BurmaNet News April 15, 2005

[Editor]

April 15, 2005 Issue # 2698


BUSINESS / MONEY
Energy Intelligence Group: Myanmar: caveat emptor
The Harvard Crimson: Unocal investment draws ire

ASEAN
AFP: ASEAN's stability threatened by failure to act on Myanmar: analysts

REGIONAL
Xinhua News Agency: Illegal Myanmar immigrants arrested in Thailand
Between a rock and a hard place: Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh

INTERNATIONAL
AFP: UN rights forum slams systematic abuse in Myanmar

OPINION / OTHER
The Nation: Is Thai democracy under siege?



_____________________________________
BUSINESS / MONEY

April 15, Energy Intelligence Group
Myanmar: caveat emptor—Jim Washer

The purchase of Unocal will give ChevronTexaco a big boost in terms of
production and reserves, but it could also saddle the US major with a
tricky new challenge -- what to do about the 28% stake it will inherit in
the controversial Yadana gas development in Myanmar (Burma). Unocal has
just settled out-of-court a US lawsuit relating to alleged human right
violations perpetrated by the Myanmar military during the construction of
the Yadana pipeline (EC Dec.24,p4). But the timely resolution of that
litigation does not get Chevron off the hook, as several pro-human rights
groups are quick to point out.

Myanmar's military government, suppression of democracy and scandalous
record on human rights make it a pariah in the eyes of much of the world,
particularly the West. Chevron has now joined the ranks of the few
remaining Western investors in the country's modest petroleum sector --
"rejoined" might be a more accurate way of putting it, since Texaco was a
high-profile investor in Myanmar, as operator of the smaller Yetagun gas
project, before its 2001 merger with Chevron. Texaco withdrew in 1997,
selling its interest to UK independent Premier Oil, for what it insisted
were strategic reasons following "an asset review ... to determine ways to
maximize the value of its assets." But the timing was striking, coming
just a few months after then US President Clinton introduced a ban on new
US investment in the country. Premier has since pulled out itself.

Now Texaco, as part of ChevronTexaco, is back again. But for how long?
Chevron has already talked about possible divestments from the Unocal deal
of around $2 billion, and human rights lobbyists say that unless Myanmar
is one of the first disposals it risks facing the kind of campaigning and
negative publicity that have hounded Unocal in recent years.

Chevron "have bought themselves a major headache," the pro-democracy Burma
Campaign UK warned in response to the Unocal acquisition. Chevron is
likely to enjoy a brief grace period while lobby groups wait for it to
make an announcement on its plans for Yadana, but it should be in no doubt
as to the pressure it could face," Burma Campaign director John Jackson
tells Energy Compass. "They need to really understand the threat is
serious if they make the wrong decision."

There will also be pressure from faith-based investor groups in the US.
"We will be finding out what their intentions are and encouraging them to
divest," says Doris Gormley, a consultant on socially responsible
investment to the National Jesuit Conference.

Chevron has reentered Myanmar at a time when the pro-democracy lobby both
in and outside the country is very much flexing its muscles. The movement
took great heart from its legal victory over Unocal, and has subsequently
stepped up pressure on Total, Unocal's partner and Yadana's operator, with
a new campaign involving 51 organizations in 18 countries launched against
the French major in February (EC Feb.25,p12).

Total is regarded as the main obstacle to winning European Union agreement
for sanctions against Myanmar. France has consistently blocked such a step
because, Jackson believes, of Total's involvement in the country. "If
Total pulled out of Burma, it would open the way to a more progressive
French foreign policy. It would still have to be fought for, but the
obstacle would have been removed," he says.

The brighter light shone upon Total's operations in Myanmar appears to be
having some effect. The Norwegian Petroleum Fund, established by Oslo in
1990 as a means of safeguarding Norway's long-term interests, is reviewing
its portfolio of investments in the light of new ethical guidelines
introduced last December. Total is one of the investments under scrutiny,
according to the chair of the fund's advisory council on ethics, Gro
Nystuen. "We have the Total case on our table," Nystuen says. "We would
look at that in the context of human rights." The fund is a significant
investor in Total, with a holding currently valued at just under $900
million.

Should Chevron decide it can do without the problems that have plagued
Unocal and Total, it should have no shortage of takers for its Myanmar
interests. While US sanctions and shareholder and campaign group pressure
have reduced Western investment to a trickle, plenty of Asian companies --
particularly state firms -- are still keen (EC Mar.11,p5). A consortium
led by China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC), for example, has signed
no less than six production-sharing agreements with state-owned Myanmar
Oil & Gas Enterprise since October 2004. CNOOC, of course, was Chevron's
main rival for Unocal, and if Chevron decided to rationalize its new
portfolio, CNOOC could be a prime candidate for some of the assets,
particularly in Asia.

_____________________________________

April 15, The Harvard Crimson
Unocal investment draws ire—Nicholas Ciarelli and Daniel Schuker

While Harvard announced last week that it will divest from PetroChina, the
University has maintained investments in other companies that have drawn
fire from activists for alleged ties to human-rights abuses, including oil
and gas company Unocal Corp.

The firm has been criticized in the past for its connections to the
Burmese military, which provided security for a pipeline project there in
the mid-1990s.

The army has been accused of egregious violations of human rights during
the construction of the pipeline.

On campus, the Burma Action Movement (BAM) released a statement yesterday
calling upon the University to divest from Unocal.

Harvard has held Unocal shares at least since March 31, 1999, when the
University reported owning 141,616 shares in the company, valued at over
$5 million at the time. Online Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
records for Harvard do not extend past this time.

At the end of 2004, the University owned 37,974 shares of Unocal,
according to filings with the SEC. If the University holds the same stake
today, its value would exceed $2.1 million based on its share price at the
close of trading yesterday.

“We would like to hope that a university leading human-rights initiatives
and teaching its students to become responsible global citizens would
divest from companies complicit in crimes against humanity,” read a
statement provided by group President Ohnmar Khin ’07.

The group charged that the proceeds of Unocal’s pipeline project “fuel a
brutal military dictatorship that has committed systematic rape, ethnic
cleansing, and imprisonment of over a thousand political prisoners.”

BAM said it wants to help the University prevent what it called
“hypocritical and unethical investment practices that threaten to taint
Harvard’s reputation.”

A University spokesman said that Harvard does not comment on its investments.

LOOKING BACK

In 1996, a consortium began work on a natural gas pipeline in Burma,
called Myanmar by the military junta that took control in 1988 and
disregarded the results of a subsequent democratic election.

A Unocal subsidiary was one of four investors in the pipeline project.

Many activists have said that the Burmese military­, which provided
security for the project, committed human rights abuses—including forced
labor, rape, torture, murder, and forced relocation­—against peasants in
the pipeline area.

In 1996, human rights group EarthRights International brought Unocal to
federal court in Los Angeles on behalf of Burmese villagers suffering from
the alleged violations during pipeline construction, which ended in 1998.
The suit, Doe v. Unocal, was filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a 1789
law that allows aliens to sue in U.S. courts for violations of
international law. The group pursued a separate suit in California state
court.

Each party recently announced a settlement of both suits. While the terms
were not disclosed, EarthRights said Unocal will compensate the plaintiff
villagers and pay to help them establish improvement programs in the
region.

“Unocal has never condoned, encouraged or participated in human rights
violations in any project,” Unocal said in a statement posted on its
website. The company also stated that all workers on the pipeline project
were voluntarily employed and compensated for their work and that no
villages were relocated. On April 4, two weeks after Unocal announced the
settlement, ChevronTexaco Corp.—the second-largest American oil company
after ExxonMobil—revealed its plans to purchase Unocal for about $16.8
billion.

Some analysts expect ChevronTexaco will sell Unocal’s Burmese assets to
avoid drawing calls for divestment, according to Reuters News Service.

ChevronTexaco has drawn criticism from several activist groups for its own
actions in the developing world. EarthRights International is suing the
company for alleged human-rights violations in Nigeria though the firm
denies responsibility.

At Harvard, BAM has also questioned the University’s investment in
ChevronTexaco. At the end of 2004, Harvard owned 305,689 shares of the oil
conglomerate’s stock, according to SEC filings.

_____________________________________
ASEAN

April 15, Agence France Presse
ASEAN's stability threatened by failure to act on Myanmar: analysts

Manila: The failure of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
to take a strong stand over Myanmar's repressive regime threatens the
stability of the grouping and could even worsen the human rights situation
in the country, analysts warned.

The warning came after ASEAN foreign ministers failed this week to reach a
consensus on whether Myanmar should take the chairmanship of the regional
grouping in 2006, despite pressure from Western nations and criticism from
within ASEAN.

"They are putting the future of ASEAN in the hands of a military regime
that has time and again lied about promised reforms, including the freedom
of (opposition leader) Aung San Suu Kyi," said Debbie Stodhard,
coordinator of the Bangkok-based Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma.

ASEAN foreign ministers who attended a retreat in the central Philippines,
avoided making a decision on Myanmar's chairmanship next year and instead
asked Myanmar to make a decision at ministerial meetings in Laos in July.

Political noises ahead of the retreat died down when the ministers
cloistered themselves at a beachfront resort, and the Myanmar foreign
minister Nyan Win was instead grilled on reforms during a 45-minute coffee
break.

That way, the chairmanship issue was left out of the official ASEAN
agenda, a strategy to show Myanmar that the other nine members were not
closing ranks against it, said a senior ASEAN diplomat after the meeting.

The ministers preferred to use "gentle persuasion" on Myanmar, which if
pushed to the wall could take a more hardline stance against democracy
fighters, the diplomat warned.

"The only predictable thing about Myanmar is its unpredictability," he said.

ASEAN also wants to show the world that it will not be swayed by dictates
from Western powers, a reference to pressure from the United States and
European Union which have both imposed tough sanctions against Yangon amid
threats to boycott future ASEAN meetings chaired by Myanmar.

This did not mean however that ASEAN was not concerned and diplomats were
not doing anything to solve the chairmanship deadlock.

"Sometimes less is more," the diplomat said. "And it doesn't mean that we
are not doing anything about our concerns," the diplomat said.

Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo admitted that there was reluctance
from ASEAN to strip Myanmar of the alphabetically rotating chairmanship
because it would set a "very dangerous and very bad precedent."

Yeo described the discussions over Myanmar as a private and intimate
family affair.

However, he warned that Myanmar should immediately decide on its
chairmanship or drag the entire ASEAN into its own political affairs.

Stodhard said the more influential ASEAN members like Malaysia, Singapore,
Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines should exert more pressure on
Myanmar because they have more to lose if the grouping disintegrates.

"The powerful countries of ASEAN have greater investment in the prestige
and credibility of ASEAN," Stodhard told AFP.

"And they should ensure that ASEAN remains relevant and credible. It would
seem that by deferring the decision (on Myanmar's chairmanship),
deliberations of the military regime are far more important than the
entire grouping," she said.

"The ministers have offered the ASEAN as a hostage to the regime."

"All this gentle persuasion has only resulted in the further deterioration
of the human rights record in Burma (Myanmar) and by extension, the
security in the region," she said.

Stodhard said that stripping Myanmar of its chance to chair the grouping
was not tantamount to interfering with its internal problems because it
now involves the future direction of the group.

"When Burma (Myanmar) was invited to join ASEAN, the FMs likened it to a
marriage where the bride is expected to fit in to the household of the
groom. She hasn't still. And if this was a true marriage, there would have
been a divorce a long time ago," she said.

"They probably would be filing criminal charges now against the regime,"
Stodhard said.

However former ASEAN secretary general Rodolfo Severino, now a visiting
fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, said the
issue of Myanmar's chairmanship was "not as large as some people make it
appear to be."

He said that stripping Myanmar of the chairmanship was not likely.

"There has to be some very serious reason for it and I don't think that
ASEAN is going to allow outside forces to dictate what its internal
arrangement (is)," Severino said.

"The question is a possibility of a boycott. That is something that can be
negotiated," with the United States and Europe, he said.

_____________________________________
REGIONAL

April 15, Xinhua News Agency
Illegal Myanmar immigrants arrested in Thailand

Sixty-eight illegal Myanmar immigrants were arrested in Thailand's western
border province Ranong, The Nation newspaper reported on Friday.

Following a tip-off, police inspected two Myanmar boats moored at tambon
Pak Am in Ranong and found 68 illegal Myanmar immigrants inside, including
38 men and 30 women, Lt-Colonel Phansak Samantarat, commander of border
patrol police unit 451 was quoted by The Nation newspaper as saying.

The 68 immigrants were taken to Pak Nam police station after failing to
present immigration documents to the authorities, he said.

The laborers, hailed from Myanmar's Song Island, have paid 1, 500 baht per
head for passage to a fishing pier in Thailand's southern Prangnga
province. They had been planned to be sent to work in Phangnga and Surat
Thani.

_____________________________________

April 14, Burma Issues
Between a rock and a hard place: Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh—M. Reddy

In October of 2004, the government of Malaysia, despite its generally
ambivalent posture towards refugees, declared that it would recognize the
Rohingyas, a group of Muslim people who live in Arakan State in Burma, as
refugees and would furthermore offer them identification documents and
work permits. Although the Malaysian government declined to offer
Malaysian citizenship to any Rohingya refugee, the government’s actions
are nonetheless significant, especially as Malaysia is the first and only
country in the world to offer resettlement opportunities to this
population .

A few months after this announcement, on the 15th of February, 2005,
researchers from Forum-Asia, a Bangkok-based organization, conducted an
interview with Kabir (not his real name), a 17-year old Rohingya refugee
from Kutupalong Camp in Bangladesh, who decided to make the long trip to
Malaysia with a group of men from his camp. In response to the lack of
basic freedom and opportunities in camp life in Bangladesh, this young
refugee resolved to forge new prospects in Malaysia, despite the risks
associated with the long trip. His story, poignantly told on the eve of
his departure to Malaysia, reflects the simmering frustration of other
Rohingya refugees, who observe that their livelihoods in the refugee camps
are no more certain or stable than they were in Burma. As this 17 year old
says, “We may die at sea or may be arrested on the shore, but we consider
that death or arrest is better than the present life in the camp” .

The Rock: Burma

"Why did our parents leave Burma more than a decade ago? Of course, there
was no freedom of movement, no freedom of speech, no citizenship, no right
to work, no support, and only persecution by the government. But here in
the camp we face the same situation,” says Kabir2.

When speaking of their homes, Kabir and other Rohingya refugees from
Arakan State, like refugees from other parts of Burma, tell similar
stories of forced labor, land confiscation, extortion, sexual assault, and
arbitrary taxation. However, the Rohingya, unlike other groups in Burma,
must also face a regime that fundamentally opposes their rights of
citizenship, and curtails their ability to practice their Islamic
religious beliefs .

As this unrelenting campaign of disempowerment undermines their ability to
survive in Burma, many Rohingya have journeyed into Bangladeshi territory
and are now mired in the tenuous and unstable politics of two refugee
camps, Kutupalong Camp or Nayapara Camp. As of November of 2004, both
camps housed over 20,000 people and, because of refugee resistance to
repatriation to Burma, the population of these two camps is not likely to
decrease in the near future1.

The Hard Place: Bangladesh

The population of Kutupalong Camp and of Nayapara Camp largely represents
the remnants of two large refugee flows from Arakan State; the first
exodus occurred in 1978, probably in response to the repressive “Four
Cuts” military operation launched by the Burmese government, while the
second occurred more recently in 1991-1992, when over 250,000 Rohingya
refugees fled to Bangladesh after the newly created ‘Na Sa Ka’ police,
with the explicit support of the Burmese government, began an excessively
repressive campaign against the Rohingya. Those who have made the journey
to Bangladesh, a country that itself is reeling from its own economic
circumstances, often find that they are stigmatized, marginalized and even
harassed by local people and camp officials3.

Kabir recalls a recent episode in which the police stopped him and another
refugee on their way back into their refugee camp. He remembers, “The
police beat us mercilessly and took us to their barracks. They ordered us
to make a statement that we had gone out of the camp to meet refugees who
had fled 
They said that if we made this statement they would let us go.
When we refused, they beat us again and again and then they demanded money
to release us.” Eventually, Kabir’s mother was forced to pay 400 Taka ,
all of it borrowed from relatives, to ensure the release of her son2.

Also, Kabir says that “the majees [refugee ‘leaders’ who are appointed by
Bangladeshi officials] and the camp officials are always preventing us
from doing anything. The officials and the majees always blame us when we
try to organize any event, let alone when we want to organize protest and
demonstration against camp authorities.” Furthermore, the police,
according to Kabir, regularly and arbitrarily detain people, especially
young men2.

As for the Bangladeshi people that Kabir has encountered, he complains
that “the local people hate us even more than the Burmese do”2. Chris
Lewa, a researcher from Forum-Asia on the Rohingya, reports that local
news reports are rife with stories that construct the refugees and the
camps, in general, as economic and security threats to the region1.

In addition to the hostility that is demonstrated by both camp officials
and local people towards the Rohingya refugees, the camp facilities and
conditions also prevent refugees from creating opportunities in
Bangladesh. In particular, schoolteachers are frightened away from the
camps by the threat of police and majee intimidation, thereby leaving the
camps without the adequate manpower to educate Rohingya children. In fact,
Kabir, whose formal education ended in Class 4, alleges that, “if I could
get the chance to study here [in the camp], I would abandon the journey
[to Malaysia],” even though camp officials often bully educated people2.

The Alternative: Malaysia?

To date, over 40 Rohingya refugees from Kutupalong area have safely made
the trip to Malaysia, although not all of them have been successful in
their attempts to find jobs there. Based on their reports, Kabir concludes
that fleeing to Malaysia is the most reasonable alternative to a life in
the camp. Additionally, Kabir believes that Malaysia, unlike the other
potential destinations that he has apparently considered, including Saudi
Arabia, has a similar culture to that of the Rohingya refugees2.

In the preparation for the trip, Kabir says, “In our group, we have
experienced boatman...We have collected about 120,000 Taka among us and we
bought the necessary supplies such as life jackets, rice, potatoes,
diesel, binoculars, radio, two large maps
” Kabir anticipates that the
trip will take 10 days, but, for good measure, the group bought enough
supplies for 15 days. When asked about the risks associated with his
impending journey, Kabir replies, “I already told you [the interviewer]
that I know it is a very risky journey, but we don’t have any other
option. We are leaving the camp to find peace and freedom”2.

However, Malaysia is currently in the midst of a strong anti-illegal
immigrant campaign and, despite the announcement that the government will
issue identification papers and work permits to Rohingya refugees, their
assimilation into the Malaysian social fabric may indeed be hampered by
the anti-illegal immigrant sentiment that is now sweeping through parts of
the country.

Yet, Kabir says that many refugees “are fed up by all the restrictions and
systems imposed on us. We can see no difference between the people living
inside Burma and those living in the refugee camps,” it is hard not to
understand this young man’s motivation for seeking an alternative to the
life that he is currently leading in the Kutupalong Camp in Bangladesh.
Unwanted in the country of his birth and stigmatized in the country of his
exile, Kabir feels that has no choice but to flee yet again to find work
and relative freedom in a distant country -- another stateless casualty of
Burma’s brutal regime.

_____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

April 15, Agence France Presse
UN rights forum slams systematic abuse in Myanmar

Geneva: The UN's top human rights body sharply criticized "systematic"
abuse by Myanmar's military junta, calling on it to restore democracy and
free all political prisoners, including opposition leader Aung San Suu
Kyi.

The 53-member UN Human Rights Commission passed a resolution without a
vote expressing "grave concern at the ongoing systematic violation of
human rights ... of the people of Myanmar."

The resolution introduced by European countries, with Japan's backing,
slated a packed list of abuse "persistently carried out" by the military
including "extrajudicial killings, "widespread rape", "continuing use of
torture", forced relocations, people trafficking, and the persecution of
civilians.

It called on the government to "end systematic violations of human rights
in Myanmar" and "to restore democracy and respect the results of the 1990
elections" by releasing the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi's National
League for Democracy (NLD).

Myanmar's representative at the annual meeting, Nyunt Maung Shein,
rejected the move as "quite distant from reality and the true situation on
the ground".

"The sweeping generalization such as the use of the phrase 'systematic
violations of human rights' is unacceptable," he told the Commission.

The UN body backed the call to integrate the NLD fully into the national
convention process, warning that "an inclusive approach at the national
convention is an essential step in the democratisation process".

The resolution also expressed grave concern at ceasefire violations and
ongoing harassment of members of the NLD and the "persistent denial of
their human rights and fundamental freedoms".

Myanmar insisted individual interests or those of the NLD "will not be
allowed to take precedence over the interest of the entire population".

"Only criticizing us will not help the situation, encouragement and
support for positive actions we take are also needed," the country's
delegate added.

The vote renewed the mandate of the UN rights expert dealing with Myanmar,
maintaining international scrutiny of the military regime's record and
urged more cooperation with the UN's envoys.

"We believe an active cooperation will help to bring Myanmar to a peaceful
transition to civilian rule," said Julien Alex, Luxembourg's
representative at the Commission, on behalf of the European Union.

UN special representative Razali Ismail said in Malaysia Thursday that the
world body was "very disappointed" with Myanmar's failure to implement
democratic reforms and release Aung San Suu Kyi.

Razali has not been allowed into Myanmar for a year and the UN Special
Rapporteur on Human Rights, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, has also been shut out
of the country recently.

Pinheiro told the Commission recently that the international community
should seize every opportunity to make inroads into Myanmar and maintain
dialogue with the government despite the apparent hardening of the junta.

The resolution adopted Thursday welcomed the recent release of nearly
20,000 prisoners in Myanmar, although only 110 of them were political
prisoners, and efforts to stop the recruitment of child soldiers.

China and India objected to an "unbalanced approach" in the criticism of
Myanmar, although they did not oppose the consensus.

_____________________________________

April 14, The Epoch Times
Belgium to reopen rights probe on Total in Myanmar

BRUSSELS - Belgium is set to reopen an investigation into alleged crimes
against humanity committed by French oil giant Total in Myanmar following
a court ruling, the plaintiff's lawyer said on Thursday.
The probe is the first to involve a company rather than an individual
under a controversial human rights law claiming universal jurisdiction
that has caused Belgium diplomatic grief, especially with the United
States.

A magistrate opened the investigation in 2002 after four political
refugees filed a lawsuit against Total, accusing it of supporting
Myanmar's military junta.

The refugees also sued Total Chief Executive Thierry Desmaret and another
executive of complicity in the torture and forced labor of workers who
were building a pipeline in the country, formerly known as Burma.

But the investigation was later suspended pending a court ruling on
whether a refugee had the same right as a Belgian citizen to use the law,
which empowers courts to try perpetrators of these crimes committed
anywhere in the world.

On Wednesday, a Brussels arbitration court granted that right to one of
the refugees, Aung Maw Zin, because he had been living long enough- three
years- in Belgium.

"The examining magistrate can start where he left off," the refugee's
lawyer, Alexis Deswaef, told Reuters.

Total spokesman Philippe Gateau said the company would review the
tribunal's ruling before making a comment.

Total has previously denied funding the military in Myanmar but has said
the junta paid soldiers to protect the company's installations and
workers. The pipeline was completed in 1998.

Total and other Western multinationals have been under pressure from
activists to withdraw from Myanmar, shunned for its human rights record
and suppression of political opponents.

The United States and European Union have imposed sanctions on its
military government.

In December, U.S. oil company Unocal settled two lawsuits filed by 15
villagers who accused it of ignoring rights abuses by soldiers while the
pipeline was being built.

Unocal, recently acquired by ChevronTexaco and a partner of Total in the
pipeline project, nevertheless denied any responsibility.

Asian companies have quickly stepped in to replace Western firms that have
withdrawn, vying for Myanmar's natural wealth in oil and gas, timber, gems
and minerals.

Belgium revised the human rights law in 2003 to make it more difficult for
foreigners to use it for politically motivated or frivolous lawsuits.

The country had suffered a diplomatic nightmare after scores of lawsuits
flooded its courts against Israeli leader Ariel Sharon and U.S. leaders.

_____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

March 22, The Nation
Is Thai democracy under siege?—Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mike Mitchell

The recent elections in Thailand produced an overwhelming victory for
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai. But was it also a
victory for democracy and a reaffirmation of a democratic society and the
rule of law? A close look at Thaksin's first term raises the uncomfortable
proposition that despite free elections, Thailand is slipping further into
the grip of an autocrat.

Thailand is a critically important state that represents a main pillar of
support for economic growth and political pluralism within the Southeast
Asian region. Despite increasing economic gains, all is not well in
Thailand.

Since assuming power Thaksin has led his government on a campaign that is
eroding civil liberties, in order to consolidate power and government
controls in his homeland. The government institutions Thaksin leads are
operating without accountability or transparency.

Nowhere is this more evident then the government's actions in the deaths
of nearly 2OO militants in southern Thailand. Without question, there was
excessive, deadly force used to quell the disturbances at the Krue Se
Mosque and elsewhere in the Muslim-majority southern provinces, where 110
militants were gunned down last April. Security forces shot to death seven
protesters, and another 78 were crushed or suffocated while under the
control of authorities being transferred to detention facilities after
last October’s demonstrations in Narathiwat's Tak Bai.

It has been just over one year since Somchai Neelapaiiit's disappearance.
Sonchai, a prominent human-rights lawyer, disappeared after receiving
death threats and is now believed by his family to be dead. Immediately
following the announcement of his disappearance, Thaksin was quoted
saying, "Somchai had disputes with his Wife.  Perhaps he just wants to be
away from his family problems for a while." His statement represented more
then a callous disregard for Somchai's safety; it represented an attempt
at deflecting attention away from those who could be responsible for
Somchai's abduction.

Thailand has been known as a country with a vibrant, free press, but since
Thaksin took office, there has been a steady constriction of press
freedoms, intimidation of journalists and consolidation of media outlets
under direct control of senior government officials and the government
itself.

ln a process that is chillingly similar to tactics used by Singaporean
government officials to destroy and intimidate opposition democracy
activists, Shin Corp, founded by Thaksin, is suing the head of the
Campaign for Popular Media Reform (CPMR) and three editors of the Thai
Post for libel. The charges are a response to the CPMR'S published
research that demonstrated Shin's profits skyrocketed more than US$960
million (Bt37 billion) since Thaksin assumed office.  Punishment could
include jail time and a heavy fine. The only broadcast television not
under direct control of the government is owned by Shin.

The Thai Journalists' association along with the Thai Broadcasting
Journalists' Association has documented more than 20 cases during the past
three years where editors and print and Broadcast journalists have been
dismissed or transferred, to appease the government.  Journalists have
reported to non-governmental organisations that they have been directed to
tone down critical reports of the government.

Media outlets that have "played ball' have been rewarded with ad-revenue
increases, and those that resist have had their ad revenue cut and are
bought up by conglomerates owned by top government officials. The result
is a form of self-censorship by Thai journalists who have curtailed the
kind investigative reporting that serves as a watchdog for the public
interest and a critical check against government excess in any democracy.

Thailand's commitment to democratic reforms, a vibrant free press and
respect for human rights have spurred the country's growth and made it an
anchor of stability in a volatile area. The erosion of these democratic
values affects not only the Thai people, but the region as a whole.
We need a strong Thailand, we need an economically dynamic Thailand, we
need a Thailand that can serve as an example for all that can be achieved
when people live under a democratic government. One thing is certain: if
Thaksin is successful in his campaign to substitute autocracy for
democracy; it will be a loss for every person in Southeast Asia who
believes in freedom and individual rights.

Dr. Chee Song Juan is chairman of the Alliance for Democracy and. Reform
in Asia, which links democracy and human-rights activists throughout Asia.
Mike MitchelI writes on Asia from Washington, DC.