|
ABC News, 22
March 2000
Questions about whether state laws interfere with U.S. foreign policy WASHINGTON (AP) _ More than a decade after the South Africa boycotts, some Supreme Court justices questioned Wednesday whether states can refuse to buy from companies doing business in countries known for human rights abuses. A foreign trade group and the Clinton administration argued that Massachusetts unlawfully meddled in U.S. foreign policy by limiting state purchases from companies that do business in Myanmar, also known as Burma. Some justices appeared to agree. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked, "For Massachusetts to go it on its own when the United States is saying we want to get together with our world neighbors" on a Myanmar policy, "isn't there a clash?" Justice Stephen G. Breyer wondered if states also could enact purchasing policies intended to influence the actions of other states. That could result in "a kind of nightmare" or "chaos," he said. The lawyer for Massachusetts, Thomas A. Barnico, told the justices that states have the right to withhold "tax funds from the indirect support of brutal regimes abroad." The Constitution's framers "knew boycotts well" and did not bar states from taking such actions, he said. But lawyer Timothy B. Dyk, arguing for the National Foreign Trade Council, said the 1996 Massachusetts law unlawfully interferes in U.S. foreign policy. Congress passed more limited sanctions against Myanmar later in 1996, and that bars states from trying on their own to influence that country's government, Dyk said. However, Barnico contended Congress' 1996 Myanmar sanctions did not bar states from taking their own actions. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that a number of states boycotted companies doing business in South Africa during the 1980s during the apartheid era. "These were widespread practices by states then, were they not?" she said. "The very purpose of it was to change something going on in the South African government." Dyk contended those boycotts were unlawful. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, supporting the foreign trade group, said Congress actually authorized the South Africa boycott. But he added that because Congress has adopted its own policy on Myanmar, Massachusetts' policy amounts to interference. Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that Massachusetts' law could be considered a neutral measure that says, "we don't buy from anybody that violates human rights." Members of the Free Burma Coalition rallied outside the Supreme Court building during the hour-long argument. "This is the modern-day equivalent of the Boston Tea Party," coalition lawyer Tom Higdon said. "We are saying we care about human rights and we will not have corporations or the (European Union) dictate to us what products to buy and who can buy them." More than a dozen city governments also have enacted some type of trade restrictions regarding Myanmar. Some have adopted similar limits relating to China, Cuba and Northern Ireland. The military has ruled Myanmar, one of the world's poorest countries, since 1962. In 1988, the military gunned down thousands of protesters during a crackdown on a pro-democracy uprising. The Massachusetts law says most companies doing business with Myanmar can sell goods and services to the state only by if their bid is 10 percent lower than all other bids. After the trade council challenged the law in 1998, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it interfered with federal foreign policy and was pre-empted by the federal government's own sanctions. ABC News, 22 March 2000 Journalists killed on the job rose to 34 in 1999 WASHINGTON, March 22 (Reuters) - The number of journalists killed around the world as a consequence of their work rose to 34 last year, including 10 in Sierra Leone, where rebel forces targeted reporters covering atrocities against civilians, the Committee to Protect Journalists said on Wednesday. In releasing its annual worldwide survey, the journalist advocacy group said the number of deaths last year rose from 24 in 1998. But the mid-1990s still remained the worst period since the committee started its survey, reaching a peak in 1994 when 72 journalists were killed because of their work, about half of them in Algeria and Rwanda. "In the last few years it's clear that governments and anti-government groups both are trying to directly influence news coverage by attacking journalists," said Terry Anderson, committee vice chairman, who was kidnapped and held hostage in Lebanon for 2,454 days before being released in 1991. "Governments and anti-government groups do not attack journalists because they're annoyed, they do it because they're afraid. They know they cannot deprive people of their rights, they cannot force their will on others in the face of a free and determined press, it just doesn't work," he said. Six journalists were killed in Yugoslavia, five in Colombia, three in both Russia and Nigeria, two in Indonesia and Sri Lanka, and one in Argentina, Lebanon and Turkey, the report said. Most of the journalists killed worked for locally based news organisations. Eight were affiliated with news outlets based outside the country where they were reporting, including three journalists killed inside the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, bombed during last year's NATO attack on Yugoslavia. JAILED JOURNALISTS DECLINE In Sierra Leone, "on a single day, January 9, the RUF (Revolutionary United Front) hunted down four 'enemy' journalists, killing each in cold blood," the report said. "Within 10 days, rebels had killed a total of eight journalists," it said. The report, which covers more than 120 countries, said the number of journalists jailed for their work fell to 87 in 1999, one of whom was secretly released before year-end in China. That compared with 118 the previous year. "China and Turkey were the leading jailers of journalists. Other significant offenders last year with journalists in prison were Burma, Ethiopia, Syria, Cuba and Uzbekistan," said Ann Cooper, executive director of the committee. "We think that this number of journalists held in prison at the end of 1999 went down because some leaders no longer want to pay the diplomatic and political price of holding their journalists in jail," she said. Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic topped the committee's 10 worst "Enemies of the Press" list. He was followed by China's President, Jiang Zemin, Cuban President Fidel Castro, and Congo's President, Laurent-Desire Kabila. Also on that list were the leaders of Ethiopia, Ukraine, Tunisia, Malaysia, Peru and Egypt. ABC News, 22 March 2000 U.S. Supreme Court Questions Myanmar Trade Law WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Debating foreign affairs, human rights and state sovereignty issues, a number of U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday questioned whether Massachusetts may limit purchases from companies that do business with Myanmar. During arguments, several justices appeared skeptical about the constitutionality of the state law, which was adopted in 1996 because of widespread human rights abuses by the military regime in the southeast Asian nation formerly called Burma. A decision in the case, expected by the end of June, could have far-reaching implications as a number of other states or cities adopted similar measures in the 1980s and 1990s involving Myanmar and other foreign nations. The "selective purchasing law" directs state officials to publish a list of companies doing business with Myanmar, and restricts the ability of those firms to sell goods and services to Massachusetts agencies. The law effectively barred firms that do business with Myanmar from doing any business with Massachusetts and its state agencies by adding 10 percent to any bids received from such companies. POTENTIAL NIGHTMARE Justice Stephen Breyer asked the lawyer representing Massachusetts whether states also could enact purchasing policies intended to influence the actions of other states. That could result in a "nightmare" or "chaos," Breyer said. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor questioned whether Massachusetts could adopt a similar law against another U.S. state if it did not like that state's policy on the death penalty. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked, "For Massachusetts to go it on its own when the United States is saying we want to get together with world neighbors" on a Myanmar policy, "isn't there a clash?" She said the authors of the U.S. Constitution wanted the U.S. government to "speak with one voice" on foreign affairs. During the 1980s, many states and cities boycotted companies that did business in South Africa because of racial apartheid in that country. Chief Justice William Rehnquist asked Massachusetts lawyer Thomas Barnico when states previously took such positions involving foreign governments. When Barnico replied that it was in colonial America, before the U.S. Constitution had been adopted, Rehnquist said, he did think that "was a very satisfactory basis for analysis." U.S. SETS TRADE POLICY Justice David Souter said Massachusetts could condemn the Myanmar regime, but that it would be up to the U.S. government to go beyond an _expression_ of views to regulating trade or a boycott. "Wouldn't that be a sensible way?" he asked. Barnico argued that states have the right to take such trade actions aimed at "brutal regimes abroad." Representing the Clinton administration, Solicitor General Seth Waxman said the law should be struck down because it interferes with the federal government's exclusive power to set foreign policy and regulate foreign commerce. He said a federal law providing for economic sanctions against Myanmar was adopted three months after the state law, and it specifically rejected the Massachusetts policy. Justice Antonin Scalia seemed the most sympathetic toward the law. He said that if Congress did not like the state law, it could pass a law that explicitly stops "states from running off with foreign affairs powers." The law was challenged by the National Foreign Trade Council, a group that represents U.S. businesses. "This case is without question the most important foreign affairs case to come before the Supreme Court in decades," Frank Kittredge, the president of the group, said. AFP, 23March 2000 Supreme Court hears arguments for local sanction power against Myanmar WASHINGTON, March 22 (AFP) - The US Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing
arguments in favor of a Massachusetts law aimed at economically penalizing the
military-run Myanmar for its human right abuses.
Demonstrators, including a small group of orange-robed monks, waved flags and posters outside the court building, in support of the so-called "Burma law," as Myanmar was formally known. The statute, undertaken by several US states and cities, adds a 10 percent penalty on companies who do business in Myanmar when they bid on government procurement contracts -- effectively barring them from winning those contracts. Congressman Bernard Sanders of Vermont, addressing the demonstrators, voiced his support for the law which he said had repercussions both here and abroad. "This issue is not just about democracy in Burma, it is also about democracy in the United States," Sanders said. "If a company wants to do business in a totalitarian society, that is its business. But we have the right to say you're not going to do business in our state or city," he added to protestors' cheers. The US Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday lent its weight to the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) which is fighting the law. "To allow states to impose a patchwork of counter-vailing and counterproductive trade regulations is unworkable, no matter how worthwhile the motivation," said Robin Conrad, senior vice president of the Chamber's public policy legal arm, in a statement. But Simon Billenness, a senior analyst at Trillium Management Corp., an asset management company, who co-authored the Massachusetts Burma Law, argues the law does not constitute trade regulations. "As consumers we are sovereign. This is about citizens' states conditioning their own procurement based on human rights," he told AFP. Billenness also argued the NFTC was trying to repeal a key legacy of the anti-apartheid fight when dozens of US cities and states, as part of a wide international movement, effectively barred companies that did business in South Africa from winning municipal and state contracts. He said the Supreme Court justices Wednesday morning had asked lawyers on both sides of the case a lot of tough questions, interrupting the lawyers after almost every sentence. "They are giving this great importance," Billenness added. Whatever the court rules, its decision will be binding across the country. A ruling is expected before the court adjourns next June. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's decision that state attempts to use trade sanctions against foreign countries are unconstitutional, Billenness said, then pro-Burma activists plan to reintroduce across the country a new set of Burma laws. Myanmar's leading democracy spokeswoman, Aung San Suu Kyi has called for international sanctions on her country as a means of pressuring the ruling military to ease its political grip on its people. "The military government itself has admitted that the state of Massachusetts boycott as well as the US citizens' boycott has proscribed their prospect of developing a modern economy," said Zar Ni, founder of the Free Burma Coalition. The US Court of Appeals in Boston last month unanimously upheld a November 1998 lower-court decision that Massachusetts intruded upon the powers of the federal government when it passed the Burma Law. The court agreed that the state could not impose selective purchasing sanctions on firms that do business with Myanmar. ABC News, 23 March 2000 Myanmar opens new hydroelectric plant YANGON, March 23 (Reuters) - Myanmar has opened a new 20 megawatt hydroelectricity plant, bringing the country's power supply to 750 megawatts, officials said on Thursday. The plant, opened on Wednesday, was in Bago Township, about 95 miles (150 km) north of Myanmar, said an official of the Ministry of Electric Power. "Implementation of this hydro power plant project was started in January 1994, and it cost a total of $21.21 million plus 4,300 million kyat ($13.23 million)," the official, who declined to be identified, told Reuters. Equipment for the plant was imported from China. Myanmar's electricity supply has increased from 400 megawatts in 1988. But the official said only 15 percent of Myanmar's population of more than 48 million had access to electricity. Myanmar officials say Myanmar has so far managed to generate electricity from only about one percent of its total hydro potential. Three major hydro power projects are due to be completed over the next two to three years with a capacity of 385 megawatts. (US$ - 325 kyat at unofficial free market rate) ABC News, 23 March 2000 Albright to Target China And Serbia at Rights Forum GENEVA (Reuters) - Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will lobby for support of U.S. resolutions denouncing human rights violations in China and Serbia when she addresses the main U.N. rights forum Thursday, a senior U.S. official said. Albright will urge the annual forum to reject any
Chinese attempt to quash debate so that its deteriorating record can
be thoroughly examined, he told reporters in Geneva ahead of the
speech at 9:45 a.m. EST.
But Albright, who left India for a day to address
the 53-member state forum, will stop short of calling for a
resolution condemning alleged violations by Russian troops in the rebel
republic of Chechnya, according to the U.S. official.
"On China, she's going to call for support for
the resolution and (for) reviewing China's human rights record on
the substance, as opposed to hiding behind procedural motions," the
official said.
He added: "The human rights situation in Serbia has only deteriorated over the last year, particularly with regard to media and repression of opposition." Albright will back resolutions expected to be
presented by other countries which reflect U.S. concerns about
"deprivation of democracy and human rights, particularly in Cuba, Sudan,
Iraq and Burma," according to the official. No decision had been
taken yet on supporting an expected resolution on Iran.
AFP News, 23 March 2000 Myanmar worker found poisoned in Putrajaya A FOREIGN worker was found dead in Putrajaya on Monday and police have classified the case as murder, Yesterday, a post-mortem revealed that 23-year-old construction worker from Myanmar, Khua Uk, died from poisoning. "We are waiting the complete report to continue with our investigations," said Sepang OCPD Supt Shukri Dahlan. Khua's body was found at Batu 14 Jalan Air Hitam near Gate 5 of Putrajaya about 8.45am on Monday following a tip-off. He was found with bloodstains on the nose and face. The victim was wearing a black T-shirt and camouflage pants. He had his work permit and passport number on him. Shukri said a man claiming to be the victim's brother went to the Banting hospital to identify the body. The man, Ban Luai, 28, said his brother left their Kuala Lumpur home last Saturday to find work in Putrajaya. He identified the body and confirmed that it was his brother, said Shukri. He said both siblings are legal workers in Malaysia. "No arrests have been made, but due to the circumstances of the case, especially with the victim's bloodstains, we have classified it as murder." He said initial findings of the post-mortem revealed the cause of death to be poisoning. He urged those with any information to call Chief Inspector Suthakaran at 03-84712222. AFP, 23 March 2000 Justices question anti-Burma law One asks: Doesn't Mass. statute clash with Constitution? By Richard Willing USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court justices seemed doubtful Wednesday that a Massachusetts law limiting purchases from companies that trade with Burma is constitutional. ''Isn't there a clash with what the framers (of the Constitution) intended, that we speak with one voice on foreign policy?'' Justice Stephen Breyer asked during oral argument. Upholding the law, Breyer continued, could result in a ''nightmare'' or ''chaos'' if individual American states used the precedent to adopt similar sanctions against one another. At issue is the Massachusetts law, adopted in 1996, to combat forced labor and other human rights violations by the military government of Burma, which calls itself Myanmar. The law puts a 10% surcharge on bids for state business by companies doing business with Burma. The court's decision could affect dozens of other state and local laws that impose sanctions against Burma, Nigeria and Cuba. Critics contend that the Massachusetts law and similar measures amount to ''miniature foreign policies.'' Before reaching the Supreme Court, the Massachusetts law was struck down by two lower federal courts, on grounds that it intrudes on the federal government's power to conduct foreign policy. Defending the law, Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Thomas Barnico said states have the right to withhold their money from ''brutal regimes abroad.'' The Constitution's framers, he said, understood this and did not explicitly bar such boycotts. Timothy Dyk, lawyer for a group of 500 American companies that challenged the law, called it ''highly coercive.'' He said that earlier state and local laws aimed at South Africa's former all-white government were also probably unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia offered the Massachusetts law some support, suggesting that Congress could pass laws to rein in state measures that interfered with federal policy. Justice David Souter offered what he called a ''sensible way'': letting states pass resolutions ''verbalizing'' their disapproval but leaving trade policy to the federal government. A decision in the case, Natsios vs. National Foreign Trade Council, is expected before July. The Boston Globe, 23 March
2000
High court tackles Mass.
Burma law
Justices question whether states can discourage
trade with nation
By John Donnelly, Globe Staff, 3/23/2000
WASHINGTON - In tough and spirited questioning, the
Supreme Court justices yesterday delved into the Massachusetts Burma law and
probed whether states have the right to set foreign policy - or the right to set
any rules of trade on their own.
The explosive issue of states stepping into world
affairs arose for the first time in the widespread South African divestiture
movement during apartheid in the 1980s, but that matter never reached the
Supreme Court.
The Massachusetts law is likely to establish
whether states have the right to decide with whom they do business, an
increasingly common question as global trading expands.
In 1996, Massachusetts essentially stopped doing
business with companies that deal with Burma, also known as Myanmar, by putting
them at a competitive disadvantage for state contracts. The law stemmed from
outrage about human rights abuses by that country's military
regime.
The case was one of the most eagerly awaited on
this year's high court calendar, and many of the justices - some sitting at the
edge of their seats - constantly interrupted the lawyers representing both
sides.
While Massachusetts argued that states have a right
to use their purchasing power to penalize a dictatorship, businesses and the US
government say that amounts to unlawful interference in foreign
policy.
Many US businesses have pulled out of Burma since
the Massachusetts law went into effect, including Levi Strauss, Eastman Kodak,
and Hewlett-Packard.
Some justices openly doubted the wisdom of states
making financial decisions that affected US policy. Others wondered why the
matter shouldn't be left to Congress.
Thomas A. Barnico, assistant attorney general for
Massachusetts, argued that the state's action in passing the law would be the
first of many because of the explosive growth of global trade.
But Justice David H. Souter wondered why states
couldn't express their opposition to brutal regimes in a way that doesn't
interfere with US policy.
''Massachusetts could pass a resolution condemning
Burma, but it would be left to the United States to go beyond _expression_ of
issue and set regulations,'' said Souter, a former judge in New Hampshire.
''Wouldn't that be sensible?''
Barnico didn't think so. ''It leaves us open to
giving support for these countries with our money,'' he said.
Souter responded that with a resolution, ''you
could clear your conscience, and any fault would rest with the federal
government.''
''I'm not sure it would clear our conscience,''
Barnico said.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked whether the
Massachusetts law could lead to states taking issue with other states over
certain practices.
Barnico said he strongly doubted that outcome. ''We
are acting against our own economic self-interests here,'' he said. ''Our
principle will be limited.''
After Massachusetts passed its law four years ago,
President Clinton signed an executive order in 1997 that slapped economic
sanctions against Burma for its systematic human rights abuses. Four states and
about 30 municipalities have passed similar Burma boycott laws.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked: ''For
Massachusetts to go on its own when the United States is saying we want to get
together with world neighbors'' on a Burma policy, ''isn't there a
clash?''
Solicitor General Seth Waxman said the
Massachusetts law already has created problems for the US government and
international trade relations.
''It has created considerable discomfort with
trading partners and allies,'' Waxman told the justices. ''Instead of
conversations with traders about what to do with Burma, our conversations now
are what to do with Massachusetts.''
Timothy B. Dyk, the lawyer who argued the case for
the National Foreign Trade Council, representing 600 companies, called the
Massachusetts law a ''coercive'' attempt to block trade with Burma. Warning that
other states and cities could enact similar laws, he urged the justices to
''take the teeth away from the dog.''
But Justice Antonin Scalia wondered why there was
such a fuss over the law. If Congress objected, he said, why couldn't it pass a
law against such trade restrictions? ''Isn't that enough to solve the problem?''
he said.
''No, it's not enough,'' Dyk said. ''Congress would
be besieged.''
Justice John Paul Stevens asked whether states
should be able to encourage certain kinds of trade. ''What about a disaster in
another country?''
''It could do that,'' Dyk said. ''The question is,
is it trying to influence the policy of a foreign country?''
Scalia then asked Dyk: Where does it say in the
Constitution that a state can't engage in foreign policy?
Dyk listed several conditions, among them, that
states cannot declare war and cannot violate existing treaties with other
countries.
But Scalia's question hung, answered by the lack of
an answer.
The court will decide on the case, Natsios v.
National Foreign Trade Association, sometime before July. Two lower courts had
struck down the Massachusetts law.
After the hearing, Dyk said the rapidly growing
global economy is a key reason to put limits on states now.
With demonstrators shouting at him, ''No more
dollars for dictators!'' Dyk said, ''As trade becomes more important, it becomes
more important for Congress to speak with one voice.''
Moments later, the Massachusetts contigent was
cheered by the crowd of about 100 people on the Supreme Court steps. One person
held a placard that read, ''Boston Tea Party 2000.''
''We need to put our money where our mouth is,''
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly said.
''That's our case,'' said a smiling
Barnico.
''The key to this is Congress,'' said Barnico,
standing only 500 feet from the Capitol building. ''If they think that we have
gone too far, well, they can stop it. But they obviously haven't.''
Washington Post, 23 March
2000
High Court
Considers Mass. Anti-Burma Law
By Steven Mufson Simon Billenness, an analyst at an asset management firm for people who want to make socially responsible investments, asked state Rep. Byron Rushing whether he wanted to set his sights on a new target: the military junta in Burma. Rushing, a former community organizer and Harvard graduate who had become involved in anti-apartheid movement because of his African American heritage, said he didn't know much about Burma. Billenness said he would stop by. Tearing a page from the anti-apartheid movement, the two drew up legislation that penalized companies with ties to Burma when those firms competed for Massachusetts state contracts. Using the draft of an anti-apartheid bill, they crossed out South Africa and inserted Burma. Two years later, the measure became law. Yesterday, as "Free Burma" protesters marched outside, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case brought by the National Foreign Trade Council, which charged the Massachusetts government with usurping the foreign policymaking power of Congress and the executive branch. The Clinton administration, though it signed a different set of Burma trade restrictions just three months after the Massachusetts law, backed the trade group. Solicitor General Seth Waxman said yesterday that Massachusetts had created a "considerable source of irritation with our allies." He said that "instead of our conversations revolving around what to do about Burma, our conversations are revolving around what to do about Massachusetts." Attorney Thomas A. Barnico, representing Massachusetts, argued that the state has the same right as any consumer to make its own choices in the marketplace and express itself by "disassociating the state" and withholding "tax funds from the indirect support of brutal regimes abroad." The case has attracted broad interest. The European Union and Japan have accused Massachusetts of violating World Trade Organization rules that prohibit discrimination in purchases by governments. Former president Gerald R. Ford and 27 former Cabinet members from Republican and Democratic administrations also filed a brief that said state and local trade sanctions "confuse foreign countries" by "diluting the uniformity and clarity of the nation's position." The case has divided members of Congress, pitting Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and other leading liberal Democrats against Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-Neb.) and others in opposing briefs to the Supreme Court. Although Kennedy usually doesn't favor states' rights as a guideline in other areas, the group he joined argued that the Massachusetts Burma law was within the state's powers under the federal system. Supporters of the Massachusetts Burma law say it resembles state boycotts dating to the Boston Tea Party, when pre-Revolution Massachusetts activists blocked goods from Britain. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said yesterday that since the Constitution wasn't in effect then, he wasn't sure there was a connection. But Justice Antonin Scalia noted that the Constitution is specific about foreign policy powers taken away from the states, and purchasing laws aren't among them. Barnico also argued that Congress possesses the power to override the Massachusetts law and has failed to do so. Instead, Congress passed a measure Clinton signed that prohibited all but humanitarian assistance to Burma, now known as Myanmar; directed the executive branch to vote against assistance in international financial institutions; barred Myanmar officials from entering the United States; and gave the president power, which he used in 1997, to restrict new investment in Myanmar. The Burma military junta took power in 1988 after losing 80 percent of the seats in parliament to the National League for Democracy. The regime first jailed, then restricted the NLD's popular leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. She has called for international economic sanctions. Bangkok Post, 23 March 2000 Burma is biggest test to dateThailand has been haven to refugees from all
its neighbours but eventually arrangements have been made to return them
home-except with Burma. This is for all sorts of reasons, some not at all easy
to overcome. Thailand cannot expect any early repatriation of Burmese refugees after Rangoon stalled on the request from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for a monitoring role. Burmese authorities agreed that help from the UN agency would be useful, but last week gave a clear indication to Soren Jessen-Petersen, the assistant high commissioner for refugees, that they were not yet ready to discuss the destiny of over 100,000 Burmese refugees living in about 10 camps along the Thai-Burmese border. The response might have been disappointing for Thai officials responsible for camps from Mae Hong Son in the North down to Chumphon, but not so much for the UNHCR, which still has concerns about the safety on the Burmese side of the border. In a different way, the ruling State Peace and Development Council in Rangoon seems unsure about its armed forces' ability to wrest control of Karen-held border areas. Immediately adopting a Thai proposal for the repatriation of refugees, most of which are ethnic Karens-while the Karen National Union, the strongest armed rebel force, has yet to lay down its weapons-would bring no benefit to the military regime. Talks on the issue can only move forward after both sides seal a peace deal. But the Burmese government has not responded to an attempt by the new KNU leader Saw Ba Thin to convene talks after decades of fighting. The silence is seen as a tactical bid to test the strength of its foes in the wake of the KNU leadership change. A call by the new Karen leader for Asean to press Rangoon for discussions last month was ignored by member states because nobody wants to get involved in Burma's internal affairs. Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam are the other Asean member states. While security concerns seem to dominate, Burma, for real or tactical reasons, is also balking at a legal question over the citizenship of refugees now living on Thai soil. Though they crossed the border from Burma, most do not have Burmese citizenship, said Pornpimon Trichot, a Burma specialist at Chulalongkorn University's Institute of Asian Studies. Until the two governments can sort out this issue, Burma will remain reluctant to take back those whose citizenship cannot be proved, and that could leave a burden for Thailand. "The way the Thai government bluntly proposes repatriation without mentioning this issue, which is the key problem, shows some ignorance," Ms Pornpimon said. Another way for Thailand to speed up the repatriation effort is to rally international support, as Deputy Foreign Minister Sukhumbhand Paribatra tried to do by taking the diplomatic corps on a tour of border camps in Mae Hong Son and Tak at about the same time as the UNHCR mission was in Rangoon holding talks with Burmese authorities. The UNHCR-assisted repatriation of some 300,000 Cambodian refugees in time for a UN-supervised election in mid-1993 shows the importance of an international role in the process. Thailand seems to be hoping that everything will go as smoothly and quickly with the Burmese caseload after the Thai and Burmese governments, plus the UNHCR, sit down to map out steps for repatriation. But the Burmese mission is unlikely to go as smoothly. A key factor of the success in Cambodia was the strong desire of Cambodian refugees to return home to vote in the election. Added to this was the presence of the UN all over the country and in administrative functions to ensure the safety of their return. The Burmese case looks more likely to follow the time-consuming example of negotiations on the repatriation of refugees from Laos. Thai, Laotian and UNHCR authorities took over a decade to complete that repatriation effort. The reluctance of the Laotians, especially the Hmongs, to return to a nation they fled shortly before it fell into the hands of the current regime in 1975, and the Laotian government's suspicions about them. delayed the process. On a number of occasions, Thai authorities had to threaten to take legal action against the refugees in order to pressure them into a quicker decision to return home. The three sides took many years to move the process forward to the final stage, when the UN agency and donor countries provided financial and safety guarantees to stimulate the return. There now are only about 100 Laotians still encamped in Nakhon Phanom pending acceptance by third countries. With Burma's poor record on human rights, democracy and especially the use of forced labour by the military regime, the chance of securing international support for the repatriation of the Burmese from refugee camps seems slim. Only assured safety in border areas and guarantees from Rangoon on its people's rights will create the momentum for a repatriation effort. |