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

BurmaNet News: November 1, 1994




************************** BurmaNet ************************** 
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"
************************************************************** 
BurmaNet News: Tuesday, November 1, 1994
Issue #49

          "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."

                    Miriam Marshall Segal addressing the U.S.
                    House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia                  
                    and the Pacific.


          "It's difficult to know whether one should feel
          embarrassed by her na?vet? or astonished at her gall in
          assuming she was addressing a room full of idiots."

                    From Saw Ko Naing's analysis of Segal's
                    testimony (see "Lost in the Matrix")

************************************************************** 
Contents:

1: NATION: GAP BETWEEN SUU KYI AND THE SLORC NARROWING 
2. NATION: US DELEGATION MAKES FIRST VISIT TO RANGOON IN 6 YEARS
3: BKK POST: POLICE ARREST KARENS ON BAMBOO-CUTTING CHARGES
4: BKK POST: ON BURMESE HIGH GROUND WITH HOTEL, LEATHER PROJECTS
5: BI: LOST IN THE MATRIX 
6: SEGAL: THE SHRIMP LADY SPEAKS

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

The  BurmaNet News  is  an   *********************************
electronic daily newspaper   *                               *
covering  Burma.  Articles   *                  Iti          *   
from newspapers, magazines,  *                 snotpo        *
the  wire services, news-    *             werthatcor        *
letters  and  the Internet   *            ruptsbutfea        *
are  published  as well as   *           r.Fearoflos         *
original material.           *          ingpowercor          *
                             *       ruptsthosewhoare        *
The BurmaNet News  is        *     subjecttoit...Theef       *
e-mailed  directly to        *     fortnecessarytoremain     *
subscribers  and  is         *   uncorruptedinanenvironm     *
also  distributed via        *  entwherefearisanintegralpar  *
the soc.culture.burma,       *   tofeverydayexistenceisnot   *
and  soc.culture.thai        *      immediatelyapparent      *
newsgroups as well as        *       tothosefortun           *
the seasia-l mailing         *       ateenoughtol            *
list.   For  a  free         *       iveinstatesgo           *
subscription  to the         *        vernedbytheru          *
BurmaNet News, send          *        leoflaw...Iam         *
an  e-mail  note to:         *        n ota     frai         *
                             *                  d..          *
strider@xxxxxxxxxxx          *                   .D          *
                             *                   aw          *
Subscriptions are handled    *                   Au          *
manually so please  allow    *                   ng          *
for a delay  before  your    *                  San          *
request is fielded.          *                  Su           *
                             *                  uK           *
Letters  to  the  editor,    *                   yi          *
comments or contributions    *                   .           *
of  articles  should  be     *********************************
sent to the strider address as well.  For those without e-mail,
BurmaNet can be contacted by fax or snailmail.

     By fax: (in Thailand) (66)2 234-6674              
     Attention to BurmaNet, care of Burma Issues       
                              
     By snailmail: (in the United States)         
     BurmaNet, care of Coban Tun   
     1267 11th Avenue #3           
     San Francisco, CA 94122 USA

************************************************************** 
1. NATION: GAP BETWEEN SUU KYI AND THE SLORC NARROWING 
November 1, 1994

On Friday, military officials in Rangoon had a second meeting
with Burma's leading dissident Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel
Peace laureate whose National League for Democracy (NLD) won a
landslide victory in the nullified 1990 election. Under house
arrest since 1989, she had her first meeting with the country's
military rulers only on Sept 20. Her previous attempts in trying
to engage the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council
(Slorc) in a dialogue was only met with heavy-handedness. More
than 60 NLD MPs were arrested and others were driven into exile.
Slorc's second meeting with the NLD leader indicates that the gap
between the military junta and the Nobel laureate is narrowing
and is tantamount to a recognition by Slorc that Suu Kyi is a
problem that won't go away. Indeed, Suu Kyi will never be
forgotten, and if the massages of solidarity from US President
Bill Clinton and other Western leaders on the fifth anniversary
of her unlawful detention are anything to go by, it clearly
indicates that she will be a thorn in Slorc's side.

Market economy  Slorc is keen to embrace the market economy but
Western powers are blocking hundreds of millions of dollars in
development aid pending improvements in Burma's human rights
situation. Starved of loans from the World Bank and other
multilateral agencies, Slorc has been able to carry its open-door
economic policy only so far the country's rudimentary roads,
ports and communication networks need dramatic upgrading to win
significant foreign investment. Also discouraging outsiders is
the overvalued currency. Adjusting to world rates would require
considerable aid from the IMF. The United States cut off aid
after the military suppressed democracy demonstrations in 1988,
and has removed the country from the list of those that cooperate
on curbing narcotics. Now it has been clearly proven that
economic sanctions do work on repressive regimes like the Slorc
and has succeeded in making them less of a monster. One thing
encouraging the Slorc to carry on talking to Suu kyi is her
recent remarks to visiting US Congressman Bill Richardson in
February t whom she said she was not interested in any active
political role, other than as a spokeswoman for reconciliation.
"Not holding public office is not a problem for me. Public office
is not my goal," she told Richardson. 

The harsh reality is that the NLD has been crushed brutally by
the Slorc. What is left of the NLD inside the country has been
cowed into submission, and exile activists have been
marginalized. Also the Slorc has truck ceasefire agreements with
the ethnic rebels fighting the military junta, in exchange for
business opportunities. This has neutralized the rebel threat,
while weakening fugitive NLD activists who operated from rebel
controlled areas. US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East
Asia, Thomas Hubbard is due in Rangoon this week for talks with
the Slorc on democracy, human rights and the fight against
narcotics. Congressional panels In June, two congressional panels
called for the release of Suu Kyi from house arrest in Burma.
Resolutions were passed by the House subcommittee on Asia and the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee to free Suu Kyi. Hubbard said
Burma "remains one of the worst violators of human rights" and a
top producer of heroin. He also called for Rangoon to be excluded
from the July meeting of Asean. 

The building of democratic institutions has been one of the
cornerstones of the Clinton administration, though along the way
Washington has faltered, especially with regard to China and
Indonesia. No halfway deals can be accepted with the Slorc, and
it is inoperative that Washington keep pressing for the immediate
release of Suu Kyi and all political prisoners. The Nobel
laureate herself has said the only answer to Burma's problems is
dialogue. "It is not a question of losing face. It involves
finding the best solution for the country," Suu Kyi said. The
Clinton administration's duty now is to make sure that the Slorc
will not just pay lip service to Suu Kyi. Her release is a
prerequisite for Burma shedding its pariah- like status. (TN)  

************************************************************** 
2. NATION: US DELEGATION MAKES FIRST VISIT TO RANGOON IN 6 YEARS
November 1, 1994

RANGOON - A high-level US delegation, the first to visit Burma
since the army took power here six years ago, arrived yesterday
for a three-day visit, diplomatic sources said. The delegation,
led by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and
Pacific Affairs Thomas Hubbard, will talk about human rights,
democracy and the fight against narcotics, the State Department
announced last week. The delegation, which includes members of
the US National Security Council, was welcomed at Rangoon's
airport by a senior Foreign Ministry official. It is expected to
meet the strongman of the country's ruling junta, Lt Gen Khin
Nyunt, and Foreign Minister Ohn Gyaw tomorrow. The visit has
produced speculation that the United States is seeking to upgrade
relations with the Rangoon junta, which have been cool since the
1988 coup.Washington has been outspoken in condemning the junta's
human rights abuses and its failure to restore democracy. The Us
cut off aid after the military suppressed pro- democracy
demonstrations in 1988. Underlining its displeasure, it did not
replace its last ambassador, who left in march 1989. The aid
which was stopped included assistance to Burma's anti-narcotics
programmes, even though Burma is a major source of opium and its
derivative, heroin. Washington also has pressed repeatedly for
the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who is in her
sixth year of house arrest. Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Prize winner
for her pro-democracy work, was a founder of the national League
for Democracy, which won a landslide victory in 1990 general
elections. The junta has refused to recognize the results. The
1994 State Department report on human rights says the military
junta maintains its control by "arrests, detentions, harassment,
intimidation and mistreatment of political activists." (TN)  


************************************************************** 
3: BKK POST. ON BURMESE HIGH GROUND WITH HOTEL, LEATHER PROJECTS
November 1, 1994

RENOWN Leatherwears Plc Co, plans a two-pronged business
expansion into Burma, with hotel and leather ventures to be
undertaken by subsidiaries, says managing director Lertask
Nopburanand. The company sees good potential for expanding in
Burma after building up connections with Burmese government
officials over a long time, Mr Lertsak said yesterday at a
signing ceremony for the development of the Yadanabon Hotel
(Novotel Mandalay). Renown Leatherwears is a public company that
produces finished leather and industrial gloves for export from
its production base at the Lamphum industrial estate. Mr Lertsak
traces his connections with Burma back to 1981 when he went there
to look for low-cost leather. He struck a profitable deal with
the Burmese government to buy leather in exchange for supplying
tanning and processing expertise. As the Burmese government
gradually opended the country to more development, Renown set up
two subsidiaries, LS Group and LS Holding, to do business there.
LS Group was set up to look after the hotel business in Burma.
Its subsidiary, LP holding, signed the contract with the Mandalay
City Development Committee to open the Yadanabon Hotel. LP
Holding took over the 10 storey hotel from the Burmese government
at a cost of $3.5 million for a 30-year licence. The company is
investing more than 500 million baht to renovate the partially
completed structure and transform it into a four-star hotel to be
managed by Accor, the French hotel-management chain. The 208-room
Novotel Mandalay will be the first internationalstandard hotel in
Mandalay when it opens next June. Demand from foreign tourist has
so far outstripped the supply of quality accommodation in Burma.
"The payback on the hotel business in Burma is very first, and it
is very good timing to invest in it now," said Mr Lertsak. "Over
the next three years, there will be no hotel of the same standard
to compete with us." The company projects occupancy of 55% in
1996, 65% in 1997 and 70% in 1998. It expects to recover its
investment within three years. Late last year, the company also
signed a contract to build two 22-storey towers in Rangoon.One
will be a four-star hotel, the 270-room Sofitel Rangoon, and the
other an office building with 15,000 square metres of space to
lease. The project is located on a downtown site that Ls Group
has leased from the government for 30 years at a cost of $2.1
million. Mr Lertsak said the Sofitel Rangoon would be operational
in 1998 and the office building would be completed later. The
company also plans to establish hotels in Pagan and Taunggyi in
the Shan State, and to make them part of a net- work serving
foreign group tours. Ls Holding, meanwhile, is pursuing
opportunities in the leather business through two whollyowned
subsidiaries, LP International and LP Leather. LP International
plans a $1.6 million plant in Rangoon with production capacity of
3,000 dozen pairs of leather gloves a day, approximately eight
times the capacity of Renown's Lamphun plant. Mr Lertsak said
that Renown can take advantage of Burma's low labour costs, which
are 20% of Thailand's. The company's total production costs will
be 23.4% lower. The plant is expected to start operating at the
beginning of next year and all its output will be exported. LP
Leather was set up with a budjet of $10.91 million to produce wet
blue hides for export, with a capacity of 480,000 hides a year. A
plant is expected to start operating at the beginning of 1996.
(BP)   


************************************************************** 
4. BKK POST: POLICE ARREST KARENS ON BAMBOO-CUTTING CHARGES
November 2, 1994

BORDER patrol police yesterday arrested 14 Karen for allegedly
felling bamboo in a national forest reserve near the Thai-Burmese
border. Tak forest official Thani Viriyarattanaporn said the
Karen were caught while transporting freshly-cut bamboo on a
truck bearing the name Pongpaiboon on both sides. Police sources
said the truck was owned by senior police in the border patrol
unit. The officer was said to be influential in the force.  The 
Karen admitted they were hired by a businessman in the province
to cut and deliver the bamboo to a factory in Mae Sot district,
according to the police. The sources said in the past week
forestry officials and border police arrested four suspects on
charges of felling trees in the reserve. Among the evidence
seized were 500 teak logs and a herd of elephants. Mr Thani said
there were many cases where Karen refugees were hired to fell
trees in Thailand and transport them to Burma in the from of
processed wood, which was made into furniture then exported to
Thailand for sale. He asked the national Security Council for
help in tackling the problem. (BP) 

************************************************************** 
5. BI: LOST IN THE MATRIX 
An Analysis of Miriam Marshall Segal's Statement to the US
Congress 
by Saw Ko Naing
October, 1994

It would be difficult to find a more outspoken and self-confident
proponent of Burma's military junta than American businesswoman
Miriam Marshall Segal. Equally rare is a comprehensive written
outline of such an advocate's arguments in support of the widely
criticized regime. Yet her June 29 Statement to the United States
Senate's Foreign Affairs Committee's House Subcommittee on Asia
and the Pacific contributes to the public record an invaluable
charter of her and others perspectives on economic and political
reform in Burma. Such a precious manuscript deserves careful
study.

This analysis operates on the premise that, as people being asked
to consider Mrs. Segal's testimony, we have a right to evaluate
what she says and how knowledgable and qualified she is to speak
on Burma. This is not a personal attack on Mrs. Segal or an
arraignment of her character; we shall confine our analysis to
that which she herself has voluntarily submitted in writing to
the United States government. Although moments of her testimony
are excerpted here, it is important to assure our readers at the
outset that none of Mrs. Segal's words have been taken out of
context in a way that would distort their meaning from the spirit
of her testimony as understood by an overall reading of her
Statement.

Assuming that Mrs. Segal wrote her own Statement, one begins to
identify the logical irregularities that seem to drive her
testimony and perhaps her actions as well. Scrutiny of Mrs.
Segal's Statement reveals three patterns which undermine her
credibility and seriously erode the validity of her ideas
regarding the past, present and future of Burma:

Pattern 1: Non-substantiation Mrs. Segal supports practically
none of the assertions which form her argument with any relevant
evidence or rationale, even as would fall within the scope of a
spoken address totalling nine typewritten pages. This renders her
overall argument weak and inadmissible by the rules of logic,
discourse and expository writing. 

Pattern 2: Misleading substitutions When lacking evidence or
rationale, she habitually substitutes economic data, probably
supplied by the Burmese government, apparently intending to
advertise economic growth in Burma. These facts and figures may
or may not be accurate, but they are always extraneous to the
questions under discussion. This rather transparent tactic does
little to establish her credibility and nothing to fortify her
arguments.

Pattern 3: Factual error Her familiarity with events in Burma's
recent history is demonstrably flawed and confused. In matters of
interpretation, diverse perspectives should always be expected
and entertained. But Mrs. Segal misrenders matters of recorded
historical fact, severely crippling her claims to familiarity and
insight. Apparently, Mrs. Segal doesn t know very much about
Burma's recent history.

The cumulative effect of these serious shortcomings in her
testimony renders Mrs. Segal's perspectives on Burma at times
curious, at times amusing, and-- in the final analysis--
irrelevant and unacceptable to intelligent discussion on American
foreign policy towards Burma.

Of course, vast evidence exists to counter each of her arguments,
for example the claim that Burma's junta does not limit its
citizens access to diverse political ideas. However, the inherent
frailty of her logic precludes the necessity of burying each
assertion under a mountain o counter-evidence, an exercise which
would elevate her testimony to standards of reason to which it
does not qualify. Instead, this article will focus on pointing
out how Mrs. Segal, without any help from her opposition,
muddles, invalidates and ultimately renders useless her own
convictions.

Her thesis is that 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. Please put
away outdated information about Myanmar--, she later entreats the
Committee, there is much which has changed in the last four
years. 

Yet it is with the very outdated information she loathes ( what
relevance does this information have today? ) that Mrs. Segal
introduces herself as a victim of the Holocaust, one stateless
for 18 years. In an unfortunate but entertaining juxtaposition,
she assures the Committee, 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. However amusing her
language, it should not be taken lightly that Mrs. Segal's
primary claim to credibility is an intimate and long- standing
association with Burma's ruling elite. Coupled to this is her
self- identification as a holocaust survivor, a biographical
inclusion presumably intended to lift her familiarity with
Burma's leaders above reproach. She then discusses her
long-standing business interests in Burma which include
developing Burmese artifacts. Her personal introduction then
rambles into an homage to the acumen of Peregrine Investments
Holdings Ltd., in an early attempt to confuse a business
confidence that it can turn a profit in Burma with the Burmese
people's confidence in their own political future [misleading
substitution].

She wants the Committee to understand that what was once a
completely closed country is now enthusiastically rolling out the
welcome mat even to dissidents, citing that former Prime Minister
U Nu's daughter had recently visited Burma. Apparently Mrs. Segal
believes that permitting a relative of a former national leader
to visit her own homeland is a particularly progressive and
laudable expression of civil liberty. Moreover, she concludes
that 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. But the gap
in her logic is cavernous. How, we must ask Mrs. Segal, does the
mere entry of an individual into the country, no matter what his
or her political philosophy, indicate that the military
government would tolerate the free expression and dissemination
of that person's ideas, especially when this fundamental human
right is routinely withheld from the people at large [non-
substantiation]?

That point left unmade, Mrs. Segal then seeks to demonstrate that
there is now a concerted diversion of the economy from military
and defense goals to one where civilian needs assume priority. Is
it presumptuous to expect that what follows should bear at least
a remote relevance to this assertion? She goes on to talk about
the privatisation of businesses and a flurry of entrepreneurial
activity, but fails to provide any evidence either in the body of
her statement or in the annexures appended to it that less money
is being spent on militarisation and proportionally more is being
used to address the expressed needs of the public, which would
support the claim of a diversion. Lacking any such evidence for
this point, her statement can not be regarded
[non-substantiation].

Mrs. Segal does try to tempt her audience by providing statistics
about the increase of paddy yields, oil and gas production,
mineral resource extraction, and even miles of new roads cut into
the landscape, causing one to wonder what exactly she means by
civilian needs. She sings praises for a new national health plan,
comprising 45 projects and bearing the UN labels, promising that
it has large budgets, but stops short of saying who funds them,
whether they have been implemented with any success, and how
large those budgets may be. The only responsible conclusion we
can draw is that Mrs. Segal does not demonstrate a shift in
economic activity from primarily military to primarily civilian
goals or needs [misleading substitution; non-substantiation].

Lionizing the government s-- indeed, the entire country s-- great
sacrifice of its human and material resources to eradicate opium
production, Mrs. Segal testifies that the military regime's
efforts to keep drugs off American streets are being ignored. But
what is her evidence that drug production is being curtailed,
other than citing that UN observers have witnessed huge
quantities of narcotics seized and destroyed? What qualifies as a
huge quantity in the world's most prolific opium-producing
country, and what connection does she imply exists between some
opium being destroyed and abandonment of the overall
institutionalized production of opium in Burma
[non-substantiation]? One can witness huge quantities of rain
pour down and conclude that the skies have dried up forever, only
to be all wet later that same day. Surely a woman who has visited
a monsoonal region for 18 years can grasp this concept.

Next Mrs. Segal's fraying testimony stumbles into the quagmire of
recent Burmese political history. It's difficult to know whether
one should feel embarrassed by her na?vet? or astonished at her
gall in assuming she was addressing a room full of idiots. The
prevalent view in Myanmar, she informs her audience, presumably
with a straight face, was that the [1990] elections were held to
organize a convention which would draft a constitution rather
than form an administration to take over the reins of government.
Not only does this outrageous lie directly contradict SLORC's own
published election decrees, but it requires one to believe that
Mrs. Segal is privy to the perceptions of a numerical majority of
Burmese [factual error; non-substantiation]. Prevalent among
whom, Mrs Segal? Who advises your perspective so that you feel
empowered to assess and declare what views are prevalent in
Burma?

Realizing that she can t dwell on the overturned elections for
too long, Mrs. Segal instead chooses to focus on the current
National Convention, which is charged with drawing up a new
constitution for Burma. When will democracy return? she ponders
rhetorically, and then concludes, 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. Apparently, Mrs. Segal's global review of political
systems failed to discern the more subtle truth that while a
written constitution might be necessary to a functioning
democracy, it is not in itself sufficient to guarantee the
practice of democracy, as demonstrated by the interminable
succession of constitutions produced in Thailand, for example,
since the 1930s, or, for that mater, Burma's own 1947 and 1974
constitutions. The former was not sufficient to prevent Ne Win's
1962 coup which dis-established any hope of democracy for urban
Burma and the latter was not sufficient to restore it [factual
error; non-substantiation]. 

Instead, a widespread understanding and respect and vigilance for
basic rights, coupled with confidence in the integrity of a legal
system charged with upholding those rights, is probably more
important than a written constitution. England is one country
where the former seems sufficient to perpetuate democracy even
though there is no constitution.

Mrs. Segal then defends the military's use of force, apparently
against the people who won the election in 1990, many of whom
were tortured and executed in police custody. She writes, 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. Wait a minute! What is she talking about?

Again, Mrs. Segal's argument is extremely elusive. Her defense of
the military's use of force seems to refer not to the period
following the 1990 elections at all, but instead to the 1988
student and worker uprisings and subsequent street massacres of
peaceful protestors. Those terrible events are an undisputed fact
of Burmese history captured on film and witnessed by journalists,
reporters, diplomats and thousands of Burmese citizens. Mrs
Segal, this violence occurred two years before the election, two
years before the 93 parties contesting the election gave ominous
signs of fratricidal strife to which the military responded with
force [factual error].

Unless her mention of the leadership's use of force refers to the
arrest, torture and executions of political prisoners persecuted
after their election victories-- atrocities which even Mrs.
Segal's considerable bravado would have difficulty justifying--
her audience must have been very confused indeed with her
perspective on the political events of the last few years. One
thing is clear, however: the only outcome of Mrs. Segal's
testimony on recent political turmoil in Burma is that the 18
year association with Burma with which she feathered her
introductory cap apparently didn t include any attention to
current events. In light of the aforementioned confusion it must
be discarded as a credential of her expertise on Burmese
politics. She has, however, convincingly proved an earlier point:
Perspective is based on both information and misinformation.
Indeed.

She also testified in an imaginative analogy to the American
Civil War that The price we [Americans] 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. In other words, the
648,000 who died in America represent an insignificant number
compared to those who have died in Burma. Surely, this was not
the point she intended to make, though it is probably true given
the nearly five decades of civil war which have followed colonial
independence. This added gaff further leaves her audience
speculating on whether Mrs. Segal is on comfortable and familiar
territory or if she is being used by others to promote their own
untenable arguments.

Attempting yet another tack, she admonishes her distinguished
audience to 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. Apparently, the snapshot to which Mrs.
Segal asked us to confine ourselves is quite a bit larger than
first expected. If after six years, the SLORC is still considered
new, then surely all that has occurred since 1988 must be
considered news, including the conditions the SLORC felt needed
settling, which within the convoluted circuits of her own logic
of would point to the cold blood gunning down of non-violent
protestors.

Her next venture is to broach the issue of cease-fire agreements
between the Rangoon junta and various armed resistance groups.
After listing eleven groups acknowledged to have signed
agreements with SLORC, Mrs. Segal declares that There can be no
question that national reconciliation and pacification are making
impressive progress. Yet not a single signed agreement discusses
the civil, political or cultural rights which sparked the
insurgencies to begin with. Therefore, while the shooting may
have ceased for the eight minor and three major ceasefire
partners she mentions, national reconciliation in terms of
recognizing and negotiating the disputes and differences which
are the source of conflict has occurred nowhere
[non-substantiation].

>From this point on Mrs. Segal's weary testimony degenerates
badly. She argues to American lawmakers that American foreign
policy has a long and distinguished history of promoting economic
interests over human rights. 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. In other
words, Mrs. Segal is challenging the premise that United States
foreign policy take human rights into account at all. Since there
is precedent for ignoring human rights abuse in some places, the
US should not complicate its foreign policy by ever considering
human rights in any situation.

She argues, Instead of our current policy, we should extend to
Myanmar the same patience and understanding we have shown to so
many other countries, and later, 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 for the strong and another for the weak.
But isn t what Mrs. Segal promotes exactly this type of
two-tiered policy towards Burma? Calls by those ethnic and
political groups (the weak) for sanctions against the Rangoon
junta (the strong) would be ignored in if Mrs. Segal had her way.

Once again, the logical implications of Mrs. Segal's own argument
prove to be rather too straightforward to follow the meandering
course of her testimony. Strike from the record any reference to
two-faced foreign policy for the weak and the strong.

To drive her point home, Mrs. Segal attempts to agitate her
audience by pointing out that 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 will speak publicly about human rights and privately
go about the business of helping to negotiate contracts...we will
be the losers in terms of influence, exports and jobs. The focus
of her testimony seems to have at last aligned itself with her
arguments, and we can see that the real priority advocated to
Congress is that America should put its own economic interests
before a foreign people's struggle for human rights, peace and
democracy [misleading substitution].

In a bold conclusion, Mrs. Segal submits that in the matrix of
history as it stands in 1994, the battle for liberal democracy
has been fought and won. Assuming that she is still confining her
historical expertise to Burma, we have no other option than to
dismiss the entirety of the testimony preceding this grandiose
claim on the grounds of logical infidelity and factual error
without even having to enter into a contest of evidence, though
that too may easily establish that Mrs. Segal is neither a
credible nor knowledgable informant on Burmese politics.

Based on this testimony to the United States Congress, how can
the Burma peace movement evaluate Miriam Marshall Segal's place
in the matrix of history as it stands in 1994? Were she not so
shrewd and successful a businesswoman, one could attribute her
errors to na?vet? and perhaps a scarcity of wits. One might even
be embarrassed for her, controlled so deftly as a marionette by
economic and political forces operating from within and outside
Burma. However, in light of her financial achievements, personal
history and lengthy association with powerful people among the
ruling elite of Burma, we can only conclude that her testimony to
Congress is intentionally slick and disingenuous. It may perhaps
even be motivated by an interest less altruistic than the
promotion of peace, democracy and human rights. It is riddled
with inconsistencies, errors and omissions that should be
unacceptable to the elected representatives of the American
people. However, as this analysis demonstrates, the ageing puppet
show in which she features might entertain, but it should
convince no one, for even children and politicians are blessed
with the faculty of logic.

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

What next? Suggestions for dealing with Miriam Marshall Segal's
pro-SLORC advocacy

*    With due respect for Mrs. Segal's civil rights, research and 
     publicize her personal history, including references to
     herself as a Holocaust survivor. Investigate
     Holocaust-related charities or projects to which she has
     contributed or which she has participated in and inform them
     of her role in supporting war crimes in Burma

*    Contact all participants in the Congressional hearings which 
     endured Mrs. Segal's testimony and share with them the
     objections raised in this analysis

*    Contact Mrs. Segal herself, perhaps through one of her
     retail operations, and express to her both the invalidity of
     her testimony and the continued abuse and hardship the
     Burmese people suffer as a direct result of foreign
     investment in the Burmese junta.

*    Inform Burma Issues, Project Maje (Cranford, NJ) and other   
     Burma peace advocates who track Mrs. Segal's activities of   
     your experiences and progress in dealing with Mrs. Segal.   

     Published by Burma Issues,
     Box 1076 Silom Post Office,       
     Bangkok 10504,          
     Thailand 

************************************************************** 
6. SEGAL: THE SHRIMP LADY SPEAKS 
[Note: Segal's pejorative nickname, "the shrimp lady" came about
because of an article by New York Times reporter Phil Shennon. 
Segal, while watching labourers at her seafood processing factory
deveining shrimp for export to the West, is quoted by Shennon as
saying "Now that's my idea of human rights."  --Editor]

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. 

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

NEWS SOURCES REGULARLY COVERED/ABBREVIATIONS USED BY BURMANET:

 AP: ASSOCIATED PRESS
 AFP: AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE
 AW: ASIAWEEK
 AWSJ: ASIAN WALL STREET JOURNAL
 Bt.: THAI BAHT; 25 Bt.=US$1 (APPROX), 
 BBC: BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION, 
 BI: BURMA ISSUES
 BIG: BURMA INFORMATION GROUP
 BKK POST: THE BANGKOK POST
 BRC-CM: BURMESE RELIEF CENTER-CHIANG MAI
 BRC-J: BURMESE RELIEF CENTER-JAPAN
 CPPSM: C'TEE FOR PUBLICITY OF THE PEOPLE'S STRUGGLE IN MONLAND 
 FEER: FAR EAST ECONOMIC REVIEW
 JIR: JANE'S INTELLIGENCE REVIEW
 KHRG: KAREN HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP
 Kt. BURMESE KYAT; 110-120 KYAT =US$1 BLACKMARKET
                   6 KYAT=US$1 OFFICIAL
 NATION: THE NATION (DAILY NEWSPAPER, BANGKOK)
 NLM: NEW LIGHT OF MYANMAR
 S.C.B.:SOC.CULTURE.BURMA NEWSGROUP 
 S.C.T.:SOC.CULTURE.THAI NEWSGROUP
 SEASIA-L: S.E.ASIA BITNET MAILING LIST
 USG: UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
 XNA: XINHUA NEWS AGENCY 

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