[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
[theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: Ma
Reply-To: theburmanetnews-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: March 8, 2000
=========== THE BURMANET NEWS ===========
== An on-line newspaper covering Burma ==
=========== www.burmanet.org ============
To view the version of this issue with photographs,
go to-
http://theburmanetnews.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$187
NOTED IN PASSING:
'The case is perhaps the most important foreign
relations case in the last quarter-century, and will
have sweeping ramifications for foreign affairs
and trade policy for years to come.'
Senators Richard Lugar and Rod Grams on the challenge to the
Massachusetts Burma Law, which will argued before the US Supreme
Court later this month. (See CQ WEEKLY: LOCAL SANCTIONS ECHO ABROAD)
Wednesday, March 8, 2000
Issue # 1481
Inside Burma--
KYODO: SHAN LEADER START TALKS WITH JUNTA
SSA: STATEMENT ON CEASE FIRE TALKS
TANJUG (Serbia): MYANMAR SEEKS 'ALL AROUND' COOPERATION WITH
YUGOSLAVIA
XINHUA: CHINESE-MADE SHIP PUT INTO SERVICE IN MYANMAR
International--
THE NATION: CABINET AGREES TO MEKONG PACT
CQ WEEKLY: LOCAL SANCTIONS ECHO ABROAD
MIZZIMA: MANIPUR, STILL THE VICTIM OF INTERNATIONAL DRUG TRAFFICKING
Other--
LECTURES ON BURMESE LITERATURE IN NYC
=========================================
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
INSIDE BURMA
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
KYODO: SHAN LEADER START TALKS WITH JUNTA
March 8, 2000
Kyodo
THE Shan States Army (SSA) began peace negotiations
with Burma's ruling junta last week to end a long-
lasting guerrilla war, SSA leader Yawd Serk said
yesterday.
Based in Shan State near the Thai province of Mae Hong
Son, the 4,000-strong SSA, formerly led by drug lord
Khun Sa, has been fighting for independence since 1964
against government forces.
SSA and junta delegates met secretly near the Thai
border on Friday, Yawd Serk said.
In the talks, the SSA demanded that the junta withdraw
government troops from guerrilla areas, while offering
it the right to station troops in major towns of Shan
State. It also called for the end of forced relocation
of Shan people in the area, Yawd Serk said.
Representatives of the SSA told the junta the Shan
people want to administer public education and
economic activities in their state without any
government involvement, he said.
In return, the junta demanded that all fighters of the
SSA lay down their arms and function as militias under
the government forces in Shan State, according to Yawd
Serk.
"But we will decide later whether we should lay down
arms, since several rebel groups that reached peace
accords with the government remain holding their
weapons," he said.
A Thai military officer who closely monitors
minorities affairs confirmed the negotiations, and
said the junta insisted that all SSA fighters disarm
because some factions are likely to disagree with Yawd
Serk and may continue the armed struggle.
"It is unclear to officials from Rangoon if Yawd Serk
is able to control the whole SSA," the Thai officer
said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The first meeting ended without any agreement. The
delegation from Rangoon will convey the messages from
the guerrilla to Lt. Gen. Khin Nyunt, secretary of the
State Peace and Development Council, as the junta now
calls itself.
Khin Nyunt will consider the demands and reply if he
can accept them by March 15, Yawd Serk said. The SSA
will wait for the answer until April and will resume
fighting if the junta fails to reply or if it rejects
the comditions, he said.
The SSA was revamped after the drug trafficker Khun Sa
defected with his followers to the junta in 1996.
The group declared recently that it will give up
fighting to save the lives of innocent people in Shan
State.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
SSA: STATEMENT ON CEASE FIRE TALKS
SHAN STATE ARMY
Supreme Command
STATEMENT
No. 2/2000
Date: 6th March 2000
1. The Shan State Army (SSA) have had the desire to solve the
problems in the Shan State by peaceful means. Therefore, the supreme
command have released the statement (No.1/2000) on the 25th of
January, 2000. As a result the General Secretary 1 of the State Peace
and Development Council (SPDC), Lt. Gen. Khin Nyunt has sent his
delegates with their 4 truce terms, which are as follows:
(a) SSA troops will have their rights to bear arms in their operated
areas.
(b) SSA will have the rights to trade whatever they like.
(c) No other armed groups will be allowed in the SSA's activated
areas.
(d) SSA must submit their arms to the government when other ceasefire
groups have surrendered their arms.
2. As SSA could not fully comply with the said terms, we have given
our own 6 truce terms onthe 3rd of March, 2000 which are as
follows:
(a) In SSA's activated areas (i.e. rural areas) no SPDC troops shall
be allowed to patrol or trespass. SPDC troops must be stationed only
in urban areas.
(b) SSA must have the rights to establish their own Shan State people
in education and financial aspects.
(c) Force shall not be used to solve problems.
(d) Whenever there is a battle in other areas, SPDC troops shall
never levy or capture, porters or provision in the SSA's Areas.
(e) SSA must have the rights to freely discuss and communicate with
other ceasefire groups or political groups for the peace and
development of the future Shan State.
(f) Before submitting their arms to the government, SSA must first,
consult and have the consent of Shan State people.
3. According to these 6 truce terms, if SPDC have either rejected or
failed to answer, the ceasefire term will end by the month of April,
2000 and the war will continue.
Yawd Serk
Commander-In-Chief
Shan State army
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
TANJUG (Serbia): MYANMAR SEEKS 'ALL AROUND' COOPERATION WITH
YUGOSLAVIA
[Tanjug is Serbia/former Yugoslavia's state press]
YANGON, 3 March (Tanjug) -- Chairman of Myanmar's state council for
peace and development General Than Shwe said in a talk with Yugoslav
Foreign Minister Zivadin Jovanovic on Friday [3 March] that the two
countries cherished a lasting friendship and that his country wanted
to establish all-round cooperation with Yugoslavia.
Jovanovic conveyed Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's regards
and best wishes to the Myanmar leadership and people.
Jovanovic and Gen. Shwe discussed the two countries' development
as well as international developments, cooperation within
international organizations and in particular the United Nations, and
ways of diversifying bilateral cooperation.
Jovanovic said that Yugoslavia's defense from NATO's aggression
last spring had been successful because the Yugoslav people and their
leadership had been united in the defense of their freedom, proving
that a people determined to defend their freedom and independence
could never be conquered.
He also spoke of the situation in Yugoslavia and pressure exerted
on the country following the aggression which he said continued
through different forms.
Shwe said that Myanmar strongly backed Yugoslavia's efforts to
protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the country's
reconstruction.
He said his country had condemned the NATO aggression as a
dangerous and unacceptable precedent in international relations.
Both officials condemned sanctions as a method of punishing
peoples fighting for the defense of their freedom and dignity. They
underlined that no one had the right to impose a concept of internal
development on sovereign countries under any pretext, human rights
included.
The talks dealt also with the promotion of economic cooperation
between Yugoslavia and Myanmar. It was noted that both countries
were interested in the promotion of cooperation in a large number of
spheres.
Shwe said that Myanmar wanted to apply Yugoslav technologies in
its development, urging frequent contacts between the two countries'
business delegations.
The Yugoslav delegation's visit to Myanmar has coincided with the
50th anniversary since the two countries established diplomatic
relations.
In order to boost all-round cooperation between Yugoslavia and
Myanmar, the two countries have decided to restore their relations to
the ambassadorial level. Myanmar has already appointed its
ambassador to Belgrade, while Yugoslavia is expected to appoint its
ambassador to Yangon soon.
***
BurmaNet adds: Tanjug is also reporting that Burma's Foreign
Minister, Win Aung, has accepted an invitation to visit the former
Yugoslavia later this year. The Yugoslav Republic, now consisting of
only Serbia and Montenegro, is the rump remainder of Yugoslavia after
Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia and Bosnia split in response to Serb
chauvinism. By the time Win Aung gets to 'Yugoslavia,' Montenegro
may be gone as well.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
XINHUA: CHINESE-MADE SHIP PUT INTO SERVICE IN MYANMAR
Yangon, March 3 (XINHUA) --
A coastal passenger liner of the state-run Myanmar
[Burma] Five Star Line (MFSL), built by Wu Song
Shipyard in Shanghai, was commissioned into service
here Thursday.
Mv Thanlwin, the 440-passenger-capacity vessel,
is built according to a contract signed between the
Yunnan Machinery Import and Export Corporation of
China and the MFSL in May 1996.
The vessel, together with its sister vessel,
Chindwin, are built at a total cost of 15.5 million
US dollars.
The 550-ton vessel liner, with 76.86 meters
long, 13.6 meters wide and 14.05 meters high,
can cruise 14.5 nautical miles (26.86 kilometers)
per hour with a draught of 3.45 meters.
The Mv Thanlwin is also the first coastal
passenger vessel built by China in accordance
with Lloyds standards.
Equipped with modern navigation gear,
communication apparatus and other supporting
facilities, the coastal liner has the capacity
to extend runs to Singapore, Malaysia and
other neighboring countries.
Its sister vessel will be handed to the Myanmar
side later in October this year.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
INTERNATIONAL
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
THE NATION: CABINET AGREES TO MEKONG PACT
March 8, 2000
THE Foreign Ministry has been given approval to sign
an agreement for commercial navigation of the Mekong
River with China, Laos and Burma.
After more than four years of talks, decision-makers
finally cleared all differences at a recent meeting in
Rangoon. Sources said that the proposal, approved by
Cabinet yesterday, would now be inked during the Asean
economic ministerial meeting in Burma in May.
The Thai government was the last to sanction the
agreement.
Sources said the agreement would help boost sub-
regional trade, transportation and tourism among the
four countries.
The initiative for this project began in 1993, whereas
the negotiations started three years later. Even
before an agreement was finalised, the four countries
agreed in principle not to change the physical
conditions of the river.
The signatories agreed to implement the agreement on
the upper part of Mekong River for a year after the
agreement is signed. pending further review. Under the
accord, passengers and cargo from participating
countries would be able to travel along the upper part
of river without having to pay a transit fee. The area
extends from the Simao area in lower China to Luang
Prabang in Laos.
The signatory countries will open 14 ports along the
upper part of the Mekong. The ports to be opened
include Jinghong, Mengham, Guanlei, Ban Sai, Xiengkok,
Muangmom, Ban Khouane, Houaysai, Luang Prabang, Wan
Seng and Wan Pong.
Moreover, countries must offer passengers, vessels and
cargo from participating countries the same treatment
in Customs procedure, port and cargo service and other
related services as provided to their nationals.
Vessels from signatory countries may transport
passengers and cargo from a third country with consent
from the country where the vessels are located.
Earnings from navigation services from one signatory
can be converted to the currency of the other
signatories and the money would be accepted as the
medium for exchange.
The four countries will also have to jointly draft
common navigation rules. The rules would include
traffic regulations, vessel safety, equipment and the
entry and exit of vessels.
At 4,800-kilometres, the Mekong River is the longest
in Southeast Asia, flows from China's Qinghai Province
near the border with Tibet through six countries,
including Cambodia and Vietnam.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
CQ WEEKLY: LOCAL SANCTIONS ECHO ABROAD
Supreme Court examines whether states and cities are
infringing on federal authority
March 4, 2000
By Miles A. Pomper
In 1996, lawmakers in Massachusetts and Washington
were equally horrified by reports of brutal
repression by the government of Myanmar (formerly
Burma). Just months after Massachusetts passed a law
penalizing state contractors who also did business
with Myanmar, Congress passed its own sanctions law.
Yet, four years later, the state and federal
governments are facing off before the Supreme Court
- the federal government arguing that the state
law should be struck down because it has interfered
with federal efforts to craft a comprehensive policy
towards the Southeast Asian nation.
The decision in the Massachusetts case, Natsios v.
National Foreign Trade Council, is expected by late
June and will help define Congress' role in
setting U.S. foreign and trade policy. It also will
affect the ongoing Capitol Hill debate over the
wisdom of unilateral trade sanctions.
The issue of state and local sanctions dates back to
the 1980s, when several states and cities adopted
purchasing or investment bans aimed at
the apartheid regime in South Africa. Though
Congress passed its own South Africa sanctions in
1986, it left unresolved whether or not those
sanctions preempted previous state and local
measures.
The current case involves a 1996 Massachusetts law
that penalizes companies that bid for state
contracts if they do business with Myanmar. It adds
a 10 percent penalty to their bids.
Nearly all members of Congress share the concern of
Massachusetts lawmakers about Burma's human rights
record. Congress imposed conditional sanctions
on Myanmar's government in a foreign operations
appropriations bill that was enacted as part of an
omnibus spending bill (PL 104-208). (1996
Almanac, p. 10-48)
But many members of Congress have had misgivings
about the wisdom of state and local sanctions as the
list has grown. Governments ranging from
university towns such as Cambridge, Mass.; Madison,
Wis., and Berkeley, Calif., to big cities such as
New York have adopted selective purchasing
laws and other measures designed to punish Myanmar's
regime.
Meanwhile, state and local governments have
considered or adopted similar statutes against other
countries, ranging from Sudan to Switzerland and
from Indonesia to Nigeria.
Massachusetts is the only state so far to have
passed a selective purchasing law on Myanmar.
Similar measures in other states have been put
on hold because of the court case.
Turf Battle
Since Congress has only sparingly addressed the
question of state and local sanctions, supporters
and opponents of the Massachusetts law have flocked
to join amicus curiae, or "friend of the court"
briefs with the Supreme Court to press their
arguments.
The case arose in 1998 when the National Foreign
Trade Council, an umbrella group of exporters, sued
Massachusetts Secretary of Administration and
Finance Andrew S. Natsios and state purchasing agent
Philmore Anderson III to block the sanctions law,
which they contended unconstitutionally
interfered with the federal foreign relations power,
violated the foreign commerce clause of the
Constitution that gives Congress the right to
regulate foreign commerce, and was pre-empted by the
later federal sanctions on Myanmar.
A U.S. District Court judge in Boston backed the
council's arguments, as did the First Circuit Court
of Appeals. The council then joined
Massachusetts in appealing the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court, hoping to clarify the limits on a
state or local government's ability to affect
events overseas or draw up its own procurement
rules. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments
March 22.
In their court briefs, congressional opponents of
the Massachusetts law, led by Richard G. Lugar, R-
Ind., a senior member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, argue that it intrudes on the
federal government's turf and that it undermines
the government's coherence and authority in
conducting foreign policy.
Last month, Lugar sent out a "Dear Colleague" letter
to almost 60 senators who generally back free trade,
urging them to join the brief.
"The case is perhaps the most important foreign
relations case in the last quarter-century, and will
have sweeping ramifications for foreign affairs
and trade policy for years to come," wrote Lugar and
fellow Republicans Rod Grams of Minnesota and Pat
Roberts of Kansas. "The issue in this case is
not approval or disapproval of the Myanmar regime;
it is the question of where the foreign affairs
power resides - the Congress or the cities and
states."
Their argument is supported by the Clinton
administration, business groups and U.S. trading
partners.
But supporters of the Massachusetts law, such as
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a member of the Foreign
Relations Committee, argue that the law is a form
of consumer boycott and should enjoy the same
constitutional protection.
"My instinct is it's not out of order for states to
make a decision on things that affect only the
states," Kerry said in a February interview. "I
don't think it's a foreign policy issue."
Kerry is supported by three other Senate Democrats -
including two who are on the Foreign Relations
Committee - as well as House International
Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman, R-
N.Y., and 73 other House members.
In their court brief, these lawmakers argue that
until Congress specifically pre-empts a state or
local sanctions law, it should remain in effect. And
they warn that if the Massachusetts law is
overturned, power will shift away from Congress to
the judiciary.
"The court of appeals has redefined our system of
federalism as one in which the federal courts,
rather than Congress, serve as the primary
arbiter of the division of power between the states
and the federal government," supporters of the
Massachusetts law argue in their brief.
So far, the federal courts have sided with Lugar. As
District Court Judge Joseph H. Tauro concluded,
"State interests, no matter how noble, do not
trump the federal government's exclusive foreign
affairs power."
The case is more than a constitutional challenge,
however. It is also a battleground for some of the
same forces that clashed at a meeting of trade
ministers of the World Trade Organization in Seattle
this winter and have battled repeatedly over federal
sanctions laws. (1999 CQ Weekly, p. 2924)
Supporters of the Massachusetts law worry that if
the state's criteria for purchasing decisions are
not upheld by the court, other state and local
purchasing rules - such as "Buy American" laws or
requirements that supplies contain a percentage of
recycled material - also could be struck
down as unconstitutional.
That fear has swayed not only some members of
Congress but also 22 state attorneys general, seven
state and local government associations, the
AFL-CIO and environmental groups, many of which have
filed briefs in the case.
Building Blocks
Human rights activists consider state and local
governments a vital link in U.S. action on overseas
conditions - useful for their economic clout and as
a bridge between the independent actions of
consumers and federal and
international sanctions.
Massachusetts state Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, a
Democrat, sponsored a bill in 1996, on the heels of
the Burma legislation, that would have cut off
state purchases from and investments in companies
doing business with Indonesia, to protest that
country's policies in the former Portuguese
colony of East Timor.
Although the bill was never approved, Cabral said it
"got the debate going nationally, internationally,"
spurring international pressure on Indonesia
that led to East Timor's independence last year.
(1999 CQ Weekly, p. 2326) Cabral noted that he was
visited by Jose Ramos-Horta, the Nobel Peace
Prize-winning campaigner for East Timor's
independence, as well as diplomats from the European
Union and Japan, and top U.S. government
officials, including the U.S. ambassador to
Indonesia.
"How often does a high-ranking official of the State
Department or a high-ranking official of [the U.S.
Trade Representative's office] come to the
statehouse to meet with a state legislator?" asked
Cabral.
By sponsoring such a law, Cabral said, "it brings
attention to an issue, presses people to realize
this is something important to be resolved, and
if it doesn't get resolved then they know this is
what happens."
The appeals court, although it struck down the
Myanmar law, acknowledged that its passage "has
resulted in significant attention being brought to
the Burmese government's human rights record.
Indeed, it may be that the Massachusetts law was a
catalyst for federal sanctions."
The law's sponsor, Democratic state Rep. Byron
Rushing, agreed, saying that selective purchasing
laws "allow us to have a conversation in a way that
the federal government will listen to us."
For some of the same reasons, U.S. companies fear
state and local sanctions. They worry that if the
Massachusetts law is upheld, a proliferation of
similar laws could slow global trade, damage their
international competitiveness and lead to a
proliferation of purchasing laws made for social
policy or foreign policy reasons.
"There is no basis for believing that states and
localities employing selective purchasing sanctions
will confine themselves to the prosecution
of foreign regimes that engage in human rights
abuses," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued in a
court brief.
"Any international cause could, with the support of
a vocal local constituency, become the impetus for
state and local government expressions of foreign
policy," attorneys for the chamber wrote.
Cause and Effect
When the Massachusetts law on Myanmar passed,
businesses faced a stark choice: end ties with the
Southeast Asian nation or jeopardize a shot at
the $2 billion in goods and services that the
commonwealth purchases every year.
Within months, several businesses cut ties with
Myanmar, including Eastman Kodak Co., Hewlett
Packard Co., Apple Computer, and the Japanese
construction firm Obayashi Corp. They and other
firms then mounted a heavy lobbying effort to kill
the Indonesia legislation before it too became law.
"Without federal authority over foreign affairs,
each of the 50 state governments and over 39,000
other local governments, with almost $1 trillion in
purchasing power, would be free to make foreign
policy," said National Foreign Trade Council
president Frank Kittredge. "This isn't in
the best interests of the nation and is certainly a
situation the framers intended to prevent."
The lawsuit is one of a series of anti-sanctions
efforts by the trade council, which is spearheading
USA Engage, a group of exporters who have joined to
fight unilateral sanctions imposed by the United
States.
"The greatest economic consequence of these kind of
bills is that our companies would get a reputation
as unreliable trading partners, which
would be a perceived liability as a supplier," said
Donald F. Baldini, senior vice president for
legislative policy at the Associated Industries
of Massachusetts, the state's largest employers
group, which has filed a brief on behalf of the
trade council.
"And foreign governments whose companies suffered
from these sanctions might be tempted to impose
similar restrictions on us. It's a two-way
street," Baldini said.
Business groups and the federal government argue
that not only do state and local sanctions impinge
on the authority of the president and Congress, but
they send contradictory signals overseas.
In the Massachusetts case, attorneys for business
groups and the federal government argue that
Congress and the president had clearly chosen only
to restrict new investments in, rather than all
trade with, Myanmar when they acted three months
after the Massachusetts statute was enacted.
Solicitor General Seth P. Waxman wrote in his brief,
"The national government has chosen a carefully
calibrated strategy of penalties and incentives,
which are capable of being applied flexibly by the
president in response to the Burmese regime's
conduct, the actions of the international
community, and other national security
considerations."
Federal officials wrote that the Massachusetts law
had entangled U.S. foreign policy, making it more
difficult to convince allies and trading
partners to support the federal government's foreign
policy.
Alan P. Larson, undersecretary of State for
economic, business and agricultural affairs, has
said, for example, that in discussions with the
European Union, "The EU's opposition to the
Massachusetts law has meant that U.S. government
high-level discussions with EU officials often have
focused not on what to do about Burma, but on what
to do about the Massachusetts Burma law."
Critics also said that the Massachusetts law
violates constitutional provisions giving the
federal government the power to regulate foreign and
interstate commerce - the foreign commerce clause.
Waxman used this analogy in arguing that the
Massachusetts law violates the Constitution: "If
Massachusetts refused to do business with any
companies that do business in Texas, or their
parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates,
in order to induce a change in the internal policies
of Texas, there could be little doubt that
Massachusetts would violate the Commerce Clause."
Federal officials also warn that if the
Massachusetts law is upheld by the
Supreme Court, the United States could be split into
separate foreign policy fiefdoms - each with its
own, and possibly competing, agenda. For
instance, Jewish-Americans in one state could press
for policies at odds with those urged by Arab-
Americans in another.
"State and local sanctions, however, vault local
interests directly onto the national stage, causing
national consequences without taking national
interests into account," argued the Chamber of
Commerce.
Writing in the January/February issue of the journal
Foreign Affairs, Brannon P. Denning, an assistant
law professor at Southern Illinois University, and
Jack H. McCall, a Knoxville, Tenn., lawyer, warned
that if the Massachusetts statute is allowed to
stand, it would render moot much of the purpose of
the Constitution.
"Without the central government's lead, the United
States risks returning to the Balkanization of its
national interests that necessitated the
Constitution in the first place," they wrote.
Consumer Interests
Massachusetts and other states and municipalities
argue that state laws are simply a form of a
traditional, and constitutional, consumer boycott.
In this case, a state or city, rather than an
individual, is making a free-market choice not to
buy a product out of moral considerations.
"Nothing in our federal Constitution denies to the
states the right to apply a moral standard to their
spending decisions. Not one constitutional
grant, prohibition, or command requires the states
to trade with dictators," wrote Massachusetts
Assistant Attorney General Thomas A.
Barnico in his brief for the Supreme Court.
Rushing said he drew his inspiration for the Myanmar
law from the successful sanctions campaign against
South Africa in which he also participated, a
campaign motivated by an abhorrence of apartheid.
Rushing said that South African leaders have
credited a Massachusetts executive order on
selective purchasing by then Gov. Michael S.
Dukakis, a Democrat, with a key role in spurring the
U.S. government and ultimately the United Nations to
enact sanctions that helped bring down apartheid.
Rushing said he had learned from the South African
campaign that selective purchasing could be an even
more potent tool for states and municipalities
than divestment, the sale of shares in companies
that do business with questionable regimes.
Rushing noted that divestment applies only to
publicly traded companies and often does not
seriously affect their stock prices, since the
stocks typically are sold off over time to prevent a
significant drop in the value of the state or city's
portfolio.
Looking back on South Africa, Rushing said, "If I'd
have had my druthers, I'd have started out with
selective purchasing."
Yet divestment enjoys a stronger legal status than
selective purchasing. While the Supreme Court has
yet to rule on the constitutionality of either
type, a federal district court upheld a Maryland
divestment law in the 1980. And the Justice
Department has consistently argued that divestment
laws are constitutional.
Uruguay Round
The executive branch has changed its opinion of the
constitutionality of selective purchasing laws. The
Reagan administration, inclined to grant
more power to the states, was more sympathetic to
their arguments than the Clinton administration,
which, after first holding back, weighed in against
the Massachusetts law.
The change resulted in part from new commitments
undertaken by the United States as part of the 1993
Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade.
Besides establishing the World Trade Organization
(WTO), the pact included an agreement that
governments and their subdivisions would not
discriminate against foreigners in making purchasing
decisions. Massachusetts is one of 37 states that
have signed on to the agreement.
Based on the Uruguay Round agreement, the European
Union and Japan in 1998 challenged the Massachusetts
law on Myanmar at the WTO and also raised
concerns about the Indonesia legislation.
The challenge persuaded Cabral to rewrite his
Indonesia bill so it would not violate international
law. Rushing, however, refused to rewrite his
law, because the European Union and Japan did not
promise that they would impose their own stringent
sanctions on Myanmar. The European Union and
Japan have put their challenge on ice as they await
the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
Congress voted as part of the Uruguay Round
legislation to prevent foreign governments from
using the pact to bring suits directly against
states. But they left open the possibility that the
federal government could sue to enforce a judgment
if the United States were to fail in its efforts to
defend a state's actions at the WTO.
In 1998, the House defeated, 200-228, an amendment
by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, D-Ohio, that would have
prevented the federal government from suing to
enforce a WTO decision. (1998 CQ Weekly, p. 2237)
The amendment's defeat reflected a change in the
congressional climate on state and local sanctions.
Laws targeting the South African regime 14 years
ago enjoyed political cover that no longer exists.
Few organizations or politicians were willing to
challenge the South Africa sanctions and risk being
tarred as supporters of a racist regime.
For similar reasons, opponents of state and local
sanctions did not relish challenging selective
purchasing laws that affect Indonesia because the
laws were backed by the Portuguese-American
community, a significant constituency in
Massachusetts, Rhode Island and California.
There is no substantial Burmese-American community
in the United States. And few Americans know or seem
to care about events in the remote nation.
"There is no natural constituency to get in their
faces," Rushing said.
In fact, it is the lack of political backing that
will let the Supreme Court finally decide an issue
that Congress fudged in the debate over South
Africa sanctions, legislation that Lugar helped
guide through the Senate. As the Senate considered
the South Africa bill (PL 99-440), Lugar insisted
that the measure should pre-empt state and local
laws by "occupying the field" on South Africa
policy, much as he claims the federal sanctions on
Myanmar do today. That interpretation was reinforced
by the Senate's rejection of an amendment allowing
state and local governments to maintain their anti-
apartheid laws. (1986 Almanac, p. 359)
On the other hand, when the House passed Lugar's
bill, it accompanied it with a statement rejecting
Lugar's interpretation of the issue. The dispute
was never litigated in the courts.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
MIZZIMA: MANIPUR, STILL THE VICTIM OF INTERNATIONAL
DRUG TRAFFICKING
March 7, 2000
Mizzima News Group
Manipur with a population of 2 million (hardly 0.2%
of India's total population) is contributing more
than 7% of India's total HIV positive cases and it
is third in rank in India after Maharashtra and
Tamil Nadu which contribute about 52% and 12%
respectively of India's total HIV positive cases.
This was disclosed by Dr. Khomdon Singh Lisam,
project director of Manipur State AIDS Control
Society yesterday in an interview with Mizzima News
Group.
The distinctive pattern of HIV infections in Manipur
from the other two states is that up to 70% of
infection rates are found among injecting drug users
whereas in other two states, 80% are due to sexual
transmission.
"Manipur is having two epidemics now. One is the
epidemic of drug abuse and another is the epidemic
of AIDS. Both of them were preceded by illegal drug
trafficking," said Dr. Khomdon Singh Lisam.
Manipur which has an international border of about
358 kilometers with Burma became the victim of
international drug smuggling as traffickers
found the route through this point of international
border as a soft route. Drug trafficking from Burma
across the Manipur border reached its explosive
situation by 1984.
According to Dr. Lisam, in 1990, 100% of the HIV
positives tested in the state were among the
injecting drug users and mostly heroin drug users.
Transmission was primarily through use of shared
infected needles. Quality testing of heroin,
indulged by drug traffickers themselves also
contributed the epidemic as they traveled to
and fro between Burma and Manipur (India).
In 1997, 60 to 70 percentage of HIV infection cases
were found among the injecting drug users and the
percentage has come down at present after the
successful intervention measures and AIDS campaigns
done by State Government and AIDS-NGOs in the state.
Manipur is the first and only state, which has a
written State AIDS Policy in India.
Commercial sex workers are also vulnerable to HIV
and represent a relatively significant core group
for transmission of the virus through their clients
in the state. Though there is no "red light areas"
as such in the state, Manipur State AIDS Control
Society has identified three areas where commercial
sex workers are working. One is in the centre of
Imphal town where more than 200 commercial sex
workers are already identified by it, and the other
two areas are in Churachandpur town and
Moreh town, both are closed to Burma's border.
"Most of the commercial sex workers working in Moreh
comes from Myanmar (Burma). They come to Moreh in
the daytime, carry on their activities in Moreh and
return to Myanmar by night. More than 20% of
commercial sex workers in Moreh are HIV-infected.
These are the girls and women who often are visited
by the injecting drug users who are HIV positives,"
said Dr. Lisam.
At the end of January 2000, Manipur had tested 9,705
HIV positive cases. Joint United Nations Programme
on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) has claimed that India has the
highest number of HIV infections in the world with
some 3.7 million Indians having HIV or AIDS.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
OTHER
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
LECTURES ON BURMESE LITERATURE IN NYC
You are cordially invited to New York to listen Burmese
literature, which will be held by the Committee for
Reviving of Burmese Literature. This will be good
opportunity to meet new friends, renew acquaintances
and to learn how and why Burmese literature has
deteriorated under a military rule.
Lectures on Burmese Literature
Four giants from the Burmese literary field will talk in
New York soon. U Tin Moe, most influence poet of today
in Burma, U Thaung, one of the oldest newspapermen,
U Win Pe, film director, writer, artist, broadcast
journalist and U Win Tun, cartoonist will give lectures
on Burmese literature.
When: May 27th, 2000
Where: The place and the time will be announced soon (New York City)
Ko Zaw Win
Organizer
Committee for Reviving of Burmese Literature
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
The BurmaNet News is an Internet newspaper providing
comprehensive coverage of news and opinion on Burma
(Myanmar). For a subscription to Burma's only free
daily newspaper, write to: strider@xxxxxxx
Voice mail +1 (435) 304-9274
Fax +1 (810)454-4740
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
===END=============END=============END===
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees.
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/975/3/_/713843/_/952523424/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
theburmanetnews-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx