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


The BurmaNet News: July 31, 1996 
Issue #478

Noted in Passing:                                      
                Constructive engagement in this case is not a policy, it is 
                a dodge... Given Asean's membership, which includes the 
                authoritarian Governments of Indonesia, Vietnam, Brunei 
                and Singapore, the indifference to democracy is not 
                surprising.(see: NYT: DESTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT 
                IN  MYANMAR)
  
HEADLINES:
=========
NATION: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE IN BURMA
NYT: DESTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT IN  MYANMAR
NATION: LETTER-DEMOCRACY CALL
WASHINGTON POST: A GOOD START ON BURMA 
STATEMENT: BURMA SANCTIONS 
NATION: BURMA'S MIDDLE CLASS LOVES SUU KYI BUT........
BKK POST: JUNTA KEEPS KHUN SA IN BASE 
S.H.A.N : SHAN STATE UPDATE NEWS
LETTER: BURMA AS THE NEW BOSNIA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATION: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE IN BURMA
July 30, 1996

The quest for freedom, democracy, and justice in Burma continues
at various levels. At the international level, a key issue is
whether sanctions should be imposed on the junta, the State Law
and Order Restoration Council (Slorc), that still holds the reins
of power in Burma today. But closer to home, there is another
pressing challenge that pits authoritarianism against democracy.
The Burmese Constitution.

What kind of constitution is needed for ! Burma? And who is
mandated to draft it? i The answer to the latter is more simple
that the answer to the former. It is a well established fact that
in 1988 there was widespread suppression of democratic forces in
Burma, followed by the arrest of the main proponent of democratic
rule, Aung San Suu Kyi,  and other leaders of her party, the
National League for Democracy (NLD).

In 1990, Slorc miscalculated when it allowed national elections.
The people voted en masse for Suu Kyi and her party, there by
openly rejecting the decades of authoritarian rule.

However, Slorc refused to cede power to the people and stepped up
its campaign of persecution against the people's elected
representatives. It imprisoned Suu Kyi for half a decade,
"releasing" her last year.

Despite the release of the elected head of the government, Slorc
maintains a tight rule over Burma and is trying to draft a new 
constitution for the country by establishing a National
Convention filled with its allies for this purpose.

Burma's search for a constitution dates back to the era of its
independence, after World War II.

The first constitution adopted was in 1947, but it was not a
satisfactory charter. Significantly, it did not provide for a
federal system, thereby alienating a range of different ethnic
groups in Burma, who did not - and do not - want to be subsumed
under a centralised state.

Burma's road under a one-party system, encapsulated by the rubric
"socialist state," was highlighted by a new constitution in 1947.
Even though the text recognised basic rights for all citizens,
these were constrained by the provision that they must not be "to
the detriment of national solidarity and the socialist social order."

Although this constitution acknowledged the presence of various
minorities, it failed to offer autonomy to these groups. A key
leader of the so-called socialist state even had the audacity to
claim that "our Union is just one homogeneous whole." In 1990,
Slorc decreed that a National Convention would be set up to draft
a new constitution. The current draft includes the following tenets:

1. It is to be the Constitution of Myanmar   (Burma). The very
fact that the National Convention is using the name "Myanmar"
rather than "Burma" sets a certain political agenda. It
endeavours to create a particular _ image for the country
that of a renewed sense of nationalism. Underlying the new title
is the fact that Slorc envisions the constitution to be a state
instrument based upon its rule rather that the rule based upon
the will of the people and a social contract between the state
and the people.

2. It seeks to establish a Union system founded upon seven
regions and seven states with a degree of self-administration for
each entity.

This  recognises; to some extent, the call for autonomy by the
various minorities. According to the text, "in regions or states,
self-administered areas are to be prescribed for national races
who reside together in common stretches of land" (such as-the
Kachin, Shan and Mon).

However, this statement avoids addressing the issue of the need
for multiethnic dialogue. The so called Union system also fails
to accommodate a number of important ethnic groups, such as the
Karen, and rejects any claim to secession by any group.

In view of Slorc's past tendency to negotiate with one ethnic
group while trying to isolate other ethnic groups - divide and 
rule - for political and military purposes its projected
commitment to self-administration is ambivalent and questionable
in practice.

3. It tries to prevent Suu Kyi from coming to power. The
various conditions set for whoever is to be the president of 
the Union are clearly an attempt to block Suu Kyi rise to the 
position as the head of the state. Slorc is playing on the fact 
that she had lived abroad before returning to the country and
that she is married to foreigner as factors precluding her from
the position of power. For example, the text stipulates the following; 

* The president of the Union shall be a person who has been
residing continuously in the country for at least 20 years up to 
the time of election.

* The president of the Union himself, the parents, spouse, 
children and their spouses shall not owe allegiance to a foreign 
power, shall not be subject to a foreign power or a citizen of 
a foreign country. They shall not be entiled to the rights and
privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign country. 

4. It re-enforces the power of Slorc via a so-called presidential
electoral college.

Slorc's position is further strengthened by a proposed
presidential electoral college with the power to elect the
president. This is largely military in composition, although the
semblance of elected representatives; is provided for in a
limited manner.

5. There remains the ensconced role of the military. 

Slorc's draft constitution is  certain not only to allow for
military participation in, selecting national leaders but also to
guarantee exercise of their might under the heading of national
security" and in the case of emergencies. It hardly needs to be
pointed out that the president will have to come from military
personnel and that the army will enjoy great independence in
administering all matters concerning the army.

6. There is no real protection of human rights.

The Slorc text of the new constitution provides no concrete
guarantees for the rights of persons and groups in Burma.   
Even if the final text does include some references to the notion
of rights, it is likely to be a watered down version. The
dilution is by the notion of obligations and duties on the part
of the inhabitants of Burma, as well as the broad vistas of
national security and other limits which the national law would
seek to impose on the exercise of rights.
     
The general public should, therefore, not be deluded by the form
and the substance of the Slorc-based constitution. Any attempt by
its National Convention to draft a new constitution for Burma is
not only illegitimate but also manipulative. Written prominently
between the lines is their intention to perpetuate their
iron-fisted, undemocratic rule.

Vitit Muntarbhorn is a professor at the Faculty of Law,
Chulalongkorn University. He is also the executive director of
Child Rights Asianet. This article is the first in a two-part series.

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

NYT: DESTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT IN  MYANMAR
July 30, 1996 (New York Times)

Constructive engagement in this case is not a policy, it is a dodge...Given
Asean's membership, which includes the authoritarian Governments of
Indonesia, Vietnam, Brunei and Singapore, the indifference to democracy is
not surprising.

   The Burmese dissident leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's quiet eloquence 
and courage have always spoken louder than her Government's attempts 
to silence  her. But last week that Government won a double victory over 
the dissident. Her voice, it seems, cannot be heard over the rustle of money.

   Earlier this month Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi called for international 
economic sanctions against  Myanmar,  formerly  Burma,  for the first time
In May the State Law and Order Restoration Council, or Slorc, as the 
Government is known, arrested 262 members of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi's 
party, and the arrests go on. The crackdown is business as usual for a regime 
that put Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for five years after her 
party won elections in 1990. The Slorc's brutality and opium trafficking 
have made  Myanmar  an outlaw state. 

    But Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi's courage has produced a collective 
international shrug. Last week  Myanmar  assumed observer status at 
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a step toward membership. 
An Asean forum endorsed a policy of constructive engagement, seeking to 
open the nation gradually through trade and investment.

   Constructive engagement in this case is not a policy, it is a dodge. Asian
investment in  Myanmar  is growing. Given Asean's membership, which 
includes the authoritarian Governments of Indonesia, Vietnam, Brunei and 
Singapore, the indifference to democracy is not surprising.

   The Slorc's second victory came in Washington when the Senate rejected a
pullout of American investment in  Myanmar  proposed by Mitch McConnell 
and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. After intensive lobbying by Unocal, the 
American company with the largest financial interests in  Myanmar,  the 
Senate approved a threat of sanctions that can be imposed by the President 
if there is further harassment of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters.

   The Clinton Administration, which had been showing promising rhetorical
gumption toward  Myanmar,  must insure that the Senate vote is not a dodge 
as well. Sanctions are not an all-purpose weapon, but President Clinton must 
use them forcefully here. The European Parliament has approved a non-
binding sanctions resolution. The big investors, Britain and France, are 
under increasing pressure to pull out.

   American investment in  Myanmar  over the last five years was $245 
million, mostly in oil and gas. Most projects are joint ventures with 
government or military companies. The biggest American project is Unocal's 
stake in a proposed gas pipeline, also financed by the Slorc.

   The Senate's willingness to bow before this minimal American investment 
shows the risks of constructive engagement. Instead of American engagement 
changing Burmese values and policies, the engagement seems to be affecting 
Washington. The United States has softened its policies toward an outlaw 
nation and let down a leader who deserves its full support.

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

NATION: LETTER-DEMOCRACY CALL
July 30, 1996

We, the leading members of Forum of Democratic Leaders in the
Asian Pacific (FDL-AP) from Bangladesh, Korea, Pakistan,
Philippines and Thailand who participated in the Bangkok
Preparatory Conference on July 28, stand together in solidarity
to voice our deep regret at the current conditions of the Burmese
people. We also condemn the "antidemocratic" practices which the
State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc) continues to employ.

We are concerned that Slorc's actions are creating further
instability in Burma. The regime seems to be heading toward a
possible confrontation with the democratic forces, similar to
that of 1988. In turn, these actions could jeopardise regional
stability which inevitably would have grave implications for
neighbouring countries.

We pray for a non-violent path to national democracy in Burma,
and the only way this can be accomplished is through dialogue
between the prodemocracy forces including the representatives of
the ethnic minorities and Slorc. We also urge Slorc to refrain
from obstructing initiatives by Aung San Suu Kyi to promote
national reconciliation via dialogue.

Echoing the statements of an Asean foreign minister, we believe
that Burma ought to be subject to a willingness to meet legal and
procedural requirements and must involve reaffirmation of the
common Asian ideals, specifically, participative democracy and
full respect for human rights. These are currently being negated
by Slorc, even though it was granted observer status.

Slorc's continued dominance is facilitated by economic assistance
and foreign investments. Foreign economic assistance, whatever
form, will only help preserve Slorc's control of power over the
Burmese people.

We implore all nations with investments in Burma to halt or
otherwise restrict their investments until a democratically
elected government has been established.

We call on all governments especially the United States of
America, European Union, Japan, and fellow Asian countries, to
strongly condemn the continued anti-democratic practice of Slorc,
and in this way help create powerful international pressure on
Slorc, aiming to establish national reconciliation in Burma
through genuine political dialogue.

With a view to achieving the awareness and assistance of the
international community an FDL-AP Manila conference on Burma will
be convened in November.

We declare our support for and extend our assistance to the
struggle of the Burmese people led by Suu Kyi and will do our
utmost to help democracy to be realised in Burma.

Dr Kamal Hossain [Bangladesh]
UTeddy Buri and Arthur Shwe [Burma]
Sonn Se-il, Dr Kim Sang-Woo, Kim Sei-ung [Korea]
Aitzaz Ahsan [Pakistan]
Raul Manglapus, Manuel Pena [Philippines]
Dr Gothom Arya [Thailand]

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

WASHINGTON POST: A GOOD START ON BURMA 
July 30, 1996
From: John Scherb <mcs@primenet.com>

THE SENATE voted for sanctions against the repressive  military regime 
of  Burma last week. The measure, while  not perfect, would put Congress 
clearly on the side of  Burma's long-suffering democrats; the House should  
support the sanctions in conference this week and send  them to President 
Clinton for his signature.

The situation in Burma enjoys the unfortunate distinction  of being free of 
any moral ambiguity: There is no  mistaking the good guys from the bad. 
Aung San Suu Kyi,  the Nobel Peace laureate, led her democratic party to  
victory in a 1990 election, attracting a phenomenal 82  percent of the 
vote. Burma's military regime refused to  transfer power, instead 
arresting Ms. Suu Kyi and jailing  hundreds of her supporters. Since then, 
the regime has  press-ganged 2 million Burmese into slave labor,  
according to Human Rights Watch/Asia. These shackled  workers act as 
porters and human cannon fodder for the  swollen Burmese military in its 
wars against ethnic  minorities and also help build the infrastructure to  
attract tourism and foreign investment.

The Senate-approved measure would codify an existing ban  on most 
foreign aid to Burma, instruct the U.S.  government to oppose any World 
Bank loans and bar entry  visas to Burmese officials. It encourages the 
United  States to promote a multilateral strategy for Burmese  democracy 
-- a less quixotic goal than many suppose,  given growing European 
sentiment for sanctions. And it  would impose a ban on further U.S. 
investment in Burma if  the military regime steps up its repression 
against Ms.  Suu Kyi or other leaders of the democratic opposition.

The measure misguidedly exempts antidrug money from  the ban on aid. 
Burma is the source of 60 percent of the  heroin imported into the United 
States, so it is  understandable that Congress would want to extend U.S.  
counternarcotics efforts to that Asian country. But all  available evidence 
suggests that the current military  regime has no interest in controlling 
the drug trade. Until  a democratic government takes its rightful place,  
funneling antidrug money to Burma only will strengthen  the regime.

Forty-five senators, ranging from conservative Republican  Jesse Helms 
to liberal Democrat Paul Wellstone, backed a  stronger measure calling for 
sanctions now. There is  indeed a danger that the approved compromise 
could lead  to an acceptance of the unacceptable status quo in Burma.  But 
the partial sanctions approved by the Senate may  deter the Burmese 
regime from more outrageous  repression as Ms. Suu Kyi seeks to 
promote a dialogue.

The Clinton administration argued for this compromise,  saying that 
flexibility in the law would help U.S.  diplomats enlist allies in the 
campaign for Burmese  democracy. The House now should join with the 
Senate and  give the administration a chance to make good on its  promise 
of  redoubled efforts.

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

STATEMENT: BURMA SANCTIONS 
July 30, 1996
From: simon_billenness@cybercom.net

It appears likely that the House/Senate appropriations conference committee
will take up the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (HR. 3540) today
Wednesday, July 31 at 2.30pm.

(If HR.3540 is not taken up by the conference committee today, the bill
will probably not be dealt with until September.)

HOUSE

Bob Livingston (R, Louisiana), Chair Appropriations Committee
David Obey (D, Wisconsin), Ranking Member Appropriations Committee

Foreign Operations Subcommittee Members

Sonny Callahan (R, Alabama), Chair
John Porter (R, Illinois) - HR.2892 co-sponsor!
Jim Lightfoot (R, Iowa)
Frank Wolf (R, Virginia)
Ron Packard (R, California)
Joseph Knollenberg (R, Michigan)
Michael Forbes (R, New York)
Jim Bunn (R, Oregon)

Charles Wilson (D, Texas)
Sidney Yates (D, Illinois)
Nancy Pelosi (D, California) - HR.2892 co-sponsor!
Esteban Edward Torres (D, California)

SENATE 

(A star indicates the Senator supported the McConnell Burma sanctions over
the weaker Cohen/Feinstein sanctions.)

Mark Hatfield* (R, Oregon), Chair Appropriations Committee
Robert Byrd* (D, West Virginia), Ranking Member Appropriations 
Committee

Foreign Operations Subcommittee Members

Mitch McConnell* (R, Kentucky), Chair 
Arlen Specter* (R, Pensylvania)
Connie Mack* (R, Florida)
Jim Jeffords* (R, Vermont)
Judd Gregg* (R, New Hampshire)
Richard Shelby* (R, Alabama)
Robert Bennett* (R, Utah)

Patrick Leahy* (D, Vermont)
Daniel Inouye (D, Hawaii)
Frank Lautenberg* (D, New Jersey)
Tom Harkin* (D, Iowa)
Barbara Mikulski (D, Maryland)
Patty Murray (D, Washington)

Call the Congressional Switchboard toll-free at: (800) 972-3524

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

NATION: BURMA'S MIDDLE CLASS LOVES SUU KYI BUT........
July 30, 1996

ON a recent Sunday afternoon, nearly 4,000 Rangoon residents
gathered to hear Aung San Suu Kyi, the charismatic leader of
Burma's democracy, preach freedom.

As she spoke, far more people scoured department stores for
bargains, chatted on mobile phones and cruised the streets of
Rangoon in new Japanese-made cars.

These are members of Burma's still small but growing middle
class. Some risked their lives for Suu Kyi's cause  eight
years ago. Now, they'd rather get rich.

"We all love her. But I don't know many who pray to the Lord
Buddha for democracy," said a white-collar worker, Than Aye. "We
pray for a decent life, peace and more money."

The generals who run Burma have quashed political opponents since
coming to power in 1988, when troops brutally put down a
pro-democracy uprising led by Suu Kyi. But they have also
loosened up economic matters.

For the two generations who lived under an isolationist, bankrupt
system known as the "Burmese Road to Socialism," the relatively
open door, liberal policy of the generals has uncorked a pent-up
pursuit of the good life.

How hard these generations would be willing to struggle and
sacrifice to wrest political freedom from the regime  which is
widely unpopular remains one of the key question marks over Burma.

Rangoon or Yangon as the Burmese call it  is a world apart from
the pre-1988 city.

Private businesses have proliferated, high-rises are beginning to
dwarf the moldering British colonial buildings and once virtually
empty streets are snarled by traffic  Jams.

Poverty remains and the gap between rich and poor grows but
there's more cash  around than in decades. Besides foreign
investment, some US$3 million has flowed in from Burmese abroad
and probably from narcotics traffickers too  since exchange
controls were loosened in early 1995.

While Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, spoke to the crowd
outside her home shoppers at the Yusana Department Store eyed
items that were the stuff of dreams a few years ago microwave
ovens and exercise machines, stuffed toy animals and Starr Ranch
apples from Washington State.
     
At the FMI mall, several "Yangon yuppies" strolled through
outlets like Hang Ten and Heart Rock, sporting sarongs and mobile
phones, using the local Yoma credit card.
     
On a suburban avenue, a big government billboard says: "Crush all
internal and external destructive elements."
Next to it is a bright sign for Macintosh computers: "It does
more. It costs less. It's that simple."

Western analysts say the middle class is fragmented and highly
centralised in Rangoon. Its richer members in the business sector
are often dependent on the military for contracts and permits. A
number are ethnic Chinese, traditionally looked upon with
animosity by the Burmese majority.

Many of Burma's best and brightest are exiles, including
thousands of students who fled the, 1988 repression. And the
chances of a well-educated middle class developing appear bleak.

As the generation educated during British rule and a period of
democracy before the 1962 military takeover passes, it is being
replaced by one poorly schooled and isolated from the outside world.

And future products of the system may be even worse: An estimated
65 percent to 75 percent of children who start kindergarten don't
even make it to the fifth grade.

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

BKK POST: JUNTA KEEPS KHUN SA IN BASE 
July 30, 1996

KHUN SA has been housed in a military base in Rangoon to prevent
him being captured and tried in the United States for heroin
trafficking, a senior member of the Mong Tai Army said yesterday.

The former heroin warlord, for whom Washington has posted a
50-million-baht reward, has been secured at the camp in which his
neighbours include Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt, Secretary 1 of the State
Law and Order Restoration Council.

Whenever Khun Sa, who capitulated to the SLORC in January, leaves
the camp, he does so with a group of Burmese colonels in a car
with tinted windows to prevent him being seen by local people and
foreigners, the source said.

The source in Khun Sa's former minority army said the security
ring the SLORC had thrown around him was damaging his jewellery
trade with Taiwanese merchants and logging business with Thai and
Taiwanese businessmen.

However, businesses run by Chao Cham Huang, his son, in Ho Mong,
including a 20-million-baht chopstick and toothpick plant, have
not been affected, he added. 

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

S.H.A.N : SHAN STATE UPDATE NEWS
July 30, 1996
from: "shan<h.ng.p  spm" <100706.1311@compuserve.com>

REBELS SHOOT CIVILIAN BUS

On 5.7.96, a group of rebels held up a mini bus that carried over 30 
people near Nyorng Thork, between Parng Pao ( between Murng Nai - 
Larng Khur ) and Wan He ( 4 miles east of Murng Nai ). It was a regular 
bus that run between Larng Khur - Taunggyi. The bus did not stop, and 
drove quickly away. But it met another group not very far away that shot 
at it, killing 5 civilian passengers.

Not very long after that incident, Burmese troops from Murng Nai came 
to search the area and were ambushed by the rebels. Three Burmese soldiers 
died. The identity of the rebels was unknown.

SITUATION AT THE BORDER - VILLAGE OF AI LONG

On 01.07.96, more than 60 troops of SLORC no. 331 came to Ai Long 
village, a former MTA village hat had surrended, Loi Taw Kham village 
tract, Tachilek township. The soldiers behaved properly towards the 
villagers and left early the next morning for Ae Ti militia camp after 
spending a night at the village.

And on 02.07.96, a group of over 60 troops of no. 526 came and alleged 
the villagers of Wan Ai Long of harbouring MTA soldiers who have not 
surrendered, and ransacked every house in the village. They shouted at the 
villagers and beat the village headman Ar Nyu ( an Akha ), age 69, breaking 
two of his teeth and making him lose consciousness for a long while.

They shot and took all the live-stock and looted all the shops and burned 
down two houses, causing 20 households of  villagers to flee to Thailand.
 
It is said that on 05.07.96, the Burmese troops brought in porters from 
other villages to carry all the properties in Wan Ai Long to the militia camp 
at Ae Ti village. Wan Ai Long was to be left deserted, and they posted their 
agents to secretly watch the place, with duty to report to the militia camp if

they saw someone came to the village.

At " Wat Loi Taw Kham ", a Buddhist temple at Wan Ai Long, only one 
large Buddha image that was too heavy to carry was left. Some villagers 
ironically commented that it was lucky the troops had not burned the 
temple, or their Buddha would have to bear the rain for the rest of the 
season.

It was fortunate for the displaced villagers to received help - blankets,
clothes, rice, pots and pans etc. - from some kind-hearted NGOs', especially 
the BRC. Otherwise, how hard the life of these displaced people of Shan 
State might have been.

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

LETTER: BURMA AS THE NEW BOSNIA
July 28,1996 (reposted)
From: <strider@igc.apc.org>
by Aiontay,  mbiddle@uoknor.edu in igc:soc.cult.burma */

I normally do not post messages to this newsgroup, but recently I have 
read several articles that I feel require some sort of response.  It all 
began with the former Prime Minister of Singapore stating that only the 
Burmese military was able to unify the country. Recently, Thai officials 
said they were afraid that if the military lost control, Burma would 
disinigrate into another Bosnia.  In addition, if SLORC collasped, China 
and India would carve up Burma.  It would be easy to dismiss these 
comments as special pleading by leaders of countries with strong business 
ties with Burma's military junta, but appears that this may become the 
"official" ASEAN line to justify its policy with regards to Burma.  
Consequently, I feel a rebuttal of this line of reasoning is in order.

To begin with, it would be more accurate that say that Bosnia has become 
another Burma.  It is laughable to see Thai and Singaporean leaders to 
concerned with a possible ethnic conflict in Burma when the fact is that 
there has been a civil war in Burma since 1948, well before the Bosnian 
civil war.  One wonders why the Thais in particular are suddenly so 
concerned since they have aided many of the ethnic insurgents over the 
years.

Of course, the main issue here is not the historical accuracy of the 
analogy, but the underlying assumption that the Tatmadaw is the only 
unifying force in Burma and that if SLORC is replaced by democracy the 
country will slide into chaos.  However, this assumption is also flawed. 
As Maritn Smith pointed out, following the 1962 military coup, the pace 
and scope of insurgency increased rather than decreased.  The current 
uneasy peace that prevails in Burma is due to the fact that the Tatmadaw 
has finally been able to win the military struggle against its opponents, 
but it still has not been able to politically unify the country.

In fact, I would argue that SLORC's continued control of the country 
depends on creating disunity and divisions within the country.  Despite 
its proganda about the "Non-disengration of the Union", SLORC has in fact 
done everything possible to encourage the balkanization of the country.  
I base this observation on policies that SLORC has embarked upon since 
its illegal seizure of power.

The most obvious example is the ceasefire agreements with the various 
insurgent groups.  SLORC has refused to negoiate with any umbrella 
organizations thereby splitting the opposition.  In addition, these 
ceasefire agreements simply write off large chunks of territory from 
central government control.  For instance, I have been told that in the 
territory controlled by the Wa, the kyat is not accepted.  Instead people 
use Chinese yuan or British colonial silver currency.  Allowing a foreign 
currency to replace the local curency is strange behavior for a regime 
that is dedicated to preserving national unity.  Furthermore, in 
assigning territory to the insurgents, SLORC has created ethnic tensions. 
SLORC has given the Kokang insurgents control of a Kachin-majority area 
outside of Kokang.  In addition, SLORC has given territory in the Mong 
Hsu ruby mines to different ceasefire groups.  While this might be 
viewed as a case of sharing wealth, in actual practice it puts the former 
insurgents in economic conflict and encourages them to think of their own 
economic interest rather than national unity.

SLORC also seems to be fomenting internal conflicts by allowing a large 
influx of immigrants from China.  Almost all the Burmese I have talked to 
in Thailand, the US or Burma have commented on this influx and deeply 
resent it.  Although this phenomenon has been widely commented on, it 
does not seem to have been analyzed in great detail.  In my own opinion, 
this influx only makes sense as a policy of SLORC's to provide a 
scapegoat in the future.  Despite the fact that Burma is rich in natural 
resources, the scale of the Chinese influx makes no sense economically.  
China's economy is much better than Burma's.  In almost all cases, people 
move to a better economy rather than a poor one.  There are undoubtably 
numerous economic opportunities in Mexico, but very few US citizens are 
crossing the Mexican border illegally.  Unless there were special 
incentives, I suspect that Chinese in Yunnan would try their luck in 
Shanghai rather than Mandalay.  In the Kachin State, non-Han minorities 
from Yunnan have also been encouraged to move to Burma.  Lisus who have 
been displaced by dam projects in Yunnan have been settled around 
Myitkyina with help from both the Chinese and Burmese government.  These 
new immgrants are loyal to SLORC and have been in conflict with the local 
population, even with some of the local Lisus.  Undoubtedly, this is what 
SLORC wants since these local conflicts increase disunity among the 
people and deflect anger from the military.

If I may digress a bit at this point, let me also suggest that ASEAN's 
attempts to counter Chinese influence in Burma by means of "constructive 
engagement" is also flawed.  The simple fact is that SLORC rules by means 
 of the gun.  Since China supplies SLORC with guns, China has the 
ultimate influnce over SLORC's behavior. Unless someone else is willing 
to supply guns to the brutal regime in Rangoon, no amount of investment 
by ASEAN or Western countries will change SLORC, nor will it weaken 
China's influence.  If it has to choose between increased investment or 
guns, SLORC will choose guns. It is simply a matter of survival.  
Consequently, as long as the military controls Burma, China will continue 
to "carve up" the country as the ASEAN countries fear.  China's control 
over SLORC was clearly recognized by a Burmese acquaintence of mine in 
Rangoon who jokingly referred to SLORC as the "Chinese government" or the 
"Sino-Burmese" government.

If anyone still doubts that SLORC continued control of the country 
depends on divisiveness, they should consider the persecution of the 
Rohingyas in 1992 or the SLORC-aided KNU/DBKA split.  SLORC must 
continue  to foment conflict between ethnic and religious groups in Burma  
in order  to stay in power.  If everyone else in the country is divided, then 
the unified military, aided by its access to outside funds and political 
support, is the strongest force in the country.

Actually the Bosnia anology might be appropriate.  As I understand it, 
the conflict in Bosnia was caused by power-hungry, self-serving men who 
incited ethnic and religious conflict as a way of increasing their own 
power.  The outside world failed to react early to disastrous policies of 
these individuals and in some cases actually aided them.  By the time 
anyone attempted to stop the carnage, it was too late.  Those that truly 
wise to avoid a repeat of Bosnia in Burma should do everything possible 
to support the democratic forces in Burma rathter than support the 
military that is sowing the seeds of discord.

I would welcome any response, comments or corrections to this piece.  
However, I am using a friends computer and email account, so please be 
sure to indicate that the response is for Aiontay, not Matt Biddle.
 
********************************************************

BURMANET SUBJECT-MATTER RESOURCE LIST

BurmaNet regularly receives enquiries on a number of different 
topics related to Burma. If you have questions on any of the 
following subjects, please direct email to the following volunteer 
coordinators, who will either answer your question or try to put you 
in contact with someone who can:

Campus activism:        zni@students.wisc.edu
Boycott campaigns: [Pepsi] ai268@freenet.carleton.ca     
Buddhism:                    Buddhist Relief Mission:  brelief@gol.com
Chin history/culture:        [volunteer temporarily away]
Fonts:                                  tom@cs.colgate.edu
High School Activism:     nculwell@facstaff.wisc.edu
History of Burma:            zni@students.wisc.edu
International Affairs:   Julien Moe: JulienMoe@aol.com
Kachin history/culture:      74750.1267@compuserve.com 
Karen history/culture:  Karen Historical Society: 102113.2571@Compuserve.com
Mon history/culture:         [volunteer needed]
Naga history/culture:   Wungram Shishak:  z954001@oats.farm.niu.edu
Burma-India border            [volunteer needed]
Pali literature:                 "Palmleaf":  c/o burmanet@igc.apc.org
Resettlement info:      an400642@anon.penet.fi 
Rohingya culture                volunteer needed
Shan history/culture:   Sao Hpa Han: burma@ix.netcom.com
Shareholder activism:       simon_billenness@mail.cybercom.net 
Total/Pipeline          Dawn Star: cd@utopia.EUnet.fr  
Tourism campaigns:              bagp@gn.apc.org     "Attn. S.Sutcliffe"   
volunteering:           refugee_help@mail.serve.com
World Wide Web:              FreeBurma@POBox.com

[Feel free to suggest more areas of coverage]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BurmaNet News is an electronic newspaper covering Burma.
Articles from newspapers, magazines, newsletters, the wire
services and the Internet as well as original material are published.   
It is produced with the support of the Burma Information Group 
(B.I.G) and the Research Department of the ABSDF {MTZ}              

The BurmaNet News is e-mailed directly to subscribers and is
also distributed via the soc.culture.burma and seasia-l
mailing lists. For a free subscription to the BurmaNet News, send 
an e-mail message to: majordomo@igc.apc.org   

For the BurmaNet News only: in the body of the message, type 
"subscribe burmanews-l" (without quotation marks).   
For the BurmaNet News and 4-5 other messages a day posted on Burma 
issues, type "subscribe burmanet-l"

Letters to the editor, comments or contributions of articles should be 
sent to the editor at: strider@igc.apc.org

