BurmaNet Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies
November 3, 1998
Issue #1131
THE BANGKOK POST: BURMA FAILS TO MAKE THE GRADE
2 November, 1998
Burma has undergone intensive scrutiny on several international
fronts. It managed to insinuate itself into the Asean-Europe
dialogue after a year of effort. But United Nations investigators
and the European Union membership are not so generous with their
patience with the military junta. Burma was under new and intense
investigation again last week. The United Nations deputy
secretary-general Alvaro de Soto was in Rangoon with tough human
rights questions. The independent UN Human Rights Commission
issued a new and scathing report by its Burma expert, Rajsoomer
Lallah. The European Union widened its sanctions against the
military regime. The message was clear. The junta should begin
the inevitable process to bring democracy to Burma.
The EU extended travel restrictions against the regime to include
even government tourist officers. Europe now has barred most
members of the regime from even stopping over in any EU country
on their way somewhere else. Mr de Soto's report has yet to be
made public. Mr Lallah cited harassment of loyal opposition
politicians, and an unknown number of political prisoners. The UN
report said it was clear the regime had official policies of
arbitrary executions, rape and forced labour.
All in all, Burma continued to edge closer to becoming a
worldwide pariah. The one bright spot was a Thai-brokered
arrangement that will let a Burmese official sit in on Asean-EU
talks, essentially as an observer. The one-time arrangement broke
a one-year logjam in relations between the two groups, caused
entirely by Burma's refusal to consider even exploring a more
lenient form of government.
On the contrary, it has continued to strong-arm, intimidate and
brutalise its most benign political opponents. In its own words,
Rangoon has invited democratic supporters to long periods of
political discussions. In other words, thousands of Burmese and
more than 900 members of the National League for Democracy have
been held until they are frightened enough to be safely re leased
back to their homes.
This is not acceptable. It is up to the Burmese to settle their
form of government and its leaders. But the world cannot abide,
let alone reward, a regime which survives by threats and violence
against its citizens. Burma would do well to consider the example
of Nigeria. The African nation, long a drug-transit centre, is
one of just four countries on a US drug blacklist, the others
being Iran, Afghanistan and Burma. But Nigeria has recently made
a new commitment to democracy. Army chief Gen Abdulsalami
Abubakar has seen, and said, that he sees great advantages to a
democratic transition, and has undertaken an entirely peaceful
and popular series of reforms
The results have been startling even to many pro-democracy
advocates. The country has turned politically peaceful. Election
plans are proceeding. There is renewed confidence in the future.
One of the immediate gains is in the field of narcotics. The
United States is going to start immediately to resume cooperation
with Nigeria. First, there will be a $400,000
counter-narcotics fund, along with diplomatic and other official
exchanges.
There is little doubt that a commitment to democratic reform in
Burma would be greeted with similar enthusiasm and rewards. The
junta should know that Burma has no real friends it can depend
upon. Thailand's foreign minister, Surin Pitsuwan, did not help
Burma to attend the European meeting because he wanted Burma
there. He did it in Thailand's interest, because we consider it
an advantage to make regional decisions in today's shrinking
world.
Burma would gain prestige and boost its relations with a
commitment to bring democracy to the nation. It is not that
difficult to do, either. In 1990, the Burmese regime held one of
the fairest, democratic elections on record in our region. The
only thing left to do is to follow through, and accept the
results.
THE IRRAWADDY: THE "RANGOON 18"
October, 1998 by The Irrawaddy Editorial Staff
Vol.6 No.5
"DEMOCRACY HEROES" OR SIMPLY "NAIVE"?
A banner hung in the airport's VIP lounge reading: "Welcome
Home, Democracyb Heroes." But in a faxed statement to a
foreign news agency , a spokesman for the Burmese junta said that
the government felt that "these misguided youths were
exploited" by anti-government groups "to perform
subversive activities and become sacrificial lambs for them ...
." "If we have at least advanced the fight for
human rights and democracy and made people's lives better in
Burma, it has been worth it," said Malaysian activist Chong
Kokwei. He added that he was glad he had been to Burma.
"Of course I'm very happy," screamed Ellene Sana, 36, a
social activist from the Philippines. "I didn't want to stay
there any longer." None of the activists, 10 men and
eight women, said they had plans to return to Burma, but the
organisation that sent them there, the Alternative Asean Network
on Burma, promised another venture in the near future. "When
we are free to do so, we are going to go back and distribute this
goodwill message again, very soon, I hope," said coordinator
Debbie Sothard. (The Nation, August 16, 1998.)
On August 9, 18 foreigners were arrested in Rangoon for
distributing leaflets bearing a "Goodwill Message"
asking Rangoon residents to remember on its tenth anniversary the
events of August 8, 1988. These leaflets were distributed at busy
centres throughout the capital. The foreigners included six
Americans, three Thai, three Malaysians, three Indonesians, two
Filipinos and one Australian who travelled together to Rangoon
and were subsequently held for interrogation.
Presumably they knew when they arrived in Burma that by making a
gesture of solidarity with that country's oppressed democrats
they risked also sharing the fate of the country's many political
prisoners. Their chosen method was to wear T-shirts with slogans
and dispense tiny pamphlets urging people to remember the
democracy uprising of August 8, 1988. Though the 8th passed
quietly in Rangoon this year, there can not be a single person
there who needs reminding about the events of 10 years ago, when
up to 3,000 people are believed to have died in the fight for
democracy. As an editorial in the Asian Wall Street Journal
observed, "the foreigners who sought to protest openly in
the nerve center of one of the world's most repressive regimes
were either very brave, or very naive."
INTERNATIONAL REACTION
International condemnation of the ruling Burmese junta was
already in full swing from the coverage of the Asean Ministerial
Meeting in Manila. US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was
pointed in her criticisms of the Burmese junta. Philippine
Foreign Minister Domingo Siazon had already unloaded both barrels
of his diplomatic shotgun on the junta, calling for Burmese in
exile to return home from their comfortable lives abroad to
engage the junta in a "people power" revolution after
the fashion of his own country's in deposing President Marcos. In
holding the 18 activists, junta authorities added fuel to this
fire. And the condemnations continued despite the junta's
decision to immediately deport the 18 foreign activists after
sentencing them to 5-year jail terms.
Coverage of Burma increased especially in those countries whose
nationals were among those being held - Asean countries Thailand,
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines; the United States; and
Australia. The US, always quick to act when its citizens fall
into harms way abroad, but often slow to give attention to human
rights abuses in those same places under less extraordinary
circumstances, welcomed Burma's decision to expel the six US
activists in the group. Their arrest "was just one example
of the junta's abuses, and ought to serve as a reminder that
there was an absence of protection of basic human rights in
Burma."
White House spokesman Michael McCurry said while the US was
"pleased" by the release of the activists, the whole
incident was "a failure of the Burmese government to allow
freedom of expression which underscores all the points that we
have made privately and publicly." The International
Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) protested against the
sentencing of 18 foreign activists, saying the later decision to
expel them did not excuse the verdict. The arrests of the foreign
activists "could obviously be considered as contrary to
international human rights standards," it said in a
statement. "The FIDH considers that the charges levelled
against them are unacceptable and invalid. The FIDH also
questions the legal process leading to their condemnation and
seriously doubts that the 18 defendants were granted a fair
trial," it said.
REACTION WITHIN ASEAN
The detention of the foreign activists laid bare deep divisions
within Asean. Philippines President Joseph Estrada and Foreign
Minister Domingo Siazon provided exemplary leadership when they
made no bones about demanding that the junta "let our people
go." On the other hand, when Thailand's "flexible
engagement" rhetoric was put to the test, it turned out to
be nothing but hot air. Bangkok failed miserably to follow
Manila's example to press for the activists' release, and even
Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan's expression of personal support
for the detained activists could not smooth over such a shameful
sell-out.
The Thai Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the
"Thai government does not support or encourage Thai
nationals to engage in political activities in other countries
... . However, if Thai nationals are arrested, we shall
make necessary representations to ensure that they are treated
properly in accordance with and in terms of legal and
humanitarian standards." For post-Suharto Indonesia, there
was no official reaction, but its diplomats did offer help to the
detainees and their families.
Malaysia, however, was completely out of step. Foreign Minister
Abdullah Badawi said he had no sympathy for Malaysians who enter
other countries and consciously commit wrongdoings. Such an
insensitive stance came as no surprise - anyone caught doing the
same in Kuala Lumpur would be similarly punished. The Malaysian
embassy in Rangoon told the families of the Malaysians arrested
that their family members broke local laws and that they would
have to take their punishment. This position was roundly
criticized by Malaysian human rights groups. Malaysia has been
one of the military government's strongest supporters and
recently fought against a move in Asean to break with the group's
policy of not criticizing fellow members.
Meanwhile, Philippines Foreign Secretary Domingo Siazon said
threats of Western trade sanctions against Burma will not work to
resolve the conflict in Rangoon. He said that "economic
sanctions do not work" and the best way to deal with Burma
was through negotiations with its government through Asean,
citing the release of the 18 activists as an example.
"Someone has to deal with them, talking with them all the
time," Siazon said. "The non-Asean countries are not
inside the same house so they have to shout to be heard. Asean
countries are inside and we just have to whisper [to each other]
and we know our problems."
He said Washington's sending of a special envoy to lobby for the
release of the foreign activists never would have worked if Asean
members had not intervened. Asean members "have a better
ability to engage [Burma] and to have very good talks and make
constructive suggestions," he said. "If Burma had not
been a member of Asean today, you would still have 18 people
serving five years of hard labour there, I guarantee you
that," Siazon said. Siazon advised western countries to be
patient while Asean members were undergoing reforms.
Certainly, Thailand and the Philippines were deeply concerned in
the way that governments in democracies are, when their nationals
are nabbed by authorities of a police state. Some Malaysian
officials may not have been sympathetic to the plight of the same
sort of pesky "activists" whom they have themselves
criticized in the past. But Malaysia, like Indonesia, had an
overriding interest in trying to achieve a positive outcome here.
So, in fact, did Asean, which has made a virtue of welcoming
Burma into its ranks with the assertion that membership in that
auspicious clubs can help speed Burma's entry into the ranks of
respectable nations. Thailand and the Philippines have been
urging Asean for some time to take a more active role in
promoting positive values among its more retrograde members. With
some of their own nationals in distress, perhaps Indonesia and
Malaysia too could have taken this unforeseen opportunity to test
the waters of constructive engagement.
Burma's Asean neighbours rhetorically stuck to their policy of
non-interference, but many individually expressed disquiet. It
did not, however, stop the generals from trying to exploit the
foreign intervention.
THE IMPACT OF THE CRISIS
Press reactions to the release of the protestors were decidedly
positive. The Nation and other English-language dailies dubbed
the protestors the "Rangoon 18," "democracy
heroes" and other lofty appellations, adding that they
"richly deserved a hero's homecoming." That the
activists were immediately deported only served to add mockery to
the junta's judicial system, and this is generally thought to
have been the intention all along. As an editorial in The Nation
suggested, "the activists had gambled and won - the generals
blinked." Indeed, in much of the press coverage the incident
was portrayed as a public-relations catastrophe for the junta.
For the second time in as many weeks, the international community
heaped condemnation on the military regime for its unseemly
behaviour.
In some countries such direct actions would have seriously
back-fired. For example, a few years ago Malaysia saw a number of
foreign activists slip into the country and chain themselves to
trees to protest against the rapacious logging of Sarawak's
rain-forests. The authorities wasted no time in painting them as
outsiders telling Malaysians how to run their country, and having
an iron grip on the media, the government had no problems in
rallying citizens to back its stance.
The young protesters in this case were organized before setting
out on their mission of "goodwill" by the Alternative
Asean Network on Burma (Altsean-Burma), a group based in Bangkok,
which helped the activists to mount their protest. The
organization has nettled the junta before by smuggling out tapes
of Aung San Suu Kyi. But the detention of the 18 activists was
its greatest public-relations coup yet. "The SPDC seems bent
on self-sabotage," says Debbie Stothard, Alternative Asean's
coordinator. "They simultaneously shot themselves in the
foot and dug their own grave. But now we thank them; the swirl of
negative international publicity makes our job a lot
easier."
But does it? Reactions to the activists and their arrests among
Burmese living in exile and individuals and groups working on
Burma issues were decidedly mixed and much more ambiguous than
Ms. Stothard's statement concerning the action's short and
long-term value. Diplomats in Rangoon said that the leafleting
campaign by foreign activists against Burma's junta had resulted
in no significant impact in the country and attention remains
fixed on Aung San Suu Kyi. Perhaps the best gauge of the relative
significance of the 18 foreign activists and their arrest is in
the lack of reaction from Burma's most celebrated activist.
Although the protest drew international media attention, Suu Kyi
ignored the activists. The Nobel peace laureate launched her own
demonstration, making her fourth failed attempt to visit
supporters in the provinces in little more than a week.
Although praised by rights groups when they were deported to
Bangkok after six days' detention, the 18 foreign pro-democracy
activists were branded "naive" and
"irrelevant" by some diplomats, including a number
whose governments firmly oppose the junta. "They might have
won a lot of support overseas but it was all pretty irrelevant in
Burma," said one western diplomat. "I don't think
anyone kept the leaflets," another western diplomat said,
citing reports by witnesses. "They would've dropped them
straight away even if they were interested in the first
place."
Interestingly, Burma's activists in exile were divided into two
camps. "We want international assistance and moral support
but not that kind of physical action," one prominent Burmese
activist said while other activists welcomed the 18 and treated
them like "heroes". Insiders in Rangoon are quite
confused. "We have little room to move but after they [18]
came in the security has been tightened." Some are also
worry that the junta could justify its claims of
"collaboration between neo-colonialists and destructive
elements."
Activists in exile were quietly unhappy when they saw some
comment made by the 18 activists after they landed Bangkok
Airport. Shortly after the release of the activists, the Burmese
regime began issuing warnings to those who may intend to follow
suit. On August 17, the military junta issued a veiled threat of
violence against any foreigners intent on repeating the
pro-democracy leafleting campaign carried out by the 18
activists. "The people of Burma want to live in peace and
are angry with the 18 foreigners," wrote Maung Pyi Tha, a
pseudonym for a government official, in a commentary in the
state-run New Light of Myanmar newspaper. "The next time any
destructionists or saboteurs try to disrupt the country they will
face not only the laws but the people who are ready to prove
their sense of duty."
Meanwhile, the 18 foreign activists were threatened with even
sterner punishment if they tried to repeat their action.
Philippine ambassador to Rangoon Sonia Brady was quoted in a
report as saying, "if they were to return to Myanmar in the
future and violate their laws, they would serve not only the
sentence that would be imposed upon them but also the sentence
condoned" on the day of their deportation. Foreign diplomats
in Rangoon said scores of foreign journalists had descended on
the city amid escalating political tensions in recent weeks, with
all but a few arriving on tourist visas. Journalists who have
applied for official visas have been refused. Some journalists
had also been briefly detained in Rangoon and forced to sign
documents saying they did not work for news organisations, the
diplomats added.
A French journalist became the second foreign newsman expelled
from Burma for entering the country under the pretense of being
tourists. Philippe Grangereau was deported for "illegally
gathering information" while in the country on a tourist
visa, newspapers said. Cassette tapes and documents hidden on his
body were seized. Mr Grangereau, who works for the Paris
newspaper Liberation, had apparently met officials of the
opposition NLD. A few days earlier, the military regime said an
Italian journalist, Maurizio Giouliano, who was blacklisted for
illicitly gathering news earlier this month was expelled when he
tried to enter the country again. These arrests and deportations
continue, as another three foreign journalists in Burma on
tourist visas were arrested and deported on September 1. In
addition, there have been changes in visa issuing policy at the
Burma Embassy in Bangkok. The visa, which used to be issued
within a matter of minutes in Bangkok and within two or three
days from other locations in Thailand, became more difficult to
acquire. Since the incident, the embassy has explored two
different policies-the first, a one week waiting period which
allows officials to screen each passport individually before
approval; and the most recent requirement, that all applicants go
to the embassy in Bangkok for an interview before visa permission
is granted. One travel agency reported that the embassy was
screening for young people, particularly young Westerners, and
was intent on not repeating last month's incident.
Embassy officials have been quizzing foreign applicants for
tourist visas about possible links with the media and forcing
some to sign declarations they were not journalists, applicants
and other sources said. "They are telling people they know
they are journalists, asking all sorts of questions and making
them sign these documents if they want visas," said one
Bangkok executive whose associate was attempting to travel to
Burma. One applicant said they were being told by embassy
officials that they knew they were journalists because they had
been seen on television. The junta stands its ground: "Most
countries have laws controlling foreign journalists ...Why
shouldn't we?," said an official.
And then there is the issue of foreign NGOs operating in Thailand
- the Thai government, while tolerant of their presence and
activities, receives little from these organizations and is in no
way obligated to facilitate their work by extending visas to
their employees, most of whom do not hold work permits, sometimes
repeatedly for years on end. This incident may jeopardize foreign
NGO's tenuous rapport with the Thai government as well. Not to
mention potentially negative effects of the incident on the
already escalating harassment of Burmese by the Thai authorities
in recent months.
Whatever the "Rangoon 18" incident may have
accomplished in terms of international attention and awareness,
which is still a matter of much debate and speculation, or in
terms of reminding people inside Burma that there are people from
around the world who are sympathetic and working for their cause,
and thereby giving them hope, also a matter of speculation, in
the short term at least, the detention of the 18 foreign
activists threatens to make the work of human rights NGOs and the
media in Burma - always difficult - much more so, if not
impossible. Indeed, the Burmese media had a field day in
depicting the 18 as alien saboteurs bent on "inciting
unrest", and ridiculing Suu Kyi and the democratic
opposition as tools of foreign agents. This can make her work no
easier also.
Perhaps it is also apt to reflect on whether it was wise for
foreigners to be leafleting in the streets of Rangoon, no matter
how righteous the cause is. But there should be no illusion as to
why they were freed. After all, they had behind them the weight
of a number of governments, and countless NGOs and individuals
who had worked tirelessly for their freedom. As Philippine
Foreign Minister Domingo Siazon reminded the world, the struggle
for democracy in Burma should be determined by the Burmese. Yes,
as members of the global community we should support that
struggle. However, whether going to Rangoon and leafleting
Burmese "not to give up hope" is going way beyond
"support" is a question that should be discussed by
foreign NGOs.
Burma's reaction-to tightly reassert control over the flow of
people and information into and out of the country-may be only
temporary. But it could be, equally, merely a prelude to a return
to the isolationism which has characterized so much of Burma's
recent history. If this short-term state of affairs becomes a
long-term reality, the change in Burma that so many have worked
and hoped for may be further away than any of us expected.
ASIAWEEK: "WE WILL SPEAK OUT"
6 November, 1998
A CANDID INTERVIEW WITH DOMINGO SIAZON
THE PRESIDENTS OF THE Philippines and Indonesia - Joseph Ejercito
Estrada and B.J. Habibie respectively - criticizing Malaysian
authorities for how they have dealt with former deputy PM Anwar
Ibrahim. Malaysian Foreign Minister Abdullah Badawi berating
Estrada and Habibie for their remarks. Kuala Lumpur at odds with
Singapore over Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs and other historical
issues. Differences among ASEAN members over how to tackle the
economic crisis, or how much to democratize. Whatever has
happened to the grouping's traditional tendency to camouflage any
tensions under a facade of unity? For an informed view, Asiaweek
Senior Correspondent Antonio Lopez talked to a diplomat who has
thought deeply about the changes ASEAN is undergoing - the
Philippine foreign secretary, 59-year-old DOMINGO SIAZON.
Excerpts from their hour-long conversation:
WHERE EXACTLY DOES PRESIDENT ESTRADA STAND ON ANWAR?
He has expressed his concern that Anwar be given due process. The
president feels a certain attachment to Anwar. Both occupied the
No. 2 position. The president and Anwar are friends, but I don't
know to what degree. Initially, when Anwar was arrested, the
president was already quite perturbed. What really forced him to
comment publicly was when he saw Anwar with the physical
injuries.
WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT MAKING SUCH REMARKS?
I was worried about the Malaysian reaction. But since the
president clearly stated he was just stating his personal view, I
thought it would not affect ASEAN's policy of non-interference in
the domestic affairs of other countries.
SO HOW IS ANWAR'S CASE AFFECTING PHILIPPINES-MALAYSIA RELATIONS?
Relations are of course a little tense now. You have to watch
these things, to see that they do not go out of control. Both
sides have been quite civil about [the situation]. Both sides are
trying very hard to control it. You have to distinguish the
Malaysian moves, whether "they" are the government, the
public or some members of UMNO. There was a rally in front of the
Philippine embassy in Kuala Lumpur. Some of our people tell us
the rally was [organized] by party members . . . There won't be
any long-term damage. Malaysia and the Philippines have been
created by God as neighbors. There's no way we can avoid each
other.
YOU HAVEN'T MADE THE SAME NOISE ABOUT MYANMAR.
We are just making selective exceptions when there are certain
issues such as Anwar's arrest and his being hurt while under
police custody. It doesn't usually happen that a deputy prime
minister is arrested and jailed. Aung San Suu Kyi's case is
different. She's under house arrest, she holds demonstrations
outside her house, except that her movement outside of Yangon is
limited. It's a different situation.
There are quiet negotiations. Our ambassador to Myanmar will host
some "social" meetings among some of the groups. The
idea is to get them to talk, start a dialogue. The problem is not
the generals but the other side - the National League for
Democracy. The NLD wants to talk but wants to impose conditions.
There should be no conditions.
SO HAS ASEAN ABANDONED ITS POLICY OF NON-INTERFERENCE IN EACH
OTHER'S AFFAIRS?
During the ASEAN foreign ministers' meeting in July in Manila,
Thailand wanted to do away with the principle of non-interference
and [adopt] constructive engagement. There was resistance. [Even
so,] we are telling members that, from now on, we will be true to
our own values and ideas and we will speak out and express our
views. Nobody can deny the right of any member to say, "this
issue is important to me." This is a clear signal to
everyone that, from now on, our behavioral pattern will be
different from the pattern we were used to in the past. And
please understand this.
WHAT HAS BROUGHT ABOUT THIS SEACHANGE?
For one, President Estrada, as a person, is more sensitive to
these kinds of issues and is used to articulating his views. For
another, after 31 years of ASEAN, maybe we are mature enough to
discuss some of these issues publicly without being too
sensitive. You are seeing this change in Indonesia. There has
been a transformation of the political system there which
involves greater popular participation and therefore a greater
feeling of equity in domestic power. Once expressed domestically,
this feeling is expressed in terms of international equity.
DO YOU SEE AN ALLIANCE AMONG THE PHILIPPINES, INDONESIA AND
PERHAPS
THAILAND OVER SUCH ISSUES?
Not really an alliance. That would be a misnomer. Thailand and
the Philippines have always been quite outspoken on issues
related to human rights. Within ASEAN, Thailand and the
Philippines are probably the most democratic governments, or
governments with the most popular participation. Now Indonesia
will also tend to be more democratic. People will be asked their
views. The impact is that you will have more countries speaking
out on issues with trans-boundary effects. For example, we used
to keep quiet about the forest fires in Indonesia. If that
happens now, you will see a lot of countries speaking out and
asking Indonesia to do something about it. Before, we were rather
embarrassed to do that.
WHAT ABOUT INDONESIAN FOREIGN MINISTER ALI ALATAS? DOES HE NOT
BELONG TO
THE OLD SCHOOL OF NON-INTERVENTION?
Ali is not conservative. He has always tried to protect the
interests of Indonesia. Indonesians cannot reform overnight. But
President Habibie is already speaking [of transparency]. Ali will
have to reflect that view.
IS ALL THIS GOOD FOR ASEAN?
Of course. It will better ASEAN because we won't have anything to
hide from each other. If something goes wrong, the other
countries will say, "Why don't you fix it?" We will
start arriving at solutions faster than we used to, rather than
hide the problem under the carpet.
IT WOULD ADD UP TO A VERY DIFFERENT ASEAN.
It's going to be [that way]. ASEAN will be more outspoken.
Indonesia is the biggest country. Once it changes, and with the
present Thai and Philippine systems of government, and invariably
even Malaysia - where you see demonstrations now - you will see
greater popular participation in government. This will impact on
Vietnam, on Cambodia, and later on, Myanmar and Laos. Popular
governance, people involved in governance, will march in
Southeast Asia. With greater popular participation, you will have
greater accountability, greater transparency. This will reflect
also on the economic managers.
GIVEN THE PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES AMONG ASEAN LEADERS, WHAT IS
THE OUTLOOK
FOR THE SUMMIT IN HANOI IN DECEMBER?
There are no personality differences. It's a difference over
issues.
IS ASEAN STILL RELEVANT?
It is still very important. It is the glue that binds us all
together. Despite our temporary differences - as brothers and
sisters may have - you still have to go back to where you belong.
We belong to the same ASEAN family. Individually, we cannot
survive in this globalized world. We have to stick together.
ASIAWEEK: TOWARD A NEW ASEAN
6 November, 1998
Editorial
MORE OPENNESS CAN PROMOTE GREATER HARMONY AND UNDERSTANDING IT
BEGAN WITH
THE ASEAN ministerial conference in Manila in July, when
Thailand, backed by the Philippines, urged a change in the policy
of non-interference in domestic affairs. Then came Lee Kuan Yew's
candid memoirs, which made unflattering assertions about
Malaysia's revered founding leaders. In September it was Jakarta
and Manila's turn, criticizing Kuala Lumpur's treatment of ousted
deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim. After 31 years of
downplaying differences, verbal jousts among founding members of
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have observers asking,
Is ASEAN falling apart? Some even fear a return to the
nationalist tensions and military confrontations of decades past.
First the good news: sorry to disappoint arms merchants, but
there won't be any shooting war in ASEAN for the foreseeable
future. Whatever side they may take on constructive intervention,
human rights and democracy, one thing the region's Crisis-hit
countries don't want is a confidence-killing, recovery-stopping
conflict. Moreover, one of ASEAN's achievements is precisely the
diplomatic culture and mechanisms to manage and resolve
differences. The recent war of words over Anwar is a soiree
compared with the explosive conflicts that the grouping has
weathered, including the Philippine claim to Malaysia's Sabah
state, and the Indochina wars, whose Asian adversaries sit around
the ASEAN table today.
Now, for possibly better news: publicly raising touchy issues,
including human rights and democracy, could lay a stronger
foundation for ASEAN harmony. Its hallowed doctrine of
non-interference sometimes meant that intractable matters
festered behind the whitewash of feel-good solidarity. Eventually
they got out of hand - like Thailand's financial excesses and
Indonesia's forest fires - and caused harm to and animosity among
other grouping members. By airing rather than hiding differences,
ASEAN could learn to manage and resolve them while preserving
overall relations. "We will start arriving at solutions
faster," Philippine Foreign Secretary Domingo Siazon told
Asiaweek.
It's about time. The onus on ASEAN to address concerns over
rights and democracy won't go away. It needs to court Western
help in the Crisis - not easy if some members jail dissidents,
stifle media, break up rallies, and oppose or rig elections.
Anwar's detention, for instance, theatened to derail the APEC
summit in Kuala Lumpur Nov. 17-18, just when the forum needs to
act on the Crisis. Moreover, voters and media in liberal
countries like the Philippines and Thailand will continue
pressing their governments to criticize repression elsewhere. In
tut-tutting over Anwar, the Philippines' Joseph Estrada and
Indonesia's B.J. Habibie were partly playing to their home
crowds. Lastly, a willingness to openly speak on the issues of
the day will help the association retain its relevance.
Can ASEAN maintain good relations while being more open about
differences? Yes, if the recent altercation is any indication.
Despite the strong talk from Jakarta and Manila, Kuala Lumpur
kept its cool and did not take steps to make its critics sorry
they opened their mouths. Estrada and Habibie, for their part,
wisely avoided going too far with their carping, the former
listening to prudent advice from his predecessor, Fidel Ramos.
Initial clumsiness in speaking out was to be expected; such
candor, after all, is new to ASEAN.
Practice will hopefully make for a better sense of how far to
push one nation's views on another before the exercise becomes
unproductive and even dangerous. Focusing on policies rather than
personalities would also help make intervention more
constructive. Estrada and Habibie spoke up mainly because of
their ties to Anwar. It would be good in future to address such
hot-button issues as detention without trial, press freedom, free
and honest elections, IMF programs and foreign debt relief. Then
the intervention would be less partisan, and its impact extend
beyond one man's case.
The other imperative for the new openness is for ASEAN to act as
the grouping that it is, expressing a collective position, not
just individual nations mouthing disparate, if frank, views. A
single voice, forged by majority vote or consensus, would be much
harder to ignore than the comments of specific governments. To be
sure, agreement on such delicate issues as human rights will be
extremely difficult. But try the association must, if only to
harness the major issues of the day as a force for ASEAN unity,
not fractiousness. One agreement to aim for is a code of
citizens' rights and duties with different implementation
deadlines for various members, depending on their level of
political, legal and economic development. Having devised a
country-specific schedule for liberalizing trade, it's time the
grouping did the same for politics.
Adopting constructive intervention need not lead ASEAN to dump
its traditional tack of raising concerns in private, which
remains appropriate in certain circumstances. And let no one
think the path of open debate is without perils. Two are most
pernicious: members might still let nationalist pride drive them
to conflict, and outside powers could exploit frictions within
the grouping. Plainly, ASEAN solidarity will be tested - and
hopefully strengthened - more than ever.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: URGENT ACTION - ARRESTS
FOLLOW-UP
21 October from ajsloot@worldonline.nl
PUBLIC AI Index: ASA 16/28/98
Further information on UA 237/98 (ASA 16/26/98, 8 September
1998)- Mass Arbitrary Arrests / Prisoners of Conscience New
concerns: Fear of torture and ill-treatment / Fear for safety /
Health concern
MYANMAR Over 200 members of the NLD opposition
political party, including Thakin Khin Nyunt, aged 84 (released)
New name: Dr. U Saw Mra Aung, aged 80, and 54 people, including
23 NLD members
Thakin Khin Nyunt was released on 14 September 1998, and 32
others also arrested by Myanmar's military authorities since 6
September 1998 have also since been released. However, there are
serious concerns for 54 people who were recently arrested in a
related case, some of whom were reportedly severely beaten during
interrogation. Hundreds of other prisoners of conscience who are
still detained remain in danger of torture or ill-treatment.
Dr. U Saw Mra Aung, an 80-year-old medical doctor and an elected
member of parliament, was arrested on 6 September. In view of his
age, Amnesty International is particularly concerned about his
health while in detention. In mid-September he was appointed as
Head of the symbolic People's Parliament by the few National
League for Democracy (NLD) leaders who are not currently in
detention. The NLD is Myanmar's leading opposition party, led by
Nobel prize laureate, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
In a press conference on 7 October, the State Peace and
Development Council (SPDC, Myanmar's military government)
announced that 54 people, including 23 NLD members, had been
arrested in connection with a "conspiracy" to
"incite unrest" by NLD members and students allied with
foreign organizations. Amnesty International could find no
evidence in the SPDC statement that any of those arrested had
engaged in anything other than peaceful civil disobedience in
Myanmar. Amnesty International is also concerned by reports that
some of those detained before the press conference were severely
beaten during interrogation, and that they may not be receiving
the medical care they could need as a result.
SPDC officials have stated that NLD members are being held in
government guesthouses and treated well. The SPDC also claims
that detainees are participating in discussions about the future
of the country with government officials. However, other reports
indicate that NLD members are being intimidated into resigning
from the party, and that most of them are held in detention
facilities around the country, including Insein Prison in Yangon,
where hundreds of political prisoners are held.
According to the NLD, over 900 of its members have been arrested
since May, including some 200 elected members of parliament.
Student activist sources also claim that hundreds of their
colleagues have been arrested during the same period.
Because of the lack of access to Myanmar by journalists and
independent human rights monitors, it is impossible to confirm
these numbers. However, Amnesty International believes that
hundreds of opposition activists have been arrested in the last
five months, many of them for their peaceful political
activities, including holding demonstrations and distributing
leaflets, calling on the SPDC to convene the parliament elected
in 1990, and attempting to meet with colleagues around the
country.
FURTHER RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send
telegrams/telexes/faxes/express/airmail letters in English or in
your own language: - welcoming the release of Thakin Khin Nyunt
and 32 others arrested by Myanmar's military authorities since 6
September 1998; - expressing deep concern at the recent arrests
of 54 people in a related case, and at reports that some were
severely beaten during interrogation and may not be receiving
medical attention; - urging the SPDC to release all those
arrested in the last five months for their peaceful political
activities, including Dr. U Saw Mra Aung; -urging the SPDC not to
ill-treat or torture anyone currently in detention; - calling on
the SPDC to make public a list of all those detained, their
whereabouts, and any charges brought against them; - reminding
the government of Myanmar of its commitment to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Article 20
(1):"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and association."
APPEALS TO:
Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt, Secretary 1
State Peace and Development Council
c/o Director of Defence Services Intelligence (DDSI)
Ministry of Defence, Signal Pagoda Road
Dagon Post Office
Yangon
Union of Myanmar
Telegrams: General Khin Nyunt, Yangon,
Myanmar
Telexes: 21316
Faxes: + 95 1 229 50
Salutation: Dear General
Senior General Than Shwe, Chairman
State Peace and Development Council
c/o Director of Defence Services Intelligence (DDSI)
Ministry of Defence, Signal Pagoda Road
Dagon Post Office
Yangon
Union of Myanmar
Telegrams: General Than Shwe, Yangon,
Myanmar
Telexes: 21316
Salutation: Dear General
COPIES TO: Diplomatic representatives of Myanmar accredited to
your country.
PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY. Check with the International
Secretariat,
or your section office, if sending appeals after 8 December 1998.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association." -
Article 20 (1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Visit: Amnesty International UDHR campaign website on
http://www.amnesty.excite.com
Amnesty International Coordinating group Burma on
https://www.angelfire.com/al/homepageas/index.html