CHRO

Rhododendron News

VOL.V No.V NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2002

Human Rights:

 

New Buddhist Pagoda Being Built in Chin State with Forced Labor

Burmese Army on the Rampage of Extortion

Refugees:

District-wide Eviction Left Hundreds of Chin Refugees Shelterless in Mizoram

Chin Refugees in Another District of Mizoram To Be Evicted in January 2003

Ignored Chin Refugees In New Delhi:

The Case of Pu J Lal Kung

The Case of Ms. Cer Cin Sang (Mikhaing)

The Case of Ms. Tha Hlei Sung ( Sungsung)

The Case of Mr. That Ci Lian

The Long and Winding Road to Asylum

Refugees and Displaced Persons

Letter & Press Release:

CHRO’s Letter to Chin Churches and Communities Overseas

 

Facts & Arguments:

Mizo Hnahthlak (or) Mizo Group By R. Vanlawma

 

HUMAN RIGHTS:

 

New Buddhist Pagoda Being Built in Chin State with Forced Labor

November 20, 2002

Chin Human Rights Organization

 

A small Christian village in northern Chin State is the site for a new Buddhist pagoda being built by the Burmese military regime, State Peace and Development Council SPDC, as part of a program to promote Buddhism in a region where the inhabitants are predominantly Christians. Construction of the new pagoda is ongoing at Lentlang, a small village in Tiddim Township, which is located on a major trade route between India and Burma. Authorities are forcing all commercial vehicles mostly operated by Christians passing through the route to carry sand, bricks and other materials needed for building the pagoda at Lentlang.

 

At least about 10 to 20 small trucks are passing through the border trade route every day, and the trucks are made to transport construction materials from nearby villages of Haimual, Rihkhawdar and Malsawm, without any compensation for their services.

 

The pagoda construction project was initially supervised by Lieutenant Moe Kyaw Hein from Burmese army Light Infantry Battalion 269, jointly with officers from the local immigration and police forces. However, since the beginning of 2002, the task was taken over by Light Infantry Battalion 266 after they failed to meet the projected date of completion. The officers in charge of the project were reportedly severely reprimanded by higher SPDC authorities.

 

Residents of Lentlang village, according to available information, are all Christians.

 

The construction of a new pagoda in Lentlang is among several Buddhist pagodas the military regime has built across Chin State since early 1990s. In 1997, the regime constructed a pagoda at Rih Khawdar village, just eight miles away from Lentlang village. Christians were forced to build and contribute money for the construction of the pagoda. Upon completion of the current construction, the pagoda is expected to stand much taller and larger in size than the one that was built at Rih Khawdar five years ago.

 

While building new Buddhist pagodas in various parts of Chin State often by using Christians as forced laborers, since 1997 the Burmese military regime has ceased to give Christians permits for building any new church buildings in Chin state.

 

 

Burmese Army on the Rampage of Extortion

December 19, 2002

 

Burmese army Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 266 based in Ruazua town, Southern Chinland is collecting chickens and goats from villagers in the township. Each village is being asked to provide two chickens and two goats to the army so that the battalion can raise them in the army farm. Each village is also being asked to provide 4800 Kyats to the army to cover the cost of raising the chickens and goats.

 

Ruzua acquired a township status in 2002, becoming the tenth township headquarters in Chin State. As part of the development project for the newly created township headquarters, the Burmese army had used extensive forced labor and extortion.

 

The extortion was the result of a meeting decision within Light Infantry Battalion 266 on November 21, 2001. Chaired by its commander Lieutenant Colonel Ngwe Toe and attended by all gazette and non-commissioned officers in the battalion, the meeting made a number of decisions including the creation of an army farm, to build a Karaoke Hall, and to fence the army camp.

 

The army has already collected about 200 chickens and 50 goats from the Chin villagers all for free. One chicken is worth Kyats 1300 to 2000 and a goat is worth Kyat 8000 to 13000 at the present market rate in the area.

 

 

Refugees:

 

District-wide Eviction Left Hundreds of Chin Refugees Shelterless in Mizoram

Aizawl, November 23, 2002

 

Chin refugees in parts of Mizoram may all be chased out as soon as before Christmas. According to CHRO source, District Authority of Lunglei, the second biggest town in Mizoram state of India has decided to drive out all “foreigners” before Christmas. The “foreigners” includes immigrants from other Indian states who illegally came to Mizoram state in search of better economic opportunities, and Chin refugees from Burma who sought sanctuary there to escape persecutions in their homeland.

 

Chin refugees are the main targets for the ongoing campaign against the foreigners in the district of Lunglei, and many of them have already been evicted not too long a go. Although only those living in the town were targeted, a district-wide eviction is now being implemented in Lunglei area.

 

In June 2002, a meeting was held in Lunglei town in order to make decision on how to drive out all the foreigners from the district, and the district authorities are now implementing the decision made in that meeting. The meeting was attended by several social and organizations such as Young Mizo Association ( YMA), Members of Village Council, Mizo Hmeichhia Insuihkhawm Pawl ( Mizo Women Union ), Mizo Upa Pawl ( Mizo Senior Citizen Association, Young People Conference ( YPC), Young Adventure Club ( YAC ), Consummer Association, and Tualchhung Kohhran Committee (Local Religious Committee). Local units of Mizo National Front, the political party currently controlling the state government, and Mizo People’s Conference also endorsed the decision.

 

The decision to expel foreigners was signed by Chair person. Secretaries of each of the thirteen organizations attending the meeting also signed the order.

 

The decision warned local house owners to not rent out their houses to Chin refugees.

 

It is estimated that there are about 1,500 families of Chin refugees in the whole Lunglei district including 600 to 700 families who are in living in Lunglei town itself. A few of them who are able to afford some money have managed to escape to New Delhi to seek protection from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Office. However, most families are forced to seek sanctuary elsewhere in Mizoram State, where they are likely to risk other security problems.

 

Influx of Chin refugees into India northeastern States have steadily occurred during the last decade since the Burmese military junta began expanding its military establishments in Chin State that resulted in a range of human rights abuse against Chin civilians. Due to close cultural, linguistic and religious ties with India’s Mizo people, Chin refugees who escaped into India have previously been able to live along side the local Mizos without much security problems. However, they are frequently caught in campaigns against foreigners resulting in mass arrests and forced repatriation of hundreds of Chins to Burma.

 

India has not recognized Burmese refugees nor does it allow UNHCR access to the border region where most refugees are concentrated. Instead, since 1995, it has closed down refugee camps along Mizoram border, and many Chin asylum seekers have been forcibly repatriated to Burma in the years that followed. Currently, an estimated 500, 00 Chin refugees are now living as illegal immigrants in Mizoram.

 

 

Chin Refugees in Another District of Mizoram To Be Evicted in January 2003

Aizawl

December 19, 2002

 

Eviction order has been issued to Chin refugees living in part of Dampui village of Serchip district, according to information provided by a Chin refugee living in the area. The order came from the district authority, stating that all Chin refugees residing in northern part of Dampui village must evacuate the area before January 3, 2003.

 

On December 1, 2002, the village chairman of Dampui summoned all Chin refugees living in the jurisdiction and informed them that they must evacuate the area no later than January 15, 2003. Any refugees who do not leave the area before the specified date will be fined 500 Rupees per month up to three months, and anyone who fails to leave the area after three months will be handed over to the Mizoram Police, the order said.

 

The order also said that the refugees stay in the jungle during the month of December and that they would be allowed to come to the village only on Sundays to buy foodstuffs and other basic commodities.

 

No shops or businesses are open on Sunday in the whole Mizoram state since it is a holiday for Mizo people who are mostly Christians.

 

The order further forbade worship services for Chin refugees after January 15, 2003. The Lai Christian Fellowship, a place where Chin Refugees in the area conduct worship services in their own language, is not to be shut down.

 

The Chin refugees’ repeated appeals to Dampui village authority had met with no success.

 

There are about 80 Chin refugees including families currently living in Dampui village, after they fled military repression and religious persecutions in Burma. Most of them are making their living as casual laborers. The eviction of Chin refugees is part of a larger effort to get rid of “foreigners” from Mizoram state when the campaign was intensified in 2000.

 

Ignored Chin Refugees In New Delhi

 

The Case of Pu J Lal Kung

 

Name : Pu J Lal Kung

Sex : Male

Ethnicity : Chin

Religion : Christian

Marital status : Married

Family members : 5

Date of interview: 16/11/2002

Place of Interview: Janak Puri, New Delhi

Date of arrival in India : 15/11/1999

 

 

CHRO: Tell us about your life in Burma?

Lal Kung: I was born on 18th March 1957 at Kalay valley, Hakha lay, Sagaing Division, Burma. On 14th October 1980 I got married to Hram Mem(Par Mawii). We have 4 children. We lived in Tahan, Kalay, Sagaing Division, Burma. I am a farmer. We had 5-acre wide paddy field. In January 1995, for the construction of Kalay-Gangaw rail way, the military junta took all of our fields without giving even one kyat for that. This is the only way of earning our lives and when we lost our field I became jobless for a moment. So we shifted to Chin state in 1996 for our further survival. We made a rest house, sold food and meal in between Thlua Lam village and Hraing Khan village of Thantlang Township. This is the way where the merchants travel to Mizoram, India.

 

 

CHRO: What made you unable to stay in your country?

Lal Kung: First of all, the military took away our 5-acre paddy fields without giving any penny to us, which was the main source of our livelihood from our ancestors. Then, having no idea what to do next, we shifted to the Chin State in 1996. On the road between Thlua Lam village and Hraing Khan village which is the route used by the merchants to India, we run a rest house for the passers by. We sold food and also let them use to stay at nights if it was inconvenient for them to go further at nights. As you know, since it was the only road to go to India and vice versa, the CNF also used that road and used to have a food at our shop. Since they were fully armed we were also afraid of them and did what they asked us to do without any complaint. Life was steady till the beginning months of the year 1999 by doing that business. But, on the end of 1999, the military army came to know about the CNF using our house for shelter. They started accusing us that we supported the CNF and member of CNF. They would oftenly came to our house and making threats to us in various ways. But soon after their warning, the CNF also came to our house and asked for food. Having no option left, we gave them as they might harm us too if they were not pleased. Then, when the military people knew that incidence, they really got frustrated and beat me. The worst thing they did was burning our rest house in our sights only. Then they arrested me and led me to Thantlang to imprison me on that day itself. It was 14th November 1999. But, by God’s sake, I found my way to escape from them on the way. I ran to the border side and got to Sangau village, Mizoram, India. In my absence, my family left in there was tortured by the military asking my where abouts. When they couldn’t bear it all, they joined me where I lived and we were united again in Sangau village, India.

 

 

CHRO: Since you were a foreigner did the local people and the authority give any trouble or harm to you when you were living in Mizoram?

Lal Kung: We moved to Zawlpui from Sangau when my family could join me. There was no harm in the first. We had lived in harmony with the local people. But when we made the sugar cane field and got success in that, they became jealous and tried to find faults on whatever we do. We were hard workers since Burma and knew how to do well in farming. Our farm had become the most successful one, which gave the best result in our village. It was almost Rs.80000 that we got from our farm per year. We got a more comfortable live gradually and that made them feel jealous of us. So, they started complaining to their village council that we were foreigners and that is why we could not made or use any of their farms or did any kind of business on their land. The villagers destroyed all of our sugar cane plants and drove away us from their village. They started discriminating us. They also found faults on our religion. We are the only United Pentecostal Church believers and since they are Presbyterians, they said that we could not use the ration card, or the cemetery if something happened to us. They told us that we could not find wood from the forest and that we could not take any advantage of their land. On some nights, the youth drunkards throw stones to our house and that affected my wife’s health. She soon became too weak and suffered a heart disease. So she was taken to the Hospital and for her operation, she needed a bottle of blood donated. But there was none who wanted to donate her blood. At last, we begged the Indian soldiers and when the empathy was there in their hearts, that soldiers donated their blood to my wife. Then the YMA president Lal Dong Liana and Lal Rin Puia Chairman of the Village Council gave a warning to us that stated that we had to leave here by 15 of June. As we had nowhere to go, we came to Delhi on 21st April 2002.

 

 

CHRO: How is your refugee status now?

Lal Kung: We arrived to Delhi on 21st April 2002 and we instantly reported the UNHCR and gave the application. We were interviewed on 27th July 2000. We received the rejected letter from UNHCR on 27th August 2002.

 

CHRO: How do you survive now? Are you employed now?

Lal Kung: It was incomparable with the urban life and the village life. It is really tough to earn our lives here. Since we don’t know Hindi and English, nobody wants to give us jobs though we approach everywhere which seem to have a vacant place for work. I sold vegetables among our community. And sometimes we got assistance from our Church, the UPC. That is the way we are living here till today.

 

CHRO: How do you think of the UNHCR when you have been rejected?

Lal Kung: I feel really desperate and disappointed. At the same time, I feel really sad and think that there is no right for us. Though we didn’t commit any sin, we were chased by the army form our home country and then again drove away by the Mizos. There is no one to rely on. Sometimes I really wonder what goes wrong with the world now? There is no justice in the world today. I do feel dejected, depressed whenever I think of our family future. Our future is totally dark. I was really taken aback that even though I could show the proper documents that we received from the Mizo Authority that we couldn’t stay there any longer. What I want most is that the UNHCR would take into consideration of our case deeply so that we may be able to be recognized as refugees.

 

CHRO: How do you feel about your security?

Lal Kung: Whenever I see the polices, the soldiers or whosoever who wears the office uniforms, I really got scared and run away from them immediately as we were constantly tortured by them in Burma and in Mizoram. We don’t feel secure, as we know that we can be deported at any time by the Indian authority. This makes me feel insane.

 

The Case of Ms. Mikhaing

 

Name : Mikhaing (Cer Cin Sang)

Sex : Female

Ethnicity: Chin

Religion : Christian

Marital status: Single

Date of Interview: 13/11/2002

Place of Interview: Janak Puri, New Delhi

Date of arrival in India: 16/May/2000

 

CHRO: Tell us about your life in Chin state, Burma?

Mikhaing: I was born on 13/02/1978 in Hakha Township, Chin state of Burma. I passed my Matriculation in 1996 from Basic Education High School, Hakha. After that I served as a clerk in SPDC Office in Thantlang more than tow years.

 

CHRO: Why did you leave from your own home country?

Mikhaing: Because I distributed both UNLD magazines that were all about democracy and human rights concern and Chin state Constitution drafting which were written by my uncle Dr. Lian Hmung Sakhong and Pu Lian Uk (MP) who are exiles in the west. I got the magazines on 08/05/2000 through Chin Development Committee (CRDC). I distributed to each and every person of Democracy activists in Than Tlang Township. When the MI came to know all these things, they immediately came to our house and found the magazine under my bed. Pertaining with this, my mother was imprisoned, as they could not arrest me. The military MI has been trying to arrest me since then. Therefore, I fled to Mizoram State of India to seek my safety.

 

CHRO: How do you feel about your physical security?

Mikhaing: I do not feel good. Because I’m afraid of the local people and I know that I could be deported back to Burma by the Indian authority. In 2000,many Chin refugees were sent back to Burma by the Indian authority. I am leading a difficult life here because our landlords and our neighbors do not like visiting. Since we do not have work, we would like to visit each other. We would like to share our sufferings among our community. However, neighbors’ complained about us and we have to move from one place to another every now and then. Once a stone fell down in front of our room. Our neighbor accused us of throwing a stone. So, we were afraid and we moved to another apartment. At one house that we rent about 5 months back, we were unfairly accused by our landlord that we were stealthily use the electricity for cooking meals though we didn’t use it at all. He took away all the electricity appliances with him and beat severely whom I live together, Salai Za Ceu Lian and Salai Tluang Val Lian. Till now we haven’t been given back our appliances. He told us that we have to pay Rs.2000 for those appliances if we want them back. On the very next day we shifted to another house, as we were drove out by him. Whenever we want to go shopping at the market, we must have a male to accompany us otherwise some guys would try to tease us in an improper ways. So, life is not easy at all.

 

CHRO: Tell us about your indefinite hunger strike in front of the UNHCR?

Mikhaing: On May 30,2000, I submitted my application for refugee status to the UNHCR. I was interviewed only on October 6,2000 and I received rejected letter by post on November 13,2000.And again I submitted appealing letter. Then I waited for six months. I made so many calls to the UNHCR Office and asked for the result. No response was there on my request. So, I was so clear that the UNHCR did not process our cases properly. They ignored our cases along with other 24 people.

 

On May 8,2001, we began an indefinite hunger strike in front of the UNHCR office in 14, Jor Bagh, Lodi Road, New Delhi. Since we did not have refugee status for 6 months, there is no reason for us to stay in New Delhi. We stayed with friends who have financial assistance from UNHCR. We were lying before the UNHCR office silently. We were not allowed to use UNHCR’s restrooms.

 

On the seventh day of the hunger strike, I was too weak and felt stomach pain. On the eighth-day, Two of my friends and I lost our conscious and were taken to the hospital named All India Institute of Medical Science by the police. When I was there, I had three injections on my right arm and was put on three drips. Then I felt stronger.

 

As soon as I was discharged from the hospital on the next day , I again joined the demonstration. Chief of Mission of UNHCR, Mr. Mahiga told us to stop the hunger strike and to go back home. We told him that we had no home to return. We asked him to protect us. Then, the local police came to us and forced us to stop our demonstration on May 16,2001. All refugees in New Delhi also joined one-day hunger strike in supporting our matter. All Burmese Student League (ABSL) took us to their office, as we have no home to return. We stayed more than one month at there .On July 9,2001, I was interviewed again and rejected again on 19, July, 2001.After receiving rejected letter from UNHCR, I went to their office to meet the officer but I could not meet them. I wrote so many applications but still now I receive no response from them. My mind goes blank whenever I think of my future life.

 

CHRO: How do you survive without getting financial assistance from UNHCR?

Mikhaing: When I think of my survival in here, I wonder God’s love to me even though I do not deserve. God provide me food and cloth through my friends from our community in here. I stay along with my friends those who get SA from UNHCR. I lived at the various houses shifting one after another whom I knew from Burma itself. I lived at Pu Tawk Cung Ling’s house for 3 months and then again shifted to Salai Tin Mg Win (BU 618) and lived there for 5 months. At the present I am living with Salai Za Ceu Lian and Tluang Val Lian.

 

CHRO: Do you want to return to Burma?

Mikhaing: Definitely, I do want to. But then when it is so sure that you would be arrested and tortured, what is the use of returning home??

 

CHRO: How do you feel about being rejected by UNHCR?

Mikhaing: I am so sad and feel hurt inside. What I knew about the UNHCR is that it is the place, which give refuge and shelter to the people who have been forced to leave his or her own country, home, etc for political or religious reasons, or because there is a war, shortage of food, etc. And then why I was rejected when I am a refugee? I feel that there is no justice on earth at all because even the UNHCR people neglect us. If they see us in their own eyes how the junta torture and how we suffer in Burma, they would be very sorrowful and sympathize us. The only question that I want to ask them is if they put themselves in my place, how would they be. Even though I am a refugee, I was not recognized as a refugee by the UNHCR. Therefore until and unless they recognize me as a refugee, I would fight for it till I get. You know, nobody wants to be regarded as refugee in the world. But why we keep on asking that?? Because there is no other choice left for us. We need protection.

 

 

The Case of Ms. Sungsung

 

Name : Tha Hlei Sung (Sung Sung)

Sex : Female

Ethnicity : Chin

Religion : Christian

Marital status : Single

Date of Interview: 13/11/2002

Date of arrival in India : 17/01/2000

 

CHRO: What made you flee from your home country?

Sungsung: My father is the president of the National League for Democracy and our basement is their office. I am also the staff member of the party. In September 1999, UN GS Mr.Desoto arrived to Burma. When they came to know of his arrival, Pu Cin Sian Thang (Zomi National Congress), Khin Tun Oo (Shan National League for Democracy) and Dr. Saw Mra Aung (Arakan) met him in Yangoon, the capital of Burma. They were arrested when the MI knew their secret meeting with him. With connection of their arrest, NLD and People Representative Committee stealthily wrote the statement and they sent that book to our office too. I received that book in my hand and the MI knew that I had that one. They came to our house and searched for that book thoroughly and found it. I was not at home when the MI came to our house and my father was arrested. After I was searched by the junta for a long time, I fled to India by the help of my friends.

 

CHRO: Do you hold any legal protection from UNHCR now?

Sungsung: No. I arrived to New Delhi on 17/01/2000 and I gave them the report on 20/01/2000. I was interviewed on 09/03/2000. I was rejected on 21/09/2000. I wrote the appealing letter and was called again for re-interview on 09/11/2000. Since then I don’t get any response from the UNHCR about my status. I wrote so many applications, called the office several times and sent fax every now and then to them, but I am totally neglected. Till date I am not informed that whether I get the refugee status or I am rejected. That is why, I myself is not sure that I got refugee status or not. I do not know where I stand now.

 

CHRO: Could you tell me about your hunger strike in front of UNHCR office?

Sungsung: Pertaining with my status, I didn’t get any information from the UNHCR for a long time. I just got upset for their behaviors and I started hunger strike on 08./05/2001 no matter what. After participating in hunger strike, I was again called for re-interview on 05/06/2001They told me that they would send my result by post, but till now I didn’t receive any letter from them. No matter how I tried to contact them, they just ignored me and don’t take any action on my case. As a result from that hunger strike, now I have the permanent stomach pain.

 

CHRO: How do you survive without getting any financial assistance from UNHCR?

Sungsung: When the other people are trying paths for getting smoother lives, but for me, I wonder how would I eat today and tomorrow. Being a girl from the other side, it is very tough to get a job over here. Besides that, I have difficulty in languages i.e., in Hindi. Salai Za Ceu Lian (BU-434) and Salai Tluang Val Lian (BU-519) sympathize me a lot and let me live with them without giving any penny to them.

 

CHRO: After you left your home country, do you get any news about your family?

Sungsung: After I left my home, I got two letters from my family through traders. Other than that, I could not contact my family. I dare not do that because it is quite dangerous for them if they receive any communication from New Delhi. If the military junta knows that, they would arrest my family. Therefore, I cannot make any contacts with my family.

 

CHRO: How do you feel about the UNHCR when you are just ignored?

Sungsung: I really feel sad that I am ignored for more than two years. I came here just counting on the UNHCR that they are the ones who would take care of the refugees. But things are different. Life is too difficult in here. There are a big gap and difference between the local people and us. The way we eat, the way we lead our life styles, culture, religion, language and to make thing worse we are disdained and bullied by the local people. Whenever I think of my situation that I was an ignored person, I really couldn’t bear. There were times that I got too much depressions and tensions for my life. If I lead my life just like that for another one year, it would surely affect my mental and physical health. I wish that the other fellow would not suffer like me, I wish that the UNHCR would not repeat the same thing like the way they treat on me.

 

The Case of That Ci Lian

 

Name : That Ci Lian

Age : 22 Yr

Sex : Male

Ethnicity : Chin

Religion : Christian

Marital status : Single

Date of Interview: 10/11/2002

Place of Interview: Janak Puri, New Delhi

Date of arrival in India : 12/04/2000

 

CHRO: Tell us about your life in Chin State, Burma?

That Ci Lian: I was born on 27/12/1980 in Thantlang Township, Chin State. I am the fifth son of Pu Than Cung and Pi Par Men. I passed my matriculation in 1999. After I had passed my 10th, the university student leaders and I strongly against the military for there were so many human rights violation in Chin State.

 

CHRO: Why did you leave from your home country?

That Ci Lian: I have left my country because of my insecure life in there. On 27/04/2000 Command Commander Hla Myint Tun was supposed to have a round to Thantlang Township. So, some of the youth and I planned to make a poster and paste it in front of their office. The poster was all about the human rights violations in Chin state like the junta destroyed the Cross, our sacred symbol, order for banning of construction of churches. When we had a secret meeting for that issue on 26th night, the news broke out and the junta came to know about our plot. The soldiers came to the house where we hold the meeting and tried to arrest us. Somehow I could manage to escape from their hands but three of my friends were arrested.

 

CHRO: How is your status now after you had fled from Burma?

That Ci Lian: I arrived to Mizoram on 12th April 2000. When the YMA arrested the foreigners, I again set forth to Delhi and I got here on 14th May 2000. As soon as I got here I sought a legal protection from UNHCR and was interviewed on 09th August 2000. I was on the pending state for months, 9 months to be exact. When my result was not known for a long time, I did hunger strike demonstration for seven days. It affected and was called again for re-interview but soon after I was rejected. Since then I am neglected by the UNHCR office though I tried several ways like making a call to the office, lodging appealing letters, sending faxes for taking my case into their consideration. But it was all in vain.

 

CHRO: How do you survive without the financial assistance from the UNHCR Office? Are you employed now?

That Ci Lian: Because of my lack of knowledge in Hindi and English languages, I could not work permanent at one place. Because of my different face and look from other Indian it is very difficult to get a job. They didn’t believe me at first. Sometimes I washed the dishes in tea stall. I got Rs.700 per month for doing that. Even in that job, I am sacked if the Indian are there to do that. I live my life without job for several days. At those times, I survived by the helps of my friends from our community who has already got financial assistances from the UNHCR. They would share me from their SA when they draw Rs.1400 each per month. In our locality, there are the night bazaars on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday night and I collect the wasted and unwanted vegetables that are thrown by the sellers. This is how I survive here.

 

CHRO: Do you want to return to Burma?

That Ci Lian: Of course, why not!! This is my ever-wanted wish; this is what I wanted to do first. But there is no question for that because obviously, I would certainly be arrested by the military if I go back to Burma. Oh…I really miss my family.

 

CHRO: How do you feel about your mental and physical security without having the legal protection?

That Ci Lian: I passed several nights without having a wink of sleep. I am so worried even if my employers scold me because I am afraid that I have no legal documents to stay here. Given the fact that I have no UNHCR Certificate and visa, I can be deported by the Indian government at any time, any second. This make me feel going wild in sometimes.

 

CHRO: Till now, your country does not seem on the way to democracy and you haven’t got the UNHCR certificate. So, how do you plan for your further survival?

That Ci Lian: There is no way for returning back to Burma until and unless our country gets freedom from the junta. In here also, I don’t say that my life is secure but things are better in here. Anyhow I still can earn my livelihood. Until and unless I am deported by the Indian Government and my country gets democracy, I would fight for my survival. I would always try to get the legal protection from the UNHCR.

 

 

The Long and Winding Road to Asylum

Burmese refugees in New Delhi have traveled a hard road in their pursuit of legal recognition. The agency responsible for assisting these asylum-seekers has not made their lives any easier.

By Tony Broadmoor/New Delhi

( Report about refugees from The Irrawady News November 2002)

 

“The road for a refugee is only as long as you make it,” reads a poster hanging in the lobby of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office in New Delhi. Outside, over 200 asylum seekers from Burma are protesting in front of the compound, pleading for interviews, for recognition as a refugee, and for a simple piece of paper confirming their status as a “person of concern”, which would allow them to stay legally in India.

 

Nearly half of the demonstrators say that their asylum applications have already been rejected by the UNHCR for unknown reasons. Others continue to wait for the organization to hear their cases despite arriving in New Delhi months ago.

 

Asylum seekers, human rights lawyers and Indian activists say that besides the confusing application process, the mission in New Delhi also lacks accountability, offers no support system for refugees whose asylum status is pending—for over one year in some cases—and is trying to implement unrealistic programs of self-reliance for the refugees. To make the recognition process run more smoothly, demonstrators say refugees deserve greater attention and compassion from UNHCR officials. Moreover, they say the influence of the Indian government now pervades all facets of the refugee’s existence.

 

“Without UNHCR recognition you are liable to be arrested at any time,” says Soe Myint, editor of the New Delhi-based Mizzima News Service, an online newspaper covering India-Burma relations.

 

The UNHCR in New Delhi recognized its first Burmese refugee in 1990 and now the city is home to the largest recognized urban refugee population in the world, including nearly 1,000 from Burma. The vast majority of the 13,000 recognized refugees in the capital hail from Afghanistan.

 

But since 1990, much has changed politically inside and outside India, including the more engaging line New Delhi has taken with Rangoon. Also, the UNHCR’s budget is feeling the effects of year-on-year cuts, causing critics to charge that the organization is disengaging from the international stage.

 

“The UNHCR’s problems are more than bureaucratic,” says Indian human rights lawyer Nandita Haksar, who has been working for refugee rights in New Delhi for nearly 15 years. “They have withdrawn from the international scene due to massive funding cuts.”

 

The New Delhi mission agrees that this year’s budget of US $1.2 million, down 20 percent from last year, is inadequate and that the cutbacks are having a direct impact on the condition of the refugees. They stop short, however, of acknowledging that they are gradually shifting the responsibility of caring for the refugees to NGOs.

 

The most conspicuous effects of the budget cuts include a lengthened recognition process for asylum seekers and an increase in the number of rejected applicants, although some blame these problems on the Indian government’s influence over the UNHCR. During the wait, the refugees are at their most vulnerable as they lack money with no opportunity to earn an income. Their financial problems are particularly acute in New Delhi where poverty is already rampant among its homegrown population.

 

Loom Na, 26, arrived in New Delhi from Kachin State, Burma in August and must wait until the end of this year for her case to be heard. Here, her fate is uncertain, but Loom Na has no alternative to staying in New Delhi as she faces arrest back home for her political activities. She now lives with nearly 30 other refugees in a one-room flat in Vikas Puri slum. Even as a group, it is difficult to pay the $30 monthly rent, and the protracted application process has only added to their financial burden. Some have resorted to scavenging vegetables and looking for handouts at nearby markets. “My security is very important to me,” Loom Na says of her immediate concerns. “But now we are facing a lot of problems. We don’t have blankets, food or facilities.”

 

But the UNHCR says it is not their responsibility to provide assistance to asylum seekers during the application process. Instead, refugees like Loom Na must ensure their own survival.

 

“They do what they have to do,” says Wei-Meng Lim-Kabaa, the Deputy Chief of Mission at the UNHCR office in New Delhi. “It is not our concern. Except for their protection concerning deportation… they have to fend for themselves.” She adds that exceptions are made, but that it is difficult to assess the needs of refugees awaiting verdicts concerning asylum status while providing for them during the waiting period drains resources.

 

Sources in New Delhi say the Indian government has told the UNHCR to curtail the number of recognized Burmese refugees, an accusation the UNHCR categorically denies.

 

The UNHCR, whose mandate does not cover the India-Burma border in the northeast, agrees that warming bilateral relations may have affected the situation there. In the mid-1990s, refugee camps along the border were disbanded and thousands were repatriated to Burma, but an estimated 50,000 remain. This is not the case in New Delhi, however, which the UNHCR says still holds a “tolerant attitude” towards refugees.

 

India has not ratified any UN convention on refugees nor have they passed legislation of their own to deal with their burgeoning refugee population. According to a report issued by the New Delhi-based South Asian Human Rights Documentation Center (SAHRDC), this legislative lacunae has “led to the use of refugees as pawns in regional geo-politics” by the Indian government. SAHRDC cites incidents of forced repatriation by Indian authorities to support their claims.

 

“The Indian government is playing footsies with the Burmese regime and it is affecting refugees,” says Ravi Nair, executive director of the SAHRDC. He adds that the UNHCR has been ineffective in staving off this external influence. “They [UNHCR] are always looking over their shoulder to see what the Indian government and Geneva [UNHCR headquarters] are saying.”

 

But refugees are not the only group to come under fire since the government’s policy shift. Over the last two years, two prominent Burmese journalists working on Indian soil have been arrested. Although both have since been released, their activities continue to be monitored. Neither has received any support from the UNHCR, says Soe Myint, who was mysteriously re-arrested in April, 12 years after hijacking an airplane with a bar of soap disguised as a bomb—a move he hoped would win international support for Burma’s democracy movement.

 

“The UNHCR advised me to tell Soe Myint to ease up on his activities,” charges his lawyer, Haksar. “They asked, ‘can’t you tell him to stop?’ As a human rights lawyer I can’t ask a journalist to not write.”

 

Other critics in New Delhi say that rather than fulfilling their mandate in protecting refugees, the UNHCR is more concerned with maintaining its presence and positive rapport with the Indian government—a relationship they say is not in tune with democratic principles. “The UNHCR is colluding with the government in restricting press freedoms,” says Nair, when asked about the two Burmese journalists. “The UNHCR has nothing to do with bloody protection.”

 

The UNHCR, however, maintains that they only advise Burmese journalists to keep a low profile so as not to ruin it for the other Burmese here. “We don’t encourage them to take up political activities,” says Wei-Meng. “Why should a couple of people jeopardize the whole community? They are staying here on the goodwill of the Indian government.”

 

Indian activists say this is a central reason they became involved in helping the Burmese refugees. They say it is imperative to supply refugees with resources to help strengthen their political skills instead of following the UNHCR line, which they say could stunt their political growth. “When the UNHCR does not take the issue of refugees seriously, someone else must become involved,” says E Deenadayalan, general secretary of the New Delhi-based The Other Media, a research group that follows politically sensitive issues. “We have to help sharpen and broaden their political consciousness.”

 

Refugees who have been recognized by the UNHCR here also say the organization has not been doing enough and that their vision of self-reliance for asylum seekers in New Delhi is unrealistic given the lack of jobs.

 

Most single Burmese asylum seekers receive 1,400 rupees (US $30) per month; wives and children of married men receive an additional 600 rupees per month. But according to the SAHRDC, some recent arrivals have been denied a subsistence allowance (SA). And as part of the new self-reliance scheme, the UNHCR has been reviewing cases to assess who they feel no longer needs to receive SA. However, critics say the UNHCR has revoked SA without notice, leaving refugees few options to ensure their survival.

 

“The UNHCR always threatens to take our SA away,” says Dr Ro Ding, an active Burmese dissident in New Delhi. “We all want to work but it is very difficult.”

 

According to the UNHCR’s policy on refugees in urban areas: “[U]nassisted refugees cannot be regarded as ‘self-reliant’ if they are living in abject poverty and are obliged to engage in illicit activities in order to survive.… Refugees who have very limited access to public services and social support systems cannot realistically be expected to attain self-reliance.”

 

Critics of the program say that self-reliance is unattainable for most refugees and that it is shortsighted to think otherwise. “They [UNHCR] have done really inhumane things,” says Haksar. “They cut stipends without notice, putting refugees out on the streets, and they are not accountable to the refugees at any point in time.”

 

However, the UNHCR says they have new proactive programs that remain in their “embryonic” stages that will allow for greater self-sufficiency among refugees. “We don’t want to see people live on handouts forever,” says the UNHCR’s Wei-Ming. “I think we have embarked on a new procedure to cultivate self-reliance.” But when asked whether the agency has been guilty of cutting SA without notice, the Deputy Chief of Mission replied, “I don’t think so…. I don’t know, we are moving towards a new system.”

 

Nobody disputes that the UNHCR’s job is difficult, but the role the UNHCR is attempting to play is no longer plausible, especially given the budget cuts and resource constraints. “The UNHCR is the only protection a refugee has,” says Haskar.

 

Whether the UNHCR implements a new scheme to alleviate the refugees’ burden is unclear, but if they fail to do so, the long, hard road for Burmese refugees in India will most likely lead to nowhere.

 

Refugees and Displaced Persons

(By Human Rights Watch)

 

Who

A refugee is someone with a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, who is outside of his or her country of nationality and unable or unwilling to return. Refugees are forced from their countries by war, civil conflict, political strife or gross human rights abuses. There were an estimated 14.9 million refugees in the world in 2001 – people who had crossed an international border to seek safety – and at least 22 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) who had been uprooted within their own countries.

 

What

Enshrined in Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the right “to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” This principle recognizes that victims of human rights abuse must be able to leave their country freely and to seek refuge elsewhere. Governments frequently see refugees as a threat or a burden, refusing to respect this core principle of human rights and refugee protection.

 

Where

The global refugee crisis affects every continent and almost every country. In 2001, 78 percent of all refugees came from 10 areas: Afghanistan, Angola, Burma, Burundi, Congo-Kinshasa, Eritrea, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Somalia and Sudan. Palestinians are the world’s oldest and largest refugee population, and make up more than one fourth of all refugees. Asia hosts 45 percent of all refugees, followed by Africa (30 percent), Europe (19 percent) and North America (5 percent).

 

When

Throughout history, people have fled their homes to escape persecution. In the aftermath of World War II, the international community included the right to asylum in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1950, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was created to protect and assist refugees, and, in 1951, the United Nations adopted the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a legally binding treaty that, by February 2002, had been ratified by 140 countries.

 

Why

In the past 50 years, states have largely regressed in their commitment to protect refugees, with the wealthy industrialized states of Europe, North America and Australia – which first established the international refugee protection system – adopting particularly hostile and restrictive policies. Governments have subjected refugees to arbitrary arrest, detention, denial of social and economic rights and closed borders. In the worst cases, the most fundamental principle of refugee protection, nonrefoulement, is violated, and refugees are forcibly returned to countries where they face persecution. Since September 11, many countries have pushed through emergency anti-terrorism legislation that curtails the rights of refugees.

 

How

Human Rights Watch believes the right to asylum is a matter of life and death and cannot be compromised. In our work to stop human rights abuses in countries around the world, we seek to address the root causes that force people to flee. We also advocate for greater protection for refugees and IDPs and for an end to the abuses they suffer when they reach supposed safety. Human Rights Watch calls on the United Nations and on governments everywhere to uphold their obligations to protect refugees and to respect their rights – regardless of where they are from or where they seek refuge.

 

 

LETTER & PRESS RELEASE

 

CHRO’s Letter to Chin Churches and Communities Overseas

 

Chin Human Rights Organization

 

To all international Chin Churches/Communities and Fellowship.

 

December 18, 2002

 

Reference: Chin Refugee in Delhi, India

 

Dear Compatriots,

 

I am writing on behalf of Chin Human Rights Organization to appeal to your esteemed Church/Fellowship to consider the possibility of making contribution towards assisting Chin refugees in New Delhi, India who are currently facing acute humanitarian crisis there.

Chin refugees started arriving to New Delhi after fleeing persecution under the military regime in Burma to seek international legal protection from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Although it has been a slow yet steady flight from the Chinland, the massive outflow of refugee claimants from Chinland occurred during the last few months, making it difficult for those already settled in New Delhi as recognized refugees to accommodate all the new arrivals.

 

Most of these newly arrived Chin refugees have not been recognized as refugees by UNHCR, making them ineligible to receive any form of social and financial assistance provided by the UNHCR Office. Currently, there are at least 400 individuals facing acute humanitarian crisis as a result of not being eligible to receive any form of assistance due to not haing been recognized as UNHCR mandated refugees. Initial assessment conducted by Chin Human Rights Organization shows the need for urgent relief assistance for them to continue surviving while they await their applications to be approved by UNHCR.

 

Our field assessment shows that most of these refugees are living off the generosity and helps of their fellow recognized refugees in New Delhi, struggling through the most precarious social conditions.

 

In trying to find ways to ameliorate their situation, we have explored a number of options. We have held a meeting with responsible UNHCR officials to boost their chances of being accepted as mandated refugees. Although we have obtained assurances from the UNHCR Chief of Mission in India regarding his office commitment to making quick and reasonable determination of refugee status for Chin refugees, we obtain no assurance towards helping them with their humanitarian needs while they await this process.

 

Based on the result of this meeting, and the assessment we conducted among the refugees, we found that there is an urgent and immediate assistance for those not yet been recognized as refugees by UNHCR in New Delhi.

 

On behalf of the Chin refugees, we therefore implore your kind financial and material assistance in meeting the needs of the Chin refugees in crisis in New Delhi.

 

If your Church/Fellowship decides to make any kinds of assistance towards this purpose, please feel free to contact us and we will let you know the ways in which you could make assistance to these persons in need.

 

Thank you for your assistance.

 

Sd/

 

Victor Biak Lian

 

Interim Refugee Coordinator

Chin Human Rights Organization

 

 

FACTS & ARGUMENTS:

 

Mizo Hnahthlak (or) Mizo Group

By: R. Vanlawma (Zalen Cabin)

 

The Mizo group of people who occupy the hills areas between India and Burma are called by Burmese as Chin and by the Bengalese or Indian as Kukies. We knew very little about them before they had settled in the hills areas between India and Burma.

 

According to the book the structure of the Chin society written by F.K. Lehman, Head of History Department of Illinois University, U.S.A., in chapter 1, in AD 1397, we first hear of the Shan fortress city of Kalay (the Burmese Kalaymyo)…we do not know, of course whether the Chin of these plains were, as LUCE has suggested pushed up into the hills” Though he could not ascertain how and when the Mizo group were pushed up in the hills, it appeared that the Shan occupied the area after the Mizo group left the areas. So we can presume that the MIZO groups enter the hills in or about 1400 A.D.

 

Dr. Lehman also mentioned that “ so Chin have recently resettled the Kalay valley (see Hobbs, 1956)” what Mr. Hobbs meant are those who returned at the Kalay valley from the present Mizoram under Sailo chief who thought that it would be better to live in the areas where is no regular famines called Mautam or Thingtam. In or about 1930 after Thingtam famine, they made habitation at Tahan near kalaymyo and Khampat near the old side of Khampat fortress believes to be the place occupied by the Shan people after the Mizo group left their plain areas.

 

When they were in Lentlang areas they were divided into many clans, each having its own language and leaders and fought each one another for clan supremacy. So it can be presumed some clans left the areas by crossing Tiau Rivers even before 1600 A.D. The latest group who crosses the Tiau was Lushai clan under at a place called Selesih under the Chairmanship of Kawhla at about 1350 A.D. Some clans who preferred the Sailo chiefs to be their leaders were Ralte and Fanai in addition to Lushai clan. Small fraction of other clans also included in the list, so Selesih was a very of great settlement having a great influence to those who first crossed the Tiau river and easily occupied the whole of the area covered by the present Mizoram. They claimed that all the area from the Tiau river were their territory which the Falam and other leaders of the east. Respected and never offended against the Sailo chief since sailo controlled various clans, the people under them called themselves as MIZO.

 

The British, who control the whole of India, when they came in contact with the Sailo chiefs did not like to occupy the area but simply make tea gardens in Cacher safe in 1871. But when they put the whole of Burma under their control in 1885, they could not but decide to occupy the hills area between Burma and India. In 1890 they defeated the greatest Mizo chief Lianphunga. They also occupied the present Chin Hills almost at the same times.

 

Although the Mizo in India sides were known as Kuki the British knew that the rulling clan was Lushai, so they called it Lusei but mispelt it as Lushai. So all of them were officially known as Lushai and the Land was named Lushai Hills.

 

The British were very lenient to the hill people between India and Burma, in order to protect them from the assimilation of the more civilized plain peoples, they made inner line regulation were applicable to the Mizo areas.

 

Then after about 50 years of British rule in the Mizo areas second great World War erupted in 1944 Mahatma Gandhi demanded British withdrawal from India, under the pressure of United States of America, Mr. Churchill, prime minister of British Government conceded and promised to leave India, there were some problems which might delay the date of leaving India fully even after the war. One of his points was the problem of the Hills people between Burma and India.

 

He announced that the hills people between India and Burma were independence before British ruled over them. They were not under Indian, nor Burmese, nor under any government of the world they were Christians at that time, and it would not be fair to leave them under the Hindu or Buddhist rule. The British Government should help them to stand by their own feet before they had to leave them.

 

The governor of Assam who administered them was given more power to prepare special administration to suit the future; the post of adviser to the Governor was created to be more effective. Mr. Churchill, hoping to get more votes a time the war with the Japanese was gong on decided to called for election in August 1946, but the U.S.A. was suspicious of Mr. Churchill’s, delaying tactic for withdrawal from India decided to side with Labour Party. So, Conservative party, under the leadership of Mr. Chulchill was defeated in that election, in that way his proposal for the Mizo people was over ruled by making by India independent Act 1947.

 

When the proposal of Mr. Churchill was known to us “I tried my best to organized apolitical party called government creation of Greater Mizoram, by diong away the International boundary of Tiau river between the East the superintendent, Lushai Hills, Mr. A. Macdonald, ICS the in all authority over the district on the 9th April 1946. And the party soon overwhelmingly spread not only in Lushai Hills but in to the Mizo areas of Manipur and Tripura in India.

 

Then came “the Indian Independent Act, 1947” sponsored by the Labour party under the leadership of Mr. Atlee, the new Prime Minister. In section no. 7 (c) of that Act, it was started that “ any treaties or agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and any persons having authority in the tribal areas lapses.” In that Act instead of helping us for any length of time so as to enable us to become independent in due course, the British government preferred to leave us alone to have the right to self determination.

 

Our benefactor, Mr. A. Macdonald gave us his advice that the British Government would not be in a position to become independent, any one of the three Government, India, Pakistan or Burma might invade and force us to become satellite. In his opinion it will be advantage to talk to the India Union to join them under the Scottish pattern. Scotland, though they joined England, they are still be enforced without the sanction of the Scottish people. But for

 

 

 

Rhododendron News

VOL.V No.IV SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2002

Burmese Army Looted Chin Traders

SPDC Troops Forced Women, School Children and Civilians to serve

SPDC recruit USDA member in Chin State

A Chin Refugee Girl Raped

Chin Refugees Face Imminent Crackdown in India’s Mizoram

Burmese Junta uses Forced Labour Freshly in Rakhine State in Western

Burma

36 Chin Villages Extorted by Burmese Army

Indian Security Force Arrested a Chin Democracy Activist,Fellow Acticists Fear Extradition to Burmese Military

Press Release by Asylum Seekers From Burma in Delhi

“The refugee situation on the western borders of Burma”

By Chris Lewa, Forum Asia, Bangkok

Delivered at the Canadian Friends of Burma Public Conference

What Chinland with its people is to India

by Pu Lian Uk

Burmese Army Looted Chin Traders

 

The Burmese troops confiscated two mithans (cattle) and Kyats 100,000 from cross-border businessmen en route to Mizoram on two separate incidents on August 29, 2002 and July 29, 2002 respectively.

 

The two victims of extortion, wishing to remain anonymous due to security reasons, are from Sumsem village of Matupi township. They said that they were on their way to India’s Mizoram State to sell 5 mithuns when they were intercepted by Captain Myint Lwin from Light Infantry Battalion 50, then commander of Sabawngte army camp. The captain confiscated two of the five animals, and demanded Kyats 40,000 from the two businessmen as a ransom for the three remaining mithuns.

 

The same Captain confiscated cattle belonging to Salai Khai Kung and Salai Than Uk of Dar Ling village of Matupi township. The captain also demanded Kyats 50,000 from his victims.

 

SPDC Troops Forced Women, School Children and Civilians to serve as porter

 

The Burmese soldiers forced 6 women, two middle school children and 67 civilians to serve as porters from 20 September 2002 to 29 September 2002 in Matupi township, Chin State.

 

The SPDC troops from Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 266 forced Chin civilians including women and school children to carry army rations and supplies to and from Ruazua and Sabawngte army camps, situated 80 miles apart from each other.

 

On 24 September 2002, Lieutenant Colonel Htun Oo and his troops from LIB 266, Ruazua army camp ordered 14 Sawthi villagers to carry army ration and supplies from Ruazua to Sabawngte village. On 25 September 2002, the soldiers ordered 12 Sabawngte villagers, 6 of them were women, to carry army ration and supply from Sabawng to Pintia village. The porters were not paid on both occasions.

 

On September 20, 2002, Captain Ngyi Ngyi Lwin and his unit from LIB 266 stationed at Ruazua army camp forcibly ordered 12 Sawthi villagers to transport army supplies from Ruazua army camp to Ruamang village. On the same day, 8 Ruamang villagers along with 2 horses were forced to serve as army porters from Ruamang to Dar Ling village. Besides, 12 Darling villagers were forced to serve as porter from Dar Ling to Sabawngte army camp. On their way from Ruazua to Sabawngte, the Burmese soldiers looted 2 chickens from Dar Ling villagers.

 

On 23 September 2002, Captain Myint Lwin from LIB 50 ordered 17 Sabawngte villagers to serve as porter from Sabawngte army camp to Darling village. When they arrived to Dar Ling, the Captain called 12 more villagers including 2 school boys to transport army supplies to the next village, Tonglalung.

 

The name of the two school boys are Thawng Sang and Sui Or. Thawng Sang is an 8th grade student and Sui Or 5th grade respectively.

 

Incidents of forced labor in various forms including forced portering routinely and in large scale occur in remote and rural areas despite orders from the Ministry of Home Affairs which prohibit the use of forced labour in Burma.

 

SPDC recruit USDA member in Chin State

 

The State Peace and Development Council SPDC announced in July 2002 that members of Union Solidarity and Development Association USDA and the children of army veterans can apply for passport to go to Malaysia as migrant laborers.

 

Sources from Chin State said that the SPDC is using this tactic to lure more Chin youths to join Union Solidarity and Development Association and to gain supports of Chin army veterans. USDA is a youth organization sponsored by the military junta mainly to promote its own political objectives.

 

Increased militarization of Chin State since early 1990s has resulted in widespread human rights abuses by the army such as forced labor, depriving many Chin families of time to make their own living and thus forcing many to flee to neighboring countries. Taking advantage of the hardship of the Chin people, the SPDC is promising USDA members and children of army veterans with a passport, so they can travel to foreign countries as migrant laborers.

 

A Chin Refugee Girl Raped

 

On July 20, 2002 at around 10 Pm, a 17-year-old Chin refugee girl Ms. L (Real name withheld to protect identity) living in Sairang Sub-district of Mizoram State, India was raped by a local man. The case was reported to CHRO by a close family friend of the victim.

 

Ms. L and her family are living as “illegal immigrants” at Sairang village. They were taking a temporary shelter at a nearby village to avoid a crackdown on illegal foreign immigrants by Mizoram State authorities in July 2002, when the girl was raped.

 

The rape victim reportedly was severely punched and beaten at the time of the rape. When the Chin refugee community leaders from Sairang village reported the crime to the local police, they were told that case had already been settled between the victim’s brother and the perpetrator before the police.

 

To settle the case, the victim family was compensated 500 Rupees, equivalent of U$ 10.

 

Though the victim family members are not satisfied with the way the case was settled, they could not do anything due to their immigration status in Mizoram.

“The rape victim’s family arrived to India only a few months ago after fleeing military repressions in Burma and now they had to face this situation,” said a close family friend of the victim.

Chin Refugees Face Imminent Crackdown in India’s Mizoram

Chin Human Rights Organization

July 10, 2002

Aizawl

 

Chin nationals from Burma who are taking refuge in India’s northeastern State of Mizoram are facing imminent security threat after the Mizo Zirlai Pawl, an influential student body, pressured the state government to take stringent action upon all illegal immigrants living in Mizoram.

 

July 10 2002 edition of Vanglai Ni daily newspaper in Aizawl reported that the MZP will take all necessary action if the government fails to take action upon the “illegal immigrants”. The MZP indicated July 20, 2002 as a deadline for the government to take appropriate measures.

 

The decision was made during MZP Central Committee meeting in Aizawl, the capital city of Mizoram State on July 9, 2002. The MZP said that they are concerned about the social problems in Mizoram as a result of the increasing population of illegal immigrants in the state.

 

Vanglai Ni newspaper quoted president of MZP, Mr. Lalchandama Ralte as saying that Mizo people should beware of renting out their houses to the illegal immigrants. Mr. Ralte said that the student body has taken the decision in the interest of the Mizo people in a long run and that the students are ready to face all the consequences for their actions. He persuaded the Mizo people to support his organization’s action.

 

Illegal immigrants in Mizoram include ten of thousands of Chin refugees who fled political repression and human rights violations perpetrated by Burmese military regime in their home country. An estimated 50,000 Chin refugees are taking shelter in Mizoram state with no status and international legal protection.

 

Labeled as being the source of societal ills such as drug trafficking and other criminal activities plaguing Mizoram, Chin refugees face frequent arrest and deportation by the state government often under pressure by local youth group, the Young Mizo Association.

 

In 2000, the Mizoram government conducted a mass-scale arrest of Chin refugees and handed over dozens of them to Burmese military while one of them died in police custody. Reports later surfaced that those handed over to Burmese authorities were given lengthy jail terms with hard labor in Burma’s prisons.

 

In July 2001, Chin refugee families were evicted from Lunglei, the second largest town in Mizoram, leaving hundreds of them homeless.

 

Burmese Junta uses Forced Labour Freshly in Rakhine State in Western Burma

 

Maungdaw, 23 Aug. 02: There was a discussion between the officials of the UNHCR, Maungdaw chapter, with that of the two majors from Nasaka Security Forces in Maungdaw yesterday evening on the use of forced labour in the area bordering with Bangladesh, according to our correspondent.

 

There are reports of new incidents of extensive use of forced labour in and around Maungdaw in Rakhaing (Arakan) state, Western Burma, which has caused to raise tough arguments between the UNHCR and the Burmese law enforcement agencies including the officials of the military junta.

 

Beginning 25th July forced labour was extensively used to build a new Nasaka Security Forces camp at Khamaung-hseik village, northern part of Maungdaw. Till 4th August the number of forced labour used stood at 135, men and women.

 

Similarly, at Kathay model village, under Nasaka Area #2 of Maungdaw Township, seven hundred and three people were engaged in forced labour between 1st July and 28th in construction works of the new model village.

 

When the UNHCR brought the matters to the notice of the higher administration about the extensive use of forced labour, the Nasaka security forces demanded that they paid kyat 100 a day to each of the ‘workers’. While on inquiry the UNHCR found that the labour was actually used forcefully and without any payment as argued by the Burmese junta officials.

 

Fresh reports from Buthidaung, Rathedaung, Kyauktaw, Mrauk-u and Minbra Twonships have confirmed that the Burmese Army is making use of extensive forced labour for cultivating the military owned agricultural fields in those townships by pressing the Rakhine farmers as forced labour by making use of the cattle of the villagers and without providing wages or food to them.

Source: Narinjara News

August 23, 2002

 

36 Chin Villages Extorted by Burmese Army Chin Human Rights Organization

August 20, 2002

Aizawl

 

Thirty six villages in Thantlang township are facing an army decree requiring them to provide money for maintaining an army camp at Vuangtu village. Captain Phu Taw of Burmese army Light Infantry Battalion (50) based at Vuangtu village has ordered three dozen villages in the immediate areas of Vuangtu to pay for the expenses of maintaining the camp, according to a local villager.

 

Among the villages that have been ordered to contribute the money is Tlaungram village, located on the Indian border. Tluangram village alone has paid a total of 320,00 Kyats to the army–50,00 Kyats for the month of May, 100,00 for June and another 170,00 for July respectively. The amount every village has to pay vary depending on the number of the households in that village, as determined by the army.

 

The army camp is still yet to be repaired and no village has received an order for further payments for the month of August.

 

In issuing the order, Captain Phu Taw warned that any village that failed to contribute the money would face severe punishment. “All of these villages had no choice other than pay the money because they were afraid of the repercussions,” said one villager. He further said that Captain Phu Taw has only recently been transferred to Vuangtu camp from his previous posting in Gankaw in Magwe Division. During his three month posting at Vuangtu, the Captain has regularly extorted money from the villagers, seized goods and cash from cross-border traders passing through Vuangtu village.

 

On July 28, 2002, Captain Phu Taw and his troops crossed into India and looted and beat villagers of Daldanle in Mizoram State. They sneaked back into Burma with their loots from Indian villagers.

 

Until recently, all Burmese army battalions stationed in Chin State have used forced labor to repair army camps. However, since earlier this year, they began collecting money from villagers in stead of using human labor. The following is the list of villages from which Captain Phu Taw demanded money:

 

(1) La-U (2) LaiLen (3) FarTlang (4) KhuaLiPi

(5) NgaPhaiPi (6) NgaPhaiTe (7) LawngTlang (8) LungCawiTe

(9) LungCawiPi (10) khuaBung(A) (11) KhuaBung(B) (12) HnaRing

(13) KhuaHrang (14) ThangAw (15) FarTlang (16) SenTung

(17) SurNgen (18) TiSen(A) (19) TiSen(B) (20) SurNgen

(21) LeiTak(A) (22) LeiTak(B) (23) ZePi (24) HmawngTlang (25) PhaiKhua (26) CawngThia (27) KuhChah (28) VuangTu

(29) ZaBung (30) HlamPhei (31) ZeiPhai(A) (32) ZeiPhai(B)

(33) TluangRam(A) (34) TluangRam(B) (35) TlangRua (36) HriPhi.

 

Indian Security Force Arrested a Chin Democracy Activist, Fellow Acticists Fear Extradition to Burmese Military

 

September 28, 2002, Aizawl: A Chin democracy activist who has been involved in dissident movement against Burmese military regime was arrested on September 26, 2002 on India-Burma border. Hre Tling, about age 35, is now being held at Assam Rifles Regiment (19) base at Farkawn, a small Indian border town. Access to him in custody is being denied and fellow dissidents fear he might be handed over to the Burmese military across the border.

 

Hre Tling fled Burma in 1988 following a nation-wide democracy movement, which was brutally crushed by the Burmese armed forces. He has been actively involved in India-based dissident movements for restoration of democracy and human rights in Burma. His arrest is now raising serious concerns among India-based dissidents that India will extradite him to Burma, where he will face serious security risk including possible execution.

 

“If handed over to the Burmese military he could face summary execution, or at best long term imprisonment,” said his fellow activist. “In many cases, the Burmese military has been known to have executed those who have been captured by them,” he said.

 

Hre Tling’s arrest came in wake of fresh efforts between India and Burma to crackdown on political dissident movements based in their mutual borders. Since mid 1990s, under bilateral agreements, India and Burma have frequently launched joint operations against dissident movements.

 

In 1996, India extradited Burmese army defectors to the Burmese regime and many of them were later reportedly executed in Burma.

Source: Chinland Guardian

 

Press Release by Asylum Seekers From Burma in Delhi

October 23, 2002

 

We, the Burmese asylum seekers, are organizing an indefinite demonstration in front of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Office in New Delhi until our appeal for refugee status is met. The demonstration is being taken place from Wednesday (23 October 2002) at UNHCR Office: No. 14, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003, India.

 

We left our homes, nears and dears due to human rights abuses committed by the ruling military junta in Burma. Although we have approached the UNHCR Office for the last several months, we still do not get the recognition and protection from the UNHCR. In some cases, UNHCR has rejected our appeals without careful consideration.

 

We are exceedingly disappointed over the rejection of our appeals without careful consideration on the information we provided during our interviews and over-delaying of further processing our cases without no proper grounds by the UNCHR.

 

We are badly concerned for our security because we do not have any legal document or refugee status (of UNHCR), which could lead us to the repatriation to the hands of military generals since India is not a signatory to the 1951 convention on Refugees.

 

As you are aware, Burma is now widely notorious through out the world for its gross violations of basic human rights under the military regime. The country is ruled by highly repressive, outrageous and authoritarian military regime. Since the armed forces took the State power in 1988 after killing thousands of Burmese peaceful demonstrators, who demanded the end of 26- year old Ne Win-led regime and bring about democracy and human rights in Burma, the gross violations of human rights against its civilians rampantly committed by the successive generals continuously unabated which resulted in thousands of Burmese peoples fleeing our own country.

 

The violations of human rights under their cruel policy of ethnic cleansing especially in Kachin and Chin areas include forced labor, pottering, forced relocations, extortion, systematic use of rape against women as a weapon of war, religious persecution, forced conversion from Christianity to Buddhism, harassment, torture and arrests of Christian leaders.

 

All these mentioned problems and the increased political turmoil inside Burma caused us fled our country in seeking a legal protection from UNHCR.

Therefore, we urge the UNHCR officials to consider the following appeals:

 

1.To immediately recognize us as we believe we fall under the mandate of refugee status enshrined in 1951 convention,

2.To speedily process our cases and declare our result soon,

3.To reconsider all rejected cases and arrange re-interviews soon

4.To treat us equal with respect by interviewing officials during our interviews and cease to intimidate us

5.To brief our date of interview, registrations and bring an end to over-delaying our cases from further processing.

If these demands are not met, we would take an indefinite hunger strike. We would like to request the people of India, international community and the media in particular to intervene with UNHCR urgently.

Burmese Asylum Seekers

New Delhi, India

 

“The refugee situation on the western borders of Burma

By Chris Lewa, Forum Asia, Bangkok

Delivered at the Canadian Friends of Burma Public Conference

Ottawa – 9 October 2002

 

Panel One: The current situation

 

Burma’s borders with India and Bangladesh have received much less international attention than the Thailand-Burma border. A major reason is the difficult access to refugees in these border areas due to policies of the host governments. Nevertheless, outflows of refugees from Burma to India and Bangladesh are no less significant. More than 50,000 mostly Chin refugees have fled to India while up to 200,000 Rohingya refugees are found in Bangladesh in and outside refugee camps.

 

An essential difference appears when comparing the overall situation along the eastern and western borders of Burma. In Chin and Arakan States, bordering India and Bangladesh respectively, there is little ethnic armed resistance and the military regime does not resort to ruthless counter-insurgency tactics to assert control, as is the case along the Thai-Burma border. Therefore, the worst forms of human rights violations such as massive forced relocation, torture, summary executions, are less frequent, but this does not mean that the situation is noticeably better. Over the last decade, the Burma Army’s presence has rapidly expanded along the western border. The establishment of new battalions has resulted in two significant consequences:

 

– (1) exaction of forced labour and arbitrary taxation on the local population to build and maintain camps and grow foodstuff for the army, but also for road construction carried out in the name of development, but which mostly facilitate army penetration; and

 

– (2) military control of the local economy for the Army’s profit, either directly through collection of taxes at checkpoints and from the border trade, or indirectly through the granting of business monopolies on local commodities in exchange for high bribes.

 

These practices have severely affected the livelihood of already impoverished communities and compelled them to leave Burma. In their host countries — whether in India or Bangladesh –, most of these 250,000 people are not recognised as “refugees” but labelled as “economic migrants”. The root causes behind this forced migration are ignored in order to keep the outflow invisible and to deprive these refugees from protection and assistance. Meanwhile, the two host governments are engaging in negotiations with the military regime in Rangoon to enhance cooperation and improve economic ties.

 

Let me first address the specific situation of refugees in India and then Bangladesh.

 

INDIA BORDER:

 

At a rough estimate there are 50,000 Chin refugees in India. Apart from a few hundred who came to New Delhi to seek UNHCR protection, the vast majority have taken shelter in Mizoram State and a small number in the southern part of Manipur State.

 

Chin State is a remote hill region inhabited by various communities belonging to the Chin ethnicity who are predominantly Christians. Chins are also found in the southern part of Sagaing Division.

 

Forced labour, arbitrary taxation and lack of education facilities are the main root causes for flight. Chins also experience many difficulties in practising their religion. The military regime regards Christianity as a threat to its control since the only civil society groups active in the region are linked to the churches. Soldiers have prevented evangelists from preaching and imposed restrictions on attendance at religious gatherings. Christians have also been forced to labour on Buddhist pagodas and to donate money for Buddhist festivals.

 

Chin refugees in Mizoram State have no camp to accommodate even the most vulnerable and they have joined the local labour market, in the weaving industry, on road construction sites, etc. As undocumented migrants, their situation is very precarious. While Mizos are religiously and ethnically related to the Chins, they resent the continuous increase of “foreigners”. Chin refugees have sporadically been threatened with deportation, particularly during election time, when they become scapegoats for the various local political parties. In March 2002, the Young Mizo Association forcibly evicted Chin families from Lunglei District. New elections planned for next year again raise serious concerns that Chin refugees might face another expulsion drive.

 

India does not allow UNHCR to exercise its protection mandate in Mizoram State where access is also denied to most outsiders. As a result the Chin refugees receive little or no assistance.

 

A few hundred Burmese activists and their relatives facing persecution have approached UNHCR in New Delhi for protection. Chin represent the largest Burmese urban refugee caseload in Delhi of about 800 individuals. Even though most of them have been recognised by UNHCR as “persons of concern”, their situation in Delhi is also uncertain. So far, UNHCR has provided them with a small monthly subsistence allowance of Rs 1,400 (about US$30) per person and even less for dependents. But over the last couple of years, UNHCR has been threatening to cut this financial assistance in order to promote self-reliance. Lack of education and employment opportunities combined with inadequate and cramped living standards make their lives miserable. The Indian authorities have issued them with residence permits, but denial of work permits makes any attempt at self-reliance almost impossible and illegal . Young Chin people often join Bible schools in the absence of other educational opportunities.

 

BANGLADESH BORDER:

 

Refugees from Burma in Bangladesh can be divided into 3 categories:

 

Rohingya refugees in 2 refugee camps (21,500)

Rohingya refugees outside camps in the Southern part of Bangladesh (up to 200,000)

Rakhine urban refugees caseload in Dhaka (50)

Arakan State, bordering Bangladesh, is another remote region along the Bay of Bengal inhabited by two major ethnic communities. The majority group is Rakhine Buddhist, close to the Burman in terms of religion and language, while the Rohingya Muslims are ethnically and religiously related to the Chittagonians of southern Bangladesh and are concentrated in the northern part of Arakan State adjacent to Bangladesh.

 

The Rohingya Muslims are the group most discriminated against in Burma and they are simply excluded from the nation-building process. They have not been included amongst the “135 national races” identified by the government, and the Citizenship Law of 1982 renders them stateless .

 

Communal tensions are prevalent between the Muslim and Buddhist communities in Arakan. While this can be explained from a cultural and historical perspective, such violence has been exacerbated by the divide-and-rule policies of the military regime, denying all rights to the Muslim population in order to allow the military to pose as protectors of the Buddhist community.

 

The Rohingyas’ freedom of movement is highly restricted, as they need permission to travel even to a neighbouring village. Their land has been confiscated to accommodate Buddhist settlers. To date, the government has established 26 “model villages” of about 100 houses in Northern Arakan State. Mosques have been destroyed and Rohingyas are routinely subjected to forced labour, extortion, and constant humiliations. While UNHCR and its partners have managed to reduce the amount of compulsory labour by taking over responsibility for building local road infrastructure, this practice is far from being eradicated. Forced labourers continue to be recruited for army camp construction and maintenance, sentry duty, portering, and especially for such commercial ventures of the military as shrimp farm maintenance, plantation work, brick-baking, bamboo collection and wood cutting.

 

Currently, there is increased repression against Muslims in Burma. On August 1, the SPDC signed the United States-ASEAN Joint Declaration of Cooperation to Combat International Terrorism. Ethnic cleansing policies against the Rohingya Muslims have been newly consecrated as an “anti-terrorist campaign”.

 

Bangladesh has been burdened by two mass exoduses of more than 200,000 Rohingya refugees, in 1978 and again in 1991/2. In both cases, repatriation followed in conditions far from conducive to safe return. After gaining access to the Burma side of the border, UNHCR supervised the last mass repatriation but its “voluntariness” was questioned by international relief agencies. At present, 21,500 refugees remain in two camps in Bangladesh without any durable solution in sight. Repatriation has stalled for several years. The SPDC has not expressed any willingness to accept them back, while most refugees do not want to repatriate to Burma until conditions improve to guarantee a return in safety and dignity. UNHCR has recently announced its plan to disengage from both sides of the border by June 2003. UNHCR being the only international organisation with a protection mandate, there are grave concerns that its withdrawal could lead to severe abuses both in Bangladesh and Burma.

 

The conditions in the refugee camps are particularly appalling. They are managed by Bangladeshi officials and not, as along the Thai-Burma border, by the refugees themselves. Primary education has only been permitted in recent years and capacity building for refugees is minimal. Corruption and violence are common. 58% of refugee children suffer from chronic malnutrition, exposing them to disease and hampering their physical and mental development.

 

Access to the refugee camps has been denied to new arrivals since 1995 when the mass repatriation started. However, the exodus never stopped. The post-1995 outflow is a constant trickle of repatriated refugees (“double-backers”) fleeing again to Bangladesh and newcomers who are either landless or have had their land confiscated. Starvation prompted their flight but lack of food came about because of forced labour and extortion. This influx seems to be encouraged and at the same time strictly controlled by the Burmese authorities, and concurrently it is rendered invisible by the Bangladesh authorities. The local press reports that as many as 200,000 Rohingya are living illegally in slums or villages in the Southern region of Bangladesh. People living in a shanty town near Cox’s Bazar claim that up to 80% of their population comes from Burma. They are surviving as undocumented migrants without any protection from UNHCR nor humanitarian assistance. The Bangladesh authorities refer to them as “economic migrants” and do not allow any relief for fear of creating a pull-factor. In early June 2002, they declared that “it was taking all out measures to complete repatriation of the remaining Rohingya refugees by June 2003 and had instructed border forces to check further influx from Burma.” Over the last 2 or 3 months the outflow of new arrivals from Burma has again increased significantly due to high rice prices, devaluation of the Kyat, and the strict implementation of land policy.

 

Stateless, expelled from Burma and unwanted in Bangladesh, some Rohingya are relying on human smuggling and trafficking to look for better living conditions in Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Dubai.

 

The Rohingya plight can be summarised in these 3 questions a woman addressed to me during an interview: “Who am I? What should I do? Where should I go?”

 

The Rakhine Buddhists are also a neglected ethnic group in Burma. The Burmese regime has always attempted to forcibly assimilate them. They are also subjected to forced labour. They are tightly controlled and taxed. Whereas very few Rakhine refugees came to Bangladesh, many left Arakan State to search for income opportunities in the urban centres of Central Burma and, whenever possible, on to Thailand and Malaysia. About 50 Rakhine political activists have been recognised by UNHCR as urban refugees in Dhaka. Assistance from UNHCR was curtailed in 1998 and most survive in substandard conditions.

 

In addition, I must mention the hopeless situation of more than 500 Burmese “released prisoners” detained in Bangladeshi jails. Half of them are fishermen from various parts of Burma, but especially from Mon State and Tenasserim Division, who first came to Thailand seeking jobs on Thai fishing trawlers and were later caught fishing illegally in Bangladeshi territorial waters. The other half are Rohingyas arrested as illegals in Bangladesh. All of them have long ago served their sentence for illegal entry but could not be released because the Burmese authorities are generally not interested in taking them back. As a result, they are languishing in jails, some for more than 10 years.

 

In conclusion, the western border of Burma and the refugees in India and Bangladesh deserve more attention from the international community, whether for capacity-building, humanitarian assistance or advocacy. Canada and other countries should use their leverage to pressure Bangladesh and India into recognizing and treating refugees from Burma according to international human rights standards.

 

 

What Chinland with its people is to India

by Pu Lian Uk

 

Recently I read an article “In Land of Plenty, Some Swiss Struggle to Get By” by an author, ELIZABETH OLSON in The New York Times. The article reminds me what some people usually told us about some similarities between Switzerland and Chinland as both being land locked and hilly regions in a similar geographical position. So It gives me an idea to write this article in the context of that article thinking that we may get some idea from it

 

Switzerland, being the highest land mass in the region in the center of Europe, has a dominating position of its surrounding regions. Thus it is a very strategically position in military point of view.

 

Any forces that dominate that highland have been supposed to have great advantage to others in warfare. The reason why Switzerland was made to be a neutral nation by warring European countries in the past therefore is said due to its strategically position as a highland in the center of Europe. It remains a neutral country till recently. It has become now a UN member.

 

Switzerland, though a land locked nation, is usually known as land of plenty as it is here written in the heading of the article I mentioned. In Burmese it is said “Lawka-neihban”. Its geographical position, being between the Great-lowland plain and the Lombardi plain in South Europe, is to some people comparable with the geographical position of Nagaland, Mizoram in North East India and the Chin State in the Union of Burma in South Asia.

 

The geographical position of the three sister States, together with Manipur State, as a single land mass is also a mountainous region Between Ganges-Brahmaputra plain and the Chindwin-Irrawadi plain serving as a defense natural wall. It also is like a bridge between the two plains like the Alps, on which Switzerland also is, serves as a bridge between the Great-lowland plain and Lombardi plain. Not only that the two territories had Similar geographical position, but also geologists even have found out that the two territories have the same type of soil and rock structure.

 

In fact, this highland embracing ChinHills in continuous to Patkoi range was the lifeline of the allied forces and what is now Republic of India to survive today the invasion of Japanese fascists during World War II. It was from Kohima, Imphal and Chin Hills that the invading Japanese forces were repelled to save India from the war.

 

British Burma, at that time, was totally occupied by the Japanese forces and the government of British Burma fled the country to Simla in India leaving Chin Hills/Chinland and the whole British Burma under the mercy of fascistJapanese forces. The Chin people who were still loyal to the British and the allied forces resisted the occupying Japanese in guerilla warfare as Western Chin Levy.

 

Had the Japanese invading forces, who tried to penetrate into Ganges-Brahmaputra valley of British India through Chin Hills /Chin State, were not repelled by the Chin guerilla forces from their territory with the help of the topography of their land, the people of India and the allied forces had to face the brunt of war against the invading Japanese fascists in the Ganges-Brahmaputra flat plain costing many lives and wealth and even the Japanese could occupy the whole British India.

 

The reason was that it would not be easy to defend the country against the invading forces from the flat plain in the Ganges and Brahmaputra valley. At the same time there were Indian forces led by Mr. Chandra Bose who were fighting in alliance with the Japanese forces against the British and the allied nations. The Burmese or Burman forces were also at that time fighting against the allied force that were sacrificing their lives in defending India.

 

The governor and the Frontier Areas Secretary of British Burma, who fled Burma to Simla in India during the war declared that the allied nations and India had for this reason owed a great debt of gratitude to the Chin as both knew about the situation of that war very well in this region, (The Economics of the Central Chin Tribes by HNC Stevenson). We hope that the allied nations and India today acknowledge it.

 

The lifeline of the Republic of India could again be on this highland as it was in World War II if Burma military regime, having no ideology other than militarism to hold on their dictatorship, joins the communist China to invade India to turn it into communist country. The two nations in the past had been once at war for one reason or the other and we can not say that it will not break out again any time in the future.

 

If the highly development and prosperity of Switzerland is at least in parts due to its geographical position, bridging the two plains in the South Europe, this group of sister States as a landmass in South Asia could also have such chance and opportunity to develop like Switzerland if they are free to shape their own destiny politically.

 

The inhabitants of these sister states are people who have so many similar affinities to be regarded in anthropology as a people in their long history. Even the Chin State by itself with an area, at present not less than 14000 Sq. miles, is larger than many sovereign independent nations the world over.

 

It was also the plan of the British to keep them as a province under a governor like Assam, Bengal and Burma when the territory was annexed in the late 1900s. The same idea again, to carve out this territory as a province to let them regain their own independence like other nations, was once again repeated under what was called the Crown Colony Scheme soon after World War II.

 

Nagaland leaders like A.Z. Phizo was said to have such vision before India and Burma became Independence from British. So independence of Nagaland was proclaimed on August 14, 1947 just the day before India and Pakistan proclaimed independence from British on August 15, 1947.

 

Nagaland Independence issue, though it was made comparable with the case of Algeria round about in 1960s, has not been raised in the UN just only for the reason that India has majority support in the UN (The United Nations and Portugal by Franco Nogueira P. 98). Algeria has now long been a sovereign independent state in north Africa.

 

At present the ethnic cleansing program launched by the Burmese military regime on the Chin people and their refusing to hand over power to elected parliament has created increased suspicions on the ruling military regime that their prolonging to rule the country is an intension to totally crush the existence of the Chin people and their fellow non-Burman nationalities of the Union.

 

The unfaithfulness of the Burmese leaders after the assassination of General Aung San for which the Chin people have suffered much in their joining the union, has seriously made in some people idea that Chinland is now forced to declare their own sovereign independent state.

 

In such cases India, whose democratic ideology could hold the existence of the Chins as a people, may have the option to accept Chin land as a protectorate nation on condition that their foreign relation and defense should be in consistent with Indian foreign and defense policy. This program could also make the Chinland closer to its sister states in the northeast India.

 

The ruling military regime has discarded the constitution of the Union of Burma in violation of the Panglong Agreement. Chinland, of course, which has never been a part of Burma or Burmese kingdom in their long history before British annexation, has now every right to secede from the Union of Burma in the absence of the Panglong Agreement and the 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma. .

 

The Chin Hills Regulation 1896 amended in 1919 in its Section 2 actually defined all the inhabitants of this landmass as a people known as Chins. The Chin Hills Regulation, which is still in force in the Naga Hills in the Union of Burma and in the Chin State in its amendment as Chin Special Division Act 1948 and in some parts of North East India in its context, still recognized them legally as a people.

 

The Chin Hills Regulation 1896 was proclaimed and adopted by the Governor in Council of British India on August 13, 1896 to be used in administering the people who inhabited this single landmass between the two plains.

 

Some people even suggested that this August 13 should be observed as a historical day by the inhabitants of these sister states for good or for bad as the Chin Hills Regulation has great impact on them.

 

As a matter of fact, the Chin Hills Regulation protected the sister states from the over flow of the population into their territory from outside their common landmass. The document, that makes the people outside Mizoram State need to get Inner line permit today to get into Mizoram, is said to have derived from this Chin Hills Regulations 1896.

 

The inhabitants of this vast territories when they meet in foreign lands outside their common mother landmass always intimately hug each other as a long lost brothers and see and take care of each other welfare showing their instinct closeness of blood relation though they may have their respective minor regional differences.

 

The population in these states is overwhelmingly Christians to be able to call them Christian States. They are surrounded by extraordinarily densely populated Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists populations. Thus they are like the lonely and remote islands in the deep sea in the midst of the three extraordinarily densely populated religions in the region.

 

The reason why the British invaders immediately could recognized them as a people was based on their similarity in their native common religion which molded their many similar affinities as a people today and that same native religious faith has today transformed them again to have the same common faith in Christianity. Thus their common faith continues on keeping them today as the same people as before in their Christian faith.

 

As a matter of fact, 85% in Nagaland, 75% in Mizoram according to what was released recently in an Indian newspaper and 80% in Chin State in their respective states are Christian population.

 

They may very soon be able to see the need to make cultural exchange by forming a common religion organization in their common Christian Faith in which they can exchange their knowledge and experience to develop their religious faith and other cultural aspects.

 

 

 

Introduction :

Chin People In Burma: An Overview

 

Human Rights :

 

•New Township Development Project Left 100 People Forced To Work Daily: 180 Houses To Be Relocated

•Arbitrary Agricultural Policy Results in Forced Labor

•Persecution of Christians Renewed, Junta Coerces Chin Christians to Pull Down Cross

•Denial of Religious Freedom; Christian cross at risk of destructionin Chin State, western Burma

•Police Officer Killed by Own Bodyguad

•Burmese Baptist convention banned on orders of Junta

Action Alert

 

Facts and Arguments :

THE NEWIN DOCTRINE: A systematic Campaign of Hatred

By Vum Son

 

 

——————————————————————————–

Chin People In Burma: An Overview

 

Before the advent of British colonization of Chinland in 1890s, the Chins were living as an independent nation located within the distinct border demarcations of Chinland. A hilly region, Chinland crossed the borders of what was later to became British India and Burma. Even after it came under colonial rule, however, Chinland remained relatively autonomous of British control until the early 20th century.

In 1935, the British decided to divide Chinland into two parts by making Burma – previously a province of British-India – a separate colony. The western part of Chinland remained under British-Indian control while the eastern section came under the rule of colonial Burma.

 

As Burma’s independence movement grew under the leadership of Aung San, the Chin decided to participate with him and other ethnic representatives in a constitutional process towards the development of a federal union. However upon Burma’s independence from Britain in 1948, the Chin and other Burma ethnic groups became increasingly concerned that their rights of autonomy and equality as enshrined in the constitution were not being fully respected. Civil war erupted throughout the country over the next decade until the Burma Army’s Chief Commander, General Ne Win, taking advantage of the chaos, staged a military coup in 1962.

 

Once in power, Ne Win nullified previous efforts to establish a genuine federation. In claiming to safeguard the possible disintegration of the Union, Ne Win isolated Burma from the rest of the world, eradicated all freedoms of expression and association, and instituted draconian economic and human rights policies. After three decades of Ne Win’s rule, Burma became one of the world’s least developed countries in 1988.

 

During his rule, Ne Win reserved some of his regime’s most brutal repression against Burma’s ethnic minorities such as the Chin who were struggling for autonomy and equal rights. As Ne Win continued his campaign to fully control Chinland, abuses as forced relocations, rape, and forced labour reached massive proportions. At the same time, systematic efforts were made to eliminate the literature, culture, and traditions of the Chin and other ethnic minorities in order to assimilate them into a homogeneous Burman culture. Efforts were also made to impose the Buddhist religion by restricting the practice of other religions, which in Chin State was mostly Christianity.

 

Chin students participated along with country’s broad student-led uprising in 1988 to topple the country’s dictatorship. Millions of people demonstrated non-violently demanding an end totalitarian rule. The military regime brutally crushed these demonstrations and thousands were killed. A military committee, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), replaced, on September 18, 1988, General Ne Win who had resigned in July, just prior to the peak of the uprising. The SLORC junta renamed the country Myanmar and set out to quell their opponents, by announcing that they would soon hold multi-party elections.

 

Leaders of the democracy movement continued to be arrested and jailed, and many were killed. Aung San Suu Kyi, who joined with colleagues to form the National League for Democracy (NLD) was placed under house arrest in 1989 in the midst of campaigning for elections.

 

By 1990, the junta was so confident that the political opposition had been eliminated that they allowed the election to take place. To their surprise, Aung San Suu Kyi’s party won an overwhelming victory. The junta annulled the results of the election and intensified repression against its opponents.

 

Today, Burma continues to be ruled by the military (the junta renamed itself the State Peace and Development Committee or SPDC in 1997) and the Chin along with other opponents of the regime, continue to face a multitude of human rights violations. Under Burma’s military regime, the Chin are not only facing gross human rights violations, but they are also losing their culture, literature, customs, and traditions.

 

This situation has resulted in a massive humanitarian crisis, both inside and outside the country. Current estimates are that there are over one million internal refugees and over two million refugees residing neighbouring countries. Of those numbers, at least 50,000 are Chin refugees residing in Burma’s neighbouring countries.

 

Over the past year in Burma, there have been some positive developments towards political change – most recently the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest in May 2002. Nevertheless, the military junta’s human rights abuses continue throughout the country unabated. Although many Burma observers are cautiously optimistic about the recent political developments, international condemnation of the regime by the United Nations and other institutions remains strong.

 

New Township Development Project Left 100 People Forced To Work Daily: 180 Houses To Be Relocated

Chin Human Rights Organization

June 9, 2002

 

The State Peace and Development Council SPDC in Chin State is using forced labor to build a new high school in Ruazua town of central Chinland as part of state-sponsored development program for the new township headquarters, according to CHRO source. About 100 people are compelled to provide unpaid labor on a daily basis to dig an area of one square mile ground where the foundation for the new high school will be laid. The forced labor began in mid May 2002.

 

In a related incident, about 180 houses are to be relocated to give way for a new army camp to be set up in the area. The SPDC authority issued an order affecting the relocation of the houses.

 

Located between two major towns, Matupi and Thantlang in central Chin state, Ruazua village became the tenth township headquarters in Chin State in 2002. The application for the township status was made since 1988 so that Ruazua could enjoy government facilities such as high school, hospital etc. “The village had put enormous efforts to meet the criteria for township status and tried very hard to convince the authority by constructing road, water supply, self-support high school etc., all without State support.” According to the local people, they spent about 2 million Kyats to convince the authority and to acquire the status.

 

However, as soon as Ruazua was awarded township status in 2002, about 100 houses from Old Village Block were ordered to relocate at areas designated by the army so that the Burmese army could build a new army battalion headquarters on the sites. 80 more houses have to vacate their house to allow road extension between the would-be army headquarters and the town.

 

The SPDC is unlikely, as in all other similar circumstances, to compensate those who are subject to forced labor and relocation, and as a result the affected people may face serious crises.

 

Arbitrary Agricultural Policy Results in Forced Labor

Chin Human Rights Organization

June 10, 2002

 

New agriculture policy being implemented in Chinland is adversely affecting the local population. In many parts of Chinland, government servants and ordinary villagers are being required to participate in tea plantation program under the order of the ruling military junta. “Seven villages in Falam township were ordered to participate in tea plantation in the designated areas of about 20 to 30 acres this monsoon season,” according to a local source.

 

On 12 May 2002, during a visit to Falam town, the SPDC’s Agriculture Minister encouraged the local people to participate in the government’s tea plantation program. The minister said that both the government servants and the civilians must cooperate for the success of tea plantation.

 

According to the orders of the junta, people must provide free labor for the tea plantation, and any government servants who question or are opposed to the “new policy” will be fired from their jobs.

 

The authorities designated the surrounding areas of Falam town stretching as far down as the west bank of Manipur River as tea plantation farm.

 

Ordinary civilians from Cawngte, Tlaisun, Cawngheng, Zamual, Sunthla, Lungpi, and Mangkheng villages were forced to provide free labor for tea planting. Households that could not afford to provide forced labor had to hire laborers at the rate of 300 Kyats per day for male, and 250 Kyats for a female out of their own expenses. However, members of Union Solidarity and Development Association USDA, a state-sponsored youth organization, and other government officials are exempted from the forced labor.

 

In 2001, similar tea plantation programs were implemented in Matupi and Thanlang townships forcing civilians to participate in unpaid labor.

 

Burma’s ruling junta officially outlawed the practice of forced labor in 2000 in response to international outcry for its systematic and widespread use of forced labor. Under close scrutiny by the International Labor Organization, the junta maintains that it has “eradicated” the practice of forced labor in the country. However, government’s “development programs” and other counter-insurgency are perpetuating and reinforcing the practice of forced labor in Burma.

 

Persecution of Christians Renewed, Junta Coerces Chin Christians to Pull Down Cross

Chin Human Rights Organization

June 29, 2002

 

Christian residents of Matupi, a major town in southern Chinland, are facing mounting pressure from Burma’s ruling regime, State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) to pull down a symbolic Christian cross they erected 1 mile South of the town.

 

The pressure came following a visit to the town in March 2002 by Chief of Bureau of Special Operation Major-General Ye Myint who, offended by the visible sight of the 30-foot tall cross, instructed local authorities in Matupi and nearby town of Mindat to pressurize local Christian leaders to dismantle the cross, according to reliable information obtained by Chin Human Rights Organization.

 

The spectacular 30 foot tall cross was erected by Chin Christian in 1984 and renovated in 2001. Residents of Matupi town had spent about 3 million Kyats to construct the cross.

 

In a bid to have the cross removed, SPDC closed down the operation of development and humanitarian projects being conducted by Matupi Baptist Association MBA, saying “unless the Association dismantled the cross the authorities would not authorize further operation of the projects.”

 

The projects include improvement of the town’s water supply system to make available sufficient water supply for residents. The MBA obtained assistance from Japanese Embassy in Rangoon and the project was started in 2001. The MBA bought water pipes from Mandalay. However, the SPDC authority in Mindat town had warned that they would not give permission for the shipment of the water pipes if the MBA continues to refuse to pull down the cross.

 

In a related incident, local SPDC authority in Mapupi has turned down the application made by 200 households to connect telephone lines to their homes. The authorities said that permission is conditioned by the dismantling of the cross, although every household had already paid to the authorities 85000 Kyats for the telephone connection fees.

 

To the local Chin community Christian cross represents a symbolic monument of their Christian identity and crosses are erected on higher locations such as hilltops where they can be easily seen by commuters. Available estimates show that over 90 per cent of the Chin populations are Christians.

 

Since the early 1990’s, security forces have torn down or forced villagers to tear down crosses that had been erected outside Chin Christian villages. These crosses often have been replaced with pagodas, sometimes built with forced labor. Some of these crosses had been erected in remembrance of former missionaries from the United States, while others merely are symbols of faith, according to the United States State Department.

 

Action Alert

Denial of Religious Freedom; Christian cross at risk of destructionin Chin State, western Burma

Chin Human Rights Organization

Date: July 12, 2002

 

Facts of the Case:

 

In March 2002, after a visit to Matupi town by Major-General Ye Myint, Chief of Bureau of Special Operation, and one of the highest-ranking member of Burma’s ruling State Peace and Development Council SPDC, Chin Christians in Matupi of central Chin state were pressured to destroy a symbolic Christian cross, which has been standing near the town since 1984.

 

Local Christians have said that the authorities have attempted to destroy the cross since 1997 but a renewed pressure came after recent visit of high-ranking junta’s official. According to the locals, a section of Burmese soldiers under direction from higher authorities attempted to destroy the cross in 1997 but the attempt failed when one Burmese soldier was shot and killed by a fellow member in a fight resulting from drunkenness. Destruction was delayed.

 

Originally erected as a wooden cross, the cross was replaced as 30-foot tall concrete structure in 2001 by Christians. The refurbished structure was officially inaugurated in 2002. Local Christians say the Burmese soldiers later attempted to pull down the cross again but the 5-foot deep solid foundation of the cross had prevented them from dismantling it when they tried to dig it out.

 

The cross stands on hilltop one mile south of Matupi where it can be easily seen from most parts of the town. The Burmese army had established an army camp by the site and local people have said that the removal of the cross would give the army a better location for building an army camp.

 

According to a local Christian leader, the authorities gathered all Christian leaders and ministers at the township SPDC office early this year and were pressured through the day to destroy the cross. The Christian leaders refused by insisting on the authorities to destroy it themselves. “It was then that the authorities decided to apply another pressure tactic”, he said, “because they knew that Matupi Baptist Association MBA was planning to ship water pipes from Mandalay for its water supply improvement project and so the authorities wanted to use it as a bargaining tool”.

 

The Matupi Baptist Association is the largest religious institution in the area. The association has initiated a development project to improve the town’s water supply system with the assistance from Japanese Embassy in Rangoon. They have purchased water pipes for the project in Mandalay in central Burma. The SPDC authorities had now warned that the shipment of water pipes would not be authorized until the Association had pulled down the cross. Authorities also refused to connect telephone lines for 200 households who have made applications and have already paid required fees, for the same reason.

 

According to United States State Department, since the early 1990’s, [Burmese] security forces have torn down or forced villagers to tear down crosses that had been erected outside Chin Christian villages. These crosses often have been replaced with pagodas, sometimes built with forced labor. The State Department, since 1999 had designated Burma country of particular concern violating religious freedom.

 

Relevant Human Rights Standards

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

 

Please send faxes, letters, or emails:

 

Expressing your serious concern about Burmese authorities’ continued effort to destroy one of the last remaining Christian crosses in Chin State

 

Expressing your concern about persecution of Chin Christians in Burma

 

Urging the government to respect the human rights of all citizens including the right to freedom of religion

 

 

APPEAL AND INQUIRY MESSAGES SHOULD BE SENT TO:

 

Lt-Gen Khin Nyunt

Secretary-1

State Peace and Development Council

Ministry of Defence

Signal Pagoda Rd Yangon, MYANMAR

Fax: 011 (951) 22950

Salutation: Dear General

 

U Win Aung

Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Yangon, MYANMAR

[email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Salutation: The Honorable U Win Aung

COPIES SENT TO:

 

Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro

Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

Palais des Nations, 8-14 Avenue de la Paix,

CH 1211 Geneve, SWITZERLAND

Fax: 011 41 22 9170213

[email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Salutation: Dear Mr. PinheiroFor more information on religious persecution in Chin State please visit

http://www.chro.org For information about religious freedom in Burma please visit

http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/irf/irf_rpt/irf_burma.html

 

Police Officer Killed by Own Bodyguad

Chin Human Rights Organization

August 15, 2002 A police outpost commander stationed at Hnaring village of Thantlang township, Chin State, was shot

 

and killed by his bodyguard on the night of 26 June, 2002. The killer is now absconding, and the Burmese army patrol from Light Infantry Battalions (268) and (50) are on the hunt for him along Burma-India border, a local man who just arrived to Mizoram from Chin State said.

 

On the night of the incident, the outpost commander Hteey Aung and his men were on duty looking for illegal liquors to be seized from villagers when it started raining heavily. His men suggested they wait for the rain to die down and resume their duty thereafter. Outraged by their suggestion, the commander beat his men severely. Unable to witness his comrades being ruthlessly beaten, the bodyguard shot and killed their commander. He immediately fled the scene leaving his weapon behind. Burmese army on patrol are conducting a rigorous hunt for the absconding killer along Chin State-Mizoram border.

 

The body of the victim officer was sent to Thantlang Civil Hospital, about 30 miles away, for postmortem and burial on June 30.

 

According to the source, Hteey Aung had been commander of Hnaring police outpost for about two years. During his two-year posting in the village, Hteey Aung made a fortune from extorting travelers and villagers, confiscating cattle and goods from cross-border traders. He was reportedly saving the goods and money he confiscated for his family. He was reported to have frequently beaten his inferiors, which made his inferiors dissatisfy with him.

 

Burmese Baptist convention banned on orders of Junta

Source: Christian Solidarity Worldwide

 

A three-day Baptist convention for 100,000 people, which was due to be held in Burma, has been cancelled on the orders of the junta.General Maung Aye, Commander-in-Chief of the Burmese army, ordered the Kachin Baptist Church (KBC) to cancel its 34th convention during which they would have elected their leaders. This is the third time the regime has cancelled the event since seizing power in 1962.

 

The Christian community of the north eastern Kachin State had planned to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the arrival of the first Christian missionary to the Kachin, Ola Hansen, and the 75th anniversary of the translation of the Bible into the Kachin language.

 

The convention, held every three years, was due to start on April 4 in the Muse township in Shan State, in the north east of Burma. Christians from all over the country were expected to attend.

 

Permission to hold the event had been granted by both the northern Shan State regional commander and the head of the Military Intelligence Service, First Secretary Lt. General Khin Nyunt.

 

Local sources suspect that the sudden change in policy is part of an ongoing power struggle between the junta’s top leaders, General Maung Aye and Lt. General Khin Nyunt.

 

At least 80 percent of the population in the Kachin state in north eastern Burma are Christians. They suffer religious persecution and oppression from the military regime.

 

The authorities monitor all Christian activities, ban the construction of new churches and prohibit the printing of Christian materials. Christians are also periodically forced to ‘donate’ money to Buddhist festivals.

 

For the past two years, the United States’ Department of State has designated Burma as a ‘Country of Particular Concern’ for violating religious freedom.

 

The 1974 Constitution of Burma stipulates that the ‘national race shall enjoy the freedom to profess their religion provided that the enjoyment of any such freedom does not offend the laws or the public interest’.

 

In practice, however, the Burmese junta closely monitors and restricts the organisation and expression of all religions, including Buddhism.

 

This is partly because Buddhist clergy and religious minorities have in the past been politically active and partly because the regime views religious freedom in the context of threats to national unity.

 

Mervyn Thomas, Chief Executive of CSW, said: “The ban on the Kachin Baptist convention highlights the ongoing restrictions on religious freedom.

 

“The junta, in order to hold onto power, cracks down on different religious groups in its bid to enforce its own single Burmese culture. By restricting the freedom of worship and making its citizens conform to the predominantly Buddhist Burmese culture, the regime is systematically destroying the cultural identity of many ethnic groups, most of them Christians or Muslims.”

 

THE NEWIN DOCTRINE: A systematic Campaign of Hatred

By Vum Son

Chin National Day Golden Jubilee Journal, Publicity & Information Department, Chin National Front, February 1998, Pp. 191 – 200

 

The Union of Burma is the amalgamation of formerly independent kingdoms of Arakan, Burma, and Mon; princely states of the Shan and Karennis; chiefdoms of the Chin and Kachin; and independent communities of the Karen. The Union of Burma was formed by the Panglong agreement of the Chin, Kachin, Shan, and the Burman. However, the agreement encompasses the Arakanese, Mon, Karenni and Karen, who were proud nations and communities and who had distinct and unique identities different from the Burman, Chin, Kachin, or Shan.

 

In the constitution drafted in 1947, Bogyoke Aung San promised the non-Burman equality and autonomy. After the Death of Aung San, however, U Nu and the AFPFL amended the draft constitution, betraying both the letter and spirit of the Panglong agreement. The amendments invalidated the recognition of the formerly proud nations of Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon and the Shan. Therefore, serious trouble was looming for Burma at independence.

 

Shortly after Burma’s independence in 1948, the Karen, followed by several other non-Burman nationalities, rose up in arms to fight for independence. At the height of the Karen rebellion and underground movement of the communists, soldiers defected en masse from the Burma Rifles and other army units (e.g., the Karen Rifles). Out of the five battalions of Burma Rifles, only about two thousand soldiers were loyal to the union government. Because of the Karen rebellion, the government forced numerous non-Burman holding key positions in the army to retire. Among those forced to retire were General Smith Dun, the commanding officer of the Burma Army, Saw Shi Sho, the chief of the air force, Brigadier Saw Kya Doe, chief of operation, and all Karen nationals, to name a few. These positions were then assigned only ethnic Burman. General Ne Win, a Sino-Burman, and a member of the ” Thirty Comrades” became the Commanding Officer of the Burma Army. He was also made the Defence Minister of the Union government.

 

General Ne Win became ambitious and requested to be made the Prime Minister. The civilian government dismissed him back to the barracks. Ne Win realized that to become the Prime Minister of Burma or to be able to run the country, he needed to be the commanding officer of a large army, and from that day on he worked on a scheme that eventually made him the oppressor of the peoples of Burma for forty years. That scheme might be called the “Ne Win Doctrine”.

 

Premise of the Ne Win Doctrine:

 

To become the ruler of the country as the commanding officer of the Burma Army, the army must be large and strong. The requisite for having a strong army is that the army must have a strong and sizeable enemy.

 

How could the Burma Army have a strong enemy? The answer lies in the history of Burma and the history of the members of the Union of Burma.

 

History of Ethnic Conflict

 

There are no known facts about the ethnic conflicts prior to the Burmese King Anawrahta, who became king in the eleventh century. Long before the Burman descended from the high regions of Tibet and northwestern China to the present Burma in the seventh or eight century AD the Mon had established their kingdom in lower Burma, and the Arakanese in Arakan. Our knowledge of Burman history started with the king Anawrahta because of the aggressiveness of the Burman, who in the course of time attacked and were attacked by Arakan, Mon and Shan. The history of the Thai, Assamese, and Meitei

 

(Manipuris) describes the immense cruelty of the Burman forces. Because of their notoriety, historians concentrated on the Burman history and unjustly gave little attention to the history of the other groups in the region. This one-sided view of history has had a catastrophic effect on the modern relationships between the ethnic groups because the Burmese military can convince outsider that there is only the history of the Burman and the other people are anonymous.

 

In fact, there were many ethnic conflicts among the peoples that constitute Burma today. Most notably, the Burman and the Mon engaged in a great contest of power against each other. To a lesser extent, extended wars we fought between Arakan, Burma, and Shan against the Burman. The Karen apparently did not establish a powerful enough system to challenge the Burmese leadership, but they were subjected to high taxation and forced to work for the Burman. The Burman had no interest, authority, or influence on the outlying areas, such as the Chin, Naga and Kachin. In all their wars, the opponents of the Burman know them as most brutal, and most cruel. The brutality and cruelty of the Burmese Army in post-colonial Burma has only carried on the tradition of Burman behavior.

 

Development of the Doctrine

 

With the mistrust and turbulent history between the Burman and the non-Burman, Ne Win had the means by which to create a powerful enemy that would justify a large army for him to command. Thus, he created the Ne Win doctrine.

 

Ne Win Doctrine

 

Create an enemy of the non-Burman by driving them to military resistance. Drive them to military resistance by exploiting the political unrest in Burma.

 

The political situation facilitated Ne Win’s plan to exacerbate the non-Burman and Burman mistrust. As soon as the Union of Burma was formed, the AFPFL, who dominated the politics of Burma, initiated ethnic conflict. The AFPFL betrayed the Panglong agreement by adopting a quasi-federal constitution. Although the constitution allowed some non-Burman nationalities the status of national states, the constitution gave the power of the state to the central government, which was the government of proper Burma or the government of the Burman. The states were governed by the central government, with no possible self-determination. They were practically the colonies of the Burman. The constitution refused to recognize the Mon and the Arakanese statehood, denying them recognitions as a distinct ethnic group. The constitution also declared the Burman language as the common language, marginalizing the non-Burman nationalities.

 

Furthermore, when Ne Win assumed the post of Commanding officer, U Nu, the prime minister of Burma, proclaimed martial law in some regions of the Shan state in response to the formidable Karen forces scattered in many parts of Burma including the Shan State. However, the Karen were severely beaten at Insein and were no longer a threat to the government of Burma by the mid-fifties. General Ne Win needed the continuation of the Karen rebellion and other existing civil wars to maintain the strength of the Burma Army. Therefore, the Burma Army units created renewed hatred for the Burman by roaming Karen villages to create victims. Thus began the implementation of the Ne Win Doctrine, making the Non-Burman fear and hate the Burman and leading them to armed resistance.

 

Implementation of the Doctrine

 

The main feature of the doctrine was to make the Burma Army above the law wherever there was insurgency or rebellion. The army could do whatever they wanted in the countryside where there were disturbances. But its purpose was never to quell rebellion. The people had no right whatsoever. As soon as the Burma Army came to an area, the people lost their rights to their land, property, and even their own children. Worst of all, they lost the right to their own lives. On the other hand, the officers and men of the army could do whatever they wanted. From stealing the property of the people, beating the people, raping the women, and killing people singularly or en masse, they do not have to report to any other authority. They were not accountable to any law and there was no authority the people to complain to. The Burma Army was an independent entity. The people, if they dared, could complain to the army authorities who had laid out the policies and had drawn up the guidelines for these atrocities. Their policies were to make the people hate them. If there were complaints by the people that meant the people had not learned their lesson. It meant more brutality towards the community.

 

The army came mainly to dehumanize the people regardless whether they belong to the rebels or not. They were treated as if they were animals. The army was the law. These brutalities produced endless atrocities. And these brutalities and atrocities brought incalculable damage to the army’s credibility and to national unity. The soldiers were seduced by the power of their guns and the tacit encouragement from their superiors. They adhered to the philosophy of being invincible and they created wars where there were none before. The result was racial hatred.

 

The army usually came to villages fully informed about the people. The Burma Army units usually came after a battle was fought between the rebel group and the Burma Army. They had knowledge about the men from the village who were in the rebellion. Usually the army called all the villagers to a meeting ground usually a football field and executed a popular leader of the community. The person was executed not because he was an enemy of the Burma Army but because the Burma Army had learned that by doing so, they forced the recruitment of youngsters to the rebel army, thereby creating a large enemy for the Burma Army. If Burma Army soldiers had died in the battle with the rebel group, the army unit came to the villages to punish the people of the villages. The army than killed civilians from these villages at least double in number of the soldiers killed at the battle.

 

The doctrine was to deepen the suspicion and hatred that existed between the non-Burman and the Burman in pre-colonial and British Burma. It was to create hatred among the non-Burman against the Burman because the Burma Army was run by the Burman. Officers and men of the Burma Army treated the population with cruel, humiliating, and degrading inhuman practices. When the army units come to villages they went from house to house and took anything they wanted. They killed domestic animals to substantiate their eager rations. The army encouraged Burman soldiers to marry the non-Burman women. The soldiers were made to understand that to molest and rape women in the “disturbed” areas was no crime. There was no punishment for such misdeeds. The army burned villages and were instructed to destroy and burn Christian Churches and Muslim mosques. During the communist rebellion non-Burman class battalions were sent to areas controlled by the communist. These class battalions destroyed Buddhist temples and killed the people including women and children. The point was to make the Burman hate the non-Burman. The army employed forced labor in disturbed areas, which were created by the Army itself. The army demanded porters from the villages who were not paid. It was forced porter conscription. One of the main reasons for all of this cruel treatment was the forever prolongation of the civil war. Without the civil war a strong Burma army was not necessary. Only cruel treatment of the people guaranteed the continuation of armed rebellion.

 

Results of the Doctrine on the non-Burman

 

In all of the civil conflicts in Burma, even during parliamentary democracy, the Burma Army sought military solutions to their problems. Putting an end to the rebellion would have been easy if a political solution had been sought. Instead, the Burma Army was systematically campaigning for hate. The hatred of the military by the people guaranteed the increase of volunteers for the non-Burman ethnic rebellion. After the campaign of hate for 10 years, there was a strong rebellion in Burman that a strong enough army was created to contain the rebellion. Ne Win fostered this strong rebellion by applying the doctrine to each of the ethic groups in Burma.

 

Karen

 

The Karen lived side-by-side with the Burman in the delta region and had suffered atrocities under Burman kings. During the rule of Burmese kings, the relationship between Karen and Burman was not friendly. Karens suffered under high taxation and racial discrimination. There was always animosity between the two communities. Although living side-by-side, the Karen and Burman seldom intermarried because of the hate existing between them. There had always been a racially motivated segregation between the Burman and the Karen. They stood on opposite sides of the firing line when the Japanese invaded Burma during WW II. They committed atrocities against each other and the animosity between them further deepened. The Karen did not want to be a part of independent Burma. However, they lived intermingled with the Burman and a solution to their problems was difficult to sole. Britain refused to listen to the Karen’s demand for separation from the Burman.

 

Because the Karen wee honest and trustworthy, the British hired them into their armed forces and civil administration. At the end of WW II, the Karen dominated both of these parts of government. When independence was eminent for Burma after the end of the war, the Karen sought all avenues available to them to separate themselves from the Burman, but they failed. In 1949, the Karen formed the Karen National Defence Organization to protect Karen villages from the Burman. The formation of this organization started the Karen rebellion in 1949.

 

The Karen and communist defections in the army left only a small army contingent loyal to the government. In other words, the Karen at one time were close to taking the capital Rangoon. The few remaining Chin and Kachin rifles battalions stood their ground and saved the Rangoon government from falling. The Karen were driven out of Insein, a satellite Karen town of Rangoon.

 

Thus, the Karen situation could explode any time unless they could agree with the Burman terms to build a state together.

 

General Ne Win and his officers never wanted peace. The Karens could have easily been beaten if a political solution had been sought. The Burmese government refused to discuss the Karen problems with Karen leaders. It was left to the military to solve the Karen problem. The Burma Army could have beaten the Karen rebellion if they had fought with good intentions. Often times Chin or Kachin, forces of the Burman Army had beaten Karen units. When the Chin units thought that they could eliminate the Karen unit, the Chin Rifles were ordered to withdraw and the Karen units were allowed to regroup. The Karen survived with mounting losses in life and material, and Ne Win continued to build his army with the excuse of the Karen threat.

 

The last stronghold of the Karen at Manaplaw was not attacked for over twenty years because the Burma Army wanted to show that they had a strong enemy. Only when Manaplaw became the second capital of Burma, where all democracy-loving people assembled, and the international media was informed of the brutality of the Burma did the Burma Army feel the need to attack. Manaplaw was not easily taken, but for a two-hundred-thousand strong army to beat a fifteen thousand men army should not be that difficult a task.

 

Arakan and Mon

 

Arakan and Mon were independent nations before they were overrun by Burman kings. Because these people were colonies of the Burman for a long period of time, and because they were Buddhists and Intermarried with the Burman. The Burman leadership believed that they were already absorbed into Burman society. The Burman leadership therefore found no reason to negotiate with the people of Arakan and Mon. On the other side, the Arakanese and Mon felt that they had been freed from Burman colonialization when the British gave independence to the Union of Burma. In independent Burma, they wanted the recognition of their unique ethnic national identity and their rights as a nation. But the Burman leadership completely miscalculated the nationality feelings and endeavor of the Arakan and Mon.

 

Like the Karen, the Mon and the Arakanese had been at war with the Burman before the British came. During those wars, the Burman treated both the Mon and Arakanese brutally. The people of Mon and Arakan regarded the British occupation of their land as the end of Burman colonialization. Ironically, the British introduction of schools and the teaching of Burmese in the schools was instrumental in transforming of the Arakan and Mon society into one much closer to the Burmese society. Although animosity and hatred existed between the Burman and Arakanese, and Mon, they share the same religion and intermarry. The Arakanese and the Mon could have easily been content if the Burman leadership had given them their rightful position in the society of the independent Union of Burman. Luckily for Ne Win, the Burman leadership, beginning with General Aung San, completely miscalculated the nationality feelings of the Arakanese and the Mon. They believed that the Arakan and Mon had fully and completely integrated into Burman society. The Burman leadership did not recognize their unique national identity. Therefore, an insurgency started at the end of 1946, even before independence was attained.

 

General Ne Win only needed a little push for the Arakanese and Mon to rise up in arms and mobilize their national feelings. Cases of atrocities committed against them as punishment for disturbances quickly intensified the hate of the Burman that already existed from the past. The Burma Army used small uprisings as an excuse to send a large contingent to terrorize villages that were situated in the nearby areas. The Burma Army simply applied the Ne Win doctrine. In response, the Arakan and Mon created an independence movement. General San Yu was the commander of the Burma Army contingent in Arakan for fifteen years before he became the president of Burma under Ne Win’s Burma Socialist Program Party.

 

Karenni

 

The Karenni were independent when Burma was under colonialism, but when Burma became independent, the Karenni became a part of Burma (viz. A colony of Burma). Thus, without proper agreement for equality in the new independent state of Burma, the Karenni would always demand their rights and independence.

 

Like the Arakanese and Mon, the Karennis fought to regain their independence just after Burma’s independence. Instead of realizing their goal of independence, they were drawn into the Ne Win doctrine. As the Karenni rebellion grew, so did the army stationed in the Karenni State. The AFPFL authorities in Rangoon resorted to a military solution to the Karenni conflict, putting the fate of the people of the Karenni in the hands of the brutal Burma Army under Ne Win. He, of course, immediately applied his doctrine of making the people hate the Burman. Where the Burma Army set foot into any territory was to terrorize the inhabitants. The Karenni were no exception. The government of the AFPFL had created a new front for the Burma Army.

 

Shan

 

Unlike the Arakan, Mon, and Karen, the Shan had never been completely subjugated by the Burman in historic times. On the contrary, the Shan had at one time ruled to Burman. Historically, Burman and the Shan dealt with each other as equals and there was mutual respect for each other.

 

The ruling Saophas were mostly well-educated and versed in politics and world affairs.

 

General Ne Win was able to extend his doctrine to the Federated Shan States when the Karen rebellion spilled over to Taungyi, the Shan capital, in 1950. Then the remnants of the Chinese Koumintang (KMT) forces infiltrated the Shan State from China and gave the government even more reason to send troops there. The placing of most of the regions of the Shan State under martial law by the U Nu government delivered the Shans into the evil claws of Ne Win and his Burma Army, the Tatmadaw. The Burma Army saw the martial law as their god-sent opportunity to terrorize the Shan population. Among the Burma men, the fair-skinned Shan women were a prized commodity to exploit. When the General encouraged his soldiers to marry Shan women, it was like a dream-come-true to the soldiers. The Burma Army gave promotions to those who married ordinary Shan women. Those who married Shan princess were made officers (if the soldier was an NCO). If the soldier was an officer, the officer received a double promotion. The purpose of the marriage policy was not purely the Burmanization of the Shan, but it was rather to reap hatred. The soldier thus hunted Shan women for marriage or for other purposes. They ambushed Shan women on their way to their fields, and if the women tied to run, the soldiers would shoot at them. They killed some women and raped many. Shan women were so afraid of the Burma Army that they hid on seeing army vehicles. A Shan elderly said, “I could bear it when they took away my chicken, pigs, and property. I could bear it when they burned down my house. But I cannot bear it when they abuse my wife and daughter in front of me.” The soldiers commonly looted Shan property and hunted their domestic animals to supplement their meager rations. Prominent and well-loved Shans disappeared without a trace. After ten years of the army presence, the Shan youth could not bear the oppression and degradation. The Shan youth, led by university students, rose up in arms in the late fifties. By then, many non-Burman ethnic groups had stood in arms against the Burma Army. Ne Win had once again driven the Shan to rebel against his army. The Ne Win doctrine was successfully inplemented and was working in the Shan State.

 

The destruction of Shan society through opium was also mainly the work of Ne Win and the military. The growing of opium and the opium trade may have been started by the KMT and international drug smugglers, but the Burma Army was the authority in the Shan state. Without the tacit approval of the military, the opium production could not have continued. The Burma Army used the excuse that the military could not control opium production in the Shan State because of the Shan rebellion. This excuse was extremely misleading because, as explained above, the military was the cause of the rebellion. The military and Ne Win benefited by the drug trade because they were the main transports of the drug inside Burma. A major aim of the Ne Win Doctrine was to destroy the Shan social establishment. The production of opium and heroin enhanced the implementation of the Doctrine, and Ne Win would apply that part of the doctrine elsewhere.

 

Kachin

 

The Kachin State is rich in natural resources. Many Kachin profited from the large jade deposits, which are found in Kachin land. The Kachin served loyally in the British Burma Army and in post-independence Burma. There had never been problems with the Kachin until 1960. But soon U Nu came to the aid of Ne Win. During the election campaign in 1960, U Nu made an election promise to make Buddhism the state religion if he was given the mandate to govern Burma. He won the election and Buddhism did become the state religion. Because of these events, the Kachin formed the Kachin Independence Organization, initiating a rebellion against the ruling government of Burma. The Burma Army immediately applied the Ne Win doctrine in the Kachin State. By the time the Kachin Independent Army signed a cease-fire agreement after thirty years of civil war, Kachin villages had lost much of their previous relative wealth. Total destruction of the Kachin society and Kachin properties resulted and the Burma Army is in every corner of the Kachin land. The Kachin have traded their rights as human beings and their right to be treated as an equal by the Burman for a cease fire.

 

Communists and Wa

 

The Burman communists met the same fate as the non-Burma ethnic insurgency. Chin, Karen, Burman, and Kachin battalions were deployed to fight the communists. As with the Karen, the communists were attacked, allowed to regroup, and attacked again. Within a few years after independence, the communists were no longer a formidable force because, unlike the non-Burma ethnic groups, the Ne Win doctrine could not make the Burman hate the Burmam, perhaps because they understood what the Burma Army was doing. Whenever the communists had a stronghold, the Burma Army terrorized the local people. When the villagers were tired of the harassment from the Burma Army and the taxation of the communists, they simply moved away. Unlike the non-Burman, they did not have elaborate housing and they could easily farm somewhere else. The communist regained their momentum only when they moved to the Chinese border and persuaded the Wa to fight for them. When the Ne Win doctrine was applied to the Wa, the Wa started to hate the Burman of the Burma Army. The racial hatred transferred to hatred of their Burmese communists’ masters. They eventually overthrew the Burman communists and started an ethnic war against the Burman. Because of the huge assistance given by China to the Burma communist party, there were incentives for the Wa young men to join the communists. The price tag was high for the Wa. Almost every Wa household lost a son or a family member in the conflict. After the Wa signed the cease-fire agreement with the Burma Army, the Wa ran drug production and trade under more peaceful circumstances. Due to the Wa rebellion, a powerful contingent of the Burma Army was needed and the Burma Army fulfilled its purpose controlling the drug trade.

 

Chin

 

Historically, the Chin and the Burman did not have much contact. Their interaction was mostly limited to mutual raiding, including taking war prisoners as slaves. Being in the remote areas of the hills, the Chins were isolated from the valley-dwelling Burman. Consequently, they never dominated one another, or had any other diplomatic relations.

 

For forty years since joining the Burman, the Chin Hills continued on relatively quietly because there was no reason for the Ne Win army to go there. General Ne Win and most Burman had never been to the chin Hills themselves, and perceived it to be a very primitive areas whose simple inhabitants had neither the ability nor the will to develop their country. However, when Ne Win visited the Chin Hills in 1955 as the commanding officer of the Burma Army, he saw that the Chins were not as primitive as he had thought. Moreover, he realized that the Chins lived in bigger houses than the general Burman. Whereas most Burman lived in bamboo thatch houses, the Chin used wooden planks as walls with wooden floors and corrugated iron or slate as their roofs. Ne Win would wait and find a way to apply his doctrine.

 

In the late 1970s, the BSPP under Ne Win began to grow opium in the Chin Hills. They had found this strategy successful in the Shan State, where the army had been stationed since 1950. Army officers profited by transporting the drug and were able to addict many of the people by making the drug easily accessible. The Burman then could easily acquire their property.

 

The growing of opium in the Chin Hills in 1997(???) means nothing less than the ruin of the future of the Chin people. It was reported that heroin is being refined in Tahan, Tedim, and Tamu under the military supervision. This is clearly an attempt to destroy the Chin people in order to be able to control them. Until now, Ne Win was incapable of making the Chin hate the Burman. Soon he will destroy the Chin people as more and more people become addicted to heroin.

 

The Chins were drawn to the same fate as other ethnic groups in only after the 1988 general uprising against the practice of the Ne Win doctrine in the whole of Burma. Three Chin men formed the Chin National Front (CNF) in 1988 in India. The CNF was formed as an armed independence movement and grew to about fifty members, mostly Chin students who fled to Mizoram in India. The CNF had no money, arms, or supporters in 1988, but its existence was enough to serve as an excuse for the Burma army to destroy the Chin social establishment. In 1980, there was only a Burma Army company in the Chin Hills. By 1995 ten thousand Burma Army soldiers were stationed in the Chin Hills not necessarily to fight the CNF but to instill hatred and fear for the Burman consistent with applying the doctrine.

 

Results of the Doctrine on the Union

 

In 1958, after leading the Burma army for almost ten years, General Ne Win felt that his army was strong enough to overthrow the government of the Union of Burma under U Nu. Ne Win’s subordinates gave U Nu the ultimatum that the Burma Army was going to take over power either peacefully or by force.

 

 

Rhododendron News

VOL.V No.II MARCH-APRIL 2002

 

 

Human Rights:

 

* Burma’s Junta Arrested Two Prominent Chin Christian Ministers

 

* Forced Labor Continues In Remote Areas of Chin State

 

* Force Labor Used to Repair Army Camp

 

* Professor Gets 7 Years for Protest

 

Refugees:

 

* Chin refugees being evicted en mass in Northeastern India

 

* Translations of Orders & Local News Regarding Chin Refugees in Mizoram State of India

 

Letters & Press Release:

 

* Urgent Action Appeal By CHRO

 

* Chin Youth Organization Letter to Young Mizo Association

 

Chin Forum Letter to Young Mizo Association

 

Facts & Arguments:

 

* Myanmar: The Politics of Humanitarian Aid By International Crisis Groups

 

* Critique Of The International Crisis Group’s Report By Dr. Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

HUMAN RIGHTS

 

Burma’s Junta Arrested Two Prominent Chin Christian Ministers

 

CHRO April 10, 2001

 

In a renewed effort to curb Christian activity, Burmese military junta arrested two highly respected Christian ministers on Friday April 5, 2002, a very reliable source in Rangoon told Chin Human Rights Organization yesterday.

 

Rev. Htat Gyi/That Ci and his son-in-law Pastor Lian Za Dal alias Saya Tun Lin were arrested on Friday night in a midnight raid conducted by local officials in their residence at 49th Dagon North in the outskirts of Rangoon city. Local officials also took eight other extended family members into custody, the source said.

 

Rev. That Ci was arrested shortly after he returned home from the Block Peace and Development Council office to file guest registration for his daughter and son-in-law who were visiting him in his Dagon North residence. According to the source, the local authority turned down the Reverend’s petition for guest registration saying the Township authority would first review his request after which they would inform him of the result. “He returned home believing that he would be informed of whether he was allowed to have visitors over or not”, said the source.

 

But at around midnight, the local authority raided the residence of Rev. That Ci and arrested all family members in the house on account of failing to file guest registration.

 

The source noted that although the cause of the arrest is being given as “failure to file guest report”, in the interrogation center Rev. That Ci was asked if he would stop holding worship service.

 

A member of ethnic Chin, Rev. That Ci had worked as a middle school headmaster and had also worked extensively with the United Nations Development Program UNDP before joining Myanmar Evangelical Gospel School of Theology where he later earned a Masters in Divinity.

 

That Ci has been reputed for his evangelical works among Burman Buddhists in Dagon North area and as a result the Township and District authorities had warned him several times to stop proselytizing. “Having drawn many Buddists into his church, the authorities had also warned him not to construct a church building in the local area. However, Rev. That Ci always defiantly ignored the warnings saying he did nothing detrimental to the stability of the state”, added the source.

 

Independent verification of the report by CHRO confirmed that Rev. That Ci and Pastor Lian Za Dal, who is also known among the Burmese as Saya Tun Lin were detained at Dagon North police station for one night, the next two night at a location on Barr street before they were sent to Insein Prison on Monday, April 8, 2002. The whereabouts of the other family member detainees could not be verified. However, the source further suggests that the two ministers could have been released during their initial detention on the condition that they stop preaching, but it was likely that they refused the offer in exchange for their release given the fact that they have now been sent to Insein Prision.

 

Ethnic and religious minorities have been the targets of persecution in Burma under the military junta, State Peace and Development Council, largely dominated Burman Buddhists. Christians make up only a small percent among the predominantly Buddhist populations in Burma.

 

The United States State Department’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, two years in a row had designated Burma as Country of Particular Concern, violating religious freedom. The reports specifically cited persecutions suffered by ethnic Chin Christians in Chin State in the western borderland of Burma.

 

Forced Labor Continues In Remote Areas of Chin State

 

Beginning January 5, 2000, ten villages in remote areas of Chin State were forced to construct a 20-mile motor road lingking Vuangtu and Ngaphaipi villages, an eye witness told Chin Human Rights Organization.

 

Section 2 Commander of Burmese Army Light Infantry Battalion LIB 269 stationed at Vuangtu village issued an order requiring 10 villages located in the surrounding areas of Vuangtu to contribute unpaid labor for the road construction. Headmen of the ten villages were summoned to Vuangtu army base where they were told to carry out the order.

 

The villages include:

 

1.Lelai (Lailen)

 

2.La-ao (La-u)

 

3.Khipilu (Khuapi lu)

 

4.Mifawko tla (Farkungtlang)

 

5.Locitae (Lungcuaite)

 

6.Ngephetae (Ngaphaite)

 

7.Zephai(A)

 

8.Zephai(B)

 

9.Ngalang

 

10.Ngephepi (Ngaphaipi)

 

In addition, 235 people from Khuabung village were ordered to particpate in the forced labor. Not only were the villagers ordered to bring with them their own tools and ration during their work period but also were ordered to birng an additional one tin (About 8 Kgs) of rice and other needs for the army guards who supervised the forced labor.

 

The road construction is part of the Border Area Development Project and extensive forced labor have been used in the process. Although the army claimed that the project is for the development of the area, the roads have been used only to ease movements and communication of the Burmese troops around the area.

 

Force Labor Used to Repair Army Camp

 

According to a reliable source, the Burmese army forcibly took 35 persons from Tawngla Lung Cawi village, Thangtlang township to repair the army camp at Sabawngte village from January 3, 2002 to January 16, 2002.

 

2nd Lt. Mya Myit Soe ordered the forced labor recruits to bring their own ration and equipments for during their two-week stay in the camp. They were aslo ordered to bring one chicken for the army. Dried fish, meat, salt and other spices that the villagers brought with them were confiscated by the Lieutenant.

 

The laborers who became sick as a result of two weeks of hard work had to travel a 20-mile journey to Mizoram State of India to get medical treatment as the army did not provide them any medicines.

 

Tawngla Lungcawi is a small village of 40 households. Out of these, two persons in every household were forced to participate in the forced labor.

 

The Sabawngte army camp is repaired three times a year and all villages in the surrounding areas are forced to participate in repairing the camp on a rotating basis.

 

Professor Gets 7 Years for Protest

 

March 18, 2002— Dr Salai Tun Than, a retired professor who was arrested last November for staging a one-man protest against Burma’s ruling junta, has been sentenced to seven years in prison, according to a reliable source in Rangoon.

 

Dr Salai Tun Than, 74, was sentenced under Article 5(J) of the 1950 State Emergency Act for his solo protest in front of Rangoon’s City Hall on Nov 29. According to the source, a special court in the compound of Insein Prison, where he is currently being held, passed the sentence on Feb 8.

 

During his protest, Dr Salai Tun Than, the former rector of Yazin University in Pyinmana, Upper Burma, distributed copies of a letter he wrote to demand political reforms. In the letter, he also expressed a willingness to pay a high price for his protest. “It is better to die than to live under the military regime,” he wrote.

 

The source added that the retired rector, who is an ethnic Chin, is now permitted to receive visits from relatives. In February, he also met with the United Nations’ Human Rights rapporteur for Burma, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro.

 

The source also noted that Dr Salai Tun Than suffers from a serious eye condition that needs to be operated on within the next six months.

 

Since talks between Burma’s ruling junta and the democratic opposition began a year and a half ago, 243 political prisoners have been released from the country’s gulag. Most of these prisoners had already served out their sentences and were due to be released, according to the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP).

 

Despite persistent calls from opposition groups and the international community for more releases, the regime continues to detain around 2,000 political prisoners, according to AP.

 

Source: Irrawady News <www.irrawady.org>

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

REFUGEES:

 

Chin refugees being evicted en mass in Northeastern India

 

CHRO: March 6, 2002

 

A reliable source told Chin Human Rights Organization ( CHRO ) today that thousands of Chin nationals from Burma who have been taking refuge in Lunglei District of Mizoram State of northeastern India are being forcibly evicted from their homes.

 

The eviction is the latest of a series of attempts by the powerful local youth body known as Young Mizo Association, YMA, to clear out all foreigners living in the District of Lunglei.

 

On March 3, 2002, members of the YMA entered into the homes of Chin refugees and threatened them to voluntarily evacuate their house or risk all their belongings being thrown out. So far 18 of the 29 families living in Chanmary ward have already been forcibly evicted this week. The rest are being told to leave their house within two days, failing which police will be called in to arrest them.

 

The first eviction started in mid August with 31 families in Ramthar ward being forced to move out of their house. Since then dozens of families from different localities have been evicted. 11 families in Salem ward were removed on September 15 and another 29 families in Farm ward were evicted on 25 October 2001.

 

A series or eviction notices and warnings were later issued and on March 2, the Church in which the refugees hold worship service was forced to shut down with the threat of dismantling it if they didn’t.

 

The total number of Chin refugees concentrating in Lunglei District alone, according to the local people, is more than 5000. However, the total population of Chin refugees in the entire Mizoram State is estimated to be over 500,00, although the accurate figure cannot be ascertained.

 

Chins fled their homeland to escape mass human rights violations and atrocities perpetrated by the Burmese military regime. Documented reports indicate persistent human rights violations including forced labor, rape, arbitrary arrests and executions and religious persecutions in Chin State.

 

Notice of Eviction from Chanmari Ward YMA

 

YOUNG MIZO ASSOCIATION, BRANCH CHANMARI, LUNGLEI.

 

No. CHYMA-1/2001/113

 

Dated Lunglei,the 21st, Dec, 2001

 

To,

 

The Believer Fellowship- 1& 2 Chanmari, Lunglei.

 

Subject: Notice of Eviction from Chanmari Ward

 

Colleagues,

 

As you have agreed to our request during the meeting between you and YMA Office bearers from Chanmari ward on 30th September 2001, your fellowship is hereby notified to leave Chanmari ward within the month of January 2002. If you failed to comply with this notification, the YMA Chanmari branch will not bear any responsibilities for whatever happened to you thereafter.

 

Yours for the Community and the land

 

s/d ( VANLALRUATA HNAMTE )

 

Secretary

 

YMA Branch, Chanmari, Lunglei

 

YOUNG MIZO ASSOCIATION BRANCH; CHANMARI LUNGLEI

 

No. CHYMA- 1/2001/107. Dt.29th Sept 2001.

 

To:

 

The Secretary,

 

Believer Fellowship-I & II

 

Chanmari, Lunglei.

 

Subject: Notice of Summons

 

Regarding the above subject, pursuant to the meeting decision of YMA Executive Committee on 28 September night, leaders of the Believer Fellowship-I & II are hereby respectively invited to a meeting with Chanmari Community leaders to discuss matters regarding your fellowship at the following place and date.

 

Place ; Pu J. Zorema Residence, Chanmari- III, Lunglei.

 

Date: 30.9.2001 at 3:00 P.M

 

s/d

 

( VANLALRUATA HNAMTE)

 

Secretary

 

YMA Branch Chanmari, Lunglei

 

Copy:1. For copy of the Village Council President of Chanmari, Lunglei for further necessary actions

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

YOUNG MIZO ASSOCIATION BRANCH; CHANMARI LUNGLEI

 

From:

 

Secretary

 

YMA Branch Chanmari

 

Lunglei

 

YMA Letter to Pi Lianbuangi

 

To:

 

Pi Lianbuangi, Chanmari – 1

 

Beloved colleagues,

 

Greetings to you, first of all, on behalf of the YMA Chanmari branch.

 

YMA has adopted its slogan of the year “To preserve the people and the land”. In line with this slogan, the Chanmari branch of YMA is launching a campaign of evicting all foreigners residing in its jurisdiction. In this respect, both you and your tenants have been notified that they leave this locality no later than March 9, 2002 (Saturday). To ascertain that your tenants comply with this notice, the community leaders and Magistrate will be taking necessary measures. As the landlord, you are hereby fervently requested to be present at your house starting from 10:00 A.M.

 

Yours colleague,

 

( P. C THANZAMA )

 

Lunglei, 8th Mar, 2002

 

Secretary

 

YMA Chanmari Bbranch

 

Lunglei.

 

YMA Letter to Pu Buannawla

 

To:

 

Pu Buannawla,

 

Chanmari-1

 

Dear Sir,

 

In conjunction with its slogan of the year, YMA Chanmari Branch, Lunglei, is massively mounting a campaign of evictions of all foreigners residing in its jurisdiction. As you have already been notified, this is to remind you again that you are to leave the locality no later than March 9, 2002.

 

Dated 8th March, 2002, Lunglei

 

( P.C THANZAMA )

 

Secretary

 

YMA Chanmari Branch, Lunglei

 

Lunglei Daily Newspaper

 

THE HERO DAILY ; 1 MARCH 2002, LUNGLEI; ZIRTAWPNI

 

Hard to Evict

 

Members of YMA Chanmari Branch are busy looking for foreigners living in Chanrmari ward as part of the organization’s campaign to evict all foreigners, particularly from Myanmar. While many of them are complying with the order by leaving their houses, there are many who are very stubborn to obey the order. Surprisingly, these people have valid residential documentations from V.C (Village Chairman) or from some Autonomous District Council proving their legal identity as Mizo. Some of them even have Residential Certificate from the Lunglei District Commissioner. Because there are some people who are willing to give them such documentation, the YMA is unable to do effectively enough to evict them. These people are believed to have invested some money to be able to acquire such documents. If these kinds of illegal activities continue, it will become more and more difficult to ta! ke effective actions in the future. It is quite clear that the people who are issuing these documents to foreigners do not give serious thought to the problem. It is necessary that these people stop their activities for the sake of preservation of our people and land. If we continue to engage in these kinds of activities we will face some serious problems in the near future.

 

( THE HERO DAILY : 7 MARCH, 2002 : LUNGLEI : NINGANI )

 

To Be Evicted

 

Chanmari Branch YMA is taking aggressive action to evict all foreigners living in Chanmari ward, especially from Myanmar, who entered into India illegally. While there are many who are obedient, many of them are very stubborn. Last warning has been given to those who have not moved out two days ago. Many are reported to be possessing illegally-obtained residential documents.

 

LETTER & PRESS RELEASE:

 

Urgent Action Appeal

 

Fear for Homelessness/Starvation and Deportation

 

Chin Refugees in Lunglei, Mizoram State, India Date: 14 March 2002

 

Chin Human Rights Organization, CHRO has received reports that hundreds of Chin refugees who have been taking refuge in Lunglei District of Mizoram State, India are being evicted from their shelters and houses.

 

Since August 2001, the powerful local pressure group Young Mizo Association, Lunglei Branch started carrying out eviction of dozens of Chin refugee families living in different localities of Lunglei town. The eviction has left many people homeless including most vulnerable persons such as women and children.

 

CHRO is concerned that these people who have already suffered persecutions in Burma are being subjected again to deprivation of their basic livelihood, and fundamental human rights. There are also serious concerns that these refugees will eventually be deported to Burma, where they will risk serious human rights violations.

 

According to reports, members of Young Mizo Association, Chanmari Branch and local police stormed the houses of Chin refugees in Chanmari and other localities in Lunglei and forcibly evicted them from their rented houses. On March 3, 2002, members of the YMA entered into the homes of Chin refugees and threatened them to voluntarily evacuate their house or risk all their belongings being thrown out. So far 18 of the 29 families living in Chanmary ward have already been forcibly evicted in the past week alone.

 

A widow and mother of 5 children living in Chanmari, was among dozens of families forcibly evicted in the past week. Reports also indicated that the worship places of Chin refugees, the Believers’ Fellowship I & II located in Chanmari Ward in Lunglei were ordered to shut down by the local YMA.

 

CHRO calls upon all concerned Chin organizations, churches and individuals around the world to act on this alarming situation of your Chin refugees in Lunglei.

 

Background Information

 

Serious human rights violations in Burma have forced thousands of Chin nationals to flee to various countries including India. A great majority of those fleeing to India are taking shelter in various parts of Mizoram State including Lunglei. About 50,00 Chins are believed to be living in Lunglei District out of an estimated total population of 500,00 in the entire Mizoram State. Because the Indian Government does not permit United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to function in the region, Chin refugees in Mizoram State has no legal protection either from the Indian Government or from UNHCR.

 

The State Government of Mizoram, although it has been generous to Chin refugees, has frequently carried out massive sweep of arrest and deportation of Chin refugees to Burma.

 

Recommended Actions:

 

Please send appeals to arrive as soon as possible:

 

Expressing concerns for the safety and livelihood of evicted Chin refugees in Lunglei area Requesting YMA, Lunglei Branch to stop evicting Chin refugees in Lunglei on a humanitarian and compassionate ground Pleading local Mizo churches to intervene in the situation (Remember to be respectful in your tone and also do not forget to mention in your appeals appreciations and gratitude to the people of Mizoram for having been so generous and sympathetic to the Chin refugees)

 

Appeals to:

 

1.Young Mizo Association (YMA) Lunglei Branch

 

2. Secretary Mr. Zo Muan Kima.

 

email address, [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

 

3. YMA sub headquater Lunglei

 

email- [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Phone- 011-91-372-24799

 

4. YMA, Center YMA office

 

M.G Road, Ai zawl, 796001

 

Phone: 011-91-389- 324 966, 011-91-389-326 973

 

Email- [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Fax- 326 993

 

5. General Secretary, Center YMA

 

YMA Road, Aizawl 796001

 

Ph- 011-91-389-322 869, 011-91-389-326 973

 

Copies to:

 

1. Pu Zoramthanga Mizoram Chief Minister, fax no: 91 389 322 245

 

2. Pu Tawnluaia Hon’ble Home Minister Government of Mizoram, fax: 91 11 301 2331

 

Chin Forum Letter to Young Mizo Association

 

To:

 

Mr. Zomuankima

 

Secretary of Young Mizo Association (Lunglei Branch) Mizoram

 

March 19, 2002

 

Subject: Forced eviction of Chin refugees

 

Dear Sir,

 

We have learned from the Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO) that on March 6, 2002 thousands of Chin nationals from Burma who have been taking refuge in Lunglei District of Mizoram State of North Eastern India are being forcibly evicted from their homes. We are shocked to learn that the eviction is part of the YMA’s programme “to clear out all foreigners living in the District of Lunglei” and moreover it is to our surprise that the actions are carried out under YMA’s adopted slogan “To preserve the people and the land”.

 

We have no doubt that the YMA is very much aware of the sufferings of the Chins and Burmese in Burma under the brutal military dictatorship ever since 1962. Since the 1988 democracy uprisings inside Burma and following the military crack down on pro democracy activists many Chins have fled to all parts of the world including USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, Singapore etc. Not all of them have landed on friendly nations and many suffer still equally brutal treatments in their adopted countries. Some have to stay illegally under fear of detention and deportation or any known kind of human rights violations that they have experienced inside their own homeland while a few of them receive a welcoming hands from these strange lands.

 

For us, the Chins, the country known as Mizoram is not a strange land since Mizos and Chins are one and the same people only divided by the Indo-Burma border line without our consents. It is due to our unfortunate history that we, the Chins and Mizos are divided under different countries known as India and Burma. The Chins fled their homeland to escape mass human rights violations and atrocities perpetrated by the Burmese military regime. Documented reports indicate persistent human rights violations including forced labor, rape, arbitrary arrests and executions and religious persecutions in Chin State.

 

In fact the Chins should not feel as foreigners in Mizoram and vice verse. If the YMA leadership is committed to “preserve the people and the land” how could it ignores the plights of their suffering brothers and destroy their livelihood in Mizoram, which is part of the ancestral lands of the Chins as well?

 

We the CHIN FORUM, herewith, seriously urge your kind attention as to review the policy of your esteemed organisation and earnestly request the leadership of the YMA to stop the evictions of the Chin refugees from Mizoram at least until we gain freedom and restore democracy in Chin State and Burma.

 

Sincerely,

 

sd/ Victor Biak Lian

 

Secretary Chin Forum 813-453

 

Cooper Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0H1,

 

Canada Tel: (613) 231 4208

 

Fax: (613) 234 2485

 

Email: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Copies to:

 

YMA sub headquarters, Lunglei email- [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Center YMA office, Email- [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Pu Zoramthanga, Mizoram Chief Minister, fax no: 91 389 322 245 4.

 

Pu Tawnluaia, Hon’ble Home Minister, Government of Mizoram, fax: 91 11 301 2331

 

 

 

Chin Youth Organization Letter to Young Mizo Association

 

To:

 

President Young Mizo Association,

 

Lunglei Branch Lunglei,

 

Mizoram, India

 

Date: March 13, 2002

 

Re: Appeal for ending mass eviction of Chin nationals in Lunglei

 

Dear Mr. President,

 

I am writing to you as Chairman of Chin Youth Organization to convey my deep concern over the continuing mass eviction of Chin nationals from Burma (Myanmar) living in Lunglei by members of your organization.

 

Reports indicate that since October last year, in conjunction with your organization’s slogan of the year “To preserve the land and the people” the YMA started issuing eviction notices to all Chin nationals living in your jurisdiction and as a result h! undreds of families have been forcibly removed from the houses and left homeless. In many instances in Chanmary Veng (Ward) and elsewhere, helpless widows and children have had their belongings thrown out of their houses by members of your organization. This has tremendously affected the lives of hundreds of families of already helpless and vulnerable men, women and children.

 

As you are aware, years of persecutions and oppressions they suffered from the Burmese military regime have compelled them, as their last resort, to take shelter in Lunglei District and elsewhere in Mizoram. Because they were already victims of politic! al, racial and religious persecutions in their homeland, the current campaign of eviction your organization is mounting against these people is only adding to the untold suffering they had already experienced in Burma under the military regime.

 

We sincerely do recognize and share the concerns of your organization in implementing your slogan of preserving the land and the people of Mizoram in India. We understand that the YMA has a strong perception against the presence of the Chin people in L! unglei District, as running counter to its very slogan. However, we believe that the cultural and political survival of the people and the land of Mizoram could never be threatened or even compromised by the presence of Chin refugees in the state. This is due to the simple fact that if we look further beyond so-called international boundary that divid es us as Inida and Burma (Myanmar) today, we are the same people who share the common identity, culture and language. It is only unfortunate that we have been divided by these artificial boundaries we now see in the map as international boundary.

 

Furthermore, the Chin people who are now taking shelter in Mizoram today are only there for the sole purpose of escaping mass atrocities and sustained oppressions from the Burmese military junta in their homeland of Chin State. In deed, we have been ve! ry lucky to have Mizo people as our next-door neighbor for without your kind welcome and assistance in time of hardship the situations our people have to face would have been unimaginable. This is also true in vice versa when the Mizo people had to go through the similar hardships decades ago.

 

For decades the Mizo people have been characterized by their Tlawmgneihna or “goodwill volunteerism” and are known for their tradition of “providing good treatment to their guests”. We are in reality temporary guests who are in dire need of protections! and helps of the Mizo people. At a time like this, it is fitting for the YMA as the most inclusive and representative of the Mizo people to show the kind of people that you are known for rather than engaging in acts, which would undermine and compromise such characteristics.

 

Reports tell us that, forcible mass eviction is still being carried out in various parts of Lunglei and that hundreds of families have been left homeless, including widows other vulnerable persons.

 

As we are greatly concerned about this continuing trend, we appeal to the YMA, Lunglei branch, in the strongest terms possible

 

· To seriously review its current policy on Chin refugees and put an immediate stop to the mass evictions on a humanitarian basis;

 

· To call off all orders of evictions being carried out in various parts of Lunglei

 

· To take appropriate measures to restore the livelihood of evicted persons in Lunglei District.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Salai Ngun Cung Lian

 

Chairman, CYO USA

 

CC:

 

1. President, YMA (Central) for your information and necessary action.

 

2. Chief Minister, Government of Mizoram, for your kind information and necessary action.

 

3. Home Minister, Government of Mizoram for your kind information and necessary action.

 

4. Legal Officer, UNHCR, New Delhi for your kind information and necessary action.

 

FACTS & ARGUMENTS

 

Myanmar: The Politics of Humanitarian Aid

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Since the 1988 uprising and 1990 election in Burma/Myanmar, foreign governments and international organisations have promoted democratisation as the solution to the country’s manifold problems, including ethnic conflict, endemic social instability, and general underdevelopment. Over time, however, as the political stalemate has continued and data on the socio-economic conditions in the country have improved, there has been a growing recognition that the political crisis is paralleled by a humanitarian crisis that requires more immediate and direct international attention. Donors face a dilemma. On the one hand, the humanitarian imperative raises difficult questions about the sustainability of international strategies based on coercive diplomacy and economic isolation, which have greatly limited international assistance! to Myanmar. On the other hand, there is widespread concern that re-engagement, even in the form of limited humanitarian assistance, could undermine the quest for political change and long-term improvements.

 

This policy dilemma raises two basic questions: Should international assistance to Myanmar be increased? And, if so, how can this be done in a responsible and effective way? This report answers the first of these questions with an unequivocal ‘yes’. There should be more international assistance in Myanmar, more resources, more agencies, and more programs in a wider number of sectors. The human costs of social deprivation in Myanmar are simply too large to be ignored until some indefinite democratic future, which could be years, or even decades, away. In the meantime, international development agencies are making a significant difference bringing relief and new opportunities to vulnerable groups, building local capacities, even helping to rationalise policy-making and planning – and they could do a lot more. Importantly! , so far at least, there are no indications that these efforts are having significant political costs, whether in terms of strengthening the regime or undermining the movement for change.

 

Those who oppose international assistance, or at least are cautious about it, point out that Myanmar’s development for a long time has been hostage to political interests and that any sustainable, long-term solutions would have to involve fundamental changes in the system of government. They are also concerned that the current government will reject international advice and maintain development policies and priorities that are partly responsible for the current problems.

 

However, these obstacles should be actively addressed rather than left for some future democratic government to tackle. Instead of placing absolute constraints on international assistance, the focus should be on improving monitoring and distribution to minimise existing problems and facilitate more aid reaching people in need. If properly applied, international assistance could in fact serve to promote political reconciliation and build the social capital necessary for a successful democratic transition.

 

Foreign governments and donors do not face a choice between promoting political change or supporting social development in Myanmar. Both strategies would have to be integral parts of any genuine effort to help this country and promote stability and welfare for its 50 million people, as well as the broader region. In order to facilitate responsible and effective delivery of more international assistance, all the main protagonists, inside and outside the country, need to reassess their positions and do their part to generate the kind of cooperation and synergy that has so far been lacking.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

TO INTERNATIONAL DONORS:

 

1. Accept that it is not necessary to choose between promoting political change and supporting social development in Myanmar: both strategies need to be part of an integral effort to create stability and improve social welfare.

 

2. Provide more aid to tackle poverty, illness and the shortfall in education.

 

3. Work with both local civil society organisations and government bodies to help develop overall capacities for aid management.

 

4. Strengthen current oversight mechanisms, in particular by setting up an inter-governmental aid consortium with monitoring functions to liase with UN and international non-governmental development organisations (INGO) inter-agency groups in Myanmar.

 

5. Use aid to attract increased government funding, for example, by ‘matching’ government expenditure in priority sectors and encouraging specific ‘joint-venture’ development projects.

 

6. Take care that other political tools are wielded with due consideration to their humanitarian and human rights impact – and, for that purpose, commission an impact assessment of all existing and potential future sanctions by a neutral body of economic and development experts.

 

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MYANMAR:

 

7. Place a greater emphasis on human development by:

 

(a) cutting back defence spending and moving more resources to health and education; and (b) reconsidering the current top-down approach to development, which fails to activate all the country’s resources.

 

8. Facilitate increased international assistance by:

 

(c) demonstrating clearer commitment to resolving the country’s socio-economic problems by providing more resources and changing policies that do not produce results; (d) minimising the obstructions currently placed on foreign aid organisations in the country; and, (e) increasing the scope for international actors to work with local NGOs.

 

9. Take more advantage of the wealth of knowledge and development experience outside the country, including in neighbouring countries and among fellow members of ASEAN.

 

TO THE NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR DEMOCRACY:

 

10. Formulate a public plan for international assistance that recognises needs and priorities for expanded humanitarian assistance.

 

11. Support efforts to strengthen the state’s capacity to formulate and implement policy, in preparation for a smooth political transition.

 

12. Encourage donors and aid organisations to fund local development NGOs and work with community groups.

 

TO INTERNATIONAL AID ORGANISATIONS IN MYANMAR:

 

13. Expand the UNDP’s mandate in Myanmar to allow it broader involvement in policy issues and administrative capacity building.

 

14. Use the significant leverage of the UN system with the government to negotiate a framework more conducive to the effective functioning of all aid organisations in the country, including the INGOs and local civil society organisations.

 

15. Do more to challenge inaccurate official figures and other data, whether overly pessimistic or optimistic, which distort the situation in the country.

 

16. Work to maintain current standards of accountability of NGOs as their numbers expand and funding increases, for example, by formalising the INGO Joint Operation Principles and establishing an NGO Council, which could service individual organisations and liase with donors and the national government.

 

17. Be prepared to lower standards of transparency and accountability in exceptional circumstances, viz. where needed in order to reach people in sensitive areas and sectors where security requires full confidentiality.

 

18. Strengthen coordination to avoid duplication of projects and pool information and ideas.

 

Bangkok/Brussels, 2 April 2002

 

Source: http://www.crisisweb.org/default.cfm

 

Critique Of The International Crisis Groups’s Report

 

By Dr. Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe

 

NOTES #1: THE I.C.G’s HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE PAPER

 

N.B. The Executive Summary (pp.1-3) contains all the points and arguments raised in the paper. As such, comments and critical notes of the Executive summary provided herewith, can be regarded as a critique of the whole paper, or as addressing the salient points of the paper as a whole.

 

ON THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [referred in the report as “overview”]

 

[1] First of all, it is not clear in the paper what it means by “international assistance”. In the Burma context, is it in reference only to humanitarian assistance or to development assistance as well?

 

The two are different international aid categories. The paper contributes to the confusion by making no distinction between them, and by going from one to the other in an arbitrary, confusing, and ambiguous manner.

 

Development assistance in the Burma context is problematic, very much so. Humanitarian assistance on the other hand will however not be as problematic.

 

The lack of clarity, gives a strong impression that the paper (and the author or authors) is arguing for development assistance, while using the humanitarian assistance point of reference and context. This is what is most troubling about the paper as a whole.

 

[2.A] **p.1, col.1 and 2, in the Executive Summary** The paper says that international development agencies (IDAs) are making significant difference to the most vulnerable groups (…etc) in Burma.

 

The above is a sweeping statement, and which may apply perhaps to the Kachin State, to a certain extent. The people in this state and in Burma Proper are, comparatively speaking, not the most vulnerable. The most vulnerable are population living (or hiding) in areas decreed by the military government (military GOM) as BLACK and GREY areas. There is very little presence of the IDAs there because they are – according to the military GOM — “sensitive” areas, or lacking in security.

 

The Black and Grey areas are literally free fire zones, and the population are not only IDPs, but treated by military patrols as outlaws, and are therefore at great risk of being killed, raped, etc., at will. They are reduced to living in hiding, and are hunted by the regime’s troops, and whatever meager crops they plant for bare survival are destroyed by search-and-destroy patrols or columns. They live lives that are not better than hunted animals.

 

[2.B] **Site, as above** The paper says that the assistance provided by the IDAs do not have “any significant political cost” vis-B-vis strengthening the regime or undermining the movement for change.

 

The above raises this question: What is meant by “political costs”? This is a puzzling statement, even meaningless at a deeper level, and lacks proper or defined context.

 

One could interpret the statement as saying that the IDAs do not make any difference either way, and more importantly, that they (the IDAs) and the assistance they provide are politically neutral. How true or valid is this statement? Can assistance in a context where the government (or the state) is military-run, military-led, illegitimate, and repressive, and wedded to the status quo – opposed to political change — be politically neutral, or not costly to the movement for change? Or is the paper saying that all things being equal, the people are the only ones gaining the most from the IDAs’ presence and actions? This is not the case (See note 2.A, above).

 

[3.A] **p.1, col.2** Agree with the paper that there is a need for “fundamental changes” in the system. However, the paper does not talk about this need, although it does constructively, and often obliquely, refers to the flaws of the current system here and there

 

[3.B] The paper says that the military GOM rejects international advice and maintains “development policies and priorities, which are partly responsible for the current problems.” However, this statement,

 

(a) understates the destruction to the country and the population wrought by the military GOM’s arbitrary rule and repression (by representing it as “development policies and priorities”). It gives the impression that the military GOM was well-intentioned, but things went wrong, anyhow, and

 

(b) underestimates what it terms “problems”. They are not problems. They are major crises, and are owed largely to the military GOM’s protracted misrule, etc.

 

[3.C] The paper states that the military GOM rejects international advice and refuses to change its ways – i.e., to change its “development policies and priorities” (sic). If this is the case, one may usefully ask if there is any point in giving the regime international assistance, even though the bulk of the aid may be intended by donors for the people, not the government? This is a slippery down-slope road to travel.

 

[3.D] The paper recommends the inflow of international assistance and urge improved monitoring and distribution. To comment, “monitoring” is good sounding, but it is most problematic, all the more so if the IDAs do not have the political will and are moreover fearful of offending the military GOM, or are overly sensitive and responsive to its sensitivities.

 

[4.A] **p.1, col.2** The paper states that foreign governments and donors should both promote political change and social development. This is a curious statement in the Burma context especially.

 

What is meant by “social development” is not made clear in the paper, however.

 

Common sense however tells us that social development is geared to promoting or achieving something better, usually – and more so, nowadays — political change in the democratic direction, or is meant to.

 

If such is the case, does the paper mean that the goal of international donors in providing development assistance is to promote political change? Or is the paper saying that the inflow of development assistance will result in or bring about social development and thus political change in Burma (albeit in the very long run)? [ NOTE: The thesis that social development (or, as is often argued, economic development) will bring about political change, although generally valid in the abstract, does not always hold true. This is a very slippery and dubious argument.]

 

The simple fact of the matter is that the military GOM does not want any change, much less political changes, and wants “development” as it defines it – i.e., maintain its hold on power and achieve greater control and repression capacity.

 

The question that therefore arises is: will the military GOM allow or welcome social development that is geared to political changes in the democratic direction? In this regard, the paper does acknowledge however that the military GOM does not want any kind of development that will erode the status quo it prefers.

 

[5] **p.2, col.1** The paper recommends that the main protagonists reassess their position and do their part to generate cooperation and synergy that has been lacking. This seems like a “sound good, feel good” statement.

 

The military GOM – the military regime – do not want to cooperate with anyone inside the country. It only wants to be obeyed and to maintain tight control. It is quite obvious that the military will not cooperate with anyone – including the IDAs and foreign governments – unless forced to by circumstance or is actively pressured.

 

A question that should be raised but is not, is what will international actors – governments and donor – do to persuade the military GOM to cooperate with the opposition if or when it (the opposition) wishes or agrees to work with the military GOM as a problem-resolving partner? Another question is, to what length will the international actors go in persuading the protagonists to cooperate?

 

[6] **Recommendation 1** Even though excellent, the recommendations alone, and the inflow of foreign assistance — in the “business as usual” or conventional way — will not persuade the military GOM to go this route. It is not interested in formalizing the current talks, sharing power, nor in including major stakeholders in the political process. What is needed is a firm, focused, and solid international front that does not believe in appeasing the military GOM in the faint or wistful hope that it will become and behave more like a government.

 

[7] **Recommendation 4** The points mentioned, i.e., the GOM’s need to demonstrate a realistic understanding of the problems; minimize the obstructions currently placed on aid organizations; and increase the scope for international actors to work with local NGOs – these are good points. It is however unrealistic to expect much attention to these points from the GOM in particular, and the military in general, in the current situation, and without firm international persuasion.

 

[8] **Recommendation 6** Most useful. Perhaps NLD leaders inside have not been approached in this regard, requested a detailed policy paper on humanitarian aid.

 

It is however not clear in this paper on what is meant by “international assistance”. See #1, above. [ NOTE: Development assistance was provided the previous GOM (of General Ne Win) in the 1970s. The end result was that it appealed to the international community to grant Burma the status of Least Developed Country in 1987, after claiming for decades that it was developing the country. ]

 

[9] **Recommendation 7** Ambiguous. What is meant precisely by “state capacity”, and which or what kind of state? The context is missing.

 

In Burma, the state managed by the military – the GOM — is not neutral, not the government of the people, i.e., it is the creature of the military, highly partisan, excludes broader society, and is not public service oriented. “State capacity” is patently defined by the GOM (and the military brass) as its capacity to maintain power and control, etc. It is most inappropriate therefore for any responsible scholar or well-intentioned group to recommend that the NLD and everyone to strengthen the capacity of the current state.

 

If by “state capacity” is meant serving the public or the people, there has first of all to be a fundamental political change.

 

[10] **Recommendation 10** International donors – and international NGOs as well – should certainly work with both the state and broader society forces, but it should be on an equal footing and formally/officially as well.

 

[11] **Recommendation 17** “Be prepared to lower the standard of transparency and accountability…” Why? This recommendation seems directed at encouraging international aid actors to defer tamely to the GOM, and to accept its arbitrary definition of “sensitive areas”, “security”, and “confidentiality”.

 

[12] **Recommendations 14-18 (excepting the above)** These are excellent. But it seems that there is lacking political will on the part of outside actors to take on these recommendations in a serious and focused manner. The excellent recommendations, #14-18, are more or less, and in varying degrees, negated or subverted by recommendation #17 above.

 

Dr. Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe tutored at Rangoon University’s English Dept. from 1960-62, joined the Shan armed resistance in 1963. He was with the Shan State Army till 1977 and came to Canada in 1985. He went back to school at University of British Columbia to get a Master and a Phd and taught, mostly 3rd year classes, for more than 7 years at UBC and Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada.

 

A Test Case for Preventive Diplomacy

 

(The Burmese Scene)

 

By Kanbawza Win

 

The “Hush Hush Talks” between the Junta and the pro democracy movement led by the Burmese Nobel laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been going on at a snail pace for more than a year and the UN special Envoy Razali Ismail will soon be on his 7th trip but so far nothing has been achieved. Likewise the International Labour Organization, the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights on Burma, the European Union’s Troika mission and several government missions have come and gone with no definite milestone to report. Now it has dawned on the international community that Burmese Junta is very reluctant on dialogue lest their hold on the power may be threatened and exposed their gregarious human rights violations.

 

In this aspect the Burmese military Junta is somewhat like a “bull”, a drought animal for pulling plough in agricultural Burma. The “bull” is so lazy to pull the plough that some one has to pull him by the nose front while another person has to whip him from the back. Thus in the dialogue process, the Burmese Nobel laureate, together with the exiled provisional government better known as the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma and the ethnic forces have to pull it from the front, while the ILO, the UN and the Western countries have to baton him from the back to make it move. Even then it move slowly.

 

Talking to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi instead of wild attack in their media, releasing a few political prisoners and allowing the National League for Democracy (NLD, the winning party in the elections) to open their office in Rangoon are just some small positive gestures responded grudgingly by the Junta to ease both domestic, economic and international pressure. The dialogue have help them to gain some legitimacy for international aid while at the same time consolidated their position such as business deals with neighbouring countries so much so that they hope the international community would eventually have to bite the bullet and accept the status quo.

 

One can ask of why did the bull move so slowly, the answer is simple, because it is strong having eaten a lot of grass and other nutritious food i.e multilateral corporations and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) led by Malaysia and Singapore under the smokescreen of “Constructive Engagement” have been given tactical support to the Burmese military Junta. Imagine TotalFinaElf alone has to give $400 million annually just for the right to extract oil, not to mention Premier Oil of Britain and UNCOAL of the US. In this age of globalization where more and more power has been transferred from the governments to the big companies whose! sole motive is to make profit, Burma seems to be the test case where the Western moral values have to yield to business considerations.

 

On the other hand the pro democracy and ethnic leaders have quietly attended the Paris Conference on their way back from Oslo where at the French National Assembly they paint the likely and alternative scenario to the international c

 

 

Rhododendron publication – 2002 Jan-Feb

2002 Jan-Feb 2002 Jan-Feb : Rhododendron publication

——————————————————————————–

 

Contents

Human Rights

 

* Burmese soldiers arrested a dying elderly woman

 

* Burma’s junta arrested a Chin professor

 

* Petition to the Government of Myanmar

 

* Minority Chin Christian Continue to face Religious Discrimination in Burma

 

Real Life Story

 

* Tortured voice : A Chin woman political prisoner speaks out

 

Scholar Section

 

* Myanmar’s minority conundrum: Issues of Ethnicity and Authority

 

Chin National Day Message

 

Human Rights

 

Burmese Soldiers Arrested A Dying Elderly Woman

 

CHRO: January 30, 2002

 

A seriously ill elderly woman was arrested in Thantlang, Chin State on January 18, 2002 after the Burmese army accused her of having had contacts with her son who is a member of the Chin National Front, CNF. Taken into custody with the woman were three other local men who were present at the woman’s house when the Burmese army raided it.

 

The incident took place when the Burmese army surrounded the woman’s house on a tip-off that an active member of the Chin National Front was visiting her dying mother. The raid in the house turned out with no arrest of the man they were looking for but the army took into custody all the people present in the house.

 

The elderly woman was seriously ill and was dying but the army took no exception in arresting her. Mr. Bawi Hmung, Mr. Lal Nuai, and Mr. Ni Thang were arrested along with the woman.

 

Due to the seriousness of her illness the elderly woman was later allowed to be replaced by her daughter, Ms Sung Nawn who volunteered herself to be taken into custody in place of her mother.

 

All of the arrested were later sent to the 266 Light Infantry Battalion army base in Haka, where they are being detained and interrogated. They are now being charged under Unlawful Association Acts, which carries maximum sentence in prison.

 

A former woman prisoner who was convicted under the same Acts in 1999 and was detained in the army base in Haka, said that she was systematically tortured and ill treated throughout the course of her detention by the army.

 

Chin National Front is an armed group opposed to the Burmese military regime. It’s stated objectives include restoration of democracy in Burma and self-determination of the Chin people.

 

Burma’s Junta Arrested A Chin Professor

 

CHRO: January 30, 2002

 

Chin Human Rights Organization, CHRO today confirmed from a reliable source the arrest of professor Dr. Salai Tun Than by Burmese military junta.

 

The Irrawaddy news first reported the arrest of Dr. Salai Tun Than saying he was arrested for his solo protest in downtown Rangoon against the Burmese military regime.

 

CHRO contacted Salai Htin Kyaw Than, the second son of Prof. Dr. Salai Tun Than, and confirmed the arrest of the aging professor. However, Salai Htin Kyaw Than said that he was afraid of making contact with his family members in Burma due to possible further backlash from the authority against the family and he does not know about the latest condition of his father.

 

According to him, the proffessor mysteriously disappeared in Rangoon in late November and was found in the notorious Insein jail two weeks after his disappearance.

 

Two days before his disappearance, the professor was traveling with his wife from his Rangoon home to his residence at Yesin, where he served as a professor. He came back alone to Rangoon two days later. The next day, the professor left the house leaving his nephew alone at home saying that he was going to downtown.

 

Later that day the Military Intelligence Service personnel (MIS) came to his Rangoon house and inquired about the past activities of the professor. Meanwhile military Intelligence officials also searched the house of the professor in Yesin.

 

The professor never comes home since that day. Family members and relatives were desperately looking for the missing professor until they found him in Insein Jail two weeks later.

 

A Christian and a member of the Chin ethnic group, Dr. Salai Tun Than earned a Ph.D. in Agronomy from the University of Wisconsin and had served as rector at the Yezin University of Agriculture in Pyinmana until 1990.

 

Salai Htin Kyaw Than came to the United States in August 2001, and is now living in Florida.

 

In the last 14 years, universities in Burma have been opened for less than 3 years. Thousands of students were massacred in 1988 by the Burmese armed forces and student and academic community has been the target of strict scrutiny and arrest under the current junta.

 

Petition to the Government of Myanmar

 

[Irrawaddi News Group, Editor’s note: This is an unabridged and unedited copy of the statement written and distributed by Dr. Salai Tun Than in Rangoon in December of last year. The distribution of the letter led to his arrest, and it is believed that he is currently being detained at Rangoon’s Insein Prison. The Irrawaddy obtained the letter from a very reliable source inside Burma.]

 

January 23, 2002

 

Citizens of Myanmar, I am Dr. Salai Tun Than, a retired professor, who belongs to a minority race called Asho Chin. I am here to request Myanmar military government five petitions, which are inalienable rights of Myanmar people. They are

 

No. 1. Hold the multiparty general election within one year.

 

No. 2. Let the election be held by a civilian interim government as soon as possible.

 

No. 3. Let the election be supervised by ASEAN and UN officials.

 

No. 4. Let all the eligible Myanmar citizens who want to contest in the election be able to complete including our military authorities as civilians.

 

No. 5. Transfer the state power to any winner organization as soon as possible without any condition.

 

Let me add a remark here. This as that I will be here between Myanmar Independent Monument and Yangon city hall until either the government agrees to my petitions or simply kills me. I am here offering my life for the cause of the rights of Myanmar citizens. I have neither to add nor to subtract from my petitions.

 

I would like to plead the military government to consider my petitions seriously whether they are just or biased toward anybody or organization except Myanmar people. Perhaps you already have contemplated on granting the matter before my petitions. If it were the case my I utter sadhu thrice and God bless you all. If not convene your military junta and scrutinize my petitions with soul searching intellectual faculties and the love of your country. If you cannot grant my petitions at any rate you simply kill me and I am ready to die for the rights of Myanmar citizens.

 

Of course many potential intellectuals of high school and university students had already been killed. It is about the time that you kill an old professor.

 

I am appealing to all armed forces: army, navy, air force, security force and police to consider the fairness of my petitions with concern. If it is for the benefit of Myanmar citizens I want you to act intelligently and courageously like the armed forces Indonesia and the Philippines. Do you still want to kill your flesh and blood who are demonstrating for the rights of Myanmar citizens because the authorities order you so? It is about the time to stop killing your kinsfolk. If you join us you all will be adored by the people. Let us rewrite our tarnished history together.

 

If you consider that you cannot agree with me, please don’t hesitate. Go ahead and kill me. I will be here all the time. I will forgive my killers from the bottom of my heart.

 

If we happen to meet together in one of the extensive existences of Sansaya, and if I were a mighty person and you all were weaklings and if I find you naked, starved, stricken with soars and diseases and get lost in the darkness of your existence in tears, may I kindly wipe away your tears and feed you, clothe you, and make you whole form your diseases and soars and give you hope with reality of well being in your lives, May God bless and forgive my killers.

 

May I appeal to the citizens of Myanmar including Sanghas, students, teachers, labourers, artistes, farmers, intellectuals, doctors, nurses, engineers, lawyers, judges, housewives and people from all walks of life, please consider my proposal thoroughly and thoughtfully. If you agree with me join me in the demonstration. Go into the streets wherever you are and chant the slogan. I want no one sitting on the fence and the opportunists. It is the fight for our rights and to the finish. The time is now or never. Let us show the military government that we are one and united solidly. Be courageous. Do the right and fear none. But I beseech you citizens of Myanmar. Let us have no violence, no profanity, and no vulgar acts. Don’t break to loot or hit anything. We had been trapped once on looting the leftover warehouses. Take lessons ! from this and let us not be trapped again. Looters, violent people, abusive people, and people showing vulgar acts are not ours. Avoid them I plead you. Demonstrate in the streets though you may be in tens, hundreds, or thousands. Do not tardy! let us act now. I trust that you all will dare to continue demonstration with boldness even after my death. If you are stopped by the authorities on the way to join me please reason with them to join us. If the authorities release prisoners and send intoxicated and drugged people please explain the reason with them what we are fighting for. Let them join us willingly. It is better to die than to live under the military boots without freedom. The lives you lost will not be in vain. Later Myanmar historians will honour you indeed. Don’t be insecure and afraid. Righteousness is on our side.

 

Generals, I am doing this on my own accord. No one urge me or bribe me or threaten me to do this, either underground or aboveground, individually or in groups, within the country or overseas. I am accountable for myself — no one else.

 

You all will see that I am wearing a doctorate gown, which I earned it. It is not to brag but to prove that I am a genuine old professor and I want to use it as a shroud for my dead body.

 

May I request ASEAN officials to convince or military government not to stay in power without consent of the people. If the military government holds the general election soon enough as requested their exit will be graceful. Otherwise their fate will be unimaginable and ASEAN’ s non-interference policy will be soiled and jeopardised. Likewise I would like to request the UN officials to intervene as you did in Yugoslavia before much lives are lost especially after my death. Myanmar people especially youths have suffered enough.

 

Again I would like to appeal Myanmar media people to carry on your duties normally and inform the people of Myanmar and the world what is actually happening now. It is your cardinal duty to defy the government’s order courageously to report the truth. Let us also chant the slogan of our petitions, the leader will say ” hold the multi party general elections” and the mass will respond ” within one year. Within one year.” The leader will say, ” let the election be held by” and the mass will respond ” the civilian interim government, the civilian interim government”. The leader will say ” let the election be supervised by” and the mass will respond ” ASEAN and UN officials, ASEAN and UN officials”. The leader will say ” let any eligible person be able to contest in the election” and the mass will respond ” including generals as ci! vilians, including generals as civilians”. Lastly the leader will say, ” transfer the state power to any winner organization without any condition” and the mass will respond ” as soon as possible, as soon as possible.” That is all for the slogan.

 

I thank you all and may God bless Myanmar people richly. The right of the people must be victorious indeed.

 

Minority Chin Christian Continue To Face Religious Discrimination in Burma

 

[CHRO Note: Burma is ruled by highly repressive, authoritarian military regimes. Since 1988 when the armed forces brutally suppressed massive pro-democracy demonstrations, a junta composed of senior military officers has ruled by decree, without a constitution or legislature. The most recent Constitution, promulgated in 1974, permitted both legislative and administrative restrictions on religious freedom, stating that “the national races shall enjoy the freedom to profess their religion, provided that the enjoyment of any such freedom does not offend the laws or the public interest.” Most adherents of all religions that are registered with the authorities generally are allowed to worship as they choose; however, the Government has imposed restrictions on certain religious activities and freq! uently abused the right to freedom of religion.

 

The following incidents are evidences of restriction imposed on religious minorities by the Burmese military junta.]

 

In 1993, Christians belonging to Assembly of God (AG) in Kalaymyo, Sagaing Division started the construction of a big church in Taung-phi-la block of Kalaymyo. The township authority ordered the minister and church elders to stop the construction without any reason given, which was still under way in 1997. The construction of the church was halted.

 

Even though, we made repeated appeals to the ministry of religion to continue construction of our church, we have not received any response from the authority,¡̈ said Mr. Pa Tling (name changed for security reason), 54 years old Chin, who is one of the church elders.

 

Since we do not get any response from the authority, we approached district level authority to get permission to finish construction of our church,¡̈ he said.

 

In order to obtain permission, the AG church had to offer bribes to all level of authorities with varying amount of money. 50000 Kyats ( Kyat is Burmese currency ) to the chairman of Kalaymyo District Peace and Development Council, 50000 kyats to the chairman of Kalaymyo township Peace and Development Council, 30000 Kyats to the head of department of municipal, 5000 Kyats to Taung-phi-la block Peace and Development Council respectively.

 

Only after they paid the bribe, did they get oral permission to continue construction of the church. However, they were told to cover the building of the church with mats and other materials so that commuters from the street would not see the church building.

 

(Note: CHRO obtains a picture of the church building being covered)

 

Similar restrictions were suffered by Christians in Kankaw, Magwe division, which is not very far from Kalaymyo.

 

In Mintha village of Kankaw towship, Magwe division, a big Buddhist seminary was constructed with the support of the SPDC authority while Christians were prohibited to construct church in the nearby town. Though there are only seven students in the monastery seminary, they have build 9 buildings in the compound. In addition to not being subjected to restriction, the monastery was built with the State support.

 

Another tales of religious discrimination against Christians was reported in Thaungman village of Salin township of Sagaing Division. Christians in Thaungman village have constructed a church in their village in 1997.

 

In September 9, 2001, the village authority issued order decreeing that Christians in the village must stop conducting worship service in the church. Since then, Christians in Thaungman village had to stop conducting worship service in the church fearing the village authority. Although they have written to the Ministry of Religion to get permission to worship at their church, they have not gotten any response from the church.o

 

Mr. Lalliana, 52 years old Methodist missionary from Tahan, Sagaing division on September 29, 2001, reported the incident of Thaungman village to CHRO field monitor.

 

Real Life Story

 

Tortured Voice

 

A Chin woman political prisoner speaks out

 

Chin Human Rights Organization : January 2002

 

[CHRO Note: Ms. Ni Cia, a 23-year-old Chin woman and a former political prisoner in Burma, is currently seeking asylum in Malaysia under the United Nations’ auspices. While awaiting her status determined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Office in Kuala Lumpur, she faces precarious situations there. She has been arrested more than one occasion by Malaysian police on immigration charges, a typical and daily experience encountered by most Chin refugees from Burma in Malaysia, who lack international legal protection.

 

Before fleeing Burma, Ni Cia was arrested in 1998 and convicted to two years in jail under Section 17(a) of Unlawful Association Act, for having associated with activities of the Chin National Front, an armed opposition group fighting against the Burmese military regime. After serving out her sentence in Kalay prison, she fled to Malaysia in July 2001.

 

In the following interview conducted by Chin Human Rights Organization, Ni Cia recounted how she endured the systematic method of torture employed by Burmese military regime on suspected members of oppositions as well as her experience in Burma’s prison. Currently more than a dozen Chin women are serving political sentence in Kalay jail under similar conditions.]

 

CHRO: When and where were you arrested?

 

Ms. Ni Cia: I was arrested on December 4th 1998, Friday at Cong Thia village, Thantlang Township, Chin State.

 

CHRO: What was the reason for your arrest?

 

Ms. Ni Cia: I was arrested because the Burmese troops learnt about my contacts with members of the Chin National Front, CNF. My friend, (Ms) Men Thluai and I have been helping the activities of the Chin National Front by giving them information about the movements of the Burmese troops around our village as well as in many other types of activity of CNF. We were responsible for carrying out rural development projects put forward by the CNF as well as shopping necessary goods and commodities for CNF activists, which are only available in larger towns.

 

I was a private teacher at a middle school. I was visiting a friend when a group of Burmese soldiers accompanied by a local village council member who would identify me appeared at the door out of nowhere and arrested me.

 

CHRO: What happened after your arrest?

 

The Burmese soldiers immediately escorted me to Thantlang town on foot. Shortly after we departed our village it started to get dark. My hands were tied to my back. They wouldn’t shed flashlights to my way and I would stumble several times along the journey. Whenever I stumbled and fell down, they would call me a bitch, and spit on me and call me by all kinds of abusive languages.

 

We arrived Thantlang town at 6:00 in the morning after traveling on foot overnight. After two days of detention in Thanthang, military intelligence personnel came up to me in the morning and tied my hands up and loaded me into an army truck. I was seated on the floor of an army truck surrounded by 30 armed men. I was being taken to Haka. Since the road was unpaved and rough, I would fall to the floor whenever the truck shook. Since my hands were tied up, I was unable to get up easily after being thrown to the floor by the movement of the truck. I injured my rib from this and it hurt a lot. Sometimes my sarong (Skirts) got unfastened and I became half naked in front of 30 men surrounding me. They would lift my skirts up with their gun barrel and ask me how many times I have sexually entertained members of the CNF or if I was a concubine of a CNF man.

 

Upon our arrival in Hakha, I was handed over to the local policewomen. I overheard them calling the 266 Army Infantry Battalion and soon afterwards I was blindfolded with my hands and feet tied up and being loaded into the waiting army truck. I did not have a clue as to where I was being taken. The next thing I remember was when my blindfold was removed and I found myself in a stone cell with no single hole or ventilation. It was in fact an army base in Rungtlang. (Rungtlang or mount Rung is located above Haka town) Then I started to feel severe pain in my ribs. When I asked where I was, they responded me by saying that I was such a stupid person who thinks herself so brave as to rebel the government and that I was in a place of no return.

 

CHRO: What happened afterwards?

 

Ms. Ni Cia: They started torturing me in that cell. There were altogether seven people interrogating me. Each one of them used different technique of torture. While my hands remained tied up to my back, they put a plastic hood over my head and tightly secured around my neck and I began to suffocate. Only after I began to feel unconscious and fell to the ground did they poke a hole in the plastic hood around my nose with their cigarette lights. Afterwards they tied up my feet and my hands to the front, and they let me do sit-ups until I fell to the ground from exhaustion. Each time I fell down, they started grinding my toes and my fingertips with their military boots to the floor. The pain was agonizing.

 

Later, they gave me an electric shock. After that they beat me all over my body with a 3-inch thick wooden stick. There were bruises all over my body and I was soaked in blood. They kicked me and punched me all over my body.

 

They made me take a bath with icy water in the middle of the chilling December night. They even burned my checks with their cigarette lights. Afterwards, they threw me into a dark pit. It was chilling inside the pit after being soaked in water.

 

The torture went on for 7 days and I was deprived of food and sleep during the whole week. I caught a fever on the seventh day and by that time my body was soaked with my vomits. When they try to start torturing me on the seventh day, I just fell unconscious from my weakness and pain. The next thing I knew was I had been transferred to the local Police station, which has no separate facility or cell for women. My interrogators and torturers were all men all along.

 

CHRO: When and how did you end up in Kalay Prison and what sentence did you get?

 

Ms. Ni Cia: It was on January 20, 1999 that the verdict was reached by the judge. I appeared in court nine times before being sentenced to 2 years in prison. I was convicted under so-called Section 17(a), which is something related to armed insurgency. This sentence landed me into Kalay Prison on February 2nd 1999.

 

CHRO: Did you feel that you were treated differently or discriminated against because of your being a Chin woman?

 

Ms. Ni Cia: Throughout the course of my interrogation and torture, as well as in the prison, what they always emphasized was “You Chin people are uncivilized beings who from your ancestors do not know how to dress up properly, and who shamelessly dare to oppose the army’s authority”. During one of my interrogation sessions, they made me strip naked and they let me mimic the way a traditional Chin man would dress in pre-colonial period.

 

In the prison, women prison guards on duty treated non-Burman ethnic women differently. Even Burman inmates would look down upon us and would always use abusive language to us. We weren’t supposed to talk back to anything being said to us or we risked beatings and whipping.

 

CHRO: Did you have to work in the Kalay prison?

 

Ms. Ni Cia: We have to work all the time in Kalay prison. We work on sowing and harvesting crops. On those occasions, we were taken out to the fields. But most of the time, we work inside the prison compound. We took care of vegetable plantations; we cleaned the prison facilities, cells and the like. Sometimes the women guards would make us wash their underwear and materials that they had used for their menstrual purposes. Until 9 p.m. at night we did knitting and embroidery works.

 

During the summer when the temperature got really hot, we were made to kill 500 flies (insects) per day per person. We were caned 20 times if we failed to meet the designated number of flies to be killed. The women political prisoners weren’t usually let work outside of the prison but men inmates with similar cases have to labor in worksites other than the prison compound. Under the burning temperature, these men inmates are forced to work without rest and without proper meals. We often heard that 3 to 5 prisoners were dying everyday under those conditions. There might have been many Chin men prisoners. This thought just makes me heartbroken.

 

CHRO: What kind of food were you given in the prison?

 

Ms. Ni Cia: What can you expect? What a prisoner gets is the worst possible kind of food one can imagine. For breakfast meal we were given rice, which was the kind of rice we would normally feed pigs with, and a tiny bowl of watery pea soup. The rice is mingled with half unprocessed grains and small bits of stones. Before we could eat the rice we had to separate stones and unprocessed grains from the rice. What’s left after doing that was just a tiny amount of rice. For dinner, they gave us the same sort of rice with sweet potato leaves cooked in a huge metal barrel. Sometimes they would give us rice soups for breakfast. The soup was so watery that it looked just like water that had been used for washing up the rice. It was too salty. We were fed twice a day.

 

CHRO: How was the medical care when you get sick in the prison?

 

Ms. Ni Cia: There is no proper medical attention at all. Only after we became seriously ill, would they give us some pills. It did not help at all because it was usually too late for the medicines to have any affect on us. Another problem was that we did not have enough water. We were allowed to use only ten small cups of water for bathing. This was only when we have enough water. But when water got scarce we are allowed to use only six cups of water. Due to this we contacted all kinds of skin diseases. When we got sick or caught a fever, there are no enough blankets to keep us warm. What we had was a sheet of blanket just enough to cover our body. We would cry and moan from sickness and the guard would scold us and accuse us of pretending sick just because we were too lazy to work.

 

Apart from yourself, how many Chin women were or are still there in Kalay Prison. Could you please tell us their names, from which areas, town or district in Chin State they are originally?

 

As far as my knowledge goes, there are approximately 25 Chin women inmates in Kalay prison. A few of them were released while I was there. I don’t know about all of them but the following are people that I remember as far as my recollection goes.

 

1- Dawt Thluai Ling (Haka, Chin State)

 

2- Khuangzi (Loklung, Chin State)

 

3- Sai Cer (Tlangpi, Chin State)

 

(These three women are political prisoners arrested in connection with CNF)

 

4- Mah Sui (Tidim, Chin State)

 

5- Hoi Ngeih Dim (From Tidim, Chin State)

 

6- Sial Cing (Tidim, Chin State)

 

7- Nu Dim Alias Khun Nu (From Tidim, Chin State)

 

8- Man Suan Dim (From Tidim, Chin State)

 

9- Nu Ngeih (From Tidim, Chin State)

 

10- Ma Biak (From Tahan, Kalay township, Sagiand Division)

 

11- Nuam Cing (Tidim, Chin State)

 

12- U Hrang (Falam, Chin State)

 

13- Khun Nu (Falam, Chin State)

 

14- Sui Nawn Sung (Dong Va, Chin State)

 

15- Ni Zi (Lung Hnam, Chin State)

 

16- *Sai Sung (Bungkhua, Chin State)

 

*Ms. Sai Sung came in just before I was released. She has two children, 9 and 11 years old. Her husband was arrested before she was. Both of them were arrested for sympathizing and collaborating with the CNF. Their children are being taken care of by a very old couple in Thangtlang. At the time of Sai Sung’s arrest, she was forced to take off her clothes and paraded naked in front of the Burmese soldiers. While was being escorted by the soldiers from her village to Thantlang town, she was forced to wear only her underwear all along the one-day journey on foot.

 

In addition to the names I just mentioned, there are several other women whose names and original places I cannot remember. Their sufferings are beyond anyone’s comprehension. More or less their cases have to do with some kinds of political activity. The above 16 women are those that are facing particularly difficult situations. They have either no close relative to support them or no one to look after their children. Most of them are serving out prison terms ranging from a minimum 15 to 35 years. They have no hope for outliving their prison terms. They just want to die now than going through a slow and painful death. They are very weak and depressed because they all have children and family to think about. Most of them are suffering from high-blooded pressure from depression and vitamin deficiency. They have no access to medical attention and their sicknesses worsened du! e to lack of nutritious food. In fact, the foods they eat obviously make their sickness worse. It is really heartbreaking to even think about their conditions.

 

CHRO: How do you plan to move on?

 

Ms. Ni Cia: Without legal protection, I am vulnerable to arrest and all kinds of police harassment here in Malaysia. I am constantly in fear for my safety. I don’t know how long I can hide before being arrested again and possibly sent back to Burma.

 

Scholar Section

 

Myanmar’s Minority Conundrum: Issues of Ethnicity and Authority

 

David I. Steinberg (Georgetown University )

 

Background

 

The issue of the status and authority of the one-third of the population of Myanmar (Burma), composed of diverse indigenous non-Burman peoples, remains the most intractable of the problems facing the Burmese state since independence in 1948.1 The sharing of political power in some manner acceptable to the local populations, and social and economic equity among these diverse peoples are all related to, but even more fundamental and difficult of solution than, the issue of the political form of government that has bedeviled the state for decades. Burma-Myanmar has been on the brink of fragmentation because of the diffuse, often antithetical, perceptions of these issues by one or more ethnic groups since independence. The desires for independence from the British, dependant on minim! al titular ethnic unity, and the forceful leadership of General Aung San whose role was accepted by most minorities, were the factors that initially succeeded in bringing these groups together at the Panglong Conference in February 1947 that forged the fragile cohesion that existed on independence. An effective answer to the minority issues is still sought, and its amelioration or solution may provide signals and models for approaching some of the more delicate other national issues that transcend ethnicity.

 

The unity of the state has been a primary goal of the military SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council) and the SPDC (State Peace and Development Council). The concern over this goal is, however, not a product of this relatively new incarnation of the military. Since independence, the Burmese military have fought for the unity of the state; more specifically the 1958 and then 1962 military coups were carried out with the avowed purposes of preventing civil war and upholding this unity.

 

The problem of internal unity has had external dimensions. As the Burmese military has been preoccupied with national unity, senior staffs have been suspicious of the role that foreign nations and peoples have played in fomenting national fragmentation and disunity. They accurately can point, and do so continuously in the controlled press, to history to support their present concerns. They correctly charge that the British employed the ‘divide and rule’ policy of administratively separating some of the peripheral minority areas from Burma Proper (where most of the Burmans lived).2 More important, however, has been recent history, when each foreign power, unofficially and often clandestinely, at one time or another has supported for their own and diverse purposes, political or ethnic rebellions involv! ing minority peoples. These included some unofficial British encouragement of independence for the Karen, Chinese assistance to the Burma Communist Party,3 United States covert support to Chinese Nationalist (Kuomintang) troops that retreated into Burma in 1949-50,4 external Muslim support to Muslim rebels in the Arakan, Indian connivance with Naga and Chin rebels on that frontier, and Thai assistance at various national and local levels to a wide variety of ethnic and political rebellions located along its long littoral. It is no wonder that Burmese authorities have viewed with great suspicion the roles that foreigners have in the past played in interfering in their country, have projected these same roles into the present, and fear that they may exist into the future. Present internal administrative policies are in part likely to have been formulated with this in mind.

 

These past problems, severe in themselves and sufficient to cause suspicions, were however aggravated by seven additional and important factors:

 

[1] Some of these peoples had significant Christian percentages of their populations in contrast to the overwhelming importance of Buddhism among the Burmans.5 This aroused the sympathies of some of the external Christian communities and sects that helped propagandize the plight of these peoples and gave them moral (and perhaps financial) support.

 

[2] As the military, especially in the period of military rule under the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP: 1962-1988), insulated the state from the outside world, the minority groups were more in touch with external affairs and foreign elements for both weapons and moral support than was the central Burmese government. Thus they made their case to the court of world opinion while the military regime became more introverted, isolated, and more xenophobic. This naturally increased suspicions that foreigners were once again aimed at dividing the country.

 

[3] The Burman majority is the only major ethnic group that does not have ethnic kin in other lands across the arbitrarily demarked colonial borders; this creates a sense of international ethnic identity Burmans lack.6 In traditional Southeast Asia, boundaries in the modern sense did not exist. Power radiated out in concentric circles from the center and states could be associated with more than one suzerain group, and pay tribute to them. The colonial powers extended administrative control to borders that lacked ethnic, geographic, or other considerations, thus creating some of the problems states in the region today face.

 

[4] The military, perhaps without central authority and on the whims of individual local but exceedingly powerful military commanders, have treated the minorities, among whom they were stationed and whom they administered, with disdain for their cultures and often religions.7 Charges of human rights abuses and forced porterage by the military in border regions are widespread.

 

[5] The hill (minority) areas were climatically suitable for the production of poppies from which opium, morphine, and heroin were produced, thus giving those engaged in this trade the means to purchase arms and the motivation to keep the central government at arm’s length. Opium production was introduced in the colonial period, and until 1959 opium was legal in the Shan State and sawbwas (local maharajas) received revenues from its use.

 

[6] The natural resources of the hill regions, such as jade and timber, provided lucrative means to sustain local populations in rebellion.

 

[7] Foreign missionaries and then international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), some of which had religious origins, were extensively involved with the minorities both because they often were animists and more susceptible to Christian conversion, and then because poverty was exceptionally high and health standards low in those regions.

 

All of these factors have increased mutual suspicions.

 

However accurate the perceptions of foreign support to various diverse minorities may have been in the past, the situation has vastly changed since the earlier period of Burmese independence. It is now accurate to maintain that no foreign power wants to see the break up of the Burmese state. The balkanization of Myanmar would create conditions of potential chaos in that country, a pivotal state that has become the nexus of real, but unstated, regional rivalry between India and China. Without question the instabilities created would spill over into the region and exacerbate these obvious, if unadmitted, rivalries. There would likely be increases in refugees and illegal immigration, expanded epidemics and health problems, and an even greater trade in narcotics and trafficking in women.8 In a sense, the! past perceptions of the Burmese leadership have been erroneously perpetuated into the present, creating suspicions that no longer are grounded. These perceptions, however inaccurate they may be, markedly contribute to the difficulty of resolving these issues.

 

As foreign perceptions have also changed, most minority aspirations have also undergone major shifts. Where some minority leaders in the past had publicly advocated independence, some UN trusteeship, most now do not do so. They have instead argued for some form of local autonomy or federal authority, although the word ‘federal’ seems anathema to the military who equate it with virtual independence and the eventual effective break up of the state.9 Independence of any of the regional groupings within Myanmar would not be economically sustainable, and could lead to the kind of ‘ethnic cleansing’ we have witnessed too frequently in other areas.

 

Yet the old acquiescence of the minorities to Burman domination is now more problematic. As Burman nationalism has understandably grown, so has ethnic nationalism, a phenomenon that is evident worldwide. This means that minorities are likely to demand more from the center as they see their brethren having more autonomy and doing better across the porous borders.

 

This paper will consider only the issue of the indigenous minorities of Myanmar. The status of the non-indigenous minorities, more specifically the Indian (all those from the subcontinent) and Chinese communities, are not discussed here although their previous and present positions in the economy have strongly and negatively affected Burman attitudes toward foreign economic exploitation and suspicions of the role of foreigners in that society. The colonial period Burmese economy was essentially under foreign control, which was a highly significant factor in the political legitimacy of socialism–getting the economy once again under Burman control. The Indian community occupied a most important position in the colonial and pre-independence period, but since have been replaced in the last decade by the ! Chinese as the single dominant foreign economic influence in the society. Suspicions and prejudices against these groups so intensified that in 1984 a nationality act was passed that relegated inferior status to all those minorities that could not establish residence in Burma before 1824 (the beginnings of colonial influence through the First Anglo-Burmese War and the importation of Indian labor and Chinese immigration). Although the importance of these communities should not be underestimated, they represent a different issue except where Chinese influence has deeply penetrated the ethnic minority groups along the Chinese frontier. Yet the overwhelming and obvious Chinese presence and wealth are potentially explosive and should not be ignored either by the leaders of Myanmar or foreign observers.

 

State Goals

 

The goal of national unity of the SLORC/SPDC government is thus conceptually appropriate, proper, and potentially in the interests of the peoples of that country and in those of the neighboring nations. In Myanmar, the role of the military is not now to protect the state from external enemies10 (the function of the military in most states), for such enemies are presently nonexistent, but rather to enforce internal security and preserve internal unity. Although military functions may be different from those in many other countries, the problem the state faces is not in its goal, but rather in the means employed by the central military authorities and their regional commanders to reach that goal. One essential conclusion of this paper is that the military government through its policies and actions is ! undercutting, even destroying, the possibility of attaining its own goal of long-term national unity toward which it struggles. Yet over a longer period the reputation and efficacy of the military will be determined by its ability to attain national unity. This disconnect between goal and its realization is a critical issue facing the military authorities that is obscured by their (presumed) view that the situation is essentially under control for the shorter term through the cease-fires, the amelioration of many active rebellions, and a greater government presence in the periphery. This is likely to be illusory.

 

That admittedly strong statement needs explication, for on the surface the SLORC/SPDC can point with considerable pride to the changes it has brought about in the minority regions. There is now a wide array of cease fires with diverse minority peoples; the bloodshed has stopped, but it had continued for decades, in some areas even over two generations, and this is not easily forgotten. This has brought some relief to some of the minority peoples, and has further served to strengthen the military in its control over the state as a whole, for it has freed its troops to deal with the remaining insurgencies that have become weaker and more ineffective. Some infrastructure has been built where little existed before, providing access to previously isolated regions, and there now is a concerted effort to ad! minister regions that were essentially beyond the control of the central government almost since independence. The creation of a new ministry, the Ministry of Development of Border Areas and National Races under an August 1993 law, is part of the process. As access has been strengthened or created, so has the responsibility of the central authorities in direct or indirect management increased.

 

Yet these new conditions of relative tranquility remain fragile. The cease fires have not solved problems–they have sequestered them for an indefinite period, but such armistices are likely to collapse without major changes and improvements in the economic and social conditions of these peoples, and in the political arrangements that must be made to provide some locally defined degree of justice in the majority-minority relationships.

 

If the minorities in some cases have relied on foreign moral support, the Burmese government has in part not been candid in its portrayal of minority issues. Under the BSPP military government, the state downplayed minority issues in such international United Nations fora as ECAFE (later ESCAP), claiming that there were no such issues. Later, under the SLORC/SPDC it has averred that there were 135 ‘races,’ all of whom had to be dealt with in some appropriate manner and for whom the old administrative structures did not work.11 Both approaches grossly exaggerated the issue but from opposite points of the spectrum. The figure of 135 ‘races’ is actually a pre-World War II designation of a linguistic map that includes languages and dialects of such languages.12 There are actually far fewer ethnic groups,! and ‘race’ is not an appropriate scientific term to apply to this diversity. Many believe that the military in differing periods has used the minority issue–either dismissing it or overemphasizing it–as a means to perpetuate its direct control.

 

The formation and expansion of the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) create another element of social and political control by the Burman military-dominated group over minority peoples. With between about 15 million members, it is a military attempt at mass mobilization that increases the tatmadaw’s capacity for action toward its desired ends. Although it is Burman lead and completely controlled by the military, its membership has been extended to minority regions.

 

Majority-Minority Problems

 

There is a profound lack of trust between the majority and individual minority groups that has become exacerbated over time. In their efforts to maintain national unity, the tatmadaw has engaged in actions that have lengthened the distance between majority and the minorities, and thus made more tenuous the relationships between Burman and most minorities. These actions may have been in response to varied stimuli such as perceived internal threats to the state sometimes encouraged from foreign sources, attempts to ensure internal military hegemony over all centers of power within the state, and an essential disdain of minority cultures and peoples. These actions include:

 

Elimination of the limited local minority autonomy under civilian rule (1948-58, 1960-62).

 

Direct administration of local government in minority areas by military personnel.

 

Treatment of minority areas as virtually foreign occupied territories.

 

Elimination of significant minority leadership in the upper echelons of the tatmadaw.

 

Lack of official recognition of education in local, non-Burman languages.

 

Restriction of the avenues of social mobility for minority peoples.

 

Lack of respect for local religious practices in certain minority areas (especially the Chin State).

 

Arbitrary confiscation of land.

 

Lack or transfer of central economic resources to minority areas commensurate with their believed contribution to the national income (through exploitation of natural resources).

 

Support of military units foraging off the countryside and the confiscation of land for military and military-owned agricultural purposes.

 

Forcing villagers to be removed to alternative, military approved sites and in some areas creating ‘free-fire’ zones.

 

Forced porterage of military supplies in the minority areas where fighting is endemic.

 

If mutual trust is not forthcoming, major points of tension could intensify these past problems. For example, the minority groups involved in the cease fires have not surrendered to the Burmese authorities. They still are allowed to retain their weapons and can engage in their traditional agricultural pursuits. But when, for example, a new constitution is promulgated, and before elections can be held, the minorities are supposed to surrender their weapons to ensure the fairness of such voting. It is highly unlikely that this will happen beyond some token release of arms. The levels of trust do not now exist, and are unlikely to exist in the future without significant changes in the administration of minority affairs, to encourage the withdrawal of such weaponry . The surrender of! arms by minorities around the world under various peace plans has not worked, and it is highly unlikely that it would occur in Myanmar, where ethnically related insurgencies have continued for so long and distrust is so high.

 

The military have promised to deliver to minority areas increased access to education, health services, and employment opportunities. Yet the budgets allocated to such activities are highly limited and inadequate to accomplish the intended purposes. These budgets seem mainly to be the reported reallocation of previously determined national sectoral budgets (education, health, etc.) to these areas, but the total national budgets for such services are already grossly insufficient for the needs on a national basis and have deteriorated in real and per capita terms over the past decade, let alone in the minority regions.

 

Thus mutual levels of suspicion, inflamed by historical precedents and recent activities, require the deft handling of negotiations at least to meet the minimal set of requirements of all sides. There is no evidence that there is either this political will or interest.

 

The situation becomes more complex when the role of the National League for Democracy (NLD) is factored into the already complicated equation. The NLD, although in alliance with a number of minority parties especially the Shan NLD, is essentially a Burman party. It has through the exiled National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB) called for ‘National Reconciliation’ at a March 6-7, 2001meeting close to the Thai border. It supported making public the secret dialogue between the SPDC and Aung San Suu Kyi that started in October 2000 and that continues at this writing, and wants the minorities brought into the dialogue process but at a later date because the present dialogue conditions are too fragile. It sees a staged set of consultations: intra-ethnic (to ensure t! hose representing a minority are legitimate), inter-ethnic, and national. It recognizes that although minorities are considered as ethnic entities, they are internally split with factional problems that must be overcome. Yet the government and the NLD share a common attitude: each demands from its adherents a kind of orthodoxy that makes dialogue far more difficult.

 

Current Dilemmas

 

Many observers outside Myanmar have been encouraged by the private dialogue that has taken place from October 2000 between members of the SPDC and Aung San Suu Kyi, de facto leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD). The United Nations Special Representative, Ambassador Razali Ismail, has been active in pursuing this welcome initiative, and his involvement in Myanmar has so far been positive. He was in Myanmar in early June, and is expected to return to Yangon in July. Yet there are many who remain skeptical about the potential for success (even the use of such a term is certainly defined by the interests of each of the parties) for a number of reasons, most obviously because it is highly unlikely that the military will give up essential power, although cosmetic changes s! eem possible, even likely. Important as well has been the lack of inclusion of minorities in such a dialogue. This has been a concern of Ambassador Razali as well, but at this writing there seems to be no action on this issue; while the opposition feels it is premature, perhaps the government would rather attempt to isolate the NLD (and, of course, its leadership) from the minorities. This is of importance to the minorities because the NLD is essentially a Burman party, what is left of it after being decimated by the military authorities. Although it is true that in the 1990 election the NLD overwhelmingly won, they were in alliance with a series of minority political parties as well.13

 

In the early period following the establishment of the SLORC, the NLD position (or more accurately that of Aung San Suu Kyi) seems to have been that the solution to minority issues could be easily resolved following the re-institution of democracy in that country, and thus discussion of specific minority questions should be delayed to some later date.14 That seems to have changed. As the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB) has attempted to draft possible constitutions for the state, acts that the military have said to be illegal, the National Convention that the SLORC convened to draw up a new constitution with a highly select group of delegates and in a manner that was heavily scripted and controlled, has floundered on the issues of minority representatio! n and power under such a new configuration.

 

As the issue of a new constitution is sporadically debated,15 the state organs of information have leaked certain guidelines on minority rule that are likely to be enshrined under a new constitution, whenever it may appear, led by the military authorities. The first is that the former minority ‘states’ (Shan, Kachin, etc.) are inappropriate as pivotal administrative entities because they are inaccurate descriptions of ‘race,’ as these areas contain many minority groups, not only the ethnic group for which the state was named (the Chin State is an exception). Second, that in order for some of the most important cease fires to continue, some groups with concentrated ethnic populations within contiguous townships would have a degree of local autonomy called ‘self-administered zones.! ’ Most important among them are the Wa, who are the best armed and most difficult to contain. Others are said to be planned for the Naga, Danu, Kokang, Pa-O, and Palaung peoples.

 

This is an effective but short-term strategy. This provides such groups with local autonomy that they have never legally had since independence, and at the same time it defuses power to such a local level that it has no national impact. The model for such activity may be drawn from the Chinese ‘autonomous regions,’ where limited local authority rests with minority groups but real power is lacking. The Chinese model may appear to more savory than the Russian model, which the Burmese may view as having led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. If the British engaged in a ‘divide and rule’ policy, so it can be charged that the military is intent on a similar approach but using more modern methods. Yet the Burmese authorities will be able to explain to the outside world that in fac! t they have granted more autonomy to minorities than any previous civilian government, and this will be at least accurate in part, although misleading as a whole.16 This, the tatmadaw may claim, should satisfy foreign critics who harp on human rights.

 

The levels of distrust between the majority and minority ethnic groups are part of a series of such apprehensions about the sharing of power. They are part of the pattern of problems that include a tendency of the central government (civilian and military alike) to deny effective authority to any potential peripheral political, ethnic, or social grouping.17 Although these tendencies are simply that, and can be overcome, it makes compromise more difficult.

 

The minority issues are further complicated by internal divisions among some minorities and fighting between some of them. The Karen National Union, the oldest extant rebellion in the state, has for years been led by Bo Mya, an anachronistic leader who is evidently out of step with the younger Karen rebel leaders who would be prepared to make compromises with the SPDC.18 In the recent (spring 2001) disputes between the Thai and Myanmar authorities, there seems to have been an attempt to pit one minority against another. As the Wa, supported by the SPDC, have moved and continue to plan to move 50,000 families (perhaps 200,000 people) south toward the Thai frontier from their traditional home areas close to the Chinese border in the Shan State, this has

 

 

 

VOLUME IV.NO.VI. NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2001

 

Contents:

 

SPDC uses Forced Labor in Army Owned Farm

 

SPDC Troops Forced Chin Villagers To Serve as Porters

 

Forced Portering In Thantlang Twongship

 

SPDC Soldier Robbed Villagers

 

SPDC Lt. Colonel Demanded Solar Plate From Chin Villagers

 

Civilians Forced to Repair Army Camp

 

SPDC Soldiers Looted From Civilians

 

Can’t Afford Identity Card

 

Burmese Army Force Chin Civilians to Sell Liquor

 

” You Must Play Soccer” Said SPDC Captain

 

ICRC Suggests Some Prisoners Not Relevant to Hard Labour

 

LETTER & PRESS RELEASE:

 

Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s Letter to The Burmese Regime

 

Burma’s Democracy Leader Still Under House Arrest, Ten Years After Winning Noble Peace Price

 

FACTS & ARGUMENTS:

 

Canadian Ties to Burma’s Dictatorship

 

HUMAN RIGHTS:

 

SPDC uses Forced Labor in Army Owned Farm

 

The Burmese army has been forcing the civilian to work in the army-owned farms in Kankaw township of Western Burma, according to the testimony of U Kyaw Win (Name changed for security reason). A 48 year-old village headman from XXX village, U Kyaw Win testified to the CHRO field reporter that amidst claims by Burmese junta of having eradicated forced labor in Burma, the practice continues.

 

According to him, the Burmese army has a large plot of farm in the vicinity of Taung-khin-yin Village of Kankaw Township, Magwe division, Western Burma. The farm is operated under the supervision of army North Western Command since 1996.

 

From the beginning, villagers were forced to clear 15,000 acres of virgin land. Since then, forced labor never ceases in our area. From 1997 to 2001 the farm was operated under the command of Major Kyaw Soe of Light Infantry Battallion LIB 269 based in Tidim.

 

From March 2001, Major Kyaw Soe was replaced by Major Zaw Oo from Light Infantry Battalion LIB 226, based in Haka. Civilians from around the area have to work at the army farm from the time of sowing to harvesting time. Sometimes the soldiers are unsatisfied with the human labor, and forced laborers are made to bring along their bulls and buffaloes to work at the farm

 

This harvesting season (2001), civilians from Taung-khin-yin village, Tha-lin village, Shwebo village, Thin-taw village, Hnan-kha village, Min-tha village, Kung-ywa village, A-lay village and Ywa-ma villagers are among those forced to work at the army farm from June to Septermber¡̈

 

U Kyaw Win added that; besides the farm works, villagers have to do manual works for the army such as building the army barracks, cutting woods for the army, carrying waters and making furniture for the army officers.

 

( CHRO: interview U Kyaw Win on October 1, 2001 )

 

SPDC Troops Forced Chin Villagers To Serve as Porters

 

The Burmese army Light Infantry Battalion LIB 268 from Lentlang army camp, Tidim township of Chin state, forced 15 civilians from Lentlang village to serve as porter on September 8, 2001.

 

The porters were herded by Sergeant Tin Myint of LIB 268, and his troops from Lentlang village to Tio village of Falam township, Chin State. When they arrived to Tio village, the porters were forced to carry ration for the army. Overburdened, the porters could not carry the loads.

 

Thus, Sergeant Tin Myint demanded two more porters from Tio village. While the porters were packing the load, one soldier took a stick and started to beat the porters saying that they are too slow in packing the load. He stopped beating them only after an elder from Tio village begged the soldier to stop.

 

The next day, on September 9, 2001, Sergeant Tin Myint and his troops took another 15 porters from Tio village and forced them to carry army ammunition from Tio village to Lentlang army camp.

 

Ms. Nini (an eye witness of the incident), 29 years old villager from Tio village reported the incident to CHRO field worker on September 15 2001.

 

(CHRO note: the name Nini is not her real name. We changed the name to protect her identity for security reasons)

 

Forced Portering In Thantlang Twongship

 

Burmese Army Light Infantry Battalion LIB 274 and LIB 268 conducted a joint military operation in Thantlang township, Chin State in the month of August 2001. Commanding in charge of military intelligence unit in Chin State, Hla Myint Htun led the operation.

 

To aid in the supply needs during the operation, Hla Myint Htun and his troops arrested many civilians to serve as porters. The huge loads of army supplies, however, exceeded the availability of civilian porters. Thus, the troops demanded horses from the civilians to carry the loads.

 

The operation lasted for three weeks, and villagers from Thantlang township had to endure grueling conditions during the whole operations.

 

SPDC Soldier Robbed Villagers

 

Captain Hlaing Hlaing of Burmese Army Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 274 Mindat battalion robbed 10000 Kyats from Pu Dun (Name change for security reason) of Pintia village of Matupi township, Chin State on August 25, 2001.

 

Pu Dun and his friends were traveling when they met with Captain Hlaing Hlaing and his troops. The soldiers stopped Pu Dun and his friends and search their bags and took 10000 Kyats from Pu Dun. The incident occurred at Khemu stream between Hlungmang and Zawngling village.

 

 

 

SPDC Lt. Colonel Demanded Solar Plate From Chin Villagers

 

The following report is provided by Pu Than Kip, a 60 year-old farmer from Lungcawi village of Matupi township in Chin State.

 

Commander of Light Infantry Battalion LIB 274 from Mindat, Lt. Colonel Maung Maung and his troops came to Lungcawi village to patrol around the India-Burma border on 24th August 2001. As soon as they arrived, the Lt. Colonel demanded 4 villagers to porter army supplies. Thus, the village headman has to quickly assemble the villagers to serve as porter. As most of the villagers were working at their farm at the time the army arrived, the village headman had to ask some elderly people to serve(including Pu Sui Kung 55 year old, who was sick at that timer) as porter to meet the Lt. Colonel demand.

 

Pu Sui Kung and three other villagers had to carry rations and ammunition for Lt. Colonel and his troops for four days. After four days, they came back to Lungcawi village on 28 August 2001.

 

While Lt. Colonel Maung Maung was in the village, the village headman and some village elders took the opportunity to ask him to give them permission for making a ferryboat to be used for crossing the Bawinu river, which separates India and Burma, for easy access to goods from the India side. Lungcawi area is so remote and isolated from major towns in Burma that it is easier for the villagers to get their commodity supplies from India.

 

Lt. Colonel told the villagers that if they give him a solar plate and 10000 Kyats, he would give them his permission. Thus the villagers bought a solar plate, which is worth 50000 Kyat and gave it to Lt. Colonel Maung Maung along with 10000 Kyats.

 

Civilians Forced to Repair Army Camp

 

Villagers from Matupi township of Chin State were forced to repair army camp in the month of September.

 

Captain Hlaing Hlaing of Burmese Army from Light Infantry Battalion LIB 274 based in Mindat ordered villagers from Sabawgte area to repair Sabawngte army camp.

 

Nine persons from Pintia village, 10 villagers from Hlungmang village, 10 villagers from Sabawngpi village, and 8 villagers from Tawnglalung village have to repair the fence of Sabawngte army camp from September 10 to 15, 2001.

 

The work started from 6 AM to 5 PM every day. The villagers have to carry their own tools and rations.

 

During the third day of their work, 14 year-old boy laborer from Pintia village got bitten by a snake. Even though there is a military medic present in the army camp, the boy did not get any treatment from the army. Thus, villagers treated him with traditional method and carried him to his village.

 

One village elder said that there was an order issued by the home ministry to prohibiting the practice of forced labor, but the army still used forced labor and called civilian for porter whenever they needed. “It is very difficult to make a living here. We spend most of our labor working for the army”̈ said the villager.

 

SPDC Soldiers Looted From Civilians

 

The Burmese military launched offensive against the Chin National Front, the armed opposition group, in the month of August and September. Thus, the Burmese military forced many people to serve as porters during the operation.

 

A Captain ( name not known ) from Light Infantry Battalion LIB 268 Falam battalion established a temporary command camp at Ngaphaipi village, Thantlang towship during the military operation. One 21 August 2001, the Captain ordered Fartlang village, Khuapilu village, La-u village, Ngaphaipi village, that each village must bring two tins of rice, five chickens and 8600 Kyats to the camp.

 

Similarly, Captain Myo Kyaw Htun, Company commander from LIB 274 Vuangtu army camp established temporary army camp between Lungcawipi and Ngaphaipi village. As the camp was on the trade route to Mizoram State of India, Captain Myo Kyaw Htun looted 300000 Kyats from cattle traders on 28 August 2001.

 

One of the Cattle traders reported the incident to CHRO on 15 September 2001.

 

 

 

Can’t Afford Identity Card

 

In the area around the townships of Tamu and Kalay of Sagaing Division, Western Burma, people are being required to pay a cost of 40,00 Kyats in order to obtain a national identity card. Ordinary citizens such as farmers are finding it difficult to afford the high cost. Possession of national identity card is a mandatory requirement for every Burmese citizen, which must be carried along at all times.

 

A person has to pay 4000 Kyats in Burmese currency to the department of immigration in order to be issued the national identity card. If the card is destroyed or lost, an additional 6000 Kyats have to be paid to the department for issuance of a new card.

 

Unable to afford the cost, most farmers have to get reference letter from the village headman whenever they travel, as a temporary substitute for the card. The reference letter is valid up to three months from the date of issue. Village headmen are charging 250 Kyats per reference letter per person. If the immigration department finds out that someone is using expired document, he/she is subject to fine up to 1500 Kyats to 2000 Kyats.

 

In Burma, registration for national identity card is made mandatory to every citizen and everyone must carry it with him or her at all times especially when traveling. Travelers or visitors have to report their presence to the village or township authority in which they are visiting. Immigration officials and military intelligence conduct door-to-door surprise and random checks at night. Anyone found without proper guest registration or without identity card is subject to fine or arrest.

 

Burmese Army Force Chin Civilians to Sell Liquor

 

Chin Christian villages from Thantlang Township, Chin State were forced to sell liquor by the Burmese army in September 2001.

 

The order to sell liquor was signed by Captain Myo Kyaw Htun, commander of Vuangtu army camp, of Light Infantry Battalion LIB 274, known as Mindat battalion.

 

Captain Myo Kyaw Htun ordered villages headmen from 28 villages to come to Vuangtu army camp without fail for an important meeting. When the villages¡| headmen, except the headman of Banawhtlang village who was absent, came to Vuangtu army camp, he ordered that each village headman have to sell 48 bottles of liquor in their village as the rate of 120 Kyats per bottle.

 

The Captain was outraged due to the absence of the headman of Banawhtlang in the meeting. Thus, he sent a warning letter to the headman of Banawhtlang village that if he could not give satisfactory explanation for failing to come to the meeting, he will be automatically considered as a strong supporter of Chin National Front and the army will take necessary action against his village.

 

The warning of the Burmese Captain terrified all the villagers. Pu Thang Ling 54 year old village elder from Banawhtlang village said that the reason their village could not go to the meeting was due to the fact that the village was facing shortage of food and village elders were busy managing to get food for the village.

 

 

 

“You Must Play Soccer” Said SPDC Captain

 

Captain Myo Kyaw Htun, commander of Vuangtu army camp from Thantlang towship Chin State issued an order that there be a soccer tournament at Vuangtu village on August 14, 2001. He ordered 28 villages from Thantlang towship to participate in the tournament.

 

The villagers have to bring their own foods and all necessary accessories for the tournament. In addition, each village is ordered to pay 2500 Kyats to the Captain as an admission fee to the competition. He further decreed that selling of liquor during the tournament is compulsory.

 

Even though August is the busiest time for farmers in Chin State, the villagers do not dare to deny the order and the entire villages, except for Banawhtlang village, were compelled to participate in the competition.

 

Enraged by the absence of Banawhtlang village, Captain Myo Kyaw Htun sent a warning letter saying that the village headman have to explain in person the reason why they did not participate in the tournament. Besides, Banawhtlang village still have to pay 2500 Kyats admission fee, 3 bags of rice and a pig (a big one), despite their absense.

 

The headman of Banawhtlang village was so scared to meet with the Captain. So he asked Lulpilung village headman Pu Biak Mang to meet Captain Myo Kyaw Htun on his behalf. Thus, Banawhtlang village sent 10000 Kyats to the Captain through Pu Biak Mang. Pu Biak Mang explained to the Captain that Banawhtalng village were facing food shortage and they were in great trouble and he asked the Captain to reconsider his order regarding Banawhtlang village.

 

The Captain took 10000 Kyats and told Pu Biak Mang that Banawhtlang village have to send 5000 more kyats and a chicken.

 

List of Villages Ordered to Participate in the soccer tournament

 

Banawhtlang, Lulpilung, Salen, Tikir A, Tikir B, Tlangrua A, Tlangrua B, Zephai A, Zephai B, Ngalang, Belhar, Lawngtlang A, Lawngtlang B, Hriphi A, Hriphi B, Vomkua, Khuabung A, Khuabung B, Zabung, Hlam Phei, Hmunhalh, Hriangkhan, Thao, Fartlang, Lungcawi, Ngaphaipi, Ngaphaite, and Lailen.

 

Order Sent by Vuangtu Army Camp Commander to Banawhtlang Village

 

( CHRO translated it from original Burmese )

 

Order

 

To.

 

Banawhtlang village

 

All the youth representatives have a meeting on 28 July 2001. Even though Banawhtlang village have received the order, they failed to come to the meeting. This letter is to inform you that there will be a soccer tournament at Vuangtu army camp on 14 August 2001. You must bring 3 bags of rice, a ball and a pig.

 

Admission fee: 2500 Kyats

 

First Prize : 15000 Kyats

 

Second Prize : 10000 Kyats

 

Third Prize : 7000 Kyats

 

Sd./

 

Company commander

 

Vuangtu Camp

 

To.

 

Village headman

 

Banawhtlang village

 

Date 29. 7. 2001

 

You failed to obey my order to send the youth from your village. We sent you several orders to come to the camp, but still ignored the order of the army. The army considered you and your village as strong supporter of the underground Chin National Front. As soon as you get this order, you must come to the camp without fail. If you fail to come to the camp, I have to report the case to my superior and will take necessary actions.

 

Sd./

 

Company commander

 

Vuangtu Camp

 

 

 

ICRC Suggests Some Prisoners Not Relevant To Hard Labor

 

November 2, 2001

 

Some of the prisoners are going to be sent back to original prisons from hard labor camps of number one “new life project” near Indo-Burma border due to suggestion of International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

 

Local Burmese doctors will under take the prisoners from Thanan, Myothit, Bandula and Razagyo number two camps a medical check up before ICRC’s visit to these camps. Those who are not in suitable health conditions will be sent back to original prisons for food substitution, rest and medical treatments, mentioned in an order released by Directorate of Prison Affairs under Ministry of Home Affairs on October 25.

 

Prisoners who are in good health from Kalay prison will be replaced in these sent back prisoners, also mentioned in the order.

 

ICRC visited to so call “New Life Projects” in Kabal valley near Indo-Burma border from September 1 to September 19 and suggested more than 130 prisoners in these camps were not suitable for the hard labor. The ICRC delegation visited Oak-pho, Sayasan and Razagyo number one camps in the same new life project number one.

 

More than 120 prisoners from these three camps were sent back to their original prisons and about 200 prisoners from Monywa prison were replaced in the camps, NMG reported in a previous article.

 

Although ICRC visited and suggested for better situation in hard labor camps, five prisoners from Razagyo number one camp ran away on October 25, while they were doing their work under tight security. The security guards rearrested those run away prisoners and beat them, a source from Indo-Burma border reported. All of five prisoners as well as other 6 who were alleged to discuss for escape were put in shackles and halters.

 

ICRC made two visits during September to hard labor camps and made suggestion on the situation of the camps, mentioned in leaked reports. ICRC found out that the food given to prisoners were not good enough in both quality and quantity, drinking water is not safe, prisoners do not get rest including who suffering from illnesses, improper health care system and prisoners are frequently beaten. ICRC suggested to prison authorities of Burma to improve these conditions, NMG learnt from the reports leaked out.

 

All together eight “New Life Projects”, all over Burma, were opened for the prisoners, who are charged for imprisonment with hard labor, with the instruction of Senior General Than Shwe in 1994.

 

Burmese regime is using these labors to implement its long-term agricultural projects. The mortality rate in these hard labor camps ranges from 24 to 30 percent because of continuous hard labor, malaria and insufficient food, according to the prison authorities reports.

 

Network Media Group

 

Letter & Press Release:

 

Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s Letter To The Burmese Regime

 

11 December 2001

 

Senior General Than Shwe

 

State Peace and Development Council

 

Ministry of Defense

 

Signal Pagoda Road

 

Yangon, Myanmar

 

Dear General Than Shwe,

 

We were gratified to learn of your public statements in response to our call for the release of our colleague Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, full respect for the human rights of the citizens of your country and agreement to extend confidence building talks with Aung San Suu Kyi to include dialogue with the leaders of political parties and ethnic minorities.

 

It is heartening to learn of your belief that we are all on “the winning side” in that we share “the common objective of creating Myanmar to become a fully functioning democracy.” Your statement declared: “Today we are in the process of joining hands walking on the same path toward our common objective while successfully maintaining the hard-won peace stability and national unity.”

 

We are concerned with the misunderstanding that you report exists between the National League for Democracy and the Government of Myanmar. We are of the strong belief that misunderstandings can best be resolved through open and respectful dialogue. We are willing and prepared to support this process in any way. To do so, we would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience. We respectfully request that you agree to welcome a delegation of Nobel Peace Laureates to your country so that we might meet with you and your colleagues as well as with our colleague, Aung San Suu Kyi.

 

We sincerely believe that the “path toward our common objective” to which you refer can be made more open by your willingness to agree to release Aung San Suu Kyi and all political detainees immediately. It will also be enhanced by your agreement to move forward with a genuine and substantive dialogue that includes leaders of political parties and ethnic minorities with the aim of achieving national reconciliation and the restoration of democracy.

 

Such action will not only move your nation closer to realizing the common goal of a fully functioning democracy, but also to considerably enhancing your standing in the world. We look forward to supporting you in this process and to the full integration of Burma into the international community.

 

Sincerely and respectfully yours,

 

Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu

 

Chair, Nobel Peace Laureate Campaign for Aung San Suu Kyi

 

And the People of Burma

 

 

 

Burma’s Democracy Leader Still Under House Arrest, Ten Years After Winning Nobel Peace Prize

 

For Immediate Release

 

Aung San Suu Kyi urges end to Canadian investment in Burma because of dictatorship’s human rights abuses, collaboration with heroin traffickers

 

OTTAWA, December 7, 2001. Ten years ago on December 10, Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma’s democracy movement, won the Nobel Peace Prize for her remarkable non-violent struggle against one of the world’s worst military dictatorships. Today, she continues her struggle, while waiting for her chance to take the office she legally won, in a landslide general election, more than a decade ago.

 

Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, won an overwhelming victory in her country’s democratic elections in 1990. But instead of handing over the reins of government, Burma’s military rulers illegally nullified the election results and kept Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest where she has spent most of her time since 1989.

 

In the ten years since then, the military regime has earned continuous international condemnation for its widespread use of forced labour, its violent campaign against ethnic minorities, and its complicity in the multi-billion-dollar heroin trade. As a result, the dictatorship is an international pariah with few friends.

 

But in spite of these abuses, the dictatorship remains firmly in power. An important reason for this is that only one country, the United States, has imposed sanctions against investing in Burma. With no firm rules prohibiting investment in Burma, companies from most countries, including Canada, are free to choose for themselves.

 

In a video smuggled out of Burma in 1999, Aung San Suu Kyi addressed the people of Canada, thanking them for their continued support of Burma’s democracy movement. She also repeated her call for Canadians not to do business in Burma, stressing that “investment only benefits the military authorities and their allies…we do not think that investment in our country at this time can do our country any good.”

 

She has a good point. Foreign companies investing in Burma are usually steered into joint ventures with state-owned enterprises, which are run by the generals. Some Canadian companies have heeded Aug San Suu Kyi’s urging to cut business ties with the Burmese military dictatorship. These companies include Wal-Mart Canada, Sears Canada, and The Bay.

 

However, many other Canadian companies continue to do business with the Burmese military. One of these, Marshall Macklin Monaghan (MMM) Ltd. of Toronto, helped to build the Mandalay airport, even though the military forcibly relocated villagers who lived near the site, and forced other local villagers to help build the road to the airport.

 

Another Canadian company, Ivanhoe Mines, which is in a 50-50 partnership with the dictatorship in the largest foreign mining operation in Burma, is a likely beneficiary of the regime’s use of forced labour. Testimony from local villagers indicates that the military forcibly relocated people from a total of eight villages in order to make way for the Monywa mine.

 

Although the Canadian government officially discourages investment in Burma, in reality Ivanhoe receives generous tax incentives for the Monywa mine operation.

 

Aung San Suu Kyi’s call for sanctions against the dictatorship echoes that of Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and others, in their successful struggle against the South African apartheid regime. Last November, the International Labour Organization (ILO) called on its members, which include Canada, to review their connections with Burma to make sure they are not helping to perpetuate the system of forced labour there. Reports to the ILO say that it is impossible to carry out business in Burma without benefiting from or perpetuating the country’s distinct brand of slavery to which hundreds of thousands of its citizens are subjected each year.

 

Although Burma is thousands of kilometres away, literally on the other side of the planet, Canadians pay a heavy—and direct—social price because of the failure to impose comprehensive sanctions against the military dictatorship. According to the RCMP, most of the heroin imported to Canada comes from Burma. In spite of strong international pressure to stop the heroin trade, the Burmese generals allow convicted drug lords to live freely and even to launder drug money through state-owned banks.

 

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, launched fifty years ago, signaled the beginning of the end of Japan’s military expansion in China and Southeast Asia. Four years later, the defeat of the Japanese empire heralded a hopeful new era for the people of the region. And yet, over fifty years after Japan’s defeat, Burma still suffers under a dictatorship every bit as harsh and arbitrary as the Japanese occupation. And, like the Afghan Taliban regime, it is universally known as a corrupt and brutal collection of thugs who condone, and even profit from, the sale of heroin to the west.

 

As people across Canada prepare to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Aung San Suu

 

Kyi, winning the Nobel Peace Prize, they will also reflect on the inconsistency of Canadian policy toward rogue states.

 

At a time when the international community is working to strengthen money-laundering laws to fight terrorism, the military regime in Burma still makes it possible to launder profits from the drug industry. And notorious Burmese drug lords, indicted in the United States, continue to live freely and comfortably under Rangoon’s wing. Aung San Suu Kyi’s supporters across Canada call for her immediate and unconditional release, as well as the release of all other political prisoners in Burma. When this happens, there can be tripartite dialogue between the NLD, Burma’s military regime, and ethnic minority representatives.

 

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African Nobel Peace Laureate and a prominent opponent of the former apartheid regime, has urged the international community and fellow Nobel Peace Laureates to salute and support Burma’s democracy leader and the people of Burma in their non-violent struggle for human rights and democracy.

 

Canadians will join Burma supporters all over the world in marking this important anniversary. There will be celebrations in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Ottawa.

 

For more information, please contact:

 

Canadian Friends of Burma, Ottawa, (613) 237-8056.

 

 

 

Facts & Arguments:

 

Canadian Ties To Burma’s Dictatorship

 

Although Burma is thousands of kilometres away, Canadians are very much connected to this Southeast Asian country of 50 million people. Ever since Burma’s military regime opened the country up to foreign trade and investment in 1989 for the first time in three decades, Canada’s corporate sector has been conducting business there. These commercial links have increased steadily over the past decade, rising sharply in the past few years to over $300 million of investment and $60 million worth of trade at the present time.

 

Burma’s Nobel Peace Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi has called on the international community not to do business in her country under the current military regime. Leader of the National League for Democracy, which won an overwhelming victory in the country’s 1990 national elections, Aung San Suu Kyi stresses that foreign business only props up the military dictatorship and does not help the majority of Burma’s citizens.

 

More recently, reports to the ILO say that it is impossible to carry out business in Burma without benefiting from or perpetuating the country’s distinct brand of slavery to which hundreds of thousands of citizens are subjected each year. In response to this problem, last November, the International Labour Organization (ILO) called on its members, which include Canada, to review their connections with Burma to make sure they are not helping to foster the system of forced labour there.

 

Most of the heroin that comes into Canada originates in Burma according to the RCMP. Heroin has had devastating effects on people=s lives in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. The military dictatorship does not just turn a blind eye to the heroin traffic, it supports by letting convicted drug lords roam free and by allowing heroin profits to be laundered through state-owned banks controlled by the military regime. Moreover, the report Out of Control 2, produced by the Southeast Asian Information Network identifies heroin refineries that are located next to army bases and others, which are partially-owned by senior Burmese military generals.

 

Canadian Policy:

 

Although concerned with the deteriorating human rights situation in Burma, the Government of Canada continues to allow Canadian business in Burma. In August 1997, Canada removed Burma’s preferential tariff eligibility and restricted Canadian exports to Burma, to encourage the military regime to enter into meaningful dialogue with the leaders of the democracy movement.

 

Despite these measures, imports to Canada from Burma have more than tripled in the past four years. Last year’s import value of $60.794 million was more than double the value of the previous year (Industry Canada).

 

The Canadian government imposes absolutely no restriction on investment, which has shot up to over $300 million to date mostly in Burma’s mining and gas sectors. CFOB’s most recent research indicates that, since 1997, at least 11 new Canadian companies have invested in or expanded already-existing investment in Burma[1]. The Government of Canada maintainsthat with regard to investment, their hands are tied because of the Special Economic Mea! sures Act (SEMA). The recent ILO resolution, however, now fully justifies triggering the SEMA to ban investment.[2]

 

Canadian Corporations in Burma:

 

The largest foreign mining venture in Burma, Ivanhoe Mines, is registered in Canada’s Yukon to take advantage of generous tax incentives provided by the Territorial government. Invanhoe is involved in a copper mine, which is a 50/50 joint venture with Burma’s military controlled Mining Enterprise No.1″.

 

In research conducted by CFOB, testimony was received from Burmese villagers[3] stating that eight villages were forcibly relocated in June 2000 to make way for the Monywa copper mine’s expansion. Ivanhoe has already invested $150 million in the project and is looking for a further $400 million for its expansion. In addition, nearly one million workers toiled on the building of a railway line from Monywa to the district centre of Pakokku, while another 5,000 villagers had to contribute their labour to the irrigation development around the Thazi dam near Monywa. The proximity of these infrastructur! e projects to the mine would make it extremely difficult for Ivanhoe to avoid benefitting from forced labour.

 

Another significant Canadian commercial venture in Burma is the $24 million contract that Canadian Helicopters International signed in 1997 for five years involving two aircraft operating from Rangoon and a third remotely operated. Previously, CHC provided helicopter services for a French oil company named Total, for its work on the Yadana pipeline which was constructed with the help of forced labour.[4]

 

Currently, one of Total Oil’s foreign partners in the project, the American oil giant, Unocal, is being sued by 14 villagers who had been living in the vicinity of the pipeline and suffered terrible abuses by the military regime in connection with the project’s construction and security. In September 2001, a US Federal Court judge stated that evidence suggested Unocal knew about and benefitted from forced labour on the pipeline.

 

Forced Labour in Burma: A Modern Form of Slavery

 

One of the most pervasive human rights violations in Burma is the military regime’s system of forced labour. Called a modern form of slavery, by the United Nations, International Labour Organization (ILO), forced labour is used on a multitude of construction projects in numerous industries, from repairing tourist sites to carrying artillery for the army during military offensives.

 

The ILO took the strongest action it has ever taken towards a member country, against Burma, due to the country’s forced labour situation. In November 2000, the ILO called on its members, which include Canada, to review their connections with Burma to ensure that they are not helping to perpetuate the system of forced labour there. Reports to the ILO state that it is impossible to carry out business in Burma without benefitting from or perpetuating the country’s distinct brand of slavery to which hundreds of thousands of its citizens are subjected each year.

 

Generally any person in Burma can be forced into hard labour at any time by military authorities, men, women, children, the elderly, the sick and pregnant women. Forced labour is often accompanied by beatings, rape, deprivation of food, rest, and medical care.

 

ILO Report on Forced Labour:

 

After 30 years of criticism by the ILO of forced labour in Burma, in 1997, a commission of inquiry was set up to discover the facts. In July 1998, they released their findings in a 392 page document distilled from nearly 10,000 pages of testimonies and eye witness reports.

 

A year after the report was published, the military had still not taken any measures to fulfil the report’s recommendations to address the widespread use of forced labour. Therefore, in an unprecedented move, the ILO banned Burma from future meetings and from any future support until the regime takes significant steps towards positive change.

 

Report Excerpts:

 

There is abundant evidence before the Commission showing the pervasive use of forced labour imposed on the civilian population of Myanmar by the authorities and the military for portering, construction, maintenance and servicing of military camps, other work in support of the military, work on agriculture, logging and other production projects undertaken by the authorities or the military, sometimes for the profit of private individuals, the construction and maintenance of roads, railways, and bridges, and other infrastructure work..

 

… it appears that unfettered powers of military and government officers to exact forced labour from the civilian population are taken for granted…the manifold exactions of forced labour often give rise to the extortion of money…also to threats to life and security, extrajudicial punishment, physical abuse, beatings, torture, rape and murder.

 

Forced labour in Myanmar is almost never remunerated or compensated, secret directives notwithstanding, but on the contrary often goes hand in hand with the exaction of money, food and other supplies from the civilian population.

 

All the information and evidence before the Commission shows utter disregard for the safety and health as well as the basic needs of the people performing forced or compulsory labour…

 

A state which supports, instigates, accepts or tolerates forced labour on its territory commits a wrongful act…Whatever may be the position in national law…any person who violates the prohibition of recourse to forced labour under the Convention is guilty of an international crime, that is also, if committed in a widespread or systematic manner, a crime against humanity.

 

The Commission considers…the establishment of a government freely chosen by the people and the submission of all public authorities to the rule of law are, in practice indispensable prerequisites for the suppression of forced labour in Myanmar.

 

This report reveals a saga of untold misery and suffering, oppression and exploitation of large sections of the population. The government, the military and the administration seem oblivious to the human rights of the people, their actions gravely offend human dignity and have a debasing effect on the civil society, where human rightsare denied or violated in any part of the world it is bound to have a chain effect on other parts of the world and it is therefore of vital interest to the international community.

 

Burma’s Illicit Drug Economy

 

Since the ascendance of the current military regime in 1988, Burma has become one of the world’s largest suppliers of heroin. The current military regime profits from, protects and supports Burma’s illicit drug industry.

 

The regime allows notorious Burmese drug lords, such as Khun Sa and Lo Hsing Han, to operate as legitimate businessmen in Burma. The South East Asian Information Network (SAIN) in a 1998 report, listed five army regiments with headquarters or outposts alongside heroin refineries. It reports that bulk heroin exports from the refinery at Paletwa in north-west Burma were carried by army helicopter into Bangladesh, there being no roads for transportation. Dr. Desmond Ball, an Australian researcher, identified in 1999 three infantry battalions that, between them were maintaining six heroin refineries along the drug routes in north-eastern Burma. He also identifies senior generals that were part owners of heroin refineries at the time of his research.

 

Money Laundering:

 

Desperate for foreign currency, the Burmese military regime has created legislation that helps launder the proceeds of drugs. In levying a 40 per cent tax rate on declared assets, the regime makes no inquiry into the source of the assets. Moreover, Burma’s military junta openly allows profits from the drug trade to be channeled through military-controlled companies such as banks and the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprises. As a result of this money laundering, illicit drug profits permeate Burma’s economy.

 

In such an environment, foreign companies have no way to ensure their operations in Burma are clean. A prime example of this problem was the case of Wal-Mart Canada, which was found in 2000 to be importing from a clothing company in Burma owned by the notorious drug lord Lo Hsing Han.

 

Burma Heroin in Canada:

 

Canadians are not immune from the scourge of Burma’s heroin trade. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police RCMP states that most of the heroin coming into Canada originates in Burma. Meanwhile, heroin has had devastating effects on people’s lives in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Therefore, Canadian companies which support Burma’s military regime through their business there, are inevitably and ironically contributing to social problems in Canada.

 

In 1997, Burma was responsible for about 60 per cent of the word’s supply of heroin. Production of raw opium exceeded 2500 tonnes, or more than double the yield in 1988 when the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), the forerunner of the SPDC took power. Opium poppy cultivation in Burma has also increased from some 92,300 hectares to more than 200,000 under the SPDC (Dr. Desmond Ball,”Burma and Drugs: The Regime’s Complicity in the global drug trade! ” in Asia-Pacific Magazine, No.14, 1999).

 

The regime has created legislation which helps launder the proceeds of drugs. The Burmese regime levies a 40 % tax rate on declared assets other than real property, but as long a! s the tax is paid, there is no inquiry into the source of the assets (US State Department, 1998). Also banks launder dubious money in exchange for a 25 % to 40% fee. In 1996, there was US $250 million of unexplained investment attracted by the scheme (The IMF and the UN Conference on Trade and Development in the Sunday Times [London] May 10, 1998).

 

Money laundering and the return of narcotic profits laundered elsewhere are very significant factors in the overall Burmeseeconomy and are officially sanctioned by the junta. The SPDC openly allows profits from the drug trade to be channeled into private and public enterprises through Burma’s national company, the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprises (MOGE) and the banks. (Leslie Kean and Dennis Bernstein, People of the Opiate in the Nation, Dec. 16, 1996).

 

A study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cites large expenditures unaccounted for by the junta: Despite the fact that Burma’s foreign exchange reserves from 1991-1993 were only approximately $300 million, the SLORC purchased arms worth $1.2 billion during the period (The Nation, Dec. 1996).!

 

A Unless there is a democratically elected civilian government that can win the support of all the Burmese people, including the ethnic minorities, progress on the drug front will be impossible. (Michael Jendrzejeczyk, Director of Human Rights Watch/Asia, the New York Times, Feb.12, 1993).

 

A major dimension of the corruption [of the military dictatorship in Burma] is the involvement of the regime – from the most senior members of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) which rules the country, down to infantry soldiers stationed in border areas – in drug trafficking. (Dr. Desmond Ball, Burma and Drugs: The Regime’s Complicity in the global drug trade in Asia-Pacific Magazine, No.14, 1999).

 

# The opium-heroin trade in Burma is a sophisticated, world-wide multi-billion dollar business which requires a large infrastructure, especially for refining, transporting and protecting the product, from Burma’s borders to its neighbouring countries. (Dr. Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe, The War on Drugs and Drug Policies; paper distributed at the International Conference on Drugs, 1996).

 

# US anti-drug assistance to the Burmese government has failed in the past, and in the last four years Burmese authorities have made no discernible effort to improve their performance…SLORC has been part of the problem, not the solution. (Robert S. Gelbard, former US assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law-enforcement affairs, Far Eastern Economic Review, Nov.21, 1996).

 

The United States: We are increasingly concerned that Burma’s drug traffickers, with official encouragement, are laundering their profits through Burmese banks and companies–some of which are joint ventures with foreign businesses.It is hard to imagine a lasting solution to this region’s narcotics problem without a lasting solution to Burma’s political crisis. (Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, Jul.1997).

 

Britain: Burma is the largest single world producer of opium, and it has achieved that infamous position precisely because it has a government that does not act against the drug barons. It is not only a deeply repressive regime, but is also a deeply irresponsible regime in that it is one of the few governments in the world whose members are prepared to profit out of the drugs trade rather than to seek to suppress it (Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary, South-China Morning Post, Sept.2,1998).

 

Thailand: Thai anti-narcotics officials have been quoted as saying that the Burmese military are actively supporting the United Wa State Army believed to be one of the main drug trafficking organizations in the Golden Triangle (The BBC, Jul 25,1999)

 

Burma’s Military-Controlled Economy

 

International investment may help open societies and bring democratic change in some countries. In Burma, however, foreign investment helps perpetuate the cruelty of a repressive unelected junta. While the majority of Burmese receive no benefit from foreign enterprise, foreign exchange allows the military to maintain its rule by force of arms.

 

The military regime’s own figures state that expenditure on defence since 1988 to the present had increased from 22.35 per cent to49.93 per cent. During the same period, spending on health-care and education had dropped from 4.71 per cent and 12.9 per cent to 2.53 and 6.98, respectively.

 

Full foreign ownership of companies operating in Burma is generally forbidden and almost all large investment in Burma is carried out through joint ventures with the military regime, notably the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings (UMEH). The UMEH is owned in part (40%) by the Defense Ministry’s Directorate of Procurement, whose main function is to import armaments. The other 60% of UMEH shares is reserved for active and retired military officers, army-owned business enterprises and friendship societies, including veteran groups.

 

Since the ascendance of the current military regime in 1988, Burma has become one of the world’s largest suppliers of heroin. This very fact is just one of the many examples that point to the regime’s profiting, protection and support of Burma’s illicit drug industry.

 

The regime allows notorious Burmese drug lords, such as Khun Sa and Lo Hsing Han, to operate as legitimate businessmen in Burma. The South East Asian Information Network (SAIN) in a 1998 report, listed five army regiments with headquarters or outposts alongside heroin refineries. It reports that bulk heroin exports from the refinery at Paletwa in north-west Burma were carried by army helicopter into Bangladesh, there being no roads for transportation. Dr. Desmond Ball, an Australian researcher, identified in 1999 three infantry battalions that, between them were maintaining six heroin refineries along the drug routes in north-eastern Burma. He also identifies senior generals that were part owners of heroin refineries at the time of his research.

 

Nobel Peace Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi and her democratically elected National League for Democracy have been calling for sanctions against their own country since it became obvious that foreign investment was only benefiting the military authorities and their allies. In a video smuggled out of Burma in August 1999, Aung San Suu Kyi stated that:

 

“We do not think that investment in our country at this time can do our country any good…Investment made at the right time in the right way could be of enormous benefit not only to the people of Burma but to thos who are investing in Burma. But that time has not yet come.”

 

Just as the South African anti-apartheid movement called for economic sanctions against their own country, Burma’s democracy movement is calling for an end to foreign financial support to the brutal military dictatorship.

 

The Situation of Women in Burma

 

Like all their fellow citizens, Burma’s women face the day-to-day struggle of life under military rule in Burma. But the country’s women also face particular problems and abuse on account of their gender. Apart from the general maltreatment and discrimination directed against women in their society, Burmese women and girls, especially in ethnic minority areas, are faced with the constant danger of being raped or trafficked into the sex industry.

 

Sexual Assault:

 

Women are subjected to rape and other sexual assaults in a variety of contexts; in their villages and fields; during flight; while they are serving as forced labourers or forced porters for the army; and under assorted pretexts in which soldiers abuse their authority and claim to be checking women’s documents. Women are raped by Burmese soldiers in their own homes, while they are internally displaced, and while they are on their way to seek refuge in neighbouring countries. These abuses have escalated over the past decade under because soldiers have become used to taking what they want under the current military regime which allows them to do so with impunity. (See School of Rape by Earthrights In! ternational, Convention for the Elimination of Violence Against Women Shadow Report)

 

Trafficking into Sex Industry:

 

The burgeoning sex industry in Burma and trafficking of Burmese women to Thailand and other countries also gives rise to enormous health difficulties, most notably HIV and AIDS. As well, Burmese sex workers (often coerced into the industry) in Burma, in Thailand, India and Bangladesh suffer from high rates of sexually transmitted disease and are often victims of beatings and other physical assaults.

 

An estimated 80,000 women from Burma are engaged in prostitution in Thailand. Along the Thai-Burma border, agents recruit women with false promises of providing them with employment or legal resident status in Thailand or force them into prostitution under threats to their lives. Many brothels are surrounded by electric fences and armed guards to avoid escape. They rarely have access to heath care or HIV education. Their rate of HIV infection is much higher than among Thai prostitutes.

 

Women’s Health:

 

Maternal motility rate in 1993 was 140 per 100,000 live births. In 1987, abortions accounted for 52 per cent of all registered maternal deaths. Though the practice is illegal in Burma, induced abortion is resorted to in the absence of knowledge and other means for family planning. Other causes of high material mortality are malaria, malnutrition,goiter, severe anemia, sexually transmitted diseases and the limited coverage of trained birth attendants in remote areas.

 

According to UNICEF, the national infant mortality rate in 1996 was 105 per live births, which can be compared to 33 in Vietnam, 31 in Thailand and 11 in Malaysia. One million children are reportedly malnourished. 9 to 12 percent of them severely so. The high rate of babies with birth weight below 2,300 grams is probably reflection of the high malnutrition levels among pregnant women. Under the current regime which took power in 1988, these figures have likely increased since health care has deteriorated significantly. Moreover, this data is not completely accurate because it does! not include information from Burma’s ethnic civil war areas, where health conditions are even worse, because UN agencies and international non-governmental organizations have limited access.

 

[1]Ivanhoe Mines, Aeroground Group Services, Cavern International Industries, East Asia Gold Corporation, First Dynasty Mines, International Bio-Recovery, Leeward Capital Corp, Marshall Macklin Monaghan, Northrock Resources, Prime Resources Management, Suzuki Canada

 

[2]This is because the ILO resolution responds to the Act=s allowance that a resolution from an international body, such as the United Nations, empowers such an action. AThe Governor in Council may, for the purpose of implementing a decision, resolution or recommendation of an international organization of states or association of states, o! f which Canada is a member, that calls on its members to take economic measures against a foreign state.

 

[3]Individual identities are not disclosed to protect their security

 

[4]ATotal Denial Continues@ by Earthrights International, 2000

 

 

VOLUME IV.NO.VI. NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2001

Contents:

SPDC uses Forced Labor in Army Owned Farm

SPDC Troops Forced Chin Villagers To Serve as Porters

Forced Portering In Thantlang Twongship

SPDC Soldier Robbed Villagers

SPDC Lt. Colonel Demanded Solar Plate From Chin Villagers

Civilians Forced to Repair Army Camp

SPDC Soldiers Looted From Civilians

Can’t Afford Identity Card

Burmese Army Force Chin Civilians to Sell Liquor

” You Must Play Soccer” Said SPDC Captain

ICRC Suggests Some Prisoners Not Relevant to Hard Labour

LETTER & PRESS RELEASE:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s Letter to The Burmese Regime

Burma’s Democracy Leader Still Under House Arrest, Ten Years After Winning Noble Peace Price

FACTS & ARGUMENTS:

Canadian Ties to Burma’s Dictatorship

HUMAN RIGHTS:

SPDC uses Forced Labor in Army Owned Farm

The Burmese army has been forcing the civilian to work in the army-owned farms in Kankaw township of Western Burma, according to the testimony of U Kyaw Win (Name changed for security reason). A 48 year-old village headman from XXX village, U Kyaw Win testified to the CHRO field reporter that amidst claims by Burmese junta of having eradicated forced labor in Burma, the practice continues.

According to him, the Burmese army has a large plot of farm in the vicinity of Taung-khin-yin Village of Kankaw Township, Magwe division, Western Burma. The farm is operated under the supervision of army North Western Command since 1996.

From the beginning, villagers were forced to clear 15,000 acres of virgin land. Since then, forced labor never ceases in our area. From 1997 to 2001 the farm was operated under the command of Major Kyaw Soe of Light Infantry Battallion LIB 269 based in Tidim.

From March 2001, Major Kyaw Soe was replaced by Major Zaw Oo from Light Infantry Battalion LIB 226, based in Haka. Civilians from around the area have to work at the army farm from the time of sowing to harvesting time. Sometimes the soldiers are unsatisfied with the human labor, and forced laborers are made to bring along their bulls and buffaloes to work at the farm

This harvesting season (2001), civilians from Taung-khin-yin village, Tha-lin village, Shwebo village, Thin-taw village, Hnan-kha village, Min-tha village, Kung-ywa village, A-lay village and Ywa-ma villagers are among those forced to work at the army farm from June to Septermber¡̈

U Kyaw Win added that; besides the farm works, villagers have to do manual works for the army such as building the army barracks, cutting woods for the army, carrying waters and making furniture for the army officers.

( CHRO: interview U Kyaw Win on October 1, 2001 )

SPDC Troops Forced Chin Villagers To Serve as Porters

The Burmese army Light Infantry Battalion LIB 268 from Lentlang army camp, Tidim township of Chin state, forced 15 civilians from Lentlang village to serve as porter on September 8, 2001.

The porters were herded by Sergeant Tin Myint of LIB 268, and his troops from Lentlang village to Tio village of Falam township, Chin State. When they arrived to Tio village, the porters were forced to carry ration for the army. Overburdened, the porters could not carry the loads.

Thus, Sergeant Tin Myint demanded two more porters from Tio village. While the porters were packing the load, one soldier took a stick and started to beat the porters saying that they are too slow in packing the load. He stopped beating them only after an elder from Tio village begged the soldier to stop.

The next day, on September 9, 2001, Sergeant Tin Myint and his troops took another 15 porters from Tio village and forced them to carry army ammunition from Tio village to Lentlang army camp.

Ms. Nini (an eye witness of the incident), 29 years old villager from Tio village reported the incident to CHRO field worker on September 15 2001.

(CHRO note: the name Nini is not her real name. We changed the name to protect her identity for security reasons)

Forced Portering In Thantlang Twongship

Burmese Army Light Infantry Battalion LIB 274 and LIB 268 conducted a joint military operation in Thantlang township, Chin State in the month of August 2001. Commanding in charge of military intelligence unit in Chin State, Hla Myint Htun led the operation.

To aid in the supply needs during the operation, Hla Myint Htun and his troops arrested many civilians to serve as porters. The huge loads of army supplies, however, exceeded the availability of civilian porters. Thus, the troops demanded horses from the civilians to carry the loads.

The operation lasted for three weeks, and villagers from Thantlang township had to endure grueling conditions during the whole operations.

SPDC Soldier Robbed Villagers

Captain Hlaing Hlaing of Burmese Army Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 274 Mindat battalion robbed 10000 Kyats from Pu Dun (Name change for security reason) of Pintia village of Matupi township, Chin State on August 25, 2001.

Pu Dun and his friends were traveling when they met with Captain Hlaing Hlaing and his troops. The soldiers stopped Pu Dun and his friends and search their bags and took 10000 Kyats from Pu Dun. The incident occurred at Khemu stream between Hlungmang and Zawngling village.

SPDC Lt. Colonel Demanded Solar Plate From Chin Villagers

The following report is provided by Pu Than Kip, a 60 year-old farmer from Lungcawi village of Matupi township in Chin State.

Commander of Light Infantry Battalion LIB 274 from Mindat, Lt. Colonel Maung Maung and his troops came to Lungcawi village to patrol around the India-Burma border on 24th August 2001. As soon as they arrived, the Lt. Colonel demanded 4 villagers to porter army supplies. Thus, the village headman has to quickly assemble the villagers to serve as porter. As most of the villagers were working at their farm at the time the army arrived, the village headman had to ask some elderly people to serve(including Pu Sui Kung 55 year old, who was sick at that timer) as porter to meet the Lt. Colonel demand.

Pu Sui Kung and three other villagers had to carry rations and ammunition for Lt. Colonel and his troops for four days. After four days, they came back to Lungcawi village on 28 August 2001.

While Lt. Colonel Maung Maung was in the village, the village headman and some village elders took the opportunity to ask him to give them permission for making a ferryboat to be used for crossing the Bawinu river, which separates India and Burma, for easy access to goods from the India side. Lungcawi area is so remote and isolated from major towns in Burma that it is easier for the villagers to get their commodity supplies from India.

Lt. Colonel told the villagers that if they give him a solar plate and 10000 Kyats, he would give them his permission. Thus the villagers bought a solar plate, which is worth 50000 Kyat and gave it to Lt. Colonel Maung Maung along with 10000 Kyats.

Civilians Forced to Repair Army Camp

Villagers from Matupi township of Chin State were forced to repair army camp in the month of September.

Captain Hlaing Hlaing of Burmese Army from Light Infantry Battalion LIB 274 based in Mindat ordered villagers from Sabawgte area to repair Sabawngte army camp.

Nine persons from Pintia village, 10 villagers from Hlungmang village, 10 villagers from Sabawngpi village, and 8 villagers from Tawnglalung village have to repair the fence of Sabawngte army camp from September 10 to 15, 2001.

The work started from 6 AM to 5 PM every day. The villagers have to carry their own tools and rations.

During the third day of their work, 14 year-old boy laborer from Pintia village got bitten by a snake. Even though there is a military medic present in the army camp, the boy did not get any treatment from the army. Thus, villagers treated him with traditional method and carried him to his village.

One village elder said that there was an order issued by the home ministry to prohibiting the practice of forced labor, but the army still used forced labor and called civilian for porter whenever they needed. “It is very difficult to make a living here. We spend most of our labor working for the army”̈ said the villager.

SPDC Soldiers Looted From Civilians

The Burmese military launched offensive against the Chin National Front, the armed opposition group, in the month of August and September. Thus, the Burmese military forced many people to serve as porters during the operation.

A Captain ( name not known ) from Light Infantry Battalion LIB 268 Falam battalion established a temporary command camp at Ngaphaipi village, Thantlang towship during the military operation. One 21 August 2001, the Captain ordered Fartlang village, Khuapilu village, La-u village, Ngaphaipi village, that each village must bring two tins of rice, five chickens and 8600 Kyats to the camp.

Similarly, Captain Myo Kyaw Htun, Company commander from LIB 274 Vuangtu army camp established temporary army camp between Lungcawipi and Ngaphaipi village. As the camp was on the trade route to Mizoram State of India, Captain Myo Kyaw Htun looted 300000 Kyats from cattle traders on 28 August 2001.

One of the Cattle traders reported the incident to CHRO on 15 September 2001.

 

Can’t Afford Identity Card

In the area around the townships of Tamu and Kalay of Sagaing Division, Western Burma, people are being required to pay a cost of 40,00 Kyats in order to obtain a national identity card. Ordinary citizens such as farmers are finding it difficult to afford the high cost. Possession of national identity card is a mandatory requirement for every Burmese citizen, which must be carried along at all times.

A person has to pay 4000 Kyats in Burmese currency to the department of immigration in order to be issued the national identity card. If the card is destroyed or lost, an additional 6000 Kyats have to be paid to the department for issuance of a new card.

Unable to afford the cost, most farmers have to get reference letter from the village headman whenever they travel, as a temporary substitute for the card. The reference letter is valid up to three months from the date of issue. Village headmen are charging 250 Kyats per reference letter per person. If the immigration department finds out that someone is using expired document, he/she is subject to fine up to 1500 Kyats to 2000 Kyats.

In Burma, registration for national identity card is made mandatory to every citizen and everyone must carry it with him or her at all times especially when traveling. Travelers or visitors have to report their presence to the village or township authority in which they are visiting. Immigration officials and military intelligence conduct door-to-door surprise and random checks at night. Anyone found without proper guest registration or without identity card is subject to fine or arrest.

Burmese Army Force Chin Civilians to Sell Liquor

Chin Christian villages from Thantlang Township, Chin State were forced to sell liquor by the Burmese army in September 2001.

The order to sell liquor was signed by Captain Myo Kyaw Htun, commander of Vuangtu army camp, of Light Infantry Battalion LIB 274, known as Mindat battalion.

Captain Myo Kyaw Htun ordered villages headmen from 28 villages to come to Vuangtu army camp without fail for an important meeting. When the villages¡| headmen, except the headman of Banawhtlang village who was absent, came to Vuangtu army camp, he ordered that each village headman have to sell 48 bottles of liquor in their village as the rate of 120 Kyats per bottle.

The Captain was outraged due to the absence of the headman of Banawhtlang in the meeting. Thus, he sent a warning letter to the headman of Banawhtlang village that if he could not give satisfactory explanation for failing to come to the meeting, he will be automatically considered as a strong supporter of Chin National Front and the army will take necessary action against his village.

The warning of the Burmese Captain terrified all the villagers. Pu Thang Ling 54 year old village elder from Banawhtlang village said that the reason their village could not go to the meeting was due to the fact that the village was facing shortage of food and village elders were busy managing to get food for the village.

 

“You Must Play Soccer” Said SPDC Captain

Captain Myo Kyaw Htun, commander of Vuangtu army camp from Thantlang towship Chin State issued an order that there be a soccer tournament at Vuangtu village on August 14, 2001. He ordered 28 villages from Thantlang towship to participate in the tournament.

The villagers have to bring their own foods and all necessary accessories for the tournament. In addition, each village is ordered to pay 2500 Kyats to the Captain as an admission fee to the competition. He further decreed that selling of liquor during the tournament is compulsory.

Even though August is the busiest time for farmers in Chin State, the villagers do not dare to deny the order and the entire villages, except for Banawhtlang village, were compelled to participate in the competition.

Enraged by the absence of Banawhtlang village, Captain Myo Kyaw Htun sent a warning letter saying that the village headman have to explain in person the reason why they did not participate in the tournament. Besides, Banawhtlang village still have to pay 2500 Kyats admission fee, 3 bags of rice and a pig (a big one), despite their absense.

The headman of Banawhtlang village was so scared to meet with the Captain. So he asked Lulpilung village headman Pu Biak Mang to meet Captain Myo Kyaw Htun on his behalf. Thus, Banawhtlang village sent 10000 Kyats to the Captain through Pu Biak Mang. Pu Biak Mang explained to the Captain that Banawhtalng village were facing food shortage and they were in great trouble and he asked the Captain to reconsider his order regarding Banawhtlang village.

The Captain took 10000 Kyats and told Pu Biak Mang that Banawhtlang village have to send 5000 more kyats and a chicken.

List of Villages Ordered to Participate in the soccer tournament

Banawhtlang, Lulpilung, Salen, Tikir A, Tikir B, Tlangrua A, Tlangrua B, Zephai A, Zephai B, Ngalang, Belhar, Lawngtlang A, Lawngtlang B, Hriphi A, Hriphi B, Vomkua, Khuabung A, Khuabung B, Zabung, Hlam Phei, Hmunhalh, Hriangkhan, Thao, Fartlang, Lungcawi, Ngaphaipi, Ngaphaite, and Lailen.

Order Sent by Vuangtu Army Camp Commander to Banawhtlang Village

( CHRO translated it from original Burmese )

Order

To.

Banawhtlang village

All the youth representatives have a meeting on 28 July 2001. Even though Banawhtlang village have received the order, they failed to come to the meeting. This letter is to inform you that there will be a soccer tournament at Vuangtu army camp on 14 August 2001. You must bring 3 bags of rice, a ball and a pig.

Admission fee: 2500 Kyats

First Prize : 15000 Kyats

Second Prize : 10000 Kyats

Third Prize : 7000 Kyats

Sd./

Company commander

Vuangtu Camp

To.

Village headman

Banawhtlang village

Date 29. 7. 2001

You failed to obey my order to send the youth from your village. We sent you several orders to come to the camp, but still ignored the order of the army. The army considered you and your village as strong supporter of the underground Chin National Front. As soon as you get this order, you must come to the camp without fail. If you fail to come to the camp, I have to report the case to my superior and will take necessary actions.

Sd./

Company commander

Vuangtu Camp

 

ICRC Suggests Some Prisoners Not Relevant To Hard Labor

November 2, 2001

Some of the prisoners are going to be sent back to original prisons from hard labor camps of number one “new life project” near Indo-Burma border due to suggestion of International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Local Burmese doctors will under take the prisoners from Thanan, Myothit, Bandula and Razagyo number two camps a medical check up before ICRC’s visit to these camps. Those who are not in suitable health conditions will be sent back to original prisons for food substitution, rest and medical treatments, mentioned in an order released by Directorate of Prison Affairs under Ministry of Home Affairs on October 25.

Prisoners who are in good health from Kalay prison will be replaced in these sent back prisoners, also mentioned in the order.

ICRC visited to so call “New Life Projects” in Kabal valley near Indo-Burma border from September 1 to September 19 and suggested more than 130 prisoners in these camps were not suitable for the hard labor. The ICRC delegation visited Oak-pho, Sayasan and Razagyo number one camps in the same new life project number one.

More than 120 prisoners from these three camps were sent back to their original prisons and about 200 prisoners from Monywa prison were replaced in the camps, NMG reported in a previous article.

Although ICRC visited and suggested for better situation in hard labor camps, five prisoners from Razagyo number one camp ran away on October 25, while they were doing their work under tight security. The security guards rearrested those run away prisoners and beat them, a source from Indo-Burma border reported. All of five prisoners as well as other 6 who were alleged to discuss for escape were put in shackles and halters.

ICRC made two visits during September to hard labor camps and made suggestion on the situation of the camps, mentioned in leaked reports. ICRC found out that the food given to prisoners were not good enough in both quality and quantity, drinking water is not safe, prisoners do not get rest including who suffering from illnesses, improper health care system and prisoners are frequently beaten. ICRC suggested to prison authorities of Burma to improve these conditions, NMG learnt from the reports leaked out.

All together eight “New Life Projects”, all over Burma, were opened for the prisoners, who are charged for imprisonment with hard labor, with the instruction of Senior General Than Shwe in 1994.

Burmese regime is using these labors to implement its long-term agricultural projects. The mortality rate in these hard labor camps ranges from 24 to 30 percent because of continuous hard labor, malaria and insufficient food, according to the prison authorities reports.

Network Media Group

Letter & Press Release:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s Letter To The Burmese Regime

11 December 2001

Senior General Than Shwe

State Peace and Development Council

Ministry of Defense

Signal Pagoda Road

Yangon, Myanmar

Dear General Than Shwe,

We were gratified to learn of your public statements in response to our call for the release of our colleague Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, full respect for the human rights of the citizens of your country and agreement to extend confidence building talks with Aung San Suu Kyi to include dialogue with the leaders of political parties and ethnic minorities.

It is heartening to learn of your belief that we are all on “the winning side” in that we share “the common objective of creating Myanmar to become a fully functioning democracy.” Your statement declared: “Today we are in the process of joining hands walking on the same path toward our common objective while successfully maintaining the hard-won peace stability and national unity.”

We are concerned with the misunderstanding that you report exists between the National League for Democracy and the Government of Myanmar. We are of the strong belief that misunderstandings can best be resolved through open and respectful dialogue. We are willing and prepared to support this process in any way. To do so, we would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience. We respectfully request that you agree to welcome a delegation of Nobel Peace Laureates to your country so that we might meet with you and your colleagues as well as with our colleague, Aung San Suu Kyi.

We sincerely believe that the “path toward our common objective” to which you refer can be made more open by your willingness to agree to release Aung San Suu Kyi and all political detainees immediately. It will also be enhanced by your agreement to move forward with a genuine and substantive dialogue that includes leaders of political parties and ethnic minorities with the aim of achieving national reconciliation and the restoration of democracy.

Such action will not only move your nation closer to realizing the common goal of a fully functioning democracy, but also to considerably enhancing your standing in the world. We look forward to supporting you in this process and to the full integration of Burma into the international community.

Sincerely and respectfully yours,

Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu

Chair, Nobel Peace Laureate Campaign for Aung San Suu Kyi

And the People of Burma

 

Burma’s Democracy Leader Still Under House Arrest, Ten Years After Winning Nobel Peace Prize

For Immediate Release

Aung San Suu Kyi urges end to Canadian investment in Burma because of dictatorship’s human rights abuses, collaboration with heroin traffickers

OTTAWA, December 7, 2001. Ten years ago on December 10, Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma’s democracy movement, won the Nobel Peace Prize for her remarkable non-violent struggle against one of the world’s worst military dictatorships. Today, she continues her struggle, while waiting for her chance to take the office she legally won, in a landslide general election, more than a decade ago.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, won an overwhelming victory in her country’s democratic elections in 1990. But instead of handing over the reins of government, Burma’s military rulers illegally nullified the election results and kept Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest where she has spent most of her time since 1989.

In the ten years since then, the military regime has earned continuous international condemnation for its widespread use of forced labour, its violent campaign against ethnic minorities, and its complicity in the multi-billion-dollar heroin trade. As a result, the dictatorship is an international pariah with few friends.

But in spite of these abuses, the dictatorship remains firmly in power. An important reason for this is that only one country, the United States, has imposed sanctions against investing in Burma. With no firm rules prohibiting investment in Burma, companies from most countries, including Canada, are free to choose for themselves.

In a video smuggled out of Burma in 1999, Aung San Suu Kyi addressed the people of Canada, thanking them for their continued support of Burma’s democracy movement. She also repeated her call for Canadians not to do business in Burma, stressing that “investment only benefits the military authorities and their allies…we do not think that investment in our country at this time can do our country any good.”

She has a good point. Foreign companies investing in Burma are usually steered into joint ventures with state-owned enterprises, which are run by the generals. Some Canadian companies have heeded Aug San Suu Kyi’s urging to cut business ties with the Burmese military dictatorship. These companies include Wal-Mart Canada, Sears Canada, and The Bay.

However, many other Canadian companies continue to do business with the Burmese military. One of these, Marshall Macklin Monaghan (MMM) Ltd. of Toronto, helped to build the Mandalay airport, even though the military forcibly relocated villagers who lived near the site, and forced other local villagers to help build the road to the airport.

Another Canadian company, Ivanhoe Mines, which is in a 50-50 partnership with the dictatorship in the largest foreign mining operation in Burma, is a likely beneficiary of the regime’s use of forced labour. Testimony from local villagers indicates that the military forcibly relocated people from a total of eight villages in order to make way for the Monywa mine.

Although the Canadian government officially discourages investment in Burma, in reality Ivanhoe receives generous tax incentives for the Monywa mine operation.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s call for sanctions against the dictatorship echoes that of Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and others, in their successful struggle against the South African apartheid regime. Last November, the International Labour Organization (ILO) called on its members, which include Canada, to review their connections with Burma to make sure they are not helping to perpetuate the system of forced labour there. Reports to the ILO say that it is impossible to carry out business in Burma without benefiting from or perpetuating the country’s distinct brand of slavery to which hundreds of thousands of its citizens are subjected each year.

Although Burma is thousands of kilometres away, literally on the other side of the planet, Canadians pay a heavy—and direct—social price because of the failure to impose comprehensive sanctions against the military dictatorship. According to the RCMP, most of the heroin imported to Canada comes from Burma. In spite of strong international pressure to stop the heroin trade, the Burmese generals allow convicted drug lords to live freely and even to launder drug money through state-owned banks.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, launched fifty years ago, signaled the beginning of the end of Japan’s military expansion in China and Southeast Asia. Four years later, the defeat of the Japanese empire heralded a hopeful new era for the people of the region. And yet, over fifty years after Japan’s defeat, Burma still suffers under a dictatorship every bit as harsh and arbitrary as the Japanese occupation. And, like the Afghan Taliban regime, it is universally known as a corrupt and brutal collection of thugs who condone, and even profit from, the sale of heroin to the west.

As people across Canada prepare to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Aung San Suu

Kyi, winning the Nobel Peace Prize, they will also reflect on the inconsistency of Canadian policy toward rogue states.

At a time when the international community is working to strengthen money-laundering laws to fight terrorism, the military regime in Burma still makes it possible to launder profits from the drug industry. And notorious Burmese drug lords, indicted in the United States, continue to live freely and comfortably under Rangoon’s wing. Aung San Suu Kyi’s supporters across Canada call for her immediate and unconditional release, as well as the release of all other political prisoners in Burma. When this happens, there can be tripartite dialogue between the NLD, Burma’s military regime, and ethnic minority representatives.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African Nobel Peace Laureate and a prominent opponent of the former apartheid regime, has urged the international community and fellow Nobel Peace Laureates to salute and support Burma’s democracy leader and the people of Burma in their non-violent struggle for human rights and democracy.

Canadians will join Burma supporters all over the world in marking this important anniversary. There will be celebrations in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Ottawa.

For more information, please contact:

Canadian Friends of Burma, Ottawa, (613) 237-8056.

 

Facts & Arguments:

Canadian Ties To Burma’s Dictatorship

Although Burma is thousands of kilometres away, Canadians are very much connected to this Southeast Asian country of 50 million people. Ever since Burma’s military regime opened the country up to foreign trade and investment in 1989 for the first time in three decades, Canada’s corporate sector has been conducting business there. These commercial links have increased steadily over the past decade, rising sharply in the past few years to over $300 million of investment and $60 million worth of trade at the present time.

Burma’s Nobel Peace Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi has called on the international community not to do business in her country under the current military regime. Leader of the National League for Democracy, which won an overwhelming victory in the country’s 1990 national elections, Aung San Suu Kyi stresses that foreign business only props up the military dictatorship and does not help the majority of Burma’s citizens.

More recently, reports to the ILO say that it is impossible to carry out business in Burma without benefiting from or perpetuating the country’s distinct brand of slavery to which hundreds of thousands of citizens are subjected each year. In response to this problem, last November, the International Labour Organization (ILO) called on its members, which include Canada, to review their connections with Burma to make sure they are not helping to foster the system of forced labour there.

Most of the heroin that comes into Canada originates in Burma according to the RCMP. Heroin has had devastating effects on people=s lives in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. The military dictatorship does not just turn a blind eye to the heroin traffic, it supports by letting convicted drug lords roam free and by allowing heroin profits to be laundered through state-owned banks controlled by the military regime. Moreover, the report Out of Control 2, produced by the Southeast Asian Information Network identifies heroin refineries that are located next to army bases and others, which are partially-owned by senior Burmese military generals.

Canadian Policy:

Although concerned with the deteriorating human rights situation in Burma, the Government of Canada continues to allow Canadian business in Burma. In August 1997, Canada removed Burma’s preferential tariff eligibility and restricted Canadian exports to Burma, to encourage the military regime to enter into meaningful dialogue with the leaders of the democracy movement.

Despite these measures, imports to Canada from Burma have more than tripled in the past four years. Last year’s import value of $60.794 million was more than double the value of the previous year (Industry Canada).

The Canadian government imposes absolutely no restriction on investment, which has shot up to over $300 million to date mostly in Burma’s mining and gas sectors. CFOB’s most recent research indicates that, since 1997, at least 11 new Canadian companies have invested in or expanded already-existing investment in Burma[1]. The Government of Canada maintainsthat with regard to investment, their hands are tied because of the Special Economic Mea! sures Act (SEMA). The recent ILO resolution, however, now fully justifies triggering the SEMA to ban investment.[2]

Canadian Corporations in Burma:

The largest foreign mining venture in Burma, Ivanhoe Mines, is registered in Canada’s Yukon to take advantage of generous tax incentives provided by the Territorial government. Invanhoe is involved in a copper mine, which is a 50/50 joint venture with Burma’s military controlled Mining Enterprise No.1″.

In research conducted by CFOB, testimony was received from Burmese villagers[3] stating that eight villages were forcibly relocated in June 2000 to make way for the Monywa copper mine’s expansion. Ivanhoe has already invested $150 million in the project and is looking for a further $400 million for its expansion. In addition, nearly one million workers toiled on the building of a railway line from Monywa to the district centre of Pakokku, while another 5,000 villagers had to contribute their labour to the irrigation development around the Thazi dam near Monywa. The proximity of these infrastructur! e projects to the mine would make it extremely difficult for Ivanhoe to avoid benefitting from forced labour.

Another significant Canadian commercial venture in Burma is the $24 million contract that Canadian Helicopters International signed in 1997 for five years involving two aircraft operating from Rangoon and a third remotely operated. Previously, CHC provided helicopter services for a French oil company named Total, for its work on the Yadana pipeline which was constructed with the help of forced labour.[4]

Currently, one of Total Oil’s foreign partners in the project, the American oil giant, Unocal, is being sued by 14 villagers who had been living in the vicinity of the pipeline and suffered terrible abuses by the military regime in connection with the project’s construction and security. In September 2001, a US Federal Court judge stated that evidence suggested Unocal knew about and benefitted from forced labour on the pipeline.

Forced Labour in Burma: A Modern Form of Slavery

One of the most pervasive human rights violations in Burma is the military regime’s system of forced labour. Called a modern form of slavery, by the United Nations, International Labour Organization (ILO), forced labour is used on a multitude of construction projects in numerous industries, from repairing tourist sites to carrying artillery for the army during military offensives.

The ILO took the strongest action it has ever taken towards a member country, against Burma, due to the country’s forced labour situation. In November 2000, the ILO called on its members, which include Canada, to review their connections with Burma to ensure that they are not helping to perpetuate the system of forced labour there. Reports to the ILO state that it is impossible to carry out business in Burma without benefitting from or perpetuating the country’s distinct brand of slavery to which hundreds of thousands of its citizens are subjected each year.

Generally any person in Burma can be forced into hard labour at any time by military authorities, men, women, children, the elderly, the sick and pregnant women. Forced labour is often accompanied by beatings, rape, deprivation of food, rest, and medical care.

ILO Report on Forced Labour:

After 30 years of criticism by the ILO of forced labour in Burma, in 1997, a commission of inquiry was set up to discover the facts. In July 1998, they released their findings in a 392 page document distilled from nearly 10,000 pages of testimonies and eye witness reports.

A year after the report was published, the military had still not taken any measures to fulfil the report’s recommendations to address the widespread use of forced labour. Therefore, in an unprecedented move, the ILO banned Burma from future meetings and from any future support until the regime takes significant steps towards positive change.

Report Excerpts:

There is abundant evidence before the Commission showing the pervasive use of forced labour imposed on the civilian population of Myanmar by the authorities and the military for portering, construction, maintenance and servicing of military camps, other work in support of the military, work on agriculture, logging and other production projects undertaken by the authorities or the military, sometimes for the profit of private individuals, the construction and maintenance of roads, railways, and bridges, and other infrastructure work..

… it appears that unfettered powers of military and government officers to exact forced labour from the civilian population are taken for granted…the manifold exactions of forced labour often give rise to the extortion of money…also to threats to life and security, extrajudicial punishment, physical abuse, beatings, torture, rape and murder.

Forced labour in Myanmar is almost never remunerated or compensated, secret directives notwithstanding, but on the contrary often goes hand in hand with the exaction of money, food and other supplies from the civilian population.

All the information and evidence before the Commission shows utter disregard for the safety and health as well as the basic needs of the people performing forced or compulsory labour…

A state which supports, instigates, accepts or tolerates forced labour on its territory commits a wrongful act…Whatever may be the position in national law…any person who violates the prohibition of recourse to forced labour under the Convention is guilty of an international crime, that is also, if committed in a widespread or systematic manner, a crime against humanity.

The Commission considers…the establishment of a government freely chosen by the people and the submission of all public authorities to the rule of law are, in practice indispensable prerequisites for the suppression of forced labour in Myanmar.

This report reveals a saga of untold misery and suffering, oppression and exploitation of large sections of the population. The government, the military and the administration seem oblivious to the human rights of the people, their actions gravely offend human dignity and have a debasing effect on the civil society, where human rightsare denied or violated in any part of the world it is bound to have a chain effect on other parts of the world and it is therefore of vital interest to the international community.

Burma’s Illicit Drug Economy

Since the ascendance of the current military regime in 1988, Burma has become one of the world’s largest suppliers of heroin. The current military regime profits from, protects and supports Burma’s illicit drug industry.

The regime allows notorious Burmese drug lords, such as Khun Sa and Lo Hsing Han, to operate as legitimate businessmen in Burma. The South East Asian Information Network (SAIN) in a 1998 report, listed five army regiments with headquarters or outposts alongside heroin refineries. It reports that bulk heroin exports from the refinery at Paletwa in north-west Burma were carried by army helicopter into Bangladesh, there being no roads for transportation. Dr. Desmond Ball, an Australian researcher, identified in 1999 three infantry battalions that, between them were maintaining six heroin refineries along the drug routes in north-eastern Burma. He also identifies senior generals that were part owners of heroin refineries at the time of his research.

Money Laundering:

Desperate for foreign currency, the Burmese military regime has created legislation that helps launder the proceeds of drugs. In levying a 40 per cent tax rate on declared assets, the regime makes no inquiry into the source of the assets. Moreover, Burma’s military junta openly allows profits from the drug trade to be channeled through military-controlled companies such as banks and the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprises. As a result of this money laundering, illicit drug profits permeate Burma’s economy.

In such an environment, foreign companies have no way to ensure their operations in Burma are clean. A prime example of this problem was the case of Wal-Mart Canada, which was found in 2000 to be importing from a clothing company in Burma owned by the notorious drug lord Lo Hsing Han.

Burma Heroin in Canada:

Canadians are not immune from the scourge of Burma’s heroin trade. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police RCMP states that most of the heroin coming into Canada originates in Burma. Meanwhile, heroin has had devastating effects on people’s lives in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Therefore, Canadian companies which support Burma’s military regime through their business there, are inevitably and ironically contributing to social problems in Canada.

In 1997, Burma was responsible for about 60 per cent of the word’s supply of heroin. Production of raw opium exceeded 2500 tonnes, or more than double the yield in 1988 when the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), the forerunner of the SPDC took power. Opium poppy cultivation in Burma has also increased from some 92,300 hectares to more than 200,000 under the SPDC (Dr. Desmond Ball,”Burma and Drugs: The Regime’s Complicity in the global drug trade! ” in Asia-Pacific Magazine, No.14, 1999).

The regime has created legislation which helps launder the proceeds of drugs. The Burmese regime levies a 40 % tax rate on declared assets other than real property, but as long a! s the tax is paid, there is no inquiry into the source of the assets (US State Department, 1998). Also banks launder dubious money in exchange for a 25 % to 40% fee. In 1996, there was US $250 million of unexplained investment attracted by the scheme (The IMF and the UN Conference on Trade and Development in the Sunday Times [London] May 10, 1998).

Money laundering and the return of narcotic profits laundered elsewhere are very significant factors in the overall Burmeseeconomy and are officially sanctioned by the junta. The SPDC openly allows profits from the drug trade to be channeled into private and public enterprises through Burma’s national company, the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprises (MOGE) and the banks. (Leslie Kean and Dennis Bernstein, People of the Opiate in the Nation, Dec. 16, 1996).

A study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cites large expenditures unaccounted for by the junta: Despite the fact that Burma’s foreign exchange reserves from 1991-1993 were only approximately $300 million, the SLORC purchased arms worth $1.2 billion during the period (The Nation, Dec. 1996).!

A Unless there is a democratically elected civilian government that can win the support of all the Burmese people, including the ethnic minorities, progress on the drug front will be impossible. (Michael Jendrzejeczyk, Director of Human Rights Watch/Asia, the New York Times, Feb.12, 1993).

A major dimension of the corruption [of the military dictatorship in Burma] is the involvement of the regime – from the most senior members of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) which rules the country, down to infantry soldiers stationed in border areas – in drug trafficking. (Dr. Desmond Ball, Burma and Drugs: The Regime’s Complicity in the global drug trade in Asia-Pacific Magazine, No.14, 1999).

# The opium-heroin trade in Burma is a sophisticated, world-wide multi-billion dollar business which requires a large infrastructure, especially for refining, transporting and protecting the product, from Burma’s borders to its neighbouring countries. (Dr. Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe, The War on Drugs and Drug Policies; paper distributed at the International Conference on Drugs, 1996).

# US anti-drug assistance to the Burmese government has failed in the past, and in the last four years Burmese authorities have made no discernible effort to improve their performance…SLORC has been part of the problem, not the solution. (Robert S. Gelbard, former US assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law-enforcement affairs, Far Eastern Economic Review, Nov.21, 1996).

The United States: We are increasingly concerned that Burma’s drug traffickers, with official encouragement, are laundering their profits through Burmese banks and companies–some of which are joint ventures with foreign businesses.It is hard to imagine a lasting solution to this region’s narcotics problem without a lasting solution to Burma’s political crisis. (Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, Jul.1997).

Britain: Burma is the largest single world producer of opium, and it has achieved that infamous position precisely because it has a government that does not act against the drug barons. It is not only a deeply repressive regime, but is also a deeply irresponsible regime in that it is one of the few governments in the world whose members are prepared to profit out of the drugs trade rather than to seek to suppress it (Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary, South-China Morning Post, Sept.2,1998).

Thailand: Thai anti-narcotics officials have been quoted as saying that the Burmese military are actively supporting the United Wa State Army believed to be one of the main drug trafficking organizations in the Golden Triangle (The BBC, Jul 25,1999)

Burma’s Military-Controlled Economy

International investment may help open societies and bring democratic change in some countries. In Burma, however, foreign investment helps perpetuate the cruelty of a repressive unelected junta. While the majority of Burmese receive no benefit from foreign enterprise, foreign exchange allows the military to maintain its rule by force of arms.

The military regime’s own figures state that expenditure on defence since 1988 to the present had increased from 22.35 per cent to49.93 per cent. During the same period, spending on health-care and education had dropped from 4.71 per cent and 12.9 per cent to 2.53 and 6.98, respectively.

Full foreign ownership of companies operating in Burma is generally forbidden and almost all large investment in Burma is carried out through joint ventures with the military regime, notably the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings (UMEH). The UMEH is owned in part (40%) by the Defense Ministry’s Directorate of Procurement, whose main function is to import armaments. The other 60% of UMEH shares is reserved for active and retired military officers, army-owned business enterprises and friendship societies, including veteran groups.

Since the ascendance of the current military regime in 1988, Burma has become one of the world’s largest suppliers of heroin. This very fact is just one of the many examples that point to the regime’s profiting, protection and support of Burma’s illicit drug industry.

The regime allows notorious Burmese drug lords, such as Khun Sa and Lo Hsing Han, to operate as legitimate businessmen in Burma. The South East Asian Information Network (SAIN) in a 1998 report, listed five army regiments with headquarters or outposts alongside heroin refineries. It reports that bulk heroin exports from the refinery at Paletwa in north-west Burma were carried by army helicopter into Bangladesh, there being no roads for transportation. Dr. Desmond Ball, an Australian researcher, identified in 1999 three infantry battalions that, between them were maintaining six heroin refineries along the drug routes in north-eastern Burma. He also identifies senior generals that were part owners of heroin refineries at the time of his research.

Nobel Peace Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi and her democratically elected National League for Democracy have been calling for sanctions against their own country since it became obvious that foreign investment was only benefiting the military authorities and their allies. In a video smuggled out of Burma in August 1999, Aung San Suu Kyi stated that:

“We do not think that investment in our country at this time can do our country any good…Investment made at the right time in the right way could be of enormous benefit not only to the people of Burma but to thos who are investing in Burma. But that time has not yet come.”

Just as the South African anti-apartheid movement called for economic sanctions against their own country, Burma’s democracy movement is calling for an end to foreign financial support to the brutal military dictatorship.

The Situation of Women in Burma

Like all their fellow citizens, Burma’s women face the day-to-day struggle of life under military rule in Burma. But the country’s women also face particular problems and abuse on account of their gender. Apart from the general maltreatment and discrimination directed against women in their society, Burmese women and girls, especially in ethnic minority areas, are faced with the constant danger of being raped or trafficked into the sex industry.

Sexual Assault:

Women are subjected to rape and other sexual assaults in a variety of contexts; in their villages and fields; during flight; while they are serving as forced labourers or forced porters for the army; and under assorted pretexts in which soldiers abuse their authority and claim to be checking women’s documents. Women are raped by Burmese soldiers in their own homes, while they are internally displaced, and while they are on their way to seek refuge in neighbouring countries. These abuses have escalated over the past decade under because soldiers have become used to taking what they want under the current military regime which allows them to do so with impunity. (See School of Rape by Earthrights In! ternational, Convention for the Elimination of Violence Against Women Shadow Report)

Trafficking into Sex Industry:

The burgeoning sex industry in Burma and trafficking of Burmese women to Thailand and other countries also gives rise to enormous health difficulties, most notably HIV and AIDS. As well, Burmese sex workers (often coerced into the industry) in Burma, in Thailand, India and Bangladesh suffer from high rates of sexually transmitted disease and are often victims of beatings and other physical assaults.

An estimated 80,000 women from Burma are engaged in prostitution in Thailand. Along the Thai-Burma border, agents recruit women with false promises of providing them with employment or legal resident status in Thailand or force them into prostitution under threats to their lives. Many brothels are surrounded by electric fences and armed guards to avoid escape. They rarely have access to heath care or HIV education. Their rate of HIV infection is much higher than among Thai prostitutes.

Women’s Health:

Maternal motility rate in 1993 was 140 per 100,000 live births. In 1987, abortions accounted for 52 per cent of all registered maternal deaths. Though the practice is illegal in Burma, induced abortion is resorted to in the absence of knowledge and other means for family planning. Other causes of high material mortality are malaria, malnutrition,goiter, severe anemia, sexually transmitted diseases and the limited coverage of trained birth attendants in remote areas.

According to UNICEF, the national infant mortality rate in 1996 was 105 per live births, which can be compared to 33 in Vietnam, 31 in Thailand and 11 in Malaysia. One million children are reportedly malnourished. 9 to 12 percent of them severely so. The high rate of babies with birth weight below 2,300 grams is probably reflection of the high malnutrition levels among pregnant women. Under the current regime which took power in 1988, these figures have likely increased since health care has deteriorated significantly. Moreover, this data is not completely accurate because it does! not include information from Burma’s ethnic civil war areas, where health conditions are even worse, because UN agencies and international non-governmental organizations have limited access.

[1]Ivanhoe Mines, Aeroground Group Services, Cavern International Industries, East Asia Gold Corporation, First Dynasty Mines, International Bio-Recovery, Leeward Capital Corp, Marshall Macklin Monaghan, Northrock Resources, Prime Resources Management, Suzuki Canada

[2]This is because the ILO resolution responds to the Act=s allowance that a resolution from an international body, such as the United Nations, empowers such an action. AThe Governor in Council may, for the purpose of implementing a decision, resolution or recommendation of an international organization of states or association of states, o! f which Canada is a member, that calls on its members to take economic measures against a foreign state.

[3]Individual identities are not disclosed to protect their security

[4]ATotal Denial Continues@ by Earthrights International, 2000

Rhododendron News

VOL.IV No.IV JULY-AUGUST 2001

HUMAN RIGHTS

 

– A Female Pastor Sentenced For Two Years With Hard Labour In Haka

 

– A Village’s Dream To Solve Drinking Water Problems Ruined

 

– Cross-border Chin traders Robbed and Beaten up By Burmese Soldiers

 

– A Chin Farmer Badly Beaten Up

 

– Civilian in Southern Chinland forced to work at the Army Camp

 

REFUGEE

 

– Burma’s ethnic refugees in Indian border get no help

 

LETTER & PRESS RELEASE

 

– Press Release From Chin

 

– Urgent Action Called By Amnesty International

 

SCHOLAR SECTION

 

– Democracy Movement Towards Federal Union

 

– The Role of UNLD in the Struggle for Democracy and Federalism in Burma By Dr. Lian H. Sakhong (Ph.D. Uppsala University)

 

PREFACE

 

Dear Reader,

 

We are happy to inform you that with your supports, the financial assistance from National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society Institute, Associate to Develop Democracy in Burma, Inter Pares and the committed workers of Chin Human Rights Organization CHRO have made the Rhododendron fruitful. We received several letters and comments both criticism and praise about the work of CHRO and the Rhododendron in the past year. We treasure your comments, feedback, ideas and advice.

 

Despite the hostile environment and under the extremely dangerous situation, CHRO has been relentlessly documenting human rights situation sometimes with the ultimate sacrifice. In April 1998, one of our field monitors Mr. Michael Enzapau was shot dead while collecting human rights information from the villagers. Again, in June 200, another field worker, Mr. Zothang was caught by the Burmese army while interviewing victims of human rights violations and shot to dead on the spot along with two villagers.

 

Yet, because of the dedication and relentless efforts of the CHRO team, the Chin Human Rights Organization becomes one of the most reliable sources of human rights documentation organization that operate in Burma. CHRO is a contributor to the International Work Groups for Indigenous Peoples’ year book. Furthermore, both the 1999 and 2000 United States, Department of State Annual Report of International Religious Freedom, which designated Burma as Country of Particular Concern, based most of its findings on CHRO’ reports. CHRO was also one of the primary sources used by the United States, Department of State in its Annual Human Rights Report of 1999 and 2000. CHRO’s reports were also cited in the International Labour Organization ( ILO ) reports, which followed the imposition of punitive sanctions by the organization against Burma.

 

In its international campaign for promotion of human rights and democracy in Burma, CHRO is regularly attending the United Nations Human Rights Commission Sessions and the UN working Groups on Indigenous Peoples sessions in Geneva, where it deliberates issues of human rights and democratic concerns.

 

While human rights situations in Chinland have steadily deteriorated under the Burmese military junta, CHRO has played an important role in highlighting current human rights situation and advocating for the oppressed people of Chinland in the international arena. We believe that to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in the ongoing work of CHRO, it needs greater participation of the Chin people and those who support our cause from around the world who share common concern for the human rights of our people. Thank you.

 

Salai BawiLian Mang

 

Director

 

Chin Human Rights Organization

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

 

HUMAN RIGHTS

 

A Female Pastor Sentenced For Two Years With Hard Labour In Haka CHRO

 

Ottawa, July 10, 2001

 

The Chin Human Rights Organization CHRO received a report that a female pastor Ms. Gracy of Rinpi Baptist church from central Chinland was sentenced by Chin State court for two years with hard labour on 6 July 2001 in Haka, the capital of Chin State. Justice system in Burma is completely controlled by the ruling military junta.

 

Pastor Gracy was arrested by the Burmese soldiers on February 13 this year. She was accused of supporting the Chin National Front. Since her arrest, she has been detained in Haka army camp, where prison conditions are extremely severe, inadequate and precarious for a woman prisoner.

 

Pastor Gracy will soon be sent to Kalaywa hard labour camp in Sagaing division, where her brother Pu Hoi Mang is now serving two years prison term with hard labour.

 

In Chin State, the ruling military regime State Peace and Development Council ( SPDC ) publicly declared that Christian pastors are their number one enemy, accusing them of pro-colonialist white face.

 

About 90% of Chins are Christian and religious persecution is a major concern in Chin State. For the past two years, the United States Department of State designated Burma as country of particular concern violating religious freedom.

 

A Village’s Dream To Solve Drinking Water Problems Ruined

 

SPDC Soldiers Looted 23,500 Kyats from Aru villagers

 

Lieutenant Kyaw Kyaw Naing of Burmese army LIB ( 274 ) and his troops has looted 23,500 Kyats from 32 year-old Mr. Leitho ( name changed ) and friends at Aru village, Matupi township of Southern Chinland on 19th July 2001. Mr. Leitho said that there is no sufficient drinking water in Aru village. Thus, the villagers contributed money to buy water pipes to drain water from the near by stream. But the money they contributed was not still sufficient to buy the water pipe. The villagers then decided to buy cattle with the money they contributed and sell them to Mizoram hoping that they will be able to buy the water pipe with the proceeds.

 

In that way the villagers bought 4 mithuns and Mr. Leitho and friends were asked to sell the cattle to Mizoram State of India, which is 5-days journey on foot. On 17th July 2001, Mr. Leitho and friends were stopped on the way between Sabawngte and Sabawngpi village by Lt. Kyaw Kyaw Naing and his troops and demanded from them 20,000 Kyats. Athough Mr. Leitho and friends explained to the Lieutenant the whole situation that they are not mere traders and that they have no personal belongings but only that of the villagers’ contributions for buying water pipe for their village.

 

Ignoring their explanation, Lt. Kyaw Kyaw Naing sent all the cattles to Sabawngte army camp. He threatened them that if they refused to pay 20, 000 Kyats a ransom, he would arrest them and confiscate all the cattle. Intimidated, Mr. Leitho and his friends went back to Sabawngpi village. On 19th July 2001, Mr. Leitho and friends came back to Lt. Kyaw Kyaw Naing to pay 20, 000 Kyats. Then, Lt. Kyaw Kyaw Naing demanded again that besides 20, 000 kyats, Mr. Leitho and friends have to pay him a goat or 3, 500 Kyats to buy a goat. Lt. Kyaw Kyaw Naing said that he would seize all the cattle and arrest them all if they failed to meet his demands.

 

Thus, Mr. Leitho and friends paid another 23, 500 Kyats to Lt. Kyaw Kyaw Naing on 19th July 2001. Mr. Leitho said that their dreams of solving drinking water crisis in the village is ruined.

 

Cross-border Chin traders Robbed and Beaten up By Burmese Soldiers

 

On 6 June 2001, Mr. Pa Hmung ( Name changed ) from Tlangte village from Central Chinland and ten other traders left from Thantlang for Indian borders to sell 5 television sets and other goods to the northeastern State of Mizoram, India. As soon as they left the town, three Burmese soldiers with guns from Light Infantry Battalion LIB 269, Thantlang army camp stopped them. After that, one of the traders named Mr. Nawl Ceu, 56 year old, was punched and kicked by the three soldiers without saying anything. When other traders begged the soldiers to stop the beatings, the Burmese soldiers demanded 50, 000 Kyats from the traders. The soldiers threatened that all the goods will be confiscated if the traders refuse to pay their demand. Frightened, the traders paid 50, 000 Kyats to the soldiers.

 

Mr. Pa Hmung reported this incident to CHRO on 10th July, 2001. He said that even though he and his fellow traders do not know the name and ranks of the soldiers, they were sure that the soldiers were from LIB 269 Thantlang army camp.

 

A Chin Farmer Badly Beaten Up

 

A 26 year old Chin villager was hospitalized after being badly beaten up by Lt. Kyi Lin Htin, police commander of Hriphi police post. A farmer from Hriphi village, Thantlang township of central Chinland, Mr. Ral Bik was beaten for failure to guard the police camp on the night of June 3, 2001.

 

He was beaten with a thick wooden stick till he collapsed and blood started to spurt profusely from his mouth and ears. His condition was so critical that he had to be hospitalized at Thantlang town, 20 miles away from the village. Lt. Kyi Lin Htin, known for this ill-treatment of the villagers, routinely demand cillivians to guard the police camp every night. Even church leaders from various denominations and elderly people were forced to perform the night watch duty at the police camp. In additiion, the villagers were forced to contribute ration for the police camp.

 

Lt. Kyi Lin Htin had also badly beaten up other villagers for not being attentive during their night watch duty. Mr. Hmung Dun 40 year old was beaten up on the night of 24th June 2001. Mr. Hreng Cem, 20-year old was also beaten up on 19th June 2001. Mr. Ro Lian Ceu 20 year old was beaten up on the night of 29th June 2001.

 

Civilian in Southern Chinland forced to work at the Army Camp

 

CHRO received and confirmed the following information from Mr. Thang Cin, 55 year old farmer from Lungcawipi village, Matupi towship of Chin state. In the first week of June 2001 Lieutenant Kyaw Kyaw Naing of Light Infantry Battalion LIB 274 from Sabawngte army camp asked village headmen from Lungcawipi, Hlungmang, and Darling to attend a meeting on June 9 at Sabawngte army camp. He warned the villages headmen that any one who fail to attend the meeting will face revere punishment.

 

In the meeting, Lt. Kyaw Kyaw Naing issued an order for the villagers. The order includes 5 points that the villagers must obey without fail. To rebuild the fence of Sabawngte army camp. Villagers are not allowed to carry their gun outside of the village. Those who carry their gun outside of the village will be shot. To keep the record of visitors or guest from other villages. Villagers must obtain permission from the headman when they want to travel. Any guest who does not have permit from the headman shall report to the army camp.

 

Lt. Kyaw Kyaw Naing warned the villagers that if any villagers fail to comply the above order, the village must be burnt by the army. According to order number one, the villagers from Lungcawipi, Hlungmang, and Darling were forced to work from June 11, 2001. Villagers were forced to work from dawn to dark. Even though, the beginning of monsoon-the month of June- is the busiest time for villagers to work in their farm, they have to abandon their farm work and repair the fence of the army camp. The villagers have to bring their own food and tools to work at the army camp.

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

 

REFUGEE

 

Burma’s ethnic refugees in Indian border get no help

 

Kaki Village (Indo-Burma border), August 7, 2001

 

Mizzima News Group

 

A large number of Arakanese refugees who fled from Burmese military’s repressive measures have been living silently in the Indo-Burma border areas in Mizoram State of India without receiving assistance from outside world. Most of them came from Arakanese villages of Palatwa Township in western Burma and they have been scattering along the Mizoram-Burma border and Bangladesh-Mizoram-Burma border areas since 1988.

 

Without any assistance and not getting even awareness on their existence in these remote areas, the Arakanese refugees are facing enormous survival problems and many have died over the years due to lack of basic medicines and food.

 

There are at least five Arakanese “refugee” villages in Mizoram (such as Kaki, Laung Machu, Duduswara, Laungatoan, Hmawngbuchhuah) along the border areas with Burma and upto 400 families live in a village. While the State government has failed to recognize them as “refugees”, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Office in New Delhi does not cover its actions in this north eastern state of India.

 

Transport and communication even to the nearest Lawngtlai town in southern Mizoram is very difficult due to porous terrains. The lack of medicines, doctors and food has made many refugees die every year in winter and rainy seasons. The Arakanese are one of the ethnic nationalities of Burma and the refugees alleged that they were the victims of dictatorial and repressive actions of the Burmese military government, now known as State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). Many refugees recall their bitter experiences of forced labour, forced porter, forced tax-collection, rape and various arbitrary abuses of the Burmese soldiers in their native villages in Arakan State.

 

“We fled our villages when we could no longer bear the repression of the Burmese army. But, since we arrived this area (refugee village), we have been facing several problems. We do not have proper shelter and work to survive. We don’t have any land to farm “, said a refugee who left his village (Poan Nyinn Wa village) in Arakan border in 1989.

 

According to him, despite the International Labor Organization’s pressure on the Burmese regime to end the use of forced labor in the country, the Burmese army continues to practice forced labor in a large scale in remote villages in northern Arakan State.

 

Although they yearn for going back to their homes in Burma, they said they couldn’t do so as the human rights abuses of the Burmese army continue unabated inside the country. Burmese government last year reportedly asked these refugees to come back but the refugees are not willing until their life is guaranteed in Burma.

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

 

LETTERS & PRESS RELEASES

 

Statement regarding the imposition of harsh sentence on Pastor Gracy in Chin State, Burma

 

Date: July 19, 2001

 

For Immediate release

 

We, the undersigned Chin women residing in various parts of the world, are deeply shocked and disturbed by yet another arrest, imprisonment and unjustified sentencing of Ms. Grace, a woman Pastor of Rinpi Baptist Church, Chin State, to two years imprisonment with hard labor by the Burmese military junta, the State Peace and Development Council.

 

27 year-old Ms Grace was arrested on February 13, 2001 by the Burmese army on unjustifiable allegations that she simpathized and supported members of the Chin National Front. For months, she was detained in Haka army camp, where there is no adequate and separate prison facilities for women. Reports say that Pastor Gracy had been sent to Kalewa Hard Labor Camp on July 17,2001 where she will serve her two-year sentence with hard labor.

 

We are deeply concerned about the fate of Pastor Gracy in prison. We vehemently condemn and deplore this atrocious and inhuman sentence imposed on her. The arrest of Pastor Gracy is a sheer intent of the Burmese military to target Christian leader for false accusations to discourage Chin Christians from freely practicing their faith.

 

The verdict to convict Pastor Gracy of two-year rigorous imprisonment has been reached by a highly non-independent court, which acts at the helm of the Burmese junta. The denial of Pastor Gracy of her right to a fair and impartial trial, and of her civil rights constitute gross violations under Burma’s international human rights obligations particularly, Convention on Elimination of All kinds of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which it ratified. We express our solidarity with Pastor Gracy and other Chin women who are victims of violations and suppression by the Burmese military junta.

 

We urge the Burmese military junta, State Peace and Development Council:

 

To immediately and unconditionally release Pastor Gracy

 

To respect human rights of Chin women

 

To stop committing atrocities against Chin women

 

To stop persecuting Chin Christians

 

Undersign Women groups:

 

1. Women Department ( Chin Human Rights Organization )

 

2. Chin Women Organization ( CWO, New Delhi, India )

 

3. Women Department ( Chin Baptist Mission Church, Washington D C, USA)

 

4. Women Department ( Dallas Chin Baptist Church, Texas, USA)

 

5. Women Department ( Chin Community Church, Indianapolis, USA)

 

6. Women Department ( Chin Christian Fellowship, New Delhi, India)

 

7. Chin Women Group ( Sweden )

 

8. Chin Women Group ( Australia )

 

9. Chin Women Group ( Ottawa Chin Christian Fellowship, Canada )

 

Urgent Action Called By Amnesty International

 

PUBLIC AI Index: ASA 16/020/2001

 

UA 187/01 Fear of torture or ill-treatment / health concern 26 July 2001

 

MYANMAR Pastor Gracy [f], aged 27

 

Pastor Gracy, a 27-year-old political prisoner who is reportedly in poor health, has been transferred to a hard labour camp where conditions are particularly severe. Amnesty International is concerned for her safety and wellbeing.

 

On 18 July Pastor Gracy was transferred to Mawlaik-Kalay Akyin Htawng labour camp near Kalaymyo in Sagaing Division, where conditions are said to be extremely harsh. Pastor Gracy, who is a member of the Chin ethnic minority, had been sentenced to two years’ hard labour on 6 July by a court in Haka, the capital of the Chin State. She was found guilty of having provided accommodation to the Chin National Front (CNF), a Chin armed opposition group fighting the central Myanmar government. Amnesty International is concerned that she did not receive a fair trial.

 

Pastor Gracy was initially arrested on 13 February. She had been detained at Haka army camp, where there are believed to be no separate facilities for women. In May, she was reported to be in poor health.

 

Pastor Gracy, who studied theology at the Chin Christian College in Haka, is the minister of Rinpi Baptist Church in central Chin State. Ninety percent of the Chin people, who inhabit the Chin State and neighbouring Sagaing Division in the far west of Myanmar, are Christian. They are frequently persecuted by the mostly Buddhist, ethnic Burman authorities. Chin pastors have reportedly been arrested, crosses and churches destroyed, and Christian civilians subjected to forced labour.

 

Pastor Gracy’s elder brother Pu Hoi Mang was sentenced to two years’ hard labour last year for supporting the CNF. He is also serving his sentence at Mawlaik-Kalay prison camp. He and pastor Gracy are the only known political prisoners to be held in hard labour camps.

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

 

There are dozens of prison labour camps in Myanmar, where the vast majority of labourers are convicted criminals. Conditions vary considerably, but some camps are particularly severe, and scores of prisoners are known to have died of treatable diseases such as malaria. Forced labour duties in prison camps include breaking rocks in quarries and building roads.

 

Some ethnic minority armed opposition groups, including the CNF, continue to fight against the central authorities of Myanmar, although the government states that 17 cease-fires have been agreed with such groups. In areas where the Myanmar army carries out counter-insurgency activity, including Chin state, civilians are sometimes extrajudicially executed, forcibly relocated or used as forced labour.

 

In October 2000 the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC, Myanmar’s military government) and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) embarked on confidential talks after several years of increasing confrontation between the government and the opposition.

 

Trials of political prisoners in Myanmar do not meet international standards for fair trial procedures. In 2001 over 150 political prisoners have been released, but hundreds of others remain imprisoned. Prison conditions are harsh, and the lack of sanitation, adequate medical care, food or water continue to be ongoing concerns. In the last two weeks two political prisoners have reportedly died in custody.

 

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in English or your own language

 

-urging the authorities to ensure that Pastor Gracy is not tortured, ill-treated or subjected to forced labour;

 

– calling for her to be granted access to proper medical care, lawyers, and her family;

 

– asking the authorities for further information about the charges brought against her, including the legislation used to sentence her;

 

-asking the authorities for further information about her trial, including whether she had proper access to legal counsel and whether she was allowed adequate time and resources to prepare a defence.

 

APPEALS TO:

 

Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt, Secretary 1 State Peace and Development Council

 

c/o Director of Defense Services Intelligence (DDSI)

 

Ministry of Defense, Signal Pagoda Road

 

Dagon Post Office

 

Yangon

 

Union of Myanmar

 

Telegrams: General Khin Nyunt, Yangon, Myanmar

 

Telexes: 21316

 

Faxes: + 95 1 222 950

 

Salutation: Your Excellency

 

Colonel Hla Min

 

Office of Strategic Studies

 

Department of International Affairs

 

c/o Ministry of Defense, Signal Pagoda Road

 

Dagon Post Office

 

Yangon

 

Union of Myanmar

 

Telegrams: Colonel Hla Min, Yangon, Myanmar

 

Telexes: 21316

 

Faxes: + 95 1 222 950

 

Salutation: Dear Colonel

 

COPIES to diplomatic representatives of MYANMAR accredited to your country. PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY. Check with the International Secretariat or your section office, if sending appeals after 6 September 2001

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

 

SCHOLAR SECTION

 

DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT TOWARDS FEDERAL UNION:

 

The Role of UNLD in the Struggle for Democracy and Federalism in Burma By Dr. Lian H. Sakhong̈ Ph.D. Uppsala University Introduction The United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD), an umbrella political organization of non-Burman or non-Myanmar nationalities in Burma, was formed in 1988 following the nationwide democracy movement against three decades of General Ne Win’s dictatorship. From the very beginning, the UNLD adopted a policy aimed at the establishment of a genuine federal union based on democratic rights for all citizens, political equality for all nationalities and the rights of self-determination for all member states of the Union. It openly declared that democracy without federalism would not solve the political crisis in Burma, including the civil war, which had already been fought, for four decades. Thus for the UNLD, the ultimate goal of the democratic movement in present Burma is not only to restore democratic government but to establish a genuine federal union. In other words, the UNLD views the root of political crisis in Burma today as a constitutional problem ra! ther than a purely ideological confrontation between democracy and dictatorship.

 

In this paper, I shall explore the role of the UNLD in the on-going struggle for democracy and federalism in Burma. In doing this, attention will be given to the basic principles of federalism and democratic decentralization, which of course is the goal of the movement and the aim of the UNLD. However, instead of presenting a theoretical paper on the basic principles of federalism, I shall focus my attention to the quest for federalism within the historical framework of “religious and ethnic conflicts”, so-called, in modern Burma. In this way, I shall argue that the democracy movement in Burma since the military coup d’état in 1962 is the continuation of the “federal movement” during the parliamentary democratic period in the 1950s and early 1960s. The central argument in this paper therefore will run through the military coup in 1962 as “the culmination of political process” stemming from the political crisis during the parliamentary democratic perio! d. I shall then try to point out how and why we can view the role of UNLD in present struggle as the continuation of the Supreme Council of the United Hills Peoples (SCOUHP), which played a leading role in federal movement during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Another way of putting it is to say that what the UNLD is trying to achieve at present is what the SCOUHP attempted even before the military coup in 1962. But because the federal movement led by the SCOUHP was abruptly interrupted by the military coup in 1962, the struggle for democracy and federalism needs to be continued today.

 

Background History

 

The Union of Burma is a nation-state of diverse ethnic nations (ethnic nationalities or nationalities), founded in 1947 at the Panglong Conference by pre-colonial independent ethnic nationalities such as the Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon, Rakhine (Arakan), Myanmar (Burman), and Shan , based on the principle of equality. As it was founded by formerly independent peoples in 1947 through an agreement, the boundaries of the Union of Burma today are not historical. Rather, the Union of Burma, or Burma in its current form, was born of the historic Panglong Agreement signed in 1947.

 

In order to understand the complex background of religious and ethnic diversity in Burma, one might firstly note that there is an age-old identification of Burman/Myanmar ethnicity and Buddhism, which has been the dominant ideological and political force in what is today called the Union of Burma or Myanmar. Secondly, there are other ethnic nations or nationalities such as the Mon, Rakhine (Arakan), and Shan, who are Buddhists, but feel dominated by the Burman/Myanmar majority. Thirdly, there are ethnic nationalities who are predominantly Christians within a Baptist tradition. The most prominent Christian groups are the Chin, Kachin and Karen. They — like the Mon and the Shan — form ethnic communities which transcend the boundaries of the modern nation-states of Burma, Bangladesh, India, China, and Thailand. The present state of relations between majority Burman/Myanmar Buddhists and minority Christian ethnic groups must be understood against the backgroun! d of colonial history.

 

The British annexed “Burma Proper”, i.e., the Burman or Myanmar Kingdom, in three Anglo-Burmese wars fought in 1824-26, 1852 and 1885. As a result, the British took over Burma Proper in three stages: the Rakhine (Arakan) and Tenasserim coastal provinces in 1826, Lower Burma (previously Mon Kingdom) including Rangoon — the present capital of Burma — in 1852, and Upper Burma including Mandalay, the last capital of the Burman Kingdom in 1885. When the last King of Burma, Thibaw, was deposed and exiled to India, the possessions of the Burman Kingdom — including semi-independent tributaries of the Burman king, such as the Arakan and the Mon — were transferred to the British. However, this arrangement did not include the Chin, Kachin, Shan and Karenni, who were completely independent peoples, and had never been conquered by the Burman King. Thus, the British separately conquered or “pacified” them during a different period of time. The Chin people, for instanc! e, were “pacified” only ten years after the fall of Mandalay, and their land Chinram, or Chinland, was not declared a part of British India until 1896.

 

During the colonial period, the British applied two different administrative systems: “direct rule” and “indirect rule”. The first was applied to the peoples and areas they conquered together with the Burman Kingdom, i.e., “Burma Proper”. “Indirect rule”, on the other hand, was applied to the peoples who were “pacified” or added by treaty (the Shan principalities, for example) to the British empire after the annexation of the Burman kingdom. Under the British policy of “indirect rule”, the traditional princes and local chiefs of the Chin, Kachin and the Shan were allowed to retain a certain level of administrative and judiciary powers within their respective territories.

 

In 1937, when the Burma Act of 1935 was officially implemented, Burma Proper was separated from British India and given a Governor of its own. The 1935 Act also created a government structure for Burma Proper, with a Prime Minister and cabinet. The Legislative Council for Burma Proper was also created, although essential power remained firmly in the hands of the British Governor and Westminster. From that time on, Burma Proper was commonly known as “Ministerial Burma”. In contrast to this, the term “Excluded Areas” was used to denote the Chin, Kachin and Shan States (Federated Shan States), which were not only subject to “indirect rule”, but also excluded from the Legislative Council of Ministerial Burma. The term “Excluded Areas”, however, was superseded by the term “Frontier Areas” when the British government created a “Frontier Area Administration” soon after the Second World War.

 

The Second World War and the Japanese invasion of Burma brought British rule to an abrupt end. Accompanied and helped by the Burma Independence Army (BIA) led by General Aung San (later, U Aung San, upon leaving the armed services), the Japanese easily eliminated the British and captured Rangoon. In May 1942, the Governor of Burma fled to Simla, India, and established the British Burma government in exile there. Having successfully driven the British into India, the Japanese occupied Burma Proper and set up a military administration along their lines of advance.

 

When the BIA were allowed by the Japanese to be stationed in the Irrawady delta where the majority of the population were Karen, who were loyal to the British, communal violence erupted between the Karen and the Burman. The Japanese ended the bloodbath but only after more than 1,000 Karen civilians lost their lives. Because of that event, a full-scale war broke out between the Karen and the newly independent Burmese government in 1949. This ethnic conflict was the beginning of civil war in modern Burma, in which hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost over more than five decades and which is still in progress. As will be explained, only in the case of the Karen, can the term “ethnic conflict” be applied, but not, for example, the Chin, Kachin, Shan, etc..

 

After expelling the Japanese, the British returned to Burma in the spring of 1945. They outlined their long-term plan for the future of Burma in the form of a White Paper. This plan provided for a three-year period of direct rule under the British Governor, during which economic rehabilitation from the ravages of war was to be undertaken. Next, the Legislative Council of Ministerial Burma would be restored in accordance with the 1935 Burma Act. Only after the elections had been held under this Act would the legislature be invited to frame a new constitution “which would eventually provide the basis on which Burma would be granted dominion status.” For the Frontier Areas, the White Paper provided a means of maintaining the pre-war status quo. The Karenni (Kayah) State was still bound by the pre-colonial treaty as an independent nation. Since the Chinram, the Kachin State and the Federated Shan States were excluded from the administration of Burma Proper, they would, according to the White Paper, have “a special regime under the Governor”. When Stevenson became the Director of the Frontier Areas Administration, he even promoted plans to create a “United Frontier Union” for the Chin, Kachin, Karen, Shan and other non-Burman nationalities. However, the plans did not come to fruition as the British Conservative Party of Prime Minister Winston Churchill, lost the general election in 1945.

 

In the early stage of the post-war period, the British strongly highlighted the rights and interests of the Chin, Kachin, Karen and other non-Burman nationalities from the Frontier Areas who had loyally defended the British Empire during the war. But when the Labour Government came to power, Britain reversed its policy, and Burma’s political agenda became largely a matter of bilateral negotiation between the British Labor government and U Aung San’s AFPFL (Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League). Thus, in December 1946, the Labor government invited only U Aung San, the undisputed leader of the Burmese nationalist movement. The delegation, which did not include a single representative from the Frontier Areas, went to London to discuss “the steps that would be necessary to constitute Burma a sovereign independent nation.” Since Attlee’s Labour Government had already prepared to grant Burma’s independence either within or without the Commonwealth, the London talk! s were largely a formality, at most putting into more concrete form the principles to which they had already agreed. It might be said — as Churchill stated in parliament — the people of the Frontier Area were abandoned by the British and left to salvage what they could of their former independent status with U Aung San and the AFPFL.

 

The Question of Non-Burman Nationalities

 

At the London Talks in December 1946, the Burman delegates demanded that “the amalgamation of the Frontier Areas and Ministerial Burma should take place at once, and that the Governor’s responsibility for the Frontier Areas should end.” As noted already, the London Talks was bilateral negotiation between the British Labor government and Aung San’s AFPFL without a single representative from non-Burman nationalities. Although there were at least three Karen members in the Constituent Assembly of the Interim Burmese government, none of them were included in the London Talks. Instead, Aung San included several councilors, civil servants and politicians in the delegation. He even included his main rival politicians such as U Saw and Ba Sein.

 

On the demand of amalgamation of Frontier Areas with the Ministerial Burma, the British countered the AFPFL’s demand with the following position: The HMG for their part are bound by solemn undertakings to the people of those Areas to regard their wishes in this matter, and they have deep obligations to those peoples for the help that they gave during the war. According to the information available to HMG the Frontier Areas are not yet ready or willing to amalgamate with Burma Proper.

 

During the talk, Attlee received a cable from the Shan Sawbwa (princes), through the Frontier Areas Administration and the Governor, stating that Aung San and his delegation did not represent the Shan and the Frontier Areas. Stevenson, Director of Frontier Areas Administration, also cabled to London, saying that, We understand that the Hon’ble U Aung San and the Burman Mission visiting London will seek the control of FA. If this is the case we wish to state emphatically that neither the Hon’ble Aung San nor his colleagues has any mandate to speak on behalf of FA.

 

In short, Aung San and his delegation had no right to discuss the future of the Frontier Areas. Indeed, it might rightly be said that Aung San and his delegation neither represented nor had the right to discuss the future of the peoples of the Frontier Areas, especially the Chin, Kachin, and Shan because they were independent peoples before the colonial period and were conquered separately by the British, and they were not part of Ministerial Burma (Burma Proper). Aung San could therefore legitimately represent only Burma Proper, or the Ministerial Burma, which belonged to an old Burman or Myanmar kingdom before colonial period. In the pre-colonial period, no Burman or Myanmar King had ever conquered, for instance, the Chin people and their land, Chinram. That was the reason the British had applied two different administrative systems. Thus, when Burma and India were to be given independence by the British, the Chinram was not to be handed over to either India or Burma since it was not annexed by the British as a part of either country. They had the fu! ll right to be a sovereign independent state by themselves when the British withdrew its imperial administration from British India and Burma. In a nutshell, Aung San did not and could not represent the Chin and/or other nationalities from the Frontier Areas without any mandate from the peoples themselves.

 

During this critical period, U Aung San showed not only his honesty but also his ability for great leadership, which eventually won the trust of the non-Burman nationalities. He acknowledged the fact that the non-Burman nationalities from the Frontier Areas had the right to regain their freedom, independence, and sovereign status because they were not the subjects of the pre-colonial Burman or Myanmar Kingdom. Thus, they had the very right of self-determination: to decide on their own whether they would like to gain independence directly from Great Britain, and to found their own sovereign nation-states, or to jointly obtain independence with Burma, or even to remain as Provinces of the Commonwealth of Great Britain. Aung San reassessed his position and bravely and wisely put his signature to the historic agreement, the Aung San-Attlee Agreement, signed on January 27,1947. This historic agreement spelled out the position of the Frontier Areas vis-B-vis indep! endence that was to be granted Ministerial Burma, as below:

 

8. Frontier Areas:

 

( b ) The leaders and the representatives of the peoples of the Frontier Areas shall be asked, either at the Panglong Conference to be held at the beginning of next month or at a special conference to be convened for the purpose of expressing their views upon the form of association with the government of Burma which they consider acceptable during the transition period . . .

 

( c ) After the Panglong Conference, or the special conference, His Majesty’s government and the government of Burma will agree upon the best method of advancing their common aims in accordance with the expressed views of the peoples of the Frontier Areas.

 

However, on that particular issue of non-Burman nationalities, two members of the Burman delegation refused to sign the Aung San-Attlee Agreement. One was U Saw, the former Prime Minister, and the other was Thakin Ba Sein, who had shared with Thakin Tun Ok the leadership of the minority faction of Dobama Asi-Azone after it split earlier (in 1938). In their view, the clause concerning the Frontier Area in the Agreement carried an implicit threat of “dividing Burma into two parts.” Thus, they not only ignored the history of non-Burman nationalities such as the Chin, Kachin and Shan, but also the will of the people from the Frontier Areas. Upon their return to Rangoon, U Saw and Thakin Ba Sein joined Ba Maw and Paw Tun, another former Prime Minister, formed the National Opposition Front, and accused Aung San of having sold out for the sake of holding office. U Aung San, however, was not unduly troubled by the accusations of his political opponents and plunged straight into negotiation with pre-colonial independent nationalities such as the Chin, Kachin and Shan. As mentioned above, the Aung San-Attlee Agreement had left the future of the Frontier Areas to the decision of its people.

 

Jointly gaining Independence with Burma After having successfully negotiated with the British, U Aung San turned his attention to the non-Burman nationalities and persuaded them to jointly obtain independence with Burma. He promised the frontier peoples separate status with full autonomy within the Burma Union, active participation at the centre within a Senate-like body, protection of minority rights, and the right of secession. He also promised to make the agreed terms into law as guarantee of their right for the future, and told them they need have no fear of the Burman. The negotiations between Aung San, as the sole representative of the interim Burmese government, and the Chin, Kachin and Shan, were held at the Panglong Conference in February 1947.

 

U Aung San successfully persuaded the Chin, Kachin, and Shan to join Independent Burma as equal, co-independent partners, and the historic Panglong Agreement was thus signed on February 12, 1947. The essence of the Panglong Agreement – the Panglong Spirit — was that the Chin, Kachin, and Shan did not surrender their rights of self-determination and sovereignty to the Burman. They signed the Panglong Agreement as a means to speed up their own search for freedom together with the Burman and other nationalities in what became the Union of Burma. Thus, the preamble of the Panglong Agreement declares: Believing that freedom will be more speedily achieved by the Shans, the Kachins, and the Chins by their immediate co-operation with the interim Burmese government.

 

The Panglong Agreement therefore represented a joint vision of the future of the pre-colonial independent peoples — namely the Chin, Kachin, Shan and the interim Burmese government led by Chief Minister Aung San, who came into power in August 1946 according to the Burma Act of 1935. The interim Burmese government was a government for the region formerly known as Burma Proper or Ministerial Burma, which included such non-Burman nationalities as the Mon, Rakhine (Arakan), and Karen. The Arakan and Mon were included because they were occupied by the British not as independent peoples but as the subjects of the kingdom of Burman or Myanmar. The Karens were included in the Legislative Council of Ministerial Burma according to the 1935 Burma Act because the majority of the Karens (more than two-thirds of the population) were living in delta areas side by side with the Burmans. Since these peoples were included in the Legislative Council of Ministerial Burma, U Au! ng San could represent them in Panglong as the head of their government. Thus, the Panglong Agreement should be viewed as an agreement to found a new sovereign, independent nation-state between peoples from pre-colonial independent nations of what they then called Frontier Areas and Burma Proper, who in principle had the right to regain their independence directly from Great Britain, and to form their own respective nation-states. In other words, the Panglong Agreement was an agreement signed between the peoples of a post-colonial nation-state-to-be. Ever since the Union of Burma gained independence in 1948, the date the Panglong Agreement was signed has been celebrated as Union Day. The observance of February12th as Union Day means the mutual recognition of the Chin, Kachin, Shan and other nationalities, including the Burmans, as “different people historically and traditionally due to their differences in their languages as well as their cultural life”. It is also the recognition of the distinct national identity of the Chin, Kachin, Shan, and other nationalities who had the right to gain their own independence separately and to found their own nation-state separately. In other words, it is the recognition of pre-colonial independent status of the Chin, Kachin, and Shan, and other nationalities as well as their post-colonial status of nation-state-to-be.

 

Condition Underpinning the Creation of the Union of Burma

 

According to the Aung San-Attlee Agreement, the Frontier Areas Committee of Enquiry (FACE) was formed to inquire through an additional and specific consultation about the wishes of the frontier peoples. The British government appointed Col. D. R. Rees-William as Chairman of the FACE. Since the committee conducted its inquiry after the signing of the Panglong Agreement during March and April 1947, the evidence they heard was generally in favour of cooperation with Burma but under the condition of:

 

Equal rights with Burman,

 

Full internal autonomy for Hill Areas [ that is, ethnic national states] , and The right of secession from Burma at any time.

 

The FACE finally concluded its report to the Government that the majority of witnesses who supported cooperation with Burma demanded the “right of secession by the States at any time”.

 

The FACE report, particularly the right of secession, was strongly criticized by such Burman nationalists as U Saw and Thakhin Ba Sein who had earlier refused to sign the Aung San-Attlee Agreement. They accused Aung San of having given up Burman territory and argued that the Frontier Areas were just the creation of the colonial policy of “divide and rule”. U Aung San dismissed this criticism as historically unfounded and politically unwise. And he said, “The right of secession must be given, but it is our duty to work and show (our sincerity) so that they don’t wish to leave.” And in keeping with his promise to the Chin, Kachin and Shan leaders at the Panglong Conference to make agreed term into law, the right of secession was provided for in the 1947 Union Constitution of Burma, Chapter X, Article 201, and 202:

 

Chapter (X): The Right of Secession

 

201. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Constitution or in any Act of Parliament made under section 199, every state shall have the right to secede from the Union in accordance with the condition hereinafter prescribed. 202. The right of secession shall not be exercised within ten years from the date on which this Constitution comes into operation.

 

Although the “right of secession” was put into law in the Union Constitution, Burma did not become a genuine federal union.

 

The End of Aung San’s Policies of Pluralism and Federalism

 

At the Panglong Conference in 1947, the Chin, Kachin, Shan and other non-Burman nationalities were promised, as Silverstein observes, the right to exercise political authority of [ administrative, judiciary, and legislative powers in their own autonomous national states] and to preserve and protect their language, culture, and religion in exchange for voluntarily joining the Burman in forming a political union and giving their loyalty to a new state. Unfortunately, U Aung San, who persuaded the Chin, Kachin, Shan and other non-Burman nationalities to join Independent Burma as equal partners, was assassinated by U Saw on July 19, 1947. He was succeeded by U Nu as leader of the AFPFL. When U Nu became the leader of the AFPFL, Burman politics shifted in a retro-historical direction, backward toward the Old Kingdom of Myanmar or Burman. The new backward-looking policies did nothing to accommodate non-Myanmar/Burman nationalities who had agreed to join Independent Burma only for the sake of “speeding up freedom”.

 

As a leader of the AFPFL, the first thing U Nu did was to give an order to U Chan Htun to re-draft U Aung San’s version of the Union Constitution, which had already been approved by the AFPFL Convention in May 1947. U Chan Htun’s version of the Union Constitution was promulgated by the Constituent Assembly of the interim government of Burma in September 1947. Thus, the fate of the country and the people, especially the fate of the non-Burman/Myanmar nationalities, changed dramatically between July and September 1947. As a consequence, Burma did not become a genuine federal union, as U Chan Htun himself admitted to historian Hugh Tinker. He said, “Our country, though in theory federal, is in practice unitary.”

 

On the policy of religion, U Nu also reversed U Aung San’s policy after the latter was assassinated. Although Aung San, the hero of independence and the founder of the Union of Burma, had opted for a “secular state” with a strong emphasis on “pluralism” and the “policy of unity in diversity” in which all different religious and racial groups in the Union could live together peacefully and harmoniously, U Nu opted for a more confessional and exclusive policy on religion. The revision of Aung San’s version of the Union Constitution thus proved to be the end of his policy for a secular state and pluralism in Burma, which eventually led to the promulgation of Buddhism as the state religion of the Union of Burma in 1961.

 

For the Chin and other non-Burman nationalities, the promulgation of Buddhism as the “state religion of the Union of Burma” in 1961 was the greatest violation of the Panglong Agreement in which U Aung San and the leaders of the non-Burman nationalities agreed to form a Union based on the principle of equality. They therefore viewed the passage of the state religion bill not only as religious issue, but also as a constitutional problem, in that this had been allowed to happen. In other words, they now viewed the Union Constitution as an instrument for imposing “a tyranny of majority”, not as their protector. Thus, the promulgation of Buddhism as the state religion of Burma became not a pious deed, but a symbol of the tyranny of the majority under the semi-unitary system of the Union Constitution.

 

There were two different kinds of reactions to the state religion reform from different non-Burman nationalities. The first reaction came from more radical groups who opted for an armed rebellion against the central government in order to gain their political autonomy and self-determination. The most serious armed rebellion as a direct result of the adoption of Buddhism as state religion was that of the Kachin Independence Army, which emerged soon after the state religion of Buddhism was promulgated in 1961. The “Christian Kachin”, as Graver observes, “saw the proposal for Buddhism to be the state religion as further evidence of the Burmanization [Myanmarization] of the country,” which they had to prevent by any means, including an armed rebellion. The Chin rebellion, led by Hrang Nawl, was also related to the promulgation of Buddhism as the state religion, but the uprising was delayed until 1964 owing to tactical problems. Thus, the Chin rebellion wa! s mostly seen as the result of the 1962 military coup, rather than the result of the promulgation of Buddhism as the state religion in 1961.

 

The second reaction came from more moderate groups, who opted for constitutional means of solving their problems, rather than an armed rebellion. The most outstanding leader among these moderate groups was Sao Shwe Thaike of Yawnghwe, a prominent Shan Sawbwa who was elected as the first President of the Union of Burma. Although a devout Buddhist, he strongly opposed the state religion bill because he saw it as a violation of the Panglong Agreement. As a president of the Supreme Council of United Hills People (SCOUHP), formed during the Panglong Conference, he invited leaders of not only the Chin, Kachin and Shan, the original members of the SCOUHP, but also other non-Burman nationalities — the Karen, Kayah, Mon, and Rakhine (Arakan) — to Taunggyi, the capital of Shan State, to discuss constitutional problems. Unfortunately, these problems still remain unsolved. The conference was attended by 226 delegates and came to be known as the 1961 Taunggyi Conferenc! e, and the movement itself was known later as the Federal Movement.

 

The Federal Movement in 1961-62

 

At the Taunggyi Conference, all delegates, except three who belonged to U Nu’s party, agreed to amend the Union Constitution based on Aung San’s draft, which the AFPFL convention had approved in May 1947, as noted already. At the AFPFL convention, U Aung San asked, “Now when we build our new Burma shall we build it as a Union or as Unitary State?…. “In my opinion”, he answered, “it will not be feasible to set up a Unitary State. We must set up a Union with properly regulated provisions to safeguard the right of the national minorities.” According to U Aung San’s version of the constitution, the Union would be composed of National States, or what he called “Union States” such as the Chin, Kachin, Shan and Burman States and other National States such as Karen, Karenni (Kayah), Mon and Rakhine (Arakan) States. “The original idea”, as Dr. Maung Maung observes, “was that the Union States should have their own separate constitutions, their own organs! of state, viz. Parliament, Government and Judiciary.”

 

U Chan Htun had reversed all these principles of the Federal Union after Aung San was assassinated. According to U Chan Htun’s version of the Union Constitution, the Burma Proper or the ethnic Burman/ Myanmar did not form their own separate National State; instead they combined the power of Burman/Myanmar National State with the whole sovereign authority of the Union of Burma. Thus, while one ethnic group, the Burman/ Myanmar, controlled the sovereign power of the Union, that is, legislative, judiciary, and administrative powers of the Union of Burma; the rest of the ethnic nationalities who formed their own respective National States became almost like the “vassal states” of the ethnic Burman or Myanmar. This constitutional arrangement was totally unacceptable to the Chin, Kachin, Shan who signed the Panglong Agreement on the principle of equality, and also for other nationalities.

 

They therefore demanded at the 1961 Taunggyi Conference the amendment of the Union Constitution and the formation a genuine Federal Union composed of National States, with the full rights of political autonomy, i.e., legislative, judiciary and administrative powers within their own National States, and self-determination including the right of secession. They also demanded separation between the political power of the Burman/Myanmar National State and the sovereign power of the Union, i.e., the creation of a Burman or Myanmar National State within the Union.

 

The second point they wanted to amend on the Union Constitution was the structure of Chamber of Nationalities. The original idea of the creation of the Chamber of Nationalities was that it was not only to the safeguard of the rights of non-Burman nationalities but also for the symbolic and real equality, envisaged at the Panglong Conference. Thus, what they wanted was that each National State should have the right to send equal representatives to the Chamber of Nationalities, no matter how big or small their National State might

 

 

Rhododendron News

VOL.IV No.IV MAY-JUNE 2001

Contents

 

Human Rights:

 

Interview with an excaped prisoner from Sayasan Hard Labor Camp

 

Inter View with a Chin NGO Worker

 

Refugees:

 

A Cry Unheard

 

Letter & Press Release:

 

No Shelter for Chin Refugees In Malaysia

 

Chin Students and Youth Organization’s Letter to UNHCR Office, Kuala Lumpur

 

Congressman Underwood Secures HHS Refugee Aid For Myanmar Nationals in Guam

 

CHRO’ Oral Intervention on 57th Session UNCHR

 

Facts & Arguments:

 

The Unkept Promises

 

Fleeing Burma Where Life is At Risk And Liberty Curtail

 

Human Rights

 

Interview with an escaped prisoner from Saya San Hard Labor Camp

(Rhododendron Note: Saya San Force Labour Camp is located in Kabaw valley of Sagaing Division, Western Burma )

 

 

Name : Thang Hnin (name changed)

Town/Village : Haka

Age : 41

Marital Status : Married with three children

Nationality : Chin

Religion : Christian

Interview date : 28/3/2001 at Aizawl.

 

CHRO: Why were you arrested?

 

Thang Hnin : I was arrested by the Military Intelligence for carrying teak lumber without permission. I used to obtain a permission for doing this business on previous occasions but unfortunately I did not have one with me when I was arrested.

 

CHRO: Where were you kept after your arrest?

 

Thang Hnin: After being arrested, the MI had the Forestry Department lay charges against me and the court sentenced me to two and a half years in prison. After being convicted, I was sent to Kaley prison for three months after which I was again sent to Saya San Hard Labor Camp.

 

CHRO: Can you tell us about the names of officials in charge of the camps and how they behaved in terms of treating the prisoners?

 

Than Hnin: Captain Soe Win was in charge of the Camp. Just below him were one lieutenant and a 2nd lieutenant. I can’t remember the names of the rest officials. They all are from the Jail Department under the Ministry of Home Affairs. All of them are heavy drinkers. The worst thing is that we got beaten up whenever they were intoxicated. Capatian Soe Win was a very violent and brutal person and so were the rest officials.

 

CHRO: Can you give us a sense of how you keep up with in the prison?

 

Thang Hnin: We didn’t have to work in both Haka and Kaley Prisons. However, once we landed in the Saya San Hard Labor Camp, we realize that there was hardly any chance a person would survive.

 

CHRO: Can you tell us a little bit about your experience and how difficult was the work there in the Camp?

 

Thang Hnin: There are many things to say about. I don’t know how to even describe. But to describe it in brief, there were over 450 prisoners in the Saya San Hard Labor Camp, most of whom were Burmese Amy deserters. Inmates from Monywa and Kaley prisons were usually sent to this camp to serve hard labor sentence.

 

CHRO: What sort of work did you do?

 

Thang Hnin: The most common work was digging drains for irrigations, digging soils, ploughing & tilling rice fields, cutting firewood and preparing char coals. The paddy fields we ploughed were primarily for their own use and the jail officials often sold the rice for their personal ends. Charcoals that we made were also for the personal use of the jail officials. Since there were no oxen or buffalos available for the tilling, three people have to pull the yoke like animals.

 

CHRO: What is the time of your work hours and how do you keep up with that?

 

Thang Hnin: We never had a rest time. Between 4-5 a.m. in the morning, they conducted regular checks to make sure everyone is present. Beginning from 5 a.m. we work until 12 noon. We are given a breakfast break at 12 noon and the work resumed at 1 p.m and lasted until 5 in the evening. The work proceeds even on Sunday. Even sick people are not allowed to take a rest. We are whipped if we take even a short break during the work. We had to rush to work if called even when we are having meals. We can’t rest no matter how hot the sun is or no matter how hard it rains. It makes things even more difficult as our feet are chained with a two-Kilo-weigh manacle. The shackles remained fastened on our feet from the day we landed in the camp until we got out. It remained attached to our feet wherever we are – during work or at bedtime. We had to work even at night in preparation for the arrival of high officials from Rangoon. I remember the Home Minister and Deputy Home Minister visiting our camp on separate occasions. There were other high officials visiting the camp but I can’t remember their names.

 

CHRO: What type of food were you fed in the Camp?

 

Thang Hnin: The foods we received were nothing better than those we usually feed pigs with. The rice was half un-husked and husked grain mingled together. Everyone received only a handful each. We have no more to eat than just a handful of those. We never had curry or soup to go with the food. There is nothing else to express than it was very very bad.

 

CHRO: Do you receive any medical treatment when you are sick?

 

Thang Hnin: No, not at all. We have to work even when we are sick not to mention the medical treatment. They wouldn’t let us rest just because we are sick. Sometimes people took a rest out of exhaustion from sickness. But as soon as the guard discovered them they whipped them and beat them up. Many prisoners died from this. There was absolutely no medicine to be seen in the camp.

 

CHRO: How many prisoners do you think died while you were in the camp?

 

Thang Hnin: About 70 of them died in only the three-month period that I was there. It was almost an average of one person per day that died in three months. There might even have been more deaths that I didn’t know of.

 

CHRO: What was the most common cause of death?

 

Thang Hnin: How on earth could a human being endure those kinds of conditions? The work was extremely hard and the food was extremely bad, and in addition we couldn’t rest during sickness and there were no medical treatment. Everyone was just waiting to die.

 

CHRO: How were they buried after they died?

 

Thang Hnin: They were buried in a grave of about one foot deep. After about one week, the smells of the corpses attracted strayed dogs and pigs and the bodies are mutilated and eaten up by these animals. It was extremely sad to see this situation. The relatives were usually informed of the death but with a different story. They said that the prisoners died of sickness after being carefully treated in hospital. It was just a bunch of lies that the relatives were informed of. I wonder how could they lie with such things while we never even saw medicines. (Note: While talking about this he becomes too emotional).

 

CHRO: Was there any discrimination in the camp on ground of religion?

 

Thang Hnin: Absolutely! There was no room for people like me who are Christians. We were told that once we were in the prison we ought to follow the Burman religion, Buddhism.

 

CHRO: Wasn’t there any way in which you could be eased from doing hard works?

 

Thang Hnin: It was only the question of whether we have money or not. Money can do anything. If someone had more than 50,00 Kyats to give to the authorities, then he is made a Section Commander, which means that he no longer had to work. If someone from among the prisoners wanted to be an Office Staff, he had to pay 500,00 Kyats to the authorities. Anyone being able to pay that amount is automatically made the Office Staff. (Note: There are 10 Office Staffs in the Camps with half the number being from the Jail Department and another half from among the prisoners).

 

CHRO: How did you escape?

 

Thang Hnin: I simply could no longer bear the conditions that I took the risk to escape. It was on the night of 29th January 2000 after everyone was asleep when I made the escape. I was among those lucky enough to be an Office Staff; I fled while there was nobody in the Office.

 

CHRO: Where did you flee?

 

Thang Hnin: I fled to the Indian side. Our camp was located just one mile away from the Indian border and I just ran desperately towards the border until I reached Manipur State. I stayed in Manipur with one of the local families for eight months. I did not even speak the local language so I had to use body language and gesticulations to communicate with them. After eight months I came here to Aizawl of Mizoram State.

 

CHRO: Had there been any other prisoners who escaped like you did?

 

Thang Hnin: There had been many incidents in the past where prisoners tried to escape because they could no longer bear the conditions. But there were many people who are not lucky enough and were recaptured. Only a few of them had been lucky enough to survive from the beatings and torture after being recaptured. Most of them died from the torture. Those who survived these tortures were usually given additional one year prison term.

 

CHRO: Can you give us a picture of how you lived in the camp?

 

Thang Hnin: There are three prison hostels. When we sleep, there was no space left so as to be able to stretch our legs. But when we tried to bend our legs, again the space become too tight for us. There were two minor prisoners who are under 18. Most of us were between the ages of 20 to 40. If we want to shit, we have to do it in an open atmosphere where every sees us.

 

CHRO: How do you plan to move on?

 

Thang Hnin: The future is too grim. Everything is like closed for me. I don’t know how I am going to look after my wife and my children.

 

Interview With NGO Worker From Burma

 

 

 

“Mr. Green” Male.

From: Chin State.

Occupation: training officer for an NGO.

Education: BA, Mandalay University.

Ethnicity: Chin.

Religion: Baptist.

Left Burma: December 2000.

 

Q: Why did you decide to leave Burma?

 

A: I was afraid I’d be chased by the Burmese military. I was told by my uncle that I was going to be arrested by the Burmese military. [because he helped to get a list of political prisoners to give to the Red Cross].

 

Q: Had you had problems with the authorities before?

 

A: Yes, I did. While I gave the training about the NGO. I showed my card from the NGO to the military, but they did not know that card or about the NGO, so they arrested me and detained me for one night. They got all my speeches with a recorder. That was in June 2000.

 

Q: When did you start working with the NGO?

 

A: I joined the NGO from 1999. My friend had told me there was a post at the NGO.

 

Q: What was your work with the NGO?

 

A: The aim of the NGO is the prevention of HIV infection. So we worked for the prevention of HIV, awareness of HIV and distribution of education about the prevention of HIV.

 

Q: How aware of HIV/AIDS were the people in the area?

 

A: In the town, we could teach the people and the people know about HIV. But it is not easy to travel around the remote areas, so the villagers did not know about HIV.

 

Q: How were people becoming infected by HIV?

 

A: It is hard to find out the mode of transmission in that area, because the government did not do any research about HIV infection. They want to cover all things up. So it’s hard to find which mode of transmission is the worst thing. The government always denies about HIV, so it’s very hard to find out the actual and the real situation in that region.

 

Q: What materials did you have in your program, and what language were they in?

 

A: Posters and flyers in Burmese and Chin. We didn’t have enough for each and every person, but to some extent we can do. Because of the limitations of the facilities we had not enough funds. Q: Did you have any idea of what percentage of infection was happening in that area?

 

A: It is hard to find the actual facts in the country, because the government wants to deny HIV infection. According to my own research, in one clinic in Kalemyo, I reviewed the blood tests, and 8 to 9 percent of those blood tests showed positive for HIV. That percent is of people who they think may have the HIV infection, the high risk group. In the Kale Hospital, the percentage was lower than that percentage.

 

Q: What kind of treatment could people get if they were diagnosed with HIV or if it had progressed to AIDS?

 

A: In that place, when people know that a person is infected with HIV/AIDS disease, the persons around that patient are afraid of him, of the threat of that disease, and they don’t want to take care of the patient. Even in the hospital and the clinic, they don’t want to take care of that HIV patient. The patients didn’t want to stay anymore in the hospital, because they got depression, because they were outcast by society. So the patients leave the hospital and stay at home and the patients’ parents take care of them.

 

Q: Do people advertise medicines that will cure HIV/AIDS?

 

A: No.

 

Q: Are there people who are not real doctors who give injections in the villages? A: Yes, a lot of the illegal ones. The villagers told me about it. One person, previously he worked in mining, some other place in Burma, and later on he went to Malaysia and worked, and he came back to that area [Chin State] and he was tested HIV positive. He was tested in Rangoon. And he went back to his native village near to Kale. The people in that village thought that HIV positive is the AIDS disease. He was treated by a person who practices illegally, and he gave some IV [drip] line with some glucose, some vitamins and other things to that patient. The patient is so weak, he cannot bear that IV line, and half of the bottle was left. They don’t want to discard the remaining [IV solution] so the father of that patient went to continue that IV line, because it is good for that person, it has a lot of vitamins. So the person who practices illegally, he made the IV line to the father of that patient. And later on, the patient died. After that, then the father also died, because of the infection.

 

Q: In the hospital and clinics, is the equipment clean?

 

A: In some places, they use disposable syringes. But in some places they cannot use the disposable syringes, they just flush the syringes and other needles with hot water for one time. Just one time. The hot water that they use to flush the needles and the syringes, they use that same hot water to do that again.

 

Q: Did you notice the rate of tuberculosis infection? A: I was not familiar with that. Q: Were people using narcotics by injection?

 

A: Around the Kale area, Tamu border area, I found a lot of narcotic abuse in that area. In that area they used the IV method, they got that habit from the people in mining areas, where they dig for the jade.

 

Q: What were the conditions for the workers in the mining areas?

 

A: I went to Maishu in 1994 and 1995 and Mogok in early 2000. And the conditions of the workers are very poor. Most of the time they didn’t find any stones or any valuable things so they have no money. They got depression because they didn’t get anything from that mine, sometimes and to replace their depression they use the narcotics. Some people. The heroin is sold by somebody, and they can buy it easily, they can buy it freely. And the syringe and other things, they can buy it easily. It’s available easily. They can inject it, the shot they can give by themselves or to each other, sharing.

 

Q: Do you know about mining in the Chin State in an area called Mwe Thaung at all?

 

A: I have heard the name of Mwe Thaung, before, several times, but I don’t know the work there. It’s near to Kalemyo.

 

Q: Were you visiting the mining areas for AIDS education?

 

A: I visited to Maishu mining area because I wanted to know the conditions for my own personal interest, and Mogok is for my NGO job. The trip there was not very successful. The mission of the trip was to distribute the condoms to the workers of the mining and to give the health education for the workers of the mines. But that trip was not very successful because of the people in that area were very busy with their work and they couldn’t take the time to hear that speech on prevention of HIV.

 

Q: Had the availability and affordability of condoms changed?

 

A: The NGO sold the condoms to the public at very cheap price. After that service, the condoms were more easily available than before. They can get them easily in the marketplace and anywhere around that area.

 

Q: How did you get information, news?

 

A: The main way we heard information is through the broadcasting services of foreign countries like the VOA, BBC and RFA, Radio Free Asia. And other democratic broadcasting services. The newspaper that’s issued by the government in Burma, we’re not interested about, because we couldn’t get any information about politics from that newspaper. We rely on only the foreign broadcasting service. Q: Did your office have a computer, fax, international telephone?

 

A: They had one computer for the office work, and one telephone for local use only. They had no [internet access].

 

Q: Tell about any Chin cultural problems…

 

A: They want to change our Chin people and other minorities to become Burman, by the government, all the time. Since the Burma Socialist Program Party time, the way they want is “one nation, one race, one religion, one country.” They use this method in this time by the military more than before. Even in our Chin State, our people cannot learn Chin language in the school at this time. The Chin language is not examined in the primary level. Even if they taught it in the school they didn’t cover it in the exams. The Chin language is not included on the schedule for the students. They meet only once a week [for Chin language study], only when they have extra time. In Burma, each and every state and division has the college and university. In the Chin State we have none up ’til now.

 

Q: Can you buy publications in the Chin language?

 

A: Only some books that are released by religious permission, we can get a small number of. Other magazines and books, we cannot get it. Years ago, to teach the ABC alphabet in the Chin language, we used, “A for Aung San” and “B for Bible” but the military doesn’t allow to publish that poem anymore. Because of the restriction of the military, except for the books issued by the church and the mission, there’s no other books [in Chin] available. There’s a lot of restrictions about cultural things, about shows, even in the ceremonies, we have to get the permits before. Because of all the restrictions, the cultural shows are less than before. In the country, there’s a Ministry of Religious Affairs. In the Ministry, there’s a Department of Religion. In that department there’s only a branch for Buddhism. No other religions. The government opened the school for the “Hill Regions” but in that school they teach only the Buddhism. For that school, the teacher, the headmaster, must be a Buddhist. After they implemented that project, before that my friend was principal of the school, but after that policy my friend was shifted because they didn’t want a Christian to be principal of that school. So it is clear that they want our Chin people to change to Buddhism and be made Burman. In the schools in the Chin State, they forced the students to pay homage whenever the elders come in [with a “Buddhist” gesture], and say the Buddhist words. The Burmese soldiers, whenever they went in the Chin villages, they arrest people and they persecute people whenever they want to, anywhere in the Chin State. The military check each and every household in the town, with their full equipment, about the guests. Even in my house, my sister in law was back from Rangoon because of a terminal stage illness. And some relatives and friends came to the house to stay with the patient to comfort her. But the military came to the house with their uniforms and didn’t listen to them, and the military threatened them and treated them rudely.

 

Whenever they went in the town or the village, the Burmese military opened fire in the air or somewhere, every night to alarm the people or to threaten the people. So the people, the Chins, in their heart, they have in their minds, fear and anxiety about the uniformed people who don’t speak the Chin language. Most of the people have anxiety even when they hear the footstep or song of the soldiers, or bark of the dogs.

 

In every [government] department, the head of the department is a Burman. Most of the Chin people don’t speak Burmese, so they are scolded. So they are afraid to go to the departments anymore. Even the small number of Chin people who are educated are shifted far away from the Chin State, so we don’t have our Chin people to rely on.

 

I was in Thantlang and saw when the military government destroyed the crosses that were erected to mark the Centenary of the Christian missions in the Chin State, 1999 January. At that time, the crosses erected on the hill were destroyed by the Burmese military and the pastors in Thantlang town were arrested by the Burmese military. That’s why I and other people gathered to pray in the church for the release of the pastor. Like we were making a demonstration. So the Chairman of the Chin State [military government] Col. Than Maung, came to Thantlang and ordered us to get out from the church. He didn’t step down from his car. We stood out in front of the church. He said, “don’t worship in the church and don’t make any prayer meeting anywhere. But what you need to do is work in the road for the construction.” The Burmese soldiers and police along with him forced us to scatter out. And only the pastor and the elders of the church to follow him. He told them that, “you are making the anti-government [protest]” and he was going to punish them severely. But they said they were praying in the church to make peace in the region. That’s why later on he released them.

 

One of the female pastors was warned by that colonel that she spoke to the public about anti-government, so he was going to punish her very severely. And he told all of us not to do this kind of things in the future. Otherwise he would give us very serious punishment. Imprisonment or very serious persecution. And so there’s no rights for religion or politics at all in Chin State.

 

The education system is also very poor, so there’s no way to progress for education in Chin State. There’s not enough facilities, and there’s not enough teachers. Most of the schools were built by the villages on their own. In some cases, the government forces the students to wear a [military type] uniform and forces them to shout the anti Aung San Suu Kyi slogans. The military government uses that trick.

 

When they formed the USDA, they used some students in that association too. Most of the time the students are taken by the government to be involved in sports and a lot of activities so the students didn’t have time to study in school. For example, the student festival that was held in Haka, the students practiced for the contests in sports for the whole year, so the students didn’t have time to study their subjects in school. But all the students must have examinations that year. Even though they learned nothing in school, they passed the exams.

 

Q: In the two or three months just before you left, at the end of 2000, was the army asking people to work for it?

 

A: Yes, they did, for the plantation of tea in the Chin Hills. They forced all the villagers to do the plantation. They forced the villagers to plant only tea. The military got the tea seeds from somewhere else, and the agriculture department raised the seeds, and the [seedlings] they forced them to plant. They forced them to plant it in many areas of Chin State. Most of the places were forest areas. They cleared the forests and forced them to plant the tea. They started in July and August to force them to clear the forests. They were still doing [the planting] in October, November.

 

I want to tell about the killing of two people during the construction of the road from Thantlang to Hriphi and Vuang Tu. The [government military] built a new camp in Vuang Tu village, that’s situation on the boundary between India and Burma. The built the road from Hriphi to Vuang Tu. They forced the people to work day and night. They collected the people from each and every village around the township. They brought the oil for the lights from India, and the explosives to use for construction from India, with money they collected from the villagers. That evening I was in that village when the one was killed in the road construction. March 5, 1999. The villagers dared not to say anything about that killing. The dead body was brought by the villagers into the village.

 

In that road construction, the villagers including the men, women and children, worked in that work camp. Right now, the military forces the people to serve as sentries to watch over it at night time, until today. They forced the villages [each] to collect at least ten people ready in position to carry the things of the military whenever they needed.

 

The alcohol was previously not used in Chin State very much, but at this time, the government opens to sell the alcohol everywhere, and they even force the village headpersons to sell the alcohol to the local people. They [government] get the funds from that alcohol and they destroy the morals of the young men.

 

Most of the Chins in the town and the students who are Christians are forced to collect funds for the Buddhist festivals, and they are forced to work in the compounds of the pagodas for cleaning and something like that. The government employees are forced to work in the paddy fields to grow rice for the government. In Tiddim town, the public water was cut off by the military, so the water would be used for the government’s tea plantations. So most of Tiddim has a shortage of water, and even in the township education office they got the water only once a week. That was my experience when I held training in Tiddim. In general they are doing all the things to destroy the morals and the character of the Chin young men and all Chin people.

 

 

 

Refugees:

 

A CRY UNHEARD

 

A struggle for survival, dignity, and hope of Chin refugees in India

 

By Salai Za Uk Ling , Rhododendron News, Ottawa, May 28, 2001

 

Like many other displaced persons, Chin refugees in India experience enormous daily hardship and difficulty. It seems for many of them the multitude of their problems has increased as they strive to cope with the daily difficulties they encounter while taking refuge in India.

 

Military repression and gross human rights abuses in Burma have uprooted tens of thousands of Chin people from their homes. About 1,000 refugees from Burma, mostly from Chin State are living in New Delhi under UNHCR protection, a small number out of the 500,00 estimated to be taking shelter in India.

 

Their situation in New Delhi is one of confusion, denial and uncertainty. Separated from their families, Chin refugees in India find that their life in exile seems like an endless suffering.

 

Their economic hardship, coupled with insecurity and constant harassment from the local people, is too much for the Chin refugees who have endured so much in their home country under the military regime.

 

“We are concerned at the increasing trends of distrust, hostility, harassment and even threat to our very existence from members of the local community and the police forces,”said a statement addressed to UNHCR by the All Burmese Refugees Committee (ABRC). For instance, a teenaged refugee, David Ral Bik, was arrested after being brutally gang-beaten by the local people and the police. And, entire Chin refugee families, living on the outskirts of New Delhi, were driven out of the area by the local people in the month of March 2001. When they requested intervention by UNHCR, a spokesperson for UNHCR Office said “UNHCR does not concern itself with such criminal cases,” sparking outrage from the refugee community.

 

Similar incidents are on the increase. Eviction by their landlords and harassment from the local populations are part of the Chin refugees’ daily existence. Meanwhile, dozens of new refugee applicants continue to be either denied refugee status or are compelled to wait as long as one year, without any interim assistance, while the UNHCR office reviews their cases. This has generated frustration for many refugees resulting in protests and hunger strikes to demand due treatment from UNHCR and to bring attention to their plight. Usually, UNHCR has responded to these protests by calling in the local police to threaten the refugees with arrest and thereby force them into submission.

 

In January 2001, UNHCR Office announced its intention to discontinue paying refugees the monthly Subsistence Allowance (SA) due to budget shortages. It stated that the SA would be replaced with alternate programs such as micro-loan schemes and providing skill-oriented training in its attempts to foster self-reliance among urban refugees.

 

One underlying fact remains, however. Even if this scheme is implemented, the refugee will have absolutely no use of their skills since they are not permitted to work in India as refugees. No foreigner is allowed to work or receive social aid in India. This raised serious skepticism about the practicality of the plan. Skill-oriented training for urban refugees however, is not a new policy of UNHCR. It has long been sponsoring vocational courses through YMCA. However, this training has done little to improve the self-reliance of refugees and has proved woefully ineffective. Self-reliance seems to remain a total myth. Despite this program’s repeated failure and amid serious scepticism, UNHCR seems to prefer to overlook the impracticality of its plan.

 

Voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement to a third country are options available to UNHCR in finding permanent solutions to refugee problems. New Delhi UNHCR’s action policy on Burmese refugees clearly states “Unlike some other groups of urban refugees in New Delhi, the Myanmarese (Burmese) do not have residence permits and sometimes the only action is to seek urgent resettlement to a third country.” Despite this claim, UNHCR has seldom chosen the resettlement option for the Burmese refugees and instead has denied many of them assistance, including those who already have groups willing to sponsor them in a third country.

 

Among countries maintaining annual resettlement quota for refugees are the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Despite the urgent and serious need to address the problems of Burmese Chin refugees in New Delhi, their situation has been overlooked and little has been done so far to ease their suffering. It is important that UNHCR play a more active role in seeking resettlement for the Chin refugees in a third country.

 

 

 

Letter & Press Release:

 

 

 

Chin Students and Youth Organization’s Letter to UNHCR Office, Kuala Lumpur

 

To: Mr. Shinji Kubo

Protection Officer

UNHCR

570 Bukit Petalang

P.O Box. 10185

50706, Kualalampur

Malaysia

 

Fax: 60-3-2411 780

Telephone: 60-3-2411 322

E mail: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Date: 14/04/2001

 

From: Chin Student and Youth Organization (USA)

 

Subject: Appeal for the Burmese Refugees in Malaysia

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

With respect to your office we the Chin Students and Youth express our concern for the Burmese Refugees who are facing legal challenge in Malaysia and urge your action for the protection of Burmese Refugees.

 

The rights of the people of Burma have been violated since 1988 under the oppression of the Burma military dictators which caused the lose of thousands of lives and thousands of Burmese refugees around the world.

 

However, Burmese refugees, in their exiled states, do not receive essential legal protection such as in Malaysia. While those refugees can not go back to Burma for fear of life threatening treatment by the Military dictators, and if they are deported to Burma they will be tortured which will endanger their lives.

 

Meanwhile, we have learned that many Burmese refugees in Malaysia are seemed to face deportation such as Mr. Hee Mang who has been kept in the deportation center. We believe that none of refugees whose lives are in danger torture and inhuman treatment in their home country should not be deported from their exile state.

 

We, therefore, on humanitarian ground, ask your mission to consider the case of Burmese refugees and grant them legal status in their exile state.

 

Sincerely,

 

(Secy)

 

On Behalf of Chin Student and Youth Organization

 

Coppy to:

 

Head of desk for South Asia Bureau for Asia and the Pacific,

UNHCR

94 Rue be Montbrillant CH, 1202

Geneve, Switzerland

Fax: 41-22- 739 73 35

 

Salai Za Uk Ling

C/o

WUSC

Lakehead University

955 Oliver Rd.

Thunder Bay, Ontario

P7B 5E1

Canada

 

Email: [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Phone: 807-622-7088

 

April 12, 2001

To,

Mr. Shinji Kubo

Protection Officer

UNHCR

570 Bukit Petalang

P.O Box. 10185

50706, Kualalampur

Malaysia

Dear Respected Sir,

Re: Earnest Appeal for UNHCR Intervention In Burmese Refugees Facing Deportation in Malaysia

 

It is with grave concern that I am writing this appeal to you. As a concerned individual and being a former UNHCR mandated refugee myself, I have been greatly shaken by the news that some Burmese nationals have been arrested by the Malaysian Police following their peaceful protest inside the Burmese Embassy in Kuala Lumpur on March 27th 2001.

 

I have learnt from a reliable source that one of the protesters, Mr. Hee Man is now in custody awaiting his deportation at the Macap Umboo detention centre. If I am not mistaken, this individual has apparently sought refugee status under the mandate of the Office of UNHCR in Kuala Lumpur before being arrested in connection with his peaceful protest. I have also been informed that preparations are being made by the Malaysian authorities for deportation of Mr. Hee Mang to Burma, the country he fled. My concern is that if deported, it is highly apparent that the safety of Mr. Hee Man will be highly jeopardized.

 

As you are aware, Burma’s human rights record under the present military regime is, if not the worst, one of the worst in the world. This is clearly reflected in the reports of the United Nations Human Rights Special Rapporteur to Burma and a series of subsequent resolutions adopted by the General Assembly as well as the International Labor Organization, which imposed punitive sanctions against Burma for its widespread use of forced labor. Further evidence could be seen in repeated EU’s resolutions as well as the United States State Department’s report on World Religious Freedom, which designated Burma as Country of Particular Concern (CPC).

 

The circumstances which compel these refugees to flee the country is still prevalent in Burma. You may be informed that there have been cases where deportees have been subject to torture, lengthy imprisonment and even executions in Burma. This was the case when some six Burmese refugees claimants were deported by India in 1996. However, the timely intervention of UNHCR in New Delhi could prevent one Mr. Steven, a Burmese Chin refugee from being deported in 1999. This included a personal visit by UNHCR officials to where he was detained for deportation, and by subsequently issuing him a refugee certificate in the first place.

 

Also in the case of Mr. Hee Man and other Burmese nationals in Malaysia, I have great confidence in the effectiveness of your good office’s intervention in preventing this dreadful situations from happening. I am fully aware of UNHCR’s certain instruments and criteria in determining refugee status under the definition contained in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, which requires the claimants to present a well-founded ground of fear of persecution in their home country. However, I believe that the fact that the widespread human rights violations still exists in Burma, as indicated above, and the fact that Mr. Hee Man and his friends fearlessly expressed their political opinions by staging a peaceful demonstration inside the Burmese Embassy seem enough to constitute the Convention Refugee definition, which will enable them to become refugees within the mandate of UNHCR.

 

Furthermore, I strongly believe that the dreadful situation that awaits Mr. Hee Mang on his deportation to Burma could be averted if the UNHCR undertake timely intervention by recognizing him as refugees.

 

Sir, the only hope for the safety of Mr. Hee Mang and other Burmese nationals in Malaysia appears to lie solely on your sympathetic and humanitarian concern. As a concerned individual, I earnestly appeal to you for your timely and effective intervention in respect of Mr. Hee Mang and other Burmese refugees in Malaysia for which I would be extremely grateful.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Salai Za Uk Ling

 

Cc: Head of desk for South Asia Bureau for Asia and the Pacific,

UNHCR

94 Rue be Montbrillant CH, 1202

Geneve, Switzerland

Fax: 41-22- 739 73 35

 

Contact : Salai Za Bik

Tel. +91 11 5534850

Fax +91 11 5510773

April 11, 2001

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

 

NO SHELTER FOR CHIN REFUGEES IN MALAYSIA

Voicing for the Protection of Refugees

 

The Joint Action Committee (JAC) is shocked and deeply disappointed by news that Mr. Peter Hee Mang, a Burmese Chin refugee, has been held in deportation center in Malacca, Malaysia, for his peaceful demonstration of showing off a T-shirt depicting Aung San Suu Kyi, Leader of pro-democracy in Burma, at the celebration of Myanma’s Armed Forces Day at Kualalumpur Burmese Embassy. The JAC strongly urges the Government of Malaysia not to send him back, and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Kualalumpur to give him legal status as Burma military junta is still harmful for him and to open access for other Chin refugees to the UNHCR person of concern status.

 

Reuters news in Kualalumpur on April 3 quoted Shinji Kubo, protection officer of the UNHCR, as saying “Peter Hee Mang had been moved to a detention camp where illegal immigrants ere usually held before deportation’. AFP on April 5 quoted Nasri Mokhtar, head of Malacca detention, as saying there is no request from UN officials to meet me and Peter Hee Mang and the deportation will be done”.

 

The JAC welcomed the Malaysian Rights group, Burma Solidarity Group, Altsean-Burma and other human rights activists’ call for the UNHCR in Kualalumpur to grant political asylum to Peter Hee Mang.

 

As a result of ethnic cleansing launched by the military junta in areas inhabited by the ethnic minority, many ethnic Chins from western Burma have been forced to flee to many counties. So far UNHCR in India, USA, Australia, Thailand, recognized them as refugees.

 

The last event of Chin refugees’ deportation from Mizoram State of India to Burmese military junta last August was a good example. The information we received reveals many deportees being taken by the Burmese army to hard labor camps and many awarded lengthy imprisonment. This shows that as long as the current military regime exists in Burma, the ethnic cleansing policy will exist and there is no guarantee of safety for those who are forcibly returned to the country. “If Mr. Peter H. Mang were deported to Burma, I am sure that he would face lifelong imprisonment” said Mr. Mang Lian, a lawyer and a candidate in 1990 general election who recently fled in to India.

 

Chin National League for Democracy (Exile)

Chin Human Rights Organization

Chin Students Union

Chin National Council

Chin Refugee Committee

Chin Women Organization

 

 

 

CHRO’s Oral Intervention on 57th Session United Nations Commission on Human Rights

 

United Nations Commission On Human Rights (57th Session 19th March-27th April 2001), Geneva., Oral intervention on Agenda Item 15., Delivered by Salai Cung Bik Ling Of Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO)

 

Mr. Chairman,

 

As many of my brothers and sisters from Burma have stated to this Commission, the Burmese Army has not stopped committing atrocities against the non-Burman peoples and the civilian population in general. There is no substantial progress in the respect of human rights and no solution to the deep-seated socio-economic and political conditions facing the indigenous peoples in Burma.

 

Under the long years of suppression and increasing military rule, the Chin indigenous people are experiencing many of the same abuses as other ethnic indigenous groups living inside and along the border regions of Burma. However, a specific human rights abuse suffered by the Chin people is religious persecution, even though the first and second constitutions of Burma accorded freedom of religion. In theory, Burma is a union of multi-ethnic societies founded on the principle of equality and fraternity in which the citizens have the right to practice and enjoy their own religions peacefully in a peaceful way. The practice is very different.

 

For more than one hundred years, the religion of most Chins has been Christianity, but this has now unfortunately become foreign in the eyes of the Burmese military government.

 

Allow me to cite two specific examples to support my statement. The Christian Chin community has long wanted to construct Chin centenary building in the Chin Capital, Haka, but is repeatedly denied authorization to build. In contrast, the Burmese government funded the construction of the International Theravada Buddhist Missionary University in Rangoon, which opened in December 1998. The other related example concerns the arrest and imprisonment of Pastor Grace, who was arrested on February 13, 2001. She is now presently detained in Haka army camp, where prison conditions are extremely severe, inadequate and precarious for a woman prisoner. Her brother is currently serving a two-year prison sentence at the Kalaywa concentration camp.

 

Mr. Chairman,

 

In the process of through human development, free and peaceful communication is essential, among many other things. It is also important for my people to look forward to an open and better society. But regretfully , because of the clear and sustained policy of isolating the indigenous peoples from the international community pursued by the successive Burmese regimes, we have not been able to initiate our own development. A few years ago, the military regime launched a tourism drive. However, in spite of tourist promotion, visits to the Chin State still remain forbidden since the 1960s.

 

Mr. Chairman,

 

Given the political experiences of our country for the last five decades, we are gravely concerned about the continuing policy and intentions of the Burmese army towards the future of the indigenous peoples of Burma. Ignorance and continued denial of fundamental human rights to the indigenous peoples in Burma will only amount to weaken the stability of the Union , and hinder the peace building process, which is most needed and will lead to the eventual lasting peace for the nation.

 

In this respect, we hope that the non-Burman groups will soon be able to take part in the peace process that seems to have started in Rangoon. This will make it more likely that the issues and problems that face all the peoples of Burma will be sincerely addressed, and we count on the support of the international community in this critical process.

 

Thank you

 

 

 

NEWS RELEASE

 

 

 

CONGRESSMAN UNDERWOOD SECURES HHS REFUGEE AID FOR MYANMAR NATIONALS IN GUAM

 

 

From Guam Congressional Delegate

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD

2428 Rayburn HOB, Washington, D.C. 20515

Tel: 202-225-1188

Fax: 202-226-0341

120 Fr. Duenas Ave., Ste 107 Hagatna, Guam 96910

Tel: 671-477-4272

Fax: 671-477-2587

Contact: In D.C.: Esther Kiaaina at 225-1188

In Guam: Cathy Gault at 477-4272

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

 

 

April 25, 2001 — Congressman Robert A. Underwood today announced that officials from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement will soon arrive in Guam to assist the Chin Christians who fled Myanmar earlier this year. The team may also be providing assistance to those Chinese immigrants seeking political asylum.

 

“Since March, we have been in discussion with HHS, primarily the people in the Office of Refugee Resettlement,” Congressman Underwood said. “We asked that they send out a team to Guam to provide assistance and they’ve complied with that request.”

 

The team, which will include representatives from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA, will arrive in a few days to begin refugee processing, to assist those immigrants who wish to travel on into the United States. The team will also conduct health screening and assist the local church and charity groups who are currently caring for the Myanmar Nationals who began entering Guam earlier this year under the Guam-only Visitor Visa Program. Myanmar has since been removed from the program.

 

Congressman Underwood said the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, to order such assistance. In response to Congressman Underwood’s formal letter of request for assistance, Secretary Tommy G. Thompson invoked his authority on April 18, notifying all federal agencies that HHS would be making arrangements for the temporary care of the refugees in Guam.

 

“This invocation of authority will allow the Department of Health and Human Services to provide, among other things, limited medical screening for communicable diseases for approximately 1,150 Burmese and Chinese asylum applicants on Guam awaiting adjudication of their asylum claims, to award emergency grants to provide food and shelter for those individuals, and to arrange transport to mainland U.S. destinations for those applicants who are granted asylum,” Secretary Thompson wrote.

 

 

 

Facts & Arguments

 

THE UNKEPT PROMISES

Kanbawza Win

 

” Hope for the Best but Prepare for the Worst” is the unforgotten speech given by our beloved leader Bogyoke Aung San when he came to London to negotiate for independence of the Union of Burma. The speech implies that if we cannot achieve it by peaceful negotiations we will have to fight for it. Today this would also apply to all the ethnic forces in Burma who are at odds with the Burmese military Junta. Currently the secret negotiations between the pro democracy movement led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the military Junta has left out the ethnic forces. If the Myanmar race, both democratic and undemocratic forces construe the Non-Myanmar as an excess baggage that must be accepted as a necessary evil then the Burmese problem of will never be solved. Their actions seem to indicate a Burmese saying “Ka Lae Dwe Tait Tait Ne, Lu Gyi Dwe Sa Gar Pyaw Nae Dae” meaning, ‘Hey you little fellows keep quiet while we adult are seriously talking’. The nature of the so called ‘Secret Negotiations’ is a clear indication that there is something to hide from the public. If that is the case, then the ethnic groups will have to conclude that as the 1947 Constitution was torn up by the Burmese Junta in 1962 and obliterated up the Panglong Agreement then the ethnic groups have no obligation whatsoever to the Union. Hence fighting the Myanmar Tatmadaw (army) is amounted to legitimate war against an occupying force (for the past decade they have behave in such a manner) and cannot be construed as a civil war.

 

The very fact that the negotiations are bilateral and not tri-larteral underline the fact that the Myanmar tribe, which is a much stronger, more numerous and resourceful and dominating tribe, wants to rough ride shod over the ethnic groups. The writing on the wall exhibit clearly that major decisions will be made between a Myanmar and a Myanmar, and later these discussion will be expended to the ethnic forces for them to decide either to take it or leave it. This “carrot and stick tactic” denotes that a Myanmar does not treat a non-Myanmar as an equal but of a lower level people who are at their beck and call. Of course the democratic Myanmar will be magnanimous and on paper at least, will treat the ethnic races as equal. In other words, the ethnic groups will be at the whims and the fancy of the Myanmar leaders.

 

This has been the case since the inception of the Union of Burma when the Karens has no choice but were forced to fight. Then the Mon, Kachin, Shan, Karenni, Arakanese and Chin followed, not to mention the much smaller tribes as the Pa O, Palaung, Tavoynians Rohingys, etc . Today there is no single tribe or ethnic group that has not taken up arm or is still fighting against the Myanmar tribe. Burmese chauvinism and xenophobia run deep into their veins. Until and unless there is cetena, (goodwill) love and sincerity by the Myanmar towards the non Myanmar as showed by our beloved leader Bogyoke Aung San, we cannot visualize a final solution. The Panglong Agreement and the 1947 constitution drawn up under the supervision of Bogyoke Aung San has been trampled upon by the Burmese Tatmadaw belonging to the Myanmar tribe.

 

A barometer reading of the Junta’s current attitude towards the ethnic forces can be clearly seen in the military offensive against the Karens and the Shans. Their superb diplomacy of “divide and rule ” which translates into “let the ethnic forces fight the ethnic forces” e.g. Wa fighting the Shan, Karen Buddhist fighting the Karen Christians and so on, harkened back even to the Burmese democratic days when the Kachin and the Chins were recruited to fight the Karen. In fact it was the Chin forces that defended Rangoon from the Karen who were in the suburbs of Rangoon now called Insein. How many of the Chins and Kachins have laid down their lives in defense of the Union of Burma only to be changed to the chauvinism name of Myanmar. Currently how are the Chin and Kachin being treated? Do the Myanmar respect their culture and religious beliefs? How many times have the Myanmar negotiated with these ethnic groups and how many times have they betrayed or swindled them?

 

Of course there are several Myanmar who have not approved the proceedings of those in power. They have identified with the ethnic forces and fought shoulder to shoulder with their ethnic brethren, especially the students and the young generation who were forced to flee for their lives in 1988.. The ethnic groups welcomed them with open arms seeing theses young Myanmar like them being persecuted. This also proved that the ethnic groups are not at all racist but simply fighting the Junta and chauvinism. These Myanmar understand more about their ethnic brethren than those who are in Rangoon who are at the helm of the administration. Why are these Myanmar left out of the negotiations?

 

The treatment by the Myanmar of the non-Myanmar for half a century or so since the inception of modern Burma has guaranteed that no ethnic leader will trust the Myanmar. This is now being reinforced by the current “Secret Negotiations” which deliberately leave out the ethnic groups. Autonomous regions, self determination, and federalism are the words anathema to the Myanmar under the pretext of dismemberment the Union. But the fact is that these attitude covers up the truth, liberty, equality and fraternity.

 

The ethnic groups together with the people of Burma and the world have been left in the dark. Why? Is the fate of the 47 million Burmese people to be decided only by two persons alone, Khin Nyunt and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi? We have heard about the nature of these negotiation via foreign media only. No announcement or communique has been released. Naturally speculations are rife. Will the blood thirsty Narco- Generals be given impunity in return for an interim civilian government?

 

Not that we don’t have faith in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Nor do we want revenge over the evil generals but the very fact that important conditions are agreed upon behind our backs indicate that the situation is equivalent to the Burmese saying, “Say Yar Thwa; Khaing Da Loke; Pyan Ma Pyaw Ne” meaning ‘go where you are directed and implement as told and don’t talk back’. Why is the culture of silence imposed on us? Is it a Myanmar way or a Myanmar mentality? We are very much bewildered. If we don’t know the causes, nature and extent of the gross violations of human rights which the Generals are still committing how can the truth be known, not to mention achieving of national reconciliation. We should also remember that the granting of de facto acceptance of impunity for those holding political, military or economic power erodes the very basis of the social order and helps to nurture a culture of violence.

 

Drawing from the experience of South Africa, it has been found that there is an existential need of the victim to break out of a situation of silence, isolation, fear and falsehood. To know the truth, to recover a shared memory and thus to restore human dignity for the victims and accountability for the perpetrators are MUSTS. We would very much like to find out or how whether this compatible with so called ‘Secret Negotiations’?

 

Without an intentional attempt to create a space where the stories of humiliation and suffering can be told, where the truth can emerge and collective remembrance restored, the search for justice will continue to divide the community rather than re-establish relationships and contribute to a process of healing. How can forced labour, forced relocation, systematic torture, disappearances, extra-judicial killing, raping of women and children continue even as the ‘Secret Negotiations’ are going on. Why have the Myanmar so stubbornly refused to learn the lessons of the recent past and all this continue to occur? More often than not, we hear the response, “Forget the past, the dead cannot come to life and turn your eyes to the future building of a nation.” This simplistic answer, so easily offered by those who have something to hide, has no healing power. It leaves no room for reconciliation. Until and unless the truth is told, unless the criminals are held accountable, or unless those directly responsible and their accomplice confess their guilt, ask for forgiveness and give concrete signs of repentance, there can be no justice and therefore no healing of society. No body in Burma would want to repeat the errors of the past, trapped in cycles of retributive violence. The people yearn for transformation. And this transformation could start with the opening up of the so called ‘Secret Negotiations’. The people of Burma including the ethnic groups have suffered too much from the unkept promises could be spared from experiencing evil wars and bitterness.

 

 

 

 

Rhododendron News

VOL.IV No.II MARCH-APRIL 2001

HUMAN RIGHTS

 

Burmese Soldiers Arrested A Female Pastor in Chin State

February 28, 2001 ,Ottawa

 

Chin Human Rights Organization received a report that pastor Grace from Rinpi Baptist Church, Haka township was arrested by the Burmese soldiers from Haka, the capital of Chin State on February 13, 2001. She ( the pastor ) is now detain in Haka army camp.

 

Pastor Gracy was accused of supporting the Chin National Front CNF by giving accommodation. Last year, Pu Hoi Mang the eldest brother of pastor Grace was arrested by the Burmese soldiers and sentenced him to a two years jail term with hard labour. Pu Hoi Mang was accused of supporting the Chin National Front. Pu Hoi Mang is now serving his jail term at the Kalaywa concentration camp.

 

Under increasing military rule, the Chins are currently suffering many of the same abuses as other ethnic groups living along the border region of Burma. However, a specific characteristic of the human rights abuses suffered in Chin State is religious persecution.

 

Ethnic Leader Arrested In Burma

 

New Delhi, March 26, 2001

 

A prominent ethnic leader closed to Burma’s pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was arrested recently in Burma, despite the talks between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the junta had been going on since October last year for the possible return of “political stability” in this military-run country. Reports reaching here said that Mr. Gin Kam Lian, Secretary General of the Zomi National Congress (ZNC) was arrested on 19th March at Mawlamyine, Mon State in southern Burma by the junta’s security forces.

 

Dr. Kenneth who worked as financial secretary of the ZNC disclosed this in an interview with Mizzima News Group today. “He was very closed to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. We don’t know why he was arrested and his whereabouts now”, said Dr. Kenneth.

 

“It is absolutely unjust to arrest Mr. Gin Kam Lian. He is a known ethnic leader working closely with Amaji (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi)”, commented Dr. Kenneth.

 

Mr. Gin Kam Lian had been actively working in the Committee for Representing People’s Parliament (CRPP), which was formed in September 1998 with the representatives of political parties that had won in the 1990 elections in Burma.

 

The Zomi National Congress (ZNC) won two parliamentary seats in the elections but the junta cancelled the party registration in 1992.

 

Burmese junta has not made any announcement on the arrest of Mr. Gin Kam Lian. The junta has also arrested the president of ZNC Mr. Cin Sian Thang in 1999.

 

[Source: Mizzima News Group (http://www.mizzima.com) ]

 

Being An Elected MP In Burma

 

March 4, 2001

 

He was one of the rich persons in the town a decade ago. But things have changed dramatically since the multi-party elections were allowed to be held by the ruling military junta in 1990. Now, he is struggling hard to survive with his tiny tea shop, facing daily harassment of the military authorities. The guilt is nothing but being an elected Member of Parliament from the National League for Democracy (NLD) party.

 

The NLD party led by the Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi won in a landslide victory, securing more than 80% of the parliamentary seats in the May 1990 election. He was one of the winning MPs, elected with overwhelming votes against the military-backed National Unity Party (NUP).

 

His name is U Maung Kyun Aung, above 60, an NLD MP from the Rathae Taung Township Constituency No. 1 in Rakhaing State.

 

There were two members of parliament in the township, one U Thar Noe was elected from Rathae Taung (2) from the Arakan League for Democracy (ALD) and the other was U Maung Kyun Aung from Rathae Taung (1) from the National League for Democracy (NLD). U Thar Noe fled the country in 1995 and now takes shelter in India as an exiled MP.

 

The ruling junta, known as State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), refuses to honour the verdict of the people and never allows to convene the people’s parliament even though it is already more than ten years after the elections were held.

 

U Maung Kyun Aung has faced and continues to face the regular harassment, intimidation and threat by the military intelligence (MI) personnel in the town. He was initially offered bribe by the junta’s agents but later detained when he turned down their offer.

 

After the release, since 1998, the MI Unit 18 has been forcing him with various methods to resign both from the MPship and from the NLD party.

 

But, he consistently refuses to bow to these pressure. The consequences are that the military intelligence personnel have been disturbing whatever business he does, the government-sponsored Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) members threatening the local people not to do any business with U Maung Kyun Aung. They had, indeed, troubled the local people who did business with the NLD-MP.

 

As a result, once-a-rich U Maung Kyun Aung lost his wealth and has reached to a point where he has to open a small teashop in his hometown for survival. But, that still doesn’t make him free from the troubles. Recently, his son was sentenced to six-month prison for “destabilising the security of township.” One or two members of the local intelligence unit and the USDA everyday come and sit at his tea shop not because they like his tea very much but to put the words around that the customers would be troubled if they continue to come to the teashop. The customers are threatened they would be even charged. And now, many dare not to come. But, U Maung Kyun Aung continues to stand on as a NLD-MP in this town of South-western Burma.

 

[ Source: Mizzima News Group ]

 

Night Watch Duty By Civilian Persists In Town In Chin State

 

Since mid 1997, civilians in northern Chin State’s Thantlang town have been regularly forced by the Burmese Army to do night watch duty. The duty does not spare even lone widows, according to information received from Thantlang.

 

The civilian sentry duty was enforced in 1997 by the Army in the wake of the National Student Sport Festival in Hakha to ensure security in the urban areas. Thantlang town is divided into seven blocks in which one sentry post is built in each block where four civilians from each block have to do the sentry duty every night. This duty goes on a rotating basis and lone widows who can not perform the duty by themselves have to hire one able person for Kyats 80 per night. A mandatory fine of money is imposed on those who fail to do the duty, said ( name omitted for security reason ) who is a student in Thantlang. The duty starts as soon as it is dark and lasts until dawn. The soldiers are conducting a regular and surprise check during the night to ensure people are doing their duty carefully. If they found out that someone is dozing off while on duty, the soldiers severely beat and punish that person.

 

Households who can afford to pay Kyats 10,000 to the Block Peace and Development Council are exempted from the duty for one year. Block PDC members themselves are required to do separate duty every night at each Block PDC Office. Though the citizens of Thantlang are greatly disappointed over the forcible duty imposed on them, they are left with no choice but to continue to perform the duty as they are afraid of the army authorities.

 

How Polio Vaccines Are Given In Chin State

 

Nurses who give Polio vaccination to children across Chin State are surprised at the abrupt termination since January 2001 of a customary practice of paying Kyats 50 to every child receiving the vaccination. Under the auspices of UNICEF, polio vaccine has been given to children in Chin State once every year accompanied by cash award of Kyats 50 to the vaccinated child. Nurses have told the parents that they are wondering how the payments have been stopped-whether the money have been embezzled by persons in charge of the program or whether the UNICEF itself has terminated it, said one person coming from inside Chin State.

 

In the past years, doctors used to allocate the polio vaccine along with the cash money to be given to the vaccinated children, to nurses who are giving the vaccination. However, to every ones surprise, the practice of paying cash award was stopped this year. The program is being undertaken under the supervision of Deputy Health Assistant Director of Chin State and at township levels, Township Medical Officers are responsible to manage the program. The TMO is responsible for holding a meeting with nurses in the second week of December every year where he allocates the vaccine to the nurses for distribution. It is learned that the nurses did not dare to question the issue of cash award during the meeting with the TMO last December. More than 15 nurses are operating under the program in the township of Thantlang alone. On 14 January 2001, one nurses told the villagers of ( village name omitted ) about the termination of cash award while giving over 30 children! the vaccination along with one other nurse, said one person coming from Chin State.

 

Army Authorities In Chin State Imposed Levy On Farmers

 

Name Laipa ( Name change )

 

Age: 40

 

Sex: Male

 

Ethnicity: Chin

 

Occupation: LPDC chairman and farmer

 

Marital Status: Married with 4 children

 

Address: ++++village, Falam Township, Chin State

 

Date of Interview: 14/01/2001

 

Some months ago, Township Peace and Development Council chairman in Falam summoned a meeting where he invited all Village PDC chairmen in the township and informed us that the government would no longer allow shifting cultivation in the area with immediate effect. He told us that anyone continuing the shifting cultivation would be arrested and imprisoned and that the shifting cultivation would be replaced by wet cultivation. We all pleaded to him that since most people do not have fields to do the wet cultivation without the current shifting form of cultivation, we would have nothing to eat and would all die. He said that he would allow us to continue the shifting cultivation under one condition-that everyone doing it would pay Kyats 60 to the authorities.

 

Therefore, for the year 1999-2000 every household pays kyat 60 each to the authorities in return for their permission. There are 10 villages in the Zahau village tract all of which have to pay the same amount to the authorities. They are Haimual, Thipcang, Hnathial (a), Hnathial (b), Zawngte, Ngailan, Seilawn, Sih Ngai, Tlang Kawi, Leilet village.

 

There are 40 households in our village and we paid Kayts 2,400 altogether regardless of the household is a widow. For the year 2000-2001, we were told that we have to pay another Kyats 60 per household. We have already cleared the site for cultivation, but if we do not pay the money then we would not be allowed to proceed. We are also fearful of arrest and imprisonment.

 

REFUGEES

 

Burmese Refugees In India To Go Hungry

 

Fear of possible starvation looms among Burmese refugees in India after the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Office in New Delhi announced in mid January that it will stop assisting them with monthly subsistence allowance of Rs.1400 per person, about US$30.

 

The announcement, which the refugees responded with great disappointment, came with the cited reason of ” the low availability of UNHCR budget allocation for its mission office in New Delhi for the year 2001 resulting from scaling down of financial contributions by potential donor countries”.

 

Although the refugees are informed that the termination of Subsistence Allowance payment will come into effect in April 2001, there are some refugees such as Salai Aung Cin Thang who had already been terminated his allowance. The UNHCR will, however, continue to assist those extremely vulnerable individuals such as single women and children.

 

More than 800 Burmese nationals are registered refugees under the mandate of UNHCR in New Delhi. The number constitutes only a few in an estimated 40,000-50,000 Burmese refugees in India who could manage to come to the capital city to claim UNHCR’s person of concern status. Most refugees are ethnic Chin from western Burma who fled serious human rights abuses including forced labor, rape, summary killing and religious persecution by the military regime in their home country. They are mostly Christians and have been subject to religious and racial persecution by the military junta, which came to power in a bloody coup in 1988.

 

Concentrated mainly in the western suburban area of New Delhi, the refugees live in cheap-rented accommodations from the local landlords. They have no other means of supporting themselves and are largely dependent on humanitarian assistance provided by UNHCR to cover their basic needs such as food and shelter. The Government of India does not recognize them as refugees, though it has issued residential permit to those already recognized by UNHCR, which is to be extended every 6 months.

 

Locked between persecution at home and poverty in their country of asylum, the refugees have been over the years, faced with extreme social problems including health, education and above all, integrating into the local community. In July 2000, many refugee families were evicted from their houses by their landlords when the UNHCR delayed payment of monthly subsistence allowance to them for about 2 months. Already impoverished, it is predictable that once the UNHCR stops paying them allowance in April, they will face an even more serious problem such as homelessness and starvation.

 

According to UNHCR, it has three available options in finding solution to refugee problems, voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement to a third country. The refugees are now asking that they be resettled to a third country such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as it is the only solution left to address their plights. However, UNHCR is insisting that resettlement is the least preferred solution and is contingent entirely on those countries to accept the refugees.

 

 

 

Burmese Refugees Write To Kofi Annan For Help

 

New Delhi, March 17, 2001

 

Burmese refugees have appealed to United Nations Secretary General Mr. Kofi Annan to intervene in the difficulties they are facing in India. The All Burmese Refugees Committee (ABRC), in a letter today, states that the Burmese refugees living in Delhi have been facing problems and difficulties in their stay in India and the local police has failed to provide necessary protection for their security and lives.

 

The letter has narrated details of recent events where some local people beat the refugees in Delhi for wrongly accused acts and the police failed to give protection to the Burmese refugees.

 

According to the refugee committee, on 13th March, a group of local people in Mehrauli, south Delhi, beat some Burmese refugees living in the area, accusing the refugees of “kidnapping” an Indian child.

 

The local police, instead of giving protection, beat the refugees again both on the spot and in the police station. At least two Burmese refugees were badly beaten, said the refugees committee. Later, the police filed a FIR against Mr. David Ral Bik, 18, for allegedly kidnapping the Indian child. The police sent him to Tihar Jail in Delhi the next day.

 

The Burmese refugees committee denied the accusation. “The (Indian) child was just playing with one of our children that morning. There was no such kidnapping”, said Mr. Mang Lian, General Secretary of the refugees committee.

 

The refugees committee has allegedly that the local police force has failed to give necessary protection to the Burmese refugees in Delhi whenever such situation arises.

 

At present, there are nearly one thousand refugees from Burma living in Delhi. Most of them are Chin nationals from Burma. The All Burmese Refugees Committee (India), one of the refugees’ groupings, has appealed to the UN Secretary General to intervene in the matters relating to the Burmese refugees in India to ease their hardship and problems.

 

[ Source: Mizzima News Group ]

 

 

 

FACTS & ARGUMENTS

 

Secret Negotiations – The Myanmar Mentality

 

Kanbawza Win

 

If it is “Government for the people of the people by the people,” then why on earth be secretive seems to be the logical hypothesis of the secret negotiations going on between the Burmese military Junta and the Daw Aung San Suu Kyi followers of the pro democracy forces. Is there something to hide? Or is it Myanmar is negotiating with a Myanmar and leaving out the ethnic groups? These are just some of the soul searching questions with which the people of Burma have been racking their brains with little or no answer. The people listen to the news reports, rumors, speculation and jokes. It is already nearly half a year that the so-called secret negotiations had been going on between the two sides and up to day nothing substantive has emerged. Are we expected to have blind faith in the negotiations?

 

Even though we visualize that the talks between the two antagonists are serious and significant, no one knows the substance of the talks except Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the Generals. There have been no official announcements and even the Burmese media controlled by the Generals has not reflected their views and are tight lipped. Why?

 

The major concern is that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese democracy nymph, is the only person involved from the pro democracy group while her Executive Committee including U Tin Oo, U Aung Shwe, U Nyunt Wai and so on, are barred from participation. Why? Is it because the Generals construe that their bullying tactics will pay off? We are afraid that there are more questions than answers regarding these so-called secret negotiations. On the other hand if Gen. Khin Nyunt reports to China and General Maung Aye to India about the progress of the reports why are we left in dark for after all this is an internal Burmese affair, as according to the logic of the Junta.

 

The only thing with regard to this is that there is no substantive political agreement has been reached up to this time. Nothing has been announced. Then what is all this secret negotiating all about? No laws have been repealed and this explicitly means that a handful of those who were already released can be re-arrested and tortured again. This does not includes the fate of thousands of political prisoners like Min Ko Naing, Daw San San Nwe and the likes who are rotting in Burmese jails. Neither do we see any law enacted to ensure basic human rights and democratic principles. If it is genuinely a step by step approach negotiations must at least show some progress as time goes on.

 

In the meantime, forced labour has been going on unabated. According to an ILO document there are over 800,000 Burmese subjected to forced labour at any given time. Many children are forced to work in infrastructure projects under the banner of voluntary labour while others have to eke out their living in sweatshops. There has been forced relocation of people from their native homes. These people were forced out to make way for government projects and sent to unhealthy places with no running water or sanitary system. Ethnic cleansing has been going on with might and main in the ethnic inhabited area while religious persecution and religious riots are very much encouraged and initiated. Moreover there is not the slightest attempt on the part of the military government to curb the gross human rights violations committed by the Burmese soldiers against the civilians.

 

What more proof is wanted than the Junta was not at all serious about these negotiation when it launched a major offensive against the dissidents, both to the pro-democracy forces of the border area and the ethnic freedom fighters. Their goal is complete annihilation and in their zeal to implement it the Junta forces have crossed the border into Thailand in hot pursuit resulting in the clashes with the Thai armed forces. Like in any military operations fleeing refugees and forced portering were common. The porter to walk in front of the soldiers so that they will be the first to be blown up in case of land mines. Lack of mechanized division and manpower has compelled the Burmese army to recruit women porters who become slave labour during the day and sex slaves at night. The more military operations there are the more forced labour, portering, rape, pillaging of villages and other gross human rights violations will occur.

 

The Junta has to be judged by its actions and not by its words and these actions clearly spell out that it is just stalling for time with these secret negotiations in order to strengthen their grip on the country and preventing any international action against them.

 

The only solace from this “Hush Hush Negotiation” is that the Junta, after a dozen years has realized that the pro democracy forces led by Daw Suu and the NLD could not be annihilated as they have previously boasted and vowed to do. Now they are being forced to find alternatives if they are indeed serious about solving the problems, which they are now facing. The moral authority of Daw Suu over the entire Burmese people coupled with international backing is too much to handle for the Junta. Hence, they have embarked on this dialogue which everybody hopes will eventually lead to national reconciliation and solve the Burmese problem. With this end in view, the regime has taken a few minor steps to relax the political atmosphere and possibly explore the potential for further international development assistance. But hopes spring eternal in human breast. Still, it is important for the people to be pragmatic and must be able to see the situation correctly, to wei! gh the pros and the cons.

 

Unlike the leading Asian nations of China, India and Japan that want the status quo or the Association of Southeast Nation’s Constructive Engagement Policy which clearly encourage the Burmese Military Junta, the West and the United Nations and its related agencies the ILO have spoken a language which the Junta clearly understands and it has borne fruit in terms of these secret negotiations. Now we would like to advice the international community to continue to speak in the same language to compel the Junta to bow to the people’s will. We would like to see both the European Union and the US take the necessary steps as well, to broaden the substance of the talk by including the ethnic representatives. At the same time they must be ready to administer more punitive actions and further sanctions if the Junta endeavours to trick the people of Burma and the international community. We must bear in mind that the Generals, like their mentor U Ne Win are very wicket ! crafty, evil and tyrannical.

 

On the other hand the Junta is not completely monolithic. There are several well-known hard-liners that are opposed to the talks and still harbour the idea that they alone are patriotic and that they should be the monarchs of all they survey. The latest episode of the helicopter crash in the Salween river of the Junta’s No.4 man, General Tin Oo and the cabinet ministers, including the supreme commander of the Southeastern division, Thura Sit Maung demonstrates the power struggle going on among them. In military Burma, almost every major accident has been orchestrated to make and appear that the liquidation of that particular person were an unfortunate incident. Those power maniacs will stop at nothing. Nor will they hesitate at killing their own lieutenant in such a way as to appear as if it is an accident when ever their position is threaten.

 

We would like to echo the session of International Confederation of Free Trade Union’s (ICFTU) which has over 120 million workers for solidarity, and ensure that the ILO continues to take action against the Burmese Junta. The ILO should follow up with the Ministry of Labour of every member country inquiring of what responses has been given to the ILO resolution and what measures they have taken to implement it. This is because we understand that thorough research by the ILO throughout these years has come up with the conclusion that it is virtually impossible for any foreign firm, company, government or other institution, to conduct any trade or other economic activity with Burma without providing direct financial support to the military Junta. Both the ILO and the ICFTU have confirmed that any commercial or economic links with Burma perpetuate or extend the system of forced or compulsory labour.

 

All this indicates that the Junta is not sincere in its negotiations with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The very nature of “Secret Negotiations” means they have something to hide from the public. How can a Myanmar power negotiating with another Myanmar can speak about the Non Myanmar (ethnic groups) when xenophobia and chauvinism runs deep into the Myanmar veins? This is the type of stereotyping perhaps as their cult, history and traditions reinforced such attitudes but to suggest the ideas are inherent I think is a mistake. Experience for nearly half a century even prior to the Burmese military take over has made the non-Myanmar groups wary of these under-table negotiations. Maybe it is high time for the ethnic groups and the international community to acknowledge that the only way to prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing, gross human rights violations and narco producing is to let the ethnic groups go their own way, if the spirit of the Union is absent in the Myanmar! group. This will be going against the very grain of the “Panglong Spirit” and the vision of the architects and the founding members of modern Burma. But this disintegration of the Union, like former Yugoslavia, is far better to be than one group over-lording it over and bullying the other group in perpetuity. At least the Burmese generals contributed to this situation and the day will sadly come eventually when there is no other choice.

 

Burma’s basic problem is rooted in ethnic conflict among the people who don’t want to share the same national identity; and if in this secret negotiations ethnic representatives are not included nothing will improve because Myanmar and Buddhist chauvinism is dominant. Conventional human rights have at times worsened discrimination in Burma by inadvertently validating stereotypes of the aggressive intruders and the meek, innocent victims. A chance must be given to the people to confront their own prejudices about the races inhabiting Burma and the history of their interaction. The people of Burma must confront their feelings about their neighbours with a view of reconciling the wrongs of the past and coexisting peacefully in the future. Ethnic nationalism must be distinctly distinguished from beneficial patriotism. Racial, religious, and linguistic discrimination must be replaced at all level by a willingness to understand and accommodate each other.

 

What authentic proof is there that this “Secret Negotiations” when all can witness so far is a ploy to stall for time to prevent the ILO resolutions from being implemented. We fear that this may be just a fanciful juggling act to entertain the Burmese people and the rest of the world.

(The author is a visiting Professor at the Faculty of International Development Studies, University of Winnipeg Cum Research Fellow at the University of Manitoba at the Institute of Humanities, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada)

 

 

 

Burma Army And Forced Recruiting Of Child Soldiers Salai Kipp Kho Lian Burma gained independence from the British in 1948. In 1962 the Army took over the state power and abolished the then existing parliament democracy system. In 1988 there was a nation-wide democracy uprising against the military dictatorship led by the university students. The uprising was brutally crushed by the military (about 10,000 peaceful demonstrators were massacred nation-wide) and many students joined the ethnic rebels that have been fighting against the central government since Burma’s independence. The students set up an armed movement called All Burma Students Democracy Front at Manerplaw, the Headquarters of the Karen National Union. Even though many ethnic rebels have striked cease -fire agreements with the military regime the KNU, ABSDF and some other ethnic rebels continue their armed struggle.

 

Since the said 1988 uprisings was crushed the military junta planned to expand the army from the 200,000 up to 400,000. But the post-1988 generations of young people are so disillusioned with the military regime that they instead have sympathy with the students and ethnic armed groups.

 

Moreover, the masses are dissatisfied with the military’s failure to hand over the state power to the 1990 election-winning party, the National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner. (The said election was initiated by the military regime itself, which promised to honour the results of the elections. But it refused to hand the political power to the above-mentioned party which had won more than 80 % of the votes.

 

As the army could not get enough volunteers willing to join the army they started to demand quota from each town and village tracts to recruit young people to join the army. Since no one wants to join the army the township and village tracts authorities have to bribe young people by offering K 20,000 to K 30,000 if they would join the army. Because of dire poverty people have no other choices, so some accept the army’s officer just to run away after the military training. As such the army also started to kidnap young people and children – many of them are still ten years old – and force them to join the army. Soldiers who could trick more children into joining the army are rewarded with money or other privileges. ( The soldiers who could trick or kidnap children to join the army are given Kyats 1000 for each child while the monthly salary of an infantry soldier was merely Ks 750,- (that was before 1999). [The military regime has now raised the junior soldier! s’ salary to K 5500.- since 1998/99]

 

Below are some of the privileges of the trainees and soldiers:-

 

– Criminals or juvenile delinquents who have committed any crime (except murder and rape) will be freed from any punishment once a contract – to stay in the army for at least ten years – has been signed. Murderers who joined the army are freed from punishment after the four-month military training. (Usually new recruits are forced to sign the contract the moment they enter the training camps);

 

– Deserters who want to avoid punishment can re-join the Army as new recruits under a new name. They only need to provide their previous serial numbers so that the officers could delete them from the list.

 

Children of ten years old, or who are still too young to go through the military training are stationed to work at the kitchen at the army barracks to make sure they are well-fed and become strong enough and ready for military training. Children who complain about their being kidnapped or who strongly expose their unwillingness to remain in the army are locked up in a kind of jail they call “special rooms” day and night except during the training courses. Some children who speak out aggressively against their conditions are locked up with iron chains at their feet.

 

If anyone runs away during the training the parents are arrested and locked up in the Army until their children return to the training camps.

 

The Army also drafts juvenile delinquents from juvenile prisons in Rangoon. The child soldiers are not well-fed during the training and a lot of restrictions are imposed on them. Moreover, most of the time they are forced to do hard labour jobs inside the army compounds. The military trainings are mere parade and a few days of lectures on arms and ammunition. As a result the child soldiers are ill-trained in military skills and faced a lot of difficulties in the front-line. Once these children in the front-line they are free from all restrictions imposed on them during the training and feel free to break any law. Especially those from the juvenile prisons are notorious for their indiscipline and cruel behaviours towards civilians at the front line as they are now well- equipped with arms and have the army’s protection from punishment by the police.

 

Once they are in the front-line these young soldiers are not given their full monthly wages. As they do not have enough money they start looting the fouls and properties of villagers. The army officers are offered portions of anything looted and the more they could offer their officers the more privileges they get. However, in due course these young soldiers become unhappy with their own situation and are always looking for chances to run away.

 

During the training (after the salary raise in 1998/99) the trainees are officially paid K 3000.- monthly salary. But they could draw only K 1000.- The rest of their salaries are deducted by officers for expenses like uniform, or for the wooden boxes they got from the army, life insurance, fund savings for celebration to be held when the training is over (which never take place), etc., etc. Moreover, every now and then the soldiers are ordered to torture or kill villagers whom the officers may accuse them of rebel sympathizers, most often without any hard evidence. So the young soldiers are very unhappy with the army. They have more sympathy for the rebels and civilians, especially since the 1988 mass-uprisings.

 

[This report is compiled for the Rhododendron News by Salai Kipp Kho Lian of the CHIN FORUM INFORMATION SERVICE based on personal account of a Burmese ex-child soldier, who wish to remain anonymous.]

 

 

 

The Most Common Causes Of The Chin People’s Exodus

 

Hre Mang, Hartwick College, New York

 

Background

 

As the implementation of the Independence Agreement was impeded, the Chin people’s inherited land was divided into three parts. Apart from the Chin State, the other parts were annexed to Sagaing division and Magwe division. The Chin people are approximately 2.5 million in number. There are many sub-groups among the Chins – Zo, Lai, Kuki, Lushai, Matu, Khumi, Asho, etc. There are nine district centres – Tidim, Tawnzang, Falam, Haka, Thlantlang, Matupi, Kanpalet, Paletwah and Mindat. The people who called themselves “Zomi” occupied Falam, Haka and Thantlang Districts; the Matu people occupied Matupi District, Asho and Khumi people occupied Mindat, Kanpalet and Pletwa Districts; and in Magwe and Sagaing divisions different sub-tribes of Chin people occupied the land. There are many different dialects that the Chin people speak. There is no common official Chin language, but Falam (Laizo) is used for broadcasting radio programmes. 80% of the total population are! Christians, the rest are animist, Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus. The Chin State is mostly hilly area. Only in Magwe and Sagaing division are there plains which can be used for cultivation.

 

There are no national highways connecting the important places in Chin State. It is connected to the central part of Burma by small roads. Therefore, there is no common place for the Chin people to meet. Moreover, there has been no daily or periodical newspaper circulating within the State. There is also no radio station within the State. There is only the Chin program, which is broadcast from Rangoon, the capital city of Burma. This program is 30 minutes everyday – and is the official mouthpiece – 15 minutes are for the news, and the other 15 minutes for songs. Burmese is the official language, and there is no Chin common language that all the Chin people can understand. The literacy rate is very low. While Burma is among the poorest countries of the world, the Chin State is the poorest state in Burma.

 

1) Political turmoil and bad administration

 

For several decades, against the will of the Chin people, the Burmese military regime has been controlling the Chins and their inherited land. In 1988, there was a public demonstration by Chin students, workers and the general public against the military regime. But when the military regime brutally oppressed the pro-democratic movement, thousands of Chins left their motherland to escape from the hands of the oppressors. Though the Chin revolutionary movement had started before 1988, the 1988 country-wide pro-democracy demonstration was the most significant event in recent decades in which the Chin people strongly protested against the military regime. This demonstration led to many people being killed, and to thousands leaving their country and seeking refuge in other countries.

 

Under the military regime, all the important administrative posts are controlled by army officers, even at the district and village level, where only the Chin people live on their inherited land. Any army officer has more authority, and is superior to any village president, or the head of the community. These army officers directly controlled the public administration. As a result, all protesters and supporters of democracy were wiped out under martial law. The armed forces, who are not bound by any laws, treat the local people brutally. Thus, the Chins live in constant fear of the armed forces and without any political freedom within their own country.

 

Especially in rural areas, under fear of the armed forces, people do not want to be involved in any aspect of public administration where they have to deal with the armed forces. Any community leader or administrator has to cater to the demands of both the Burmese army and of the underground insurgency group. Many village heads have been condemned with imprisonment, without having undergone the proper legal procedure for helping the underground group.

 

At the same time, the head of the community is the agent of the insurgents for collecting taxes and whatever else they demand from the public. The people actually pay tax twice, once to the Burmese army, and once to the insurgents. When the Burmese army comes to know about it, the head of the village is usually put into jail. Hence, the local people do not want to get involved in any administrative capacity, and the army forces somebody whom they can use as their administrative agent to become the head of the community.

 

The army violates the Chin people’s rights and dignity by their actions. The people are obliged to do anything that the armed forces demand, like portering, forced labour and material contribution etc. Especially in the villages, the army also oppresses the people; murders, rapes, tortures and persecutions are common. Not only does the government not initiate any development projects for the people, it does not even allow them to do any development work for themselves. In such a situation, the society becomes disorganised and the people fear the armed forces. They are unable to work towards their progress. This has caused many of them to leave their country and seek refuge in neighbouring countries. Though they are homeless and live as illegal immigrants, they prefer their exiled lives, as they have escaped fear and hunger in their hometown.

 

Throughout the political and economic crisis in Burma, the bad administration has affected public education. Since 1988, there has been no proper educational programme. Schools, colleges and universities have been closed from time to time. Due to the sharp political contentions between the military regime and the public, the schools could not be run efficiently. Due to poverty, teachers could not concentrate on their duties. The teachers and lecturers earn meagre salaries, which are below their minimum basic expenditure. There are many private tuition classes started by the lecturers. For students to pass their examinations, it is necessary for them to attend these classes, but the poorer class students cannot afford the fees. As a result, many people could not let their children continue their education, and many of the children are demoralised. Even the students who can meet the higher costs cannot hope to work for the military regime, because the employme! nt opportunities are very limited and the wages are meagre. This situation crushes all expectations of the young people. As a result, the people have remained without adequate education, and most of the Chin refugees are not highly educated.

 

2) Forced labour

 

Forced labour has caused thousands of people to leave their country. It consumed the energy, money, materials and time of the Chin people, and was detrimental to their dignity and welfare. Forced labour is used for road construction, army camp construction, hydroelectric project, pottering….? and trench-digging. Not only men and women, but also animals (horse, buffalo etc.) and vehicles are also demanded by the army for their service.

 

Whenever the construction of roads or railways, or maintenance work was undertaken, the people are asked to give their services without being given any wages. People have to go and stay at the location of the work, and carry their own supplies for the duration of the work. At the location, the army guards them with guns.

 

As the strength of the army has been increased, many new army camps are opened and some old camps are expanded in the Chin state. The surrounding villagers have to bring materials for construction, and give as much labour as demanded. They also have to dig trenches within and around the army camps. The Burmese army called forced labour “Luk Aa Pi”, which means “offering service by free will”. Actually, the villagers offered their service against their own free will and due to force, which is in Burmese “Atin Luk Aa Pi”, meaning “forced labour”.

 

In many places, people don’t get time to work for their own livelihood because of the forced labour. Moreover, they still have to pay taxes and give materials and goods to both the military regime and the ethnic insurgents. They have no social security or medical aid. If anybody refuses to obey the orders of the army, or demands his or her rights, he or she is put in jail. Though many are not actually shot down, most of the people are oppressed and suffer economic ruin. As a result, many of them leave their country.

 

3) Democratic Movement

 

Since 1988 Chin students, workers and public have agitated for the Burmese pro-democratic movement, which has cost thousands of lives, and caused the exodus of thousands. Since the tumultuous public demonstration of 1988, many Chins left their home town and fought for the promotion of democratic rule in Burma. Some have joined the violent division, while others have joined the non-violent course for the promotion of democratic rule. Thousands of refugees are in India and other countries.

 

Within and outside Chin State, many have been agitating and fighting for self-determination of Chin people and for the promotion of democratic rule in Burma. Whoever supported the Chin national political movement, the Burmese army crushed them and punished them with endless imprisonment. The Burmese army has been trying to uproot all political activists working against them. There are many who have been in jail for the political movement, and even Chin pastors and religious leaders are also imprisoned on suspicion, without being allowed to undergo the proper judicial procedure in court. Among the Chin political parties and organisations, the prominent ones are the Chin National Front, Chin National Council, Chin National League for Democracy. The Chin political parties and organisations join hands with other democratic fronts of all ethnic groups for the promotion of democratic rule in Burma. Politically, Chins stand for self-determination and for re-establi! shment and reunification within the Federal Union Country, which is possible only with the resurrection of the Panglong agreement.

 

4) Human rights violations

 

As mentioned above, though the natural resources are more than enough for the Chin people to manage and survive within their inherited land, thousands of Chins have left their motherland and sought refuge in India and other neighbouring countries. This is due to the political turmoil and bad administration of the military regime, forced labour and human rights violations by the armed forces, ethnic and religious discrimination, and economic ruin under the military regime. Naturally, Mizoram state of India, where Chin people have sought refuge, has no better resources or means of cultivation, or any additional development project, but the governing system made it different from their inherited land. Some people escaped from the point of the gun and imprisonment, while some others from economic ruin and moral depression. Whatever the exiled Chins may claim about themselves, or however they are treated in their exile lives, the reason for their leaving Burma is! not merely for a better living standard, but to escape from life-threatening situations. Others who do not know how to or cannot move to other parts of the world have stayed within their motherland, where the darkness of moral depression covers the land. In fact, the Chin people leave their own country not because it is naturally bad, or the place of their exile is good, but because they want to escape the brutal oppression of the ruling military regime. And according to the survey, almost all the Chins in Mizoram state will go back to their motherland when the military regime steps down, or is replaced by a democratic federal government, where the people rule.

 

Geographical Background

 

Chin state is located in the western part of Burma, along the international boundary between Burma and India. Besides the present Chin State, some parts of the Chin people’s inherited land are annexed to Magwe and Sagaing divisions. The Chin people’s land was cut in the west by Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram states of India, in the north and east by the Sagaing division, in the south-east by the Magwe division, and in the south by Arakhan state. Almost all areas of Chin state are covered with hills; in Magwe and Sagaing division and in southern Chin there are plains. The mountain peaks are high, the average height being 8700 feet. Arterawtlang (Victoria) is the highest peak at 10,400 feet. In the southern and some lower areas, the high peaks are between 2000 and 4000 feet high. The climate is not extreme, except at the top of the hills. The monsoon lasts from May to October. Average rainfall for the year is between 70 inches and 170 inches. In summer, the temper! ature ranges between 17 to 29 degrees centigrade and in winter temperatures are between 3 to 24 degrees centigrade. Due to the difficult geographical terrain and lack of development, no national highway crosses the Chin state. Only in Sagaing division the national highway crosses the Chin people’s inherited land, connecting the state with Mindat. Mindat has better connections with the central part of the country, and other towns can be reached by a path which can be traversed only by foot, and which is difficult for vehicles to go on. There is no means of air or sea travel within Chin state. Due to the difficult geographical terrain, the rivers of Chin state cannot be used for transportation.

 

There are various sub-tribes of the Chin people, occupying different regions. In the northern part of the Chin people’s inherited land, which is presently included within Sagaing division, Naga-Chin and Kuki-Chin occupied the land. The Naga tribe lives in Naga Hills, which connects with Nagaland state of India. And to the south of Naga Hills, the place called Kabaw valley is occupied by Kuki and some other tribes. This connects to Manipur state of India. The national highway crosses into India through the Kabaw valley, through Moreh town to Imphal, the capital of Manipur state. Below Kabaw valley is the Kale valley where mixed Chin sub-tribes live. The Kale-Kabaw valleys are mostly plains and are rich in agricultural products.

 

In the south of Kale-Kabaw valley is located the Kankaw valley which is occupied by Yaw Chin and some other Chin sub-tribes. From the Kankaw valley to the southern area of Asho, other Chin sub-tribes inhabit the land.

 

Within the present Chin state, starting from the north, specific tribes inhabit the respective districts. The people who call themselves ‘Zomi’ i.e. Paite, Sihzin etc, live in Tidim and Tawnzang districts. And in Falam district live the people who call themselves ‘Laimi’, such as Laizo, Tlaisun, Zaniat, Sim, Jahau, Hualngo etc. And in Thlantlang and Halka districts Zotung, Zophei, Lakher, Cinzah etc. call themselves ‘laimi’. In these three districts, Falam, Haka and Thlantlang, the people call themselves ‘Laimi’. Though there are different dialects, the people are able to communicate well with one another using their own dialects. Coming to the southern part of Chin State, Matupi district is occupied by Matu and other sub-tribes of Chins. And in Mindat, Kanpalet and Paletwa districts, Asho, Cho, Khumi and other sub-tribes of the Chins live. Compared to northern Chin state, the southern part of the state lacks roadways for transport. Between southern and nort! hern Chin state there is no road fit for vehicular traffic, but only foot-paths; to this day people go by foot to the southern or northern part of the State. Therefore, there has been no socio-cultural exchange between the south and north. This has caused a lack of understanding between the Chin people.

 

Each of the Chin sub-tribes has its own region. Since times of unwritten history, each of the Chin sub-tribes has lived by itself with its own tribal chief within its own independent territory. Before the British colonisation, historically there were constant wars between the tribes and sub-tribes. S such, they did not have an opportunity to develop a common language with which all Chins could communicate with each other.

 

The most common ways

 

Naga-Chins, who originated in Naga Hills of northern Sagaing division, which extends into Nagaland state of India, Kukis and some other tribes go to Manipur state of India through the border trade road, which crosses from Tamu of Sagaing division to Moreh, and then to Imphal, the capital city of Manipur state. This border trade is an important road by which smugglers, business men and women cross the country. In Manipur state, there are some tribes of the Chin people : Kukis, Paite, Zomi, Hmar, Kom etc., who welcome the Chin refugees and immigrants. The refugees from Tawnzang and Tidim districts of Chin state go to Manipur state where the same sub-tribes live, who were annexed to India in the time of the British.

 

There are foot-paths which cross the border from Twanzing and Tidim districts of northern Chin state to Manipur state and Mizoram state : Phaisat-Hengtam, Aisih-Sialsih, Vanglai-Sialsi, Khuavum-Beheng, Haichi-Beheng, Pangmual-Kangkap, Suangbem-Sinjol; and these are foot-paths to Mizoram state : Haichin-Minbung, Selbung-Vaikhawtlang, Tuimang-Khuangphah, Bapi-Hnahlan, Dankhan-Hnahlan, Khawzimte-Tlangsam. Moreover, there is a small vehicle road from Tawnzang of Chin state to Bualkot village of Manipur, and one from Tidim of Chin state to Champhai of Mizoram. This road crosses the border to Tio village in Falam district of Chin state and then Zokhawthar of Champhai district, which are located by the side of Tio river, along the boundary.

 

From Falam of Chin state, there is one motorable road which passes through the above-mentioned border villages – Rihkhawdar in Chin state and Zokhawthar in Champhai district – and then reaches Champhai of Mizoram state. There are some foot-paths which connect Falam district of Chin state and Mizoram state (naming Chin state villages first and Mizoram state villages second) : Khawthlir-Bulfek, Surbung-Lianpui, Satawn-Vaphai, Leilet-Vaphai, and Farkawn Ngailan-Khankawn.

 

The following are some footpaths from Thlantlang district of Chin state to Mizoram state : Tlanglo-Farkawn, Zangtlang-Thakte, Dawn-Thakte, and Lungreng, Ralpel-Nagarchip, Lungler-Thingsai, Bungtlang-Bualpui, and Mullianpui, Siallam-Thaltlang, Belbar-Niawhtlang, Tluangram-Lungbun, Zephai-Ainak, Ngalang-Ainik, Lungchawi-Chakang. And some footpaths from southern part of Chin state are : Darling-Chapui, Hlungmang-Chapui, and Khopai. There are also some footpaths, which are not maintained properly, but are used for travelling to Mizoram.

 

There are two entrances to Chin state from the central part of Burma – The first one is from Kalemyo to Chin state crossing Tidim in one way and Falam in another way, both of which meet at Tio villages of Falam district at the border, to Champhai district of Mizoram. The second entrance way to Chin state from the central part of Burma is Mungzua-Kankaw-Haka, which reaches Thlantlang. There is only one motorable road that properly reaches Mizoram and touches the Mizoram vehicle road at the border; which is both from Falam and Tidim to Tio river. This is the main way by which the Chin people travel to Mizoram. Besides this, in Chin state, there is one border trade road from Sagaing division, which crosses the Chin people’s inherited land, and goes to Manipur state of India. This is the biggest and most important road for Indo-Burma border trade and most of the smugglers and business people use this.

 

Most of the refugees from Sagaing division, and northern Chin state Tidim, Tawnzang and Falam districts go to northern part of Mizoram. And those of Haka, Thlantlang, and southern part of Chin state Matupi, Mindat, Kanpalet, Paletwa go to southern part of Mizoram state. Though there is no motorable road crossing the border in the southern part, people go to Mizoram by foot.

 

The distances from the district centres of northern Chin state to the Indo-Burma border are below 100 miles; from Tawnzang and Tidim around 40 miles, from Falam 60 miles, from Haka around 70 miles and from Thlantlang around 40 miles. In the southern part, Matupi is the nearest to Mizoram state. While Mindat and Kanpalet are located close to the central part of Burma, they are far from the Indian border compared to the northern district centres. Paletwa, located at the Southwest of Chin state, has poor ways and means of transportation. Therefore, there are only a few refugees and immigrants from southern people of Chins in Mizoram, compared to the northern peoples. Most of the Chin refugees are from northern and central part of Chin state and from Sagaing division.

 

Settlement

 

For entering India, there are several check gates in the border area, but foreigners’ entry is not totally restricted as India is a democratic country. Moreover, due to the facial similarity between Chins and Mizos, it is very difficult to identify foreigners. In the police stations, there are cases registered against the foreigners for being in Mizoram without legal documents. There is no legal document issued to the Chins, such as temporary visiting permit or residential permit. But the Chins don’t have much difficulty in entering Mizoram state. According to the State Home Minister’s report, 901 Burmese were deported to Burma during 1999. Moreover, hundreds of Chins are stopped and pushed back everyday from Champhai, which is the main entrance to Mizoram for Chins.

 

From 1988 to 1994, there had been a refugee camp in Champhai, which is 20 kms from the Burma border. But that is no more. Thereafter, there have been no refugee camps or registration offices in Mizoram state. Hence, refugees seek their own shelter using their own means.

 

According to the Chin tradition, begging is a shameful act. As such, even as refugees, the Chins do not beg or ask for help from the Mizoram people, but try to survive by their own means.

 

As mentioned above, most Chin refugees from Sagaing division, Kukis and some other Chin tribes go to Manipur state of India, especially to Lamka district of Manipur state. Lamka district was originally owned by the Chin people. And from Tidim and Tawnzang districts of Chin state, people also go to Manipur, which is geographically and ethnically close to the land and the people.

 

People of various sub-tribes from Kale Valley of Sagaing division, Tidim, Tawnzang and Falam districts of northern Chin state go to places in northern Mizoram such as Champhai and Aizawl districts. The people from Tidim and Tawnzang who call themselves ‘Zomi’, speak the same language as that of the Zomi language in Mizoram and Manipur. There are some tribes in Mizoram state that are the same as Zomi tribes of Chin state. Falam people easily speak Mizo language because Falam language is close to Mizo language. Moreover, Hualngo tribe of Falam speaks the same Mizo language of Mizoram state. Falam people call themselves ‘Laimi’, but there are several sub-tribes such as Laizo, Tlaisun, Zangiat, Sim, Zahau, Hualngo etc. Likewise, there are sub-tribes among the Zomi – Paite, Sihzin etc.

 

Most of the people from Haka, Thlantlang and Matupi districts go to middle and southern part of Mizoram i.e. Saiha, Lunglei, Lawngtlai districts. In the villages of the border area, there is a concentration of Chin refugees, since most of the refugee families settle there so that they can easily get the kind of work (farming and cultivation) they are already familiar with. According to a council member of a border village in Champhai district, there are 60 Chin refugee families in one particular village. In some places, the local people share their land with the refugees for cultivation. As there is no refugee resettlement programme, nor a registration office that restricts the movement of the refugees in Mizoram state, many people move around the state wherever they can get jobs for their survival. The refugees and the local Mizo people do not use the term ‘refugee’, since they find it strange. Also, for the sake of their own security, the refugees try to b! e assimilated by the local Mizo people as soon as they settle within Mizoram.

 

 

VOL.IV No.I JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2001 Interview With Lieutenant Colonel Biak To

The life and views of a veteran Army and Police Officer

 

( Rhododendron Note: Lieutenant Colonel Biak To a B.A graduate from Mandalay University, enlisted as a private in the Burmese Army on 17 November 1973 after he found out that his movement as leader of Haka University Students Association was closely monitored by the notorious Military Intelligence Service (MIS). It was the time when a new constitution for Socialist authoritarian regime was being drafted in Burma and the authorities were in full alert to crush every possible hindrance to the progress of constitutional making process. After going through different levels of military training with a number of postings in different parts of Burma including one in the Light Infantry Battalion (101) under Divisional Command 77 stationed in Wa area, he became a Captain in 1984.

 

In 1990, he shifted from the Army to Police service on a rank-to-rank basis, becoming a police inspector. Being an educated man with adequate service experience, he was promoted Major in 1994. And by 1998, he became Lieutenant Colonel in the 1st Police Regiment.

 

In 200, for the reason that was never made clear to him, Lt. Colonel Biak To had his position stripped off from him. Much to his surprise, he was fired with a fine of Kyats 15,9000, which he had to pay apparently without knowing why.

 

In the following disclosure to CHRO, Lt. Colonel Biak To revealed how he was discriminated and unfairly treated by his superiors in the Army and Police simply because of his religious and ethnic identity. He also explained his views and perspectives involving the various aspects of problems facing Burma.)

 

CHRO: How was your life during your service in the Burmese Army and Police?

 

Lt. Col. BT: My father was Rev. Lal Hnin. He was one of the first Chin converts into Christianity. So, I was grown up in a good Christian family. I finished high school from Haka State High School and graduated from Mandalay University in 1972.

 

I was a weight lifter and healthy young man. I would like to become an army officer. Therefore, after my graduation from university, I applied for Military Officer Training School. However, because I am a Chin ethnic nationality, my application was not considered. So, I joined the army as a private on November 17,1973. I tried very hard to please my superiors in performing my duties. I was promoted to Lance corporal in February l976 and corporal in October of the same year in 1976. Because of my work performance, I was allowed to join Officer Training School in 1979 in service. Then I became second Lieutenant in April 1980. That means it took me almost 8 years to reach this level while other Burmese Buddhist graduates could attain this level of rank just one year after their graduation from a university.

 

The vast majority of the ranking officers in the Burmese Army are Burman Budhists. As a result, I was always discriminated against the dominant Budhists for my being an ethnic Chin Christian. For example, the non-Burman soldiers were selectively assigned in the front line to fight against the Karen rebels, saying that we were brave and loyal. The ethnic soldiers were, in fact, respected as the most brave and hardy fighters in the Burmese Army. As ethnic minority soldiers, we enjoyed virtually no rest time and were never given permission or leave to visit our relatives. The most frustrating thing was when we returned from a successful operation or captured enemy positions, the Burman soldiers who remained in the camps all the while and did not participate in the actual combat got promoted, while we, the actual fighters were neglected for promotions. A Burman officer with less educational background and service experience would become a Colonel while I remained as a Captain. Our superiors would always encourage us to become Budhists so as to be considered for promotions, but we always chose not to be promoted than abandoning our faith. An ethnic soldier would not be promoted to a position higher than Major regardless of his service years and how many times he had been transferred.

 

There is no difference in the Police either. We were repeatedly told to convert to Buddhism if we really aspired for promotions. This also tended to be a mere deception. A close friend of mine, Thein Lwin, an ethnic Shan Christian converted to Buddhism for want of promotions but was never promoted. He just ended up being cheated of his faith.

 

On July 10, 2000, I gave a speech to the police parade mentioning my being a Chin Christian and son of a pastor that from childhood, I never wanted to tell lies, steal or misbehave and that I wanted everyone to do likewise. Four days later, on July 14, I received an order saying that I have been dismissed from the police.

 

CHRO: Do you know the reason why you were laid off?

 

Lt.Co. BT: I still have no idea on what exact account I was dismissed. The order came all of a sudden without any formal procedures. Under normal circumstances either a preliminary inquiry or departmental inquiry should have been conducted before a government service could be tried for any misconduct or violations of rules. There was not any such thing happening in my case. At the time of my dismissal, I was the only person holding a B.A degree among officers of my rank in the entire nine Police Regiments in Burma. In fact, I should have been the first one to be considered for promotions. Obviously, the authorities did not want to see a Chin Christian holding high position that they made a pre-emptive move to dismiss me without any apparent charges. It just did not end with my dismissal. In an attempt to prevent me from leaving the country, the authorities disqualified me from being eligible for a passport in seven years. However, I was able to obtain a passport under a fake name and secretly managed to sneak out of the country. I have a wife and three children remaining in Burma. I am constantly worried about them because if the authorities found out my absence, they would be subject to harassment and persecution.

 

CHRO: As a middle rank police officer, can you tell us about the prison conditions in Burma? Under what conditions do the prisoners commonly live?

 

Lt.Col. BT: Prison conditions differ from one another. In a major prison like Insein prison, different inmates receive different treatment depending on the severity and importance of their case. Inmates serving political sentence would receive better treatments in terms of food and facilities so as to look good before foreign agencies that might come to assess the prison conditions. All the prisoners in general, are not adequately receiving food and medical attention. In some cases, prisoners mostly depend on their relatives who brought them food from outside. Prisoners having no relatives around have to stay hungry. There are nine hard labor camps across Burma in which inmates have to work on government’s agricultural projects and road construction etc. This usually happened under serious conditions and beyond the prisoners can endure. There is no medical treatment available for them unless their relatives can send them money to guy it. But the jail officials would always take the money for themselves. The number of death in prisons is dramatically increasing everywhere. People are so much afraid of being ended up in the country’s prison that they are fleeing the county each day.

 

CHRO: What is the nexus between the military regime and drug?

 

I do not know much about the drug. Drugs come mostly from the area controlled by Wa militants, which had signed cease-fire agreement with the SPDC. This drug involved mostly stimulant tablets and fewer amount of cocaine. There are more than 50 such refinery machines operating in Wa area. These drugs are transported and smuggled out to Thailand from where they are transported again to other countries.

 

CHRO: How would you describe your views with regards to the present military regime and the country’s problems in general?

 

What appears to be the main problem with the present military regime is a notion that they can stay in power as long as they can cheat the people. They do not seem to care about what is going on around the world other than their own ideological belief. They have sold off all the country’s natural resources including teaks and gemstones and pocketed it for themselves. Huge amount of money is spent on military hard wares and equipments. They projected some money on building bridges and dams, which they boasted them in the State-controlled Television broadcast and newspapers as the unprecedented achievements that ever happened only under their reign. They believe that no one including the UN can interfere with the internal matters and that they will run the country as they like.

 

What military regime has in mind is only the benefits and welfare of their own families while the people at large are being pushed to the point of starvation. Prices are skyrocketing day after day and year after year. A person could live easily on 3.15 kyats a day earning in the 1960s. But today, kyats 300 cannot even survive a person. Inflation rate is fast becoming high because the government had allowed former Drug lord Khunsa and his associates to launder their drug money in the country, which involved large scale buying of properties and land across the country.

 

The question of democracy seems to be still far away. The military officials have enjoyed very much the taste of being in power that they will never want cede it again. They do not even attempt to understand what democracy really is. The cry of ethnic minority for self-determination and federalism means some sort of separatism or independence movement to the military junta. All their intention and attempts are only to suppress any kind of elements they deem a threat to them. Their targets have constantly been the NLD and Aungsan Suukyi. They are now trying to expand the arm force on a daily basis. More than thrice the numbers of normal recruits are now in the Defense Studies Academy in Maymyo. Because the junta has held everything so tight that without any assistance or effective pressure from abroad, I think the question of democracy is still not within reach.

 

Burmese Soldiers Stole A Church’s Solar Plate

 

Burmese soldiers led by Lt. Kyaw Min of Light Infantry Battalion ( LIB ) 266 in Vuangtu camp, Thantlang township, Chin State stole a solar plate and a 12-volt battery from Lawngtlang (B) village on October 13, 2000. The soldiers, who said they were running out of battery, asked the headman of the village to find a solar plate. The headman, Lian Rem ( name change ), told the officer that the village didn’t have a solar plate, but unfortunately, the officer saw one that was being charged in the sunlight, and he told the headman to pick it. The headman explained that that was the property of a Church. The officer threatened him and forced him to take the solar plate which he would take for nothing.

 

The villagers expected that they would get it back the next day, but the platoon commander Lt. Kyaw Min asked them to send two porters to carry the solar plate and the battery to his camp to be his property. It worths over Ks. 100000, including the labor charge. The solar plate was donated to the Church by Lawngtlang natives working in Malaysia. Vuangtu and Lawngtlang are villages in Thantlang township, Chin State.

 

The soldiers in Vuangtu camp had been reported to have the practice of taking properties from business people who come and go through Hlamphei, Khuabung ‘A’ and Lawngtlang ‘A’.

 

In July 2000, they took 70 heads of cattle from smugglers and sold them in the villages for their own pocket. They also seized 15 horse-loads of goods which the owners never got back. In addition, the soldiers asked the village headmen to help them cover what they did to the smugglers. When the headmen denied, they were threatened and disturbed by the Burmese soldiers in several ways. The name of the headmen are hidden for security reason.

 

Burma Orders Christians In Chin State Not To Celebrate Christmas

Democratic Voice of Burma, Oslo, in Burmese 1245 gmt 23 Dec 00

 

The SPDC State Peace and Development Council army has ordered major cities in Chin State, where over 90 per cent of the people are Christians, not to hold any grand Christmas celebrations and some villages are not even allowed to hold any celebration at all. New Delhi based DVB Democratic Voice of Burma correspondent Thet Naing filed this report.

 

Begin Thet Naing recording The SPDC frontline troops summoned people from Haka and Thangtlang Townships in Chin State and told them they were not allowed to hold any Christmas ceremony and prayer meeting. They went from village to village and told them if they wanted to hold any ceremony they are to hold it in a simple and discrete manner at their homes. Although the chairmen of the village Peace and Development Councils and pastors argued that Christmas is a very auspicious feast for Christians and requested them to allow Christmas celebrations the column commander of the SPDC forces refused and said that if they hold any such ceremonies rebels from the Chin National Front, CNF, could infiltrate and that is the reason such ceremonies are not allowed.

 

He continued to say if the chairmen and pastors deliberately hold any such Christmas feast in defiance of the order, the village chairmen and pastors will all be arrested and recruited as porters. They also threatened them that the people from southern China State will work as porters carrying things up north and people from northern Chin State will work as porters carrying stuff down south. A villager from Longlei Village in Thangtlang Township, who arrived recently in India, said that the Chin Christians are angry at the junta’s threat and they are now undecided whether to hold the Christmas celebrations and also worry about what will happen to them if they are forcibly taken as porters for celebrating the feast. The SPDC has ordered only low key celebrations ward-wise in Haka, Falam, and Tiddim in Chin State. End of recording

 

Supply Wood Or Pay Fine

 

Each block of villages in Paletwa area, Southern Chin State, were forced to supply wood of 75 cubic feet per block. The defaulter Hemapi block had to pay the fine of Ks. 60000 to Major Zaw Tun, the battalion commander of Sinletwa. The Battalion, Light Infantry Battalion LIB 538, issued an order that each of the 18 blocks in the surrounding area must saw the wood and send to him. The villagers were cheated that the wood would be used for building boats for the convenience of the public.

 

In October 2000, the Platoon commander Kyaw Kyaw Oo of LIB 538 ordered the villages of Pathiantlang (Upper and Lower), Sia Oo, Hemate and Hemapi to supply 150 cubic feet each as a punishment for having moved the villages two years ago.Major Zaw Tun sold the wood to traders in ThuraAi for Ks. 1000 per cubic feet, only for his own pocket. It was learnt that he issued the order after the ThuraAi traders gave him the advice to do so, and offered a good deal. In the transaction, the traders were given the right to reject wood with flaws, in which case, the villagers were told to supply “good wood.”

 

In remote areas like Sinletwa, not every village has people who know how to saw wood. Shortage of tools is another problem. Some villages had to hire wood men for Ks. 500 per person per day. Maung Tin Aye and Kyaw Thein of ThuraAi, Tun Win of Sinletwa, and Aung Tun Hla of Sweletwa were reported to have purchased the wood from Major Zaw Tun.

 

Soldiers who had a temporary camp in Sweletwa, Sinowa and Puahhmung demanded 2 persons from each block, to serve in the camp. The villagers serve in the camp as slave labours, doing whatever they were told including night sentry.

 

Villagers of Para, Tlopi, Hemapi, Hemate, Pintia, uppper and lower Pathiantlang, Mau, Salangpi and Arakan villages near Saiha held a meeting on September 17, and decided to report the deeds of the camp commanders to higher authorities. Each household in the whole area contributed Ks. 100 for the expenses of those who would go for the reporting to plain Burma.

 

UNHCR To Cut Monthly Allowance To Burmese Refugees In India

 

New Delhi, January 16, 2000

 

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office in India has informed the Burmese refugees in New Delhi that it would not be possible to continue to provide monthly subsistence allowances (SA) to all refugees due to the level of UNHCR voluntary funds available for the year 2001. Although UNHCR officials have not announced when exactly the SA will be cut, it is now talking with the representatives of Burmese refugees to evolve alternatives such as loan schemes and skill-related training for the refugees.

 

In recent two meetings held on 14 December and 15 January, 2001 with representatives of Burmese refugees, UNHCR officials cited the reason of SA cut as low availability of financial contributions from donor countries for this year. As a result, while UNHCR (India) had received the budget allocation of US $ 1.6 millions last year, only US $ 1.2 millions is allocated for the New Delhi Office for the year 2001. Moreover, 20% of the allocated budget for this year is again to be frozen as some donor countries might not fully contribute their promised amount.

 

“With this in mind, the further extension of monthly subsistence allowances to all refugees would not be possible beyond UNHCR present financial commitment”, said UNHCR in a latter sent out to refugees’ representatives. Marie-Jose Canelli, Officer Incharge, signed the letter. It claimed that UNHCR (India) spent 40% of last year’s budget amounting to US dollar six hundred thousands only for the SA of Afghanistan and Burmese refugees in India.

 

UNHCR provides monthly Subsistence Allowance of Indian Rupees 1,400 (US $ 30) per person to most of the Burmese refugees in Delhi. There are around 800 Burmese refugees living under the mandate of UNHCR in India. The Government of India has, since late 1999, issued Residential Permit (RP) for the UNHCR-recognized Burmese refugees and the permit is to be renewed every six month.

 

UNHCR is now seeking the active involvement of the Burmese refugee community in activities geared towards improving their self-reliance, from planning to execution. It has advised the Burmese refugees to set up various Committees, which would work on the projected activities towards welfare and self-reliance of the refugees. It is, however, to continue to provide SA, through its one of NGO partners in Delhi, to the extremely vulnerable individuals and would continue to subsidize refugee children’s access to education.

 

Burmese refugee community in New Delhi responded the news with dismay and urged the UNHCR either to continue the monthly Subsistence Allowance or resettle them in the third countries such as USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

 

“We are shocked to hear the news of SA cut. Going back to our own country means imprisonment for life and death for us”, said Elvis Ceu, an ethnic Chin national from Burma. Except some, many of the Burmese refugees are not interested in self-reliance activities as they said it would be very difficult for them to work in India. However, for UNHCR, “resettlement” is the least preferred solution as it entirely depends on those countries to accept the refugees.

 

Source: Mizzima News Group (www.mizzima.com)

 

Burmese Seeking U.S. Asylum Held In Custody, Limbo In Guam

By Fredric N. Tulsky

The San Jose Mercury News, January 23, 2001

 

GUAM — In the past several months, more than 700 Burmese people have fled the repressive regime back home and made their way to this small Pacific island, hoping for refuge in the United States.

 

Instead, they have found themselves trapped.

 

They got in thanks to a visa loophole designed to encourage tourism in the U.S. protectorate. They stayed because what they came for was political asylum in the mainland United States. But with a backlog in the system and no asylum officials in place on the island, the refugees are marooned,waiting months, or years, for the U.S. Justice Department to consider their pleas.

 

Their treatment reveals yet another way in which the U.S. asylum system fails to protect vulnerable refugees. The Mercury News previously reported that the asylum system is marred by gross disparities in the outcome of cases depending on which administrative judge hears the case, and whether the asylum seeker is represented by a lawyer.

 

The Burmese refugees stranded on Guam are living crowded by the dozens in small private houses. Not eligible for work permits or government aid, they survive on handouts from church groups. Most are left to pursue their asylum claims on their own, unable to afford the few local attorneys willing to help.

 

Thirty-eight others fared even worse: They have spent months locked up in the Guam Detention Center because they answered honestly at the airport when asked if they intended to seek asylum in the U.S. or to stay in Guam for just 15 days and return home. Under detention, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, have been separated for months. A pregnant woman was kept in isolation in a cramped, locked cell for four months because officials feared that she might be carrying tuberculosis and were afraid — because of her pregnancy — to conduct a chest X-ray.

 

Last week, a delegation of church officials, accompanied by Mercury News staff members and interpreters, arrived to document the conditions. The Guam governor, after meeting with representatives from Church World Service, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and local church officials, protested the situation to Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials in Washington.

 

The INS had taken the position that the visa-waiver program rules meant they could neither release those in custody nor permit others to travel to the mainland United States. This week, INS officials said the agency has agreed to ease its stance and release the Burmese in custody in Guam, and will consider permitting them to relocate to the mainland United States while their asylum claims are pending.

 

The change in policy brought immediate, if cautious, reaction. “The detention of this group of people, who were not given a chance to even apply for release, was inappropriate,” said Matthew Wilch of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service in Baltimore, who was part of the group. “But we remain concerned about the large number of people who fled persecution and remain stranded on the island.”

 

A U.S. territory not much larger in area than the city of San Jose, Guam is situated thousands of miles closer to Asia than any other place where U.S. immigration law applies.

 

That has made it a target not just for Burmese. In recent years, Chinese smugglers trying to transport laborers from Fujian province have used Guam as a route to the United States. Guam officials fear signs of a new effort in several recent incidents in which fishing boats have pulled close to shore and left Chinese passengers to swim to the island. Two such passengers died offshore earlier this month, apparently mauled while trying to swim over the rough coral reef, and then attacked by sharks.

 

The Burmese first trickled into Guam, but over the past six months, the numbers swelled; hundreds of Burmese came, including doctors and engineers, pastors and teachers. They came seeking political and religious freedom and telling stories of arrest and torture for practicing Christianity or demonstrating for democracy.

 

They arrived with valid passports but nothing more. Since 1986, Burma, also known as Myanmar, had been among the countries whose residents did not need visas in order to visit Guam. The visa-waiver program was established to attract Asian vacationers to the island, which suffers from a double-digit unemployment rate.

 

Most of the Burmese got through the airport, but then found nowhere to go.

 

Sa Tin Lai, 32, was a pastor for the largely Christian Chin community of Burma until he fled to Guam last November. Lai said that he became politically active in college, and was involved in the 1988 student uprisings.

 

Lai said that he was arrested and held for 25 days and interrogated day and night about the student movement. During the questioning, he was slapped, and had a gun held to his head. He described being forced to crawl on his knees over sharp rocks, and being fed rice mixed with sand.

 

After his release, troubles continued for Lai, who received a degree in theology in 1999. He finally fled when the church deacon warned him that his life was in danger because he angered military officials by repairing the water-damaged church.

 

When he arrived in Guam, Lai had no idea where to go. A taxi took him to a local hotel. Staffers there put him in contact with the Chin Christian Fellowship, which arranged for him to stay with four other Chin asylum seekers in a one-bedroom house.

 

On another part of the island, a group of 41 Chin men crowd into a four-bedroom house. There is little furniture; the front room, barren, is used for prayer and for sleep. The men pass the long waiting hours outside striking a ball across the front lawn with a makeshift wooden putter into a white cup in the ground.

 

Thomas Mung, 25, is one of the youngest of the group. The son of a political activist, Mung said he was arrested and beaten for his own political activities as a student. He later produced a magazine, angering military officials again, and eventually fled. Like many of the Burmese refugees on Guam, Mung said that he borrowed money in the summer and paid a broker to arrange his transit out of Burma through Thailand to Guam.

 

“When I arrived, I said to a taxi driver, `Please tell me where the Burmese people are,’ ” Mung said. Asked what comes next, he said simply, “I cannot return to Burma.”

 

Mung and his housemates depend on handouts. As they traded stories near their makeshift putting green, Deacon Frank C. Tenorio of the Catholic archdiocese arrived in a truck, bearing bags of rice. He said he brings food and old furniture when he can to four houses where Burmese live; he has taken eight other Burmese into his own home.

 

“Men are not supposed to cry,” said the deacon, as his eyes filled with tears. “But I am so moved by them; they have been through so much pain. I wish I could do more.”

 

There is little doubt that Burma is a country filled with atrocities committed by the ruling military government. The annual U.S. State Department report cites an “extremely poor human rights record and longstanding severe repression of its citizens.” The military has ruled since 1962 but the situation has worsened since 1988.

 

Burmese people — particularly those from the certain ethnic groups – have been subject to arrest, rape, even death at the hands of military officers, the State Department reports.

 

As a result, Burmese asylum seekers have fared far better than most once reaching U.S. territory. Nationwide, Justice Department statistics analyzed by the Mercury News show, about 55 percent of Burmese applicants won their asylum cases from 1995 through 1999 — a success rate more than twice that of applicants from other countries. The law, in accordance with international convention, offers asylum for people who have a well-founded fear of persecution if sent back home, based on their race, religion, national origin, membership in a social group or because of their political opinion.

 

Neither asylum officers nor immigration judges are based in Guam, leaving the department struggling to keep up with the growing number of asylum seekers.

 

More than 500 asylum applicants have not yet had hearings, and scores more Burmese have not yet submitted their asylum applications. One woman, 23, said she fled her homeland after she was threatened with military arrest because of her political activism; she arrived in Guam in 1998, and is still waiting for a hearing before an asylum officer.

 

None of the scores of asylum seekers interviewed outside of custody last week had lawyers. “Nobody can afford one,” said Dan Baumwang, an engineer and member of the Christian Kachin ethnic minority, who fled Burma last year. “Many thought when they got here they were finished.’

 

Baumwang, who was educated in London, lives with 23 other Kachin people in two adjoining two-bedroom apartments. On a nail on his wall are the tales of seven compatriots, written in their own hands, in their own language.

 

He provides them copies of the asylum application, and translates their statements. Baumwang said he had not even suggested to the asylum seekers that they should try to find any documentation to support their testimony; they were afraid to take any political or religious materials with them.

 

“I don’t know how they would get such things,” he said.

 

Under the tourism promotion program, most of the Burmese refugees were waived through the airport when they arrived. The INS officer in charge of Guam, David Johnston, said that he instructed the airport inspectors not to profile arriving foreign citizens based on ethnicity if they had valid passports.

 

But several dozen were stopped because they stood out, such as the 21 Burmese who arrived on the same flight on Oct. 3. Although they did not know each other, a broker had arranged their passage together.

 

The group was sent for detailed questioning by airport inspectors. One after another, they said freely that they were hoping to apply for asylum and stay in the United States. Their honesty was costly. They were sent to jail.

 

Johnston said the regulations gave him no choice: Burmese who did not intend to return home within the 15-day limit of the visa-waiver program were violating the rule and had to sit in custody until they were granted asylum by an administrative immigration judge.

 

They are held at the Guam Detention Center, where INS detainees make up roughly half the prison population, said the warden, Francisco Cristosomo. The men live in two large, air-conditioned barracks built in 1999 in response to a flood of Chinese boat people.

 

A third barracks sits empty. It was built to house women, but with just 11 Chinese and six Burmese women in custody, prison officials said it is more efficient to hold them in jail cells. They live with the local prison inmates, sometimes as many as four to a cell the size of a walk-in closet.

 

One of the women is an ethnic Chin, whose father was a Christian pastor. She said she was arrested in Burma in 1993 after she spoke against the government within earshot of an army officer. She said the officer then beat and raped her. She fled to India but last year, when she no longer felt safe there, she returned to Burma.

 

She continued her political activity and heard that the military officer was after her once again, so she fled to Guam. When she arrived, she tested positive for tuberculosis in a skin test. Because she was pregnant, officials were afraid to take an X-ray. Instead, they kept her in isolation.

 

But when the church group toured the prison last week and found the woman, they were alarmed by the effect of months of isolation. The Rev. Jerry Elmore, pastor of the local University Baptist Church, offered to sponsor the woman himself, so she could be released from custody to his care.

 

Officials balked. But a day later, she was released and given a chest X-ray. “I am happier,” she told a reporter who toured the facility the following day. “But I still feel weak and afraid in this place.”

 

In October, Robert A. Underwood, the island’s non-voting congressional representative, asked INS officials to drop Burma from the visa-waiver program. He said he feared that the Burmese asylum-seekers could cause the entire program to be curtailed. Citing “law enforcement and national security interests,” the Justice Department dropped Burma from the program as of Jan. 10.

 

That change is what made officials more receptive to releasing the Burmese refugees already on Guam, said Wilch, the Lutheran advocate for asylum seekers. With Burma off the program, he said, the INS could release the asylum-seekers without worrying that Guam would become a magnet.

 

`It worked out perfectly in terms of timing for the people there,” said Wilch. But, he added, “that still leaves one unanswered concern: What about the people who are still in Burma? We have no answer for that.”

 

Ecumenical Group Led By Church World Service Secures The Release Of Asylum Seekers From Burma

 

January 30, 2001, NEW YORK CITY – An ecumenical group composed of staff from the Church World Service Immigration and Refugee Program, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Chin Freedom Coalition traveled to Guam the week of January 15 to advocate for the release of 39 asylum seekers from Burma detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The ecumenical group worked with the Governor of Guam, the INS and churches already supporting the asylum seekers from Burma to secure their release, which began Monday, January 29.

 

The 39 asylum seekers of Chin ethnicity fled their country to escape religious persecution and ethnic cleansing by the military regime of Myanmar (also known as Burma). For the past six months, they have been detained by the Department of Corrections since their arrival in Guam.

 

“The compelling nature of their claims is what brought me here,” explained Matt Wilch director for immigration and asylum concerns at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. “So far, the grant rate of this group is 95%. These are people fleeing torture, rape, and scorched earth tactics against their communities all because they insist on practicing their Christian faith and promoting democratic ideals. They deserve our protection and quick relief.”

 

The ecumenical group toured the prison where the 39 asylum seekers were detained, made pastoral visits to their quarters, visited other asylum seekers living on the island and met with ethnic organizations working for the release of the detainees. “We feel that these refugees face unnecessary hurdles in the asylum process,” remarked Rev. Joan Maruskin, Washington Representative for Church World Service. “They live in terribly cramped conditions and wait for months to have their claims adjudicated by the INS. We want to bring these problems to light and help the refugees find solutions which will lead to their safety and ability to reestablish their lives.”

 

The delegation began its efforts on Guam by meeting with the church groups who support the more than 800 asylum seekers from Burma already living on the island while they await the adjudication of their claims. Only two lawyers are available to process the claims of asylum seekers on Guam, so the wait is long. A coalition of Protestant and Catholic groups has provided the refugees with food, shelter, clothing and other assistance as they go through the asylum process.

 

Delegates met with the Governor of Guam, Mr. Carl T.C. Gutierrez, on January 18 to enlist his support for the refugees’ release. The Governor commended the group’s efforts and the efforts of Guam’s church groups to support the refugees. He then sent a letter to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service headquarters to ask for the group’s release to the community and quick adjudication of their asylum claims.

 

The ecumenical delegation included Rev. Maruskin, Helen Morris and Adijatu Abiose, Esq. of Church World Service; Matt Wilch of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; Zo T. Hmung of Chin Freedom Coalition; and Dr. Donoso Escobar of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Rev. Euford from the Hawaii Pacific Baptist Convention.

 

Contact: Church World Service (212) 870-3153 Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (410) 230-2791 01/30/01

 

THE CHIN IDENTITY CRISIS

By Richard Zatu

 

Can you identify a Chin national in the streets of Yangon, Mandalay or elsewhere? Chances are that you can’t. However, you’ll be able, most of the time, to tell an Indian or a Chinese by the colour of his skin. But it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to differentiate other racial groups of Myanmar from another by appearance since we all have similar skin colour and roughly the same body build.

 

One way to know a certain national is by the clothes he wears. Some people will know a Chin national by the “Chin” longyi, htamein or jacket he puts on or the “Chin” Shan bag slinging over his shoulders or the “Chin” tie in his neck. But this could be deceptive for anyone can buy these and wear them. A pair of trousers is more common among the Chins than other ethnic groups in our country. But this is not an accurate or proper way of finding out who is a Chin. More and more Chins, especially government employees, are clad in the Burmese pasoe and taikpon and an increasing number of people in Myanmar are putting on a pair of long pants. This means that you cannot identify a Chin national, or any other nationals for that matter, with the clothes on their backs. But it is often one of the many ways by which to recognize a racial group.

 

Older Chin males have the lob of their ears perforated for wearing an earring. This was one good way of identifying a Chin. But younger Chins have stopped the practice. So perforated ears is no longer a sign of our Chinness.

 

The identification marks mentioned above are mostly physical and are therefore easily recognizable. But there are many other ways in which the Chin people could be identified.

 

For example, a good way to recognize a Chin is by hearing someone speaks one of the many Chin dialects. But of course there’s always an exception to the rule. People of other racial groups may also speak Chin if they had lived in Chin State long enough.

 

Still another method to find out the identity of a Chin is by hearing someone speak Burmese or English with a Chin accent. But one has to be familiar with the accent first.

 

One sure way to know a Chin is to understand that he has a Chin name since no other racial group will adopt one. But one has to be familiar with Chin names first.

 

Although an overwhelming majority of the Chin people are Christians, no knowledgeable person ever identify a people by faith. And it will be impossible to know a person’s faith unless you ask him and he tells you. But the knowledge of the faith of a person by asking or by any other ways often helps other persons to know the former’s identity.

 

Of course there are many more ways of identifying a Chin or members of other tribal groups – like the food he eats, the songs he sings, the customs he is required to follow. But these are not easily perceived unless one interacts or mixed with the people in question.

 

All these means that the Chin person is difficult to recognize because he has little identifications marks.

 

So if you meet a Chin young man with a Burmese name wearing a pasoe and a taikpon or a T shirt and a jean and doesn’t know any Chin dialect and speaks to you in perfect Burmese or in English with a Burmese accent, you won’t be able to know that the young man you are speaking to is a Chin. Such young men and women can be seen everywhere.

 

The above mentioned examples are not the only means by which people can recognize a Chin or other racial groups. If a certain ethnic group is well represented in the government, the military, the professions, business, in music or even in sports, their presence will still be felt and they will still be visible among other racial groups. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the Chin people. Time was when there were Chin ministers of government, Chin Ambassadors, Chin high ranking military officers, well-known Chin boxers, footballers, tennis players. But this is history now. We can say we are no longer as visible as before.

 

Globalization makes the countries of the world more and more like each other in every respect. Larger economies and more advanced civilizations are encroaching upon other smaller economies and less developed civilizations. States and cultures are unable or unwilling to stem the tide.

 

Some languages like English and French, especially English, have mostly replaced native tongues of a large number of nations. It has become the lingua franca of many countries and the second language of many more others. It has become the language of diplomacy, commerce and science. English has become the international language of choice. This is a phenomenon in which internationalization threatens other cultures and identities.

 

Similarly and more easily, larger population and more advanced culture and language within a single country can absorb or edge out smaller ones. Myanmar is no exception. Most of our brethren in Myanmar have now the same faith, the same mode of dress with the Burmese majority, the same culture and have now largely adopted Burmese language and names. So they are more or less like the Burmese and have mostly lost their identity.

 

Compared to other racial groups in our country, we might say that the Chin people still could retain much of their identity. We can say this because, unlike other states, Chin State is the only state in Myanmar where nearly all its inhabitants are the people that bears the name of the state. Unlike other states and divisions, it is the only state where most of its inhabitants are Christians. Unlike other states, it is the state where Burmese is not widely spoken. Unlike other states, with the exception of Kachin State, it is where the ethnic names as opposed to Burmese ones are given widely. Unlike other states or divisions, it is the state where western (make this international) attire as opposed to Burmese dress is most widely worn.

 

But in recent past, the Chin people, like our brethren before us, came in droves to live and settle down in Yangon, Mandalay, or elsewhere. Like our brethren we have and will be adopting the cultures, languages, and mode of dress of the Burmese majority. The Chin young men and women have already and are going to marry outside of their race since they will be mixing with people of other ethnic groups. Chances are that their children will have non-Chin names and will speak no Chin. They will have nothing to do with the Chins. They will be assimilated with others, and we will be assimilated. This is a natural process. We can’t stem the tide.

 

In this way we as a people will lose much of our identity in the not-too-distant future if the present trend continues. And the trend is likely to continue. It is beyond our control. Or is it? Source: “Thinking about Christianity and the Chins in Myanmar”, Yangon, March 1999, Pp 92 – 94.

 

US Refugee Policy Should Include Persecuted Christians in Annual Admissions

Persecuted Karen, Karenni, and Chin Christians Not Allowed

 

Refugee resettlement embodies America’s humanitarian tradition. In a time of increasing tension and conflict, it is essential that America’s door remains open to victims of violence and intolerance who have no other place to go.

 

The legal basis of the refugee admissions program is the Refugee Act of 1980, which defines a refugee in words that closely track those of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: “a refugee is a person who is outside his/her country and is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of a well-founded fear that he/she will be persecuted because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The Act also allows the President to extend this definition to certain persons still resident in countries he specifies.

 

Christians Overlooked

 

Unfortunately, several persecuted communities in Burma with strong historical ties to the U.S. have been overlooked by this policy. The Karen, Karenni, and Chin people are systematically persecuted by the Burmese military government. A very high percentage of these people are Christian and are oppressed because of their ethnicity and faith. These people were our allies in the 2nd World War and fought side by side with our soldiers to repel the Axis forces. They were promised by the British that they would have their own homeland after the war, but it never happened. After the war the Burmese majority–who sided with the Axis–engaged in a policy of ethnic cleansing that continues to this day. The situation deteriorated greatly in 1988 when the military took over the government. The Karen, Karenni, and Chin have been fighting for survival for nearly fifty years, and could be considered the “forgotten people.”

 

Currently more than 100,000 Karen, Karenni, and Chin men, women, and children live in refugee camps in Thailand and India. Thousands more are internally displaced in the Burmese jungle. These internally displaced individuals are cutoff from outside assistance and live one step ahead of roving Burmese soldiers.

 

In FY 1998 the ceiling for refugee admissions from East Asia was 14,000. In the first seven months of that year, some 4,400 refugees arrived in the U.S., only 86 were from Burma. Most of these were ethnic Burmese.

 

In FY 1999, 10,204 refugees entered the United States from East Asia. The majority of FY 1999 admissions were from Vietnam. Again, most, if not all the Burma admissions were ethnic Burmese.

 

Time for Change

 

It is time for the United States to remember our forgotten allies and specifically include the Karen, Karenni, and Chin refugees and displaced persons in the annual admissions from East Asia.

 

Please Contact your Congressional Representatives in Washington today.

www.house.gov

www.senate.gov

 

Source: Christian Freedom International Website

http://www.christianfreedom.org/campaigns/refugeepolicy.html

 

THE CHINS IN THE EYES OF FOREIGNERS

Rev. Dr. Chum Awi

 

The genealogy of the Chin, according to the linguists, stems from Sino- Tibetan which is one out of three language groups, i.e., Altaic, Indo-European, and Austro-Asiatic. Sino-Tibetan gave birth to Tibeto- Burman which in turn gave birth to Tibetan, Yi( Lolo ), Pui( Minchia), TuChia, Hani( Woni), Lisu, Lahu, Nasi(Moso), Chingpo(Kachin), Chiang( Chin), Nu, and Tulung ( see Encyclopedia Britanica). Early writers, both British and Americans, mentioned the name of the Chins as Khang, Khiang or whatsoever. The words Chin, Chiang or Khiang were romanization of the original Chinese word ” Yin.”

 

The Chins are found in India, Bangladesh, and in Burma. There are Chins who live in plain areas and those who live on mountains have a word “zo” to describe places which are high and cold. Some Chins are propagating “zo-mi” as their original name. In fact, the genetic word “Chin” comes from the Chinese word “Yin” which means man. In the Pinyin romanization, “Yin” becomes ” Chin.” Thus, we have China as the country of the Yin people. culturally and traditionally, the Chins have many kinds of similarities with the Chinese. Sine 1889, the year in which the British empire annexed the Chin Hill, there were British political officers and American missionaries who have closely worked for the Chins. Some of these officers have remarks on the culture, way of life, attitude, habits, body structure, etc., of the Chins.

 

The ”Chin today are widespread in several other countries mainly because of their ill – feeling against the prevailing military rulers. It is necessary to introduce the Chins to other people for the purpose of mutual understanding and interpersonal relationship. To serve this purpose, this article depicts the remarks made by the British political officers and the American missionaries. The first person who made a remark on the Chins was Rev. Arthur Carson who lived and worked for the Asho- Chin in Thayer Myo. In his letter dated January 19, 1888 to the headquarters office of the Baptists in the United States of America, he wrote: There are so many dialects that we can never hope to know and use them all. Our hopes for the future are high. We find them naturally a superior people to the Burmans. They are not quarrelsome, may easily be taught to be independent and manly, and has a sense of gratitude for favors received. They have good mind and hearts capable of great love. Yet, they are just as capable as enmities as of friendships. The greatest evil we will have to meet among them is temperance.

 

A British medical officer Major Newland who himself married a Chin woman in Hakha town wrote a book called A Practical Handbook of Lai Dialect ( 1895). In his book he wrote: A Chin id manly and independent fellow. He has not the cringing, fawning habits of his neighbours the Burmans . He always considers himself the equal of anyone. This independent spirit is the only favorable quality of a Chin. He would be a fine fellow but for his drinking habits. Carey and Tuck, who expedited the Chin Hills, wrote volumes of book which they entitle The Chin Hills ( 1896). In their entitled one can find the following verses:

 

The slow speech, the serious manner, the respect of birth and the knowledge of pedigrees, the duty of revenge, the taste for and the treacherous method of hospitality, the clannish feeling, the vice of avarice, the filthy state of the body, mutual distrust, impatience under control, the want of power of combination and the continued effort, arrogance in victory, speedy discouragement and panic in defeat . . . The Chin Hills are peopled by many clans and communities, calling themselves to be distinct and superior origin . . . Owning firstly to the want of a written language and secondly to the intermiable inter-village warfare, has split up and resulted in Babel of tongues, a variety of customs, and a diversity of modes of living . . . Except in the prosecution of warfare, robbery is practically unknown. A.S. Reid in his book Chin -Lushai land observed the culture of the Chins as:

 

Owning no central authority, possessing no written language, obeying but the verbal mandates of the chiefs, Hospitable and affectionate in their homes unsparing of age and sex while on war path; Untutored as the remotest races in central Africa, and yet endowed with an intelligence. Rev. Dr East, a medical missionary to the Chin in the 1890s, called the Chins as ” splendid people.” His remarks is bases on what he found the existence of God in the hearts, words, and attitudes of the Chins. His diary was compiled in a book form and called it Burma Manuscripts (1910). He wrote: I was led to believe that these people had no knowledge God, no word of love, no word of home. However, I could not accept that ideas as I very thoroughly believe in racial unity and that God made all man out of one blood. It is a certainty that the Chins believe in the God of Heaven as Creator. This knowledge is universal among them.

 

Rev. Dr Strait, an American Baptist missionary to the Chins stationing in Hakha, did not accept the idea that the Chins are so civilized. Rather. he praised the social system of the Chins as well as the skills of women who could weave a high quality silk showls, garments etc., still keeps the Chins silk showls as a valuable thing of the family. Rev Dr J.H Cope, who served the Lord for the Chins associating with the British administrators during 1908 till 1938, mentioned that the Chins have been living in a higher civilization in the past. He indicated that the living situation on the hills makes constant deterioration of the prevailing culture. He wrote a book called Awakening of the Northern Chins. In his book he wrote:

 

There are evidences that these people once had a higher civilization. This is seen from the fact that they are completely clothed and do not appear ever to have been headhunters or cannibals. There is even a tradition of a written language. They differ from many hill tribes in that violent crime is rare polygamy not very common, women more respected, and warfare carried on less brutally than in many hill districts . . . After reaching the hills they quickly spread out in little villages in the narrow valley and many dialects soon developed.

 

Rev. Sowards, Secretary of American ( Burma) Baptist Missionary Society during 1950s prophesized that the Chins will make great contributions to the whole of Burma. He played a leading role in the forming of Zomi( Chin) Baptist Convention and a theological in 1953. School and Hospitals opened for the Chins by British governors and American missionaries opened the eyes of the Chins in many ways. The British administrators recruited the Chins for their army because they knew that they were faithful and dutiful. Today, the Chins are working hard for their seif identity, self- determination, self- dependency, and self-reliance. The only thing that they need to gain the above is freedom which can bring chance for them.

 

Back Cover Poem

 

Rhododendron Land Awakened

Salai Kipp Kho Lian

 

Along the mountainous stretches of the Western Yoma,

And the surrounding vast lowland valleys;

Along the Manipur and the Chindwin rivers,

Tis the homeland of the Chin people.

 

Truth and Freedom do we treasure,

Loyalty and Courage our trademark;

Yea, truly, we are one stock of people-offspring of the same family.

 

Firmly upholding our traditional stance for peace,

and with renewed shall we march forward;

Towards a prosperous new land we have yet to see.

 

The sacred ‘Rih’ lake symbolizes our heart,

But life remains as rough as the Manipur river;

Where cries of suffering have never ceased.

 

The river Manipur unleashed-gushed into the tranquil ‘Rih’,

The resulting angry storm and its thunderous roar;

And the new generation is born;

Behold a land of peace and prosperity!

 

Salai Kipp Kho LianCo-Translated by Liana Suantak from original Burmese version

 

ACTION:

 

1. Write to your MP, Congressman and Senator Expressing your concern at reports of the persecution of the Chin people in Burma.

 

2. Write Indian and Mizoram governments urging the authorities to ensure the safety and protection of all ethnic Chin from Burma in Mizoram.

 

3. Urge the Indian government to allow the United Nations High Commission for Refugees UNHCR access to Mizoram.

 

How you can help:

 

Chin Human Rights Organization depends on concerned people like you. Make your check payable to Chin Human Rights Organization and you will receive Rhododendron Human Rights News letter. Help CHRO continue to play a lead role in documenting human rights situation in Chinland and Western part of Burma.

 

Chin Human Rights Organization

50 Bell Street N # 2

Ottawa, ON K1R 7C7

Canada.

 

BURMESE REFUGEES IN INDIA TO GO HUNGRY

 

New Delhi, 1 February 2001: Fear of possible starvation looms among Burmese refugees in India after the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Office in New Delhi announced in mid January that it will stop assisting them with monthly subsistence allowance of Rs.1400 per person, about $US30.

 

The announcement, which the refugees responded with great disappointment, came with the cited reason of ” the low availability of UNHCR budget allocation for its mission office in New Delhi for the year 2001resulting from scaling down of financial contributions by potential donor countries”.

 

Although the refugees are informed that the termination of Subsistence Allowance payment will come into effect in April 2001, there are some refugees such as Salai Aung Cin Thang who had already been terminated his allowance. The UNHCR will, however, continue to assist those extremely vulnerable individuals such as single women and children.

 

More than 800 Burmese nationals are registered refugees under the mandate of UNHCR in New Delhi. The number constitutes only a few in an estimated 40,000-50,000 Burmese refugees in India who could manage to come to the capital city to claim UNHCR’s person of concern status. Most refugees are ethnic Chin from western Burma who fled serious human rights abuses including forced labor, rape, summary killing and religious persecution by the military regime in their home country. They are mostly Christians and have been subject to religious and racial persecution by the military junta, which came to power in a bloody coup in 1988.

 

Concentrated mainly in the western suburban area of New Delhi, the refugees live in cheap-rented accommodations from the local landlords. They have no other means of supporting themselves and are largely dependent on humanitarian assistance provided by UNHCR to cover their basic needs such as food and shelter. The Government of India does not recognize them as refugees, though it has issued residential permit to those already recognized by UNHCR, which is to be extended every 6 months.

 

Locked between persecution at home and poverty in their country of asylum, the refugees have been over the years, faced with extreme social proble

 

 

 

 

To protect and promote human rights and democratic principles