Anti-Muslim Violence & Why Government-led Solutions are Dangerous

163 incidences of anti-Muslim violence in 15 townships. 1,300 homes and other buildings destroyed. 11,376 people left homeless. 43 people killed.

Not the results one would expect from an argument started in a gold shop. Not unless one knew that the owners of the shop were Muslim and the customers were Buddhist, and the gold shop is located in a small town in Burma, a country whose government has a disturbing history of promoting Islamophobia and Buddhist Nationalism.  During the years of military rule, General Ne Win conducted numerous pogroms against the Rohingya Muslims and deported hundreds of thousands of Indian Muslims. For the past few decades, the army has attacked mosques in a deliberate attempt to eradicate non-Buddhist elements in Burma.

In June last year in Arakan/Rakhine State, violence broke out between the Rakhine Buddhist community and the Muslim Rohingya community. To date, thousands of Rohingya have been killed and hundreds of thousands have been displaced. The Rohingya are often forced to leave the country on rickety boats heading to surrounding nations where it’s probable that they will be denied asylum.

In Human Rights Watch’s recently released report “All You Can Do is Pray”, Burmese government officials, along with community leaders and Buddhist monks, are accused of taking a prominent role in organizing the campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Muslim Rohingya people. The report was released the same day that the European Union lifted all remaining sanctions except an arms embargo against Burma to reward the country for its “progress”. However, as HRW’s report shows, the government does not deserve to be rewarded for its “progress” when it has played an instrumental role in an ethnic cleansing campaign in which there are documented instances of mass graves and Rohingya children being hacked to death. The government has done nothing to curb the blatant racism against the Rohingya and continues to deny them citizenship. After actively participating in the violence against the Rohingya and forcing them to flee their homes, the government has continued its campaign of ethnic cleansing by denying aid to the displaced Rohingya and restricting their movement.

In the past month, the spread of militant Islamophobia beyond the borders of Arakan/Rakhine state has provided further evidence of the government’s continued human rights violations. The latest outbreak of anti-Muslim violence started on March 20th in the town of Meiktila, in central Burma. After spreading throughout central Burma, the violence displaced a total of 12,000 people, destroyed more than 1,300 buildings in Mandalay Division, and left more than 40 people dead. Images of burned mosques circulated around the news for weeks. Nationalist Buddhist monks were reported to be wandering the streets armed with swords and machetes. The news showed videos in which charred bodies of the victims lie in the streets as the police stand by doing nothing.

The brutal efficiency with which mobs attacked Muslims shows that this is not an isolated incident of communal violence. Rather, the conflict stems from decades-long government-sponsored propaganda and violence against Muslims. Tomás Ojea Quintana, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in Burma, released a statement which said that he had “received reports of State involvement in some of the acts of violence, and of instances where the military, police and other civilian law enforcement forces have been standing by while atrocities have been committed before their very eyes, including by well organised ultra-nationalist Buddhist mobs. This may indicate direct involvement by some sections of the State or implicit collusion and support for such actions.”

Given the government’s prominent anti-Muslim stance, it is not surprising that a small but vocal group of nationalist Buddhist monks have been allowed to carry out anti-Muslim campaigns. The most recent example is the 969 Campaign, pioneered by a popular monk from Mandalay named U Wirathu, which calls for complete segregation of Buddhists and Muslims. The campaign encourages Buddhist shopkeepers to paste the numbers 969 on their storefronts, which is a message to all Muslims that they aren’t allowed there. Wirathu called on Buddhists to stop going to Muslim shops, stating “[the money] will eventually go towards destroying your race and religion.”

The 969 campaign is reminiscent of pre-WWII Germany where Jews were forced to wear the Star of David and Jewish shops were boycotted. Such a comparison is not made lightly; there are very real similarities between the deep racism toward Jews in Nazi Germany and the deep racism toward Muslims in Burma today. President Thein Sein’s statement last July that the “only solution” to the Rohingya crisis is to deport the Rohingya and/or put them all into camps is strongly reminiscent of when Jews in Germany were also told that their only option was to move to camps.

The government has not only denied the claims of its involvement in any of the anti-Muslim violence, but it has also refused to pursue real justice and accountability with anti-Muslim mobs, law enforcement, actors inciting violence, and the Muslim-persecuting Na Sa Ka border guard. The government’s version of “justice” and “accountability” included rounding up and arbitrarily arresting more than 1,100 Rohingya Muslim men, a disproportionately higher number than Rakhine Buddhists.

In response to the most recent violence, the Muslim owner of the gold shop, along with his wife and another employee working in the shop, were arrested. What’s even more outrageous is that they were sentenced to 14 years in prison for aggravated assault, robbery, attempted injury, and aiding and abetting crimes.  Anyone who claims that the Burmese government is now promoting greater rule of law displays willful ignorance, unless they consider it to be acceptable under rule of law to be arrested for robbery in one’s own shop or for aiding and abetting crimes simply for owning a shop where a conflict broke out.

The situation is further exacerbated by a proclamation by Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing that the military will continue to play a key role in politics and as peacekeepers in Burma. After the government imposed martial law in some areas, the military has promoted an image of itself as the sole preserver of peace and stability in Burma. The language that the military is using now sounds unnervingly similar to the rhetoric that the military used to justify its brutal rule of the country from 1962-2010.

In order to end anti-Muslim violence in Burma, we must first demand an international investigation that examines the government’s role in organizing, participating in, or allowing the violence and deprivation to occur against Burma’s ethnic and religious minorities under a system of impunity. Addressing the current systems of impunity and violence would not only help to protect the vulnerable Muslim minority, but also the Kachin and Letpadaung mine protestors. Impunity and violations of international human rights and humanitarian law must no longer be tolerated by the international community.  In order to attain peace, people in Burma need justice and accountability from their government, not imposed states of emergency and threats of military force. The international community must push for justice and accountability in Burma to stymie future violence and ensure a system of legal recourse and redress for victims.

IFI Re-Engagement and Aid Coordination in Burma Panel at the World Bank

Here’s our recap of the IFI Re-Engagement and Aid Coordination in Burma panel held at the World Bank last Thursday, April 18th. We’ve posted a synopsis and many of the speakers’ thoughts and suggestions for those who were unable to attend but want to know about the challenges facing the re-engagement of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the Asian Development Bank in Burma.

Sponsors:

IFI Watch Myanmar, Burma Environmental Working Group, BIC, World Bank, IFC

The Panel:

Jelson Garcia, Bank Information Center (Moderator)

The Burma reps:

Maw Htun Aung, Cornell University

Liz Hlaing, Community Resource Group and IFI Watch

Paul Sein Twa, Karen Environmental and Social Action Network

The international financial institutions (IFI) reps:

Kanthan Shankar, World Bank Myanmar Country Manager

Alessandro Pio, Asian Development Bank (ADB) North America Regional Director

Yu Ching Wong, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Resident Representative of Myanmar

Sergio Pimenta, International Finance Corporation (IFC) East Asia and Pacific Director

The Conversation – Short version:

The panel consisted of the IFI representatives speaking in broad terms about their future loans and projects, emphasizing infrastructure, microfinancing, fiscal policy support, and telecommunications. There were no strong efforts to develop projects that assist civil society organizations, promote revenue transparency, or strategize about agricultural policy. In fact, the IFI representatives all confessed to knowing very little about the agricultural sector on which 3/4s of the population depend. Instead, aid efforts focused on urban microfinance and technical support to the government. When asked during the Q&A if they had plans to think about land rights, policies that could enhance rural economies, revenue transparency, and non-government technical support, the IFI representatives all said they hadn’t yet grappled with these issues. These issues, however, are foundational to future financial stability and effective private investment in Burma.

The reps from civil society organizations in Burma asked for IFIs to develop a greater understanding of the real economic needs in Burma (and recognize that most of the population will sink or swim based on rural, agricultural, revenue transparency, and land rights policies), and greater engagement with Burmese civil society when crafting future projects. It’s all well and good to have “community driven development” projects, like the World Bank’s newest effort, but in order for those to truly meet people where they’re at, these projects must indeed be community driven, drawing strategies from local advice and feedback.

The civil society reps also asked IFIs to avoid impropriety in investing in the extractive sector, which fuels the military and causes a huge number of agricultural, compensation, and livelihood problems for rural populations. The IFIs must take a breath and prioritize financial and budgetary transparency in the government before implementing further loans. Otherwise, monies from foreign investment will exacerbate the power dynamics in Burma that disenfranchise local communities while lining the pockets of the military and the already powerful.

IFI engagement shouldn’t disenfranchise ethnic groups through unfair distribution of project revenue and benefits. IFIs should prioritize support to agriculture and champion land tenure security and communal rights.

Notably, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) does plan on displacing ethnic communities for its upcoming power project, and has few risk mitigation strategies for local people. When questioned about this, the regional director of the ADB at the panel merely said, “Of course there will be a bit of harm for some people with our project, but we shouldn’t focus on the details. We should look at the big picture of what IFIs will do in Burma.”

But if the big picture is made of poorly ordered and poorly designed smaller strokes, it won’t be a pretty picture at all.

The Conversation – What did they all say?:

“Auntie” Liz Hlaing of the Community Resource Group and IFI Watch opened the panel with a call for the World Bank to actively engage with civil society organizations. Her presentation mainly addressed outreach issues concerning the World Bank’s $80 million National Community Driven Development Project (CDD). In order for a “Community Driven” project to be genuinely successful, it obviously must take feedback from – and reach out to – local communities.

Liz noted that while the World Bank has held project “consultations” in Burma, these consultations were merely powerpoint-type presentations of the World Bank’s upcoming development plans, not forums for World Bank officials to engage with and learn from the local communities. She pointed out that local communities don’t yet know what type of development initiatives will be sponsored in their regions, nor do they have the internet access needed to follow the actions of the World Bank and other international financial institutions (IFIs).

“We’d like to ask the World Bank to give civil society space to be involved in decision-making,” Liz said. “The negative impacts of foreign investment projects are huge, and we don’t want to repeat those. Civil society organizations say, ‘No more tears,’ and I repeat it, ‘No more tears.’ We want the government, the World Bank, and civil society organizations to work together. This is our main concern: we haven’t yet had broad, meaningful consultations.”

Kanthan Shankar, Burma’s Country Manager for the World Bank, thanked Liz for her remarks and noted that the World Bank has not operated in Burma for 20 years. “Our office just opened on August 1^st in Yangon,” Shankar said. “We are still learning ourselves and we welcome any feedback. Since we’ve been out of Myanmar, we have started our operations with an 18-month interim strategy. We are adhering to 3 pillars:

1)   Supporting government reforms,

2)   Institutional strengthening, and

3)   Preparing for a longer term program.”

Shankar noted that the CDD project is a 6-year program and stressed, “We need a bottoms-up approach. We want to support the government’s reforms through a CDD project, and we’ve done this type of project in other countries before.” He wasn’t able to delineate how that grant would actually inspire community-driven development or where the funds would specifically go.

He also briefly explained how the World Bank helped navigate a $420 million dollar credit for arrears clearance through a bridge loan from the Japanese government. He told the audience that the World Bank’s main upcoming projects in Burma will focus on electricity, public financial management, and telecommunications.

Alessandro Pio, the North America Regional Director of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), began his remarks by lauding the Burmese government for its economic reforms and capacitating foreign investment. He congratulated the country for the ceasefires with the ethnic groups but noted that the government must now have real discussions about the causes of the government-ethnic conflicts.

Pio believes that the lifting of sanctions and international investment will be “a positive influence” on Burma. “A lot of development partners will help strengthen institutions,” Pio argued. “But there’s still a lot of work to be done to engage the government on terms the international community thinks are acceptable.” He didn’t address endemic government corruption, the need for equity in power and revenue distribution, or the very real negative impacts of foreign investment on rural communities.

Pio outlined the 3 phrases of the Asian Development Bank’s activities in Burma:

1)   January-June 2012: ADB reengaged with the Mekong regional program (Thailand, Vietnam, China, Laos, Cambodia, Burma) even during western sanctions.

2)   July-December 2012 – ADB built up knowledge about Burma’s economy through sector examinations (all these documents are on the website). The ADB also started to figure out which ministries they’d like to engage with, and started an interim development strategy guiding involvement in the country. This interim strategy was approved on October 26^th 2012.

3)   2013 – ADB resumed loaning operations. ADB did arrears clearance (forgave/refinanced past debts the Burmese government owed) through Japanese bridge financing. Then the ADB started a “policy loan,” which was approved on January 14^th and dispersed on January 17^th. [Pio doesn’t talk about the details of this loan.]

The ADB opened offices in Rangoon and Napyidaw. The ADB will allocate regular funds to Burma in May. Last year, Burma wasn’t an active borrower with the ADB so no funding was given.

During 2013, ADB is providing $16 million dollars of technical assistance and development grants (rural and community-based), and a power/energy loan toward the end of the year. The interim loaning strategy is built on 1) building human resources and capacities to strengthen government and invest in education, 2) enabling the economic sector, and 3) enhancing “national connectivity” by supporting transportation.

Pio noted that the ADB’s projects are still being designed “so this is a good time to engage. We want this to be a coordinated effort, to be as transparent as possible (keep updates on our website), and put importance on consultation and participation. We haven’t been active in Burma so we need knowledge, and we’ve approved one technical assistance program where the objective is to design a consultation strategy.” What that consultation strategy will consist of, and how it will engage local populations, was not specifically explained.

Sergio Pimenta, the IFC East Asia and Pacific Director, stressed “how important the private sector is in the development agenda. Many jobs are created by small and medium sized companies, and the private sector in general. This is key to the success of the transformation of the country.”

Pimenta said that the IFC tends to work more with domestic companies. Foreign companies bring in innovation, technology, and expertise, and domestic companies contribute in jobs, local knowledge, and spreading the economic growth across the population. (Or at least in Pimenta’s theory.)

The IFC strategy is to 1) promote inclusive investments that have direct impact on the community so they can have a share in development (e.g. promote projects that allow small companies and entrepreneurs access to finance so they can conduct economic activities), 2) focus on infrastructure to overcome challenges in power and telecommunications (Pimenta vaguely said: “We want to engage in this sector by doing something there”), and 3) work with the government on private sector reforms so companies can more easily conduct business.

Essentially, the IFC’s current work is advising private microfinancing institutions in major cities.

Yu Ching Wong, IMF Resident Representative of Myanmar (appointed this month), spoke a bit about the IMF’s enhanced engagement with Burma. IMF is opening a Yangon office, beginning to provide “technical assistance” (a new, vague favorite phrase in the IFI community), working on exchange rate controls, helping modernize the central bank, working on the modernization of the financial sector together with the World Bank, and trying to change government policy to ultimately create more revenue that can be used for social and infrastructure spending. She made no mention of seeking to limit secretive and extensive military spending.

She noted that on May 22^nd, the IMF “will hold a public outreach workshop with the private sector and civil society organizations in Yangon.” When asked about the event, she said details were unavailable.

Maw Htun Aung, a Kachin Fulbright graduate student at Cornell University, stressed that investment in the extractive sector lines the government’s pockets and is channeled into military spending. The IFIs must prioritize financial and budgetary transparency in the government – it is foundational to creating a just state and a stable economic system that doesn’t sink the rural population. All extractive industry activity should be biased toward ethnic reconciliation (as it is currently very much biased against it). Extractive sector spending should be from a long-term, sustainable perspective.

He asked that IFIs slow down and focus on regulatory strengthening and engagement with civil society. He also stressed that IFIs must prioritize the agricultural sector, on which at least 70% of the people depend. The rise in ethnic conflict exactly follows the rise of risky extractive sector foreign investments.

IFI engagement shouldn’t disenfranchise ethnic groups through its policies. Ethnic regions are endowed with resources but are also the poorest and have the lowest levels of literacy. Human rights abuses, land confiscation, forced eviction, and marginalization all stem from unfair distribution of revenue from natural resources. In Kachin State, the Burmese government is earning over $1 billion annually, but the Kachin are impoverished and 100,000 are displaced.

IFIs should prioritize support to agriculture and champion land tenure security and communal rights. Maw Htun stressed that IFIs should also first and foremost prioritize contract and revenue transparency.

Paul Sein Twa, representing the Karen Environmental and Social Action Network, closed the panel by reminding IFI reps, “We’re not opposing you, but we want what you’re doing in Burma to help us. We feel a bit like we’re being abandoned. The international groups are engaging with the Burmese government but not the ethnic groups. This is a peace-building time; if we trust the government, we also trust their partners. If you go work with the government, we doubt that you’ll really help us. We witnessed after the ceasefires that ethnic people see lots of other problems associated with development and investment projects.

Can you travel to these areas and listen yourself? So you can see yourself if what I’m saying about ethnic marginalization is true, if the ethnic groups are facing worsening conditions on the ground. Maybe your projects aren’t directly influencing this yet, but indirectly they can and will. We are just in the initial ceasefire time, and we don’t have a concrete ceasefire agreement with the government.

We have issues with landmines, rehabilitating our land and livelihoods, repatriation, etc. This ‘ceasefire’ happened a year ago, but 140,000 Karen still live in Thailand in the camps. The government hasn’t yet backed up its ceasefire agreements with political solutions.

You’re starting development without much needed political solutions. Your focus is on the development projects. But the focus of the ethnic people is on coming together and discussing our political concerns and these development projects. What happened in our history can be repeated. We’re not out of danger.

The government is moving toward regional integration and economic development, but in reality, the government is just in transition and it’ll take some years to catch up to the rest of the region. How can Burma transition realistically? How can Burma develop realistically?

We need investment that promotes jobs, land security, and environmental protection. We don’t yet have confidence in the government’s willingness to reconcile politically with the ethnic groups.”

Peace Negotiations dead-end, Why? Because of the Military.

During the last round of peace talks between the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) and the Burmese government on March 11 in the town of Ruili, there was a surprising addition to the party. The Tatmadaw (Burmese government’s military) finally deigned to show up to the peace talks addressing the conflict that Burmese military troops instigated when they attacked the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), the armed wing of the Kachin Independence Organization, in June 2011. The Tatmadaw has consistently undermined the peace negotiations between Aung Min, a special representative acting on behalf of President Thein Sein, and ethnic armed groups by failing to attend the peace talks and adhering to the promises that the government made during the talks.  Last year, Tatmadaw attacks on the Shan-State Army South continued despite the ceasefire deal that Aung Min had managed earlier that year. In late February when Aung Min met with the United National Federal Council (UNFC), a coalition of armed ethnic groups, the Tatmadaw failed to show up to the talks despite Aung Min’s statement a week earlier claiming that high level military officials would be present.

Peace negotiations between the government and the KIO have not been fruitful due to the Tatmadaw’s unwillingness to end attacks and participate in the peace process. So although the March 11 talks ended with only a decision to meet again, more progress will be made now that the military is actually showing up, right?

Not so fast. On March 13, less than 36 hours after the peace talks in Ruili, Tatmadaw troops clashed with the KIA. This clash demonstrates one of the central problems with the talks: the Tatmadaw continuing its military campaign consistently undermines the legitimacy of Aung Min’s negotiations.

Why is the military allowed to ignore the directives that the government sends it? Because the 2008 Constitution gives the military the ability to do whatever they want. The Constitution grants the military legal autonomy over its own affairs and immunity for its actions. The government can promote whatever rhetoric it wants about peace in the country, but this doesn’t mean that the military has to listen to it. On January 19, 2013, President Thein Sein ordered the army not to attack the Kachin.  Just a few hours later, Tatmadaw troops attacked KIA forces, completely ignoring the President’s statement and Aung Min’s earlier peace negotiations with the KIO.

The Kachin Independence Army and other armed ethnic groups are willing to engage with the Burmese government based on the 1947 Panglong Agreement, which was signed by General Aung San (the leader of Burma’s independence movement) and several ethnic minority groups. This agreement promised to form a federalist system for the Kachin, Chin and Shan peoples, but 66 years later, the Burmese government still has not lived up to its promise. After the 1994 ceasefire agreement between the Kachin and the government broke down in June 2011, Saboi Jum of the Shalom Foundation (which calls for peace between the Burmese government and ethnic minorities) stated, “Now Panglong Agreement is abolished. The ’47 constitution destroyed. And all the agreements we made and the ceasefire we made were neglected, and the fighting erupted.” The Kachin people still want their own semi-autonomous state, but it doesn’t seem that Thein Sein is willing to carry the government’s political reforms that far.

In a recent visit to Kachin state, USCB staff found that 80% of Kachin society desires complete secession from Burma. They have been driven to this point because of the increase in human rights abuses, impunity for the perpetrators, and nothing to be said for it. After 22 months of conflict with no end in sight, the Kachin people don’t see any reason to be part of the same country as those responsible for perpetrating violence against them under a system of impunity. Who can blame them? However, the KIO still comes to the negotiating table with a desire  for federalism within Burma. If the international community wants to promote democracy in Burma, which can only be achieved through national reconciliation, we must maintain pressure on the Burmese government and military, and tie our sanctions to progress on political dialogue towards national reconciliation. International governments and organizations must provide humanitarian aid to all IDPs in Kachin State, because in order to achieve national reconciliation and democracy in Burma, the international community must show the Kachin people that we have not abandoned them.

Until the government respects the Panglong Agreement, amends the constitution, and comes to the discussion table with genuine interest in national reconciliation, there will continue to be unrest in ethnic minority regions of Burma. As great as the rhetoric has been about Burma’s new “democratic” government, the country will not be truly democratic until the military is held accountable for its actions and the demands from the ethnic minority groups are heard and actually incorporated into the government’s agenda. As a Kachin woman told us on our recent trip: “There is no peace without justice.”  This is why it is essential that the international community reverse its charm offensive and start putting pressure on the Burmese government. Without this pressure, the Burmese government will maintain the status quo of an independent military with immunity for its human rights abuses and suppressed ethnic minorities.

Talk is Cheap: It Didn’t Help the Kachin

The White House has announced President Obama will travel to Burma on November 18^th, the first ever US President to visit Burma.  This impending visit has been preceded by a number of unprecedented gifts to Burma’s rulers thus far: the visit of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton late last year, and the lifting of financial, investment and import sanctions.  Things are looking good for Burma’s rulers so far, therefore things must be good in Burma, right?

Not so fast.  While the U.S. Administration would love to paint a positive picture of Burma for Obama’s visit, where he is said to be meeting with President Thein Sein, Suu Kyi, and Rangoon-based civil society, Burma’s human rights and power structure have a severely long way to go before we can deem the country “democratic.”

Human rights violations, political prisoners, forced displacement due to unjustifiable land grabbing, ongoing armed conflict (particularly in Kachin and Shan states) ethnic cleansing in Arakan/Rakhine state, and denial of humanitarian access are just some of the extremely disconcerting human rights concerns people are currently coping with.

Today, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the National Security Council Samantha Power released a promising blog post titled ‘Supporting Human Rights in Burma,’ which details their awareness and attention towards the daunting human rights problems Burma still faces.  But these are words without corresponding action.  President Obama’s historic trip to Burma will be viewed as a confirmation of positive developments and an endorsement of Burma’s leaders, both civilian and military, not condemnation of ongoing human rights atrocities or concern for their safety and wellbeing.  Why?

You’ve heard about it, you’ve read about it: the communal violence between Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims in western Burma this summer.  Last month, violence erupted again.  Only this time, it was not communal violence.  Rohingya communities were specifically targeted leaving villages razed, tens of thousands displaced, and some fleeing the violence by boat, only to drown out at sea.  Doctors Without Borders teams and other humanitarian aid workers are being restricted from areas where refugees are located, effectively preventing lifesaving medical treatment from reaching those in desperate need.  Humanitarian aid is sparse and overwhelmed camps do not have the means to provide food, water, shelter, and supplies.

International political figures, and Burma’s own Aung San Suu Kyi, have called for the Burmese military to again calm the situation in Arakan (Rakhine) state.  Since when have we relied on the Burmese military to actually prevent violent situations and promote peacekeeping?  What we’ve really seen happen is that they’re not there to protect, they’re there to control. And their tactics for controlling the local population are to shoot people. We get reports from the Rakhine that they’re being shot at by the Burmese military, you’re hearing reports from the Rohingya that they’re being shot at by the Burmese military. Instead of being a part of the solution, what really the military is doing is adding another layer of actors that are just contributing to the present problem.

What Burma and Arakan/Rakhine state need most are international monitors and peacekeepers.  International monitors are the only objective and viable option to protect civilians in Arakan/Rakhine state.  Deep-rooted and overwhelming racism without adequate legal protections are additional impediments to relying on domestic Burmese solutions for protecting and aiding the vulnerable Rohingya population.  Under these circumstances, the responsibility to protect falls on the international community.

President Obama must recognize the limitations of his engagement policy and pressure President Thein Sein to accept international peacekeepers.  One only need look at the Kachin to underline the failings of the U.S. Administration’s engagement-only policy.  For 18 months the Burmese Army has been attacking the Kachin in Northeast Burma.   Roughly 100,000 Kachin have been displaced as result of the conflict.  Most of them have been struggling to survive in internally displaced camps close to the China border.  The Burmese military has refused to allow humanitarian aid workers to access these refugees, on all but a few occasions.  The United States has continually asked for humanitarian access to the displaced with little to no success.  18 months of engagement has not worked while the country’s most vulnerable continue to suffer and die from malnutrition and treatable diseases.

It is time President Obama stop relying on engagement and act for the most oppressed and vulnerable people in Burma. We urge President Barack Obama to not only meet with Thein Sein and Suu Kyi, which we know will bring positive reinforcement to Burma’s movement towards democracy, but to also meet with General Min Aung Hlaing, demonstrate solidarity by visiting still-imprisoned political prisoners, visit refugees in Kachin and Arakan/Rakhine states to understand their plight, and meet with political parties and ethnic parties, such as the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC), to develop a global view of the complexity that is Burma.

Statement: U.S. Campaign for Burma on the Situation in Rakhine (Arakan) State, Burma

Statement: U.S. Campaign for Burma on the Situation in Rakhine (Arakan) State, Burma

November 1, 2012

1. United States Campaign for Burma today expresses its concern over the ongoing violence in Rakhine (Arakan) State in the western part of Burma, also known as Myanmar, between the Rakhine Buddhist community and the Muslim community, known as the Rohingya. Violence has erupted between the two communities since May of this year and continued to this day with the great loss of hundreds of lives, thousands of houses and properties, and more than one hundred thousand peoples displaced. USCB demands extreme elements from both sides immediately stop utilizing violence as a solution, and to end the distribution of false and fabricated information with an aim to fuel further violence and instigating discrimination.
2. Preventing violence, protecting and providing safety for civilian populations, making the rule of law effective and bringing those responsible for the violence to justice are the responsibilities of President Thein Sein’s so-called civilian government. However, the ongoing and continued crisis in Rakhine State proves that this government has continuously failed its own responsibilities in serving the people of Burma. We strongly urge Thein Sein’s government to have enough political will and sufficient actions to protect the people and prevent the violence, as well as finding a peaceful solution.
3. On June 6, President Thein Sein appointed a 16-member investigative commission led by the Deputy Minister for Home Affairs to find the causes of the violence and take legal action on those responsible for murders and destruction of public lives. President Thein Sein also declared a state of emergency in Rakhine State on June 10 and instructed the military to restore law and order in Rakhine State. Since then thousands of people from both communities were arrested and put in detention without due process. And these security measures are yet to find any culprits who brutally murdered 10 Muslim pilgrimages in Taung Gup Township in the broad daylight on June 3. We demand that Thein Sein’s government and the military to stop using excessive measures in the name of national security, and to make sure that the murderers should be brought to the justice and all those arrested face fair legal process.
4. On August 17, President Thein Sein established a 27-member commission, comprising retired public officials, ethnic and religious figures and members of civil society, to investigate the violence in Rakhine State and make recommendations for the solution. However, with the lack of full commitment by some members of the commission, 3-month limited time frame, lack of public cooperation and resources, and recent re-emergence of violence in the region, we don’t think the commission will be able to serve      its mandate effectively. We insist that President Thein Sein invite experts on conflict resolution and international law from the United Nations and the international community to reinforce the scope and work of the commission to make the credible recommendations.
5. The 1982 Citizenship Law, adopted by then General Ne Win’s socialist regime and being used by successive regimes until today, is one of the most discriminative laws in Burma and not in line with international standard. Even this law is not fully implemented yet. This law allows the third generation of foreigners who were born in Burma to obtain citizenship. So far, hundreds of thousands of people who have been living in the country for generations are not recognized as citizens. As a member of the United Nations and signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we insist the Burmese government to prioritize to grant citizenship to the stateless persons in the country in accordance with the existing law.
6. We also demand the Parliament (Hluttaw) in Burma to review the 1982 Citizenship Law and amend the law in accordance with the international standard. Failure to do so will only strengthen the hatred and discrimination between the communities. Repealing the unfair laws and making laws that will protect the rights of the people are major responsibilities of the legislature, especially the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), which is chaired by President Thein Sein and holds super majority in the Parliament, and the military which holds the veto power in the Parliament to kill any amendment to the Constitution.
7. We call upon the Thein Sein’s government to allow international humanitarian organizations and media unhindered access to Rakhine State, so they can deliver necessary assistance to affected communities and the most vulnerable populations, and find out the true situation on the ground.
8. Although the government is the most responsible party for preventing violence, maintaining rule of law and finding solutions, all political parties, civil society organizations, ethnic communities and the people of Burma also have an important duty to help their country develop and prosper without any form of discrimination and exclusion. Both Buddhism and Islam are two of the major religions in the world built on peace, loving kindness, tolerance and abstaining from any form of violence. We request the people of Burma to prevent their country from falling into the hands of religious extremists and hardliners who want to bring the country back to the dark days. 
9. We request the international community not to exclude human rights issues in their respective dialogue with the Burmese government. Improvement on the respect of human rights and the realization of justice and accountability should be important factors to measure the progress of the so-called reform process taking place in the country. We appeal to the international community to support the recommendations made by UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Burma/Myanmar Mr. Tomas Quintana to the 67^th UN General Assembly and approve the resolution on Burma unanimously. 
10. The recent communal violence in Rakhine State is a product of decades-long, deep-seeded cultural distrust between the two communities. When people are committed to the democratic principle to tolerate and respect differences, such distrust can be overcome, which sets up the future possibility of unity. Diversity is the destiny of Burma. Thein Sein’s government is known more for its heavy-handed policies than sophisticated understanding of the basic principles which constitute a democracy. But with the widespread support or pressure of the international community, we hope his government can utilize the current situation in Rakhine State as an exercise to begin building the foundation for a democratic culture in Burma.

###

Life on the Border Part 2: Standing Up for Suffering Communities

“After the 2010 election, I left Burma for a better education, to improve my skills, apply to international universities and get more work experience abroad. I am volunteering with Ta’ang Students and Youth Organization (TSYO) and interned at Network for Human Rights Documentation in Burma (ND-Burma).

My work with TSYO strives to give young people an opportunity to rise up from this oppression and work towards a better life. We share our knowledge and provide educational opportunities to many Ta’ang youth in Northern Shan state. Through some of our projects, we help young people in financially difficult situations to finish high school and attend university.  TSYO also tries to help the development of communities by providing them with basic access to educational materials. Through my own initiative in my hometown, I set up a community library open to all locals in order to improve their reading, literary skills, and basic knowledge.

I have experience using media as a means to disseminate information to the Ta’ang people using resources such as blogs, group email projects, and Facebook. I share updated news with them about what is happening globally using social media. It is beneficial for the young people to know how to use online tools. Nowadays, social networking is a great tool to communicate with the global community and, as mentioned previously, I hope to spread knowledge of and access to these tools to even wider audiences. More people will be able to express their ideas and opinions and see that others have the same ideas and are able to work together to achieve common goals.

The media is particularly close to my heart. For generations, people from my country have been subjected to mass censorship and the military regime controlling what information is available to the public. I believe that people have the right to know what is really happening in their country, so they can form their own opinions independently. The freedom to access information is a fundamental prerequisite for the freedom of expression and I will support the development of these freedoms in Burma.

I also would like to study the dynamics of local politics and the different ethnicities in Burma and how we can work better together to represent the voice of the ethnic people and work better with the rest of Burma to achieve political equality and human rights through inclusive democratic means. Over the decades there has been continuous fighting between these ethnicities and the government forces. In the future, I hope that there will be an opportunity for me to use my skills to resolve conflict on these issues and bring peace to a divided land through peaceful political action. For these reasons, I will need to go back to my local area and try to work better with the local political parties to educate them more about politics on a local level, and then work up to the parliamentary level to achieve success for their electorate.

As part of my role as a field worker with TSYO, I work very closely with the Ta’ang community to try to improve their lives. I provide different types of training to Ta’ang youth on human rights, democracy, federalism, community organizing, political defiance, and media studies. As a result, the trainees can share their knowledge with their own communities through their improved skills and capacity. I also act as a facilitator in providing peer education and workshops, and carrying out research and data collection in Ta’ang communities. In Burma, ordinary people suffer many human rights violations; therefore by educating the local people, I can empower them to take action against human rights violations to improve their lives and lives of future generations.  For many years, the people of Burma have suffered oppression and have been cruelly deprived of knowledge, freedom, and education.

At TSYO, we have published many different advocacy reports such as “Virus of Tea”, “Under the Boot”, “Ballots Against People’s Will”, “Lightless Life”, “Monopoly of Tea Farms”, “Land Confiscation”, “Shweli Under Siege”, and “Catalyst for Conflict”.  These reports educate local people and the international community about issues facing the Ta’ang community. In the process of writing them, I improved my skills as a trainer, organizer, and data collector, as well as in advocacy, campaigning, and political issues. In several of our published reports, I went into the field and interviewed the different levels of the Ta’ang community in small rural communities. My wish is to bring news to both the local people and to those further away to aid them in expressing their feelings and everyday struggles.  By providing these media articles, we could educate as well as create political interest and activism. I believe all these steps are necessary to bring democracy to Burma.

I have had some memorable experiences working in the field in Burma. For instance, I participated in different kinds of political campaigns such as voting referendums against the 2008 constitution and 2010 election. In the 2008 referendum, I was almost arrested by the military regime when the media released news about my community. The authorities did not have any evidence but they suspected that the one responsible for the release was a person who graduated from a university studying Computer Science, which indicated me. I had to leave immediately or risk arrest and imprisonment. In the 2010 election, the local authorities again attempted to arrest me. Fortunately, I escaped and fled to Thailand again after the election.

Another observation as a fieldworker includes the fact that there is widespread corruption among politicians; they buy votes and tell people, and sometimes entire villages, who can’t go to polling stations to cast their vote through their village leader. There is also extensive advanced voting.  After the election, even Ta’ang leaders who were nominated for parliament were not clear about what “democracy” entails. They did not know how to be involved within the context of a political situation.

I have learned many things as an activist and advocate, particularly during the instability of the 2008 referendum and 2010 election. Now it is clear to me how important young leaders are for giving voice to Burma’s people, especially the marginalized and minorities. It will take time but one of the main goals that Burma supporters should focus on is building awareness and empowering people to exercise their political rights for a better Burma.”

Life on the Border Part 1: “My name is Mai Naww Hment…

…and I was born in Loi Kang village, Kutkai Township, Northern Shan State, Burma. When I was four years old, my family moved to Kutkai because there was fighting between the Burmese military and other ethnicities around my village.  The Kachin Independent Army (KIA) tried to recruit my oldest brother and sister as child soldiers. Being raised only by my mother, we had little money and my mother was often forced to sell her jewelry so that we could eat and have shelter. An early and vivid memory I have of this time was encountering a violent storm after we left our village. We all were carrying something when the storm came and it swept many things away from our arms, but luckily our lives were spared.

That journey was not the end of the difficulties. Our family could only speak our Ta’ang language and everyone in our new environment spoke a different language. We couldn’t communicate with anyone and that made it nearly impossible to be accepted, but we had to get on with our lives, and so my mother enrolled me in the local school. I was lucky that I have a supportive family that worked very hard to earn the money necessary to allow me to attend school. Even with their support I started working to contribute to my family’s income at ten years old because my mother fell down from a horse on the journey.  My older sisters and brothers also had to drop out from their education. In high school, I worked helping truck drivers load and unload cargo; it was hard physical work for a young boy. Additionally, education is being sold like a commodity in my community.  Students were expected to pay exorbitant tuition fees and many other “nameless donations” to the school. My family couldn’t pay for the tuition so I couldn’t take part in many activities. Therefore, I did not learn well from school and I was always upset and confused of how the school was running at that time. I studied hard even though there were many difficulties during my student life in Burma.

Learning to work hard at an early age has helped me to succeed; I was the first person in my community to graduate from high school with high scores and got a chance to go to university to study Computer Science. Before university, I earned very little money as a trucker smuggling from China to Burma. It was very dangerous situation for me as I was not old enough to drive and could be sent to jail.  However, I was lucky and was able to continue my studies.

I funded my undergraduate education by trading motorbikes from China to Burma as I needed to pay for my education and send money back home to support my mother and little brother.  Oftentimes it was difficult to balance work and study at the same time, but I was so determined to get my degree that I persevered. I wasn’t able to attend class for the whole day because I had to drive cargo in the afternoon. Even though my grades were just okay, I encouraged myself to become a smart person for my community and especially for my family. I was very proud of myself because I would be the first person who graduated in computer science. However, I felt very sad after finishing my first year; not only was there no Internet among the students but also for the tutors.

I really expected that everything would improve in the second year but it didn’t. We didn’t have enough tutors and equipment for the classroom. To be honest, most of the tutors are unqualified at teaching and providing technological support because they did not study Computer Science. I hesitate to express that I graduated from computer science without having Internet access at University.

I must also share one heartfelt incident from my undergraduate studies.  One instance I had to spend time convalescing from emergency medical treatment at the hospital during the period of my final exams. I would have missed the exam if my teacher had not taken me to the hospital when I lost consciousness.  I took my final exam at the hospital and I was very lucky that as a result I qualified to continue onto the master program. I will never forget the care and kindness shown to me from my teachers and professors when I was ill.  They supported me even after I got better and left university. Honestly, I sometimes feel that they are a part of my family.

Then I moved to Mandalay University for my master program. It was the first time as a computer student that I had access to the Internet but only for a very limited time, about two hours per week.  After the first year of the Master’s program in the Mandalay Division, I got in contact with Ta’ang Students and Youth Organization (TSYO) through a local Ta’ang community leader. I found that I was very interested in what they were trying to do and I made the decision to leave university, having a greater and more heartfelt interest in the mission of TSYO and wanting to get involved and support their activities sooner rather than later.

One of the main reasons that influenced my decision to leave school and to work more directly for my community was an almost fatal incident back in 2004.  While attending University and selling motorbikes between China and Burma, some of my friends and I were arrested on our journey by the military. They pointed their guns at us. One of the soldiers had his gun pointed directly at my forehead. Terrified about what might happen, I hurriedly kicked down my gear and took off as fast as I could on the motorbike. My head was cut by the barrel of the soldier’s gun and another soldier shot at me and missed. With blood gushing from my forehead and blood blinding my eyes, I narrowly managed to escape. Unfortunately, all of my friends were arrested by the military and I never saw any of them again. I still am unsure of their fate. This was the scariest experience of my life, and brought home to me the power that people with guns and their mal-intent to use them have over others. I realized that I wanted to do something to change this power structure, to do away with violence and live in peace. Since then I have always wished and wanted to work toward peace in Burma.”

To be continued–