BurmaNet News, December 9, 2010

[Editor]

December 9, 2010 Issue #4100


INSIDE BURMA
Irrawaddy: Suu Kyi calms fears about confrontation
Xinhua: Myanmar FM meets U.S. high official

ON THE BORDER
Irrawaddy: Ethnic armed groups meet at SSA-South headquarters
Mizzima: Thai officials ‘force refugees into harms way in Karen State’

INTERNATIONAL
DVB: Burma ‘fourth biggest jail’ for journalists

OPINION / OTHER
Asian Tribune: Stop pressuring Burmese refugees into returning home –
Kraisak Choonhavan
New Light of Myanmar: Don’t trivialize the national cause – Banyar Aung

INTERVIEW
DVB: David Mathieson: ‘War crimes are happening’ – Francis Wade

PRESS RELEASE
CSW: Burma’s Chin people face continuing poverty and human rights
violations in aftermath of sham elections





____________________________________
INSIDE BURMA

December 9, Irrawaddy
Suu Kyi calms fears about confrontation – Ba Kaung

Pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi calmed fears that she was on course
for a possible confrontation with Burma's military government regarding
what she described as “an ethnic conference in conformity with the 21st
Century.”

“This conference is aimed at national reconciliation. We are not
attempting to form a parallel government or a parallel parliament,” Suu
Kyi was quoted as saying by members of the Democracy and Peace Party (DPP)
party who met her on Wednesday at her National League for Democracy (NLD)
party office in Rangoon.

She was referring to the proposed ethnic conference which observers have
called a “second Panglong”—a meeting of ethnic leaders and other relevant
stakeholders along the lines of the 1947 Panglong Conference, which not
only provided a basis for a federal union but also guaranteed the ethnic
minorities a right to secede from the union 10 years after Burma won
independence from Britain.

“Daw Suu said she would be merely trying to revive the Panglong spirit
which has been weakened over the past decades,” said Myo Nyunt, the DPP
spokesman.

“She also said that a conference can be held without a formal gathering of
people at a specific location with the aid of a modern communication tool
like the internet,” Myo Nyunt said, adding that his party shared concerns
about possible negative consequences resulting from a “second Panglong.”

He said that even though the Nobel Peace Laureate would handle the issue
cautiously, she might unintentionally find herself in a standoff with the
regime since the issue was sensitive and delicate.

“We don't think it is possible for such a conference to take place
successfully without the participation of the ruling government,” he said.

Suu Kyi's remark followed a commentary in the Burmese state-run media on
Wednesday which said  the proposed ethnic conference “would go against the
junta's current seven-step political road map and “bring more harm than
good,”—the regime's first public warning against her political activities
since she was freed from detention last month.

The idea of such a conference was originally initiated by a group of
ethnic leaders opposed to the November elections. After her release, Suu
Kyi accepted the group's call for leadership in implementing the event,
raising concerns that the attempt would provide a chance for the junta to
detain her again and also to launch yet another crackdown on her party
which has been disbanded for failing to register in the coming elections.

On Thursday, when asked for a response to the commentary in the state-run
newspaper, ethnic leaders who boycotted the elections along with NLD said
that they would proceed with their efforts to set up a second Panglong
conference, however.

“We will go ahead with this plan and are not daunted at all by the warning
in the newspaper,” said Aye Thar Aung, an Arakanese ethnic leader, whose
party won the elections in 1990 but boycotted last month elections.

Si Lone, the vice-chairman of the Chin Progressive Party, an ethnic party
which did contest in the elections last month, said although the ethnic
minorities had expected to seek national reconciliation from within the
parliament, prospects were bleak after the junta's proxy, the Union
Solidarity and Development Party, gained a majority of parliamentary seats
through vote manipulation in the election.

“We can no longer expect to work towards the establishment of a federal
system from within the parliament,” he said. “But it would be great if all
the ethnic and political forces, including the army, can meet together and
work toward a solution that brings about national reconciliation.”

___________________________________

December 9, Xinhua
Myanmar FM meets U.S. high official

Myanmar Foreign Minister U Nyan Win met with visiting Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific of the United States
Joseph Y. Yun in Nay Pyi Taw Thursday, Myanmar's state radio and
television reported.

The two sides discussed promotion of Myanmar-U.S. relations and matters of
mutual interest.

Views on regional affairs were also exchanged, the report said.

The senior U.S. official also met with Myanmar Police Chief
Brigadier-General Khin Yi, the report added.

According to diplomatic sources, Joseph is scheduled to meet Myanmar
political figure Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon on Friday who was freed from
house arrest on Nov. 13.

Joseph arrived in Nay Pyi Taw on Tuesday on a four-day visit to Myanmar to
look into the country's political situation in the post- election period
and seek pursuit of new policy of engagement with Myanmar.

____________________________________
ON THE BORDER

December 9, Irrawaddy
Ethnic armed groups meet at SSA-South headquarters

Representatives of two ethnic armed groups traveled to Loi Tai Leng,
headquarters of the Shan State Army-South (SSA-South), this week to meet
with its leader for discussions aimed at expanding a new alliance of
ethnic armies opposed to Burma's ruling regime, according to a source
close to the SSA-South.

The representatives, from the Karenni National Progressive party (KNPP)
and a Lahu armed group, discussed the alliance with SSA-South leader
Lt-Gen Yawd Serk during festivities to mark the Shan New Year, the source
said on Wednesday.

“They mainly talked about military collaboration and analyzed the current
political situation,” the source said, adding that other groups unable to
send representatives to the gathering sent New Year's greetings to the
SSA-South.

The source said that further discussions may be held based on the outcome
of the meeting at Loi Tai Leng.

The SSA-South is not part of an ethnic alliance formed on the Thai-Burmese
border on Nov. 5, but may join if the ongoing negotiations are successful.

The current members of the alliance are the KNPP, the Chin National Front,
the Kachin Independence Army, the New Mon State Party, the Karen National
Union and the Shan State Army-North.

There was also ambassadorship training held in Loi Tai Leng from Nov. 24
to Dec. 5 for  representatives of the foreign affairs department of the
Restoration Council of Shan State, which is also led by Yawd Serk.

Yawd Serk is a former member of the Mong Tai Army, which was led by Khun
Sa. He later formed the Shan United Revolutionary Army, which changed its
name to the Shan State Army-South.

The SSA-South is estimated to have at least 7,000 troops, according to
observers.

____________________________________

December 10, Mizzima News
Thai officials ‘force refugees into harms way in Karen State’ – Thomas
Maung Shwe
   .
Chiang Mai – Thai authorities near the border town of Mae Sot early on
Tuesday and Wednesday strongly encouraged and in some cases forced
hundreds of refugees back into Burma. The practice came despite calls from
rights groups that those displaced by clashes between Burmese Army and
Karen troops be allowed to stay until the fighting ends, aid workers and
researchers working along the Thai-Burmese border said.

The Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG) reported that those who were forced to
return included a large group of refugees who fled from the Burmese
village of Phalu, about 12 miles (20 kilometres) south of Myawaddy, which
was formerly under the control of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army
(DKBA).

Mizzima reported late last month that Phalu had since the November 27-28
weekend experienced heavy shelling as the State Peace and Development
Council (Burma’s ruling military junta, SPDC) troops tried to crush a
breakaway DKBA brigade that had refused to bring its troops under junta
command within a Border Guard Force (BGF).

According to the KHRG, temporary shelters across the border from Phalu and
south of Mae Sot set up late last month had 1,200 refugees from Phalu on
Monday. The next morning 400 people returned home. On Tuesday afternoon,
Thai soldiers announced over loudspeakers “it is safe” for everyone to
return. All but 100 then left. Within hours, though, about 310 returned
after heavy mortar fire fell in the area. Nevertheless, on Wednesday
morning, the Thai army again ordered everyone to go home and ushered them
back across the frontier.

Yesterday, a refugee from Phalu told KHRG: “We dare not go back. For the
previous time, even though we dared not to go back, they pointed at us
with guns and asked us to go back. They 
 said nothing would happen to us.
‘Go back and stay there,’ they said 
 They scolded us and drove us to go
back like dogs and pigs. Therefore, we had to go back. We went back [to
Burma] and came back [to Thailand] again when the fighting recurred.”

Human Rights Watch senior Burma researcher David Mathieson told Mizzima
today:  “While the Thai authorities have been good at letting refugees
flee into Thailand to escape fighting and receive assistance, they need to
allow these people to stay until the refugees themselves feel it is safe
to return home.”

He added that since fighting first broke out last month between the
Burmese Army and the breakaway DKBA Brigade 5 led by Colonel Saw Lah Pwe,
aka Nah Kham Wey or Bo Moustache, on at least a dozen occasions, large
groups of refugees have been sent back to Burma. But as Human Rights Watch
and several other rights groups noted, those sent back often returned to
Thailand within days or even hours as the situation was unsafe.

This pattern has repeated itself along the border since November 8, when
fighting broke out in a few locations as units of the DKBA splinter group
traded gunfire with junta backed troops in a battle for control of the
border town of Myawaddy, across the Moei River from Mae Sot, Thailand. At
least 20,000 villagers crossed into Mae Sot and five Thais were wounded
when rocket-propelled grenades landed on the Thai side. At the same time,
other breakaway DKBA units took over Payathonsu, a town about 333 miles
(535 kilometres) to the south of Myawaddy near Three Pagodas Pass, sending
at least 2,500 refugees into Sangkhlaburi, Thailand.

Early this month, a 65-year-old woman from Phalu gave Human Rights Watch
the following account of her ordeal. “The day before we were sent back the
first time, we told the Thai [army] we were too afraid to go back, but
they sent us back [anyway]. As soon as we arrived [back in Phalu], the
fighting started again and we fled back to Thailand. I don’t know why they
[Thai officials] are doing this, sending us back and forth again and
again,” she said.

Senior Thai government lawmaker urges protection for the refugees

Kraisak Choonhavan, deputy leader of Thailand’s ruling Democrat Party
issued an open letter Wednsday evening responding to reports that refugees
were being forced back into Burma.  In it he urged that refugees not be
sent back into Burma while it was still unsafe.

Kraisak, a respected veteran advocate for the Burma cause wrote “it is
imperative that refugees from Burma be given temporary shelter on Thai
soil until the fighting has really been brought to an end and they are
convinced it is safe to return to Burma. This is also the only solution
that will prevent Thailand from being criticised for failing to live up to
international humanitarian and human rights principles”.

He called on the Thai Department of Border Affairs “to urge local
officials to stop pressuring refugees into returning home until and unless
it has been confirmed by all fighting parties that the fighting has
ended”.

Kraisak also asked that border affairs “establish a co-operative mechanism
between government agencies, international and local organisations to
assess the situation, develop contingency plans, provide humanitarian
assistance to refugees and develop standard principles for repatriation
and for assistance during and after repatriation”.

Two junta soldiers killed in fighting near Waw Lay, villagers say

The KHRG reported yesterday that five villagers attempting to return from
Thailand were blocked from entering Waw Lay village, southeast of Myawaddy
because junta soldiers were reportedly angry that two of their fellow
soldiers were killed in fighting the day before yesterday with the
breakaway DKBA faction.

KHRG also reported that it had received separate confirmation from Waw Lay
villagers that indeed two Burmese Army troops had been killed on Wednesday
and three others injured.

The organisation, whose reports are frequently cited by the UN and its
International Labour Organisation, has been posting daily updates on its
website of the situation in the battle zones in eastern Karen State.

Fighting expected to intensify as junta troops reinforced

Mathieson said yesterday that Human Rights Watch was deeply concerned by
reports that the Burmese Army had dramatically increased troop numbers
around Myawaddy in the wake of the brief post-election takeover of parts
of the town by DKBA units loyal to Colonel Saw Lah Pwe. He told Mizzima
that fighting had intensified in recent days and that he fully expected it
to continue, which would in turn drive more refugees across the border.

Colonel Saw Lah Pwe – who sports a moustache that resembles one worn by
martyred Karen revolutionary leader and KNU co-founder Saw Baw U Gyi – is
also known as “the beard”.

UN refugee body’s role in question

In a December 4 statement highlighting the current refugee crisis, Human
Rights Watch urged that the “Thai authorities should work closely with the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to engage in proper
screening of refugees and follow UNHCR’s guidelines on voluntary returns.”

Mizzima has been unable to reach the UNHCR spokeswomen in Thailand so far.

Observers however have expressed doubts that the organisation had the
authority to do much to help refugees who had fled to Thailand.

In response to the call for the UNHCR to work with the Thai authorities,
Thiha Yazar, a former 18-year political prisoner now living as a refugee
in Mae Sot, expressed fears that the UNHCR would fail to help the new wave
of refugees.

Thihar Yazar told Mizzima: “Unfortunately the UNHCR can’t do much because
Thailand didn’t sign the UN convention on refugees. But they can still do
something about what is going on here, but sadly the UN’s leadership
doesn’t appear interested in publicly raising the plight of Burma’s
refugees with the Thai government.”

The vocal critic of the Burmese regime who escaped to Thailand two years
ago noted that despite being a fairly well known political prisoner who
was released the same day as National League for Democracy leader Win Tin,
he had so far been unable to get UNHCR to evaluate his refugee claim.

“I’ve gone to the UNHCR office in Mae Sot numerous times and but they just
tell me to go away. I’m sorry to say these new refugees aren’t being
treated any better. Something must be done for them because it is far too
unsafe for them to return home when there is a war going in their villages
and fields,” he said.

____________________________________
INTERNATIONAL

December 9, Democratic Voice of Burma
Burma ‘fourth biggest jail’ for journalists

Burma is the world’s fourth-highest jailer of media workers, according to
figures released by a New York-based press safety watchdog.

Except for Eritrea, which is placed third with 17, Burma has one of the
highest numbers of imprisoned journalists relative to its population. The
Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) puts Burma’s figure at
13, while China and Iran each have 34.

The number of journalists imprisoned worldwide has risen by nine since
last year and now stands at 145, a 14-year high, with 28 countries guilty
of harsh treatment of media workers.

CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon called the increase a “shocking
development
 fuelled largely by a small handful of countries that
systematically jail journalists –countries that are at war with
information itself”.

The Thailand-based Burma Media Association (BMA) however puts the figure
at 22, and among these are 17 DVB journalists. A father and son who were
arrested in April after photographing the aftermath of the Rangoon
bombings are the latest to have admitted to being DVB staff.

According to DVB Deputy Editor, Khin Maung Win, the son, 21-year-old Sithu
Zeya, had been tortured into revealing that his father, Maung Maung Zeya,
was also a reporter for the Oslo-based media organisation.

Khin Maung Win added that authorities had offered to free Maung Maung Zeya
if he divulged the names of other undercover DVB reporters. The two are
being held in Rangoon’s Insein prison while they await a verdict.

CPJ last year branded Burma as the ‘worst country to be a blogger’, while
the Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontieres ranked it 171 out of 175
countries in its latest Press Freedom Index.

____________________________________
OPINION / OTHER

December 9, Asian Tribune
Stop pressuring Burmese refugees into returning home – Kraisak Choonhavan

Kraisak Choonhavan MPKraisak Choonhavan MP and the deputy leader of
Thailand’s ruling Democratic Party has appealed to stop pressuring Burmese
refugees into returning home until and unless it has been confirmed by all
fighting parties that the fighting has ended.

In a letter regarding Burmese refugees protection and assistance in
Thailand addressed to Director of Border Affairs Department, Royal Thai
Armed Forces, Kraisak Choonhavan who is also Chair of the Thai national
caucus, ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus has pointed out that it
has been reported that Burmese refugees in Mae Sot and Pop-Phra, Tak
Province, have been pressured by representatives of the Royal Thai Army
into returning to Burma and that they have been told that fighting has
ended.

He further pointed out that “In fact, the fighting is still ongoing and
such returns are premature. As a result, people have had to flee
repeatedly to safety, while some have gone into hiding in Thailand out of
fear of being repatriated.

The letter which has also been copied and sent to Thai Prime Minister,
Foreign Minister, Supreme Commander, Army Chief and Third Army
Commander-in-Chief, Thai MP Kraisak Choonhavan has called on the
Department of Border Affairs to establish a cooperative mechanism between
government agencies, international and local organizations to assess the
situation, develop contingency plans, provide humanitarian assistance to
refugees and develop standard principles for repatriation and for
assistance during and after repatriation.

The letter went on to urge the importance of the protection and assistance
to Burmese refugees on Thai soil.

"It further revealed that since the election took place in Burma on 7
November 2010, there has been a great amount of instability and violence
in the border areas between Burma and Thailand. Fighting between the State
Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and ethnic non-state armed groups in
Burma has assumed extraordinary proportions.

Accordingly, “Several thousand refugees fled into Thailand as a result of
the eruption of fighting on and after Election Day, while sporadic
fighting since then has displaced communities along the border several
times. Civilians in Burma are entitled to protection under international
humanitarian law as long as the conflict continues. However, such reports
indicate that this is currently not being respected by either party to the
conflict.

Kraisak Choonhavan continued to insist: “As an elected Member of the Thai
parliament, I am deeply concerned about the situation of these refugees on
Thai soil. According to information received, the provision of
humanitarian aid and the process of repatriation of recent refugees from
Burma do not abide by international humanitarian and human rights
standards. Several local and international organizations have criticized
Thailand for not living up to our international obligations.

“Although the Royal Thai Government has stated that there will be no
enforced repatriation of refugees until the situation stabilizes, it has
been reported that refugees in Mae Sot and Pop-Phra, Tak Province, have
been pressured by representatives of the Royal Thai Army into returning to
Burma and that they have been told that fighting has ended. In fact, the
fighting is still ongoing and such returns are premature. As a result,
people have had to flee repeatedly to safety, while some have gone into
hiding in Thailand out of fear of being repatriated.

“While Thailand is not a state party to the 1951 Convention Relating to
the Status of Refugees, Thailand has an obligation under customary
international law of non-refoulement of persons to places where their life
or freedom is at risk. International law also obliges Thailand to allow
asylum seekers access to Thai territory to seek asylum.

"I have followed the situation in Burma for many years. In my opinion,
there will be no easy or immediate solution to the current conflict
situation.

Under such circumstances, it is imperative that refugees from Burma be
given temporary shelter on Thai soil until the fighting has really been
brought to an end and they are convinced it is safe to return to Burma.
This is also the only solution that will prevent Thailand from being
criticized for failing to live up to international humanitarian and human
rights principles," emphasised Kraisak Choonhavan.

____________________________________

December 9, New Light of Myanmar
Don’t trivialize the national cause – Banyar Aung

Talking about Myanmar’s political affairs, national consolidation cannot
be left behind. Reviewing Myanmar’s political landscape, struggles for
building national consolidation, incitements to disintegration of national
consolidation, conflicts caused by the breakup of national unity, and
instability and delay of progress caused by the conflicts have taken a lot
of pages in history.
Since the time of independence struggles, the patriotic leaders had
understood the importance of national unity. The moment Myanmar came under
servitude, national leaders of various national races such as Bamar, Shan,
Kayin, Chin and Kayah launched anti-colonialist movements in order to
drive the British colonialists out of the country. Yet, with the lack of
good leadership, those anti-colonialist forces were easily defeated by the
British imperialists. Then, the British adopted their administrative
machinery systematically in Myanmar so that a major armed resistance could
not emerge.

When the Upper Myanmar was put under the British rule in the aftermath of
the third Anglo- Myanmar war, the British administrative system in the
Lower Myanmar was in place already. Therefore, it was only needed to
spread the administrative system of the Lower Myanmar to the Upper
Myanmar. However, the colonialists, who had decided to stop the emergence
of more resistance forces, designated the regions of Upper Myanmar,
excluding Shan State, as scheduled districts on 4 May 1886. Later on, they
ruled the Kachin people and the Chin people separately by promulgating the
hilly Kachin nationality law in 1895 and the hilly Chin nationality law in
1896. As the divided rule had reigned up to the time of WWII, the regions
of Shan, Kachin, and Chin were separated from the Myanmar administrative
area, designated as Region-1 and Region-2 and directly ruled by the
governor when the diarchy was adopted in 1923 and the 91-department
administrative rule in 1935. The administrative systems among the national
races were different from each other. And even the hilly regions had
different administrative systems.
With the hilly regions dividedly ruled in terms of race and politics, they
gained no access to political developments and independence struggles of
the mainland Myanmar. What’s more, the British colonialists gave their
follower rich men power to take charge of administrative and political
affairs in the mainland. In the hilly regions, the colonialists entrusted
Sawbwas, Sawphyas and Duwas with the arbitrary powers to rule on their
behalf. Their aim was to provoke class differences among the national
races and to prevent the possible emergence of united political forces.

The British colonialists adopted the following divide-and-rule policy in
three categories in order to break up the national unity in Myanmar.

(a) The divided rule of the regions of national races can cause
geographical-divide.
(b) Adoption of different administrative systems among the national races
and giving of different rights can lead to racial discord.

(c) Use of lackeys for ensuring smooth administrative machinery can lead
to different classes.
In consequence, the hilly regions did not participate in political
movements of the mainland until before 1945. In addition, politicians from
the mainland were not allowed to go to the hilly regions. At the same
time, political organizations operated for own rule and independence such
as GCBA and Doh Bamar Asiayon were split into two or four groups because
of the colonialists’ instigation and incentives. When independence
struggles surfaced after the Second World War, patriotic politicians led
by Bogyoke Aung San and military leaders formed AFPFL in order that
political forces in Myanmar became politically united.

However, when Bogyoke Aung San-led AFPFL demanded Myanmar’s independence
from the British, the issue of the hilly regions came to a head. When the
Myanmar delegation led by Bogyoke Aung San went to Britain in February
1947 for independence, the British claimed that the Myanmar side should
first enquire whether the hilly regions wanted to cooperate with the
mainland in achieving independence as they had received a telegraph sent
by Shan Sawbwas saying the delegation did not represent them. In signing
Aung San-Atlee agreement, the Myanmar side had to agree to the point that
Myanmar was to inquire about the stance of the hilly regions in the effort
for achieving independence by forming an inquiry commission.

That was why Bogyoke Aung San met with the national leaders from the hilly
regions, built national consolidation and held Panglong Conference in
February 1947 in order to regain independence. But, only the Kachin, Chin
and Shan representatives from the hilly regions took part in the
conference, and Kayin representatives from Thanlwin District, another
hilly region, attended the conference only as observers. It was found that
Rakhine, Mon and Kayah nationals living outside the hilly regions and the
remaining nationalities such as Pa-O, Palaung, Danu, Wa, Kokant and Lahu
whose regions were ruled by feudalist Shan Sawbwas did not attend the
conference. Anyhow, the Panglong Conference was able to forge national
unity so that the whole country, including the hilly regions, could
achieve independence. It, therefore, can be said that Myanmar was able to
build national consolidation to a certain extent during the period of
independence struggles.

Again in the post-independence period, national consolidation was
disintegrated quickly due to different ideologies, ism and racism. The
ruling AFPFL government at that time tried to rebuild national
consolidation, but in vain as there were personal conflicts among the
party. U Nu’s Pa-Hta- Sa government that won the 1960 elections held a
national convention on 24 February 1962 so as to discuss the establishment
of Rakhine, Mon and Chin States and the problems of rights of Shan State.
The convention was attended by political leaders and national race
representatives. Since the Shan Sawbwas threatened to secede from the
Union of Myanmar if their demands were not met at the convention, the
Revolutionary Council had to take over State duties on 2 March 1962.

The Revolutionary Council continued to try to build national
consolidation. Issuing the stances of the Revolutionary Council and
holding internal peace talks to solve the problem of internal insurgencies
were the measures the Revolutionary Council had taken for ensuring
national reconsolidation. Besides, the goal of socialism aspired in the
period of independence struggles was a long way away in the parliamentary
democracy age due to the different political parties with different
ideologies. So, the nation decided to adopt a single party system in order
for political parties and national people to work together under the
leadership of a single party. Yet, national consolidation could not be
achieved as Pa-Hta-Sa and AFPFL leaders that favoured the parliamentary
democracy system, leftist communists and racial extremists were in
constant opposition to the State.

In the 1988 unrest, the situation of national unity in Myanmar was the
worst. The Tatmadaw government that had to take over State
responsibilities in such a dire situation tried its best to achieve
national consolidation. It can be found that the Tatmadaw government used
different approaches as it had found out why the previous governments
failed to forge national unity.
The Tatmadaw government held a national convention with the participation
of eight delegate groups namely delegates of political parties, delegates
of representatives-elect of 1990 election, delegates of national races,
delegates of peasants, delegates of workers, delegates of intellectuals
and intelligentsia, delegates of State service personnel and delegates of
national race armed groups who exchanged arms for peace and other invited
persons. Basic principles and detailed basic principles were laid down for
writing a constitution.

Among more than 1000 delegates to the convention were over 600 delegates
of national races. So, it can be said at least one national race delegate
from one township out of 325 in Myanmar could participate in the
convention. Thanks to the discussions those delegates made about shaping
the future nation with a view to seeking the national interest without
sectarianism and ism, national reconsolidation could be built among the
Myanmar political forces at the national convention.

In order to thwart the hardships and difficulties of the people living in
border areas which lacked stability and the rule of law due to armed
clashes, the government took measures to reach ceasefire agreement with
national race armed groups. As a result, many of those armed groups who
returned to the legal fold and are working side by side with the
government for regional development. Even some of them competed in the
2010 elections after they had given up the armed struggle line and made
eternal peace with the State. The national consolidation that broke up due
to armed clashes could be rebuilt through peace negotiations.

In order to repair the damage to national unity caused by inequitable
infrastructural development in the country, the Tatmadaw government formed
the Central Committee for Progress of Border Areas and National Races
under the leadership of Head of State Senior General Than Shwe and started
implementing development tasks in 21 border regions. Likewise, the project
of 24 development regions was launched to ensure balanced development of
all parts of the nation. To ward off the geographical barrier to the
regions of the Union, networks of roads, bridges and railroads have been
and are being built as national level projects. This means national
reconsolidation was built by carrying out national development tasks.

While building infrastructures that can facilitate national
reconsolidation and national unity, the government had to prevent the
destructive acts of internal and external elements who attempted to harm
the national unity. Measures had to be taken to be able to activate the
State administrative machinery and form a strong government.

The government’s work programmes for national reconsolidation and national
unity were not carried out only with political and military outlooks. They
were a strategic plan carried out in consideration of all sectors such as
politics, economy, military, social affairs, development and
administration. As a result, many parts of the nation have achieved
greater peace and stability, rule of law and progress than ever before.

However, it cannot be said that the endeavours for national
reconsolidation have met with complete success. There are many tasks ahead
for the State structure. The relations between the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw and
State/Region Hluttaws and the relations between the Pyidaungsu government
and State/Region governments will be totally different from the State
structure of the past. In addition, there will be separate executive,
legislative and judicial sectors, and the executive structure with checks
and balances will be formed for the first time. So, there will be many
challenges to be addressed in the future. Again, there are still tasks to
build eternal peace in the areas of some national races where peace was
made temporarily and to prevent the danger of internal and external
elements who are still attempting to disrupt the seven-step Road Map of
the State. Only if those challenges are addressed successfully, can it be
said that national reconsolidation has been built.

Ignoring the achievements in national reconsolidation to this date, there
are calls for holding a conference like the one organized in Panglong in
1947 to build national unity. Some are even giving suggestions to convene
it online.

Seemingly, those people think that the process of national reconsolidation
can be materialized through a meeting between four or five groups led by a
certain person. Just try to reach an agreement to select represents for
each of the ethnic race groups and the political forces let alone trying
to convene the conference. That’s my advice for those people.

Today is not the time to hold a conference like the Panglong conference in
which AFPFL and leaders of Shan, Kachin and Chin met. They should
understand this. National race groups who did not get the opportunity to
participate in Panglong conference are seeing greater political and
economic development at present. Some of the national races groups now
have armed troops existing under a provisional peace agreement. Armed
members of some have transformed themselves into border guard forces. In
addition, they have officially set up political parties. On the other hand
there are armed insurgent groups and exile groups claiming themselves as
representatives of certain ethnic races. There are also party
representatives and independent representatives elected in the 2010
elections for the respective legislative hluttaws.

In 1947, the nation had to face only the British who colonized her.
British agents had created a lot of difficulties before and during the
Panglong conference. Even Bogyoke Aung San was so disappointed that he had
to arrange a flight back home to Yangon. These facts can be found in the
books complied by the persons who took part in the conference.

Geopolitics has changed a lot during the past over 60 years. There are new
powerful players taking the place of the British in Asia. Apart from those
powers, many neighbouring countries and regional countries are getting
involved in or are trying to get involved in Myanmar affairs for their own
interest. Some with good intention and some with bad motives.

A conference held under different voices and views and which is open to
every individual or organization assuming himself or itself as the
representative of his or its own ethnic race will bring no results.

Conceiving an idea to convene a conference based on hero-worshipping
without having any firm and strong background organization and precise
representative selection system will be just a fantasy extremely opposed
to reality. Or maybe it is an arrogant act. One important thing to note is
that Bogyoke Aung San and AFPFL were included in the cabinet of the
British governor when they held the Panglong conference; that they were
entrusted with the power to run the administration affairs except from
defence and political matters; that the British government had accepted
AFPFL as the only organization to deal with matters concerning Myanmar’s
independence. So, AFPFL was able to sponsor the conference successfully.

Understandably, the idea to hold a Panglong-conference-like meeting
without giving any role to the Tatmadaw that is leading the national
transition process and the parties that won seats in the 2010 elections
will not be better than a cheap political stunt. The Tatmadaw has already
achieved success to a certain extent in restoring national consolidation
in all aspects to ensure a peaceful transition process.

Even if they hold this kind of conference without Tatmadaw’s participation
with goodwill, the conference will surely become a tool for the
organizations opposing the government or trying to harm the seven-step
Road Map. So, the scheme is not a remedy for any problem but a poison for
the national reconsolidation process.

But I do not mean that nothing should be done for the national
reconsolidation process. There are ways. The constitutional hluttaws at
all levels are the venues to strengthen the established national
consolidation. Public elected representatives are the members of the
hluttaws. People of the respective constituencies have already chosen the
persons regardless of their political base to serve their interest.
National races and specifically elected national races are included in
those representatives-elect. Moreover, there are also Tatmadaw
representatives. Hluttaws at all levels are the venues where dialogues
among the political parties, national races representatives and the
Tatmadaw, a current popular issue, can be held practically. They will be
able to build mutual trust and understanding while carrying out
legislative affairs hand in hand. The rights of the national races, the
hluttaws, the local governments and the legislative power to preserve and
promote their languages and cultures, are already enshrined in the
Constitution. Basically, they will have to make effective use of the
advantages and amend the faults in cooperation at the hluttaws. What about
the unelected persons and organizations? They will have the right to
discuss and present their views externally in accord with the rights of
citizens stipulated in the Constitution, and to give suggestions to the
representative-elect of their constituency concerned. And if they believe
that their opinions and views win public support, they can take part in
the next elections to do politics in the hluttaws.

What I have presented in this article will be the best means for political
forces to strengthen national reconsolidation within and outside hluttaws
and the best opportunities for all-inclusiveness in the national
reconsolidation process. All should be aware of the fact that there will
be more harm than benefits, if those people try to realize their fantasies
instead of applying the best means of the time.

Translation: ST+TMT
Kyemon, Myanma Alin: 8-12-2010

____________________________________
INTERVIEW

December 9, Democratic Voice of Burma
David Mathieson: ‘War crimes are happening’ – Francis Wade with David
Mathieson

Refugees continue to move back and forth across Burma’s border with
Thailand as fighting in Karen state shows no sign of abating. Thai
authorities have been criticised for treating those who fled like ‘ping
pong balls’, refusing them sanctuary and forcing their return. But
although it’s a complex situation, says Burma researcher at Human Rights
Watch, David Mathieson, the refugees must be given a safe haven.

Are there any signs that fighting will end soon?

No. All the signs from the past six weeks show that fighting’s either
going to continue the way it has, which is sporadic outbreaks in more
areas for a couple of hundred kilometres south of Mae Sot, or it will
intensify. I don’t think there are any indications that it will peter out
now, and that’s something that all the NGOs and communities on the ground,
but also the Thai officials, have been saying in the past couple of weeks.

Is the Burmese junta looking to eliminate these groups once and for all?

Their plan seems to be to either rout the breakaway faction of the DKBA –
Na Kham Mwe’s group – and the KNU/KNLA Peace Council, or take advantage of
the situation and try and rout elements of the Karen National Liberation
Army that operate in the area. Or maybe the whole thing is an elaborate
scheme to negotiate a better deal for the Border Guard Force: how much of
what we see that looks like conflict in Burma is actually the many sides
manoeuvring to get better economic deals out of things? But whether it’s
politics or economics, the civilians get caught in the middle and they’re
the ones who have to suffer.

Is it a warning of wider conflict in the border regions?

I wouldn’t drag it out. It seems like there are a lot of people who are
egging on a broadening of the conflict, but all of these conflicts have
very local and specific factors and conditions behind them. Of course they
are united in a national sense by the fact that it’s all happening in
Burma and that the military government is the one main impediment to
seeking a deal, but I would be very careful about saying that what’s
happening in Karen state is going to kickstart a broader conflict
throughout the country.

There’s a very good indication of why the situation in Kachin state, for
example, is much more different: in Karen state they’ve got the Thais to
deal with, and it’s very different because Thailand’s a lot more tolerant
of the refugees, whereas China doesn’t want any refugees – it just wants
to do business and keep all the troubles in Burma within its borders. I
don’t therefore think that the Wa and the Kachin will start fighting – if
they do then that’s going to be completely up to local dynamics.

Has Thailand’s response to the refugees been adequate?

In terms of letting them come across and providing sanctuary for them,
Thailand gets a very high grade – it’s done very well over the past five
weeks. Where they’ve spoiled this is in sending people back too early, so
what’s happened is you’ve got this case of people crossing the border
several times: they come across, and they’re allowed to come across, but
the Thais prematurely say that it’s safe to go back, and whether it’s a
couple of hours, days or weeks, the fighting starts again and they’re
forced to come back.

Why is Thailand keen to send them back early?

I really don’t know; all evidence points to the fact that the fighting
will continue and that the situation is not safe. Just because you can’t
hear artillery fire doesn’t mean that the situation’s safe, and I think
partly it is just wishful thinking; that Thai authorities wish it could go
back to normal. In a situation like this, the last group of people you
should trust are the Burmese military: if they tell you the fighting’s
stopped, you’d be crazy to believe them.

Is there pressure from the Burmese junta on Thailand?

If there is any pressure it would be to try to normalise the situation by
sending the refugees back. I hazard a guess that there are a couple of
reasons for that: one is in terms of public relations, that the Burmese
don’t want the world to be focused on the fact that there’s fighting after
the elections and after Aung San Suu Kyi’s release. Second, and a more
local and brutally practical reason, is that civilians in a lot of these
areas provide a human shield around Burmese army troops, so if they come
back to a village where the army’s set up, their opponents will be less
likely to attack built-up areas. They need the people there as a resource,
to carry their supplies and walk through landmines. All the things that
countries have denied are happening in Burma, and who refused to support a
Commission of Inquiry, well, here you go. If you went and asked one of
these refugees what they are afraid of, they may not tell you that they’re
suffering war crimes or crimes against humanity, but that’s exactly what
it is.

Is there any international protocol that makes it illegal to send refugees
back early?

Even though Thailand’s not a party to the 1961 Refugee Convention, or the
1967 optional protocol, they are bound by customary international law
which says that sending people back when they’ll still face persecution or
fighting in that area, is defined as refoulement, or forced return. What
needs to happen is that the UNHCR has to ascertain whether cases in the
past month have amounted to refoulement. I think it’s pretty clear that
there have been cases that probably would.

But what’s happening is that the Thai authorities are not using violence
or over-intimidation. In some cases it’s inaccurate information – if they
have an assurance from the other side that there’s no fighting, then
they’ll tell the village head to take the people back. It’s also got to be
said that it’s a complex situation: there are people who are in the middle
of the harvest season, so they want to go back and forth to check their
land, and if it’s quiet for a couple of days, then they may begin
harvesting.

____________________________________
PRESS RELEASE

December 9, Christian Solidarity Worldwide
Burma’s Chin people face continuing poverty and human rights violations in
aftermath of sham elections

Forced labour, religious discrimination and acute poverty continue to
cause intense suffering in Chin State, western Burma, according to
testimonial evidence received by a delegation led by Baroness Cox, Chief
Executive of the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART), which returned last
week from the India-Burma border.

The delegation, which included CSW’s East Asia Team Leader Benedict
Rogers, interviewed Chin community health workers and pastors, and heard
personal accounts of the denial of health care and education, systematic
religious discrimination of Christians, poverty and widespread forced
labour. These factors have combined to create a dire humanitarian
situation, causing the deaths of many Chin villagers from preventable and
treatable diseases.

Chin community organizations also reported widespread intimidation,
harassment and vote rigging in Chin State and Sagaing Division during
Burma’s recent sham elections, held on 7 November.

One Chin pastor told the delegation, “This regime has made us poor. In
development, culture and psychologically we are poor. But if I stand
against the military, they will catch my wife or my son or me – and so no
one dares to speak out.”

The release from house arrest of Burma’s democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi
on 13 November is widely welcomed by Chin people, but her release alone is
no sign of meaningful progress. The Chin people are calling for tripartite
dialogue between the regime, the democracy movement led by Aung San Suu
Kyi, and representatives of the ethnic nationalities. “The Burma problem
is not only democracy,” one Chin representative told the delegation. “The
main issue is the ethnic issue.”

Benedict Rogers said, “During our visit, just over a week after Aung San
Suu Kyi’s release, we received overwhelming evidence that the severe human
rights violations and chronic humanitarian needs continue to cause intense
suffering in Chin State, one of the poorest and most neglected parts of
Burma. We call on the international community to use every mechanism
available to urge the regime to enter into dialogue with the democracy
movement and the ethnic nationalities, and to cease abusing its own
people. We also urge the Government of India to use its influence to
encourage the UN Secretary-General to facilitate a dialogue process.”

Baroness Cox said, “The humanitarian situation in Chin State is dire and
desperate and requires urgent relief. We urge the international community,
including governments, the UN and Non-Governmental Organisations to make
it a priority to support health and education in Chin State and to provide
much-needed relief for people who are dying of treatable and preventable
diseases. We also urge the UN to ensure that the ethnic nationalities are
included in the political process in Burma, and that the abuses, some of
which amount to crimes against humanity, end immediately.”

For further information, a copy of the CSW report or to request an
interview with CSW, please contact Kiri Kankhwende, Press Officer at
Christian Solidarity Worldwide on 020 8329 0045 / 078 2332 9663, email
kiri at csw.org.uk or visit www.csw.org.uk.

For a copy of the HART report or to request an interview with Baroness
Cox, please contact Lydia Tanner, Advocacy and Communications Manager at
HART on 0208 204 7336, email lydia.tanner at hart-uk.org or visit
www.hart-uk.org