[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

BurmaNet News December 31, 1996

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

The BurmaNet News:  December 31, 1996
Issue #602

December 30, 1996

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


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.     


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

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.


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. 


December 28, 1996   By Lee Kim Chew
(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.


13th. electoral term
December 30, 1996

Minor interpellation submitted by Members of the Bundestag Halo Saibold,
Angelika Koester-Lossack, Wolfgang Schmitt and the parliamentary group of


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
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
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

Bonn, 26 November 1996

Reproduced by the Burma Bureau, Germany.           


December 27, 1996

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


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.

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


December 27, 1996

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.


				Date Passed/Signed
Massachusetts			6/25/96

Alameda 			12/10/96	


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	

New York City (NY)

Seattle (WA)				4/19/95
Chicago (IL)				6/14/95


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.


December 26, 1996  (Flint, Michigan)

(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