-------------------------- 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 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 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: 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