[theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: Ma

[theburmanetnews-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Reply-To: theburmanetnews-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: March 8, 2000




=========== THE BURMANET NEWS ===========
== An on-line newspaper covering Burma ==
=========== www.burmanet.org ============

To view the version of this issue with photographs, 
go to-

http://theburmanetnews.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$187


NOTED IN PASSING:  

'The case is perhaps the most important foreign 
relations case in the last quarter-century, and will 
have sweeping ramifications for foreign affairs 
and trade policy for years to come.'

Senators Richard Lugar and Rod Grams on the challenge to the
Massachusetts Burma Law, which will argued before the US Supreme
Court later this month.  (See CQ WEEKLY: LOCAL SANCTIONS ECHO ABROAD)

Wednesday, March 8, 2000
Issue # 1481


Inside Burma--

KYODO: SHAN LEADER START TALKS WITH JUNTA 
SSA: STATEMENT ON CEASE FIRE TALKS
TANJUG (Serbia): MYANMAR SEEKS 'ALL AROUND' COOPERATION WITH 
YUGOSLAVIA
XINHUA: CHINESE-MADE SHIP PUT INTO SERVICE IN MYANMAR

International--
THE NATION: CABINET AGREES TO MEKONG PACT  
CQ WEEKLY: LOCAL SANCTIONS ECHO ABROAD 
MIZZIMA: MANIPUR, STILL THE VICTIM OF INTERNATIONAL DRUG TRAFFICKING 


Other-- 

LECTURES ON BURMESE LITERATURE IN NYC


=========================================



*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
 INSIDE BURMA
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


KYODO: SHAN LEADER START TALKS WITH JUNTA

March 8, 2000


Kyodo

THE Shan States Army (SSA) began peace negotiations 
with Burma's ruling junta last week to end a long-
lasting guerrilla war, SSA leader Yawd Serk said 
yesterday.

Based in Shan State near the Thai province of Mae Hong 
Son, the 4,000-strong SSA, formerly led by drug lord 
Khun Sa, has been fighting for independence since 1964 
against government forces.

SSA and junta delegates met secretly near the Thai 
border on Friday, Yawd Serk said.

In the talks, the SSA demanded that the junta withdraw 
government troops from guerrilla areas, while offering 
it the right to station troops in major towns of Shan 
State. It also called for the end of forced relocation 
of Shan people in the area, Yawd Serk said.

Representatives of the SSA told the junta the Shan 
people want to administer public education and 
economic activities in their state without any 
government involvement, he said.

In return, the junta demanded that all fighters of the 
SSA lay down their arms and function as militias under 
the government forces in Shan State, according to Yawd 
Serk.

"But we will decide later whether we should lay down 
arms, since several rebel groups that reached peace 
accords with the government remain holding their 
weapons," he said.

A Thai military officer who closely monitors 
minorities affairs confirmed the negotiations, and 
said the junta insisted that all SSA fighters disarm 
because some factions are likely to disagree with Yawd 
Serk and may continue the armed struggle.

"It is unclear to officials from Rangoon if Yawd Serk 
is able to control the whole SSA," the Thai officer 
said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The first meeting ended without any agreement. The 
delegation from Rangoon will convey the messages from 
the guerrilla to Lt. Gen. Khin Nyunt, secretary of the 
State Peace and Development Council, as the junta now 
calls itself.

Khin Nyunt will consider the demands and reply if he 
can accept them by March 15, Yawd Serk said. The SSA 
will wait for the answer until April and will resume 
fighting if the junta fails to reply or if it rejects 
the comditions, he said.

The SSA was revamped after the drug trafficker Khun Sa 
defected with his followers to the junta in 1996.

The group declared recently that it will give up 
fighting to save the lives of innocent people in Shan 
State.



*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


SSA: STATEMENT ON CEASE FIRE TALKS

SHAN STATE ARMY
Supreme Command

STATEMENT
No. 2/2000
Date: 6th March 2000

1. The Shan State Army (SSA) have had the desire to solve the 
problems in the Shan State by peaceful means. Therefore, the supreme 
command have released the statement (No.1/2000) on the 25th of 
January, 2000. As a result the General Secretary 1 of the State Peace 
and Development Council (SPDC), Lt. Gen. Khin Nyunt has sent his 
delegates with their 4 truce terms, which are as follows:

(a) SSA troops will have their rights to bear arms in their operated 
areas. 

(b) SSA will have the rights to trade whatever they like.

(c) No other armed groups will be allowed in the SSA's activated 
areas.

(d) SSA must submit their arms to the government when other ceasefire
groups have surrendered their arms.

2. As SSA could not fully comply with the said terms, we  have given 
our own 6 truce terms onthe  3rd of  March, 2000 which are as 
follows:

(a) In SSA's activated areas (i.e. rural areas) no SPDC troops shall 
be allowed to patrol or trespass. SPDC troops must be stationed only 
in urban areas.

(b) SSA must have the rights to establish their own Shan State people 
in education and financial aspects.

(c) Force shall not be used to solve  problems.

(d) Whenever there is a battle in other areas, SPDC troops shall  
never levy or capture, porters or provision in the SSA's Areas.

(e) SSA must have the rights to freely discuss and communicate with 
other ceasefire groups or political groups for the peace and 
development of the future Shan State.

(f) Before submitting their arms to the government, SSA must  first,
consult and have the consent of Shan State people.


3. According to these 6 truce terms, if SPDC have either rejected or 
failed to answer, the ceasefire term will end by the month of April, 
2000 and the war will continue.

Yawd Serk
Commander-In-Chief
Shan State army


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

TANJUG (Serbia): MYANMAR SEEKS 'ALL AROUND' COOPERATION WITH 
YUGOSLAVIA


[Tanjug is Serbia/former Yugoslavia's state press]

 YANGON, 3 March (Tanjug) -- Chairman of Myanmar's state council for 
peace and development General Than Shwe said in a talk with Yugoslav 
Foreign Minister Zivadin Jovanovic on Friday [3 March] that the two 
countries cherished a lasting friendship and that his country wanted 
to establish all-round cooperation with Yugoslavia. 

   Jovanovic conveyed Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's regards 
and best wishes to the Myanmar leadership and people. 

    Jovanovic and Gen. Shwe discussed the two countries' development 
as well as international developments, cooperation within 
international organizations and in particular the United Nations, and 
ways of diversifying bilateral cooperation. 

    Jovanovic said that Yugoslavia's defense from NATO's aggression 
last spring had been successful because the Yugoslav people and their 
leadership had been united in the defense of their freedom, proving 
that a people determined to defend their freedom and independence 
could never be conquered. 

    He also spoke of the situation in Yugoslavia and pressure exerted 
on the country following the aggression which he said continued 
through different forms. 

    Shwe said that Myanmar strongly backed Yugoslavia's efforts to 
protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the country's 
reconstruction. 

    He said his country had condemned the NATO aggression as a 
dangerous and unacceptable precedent in international relations. 

    Both officials condemned sanctions as a method of punishing 
peoples fighting for the defense of their freedom and dignity.   They 
underlined that no one had the right to impose a concept of internal 
development on sovereign countries under any pretext, human rights 
included. 

    The talks dealt also with the promotion of economic cooperation 
between Yugoslavia and Myanmar.   It was noted that both countries 
were interested in the promotion of cooperation in a large number of 
spheres. 

    Shwe said that Myanmar wanted to apply Yugoslav technologies in 
its development, urging frequent contacts between the two countries' 
business delegations. 

    The Yugoslav delegation's visit to Myanmar has coincided with the 
50th anniversary since the two countries established diplomatic 
relations. 

    In order to boost all-round cooperation between Yugoslavia and 
Myanmar, the two countries have decided to restore their relations to 
the ambassadorial level.   Myanmar has already appointed its 
ambassador to Belgrade, while Yugoslavia is expected to appoint its 
ambassador to Yangon soon. 


***

BurmaNet adds:  Tanjug is also reporting that Burma's Foreign 
Minister, Win Aung, has accepted an invitation to visit the former 
Yugoslavia later this year.  The Yugoslav Republic, now consisting of 
only Serbia and Montenegro, is the rump remainder of Yugoslavia after
 
Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia and Bosnia split in response to Serb 
chauvinism.  By the time Win Aung gets to 'Yugoslavia,' Montenegro 
may be gone as well.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

XINHUA: CHINESE-MADE SHIP PUT INTO SERVICE IN MYANMAR

Yangon, March 3   (XINHUA)   -- 

A coastal passenger liner of the state-run Myanmar 
[Burma]   Five Star Line (MFSL), built by Wu Song 
Shipyard in Shanghai, was commissioned into service
 here Thursday. 


   Mv Thanlwin, the 440-passenger-capacity vessel,
is built according to a contract signed between the 
Yunnan Machinery Import and Export Corporation of 
China and the MFSL in May 1996. 


    The vessel, together with its sister vessel, 
Chindwin, are built at a total cost of 15.5 million 
US dollars. 


    The 550-ton vessel liner, with 76.86 meters 
long, 13.6 meters wide and 14.05 meters high, 
can cruise 14.5 nautical miles (26.86 kilometers) 
per hour with a draught of 3.45 meters. 


    The Mv Thanlwin is also the first coastal 
passenger vessel built by China in accordance 
with Lloyds standards. 

    Equipped with modern navigation gear, 
communication apparatus and other supporting 
facilities, the coastal liner has the capacity 
to extend runs to Singapore, Malaysia and 
other neighboring countries. 

    Its sister vessel will be handed to the Myanmar 
side later in October this year. 

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
 INTERNATIONAL
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

THE NATION: CABINET AGREES TO MEKONG PACT 

March 8, 2000

THE Foreign Ministry has been given approval to sign 
an agreement for commercial navigation of the Mekong 
River with China, Laos and Burma. 

After more than four years of talks, decision-makers 
finally cleared all differences at a recent meeting in 
Rangoon. Sources said that the proposal, approved by 
Cabinet yesterday, would now be inked during the Asean 
economic ministerial meeting in Burma in May. 
The Thai government was the last to sanction the 
agreement. 

Sources said the agreement would help boost sub-
regional trade, transportation and tourism among the 
four countries. 

The initiative for this project began in 1993, whereas 
the negotiations started three years later. Even 
before an agreement was finalised, the four countries 
agreed in principle not to change the physical 
conditions of the river. 

The signatories agreed to implement the agreement on 
the upper part of Mekong River for a year after the 
agreement is signed. pending further review. Under the 
accord, passengers and cargo from participating 
countries would be able to travel along the upper part 
of river without having to pay a transit fee. The area 
extends from the Simao area in lower China to Luang 
Prabang in Laos. 

The signatory countries will open 14 ports along the 
upper part of the Mekong. The ports to be opened 
include Jinghong, Mengham, Guanlei, Ban Sai, Xiengkok, 
Muangmom, Ban Khouane, Houaysai, Luang Prabang, Wan 
Seng and Wan Pong. 

Moreover, countries must offer passengers, vessels and 
cargo from participating countries the same treatment 
in Customs procedure, port and cargo service and other 
related services as provided to their nationals. 
Vessels from signatory countries may transport 
passengers and cargo from a third country with consent 
from the country where the vessels are located. 
Earnings from navigation services from one signatory 
can be converted to the currency of the other 
signatories and the money would be accepted as the 
medium for exchange. 

The four countries will also have to jointly draft 
common navigation rules. The rules would include 
traffic regulations, vessel safety, equipment and the 
entry and exit of vessels. 

At 4,800-kilometres, the Mekong River is the longest 
in Southeast Asia, flows from China's Qinghai Province 
near the border with Tibet through six countries, 
including Cambodia and Vietnam. 


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
 
CQ WEEKLY: LOCAL SANCTIONS ECHO ABROAD

Supreme Court examines whether states and cities are 
infringing on federal authority

March 4, 2000

By Miles A. Pomper

In 1996, lawmakers in Massachusetts and Washington 
were equally horrified by reports of brutal 
repression by the government of Myanmar (formerly 
Burma). Just months after Massachusetts passed a law 
penalizing state contractors who also did business 
with Myanmar, Congress passed its own sanctions law.

Yet, four years later, the state and federal 
governments are facing off before the Supreme Court 
- the federal government arguing that the state 
law should be struck down because it has interfered 
with federal efforts to craft a comprehensive policy 
towards the Southeast Asian nation.

The decision in the Massachusetts case, Natsios v. 
National Foreign Trade Council, is expected by late 
June and will help define Congress' role in 
setting U.S. foreign and trade policy. It also will 
affect the ongoing Capitol Hill debate over the 
wisdom of unilateral trade sanctions.

The issue of state and local sanctions dates back to 
the 1980s, when several states and cities adopted 
purchasing or investment bans aimed at 
the apartheid regime in South Africa. Though 
Congress passed its own South Africa sanctions in 
1986, it left unresolved whether or not those 
sanctions preempted previous state and local 
measures.

The current case involves a 1996 Massachusetts law 
that penalizes companies that bid for state 
contracts if they do business with Myanmar. It adds 
a 10 percent penalty to their bids.

Nearly all members of Congress share the concern of 
Massachusetts lawmakers about Burma's human rights 
record. Congress imposed conditional sanctions 
on Myanmar's government in a foreign operations 
appropriations bill that was enacted as part of an 
omnibus spending bill (PL 104-208). (1996 
Almanac, p. 10-48)

But many members of Congress have had misgivings 
about the wisdom of state and local sanctions as the 
list has grown. Governments ranging from 
university towns such as Cambridge, Mass.; Madison, 
Wis., and Berkeley, Calif., to big cities such as 
New York have adopted selective purchasing 
laws and other measures designed to punish Myanmar's 
regime.

Meanwhile, state and local governments have 
considered or adopted similar statutes against other 
countries, ranging from Sudan to Switzerland and 
from Indonesia to Nigeria.

Massachusetts is the only state so far to have 
passed a selective purchasing law on Myanmar. 
Similar measures in other states have been put 
on hold because of the court case.

Turf Battle

Since Congress has only sparingly addressed the 
question of state and local sanctions, supporters 
and opponents of the Massachusetts law have flocked 
to join amicus curiae, or "friend of the court" 
briefs with the Supreme Court to press their 
arguments.

The case arose in 1998 when the National Foreign 
Trade Council, an umbrella group of exporters, sued 
Massachusetts Secretary of Administration and 
Finance Andrew S. Natsios and state purchasing agent 
Philmore Anderson III to block the sanctions law, 
which they contended unconstitutionally 
interfered with the federal foreign relations power, 
violated the foreign commerce clause of the 
Constitution that gives Congress the right to 
regulate foreign commerce, and was pre-empted by the 
later federal sanctions on Myanmar.

A U.S. District Court judge in Boston backed the 
council's arguments, as did the First Circuit Court 
of Appeals. The council then joined 
Massachusetts in appealing the case to the U.S. 
Supreme Court, hoping to clarify the limits on a 
state or local government's ability to affect 
events overseas or draw up its own procurement 
rules. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments 
March 22.

In their court briefs, congressional opponents of 
the Massachusetts law, led by Richard G. Lugar, R-
Ind., a senior member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, argue that it intrudes on the 
federal government's turf  and that it undermines 
the government's coherence and authority in 
conducting foreign policy.

Last month, Lugar sent out a "Dear Colleague" letter 
to almost 60 senators who generally back free trade, 
urging them to join the brief.

"The case is perhaps the most important foreign 
relations case in the last quarter-century, and will 
have sweeping ramifications for foreign affairs 
and trade policy for years to come," wrote Lugar and 
fellow Republicans Rod Grams of Minnesota and Pat 
Roberts of Kansas. "The issue in this case is 
not approval or disapproval of the Myanmar regime; 
it is the question of where the foreign affairs 
power resides - the Congress or the cities and 
states."

Their argument is supported by the Clinton 
administration, business groups and U.S. trading 
partners.

But supporters of the Massachusetts law, such as 
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, argue that the law is a form 
of consumer boycott and should enjoy the same 
constitutional protection. 

"My instinct is it's not out of order for states to 
make a decision on things that affect only the 
states," Kerry said in a February interview. "I 
don't think it's a foreign policy issue."

Kerry is supported by three other Senate Democrats - 
including two who are on the Foreign Relations 
Committee - as well as House International 
Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman, R-
N.Y., and 73 other House members.

In their court brief, these lawmakers argue that 
until Congress specifically pre-empts a state or 
local sanctions law, it should remain in effect. And 
they warn that if the Massachusetts law is 
overturned, power will shift away from Congress to 
the judiciary.

"The court of appeals has redefined our system of 
federalism as one in which the federal courts, 
rather than Congress, serve as the primary 
arbiter of the division of power between the states 
and the federal government," supporters of the 
Massachusetts law argue in their brief.

So far, the federal courts have sided with Lugar. As 
District Court Judge Joseph H. Tauro concluded, 
"State interests, no matter how noble, do not 
trump the federal government's exclusive foreign 
affairs power."

The case is more than a constitutional challenge, 
however. It is also a battleground for some of the 
same forces that clashed at a meeting of trade 
ministers of the World Trade Organization in Seattle 
this winter and have battled repeatedly over federal 
sanctions laws. (1999 CQ Weekly, p. 2924)

Supporters of the Massachusetts law worry that if 
the state's criteria for purchasing decisions are 
not upheld by the court, other state and local 
purchasing rules - such as "Buy American" laws or 
requirements that supplies contain a percentage of 
recycled material - also could be struck 
down as unconstitutional.

That fear has swayed not only some members of 
Congress but also 22 state attorneys general, seven 
state and local government associations, the 
AFL-CIO and environmental groups, many of which have 
filed briefs in the case.

Building Blocks

Human rights activists consider state and local 
governments a vital link in U.S. action on overseas 
conditions - useful for their economic clout and as 
a bridge between the independent actions of 
consumers and federal and 
international sanctions.

Massachusetts state Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, a 
Democrat, sponsored a bill in 1996, on the heels of 
the Burma legislation, that would have cut off 
state purchases from and investments in companies 
doing business with Indonesia, to protest that 
country's policies in the former Portuguese 
colony of East Timor.

Although the bill was never approved, Cabral said it 
"got the debate going nationally, internationally," 
spurring international pressure on Indonesia 
that led to East Timor's independence last year. 
(1999 CQ Weekly, p. 2326) Cabral noted that he was 
visited by Jose Ramos-Horta, the Nobel Peace 
Prize-winning campaigner for East Timor's 
independence, as well as diplomats from the European 
Union and Japan, and top U.S. government 
officials, including the U.S. ambassador to 
Indonesia.

"How often does a high-ranking official of the State 
Department or a high-ranking official of [the U.S. 
Trade Representative's office] come to the 
statehouse to meet with a state legislator?" asked 
Cabral.

By sponsoring such a law, Cabral said, "it brings 
attention to an issue, presses people to realize 
this is something important to be resolved, and 
if it doesn't get resolved then they know this is 
what happens."

The appeals court, although it struck down the 
Myanmar law, acknowledged that its passage "has 
resulted in significant attention being brought to 
the Burmese government's human rights record. 
Indeed, it may be that the Massachusetts law was a 
catalyst for federal sanctions."

The law's sponsor, Democratic state Rep. Byron 
Rushing, agreed, saying that selective purchasing 
laws "allow us to have a conversation in a way that 
the federal government will listen to us."

For some of the same reasons, U.S. companies fear 
state and local sanctions. They worry that if the 
Massachusetts law is upheld, a proliferation of 
similar laws could slow global trade, damage their 
international competitiveness and lead to a 
proliferation of purchasing laws made for social 
policy or foreign policy reasons.

"There is no basis for believing that states and 
localities employing selective purchasing sanctions 
will confine themselves to the prosecution 
of foreign regimes that engage in human rights 
abuses," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued in a 
court brief.

"Any international cause could, with the support of 
a vocal local constituency, become the impetus for 
state and local government expressions of foreign 
policy," attorneys for the chamber wrote.

Cause and Effect

When the Massachusetts law on Myanmar passed, 
businesses faced a stark choice: end ties with the 
Southeast Asian nation or jeopardize a shot at 
the $2 billion in goods and services that the 
commonwealth purchases every year.

Within months, several businesses cut ties with 
Myanmar, including Eastman Kodak Co., Hewlett 
Packard Co., Apple Computer, and the Japanese 
construction firm Obayashi Corp. They and other 
firms then mounted a heavy lobbying effort to kill 
the Indonesia legislation before it too became law.

"Without federal authority over foreign affairs, 
each of the 50 state governments and over 39,000 
other local governments, with almost $1 trillion in 
purchasing power, would be free to make foreign 
policy," said National Foreign Trade Council 
president Frank Kittredge. "This isn't in 
the best interests of the nation and is certainly a 
situation the framers intended to prevent."

The lawsuit is one of a series of anti-sanctions 
efforts by the trade council, which is spearheading 
USA Engage, a group of exporters who have joined to 
fight unilateral sanctions imposed by the United 
States.

"The greatest economic consequence of these kind of 
bills is that our companies would get a reputation 
as unreliable trading partners, which 
would be a perceived liability as a supplier," said 
Donald F. Baldini, senior vice president for 
legislative policy at the Associated Industries 
of Massachusetts, the state's largest employers 
group, which has filed a brief on behalf of the 
trade council.

"And foreign governments whose companies suffered 
from these sanctions might be tempted to impose 
similar restrictions on us. It's a two-way 
street," Baldini said.

Business groups and the federal government argue 
that not only do state and local sanctions impinge 
on the authority of the president and Congress, but 
they send contradictory signals overseas.

In the Massachusetts case, attorneys for business 
groups and the federal government argue that 
Congress and the president had clearly chosen only 
to restrict new investments in, rather than all 
trade with, Myanmar when they acted three months 
after the Massachusetts statute was enacted.

Solicitor General Seth P. Waxman wrote in his brief, 
"The national government has chosen a carefully 
calibrated strategy of penalties and incentives, 
which are capable of being applied flexibly by the 
president in response to the Burmese regime's 
conduct, the actions of the international 
community, and other national security 
considerations."

Federal officials wrote that the Massachusetts law 
had entangled U.S. foreign policy, making it more 
difficult to convince allies and trading 
partners to support the federal government's foreign 
policy.

Alan P. Larson, undersecretary of State for 
economic, business and agricultural affairs, has 
said, for example, that in discussions with the 
European Union, "The EU's opposition to the 
Massachusetts law has meant that U.S. government 
high-level discussions with EU officials often have 
focused not on what to do about Burma, but on what 
to do about the Massachusetts Burma law."

Critics also said that the Massachusetts law 
violates constitutional provisions giving the 
federal government the power to regulate foreign and 
interstate commerce - the foreign commerce clause.

Waxman used this analogy in arguing that the 
Massachusetts law violates the Constitution: "If 
Massachusetts refused to do business with any 
companies that do business in Texas, or their 
parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates, 
in order to induce a change in the internal policies 
of Texas, there could be little doubt that 
Massachusetts would violate the Commerce Clause."

Federal officials also warn that if the 
Massachusetts law is upheld by the 
Supreme Court, the United States could be split into 
separate foreign policy fiefdoms - each with its 
own, and possibly competing, agenda. For 
instance, Jewish-Americans in one state could press 
for policies at odds with those urged by Arab-
Americans in another.

"State and local sanctions, however, vault local 
interests directly onto the national stage, causing 
national consequences without taking national 
interests into account," argued the Chamber of 
Commerce.

Writing in the January/February issue of the journal 
Foreign Affairs, Brannon P. Denning, an assistant 
law professor at Southern Illinois University, and 
Jack H. McCall, a Knoxville, Tenn., lawyer, warned 
that if the Massachusetts statute is allowed to 
stand, it would render moot much of the purpose of 
the Constitution.

"Without the central government's lead, the United 
States risks returning to the Balkanization of its 
national interests that necessitated the 
Constitution in the first place," they wrote.

Consumer Interests

Massachusetts and other states and municipalities 
argue that state laws are simply a form of a 
traditional, and constitutional, consumer boycott. 
In this case, a state or city, rather than an 
individual, is making a free-market choice not to 
buy a product out of moral considerations.

"Nothing in our federal Constitution denies to the 
states the right to apply a moral standard to their 
spending decisions. Not one constitutional 
grant, prohibition, or command requires the states 
to trade with dictators," wrote Massachusetts 
Assistant Attorney General Thomas A. 
Barnico in his brief for the Supreme Court.

Rushing said he drew his inspiration for the Myanmar 
law from the successful sanctions campaign against 
South Africa in which he also participated, a 
campaign motivated by an abhorrence  of apartheid.

Rushing said that South African leaders have 
credited a Massachusetts executive order on 
selective purchasing by then Gov. Michael S. 
Dukakis, a Democrat, with a key role in spurring the 
U.S. government and ultimately the United Nations to 
enact sanctions that helped bring down apartheid.

Rushing said he had learned from the South African 
campaign that selective purchasing could be an even 
more potent tool for states and municipalities 
than divestment, the sale of shares in companies 
that do business with questionable regimes.

Rushing noted that divestment applies only to 
publicly traded companies and often does not 
seriously affect their stock prices, since the 
stocks typically are sold off over time to prevent a 
significant drop in the value of the state or city's 
portfolio.

Looking back on South Africa, Rushing said, "If I'd 
have had my druthers, I'd have started out with 
selective purchasing."

Yet divestment enjoys a stronger legal status than 
selective purchasing. While the Supreme Court has 
yet to rule on the constitutionality of either 
type, a federal district court upheld a Maryland 
divestment law in the 1980. And the Justice 
Department has consistently argued that divestment 
laws are constitutional.

Uruguay Round

The executive branch has changed its opinion of the 
constitutionality of selective purchasing laws. The 
Reagan administration, inclined to grant 
more power to the states, was more sympathetic to 
their arguments than the Clinton administration, 
which, after first holding back, weighed in against 
the Massachusetts law.

The change resulted in part from new commitments 
undertaken by the United States as part of the 1993 
Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade.

Besides establishing the World Trade Organization 
(WTO), the pact included an agreement that 
governments and their subdivisions would not 
discriminate against foreigners in making purchasing 
decisions. Massachusetts is one of 37 states that 
have signed on to the agreement.

Based on the Uruguay Round agreement, the European 
Union and Japan in 1998 challenged the Massachusetts  
law on Myanmar at the WTO and also raised 
concerns about the Indonesia legislation.

The challenge persuaded Cabral to rewrite his 
Indonesia bill so it would not violate international 
law. Rushing, however, refused to rewrite his 
law, because the European Union and Japan did not 
promise that they would impose their own stringent 
sanctions on Myanmar. The European Union and 
Japan have put their challenge on ice as they await 
the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Congress voted as part of the Uruguay Round 
legislation to prevent foreign governments from 
using the pact to bring suits directly against 
states. But they left open the possibility that the 
federal government could sue to enforce a judgment 
if the United States were to fail in its efforts to 
defend a state's actions at the WTO.

In 1998, the House defeated, 200-228, an amendment 
by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, D-Ohio, that would have 
prevented the federal government from suing to 
enforce a WTO decision. (1998 CQ Weekly, p. 2237)

The amendment's defeat reflected a change in the 
congressional climate on state and local sanctions. 
Laws targeting the South African regime 14 years 
ago enjoyed political cover that no longer exists.

Few organizations or politicians were willing to 
challenge the South Africa sanctions and risk being 
tarred as supporters of a racist regime.

For similar reasons, opponents of state and local 
sanctions did not relish challenging selective 
purchasing laws that affect Indonesia because the 
laws were backed by the Portuguese-American 
community, a significant constituency in 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island and California.

There is no substantial Burmese-American community 
in the United States. And few Americans know or seem 
to care about events in the remote nation. 
"There is no natural constituency to get in their 
faces," Rushing said.

In fact, it is the lack of political backing that 
will let the Supreme Court finally decide an issue 
that Congress fudged in the debate over South 
Africa sanctions, legislation that Lugar helped 
guide through the Senate. As the Senate considered 
the South Africa bill (PL 99-440), Lugar insisted 
that the measure should pre-empt state and local 
laws by "occupying the field" on South Africa 
policy, much as he claims the federal sanctions on 
Myanmar do today. That interpretation was reinforced 
by the Senate's rejection of an amendment allowing 
state and local governments to maintain their anti-
apartheid laws. (1986 Almanac, p. 359)

On the other hand, when the House passed Lugar's 
bill, it accompanied it with a statement rejecting 
Lugar's interpretation of the issue. The dispute 
was never litigated in the courts.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


MIZZIMA: MANIPUR, STILL THE VICTIM OF INTERNATIONAL 
DRUG TRAFFICKING


March 7, 2000
Mizzima News Group


Manipur with a population of 2 million (hardly 0.2% 
of India's total population) is contributing more 
than 7% of India's total HIV positive cases and it 
is third in rank in India after Maharashtra and 
Tamil Nadu which contribute about 52% and 12% 
respectively of India's total HIV positive cases. 
This was disclosed by Dr. Khomdon Singh Lisam, 
project director of Manipur State AIDS Control 
Society yesterday in an interview with Mizzima News 
Group.

The distinctive pattern of HIV infections in Manipur 
from the other two states is that up to 70% of 
infection rates are found among injecting drug users 
whereas in other two states, 80% are due to sexual
transmission.

"Manipur is having two epidemics now. One is the 
epidemic of drug abuse and another is the epidemic 
of AIDS. Both of them were preceded by illegal drug 
trafficking," said Dr. Khomdon Singh Lisam.

Manipur which has an international border of about 
358 kilometers with Burma became the victim of 
international drug smuggling as traffickers
found the route through this point of international 
border as a soft route. Drug trafficking from Burma 
across the Manipur border reached its explosive 
situation by 1984.

According to Dr. Lisam, in 1990, 100% of the HIV 
positives tested in the state were among the 
injecting drug users and mostly heroin drug users.
Transmission was primarily through use of shared 
infected needles. Quality testing of heroin, 
indulged by drug traffickers themselves also 
contributed the epidemic as they traveled to 
and fro between Burma and Manipur (India).

In 1997, 60 to 70 percentage of HIV infection cases 
were found among the injecting drug users and the 
percentage has come down at present after the 
successful intervention measures and AIDS campaigns 
done by State Government and AIDS-NGOs in the state. 
Manipur is the first and only state, which has a 
written State AIDS Policy in India.

Commercial sex workers are also vulnerable to HIV 
and represent a relatively significant core group 
for transmission of the virus through their clients 
in the state. Though there is no "red light areas" 
as such in the state, Manipur State AIDS Control 
Society has identified three areas where commercial 
sex workers are working. One is in the centre of
Imphal town where more than 200 commercial sex 
workers are already identified by it, and the other 
two areas are in Churachandpur town and
Moreh town, both are closed to Burma's border.

"Most of the commercial sex workers working in Moreh 
comes from Myanmar (Burma). They come to Moreh in 
the daytime, carry on their activities in Moreh and 
return to Myanmar by night. More than 20% of 
commercial sex workers in Moreh are HIV-infected. 
These are the girls and women who often are visited 
by the injecting drug users who are HIV positives,"
said Dr. Lisam.

At the end of January 2000, Manipur had tested 9,705 
HIV positive cases. Joint United Nations Programme 
on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) has claimed that India has the 
highest number of HIV infections in the world with 
some 3.7 million Indians having HIV or AIDS.




*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
 OTHER
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


LECTURES ON BURMESE LITERATURE IN NYC

You are cordially invited to New York to listen Burmese 
literature, which will be held by the Committee for  
Reviving of Burmese Literature. This will be good 
opportunity to meet new friends, renew acquaintances  
and to learn how and why Burmese literature has  
deteriorated under a military rule.

Lectures on Burmese Literature

Four giants from the Burmese literary field will talk in 
New York soon. U Tin Moe, most influence poet of today 
in Burma, U Thaung, one of the oldest newspapermen, 
U Win Pe, film director, writer, artist, broadcast 
journalist and U Win Tun, cartoonist will give lectures 
on Burmese literature.


When:  May 27th, 2000
Where: The place and the time will be announced soon (New York City)

Ko Zaw Win
Organizer
Committee for Reviving of Burmese Literature


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


The BurmaNet News is an Internet newspaper providing 
comprehensive coverage of news and opinion on Burma  
(Myanmar).  For a subscription to Burma's only free 
daily newspaper, write to: strider@xxxxxxx 

Voice mail +1 (435) 304-9274 
 
Fax +1 (810)454-4740 

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* 




===END=============END=============END===



------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds!  Get rates 
as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees.
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/975/3/_/713843/_/952523424/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
theburmanetnews-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx