CHRO

Rhododendron News

Volume VIII. No. IV. July-August 2005

Chin Human Rights Organization

www.chro.org

 

CONTENTS

 

Editorial:

The Forced Labor Pandemic

 

Human Rights Situations:

 

Abuse of Religious Freedom

• Local Christians Forced to Attend Opening Ceremony of Buddhist Pagoda

 

Extortion

• Burmese Troops Extort Money from Villagers

• Army Officer Sells off 1000 Round Bamboos Forcibly Collected from Civilians for Personal Profit

 

Forced Labor

• Mass Forced Labor Exacted to Construct New Military Camp

• Villagers Forced to Renovate Army Camp

• Military Authorities Compel Civilians to Supply Wood Planks for Construction of Hospital

• SPDC Forced Primary School Children to Porter

• Army Officer Sells off 1000 Round Bamboos Forcibly Collected from Civilians for Personal Profit

• 30 Villages Forced to Contribute Sand to Renovate Army Camp

• SPDC Forced School Children and Civilians to Labor at Government’s Tea Plantation

Opinion: Indo-Burma Relations

A Cause Betrayed

Has the World’s Largest Democracy Turned Its Back on the Cause of Democracy in Burma? (Chinland Guardian)

 

Environmental Issue:

 

• MITHUNS SACRIFICED TO GREED

The Forest Ox of Burma’s Chins

 

 

Editorial

 

The Forced Labor Pandemic

 

Forced labor is still a pandemic plaguing Burma’s impoverished communities, in spite of repeated claims by the military regime that the practice no longer exists.

 

In western Burma’s Chin State alone, no less than 40 cases of forced labor have been documented since the beginning of this year. Thousands of civilians from mostly rural communities participated in forced labor requisitioned by military officers from local army units stationed at villages to the highest chain of commands, Tactical Command I and II, responsible for the administration of the whole Chin State under Northwestern Divisional Command.

 

At the conclusion of the meeting of the International Labor Organization Governing Body in March of 2005, the agency monitoring the situations of forced labor in Burma noted “grave concern” and concluded that Burma’s ruling military regime still lacks a serious political will to address the issues of forced labor in the country.

 

A major impediment to ‘eradicating’ the use of forced labor in Burma is the culture of impunity with which military commanders and personnel operate, especially in militarized zones. In Chin State, a region that has been increasingly militarized during the last few years, government troops regularly requisition forced labor from civilians in their areas to construct or renovate military camps and outposts and forced people as young as those in primary schools to carry army rations and supplies.

 

Requisitions for forced labor are not just the case of junior officers and army unit commanders exercising power in violation of directives from the top prohibiting the use of forced labor by army personnel, nor are they isolated incidents as has been portrayed by the military regime. Many of the forced labor incidents involving mass civilian populations are a result of direct requisition orders by Tactical Command No. 1 and No. 2, the highest military authorities in Chin State.

 

Reported incidents of forced labor in Chin State have gone up in the past year and increased militarization is one key factor. The expansion of army presence in southern Chin State with the establishment of Tactical Command II is largely responsible for increased use of forced labor by the army. The ongoing construction of trans-national highway between India and Burma is also responsible for significant portion of reported forced labor incidents. Many incidents of forced labor can be attributed to infrastructural development projects associated with the naming of two new Townships in Chin State, Rih Township and Ruazua Township. Another major source of forced labor requisition is the regime’s Tea Plantation Project. Hundreds of acres of private lands have been confiscated and tens of thousands of civilian populations are being regularly forced to work at the ‘tea plantations.’

 

The regime’s purported criminalization of the use of forced labor has not been paralleled by realities documented on the ground. In fact, forced labor has become a pandemic that is ravaging the livelihood of already impoverished communities in Chin State. The fact that forced labor is regularly requisitioned by the highest authorities clearly indicates that not only is the use and practice of forced labor still condoned but those responsibly for exacting compulsory labor do so with impunity.

 

Exposing the practice of forced labor in wherever, whenever and whatever form they occur in Burma is what will keep the regime in check. Chin Human Rights Organization is committed to providing reliable information of human rights situations in western Burma regions. We are thankful for the continued supports we receive from concerned individuals, groups and organizations around the world. CHRO is particularly grateful to the National Endowment for Democracy for supporting the works of CHRO for the last several years.

 

 

Human Rights Situations

 

Local Christians Forced to Attend Opening Ceremony of Buddhist Pagoda

 

5 July 2005, Aizawl:

 

On 8 June, 2005, Colonel San Aung, Chief of Chin State’s Tactical Command No. 2 based in Matupi town of southern Chin State forced more than 300 local Christians to attend the opening ceremony of a new Buddhist pagoda in the area.

 

The pagoda, named Maha Thandi Thuta Aung in Burmese, was erected on Tingvil hill just outside of Matupi Town where the Burma Army Tactical Command No. 2 is stationed. Construction of the pagoda was started in May and civilians in the area were prohibited from going near the site during the construction.

 

“Invitations” to attend the opening ceremony were sent out to all government employees from various departments and community leaders, with Colonel San Aung and his wife Daw Htay Htay Lwin acting as hosts of the event.

 

A local resident told Chin Human Rights Organization that military authorities are also planning to construct another Buddhist pagoda on top of mount Bol where a giant Christian cross was demolished earlier this year by direct orders of Colonel San Aung.

 

Burmese Troops Extort Money from Villagers

 

20 August 2005, Aizawl:

 

Company commander 2nd Lt. Aung Kyaw Than from Light Infantry Battalion 268 (based in Falam) is demanding Kyats 5,000 from each village in the vicinity of Vuangtu village of Thantlang township. The officer is commanding in charge of an army camp based out of Vuangtu village and the money was meant to pay for renovation of his camp.

 

The order came into effect on August 4, 2005 and 11 villages were required to bring in the money by August 15. These villages were warned of severe punishment if they failed to come up with the money by the deadline. Some villages had to borrow the required cash from well-to-do businessmen in their community, while others simply divided up the required amount among all the households in their villages. Some villages are having a hard time coming up with the money and are yet to send in the money, said Chairman of the Village Peace and Development Council from XXX village, whose community was affected by the army officer’s order.

 

Money was extorted from the following villages of Thantlang Township, northern Chin State.

 

Tluangram (A), Tluangram (B), Belhar, Lulpilung, Vomkua, Salen, Tikir (A), Tikir (B), Hmun Halh, Sialam and Banawh Tlang villages.

 

 

Army Officer Sells off 1000 Round Bamboos Forcibly Collected from Civilians for Personal Profit

 

5 July, 2005, Aizawl:

 

On 10 June, 2005, Company commander Captain Myo Nwe from Burma Army Light Infantry Battalion 289 stationed at Shinletwa Village of Paletwa Township, southern Chin State sold off more than 10,000 round bamboos he collected from 9 villages in the area to buyers in Sittwe (Ayekyap). All proceeds were kept for his personal benefit.

 

During the last week of May, Capt. Myo Nwe summoned a meeting of Village PDC Chairmen from the 9 villages at Shinletwa army camp where he ordered each village to bring him designated amount of round bamboos at the latest by June 5, 2005.

 

One village PDC Chairman, whose community was affected by the Captain’s order complained, “Forcing us to cut the bamboos for his personal benefit seems to be meant only to deliberately afflict our community. He said the bamboos were for renovation of the army camp.”

 

The following is the quotas of round bamboos for each village to contribute:

 

Salaipi Village = 1,000, Ma U Village =1,500, Saiha Village = 1,800, Pamu Village = 2,000, Da Thwe Village = 1,500, Khung Ywa Village = 1,000, Shwe Letwa Village = 1,500, Mara Hla Village = 2,000 and Pa Thein Village = 1,500 round bamboos.

 

 

 

Mass Forced Labor Exacted to Construct New Military Camp

 

August 2, 2005, Aizawl:

 

Major Tin Moe, patrol column commander from Burma Army Infantry Battalion 304 (under Chin State’s Tactical Command No. 2 based in Matupi) temporarily stationed at Dar Ling village of southern Chin State’s Matupi Township requisitioned compulsory labor to build a new military post at Dar Ling village. More than one thousands civilians from 20 villages in the area have been working at the site since the first week of July, 2005.

 

The forced labor incident was reported to Chin Human Rights Organization by Mr. XXX, Chairman of the Village Peace and Development Council, XXX village of Thantlang Township.

 

Starting form 11 to16 July 2005, the village headman and 50 of his villagers were forced to dig a 150-feet long drainage measuring 3 feet in width and 4 feet in depth.

 

Another 50 civilians and members of the Village PDC from Khuapi village were forced to supply 4,000 round bamboos. Each stick of the 4000 bamboos has to be 10 feet in length. The work to collect the bamboos lasted from 9 to 16 July, 2005.

 

From 16 to 21 July 2005, for a total of 5 days, 50 civilians and members of the Village PDC from Hlung Mang village (Matupi Township) were forced to dig trenches and bunkers for the army camp.

 

Civilians from Fartlang village (Thantlang Township) were compelled to supply 50 sticks of wood measuring 10 feet in length. Civilians from other villages engaged in other works such as fencing and building barracks, digging trenches and bunkers, and collecting woods and bamboos.

 

The work occurs on a daily basis and all workers are required to supply themselves with food and tools for the job. The work starts at 5:00 am in the morning and lasts until 6:30 in the evening. Workers are given breakfast break at 11:00 am and dinner at 7:00 p.m. The work was projected for completion in the month of July and workers are not exempt from working on Sundays, said xxx, Chairman of the Village PDC from XXX village, Thantlang Township.

 

“The expansion of military establishment in our areas only brought hardship to the local people who rely on farming for our survival. Now that the new army camp is only 5 miles away from our village, it is predictable the kinds of hardship we will have to keep up with,” complained the Chairman of PDC from XXX village.

 

“The patrol column commander has already ordered us to raise chickens, pigs and other livestock. He might even call us for another round of forced labor. He said that we cannot ignore his order because it is our civic duty to comply with army orders. Many people from our village are already fed up with the perpetual forced labor and are contemplating to escape to Mizoram across the border,” he added.

 

Villagers Forced to Renovate Army Camp

 

5 August 2005, Aizawl:

 

Platoon Commander 2nd Lieutenant Win Zaw Oo from Light Infantry Battalion 289 based in the town of Paletwa in southern Chin State exacted forced labor from civilians living in an around Shinletwa village to renovate army camp stationed at the village. The work started on 16 July, 2005 and lasted until 19 July.

 

90 civilians from Salanpi, Saiha and Ma U villages were ordered to report themselves at the army camp one day prior to the day the work was to begin. All the forced laborers were ordered to bring with them their own tools and enough rations for five days. Workers were made to gather twigs and round bamboos needed to fence the army camp.

 

Lt. Win Zaw Oo, in his requisition warned severe punishment for non-compliance with the order.

 

 

Military Authorities Compel Civilians to Supply Wood Planks for Construction of Hospital

 

17 August 2005

 

On 10 July, 2005, Battalion Commander Lt. Colonel Kan Maw Oo of the Burma Army Light Infantry Battalion 269 based in Tiddim Town of northern Chin State ordered residents living in villages across the Township to supply wood planks to construct a new Civil Hospital in the area.

 

Laitui village has more than 500 households. Each household was forced to supply 2 wood planks of 8’x6″x2″ cubic feet. The planks are to be brought to the site of the new hospital by the first week of September. “Our family had to buy the mandatory 2 planks for 2500 Kyats out of our pocket,” explained a villager of Laitui.

 

Burma’s military junta started the construction of the new hospital in Tiddim early this year. The hospital is to accommodate 50 beds and two buildings are to be constructed. Civilian residents in the areas have been adversely affected by extortion of money and demands of wood planks as a result of the new hospital. Prisoners from hard labor camp in the area have also been extensively used for the hospital construction.

 

SPDC Forced Primary School Children to Porter

 

8 August 2005, Aizawl:

 

On 15 July 2005, commander of Lailenpi army camp Sergeant Tin Soe from Burma Army Infantry Battalion 305 based in Matupi, southern Chin State, forced underage primary school children to carry army rations and supplies.

 

The army rations were on their way to Laienpi camp from Sabawngte army camp. Civilians from villages along the route were forced to carry the rations from one village to the next. But when the supplies reached the village of Mala, most villagers were out working in their farms and the supplies had to be left there overnight because there were no adult persons in the village to carry the loads on to the next village.

 

Arriving in the village the next day, Sergeant Tin Soe and his troops immediately summoned U Hla Oo, Secretary of the Village PDC and demanded explanations why the rations were still in the village. Sergeant Tin Soe punched him in the face and demanded that U Hla Oo arrange for 18 persons to carry the supply loads within one hour.

 

The Sergeant dismissed U Hla Oo’s explanation and pleas to have the supplies transported as soon as the villagers arrived back in the village from their farms. Unsatisfied, Sergeant Tin Soe slapped him in the face and said that he will find people to carry the loads himself. Searching for people, he found 10 primary children and 5 government servants and forced them to carry the supplies.

 

Half way through the journey, two of the youngest children became too exhausted to carry on any longer. Fortunately, they met with 5 Lailenpi villagers making their way back from Mizoram to buy household goods. The five villagers then had to substitute the 10 boys.

 

The ration loads carried by the ten boys included 10 tins of rice, 10 bottles of cooking oil, 10 viss (15 kgs) of fish paste and 5 viss of dried chili. They traveled a 12-mile distance before being substituted by the 5 villagers.

 

 

30 Villages Forced to Contribute Sand to Renovate Army Camp

 

8 July, 2005, Aizawl:

 

Company Commander Major Myo Win, stationed at Tibual camp from Burma Army Light Infantry Battalion 268 (Battalion based in Falam Town) requisitioned sands from 30 villages in Falam Township to renovate an army camp at Tibual village. Beginning in the first week of June, 2005, each of the 30 villages was ordered to send in 10 tins of sand.

 

In his order, Major Myo Win set the deadline for each village to bring in the sand at the end of July and warned that any village that didn’t meet the deadline would face severe penalty. As a result, some villages were compelled to gather sands from Tio river (A river dividing international boundary between India and Burma), a distance of three days travel by walking. Civilians from these villagers had to transport the sands on horseback. Villages whose communities were too far off from Tio river had to buy the sand for 1000 Kyats per tin from communities that are closer to the sandbank at Tio river.

 

In a similar incident, on May 5, 2005, Chin villagers were forced to contribute 1 tin of sand per household to construct a Buddhist pagoda at Sabawngte village.

 

The 30 villages whose communities were forced to contribute sands were;

(1)Tah Tlang, (2)Thing Hual, (3)Tikhuang tum, (4)Tlangkhua, (5)Aibuk, (6)Leilet, (7)Sing Ai, (8)Zawngte, (9)Thing Cang, (10)Phung Zung, (11)Khaw Lung, (12)Bawm Ba, (13)Tiah Dai, (14)Lung Tan, (15)Zan Mual, (16)Da te ti, (17) Hmawng kawn, (18)Khaw Thlir, (19)Phun te, (20)Sa ek, (21)Sial lam, (22)cawng hawih, (23)Khua mual, (24)Hmun luah, (25)cawh te, (26)Lian hna thar, (27)Lian hna hlun, (28)Hai heng, (29)Khuang Lung, (30)Lung Dar Village.

 

SPDC Forced School Children and Civilians to Labor at Government’s Tea Plantation

 

25 July, 2005, Aizawl:

 

U Sai Maung, Chairman of the Township Peace and Development Council for Tiddim Township issued an order requiring Tiddim residents to participate in compulsory labor to work at government’s tea plantation. Workers included ordinary civilians, students and government servants. They are expected to contribute labor for government’s tea plantation once every month beginning early this year.

 

Each governmental department in Tiddim administrative center was assigned one acre of tea plantation. Government employees from these departments are required to plant tea, pluck off weeds, gather twigs, and roof plantation beds. Supervised by local village PDC Chairmen, those failing to show up for work were fined 500 Kyats for each absence.

 

On paper, Light Infantry Battalion 268 based in the town was also expected to work at the plantation. However, the Battalion warded off responsibility by forcing civilians to work on their behalf. A civilian who was forced to burden off the army’s work testified to Chin Human Rights Organization.

 

The Township authorities gave orders to teachers working at schools in Tiddim to instruct their students to collect manures. According to the order, each student is required to bring in one Viss of manure (about 1 ½ Kgs) to the Township PDC office on a designated deadline each month.

 

The State Peace and Development Council arbitrarily designated Chin State as a tea plantation area in 2002. With the slogan of “Chin State Shall Become a State of Tea Abundance,” the military regime has been forcing local people to work in the project. The tea plantation in this area is located at two miles from Tiddim Town.

 

 

Opinion: Indo-Burma Relations

 

A Cause Betrayed

Has the World’s Largest Democracy Turned Its Back on the Cause of Democracy in Burma?

 

Ram Uk Thang

Chinland Guardian

 

( CG Editor’s Note: In the wake of India’s renewed offensive against Burma’s pro-democracy opposition groups, notably the Chin National Front sine July 2005, many activists based in India are increasingly frustrated and are helplessly feeling that their cause has been betrayed by the world’s largest democracy, a country they have always looked to for support. The uncertainty and disappointment brought about by the storming of Camp Victoria, CNF’s military headquarters by the Mizoram Armed Police on July 21, has many Chins raised though questions. Mizos and Chins consider themselves ethnically and culturally closely related. The following article takes on a unique angle on Indo-Burma relations in the wake of India’s recent military operations against the Chin National Front.)

 

 

India prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy, a country of diverse cultures and civilization. With such a prestige, India stands on the side of those supporting the promotion of democracy and human rights around the world. As a regional and emerging world power, India has a unique responsibility to support democracy and freedom movement in countries across the regions of Asia.

 

From the time of the first government of independent India under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru through the era of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, successive governments of the Congress Party of India has taken a principled stand to support freedom movement in Asia and around the world. It was through this noble foreign policy that India quickly threw its support behind the movement for democracy in Burma in 1988 when thousands of unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators were butchered and exiled by Burmese Armed Forces. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of the Congress Party of India wholeheartedly and unreservedly supported those working to restore the respect for human rights, dignity and democracy in one of India’s most important neighboring countries. India showed its continued support for the cause of freedom and democracy in Burma by awarding the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding to Burma’s pro-democracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi in 1995 and Rajiv Shmirti Parashka award in 1996.

 

However, it is very unfortunate that the current administration of the Congress party led by Sonia Gandhi has chosen to foster economic and security engagement with Burma’s military junta at the expense of those working to restore fundamental freedom, human rights and democratic governance in Burma, a stance that has completely diverted from the legacy of the predecessor Congress government. Concerned by China’s growing economic and military influence in its neighbor and simmering insurgencies in the North East, India has signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Burma, a bilateral agreement that would increase trade and security cooperation between the two countries. What does this mean in practical terms? India has essentially chosen to embrace a pariah state in pursuit of short-term economic interests, thus effectively walking away from its longstanding traditional policy of putting principle above all other considerations.

 

In this context, it is inconceivable that the world’s largest democratic country has turned its back on the movement for freedom and democracy in Burma. The recent attack on the headquarters of Chin National Front, a major opposition force in Burma’s democratic movement has brought deep disappointment and frustration to those still struggling for the reinstatement of a civilian democratic government in Rangoon. India should be mindful of the fact that in choosing to side with the military junta, it is dealing with an illegitimate regime that is responsible for displacing nearly half a million of its citizens to Thailand, India and Bangladesh and internally displacing more than a million people inside the country. Burma’s military regime still imprisons more than 1300 political prisoners including the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi and leaders of opposition parties. For more than one decade, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the International Labor Organization have repeatedly condemned the regime’s systematic practice of forced labor and violations of fundamental human rights. The UN General Assembly, proposing a Tripartite Dialogue, has passed resolutions after resolution urging the Burmese military regime to enter into a political dialogue with pro-democracy oppositions led by the National League for Democracy and representatives of Burma’s ethnic groups. To this end, Secretary General Kofi Anan under the power mandated by the General Assembly has been endeavoring to restore human rights and civilian democratic rule in Burma through his Special Envoy Razali Ismail and Special Human Rapportuer Mr. Paul Sergio Pinheiro. The growing friendly relations with Burma’s military junta and India’s recent attacks on Chin National Front, a major player in Burma’s democratic movement, is seriously undermining the international effort to bring about democracy and respect for human rights in Burma.

 

Where are the ideals of human rights and dignity that are affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Where is the principle and visions of democracy? And where are the security and safety of the oppressed people? Does might still determine right? These are the questions that immediately come to mind in light of India’s unprincipled actions.

 

Mizos and Chins are blood brothers. It was only in 1947 that we became separated into two different countries. The only difference that lies between us is the fact that those integrated into India call themselves Mizos while those concentrated in Burma call themselves Chins. We share the same ancestry, history and culture. It is said that blood is thicker than water. And because we are bound by our blood no one can set us apart.

 

On June 21 this year, amidst pressure from the Central Government, the Mizoram Armed Police stormed and destroyed the Headquarters of Chin National Front, a group that has been fighting against Burma’s military dictatorship for the rights of Chin people and restoration of democracy in Burma. This was very unfortunate! If only people would realize the sad fate of the Chin people who have been victims of oppression and ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Burma Army. The suffering of Chin people is the suffering of Mizo people because we are one and the same people. The movement of the Chin people today is a movement for democracy and human rights. And it is in India’s long-term interest to have a democratic country in its neighbor as well as in the regions of Asia. On the contrary, it was very unfortunate that the government of Mizoram had ordered that attacks on Chin National Front. It is troubling to think that this incident might leave a black spot in our history.

 

For 20 years from 1966 to 1986 the Mizo National Front had led an armed struggle for Mizoram statehood and liberation of the Mizo people. During these years, it is common knowledge as to how staunchly and wholeheartedly the movement was supported by Chin people living in Burma and Bawm people living in Bangladesh. The mere fact that we are separated by artificially created international boundaries did not deter us from standing together in times of importance and hardship. Rather, we were reminded of how intimately close people we were!

 

Many people were elated and encouraged when the MNF was elected to lead the Mizoram Government. For those in hardship, the election of the MNF was greeted with a deep sense of optimism. And it is a fact that in the minds of our people the international boundaries do not exist between us. We’ve always counted on the fact that as brothers we will stand by each other’s side in times of joy and hardship. We are to feed each other when one is hungry and provide shelter when another is in need of refuge. That is what family is all about. Unless we take care of each other in times of need and hardship, the only thing we can accomplish would be distrust, frustration and disappointment.

 

It is high time we reevaluate how we treat each other as family members. We have to take a hard look at ourselves and ask whether driving away those in need of our help is really consistent with our tradition and values that we dearly hold close to hearts. Are we to be satisfied that people in need of our help are left to die? Blood brothers risk their lives for each other and help one another in time of hardship. It is upon us to be able to notice the kinds of divisive strategy employed against us and be aware of how that would affect us negatively for our collective interest. Let’s act together and help each other. For we are a people characterized by our love for peace, a people who can show to the world we are for peace.

 

Environmental Issue

 

MITHUNS SACRIFICED TO GREED

The Forest Ox of Burma’s Chins

 

A Report By Project Maje

 

Introduction

 

This report is a brief summary of information about the mithun, a type of domesticated bovine found in the Himalayan foothills of South/Southeast Asia, particularly addressing its situation in the Chin State of Burma. The spelling “mithun” (accurate in terms of pronunciation) is used here for the bovine species Bos frontalis, although “mithan” is also a common spelling, and “mythun” is another spelling in use. This name probably came from Assamese dialects. The Chin people, one of the Zo ethnic groups, who live in western Burma, call these animals “sia.” Mithuns are also known as “gayals” in India.

 

This report is by no means a comprehensive or scientific document on mithuns. It is inspired by accounts of mithun confiscation and commercialization of mithun raising in the Chin State. It is intended as an alert about the present situation of this particular mammal in this particular area. Under Burma’s military dictatorship, the Chin people have been subjected to numerous human rights violations, including religious persecution. Most Chins are Christians, with Animist traditions. Their relationship to the mithun has strong elements of remaining Animist culture. The Chins’ mountain forest environment has been in jeopardy in recent years, as Burma’s military regime carries out logging and unsustainable harvest of forest products, and promotes plantation agriculture.

 

What is a Mithun?

 

The mithun is generally understood to be a domesticated, smaller version of the gaur. Mithuns and gaurs are related to other great Asian bovines: the banteng of Indonesia and the elusive kouprey of Cambodia. Gaurs are found in remaining forest areas of South and Southeast Asia, from India to Vietnam. The much more limited area of mithun habitat has included Bangladesh’s Chittagong/Bandarban Hill Tracts, Burma’s Arakan and Chin States, Northeast India, and Bhutan. Mithuns are normally found at elevations from 2,000 to 9,000 feet, in forested areas. Of course, the forest habitat for gaurs and mithuns has been disappearing rapidly in recent decades.

 

Looming as high as 7 feet tall at the shoulder, gaurs usually have dark bodies, white legs, and curved horns. Gaurs feed on forest leaves, young plants and grasses. The entire gaur population of the world was estimated at 13,000 to 30,000 in 2000, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Species (IUCN) which rates the gaur as “vulnerable” on its Red List of Threatened Species; the US Government classifies the gaur as “endangered.” A gaur calf was cloned in 2001 but died soon after birth.

 

A mere 50,000 mithuns were found in India in a 1983 survey; the Burma mithun population was probably similar; both populations may be decreased significantly since then. Mithuns average about 5 feet tall at the shoulder, and have similar coloring to the gaur, but less curved horns. Both gaurs and mithun’s have a distinctive ridge along their backs. Mithuns are normally browsers rather than grazers, eating forest leaves and young plants, instead of requiring pasture land like other bovines. In a kind of part-time domestication, mithuns have usually been “kept” by releasing them into forests for feeding during the day (with or without human supervision.) While some mithuns become feral and stay in the forest full-time, most communities would bring them back to the village for the night. Traditionally, Chin mithun owners would keep the animals beneath their stilt-houses at night.

 

Unlike the rather fierce gaur, which can fight off tigers and avoid humans, mithuns are extremely docile and appear to seek human contact, particularly if salt is involved. According to Chin statesman Pu Lian UK, whose family had kept mithuns:

“They like salt very much and that makes them very easy to rear. They know their master’s voice. If their master makes a usual way of shouting loud to call them to come to him, all of the herds will run to the voice. They will graze in some thick forest and will all get together to one spot where they are usually fed salt regularly like in the evening.”

 

Mithuns in Traditional Chin culture

 

The mithun has played an important cultural role for the tribal peoples of the India/Burma frontier mountains, including the Chins and Nagas. For the Chins, the mithun is a totem or icon of ethnic identity. The Chins use the expression “As gentle as a mithun,” and according to Frederick J. Simoons in “A Ceremonial Ox of India” the definitive work on the traditional role of the mithun, Chins also have mithun metaphors for beauty and strength.

 

Mithuns have not been used for plowing, as upland hill cultivation traditionally did not use draft animals. In recent years buffaloes have been introduced to Chin State for plowing in valley wet-rice growing areas. Mithuns also have not been used by the Chins for dairy purposes, although their milk is rich in butterfat content. The only Chin utilization of mithuns has been for meat. In particular, the mithun was of great importance in traditional Chin life (and for neighboring Naga and other tribal societies) as a sacrificial animal.

 

Mithuns, especially those with the most purebred gaur-like dark coats, were traditionally the ultimate sacrificial animal, required for a series of Feasts of Merit. Mithuns were sacrificed for the most important spiritual/medical needs, or to celebrate slaying of important wild beasts or human enemies. Following its ritual killing, the meat of a sacrificed mithun would be shared in the village. Mithuns were also slaughtered for meat outside of sacrificial use, and have continued to be used this way following the conversion of most Chins to Christianity. Mithun meat is still an important feature of Chin weddings and Christmas celebrations. It is said to be the most delicious form of beef, with a marbled texture.

 

Mithuns have traditionally been a form of currency among the mountain people, exchanged for goods, friendship or alliances, and used to pay fines, ransoms, tributes, and bride-prices. Sworn oaths were sealed in mithun blood. A herd of mithuns was a traditional sign of personal or village wealth. Frederick J. Simoons wrote of the Central Chins in mid-20th Century:

 

“No matter what other animals a man may own, his wealth is judged by the number of his mithan… Mithan must be sacrificed by a man to attain the highest social status. The birth of a mithan is celebrated as is the birth of a child… The theft and slaughter of a mithan are among the most serious of crimes…”

 

Mithuns Today

 

In present-day Chin society, even with its Christian influence and growth of towns, the mithun continues to be of importance. According to Pu Lian Uk:

“They are mostly kept in rural villages, not much in the town. But town people are starting now rearing the mythuns in herds outside the town like in Thantlang, Mindat and Matupi towns. Mr. X. from X. is an example. He made a fencing area in which the mythun could take shelter at night outside the town. The herds of their mythuns know the voices of him and his wife. He gave them proper names like “Black” or “White” or any name. If one of the mythuns’ name is called shouting loud, all the herds run to the voice as the mythuns know that the voice will be for serving salts. It seems not so difficult to keep them in herds in this way.”

 

“Mythun ownership once was very common for any ordinary people. But since its usefulness is just only for meat, people where wet rice fields are cultivated keep buffaloes rather than mythuns as buffaloes could be used for plowing the wet rice field… At the same time mythuns could destroy crops in the agriculture land, for which the owner is to be fined for t he cost of the crops being destroyed by his mythuns. So, its keeping has no longer been as common as before. But still many villages keep mythuns. We should say that it still is kept quite common enough in many of the villages throughout the Chin State. Any ordinary person could rear it as they wish.”

 

Traditional mithun-keeping has apparently been mostly sustainable with less damage to forests than could be caused by herds of goats, sheep or cattle. As long as the numbers of mithuns and the amount of forest have remained in balance, the effects appear preferable to those of livestock which require clearing of pasture land. The mithuns were a reason to preserve the forests. For the Chins, mithuns have been a beneficial link between the forest wilderness and the village settlement. A Chin veterinarian writes:

“My opinion about Mithun raising in traditional method is it will not cause significant damage on the forest. The traditional raising method with normal scale (not too many Mithun) is actually beneficial to environmental conservation.”

 

Confiscation

 

Unfortunately, the possession of this one limited form of wealth by the Chins, an impoverished people, has not gone unnoticed by Burma’s military regime. The Chin State is one of the most remote, isolated regions of Burma, and access to data on the status of Chin-owned mithuns is very limited. Still, there has been at least one report of widespread confiscation of mithuns by Burma’s military forces in Chin State, which is consistent with the pattern of livestock confiscation in other regions in Burma.

 

The confiscation of cattle, buffalo, and other livestock by the troops of Burma’s regime is a widespread practice, intended either for the immediate feeding of undersupplied troops, or for commercial gain by the military establishment. The US Department of State’s “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,” notes that the Burma regime’s military units “routinely have confiscated livestock.” A commentary by the Shan Human Rights Foundation (SHRF Monthly Report, November 2003) states:

“Roaming Burmese soldiers taking a few chickens, killing a few pigs and shooting a few head of cattle here and there in the rural areas of Shan State may not seem very important compared to the other more severe kinds of human rights violations such as killing, rape, torture and forced labour, etc. However, if it happens frequently, it does cause a lot of trouble for the villagers and in many cases even badly affects their very livelihood.”

Pu Lian Uk writes about this abuse:

“Confiscating cattles in herds has been a routine work of Burmese military armed forces and police and it seems as if there is no place to make complaint as the military regime is betray fing the citizens. There is no way to correct things if the watcher and caretaker violates what it watches and take care of. People just suffer their losses silently with tears being left with nothing. Of course those cattle confiscated are usually accused of being smuggled out of the country.”

 

Pu Lian Uk comments about confiscation of mithuns under the guise of anti-smuggling enforcement:

“They confiscate when mythuns are likely to be sold out to foreign land. It is confiscated under the law of custom and duty to prevent exporting without giving duties. They are not confiscated if they are not sold to foreign countries which mostly is from Western Chin State, to Mizoram in India. It is also much valued there as it is valued by the Chins on Burma side. But the worse thing under the military regime is the mythuns are just confiscate with hout proper trial. They just confiscate all the animals without allowing the victim to pay the fine for the worth of his case according to judicial procedure.”

 

It is within the context of widespread livestock confiscation by Burma’s military that the following account by Pastor Satin Lal from Falam, Chin State (recorded in the Project Maje report Ashes and Tears) is of particular concern:

“About the livestock in Chin State. One of the unique animals that we can see in the Chin State is the mithun. From one mithun we can get 200 viss of meat. About 300 kilograms. All the mithuns were bought by the military and they sold them into the foreign country. If our own Chin people sold these animals into the border area, into India, we would be arrested and put into the jail for five to six years. Because they sold those animals, those who had connection with the [government] military, sold all those mithuns to another country, now there are hardly any left, and almost extinct. Each household used to raise the mithun. It was one of the symbols of the Chin people, and one of our wealths. We killed that animal only when we celebrate a big ceremony, as in ancient times.”

 

Control and commercialization

 

Some cross-border or interethnic trade of mithuns has existed for several decades; according to Simoons, back in 1966 the Chin-related Baums of Bangladesh were raising mithuns in order to sell the meat to Muslim Bengalis of Bangladesh. However, this trade was always quite limited, with most mithuns raised only for village consumption. Commercialization of mithun raising for trade in meat is mainly a recent development. Beef-eating Northeast Indian Christian or Buddhist ethnic groups or Buddhist Burmese are potential markets; mithun meat could be canned or dried meat for further overseas export. Such ventures would require a major departure from the traditional scale and method of mithun-raising, but Burma’s military regime appears to be promoting this type of commercialization in Chin State.

 

A report from the regime’s Myanmar Information Committee, “Information Sheet 28 July 2003: Development of Agriculture, Livestock Breeding in Chin State” shows the regime’s interest in commercialization of mithun raising (its mithun population figures are of questionable veracity):

“Raising of domesticated wild ox: So far, there are 32,491 domesticated wild oxen. Over 58,000 domesticated wild oxen will be raised under a three-year plan from 2003-2004 to 2005-2006. The State has made arrangements to render assistance in loans and prevention and treatment of disease.”

 

A visit by Burma’s Prime Minister, General Khin Nyunt, to Chin State in 2003, has heightened concerns about the commercialization of mithuns. From reports in the regime’s “New Light of Myanmar,” November 27, 2003, “Prime Minister inspects development projects in Chin State”:

“Chairman of [Tonzang] Township Peace and Development Council U Khin Maung Oo reported on regional development projects including education, health and transport sectors of the region, arrangements for growing 840 acres of tea and breeding of domestic wild oxen and requirements.”

“[In Tonzang, Khin Nyunt stated that] domesticated wild oxen thrive well in Chin State and thus the government is providing loans for the region.”

“Chairman of [Tiddim] Township Peace and Development Council U Sai Maung Lu reported on location and area of the township, population, national races living in the region, agriculture, the raising of domesticated wild ox, education, health, communication and generating of hydroelectric power. Chairman of Chin State Peace and Development Council Col. Tin Hla gave a supplementary report.”

 

“[In Tiddim, Khin Nyunt] said due to transport difficulty in Chin State, the government has spent a large sum of money on development of roads linking townships in Chin State and plain regions, growing of tea and raising of domesticated wild oxen. He said local people are to cooperate with local authorities, social organizations, and departmental officials for successful implementation of the tasks… The Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries has already made arrangements for raising of domesticated wild oxen and other livestock breeding tasks which are marketable in neighbouring countries. Therefore, local people are to change livestock breeding on manageable scale to commercial one gradually.”

 

It seems significant that these reports from Burma’s regime avoid using the name “mithun,” perhaps because it is an ethnic term rather than a word from the Burmese (dominant) language. Instead they refer to “domesticated wild” livestock, something of an awkward oxymoron. This may be part of a plan to separate an ethnic people from a “resource” as is common in many areas of Burma under the military regime, which has also replaced indigenous place names, substituting new Burmese-sounding versions of towns and rivers.

 

Concerns

 

The Chin veterinarian comments: “I think it is almost impossible to raise Mithun for commercial scale by traditional way. That is not only because of possible damages to environment, but also because of the profit return and the investment (money, time, market, transportation, etc.) are not balanced.” The Burma regime appears to be promoting a large-scale shift from small, family-owned forest-ranging herds of mithuns for local use, to commercialized herds for export use.

 

The Burma regime’s emphasis on a scheme for changing a traditional, sustainable way of raising mithuns to a government-controlled, commercialized, export-oriented system is of concern due to the regime’s proven disregard for the rights of indigenous peoples, lack of environmental protection, and short-term profit obsessions. Current regime efforts to convert forest hillsides to tea plantations in Chin State give rise to similar concerns. While mithun raising may be undertaken on a commercial or export basis in the future, it is doubtful that given existing conditions in Burma, it will be much more than the Burma army’s confiscation of one of the local people’s few sources of wealth for trade to neighboring countries or the lowlands. Additionally, this commercialization of mithun raising by the non-Chin central Burma regime may be viewed as at best an interference, and at worst a severe cultural humiliation.

 

It is also possible that incompetent tampering with the breeding of mithuns may place them at risk. Some previous efforts to breed mithuns for commercial purposes have lacked success, according to the Chin veterinarian:

“I would like to share some information from a Vet.’s point of view. Since from 1996, the regime ordered local livestock and breeding department to raise wild Mithuns in the herds. Then, they brought some Mithuns (approx. 30) from Chin State to Yangon [Rangoon, Burma’s capital] to perform research on Artificial Insemination (A.I.) and Embryo Transfer (E.T.) in order to achieve, the final target, foreign currency. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen the way they expected. When they did A.I. to female Mithun with the semen of domestic or imported dairy bull, conception was failure all the time. And again, abortion was occurred when they tried E.T. to female Mithun.”

 

The danger of changing forest-browsing free-range mithuns into a type of artificially bred, artificially medicated, feedlot-raised super-cattle can be seen in the global epidemics of “mad cow” bovine spongiform encephalopathy and other food-animal diseases. Mithuns have proven especially susceptible to contagious foot and mouth disease. Such commercialization efforts may cancel out the natural advantages of the forest-ranging mithuns. As scientists from India’s National Research Center on Mithun have written:

“Since mithuns are free-ranging bovines and graze in isolation in the open forests, they are naturally quarantined from some of the contagious diseases. However, th bey may be affected by many of the diseases of domestic as well as wild ruminants, in the grazing-browsing areas. Such incidences have become more frequent with increased deforestation and more and more land coming under crop cultivation and human habitation.”

 

Rampant logging and encroaching tea plantations are now threatening the normal forest home of the mithuns, showing how fragile is the ecological relationship between humans, animals, and remaining forest in Chin State. In the regime’s new order, mithuns can be removed from the forest, and the forest cut down, just as villagers can be relocated from their ancestral homelands.

 

Combining health/breeding risks with the possibility of excessive export for slaughter, and natural habitat destruction, the regime’s commercialization schemes may actually endanger the mithuns rather than (as claimed iby Khin Nyunt) increasing these numbers. One need only look to the dwindling teak groves of Burma to see how decimation has happened to a once mighty and thriving tree species.

 

In his best-selling history book, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies Jared Diamond lists the fourteen large mammals domesticated by humans. The mithun is one of the fourteen, and is the rarest of them, being counted in the tens of thousands rather than in the millions like all the others. Although the mithun population on the India side of the India/Burma frontier may be stable or even increasing, those on Burma side appear to be at some degree of risk. In the worst-case scenario, the mithun could be eligible for being the first large domesticated animal to face extinction.

 

At present, science has to resort to attempting to clone a gaur in hopes of species survival. Will the gaur-related mithuns of Burma suffer that fate as well? And with their mithuns gone, how effectively will the Chins survive as a culture? There may be other kinds of meat, but when a people’s relationship with nature is destroyed, much of its identity is irrevocably lost.

 

Recommendations

 

1. The international community must raise its awareness of issues relating to the threatened Chin people of Burma, particularly natural resource extraction/destruction and human rights violations. The proposed Western Burma to India gas pipeline (of corporations Daewoo and ONGC) poses a special peril to the Chins and their land, as a possible pipeline route may be secured by the Burma military. Chin refugees in precarious situations in India and Malaysia need international support. The little-known situation of the Naga people of Burma also requires increased research and publicity. The Chins and Nagas have important cultures which are under grave pressure from Burma’s military regime, including imposition of changes to sustainable mithun raising.

 

2. A complete end to abuse of ethnic nationality people of Burma must be an unwavering condition of any political process in Burma. These abuses include a wide array of human rights violations, with confiscation of livestock a serious crime against civilians throughout Burma.

3. Commercial schemes for raising mithuns must not be undertaken without the full, informed, equitable and democratic assent and participation of the local people who have traditionally raised mithuns. To do otherwise may endanger mithun survival and is a cultural crime against the Chin and Naga peoples of Burma.

 

4. The preservation of forests remaining in northwest Burma, and particularly those in Chin State, which are habitats for mithuns, must be an urgent priority for the international community. Wood and wildlife products from Bu ârma should not be imported by any other countries. Environmental preservation in partnership with local people must be an intrinsic part of Burma’s political process, and the present unsustainable military/commercial resource extraction must cease.

 

Project Maje

3610 NE 70th Ave

Portland OR 97213 USA

February 2004

Thank you to Pu Lian Uk, Salai Kipp Kho Lian, “Chin veterinarian,” and the Chin Forum Information Service: www.chinforum.org.

 

Sources:

 

Board on Science and Technology for International Development, National Research Council, “Little-Known Asian Animals with a Promising Economic Future” National Academy Press, Washington DC 1983.

Diamond, Jared, “Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies” W.W. Norton, New York 1999.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, 2003. www.redlist.org

Lehman, Frederick K., “The Structure of Chin Society” University of Illinois Press, Urbana IL, 1963.

Myanmar Information Committee, “Information Sheet 28 July 2003: Development of Agriculture, Livestock Breeding in Chin State”

New Light of Myanmar, On Line Edition, November 27, 2003 “Prime Minister Inspects Development Projects in Chin State”

Project Maje, “Ashes and Tears: Interviews with Refugees from Burma on Guam” 2001. www.projectmaje.org

Rajkhowa, S., Rajkhowa, J., Bujarbaruah, K.M. “Diseases of Mithun (Bos frontalis): A Review” Veterinary Bulletin, April 2003. www.animalscience.com

Shan Human Rights Foundation Monthly Report, November 2003. www.shanland.org

Simoons, Frederick J., with Simoons, Elizabeth S., “A Ceremonial Ox of India: The Mithan in Nature, Culture, and History” University of Wisconsin Press, Madison WI 1968.

United States Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2003. www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27765.htm

Vumson, “Zo History” Mizoram, India 1987.

 

 

 

 

 

Rhododendron News

Volume VIII. No. V. September-October 2005

Chin Human Rights Organization

www.chro.org

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Women Rights:

• A Chin Girl Raped by Burmese Soldier

• 5 Teenaged Girls Among 18 Porters Forced to Carry Army Supplies

• Chin Women Compel to Join MWAF by Junta

 

Forced Labour:

• SPDC Takes Credits for New Bridge Built with Forced Labor

• Chin Villagers Fined for Failure to Provide Forced Labor

• Villagers Ordered to Cut Bamboo for Army Camp

• 12 Villages Exacted for Forced Labor at New Army Camp

 

Extortion & Power Abuse:

• Army Officer Demands Deer Skins and Chicken from Chin Villagers

• Township Authorities Collect Illegal Tax from Students

• Burmese Army Robbed from Cross Border Traders

• Burmese Troop Robbed 300,000 Kyats From Cattle Traders

• Five Civilians Hospitalized As Burmese Army Rage over Loss of Football Match with Civilians

 

Interview:

• Online Interview: Talking About Human Rights

 

Opinion & Commentary:

• The Dragon is Looking Askance : Chinese Policy and the Moral Authority of the Security Council (By Kanbawza Win)

 

Statement:

• Statement of Condolence on the Death of Dr. Vumson Suantak

 

Back Cover Poem:

• A Boring Worm (By Van Biak Thang)

 

 

A Chin Girl Raped by Burmese Soldier

 

12 October, 2005

Aizawl: A Burmese soldier from Light Infantry Battalion 395 stationed at Kyauk Daw, Arakan State raped a Chin girl on 18 September 2005. The victim is a resident of Daungmi Kala Village. She was accosted on her way home from a night Church service and sexually assaulted at gunpoint by the soldier, a local villager testified to Chin Human Rights Organization.

 

The assailant soldier was identified as private Soe Aung from amy patrol unit commanded by Captain Myint Naing Oo.

 

On 18 September, Captain Myint Naing Oo and 15 of his men arrived at Daungmi Kala village to spend the night. Private Soe Aung was assigned for sentry duty at the house of U Ling Phai, the victim’s father, located at the outskirts of the village. At around 10:00 p.m, the girl walked home from a church where she attended a night service. But when private Soe Aung saw the girl approaching home alone, he sexually assaulted her at gunpoint.

 

“It’s very sad because people will see her as no longer impure and no body would want to marry such a girl and she will be stigmatized,” said Maung Thein Aye, a local villager. “She is so ashamed to go out and has been crying inside her house,” he said.

 

U Ling Phai, the victim’s father reported the matter to Captain Myint Naing Oo, the assailant’s commanding officer, but he was told to take the matter to court. Kyauk Daw Township Court released private Soe Aung after ordering him to pay 30,000 Kyats ($30 US) in compensation to the victim.

 

5 Teenaged Girls Among 18 Porters Forced to Carry Army Supplies

 

9 October, 2005

Aizawl: 5 girls under the age of 15 were among 18 civilian porters forced to carry army supplies in Matupi Township, a local villager told Chin Human Rights Organization. On 2 August, 2005, Sergeant Thein Win, commander of Sabawngte army outpost from Matupi-based Light Infantry Battalion (304) ordered 18 Sabawngte villagers including 5 teenaged girls to transport army goods.

 

On 12 August, the same officer ordered another 3 teenaged girls and 7 civilian men to transport goods from Sabawngte army camp to Sabawngpi village. The porters carried 30 Viss (45 Kgs) of dried pork meat, 27 chickens, 2 tins of sticky rice, 20 Viss of chilli, 150 lemons and 100 mangoes. The goods are gifts from the Sergeant to Major Tin Aung, Commander of Light Infantry Battalion 304 based in Matupi.

 

“Each person, including the girls, was given about 15 Viss to carry. The load was already heavy enough even for men so eveybody had to take a little extra off of the girls. There was no way the girls could’ve travelled 12 miles with such heavy loads on their backs,” explained.

 

Chin Women Compel to Join MWAF by Junta

 

 

27 September, 2005.

Colonel San Aung, commander of Burma army tactical II from Matupi, Chin state issued an order to all members of village council in Matupi township to distribute membership form of Myanmar Women Affairs Federation (MWAF) on August 9. According to the order, every woman over the age of 18 have to join the Federation with 320 Kyats membership fee.

 

“When I went to Matupi town to draw my monthly salary at Township Peace and Development Council (TPDC) office, Colonel San Aung asked me to pass 400 sheets of MWAF membership form to each members of our village council for sale,” reported a clerk of the Village Council in Matupi, who prefer to remain anonymous in fear of reprisal from the army.

 

He continued, “as soon as I reach my village on August 11, I hand over the membership forms to the head of the VC; but so far even a single copy had not been sold as most of the women in the village could not afford.”

 

All Women over 18 years old are compelled to buy the forms that conscript them to be the member of MWAF which cost Three hundred and twenty kyats per copy.

 

MWAF was formed in July 3, 1996, with a former name ‘Myanmar National Committee for Women’s Affair’, which was reconstituted as the MWAF on December 20, 2003. The Federation reportedly has about 1.5 million members.

 

Daw Than Than Nwe is head of MWAF. The other top positions of the organization at the township and village level are occupied by the wives of the military authorities.

 

Similar drive for enlisting membership of MWAF is reportedly conducted through out Chin state.

 

Meanwhile, most of village heads are nerve-racked for the possible action against them for failure to sell the membership form.

 

SPDC Takes Credits for New Bridge Built with Forced Labour

 

September 26, 2005

Aizawl: A sign posted on a river crossing bridge which was recently built with forced labor had offended local villagers who contributed free labor for the construction. The sign reads: “This bridge was built with a 1.8 million Kyats donated by General Tha Aye, Commander of Northwestern Command.” The suspension bridge was built over Sarawng river, located between Sumsen and Tangku villages of Matupi Township.

 

More than 300 households from 8 villages were compelled to donate 500 Kyats per each household in November 2004 under a requisition order issued by Colonel San Aung, Commander of Tactical Command II based in southern Chin State. Additionally, the order required each household to saw designated amount of wood planks for the construction of the bridge.

 

“Villagers put in everything from the money and materials to human labor for the construction. All the government contributed was steel cables,” complained U Pum Za Mang, Chairman of the Village Peace and Development Council of XXX village. “Claiming that the budget sanctioned for the bridge was in deficit, the authorities are charging 50 Kyats from people passing through the bridge so they can repay the ‘debts’,” he said.

 

“We weren’t even aware of there being a government budget for the bridge until they put up the sign,” complained another local villager who participated in the construction.

 

Started in December of 2004, the suspension bridge measures 580 feet in length and 6 feet in width. The following villages were forced to contribute money and free labor for the building of the bridge.

 

(1) Tanku Village (62 households)

(2) Reng Khen Village (40 households)

(3) Am Lai Village (30 households)

(4) Pa Khen Village (32 households)

(5) Sumsen Village (60 households)

(6) Ti Nam Village (34 households)

(7) Tisi Village (64 households)

(8) Tawngla Village (20 households)

 

Chin Villagers Fined for Failure to Provide Forced Labour

 

On 20 September, 2005, ten villages in Paletwa Township of southern Chin State were fined 3000 Kyats per village for failure to collect round bamboos for the Burmese army, according to information received from Chairman of Village Peace and Development Council from XXX village.

 

On 16 September, 2005, Major Myint Aung, Deputy Commander of Light Infanty Battalion 374 ordered 20 villages in Paletwa Township to provide round bamboos. Each village was required to provide 1000 sticks of round bamboo but 10 of the 20 villages were not able to provide them. The affected villages were:

 

(1) Mara Hlan (2) Kho Ywa (3) Auh Ywa (4) Shwe Letwa (5) Shwe Oo Wa (6)Ma U (7) Ywa U (8) Heema Thee (9) Pai De and (10) Saiha.

 

Major Myint Aung was reported to have sold the bamboos he forcibly collected from the villages for his personal profit. The bamboos are made into rafts and floated down Kaladan River to Sittwe of Arakan where each stick was sold for 35 Kyats.

 

Villagers Ordered to Cut Bamboo for Army Camp

 

September 15, 2005

Aizawl: Lieutenant Saw Lwin Win, company commander of Burmese army Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 289 based in Sinletwa, Paletwa township ordered 30 villagers from Salangpi village to cut 3,000 rounds of Bamboo pole for the army camp. The Lieutenant further ordered the forced laborers that the bamboo pole has to be 15 feet long and the job had to be completed within four days. The forced laborers began their work on August 3, 2005.

 

“We cut the bamboo without rest for three days and we were ordered to transport the bamboo we cut from the forest to the army camp on the fourth day which is about one and a half mile away” said one of the forced laborers.

 

“One of the forced laborers was bitten by a snake while performing the job. When we took him to the platoon medic for treatment, we were told that all the medicines and the army medic are not for civilians. Thus we had to go to civilian clinic with our own expense.

 

The forced laborers had to bring their own food and tools to work.

 

At the end of the work, we were called by the platoon commander and told us that

1) any one who wants to cross the border have to pay 500 Kyats to the camp for permission

2) The villagers must sent at least a viss of Chicken to the camp without fail. 2000 Kyats will be fined upon failure to deliver a viss of Chinken

3) The villagers must report any CNF activities around the area, failure to do so will result in 200,000 Kyats fine and severe punishment.

 

12 Villages Exacted for Forced Labor at New Army Camp

 

September 20, 2005

Aizawl: Hundreds of villagers from Darling village and surrounding 12 villages were forced to construct a new army camp at Darling village by Captain Than Htun Soe of Burma army Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 304 based in Matupi town.

 

The forced labor situation was reported to CHRO by xxxxx village headman.

 

Hundreds of villagers were forced to engage in construction of the new army camp starting from July and still going on at the time of this report. The villagers are forced to construct four barracks which is 15 X 10 in size. Besides the construction of the barracks, the villagers are forced to dig bunkers and trenches for the entire camp with.

 

The villagers have to bring their own tools and food at the forced labor site.

 

The village headman complained that; the Burmese army is pushing the Chin people into poverty and untold sufferings. The villagers have no time to work for themselves in their farm. The army is on the rampage to shot and eat any domestic they found in the village without compensation.

 

Besides the forced labor they have performed in the army camp, the following villagers were forced to transport construction material such as zinc, nail etc from Saiha town of Mizoram state which is three days walks from Darling army camp.

The villages those who are forced to transport construction materials are;

 

Ngaphaipi, Sabawngpi, Hlungmang, Fartlang, Lungcawi, Tisih, Mala, Sabaw, Thawnglalung, and Khuapilu, Pintia, and Darling.

 

Army Officer Demands Deer Skins and Chicken from Chin Villagers

 

4 October, 2005

Aizawl: On 19 August, 2005, Captain Thein Hteik Soe, Patrol Column Commander from Matupi-based Light Infantry Battalion 304, forcibly demanded deer skins and chickens from residents of 14 villages in Matupi Township. The villages were recently included in the jurisdictional area of a new army camp at Dar Ling village, which is commanded by the officer.

 

U Bisa, Chairman of the Village Peace and Development Council from XXX village explained, “We received a written order on August 19, 2005 demanding that our village deliver 2 deer skins within 6 days. Each household in our village has to chip in 1800 Kyats to buy the deer skins for the officer. I had to personally deliver the goods to the Captain.”

 

Hlung Mang village also received a similar order on August 27 along with a summons to attend a meeting at Dar Ling army camp to discuss ‘important troop matters.’ The village headman made a delivery of 2 chickens and 2 deer skins at the army camp on August 29, 2005.

 

Since Captain Thein Hteik Soe took command of the area in July of 2005, residents of the 14 villages have been forced to work in various forced labor programs virtually every day of the week. The forced labor includes digging trenches and bunkers, fencing the army camps, carrying roofing materials and sawing woods.

 

Township Authorities Collect Illegal Tax from Students

 

10 October, 2005

Aizawl: During the first week of September 2005, students in middle and high schools in Thantlang Town of northern Chin State were compelled to ‘donate’ 500 Kyats per person to support the cost of providing hospitality to visting senior military official.

 

According to a retired public servant, the Township Peace and Development Council Chairman U Shwe Soe collected ‘donations’ from students to pay for the cost of entertaining General Tha Aye, Commander of North Western Command who was visiting the town in October, 2005.

 

“I have three children who are in school and I had to pay 1500 Kyats. We can barely make ends meet and it is absolutely ridiculous that we had to pay for entertaining the General,” complained the former bureaucrat.

 

There are about 6000 students in both middle school and high school in Thantlang.

 

Burmese Soldiers Robbed from Cross Border Traders

 

August 26, 2005

Aizawl: A platoon of the Burmese army led by a captain (name unknown) from Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 266 robbed 100,000 Kyats from a woman cross border trader at a teashop near Sialam village in Thantlang township on August 18, 2005. The incident was reported to the CHRO by the victim named Pi Mami herself.

 

Pi Mami 45 years old is residence of Tahan, Sagaing division. Pi Mami and her son in law were on their way to sell clothes to Mizoram when they met with a platoon of Burmese army at a teashop near Sialam village.

 

Pi Mami inform the CHRO that; “The Burmese (army) captain stop us at the teashop and inquiry the value of the goods and demanded vouchers. I showed them all the vouchers I have. Then the captain and his troops demanded 100,000 kyats. All the money I have was only 52,000 kyats at that time. So I beg the captain and his troops to mercy on me and accept all the money I have 52,000 kyats as I am just a woman making a living by selling small goods to Mizoram. The captain told me to shut up and said that he wants 100,000 kyats. I was so terrified and at last borrowed money with a big interest from the teashop and give it to the captain.”

 

On the next day on August 19, 2005 another group of cross border traders were robbed by the same Burmese captain and his troops at the same place.

 

Pu Lian Kio and his friends with three horses were on their way to sell good to Mizoram. When they reach near Sialam village at a teashop, the Burmese captain stoped them and demanded 100,000 kyats from them. Pu Lian Kio and his friends have only 19,000 kyats at that time and they beg the captain to accept all the money they have which is 19,000 kyats. However, the captain said that he will arrest them all if they refuse to pay 100,000 kyats. Thus Pu Lian Kio had to borrow money to pay the captain from Humhalh village which is 3 miles away.

 

The local residence inform the CHRO field workers that the captain and his troops have been in the same teashop since the first week of August and they robbed from many cross border traders.

 

Burmese Troop Robbed 300,000 Kyats From Cattle Traders

 

September 1, 2005

Aizawl: A Captain of Burmese army and his troops from LIB 268 Falam based battalion has robbed more than 300,000 kyats from cross border cattle traders. The incident was reported to CHRO field workers by one of the victims who prefer to remain anonymous.

 

The cattle traders were stopped by the Burmese troops between Selawn and Leilet village. The Burmese troop demanded 600,000 Kyats saying that all the three cattle traders will be arrested and sent to hard labor camp and confiscated all their cattle if they fail to pay 600,000 kyats.

 

The victim said that; since we have only 20,000 Kyats, we beg the Captain and his troops to have mercy on us as we are so poor and trying to make a living by selling piglets to Mizoram.

 

At last, I went to Leilet village to borrow money to pay the Burmese army. All I can borrow was only 300,000 kyats. So, I come back to the army and beg them to accept all the money I could manage. The captain and his troop come to realize that we could not borrow the money they demanded and took all the money we could manage which is 320,000 Kyats. (300,000 Kyats we borrowed and 20,000 Kyats we have). We were release only after that.

 

“It really is very difficult to make a living now. I do not know how are we going to live in a situation like this” said the trader.

 

Five Civilians Injure, Some Hospitalized As Burmese Army Rage over Loss of Football Match with Civilians

 

25 September 2005: Five civilians hospitalized as the army went frenzy over their loss to a civilian team, and not receiving supports from the on lookers at a football match with civilian team in Matupi, southern Chin state.

 

A man from Matupi town informed our reporter that the Burmese soldiers were out of control on 9th September, when the public gave more support to civilian team in the “Tactical Commander Cup” football tournament semi final match with Burma’s Infantry Battalion (IB) 304 team. The tournament was organized by Colonel San Aung, commander of Burma army tactical II.

 

The Burmese army badly beaten up the civilian on lookers that five people have to be hospitalized. One young man named Salai Phone Ta 25 of Ka Ce village was beaten up by the Burmese soldiers with the bud of their service rifles and badly injured. His eyes and face was severely wounded, probably damage. He was hospitalized in Matupi Civil Hospital.

 

The man from Matupi said; “The commander of Tactical II was also there when the incident occurred. He made no reaction neither prevented his men.

 

The final match was played on 12th September. There was reportedly less crowd to watch the match.

 

Several civil servants, youth and civilians along with the Burmese army Battalion 304 based in Matupi participated in the annual monsoon football season.

 

Online Interview: Talking About Human Rights

 

September 21, 2005

 

[Rhododendron Note: The following online interview is conducted by a group of students from Department of Social Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Manila to Salai Bawi Lian Mang of Chin Human Rights Organization regarding present human rights situation in Burma]

 

Question 1: What is the current situation in Myanmar regarding human rights violations? Is the human rights situation getting better or worse?

 

Salai Bawi Lian Mang: In terms of human rights situation in Burma (I prefer to use the term Burma instead of Myanmar), as you may have been aware of, Burma is currently ruled by military junta called State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Since the Burmese military took the state power after killing thousands of innocent people in 1988, gross violation of human rights is rampantly committed by the military regime including political suppression, arbitrary detention, torture, rape, disappearances, extra-judicial killings, oppression of ethnic and religious minorities, and use of forced labor.

 

At present, there are more than one thousand political prisoners still detained in Jail. The country’s pro-democracy leader, and the 1991 Noble Peace Price winner Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house arrest.

 

Today, Burma ranks the second largest opium producing country in the world. As such, the ruling military regime is directly involved in trading an illicit drugs that also further intensified the deteriorating conditions of the political crisis, civil war, and human rights.

 

In addition to drugs, the spread of HIV/AIDS is of great concern that can affect the regional stability in the near future. Burma after India and Thailand has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS infection cases in Asia. HIV/AIDS epidemic is mainly caused by drug addiction, lack of knowledge and prevention program in the country.

 

There is a report made by Shan Women Action Networks that the Burmese military regime is using rape as weapon of wars against an ethnic Shan. The report details 173 incidents of rape and other forms of sexual violence, involving 625 girls and women, committed by Burmese soldiers in Shan State, between 1996 and 2001.

 

In terms of University education, the military regime in Burma has blatantly denied and violated the right to education by constantly closing the universities and colleges across the country for about 9 years within the past 17 years. The main reason behind the Junta’s closure of Universities and Colleges in the country is solely because of the fact that the military regime views students as a potential threat to their dictatorial rule as in the past, students are the only vocal group that have been standing fearlessly against the military regime.

 

Besides, the use of forced labor is so widespread that the International Labor Organization (ILO) has even expelled Burma from the ILO for the regime’s widespread use of forced labor.

 

Hundred of thousands of refugees are taking refuge in neighboring countries. And they all claim that they have fled their homeland due to unbearable human rights violations committed by the Burmese military regime.

 

These facts are a very brief human rights situation in Burma and we can say that there is no tangible improvement in terms of human rights situation in Burma.

 

 

Question 2: How does the current Myanmar government treat ethnic minorities at present?

 

Salai Bawi Lian Mang: The present Burmese military junta which made its way to power through a bloody coup in 1988 has ruled the country at gunpoint. Preoccupied by the idea of “national unity or unifying the country,” Burma’s military regime has embarked on a policy of creating a single national identity based on the policy of “Amyo, Batha, Thatana” or One race, One Language, One Religion” in other words “to be a Burman is to be a Buddhist” through assimilating all identifiable ethnic minority groups into the mainstream Burman society, a dominant ethnic group with which the regime identifies itself.

 

Even though an overall human rights situation in Burma as a whole is at a very deplorable situation, the fact that the non-Burman ethnic nationalities “ethnic minorities groups” are the ones who suffer the most at the hand of xenophobic Burmese military regime.

 

The Burmese military regime is using every method to eliminate the identifiable ethnic identities of the ethnic minorities in the country. In Shan state they use rape as weapons of wars against the ethnic Shan (please see Shan Women Action Network website at

www.shanwomen.org), while in Chin state, they use religious persecutions as a tools of ethnocide against Chin Christians (Please see, www.chro.org), and in Mon, Karen and Karenni state, they used mass relocation, confiscation of land and other forms of human rights violations that it is impossible or very difficult to survive as a people for the non-Burman ethnic nationalities groups in Burma.

 

As a result of all these atrocities, there are hundreds of thousands of refugees, most if not all of them, are non-Burman ethnic nationalities taking refuge in neighboring countries, such as, Thailand, India, Malaysia and Bangladesh.

 

Question 3: What are the actions taken by local organizations and student unions regarding the human rights violations?

 

Salai Bawi Lian Mang: Well, if you look at the modern history of Burma in terms of student movements as I briefly alluded to, students have always been at the forefront of political movement. Indeed, the present military regime fully understands the critical role of students and that is the very reason why the junta closed universities and colleges in the country for about 9 years within the past 16 years. The military regime views students as a threat to their dictatorial rule. As a result, students are under constant scrutiny of military intelligence apparatus. Forming students union is illegal in Burma. However, despite such scrutiny and restrictions, students are also the most energetic and vocal group that have been working fearlessly against the military regime.

 

Question 4: Do you think Myanmar’s relationship with ASEAN countries had been significantly affected by the country’s human rights issues? How?

 

Salai Bawi Lian Mang: Yes, in deed, Burma’s human rights record and practice has been a major concern since the beginning or even before allowing Burma to join the club of ASEAN. In the beginning, leaders of ASEAN have insisted that the notion of constructive engagement will improve human rights situation in Burma which will eventually lead Burma into democratization.

 

However, after almost a decade of admitting Burma into the club, ASEAN leaders come to realize that their so-called “constructive engagement” is not working or even failing in terms of promoting human rights and democracy in Burma. As you are aware, Burma had postponed the seat of its rotating chairmanship of ASEAN which was supposed to be in effect in July 2006. I would like to quote the latest Amnesty International report on this regards; “During the ASEAN(1) Ministerial meeting in Vientiane, Laos in July 2005, the SPDC Foreign Minister announced that Myanmar would postpone chairing ASEAN, which the country was due to assume in July 2006, amid reports that the SPDC had delayed the move to avoid further EU and US Government censure and potential conflict within ASEAN itself.”

 

In recent years, we have seen some ASEAN leaders voicing their concern about human rights situation in Burma and in supports of democratization in the country. It is encouraging and a positive sign.

 

Question 5: Has the current government in Myanmar received any sanctions from the international community regarding human rights violations?

 

Salai Bawi Lian Mang: Yes, there are some countries and especially from the West, who are imposing sanctions against the Burmese military regime. The European Union, the United States and Canada have been in the forefront of imposing sanctions against the Burmese junta.

 

In 2003, President Bush enacted Burma Freedom and Democracy Act in response to the continued and systematic violations of human rights by the Burmese military junta.

 

The Canadian House of Commons has passed the Burma Motion in May 2005 calling on the Canadian Government to condemn more forcefully the repeated and systematic human rights violations committed by the military junta in power in Burma.

 

Since 1991, the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights have for 14 consecutive years adopted consensus resolutions condemning the Burmese military junta’s systematic violations of human rights.

 

Starting from 1999, the US Department of State, Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor annual report on international religious freedom report has branded Burma as country of particular concern for its widespread practice of religious persecution against minority religions such as Christians.

 

The International Labor Organization (ILO) has expelled Burma from the ILO for the regime’s notorious records of its widespread use of forced labor.

 

These are some of the actions taken by international communities regarding Burma’s human rights practice.

 

Question 6: In your opinion, what should be the role of the international community in addressing the human rights violations in Myanmar?

 

Salai Bawi Lian Mang: International community plays an important role in support of promoting human rights situation and democratization in Burma. As you may be aware of, the root cause of human rights violations and all atrocities happening in Burma is due to the political conflict/crisis- it is rooted in political reason. Thus, in order to promote human rights situation in Burma, we must solve political conflict first. In terms of solving political conflict in Burma, there is a strategy first called for by the United Nations that is called “tripartite dialogue” which means since the root cause of human rights violations and conflict is political, this should be solved by political means by having a political dialogue between three main political stake holders in Burma; that includes present military regime who are in power, and National League for Democracy (NLD) who won 1990 election and the collective forces of non-Burman Ethnic Nationalities in the country. And this “tripartite dialogue” is endorsed by two major political stake holders both Ethnic Nationalities Council and National League for Democracy.

 

Thus, to sum up the situation, it is very important for the international community especially ASEAN countries to support the emergence of tripartite dialogue that will be the beginning of solving the country’s political crisis by political means.

 

At present, two noble peace laureate South African archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Czech president Vaclav Havel are calling the UN Security Council to tackle Burma issue. It will be great if your government the government of Philippines endorse this proposal as one of the present elected UN Security Council members.

 

Opinion & Commentary:

 

 

The Dragon is Looking Askance

Chinese Policy and the Moral Authority of the Security Council

 

By Kanbawza Win

September 29, 2005

 

America, a good friend of the Burmese people, if not the world, has decided again to put Burma on the agenda of the Security Council. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Eric G. John told the House of Representatives Sub-committee on Asia and the Pacific that the US remained “deeply concerned about the safety and welfare of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners,” in a new bid following a joint call by former Czech President Vaclav Havel and Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, for immediate action. This welcoming news initiated by the two Nobel Peace laureates’ rings like New Year bells to the entire people of Burma, in spite of the blocking by Russia and China last June. At least there is a flickering light of hope at the end of a long tunnel of a half-century under military boots.

 

But will that flickering light be blown out when the two permanent members, which have a long recorded history of dictatorial rule, say “Nay” and indirectly support the Junta to continue in power. That is everybody’s question. Will the moral authority of these two Nobel Laureates who represent billions of people be able to sway the stone hearts of the leaders of Russia and China will soon be known in the coming October meeting of the United Nations Security Council?

 

Chinese Policy and the Moral Authority of the Security Council

 

Burma has 2,185 km of common border with China and the shadow of China is always keenly felt in Burma. An old fable says that if China spits Burma will drown. It seems that what Napoleon said has come to be true “Let the sleeping dragon lie if it awakens the world will be sorry.” But let us see what China aspires to be. The outside world watches China with amazement, and often enough, too, with twinges of discomfort China has just launched a joint war games with its long time adversary Russia, in a show of military might that makes Uncle Sam nervous. The very basic, yet unanswered, questions are still to be answered. No matter how fast its economy grows, can a country make a successful transition to great-power status without real friendships, without associating itself meaningfully with any global ideal, or without bearing a more generous share of humanity’s burdens?

 

Today, no nation of any import seems likely to copy China’s model of government, despite its many successes. But that doesn’t mean that any bid by Beijing for a larger mission in the world is merely a waste of time, much less that it is doomed to failure. At its most influential time, China has always represented an alternative to the West. Under Chairman Mao, many poor nations eagerly drew inspiration from this country based on a naïve appreciation of Chinese realities, but also because China was perceived as being on their side in their struggles against colonial rule and in their struggles for development in a global economy that appeared meanly skewed against the poor. Unless one is talking trade, with rare exception, China is absent from the lives of these countries today. The global rush, amid intense press scrutiny, to aid the victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami seemed to prod Beijing to action, perhaps not wanting to be absent from the lists of major countries making large donations. But if proof were needed that there has been no change in outlook, no new internationalist reflex formed, China has been largely invisible amid reports of famine that are devastating and threatening several other countries in West Africa. Previously, the Chinese construed that Africa is far away and shouldn’t rank as a serious concern. Today, however, China’s state companies are scouring the continent for business as they never have before, including Sudan in the midst of genocide, and if Africa looms large on the map for oil or trading profits, it stands to reason it should also count for something in more human terms.

 

Ultimately, the critical question in assessing China as a great power is how she behaves. What matters most is not so much the growth of Chinese power but how and for what purposes a rising China will actually wield its putative or actual power in the conduct of its international relations. Despite “realpolitik” in global institutions, a policy of multilateral integration coupled with multilateral containment is a more feasible and desirable option than a policy of bilateral engagement. Enmeshing China more fully in a global network of mutually interactive and beneficial multilateral regimes could more easily contain and even possibly transform from within China’s unilateral free-riding or defective behavior

 

The failure of Chinese leaders vision in such moments not only hurts the world’s other weak nations but it also weakens the global system itself. It is also a proof that the Chinese do not attach any importance to international friendships. Whether at the individual level, or for the nation as a whole, getting rich quick, it seems, is all that matters. Perhaps that is why the Burmese named them Ta Yoke; directly translated means Mr. Mean. China is getting closer to and is opting for superpower status, but its rhetoric of “peaceful rise,” and “harmonious society,” seems to be just an empty-sounding slogan, “If things continue like this into the future, with no change, I don’t think China will be able to become a real power, ” commented Prof. Shi Yinghong from the Faculty of International Relations of the People’s University of Beijing, “because its ideological and moral influence in the world will be quite limited.”

 

The UN Security Council

 

Although the engagement of the ethno-democratic groups for stronger UN measures is nothing new, prominent figures have joined the cause thereby indicating the seriousness of the UN. In the meantime, the US is losing patience with the generals in Rangoon. The people of Burma do not harbor a single doubt over the good intentions of UN actions in the past, but from now on more effective and consistent planning and action are necessary. This time the onus has fallen on the UN Security Council. For the past one and half decade the UN have failed to bring reform to Burma. Two UN envoys on Burma, Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Paulo Sergio Pinheiro and the Secretary General’s own special envoy, Razali Ismail, have been effectively barred from visiting the country. Compared to the global poverty problem, the conflict in Western Darfur and North Korea’s nuclear threat, the Burma issue occupies only a sub-folder in world politics. That may be one of the reasons why the Russian Ambassador to the UN made the comment that Burma is a trivial matter to be put on the Security Council agenda as the Council was occupied with “matters of international peace and security”.

 

Now the Nobel Laureates had unraveled the hypocrisy of the UN Security Council. They have fortified that the problem of Burma is “far worse” than in countries where the Council had previously intervened. The whole world including the people of Burma as represented by the NLD and even the ASEAN Parliamentarian, has agreed that the country is a serious threat to international peace and security. We are wondering what lame excuses the representatives of the two dictatorial countries will give at the Council. We hope and pray that the scenario of the Korea crisis of the 50s will not be repeated, when the Russian ambassador withdrew from the Security Council paving the way for the Korean War. But again here nobody can under estimate the fraternity of the dictatorial regimes especially at a time when the dictatorial regimes of the world are dying one by one? This is the third time that democratic countries have tried to put Burma on the agenda and to every body’s knowledge, the five factors for the UN Security Council’s criteria to take actions are already in place. They are: –

• the overthrow of the democratically elected government,

• conflict among government bodies and insurgent armies or armed ethnic groups,

• widespread internal humanitarian or human rights violations,

• substantial overflow of refugees, and

• cross border problems such as drugs and human trafficking etc.

 

The short history of the Security Council indicates that in 1997 it took actions when Sierra Leone committed four offences (1 to 4), Afghanistan in 1996 for four beastly acts (2 to 4), Haiti, in 1993 for the breach of two only (2 & 3), in 1993, Rwanda for three bloody counts (2 to 5), Liberia in 1992 for two counts (2&4) and Cambodia one count only. But in the case of Burma all the above five factors are present viz. the overthrow of the democratically elected government was done in 1962 and again in 1990 when election results were not honoured. Conflict with the government and ethnic factions; has been going on for half a century with non-binding ceasefires and consistent fighting. Widespread Human Rights Violations are evident, such as destruction of villages, massive forced relocations, systematic rape, ethnic cleansing, forced labour and over 70,000 child soldiers breaking the records of any other countries. Outflow of refugees; can be clearly seen in the neighbouring countries. Officially there are 800,000 refugees while another 2 to 3 million are Internally Displaced Persons and numerous migrant workers in Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Laos and China. Drug Production, Human Trafficking and HIV/AIDs; are all well known. Next to Afghanistan, Burma is the biggest heroin and amphetamine stimulants producing country in the world.

 

The severity of these factors, compounded with the spread of HIV/AIDS and the failure of the regime to implement any reform or enable outside organizations to facilitate progress, makes the overall magnitude of the crises more threatening to international peace. Hence it has become a clear historical duty for the UN Security Council to restore Peace, Promote National Reconciliation and facilitate the return of Federal Democratic rule. Since Burma is one of the worst of all the problems ever tackled by the Security Council it would be inhuman for any permanent member to veto the UNSC resolution.

 

Position of Strength

 

The excesses of the Burmese army over its own population have appalled human rights activists around the world. Many moral and responsible political leaders cannot understand how the situation in Burma has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent for one and half decades. It is only now that there is some possibility of raising the issue at the Security Council and even then success depends on the whims and fancies of the representatives of China and Russia.

 

The international community has called for change in Burma and morally and financially supported the Burmese democracy movement. They have worked to change conditions in Burma through sanctions, and have embarked in international forums including the United Nations, ASEM, ASEAN, and networks of parliamentarians, politicians, and non-government organizations.

 

The current Burmese Junta has adopted a policy of betraying the very concept of truth not only to the people of Burma but also to the world. It will never negotiate unless from the position of strength with their adversaries. This has been clearly evident in their negotiations with the ethnic armed forces and most of the ceasefire groups, which were compelled to surrender or to become impotent. However, in the case of the democracy movement it has been different, for when the Junta realize that they are having an upper hand they would released Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to ease the international pressure but when they discovered that they are losing ground and that the mass of the people were following Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (NLD), they resorted to violence and assassinations as the “Depayin” episodes indicates.

 

So if the UN Security Council dealt the Burmese problem, there is every possibility that the Junta will seriously come to the negotiating table, for the UNSC is the only UN organization that has “teeth” with the ability to bite as the past history demonstrates.

 

Nowadays, any major international decisions are made by consensus. Unilateral decisions taken by any individual country, even if it is a super power are usually frowned upon. The classic examples are the American decision on Afghanistan and Iraq. Passing the UNSC resolutions means achieving the consensus. We are quite positive that the Burmese Junta will come to the negotiating table. Otherwise, it will have to suffer the consequences by being forcibly removed through international intervention or armed struggle from within with the help of the UN. In other words, the UN intervention is urgently needed in the Burmese case.

 

To most people, ‘intervention’ implies ‘physical intervention by armed force’. Some Burmese have called for the USA to intervene in Burma a la Iraq. Others want a U.N. peacekeeping force. But the Burmese ethno-democrats, in general, want political intervention. They are not so much in favour of military intervention. The experience of external military intervention in the Asia region in recent times has not been good – Tibet (China), Korea (UN), Vietnam (USA), East Timor & Papua (Indonesia), Cambodia (Vietnam, USA & UN), Bangladesh (India), Sri Lanka (India), Afghanistan (USA), and Iraq (USA) – to name a few.

 

If possible the Burmese ethno-democracy movement realize that military intervention by any external power should be avoided at all costs because it will undermine Burma as a nation and be detrimental to the people of Burma. The territorial integrity of Burma and its sovereignty must be upheld. Political intervention, however, is a different question. Burma is a member nation of ASEAN. When Burma affects the collective well being of ASEAN, it is the duty of all ASEAN members to help Burma resolve its internal problems. Helping does not mean ‘intervention’ by force or political coercion. Helping means to seriously investigate the problem and to suggest possible solutions that could be acceptable to all concerned parties. Now it is found that China, India and ASEAN have intervene economically on the side of the Junta marginalizing the ethno democracy forces and even winning some of the Burmese think tanks to their side by the appeasement theory.

 

Bangladesh, India, China, Laos Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore are close neighbors. Problems in Burma invariably affect them. Like ASEAN, it is in their own self-interest to help Burma to find a solution to its internal problems. Besides, Burma is also a member of the United Nations. When Burma affects the relationships of various regional groupings like ASEAN and the European Union or the Americas, the UN has a duty to try to help resolve the problem. This cannot be construed as “an intervention” but as the duty of the UNSC to solve the international problems. But if political intervention does not work than military intervention became a possibility. However, there is still time to make the political intervention if the neighboring countries of China and India choose to do.

 

Everybody knows that the reverse of ‘Intervention’ is ‘Non-intervention’, opportunistic exploitation, or benign neglect. These policies can be useful if the problem in Burma is short-term in nature or if the conflict partners can themselves find a solution. This is not the case in Burma. The conflict between the central government and the ethnic nationalities is entering its 6th decades. The conflict with the democracy advocates is now almost two decades old and Burma’s economy is in a downward spiral and her problems are multiplying. Burma as a nation is now in a very weak state. Given more time, it could collapse on its own. Or external powers might be tempted to intervene. Either way, the results may not be beneficial to Burma’s neighbors, ASEAN or the Asia region as a whole. Hence it is high time that the UN should intervene, spearheaded by the UNSC.

 

Sino-Burma Relations

 

The political landscape in Southeast Asia changed drastically when the Americans withdrew from the Philippines. This was accelerated rapidly as the People’s Republic of China became a great regional power. China’s economic and military capabilities have grown dramatically at a time when China’s traditional security concern, Russia, has faded. Japan remains a long-term but not an immediate security problem for China. This has left China free, in geopolitical terms, to shift its attention to the South. The most striking manifestation of this development has been a very assertive policy toward the South China Sea; i.e., the entire sea and all the land outcroppings within it are claimed as Chinese sovereign territory. This has been accompanied by a number of statements from senior Chinese civilian and military officials that seem to presage a kind of Chinese Monroe Doctrine for Southeast Asia, a modern reprise of the historic preponderance of the Middle Kingdom. Compounded by China’s resort to bare knuckled military intimidation aimed at Taiwan, have reinforced a growing perception in Southeast Asia of China as a major security factor-and perhaps a threat. The discovery of Chinese facilities on a reef near to, and claimed by, the Philippines did nothing to dispel these concerns.

 

Economically, China’s presence, particularly in northern Burma, has exploded. In a decade, cross border trade went from $15 million to over $800 million and now is estimated to be a billion dollars. A flood of cheap Chinese goods now dominates the Burmese consumer market. Large numbers of Chinese traders and undocumented immigrants have changed the demographic profile of northern Burma. Today, Mandalay is described by people of Burma as second Beijing, a predominantly Chinese city dominated by Chinese money. Chinese construction crews are building and upgrading highways, bridges, and railroads through northern Burma to the sea, while Chinese officials describe Burma as a potentially lucrative outlet to the Indian Ocean for Chinese trade. Bertil Lintner reports: “Most alarming, from the perspective of ASEAN, was the fact that some of the equipment for the Burmese navy had to be installed and at least partially maintained by Chinese technicians. The Chinese had gained a toehold in the maritime region between India and Southeast Asia for the first time in the entire history.”

 

From a geopolitical perspective, Burma’s Military approach to its huge northern neighbor is anomalous. The obvious point is that Burma has developed increasingly close ties with the only country in the world that is in a position to seriously threaten its vital security interests. One and a half decade of autocratic rule, mismanagement and self-imposed isolation have turned Burma into one of the world’s poorest countries. This, in turn, has made Burma vulnerable in terms of security. An economic relapse has the pernicious effect of reinforcing the Junta’s siege mentality, exacerbating its tendency toward police state methods. Such an economically hard-pressed regime has increases its collaboration in the narcotics trade with the narco barons and began to turn to China. The end result is more cross border migration and increasing control of the economy by well-capitalized Chinese traders, both home grown and from China. More far-fetched, but not impossible, is an absorption of some of Burma’s parts as happened in Tibet, for many ethnic nationality groups through their historical experience with the Chinese have found the Chinese option to be far better than the Burman. The de facto territorial integrity of a poor, weak, and divided nation cannot be taken for granted.

 

Burma was the first non-communist country to recognize the People Republic of China in 1949. She signed the Sino-Burmese border treaty in 1960 – the first border treaty signed after the Chinese civil war. The Burmese regime, ignoring the results of the 1990 election and being isolated from many sources of international credit, turned to her northern Burma, and China was the one nation willing to give economic, military, and advisory aid. In 1990 and 1994, the two countries signed arms sales agreements. Chinese investment in the country is grossly underestimated because the amount does not go through the National Investment Board. Chinese trade seems greatly under estimated and Chinese immigration into Burma has been extensive (estimates range from two to three million Chinese now in the country, compared to several hundred thousand before 1988). Beijing’s concept of “democratization” does not embrace an open acceptance of the vanguard of Burma’s democracy movement, the National League for Democracy. The Chinese Embassy in Rangoon, for instance, keeps a demonstrable distance from the NLD. Nor is there any open Chinese sympathy for the plight of its leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, held under house arrest at her home for most of the time. Yet Daw Suu ’s name often appears regularly in Chinese media reports on Burmese developments.

 

It can’t have escaped Beijing’s notice that Suu Kyi has never openly criticized China or its ties with Rangoon. Chinese foreign policy pundits must also be aware that Suu Kyi has also never expressed clearly pro-Western sentiments. Her aides describe her as a nationalist and maintain she would never, for instance, allow an American military presence in Burma—another source of comfort for Beijing. China’s vice prime minister, “iron lady” Wu Yi, told Junta chairman Than Shwe, that Beijing wanted to see Burma consolidate economic development—and at the same time achieve political stability and national harmony. For Burmese observers, this goes a long way towards explaining the success of Chinese economic policies and the miserable state of affairs in Burma.

 

The Chinese oil pipeline would connect Kunming, capital of China’s Southwestern Yunnan Province, and Akyab on the Burmese coast, cutting 1,200 km from the present sea route between the Persian Gulf and China’s Guangdong Province, via the Straits of Malacca. More than 60 percent of China’s oil travels this route. Hence the putting of the Burmese case at the UNSC, especially if additional American pressure can lead to a Chinese abstention in any UN Security Council vote on Burma, will definitely permit a new scenario to emerge in the Burmese political stalemate.

 

The regional economic integration that China needs to help boost its Southwestern provinces would be considerably enhanced if the Burmese economy were vigorous rather than the basket-case it is currently. Burma could buy more Chinese exports and provide fast transport networks to link the west of China with South Asian markets. Foreign investment in Yunnan and the rest of the region would also rise. Such a scenario would be of huge benefit to all three nations (increased trade with India would also help assuage Sino-Indian security tensions). Burma, with its dilapidated rail and road systems, and inability to access international funding to upgrade them, constitutes a black hole in the fabric of the various Asian Development Bank-funded development programs in the region comprising Yunnan, Southeast Asia and South Asia. These include the Greater Mekong Subregion and various other regional triangles and quadrangles and wider projects such as the Trans-Asian Railway and the Asian Highway, designed to speed up the transport of goods within Asia and between Asia and Europe. There are a number of Track-2 projects to promote these networks that Burma takes part in, including the Kunming Initiative made up of Bangladesh, China, India and Burma and the Ganges-Mekong project. So far these have not progressed beyond the talking stage. In the meantime, Burma has been exporting its troubles to its neighbors to the effect that the situation has to be taken up by the UNSC. To change Burma requires a political process that is well beyond the capacity of Burma’s military regime, as was witnessed from the proceedings at the generals’ re-launching “National Convention” which they hoped would complete the “basic elements” for a new constitution, but which will fail to win national or international credibility.

 

An Appeal to Burmese Thinking

 

The Burmese tend too think of China as an obstacle to its objective of achieving democracy in Burma, and feel that China is supporting the military regime due to many factors. They think that the Chinese want to justify the suppression of democracy activists in Tien-An-Men square, the sale of 1.4 billion worth of arms, the non-tolerance of Burmese democratic activities on the Chinese border; the collapse of the Burmese Communist Party and the subsequent cease-fire agreements. But the most unkindest cut is the pressuring of the KIA ceasefire with the Junta coupled with the economic development aid given to the Junta especially at a time when the Burmese democrats were seeking international sanctions against the military and the non-reception of lobby delegations of the NCGUB. No Burmese could comprehend of how China’s policy of peaceful cooperation through trade or the five principles of peaceful coexistence is being applied here.

 

The Burmese ethno-democratic hypotheses have worked well in the liberal democracies of the Western world but these have not worked well with the neighboring countries and China. The neighboring countries are themselves experiencing many difficulties in their developmental paths, and with the concept in China’s external relations of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. The non-interference in the internal affairs of a nation has been a key principle that has been applied even in the UN. Cynics will reject this last statement and give examples where China and other powers have interfered in the internal affairs of various nations. While this is true for covert operations, it is not realistic to expect governments to change their basic policies just for the sake of Burma. This is especially so since, in their perception, there is no alternative governing body to the Burmese army (Balkanization theory).

 

The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence were worked out by China, Burma and India in the early 1950’s and became the basis for the Non-Aligned Movement. The basic aim was to counter colonialism and imperialism, and enable weaker nations to exist and collectively work out their own futures. Some of these principles are still sound and should not be discarded.

 

I would humbly like to remind my Burmese democrats not to approach China with the attitude that China’s non-intervention policy towards Burma is wrong, when she has intervene economically on the side of the military regime. China also must not be approached as an obstacle to achieving democracy in Burma. Neither of these two assumptions is correct. Instead China’s non-intervention policy should be encouraged and maintained. We must understand that China does not necessarily oppose democracy or support military rule. China itself is moving towards democratization and is opening up its economy to the world. The Burmese military leaders do not have the same policy and are obstructing economic development – especially access from Southwestern China to the Indian Ocean. China has voiced its support for democratization and national reconciliation in Burma. This should be nurtured; China is the main power in the region. Burmese democrats need to accept this reality and work out how their aspirations can benefit both the peoples of Burma and China. Burma cannot expect to survive in the long-term and grow if its policies contradict or run counter to regional trends. The whole region needs to develop in tandem.

 

We should also remember that China has indigenous Kachins, Lisu, Shans, Was, Palaung, Lahus living on its borders. Burmese policies that adversely affect these peoples in Burma have an effect on the population of China. These factors cannot be ignored if Burma wants good relations. Burmese democrats must develop policies that are ‘friendly’ towards Burma’s neighbours.

 

The Benign Dragon

 

China is desirous to project itself as a benign dragon with lots of followers and admirers. Professor Johnson indicated that China is more open than many in the West recognize and that the responsibility for China’s political future is in the hand of policymakers. Since the imperial period China has been extremely subject to its external environment and America’s behavior toward China will make a great impact on the direction. With the mainland’s ongoing modernization and its desire to project power abroad, many countries in Asia believe that China is becoming the dominant power in the region. While intra-regional trade continues to expand and integrate China with its neighbors, free trade zones in East Asia have been discussed, explicitly with non-U.S. involvement. Therefore, as dynamics in the region begin to change, Roy stated there is a strong desire not to polarize Asia again due U.S.-China conflicts. Thus maintaining stable relations is an important strategic component and is in the best interest for U.S national security. Though the U.S. is working with a flawed framework and there is bound to be further Sino-American crises, Roy asserted that sound reasoning and understanding how the Chinese system works will help to prevent misperceptions and miscalculations that could lead to confrontation.

 

The Asia Pacific Community Vision also has a much more benign prediction how China will affect the region. China’s decision during the Asian crisis not to devalue its currency demonstrated its commitment to the return of economic stability and growth to the region. Figures already show that the region is well on its way to a full recovery, and before long will be leading the world in economic growth. In this context, regional institutions will be strengthened and made more effective; institutional innovations are already being mooted with this purpose in mind. China’s growing interest in and commitment to regional institutions will continue. Interdependence with Afro-Asian countries will increasingly define China’s relationship with the Asia Pacific region. These forces will also begin to transform China and the Asia Pacific. Economic openness will be followed by political liberalization and the “demand for new institutions, social welfare structures, and a more predictable legal framework.” Generational change in leaderships will bring new political values into the government of China and that of the others. As interdependence breeds a sense of regional community, structures of sovereignty and rivalry will begin to be mitigated. This may eventually contribute to the resolution of the region’s most serious ongoing tensions, between China and Taiwan, on the Korean peninsula, and in the South China Sea.

 

There is little doubt that China’s regional strategy will be driven by its overriding rivalry with the US, leading it to seek accommodation with former great power rivals: Russia, India, possibly Japan. Asia Pacific states will have more options if their relations with the US become strained. On the other hand, the new imperative for the smaller states of the region will be to avoid being trampled in the course of great power competition. They will need to manage their relations with the great powers in such a way as to avoid being “chain ganged” by a larger ally into a conflict not of their making. They will also have an interest in maintaining stability and peace between the great powers in order to escape the devastating effect of what may possibly be a nuclear conflict. Regional tension spots such as Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula, will become possible conflict detonators, and are likely to attract great attention within the region.

 

In international politics, how a country rises often has more drastic consequences for the world than the rise itself. The speed, velocity, ideology, and most significantly, the impact it has on the international balance of power, cause other countries to harbor suspicion, caution, jealousy, and fear, and trigger antipathy among other reactions. The way Germany in the late 19th century and Japan at the beginning of the 20th century made remarkable advances sparked considerable reactions from established powers. “The rise of China” could also trigger all of the above. Many things in China are regarded as potential forces that could change the status q

 

 

 

Rhododendron News

Volume VIII. No. VI. November-December 2005

Chin Human Rights Organization

www.chro.org

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Indiscriminate Killing & Prohibitive Orders

• Two Killed, Six Injured in Indiscriminate Killing

• SPDC Authority Prohibits Growing other Crops Except Rice at Farms

 

Forced Labor and Extortion

• Burmese Troop Forced Civilians to Porter, Demanded Rations

• SPDC Collected Money Illegally from Local People

• Excessive Money Collected from Identity Cards

• Local People Forced to Construct Police Station

• Excessive Taxes Exacted

 

Opinion

Will the National Convention Bring Democracy to Burma?

–By Harn Yawngwe

 

Presentation

• Human Rights Situations in Chinland

–By Salai Bawi Lian Mang

 

Activity Reports

• CHRO Key Activities Highlights in 2005

 

Back Cover Poem

• Sweet December

–By Van Biak Thang

 

 

Burmese Soldiers Killed Two Children, Injured Six Civilians in Random Shooting

 

Chin Human Rights Organization

14 November 2005

 

Aizawl: Two Burmese soldiers shot and killed two children and critically injured six other civilians in Matupi Town of southern Chin State on Saturday, November 12, 2005, Chin Human Rights Organization has learned. Local residents who witnessed the shooting identified two Burmese soldiers from Light Infantry Battalion 304 as culprits of the indiscriminate killing.

 

Bawi Sawng, a 17 year-old boy, son of Pu Cang Khawn, who just graduated from high school and a 7 year-old child were killed on the spot and six other civilians, most of them children, were seriously injured by the spray of bullets late afternoon on Saturday at around 5:00 p.m. local time.

 

The injured civilians were flown by army helicopter to hospitals in Pakhuku, Mandalay and Maymyo (Pyin Oo Lwin), CHRO source said. But further details on the condition of the victims are not immediately available.

 

The incident occurred at a local football ground during the closing ceremony of a regional football tournament sponsored by Lt. Colonel San Aung, Commander of Tactical Command II for Southern Chin State. Football teams from both civilian and the army were competing for a trophy named after Lt. Col. San Aung, which started on November 1, 2005.

 

The civilian team from Matupi won the final match against army personnel based out of Kanpalet Town. Eye witnesses said two Burmese soldiers, apparently disgruntle over their loss against the civilian team, approached from the south end of the football field and started spraying bullets from automatic rifles on a crowd of spectators watching the prize-giving ceremony. The indiscriminate shooting left two children dead and six other injured.

 

Last year in a similar football tournament a brawl brook out between Burmese soldiers and Chin civilians spectators after the soldiers loss a match against the civilians.

 

Today’s edition of Myanmar Digest, a state-run newspaper blamed the shooting on ‘Chin insurgent terrorists.’ The paper said that two Chin insurgents armed with small arms opened fired on the spectators and fled and that the regional Battalions are in hot pursuit. But that claim is disputed by eye witnesses who said they recognize the two Burmese soldiers from LIB 304 as the shooters.

 

Local residents say that Matupi Town is heavily militarized and fortified there is no way the Chin rebels could have sneak in undetected and then left without being caught.

 

Military authorities are giving 100,000 Kyats to each family of the victims in compensation. Burma Army rarely gives compensation to civilian victims and local residents believe it is meant for a hush money rather than compensation.

 

 

 

Burmese Troops Forced Civilians to Porter, Demanded Rations

 

Aizawl 26/12/2005

 

Commanding officer 2nd Lt. Ko Ko Oo from Burma Army Light Infantry Battalion 268 forced villagers in Vuangtu area to porter and forcibly collected rations from civilians on November 10, 2005. U Kaw Lian Ring, a villager of Phaikhua who was forced to porter army supplies reported to Chin Human Rights Organization. The battalion is from Falam and currently stationed at Vuangtu Village in Thantlang Township of northern Chin State.

 

The villager recounted: “The officer and his troops arrived at my village from Hmawngtlang village with three porters at 3 p.m. in the evening on November 9, 2005. As soon as they got to the village, the officer summoned all the village Peace and Development Council members and said, “I came here because I was informed that members of Chin National Army are here. I will kill you all if you fail to bring them.” Under such threats, he demanded two chickens and ten cups of rice for his squad. The village elders were unable to catch the chickens and they had to arrange Kyat 5,800 to buy 6 cans of canned fish and 6 bundles of noodle for their dinner. Additionally, the village elders had to arrange another 10 cups of rice and 6000 Kyats to buy 2 chickens for the next day’s meal.”

“We had to get up at 4 a.m. in the morning to report ourselves to the soldiers. There were three of us who were recruited for portering. Each one of us was made to carry rations, communication gears, and the commander’s rucksack. We traveled 12 miles to Hripi village. The heavy loads on our backs slowed us down but the soldiers would swear at us and forced us to keep pace. We were fed breakfast only at 11:00 o’ clock,” U Kaw Ling Ring explained.

SPDC soldiers patrolling at India-Burma border no longer bring ration from battalions since later this year. They would demand rations from villages along their way and forced civilians to carry their supplies from one village to the next.

 

SPDC Authority Prohibits Growing Other Crops Except Paddy At Farms

 

Aizawl: 26/12/2005

 

Township Peace and Development Council Chairman U Shwe Soe of Thantlang in Northern Chin State on August 10, Issued an order not to grow other crops at farms except paddy in farms across Thantlang Township. U Sui Thong, a farmer from Senthang Vilage said growing crops other than paddy requires prior authorization from the authorities.

“We only have a small number of farm owners in our area, which means that our harvests produce very little. So we grow garlic immediately after harvesting our paddy. The plantation also does not profit us well but we have an extra income through it and it is better to grow garlic than doing nothing,” he complained.

Continued U Sui Thong: “I am now 53 and I have never heard of such an order prohibiting other plantation except rice. With this kind of restriction, it is certain that my family’s situation would worsen year by year. Children’s expenditures at school are getting higher and prices of commodities are going through the roof.”

“According to the order we will harvest less and less one year after another and we farmers will not find means to survive” said the villager.

SPDC authority in Thantlang Township has been issuing various prohibiting orders these days. On 30, September 2005 Police station chief (name unknown) stationed at Hnaring Village issued an order prohibiting fishing in such rivers as Bawinu, Thangaw, and Pang Lai. The order stipulated a 20,000 Kyat fines for violation.

 

SPDC Collected Money Illegally From Local People

 

Aizawl 11/11/2005

 

Township Peace and Development Council chairman U Tin Htun from Razua Township forcibly collected 800 Kyats from every town household in the area.

Citing funding needs to sponsor soccer tournament, which trophy was named after Colonel San Aung, Vice Chairman of Chin State Peace and Development Council and Commander of Tactical Command No. 2 in Chin State. The soccer match was held on November 1, 2005 in Matupi.

“On September 5, 2005, our village was fined a sum of 10,000 Kyats because we did not present a soccer team. Now we paid 300 Kyat each household again. Since our town became a new Township administrative center, each household has paid around 50,000 Kyats in all. Look! A primary student pays 150 kyat for gyms fund regularly and each student was forced to buy two dozens of pencils. I have to buy eight dozen for four children and now the box is full of unused pencils,” complained one the village headman.

Since Rezua was awarded a Township status, residents of villages in the new jurisdiction have had to build military camps, produce gravels for road constructions, supply chickens and forced as porters. Moreover, they were forced to be members of Women Association of Burma and forced to buy the portraits of General Than Shwe and a poster of Rih Lake and forced to distribute money for governmental service daily.

 

 

Excessive Money Collected for Identity Cards

 

 

U Khua Za Khan, head of immigration office of Falam town, Northern Chin State has been asking huge amounts of money to issue National Identity Card since earlier this year. Said a local man: “Head officer U khun Za Khan demands kyat 10,000 to 15,000 from those applying for new cards, Kyats 20,000 to 30,000 for those people who would like to renew the validity, and demands Kyats 30,000 to 40,000 from those who lost their cards and wished to get a new national identity card.”

“It is very difficult to acquire a national identity card, I had spent kyat 50,000 on National Identity Card for my four children,” complained one local resident.

But according to public notice posted in the local Immigration office, getting a new identity card for the first time only costs 6 Kyats, while renewing costs 1000 Kyats and replacing a lost card costs 5000 Kyats respectively.

 

 

Local People Forced to Construct Police Station

 

Aizawl 21/11/2005

 

Police officer Kyaw Aung based at Shinletwa village, Paletwa Township, southern Chin State forced civilians in the surrounding villages to construct police camp on October 21, 2005, U Phu Uk of, headman of Pawng village reported.

 

5 villages from Wazung village tract have to construct the police camp from November 21 to November 26, 2005. One person from every household in the village track was compels to engage in the forced labor.

 

The forced laborers have to bring their own tools, and food. Besides, the villagers were compels to bring construction raw materials such as wood for the pole of the building and thatch for the roof. It took a day for forced laborers from Pawng village to travel to the construction site.

 

There are about 100 villagers engage in the forced labor constructing the police station from five villages; Shwe Ta Lak, Tawngzang, Pawng, O0Zung and Sat-Ke villages.

 

 

Excessive Taxes Exacted

Aizawl 21/11/2005.

 

Head Officer of Municipal Corporation of Falam town, Northern Chin State, U Kan Aung demands kyat 10, 000 to 150, 00 from those families who had finished building a house in Falam, a local resident reported.

Head officer U Kan Aung was said to go around the town and inspected newly constructed buildings since 2004. As soon as he came to know about a new building, he extorts huge amounts of money from the house owner. Sometimes some house owners don’t have enough money to pay him, but he often forced house owners to borrow money and to pay him without delay. Apart from the extortion of money by Municipal Corporation of Falam town, Forestry Department also extorts kyat 15, 0000 to 2, 00000 from house owners.

At the same time, health department demands kyats 10, 000 to 20, 000 from any patients for admission fees to hospital and kyat 20, 000 to 50,000 for those patients who need operation. Moreover, education department demands kyat 500 to 1000 from the students for extra times.

 

 

Will the National Convention Bring Democracy to Burma?

 

What Role Can ASEAN Play In The Process?

By Harn Yawnghwe

December 25, 2005

The focus on Burma today centers on the National Convention which was reconvened on 5 December 2005. People want to know if this process can be used to bring about democratic change. Given the frustration over the absence of any other political alternatives, some are advocating that we embrace the National Convention and work within the limited confines it seems to afford. Is this a possible avenue that we should explore? Before we make any decisions, it may be helpful to examine some of the factors surrounding the issue.

 

People assume that this National Convention is a new constitutional drafting process launched by Prime Minister Lieutenant-General Khin Nyunt, when he announced the 7-point Road Map to democracy in August 2003. The Convention is actually a continuation of the one convened in 1993. It was adjourned in 1996 and reconvened in May 2004 after an interval of almost 8 years. The Burmese military has, from the very beginning, clearly stated that one of the six key objectives for drafting the constitution is to legitimize the ‘political leadership role’ of the Tatmadaw (Armed Forces). But some have argued that since the constitution only reserves 25% of the legislative seats for the Tatmadaw, the new constitution is a good deal. After all, the military today controls 100% of the seats. While this may sound reasonable, it should be noted that the Convention has not said anything yet about how elections will be held. Under the 1974 military-sponsored ‘Socialist’ constitution, all candidates had to be first approved by the ruling party. Therefore, the Tatmadaw could still control 100% of the seats while reserving only 25% of the seats for the military. In any case, the key issue is not the percentage of seats. Under the new presidential constitution, the powerful president must have 10 years of military experience. And to make doubly sure that the military retains control, the constitution also stipulates that the Commander-in-Chief will appoint three key ministers – including his own boss, the Defence Minister, the Home Minister, and the Minister for Border Affairs. The Commander-in-Chief also has the right to seize power any time he feels that national security is threatened. The Tatmadaw is also above the constitution. Can such a constitution lead to democracy?

 

Another factor that troubles democracy advocates is that delegates to the National Convention are prohibited from criticizing the constitution whether within the formal proceedings or informally outside the sessions. The proceedings are a state secret. Those who ignore the edicts have been harassed and arrested. One was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Law No.5/96 also makes it illegal for anyone to discuss the constitution outside the National Convention. If the new constitution is intended to bring democracy to Burma, why should it be a crime to discuss it openly? But some continue to argue that in spite of the totally undemocratic outcome, we should engage the military. They say that we should use the process to create some political space. The way the Convention and the Road Map came to be launched may be instructive. The process to legitimize military rule actually started in November 1989 when Foreign Minister U Ohn Kyaw announced at the United Nations General Assembly in New York in November 1989 that Burma would hold general elections in 1990 to elect a new government. Senior-General Saw Maung, the Chair of SLORC, promised that he would hand over power to the election winners. But when the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, actually won 82% of the parliamentary seats, SLORC changed its tune and said that the elections were not to elect a government but only to determine who would draft a new constitution. After 3 years of maneuvering, the military again changed the rules and did not allow the 482 elected representatives to draft a new constitution. They instead hand-picked 702 delegates. Of this number only 107 elected representatives were selected. When the NLD protested against the undemocratic practices within the Convention and walked out, the process stopped without any reason being given. When the National Convention finally reconvened in 2004, the ethnic cease-fire armies did exactly as is being suggested. They tried to use the process to create some political space. They requested that the 104 articles adopted in 1996 be reviewed given the 8-year gap, that the process be inclusive, and democratic. The results? Ethnic nationalities leaders were arrested and recently sentenced to over 100 years in prison each on unspecified charges. And the military recently stated that the cease-fire armies represent only a small portion of the wider ‘national races’, and that their views would not be reflected in the constitution. This is because when the military reconvened the National Convention, they changed its composition. Instead of the 215 delegates from the ‘national races’ as in 1993, this was expanded to 633 delegates to minimize any possible negative effects from inviting the 105 delegates from the ethnic cease-fire armies to participate in the Convention. There are also now only 13 elected representatives left in an expanded Convention of 1,086 delegates. The military is also now claiming that there are no cease-fires armies. They claim instead that insurgents have re-entered the legal fold and some have even exchanged their arms for peace. This actually contradicts the military’s former claim that they have achieved peace in Burma because they have cease-fire agreements with 17 groups.

 

The above shows that the Burmese military will not compromise. To them, they are engaged in a process of national salvation, and they have to win at all costs. They will change the rules, stop the process, stack the cards, and re-define the situation in short, do anything, in order to win. Given such a rigid military mind-set, it is difficult to see how the National Convention process can be used to bring about democracy. But does this mean that there is no way out? For how many more years will the military keep shifting the goal posts? For how many more years will democracy advocates and the international community keep saying no? And for how many years will Burma continue to survive as a sovereign nation with its territorial integrity intact? The British government earlier this year identified Burma as a country at risk of instability. The United Nations Resident Coordinator in Yangon warned recently that worsening economic conditions and rising rates of disease including HIV-AIDS could eventually lead to a humanitarian crisis. Given this bleak prospect, perhaps the upcoming visit by the proposed ASEAN envoy can broker a deal. The two contentious and seemingly contradictory objectives out of the six objectives proposed by the military are: the flourishing of a genuine multi-party democracy, and the Tatmadaw’s national political leadership role in the future state. But these objectives could be reconciled if the democracy movement were able to accept that the military needs to play a leading political role in a transition to democracy. The Tatmadaw must also accept that after a transition, the role of the Tatmadaw in politics must decrease if democracy is to flourish. According to the military’s plans, future sessions of the National Convention will be considering provisions to amend the constitution, and ‘prescriptions in the Transitional Period’. This could be the key to finding a solution. What is crucial now is for the Tatmadaw to agree to ASEAN’s involvement in the process of democratization in Burma and a definite time-frame. If such firm provisions guaranteed by ASEAN could be worked out, the democracy movement and the international community would welcome them.

 

Human Rights Situation in Chinland

Presentation

By

Salai Bawi Lian Mang

Of

Chin Human Rights Organization

At

Joint Venue Hosted

By

Lawyers Group of Amnesty International (Hong Kong)

&

CSW (Hong Kong)

 

November 7, 2005 Hong Kong

 

I would like to say thank you to the CWS (Hong Kong) and the Lawyers Group of Amnesty International (Hong Kong) for creating this venue, exclusively for the situation of human rights in Chinland (Chin state and western Burma). I am honored to speak about human rights situation in Chinland to a group of intellectuals, lawyers, the AI (Hong Kong) and CSW (Hong Kong) who have committed in promotion of human rights around the world.

 

Thanks to Ms. Chato Olivas Gallo for your nice introduction. My name is Salai Bawi Lian Mang from Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO). The CHRO is an independent non-governmental human rights organization. We aim to protect and promote human rights among the Chin people, and to contribute to the movement for the restoration of democracy and human rights in Burma. Founded in 1995, CHRO has worked to document the human rights situations of the Chin people in Burma’s western region.

 

Even though the political and human rights situation in Burma has gained international attention in recent years, the situation of the Chin people remained largely unknown by international community.

 

I am regrets to say that human rights conditions among Burma’s ethnic people, including the Chin people continue to remain a matter of grave concern. In fact, human rights conditions of the Chin people have become worse and the number of displaced persons and refugees has increased in recent years. Under the reign of the State Peace and Development Council, the Chin people have continued to experience untold miseries and hardships as a result of the systematic abuse of their fundamental human rights.

 

There is a direct link between the growing abuse against the Chin people and the increase in militarization of the Chin areas. In the last fifteen years since the regime took over power, the number of army battalions stationed in Chin State has increased up to 10 times. This increase has been accompanied by the rapid acceleration in the level of human rights abuses across Chin State. The kind of human rights violations suffered by the Chins today are the same as those that have been extensively reported among ethnic Karen, Shan, and Karenni on the eastern border. These violations manifest in the forms of arbitrary arrest and detention, forced labor, torture, rape and extrajudicial executions. Moreover, the overwhelming percentage of Christians among the Chin people has also brought abuses in the form of religious persecution. Today, religious persecution is a matter of primary concern among the Chin people.

 

Since 1999, the US State Department has singled out Burma as a country that systematically violates religious freedom. The annual reports have cited a significant amount of cases of religious persecution involving the Chin people.

 

Religious Persecution:

 

Religious persecution poses a matter of grave concern among the Chin people. Chin Human Rights Organization, since 1995, has documented a range of human rights abuses by the military regime against the Chin people, including violations of religious freedom.

In December of 2004, Burma hosted a World Buddhists Summit amidst questions about its worthiness to organize such international meeting given the regime’s abysmal record of treating religious minorities and absolute disregard for fundamental human rights. Around the same time that this meeting took place in Rangoon, Burmese troops from Light Infantry Battalion (304) desecrated a Christian cross in Matupi of southern Chinland.

 

On January 3, 2005 a giant Christian cross on top of Mount Boi near Matupi town of Chin State was destroyed by Burmese troops on direct order of Colonel San Aung, one of the highest ranking military commanders in the region. The 50-foot tall concrete cross was erected by local Christians at the cost three and a half million Kyats. After destroying the cross, troops from Light Infantry Battalion (304) hoisted a Burmese flag as a sign of victory against Christianity in Chin State where more than 90 percent of the populations are Christians. There are reports the regime is making plans to construct a Buddhist pagoda on the site.

 

Christian religion has deep root in the Chin society. Since the first Chin conversion in the early 20th century following the arrival of American Baptist missionaries to the Chin Hills, Christianity gradually became accepted by a large majority of the Chin populations, who had practiced traditional animism for centuries. After a century since then, Christianity now is second culture for many Chin people.

 

Chin people today claim that more than 90 percent of Chins are Christians. Because of the overwhelming importance of Christianity among the Chins, the junta, which strongly identifies itself with Buddhism and has been preoccupied with building national unity has been trying to promote Buddhism over Christianity in Chin State with the belief that once the Chins are converted to Buddhism they can be easily subjugated.

 

For this reason, the regime has resorted to persecuting the Chins, a drastic action that involves arbitrarily removing Christian crosses erected by churches on hilltops throughout Chin State and openly directing and supporting coerced conversions of Christians into Buddhism.

 

Through the Hill Buddhist Mission, a program directly sponsored by the military regime, Buddhist monks have migrated to the Chin State. In every town and major villages in Chin State, the regime has established a Buddhist pagoda and station monks who are closely working with local army battalions. Buddhist pagodas are often built in places where Christian monuments such as crosses have formerly stood, and Christians have been either forced to donate money or forced to build the pagodas.

 

The regime is putting close scrutiny on preachers and evangelists, and in many instances has made effort to censor the contents of sermons delivered by Christian pastors and ministers. Citing the risk of security, authorities have either not permitted or arbitrarily set the number of people who could attend religious festivals and conferences. Moreover, the regime has still not permitted the printing and publication of Bibles, forcing Chin Christians to quietly bringing Bibles from abroad. In several instances, army authorities have confiscated Chin-language Bibles imported from India, and burnt or destroyed them.

 

Construction of new church buildings is prohibited and Christians must obtain prior authorization for even renovation of church buildings. These are all in stark contrast to the freedoms enjoyed by monks and Buddhists whose activities are openly supported, and encouraged by authorities. Several reports documented by CHRO show that army patrols have deliberately used Church compounds for shelter and camps, and have purposefully disturbed Church services by entering into churches during Sunday worship services.

 

The regime has also targeted Christian leaders by falsely implicating and accusing them of supporting anti-government groups, and has jailed and tortured many pastors. In remote villages and other rural areas in Chin State, army units on patrols have frequently mistreated, assaulted and tortured Christian pastors.

 

Coerced conversions of Christian families and children have also been reported in several parts of Chin State. Those who convert to Buddhism were exempted from forced labor and given special privileges. Local authorities have frequently recruited Christian children under the pretext of giving them formal education in cities. The last incidents happening in last year, five Christian children, between the ages of 7 and 18 years old from Matupi township of Chin State, who had been placed in monasteries in Rangoon, escaped confinement in Buddhist temples where they have been forced to follow Buddhist teachings.

 

Restriction on the use and teaching of Chin language:

 

Under the military regime, the teaching of Chin language in school is prohibited. In elementary schools, the permitted level of teaching Chin language is grade 2. Publications of textbooks in Chin are not provided for by the government and Christian churches are forced to bear the burden of supplying these texts. Chin school teachers of all levels of high school in Chin State are instructed to use Burmese as a medium of communication with their students. This measure has greatly diminished the level of understanding by the students in school and has served to downgrade student performance. Since the mid 1990s, the new curriculum is dominated by perspectives of Burmese or Burman culture and history, and students have complained about the lack of substance that reflects ethnic Chin perspectives in the subject. This has also been seen as an open attempt to assimilate the Chin youth into mainstream Burman culture.

 

Because of the limited number of government schools available for the Chin populations in Chin State, communities in rural villages have set up private schools to allow the children access to primary education. Unsupported by the government, villages have to seek their own means of running the school by contributing money and resources for the schools. However, since 1998, the regime has banned many self-supported private schools, depriving many children in rural communities of primary education. It should be noted that because these private schools are not under direct control of the government, they were able to offer alternative learning in Chin language. Restriction on the learning of Chin language has already taken its toll on the Chin youth. A high percentage of Chin teenagers are not able to read and write in their own language. This has been exacerbated by the fact that many Chin children look down on their own language and had instead chosen to use Burmese.

 

Forced Labor:

Burma has claimed that it has outlawed the practice of forced labor in 2001. However, independent investigations into this claim have found the pervasiveness and the continued use of forced labor in the Chin State. Local army battalions have routinely exacted forced labor from villagers and rural communities in building roads, army camps, development infrastructures and agricultural projects. In major townships of Chin state such as Hakha, Falam, Matupi and Thantlang, civilians are being routinely forced to work at government tea plantation farms. I am not going in detail about the forced labor situation, instead, I will refer you to the report we made a few months ago.

The report titled “THE FORCED LABOR PANDEMIC IN CHINLAND”

 

Political Suppression:

 

The Chin people are not represented in the central, state and local administration under the military regime. After the regime nullified the results of the 1990 elections, all Chin political parties were declared illegal. These political parties include the Chin National League for Democracy (CNLD), the Mara Peoples Party (MPP) and Zomi National Congress (ZNC) Party. Subsequent crackdowns on political dissidents have forced 3 of the 13 Chin Members of Parliament to flee the country while 2 others were arrested and imprisoned for several years. Since early 1990s, the entire Chin populations have forced to live under virtual curfew. Dozens of civilians accused of supporting, Chin National Front, underground movement were arrested, tortured and imprisoned under the Unlawful Association Act. Civilians charged under this act are routinely tortured in interrogating chambers. According to a former a woman prisoner, she was humiliated, tortured and deprived of food and sleep for one week before she was arbitrarily sentenced to 3 years in prison.

 

Refugees:

 

I would like to highlight the particularly grave situations of Chin refugees. In the year since the military regime took over power in 1988, about 60,000 Chin refugees have fled to India, Bangladesh and Malaysia. At least 50,000 Chin refugees have lived in Mizoram State of northeast India. Neither the Government of India nor the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has recognized them as refugees. As a result Chin refugees have frequently been forced back to Burma.

 

The need for protection and humanitarian assistance of Chin refugees in Malaysia is no less important. Over the past few years, more than 12,000 Chin refugees have also sought sanctuary in Malaysia. Like the Chin refugees in India, they are identified as ‘illegal’ and risk frequent arrest and deportation by Malaysian authorities. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has recognized only a very small fraction of Chin refugees.

 

Conclusion:

 

The problems faced by Burma’s ethnic groups, including the Chin people are the direct consequence of military rule and its campaign of State organized terrorism directed primarily against the ethnic people who constitute more than 40% of the country’s population. Today, the Chin people and all the ethnic people are fighting for our very survival as a people. Our cultural, ethnic and religious identities are being rapidly eroded, and our very survival as a people is being threatened by the policies of ethnic cleansing relentlessly conducted by the military regime.

 

Due to militarization and rampant human rights violations committed by the Burmese military regime, the Chin people have suffer untold misery in their daily lives and the Burmese military regime has created the situation that is impossible for the Chin people to survive in their own land.

 

The sufferings of the ethnic nationalities could only be remedied through fundamental change in the political system, a change that would allow the ethnic people equitable representation in the decision-making process of the country. Time is passing and innocent lives are being lost. The international community needs to take effective and urgent actions on Burma before the problems develop into an irreversible stage.

 

I hope I have presented a brief overall human rights situation in Chinland, and I think it will be good to open the panel for discussion and questions and answers. I will be happy to answer any question you may have.

 

Thank You.

Salai Bawi Lian Mang

Chin Human Rights Organization

Hong Kong, November 7, 2005

 

 

 

 

Some of CHRO Activities Highlights in 2005

 

 

CHRO Activities in the Moth of January

 

January 8, 2005

The Chin Human Rights Organization has its annual Board of Directors meeting in Ottawa. The meeting made evaluation of the organization’s activities in the past year and discussed about its future plan.

 

January 14, 2005

CHRO director made a briefing “Update on Ethnic nationalities In Burma” at Canadian NGO Consultation Meeting on Burma held at Canadian Council for International Cooperation.

 

January 30, 2005

In response to the destruction of the largest Christian cross by Burmese army on January 3, the Chin Human Rights Organization called international day of prayer for persecuted Chin Christians in Burma on January 30. The action called by CHRO was overwhelmingly responded by Chin churches around the world and covered by several news agencies. Exiled Chins in India, Malaysia, Canada and USA staged demonstration in front of the Burmese embassies.

 

January 31, 2005

CHRO has a meeting with Washington DC-based Refugee International regarding protection of Chin and other refugees from Burma in Malaysia. The meeting decided that the RI and CHRO make assessment trip to Malaysia in March.

 

 

 

CHRO Activities in the Month of February

 

February 1

CHRO director and its legal consultant made a briefing about current political and human rights, special focus on religious persecutions against Chin Christian, in Burma to the United States Department of State, Burma Desk officer and official from the State Department Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.

 

February 2

CHRO director Salai Bawi Lian Mang and the Organization’s legal consultant Salai Ngun Cung Lian had a meeting with World Relief, and Lutharan Immigration and Refugee Service, the two largest international faith-based organizations regarding the protection of Chin and other refugees from Burma in India and Malaysia.

 

February 28, 2005

CHRO published Rhododendron News Bulletin January-February 2005 issue.

 

CHRO activities in March

 

March 1-14, 2005

CHRO director Salai Bawi Lian Mang traveled to Malaysia and Thailand regarding the protection of Chin and other refugees from Burma in Malaysia.

 

March 7, 2005

CHRO director has a meeting with Malaysia NGO called SUARAM regarding protection of Chin and other refugees from Burma in Malaysia against police brutality and legal service for refugees detained by Malaysia police and immigration.

 

March 8, 2005

CHRO director has a meeting with Kuala Lumpur-based Jesus Refugee Service in order to work together in protection of vulnerable women and unaccompanied minor among Chin refugees from Burma in Malaysia.

 

March 9

CHRO director has a meeting with UNHCR Officials from Kuala Lumpur regarding protection of Chin and other refugees from Burma in Malaysia.

 

March 11

CHRO director has a meeting with Shan Women Action Network and Shan Human Rights Foundation. The meeting discussed about searching for a common ground to work together on protection of the rights of ethnic nationalities from Burma.

 

 

 

March 12

CHRO director has a meeting with Asia Indigenous People Pact, an umbrella organization of indigenous peoples in Asia.

 

CHRO Activities during its facts finding mission trip to Malaysia covering Marcy 1-14, 2005;

 

• March 1 meeting with Chin Refugee Committee

• March 2 Noon, Meeting with Falam Fellowship

• March 2 Evening Meeting with the Anti CRC group

• March 2 night, CHRO director was requested to serve as the meeting master for CRC General Meeting (CRC and anti CRC group)

• March 3 Morning: Meeting with Teddim Cimnuai Family & Malay Zomi Organization

• March 3, Evening Meeting with Matupi Fellowship & Mindat

• March 3, Night: Meeting with leaders of Chin Christian Fellowship

• March 4, 2005, Field trip to Daman Sarah Construction Site & Putrajaya Jungle camp with Refugee International and Chin Refugee Committee

• March 5, Meeting with Zotung Fellowship

• March 5, Evening; meeting with a group of Chin Interpreters

• March 6, meeting with a group of CRC interpreters

• March 7, meeting with SUARAM

• March 8, meeting with JESUS REFUGEE SERVICE JRS

• March 9, Meeting with UNHCR Kuala Lumpur

• March 9, Meeting with Hakha Fellowship (Haka Peng I Hoikomhnak)

• March 10, Meeting with Zophei Fellowship

• March 14, Wrap up and meeting with CRC

 

 

CHRO Activities in the Month of April

 

April 15-16

CHRO director Salai Bawi Lian made a presentation “Persecution of Chin Christian in the Union of Burma” at National Conference on Persecuted Churches at Columbia.

 

April 2005

The CHRO takes the initiative to form Chin Women Organization in Malaysia and create the safe house for vulnerable Chin Refugee Women in Kuala Lumpur with the support of Primate Anglican, based in Toronto.

 

CHRO Activities in the Month of May

 

May 21 to 30

CHRO legal consultant Salai Ngun Cung Lian traveled to Korea. The purpose of CHRO visit to Korea and Japan was to advocate for Chin refugees in Korea and Japan and to inform appropriate government agencies, human rights organizations, and the UNHCR about human rights and political situation in Burma and in Chin state.

 

During the 10 days visit to Korea and Japan, CHRO representative had met with;

 

In Korea;

• Christian Volunteers for Refugees’ Human Rights in Seoul

• International Exchange, Jubilee Center

• The Beautiful Foundation

• UNHCR office Seoul

• Visiting the Seoul Immigration Detention Center

• Mass Meeting With Chin Community in Korea

 

In Japan:

• Visiting Tokyo Immigration Detention Center

• Visiting UNHCR Office

• Visiting the Refugee Assistance Headquarters (Tokyo)

• Meeting with Japanese News Paper (Japan Times Staff Writer)

• Meeting Chin Community Japan

• Visiting the Izumibashi Law Office (The Law Farm that Volunteer to Assist Asylum Seekers from Burma)

• Visiting the Japan Association for Refugee Office

• Public Meeting Jointly Organized by National League for Democracy (NLD –LA-Japan) and Association for United Nationalities (AUN) the Non Burman ethnic group in Japan.

 

 

 

CHRO Activities in the Month of June

The CHRO provided information about the situation of refugee and internally displaced person in Chin state and western Burma to the United States Committee for Refugee annual reports on refugee and internally displaced persons.

 

The CHRO is among over a hundred of human rights organizations worldwide who endorsed “Anti Warehousing Campaign” for the rights of refugee initiated by the United States Committee for Refugee.

 

CHRO official has a meeting with Foundation for The People of Burma based in San Francisco in the last week of June. The meeting agreed that the CHRO field office in Delhi provide technical assistance to the two month project of FPB in the improvement of health among refugees and the workshop on organization management.

 

CHRO published Rhododendron News Volume VIII. No. III. May-June 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

Key Activities of Chin Human Rights Organization in July 2005:

 

From the first week of July, the Chin Human Rights Organization’s (CHRO) team from its liaison office in New Delhi, has assisted research team from Foundation for the People of Burma (FPB) in doing research about improving the health of refugees from Burma. The research team set up their research center at the CHRO office and the CHRO team has provided technical assistance, interpretation and translation, interviewing the refugees, and data collections etc. The research team and the CHRO has organized workshop on improvement of health issue attended by 70 individuals from different organizations.

 

The CHRO team also has assisted workshop run by FPB team regarding organizational management skill among Burmese refugee communities in Delhi.

 

The CHRO published a report “Nowhere to Go: Chin Refugees in Malaysia”. The report covers situation of Chin refugees in Malaysia, the reason behind the flow of Chin refugees to Malaysia, the living conditions of the refugees in Malaysia etc.. with several photos and distributed among refugees councils of several countries, humanitarian agencies and rights groups.

 

Key Activities of CHRO in August 2005:

 

On August 12, the United Nations Secretary General’s special rapporteurs and representatives submitted human rights situation in Burma to the Secretary General. And the CHRO is glad that human rights situation in western Burma, and among the Chin people, which the CHRO had provided were included in the report.

 

The following are some of CHRO key activities in this month;

 

The CHRO director has a meeting with leaders from the Pan Kachin organization and Kachin Youth Organization in USA regarding cooperation in terms of protection of refugees and advocacy works.

 

CHRO team in New Delhi has assisted the three day long Chin State Constitution Seminar in Delhi organized by the Chin Forum.

 

The CHRO team in New Delhi has assisted health research team from FPB in the implementation of clean drinking water project among refugees from Burma in Delhi.

 

The CHRO Liaison office in-charge Salai Aung Cin Thang and his team had a meeting with International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC assured the CHRO team that they will keep in touch regarding the situation of human rights in Chin state and situation of refugees from Burma in India.

 

 

 

The CHRO team in Delhi has assisted several refugees in their settlement process to the third countries.

 

The CHRO team from the field (India-Burma border) has collected 8 items of the news.

 

On 20th August, the Japan Times, one of the biggest newspapers in Japan has covered the initiatives taken by CHRO in protection of Chin refugees and situation of Chin community in Japan in a featured article.

 

The CHRO published Rhododendron News Volume VIII. No. IV, July-August 2005.

 

Key Activities of CHRO in September 2005

 

The CHRO has submitted forced labor situation in western Burma and Chin state to International Labor Organization (ILO) and International Confederation of Free Trade Union, Expert Committee on Forced Labor in Burma. Forced labor is one of the major concerns among the Chin people in recent years. CHRO have documented about 50 different occasions where villagers were forced to work en-mass in road construction, building army camps and as porters in a period of one year.

 

The University of Philippines, Manila, Department of Social Science and Arts has interview with CHRO director regarding Burma human rights practice and it consequence in relations with ASEAN countries.

 

The CHRO team in New Delhi plays a major role in a seminar organized by Chin Forum regarding State Constitution. Representatives from the four main political parties among the Chin Chin National League for Democracy, Mara People Party, Zomi National Congress and the Chin National Front participated in the seminar.

 

CHRO team in Delhi attended a workshop on “Identification and protection of Women-at- Risk. The workshop was organized by UNHCR in New Delhi.

 

At the last week of September our main donor NED team visited to CHRO Liaison office.

 

The CHRO has assisted and arranged the visit of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Hong Kong to Mizoram state of India, to advocate the safety of Chin and other refugees from Burma in Mizoram state of India.

 

 

 

 

 

CHRO Key Activities in October 2005

 

The whole month, CHRO office in Delhi assisted Chin Forum for training on constitution and human rights and Ms. Chris Lewa (Consultant/ Researcher) for her assessment among Chin refugees. CHRO office in Delhi also had met various organization, groups and individuals.

 

The CHRO field office in Aizawl have collected and reported 8 item of news regarding human rights violation committed the Burmese military regime against the Chin people.

 

CHRO’s Women Rights Affairs in-charged Mai Dawt Chin has completed her training at Diplomacy Training run by NCUB at Thai-Burma border. Mai Dawt Chin went to South Africa for further training and internship.

 

CHRO published Rhododendron News Volume VIII. No. V. September-October 2005.

 

CHRO Key Activities in November 2005

 

CHRO Liaison Office led by Salai Aung Cin Thang and group collaborates with Foundation for People of Burma for water treatment project among Burmese refugees in New Delhi. The project will be finished in June 2006.

 

Every Saturday, CHRO Liaison office in Delhi provided article to Vang Lai Ni News Agency in Aizawl Mizoram on Burma issue with the aim of raising political awareness among Mizo community.

 

Van Hlei Thang, member of CHRO team from Delhi office set off to Thailand for training on Leadership Development and Management Skills Training.

 

CHRO liaison office provided monetary assistance to sick and poor needy refugees with the money received from Swiss individual sympathizers.

The CHRO field office in Aizawl has collected and reported 9 items of human rights news in November.

 

On November 5 and 6, CHRO director Salai Bawi Lian Mang made presentation titled “Persecution of Chin Christians in the Union of Burma” at the 6th Annual Hokong Christian Human Rights Conference.

 

November 7, 2005: CHRO director have a meeting with Asian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong.

 

On November 7, CHRO director Salai Bawi Lian Mang made presentation titled “Human Rights Situation in Chinland” at a joint venue organized by Christian Solidarity Worldwide (Hongkong) and Lawyers Groups of Amnesty International.

 

 

 

On November 8, The US Department of State, Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor released international religious freedom report on Burma, and CHRO report was cited in the report.

 

On November 14, CHRO board of directors, Mr. Victor Biak Lian and the organization’s advisory board member Dr. Lian Sakhong have a meeting with UN Human Rights Special Rappoerteur Prof. Pinheiro.

 

November 30; Amnesty International-Hong Kong ENEWS covered presentation made by Salai Bawi Lian Mang on the 7th November.

 

CHRO Activities in December 2005

 

CHRO team from Delhi office attended seminar on problems and prospects of marginalized hill people. The team continues to involve in water treatment project with foundation for the people of Burma, and continue its relief works among Chin refugees. CHRO team in Delhi continues to provide article to VangLai Ni News Agency for Burma Democracy concern.

 

CHRO field office from Aizawl collected and reported 10 items of human rights news in this month.

 

“Sweet December”

 

Van Biak Thang

Chinland Guardian

 

(I) Before

 

In the clear sky blink the stars

And bright is the moon up afar

Quiet is the night in cold zephyr

With only there the dancing crickets

 

Up the hilltop gather people

Wrapped up in shared blankets

Still their lips shiver as they warble

With the guitar and the cymbal

 

Those in the house by the fire

Busy as bees making plain teas

And sorting out chaang by each member

Before down wafts the pastor’s sweet voice

 

Once the Police Bell strikes tinkling

Each and all sings and prays in greeting

Traces of smiles and joys on all faces

Then, comes “Sweet December” wishes

 

(II) After

 

The night is quiet and the sky still clear

The moon is bright and the wind still cold

Why no crickets seen in the dancing floor

And the stars stop twinkling, though not old.

 

Yet there live people on the mountain

But no guitars are meant to entertain

And their lips and limbs shiver in fear

Cos a shared blanket can’t the cold bear

 

No lights and fire in the quiet house

Busy as a bee is only the preying mouse

And “Where are the chaang?” children whisper

As they snuggle and ease their hunger

 

Once the Police Bell strikes tinkling

Family in tears and fear sobbing

As each one recalls and prays for those away

Then, the marching sound comes on its way

(Chaang, one of Chin traditional food, is a kind of sticky rice wrapped up in banana leaves

 

 

 

Volume VII.No.I. January-February 2004

Rhododendron News

Volume VII. No. I. January-February 2004

 

www.chro.org

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Human Rights

 

Over 200 Household Forced to Work in Road Construction

Villagers Forced to Work In Rih Area

Villagers Forced as Porters

Burmese Army Robed Chin Farmers

Burmese Army Extort Money from Villagers

Extortion of Money by Burmese Police at Sentung Village

Human Rights Violations in Lailenpi Area as Reported By Mara People Party

The Chins In Washington DC Protest Against Burmese Military Junta

 

 

Refugees

 

Chin Asylum Seeker died During Police Operation

 

 

Scholar Section

 

Human Rights Violations And The Denial Of Minority Rights In Burma

 

Introduction

Human Rights vs. Traditional Burmese Political Values

Human Rights and Self-determination

Human Rights, Religion and Nation Building

Denial of Religious and Cultural Rights under Ne Win’s Dictatorship

Religious Persecution under Current Military Junta (A Case of the Chin Christians)

Conclusion

 

 

Over 200 Household Forced to Work in Road Construction

 

 

 

December 2003

 

Saiha: Over 200 households in Rezua town from southern Chin state were forced to work in road construction by the State Peace and Development Council SPDC authority. In the month of November, the authority ordered residences of Rezua town to take responsibility for laying concretes in the town’s major roads. However, as the town residences were busy working at their farm as it was harvesting season, they could not start the road construction in November. Thus, the SPDC ordered over 200 households to finish construction of the road before Christmas. The SPDC issued an order that anyone those who fail to construct their quota in construction of road before the deadline will be severely punished.

 

 

 

The forced laborers have to manage for all the necessary tools and food as the SPDC provide them only cements.

 

 

 

The SPDC granted Rezua village to town status in the year 2002 and residence of Rezua were forced to engage as forced laborers in construction of most of the town’s infrastructures such as school, hospital etc.

 

 

 

[Source: Khawnutum News]

 

 

 

Villagers Forced to Work In Rih Area

 

 

Colonel Tin Hla, commander of tactical one in Chin state from the Burma army visited Rih area (India-Burma border) on December 8, 2003 to inspect the progress of India-Burma border trade route which is schedule to be opened soon. The Colonel issue an order before he leaves that every household in the area should send a person per day to construct a hall to celebrate the opening ceremony of India-Burma border trade route.

 

 

 

The army told the villagers that; as there will be many dignitary people along with foreigners coming to the opening ceremony, they wants the construction of the hall to be elegant.

 

Villagers Forced as Porter

 

 

A local resident from Matupi report to Chin Human Rights Organization that Major Thant Yin Oo and his troop from Light Infantry Battalion LIB 266, Sabawngte camp, traveled to Sabawngpi village on January 5, 2004. The Major and his troops forced 14 villagers from Sabawngpi to serve as porters. Some women and under age school children include among the porters.

 

 

 

On their way back from Sabawngte village on January 17, 2004, Major Thant Yin Oo and his troop stole vegetables from the farm along with four chickens from Pu Vel Lei of Sabawngte village. When the villagers complained the stealing of vegetables and chickens to the Major, the Burmese Major told them that they didn’t stole but they just took necessary food from the people.

 

 

 

Burmese Army Robed Chin Farmer

 

 

A platoon of Burmese army led by a Lieutenant (name unknown) from the Burmese army Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 579 based in Kyawk-Daw has seized two buffalos from Pu Tui Hung, 25 years old Chin farmer from Tinlawng village of Matupi township in southern Chin state on December 8, 2003.

 

 

 

The incident occurred when Pu Tui Hung was on his way to sell the buffalos at Paletwa to cover his ailing father’s medical bills. On his way to Paletwas, Pu Tui Hung and the Platoon has met between Hemapi and Hemate villages. As soon as they met, the Burmese army seized the buffalos and arrested the owner. The army then, demanded Pu Tui Hung 100,000/- Kyats for his release and for the two buffalos. The army threatened the victim that if he fails to pay 100,000/- Kyats, they will detain him in Sinletwas army camp for a long time and he will never get back his buffalos.

 

 

 

Pu Tui Hung beg the army to take 60,000/- Kyats, that is all the money he has, and release him with his buffalos as he was on his way to sell the buffalos to cover his ailing father’s medical bill. The army took 60,000/- Kyats from Pu Tui Hung and released him with his two buffalos.

 

 

 

Burmese Army Extort Money from Villagers

 

 

According to a Chin farmer named Ngo Bi from Satu village of Matupi township, Sergeant Tin Soe and his troops from Light Infantry Battalion LIB 268 of Lailenpi camp were posted by the order of camp commander Aung Naing Oo to guard the road between India and Burma to collect money from cross border traders.

 

 

 

On January 16, 2004 Sergeant Tin Soe and his troop seized a cow and four pigs from Ngo Bi and his friend Than Set. The Burmese soldiers threatened Mr. Ngo Bi and his friend that unless they give 25,000 Kyat, they will not get back their cattle. Thus, Mr. Ngo Bi and his friend Than Set had given 25,000 Kyats to the army.

 

 

 

In the other incident at Lailente village on 15 January 2004, the Burmese soldiers extorted 11,000 Kyats from the two girls Cherry May Pan and Thein Sang.

 

 

 

Extortion of Money by Burmese Police at Sentung Village

 

 

Dua Chung, a Chin cross border trader from Sentung village report to CHRO that he and his friend has purchased 400,000 Kyats worth knitting wools and yarn to sell in Burma. On their way back from India, Mr. Dua Chung and his friend have met with Police chief Myat Ko Ko of Thantlang police station and eight members of his troops between Sentung and Fanthen village on December 29, 2003.

 

 

 

The police immediately arrested Mr. Dua Chung and his friend with their goods along with two horses that carry their belonging and detained them at the house of Sentung village Peace and Development chairman house. The police threatened them that since the goods are from India, it is illegal and they could face longterm jail term for smuggling foreign goods into the country. Then the police told them that they release them only if they give 50,000 kyats.

 

 

 

Thus, Mr. Dua Chung and his friend borrow the money from Sentung village headman and gave it to the Police.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Human Rights Violations in Lailenpi Area as reported by Mara People Party

 

 

 

1. According to the order issued by Captain Aung Naing Oo of Sabawngte army camp on February 16, 2004, three villages Phaphe, Hloma and Meisakotlah are forced to repair the fence of Sabawnte army camp.

 

 

2. On February 9, 2004, Sergeant Kyaw Htun of Burmese army Light Infantry Battalion (55) has badly beaten up Pu Kawng Rim from Lailenpi village and robbed 800,000 Kyats from him. The incident occurred at Sau-U village, Paletwa township of southern Chin state.

 

3. On February 15, 2004 Captain Sein Win of Burmese army, Lailenpi army camp commander, seized two goats, a pig and 6,000 Kyats from Maung Maung and his friends of Aru villagers.

 

 

 

 

 

The Chins In Washington DC Protest Against Burmese Military Junta

Chinland Guardian

 

February 16, 2004

 

Washington DC: The Chin people from Burma in Washington DC area stage demonstration against the Burmese ruling military junta State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) here in Washington DC today. The demonstration took place in front of the SPDC’s ambassador residence at about 2 PM.

 

“We come here to condemn and protest against this illegitimate military regime’s inhuman policy of ethnic cleansing, rampant human rights violations and religious persecutions against ethnic nationalities in Burma, especially in our own homeland Chin sate” said Pu Tial Hu, chairman of Chin Freedom Coalition who organized the demonstration.

 

The demonstration is prompted by the SPDC disapproval of Chin National Day celebration in Chin state that marks 56th anniversary on February 20, 2004.

 

About 50 people come to the demonstration some wearing Chin traditional dress to show their distinct ethnic identity.

 

Some placards read such as “Stop Ethnic Cleansing!”, “Stop Religious Persecutions”, “We Want To Celebrate Our National Day as It is” etc.

 

Even though the Chin people around the world have celebrated February 20 as their national day, the ruling military regime in Burma did not allow the Chin people to celebrate their national day as it is in their own homeland.

 

The birth of Chin National Day date back to 1948 February 20 the day more than 5,000 representatives from allover Chinland attended a conference to determine their future administration system in their capital town of Falam. The conference abolished feudalism and give birth of democratic system among the Chin people. The event was presided by the newly independent union of Burma’s first president Sao Shwe Thike and February 20 is recognized as Chin national day, official holiday in Union of Burma during the sort live democracy rule from 1948 to 1962.

 

In 1962 the Burmese military led by General Ne Win stage coup, abolished 1948 constitution and ruled the country in the name of Revolutionary Council till 1974. In 1974 when General Ne Win adopted the new constitution to legalize the Burmese Socialist Program Party, the Chins were granted state hood on January 3, 1974.

 

Since then, the successive Burmese regimes BSPP, SLORC and SPDC try to replace Chin National Day with Chin State Day.

 

“In Chin state, the authority never allow the Chin people to celebrate Chin National Day, they always substitute our national day with state day, every body knows that it is not fair but no body dare to speaks up” said Aa Ciang, a Chin woman in her 20s who come to the US as refugee.

 

Representative of the Chin National Front in the United States said; “Substitution of our national day with state day is totally unfair. It is discrimination against our people. In other words the Burmese military junta is trying to eliminate the existence of our people, and you can call it as parts of the SPDC’s systematic ethnic cleansing”.

 

Pu Dawng Khan Khup of Chin Freedom Coalition based in the United States said that; “If the SPDC or anybody wants to celebrate Chin state day, they are welcome to do so on January 3, but not on February 20. They can’t replace Chin National day with Chin state day. They have very different meanings”.

 

“During parliamentary democracy rule in Burma, February 20 is recognized the Union government as Chin National Day and Prime Minister U Nu or the president never fail to send letter of congratulations to the Chin people on this auspicious day” said Pu Lian Uk, member of parliament elect from Haka the capital of Chin state during 1990 general election in Burma.

 

Pu Lian Uk, independent MP elect who never took office is exile in the United States and now living in Washington DC. Two other Chin PM elect from the Chin National League for Democracy and the Zomi National Congress are also in Political exile. While some Chin MP elect served long-term jail sentence by the SPDC, at least four Chin nationalist parties that compete and won some seats in the 1990 elections are declared as illegal organization by the ruling Burmese military junta.

 

Apart from political suppression, the Chins are not allowed to learn their own language after grade 2, and they are persecuted for their Christian faiths. Crosses, symbol of Christian faith, planted in all major town in Chin state have been destroyed by the Burmese military regime and replaced with Buddhist pagodas.

 

According to Chin Human Rights Organization, the Chin people in Burma are suffering rampant human rights violations committed by the Burmese military junta and there are about 50,000 Chin refugees living in Mizoram state of India.

 

 

 

REFUGEES:

 

A Chin Asylum Seeker died During Police Operation

 

 

Chin Refugee Centre

 

Feb. 17, 2004, Kuala Lumpur

 

Mr. Khai Tin Mang (age 32 ) from Chin State, Myanmar who fled Myanmar in fear of military arrest and registered himself as an asylum seeker in UNHCR liaison Office here was knocked down by a car on 16 / Feb / 2004 and died on the spot. The victim tried to escape from the police arrest during an illegal immigrants operation conducted by police and immigration authorities at a construction site in Sungai Buluh and crossed the Highway where he was knocked down by the oncoming car. His body was brought by police to Kuala Lumpur and later contacted the Chin Centre.

 

 

 

The CRC members went to KL hospital and identified the body. His body will be buried at KL Christian Cemetery tomorrow ( 18 / Feb / 2004- Wednesday at 1 : 00 PM ) by CRC and CCF members.

 

Chin Refugee Centre

 

Kuala Lumpur

 

 

 

SCHOLAR SECTION:

 

 

 

HUMAN RIGHTS:

 

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOALTIONS AND THE DENIAL OF MINORITY RIGHTS IN BURMA¨

 

 

 

By Lian H. Sakhong

 

 

Burma’s thuggish ruling elite traffics in drugs and in people—in forced labor, child labor, slave labor. It throws people into medieval torture chambers at the slightest pretext: for owning a fax machine, for making jokes about the regime, for listening to foreign broadcasts. There are some 1,800 political prisoners. Universities have been shuttered for much of the past decade, and poverty has deepened.

 

The Washington Post, July 16, 2001

 

 

 

Introduction

 

 

 

When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, Burma was one of the first newly independent countries, which enthusiastically endorsed the Declaration.[1] In fact, the smaller countries in the third world like Burma were very enthusiastic about the Declaration because this was the first international agreement that recognises the equality and dignity of all peoples, regardless of the size of their country, regardless of their geographic or ethnic origin. U Thant, the Burmese Ambassador to UN and who later became the Secretary General of the UN in 1962-1971, said that “the Universal Declaration is the Magna Carta of humankind,” for its provisions constitute “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.”[2]

 

 

 

Today, however, we have a military regime in Burma, claiming that the provisions of Universal Declaration of Human Rights are based on Western concepts of government and human nature, that it is a tool of Western cultural imperialism imposed on us, and that it ignores the distinctive cultural values of the Burmese people. General Saw Maung, Chairman of the SLORC, for example, said, “I tell you if anyone wants to enjoy the human rights they have in the US, England and India, provided the country accepts; I will permit them to leave. But in Myanmar [Burma], I can only grant human rights suitable for Myanmars [Burmese] people.”[3] As the regime rule the country under the Martial Law, he also said, “Martial Law is no law at all, but the use of force.”[4]

 

 

 

Present military junta in Burma can best be described as one of the most repressive regimes in the world. After the bloody coup in 1988, gross violations of human rights, including the draconian suppression of political freedoms, arbitrary detention, torture, rape, disappearances, extra-judicial killings, oppression of ethnic and religious minorities, and use of forced labour are continuously increasing. The Index on Human Misery in 1992, therefore, ranked Burma as one of the world’s most miserable countries, estimating that over 16 million of 46 million inhabitants were under the poverty line, and living under insufferable conditions. The year 2003 represented no improvements in human rights in Burma; in fact, the situation of the common people is continuing to worsen. Systematic abuses of economic, social and cultural rights by the regime and army has been continuing to grow as the ruling military junta called the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) consolidates its power at all costs.[5]

 

 

 

Since 1991, the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights have for 12 consecutive years adopted consensus resolutions condemning the military’s systematic gross abuse of human rights and its refusal to accept the will of the Burmese people as expressed in the 1990 general elections. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has in effect, expelled Burma from the ILO for the regime’s widespread use of forced labour.

 

 

 

Political crisis, civil war and human rights violations in Burma are always related with notorious golden triangle drug trade. Since the 1950’s, unable to repel the Chinese Kuomintang troops and unable to pay local defence forces, the Burma Army authorised militia to trade in opium to finance their operations. In the 1960’s more militia to fight Shan nationalists were raised and again they were paid by allowing them to trade in opium. Worse yet, in 1989, fearing that some ethnic armies would join the democracy movement; the military signed cease-fires with them. In exchange for not joining the democracy movement, some of the ethnic armies, among them is the United Wa State Army (UWSA), were given the right to ‘trade’ without any restrictions. So, until recently, Burma was the biggest producer of opium and heroin. The current level of annual production is about 2,000 tons. However, the drug lords in Burma are now switching from heroin to the production of amphetamines which is more lucrative. The fact that cash can be deposited in Burmese banks with no questions asked and the fact that Burma’s drug lords are now known as successful ‘entrepreneurs’ in Burma’s new economy and live in Rangoon, all point to the fact that the regime benefits from the drug trade.

 

 

 

In addition to drugs, Burma is a major source of HIV/AIDS infection, which will in the long run affect regional stability. Burma after India and Thailand has the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS in Asia. It is understandable that India with a population of 1 billion has the highest number. Thailand’s HIV/AIDS problem is caused by its rampant sex trade. But through public education and good policies, the situation is slowly being brought under control. Burma’s HIV/AIDS epidemic is mainly caused by drug addiction. It is illegal in Burma to own a needle. Addicts, therefore, share needles. In testing drug addicts in northern Burma over 90% tested positive. The problem is compounded by contaminated blood. When the military requires blood transfusion, the blood is taken from prisoners. There is no screening. The next factor is the fact that more and more Burmese women and girls are being sold into the sex trade in Thailand. When they test positive, they are shipped home without any explanation and the military sends them back to their home villages. There is no information, education or treatment program. The military in Burma is still denying that HIV/AIDs is a problem. The World Health Organisation and other independent sources estimated at least 500,000 HIV/AIDs positive cases in Burma.

 

 

 

Another major problem, which has a bearing on the matter, is the fact that education in Burma has virtually become non-existent. In the past 14 years, universities have been closed for about 9 nine years. This means that Burma does not now have educated people who can help develop the country. Unable to win the allegiance of students, the military has opted for keeping the universities closed and students scattered rather than provide them with an education for fear that they will organise anti-regime demonstrations which could spark nation-wide unrest. In addition to university closures, an even more disturbing trend was reported by the World Bank recently. According to statistics provided by the regime, in 1989 the education budget was Kyat 1,200 per child per year. In 1999, this figure had decreased to Kyat 100 per child per year! The World Bank also reported that half of the primary school-aged children are malnourished and on average it takes a Burmese child 9.5 years to complete 5 years of primary school. This means that Burma is facing an enormous crisis. Without an educated population, how can anyone build a nation? The statistics take on an even more disturbing aspect when it is realised that this neglect of education is a deliberate policy and not an oversight. During the period that the education budget has been declining, the regime has more than doubled the size of its army from 180,000 men to 450,000 men and purchased US$ 1.8 billion worth of arms from China. The question is why because Burma has no external enemies. The only possible answer is that the regime intends to remain in power at all cost even to the extent of sacrificing the future of Burma’s children.

 

 

 

Rhododendron

 

Volume Volume VII.No.II. March-April 2004

 

CONTENTS

 

Human Rights:

 

Chin Women forced to Join Myanmar Women Organization Chaired By Gen. Khin Ngunt’s Wife

Forced Labor in Thantlang Town

Forced Labor In Matupi Township

11 Villages Forced to Work at the Army Tea-Plantation Farm

The SPDC soldiers Collect Illegal Tax from Chin Villagers

Burmese Soldiers on Extortion Rampage

Report Yourself to the Authority or Go to Lockup

Eviction order served to residents of Tamu-Kalay Highway

 

Refugees:

 

Let the illegal people leave!

How to treat the Burmese in Mizoram

 

Religious Persecutions:

 

State-Sponsored Expansion Of Buddhism In Chin State

Interview With Rev. Dr Chum Awi

How And Why The Burmese Army Murdered Four Chin Christians

By Vum Son Suantak

 

Facts & Arguments:

 

The Non-Burman Ethnic People of Burma

By Harn Yawnghwe

 

Human Rights:

 

Chin Women forced to Join Myanmar Women Organization Chaired By Gen. Khin Ngunt’s Wife

 

Aizawl-March 22, 2004: Chin Human Rights Organization received a report that women from northern Chin state of Falam, Haka, Thantlang, Tidim and Tonzang townships are compelled to join a the National Working Committee for Women’s Affairs (NWCWA) chaired by Dr. Khin Win Shwe, the wife of SPDC’s Prime Minister and Burmese military intelligent chief Gen. Khin Ngunt.

 

According to CHRO source, Dr. Khin Win Shwe, chairperson of NWCWA ordered that every woman of age between 10 and 60 in northern Chin state register themselves with their respective township peace and development office to be members of the organization.

 

Every woman of eligible age is to pick up the application form at the Township Peace and Development Council offices or at Village Peace and Development Council Offices at the rate of 5 kyats. In addition to application form fee, 300/- Kyats is charged as a membership fee.

 

A few days after Aung San Suu Kyi visited Chin state last year, Dr. Khin Win Shwe visited Chin state in March 2003. The authority has forced the local residents to welcome Dr. Khin Win Shwe.

 

Forced Labor in Thantlang Town

 

March 22, 2004: CHRO received a report that starting from the first week of March, Thantlang town resident in northern Chin state are forced to construct the sidewalks for the town’s main street.

 

Thantlang Township Peace and Development Council Chairman U Luu Tin ordered the town residents to finish the sidewalk of the main street before the end of March 2004. According to the order, any household that does not complete their quota before the end of March will be punished by the authority. Additionally, the residents are to face punishment if their work does not meet the standard set by the township landscaping office.

 

The authority does not provide any necessary material to construct the sidewalks and the local residents have to purchase brick, stone and cements etc out of their own pocket. Thus, some residents have to spend as much as 100,000/- Kyats to 200,000/-Kyat, in addition to their labor, to construct the sidewalks.

 

Forced Labor In Matupi Township

 

March 25, 2004: Over two hundred villagers are being forced to work at road construction between Sabawngte army camp and Darling village. Major Thant Zin Oo, deputy battalion commander of Burmese army Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 268, ordered civilians to repair the road connecting Sabawngte army camp and Darling village in central Chin state. The forced labor started on March 8, 2004 and continued till the day this report is made.

 

The villages that are engaged in the forced labor are; 40 people from Sabawngpi village, 19 people from Malang village, 15 people from Lungcawi village, 30 people from La-Oo village, 57 people from Darling village, 43 people from Sabawngte village, and 10 people from Hlungmang village. There are 27 women among over two hundred forced laborers. The villagers have to bring their own tools and food to the work site.

 

The Major ordered the villagers to complete the works before the end of March. However, according to CHRO source, it is likely that the work will not be completed before the end of March as the road between Sabawngte army camp and Darling village is 37 miles in distance and only about half of the works have been completed on the day (March last week) of this report.

 

This road was first constructed in the year 2000 with forced labor to connect Rezua, Sabawngte and Darling.

 

11 Villages Forced to Work at the Army Tea-Plantation Farm

 

March 2004: According to information received from the local villager, eleven villages in southern Chin state near India-Burma are being forced to work in the army tea-plantation farm. The order was issue by Major Thant Zin Oo, deputy battalion commander of Burma army Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 268 on January 23, 2004. The order mentioned that any village that fails to obey the order will face the consequence.

 

No one dare to defy the order and the forced labor work started from the second week of February 2004.

 

The affected eleven villages who are; Ngaphaipi, Fartlang, Khuapilu, Lauo, Darling, Ruanmang, Sapaw, Tonglalung, Sabawngpi and Sabawngte. Every village has to provide 6 people per week to work at the tea plantation farm owned by the army. The villagers, except for villagers form the forced labor site, have to travel a week-long journey to Sabawngte to work at the farm. They have to bring all the necessary tools and food to the work site.

 

The forced laborers have to water the tea-plantation farm by carrying water from the stream which is about half a mile away from the plantation farm. Since the Major did not mention the duration of the works in his order, no one knows how long the forced labor is going to take place. It is likely that the forced labor will take place till the end of summer.

 

Starting from the year 2000, the SPDC started tea-plantation farm in Chin state by using excessive forced labor.

 

The SPDC soldiers Collect Illegal Tax from Chin Villagers

 

February 15, 2004: The Chin Human Rights Organization received a report that the SPDC soldiers have illegally collected cattle tax from villagers in southern Chin state.

 

On January 31, 2004 Pu He Thang of Tinam village in Matupi township was accused of trying to sell three pigs to India without permission and badly beaten up by 2nd Lieutenant Win Sein from Light Infantry Battalion LIB 268 and commander of Lailenpi army camp. Besides, the Lieutenant had extorted 6,000/-kyats from Pu He Thang charging 2,000/-Kyats per pig of the three pigs he was to sell to India.

 

The victim explained that because of poverty and economic hardship the villagers have to sell whatever they have to India in order to survive. Pu He Thang was on his way to sell the three pigs when he was intercepted by the Burmese soldiers near Lailenpi village.

 

On January 28, 2004, 2nd Lieutenant Win Sein and his troop also extorted 2,2500/-Kyats from U Maung Shwe and Daw Ni Sung. U Maung Shwe and Daw Ni Sung were on their way to sell some pigs and goats when they were intercepted by 2nd Lieutenant Win Sein and his troop. When the Lieutenant and his troops threatened to beat them up, the two villagers paid to the soldiers two goats and 2,2500/-kyats at the rate of 2,500/-Kyat per pigs for five pigs.

 

Burmese Soldiers on Extortion Rampage

 

March 25, 2004: According to Laise (name changed for security reason) of Satu village near India-Burma border, Burmese army Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 268 Lailenpi army camp in charge Lt. Tin Soe and his troop extorted money and domestic animal from the local villagers who were on their way to sell their cattle to Mizoram state of India. In most of the following incident, the Burmese soldiers threatened to beaten up and seize all their cattle if they fail to pay.

 

On March 4, 2004, Lt. Tin Soe and his troop extorted 6,000/-kyats and two chickens from Vua Chawng and Bi Khe of Aru village. The incident occurred when the two villagers were on their way to sell chicken and pigs to Mizoram state of India.

 

On March 9, 2004, 20,000/-Kyats was extorted from Lay Maung and Laise by Lt. Tin Soe and his troops by threatening them that 7 buffalos from them will be seized if they refuse to pay the money.

 

On March 5, 2004, Lt. Tin Soe and his troops extorted 5,000/- Kyats from Cherry May and Zordan from Lailente village.

 

On March 1, 2004, 5,000/- Kyats was extorted from Khai Lawng of Ruanvan village by Lt. Tin Soe and his troop.

 

In another incident on February 27, 2004 Lt. Tin Soe and his troop extorted 15,000/- Kyats from a group of eight Thongbu villagers of Matupi Township.

 

Report Yourself to the Authority or Go to Lockup

 

March 11, 2004

 

In the first week of February 2004, a Chin young man named Za Herh Lian of Tahtlang village was arrested on the night he visited Thantlang town and put into lockup for a night and fined 7,500/-Kyat. His crime was failing to report himself to the authority about his presence in the town. Za Hre Lain’s host, Pu Lal Hngak was also fined 5,000/- Kyats for failing to report a guest to the authority.

 

In a similar incident, Pi Tin Cer, a 58-year-old woman fom Sopum village was fined 5,000 Kyats for not presenting and an Identity Card on February 24, 2004. Sopum village is just 8 miles away from Thantlang town, making their income by selling vegetables to the town. On her way to Thantlang town to sell her vegetables, Pi Tin Cer met with Burmese soldiers who demanded her identity card. The elderly woman told the soldiers she was only to sell vegetables in Thantlang and that she was never required to present her identity card for such purposes. The soldiers then strip-search the woman and took 5000 Kyats which she had kept under her sarong. The old woman then turned back to her village empty handed.

 

In October 2003, Thantlang township SPDC chairman U Luu Tin had issued an order requiring all residents to report their guest to the authority and that everyone carry their ID card wherever they go. Those who fail to obey the order are subjected to arrest and a penalty of up to 5,000/- to 10,000/- Kyats.

 

This order has caused many problems in the town. To enforce the township SPDC chairman’s order, the police and Burmese soldiers are conducting random check on every house at midnight for any unreported guest or visitors in Thantlang. Many innocent people have been arrested and fined.

 

Eviction order served to residents of Tamu-Kalay Highway

 

http://www.kukiforum.com/news/eviction_served.htm

 

Tamu (Burma), March 14: In yet another unwelcome development in Tamu Township of Upper Sagaing Division in Burma (Myanmar), the local authority of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) issued an order to residents of Tamu-Kalay Highway to vacate their buildings within the month of March. The order was intimated in the first week of March on the pretext of extending the highway to an area of 100 feet on both sides. An extension of 50 feet was already implemented 3 years ago.

 

“It is planned intentionally to hurt the populace sentiments and is a direct encroachment to our legitimate land by the authority,” said a resident over the phone to Kukiforum News Service. The move is an attempt to evict us who have owned the plots for years, said another resident on condition of anonymity. The authority neither makes an alternative arrangement to rehabilitate the residents nor offer any kind of compensation in this regard. However, neither the informant nor the Kukiforum confirm whether the plan is initiated from Rangoon or is a discretionary order of the local authority.

 

If the order is carried out as served, millions worth of properties will be demolished without any compensation. Among others, it will include Seventh-Day Adventist Church building, Kuki Chin Baptist Association (KCBA) and Kabaw Valley Thadou Baptist Association (KVTBA) run Bible institution, and other highly priced buildings. It is an area dominated by the Kuki ethnic population and the authority is planning to wipe out the well-to-do families of the Kukis, lamented a resident.

 

It may be recalled that during the time of the Revolutionary Council government in 1967, the so-called infamous “Khadawmi Operation” was launched to evict thousands of Kukis from Kangmang Phaicham (Kabaw Valley). Tamu is a parliamentary constituency in which U Thong Kho Thang, a Kuki MP from United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD) and who is a spokesperson for the party, was elected during the 1990 general elections in Burma.

 

Refugees:

 

Let the illegal people leave!

 

March 9 – 2004

 

Editorial : VANGLAINI:The Central Young Mizo Association (CYMA) has warned foreigners and non Mizos to leave Mizoram before the 7th of April. As per its slogan “Protect the Land and the Land,” the YMA is poised to evict foreigners and non-Mizos residing in Mizoram State of India without the Inner Line Permit. The YMA also warns against any Mizos who co-operated with the illegal foreigners.

 

The increasing number of foreigners and non-Mizos living illegally in Mizoram cannot go unnoticed. There are two different groups living illegally in Mizoram: Indian nationals from other states who have no Inner Line Permit and non-Indian foreigners. Anyone found to be illegally residing in Mizoram must be punished. And we do know that there are many illegal people in Mizoram. They are never expelled from Mizoram, and this is the fault of both the authorities and the public. They are freely roaming our streets and no one is reporting their presence. Some Mizos have good relationships with them rather than reporting them to the authority. If we do not rent them the house they will not be here. Somehow, it is understandable that the illegal people found so much freedom because some Mizos rent them their house and some people cooperated with them for benefits. The Mizoram authority arrested a few of them occasionally but never takes action against these people.

 

The CYMA could no longer keep silence on the increasing presence of the illegal people in Mizoram. So the CYMA has notified these people to prepare to leave. As good an initiative as it is, the YMA’s measures will not succeed if the Mizo youths are acting out on these people out of hatred. Only the YMA will take action on the illegal people. We will again be bringing shame to ourselves before India and the international community if our street youths are acting out blindly.

 

The Saturday statement of Central YMA said “Mizoram is facing more and more hardships because of the illegal people in the State. The statement also warned Mizoram public to not rent their house and engage those illegal people in any business.

 

The Central YMA also worn to the Mizoram authority regarding giving the Inner Line Permit to the outside Mizoram people. And said: the people who have got the ILP should do/work only on it’s concern.

 

The statement said: the people who do not want action taken against them by the CYMA must complete their preparation for leaving Mizoram before the 7th of April.

 

[VANGLAINI is one of the biggest news paper in Mizoram state]

 

Based on VANGLAINI NEWSPAPER OF AIZAWL

 

Central Executive Committee of YMA (Young Mizo Association) had a meeting on 632004 and made a decision on illegal migrants. According to the decision, those who have no legal status in the State would not be allowed to run shops, to sell goods and services in the state. Moreover, the goods sold by foreigners or illegal migrants should not be purchased and Inner Line Permit shall not be granted to foreigners.

 

Hailakandi district of Non-Mizo Trade Union condemned the collection of taxes from the non-Mizo residents. But LalRoKima, president of MZP(Mizo Zirlai Pawl) denied the collection of taxes from non-Mizo.

 

How to treat the Burmese in Mizoram

 

Opinion in a Mizoram Newspaper

 

The rape of the mizo girl in Vancy Hotel, Aizawl was not the root cause of chasing and deporting the Burmese to their country. It has been long enough for the Mizo to bear our brothers who came from Burma for filthy activities in the state. They came to the state to sell drugs, alcohols and engaged in the activities of killings and thefts.

 

All the Jails we have in Mizoram are mostly occupied by the Burmese. Some blocks of the capital of Mizoram wanted the Burmese to be deported or chased away from the state but some said the Burmese are our brothers and instead, we should give them protection. Nowadays, many more Burmese came to the state, and if we used violence to stop them from coming to Mizoram, it is not the best or the last solution. Therefore, the government of the state should take immediate action on them.

 

Lastly, those who came to the state to take temporary shelter for political reasons have to be provided protection by the government. Border security has to be established in border areas in order to stop illegal migration.

 

Religious Persecution:

 

Interview With Rev. Dr Chum Awi

 

Former Secretary-General of Zomi (Chin) Baptist Convention and Principal of Zomi Theological College

 

 

CHRO: Can you tell us a bit about yourself, what you did, and your work among the Chin people?

 

Rev. Dr Chum Awi: I was born in Tikir, a small village of Thantlang township. My mother told me I was born around the end of Japanese invasion of Burma during World War II. I have a Law degree from Rangoon University and had served as a Grade IV Township Law Officer in Hakha and Thangtlang for 4 years. I did my Theological training at the Burma Institute for Theology for two years. I earned my Doctorate degree in the Philippines in 1987.

 

I worked with the Zomi Theological College for 15 years, first as a teacher and later as its Principal. I left the ZTC in 1992 to receive my new appointment as General Secretary of the Zomi Baptist Convention, the largest religious institution of the Chin living in the Chin State, Sagaing and Magwe Divisions. During this tenure, among others, I was a member of Myanmar Baptist Convention (MBC), its Mission Board, and Development Committee, a member of Myanmar Institute of Theology Board of Trustees, a member of Myanmar Council of Churches (MCC) Executive Committee, member of MCC Communication Department, and MCC Theological Association.

 

CHRO: Were the ZBC’s works or activities ever interfered with or hindered by the government?

 

Rev. Dr Chum Awi: Being a Baptist organization, the ZBC firmly believes in the principle of “Separation of Church and State.” From the era of the Socialist regime through the times of the SLORC and SPDC, the ZBC has always conducted itself by this principle. Unfortunately, however, the government has always used intelligence to eavesdrop and scrutinize our activities. There were times when we were reported to the authorities. But by God’s grace, such attempts by the government never resulted in the failure of our mission or activities. The SPDC, however, was very keen to use the ZBC for its own political ends. They wanted the ZBC to persuade the Chin National Front to surrender their arms to the government. We rejected the proposition to facilitate ‘Peace Talk’ between the CNF and the SPDC saying that the ZBC would not allow itself to be used for political purposes. This developed into a friction between ZBC and the government.

 

One of the major hindrances to the work of ZBC has always been the government’s policy to promote Buddhism at the expenses of other religions. This is known as “Amyo, Batha, Thathana” or ‘One Race, One Language, One Religion.’ This refers to the creation of a country based on three Bs “Burman, Burmese, Buddhism.” We as the ZBC do not have the freedom to freely conduct, attend and speak in all our religious conferences. Intelligence operatives are always present in all gathering to monitor our activities. The government favours Buddhists while Christians are discriminated against. As Christians, it is heart wrenching for us to see the destruction, one after another, of crosses on hilltops of Chin State by the authorities. Inside the church, we console ourselves “God will fix everything and change everything when the time comes.”

 

CHRO: The United States State Department branded Burma as ‘Country of Particular Concern’ for violating religious freedom of its citizens. The State Department’s report says religious minorities such as Christians and Muslims are discriminated against the country’s dominant Buddhist populations. What are your views on these?

 

Rev. Dr Chum Awi: Besides what I just told you about earlier, preachers and pastors are subject to close scrutiny. The authorities arbitrarily set rules for Christian preachers and pastors to follow. They are often accused of violating these rules even if such violation does not happen. Many preachers have been arrested and incarcerated even though they never violated these so-called rules set by the military. In some areas, pastors and preachers have been even killed. While the proliferation of Christianity is prevented in any possible way, the spread of Buddhism is officially and openly supported by the government. Orphans and other children from poor family backgrounds in rural areas often are targets for conversion into Buddhism. They are lured away from their parents under false pretences only to make them novice Buddhists. Chin Christians have for a long time endured these kinds of injustices. I believe that Burma being designated as ‘Country of Particular Concern’ by the United States is, in fact, a way of God showing us justice for what we the Chin people have suffered. This kind of acknowledgement and attention by the world to our suffering is because people from both inside and outside of the country are risking their lives to speak the truth and God is showing them the way to do it. I believe also that God is using the voice of CHRO to make that happen.

 

CHRO: What is your assessment of the result of discrimination and persecution against Chin Christians by the military regime?

 

Rev. Dr Chum Awi: I personally have no knowledge of any Chin Christians converting to Buddhism simply out of fear or being unable to endure persecution by the military. On the contrary, I think that there has been stronger unity, determination and cooperation among individuals and among different denomination and churches as a result of these kinds of persecutions. For instance, despite efforts by the SPDC to impede and obstruct the Centennial celebration of Christianity in 1999, the determination and cooperation of Christian churches had made it possible the event to be grander and more successful than the regime’s own National Student Sport Festival held in Chin State in 1997.

 

 

How And Why The Burmese Army Murdered Four Chin Christians

 

By Vum Son Suantak

 

A Burma Army battalion (Kha-lah-yah unit) Light Infantry Battalion 89, Commanded by Lt.Col. Thurah Sein Win was stationed in Phailen, a border village at the Burma-India border, in the Homalin district. In July 1993 a soldier from the Army unit disappeared with four rifles, leaving behind a letter saying that he was leaving because he was unhappy with life in the Burmese Army.

 

Subsequently, the Army unit accused the Christian community of Phailen of buying the arms from the soldier with church funds, to help the anti-Burmese State Law and Order Restoration Council SLORC resistance movement, the Kuki National Army. The Kuki are Chin, who live in the Indo-Burma border areas (in the Kale –Kabaw Valley extending to Tamu (Sagaing Division).

 

The army unit arrested several leaders of the community and kept them in the army camp lock-up. On August 2,1993 they interrogated one of the prisoners, Pastor Zang Kho Let. When the Pastor’s answers did not pleased the interrogators, the army personnel beat him with rifle butts or sticks that eventually broke almost all of his bones after two days of interrogation. They cut open his mouth to the neck and told him “We cut open your mouth so that you will no longer preach”. In the two days that they tortured him, Pastor Zang Kho Let never admitted to using the church fund to help the resistance movement or that he was involved in helping the armed resistance. The soldiers, Non Commissioner Officer NCO’s, and officers tortured the pastor with the intent to kill but he was still alive after two days of their inhuman brutality. When the torturers reported to their Commanding officer, Colonel Thura Sein Win, on the condition of the pastor, the colonel ordered them to tighten a plastic bag over his head. (Thura is an award given for bravery, like the torture of the preacher.)

 

After Pastor Zang Kho Let died, they dragged his lifeless body out of the school building and shot him. With a bullet wound in his body, the Burmese army unit claimed that they shot the pastor because he was trying to escape. The soldiers brought the dead body of Pastor Zang Kho Let back in the school building and placed together with the leaders of the village community, who were arrested to witness the gruesome state of the body. They were told to feel the bones, which were all broken. They were told, “If you do not tell us the truth and if you do not admit that you helped the KNA, you will face the same fate.”

 

The headman of the village, Zang Kho Ngam, farmers Ngam Khai, and Thawng Kho Lun

admitted to helping the resistance movement in order to escape torture and death. Nonetheless, they were tortured. It took seven days for the three of them to die; they died a slow death. The soldiers cut and burned their skin. They poured salt directly into their open sores. The soldiers zealously repeated the torture that they had just meted out to Pastor Zang Kho Let. When the two farmers died, the soldiers again dragged the bodies outside of the school building and shot. The Burmese Army buried the headman Zang Kho Ngam alive.

 

Burmese officers ordered seven ethnic Naga soldiers to carry out the torture of the villagers under their supervision. At that time, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) and the Chin (Kuki) community in the neighboring Manipur of India, were at war against each other. The NSCN was an insurgent group, fighting for the independence of the Naga in India. When the NSCN demanded taxes from the Kuki communities in Manipur to support their movement, the Chin refused to support the NSCN. The Chin and Naga were both Baptist Christians. Their quarrel escalated to mass killings during the early 1990s when they competed to control the drug road (Tamu-Imphal Highway). The Chin took control of Mohree, the town opposite Tamu on the Burma side, the main gate of the drug coming from Burma to India. It was a war in which Chin innocent children including babies, women and older people were slaughtered, whole villagers were shot and their throats slashed. Villages were burnt, and leaders of the Chin community were murdered. The Indian government could not control the killings because the Naga had the upper hand and by 1995 over 2000 Chin had been murdered.

 

The Burmese use Naga soldiers in Burma army to torture the Chin village leaders purposefully exploiting the ethnic conflict between the Chin and the Naga, and the Burmese Army achieved their goal of bringing hatred between the three Union citizens, Burman, Chin and Naga. This is the Burmese way to national unity. The soldiers placed the rest of the village men, whom they arrested, in jail for two years, during which they plundered the village, killing all the domestic animals they could find, including chickens, pigs, and cows. They robbed the church of its fund of over two hundred thousand Kyats.

 

The Burmese Army’s Project was to settle or force relocate ethnic Burman to the Tamu area because Tamu area had a Chin majority. With these kind of scary and brutal tactics they forced the Chin to leave the area. They created new Burmese villages such as Aungzeya and Bandoola. Chin villagers from the area were forced to build new houses for the Burman, who were relocated from the Monywa and Mandalay areas. They were allotted farmlands that previously belonged to the Chin. The Chin were then forced to leave the area.

 

The Reasons Behind the Killings

 

The force relocation and killings are a part of SLORC’s Secretary I General Khin Nyunt’s “ Border Area Development Project,” which is implemented by intimidation, forced labor, forced relocation, and murder. Khin Nyunt, who is Chinese by birth, seeks approval of his own Burmanization by promoting the cause of the Burman through cruel treatment of the non-burman nationalities in the border region. These methods were common practice by General Ne Win, a Sino-Burman, by mistreating the Karens and Arakanese during the Japanese occupation when he was a high ranking officer of the Burma Independence army.

 

The Burma Army’s brutality in the Shan State during the early days of independence (starting in 1950) was also Ne Win’s attempt to gain the approval of the Burman of his standing in the Burman society. The shan members of parliament protested in parliament but they were hopelessly outnumbered in parliament by Burman members of parliament and Ne Win could carry on his atrocities against the frontier people- the tradition is very well preserved until today.

 

Other officers of Chinese descent “prove” their loyalty to the Burman by oppressing the non-Burmans. Dr. Nyi Nyi, a Chinese, as minister for education under the BSPP, systematically discriminated against the students from the border regions. Knowing full well that access to education, facilities, and teachers were bad in the border areas, he raised qualification (matriculation) scores for university entrance exam. The higher standards effectively barred students with lower scores from the more prestigious professions such as medicine and engineering. Without making an effort to raise the quality of education in the border areas, the people from the border areas were left with

fewer doctors and engineers due to the education system introduced by Dr.Nyi Nyi.

 

Qualified teachers assigned in the remote areas resigned from their posts and moved to Burmese cities to open tuition schools to prepare students from the cities and towns for the matriculation examination. Less qualified teachers then replaced the teachers in the border regions. The students in Burman towns and cities therefore command even higher scores. Dr. Nyi Nti launched the education system in his search for approval by the ethnic Burman of his programs against the non-Burman, thereby successfully disadvantaging the people of the border regions, which are populated the no-Burman nationalities.

 

The Chin (Kuki) in the Tamu areas thought that the Border Region Development Project launched by General Khin Nyunt was a genuine project. Thus they sent an emissary to Rangoon, and approached the father-in-law of Khin Ntunt’s daughter. He was to give Khin Nyunt the message that his men (the Burmese Army had murdered their people and terrorized the Chin. Finding his Border Development Project implementing exactly what he had wished, Khin Nyunt quietly transferred Col. Thura Sein Win. There was no redress for the people killed. Khin Ntunt, of course, received the approval of his boss General Ne Win and his contemporaries, the generals who are all ethnic Burman.

 

The process to Burmanize the people at the border regions and Buddhistization of Christians is one of the main target of the Border Development Project. Such killing of village elders was the tradition of Burmese Army. They calculate that at least a few angry youth would join the armed resistance groups thereby making sure that resistance movement against the Burmese Army is continued and subsequently giving the Burmese Army a freehand to terrorize the people and thus prolong the military dictatorship. It must be added that the Burman power holders since independence had been instrumental in creating systematic force assimilation by forced Burmanization of the non-Burman nationalities.

 

The actions of General Ne Win, General Khin Nyunt, and Dr. Nyi Nyi against the non Burman nationalities to gain the approval of the Burman of their Burmanization, were extremely effective in creating suspicion, animosity, and hatred between Burman and other nationalities. This does not mean that the Chinese community is to be blamed for the destruction of national unity. The hard working Chinese and Sino-Burman are the backbone of Burmese economy and Burma needs their drive and energy for Burma’s future development. It is unfortunate that a few bad people could so effective in thoroughly destroying the unity of the whole country.

 

[Excerpt from the CHRO’s upcoming publication RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION: A Campaign of Ethnocide Against Chin Christian in Burma]

 

The Non-Burman Ethnic People of Burma

 

By Harn Yawnghwe

 

 

“Burman” or “Burmese”?

 

“Burman” and “Burmese” are often used interchangeably in the English language. I will use “Burman” to refer to the majority ethcin population, and “Burmese” refers to all the citizens of Burma.

 

“Burma” or “Myanmar”?

 

It has been argued by the military that “Burma” refers only to the majority Burman population, whereas “Myanmar” is more inclusive and therefore, more appropriate because it refers to all the peoples of Myanmar. Ironically, Burmese nationalist fighting British colonialism in 1936, argued the reverse. Therefore, as far as the non-Burmans are concerned, the real question is not what the country is called but what political system will include the non-Burmans.

 

“135 Races”

 

The military likes to say that there are 135 races or tribes in Burma implying that it is impossible to cater to everyone and therefore, it is necessary to have a strong military to hold the country together. In fact 65 of the so called 135 races are all from the Chin State, which makes up about 3% of the population and they live in an area that makes up about 5%of the whole nation. In other words, the military is exaggerating the problem.

 

According to the SPDC, people who speak different dialects are classified as being of a different race. It would be like saying that somebody from Oslo is of a different race from somebody from Bergen. We all have differences but both are of the same race.

 

In actual fact, all Burmese are from the same racial grouping and they can be roughly sub-divided into 3 major subgroups: Tibeto-Burman, Sino-Thai and Mon-Khmer.

 

In political terms Burma has only 8 constituent states, not 135: Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Shan, Kayah, Karen, Mon and “Burma Proper or Ministerial Burma” in the center. At this point it should be pointed out that the Burmans are also one of the ethnic groups of Burma. So we cannot really talk about the ethnic people and the Burmans.

 

Ethnic Nationalities

 

In the past, the non-Burmans were referred to as the “Nationalities” as in Chamber of Nationalities or the Upper House of Parliament. Burm the word the “ethnic minorities” became used more frequently in international circles. So now, we use the term “ethnic nationalities” or the non-Burman ethnic nationalities to denote the non-Burman.

 

“Minorities”

We do not like to use the term “Minorities”. This is because it gives the impression to outsiders that they are talking about only 1-2% of the population.

 

It is estimated that Burma today has a population of approximately 50 million people. Burmans are supposed to make up 60% of the population. Therefore, when we talk about the “minority” problem in Burma, we are in fact talking about a problem that affects the lives of at least 20 million people. I think this is more than the population of Norway.

 

In terms of geography, the non-Burmans occupy 55% of the land area or 371,000 sq kms-slightly larger than Germany (357,000 sq km). The non-Burman problem is Burma is definitely not a “minority” problem.

 

“Tribes” and “Hill Tribes”

 

Another favourite of the military is to describe the non-Burmans as “Tribe” or “Hill Tribes”. This implies that the Burmans are the only civilized people and that it is their burden to guide the “Tribes” to a better Burman way of life.

 

This is actually a gross abuse of historical facts. Arakan and Mon kingdoms prededed Burman kingdoms by at lease 500 years. The first Burman kongdom was not recorded before the 11th century. Then Shan kings ruled most of Burma from the 13th century until the 16th century when Burman kings ruled again. It is also well documented that the Burmans took their civilization and culture from the Arakanese and Mon peoples. Therefore, the non-burmans are not uncivilized tribes that need to be civilized by the Burmans.

 

Of course, the non-Burmans today are less developed than their neighbours but is this because they ae uncivilized or because they have been systematically deprived of their rights for the last 50 years? For example, a UNICEF study showed literacy in the non-Burman areas to be lower than the Burman areas. Why is this so? One reason is that literacy in Burma is measured in terms of knowledge of the Burman language. In the last 50 years to non-Burmans have not been allowed to teach their own languages. Another factor of course is the 50 year-old civil war in the non-Burman areas.

 

Burma-a Kingdom or a Union States?

 

Another major difference in perspective between the Burman nationalist and the non-Burmans is history.

 

At the time the British came into contact with Burma in 1824, the Burman king ruled over the Arakan, Mon and Karen areas and claimed the allegiance of the rulers of the Kayah and Shan states as well as Assam and Manipur in India. Aftet the Britiseh conquest in 1886, the Burman kingdom(including Arakan, Mon and Karen) was make a part of British India. It later became known as “Ministerial Burma” or “Burma Proper”. Karenni or Kayah State was recognized as a sovereign state. The Shan States which later became the Federated Shan States like the Malay states, became a British Protectorate. The Kachin and Chins wre administered separately as the Frontier Area.

 

Burman nationalist, therefore, claim that they are the heirs of the pre-British Burman kingdom and that rightfully all of Burma belongs to them. They claim that the British deliberated carved up the country to divide and rule. So to the nationalists, the claims of the non-Burmans for self-determination are nothing buty a product of British imperialism. The non-Burmans, however, claim that by 1886 the Burman empire was crumbling and that the British only took the practical way ort by recognizing their de-facto independence from the Burman king. In any case, after 62 years, the Burmans who lo longer had a king could have no practical claims on them.

 

The Burmese situation is, therefore, different from Indonesia where most of the inslnds were one colony under the Dutch. The colony then became Indonesia. In Burma a formal agreement was entered into by different entities to become the Union of Burma.

 

1947 Panglong Agreement

To the Chins, Kachins and Shans, the Panglong Conference and Agreement formed the basis of their current union with the Burmans, not any historical claims of a now defunct empire. At that Conference, General Aung San, leader of the Burman independence struggle from “Ministerial Burma”, and leaders of the Shan, Kachin and Chin peoples agreed to merge their homelands on the basis of equality to form the “Republic of the Union of Burma” in order to accelerate the process of seeking independence from Britain.

 

1974 Constitution

 

Based on Panglong Agreement, a Union Constitution was drawn up. The non-Burmans believed they were getting a federal system but in reality, while the Shan, Kachin, and Kayah States and the Chin Special Division were recognized, power was not devolved to the states. At this time, the Kayah or Karenni people felt that they had been forced into a union without adequate consultation and took up arms against the central government. Separate negotiations with the Karens also broke down and they also took up arms. The Mon also joined the rebellion as did the Arakanese although the Arakan, Karen and Mon states were recognized at a later date.

 

From this you can see that, the non-Burman proplem in Burma stems from a failure of the government of Burma to properly address the basic nostitutional arrangement between the different states that make up the union.

 

1958

 

To make matters worse, Prime Minister U Nu requested General Ne Win to form a “Caretaker Government” to prevent the Shan and Karenni states from exercising their constitutional rights to secede from the Union after 10 years if they were not satisfied. This started the Shan struggle for independence. To understand the problem you need to be aware that the Shan State makes up 23 % of the land area of Burma and about 20% of the population.

 

1962

 

Following the Caretaker Government, the Shan leaders recognized the need to amend the constitution if the nation was be saved and initiated the Federal Movement. But General Ne Win instead seized power and said he was saving the nation from disintegration. General Ne Win also suspended the 1947 constitution .

 

As far as the Shan, Kachin and Chin were concerned, the suspension of the 1947 constitution nullified the Panglong Agreement which ound them legally to “Ministerial Burma” and as such, Ne Win had at one stroke set them free and illegally occupied their homelands. This plunged the country into civil war in earnest.

 

Ethnic:

 

From all this, it is very clear that tho non Burman problem in Burma is not a “minority” problem, it is not a tribal problem and it is not an ethnic problem. I want to emphasos this because when we say ethnic problem, most people think of the fomer Yugoslavia where different ethnic people were killing each other. We do not have that kind of problem in Burma. Our problem is not a horizontal ethnic problem, but vertical one. It is basically a constitutional problem and it can be resolved by negotiations.

 

It is clear that we do not need a strong army to keep the country together. In fact in Burma, the army has made the problem worse by preventing dialogue and refusing the 8 states to engage in constitutional talks. I trust I have been able to clarify some souses for you.

[“The Non-Burman Ethnic People of Burma” is taken with the author’s permission from The New Panglong Initiative: Rebuilding The Union of Burma]

 

 

 

 

 

Rhododendron News

Volume VII. No. III. May-June 2004

Contents

 

Human Rights Violations in Chinland:

 

Christian Cross Destroyed By SPDC in Matupi

Christian Pastors Forced to Take part at Buddhist Water Festival

Obey the Order or Go to Jail

Construction of Baptist Church Ordered to Halt in Matupi

SPDC Open 2 New Concentration Camps in Chin State

Village Headman and Council Menber Arrested for Failing to Repair Border Trade Road

45 Villagers from Rezua Township Engage in Forced Labor Construction of Kangaw-Matupi Road

Villagers Forced to Work at Army Camp

Press Release:

 

Burma’s Junta Guilty of Mounting A Campaign of Ethnocide Against Chin Christians

SPDC Guilty of Persecuting Christians Despite Purported Commitment to Political Reforms

 

Opinion:

 

Should the invitees attend the National Convention?

 

Facts & Arguments:

 

Conditions For Chinland To Join Reunification Of Federal Union Of Burma

Back Cover Poem:

 

Our Heart is There But There

 

 

 

Christian Cross Destroyed By SPDC in Matupi

 

Aizawl: June 6, 2004: Cross planted by Chin Christians near Matupi town in southern Chin State was destroyed by the Burmese soldiers in the early April 2004. Destruction of the order was issued by Colonel Hla Swe, commander of Burma army Tactical Command No. 2 based in Matupi town.

 

The cross was planted in 1996 by Longvang block Assembly of God’s Church members from Matupi town at the top of mount Lungtak-tlong, which is situated on Kaisi range between Matupi town and Valangpi village.

 

According to Mr. …..(name withheld for security reason), who belongs to the Longvang AG church, the cross was destroyed during the night and now the site of the cross is reserved by the Tactical Command office to build Buddhist pagoda.

 

Moreover, a request made by all denomination of Christians from Matupi to conduct Easter Sunday worship service at Bawl-tlang, where a big cross was planted by Chin Christians, was denied by Colonel Hla Swe.

 

Christians from the area used to conduct worship service and religious activities at Bawl-tlang in the past. However, the Colonel told the town people that the site of the cross at Bawl-tlang is now taken over by Burmese Army Battalion 304 as army camp area and no civilians is allowed to approach the place.

 

Christian Pastors Forced to Take part at Buddhist Water Festival

 

Aizawl: June 21, 2004: According to Rev. C……(name withheld for security reason) of Matupi Baptist Association, Colonel San Aung, Commander of Burmese army Tactical no.(2) Chin state, has ordered several Chin Christian pastors from Matupi town in Southern Chin state to participate at an opening ceremony of Buddhist water festival on April 12, 2004.

 

At lease 15 Chin Christian pastors, most of them are reverend, were forced to take part in the ceremony wearing their Christian religious robe. They were seated with the Buddhist monk at the front raw of the stage where the ceremony was held.

 

CHRO source said that the ceremony was recorded by Mya-Waddi television station to propagate that Burmese Buddhists are in harmony with Chin Christian leaders. Mya-Waddi television station is the Burmese army propaganda television station.

 

Chin Christians from the town were forced to construct marquee at the middle of the town to conduct the Buddhist water festival. Besides, every household is compel to contribute 1000/-kyat for the festival.

 

Young girls are compel to perform cultural dance at the ceremony and one person per household must attend the ceremony.

 

Rev. C….. further mentioned that it is totally unjust as most of the town residence are Chin Christians and there are only about a dozen Buddhist who are Burmans coming to the town as government servants.

 

 

 

Obey the Order or Go to Jail

 

Three Chin Christian Pastors Detained One Night for Defying SPDC Order

 

Aizawl: June 4, 2004: Three Chin Christian pastors in Matupi town were detained by the SPDC authority for a night on April 16, 2004 for failing to obey the order, issued by Colonel Hla Swe of Burmese Army Tactical Command No. 2 of Chin state, to construct the road between Matupi town and Duma village.

 

The three pastors are Rev. Thuan Ting of Christian Reform Church at Longvan block of Matupi town, Rev. Kui Dim of Matupi Baptist Church at Ngala block, and Captain Dup Ding of Salvation Army church at Longvan block.

 

The three pastors were arrested by Captain Aung Myint Tun of Matupi police station and detained them for a night at the police station lockup. On the next day, the three pastors were brought to Colonel Hla Swe.

 

The Colonel ordered the three pastors to get dress with their respective religious robe and meet him again with their uniform. When the pastors come back with their uniform, the Colonel told them to choose whether they wanted to go to jail or engage in road construction. The Colonel warned them that he will not tolerate if they defy his order in the future.

 

Construction of the road between Matupi town and Duma village was started with forced labor in March 2004. All the town residence and surrounding villages, including government servants, are compels to contribute one person per household to participate in the forced labor. Widows are exempted from the labor if they can pay 4,000/-kyats. 8,000/- to 10,000/- kyat fine was imposed on every family those who are not widow and fail to participate in the road construction.

 

Construction of Baptist Church Ordered to Halt in Matupi

 

Aizawl: June 8, 2004: Colonel Hla Swe of Burmese Army Tactical Command No. 2, based in Matupi town of Chin state had ordered to halt construction of Than Dun Baptist Church at Longvan block of the town. The Colonel ordered, by oral, the Church elders to stop construction of That Dun Baptist Church in the last week of March. Source said that no one dared to defy the order even though it is not a written order.

 

Construction of the church was halted for the past ten years due to problems within the Church. However, the Church elders approached and requested Colonel Hla Swe to allow them to reconstruct the Church in December 2003 and the Colonel gave them permission.

 

Thus, Christians from Matupi town started the reconstruction of That Dun Baptist Church in January 2004.

 

Source said that the reconstruction of the Church was reported by the Buddhist monk in Matupi to higher authority and the higher authority ordered Colonel Hla Swe to stop reconstruction of That Dun Baptist Church which he gave permission in December 2003.

 

SPDC Open 2 New Concentration Camps in Chin State

 

Champhai: May 6, 2004: CHRO source reported that the Burmese military junta State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has expanded two new concentration camp at Rih town and Lentlang village at India-Burma border trade route in March 2004.

 

There are about 30 prisoners who are engage in construction of civil hospital at Rih town and another concentration camp at Lentlang village have about 50 prisoner who are engage in construction of road between Tiddim town and Rih town in India-Burma border.

 

Source said that most of the prisoners are from Kalaymyo prison. They are strictly guarded by both police and Burmese army. Villagers and civilians are not allowed to contact with the prisoners.

 

The SPDC made two other concentration camps in Chin state at Matupi town and Tlangzar village of Falam township in 1997.

 

Village Headman and It’s Council Menber Arrested for Failing to Repair Border Trade Road

 

Champhai: June 4, 2004: “Village headman and it’s village council members of Kaptel village from Tiddim township, northern Chin state were arrested by the local authority for failing to repair India-Burma border trade road between Haimual village and Tiddim town near India-Burma border” said the local villager who cross the border to India side.

 

The local villager inform CHRO field monitor that the headman of Kaptel village Pu Khai Bawk and village council member Pu Jacob were arrested and detained at Kaptel police lockup. They were arrested for failing to repair their imposed quota which the authority ordered them to repair in the beginning of May.

 

About 30 villages from the border area were compels to repair India-Burma border trade road since the last week of March this year. However, as most of Kaptel villagers have to cross Indian side of the border to find any job available to support themselves, they have no time to work at road repair to fulfill their quota. Even though the village headman made petition in advanced to the authority about their situation, the authority ignored his petition.

 

Kaptel villagers are now trying to approach the local authority to release their headman and the village council member.

 

In March 2004, village headmen and village council members of Phanai and Lungtum villages from Matupi township were arrested and detained for failing to repair Midat-Matupi road.

 

45 Villagers from Rezua Township Engage in Forced Labor Construction of Kangaw-Matupi Road

 

Aizawl: June 21, 2004: 30 persons per villages from 45 villages in Rezua tonship were forced to construct Kangaw-Matupi road since March 2004 and the forced labor is continue till this report date. U MW (name withheld for security reason) of Rezua town reported to CHRO field monitor.

 

Major Kyaw Sein Win of Burma army Light Infantry Battalion LIB 50 based in Kangaw, Sagaing Division issued the order that construction of the road must be completed before the end of June. Major Kyaw Sein Win appointed Captain Win Hlaing as in-charge and supervisor of the road construction.

 

The SPDC does not provide any thing for construction of the road and the villagers have to bring their own ration and necessary tolls to the work site.

 

Three villages Lungrang, Sawthing and Resa were fined 80,000/- Kyats each by Captain Win Hlaing that their job performance is not satisfactory.

 

Villagers Forced to Work at Army Camp

 

Aizawl: April 27, 2004: Sergeant Major Maung Myint of Burma army Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) 55 at Sinletwa army camp had ordered Sinletwa and surrounding 4 village tracks to repair the fence of the camp starting from April 10, 2004. 12 persons per village track have to go to the army camp to repair the fence of Sinletwa army camp.

 

The villagers have to bring their own ration and tools to work at the camp for seven days. The forced laborers start their daily work at 5 AM in the morning. They were allowed to take their breakfast at 12 PM noon and continue to work till dark. Then they have to cook their supper after dark.

 

Press Release:

 

Chin Human Rights Organization

 

Date: May 19, 2004

 

Ottawa

 

Burma’s Junta Guilty of Mounting A Campaign of

 

Ethnocide Against Chin Christians

 

Chin Human Rights Organization announces the release of a report entitled “Religious Persecution: A Campaign of Ethnocide Against Chin Christians in Burma.” A compilation of facts gathered over the last eight years, the report exposes disturbing evidences of religious persecution against Chin Christians by Burma’s ruling military junta State Peace and Development Council. The report details cases of abuse by Burmese authorities toward one of the country’s major ethnic groups who are predominantly of Christian faith. The Chins inhabit a hilly region of Burma’s western frontier. Over half a million Chins are living in the Chin State and more than 90 percent of them are Christians. The total population of Chin living in the whole of Burma and neighbouring countries is estimated to number 2 millions. This report reveals that the military junta ruling Burma is mounting an active campaign to eliminate the Chin religion, culture and race as part of a policy to ‘Burmanize’ the country.

 

Since 1999, the United States has singled out Burma as a few countries in the world that violate religious freedom. This report adds yet more evidence to the fact that Burma’s ruling junta, despite its ongoing effort to portray itself as pursuing serious reforms on political and human rights conditions of the country by resuming the stalled National Convention, is responsible for discriminating and persecuting minority religious and ethnic groups in the country.

 

The 140-page report documents horrifying incidents of abuse by members of the Burma Army, often on direct orders of senior military officials, against Chin Christians. This report also reveals that there is an ongoing effort by the ruling military regime to force-convert Chin Christians to Buddhism, the country’s dominant religion.

 

The report says that military officials in high command often order the destruction of symbolic Christian crosses planted on mountain peaks by local churches. These crosses are then replaced with Buddhist pagodas or other Buddhist religious statues, often forcing Chin Christians to make human and financial contribution for the construction. This report demonstrates that Burmese authorities are also responsible for deliberately hampering efforts by Christian congregations to freely conduct their religious affairs by denying them permission to hold conferences and worship services and by subjecting Christian activities to strict and discriminatory regulations.

 

Religion is an important part of Chin society and culture. This report gives clear evidence that Burma’s ruling military regime State Peace and Development Council is responsible for conducting a policy of ‘cultural genocide’ or ethnocide against the Chin people, one of Burma’s distinct society. The report, however, carefully notes that members of the ruling regime, rather than Buddhist religion, are responsible for the persecution of Chin Christians.

 

For More Information Please Contact;

 

In Canada: Salai Za Uk Ling (Telephone): 807 577 4903

 

In the United States: Salai Bawi Lian Mang (Telephone) 510 595 1872

 

In Thailand: Victor Biak Lian (Telephone) (66) 782 539 41.

 

Online version of the report is available at

 

URL: www.chro.org

 

Chin Human Rights Organization

 

50 Bell Street N.#2

 

Ottawa, CANADA

 

ON, K1R 7C7

 

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

 

www.chro.org

 

 

 

SPDC Guilty of Persecuting Christians Despite Purported Commitment to Political Reforms

 

Chinland Guardian

 

By Salai Za Uk Ling

 

21-May-2004, Ottawa: Even as Burma’s ruling military junta State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) proceeds with the ‘unrepresentative’ National Convention amidst harsh international criticism and opposition boycott, a new report released recently by Chin Human Rights Organization accused the ruling regime of pursuing an active campaign to wipe out one of Burma’s distinct cultural and ethnic groups.

 

Entitled “Religious Persecution: A Campaign of Ethnocide Against Chin Christians in Burma,” the report documents in chilling detail persecution and discrimination experienced by Chin people due to their religious and ethnic identity.

 

“The ruling military regime is responsible for discriminating and persecuting minority religious and ethnic groups in Burma,” says the 140-page report, adding that such policies are aimed at exterminating the culture of ethnic minorities in Burma. The report adds yet more evidence to what the United States government has been voicing concerns since 1999 about the policies of Burma’s ruling military regime towards the country’s minority religious groups.

 

The report says that military officials in high command often order the destruction of symbolic Christian crosses planted on mountain peaks by local Chin churches. These crosses are then replaced with Buddhist pagodas or other Buddhist religious statues, often forcing Chin Christians to make human and financial contribution for the construction.

 

The report demonstrates that Burmese authorities are also responsible for deliberately hampering efforts by Christian congregations to freely conduct their religious affairs by denying them permission to hold conferences and worship services and by subjecting Christian activities to strict and discriminatory regulations.

 

Christian pastors and church leaders are often the first targets in the regime’s campaign of religious persecution in Chinland. They are often subjected to arrest, illegal detention, abuse and torture, mutilation of body parts and in some cases summary execution.

 

Christian religion represents the central pillar of today’s Chin society and is regarded by many as a second Chin culture. “Persecuting the Chin because of their religion,” the report contends, “Constitutes an act of cultural genocide against a distinct culture.”

 

Salai Bawi Lian Mang, Director of CHRO and co-author of the report says, “Evidences we have demonstrate that persecution of Chin Christians is both systematic and well-planned and the idea that Burma’s military regime is serious about democratic and human rights reform is not only questionable but fundamentally erroneous.” He was referring to the stalled National Convention resumed recently in Burma by the ruling State Peace and Development Council.

 

The report is now available online at www.chro.org. Printed copies are also available on request by writing to [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Opinion:

 

Should the invitees attend the National Convention?

 

By Salai Za Ceu Lian

 

Chinland Guardian

 

May 9, 2004: Even if the military generals implement the process of constitution in their sponsored convention by compelling the participants to approve it, we are not going to accept the outcomes as the would-be-seen result is illegal. Indeed, convening the national convention without finding means first to end the internal political crisis is disgraceful and unacceptable agenda that the military regime is embarking on. It is just a FAKE convention.

 

The idea in behind is a mere illusion of introducing a sweeping reform. It will neither produce concrete results benefiting the country’s political future nor will it pave ways to bring about positive changes politically, which would lead towards reinstating democratic process. The sole purpose of the upcoming national convention slated on May 17,2004 by thuggish regime is to legalize the militarism and defend dictatorial rule through the Constitution.

 

Once again, they are masterminding the participants in coming convention to nullify the legitimate role of the winning party (NLD) and 1990 election result, which they, the generals, themselves organized it. Strictly speaking, their move with the proposed convention is purely a flagrant breach of the 1990s election outcome and its legitimacy. Before Burma holds the presidency of ASEAN in 2006, the Burmese Generals are attempting to make sure that their draft constitution is fully completed. Unfortunately, the Secretary general of United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan’s expectation to see Burma’s democratic government in the year 2006 would be the year for ASEAN countries to officially recognize the bloody Burmese military regime by empowering them to chair the ASEAN.

 

By looking at the real challenges facing the country politically at this critical juncture, one could easily draw a conclusion that convening a national convention so as to deal with the Constitution is not first priority for leaders who are in power to work on it. While hundreds of thousands of political dissidents are in notorious prisons throughout Burma’s jails and even the leader of a legitimate NLD Party, Daw Suu, herself is under house detention, the spiraling notion of pushing the agenda ahead to hold national convention is both primary silliness and vicious act of military leaders. Violations of human rights have been unabated in countryside. Beside this, Professor Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Burma was flatly refused to continue his fact-finding mission inside the country.

 

If the dictators are sincerely committed to working towards transition of democracy and handing over power to the winning party where the legitimate power is belonged, they must first start holding a genuine dialogue and not kind of previous talk or so-called confidence building that resulted in vague two years ago. They must together work in consultation with the legitimate body in accordance with internationally accpeted norms.

 

Unfortunately, the proposed convention is a series attempt by the brutal regime to continue the old-fashioned National Concention, which was discontinued in 1996. With respect to the current convention, no sign is indicated from generals that they are going to abandon the six points guideline and 104 points article. No statement is made regarding the freedom of expression for the participants in National Convention to freely share their beliefs and that their expressed concerns be taken into consideration. If the convention is to be convened jointly by winning party- NLD and SPDC, we might have to wait and expect positive outcomes.

 

However, as the present convention is the one an illegal regime has one-sidedly called and going to dictate it, we, as democrats, both inside and outside the country must denounce it. Untill and unless the regime takes decisive and concrete actions toward handing over political power to the election-winning party and allow all the political parties to freely continue their political activism, there is nothing that we can say about the regime’s committment to a real political reform. Just releasing one or two political prisoners is not a good sign or positive steps either. But this rather is a considerable evidence to suggest that dictators are trying to deceive international community especially western powers so that the imposed s

 

 

 

Rhododendron News

Volume VII. No. IV. July-August 2004

 

Table of Contents

 

Human Rights

• Forced Labor at Indo-Burma Border Trade Route

• SPDC Practice Widespread Forced Labor In Border Towns

• Villagers Forced As Porter

 

Refugees

• Chin Refugees in Mizoram Face Threat of Deportation

 

Statement, Letter & Press Release

• Refugees International Letter to Sonia Ghandi

• CHRO’s Statement at the Twenty-Second Session UNWGIP

• Chin Human Rights Organization Mourns the Death of Dr. Chao Tzang Yawnghwe

 

Facts & Arguments

• Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Burmese Chin Refugees in India

 

Scholar Section

• Burma and National Reconciliation: Ethnic Conflict and State-Society Dysfunction

By Dr. Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe

 

Human Rights

 

 

Forced Labor at Indo-Burma Border Trade Route

 

 

Aizawl

August 24, 2004

 

Ever since Rih, a small town at India-Burma border trade route, was granted township headquarters status a year a go, the surrounding villagers have been endlessly forced to contribute their labor to implement various government projects by the authority of the ruling Burmese military regime known as State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).

 

Pu M…….(name withheld for security reason) one of the village council members from Khawthlir village complains that 15 surrounding villages have been forced to engage with construction of road and other infrastructure such as hospital, school etc. from mid 2003 to August 2004 accordance with the order issued by U Mya Win, the newly established Rih town administrator in northern Chin state.

 

Whenever the authority asked for forced labor, one person per household have to pack his/her own food and tools to work as forced laborer.

 

“Even though we heard that the government has sanction about 20 millions Kyats for construction of this new town project, the villagers never get paid for what they have done” said one of the villages council members from Khawthlir village.

 

The most recent forced labor lasted more than a week starting from July 12, 2004 to July 18, 2004 including Sunday. The order was issued by Major Maung Myint of Light Infantry Battalion 269. One person per house hold from 15 villages has to contribute their labor to repair India-Burma border trade route between the two villages Haimual and Lentlang. The villagers who are engage in forced labor were not even allowed to go to Church on Sunday July 18.

 

The 15 villages those who are constantly engage in forced labors are;

Rih Khuathar, Rih Khuahlun, Tio, Khawthlir, Phunte, Thingcang, Saek, Sianlam, Cawnghawih, Khuamual, Hmunluah, Cawhte, Lianhna thar, Lianhna hlun, Haiheng.

 

In another incident at Tiddim township in northern Chin state, Burma army Light Infantry Battalion 267 forced villagers along the road from Tiddim to India border including Laitui village, which consist more than 500 household were forced to work in road repair for more than a month. One person per household have to bring his/her own food and tools to work as forced laborer.

 

Those who fail to complete their quota have to pay 4,800 kyats to the authority.

 

Pu M further told CHRO that whenever a column of Burmese army is traveling around the villages along Indo-Burma border trade route, they never bring their own ration and villagers must supply them with whatever they demanded. The Burmese soldiers take whatever they want from the villagers. They didn’t spare chickens, pigs or vegetables from the farm and they drag villagers as porters whenever they want.

 

Border trade agreement was signed by the two trade ministers of Burma and India in 1995.

 

SPDC Practice Widespread Forced Labor In Border Towns

 

Aizawl

August 5, 2004

 

The newly established border town Rih residence has been forced to construct streets in the town accordance with the order issued by Colonel Tin Hla, commander of the first tactical command of Burma army in Chin state on July 3, 2004. The order was implemented by township administrator U Mya Win office.

 

The authority ordered residences of Rih town to take responsibility for laying concretes in the town’s major streets. According to local source, every household have to complete their quota, which is to lay concrete on the street 10 foot wide and 6 foot long, before August 10, 2004.

 

“It is a grueling job for the town residents” said one of the village council members from nearby village Khawthlir. At the first step, villagers have to carry stones from the nearby stream to lay on the bottom of the street. After that, they have to lay gravel on it and then pour sands over and at the final stage lay the concrete.

 

It is likely that the town residents will not be able to finish their respective quota before the deadline as most of them have only completed the first step by the time of this report.

 

Similarly, residents of Teddim town in northern Chin state are compel to engage in extension of the town street and laying concrete since May 2, 2004. U Sai Maung Luu, chairman of Township Peace and Development Council of Teddim town has ordered the town residents that every home owner must complete their quota to repair the street as the standard set by the authority before the end of August.

 

The order mentioned that anyone who fails to comply will be effectively punished.

 

As the civilian have to work as forced laborer most of the time, they have no time to work for themselves and it has greatly effect their survivals especially the poor and farmers.

 

Villagers Forced As Porter

 

 

Aizawl

August 5, 2004

 

Major Win Maung, company commander of Darkhai camp from Burma army Light Infantry Battalion 269 based in Tonzang township northern Chin state has constantly ordered villagers from Tonzang township to carry army supply from Rih army camp to Darkhai camp which is 30 miles away.

 

Villagers are routinely ordered to carry army supply including ration, arms and ammunition for the whole company. Every village had to contribute 15 horses and 10 persons to serve as porter for every month since the beginning of this year.

 

Refugees

 

 

Chin Refugees in Mizoram Face Threat of Deportation

 

Aizawl

August 1, 2004

 

Chin refugees from Burma in Lunglei, the second largest district headquarters town of Mizoram state in India, are facing threat of eviction and deportation by the Young Mizo Association (YMA). Lunglei branch YMA issued an order in June, 2004 saying that any foreigner who does not have Inner Line Permit must leave the area before the end of July.

 

On August 1, 2004, the YMA has announced by bullhorn laud-speaker to the public walking every block of the town that the deadline was already pass and all foreigners who does not have Inner Line Permit must leave immediately.

 

The YMA further warn that they will not be responsible for any consequences that may come up on any foreigners those who ignored the order.

 

At least three Chin refugees have been arrested and charged them with foreigner case at the date of this report.

 

Soon after the order was issued, YMA started to collect the list of foreigners in Lunglei area. Again on July 18, 2004 the YMA make public announcement to remind foreigners that they must leave from the town before the end of July.

 

The YMA said that foreigners are being ordered to leave the area accordance with the government’s rule and regulations. This is not because of the foreigners have bad behavior or any wrong doing.

 

Most of the foreigners living in Mizoram state are Chin refugees from Burma who fled their home country to avoid rampant human rights violations and economic hardship caused by the rule of military dictatorship in the country.

 

Statement, Letter & Press Release

 

Refugees International Letter to Sonia Ghandi

 

Refugees International recently visited India’s Northeastern State of Mizoram and collected information on persecution of ethnic Chin in Burma by the Burmese military as a result of which the Chin have been fleeing to India for more than a decade. The Chin in Mizoram have been trying to survive by keeping a low profile and assimilating with the local communities, but their situation deteriorated sharply in July 2003, when they were targeted by a local youth group, forcibly evicted from their homes, and in many cases, sent back to Burma, with the cooperation of Mizoram government authorities. Almost a year later, the Chin in Mizoram told RI that the youth group continues to harass and abuse them and they live in constant fear of being deported to Burma where they could face torture and even death at the hands of the Burmese military.

 

RI has written a letter to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the President of India’s Ruling Congress Party, calling upon the Government of India to become involved in providing protection to the Chin in Mizoram. This letter is copied below.

The Honorable Sonia Gandhi

President, Indian National Congress

10 Janpath

New Delhi 110011

India

July 28, 2004

 

Dear Mrs. Gandhi:

 

I am writing as the President of Refugees International, a Washington-based humanitarian advocacy organization, to express concern for the well being and safety of thousands of Burmese ethnic Chin, who have sought refuge in Mizoram since the 1988 pro-democracy uprising due to on-going violence and persecution in Burma. Ethnic-based politics in Mizoram have led to increasing vulnerability for the up to 30,000 Chin asylum seekers and special action by the central government is required to protect the Chin there.

 

I am writing to request the Government of India to allow those Burmese fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution to stay in Mizoram and to direct police to allow entry to those fleeing persecution in Burma. We also encourage the Government of India to allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to assist the Burmese so that India does not have to shoulder the sole burden of protecting them or caring for their humanitarian needs.

 

The current difficult situation for the Chin in Mizoram originated in a July 2003 incident of rape of a Mizo minor girl, allegedly by a Burmese, which resulted in escalating tensions between the Mizo and Burmese communities. About 10,000 Burmese have been evicted from their homes by a local youth organization, called the Young Mizo Association (YMA), with the knowledge of local and state authorities. Several thousand people have been forced to go back to Burma, a country with a well-documented record of human rights abuses against ethnic minorities, and up to 30,000 Burmese remain in hiding in Mizoram. Although tensions between the two communities have subsided to a degree since last year, the Burmese are frequently made into scapegoats in Mizoram, especially at the time of elections, as was the case in 2003. Local authorities consider them to be economic migrants, when in reality many of them are seeking refuge in Mizoram due to political persecution or human rights abuses by the Burmese military.

 

As an organization that monitors the humanitarian and protection needs of refugees, Refugees International (RI) can confirm that the Chin in Burma are maltreated for being an ethnic minority and endure beatings, torture, rapes and executions. According to RI interviews with Chin deported from Mizoram, those sent back to Burma face the danger of being thrown into labor camps and prisons, where they risk torture, illness, and death.

 

We urge the Government of India to take steps to stop the harassment of Chin in Mizoram and cease pressure on them by local groups to go back to Burma. We are aware that some Burmese are involved in illegal activities, including drug trafficking, and agree that the Indian government has every right to address this problem under Indian law. These individuals, however, should not be confused with law-abiding people who have come to India in search of a safe haven.

 

An RI team recently visited Mizoram where the Chin refugees remember former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi with much gratitude for his staunch support of Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese pro-democracy movement. The Chin recall how under Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s Government, Indian policy was to strengthen the aspirations of the people of Burma for democracy, and no genuine refugees were prevented from seeking shelter in the country.

 

Now that there is once again a Congress-led national Government, Burmese refugees are daring to hope that they might receive some protection and assistance from the Government of India, along the lines of programs for refugees from Tibet and Sri Lanka. We trust that you will meet the aspirations of these refugees and continue the legacy of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi by supporting those fleeing persecution in Burma.

 

We thank you for your attention to these matters and look forward to learning more about how a Congress-led Government will take steps to protect the Burmese refugees in Mizoram.

 

Respectfully,

 

Kenneth H. Bacon

President

 

Enc: Refugees International bulletin on situation of Chin refugees in Mizoram

 

Cc: The Honorable Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India

The Honorable Natwar Singh, Minister of External Affairs of India

 

CHRO Intervention at 22nd Session UNWGIP

 

UNITED NATIONS

Economic and Social Council

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Sub-Commission on the promotion and Protection of Human Rights

Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP)

Twenty-second session

19-23, 2004

Geneva, Switzerland

 

By: Chin Human Rights Organization

Topic: Conflict Resolution and Indigenous Peoples

Intervener: Kenneth VanBik

 

Dear Chairperson and members of fellow delegates for Working Group on Indigenous Populations,

First of all, allow me congratulate you for your reelection as the Chairperson of this Working Group. I also would like to thank you for this opportunity to present the plight of my Chin peoples on this occasion.

I am Kenneth VanBik and I represent Chin Human Right Organization.

On the one hand, I agree with you that the root cause of conflict in many indigenous areas is due to the State’s refusal to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. On the other hand, I have reservation on your paper paragraph 18: “the colonization of indigenous territories also negatively affected indigenous peoples in many other ways. Indigenous populations severely diminished in number during the colonial period as a result of forced labour, warfare, malnutrition due to the destruction of the natural environment, diseases and even calculated extermination”

The reason for my reservation is that you did not specifically mention the continuation of such colonial practice in many modern States. Today some States in Asia continues the practice of the colonisers, perpetrating many atrocities against the indigenous peoples, as in Burma. For examples, forced relocations and cultural genocides have been deliberately executed by the military junta in Chin States. By cultural genocide, we mean incidents such as the denial of native language teaching in our own local schools as well as the declaration of Burmese as the only official language in our Chin communities.

Religious oppressions also have been occurring in Chin State. Pulling down many crosses and replaced them with pagodas in Chin hills by the Burmese military regime is a reflection of such religious oppression and persecution.

These kinds of atrocities inevitably lead to violent confrontation and armed conflict up until today.

Due to the above mentioned atrocities and human rights violations committed by Burma military regime, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights decided to nominate a Special Reporter on Burma in 1992 in order to monitor situation of human rights in Burma and submit his/her report to United Nations General Assembly and Commission on Human Rights. The resolution is extended every year and the year 2004is not an exception because the human rights situation in Burma remains the same.

In 1994, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution to resolve the conflict in Burma. In that resolution, the UNGA strongly urged to have a tripartite dialogue among the major political players in Burma: indigenous leaders, democratic opposition led by the Noble Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, and the military regime. In order to implement this resolution, the UN General Secretary appointed His Special Envoy to Burma in 1995.

As of today, the effort of the Special Envoy has not eased the conflict in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house-arrest, and the military junta continued its own agenda against the will of the people of Burma as well as that of international community.

For an alternative means to resolve conflict in Burma, I strongly support for “the establishment an international body to adjudicate or advise on disputes between indigenous peoples living within the borders of a modern State and non-indigenous institutions, including State institutions” (Paragraph 77).

Thank you.

 

Chin Human Rights Organization Mourns the Death of Dr. Chao Tzang Yawnghwe

 

 

July 24, 2004

Chin Human Rights Organization expresses its deep sorrow at the demise of Dr. Chao Tzang Yawnghwe, the Shan prince of Yawnghwe, this morning in Vancouver, Canada. Son of the first President of an independent Union of Burma Sao Shwe Thaike, Dr. Chao Tzang, also known as Eugene Yawnghwe, was a fine revolutionary, an accomplished academic and a tireless campaigner for human rights and democracy in Burma. Dr. Yawnghwe dedicated his entire life to working for the freedom of his people, the Shans, and of all the people of Burma from tyranny, inhumanity and oppression.

Before General Ne Win took over power, Chao Tzang Yawnghwe tutored English at the Department of English at Rangoon University. Soon after the military coup of 1962, Chao Tzang Yawnghwe went underground to join the Shan resistance in 1963. A prominent member of the Shan revolution, Chao Tzang Yawnghwe was among the Shan delegation that held peace talks called by General Ne Win in December 1963. A year later, Chao Tzang’s mother, Burma’s first lady and Mehadevi of the Yawnghe chaired the Shan State Army, a merger of two Shan revolutionary organizations. Chao Tzang Yawnge later rose to the position of General Secretary of the Shan State Progress Party, a political wing of the Shan State Army.

In 1985, due to health reasons Yawnghwe left the Shan revolution in order to begin a new life in Canada. Chao Tzang later earned his PhD in Political Science at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. A true believer of freedom and human rights, Dr. Chao Tzang rejoined the revolution after the 1988 popular uprising in Burma. Since then, he had held various position of eminence and was co-founder and a member of Presidium of the United Nationalities League for Democracy (Liberated Area) UNLD/LA, Advisor to the National Reconciliation Program NRP, Ethnic Nationalities Solidarity and Cooperation Committee, the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma and Chair of the Working Committee of the Ethnic Nationalities Council. He was also instrumental in helping to draft the state Constitutions for the ethnic nationalities.

A scholar who committed all his life to the freedom of Burma from tyrannical rule, Dr. Yawnghwe firmly believed in the important role of the world community in helping to realize his dreams: the smooth transition from military rule to a system of federalism and democracy in Burma. He said in his article Burma Analysis 2003, “Success for any process of political change (or transition) in Burma in the direction of democratization to which the SPDC claims to be committed to as well and the sustainability of the outcomes will necessarily depend on the focus of the international community on the problems, conflict, and issues that have confronted the peoples of Burma for many dismal decades.”

The death of Dr. Chao Tzang Yawnghwe is an irreplaceable loss to the continuing fight for equality, self-determination, federalism and democracy in Burma. He was a hero, a revolutionary, an intellectual and a dedicated activist during whose leadership the ethnic nationalities have learned to so much to advance their cause. Dr. Chao Tzang Yawnghwe will always be gone, but he will always be remembered as a leader, a revolutionary, a federalist and democrat who dedicated all his life for the freedom of the people of Burma.

CHRO offers its most profound condolence to the family and friends of Dr. Chao Tzang Yawnghwe.

May his soul rest in peace.

Chin Human Rights Organization

July 24, 2004

 

Facts & Arguments

 

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Burmese Chin Refugees in India

 

Refugees International recently assessed the situation for Chin asylum seekers in Mizoram state, India.

07/22/2004

 

Burmese Chin refugees in Mizoram state of India face the danger of being arrested, detained, and in some cases expelled back to Burma. Unlike refugees from Sri Lanka and Tibet, whom the Indian government does protect as refugees, or refugees from Afghanistan and Burma living in New Delhi, who are able to access the offices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Chin in Mizoram have the misfortune of coming under the jurisdiction of India’s Foreigners Act of 1946, which makes no distinction between illegal immigrants and refugees. India, although on the Executive Committee of UNHCR, is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention on Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, nor does the Indian Government have a domestic refugee law. The Government of India prevents UNHCR from traveling to Mizoram, leaving the Chin there completely vulnerable.

 

Refugees from Chin state in Burma have been fleeing to neighboring India’s Mizoram state since 1988, when a military regime, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), came to power after brutally crushing the pro-democracy movement. The predominantly Buddhist SPDC has embarked on a campaign to “Burmanize” the ethnic minorities in the country and a large number of Chin have come to India to escape the religious, cultural and political persecution in their state, where the majority of the population is Christian. According to the Chin in Mizoram interviewed by Refugees International, since the SPDC came to power, construction of new churches has been prohibited. Other anti-Christian measures include preventing people from attending church, destroying crosses, and forcing Chin to build pagodas in place of churches. At the time of services, Burmese government troops come to the church area to collect villagers and take them away for forced labor. For religious gatherings permission in advance from the local authorities is required and permission is often denied for no stated reason.

 

Whereas before 1988 only one Burmese military battalion was stationed in Chin state, today there are as many as 10 battalions, and with the increase in number of soldiers, there has been a sharp increase in the abuse of the civilian population. People are forced by the military to act as porters and carry arms, ammunition and supplies. They are routinely called for forced labor on construction of roads and army buildings. Civilians, including pregnant women, are randomly selected at any time for combat training which goes on for weeks with no pay. Teachers are pulled out of schools for forced labor; as a result, the education system is in shambles. If the SPDC suspects a civilian of involvement with the democracy movement or the Chin ethnic army, arrest and torture are common practices.

 

When the initial influx of refugees came to India the government set up camps for them, but the camps were closed in 1995 as ties improved between India and Burma. Since then the Chin have been scattered all over Mizoram state and in the absence of any humanitarian support have been surviving by doing whatever work they can find. In early 2003 the number of Burmese in Mizoram was estimated to be at least 50,000.

 

Some of the Burmese in Mizoram say that they have come for economic reasons, not to escape SPDC atrocities, but when probed about the economic reasons, often an underlying case of persecution emerges. As a Chin woman told RI, “It is true that I have come to Mizoram to earn money. My son was forcibly conscripted by the Burmese army, I have not seen him for more than two years. My husband is sick and he cannot work. I try to earn enough to feed him and my three small children, and for my husband’s medical care, but each month, for many days, I am compelled to do labor for the SPDC. What alternative do I have but to come here, earn money and take it back with me to Burma? If I don’t come to Mizoram, my family in Burma will not survive.”

 

At the best of times, many of the Chin have been able to live with the Mizo population and find some work to support themselves. At other times, however, they have been targeted by locals for being foreigners, harassed, and even deported to Burma. Most recently in July 2003, tensions between Mizo and Chin communities exploded following the rape of a Mizo minor girl, allegedly by a Burmese. A powerful youth group called the Young Mizo Association (YMA) began to go door to door telling the Burmese to leave their homes and warning landlords not to let foreigners stay on their property. A campaign was launched by the YMA, in collaboration with other organizations, to drive all Burmese across the border, actions carried out with full knowledge, and sometimes full cooperation, of state authorities. It is estimated that at least 10,000 Chin were evicted from their homes and the expulsion drive led to the forced return of over 5,000 Chin to Burma.

 

Those who had come mainly for economic purposes or had some hope of being able to survive in Burma went back at the time of the evictions and push backs, leaving behind in Mizoram those who could not return due to the danger to their lives in Burma. In Lunglei, Mizoram’s second largest city, 80% of the Burmese have gone back to Chin state; the refugees still there told RI that they had fled Burma for reasons such as deserting the army after being forcibly conscripted or being tortured by SPDC on fabricated charges of providing assistance to the ethnic Chin army. They would rather suffer at hands of YMA

in Mizoram than go back to Burma where they could be killed by the SPDC.

 

Although tensions have subsided somewhat since July 2003, life for many Burmese in Mizoram remains an ordeal. The biggest problem facing the Chin is that of protection and they live in daily fear of the YMA. Every few days, they are visited by YMA cadres, on occasion accompanied by local police, who tell them to pack their belongings and leave the area. When they refuse, they are assaulted, and in certain instances, put in jail overnight to “teach them a lesson.” Sometimes when the Burmese hear reports of the YMA coming to their locality, they flee their homes and hide in forests, where they eat mice and roots for survival. Once they perceive the danger to be over, they return to their homes only to find them ransacked and their belongings destroyed by the YMA.

 

Other difficulties facing the Chin at present include refusal of Mizo landlords to rent rooms to them as they have been warned by the YMA not to let Burmese stay on their properties. If the Burmese manage to find homes, they can be evicted at any time. The Burmese face exploitation by Mizo employers who give them the most menial and dangerous labor, the kind of work no Mizo wants to do, with minimal pay. They have limited access to heath care. When AIDS awareness activists try to go to areas where groups of refugees live, so as to educate them about the spread of AIDS, they are prevented from doing so by the YMA. Even in death the Burmese are not spared. In Lunglei district, the Mizos do not permit dead bodies of Burmese to be buried in the village graveyards; the Chin have to bury their dead in separate “orphan graveyards.”

 

Despite all the hardships in Mizoram, most of the Burmese living there cannot imagine going back to Burma until there is a change of government. A small population of Burmese has been able to gather sufficient money to make the expensive trip to Delhi to seek asylum with UNHCR, but for most that is not possible. In the words of Pa Thang, a Chin who was picked up by Indian police for being illegal, handed over to Burmese authorities, then tortured in a Burmese jail for many months before he was finally able to escape back to India, “For us, living in Mizoram is hardly an option, but going back to Burma is no option at all, so we will just continue to stay here and suffer day after day. Sometimes we feel we are no better than wild animals tracked and hunted by the YMA.”

Amidst this misery, there are a few signs of hope largely due to kindness of local people in certain districts in Mizoram. For example, in one part of Lunglei district, a sympathetic police superintendent is interviewing Chin in the area and if he believes they came to escape persecution, he is offering them temporary permits to stay there; in another part of Lunglei, recognizing that the Burmese are doing the most menial jobs that Mizos don’t want to do, local officials are allowing them to apply for authorization to stay in Mizoram, provided they have a Mizo employer who will validate their employment.

 

Refugees International, therefore, recommends that:

The Government of India

Recognize that the Foreigners Act of 1946 is an archaic law and enact a national refugee law to ensure that all genuine asylum seekers who have fled to India are offered equal protection and are not treated differently based on their nationality.

 

Allow UNHCR access to Mizoram, if not to set up permanent offices, then to conduct periodic fact-finding missions during which UNHCR staff have direct access to Chin asylum seekers.

 

In the absence of UNHCR access to Mizoram, assume responsibility for providing protection and assistance to Burmese refugees, as was the practice from 1988-1995.

 

The Government of Mizoram State

Acknowledge that many Chin cannot return to their country until there is a change of government, and conduct public education campaigns among the Mizo people to help them understand that the Burmese have come to escape persecution, rather than for economic reasons.

Prevent organizations like the Young Mizo Association from taking law into their own hands and attacking and harassing Burmese refugees.

 

Create systems whereby Burmese with local employers can obtain authorization to stay in Mizoram and receive protection from local authorities.

 

UNHCR

Encourage the Government of India to permit the agency to access all Burmese asylum seekers in the country and not just the handful who are able to make the journey from India’s northeastern states to Delhi.

 

Scholar Section

 

Burma and National Reconciliation:

Ethnic Conflict and State-Society Dysfunction

Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe*

 

[Rhododendron reprints this article of the late Dr. Chao Tzang Yawnghwe in honor of his life long struggle to restore freedom, democracy and human rights in Burma. This article was first published by” Legal Issues on Burma Journal” in December 2001 (Burma Lawyers’ Council)]

 

It is maintained that Burma’s ‘ethnic conflict’ is not per se ethnic, nor that of the kind faced by indigenous peoples of, for example, North America, but a conflict rooted in politics. Following the collapse of Burma’s General Ne Win’s military-socialist regime in 1988, the issue of ethnic conflict has attracted the attention from both observers and protagonists. This attention became heightened following the unraveling of the socialist bloc and the emergence of ethnic wars in those hitherto (presumed) stable socialist nation-states.

 

 

Introduction: The Problem of State-Society Dysfunction

 

The ethnic resistance movements in Burma were previously perceived by most observers as insurgencies by disgruntled tribal isolates fighting against the modernizing and unifying state. Especially following the emergence of new nation-states in the 1950s, political scientists cheered for the new leaders of these countries and their attempts to ‘modernize’ their ‘backward’ societies. Resistance of societal segments, especially ethnic groups, to the state was frowned upon as obstructing the laudable nation and state-building efforts of the modern state and its leaders. The ethnic conflict problem was not seen as integral to the larger, more basic problem of disjunction. This was especially the case after 1962, between the military-monopolized state and the society at large. That there was dysfunction in state-society relations in Burma is now recognized, but the ethnic dimension of state-society dysfunction has never been fully appreciated. This insight is critical for those seeking to gain a clear understanding of Burma’s current crisis. The conflict in Burma is deep-rooted. Solutions can only be found if the real issues of conflict are examined, such as territory, resources and nationality, rather than the previously accepted but superficial explanations.

 

When resistance of societal segments is considered obstructive, especially when these segments are ethnic-based, it constitutes an important dimension of state-society dysfunction. The need for national integration in Burma is inarguable. The problem is how it is to be defined and achieved. Integration has both vertical and horizontal dimensions, i.e. between state and society, and between the different elements of a society. Attempts at national integration ignoring these dimensions are likely to divide rather than unite. Ethnic resistance was condemned by leaders and governments of post-colonial states, and likewise by their respective former foreign patrons, as reactionary tribal holdouts. Often, ethnic resistance was portrayed by ruling regimes as instruments of external, ‘imperialist’ powers or agents. Contributing to the confusion was a situation where cold-war protagonists were encouraging ethnic discontent and rebellion in order to destabilize the state of the rival power.

 

Ethnic Conflict in Burma: Some Basic Definitions

 

Even today, when it is recognized that the various ‘ethnic rebellions’ form a part of Burma’s state-society dysfunction, there remains some confusion regarding the nature of ethnic conflict. One current perspective sees the ethnic conflict in Burma in terms of ethnic minorities fighting for democratic rights or cultural-identity rights, or equal opportunity, like the African-American and other minorities in the United States. Even Burma’s ethnic non-Burman1 groups and leaders, at least some of them, have been drawn into the “minority rights, equal opportunity” paradigm. Some ethnic leaders and activists have even defined themselves as ‘indigenous people’, although this term refers to native people or aboriginals marginalized and displaced by white settlers. The use of the term ‘indigenous people’ in the Burma context is odd because all ethnic segments, including the Burmans or ethnic Burmese, are indigenous in the sense that they are all native to Burma. The ethnic non-Burman segments of Burma, especially the Shan, Kachin, Karenni, Chin, and Rakhine, are neither ethnic minorities nor indigenous peoples. As will be clarified below, they (like the Burmans) are peoples or nations. They moreover have had the experience of administering themselves, albeit under British supervision, for about five decades.2 They also have, like the Burmans, their own history, or rather, a sense of history. In their own states or home territories the ethnic non-Burmans, in fact, comprise collectively the majority, and the Burmans the minority. Because of their role as cofounders of the Union of Burma, by virtue of the 1947 Panglong Accord, the ethnic non-Burman nationalities consider themselves the founding nations of the country. They have used the term ‘ethnic nationalities’ rather than ‘ethnic minorities’ to refer to themselves collectively.

 

Burma’s ‘ethnic conflict’ is not per se ethnic but political, in a very fundamental way. The conflict is political because it is both about ethnic identity and rights, about democracy and equal opportunity, and about building nation and state. It involves political fundamentals as to how a nation is to be built, defined or identified, by whom, and in what direction. It has much to do with problems arising from the application of nation-building formulae by the state or by a set of power-holders.

 

With regard to nation-building in independent Burma, it is important to recognize that the first foundation stones were laid in 1947 when the Panglong Accord was signed in the Shan State. This politically defining document was signed between U Aung San, the Shan Sawbwa princes and representatives of the Shan, Kachin, and Chin peoples. The Panglong Conference reached unanimous agreement that the political freedom of all peoples there represented would be hastened by immediate cooperation with the interim government. It was further agreed at Panglong that cooperation should be implemented by the governor’s appointment of an additional councilor, to be nominated by the newly formed supreme council of United Hill Peoples. The councilor would assume executive responsibility for the Frontier Areas. Other agreements at Panglong provided for the enjoyment of democratic rights by all citizens, for continued interim financial aid by the center to the Frontier Areas, for local autonomy, and for immediate consultations looking toward the demarcation of a Kachin State.3 The Panglong Accord defined the political and geographical boundaries of present-day Burma: its peoples would join together in an alliance to obtain independence from Britain and to establish a union of equal and self-determining states—the Union of Burma or Pyidaungzu. The Burmese word Pyidaungzu means a union of nation-states, implying a federation of states. Federalism is embedded in the Burmese term for the post-1948 Union of Burma. Since Panglong was a historically defining moment and the genesis of present-day Burma, the Pang-long Accord and its underlying spirit are politically hegemonic. Even the successive ruling generals (who have done much violence to the ideals of Panglong) have to pay lipservice to the Panglong Spirit, to the notion of equality between what they call ‘national races’.4

 

 

British Colonial Rule and the Making of Burma

 

Like all nation-states that emerged after the withdrawal of colonial powers, such as India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia, Burma is basically the child of the colonial order. The colonial powers re-arranged the territories that came into their hands and made them into ‘modern’ entities that later became post-colonial nation-states. Prior to the advent of colonial powers, Burma in its present form did not exist. There were what modern historians describe as Burmese (or Burman) kingdoms that existed side by side with the Mon, Shan, Rakhine, Manipuri, Thai, Lao, and Khmer kingdoms, and which were often in conflict with each other. Wars, both intra-kingdom dynastic fighting and inter-kingdom conflicts, were endemic. The kingdoms were however neither solely territorial nor based on ethnic sentiments or solidarity. That is, they were not national kingdoms but dynastic or personal systems of power and domination.

 

In the final British annexation of Burma in 1885,5 the Burmese king and court had hardly any control over the areas north of the capital city of Mandalay. Moreover, an alliance of Shan princes, called the Limbin Confederacy, was poised to march on to the capital to overthrow King Thibaw (whose mother was Shan, the Hsipaw Princess). The Shan princes wanted to install their candidate, the Limbin Prince, on the throne. There was at that time no Burmese kingdom to speak of. A year after the fall of Mandalay, the British met with the Shan princes at Mong Yai and negotiated the inclusion of their princedoms in British India as protectorates under the Viceroy. The British then proceeded to reorganize the areas beyond India (‘farther India’ or ‘British Indochina’) that had come under their control. By the 1930s, British Burma was separated from India and organized into two distinct parts, namely Ministerial Burma (the homeland of the majority ethnic Burmese) and the Frontier Areas. The latter included the present-day Shan, Kachin, and Chin States, and parts of the current Karen and Arakan/Rakhine State. The present Karenni State was treated more or less as a protectorate, and the Wa area was classified as un-administered territory.

 

Under the British, there was still no Burma in its current form. It has been held by a number of Burman nationalists that the British deliberately divided Burma in accordance with their ‘divide-and-rule’ policy. What can be said about the divide-and-rule thesis, however, is that it assumes that the population of Burma was homogenous or had already been unified as a nation in the current sense of the word. In this context the term ‘divide-and-rule’ is untenable and fails to take account of practices that were common to all colonial powers. Rather than being moved by the ‘divide-and-rule’ imperative, which anti-colonial nationalists often attribute to colonial powers, the widely practiced system of direct and indirect rule was based on administrative convenience, informed by the economic-commercial viability of the real estate in question. That is to say, areas that were accessible from the sea, fertile, productive, and where an infrastructure could be built at low cost, were usually placed under direct rule, whereas the hinterland with hardly any infrastructure, controlled by traditional rulers, was loosely supervised by colonial officers. In Burma, the Irrawaddy basin constituting the Burman homeland, i.e. Burma Proper, was ruled directly and thus became developed and reached some degree of modernization. The Frontier Areas were left to their own respective rulers and became less developed. British Burma was, like French Indochina, a mix of expedient bureaucratic-administrative arrangements, and it was this patchwork of differently administered and differently developed territories that would form the Union of Burma after the Panglong Accord.

 

Nation-Building Formulas and the Rise of the Military

 

Three major schools of thought can be distinguished with regard to Burma’s post-independence (mainly Burman) leaders on nation-building. One school of thought, associated with U Aung San, the architect of independence, held that Burma was to be a union of States based on equality of all national groups. The principles of ‘unity in diversity’ and self-determination, implying the widest of autonomy for the States, would underpin the Union. This was the vision that led to the signing of the Panglong Accord in 1947, a year before independence.

 

The second school of thought was adopted by the post-Aung San AFPFL6 leaders. This vision was embodied structurally in the 1947 Union Constitution. It provided for a unitary form of state, decentralized to some degree but not federal. This formula gained ascendancy and was in force for almost twelve years, from 1948 to 1962, but was certainly not in keeping with the Panglong Spirit or with the vision of U Aung San. Nevertheless, it worked after a fashion but Burma’s ethnic nationalities seethed with discontent and civil war raged. The relationship between the members was asymmetrical: there was the Mother country (Pyi-Ma, the Burma State) and around it revolved a set of subordinate constituent states. The relation of, say, the Shan State to the Burma State was similar to that between Scotland and England. In concept it can be said that there were seven Scotlands in Burma, all revolving around Rangoon.

 

The third school of thought was fascistic and narrowly ethno-nationalistic. It held that the Burmans had built an empire through defeating and conquering the lesser ‘races’ such as the Mon, Rakhine, Shan, and Karen. In this formula, Burma had been unified by ‘Burman conquest’ since the 11th century, by great kings such as Anawratha, Bayinnaung, Alaungpaya and Bodawpaya. According to this nationhood vision, the British had forcibly dismembered this unified kingdom and through their divide-and-rule policy further alienated the hitherto unified ‘races’ of Burma from each other. From this perspective, held by the military and successive ruling generals, nationhood and nation-building would be no problem: all national ‘races’ would be kept together by a strong state, and nationhood or unity would be achieved by obliterating all differences through forced assimilation or ‘Burmanization’. The military looked forward to everyone becoming Burmans as in the good old days. From this point of view, cultural and ethnic diversity was deemed to be undesirable and dangerous because diversity was divisive. It was therefore imperative that the solidarity of the Union had to be maintained and safeguarded by the armed forces, otherwise the country would fall apart or become a chaotic arena of warring ‘races’ as in Bosnia.7

 

Although the Shan, Kachin, and other ethnic nationalities’ leaders found the 1947 Constitution unsatisfactory, they went along with it until the coup in 1962, because they had been assured that it could be amended at any time in the future. Also, the fact that independent Burma immediately became a battleground between the AFPFL government and its erstwhile allies (the Red and White Flag communists, the People’s Volunteers Organization, Burman army mutineers, and later, Karen army mutineers and Pa-O rebels in the Shan State) gave the non-Burman leaders very little option but to stand with the AFPFL, or rather behind U Nu. The alternative was revolution and communist victory.

 

In many ways, the armed struggle led by the communists and their allies strengthened ties between the leaders of the ethnic nationalities and the AFPFL. However, at the same time, the insurgents (Burman communists, and the Karen with their ethnic allies among the Pa-O and Mon) bolstered the importance of the military to the extent that during the 1950s it had become very powerful and gained much autonomy. The incursions of U.S.-backed Chinese nationalist Kuomintang irregulars in the eastern Shan State further reinforced the power and autonomy of the military. In fighting the insurgents and the Kuomintang, the military also took on administrative functions in areas where martial law was imposed. Moreover, the 1957 split in the ruling AFPFL party into two camps and many sub-factions again strengthened the position and autonomy of the military. The split created a power vacuum at the very top, and it was only a matter of time before the military ventured onto the political stage, which it did in 1958. The then Prime Minister, U Nu, was requested by Brigadiers Aung Gyi and Tin Pe to hand over power to the army, albeit temporarily, so that the political confusion stemming from the AFPFL split could be sorted out. U Nu agreed and, with the sanction of parliament, the military ruled as a caretaker government for two years. In 1960, as promised, the military held an election which U Nu won overwhelmingly on an anti-military platform. In addition, U Nu promised to make Buddhism the official state religion. In 1962, however, the military marched back to power, and has been ruling Burma ever since.

 

Nation-Building by Ne Win and the Military

 

The military’s nation-building formula dovetailed nicely with its top-down idea of state-society relations, still with a command-and-control orientation. The military’s fascistic view of nationhood and tight control may be owing to Japanese influence, since the army was trained by the Japanese during the Second World War. Under General Ne Win’s rule, from 1962 to 1988, the fascistic, chauvinistic vision of nationhood became entrenched within the military. As a result of the outbreak of insurgencies at the onset of independence, the military was at once brought to the forefront as the defender of the new (AFPFL) state. That role garnered substantial power for the army, because the AFPFL leaders were not only the military’s political masters but also dependent on the army to fend off dangers—particularly dangers caused by the communists. The eventual effect was that the military became a power unto itself.

 

The military took on the task of nation-building according to its notion of nationhood. This formula has not only been destructive but also a failure in terms of creating a viable multi-ethnic nation-state. It can be said that what was of utmost concern to the military (as self-acclaimed ‘nation-builders’) was Chapter 10 of the 1947 Constitution, which granted the Shan State the option of secession after 10 years of union. The military, however, set out to preempt the Shan from exercising that option, whether or not they actually planned to do so. The military intimidated the population by sowing terror, and it fomented opposition in the Shan State towards the Sawbwa princes, whom the military accused of hatching plots to dismember the Union.

 

Everywhere the military went in the Shan State, they unleashed on the population their brutal power with apparent immunity. It was only after the 1988 people’s uprising that atrocities in the non-Burman areas came to light. Previously, because Cold War strategies had dwarfed all other issues, and because the ethnic non-Burmese resistance was regarded as tribal rebellion, stories of widespread atrocities perpetrated by the military were dismissed as rebel propaganda. As 1958 drew nearer, the military resorted to beating and torturing village headmen, accusing them of hiding arms in preparation for an armed uprising. The military also set out to terrorize the local populace in other non-Burman areas as a display of power. Thus, the military’s nationbuilding efforts created a situation where the non-Burman segments of the population were alienated by military actions carried out by and for the state. The state came to be perceived by the ethnic non-Burmans as alien to society and harmful to their welfare. The situation of ‘lack of fit’ between the state and the ethnic non-Burman segments, and the policy of terror by systematic atrocities, naturally provided ethno-nationalist resistance in the non-Burman States.

 

The military’s nation-building formula, and their brutal methods, did not promote any sense of nationhood among the ethnic groups but instead created a situation of vertical dysfunction between the state and the significant non-Burman segment of the broader society. When the military seized power in 1962, they hoped to win the support of the Burman populace. The generals claimed that drastic action was necessary because the Union was threatened by the ‘secessionist plots’ of Shan princes. However, the cruel massacre of university students in Rangoon on 7 July 1962, four months after the coup, alienated the Burman population from the new military regime. Moreover, further imposition of repressive control in all spheres of society turned the Burman populace against the military and against the ‘socialist state’ which it monopolized.

 

The problem of state-society dysfunction was further exacerbated in 1988 when the military staged a bloody comeback following the collapse of Ne Win’s military dictatorship, the military-socialist BSPP (Burmese Socialist Program Party) regime.

 

 

The Politics of National Reconciliation

 

Especially since 1962, state-society relations in Burma have become increasingly dysfunctional. The state generally remains unresponsive to the needs and problems of Burmese society. However, it is quick to respond to the priorities of the armed, uniformed elements within the state. A situation has developed in which the state is separated, politically insulated and isolated from its citizens.

 

The consequence of state-society dysfunction is, as the past decades have shown, economic decay, atrophy of political institutions, corruption of the military, paralysis of the state and its problem-solving capacity, breakdown of infrastructure, and greater impoverishment of the people. The military’s resistance to societal demands for political participation has resulted in political deadlock. The pressing need in Burma today is to resolve this problem of state-society dysfunction.

 

The ethnic dimension of state-society dysfunction in Burma has two interrelated facets. One is political, and the other has to do with the restoration of ethnic harmony. The political facet concerns the constitutional problem of how the relationship between the ethnic and territorial constituent components of the Union is to be arranged. Or, in other words, whether Burma should be a unitary or federal state. Ethnic hatred such as in former Yugoslavia, that makes it difficult to achieve national reconciliation after years of brutal military rule and widespread atrocities, does not exist in Burma. There is still an understanding among political leaders that the problem of ‘ethnic conflict’ is political and constitutional rather than ethnic. The leaders of the various ethnic nationalities in Burma have participated in the struggle for democracy together with ethnic Burmese on the basis of the principle of equality, national self-determination, and the shared goals of democracy and federalism.

 

The years of shared struggle for democracy, especially after 1988, have induced closer interaction between the ethnic Burmese and the other ethnic nationalities. As a result, a number of building blocks and even consensus have been put into place for building a peaceful, democratic, federal Burma, and for the resolution of the country’s multi-faceted problems through a dialogue process. The unity achieved among the opposition may be owed to a great extent to the emergence of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on to the political stage in 1988. She has over time projected an image of a leader who is staunchly democratic, intelligent, humane and fair-minded, and who empathizes with the plight of the ethnic nationalities and their aspiration for equality, selfdetermination, human dignity and human rights.

 

However, other things are seldom equal. Intervening variables over which political actors in Burma have no control,8 always have the potential to put an end to any sort of dialogue in Burma, thus putting any national reconciliation efforts or hopes on the shelf for an indefinite time.9 Even if dialogue continues, the military’s opposition to federalism (notwithstanding the generals’ lipservice to the Panglong Spirit, equality, and brotherhood) remains a big hurdle.

 

The main reason for the military’s objection to federalism may be that federalism would bring decentralization of both power and power structures. In a federal union, power would no longer be concentrated in the centre, nor can it be monopolized by one element of the state. Power would rest in different levels of government and be made accessible to democratically empowered local communities. Thus, in a democratic federation, the state (or rather, governments at both federal, state, and local level) would necessarily have to be responsive to the priorities, needs, and problems of citizens within the broader society, and most importantly, be committed to the Rule of Law. In this way, the problem of state-society dysfunction in Burma, the main root of the country’s problems, will be solved and national reconciliation achieved.

 

Nevertheless, given the military regime’s staunch opposition to democratic federalism, there may have to be a paradigm shift in looking at how the military can be persuaded to give up its monopolistic grip on the state in Burma and its (failed) fascistic nation-building vision. The politics of transition and national reconciliation are complex and require an equal measure of firmness and flexibility.

 

Endnotes

 

* Professor Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe from Vancouver, Canada, is a participant in the struggle for a federal and democratic Burma. His father, Soo Thanke, was Burma’s first independent President.

 

1. The term ‘ethnic non-Burman’ is here used to denote the Mon, Kachin, Rakhine, Shan, etc. segments of the population in Burma, and to differentiate them from the Burmans (i.e. the speakers of Burmese) or ethnic Burmese. This practice is however not in common usage because many scholars use the term ‘Burmese’ to denote all citizens of Burma, and ‘Burman’ to refer to the Burmese-speaking ethnic segment—like ‘British’ and ‘English’. This is however problematic because the term ‘Burmese’ refers to the language of the Burman and denote things Burman, such as Burmese food, Burmese dress, and so on. The term ‘Burmese’ does not come anywhere near the term ‘British’.

 

2. Regarding self-administration, the pre-colonial period is problematic. The people as a collectivity had no say however (and whatsoever) in the management of affairs that affected their lives. At least under colonial rule, the administrators were held accountable for their actions.

 

3. “Report of the Frontier Areas Committee of Enquiry, 1947”. Rangoon, 1947. Part I, pp. 16-18.

 

4. Curiously, the term ‘race’ is commonly used in Burma when speaking of ethnic or national groups. There is no specific Burmese word for race, nation, or ethnic group. All are Lu Myo or humankind. In Burmese, Tarok Lu Myo means Chinese, or ethnic Chinese. Why Lu Myo has been translated as ‘race’ is something that needs looking into. It is probably the result of the wide use of the term ‘race’ by the British in colonial times, when scholarship on ethnicity and race was not yet developed. In those days, even up to the early 20th century, no distinction was yet made between races, ethnic groups, tribes, etc.

 

5. The British annexation of Burma was undertaken in three stages. During the First Anglo-Burmese War of 1824-1826, the British annexed Arakan and lower Tenasserim. Lower Burma was annexed during the Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852-1853). In the Third Anglo-Burmese War (1885-1886), the capital city of Mandalay was captured and King Thibaw sent into exile in India.

 

6. AFPFL stands for Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League, the vanguard of the Burmese nationalist movement, formed during the Second World War by U Aung San and U Than Tun.

 

7. This is the ‘national unity’ mantra of the military in Burma, employed to justify military dictatorship, military monopoly on power, as well as military terror tactics in the non-Burman ethnic areas: arbitrary killing, rape, forcible relocation of villages, pillage, plunder, extortion, and so on.

 

8. Such as, for example, the current increased Thai concern with the Wa and their methamphetamine production on the Thai-Shan State border, combined with renewed interest at least of the U.S. military in the Thai war on drugs. The renewed fighting on the border between the Shan army and the Burmese junta’s troops has the potential of escalating into a larger Thai-Burmese border war.

 

9. The border dispute with Thailand has probably strengthened the hands of the junta’s Secretary No. 1, General Khin Nyunt, vis-à-vis other military factions and his rivals, such as General Maung Aye and his followers. There is no external enemy, either real, imagined, or manufactured, to rally the troops. Having firmed up his position within the military, the possibility that Khin Nyunt might terminate the talks with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi cannot be ruled out.

 

 

 

Rhododendron News

Volume VI. No.V. September-October 2004

Chin Human Rights Organization

 

 

Table of Contents

Human Rights Violations:

• SPDC’s Chairman Gen. Than Shwe Poster A Must Buy in Chin State

• Bullet Speaks Lauder than Words

• SPDC Captain Tried to Rape a Married Woman

• Civilian Compel to Repair Army Camp

• High School Students Forced as Porters

• The Tale of Cross-border Cattle Traders

• Burmese Soldiers on the Rampage in Falam Township

• Supply Wood or Face Severe Punishment

• Suppression of Christians in Gankaw Towship

 

Refugee Concern:

• Grievance Over Recent Incidences Around Putrajaya

• CHRO’s Presentation at the US State Department Bureau for Population, Migration and Refugee

• Chin Activists, Refugee International team up to lobby US

 

Facts & Arguments:

• A Struggle For Self-Determination In Burma: Ethnic Nationalities Perspective (By Lian H. Sakhong)

 

Back Cover Poem:

• “Where is Papa?” (By Van Biak Thang)

 

Human Rights Violations:

 

SPDC’s Chairman Gen. Than Shwe Poster A Must Buy in Chin State

 

Aizawl: September 13, 2004

To buy the poster of the Burmese military junta State Peace and Development Council chairman Gen.Than Shwe is compulsory in Chin state according to CHRO source.

 

All village headmen from Rezua township, 45 villages in total, from southern Chin state were summoned for a meeting by U Kyaw Win Naing of Rezua township Peace and Development Council during the last week of August 2004.

 

The meeting was to brief the importance of hanging the poster of the chairman of State Peace and Development Council Gen. Than Shwe in the living room of every household. The township PDC official U Win Naing instructed the 45 villages headmen how to hang the poster neatly and properly. He further warned them that those who damaged the poster will be properly punished.

 

After the briefing and instruction of how to hang the chairman poster, the village headmen were informed that they must buy the poster at the rate of 200/- Kyats per poster and every household in their respective village must possessed and hung the poster in their living room as instructed. Some village headmen got 50 posters and some more than 100 posters depending on the size of their village.

 

CHRO source said that, since the poster is not a popular one, no one wants to buy the poster and village headmen are in trouble selling the poster of Gen. Than Shwe. Every village headman is responsible for paying the price of the porters in full before the end of September.

 

 

Bullet Speaks Lauder than Words

 

Aizawl: September 9, 2004

 

The village headman of Ruava village from Rezua township in Chin state was terrify by unusual order he received from Major Khin Maung Cho, Company commander of Burma army LIB 274.

 

On August 10, the headman received a letter with G3 bullet from Major Khin Maung Cho saying that he must send 14 porters to Rezua army camp no later than 11 August. The order further threatened that there will be a consequence if he fails to obey the order.

 

Being terrified by the order that comes with a bullet, the headman and the village elders arrange 14 porters, accompanied by one of the village elders, and send them to Rezua army camp the next day.

 

The Major demanded 2 more porters on August 12. Thus, two porters and the headman himself went to the army camp as soon as they got the order. They all were kept at the army camp till 16 August. After a several days of waiting to serve as porter in the army camp, the Major told them that he does not want the porters any more since the trip was cancel and he will call them whenever he want.

 

Since Ruava villager is located near the Burmese army camp, they have been consistently forced to work such as repairing the army camp, and to serve as porters. At the time of this report, Burma army demanded 2000/-Kyats and 10 chickens from the village for unknown reason.

 

SPDC Captain Tried to Rape a Married Woman

 

Aizawl: August 26, 2004

 

The local villager inform the CHRO that Captain Phu Thaw, company commander from Burma army LIB 50 tried to rape a married Chin woman on July 13, 2004 at Sabawngpi village.

 

Captain Phu Thaw and his troop arrived Sabawngpi village on July 13, 2004 and spent the night. After sunset, Captain Phu Thaw visited the house of Daw Marie while her husband was away. After a few minutes of chatting with the woman, the Captain suddenly covered the mouth of the woman with his hand and pointed his pistol to her and tried to rape her.

 

Being panic by the sudden action of the Burmese Captain, the woman shouted and struggled. The villager said that the woman could luckily avoid the deplorable incident by shouting and struggling.

 

The woman is about 30 years old and she is a simple farmer married with two children.

 

 

 

Civilian Compel to Repair Army Camp

 

Aizawl: September 6, 2004

 

11 villages surrounding Sabawngte area were summoned to repair the army camp by the order of 2nd Lieutenant Htun Kyaw, Company commander in-charge at Sabawngte army camp, Burma army LIB 274. According to the order, every village must provide 1000 bamboo poles and a chicken without fail.

 

The villagers have no other choice but to obey the unfair order, and thus they pack their own food and tools to work as forced laborers for the army. It took three days (from August 24 to 26, 2004) each for every village to cut 1000 bamboo poles in the forest and transport it to the army camp.

 

The name of the 11 villages are; 1. Ngaphaipi, 2. Fartlang, 3. Khuapilu, 4. La-U, 5. Darling, 6. Ruamang, 7. Sapaw, 8. Tawnglalung, 9. Sabawngpi, 10. Sabawngte, 11. Hlungmang.

 

In another incident, 15 villages from Rezua township were forced to construct a new Burmese army camp for Company base at Rezua town. The (oral) order issued by Major Khin Maung Cho of Burma army LIB 274 on August 10, 2004 demanded that one person per household from Rezua and surrounding 15 villages must contribute their labor to construct a newly extended army company base.

 

According to Pu Khua Do, who participated at the forced labor, his village is 12 miles away from the army camp. They brought 200 bamboo poles and 10 chickens for the army when they come to work as forced laborers. They work at the army camp from 16 to 19 August for four days digging trench, building barrack and sharpening bamboo. The army did not provide tools, food or any thing. The villagers bring their own food and tools to while working for the army.

 

Pu Khua Do said that another villagers from Lekhan, which is 7 miles away from Rezua were also working at the time. The army demanded at least 50 people from Lekhan village but only 30 people could show up because Lekhan village is too small and could not manage to contribute 50 people to work at the army camp. There are several woman among the forced laborers said Pu Khua Do.

 

High School Students Forced as Porter

 

Aizawl: August 26, 2004

On July 24, 2004, 21 high school students including several girls from Sabawngpi High School were forced to serve as porters by Captain Myo Min Naing of Burma army Light Infantry Battalion 274

 

A group of Burma army led by Captain Myo Min Naing of Burma army LIB 274 was preparing to station at Sabawngte camp on July 24, 2004. The troops requested 70 porters to carry their ration and ammunitions. They just drag whoever they find in the village to serve as porter. Among the porters were 21 high school students including several girls.

 

The students had to carry army ration and ammunition from Sabawngpi village to Sabawngte army camp. Since the load they carried were too heavy and they have to walk overnight, the students were too exhaust and some of them could not make their class for the following week.

 

On the previous day on July 23, 67 villagers from Lailenpi village were forced to carry the army ration and ammunition from Lailenpi village to Sabawngpi village by the same Burmese troop.

 

The Tale of Cross border Cattle Traders

 

Aizawl: August 27, 2004

5 cattle traders from Kyikan village, Kalay myo township in Sagaing division are driving 26 cows towards India border through Chin state in August. On their way, they met with the police at Duhmang village at Falam township, Chin state on August 12, 2004. The police arrested the traders and their cattle saying that it is illegal to trade cattle to other country without permission from the government. The police told the traders that they will be released only if they pay 150,000/-kyats for cross border tax.

 

The traders eventually paid the demanded sum of money and continue their journey towards India. When they arrive Manipur river at Teddim township, they met with the patrolling Burmese soldiers led by 2nd Lieutenant Ko Khan and they got arrested again. The soldiers demanded 100,000/- Kyats for their release and for the cattle. The traders eventually paid the demanded sum again.

 

One of the traders complained to CHRO field worker saying that “we used to pay 1,000/- to 1,500/- per cattle at the most in previous trips, but now the police and the soldiers have excessively and randomly demanding the so called cross border tax and we can’t make no profit at all”.

 

The cattle traders still have to pay every village about 50 to 100 Rupees per head for their cattle for “village crossing fee” even after they arrived in Mizoram state of India.

 

The traders explains that due to excessive (illegal) fees and taxes along the way from Burma to India, there are now fewer cattle traders and that results the price hike of beef in Aizawl bazaar. The price of beef used to be 100 Rupee per Kilogram and now it is 120 Rupee per Kilogram at Aizawl bazaar, the capital of Mizoram state.

 

Another similar incident, extortion of money from cattle traders by Burmese soldiers, occurred at Darkhai village on August 20, 2004. While Pa Maung and his friends are on their way to sell 24 cows to India, they met with a group of Burmese army led by Major Thein Sein of Battalion 269 based at Darkhai army camp near Tonzang town in northern Chin state. The soldiers immediately arrested Pa Maung and his friends saying that they will be released if they pay 200,000 Kyats/-. Pa Maung and his friends eventually paid the demanded money. The 36 years old Pa Maung and his family made a living with cross border trade. He is from Letpanchaung village in Kalay Myo township, Sagaing Division.

 

On July 19, 2004, Kyikan villager named Run Hlei Te 35 years was drown in Manipur River while trying to avoid the arrest of the police while he was on his way to India for selling the cattle.

 

Burmese Soldiers on the Rampage in Falam Township

 

Aizawl: August 27, 2004

2nd Lieutenant Khin Maung Win and a soldier from Burma army LIB 269 along with 2 policemen based in Tibual village, Falam township in northern Chin state come to Satawm village on the night of July 12, 2004. Satawm village is on the India-Burma border trade route and 2nd Lt. Khin Maung Win and his group, who got drunk, come to the village with the plan to extort money from cross border traders. As soon as they arrived the village, 2nd Lt. Khin Maung Win sent one villager and summoned the village headman. The villager come back and said that the headman was not feeling well and he could not come.

 

The Lieutenant was so angry that he sent two of his inferiors to get the village headman. The two soldiers eventually drag the village headman and started to beat him up, along with the villager whom they sent to get the headman, by 2nd Lt. Khin Maung Win and his men. While beating up the headman and the villager, the soldiers sprayed their gun randomly and hit the nearby Evangelical Methodist Church that the worshipers have to stop their service halfway with great fright.

 

2nd Lt. Khin Maung Win and his group continue to storm the village by entering house by house and inappropriately acted upon any woman they find. They even tried to molest two of the girls but the girls struggled and escape.

 

Being unable to tolerate the action of the soldiers, the villagers organized themselves and arrested the two solders and one policeman who are on the rampage. The villagers report the incident to Tibual army camp, but the camp commander was away at that time. Thus the villagers brought the case to LIB 269 battalion commander.

 

Realizing the anger of the villagers and the local Chin people upon the Burmese soldiers, the battalion commander immediately arrange a meeting with the villagers at New Rih town and beg for their forgiveness for what the Burmese soldiers has done.

 

Villagers said that this is the only incident that the Burmese soldiers ever beg forgiveness for their action.

 

Supply Wood or Face Severe Punishment

 

Aizawl: August 25, 2004

17 villages in Matupi township from Southern Chin state were ordered to supply 200 cubic wood-plank per village to build teachers quarter at Leisen government middle school. The order was issued by Leisen village middle school headmaster U Cang Toi in the month of April with the approval made by Colonel San Aung of Burma army No. 2 tactical commander based in Matupi town of Chin state.

 

The order mentioned that every village must submit their quota to Leisen middle school before the end of July and those who fail to comply the order will face severe punishment from the authority. Thus, villagers have hired laborers to saw the wood. Since many villages have no car or cart road, the villagers have to carry the wood on their shoulders from their respective villages to Leisen middle school which is several miles away.

 

When Colonel San Aung visited Leisen village, he told the villagers that the government will supply nails and zinc for the roof of the school and the rest must be contributed by the surrounding villages.

 

The villagers are routinely summoned to work at the farm of Leisen government middle school headmaster. Since the teachers, like all other government servants, did not get sufficient salary from the government, they have to find any possible means for their survival.

 

There are 7 teachers and more than 100 students at Leisen government middle school. The following villages are covered by Leisen government middle school;

1. Leisen, 2. Valangte, 3. Koela, 4. Vangkai, 5. Cangtak, 6. Thiboei, 7. Leiring, 8. Bunghung, 9. Khobal, 10. Thangping, 11. Anthaw, 12. Luivang, 13. Boiring, 14. Daihnan, 15. Khohung, 16. Vamaw, 17. Lalui.

 

 

Suppression of Christians in Gankaw Towship

 

Aizawl: August 25, 2004

One of the officials (name withheld for security reason) from the Gankaw Baptist Association (GBA) inform CHRO field worker that Christians and mission workers in Gankaw district, Magwe division are systematically suppressed by the Burmese military authority. The order of restrictions and suppression comes from Lt. Colonel Hte Oo, chairman of Gankaw district Peace and Development Council.

 

Despite the restrictions and suppression from the authority, the GBA try its best to implement Christian mission works and it has sent a number of evangelists in no less than 10 villages in Gankaw township.

 

Pastor Maung Maung is one of the evangelists sent by GBA to Ywa-Tha village. In November 2003, pastor Maung Maung was badly beaten up by the village peoples militia accordance with the order from SPDC’s higher authority. Besides, he was fined 3000/- Kyats and driven out from the village after he was badly beaten up. Then, his house and the Church were destroyed. There are about 27 newly converted Christians in Ywa-Tha village at the time.

 

Likewise, pastor Hram Ceu was driven out from Lung-Yaw village by village Peace and Development Council members in December 2003. The pastor requested the authority for permission of his evangelical works in January 2004, but the authority responded his request in written saying that no Christian mission works is allowed in the area and there will be severe punishment for those who ignore the order.

 

The GBA official inform CHRO that the SPDC authority had created several problems and troubles upon the Christian missionaries in the area.

 

There are two churches in Gankaw town; Gankaw Baptist Church and Calvary Baptist Church. Gankaw Baptist Church is located at No. 1 Ye-poke block and Calvary Baptist Church is located at No. 6 Taungkung block.

 

There are about 300 members at Calvary Baptist Church (CBC). The CBC bought the lot with a bamboo house to construct Church building with 400,000/-kyats in 1989 and apply for permission to construct the church to the SPDC authority. However, the authority consistently turndown the request made by CBC. Thus the CBC members have to conduct worship service at a bamboo house at the lot they bought.

 

CHRO source said that GBA have started its mission works in 1980s and it still has an office in Gankaw town near the airfield. GBA is functioning under the Zomi (Chin) Baptist Convention. The GBA have faced many trouble and hardship due to the government’s officials attitude towards Christianity and Christian mission workers.

 

Refugees Concern:

 

Grievance Over Recent Incidences Around Putrajaya

 

Chin Refugee Committee

Kuala Lumpur

October 30, 2004 (as posted in Chinland groups)

 

We, Chin Refugee Committee, deeply regret and grieve over the incidence in which one of our beloved Chin asylum seekers sacrificed his own life in a bid to avoid the arrest by the police force. In that tragic incidence, a group of Chin people waded out from the jungle where they make themselves home for the past few years, and while they were crossing one and the only bridge, group of police who were covertly lying in wait suddenly jumped and blocked out both ends of the bridge. They were trapped, seemed no way out. There was only one certainly that lay ahead for them was deportation to their original country. But one of the asylum seeker closer another alternative for his freedom by jumping down under the bridge but unfortunately his attempt was failed and minute later he succumbed to tiredness and drawn.

 

We do not blame the police but we were shocked and appalled on the fact that the police did not even try to launce taken attempt to save his presumable risk of life. But any way, very sadly, he has got his freedom. The police found his body only three days after the incidence. In another three days, conceivably, the police raided and destroyed all the make-shift tents in the surrounding jungle by burning down including the Church.

 

Here, we need to look into the grim facts behind his motive of risking life rather than being arrest. It is very obvious that he had more fear on the imminent persecution that lay before him upon his return home than the immediate persecutions he might faced if he chose to being arrested. He might obviously know that he can only be sentenced on breaching immigration law which can only be punishable by a few months jail term with one or two stroke of unshipping that can also be avoid like many thousands of illegal immigrants, if one is not charged and that will be follow by a transient detention in immigration concentration camp before deportation. All of these are not deserved to exchange with one precious life.

 

Hundred of Chin asylum seekers are in the same situations. If such kind of repetition occur who will take the responsibility. Most of the Chin persistent in living against constant threat their security, deplorable, abject privations, and perilous living condition clearly pointed that they all have more fear back home than in Malaysia.

 

The Malaysian government intolerant attitude towards illegal immigrant and refugee alike is understandable and will never be changed. It can only be more and more intended.

 

Therefore, we, CRC humbly request UNHCR to take additional measures and a more speedy assessment on cases of person seeking asylum. We strongly believed that postponing and relegation of interviewed on flimsy ground only cause unnecessary delay which at time also cause unnecessary lost of life. We resend on the UNHCR resent assessment on some of the Chin’s cases. It seems that there is prejudice as every one of asylum seeker is entitled to refugee status interview, reschedule and relegation of interviews will only make worse the conditions most of the Chin asylum seekers.

In conclusion, we would like to reiterate that all of the Chin asylum seeker desperately need a speedy assessment of their cases by the UNHCR.

 

CHRO’s Presentation at the US State Department

Bureau for Population, Migration and Refugee

 

 

12 October 2004

Washington D.C

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today. We are very grateful for the Bureau’s longstanding and active involvement in helping Burmese refugees displaced by civil war and political repression in Burma. The recent resettlement of Burmese refugees in Thailand to the United States helped ameliorate the suffering of hundreds of displaced people who encountered enormous daily difficulties in their lives.

 

We are here today to bring to your attention our continuing concerns about the situations of Burmese refugees in India.

 

The conditions of more than 50,000 refugees from Burma (most of them are Ethnic Chin) in India have not improved since we last brought up the issue to your attention last year. In many respects, conditions have worsened steadily for Burmese refugees in India over the last year.

 

Continuing human rights violations inside Burma, especially in Chin State, have triggered a steady movement of refugees into India. There is increasing incidents of forced labor activities inside Chin State, especially along the areas where a transnational highway between Burma and India are being constructed. With new refugees crossing into India each day, conditions are not better for those seeking shelter in India.

 

In Mizoram State of India, which borders Chin State of Burma, intolerance against Chin refugees has heightened, and for the past several months there has been a massive campaign to evict and deport Burmese Chin refugees. This campaign resulted in the forced return of over 6,000 Chin refugees to Burma. Many were either forced to go into hiding in the jungles to or to travel to New Delhi in order to seek protection from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. But for many of these people, life is no better in New Delhi.

 

There are about 1,500 Burmese refugees living in New Delhi and only about half of them are recognized as refugees by UNHCR. Last year UNHCR started implementing a policy to phase out Subsistence Allowance that has been provided to Burmese refugees in what it said was due to budget shortage and to encourage self-reliance for Burmese refugees in New Delhi. As of now, much of the 30$ monthly allowance provided to each individual refugee has been phased out. As a result, people are increasingly finding themselves unable to meet their daily needs. Local landlords are evicting refugee tenants because they can no longer afford to pay their rent.

 

The termination of Subsistence Allowance has not helped Burmese refugees in their ability to become self-reliant. But instead, it has actually created more problems in their efforts to cope with daily hardships they face in trying to survive in India. While Burmese refugees do have Residential Permits from the Indian government they are not authorized to work there, making it both impossible and illegal for them to work in order to become self-reliant.

 

Termination of assistance has created greater social problems among refugees in a way that more people are resorting to scavenge discarded vegetables in local markets to meet their daily needs for survival. Women and children are no exception. Just during the last two to three months, 19 Burmese refugee women were reported to have been sexually molested and harassed by local Indian men while picking up discarded vegetables in the neighborhood night market. Lack of adequate support has actually increased the vulnerability of Burmese refugees in New Delhi and has made it more difficult for them to integrate into the local community.

 

In conclusion, the security and humanitarian conditions of Burmese refugees in India are worsening. We strongly believe that Burmese refugees in India, both in New Delhi and Mizoram, deserve special attention and urgent intervention by the United States. Thank you for your support.

 

Thank you,

Salai Bawi Lian Mang

Chin Human Rights Organization

www.chro.org

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

Chin Activists, Refugee International team up to lobby US

 

 

By Salai Za Uk Ling

Chinland Guardian

13 October 2004

 

Two leading Chin activists and Refugee International spent a day in Washington DC yesterday meeting with US congressional staff and officials at the State Department in a bid to draw US attention to “Continuing concerns over the situations of Burmese refugees in India.”

 

The team includes Salai Bawi Lian Mang, Director and co-founder of Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO), Dr. Salai Lian Hmung Sakhong from Burma’s multi-ethnic alliance Ethnic Nationalities Council (ENC) and Kavita Sukhla, Advocacy Director of the Washington DC-based Refugee International (RI).

 

“The situation of Burmese refugees in India was the main issue and our concerns were received with great interests on Capitol Hill and at the State Department,” said Salai Bawi Lian Mang. The team visited the offices of Senator Brownback, Chairman for East Asia Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Congressman Wolf, Congressman Joe Pitt, and State Department Bureau for Population, Refugee and Migration.

 

Refugee International and Chin Human Rights Organization recently conducted two separate field assessments on the situation of Burmese Chin refugees in India. The reports found that over 500, 00 Burmese refugees living in India face serious security and humanitarian problems, including harassment, arrest, and deportation.

 

While the majority of Burmese refugees live ‘illegally’ in Mizoram State, “Only a small population of Burmese has been able to gather sufficient money to make the expensive trip to Delhi to seek asylum with UNHCR, but for most that is not possible,” Refugee International said in its latest report “Between a Rock and Hard Place: Burmese Chin Refugees in India.”

 

But life is no different even for those who managed to reach New Delhi because there is no guarantee that UNHCR would recognize them as refugees. A report recently prepared by Chin Human Rights Organization jointly with two Indian NGOs says that only about half of Burmese refugees in New Delhi enjoy UNHCR recognition and assistance. The report also notes that “Even recognized refugees experience considerable hardship and problems,” largely because UNHCR has terminated Subsistence Allowance to refugees, the primary source of survival for Burmese refugees living in New Delhi.

 

In the meetings yesterday at the State Department Bureau for Refugee, Migration and Population, the team emphasized the need for not relying solely on existing UNHCR mechanisms in order to effectively address the problems facing Burmese refugees in New Delhi. The team also stressed the need to urgently consider alternative approach such “providing adequate humanitarian assistance or resettlement” in order to address the problems.

 

As an outcome of yesterday’s lobby mission, Refugee International and Chin Human Rights Organization are expected to jointly prepare a report on the situation of Chin refugees in India to be distributed to a wider audience in the US Senate and House of Representatives.

 

Other issues discussed during meetings include current human rights and political situations inside Burma. Ethnic Nationalities Council’s Secretary Dr. Salai Lian Hmung Sakhong conducted briefing on the role and activities of ENC in relation to current political situations in Burma.

 

 

Scholar Section:

 

 

A Struggle For Self-Determination In Burma:Ethnic Nationalities Perspective

 

By Lian H. Sakhong•

 

(Note: A speech delivered at “Conference on Indo-Burma Relation”, India International Centre on September 16-17, 2004.)

 

Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to speak about our struggle for self-determination in Burma. The concept of self-determination, as we all know, is rather a new phenomenon in world history; it came into being only after French Revolution, together with the idea of the “nation” as the whole people, as the object of ultimate political loyalty, and as endowed with an alienable right to self-determination and separate statehood. When the “League of Nations” was founded after the First World War, the right of self-determination has become an international phenomenon, especially when “minority protection scheme” was formulated on the principle of “national self-determination”, according to which, as Woodrow Wilson put it, “every people have a right to choose the sovereignty under which they shall live”.

 

The concept of “self-determination” was a very useful tool for the peoples who tried to free themselves from colonial powers. For them, the right of self-determination was defined mostly in terms of “sovereignty”, “separate statehood” and “independent nation-sate”.

 

During the cold war, however, both camps of Liberal West and Socialist East put greater emphasis on “territorial integrity” rather than on “national self-determination”. The consensus among the major power was that anti-colonial movement was a particular category of conflict, which provided a potential dilemma and challenge in terms of self-determination. They argued that the goal in the decolonization process was the creation of new states from the territories legally and militarily held by colonial powers. The issue, they argued, was to control over territory within what was, formally speaking, one state.

 

So, if we looked back the cold war period, it was very obvious that international communities and bodies, including the United Nations, followed the lead given by the two super powers. We can also see that there was relatively little recognition in international law for substantive minority rights, let alone the rights of self-determination. When the United Nations adopted its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all references to the rights of ethnic minorities were deleted. The hope was that the new emphasis on “human rights” and the principle of non-discrimination would resolve minority conflicts. Rather than protecting vulnerable groups directly, through special rights for the members of particular groups, they argued that cultural and ethnic minorities would be protected indirectly, by guaranteeing basic civil and political rights to all individuals, regardless of group membership.

 

However, it has become increasingly clear that existing human rights standards are simply unable to resolve some of the most important and controversial questions relating to cultural and ethnic minorities. As Kymlicka argues,

 

The right to free speech does not tell us what an appropriate language policy is; the right to vote doesn’t tell us how political boundaries should be drawn, or how powers should be distributed between levels of government; the right to mobility doesn’t tell us what an appropriate immigration and naturalization policy is. These questions have been left to the usual process of majoritarian decision-making within each state. The result has been to render cultural [and ethnic] minorities vulnerable to significant injustice at the hands of the majority, and to exacerbate ethno-cultural conflict.

 

Since the end of the cold war, there has been increasing interest at the international level in supplementing traditional human rights principles with a theory of minority rights and collective rights. For example, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe adopted a declaration on the Rights of National Minorities in 1991, and established a High Commissioner on National Minorities in 1993. The United Nations has debated both a Declaration on Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1993) and a Draft Universal Declaration on Indigenous Rights (1998). In 1992, the Council of Europe adopted a declaration on minority language rights (the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages). This new development, after the collapsed of Soviet Union, is the most encouraging sign for our struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma.

 

On the other hands, as the changing world demands, we have to re-define the term “self-determination” accordingly. After Maastricht Treaty in 1992, most scholars tend to define the right of “self-determination” in terms of two categories; “internal self-determination” and “external self-determination”. While “internal self-determination” is concerned mainly with “collective rights” of a group of people(s) within the boundary of modern “nation-state”; “external self-determination” refers to sovereignty, separate statehood and independent nation-state. A combination of the term “internal self-determination” and the meaning of “collective rights” reflect the fact that “collective rights” is not merely cultural, religious, linguistic, and identity rights, etc., it also includes political rights with its full extend of powers, that is., legislative, administrative and judiciary powers.

 

Against this theoretical background, let me argue that what we—ethnic nationalities in Burma— are fighting for is a kind of “internal self-determination”, and we are struggling for our collective rights, including political rights and autonomous status for our respective homelands; and we strongly believe that these are our inalienable rights but denied so long by the successive governments of the Union of Burma since independence in 1948. So, let me be very clear that individual rights is not enough for us; we need our collective rights as a people, as an ethnic group, as a nationality who speak different language, who practice different culture, who worship different religion and who also has different historical background and, above all, all of us have territorially clearly defined homelands and nations since time immemorial. And the simple fact is: We want to rule our homeland by ourselves. But we also know that we have to live together with other peoples and other ethnic groups who practice different religions and cultures and speak different languages. So, the challenge here is to find a political and legal system which will allow us to rule our respective homelands by ourselves, and at same time living peacefully together with others. In other words, this is the question of how we are going to find a political system which can combine and balance between “self-rule” for different ethnic groups and “shared-rule” for all the peoples in the Union of Burma.

 

We believe that the best means to combine and balance between “self-rule” for ethnic national homelands and a “shared-rule” for the Union is federal system, or Pyi-daung-suu, in Burmese. As we all know, federalism can generally be defined as an approach to government that divides public powers not only horizontally, i.e. separation of powers between legislative, administrative and judiciary; but vertically, i.e. division of powers between two or more levels of government. In other words, federalism is a constitutional device which provides for a secure, i.e. constitutional, division of powers between ‘central’ and ‘states’ authorities in such a way that each is acknowledged to be the supreme authority in specific areas of responsibility. The basic essence of federalism, therefore, is the notion of two or more orders of government combining elements of ‘shared rule’ for some purposes and ‘self-rule’ for the other. As such, federalism is seen as a constitutionally established balance between ‘shared rule’ and ‘self-rule’; ‘shared rule’ through common institutions and ethnic homeland or regional ‘self-rule’ through the governments of the constituent units or states. The federal principles of ‘self-rule’ and ‘shared rule’, on the other hand, is based on the objective of combining unity and diversity, i.e. of accommodating, preserving and promoting distinct identities within a larger political union.

 

We, therefore, claims that the ultimate goal of our struggle is to establish a genuine Federal Union of Burma, which will guarantee democratic rights for all citizens, political equality for all nationalities and the rights of self-determination for all member states of the Union. We openly declared that democracy without federalism would not solve the political crisis in Burma, including the civil war, which has already been fought for five long decades. So, let me repeat that for us, 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, we ethnic nationalities in Burma view the root cause of political crisis in Burma today as a constitutional problem rather than a purely ideological confrontation between democracy and dictatorship.

 

As part of our preparation for the establishment of a genuine federal union, we—the UNLD-LA and NDF, two of the largest ethnic political alliances—have undertaken state constitutions drafting process since 2001. We view state constitutions drafting process as a long term process, through which we are engaging inter and intra ethnic dialogue; we encourage all ethnic nationalities in Burma to discuss among themselves and with other ethnic groups what their problems are and how they want to solve, empower them to define their own political future in preparing for political structures that they wish to establish, and create conditions to safeguard and promote democratic system and federal union that we all aim to establish. We now have seven states constitution drafting committees for the Arankan, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon and Shan. We also have a study group for Burman State Constitution, a group which is preparing for the future Burman State Constitution. All these state constitution committees are working, helping and networking each other through “Supporting Committee for State Constitutions Drafting Process” (SCSC), a committee formed by UNLD-LA and NDF. The SCSC is working closely also with Federal Constitution Drafting Committee, which is formed under the supervision of NCUB.

 

In order to achieve our ultimate goal of establishing federal union, we are opting for “tripartite dialogue” as our grand strategy. The term “tripartite dialogue” was first used in the 1994 United Nations General Assembly’s resolution, which called for a negotiated settlement through negotiation amongst three parties: the military government known as “State Peace and Development Council” (SPDC), the 1990 election winning party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), and ethnic nationalities—who are the founding nations or national groups of the Union.

 

The essence of tripartite dialogue is “inclusiveness” and “recognition” which, in concepts, includes all the major political stakeholders, or conflict parties in Burma: military junta, democratic forces led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and ethnic nationalities. Moreover, the UN’s tripartite dialogue resolution recognizes the 1990 election results which have been denied by the military government for 14 years, and recognizes the indispensable participation of ethnic nationalities in the political transition and national reconciliation process in Burma.

 

The UN resolution also acknowledges the very nature of political crisis in Burma which, as mentioned above, is a “constitutional problem” rather than solely an ideological confrontation between democracy and military rule or totalitarianism. It is not a “minority” problem, or even an ethnic problem which some Burman or Myanmar ethnic politicians argue can be solved later, once democracy is established. The question of democracy, military rule and the constitutional arrangement with special reference to the non-Myanmar (non-Burman) ethnic nationalities—comprising close to 40 percent of the total population—are intrinsically intertwined and cannot be solved one without the other. This is the meaning behind the call for a “tripartite dialogue”.

 

As we adopted a “tripartite dialogue” as our grand strategy, we have undertaken pro-active and constructive actions to bring about a peaceful resolution to the political conflict in Burma through a dialogue process. As part of our preparation for tripartite dialogue, the “Ethnic Nationalities Solidarity and Cooperation Committee” (ENSCC) was formed in 2001, and worked hard to co-ordinate the following non-Burman political groupings:

 

(i) Political parties under the leadership of United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD)

(ii) Armed groups which are members of National Democratic Front (NDF),

(iii) Armed groups but not members of NDF, such as Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP) and Shan State Army (SSA-South).

(iv) Ceasefire groups.

 

After two years of hard works, the ENSCC now is transformed as a working committee of “Ethnic Nationalities Council” (ENC), which was formed in January 2004, at the 3rd Ethnic Nationalities Conference. The ENC has been entrusted with task of fostering unity and cooperation between all ethnic nationalities forces and promotes peaceful political settlement in Burma through tripartite dialogue. It was also resolved that the ENC would:

 

Promote the profile of the Ethnic Nationalities on the international stage.

Coordinate and work for tripartite dialogue.

Reviving the Panglong Spirit, based on the principles of democracy, equality and self-determination.

Build or facilitate unity and cohesion among all ethnic nationalities forces, inside and outside, including promoting and supporting political actions inside.

 

I must also mention that the “Ethnic Nationalities Council – Union of Burma” is the largest non-Burman ethnic political alliance in Burma, which includes all the political parties under the leadership of UNLD, armed groups which are members of NDF, armed groups but not members of NDF, and some members of CF. The main political objectives of ENC are as follows:

 

(i) To end military dictatorship,

(ii) To establish a genuine democratic federal union,

(iii) To ensure democracy, human rights and self-determination.

 

For peace in the country, the flourishing of democracy, the establishment of a federal system, and the speedy and timely emergence of democratic transition, the ENC is determined to launch the “The New Panglong Initiative: Rebuilding the Union of Burma”, initiative consisting of the following points:

 

To hold, at the earliest date, the tripartite dialogue, as called for by the UN resolutions annually since 1994;

To form an interim government comprising of representatives, proportionally, of the SPDC, the NLD and other political parties, victorious in the 1990 elections, and the ethnic nationalities, based on the agreement arrived at the tripartite dialogue;

The interim government is to convene a legitimate “National Convention”;

To form various commissions, with approval of the National Convention, to draft constitutions of the Federal Union and the constituent States;

To hold national referendum for adoption of the Federal Constitution and to hold referendum in various constituent States for adoption of respective State Constitutions;

To hold elections at national level and state level for the formation of Federal government and State governments in various States in accordance with the newly adopted Federal and respective State Constitutions;

Subsequent to the elections, the Federal and State parliaments (legislatures) are to be convened and the respective election-winning parties are to form the Federal and various State governments;

 

The ENC does not believe that the SPDC’s 7-stages “road map” and its National Convention will lead to democratization and establishment of a federal union. The sole purpose of SPDC’s National Convention is to sustain a military dictatorship and transform itself from De Facto Government to De Jure Government through constitution. The ENC, therefore, issued a statement on 14 May 2004, in support of CF groups’ letter to the SPDC. Part of the statement read as follows:

 

The National Convention procedural rules should be discussed and revised;

Objective No. 6 of the National Convention (military role in politics) is not compatible with democracy. It should be discussed and revised;

The 104 Articles adopted by the previous National Convention are not compatible with democracy. It should be discussed and revised.

Law No. 5/96, which was enacted on 7 June 1996 to protect the 1993-96 National Convention, should be repealed.

 

The ENC is willing to cooperate and find ways to bring about a transition if above are met. Politics is about making compromises and the ENC is willing to discuss options if the SPDC considers modifying its 7- points Road Map. And, the ENC still believes that the best means to solve our country problem is through a negotiated settlement; and we, therefore, strongly demands a tripartite dialogue as called for by the UNGA since 1994.

 

In conclusion, I would like to stress again that the right of “self-determination” that we are struggling for is what we call “internal self-determination”: which will guarantees our collective rights; the right to rule our homeland by ourselves, the right to practice our religious teaching and culture freely, the right to teach, learn and promote our language freely, and the right to up-hold our identity without fear and live peacefully together with others. I can assure you that we are not separatists. We are for a united Union of Burma, but what we want is a genuine federal union where all ethnic groups in Burma can live peacefully together.

 

Thank you!

 

Dr. Lian H. Sakhong

General Secretary

United Nationalities League for Democracy UNLD-LA), and

Ethnic Nationalities Council – Union of Burma (ENC)

2004-09-09

 

Back Cover Poem:

 

“Where is Papa?”

By Van Biak Thang

 

All the farmers from the youngest to the oldest

Enjoying their social repose from toil and moil

It was time just after the end of the harvest

That she for blessings knew herself from her own soil

And the whole village shared the tidings in rejoice

 

Under the roof of thatch in a bright moonlit night

With vivid memories of hers in that twilight

By the fir-lit hearth was she fast sitting astride

No one else around apart from the one inside

In reminiscence about their mutual love thrice

 

It was when a hatch of chickens made their way home

And when a grandpa began his nursery rhyme

And when a family shared a table for pray’r

That he’s cuffed and taken by a lion-headed star

For no other reasons than being a man of price

 

Nothing was learnt and known about her beloved

Since peace in a family’s disturbed and shredded

Knowing a life deserves more respect than a sword

No one stood against bayonets but as a coward

As the darkness brought its power into practice

 

As clear as a newly-cut mirror for the queen

She’d still see as if it were shown in a big screen

The time he’s beaten and forced to be a porter

Without even a word of farewell nor whisper

To family and loved ones in fear and sadness

 

Days and nights marched and so did the age of her son

But the past image’s still stirring like a whirlwind

Her eyes being filled with tears of anger and tension

She couldn’t open her trembling mouth to a question

“Where is Papa?” by his little blood in surprise

 

 

 

 

 

Rhododendron News

Volume VI. No. V. November-December 2003

Chin Human Rights Organization

www.chro.org

 

CONTENTS

 

HUMAN RIGHTS

• Suu Kyi Suporter Passed Away While on the Run

• Villagers Forced to Construct Army and Police Camp in Rih Area

• Civilians Ordered to Take Militia Training In Chin State

• Order Translation

• Hundred of Women Forced to Take Part in Militia Training

• 3 NLD Leaders in Chin State Sentenced to 11 Years in Prison

 

REFUGEES

 

• Chin Refugee Died In Police Detention [CRC Malaysia]

• Alarming News From New Delhi: Burmese Refugees Demonstrating Infront Of The Unhcr Office Are Arrested And Brutally Treated By The Indian Police[CFIS]

• Report Upon The Protest Before UNHCR [CRC Delhi]

 

STATEMENT & PRESS RELEASE

 

• Situation of Burmese Refugees Worsens After India Detained 44 Burmese Following Police Attacks [CHRO]

• India: Investigate Police Attack on Burmese Demonstrators [Human Rights Watch]

• Indian Government Should Investigate Police Attack On Burmese Refugees [Forum-Asia]

 

FACTS & ARGUMENTS

• India: The Situation of Burmese Refugees in New Delhi

By Kavita Shukla, Refugee International

 

• The Situation of Burmese Refugees in India

By Victor Biak Lian, CHRO

 

 

Suu Kyi Suporter Passed Away While on the Run

 

November 19, 2003

 

Chin Human Rights Organization has received a report that Secretary of Thantlang Township’s National League for Democracy party passed away in a small town in India’s northeastern province where he had been hiding since escaping arrest by Burmese military intelligence. Mr. Than Ngai died of malaria yesterday, 18 November at Serchip hospital in Mizoram at about 8 o’ clock local time.

 

Mr. Than Ngai headed Thantlang Township National League for Democracy party. The NLD Township office in Thangtlang was reopened along with many other party offices in Chin State when Suu Kyi visited Chin State in April of 2003.

 

Than Ngai was responsible for organizing a welcoming ceremony for Suu Kyi and her entourage. During Suu Kyi’s brief stay in Thantlang, Than Ngai hosted a lunch for NLD leaders at his house. Suu Kyi later addressed a crowd of nearly ten thousand people who were gathering in a football field despite threats by local authorities that anyone participating in the event would face the consequences.

 

Soon after Suu Kyi and her entourage left Thantlang, Mr. Than Ngai was interrogated and threatened repeatedly by the military intelligence service. He later fled to India’s Mizoram state for fear of arrest. He was on hiding in rural Mizoram, unable to approach the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in New Delhi for protection, which has not been accepting political asylum seekers from Burma.

 

A dozen local NLD leaders from Chin State who have escaped arrest by the military regime are currently seeking protection from UNHCR in New Delhi.

 

Villagers Forced to Construct Army and Police Camp in Rih Area

 

September 2, 2003

India-Burma border

 

According to Leilet village headman from India-Burma border area, 30 villages from Falam township of Chin state were forcibly compelled to construct Army and police camp in Tihbual village.

 

The order to construct army and police camp was issued by battalion commander Major Myint Htun of Light Infantry Battalion 266.

 

According to the order issued by Major Myint Htun, every household from 30 villages in Falam township have to send one person per household to work at the army and police camp. According to Leilet village headman, the villagers have already worked for three times in this year and they may need to go there two more times before the end of the year.

 

The army does not provide any necessary tolls and food and the villagers themselves have to bring tools and food to work at the camps.

 

Civilians Ordered to Take Militia Training In Chin State

 

September 9, 2003

India-Burma Border

 

On August 4, 2003 U Sai Maung Lu, Chairman of Tiddim Township Peace and Development Council sighed and issued order number 3/3-41 (TPC) asking every village in Tiddim Township to send 10 person per villages to take militia training.

 

The training is scheduled to conduct by Battlion 269 of Burma army Light Infantry Battalion at Kamthok stadium. The training will be lasted for four weeks and schedule to start on August 29, 2003.

 

This training is the first batch in a series, that will be followed by more trainings. accommodation and food for the trainee have to be supplied by local villagers. It is estimated that the expense for one trainee is about Kyat15,000/ per person.

 

According to one of the village headmen from Tiddim township, it is miserable situation for all the villages to send ten person per village to take militia training. No one wants to participate in the training but we can not deny the order, said the village headman.

 

Order Translation

 

 

Township Peace and Development Council

Chin State/ Tiddim Town

Letter no. 3/3-41 (TPC)/U 5

Date/ 2003/ August (4)

 

To/

Chairman

Block/Village Peace and Development Council

____________ Village

 

Subject: To Take Militia Training

 

1. In order to safeguard the security of Tiddim township, Militia training will be conducted by Battalion 269 from August 29, 2003 at Tiddim town. Thus, every village have to send local militia to take the militia training batch by batch.

2. Therefore, as the first batch of the training, you have to send 10 members of core local militia to take the training without fail. Every block/village council members are responsible for accommodation and food for the trainee. Furthermore, you are informed to prepare for the next batch of the trainings.

3. The training schedule is as follow.

 

(a) Starting date of the training- 29.8.2003

(b) Openning ceremony for the training- 07:30 AM-11:30 Noon

(c) Duration of Training-(4) Weeks

(d) Training Place- Kamthok Stadium

 

Note: You have to report during office hour on 28.8.2003-12-27

 

 

Sd/-

 

 

Chairman

 

( U Sai Maung Lu)

 

Cc: Battalion Commander, No. 269 Light Infantry Battalion. Tiddim town.

 

 

Hundred of Women Forced to Take Part in Militia Training

 

5.10.2003

India-Burma Border

 

190 female government servants were among 450 civilians those who were forced to take militia training in Tiddim that started in late August and ended in September 2003.

 

According to Saya Pu Kam middle school teacher from Tiddim township who took part in the training the training instructors are from military, police and fire departments and Sergeant Major Soe Win was in-charge of the training. The training was gruelling. The training in-charge frequently shouted us that “we are going to shape you till you meet our standard, we are going to do no matter what” said Saya Pu Kam.

 

During the conclusion ceremony of the training, which was held in Kamthok stadium, commander of Light Infantry Battalion 269 gave a speech saying that we have to preserve our independence. Followed by Battalion commander speech, Township Peace and Development Chairman U Sai Maung Luu said that this is the first batch of militia training, which is intended for government servants and the next batch, which will be intended for non-government servants civilian, will be conduct in October and after that there will be another batch of training in November.

 

According to CHRO source, this kind of militia training was conduct in several township is Chin state such as Tonzang, Rih and Falam. In Falam township there was skirmish between the trainee and the training instructors due to the instructor harsh treatment towards the civilian trainee and the training was halted for a week.

 

3 NLD Leaders in Chin State Sentenced to 11 Years in Prison As Post-May 30 Crackdown Continues

 

26 June 2003

Three members of the National League for Democracy in Chin State’s Matupi Township, who were arrested by military authorities earlier this month, had been sentenced to 11 years in prison, a local NLD member who just arrived to Mizoram border reported. The 11-year sentence was handed down to each of the three NLD leaders during the second week of June, but it is still unclear as to where they will be sent to serve their sentences.

 

The three are identified as U Aung Thang, 38, secretary of NLD for Matupi Township, U Hla Moe (40), and Salai Pa Thang, 32, who is a local student leader and a final year law student at University of Mandalay.

 

The NLD member said people are particularly concerned about the fate of the three convicts because they are being held in unspecified location. The sentences were arbitrarily handed down by local military intelligence outside of the court, and their cases were never brought to the District court in Mindat. Mindat town is one of the two District administrative centers in Chin State, located a few miles away from Matupi.

 

They were arrested by military authorities on June 4 in Matupi, and were taken away to Mindat for interrogations there. More than 20 other NLD members escaped the arrest, and are on the run, and their whereabouts could not still be ascertained.

 

U Than Sein, an NLD Member of Parliament in exile, says the crackdown in Matupi is part of a larger effort by the ruling military regime to crush the NLD since the May 30 incident (in which pro-government thugs violently assaulted the touring NLD leaders). U Than Sein says he is very concerned that the whereabouts of the three NLD detainees are not known.

 

Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy, visited Matupi town on 10 April. Sources say that during her visit, crowds who showed up to greet Suu Kyi were videotaped by an officer of the Military Intelligence Service. Local organizers responsible for welcoming Aung San Suu Kyi then took away his video camera and put him away from the crowd until Suu Kyi left the town. U Aung Thang, U Hla Moe and Salai Pa Thang were then arrested on June 4 and taken away to Mindat for questioning. More than 20 other NLD members have since fled the town and are on hiding.

 

 

Translated by CHRO from original Burmese version.

Source: Khonumthung News Group

 

 

Chin Refugee Died In Police Detention

Chin Refugee Committee, Malaysia

30/11/2003

 

 

Mr. Ni Cung, 35 years old is a Chin national who fled Myanmar in fear of military arrest and persecution. He is an asylum seeker to UNHCR. However before he was interviewedby UNHCR, he was arrested by police in May, 2003 and put him in Lenggeng Immigration Camp where hundreds of foreign illegal immigrants were detained. After three months from his arrest, UNHCR officials went to detention and conducted interview for Mr. Ni Cung in August, 2003. Mr. Ni Cung waited his result whether UNHCR will recognize him as a refugee under UNHCR Mandate. Although the UNHCR said that his result will be out within one month from date of interview, his result was not out for three months.

 

Mr. Ni Cung was serious ill ( Ischaemis Heart Disease ) and the police once brought him to Seremban Hospital. Although the doctor advised the police that Mr. Ni Cung is no more fit to be detention, the police not only ignore the doctor advice but even tore down the letter from the doctor and did not give medicine properly.As his disease deteriorate the police brought him again to the previous hospital on Sunday ( 30 / 11 / 2003 ) but Mr. Ni Cung died a few hour later in the hospital.

 

We the Chin refugees were saddened by the sudden death of our fellow asylum seeker. Subsequently the Chin Refugees in Malaysia firmly stand to request the UNHCR to deal with swifter intervention especially for detention cases. The UNHCR ought not delay the result of asylum seekers who are in detention.

 

Chin Refugee Committee

Malaysia

 

 

ALARMING NEWS FROM NEW DELHI: BURMESE REFUGEES DEMONSTRATING INFRONT OF THE UNHCR OFFICE ARE ARRESTED AND BRUTALLY TREATED BY THE INDIAN POLICE.

 

Chin Forum Information Service

November 14, 2003

 

In the past few days alarming news have been received from Burmese refugee community in New Delhi. The news reaching us stated that on Wednesday 12 November at around 1:00 p.m. local time around 700 Burmese refugees demonstrating infront of the UNHCR office were being rounded up by the Indian police and were taken to an unknown destination in a convoy of trucks. The Indian government’s Defence Secretary Mr. Fernandes, who is known as one of the friends of Burma, and some high ranking Indian Police officers visted the UNHCR office on that day to pursuade them to accept the demands of the demonstrators. The authorities from the UNHCR, according to Zomi Information Centre, subsequently agreed and even issued forms for the refugees. In the afternoon even before the refugees sumbmitted their forms the police suddenly arrived and took them all to an unknown destination. The remaining Burmese refugees are under fear and frustration.

 

Another source [ [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ] also confirmed that “the police, some of them drunken hit the demonstrators severely that more than twenty four of them were seriously injured and hospitalized at AIIMS hospital. The police also used water cannons mercilessly against small children and elderly peoples. More than sixty refugees suffered external and internal injuries.

 

The same source further reported that on Thursday the next day (13 Nov) “Those who had been hospitalized at AIIMS Hospital on the 12th Nov. evening were taken back to Lodhi police station [even though some were under critical conditions and needed intensive treatment] the police did not allow them to stay on in the hospital. Among them was a lady named Sui Cui got severe head injuries. And until late today they were kept at the police station. Two youths Mr. Cung San Uk and Mr. Sangte were seriously injured and in critical condition. Today more than 300 are now in hunger strike to demand the release of their fellow severely injured and needed further treatment”.

 

A report sent to Lailun news group on 13 November also stated that “the whereabout of 24(twenty four) people is not known. On the early morning of 13th Nov at 1:00am we are sent to Vikaspuri and Janakpuri. After arriving about 200 people return to Lodi police station to claim the remaining 24 and other victims who had been hospitalized. This 200 demonstrators carry on hunger strike till evening. On this same day 13th Nov at 11:00am another 80 refugee demonstrators set out for 14,Jorbagh , UNHCR, however they are arrested and no one knew where they are .

 

As an eye witness observer, by the name Mr. T. Zul also confirmed the report and emphasized that the peaceful demonstrators “did not hold even a single stick” when they were mercilessly treated by the police. It is learnt that the Burmese refugees have been on strike since 20 October for days and nights protesting against the UNHCR’s unfair treatments and by the time of the crack down the refugees were already staging the demonstrations for 23 days. “Come what may we will continue our protest until our demands are met by the UNHCR” said one Burmese refugee. “Deep frustration regarding the policies of the office of UNHCR, New Delhi and the government of India” was highlighted in their statement jointly issued by All Burmese Refugees Committee and the Chin Refugees Committee based in New Delhi to the Chief of Mission of the UNHCR in New Delhi on 20 October, the day the long strikes started.

 

Inadequate financial assistance, arbitrary termination of monetary assistance, grossly insufficient educational allowance, ineffective self-reliance schemes, incomprehensible resettlement policy and the plights of the ignored Burmese refugees by the United Nations body stationed in the capital of India, among others, are the reasons of discontent by the Burmeses refugees, detailed in the said joint statement. [Please scroll down for the detail of the document jointly submitted by the two refugee organizations and a reply from the UNHCR]

 

The Chinland Gurdian also reported on 24 October that “The protest, the refugees say, is a result of arbitrary policies of UNHCR office in New Delhi, which have cornered Burmese refugees to intolerable inhumane conditions. While the agency has partially or entirely terminated the monthly assistance that has been provided to Burmese refugees, it has also rejected hundreds of new refugee applicants on the ground that UNHCR is facing financial constraints and that the claims asserted by Burmese asylum seekers are not credible. This, the refugees strongly disagree. They point out that because of the preconceived suspicion UNHCR personnel have on the motive of the asylum seekers, many refugees were not even asked questions that are relevant to their clams during their interviews. One refugee whose application for refugee status was rejected say that in his interview, he was asked whether he has ever ridden a horse or an elephant, a question he feels is neither relevant to his claim for refugees nor to UNHCR criteria which govern refugee recognition. Many refugees also claim that the interviewing officers often use methods to intimidate them during the interview, hampering the refugee’s ability to say what they want”.

 

Chin Refugee Committee- REPORT UPON THE PROTEST BEFORE UNHCR

 

Date: 20.11.2003 10:00 P.M

By: Information In-charge

 

On dated October 20, 2003 onwards the All Burmese Refugees settling in New Delhi started their long demonstration in front of UNHCR Office in New Delhi. The demonstrators were those who were being cut their Subsistence Allowance of the Legal Refugee Certificate holders living without proper jobs or works for their family survival or own, and the ignored refugees who fled from Burma who were seeking around one year and above without received any proper response by the UNHCR.

 

On their first date of demonstration, 20/10/03, there were (411) Burmese Refugees who sat in front of the office gate and waiting the positive response under the hot sun. At 5:05 P.M the Lodi Police started beating with their sticks and put them all on the three Swaraj Dump Carrier forcefully that some of the people were injured and blooded. The people of demonstrators of Burmese Refugees were having a strong decision to be brought to the Lodi Place Police Station till 10:30 P.M, and then sent out. Wait continuously without going back to their temporary residences for they have been living without food and support that some were slept beside the UNHCR Office and they continued their second date on 21/10/03. Twenty-six (26) Burmese Refugees of demonstrators were arrested by the police again and sent them out at 9:00 P.M but they went back to the UNHCR and stayed again. The said refugees were brutally beaten by Lodi Colony Police. On the third date 22/10/03 there were around 300 demonstrators at the same place that at 8:00 P.M the police swept them out and called them to the Police Station. The Police were driven them about 3km on foot along the way as like as an animals.

 

They all stayed around the UNHCR the whole night that many of them were injured by the police threatening. On the fourth date 23/10/03, many of other refugees joined them that around 700 Burmese Refugees were demonstrated from 8:00 A.M to 6:00 P.M. Since the UNHCR Chief of Mission could not give any positive answer for their demands that around 150 demonstrators decided to stay near the UNHCR Office. Around 7:00 P.M the Lodi Police arrested all those demonstrators and sent to Tihal Jail. At Tihal Jail, the police menaced and beaten with a stick to both man and women. Some of the injured protestors were sent to the clinic due to the Local Police in-human treatment. The protestors said officials of UNHCR have called in the police to dissuade them from continuing their protest against the Official allegation that has been confirmed to be true in the past. One of the reporters claimed that the Local Police and UNHCR, Delhi is doing as like as a couple. However, they could not receive all those Refugees that sent them out around 10:15 P.M. But they returned at the same place and stay there for waiting the next day there in the whole night. There has not been any problem till then.

 

 

On the fifth date 25/10/03, since it is one of the important Indian festival called Diwali, the police threatened them to go back to their home. However, the demonstrators could not be back due to they have nowhere to go for facing in the condition of uncertain future and especially Subsistence Allowance disrupted by UNHCR, Delhi. On the sixth and seventh date, the demonstrators were gathering behind UNHCR Office. They were continuing their demands. Although, UNHCR Office closed down the water closet and turned a deaf ear to them.

 

On the eight dates, 27/10/03, hundreds of demonstrators were continuing their demand peacefully before UNHCR. Although, the Office In-charge in Delhi is still sidelining by cheating in many ways to the protestors.

 

On the dates of protesting the UNHCR during 28,29,30,31,1and 2 with their peaceful demonstration, the assistant of the Chief of Mission told them the demonstrators are not eligible refugee status in accordance with the report of the Burman leader who are in New Delhi that they request to talk tripartite dialogue such as UNHCR Officers, the demonstrators and the so called leaders of Burman. The Burmese Refugees were asking to stop their demonstrations again and again but they have no desire to stop for they clearly understand they are perceived realized the uncertainty and insecurity of their life future thus they claimed their rights continuously staying beside the UNHCR office, New Delhi. They have no water drink and also the toiled were closed that UNHCR officer severally use the local police to disperse the Refuge protestor but after one or two hour later on around 150-300 refugee always gathering together every night and day and slept near the UNHCR office till 12/112003. However the Burmese the Refugee over 600 have been staying protest against UNHCR office peacefully demanding for their refugee status and resettlement in the third countries but the UNHCR office screening their demands by always beating and detaining them by the help of the police.

 

Unfortunately, on date 12/11/2003 after noon one of the government authority came and had a talk with the duty policeman then around 200 Delhi police and central reserve police (CRP) gather surrounded around the Burmese the refugee protestor. When the Delhi police with the CRP, came they were stand by with their pointing arms and waiting the order to arrest the Burmese peaceful protestors with their police dump carriers and mild lath charger. The policeman still blocked the roadway just before other aided were arrived. By observing the incident on the ground it is found to be a good preparation to arrest the Burmese Refugees.Note- (2:30 -3:15)-incident hours.

 

When 4:00 P.M sharp the policemen started beating the protestors men, women and children with their cane sticks and forcefully put them to their dump carriers and used their mild lath charges that many of them fall down on the spot and injured. Some of them were shocked with electric current, which is pre-arranged that they were taken out to save their life and immediately sent them home to take medical treatment as per needed. The rest refugee protestors of over 470 were carried with their stand by waiting police dump carriers Swaraj medium vehicles and kept separately into (4) custodies of Police Station such: –

 

1) In Lodi Police Station-(30) refugees

2) In Badarpur Police Station- (145) refugees

3) In Kalkaji Temple Near Police Station- (170) refugees

4) In Sarita Vihar Police Station- (121) refugees

 

Some of the injured refugees were admitted to the hospitals, of Apollo Hospital and AIIMS.

 

Out of those (4) Police Station, three Police Stations such Badarpur, Kalkaji and Sarita Vihar P/S sent back the refugees from their custody mid-night 12:00. (300) of them returned to sleep near the UNHCR office from All Burmese Refugee Committee (ABRC) Office, Asalatpur, Janakpuri and Burmese Community Relief Center (BCRC) office, Bodella, Vikaspuri then reached at UNHCR. When 13/11/2003 around 5:30 am the Lodi police requested to go home but they could not accept that at 6:00am they were taken to the Lodi P/S and reached at 7:00 am sharp. T he police had show the 24 arrested refugees who were injured in the sport of incident.

 

Those who got seriously injured and arrest Burmese refugee were as follow:-

-No. Name Sex BU/Temp. No. Remarks

1.Dawt Lian Cem M IND 834 Unconscious, Pain in legs, knees, hands and arms

2.Zo Sang M IND 00215 Injured on head, pain in hands

3.Ah Phong M 02IND 1121 Injured both legs and right hand

4.Van Hlei Thang M BU 352 Injured left hand

5.Par Sung F BU 588 Injured left leg

6.Hrang Tin Sung F BU 600 Injured both eyes, legs, neck, right thumb(POB)

7.Thawn Suan Mang M 03IND 234 Injured legs, hands, broken one teeth, swelling at lips.

8.Mang Hmun M Temp.905970 Injured cracked head, toes, swelling all body and both legs.

9.Laphylulu F Beaten on n her mark of previous appendix surgery. Swelling and pain in this particular point which made her unable to stand erect.

10.Nawn Dim F BU – 538 Pain in neck and thigh

11.Mary Van Zing F BU- 821 Beaten on head, pain in all body. In the state of unconciousness.

12.Benhur M BU-674/05 Beaten and pain in neck, shoulders and legs.

13.VanThawng M Pain and swelling in legs.

14.SunCuai F IND-113 Injured mark as pointed iron rod, both legs were cracked tight.

15.Tin Mang M BU- 132 Pains in legs and hands.

16.Biak lal M BU- 492 Injury on the head, 8 stitches, pain on knee.

17.Lian Sang M IND- 167 Pain in ribs.

18.Sui Maung M BU- 401 Broken leg-POB, pain in right hand, shoulders injured on head.

19.ThangLian(Nite) M BU- 168 Marks of pointed iron rod on 4 places, broken legs.

20.Tluang Val Lian M BU- 519 Injury in right leg, POB, mark of pointed iron rod on the left, swelling in the face and back.

21.Sang Tong Khai M 02IND01138 Left leg broken and left hand POB.

22.Di Ram M 02IND01101 Injured 2 places on head, legs couldn’t move,Pain on both hands.

23.R. Johnson M 02IND01102 Broken arms and legs, swelling and pain.

24.John. M Injury on head, broken leg and swelling body

 

At 3:15 pm, those 24 arrested were taken from the Lodi Police Station and were imprisoned at Tihar Central Jail at 7:30 pm as case filed by the Police. The other demonstrators detained at Lodi Road PS and Kalkaji PS were sent back by the authority with 2 buses. They reached ABRC Office by mid-night.

 

On the 14th November 2003 the demonstrators being released by the authority (105 in number) returned to the UNHCR Office and continue the demonstration. They were lathi charged and 92 man and 9 women were detained at Lodhi P/S. The demonstrators keep on increasing and gave themselves to the Police Authority to be arrested as their fellow demonstrators.

 

The Police arrested another 20 demonstrators and send the rest of them back home with 2 buses. R.S Gupta, Commissioner of Police, Delhi declared 30 days curfew with effect from 12th November, 2003 in accordance with the power conferred to him by section 144 Criminal procedure Code 1973 writ with Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi Notification No. U- 11036/3/1978(I) UTL, dated 1.7.1978, prohibiting any form of gathering within 200 metres in and around the UNHCR Office. However, the demonstrators continue their agitation at Jantar Mantar and stay the whole night there.

 

On 15th November 2003 around 200 refugees continued the demonstration at Jantar Mantar till 4pm. They could hold the demonstration peacefully and return to ABRC office and spend the night there.

 

On the 16th and 17th November 2003, around 100 demonstrators were staying at ABRC, Chin Centre Hall, Asatlatpur and CWO Office, Janakpuri. On 18th November 2003, around 300 refugees continue their demonstration programme at Jantar Mantar up to 4:00 P.M. At the same time, the detained refugees were to be court at Patiala House Delhi Central Court that their families waited to meet them till 3:30 P.M. At 3:45 P.M, they all are taken out to face the court but they were given the chance to sign before the magistrate.

 

On 19th November 2003, around 100 refugees demonstrators were staying day and night for their continuation of their demonstration till 20th November 2003.

 

 

Situation of Burmese Refugees Worsens After India Detained 44 Burmese Following Police Attacks

 

Chin Human Rights Organization

 

Press Release

25 November 2003

Chin Human Rights Organization has learnt that over 800 refugees and asylum seekers from Burma who have been peacefully demonstrating in front of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR office at 14 Jorbagh road in New Delhi, India for nearly four weeks to demand refugee status and humanitarian assistance were brutally beaten, arrested and detained by Indian police.

 

Eyewitnesses reported that on November 12, 2003 at around 3 pm, about 200 riot police from the Delhi Police armed with clubs and water canon came to disperse over 800 demonstrators, who were peacefully assembling in front of UNHCR office for the last 23 days. Without a warning, the police hosed the demonstrators with water cannon and began brutally beating them with clubs. Dozens of protesters including women were seriously injured and several children fell unconscious due to the shock of an unexpected and sudden violence. “A horrific scene of bloodbath” was the _expression one woman described the incident. She was beaten in the neck while her one-year-old child received severe eye burns from water cannon that hit him in the face. Some 25 persons needed to be taken to hospital for bodily injuries including serious injuries sustained in the heads.

 

Later in the evening, the police arrested all demonstrators and incarcerated them at four different police stations. Detainees say they were tortured in custody and that the police were seen drinking alcohol while they were taking the detainees to the detention place. A picture of a woman who was tortured by police shows severe bruises on her lower body. The severity of the injuries sustained by refugees seems to support the claims that the police were drunk at the time of the incident and that there was no provocation whatsoever on the part of the refugees to invite such police brutalities.

Chin Human Rights Organization is deeply concerned that until today, November 25, 2003, the Delhi Police continues to detain 44 persons at Tihar Jail in the western suburbs of New Delhi. The detainees are among the most seriously injured in the police violence. The detainees have been criminally charged with rioting, but eyewitnesses say the police beat them unprovoked. They alleged the charges are to justify the disproportionate and excessive use of force by the police and to cover up the tortures while in custody. The detainees include both recognized refugees and asylum seekers and CHRO is deeply concerned that India might eventually deport them to Burma where their safety will be seriously jeopardized.

 

UNHCR staff has not agreed to the repeated requests of the refugees and local rights groups to make legal intervention on behalf of the refugees. This is disturbing given that there were allegations UNHCR staff had invited the police to disperse the crowds in the first place. CHRO fervently requests the Office of UNHCR to take urgent steps to ensure that the 44 detainees have access to legal counsels and to attempt to secure their early release. CHRO also requests the Office of UNHCR to take immediate steps to prevent detained refugees from being repatriated to Burma.

 

Background:

 

As an organization that has been monitoring human rights situations in Burma’s western region, CHRO has long been concerned about the situations that compelled refugees to come to India. Refugees from Burma continue to cross into India in large numbers, but a very small fraction of that population has access to legal protection from the United Nations High Commissioner office in New Delhi. India has not recognized refugees from Burma nor has it permitted the UNHCR to assess the conditions of over 50,000 Chin refugees who live in Mizoram State. Under these circumstances, both the Government of India and UNHCR consider Chin to be mostly economic migrants. However, this has not been the case as evidence gathered by CHRO over the last several years suggest economic factors are not the main cause of refugee flight from Burma. CHRO believes that the majority of those who have crossed into India have valid fears of persecution in Burma.

 

Chin account for the majority of Burmese who came to India for protection. Expanded Burmese military establishment in Chin State and northwestern Burma had accelerated the level of human rights abuse among the Chin population. An inevitable consequence of this militarization has been a rapid increase in human rights violations such as forced labor, religious persecution, arbitrary arrest and detention, recruitment for military service and other forms of forced labor for military purposes. Since June of 2003, the Burmese regime has deployed two new army battalions (Light Infantry Battalion 104 and 105) to Chin State. This new deployment adds up to an existing more than a dozen army battalions in Chin State, an indication that human rights situation will deteriorate considerably in the region. The kind of human rights abuses happening in Chin State has direct links to the number of people who have been fleeing to India. With their areas heavily militarized and the Burmese army dominating all aspects of life, the Chin people today live in constant fear for their lives, not knowing when they will fall victims to the Burmese soldiers who constantly intimidate, torture and arbitrarily arrest civilians.

While Chin villagers can no longer find enough time to make their livings due to the army’s constant demands for forced labor for various purposes, villagers live in constant fear of being arrested and tortured when they could not contribute their services for the military. The Burmese army also target people suspected of having associated with anti-government activities and have routinely tortured, arrested and jailed, and sometimes, executed individuals without due process of law. Chin youngsters often become the primary target of conscription for military or militia service and various kinds of forced labor for infrastructure and military purposes. Recent reports from inside Chin State say Burmese army is forcibly recruiting people for militia training from across Chin State. Those refusing to participate in the training are arrested and tortured, or if they escaped, village headmen of the jurisdiction are held responsible and punished.

Religious persecution is a major concern for the Chins who are predominantly Christians. The Burmese army has been actively restricting and punishing those wishing to practice Christianity, while rewarding those who convert to Buddhism. Chin Christian churches and religiously symbolic monuments have been destroyed, while Buddhist pagodas are being built across Chin State often with forced labor of Christians.

Under the Burmese military junta, Chin State has become uninhabitable for the inhabitants. The most productive times of the Chin populace who make their primary means of survival by tilling and cultivating have been consumed by the army’s unceasing demand for forced labor and extortion of arbitrary taxes. All of these situations underlie the primary reasons as to which Chin people have escaped to India and elsewhere for protection.

 

Since the historic visit by Burma’s democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi to Chin State in April 2003 and the subsequent arrest of the leadership of the National League for Democracy on May 30th, the people of Chin State have been constantly intimidated by the Burmese army for the overwhelming supports they’d shown to Aung San Suu Kyi. The Burmese army arrested two local NLD leaders in Matupi township earlier this year and sentenced them to 11 years in prison while a dozen persons evaded arrest by hiding in the jungles and then later fleeing to India. On November 18, 2003, Mr. Than Ngai, the Secretary of NLD Thantlang Township passed away in India where he had been hiding since escaping arrest by the Burmese military.

 

Since the sudden influx of hundreds of refugees to India earlier last year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Office in New Delhi has expressed doubts as to the reasons of such increase, suggesting that those who approached the Office are motivated by economic reasons. UNHCR subsequently rejected almost all asylum-seekers’ applications for refugee status. The UNHCR has also started phasing out Subsistence Allowance to refugees, leaving the refugees with no concrete alternatives to survive in New Delhi, a city in which they do not speak the local language and where they do not have legal work permit from the Government of India.

UNHCR recognized only one thousand refugees from Burma. The number represents only a very small fraction of the total Burmese refugee populations in India. Over 50,000 Chin refugees are estimated to be currently taking shelter in Mizoram. Without legal protection, they risk frequent deportation to Burma. In July of this year, about 6,000 Chin refugees were forcibly repatriated to Burma. Again in August 2000, hundreds of Chin individuals and families were forcibly pushed back to Burma. Despite the compelling circumstances, UNHCR has said it has not considered advocating for establishing its presence in the Mizoram border.

Asylum seekers from Burma have persistently claimed the doubts that UNHCR staff have on them are preconceived and there is an inherent prejudice in the determination of their status. While the human rights situations in Chin State and in Burma as a whole suggest there are valid fear of persecution, UNHCR should reevaluate individual claims presented by asylum seekers without any prejudgment to ensure that those who have genuine fears for their lives are given legal protection and necessary assistance.

 

For more information contact:

Chin Human Rights Organization at

Ph: 510-5951872 or Ph/Fax: 613-234 2485

< This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it > [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ‘; document.write( ” ); document.write( addy_text88716 ); document.write( ‘<\/a>’ ); //–>\n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

www.chro.org

 

 

India: Investigate Police Attack on Burmese Demonstrators

 

Human Rights Watch

 

(New York, December 2, 2003) — India should undertake a thorough and independent investigation of possible police abuses against Burmese refugees and asylum seekers during demonstrations on November 12-13 in New Delhi, Human Rights Watch said today. The government should also ensure that none of the refugees, including those who participated in the demonstrations, are forcibly returned to Burma, where they would likely face persecution.

 

On November 12, riot police used water cannons, electric batons, and canes to forcibly disperse a group of 500 Burmese nationals, many already recognized as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), who were staging a protest outside the UNHCR office. Many had been protesting since October 20 the decision by UNHCR to cut its allowance for refugees in India from 1,400 rupees (U.S. $30) a month by as much as 60 percent in order to cut costs and promote “self reliance.”

 

At least 25 of the demonstrators were injured. Many of the injuries were severe, and included head and chest injuries, bruised backs and legs, and broken bones.

 

“There was no need for the police to use violence to break up a demonstration,” said Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch. “It is disturbing that the world’s largest democracy would repress people who have already been victimized in their own country.”

 

On November 12, police officers detained several hundred protesters at four different police stations. Most were released that night. Twenty-four protesters were sent to Tihal Central Jail in New Delhi and charged with rioting and obstructing the police.

 

The New Delhi police commissioner declared a 30-day curfew effective November 12 in order to prohibit any gathering within 200 meters of the UNHCR office. On November 13, after more than 100 protesters gathered again in front of UNHCR, police officers arrested another 20 Burmese and sent them to Tihal Jail. In the days following the arrests, large numbers of protesters have continued to gather near the UNHCR office.

 

The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms provides that law enforcement officials shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force, and they may do so only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.

 

Human Rights Watch urged the Indian government to investigate and prosecute or discipline as appropriate any police officer found to have used or authorized excessive force. The government must also ensure that those protestors charged with criminal offenses have access to legal counsel; those not charged should be released.

 

“India can demonstrate to these refugees that in a democracy the rule of law prevails even for the weakest,” said Adams.

 

Of the 42 demonstrators arrested and charged so far, two have been released on bail. According to UNHCR, 16 of the 44 are recognized by UNHCR as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention, and another 14 have cases that are pending.

 

UNHCR has recognized approximately 1,000 Burmese in New Delhi as refugees. The majority are ethnic Chin Christians from northwestern Burma, who fled to Mizoram state in India after the unrest in Burma in the mid-1990s. In recent years new refugee flows have been caused by arbitrary detention, torture, forced labor and religious persecution by the Burmese government, as well as ongoing warfare between government forces and the Chin National Army.

 

 

Indian Government Should Investigate Police Attack On Burmese Refugees

FORUM-ASIA (Asia Forum For Human Rights And Development)

For Immediate Release

Bangkok, 1 December 2003

 

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia) calls on the Indian Government to immediately launch an independent investigation into reports about police brutality in cracking down on Burmese refugees and asylum seekers during demonstrations on 12-13 November in New Delhi.

 

FORUM-ASIA has learnt that over 800 refugees and asylum seekers from Burma, peacefully demonstrating in front of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office in New Delhi for nearly four weeks to demand refugee status and humanitarian assistance, were brutally beaten, arrested and detained by Indian police.

 

Eyewitnesses reported that on 12 November at around 3 pm, about 200 riot police hosed the demonstrators with a water cannon and began brutally beating them with clubs. Dozens of protesters including women were seriously injured and several children fell unconscious due to the shock of the unexpected and sudden violence. At least 25 persons were taken to hospital for injuries, including serious injuries to the head and chest, severe eye burns from water cannon and broken bones. Later in the evening, the police arrested all demonstrators and incarcerated them at four different police stations.

 

On 13 November, after more than 100 protesters defied a 30-day curfew declared by the New Delhi Police Commissioner prohibiting any gathering within 200 meters of the UNHCR office, police arrested another 20 Burmese and sent them to Tihal Jail in the western suburbs of New Delhi.

Of the 42 demonstrators arrested and charged, two have been released on bail. According to the UNHCR, 16 of the 44 are recognized as refugees, and another 14 have cases that are pending. FORUM-ASIA is deeply concerned that those demonstrators detained at Tihar Jail are among the most seriously injured in the police violence. The detainees have been criminally charged with rioting, despite eyewitnesses report claiming that the police beat them unprovoked.

 

FORUM-ASIA stresses that the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms provides that law enforcement officials shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force, and they may do so only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.

 

FORUM-ASIA urges the Indian government to investigate and prosecute or discipline as appropriate any police officer found to have used or authorized excessive force. The Indian Government must also ensure that those protestors charged with criminal offenses have access to legal counsel; those not charged should be released.

 

FORUM-ASIA is also deeply concerned that the Indian Government might eventually deport them to Burma where they will be in danger of persecution from the Burmese authorities. FORUM-ASIA calls on the UNHCR to take immediate steps to prevent detained refugees from being repatriated to Burma.

[ENDS]

For further information or comments, contact:

Somchai Homlaor, Forum-Asia Secretary General, on +66-1-899 5476

 

 

India: The Situation of Burmese Refugees in New Delhi

 

Kavita Shukla

Refugee International

 

11/24/2003

 

Maung Maung is a refugee in India from the Chin State of Burma, where he had been active in student government at his university and had organized demonstrations against the military coup of 1988. After the Burmese junta came to power, it ordered the arrest of all student leaders. Fearing for his life, Maung Maung had no choice but to leave Burma in September 1988. He spent four years in the Indian state of Mizoram before coming to New Delhi in 1992. Due to recent changes in United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) support, he and his family are finding life even more difficult.

 

India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and has no domestic legislation concerning refugees. Refugees in India are discriminated against based on their countries of origin. Tibetan and Sri Lankan refugees are granted special privileges, such as travel permits, refugee identity documents, educational scholarships, and fall under the aegis of the Government of India. Other refugees are not so fortunate, and in the absence of national refugee legislation are considered ordinary aliens.

 

The Government of India has allowed the UNHCR to exercise its mandate over nationals of a few countries, such as Burma and Afghanistan. While UNHCR in India works under constraints imposed by both the Government of India and its own headquarters, New Delhi is nonetheless host to the largest UNHCR-recognized urban refugee population in the world — about 15,000 people. The majority of these individuals are Afghans, but there are also about 1,000 Burmese who have been given refugee status by UNHCR. Those who have been recognized as refugees by UNHCR get residence permits but have no formal right to work or establish business in India. Nor do Indian authorities take any measures that would make it possible for the refugees to integrate with the Indian population.

 

For more than a decade, UNHCR provided for those it had given refugee status in India by giving them a monthly subsistence allowance to cover the cost of housing, food and daily needs of the refugees. The subsistence allowance consisted of 1,400 Rupees (about $30) per month for the head of each refugee family and 600 Rupees (about $13) for each dependent. In addition, UNHCR also provided an educational allowance, between 2,500 to 3,100 Rupees (about $55-$68) per month per child for all school expenses, a medical allowance and a travel allowance.

 

In recent times, cuts in UNHCR India’s budget have led to changes that have had a significant impact on the lives of Burmese refugees recognized by UNHCR.

Earlier this year, UNHCR began a program to phase out the subsistence allowance with the rationale that the refugees have the opportunity to find employment in the informal sector and have the potential for self-reliance. Burmese refugees have long pointed out that 1,400 Rupees has been an inadequate subsistence allowance in a city such as New Delhi where the rent for a one-room lodging alone exceeds 1,500 Rupees (about $33) and that the educational allowances have not been sufficient to cover the costs of fees, books, uniforms and transportation. As a result, children often drop out of school. The refugees believe that with the phase-out of the subsistence allowance, they are left with extremely limited options for survival in New Delhi.

 

UNHCR staff in New Delhi told Refugees International that India is the only country where refugees are given a subsistence allowance. They maintain that this practice has created dependence. The subsistence allowance has prevented the refugees from making sufficient efforts to integrate into the Indian society, learn local languages, or pick up skills. While making changes to the subsistence allowance program, UNHCR is also providing the refugees with computer, vocational and English and Hindi language training programs in order for them to acquire skills that would enable them to work in the informal sector.

 

According to many Burmese refugees, however, the UNHCR self-reliance schemes are laudable, but not sustainable. The Burmese refugees find the language and vocational trainings to be so basic that they do not provide the basis for self-reliance. They claim that even with basic training, they cannot work in India due to very high competition for jobs and a lack of work permits. Many Burmese refugees also complain of discrimination, harassment and difficulties in getting access to local markets or income-generating activities. According to several of the refugees, even when they have found jobs, they are asked to work 14-hour days and are paid less than their Indian co-workers. As UNHCR provides no job placements following the training, the refugees feel that the training is of little benefit.

 

Maung Maung is one of the Burmese refugees who are coming under increasing pressure to make ends meet as his subsistence allowance is being cut. Neither he nor his wife has been able to find a job, and their five-member family has been completely dependent on the UNHCR subsistence allowance since 1994. The family shares its one-room lodging with two asylum seekers who came from Burma to New Delhi and who have not received UNHCR recognition as refugees. Food for the seven people consists mainly of soup. Sometimes they collect discarded vegetables from the market to supplement their meals. Maung Maung’s son has had to drop out of school due to the cut in the subsistence allowance and Maung Maung fears that his family may soon have to vacate the room where they live because he will not be able to pay the 1,800 Rupee (about $39) monthly rent.

 

The Burmese in New Delhi have accused UNHCR of turning down the applications of the majority of those seeking refugee status since the middle of last year. They also say that UNHCR takes too long — from six months to more than a year — to process the applications of the asylum seekers and often does not review the application properly, rejecting those who fled Burma to escape persecution.

 

UNHCR counters these charges by maintaining that prior to May 2002, it received about 20 requests per month from Burmese asylum seekers, out of which 60% were recognized and 40% were rejected. But from May to July 2002, it received 600 applications from the Burmese. Due to this large increase in the volume of applications, UNHCR has been unable to process the applications at its former speed, and the entire review process has slowed down. UNHCR justifies its high rates of rejection in recent months by saying that it found many of the refugee claims to be lacking credibility and during interviews of the refugee status seekers, it became apparent that many claims were fabricated. UNHCR believes that increasing numbers of Burmese who have false claims are being drawn to New Delhi due to rumors that those granted refugee status by UNHCR in India can then resettle in a third country like the United States or Canada.

 

UNHCR acknowledges that living conditions for refugee status seekers, during the waiting period while the applications are being processed, are difficult because there is no financial support provided by the organization until a person receives refugee recognition. This has been the case for Pa Thang, who applied for refugee status in October 2003. Pa Thang is from the Chin state of Burma and was interviewed by RI during a recent visit to Mizoram in May. While in Burma, Pa Thang was accused by Burmese soldiers of having links with the Chin National Front, an ethnic resistance movement. He was tied up, blindfolded, and beaten severely with the butt of a soldier’s gun while held for two days.

 

Pa Thang managed to escape to India, but still has persistent back pain, making it difficult for him to find work. He came to New Delhi with his wife in Oct. 2003 and applied for refugee status with UNHCR. His interview with UNHCR has been scheduled for March 2004. With no source of income and no place to stay, Pa Thang will be dependent for the next five months upon the generosity of other refugees in New Delhi, who themselves are facing cuts in their subsistence allowances. With the arrival of more Burmese to New Delhi from Mizoram as a result of the push backs (see RI’s bulletin Forced Back: Burmese Chin Refugees in India in Danger), there is additional burden on recognized refugees to share whatever subsistence allowances they are getting with the newcomers.

 

Burmese refugees and refugee status seekers in New Delhi have held several protests outside UNHCR headquarters to demand continuation of the subsistence allowance, an increase in the allowance from the current maximum amount 1,400 Rupees, increases in the educational and medical allowances, and recognition of more asylum seekers. They have also said that if their demands cannot be met, they should be resettled in a third country, where they will have the opportunity to work. Meanwhile UNHCR considers resettlement a very limited option, and provides statistics that out of 20 million refugees worldwide, only 30,000 are resettled. According to UNHCR, resettlement is not the most appropriate durable solution for the Burmese in New Delhi. Resettlement is usually only considered when there is an issue of family reunification or a strong protection concern.

 

The most recent rounds of protests by the Burmese against the self-reliance scheme began on Oct. 20, 2003 when more than 400 refugees and refugee status seekers demonstrated outside the UNHCR office in New Delhi. The demonstrations continued until November 12, when Delhi police took action against the protesters and dispersed them by hitting them with wooden truncheons. About 400 of the demonstrators, some of whom were severely injured during the police action, were arrested. Later, the majority of them were released, but 45 refugees and refugee status seekers (including six women) continue to languish in a jail in New Delhi under charges of rioting and obstructing public servants in discharge of their functions, because they don’t have the money needed to pay bail.

 

Refugees International is sympathetic with UNHCR’s position that providing subsistence allowances indefinitely creates dependence. We believe, however, that conditions for self-reliance need to be created before the allowance is cut abruptly. Two critical steps in this direction would be to make the vocational education programs more substantive and to advocate with the Indian government officials to convince them to allow Burmese refugees to work legally in India. UNHCR also needs to speed up the processing time for Burmese asylum seekers

 

[Kavita Shukla is Advocacy Associate with Refugees International]

 

The Situation of Burmese Refugees in India

By Victor Biak Lian

Chin Human Rights Organization

Regional Conference on Protection for Refugees from Burma

Chiangmai University, Chiangmai, Thailand

Nov. 6-7, 2003

 

I am very pleased to have this opportunity of talking about the situation of refugees from Burma in India. I am equally pleased for this rare opportunity of highlighting the condition of the least acknowledged yet one of the most in need of attentions by the international community. When talking about Burma’s displaced persons one is easily drawn to the conditions of those who have been displaced by decades of civil war in the eastern border of the country. But very little attention has been paid to the condition of thousands of people who have been experiencing an equally difficult situation with that of people in Burma’s western frontiers. Burma shares its western borders with India and Bangladesh and much of that frontier is adjacent to India’s northeastern region.

 

It is estimated that well over 50,000 refugees from Burma are currently living in India. The continuing lack of adequate protection mechanism for Burmese refugees in India makes it impossible to more than estimate the number of Burmese refugees. This is because of the fact that except for those who are able to approach UNHCR in New Delhi for protection, the majority of Burmese refugees in India are afraid to identify themselves as refugees, although careful scrutiny of their circumstances clearly suggest that they could fall within the meaning of refugee definition.

 

Most of the refugees from Burma are ethic Chins and they are mainly concentrated in India’s northeastern province of Mizoram. After a sudden influx of refugees following the brutal suppression of the pro-democracy movement in 1998, thousands of Chins have fled their homes to escape repression and systematic violations of human rights in Burma. Currently, Mizoram alone houses at least 50,000 refugees from Burma, while a few thousand refugees are found in Manipur and other areas along the borders with Burma. Neither the Government of India nor the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in New Delhi has acknowledged the presence of Burmese refugees in the border areas. As of March 2003, only 1003 individuals have been recognized by UNHCR in New Delhi.[1]

 

The pattern of refugee exodus from Burma can be divided into two categories: Those fleeing to India in the immediate aftermath of 1988 and those who have crossed into India steadily since the early 1990ies to the present. The first category includes university students and youth who participated in the 1988 uprising and who subsequently fled to India to escape a brutal military crackdown. The second category includes ordinary civilians and villagers who fled various kinds of human rights violations in the form of arbitrary arrest, torture, forced labor and religious persecutions.[2] Chins are predominantly Christians and Burmese soldiers have destroyed Churches, arrested and tortured pastors and evangelists, and have routinely exacted forced labor from Christians to build Buddhist pagodas. Ongoing insurgency and counter-insurgency programs are also major factors for refugee flight from Chin State.

 

India’s attitudes towards Burmese refugees

 

India is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its related Protocol. While the Government of India initially quickly reacted to refugee outflow triggered by the 1988 uprising by setting up refugee camps for refugees identified in the first category, since 1992, it had withdrawn the camps and cancelled the provision of all humanitarian assistance to Burmese refugees. This dramatic policy reversion had considerably affected the lives of thousands and had increased the vulnerability of refugees to arrest and deportation to Burma.

 

On many occasions, India has forcibly returned Burmese refugees to Burma. In 2006, India extradited eleven Burmese army defectors some of whom were already recognized as ‘person of concern’ by UNHCR.[3] Due to the lack of legal protection for Burmese refugees in the border, they are easily identified as economic migrants.

 

Close cultural and linguistic similarity with the Mizos also allow the Chins to easily integrate into the local society, and thereby being able to acquire employment in low-paid job such as weaving industry and road construction etc. Chin refugees often try to keep a low profile of their presence by getting absorbed into local Mizo communities to avoid being identified as “foreigners” or illegal immigrants. While they attempt to keep down visibility among the local populations, they often become particular target of scapegoats for local political parties in times of provincial legislative elections. In 2000, Mizoram authorities forcibly repatriated hundreds of Chin refugees to Burma. Out of hundreds of returnees, at least 87 people were reported to have been arrested and sent to forced labor camps in Burma.[4]

 

Again in March 2002, the Young Mizo Association, a broad-based social organization ordered the eviction of Chin refugees in Lunglei District, leaving at least 5000 Chin refugee families homeless. Since July 19, 2003, in response to a rape incident in which a Burmese national was alleged to be responsible, the Young Mizo Association started to evict thousands of Chin refugees from their houses in Mizoram. The eviction, which is still ongoing, has resulted in the forced return of over 6000 Chin refugees to Burma.[5] This latest drive of expulsion of Chin refugees is particularly alarming given that both the local communities under direction from the Young Mizo Association and Mizoram authorities have cooperated in evicting and sending back Chin refugees to Burma.

 

India has still not shown interest in the protection of Burmese refugees. Instead its primary interest since mid 1990s has been to build friendly relations with the military regime of Burma. The obvious consequence of increasing friendly relations between the two countries is that it creates a deep sense of insecurity and vulnerability among the Burmese refugees in India.

 

The role of UNHCR

 

UNHCR in New Delhi currently has about one thousand recognized Burmese refugees. This means that only a small fraction of Burmese refugee in India enjoy legal protection in India. Even those who have been recognized as refugees find themselves in precarious situations in New Delhi. UNHCR has provided a monthly financial assistance of Rs.1400 (About 30$) to recognized refugees. However, since March of 2003, UNHCR has cut financial assistance to many refugees saying that the provision of assistance to Burmese refugees has deterred them from seeking means of self-reliance, and that the termination of assistance to old refugees will accommodate new arrivals. Burmese refugees are already living in precarious conditions and it is predictable that they will encounter an even more serious problem once the full termination of their assistance took effect. The Indian authorities have issued them with residence permits, but denial of work permits makes any attempt at self-reliance almost impossible and illegal.

 

Refugees who have been recognized by UNHCR in New Delhi are treated as urban refugees. And the policy of UNHCR on urban refugees in India generally presumes that refugees can easily integrate themselves into local communities. Local integration is a term that implies that refugees are able to find safety, both physical protection and social integration into the local communities. This has not worked for urban refugees, especially refugees from Burma who for reasons of cultural, religious and linguistic differences have made them unable to achieve local integration. UNHCR in New Delhi hasn’t accepted ‘third resettlement’ as part of its strategy to find durable solution to refugee problem. Neither has it acknowledged its failure with regards to the policies of trying to achieve durable solution through local integration for Burmese refugees. In fact, most Burmese refugees are unskilled and cannot speak the local language, and therefore cannot simple find employment in India where there are already millions of unemployed people.

 

UNHCR Headquarters in Geneva has said it has not considered advocating for establishment of its presence in the border.[6] This is disturbing given that there are well over 50,000 Chin refugees in Mizoram who are in desperate need of protection.

There are about 400 Chin and Kachin refugees who are protesting in front of UNHCR office in Delhi for 14 consecutive days, demanding for two things. One is to recognize those whose application for refugee status had been turned down. Second is to resettle into third countries. However, UNHCR officials had not response until today instead they call local police to arrest them. When police intervene, kicking, punching, arrest followed and take them away from the office.

 

In conclusion, there is an urgent need of greater international attention to the conditions of Burmese refugees in India. Protection mechanism needs to be in place for refugees from Burma who take shelter in Mizoram. This will only be possible if UNHCR assumes greater role in the protection of Burmese refugees by advocating for establishment of its presence in the border. India should positively respond by allowing UNHCR access to the border areas and by issuing work permits to Burmese refugees.

 

The need for humanitarian and relief assistance to refugees in the border areas is no less important. Governments and international donor organizations should seriously look into the possibility of channeling assistance to the most vulnerable and most needy persons in Mizoram. Since evictions started in Mizoram in 2003, nearly two hundred refugees from Burma had gathered in at least two rural villages whose residents have been very sympathetic to the plights Burmese refugees as to provide them with food and shelters. These villages could serve as a jumpstart for providing humanitarian assistance to refugees in the border areas.

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] UNHCR’s Chief of Mission Lennart Kotsalainen’s letter to the Nordic Burma Support Groups, 3 March 2003, New Delhi

[2] More information on human rights situations in Chin State is available at www.chro.org

[3] In 1996, six Burmese soldiers from an army battalion based in Chin State defected to the Chin National Army. They later approached the UNHCR in New Delhi and were subsequently recognized as refugees. A high ranking Indian intelligence officer was identified as being responsible for their extradition. Some of the defectors were reportedly executed in Burma.

[4] Amnesty International: PUBLIC AI Index: ASA 20/40/00 UA 234/00 Possible forcible return of asylum-seekers 8 August 2000

[5] Rhododendron Vol. VI No III. July-August. www.chro.org

[6] In a meeting with CHRO’s representative on July 18, 2003, Burma Desk Officer at UNHCR Headquarters in Geneva made it clear that the Office of UNNCR has no intention to advocate for establishing a presence in the India-Burma border.

 

 

 

 

 

Rhododendron News

Volume VI. No VI. September-October 2003

Chin Human Rights Organization

 

CONTENTS:

Editorial: Waiting for Change for 15 years

Human Rights:

• Land Confiscated to Build Military Base

• Villagers Forced to Repair Army Camp

• Crackdown on NLD Forced Suu Kyi’s Supporters into Exile

 

Refugees:

• Burmese Refugees Protesters Arrested in India

 

Press Release & Statements:

• CHRO: The Burmese Generals are lying to The World

• Statement by Pu Lian Uk (MP Elect-Haka Constitency) Regarding USDA Rally in Haka

• CHRO’s Statement to the United States Congressional Hearing on Burma

 

Editorial:WAITING FOR CHANGE FOR 15 YEARS

 

 

September 18, 2003 marks 15th anniversary of the military coup in Burma. Fifteen years ago on this day, the military junta that called itself the State Law and Order Restoration Council SLORC came to power by killing thousands of innocent civilians who demanded the restoration of democracy and human rights in Burma. When the SLORC took state power, they promised to the whole world that for the first in almost thirty years, they’d allow political parties to exist who could freely participate in general elections. They promised the transfer of power to the winning party. The junta, having gained notoriety the world over for butchering thousands of peaceful demonstrators on its way to power, repeatedly assured the world that they would go back to the barrack after transferring state power to the winning political party in the general election. As promised, political parties were formed, elections were held but the junta shamelessly broke its promise by not recognizing the result of the elections.

 

It’s been 15 years that the people of Burma, including the Chin people have been patiently waiting for change, and 13 years have already elapsed since the Chin people along with the whole country expressed their desire for a peaceful democratic change by voting in a fair democratic election in 1990. After 15 years, the very same junta that vowed to honor the election result has not retreated to the barrack and is still controlling the rein of power against the wills of the people.

 

It seems that transferring power to the winning political party is still not in the agenda of the ruling military junta, renamed since 1997 as the State Peace and Development Council. Currently there are about 35 elected MPs in jail along with 1,300 political prisoners in Burma! Many more elected Parliamentarians including 3 Chin MPs have fled the country in fear of persecutions. At least two of the 13 Chin MP elects have served long term jail sentence. The junta has also banned all of the major political parties representing the people of Chin State.

 

A humanitarian side of military’s misrule, there are about 200,000 refugees (most of them are Karen, Karenni, Mon and Shan) in Thailand and there are well over 50,000 Chin refugees in India. It is estimated that about one million people are internally displaced in Burma, and most of them, again, are non-Burman ethnic nationalities. Burma’s most valuable resource, young generations have been denied the right to education as the country’s higher education institutions have been shut down for most of the past one and a-half decade.

 

Since 1994, the United Nations has passed resolutions to resolutions condemning the Burmese military junta’s abysmal human rights record. The International Labor Organization had imposed sanction on Burma for its world’s record-breaking practice of forced labor. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights was forced to cut short his investigative visit to Burma in March 2003 after discovering a listening device in a room where he was interviewing political prisoners. The Malaysian diplomat Razali, the United Nations Special Envoy’s marathon trips to Burma have so far produced no tangible results and his 11th round of his efforts to facilitate national reconciliation and political liberalization promises no solution in sight. As a matter of basic principle, the United Nations, since 1994, has called for a tripartite dialogue; one that include the military junta, the National League for Democracy, the winning party of the 1990 elections headed by Aung San Suu Kyi and representatives of Burma’s ethnic people. Burma’s generals have not heeded the opinions of the international community and have continued their efforts to cling to power however they can. Secretary of State Collin Powel of the United States called them “thugs” in his op-ed in the New York Times, a term that most suits Burma’s ruling generals.

 

The policy of free enterprise, envisions the junta, will bring Burma to prosperity and development. But its version of an open market system has not been as fruitful as the generals have expected. The failure of Visit Myanmar Year, a desperate attempt on the part of the general to woo tourists and foreign investment, and the collapse of banking sector in 2002 clearly suggest that the junta is incapable of making any kind of positive reform. An interesting fact is that almost 60 giant foreign companies have withdrawn from Burma in the last decade. They say there is no way businesses can function in Burma without supporting the military junta which has been accused of widespread human rights abuses. Meanwhile, under tight control of the regime, textile companies are booming in Burma. But the passage of Burmese Freedom and Democracy Acts of 2003, an economic embargo recently imposed by one of Burma’s largest garment importing country, United States has already thrown most of such companies out of business. The question now arises “when will the Generals in Burma learn that justice, peace, and development are inter-related?”

 

After fifteen years, the junta Intelligence Chief, recently named Prime Minister of the ruling SPDC made another vow. Unlike when the junta took over power 15 years ago, the recent promise made no mention of whether the army would go back to barrack. Interestingly, General Khin Ngunt proposed the so-called roadmap to democracy outlining his vision to bring Burma to a new developed modern state. The roadmap does not mention the roles of Aung San Suu Kyi or the NLD or the ethnic representatives, nor does it incorporate basic principles that have been espoused by the United Nations. Nevertheless, the junta, armed with unrestrained power to intimidate its people, has been forcing people across Burma, including Chin people, to show their support for the roadmap.

 

Perhaps most disappointing for the 52 million people of Burma is that the junta which has been terrorizing them for almost two decades was praised by its regional ally, ASEAN in its recent meeting in the Indonesian island of Bali. In fact, the ASEAN’s constructive engagement itself is a failure from the very beginning. It is time for ASEAN and our big neighbors China and India to synchronize with the European Union, United States and Canada in pressuring the Burmese military thugs to move toward a democratic change in in order to restore peace, stability and economic prosperity in the region.

 

HUMAN RIGHTS

 

LANDS CONFISCATED TO BUILD MILITARY BASE

20 August 2003: The expansion of two new Burmese army battalions in Chin State is taking a heavy toll on the local populations. Commander of infantry battalion based in the southern Chin State town of Mindat, has ordered confiscation of nearly 1000 acres of land from residents of Matupi town. The confiscated lands will be used to build bases for Light Infantry Battalions 104 and 105, which have recently been deployed in the area. The order to confiscate lands took effect on June 20, 2003.

 

To carry out the task of building the new army bases, members of the Village Peace and Development Council have been assigned different responsibilities, according to a local man whose land was also confiscated by the authorities.

 

The land confiscation has affected the livelihood of about 80 households whose primary means of survival depend on cultivating the confiscated lands. Military authorities are not giving any compensation to the affected households. The confiscated lands represent the very backbone of the economy of this relatively self-sufficient town of Matupi. The lands had been used for horticulture, fish and cattle farming.

 

The new army bases will now encompass 550 acres of horticultural land and about 200 acres of lands of fish and cattle farms and grazing areas.

 

VILLAGERS FORCED TO REPAIR ARMY CAMP

10 August 2003: Chin villagers in the vicinity of Lailenpi, Matupi Township were forced to repair an army camp from August 2 to 10, headman of a nearby village told CHRO. Captain Myo Zaw Htun, commander of company 4 of Light Infantry Battalion 274 stationed at Lailenpi village, ordered six villages in his jurisdiction to contribute forced labor to repair the army camp.

 

The order stipulated that six villagers from each village tracts ‘volunteer’ for the construction of the army camp. The village tracts include Lailenpi, Tongbu, Satu, Sakhai, Tisi and Zisi. A total of 36 villagers were compelled to contribute unpaid labor for nine consecutive days. They order also warned that if the task was not completed within nine days, 30 additional villagers from each village tract will be asked to participate in the forced labor.

 

Forced laborers were required to supply themselves with rations and equipments and were not paid a penny for their labor. In addition, each village tract was made to supply 300 twigs for fencing, 3000 round bamboos and 50 pointed bamboo sticks for repairing the army camp at Lentlang.

 

CRACKDOWN ON NLD FORCED SUU KYI’S SUPPORTERS INTO EXILE

[ Aung San Suu Kyi visited Chin State in April of 2003 and the Chin people everywhere warmly welcomed her despite the fact that authorities had threatened them with severe consequences if they participated in welcoming Aung San Suu Kyi. Below is an interview of 10 members from Matupi town who participated in preparing the arrival of Aung San Suu Kyi to their town. Due to their roles in preparing for Suu Kyi’s visit in Matupi, they were sought for arrest by the Burmese army. They are now seeking asylum at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office in New Delhi, India.]

 

1. Name: B.L Thang

Age : 37 years old

Birth place : Matupi

Religion : Christian

Sex : Male

Ethnic group : Chin

Marital status : Married

Occupation : Assistant Secretary ( National League For Democracy )

 

2 . Name: Ling Ma

Age : 47 years

Birth place : Matupi

Religion : Christian

Sex : Male

Ethnic group : Chin

Marital status : Married

Occupation : Member ( NLD )

 

3. Name: Mai Hei

Age : 39

Birth Place: Matupi

Religion: Christian

Sex: Male

Ethnic group: Chin

Marital status: Married

Occupation: NLD member

 

4. Name: David Luai

Age: 33 years

Birth Place: Matupi

Religion: Christian

Sex: Male

Ethnic group: Chin

Marital status: Married

Occupation: Member ( NLD )

 

5. Name: Pu Lawng Pan

Age: 68 years

Birth Place: Matupi

Religion: Christian

Sex: Male

Ethnic group: Chin

Occupation: NLD Member

 

6. Name: Khing Sai

Age: 35

Birth Place: Matupi

Religion: Christian

Sex: Male

Ethnic group: Chin

Marital status: Married

Occupation: Incharge of Culture Department ( NLD )

 

7. Name : Ba Hu ( Myo Chit )

Age: 28 years

Place of Birth: Matupi

Religion: Christian

Sex: Male

Marital status: Single

Occupation: Student ( University of Mandalay )

 

 

8. Name: Mang Luan

Age: 25 years

Place of Birth: Matupi

Religion: Christian

Sex: Male

Marital status: Single

Occupation: Student

 

9. Name: Nga La

Age: 30 years

Place of Birth: Matupi

Religion: Christian

Sex: Male

Marital status: Single

Occupation: Student

 

10. Name: U Thang Ceu

Age: 60 years

Place of Birth: Matupi

Religion: Christian

Sex: Male

Marital status: Married

Occupation: EC Member ( NLD )

 

CHRO 1. Why did you leave Burma?

The opposition leader, Daw Aung San Su Kyi was scheduled to come to Matupi on 9th April, 2003 and the NLD party together with Matupi Student Union announced the forthcoming arrival of Daw Aung San Su Kyi to the public and told them to welcome her and listen to the speech made by her. The NLD party and Matupi Student Union (MSU) were the two parties that should made avail of everything needed by Aung San Suu Kyi and her group during their stay in Matupi.

She was to come on 9th of April but because of the disturbance of the military government, she could not come on that day and had to stay at Thilin for one day and on the next day, she arrived to Matupi at 1: 30 PM on 10th April,2003. There were 6 people along with her and they came by two cars.

At the instant, the government also organized a group that would destroy whatever plans we made for her arrival. The people that were included in a group by the government are

1. U Min Zaw ( Member of Block Peace and Development Council )

2. U Za Thi ( Secretary, Township Peace and Development Council)

3. U Cang Va (Immigration Officer )

4. U Tun Sein ( Township Law and Justice Officer )

5. Dr.Ro Uk ( Township Health Officer )

6. Name ( unknown ) ( Education officer )

 

That group always investigated what we did, where we lived and what we planned and reported back to Military Intelligence. The government also gave the warning notice that no one would welcome Daw Aung San Su Kyi.

 

Just before the arrival of Aung San Suu Kyi, the military Government sent Thura Aye Myint, the Sport Minister of SPDC to Matupi. He gathered the representatives from various groups, organizations and Churches except NLD party and Matupi Student Union and gave them Ks.50,000 each and the second-hand clothing. At the mean time, he told them that no one would welcome Daw Aung San Su Kyi and her party. When the NLD party and M.S.U came to know about this, they persuaded the public to welcome her no matter what. When the government knew about our effort, they collected the names of the members of NLD and MSU secretly.

 

Daw Aung San Su Kyi got Matupi on 10th April and on the very same day the deputy Minister of Religion Thura Aung Ko arrived too. There were only 28 people to welcome him as all the people went to welcome Daw Aung San Su Kyi. As per the plan, they told the public to welcome Thura Aung Ko and when they saw only very few people they were greatly annoyed and they made a plan to arrest the members of NLD and MSU who were involved in persuading the public to welcome Daw Aung San Su Kyi.

 

As soon as she arrived in Matupi, all the pastors made the mass prayer and they went to NLD office and made the ceremony of re-opening of NLD office. Then she gave the speech to the public. While she was giving the speech, the military junta cut all the power and telephone lines. At first, we announced that no one would take video and photos the occasion as it would later make harm to the people seen in the video by the junta. When we saw three people taking the video of the event, the steward duty snatched that video camera and kept the video camera at the NLD office. Later, the Military Intelligence claimed that the cameras were of them and accused us of stealing their cameras. Regarding about this there is big problem between us and they did not give chance to explain the fact. After the speech Daw Aung San Su Kyi continued her trip to Mindat at 4:30 Pm on the same day.

 

After the skirmish between the pro-junta and the followers of Daw Aung San Su Kyi at Depeyin on May 30, the sixth people group organized by the junta called eight EC members of NLD on June 2 and threatened us to close down the NLD office in Matupi. After that threat, we closed the NLD office.

 

Then on 4th June 2003 at 12:00 pm the military government issued the order to arrest those who were involved in arranging the welcoming of Daw Aung San Su Kyi and her party. On that night the secretary of NLD, Pu Aung Thang, youth security president of NLD, U Thla Mu and the president of MSU, Salai Pa Thang were arrested. On the next morning, they were sent to Mandalay. On June 17th 2003, they were given the 10 years sentence each. Nobody knows about them since then.

CHRO 2 How did you know your arrest and how did you manage to flee from them?

 

After we knew that the above three people were arrested, all the people who were involved in the welcoming activities of Daw Aung San Su Kyi hided in the forest. On the next night, the soldiers and police came to our respective houses to arrest us. The police and soldiers who came were Hung Thang (Police Officer), Van Kung ( Police ) , U Ki Tung ( Police Officer ) and the rest were other five Burmese soldiers. They took all the national identification cards and ration cards and our wives were told to come and sign at the police office on every one month since we were not there when they came to arrest us. And they also told our wives that they could arrest and send them to jail instead of us whenever they like. They took advantage of our absence and asked money frequently and if they didn’t have to give, they got them to borrow from others.

CHRO 3. How did you came to India?

 

India is the nearest neighboring country from Burma and the largest democracy country in the world and we took that it would be the safest place for us. We set froth from Matupi to Lehring, then Sakhing, then Bava, then Darling and then Sapi . Sapi is the Mizoram state of India. Then we again went to Tuipang and then to Lawngtlai. Then from Lawngtlai to Aizawl. From Aizawl to Gawahati and the last destination is New Delhi. All of us who fled to New Delhi are ten altogether.

CHRO 4. How do you survive in New Delhi?

 

NLD (LA) (Exile) gives us Rs.500 each and we get Rs.5000 from them. We give Rs.2000 for renting a room and Rs.800 for water and electricity bill and the remaining Rs 2200 for food. It is not enough for us to survive and we collected the unwanted vegetables thrown in the market place at nights. Now we are applying refugee status from UNHCR in New Delhi.

 

REFUGEES

 

BURMESE REFUGEES PROTESTERS ARRESTED IN INDIA

 

Chinland Guardian

24 October, 03

By Salai Za Ceu Lian

Over 400 political refugees from Burma who have been gathering in front of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office in Delhi, India to protest denial of their refugee claims today enter their fifth day, despite arrest and continued harassment from local Indian authorities.

The protesters include members of recognized refugees who say their petty monthly Subsistence Allowance has been arbitrarily reduced or terminated by UNHCR, and a high number of asylum seekers who are asking protection from the United Nations refugee agency. Many refugees are also asking that they be resettled to a third country in light of the failure of UNHCR to provide them adequate protection and humanitarian assistance in India.

 

Reports say that last night local Indian police arrested and incarcerated at least 150 protesters. But Chinland Guardian has learnt that all detainees have now been released and many detainees claim they were physically mistreated and assaulted during detention. The protesters say officials of UNHCR have called in the police to dissuade them from continuing their protest against the Office, an allegation that has been confirmed to be true in the past.

 

The protest, the refugees say, is a result of arbitrary policies of UNHCR office in New Delhi, which have cornered Burmese refugees to intolerable inhumane conditions. While the agency has partially or entirely terminated the monthly assistance that has been provided to Burmese refugees, it has also rejected hundreds of new refugee applicants on the ground that UNHCR is facing financial constraints and that the claims asserted by Burmese asylum seekers are not credible. This, the refugees strongly disagree. They point out that because of the preconceived suspicion UNHCR personnel have on the motive of the asylum seekers, many refugees were not even asked questions that are relevant to their clams during their interviews. One refugee whose application for refugee status was rejected say that in his interview, he was asked whether was has ever ridden a horse or an elephant, a question he feels is neither relevant to his claim for refugees nor to UNHCR criteria which govern refugee recognition. Many refugees also claim that the interviewing officers often use methods to intimidate them during the interview, hampering the refugee’s ability to say what they want.

 

For those who have been recognized as refugees, a monthly Subsistence Allowance or SA, Rs.1400 is the only source of income they rely on to survive in New Delhi. Under the policy of “Self-reliance program for urban refugees” introduced since 2001, UNHCR has stopped providing assistance to many Burmese refugees. As part of this program, UNHCR has encouraged refugees to take vocational trainings so that they could start seeking means of self-sufficiency. It says providing humanitarian assistance to Burmese refugees has deterred them from making effort to seek self-reliance. UNHCR says that vocational trainings will help urban refugee to get employment in the informal sector. Local NGOs helping the Burmese refugees are strongly skeptical about the practicability of this position. They argue that since Burmese refugees are not legally permitted to work in India they will have no use of their skills, let alone the fact that there are millions of unemployed people in India.

 

Burmese refugees say they are fighting for their basic survival as human beings. UNHCR is insisting that Burmese refugees can work in informal sector of employment, which in essence is driving the refugees to illegality in the absence of legal work permit from the government of India. If any irony exists, it would be that the agency of the United Nations is enforcing illegality.

 

 

PRESS RELEASE & STATEMENTS

Chin Human Rights Organization

Press Release

October 20, 2003

THE BURMESE GENERALS ARE LYING TO THE WORLD

SPDC and USDA Forcibly Rally Thousands of Chin People against Their Wills in Support of Gen. Khin Ngunt Seven Points “Roadmap to Democracy”

 

 

The Chin Human Rights Organization deeply deplores and condemns the act of State Peace and Development Council SPDC and it’s henchman-organization Union Solidarity and Development Association USDA for forcing the Chin people against their wills to rally in supports of “Gen. Khin Ngunt’s seven point roadmap to democracy” in Haka, the capital of Chin state on October 16, 2003.

Chin Human Rights Organization have confirmed that all the students and government employee in Haka were forced to attend the rally threatening that any one who refuse to participate in the rally will be expelled from their school or their job. All major towns in Chin states such as Falam, Matupi, Mindat, Thantlang, Tiddim, and Tonzang are compelled to send representatives to participate in the rally. Furthermore, residents of Haka town and nearby villages were forced to send one person per household to attend the rally. Any household that fails to attend the rally is subject to fine 1,000 Kyats and necessary punishment by higher authority (Kyat is Burmese currency). Those who participate in the rally are divided into three columns, and each column had to wear the Burmese traditional dress in uniform.

 

On October 17, 2003 the SPDC’s newspaper New Light of Myanmar covered the story of forced-rally in Haka under the title of “Mass rally held in Chin State to support Prime Minister’s clarification on seven-point political roadmap”. The newspaper deliberately tried to deceive the readers by attacking the pro-democracy opposition party and praising the achievements of the military junta. The junta’s newspaper printed in Rangoon was unable to spell correctly all the names of the Chin individuals mentioned in their story.

 

Under the Burmese military junta, the Chin people are suffering rampant human rights violations such as religious persecutions, forced labor, arbitrarily arrest, torture and abuse against women which resulted thousands of Chin to flee from their home countries.

 

In fact, the Chin people a long with the whole Burma have expressed their wills to democratic change in 1988 by protesting against the Burmese Socialist Program Party BSPP even in the smallest village in Chin state. Again in 1990 general election in Burma, the Chin peoples showed their wills to democratic change by decisively voting for pro-democracy candidates in Chin states and Burma as a whole. In April 2003, while Aung San Suu Kyi was visiting Chin state, ten of thousands of Chin people greeted her in spite of the Junta’s threatening the local people that those who meet Aung San Suu Kyi will be severely punished.

 

The rally organized by USDA under the guidance of SPDC in Haka, Chin state on October 16, clearly depicted that Burmese military junta called State Peace and Development Council is trying to consolidate its hold on power by deceiving the whole world that the people of Burma supported their illegal leadership.

 

The United Nations and the international community at large have in the past consistently deplored the systematic violations of human rights in Burma, and have repeatedly called on the ruling military regime to show respect for human rights in the country. However, the fact that the military regime has continued to violate human rights in defiance of international opinion shows that the time has come for such rhetoric to be translated into concrete actions on the part of the international community.

 

Chin Human Rights Organization

www.chro.org

 

For More information please contact: Salai Bawi Lian Mang, Director, CHRO

at 510 595 1872

 

STATEMENT BY PU LIAN UK (MP ELECT-HAKA CONSTITENCY) REGARDING USDA RALLY IN HAKA

October 18, 2003

Washington DC

The rally, entitled as “- A mass rally, organized by the Union Solidarity and Development Association, held in support of the Prime Minister’s clarification on seven policies and programmes of the State (roadmap) in Vamthu Maung Sports Garden in Haka, Chin State” and published in the New Light of Burma from YANGON, 17 Oct ,2003 was a big lie of the Burmese Generals to deceive the world.

 

The rally was a repetition of the exact procedure how the illegitimate “Constitution of Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma 1974 , was adopted in false referendum by forcing the people at gun point to vote in support of the constitution in this way.

 

All those who read and gave speeches in the rally were all government servants now or before who would be not only expelled from their job but arrested, tortured and jailed if they refuse to read this pretended support in fear of the military arrest and torture.

 

The whole Chin population as a Christian State who practice democracy in their Christian religious institutions are in full support of democracy and federal form of the Union constitution in which Chin State could join the federal Union as a conststituent state of the federal Union.

 

This was clearly shown by the population rejecting to vote the Generals-supported-candidate Pu Van Kulh, Ex Colonel and Minister of Social Welfare in the Cabinet of the late dictator General Ne Win and Member of State Council under the socialist constitution 1974, Member of politburo of Burma Socialist Program Party(BSPP) / National Unity Party(NUP) and voted me for their representative as a Member of parliament in the 1990 Burma general election.

 

This assembly and rally clearly showed how the generals are trying to lie blatantly to the world. Their stupid trick cannot be hidden and the world is on the side of the Chin population and the democratic forces of the Union led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

 

The generals by trying to lie the world in this way are certainly digging their own pit-fall into which they would fall not before long.

 

Not only that they forced them to lie at gun point, the buildings shown in this article also are all to lie as if the buildings here are in the Chin State. The buildings shown in the picture in that news paper with the article there are in Burma proper, not the buildings in the Chin State. There have not been such a single building like these modern building structure in the Chin State as it has been neglected to establish even the infrastructure to minimally develop the state within the period of the military rule.

 

Lian Uk,

Member of Parliament Elect

Haka Constituency, the capital of the Chin State

Now in political exile, USA

 

STATEMENT OF CHIN HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION

To

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515

JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Elton Gallegly, Chairman

and

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

James Leach, Chairman

SUBJECT: Human Rights in Burma: Fifteen Years Post Military Coup

 

WITNESSES: Panel I

 

 

The Honorable Lorne W. Craner, Assistant Secretary Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State

Mr. Matthew Daley, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State

 

 

October 1, 2003

 

 

The Chin Human Rights Organization is an independent non-governmental human rights organization. We aim to protect and promote human rights among the Chin people, and to contribute to the movement for the restoration of democracy and human rights in Burma. Founded in 1995, CHRO has worked to document the human rights situations of the Chin people in Burma’s western region. CHRO’s reports have been cited by the US State Department, Amnesty International and the International Labor Organization.

 

CHRO wishes to express its gratitude for the opportunity to deliver this submission to this important hearing. The United States has always been at the forefront of support for democracy and human rights in Burma. We are grateful for the State Department’s annual reports on International Religious Freedom on Burma, which have been highlighting the suffering of persecuted religious minorities. In addition, CHRO considers the promulgation of Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 a very important impetus for the achievement of democracy and human rights in Burma.

 

Despite recent cosmetic changes that have taken place in Rangoon, human rights conditions among Burma’s ethnic people, including the Chin people continue to remain a matter of grave concern. In fact, human rights conditions of the Chin people have become worse and the number of displaced persons and refugees has increased in recent years. Until the incident of May 30 in which the regime launched an orchestrated campaign of terror and violence against the NLD, the regime has enjoyed international praise for ‘progress’ it has made in initiating national reconciliation. However, this has not been accompanied by a parallel improvement in the areas of human rights. Under the reign of the State Peace and Development Council, the Chin people have continued to experience untold miseries and hardships as a result of the systematic abuse of their fundamental human rights.

There is a direct link between the growing abuse against the Chin people and the increase in militarization of the Chin areas. In the last fifteen years since the regime took over power, the number of army battalions stationed in Chin State has increased up to 10 times. This increase has been accompanied by the rapid acceleration in the level of human rights abuses across Chin State. The kind of human rights violations suffered by the Chins today are the same as those that have been extensively reported among ethnic Karen, Shan, and Karenni on the eastern border. These violations manifest in the forms of arbitrary arrest and detention, forced labor, torture, rape and extrajudicial executions. Moreover, the overwhelming percentage of Christians among the Chin people has also brought abuses in the form of religious persecution. Today, religious persecution is a matter of primary concern among the Chin people. Since 1999, the US State Department has singled out Burma as a country that systematically violates religious freedom.[1] The annual reports have cited a significant amount of cases of religious persecution involving the Chin people.

 

 

Religious Persecution

Religious persecution poses a matter of grave concern among the Chin people. Chin Human Rights Organization, since 1995, has documented a range of human rights abuses by the military regime against the Chin people, including violations of religious freedom.

 

Christian religion has deep root in the Chin society. Since the first Chin conversion in the late 1900 following the arrival of American Baptist missionaries to the Chin Hills, Christianity gradually became accepted by a large majority of the Chin populations, who had practiced traditional animism for centuries. After a century since then, Christianity now is second culture for many Chin people.[2] Chin people today claim that more than 90 percent of Chins are Christians. Because of the overwhelming importance of Christianity among the Chins, the junta, which strongly identifies itself with Buddhism and has been preoccupied with building national unity has been trying to promote Buddhism over Christianity in Chin State with the belief that once the Chins are converted to Buddhism they can be easily subjugated. For this reason, the regime has resorted to persecuting the Chins, a drastic action that involves arbitrarily removing Christian crosses erected by churches on hilltops throughout Chin State and openly directing and supporting coerced conversions of Christians into Buddhism. The regime has also destroyed several Church buildings. For example on February 20, 2000, Captain Khin Maung Myint ordered the destruction of a Chin Christian Church at Min Tha village in Tamu Township of Magwe Division, an area mostly populated by the Chins and is adjacent to the Chin State. In the same township on July 13, 2001, the same army officer forced villagers to destroy a United Pentecostal Church in Ton Kyaw village. Captain Khin Maung Myint gave similar order to destroy an Assembly of God Church building in Chauk Nat Kyi village in Tamu Township.[3]

 

 

Through the Hill Buddhist Mission, a program directly sponsored by the military regime, Buddhist monks have migrated to the Chin State. In every town and major villages in Chin State, the regime has established a Buddhist pagoda and station monks who are closely working with local army battalions. Buddhist pagodas are often built in places where Christian monuments such as crosses have formerly stood, and Christians have been either forced to donate money or forced to build the pagodas.[4]

 

 

The regime is putting close scrutiny on preachers and evangelists, and in many instances has made effort to censor the contents of sermons delivered by Christian pastors and ministers. Citing the risk of security, authorities have either not permitted or arbitrarily set the number of people who could attend religious festivals and conferences. Moreover, the regime has still not permitted the printing and publication of Bibles, forcing Chin Christians to quietly bringing Bibles from abroad. In several instances, army authorities have confiscated Chin-language Bibles imported from India, and burnt or destroyed them.[5] Construction of new church buildings is prohibited and Christians must obtain prior authorization for even renovation of church buildings. These are all in stark contrast to the freedoms enjoyed by monks and Buddhists whose activities are openly supported, and encouraged by authorities. Several reports documented by CHRO show that army patrols have deliberately used Church compounds for shelter and camps, and have purposefully disturbed Church services by entering into churches during Sunday worship services.

 

 

The regime has also targeted Christian leaders by falsely implicating and accusing them of supporting anti-government groups, and has jailed and tortured many pastors. Pastor Grace, a woman Baptist minister was accused of providing accommodation to Chin rebels and sentenced to 2 years in prison with hard labor in 2001.[6] In remote villages and other rural areas in Chin State, army units on patrols have frequently mistreated, assaulted and tortured Christian pastors.

 

Coerced conversions of Christian families and children have also been reported in several parts of Chin State. Those who convert to Buddhism were exempted from forced labor and given special privileges. Local authorities have frequently recruited Christian children under the pretext of giving them formal education in cities. As recently as early this year, five Christian children, between the ages of 7 and 18 years old from Matupi township of Chin State, who had been placed in monasteries in Rangoon, escaped confinement in Buddhist temples where they have been forced to follow Buddhist teachings.

 

 

Restriction on the use and teaching of Chin language

Under the military regime, the teaching of Chin language in school is prohibited. In elementary schools, the permitted level of teaching Chin language is grade 2. Publications of textbooks in Chin are not provided for by the government and Christian churches are forced to bear the burden of supplying these texts. Chin school teachers of all levels of high school in Chin State are instructed to use Burmese as a medium of communication with their students. This measure has greatly diminished the level of understanding by the students in school and has served to downgrade student performance. Since the mid 1990s, the new curriculum is dominated by perspectives of Burmese or Burman culture and history, and students have complained about the lack of substance that reflects ethnic Chin perspectives in the subject. This has also been seen as an open attempt to assimilate the Chin youth into mainstream Burman culture.

 

Because of the limited number of government schools available for the Chin populations in Chin State, communities in rural villages have set up private schools to allow the children access to primary education. Unsupported by the government, villages have to seek their own means of running the school by contributing money and resources for the schools. However, since 1998, the regime has banned these self-supported private schools[7] , depriving many children in rural communities of primary education. It should be noted that because these private schools are not under direct control of the government, they were able to offer alternative learning in Chin language. Restriction on the learning of Chin language has already taken its toll on the Chin youth. A high percentage of Chin teenagers are not able to read and write in their own language. This has been exacerbated by the fact that many Chin children look down on their own language and had instead chosen to use Burmese.

Forced Labor

 

Burma has claimed that it has outlawed the practice of forced labor in 2001. However, independent investigations into this claim have found the pervasiveness and the continued use of forced labor in the Chin State. Local army battalions have routinely exacted forced labor from villagers and rural communities in building roads, army camps, development infrastructures and agricultural projects. In major townships of Chin state such as Hakha, Falam, Matupi and Thantlang, civilians are being routinely forced to work at government tea plantation farms[8]. Major Ngwe Toe of Light Infantry Battalion 266, who is in charge of a new township development in Ruazua in central Chin State have ordered a dozen villages to contribute money and human labor to construct high a school, a hospital and an army base in Ruazua. During the entire year of 2002, these villages were forced to participate in the forced labor in Ruazua. Refugees fleeing into India have reported that the pervasiveness of forced labor in their areas has left them no time to work for their own survival. Army units on patrol have forcibly recruited villagers to porter army supplies and ammunitions over mountains and jungles.

Political Suppression

The Chin people are not represented in the state or central administration under the military regime. After the regime nullified the results of the 1990 elections, all Chin political parties were declared illegal. These political parties include the Chin National League for Democracy, the Mara Peoples Party and Zomi National Congress Party. Subsequent crackdowns on political dissidents have forced 3 of the 13 Chin Members of Parliament to flee the country while 2 others were arrested and imprisoned for several years. Since early 1990s, the entire Chin populations have forced to live under virtual curfew. Dozens of civilians accused of supporting, Chin National Front, underground movement were arrested, tortured and imprisoned under the Unlawful Association Act. Civilians charged under this act are routinely tortured in interrogating chambers. According to a former a woman prisoner, she was humiliated, tortured and deprived of food and sleep for one week before she was arbitrarily sentenced to 3 years in prison.[9] Since the May 30 incident, authorities have crackdown on local NLD leaderships who were responsible for welcoming Aung San Suu Kyi during her trip to Chin State in April 2003. According to reports, on May 4, 2 NLD leaders in Matupi township were arrested by military intelligence and were sentenced to 11 years in prison.

Refugees

In this submission, CHRO wishes to highlight the particularly grave situations of Chin refugees and to draw the special attention of the Subcommittee. In the year since the military regime took over power in 1988, more than 50,000 Chin refugees have fled to India, Bangladesh and Malaysia. At least 50,000 Chin refugees have lived in Mizoram State of northeast India. Neither the Government of India nor the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has recognized them as refugees. As a result Chin refugees have frequently been forced back to Burma. Since July 19, 2003 a campaign by local Indian youth groups, with the cooperation of Indian authorities have resulted in the forcible evictions and the return of thousands of Chin refugees to Burma. As of this week, at least 6000, people have been forcibly returned to Burma. India has also closed down its border with Burma to prevent returnees from sneaking back into the country.

We are very alarmed by the ongoing evictions and deportation of Chin refugees in India. There is an urgent need for intervention in the ongoing deportation of Chin refugees. Refugees International has recently petitioned the Prime Minister of India requesting him to stop the repatriation and to allow the UNHCR access to Mizoram to help care for the protection and humanitarian needs of Chin refugees. CHRO strongly requests the United States Committee for Refugees and other international agencies concerned with refugees to urgently take measures to prevent the ongoing evictions and deportations of Chin refugees in India.

 

The need for protection of Chin refugees in Malaysia is no less important. Over the past few years, close to 5,000 Chin refugees have also sought sanctuary in Malaysia. Like the Chin refugees in India, they are identified as ‘illegals’ and risk frequent arrest and deportation by Malaysian authorities. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has recognized only a very small fraction of Chin refugees.

 

Conclusion

The problems faced by Burma’s ethnic groups, including the Chin people are the direct consequence of military rule and its campaign of State organized terrorism directed primarily against the ethnic people who constitute more than 40% of the country’s population. Today, the Chin people and all the ethnic people are fighting for our very survival as a people. Our cultural, ethnic and religious identities are being rapidly eroded, and our very survival as a people is being threatened by the policies of ethnic cleansing relentlessly conducted by the military regime. The sufferings of the ethnic nationalities could only be remedied through fundamental change in the political system, a change that would allow the ethnic people equitable representation in the decision-making process of the country. Time is passing and innocent lives are being lost. The international community needs to take effective and urgent actions on Burma before the problems develop into an irreversible stage.

Thank You.

Chin Human Rights Organization

 

 

 

 

 

[1] 2002 US Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report

on Burma http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/13868.htm

[2] Excerpts from the upcoming CHRO’s report on abuses of religious freedom entitled “Religious Persecution: A Campaign of Ethnocide Against Chin Christians in Burma”

[3] Copies of these reports (in Burmese versions), are available upon request.

[4] For detailed information, see www.chro.org under Religious persecution report

[5] See for example Rhododendron Volume III, No VI. Junta Orders Burning Of 16,000 Bibles, Halts Church Construction

[6] Rhododendron News Vol. IV No. IV July-August 2001 www.chro.org

[7] See a copy of SPDC order at www.chro.org Rhododendron VOL.I No. VI December 1998

[8] Oral statement of Salai Za Uk Ling, Editor of Rhododendron News at the 21st session of United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations, 23 July 2003, Geneva, Switzerland.

[9] Rhododendron VOL.V No.I JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2002, www.chro.org