Khin Nyunt Holds Forth, Home issues

[nyeinchan@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Khin Nyunt Holds Forth, Home issues shape U.S., ASEAN policies     on Myanmar , 

>From Asia Week


------------------------------------------------------------------------


Week of June 27, 1997

Khin Nyunt Holds Forth

A French journalist was recently summoned into the presence of 
Lieut.-Gen. Khin Nyunt, Secretary One of Myanmar's ruling State Law and 
Order Restoration Council and given an interview, of sorts. Within a 
defense ministry inner sanctum, the slim 57-year-old "S-One" was 
surrounded by his foreign minister, a dozen uniformed men and a 
trembling interpreter.

Helene da Costa, a reporter for Radio France Internationale, admits that 
Khin Nyunt broke little new ground in their meeting, but gave a 
remarkable performance. Ignoring her first question, he launched into a 
15-minute monologue - "in order to be better understood." When his gaze 
fell upon da Costa, he halted, addressed her by her name, and resumed 
speaking. Da Costa says Khin Nyunt, a devout Buddhist who neither smokes 
nor drinks and regularly works 15-hour days, does not blame U.S. 
President Bill Clinton for sanctions against Myanmar. He understands 
that Clinton has his own domestic politics to deal with. Khin Nyunt also 
ruled out dialogue with the National League for Democracy, which he says 
wants to "destroy" the country's constitutional convention. The only 
sign of tension within the man? When making such points, he irritably 
banged the arm of his teak chair to drive home his resolve.

BANGLADESH-MYANMAR The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in southern 
Bangladesh warns that Muslims from Myanmar are fleeing to neighboring 
Bangladesh in increasing numbers. The UNHCR says forced labor, high 
prices and discrimination are driving the Rohingya people to seek a 
better life across the border.

RETOOLING ASEAN

A bigger organization needs focused efforts at integration


------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEN ITS FOREIGN MINISTERS meet next month, ASEAN will inaugurate a 
revised logo, one that will include its four newest members: Vietnam, 
Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. The fresh emblem is actually not that 
different from the old one. It will have ten rice stalks instead of six, 
as well as a burst of new, more vibrant colors. ASEAN seems to be saying 
that even with four more members, it will remain essentially the same -- 
only bigger and brighter.

The reality will probably upstage the symbolism. The ASEAN Ten, quite 
simply, will not be the same as the ASEAN Six. The question is how the 
organization will change. The admission of Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar 
next month underscores the challenge posed by Vietnam's entrance two 
years earlier. The core question: How will the convivial club of "tiger" 
economies relate to the less developed, more insular neighbors they have 
invited to their table? Now that the debate on admission is over, ASEAN 
must turn its undivided attention to providing some answers.

The tasks ahead are daunting. ASEAN's six senior members -- Brunei, 
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand -- have 
accepted a responsibility comparable to the one Western Europe took upon 
itself when the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989. Then, as now, a set of 
backward, socialist economies with unsophisticated governments were 
clamoring for attention from their prosperous neighbors. And in 
Southeast Asia as in Europe, instead of standing on opposite sides of a 
Cold War ideological divide, the parties find themselves facing each 
other across an economic and cultural chasm fostered by historical 
circumstances.

The richer half of Europe decided to downplay its engagement with the 
poorer portion until the latter, mostly on its own, reached a more 
"appropriate" stage of development. But ASEAN's old guard opted for 
immediate integration, in effect making itself answerable for the other 
nations' advancement. If the new members fail to make enough progress, 
the entire organization could suffer. The mindsets of Myanmar, Cambodia 
and Laos will not make things any easier. Each country emerged from 
decades of isolation just recently. As a result, they tend to be wary of 
foreign intentions and influences. They do not pay much heed to public 
opinion, domestic or international, and their governments can be 
stubborn.

ASEAN's senior members should start with measures that are fairly 
non-controversial, yet can build trust, amity and cooperation within the 
enlarged grouping -- the kind they themselves enjoyed for decades. 
Member nations ought to expand significantly technical and cultural 
exchanges among themselves. Such initiatives promote mutual 
understanding on a person-to-person level and are the building blocks of 
any true community.

The association's leaders should redouble their efforts to inculcate an 
"ASEAN spirit" in the region's populations. In the past, too little 
stress was laid on preparing Southeast Asia's peoples for a future in 
which they will conduct more trade and exchanges with one another than 
with outsiders. An effective remedy is to emphasize the teaching of 
Southeast Asian history and culture as well as languages. Authorities 
will have to commit the necessary resources.

Economic measures are also urgent, given the worries that ASEAN could be 
split into rich and poor economies. To diminish that prospect, senior 
members should give priority to regional investment, closer links among 
Southeast Asian companies and economic integration. One focus could be 
helping prepare the newcomers' central banks to link up with the 
international financial system. That will hasten the day when all member 
nations can join in supporting the region's currencies.

Once cultural and economic ties are on track, ASEAN can more comfortably 
tackle political challenges. A key concern is that the organization's 
international standing -- especially with major trading partners like 
the United States -- could be tarnished by the repressive domestic 
policies of certain members, particularly Myanmar. Now that Yangon is 
being admitted into the ranks, efforts should be stepped up to persuade 
it to be less heavy-handed, though results are far from certain. ASEAN 
can only put its faith in the same forces of economic development that 
have helped make all original members freer and more open than they were 
in the 1960s. Meanwhile, the old guard should accelerate the induction 
of senior officials from the new countries into the ASEAN culture. That 
will cut the chances that they might make decisions at home that could 
embarrass an organization they have learned to value.

ASEAN's senior members were fortunate to have had three decades over 
which to develop camaraderie and familiarity. They will not have the 
same luxury in their relationship with the newcomers. The integration of 
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar must be a clear and deliberate 
process. ASEAN's founders dreamed that their organization would one day 
span the whole region, from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific, from the 
Red River delta to the rice padis of Java. That day is at hand. It is 
now their successors' task to make sure the reality will not be a 
disappointment.

CONGRATULATIONS TO ROBIN AJELLO and Roger Mitton for a remarkably open 
and fair assessment of the ASEAN 10 ["And Then There Were Ten," June 
13]. Myanmar's membership is inevitable since its isolation by ASEAN 
would only lead to hostility and destabilization of Southeast Asia. 
There is one aspect you touched upon which needs deeper probing. 

As much as ASEAN wants to wield the "big stick" when it comes to human 
rights, member states must not forget the reason for its success in 
bringing peace, stability and prosperity to a region of turmoil and 
conflict. That is: ASEAN's ability to focus members away from 
geopolitics and power balances and toward realizing economic 
interdependence.

During the Cold War, the "big stick" of the U.S. presence in the ASEAN 
region was a crucial stabilizing factor. But also important for regional 
stability was the carrot of improving economic ties between the then 
authoritarian regimes of Thailand and the Philippines and the rest of 
ASEAN. Futhermore, as Asiaweek has pointed out a number of times, 
increasing prosperity results in the creation of the middle class, which 
demands justice and accountability from governments. This has happened 
in Thailand and the Philippines, and it is doing wonders for Malaysia as 
well. 

Therefore, ASEAN must not let itself be coerced into dancing to the tune 
of Western powers since human rights and democracy for them are merely 
tools for implementing their own geopolitical agenda. Let us not forget 
that ASEAN is being seen as a potential economic threat, if not one 
already. Members must assert ASEAN's right to decide for itself just how 
big a "stick" it must wield or how juicy a "carrot" it should dangle 
when it comes to Myanmar. ASEAN must safeguard Southeast Asia's 
interests first and foremost.

Ahmad Faiz Abdul Rahman
Subang Jaya, Selangor
Malaysia


------------------------------------------------------------------------




CONTRARY TO WHAT PM Mahathir Mohamad said [INTERVIEW, May 9], ASEAN 
should not have the final say in whether Burma should or should not join 
ASEAN. Neither should the U.S. have final say. This important decision 
belongs to the people of Burma and their elected government. SLORC in 
ASEAN will be a rotten fish fouling the boat.

I suspect Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will have a lively 
exchange of views with Malaysia at the ASEAN meeting in July. ASEAN may 
need U.S. assistance in resolving the Spratly islands dispute with 
China. Therefore it should have thought twice before complicating 
relations with the U.S. by denying Albright her reasonable request to 
delay Burma's membership until there is a political settlement. 

Myint Thein
Dallas, Texas

Olive-Drab Bureaucrats

Is the civil service being 'militarized?' 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS FIDEL V. RAMOS moves into the final year of his term, Filipinos are 
already summing up what his presidency has wrought: namely, economic 
development and political stability. Some might add a third, more 
ambivalent, legacy: a military-dominated civil service. Since his 1992 
election, the retired general has appointed over 90 former soldiers and 
policemen to top jobs in his administration. They hold not only 
positions traditionally linked to the military -- like the defense 
secretary -- but also run departments such as public works, 
transportation and local government. Even tinpot bureaucracies, such as 
the Videogram Regulatory Board, are run by ex-top brass.

"That's bad," says Rep. Joker Arroyo, an independent congressman. He 
distrusts the take-no-prisoners mindset that soldiers bring to the 
complicated battleground of government. "Military men are trained to 
fight, attain an objective, defeat an enemy -- all others are 
secondary," he says. The promotion of army men also resurrects a 
disturbing memory: During nine years of martial law former President 
Ferdinand Marcos often gave civilian jobs to military chiefs in exchange 
for loyalty. One congressman, Jose Zubiri, has filed a bill requiring 
retired soldiers to wait two years before accepting civilian posts.

Such complaints, says political science professor Alex Magno, smack of 
"extreme prejudice." He argues that the armed forces "produce talented 
public servants especially equipped to run complex organizations." Sen. 
Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan, a former army colonel, puts it more bluntly: 
When running a bureaucracy, he says, "military men have proven to be 
more effective."

But the record in government, so far, of retired soldiers appears 
neither better nor worse than that of private-sector appointees. When a 
typhoon swept Manila in May, the capital's international airport had to 
be shut down for two days. The reason? Generators ineptly housed in a 
basement were inundated. The same week, airport police arrested a 
businessman for a traffic violation. He later turned up dead -- a victim 
of foul play, say the National Bureau of Investigation. The airport is 
run by a retired air force general.

President Ramos, who recently renewed the interim appointment of another 
ex-general as secretary of transportation, avoids mentioning that the 
bureaucracy is salted with soldiers. He prefers to say the military is 
being "civilianized." When the army becomes more engaged with ordinary 
life, he says, it becomes less radical. And, on the whole, that has 
"enhanced our democracy." Yes, sir.
¨ By Jose Manuel Tesoro and Antonio Lopez / Manila

In Everyone's Interest 

Home issues shape U.S., ASEAN policies on Myanmar 

BUNN NAGARA, the author, heads Geopolicy Research, an independent 
consultancy based in Kuala Lumpur 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEN WASHINGTON ANNOUNCED SANCTIONS against Myanmar, ASEAN pundits 
rushed to speculate on the implications as if the bilateral affair 
determined ASEAN policy on Yangon. The issue which ruffled U.S. feathers 
was ASEAN's imminent admission of Myanmar together with Laos and 
Cambodia, which might be construed as legitimizing and rewarding a 
repressive regime. Few commentators appreciated ASEAN's resolve in 
admitting Myanmar, the limits of U.S. disaffection with Yangon, or the 
weight of everyone's domestic concerns on Myanmar policy.

Washington's angst against perceived human rights violations abroad is 
familiar. After castigating then-President George Bush for "coddling 
dictators in Beijing," candidate Bill Clinton became a president who 
decided instead to "engage" China. Fresh from "Asiagate" the same 
season, the White House could not afford to entertain Myanmar also. 
Besides, Myanmar's prospective market was no match for China's.

Last year, Sen. (now Defense Secretary) William Cohen co-sponsored a 
bill allowing for sanctions against Myanmar should widespread repression 
escalate. On the bill's own terms, sanctions were questionable. One 
recent incident symbolizing for Washington a deterioration in human 
rights -- the return to house arrest of National League for Democracy 
(NLD) leader Aung San Suu Kyi -- occurred last November, half a year 
before. But weeks of debate were to culminate in the April decision to 
implement sanctions in May. Since Clinton could not do business with 
Myanmar, the human rights groups "won."

Yet the sanctions were only a sop to anti-SLORC lobbyists. Non-American 
companies were unaffected. Nor were the sanctions retroactive, so U.S. 
companies already in Myanmar could remain. These were multi-purpose 
sanctions: good relations with ASEAN were maintained, the White House 
looked better for not coddling SLORC, and U.S. firms were not completely 
excluded -- thus avoiding another costly experience like the embargo 
against Vietnam.

But the U.S. is not alone in letting domestic concerns rule Myanmar 
policy. One of the pillars of ASEAN is the principle of non-interference 
in the internal affairs of other states. This agnosticism approaches a 
diplomatic indifference, now wedded to an indiscriminate inclusiveness 
for all Southeast Asian states within the ASEAN family. Sensing this, 
Washington did not bother pushing too hard for ASEAN reciprocity on 
Myanmar. Vietnam's 1979 invasion of Cambodia triggered an ASEAN rebuff 
of Hanoi alongside recognition of the exiled CGDK coalition, including 
the internationally reviled Khmer Rouge. ASEAN's principle of 
non-interference ends at the twin parapets of national sovereignty and 
territorial integrity (understandably, with niggling, multiple 
territorial disputes festering). 

ASEAN governments are not comfortable with judging their neighbors on 
domestic issues, much less with exacting punishment. Indonesia in 
particular would not be amused when parallel situations can be drawn 
with Myanmar. ASEAN is a cluster of governments with different styles, 
traditions and degrees of popular accountability. When Ferdinand Marcos 
stole the 1986 Philippine election, Malaysia's oppositionists lobbied to 
withdraw recognition. Malaysia instead adopted a wait-and-see approach, 
switching recognition to the new government as soon as it established 
itself. A member of the Malaysian cabinet conceded privately that 
whatever one's reservations about the Marcos regime, Malaysia could not 
act unilaterally against a sitting government next door.

Reporters asked how Malaysia could reject sanctions against Myanmar 
after maintaining them against apartheid South Africa. Malaysia's 
domestic tasks have been monumental: not just to succeed in development 
and avoid repeating the race riots of 1969 by managing ethnic relations 
peaceably in a country of large minorities, but to do so with an 
affirmative action program for a small majority. Malaysia's primary 
domestic concern has long been national unity through racial and 
religious harmony, or at least the avoidance of ethnic bigotry. Under 
the Internal Security Act, a considerable number of people have been 
held over the past decade not for political differences, but for racial 
or religious chauvinism. Thus Malaysia's extra-regional foreign policy 
orientation, where ASEAN consensus was immaterial: a visceral revulsion 
against apartheid, "ethnic cleansing" and occupied Palestine. 

ASEAN is less a communion of peoples or even a regional market than a 
group of neighboring governments anxiously needing to work comfortably 
with one another. The NLD therefore cannot expect moral or material 
support from ASEAN in wresting power from SLORC, short of Yangon 
invading a neighbor. But if the NLD succeeds SLORC in an internal 
maneuver, it may find that the new Myanmar could be received as a more 
valued partner. It is implicit in the ASEAN formula that once a working 
comfort level is achieved between member states, much else in regional 
good neighborliness follows. This is why ASEAN believes Myanmar, 
whatever its politics, would make for better dialogue as a member than 
if it were not.





"THERE WILL BE NO REAL DEMOCRACY IF WE CAN'T GURANTEE THE RIGHTS OF THE 
MINORITY ETHNIC PEOPLE.  ONLY UNDERSTANDING THEIR SUFFERING AND HELPING 
THEM TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS WILL ASSIST PREVENTING FROM THE 
DISINTEGRATION AND THE SESESSION."  "WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THEIR 
STRENGTH, WE CAN'T TOPPLE THE SLORC AND BURMA WILL NEVER BE IN PEACE."



---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------