This FBC Posting contains:

1). Letter to Christian Solidarity Worldwide Trustee

23 April 2005

Sir Andrew Green KCMG

Member of the Board of Trustees

Christian Solidarity Worldwide

Dear Andrew,

The Burmese Army have shown that they can be very brutal. But I would not have thought that they could have been so stupid as to launch on 15 February 2005, following a reported four weeks of heavy artillery shelling, a chemical attack on Karenni fighters so close to the Thai border at Mae Hong Son, a popular tourist resort in north-west Thailand frequented by international visitors. What possible military purpose could be served by an attack using a single device only against Karenni insurgents from the Karenni National Progressive Party ("KNPP") at the border post of Nya My in Kayah State, when the consequences of international exposure, heightened by proximity to the border, would be so serious?

The military junta has denied categorically that any such attack took place ("well, they would, wouldn't they?" I can hear you say) and their Minister of Information Brig Gen Kyaw Hsan told a press conference on 22 April that Myanmar, a signatory of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, does not have the technology to manufacture chemical weapons. He has even gone so far as to deny

that the Burmese military were in any way involved in clashes with the group at the time (though this may reflect a confusion in the initial allegations which focussed on "Karen" insurgents, when the fighters involved were apparently KNPP Karenni in Kayah State). Rimond Htoo, the Secretary-General of the KNPP, was also quoted by AP on 22 April 2005 as acknowledging that: "We do not know whether it was a chemical weapon", which is rather more cautious than Dr Panter's assertions of overwhelming and compelling circumstantial evidence. [Dr Panter mistakenly refers towards the end of his report to the "Karenni National People's Party" when I think he means the "Karenni National Progressive Party".]

Thai Border Security Commander, Maj Gen Thanongsak Apirakyothin, told Associated Press on 22 April that he has no information about the use by Myanmar of chemical weapons, adding: "I think the ethnic minority group is making this noisy complaint to draw attention from the international

community". It would be the Thais who should be more concerned than anyone about the cross-border effects of gas attacks. The web version of the "Bangkok Post" has so far not even mentioned the allegations, though the same paper has for days carried reports from Mae Hong Son of fighting between the Shan and the Wa. You would have thought that reporters at Mae Hong Son would by now have had something to say about the allegations of the use of WMD against the Karenni. Perhaps there will be something in the "Bangkok Post" next week. There is certainly no evidence that, now that the allegations have surfaced, the Thai authorities take them at all seriously.

There have been previous reports of such attacks, all unsubstantiated. Ben Rogers, in his book "A Land without Evil", refers to allegations of both chemical ("blistering, a sign of mustard gas") and biological ("a severe outbreak of cholera") attacks in 1994 to which Dr Panter was then, as now, a

witness. Dr Panter, who was described in a BBC "Today" interview on 21 April as a General Practitioner (a family doctor), is said by Ben Rogers to have taken at the time a suspect polystyrene box clandestinely through Bangkok and London airports, and even into the House of Lords! If Dr Panter seriously believed that the box might be contaminated, he would seem to have been unwise, to say the least, to have exposed his fellow passengers to such risks. But that is past history.

We are told in the report on the CSW website that "brief rainstorm can wash away all traces". But I would have thought that the medical effects on the insurgents could have been examined by international medical specialists rather more experienced than Dr Panter and more definitive conclusions could have been drawn - and weeks before Dr Panter arrived on the scene. It would appear that CSW chose for their own reasons to draw the incident to Thai and world attention only belatedly.

As the CSW website invites readers to seek further information, I should be most grateful to know from Richard Chilvers:

1. Were the Thai military authorities immediately alerted to the suspected use of chemical weapons so close to the Thai border, and if not, why not?

2. Was the Thai Ministry of Public Health likewise immediately alerted, and were Thai and international doctors invited to examine the five patients who, according to Rimond Htoo, Secretary of the KNPP, were sent to a hospital in Thailand - and was it a "Thai" hospital?

3. Was the international scientific community, notably the UN, immediately alerted as well to the incident?

4. Were Thai and international scientists invited to take part in the examination of (reportedly two) artillery canisters found, and was the scientific examination conducted in Thailand, and if so, by whom?

5. Who was the doctor who examined the patients on 21 February 2005, and did he report his concerns to the Thai authorities? Was he a Thai citizen or a foreigner?

6. Why was there such a long delay between the first examination on 21 February and the second examination by Dr Panter on 14 April 2005 - given the serious nature of the allegations, how can a delay of nearly eight weeks be justified?

These are obvious questions which immediately spring to mind, so might I suggest that the draft report on the CSW website be expanded to clarify such issues?

My concern in all this is that the Burmese military stand indicted over the years of serious violations of human rights, but emotive allegations of the kind CSW have now made could be seriously counterproductive. They are believed by none of Burma's neighbours who have most reason to be concerned about the use of WMD on Burmese territory. I accept that CSW acknowledge that they are only "allegations", but CSW nonetheless urge action to be taken on the basis of allegations which some of us would regard as little more than sensationalist, and controlled and contrived in such a way as to exclude any independent examination by international experts.

I have copied this e-mail to ASEAN contacts and colleagues, and would be delighted to pass on to them Richard Chilvers' comments. From my initial contacts with them, you should know that they are highly sceptical that this single, unexplained incident so conveniently close to the Thai border merits the dramatic interpretation which CSW has put on the affair.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Tonkins