Thai Policy Toward Burma: Principled or for Profit?

THAI POLICY TOWARD BURMA: PRINCIPLED OR FOR PROFIT?

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, freedom in Burma has long been under siege by a military junta calling itself the State Peace and Department Council (SPDC). In response to last year's brutal assault against the supporters of the National League for Democracy NLD, and its leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Congress quickly passed-and the President signed into law-the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

This was an appropriate response to an act of Terrorism orchestrated and carried out buy the SPDC and its affiliated organizations.

Last week, the State Department issued its annual human rights report, and the section on Burma evidences egregious and systematic human rights abuses. Let me read one excerpt from that report:

[the SPDC's] extremely poor human rights record worsened, and it continued to commit numerous serious abuses. Citizens still did not have the right to change their government. Security forces continued to commit extrajudical killings and rape, forcibly relocate persons, use forced labor, conscript child soldiers, and reestablished forced conscription of the civilian population into militia units.

Murder, rape, forced labor, child soldiers . . . this is a sobering reminder of how egregious and extreme human rights violations are in Burma.

While many in Burma's neighborhood raised concerns with the situation in that country, including Malaysia and Indonesia, Thailand-led by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra-seemed keen on letting the wind out of sanction sails at every opportunity. This strikes me as odd behavior given Thailand's processed commitment to democracy and human rights.

Where others speak out to demand concrete actions from the SPDC, including the unconditional and immediate release of Suu Kyi and her compatriots, Thaksin has repeatedly risen to defend those who Secretary Powell referred to as "murderous thugs".

Last year, he initiated an international forum on Burma self-dubbed the "Bangkok Process" that did not include the NLD, the United States, or other proven champions of freedom. However, it did include the SPDC, and was described the Thaksin as a meeting of the "like minded." The "Bangkok Process" is fundamentally flawed by the very absence of Suu Kyi and her supporters at the table. Tellingly, they remain under arrest and detention in Burma.

I agree with Norwegian Foreign Minister Jan Petersen that "all voices in the country had to be heard and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi must be released." In stark contrast, Thaksin recently stated, "Burma is on the right track. . . . If they follow our recommendations, they will be okay and get everything done."

With narcotics, HIV/AIDS and other undesirable exports pouring across Burma's borders into Thailand, it is only fair to question Thaksin's motivations in his cozy relationship with the SPDC. Some suspect that the raison d'etre can be summed up in a single word: iPSTAR.

iPSTAR is a $350 million broadband satellite owned by Shin Satellite, Sattel, and Shin Corporation, a holding company created by the Prime Minister that owns 53 percent of Sattel. If successfully launched and operational, the satellite will beam its signal across Asia.

To convince doubting Thomases who suspect that Thailand's approach to Burma may be based on selfish profit-not principle-Thaksin should answer the following single question:

What investments, including projects and activities related to iPSTAR, do Shin Satellite and Shin Corporation have in Burma, and/or have planned for Burma?

I intend to pose this same question to Secretary of State Colin Powell when he appears before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee next month.

Let me close by saying that many of us remain concerned with the continued deterioration of democratic institutions in Thailand-including a free and independent press. We are alarmed and distressed by continued reports of the deportation of as many as 10,000 Burmese refugees, exiles, and migrant workers from Thailand to Burma each month. My colleagues can find additional information on this matter in a February 25th article by Ellen Nakashima in the Washington Post and through Human Rights Watch's report "Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Thai Policy Toward Burmese Refugees and Migrants."

With rising tensions in the south, it is more important that ever that Thailand stay the course in its political and legal development.

I am sure my colleagues will agree that accountability and transparency must be maintained in Thailand, be it a crackdown on drugs or business with Burma. As the last few weeks have clearly demonstrated, Thai politicians are quick to promise a chicken in every pot-but sometimes chickens get the flu. I say this only to illustrate my hopes that Prime Minister Thaksin has prepared an alternative approach toward Burma and the SPDC that includes the full participation and input of Suu Kyi and the NLD as well as all ethnic nationalities.

I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks an article from Thailand's English language newspaper The Nation be printed in the RECORD. Thaksin has it wrong-the United States is not a "useless friend" to Thailand. On the contrary, America is a strong advocate of democracy and human rights throughout the region.