------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------ "Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies" ---------------------------------------------------------- The BurmaNet News: October 1, 1997 Issue #833 Noted in Passing: If ASEAN member states were truly concerned with "opening up" the country, they would be building hospitals and schools rather than hotels and shopping malls. --ALTSEAN spokesperson, Debbie Stothard [see IMAGES ASIA REPORT: THE INVISIBLE SHAN REFUGEES] HEADLINES: ========== BKK POST: EXILED GOVERNMENT HAILS 'POSITIVE' STEP ABSDF-WB: DRUG SEIZURE AT INDO-BURMA BORDER DFB: STATEMENT - INFILTRATION OF DRUGS, SPREAD OF HIV JOURNAL OF COMMERCE: HOUSE FAVORS US LAWS IN DISPUTE THE NATION: SLORC UNDER PRESSURE TO REPAY ASEAN'S FAITH IMAGES ASIA REPORT: THE INVISIBLE SHAN REFUGEES BERNAMA: INDOCHINA GOLDFIELDS TO CONSTRUCT COPPER MINE WOODROW WILSON CENTER: OCTOBER 8 PANEL DISCUSSION -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BKK POST: EXILED GOVERNMENT HAILS 'POSITIVE' STEP September 30, 1997 [abridged] But cabinet vows not to let down its guard Burma's exiled government yesterday hailed the Rangoon junta's decision not to crack down on a key opposition meeting at the weekend. The move was lauded as a "positive" step, but the Bangkok-based cabinet vowed the struggle against dictatorship would continue. The cabinet's comments came in a statement after opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) held what it dubbed its most successful meeting in years at the weekend. The congress, to mark the party's ninth anniversary, went ahead as scheduled after the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc), the military junta's official name, gave its surprise consent for the meeting. "We regard as a positive development the permission by SLORC, unlike in previous years, for the NLD anniversary conference to take place on some conditions and without intimidation, blockade or arrest," the cabinet said. The National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB) was set up after the Slorc violently seized control in Burma in 1988 and imposed a hardline military regime. In an unexpected show of flexibility, Rangoon allowed the two-day NLD meeting to go ahead. It ended with a renewed call for the ruling junta to enter a political dialogue with NLD leaders. But, despite the apparent shift in stance over the latest congress, the NCGUB - made up in part of NLD members who fled Burma after the 1988 crackdown - said the struggle for democracy in Burma would continue. "We believe that the League, keeping General Secretary Aung San Suu Kyi as its main pillar, will unitedly and resolutely face up to the Slorc military dictatorship," the exiled government said. "We will also continue to struggle, with all our might, for the realisation of democracy and freedom," said the government, which also has bases in India and in the United States. The junta - which was accorded new recognition in July when Burma was admitted to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations - showed new flexibility at the weekend. In a radical shift from past practice, it gave the green light for the party meeting on condition that only 300 people attended. However, 700 of the 1,300 people who turned up were allowed to enter Mrs Suu Kyi's lakeside compound. Previous NLD congresses have been blocked by the authorities and hundreds detained. ****************************************** ABSDF-WB: DRUG SEIZURE AT INDO-BURMA BORDER September 30, 1997 From: Zaw Zaw Initial information about Drug seizing at Indo-Burma border On 27.9.97, 15 kilograms of heroin and 900,000 Kyats (Burmese currency) were seized by intelligence agents from four ethnic Wa males who were residing at Ward No (7), Zay Dan quarter of Tamu, a border town of Burma adjacent to Moreh, a border town of India. Two of them speak Burmese fluently, while the other two do not even speak a single word, the former are married to local women. The intelligence agents who arrested the culprits are not from Tamu. They came from Mandalay, and followed the smugglers along the way. According to intelligence sources, the smugglers were able to carry the purified standard of seized heroin from the Sino-Burma border to the Indo-Burma border, safely crossing several check points along the way, because the smugglers were holding passes signed by Khin Nyunt, secretary (1) of Slorc, the notorious Burmese military junta. According to a reliable immigration source in Burma, the smugglers are members of the Wa ethnic armed group, which has already agreed to a cease-fire with Slorc. But the officer refused to mention the name of organization. Detail report is coming soon. ABSDF (Western-Burma) *************************************** DEMOCRATIC FORCES OF BURMA: STATEMENT - INFILTRATION OF DRUGS, SPREAD OF HIV October 1, 1997 From: Zaw Zaw Statement of Democratic Forces of the Burma regarding Moreh Satyagraha against cross border infiltration of drug and AIDS. First of all we would like to mention that we delightfully welcome the Moreh Satyagraha action against the entry of heroin and HIV into India, which is commencing on 2nd October 1997 and sponsored by respected MP Mr. Gorge Fernandes. We absolutely believe that this is not as a political stunt and this is a humanitarian struggle to terminate two global enemies, heroin and AIDS. We honour the politicians, workers, intellectuals, human rights activists, social workers, youths, students and representatives from mass and classes who are actively participating in this demonstration. On behalf of the Burmese people we would like to say words of special thanks to all participants because as Mr. Gorge Fernandes' press statement dated 13.9.97 mentions "this is also a struggle for human rights, particularly the human rights of Burmese people." The entry of drugs and HIV is directly related to border trade. We feel that Indo- Burma border trade is improperly regulated and both sides are implementing it for namesake only. Perhaps the real intention of India concerning border trade is to persuade the Slorc to become a good neighbour and to loosen the relationship between China and Burma because India is too anxious about the increasing influence of China upon Burma. Slorc's intention is that they want to engage in international relations to show that they are not being isolated or forsaken by international community due to their human rights violations. In fact it is obvious that Indo-Burma border trade is practically fruitless at the grass roots level for people of both countries. Authorities from both sides are not paying sufficient attention to controlling the border area drug trade. Border trade is essential for establishing friendship between neighbouring countries. People can gain mutual understanding and co-operation through border trade. We strongly believe that the existence of border trade in the future will be necessary. But the border trade dealing between two countries with different political systems can not be stable. It will be very difficult to achieve unconditional understanding and co-operation between the democratic government of India, which is always considerate to it's own people and the Slorc, which is selfish, and always neglecting the will of the Burmese people. Although the Burmese people want to control heroin and AIDS not only as national enemies but also as global enemies, the Slorc is involved in drug trafficking directly or indirectly and enjoying drug money instead of controlling it. The Slorc, which used almost fifty percent of the national budget for military affairs, is neglecting health care services for the people, including HIV control. Although the people and government of India are actively attempting to control drugs and AIDS, it will not meet expectations due to the lack of co-operation and the egotistic policy of the military junta of Burma. India will have to face drugs and AIDS as an uncontrollable problem until and unless the military dictatorship is ended in Burma. Emergence of a democratic government in Burma is absolutely necessary for India to keep regional integrity and peace, to control drugs and HIV and to setup a fraternal relationship with Burma. So we respectfully request that the people of India demand and put pressure on your government to practically and decisively provide help for the restoration of democracy in Burma. We also urge the people of Burma to join hand-in-hand with the people of India in activity against drug and AIDS. " A rotten dead body of an animal producing a foul smell in my house compound can be injurious to you as a neighbour and you have the responsibility to remove it also." We wish this Satyagraha to be successful. Democratic forces of Burma Indo-Burma border. Dated. 1st October 1997. *************************************************** JOURNAL OF COMMERCE: HOUSE FAVORS US LAWS IN WTO DISPUTES September 29, 1997 By Tim Shorrock, Journal Of Commerce Staff WASHINGTON -- Opponents of President Clinton's free trade policies won a victory last week when the House voted to shield U.S. federal and local laws from being threatened by the World Trade Organization. The 356-64 vote occurred late Thursday on a spending bill amendment sponsored by Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and supported by an unusual left-right coalition of Democrats and Republicans. "If I was a proponent of fast track, I would not be happy with the vote I saw yesterday," Mr. Sanders said at a press briefing Friday. He said the support for his amendment shows there is strong opposition to President Clinton's request for new trade negotiating authority, which will be considered by Congress on a fast track without amendments. The Sanders amendment will provide $1 million to the U.S. Trade Representative's office to report to Congress and local and state governments every time a foreign government initiates an action in the WTO that could force the repeal or modification of U.S. laws. It reflects congressional and public anger at recent attempts by foreign governments to challenge local laws, such as a Massachusetts ordinance denying state contracts to companies that invest in the military dictatorship of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. In addition, under the WTO, Venezuela has challenged provisions in the Clean Air Act, Mexico has objected to U.S. laws protecting dolphins and Malaysia and Indonesia have complained about U.S. environmental restrictions on shrimp imports. "This amendment is a right to know for the American people," said Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio. "It is good public policy that has overwhelming support." "People voting on this are saying there is no compelling reason to give away our national sovereignty in the name of global trade," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. "Last night, the WTO got a vote of no-confidence." Mr. Sanders said state and local laws were a key factor in influencing U.S. corporations to pull out of South Africa during the period of apartheid. "To lose that right would be absolutely unacceptable," he said. The amendment also requires the USTR to inform Congress and appropriate local governments when it enters new negotiations that could force changes in U.S. laws. **************************************** THE NATION: SLORC UNDER PRESSURE TO REPAY ASEAN'S FAITH September 30, 1997 Regional Perspective, Kavi Chongkittavorn It is a rare occasion when opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has something. nice to say about the Burmese military junta. Last weekend, she thanked the junta for allowing her 700 supporters to attend a party congress to commemorate the ninth anniversary of the founding of the National League for Democracy (NLD). She said that misunderstandings between the NLD and the government, popularly known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc), could be solved through negotiations. That was an encouraging overture from Suu Kyi. The congress, which proceeded without any hitches, was the first sign of goodwill from Slorc amid mounting pressure from Asean and the international community. The United Nations General Assembly in New York has also played a role in pushing the regime to be more flexible. Since Burma was admitted into Asean in July, there has been a growing sense of exasperation within the grouping on what to do with the country. Previous attempts by Asean to discreetly pressure Slorc to adopt a more flexible approach have failed, including the call for dialogue with the NLD. Although Asean members have tried hard to hide their differences over Burma within the confinement of conference rooms, public disagreements involving Asean leaders have occasionally flared up. This has been the case for the past two years since Burma first expressed interest in acceding to the Treaty of Amity and joining Asean. However, Asean's attitude has undergone a change. At their New York meeting last week, it was clear that the Asean foreign ministers have reached an understanding that they would no longer speak out for Burma as they had done before it joined the grouping. A strong feeling is also prevalent among the Asean ministers that they have done enough to challenge the Western conventional wisdom on Burma. In addition, they have done their utmost by awarding Asean membership to Burma in the face of an outcry. Now, Slorc's leaders are on their own to prove their worthiness, if they have any. The main bone of contention is still the status of Burma in overall Asean-EU relations. The European Union has imposed a visa ban on Burmese officials travelling to its member countries because of Rangoon's record of political suppression and human rights violations. Bangkok is hosting the upcoming Joint Asean-EU Co-operation Committee meeting from Nov 16 to 19. As host, Thailand has suggested letting the Burmese representatives sit in the meeting as observers. The EU has agreed to the suggestion and urged the Thais to discreetly stitch the deal. Burma, however, is not happy with the arrangement on the grounds that it is a full member of Asean and should be treated as such without discrimination from the grouping's dialogue partners. Burmese Foreign Minister U Ohn Gyaw insisted that his country be allowed to attend the Bangkok as a full member or not at all. At the moment, it is not known whether Burma will participate in the joint committee meeting. At the recent meeting of Asean ministers of environment, the Burmese delegation was conspicuously absent. It was the first time Burma had failed to attend a major Asean meeting since being admitted as a member. Asean ministers are apparently not willing to risk their ties with the EU - Asean's oldest dialogue partner - by blindly supporting Burma as they understand that the issue is inextricably linked to a broader co-operation framework within the Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem). For instance, the just concluded meeting in Japan of Asian and European economic ministers demonstrated the growing importance of more trade and investment between the two regions. A series of joint activities were agreed upon to promote the knowledge of business executives from both sides and action plans on trade facilitation in customs procedures. The meeting also agreed on intellectual property rights and health standards on food stuffs. Asean would like to ensure this future cooperation goes well, especially as the regional economy is not so healthy. Without a drastically improved political condition, it is difficult to envisage the day Burma will be able to join Asem. On the other hand, Laos will soon be eligible to the protocol that will allow it to benefit from the ongoing Asean-EU economic cooperation. This represents a new shift given the position Asean adopted in July at its annual ministerial meeting in Kuala Lumpur that dialogue partners must not treat individual Asean members with prejudice. Coupled with this development, key partners such as Australia and Japan are also pressing Slorc to open a dialogue with the opposition. Recent efforts include last month's visit of John Dauth, the Australian first assistant secretary for foreign affairs, as a special envoy to Rangoon. Australia has been urging Slorc to respond to the international appeal for a dialogue with the NLD. Australia would reward any positive moves by Rangoon by assisting in economic projects such as the development of a dry zone in northern Burma. Burma has invited Australia to help develop its international airport in Rangoon, but the country has turned down the request pending further developments in Burma. Australia is using a balanced approach toward Slorc, and the NLD. A similar strategy is being used by Japan - which is keeping close contact with Australia - in encouraging Slorc and the NLD to start a dialogue as soon as possible. Japan has maintained its diplomatic channels at the highest level with Slorc. Before the G7 meeting in Denver in July, Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto wrote to Slorc leader Than Shwe urging him to take some positive steps in exchange for more economic support from Japan. However, Slorc's conciliatory move could be taken as a self-serving exercise aimed at weakening the NLD's leadership. The proposed meeting with NLD president Aung Shwe by Gen Khin Nyunt is a case in point. He ignored Suu Kyi and NLD vice-chairmen Tin Oo and Kyi Maung. It is hard to see how Slorc could ignore Suu Kyi in any future negotiations for long. After all, she has widespread international and local support that could help Slorc's effort to solve the country's problems. ******************************************************* IMAGES ASIA REPORT: THE INVISIBLE SHAN REFUGEES September 1997 Jensine Larsen & Grace Baek From: sitthipong [An edited version of this article was published in The Nation -- Friday, September 26] "They burned our village and ordered us to move north." As he speaks, "Sai Pit," shifts his weight on a cardboard box and looks out into Chiang Mai province's encroaching twilight. His wife and four children crowd in the background of the construction site where they live and work, listening intently to his narrative. "But we could take nothing with us and at the new site the soldiers did not give us enough food to survive, so we had to come to Thailand. There was nothing for us there, we were treated worse than animals." "Sai Pit" and his family left central Shan state in late May after the Burmese army, or Tatmadaw, came to his village and threatened to kill any one who did not relocate. But his village was not the only one in the region to receive such a command. After opium warlord Khun Sa and his Mong Tai Army (MTA) surrendered to Burma's ruling regime (SLORC) in January 1996, a massive forced relocation program was launched by the dictatorship, determined to quash remnant resistance fighters in Shan State. This program of systematic village evacuation and strategic relocation (called the Four Cuts Strategy or Hpyat Lay Hpyat in Burmese), designed to erode support for armed resistance groups, is one of the largest ever initiated by the SLORC, and is presently in full force. Reported killings by the Tatmadaw in Shan State have reached an unprecedented level. According to the Shan Human Rights Foundation in Chiang Mai, well over 200,000 people from more than 600 villages in Central Shan State have been relocated at gunpoint by the SLORC into over fifty main relocation sites. Testimonies from others who have been forced to relocate or witnessed the exoduses have been documented by independent human rights groups and are startlingly similar to the experience of "Sai Pit" and his family. "As soon as they said, 'Get out', we started to move. . . We were given no chance to go back or look again on our place. If we did, they would kill us," recounted an elderly Shan woman from Lang Ker township to the Karen Human Rights Group. In another interview, a Buddhist monk living in Thailand went back to visit his family in Kunhing township last year and was astonished by what he saw. "While I was there I saw people moving, carrying their children, carrying their things. I saw them walking along the roads, and living along the roadsides. It makes you cry, they've lost everything, and their houses have been burned . . . In some places the people beg along the sides of the road. They hold monk's bowls and just stand there by the roadside, all day long." The words of those who have escaped Shan State combine to paint a consistent and shocking picture of life there. Although journalists, foreigners, and diplomats are barred by the dictatorship from travelling beyond designated tourist areas in Shan State, it is the experiences of the people from Shan State that must be relied upon to unravel the truth of military behavior in this isolated area of Burma. According to testimonies, usually SLORC troops come to a village and issue an order that it must be abandoned within a certain number of days, after which anyone remaining will be shot on sight. Those who object to leaving their homes or crops may be beaten or have their houses burned. Some have had their houses set on fire while they were still inside; some elderly people have been burned alive in this way. Villagers are routinely shot trying to return to their villages for food or belongings. In almost all cases the relocation sites consist of nothing but barren land where the dislocated villagers must build their own shelter and provide their own food and water. When rice rations are provided by the military, the relocated villagers generally receive about 1-2 milk tins of rice per person per day, just barely enough to survive. Any rice that villagers bring to the relocation sites is confiscated by SLORC troops. This high quality rice is typically eaten by the soldiers, who then ration out their low-grade military rice to the villagers. Villagers are even forced at times to buy back their own confiscated rice. Frequently the sites are strategically located next to planned roads or railways and the only chance for work is forced labor on SLORC's infrastructure schemes. These transportation links expedite resource exploitation from foreign logging and mining companies, which is accelerating at a frenzied pace. Many of the companies involved are from Thailand. Already some residents of the area have noticed climactic changes, " They have been cutting so many trees that the climate was noticeably drier, and every year the rice harvest was worse," said a Shan woman who lived in Hsipaw. In the past few months, independent human rights groups have collected extensive information about a string of alleged massacres committed by the Tatmadaw. A representative of the Shan Human Rights Foundation (SHRF) reported, "In Kunhing township at least 400 villagers have been killed by the SLORC between mid-June and mid-July. These people who were killed are mostly from relocated villages where food is scarce. They try to get back to their old villages to collect food and they are caught. Sometimes 20 or 30 people are shot at a time" He went on to recount a recent report the SHRF received concerning the discovery of the decapitated corpses of 27 men, women, and children lined up in plain view of a road in Shan State as a warning to those in the vicinity to obey SLORC soldiers. Subsequent to this on July 12th 1997, 17 headless corpses were found on the main road south of Kunhing. Thailand's daily newspapers have also reported the alleged killing of 26 villagers accused of violating orders to relocate in Chianglom village in June, and similar killings which accounted for 32 deaths in two Kunhing district villages that same month. The headlines of the SHRF's monthly updates are a gruesome litany of atrocities: "Monks tortured and killed by SLORC", "Mass Killing and Rape of Relocated Villagers", "Gang Rape of Relocated Villagers", "Village Burned", " Headman Beaten", "Over 1,000 Children Begging Near Parng Phone", and "Multiple Killings at Kho Lam Relocation Site." Some villagers have been relocated several times, as the SLORC has consolidated relocation sites in an attempt to further control local populations. The SLORC makes no secret of the overarching military aims inherent in its systematic forced relocation and accompanying brutality. In its October 1996 issue, The Shan Herald Agency for News (SHAN) published a revealing statement made by no. 542 LIB commander in a speech to a group of forcibly relocated villagers in Nam Zarg township, "One of our objectives of imposing the 4-cuts policy upon you and forcing you around is to make you become poor, or to make you flee, disappear or die. Because when you people in the country become poor, flee, disappear or die, there will not be any rebels who can depend on you for their food, information and guidance." Co-coordinator of the Shan State Organization, Sao Seng Suk, speaks confidently about the SLORC's objectives based on his years of experience in practising both armed and non-violent resistance against the SLORC. "We suspect the aim of the SLORC is to destroy and subjugate, by practising genocide so the whole country will be under monolithic rule. " For the ordinary Shan and other minorities in the region, the recent relocations are only another chapter in a long historical saga of endeavours to render them voiceless and powerless. Semi-autonomous under the British rule, since shortly after Burma achieved independence, Shan State has been ruled by a variety of resistance groups fighting for territorial independence and by opium warlords. Today, enduring central government offensives and economic mismanagement have reduced Shan State to a humanitarian emergency. When conditions become unbearable many internally displaced or impoverished residents of Shan state choose to leave Burma. Thailand, a traditional magnet for regional refugees and migrant labor, has become the natural destination for those migrating and/or fleeing Shan State. Though the Thai government does not have an official figure on the number of Shans residing in Thailand who have fled the recent relocations, the most conservative estimates by human rights groups place the number at over 30,000 in the last year. According to the Shan Youth Network Group in Mae Hong Son and the SHRF in Chiang Mai, the number of refugees crossing the border daily peaked in May at 260 people, dropping to 130 people at the end of July due to difficulties in travelling during the rainy season. A member of one of the few NGO's assisting those migrating from Shan State avers that the decision to flee across the Burma border is often the last resort, particularly since most Shan have ancestral ties to their land as farmers and leaving means losing everything they have. "The pattern of national displacement often occurs in two stages," he says. "First, internal displacement occurs. Then when persecution or its effects on food supply become unbearable, the displaced decide to flee." In an attempt to stem the unceasing flow of Shan into Northern Thailand, some Thai officials have resorted to forcibly repatriating whole groups of refugees. These repatriations garnered little international outcry compared to the forced repatriations, or refoulement, of Karen refugees in March of this year. Last October about 200 Akha and Lahu refugees were forced to cross back over the border into Burma by Thai authorities. On May 31, 1997, it was reported that earlier in the week 430 Shan were pushed back across the border, most were elderly women and children. According to the Thailand Times, officials dismissed the refugees' pleas that their relatives had been killed by the Burmese army and were being sent back to their deaths. Thai officials claimed that the Shan were only looking for better jobs in Thailand and could not be considered refugees because "there was no fighting in Shan State." Both the Thai government and other organisations geared to provide refugee assistance are at a loss how to categorise those who arrive in Thailand from Shan State. A newsletter of an international NGO working with Burmese refugees noted in July 1997, "Refugees along the border (referring to those already registered in refugee camps) are now being labelled 'Displaced Persons Fleeing Fighting' (DPFF) rather than the previous term of 'Displaced Persons.' . . Refugees, by definition, are people who flee their country because of a 'well-founded fear of persecution' and threats to life and liberty. Denying asylum is therefore violating international norms and standards upheld by the UNHCR Executive Committee (EXCOM) of which Thailand is a member." As far as current Thai policy is concerned all persons from Shan state are classified as illegal immigrants. One Thai official maintained that approximately 50,000 to 60,000 such migrants from Shan State had arrived between January and May of this year. Clearly residents of Shan State who have not been forced to relocate, but are suffering under intolerable economic consequences of SLORC rule, are also crossing the border, hoping for a means of survival. The Shan Human Rights foundation points out that the Shan do not fit the typical illegal migrant profile of individuals remitting earnings back to families. Most of the Shan fleeing forced relocations in Burma have brought their entire families with them. Additionally, the SHRF representative says, "Most don't identify themselves as refugees or not. They have been oppressed and could not make a decent living. They just want to work to support their family." Nonetheless, Sao Seng Suk insists, "Their land is confiscated, their villages burned down, they have to leave the country, they are not economic migrants, they are true refugees." After completing the difficult journey to Thailand, displaced Shan discover that there are no established refugee camps to seek refuge in, unlike existing camps (since early 1997 labelled by Thai government as "temporary shelters") for other Burmese ethnic groups such as Karen, Mon, and Karenni on Thailand's Western border. The Shan refugees find that they have no choice but to disperse into Thailand's vast illegal labor market. Many Shan try to find low wage jobs where ever they can; usually at construction sites, sweatshops, as agricultural laborers, or sex workers. Spreading and migrating throughout Thailand in search of work means that many Shan are isolated and lonely. With communities dispersed, social support systems are no longer in place. Moreover, care for the young and old, is extremely difficult on their low or non-existent salaries. Terrified of discovery by Thai officials, oftentimes Shan won't seek help for their health problems. Their children do not have access to any education. It is for precisely this reason, say some, that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or the international community has yet to sit up and take notice of the great number of Shan refugees in Northern Thailand. "They do not know about us," tells a member of the Shan Youth Network Group in Mae Hong Son, "because if we have a stomach ache we do not tell anyone, we are too afraid." As of yet the UNHCR has not made any public statement regarding a concern for the well-being of displaced Shan in Thailand. Although the UNHCR is restricted in its mandate due to the nature of its agreement with the Thai government, its public response has been minimal. The task to find and interview Shan is daunting due to their scattered population and fear. Ruven Menikdiwela, a UNHCR protection officer recently replied to an inquiry about Shan refugees stating, "This office has noted the presence of a certain number of persons who appear to have left Shan State for refugee-related reasons. However, it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of persons who have fled . . . in view of the dispersed nature of this population." Despite a number of UNHCR fact-finding trips to north-western Thailand to assess the situation for the Shan, and the Thai government's knowledge of the situation frequent requests by Shan organisations, journalists and NGO's have brought little in terms of durable solutions to the problems facing these refugees. A representative of one international NGO, speaking on the condition of anonymity, has stated, "UNHCR is the primary refugee advocate and public statements or silence will have an impact on the treatment of refugees. Silence from the UNHCR is like complicity." Thailand, however, is acutely aware of the effects of its illegal labor population. In a statement to the 53rd UN commission on human rights, a Thai representative stated, "There remain almost a million people from Myanmar (Burma) living in Thailand as illegal migrants and displaced persons, posing enormous, social, economic, and security burden on Thailand." Local Thai NGO's speculate that there are variety of reasons why Thailand has not conceded to the establishment of refugee camps for the Shan. These reasons vary between a desire to not inflame tensions in a budding economic relationship between Rangoon and Bangkok, and a belief that a camp would create a "pull factor" drawing more Shan across the national boundary. Sao Seng Suk believes that if Thailand does not find a viable solution for the Shan refugees soon, the social effects of neglected refugees will worsen dramatically. "The children have no opportunity to learn, they will soon become unproductive to [Thai] society, a burden for the population." One thing is certain, without change in Burma, refugees will find ways to cross the border. The Shan will not disappear. They cannot return home. Thailand stands at a cross-roads, with the option of shaping two very different futures. Many believe that if Thailand persists in its practice of categorising Shan refugees as illegal immigrants, in the end, the people of Thailand themselves will also suffer. The country will find itself picking up the tab for advanced health problems, poverty, social unrest, deportations, and the unchecked spread of AIDS. In an attempt to control immigrant workers, the Thai Cabinet passed a resolution on August 6, 1996 which allowed employers to register illegal workers from Laos, Burma, and Cambodia for up to two years while awaiting deportation. Shan refugees with regular work could obtain permission to work legally, but non-working members of their families did not receive any protection. Registered migrant workers are covered by Thai labor laws but are forbidden to join or form unions and are bound to their employers for their semi-legal status, thus effectively diminishing any possibility of their taking action against exploitative working conditions. Apart from an initial basic health screening and treatment of contagious diseases, no other provisions were made for these workers. The corruption involved in the process of applying for registration made this option available to those who could afford it, excluding much of the migrant population. The Thai government stopped registering migrant laborers at the end of November 1996. In northern Thailand, a network of small NGO's provides health education and primary health care, as well as legal advice and translation services to migrant workers, a large proportion of whom are Shan refugees. However, the network's resources are severely limited and they are only able to reach a small sector of the migrant population. One spokesperson from the NGO network stated: "In order for there to be substantial improvements in the situation of migrants, recognition of their particular circumstances is essential and co-operation between all sectors is needed. Temporary work permits for people from Shan State only address part of the problem; other members of the families whom we meet, children, older people, pregnant women, nursing mothers, continue to live in fear and extreme hardship. With this in mind, the network aims to inform all sectors about the realities of migrant life, encourage the development of appropriate services, and promote the rights of migrants." Some say that Thailand has the opportunity to engage with local NGO's, the UNHCR, and local Shan to seek creative and mutually beneficial solutions. Local NGO's claim that by offering status determination procedures and creating a safe camp, the Shan refugees who could not support themselves would be in a better position to receive food and preventative health assistance. Benefiting from community support, schools and self-sufficient agriculture and craft projects could be created. Migrant assistance-oriented NGOs and others could help to erode the negative stereotypes that keep migrant workers disempowered and allow their continued exploitation. Promoting understanding of the situation of these migrants could encourage those in Thailand to appreciate the work of migrants and treat them with dignity. If Thailand is serious about avoiding a drain on its resources, a dialogue with involved parties could result in thoughtful programs which might establish Shan refugee communities as playing a more visibly positive role within the Thai economy. ALTSEAN Burma is a network of over 40 Southeast Asian groups set up to raise awareness in ASEAN countries about the situation in Burma. They believe that in order for Thailand to find a long term solution to its rapidly increasing refugee problem, the country must push further and re-evaluate the nature of its economic engagements with Burma's military regime. In a statement to the United Nation's 53rd session ALTSEAN spokesperson, Debbie Stothard declares, " Constructive engagement' has only helped the SLORC indiscriminately exploit the country's resources in the same way it has attacked the peoples of Burma. It has helped in the creation of jobs which pay wages in the way of displacement, misery, death, and fear." Stothard continues, "If ASEAN member states were truly concerned with "opening up" the country, they would be building hospitals and schools rather than hotels and shopping malls. They would not be involved in projects which result in forced relocations and the use of slave labor" She also refutes ASEAN's claims that Burma's admittance will improve regional security by citing SLORC's violations of its neighbors' borders, and attacks on security forces, murder, abduction, robberies, assault and property damage in neighboring countries. The future for the Shan in Thailand and Burma will undoubtedly be a precarious one. Perhaps much of their fate hinges on the actions of the international community and local acknowledgment and empowerment in Thailand. Yet, the key ingredient for an authentic resolution to the monumental outpouring of refugees and complications stemming from their marginalization appears to be political change in Burma. The international community must support the Burmese people's desire for their chosen form of government, already expressed in the democratic elections of 1990. The National League for Democracy, the winning party in that election, has frequently declared its wish for tri-partite negotiations with ethnic groups and the SLORC to solve the political and economic problems facing Burma today. To the United Nations, ALTSEAN pointed out, "The hope for harmony [for Burma] lies in a government committed to justice, human rights and democracy. This is why ethnic groups are increasingly making their support of the democracy movement led by Aung Sang Suu Kyi known." In Sao Seng Suk's words, "International recognition of the elected government is very important, if it is disregarded then the dictator lives on." And the refugees will keep coming, striving to elude the prescribed death sentence decreed to them by the SLORC. "Phra Ain Da Ya", a Shan Buddhist monk, and an eyewitness to forced relocations in Shan State, says in a human rights interview, "They'll come through whenever they can one by one. They'll look for work. . . There are so many. Thousands. . . I don't know anywhere in the world where they do this kind of thing[large scale forced relocations]. Just imagine if it was you, if it was your house, and you had lost everything, you wouldn't know what to say. I myself, I've gone and seen it and I can describe the events, but the people who've had to leave their village, where they have children, grandchildren, rice, water, everything. They don't understand any reason. They're totally confused. . . I know these people, and they are good people. As a monk, I want there to be peace, I want people to be able to survive each day, but it's impossible. I don't know what to say. Please tell people of the world what is going on, okay? I don't know who to tell about these things" The representative from the Shan Human Rights Foundation cups his hands in front of himself and then opens them in a quiet gesture entreating support. The last thing he says is, "We are in a tight spot. What we need is almost everything. We don't even know the way to get help. We need people to help us find these ways." For further information contact: Images Asia PO Box 2 Prasingha Post Office Chiang Mai 50200 Thailand *************************************** BERNAMA: INDOCHINA GOLDFIELDS COMPLETES FINANCING TO CONSTRUCT COPPER MINE September 25, 1997 SINGAPORE, Sept. 25 /CNW-AsiaNet/ - R. Edward Flood, President, and Robert M. Friedland, Chairman, announced today that Indochina Goldfields Ltd. has completed formal arrangements for the development of the Monywa copper mine complex in north-central Myanmar. Contracts for finance, construction and copper marketing were signed yesterday by Indochina Goldfields and its 50% joint venture partner, Mining Enterprise No. 1, at a ceremony in Yangon, Myanmar. As parties to the transaction, Marubeni Corporation and Nissho Iwal Corporation will provide a US$90 million loan for the project's first phase. Chiyoda Corporation and Marubeni will design, construct and commission the ore crushing, conveying and heap-leach facilities, as well as the solvent extraction / electrowinning plant. Marubeni is also committed to purchase the first seven years of copper production from the mine. "The project is on track to commence Phase I production in mid-1998, and to reach full commercial production at an annual rate of 25,000 tonnes of LME Grade A copper cathode by year-end 1998," Mr. Flood said. The company has also initiated discussions to secure project financing for construction of the Phase II expansion on the adjacent Letpadaung ore body. Minproc Engineers of Perth, Australia, recently completed a bankable feasibility study for the initial Phase II production of 63,500 tonnes of copper cathode per year, with expansion capacity of up to 128,000 tonnes of copper cathode per year. The study forecasts a cash operating cost of 43 cents a pound, with initial capital, development, commissioning and working capital costs of approximately US$300 million. Minproc is completing an optimization study based upon a recently upgraded reserve estimate that will determine the most attractive annual production scenario for the project. Indochina Goldfields expects to release the results of this study within the next month. The company's other assets include gold and copper properties and other interests in Indonesia, Kazakstan, South Korea, Vietnam and Fiji. Indochina Goldfields Ltd. shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange and on the Australian Stock Exchange under the symbol ING. Information about the company and its projects is available on its Web site, http://www.goldfields.com. CONTACT : R. EDWARD FLOOD, PRESIDENT NORTH AMERICA, TEL : (604) 688-5755. DATE OF RELEASE : SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 RELEASED BY Copyright 1997 Bernama. (c) 1997 Chamber World Network International Ltd. ASIA INTELLIGENCE WIRE BERNAMA 25/09/97 ******************************************* WOODROW WILSON CENTER: OCTOBER 8 PANEL DISCUSSION September 29, 1997 From: Beth R. Brimner - brimnerb@sivm.si.edu WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8 4:00 - 6:00 PM GETTING IT RIGHT WITH BURMA: ECONOMIC, STRATEGIC AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS A panel discussion with RICHARD KESSLER, Democratic Professional Staff Member, Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee and Foreign Affairs Staff Aide, Office of Representative Howard L. Berman (D-CA) MARK MASON, Associate Professor, School of Management, Yale University ZAW OO, Coordinator, Research Group for the Economic Development of Burma MARVIN C. OTT, Professor of National Security Policy, National War College, National Defense University Event will be held in the Woodrow Wilson Center Library Third Floor, Smithsonian "Castle" Building 1000 Jefferson Drive SW, Washington, DC "Smithsonian" Metro Stop, Mall Exit, Blue/Orange Line Event is open to the public - No RSVP necessary Media organizations, please contact 202-357-1937 Beth R. Brimner _______________________________Ph: 202-357-1937 WWICS - The Asia Program_______________________Fx: 202-357-4052 Email: brimnerb@sivm.si.edu ***** Visit us at http://wwics.si.edu ***** **************************************