BurmaNet News August 25, 1996

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

-----------------------------BurmaNet--------------------------------
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BurmaNet News: August 25, 1996
Issue #498

HEADLINES:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
BURMANET: REPORT ON CRACKDOWN IN BURMA
BURMANET: BURMANET ARTICLES PRINTED IN SLORC PRESS
BURMANET: SLORC LT COLONEL GOING TO DISNEYLAND
VOA: EAST ASIA PACIFIC WEEK IN REVIEW
NCGUB: DR. SEIN WIN'S SPEECH IN AUSTRALIA
NATION: SLORC FALTERS IN BID TO FIX ASIA'S CRACKED RICE BOWL
BKK POST: EDITORIAL - SHORT-TERM GAIN IS NOT EVERYTHING
THAILAND TIMES: BURMESE STUDENT GROUP VOWS TO CONTINUE=20
ABSDF: STATEMENT ON THE SLORC'S SAVAGE TREATMENT=20
ABSL: HANDOVER OF SIX BURMESE DEFECTORS TO SLORC
US STATE DEPARTMENT: REPORT (BURMA)
WSJ: PROBLEMS REMAIN IN CAMBODIA EVEN AS KHMER ROUGE SPLINTERS
BCN: ORDER HERE: VIDEO SPEECH SUU KYI AT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------------

BURMANET: REPORT ON CRACKDOWN IN BURMA
August 24, 1996

Since the SLORC party returned from Malaysia last week, a new crackdown
on NLD members and other pro-democracy supporters has begun.  The SLORC
is clearly scared.  They are not in control of the economy.  The prices of =
goods=20
are sky-rocketing because of inflation, a huge part of this year's rice cro=
p was=20
destroyed by insects, and there are no stocks of rice left from last year. =
A=20
crisis is looming and people are angry.  =20

The SLORC is intending to resume the National Convention this fall and=20
hoping to push through its own constitution, but they are well aware of the=
=20
fact that the majority of the people do not support it.  Many ethnic leader=
s =20
who had previously participated in the National Convention are also=20
seriously considering pulling out because they feel they cannot work with
the SLORC.

The pro-democracy supporters in Burma have become more and more active
since Aung San Suu Kyi's release.  Although they have engaged in few public
activities except for attending talks in front of Aung San Suu Kyi's house,
they have been revitalizing old networks and forming new groups.  Recently
people have even begun discussing politics in public places like buses and=
=20
teashops.  The endless SLORC press diatribes against Aung San Suu Kyi=20
have also outraged Burmese people who weren't necessarily that sympathetic
with her a year ago.  The people have become increasingly politicized, and=
=20
the SLORC may well be concerned that they will not be able to control the
situation.

Realizing that the international community could react very strongly if the=
y=20
rearrested Aung San Suu Kyi, they have adopted a different strategy.  They=
=20
are trying to break her power base by arresting all the key people in the p=
arty=20
and by intimidating people into not attending the weekend talks at her hous=
e. =20
The SLORC is banking on the hope that the international community is not=20
sufficiently familiar with other key leaders or interested in the fate of o=
rdinary=20
Burmese people to react to this latest wave of repression.

After the May arrests, when approximately 262 NLD members were taken
into custody, most were gradually released.  In late June, 26 of the origin=
al
262 remained in prison.  Now the number of political prisoners has gone=20
up to at least 60, including 9 people who were arrested only for being=20
regular attenders of the weekend talks in front of Aung San Suu Kyi's=20
house.  These nine were not arrested at the talks but back at their homes=
=20
late at night.  At least nine are now in Insein prison, and one has already
been sentenced to seven years in prison.  These nine were not NLD party
members or party of the NLD youth wing.  They were merely regular=20
attenders of the talks.
=20
One day in early June, a single monk, U Khetsara, stood on a main thoroughf=
are=20
(in front of Sule Pagoda) with a sign calling for dialogue.  He was arreste=
d=20
and sentenced last week to seven years in prison.  Although some suggested =
that=20
he apologize and plead for leniency, he refused to do so, saying that he ha=
d=20
done nothing wrong.  The SLORC has forced him to disrobe, but he is still=
=20
following the 5 precepts and preaching Buddhism in the prison.

Five students who met with senior NLD members earlier this month were also
arrested. Ye Htun, Taung Ni, Lwin Aung, and Myo Than were taken away=20
on August 9, 1996 and Nyei Hline was taken on August 12th.  Their=20
whereabouts are unknown.

Win Htein, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's assistant, has already been sentenced=20
to seven years but is also facing additional charges which may result in hi=
s
spending the rest of his life in prison.

All the NLD members who are in jail are in extremely poor health.  Because
of the lack of adequate food, sleeping on the concrete floors without any
mats or blankets, and not being allowed sufficient exercise, many are=20
suffering from a spinal weakening disease. =20

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has reacted with anger to the arrests and inhumane=20
treatment of prisoners.  In her speech last Sunday, August 18, she and U Ti=
n
Oo expressed their outrage at the SLORC, particularly for taking the weeken=
d
talk attendees.   Again on Saturday, August 24 she spoke strongly about the
SLORC's attempt to crush the democracy movement through a campaign=20
of arrests and intimidation.

The SLORC has also painted red and white stripes along the curbsides on=20
both sides of University Avenue, where Aung San Suu Kyi lives, and along
all the lanes leading off the avenue.  The red and white stripes signal no
parking zones, and the SLORC is trying to make it more difficult for=20
Rangoon residents to attend the talks.  If they want to come, they must
park far away and walk. =20

Aung San Suu Kyi's phone is often not working or cut mid-conversation,=20
because of mysterious mechanical problems.  While the SLORC has not
cut the phone line completely, they have made it very difficult for her=20
to communicate with others.

In the delta region, the SLORC has been rounding up villagers to denounce
Aung San Suu Kyi and blame her for rising gas prices.  The SLORC is=20
telling the people that because Aung San Suu Kyi has encouraged sanctions,
the price of gas has gone up.  In fact, the reason for rising gas prices is=
=20
because the government is running extremely high deficits and printing=20
more and more money to stay afloat. =20

With tension soaring in Burma, this is a time to act.  It is critical that =
the=20
international community respond with strong measures against the=20
SLORC and vocal support for Aung San Suu Kyi and the pro-democracy=20
movement.

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

BURMANET: BURMANET ARTICLES PRINTED IN SLORC PRESS
August 24, 1996

Over the past month, the SLORC has been reprinting articles posted in the=
=20
BurmaNet News in the SLORC-controlled papers in Rangoon.  They have
selected articles from papers such as the Straits Times which include quote=
s
that are supportive of the SLORC.  The articles are printed with a byline
stating that they come from BurmaNet, with strider's e-mail address also=20
included.  It seems that the SLORC is trying to convince the public that=20
BurmaNet is actually a pro-SLORC publication.  In fact, however, the=20
articles that they choose to reprint also contain criticisms of the SLORC=
=20
and information about the growing international campaign against the=20
SLORC.

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

BURMANET: SLORC LT COLONEL AND TOURISM PROMOTERS
HEADING TO DISNEYLAND TO PROMOTE VISIT MYANMAR YEAR
August 25, 1996

PATA, the Pacific-Asia Tourism Association, is holding a conference at
Disneyworld in Florida from September 9-12, 1996.  Lt. Colonel Khin=20
Maung Latt, who is a member of DDSI (military intelligence) and also=20
the Director General of Myanmar Tourism and Travel, will be accompanied
by 40 tourism-related people from Burma.  They will be promoting Visit
Myanmar Year at the conference.  Lt. Colonel Khin Maung Latt and his=20
group were given visas by the United States Embassy in Rangoon.  While=20
the US Embassy has denied visas to certain military officials in the past,=
=20
this group was granted entry.

(BurmaNet Editor's Note:  Visas to other countries are not a right but a=20
privilege.  No country, including the United States, has to give a visa to
anyone.)

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

VOA: EAST ASIA PACIFIC WEEK IN REVIEW
August 23, 1996    (Excerpt)

The United States is considering the possibility of imposing
sanctions against Burma.  The US State Department says American
officials are discussing the matter with countries in the
Asia-Pacific region.  The actions are in response to the May
arrest of 11 National League for Democracy (NLD) activists by
the country's military government.  The NLD members have been
sentenced to seven-years in prison under the country's national
security law.  The US State Department says the action is the
latest in a series of oppressive actions by Burma's military rulers.  The=
=20
NLD is headed by pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

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

NCGUB: DR. SEIN WIN'S SPEECH IN AUSTRALIA
August 22, 1996

National Press Club
Canberra ACT, Australia
(22 August 1996)
BURMA POLICY
Dr. Sein Win, Prime Minister
National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma

Mr. Monaghan, honoured guests, ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to speak.  The situation in Burma today is very
tense.  I believe that the actions of Australia and the rest of the
international community could help swing the balance away from repression i=
n
Burma towards dialogue between the National League for Democracy (NLD) led
by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the military led by the State Law and Order
Restoration Council (SLORC).   Most of you are aware of recent events.   I
will not detail them.  Instead, I would like to concentrate on what can be
done to help change the situation.  It is clear from the events of last May
that SLORC cannot move ahead politically or economically without the NLD.
It is equally clear that the military in Burma cannot be ignored by the
Burmese democracy movement.  So the question is, what can be done ?

First, I would like to deal with the question of  "Engagement or Isolation.=
"
It is generally assumed that Burmese democracy advocates like myself want t=
o
keep Burma isolated.  This is not true.  In 1988, when we rose up against
the dictatorship, we demanded an end to the isolation imposed on us by the
military for the last 26 years.  We called for free elections and a free
economy.  The military has supposedly opened up Burma's economy.  But what
is not advertised is that most foreign investors have to do business with
state-controlled enterprises, or the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings
Limited.  The UMEH is 100% owned by the military.  What we have in Burma
then is a military-controlled economy although its foreign partners are
private businesses.  The free economy that we had advocated has been
hijacked by SLORC to support  its illegitimate military regime.

Again in 1990, general elections were held in Burma.  The military won 2% o=
f
the seats while the National League for Democracy won 82%.  Yet today, 6
years later, the military is still in power.  So once again, the Burmese
generals have subverted the will of the people.  That is why we are
advocating that businesses not invest in Burma today.  The key objective of
the Burmese democracy movement then, is to end military rule, not to isolat=
e
Burma.

Second, it must be understood that the key objective of the military in
Burma is to remain in power.  Foreign investments will be allowed and the
generals will talk with foreign governments only as long as it enables them
to stay in power.  The Burmese generals know that they have no legitimacy.
Therefore, their strategy is to try and get external legitimacy by selling
off Burma's resources to people who have no scruples.  The generals can the=
n
in turn use their external legitimacy to consolidate their position
domestically.

The third point to understand is that the generals are no interested in a
compromise.  They have ruled Burma for over 3 decades and they see no reaso=
n
why they should not continue.  Under General New Win's Burmese Socialism,
the generals were poor like everyone else. Now with a military-controlled
free economy, the generals can and are getting rich. They have never enjoye=
d
such wealth before and they like being rich. Therefore, SLORC will not
compromise of its own accord.  The generals will compromise only when their
survival  is at stake. But even then their objective will remain unchanged.

Therefore, if we are serious about change and democracy in Burma, we have t=
o
examine:
      - What action will threaten SLORC's survival ?
      - What action will lead to an end to military rule, and
      - What will convince them that the best way to remain in power is to
negotiate ?

We can see from the recent past that one of SLORC's most critical needs for
survival is financial
support.  It will compromise when funds are cut off.  Some examples include=
:

=B7 SLORC's call for foreign investments in 1988.
=B7 Daw Aung San Suu Kyi release in 1995, and
=B7 SLORC's dilemma in May regarding the NLD Congress.

We have also seen from experience that foreign diplomatic and business
contacts with SLORC have not promoted democratic change in Burma.  When
ASEAN recently admitted Burma as an observer, the immediate response from
SLORC was that it was not going to talk to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
International businesses have been operating in Burma since 1988.  The firs=
t
major Australian business contract with SLORC was in 1989 when BHP agreed t=
o
explore for oil and gas (BHP has since withdrawn).  Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch report that the human rights situation in Burma has
worsened.  There is more repression.  The U.S. State  Department, the UN an=
d
the International Labour Organization also report that increased business
activity is contributing to the increased use of forced labour.   It has
become so bad that the European Union has officially launched an
investigation into the Burmese military's use of forced labour.  It is clea=
r
that more Australian business contacts with SLORC will only strengthen the
military, and will in no way lead to democratization in Burma.  In fact, Da=
w
Aung San Suu Kyi has said, "We have come to the conclusion that investments
in Burma have not in any way helped the people in general, nor have they
helped the cause  of democracy... There are few people who have benefitted
from these investments.   In fact, they have only made the elite even
wealthier."  Therefore, Australia should definitely not increase trade with
Burma at this time.

Given SLORC's determination to cling on to power, the way forward will
require a concerted effort by all of us.  Inside Burma, Daw Aung San Suu Ky=
i
will continue to push for more and more basic freedoms for the common peopl=
e.

The United Nations will, through its Secretary General, also continue to
talk with SLORC to persuade it to agree to a dialogue.  Perhaps it is time
that ASEAN and Burma's neighbours also take their 'Constructive Engagement'
policy more seriously and work to persuade SLORC that it is  in its own bes=
t
interest to enter into a dialogue.

The international community, especially the United States, Japan, and
international financial institutions, must continue to withhold financial
assistance until SLORC agrees to a dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and
implements substantive democratic reforms.

To increase the pressure on the military to agree to a dialogue, we should
support Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's request for sanctions and boycotts.  The US
Senate has already passed a bill that will allow sanctions if SLORC  cracks
down further on the NLD and/or Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.   The
European Parliament has called for sanctions and Denmark is working to get =
a
consensus within the European Union.

It is clear that public sentiment both inside and outside Burma support Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi's call for sanctions.  The momentum is growing.
Shareholders in the US are using shareholder resolutions to question the
management of several publicly-held firms about their support for a brutal
military dictatorship.  The US State of Massachusetts and a growing number
of US cities have passed legislation banning business with corporations
investing in Burma.  Students in campuses across North America are also
boycotting certain products and tourism to Burma.  In Denmark, labour union=
s
have launched a major consumer campaign to boycott companies doing business
in Burma.  Here in Australia, I have been asked by the Federation of Trade
Union of Burma, the Burmese Women's Union, the Australian Burma Council, an=
d
all Burmese Community Organizations, Australian Unions, NGOs and Student
Unions to launch a boycott against Australian companies investing and
trading with the SLORC.  Names of these companies can be  obtained from the
Australia Burma Council and its affiliates.

Given such strong public support, I see no reason why Australia should not
enact legislation to ban  Australian companies from doing business in Burma