| The Persecution of the Ethnic Nationals and Suppression of Democracy in Burma |
||
THE PERSECUTION OF THE ETHNIC NATIONALS AND SUPPRESSION OF DEMOCRACY IN BURMA “The Karenni are non-people, with no rights within Karenni State - if they teach in their own language they are liable to arrest; they are constantly under threat of attack and many are living as IDPs, constantly running from the junta. Others are used as forced labour. How can they be expected to enter discussions on democracy when they are denied basic human rights?” an unnamed NGO volunteer. [Note: This refers to the Karenni, but applies to the Karen, Shan, Chin, Arakan, Kachin, Mon and other ethnic nationals too.] Overview National Convention On May 17th, 2004 Burma’s ruling military regime, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), opened a National Convention to finalise the drafting of a new constitution. The National Convention is currently in recess. This National Convention has been described as a sham by human rights organizations, Burmese pro-democracy and most ethnic national groups, and democratic governments around the world, because it is proceeding without the participation of the main pro-democracy party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), and most ethnic national groups. The NLD and ethnic national groups such as the Karen National Union (KNU), Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP), Shan State Army-South (SSA-South), and the umbrella United Nationalities Alliance (UNA) have boycotted the National Convention because the SPDC rejected calls to release NLD leaders Aung San Suu Kyi and U Tin U from detention, open up all NLD offices, and permit free discussion of the issues being considered in the National Convention. Instead, the SPDC continues to hold Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, over 1,400 political prisoners behind bars, restrict freedom of speech and association, and insist that the new constitution guarantee that the military retain a hold on key political roles. Citizens have been warned that if they discuss the constitution outside the confines of the National Convention, they could face jail sentences of between seven and 20 years. The National Convention’s delegates are handpicked by the SPDC, and the whole event is a stage-managed re-run of the failed National Convention that collapsed in 1996. The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) adopted a resolution on April 23 , in which it declared that the IPU “reaffirms its conviction that the National Convention, in its present form, is designed to prolong and legitimize military rule against the will of the people as expressed in the 1990 elections, and thus stands in direct opposition to the principle enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the ‘will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government’.” If the SPDC’s talk of a ‘roadmap to democracy’ is to be taken seriously, it must release all political prisoners, and engage in tripartite dialogue with the NLD and the ethnic national groups. Key Anniversaries • May 27 marked the 14th anniversary of the 1990 elections, in which the NLD, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won over 80% of the seats in Parliament. However, the SPDC rejected the results, refused to hand over power to the democratically elected, legitimate representatives of the people, and the winners of the election have been in detention, or exile, ever since. • May 30 marked the first anniversary of the attack on Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters in Depayin, carried out by at least 3,000 members of the Union Solidarity Development Association (USDA), an organization affiliated with and controlled by the regime. According to Burma’s exile government, the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), new information from the SPDC itself indicates that at least 282 people were killed in that attack, and Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s life was endangered. She was then taken into detention once again, and for several months her whereabouts and welfare were unknown. Finally she was placed, yet again, under house arrest in her home. Many are still in detention or have disappeared. Continuing military offensives and human rights violations Brutal military offensives, accompanied by serious violations of human rights such as widespread, systematic rape, forced labour, use of human minesweepers, forced conscription of child soldiers, torture and forced relocation continue to be perpetrated by SPDC troops against the ethnic nationals, despite the junta’s engagement in ceasefire talks with the KNU and others. Religious persecution of Christians and Muslims continues, particularly in Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni and Arakan states. Background to this briefing This briefing is based primarily on two visits to the region by Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), an international human rights organization, earlier this year. In March CSW visited Chin and Kachin refugees from north-western Burma in Delhi and Mizoram, India, and in April we visited Karen and Karenni refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) on both sides of the Thai-Burmese border, and met with representatives of the KNU, the SSA-South, the KNPP, the National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB), and other Burmese pro-democracy organizations and Non-Governmental Organisations. We met with organizations providing relief to the refugees and IDPs, including the Karen Refugee Committee (KRC), the Committee for Internally Displaced Karen People (CIDKP), the Chin Refugee Committee (CRC), and backpack health worker teams. We also met with the Burmese Border Consortium (BBC), the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Bangkok and Delhi, the British High Commission in Delhi and the British Embassy/DFID in Bangkok. Full reports of our visits to the region are available from CSW. Further information can also be found on our website. Cease-fire talks with the Karen National Union (KNU) While the historic cease-fire talks between the SPDC and the KNU have been cautiously welcomed by many, it should be noted that SPDC attacks on Karen civilians continue, and offensives against the Karenni intensified during the early stages of the talks. Earlier this month, a humanitarian relief team delivering much-needed medical aid to IDPs in eastern Burma came under fire from SPDC troops. In January, when the talks began in Rangoon, over 3,500 Karen and Karenni people were newly displaced as a result of Burma Army attacks. On April 19th, at 9.45p.m Burma Army soldiers and their associated militia crossed the border into Thailand to attack the home of a Karenni leader in Mae Ngwat village, using Rocket Propelled Grenades and rifles, killing one man and injuring another. The SPDC is clearly using its old tactic of divide-and-rule by initiating cease-fire talks with the KNU. While it talks peace with one ethnic group, it uses the breathing space to intensify attacks on another. Similarly, even if it reaches a permanent ceasefire with the KNU, if Burma Army troops remain in Karen territory they will doubtless continue to terrorise Karen civilians, taking villagers for forced labour and raping woman, and the civilians will be even more vulnerable if the Karen armed resistance (the Karen National Liberation Army – KNLA) is unable to provide protection. The ceasefire talks are meaningless unless they result in: a) a nation-wide cease-fire with all ethnic national groups and armed resistance forces b) a complete withdrawal of the Burma Army from Karen and other ethnic areas c) an end not only to military hostilities but also to the widespread use of rape, forced labour, forced relocation, human minesweepers, child soldiers and extra-judicial killings Internally Displaced People/Humanitarian Crisis It is estimated that at least one million people are internally displaced in eastern Burma, and possibly as many as two million in the entire country. Since 1996, over 2,500 villages in eastern Burma have been destroyed, 365,000 people forced to move to relocation sites, and 268,000 people trapped in the jungle. The IDPs have little or no access to health care, food, shelter or education. The Department for International Development (DFID) currently provides humanitarian assistance through the Burmese Border Consortium (BBC) to the 140,000 refugees in camps in Thailand, but no aid at all to the IDPs trapped inside Burma. There are several indigenous ethnic national organisations which go cross-border to distribute humanitarian aid to the IDPs in the jungles of eastern Burma, and they provide a high standard of accountability and transparency to donors, with regular written reports, accounts of use of funds, video and photographic documentation. As part of a review of its Burma policy, DFID should consult with the ethnic national groups, including back-pack health worker teams, to ascertain levels of accountability and reconsider its current policy with regard to cross-border aid to the IDPs. If DFID is dissatisfied with levels of accountability and transparency, the way forward should be to advise and train the ethnic national groups to improve accountability, rather than denying the IDPs urgently needed assistance which would save lives. It is not only CSW that urges DFID to consider a change of policy. Christian Aid recently published a report, Burma’s Dirty War , urging the UK and Irish Governments, the EU, and other nation states to “ensure that humanitarian organisations working with displaced people are provided with the necessary funds to support displaced people inside Burma and continue to support refugees in Thailand.” Other governments already provide such support, so it would not be unprecedented. Human Rights Violations Rape Allegations of widespread, systematic rape have been documented in CSW’s reports and in several others, such as Licence To Rape (Shan Human Rights Foundation/Shan Women’s Action Network, 2002), No Safe Place (Refugees International, 2003) and most recently Shattering Silences (Karen Women’s Organisation, 2004). The U.S State Department verified the conclusions of Licence to Rape and confirmed the report’s findings. It is clear that since these reports were published, rape has continued to be used by the SPDC as a weapon of war, making the regime liable for prosecution for war crimes under international law. Since the publication of Licence to Rape, which documented 625 cases of rape in Shan State, a further 150 cases over the past two years have been reported in Shan State. As recently as April 16, 2004 a Shan woman was reportedly gang raped by SPDC soldiers at a location 10km from the Thai border. Forced Labour/Forced Relocation For more than 13 years, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma have reported the continuing use of forced labour in Burma. This practice has not ceased, and thousands of Burmese citizens are forced to work for the military on construction projects and as porters. On May 19, the ILO said forced labour remains widespread in Burma, and accused the SPDC of doing little to prevent forced labour. The SPDC continues forcibly to relocate villagers in eastern Burma. For example, on December 25, 2003, a meeting was held in Maw Chi, Karenni State, chaired by the Commander of the 55th Division. Villagers were told to move to a relocation site at Mahntahlaying within ten days and were warned that anyone who failed to move to the relocation site would be shot. However, three days later the SPDC soldiers came to villages and ordered people to move immediately. Some villagers escaped, and over 3,000 IDPs are hiding in the jungle. Villagers who went to Mahntahlaying relocation site were forced to repair the road, and provide their own food. No access to health care or education is provided in the relocation sites. Those who escape are constantly on the move. “They have to run, in order to stay alive,” said one Karenni spokesman. “They are fed up with moving all the time. They have no homes, no health care, no food and no education – if this is not ethnic cleansing, what is?” In the relocation camps, forced labour on construction projects is closely controlled by SPDC soldiers. On average one soldier watches over 10-15 forced labourers, beating them if they stop working. Villagers have to provide their own tools, building materials and food, and are forced to work from 6a.m until dusk, making it difficult to find food supplies. Porters are forced to carry heavy loads for long distances, allowed little food, water or rest. In one case, a man was reportedly ordered to carry 100 kilos of rice. In order to comply, he had to involve his children. Porters are forced to walk through areas with landmines, often walking ahead of the SPDC soldiers in order to clear the landmines, sometimes losing their limbs and sometimes lives. In Karen and Karenni States, it is common practice for SPDC soldiers to form a column. They divide the porters into groups of three, interspersing them among the soldiers, protecting the soldiers from ambush. Forced labour is also widespread in Chin State. For example, a letter from an SPDC Company Commander to village leaders in Nga Phai Pi, southern Chin State, issued on December 13th, 2003, demands 40 porters from Nga Pha Pi and 30 from Sabawngte to report to the nearby SPDC camp to carry rations for the military. The SPDC sometimes demands forced labour during religious festivals or on Sundays, deliberately denying the Christians the opportunity to celebrate their festivals. In Sabungte, SPDC soldiers ordered villagers to porter for the army from December 20-January 19, 2003/4, which meant they were unable to celebrate Christmas and New Year in their village. They had to carry 20-25kg packs of rice, ammunition and mortars. In July 2003, SPDC troops entered a church in Hmun Halh during a Sunday service, and ordered the worship leaders to work as porters for the army immediately, thereby disrupting the service. Child soldiers Burma has the largest number of child soldiers in the world. It is estimated that at least 70,000 child soldiers are forcibly conscripted into the SPDC military, making up 20 per cent of the troops. This has been documented in previous CSW reports, and in My Gun Was As Tall As Me (Human Rights Watch, 2003). The SPDC grabs children from bus stations, trains, cars and from the street, or sends letters to villages demanding the provision of child soldiers. Torture The use of torture, both in prisons and in the ethnic areas, is widespread and systematic. Examples have been well documented in human rights reports. In CSW’s latest visit to the Thai-Burmese border, we interviewed a 31 year-old Buddhist Karenni man who fled to Thailand in February, leaving his wife and four children behind. He had been severely beaten by SPDC soldiers based in Deemawso, and had no money to buy medicine. He was tied up and beaten all over his body with sticks and guns, and stabbed with a bayonet. In June 2003 he was held captive and tortured for 10 days. The most intense period of torture was one day when from 11a.m until 6p.m soldiers rolled a log up and down his legs, sometimes stamping on the log with their boots. As a result he was unable to walk for five months. That night, he was forced to lie down and soldiers poured large quantities of water into his mouth until his stomach swelled. The soldiers then stamped on his stomach, causing him to vomit. They then smothered his mouth with a piece of cloth, and continued to roll a log up and down his legs. “I thought I was going to die,” he said. He did not know why the SPDC had done this to him. When the soldiers arrived at his house and took him away, they questioned him in Burmese. “But I do not understand Burmese very well, so the soldiers got angry,” he said. Religious persecution Burma has been categorised by the US State Department as one of the world’s worst violators of religious freedom every year since 1999. The persecution of Christians in Karen, Karenni, Chin and Kachin areas, and Muslim Rohingyas in Arakan State, is widespread. In Chin State, where 90% of the population is Christian, a Chin Christian is not permitted to hold a position as head of department in the civil service, and cannot rise beyond the rank of Major in the Burma Army. This is an example of religious rather than ethnic discrimination, because a Chin Buddhist can hold senior positions. In Chin State, the SPDC has attempted to convert Christians to Buddhism, by sending in hundreds of Buddhist ‘missionaries’ and offering incentives for conversion – those who become Buddhists are offered rice, exemption from forced labour and opportunities for study in good schools. The SPDC has also lured children, often between the ages of five and ten, into a monastery, where their heads are shaved and they are forced to become novice Buddhist monks. This is done without the parents’ knowledge, and often the children never see their parents again. Another example of religious persecution includes the destruction of crosses in Chin State. The Chin like to demonstrate their Christian faith by building large wooden white crosses on the tops of mountains and hills. However, in recent years all such crosses have been destroyed, and in many sites Chin Christians have been forced to build pagodas in their place, and contribute to the costs of building pagodas. These examples are documented in CSW’s recent report, and in a new report by the Chin Human Rights Organisation called Religious Persecution: A Campaign of Ethnocide Against Chin Christians in Burma . In Karen State, churches have been burned down and Christian activities disrupted. A 53 year-old Karen Christian woman told CSW that in one village, on March 25 this year, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), an SPDC-sponsored militia, ordered villagers to clear an area for the construction of a Buddhist pagoda in front of the church. Materials for building the pagoda were delivered on March 27 2004. Using a loud-speaker, the DKBA ordered Christians to build a pagoda, forbade them to build a cross and confiscated the materials which were subsequently used for the pagoda. They threatened to kill the pastor, who had to flee for his life. During the Christian worship, the loud-speakers would blare Buddhist propaganda, urging them to convert to Buddhism. The noise was deafening, drowning the voice of the preacher. Threats were made that, on completion of the construction of the pagoda, all Christians would be forced to leave the village. The DKBA regularly made the villagers dig trenches and undertake forced portering. Any interference with construction work prompted threats to burn their homes and crops. A new report from Amnesty International, released on May 19, called Myanmar - The Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied, details the persecution of Muslims. Political Prisoners Over 1,400 political prisoners remain behind bars, where they endure severe torture. These include at least 15 journalists, according to Reporters Without Borders. Many prisoners have already served their sentences but remain in jail. For example, journalist Sein Hla Oo completed his seven-year sentence in August 2001, but has not been released. Two days ago, May 23, Min Ko Naing, chairman of the All Burma Federation of Students Unions and a key leader in the 1988 student demonstrations, completed 15 years in prison. He was sentenced in 1991 to 15 years (having been arrested on March 23, 1989), but in 1993 his sentence was commuted to 10 years. Min Ko Naing’s jail term expired in 1999, but he has not been released. For much of his sentence he has been in solitary confinement, and subjected to brutal torture. He has been offered release by the junta many times, on the condition that he renounce his political activities. He has rejected that condition. According to the Assistance Association of Political Prisoners-Burma (AAPP), on May 7, just 10 days before the scheduled start of the National Convention, five former political prisoners were sentenced to new, long jail terms. Ne Lin Aung (aka) Yan Naing has received a 22 year sentence; Maung Maung Latt and Paw Lwin have received 12 year sentences each; Ne Min has been jailed for 15 years; and Ye Thiha for 7 years. One prisoner, Ko Ne Lin Soe, currently serving a 14 year sentence, is seriously ill and is not receiving adequate medical attention, according to the AAPP. Ko Ne Lin Soe (also spelled Ko Nay Lin Soe), son of U San Win, from Insein Township, Rangoon, was transferred to Mandalay Prison from Kalay Prison on May 9th this year. He was arrested in January 1998 and sentenced in April 1998. Ko Ne Lin Soe’s medical condition has recently become, according to the AAPP, “life threatening”. The AAPP are appealing to the International Committee of the Red Cross to take urgent action. “He cannot eat, cannot speak and cannot walk,” the AAP report. “His family had asked the authorities concerned to refer him to a hospital and let the family care for him at their own expense. The authorities (most likely military intelligence, who control all transfers of political prisoners) have thus far refused this request. We at the AAPP urgently request that the ICRC, the only association with access to prisons inside Burma, visit Ne Lin Soe in order to evaluate his health status.” Thailand For many years, the Kingdom of Thailand has generously provided sanctuary to those fleeing the conflict in Burma. An estimated 140,000 Karen and Karenni live in camps along the Thai-Burmese border, and Burman pro-democracy activists have been able to live in exile in Thai towns and cities, some claiming asylum through UNHCR. However, Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and its definition of the ‘temporarily displaced people’ is extremely narrow – it only recognises as refugees those who are fleeing armed conflict, not those who are fleeing persecution and human rights violations. In recent months the Royal Thai Government, led by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, has introduced new policies which potentially jeopardise the security and well-being of the refugees. Since August 2003, in violation of the international principle of ‘non-refoulement’ or non-return of refugees, Thailand, having reached an agreement with the SPDC, has been deporting 400 ‘illegal’ Burmese nationals a month directly into a holding centre in Burma operated by SPDC military intelligence. Although the UNHCR is able to monitor the deportations to ensure that recognised refugees or asylum seekers are not among them, even then the only option available is ‘informal’ deportation which means the individuals are sent across the border but have the option of slipping back into Thailand again, unofficially. Clearly this is highly unsatisfactory as it means the status of the individuals concerned continues to be illegal, and they continue to face the threat of deportation. Furthermore, the over 200,000 Shan in Thailand have no protection whatsoever, and are not provided with camps, unlike the Karen and Karenni. The UK should urge the Government of Thailand to allow the Shans to enter refugee camps; to desist from deportations; to give UNHCR responsibility for refugee status determination in accordance with UNHCR criteria; and continue to provide sanctuary to those fleeing conflict or persecution, until it is absolutely safe for them to return to Burma. Complete withdrawal of SPDC troops from ethnic areas, clearance of landmines, provision of humanitarian assistance, development of agriculture, infrastructure, health care and education services, and guarantees of security are essential conditions for the return of refugees to Burma. For more information on this issue, see Human Rights Watch report, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Thai Policy Toward Burmese Refugees”, February 2004. In addition to the issue of deportations/repatriation, Thailand has increased restrictions on access to the refugee camps. For example, it is now impossible for foreign visitors to enter the Karenni camps around Mae Hong Son, even for humanitarian purposes, without a permit, and it is extremely difficult to obtain a permit. The Karenni are extremely short of teachers, but volunteer foreign English-language teachers are unable to gain access to the camps. According to one NGO, “the Karenni are non-people” in the eyes of both Burma and Thailand. “Even if they reach the safety of the refugee camps in Thailand, they are still non-people – they have no ID and are in effect prisoners within the refugee camps … The Karenni are being denied the opportunity of education – both within Karenni State and in the refugee camps. The Thai Government will not allow outside teachers to go into the camps to teach and consequently there is a gross shortage of teachers.” Thailand has also recently banned NGOs from engaging in activities which might “irritate bilateral relations” with Burma, according to the Bangkok Post on May 16. This may affect the work of Dr. Cynthia Maung, who runs the Mae Tao Clinic near the Burma border in Maesot, and has treated almost 200,000 refugees since it was set up in 1989. The clinic’s activities are now being monitored, and “the authorities specifically ordered that any undertakings must not harm bilateral ties”. Such vague wording could apply to any humanitarian or educational work which the SPDC dislikes. The UK Government should express concern to the Thai authorities, and urge the Government of Thailand to desist from restricting the work of Dr. Cynthia Maung and others engaged in vital medical, educational and relief work. Action In view of the unanimous expressions of concern over the SPDC’s continuing policies of gross and systematic violations of human rights and of widespread rejection of the SPDC’s conduct of the National Convention, we make the following recommendations and requests - endorsed by all members of pro-democracy and ethnic national groups whom we met - to the European Union. (A full list of recommendations can be found in the CSW report) 1. To follow the example of the United States by imposing targeted sanctions which would penalise the regime, without having adverse effects on the majority of the population. We suggest, as examples, prohibition of capital investment, trade in timber and marine products and investment in oil exploration and production. 2. To urge the United Nations Security Council to impose an arms embargo, in view of the fact that the SPDC devotes approximately one half of its national budget to military expenditure, used in offensives against its own civilians. 3. To urge the Kingdom of Thailand and the Governments of India and Bangladesh to desist from repatriation of temporarily displaced Burmese civilians, without adequate security guarantees acceptable to those liable to repatriation. 4. To urge the Royal Thai Government to allow the Shans entry into refugee camps; 5. To request a response from ASEAN nations to the continuing well-documented reports of gross violations of human rights in Burma and the SPDC’s failure to conduct the National Convention in a democratic and inclusive manner, and urge ASEAN to suspend Burma's membership of the organisation until meaningful changes occur? 6. To urge the SPDC to release all political prisoners, currently estimated as 1,400, and to open all of Burma to access by international humanitarian and human rights organisations, including allowing inspections of all its prisons by independent monitors such as Physicians for Human Rights to assess allegations of maltreatment and torture. 7. To urge the SPDC to adopt a policy of tripartite talks involving the National League for Democracy (NLD) and the ethnic national groups and to adopt a nation-wide cease-fire. This cease-fire should be based on principles equally applicable to all parties to the conflicts. 8. To impress upon the SPDC that the procedures for the National Convention, which include limiting participation to those invited by the SPDC, censoring contributions and denying media access, violate the principles of freedom of association and of speech. 9. To raise with the SPDC the widely held concerns over violations of religious liberty, including compulsory contributions by non-Buddhists to the construction of pagodas, the closure of Christian churches and the persecution of Muslims (see Easy Targets: The Persecution of Muslims in Burma, Karen Human Rights Group, May 2002). 10. To urge the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to increase pressure on the SPDC, as a matter of urgency. For at least 13 years, the ILO, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma have raised concerns relating to forced labour in Burma; and there are many sources of evidence that this practice is continuing today. 11. To raise with the SPDC reports of widespread violations of the rights of children, including forced conscription of child soldiers (estimated at 70,000). Another cause for acute concern is the use of children as porters, forced to carry heavy loads for long hours. Both policies are in violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 12. To consider more sympathetically support by governments for cross-border humanitarian aid to the many thousands of internally displaced people (IDPs) in Burma, who are currently denied health care, adequate food supplies, shelter and education. We draw attention to the fact that other national governments provide such assistance. We also emphasise that personnel currently providing cross-border aid adequately fulfil criteria of accountability, transparency, impartiality and professional effectiveness. Furthermore, we suggest that these criteria may be better fulfilled by many of these personnel than by aid organisations operating inside Burma under constraints imposed by SPDC. It is worth noting that the Irish rock star and activist Bono, lead singer of U2, told a US Congressional hearing last week that he was ashamed by the weakness of the EU’s action on Burma. “I am deeply ashamed as a European of the pitiful lack of volume of support for her [Aung San Suu Kyi],” he told a Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. He said that while the UK Government “has been doing some good work”, more is needed. “We need the rest of Europe to pay attention,” he added. “I think with Burma we have a particular evil to deal with that needs a different and stronger response,” Bono said, arguing that the EU should impose “punitive” economic sanctions against the SPDC, so that “those people should feel our mettle.” |