A RESPONSE TO MIRIAM MARSHALL SEGAL

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

This may be a little off-subject but I'm cross posting this to 
alt.civil.war and soc.culture.jewish.holocaust because it includes 
historical arguments concerning both.  If nothing else, it is an 
interesting look at the uses people make of history in trying to argue 
current policy.

Please send follow-u postings to soc.culture.burma

keywords: Burma, revisionism, Abraham Lincoln, Fukuyama, Holocaust

*************************** BurmaNet ********************************
     Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies
*********************************************************************

A RESPONSE TO MIRIAM MARSHALL SEGAL
July 14, 1994

On June 29, 1994, Miriam Marshall Segal, Chairperson of Peregrine Capital
Myanmar Ltd., testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on
Asia and the Pacific (text included below).  She defended the regime in
Burma arguing that constructive engagement should be American policy
unless "we are determined to forget the lessons of our recent history." 
This is a look at Ms. Segal's version of history.

******************************************************************

In Ms. Segal's testimony she asked the Congress to believe that life in
Burma is getting better and then makes references to Abraham Lincoln, the
Holocaust and modern philosophy to convince them she's right. 
Unfortunately, her "facts" about Burma don't bear up under scrutiny.  And
as for her use of history to back up her interpretation, well in a phrase
that Lincoln might have used, "that dog just won't hunt."

What makes her comments worth responding to is that they may represent
views larger than her own.  According to a source in the Washington, Ms.
Segal's remarks were largely ghostwritten by a staff member of the
Burmese Embassy in Washington.  According to the source, the Burmese
diplomat is publicly boasting that he wrote the bulk of Ms. Segal's
testimony.

Regardless of who wrote the testimony, it's value rests in its
truthfulness.  Let us then look closer at what she wrote.

Segal begins by making a request: 

     "Please put away outdated information about Myanmar--there is
     much which has changed in the last four years."   

Yes, some things have changed and others have remained the same.  Among
the things that have remained the same: Aung San Suu Kyi is still in
imprisoned, Khin Nyunt is not.  The regime remains among the most repressive
in the world and its army is still committing gross violations of human
rights against the ethnic minorities.   

On the side of change, 2,000 political prisoners have been released and
others have been picked up.  Many new hotel projects are going in and
more roads are being built to accommodate an expected tourist boom in
1996.  Another thing that has changed is the number of forced labourers. 
According to relief workers on the Thai/Burma border, the number of
forced labourers used on any given day is about 500,000.  Since there is
some rotation among the labourers, the total slave labour pool is
probably about 3,000,000.  This is change.  Never in Burma's history has
the number been so high.  Four years ago there were 43,500 refugees in
camps along the Thai/Burma border.  Now, the increase in forced labour
has caused more people to flee their homes and the number of refugees has
climbed to about 74,000.

Another change in Burma is that the exchange rate has gotten
worse.  In 1984 the legal rate was just under 9 kyat to the dollar with
a black market rate four to five times higher.  Today, the legal rate is
about 6 kyat to the dollar with the realistic (black market) rate twenty
times higher.  Many companies are going into Burma to look around, but most are
having trouble finding ways to make money at these ludicrous exchange rates.

One last change worth noting is that the production of opium (the precursor to
heroin) has nearly doubled in the last five years.  Segal claims that the
Burmese government has made great efforts to reduce drug production and
trafficking but that:

     Sadly, the Myanmar government's effort in controlling
     cultivation and trafficking in narcotics are aggressively
     countered by local chiefs and warlords with slogans on behalf
     of democracy and human rights. 

The "local chiefs and warlords" who are responsible for the increase in
production are from the Wa and Kokang areas and their actions have been
sanctioned by cease-fires they signed with the government.  These
warlords are now referred to in Burma's state-controlled press as
"respected elder statesmen."  As for the merits of giving American money
to Burma to fight drugs, a congressional foreign affairs aide put it this
way:

     As much as we'd like to set up an effective counter-narcotics
     program with Burma, at best, they're not serious about
     controlling drugs, and at worst, they're in league with
     traffickers.



Ms. Segal's version of the 1990 elections and the constitutional
convention is also dodgy.  She maintains that 

     [t]he prevalent view in Myanmar was that the elections were
     held to organize a convention which would draft a constitution
     rather than form an administration to take over the reins of
     government.

She further claims that the elections had to be annulled because they
were inconclusive and displayed "ominous signs of fratricidal strife." 
The view of the people who won the election is different.  The 392 elected
representatives of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy
believed that they were going to form the next government.  In a show of
fraternalism, they were joined by 65 elected representatives from the
ethnic parties who signed a political pact with the NLD.  The extremely
conclusive result of that election was 457 representatives for Aung San Suu Kyi;
10 for the government party and 18 others.
If, as Segal asserts, the election was held to organize a convention,
then perhaps she could explain why the winners have not been allowed to
organize it.  The constitutional convention now being held by the SLORC
began with 702 members.  Of the 392 elected NLD members, only 85 were
"invited" to participate in the convention.  Six-sevenths of the deputies
are simply SLORC appointees and have no electoral legitimacy at all.

One might expect that a constitutional convention would be characterized
by debate and discussion, but according to delegates who defected from
it, every word is scripted and censored.  Debate is not allowed and the
NLD members are more prisoners than delegates.  


Since the convention began in January 1993, two of the fifteen chapters
of the constitution have been adopted and another has been discussed.  In
eighteen months, that convention has not conducted a single vote on
anything.  No votes are planned because the constitution that will be adopted
is the one that the SLORC proposed.  Nothing better illustrates the nature of
that convention than this: from among the delegates appointed by SLORC to
"represent" various ethnic groups there are about 20 who speak and understand
no Burmese.  Another 20 speak very little.  All of the convention's proceedings
are carried on in the Burmese language and no interpreters are provided.

Segal's attempt to employ Abraham Lincoln's legacy to legitimate the
suppression of freedom in Burma is at best, a misreading of history.  As
long as she brings the subject of Lincoln up, a comparison with his
election in 1860 and Aung San Suu Kyi's is instructive.  Lincoln received
1.8 million votes, while the three other parties in the election received
together 2.8 million votes.  Lincoln's legitimacy rested on something
less than 40% of the total vote.  Aung San Suu Kyi did considerably
better than that, with her party winning over 80%.  Unlike Lincoln, she
was never allowed to take office.

Segal attempts to justify the absence of liberty in Burma by drawing comparisons
with Abraham Lincoln and the issue of slavery in America:

     The dilemma between preserving national unity or advancing the
     cause of liberty is not new.  Abraham Lincoln faced the same
     situation in 1862 when the editor of the N.Y. Tribune accused
     him of not enforcing certain anti-slavery measures.  Lincoln
     replied, "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save
     the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery."

Segal is taking Lincoln's remarks out of context.  First, there were no anti-
slavery measures to enforce in 1862 because at the time, property in slaves was
legal and constitutionally protected.  Lincoln had no legal authority to end
slavery on his own but he repeatedly pushed for its extinction in the ways open
to him.  

If there is anything certain about Lincoln's political agenda, it was to end
slavery.  Lincoln gave 175 speeches attacking slavery between 1854 and 1860 and
he was elected on a platform of gradually extinguishing slavery by prohibiting
its expansion, thereby making it economically unviable as an institution.

Lincoln secretly drafted an emancipation plan for Delaware in 1861, which the
state rejected.  In March of 1862, he submitted to Congress his plan for gradual
emancipation, which was not adopted.  A bill he drafted in July of 1862 that
would have compensated any state emancipating its slaves was also not adopted. 
At very nearly the same time that he was making the public reply to Horace
Greeley which Ms. Segal quotes, he privately drew up the first draft of the
Emancipation Proclamation.

Lincoln so hated slavery that he may have overstepped his constitutional powers
in destroying it.  He justified the Emancipation Proclamation on the basis of
the war powers given to him by the constitution, an action that is still a
subject of debate among scholars.  Just to make sure that slavery was dead,
Lincoln wrote what would become the 13th Amendment, banning it forever in the
United States.

SLORC suspended the 1990 elections because they claim the results were
divisive.  Lincoln might well have suspended the 1864 elections using his
war powers.  He did not do this despite the fact that his opponent,
General McClellan, was essentially promising to end the war and let the
South secede.  Lincoln held the elections even though he believed that he
would lose and he probably would have, had not the Union armies won
crucial victories on the eve of the election.  In the end, Lincoln was
devoted not to the cause of national unity, but to liberty, the
constitution and the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

Segal moves on to current events and asks,

     "when is the last time any of the champions of democracy have
     clamored for free elections in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?"

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have consistently criticized
both of those regimes and numerous people have criticized U.S. backing
for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, especially during and after the Gulf War. 
American and international pressure has had some impact on advancing
democratization in Kuwait.


Segal then cites Francis Fukuyama's "The Last Man and the End of
History."  Her use of Fukuyama however misunderstands and misinterprets
his point.  Fukuyama's celebrated book applied the German philosopher,
G.W.F. Hegel's dialectical theory of history to the end of the Cold War. 
Hegel maintained that humanity was passing through a series of what are
essentially conflicts of ideas and that eventually, we would become self-
aware and therefore, free.   Hegel believed the process to be inevitable
and that once we reached the point of self-awareness, we would have
achieved the height of political evolution and in the title phrase of
Fukuyama's book, "The End of History."

What Segal has done is to focus on the supposed inevitability of
historical progress in a way that is not supported by the text.  Hegel
and Fukuyama describe a historical process.  In contrast, Segal is trying
to draw a crude prescriptive message and the message is; do nothing because
historical progress is inevitable in Burma anyway.

Her interpretation is crude but not unlike that of the old Calvinist
doctrine of pre-destination, whereby an all-knowing God must already know
who will be saved and who will be damned.  The end result is a doctrine
that says you can do anything you want because God has already determined
your destiny.  Since this seems to license all sorts of bad behavior
among Christians, it has fallen out of favor.

To end, a look at how Miriam Segal begins her speech is in order.  Segal
says:

     I would like to take a moment to tell you a little about
     myself.  I am a victim of the Holocaust and my father was
     killed in a struggle to establish the state of Israel.  I was
     stateless for 18 years.  More so than many others, I know the
     pain of organized repression and the value of freedom. 

Segal's status as a target of the Holocaust may have given her a ring-
side view of organized repression, but mere Jewishness tells us nothing
about a persons character or response to the Holocaust.  During the
Holocaust, the Nazis had no trouble finding people who would collaborate
in order to promote their self-interest.  Perhaps the least sympathetic
example was Mordachai Chiam Rumkowski, who ran the Jewish Ghetto in Lodz,
Poland.  Rumkowski attempted to evade the Holocaust by becoming
indispensable to the Nazis.  For four years, Rumkowski turned the Lodz
ghetto into a extremely profitable factory and sacrificed the helpless so
that the rest could live.  When the Nazis came for the 20,000 children of
the ghetto, he turned them over, saying, "I must take the children
because if not, others will be taken as well."  In the end, his fate was
inseparable from theirs.  He died in Auschwitz in August 1944, a "victim"
of the Holocaust.


                                   Strider



************************************************************

Testimony of Miriam Marshall Segal, Chairperson, Peregrine Capital
Myanmar Ltd., Presented before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on
Asia and the Pacific.  June 29, 1994.

Mr. Chairman:

I am grateful for your invitation to present my views on Myanmar to this
subcommittee.

My name is Miriam Marshall Segal and I am chairperson of Peregrine
Capital Myanmar Ltd.--MMAI.  I would like to take a moment to tell you a
little about myself.  I am a victim of the Holocaust and my father was
killed in a struggle to establish the state of Israel.  I was stateless
for 18 years.  More so than many others, I know the pain of organized
repression and the value of freedom.  I have been visiting Myanmar for
over 18 years, first as a tourist and later as one engaged in a business
developing artifacts made by Myanmar's skilled artisans.  About three
years ago, my company formed a joint venture with a Myanmar Government
enterprise in the area of fisheries.  Very recently, Peregrine Investment
Holdings Ltd., one of the most successful investment banks in Asia, with
subsidiaries in several Asian countries commenced operations in Myanmar
with my company.  Peregrine which has an unparalleled record of success
over the last seven years, would scarcely commence operations in Myanmar
unless it shared my confidence in the growth and stability of Myanmar.

The insistent clamor on what's wrong with Myanmar drowns out the many
changes and achievements of the last three years.  Unfortunately, one
outdated picture, one still shot frozen in time, seems to rivet
everyone's attention.  The truth is far more complex.  Being primarily a
business person I would like to focus on the changes in the economic and
business climate in Myanmar.  It would however be a jejune experience on
my part to do so without some attempt to offer my perspective on the
political events of the last few years.

Perspective is based on both information and misinformation.  The extent
to which rampant misinformation pollutes any reasoned discourse on
Myanmar can be seen from a recent news item which appeared in the Boston
Globe on May 5, 1994, in which it was reported that Myanmar's rulers
raffled off rights to fish its waters for the purpose of raising hard
currency to finance the cost of purchasing Chinese weapons.  Since I have
been so intimately involved in the fishing industry in Myanmar for the
last four years, I can only describe this news item as undiluted non-
sense.  The truth is that for over three years, a courageous minister,
intent on developing Myanmar's fisheries resources with due regard to
conservation and an orderly development of Myanmar's resources, threw out
Myanmar's waters nearly 650 fishing vessels from other nations.

The absurdity of the Boston Globe news item may be gathered from the fact
that after nearly 18 months of negotiations with four Chinese fishing
fleets, my company is, on a gradual basis, increasing the deployment of
Chinese fishing vessels in Myanmar from nine to about fifty.  If Myanmar
were indeed so desperate for Chinese weapons, they could have simply
invited 600 Chinese fishing vessels to come in.  One wonders what
motivated the writer of this article.  And if the writer's statement were
true at some point in time many years ago but certainly not at any time
in the last four years, what relevance does this information have today? 
And that is what I wish to emphasize.  Please put away outdated
information about Myanmar--there is much which has changed in the last
four years.

The most obviously visible change in Myanmar, at least from a foreigner's
perspective, is the sharply increased number of tourists and business
visitors now pouring in Myanmar.  What was once a completely closed
country is now enthusiastically rolling out the welcome mat even to
dissidents.  Former Prime Minister U Un's daughter and her husband, vocal
critics of the regime, recently visited Myanmar.  Such a posture can
scarcely be reconciled with a view that the Myanmar government is
determined to stem the exposure of Myanmar citizens to diverse political
philosophies.  Omar Farouk, a former journalist from Myanmar who now
resided in Australia, recently wrote as follows: "Irreversible changes
are taking place in Burma after the "young turns" (having taken over). 
Karl Marx is out; Gautama Buddha is in..The Burmese Muslims are again
free to use loudspeakers from the minarets.  Visiting foreign pastors can
now address their congregations in churches.  Pilgrimages to Mecca and
the Vatican are no longer a problem.  The revolution of the mind has
begun."

Anyone who visited Myanmar five years ago and returns today would be
surprised by the changes which are visible everywhere, in streets and
shops, in villages and farms, and in the attitudes of government
officials.  These first hand encounters in a country can reveal far more
than reams of statistics.  There is now a concerted diversion of the
economy from military and defense goals to one where civilian needs
assume priority.

Three statutes, the Foreign Investment Law enacted in 1988, the state-
owned economic enterprises law enacted in 1989, and the Private 
Industrial Enterprise law enacted in 1990, have resulted in a flood of
private entrepreneurial activity.  Some detailed information about these
statutes and the number of new enterprises established are submitted to
this committee as an annexure to my statement.  In the area of fisheries,
privatization is almost total.  It may take longer in other areas but the
eventual goal is clear.

In sharp contrast, both the democratic constitution of 1947 and the
socialist constitution of 1974 called for the nationalization of all
capitalist enterprises.  Each and every sector of the economy has
blossomed under the more liberal atmosphere.  Production of paddy
increased to 835.7 million baskets--an increase of 124.6 million of the
prior year.  In 1993-4, crude oil output was 7.3 million U.S. barrels and
natural gas 38.7 million cubic feet as against a mere 1.9 million U.S.
barrels and 10.4 million cubic feet the year before.  Output in tin,
tungsten, gold, refined silver and lead have also surged.  In foreign
trade, the private sector by far outperformed the public sector and the
role of the public sector is steadily shrinking.  Similar progress can be
seen in infrastructure projects--a total of 16,770 miles of new and old
roads were extended or repaired in 1993-4 and 95 new bridges have been
built.

A new four year national health plan has been adopted with large budgets
and authority given to local authorities.  An aggregate of 45 specific
programs have been developed to meet the needs of woman and children such
as immunization of all children under the age of one as well as their
mothers; the providing of post natal care; growth monitoring, etc.

Yet another striking and easily verifiable example of the new directions
and initiatives are the vigorously stepped up narcotic control measures. 
A new congressional committee of the United States and our Drug
Enforcement Agency have commended Myanmar's efforts to stem the
cultivation of plants which eventually yield narcotic drugs.  Myanmar
acceded to the U.N. Convention against illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs,
and in compliance with the requirements of the convention, enacted a new
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance law in January '93.  United
Nations observers.
A newly created work committee for the development of border areas has
commenced a series of programs to offer alternatives to cultivating the
opium poppy, and large budgetary allocations have been made for the
purpose.  Sadly, the Myanmar government's effort in controlling
cultivation and trafficking in narcotics are aggressively countered by
local chiefs and warlords with slogans on behalf of democracy and human
rights.  Columbian and many other countries in Latin American and Asia
have received millions to fight the drug trade.  Myanmar has not received
a penny.  Yet, it continues to sacrifice its human and material resources
to put a halt to a scourge which eventually finds its way into our
streets and schoolyard.

My recitation of the positive changes in Myanmar cannot but lead to the
inevitable question--when will democracy return.  Any answer to that
question must be based upon the simple premise that in virtually every
country a written constitution is a prerequisite to a functioning
democracy.  The prevalent view in Myanmar was that the elections were
held to organize a convention which would draft a constitution rather
than form an administration to take over the reins of government.  It
must be remembered that 93 parties contested the election, and members
from 27 parties were elected.  The only sure outcome of the elections was
not orderly government but the most ominous signs of fratricidal strife. 
The military could not wait for a Yugoslavia type situation to develop;
it stepped in to forestall yet another round of senseless violence.  To
do so, the leadership had to use force and inevitably lives were lost.

The dilemma between preserving national unity or advancing the cause of
liberty is not new.  Abraham Lincoln faced the same situation in 1862
when the editor of the N.Y. Tribune accused him of not enforcing certain
anti-slavery measures.  Lincoln replied, "My paramount objective in this
struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy
slavery."  Our history also tells us that Lincoln, more than anyone, was
responsible for abolishing slavery.  But Lincoln also was unwavering in
establishing his priority--National Unity.  Can we really blame the
leadership for doing the same?  The price we paid for preserving the
Union pales in comparison with anything that has happened in Myanmar--
360,000 dead in the Union army and 288,000 on the Confederate side, not
to mention the wounded.

We must remember that the new group of leaders in Myanmar are not the
creators of the present situation but rather its inheritors.  As soon as
conditions settled, they called a constitutional convention which
included about 40 of those who won the earlier election.  Additional
representation was added from the border areas, the clergy, the
intelligentsia and the military.  Many other countries have done likewise
when they set about to draft a constitution.

While of course one would like to see a democratic government installed
immediately, I doubt if we should dictate either the time table which the
present government should adhere to or the exact provisions which should
be adopted in the constitution.  Throughout history, national building
has been a difficult process.  Our own history bears testimony to this
fact.  It was only after numerous wars and countless situations where
violent abuses of human rights occurred that a reasonably stable and
democratic society finally emerged in America.  Virtually every other
European and Asian nation went through the same process.  The settlement
of borders, the acceptance of a central authority, the integration of
separatist forces--all these are time consuming tasks.

To its credit, the present regime has, in just the last five years, made
peace with no less than eleven dissident groups: the Myanmar National
Democracy Alliance, the Myanmar National Solidarity Party, the National
Democracy Alliance Army Military and Local Administration Committee, the
Shan State Army, the New Democratic Army, the Kachin Defense Army, the
Pa-O National Organization, the Paluang State Liberation Party, the Kayan
National Guards, the Kachin Independence Organization and the Kayinni
National Liberation Front.  The committee will find more details on these
successfully concluded peace talks in an annexure to this statement. 
There can be no question that national reconciliation and pacification
are making impressive progress.   In a country such as Myanmar with
numerous languages, cultures, religions and regional loyalties, democracy
without proper preparation becomes a prescription for chaos and anarchy
rather than liberty and progress.  Democracy is not an export commodity. 
Rather it should take root and grow as an indigenous plant resplendent in
its native hues.

It is my belief that the positive changes in Myanmar described above have
planted the seeds of democracy in Myanmar.  We must allow some time for
the plant to grow.  It is in this context that we must reexamine our
policy in Myanmar especially in view of the fact that we have made
practical and sensible policy decisions where some other countries are
concerned.  For example, neither Saudi Arabia nor Kuwait has had free
elections in decades.  The human rights records of both have been
appalling.  Yet when is the last time any of the champions of democracy
have clamored for free elections in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait  Both Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait are amongst our largest trading partners, and American
investments have poured into these countries.  Indonesia was, for nearly
two decades, a country with problems and a form of government very much
like Myanmar.  But American trade and investment in Indonesia did not
suffer.  The savage butchery of thousands of dissidents in so many Latin
American countries has been amply documented.  But we have not ceased to
do business with these countries or attempted to impose sanctions on
them.

Sanctions and enforced isolation will do little to speed a country like
Myanmar along the path to democracy.  That is far more likely to happen
if we proudly and forcefully promote American values and efficiently
advance the cause of private enterprise.  We must first understand the
tides of history in that region.  We can made an important contribution
to Myanmar's process of democratization and economic liberalization only
if, on the basis of such understanding, we engage in an active dialogue. 
We should take active steps to increase the low of books and magazines,
professors and businessmen, tourists and observers.  We should do all we
can to reinforce every evolutionary step toward democracy, and constantly
press for change.  Most importantly, we should without any further delay
send an ambassador to Myanmar.  If we are serious about it, how can we
convey a message without a messenger.

Our antagonism towards Myanmar will not have a material impact.  Trade
and investment delegations from Japan, China, Singapore, Indonesia,
Thailand, Australia and Korea as well as several businessmen from
European countries are eagerly seeking business opportunities in Myanmar. 
Once again, these countries will make money while we preach.  Their
ambassadors speak publicly about human rights and privately go about the
business of helping to negotiate contracts.  Nevertheless, these
countries will, by their economic activities, do more to spread democracy
than our preaching will ever accomplish.  And we will be the losers in
terms of influence, exports and jobs.  Instead of our present policy, we
should extend to Myanmar the same patience and understanding we have
shown to so many other countries.  The history of one party rule and
human rights records of China and Myanmar are not very different.  But
China is a stronger country and we have more trade and investment there. 
Is it the American way to prescribe one set of values and policies and
another for the weak?  In conclusion, I submit that in the matrix of
history as it stands in 1994, the battle for liberal democracy has been
fought and won.  It would be particularly apt to quote from Francis
Fukuyama's book, "The End of History and the Last Man," in which he
states: (T)here is a fundamental process at work that dictates a common
evolutionary pattern for all human societies--in short, something like a
universal history of mankind in the direction of liberal democracy. The
existence of peaks and troughs in this development is undeniable.  But to
cite the failure of liberal democracy in any given country or even in an
entre region of the world as evidence of democracy's overall weakness,
reveals a striking narrowness of view.  Cycles and discontinuities in
themselves are not incompatible with a history that is directional and
universal, just as the existence of business cycles does not negate the
possibility of long term growth."

There is much wisdom in Fukuyama's observation.  If we choose to believe
it, constructive dialogue rather than coercion or sanctions should be our
policy in Myanmar, unless, of course, we are determined to forget the
lessons of our recent history.