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

[theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: Ju

Reply-To: theburmanetnews-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: June 7, 2000

______________ THE BURMANET NEWS ______________
        An on-line newspaper covering Burma 
______________ www.burmanet.org _______________

June 7, 2000

Issue # 1548

The BurmaNet News is viewable online at: 

*Inside Burma

















__________________ INSIDE BURMA ____________________


June 6, 2000 

Burma army troops, in retaliation for the resistance, had turned on 
the population  and hundreds of people were being killed since last 
month's resumption of  hostilities, said sources coming across the 
border into Thailand. Survivors  claimed 62 people were mowed down by 
junta bullets in one spot alone. 

Sources, who are traders and making a living along the Taunggyi-
Tachilek  road, told S.H.A.N. that during their stopover in Kali, 
Kunhing Township,  Loilem District, they heard several people talking 
about the killings south  of the road.

According to survivors who escaped the massacres, 62 Shan and 
hilltribes  people, who went back from their relocated sites in 
Kunhing to live near  their deserted village of Wanhpai, Kenglom 
Tract, were rounded, lined up  and shot to death on 29 or 30 May. (A 
different source said it was 23 May) 

"The Burmese (military) knew about their whereabouts, but until then 
had  not taken action against them for their return without 
permission", said  the traders. At least a total of 40-50 people were 
believed to have been  killed in other places, they said. Hsaimong, 
Hsaharng and Nati, 3 other  village in Kenglom Tract were also 

A source who was close to Brigade 7 (Shan State Army "North") with  
headquarter in Kali confirmed about the killings, and added that many 
other  villages along the Salween were also killed. (The SSA "North" 
Brigade 7 was  also questioned by Burmese authorities about 
Yawdserk's SSA "South"'s  movements on 24 May, said the source.)

The sources, however, were not sure whether or not the killings were  
related to the projected dam on the Salween. "But they occurred 
after  fighting between Yawdserk's SSA and the junta troops resumed 
towards the  end of April near Kunhing," they said.

Yawdserk declared unilateral ceasefire on 23 January. He complained 
later  that Rangoon troops took advantage of the truce to force many 
of his units  to make separate deals with the junta.

Another traveller who just came back from Kunhing told S.H.A.N. the 
SSA was  attacked on 28 April in Kenglom. The Shans' retaliation on 9 
May destroyed  4 trucks, killing 7 and wounding 5, according to the 
SSA's statement. 

[Reporter: Moeng Zay]



6 June 2000

No: 6 - 2

On the 5th anniversary of the rebellion that shook the mighty Mong 
Tai Army  to its very foundation, S.H.A.N. makes an attempt to 
recount what really  happened.

The year 1995 began as one that appeared propitious for Khun Sa, who 
had  just declared independence over a year ago.

The raid on Tachilek by his troops on 20 March, and the day-long 
fight of  the Shan officer trapped inside Burmese encirclement until 
his ammo was  exhausted and he committed suicide, all under the 
watchful eyes of the  local and international media, only served to 
enhance Khun Sa's image. 

Reuters even wrote an article speculating whether Khun Sa was 
emerging as  the real leader of the Shan State. Bangkok Post said his 
MTA was "the only  rebel group left with teeth."

His 25,000-strong MTA was operating almost all over the 160,000 
square  kilometers of Shan State, leaving only territories under the 
control of  Kokang and Wa. Even top secret Burmese intelligence 
reports conceded that  the MTA was even stronger than the United Wa 
State Army. Fed up with  decades under military rule, even the Burman 
population on the western  outskirts of Shan State were offering to 
lend a hand if the MTA were to  operate there. "No group can be worse 
than the present one," they said. 

All in all, every outward sign indicated 1995 was going to be a great 
year  for Khun Sa. Even some close observers thought the MTA's 
shortcomings could  wait until after the final showdown with Rangoon. 
It turned out they should have known better.

Unknown to most people, the MTA was reeling under the border closure  
imposed by Thailand. Prices and consequent expenditure had rocketed 
skyhigh  in Homong. To make things worse, his imposition of 
exorbitant tax rates had  driven many "business establishments" to 
the rival UWSA and the safe  sanctuaries offered by Burmese 

To add to these misfortunes, the MTA renewed its war against the Was 
for no  apparent reason. Pao Sin, a Wa officer, told S.H.A.N. 
later, "We thought we  had stopped killing each other, but the MTA 
began the war again by  ambushing our troops twice. The first ambush 
alone killed 16 of our men." 

This internecine war also cost the MTA dearly in terms of morale and  

The first sign of unhappiness came with the desertion of Maj. Ngo 
Harn to  the SSA in April, accusing Khun Sa of administering poison 
to his superior,  Sao Sai Lek, who had died in Homong on 5 January. 
Sao Sai Lek had recently  arrived from the north at Khun Sa's 
invitation to join the MTA. A fighter  since 1960, he was widely 
respected by Shan patriots. He was only 54 when  he passed away.

Luckily, Khun Sa got off easily, when Sai Lek's surviving brother, 
Maj Sai  Lu, testified to the National Congress, a joint body of 
people's  representatives and the resistance, that his brother's 
death was only  through natural causes. No unhappy ramifications 

Khun Sa's next ill-advised move was to send out a controversial order 
in  May to Maj. Gunyawd, then an acting brigade commander, to attack 
the Shan  State Army, a group that had signed a ceasefire pact with 
Rangoon in 1989.  "I was flabbergasted," said Gunyawd later. "We had 
just made an agreement  with the SSA leaders for a merger. Already 
many of their commanders were  preparing to come and join hands with 

S.H.A.N., along with many others at the Thai border, learned only too 
late  about what had happened. The reasons for these two 
controversial moves,  i.e. the order to attack the Was as well as the 
one to attack the SSA,  therefore remain a mystery until today. 
(However, it must be added that for  some observers who were 
convinced Khun Sa had always been Rangoon's agent,  the reasons were 
clear. Nevertheless, there has not yet been any convincing  evidence 
for their allegation).

Gunyawd, much to Homong's frustration, chose to disobey the 
controversial  command. An order inevitably went out for his arrest. 
Somehow, Gunyawd,  well-liked both among the troops and the populace, 
got wind of the order  and made his escape with 60 of his men. They 
were joined by other  dissatisfied units and eventually swelled up to 
17 battalions. The  mutineers called themselves the Shan State 
National Army and made peace  with Rangoon.

Charges and Counter-charges

According to the SSNA's leaflets published on 24 June 1995, Chang 
Shee-fu  (Khun Sa) and Chang Hsu-chuan (Falang, Khun Sa's Manchurian 
chief-of-staff)  were guilty of several charges, among which were: 
inequality (i.e. favoring  Chinese descendants over Shans) disrespect 
for the people and the monkhood,  extrajudicial executions (one of 
Gunyawd's top fighters, Ternyai, was  executed, without notification 
to Gunyawd, for his "public condemnation" of  Chinese-born officers), 
fighting with Shan nationals more than with the  Burmese military, 
denial of the right to present constructive criticisms  and 
defamation of the resistance with the drug image. ("Freedom shall  
remain an elusive dream under him", said one leaflet. "It's like 
attracting  international assistance for Rangoon to wipe the Shans 

Khun Sa and his supporters countered the charges by saying, "This 
must be a  conspiracy by overseas Shans led by Sengsuk (leader of the 
Shan State  Organization as well as the Shan Democratic Union) and 
the people from  Hsengkeo (Shan State Army "North"'s headquarters)".

Khun Sa himself said, "Gunyawd has jeopardized my plan to restore the 
Shan  State in two years. He has helped to prolong the Burmese 
military's misrule  over our people".

"Has he forgotten that it was Khun Sa who had defeated both the 
White  Chinese (i.e. Kuomintang) and the communists?"

His close aides also sided with him by arguing, "Is there any 
existing  group that has not received aid and support from the Chinese
(-born)?  Gunyawd has gone from us but isn't he going over to a 
regime that is being  propped up by the Chinese?"

As the mutiny was made known to the people on the border on 20 June, 
two  weeks after the incident, the reactions were at first mixed.  
Many knew they were in a difficult situation and speaking the wrong 
words  might put themselves and their families in danger.

At the same time, there were some Shan commanders who sided with Khun 
Sa.  "Khun Sa may have his faults, but he's not with the Burmese 
(military) like  Gunyawd," said one. "The resistance has had to drag 
on for more than 30  years because the university students broke away 
from Sao Noi (the founder  of the first resistance movement). How 
much longer will our people have to  suffer because of Gunyawd's 

Some, led by Khwanmong, Chief Polical Officer, and "Minister of the  
Interior", suggested to Khun Sa the need for reform before it was too 
late.  "The issue is not Chinese vs Shans," one said. "It is a matter 
of system or  lack of it. Just look at Thailand. Their independence 
was won by Taksin, a  Chinese descendant. Many of their leaders today 
are also of Chinese  origins, but it is not an issue there, because 
the Thais have evolved a  system in which both Thais and non-Thais 
can live and work together. We can  begin here with a collective 

Khwanmong spoke scathingly of Khun Sa's attempts to soothe the 
feelings of  the leaders of Shan origin by announcing promotions for 
many of them.  Instead of handing the certificates to the officers in 
a ceremony, he had  merely made them feel worse by sending a junior 
officer with a motorcycle  to distribute the papers to the 
recipients. "It showed us how little he  respected us," Khwangmong 
was said to have told Falang.


Anyhow, with Khun Sa's blessings, the proposition made by Khawnmong 
and  other sensible leaders, both Chinese and Shan alike, began to be 
On 12 August, two months after the mutiny, a congress was convened to 
form  the Central Executive Committee, chaired by the popular 
Gunjade, and  co-chaired by Zarmmai and Falang. A judiciary 
committee, chaired by Nawmong  Awn, was also formed to ensure proper 
administration of justice. The  overall strategy of the CEC was for 
reconciliation among the Shan groups  especially with the renegade 

This was at once denounced by Khun Sa himself, who declared that the 
CEC,  under Khawnmong's management, was only "following Gunyawd's 
ass" instead of  leading him. Khun Sa, who in his younger days, had 
countered  insubordination to his leadership with a heavy hand, 
said, "What the CEC  should have done was to order an expedition 
against the traitor". This,  nevertheless, did not keep him from 
signing his approval of the CEC. 
A month later, an agreement was reached with Gunyawd to enter a 
ceasefire  pact with Rangoon under the cloak of the SSNA, that had 
already signed one.  The new leadership, re-named the Shan State 
National Council, would be  composed of Gunjade as chairman and 
Gunyawd as General Secretary, among  others.

The resolution was publicly attacked by Khun Sa on 7 November as 
submission  to traitorous elements. Quietly but firmly, he took back 
his powers from  the CEC.

The situation that followed was almost anarchic. Chairman Gunjade, 
who  traveled to central Shan State to negotiate with Gunyawd, 
returned with  only 100 of his initial 500 troops after the talks 
broke down, the rest  fleeing to join hands with the latter.

Meanwhile the attack made by the Was in Loilang on 20 September was  
repulsed. The MTA seemed to be winning all the battles, according to 
the  reports. But the same reports also told S.H.A.N. the MTA was 
losing the  war, because troops were deserting their positions in 
Khun Sa, who was reported to have begun taking drugs, only worsened 
the  situation by declaring publicly that the "extrajudicial 
executions" as  charged by Gunyawd were ordered by himself. 
Audiotapes recorded by himself  offering monetary rewards to those 
who could assassinate Gunyawd were also  shown to S.H.A.N. by people 
in Bangkok, Chiangmai and Chiangrai.  Inevitably, his actions only 
served to send things further out of control.  Afterwards, there was 
a deluge of desertions to Gunyawd's camp. 

Last Days

On 18 October 1995, a S.H.A.N. source in Chiangrai reported that Khun 
Sa  had sent a secret message to Tachilek through his emissary, Wu 
Zeng-liang.  He also reported that Kyaw Myint and Lao Tai a.k.a. Tin 
Maung Win a.k.a.  Yang Wangsuan, both Khun Sa's trusted lieutenants, 
had gone across to  Maesod to talk with the authorities in Rangoon.

Nearly two months later, on 14 December, Zarmhurng a.k.a. Pathai  
Changtrakul a.k.a. Chang Weikang, Khun Sa's second son, showed 
S.H.A.N. a  radio message: the high command had agreed to make 
a "partial" surrender to  Rangoon.

This news spread like wildfire to the whole "Free territory of Shan 
State"  in the Trans-Salween areas.

On 29 December, S.H.A.N. was back in Homong for the last time. 
Sources told S.H.A.N. that Khun Seng had gone across the Salween on 
18  December to prove to Rangoon that "Khun Sa was acting in good 
faith." They  also related that Khun Seng's 23 loyal bodyguards were 
also put to death on  the orders of Khun Sa on 17 December, on 
suspicion of conspiring to  assassinate the MTA leaders. On 25 
December, Khun Sa made a final public  appearance in Mongmai, a few 
kilometers south of Homong. He told his  audience that he would be 
back within two years, "when people learn for  themselves that Khun 
Sa is better than anyone else", hinting that he would  be leaving 
Homong soon.

During our brief meeting, Khun Sa disclosed that Col. San Pwint from  
Rangoon would be arriving in Homong on the next day. He also 
indicated that  the further presence of S.H.A.N. in the area would be 
an embarassment. 
"Try to set up your office in Thailand from now on," he said 
We were already out of Homong when he officially surrendered to Gen. 
Tin  Htut, Commander of Eastern Command, on 7 January 1996.

So, why did he do this?

To some like Sao Sengsuk, former commander-in-chief of the SSA and 
at  present a leader of the overseas Shans, the reason was 
simple. "He was only  going back to his masters," he said. "I knew it 
well ahead". 

For others who had lived and worked with him, it was not that simple. 
"He always said that there was no place for him to live in peace 
unless  Shan State was free. Wanted by drug agencies around the 
world, he had  nowhere to go except to live among the Shans to fight 
for them," said a  former close aide. "So when the Shans showed they 
didn't want him anymore,  the only choice that remained for him was 
to make the best deal he could  with the Burmese".

Soon afterwards The Bangkok Post predicted that the surrender spelled 
the  end of the Shan resistance. But it was not to be so. A hitherto 
little  known commander, Yawdserk, rose out from among the ashes to 
wave the flag  of resistance in the same month that Khun Sa 
surrendered, and, by all  accounts, his numbers appear to be swelling.

Does he have any more chance than Khun Sa had? S.H.A.N. does not have 
an  answer for this, but a report that arrived a few days ago seems 
to provide  one:
"(Someone close to Khun Sa) had dispatched a message to Yawdserk,  
counselling him that he shouldn't emulate Khun Sa by refusing to 
listen to  well-meaning people. Had Khun Sa not learned to trust only 
his own counsel,  he might not have been wasting his life away in 
Rangoon like he is doing  now, said the message."



By Rick Mercier 

June 4, 2000 

Reportedly victims of 'ethnic cleansing' by the military, their 
plight is little known 

MAE SOT, Thailand - Burma's jungle-clad hills, blue in the late 
afternoon haze, loom as a reminder to Billy Htoo of what he was 
forced to leave behind.

One night last November, Burmese soldiers assaulted the village where 
the 27-year-old medic had been providing care for destitute Karen 
civilians bearing the brunt of the military junta's counterinsurgency 
campaign against Karen National Union (KNU) rebels, who have been 
fighting for self-rule for the ethnic minority since 1949.
On that night, Htoo recalls, he and the 600 residents of Mae La Poe 
Hta fled for the Thai border when the soldiers came, crossing the 
Moei River, which forms the border between Thailand and Burma, also 
known as Myanmar. "We carried the sick people," he said.

Htoo and the others from his village are among the more than 100,000 
Burmese Karens who have taken refuge in neighboring Thailand. Some of 
these refugees have been in Thailand since the mid-1980s, but the 
bulk arrived after January 1995, when government forces overran the 
KNU's stronghold at Manerplaw, about 185 miles from Rangoon, the 
In addition to the refugees in Thailand, at least 300,000 Karens are 
believed to be internally displaced within Burma, meaning that as 
many as one in 10 Burmese Karens have been uprooted.

"Whenever we go to a village, we see people wearing backpacks, ready 
to move out at any moment," said Saw Tay Tay, secretary of the Karen 
Refugee Committee, or KRC, which serves as an intermediary between 
Thai authorities and the tens of thousands of Karens spread out in 
more than a dozen camps on the Thai side of the border.

Human rights violations

Human rights groups claim that thousands of Karen civilians have died 
as a result of Burmese military actions in the 1990s. Amnesty 
International and other groups have documented mass killings of Karen 
civilians during counterinsurgency operations. Karen villagers 
fleeing Burmese troops have fallen victim to "a de facto shoot-to-
kill policy," Amnesty has noted, while others have been killed at 
random to terrorize the population in areas where KNU guerrillas are 

In a report released on May 24, Amnesty said women from minority 
groups such as the Karens have suffered some of the worst persecution 
at the hands of the Burmese government. "When the army began massive 
relocation programs in 1996 as part of its counter-insurgency 
campaign, tens of thousands of women belonging to ethnic minorities 
were forcibly relocated from their ancestral lands," the report said. 

KNU Secretary-General Mahn Sha Lah Phan, in an interview here last 
month, said the Burmese were practicing "ethnic cleansing" against 
the Karens, and compared the situation in Burma to the Balkans. "We 
hear about Bosnia and the term ethnic cleansing. The ethnic 
population (in Burma) are in a very similar situation." 

Tay Tay said descriptions of Bosnia and Kosovo resonate among 
Karens. "When we told our people about Bosnia and Kosovo, they 
said, 'Oh, we have gone through that.'" 

But while the world has taken decisive action against governments 
that have pursued similar policies in places such as the former 
Yugoslavia and East Timor, the Karens' desperate plight has received 
little international attention. "We suffer in silence," Tay Tay said. 
British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook condemned Burma's treatment of 
the Karens during an April visit to a refugee camp in Thailand. "I 
have heard enough and I have seen enough to know that the people that 
are here only came here because they were fleeing from brutality, 
from military action," he said.

Foreign oil investments

The Karens, who mostly live in eastern Burma's jungles and highlands, 
also have come under pressures not directly linked to the Burmese 
counterinsurgency in the past decade.

The 1990s saw an influx of massive foreign investment in offshore 
natural gas fields and pipelines in Burma. One pipeline that has been 
in operation since 1998 - a $1.2 billion project involving California-
based Unocal Corp. and French-owned Total Fina Elf - cuts through 
nearly 40 miles of territory traditionally inhabited by Karens. 
Another pipeline runs parallel to it, and will be operated by 
Britain's Premier Oil, which has sunk $200 million into the project.

The KNU's Mahn Sha charged the oil companies that invested in and 
oversee the pipelines "have been hurting the Karen population to a 
very serious extent" through their collusion with the Burmese 
military junta that rules the country. "In the building of the 
pipeline, many Karen villages were relocated, and many people were 
forced to work in construction activities," he said.

He said the three major Western investors in the pipeline projects - 
Unocal, Total Fina Elf and Premier - were partially responsible for 
human rights violations that included not only forced relocation and 
forced labor, but also executions, rape and arbitrary arrests. 
Fifteen plaintiffs representing thousands of Karen refugees have 
filed lawsuits against Unocal in U.S. federal court, charging that 
the oil firm was complicitous in human rights abuses by the Burmese 

Unocal has strongly denied the plaintiffs' allegations. "There were 
no human rights violations on our project, and that's a fact," Unocal 
Chief Executive Officer Roger Beach told protesters at the company's 
annual shareholders meeting in Brea, Orange County, last month.

A U.S. federal judge in Los Angeles will decide soon whether the 
suits against Unocal - which are seeking more than $1 billion in 
damages and are the first ever to name a U.S. corporation as a human 
rights violator - can go to trial.

EarthRights International, one of four human rights groups that have 
filed the suits on behalf of the refugees, said it was considering 
similar legal action against Premier Oil.

Firms' argument: Jobs

The oil companies have argued that their investments provide jobs and 
improve the standard of living of many Burmese. But the KRC's Tay Tay 
scoffed at such justifications for doing business in Burma. "Any 
money that goes into Burma will go into the hands of the military - 
that's for sure."

In 1996, Massachusetts enacted a boycott of companies that do 
business in Burma. In response, a foreign trade group representing 
580 corporations, including Unocal, has challenged the Massachusetts 
law. The case is now before the Supreme Court.

Justices on March 22 heard arguments from the Clinton administration 
and the trade group claiming that the law was unconstitutional 
because it usurped the federal government's power to conduct foreign 
policy. They have not yet issued a ruling.

The case is the first the high court has agreed to hear on state and 
local governments' authority to impose economic penalties to express 
displeasure with a foreign government. Massachusetts is one of nearly 
three dozen states and municipalities - including San Francisco, 
Oakland, Berkeley and Alameda County in the Bay Area - that have 
enacted some form of Burma-related boycott.

Burma's military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, or 
SPDC, is widely regarded as one of the world's most repressive 
regimes. Military governments dominated by members of the majority 
Burman ethnic group have controlled Burma since 1962, when a coup led 
by Gen. Ne Win ousted an elected civilian government.

The junta has ruled by decree since 1988, when security forces 
slaughtered thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators. Two years 
later, the regime annulled elections in which the pro-democracy 
movement, led by Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi, scored 
an overwhelming victory. More than 1,300 political prisoners are 
currently languishing in Burmese jails, according to the U.S. State 

Other ethnic groups

In recent years, Burma has reached cease-fire agreements with all of 
the country's ethnic insurgents except the Karens. Mahn Sha said the 
KNU finds serious faults with those deals. "The Shan, the Mon, the 
Karenni - a number have reached cease-fire agreements, but they are 
still no nearer to any negotiated settlement of problems" facing 
Burma's ethnic groups, Mahn Sha said.

The KNU began dialogue with the military junta earlier this year, but 
fresh fighting between the insurgents and government troops in April 
sent thousands of Karen civilians fleeing into Thailand and led the 
KNU to break off talks.

The Karen insurgents envisage establishing a Karen state within a new 
democratic Burmese federation. The state would have its own 
legislature and governor, along with its own system of taxation. The 
rebels also seek control over natural resources in Karen territory.

Even in a democratic Burma under new leadership, Tay Tay said, Karens 
would need to have self-rule, because putting their fate in the hands 
of the Burman majority would still be too risky. "Maybe you can call 
it autonomy or self-determination, but we want self-rule," he 
said. "We know Burmese ways."



COMMUNIQUE # 9-22                                    6 June 2000 

Burma has witnessed "ten years of contempt for press freedom" under 
the rule of the military junta, which continues to flagrantly violate 
human rights and free expression, states Reporters sans frontieres 
(RSF). Holding power since 1988, the junta refused to recognise the 
May 1990 elections in which the National League for Democracy (NLD), 
under the head of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, won a 
landslide victory with over 80% of the popular vote. Since this time, 
the junta "has violated the rights of Burmese and foreign journalists 
to practice their profession freely" through murder, torture, severe 
jail sentences, threats and censorship, reports RSF. In the past ten 
years, four journalists were killed by Burmese security services. 
Immediately prior to the junta's take over in 1988, the Burmese press 
was "spearheading the struggle for democracy" and "enjoyed a revival 
of freedom," says RSF. The 18 September coup d'etat by the military 
junta ended this phase and since then the group has enacted many 
repressive measures against the media and civil society. Journalists 
are among a long list of others, including dissidents and members of 
rebel movements, who have been subjected to the regime's "cruelty, 
physical and psychological torture, rape and extra judiciary 
executions." For more information, view RSF's website: 

For other sources of news on Burma, the Alternative Asean Network on 
Burma (ALTSEAN) regularly publishes a report card on Burma. To 
receive a copy of this report, contact ALTSEAN in Bangkok, Thailand; 
Tel: +662 275 1811; Fax: +662 693 4515; E-mail: altsean@xxxxxxxxxxx



Tuesday, 6 June, 2000, 

The vice-chairman of Burma's military government, General Maung Aye, 
has concluded an agreement with the Chinese government to tackle drug 
trafficking and other crimes across their shared border.  The 
agreement was announced in Beijing during a visit by by General Maung 
Aye to mark the fiftieth anniversary of diplomatic relations between 
the two countries. 
In a joint statement, the two countries also agreed to explore new 
channels for developing trade, investment, agriculture, fishery and 

China was the first country to recognise Burma's military regime 
after it seized power in 1988, and correspondents say it is now the 
country's main arms supplier.  

____________________ REGIONAL ____________________


BANGKOK, June 7 (AFP) - Thailand has issued a strong protest to the 
Myanmar junta following a commentary in the state-run press 
threatening to expose Thai officials engaged in drugs 
trafficking "including those of royal blood." 

 "We have passed on our concern to the Myanmar authorities on the 
groundless implication in the report, (mentioning) certain sections 
of our society," Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan said late Tuesday in 
response to reporters' questions. 

 He said the protest had been made "in very, very clear and definite 
terms," and that Thailand believed it unlikely such an incident would 
happen again.
 On May 19 a commentary in the New Light of Myanmar blamed Thailand 
for the illicit drugs trade along its border. 

 It said if Bangkok tried to deny the charges the paper was "willing 
to reveal a list of names stretching back generations, even including 
those of royal blood." 

 Thailand and Myanmar form part of the notorious "Golden Triangle" 
opium growing region, along with parts of Laos, and the two countries 
often squabble over who bears the brunt of the blame


Tuesday, 6 June, 2000, 

The vice-chairman of Burma's military government, General Maung Aye, 
has concluded an agreement with the Chinese government to tackle drug 
trafficking and other crimes across their shared border.  The 
agreement was announced in Beijing during a visit by by General Maung 
Aye to mark the fiftieth anniversary of diplomatic relations between 
the two countries. 
In a joint statement, the two countries also agreed to explore new 
channels for developing trade, investment, agriculture, fishery and 

China was the first country to recognise Burma's military regime 
after it seized power in 1988, and correspondents say it is now the 
country's main arms supplier.  



Wednesday, June 07, 2000, updated at 10:56(GMT+8)  

The further promotion of good-neighborly and cooperative relations 
between China and Myanmar is an important part of China's diplomacy 
concerning its surrounding areas, Chinese Vice-President Hu Jintao 
said in Beijing Tuesday.  

During talks with Maung Aye, vice-chairman of the State Peace and 
Development Council of Myanmar, Hu said that Sino-Myanmese friendship 
and cooperation has been developing steadily over the past decades 
despite the great changes that have taken place in the international 
There have been frequent exchange of high-level visits between the 
two countries in recent years, and bilateral cooperation in 
political, economic, trade, cultural and other areas has expanded.  
In addition, the two countries have supported and cooperated with 
each other in international and regional affairs, Hu said, adding 
that "We are satisfied with the smooth development of Sino- Myanmese 
The Chinese vice-president also expressed his appreciation for the 
Myanmese government's consistent adherence to the one China stance 
and its support for China's reunification.  

Hu said he hopes that the tradition of high-level exchanges of visits 
will continue in the future, and government departments and people 
from all walks of life between the two countries will increase 

He also hopes that the two sides will expand economic and trade 
cooperation, and promote consultation and cooperation in 
international and regional affairs in order to consolidate their 
traditional friendship and bring long-term and good-neighborly 
relations in the 21st century.  

Hu briefed the visitors on China's reform and opening-up as well as 
its modernization drive. He wished the Myanmese people more success 
in building their country.  

Maung Aye said that the two countries are linked by rivers and 
mountains, and their peoples have a time-honored friendship, noting 
that bilateral relations have developed satisfactorily since the 
establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries five 
decades ago.  

There are no pending issues to be solved between the two countries, 
he said, noting that the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence 
serves as the cornerstone of brotherly relations between the two 

He said that Myanmar is willing to work with China to develop their 
relations in the 21st century, adding that Myanmar hopes to maintain 
high-level visits, expand economic and trade cooperation, implement a 
border management agreement, and intensify anti-drug cooperation to 
maintain a safe and stable border between the two countries.  

The Myanmese leader said that his country has long followed the one 
China principle, and the Myanmese government has taken a clear- cut 
and firm stance on the Taiwan issue. Myanmar will never develop 
official relations with Taiwan at any time, he said.  

He offered congratulations to the return of Hong Kong and Macao to 
China. He said the smooth return demonstrates that the policy of "one 
country, two systems" is successful, expressing the belief that the 
Chinese people will accomplish their objective of peaceful 
reunification of the motherland.  

He said that developing countries should intensify unity, and work 
together to safeguard their own interests.  

Maung Aye also invited Hu to visit Myanmar. Hu expressed thanks for 
the invitation.  
Prior to the talks, Hu presided over a welcoming ceremony in honor of 
Maung Aye.  
The two leaders also attended a signing ceremony of a joint statement 
on a blueprint for future bilateral relations and cooperation between 
the two countries. 

__________________ INTERNATIONAL __________________


Information Office, National Coalition Government of the Union of 

The following is an update on the MP campaign as of Tuesday, June 6, 
We would like to take this opportunity to express our most sincere 
thanks and highest appreciation to all of you for your continued 
efforts and dedication to Burma's struggle for democracy and freedom.

1.	201    MPs at IPU conference in Jordan already signed up for 
their Solidarity with the MPs of Burma. (Representing 82              
2.	122    MPs of Ireland
3.	 68    MPs of Estonia
4.	 66    MPs of Belgium
5.	 50*   Members of the United States Congress (16 Senators and 
34              House of Representatives)
6.     43    Members of European Parliament
7.     27    MPs and Senators from Canada
8.	 26    MPs of the Netherlands
9.	  3    MPs of Cambodia (including Sam Rainsy, Chair of 
the              Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats)

* 50 members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States signed up for the co-sponsorship of the concurrent resolution 
on Burma (S.CON.RES. 113 IS and H.CON.RES. 328 IH respectively, 
expressing the sense of the Congress in recognition of the 10th 
anniversary of the free and fair elections in Burma and the urgent 
need to improve the democratic and human rights of the people of 

In total, 606 MPs all over the world have been officially with the 
legitimate MPs of the Union of Burma.

Information Office



Paul Marsden MP tabled the following Early Day Motion today in the  
British Parliament. 
The EDM number is 804.   British readers of Burmanet news may like to 
write to their MP to ask  him/her to sign up. 

Catherine Field, 
Research and Advocacy 
Christian Solidarity Worldwide 


That this house recognises and supports the Committee Representing  
the   People's Parliament in Burma, which has been established due  
to the   military junta's refusal to comply with the 1990 election  
results and   allow parliament to convene since that time; notes 
that  the CRPP has   already received statements of support from the  
European Parliament,   the Danish Parliament, the Belgian Parliament  
and the Norwegian   Parliament, and hopes that international  
recognition of this kind will   serve to strengthen the pro-
democracy  movement in Burma.   



June 7, 2000

    Special Envoy of the Government of the Union of Myanmar Secretary-
1 of the State Peace and Development Council Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt left 
Yangon by air on 6 June to attend the funeral service of the former 
Prime Minister of Japan Mr. Keizo Obuchi at the invitation of the 
Government of Japan.



June 7, 2000

Lt.General Khin Nyunt of Military Intelligence arrived at Tokyo June 
6, 2000.  SPDC Secretary 1 and Head of Military Intelligence arrived 
at Tokyo this evening to attend the former prime minister of Japan 
funeral on June 8, 2000. The initial news came out last week that the 
military strong man will arrive on Tokyo June 7 and he will go back 
on June 8 after the ceremony of Keizo Obuchi's funeral.

According to reliable sources, he will meet some Japanese officials. 
But it is difficult to get his schedule exactly.

Some Burma watcher think that the military intelligence avoid the 
protest of pro-democracy activists in Tokyo and he got a very good 
lesson from his deputy, Brig.General Kyaw Win who came to Japan last 
year. Kyaw Win faced the protests wherever he go while he was in 
Joint Action Committe for Democracy in Burma hold a press conference 
this afternoon and announced the statement concerned with Khin 
Nyunt's trip to Tokyo.

The statement said that Khin Nyunt is the most responsible person for 
crack down on peace demonstrators in 1988 peoples'uprising, jailing, 
torturing, threatening, confining, restricting the pro-democracy 
activists in Burma. JAC also urged the world leaders who coming to 
Japan to attend the former prime minister's funeral that not to shake 
hand, not to sit together and not to talk anything with Khin Nyunt.

Tokyo activists will stage a demonstration on June 7 at Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs for issuing the visa to Khin Nyunt.



TOKYO, June 7 (AFP) - Pro-democracy protesters rallied here Wednesday 
to protest a Myanmar general's trip to Japan to attend a memorial 
service for former prime minister Keizo Obuchi. 

 About 100 Myanmar protesters, wearing T-shirts and badges with pro-
democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi's pictures, shouted slogans against 
Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt in front of the Myanmar embassy in 
 The powerful chief of Myanmar's military intelligence arrived here 
Tuesday after Japan granted him a visa so that he could join the 
mourners at the memorial service. 
 "Get out," "Democracy never dies," the protesters shouted as 50 
Japanese police officers looked on. 
 They labelled Khin Nyunt, who is also first secretary of the 
military junta, as "the strongest champion in violating human 
rights," and in a leaflet charged "part of the Japanese government is 
helping the military dictator." 
 "He should not attend the funeral service with other countries' 
representatives like (US) President Clinton," said Htin Aung, a 40-
year-old protester from the Japanese branch of the National League 
for Democracy (NLD). 
 "I want him to get out of Japan as soon as possible ... All he wants 
is money from Japan," said Thaing Shin-Yat, a 24-year-old student in 
 Earlier, activisits had said the Myanmar general was notorious for 
barbarity and responsible for cracking down on democracy. 
 Myanmar has been a pariah to most Western nations, including the 
United States and European Union, since its regime bloodily 
suppressed pro-democracy protests in 1988. 



June 7, 2000

 Late last month, you issued Myanmar News Bulletin Issue No.5/2000. 
It contained so many important errors, I feel it necessary to send 
this letter. Contrary to what you said, "that the election was not 
held to transfer power" is incorrect. 

 If you had consulted the election law, which the soldiers in power 
wrote and promulgated, you would have found that it was called Pyithu 
Hluttaw Election Law, 31, May l989. In its definitions, it said that 
Hlut¼taw means Pyithu Hluttaw. That term was prominently used in the 
military written constitution of l974. Article 12 of the l974 
fundamental law declared that: "The sovereign powers of the State, 
legislative, executive and judicial reside in the people, comprising 
all national races whose strength is based on peasants and workers." 
In Article 13, it said: "The Pyithu Hluttaw, elected by citizens 
having the right to vote, exercise the sovereign power invested in it 
by the people . . ." Chapter IV sets forth the powers and duties of 
this body. Had you read this you would not have followed the Slorc 
fiction about the meaning of the term. 

 Thus, the authors of the election law and the people knew that they 
were voting to create a new Pyithu Hluttaw and that, once seated, all 
power, including control of the military, should be transferred to 
the legal seat of power. The language is clear and only after the 
military saw the size of the NLD victory and its total rejection by 
the people did it begin to reinterpret the language of the election 
law so that Slorc did not have to give up power which belonged to the 

 The second error in your report was to say that the "process of 
orderly convening the people's assembly was disrupted when the 
political party that won the largest number of seats, the NLD, 
decided to ignore the primary objective of holding the election". 

 If you had reviewed the facts, you would have found that the NLD 
waited patiently between May 27, when the election was held, and July 
27, when the military issued Declaration 1/90 which said in paragraph 
19 that the government it put in place on September 18, the State Law 
and Order Restoration Council, is a military government, "one that is 
governing by martial law". On July 28 and 29, the NLD held a caucus 
and issued the Gandhi Hall Declaration. It said that the party had 
proposed to the Slorc "to hold frank and sincere discussion with good 
faith and with the object of national reconciliation" but received no 

 At the end of its declaration, it said, "in accordance with the 
wishes of the people, Article 3, Chapter 2, of the Pyithu Hluttaw 
Election Law, the essence of the democratic system and international 
procedures, we, the NLD Pyithu Hluttaw members, unanimously call on 
the Slorc on this day to convene the Pyithu Hluttaw." Sadly, this was 
not done. 

 In the light of the facts, not the fiction issued by Slur/SPDC, the 
NLD did not ignore the orderly process for consultation and transfer 
of power as called for in the election law, but it was the military 
rulers who disregarded the outcome of the election they called and 
supervised. For 60 days they made no effort to hold talks with the 
leaders of the victorious party and take steps to fulfill the 
conditions of the election law and transfer power. 

 Finally, your bulletin reports that when the NLD refused to join in 
forming an assembly to write a new constitution presumably under the 
military, "some members elect went underground" thus delaying the 
convening the people's assembly. 

 That some members of the NLD went underground and even left the 
country is of no consequence in the light of the fact that it was the 
military rulers who were in violation of the election law and by 
their action provoked some individuals to take individual actions. 
 But that was not the action of the elected party: it did not call 
for it members to go underground and leave the country. It stood 
ready then as it has ever since, to begin talks with the Slorc/SPDC, 
to follow the letter of the law and bring about a peaceful and proper 
transfer of power. 					

 Finally, you call upon the Western media to correct its description 
of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, saying that she was never qualified to stand 
for elected public office in Burma and you cite the l947 constitution 
which the military violated when it overthrew the elected government 
in l962 and abrogated in favor of a new fundamental law promulgated 
in l974. 

 You specifically say that she was disqualified because "any person 
married to a foreign citizen or anyone holding allegiance to a 
foreign power" is so. If you had examined the l947 constitution you 
would have found that Article 74 sets forth persons who were 
disqualified from being members of the parliament. Subsection 1 
defines this as "any person who is under any acknowledgement of 
allegiance or adherence to a foreign power or is a subject or citizen 
or entitled to the rights and privileges of a subject or a citizen of 
a foreign power". Do you know for a fact that she acknowledge 
allegiance or adherence to a foreign power? Do you know for a fact 
that she is a subject or citizen of a state other than Burma and is 
entitled to the rights and privileges of a subject or a citizen of a 
foreign power? Do you know for a fact that she renounced her Burmese 
citizenship and chose that of her husband? 

 I do not think that you can honestly say yes to any of the above 
questions. Further, you have the words of her husband, published in 
his introductory essay in her book, "Freedom from Fear" (l991), that 
long before their marriage they discussed her feeling that someday 
she might have to return to Burma: "I only ask one thing, that should 
my people need me, you would help me to do my duty by them." 	

 These are not the words of someone under another's control. These 
are the words of a true patriot, who stood ready, long before the 
hour, to return to her homeland and take up any tasks given to her by 
the people. Surely, you must hope that your sons and daughters, 
wherever they may live, also are ready to return home in response to 
the call of your people and demonstrate the same kind of patriotism 
that Aung San Suu Kyi had demonstrated for these past 11plus years. 

 I believe that you owe the people of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi and the 
NLD an apology for toadying to the criminal and illegal government in 
Burma and acting as its mouthpiece. 

 Josef Silverstein is professor emeritus of Rutgers University. He is 
a Burma specialist. 


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: 

You can also contact BurmaNet by phone or fax:

Voice mail or fax (US) +1(202) 318-1261
You will be prompted to press 1 for a voice message or 2 to send a 
fax.  If you do neither, a fax tone will begin automatically.

Fax (Japan) +81 (3) 4512-8143


Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: