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

No Subject Given



          Human Rights Abuses Under Burma's Military Regime 

Dear Burma Net Editor,

    Whenever I think about Burma, which is my original birthplace and
homeland, the term "human-rights abuses" immediately comes to my mind. I
would therefore like to discuss the human-rights abuses of the Burmese
military regime and why they top those of all other regimes. In spite of
overwhelming evidence, the Generals of the SLORC and their representatives
have always denied the existence of human-rights abuses in Burma. They claim
that the west does not understand the diversity of cultures in Burma and
therefore should not interfere with it's affairs by imposing it's beliefs and
values upon that country.
    Let us analyse the term "human-rights abuse". It is a simple term and a
normal person can understand it. It has nothing to do with a "diversity of
cultures". Let me put it this way. A human rights abuse is committed when a
person or a group of persons forces somebody to do what he or she does not
want to do, causing suffering in the process. Furthermore, a human rights
abuse is committed when a person or a group of persons stops somebody from
doing what he or she wants to do and has the right to do. The SLORC and their
representatives insist that in Burmese culture people volunteer their
services to get merits in their next existence. That may be true in the
religious activities of Buddhism to a certain extent, but it is not true at
all in forced labors and porterage. I do not think anybody will volunteer his
services day after day and month after month, leaving his family and work, to
work as a porter for ta-ma-daw, not knowing when he will be coming home or if
he will not be coming home at all, but instead dying in a remote jungle. The
people of Burma in the countryside are simple and their earnings are minimum.
If the Burmese army treated them decently and paid them a minimum wage, they
would be happy to do the job. They are very afraid of being put in front to
act as human shields to clear mines. Besides, when they have become exhausted
from carrying heavy loads, they do not get sympathy from the soldiers. They
are either beaten up or left to die in the remote jungle. So forced labors
and porterage are nothing but modern day slavery. In villages close to the
border area, SLORC troops have killed, tortured, and raped innocent
villagers, looted their properties, and razed their villages to the ground.
In big cities, SLORC has forced and relocated the people to beautify the
cities for tourism. Without justification SLORC has arrested and imposed long
prison terms for opposition members and parliamentary representatives.
 On the other hand, SLORC has forced and stopped the people of Burma from
doing what they have the right to do and the desire to do. The people of
Burma wanted democratic government and in the 1990 election they chose their
representatives, but the SLORC stopped those representatives from forming a
government. SLORC refused to relinquish power to the winning NLD party. When
NLD members tried to perform their party activities, SLORC stopped them by
arresting them and imprisoning them. When the people of Burma took their
grievances peacefully to the street, SLORC troops stopped them by mowing them
down with machine guns. Thousands lost their lives. The people of Burma, as
human beings, want to know what is going on in the world today but SLORC has
stopped them by imposing long prison terms of up to 15 years for possession
of  a computer with a modem. In the U.S.A. even children have access to the
internet, but adults in Burma do not have the right to receive information
freely. Under the Burmese military regime, minorities who want to preserve
their cultures and traditions do not have the opportunity for their children
to learn their own languages. In 
Burma all private schools which have been long established by different
religious denominations have been nationalized and ethnic minority languages
are not allowed to be taught. When I lived in the Karen state capital of
Pa-an a retired Colonel tried to make his spacious home a private school so
that Karen children would be able to learn their own language. But the
military regime harassed him with rules and restrictions so much that he
finally abandoned his project. Even in colonial days under British rule all
minority races in Burma had the opportunity to learn their own languages, but
under Independent Burma Military Rule all of these privileges have been taken
away. The people of Burma want to express their opinions but the SLORC stops
them by imprisonment if they criticize the military regime.
    Last year, when interviewed by the International Tribune, General Khin
Nyunt told the journalist that people who have not been in the country have
the perception that the government is oppressive and cruel. The information
they received was not from them (the government) but from people who live in
Los Angeles, Washington, and New York. The information they received was also
from anti-government ethnic armed groups who are active along the border
area. That was not true at all. The information the world media received came
from interviewing simple farmers and villagers: Mon, Karen, Karenni, and
Shans who ran for their lives toward and across the border into Thailand.
They finally end up in refugee camps. Thank God that the Royal Thai
Governmant still extends sympathy and lets them take refuge on their soil.
    Now let us have a closer look at why SLORC tops other regimes in the
world with regard to human rights abuses. When we look back at the history of
mass slavery of mankind, we notice that the Israelites were the first people
to be taken into bondage  for slavery. King Pharoah enslaved Israelites but
there was no indication that he ever killed them. A few years ago when civil
war broke out in Bosnia, the racist Serb leadership who were so greedy to
gain land and so busy to do the ethnic cleansing that they did not have time
to enslave the Muslim population. They just killed them and dumped them into
mass graves. SLORC did both killings AND enslavement of the people of Burma.
SLORC committed mass killings in 1988, and continued executions of people in
the border area still persist. Enslavement of the people by means of forced
labors and porterage has become a way of life for the SLORC troops to get
free labor. Rapes and tortures are also common along the border. Recently
when SLORC mounted an offensive against the KNU, thousands of Karen civilians
fled their homeland and tried to take refuge across the border in Thailand.
Villagers who could not escape became easy prey to the tyrannies of SLORC
troops. They had to bear torture, rape, and in some instances executions. 
    How long have human-rights abuses been going on in Burma? It started when
the Military regime took over power and it has intensified year after year. I
remember when I was in Burma two decades ago. Soldiers rounded up people in
their homes and at their work places in the fields. Soldiers then took them
away to serve as porters. This kind of catching of people for porterage
usually happened at the beginning of the dry season when the Burmese Army
started mounting offensives against the ethnic resistance groups. Sometimes
soldiers surrounded movie theaters and closed all the exit doors. They then
entered the movie house and picked up as many able bodied persons as they
wanted and trucked them away for porterage. A few years ago as SLORC troops
gained more control of areas formerly controlled by ethnic armed groups, they
changed their tactics for catching porters. Local troop commanders demanded a
certain number of porters from each village (a quota system) and the village
headman was given the task of bringing them. Failure to comply would result
in harm to the village headman or destruction of the village. Many village
headmen fled to refugee camps in Thailand to escape this pressure.  Now SLORC
troops have an even more effective way of catching porters. As some of the
villages have been destroyed and villagers moved to relocation sites with
enclosures, it is very easy for SLORC troops to catch porters. They just pick
them up at the relocation site.  
    Life in Burma is very rough and full of fear and suffering. Average life
span for the people of Burma is between 60 and 70 and if you have to spend
half or more of your life span in constant fear, where then is the quality of
life? All people who believe in religion have one thing in common. That is
that they all believe that there is a hell and a heaven or a better life in
the next existence. For me, I not only believe in the next existence but I
also believe that there is a hell on earth under the SLORC regime.
Ironically, I remember when the Burmese Army was reorganized and in some
instances new batallions were formed in 1948, each and every soldier was
taught and given a small booklet called "sit-thi-daw kyint wutt". The booklet
is the size of a standard passport and the contents are so nice that after
you have read it you are wondering if it is the Holy Bible of the soldier.
 It specified the ethical conduct of a soldier in relationship to the people
and their property. Contrary to that trend and the policy laid down in 1948,
soldiers nowadays do not hesitate to torture and kill the people. They also
loot the people's property. The crimes the SLORC soldiers have committed are
so wide spread that they have become internationally known. In spite of the
wide spread crime there has not been a single soldier or officer who has been
indicted or punished. If you do not punish the soldier who has committed
crimes, how can you stop human-rights abuses? SLORC has always denied that
there are human-rights abuses in Burma and has ignored them. You can not
ignore the facts but you have to find the solutions. Therefore only SLORC is
solely responsible for human-rights abuses that have been going on in Burma
so much and for too long.
    Now let me focus my discussion on another issue. RECONCILIATION.  Does
the SLORC want true reconciliation and a lasting peace? Before SLORC signs a
peace accord with a minority resistance group, they mass their troops close
to that resistance group. Being outnumbered and sensing the immediate danger,
the resistance group has no choice but to sign the agreement according to
SLORC's terms. What are SLORC's terms? Resistance groups have to supply SLORC
with information about their strength, location, and weaponery. Their
movements are restricted and they must not recruit new conscripts. And while
SLORC restricts minority resistance groups from recruiting new soldiers,
their local SLORC commanders send out orders to each and every village
headman for quotas of new conscripts. To obtain their objectives, SLORC does
not want any mediator to take part in the negotiation process. For example,
before negotiations started between SLORC and KNU, the then deputy Foreign
Minister Nyunt Swe told reporters, after meeting with his Thai counterpart,
that it was not necessary to have a Thai mediator in the negotiation process.
I was concerned that the negotiations might break down without a mediator,
and so I wrote to the BurmaNet editor on April 13, 1995 expressing my concern
and opinion that I was not optimistic about the negotiations. I am attaching
a copy of that letter. In my opinion it will not be very hard for SLORC to
bring back the minority resistance groups to the "legal fold", the term
repeatedly used by the SLORC. First, SLORC has to show it's sincerity by
working together with Minority resistance groups and delegate some
authorities to them to win their trust. Building up troops, sending
ultimatums to surrender, and unleashing military might will not accomplish
this. The Minority resistance groups are getting tired of fighting and they
are longing for peace. SLORC should use the opportunity to build up trust
instead of animosity. 
    But SLORC does not seem to be interested in true reconciliation and a
lasting peace. They seem only interested in building their military might to
dominate over minorities, and to invade their territories to extract wealth
and natural resources. The former dictator General Ne Win once made a remark
that he would sacrifice any number of soldiers just to get a precious teak
log. So would the SLORC to get any wealth from the ethnic minority areas. The
cease fire SLORC signed with ethnic/minority resistance groups is not true
reconciliation. It is just to stop the fighting so that SLORC could extract
wealth and natural resources freely. There is abundant jade in Kachin State,
precious stones and rubies in Mogote and surrounding areas, poppy fields and
heroin factories in Wa state and part of Shan state, teak in Kayah and Karen
states, and recently a gas pipeline across the Mon state. SLORC troops are
not so active in the Chin Hills where communication is very difficult and
there are not natural resources that can earn foreign exchange, but
domination and religious persecution by means of coercion to convert
Christioans into Buddhists is going on to a certain extent.
    In the western side of the country, the Muslim population whose
appearance looks like that of their brothers in Bangladesh and whose
language, religion, and culture are the same, claim that they are Burmese
citizens. Section 4(2) of the 1948 Burma constitution states that any person
who is a descendant of at least two generations from  persons who made Burma
territory their permanent home and whose parents and he or she were born in
the territory is deemed to be a citizen of the Union of Burma. As mentioned
above due to likeness, it is hard to differentiate them from Bangladeshi.
They call themselves Rohinjas. They could be Burmese citizens but SLORC does
not recognize them as an indigenous race and Burmese citizens. There are also
small Muslim resistance groups who have been active along the border area and
so SLORC troops drove them across the border into Bangladesh. As usual,
whenever SLORC troops have mounted operations, human rights abuses have
followed. There are also indigenous Arakanese resistance groups but they are
not as strong as their eastern brothers.
    Does the SLORC, in excluding a mediator, obtain what it wants to reach
it's goal? Yes, they do to a certain extent. Does it secure a lasting peace?
I do not think so. When the SLORC negotiated with the KNU, not because they
wanted true reconciliation but because they just wanted to show the world
that they tried, the KNU refused their good will offer. This was used to
justify their brutal offensive against KNU and the Karen population. SLORC is
not a patriotic junta but a wealth seeking group of Generals. Let us see how
true this statement is. When I was in Burma I knew that Low Sit Han was in
jail, but now I am surprised to learn that he has become a business partner
of SLORC. When his son was married, the ceremony was attended by prominent
members of SLORC. So also SLORC has good relations with drug king pin Khun
Sa. When Khun Sa surrendered, General Khun nyunt welcomed him as a blood
brother. He later bestowed him with lucrative businesses. SLORC even harbors
Khun Sa from indictment by the United States. As a Government, harboring a
criminal is shameful and degrading to integrity, but SLORC does not care
because Khun Sa brought in millions of dollars into SLORC's coffers. SLORC
will do anything to get wealth and does not care what the world community
says about them. On the other hand, when KNU colonel Saw Thu Muhe surrendered
he was received humiliatingly. General Maung Aye ordered him to kneel down
and forced him to confess his past mistakes. General Maung Aye then treaded
over the KNU flag to satisy his anger. Well, the poor and ragged Colonel
could not and did not bring in any money. What he could bring in were a few
old rifles, some of which may not even have been serviceable. This may have
triggered the wrath of the number two SLORC man, who in turn, humiliated the
poor Colonel in public. By looking at the above instances we can conclude
that the Generals are not interested in true reconciliation and lasting peace
but in wealth and riches.
    Even though the Generals have become extremely rich, the people of Burma
have become poorer and poorer as the days have passed. When SLORC
representative U Denzi Abel presented his claims at the 53rd session of the
human rights commission, I  noticed that many of his claims were not true. I
do not want to mention all of his claims but one of them stated that ongoing
progress has been acheived in creating conditions for a better life for the
people of Myanmar and that the most essential and fundamental basic right is
to meet the food, clothing, and shelter needs and raise the standard of
living. Now let me analyse how much this statement is true and how much the
standard of living has been raised for the people of Burma. Government
employees earn between 1500 kyats and 2500 kyats. When you convert kyat to
dollar the hightest earning employee earns about $16.66/month  (2500/150). Do
you call this an achievement in raising the standard of living during 8 years
of SLORC's regime? I think this is the most damaging lie the SLORC
representative has ever presented. It is also true for people who live in the
countryside and earn their livelihood in agriculture. They have to set aside
an amount for their family's consumption and the rest they are forced to fill
in their quotas to sell to the Government at low fixed rates. If they fail to
sell their quota to the Government, they are liable to imprisonment for up to
1 year. All of the money SLORC earns in this way goes towards buying military
hardware and expansion of the army, which in turn creates suffering and
misery for the people of Burma. Had it not been for the creation of
militarism, the people of Burma would not have had to suffer this much and
the standard of living would not have plummeted this deeply. Then who is the
culprit for creating the big gap between extreme poverty of the people and
the extremely rich SLORC? SLORC should notice this situation and should
address the problem because they are solely responsible for the sufferings
and misery of the people of Burma. 
    Another thing that crosses my mind is that SLORC still has the mentality
of a 12th to 18th century monarchy. They want domination of Burma over all
other ethnic races. Their excuse is to prevent disintegration of the Union.
No ethnic race wants SLORC troops to invade their lands and extract natural
resources freely without returning some portion of it for their own
development. Let us see why SLORC looks like these monarchs and why it is not
appropriate to act and behave in this way. In those days communication was
poor and information was being sent by either horse back messengers or runner
messengers. Your neighboring countries could hardly know what you were doing
in your homeland. They did not care to investigate what you were doing and
they did not have much interest in your business. Nowadays, as communication
has advanced, human interrelationships have flourished. Politics and economy
has also become intertwined. You can not separate one from the other. When
King Anawrahta conquered Mon land, the Mon king Manuha, together with his
retinue and skilled craftsmen were taken to upper Burma. The outside world
didn't know about it and no country cared to investigate. The Mon king had no
support from the people of the world and no Government pressured King
Anawrahta to release the Mon king. The Mon king Manuha and his retinue spent
the rest of thier lives in captivity without having a chance to return  to
Mon land. Now, as communications have advanced, what the SLORC is doing in
Burma is known to the world in a short period of time. Even though the whole
world knows about its oppressive regime and abusive human rights record very
well, SLORC has always denied it. I am just wondering if SLORC thinks the
international community will believe their lies or just lie to save face.
SLORC should know that it is no longer the 12th century, you can no longer
hide the actions of your oppessive and unwanted regime. It is also time to
adapt to the changing world and not hang on to an undesired Military
Dictatorship Rule.
    Last but not least, I want to tell a short story about Paddy Bird and
Fish in a small pond, which I learned in my childhood. In the U.S.A. we call
that bird White Crane. In the summertime a small pond which is inhabited by
many fish, including a crab, was about to dry up. One day a paddy bird came
to the pond and told the fish that the pond was about to dry and you all
would perish soon. He further told the fish that there was a big pond full of
water and vegetation and he promised to give them a lift. Not knowing what
the future would hold for them and sensing the immediate danger of the drying
pond, the fish agreed to be lifted and carried to the lucrative big pond. The
paddy bird then lifted one fish and perched on the Kadet tree and ate her up.
He went back to the pond again and picked up another fish, took her to the
tree and ate her up. In this way the paddy bird continued lifting up the fish
till he had devoured all the fish in the small pond. The Paddy bird then went
back to the pond to pick up the crab. When the paddy bird was about to pick
up the crab with his beak on the crab's shell, the crab said, "Wait a minute.
You cannot pick me up by my shell or you will break it. Let me hang on to
your neck with my claws." The bird agreed and he lifted the crab and perched
on the Kadet tree. When the crab saw the remaining bones of the fish she knew
exactly what the Paddy Bird had done to the fish. The crab then lost no time
and cut the neck of the Paddy Bird with her two razor sharp claws. That is
the end of the story. Well, what has the fish and bird story have to do with
Burma's politics? There is some similarity. By excluding mediators, the SLORC
tries to hide their intentions of getting peace according to SLORC's terms.
During negotiations SLORC does not try to resolve political issues which are
the cause of the problems but promises some business and development in the
ethnic minority group areas like what the Paddy bird promised to the fish.
The time passed by but the promise has not materialized. Instead, SLORC broke
it's cease fire agreement with the Karenni and unleashed their military might
upon Karenni resistance groups. Recently, SLORC unleashed it's military might
upon the KNU troops. Seeing the suffering and agony of the population along
the border area as the result of SLORC's troop offensive, the ethnic
resistance groups, including those that have signed cease fire agreements
with SLORC, have gathered together at Mai Tha Raw Hta and made a declaration
of their resolution. I would therefore suggest that now it is the right time
to implement the resolution by binding ourselves together so that we will
become stronger militarily and politically. On the other side, the Burmese
Government in exile, Students aboad, and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's party NLD
have gained momentum in the political front already. They are successful in
telling the truth about Burma and in creating a global awareness that SLORC
regime is extremely oppressive. And they are gaining the support of the
international community. It is not easy to leave one's base and area which
you have been familiar with to join another base to be united with other
groups but there is no other way. Make no mistake about it. SLORC is not
interested in resolving  political problems. They are only interested in
building up their army for domination over ethnic nationalities and in
seeking wealth. The cease fire agreement they made with ethnic resistance
groups is only for their convenience so as to pick them up one by one like
the Paddy Bird picked up fish in the pond. If ethnic resistance groups can be
united to form one claw of the crab and if NLD and opposition groups abroad
form the other I am sure both can cut the throat of the SLORC easily, like
the crab did to the Paddy Bird. 


With best regards,
Saw Aung Khin