[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
1992: A LETTER TO HUMAN RIGHTS ACTI
Subject: 1992: A LETTER TO HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST
/* Written Apr 27 08:35am 1995 by uneoo@physics. adelaide.edu.au
in igc:reg.burma */
/* -----------" 1992: A Letter to Human Rights Activist "------ */
Following is a letter, which is also my first human rights activity
in Australia,to a prominenet human rights activist in Australia,The
Hon. Justice Marcus Einfeld. I wrote to him in connection with his
AUSTCARE report on Burmese refugee situation in Bangladesh and
Thailand in 17 June 1992.(&He was kind enough to reply my letter!).
At that time, there seems to be a lot of obscured and non-factual
perception about Burmese people and Burma. I remember seeing a
report which described Burmese society -like Indians' - is
ingrained with the `caste system': which totally shocked me. On the
one hand, no Burmese of dated views on Burma really speaks out,
except expatriates who already are in Australia since mid-60s,
about what Burma's political system and Burma's situations - which
causing a lack of updated situation within Burma. There were a lot
of confusions among outside observers, especially the journalists,
on the issues of the ethnic minorities' revolts and SLORC's
deliberate persecution of Rohingyas; and about those of political
struggles by Burmese students and NLD.
The use of racial division and hatred as a mean to support
political power is long established since British time. When the
British left Burma, these xenophobic leaders continue to practice
such methods from their British Masters whenever needs arises.
Clearly, the persecution on Rohingyas in 1991-92 was politically
motivated. At a time there was big political fight between
NCGUB+DAB and SLORC. The NCGUB at that time was quite serious to
mount a thorough removal of SLORC by any means. The international
community was divided as to whether to intervene on human rights
ground or in which way and it was totally indecisive on Burma. There
appears to be a policy vacuum to deals with such state of
transitional era in a post-Cold War amongst major powers.
Comparing to 1988-89, the publicity for Burma situation been better
-thanks to awarding of Nobel Peace prize to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi -
nonetheless, it is accurate to say that there were no real solution
was forthcoming at that time in 1992. Knowing the true political
status of Rohingyas within Burma, it seems quite remote that
Rohingya's problem could be able to solved.
Meanwhile, the Rohingyas squatted along Naaf river. The situation
was totally tragic; UNHCR was -as usual - slowly moving for its
relief operation. The ground which the Rohingyas settled on was mud
plain, which its depth to one's knees. In the thetch-roof-tents
which were not enough room to stand straight, where the Rohingyas
cook, eat, sleep and live - as Justice Einfeld reports. There was
no clean water and sanitation: one report of suspected cholera was
reported. It was middle of monsoon, which rainfall to that region
is usually heavy. There is true danger of refugees being perished in
a savage cyclone, which quite common for that part of Bangladesh,
was - nonetheless - spared for two consecutive years.
One have to keep in mind of the prevailing attitude towards refugees-
in any country I dare say. In developed countries, the refugees are
being looked at as a threat to labour market, social cohesion and a
burden to society. Such spirit of mean-ness to refugees took to
its ultimate form when the host country's economy is primitive. The
Rohingyas have been harrassed in hunting and fishing, and even
collecting firewood which the refugees have to compete with the
locals. There was also report of blockade by locals on the
humanitarian assistance to refugees. When the powerful and civil
conscience governments tooks legal and proper measures to curb their
numbers of refugees down, those not powerful are simply turned on
refugees. One case of point may be 78' refugee crisis, where 10,000
Rohingyas reportedly died from malnutrition. A large scale
resettlement for this number is no where to be seen and therefore
repatriation is the only solution.
It is clear that the Rohingya problem is a purely human
rights/humanitarian problem: a problem that arose from the madness
and brutality of SLORC, rather separate from the conflicts of other
ethnic minorities. Because of their political status, a
humanitarian oriented solution was promoted. There will still be
some predicaments regarding their citizenship issues. However, the
need to get on with life seems more important, if reasonable safty
for Rohingyas been given until such time as a new government came
into power. The best solution seems that the strengthening of
monitoring mechanism for Refugees. -- U Ne Oo.
[added note: in my letter, there was an obscured choice of word:
"ethnic". Of course, all people of Burma have their own ethnic
origin. A more precise term should be "Indigenous nationalities"
rather than "ethnic" in my letter.]
/* -----------" 1992: Letter to Justice Einfeld "--------------*/
The Hon. Justice Marcus Einfeld,
Federal Court of Australia,
\date{August 6, 1992.}
Dear Sir,
I am a Burmese student studying at the University of Adelaide. I
graduated from, and worked at, Rangoon University until recently.
I have been in Australia for 4-years as a Scholar, pursuing a
doctorate degree.
As a Burmese student in Australia, I appreciate Australians showing
their interest in Burma. Since I am interested in Australians'
opinions on Burma, I always search for and study publications about
Burma. As Burma has been isolated for a long time, there were
inevitably mis-interpretations in some of the reports. As I go
through your reports, I was encouraged that at least there is one
in Australia, who certainly understands about Burma. Many thanks
for your report which carries incisive information and, to the
best of my belief, most promising recommendations that would help
to built a democratic Burma.
As you have rightly pointed out, we agree that Burma is ethnically
and culturally diverse. As an ethnic Burman, we are sure that we do
not want to discriminate in any way-socially or constitutionally-
against any of our minorities: Karen, Kachin, Mon, Shan and
Arakanese. People of Burma have always lived in peace and harmony.
In this context, of course, we must draw a line between the
military, which maintain hostility towards some minorities, and
Burman themselves. The military's treatment of the
minorities-especially Karen and Rohingya-which people outside Burma
could interpret as religious or racial persecution, are not the
responsibility of Burmese and Burmans.
Historically, there have been divisions between the Burmans and
Karens. This division between ethnic Karen and Burmans, which is
of little relevance to our generation, was created by British
rulers in 1930's. In our colonial period, the Karens probably get
along with the British better. The British therefore recruits
Karens for the forces within Burma. In 1930, there was a revolt,
also known as Sayasan-peasant movements, which Burmans peasants
mostly were involved. This revolt was brutally put down by the
British, using Karen forces. Since then there have been hatred
between the Burman and Karens.
After our independence in 1948, the minorities has been waging war
against Rangoon. The objective seems to be for a state of
federations, or some with total independence. This has led Gen. Ne
Win to took over power from U Nu, an elected prime minister.Burma's
history, perhaps, is more distorted within the country than outside.
We never heard the true version of what happened in 1948. Therefore,
as Burmese of younger generation, the minority revolt is seen as
unnecessary. Since the media within the country is just the Govt.'s
mouthpiece, we have never heard of the atrocities that had been
conducted by the Army. There is also propaganda, and to some
extent could be true, that some of these ethnic revolts are for
economic reasons. We never thought that the ethnic revolt was a
counter measure to Burman's repression on its ethnics. We have
never been privileged as an ethnic Burman, economically or
socially. We, Burmans, are just as poor and suffering the
military's repression as the ethnics. Since we have not
discriminated against our ethnics - constitutionally or socially,
their call for independent state is seen as unjustified. Therefore,
it lead us to believes that ethnic revolts are for economic, rather
than political objectives.
The 1988 events certainly change these views. Experiencing the
Army's brutality towards our people and students, it conceded that
these ethnic revolts are justified. The minority view on Burman,
perhaps, also have changed. The acceptance of Burmese students by
Karens forces certainly prove this.
The issue of Rohingya-Arakanese is more complicated. There have been
a reluctance to accept Rohingya as an ethnic group. The reason has
been not of their religion, but its link with the Bangladeshi
community. Although Rohingyas have lived within Burma for almost
two centuries, it would not be claimed as ethnic. Since Burma have
had a much earlier history, perhaps a few thousand years, it is
simply unreasonable to claim same status as Karen, Mon, Arakanese,
etc. Australians, probably, might have a different view on this.
There is another reason why we wouldn't agree on this. Burma is
geographically located between two giant nation and therefore more
sensitive in defining the term ``ethnics''. Of course, we cannot
possibly give this kind of recognition as ethnics to what that
might attract more complicated issues within our neighbors.
We therefore feel sad, much as being ourselves, that
Rohingya-Arakanese has to flee from their inhabitant. Although
there may be some complications, we must and we will, accept them
as citizens of Burma. We however cannot possibly accept Rohingya as
one of our ethnics. As you have correctly predicted, Burmese people
will not support independent states of any kind - on religious or
ethnics grounds. Needless to say, the sympathy from armed forces
are out of question, if one were to promote such independent states.
Despite growing resentment towards its rulers and popular demands
for democracy, the movements have an undertow from such facts. The
military always justify themselves as the saviors of Burma from
the separatists. To a Burmese, this claim of the military,
clearly, is non-sense propaganda. However we do entertain fear
that our Union might actually secede. The fact that it is a
sensitive political issue, there are possibilities that the
government itself might instigate the democratic forces to portray
as separatists.
Although there have been such fears, we can not simply allow the
present government and political system to continue. The state of
federal system, which the NCGUB has endorsed, may be found more
acceptable to both Burmese and the ethnics. There have been reports
that the various ethnics groups have accepted NCGUB. A question of
how Burma would be rebuilt seem far too early to be determined.
First and foremost, the need is to restore democratic government,
which observe an independent judicial power and freedom of speech.
I feel sure that Burmese people will find no difficulty to observe
the rules of laws, as our society have always been a lawful society.
Once democracy is restored, social justice and peace is assured.
As a Burmese, I would like to express my gratitude to you in
speaking out against the Australian companies dealing with SLORC.
The Australian Govt. hasn't shown much willingness to raise the
Human Right abuses in Burma in UN or even to call off BHP and other
companies. Unless Australian public has shown interest in Burma,
these politicians are unlikely to change their attitude. Therefore,
I would like to make the request that you and other like-minded
progressive citizens of Australia push Australian Government to
take some action on Burma issue.
\closing{Yours sincerely}
\end{letter}
\end{document}