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

BurmaNet News: November 27, 1994



************************** BurmaNet ************************** 
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"
************************************************************** 
BurmaNet News: Sunday, November 27 1994
Issue #72

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

1 ASSK: EMPOWERMENT FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT
2 NEW YORK TIMES: CLINTON'S BURMA SELL-OUT
3 BURMANET: 'PAST MASTER OF MALICE' PUBLISHES "BURMA IN REVOLT"
4 NATION: KAREN BLAME SLORC FOR PEACE TALKS IMPASSE
5 NATION: INDOCHINESE AID COOPERATION PROJECTS SAID TO BE ON TARGET


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

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   *
newsgroup and the            *      immediatelyapparent      *
seasia-l mailing list.       *       tothosefortun           *
For a free subscription      *       ateenoughtol            *
to the BurmaNet News,        *       iveinstatesgo           *
send an e-mail note          *        vernedbytheru          *
to:                          *        leoflaw...Iam          *
                             *        n ota     frai         *
strider@xxxxxxxxxxx          *                  d..          *
                             *                   .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

************************************************************** 
ASSK: EMPOWERMENT FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT
by Aung San Suu Kyi

[Address to a meeting of the World Commission on Culture and 
Development, Manila, 21 November 1994, to be presented on behalf of 
the author at her request by Mrs Corazon Aquino.]


At its third meeting held at San Jose, Costa Rica, 22-26 February 
1994, the World Commission on Culture and Development set itself 
three goals, the third of which was to promote a new culture
dynamic: the culture of peace and culture of development. The
Commission undertook to endeavour to recommend the concrete
measures that could promote, on a national and international scale,
a culture of peace and went on to state that:

a of peace, culture of democracy and culture of human rights 
are indivisible. Their effective implementation must result in 
a democratic management and ... the prevention of 
intercultural conflicts.[1]

Peace as a goal is an ideal which will not be contested by an 
government or nation, not even the most belligerent. And the close 
interdependence of the culture of peace and the culture of
development also finds ready acceptance. But it remains a matter of
uncertainty how far governments are prepared to concede that
democracy and human rights are indivisible from the culture of
peace and therefore essential to sustained development. There is
ample evidence that culture and development can actually be made to
serve as pretexts for resisting calls for democracy and human
rights. It is widely known that some governments argue that
democracy is a western concept alien to indigenous values; it has
also been asserted that economic development often conflicts with
political (i.e. democratic) rights and that the second should
necessarily give way to the first. In the light of such arguments
culture and development need to be carefully examined and defined
that they may not be used, or rather, misused, to block the
aspirations of peoples for democratic institutions and human 
rights. 

The unsatisfactory record of development in many parts of the world 
and the ensuing need for a definition of development which means 
more than mere economic growth became a matter of vita concern to 
economists and international agencies more than a decade ago.[2] In 
A New Concept of Development, published in 1983, Francois Perroux 
stated that:

Development has not taken place: it represents a dramatic 
growth of awareness, a promise, a matter of survival indeed; 
intellectually, however, it is still only dimly perceived.[3]

Later, in the same book her asserted that:

 ... personal development, the freedom of persons fulfilling 
their potential in the context of the values to which they 
subscribe and which they experience in their actions, is one of 
the mainsprings of all forms of development.[4] 

His concept of development therefore gives a firm place to human
and cultural values within any scheme for progress, economic or
otherwise. 

The United Nations Development Programme too began to spell out 
the difference between growth and development in the 1980s.[5] With 
the beginning of the 1990s the primacy of the human aspect of 
development was acknowledged by the UNDP with the publication of 
its first Human Development Report. And the special focus of the
1993 Report was peoples participation, seen as the central issue of
our time.[6]

While the concept of human development is beginning to assume a 
dominant position in the thinking of international economists and 
administrators, the Market Economy, not merely adorned with capital 
letters but seen in an almost mystic haze, is increasingly regarded
by many governments as the quick and certain way to material
prosperity. It is assumed that economic measures can resolve all
the problems facing their countries. Economics is described as the
deus ex machina, the most important key to every lock of every door
to the new Asia we wish to see; and healthy economic development is 
seen as

 ... essential to successfully meeting the challenge of peace and 
security, the challenge of human rights and responsibilities, 
the challenge of democracy and the rule of law, the challenge 
of social justice and reform and the challenge of cultural 
renaissance and pluralism.[7]

The view that economic development is essential to peace, human 
rights, democracy and cultural pluralism, and the view that a
culture of peace, democracy and human rights is essential to
sustained human development, many seem on the surface to differ
only in the matter of approach. But a closer investigation reveals
that the difference in approach itself implies differences of a
more fundamental order. When economics is regarded as the most
important key to every lock of every door it is only natural that
the worth of man should come to be decided largely, even wholly, by
his effectiveness as an economic tool.[8] This is at variance with
the vision of a world where economic,political and social
institutions work to serve man instead of the other way round;
where culture and development coalesce to create an 
environment in which human potential can be realized to the full. 

The differing views ultimately reflect differences in how the
valuation of the various components of the social and national
entity are made; how such basic concepts as poverty, progress,
culture, freedom, democracy and human rights are defined and, of
crucial importance, who has the power to determine such values and
definitions.

The value systems of those with access to power and of those far 
removed from such access cannot be the same. The viewpoint of the 
privileged is unlike that of the underprivileged. In the matter of
power and privilege the difference between the haves and the
have-nots is not merely quantitative, for it has far-reaching
psychological and ideological implications. And many economic
concerns are seldom just that, since they are tied up with
questions of power and privilege. The problem of poverty provides
an example of the inadequacy of a purely economic approach to a
human situation. Even those who take a down-to-earth view of basic
human needs agree that:

 ... whatever doctors, nutritionists, and other scientists may say 
about the objective conditions of deprivation, how the poor 
themselves perceive their deprivation is also relevant.[9]

The alleviation of poverty thus entails setting in motion processes 
which can change the perceptions of all those concerned. Here power 
and privilege come into play:

The poor are powerless and have no voice. Power is the 
responsibility of expressing and imposing ones will in a 
given social relationship, in the face of any resistance. The 
poor are incapable of either imposing, coercing or, in many 
cases, having any influence at all.[10]

It is not enough merely to provide the poor with material
assistance. They have to be sufficiently empowered to change their
perception of themselves as helpless and ineffectual in an uncaring
world.

The question of empowerment is central to both culture and 
development. It decides who has the means of imposing on a nation
or society their view of what constitutes culture and development
and who determines what practical measures can be taken in the name
of culture and development. The more totalitarian a system the more 
power will be concentrated in the hands of the ruling elite and the 
more culture and development will be used to serve narrow
interests. Culture has been defined as the most recent, the most
highly developed means of promoting the security and continuity of
life.[11] 

Culture thus defined is dynamic and broad, the emphasis is on its 
flexible, non-compelling qualities. But when it is bent to serve
narrow interests it becomes static and rigid, its exclusive aspects
come to the fore and it assumes coercive overtones. The national
culture can become a bizarre graft of carefully selected historical
incidents and distorted social values intended to justify the
policies and actions of those in power.[12] At the same time
development is likely to be seen in the now outmoded sense of
economic growth. Statistics, often unverifiable, are reeled off to
prove the success of official measures.

Many authoritarian governments wish to appear in the forefront of 
modern progress but are reluctant to institute genuine change. Such 
governments tend to claim that they are taking a uniquely national
or indigenous path towards a political system in keeping with the
times. In the decades immediately after the Second World War
socialism was the popular option. But increasingly since the 1980s
democracy has gained ground. The focus on a national or indigenous
way to socialism or democracy has 

 ... the effect of stressing cultural continuity as both process 
and goals; this in turn obviates the necessity of defining either 
democracy or socialism in institutionally or procedurally 
specific terms; and finally, it elevates the existing political 
elite to the indispensable position of final arbiter and 
interpreter of what does or does not contribute to the 
preservation of cultural integrity.[13]

It is often in the name of cultural integrity as well as social
stability and national security that democratic reforms based on
human rights are resisted by authoritarian governments. It is
insinuated that some of the worst ills of western society are the
result of democracy, which is seen as the progenitor of unbridled
freedom and selfish individualism. 

It is claimed, usually without adequate evidence, that democratic 
values and human rights run counter to the national culture, and 
therefore to be beneficial they need to be modified -- perhaps to
the extent that they are barely recognizable. The people are said
to be as yet unfit for democracy, therefore an indefinite length of
time has to pass before democratic reforms can be instituted.

The first form of attack is often based on the premise, so
universally accepted that it is seldom challenged or even noticed,
that the United States of America is the supreme example of
democratic culture. What tends to be overlooked is that although
the USA is certainly the most important representative of
democratic culture, it also represents many other cultures, often
intricately enmeshed. Among these are the I-want-it-all consumer
culture, megacity culture, superpower culture, frontier culture,
immigrant culture. There is also a strong media culture which
constantly exposes the myriad problems of American society, from
large issues such as street violence and drug abuse to the 
matrimonial difficulties of minor celebrities. Many of the worst
ills of American society, increasingly to be found in varying
degrees in other developed countries, can be traced not to the
democratic legacy but to the demands of modern materialism. Gross
individualism and cut-throat morality arise when political and
intellectual freedoms are curbed on the one hand while on the other
fierce economic competitiveness is encouraged by making material
success the measure of prestige and progress. The result is a
society where cultural and human values are set aside and money
value reigns supreme. No political or social system is perfect. But
could such a powerful and powerfully diverse nation as the United
States have been prevented from disintegrating if it had not been
sustained by democratic institutions guaranteed by a constitution
based on the assumption that mans capacity for reason and justice
makes free government possible and that his capacity for passion
and injustices makes it necessary?[14]

It is precisely because of the cultural diversity of the world that
it is necessary for different nations and peoples to agree on those
basic human values which will act as a unifying factor. When
democracy and human rights are said to run counter to non-western
culture, such culture is usually defined narrowly and presented as
monolithic. In fact the values that democracy and human rights seek
to promote can be found in many cultures. Human beings the world
over need freedom and security that they may be able to realize
their full potential. The longing for a form of governance that
provides security without destroying freedom goes back a long
way.[15] Support for the desirability of strong government and
dictatorship can also be found in all cultures, both eastern and
western: the desire to dominate and the tendency to adulate the
powerful are also common human traits arising out of a desire for
security. A nation may choose a system that leaves the protection
of the freedom and security of the many dependent on the
inclinations of the empowered few; or it may choose institutions 
and practices that will sufficiently empower individuals and 
organizations to protect their own freedom and security. The choice 
will decide how far a nation will progress along the road to peace
and human development.[16]

Many of the countries in the third world now striving for
meaningful development are multiracial societies where there is one
dominant racial group and a number -- sometimes a large number --
of smaller groups: foreign, religious or ethnic minorities. As
poverty can no longer be defined satisfactorily in terms of basic
economic needs, minority can no longer be defined merely in terms
of numbers. For example, it has been noted in a study of minorities
in Burmese history that:

In the process of nation-building ... the notion of minority in 
Burma changed, as one group defines itself as a nation those 
outside the group become minorities.
 ...
There were, of course, minorities in traditional Burma -- 
people close to the power elite who considered themselves 
superior and people estranged from the power elite who were 
considered inferior. These criteria for establishing majorities 
(who might in fact be a small portion of the population as, 
say, white people in South Africa today) were not based on 
race or even ethnic group, but on access to power. Minorities, 
thus, are those people with poor access to power.[17]

Once again, as in the case of poverty, it is ultimately a question
of empowerment. The provision of basic material needs is not
sufficient to make minority groups and indigenous peoples feel they
are truly part of the greater national entity. For that they have
to be confident that they too have an active role to play in
shaping the destiny of the state that demands their allegiance.
Poverty degrades a whole society and threatens its stability while
ethnic conflict and minority discontent are two of the greatest
threats to both internal and regional peace. And when the
dispossessed minority is in fact an overwhelming majority, as
happens in countries where power is concentrated in the hands of 
the few, the threat to peace and stability is ever present even if 
unperceived.

The Commission for a New Asia notes that:

 ... the most rapid economic transformation is most likely to 
succeed within the context of international peace and internal 
political stability, in the presence of social tranquillity, public 
order and an enlightened and strong government; and in the 
absence of societal turbulence and disorder.[18]

This comment highlights the link between economic, political and 
social concerns. But there is a danger that it could be interpreted
to imply that peace, stability and public order are desirable only
as conditions for facilitating economic transformation rather than
as ends in themselves. Such an interpretation would distort the
very meaning of peace and security. It could also be used to
justify strong, even if unenlightened, government and any
authoritarian measures such as a government may take in the name of
public order.[19]

If material betterment, which is but a means to human happiness, is 
sought in ways that wound the human spirit, it can in the long run 
only lead to greater human suffering. The vast possibilities that
a market economy can open to developing countries can be realized
only if economic reforms are undertaken within a framework that 
recognizes human needs. The Human Development Report makes the 
point that markets should serve people instead of people serving 
markets. Further:

 ... both state and market should be guided by the people. The 
two should work in tandem, and people should be sufficiently 
empowered to exert effective control over both.[20]

Again we come back to empowerment. It decides how widespread will 
be the benefit of actions taken in the name of culture and
development. And this in turn will decide the extent of the
contribution such actions can make to genuine peace and stability.
Democracy as a political system which aims at empowering the people
is essential if sustained human development, which is development
of the people for the people by the people, is to be achieved. Thus
it has been rightly said that:

National governments must find new ways of enabling their 
people to participate more in government and to allow them 
much greater influence on the decisions that affect their lives. 
Unless this is done, and done in time, the irresistible tide of 
peoples rising aspirations will inevitably clash with 
inflexible systems, leading to anarchy and chaos. A rapid 
democratic transition and a strengthening of the institutions 
of civil society are the only appropriate responses.[21]

The argument that it took long years for the first democratic 
governments to develop in the west is not a valid excuse for
African and Asian countries to drag their feet over democratic
reform. The history of the world shows that peoples and societies
do not have to pass through a fixed series of stages in the course
of development. 
Moreover, latecomers should be able to capitalize on the
experiences of the pioneers and avoid the mistakes and obstacles
that impeded early progress. The idea of making haste slowly is
sometimes used to give backwardness the appearance of measured
progress. But in a fast developing world too much emphasis on
slowly can be a recipe for disaster.

There will be as many kinds of democracies as there are nations
which accept it as a form of government. No single type of western 
democracy exists; nor is democracy limited to a mere handful of 
forms such as the American, British, French or Swiss. Each 
democratic country will have its own individual characteristics.
With the spread of democracy to Eastern Europe the variety in the 
democratic style of government will increase. Similarly there
cannot be one form of Asian democracy; in each country the
democracy system will develop a character that accords with its
social, cultural and economic needs. But the basic requirement of
a genuine democracy is that the people should be sufficiently
empowered to be able to participate significantly in the governance
of their country. The thirty articles of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights are aimed at such empowerment. Without these rights
democratic institutions will be but empty shells incapable of
reflecting the aspirations of the people and unable to withstand
the encroachment of authoritarianism.

The democracy process provides for political and social change 
without violence. The democracy tradition of free discussion and 
debate allows for the settlement of differences without resort to
armed conflict. The culture of democracy and human rights promotes 
diversity and dynamism without disintegration; it is indivisible
from the culture of development and the culture of peace. It is
only by giving firm support to movements that seek to empower the
people through democratic means that the United Nations and its
agencies will truly be able to promote the culture of peace and the
culture of development.

***

Let me in conclusion summarize my argument. The true development 
of human beings involves much more than mere economic growth. At 
its heart there must be a sense of empowerment and inner
fulfillment. This alone will ensure that human and cultural values
remain paramount in a world where political leadership is often
synonymous with tyranny and the rule of a narrow elite. Peoples
participation in social and political transformation is the central
issue of our time. This can only be achieved through the
establishment of societies which place human worth above power, and
liberation above control. In this paradigm, development requires
democracy, the genuine empowerment of the people. When this is
achieved, culture and development will naturally coalesce to create
an environment in which all are valued, and every kind of human
potential can be realised. The alleviation of poverty involves
processes which change the way in which the poor perceive
themselves and the world. Mere material assistance is not enough;
the poor must have the sense that they themselves can shape their
own future. Most totalitarian regimes fear change, but the longer
they put off genuine democratic reform the more likely it is that
even their positive contributions will be vitiated: 
the success of national policies depends on the willing
participation of the people. Democratic values and human rights, it
is sometimes claimed, run counter to national culture, and all too
often the people at large are seen as unfit for government. Nothing
can be further from the truth. The challenge we now face is for the
different nations and peoples of the world to agree on a basic set
of human values, which will serve as a unifying force in the
development of a genuine global community. True economic
transformation can then take place in the context of international
peace and internal political stability. A rapid democratic
transition and strengthening of the institutions of civil society
are the sine qua non for this development. Only then will we be
able to look to a future where human beings are valued for what
they are rather than for what they produce. If the UN and its
agencies wish to assist this development they must support these
movements which seek to empower the people, movements which are
founded on democracy, and which will one day ensure a culture of
peace and of development.


______________________________________________________
[FOOTNOTES:]

[1] Draft Preliminary Outline of the World Report on Culture and 
Development. UNESCO, CCD-III/94/Doc. 2, Paris, 7 Feb. 1994, p. 
16.
[2] It has been pointed out that the idea of growth not as an end
in itself but as a performance test of development was put forward
by economists as early as the 1950s; Paul Streeten et al., First
Things First: Meeting Basic Human Needs in the Developing
Countries, Oxford, 1982 edn.
[3] Francois Perroux, A New Concept of Development, UNESCO, 
Paris, 1983, p. 2.
[4] Ibid., p. 180.
[5] Growth normally means quantifiable measure of a societys 
overall level of production or incomes such as GNP or GDP per
capita, while development involves qualitative aspects of a
societys advancement such as under- and un-employment, income
distribution pattern, housing situation, nutritional level,
sanitary condition, etc. UNDP Selected Sectoral Reviews: [?Burma]
December 1988, p. 333.
[6] Human Development Report 1993, UNDP, Oxford, 1993, p. 1.
[7] Towards A New Asia, A Report of the Commission for A New 
Asia, 1994, p. 39.
[8] The logic of an economy governed by solvency and by profit, 
subject to the increasing value attached to capital and to the
power of those who command it is to reject as non-economic
everything which cannot be immediately translated into quantities
and prices in market terms:: Paul-Marc Henry (ed.), Poverty,
Progress and Development, London, 1991, p. 30.
[9] Streeten et al., First Things First, p. 19.
[10] Henry (ed.), Poverty, Progress and Development. p. 34.
[11] The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1993 edn., vol. 16, 
p. 874. [12] Edward Said comments that governments in general use
culture as a means of promoting nationalism: To launder the
cultural past and repaint it in garish nationalist colors that
irradiate the whole society is now so much a fact of contemporary
life as to be considered natural. See Edward Said, Nationalism,
Human Rights, and Interpretation, in Barbara Johnson (ed.), Freedom
and Interpretation: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures, 1992, New York,
1993, p. 191.[13] Harry M. Scoble and Laurie S. Wiseberg (eds.),
Access to Justice: Human Rights Struggles in South East Asia,
London, 1985, p. 57.
[14] See Clinton Rossiters introduction to Hamilton, Madison and 
Jay, The Federalist Papers, Chicago, 1961. I owe thanks to Lady 
Patricia Gore-Booth for the original quotation on which Rossiter 
presumably based his words: Mans capacity for justice makes 
democracy possible; but mans inclination to injustice makes 
democracy necessary, from Reinhold Niebuhrs foreword to his 
Children of Light and Children of Darkness: A Vindication of 
Democracy and a Critique of its Traditional Defence, London, 1945.
[15] The best government is that which governs least are the words 
of a westerner, John L. OSullivan, but more than a thousand years 
before OSullivan was born it was already written in the Lao Tzu, A 
Chinese classic, that the best of all rulers is but a shadowy
presence to his subjects. The notion that In a nation the people
are the most important, the State is next and the rulers the least
important is to be found not in the works of a modern western
political theorist but in that of Mencius.
[16]Ehran Naraghi has shown in his memoirs, From Palace to Prison: 
Inside the Iranian Revolution, London, 1994, that a critical
attitude towards the monarch, decentralization of power and
divisions of responsibilities were part of oriental tradition. His
fascinating conversations with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi throw
into relief the dangers of cultural and development policies
divorced from the aspirations of the people.
[17] Ronald D. Renard, Minorities in Burmese History, in K.M. de 
Silva et al. (eds.), Ethnic Conflict in Buddhist Societies: Sri
Lanka, Thailand and Burma, London, 1988, p. 79.
[18] Towards New Asia, p. 40.
[19] Practically any human behaviour can be, and historically has 
bee, rationalized as threatening to damage the security of the
nation: Scoble and Wiseberg (eds.), Access to Justice, p. 58.
[20] [?Human] Development Report 1993, p. 53.
[21] Ibid., p. 5. Scoble and Wiseberg (eds.), Access to Justice, p.
5, point out the difference between fundamental reform that
involves a redistribution of power, a broadening of participation
and influence in the making of authoritative decisions and
contingent reform that involves a sharing of the benefits of power
holding, or the uses of power, in order to avoid the sharing of
power itself.


************************************************************** 
NEW YORK TIMES: CLINTON'S BURMA SELL-OUT
November 24, 1994

The Clinton administration, after struggling messily for nearly two
years with the dilemmas of human rights diplomacy, seems at last to
have arrived at a consistent approach:  Deny reality, declare
things are getting better and lower the pressure on authoritarian
regimes.  Now, at least, tyrannies large and small, from China to
Indonesia to Burma, can count on consistent treatment.

Until this month Burma stood out as the principled exception to the
administration's complaisance.  While Asian and European countries
cozied up to the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council
(SLORC), Washington refused to forget about the SLORC's record of
trampling on elections, complicity with drug lords and continuing
atrocities against civilians.

To maintain pressure for change, the United States curtailed
diplomatic relations, suspended aid, blocked loans from
international banks and repeatedly criticized the SLORC's crimes in
international forums.

In early November, the administration dispatched a top official to
Burma with what it characterized as a tough message:  If  the SLORC
continued on its course, the United States would intensify its
efforts to isolate the regime internationally.  But if it took
clear and specific steps to ease repression and establish
democratic rule, relations could improve.

The SLORC listened politely, but yielded nothing beyond continuing
symbolic talks with the country's most prominent imprisoned
democrat, Aung San Suu Kyi.  Yet last week, Secretary of State
Warren Christopher claimed to discern "somewhat promising" results
from the mission and suggested that the administration was not
prepared to take a conciliatory approach to Burma.

Economic engagement can indirectly benefit human rights by raising
living standards and strengthening a middle class, which often
becomes a key pressure group for liberal reforms.

But the connection is scarcely automatic, as rich but repressive
Singapore demonstrates.

Similarly, diplomatic engagement can bring progress when the
government doing the engaging drives tough bargains and insists
that its terms be met.  But tough talk followed by the pretense
that cosmetic changes are "somewhat promising" only encourages
contemptuous abuse.

How sad to recall that Bill Clinton once denounced George Bush for
"coddling dictators."  He human rights performance in office begins
to make Bush, who never pretended to be other than a hard-headed
realist, look like a bleeding heart.  (Nov. 24)

The New York Times

************************************************************** 
BURMANET: 'PAST MASTER OF MALICE' PUBLISHES "BURMA IN REVOLT"
November 27, 1994

"Burma in Revolt", a new book by Bertil Lintner has just been
published by Westview Press.  Lintner, a correspondent for the Far
Eastern Economic Review has written numerous articles and books
about Burma and is recognized as a preeminant authority on the
Golden Triangle opium trade.  His coverage of the 88 uprising
earned him the sobriquet "past master of malice" from Burma's
Working People's Daily.

Burma in Revolt: Opium and Insurgency Since 1948. 550 pages, 
maps, photographs. It's published by Westview Press, 5500 Central
Ave, Boulder, Co 80301-2877. Tel (303) 444-3541; fax (303)
449-3356. MasterCrd and VISA orders only: (800) 456-1995. It is
US$49.95 (in the US hard cover only; a somewhat cheaper soft cover
edition will be out in Thailand in January. 

The book has the following chapters:

Prologue: Murder in the Secretariat (the assassination of Aung San;
the begnning of the disintegration of Burma)

Chapter 1: "The Rangoon Government" 1948-49 (the first year of the 
insurgency when Rangoon almost fell)

Chapter 2: The Burmese Jigsaw (political and ethnic background to
the conflicts)

Chapter 3: "Peace Within One Year" 1951-51. This was the
government's slogan, but there turned out to be no peace.

Chapter 4: The Secret War, 1951-55. The Kuomintang invades northern
Burma and sets up an opium empire there.

Chapter 5: Retreat to the Jungle, 1955-62. Mass surrenders, the 
insurgency almost collapses. U Nu gives concessions to the
minorities which seem to satisfy most of them.

Chapter 6: The Military Takes Over, 1962-68. The army, led by Gen.
Ne Win, steps in. The insurgencies flare anew.

Chapter 7: The Communst Juggernaut, 1968-78. China decides to
support the Burmese communists. The Communists take over much of
northeastern Shan State.
Chapter 8: Guns, drugs and ethnic resistance, 1976-86. The ethnic 
minorities try to form a third force between the Rangoon government
and the Communists: the National Democratic Front is established.
Meanwhile, the opium and heroin trade flourishes as a result of the
anarchy in the frontier areas.

Chapter 9: Burma in Upheaval, 1986-92. The turbulent years of the 
pro-democracy movement, the formation of the Slorc and how it all 
affected Burma's insurgents - and the drug trade.

Chapter 10: The Strife Continues, 1992-. Cease-fires may have been 
reached, but the conflict is far from over. The cease-fires have
frozen Burma's ethnic strife without addressing the fundamental
political issues which caused the ethnics to take up arms in the
first place.

Epilogue: Is There any Solution to the Problem?

Appendix 1: Chronology, 1948-1994
Appendix 2: Who's Who (short biographies of the men and women of
Burma's insurgency
Appendix 3: A list of rebel groups in Burma from 1948 to present
Appendix 4: A list of Burma's founding fathers, the 30 Comrades.
Bibliography, footnotes.



  
************************************************************** 
NATION: KAREN BLAME SLORC FOR PEACE TALKS IMPASSE
Saturday, November 26, 1994
by Yindee Lertcharoenchok

ARMED ethnic Karen guerrillas have blamed the Burmese junta for 
the failure to get bilateral peace negotiations off the ground,
accusing the junta of rejecting talks in Rangoon with UN
authorities as witnesses.

Instead, the ruling Burmese State Law and Order Restoration Council 
(SLORC) proposed that talks take place in Moulmein, capital of the 
Mon State, between a Karen delegation and Burmese Southeastern 
Commander Maj Gen Ket Sein.

The armed group has called for an attitude of openness, honesty and 
equanimity. It said consultations between top leaders of both sides
are necessary as the establishment of genuine peace is a political
question concerning the whole country.

The KNU is in no way responsible for the failure of advance 
delegations of both sides to meet, said a statement issued by the
group on Wednesday.

The KNU is in no way responsible for the failure of advance 
delegations of both sides to meet, said a statement isused by the
gorup on Wednesday.

KNU, the Karen National Union, is the strongest and only remaining 
armed ethnic guerrilla group which has not yet entered into
ceasefire talks with Rangoon. It had earlier demanded that
bilateral talks be held outside of Burma in the presence of
international observers.

The ethnic group said earlier arrangements were made with Burmese 
Military Attache to Thailand Col Thein Swe for a meeting at the 
Burmese Embassy in Bangkok, but the SLORC, after an initial 
appearance of assent, rejected the plan.

In subsequent discussion between KNU and Thein Swe, peace talks in 
Rangoon in the presence of UN representatives serving as witnesses 
were also rejected, it said.

According to the reply made through Col Thein Swe on Nov 11, 
1994, the SLORC authorities rejected UN representatives 
participation, saying the KNU advance delegation was to meet only
the  head of Southeast Military Command, Gen Ket Sein, in Moulmein, 
not in Rangoon, said the statement.

The Karen said seriousness of mind is necessary to construct
internal peace and it will continue to work for peace negotiations
with a steady and honest disposition, and with the objective of
establishing a genuine and lasting peace for the whole country.

The SLORC, which has insisted peace talks be held inside Burma, has 
repeatedly blamed the Karen for refusing to enter into dialogues. 
Although it has struck ceasefire deals with a dozen armed ethnic 
groups in the Shan and Kachin states since 1989, its peace efforts
over the past year withthe Karen, Karenni and Mon forces have not
yet been successful.

************************************************************** 
NATION: INDOCHINESE AID COOPERATION PROJECTS SAID 
TO BE ON TARGET
Saturday, November 26, 1994

THAILAND, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam have declared at a 
meeting that their sub-regional cooperation programmes are on 
target and will possibly include China and Burma in future 
programmes concerning AIDS and drug control

The four countries, on an Indochinese sub-regional basis, have been 
allotted US$7 million (Bt175 million) by the United Nations 
Development Programme (UNDP) for programmes concerning socio-
economic dialogue, highland people development, improvement of 
civil aviation safety, bio-diversity conservation and support for
the Mekong Secretariat.

The sub-regional programmes, excluding the support of the Mekong 
Secretariat, were launched in 1991 but only approved by the UNDP in 
mid-1993, so this meeting was viewed as a mid-term review of the 
programmes progress.

Herbert Behrstock, chief of UNDPs regional bureau for Asia and the 
Pacific, told a press conference that all the programmes were
highly relevant to all participating countries and their people. 

Kittipan Kanjanapipatkul, deputy director general of the Department 
of Technical and Economic Cooperation, said China and Burma had 
already joined Thailand and Laos in a drug control project
supported by the UN Drug Control Programme.

He said the two countries were expected to be held in Cambodia next 
year.

The programme that was deemed the most successful was the support 
of the Mekong Secretariat. Senior offiicals of the four countries
will initiate a draft agreement on the framework of the use of the
river in Hanoi on Monday.

The UNDP has been involved with the Mekong Secretariat since 1967 
and over US$50 million (Bt1.25 billion) has been allotted to the 
programme.

The programme for highland people is aimed at improving their 
planning, and management skills for community development. 

The socio-economic dialogue meeting was held in Cha-am, Thailand 
in August 1993, in which a report on socio-economic reform efforts 
was completed. The UNDP wants to establish a similar exchange of 
information and experience to include China, Mongolia, North Korea 
and Burma.

The meeting also reviewed a new proposal aimed at preparing Laos, 
Cambodia and Vietnam for entry into ASEAN. The project will train 
government officials, support the establishment of national ASEAN 
secretariats and carry out studies on preparatory steps required by
the three countries. The areas of focus include banking and law.

The officials also broadly discussed future programmes. HIV/AIDS, 
drug control and their prevention were given priority.

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


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
 BKK POST: BANGKOK POST (DAILY NEWSPAPER, BANGKOK)
 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 EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW
 IRRAWADDY: NEWSLETTER PUBLISHED BY BURMA INFORMATION GROUP
 JIR: JANE'S INTELLIGENCE REVIEW
 KHRG: KAREN HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP
 Kt. BURMESE KYAT; 150 KYAT=US$1 BLACK MARKET
                   100 KYAT=US$1 SEMI-OFFICIAL
                   6 KYAT=US$1 OFFICIAL
 MOA: MIRROR OF ARAKAN
 NATION: THE NATION (DAILY NEWSPAPER, BANGKOK)
 NLM: NEW LIGHT OF MYANMAR (DAILY STATE-OWNED NEWSPAPER, RANGOON)
 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 
**************************************************************