NEWS - UPDATE ON THE SHAN STATE

[Rangoonp@xxxxxxx]

Copyright notice: The copyright for this document rests with Amnesty
International. 
        You may download and read it. You may not alter this
information, repost or sell it without permission. 
        If you use this document, you are encouraged to make a donation
to Amnesty International to support future research. 


        AI Index: ASA 16/13/99 
        Amnesty International 
        JUNE 1999 
        MYANMAR
        UPDATE ON THE SHAN STATE 


        I. INTRODUCTION

        It has now been over three years since the tatmadaw, or Burmese
army, started a mass forcible relocation program of hundreds of
thousands of Shan civilians. In March 1996 the army began to relocate
over 300,000 members of the Shan ethnic minority in central Shan State
in an effort to break up any links between civilians and members of the
Shan State Army - South (SSA), an ethnic minority armed opposition
group. After villagers were relocated, they were forbidden from
returning to their homes and farms to work in their fields and collect
belongings -- those who disobeyed were frequently shot on sight by
Burmese troops. In addition relocated Shan civilians were used as a pool
of labourers to do work without pay and against their will. In April
1998 Amnesty International published a major report on human rights
violations in the context of these forcible relocations, including
documentation of the killings of 42 people during a 13 month period.[1]
This information was based almost entirely on first-hand interviews with
Shan refugees in Thailand.

        In February 1999 Amnesty International interviewed
recently-arrived Shan refugees in Thailand in order to obtain an update
on the human rights situation in the central Shan State. The pattern of
violations has remained the same, including forced labour and portering,
extrajudicial killings, and ill-treatment of villagers. Troops also
routinely stole villagers' rice supplies, cattle, and gold, using them
to sell or to feed themselves. According to reports tatmadaw officers do
not provide their troops with adequate supplies, so troops in effect
live off the villagers. One 33-year-old farmer from Murngnai township
described the relationship between the Shan and the tatmadaw:

        "Before, I learned that the armed forces are supposed to protect
people, but they are repressing people. If you can't give them

everything they want, they consider you as their enemy...It is
illogical, the army is forcing people to protect them, instead of
vice-versa."

        The Shan have been fleeing from the counter-insurgency
activities of the Burmese army to Thailand in large numbers since the
early 1990's. However, unlike the Karen, the Karenni, and the Mon
people, the Shan have never been permitted by the Thai authorities to
establish camps as "displaced persons".[2] Instead, they have sought
work in agriculture, construction, and other low-paying jobs in
Thailand. In the first four months of 1999, over 5,000 Shan refugees
arrived in Thailand at one border crossing alone, and since March 1996,
over 100,000 Shan refugees have fled to Thailand. When asked if they
were harassed by SPDC troops on their journey out to Thailand, some Shan
refugees replied that in fact troops made no effort to prevent them from
leaving. One 50-year-old farmer from Murngnai township reported that at
a checkpoint a tatmadaw major said to his group "If anyone is leaving
for Thailand I would just like to say farewell." 

        Some of the Shan refugees who were interviewed said that they
had encountered troops from the SSA-South, but none had reported any
ill-treatment by them. However Shan armed groups have targeted ethnic
Burman civilians for killing. In June 1997 reliable reports indicated
that 25 Burman civilians were taken off a bus and deliberately and
arbitrarily shot dead by a Shan armed opposition group. More recently 10
ethnic Burman civilians were reportedly killed in late October 1998 by
an unknown Shan armed group. A veteran Shan leader Sao Hso Hten said
about the incident: "We are at war and such things as these cannot be
avoided."[3] Amnesty International condemns such killings and calls on
all armed political groups to respect minimum standards of international
humanitarian law and to put an end to abuses such as deliberate and
arbitrary killings, torture and hostage-taking. Campaigning against
these abuses implies neither recognition nor condemnation of the
organizations as such.

        Several of the Shan refugees interviewed by Amnesty
International said that they were frightened to describe what had
happened to them for fear of reprisals. One 55-year-old widowed farmer
who had only been in Thailand for three days said that if she were in
Myanmar she would be beaten by the army for speaking out. Therefore in
the information which follows, the names and villages of refugees who
were interviewed have been deleted.

        Background

        Myanmar, formerly Burma, has been in a state of civil war since
it gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1948. For the last 50
years armed opposition groups representing various ethnic minorities
have engaged in insurgency activities against the central government in
an effort to gain greater autonomy or complete independence. According
to the government, there are 135 "national races" in Myanmar, including
the dominant ethnic Burman group. Ethnic minority groups comprise
approximately one third of the population, who live mostly in the seven
ethnic minority states surrounding the central Myanmar plain.


        The population of the Shan State, the largest of the seven
ethnic minority states in Myanmar, is approximately eight million
people. Of these, some four million are ethnic Shan. Other groups in the
state include the majority Burmans, and the Pa'O, Akha, Lahu, Palaung,
and Wa ethnic minorities. The Shan people are ethnically related to the
Thai, have a similar language, and live in southern China and northern
Thailand as well as in Myanmar. Most of them are Theravada Buddhist rice
farmers. In pre-colonial times, the area that is now the Shan State was
ruled by Shan princes who sometimes owed allegiance to Burman or Thai
overlords and were sometimes independent. Under British colonial rule,
the Shan areas were administered separately from the rest of Burma. 

        During negotiations between Britain and Burma about
independence, Shan and other ethnic minority leaders demanded guarantees
of minority rights in return for an agreement to join in a Union of
Burma. These were conceded in an agreement between the Burmese
Government and the Shan, Kachin, and Chin representatives in 1947 in
Panglong, a Shan town. After Burmese independence in 1948, however,
disputes arose between some Shan political figures and the central
administration in Rangoon over the handling of Shan affairs. In 1958 the
first Shan armed opposition group was organized, and since then various
other groups took up arms. Since 1989 some of these groups have agreed
cease-fires with the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC, the
ruling military government), but the Shan States Army - South, or SSA,
numbering some 3,500 troops, has continued in its armed struggle against
the tatmadaw in central and southern Shan State.

        When the military reasserted power in September 1988 after
suppressing a nation-wide pro-democracy movement, they adopted a policy
of negotiating cease-fires individually with ethnic minority armed
opposition groups rather than engaging with umbrella organizations which
grouped them together. Since 1989 they have agreed 17 cease-fires with
various ethnic minority armed opposition groups, including the Mong Tai
Army (MTA, led by Khun Sa) in January 1996. Although Khun Sa surrendered
to the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC, Myanmar's
military authorities) [4] , thousands of Shan troops have continued to
fight for greater autonomy against the central Burman authorities. After
Khun Sa's surrender, troops from the newly-formed Shan State Army-South
[5] began to move north from former MTA areas along the Thai-Myanmar
border to the central Shan State. 

        Once the SSA-South moved into new areas, the tatmadaw began
major counter-insurgency activities against them. However as is
generally the case in guerrilla warfare, most of their victims were Shan
civilians, not SSA troops. Forcible relocation was the main tactic which
the SPDC has employed in its counter-insurgency strategy against the SSA
-South. It has also used mass forcible relocation of civilians in its
fight against ethnic minority armed opposition groups based in the Karen
and Karenni States, where tens of thousands of Karen and Karenni farmers

have been forced off their land since early 1996. As a result large
areas of the Karen, Karenni, and Shan States have been cleared of
civilians whom the SPDC believes are supporting various armed ethnic
minority groups. 

        Over three quarters of refugees interviewed by Amnesty
International had been forcibly relocated from their home villages in
Murngnai, Kunhing, Laikha, Kaesee, Murngton townships. Most of these
people had initially gone to designated relocation sites near towns or
military bases, but had eventually found it impossible to survive there.
Of the 300,000 relocated civilians in the Shan State, there are
approximately 100,000 people in relocation sites, about 50,000 people
hiding in the forest, some 50,000 people who have fled to other areas,
and over 100,000 who have escaped to Thailand.[6] Most of these people
have been deprived of the right to earn a livelihood, after they were
pushed off land where they cultivated rice and raised livestock.

        Widespread human rights violations in Myanmar's ethnic minority
states have had a significant negative impact on neighbouring countries,
particularly Thailand, Bangladesh, and India, which have all been
affected by large refugee flows. But other countries have also been
faced with large numbers of refugees -- some 10,000 Rohingyas, or
Muslims from the Rakhine State, remain in Malaysia and until very
recently 10,000 Kachin refugees were in China's Yunnan Province.
Presently there are over 100,000 refugees in Thai camps alone, and at
least that number outside of these camps in Thailand, where refugee
numbers from Myanmar are at an all-time high. The continuing economic
downturn throughout Asia makes it even more difficult for these
countries to cope with more refugees, as they are faced with widespread
unemployment and other problems. In addition incursions by SPDC troops
and various armed opposition groups into Thai territory are a security
threat, and several Thai nationals have been killed as a result during
the last four years.


        II. FORCED LABOUR AND PORTERING

        The widespread use of unpaid forced labour by the military in
Myanmar is a longstanding concern for Amnesty International, which has
documented the practice since 1988. Although forced labour has decreased
in central Burma, it is still being reported on a large scale in the
seven ethnic minority states which surround the central Burman plain.
Members of ethnic minorities are much more likely than ethnic Burmans to
be forced to perform unpaid forced labour and are in effect targeted for
such duties. The SPDC has asserted that it is attempting to improve the
infrastructure of areas which had formerly been affected by fighting
between the tatmadaw and various ethnic minority-based armed groups. As
a result of this policy thousands of ethnic minority civilians are
forced to work on infrastructure projects on a routine basis. 

        In answer to reports of forced labour from the UN, other
governments, and non-governmental organizations, the SPDC claims that
the work is voluntary and for the benefit of the people. On 14 May 1999
SPDC Secretary I General Khin Nyunt made the following statement in

address to the ASEAN[7]Labour Ministers' Meeting in Yangon:

        "There have been allegations of the use of forced labour in
Myanmar...a sustained effort to improve the infrastructure of our
economy...has been undertaken. Realizing the benefits to the communities
from these projects, people have voluntarily contributed labour so that
they can be completed sooner...On our part, to dispel these wrong
impressions, the government has issued instructions that only
remunerated labour must be used in infrastructure projects. At the same
time, with the return of peace, we are now mainly using our military
personnel to undertake these public works. Therefore the allegations of
forced labour are groundless."[8]

        Unpaid forced labour is in contravention of the International
Labour Organization's (ILO) Convention No 29, which the government of
Myanmar signed in 1955. The ILO has repeatedly raised the issue with the
government and in June 1996 took the rare step of appointing a
Commission of Inquiry. In August 1998 the Commission published a
comprehensive report, which found the Government of Myanmar "...guilty
of an international crime that is also, if committed in a widespread or
systematic manner, a crime against humanity." According to the
provisions of Convention 29, labourers must inter alia receive a wage,
be a healthy male between the ages of 18 and 45 years, and be provided
with a safe working environment. These conditions are almost never met
by the military in Myanmar when they use forced labour. 

        The practice of forced labour goes hand in hand with the policy
of forcible relocations of ethnic minority civilians by the tatmadaw.
Once the Shan were relocated from their villages into larger sites near
towns or army bases, they became sitting targets for forced labour
duties by the military, as they now lived under total military control.
Most of the refugees interviewed by Amnesty International said that the
forced labour demands were so high that they could not devote enough
time to earning a living, and so decided to flee to Thailand. 

        Three quarters of the Shan refugees interviewed by Amnesty
International were forced by the Burmese military to act as porters for
troops or work on roads and other infrastructure projects. Forced labour
duties in the central Shan State included cutting and transporting teak
logs, building shelters for the military, digging trenches, ferrying
troops across rivers, cultivating crops, road construction and even
building a Buddhist temple. Some villagers also had to guard roads
during the night and report any SSA troop movements to the tatmadaw. One
26-year-old farmer from Laikha township was forced to guard the road
from Laikha town to Panglong on three occasions for two nights each
time. He also had to help build a new military camp from 6am to 5pm.
When asked if he was ever paid, he replied that on the contrary he even
had to give troops money, cigarettes, and food. This was echoed by many
other refugees who described widespread extortion and looting by the
tatmadaw.


        One young woman who was also forced to carry equipment for the
army described her work in a military camp, during late 1998:

        "I had to clear brush around military camps. I also had to plant
flowers, clear the compound, make fences. I received no pay...Usually
the military sent a letter to the headman for us to work in rotation.
This was about three times a month since forcible relocation, sometimes
three days at a time between 8am to 5pm. Sometimes I even had to water
flowers. I got lunch break but I had to bring my own food. They would
beat the men with sticks, if they didn't work properly. Women were
threatened with a stick but not beaten - I was threatened."

        A 45-year-old farmer from Murngnai township who also had to
perform portering duties described his experience of forced labour in
January 1999:

        "I had to carry teak logs for them every few days. I also had to
grow soya beans for them. I was never paid, not even once. If we don't
finish our quota, we had to pay money. The military gave orders to
village headman, who would be arrested and fined - money and food. This
happened to our headman - so every time he was arrested we had to give
chickens or pigs."

        Several refugees who had been forcibly relocated to Kunhing town
were routinely forced to work by tatmadaw Unit 246 on a large Buddhist
temple under construction in the northern part of Kunhing. During the
last eight years the ruling military authorities have sought to
associate themselves closely with Theravada Buddhism, which is practiced
by 95% of the Myanmar population. After the SLORC cracked down on the
Buddhist sangha in late 1990 and arrested scores of monks,[9] leading
SLORC members were often photographed giving large donations at
monasteries and praying with monks. These efforts were largely viewed as
an attempt by the military to gain merit by performing good deeds.

        Construction of the temple in Kunhing began in late 1997 and
refugees said that they were forced to work on it up to the time they
left for Thailand in February 1999. A specified number of civilians from
each quarter in Kunhing were assigned a quota of bricks that they must
move before they could leave for the day. All of those interviewed said
that they were forced to climb high up to the top of the pagoda with
their load of bricks, which frightened most of them. One woman commented
on their treatment at the hands of the military: "They treated the
people like chickens."

        Refugees reported that children from eight to 15 years of age
were often used for this project, making up approximately 10% of the
workforce at any one time. A 35-year-old worker on the pagoda said that
children often worked in place of their parents, who were busy earning
money to support the family. The use of children for forced labour
duties is in clear contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child, which the government of Myanmar acceded to in 1991. Article
32 of the Convention states:

        "1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be
protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that

is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or
to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual,
moral or social development." 

        Both men and women interviewed by Amnesty International were
also forced to act as porters for the military, which is a particularly
harsh form of forced labour. Porters are usually held for days, or
sometimes weeks at a time, and are often beaten if they cannot keep up
with the military column. They are forced to carry heavy loads of
equipment and food through difficult terrain by troops who never pay
them, and provide them with almost no food or medical care. One
33-year-old farmer from Murngnai township gave a typical account of his
portering duties in early February 1999:

        "At least once a month I had to go as a porter. The last time
was less than one month ago. I was seized by Unit 514 from Murngtorng to
carry chickens and dried meat because on the way they shot many
villagers' cattle...I went for 15 days. We slept on the ground, tied up
with a yoke. There were about 40-50 porters all together, about five to
seven women. And about 10 children from 12-15 years. They kept women
separately. Sometimes they might have done something to women because
they screamed. All [the porters] were Shan. They didn't even feed us,
let alone pay us. When soldiers got to villages they asked the headman
to feed us. I was beaten because I was very tired and couldn't keep up.
I was hit with rifle butt four or five times on my upper arm, shoulders,
neck and stabbed by them but I dodged it. I was not able to carry any
more...." 

        One 42-year-old Shan farmer told Amnesty International that he
had been taken as a porter more times than he could remember. The last
time occurred in October 1998 when he was seized by SPDC troops from
Laikha for 10 days and forced to carry ammunition. Because he was given
so little food, he became weak and could no longer walk. A soldier
slapped him across the face several times, catching his finger in the
porter's left eye. He managed to escape by rolling down the mountainside
and hiding in the forest nearby. Eventually he made his way back home
but was too frightened to seek medical treatment. As a result of his
injury he permanently lost the sight in his left eye. 

        A 23-year-old woman from Murngnai township who was still nursing
her baby said that she fled to Thailand because she was beaten during
porter duty in January 1999. She had returned to work at her original
farm in Kunhing village tract and was taken by soldiers from Murngpaeng
and forced to carry oil and condensed milk. When she was tired and
slowed down a bit, she was pushed and kicked from behind by the troops.
She was never paid during the four times she had to perform porter
duties; in fact troops took money from her.

        Amnesty International is opposed to the practice of forced
portering, and considers it to be arbitrary detention. It calls on the
SPDC to abolish forced portering completely.

        III. EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS

        Amnesty International defines extrajudicial executions as
unlawful and deliberate killings, carried out by order of a government

official or with the government's complicity or acquiescence.
Extrajudicial executions are distinguished from justifiable killings by
the security forces in self-defence; deaths resulting from the use of
reasonable force in law enforcement; and the imposition of the death
penalty. Extrajudicial executions often result when security forces use
force which is disproportionate to any threat posed, although the
authorities may claim that this use of force was legitimate.

        Hundreds of Shan civilians were killed by SLORC troops during
and after the massive forcible relocation which began in March 1996,
displacing some 300,000 villagers in the central Shan State. In most
cases SLORC troops shot civilians dead after they had returned from
relocation sites to their deserted villages in order to gather food
which had been left behind. From mid June to mid July 1997 some 300 Shan
civilians were reportedly killed in a series of massacres by the Burmese
military in Kunhing township, central Shan State. Observers speculated
that these attacks were triggered by a massacre of 25 ethnic Burman
civilians by a Shan armed opposition group on 13 June 1997 at Pha Larng,
Kunhing township. According to reports, ethnic Burman civilians were
separated from other groups, forced off trucks and deliberately and
arbitrarily killed.

        Shan refugees interviewed by Amnesty International in February
1999 reported more recent extrajudicial executions of fellow villagers
and relatives by the tatmadaw. The pattern of killings was the same as
those recorded in 1997; villagers who returned to their fields and
former homes for food and other belongings were shot on sight. A series
of massacres reportedly occurred in May and June 1998 when a total of
103 civilians were killed in Nam Zarng, Murng Paeng, Murng Kerng, and
Murng Nai townships in four separate incidents.[10] Amnesty
International also recorded the deaths of 20 named civilians in the last
13 months; what follows are some representative cases. The vast majority
of these people were shot dead by SPDC troops while they were working in
their former fields. Eyewitnesses to these killings claimed that in some
cases villagers had permission from local units of the tatmadaw to
return to their farms, but were nevertheless killed when they did so. 

        A 25-year-old farmer from Murngnai township described the
killing of his cousin Saw Sing from Kengkham village, Kunhing township.
He had been forcibly relocated to Kunhing town in March 1996, leaving
his cattle behind. In January 1999 he received permission from the local
authorities to return to his village to collect his cattle. He spent the
night in Kengkham and was caught the next day and shot dead by troops f
rom Unit 513 based in Loilem. He left a wife and three children.

        A group of 13 people were shot dead on 27 June 1998 in Kaengtong
tract, Murngnai township. They were all staying in a farm hut in fields
which were four miles from their village of Nawng Tao. They apparently
had permission from the military to work on this farm but were shot dead
by troops from another unit. Amnesty International obtained the names of

seven of those killed, who were all part of an extended family: Lung Ta,
the 45-year-old group leader; Nai Tong, his wife; Aye Mon, 35-year-old
brother of Lung Ta, Ei Pi, Lung Ta's 16-year-old son; Ei Pong, Lung Ta's
25-year-old daughter-in-law; Ei Chung, Lung Ta's second daughter-in-law;
and Aye Chai, the 11-year-old son of Aye Mon. A 45-year-old rice farmer
also from Kaengtong tract, Murngnai township, was working in fields
nearby and heard the gunshots. He told Amnesty International that none
of the villagers dared bury the bodies for fear of SPDC troops. 

        A 23-year-old farmer also from Murngnai township told Amnesty
International about the killing in May 1998 of her 25-year-old brother
Way Pong La, who was married with two children. He had been fishing in
the Namteng River in Murngnai township with a friend when troops on the
river bank ordered them to come out of the river. Way Pong La tried to
wade to the bank but was shot dead in the heart four or five times. His
friend reached the bank unharmed and was then taken for porter duty. Way
Pong La's sister said that he was further away from shore than his
friend and that he became entangled in his fishing net, so was unable to
move quickly to the river bank.

        Shan civilians were also killed in the context of forced
portering when they were too tired to keep up with the military column.
A 40-year-old farmer from Murngton township near the Thai frontier told
Amnesty International that when he was forced to serve as a porter in
mid-1998 he witnessed the killing of Lung Kyaw, a 45-year-old fellow
villager. He described the death:

        "He was very tired and couldn't go - they were pushing him and
he got away and shouted back. Some soldiers beat him on the head with a
stick and he fell down. It was a thick heavy stick - they picked up a
branch in the forest. They just hit him once very hard on the back of
the head, then they just left him and walked on. The troops said he was
dead. He never came back."

        Extrajudicial executions in the Shan State fits a
well-documented, long-standing pattern of human rights violations, and
this most recent information confirms the need for the SPDC to issue
firm orders to all its troops not to kill unarmed civilians. 

        IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

        The human rights situation has deteriorated in Myanmar since it
was admitted to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In
July 1997 when Myanmar became a full ASEAN member, ASEAN countries
claimed that such a move would encourage the SPDC to improve its human
rights record. In fact the opposite has been true. The SPDC has stepped
up its repression of the opposition party the National League for
Democracy and increased forcible relocation programs in the Kayin
(Karen), Karenni, and Shan States, and the Tenasserim Division. The use
of forced labour in all seven ethnic minority states continues at a high
level, and forced portering occurs wherever there are counter-insurgency
activities. Myanmar's membership in ASEAN has caused ongoing
complications for other ASEAN members in their relations with foreign

governments. It is in ASEAN's interests to ensure that Myanmar improves
its human rights record. 

        As ASEAN member countries gather in Singapore at the end of July
1999 for their annual Ministerial Meeting it behoves these countries to
come up with a new strategy for dealing with the SPDC's intransigence
regarding human rights. The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) , which deals
with Asian security issues, will meet at the same time and should
address this security problem. China in particular, which has sold US$
one billion worth of arms to Myanmar, should end the practice of arms
transfers to the SPDC. Western nations who will also be present at ARF
should work closely with all concerned countries to encourage the SPDC
to improve its human rights record.

        In addition to the above recommendations to the international
community, Amnesty International makes the following recommendations to
the SPDC: 

        a.. Amnesty International urges the SPDC to abide by the basic
principles of international human rights and humanitarian law concerning
the treatment of Shan civilians. Common Article 3 of the four Geneva
Conventions, which applies to all conflicts of a non-international
character, occurring within territories of a party to the Convention,
sets forth minimum standards of human conduct, applicable to all parties
to the conflict, for the treatment of people taking no active part in
the hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid
down their arms and those hors de combat for any reason. Among other
things, paragraph 1 of this article prohibits "murder of all kinds". 
        b.. Amnesty International recommends that the SPDC abide by ILO
Convention No 29 concerning forced labour, which Myanmar has ratified.
Immediate measures should be taken to end ill-treatment and torture in
the context of forced labour and portering. Forced portering should be
abolished. 
        c.. Amnesty International recommends that the SPDC investigate
all reports of torture and ill-treatment, bring those found responsible
to justice, and issue clear orders to the tatmadaw to stop these
practices immediately 
        d.. Amnesty International recommends that the SPDC issue clear
orders to the tatmadaw to halt extrajudicial executions, to use force
and firearms on