The BurmaNet News, June 24, 1997

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------     
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"     
----------------------------------------------------------     
 
The BurmaNet News: June 24, 1997        
Issue #757

HEADLINES:        
==========   
IMPHAL FREE PRESS: MYANMARESE ARMY ABDUCTS
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: FIRM'S PACT WITH BURMA
BRC-J: USCR:ECONOMIC INTERESTS THREATEN BURMESE
NATION: NAGA LEADER SEES END TO OLD TRIBAL TENSION
TELEGRAPH: MYANMAR STUDENTS DEPLORE ASEAN MOVE
INVITATION: NEW YORK - RAKHAING THINGYAN FESTIVAL
----------------------------------------------------------------- 

IMPHAL FREE PRESS: MYANMARESE ARMY ABDUCTS VILLAGERS
June 12, 1997
By A Staff Reporter

IMPHAL,   Jun 11:  The Kuki women Human Rights Organization has  alleged
that Myanmarese Army perpetrated atrocities on innocent  villagers of New
Samtal village on the pretext of fighting Kuki militants yesterday.

It  alleged  that  the  Myanmarese  Army  were deliberately trying  to
annihilate Kukis  inside  that country  on many occasions in the past
without any provocation.

According to the Organization some Myanmarese Army personnel intruded into
New Samtal in India territory yesterday and abducted innocent villagers.

Stating that this was a violation of human rights the Organization said in a
release that such actions deserved strong condemnation from all quarters.

It called on the right thinking international communities to condemn  such
acts and join hands in preventing occurrence of similar incidents in future.

It  also urged the Myanmarese  Army to release the arrested persons safely
without any delay.

The  Myanmarese authority would be held responsible for any untoward
incident  to the  arrested persons,   the release added.

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

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: FIRM'S PACT WITH BURMA PROTESTED 
June 21, 1997
By Sudarsan Raghavan

Wagging protest signs and chanting, ``Don't deal with dictators,'' 17
human-rights activists picketed a Montgomery County telecommunications
company's annual shareholders meeting at the Sheraton Valley Forge Hotel in
King of Prussia yesterday. 

At issue was the firm's signing of a $250 million contract last month to
supply wireless communications equipment to the military regime of the
southeast Asian nation of Burma. The deal, by King of Prussia-based
InterDigital Communications Corp., beat a ban on new U.S. investment
imposed by President Clinton by just five days. 

Both Washington and the United Nations have publicly condemned the Burma
junta as one of the world's worst abusers of human rights. It has widely
been accused of harboring drug traffickers who produce much of the opium
that hits American streets each year in the form of heroin. 

``Just the fact that they are doing business with a country run by a
military regime is immoral,'' said Heather Kurtz, a protester who is
studying sociology at Shippensburg University. 

Inside the shareholder meeting, there was some tension, too. Two
shareholders asked questions about the demonstration outside -- and got
short answers from company officials on the podium.  Officials at
InterDigital, which employs 250 people in King of Prussia and Melville,
N.Y., and does business around the world, have defended the Burma contract,
the biggest in the company's 25-year history. Company president William
Doyle said recently, ``We are an American company complying with U.S. law
and complying with the President's mandate.''

Though yesterday marked the first public protest against InterDigital's
contract, the demonstration comes at a time of mounting international
concern about Burma. Even before the investment ban was imposed by Clinton
on May 21, Levi-Strauss, Liz Claiborne, Walt Disney and other U.S. companies
had severed business ties with the junta, prompted in part by the threat of
consumer boycotts at home. 

The protesters who gathered by the hotel's driveway said they are not
anti-business but that in the current climate, trade and investment ties
only help prop up a dictatorship that has ruled Burma since 1988. One of
the protesters was Bo Hla-Tint, who lives in Washington now but was part
of the elected Burmese government that was deposed by the junta. 

Some American executives, including ones from InterDigital, argue that
their business deals help the average Burmese citizen and keep U.S. firms
globally competitive. 

Many shareholders and InterDigital employees interviewed yesterday said
they were not troubled by the protests and knew little about conditions in
Burma. 

``I don't care what they do,'' said one shareholder, referring to the
demonstrators. ``Why should I care? It doesn't affect me.''

But the protesters did manage to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of some
InterDigital shareholders. During the meeting's question-and-answer phase,
one shareholder worried aloud that the deal might fall through, as did a $43
million InterDigital contract with Pakistan this week. Financing
couldn't be secured because the lender declared the nation's economy
unstable. 

Senior executives assured the questioner that all terms of the Burma deal
would be wrapped up in 90 days. 

Another shareholder, Bill Rittman, of Richmond, Va., voiced concern over
the protest outside and the political situation in Burma. 

``This is a big country,'' replied a senior InterDigital executive from the
podium. ``Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to demonstrate if they
want to. We do not make government policy.''

Rittman asked if he was comfortable dealing with Burma. 

``I'm not a politician,'' replied the executive from the podium.

``But what about human -- '' said Rittman before he was interrupted by
another executive, who said, ``It is an opportunity for the company. I'm
not going to pass judgment on what the politics are. Next question.''

Rittman said later that he had researched conditions in Burma on the
Internet and was considering selling his InterDigital shares. ``Given the
present international pressure, it sounds like a risky operation,'' he
said. ``I don't like dealing with dictatorships.''

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

BRC-J: USCR SAYS THAI-BURMESE ECONOMIC INTERESTS 
THREATEN BURMESE  REFUGEES
May 16, 1997

U.S. Committee for Refugees NEWS

May 16, 1997

USCR SAYS THAI-BURMESE ECONOMIC INTERESTS THREATEN 
BURMESE REFUGEES IN THAILAND

U.S. Committee for Refugees (USCR) Asia Policy Analyst Hiram A. Ruiz
traveled to Thailand and Burma in April and May to assess the situation 
of, and prospects for, Burmese refugees in Thailand. The following are 
USCR's preliminary findings and recommendations.

For many years, Thailand quietly granted refuge to tens of thousands of
Burmese refugees who fled their homeland to escape widespread human 
rights abuses at the hands of Burma's State Law and Order Restoration 
Council (SLORC) and its military. Although Thailand barred the UN High 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) from extending its internationally 
conferred protection mandate to the refugees, it did permit the refugees to 
remain safely in Thailand and to receive international assistance through 
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Recently, Thai economic interests in Burma have expanded markedly. To 
smooth the way for the development of those economic interests, the Thai
government, like others in the region, has sought to improve its relations
with SLORC. SLORC has been pleased with these developments, not only 
because it benefits from the economic links, but also because increased
international interaction with SLORC furthers SLORC's efforts to boost its
legitimacy.

Although SLORC has achieved considerable success in its pursuit of
legitimacy - its likely admission into the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) is a notable example - several obstacles remain. One is
Burma's continuing democracy movement, which SLORC attempted to 
crush in 1988. The democracy movement has remained alive under the 
leadership of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, and with the 
encouragement of supporters in the international community.

Another obstacle to SLORC's pursuit of legitimacy is its ongoing conflict
with the Karen National Union (KNU), the largest of the ethnic minority
insurgent groups that have battled SLORC and its predecessors for 
decades. SLORC, which in recent years has strengthened its military 
capacity with arms from China and income derived from its increased 
economic ties with other countries, including Thailand, has succeeded in 
imposing cease-fire agreements on all of the ethnic insurgent groups except 
the KNU (although several new splinter groups that oppose the terms and 
conditions of the cease-fire agreements have emerged and resumed armed 
opposition to SLORC).
SLORC has also greatly weakened the KNU, capturing most KNU-
controlled territory inside Burma during a recent military offensive. But 
although the KNU has held talks With SLORC, it has not acceded to a 
cease-fire agreement.

Many people with whom USCR met in Bangkok and at the Thai-Burmese 
border said that SLORC perceives a third obstacle to increased economic 
development and political legitimacy: the estimated 100,000 ethnic 
minority Burmese refugees remaining in Thailand. Those whom USCR 
interviewed said that SLORC wants the refugees to return to Burma 
because their presence in Thailand is evidence of SLORC's continuing, 
systematic abuse of human rights in Burma, and because through their 
contacts with international NGOs and the media, the refugees help keep 
the international community informed of these human rights abuses and of 
other developments inside Burma.

Those interviewed added that SLORC also undoubtedly considers the 
refugees a source of aid and support to the KNU and other insurgents. 
Many said they believe that SLORC has increasingly pressed Thailand to 
return the refugees in order to eliminate them as a thorn in SLORC's side 
and to force Thailand to demonstrate publicly its support for SLORC over 
the insurgents. SLORC's pressure has had effect.

Although in years past the Thai authorities tacitly - if not actively -
supported the insurgents by permitting them (and their arms and supplies)
access through Thailand to the areas they controlled in Burma, more
recently, the Thai authorities have allegedly pressed the insurgent groups
to accede to cease-fire agreements with SLORC. Thai authorities have
reportedly restricted the movement of insurgents and their supplies in and
through Thailand, and have used other direct political pressure to force the
insurgents to conclude cease-fire agreements with SLORC.

USCR's FINDINGS

Thai authorities along some stretches of the Thai-Burmese border have
increasingly yielded to SLORC pressure to return the refugees and not 
permit new refugees to enter Thailand. Their primary motivation is said to 
be their desire to promote Thai business interests in Burma (in which some 
observers speculate that some Thai authorities may have stakes). Major 
Thai business and economic interests in Burma, both current and proposed, 
include the construction of a gas pipeline from the Burmese coast to 
Thailand; a deep-sea port in Tavoy and the improvement of the road 
linking Tavoy to Thailand; development of another deep-sea port on the 
Burmese coast near Kalegauk Island; potential development of various 
tourist sites along the Burmese coast; logging concessions; and numerous 
other projects and ventures.

Many of these projects are, in fact, partly to blame for new refugees'
flight. SLORC is relying heavily on the use of forced labor in the
construction of these projects. Because the projects are largely located in
ethnic minority areas, ethnic minority villagers have borne the brunt of the
forced labor (although Burmese throughout the country also suffer this
abuse). Also, SLORC used ethnic minority villagers as porters extensively 
in the course of its military offensive against the KNU.

Recently arrived refugees whom USCR interviewed in Thailand stated that
their frequent subjection to both forced porterage and forced labor was one
of the main reasons for their flight. The new refugees also pointed to
forced relocations, armed conflict, and fear of other human rights abuses,
such as rape, as reasons for their flight. Ethnic minority villagers whom
USCR interviewed in Burma confirmed that SLORC took a large number 
of men as porters during the recent offensive, that forced labor continues 
unabated, and that many people are fleeing because of these abuses.

SLORC's 1997 offensive against the KNU has resulted in more than 7,000 
new refugees entering Thailand. The Thai authorities prevented hundreds 
of other asylum seekers from entering, some of whom were subsequently 
attacked by SLORC forces. Many remain displaced inside Burma near the 
Thai border and face difficult circumstances.

Specific actions by Thai authorities in recent years (and particularly in
recent months) indicate that Thailand is yielding to SLORC pressure on 
the refugee question. These actions include:

+ forcing residents of various refugee camps to relocate their camps to
sites within Burma;

+ pressing for the inclusion of a clause in the cease-fire agreement between
SLORC and Mon insurgents calling for the repatriation of Mon refugees, 
and forcing the Mon refugees to repatriate following the cease-fire. (Mon
villagers interviewed by USCR in Burma said that they do not believe that
the cease-fire agreement between SLORC and the New Mon State Party 
has benefitted the Mon people, and that the Mon refugees whom Thailand 
forced back into Burma following the cease-fire are no better off - and 
many are worse off - than they were before they fled to Thailand. They also 
said that human rights abuses such as forced porterage, forced labor, and 
forced relocations continue in Mon areas.)

+ preventing thousands of new Burmese asylum seekers from entering 
Thailand and forcibly returning some who managed to cross the border;

+ failing to protect the refugees adequately from cross-border attacks by
armed Burmese forces;

 + regularly keeping the refugees uninformed about plans being made
regarding their future and forcing refugees whose homes and camps have 
been destroyed during the above attacks to live in unsatisfactory conditions 
for months at a time.

CONDITIONS FOR THE REFUGEES

USCR visited and met with Burmese refugees at five sites along the Thai-
Burmese border, including Wangka and Mae La camps near Mae Sot, Nu 
Pho camp near Umphang, Tho Kah camp near Thong Pha Phum, and Phu 
Muang camp near Kanchanaburi. The refugees' situation, including both 
the physical conditions in which they are living and their security, vary 
from camp to camp (some of which are reportedly only temporary sites) 
and region to region. Conditions range from satisfactory to intolerable. 
Refugees in the 9th army division areas regularly face the greatest 
difficulties. Refugees in Thailand experience a number of problems. USCR 
found that the most pressing of these include:

+ Thai authorities have not protected refugees from attack by the 
Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) and/or SLORC troops. In some 
camps the Thai authorities have taken steps to provide some protection, but 
in many camps they provide little or no protection. Reportedly, when 
DKBA and/or SLORC forces have attacked, Thai guards have vacated 
their posts in advance, and remained away throughout the attacks. Many 
refugees live in fear because the DKBA has threatened to attack their 
camps and they have little confidence that Thai authorities will protect 
them.

+ Thai authorities have kept the newly arrived refugees in a desperate
situation. At Phu Muang camp, temporary home to some 2,400 recent 
arrivals, virtually all families are living under plastic sheets that only
serve 
to intensify the blazing heat of the sun. The authorities have not told the
refugees whether they will be moved to a more suitable site farther from 
the border or even if they will be permitted to remain in Thailand. Despite 
the approach of the monsoon rains, the authorities have prevented the 
refugees from building sturdier shelters.

+ DKBA and/or SLORC troops attacked two camps in late January, 
burning hundreds of huts and leaving thousands of people homeless. Since 
then,  many of the refugees in those camps have been living in deplorable 
conditions, largely because of the actions of the Thai authorities. The 
authorities initially promised to move them to a safer site, but have since 
refused to do so. Although local officials reportedly blame the authorities 
in Bangkok, observers noted that it is more likely the local authorities 
themselves blocked the move, largely because they may benefit from the 
refugees remaining where they are (for example, because the refugees 
provide cheap labor for local businessmen).

+ The refugees suffer from inconsistencies in attitudes and policies toward
them among different sectors of government, such as the Ministry of
Interior, the military, the National Security Council, local government
officials, and the border patrol. Policies and attitudes within these
groups, including the military, also differ from Bangkok to the provinces,
and from province to province, further confusing and complicating the 
problem.

+ Occasionally, the Thai military arbitrarily cuts off food deliveries to
some camps. USCR visited Tho Kah camp several days after the military 
had suspended food delivery. Many of the camp's residents were finishing 
their last stocks of rice on the day USCR visited. They had no idea when 
they would receive rice again nor why the military had cut off their food
supplies. NGOs and even the local authorities also did not know why the
miliary had taken this measure.

In contrast to the conditions above, the Thai authorities have moved more
than 10,000 refugees to Nu Pho, a safer site away from the border. At Nu
Pho, refugees have been able to construct adequate shelters, they have
access to medical and sanitation services, they are is well guarded, and,
overall, their conditions are quite satisfactory. Nu Pho bears witness to
how well the Thai authorities can respond when they choose to do so.

It is also important to note that Thailand does continue to permit more 
than 100,000 Burmese ethnic minority refugees to remain, that it allows
international NGOs to assist them most of the time, and that it has
responded positively following expressions of concern by members of the
international community over the forced return of refugees (Thailand 
stopped pushing back refugees to Burma and permitted many new refugees 
to enter Thailand). Also, the problems noted above are not equally present 
in all areas of the border; most - although not all - of the problems have 
been concentrated in border areas in Kanchanaburi and Ratchaburi 
provinces, which are in the area of operation of the Thai military's 9th 
army division.

Thai government foreign affairs officials assured USCR that Thailand 
remains concerned for and committed to assisting the refugees, and that 
the Thai government respects the right to seel asylum. However, they 
emphasized that refugee protection should be short term, and that the 
Burmese refugees should return home as soon as it is safe to do so 
(presumably, as soon as the Thai authorities determine that it is safe to do 
so).

The officials emphasized Thailand's strong concern over the presence of
hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers from Burma and other
neighboring countries in Thailand. They appeared concerned that the 
refugees might not want to return home at any time, but rather would try to 
remain in Thailand permanently, as the officials appeared to believe most 
undocumented workers want to do.

USCR RECOMMENDATIONS

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THAILAND:

1. Thailand should continue to provide safe haven to Burmese ethnic 
minority refugees already in Thailand and to those who continue to flee 
human rights abuses at the hands of SLORC and its military.

The Thai government and people have done much to be proud of on behalf 
of refugees. Although Thailand's record as a refugee-hosting country has 
by no means been perfect. It has offered refuge to hundreds of thousands of
refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, most of whom are now back 
home or have been resettled in other countries. Until recently, Thailand 
also permitted many ethnic minority Burmese to remain safely in Thailand.

Now, economic interests threaten to tarnish Thailand's record. The Thai
authorities have prevented Burmese asylum seekers from entering 
Thailand, and have told those it has permitted to enter that they must 
return home as soon as fighting ends in their home areas. However, USCR 
found that the refugees are not fleeing primarily because of the fighting. 
Rather, they are fleeing SLORC's human rights abuses. Refugees and 
villagers in Burma say that even if the fighting stops, human rights abuses 
will not end.

2. The Thai authorities must provide greater security to the ethnic minority
Burmese refugees. They should move refugee camps away from the border, 
which is within easy reach of SLORC soldiers and DKBA paramilitaries. 
Sites at least ten kilometers from the border would be preferable. Thailand 
should provide an adequate number of military personnel to protect these 
sites.  The Thai government should also ensure that these steps are 
implemented uniformly in all areas of the border.

3. The Thai government should permit UNHCR a full-time presence at the
border so that it may carry out its internationally delegated mandate to
protect refugees. 

Although Thailand regrettably is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee
Convention, it is a member of UNHCR's Executive Committee and 
therefore undoubtedly understands and recognizes the crucial role UNHCR 
plays in traditional refugee protection. Yet, Thailand refuses to allow 
UNHCR to carry out its vital protection function on behalf of ethnic 
minority Burmese refugees in Thailand. Reportedly, Thailand does not 
want to "internationalize" the situation by involving UNHCR. It also does 
not want the refugees' stay to be prolonged. 

However, refugees are inherently of international concern. It is precisely
because refugees are outside of their own country and in need of
international protection that the international community created UNHCR.
Thailand should welcome UNHCR involvement. UNHCR can help ensure 
that only genuine refugees are present in refugee camps, and thus help 
mitigate concerns that refugee camps may be used as a source of support 
for insurgent groups or that Thailand somehow supports the insurgents by 
permitting the refugees to remain. UNHCR's presence along all stretches of 
the border can also help deter cross-border attacks. 

Most importantly, of course, UNHCR can help ensure refugees' basic 
rights, including the right to seek asylum and the right to nonrefoulement, 
i.e., the right not to be forcibly returned to a place where one could face
persecution. UNHCR can also help ensure that policies and practices
affecting refugees are consistent in all areas of the border. 

Should repatriation of the refugees become appropriate, UNHCR's presence 
on both sides of the border could help facilitate that process and help
returnees rebuild their lives. 

Without UNHCR involvement, there exists a risk that the governments
concerned may reach accords and take actions regarding the refugees that 
are politically expedient, but that threaten refugees' basic rights and their
future safety and well-being.

TO SLORC:

1. SLORC should cease abusing the human rights of Burmese civilians.

Ethnic minority Burmese refugees whom USCR interviewed in Thailand, 
as well as villagers whom we interviewed in Burma, asserted that the main 
reason Burmese refugees continue to flee to or remain in Thailand is to 
escape SLORC human rights abuses such as forced porterage, forced labor, 
and forced relocation. Refugee women whom USCR interviewed also 
reported fear of rape by SLORC soldiers and detailed several incidents of 
rape of women whom they knew.

TO THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER CONCERNED 
GOVERNMENTS:

1. The United States and other concerned governments should continue to
monitor the well-being of ethnic minority Burmese refugees in Thailand 
and, when necessary and appropriate, press the Thai authorities to abide by
internationally accepted principles of refugee protection.

The government of Thailand remains sensitive to the views and concerns 
of friendly governments and business and military partners in the 
international community. The international community's forthright 
expressions of concern over Thailand's recent denial of refuge to some 
Burmese refugees and its refoulement of others apparently encouraged 
Thailand to rethink its actions. Consequently, Burmese refugees and 
asylum seekers are safer today than they were several months ago.

That safety could be short-lived, however, as SLORC will undoubtedly
continue to press Thailand to "resolve" the refugee issue. If the
international community's interest appears to diminish, the Thai 
authorities may be more likely to acquiesce to SLORC's demands. It is 
therefore essential that the international community maintain its interest 
and willingness to speak out on refugee protection issues in Thailand.

2. Donor governments and organizations (including the U.S. government 
and a number of U.S.-based NGOs) that have been providing the Burmese 
refugees indispensable assistance both directly and through the Burmese 
Border Consortium (BBC) should maintain that assistance.

Even if Thailand permits UNHCR to carry out its protection mandate fully,
UNHCR, which is financially stretched by its many commitments 
worldwide, should not be asked to assume the care and maintenance of 
Burmese refugees. That has been satisfactorily done for many years by the 
international community through the BBC and international and local 
NGOs. USCR urges those who have provided that assistance to continue 
doing so.

TO THE MEMBER STATES OF ASEAN

1. All ASEAN members should sign the 1951 UN Refugee Convention 
(only the Philippines is presently a signatory) and invite UNHCR to work 
closely with ASEAN to ensure that refugee issues are handled collegially 
and do not become divisive, while ensuring that refugees' rights are 
safeguarded throughout the region.

2.  Should ASEAN admit a SLORC-ruled Burma, it is vital that ASEAN
governments (some of whom have poor human rights records themselves) 
not explicitly or implicitly support or endorse SLORC's abusive human 
rights practices.

3. ASEAN members should commit, as a region, to safeguarding the right 
to asylum. They should forge an agreement declaring that member states 
will not discriminate against refugees fleeing fellow ASEAN member 
states. They should also pledge that they will interpret fellow ASEAN 
members' granting protection to refugees from their countries as a non-
political, humanitarian gesture, rather than an act of ill will.

Thailand and its ASEAN partners should, rather, press SLORC to improve 
its treatment of Burmese civilians. ASEAN members, including Thailand, 
have argued that bringing Burma into ASEAN will help improve economic 
conditions in Burma as well, which should reduce the outflow of Burmese 
seeking work in Thailand. It seems appropriate, therefore, for ASEAN 
members to press for political changes and an improvement in SLORC's 
human rights practices, which would help end refugee flows from Burma 
(and undoubtedly also contribute to reducing the flow of Burmese 
purportedly only "seeking work" in Thailand).

TO UNHCR AND THE UN SYSTEM

1. UNHCR should continue to urge the Thai authorities, at the highest 
levels and as emphatically as possible, to permit UNHCR to carry out its 
protection mandate on behalf of ethnic minority Burmese refugees in 
Thailand. The UN Secretary General and other UN agencies should do 
likewise.

The United Nations has a fundamental role to play in the protection of
refugees and victims of human rights abuse. However, if the UN is kept at
bay, it is impotent. It is incumbent on all UN bodies, not only UNHCR, to
urge Thailand to welcome UNHCR as a constructive, beneficial partner.

- End -

U.S. Committee for Refugees
1717 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 701
Washington, D.C. 20036-2003
Tel: (202) 347-3507
Fax: (202) 347-3418
E-mail: uscr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

For further information: 
Hiram A. Ruiz 
(202) 347-3507 

http://www2.gol.com/users/brelief/Index.htm

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

NATION: NAGA LEADER SEES END TO OLD TRIBAL TENSION
June 22, 1997
Reuter

NEW DELHI - Naga tribesmen who have fought Indian rule for decades, many
using Burma as a base, may soon be ready to sit down for peace talks, the
leader of Nagaland state said.

But the northeastern jungle region now must find a way to deport tens of
thousands of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants who are disrupting the fragile
economy and disturbing the peace, Nagaland chief minister S C Jamir said.

Jamir said in an interview late on Friday that he was confident that
guerrillas who had never accepted Nagaland state's accession to India in
1961 would give up their separatist goals.

"We are convinced that it is not a military problem. It is a human and
political problem, and therefore all efforts are being made to bring all the
groups over there to the negotiating table, and we are quite hopeful that
they will agree to solve the problem across the  table rather than through
the  barrel of a gun."

Jamir was in New Delhi for talks between leaders of India's seven
northeastern states and Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral. The government
has promised a Rs 61 billion (Bt 44.2-billion) aid package for the  remote
region, which has long accused New Dalhi of neglecting its economy and
infrastructure.

About 3, 000 ethnic Nagas, indigenous to the region, went underground after
a 1975 peace accord with India.

"Their hideouts are in Burma," Jamir said.

Periodically tribesmen ambush rival groups in an internecine twist to a
struggle in which tens of thousands of people have died since the separatist
revolt erupted in 1956. " Outside people know these Nagas only because of
this insurgency," Jamir said.

"Many disgruntled people, dropouts, they joined the underground movement,
and today, instead of fighting for a cause, which they always claim is
sovereignty or independence, they are fighting  among themselves.That is the
most tragic episode in the history of this Naga movement."

Jamir, 65, said authorities were trying to persuade the competing guerrilla
groups to stop fighting among themselves.

Asked when a ceasefire might be brought about, he said: "Very soon. I am
very hopeful. It would be a significant breakthrough."

Since 1992 Naga and Kukis, another warrior tribe, have been fighting for
control of  a strategic highway connecting Nagaland and Manipur state with
Burma. An estimated 50,000 army and paramilitary soldiers are deployed in
the two states.

Nearly US$ 1 billion worth of drugs passes every year from Burma to the
Indian Mainland, officials in the Narcotics Control Bureau say.

Jamir played down the problem. "It is mostly through Manipur, not my state,"
he said.

The four-time chief minister, last elected in 1993, said most Nagas, who are
predominantly Christian, had over the years reconciled themselves to the
Indian union. The seven northeastern states, bordered by Bangladesh, Bhutan,
Burma and China, are attached to the rest of India by a narrow corridor of land.

Now Nagaland, with 1.2 million people, is struggling to cope with the influx
of tens of thousands of Bangladeshi immigrants.

"A large number of Bangladeshi nationals are in Nagaland. They are creating
a social problem, an economic problem and a law - and - order problem,"
Jamir said.

The chief minister said he had held talks with the leader of neighbouring
Assam state, "We are prepared to tackle this jointly so that we can deport
them across the border."

The chief minister said has state offered foreign investors opportunities in
oil, power and mining, including iron and nickel. Tourism will depend
largely on whether federal authorities end a permit requirement restricting
the number of visitors.

"We definitely want tourists, " he said. " This restricted - area permit
should be done away with." (TN)

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

TELEGRAPH: MYANMAR STUDENTS DEPLORE ASEAN MOVE
June 19, 1997
shar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Imphal,  June 18:  The All Burma Students' League,  (ABSL), which  supports
democracy  in Myanmar,   has  deplored the decision  to  admit the  military
junta  of Myanmar  in the ASEAN.  In a statement issued by the Myanmarese
students in Imphal  recently,  they  charged the  ruling State  Law and
Order   Restoration   Council  (SLORC)   of   Myanmar  with sponsoring  drug
peddling  and  poppy  cultivation  in the country.

The  All Burma Students' League  condemned the human rights violations  by
the military  junta and said  that the SLORC has   discovered  the   ability
of  heroin   to  drug  the pro-democracy  forces,   particularly students
and youths.

According  to  the  All  Burma  Students'  league,   heroin production  in
Myanmar  constitutes 80  per cent  of Asia's production  and  60 per  cent
of the  world's pro-duction. Quoting a State Department report of the USA,
the dissident students  said that Myanmar produced 2,300 metric tonnes of
opium  in 1995 while  Afghanistan,  which came  next in the list,
produced  only  1,250  metric  tonnes  that  year.

The  US report also said that 1,85,000 hectares of land are under  poppy
cultivation in  Myanmar  and it  produces 185 metric  tonnes of  heroin
annually.  It  exports 170 metric tonnes  out of  this to other  countries,
particularly the West.

The  All  Burma  Students' League  has  accused  the Yangon military  junta
for sponsoring poppy cultivation and heroin production  in Myanmar,
resulting in increasing numbers of drug  addicts.  Till  now,  there were
57,000 drug addicts registered in the drug de-addiction centres in Myanmar.
But the  actual  number  of  addicts  in  said  to  be  higher.

The  areas  worst  affected  by  drugs  were  Lasho,  Muse, Kutkhai,
Mongla, Shweli,  Pansan, Panyan,  Hopan, parts of Shan  state and  the jade
and  gold mines  of Kachin state. Workers in the jade and gold mines were
paid brown opium or heroin as daily wages.

This  January,  the ruling SLORC government destroyed 1,961 kg of heroin,
worth about US $53 million,  in the domestic market.   However,  dissident
leaders alleged  that it was state-managed   by  the   military  government
to  garner political  mileage  and  pursue  diplomatic  relations with other
countries.

Though  the Myanmar  government is  claiming to  be against drugs,  cheap
opium is easily available there. According to the All Burma Students'
League,  heroin is widely available with street vendors and paan shops in
Myanmar,  at the rate of  25 Kyats for a single dose,  which is equivalent
to the price of two cups of tea.

Dissident  political leaders  and students  of Myanmar said that opium
cultivation has spread to many parts of Myanmar, particularly  the hilly
terrain,  after the  SLORC came to power. Initially, though, it was
restricted to the infamous Golden Triangle.

Apart  from the  Shan and  Kachin States,   intensive opium cultivation  has
been taken up in Mindut,  Matupim,  Tiddim and  Tonzan townships in  the
Chin hills  and in Nanyun and Lahe  in the Naga hills.   An unofficial
estimate said half the cities and towns of north and northeastern Myanmar
have at least one heroin refinery each.

The  All  Burma  Students'  League  said  that  there  were confirmed
reports that a heroin refinery had been set up in both  Hommalin and  Tarhan
in  western Burma.   Hommalin is well-connected  to Tamu  town,  which lies
just across the Indian border town of Moreh.

The   statement  further  said  that  the  Palong  National Organization
(PNO) had reached a cease-fire agreement with the  SLORC in  1990,  under
which the  PNO was  allowed to cultivate  opium in  the Mentong  region in
northwest Shan state.   The PNO  leader,  Mr  Ike Phone,   monopolized the
production of opium,  which was smuggled out to other Asian countries.   The
All  Burma Students'  League has described this  as a clear example of the
involvement of the SLORC in the illegal trade.

The  SLORC also reached a cease-fire agreement in 1989 with drug  warlords
and  heroin producing  ethnic  groups,  for maintaining   peace  in  the
country.   But  the  military government allowed them to continue their
illegal trade. It also  reached an agreement with the infamous drug cartel
of Khun  Sa alias Cheng  Chifu,  who is now  believed to be in Yangon.

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

INVITATION: NEW YORK - RAKHAING THINGYAN FESTIVAL
June 22, 1997

AN INVITATION TO ALL
RAKHAING THINGYAN

Third Annual Burmese New Year Water Festival - New York

Sunday, July 13, 11am to 5pm
At the Cross Island Y (238-10 Hillside Avenue, Bellerose, NY)

There will be a food bazaar, plenty of entertainment, the event admission is
FREE and open to the public.  An indoor pool will be open so bring a bathing
suit if you'd like to swim.  And, a lock - locker rooms available.

This festival is a faithful re-creation of the most important social event
in Burma.  A decorated canoe is suspended four feet above the ground.  It is
filled to the brim with water.  Competing teams of men and women, boys and
girls douse each other as a symbol of welcoming in a pure and 
clean New Year.  Attendees are encouraged to bring a change of clothes.
Traditional Burmese food bazaar, dancers, music and Sofwar's performance
will also be part of the day's activities.

Last year, the Water Festival was attended by over 600.  We expect an even
larger turn out this year.

The Thingyan Association ("thingyan" means renewal in Burmese) is comprised
of artists and professionals who promote and maintain awareness of the
Burmese culture and heritage.

FEATURING:
-Nan Thar Hlaing An-Nyient Performing Troop - This year, the Festival will
include the American debut of Burmese comedian Sofwar.  He looks forwards to
FULLY exercising his right of Free Speech.
-Su Mon Win and Dance Group - will feature classical and folk dances.
-Ever Smile Musical Band - with traditional and pop Burmese Music.

HOW TO GET THERE?

By public transportation -- F subway to 179th St. and Hillside Ave.  Go up
to the street and take the Q43 bus (15 minutes) east bound to the Y.  It
stops right in front on 238th Street.

By car from the Manhattan area -- LIE (east bound) or Grand Central Pkwy
(east bound) to Cross Island Parkway (south bound).  Exit at Hillside Ave.
Make a right and drive a few blocks to the Y.  It's on the left.  There are
two parking lots -- one on each side of the building.

By car from NJ or Staten Island -- Take the Belt Parkway North/East to the
Cross Island  Parkway North.  Exit at Hillside Ave.  Make a left.  Go a few
blocks to the Y.  It's on the left. There are two parking lots -- one on
each side of the building.

WHAT IS THINGYAN FESTIVAL?
HOW IS IT CELEBRATED?

The New Year's celebration in Burma/Myanmar is called Atar Thingyan Pwe.
Atar means change and rejuvenation.

The version of the festival that is mainly held in the Rakhaing State has
unique features.  It focuses on the Laung Hlay, the traditional racing
rowing boat.  The Laung Hlay is filled with water and a group of young
damsels stand guard.  The young men wishing to play ask the ladies or a
specific lady (this is where making new friends part comes in) permission
for a bowl of water from the Laung Hlay.  If she agrees he is handed a cup
and bowl of water from the Laung Hlay.  Then the young man and the young
women splash water at each other facing one another over a barrier - he with
only a bowlful, she with the entire Laung Hlay.  When the young man's water
runs out he has to ask for more.  If she wishes to continue, she obliges.
When the water runs out in the Laung Hlay, another group is given a turn.

Another version which is more competitive, is to have a "team" of young
women and men facing one another across the water-filled Laung Hlay.  When a
signal is given to start, they will splash water on the face of one another.
If anyone in a team, who can no longer withstand the splashing 
tries of cover the face with the hand then the team loses.  The referee is
present to decide which team wins.

FOR MORE INFORMATION E-MAIL thisthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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