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

The BurmaNet News: July 8, 1998



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

The BurmaNet News: July 8, 1998
Issue #1043

HEADLINES:
==========
VOA: POLICE PREVENT ASSK FROM TRAVELING 
SCMP: WARNING TO JUNTA OF "TOTAL DISASTER"
BKK POST: TIME FORM ASEAN TO ACT ON BURMA
ASIAWEEK: IT'S ABOUT TIME TO AIR DIFFERENCES
FBC: THOUGHTS OF A SURVIVOR 
****************************************************************

Voice of America: Police Prevent Aung San Suu Kyi From Traveling Outside
Rangoon 
7 July, 1998 by David Dyar 

Intro:   Burmese authorities say police have prevented opposition leader
Aung San Suu Kyi from continuing on a trip she is making outside of the
Burmese capital.  VOA's correspondent David Dyar says U.S. officials have
reacted to the incident by criticizing Burma for restricting her movements.

Intro:   The incident began late Tuesday when the Nobel laureate and one of
her colleagues (Chairman Aung Shwe of the National League for Democracy)
apparently eluded her normal government security escort.

An official statement said she was stopped about 80 kilometers north of
Rangoon (at the town of Shwe Mya Yar) and was asked to return to the capital.

But according to the U.S. State Department spokesman in Washington, the
opposition leader insisted on continuing her journey. She was planning to
visit one of her political party officials who was elected to parliament in
1990.  She was reported to have remained in the town overnight.

State department spokesman James Rubin criticized the Burmese authorities
for their actions.

///Rubin act///
Based on this information, we condemn the apparent abridgement of Aung San
Suu Kyi's right to freedom of movement and her right to visit whomever she
chooses. All Burmese should enjoy these fundamental rights.  The
restrictions imposed are illegal under Burmese law and, in our view, are in
any case, clearly an infringement of the basic right of freedom of movement.
///End cut///

The spokesman says U.S. embassy officials in Rangoon have sought
clarification of the incident from the government.

Burmese authorities issued a statement late Tuesday saying Aung San Suu Kyi
was stopped for her own security and to prevent her from creating political
unrest.

The incident comes as tensions have increased between the opposition and
the government over the past few weeks.

It came on the same day as an important anniversary of a crackdown on
student protesters in 1962.  The government statement accused Aung Sang Suu
Kyi of trying to use the anniversary to create an unwanted confrontation.

In the past few days officials have restricted the movement of members of
Aung San Suu Kyi's political party.  There was also an incident in front of
her house late last month in which members of the youth wing of her
political group were blocked by police from holding a meeting. 

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

South China Morning Post: Warning to Junta of "Total Disaster"
7 July, 1998 by William Barnes 

The Burmese military regime has been warned by the chairman of an
opposition alliance that the country will "explode soon" if it continues
"sliding into a serious shortage of food and general calamity".

The alert was issued yesterday in an open letter to the chairman of the
State Peace and Development Committee, General Than Shwe, by the leader of
the National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB), Saw Bo Mya.

Political tension in Burma has risen sharply since last month's call by
opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy for
parliament to be reconvened by August 21.

The ruling military junta responded last week by accusing the opposition of
planning a "head-on collision" with the authorities and restricted the
movements of her supporters.

Mr Saw Bo Mya, veteran leader of an ethnic Karen rebellion, claimed the
country's food stocks would be exhausted in three months. His letter said
the regime's own soldiers were deserting in droves "to make ends meet" and
that soon there would be no money to pay them.

"The country is edging towards total disaster. You and your colleagues will
be held responsible if that happens," he warned.

The NCUB chairman called on the regime to start talks with Ms Aung San Suu
Kyi, reconvene parliament, release all political prisoners and "cease its
brutal war against ethnic minorities".

Few observers doubt that the authorities' incompetence combined with the
Asia-wide crisis has allowed the economy to deteriorate, though it is
difficult to know whether, as Mr Saw Bo Mya suggests, the population and
even the rank-and-file military are really at the end of their tether.

The US State Department said last month: "The Burmese economic situation is
grim and appears to be worsening. The Government is reported to be
virtually bankrupt."

Sanctions and the global loss of confidence in Asia have seen what was
already thin investment virtually disappear.

The currency, the kyat, has also slipped alarmingly over the past
fortnight, from about 250 to 350 to the US dollar.

"Certainly the economy has deteriorated, but the Burmese have lived on the
poverty line for years," said a diplomat in Rangoon yesterday. 

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

The Bangkok Post: Time for Asean to Act on Burma 
7 July, 1998 

Editorial

There are ominous rumblings of further oppression in our neighbour to the
west. They testify to the signal failure of Asean's, obsession with its
policy of constructive engagement. The grouping must decide if it is to
progress or to be led backwards by one of its newest members.

Asean will be unhappy if tension between Burma's dictators and its legally
elected democratic government escalates into violence, says Domingo Siazon,
the foreign minister of the Philippines.

The region, he points out, is going through a spot of brother and the last
thing it needs is political instability, which, like economic turmoil, has
a knack of spreading.

If Asean were to have a word with itself about its performance with Burma,
it may find embarrassment, even shame, a more appropriate emotion than
unhappiness. It was Asean that afforded an illegitimate regime a
respectability it does not deserve in a strategy that did not work. If
violence erupts in Burma, the people of that impoverished nation will find
a good deal more to be unhappy about.

Mr Siazon is correct to appeal for restraint as the self-styled, State
Peace and Development Council mutters darkly about the National League for
Democracy, which will not go away no matter how badly it is treated. It is
odd that the council, with its total control over state apparatus, not to
mention guns, should be so rattle about the league, which has nothing more
threatening than the support of 85 percent of the population. But there
again, the bully is motivated by insecurities, among them fear.

In its latest manifestation of paranoia, the dictatorship has warned that
it and the league are on a collision course, which is, alarming when it is
considered which side is in the driving seat of the state juggernaut. The
warning comes as the junta hints that it just may cease to impede the
education of the young so long as the league refrains from reminding it who
won the 1990 election.

It is more than a year since Asean admitted the junta to its little club
and little, if anything, has been done to induce it to behave itself. The
approach has been one of all carrot and, no stick, which has been taken by
the junta to mean it can carry on in the way it knows best. By allowing
this to happen, the supporters of Burma's admission have overlooked the
founding principles of Asean -- to accelerate economic growth, social
progress and cultural development.

Burma may have been more attentive to its critics in Asean when everyone
was rolling in money and a reward was in sight, but its admission coincided
unhappily with our own well-documented economic travails. All that has
happened is that we have a new member which will not change its ways and is
viewed in the international community as something of a diplomatic skunk.

Since the junta's admission, much has changed, not least in the economies
of its new friends. Gone are the backers of large-scale investment projects
who proclaimed development would nurtures democracy, gone is the generosity
of regional countries that have to tend to problems closer to home.
Regional partners, such as Indonesia, are taking steps, albeit faltering,
towards political reform, and its military is being restrained; the
Philippines has pulled off a fair election; we have our new constitution.
Even in time of economic no trouble, progress is being made, but not in
Burma, which is no stranger to the bankruptcy brought upon the country by
the people that Asean has chosen to embrace.

The more forward-thinking members of Asean, not least Thailand, are anxious
now to engage Burma in a way that does not give the junta carte blanche to
engage in further thuggery and oppression. The realisation is a little late
but it is welcome, and it is significant that the movement originates in a
country, which borders Burma and is familiar with the ways of its rulers. 

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

Asiaweek: It's About Time for Asean Members to Air Their Differences 
10 July, 1998 

Editorial

Last year Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim stirred controversy
with a novel idea. In an essay in Newsweek magazine, he argued that the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations should pursue "constructive
intervention" in certain neighborhood issues -- challenging the sacrosanct
doctrine of "non-interference" which had anchored ASEAN since its
inception. Downplaying differences like the Philippines' claim to Sabah and
Indonesia's Konfrontasi policy against Malaysia was crucial to bringing and
keeping together the founding members.

A corollary to this, fundamental principle:  meddling in a fellow member's
internal affairs, through public criticisms or otherwise, was absolutely
taboo.

When he questioned ASEAN non-interference, however, Anwar was not seen to
be suggesting something fatal to regional unity. Three decades on, the
association had forged enough solidarity to withstand some airing of
differences. Moreover, many ASEAN citizens are eager to see its collective
clout used to address regional issues. When Anwar wrote his essay, the big
problem was restoring democracy in Cambodia after Second PM Hun Sen's coup.
Now, Thai leaders seem to be taking up where Anwar left off. Prime Minister
Chuan Leekpai recently told Asiaweek that while non-interference is
important, "it does not imply we have to agree with the government or
policies in each country."

Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan said at a seminar in Bangkok last month:
"Perhaps it is time for ASEAN's cherished non-intervention principle to be
modified. When a matter of domestic concern poses a threat to regional
stability, peer pressure or friendly advice can help."

Indeed, the time seems ripe to move from "non-interference" to a more
pro-active policy. ASEAN members all seek peace and prosperity in the
region, but it would be idle to think they share the same values, approach
and outlook. Where achieving the region's long-term political and economic
well-being is concerned, it would be far more effective and efficient to
allow members to express a diversity of opinions and work from there,
rather than gloss over the differences and pretend that ASEAN is composed
of friends who think exactly alike.

In today's interdependent world, a lot of "internal affairs" have external
effects, so the neighbors cannot but have a say in them. Take the haze. How
Indonesia disposes of its forests is clearly a domestic matter -- but not
the annual smoke monster inflicted on Asia by Jakarta's chronic failure to
stop the razing of woodland the size of small countries. Thailand,
Indonesia, Korea and Japan were left alone to run their own economies, but
their mistakes dragged all of East Asia into the Crisis.

And what of the army-backed regime in Myanmar? ASEAN has seen fit to take
it into the fold, in the interest of building regional harmony (along with
other autocratic nations like Vietnam). But if actions by Yangon create
problems for the grouping in its dealings with the West, it would be
justified in pressing for more internationally acceptable behavior from the
ruling junta.

ASEAN Secretary General Rodolfo Severino said recently that a "suggestion"
to the regime to meet with the opposition should not be considered
interference. Even Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad, ever the opponent of
foreign domination, backed off his initial suggestion that Myanmar ought to
be allowed to attend Asia-Europe meetings, probably due in part to ASEAN's
need for Western support in the Crisis.

Very well, one might say, but what is exactly meant by constructive
intervention? Public criticism? Economic sanctions? Military action? And
when should such measures be taken? The objectives, timing and intensity of
intervention are some of the complex, delicate issues that practitioners of
the new tack will have to address. In crafting any form of international
pressure, officials will have to consider the chances of success, the
likelihood of provoking a major conflict, and the susceptibility of an
erring government to blandishments by an outside power keen to exploit
friction in ASEAN. Will overt criticism lead a government to simply
stonewall in a bid to save face? There is also a question of fairness. Are
standards of behavior being applied to all members? Or are some members
like Myanmar being put to the democracy test, while others like Brunei are
not? And the biggest question of all: How does ASEAN decide which issues
and countries to apply collective pressure on? The answers won't come by
consensus.

ASEAN will need to grapple with such complexities in fashioning various
modes of constructive intervention. Things will not always go smoothly.
However, these predictable difficulties do not invalidate the thesis that
the grouping is not only ready for more openness about differences among
members, but needs it. Democratization will expose more and more
governments to public and media pressure on international issues;
ventilating a problem early could serve both as a release for negative
sentiment as well as a prod to corrective action. Then one can avoid
blow-ups like the Flor Contemplacion uproar between Manila and Singapore.
In Cambodia, ASEAN action helped lay the groundwork for polls this month
and hopefully membership in the group soon after.

So here's to more openness in ASEAN. After 30 years, it should rise to a
new maturity able to accommodate differences without diminishing
solidarity. Indeed, frank exchanges could well open a new door to a
regional meeting of minds.

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

Free Burma Coalition: Thoughts of a Survivor 
7 July, 1998 by Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe < tzang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Vancouver, Canada

That July day -- the 7th day of July, 1962 -- marks the beginning of the
long fight by the "good" against the "bad and the ugly". July 7th is not
only a historic watershed, but it is also a day of much significance for my
generation: those born in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

Ours was a generation that was promised by history, a bright future. Unlike
those that came after us, we had no reason to doubt this promise. We had
good schools, colleges, and universities, staffed by teachers who worked
hard and cared for the young. They were as idealistic and hopeful as we were.

There were then comparatively very little corruption or callousness that
characterizes Burma, particularly after the military's usurpation of power.
To be sure, there were then armed rebels -- the communists, the Karen, and
a few armed bands with indeterminate aims. But we were not worried for we
believed that all these conflict would eventually be resolved through
rational, reasonable democratic dialogue.

The military's usurpation of power shocked the whole country, and more
dismaying for many, was its cold-blooded killing, on the morning of the
coup, of a young son of Sao Shwe Thaike, the first Union President, the
Prince (Sawbwagyi) of Yawnghwe (Nyaungshwe, in Burmese), who himself died
in prison.

The death of 17 years old Sao Mee Mee was soon overshadowed by the death of
at least two hundred young men and women on the campus of Rangoon
University on July 7th. Most died in front of the historic Students Union
building -- the home away from home of Bogyoke Aung San. They were shot
down in cold blood, ironically, by men of the tatmadaw founded by Aung San.
Many died the next early morning when the Students Union building, where
the wounded and the dying were unceremoniously dumped, was demolished by
powerful explosive charges.

The killing of students that July evening was deliberate. I was there in
front of the Students Union building. The shooting stopped when we hit the
ground in stark terror. It resumed when we started to run, and stopped when
we hit the ground again. So, it went, for a life time, it seemed. We could
not believe that those who were firing could be so callously, deliberately
murderous.

The 7th July massacre outraged the whole nation. For members of that
generation, it was our moment of truth. Included in that generation are
hundreds, if not thousands, who joined the struggle against military
despotic rule, and the many who died in the jungles all over Burma.

And among those shocked and outraged by the massacre are those who have now
become military kingpins -- General Khin Nyunt, MIS top brasses, and many
Zone commanders. Many in fact joined the army with the thought of fighting
tyranny from the inside, to restore to the tatmadaw the honor and esteem it
lost that fateful, shameful evening.

July 7, 1962, stands out in Burma's history as a beacon of freedom and
courage, and it has drawn thousands into the forefront of the struggle for
democratic freedom. We, the generation which began the struggle, inspired
others of the younger generation, so that the history of Burma is, in
essence, the struggle of the brave, the idealist, and the powerless against
unjust power and for independence, a second independence, this time from
domestic oppressors.

Those who did not die in the struggle have been uprooted. Many of our
generation, and their sons, daughter, nieces, and nephews are now abroad --
forced to leave our homes, towns, villages, and fields.

Our generation loved the country passionately, and were earnestly fired up
about serving the country. Unlike later generations, we never gave the
glamorous "American dream" which we were abundantly exposed to in
technicolor, via the silver screen, even a [perfunctory] thought. We were
sure we could make a big difference, and were determined to do so as
teachers, lawyers, public servants, academics, writers, journalists,
bankers, businessmen/women, and so forth.

But where are we now? We have been compelled by the military dictatorship
to leave the land of our birth, to use the education given us by our
country, and our talent, for the benefit of countries, societies, and
communities, others than ours.

Indeed, the promises at independence have all turned sour, dreams have
turned to ashes. Freedom and independence is still out of reach or, for
those eternally optimistic, just around the corner.

Nonetheless, our day is not yet done. We, the first victims of Ne Win's
military dictatorship, are now fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles -- even the
grandpas and grandmas -- of those now in the forefront of the struggle for
a better Burma. It is our duty now to see to it that they and their
children have a future that they can be happy in and proud of.

I therefore appeal to the veterans of 7th July everywhere, and in the
tatmadaw, to re-visit the years of our youth, to taste again the outrage we
all shared, and to forget the compromises some of us have had to make with
evil, the evil and the corruption in our environment and within ourselves.

Some of us are deeply compromised, especially those in the tatmadaw. They
went in, into the den of thieves, to change the system. But they were not
able to. They lived in fear, and selfish greed and narrow, personal
ambitions finally got to them, blinding them to what they were changing
into and have now become. Some turned their backs from the people and even
turned against them.

Nonetheless they must be forgiven, for they are also victims -- victims of
a military dictatorship that can survive only by turning them into
something which they are not, and which they must surely detest, with equal
fervor.

In the past, those in the tatmadaw had no choice.  They had to go with the
flow, no matter how evil and corrupt everything was. But now, things have
changed. The world is changing very rapidly, and we are rapidly being left
further and further behind.

Our enemy now is less tangible and much more powerful than any in the past.
At the dawn of a new century, we are confronted with a force that possesses
power without responsibility, a global force that only recognizes the color
of money. It does not recognize borders and countries, much less respect
human beings or their cultures and values. This force cannot be controlled,
nor utilized for the good of a country and its people, unless the
government of that country is at one with the people.

With the world changing, our tasks have also changed. The task at hand is
not to merely to keep Burma together, but to re-make Burma, to make it a
country where the people and their government work together in harmony, for
the benefit of every citizen. Then, and only then, will there emerge a
country that we all want, or say we want -- a prosperous, secure,
harmonious land of the free, the happy, and the brave.

As the 36th anniversary of the 7th July massacre approaches, I pray that
all of us who were shocked and outraged will recapture that moment of
searing pain, and that the outrage we all felt at that moment of pain will
awaken us all to what we can do for the country and for the up-and- coming
generation -- our sons, daughters, nieces and nephews. If we unite now, as
we once were on July 7, more than three decades ago, we -- the scarred
veterans of 7th July -- can give the younger generation the kind of future
which we had been promised.

For too long, we who shared the promises of independence and shared as well
the shocked outrage of 7th July, have allowed the corrupt evil that we all
detest, to divide us. It is time, at this historic juncture, for us to once
more unite, to tear down the wall of fear, suspicion, greed, hatred that
have kept us apart.

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