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

The BurmaNet News, April 12, 1997



------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------  
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies"  
----------------------------------------------------------  
  
The BurmaNet News: April 12, 1997  
Issue #692

SPECIAL EDITION- UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

HEADLINES:  
==========  
THAILAND/BURMA AT THE UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN
UN HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEFING - ALTSEAN-BURMA PAPER
UN HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEFING - REFUGEE UPDATE
WORLDVIEW INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION
DR SEIN WIN TO COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
*****************************************************

THAILAND/BURMA AT THE UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
April 9, 1997

In the past, there has been little criticism of Thailand at the Commission
on Human Rights. This year, however, the Kingdom is beginning to reap the
fruits of her closer relationship with the Burmese military, as the
international community is faced with reports (denied in the Thai statement
below) of forced repatriation of Karen refugees and failure by
the Thai army to provide them with adequate protection against
cross-border attacks.
 
The first statement was made to the Commission by War Resisters
International, in response to a Statement (attached) by Thailand.
                .................................
 
                    WAR RESISTERS INTERNATIONAL
  
Commission on Human Rights
53rd Session
Agenda item 10 
9 April 1997
 
                  Burmese asylum-seekers at risk
 
Mr Chairman,
 
War Resisters International welcomes Thailand's important statement of the
2nd of April to the Commission on Human Rights, reaffirming that the Kingdom
"will continue to adhere to its long-standing value of providing safe refuge
and humanitarian assistance to All fleeing unrest in neighbouring
countries". The significance of the statement derives not only
from its content, but also from the fact that it was made to a United
Nations body by an accredited representative of the Royal Thai Government.
The statement will help to clear up the considerable confusion which has
existed over the past weeks about Thailand's past actions and future
intentions regarding the Karen and other ethnic groups who are seeking
refuge in Thailand from the current offensive and massive violations of
human rights by the Burmese army. Reports from humanitarian organisations,
other international observers and the refugees
themselves, but denied by the Thai army, claim that some Karen
asylum-seekers have already been subject to refoulement, including rejection
at the frontier. The confusion about Thailand's future intentions has arisen
from what appear to be contradictory statements by various Thai military
spokesmen (some of which are attached to the written version of this
text). The asylum-seekers as well as the international community will
certainly be reassured by this definitive and authoritative statement by the
Royal Thai Government.  
 
It is also reassuring to learn that Thailand has "taken steps to move Karen
displaced persons to sites deeper inside Thailand for better security". The
murderous and destructive armed attacks by the Burmese military and their
agents on the refugee camps just inside Thailand has been a source of great
anxiety to their residents as well as to relief agencies, international
organisations and Thai citizens living in the area.  Such steps are in
conformity with Thailand's ancient Buddhist culture of hospitality, of being
Kalyanamitra -- good friends -- which Gautama Buddha prescribes as essential
to the Way of Awakening. Indeed, there are few cultures in the world which
do not place a high value on hospitality and the protection of those in
danger.  These values are also reflected in the international human rights
instruments, for instance the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, to which Thailand recently acceded. The right to security of person
referred to in Article 9 has been interpreted by the Human Rights Committee
as requiring States to protect asylum-seekers from cross-border attacks,
while Article 2 requires the State party "to respect and to ensure
the rights recognised in the Covenant to All individuals within its
territory and subject to its jurisdiction". 
 
The Thai statement informs the Commission that "in the current situation of
Karen civilians from Myanmar, Thailand grants them permission for temporary
stay". Thailand's culture of hospitality, as well as her treaty obligations
and her respect for the jus cogens prohibition of refoulement, including
rejection at the frontier, would preclude closing the border to
asylum-seekers, or requiring them to return to Burma until the situation
were truly safe. 
 
It is abundantly clear that safety cannot be guaranteed by a mere reduction
or cessation of the fighting. The Convention Against Torture, in Article 3,
which deals with  non- refoulement, requires the State party to take into
account "the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass
violations of human rights" in assessing whether return to another State is
safe, a pattern affirmed by All the UN human rights resolutions and reports
on Myanmar. The Karen and Karenni seeking refuge in Thailand would be
especially vulnerable to persecution if they were returned to Burma, since
the Burmese military, rightly or wrongly, sees them as family members or
supporters of  resistance groups, which have been in a state of hostilities
with Rangoon for up to fifty years. Given the abysmal human rights record of
the Burmese military, any such returnees would therefore be at risk until
a genuine peace settlement had been consolidated. 
 
We stress a GENUINE peace settlement which addresses the political concerns
of the Karen and other groups, since cease-fires by themselves not prevent
persecution. For instance, the military junta, the State Law and Order
Restoration Council, or SLORC, maintains that it has a cease-fire with the
Karenni,  and yet over the past year over half the population of Karenni has
been subject to forced relocation, forced labour, and other massive
violations of human rights. The same applies in Shan State, where the
figures are even higher. 
  
In conclusion, Mr Chairman, 
 
We recommend:
 
1) to the Commission, that in its resolution on the Situation of human
rights in Myanmar, it emphasise that until the Government has concluded and
consolidated a genuine peace settlement with the Karen National Union and
other ethnic nationalities (and it is probable that only  a popular
civilian government will be capable of this task), Burma will remain
extremely dangerous to any returnees from Thailand;
 
2) to the international community , that it provide further assistance to
Thailand in order to share the burden of the large-scale influx of Burmese
into Thailand; 
 
3) to Thailand, that the Royal Thai Government continue to extend its
hospitality and protection to the Burmese seeking refuge in Thailand; 
 
4) to SLORC , that it recognise that national reconciliation and economic
prosperity cannot be achieved by force, that only a government with a high
degree of popular support and participation can achieve these goals, and
that it therefore honour its commitment to transfer power to the victors in
the 1990 elections.  
 
Thank you, Mr Chairman
    .........................................................
 
        STATEMENT IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO REPLY
                 BY THE DELEGATION OF THAILAND 
                  TO THE 53RD SESSION OF CHR*
 
Mr Chairman,
 
I take the floor today to exercise the right to reply in order to clear up
certain misunderstandings of the representative of Fimarc, an NGO, in his
statement yesterday (1 April 1997) concerning the policy of Thailand towards
the Karen displaced persons from Myanmar.
 
Thailand acknowledges the concern of the international community over the
situation along the Thai-Myanmar border, as well as the need for protection
of Karen displaced persons fleeing the fighting in Myanmar. We wish to
reassure that the Royal Thai Government had been taking steps to address the
plight of the Karen displaced persons long before the above
concern was raised. International aid agencies and relief workers have also
been granted access to provide food and shelter for them at safe sites in
Thailand for decades.
 
The recent incident along the Thai-Myanmar border is not new to Thailand.
Throughout the past decades, Thailand has, based on its deeply rooted value
instilled in every Thai individual, provided considerate and generous
hospitality to everyone fleeing unrest from neighboring countries. At the
height of the Cold War, more than half a million of Lao, Cambodian and
Vietnamese displaced persons found their safe refuge on Thai soil. A decade
thereafter, there remain almost a million people from Myanmar living in
Thailand as illegal migrants and displaced persons, posing enormous social,
economic and security burden on Thailand.
 
In spite of the above, Thailand will continue to adhere to its long-standing
value of providing safe refuge and humanitarian assistance to All fleeing
unrest from neighboring countries. With regard to persons fleeing the
fighting in Myanmar, the following policies have been adopted:
 
- Thailand stands firm in her support for peaceful resolution of ethnic
conflicts in Myanmar.
 
- In the current situation of outflow of Karen civilians from Myanmar,
Thailand grants them permission for temporary stay and allows a number of
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to assist them in the provision of
necessities such as food, medication, medical services, education, etc.
Furthermore, the Thai Government has taken steps to move Karen displaced
persons to sites deeper inside Thailand for better security.
 
Indeed, as recently as 25 March 1997, we have received a letter from the
UNHCR Regional Representative in Bangkok, expressing the appreciation of the
UNHCR for the actions taken by the Thai authorities in the following words
and I quote "UNHCR is well aware of the difficulty in coping with arrivals
of large numbers of asylum seekers. We understand that the Thai Government
and NGO staff are working to upgrade sanitary
conditions in these encampments and this too is commendable. Please extend
to the responsible officials in the field, both military and civilian,
UNHCR's appreciation for their actions that conform with the Royal Thai
Government's stated policy of granting temporary refuge to persons fleeing
conflict in Myanmar."
 
Permanent Mission of Thailand
2 April 1997
 
                 ................................
 
* The above statement by Thailand was delivered in Geneva to the Commission
on Human Rights on 2 April 1997. The NGO statement which inspired the reply
was made by Fimarc (International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic
Movements) under the agenda item dealing with Indigenous Issues. The section
of the Fimarc statement referred to by the Thai delegate was the following: 
 
" In Asia, indigenous peoples are the most impoverished, marginalised and
oppressed sector of society. In most Asian countries, indigenous peoples are
struggling to reclaim their lands, their culture and their identity. But
such struggles are often repressed by governmental forces. Alarming news of
serious violations of human rights is coming out of Burma. The Karen living
in that country are often suppressed and killed by Burmese troops. Refugees
living in the most appalling situation in Thailand are forced to return to
Burma into a very dangerous situation. About 5,000 Karen refugees were
recently returned forcibly from Thailand, according to a
document distributed by Associated Press". (unofficial translation from the
French)

*****************************

UN HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEFING - ALTSEAN-BURMA PAPER
April 8, 1997

"CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT" - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW
Presented by Debbie Stothard, Coordinator, ALTSEAN-BURMA
(Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma)

FOR THE BRIEFING ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN BURMA
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, GENEVA
APRIL 8, 1997

That I am here to represent of a network of over 200 ASEAN-based
organisations and individuals is an indication of the growing concern and
indeed, outrage, at the apparent acceptance by our governments of the
deteriorating human rights situation in Burma.

For many years now, a significant number of citizens from this region have
opposed the policy adopted by member governments of the Association of
South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).  This policy known as "constructive
engagement" has been opposed because it has proven to be the exact opposite
of its title.

Under the guise of "constructive engagement", ASEAN and its member states
have established their position as one of the few public allies of Burma's
military regime, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc).  The
rapid increase of business ventures involving organizations with links to
ASEAN governments would imply that our leaders seem to have mistaken
"constructive" for "construction".  Perhaps we should be more honest and
acknowledge that "constructive engagement" does not exist, "business
engagement" does.

In July, Burma's military regime gained observer status with ASEAN and was
assured that Slorc membership for ASEAN would be imminent.  This, and other
developments indicate that the only party dictating the conditions of
"engagement" are the Slorc.  "Constructive engagement" has helped worsen the
crisis in Burma and from the behavior of some governments in this region,
brought about a "Slorcisation" of ASEAN.

Thus, the claims and pronouncements made by the proponents of "constructive
engagement" are sounding increasingly hollow:

MYTH # 1: "CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT" HAS WORKED TO OPEN UP THE COUNTRY

"Constructive engagement" has only helped the Slorc's campaign project to
indiscriminately exploit the country's resources in the same way it has
attacked the peoples of Burma.  It has helped in the creation of jobs which
pay wages in the way of displacement, misery, death and fear.  

The opening up of Burma's economy has not improved the well-being of the
majority of its citizens.  Hunger and deprivation continues to exist on a
large scale.  

Amnesty International reported that 1996 has been the worse year on record
for human rights abuses in Burma.  Detentions, arrests, and violence by the
Slorc has escalated.  The Slorc seem to have been encouraged by their closer
relationship with ASEAN to increase their oppression against the peoples of
Burma.

The Slorc continues to divert most of the country's earnings to the military
and other structures which help the military survive.

As a result even the most basic needs of civilians are not being met.  The
health system or lack of public health system continues to allow the
HIV/AIDS epidemic to continue unabated.

Literacy rates have plummeted - increasing numbers of children are being
deprived of their access to education.

The Slorc continues it attacks military, and otherwise, on supporters of
democracy and ethnic nationality groups.  The current offensive against
Karen people is one of the worst in recent years, and the objective seems to
be to wipe out the Karen people, not just the Karen National Union.

ASEAN cannot claim ignorance of this ongoing crises, yet it has persisted in
giving tacit endorsement to the Slorc throughout this time.

If ASEAN member states were truly concerned with "opening up" the country,
they would be building hospitals and schools, instead of hotels and shopping
malls.  They would not be involved in projects which result in forced
relocations and the use of slave labor.

Myth # 2: THOSE OBSTRUCTING THE ENTRY OF MYANMAR ARE FOREIGN NATIONS NOT IN
ASEAN

Absolutely not.  The Alternative ASEAN Declaration on Burma, which was
finalized in October has been endorsed by 227 organisations and individuals
from existing ASEAN member states, including 16 Members of Parliament and
several former Members of Parliament.

The Alternative ASEAN Declaration on Burma opposes ASEAN membership for the
Slorc on the grounds that:

* 	The SLORC is not the legitimate government of that country

*	ASEAN membership would provide the SLORC with a de facto license to
continue its attacks on the peoples of Burma, and

* 	The SLORC's activities are a direct contradiction to the aims and
objectives of ASEAN

The Alternative ASEAN Declaration on Burma also calls upon the member
governments of ASEAN and the international community to discard the policy
of "constructive engagement" which has brought untold injustice and
suffering upon the peoples of Burma.

It is extremely ironic that ASEAN activists are being lumped in with
"western governments" on the issue of Slorc's membership of ASEAN.  It is a
poor reflection on ASEAN member states that they have failed took take the
initiative on Burma and instead resort to irrational and sometimes
contradictory statements to justify their lack of vision on this matter.

Myth # 3: IT IS AN INTERNAL AFFAIR

The usual line trundled out when all else fails.  Sometimes used in tandem
with "it is up to the people to decide their fate".  This is a pronouncement
verging on obscene, when it is obvious that the people of Burma DID decided
their fate in May 1990.  Despite pressure and obstructions by the SLORC,
they voted overwhelmingly for the National League for Democracy, led under
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who was under house arrest at the time.  The NLD won
82% of the seats and more significantly, over 90% of the vote - a fantasy
for most politicians in the free world.

What ASEAN is doing is in fact, meddling in the internal affairs of Burma,
by giving legitimacy to a clearly illegitimate regime, while relegating
human rights violations, which are the concern of all human beings, to the
confines of a "domestic" matter.

MYTH #4: IT IS IN THE INTERESTS OF REGIONAL SECURITY

It would appear that the threat to regional security and stability is the
Slorc itself.  It has persisted in violating the borders of its neighbours,
and on several documented instances, crossed borders to pursue and attack
the security forces of another country.  Slorc military have committed
murder, abductions, robberies, assault and property damage in neighboring
countries.  It has shown a blatant disregard for the sovereignty and security.

The unabating HIV/AIDS epidemic in Burma, helped by the Slorc's
irresponsibility in not providing adequate public health services
(awareness, prevention and care programs) not to forget its apparent direct
involvement in the production of drugs, poses a long-term security threat to
this region.  The human and economic cost to Burma and the rest of the
region should be a cause for great concern to us all.

MYTH # 5: IF NOT FOR THE SLORC, BURMA WOULD COLLAPSE INTO ETHNIC CONFLICTS

A line often used by our leaders to introduce some humor into the debate.
The Slorc has the main responsibility for ethnic conflicts and tensions
taking place in Burma.  It has been in its interest to perpetuate a
situation of "divide and rule".

The attacks on ethnic nationality groups, including the current offensive
against the Karen people, are not being perpetuated by the NLD.  It is the
Slorc which is committing murder, rape, looting, abductions and torture
against ethnic groups.  It is the Slorc which is denying ethnic people
access to their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

The hope for harmony lies in a government committed to justice, human rights
and democracy.  This is why ethnic groups are increasingly making their
support for the democracy movement led by Aung San Suu Kyi known.

The Mae Tha Raw Hta Statement, made by ethnic nationality leaders at a
conference in January, calls for tripartite dialogue and expresses support
for the democracy movement led by Aung San Suu Kyi.  The "stability" molded
by Slorc military force and coercion is one that will continually collapse
into armed conflict, death and refugees.  The growing cooperation between
Suu Kyi and ethnic nationality leaders offers the only peaceful alternative
to this situation.

MYTH # 6: ASEAN IS A TRADING BLOC, THEREFORE "POLITICS" IS NOT ITS CONCERN

If this is the case, ASEAN would not have involved itself in efforts to
resolve the crisis in Cambodia or the conflict in Mindanao.  The ASEAN
charter does make reference to the well-being of the people of the region,
as well as the matter of regional stability.

ASEAN does involve itself in matters "political" because it realizes that
trade and investment is dependent on political stability.  What it needs to
recognize is that political stability is based on justice and respect for
human rights.  Political stability is not a matter of forceful containment
of dissent.

MYTH #7: SLORC WILL BE POSITIVELY INFLUENCED THROUGH ITS EXPOSURE TO ASEAN
STATES

I reiterate that the growing links between Slorc and ASEAN have only brought
about a Slorcisation of ASEAN.

The strategies and rhetoric used in recent times by some member states of
ASEAN to suppress open dialogue in their own countries seem to echo those
used by the Slorc, i.e. such choice phrases as "crush destructive elements",
" puppets of Western masters", "Communist threat" and so on.

There have also been instances where government-organized groups have been
used to commit violence in the style of the Union Solidarity and Development
Association.  In addition, government responses to the consequences of SLORC
aggression in their countries seem to imply an active cooperation to stamp
out political diversity.

MYTH # 8: BURMA IS A "WESTERN" AGENDA

This implies that Asians or "Easterners" somehow endorse murder,
assassination, rape, child abuse, slave labor, violence and war.

I do not view the so-called Western approach as being entirely altruistic.
However, frivolous and insulting statements such as those made by the
Singapore Foreign Minister about the "Asian way" do nothing to improve the
situation.  The Foreign Minister concerned said at the ASEAN-EU Meeting in
Singapore that ASEAN would not seek that Slorc meet certain conditions prior
to gaining membership.  He said that no such negotiations was needed -
according to the "Asian way", bride is expected to adjust to the groom after
marriage.  This statement is both offensive to Asian women and misleading -
it is doubtful that Slorc sees itself as the stereotypical "blushing bride".

One of the characteristics of the so-called "Asian" way is the emphasis on
dialogue and negotiation.  This is precisely what Burma's democracy movement
and the ethnic nationality groups are calling for, and this is what the
Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma supports.  Why then, is ASEAN being an
obstacle to this urgently needed process?

MYTH # 9: SANCTIONS HURT THE WRONG PEOPLE

This was recently stated by Malaysian Prime Minister Dato Dr Mahathir
Mohamad.  He asserted that sanctions did not work and hurt the wrong people.
Why then did Malaysia, under Dr Mahathir's leadership, stand so strong on
sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa?  Why didn't Malaysia
"constructively engage" with Israel to support Palestinian self-determination?

MYTH # 10: "CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT" IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO ISOLATIONISM

It has been in the interests of ASEAN member states to push the line of
"either/or".  Many activists do not oppose "constructive engagement", if
only it did just that.  Engaging and in this case, complicity with the
perpetrator of widespread violations and brutality, is far from
constructive.  Neither is isolating the legitimately elected government of a
country.

The term "constructive engagement" has to be discarded because it been so
abused and perverted from its original intent.  ASEAN needs to have the
courage to replace it with a policy which will contribute to positive change
in Burma.  ASEAN has so far, failed to use its influence gained through
engaging with the Slorc to effect any significant advances for the peoples
of Burma.  It has instead gained international and domestic embarrassment
for its member states.  One would conclude, from the rampant abuses by the
Slorc in the past year, that even that regime views "constructive
engagement" with contempt.

The first step in this process is to facilitate tripartite dialogue between
the Slorc, the democracy forces led by Suu Kyi, and the ethnic
nationalities.  ASEAN should be taking the lead in providing strong
encouragement to the Slorc to agree to this process.  The National
Convention is an inadequate arena for such dialogue, particularly since the
non-Slorc key players have been maneuvered out of the process.  If ASEAN
fails to take this up, it is conceding international leadership on this
issue to its Northern (or Western) counterparts.

It is up to ASEAN's leadership to realize that unconditional support for the
Slorc motivated by investment interests will not just hurt the peoples of
Burma - the long-term costs will hurt us and our governments.

*******************************

UN HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEFING - REFUGEE UPDATE
April 8, 1997

The following is an update circulated at the Briefing on Human Rights in
Burma, at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

SLORC Offensives and Forced Relocations Lead to Human Rights Crisis on the
Thai/Burmese Border
April 8, 1997

A humanitarian and human rights crisis now exists along the hai/Burmese
border.  In an attempt to solidify its hold over the civilian population and
territory, the ruling Burmese military regime, the State Law and Order
Restoration Council (SLORC), launched a major offensive against the Karen
National Union (KNU) and the civilian populations in the region in February
1997.  Similiarly, SLORC is also continuing its massive forced relocation
campaigns in Karenni and Shan areas.  In all these areas (see map on reverse
side), systematic human rights abuses prevail, including summary executions,
torture, rape, arbitrary detention, forced porterage and forced labor, and
the burning and looting of villages.  

Because of the SLORC campaigns and the resulting human rights abuses,
hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to live in relocations
sites, are internally diplaced or, if they are fortunate, have fled to
Thailand.  Exact numbers are difficult to nail down, but estimates can be
made.  There are now 120,000 people living in refugee camps just inside the
Thai border; 20,000 people have arrived in the past two months because of
the offensive against the KNU.  In addition, approximately 40,000 Shan
people have reached Thailand fleeing the forced relocations, but they have
not been permitted to establish refugee camps.  Another 300,000 Burmese from
various ethnic groups have also come to Thailand and have been labelled
"illegal economic migrants" though most have fled because of the massive
forced relocation and forced labor campaigns in Burma.  This brings the
total number of dislocated Burmese people inside Thailand to at least
450,000 people.  Added to those who have been able to reach Thailand--who
are the fortunate ones--are the hundreds of thousands of internally
displaced persons inside Burma.  It is estimated that for every person that
has reached Thailand, there is at least one still inside Burma who would
flee if they were able.  SLORC now controls almost the entire border with
Thailand and has blocked the evacuation routes of thousands who wish to
flee. Thousands of villagers are still scattered in the jungles along the
border with inadequate food and water supplies, poor shelter and no access
to medicine.  Thousands of others have given up trying to reach Thailand and
have gone to the ordered forced relocations sites which have similiarly poor
conditions.

Adding insult to injury, SLORC and SLORC-supported forces now terrorize the
refugees just inside the Thai border--threatening to burn down their homes
and force them to return to Burma.  Indeed, in January, two refugee camps
were burnt to the ground, leaving more than 10,000 people homeless. Several
other camps have been attacked this year as well, leaving the refugees all
along the border frightened and vulnerable.

Making the situation worse has been the change in Thai policy toward these
refugees.  In the area around Kanchanaburi and Ratchaburi, the Thai 9th Army
Division has forcibly repatriated several groups of refugees on a few
occasions, including forcing boys as young as ten years old back into an
active war zone.  These repatriations and the recent announcement by the
Thai National Security Council that all the refugees will be sent back to
Burma as soon as the situation is "peaceful and safe" has raised fears even
further among the refugees who have already suffered enormously.

This crisis along the Thai/Burmese border calls for international
humanitarian assistance to help those in need of immediate food and
supplies.  In addition, the security of the refugees should be improved by
moving the camps further inside Thailand.  Finally, the international
community should do all it can to pressure the SLORC regime to stop its
campaign of force against its own civilian populations and the political
opposition groups in the country.

**************************************

WORLDVIEW INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION
April 10, 1997
 
United Nations Commission on Human Rights
Agenda Item (10)
Oral Intervention of David Taw*
April 10, 1997
 
Mr. Chairman.
 
A humanitarian and human rights crisis now exists along the Thai/Burmese
border.  In an attempt to solidify its hold over the civilian population and
territory, the ruling Burmese military regime, SLORC the State Law and Order
Restoration Council, launched a major offensive against the KNU Karen
National Union and the civilian populations in the region in February 1997.
SLORC is also continuing its massive forced
relocation campaigns in Karenni and Shan areas.  In All these areas (see
attached map), systematic human rights abuses prevail, including summary
executions, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, forced porterage and forced
labor, and the burning and looting of villages.  
 
Because of the SLORC campaigns and the resulting human rights abuses,
hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to live in relocation
sites, are internally displaced or, if they are fortunate, have been able to
flee and seek refuge in Thailand. Exact numbers are difficult to nail down,
but estimates can be made.  There are now 120,000 people living in refugee
camps just inside the Thai border; 20,000 people have arrived in the past
two months because of the current offensive against the KNU.  In addition,
approximately 40,000 Shan people have reached Thailand fleeing the forced
relocations, but they have not been permitted to establish refugee camps.
Another 300,000 Burmese from various ethnic groups have also come to
Thailand and have been labeled "illegal economic migrants" though most have
fled because of the massive forced relocation and forced labor campaigns of
the Burmese army.  The total number of dislocated Burmese inside Thailand is
at least 450,000 people.  Added to those who have been able to reach
Thailand--who are the lucky ones--are the hundreds of thousands of
internally displaced persons inside Burma near the border.  It is estimated
that for every person that has reached Thailand, there is at least one still
inside Burma who would flee if they were able. 
SLORC now controls almost the entire border with Thailand and has blocked
the evacuation routes of thousands who wish to flee.  Thousands of villagers
are still scattered in the jungles along the border with inadequate food and
water supplies, poor shelter and no access to medicine. Thousands of others
have given up trying to reach Thailand and have gone
to the ordered forced relocations sites which are just as bad.
 
In Shan state, the massive forced relocation campaign continues which
started last year and effected at least 120,000 people.  The Burmese army is
relocating new villages as well as doing "secondary sweeps" in the previous
relocation areas to mop up any remaining villagers who may be scattered
in the forests and trying to avoid the relocation sites.  Areas outside
relocation sites are now free-fires zones, and some villagers are shot on
sight; these are clear examples of arbitrary and summary executions of
innocent civilians.
 
In Karenni state, another forced relocation campaign, which affected at
least 180 villages and began last year continues with similarly alarming
human costs.  Many abandoned villages have been burned --some completely--by
the Burmese army, and land mines have been laid in others to prevent
villagers from returning to their homes.  Thousands remain scattered in the
jungle, and unable to plant their crops, they face potential
famine.  Those who have gone to the relocation sites face appalling
conditions; little or no food is provided, and water supplies are inadequate
and normally dirty.  Disease is rampant, and medicine is scarce or
nonexistent.  The relocation campaigns in both Shan and Karenni states are
blatant violations of numerous rights of the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights.
 
The violations of human rights resulting from the offensive against the KNU
and the Karen people are just as pervasive.  Forced porterage, rape,
torture, summary executions, arbitrary detentions, and the burning and
looting of villages have All been documented.  With SLORC occupying these
areas, forced relocations and massive violations of human rights will
continue.
 
Adding insult to injury, SLORC and SLORC-supported forces now terrorize the
refugees just inside the Thai border -- threatening to burn down their homes
and force them to return to Burma.  In January, two refugee camps were burnt
to the ground, leaving more than 10,000 people homeless.  Other camps have
been attacked this year as well, leaving the refugees All along the border
frightened and vulnerable.
 
In light of this human rights crisis along the Thai/Burmese border,  we
recommend: 
 
1) to the Commission, that its resolution on the situation of human rights
in Burma emphasize the crisis along the Thai/ Burmese border because of the
offensive against the Karen people and the forced relocations in Karenni and
Shan states and other areas.
 
2) to the international community, to continue its international
humanitarian assistance to the border area to help those in need of
immediate food and supplies, including medicine, and to work to improve the
security of the refugees by moving the camps further inside Thailand.  
 
3) to Thailand, to continue its long tradition of humanitarian assistance
and allowing those in danger to seek refuge in their country and not to
repatriate any refugees until a genuine lasting political solution and peace
is in place in Burma.  
 
4) and finally to SLORC, that it stop its campaign of force against the
civilian population and the political opposition groups in Burma and join a
tripartite dialogue with the democracy movement and ethnic nationalities to
reach a national reconciliation.  
 
Thank you.
  
* Readers may be interested to know that during the delivery of this
statement, His Excellency U Aye, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative of Myanmar to the United Nations
in Geneva, along with his deputy, rather conspicuously walked out.

************************************************

DR SEIN WIN TO COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
April 9, 1997

                    INTERNATIONAL PEACE BUREAU
 
Commission on Human Rights
53rd Session
Agenda Item (10)
 
April 9, 1997                      
 
              Oral Intervention made by Dr. Sein Win
                       
 I am Dr. Sein Win, an elected representative of the 1990 general election
from the Paukkhaung constituency in Burma.  First of all, I am disappointed
to know that the Special Rapporteur on Burma has not been allowed to visit
Burma to perform his mandate given by the 52nd Session of the UN Commission
on Human Rights.  SLORC's failure to comply with
the terms of successive UN resolutions and its denial to allow  the Special
Rapporteur and the Envoy of the UN Secretary- General to visit Burma are
clear violations of articles 55 and 56 of the UN Charter in which member
states "pledge themselves to take joint and separate action" to "promote
universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all." 
                       
At every UN session, SLORC authorities appear to be very defensive about the
resolutions on Burma and the Special Rapporteur's reports on the situation
of human rights in our country. SLORC mistakenly claims that the right of
non- interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state is
paramount to all other articles in the UN Charter.  In our view, national
sovereignty must descend from the people; sovereignty should not be used as
a veil to hide human rights abuses. 
 
Instead of cooperating with the UN, improving the human rights situation and
opening the country to human rights monitoring, SLORC has chosen a different
path.  Its total denial to all human rights violations and its closed door
policy to UN human rights monitoring are not the acts of a responsible
member of the UN that adheres to the principles of the rule of
law.
                       
The situation of human rights in Burma is moving from bad to worse.  The
rights of the people, especially elected representatives and supporters of
the National League for Democracy, to freely participate in the political
process have been severely restricted by unjust laws and orders. In response
to the efforts of the people to freely express their will, SLORC has
resorted to violent suppression, arbitrary arrests, unfair trials and harsh
prison sentences.  While SLORC is able to reconcile with drug traffickers,
even trying to make them into respected leaders of some ethnic groups and
legitimate businesses, democratically elected representatives are being
treated like criminals.
  
Since May, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has again been put under virtual house
arrest.  Her freedom of travel is severely restricted. SLORC has forbidden
the weekend rallies in front of her home, the only place she could
communicate directly with the people.  Even worse, on November 9th of last
year, she was physically attacked by a group of about 200 young men
from the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA),
a SLORC-organized youth group.
 
  This is SLORC-orchestrated, state-sanctioned terrorism.  We continue to be
seriously concerned about the personal security of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
because Win Sein, the Minister of Railways and Transportation, told members
of the USDA that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should be killed. 
  
  Now SLORC is also putting much more pressure on elected Members   of
Parliament (MPs) to resign from their posts.  SLORC has ntimidated, harassed
and arrested many MPs and their families as well as used economic coercion
to try to force their resignations. 
 
  In addition, under the restrictive  measures imposed in the country,
lawyers and medical doctors involved in the democracy movement are finding
it increasingly difficult to practice their professions. 
  
  Restrictions have also been imposed on the travel of NLD Mps and members.
They are confined to their respective townships unless they receive prior
permission from their local authorities to leave.  Some MPs who have
traveled without permission have been arrested and sentenced under the 1961
Restrictions and Bond Act which was originally enacted to
limit the travels of ex-criminals. 
  
  There are many other restrictions on NLD activities.  Many NLD branches
have been forced to take down their party sign boards. Also, landlords have
been forced not to rent office space for the NLD.  And when NLD members want
to meet, they must request permission from the local authorities. Permission
rarely follows.
  
  The NLD also tried to organize a meeting of elected MPs and party members
in May and again in September.  In May, around 200 MPs and supporters were
detained in intelligence buildings to prevent them from congregating in
Rangoon, and in September, around 600 suffered the same fate. When student
demonstrations broke out in December, SLORC accused the NLD of inciting the
demonstrations and arrested more NLD members. They released the majority,
but there remain approximately 100
members and  24 MPs in detention. We are greatly disturbed to see continued
cases of death in custody due to torture and lack of food and medical care.
Two elected Mps, Tin Maung Win from the Khayan constituency and U Hla Than
from the Coco Island constituency, have died in prison since 1990.
  
  The purpose of arresting, torturing and allowing MPs to die is to
undermine and nullify the 1990 election results.  Of the 392 elected NLD
MPs, 68 were disqualified by the Election Commission for no valid reason, 39
have been forced to resign, 24 remain in detention and two have died in prison.
  
  As the Special Rapporteur pointed out, the lack of rights pertaining to
democratic governance is the root cause of major violations of human rights
in Burma. The remedy for improving the human rights situation is to have a
substantive triparte dialogue at the earliest possible date among all
concerned parties.  It is the will of the Burmese people to seek national
reconciliation through dialogue.  
  
  In the light of the deteriorating situation in Burma, I would like to
recommend that the Commission:
 
  (1) extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for another
  year; and(2) pass a resolution on Burma that reflects the
appalling human rights situation in Burma.  
  
  Thank you.

*******************************