BURMA'S INSINCERE ATTITUDE ON DRUGS

For the second time in six months, the United Nations is sponsoring a
conference against drugs in the centre of the main drug trafficking in
Southeast Asia. The United States and several other countries are
boycotting this largely futile meeting of regional policemen. Burmese
organisers claim this shows that certain countries-translation: the United
States-refuse to co-operate with Burma in its efforts to fight the drug
trade. If it were not so serious, it would be funny.

Even the reason for the second meeting of law-enforcement chiefs is
unclear. The meeting of Asean police chiefs in Rangoon last May produced no
discernible positive results. On the contrary, the it seemed distasteful to
force the top law-enforcement officers to meet in the home town of Khun Sa,
Lo Hsing-han and other infamous, free drug dealers. Officials argued that
the chiefs could make personal contacts that would serve all countries
later on.

Perhaps this is true. But even last May, it seemed somewhat unsavoury. In
many minds, correctly, Burma and drug trafficking are linked. The country
produces more opium and heroin than any other in the region. Its illicit
drug factories are churning out hundreds of millions of methamphetamines
and similar stimulants. Burma's leading drug traffickers all have direct
links to the leaders of the ruling military junta.

Thailand, India and Laos all have declared drug trafficking from Burma to
be a major threat to their national security. Chinese leaders, who
ironically are close to the Burmese dictators, have stated that drugs
threaten both the health and the national security of southern Chinese,
particularly in Yunnan. The World Health Organisation recently pointed out
that use of drugs from Burma has caused and spread the major part of the
ruinous and tragic Aids epidemics in South and Southeast Asia.

Against all of this, Interpol and the UN Drug Control Programme took their
24th conference of Asia-Pacific law enforcement chiefs to Rangoon. Perhaps
they like the availability of hotels, caused by a world-wide tourist
boycott. Perhaps they think it was Burma's turn. Many would call their
choice a bad idea, and in bad taste.

Burmese officials, not known for their humility, went immediately on the
offensive. Col Tin Hlaing, the junta officer who doubles as interior
minister, blasted "some responsible countries" for boycotting the meeting.
He made it clear he meant, especially, the United States. The Americans, he
went on, were insincere in anti-drug co-operation. In their long fight
against drug trafficking the Americans have been accused of many things-too
much violence, pressuring allies too hard, giving too much aid, and
focussing on supply rather than demand. Failing to fight drug trafficking
is a new charge against the US. It is also ridiculous on the face of it.

The Americans boycotted the Rangoon conference, again, to protest the
Burmese failure to take action against their own drug traffickers. It is
unproductive in the extreme to argue that the Americans will not assist the
anti-drug effort when Rangoon allows its home-grown traffickers to walk
free in Rangoon, invest in government-backed projects, and run private,
drug-dealing fiefdoms, like the United Wa State Army in the northern areas.

The United Nations should think more seriously about putting its
conferences in such cities as Rangoon. The fight over the site made it
impossible for any progress at the meetings. But the main problem is Burma
itself. The attack on the US is a laughable effort to divert attention from
the drug traffickers who live and prosper in that country. The continuing,
growing addiction of Thai youths is the daily proof that Burma will not
co-operate on fighting drug trafficking.