NEWS - Foreign Nations Question Sup (r)

[dohrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: RE: NEWS - Foreign Nations Question Support for Myanmar's Opium B 

attle
To: burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
X-Sender: strider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc: "'Rangoon Post Co-Editor'" <Rangoonp@xxxxxxx>, burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx



On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Tony Albrecht wrote:

>      Re question on narcotics aid - no we are not supporting narcotics
> aid per se but we do support humanitarian aid. It is interesting that a
> recent State Department Narcotics report recognizes that ultimately
> large-scale and long-term international aid, including development
> assistance  will be needed. This may reflect an understanding that the
> farmers need an alternative to poppy growing as a means to earn a
> living. 

Of course.  But the aid can hardly be expected to be effective under
current political circumstances, as State also recognizes.  Does the
US-ASEAN Business Council believe that counternarcotics aid (or
humantarian aid) should be channelled directly through the military junta,
without any improvement in transparency and accountability?

>      Re HR situation - I think I have made clear that the Council
> believes  that economic engagement rather than sanctions and isolation
> is more likely to improve the deplorable human rights situation. We also
> support  greater humanitarian aid to alleviate the suffering of the
> people.

Before this discussion can become useful, we need to agree on our subject.
When the US-ASEAN Business Council speaks of "the deplorable human rights
situation," does it feel able to identify the causes of this situation?
Or does it feel unable to pinpoint the causes of the "deplorable human
rights situation?"  

For example, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma wrote that
his office "is deeply concerned about the serious human rights violations
that continue to be committed by the armed forces in the ethnic minority
areas. The violations include extrajudicial and arbitrary executions (not
sparing women and children), rape, torture, inhuman treatment, forced
labour and denial of freedom of movement. These violations have been so
numerous and consistent over the past years as to suggest that they are
not simply isolated or the acts of individual misbehaviour by middle- and

lower-rank officers but are rather the result of policy at the highest
level, entailing political and legal responsibility."

Does the US-ASEAN Business Council agree that the "highest level" of the
junta holds "political and legal responsibility" for "numerous" and
"consistent" crimes such as the arbitrary executions of children?

I appreciate your willingness to participate in this discussion.

LD