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

The BurmaNet News, May 23, 1997




------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------     
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"     
----------------------------------------------------------     
     
The BurmaNet News: May 23, 1997     
Issue #729
   
Noted in Passing:

"To save face, Asean will have to admit Burma." 

-- Foreign Minister spokesman Surapong Jayanama on US sanctions. 
(BKK POST: US SANCTIONS 'FORCE ASEAN TO DOOR OPEN)

HEADLINES:     
==========   
AP: AIDE: SUU KYI TO HOLD PARTY MEETING 
UPI: JAPAN URGES SLORC  TO FREE DETAINEES
UPI: SINGAPORE OPPOSITION KNOCKS BURMA
SLORC: INFORMATION SHEET NO. A-0044
BKK POST: ASEAN AND THE SLORC CONUNDRUM
BKK POST: US SANCTIONS 'FORCE ASEAN TO OPEN DOOR'
BKK POST: LI MUST FACE BRIBERY TRIAL, PANEL INSISTS
THE STAR: MEET ENDS WITHOUT STAND ON MYANMAR
NLM:DRUG TRAFFICKERS GIVEN HARSH PRISON TERMS, DEATH
THE NATION: WWF FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHECKED
THE NATION: USING HECHMEN TO CARRY OUT DIRTY WORK 
FBC ANNOUNCEMENT: UPCOMING BURMA EVENTS
NO PETRO-DOLLARS FOR SLORC: UNOCAL SHAREHOLDERS
-----------------------------------------------------------------   

AP: AIDE: SUU KYI TO HOLD PARTY MEETING 
May 22, 1997 [slightly abridged]

RANGOON, Burma (AP) -- Undaunted by the arrest of scores of her supporters,
pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is determined to go ahead with a
political congress this month, an aide said today. 

More than 100 members of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's political party have been
arrested in just two of Burma's 14 provinces as the military regime conducts
a nationwide sweep to prevent the meeting, the aide said on condition of
anonymity. 

The May 27 meeting was meant to commemorate the 1990 national election in
which Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won 82 percent of the seats in
a parliament the military refused to convene. 

The party members were detained in the Mandalay and Irrawaddy districts of
northern Burma, and the arrest total was sure to rise as news from around
the country trickled into Rangoon, the aide said. 

Burma's communications systems are primitive because of the country's
economic and political isolation. 

Party members were approached by military officials over the weekend and
asked not to attend the congress, said the aide. When they told authorities
they intended to go to Rangoon anyway, they were arrested. 

A government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Suu Kyi's 
party wanted to stir trouble and create anti-government propaganda by
staging a meeting, ``forcing the government to take strong measures against
them.'' 

The official, in a written statement seen in Bangkok, Thailand, said that 
``the preventive measures the government is applying are not harsh enough to
serve her propaganda interest, but there is no doubt that she will try to 
escalate and exploit the situation as much as possible.'' 

Diplomats who had recently seen Suu Kyi expressed concern for her health,
saying she had lost a lot of weight and was looking tired. The aide said,
however, that she had seen a doctor and was simply suffering from diarrhoea. 

But it was business as usual for Burma's neighbours, which turn a blind eye
to human rights issues and are determined to admit the country to its
regional grouping, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, in July. 

Vietnamese Communist Party leader Do Muoi arrived in Rangoon to a 21-gun
salute today for a meeting with Burma's military leaders. 

ASEAN nations have criticised American economic sanctions and say only a
policy of engaging the generals can moderate their behaviour. 

The military has ruled Burma since 1962. Suu Kyi, a Nobel laureate and 
daughter of independence hero Aung San, was thrust into prominence by the
1988 uprising against military rule that was crushed when troops killed
thousands of protesters. 

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

UPI: JAPAN URGES SLORC  TO FREE DETAINEES
May 22, 1997 

TOKYO, May 22 (UPI) _ Japan has urged Burma's military junta to release
detained opposition party members, fearing the arrests will slow the
country's quest for democracy. 

In making the plea Thursday, Japan's chief government spokesman has
confirmed reports that up to 60 members of the National League for Democracy
led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Daw Aung San SuuKyi have been detained
without trial. 

Speaking at a media conference, Chief Cabinet Secretary Seiroku Kajiyama 
(``Say-ROH-koo Kah-JEE-yah-mah'') noted the Burmese rulers appear to have
arrested NLD members ahead of plans by the opposition group to stage a rally
in Rangoon next week. 

The rally was to have commemorated the 1990 Burmese general election, in
which the party scored an overwhelming victory, but that was nullified by
the military takeover. 

Kajiyama said, ``We ask the SLORC for no more arrests of NLD members and for
the release of detainees. We are worried that this measure is a reversal of
democratic moves...'' 

The Japanese official has urged the Burmese government and the NLD to
realize democracy through dialogue. 

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

UPI: SINGAPORE OPPOSITION KNOCKS BURMA
May 22, 1997

SINGAPORE, May 22 (UPI) _ A Singapore opposition party leader cheered
President Clinton's actions against Burma, and called on the Singapore
government to follow suit. In a statement released (Thursday), Workers Party
secretary-general J.B. Jeyaretnam applauded the economic sanctions imposed
by the U.S. against Burma following the arrest of more than 50 Burmese
dissidents earlier this week. Singapore has more than $1.2 billion worth of
investments in Burma. 

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

SLORC: INFORMATION SHEET NO. A-0044
May 22, 1997

No. A-0044                                              Date 22-5-97

(1) French Ambassador to Myanmar H.E Mr. Bernard Pottier  met with Mrs. Aris
at her University Avenue at 4 pm on the 19th of May.

(2) U.S Charge d' Affaires to Myanmar Mr. Kent Wiedemann met with Mrs. Aris
at her University Avenue at 9:45 am on the 21st of May, it is learnt.

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

BKK POST: ASEAN AND THE SLORC CONUNDRUM
May 22, 1997
Sukhumbhand Paribatra

ANALYSIS / IS BURMA READY FOR MEMBERSHIP?

It appears to be a foregone conclusion, but there still are those who wonder
whether the membership of Rangoon is the most appropriate way for Asean to
celebrate its 30th anniversary.

At the end of next week, on May 31, 1997, Asean foreign ministers will
convene a special meeting in Kuala Lumpur to discuss the issue of new members.

At the Fifth Asean Summit in Bangkok in December 1995, it was decided Asean
should march forward to its "manifest destiny" and become a truly
region-wide association, as intended by its founding fathers in 1967, by
embracing the remaining regional states - Cambodia, Laos and Burma - as new
members. After Bangkok, only questions of modality and the timing for the
establishment of an "Asean-10" remained to be decided upon officially.

The first question was settled in December 1996. Despite an earlier
understanding that Cambodia and Laos would be admitted first, to be followed
by Burma at a later unspecified date, the Asean informal summit held in
Jakarta introduced the principle that the cases of all three potential
members be considered together and, when the time comes, the three must be
admitted in tandem.

Next week's meeting seeks to address the second question, to examine whether
all three are ready to assume the privileges and responsibilities of Asean
membership later on this year. The likely date is July when Asean's annual
ministerial meeting is scheduled to convene with Malaysia taking her turn in
chairing the proceedings.

The odds are that next week the Asean foreign ministers will find the three
ready to become new members and make recommendations to that effect to their
respective heads of government.

The cards have been stacked in favour of this conclusion for some time;
Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have long given their "green light". As
with anything and everything else to do with Rangoon, the Thais are
accommodating. Anyone foolish enough to believe that the Thai government
feels ambivalent about Burma's admission should hastily abandon such a
notion after Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh's visit for it simply
served to confirm the long-standing special relationship, both personal and
government, between the two sides.

Moreover, making history is likely to be on the minds of the Asean leaders,
especially Malaysia's Dr Mahathir Mohammad, the host of this year's
meetings, whose sense and eye for history are second to none. The
association will be 30 years old in August this year. What could be a more
suitable birthday gift than the establishment of an "Asean-10"?

What will have clinched it for those supporting the admission of the three
countries this year, many believe, is the economic sanctions imposed on
Burma by US President Clinton at the end of last month. This move was
interpreted by Asean governments as a message from America and the West that
they should keep Rangoon out of the association for the time being. Pride is
parent to prejudice: because the message says "do not do", the proud Asean
governments seem to feel they must do what they have been told not to do,
without even wishing to consider the merits of the US case. For all their
years in the region, the Americans' learning curve still has a lot of room
for improvement.

For some years a number of scholars, analysts, thinkers, opinion leaders and
government officials have advocated the creation of one Southeast Asia, the
creation of an Asean community which embraces all 10 countries of the
region. But not many of them seem to be in a mood to celebrate the prospects
of achieving in the next few months what they have sought for so many years.

The reason is Burma. Or to put it more accurately, since every one accepts
that one day Rangoon should belong, the problem is the accelerated admission
of the one and only regional state whose domestic political arrangement and
behaviour are still found to be totally unacceptable by Asean's friends and
allies in the West.

As mentioned, Asean introduced a new principle at the Jakarta informal
summit in December 1996 linking the issue of Burma's membership to those of
Cambodia and Laos; since the earlier understanding had been that the latter
two would be admitted this year, this linkage was an implicit but clear
promise that the former would also be admitted this year. The "strategy", as
it were, is to provide Burma's entry into Asean with a "cloaking device", by
admitting her through Cambodia's and Laos's backdoor.

The wisdom underlying this principle is rather dubious.

One can question it on the grounds of logic. The three countries are
different in size and resource bases. They have their own national
identities, their own concerns and aspirations, their own patterns of
historical, political, social and economic development. Apart from being
Southeast Asians, they only have one thing in common - their present
exclusion from Asean. Why, one might ask, should their cases be considered,
accepted or rejected together? Why should they, long-standing sovereign
states, be "bought" or "sold' together like a bunch of grapes or bananas?

One can also question the move on the grounds of good sense, commitment and
sentiment.

The 1995 Bangkok Summit declaration announced Asean's firm commitment to
"the establishment of an Asean comprising all countries in Southeast Asia",
but made a reference only to "the participation of Laos and Cambodia as
observers" to the meeting without mentioning Burma, who was also
represented. To most observers, this made perfect good sense; it was thought
to reflect Asean's time-proven ability to recognise the exigencies of
reality. For while the two countries' credentials as members of the
international community and as prospective Asean partners were not called
into question, the latter's were clearly controversial.

>From then on it was understood by Cambodia and Laos, the Asean Secretariat
and most outside observers that the process of Asean expansion would be
"incremental" as before, that the two countries would be admitted first
before Asean moved onto the much more problematical issue of Burma's
membership. On the basis of this understanding, preparations were under way
in 1996, both at the regional and national levels, to assess and increase
the pair's readiness to join Asean in 1997.

The 1996 Jakarta informal summit changed all this. Asean "reneged" on its
moral commitment to Cambodia and Laos. At a stroke, the certainty of their
admission was made hostage to the uncertainty of a controversial third
party's credentials. One can only guess what impact this change of "status"
will have on the sentiments of the two countries towards their neighbours.
It is almost certain the two countries will become Asean members. It is also
likely that they will be good regional partners. But, in regionalism as in
marriages, broken pledges make a bad start for long-term relationships.

The most compelling argument against the wisdom of Asean's principle,
however, is related to realpolitik.

It is not difficult to appreciate why Asean leaders should wish to
accelerate the process of expansion and to establish an "Asean-10" as soon
as possible.

First of all, the establishment of an "Asean-10" would be the fulfilment of
a dream which began some three decades before but barely survived a troubled
start and for lengthy periods seemed unattainable. This year is Asean's 30th
anniversary; the fulfilment of this dream this year will have a nice ring, a
poetic quality, about it, which should provide the kind of psychological
environment needed for accelerating regional co-operation in the years ahead.

Secondly, Asean has an extraordinary "track record' in acting as the
political and psychological framework for managing bilateral problems among
members. Expansion will serve to extend this framework to the rest of the
region and thus will strengthen the foundations of peace and stability therein.

Thirdly, Asean has been successful in fostering favourable conditions for
bilateral or sub-regional co-operation in many fields - from defence and
security to trade, investment, finance and banking, and communications and
telecommunications. There is a symbiotic relationship between regionalism
and bilateralism and sub-regionalism, between collective regionalism on the
one hand and issue-specific or "localised" co-operation among members
outside the Asean framework on the other. Expanding Asean will extend the
framework for bilateral or sub-regional collaboration, notably on mainland
Southeast Asia, which is endowed with great natural resources, not least of
all those of the Mekong River, and is geo-strategically well placed to link
up with the booming economy of southern China.

Fourthly, since the 1980s Asean solidarity has provided the association's
members with increasing bargaining power, the kind of clout needed to
protect and to promote one's interests in the big, bad world. Expansion is
naturally considered good: for the logic of numbers suggests that what six
or seven can do, 10 can surely do better.

For these reasons one can and should appreciate the Asean leaders' case for
wishing to expand the association and to establish an "Asean-10" as soon as
possible.

But there are a number of "home truths" that should be pointed out.

One is that all but one of the reasons cited above - the exception being the
30th birthday factor - are good enough reasons for expanding Asean but not
necessarily good enough reasons for establishing an 'Asean-10" this year.

Another is that life is not always dictated by the logic of numbers.

Since the early 1980s Asean has led a charmed life. It emerged out of the
ashes of the Cambodia conflict as a diplomatic community of growing roles
and influence. Asean annual ministerial meetings became occasions for
holding dialogues with all the great powers and all the major actors in the
Asia-Pacific region. In 1994 the substance of these dialogues was extended
to cover politics and security through the establishment of the Asean
Regional Forum (ARF). Despite modesty of achievement since then, ARF takes
Asean several steps closer to being the hub of the Asia-Pacific region's
peace-making. Asean has indeed come a long way since its uncertain
beginnings in 1967.

Asean's success as a diplomatic community is not based on military power,
but on the members' individual economic dynamism and their collective image
as a progressive force for peace and prosperity. Diplomacy and moral suasion
are the only effective weapons in their armoury.

Because image is important, Asean's ability to maintain and to enhance its
status as an influential diplomatic community will be determined not by the
number of members but by the perceived quality of membership. The perceived
quality of membership, in turn, is likely to be determined by the quality of
new members.

Laos is not a paragon of democratic virtue, but she has been accepted as a
good member of the international community since 1975. Cambodia has domestic
problems, but they no longer affect neighbours directly and her credentials
are worthy. Through the Paris Peace Agreement and the United
Nations-sponsored election, the international community, including Asean,
was both mother and midwife to the new Cambodia. Indeed, considering the
circumstances of her birth, one can argue that she should have an automatic
right to join Asean if she so wishes.

The problem is with Burma. The State Law and Order Restoration Council
(Slorc)'s human rights abuses and blatant disregard for the verdict of the
1992 general election have provoked widespread opposition, most notably in
Western countries.

Most Asians find it abhorrent that westerners try to impose values upon
civilisations far more ancient than theirs. And rightly so. But in the
present international community, there do exist certain norms and values:
individual rights and civil liberties; political legitimacy; accountability
of governance; rights to political participation and to better, more secure
livelihoods; and freedom from arbitrary rule, religious persecution and some
forms of social and economic exploitation.

States or groups of states which hope to play an influential role in the
international political arena may not wish to conform to these norms and
values, and in many cases get away without having to do so. But they cannot
blatantly and cynically ignore or violate them on a sustained basis. If an
expanded Asean is to continue to be a successful diplomatic community, then
its prospective members cannot, and cannot be seen, to ignore and violate
these norms and values blatantly, cynically and on a sustained basis.

The third "home truth", as the foregoing suggests, is that there will be
costs to an early admission of Burma.

There will not be an economic war between Asean and the West over the issue;
both sides have too much to lose to engage in such an indulgence. But where
trade frictions already exist, more can be expected. Moreover, as just
explained, Asean's ability to act as a diplomatic community will be
affected. So will the psychological climate of the dialogues between Asean
and Western leaders after each year's annual ministerial meeting: the latter
cannot condemn Slorc at home one day and be seen holding hands and singing
songs with the men from Rangoon the next.

Many groups in the West believe Asean to be a "club of dictators"; it is an
unjust label, but an early admission of Burma will simply give sustenance to
this prejudice. There is likely to be more Western scrutiny of the Asean
regimes' domestic behaviour, perhaps focusing on East Timor and, if so, the
Asean countries' relations with the West will suffer. It is sheer fantasy to
think that an early admission of Burma will be a "costless" undertaking.

The fourth "home truth" is that Burma may not be ready for membership.
Technically, she may be well-prepared, but politically she is not. Her
domestic problems continue to affect the security of Thailand through the
spill over of fighting and influx of refugees. There is no precedent for
Asean's acceptance of a new member whose internal affairs have such an
impact on an existing Asean member.

Asean's many admirers want to see an "Asean-10" for this will be a dream
come true. But there are questions to be answered. Why must it be done this
year? Can Asean not just accept Cambodia and Laos this year, as it had
promised earlier, and wait for positive changes in Burma? Why should the
Asean governments and peoples have to bear the costs of Slorc's folly and
intransigence? It is late in the day. Perhaps all one can do is to hope that
next week our foreign ministers will have the courage and wisdom to ask
these questions.

M.R. Sukhumbhand Paribatra is a political scientist, a Democrat MP for
Bangkok, and currently a member of the House of Represen tatives Standing
Committee for Foreign Affairs. (BP)

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

BKK POST: US SANCTIONS 'FORCE ASEAN TO OPEN DOOR'
May 22, 1997
Bhanravee Tansubhapol
	
Doubt emerges over timing for Cambodia

The United States' ban on new would merely strengthen Asean's resolve to
admit Burma, Foreign Minister spokesman Surapong Jayanama said yesterday.

"To save face, Asean will have to admit Burma," Mr Surapong said.
Washington's action effectively "blocked" Asean from any other response.

The president said Tuesday Secretary Robert Rubin might issue regulations to
implement the ban, which was prompted by Rangoon's repression of minorities
and dissidents and its "tolerance of drug trafficking".

Foreign ministers of the Asean will meet in Kuala Lumpur on May 31 to
consider the timeframe for admitting Burma, Cambodia and Laos. Asean leaders
decided in November that the three countries should join the fold
simultaneously but concern expressed by some member states over the
political situation in Cambodia suggests that there is doubt about whether
the three will be admitted at the same time.

Philippines Foreign Secretary Domingo Siazon said at a meeting in Phuket
last month that the situation in Cambodia was more worrying than that in Burma.

Thailand's House Foreign Affairs Committee called week on Asean to review
the plan for simultaneous admission.

In a letter to Foreign Minister Prachuab Chaiyasarn, committee chairman
Bhichai Rattakul pointed out that the plan was relatively new.

Before the leaders' announcement in November, Asean had agreed to admit only
Cambodia and Laos this year, and "several agencies," including the Asean
secretariat, set about preparing them.

Mr Bhichai called for "a though review" of the impact the "new policy" would
have on Cambodia and Laos.

A former foreign minister, Mr Bhichai stressed that Burma's internal
problems were "not only Burma's problem" but affected neighbouring
countries, especially Thailand.

He said Thailand has faced fighting along its border with Burma, incursions
into Thai territory by Burmese forces and an influx of refugees.

Asean should not bend to US demands but the "reality" was that Asean and the
mutual interests".

The US enjoyed support for its Burma policy among many Western countries, he
said. (BP)

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

BKK POST: LI MUST FACE BRIBERY TRIAL, PANEL INSISTS
May 22, 1997
Yuwadee Tunyasiri and Wut Nontharit

Allegations amount to admission of guilt

Li Yun-chung, the suspected heroin trafficker, should stand trial here on
bribery charges, the House Justice and Human Rights Committee decided yesterday.

Li, cleared for extradition to the United States by the Criminal Court, had
made allegations that had damaged the standing of the country and the
judiciary in particular, the panel said.

During an urgent session called to discuss the affair, members agreed to ask
the government to make Li stand trial on the basis of his allegations that
he had bribed senior members of the judiciary.

Piraphan Palusak, the panel secretary, said Li's allegations amounted to an
admission that he had been in violation of Article 167 of the Criminal Code.

Under international law, extradition can only be effected once outstanding
criminal cases have been cleared up.

Mr Piraphan said the police chief and permanent secretary for foreign
affairs would be asked to testify to the panel next week.

Vinai Senniam, deputy chairman of the panel, said Li could shed light on who
he had bribed. The Democrat MP for Songkhla called on the judicial panel
investigating the matter to make public Li's statements.

Li, under US indictment on charges of importing 486kg of heroin into
Hayward, California, was released on bail at the Criminal Court and fled to
Burma.

After he was returned by the Rangoon junta this week, Li reportedly told the
judicial panel investigating Somchai Udomwong, the deputy chief justice of
the Criminal Court, who granted him bail, that he bought his freedom.

The suspect, also known as Pongsak Rojanasaksakul, said he would identify
those he had bribed once he was in the US.

On Monday, the court cleared his extradition after a 15-day period in which
he has the right to appeal. Li has waived that right and is under tight
security in Bangkok Special Prison.

Chalerm Yubamrung, a deputy interior minister, expressed doubts Li was a man
who could be believed. He said Li's allegations should be supported by
evidence. (BP)

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

THE STAR: MEET ENDS WITHOUT STAND ON MYANMAR
May 22, 1997
by Shahanaaz Sher Habib in Manila

The Pacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC) ended its 30th international
general meeting without taking any position on Myanmar.

The region's premier business organisation over the past few days took
strong positions - supporting Hong Kong's return to China, calling for the
immediate acceptance of China into the World Trade Organisation, but totally
ignored Myanmar.

PBEC secretary-general Robert Lees told a press conference at the end of the
meeting that: "PBEC has no position whatsoever on Burma (Myanmar)."

"We are just hopeful that the issues are worked out so that there can be
military and political security (in that country).

"When that happens, the private sector will rise to the occasion and
investments will flow in.

"But the governemnt has got to do its part. Governments have the
responsibility of bringing this kind of stability. Only the government can
do that, the private sector can't," he said.

Lees said political stability and military security were vital to economic
development.

The United States has recently banned new investments in Myanmar as a public
condemnation for alleged human rights abuses by the country's military junta.

Lees also said PBEC had formed a committee to study liberalisation of the
financial services and was likely to come up with a report in about six months.

PBEC is an association of senior business leaders from 20 economies in the
region representing over 1,200 businesses that boast global ne sales of more
than US$4.25 trillion (RM10.62 trillion) and employees of over 10.9 million.

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

NLM:DRUG TRAFFICKERS GIVEN HARSH PRISON TERMS, DEATH SENTENCES 
May 18, 1997

Yangon, 17 May - Muse District Court passed prison terms and death
sentences to Wan Saik and eight accomplices for drug trafficking,
possession of arms and conspiracy.
The court sentenced Wan Saik, 27, son of U Shauk The, Shi Chain Leh,
20, son of U Si Khaik Kyin, and Shauk Pha (a) Law Shauk Pha, 37, son of U
Haw Law Min to indefinite prison terms under Section 19 (A) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law and concurrently to death under
Sections 20 (A) and 22 (B) of the same law and ordered them to serve the two
sentences concurrently.
The court also sentenced Li Eh, 30, son of U Li San, Lauk Lu, 35, son
of U Lauk Eh, Law Khaing, 20, son of U Kyon Kwe Chan, and Lauk Hsay, 28, son
of U Yan Ta Lu, to indefinite prison terms under Section 19 (A) of the
above-mentioned law and to indefinite prison terms under Section 20 (A) of
the same law and ordered them to serve the sentences concurrently.
Besides, the court brought in a verdict of guilty on Lauk Kyaung under
Sections 19 (A), 20 (A) and 22 (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Law and announced that he is an absconder under Sections 87 and
88 of the Criminal Procedure Law and ordered an attachment of his
properties.
The case was that about 5 pm on 28 August last year, a team of members
of the regional battalion found suspicious-looking persons near Konkauk
Village, Hsenwi Township, Shan State (North).
Two of the suspects--Shauk Pha (a) Law Shauk Pha and Lauk Kyaung--fled and
the rest--Wan Saik, Shi Chain Leh, Lauk Lu, Law Khaing, Lauk Hsay and Li
Eh--were seized by the team together with 142.9077 kilos of heroin, two
Chinese-made jeeps, three M-22 rifles, five magazines and 140 rounds of
ammunition.
Lashio No 2 Police Station booked them under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Law and found and arrested Shauk Pha (a) Law Shauk
Pha later. The police station then sent the case to Muse District Court for
trial.

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

THE NATION: WWF FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHECKED
May 22, 1997
Letter to the Editor

In relation to a recent article in your newspaper ''Conservation groups
urged to quit Burma" by Yindee Lertcharoenchok I would like to make clear
the position of WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature - on Burma. 

WWF does not maintain a presence in Burma, and has not discussed or signed
any agreement with the government. Although the government made a request to
WWF to become involved in its new national parks programme, we declined. 

WWF totally rejects the idea of forcibly driving out local communities from
their homes in order to establish protected areas. 

WWF has not conducted or sponsored any elephant or other wildlife surveys in
Burma in 1992 and 1996 as falsely reported in the British press and quoted
in your newspaper. 

WWF believes that its work all over the world should be guided by
conservation needs, and for the benefit of all peoples, regardless of which
government is in power. 

WWF believes that building in-country capacity for conservation is the key
to enabling people to sustainably manage natural resources on which life
depends. 

WWF believes in working with local communities and assisting them to become
better guardians of their own resources. 

WWF's policy on Burma follows from the above, and is the following: 

*Since 1991, WWF has put on hold any new initiatives in Burma, pending more
stable conditions, consequently WWF continues not to have a presence in Burma. 

*WWF will continue to support training for Burmese nationals, and young
conservationists on a case by case basis as this is vital for the short as
well as the long term conservation benefit for the people of Burma,
regardless of which government is in power. 

Dr Robert Mather 
WWF THAILAND PROJECT OFFICE 

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

THE NATION: USING HECHMEN TO CARRY OUT DIRTY WORK OF SLORC
May 22, 1997
Letter to the Editor

Just as dictator Hitler used his brown-shirted troops to suppress the
opposition, the Burmese dictatorship - Slorc - established the Union
Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) as its tool of suppression. 

On Nov 9, 1996, some USDA members were paid to attack the motorcade in which
Aung San Suu Kyi and some NLD leaders were riding. Bricks and iron bars were
used in the attack and the NLD's vice chairman, ex-general U Tin Oo, was
slightly hurt. 

Beginning in May this year, the USDA has been holding meetings at big cities
like Mandalay, Rangoon, Pa-and and Maulmein to attack the United States, the
NLD Leadership and the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma
(NCGUB) which was formed at Manerplaw. 

The reason behind these USDA rallies was the US imposition of economic
sanctions which forbids new investments in Burma as punishment against Slorc. 

Instead of admitting its mistakes and mending its wrong inhumane activities,
Slorc has shamefacedly being accusing Suu Kyi and the NCGUB of being the
cause of the US action and has been using the UDSA to attack the opposition. 

As was the case with Ne Win's Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP), most
USDA members have not joined the association voluntarily. They have been
forcibly made members. Some do not not even know that they are members of
the USDA, making the association the most bizarre in the world. While the
majority of the people are languishing in poverty, the USDA is enjoying all
the social, political and economic privileges that Slorc has accorded it. It
is economically a very strong association. 

Every household is compelled to send a person to attend the USDA meetings.
People attend the meeting because they fear the army. 

Although the meetings take place at different places and times, the contents
of the attacks and the slogans that people have to chant at the end of the
meetings are identical. They have all been written by Slorc. This is the
third time that Slorc has used the USDA for political purposes. 

Slorc has been shouting about national unity in a loud voice. But one can't
help asking whether creating division and sowing hatred among its own
citizens means national unity to the junta. 

The people of Burma are used to having to attend and chant slogans at
meetings staged by the BSPP during its 26-year rule. Hence, they find
nothing strange about the USDA meetings. What they find strange is that
thousands of people who actively participated in the 1988 uprising were
people who had attended the BSPP sponsored meetings. 

Among the people who had to attend and chant slogans at the BSPP staged
meetings were thousands who gave the NLD party which is headed by Suu Kyi a
landslide victory through their secret votes in the 1990 general elections. 

Like preceding military dictatorships - the Revolutionary Council and the
BSPP - Slorc stages so-called ''mass meetings" where people are forced and
intimidated into participation. 

Slorc stubbornly refuses to learn from the past. It refuses to heed the
demands of the people for necessary and appropriate reforms. For these
reasons, it should understand that the time is not very far off when it will
be punished by the people of Burma. 

Maung Maung Aye 
TAK 

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

FBC ANNOUNCEMENT: UPCOMING BURMA EVENTS
May 22, 1997

1) The Pacifica News, a New York-based progressive national radio network,
is braodcasting a live discussion about the U.S. sanctions, the latest round
of mass arrests in Burma, drugs, Unocal, and Free Burma Campaign.

Date & Time (Eastern Standard Time for WBAI):  May 23, 9:45AM
Host: Amy Goodman
Discussants: Dennis Bernstein & Zarni

Stations:  WBAI (New York City), KPFK (Los Angeles), KPFA (Berkeley, CA)

Check with the Pacifica at 212-564-7702 to see if you have local access to
the program "DEMOCRACY NOW".

2)  Burma will be featured as a key conference topics during the Fourteenth
Annual Midwest Radical Scholars Conference sponsored by the U. of
Wisconsin's A.E. Havens Center for Study of Social Structure and Social Change.

Title: New Activism: Internet and the Free Burma Movement Worldwide
Date: May 24 (9:30-11:30 AM)
Main Lodge, Upham Woods, Wisconsin.

3) University of Chicago Asian Student Union is sponsoring an Asian human
rights forum on the Chicago campus.  There will be a Burma presentation.
Panelists will discuss human rights issues in Pakistan, India, China,
Bangladesh, Burma, and Tibet. Contact: Jean Chan at
312-834-2935/jeanchen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or Jerry Lin
(jerrylin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 834-6423).  

Title: University & Corporate Complicities in SLORC's human rights crimes

Date & Time: May 28 7:30 PM
Place: BSLC room 115

The Free Burma Coalition
 Tel: 608-827-7734
Fax: 608-263-9992
 http://freeburma.org  &   http://wicip.org/fbc/

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

NO PETRO-DOLLARS FOR SLORC: UNOCAL SHAREHOLDERS' MEETING
May 22, 1997

Please join the southern California Burmese community, union workers,
students and Burma freedom activists in protesting Unocal's Burma investment
at their 1997 annual shareholder's meeting

When: June 2, 1997, at 9:00 AM

Where: Unocal's Hartley Center, 376 Valencia Ave, Brea California

Why: Unocal has remained intransigent in its position on maintaining
investment in Burma, on denying its role in perpetuating human rights abuses
connected to its pipeline project and its role in keeping Slorc in
power.

Show your outrage at this company that is selling off its US businesses,
abandoning US workers and evading  environmental responsibility in order to
profit in Burma with a regime known for its routine practice of forced
labor, political repression, torture, rape, and murder.

Come tell Unocal to follow the spirit of the new US sanctions law and to
withdraw from Burma now!

Directions From Los Angeles:

Take 105 Century Freeway East to 605 San Gabriel South to 91 Riverside East
to 57 Orange Freeway North, exit Imperial Highway East. Go two miles to
intersection of Imperial Highway and Valencia. Stay on Imperial and cross
Valencia. Building is on the left lane.

For more information, contact: Free Burma: No Petro-dollars for SLORC at
freeburma@xxxxxxx or locally David Wolfberg at freebrma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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