The BurmaNet News: April 5, 1999

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

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

The BurmaNet News: April 5, 1999
Issue #1243

HEADLINES:
==========
BKK POST: HUNDREDS JOIN SUU KYI FOR FUNERAL RITES 
TV MYANMAR: PRIVATE SECTOR TO EXPORT RICE 
XINHUA: MYANMAR TO ALLOW ACCESS TO INTERNET 
BURMANET: UNHCR ON THE BORDER 
THE NATION: WA ARMY KILLS 9 THAIS 
BKK POST: BORDER WITH BURMA CLOSED AT 5 PLACES 
BKK POST: MINISTER TO VISIT MAE SOT 
****************************************************************

THE BANGKOK POST: HUNDREDS JOIN SUU KYI FOR HUSBAND'S FUNERAL RITES 
3 April, 1999 

AP 

MANILA SENDS ONLY ENVOY FROM REGION

Thailand has sent a letter of condolence to Aung San Suu Kyi on the death
of her husband.

The letter, signed by Sukhumbhand Paribatra as acting foreign minister, was
believed to have been delivered to Ms Suu Kyi in Rangoon yesterday as she
hosted a Buddhist rite marking the seventh day after Michael Aris' death.

In March, the prime minister urged Than Shwe, his Burmese counterpart who
was visiting Bangkok, to grant Mr Aris a visa but was told it was an
internal affair.

In Rangoon, more than 1,000 people gathered at Ms Suu Kyi's home for
funeral rites for Mr Aris, who died on his 53rd birthday in England.

The professor of Tibetan studies at Oxford University, died on Saturday in
a London hospital. He had petitioned the junta for a visa for months after
learning he was terminally ill.

A sombre Ms Suu Kyi, without the flowers that usually adorn her hair,
offered food and saffron robes to 53 Buddhist monks.

The 1991 Nobel Peace Prize-winner, who is the military government's
strongest political opponent, made no public statement and refrained from
speaking with supporters, taking time only to greet diplomats.

Ambassadors and other diplomats from the United States, European countries
and Japan attended. The only Southeast Asian nation that sent a diplomat
was the Philippines, which had urged the junta to grant Mr Aris his dying
wish. 

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

NEW LIGHT OF MYANMAR: BURMESE GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW PRIVATE SECTOR TO EXPORT
RICE
29 March, 1999 

YANGON, 28 March -- The tenth annual meeting for 1997-98 of Myanmar Rice
Millers Association [MRMA] was held at Karaweik Palace, Kandawgyi, this
afternoon, attended by Secretary-2 of the State Peace and Development
Council Lt-Gen Tin Oo.

[ ... ]

Chairman of MRMA U Win Myint spoke of matters related to issuing rice mill
licences, urging rice mills which had been granted licence to join MRMA,
and to use rubber rollers at all the rice mills and spoke of the need for
rice millers to cultivate paddy and other crops by reclaiming wetlands and
fallow and virgin lands.

Then, Minister Maj-Gen Kyaw Than said the purpose of the association is to
provide assistance for the modernization of rice mills, to promote the
production of paddy and rice, to promote sale of rice and agricultural
produce at home and abroad, to see to it that necessary machinery for rice
mills can be purchased at home and from abroad at reasonable prices and
that rice millers unitedly strive for the interests of the country and the
people and to actively cooperate with organizations of the State in efforts
to stabilize and bring down commodity prices.


He added the Ministry of Commerce itself is attending to requirements for
boosting of domestic and foreign trade for the economic development of the
State, and assistance is being provided for the development of the
cooperative sector and the private sector.

He said the Government is making arrangements to enable private
entrepreneurs to carry out farming work on 5,000 acres and above with a
view to boosting production of crops, and the private entrepreneurs will be
able to sell 50 per cent of output of paddy in the domestic market and
export another 50 per cent.

He noted with the increase in output of agricultural produce, the rice
millers need to modernize rice mills.

In addition, in accord with the guidance of Head of State, rice millers
from states/divisions, districts and townships are engaged in reclaiming
wetlands and fallow and virgin lands, seeking the assistance of regional
administrative organizations, he said.

He urged all to put forward their requirements and to actively cooperate
with the organizations of the State in efforts to promote the economic
development of the State and stabilize and bring down commodity prices.

Then, the master of ceremonies sought approval from those present
concerning the report of the central executive committee, annual accounts
and the report of the auditor.

[ ... ]

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

XINHUA: MYANMAR TO ALLOW ACCESS TO INTERNET 
1 April, 1999 

YANGON (April 1) XINHUA - The Myanmar government will allow access to the
Internet, which will be used more widely in education, health and
electronic commerce, said a high-ranking communications official.

Addressing a seminar here Wednesday on economic benefit through electronic
commerce technology on the Internet, sponsored by a private company,
Brigadier-General Win Tin, minister of communications, posts and telegraph,
said, "The world becomes a global village due to information technology
(IT). We are now in a knowledge era beyond IT era."

Myanmar has been trying to formulate a master plan for the development of
the country's IT, importing annually tens of thousands of computers with
very little tariff and classifying them as education aids and priority items.

The access to the Internet for the private sector is also being striven.

Meanwhile, Myanmar computer associations are also trying to get support
from regional and international counterparts, especially those from
Singapore and Malaysia, to enhance the country's systematic IT development.

Myanmar held the first symposium on IT initiative in June last year to
promote the development and advancement of computer technology in the country.

For systematic development of IT, the Myanmar government promulgated the
Computer Technology Development Law in September 1996 and later founded the
Computer Technology Development Council.

In 1998, three associations of Myanmar computer technicians, entrepreneurs
and enthusiasts were also respectively formed. 

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

BURMANET: UNHCR ON THE BORDER 
5 April, 1999 by BurmaNet Editor 


Over 115,000 refugees currently reside in camps along the Thai-Burma
border, and new arrivals are entering the camps every week.  In 1998, the
Thai government entered into negotiations with the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to give the agency a formal role in the
camps.  Since then, the UNHCR has established offices and staff in three
locations along the border, gained access to the camps, and begun
implementing its programs to fulfill its mandate of protection.  While the
agency's exact role remains inchoate, an analysis of its evolving direction
points out emerging strengths and weaknesses.  (For a good background on
the situation of Burmese refugees before UNHCR's formal involvement, see
Human Rights Watch's report, Unwanted and Unprotected: Burmese Refugees In
Thailand, available on-line at http://www.hrw.org.)

THE MANDATE

"Founded in 1951, UNHCR has a unique statutory responsibility to provide
international protection to refugees and, together with governments, to
seek permanent solutions to their problems.  Fundamental to this mandate is
the principal of non-refoulement, obliging States, including
non-signatories to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to
the Status of Refugees, not to return a refugee to a territory where his or
her life or freedom may be endangered"  (from Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, "Refugee
Identity and Protection's Fading Prospect," in Frances Nicholson & Patrick
Twomey, eds, Refugee Rights and Realities: Evolving International Concepts
and Regimes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998).

In the case of Burmese refugees in camps in Thailand, the protection
mandate includes providing a systematic process for refugees to enter the
camps to become eligible for the humanitarian assistance available in the
camps.  This process involves a "screening" to ensure that the people
entering are legitimate refugees.  It also involves a registration to
create a profile of the camp population.  Unlike many other refugee
situations, the UNHCR is not providing humanitarian assistance (e.g. food,
housing, educational material, health care) because from the beginning of
1984 the Thai authorities invited non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to
provide low-key emergency assistance.  UNHCR officials have stated that if
there are special needs that arise for which the NGOs are unable to provide
assistance, the agency is willing to consider filling those niches.

In past years, several of the camps along the border have been attacked by
Burmese military troops and the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army, a breakaway
group that split from the Karen National Union (KNU) in 1994 and allied
itself with the Burmese junta, then called the State Law and Order
Restoration Council (Slorc), now the State Peace and Development Council
(SPDC).  The proximity of the camps to the border makes them especially
vulnerable, and as part of their mandate of protection, the UNHCR is also
involved in relocating those camps a safe distance away from the border.

THAILAND CONTEXT

Thai authorities have kept the UNHCR out of the camps for years, and gave
their approval to allow the UNHCR to have a formal role only in July 1998.
For years, the camps were relatively open; new arrivals were able to cross
the border and enter the camps with no screening procedures.  In 1997, the
Thai army began refusing entry to the camps and instead established other
temporary sites with substandard conditions.  The Thai National Security
Council formally defined its policy as providing temporary asylum to
displaced persons fleeing fighting, and the camps effectively became closed
to new arrivals, the vast majority of whom were fleeing human rights
abuses.  Thus, at any time the Thai army could refuse access to the camps;
however, new arrivals continue to enter the camps, keeping a low profile.


Because Thailand is not a party to the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of
Refugees, many people claim that the country has no obligation to do
anything for the refugees.  This assertion is simply not true, as the
Refugee Convention is only one of many international agreements which are
relevant to the refugee situation.  In fact, Thailand has obligations based
on customary international law (including the 1966 International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and various other human rights treaties to
which it is a signatory) not to send the refugees back to Burma where they
are likely to face persecution (the principle of non-refoulement).  In
addition, Thailand is a member of the Executive Committee (ExCom) of the
High Commissioner's Program of the UNHCR, an advisory body of fifty-three
member states that, through consensus, considers refugee policy matters.
Though its recommendations are non-binding, the ExCom is generally
recognized as having persuasive authority in setting international
standards for treatment of and policy regarding refugees. For its part, the
UNHCR has struggled to walk a fine diplomatic line, wanting to maintain
good relations with Thailand as the non-signatory, host government.  The
agency has fallen under criticism for not challenging more strongly the
Thai actions that undermine refugee protection.

INITIAL ACTIVITIES

Screening New Arrivals

In January, 1999, before the full details of UNHCR's role had been decided
upon and before permanent staff were in their field offices, the agency
faced two situations where the Thai authorities were threatening to
repatriate new arrivals.  In Karenni (near Mae Hong Son) and Karen (near
Mae Sot) camps, the Thai authorities rounded up new arrivals and announced
that they would be sent back to Burma.  In both situations, NGO and UNHCR
staff intervened and prevented the threatened refoulement.  Though they
excluded the UNHCR from the process in the Karenni camp, the Thai
authorities agreed to jointly interview the new arrivals with UNHCR staff
in the Karen camp to determine if they were legitimate refugees.
Presumably, they wanted to screen out Burmese immigrants working in
surrounding towns who were using the camp as a base and others who fled to
Thailand for purely economic reasons.  In February, the status of some of
the families was unclear, but by mid-March the UNHCR announced that all the
new arrivals had been screened into the camps and were being provided with
rations and housing.  However, this status is not official, and the
refugees themselves have not been informed of any permanent status.

The threat of repatriation pushed the UNHCR into an ad-hoc process of
interviewing new arrivals and making determinations based on criteria that
had not been fully worked out with the Thai authorities.  In response to
inquiries by BurmaNet, UNHCR staff stated that they anticipated using a
broader set of criteria than the narrow Thai definition of "fleeing
fighting" in giving refugee status to those seeking protection.  The
process will probably remain flexible and open to local-level negotiation.


Registration

The registration process is distinct from the screening process in that the
legitimacy of the camp resident as a refugee is not in question.  The
objective is to create a permanent record of each family unit, thus
providing an accurate profile of the camp population regarding numbers,
location of origin, and vulnerable groups.  It also provides a form of
identification for the refugees stating that they are camp residents.  To
complete the registration form, the refugees respond to questions by the
Thai authorities regarding name, sex, age, position in family (e.g. head of
family, etc.), vulnerabilities (e.g. "unaccompanied minor," "single
parent") and professional skills.  The form is in triplicate, and once it
has been completed, one copy goes to UNHCR, one to the Thai Ministry of the
Interior, and one to the refugee family.  Finally, two polaroids of the
family are taken, one for the file and one is for the family.

In early March, the UNHCR carried out a pilot registration procedure in
Karenni camp 5, near Mae Hong Son.  According to reports from NGOs, the
3-day process went smoothly.  The main complaints being consistently raised
were the use of "Myanmar" as the country of origin and the lack of
information for the broad refugee community regarding the registration
process and the protection it can or cannot provide.

By mid-March, UNHCR began the process in the Karen camps around Mae
Sariang.   The refugees in those camps reported that they were quite
excited in anticipation of the interviews, as many had never had a family
photo taken.  In addition, although awareness of the UNHCR and the United
Nations in general is not very high, many refugees perceive that any
increased contact with the international community is a positive
development.  The UNHCR anticipates that registration of all the camps will
be complete by the end of April or beginning of May.

Camp Relocation

The UNHCR has also been involved in the planning of a new location for
Mawker and Wangka refugee camps, which have been attacked by the DKBA and
SPDC troops over the past couple of years.  Their bureaucratic, top-down
approach contrasts with the NGOs style of working closely with the refugees
on such projects, but their closer association with the Thais has added to
the consistent pressure from NGOs and the international community in
finally pushing forward a move that was proposed in 1997.  As of mid-March,
the only obstacle to the move was the receipt of letters to be signed by
the appropriate Thai authorities.  The possibility of moving Nu Po camp has
been on and off the negotiating table, but the space designated at Umpiem
Mai as the relocation site is not big enough to accommodate the residents
of Nu Po.  If those residents are relocated, NGOs and UNHCR agree that they
should locate another site, but the Thai authorities' opinion on the matter
is less certain.

OPPORTUNITIES

The UNHCR's official status in the camps brings with it the potential of
increased transparency that is sorely lacking.  However, the relationship
between UNHCR and the Thai authorities up to this point has not been
transparent.  Negotiations between them regarding the agency's role and
procedures have excluded NGOs and refugees.  Once the agreements are more
or less settled, the details are distributed to interested parties for
comments.  Given its history of exclusion from the issue, perhaps the UNHCR
believes it must take a cautious, conciliatory approach.


The Thai authorities, though, are quite sensitive to international public
opinion, and the UNHCR could use its bully pulpit for a variety of purposes
to protect the refugees.  Now, with unrestricted access to the camps, the
agency could play a role in insuring that abuses -- including forced
repatriation, raids on the camps, sub-standard living conditions, and
physical abuse -- do not occur.  They could also use their contact with the
diplomatic community to pressure the Thai authorities to desist from
repatriations until it is truly safe for the refugees to go home.

It is also possible that the UNHCR could push for improved standards of
living for the refugees.  Currently, education past elementary level is
restricted by the Thai Ministry of the Interior.  In addition, the living
conditions in some of the camps created after the 1997 Slorc offensive
against the KNU are far below standard.  The refugees in those camps have
not been able to attach thatched roofs to their huts and must live under
pieces of plastic. 

Also of crucial importance is that the UNHCR has access not only to the
camps, but to the entire border area.  With this access, they will be able
to see refugees who have crossed the border and have not yet arrived at the
refugee camps.  This is the population who is most vulnerable and in
greatest need of protection from being forced back to Burma.  By their
presence, the UNHCR will be able to facilitate these populations' access to
the camps.

CONCERNS

As the registration process comes into full swing, a few issues have
emerged that are of particular concern.  The official number of residents
in the camps will be used for determining amounts of rations that the NGOs
can provide as well as for designating area, as with the relocation of the
camps mentioned above.  Some relief workers have expressed concern that the
census that emerges from the current registration process will effectively
set a ceiling on rations and space and not take into account the frequent
fluctuation in the camp population.  The UNHCR has responded to these
concerns, stating the registration process will be on-going and the census
will be updated regularly to guarantee the appropriate distribution of
provisions.

As mentioned above, copies of the completed registration forms go to the
Thai Ministry of the Interior, the UNHCR, and to the family.  A history of
suspicion about sharing of information between Thai authorities and Burmese
military intelligence calls into question the confidentially of the
registration lists.  When asked if the refugees believe their names would
not be handed over to the Burmese military, one camp leader responded, "We
don't have a choice.  We have to believe them."  For refugees with family
still inside Burma, that information may put their relatives at greater
danger of being targeted by the Burmese military.

The most pressing concern, though, is that if any abuses are carried out,
particularly forced repatriation, the UNHCR, by their presence, effectively
endorses the actions and contradicts its mandate of protection.  The SPDC
would like to see the refugees repatriated because they see the presence of
refugees in Thailand as reducing their legitimacy in the eyes of the
international community.  The vast majority of refugees would prefer to
return home rather than to go to a third country, but only when conditions
have improved and their safety is guaranteed.


Repatriation is a contentious issue, and over the past decade, the agency
has preferred to seek solutions to refugees' problems in their home
localities rather than through asylum or settlement in a third country,
based on the logic that the best protection for refugees is to address the
root problems including preventing flight in the first place.

Applied to the Burma situation, an effort to be involved in prevention and
"root problems" would force the agency to address the abuses by the Burmese
military.  Therefore, the argument goes, the agency would need to have a
presence in the country to deal directly with the SPDC.  The problem arises
if this logic is turned on its head:  the best solution to the refugee
problem will come about from engaging the SPDC and ensuring safety in the
home villages.  To engage the SPDC, the UNHCR must have an official
presence in that part of the country.  To have an official presence, they
must be facilitating a return.  And facilitating a return means
repatriation to a setting that is not necessarily safe for them.

Such a distortion of logic contradicts the primary mandate of the UNHCR --
protection -- and also breaks international law by going against the
principle of non-refoulement.  In addition, if the SPDC and its
predecessor, the Slorc, has proved anything over its 10 years in power, it
is that is does not negotiate in good faith and does not respond positively
to such "constructive engagement" efforts.

The above situation is hypothetical, but given the UNHCR's track record,
the scenario is realistic. Indeed, the agency has seriously compromised
itself on the other side of the Burma border, involving itself in the
repatriation of Rohingya refugees from Rakhine State.  The UNHCR gained a
presence in Rakhine State to monitor the status of the returnees in 1993.
NGOs have documented continued human rights abuses against this population,
bringing the "voluntariness" of the refugees' return into question.  The
Slorc/SPDC continues to require unpaid, forced labor on development
projects to such an extent that families are unable to work their fields in
order to eat.  These abuses have been well documented by the International
Labor Organization, the U.S. State Department, Human Rights Watch, and a
number of other NGOs.  In September, 1998, when challenged about the
UNHCR's involvement in refugees' repatriation to locations where they would
be subject to forced labor, High Commissioner Sadako Ogata, the highest
ranking UNHCR official, dismissed the seriousness of the abuses saying,
"Forced labor is an old tradition ... .  I am not saying  it is good or
bad."  When asked if forced labor does not constitute a human rights
violations, she replied, " It depends on how you define forced labor and
how you define human rights violation."  Such insensitivity from a top
official promotes distrust of the agency, despite any good intentions of
those staff who are closer to the situation.  Repatriation of refugees
should not even be considered until there is genuine and far-reaching
political reform in Burma that ensures the safety of returned refugees.


CONCLUSION

Most people involved with the situation -- refugees themselves, the camp
committees, and the relief workers providing aid -- are taking a "wait and
see" approach to evaluating the UNHCR's involvement in the camps.  Since
January, the organization has served a positive role by intervening to
postpone, if not prevent, forced repatriations by the Thai authorities.  In
creating a registration process, overall they have responded in a positive
and cooperative way to concerns raised by the refugees and the NGOs, though
some problems remain.  Observers are understandably skeptical, though,
regarding the potential for forced repatriation, as a presence in the
country is no guarantee of improving the conditions.  Given the UNHCR's
track record in other parts of the world, particularly on the Western Burma
border, refugees and their advocates remain cautiously vigilant.

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

THE NATION: WA ARMY KILLS 9 THAIS 
3 April, 1999 

BODIES FOUND ALONG BURMA BORDER

CHIANG MAI - One of Burma's largest armed narcotic groups has killed nine
Thai villagers by beating them to death after abducting them from an area
near their village in Fang district, a Thai police officer investigating
the crime said yesterday.

The nine victims were beaten to death with their hands tied behind their
backs, Fang district police chief Pol Col Krajarng Lert-kietdamrong said.

The killings were carried out by soldiers from the United Wa State Army, he
said.

He said footprints around the area where the victims were killed indicated
that they were of UWSA troop combat boots. There are also no other groups
operating in that area.

Krajarng said it was known fact among authorities that a number of heroin
labs are situated adjacent to the area not too far from the border.

The UWSA has been accused by foreign governments, including the US and
Thailand, as being one of the world's largest producers and traffickers in
heroin and amphetamines.

Thai and US narcotic agencies estimate that about 1,700 tonnes of opium
were cultivated in the Golden Triangle last year. The Wa was responsible
for about 40 per cent of this amount.

According to Krajarng, the police investigation has found that two of the
nine murder victims were killed on Wednesday evening while the other seven
died on Thursday.

The villagers were on a hunting trip and it is believed they stumbled on
the UWSA's drug operations, the officer said.

Initial reaction was that the nine may have been linked to the UWSA heroin
network, he said.

Police and soldiers found some of the victim's bodies near Soon Noi Dam,
while others were scattered along the Thai-Burma border near an area under
the control of the UWSA.

They were beaten to death because gunshots would have attracted attention
from nearby villagers, he said.

The commander of Thailand's Third Army Region, Lt-Gen Somai Wicharworn,
warned reporters yesterday against damaging the reputations of the victims
by jumping to conclusions about their death.

"At this time we don't know the whole story. Suggestions that the nine
individuals could be linked to drug trafficking could end up harming their
integrity," he said.


Over 200 Thai soldiers and police officers were dispatched yesterday to
the area.

Thai and foreign narcotic officers believe the UWSA is on the verge of
replacing former opium warlord Khun Sa and his Mong Thai Army, which had
surrendered three years ago to Burma's military government in return for
amnesty, in the infamous Golden Triangle.

The area where Thailand, Laos and Burma intersect is responsible for the
majority of the world's heroin supply.

According to Thai narcotic officials, the Wa have in recent years turned to
amphetamine production as Thailand is no longer a transit centre, having
become a large consumer. Millions of cheaply produced amphetamines, locally
known as "yaa baah", have flooded Thailand and the Wa are responsible.

Thailand and Burma have recently agreed to come up with a comprehensive
work-plan to tackle narcotic trafficking and production along their common
border. The announcement was made during a recent high-powered visit by
Burma's leader Gen Than Shwe and about 40 of the country's top officials.

Critics, however, said the problem cannot be solved any time soon as
Rangoon has other pressing issues, namely the dry-season offensive against
armed ethnic groups which refuse to sign ceasefire deals with Rangoon.

A number of Western governments, including the US, have said the junta is
too willing to appease insurgent groups.

The UWSA came into being about a decade ago, shortly after the Communist
Party of Burma (CPB) fell apart.

A cease-fire deal with the Burmese military government was reached shortly
afterwards. The deal was orchestrated by Burma's security chief Lt-Gen Khin
Nyunt who did not want to see their weapons, much of which came from China,
fall into the hands of other rebel groups. A number of CPB's foot soldiers
were ethnic Wa.

Thai Army generals said the UWSA had enough weapons to last them for at
least a decade. More weapons have been acquired since then and heroin money
is currently financing a number of infrastructure projects, including
roads, schools, hospitals and dams.

Two of the UWSA's top leaders have been convicted by the US Eastern
District Court on charges of narcotic trafficking.

The US State Department had last year announced a US$2 million reward for
information leading to their capture.  The UWSA's major stronghold is
situated in Panghsang along the Chinese border.

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

THE BANGKOK POST: BORDER WITH BURMA CLOSED AT 5 PLACES 
4 April, 1999 

Chiang Mai - The Third Army Region yesterday closed down the border in five
districts with Burma following the murder of nine Thai villagers allegedly
carried out by members of the Wa drug army.

The closure of the border in Mae Ai, Fang, Chaiprakarn, Chiang Dao and
Wiang Hae districts was intended to halt cross-border' travel of people of
the two countries until the situation has returned to normal.

Lt-Gen Sommai Vichavorn, the regional army commander, said it was too early
to point an accusing finger at any particular group of people for
perpetrating the murder. He said it might be possible that the villagers
were killed because they accidentally stumbled on the drug caravan.


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

THE BANGKOK POST: MINISTER TO VISIT MAE SOT 
4 April, 1999 

Tak - A Burmese cabinet minister is to visit Mae Sot during the Songkran
festival on April 11-18 to promote tourism, the district chief said.

Brig-Gen Aye Min Yu, deputy minister of hotels and tourism, will lead a
team of Burmese officials, while former army chief Gen Chettha Thanajaro
will lead a Thai delegation.

Rangoon has asked officials in Myawaddy to prepare for the visit. The
Burmese delegation is expected here on April 10. The festivities include a
mini-marathon, a mountain bike competition, Thai boxing, and rooster fighting.

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