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


The BurmaNet News: July 5, 1996 
Issue #460

Noted in Passing:
                 ..........a human rights environment is always good
                for business.(see: HUMAN RIGHTS SOLIDARITY
                AHRC: BUSINESS IN BURMA?)

HEADLINES:
==========
S:H.A.N: SHAN STATE NEWS IN BRIEF
NATION: KAREN BLAMED FOR ATTACK ON OFFICIAL 
BKK POST: BURMA URGED TO INVEST IN 'WEST'
BKK POST: JAPAN'S ANA PLANS FLIGHTS TO RANGOON 
HUMAN RIGHTS SOLIDARITY AHRC: BUSINESS IN BURMA?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESS RELEASE: NORDIC BURMA COUNCIL 
July 4, 1996
From: H K Kulxy <hkk@sn.no>
    
The Nordic Burma Council, which consists of the Burma committees in the 
five Nordic countries has written to the Nordic Prime ministers and 
requested that specific action be taken against the military junta in 
Rangoon because of  ts consistent and widespread violation of  human 
rights. The latest example of this is the death in custody of Mr Leo 
Nichols, the consul and representative of several European countries and
a close friend of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.  

Joint Nordic action is demanded on the following:

1. The Nichols case: Jointly  establish a fast-working, high level 
International Enquiry Committee to look into the political, legal 
and medical aspects of Leo Nichols' death in custody.

2. Trade Boycott: 
(a) Support Denmark's initiative for a joint EU trade boycott. 
(b) Jointly pursue trade sanctions in the UN.
(c) Jointly and vigorously pursue the issue of trade sanctions with Japan 
and ASEAN.
(d) A joint Nordic Trade boycott of Burma and of multinational companies 
which do substantial business in Burma. 

3. Political action through the UN: Jointly request the UN Secretary 
General, Mr Butros-Ghali,  to explain what measures he has taken under
the mandate given to him in the last several General
Assembly Resolutions on Burma, to "assist in the process of 
democratization and national reconciliation".

4. Financial sanctions through the UN Agencies: Jointly refuse to finance 
UN Agencies (UNDP,UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR, IBRD, ADB, etc) 
programmes and projects in Burma unless these specifically have been 
reviewed as to their possible misuse by the Burmese army and organizations
used to suppress the civilian population. 

5. UNHCR - United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: Jointly keep 
the UNHCR under special observation as to that agency's policies and 
practices towards Burmese refugees. Deportations or "repatriations" to a 
country officially recognized by the UN as a gross violator of human rights
should not be allowed under any circumstances, and should lead to quick 
cuts in the funding of UNHCR.

6. Action through other international non-governmental fora: Jointly take 
action in support of the democratization process in Burma in other 
international fora, such as Socialist International, the Council of Europe, 
the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Intl. Confederation of Free Trade 
Unions, the European Trade Union Council,  and so forth.

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

C O P Y   O F   L E T T E R
NORDIC BURMA COUNCIL 
3 July 1996

TO
PRIME MINISTER POUL NYRUP RASMUSSEN, DENMARK
PRIME MINISTER DAVID ODDSON, ICELAND
PRIME MINISTER PAAVO LIPPONEN, FINLAND
PRIME MINISTER GRO HARLEM BRUNDTLAND, NORWAY
PRIME MINISTER G RAN PERSSON, SVERIGE


In connection with the steadily deteriorating human rights situation in 
Burma, culminating so far with the death in custody of James Leander 
Nichols, former Honorary Consul for Denmark, Finland,
Norway Sweden and Switzerland, we hereby request that the 
Nordic countries:

(a) allocate more--and substantial-- resources and support to the 
democratic opposition lead by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma and her 
cousin Prime Minister Dr Sein Win of  the exile government (NCGUB) 
and its allies outside Burma

(b) coordinate a systematic Nordic effort to put tangible and visible 
pressure on the illegitimate SLORC regime in Rangoon.  
Experience so clearly indicates that the past six years' efforts have 
been too little, too late.We propose the following six specific measures 
in that respect:

1. The Nichols case: Jointly  establish a fast-working, high level 
International Enquiry Committee to look into the political, legal and 
medical aspects of Leo Nichols' death in custody.
We reaffirm the proposals made to this effect to the Danish, Norwegian 
and Swedish Ministries of Foreign Affairs. We also note with satisfaction
that Finland has already called for an official enquiry, and that Denmark, 
Norway and Switzerland have been and are vigorously 
pursuing the case to clarify the medical causes of Mr Nichols' death.

2. Trade Boycott: 
(a) Support Denmark's initiative for a joint EU trade boycott. 
(b) Jointly pursue trade sanctions in the UN.
(c) Jointly and vigorously pursue the issue of trade sanctions with Japan 
and ASEAN.
(d) Depending on the outcomes of these efforts, we propose that there be 
a joint Nordic Trade boycott of Burma and of multinational companies 
which do substantial business in Burma.  We are aware of the fact that 
the trade between the Burma and the Nordic countries are modest, and as such
would not have a dramatic impact on the Burmese economy. But the symbolic 
effect worldwide would be dramatic, and would be a message of support 
to the Burmese people, as was the Nobel Prize to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. 
Considering the fact that the United  States is also considering trade
sanctions, this could have much wider effects than foreseen at this moment.

3. Political action through the UN: Jointly request the UN Secretary 
General, Mr Butros-Ghali,  to explain what measures he has taken 
under the mandate given to him in the last several General
Assembly Resolutions on Burma, to "assist in the process of 
democratization and national reconciliation", and to offer Nordic 
support to enable him to actively  follow up on this very clear request
by the UN General Assembly. Jointly co-sponsor the Autumn 1996 
General Assembly Resolution on Burma. 

4. Financial sanctions through the UN Agencies: Jointly refuse to finance 
UN Agencies (UNDP,UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR, IBRD, ADB, etc) 
programmes and projects in Burma unless these specifically have been 
reviewed as to their possible misuse by the Burmese army and organizations
used to suppress the civilian population. We draw your attention to points 
1-8 in our "Open Letter to the UN" dated  21 June 1993 (in the
enclosed "Burma and the United Nations") which are sufficiently clear to 
be implemented by each UN agency immediately if there is a will to take 
practical action to honour the 1991, 1992, 1993,1994 and 1995 UN 
General Assembly's resolutions on Burma. As major donors, the Nordic
Countries easily wield the necessary power to implement these suggestions.

5. UNHCR - United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: Jointly keep 
the UNHCR under special observation as to that agency's policies and 
practices towards Burmese refugees. Deportations or "repatriations" 
to a country officially recognized by the UN as a gross violator of
human rights should not be allowed under any circumstances. Instead, a 
dialogue with Thailand and other neighbouring countries on accepting 
Burmese as refugees until democracy in Burma has been restored should 
be pursued through the UN.

6. Action through other international non-governmental fora: Jointly take 
action in support of the democratization process in Burma in other 
international fora, such as Socialist International (our letter of 24 March 
1995 refers--copy attached), the Council of Europe, the Inter-Parliamentary
Union, the Intl. Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the European Trade 
Union Council,  and so forth.

Sincerely yours

-/sd
Anton Johannsen
Danish Burma Committee, Copenhagen

-/sd        
Tapani Oojasti
Finnish Burma Committee, Helsinki

-/sd
Jacob Asgeirsson
Icelandic Burma Committee, Reykjavik

-/sd
Hallvard K Kul y
Norwegian Burma Committee, Oslo

-/sd                                    -/sd
Jan Hodann                      Bo Forsberg
Olof Palme International Center         DIAKONIA
Stockholm                           Stockholm


copy to: Ministries of Foreign Affairs
         Parliamentary leaders/ Foreign Affairs Committees

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

S:H.A.N: SHAN STATE NEWS IN BRIEF
July 4,, 1996
from: "h.ng.p spm <h.ng.p spm" <100706.1311@ds90>

On 30.04.96, SLORC No. 514 LIB stationed at Murng Kerng ordered 2
persons from each village circle to serve in the military. Those who 
could not or did  not want to go had to give them 27,000 Kyats each.

On 15.05.96, LIB 514 at Murng Kerng asked their people for 40 
Burmese couples and 40 bachelors, also Burmese nationals, to be 
sent to Ho Murng to found village and settle down.

In May, Mya Mong and Khing Sor, leading figures in Pang Ke Tu 
circle, Murng Kerng township, joined hands with Burmese soldiers 
in extorting money from the people in the area. Every household has 
been complaining about this.

In April, SLORC troops in Tong Lao, Murng Kerng township, seized 
a Tolagyi (mini tractor truck ) that belonged to Loong Ui, but the owner 
was nowhere to be found. The Battalion Commander was very angry 
about this and sent his troops after Loong Ui with the order to burn the 
village if they could not catch him and, accordingly, the troops set fire to 
the village in which 28 houses, with all the properties in them, 
were burnt to ashes.

On 02.06.96, the SLORC Battalion Commander at Murng Kerng called 
headmen in Ho Nar circle to buy green-paddy ( which was to be collected 
in the coming harvest) for him. Each village circle was forced to sell 800 
baskets at 400 Kyats for 8 basket, while the actual price is 1,500 Kyats.

In May, SLORC troops at Wan Li, Hsipaw township, shot dead the village 
headman of Wan Li named Pi Sarng Ti. It is said that Pi Sarng Ti was too 
public-spirited and sided with the people so much that he had unknowingly 
antagonized the soldiers.

**********************************************************
  
NATION: KAREN BLAMED FOR ATTACK ON OFFICIAL 
July , 1996

TAK - A group of 10 armed men allegedly belonging to the
Democratic Karen Buddhist Army opened fire early yesterday
morning on the Tha Song Yang assistant district chief's house,
police said.

The assistant district chief was reportedly transferred following
the attack, pending an investigation into allegations that he was
involved in a logging conflict in Burma.

Sananfah Donkhammoon, who was in the house during the attack, was
not injured, police said. His house was badly damaged.

The armed men also attacked two checkpoints in the neighbouring
area and a passing car, injuring two people before they crossed
over to the Burmese side, police said.

The injured were identified as  Thaweesak Jaiyod and Siam Chue-
ah. Both were admitted to Tha Song Yang hospital in critical
condition, according to police.

District chief Panlop Sripha said that he believed that the
attack was an act of revenge against his assistant, who had
charged two Karen with filing false complaints with the police
last month.

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

BKK POST: BURMA URGED TO INVEST IN 'WEST'
July 2, 1996

THAI Industry Ministry is seeking ways to encourage Burma to join 
with Thailand to develop deep seaports, and jointly invest in 
natural gas-related industries in the so-called Western Seaboard
Development Area.

Thai Deputy Industry Minister Chaiwat Sinsuwong issued the 
invitation during his visit to Burma to sign an agreement to buy 
natural gas from that country's Yadana field.

Burma has also been approached about forming joint ventures with 
Thai partners in industries related to natural gas, for which 
Thailand has already invested in a pipeline top carry Yadana gas 
from Burma to Ratchburi.

The Western Seaboard development plan covers Kanchanaburi, 
Suphanburi, Samut Prakan, Petchburi and Prachuap Khiri Khan.

The major industrial player in the area currently is Sahaviriya 
Group Plc, with a large steel mill in Prachuap Khirikhan. 

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

BKK POST: JAPAN'S ANA PLANS FLIGHTS TO RANGOON 
July 4, 1996

JAPAN'S Transport Ministry has approved All Nippon Airways 
application to begin twice-weekly direct flights between Osaka 
and Rangoon, starting on July 16.

ANA will be the first airline from a major industrialised nation 
to open regular flights to Burma since the military junta took 
power there in 1988. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BKK POST: KUMAGAI GUMI IN RANGOON July 4, 1996
(added)

TOKYO - Japan's Kumagai Gumi Co Ltd said yesterday it would open 
a branch office in Rangoon next week to strengthen South Asian 
sales.

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

HUMAN RIGHTS SOLIDARITY AHRC: BUSINESS IN BURMA?
July 1, 1996 (abridged)
from Human Rights Soldarity AHRC newsletter
by Mark Daly,

"The time has come to recognize a simple truth: while
it might not always be the case that trade and
business are good for human rights, it most certainly
is the case that a good human rights environment is
always good for business.

There must be far more "joint ventures" between
human rights groups and businesses. This may mean
a human rights "activist" has to occasionally put on a
business suit. NGOs must take the debate to the
financial district. Likewise, businesses must begin to
understand that as their influence in world events
grows so does their responsibility

From: Human Rights SOLIDARITY
June 1996

BUSINESS IN BURMA?

The need for "joint ventures" between human rights
groups and business
by Mark Daly

I was asked last week by the director of a prominent
publicly listed company with investments in Burma to,
"Help me out" when discussing how business can
play a positive role if it decides to continue doing
business in Burma. There is no simple solution. But in
a world of increasing globalization and marketization,
where decisions that affect great numbers of people
are increasingly made in boardrooms and not
legislatures, solutions must be found. For those today
being tortured, detained, raped, abused and living out
a meagre and completely undignified existence, the
solution must be found now. 

The First Hurdle

The words "ethics" and "business" are not polar
opposites. They are increasingly becoming linked as
creative and forward - thinking businesses realize that
to ignore the effects of their practices will be bad for
business and the human rights situation in the
country. In the West, an effective and independent
media, discriminating consumers and concerned
shareholders can pay close attention to corporate
behaviour, providing an "ethical" check on business.
Businesses are responding and companies like Levi
Strauss, Reebok, and Sears etc are understanding
the connection between human rights and business.


After outlining at least 5 reasons why promoting
human rights is good for business he provides
suggestions for what businesses can do in the
country in which they operate. He suggests that
businesspeople can lobby for example for the Red
Cross to have access to prisons which is standard
practice in more than 100 countries in the world.
>From personal experience he has also come to the
conclusion that businesses can "be monitoring posts,
places which collect information on local conditions,
rules and regulations governing such things as religion
and ownership of satellite dishes and, most important
from a humanitarian perspective, the sentencing of
political and religious prisoners." 

Sir Geoffrey Chandler CBE, a former senior
executive of Royal Dutch Shell and the former
Director General of the UK National Economic
Development Office, in Business Ethics, April 1993,
highlights an important consideration particularly
appropriate for Burma: 

It is more difficult to determine whether a foreign
company simply by its presence, contributes to or
deters such abuses. It does neither directly. However,
its contribution to economic development and what
can be inferred (fairly or unfairly) to the confidence it
places in the government in power could encourage
that government to persist in its ways. Equally a
company with an explicit code of  practice in its own
operations, derived from clear humanitarian and
ethical principles, could, by its example, act as a
deterrent to practices which transgress these
principles. But if either case is correct, and I believe
both can be true, it means that companies cannot
extract themselves - Pharisee - like from the issue. 

(emphasis added) 

Aung San Suu Kyi has been saying this for years.
Along similar lines, Joe Clark, the former Prime
Minister of Canada, has engaged the debate in a
speech on "Globalization, Trade and Human Rights:
The Canadian Business Perspective" at a conference
jointly sponsored by the Institute on Human Rights
and Democratic Development and the Business
Council on National Issues, February 22,1996. He
concludes with a call to make consultations between
business groups and human rights groups - "far more
the norm." 

Some companies are responding. In Burma, a wave
of boycotts across the US persuaded Pepsi to sell a
40% share in its Burma joint venture to its local
partner although the drink will still be bottled in the
country under a franchise arrangement. (South China
Morning Post, p.15, 26 April 1996) For the last 4
years Britain's Cooperative Bank "has promoted a
radical yet carefully moulded ethical and
environmental stance" and it is paying dividends.
("High moral stance is paying back dividends--Room
for profit in the wholesome end of market", Eastern
Express, p.22, 2 March 1996) 

Although there are trends in some areas towards
integrating a human rights approach into business
one cannot underestimate the difficulties in getting
over this first hurdle. It is not so easy to bring up the
topic of human rights at a gathering of "business"
people (I dislike the label just as I dislike the term
"activist") in this region and often the responses are
equivocal, evasive or nonexistent. But the topic must
continually be put forward. 

Empty Rhetoric

Every report from every human rights organization,
the media, and the UN rapporteur has shown that the
repression in Burma is worse now than it was when
Aung San Suu Kyi was released. The human rights
abuses are extensively documented and include
eyewitness reports, reports from refugees,
admissions from SLORC army defectors, UN reports,
documentaries (including a new one by Pilger and
Munro, titled "Inside Burma: Land of Fear" which we
await) and journalists reports et al. The abuses
include torture on a horrific scale, including beatings,
shackling, near suffocation, burning, stabbing,
rubbing of salt and chemicals into open wounds, rape
of women, mutilation, threats of death,
disappearances, random killings, arbitrary detentions,
and slave labour of entire villages including the elderly
and children. Despite these incontestable facts we
still often hear the stale, unresearched rhetoric
exemplified by the editors of the Far Eastern
Economic Review, in the editorial of the 6 June 1996
issue:

"When it comes to trade we part company with Miss
Suu Kyi's call for foreign investors to forsake Burma
until it has a functioning democracy; along with
Burma's immediate neighbours in Southeast Asia, we
believe that Burmese hopes for liberty have a far
greater chance of taking root where there is
economic engagement and not isolation." 

What is such a belief based upon? Just as sanctions
and boycotts are not the answer in all cases neither is
economic engagement. It may improve the well being
and freedoms of the people suffering repression OR
IT MAY NOT. But businesses and governments must
move beyond the empty rhetoric. Economic
engagement is not some kind of universal religious
principle that holds for all circumstances although it is
often preached as if it is. Businesses must begin to
take some responsibility for determining the effect it
has when it invests in a repressive regime such as
Burma. The public, consumers, shareholders and
others must hold them accountable. 

The same editorial provides:

"In response to suggestions that this latest crackdown
will only invite sanctions from the West, Brig. Gen.
Win Tin, minister for finance and revenue, resorted to
bravado, noting that Burma has been isolated 'since
1988 and we have grown with our resources.' True
enough. Obviously, however, there were problems
with that isolation or else the SLORC would not have
moved to open its economy and link up with its Asean
neighbours." 

Obviously, there maybe some merit in the argument
that sanctions and not economic engagement may be
a suggested approach in this case. Maybe the writer
of that editorial is confused. 

The South China Morning Post is also confused. In
the face of increasing repression correlated with
increasing investment (Sunday Morning Post, 14
April, 1996) it writes an editorial entitled ``Bad
business in Burma" (p.16, 23 May 1996) where it
states
that "The arrest of 90 [later increased] Burmese
opposition activists by the ruling
military junta should give pause to those who
advocate continuing business as
usual and integrating the regime into the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations. ... But foreign companies
and governments which have chosen until now to
believe the Government's claims to be working
towards democracy must now admit to themselves
that the whole process is a sham." OK. But I think the
Post should provide a human rights conscience
warning on its next travel article which entices
travellers to go and assist SLORC with tourist dollars. 

(see "Burma's city of monks," SCMP, 21 May 1996) 

The Asian Context

Many of the businesses who collaborate with SLORC
are from Singapore, Hong Kong and Thailand and
numerically, most projects and joint ventures are from 
China, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. As I have
previously discussed, much of the pressure for
businesses to be accountable comes from a fiercely
independent and principled media. In many areas in
Asia this is lacking. This is a big problem and again
underscores the great importance of an independent
and free press in each of the countries in the region. 

It must be pointed out that Singapore is the second
largest investor in Burma from 1989 to 1995, with
$793.4 million dollars (Source, New Internationalist,
which quoted Burmese "government" figures, March
1995). In an Asian executives poll Singapore had the
press that was considered the least free (31% said
not free, 65.6% said somewhat free) and thus fresh
obstacles in an approach to the business - human
rights dialogue are presented. Similarly, China, is
Burma's closest ally and supplier of arms (since
1988, $1.4 billion worth of arms) and China wasn't
even surveyed with respect to its press freedom!
(Survey from the REVIEW and Asia Business News,
June 6,1996) In the same poll 56.3% of
Singaporeans see democracy as a hindrance to a
developing economy. 

Therefore, in the Asian context, a director faced with
a decision on Burma is faced with further
considerations, particularly when joint venture
partners are from different regions and different
countries. But top management people are smart,
resourceful and creative and get paid big bucks to be
so. They must be challenged to find a way to
communicate their human rights concerns to other
members of a partnership and they must not be
allowed to back down. 

THE NEED FOR "JOINT VENTURES" BETWEEN
HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND BUSINESS 

Human rights groups must work within and without
the present realities to create changes. They must
build links with a provide information to those who
can effect change. There must be far more "joint
ventures" between human rights groups and
businesses. This may mean a human rights "activist"
has to occasionally put on a business suit. NGOs
must take the debate to the financial district.
Likewise, businesses must begin to understand that
as their influence in world events grows so does their
responsibility. Although we've set out some
suggestions on approach, in the final analysis, all
decisions hinge on our internal morality and our sense
of justice. To the business community, remember the
words of Hans Kung: "Market analysis cannot replace
morality." 

