|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BURMA RELATED NEWS - February - 06, 2001. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEADLINE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AFP - UNHCR investigating claims of
massive refugee influx into Thailand
Asia Pulse - China to Set up New Mining
Production Base in South West
AP - Curfew In W Myanmar Town After
Religious Unrest
Bkk Post - Taking a single stand on human
rights
Asia Times - Editorials - Myanmar: Window of opportunity
The Nation - Thaksin misquoted on Burma
trip, says party
Tuesday, February 6 6:48 PM SGT
UNHCR investigating claims of massive refugee influx into Thailand BANGKOK, Feb 6 (AFP) - The UN
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said Tuesday it is investigating reports
that more than 300,000 ethnic Shan have fled into Thailand and that 120,000 more
are expected this year.
The Thai military is gravely concerned over the unchecked migration from
Myanmar into Thailand's northern border regions, the Bangkok Post quoted
military officers as saying.
Decades of fighting between Myanmar troops and ethnic armies fighting for
independence has long forced Thailand to host large refugee communities.
However, the influx from Shan state is believed to have increased in recent
years in the face of an offensive launched by the rival Wa tribe who signed a
peace agreement with the Myanmar junta in 1989.
Critics of the military regime say the Wa army has been given the green
light to flush out the rebel Shan fighters and tighten their grip on the
narcotics trade in the region.
The Post said the Myanmar government's program of forced relocation of Wa
civilians into Shan territory had forced many more people over the border.
The Thai military officially denies there is a major problem with Shan
refugees, but the Post said the government had begun talks about setting up
camps to accommodate them.
"We can only sit and watch them very closely because we are not directly in
charge of this matter," it quoted a senior military officer as saying.
A UNHCR spokesman in Bangkok said the organisation was trying to verify the
reports and was seeking the help of aid agencies and Shan groups in the isolated
region.
"We asked the military if they knew anything about that and they did not,"
the spokesman said.
The UNHCR has been aware of extensive movement between Shan state and
Thailand over the last four years, he said.
"Many people have been moving back and forth, either to find work, to
escape the instability in Myanmar, or because of the arrival of the Wa.
"But it has always been very difficult to find out who is a refugee and who
is not because when they arrive in Thailand they spread out and become involved
in different activities."
The Post quoted Shan State Army (SSA) chief Colonel Yawd Serk as appealing
to the Thai government to help the Shan refugees.
"If the Shan are put together in refugee camps it will be great. If the
situation gets better, I am willing to take them home," he said.
Tuesday, February 6 12:50 PM SGT
China to Set up New Mining Production Base in South West KUNMING, Feb 6 Asia Pulse - A
major breakthrough has been made in the prospecting of mining areas at the
Jinsha, Lancang and Nujiang river valleys in southwest China's Sichuan and
Yunnan provinces and the Tibet Autonomous Region.
The mining areas are expected to be a new production base of precious and
nonferrous metals and new materials, according to recent geological
surveys.
The original scope of the mining area, prospected during the country's
Ninth Five-Year Plan (1996-2000) period, was 160,000 square kilometers. The
current prospecting result shows that the area is larger than originally
expected.
The reserve of Yangla Copper Mine in Deqen County exceeds one million tons.
The Yinduo Mine has a prospective reserve of 500,000 tons of copper, one million
tons of lead-zinc, 5,000 tons of silver and huge amounts of cobalt.
In Yunnan Province, the mining area extends to the borders between China
and Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam.
Prospecting and exploitation of the mining area has been listed as a key
project in China's Tenth Five-Year Plan (2001-2005) period.
Tuesday February 6, 3:47 PM
Curfew In W Myanmar Town After Religious Unrest YANGON (AP)--Myanmar
authorities imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew in the northwestern city of Sittwe
after unrest between Buddhists and Muslims, official sources and residents said
Tuesday.
The unrest was triggered by a quarrel between some Buddhist and Muslims at
a market and spread around the town, about 600 kilometers northwest of the
capital Yangon, said local residents.
No details of damage or injuries were immediately available. The curfew
from 6:00 p.m. (1130 GMT) to 6:00 a.m. (2330 GMT) was imposed Monday evening.
"(The curfew) is just a temporary measure. The problem is contained and the
situation is under control," said an official, who didn't want to be named.
Sittwe is a port city of more than 300,000 people and the capital of
Myanmar's Rakhine state.
The majority of the population in the city are Buddhists. A minority of
Muslims began migrating from Bangladesh, which borders Rakhine State, during
British colonial rule in the first half of the last century.
Bangkok Post - February 06,
2001.
Taking a single stand on human
rights
There are things to be learned from the EU. But the EU is not Asean; things are done differently, approached differently. Vitit Muntarbhorn
It hardly needs to be stated that while the 10 countries of Southeast Asia
have managed to become part of a regional organisation in the form of Asean, the
political physiognomy of each country is very different. They vary from the
democratic to the undemocratic, from the pluralistic to the less
pluralistic.
Given such an environment, is it possible to converge and co-operate in
some area of human rights? Also, are there lessons for co-operation between
Asean and other regions, particularly the European Union?
It should be observed at the outset that the institutional and related
framework of Asean is very different from that of the EU.
First, the European Community, which later became the EU, was formed by a
series of treaties beginning with the Treaty of Paris in 1951 and more recently
by the Treaty of Nice with the axiom of close/closer economic integration. These
treaties are quite detailed and ambitious in approach and substance. Basically,
they are premised upon a supranational framework which transcends its members;
there are institutions such as the European Commission, European Council,
European Court and European Parliament, which have powers over the member
states. Supranational laws override national laws and are directly applicable in
member states.
The same cannot be said of Asean. Asean was established by the Bangkok
Declaration of 1967 rather than a full-fledged treaty. The founding instrument
laid down rather concisely basic principles for regional co-operation and did
not delve into details; it paved the way for a step-by-step evolutionary
approach.
The various institutions propelling the work of Asean, such as the periodic
meetings of heads of government (now annual), the annual meetings of ministers,
and the Asean Secretariat, do not operate on the basis of supranational
structures and laws, but depend upon the translation of that which is agreed
upon at the Asean level into national action by each member country.
While "integration" was from the start the key rationale for EU
convergence, this was not the case with Asean. It initially purported to promote
just "co-operation". It is only in recent years that the idea of "integration",
particularly in the economic field, has crept into the Asean agenda, as
exemplified by the rise of the Asean Free Trade Area.
Second, while the EU decision-making process is veering more towards
majority decision making rather than unanimity (except on very key issues), the
Asean approach is based very much upon consensus building. There is a multitude
of meetings to promote consensus, and this process is as important as the
substance of the agreement reached.
Third, members of the EU are already party to the European
inter-governmental human rights system in the form of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950). This is distinct
from the EU system. The Convention has its own court of justice which should not
be confused with the court of justice of the European Community.
There has been long debate in the EU concerning whether it should accede to
that European Convention. The latest development is that this organisation may
be heading towards the drafting and adoption of its own instrument with bearing
on human rights, perhaps under the rubric of "fundamental rights". A key
challenge is the value added which such an instrument may bring to Europe in the
context of international human rights law making.
There is no inter-governmental human rights system in Asia. The political
culture of this region has not been forthcoming on this front. It may be asked
whether there is room for developing a mechanism in this regard-if not at the
regional, at least at the sub-regional, level.
Fourth, while the members of the EU are party to many international human
rights treaties, the only human rights treaty to which all Asean countries have
acceded is the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Next in line is the
1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women;
it has been acceded to by nine of the 10 Asean members.
This suggests some convergence on the rights of children and women, even if
these countries do not participate generally in other international instruments.
It opens the door to co-operation on the issue of children's and women's rights
in the Asean region, even if the member countries may be wary of other human
rights issues.
Fifth, some Asean countries, and Asean as an organisation, often underline
non-interference in the affairs of a state each time the issue of human rights
is raised concerning the region.
In more recent times, some members of Asean have become fervent advocates
of "Asian values", implying the primacy of the community and family over
individuals, respect for authority, and the advocacy of a strong government.
This is coupled with their preference for economic, social and cultural rights
rather than political rights, and their advocacy for more emphasis on human
responsibilities and duties. At times, these "particularities" fly in the face
of the universality of human rights-for example, undemocratic undercurrents in
some countries, the suppression of dissidents, and the excessive use of national
security laws in breach of human rights.
Sixth, while civil society in the form of NGOs are generally able to
operate freely in Europe, this is not the case in several Asean countries.
People's participation is more limited.
However, this does not imply that Europe is free of human rights
transgressions. For instance, violence against women and children, human
trafficking, drug abuse, ill treatment of migrant workers, and constraints on
refugees and displaced people all are problems common to the EU and Asean,
although of course their extent varies from country to country.
Seventh, the nexus between human rights, sustainable development,
democracy, peace and good governance poses critical challenges to both regions,
and the performance of some countries in both regions leaves much to be desired
in this setting.
For instance, in the global movement towards disarmament, Asean countries
are part of the demand factor while EU countries are part of the supply factor,
both of which should be eradicated. Conversely, in the global trafficking of
humans and drugs, the demand and supply of both regions are interwoven and must
be countered.
Eighth, it is intriguing to note that in the Asean and EU context, and in
their negotiations, another term has emerged. "Fundamental rights" is at times
used as a synonym or a euphemism for human rights.
In the slightly broadened setting of the Asia-Europe Meetings (Asem)
involving Asean, the EU, China, Japan and South Korea, the notion of fundamental
rights has crept into the dialogue. For instance, the chairman's statement at
the first Asem meeting in 1996 cited the need to promote "fundamental rights",
albeit in this formulation:
"... the dialogue among the participating countries should be conducted on
the basis of mutual respect, equality, promotion of fundamental rights and in
accordance with the rule of international law and obligations, non-intervention,
whether direct or indirect, in each other's internal affairs."
At the 13th Asean-EU ministerial meeting in Vientiane in December the
following declaration was issued:
"We committed ourselves to promote and protect all human rights, including
the right to development, and fundamental freedoms, bearing in mind their
universal, invisible and interdependent character as expressed at the World
Conference on Human Rights in Vienna."
The above is complemented by two potentially positive developments: the
possibility of using three Asean countries-the Asean troika (the serving, past
and future chairmen)-to help in emergency situations; and the fact that at the
beginning of 2001 Burma allowed into the country an EU delegation with access to
democratic groups, including Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.
uVitit Muntarbhorn is a professor in law at Chulalongkorn University. The
above is based on a study presented at the International Conference on
Strengthening Asean Integration:Lessons from EU's Rule of Law held at the
university on Feb 1-2.
Asia Times - February 06,
2001.
Editorials - Myanmar: Window of opportunity Over 10 years of economic and other sanctions imposed on Myanmar by Western
nations and Japan have done nothing to dislodge or even significantly threaten
the country's ruling military junta. They have done as little to bring closer
the day when the 1990 election winner, opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi's
National League for Democracy (NLD), might take the reins of government. They
HAVE done a great deal in assuring that the vast majority of Myanmar's 50
million people continue to live in abject poverty with few prospects for change
as most of the country's international economic relations remain cut and no
incentives for improved economic management are forthcoming.
Since last October, members of the the ruling State Peace and Development
Council, notably military intelligence chief General Khin Nyunt, have conducted
secret negotiations with Suu Kyi. The talks have led to an easing of tension and
the release from detention in late January of 84 NLD activists. (Most were
imprisoned after Suu Kyi tried to travel with aides to do party work outside
Yangon on September 21). Advocates of sanctions have been quick to claim that -
albeit at long last - this proves the efficacy of such measures.
And that's utter nonsense. What it DOES prove is that the opposite, the
patient confidence-building "constructive engagement" policy of the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), which admitted Myanmar to the association in
1997, is beginning to yield results. What it proves as well is that such
cooperative policies have a much enhanced chance for success if they occur in a
changing strategic environment more conducive to a positive outcome.
Last year, China, a long-time supporter of the SPDC (formerly the State Law
and Order Council or Slorc) and provider of military and economic aid to
Myanmar, decided to assign highest priority to the economic development of its
western regions. During the summer meetings of the Beijing leadership at the
Beidaihe seaside resort, it was further decided that China would engage in a
charm offensive to improve political and economic relations with Southeast Asia
and India. Now take a look at the map. Geographically, China's landlocked
western regions have closest access to Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean
through Myanmar. And politically, China's overweening influence in Myanmar never
sat well with key members of the Asean group. What better way to serve both
national development and regional strategic objectives than encouraging
processes that would lead Myanmar out of its international isolation?
Similarly, India - which, like China, shares a 1,500-kilometer border with
Myanmar - has sought to improve relations with Myanmar, and again for both
domestic and foreign policy reasons. Separatists and terrorists in the East
Indian states bordering on Myanmar have frequently sought refuge there.
Pacification of those states is a prime national policy objective. Moreover,
after the hiatus of the Asian crisis India is looking East again and seeks
improved economic relations with Southeast Asia. Signalling its intentions to
put relations with Myanmar on a friendlier footing, India gave a warm welcome to
Myanmar Foreign Minister Win Aung last November.
In this context, a key role in the rapprochement between the SPDC and Suu
Kyi has been played by special UN envoy Razali Ismail, a retired Malaysian
diplomat with close ties to Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Razali was in
Myanmar in July and October 2000 and again in January, has been in touch with
Beijing, and sees his role as honest broker helping facilitate
government-opposition negotiations. Mahathir himself spent several days in
Yangon in early January, no doubt in support of Razali's efforts, and later told
the Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun that he had met Senior General Than
Shwe, chairman of the ruling SPDC, and had talked about elections and other
matters in a general way: "He [Than Shwe] is willing to hold elections
eventually," Mahathir was quoted by Mainichi as saying. "The election will not
be held this year or next. It should be held in a few years."
The window of opportunity for progress in Myanmar opened by regional
strategic constellations and Asean and UN efforts was opened a bit wider yet
when new US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in mid-January: "I would encourage the Congress to stop for a while. I
mean stop, look and listen before you impose a sanction ... I mean, they just
keep coming, and I think I've seen about half a dozen new ones ... in the last
couple of weeks ... I would encourage self-discipline on the part of the
Congress; that when you're mad about something, or when there is a particular
constituent interest, please stop, count to 10, call me, let me come up, let's
talk about it before you slap another bureaucratic process on me." Powell has
said he plans a review of all current sanctions to determine whether they should
be removed. Hopefully, he'll take a close look at Myanmar in the process.
Lastly, the third country sharing an approximately 1,500-km border with
Myanmar, Thailand, is ready to talk with the SPDC to ease bilateral tensions
while at the same time positioning itself to benefit as Myanmar opens up - and
opens up Thai access to southwestern China. New Prime Minister Thaksin
Shinawatra said last Thursday that his first foreign trip would likely take him
to Yangon.
The opportunities to effect reconciliation in Myanmar and bring the country
back into the world are better now than they have been in over a decade. Even
the sanction-happy EU, which sent a delegation to Yangon in January, appears to
be realizing that something is up and doesn't want to be left out. The
sanction-mongers should butt out, most notably the ILO and the ICFTU which have
been attempting to strengthen sanctions while others of a more level-headed
mindset have been trying to make peace.
The Nation - February 06,
2001.
Thaksin misquoted on Burma trip, says party A THAI Rak Thai Party spokesman yesterday said that Thaksin Shinawatra
never said that Burma would be the first country he would visit after taking
office as prime minister.
Local newspapers last week quoted Thaksin as saying he would visit Burma
after taking office later this month. His planned visit drew flak from several
critics, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Kraisak
Choonhavan, who warned Thaksin not to visit Burma without a clear foreign
policy, given the complexity of the problems.
But a party spokesperson, Suranan Vejjajiva, said that what Thaksin
actually said during a recent luncheon with reporters was that Burma would be
one among a group of countries he would first visit.
"Of course, Burma is an Asean country, but when we look around we still
need to consider which country would be ready to accept us," Suranan said.
New Asean leaders have a tradition of visiting member states soon after
taking office.
While Suranan declared that the party paid considerable attention to
problems with Burma, including border trade and drug trafficking issues, he said
that in order to visit the country Thaksin would need to consider several
appropriate factors.
"We need to first consolidate our policy [with Burma] and take into account
previous policies, including principles of non-interference and flexible
engagement," he said.
Diplomatic circles are suspicious that the Thai Rak Thai's
business-oriented approach to foreign policy would only benefit interested
sectors of the community, rather than the nation as a whole.
Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai took a cool approach to Rangoon to demonstrate
Thailand's support for political reform in Burma, a country that has been under
military rule for decades. During his years in office, Chuan visited every Asean
country except Burma.
|