[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]



/* posted MAY 4 1996 6:00pm by DRUNOO@xxxxxxxxxxxx on igc:reg.burma  */
/* ---------" HRSUB: OVERSEAS BURMA LIBERATION FRONT "-------------- */

[Subject:  To inquire into and report on the human rights situation
and lack of progress towards democracy  in  Myanmar(Burma)  by  the
Human Rights Sub-Committee of the parliament of Australia.
        Submissions made to this enquiry   by  various  people  and
organisations are re-posted here.-- U Ne Oo]


15A, 2 Beattie Street, Balmain, NSW 2041, AUSTRALIA.

24 June, 1995.

Ms Margaret Swieringa
Secretary, Human Rights Sub-Committee
Joint Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and Trade
Parliament House

Dear Ms Swieringa,

I  enclose  our  recent  assessment on "SLORC's latest Political Crisis and
material on the continuing human rights violations  on  the  Burma-Thailand
border, for the Committee's attention.

Yours faithfully,


In  the months of March and April 1995, the international community focused
its attention on unrelenting cross-border skirmishes along  the  Thai-Burma
border  -  resulting  in SLORC's groundless allegations, and the outcry and
the filing of complaints by the Thai Government. Whilst these  events  were
occurring  along  the  border,  SLORC was being challenged in its so-called
national convention in Rangoon, from an unexpected quarter of the  attending
representatives.  To  completely  conceal  this explosive political crisis,
SLORC without giving reasons, again halted the convention on the  8  April,
1995 - by declaring an intermission of six months.

Ever  since  the  9  January,  1993,  when  SLORC  inaugurated the national
convention,  there  has  been  numerous  stoppage,  and  because  of  such
stoppages  the  media as well as prominent Burma-watchers, have all ignored
the 8 April, 1995 intermission , as they considered it to be - just another
non-significant development.

The latest crisis at the convention emerged from SLORC's  handling  of  the
remaining  chapter  for  discussions - a chapter on the Self Administrative
Zones for the ethnic minorities, which was carried over  from  last  year's
session of the national convention - without being specifically placed on a
current  agenda  for  discussion by the representatives. SLORC attempted to
by-pass the need for discussions, by proposing that  the  convention  would
create  Self Administrative Zones for ethnic minority groups, in its future

On hearing of this unexpected stance taken by SLORC,  the  National  League
for  Democracy  (NLD)  party in association with all the representatives of
the ethnic  minority  groups,  protested  to  the  governing  body  of  the
convention.  In  the  arguments  which  were put forward unanimously to the
convention, they strongly referred to the fact that, the setting up of Self
Administrative Zones was a very  delicate  political  issue,  and  if  this
matter  was  not tackled properly and appropriately, it would cause serious
damage to national unity.

The opposition  in  its  protest,  also  relied  on  the  convention's  own
fundamental  guideline  number  104, which basing its arguments on why Self
Administrative Zones could not be  established  by  the  convention.  Draft
guideline  number  104  was  officially  implemented  by  SLORC  on  the 16
September,  1993.  It  briefly  stated  that:"All  matters   relating   the
establishment  of  Self Administrative Zones, Divisions and Districts shall
be carried out by a Commission established by the State(government)".

Undeterred by  the  opposition  rational  and  reasonable  arguments,  Lt.
General  Myo Nyunt, the "chief controller" of the convention, countered the
dismissed these arguments by asserting that, the  convention  authority  to
establish  Self  Administrative  Zones  - was contained in the six aims and
objects of the convention. Disregarding the heated debate and protests, the
convention officially declared establishment  of  six  Self  Administrative
Zones  for  the  [NAGA],[DA-NU],[PA-O],[PA-LAUNG],  [KOKANG]  and  the [WA]
ethnic  minority groups on the 7 April, 1995. Thus,  SLORC  has shamelessly
breached its  own  written  and  documented  guidelines  of  its  so-called
national  convention,  a convention by which it actively seals to create an
"approved" constitution, to secure its political future.

We believe that the reasons for SLORC's haste to declare the setting up  of
Self  Administrative  Zones,  was  due to unexpected political developments
that had occurred in 1994. On the 28 October 1994, while General Khin Nyunt
was holding a second meeting with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the ethnic  leaders
of  Shan  State (ethnic minority leaders) were at the same time attending a
preliminary meeting at Pang Sang to form  the  Peace  and  Democracy  Front

As  previously  indicated,  all this was happening at a time when SLORC was
encountering stiff resistance to its creation of Self Administrative  Zones
at its national convention - resulting in the representatives of the ethnic
minority  groups  (those  who  had  signed cease-fire accords with SLORC in
early 1989) immediately leaving the convention and traveling to Pang Sang,
to attend the PDF's preliminary meeting. This meeting was held continuously
from the 28 October to the 3 NOvember  1994,  resulting  in  the  formation
Peace  and  Democracy  Front  (PDF).  The formation of the PDF was publicly
announced on the 7 December, 1994.

The most interesting aspects of the statement, on the formation of the  PDF
were that, its members had unanousmously agreed to:-

(1)  The establishment of a Coalition State for the KOKANG, WA, SHAN, LA-HU
and AH-KAR  ethnic nationalities. The Coalition State was formed within the
areas bordering the Eastern part of the Salween river in  the  Shan  State,
and  stretching  from  the  Kokang  area  in  the NOrth, to the Kayah State
boundary in the South.

(2) The establishment of Kengtung, as the capital of the Coalition State.

(3) Endeavour until these aims were achieved.

In addition to the above mentioned objectives,  the  PDF  has  called  upon
SLORC  to  release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, and to
establish a genuine national convention,  that  will  be  attended  by  the
representatives  of all the political parties and the ethnic nationalities.
The PDF has at the same time openly  declared  that,  if  any  one  of  its
members,  comes  under  attack  from  SLORC,  the  PDF  as a whole will not
hesitate to retaliate by military means.

It appears to be coincidental that at the  time  of  publication  of  PDF's
statement,  a  declaration  contained  in  Daw  Aung San Suu Kyi's personal
statement, which was released by her husband on the 22 January, 1995, is in
phase with one of the demands of the PDF. In her statement,  she  expressed
that  she  fully  endorsed Article 5 of UN Resolution, which urged SLORC to
convene a  tripartite  meeting,  which  was  to  be  attended  by  all  the
representatives  of  ethnic nationalities, and all other political leaders,
including herself.

The  worst  case  scenario feared by SLORC's generals, is the co-ordination
and the affiliation between all the registered political parties (excluding
the National Unity Party [NUP] - formed with Ne Win's cronies) and all  the
armed  ethnic  resistance groups. Burma's democracy movement, which has the
full backing of the entire nation, has  now  gained  enough  momentum,  and
because  of these recent developments it can now be stated that - the worst
case scenario for SLORC is now subtly emerging. To break-down the unity  of
the  opposition  groups,  and  to  appease  some  of  the heavily-armed and
well-financed groups, SLORC in its desperation -was forced to announce  the
granting  of  Self  Administrative  Zones  to six minority groups, on the 7
April 1995.

Many critics of  SLORC's  current  policy  on  the  establishment  of  Self
Administrative  Zones  have  indicated  that,  there  are three fundamental
issues which need to be properly addressed, before the establishment of the
Self Administered Zones. They are said to be -

(1) Defining of the properties and characteristics of the Self Administered

   This is an extremely challenging and delicate issue, that  can  only  be
   handled  by  the  respective representatives of the ethnic tribes in the
   area to be designated. The present SLORC'S creation of Self Administered
   Zone  is  based  primarily  on  geographical  limitations,  and  without
   consideration  for  ethnic  issues  such  as language, culture, history,
   economic development and the size of population.

(2) Redrawing of State, Division and Township boundaries.

   The present day boundaries have been in existence since 1974,  when  the
   military junta headed Ne Win (known as revolutionary council) redraw the
   boundaries  without  consultation  and consideration for ethnic groups -
   based solely on military maps. Many tribal lands have  partitioned  into
   many  sub-divisions  which  are  now  under  the  control  of  different
   administrative organs. To illustrate this issue, the loss of the Kayan (
   also known as PA DAUNG)  tribal land is a  classic  example.  After  the
   redrawing  of  the  State boundary, the tribal land of Kayan was divided
   into four portions, and respective portions were incorporated  into  the
   Karen State, Kayah State, Shan State and Mandalay Division.

(3) Nation-wide collection of census accurately.

   It  has  been  over twelve years since the last census was collected. At
   that time, no data had collected in the areas which have been under  the
   control  of  the  ethnic  resistance groups, which now signed cease-fire
   accords with SLORC.

SLORC in total disregard of the above issues, and in blatantly ignoring the
basic essential procedure laid down by its own convention, has declared the
establishment of the six Self Administrative Zones - a move  which  clearly
indicates  that it has been caught up in its own tangled web, and it is now
under formidable political  dress.  The  establishment  of  the  six  Self
Administrative  Zones, in such unusual circumstances, can only be viewed as
being an offering of the "LARGEST POLITICAL BRIBE" in the history of modern

By observing these political developments, it is apparent that SLORC is not
sincere, and that it has no  sincere  intention  to  resolve  the  nation's
conflicts  -  through  peaceful  dialogue. As for the democratic opposition
parties and the ethnic groups - they have all exhausted  their  efforts  to
avoid  violence  and  bloodshed,  as  SLORC  refuses  to settle the age-old
conflicts by peaceful dialogue. SLORC   on its part only seeks to establish
cease-fire accords which are devoid  of  a  political  settlement,  through
force and coercion.

It  is  observed that, SLORC has neither the courage to accept the people's
verdict, nor has it  the  desire  to  grant  the  people  their  rights  to
participate  - in the peaceful and the non-violent political process in the
country. We believe that the continuing intransigence by SLORC,  will  only
breed  crisis  after  crisis in the country - which will ultimately lead to
violence and bloodshed, and create further instability in the region.

The question now is "How will the next  political  crisis  be  resolved  by
SLORC,  when  it reconvenes its convention in October ?". A situation which
will need to be closely observed and scrutinised.

15 June 1995.

/* endreport */