place. Referring to the interrogation as discussions
is a falsehood.

Q. Are students going to the compound where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi  lives?
A. I have seen students, old men and women and children going there.

Q. When did students go there?
A. I did not say that I saw students go there. I am saying that all types of
people go there, whether they be students or not I do not know.

Q. When was that?
A. When Aunty (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi) was released from house arrest and
University Avenue was open to traffic.

Q. Did you see foreigners?
A.  Yes.

Q. Citizens from which country?
A. Don't know. Fair skinned, tall and well-built, red hair - these are the
characteristics of foreigners to me.

Q. Did you see American people go there?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear what they said? Did you see what they did?
A. I don't know this. This is not my business. This is the business of the
seniors.

Q. How many times did you see them come?
A. I can't remember. You should ask the MI unit that is posted at the gate.
They can only enter after being interrogated by them.

Q. What else did you all do in the compound-like political classes of course?
A. Not in the compound. We learnt English speaking and grammar in the
Divisional office.

Q. Did you attend?
A. Yes.

Q. So you will be talking to foreigners?
A. I could not even finish the course. I did not have time.

Q. What was the time period?
A. Five months. You (big brother) hold a degree. You must know how long one
has
to learn to be able to speak the language.

Q. Didn't you have reading groups and political study groups in the compound?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you attend?
A. Anyone could attend the reading groups. This was not the case with the
political studies.

Q. Why?
A. One from each township attended. Someone senior to me attended.

Q. Who attended from your township? What did they study?
A. I did not have to attend and I don't know who had to attend.

Q. Did not one of your friends attend and did she not tell you what she was
taught?
A. She did.

Q. What did she say?
A. It is the usual thing which we are always talking about. The benefits of
democracy and how to solve our economic problems in a democracy.

Q. Who were the leaders and the teachers?
A. I heard that Aunty led and taught them.

Q. Did you have discussions in the reading group?
A. Yes.

Q. Which book did you discuss?
A. The video- a short story included in a book " Crying strength and laughing
strength" written by Min Lu.

Q. Didn't you have general discussions in your reading groups?
A. NO. We were not permitted to discuss matters outside of those contained in
the prescribed book.

Q. What are the purpose of these reading groups? 
A. To obtain reading speed and extend our general knowledge.

Q. As far as you know what are the books discussed?
A. Min Lu's Crying Strength and Laughing Strength, Aung Thin's Interview,
Maung
Thaw Ka's poems. This is all I remember.

Q. Who headed the reading group?
A. Aunty and Uncle U Tin Oo.

Q. Were the books prescribed by them?
A. No. The choice was made by those attending.

Q. Did they teach you all?
A. After discussions they advised on points that were needed.

Q. Your organisation is saying that they will convene the Hluttaw. If you were
a parliamentarian-elect, do you think this is something that should be done or
shouldn't be done?
A. We voted for these representatives giving them the authority to do so. If
they do not, we will have to whip them into doing so.

Q. If you were Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, would you be doing this kind of work?
A. What king of work?

Q. Convening parliament.
A. I am not in a position to make this decision. I don't have the brains also.

Q. I am only asking a hypothetical question. Your answer can be a hypothetical
one.
A. Can I not stay without giving an answer?

Q. No.
A. Just as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi have the support of the majority, if I were in
her place I will have to do what the majority want me to do.

Q. Do you know that if a Hluttaw is convened it will be a contravention of the
law?
A. I am not an authority on law so I can not know if it contravene the laws or
not.

Q. If your organisation does convene a parliament and you were one of those
cooperating and giving voluntary service and we come in and arrest you. What
will you do?
A. Since I have joined an organisation in which I have complete confidence, I
can not shun any responsibility that is allotted to me.

Q. You will submit to arrest?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you think that it will be good if your organisation takes on the
administration?
A. It will be good. We do not want a government that shifts the blame from one
person to another when situations arise. We only want a government which will
be accountable and take responsibility for everything that happens.

Q. Do you think that the existing government will step down?
A. Ways and means will have to found to get the transfer. Every government
that
commits wrongs against the people will be opposed. Ours is not a personality
cult. Any person with a strong sense of empathy with the people will be
accepted.

Q. With what objective did you join the NLD?
A. I can not help it if by my speaking the truth you get angry. I saw with my
own eyes the shooting down of students on 8.8.88. They did not have as much as
a short pin with which to retaliate.

Q. Where did you see this? At which place?
A. At State High School No: 2 in Thingangyun. I am not just referring to the
fire hoses that were used on them and the way they were beaten with sticks.
Consequently, the NLD was formed and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi appeared on the
scene. Because I think that I can work for the good of the country I joined
the
NLD.

Q. What did you have to do?
A. I assisted in the organisational work for the elections. After winning the
elections there wasn't much to do. Only when Aunty was released we had work.

Q. What did you have to do?
A. I have already given the answer.

Q. Read the written record of your statement and put your signature to it.
A. Why did you write that students came into the compound and made contacts-
which I never stated?
(This was erased because they said that they would erase the parts I do not
like.) 
I did not say that we have discussed about all matters at the reading group-
Please erase that.

Q. We will erase that.
(Then she was asked to read the written statement and to sign on every page.)

Q. What are your views about the present government?
A. I have answered all the questions put to me and signed the statement. I
don't think any further questions are necessary.

Q. We ask because it is necessary. Please give a short answer.
A. My views are different from yours. If I say something that you do not like
you will be able to take action against me because you have the power now. I
can not speak.

Q. We give you our word that we will not record what you say.
A. I decline to answer.

Q. Please think about it.
Q. Have you finished thinking?
A. I will speak. The present government is restoring the pagodas and giving
alms to monks. They  seem to be drawing nearer to God and in time a change of
heart is possible. Even Ingulimala was reformed and became an Arahan when he
came face to face with Buddha. They too will change. It will be good if the
change comes about quickly.

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

ASIAN AGE: DRUGLORD KHUN SA BEDRIDDEN IN RANGOON 
25 January, 1999  

Bangkok: Former drugs warlord Khun Sa, one of the most notorious heroin
traffickers until his surrender to Burma's government, is ill, sources in
Burma
told AFP on Sunday.

Khun Sa who is wanted by US to be tried on drugs charges, is suffering from
diabetes and paralysis of his right arm and right leg, a source from the
insurgent Shan State Army said. The former warlord is also plagued by
rheumatism, high blood prusser and weak heart and his condition has been
deteriorating since December, the source said.

The report of Khun Sa's worsening health was confirmed by a source in Rangoon.

Khun Sa 64, has been living under the protection of Burma Military intelligent
since he cut a deal with the government more than two year ago.

His insurgent Mong Tai Army, which had fought a 20 year struggle for
independence, was disbanded, gave up its weapons and pledge to stop
manufacturing narcotics.

Factions of the Shan State Army have continued the battle for a separate
ethnic
Shan state with some splinter group of the MTA.

Shan State is on the edge of the Golden Triangle opium growing region which
includes parts of the Thailand and Laos as well as Burma. The SSA has
called on
US and Thailand to help it eradicate heroin production. Burma' government
reportedly agreed not to prosecute Khun Sa and to block any attempts to
extradite him. Official last year told AFP in Rangoon that he was being
debriefed.

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

SHAN STATES ARMY: STATEMENT 1/99
25 January, 1999

1. Successive Burmese military regimes, exploiting conditions in the Shan
States, made the Shan synonymous with drugs by cultivating and raising drug
lords. Their machinations had been successful in damaging the image of the
struggle of our people to restore their just rights. Consequently, efforts to
raise the awareness of the Shan issue were smothered by the world wide War on
Drugs campaigns.

2. Reality, however, totally rejects the appearance. Before Khun Sa's
surrender
in 1996 there were not more than six refineries in the MTA's controlled area
east of the Salween. But after the territory fell to the junta's forces after
Khun Sa's surrender, the number of refineries increased to no less than 16.
The
regime's long-standing policy giving a free hand to local commanders also only
helped to increase the farmers' production of opium.

3. The Shan States Army's fifth Guiding Principles is to resolve the drug
problem. Accordingly, on 1 September 1998, the SSA issued a statement
prohibiting production and dealings in drugs within its operational areas and
declaring cooperation with all organizations both at home and abroad in order
to bring the drug issue to successful conclusion.

The following shows what has been done since:

a. On 8 November 1998, Khunsang Tonhoong Column, commanded by Maj. Khamleng,
captured 5 drug smugglers (one dead) together with 5 packets of heroin, 4 M-22
automatic rifles and 1 walkie-talkie. They were transferred to the Thai
authorities on 11 November.

b. On 10 December 1998, the Column raided a laboratory at Huey Maitawng in
Mongton Township operated by two Chinese, Yang Tamo and Liu Zipeng. It had
been
in operation since Khun Sa's heydays. Chemicals and heroin yet to be unpacked
were seized and destroyed.

c. On 12 December, another refinery at Loikhu, Mongton Township, was
raided. 35
barrels of No. 3 liquid heroin, each barrel containing 30 liters of the said
drugs, were uncovered and destroyed together with the refinery.

d. On 21 December 1998, the Column raided Pang Surhtao, where the Burmese
garrison is headquartered, and arrested known lab operators and smugglers. Two
packets of heroin and more than 280,000 pills of amphetamines were also
seized,
which were put to the torch on 28 December. The event was witnessed by foreign
authorities and media.

4. SSA is resolved to continue the antidrug campaign until it is won. We
therefore look forward to cooperation with all the organizations concerned. We
would also wish to make clear once again that any drug activities in our
operational areas shall not be tolerated regardless of persons and
organizations.

5. As for concerned foreign agencies and organizations, both governmental and
non-governmental, we sincerely invite them to the Shan States to see how
things
really are and their root causes. It goes without saying that the SSA shall be
responsible for the security of the visitors. 6. Finally, we wish to reiterate
our determination to fight to a finish against drugs which have so long been a
menace to our people's struggle for peace, progress and prosperity.

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

REUTERS: THAIS EYE WATER FROM RIVERS IN MYANMAR 
23 January, 1999 

Bangkok may reconsider its 1995 plan to drain water from the Salween and Moei
rivers on the border, ahead of its projected water shortage

BANGKOK -- Thailand, bracing itself for its worst water shortage in decades,
said it plans to drain supplies from the Salween and Moei rivers which
demarcate its border with Myanmar.

The plan to drain 3.5 billion cu m of fresh water annually from the rivers was
initiated in 1995.

It was now being reconsidered by the Cabinet, said a government minister on
Thursday.

"The Cabinet is considering the project and I am optimistic that it will
materialise soon," Science, Technology & Environment Minister Suvit Khunkitti
said.

Talks would be held with the Myanmar government to ask if the country would
like to join in the water-draining project.

"At the moment we have only 3.7 billion cu m of water reserves in the Bhumibol
Dam, which is regarded as a crisis level," Mr Suvit said.

The Agriculture Ministry expects around 96,000 ha of dry-season rice-planting
area will be hit by the water shortage.

The ministry has also appealed to farmers to stop planting more dry-season
rice
which relies entirely on irrigation water.

Dry-season rice is planted from November to May.

The government has also asked Thais to cut down water usage and farmers to
diversify into crops that use less water than rice, such as corn and soya
bean.

Orange planters in Phathum Thani province, in the northern outskirts of
Bangkok, estimated that at least 70 per cent of their annual 350-million-tonne
yield would be damaged by the water shortage.

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

TIME: U.S. PULLS AWAY FROM NLD IN MOVE TO SHORE UP STABILITY IN MYANMAR 
22 January, 1999 

[Reader's Comment: Well informed sources in Washington, DC consider this
report
to be rubbish.  Hall is one of the more than 500 Congressional voices, is not
particularly engaged on the Burma issue, and there is no reason to believe
that
his "one man show" in any way reflects a change of policy in DC.  This is a
case of analysis worth about as much as you pay for it, which is nothing.  -
Larry Dohrs]

Summary

U.S. Representative Tony Hall, following a visit to Myanmar, said that Aung
San
Suu Kyi, leader of the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), should
not be able to veto humanitarian aid to Myanmar. Hall, a Democrat from Ohio,
made the statement in Thailand on January 17 after his visit to Myanmar where
he met separately with both the ruling State Peace and Development Council
(SPDC) secretary general Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt and Suu Kyi. Hall's
statements, which marginalizes Suu Kyi's role in influencing Myanmar's
international relations, signal a United States foreign policy initiative to
avoid further conflict in the region. In Myanmar, it would appear that, at
least for now, the U.S. is supporting stability over democracy.

Analysis

U.S. Representative Tony Hall visited Myanmar from January 11-14, and met with
both Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition National League for
Democracy (NLD), and Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt, secretary general of the
ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). Following the visit, Hall
spoke in Bangkok, where he called for increased worldwide humanitarian aid to
Myanmar. Hall also spoke of his meetings with Suu Kyi and Khin Nyunt. He said
Suu Kyi's opposition to foreign aid to Myanmar, which she says is just serving
to prop up the military junta, should not stop NGOs and other humanitarian aid
suppliers from operating in Myanmar. He further said that Khin Nyunt had
assured him that the SPDC was dealing gently with the opposition. Hall's
comments seem to indicate a shift in U.S. policy. The U.S., while not actually
endorsing the SPDC, is backing further away from Suu Kyi and the NLD. While
this seems contrary to U.S. foreign policy elsewhere, a closer examination
reveals the overriding reason for the shift, a desire for stability in the
area.

During the past year, tension between the NLD and the SPDC has been heating
up.
The SPDC has charged that the NLD is closely tied to ethnic rebels.

Hundreds of NLD members in the past few months have resigned, having been
pressured to do so by the ruling junta. In response, the NLD has filed suit
against the SPDC for having allegedly coerced its members to resign. Hall's
visit to Myanmar is a second attempt by the U.S. to broker negotiations
between
the two parties. It comes just a few months after a failed U.S.-backed UN
initiative to settle the dispute between the SPDC and the NLD in Myanmar by
offering World Bank funding in exchange for talks between the two groups. The
initiative was rejected soundly by Suu Kyi, who opposes all forms of foreign
aid to Myanmar until the SPDC hands over power to the NLD.

Well known for his support of humanitarian aid and human rights,
Representative
Hall, a Democrat from Ohio, favors such initiatives in such troubled countries
as Sudan, North Korea, and Indonesia. During the last year, he has visited
both
Sudan and North Korea to promote humanitarian aid and constructive engagement.
Hall is also close to President Bill Clinton, spiritually counseling the
President in recent months and joining him at a Washington D.C. soup
kitchen in
the President's first public appearance after his impeachment in December
1998.
His past pro-human rights and humanitarian record make Hall a prime tool for
the U.S. to announce such a startling change in policy.

Before going to Myanmar, Hall was already giving ground to the SPDC, saying,
"We will be talking not only about human rights, but I also want to give the
government of Burma a chance to talk about their concerns." He also downplayed
the effectiveness of sanctions in dealing with non-democratic regimes,
claiming
that sanctions almost always end up hurting the people they are trying to
protect. Of his meeting with Khin Nyunt, Hall quoted the general as saying,
"We
are gentle and lenient with the opposition."

Hall had fewer kind words describing his meeting with Suu Kyi. He said her
isolation had caused her to be out of touch with the real problems facing
Myanmar. In reference to her call for all humanitarian aid agencies to deal
with the NLD instead of the SPDC, he indicated that her demand had caused many
NGOs to leave the country rather that get mired in political turmoil.

Hall remarked that Suu Kyi should not have control over aid. He said, "I would
not say that she should have veto power at all, because once you start to do
that and you start to have a precedent then you are going to have problems in
other countries and that precedent should not be started in Burma."

While it may seem surprising that the U.S. would be supporting the military
junta in Myanmar over the oppressed, democratically elected opposition party,
democracy is not the only issue on the table. There are hotspots and potential
conflicts flaring up throughout Asia. China and the Philippines, North Korea,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia and Thailand are just a few. The U.S. is already
overextended militarily around the world, and has been dialing back its
involvement in Asian disputes. It does not want to see the situation in
Myanmar
get worse. Geographically, Myanmar controls the entrance to the Andaman
Sea, at
the mouth of the Straits of Malacca.

Myanmar also shares long borders with Thailand, China, and the India. It is
the
buffer between South Asia and the Indian subcontinent. As the back door to
Asia, it must remain, if not an ally of the U.S., then at least a stable
nation.

It is interesting to contrast this with the U.S. policy toward Malaysia, where
the U.S. backing of the reform movement is not politically but rather
economically motivated. With Malaysia trying to lead South Asia on an economic
path contrary to U.S. views, Vice President Al Gore stepped in and added fuel
to the reformasi fire. Myanmar, on the other hand, has little economic
significance for the U.S., and the current regime would never let the U.S. use
its country as a rear entrance into China, nevertheless it can serve as a
buffer between nations deemed more important to U.S. interests.

The U.S. has looked at the situation in Myanmar and has seen the regime
rapidly
dismantle the NLD. With the possible deportation of Suu Kyi not far away, the
U.S. must make a move. In the past, the U.S. offered moral condemnation of the
junta with little more than sanctions to reinforce its position. The U.S.
realizes that it cannot handle - let alone produce - any more destabilizing
factors in the region at this time, and with its confidence in Suu Kyi waning,
it has now made this overture to the SPDC. Should Myanmar decide to deport Suu
Kyi, the U.S. would quickly offer her asylum; but for now, we believe that the
U.S. will back off of Myanmar, so long as the country remains relatively
stable.

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

FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW: GROWING PAINS
28 January, 1999 by Bertil Lintner in Bangkok, with Shada Islam in Brussels
and
Faith Keenan in Hanoi.

Letting new members into an exclusive club can be a risky business. If the
newcomers don't learn to behave like the old boys, they can sully the
reputation of the entire group.

That's a lesson the six old boys of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
have been learning since admitting Vietnam in 1995, Laos and Burma in 1997,
and
Cambodia -- all but formally -- in December. Human rights, which haven't been
much of an issue through-out most of Asean's 31-year existence, are
increasingly taking centre stage in the organization's relations with the
West.
They are also causing tension among members themselves.

For now, it seems unlikely that those tensions will move beyond words, or that
the sanctions the United States and the European Union have levelled against
Burma will significantly affect trade with other members of the grouping.
Indeed, American and European business people are urging their governments not
to mix business and Politics. Still, it's clear that the human-rights issue is
a thorn in the side of Asean's relations with the West, and it's not going to
go away any time soon.

Burma is the biggest problem. It took months to negotiate the terms of its
participation in the Asia-Europe Meeting set for January 24-25 in Bangkok;
last-minute disagreements still threaten the talks. After 18 months of
difficult bargaining, diplomats finally agreed that the Burmese could
attend-provided they don't speak or fly their flag. The EU is also insisting
that the Burmese be identified on their name plates as "new members," a
condition some in Asean say is excessive. The wrangling has left at least one
Asian diplomat in Bangkok nostalgic for the days when Portuguese opposition to
Indonesia's annexation of East Timor was the only rough spot in otherwise
smooth relations between South-east Asia and Europe.

But more has changed in Asean than the group's membership. Political upheaval
in Indonesia has left that country in the throes of a difficult
transformation,
even if the fall of former President Suharto in May has opened the door to
democracy. The ouster and trial of Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's former deputy
prime minister and Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's heir apparent, has bred
political uncertainty. And the economic crisis has dulled the region's once-
sparkling image in the eyes of foreign investors; in the past, they had pushed
their governments to over-look its flaws. These changes have left dark clouds
over Asean's reputation as a zone of peace, stability and progress.

"Asean is no longer the same," says a Rangoon-based Asian diplomat. "It has
lost its edge, its sense of direction. And the Europeans don't feel as
comfortable as before with their relations with Asean." Europe, too, has
changed. The majority of EU governments are now in the hands of socialists or
social-democrats -- parties that have traditionally taken a tough stand on
human rights. Both Britain and Germany are publicly committed to a more
"ethical" foreign policy. At the same time, says a senior EU official in
Brussels, the Asian economic crisis has left Asean leaders "less arrogant"
when
discussing human rights, and more anxious to forge stronger trade and
investment ties.

The new political landscape has led some of Asean's movers and shakers,
including Thai Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan and Philippine Foreign Minister
Domingo Siazon, to openly question the association's once-sacrosanct policy of
non--interference in each other's affairs. Now, they argue, there is a place
for constructive criticism. These new leaders' views on human rights mirror
those held by the governments of Europe and the U.S.

The Asean old boys had thought that by letting Burma, Laos and Vietnam into
the
club they would be able to prod them into showing greater respect for human
rights. They were wrong. Western and Asian diplomats say they have seen few
signs of improvement in the new member countries.

The situation in Burma remains bleak. On November 9, the human rights
committee
of the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution deploring the
country's "continuing extra-judicial and arbitrary executions, rape, torture,
inhuman treatment, mass arrests, forced labour" and forced relocation.

Carrots seem to have had no more effect than sticks. Rangoon-based ambassadors
from Britain, the U.S., Australia, Japan and the Philippines met with senior
officials from the U.S. State Department in October in Kent, England, to
discuss the Burmese situation. Press reports said the participants recommended
that the World Bank and the UN offer the junta a $1 billion financial- and
humanitarian- aid package in return for a government promise to open a
dialogue
with the country's democratic opposition.

Sources close to the conference say the discussions were much more vague: "The
general concept of a carrot and a stick was discussed," says one of the
sources. "But at this stage, no one wants to commit any large sums of money to
a government that has shown no sign of willingness to compromise with its
opponents."

Either way, Burma was having none of it. Shortly after the meeting, a curt
message-from an e-mail address that spokes-men for the junta often
use-appeared
on an Internet discussion group on Burma.

The message stated that there would be no "pride and nationalism" left in
Burma
if it accepted such a deal.

Laos, which also joined Asean in 1997, has proved less of a headache for the
group. But the Lao government's record on human rights remains problematic. In
mid-February 1998, Thongsuk Saysangkhi, a prominent political prisoner,
died in
a remote prison camp in Houa Phanh near the Vietnamese border. According to
Amnesty International, Thongsuk had been held in "a dark solitary-confinement
cell" since his arrest in 1990. His cell was adjacent to those of two other
dissidents arrested at the same time. The three were imprisoned for attempting
to set up a social-democratic club in Laos.

The men were no ordinary rabble-rousers. Thongsuk was a former deputy minister
of science and technology. The others were Latsami Khamphoui, a former
communist-party cadre and erstwhile chairman of the Association of Lao
Students
in Vietnam, and Feng Sakchittaphong, who once worked for the foreign-relations
council of the party's central committee.

Thongsuk's death, which followed his family's appeals to a number of Western
embassies for help in securing his release, angered diplomats in Vientiane.
"His, and his two companions', only crime was that they disagreed with
official
policies," says a Vientiane-based Western diplomat. "They had done nothing
more
than advocating peaceful political and economic change."

In Vietnam, human-rights advocates are generally pleased with the government's
increasingly generous amnesty programme for prisoners. Last year, Hanoi
released 8,000 inmates before the end of their sentences, including up to
three
dozen political and religious prisoners. Among them was prominent dissident
Doan Viet Hoat, who left for the U.S. immediately after his release. Communist
Party chief Le Kha Phieu announced in July that the government would release
more prisoners this year, followed by a "grand amnesty" in 2000.

But the country's human-rights situation is far from rosy. Religious leaders
have faced difficulties in Vietnam and political dissent remains unwelcome.
Retired Gen. Tran Do was recently expelled from the party, though not
arrested,
for writing several letters critical of the party leader-ship. The
treatment of
reporters, too, has raised eyebrows. Although the media have been
encouraged in
recent years to expose corruption, Nguyen Hoang Linh, an editor of the Doanh
Nghiep newspaper, was arrested in late 1997 for publishing a story alleging
that customs officials illegally bought speed boats. He was convicted in
November 1998 and sentenced to time served. After his release, he returned
to a
job at the paper.

The sentence implied that neither Linh nor his efforts were entirely frowned
upon, says a Vietnamese editor. Still, the case "sent a chill into the
ranks of
reporters," says a political observer in Hanoi. "You no longer see the
muckraking we used to see."

Asean has promised Cambodia full admission to the grouping once the country
puts the finishing touches on its new coalition government. Cambodia brings a
huge human-rights question to the group _ -whether to organize an
international
tribunal for leaders of the murderous 1975-79 Khmer Rouge regime who recently
defected to the government. The Khmer Rouge aren't the only bad guys: The UN's
commission on human rights says more than 400 political killings have been
carried out in Cambodia since the July 1997 coup by Prime Minister Hun Sen.
Despite such worrying statistics, not everyone in Europe is pushing for a
harder line on human rights. Many German companies, for instance, are urging
their government not to mix business and human rights. "Human-rights questions
should be dealt within political fora and discussions," says Michael Masberg,
director of international relations at the powerful Federation of German
Industry in Cologne. Many European business people are afraid that
sanctions or
consumer boycotts will rob them of opportunities in Asia. It wouldn't be the
first time: The death in June 1996 in Rangoon's Insein prison of Leo Nichols,
Denmark's honorary consul to Burma, created an uproar in Denmark and prompted
Carlsberg to cancel plans to build a brewery in the country.

There is much more at stake for the countries of Asean. Long-time members such
as Thailand and the Philippines remain concerned that the admission of
authoritarian regimes such as Burma will damage efforts to promote
transparency
and democracy. And with the group's economies in their most vulnerable
position
in more than a decade, they know Asean can no longer afford to offend the
West.

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