[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
BurmaNet News (Editorials): Decembe
- Subject: BurmaNet News (Editorials): Decembe
- From: strider@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:13:00
Subject: BurmaNet News (Editorials): December 18, 2000
Due to the number of news stories and editorials today, BurmaNet
has divided news and op/eds into separate issues. This issue
contains todays editorials and opinion pieces.
______________ THE BURMANET NEWS ______________
An on-line newspaper covering Burma
________December 18, 2000 Issue # 1688_________
NOTED IN PASSING: ?If Clinton wants to leave George W. Bush a powerful
precedent for a bipartisan foreign policy, he will support Suu Kyi and
the people of Burma by banning textile and apparel imports that enrich
the members of Burma's military dictatorship.?
The Boston Globe. See Boston Globe: Pressure on Burma
OPINION/EDITORIALS_______
*Boston Globe: Pressure on Burma
*The Japan Times: Myanmar in the middle
*Irrawaddy: Lessons from the Mawdsley Saga
*Bangkok Post: Postbag: Open your eyes to the plight of Burma
*BurmaNet: Could Forced Labor Sanctions Mean More Aid For Burma? Amb.
Derek
Tonkin on Forced Labour in Burma
*NCGUB: On the 10th Anniversary of the Formation of National Coalition
Government of the Union of Burma
*Burma Courier: Before You Leave, General than Shwe
The BurmaNet News is viewable online at:
http://theburmanetnews.editthispage.com
______________OPINION/EDITORIALS_________________
Boston Globe: Pressure on Burma
By Globe Staff, 12/17/2000
BE IT IN THE Balkans, in Rwanda, or in Iraq, criminals in power
have committed their crimes against humanity without being deterred by
disapproval from the outside world.
But in the case of the brutal military junta that rules Burma, there are
signs that outsiders are determined to protect human rights and restore
the legitimate government of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi
and her National League for Democracy, which won 80 percent of the seats
in Parliament in a 1990 election that the junta has scorned.
This month, at a long-postponed ministerial meeting of the European
Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the ASEAN
countries yielded for the first time to the EU's interference in the
internal affairs of a member state. Ever since the Burmese junta gained
acceptance from ASEAN in July 1997, that regional bloc has been snubbed
by European countries demanding that the Burmese junta respect human
rights and engage in political dialogue with Suu Kyi.
In a symbolic concession at last week's meeting in Laos, the junta
agreed to receive an EU delegation in January and to release Suu Kyi
from house arrest ''at the appropriate time.'' The Europeans must take
care not to be fobbed off with a ceremonial visit to Burma. They should
insist that the junta cease the practice of torture that was documented
in a desolating report
released last week by Amnesty International, free all the political
prisoners subject to those sadistic tortures, and begin a dialogue with
Suu Kyi and her party that may lead to restoration of Burma's elected
government.
Fortunately, the EU's initiative comes after the International Labor
Organization, the oldest UN agency, called on its members to review
relations with Burma and consider sanctions as a means to end the
junta's widespread use of forced labor. There are teeth in the ILO's
chastisement of the junta.
Also, in an exemplary display of bipartisan solidarity in the cause of
human rights and democracy, members of the US Senate and the House of
Representatives signed letters to President Clinton asking him to use
his power ''to ban all textile and apparel imports, at least, if not all
imports from Burma.'' The signatures of liberals Tom Harkin of Iowa and
Patrick Leahy of Vermont appeared on the Senate letter alongside those
of Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
If Clinton wants to leave George W. Bush a powerful precedent for a
bipartisan foreign policy, he will support Suu Kyi and the people of
Burma by banning textile and apparel imports that enrich the members of
Burma's military dictatorship.
___________________________________________________
The Japan Times: Myanmar in the middle
December 18, 2000, Monday
Relations between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Europe
are moving forward. The fact that foreign ministers from the two blocs
held their two-day meeting in Vientiane, Laos, last week is a sign of
progress. The relationship had been frozen for two years amid mounting
acrimony. Divisions between the two groups are still wide, but they have
a better chance of resolving their differences if they are talking to
each other rather than at each other.
The cause of the standoff was ASEAN's decision to admit Myanmar to the
group three years ago. The policies of the Yangon government - its
human-rights abuses, suppression of democracy and involvement in illegal
activities - obliged European Union governments to protest its presence
at meetings. ASEAN governments rallied around their organization's
integrity - their right to include whoever they chose - and its guiding
principle of noninterference in the domestic affairs of members. As a
result, ministerial-level dialogue between ASEAN and the EU stalled.
This year, Myanmar made its way to the meeting. Its delegates were at
the table, and Yangon's policies were on the table. Indeed, the issue
hung over all the talks. Fortunately, the two sides were able to work
out a suitable compromise.
The leaders of the ruling junta in Myanmar agreed to free Ms. Aung San
Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy and Nobel Peace
Prize laureate, and other opposition leaders from virtual house arrest.
Ms. Suu Kyi has long been a thorn in the side of the government, which
overturned her party's victory in national elections nearly a decade
ago. She enjoys considerable overseas support and the government's
ham-fisted tactics have ensured that she stays in the limelight. She and
other party leaders have been confined to their homes since the
government interrupted her last trip outside the capital to conduct
political activities.
In a bid to soften its image, the junta released six opposition leaders
a week before the Laos meeting. Myanmar also agreed to allow an EU
fact-finding mission to visit the country in January to confer with Ms.
Suu Kyi and the junta. But it will not permit the EU members to become
involved in any arbitration to encourage reconciliation talks between
the junta and the NLD.
ASEAN's willingness to compromise on the Myanmar issue is encouraging.
Noninterference is a wonderful principle, but it is proving unworkable
in practice - at least, not if ASEAN wants to be a credible
international player. Myanmar's admission to the organization was
justified on the grounds that engagement would facilitate reform in the
country.
The logic is impeccable, but things have not worked out as planned. The
government in Yangon has proved unyielding; the political situation is
unchanging and human rights continue to deteriorate. Prior to the
ASEAN-EU meeting, Amnesty International issued a report condemning the
junta for torture and ill-treatment of dissidents and minorities.
Myanmar dismissed the report. Even the International Labor Organization
is demanding sanctions against Myanmar and requesting that all member
states and organizations review their relations with the country because
of its use of forced labor.
Given the circumstances, the meeting's call for "early" talks between
the junta and the NLD and other opposition groups is encouraging. It
endorsed U.N. special envoy Razali Ismail's mission to promote
reconciliation, another positive sign.
But declarations only mean so much. There must be real improvement in
conditions in Myanmar, and that means putting pressure on Yangon to
change. The work can be done behind the scenes and through various
means, but there has to be a price for noncompliance.
ASEAN governments should take the lead, but Japan has a role to play as
well. As a leading aid donor and having a long history of friendly
relations with Myanmar, Japan should use every bit of influence it can
muster to nudge the junta toward dialogue and respect for human rights.
Last week's meeting was not entirely devoted to the Myanmar issue. The
ministers pledged to support Indonesia's territorial integrity and its
efforts to resolve conflicts. The meeting also backed a new round of the
World Trade Organization with a broad and balanced agenda. It affirmed
the need for more market access and the removal of nontariff barriers.
ASEAN and the EU clearly desire a new and better partnership. Building
it will not be easy. A guiding principle has to be mutual respect and
equality among the two groups. But that same principle needs to be
applied to citizens in both groups, not just their governments. That
could be the key that unlocks the stalemate and allows the relationship
to move forward.
___________________________________________________
Bangkok Post: Postbag: Open your eyes to the plight of Burma
December 17, 2000
Many of my Thai friends have asked me why there are so many Burmese in
Thailand. They say the Burmese are not only financial burdens but also
cause security threats to our country. My reply to them is to point out
that what they see is an illusion. In 1988, Burmese students and
civilians demonstrated against the military regime and were brutally
suppressed. Unlike the success Thais gained on October 14, 1973,
democratic Burmese are still living under oppression 12 years later.
After 1988, Burmese refugees were forced to leave their homes to seek
asylum in Thailand because many of their families and colleagues were
killed as they stood up against the Burmese military regime. They have
been forced to leave their homes and become porters and labourers. Many
women have been raped by armed soldiers in uniforms. Wives have been
raped and killed in front of their husbands and young kids. And many
other scenarios beyond our imaginations have happened there. My dear
Thais, please wake up from the illusions that you have!
Pongtheb Yangsomcheep
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Irrawaddy: Lessons from the Mawdsley Saga
>From the October 2000 issue
The release of human rights campaigner James Mawdsley after more than a
year of unlawful imprisonment in Burma has been greeted with relief by
activists and others around the world. It is indeed a happy occasion
when a blatant injustice is corrected, even if it is in the context of a
cynical maneuver by a ruthless regime to portray itself as "charitable."
Thankfully, Mawdsley has not played along with the junta?s bid to
improve its image ahead of the upcoming summit between the European
Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) in
Vientiane, Laos. Unlike other activists who have made symbolic gestures
of solidarity with Burma?s more than 1,000 political prisoners, Mawdsley
remained clear-sighted about the nature of the regime throughout his
experience. By refusing to compromise for the sake of his own freedom,
he has demonstrated unequivocally that pressure from the international
community was the sole factor in securing his release. Naturally, the
regime attempted to save face by timing its "charitable act" with the
end of the Buddhist Lenten season, and by releasing half a dozen Burmese
prisoners for good measure. But there is little doubt that Burma?s
regional partners were at work here, trying to contain the diplomatic
damage done by the brutal beating inflicted upon Mawdsley, a British
citizen, in his Kengtung prison cell last month.
It would be expecting too much to believe that Burma?s diplomatic allies
have suddenly discovered the political will to exert real pressure on
the regime. No doubt the low-key intervention was merely intended to
patch things over long enough to allow the meeting in Vientiane to pass
without the threat of another embarrassing cancellation. However, the
fact is that pressure did work in this instance, meaning that the regime
is not as immune to external influence as it pretends to be. It also
means that Asean can no longer plead powerlessness in the face of the
regime?s intransigence.
As Mawdsley has shown, firm determination is a tremendous asset when
dealing with unprincipled dictators. Let?s hope that Asean and the rest
of the international community realize this as they continue to push for
the eventual liberation of the countless Burmese who remain prisoners in
their own country
___________________________________________________
BurmaNet: Could Forced Labor Sanctions Mean More Aid For Burma? Amb.
Derek
Tonkin on Forced Labour in Burma
Dec. 16, 2000
During the first week of this month, Myanmar.com's discussion list saw
an unusually well reasoned exchange on a seemingly improbable
subject--could the recent ILO sanctions on Burma for using forced labor
end up rewarding the regime?
To set the stage, the International Labour Organization called on the
world's governments
to take "appropriate measures" to bring an end to forced labor in Burma.
On Dec 5,
retired British Ambassador Derek Tonkin started the debate by arguing
that "appropriate
measures" taken by ILO members could include development assistance that
would remove the regime's need to use forced labour in community
projects:
[Derek Tonkin was the British Ambassador to Vietnam from 1980-82, to
Thailand and Laos from 1986-89 and was Chairman of Beta Mekong Fund
Limited, a British venture capital investment fund, 1994-2000.]
******
Subject: Forced Labour in Burma [abridged]
"...Such measures could logically - for example - include the extension
of development aid,
to ensure that the country has sufficient resources to purchase heavy
road-building
equipment so that compulsory communal labour is no longer needed, or can
at least
be paid for.?
******
Subject: Tonkin on Forced labor in Burma
Lack of modern equipment is not the excuse to use forced labor . It is
not
acceptable in civilized world that use of forced labor is due to lack
of
equipment. If Junta has sense to spend some of the share from defense
budget in development, Burma could have been paradise now.
******
Subject: Forced Labour in Burma [abridged]
December 06, 2000
The point made by Pnhyein@xxxxxx that "lack of modern equipment is not
the excuse to use forced labour" is perfectly valid. There can be no
excuse for forced labour. This is however a moral point.
The point I was making was a practical point of "Realpolitik". The
provision of development aid might be seen (e.g. by the Japanese) as an
"appropriate measure" under the ILC/ILO resolution designed to induce
the junta to abandon forced labour. It is self-evident that, if the
junta has access to international development assistance, then heavy
road-building equipment could be made available to replace forced
labour, and resources could be made available to pay for local communal
labour. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the provision of
"ODA" would be more likely to encourage the junta to abandon forced
labour than to discourage them from doing so. This would be wholly
consistent with the ILC/ILO resolution. It could be argued that the
international community should not need to bribe Burma to abandon forced
labour. This is the moral position. The "Realpolitik" is that the
provision of ODA would be likely to have the desired effect. This is the
practical position. The further you are away from Burma, the stronger
the moral imperative ["These people must understand......."]. The closer
you are to Burma, the stronger the need to secure a practical solution
["An Asian solution to an Asian problem."]
Conversely, the application of sanctions (a ban on investment,
discouragement of tourism, restrictions on trade) would be less likely
to encourage the junta to abandon forced labour and more likely to
encourage them to continue. The rationale behind sanctions is that it is
important "to send a strong message" that forced labour will not be
tolerated. Such "pressure", I am sorry to say, is largely posturing for
domestic political purposes in the US and Europe. As practical measures,
sanctions are likely to be of limited effect when Burma has regional
neighbours (China, the countries of ASEAN, South Korea, North Korea,
Japan) who are on the whole willing to give the junta the benefit of the
doubt and in any case strongly resent what is seen as neo-colonialist
interference...
If contrary to my expectations sanctions were to have an effect, it
would be to cause damage to the economy. This in turn would mean a
reduction in national income and hence less resources to pay for
essential infrastructure labour. It is therefore reasonable to conclude
that effective sanctions seem more likely to induce the junta to
continue with forced labour than of putting pressure on them to bring it
to an end.
Governments, employers and workers need to come up with more practical
solutions to give effect to the ILC/ILO resolution than have yet been
advocated. Only Japan and Australia seem to have a clue about what is
needed and what might be done. With some imaginative diplomacy, it
should be possible to agree internationally supervised development
projects in Burma as a first step towards bringing Burma in from the
cold. All we have to look forward to at present is an increasing
East-West polarisation on Burma which will only benefit Chinese and
Japanese designs in the region, and leave the US and Europe with
diminishing influence.
Derek Tonkin [derektonkin@xxxxxx]
********
BurmaNet adds? Amb. Tonkin is the first to publicly raise an argument
that will likely be heard again?that Burma should be paid to stop using
forced labor. Tonkin justifies paying Burma not to use forced labor on
practical, ?Realpolitik,? grounds but makes what is essentially a moral
argument: if the international community doesn?t provide aid and instead
imposes sanctions, Burma will have ?less resources to pay for essential
infrastructure labour.? There are obvious moral objections to bribing
the regime not to use forced labor but if it worked, it might well be
worth swallowing any misgivings. There are, however, thoroughly
practical reasons to believe it won?t work.
First, whatever correlation there is between foreign aid/investment and
forced labor has largely been negative. That is, when there has been
more foreign money coming in, there has been more forced labor. Second
and even more importantly, there is no economic rationality to the
regime?s use of forced labor. They do not use forced labor out of
necessity, but instead out of a combination of stupidity and character.
Most credible accounts (ILO, US Dept of Labor, HRW, Amnesty) indicate
that the regime?s use of forced labor ramped up in early 90s and peaked
in 1996, declining somewhat in the years since. The pattern of foreign
direct investment in Burma shows very nearly the same pattern and for
good reason. The regime often uses forced labor in conjunction with
foreign aid and investment. The Yadana pipeline is an example of forced
labor used in conjunction with foreign investment and for example of
forced labor combined with foreign aid, look at the South Nawin Dam,
built in the mid 90s. Design work was paid for by the Japan Bank for
International Cooperation and much of the earth moving was done, by the
regime?s own account, the ?voluntary?, i.e. forced labor of more than
260,000 people.
(See
http://www.dol.gov/dol/ilab/public/media/reports/ofr/burma/main.htm#AP3P).
Tonkin, and even many of the regime?s critics, err in assuming the
regime uses forced labor because they lack the resources to pay the
workers. Governments have printing presses and can simply print the
money to pay for manual labor?especially when the cost of labor is as
low as it is in Burma. Printing money to pay forced laborers would have
an inflationary impact but the best estimate is that in 1996?the peak
year of forced labor?paying for ALL the forced labor in Burma would have
added about 8% to the inflation rate. A small price to pay for avoiding
international sanctions and scaring off most reputable foreign
investors, to say nothing of the inefficiency of using the army to round
up old women and children to break rocks.
If the rational economic (not to mention political) thing to do would be
to print the money to pay for labor, why doesn?t the regime do it? In
fact, there is evidence that the regime does print some money to pay for
corvee labor, although there are ample indications that it isn?t nearly
enough and in practice money rarely make it to the workers. Blame
corruption for that. The regime?s greatest failing, however, isn?t
corruption. It is stupidity. The reason they don?t print enough money
to pay for labor is that the regime?s leaders aren?t economically
rational. As Brigadier General Zaw Tun, Deputy Minister for National
Planning and Economic Development said of the regime?s grasp of
economics, ?It appears that the higher up generals know nothing about
what is happening.? He was fired for that bit of candor.
Realistically, what the regime lacks isn?t the resources to pay for
forced labor. Rather, it is the common sense to use the printing press
rather than the bayonet to induce people to part with their labor and
the discipline amongst the military to refrain from embezzling any funds
appropriated to pay for labor. If the regime possessed these qualities,
it would not need foreign help. Without these qualities, foreign aid
would be no help.
___________________________________________________
.
___________________________________________________
NCGUB: On the 10th Anniversary of the Formation of National Coalition
Government of the Union of Burma
December 18, 2000
Today is the 10th Anniversary of the day, on which the National
Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB) was formed on the
18th of December 1990, at Marnerplaw, with the full support of the
Democratic Alliance of Burma (DAB) and the National Democratic Front
(NDF). The NCGUB is also government of the National Council of the Union
of Burma (NCUB).
The NCGUB was formed to realize the desire for democracy of the entire
people, made up of various ethnic nationalities, as expressed explicitly
in May 1990 elections.
In the past 10 years, the NCGUB has worked relentlessly for termination
of the military dictatorship, for democracy and for the establishment a
federal union.
The cause of civil war, that has been raging for more than 50 years, is
the failure to establish a genuine national unity. We have endeavored
with all our vigor to perform this vital national duty in the 10 years.
We have especially striven earnestly for the gaining of sympathy,
support and recognition for the movement of the people of Burma for
democracy.
The NCGUB has endeavored to maintain and enhance the momentum of the
democratic movement in Burma by lobbying for support with the UN, the
EU, the ILO, the IPU, the Socialist International (SI), individual
governments, non-governmental organizations and individual parliaments,
and mobilizing overseas democratic forces of the patriots.
On this special occasion, we would like to pay our respect and put on
record the democratic activists who have been incarcerated by the
SLORC/SPDC, in military prisons, jails, detention centers, in prison
camps and the so-called guest houses of the SPDC, including Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi and others, who have been put under house arrest.
We would like also to express our deep appreciation and gratitude to
all the governments, the NGOs, parliaments, individuals in various
countries and the overseas democratic forces of the patriots, which have
been helping and supporting, in various ways, the movement for
establishment of democracy in Burma.
On this occasion, we also honor those who are continuing the struggle
against the dictatorship without surrender and with determination. The
SLORC/SPDC military dictatorship seized state power, with reliance on
force of arms, and has been holding it for more than 12 years now. It
has hijacked and trampled under foot the election results for more than
12 years. Since the day it came to power, the dictatorship has been
insulting the people daily, with the abuse of the armed forces. During
the more than 12 years rule of homemade military dictatorship of the
SLORC/SPDC, instead of progress, there has been only deterioration in
political, economic, social, educational etc. fields.
In addition to restricting activities, which are in accordance with the
laws concerning political parties, the SLORC/SPDC has been lawlessly
plotting every day, using all kinds of wicked means, with the intention
of abolishing the NLD, which had won the 1990 election with the
overwhelming support of the people.
The dictatorship has been perpetrating serious violations of human
rights of the people and they have to face severe hardships with regard
to food, clothing and shelter.
For the perpetuation of its hold on power, the evil military
dictatorship has been using religion as a prop and patriotism in its
propaganda, with a self-serving definition.
Even when the ILO has passed resolutions condemning it, the SLORC/SPDC
continues to practice forced labor, as a modern system of slavery.
It has been wrecking the future of the country by stifling the education
of young students who are the future generation.
We are convinced that dialogue is the only way to escape from the
general crisis faced by Burma.
The original owners of the sovereignty are the people. The people have
expressed their true will in May 1990 elections. They have decided on
the political system, the party and the leaders of their choice. The
people have legally entrusted the right to act on their behalf to the
representatives through the election.
For that reason, for the flourishing of democratic system in Burma, it
is our principal duty of today to support the Committee Representing
People's Parliament and cooperate for the emergence of democracy, at the
earliest date.
On the occasion of the 10th Anniversary of formation of the NCGUB, we
resolve to continue the struggle, unceasingly, holding hands firmly with
the resistance forces and patriots at home and abroad, for the
termination of the military dictatorship, for the emergence of a genuine
democratic system and for the establishment of a federal union, in
accordance with the objectives, laid down at the time when the NCGUB was
initially formed.
___________________________________________________
Burma Courier: Before You Leave, General than Shwe
Letter posted on Burma newsgroups: December 15, 2000
Dear General Than Shwe,
Life is very short. General Saw Maung sponsored fair elections in 1990
but he did not live to see democracy flourish. Before you retire it
will be wonderful if you leave some legacy and sweet memories that the
people of Burma and the next generation, including your children and
your children's children will always cherish and be proud of.
Your close neighbour, Thailand, who sponsored you to get into the ASEAN
club suggested that the ASEAN 'troika' should mediate for
reconciliation. The European Union suggested the same thing and UN
General Secretary Kofi Annan sent his special envoys many times but your
Government still refused to cooperate.
You know very well and the international community knows well that those
proposals are sincere and not to meddle in internal affairs of one
Sovereign State. They are just trying to help with some problems that
you have.
There are many countries in the world to day that have changed for the
better. It is time for Burma to change for the better, also.
Let me give one simple example. When I first came to USA in 1977,
chicken cost 39 cents per lb. Now one lb of chicken cost 79 cents.
When I left Burma in 1977, chicken cost 16 kyats for a viss (=3.6 lbs).
Now in Burma a viss of chicken costs 800 to 900 Kyats. Prices have
jumped fiftyfold in 23 years. The U.S. is not a flawless democracy but
it does allow the desire of the people to be the responsible authority.
You could make it to happen and I do positively believe that you can
make the difference before you retire.
May God bless you and bestow you with good health and much wisdom.
Saw Aung Khin, Seattle WA
________________
The BurmaNet News is an Internet newspaper providing comprehensive
coverage of news and opinion on Burma (Myanmar) from around the world.
If you see something on Burma, you can bring it to our attention by
emailing it to strider@xxxxxxx
To automatically subscribe to Burma's only free daily newspaper in
English, send an email to:
burmanet-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to The BurmaNet News in Burmese, send an email to:
burmanetburmese-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
________________
Burma News Summaries available by email or the web
There are three Burma news digest services available via either email or
the web.
Burma Update
Frequency: Biweekly
Availability: By fax or the web.
Viewable online at http://www.soros.org/burma/burmanewsupdate/index.html
Cost: Free
Published by: Open Society Institute, Burma Project
The Burma Courier
Frequency: Weekly
Availability: E-mail, fax or post. To subscribe or unsubscribe by email
celsus@xxxxxxxxxxx
Viewable on line at: http://www.egroups.com/group/BurmaCourier
Cost: Free
Note: News sources are cited at the beginning of an article.
Interpretive comments and background
details are often added.
Burma Today
Frequency: Weekly
Availability: E-mail
Viewable oonline at http://www.worldviewrights.org/pdburma/today.html
To subscribe, write to pdburma@xxxxxxxxx
Cost: Free
Published by: PD Burma (The International Network of Political Leaders
Promoting Democracy in Burma)
________________
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics