------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------ "Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies" ---------------------------------------------------------- The BurmaNet News: December 31, 1996 Issue #602 HEADLINES: ========== KNU: SHOOTOUT AT HWAY K'LOKE REFUGEE CAMP NATION: BETTER CHINA-RUSSIA TIES IS BOON FOR ASEAN BKK POST: GOVERNMENT STRUGGLES TO MAINTAIN CONTROL NATION: SLORC AGAIN BLAMED FOR BOMB BLASTS JAPAN TIMES: ASEAN CAN HELP MYANMAR START ANEW GERMAN BUNDESTAG: PRINTED PAPER 13/6375 BURMA BUREAU-GERMANY: APPEAL FOR ECON/TOURISM BOYCOTT INDEPENDENT REPORT: 1996 BURMA SELECTIVE PURCHASING FLINT JOURNAL: LETTER TO THE EDITOR - RE: HARD CHOICES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- KNU: SHOOTOUT AT HWAY K'LOKE REFUGEE CAMP December 30, 1996 From: so_nou@sala.icn.net (So Nou) On December 28,1996, at about 8:00 pm, three DKBA soldiers entered Hway K'loke refugee camp (near Mae Sot) ,shot and killed Myint Naing, one of the Camp leaders and took some money, gold necklaces and earrings they found in the house. On the way back they quarreled among themselves, shot and killed Ne Win, the leader of the group and who was the uncle of DKBA leader Chit Thu. His body was found just outside the camp, together with a .38 pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition. KNU Information Center ***************************************************************** NATION: BETTER CHINA-RUSSIA TIES IS BOON FOR ASEAN December 30, 1996 (abridged) Kavi Chongkittavorn Closer China-Russia relations will have far-reaching implications on the region, which to date has largely depended on the goodwill of the United States for its security. Against this background, Asean will also enjoy more leverage in its relations with all major powers in both global and regional contexts. China and Russia have strengthened ties with India and have moved closer to the countries of Southeast Asia. Together as new dialogue partners, China and Russia have direct access to the hearts and minds of Asean's leaders. They can also shape the agenda of Asean discussions with the Western dialogue partners. Asean used to treat both powers with contempt. While China is still a much feared neighbour, growing political dialogue and increased economic cooperation with As an has had an immediate affect in building up the necessary mutual confidence for deepening the relationship. Although it will take a while for Russia to recover from its domestic political and economic troubles, Asean feels that Moscow still carries considerable clout. And after all, Asean needs a credible counterbalancing force vis-a-vis the US. Closer ties with China would help Russia integrate with Asean in the long-run. Before they were accorded dialogue partner status, the two competed for the attention of Asean, which has a tradition of favouring Beijing. With common positions on non-security issues such as international economic, social and cultural areas Asean can work with China and Russia over sensitive topics such as human rights and democracy. The two states are unlikely to rub the feathers of Asean the wrong way in this area. Judging from the Asean leaders' united stand on Burma and Singapore's reaction to the US State Department's comment on its elections, this diversionary debate on Asian values versus Western values will not go away. Given their long suspicion of the West - China on human rights and Russia on security, Asean could find both powers as strategic partners in international and regional forums. Since 1991, for instance, Asean has seldomly quarrelled with these two members of the UN Security Council in the General Assembly. They have proved to be great allies supporting various Asean activities including the Asean effort to water down the recent UN resolution on Burma. Within regional frameworks such as the Asean Regional Forum or Asean's Post Ministerial Meetings, Beijing and Moscow have shared similar views. For instance, in confidence building measures, the two were supportive of A an's middle-of-the-road approach. The most notable difference between the two, is the Russian attitude towards security in the region. In the past few years, Moscow has been an enthusiastic supporter of the overall scheme of things in Asean. Moscow was the first major power to express a desire to accede to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and the Treaty of Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone and has already put forward several security-related proposals in the ARF meetings that could permit Russia to be part of the new regional order in the making. Unlike China, Russia at the moment does not have any perceived security threats in Southeast Asia. With the settlement of the Cambodian conflict, Moscow has been able to focus its attention on the region and highlight its role as a counterweight to the power of the US. Continuation of such a trend enables Asean to play a valuable security role in the broader Asia-Pacific. The most challenging task for Asean is to balance the views and postures of the major powers with the US and Japan on one side and China and Russia on the other so that its interests will not be harmed. ***************************************************************** BKK POST: GOVERNMENT STRUGGLES TO MAINTAIN CONTROL December 30, 1996 Bangkok, AFP The appearance of tanks in downtown Rangoon in the aftermath of student street protests capped a turbulent year in which Burma's ruling junta struggled to keep the lid on a resurgent opposition. Burma's political arena had not seen so much activity since a military crackdown followed the landslide victory of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) in the general elections of 1991. With Aung San Suu Kyi firmly at the helm again following her release from six years of house arrest in July 1995, the NLD began reasserting itself in the face of constant harassment from the military authorities. "The National League for Democracy has become stronger and more active than it has been for years," Aung San Suu Kyi told AFP in an interview in July. But she added: "Everyone in the NLD is prepared for arrest ... anyone in Burma can be arrested at any time." Hundreds of NLD activists were arrested in 1996 across the country. Most were released, but dozens were also sentenced to heavy prison terms. Repeated crackdowns were roundly condemned internationally, and Burma once again took its place among the globe's pariah nations, under constant threat of sanctions from the United States and the European Union. It was a year as United States secretary-of-state nominee, Madeleine Albright, said of "rolling repression" on the part of Burma's military, characterised by "crackdowns and episodes of intimidation and violence." While the junta used its secretive courts to jail NLD activists, Aung San Suu Kyi also accused it of resorting to mob rule and using "brown shirts" from a state-sponsored mass movement to physically intimidate her supporters. As the opposition and the military squared off against each other, ever larger and more daring crowds were turning out for rallies in front of Aung San Suu Kyi's house on weekends despite the threat of arrest. The crowds swelled to record numbers in early June in support of Aung San Suu Kyi after more than 260 NLD activists were rounded up by the authorities in a bid to scuttle a key pro-democracy meeting. "If the democracy sorceress and her gangsters succeed in their bid ... all peaceful and social life of the people would be spoiled," the official English-language New Light of Myanmar said about the detentions. A second NLD party congress in late September predictably brought a new wave of detentions 500 according to the government and up to 800 by the NLD's count and the shutting down of the weekend rallies. While the junta defiantly thumbed its nose at international opinion, Western companies began streaming out of the country. In April, US soft drink giant Pepsi sold off its holdings in Burma, bowing to the demands of a consumer boycott movement in the United States a lead which was later followed by Apple Computers. European companies investing in Burma also faced the wrath of consumer groups at home after the death in June of Leo Nichols, a close friend of Aung San Suu Kyi and de facto honorary consul for four European countries. Mr Nichols' death, soon after starting a lengthy prison term for illegal possession of a fax and telephone, stirred public opinion an prompted pullouts from leadin European brewers Heineken and Carlsberg. Although many Asian companie poured resources into the country unfazed, the loss of major Western companies was a serious blow to economic confidence. By October, even members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) were muttering that the junta's treatment of the opposition was excessive and suggested Rangoon's entry into the group might be premature. However, those misgivings were shelved in November when ASEAN decided at a ministerial meeting in Jakarta that Burma would be admitted as a full member along with Cambodia and Laos although a date was not set. While ASEAN gave Burma the thumbs up, ominous rumblings were being felt in Rangoon before students took to the streets in December for some of the largest protests since pro-democracy demonstrations were crushed in 1988. Although the protesters denied any connection with Aung San Suu Kyi, the military authorities accused the opposition of fomenting unrest and kept the Nobel Peace Prize laureate confined to her compound for several days. With tanks installed in downtown Rangoon to deter further unrest and Aung San Suu Kyi refusing to bow to the authorities, relations between the opposition and government looked set for another rocky year in 1997. ***************************************************************** NATION: SLORC AGAIN BLAMED FOR BOMB BLASTS December 30, 1996 AFP BURMA'S government-in-exile" has been blamed the country's ruling military junta for the Christmas Day bombing of a pagoda in Rangoon that killed five people. The National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, said in a statement that the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc) was behind the explosions at the Kaba Aye pagoda. "Slorc has a long history of using political tricks, like exploding bombs itself, when faced with strong pressure internally and externally," it said. "SIorc probably had intended to use this incident to forge better relations with the Chinese government ... and to use the incident as an excuse to annihilate internal opposition by force." Five people were killed and 17 injured in the blast at the pagoda, where pilgrims had gathered to see a relic of Buddha on loan from China. The junta has accused a dissident students' group and ethnic Karen insurgents of involvement in the blast. Both groups have denied responsibility saying the junta had a history implicating democratic opposition groups in terrorist acts for the purposes of discrediting them. Meanwhile, Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi left her home yesterday accompanied by senior figures from her party to attend a ceremony at a temple in Rangoon, military intelligence sources said. A source confirmed that she had attended a wedding yesterday morning and she later visited a museum dedicated to her late father, Burmese independence hero Gen Aung San. Suu Kyi has been confined to her house for most of this month, following some of the most defiant street protests since 1988, by students demonstrating for a union and the release of detainees. On Friday she made her first trip outside in three weeks to visit the shrine of her late mother. **************************************************** JAPAN TIMES: ASEAN CAN HELP MYANMAR START ANEW December 28, 1996 By Lee Kim Chew From: Carol Schlenker & Aung Thu (reprinted from The Straits Times) Long on a slow boil, Myanmar's simmering political discontent has finally bubbled to the surface with the recent street protests as a harbinger of things to come. It was the first time since the violent suppression of a nationwide uprising in 1988 that students had come out defiantly into the open in anti-government demonstrations. This is a sure sign of more civil unrest in the days ahead. Tanks and troops have to be put on the streets to maintain public order. This does not say much for the popularity of a regime which insists that it alone has the right to rule the country. Mercifully, the generals feel constrained, for now at least. They broke up the demonstrations with water cannon, but this only because the world is watching. How tolerant can the regime be when it feels mortally threatened by a restive people yearning for change? The political temperature has risen steadily since the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was prevented from holding its party convention in May. The generals have lately been blocking her from making speeches in front of her house, a highly popular rallying point for her supporters since her release from house arrest in July last year. Deprived of the only safety valve in the country to let off steam for political dissent, the students and NLD supporters are forced to seek other outlets. Hence the unrest in the university campuses and street demonstrations. The stalemate cannot hold much longer. With the political mood souring, what can Asean countries do to help Myanmar? Constructive engagement can take the form of quiet diplomacy not only to restrain the generals from violence against their own people but also to prod them into starting serious talks with Ms Aung San Suu Kyi. This ought to be done urgently, notwithstanding Asean's principle of non-interference in each other's internal affairs, or Myanmar will slide inexorably down the road to perdition. For a grouping which wants to welcome Myanmar as a member, this is something it should do as a friendly neighbour. Asean is well-placed to persuade the generals that there is a strong case to be made for political reconciliation. This can be done, not in the full blaze of publicity but through diplomatic channels. Just as Asean had played a key role in ending the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, it will enhance its international stature if it can get the generals to talk to NLD leaders who won the 1990 elections. These generals, who have few friends other than Asean and China, should seize the opportunity to start anew. Unless this is done, it is not hard to picture a doomsday scenario for Myanmar. The United Nations General Assembly has just adopted a resolution urging the regime to give Myanmar citizens more political freedom and end its repressive policies. This year has seen more American companies pulling out of Myanmar to avoid consumer boycotts in the US, where several states have passed legislation to impose sanctions against those doing business with the regime. The incoming US Secretary of State, Ms Madeleine Albright, is a combative grandmother with an instinctive dislike for wayward regimes, and she is likely to push a much tougher line against the generals than her predecessor. This can only create more tension between Asean and the US, not to speak of the Europeans, about the grouping's growing ties with the military regime. The solution to Myanmar's political impasse is in the hands of the generals. They need to be convinced that, ultimately, their survival and the country's redemption depend not on suppression but a compromise with the NLD's pro-democracy leaders. To be sure, Ms Aung San Suu Kyi is also subject to increasing pressure from her supporters to come out more forcefully against the regime. The goodwill which was generated by her release from house arrest has long dissipated, largely because the calls for political dialogue have gone unheeded. The generals cannot wish her away any more than she can do without them as part of the equation. The reality is that she cannot deny the military a political role, even in a civilian-led government. This much she must acknowledge publicly and make it clear to her supporters. Such a declaration will go some way to reassure the generals, make them less hostile towards her and thus open the way for a deal. The solution to Myanmar's political impasse is in the hands of the generals. They need to be convinced that, ultimately, their survival and the country's redemption depend not on suppression but a compromise with the NLD's pro-democracy leaders. *********************************************** GERMAN BUNDESTAG: PRINTED PAPER 13/6375 13th. electoral term December 30, 1996 From: Nwe Aung <101564.2652@CompuServe.COM> Minor interpellation submitted by Members of the Bundestag Halo Saibold, Angelika Koester-Lossack, Wolfgang Schmitt and the parliamentary group of ALLIANCE 90 / THE GREENS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN BURMA TO BUILD UP A TOURIST INFRASTRUCTURE On 18 November 1996 the Burmese military leaders officially launched their year of tourism. With the advertising campaign "Visit Myanmar Year 96" the generals want to attract 500,000 tourists to Burma ("Myanmar" is the name for Burma introduced by the generals) in order to replenish the coffers of the state, emptied by the war against the Burmese population, with tourist dollars and to improve their international standing. The military government has committed massive violations of human rights to set up and extend the tourist infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly resettled in the run-up to the year of tourism to make room for new hotels and shopping areas. Women, men, old people and children are being forced to build roads, railway lines and airports and restore tourist attractions. Opening up the country to foreign tourists and investors is not synonymous with a political opening of the country itself. Ethnic minorities continue to be oppressed by the military junta, entire villages forcibly resettled within the framework of "ethnic cleansing", and members of various ethnic groups exhibited as tourist attractions in "human zoos". Burma's pro-democracy movement is being forcibly suppressed by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), which came to power as a result of a putsch in 1988. As recently as late September1996 hundreds of members of the opposition were arrested again and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi severely restricted in her freedom of expression and movement. The openng up of Burma to tourism will bring in revenue which will not, however, benefit the impoverished population but Burma's rulers and foreign investors. On several occasions tourists who wanted to visit the opposition lesder have been refused a visa by the Burmese rulers. At the end of September three tourists who wanted to listen to an address by Aung San Suu Kyi were arrested. Under these conditions tourism does not help promote democratization and enforcement of human rights. The Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has appealed to the international community and to all tourists not to visit Burma at the moment, since it is in her view wrong to support the policy of the military government. The opposition leader has recently urged the European Union to impose rigorous economic sanctions on the military rulers. The European Union and the USA have imposed sanctions on the military rulers in Burma. Representatives of the Burmese junta may, for instance, no longer travel to the USA or the European Union. Large international concerns, such as the Dutch brewery Heineken or the Danish company Carlsberg have broken off their business relations with Burma - under thepressure of boycott threats (TN: Carlsberg cuts Burma plan of 26.6.96). A specialist group from the Swiss Travel Agents' Association has recommended its own industry not to promote Burma at the moment (Working Group on Tourism and Development of 5.11.96, inter alia). British tour operators have announced that, given the human rights violations in Burma, they would not offer any trips there (The Times, 6.6.96; News Release of Tourism Concern London, 7.5.96). On 5 November 1996 the Swiss Working Group on Tourism and Development, together with the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Associations (IUF), advised against offering or making trips to Burma. Regardless of the international protest and sanctions, German operators will offer trips to Burma: the CONDOR airline is already offering flights to Burma, the tour operator NECKERMANN Reisen (NUR-Touristic) has announced that it will include Burma in its programme by winter 1996 (Frankfurter Rundschau of 7.9.96). We put the following questions to the Federal Government: 1. As far as the Federal Government knows, are there any other German tour operators who are currently offering trips to Burma or intend to offer trips to Burma in the next few months? If so, which operators are they? 2. As far as the Federal Government knows, has the German travel industry made any recommendation, comparable to that of the Swiss tourist industry, that Burma should not be promoted under the current political conditions? 3. In the view of the Federal Government, is it responsible for German travel companies to offer trips to Burma despite the continuing human rights violations there? 4. What is the Federal Government's response, in view of the conditions in Burma described above, to the conduct of German tour operators (such as CONDOR and NECKERMANN) who are currently offering trips to Burma? 5. In what way is the Federal Government influencing the travel industry not to include any trips to Burma in its catalogues on account of the human rights violations in Burma? 6. Is the Federal Government using the talks with the tourist industry, within the framework of the dialogue with this branch of industry and the Advisory Council to the Federal Ministry of Economics on Tourism, in order to draw its attention to the precarious political situation in Burma and to influence it not to offer any trips to Burma at the moment? If not, why not? 7. Given the political situation in Burma, will the Federal Government recommend holiday-makers not to travel to Burma at present? If not, why not? 8. Did the Federal Government approve Burma's admission to the World Tourism Organisation in 1995? If so, why did it do so, although the human rights violations in connection with the establishment of the tourist infrastructure were already known in 1995? 9. Will the Federal Government actively advocate Burma's exclusion from the World Tourism Organisation in view of the continuing human rights violations? If not, why not? 10. What political and economic sanctions has the Federal Government already imposed on the military rulers in Burma to bring about democratisation and an end to the human rights violations? 11. Is the Federal Government planning to impose political and economic sanctions on the military rulers in Burma to bring about democratization and an end to the human rights violations? 12. Has the Federal Government imposed sanctions on Burma comparable to those imposed by the USA and the European Union? 13. Will the Federal Government actively advocate, within the European Union, the imposition of rigorous economic sanctions on Burma, as demanded by opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi? If not, why not? 14. Is the Federal Government actively advocating that, on account of its human rights violations, Burma be denied the favourable European Union import duties granted under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)? If not, why not? 15. As far as the Federal Government knows, which German companies currently maintain business relations with Burma? 16. What projects are currently being carried out by German companies in Burma? 17. Is the Federal Government actively advocating that these companies break off their business with Burma, as the Dutch brewery Heineken and the Danish company Carlberg have done? If not, why not? 18. Is the Federal Government currently promoting tourism-related projects in Burma? If so, what projects? 19. Are tourism-related projects in Burma being promoted by national institutions (e.g. Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit, Development Loan Corporation, German Finance Company for Investments in Developing Countries) or multilateral institutions (e.g. World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Asian Development Fund) in which the Federal Government is financially involved? If so, what projects are being promoted? 20. Will the Federal Government impose rigorous economic sanctions on the military government in Burma, as recently demanded by the Burmese opposition leader? If not, why not? 21 Is the Federal Republic aware of any diplomatic difficulties which the new Burmese Ambassador in Bonn, Mr. Tun Ngwe, had during his diplomatic activities in Japan in 1990? (Asian News of 9.2.90 and 15.2.90)? If so, what is the response of the Federal Government? 22. What is the response of the Federal Government to cooperation between the SLORC government and drugs barons, such as Khun Sa (Robert S. Gelbard: FEER: SLORC's drugs Links of 21.11.96 and Burma ALERT, Volume 7, No. 3, March 1996)? 23. What is the Federal Government's position on recognition of the elected government of Burma, the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), which is currently in exile? 24. Are there any contacts with the military government in Burma at the diplomatic level? If so, what form do these diplomatic relations take? 25. What diplomatic activities is the Federal Government engaging in so as to strengthen the Burmese democratic opposition and improve the human rights situation? Bonn, 26 November 1996 Reproduced by the Burma Bureau, Germany. *********************************************************** BURMA BUREAU-GERMANY: APPEAL FOR ECONOMIC AND TOURISM BOYCOTT IN BURMA December 27, 1996 From: Nwe Aung <101564.2652@CompuServe.COM> BURMA BUREAU Cologne, Germany c/o Horst Reiter Postfach 6766, 48036 Muenster, Germany Tel.: +49-251-34095 Fax : +49-25136092 Press release, 9th. Dec. 1996 Cologne, Germmany AN APPEAL FOR ECONOMIC AND TOURISM BOYCOTT IN BURMA (MYANMAR) In a common appeal to more than 600 firms & companies, we call upon those who hold responsible positions in the German Economy to join, with their enterprises, to an impressive chain of manifestations of solidarity and terminate all economic cooperations or projected business relations with the military rulers of Burma. We appeal furthermore to all holiday-makers who plan to travel to Burma: "Postpone your trip to Burma till democracy prevails there and the people are freed from oppression". We also call upon the Federal Government of Germany to support the economic and tourism boycott with sanctions and other appropriate measures. Burma is a country in Southeast Asia where peoples of many cultural traditions live together. Ethnic minorities make up a third of the total population. Because the ruling generals refuse the minorities the right of self administration in their own areas, a civil war has been raging for more than 40 years. Since 1988 the country is being tyrannized and oppressed by an illegal military regime SLORC (The State Law and Order Restoration Council), which denies the freedom of expression, the freedom of press, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association to the people. Thousands of political prisoners laguish under most miserable conditions in prisons. They are intimidated, harassed and sentenced or tortured at will. Hundreds of thousands were driven to take flight to the border areas along Thailand, Laos, China, India and Banglasdesh and are destined just about to subsist under destitute conditions in refugee camps. With a view if exploiting the lucrative tourist business as a means for incomes to consolidate their power, the military regime has declared the year 1996 to be 'The Visit Burma Year'. To facilitate tourism, historico-cultural sites are restored and revamped to shine in their former splendour. And for the convenience of foreign visitors, all necerssary infrastructures - roads, railway lines, bridges, air ports, hotels, holiday resorts - are restored or newly constructed. But all this is done by subjecting the populace to forced labour and forced relocation of villages and communities in favour of making room for tourists. AN ENGAGEMENT OR A VISIT AT THIS JUNCTURE MEANS A FALSE SIGNAL for the Burmese people and the democracy movement at home and abroad, because at this moment it is the military which gains most from the investments and tourism. The profits flow into their pockets and serve to maintain a vast military and security apparatus. Anyone who maintains that a change would be only brought about by trade willingly or unwillingly accepts the consolidation of oppression in Burma for years to come. And those experts who express doubts on the efficacy of an economic and tourism boycot overlook the moral effect of such steps. The movement for democracy in Burma, with Peace Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi at its head, needs our solidarity now. Please support our appeal with your solidarity. This appeal is supported by: ARA Arbeitsgemeinschaft Regenwald und Artenschutz e.V., Bielefeld; Arbeitskreis Tourismus und Entwicklung, Basel; Aung San Suu Kyi Liberte, Germany; Bund der Deutschen Katholischen Jugend (BDKJ), Bundesvorstand, Duesseldorf; Burma Bureau e.V., Cologne; Burma Kreis Muenster, Muenster (Westf.); Burma Stutzpunkt Frankfurt, Frankfurt a. M.; Burma Youth Volunteer Association, Remsfeld; Chin National Council (Europe), Hamburg; Committee for Restoration of Democracy in Burma, Deutschland; Deutsch-Burmesische Gesellschaft, e.V., Bruchsal; Europaeisch-Burmesische Gesellschaft e.V., Hamburg; Karen National Union, Vertretung Deutschland; Netzwerk engagierten Buddhisten, Berlin; Rettet den Regenwald, Hamburg; Suedostasien Informationsstelle (SOAIS), Essen; Tourism Watch, Leinfelden-Echterdingen ***************************************************************** INDEPENDENT REPORT: 1996 BURMA SELECTIVE PURCHASING/COMPANY WITHDRAWALS ROUND-UP December 27, 1996 From: simon_billenness@cybercom.net (Simon Billenness) Note from Simon (abridged): Over the course of the year, six cities, one county and one state enacted Burma selective purchasing laws - a huge increase over the three cities that passed similar laws in 1995. More importantly, the scope of these laws dramatically increased as larger cities - such as San Francisco - and the State of Massachusetts added billions of dollars of purchasing power to the Burma boycotts. Sources say that, since the passage of the Oakland, San Francisco and Massachusetts laws in mid-1996, several Japanese companies have dramatically scaled back plans to invest in light manufacturing facilities in Burma. Such facilities would have used cheap Burmese labor to manufacture goods for export to Europe and North America. However, with the increasing political unrest and economic mismanagement in Burma, the impending threat of economic sanctions and trade restrictions by the US and Europe, and the growing boycotts by consumers and cities, Japanese investors do not believe that there will be markets for Burmese-made goods in Europe and North America. If trends continue, by the end of 1997 we may well witness a doubling of local Burma selective purchasing laws, including the spread of the tactic to cities outside the United States. These laws will cause more companies to exit while building political pressure at the grassroots level for economic sanctions at the national and international level. ---------------------------------------------------- LOCALITIES WITH BURMA SELECTIVE PURCHASING LAWS Date Passed/Signed STATES: 1 Massachusetts 6/25/96 COUNTIES: 1 Alameda 12/10/96 CITIES: 9 Berkeley (CA) 2/28/95 Madison (WI) 8/15/95 Santa Monica (CA) 11/28/95 Ann Arbor (MI) 4/15/96 San Francisco (CA) 4/22/96 Oakland (CA) 4/23/96 Carrboro (NC) 10/8/96 Takoma Park (MD) 10/28/96 Boulder (CO) 12/17/96 LOCALITIES WITH PENDING BURMA SELECTIVE PURCHASING LEGISLATION New York City (NY) CITIES THAT HAVE PASSED RESOLUTIONS URGING FEDERAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS Seattle (WA) 4/19/95 Chicago (IL) 6/14/95 -------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPANIES WITHDRAWING FROM BURMA AMID CONSUMER AND SHAREHOLDER PRESSURE Company Date Levi Strauss & Co. 6/92 PetroCanada 11/92 Amoco 3/94 Apple Computer 10/96 Liz Claiborne 11/94 Eddie Bauer (subsidiary of Spiegel) 2/95 Macy's (subsidiary of Federated Department Stores) 4/95 [Macy's stopped direct sourcing from Burma but its stores still stock apparel made in Burma] Columbia Sportswear 4/96 PepsiCo 4/96 [PepsiCo sold its equity investment in Burma but maintains a franchise agreement with a bottler in Burma.] Oshkosh B'Gosh 5/96 Heineken 7/96 Carlsberg 7/96 London Fog/Pacific Trails 8/96 Interbrew (Labatt's) 10/96 Wente Vineyards 11/96 Motorola 11/96 Philips Electronics 11/96 Hewlett-Packard 11/96 Eastman Kodak 12/96 Note: This is not a complete list of corporate withdrawals from Burma. Please contact with any errors or omissions. ***************************************************************** FLINT JOURNAL: LETTER TO THE EDITOR - RE: HARD CHOICES December 26, 1996 (Flint, Michigan) From: Ken and Visakha Kawasaki (This was in response to the article, recently posted on the net from The Los Angeles Times, which appeared in The Flint Journal December 15, 1996.) Dear Sirs, As a former Flint resident back home for the holidays, I was pleased to read your excellent don't-travel article "Hard choices" (Flint Journal December 15). The human rights issues in Burma are painfully obvious. A government tour guide may glibly say that the people are "quite content," but that is a lie. Over the past few weeks Burmese students again bravely demonstrated against police brutality, risking their very lives. Hundreds have been arrested. Newly-appointed Secretary of State Madeline Albright once commented in Rangoon that from her experience with totalitarian regimes she realized that people often smile from fear. The people of Burma are not content at all. Burma is called the South Africa of the '90s, and like South Africa under the horror of apartheid, tourism and business as usual in Burma amounts to complicity and support for an outrageously brutal regime. Isn't it obscene for a person to spend 1500 dollars for a three-night pleasure cruise in one of the world's poorest countries? Once the rice bowl of Asia, Burma's people, and especially their children, face malnutrition and even starvation. An egg costs more than a civil servant's daily wage!. In Burma the military routinely forces citizens not only to labor without pay but also demands that they provide rice rations for themselves and for their military masters as well. Thousands have died from disease and accidents in tourism-related slave labor projects. The "road to Mandalay" was widened to a highway by slave labor and has been dubbed, "the road of no return." Civilians have been shot as they attempted to flee horrendous conditions at their work sites. In 1988 the Burmese demonstrated peacefully all over the country and at least ten thousand unarmed people gave their lives for democracy. In 1990 the people of Burma overwhelmingly voted against the military and for Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. Today Burma is ripe for another uprising. To travel there is not a light matter. Yours truly, Visakha Decker Kawasaki