BurmaNet News, May 28-31, 2005

[Editor]

May 28-31, 2005 Issue # 2729

INSIDE BURMA
The Daily Telegraph: Rebels and drug smugglers fight it out on Burma's
last frontier

ON THE BORDER
Irrawaddy: Shan refugees to be moved back to Burma
Mizzima: Mass signature campaign against Salween Dam

ASEAN
AFP: Malaysian FM says govt will not block anti-Myanmar parliamentary motion
The Jakarta Post: An ASEAN deal for Myanmar

REGIONAL
Financial Times: Myanmar may use Bimstec to bring India and ASEAN closer
Irrawaddy: Thailand gives migrant workers a deadline

INTERNATIONAL
AP: Forced labor at top of International Labor Conference agenda

OPINION / OTHER
Asian Wall Street Journal: Indonesia's lessons for Burma

REPORT
Human Rights Watch: Burma: army and proxies attack Shan civilians

REVIEW
Christian Science Monitor: Did the author of '1984' foretell the Burma of
2005?

____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

May 31, The Daily Telegraph
Rebels and drug smugglers fight it out on Burma's last frontier –
Sebastien Berger

AT the top of Gon Kha hill on the border between Thailand and Burma, the
rebels of the Shan State Army shelter inside sandbagged wooden
fortifications and dug-outs.

Less than half a mile away at the foot of the hill are six enemy positions.

Between the two, on a steep, grassy slope, the SSA claim that hundreds of
their opponents have died. The soldiers argue that they had no choice but
to mow them down as they charged up the hill.

After almost half a century of fighting against Burma's military
dictatorship, the SSA is struggling for its very survival.

The rebel group once controlled swathes of Burma's Shan State, in the
notorious Golden Triangle, but has seen its territory shrink to four
enclaves, home to little more than 10,000 people.

It is one of the last groups preventing Burma's military junta from
claiming total control of a country that has rarely been fully united
during its history.

Now its headquarters at nearby Doi Taileng are under siege by the United
Wa State Army, described by America's Drug Enforcement Administration as
one of the largest drug-producing and trafficking organisations in the
world.

The Wa, another of Burma's many minorities, agreed a ceasefire with the
generals in Rangoon more than a decade ago, leaving it free to concentrate
on making fortunes from heroin and methamphetamines.

Capturing Doi Taileng would give the Wa access to a new smuggling route
for the drugs it dispatches across Asia and as far as America and earn the
regime's gratitude for defeating the Shan, one of the last ethnic armies
resisting Rangoon's direct rule.

At last week's Resistance Day ceremony Col Yawd Serk, the leader of the
SSA, said: "We all know what is happening today. Life here is getting
harder but we have to go on.

''In the present situation it is not wise to think of our own personal
interests. We should think of the big picture - not to let our ancestral
homeland fall under the enemy."

According to Col Yawd Serk, the 800 men ranged against him were from the
UWSA's 171st military brigade, led by Wei Hsueh-kang, for whose capture
the America's State Department has offered a $2 million reward.

Wei is listed as a "drug kingpin" by the United States government. Earlier
this year he was indicted in New York on charges of global heroin and
methamphetamine trafficking.

Col Yawd Serk said Wei was being actively assisted with men and materials
from the regime's military rulers, the State Peace and Development
Council. "All their heavy artillery are manned by SPDC troops," he said.
"The Wa are helping the SPDC. This is a drugs shipping line and if our
troops are not here, they can move to and from this area."

Burmese officials have denied involvement, saying the militias are
fighting among themselves. But Debbie Stothard, of Altsean-Burma, a group
pushing for reform in Burma, said: "It's quite clear the Wa army are
fighting because of common interest with the Burmese military."

Col Yawd Serk insisted that he receives "not a penny" from narcotics, even
though he and several of his officers are former members of opium-financed
armies and he says that barring his own impoverished villagers from
growing poppies would condemn them to starvation. "We are waging war
against drugs. When we know the main culprits, we hit them hard, so we
cannot tax them at the same time," he said.

The colonel funds his insurgency with $1 million a year from taxes on teak
exports, cars and cattle, and some individual foreign donations, he
explained.

Nonetheless Nikolas Win Myint, a spokesman for the United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime in Rangoon, said: "Over time every group has been
involved to some extent.

''It's hard for anyone to claim that they are entirely innocent, with the
history of drugs as complicated as it is in the Shan state."

After independence from Britain in 1948 the Shan, divided into more than
30 principalities in the sprawling region's rugged hills, agreed to join
the Union of Burma, allegedly with the promise of the right of secession.

But feeling exploited and politically eviscerated by Rangoon, they rebelled.

Col Yawd Serk was defiant, as he needs to be.

If the enemy has bigger guns, "It's good for nothing if you have no guts,"
he said.

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

May 30, Irrawaddy
Shan refugees to be moved back to Burma – Nadar Chann

About 500 Shan refugees will have to return to Shan State on Tuesday, the
deadline set by the Thai Army by which the group must be escorted back
across the Thai-Burmese border.

The refugees, including more than 200 orphans, fled to Thailand’s Mae Hong
Son province in April when rebel Shan State Army (South) forces clashed
with the pro-Rangoon United Wa State Army.

These internally-displaced persons have been living in Doi Taileng camp
just inside Burma since 2000. They left the camp after UWSA attacked the
SSA-S in April.

Six Shan rights groups on Saturday asked the Thai government to reconsider
its decision to repatriate the refugees to Burma

“Where do they move if they must leave Thai soil?” said Nang Hseng Noung
of Shan Women Action Network. “The attacks could start again at any time
despite the current pause in fighting between the Wa and Shan.”

The decision to relocate the refugees was announced by Thai Third Army
Deputy Commander Major General Manas Paorik on May 18.

_____________________________________

May 30, Mizzima
Mass signature campaign against Salween Dam – Violet

Calling for a halt to the Salween dam project along the Thai-Burma border,
the local people have embarked on a mass petition campaign under the
banner of Karen social and environment group.   Karen Rivers Watch (KRW),
a coalition of Karen social and community organisations, has been
collecting signatures of individuals since April one opposing construction
of the dam.

Already more than 3,000 people have put their signatures expressing
solidarity with the campaign, which will continue till September, a KRW
official said.  The move by KRW is "to prove the Karen people's concern
and to show solidarity with the Thai movement against the Salween dam
project," the official said.

Though at present, there are no activities for construction of the dam, a
joint venture of the Thai and Burmese governments, a recent renewal of the
proposal for exploiting Salween River by the Electric Generating Authority
of Thailand (EGAT) indicates that the plan has not been put off.

Unlike in the Mekong River basin, where many local and international
organisations are involved in campaign against construction of dams, the
public awareness about the issue is relatively low in both Thailand and
Burma. It is largely because of Burma's complex civil war that very little
information about Salween is available with the people about the Salween,
which runs along the Thai-Burma border before turning inside Burma.

However, the mass petition against the Salween dam is being used as a
popular information sharing tool at the grass-roots level. This is done as
the KRW activists educate the local people while travelling on foot and
collecting signatures.

The KRW published a report late last year, stating how the Karen people
were paying the price for cheap electricity for Thailand and how the
inhabitants in the entire project area were being evicted.  The report,
"Damming at Gunpoint", details on the atrocities of the Burmese army, who
have destroyed 85 villages and depopulated a vast stretch of the Salween
bank since 1995.

At present, about 8,000 villagers are living as internally displaced
persons (IDPs) in the area around the Salween on the Thai-Burma border. 
The Bangkok Post, a Thai national newspaper, reported on May 20 that the
Burmese government would use the electricity for local use and sell the
surplus to Thailand.

In response to that, Saw Nay Thablay of KRW said, "If you look from other
regions, you will view the country's entire population, including the
military leadership, as locals. However, if you look from within the
country, you will find only us as the local people. The Baluchaung
Hyro-power plant, which was built in Karenni State, should have immensely
benefited the local Karenni people.

But, it only caused forced relocation, untold environmental damage and
human sufferings. It certainly does not indicate that the local
communities will be benefited."   Unlike in Burma the Thai law recognises
the right to voice public opinion. However, the Thai constitution
stipulates that any activity, relating to the national boundary, requires
Parliamentary approval.

Thus, any movement within the country against the Salween dam project will
attract that provision of the law. But Karen social organisations, such as
KRW, hope to make the Thai people feel that they too have responsibilities
in maintaining the environment in the affected areas.

"Whatever the political regime there may be, dam builders from Thailand
should acknowledge that ethnic groups like Karens, will always be their
neighbours on the border. Any plan should treat them as equal stakeholders
to ensure protection of natural resources and maintaining a sound
environment in this frontier area", a KRW official said.

_____________________________________
ASEAN

May 31, Agence France Presse
Malaysian FM says govt will not block anti-Myanmar parliamentary motion

Malaysia's government will not block a motion seeking to deny Myanmar the
ASEAN chairmanship when parliament reconvenes next month, Foreign Minister
Syed Hamid Albar said Tuesday.

"There's no problem," Syed Hamid told reporters of the motion, which seeks
to punish military-run Myanmar for failing to introduce democratic
reforms.

"If they want to, they can discuss it."

The motion filed by the cross-party Pro-Democracy Myanmar Caucus in the
March meeting of parliament was originally supposed to be debated at the
end of the April parliament sitting.

Lawmakers from the Caucus have said they believe Myanmar has put pressure
on Malaysia to halt the motion, which seeks to deny Yangon the rotating
chairmanship of the regional body that it is due to assume in 2006.

Parliamentarians in several countries in the 10-member Association of
Southeast Asian Nations have urged their governments to block Myanmar
because of Yangon's lack of democratic reforms.

ASEAN is due to discuss the issue with Myanmar, also known as Burma,
during the bloc's ministerial meeting in Vientiane, Laos in July.

The European Union and the United States have warned they would boycott
ASEAN meetings if Myanmar is allowed to chair the 10-member group.

____________________________________

May 31, The Jakarta Post
An ASEAN deal for Myanmar – Thang D. Nguyen

The word crisis in Chinese has two characters: The first means "danger,"
and the second "opportunity." This is how the issue of Myanmar's
chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) should
be dealt with, given Rangoon's obstinate posture on human rights, freedom
and democracy.

Myanmar (formerly Burma) is scheduled to assume the chairmanship of ASEAN
-- which is rotated in the alphabetical order of the ten member countries'
names -- in 2006.

To be sure, Myanmar feels ready and able to assume this position. It faces
objection, however, both from external forces and from within ASEAN, which
groups Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

The objection is grounded on Rangoon's infamous treatment of Nobel-winning
activist and democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Since 1989, the military
has been putting her under house arrest.

Moreover, in 1990, Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy
(NLD), won a landslide election, but Myanmar's junta regime never
acknowledged its victory.

The EU, for instance, has threatened to boycott the Asia-Europe Meeting
(ASEM) if Rangoon did not free Suu Kyi and show democratic progress and
continues to put pressure on Myanmar.

Likewise, lawmakers in several ASEAN countries, namely: Thailand, Malaysia
and Singapore, have independently signed petitions calling on Myanmar to
forgo the ASEAN chairmanship.

Under international pressure, ASEAN has, as a group, also called for Suu
Kyi's release. During a gathering of its foreign ministers in Phnom Penh,
Cambodia, in June 2003, ASEAN issued a statement urging Myanmar's military
rulers to free her.

This was an unprecedented event because one of the key founding principles
of ASEAN is the so-called non-interference policy, which says that the ten
member countries will not comment on and interfere with each other's
domestic political affairs.

But, alas, nothing has changed. Suu Kyi and her NLD colleagues are still
under house arrest.

What is more, last October, Rangoon's hard-line leadership fired the then
Prime Minister Khin Nyunt, who had drafted the country's "Roadmap to
Democracy," which was supposed to culminate in free elections. This move
has, of course, been viewed as another major drawback for democracy in
Myanmar.

Thus, Myanmar occupied a prominent part of the discussion at this year's
ASEM, which took place on May 6-7 in Kyoto, Japan. Foreign ministers from
ASEAN+3 (Japan, China, and South Korea) countries and their EU counterpart
called for "a sense of urgency" on Myanmar's democratic reforms, but
stopped short of coming up with a concrete action or solution.

Even though as a group it has publicly asked Myanmar to free Suu Kyi, the
main obstacle for ASEAN in dealing with Rangoon's ruling regime is the
non-interference policy.

Rangoon knows this and has thus been, and still is, able to play a
cat-and-mouse game with ASEAN on the basis that Suu Kyi's freedom and
democratic progress in Myanmar are -- and rightly so, according to the
non-interference principle -- its domestic political affairs.

Now, what to do?

It seems that no one single country in ASEAN can single-handedly solve the
Myanmar problem. Therefore, it calls for a collective, consensus-based
solution.

The solution is for ASEAN to arrange a private gathering of foreign
ministers from all ten member countries to lay out a simple proposition:
If Myanmar wants to keep the chairmanship of ASEAN next year, it must
release Suu Kyi and allow for the "Roadmap to Democracy" to resume; if
not, the chairmanship will go to the next country in line -- which would
be the Philippines.

To give this deal some teeth, the majority of the ten member countries
must agree on it and set a deadline by which Myanmar has to submit a
response to the proposition. If needed, a majority-rule vote is one way to
obtain consensus among the member countries on the proposal.

Interestingly enough, on May 7, the second day of the ASEM meeting in
Kyoto, three bombs exploded at two shopping centers in Rangoon, killing 11
people and wounding 162 others. Both the ruling regime and Myamar's rebel
groups have denied responsibility for the attack.

Regardless of who was behind the blast, it gives ASEAN another reason with
which to pressure Myanmar. In fact, it makes sense not to have Myanmar
hold the ASEAN chairmanship next year because security is a must for the
grouping's various meetings throughout the year in the country.

Myanmar might very well argue that the bomb attack is a matter of its
domestic politics and, therefore, ASEAN should not be concerned about or
interfered with it.

ASEAN's response should be: When a domestic issue, such as the safety for
the group's leaders and meetings in a host country, is at stakes or
endangered, it affects each member country and the group as a whole. Thus,
it is no longer a domestic issue with which ASEAN may not interfere.

Alternatively, Myanmar may use the bomb attack as an excuse to forsake its
chairmanship of ASEAN and, thereby, saves face.

Whatever choice Myanmar may make, ASEAN does have an opportunity to push
it to free Suu Kyi. And it is an opportunity that ASEAN should not miss.

____________________________________
REGIONAL

May 31, Financial Times
Myanmar may use Bimstec to bring India and ASEAN closer

Myanmar is keen on bringing India closer to the Association of South East
Asian Nations (Asean) and has said that it would use the Bimstec
agreement, currently being negotiated between Bangladesh, India, Myanmar,
Sri Lanka, Thailand, Nepal and Bhutan, to achieve the purpose.

Addressing a group of Indian journalists that visited Myanmar and Laos, as
part of the Asean media exchange programme, director general of
directorate of trade, ministry of commerce, Colonel Khin Maung Lay said
his country wanted to reduce barriers between India and Asean countries,
and wanted the Bimstec agreement to act as a bridge. India is presently a
summit level partner of Asean and is working on a free trade agreement
(FTA) with the Asean countries.

The early harvest programme under FTA had to be dropped because of
disagreement on the rules of origin (ROO). ROO is an important part of any
bilateral trade agreement as it determines how much local content a
product should have to qualify as an original product of the member
country.

Yangon has also supported India's bid for a permanent seat in the UN
security council. According to official sources, Myanmar favoured India
over Japan and Brazil since it was its closest neighbour.

Since India is Myanmar's major trading partner and trade between the two
countries was increasing rapidly, Col Khin Maung Lay said it was
imperative to find ways and means to increase the economic co-operation.

Apart from traditional items like rice, beans and pulses, Myanmar is
searching for new areas of co-operation in the areas of information and
communication technology (ICT), energy, small & medium enterprises and
industrial products.

Trade between the two countries currently stands at $ 470 million with
trade balance in Myanmar's favour. The two governments have decided to
increase trade to $ 1 billion in the next couple of years.

A joint task force comprising leading industry members from the
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the Union of Myanmar Federation
of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (UMFCCI), constituted in February
2004, have come up with a number of recommendations to enhance bilateral
trade, border trade, bilateral investments, technology transfer and
co-operation in services.

According to UMFCCI secretary general U Sein Win Hlaing, the two countries
should earnestly try to identify key areas for co-operation and efforts
should be made to improve border trade.

India ranks 21st as far as foreign investment in Myanmar was concerned and
occupies 8.4% share in the total trade volume, he said. Tourism is another
area which the Myanmar wants to focus on. Information minister Brigadier
General Kyaw Hsan said the two regions should be promoted in such a way
that tourists visiting India also visit Myanmar and vice-versa.

Indian ambassador to Myanmar RK Bhatia said since the country had
supported India's growing relations with Asean, it was viewed as an
important partner by New Delhi.

_____________________________________

May 31, Irrawaddy
Thailand gives migrant workers a deadline – Khun Sam

Thai authorities have issued a deadline of June 30 for all migrant workers
in Thailand to register for work permits. The registration period begins
on June 1, and any migrant worker who fails to comply by the deadline will
face arrest and deportation.

Na Mi, of the Thai-based Migrant Assistance Program, said that all migrant
workers must find employers and apply for official work permits. No worker
without a permit will be allowed to remain in Thailand. She added that no
new foreign workers will be allowed to register who did not also register
during the previous year.

Registration for migrant workers is allowed at any local government
office, and applications for work permits can be processed within 24
hours, Director-General of the Department of Employment Chuthatawat
Indrasuksri is quoted as saying in Bangkok’s English language newspaper
the Nation.

Thai authorities warn that any worker who does not register by the June 30
deadline risks arrest and deportation, and employers of unregistered
workers face a maximum of three years in jail or a fine of up to 60,000
Baht (US $1,500).

According to Thailand’s Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, about 1.2
million foreign workers registered in Thailand in 2004, of which 900,000
were from Burma.

Thailand’s latest push to document migrant workers in the country follows
a similar campaign initiated last year.

Na Mi said that last year’s deadline was not strictly enforced. While most
workers obtained permission to remain in Thailand, many did not formally
apply for work permits, though the police made few arrests. This year,
many believe that Thai authorities will be far less lax in enforcing the
June 30 deadline.

Na Mi has also complained that working conditions for Thailand’s migrant
communities are unsafe, and that migrant workers receive less in wages
than the official minimum wage.

The minimum daily wage in Thailand—set by the government—is 175 Baht in
Bangkok; 173 Baht in Phuket; 149 Baht in Chiang Mai, 147 Baht in Ranong;
and 139 Baht in Mae Sot.

_____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

May 31, Associated Press
Forced labor at top of International Labor Conference agenda

Forced labor will be the focus of the 177-nation International Labor
Conference starting Tuesday, with the situation in Myanmar at the top of
the agenda.

The conference, which oversees the United Nations' International Labor
Organization, will study a report from its representatives in Myanmar,
which the ILO has long accused of using forced labor to aid the military
and build roads and other projects.

Last year, the agency said Myanmar failed to make much progress in curbing
forced labor and suggested that unless the military leaders take swift
action, it would ask its member states to review their relations with
Yangon.

Earlier this year, a high-level ILO delegation led by former Australian
Governor General Sir Ninian Stephen abruptly cut short a mission to
Myanmar, saying it had been denied an expected meeting about forced labor
with a top junta official.

Complaints about forced labor are widespread in Asia and also include
China's network of labor camps and reports of forced prostitution
elsewhere.

The conference also will address working standards for minors, workers in
the occupied Arab territories and the 30 million employees in the world's
commercial fishing industry.

_____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

May 30, Asian Wall Street Journal
Indonesia's lessons for Burma – Nursyahbani Katjasungkana

May is a month for anniversaries in Southeast Asia. Last week, we
celebrated the seventh anniversary of Indonesian democracy that followed
the collapse of the Suharto regime and three decades of military rule
after the reformasi uprising in 1998.

On May 27, it will be 15 years since elections were held in Burma. In
1990, the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi,
won an overwhelming majority with over 80% of the seats, with 16 of those
seats won by women candidates. Burma's military junta whose party won a
meager 2% of the seats, chose to ignore the result -- because it thought
it could.

These two seemingly unrelated events share the same place in my heart. In
many ways, there are clear parallels between what we experienced in
Indonesia under Suharto, and the situation the Burmese people still now
find themselves. They are characterized, on the one hand, by dictatorial
regimes committing human-rights abuses, while on the other, people whose
desire for democracy has never been stronger and more resolute.

Even during the darkest days of military rule, many of us who have
struggled for reform in Indonesia knew that tyrants, in power by virtue of
sheer might alone, would never survive. Despite many detractors who
predicted dire consequences of chaos and destruction for an Indonesia
without Suharto and a strong military government, we knew the will of the
people would eventually prevail and the doom and gloom scenarios prove
unjustified.

As it turned out, the speed of Indonesia's transformation from military
dictatorship to fledgling democracy proceeded faster than our wildest
expectations. Although much still needs to be done and the path ahead is a
rocky one, an irreversible direction has been set for my country.

I know that today in Burma ordinary people are fighting the might of the
ruling State Peace and Development Council, not with guns but peaceful
acts of defiance which are positively courageous. In a country where
signatures on a petition can get one arrested, members of the NLD say that
nearly half a million people -- and the number continues to grow by the
day -- have signed a petition calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.

This beacon of hope for the Burmese people's desire for freedom has been
under custody -- in her third house arrest since 1989 -- after an attempt
on her life on May 30 two years ago during which democracy supporters were
attacked by a military-sponsored mob of over 5,000 people. This was
provoked by the military's genuine fear for the strength of the people's
aspirations for democracy.

The incident in northern-western Burma that became known as the Depayin
massacre left scores dead, while the ensuing crackdown -- with hundreds
arrested -- was the most ruthless attack on the democracy movement since
the 1988 crackdown on nationwide demonstrations.

Yet despite obvious personal risks, many people in Burma continue to
soldier on in the struggle for democracy. And they need our unwavering
support and encouragement.

Apologists for the regime, many of whom ironically hail from so-called
"free" countries, like to parrot the well-used security arguments that
democracy cannot be rushed, and that without the military's "law and
order," the country would just fall apart. Such tired, patronizing talk
rings hollow around my ears. After all, Indonesia is today Southeast
Asia's largest democracy despite these detractors -- not because of them.

That's also why the Indonesian caucus for Burma represents parties right
across the political spectrum such is the support in my country for
democratic change in Burma. We feel a strong sense of solidarity with our
colleagues in Burma because we were in the same boat as them, not so long
ago.

While we were struggling against the injustices of the military, the
Burmese people's overwhelming vote for democracy in 1990 gave us hope that
we could achieve the same in Indonesia, despite what seemed at the time
like a hopeless cause in the face of an entrenched military regime and an
unshakable dictator.

So it can be with Burma too. Fifteen years may seem like a long time to
wait for democracy but it doesn't make the results of the 1990 polls any
less valid.

The Burmese regime's National Convention to draft a new constitution
cannot possibly be legitimate when nine political parties, including the
NLD, which won 91% of the parliamentary seats, have been excluded. This
makes a mockery of democracy and any election conducted as a result of
this new constitution cannot be credible, especially when the results of
the previous general election remain ignored.

With the flowering of democratic change around the region, now's the time
for Southeast Asian parliamentarians to take a more proactive stance on
Burma. If our fates as a people are becoming inextricably linked, then so
should our moral duty to support each other. At this point, supporting
their struggle for democracy is the least that Burma's people should
expect from us.

Ms. Katjasungkana is an Indonesian member of parliament and vice president
of the Asean Inter-Parliamentary Caucus for Democracy in Myanmar.

_____________________________________
REPORT

May 26, Human Rights Watch
Burma: army and proxies attack Shan civilians

Thailand Must Admit Civilians Forcibly Displaced

In a new offensive in Shan state, the Burmese army and its proxies have
targeted and forcibly relocated thousands of civilians, Human Rights Watch
said today. Thailand must allow civilians to cross the border to gain
sanctuary from these attacks.

Thai government sources told Human Rights Watch that Burmese troops were
burning down entire villages in Shan state. Approximately 100,000 Burmese
government troops backed by forces of the United Wa State Army (UWSA), are
implementing a counterinsurgency strategy against the Shan State Army
(SSA). Government forces and the UWSA have regularly targeted civilians by
forcing whole villages to relocate. There are reports that they have also
singled out young Shan men for execution, and have raped Shan women and
girls.

"In the name of counterinsurgency, the Burmese army and its proxies are
executing, torturing, raping and forcibly displacing Shan civilians," said
Brad Adams, Asia Director of Human Rights Watch. "Shan civilians live
under constant threat of having shells rain down on their heads or being
burned out of their villages."

Human Rights Watch expressed urgent concern over the safety of more than
2,000 civilians living near SSA positions in Loi Taileng, across from
Thailand's northern Mae Hongson province. Civilians in Loi Taileng have
been under heavy attacks by the UWSA, including shelling, since March.

On a daily basis, 200-500 Shan villagers have been fleeing to Thailand via
the Fang and Chiang Dao districts in Chiang Mai province, either sneaking
across the border or allowed in by local Thai army commanders for
humanitarian reasons.

Many civilians, including victims of sexual violence, have fled from their
homes in Shan state due to fear of harassment and abuse by Burmese forces
during counterinsurgency operations. Often, the only option is to attempt
to flee to Thailand. But the Thai army has publicly stated that Shan
asylum seekers will not be allowed to cross the border, while those
currently living in Thailand may be pushed back into Burma.

Human Rights Watch called on Thailand to offer refuge to Shan people
fleeing fighting and abuses in Shan State. Thailand still officially
denies sanctuary to Shans fleeing fighting, does not recognize their
possible refugee status, and does not provide shelter or other
humanitarian assistance.

The lack of refugee protections and humanitarian assistance forces Shan
people to either remain as internally displaced persons in Burma at great
risk, or live in hiding in Thailand without legal protections. Many end up
as undocumented migrant workers in low-paid, low-skilled jobs in
construction work, factories or domestic work. Women and girls, many of
them victims of sexual violence, have become vulnerable to human
trafficking and prostitution in Thailand.

"The Thai government still refuses to officially recognize Shans fleeing
fighting and abuses as refugees, even though the risk they face in Burma
is patently obvious," said Adams. "By denying Shan people refugee status
and humanitarian assistance, the Thai government is violating
international law and turning away from a problem at its doorstep."

Major dry season military operations by the Burmese army, or Tatmadaw,
began in March in Shan State, despite promises the Burmese government made
when it announced its August 2003 "roadmap." Offensives by the UWSA are
coordinated with the Tatmadaw in arrangements that allow the UWSA to live
in and develop areas taken through forced relocation of civilians. In this
way, Wa special administration areas in Shan State have been created and
give both the Burmese army and the UWSA incentives to forcibly relocate
the population of entire villages.

Indiscriminate attacks and the forced displacement of the civilian
population during an internal armed conflict violate international
humanitarian law, or the laws of war.

Human Rights Watch noted that fighting may intensify and abuses against
Shan civilians could increase after the announcement earlier this week of
a merger of the Shan State National Army and the Shan State Army, which
had broken in 1995 when the Shan State National Army entered into a
ceasefire with the Burmese government. This is the first time in ten years
that any of the 17 ceasefire groups has broken with Rangoon.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/27/burma11034.htm

_____________________________________
REVIEW

May 30, Christian Science Monitor
Did the author of '1984' foretell the Burma of 2005? – Lilian Handlin

Finding George Orwell in Burma - Emma Larkin
The Penguin Press

In the middle of May bombs struck Burma's capital, leaving 19 dead and
numerous wounded. The government blamed dissident ethnic groups, then
exiled opponents based in Thailand, and finally the CIA. Its adversaries
traced the carnage to a government plot to distract world attention from
its iniquities, while others saw an ongoing power struggle following a
former prime minister's ejection. An Orwellian situation by all accounts.

Ironically, George Orwell, the 20th century's greatest fictional
commentator on totalitarianism, situated his first novel in Burma, now
officially called Myanmar. He would have recognized the mentality behind a
1989 government statement that "truth is true only within a certain period
of time. What was truth once may no longer be truth...." An example of
post-modernist thinking Burmese style.

This is the country explored by Emma Larkin, an American journalist who
visits places associated with Orwell's early life. In 1922 the 19-year-old
Orwell joined the Indian Imperial Police in the service of the British
Empire. As Larkin searches for surviving traces of his stay, she meets the
locals.

The book's European edition was entitled "Secret Histories," an apt
designation for Orwell's past and the present life stories unfolded in the
shadow of an ever watchful government. Since her informants trace their
private and public woes to an oppressive regime, Larkin draws on Orwell's
most famous novels - "Animal Farm" and "1984" - to understand their
travails. Like Orwell, Larkin vividly evokes a world of whispered
conversations, fleeting encounters, and hushed voices, to document life's
horrors in a repressive society.

Larkin assumes that Orwell's fictions targeting the communist and fascist
prototypes of his day illuminate her interlocutors' endured miseries. She
juxtaposes those fictions with what she interprets as their current
Burmese manifestation. The argument that Orwell's Burmese experience
informed his famous critiques is used to justify these comparisons.

Larkin's engaging prose reveals an observant, compassionate, and sensitive
traveler whose often elegiac narrative draws on naturalistic descriptions
to mirror the somber mood and agonizing tales she hears. But "Finding
George Orwell in Burma" discloses more about Larkin than about the country
she explores, since the combination of Orwellianisms and imported
preconceptions does not produce a subtle understanding of contemporary
Burma. She knows ahead of time what she will find, and it only remains for
her informants to provide confirmations - which they do. Larkin takes
Orwell at his word regarding the Burma of the 1920s, much as she raises no
questions about what she is told.

This is not to suggest that what Larkin hears is a pack of lies, only that
her unwillingness to distance herself from her information, and evaluate
it critically, produces predictable conclusions. When the author places
the secret histories supplied her in a broader context, the outcome rarely
rises above journalistic advocacy in layers of propaganda and
disinformation.

Readers will be moved by her prose and, like this reviewer, share her
sympathies, but remain ill informed about the country's complexities.
Orwell's "Burmese Days" is a flawed guide to life under the Raj, while
later secondary information gathered from NGOs and interested parties is
inadequate for the present day.

The sins charged against the current Burmese government are familiar. This
does not invalidate their gravity but indicates indebtedness to sources
with a vested interest in making a wretched situation look worse to
counterbalance governmental lies. Cliches are supplemented by an
uncritical admiration for the embattled opposition, whose moral high
ground is eloquently expounded without a peek behind its facade.

Larkin also assumes the "jury is still out" on whether the West's policy
of reform by impoverishment has worked. It hasn't. A country that in the
1960s voluntarily shut itself off from the outside world now endures an
externally imposed lockdown, making its people's abject lives even worse.

Orwell used art for moral statements about what he interpreted as a clash
between cultures corrupted by their encounter. Today's Burma is a country
mired in a civil war, whose participants are prisoners of their past - of
which Orwell's detested Raj (crudely blamed here for the country's later
ills) was a fleeting, though influential episode. Larkin's judgments fall
short because the keys to Burma's current morass are not Orwellian
insights into two very different forms of totalitarianism but a millennium
of Burmese history and Theravada Buddhism.

* Historian Lilian Handlin is researching Pali Buddhist texts inscribed in
11th- to 13th-century temples in one of Burma's ancient kingdoms, now
known as Pagan.