US Trade Representative Public Hearing on Burma’s Eligibility for GSP Benefits

The cliff notes version of the public hearing to review Burma’s eligibility for US Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) trade benefits

June 4, 2013

US Trade Representative

On June 4, USCB headed to the US Trade Representative Office to testify against allowing Burma into the GSP program, which would waive import duties on Burmese goods. View USCB’s pre-hearing briefing and skip down to the bottom to see USCB’s Executive Director Jennifer Quigley’s testimony.

(Some of the hearing’s choicest quotes are highlighted in green below.)

William Jackson, Chair of the GSP Subcommittee and Deputy Assistant US Trade Representative for GSP, started off the hearing with some logistics:

• The hearing was announced on April 16
• Each witness is limited to a 5-minute testimony
• Post-hearing briefs must be submitted by Tuesday, June 26 in which witnesses can expand on testimonies or respond to others’ testimonies as well as respond to the Subcommittee’s further questions

GSP Subcommittee representatives participating in the hearing came from the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (Office of Agreements and Scientific Affairs, Foreign Agricultural Service), the U.S. Department of Commerce (International Trade Administration), the U.S. Department of Labor (Office of Trade and Labor Affairs, Bureau of International Labor Affairs), the U.S. Department of State (Economic and Business Bureau), the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Office of Trade Policy), and the US Trade Representative for Labor Affairs.

The hearing was divided into four panels of witnesses.

Panel 1: Burmese government officials: H.E. Dr. Pwint San (Deputy Minister, Ministry of Commerce, Nay Pyi Taw), H.E. Than Swe (Ambassador, Burmese Embassy, Washington, DC), Mr. Aung So (Deputy Director General, Ministry of Commerce, Nay Pyi Taw), and Dr. Maung Maung Lay (Vice-President, Chamber of Commerce and Industries, Nay Pyi Taw).

Than Swe, Burmese Ambassador to the US, began the panel with a short testimony. We have included some of his statements below (grammatical errors sic erat scriptum):

• Our reform is a peaceful process…it is a good and moral example for other countries…

• Burma has released thousands of prisoners, including political prisoners. Some laws are being amended and others are being made to support our reform process or bring them into international law standards…

• Human rights dialogues are being held with US and Japan…

• Realization of our media law gives the people a voice…

• Regarding forced labor, many developments have been taken. In March 2012, Burma signed an understanding of elimination of forced labor by 2015. Many labor organizations are being issued in the country – 523 licenses have been issued to 492 organizations…

• Burma has an all-encompassing reform process…

• The US-Burma bilateral relation [now] reaches its peak for the first time in many years…

• 26% of the Burmese people live under the poverty line. We must work together to free these people…to free from poverty…Almost 3 million of Burmese people are spilling over to other countries looking for jobs. We can bring these people back home. This [bringing back Burmese migrant workers and/or GSP] is a win-win situation for foreign investors and other countries. GSP will play an important part to make that happen…

• In the past 2 years, many leaders have come to Burma from around the world, and the EU will reinstate their GSP for Burma in the very near future.

• We need to do this [reinstate GSP] to create win-win situation that I was talking about before.

Panel 1 Q&A with Subcommittee representatives

Chair: Many of the questions we have today for you will be on worker’s rights issues. We also have other considerations, like intellectual property rights.

US Trade Representative for Labor Affairs: Since the labor union law went into effect, many labor unions have started (540 unions have started). Are the labor laws in place operational?

Burmese government panelist: Thank you for your questions. Very interesting, the Burmese labor situation. Since 2002, we are very closely related to the international Labor Organization and we established an officer and we extended our relations with ILO. We have established laws, and any labor group can establish labor organization freely. Freedom of association – we are implementing that.

At the factory level, you can establish labor unions. The second step is the township level then district level then federations. One important thing is labor – who[ever] want to form association, they have freedom or right to have the association. More than 500 labor [organizations] have already been formed according to our labor union laws. This is brief example for our freedom of association, but we will submit details about the law on post-hearing briefing.

Burmese government panelist: Even the ILO is quite impressed that the formations have been quite dramatic. We were warned by neighboring ASEAN countries…in factories nearby, they have 8,000 people but only a few unions. They were warning us to be very careful. The labor unions were demanding so high, so many demands, they say. We have been warned by certain labor organizations and of course the ILO is very impressed with the way we have done the business.

US Trade Representative for Labor Affairs: We’ll take you up on that, asking you more in the post-hearing questions. Have regional labor offices been established?

Burmese government panelist: According to law, we have already formed the Chief registrar, district, and township [offices]. Anyone who wants to do the labor union must register at the office.

GSP Subcommittee representative: And these offices are set up?

Burmese government panelist: Yes.

US Trade Representative for Labor Affairs: ILO has said that organizations have not been allowed to do collective bargaining agreements. How many collective bargaining agreements have been signed to date?

Burmese government panelist: The detailed number we will submit in the post-hearing briefing. [i.e. none]

GSP Subcommittee representative: How are you facilitating collective bargaining?

Burmese government panelist: There are no restrictions about it…But there have been fights between labor activists and government officials…they try to lock the director general inside the room. We [the Burmese government] have been cave dwellers for almost 49 years and now the openings are so much the people are demanding the collective bargaining. They manage to attain what they demand – that’s what we noticed. It’s so encouraging.

The Europeans hope to be our developing partners. They were with I think the ILO chief. They are very impressed. And of course, being sort of a pariah state behind the bamboo curtains, we are starting to learn what the civilized country has to obey. Things are moving very impressively and the ILO is very impressed by it.

GSP Subcommittee representative: Can you talk about union members cases?

Burmese government panelist: Updated information, hmmmm…no cases dismissed. Nearly 100% of collective bargaining cases already [have been] solved peacefully. All factories bargaining from the labor…Some, a few cases, the owner needs to pay because of the law. Maybe a few cases. But the detail, I will submit [in the post-hearing brief]. In Geneva, in a ILO convention, a Burmese delegation is attending.

Burmese government panelist: We are quite open. Those who wish to do on the contrary – they are quite jittery and fearful of the media, which is quite surprisingly quite open.

GSP Subcommittee representative: We’d be interested in hearing what the process is for investigating unfair labor processes or any form of discrimination and how many cases have been undertaken, including prosecution in the courts.

Burmese government panelist: Owners, laborers, and from the government side. We already form on township, district, and central level. Every case between labor and owners has reached township level, so according to [our] problem solving mechanism, that is nearly 100% [success] at that stage. But district level up to central level, there will be few cases. But we will submit the details. I am from the commerce [ministry], [so I’m unsure].

GSP Subcommittee representative: What happens when a worker has been fired before the case reaches the district level?

Burmese government panelist: Oh, we are very transparent….He can report to township level. After we get the information, we will handle the case immediately. He can report [at the] township level or also the district level committee.

GSP Subcommittee representative: We’ll ask how many cases you’ve discovered and what process those cases are at right now for your post-hearing brief.

GSP Subcommittee representative: The settlement of a labor disputes law went into effect in 2012. AFL-CIO has said some employers haven’t done enough, haven’t submitted to arbitration. We’d like to understand how employers are subject to deterrent penalties.

Burmese government panelist: According to the penalties, there are 2 cases. According to the report of the workers, who in their mind there is not a fair judge by district settlement committee, he can submit to high level. Some, very dishonestly, want to get too much compensation. But some cases, from the owner side, they are unfair, and some from labor side, they are unfair. We can solve these cases…some [laborers wanting to unionize] insult physically…these cases we will charge with criminal laws but the disputes we can solve according to rules and regulation. But we have very effective and efficient laws and we can solve the problem peacefully.

GSP Subcommittee representative: What deterrent policies exist for employers who do violate workers rights laws?

Burmese government panelist: There is the punishment, according to administrative procedure, or maybe the fine, or maybe the imprisonment. [The punishment is] according to the law. Updated details in our briefing…not the imprisonment but the administrative rules and regulations, we can fine them with the cash. [Editor’s note: the speaker’s meaning here was unclear.]

GSP Subcommittee representative: The government delegation said your goal is to eliminate forced labor by 2015 and you have a memorandum of understanding with the ILO to that end. What strategies and actions are you taking to implement that commitment?

Burmese government panelist: So there are a lot of measures. According to the instruction by the government, every region will report to the government and government will solve directly to that area but now very few report, so almost nothing comes up for the forced labor. Nowadays there are no cases, almost nothing for the forced labor cases.

Burmese government panelist: Forced labor we’ve been doing since 1989. In 2002, an agreement was signed at Convention 29 Forced Labor Convention to eliminate forced labor…A complaint mechanism was established…In 2015, there will be no forced labor in Myanmar. We already signed ILO. At ILO conference in 2012, most of sanctions imposed by ILO, were lifted or suspended.

GSP Subcommittee representative: Can you provide an example of how that mechanism works, how it was used in recent years to enforce the law in the post- hearing briefing?

GSP Subcommittee representative: I want to ask about the self-reliance policy in the military…Please describe the prosecution of military officials involved in forced labor and the associated penalties.

Burmese government panelist: [VERY LONG SILENCE AS NOBODY TAKES THE QUESTION] Within the army, they have internal instruction to all the regiments so they don’t use the forced labor. Sometime in the past, we have some volunteer work for the road construction; now there is no such a case using the labor by force. So now if we have work, we will use the proper wages for the labor.

Burmese government panelist: The fear by the people has disappeared quite surprisingly. They will report all cases to the media. We are wondering – where the fear has gone. The people don’t want any sort of infringement on their rights. They have realized their rights also; this is the beauty of it.

Burmese government panelist: There shall not be forced labor mechanism, if there is an action, it will be [Editor’s note: reviewed?]…but the mechanism is very effective. Anyone can submit a complaint. Anyone can submit a complaint mechanism.

GSP Subcommittee representative: You describe that anyone can complain through forced labor mechanism. Oftentimes, this [forced labor] would’ve occurred in very rural areas. What processes exist to publicize the availability of the complaints mechanism?

Burmese government panelist: Yes they know. Even villagers at the rural level. Easy question. The officials from the labor level, they make unions even at the village level, the info how to complain. They have the message and information channel to submit their message. I will submit how many complaints and the percentage of complaints from the rural area [in the post-hearing briefing].

GSP Subcommittee representative: Yes, we’ve seen those numbers. What will be more helpful to us would be can you include how to publicize that information to the villagers – how rural people can become informed on the process?

GSP Subcommittee representative: Can you explain how intellectual property rights will be established? There is a law not yet into effect.

Burmese government panelist: Pertaining to the new investment law, most are open to foreign investments. That is the reason most companies are flocking into Myanmar to take part in business ventures here. They are overseeing if we are taking the right path on the road to democracy. We are considering signing the Madrid Protocol as well. Going back to the investment law, there will be no [intellectual property regulations? Editor’s note: unclear]. Frankly speaking, we does [sic] not possess an ability to do that as we were hibernating for almost 49 years so we have no ability. But the rule of law together with Suu Kyi; we are working on implementing the rules and the law in our country.

Burmese government panelist: We noticed IPR [intellectual property rights] is important issue in the GSP. We have Myanmar copyright law in 1949 and TV and Video law and Patent and Design Act in 1939. In the foreign investment law, we can not cover IPR fully. We are drafting a law for IPR. We are drafting a standard. Very soon we are going to design our document. In near future, IPR in Burma will be improved significantly.

GSP Subcommittee representative: Maybe you can submit more details in your briefing on how you’ll address IPR?

GSP Subcommittee representative: Can you explain details on how your government is addressing optimal disc production plans?

Burmese government panelist: We are taking the action by the administrative way. Most of the case is like a video, something like this. That’s the key – we are taking action. We are drafting the law to include all the things to be the international standard.

GSP Subcommittee representative: Does the government have plans to implement the Berne Convention or the WIPO [Copyright] Treaty?

Burmese government panelist: This is [under the] Ministry of Technology…I will confirm and include it in the briefing.

GSP Subcommittee representative: GSP criteria include regulations about American corporations and citizens…[we wonder about the] expropriation of property owned by American companies and citizens.

Burmese government panelist: [Unsure.] There will be no nationalization.

GSP Subcommittee representative: That concludes our questions to you. We’ve already concluded a number of questions for elaboration in the post-hearing brief.

 

Panel 2: Eric C. Rose, Counsel, Herzfeld & Rubin P.C., New York

Mr. Rose testified for a protracted period, deciding to take the subcommittee down “memory lane.” He talked on the basic history of Burma, the Coca Cola investment in Burma, and then spoke at length about the Cambodian textile industry. He vaguely argued that the Cambodian textile industry benefitted from GSP and that the same thing could happen in Burma, though he said that textiles aren’t the main product imported via GSP and that he doesn’t represent any textile companies. Rose also mentioned that the banks in Burma are “in very poor shape. The international community still can’t open banks there. Distribution is being done by third party middlemen who are providing materials but also taking most of the profit. But the manufacturers in Burma don’t know they are paying the middlemen much more than those [manufacturers] in Bangladesh.” Rose’s key quotes include,

• “Production [in Burma] sucks, frankly.”
• “I was guy who put the American standard in that region with a factory in Vietnam that created thousands of middle class jobs.”
• “Just stop me [said to the subcommittee after he had spoken for far longer than 5 minutes]…you get a guy like me talking, and I never stop.”

GSP Subcommittee representative: Can you make your final points?

Rose: In the textile industry alone, the growth has been remarkable. After the granting of GSP in Cambodia, even though most products don’t qualify, the growth is crazy. There are more than a quarter million new employees because of the agreement between the US and Cambodia. Once you grant GSP, other agencies will come in; there may be a bilateral agreement in the future. It will allow the country to become competitive.

GSP Subcommittee representative: Thanks for your information. It was very…um, illuminating.

GSP Subcommittee representative (Agriculture): Have any of your client firms concluded any collective bargaining agreements?

Rose: The answer is no because the law has just been instated in the past year. The law provides for penalties but the penalties are very small, however. The bottom line is a lack of rule of law. If you have enforcement, or an employer, who denies the rights of employee, the employee may go to an arbitration tribunal. People still must believe their rights will be defended. One of my colleagues with the NLD is defending people denied their rights. The employees must be educated that they can seek redress, knowing what their rights are, and then going to work. That’s what we do in the US. The government can’t solve all the problems. The people must go get redress in the court system.

…Maung Maung is chairman of trade unions of Burma. He’s now returned back to Burma, and has got a lot of awards. He’s also in favor of being able to have a reentry of rule of law in relations between labor and management. You don’t just give one group the rights, but it will be bilateral. The US has imposed a code of good conduct on American investors [Editor’s note: the US has not imposed a code of good conduct; it has implemented Reporting Requirements for Responsible Investment in Burma]. That will be a code of how things should be done, not just on how they’ve been in the past.

GSP Subcommittee representative: Your relations with the Cambodian textile industry have made you believe Burma is ready for GSP. What’s the protocol of the manufacturing people in Burma?

Rose: We are advising them on draft regulations of good conduct for their members [Rose’s phone goes off] to obey by, and more important, their current leadership is very committed to continue working with ILO in implementing rules for Burma to become very competitive in the government market. In a nut shell, it’s a work in progress. Has it been done? No. Will it be done? I think so. You look at Bangladesh, which has become kind of a dirty word for manufacturing…we all know why. Looking at other countries, there is very little reason not to set up industry in Burma…

GSP Subcommittee representative: Are you aware of child labor problems? What industries would it be concentrated in? Are you aware of any government programs to address those issues?

Rose: Absolutely yes. The government has become extraordinarily sensitive to this subject. They are a signatory of Child Labor Convention of 1955. They don’t need to implement any new rules, frankly. They just need to implement the ones they already have. Do I have firsthand knowledge of child labor? No. Have I been in factories that use child labors? No. However, children used as apprentices sometimes. There is still — we’re looking at a snapshot. This has started a few months ago. Are there a number of factories still doing business the old fashioned way? Yes. Do I have any personal knowledge of it? No. Are they disappearing? Yes. If we [American businesses] come into this, things will change. I can use my own personal example in Vietnam. In Eastern Europe, in Romania. Once you get westerners, Americans, that’s the time you’ll have a favorable reaction from the locals. Because they have to do it by the American rules or they can’t do business at all.

GSP Subcommittee representative: Have your clients in the private sector dealt with trademarks [Editor’s note: Unsure if this is the question]?

Rose: If there is a weak spot in the investor climate in Burma, frankly, that’s it. [Editor's sarcastic note: yes, because there is only one weak spot...] Frankly that’s very high technology and that comes from Thailand and Malaysia. What is the legal framework? That dates to the British Empire. It’s badly outdated. If you have a trademark, you go to the office to register and you must publish it again and again to make sure the trademark is in the public eye. You first have to have the law. They’re working very hard to bring a state-of-the-art law out. The mentality of the people isn’t there yet, [the mentality] that you trust the courts. It’s still incipient, but it’s getting better, at a very, very fast pace. Mind-boggling. It’s extraordinary how the mentality of freedom – looking for your rights and enforcing those rights – has changed in the last 18 months.

 

Panel 3: International Intellectual Property Alliance, Mr. Michael Schlesinger, Counsel, Washington, DC

Mr. Schlesinger believed the lack of a proper legal infrastructure to deal with IPR, and market access obstacles, are grounds to deny Burma GSP. Schlesinger spoke articulately on Burma’s outdated (91-year-old) copyright laws and the need to improve IPR enforcement in Burma. He spoke on ensuring that internet-based rights are covered, on protections against unauthorized encryption of encrypted signals, on the need for criminal laws and border protection to stop illegal transport of pirated goods from China, and on the need for “a whole host of other legal measures.” He stressed the need to build enforcement capacity starting with educating law enforcement and ensuring that they’re well aware that the import and sale of illegal goods is an actionable offense.

He added: “I don’t want to leave out market access concerns because all these legal infrastructure changes can be made to begin to form the rule of law. If we don’t have access to the market for our created materials, it will be difficult to do business in the market. Through investment law and GSP review, we’re looking for clarification on how people/companies have access to Burmese market to creative products.”

GSP Subcommittee representative: Is there more than one investment law in Burma right now?

Schlesinger: We are aware of a few…The draft we reviewed is the most serious one, I think. The government said that they’ll incorporate things from various sources. Obviously we want to listen carefully to all stakeholders but our interests in hundreds of companies internationally gives us experience with what will work commercially in Burma. Our comments today are tailored to the real commercial concerns we’d face in the Burmese market.

GSP Subcommittee representative: The UN designates Burma as a least developed country (LDC). How does it rank in terms of IPR?

Schlesinger: As of now, Burma is behind. Even behind other LDCs. Is it playing quick catch-up? Maybe. We’ll see how the government is being mobilized and see how judicial reform takes hold. But they’re lagging behind even in comparison with LDCs.

The Q & A carried on for quite a while.

Panel 4: Earth Rights International, US Campaign for Burma, and the Burma Fund

Ms. Jenifer Quigley, Executive Director, US Campaign for Burma, Washington, DC


Mr. Jonathan Kaufman, Legal Advocacy Coordinator, Earthrights International, Washington, DC


Dr. Sein Win, Chairman, the Burma Fund, Rockville, MD

• Read USCB’s Ms. Quigley’s testimony in full here. Ms. Quigley spoke first on Burma’s lack of transparency, crony capitalism, human rights abuses, ongoing conflict, and land grabs, which all indicate that rule of law has yet to be established in Burma.

…“Troubling trends have emerged over the past year that correlate with the relaxation of sanctions by the international community. Land confiscation has become pandemic throughout Burma. Reform of land tenure rights should be considered one of the most essential needs to guarantee political and economic rights for the people of Burma. But the government of Burma has taken legal steps in the opposite direction, enacting two additional pieces of legislation, the Farmland Law and the Vacant, Fallow, and Virgin Land Law to strengthen their legal authority to confiscate land from local farmers. Nearly 2 million acres have been confiscated in recent years, a trend that is rising in correlation with potential foreign investment partnerships. Government officials, the military, and business cronies have confiscated land to make way for special economic zones, industrial parks, extractive industry projects, plantation agriculture, and development projects. Farmers and communities have little to no recourse to contest the loss of land and livelihood. Provisions in the new land laws require complaints be registered with a politically appointed government committee, and not the judicial system. A redundancy considering the judicial system is also not independent…”

Other trends include military ventures aimed at confiscating land to enable investment opportunities, crackdowns on protestors and rights activists, and a complete lack of transparency in the natural resources sector.

Quigley spoke on the need for reform of land tenure rights and the corrupt mechanisms that allow the Burmese elite to produce goods on the backs of the disenfranchised poor. Products from Burma are tainted – extractive products in particular – because only by displacing communities, seizing their land, and conscripting them for use as forced labor are these goods produced. Quigley warned the Subcommittee to take a cautious approach to all US-Burma economic activity.

• Read ERI’s Mr. Kaufman’s testimony in full here. ERI and USCB coordinated testimonies; Kaufman’s testimony served as a “part 2” to Quigley’s testimony.  Kaufman spoke on the need to safeguard labor and land rights in the GSP process by instituting a reporting requirement for import companies and manufacturers.

“Fortunately, the Committee has two points of entry through which it can act to manage the impacts of the GSP program on human rights, including labor rights. If Myanmar’s GSP status is reinstated, the Committee can first use its powers to limit the designation of Myanmar as a Beneficiary Developing Country in order to require reporting and certification requirements for all importers and trigger periodic reviews. And second, the Committee can use its power to limit and withdraw the designation of particular articles to exclude certain high risk articles and establish a procedure for vetting progress on human rights concerns.”

Kaufman also suggested that importers be required to certify that they’ve conducted human rights due diligence. Furthermore, products from the oil, gas, mining, and agricultural sectors should not be eligible for GSP benefits due to the rampant human rights violations in those sectors. Kaufman argued that without proper safeguards and limitations, GSP benefits could exacerbate the existing connection between foreign investment and human rights abuses.

• Dr. Sein Win, former Burmese prime minister-in-exile after the 1990 elections, spoke about how Burma has not met criteria necessary for GSP status given human rights abuses.

Please check back for more information – USCB will post the links to the post-hearing briefings on June 27.

The Bachelorette Burma – Week 2

Bachelorette Burma, featuring real quotes from ABC’s The Bachelorette

Burmese parliamentary speaker Shwe Mann & Commission-itis

Burma loves little more than a good commission…a commission a day keeps international scrutiny away. Or at least that’s what we took away from “The Current Political Situation in Myanmar: Perspectives from the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw,” a panel discussion with Burmese parliamentary speaker Shwe Mann and a handful of his parliamentary colleagues.

The June 13 event, hosted by the Woodrow Wilson Center, Center for Strategic & International Studies, State Department, National Democratic Institute, and the Institute for Representative Government, marked Shwe Mann’s first public appearance during his visit to Washington, DC. Given how much legitimacy co-sponsors gave to the event, and Shwe Mann’s carefully executed timidity, if you didn’t know about Shwe Mann’s career history – Joint Chief of Staff and the third-ranked general under the military regime (protege of senior general and head of state from 1992-2011 Than Shwe) – and extremely crooked record on human rights, you might think Burma’s parliament is a jolly fun judicial investigation fest.

When asked about women’s rights and constitutional reform, Shwe Mann swept Burma’s evasion of justice and accountability under the rug with his doublespeak: “We are reviewing.” Asked about land confiscation, Shwe Mann responded with a confident, “We have resolved some of the problem” and “we have also elected laws in order to prevent such things happening in the future.” (Pray tell, are you referring to your 2012 Farmland Law that strips farmers of land and production rights so the government can more easily confiscate land to create investment opportunities? Because that’s the law I saw.)

Despite forming numerous “review” commissions over the past year, the government has accepted no responsibility for attacks against minority groups, refused to stymie its brutal tactics, prevented the establishment of an independent judiciary, and avoided constitutional reform. Shwe Mann is one of the few who has the power to institute real reform in Burma. He heads the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party, which holds more than 80% of parliamentary seats. While local actors and new parliamentarians may have some will to pursue reform, such reform is impossible without amending the draconian 2008 Constitution, written by military leaders including Shwe Mann, President Thein Sein, and Than Shwe before they transitioned to a more “democratic” government. The Constitution ensures that 25% of parliamentary seats will belong to the military and that the Constitution can’t be amended without the support of the military.

The roots of Burma’s human rights abuses are grounded in the Constitution and legal code: an anti-demonstration law stifles freedom of expression, a targeted citizenship law prohibits Burma’s ethnic groups from receiving basic rights and protection, a land law allows land confiscation, a press law restricts freedom of speech. None of Burma’s commissions have addressed – or really can address – the legal labyrinth that plagues all civilians outside the umbrella of impunity.

To watch this doublespeak superbowl, check out the video here. Skip to minute 35:45 for Shwe Mann’s introductory speech. Then watch the Q & A, where things really get good.

Shwe Mann may very well become Burma’s president in 2015.

“If there were a position higher than or more important than the president, I would want that post,” Shwe Mann told the media earlier this month.

“I believe that if I became president, I could do more than the others to achieve unity among ethnic groups, national reconciliation, rule of law, regional stability, and peace.”

He apparently can’t start achieving those goals now in his role as speaker…

Introducing Burma as this season’s Bachelorette!

The First of Our Bachelorette Burma Cartoon Series

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.”