[theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: Ma

[theburmanetnews-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Reply-To: theburmanetnews-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: March 20-21, 2000



________________ THE BURMANET NEWS _________________ 
        An on-line newspaper covering Burma 
_________________ www.burmanet.org _________________


Monday-Tuesday, March 20-21, 2000 
Issue # 1491


_______________________________________________________ 
NOTED IN PASSING: 


"But the one-year-old grandson she has never seen, who was in his mother's
arms at the back of the room, began to cry loudly. Jamie was not that
interested in the number of ways a rock star can say he is `humbled', and
through his, cries he reminded everyone that somebody else was part of this=

great occasion."  

Aung San Suu Kyi's grandson upstages rock star Bono.  (See 
THE IRISH INDEPENDENT: A NIGHT OF PERFECT HARMONY)


_______________________________________________________ 

[Due to a hardware upgrade being done on the server hosting
BurmaNet's website, this edition is not available on-line]



*Inside Burma

SHAN: SHAN PROMOTED TO REPLACE ABORTED COUP LEADER

DNES (Today) [Czech Rep.] BURMESE JUNTA SWEAR AGAIN TO FIGHT DRUG TRADE

*International

THE IRISH INDEPENDENT: A NIGHT OF PERFECT HARMONY

IRISH TIMES: LEADER CITES LINKS WITH THE 'IRISH OF THE EAST'

BANGKOK POST: KHUN SA'S RETURN

BANGKOK POST: REPATRIATION WILL BE VOLUNTARY, PM SAYS

REPORT: MORE RESTRICTION ON BURMESE STUDENT REFUGEES: COMMUNICATIONS BLACKO=
UT!

BURMANET: ODDS FAVOR MASS BURMA LAW AT SUPREME COURT



*Opinion/Editorials


WASHINGTON POST: A STATE'S RIGHT, A GOVERNMENT'S WRONG


WASHINGTON POST: BURMA BUSINESS

BANGKOK POST: THERE GOES THE NEIGHBOURHOOD


___________________ INSIDE BURMA ______________________ 
     


SHAN: SHAN PROMOTED TO REPLACE ABORTED COUP LEADER


20 March 2000

No: 3 - 14

ESSA: A Shan Promoted To Replace Aborted Coup Leader

A source close to a renowned Chinese Shan warlord told S.H.A.N. recently 
that a Shan officer had been promoted to become his deputy replacing the 
coup leader who was found guilty and later executed.

Khun Sanglu, Commander, Brigade 369 of the Eastern Shan State Army, a.k.a. =

Myanmar Democratic Alliance Army, Special Region No: 4, was elevated to 
become Deputy Commander-in-Chief at a meeting held in mid-December 1999, 
said the source. He succeeded Kham Maw, who was convicted guilty of treason=
 
in August and executed together with his co-conspirator, Hsiao Jiu, 
Commander of Brigade 911.

Khun Sang Lu's former office was filled by Oon-mao, a veteran Shan commande=
r.

The ESSA is commanded by Lin Mingxian a.k.a. "U Sai Lin" an ex- CPB 
(Communist Party of Burma) commander who since 1989, had made a ceasefire 
with Rangoon. Until recently, he had been among the ten persons blacklisted=
 
by the United States  as drug dealers. However, according to this year's 
report of the State Department, the reputed warlord is no longer a druglord=
 .

The ESSA has three brigades. Two other brigades, the 815th and 911th, are 
commanded by Lo Chingpao and Sai Htoon (Lin's brother) respectively.

Shan Herald Agency for News.
P.O. Box. 15, Nonghoi P.O., 50007, Chiangmai, Thailand
e-mail: shan@xxxxxxxxxxxx




     
_______________________________________________________ 



DNES (Today) [Czech Rep.] BURMESE JUNTA SWEAR AGAIN TO FIGHT DRUG TRADE



(TRANSLATION OF ARTICLE PUBLISHED BY THE CZECH DAILY NEWSPAPER DNES [TODAY]=

ON 19 JANUARY 2000)

Prague - The Burmese military junta swear again to eradicate narcotic trade=
 
within five years.

The same words came from the mouth of the Generals before. "However, this 
time they may mean it," said one foreign observer. The ruling junta, 
scrutinized by the opposition, is unceasingly isolated and desperately need=
 
to improve their foreign relations, in order to receive foreign assistance.=


The United Nations estimate that Burma produced over 1,200 tons of opium 
during 1999 and this place them on the second spot only after Afganistan, 
the world's biggest producer of opium.

The fight against the drugs will involve the resettlement of 50,000 
villagers from the hills of the unfamous Golden Triangle.

"Only this way we can stop them to plant opium from which the heroin is 
produced," said Colonel Kyaw Thein who is head of the junta's anti-narcotic=
 
commission.

All villagers from the Shan State bordering China will be forced to 
resettle to the new areas near the Thai border where they should growing 
fruits instead.

The Burmese generals joined with the leaders of Wa who control their 
'Kingdom' in the mountains of the Shan State. The Wa allegedly have the 
world's biggest guerrilla army of over 20,000 soldiers and most of the drug=
 
money going into their pockets and this also includes the sales of 
amphetamines inside Thailand.

Anti-narcotic experts doubt that the Wa leaders, who currently govern the 
Golden Triangle, will give up their enormous profits so easily.

However, even they agreed with the junta's plan: "Before we were dependent =

on the drug trade," said Pauk Yu Ri, who is one of the Wa commanders, to 
the International Herald Tribune. "Now, we understand the drug is our enemy=
 ."

"They promised to eradicate opium growing by year 2005," Khin Maung Myint 
who is a Burmese officer told the BBC. "We told the opium farmers that the =

planting of opium is taboo now but to give them some alternative crops we 
need help from the international community.," he added.

The West continue to treat the Burmese junta as the 'narco-regime,' deeply =

involved in the production and export of drugs, money laundering and other =

drug related activities. The U.S. State Department lately conceded that the=
 
recent Rangoon's efforts appeared to be little more concrete than in the pa=
st.

MAXMILIAN WECHSLER

     
___________________ INTERNATIONAL _____________________ 

          

THE IRISH INDEPENDENT: A NIGHT OF PERFECT HARMONY


U2 sing along after sharing limelight with jailed hero of Burmese democracy=


By MIRIAM LORD

BENEATH the unforgettable fire of Smithfield's blazing braziers, the
businessman and the boys of U2 signed their home town's role of honour. And=

with a few strokes of a pen they wrote themselves into the city's history -=

the Unforgettable Five.

On an emotional and uplifting night in Dublin, the city resisted the urge t=
o
look inward in the usual welter of self-congratulation. Instead, not only
did it honour its own, but there was a poignant reminder that not everywher=
e
is as good a place to be on a cool Saturday night.

The members and manager of U2 were not alone in receiving the Freedom of
Dublin city. Sadly though, freedom is something that Aung San Suu Kyi can
only dream about at the moment. Under house arrest since 1989 the Burmese
freedom leader was honoured in her absence.

A blank space for her name has been left on the role of honour. Perhaps,
someday, she will be able to leave her signature in person. All she asks no=
w
is that ``the world does not forget the plight of the people of Burma''.

Her 23-year-old son Kim Aris, accepted the award on her behalf. His presenc=
e
and his quiet dignity brought another dimension to the ceremony.

In light of the ugly public excesses of Friday's St Patrick's Day, there wa=
s
always a worry that the 15,000-strong crowd, largely made up of young peopl=
e
might not be willing to reflect upon the bravery of Aung San Suu Kyi. They
had come for a party, to see and hear Ireland's world famous rock stars,
would they have the patience to listen to the story of a distant nation's
suffering?

We need not have worried, the good humoured crowd responded with touching
warmth and genuine concern when Kim Aris spoke a few brief words.

And they listened respectfully as Lord Mayor Mary Freehill read out the
lengthy citation. Aung San Suu Kyi could so easily have been lost in the
celebrations and congratulations for U2.

But this did not happen, thanks to the audience who created a wonderful
atmosphere in the redeveloped square.

At a pre-ceremony press conference it was different. Kim Aris, on crutches
following an accident and holding a framed picture of his mother, was nearl=
y
mown down by photographers in the rush to snap the stars. Fr Pat Raleigh of=

Burma Action Ireland sat redundantly at the top table ready to answer
questions, but was never asked.

Everything focused on U2 - there were a large number of international media=

present - and it looked embarrassingly like the Burmese resistance leader
would be forgotten.

But the one-year-old grandson she has never seen, who was in his mother's
arms at the back of the room, began to cry loudly. Jamie was not that
interested in the number of ways a rock star can say he is `humbled', and
through his, cries he reminded everyone that somebody else was part of this=

great occasion.

But fair play to Bono, whose credentials are impeccable with his work for
the Jubilee 2000 campaign to wipe out third world debt, he made a point of
including Kim in the photographs, holding his mother's picture for greater
effect.

``I think it is a testament to Dublin that while U2 are being given the
freedom of Dublin, we are also acknowledging the terrible incarceration of
Aung San Suu Kyi. I am honoured to be on the same platform as her son,'' he=

said.

But there had to be joy and fun, and the pride and delight among the band
members at receiving the honour was far from phoney. Clearly, these men who=

enjoy world wide adulation and possess multi-millionaire fortunes were
simply dead chuffed that their city was making them free men. Bono, not
surprisingly, was most vocal about it, but the other three waxed loquacious=

as well when they got the chance. Meanwhile, the Lord Mayor looked like she=

had died and gone to political photographic heaven as scores of
photographers jostled to picture her between a rock star and the son of a
revered resistance leader.

``It's kind of incredible,'' said Bono, as he listed off the names of all
the great Dublin musicians who could have rightly laid claim to similar
recognition. He thought of Phil Lynott and Thin Lizzy, Bob Geldof, the
Dubliners, Luke Kelly ... in fact, before U2 were conferred, Count John
McCormack was the only name from the world of music on the role of honour.

Being superstars, the lads can't help being cool. But there was real emotio=
n
when they spoke on stage about their families and the people who helped the=
m
to get where they are today. At the press conference, Bono remarked: ``It
means a lot to my father Bob and if my mother Iris was still alive, it woul=
d
mean a lot to her.''

Back outside, the crowd waited patiently for a glimpse of their heroes. In
the magnificent Smithfield Centre, a line of 12 lighting masts capped with
huge gas braziers flamed into the night, giving a Viking feel to the
occasion. A giant video screen was suspended by crane at the side of the
stage where Corporation members sat waiting for their VIP guests.

``We have a quorum, and the meeting has been convened,'' announced the City=

Manager, getting business under way, which was a relief, and none of the
Councillors felt the urge to sign the attendance book and leave.

Then it was time. The crowd went wild as the band and their manager walked
on stage. Paul McGuinness in his businessman's suit, the other four in
black. Two elderly nuns clapped enthusiastically. It turned out they were
Columban Sisters who had worked as missionaries in Burma. They said they
were not important enough to have their names in the paper.

The audience remained polite through the rather long citations, guffawing
when the Mayor spoke of ``Bone-O'' and how the band ``had been showered wit=
h
Grannies (sic,) Brits and other awards''. Kim Aris, who was presented with =
a
beautiful Waterford Crystal dove of peace, said he hoped his mother would b=
e
able to collect it in person one day.

There were specially crafted Waterford Crystal Joshua Trees for the
businessman and the boys. Paul McGuinness thanked his wife Kathy and
children Alexandra and Max. ``This is a great gift from a great city,'' he
said. The Edge, does he ever take off that black monkey hat? thanked his
father Garvan and mother Gwenda and children Harry, Aaron, Blue, Sian and
Levi and his lover Marie Steinberg.

``This is even better than the real thing','' said Larry who thanked the
boys ``for being in my band'' before charmingly fluffing his lines. He
mentioned Anne and his children Elvis and Ada.

Coolest of them all, Adam apologied to the Guards for giving them a hard
time over the years. Then Bono took his turn and declared he wasn't going t=
o
be saying much. Instead he would sing. But before he did, he had his own
point to make about refugees. ``We come from a tribe of refugees and now
it's our turn to welcome the refugees,'' he said.

For his part,he mentioned his Dad Bob, brother Norman, wife Ali and kids
Jordan, Eve and Eli.

They wound up what was a marvellous night in the city with four brilliantly=

performed songs. The crowd loved them and wanted them to stay forever.

If they don't lose the run of themselves after this, they never will.


     
_______________________________________________________ 


IRISH TIMES: LEADER CITES LINKS WITH THE 'IRISH OF THE EAST'

Monday, March 20, 2000


By Sandy Barron

Responding recently in Rangoon to the Dublin award, Burma's democracy leade=
r
recalled a connection between the two countries which once provided the
Burmese with some amusement.

During the colonial period, the British commonly referred to the Burmese as=

"the Irish of the East", Aung San Suu Kyi pointed out. "I'm not sure it was=

meant to be a compliment but we always regarded it as a sign of a special
bond between our two peoples", she said in an interview conducted for RTÉ's=

Prime Time programme. The interview was conducted secretly near Suu Kyi's
home and had to be smuggled out of Rangoon.

After the events of 1916 in Dublin, the Burmese nationalist movement was
able to turn the jeering "Irish of the East" tag on its head and invest it
with set of more satisfactory meanings. Burma's independence leader Gen Aun=
g
San, who was Suu Kyi's father, was influenced by Irish leaders such as Eamo=
n
de Valera and Michael Collins, Suu Kyi said. "My father referred to them in=

one of his articles; he said we need leaders like them."

The democracy leader also expressed appreciation for the recent training in=

Ireland of 19 exiled Burmese activists under the Department of Foreign
Affairs Irish Aid programme.

The democracy activists - who represented a wide variety of Burmase ethnic
groups, including the Karen, Shan, Kachin, Mon and ethnic Burmans - receive=
d
management and leadership training at the Institute for Public
Administration in Ballsbridge.

Many told harrowing stories last week of the places in Burma they left
behind before going into exile to Thailand, India and the United States. "W=
e
hope the time will not be long before our activists will be able to return
to Burma and help us rebuild the country. We need our activists to be
trained, not just in getting democracy, but in how to make democracy work,"=

Suu Kyi said.

Rebuilding Burma will pose enormous social and economic as well as politica=
l
challenges. One in three Burmese children is malnourished, according to a
recent UNICEF report. One in four children never goes beyond primary school=
 .
Most universities have been closed since 1996.

About 500,000 people are estimated to be HIV positive. Burma, renamed
Myanmar by the ruling State Peace and Development Council, (SPDC) is the
world's second largest exporter of heroin. "The future of our nation is in
jeopardy. The gap between us and the rest of the world is getting bigger an=
d
bigger," Suu Kyi said, pointing out that at one time Burma was one of the
most prosperous countries in Asia. "If you were to walk into a hospital now=

you would be aghast to find no medical equipment and no hospital equipment.=

In rural areas there are no medical personnel at all." She said the main
responsibility for solving Burma's problems lies with the Burmese people
themselves. "But we would like the international community to take the term=
s
of the UN General Resolutions (on Burma) seriously. It's not enough to pass=

a resolution."

As well as strongly condemning Burma's human rights record, a recent UN
General Assembly resolution calls on the regime to initiate tripartite
political dialogue with the National League for Democracy (NDL) and
representatives of the country's ethnic groups.

Suu Kyi said that as far as the NLD was concerned, the door to dialogue was=

open. "The short and simple answer is that the SPDC do not want to open
discussions. If they want to talk to us there is nothing to stop them." She=

reiterated her support for international sanctions against the regime.
"Economic investment now only helps the military and the privileged elite
connected to them. The common people don't benefit from investments.
Although they (the regime) say there is an open-market economy, it is only
open for some, and not for others."

Some in the West have asked whether Suu Kyi might be more effective if she
left Burma to lobby the international community. Oxford historian Dr Peter
Carey, a friend of Suu Kyi and her husband Michael Aris, who died last year=
,
does not agree. "It might seem so rationally, but morally and emotionally
this would not be possible," he said. "Remember that people have given up
everything to follow Suu Kyi. To leave would seem like a betrayal. It would=

be impossible for her."

Suu Kyi said that while she is protected by virtue of being her father's
daughter, and by being known to the international community, other Burmese
had no such protection. "There are many unknown activists who risk
everything by continuing their work for democracy. If there is one person
like that I will carry on. I will never abandon that person."

Meanwhile, international frustration with the continued stalemate in Rangoo=
n
may be increasing. High-level Representatives from a number of Western and
Asian countries met in Seoul for a UN-sponsored 'brainstorming' conference
on Burma early this month, but no concrete results have been reported. and
this The conference was followed follow-up to a by a similar gathering held=

in Chilton, UK, two years ago, in which a 'carrot and stick' approach was
reportedly mooted, whereby the regime would be offered substantial financia=
l
aid in exchange for liberalisation. The SPDC later angrily rejected the
possibility of any such 'bribe'.



     
_______________________________________________________ 


BANGKOK POST: KHUN SA'S RETURN

Army intelligence has been assigned to check reports that Khun Sa is to 
return to his former stronghold in Homong.

Gen Surayud Chulanont, the army chief said: "We are watching whether 
he will come back and what he plans to do." Khun Sa, said to be 
paralysed on the right side and can hardly speak, has said he 
wants to spend to see out his time at his former base.
Bangkok Post (21 March 2000)




     
_______________________________________________________ 


BANGKOK POST: REPATRIATION WILL BE VOLUNTARY, PM SAYS

March 21, 2000

UNHCR officials in Rangoon for talks
The planned repatriation of Burmese refugees will be carried out on a 
voluntary basis, Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai said over the weekend here.
Political conditions in Burma would be considered carefully before 
repatriation would begin, said Mr Chuan, who was touring border areas.
"It is our policy to send refugees back to their homes when the 
situation in their country returns to normal," he said. "But the 
repatriation will be made on a voluntary basis."

The government recently held talks with the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees about the resettlement plan.
Mr Chuan said UNHCR representatives had arrived in Burma to 
discuss the safe repatriation of the refugees.

The National Security Council has proposed that 100,000 taking 
shelter in holding centres across the country be repatriated 
within three years.

Regarding the resettlement of exiled Burmese students at Maneeloy 
holding centre in Ratchaburi, Mr Chuan said the resettlement 
programme was proceeding well with some students being sent 
to third countries.

He warned employers to strictly abide by regulations regarding 
the employment of alien workers.
Jeerawat Sattabutra, deputy director-general of the Foreign 
Affairs Ministry, said the repatriation of 100,000 Karen
refugees to Burma had to be delayed because of political 
and economic instability there. Refugees who voluntarily
return home would be allowed to come back if they faced 
economic hardship or felt insecure there, he said. Mr 
Jeerawat suggested the UNHCR, responsible for the repatriation 
of refugees, promote democracy in Burma.

He believed a change in the ruling system would enhance 
unity and bring about economic stability. Meanwhile, a 
Fourth Infantry Regiment task force has sent troops to 
a border village in Tha Song Yang district following 
the influx of more than 1,000 Burmese civilians.
Bangkok Post (21 March 2000)


     
_______________________________________________________ 



REPORT: MORE RESTRICTION ON BURMESE STUDENT REFUGEES: COMMUNICATIONS BLACKO=
UT!
  


March 21, 2000

By Ken and Visakha Kawasaki

Ken and Visakha Kawasaki [brelief@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
[Posted on Maykha mailing list]


The 1200 Burmese refugees in Maneeloy Burmese Student Center, the so-called=

Safe Area, are now suffering a communications blackout.  All communication
with the outside world by telephone (or internet) is forbidden.  The
refugees are strictly confined to the barbed wire fenced center, except for=

two hours of shopping time on Saturday.  The Camp Commander, acting on
behalf of the Ministry of the Interior has just ordered the owners of the
five shops in front of the camp not to allow any Burmese students to use
the telephone, to place or to receive phone calls.  
Previously the only fast way of communication from the Safe Area was by
using the phones at these shops.  Of course the refugees had to pay the
shop owners, which meant the merchants made profit from these phones.
Since the only opportunity the students have had to get out of the Safe
Area was on Saturday morning, for two hours, they called out or received
calls at that time.  

The latest tightening of restrictions leaves Safe Area residents
dangerously isolated.  The safety and security of Burmese refugees is
threatened.  The students feel that Thai authorities are seeking to cut
them off from the outside world for nefarious purposes.  Why sever their
phone (and internet) contact unless there are plans for some black actions
which the authorities do not want outsiders, NGOs, the media, or
sympathetic outsiders, to know about?  The
students in the Safe Area fear that Thai authorities are planning some
devious or oppressive acts against them.  Without communication with the
outside world, they can easily be persecuted.  The Burmese students have
heard stories of horrendous abuses by Thai special forces of Cambodian
asylum seekers in camps on Thai soil several decades ago.  

How in a technologically advanced country, ruled by a democratically
elected government, can recognized refugees awaiting resettlement be
deprived of their freedom of speech, their right to communicate via
telephone and internet? 

Background:

After the take over of Burmese Embassy in Bangkok;

The Ministry of the Interior imposed further restrictions on the Safe Area
residents and increased security with hundreds of guards in the form of
soldiers, police and militia.  Check points were deployed on all possible
routes out of the camp.  At this point, residents were not allowed to go to=

embassies for the interviews necessary for their resettlement in some third=

countries. Travel documents which had previously been granted as a matter
of routine were no longer issued. 

After Ratchburi Hospital Incident;

Thai government authorities tightened the security in the Safe Area.   More=

than ten residents were arrested without any charge or reason. Authorities
raided and confiscated computers.
The students are allowed to shop only two hours at a weekly market in front=

of the Safe Area on Saturday.  

Recent information:

The merchants with shops in front of the Safe Area are under strict orders
not to allow camp residents to use their phones to call out and not to take=

any messages or allow camp residents to accept calls, even during the two
hours of shopping time residents can visit these shops on Saturday.



_______________________________________________________ 


BURMANET: ODDS FAVOR MASS BURMA LAW AT SUPREME COURT


March 21, 2000


The Supreme Court hears arguments on the Mass Burma Law on Wednesday
and will hand down its ruling sometime before July.  The Mass Burma
Law was emphatically struck down by a lower Federal Court and his ruling 
was upheld by an Appeals Court.  The fact that the Mass Burma Law
fared so badly in the lower courts is, in an odd way, an indication
that it may do better--perhaps much better--at the Supreme Court.


The high court is so busy that it rarely bothers to review individual
decisions by lower courts even when it disagrees with them.  It is even 
less likely that it would take a case just to agree with an inferior court.=


To understand why it is likely that the Supreme Court will side with 
Massachusetts it helps to understand how unusual it is for this case 
to be before the Court.

The main function of the Supreme Court is not, as is widely
understood, to correct bad decisions by lower courts.  Rather, the 
Court mostly resolves disagreements between lower courts.  The federal
system can function with a few bad decisions (whatever the impact on 
individual litigants) but it cannot tolerate widely different
interpretations of the same laws by many courts in different parts
of the country.

The Supreme Court is asked to hear more than 10,000 cases per year and
agrees to hear fewer than 100.  Of that meager handful, something like
90% are cases where there is a so called split in the circuits--where
circuit courts in different areas of the country come to opposite
interepretations of some important area of federal or constitutional
law.  The constitutionality of Burma selective purchasing has only
been litigated in one circuit, so by definition, there has been no
split.  

In a very few cases, as it has done with the Mass Burma Law, 
the court will reach down and review a case where there is 
no split.  When the Court does so, it usually indicates
two things.  First, the issue is exceedingly important AND
it disagrees with something about how the lower courts have
handled the issue.  If it agreed with the lower courts, it
would simply refrain from reviewing the case and the lower
court decisions would stand.

With respect to the Mass Burma Law, the lower courts said in
effect, that Burma selective purchasing was unconstitutional 
in every conceivable way.  This gives the Supreme Court options.
It could, although it is unlikely to do so, agree completely
with the lower courts.  It could disagree completely with the
lower courts and revive the Mass Burma Law.  Or, it could
come down somewhere in between--the Mass Burma Law is unconstitional
as written but selective purchasing is not unconstitional
per se.  If it does this--which is probably the most likely
result--it all but hands activists in Massachusetts a roadmap
for drafting a new, and unassailable, Burma selective purchasing
law.





________________ OPINION/EDITORIALS __________________ 
          
     
_______________________________________________________ 




WASHINGTON POST: A STATE'S RIGHT, A GOVERNMENT'S WRONG

By Akhil Reed Amar
Sunday, March 19, 2000; Page B01

Like most people, I generally spend my money as I please--it's called 
"consumer sovereignty." If I opt for Ben & Jerry's ice cream because the 
company is environment-friendly, that is my choice, my right. Likewise, if =

I loathe the thugs who run Burma and the companies that help prop up its 
regime, I am free to deny them my consumer dollars.

The Supreme Court is about to decide whether the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts has the same right to spend its money as it pleases, and to 
simply refuse to do business with Burma--or with companies that do business=
 
in that country. If an ordinary consumer is generally "sovereign" in the 
marketplace, why isn't a state consumer likewise sovereign?

The case posing this question, Natsios v. National Foreign Trade Council, 
is to be argued before the high court on Wednesday. At issue is the 1996 
Massachusetts Burma Act, which condemns Burma's abysmal human rights record=
 
and all but prohibits state government purchases from companies operating 
there. Business groups successfully attacked the law in lower courts, and 
last month the Justice Department weighed in on their side.

We have seen this kind of law before: In the 1980s, public entities all 
over America boycotted South Africa's apartheid regime. Lawsuits challenged=
 
some of the divestment efforts, but none of these cases reached the Supreme=
 
Court. Thus, the Massachusetts case will establish the legal framework for =

every state deciding what to buy and from whom.

In essence, the Justice Department is now arguing (contrary to its position=
 
in the mid-1980s) that state government boycotts are illegal because only 
the federal government has the right to conduct America's foreign affairs. =

This sounds persuasive at first, but the legal arguments advanced by the 
feds and the business groups dissolve on closer inspection.

First, they claim that Massachusetts is usurping Congress's express 
constitutional power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." But 
Massachusetts isn't "regulating" anything; it is choosing how to spend its =

own money, just as any private citizen may do. When I refuse to buy, say, 
shoes made in Burma, I am not "regulating" anything in any ordinary sense 
of the word, and the same is true when consumer decisions are made by IBM 
Corp. or by Mass. Inc. Thus, there is no unconstitutional burden on foreign=
 
commerce here--there is only commerce itself, which generally includes both=
 
the right to buy and the right not to buy. The case would be different if a=
 
state required its residents to boycott Burmese goods--that would be 
regulation--but Massachusetts has done no such thing.

The feds argue that the issue is somehow different if a consumer decision 
is motivated by a desire to influence the supplier: If Massachusetts thinks=
 
Burmese goods are shoddy, it can shun them, but not if it thinks they are 
morally tainted. This is screwy economic theory--generally, I can buy 
whatever ice cream brand I like, whether I like it because of its taste, 
its logo, or its company's reputation. Economics aside, where does the 
Constitution say that states are free to be picky and selfish, but not to 
be altruistic or noble?

The Justice Department also claims that the state statute conflicts with, 
and thus is nullified by, a 1996 federal law regarding Burma. But nowhere 
does that law say that consumers cannot boycott Burma; it doesn't speak to =

the ordinary consumption issue. Rather, the federal law, as put into effect=
 
by Clinton in 1997, is itself a sanctions measure: It prohibits any new 
investment in Burma by U.S. companies. The federal act is anti-Burma. So is=
 
the Massachusetts act. Where's the conflict?

Granted, Congress has broad power to restrict the sovereignty of consumers =

(and states). Thus, federal civil rights laws tell public and private 
employers that they may not spend their money entirely as they please; for =

example, they cannot simply refuse to hire black workers. Congress may also=
 
have the power to impose special rules on states beyond what it imposes on =

ordinary consumers. But if Congress wants to do that, it must say so in 
clear statutory language, so that affected states can consider lobbying 
against the bill. The Massachusetts boycott was in effect when Congress 
acted in 1996, yet not one word in the federal statute is directly aimed at=
 
state boycotts. Nor has any later federal law addressed the issue.

Things might be different if Burma were some special U.S. ally, like 
Israel. Where close allies are involved, the federal government does more 
than pass statutes; it also adopts treaties of friendship and cooperation. =

A state boycott of such an ally would arguably contradict the friendship 
premise and thus violate the treaties' spirit. But even if alliance 
treaties are read broadly to limit states, the Constitution has a mechanism=
 
to protect state interests: Instead of a simple majority, a proposed treaty=
 
must win the votes of two-thirds of the Senate, the body the Framers 
designed to safeguard states' rights. In any event, Burma is no Israel.

The federal brief's final argument is that, in foreign affairs, the United =

States must "speak with one voice" and the Massachusetts law creates 
cacophony. If a state boycott offends some foreign government, that 
government might retaliate against America as a whole, dragging the country=
 
into an international crisis. But this "one voice" argument wrongly 
presupposes that the Massachusetts law contradicts the foreign policy of 
the United States. Here, we have no explicit federal statute, no 
treaty--not even a clear statement from the president--saying that 
consumers must be deprived of their freedoms so that America can make nice =

with the goon squad that runs Burma.

But the "one voice" argument has a much deeper problem. Taken literally, it=
 
offends the very basis of our system of government. Americans emphatically =

do not speak with one voice. Individual Americans are free to criticize 
foreign governments, even if they thereby offend intolerant regimes that 
end up blaming all Americans. States, too, must be free to speak out. This =

vital point was established early in American history, when the Virginia 
and Kentucky legislatures famously spoke out in 1798 against federal 
policies penalizing France. There are, of course, regimes in today's world =

where only one voice is permitted: Burma is one of them, and we must not 
allow their totalitarianism to invade our democracy.

So Massachusetts must remain free to condemn Burma in its statute books 
even if this makes life a little harder for the State Department. But if 
Massachusetts may speak out, why can't it put its money where its mouth is?=
 
Here, Massachusetts's money is a form of speech, communicating its 
condemnation in a dramatically expressive way. Alongside freedom of speech =

is freedom of association, which includes the right not to associate. Here,=
 
the state is simply disassociating itself from business partners it finds 
offensive.

If all this is so, why did the lower courts rule against Massachusetts? 
Perhaps because today's judicial liberals dislike broad arguments for 
states' rights, and today's judicial conservatives distrust sweeping 
assertions of human rights. Both kind of rights are at issue here--but with=
 
a twist.

In several recent cases, judges have invoked states' rights to defend 
states' wrongs, allowing state governments to violate fundamental freedoms =

with impunity. For example, the Supreme Court recently held that even when =

states break federal laws, injured citizens may not sue to recover money 
damages. Other judges have sharply resisted this trend; indeed most of the =

court's recent federalism cases have been decided by 5 to 4 votes.

These battles may have discombobulated lower court judges in Natsios, 
because states' rights and human rights actually work together in this 
case. Thus, it offers the high court an excellent occasion to cure some of =

the confusion that now reigns by reminding us that the Framers designed 
federalism to promote freedom (of speech and of choice), not undermine it.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that this lesson is illuminated by a case from=
 
Massachusetts, the cradle of American liberty. In the early 17th century, 
Gov. John Winthrop imagined his Massachusetts Bay Colony as a light unto 
the world, a city upon a hill. In the late 18th century, Massachusetts 
patriots exercised their consumer sovereignty by boycotting certain 
goods--including tea imported by the morally unattractive East India Compan=
y.

In the mid-19th century, many Massachusetts citizens spoke out against 
slavery, and once again put their money where their mouths were, using 
their sovereign consumer dollars to ransom slaves while boycotting 
slave-made goods--all in an effort to influence the "slave power" that 
controlled the South. Today, the slave power has lost its grip in America, =

but its heirs are alive and well in Burma. And again, Massachusetts is 
speaking and spending--and not spending--on behalf of freedom.

Like me, or any other American consumer, a state should have broad freedom =

to spend its money as it pleases. Congress, by passing laws or ratifying 
treaties, may restrict that freedom, but federal bureaucrats--acting on 
their own or in league with business groups--may not. Lower federal courts =

and the Justice Department have veered off course, and it is time for the 
Supreme Court to set them straight.

Akhil Reed Amar is a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School and=
 
the author of "The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction" (Yale 
University Press).

[BurmaNet adds: Akhil Amar is amongst the best regarded constitution
law scholars in the US, especially with respect to Article III of
the Constition (Federal Courts) and Federal/State relations.]





_______________________________________________________ 



WASHINGTON POST: BURMA BUSINESS


Outlook staff
Sunday, March 19, 2000; Page B05 

Money is a powerful weapon in political battles, and one way to wield it
is to choose not to spend. In that spirit, four states and about 30 U.S.
municipalities, including Takoma Park, have legislated some form of
boycott of Burma, the repressive south Asian nation called Myanmar by
the military junta that has ruled it since 1988.

Burmese government troops killed thousands of protesters that year and
jailed countless others; since then, the junta has used torture, forced
labor, detention and abduction to maintain its rule. International
outrage at the human rights abuses has driven many foreign investors
away. The process was accelerated by actions like that of Massachusetts,
which requires any companies operating in Burma to bid for state
business at a 10 percent disadvantage, effectively eliminating them from
competition. In 1996 and 1997, Congress and the Clinton administration
instituted their own sanctions, prohibiting any new investment in Burma
by U.S. companies.

Levi Strauss, Eastman Kodak and Hewlett-Packard are among the many U.S.
businesses that have pulled out of Burma; the largest of the handful
that remain is California-based Unocal, which is a major partner in a
416-mile natural gas pipeline leading out of Burma's Yadana gas field.

The lawsuit to be argued this week was filed by the National Foreign
Trade Council, a business coalition that opposes all unilateral
sanctions. Relatively few of its members actually have much to do with
Burma; as the U.S. Commerce Department has noted, "While trade with
Burma"--as opposed to new investment--"is not prohibited under U.S. law,
there is little about the current business climate to recommend it." 


_______________________________________________________ 


BANGKOK POST: THERE GOES THE NEIGHBOURHOOD

21 March 2000

You can choose your friends, but not your neighbours. That 
unfortunate truth is coming home again in the case of Burma. The 
Rangoon dictatorship has long been in a position to co-operate with 
Thailand in combatting the dreadful scourge of drugs. It is 
unfortunate that Burma would rather take the profits from selling 
drugs to children than to take steps to halt the trafficking. It is 
appalling that Burma would abuse and imperil its own people for those 
profits.


If Thailand and Burma were homes in the suburbs, Thailand would have 
called the police by now. Authorities would have charged Burma with 
selling drugs at the school yard, child abuse and letting their 
dangerous dogs run free. Unfortunately, Thailand and Burma are 
countries. It is not so easy to call the police. 

This is not to excuse Thailand for the drug abuse of its own 
children. Our authorities must work harder. They must devise a 
national, rational anti-drug policy which does more than fill the 
dreadful youth prisons with petty drug traffickers. Children should 
know the real dangers of drugs, which are actually far worse than a 
couple of months in a home for delinquents. Our children are 
destroying their generation, and neither Thai parents 
nor authorities are doing all they can to reverse this.



But there would be no drug problem at all if our Burmese neighbours 
did not peddle drugs in our schools. The amphetamines and heroin 
that are ruining our children and national fabric are coming from 
Burma. It is not easy for Burma to turn off the flow of drugs, now 
that it has turned on this flow. Some 50 factories make drugs in 
Burma, and most are mobile. They produce 600 million amphetamine 
tablets a year, so there is a huge backlog.

Burma hurts some people and enrages others, and both reactions 
are understandable. The Rangoon dictatorship created all of 
the conditions for the United Wa State Army to become a 
world-class drug cartel. Some argue weakly that drug trafficking 
was an unexpected consequence of taming the ethnic minorities. 
This argument is specious. Rangoon today supports the UWSA in 
all ways. Maj-Gen Khin Nyunt, the junta's first among equals, 
has personally visited the UWSA area opposite Mae Hong Son 
to congratulate its efforts.


Letting the dangerous dogs loose is a serious offence. But
Burma's worst assault is on its own people. Team after 
team of United Nations and drug experts have warned Rangoon 
for years. Burma's own drug and medical problems are out 
of hand and imperilling the nation. Not only is Rangoon 
hurting children in Thailand, it is directly harming its 
own citizens.


Just last week, Australia's leading communicable disease 
experts said flatly that drugs are the major cause of the 
spread of HIV and Aids in Asia-first of all, in Burma. 
In the words of the researchers: "More people using 
amphetamines means more unsafe sex and HIV reaching 
groups which would not otherwise have been at risk."

Selling drugs to children, letting dangerous dogs run 
loose and beating members of your own family are serious 
charges in everyday life. They should also be treated 
seriously among nations. It is difficult, perhaps 
impossible, for Thailand to call the police. But we 
can try to make sure that others in our world 
community know about our bad neighbours.
Burma's constant denials of responsibility wear thin. 


Rangoon has the obligation to deal with dangerous 
law-breakers on its territory. The Burmese dictators 
may feel that pro-democracy groups pose a threat to 
the nation. But the real threat to Burma are the 
policies of the junta. Burma is making very bad 
friends out its closest neighbours. The military 
dictatorship is also putting its own people at risk.



________________


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

You can also contact BurmaNet by phone or fax:

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 or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.  Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/937/4/_/713843/_/953699702/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
theburmanetnews-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx