m-r-news-_16609_.pdf

HEADLINES
*************************************************************
NEWS ON MIGRANTS

Abuse, Poverty and Migration: Investigating migrants’ motivations to leave home in Burma

Burmese Asylum Seekers Find Safe Haven in Palau

Mizoram police arrest Burmese nationals

THAILAND: Burmese migrant children missing out on education

Three Myanmar Rohingya arrested on trafficking charges

 

NEWS ON REFUGEES

Chin children in orphanages increase

KNU Rejects Regime Version of Fighting

Thai Army Chief denies presence of KNU soldiers among refugees

UNHCR cancels World Refugee Day programme in Bangladesh

 

*************************************************************

a&G@ajymif;tvkyform;rsm;owif;

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????????????? ??????????????????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????? ?????????????????

?????????????????????????????? ????????????? ???????????? ????????

 

‘kuQonfrsm;owif;

KNU ???????? ? ?? ?????????

??????????????????? ??????????????? ??????? ???????????????

 

*************************************************************
NEWS ON MIGRANTS
*************************************************************

Abuse, Poverty and Migration: Investigating migrants’ motivations to leave home in Burma

 

International reporting of the large-scale migration of those leaving Burma in search of work abroad has highlighted the perils for migrant during travel and in host countries. However, there has been a lack of research in the root causes of this migration. Identifying the root causes of migration has important implications for the assistance and protection of these migrants. Drawing on over 150 interviews with villagers in rural Burma and those from Burma who have sought employment abroad, this report identifies the exploitative abuse underpinning poverty and livelihoods vulnerability in Burma which, in turn, are major factors motivating individuals to leave home and seek work abroad.

Introduction and executive summary

While Burma’s ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) continues to claim that the country has reached unprecedented levels of peace and development over the past 20 years, tens of thousands of Burmese residents continue to leave the country every year in order to find a way to survive. Indeed, all indications suggest that this flow of people is increasing.

The majority of those leaving Burma have sought out employment opportunities abroad. An estimated 1 to 3 million people who have left the country currently reside in Thailand. In Malaysia, the working population from Burma is estimated at 150,000 with a further 50,000 to 60,000 in Singapore. Up to 100,000 ethnic Chin who have fled western Burma currently live in the north-eastern Indian state of Mizoram. On top of this, approximately 200,000 Rohingya, also from western Burma, have settled in eastern Bangladesh and remain in what has been described as “precarious conditions in villages and semi-urban slums.”

Only a small percentage of Burmese people who have moved abroad are legally recognised as refugees or otherwise officially acknowledged as forced migrants entitled to host-government or UN assistance. These include approximately 135,000 individuals residing within 10 refugee camps in Thailand, about 1,500 UNHCR-recognised refugees in India and 26,000 Rohingya residing within two officially recognised refugee camps in Bangladesh.

While the expatriate migrant populations from Burma working abroad have been growing steadily for more than 20 years, the international community has only recently begun recognising the insecurity these people face at home, during migration and in their host countries. This heightened international awareness is partly due to the obvious increase in those leaving Burma and partly due to especially dramatic news reports on the struggles of Burmese migrants and asylum seekers. These reports include the April 2008 incident in which 54 individuals from Burma suffocated while being transported in a container truck to a work site in southern Thailand. More recently, the large numbers of Rohingya boat people arriving in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have prompted international statements of concern and regional forums to discuss the issue.

Concurrent with this mass influx of migrants into neighbouring countries, there have been ongoing debates about the appropriate definitions for classifying these migrants and how these people should be treated by host governments and international bodies. The key issue has been whether and how to distinguish between refugees and economic migrants. Regional governments receiving large numbers of people from Burma have been particularly sensitive about the political and economic implications of their arrival. For example, in response to a journalist’s question regarding the Rohingya boat people, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva replied, “Let’s get that straight – they’re not refugees, they’re just illegal migrants.”

Approach of this report

Within the context of ongoing mass migration within and out of Burma and the ongoing debates about how these people are defined, this report seeks to answer the following questions:

·         What causes people to leave their homes in Burma and seek economic opportunities elsewhere?

·         Do international frameworks accurately reflect these causes and address the protection needs of these people?

To answer these questions, this report draws on two separate data sets consisting of over 150 interviews collected and translated by KHRG researchers between August 2007 and March 2009. The findings of this research strengthen and give a human face to the main assertion of this report: the vast majority of those who leave Burma and seek work abroad are not leaving home simply to find better economic opportunities as a matter of personal convenience, but are instead fleeing life-threatening poverty that is a direct result of exploitative SPDC policies.

The first data set is comprised of 128 interviews conducted with residents of SPDC-controlled areas in Karen State from late 2007 to the end of 2008. These areas include Pa’an, Dooplaya, Thaton and Nyaunglebin districts. This report focuses on the most heavily SPDC-controlled parts of Karen State in order to examine the everyday exploitative abuses common under SPDC rule in rural areas and the impact those abuses have on poverty, livelihoods vulnerability and food insecurity. Furthermore, it is primarily from SPDC-controlled areas (rather than more contested areas like mountainous northern Karen State) that migrant workers typically come. This report uses both the statistical data and personal testimonies from these interviews to discuss the environment of human rights abuse and resulting poverty in those districts.

The second data set is comprised of 27 interviews conducted with individuals from Burma currently living and working in Thailand that were held between January and March 2009. These interviews were designed in order to find out the reasons why these people decided to leave Burma. While there were five interviewees who came from urban areas (Rangoon, Moulmein and Pegu Town), over 80% originally came from rural parts of Eastern Burma. Interviewees were asked to describe their former lives, including their professions in Burma, cost of living, factors influencing their choice to leave home and whether they had endured any human rights abuses in their home areas. The data and quotes taken from these interviews help to illuminate the relationships between abuse, poverty and migration.

Of course, there is no way to establish how many of those who were interviewed in Karen State and cited abuse subsequently decided to leave Burma to find work abroad. Therefore, these two data sets should be viewed as complementary rather than directly linked. With that in mind, KHRG wished to see whether the abuses which migrants cited as factors compelling them to leave Burma resembled those that were cited by residents of Karen State. As this report will demonstrate, the abuses cited in the two data sets are extremely similar. Both current residents of Karen State and those from Burma now working in Thailand overwhelmingly cited exploitative demands and restrictions as being the most prevalent forms of abuse which they sustained or witnessed in Burma. Furthermore, interviewees explained that these abuses significantly eroded financial and food security.

The match between these data sets suggests that SPDC abuses in rural Burma contribute to a life-threatening level of poverty for villagers and that that poverty, in turn, forces villagers to leave their homes and seek work abroad in order to survive.

Framing migration

Conventionally, classification as a refugee or internally displaced person (IDP), as opposed to an economic migrant, is based on what push and pull factors influence individual acts of migration. Whereas push factors refer to undesirable conditions at places of origin which ‘push’ people to seek a better situation elsewhere, pull factors refer to those positive features of a new location which ‘pull’ individuals towards it.

Refugees and IDPs are understood to have had little choice about migrating and were pushed out of their homes. More specifically, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees defines refugees as those who have been compelled to leave their country of origin due to persecution on grounds of “race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” Less conventionally, the term has been used by some advocates and aid agencies to also cover those who have fled imminent physical threats due to armed conflict or natural disasters. The definition of IDPs, according to the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, includes those displaced by persecution, armed conflict, violations of human rights, natural disasters or large-scale development projects, but who have not crossed an internationally recognised State border.

By contrast, economic migrants are understood as individuals who, while able to remain at their places of origin, freely choose migration in order to access better economic opportunities abroad. The choice made is often viewed as a matter of personal convenience rather than survival. Ultimately, refugees and IDPs are seen as being pushed from their homes (and hence have no choice), while economic migrants supposedly decide freely to be pulled towards better economic opportunities abroad.

KHRG’s research findings

Framing KHRG’s research in terms of push and pull factors is not an abstract exercise – policymakers in governments and international bodies use these distinctions in order to determine who receives vital humanitarian aid as well as legal and other protection. And what KHRG’s research demonstrates is that there is no strict separation of push and pull factors when it comes to people who leave Burma.

In Data Set 1, the information collected from 128 interviews which KHRG conducted in SPDC-controlled Karen State indicate that the overwhelming majority of abuses faced by villagers in these areas are exploitative in character and significantly impact poverty, livelihoods vulnerability and food insecurity.

The most prevalently cited abuses found in these interviews were forced labour (47% of interviewees), extortion (29%), looting by SPDC and Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) forces (14%) and movement restrictions (12%) – all abuses used to exploit villagers’ resources. While less frequently cited, cases of arbitrary taxation were also noted by interviewees as a form of exploitation in Karen State. In addition to these exploitative abuses, interviewees also cited incidents of arbitrary arrest, executions, intimidation, landmines, scorched earth tactics (such as razing whole villages, farm fields and food stores and killing livestock) and torture.

Data Set 2 contains information taken from 27 interviews KHRG conducted with Thailand-based Burmese migrants between January and March 2009. Out of the 27 individuals interviewed, 21 (roughly 78%) cited exploitative abuses (most commonly committed by SPDC soldiers and other State authorities) as factors that negatively affected their economic situations in Burma. The exploitative abuses cited by this group of interviewees included: forced labour, arbitrary taxation, extortion and land confiscation as well as movement restrictions used to facilitate demands. Out of these, forced labour was the single most common form of abuse, with 19 people (about 70%) citing it as a regular occurrence in their home communities.

Blurring the line between push and pull factors

Thailand-based interviewees explained to KHRG how exploitative abuses increased poverty, livelihoods vulnerability and food insecurity for themselves and their communities in Burma. These issues were in turn cited as central push factors compelling them to leave their homes and search for work abroad. In some cases, interviewees explained that the harmful effects of exploitative abuse were compounded by environmental and economic factors such as flood and drought and limited access to decent wage labour.

While the individuals interviewed by KHRG in Thailand would normally be classified as ‘economic migrants’, the factors which they cited as motivating their choice to migrate make it clear that SPDC abuse made it difficult for them to survive in their home areas. Hence, these people decided to become migrants not simply because they were lured to Thailand by economic incentives, but because they found it impossible to survive at home in Burma. Clearly, the distinction between push and pull factors is blurred in the case of Burmese migrants.

The concept of pull factors for migrants is further complicated because migrants are not merely seeking better jobs abroad, but are instead pulled to places like Thailand and Malaysia in order to access protection. For refugees and IDPs, protection is a service that is often provided by government bodies, UN agencies and international NGOs. For refugees in particular, protection is often primarily understood to mean legal protection against refoulement – defined as the expulsion of a person to a place where they would face persecution. Beyond legal protection against refoulement, aid agencies have implemented specific forms of rights-based assistance, such as gender-based violence programmes, as part of their protection mandates.

However, for migrants from Burma the act of leaving home is overwhelmingly a self-initiated protection strategy through which individuals can ensure their and their families’ basic survival in the face of persistent exploitative and other abuse in their home areas. This broader understanding of protection goes beyond legal protection against refoulement and the top-down delivery of rights-based assistance by aid agencies. It involves actions taken by individuals on their own accord to lessen or avoid abuse and its harmful effects at home.

KHRG has chosen to use the term self-initiated protection strategy, rather than a more generic concept like ’survival strategy’, in order to highlight the political agency of those who choose such migration. By seeing this protection in political terms, one can better understand both the abusive underpinnings of migration from Burma as well as the relevance of such migration to the protection mandates of governments, UN agencies and international NGOs currently providing support to conventional refugee populations. Understanding protection in this way presents opportunities for external support for the many self-initiated protection strategies (including efforts to secure employment without exploitation, support dependent family members, enrol children in school and avoid arrest, extortion and deportation) which migrant workers regularly use.

International frameworks and their application

Given the factors prompting people to leave Burma in search of work abroad, most of these individuals can be most accurately understood as livelihoods refugees. These individuals have legitimate protection concerns and use their own self-initiated protection strategies (i.e. becoming migrants and taking on employment) in order to survive.

Keeping in mind the various reasons influencing migration from home areas in Burma, the second of this report’s questions can now be addressed: do existing international human rights laws, frameworks and norms accurately reflect the causes of emigration from Burma and address the protection needs of these migrant populations? After examining those laws and norms, it becomes clear that the answer is a definitive no.

Despite the multiple, often overlapping, motivating factors in migration, current international legal regimes and norms attempt to place Burmese who leave their homes into one of three narrow, often rigidly-defined categories: refugees, IDPs or economic migrants.

Of these three categories, people who are referred to as ‘economic migrants’ are by far the most poorly defined, least protected group. Indeed, for several decades now, legal thinkers and policymakers alike have struggled to create a satisfactory definition of what constitutes an economic migrant. An issue that has contributed to this legal stalemate is the problem of delineating between voluntary and involuntary migration. As has been discussed above, many people continue to assume that economic migration is a choice that is freely made by the migrant. While that might be true in some countries, the findings of KHRG’s interviews with Burmese migrants makes it clear that the decision to migrate from Burma often isn’t solely made out of a desire to find marginally better financial security, but is often made because it is the only way that that person or family can survive.

In stark contrast to the case of economic migrants, the international legal protection afforded to refugees is by far the most robust of the three frameworks examined here. Its strength derives in large part from a long-established international consensus that protection must be given to people who are forced to leave their home countries due to political and social persecution. But for a country of over 50 million people who live under SPDC oppression, there are not only more refugees than are currently recognised, but also millions of Burmese who have been labelled ‘economic migrants’ but have in fact fled the country in order to survive. The interviews conducted by KHRG both within Karen State and abroad indicate that many Burmese have left their homes not because they were specifically identified for political or social persecution, but because they lived in a state of life-threatening poverty that was created by exploitative SPDC policies.

The strength of the current normative regime for protecting internally displaced persons (IDPs) lies midway between that for economic migrants and that for refugees. While the IDP norms, as enshrined in the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, are better defined and recognised by more policymakers than those for economic migrants, they also have not been codified as international law and so are weaker than the legal protection regime for refugees. But these IDP protection norms, like those for refugees, prioritise people perceived to be under immediate physical threats, whether due to persecution, warfare, ’situations of generalised violence’, human rights violations or natural or human-made disasters. As many people migrate within Burma for the same reasons as those who leave the country, such a definition again fails to accurately address the complex factors that lead many to leave their homes.

The fundamental lack of a legal and normative protection framework for migrants fleeing conditions of life-threatening poverty that result from abuse shows how currently out of sync the international legal community is with the reality faced by people living in rural Burma. That so many people are left without a single, coherent legal and normative protection framework only maintains the state of vulnerability that these people tried to flee when they left their homes in Burma. This evidence should lead policymakers to seriously question their current conceptions of economic migration out of and within Burma and what, if anything, separates such people from those who are commonly classified as IDPs or refugees.

Recommendations

Systematic exploitation and other abuse within Burma are root causes of migration out of the country and need to be addressed. However, so long as this abuse and migration continue, action can and should be taken to assist vulnerable populations from Burma now working abroad.

Expand protection

International agencies, governments and humanitarian organisations currently (or potentially) operating on Burma’s borders and providing assistance to conventional refugee populations should acknowledge the legitimate protection concerns of those from Burma now engaged in work outside of officially-recognised refugee camps. Once these bodies have recognised that the line drawn between migrants and refugees from Burma is unsatisfactory, they should then endeavour to expand their current protection mandates beyond a narrow refugee population in order to truly reflect the root causes of abuse that motivate so many to leave home in Burma and seek out work abroad.

Agencies and organisations engaged in protection work should strive to understand the particular human rights challenges as defined by migrant workers themselves and support the self-initiated protection strategies which these individuals are already employing. Also, host governments and the international community should increase financial, logistical and political support for local and international NGOs engaged in protection work with migrant communities from Burma. Where host-government restrictions are the primary barriers to expanding legal, humanitarian and other assistance to vulnerable migrants engaged in paid labour, advocacy with domestic authorities may be necessary to amend restrictive policies.

Establish international frameworks

On the international legal and political level, policymakers should work to establish laws and norms that more accurately take into consideration the causes that lead people to leave their homes in Burma and similar situations elsewhere. Efforts must be made to create a separate, strong international regime that can better protect vulnerable migrants from Burma and elsewhere who take on employment abroad and lack camp-based, or other officially-sanctioned, refugee protection. One option is to create a normative framework for such migrants similar to the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement that would, rather than creating an entirely new legal or normative regime, instead take advantage of those human rights-related laws that are already widely recognised and codified in international law.

There is an inevitably long fight to be had in order to establish an effective and appropriate international legal protection framework for migrants. However, concrete steps must, and can, be taken now to effectively address the needs (and support the self-initiated protection strategies) of the millions of Burmese migrants who are currently living away from their homes in Burma and who lack officially-recognised refugee status.

Along with the specific recommendations included here, this report aims to stimulate a serious discussion of the causes of migration from Burma, the limits of international protection mechanisms for these migrants and possible initiatives to more effectively address migrants’ protection needs. While the findings presented here are strengthened by thousands of similar interviews conducted by KHRG over the past 17 years, this report should also serve as a prompt and model for further research by other organisations and agencies engaged in refugee and migrant protection and advocacy.

http://khrg.org/khrg2009/khrg0903.html

 

************************************************************

Burmese Asylum Seekers Find Safe Haven in Palau

By TOMOKO A HOSAKA/ AP WRITER Tuesday, June 16, 2009

KOROR, Palau — The newcomers on this tiny Pacific nation are young and in limbo, scared that they’ll be arrested if they’re sent back to their native land. Most speak no English, but they say they’re astounded by the generosity of Palau and its people.

They are not the Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo who made world news last week when Palau’s president said the country would take them. Instead, they are 11 asylum seekers from Burma— and they may offer the best idea what the freed detainees’ new lives might be.

“They didn’t know us,” Aye Aye Thant, 34, the group’s sole fluent English speaker and de facto spokeswoman, said Sunday. “We are not workers, and we don’t serve their country. But we are treated as their own siblings.”

Fearing arrest for their political activities, the 10 men and one woman fled military-run Burma to Malaysia and then to the Philippines, always moving on because they thought the countries might deport them. They had never heard of Palau, but friends suggested it. It also offered an attractive feature—visa-free entry.

They arrived in late February, and Palau has mobilized to protect them.

Once their money ran out, the local Roman Catholic church offered to house and feed them. On Monday, a senator—the president’s younger brother—will take over, letting them stay at his farmhouse as they await word on their application for asylum.

“It’s our age-old tradition to receive those in need whenever they somehow arrive on our shores,” President Johnson Toribiong said in an interview with The Associated Press on Saturday. He said that idea is behind the decision to accept the Chinese Muslims, known as Uighurs, and rejected criticism that the move is somehow tied to US aid.

The Burmese asylum seekers say in tropical Palau, one of the world’s smallest countries, they finally feel free.

“We were going to be arrested by the military government (in Burma),” said Aye Aye Thant, a former English teacher who openly opposes Burma’s ruling junta.

She decided to leave after a family friend and police officer warned her father that she appeared on a government arrest list. She had made unauthorized trips to the Irrawaddy Delta region, hit hard by last year’s Cyclone Nargis, to pass out donated supplies and money.

Her cousin Agganana, another asylum seeker who goes by one name, said he led various anti-government demonstrations at home.

All but one in the group, which includes two Buddhist monks, are members of the overseas offshoot of the National League for Democracy led by pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

In Palau, a tropical island nation of 20,000 people, local residents approach them from time to time, offering what they can to help.

Their main benefactor from the Catholic church, Father Rusk Saburo, stopped by Sunday afternoon to check on them before their move.

Saburo, one of Palau’s three Roman Catholic priests, said the church has been paying $500 a month for the apartment. It also has provided groceries and medical care.

“The goal of life for us is you help a stranger,” he said, sitting between the two Buddhist monks.

“No questions asked.”

At their new home starting Monday, the men will help out on the senator’s farm in return for housing. And Aye Aye Thant said she may be able to start teaching English informally.

Even though the group seems happy with their transition to Palau, Saburo admits he has concerns about the Uighurs’ (pronounced WEE’-gurs) expected arrival. How will they fit in after a life spent largely in dry western China? Where will they live? What will they do?

Saburo said he must practice what he preaches, regardless of religion.

“Whether the president has other motives or not is another matter,” he said. “For humanitarian purposes, I am a Christian, so I accept anybody who comes in peace. I’m sure a good number of my parishioners feel the same way.”

http://irrawaddy.org/highlight.php?art_id=16009

 

*************************************************************

Mizoram police arrest Burmese nationals

15 June 2009

The police have been arresting more and more Burmese nationals staying illegally in Mizoram state, northeast India.

 A report said that four Chin people in a restaurant, run by the Burmese near Aizawl market and 50 Burmese who are engaged in handloom factories were arrested on June 13 by Mizoram police in Aizawl city.

The police arrested them from their work places or residents. They paid Rs. 500 a head as penalty and then they were released the same evening.

“There are 70 people. The weavers were taken by their householders by paying Rs. 500 to the authorities. They were arrested under the Foreigner’s Act but they were released by evening,” said a Burmese in Aizawl.

Because of the arrests of Burmese people, most weavers and labourers are afraid to come out of their homes even on market days – Saturday  or the weekend. Mizoram state is totally dependent on Burmese weavers for weaving and handloom products, but the authorities often arrest them under the Foreigner’s Act and push them back them from the Indo-Myanmar border to their country.

The authorities of Mizoram state arrested and deported most Burmese people in Mizoram state in 2003, affecting weaving or handloom owners who could not continue with their business as their workers had been deported.

Home Minister R. Zirliana said that Burmese people involved in illegal and criminal activities have to be deported. Now the local police have started to arrest illegal settlers and who are involved in criminal activities.

Therefore, 40 Burmese including Chin people were arrested on  May 16, 2009, and then 38 people were deported to the Indo-Myanmar border. Most of the arrested people were engaged in various works and criminal activities.

There are about 100,000  Burmese people in Mizoram state from Chin state and Sagaing division of Burma. They work in weaving units, crush stones, and are into road construction, trade and house keeping. Khonumthung News

http://www.khonumthung.com/kng-news/09-news/mizoram-police-arrest-burmese-nationals/

 

*************************************************************

THAILAND: Burmese migrant children missing out on education

BANGKOK, 15 June 2009 (IRIN)

 

Thousands of children of Burmese migrant workers in Thailand are missing out on an education, specialists say.

Under Thai policy, all children, regardless of their status in the country, can attend school, but many migrant children do not. While some cite problems of language or the lack of resources of individual schools, others have to work to support their families.

Many attend migrant learning centres run by local NGOs instead, which are not recognized by the Thai Ministry of Education.

Of the estimated 2.2 million migrants who live and work in Thailand, just over 500,000 are officially registered, making exact calculations of how many children are among them difficult.

About 80 percent of all labour migrants in the country are Burmese, with the rest from Cambodia and Laos.

According to a recent report by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), an estimated 200,000 migrant children younger than 17 are in the country.

However, some NGOs estimate there could be as many as 500,000 children born to Burmese parents in Thailand. At least 2,000 Burmese children are born in Thai hospitals each year, while unknown numbers are born at home or outside, in orchards or plantations.

 

Universal access

In August 2005, the government adopted a policy entitled “Education for All”, with the aim of giving all children in Thailand equal access to schooling.

According to the Peace Way Foundation in Thailand, a migrant child could only be educated if a teacher was willing to accept the child and the family could afford it. Children could attend classes, but with little hope of obtaining a Thai certificate of education, which is essential for further study.

“In practice, this is challenging to implement for a number of reasons,” Amanda Bissex, chief of the child protection section with the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Thailand, told IRIN.

“Access to education for migrant children is impeded by understanding of the cabinet decision at the local level; extra costs associated with education, for example, school uniforms and text books, availability of suitable education and language of instruction.”

In addition, there is the language barrier and financial struggles for Burmese children, while teachers have their own difficulties, education specialists said.

“The teachers’ and communities’ attitude toward migrant children have to be properly approached so that the EFA [Education for All] can be implemented effectively,” Rangsun Wiboonuppatum, a UNICEF education officer, said.

He also explained that during the first few months of enrolment, some children had difficulties adapting, especially students who had not yet developed their communication skills or were over 10 and entering school for the first time.

Those students were put in first-grade classes, which are difficult to adapt to different age groups, while teachers were not equipped for this situation.

NGO schools

Meanwhile, for those unable to attend Thai schools and going to local learning centres run by NGOs in their area, additional challenges remain.

“We’re giving [free] education to as many students as we can, but there are many students who cannot come to our learning centres, which calls for further intervention measures,” said Thein Lwin, who runs the Children Learning Center in Chiang Mai, teaching Burmese, Thai, English and Maths, in northern Thailand.

In migrant schools, children are taught in their native language and in many cases follow the Burmese educational curriculum with additional courses such as Thai language and computer skills.

However, after completing high school, these young graduates do not have any prospects of attending university, as their education is not officially recognised by the Thai Education Ministry.

“Without education, they [Burmese children] will have no chance to make a better life wherever they live, in Thailand or Burma,” Myint Wai, deputy director of the Thai Action Committee for Democracy in Burma, said.

“We have to get our school officially recognized by the Thai government so the children can continue further studies in the Thai education system,” Paw Ray, chairwoman of the Burmese Migrant Workers Education Committee, said.

Thai authorities are reportedly drafting the legal status for such learning centres operated by NGOs to certify their education.

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=84844

 

*************************************************************

Three Myanmar Rohingya arrested on trafficking charges

BANGKOK, June 16 (TNA)

 

Three ethnic Rohingya men from Myanmar have been arrested by Thai immigration police and the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) and charged with involvement in transnational criminal activities.

Pol. Col. Tawee Sodsong, DSI chief, and representatives of the army and the police bureau, jointly told the press Tuesday that the first Rohingya man was arrested Monday in the northeastern province of Chaiyaphum.

The two other men were apprehended in Hat Yai in the southern provinces of Songkhla, said Pol. Col. Tawee.

Police also seized computers, a number of items of falsified Thai government documents and immigration stamps.

He said all the three men are also allegedly engaged in sending South Asian people to third countries via Thailand and the seized documents indicated showed that the trio might have supported militants operating in Thailand’s southern border provinces.

Hundreds of Rohingya boat people have been arrested, mainly off the southern province of Ranong bordering Myanmar. They have told Thai authorities that they had escaped Myanmar and wanted to resettle in third country for a better life and to also avoid discrimination imposed on them by the Myanmar authorities.

Many of them have been deported by Thailand, but many remain following an international outcry urging the Thai government to shelter the boat people on humanitarian grounds. (TNA)

 

http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=10379

 

*************************************************************

NEWS ON REFUGEES
*************************************************************

Chin children in orphanages increase

16 June 2009

Many Chin parents cannot afford to send their children to school so they admit them to the Children’s Orphanages in Chin state, western Burma.

The Director of Nazareth Children’s Orphanage Home said that there were more children in the home this year in Falam town.

“We give priority to orphans. Second come poor children from remote areas. We have admitted new children from 20 households this year. We have paid all their school fees and food expenses. They are attending government schools from here. We are sponsoring them to attend school,” he said.

The home is providing education, food and lodging for the children. It is a good shelter for poor students and children from remote areas. Most villagers therefore approach the home to educate their children.

There are two children’s orphanages – the Nazareth and Agape in Falam town. These support children with financial help from volunteer donors. They cannot accept too many children. Normally the average a year is 50 in Nazareth and 30 in the Agape home.

Nazareth home is now preparing to construct a new building for 100 children as the number of children is increasing every year.

“We spend Kyat 2 lakhs for 50 children per month in our home. School education is more expensive than their food as we have been providing all requirements from elementary school up to the collage level. Now we have five college going students in our home,” he added.

The Nazareth Children’s Home was established in 1995 and now it has about 55 children and 10 staff members in Falam town. Khonumthung News

http://www.khonumthung.com/kng-news/09-news/chin-children-in-orphanages-increase/

 

************************************************************

KNU Rejects Regime Version of Fighting

By SAW YAN NAING Monday, June 15, 2009

The Karen National Union (KNU) has rejected a Burmese government statement saying the thousands of Karen refugees fleeing fighting in eastern Burma are not civilians, but members of the KNU’s armed wing, the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), and their families.

The KNU also challenged claims by the Burmese Foreign Ministry that no Burmese army troops were involved in the fighting, which the regime maintained is solely between the KNLA and the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA).

The regime claims came in a Foreign Ministry statement, issued on Saturday in response to one from the European Union presidency, expressing concern about the exodus to Thailand of up to 6,000 Karen refugees since early June. The Foreign Ministry charged that the EU was reacting to inaccurate information from insurgent groups and biased media reports.

Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win described the EU statement as politically motivated. David Takapaw, vice chairman of the KNU, dismissed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs response as regime propaganda.

Karen villagers have been fleeing fighting in areas of southern Karen State controlled by the KNLA Brigade 7.

A base manned by KNLA Battalion 21 was seized and burnt down by the joint force on Sunday, 14 June, according to Karen sources. The DKBA have also taken the camps of KNLA Battalions 22 and 101, the sources said.

Camp 22 fell on the morning of Monday, 15 June, said Don Ka Ohn, a relief worker with the Free Burma Rangers (FBR). The DKBA soldiers are now deployed around the area, he said. 

In its statement on the fighting and the flood of refugees, the Burmese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: “It is obvious that those who fled across the border are none other than members of the KNLA and their families. Thus, there is no cross-border fleeing of civilians as alleged by the EU’s declaration.”

David Takapaw responded: “The Burmese regime is cheating and spreading its propaganda because the fleeing refugees are real Karen civilians who are mostly farmers.”

His assessment was endorsed by Sally Thompson, deputy director of the Thailand Burma Border Consortium, who said refugees from the fighting who were arriving in Thailand were villagers, mostly women and children. They were fleeing not only the fighting but also the danger of being recruited as soldiers or army porters.   

Don Ka Ohn of the FBR also stated that two pregnant Karen women named Naw Wah Rah and Daw Tay were reportedly raped and killed by Burmese soldiers from Light Infantry Battalion 205 led by Than Htet and Kyi Myo Thant.

The two Karen women, who lived in Kwee Law Ploe village in Hlinebwe Township in Pa-an district, were killed by the Burmese soldiers on June 12, while their husbands were hiding in the jungle to avoid serving as army porters, according to the report.   

The Foreign Ministry statement’s denial that any Burmese army troops were involved in the fighting said: “The fighting took place between the two armed groups DKBA and KNU/ KNLA. Members of the government armed forces had no role whatsoever in the recent scuffles.”

David Takapaw accused the regime of engaging in “psychological warfare to make our Karen people misunderstand each other.”

Takapaw said the Burmese army was directing frontline attacks while giving mortar cover. In this way, the regime could say the fighting was between two armed Karen groups, he said.

Five battalions of the Burmese army’s Light Infantry Division 22—numbering about 500 troops—were involved in the ongoing fighting in KNLA Brigade 7 areas, according to Takapaw. 

The Burmese government says it has reached ceasefire agreement with 17 ethnic armed groups since 1989, with the exception only of the KNU.

Karen people around the world have, meanwhile, collectively called on the UN Security Council to pass a binding resolution calling for an immediate end to military attacks, and imposing a global arms embargo on the Burmese government on the grounds that it is a threat to regional and international peace and security.

http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16004

 

*************************************************************

Thai Army Chief denies presence of KNU soldiers among refugees

by Usa Pichai    Monday, 15 June 2009 18:36

 

Chiang Mai  (Mizzima) Thailand’s Army Chief has insisted that no armed group has entered Thai territory, after the recent clashes between the armed wing of the Karen National Union and the Burmese Army.

Thailand’s Army Chief, Gen Anupong Phaochinda, said that Karen villagers from Burma, had escaped to Thailand, but there were no reports that KNU soldiers had also fled to Pobphra district of Thailand.

“We raised surveillance to prevent infiltration by armed groups and also to prevent cross-border exchange of fire. Recently, the villagers were worried about their safety because some bullets went astray on the Thai side. When the local Thai villagers feel confident about their safety, they will return home,” he is believed to have said, according to a report in Thai newspaper, Matichon, on Monday.

Lieutenant General Thanongsak Apirakyothin, Thailand’s Third Army Chief, has said regarding the current conflict near the Thailand and Burma border, that he believed the battle would be over soon and in that case the Burmese Army and the rebels should remove their troops.

Thanongsak said that Thai villagers, who were affected due to the fighting were relocated to safer areas, which was provided by local authorities and security officials. “The number of refugees is estimated at 2,800 but not more than 3,000 people have been sent to shelters on the Thai side. Mainly they are women and children and none of them are suspected soldiers or porters from the armed group,” he added.

Thai health officials from Thasongyang districts of Tak province have set up a medical center, to provide health check ups for about 3,000 Karen villagers, who escaped from conflict-torn Burma, and who currently are in Mae Song and Mae U-Su villages, since June 2. About 50 refugees suffered from diaorrhea, malaria and respiratory diseases. The officials have asked for more medicine from the provincial health office, because it is unlikely that the refugees can return home in the near future due to the ongoing battle.

The European Union last week expressed “serious concern” over the mounting military offensive by the Burmese Army and its allies against the Karen National Liberation Army, which has resulted in large numbers of civilians in eastern Burma fleeing to neighbouring Thailand.

However, the Burmese military junta “categorically rejected” the European Union’s concerns over a growing offensive against the Karen armed group, state media said on Sunday.

The New Light of Myanmar newspaper quoted the Burmese military regime’s Foreign Ministry’s statement that said Myanmar was “disappointed with the politically motivated declaration of the EU presidency, which was released without a thorough study of Myanmar’s insurgency problem”.

“Therefore, the Ministry categorically rejects the factually incorrect declaration made by the EU presidency, relying on inaccurate information originated from the insurgent groups and biased media reports,” it said.

 

http://mizzima.com/news/regional/2299-thai-army-chief-denies-presence-of-knu-soldiers-among-refugees-.html

 

*************************************************************

UNHCR cancels World Refugee Day programme in Bangladesh

6/16/2009

Dhaka: The Dhaka office of the UNHCR has canceled the World Refugee Day event for urban refugees, mostly Burmese. The reason for the cancellation was that there would not be any activities (performances) from the urban refugee community, according to a telephone message from the UNHCR to the refugees.

A Burmese refugee said “We received a telephonic message from Dhaka UNHCR on Monday saying that the UNHCR has canceled the World Refugee Day programme for urban refugees.”

The UNHCR Dhaka office was to hold the World Refugee Day for urban refugees at the Raowa conference room, VIP Road, Mohakhali Dhaka, from 9 am to 1.30 pm, on June 21.

The UNHCR invited all urban refugees to attend the ceremony. The UNHCR also promised to provide 1000 Taka as traveling expenses to a refugee if he/she comes to Dhaka from the rural areas of Bangladesh. But for refugees in Dhaka, the UNHCR was to provide 70 Taka each.

“We were preparing to attend the refugee day ceremony in Dhaka but we just postponed our travel plans to Dhaka after the UNHCR cancellation the programme. I think there is something serious behind the cancellation of the World Refugee Day programme by the UNHCR but I do not know the details,” the refugee said.

However, the UNHCR will distribute sanitary gifts to women refugees who are over 12 years old. T-shirts will also be distributed to urban refugees on the day.

Even though the UNHCR Dhaka office canceled the world refugee day programme for urban refugees it will hold the biggest world refugee day programme for Burmese Muslim refugees (Rohingya) at two refugee camps located at Cox’s Bazaar district in Bangladesh.

The relation between UNHCR Dhaka office and urban refugees is not very smooth at present due to what Burmese refugees call the discrimination practiced by UNHCR Dhaka office against Burmese urban refugees.

“I heard that the UNHCR Dhaka office canceled the World Refugee Day programme after receiving secret information that urban refugees plan to boycott the programme by not attending. So the UNHCR authorities canceled the programme because it was pointless to hold it without refugees,” said U Tun Kyaw, a Burmese refugee.

The palpable tension between UNHCR and urban refugees has increased after the UNHCR stopped the subsistence allowance to newly recognized refugees for six months. The UNHCR has also not come up with resettlement programmes for urban refugees despite many camp refugees having the chance to resettle in third countries.

http://www.narinjara.com/details.asp?id=2233

 

*************************************************************

a&G@ajymif;tvkyform;rsm;owif;

*************************************************************

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

NEJ / ?? ???? ????

 

??????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ????????????????????? ??????????????????? ????????????????? ??????????? ???????????????????????? ???????? ?????????????????????? (KHRG) ? ??????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????? (Abuse, Poverty and Migration) ??????????????????? ???????????????????

????????? (??) ????????? ?????????????????????????? (KHRG) ??????? ???????????????????? ???????????????? “??????????????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ??????????????????? ??????????? ????????????????????????? ????????????????? ??????????????? ????????????????? ??????????? ??????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????????????????? (?) ??????? (?) ??????? ??????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ????? ????????????? ????? ???????????????????? ???? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????? ?????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ????????? ????????????????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ?????????????? ??????????????????” ?? ????????

?????? ?????????????? ??????? ????????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????????????? ????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? (?) ?????????????????? ????????????????????? (?) ???????????? ???????? ???????????????? ?? ????????

??????????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ????????????? ?????????? ????????????????????????? ???????????????? ????????

?? “????????????????? ????????????? ?? (???) ??? ???????????????????????????? ???????? (??) ??????????????????????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ????????? ?????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????????????? ????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????????????? ????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????????” ?? ????????

?????????? ??????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ???????? ?????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ?????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????????????? ??????????? ?? ??????????????

??????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ???????????? ???????????? ??????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ??????????? ????? ???????????????? ????????????????????????? ???????????????? ????????

??????????? ?????????????????? ????????????? ???????????????? ??????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????????????? KHRG ?????? ?????????????? khrg@khrg.org ????? ????????????????????????

?????????? ???????????? ?????????????????????? KHRG ?????? ????????? (??) ???????? ???????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????? ?????????????????

 

http://khitpyaing.org/news/june_09/16-6-09a.php

 

*************************************************************

??????????????????????? ??????????????????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????? ?????????????????

Monday, 15 June 2009 00:00 ?????????

 

???????? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????? ??????????????????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????????? ??????????????

??????????????????? ????????????? ???????????? ?????(Honta) ???????????????? ????????? ?? ??????? ??????????? ?????????????????? ????????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ????????

“?????????? ??????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ??????? ?????????????????? ??????? ????????????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ???? (?) ???????????? ????????? ??????????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?????????????? ???????? ??????????????????????????? ??????????????? ???????????????????? ???????” ?? ???????? ????????

???????? ?????????????????????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ????????????????????? ???????????????? ??????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????????????????????? ?? ???????????

“????? ??? (?) ??????????????? ????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ??????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ???????????????? ???????? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????????????????????? ??????????????????? ????????????????? ???????????????????” ?? ????????

??????????????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????????????? ???????? ????????? ?? ??????? ???????????????? ?????????? ????????????????????? ????????? ???????????????? ?????? ???????? ???????????

??????????? ??????????????? ??? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ????????????????(???) ?????????????????????????? ???????????

???????????????????????????? “?????????????? ???????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????” ?? ????????

????????????????? ??????????? ??????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????????????? ?????????????(????????) ???? ????????????????????? ?????????????????

 

http://yoma3.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=269:2009-06-16-04-00-57&catid=41:2008-09-21-07-44-45&Itemid=124

 

*************************************************************

?????????????????????????????? ????????????? ???????????? ????????

Tuesday, 16 June 2009 14:04

???????????????? ??????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ??????????????? ?????????????????? ????????????? ???? ? ???????????????????

“????????????????????? ?????????????? ????????????” ????  ????????? ????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ?????????? “???????????? ????????????????? ??????????????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????????? ???????????????????????? ?? ????? ?????????????????????????  ??????????? ???????????????????????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??????” ???? ??? ?????????????????

?????????????????? ??????????? ??????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ??????????????????? ????????????? ????????? ?????????? ??????????????????? ??????????????? ??????????????????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????? ?????????????????????? ???????????? ??????????????????????? ?????????

“??????????????? ?????????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ????????????” ?? ?????????????? ????? ? ?????????

??????-?????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????????????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????????? ??????????????????? ??????????? ??????????????????????? ????????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????????????????????? ????? ??????? (Kra Buri) ?????????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????? ????????????? ????????????????????????????? ??????????????? ??????-?????? ?????????????????????? ???????????????? ??? ???????????????????? ????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????? ??????????????? ??????????????????  ????????? ??? ????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????

??????????????? ?????????????? ???????????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ?????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ??????????????? ?????? ??????????????????? ????????????????? ??????????????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ?????? ??????????????? ?????????????????? ????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ????????????????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????????? ??????? ? ????????????  ?????????????? ???????????????? ????????????? ?????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? ????????????? ??????????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ????????????????????? ???????????? ??????????????????????????? ??????????? ?????????????????? ???????????

??????????????????? ????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????? ???????????????????? ????????? ?????? ????????????????????? ???????????????? ????????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ???????????????????????????? ??????????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????????? ?????????????????????? ?????????????? ??????????

????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????  ??????????????????? ????????? ??????????????????? ????????????  ??????????????? ???????????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ????????????????????? ????????????  ??????????????????? ??????? ???????????????? ???? ??????????????????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ??????????????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ???? ?????????? ????????? ??????????????? Soi Samakki community ???? ????????? ???????? ??????? ????? ???????????????????? Sangkasee community ? ????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ?????????????????????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ????????????????? ????????? ?????????????????????? ??????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ??? ??? ???????????????????? ??????????

“??????? ??????????? ????????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ??????” ???? ????? ???????? ?????????? “??????? ?????? ?????????????????? ???????? ???????????????? ??????????????????? ????? ???????????? ???????????????????  ?? ?????????????????? ???????????” ???????? ????? ???????? ??????????

NGO ?????? ?????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????????????? ????????? ?????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????? ???? ??? ?????????????????????? ????????????? ?????? (Bang Rin) ??????????????? ???? ??? ????????????

“???? ??????????????? ?????????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???????????????? ??????????????????? ?????????? ???????????” ???? ???????????????????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????????? ????????? ????? ??????????? ?????? ???????????????????????????? ??????? ????????? ?????????????????? ?????????

????????????? ????????????? ?????????????????? ????????????????????? ????????? NGO ????  ????????????????? ??????????????????? ???????????????? ??????????????????????????????? ????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????? ?????????? ????????????????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ??? ?????????????? ???????????? ????????????? ??????????????? ?????????

?????? ??????????????????????? ????? ????????? ? ??????? ???????????? ?????????????????????? ??????????? ?????? ???????????? (?????????) ?????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????????????????? ?????????? “??????? ???????????? ??????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ???????????” ???? ??? ? ??????????

????? ?? ?????? ????????????????? ?????????????? ????????? King-oua Laohong and Supamart Kasem ? “Influx of Burmese migrants worries army” ??? ???????????? ?????????????????

http://www.ghre.org/mm/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=326:2009-06-16-07-08-50&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=54

 

*************************************************************

‘kuQonfrsm;owif;

*************************************************************

KNU ???????? ? ?? ?????????

Monday, 15 June 2009 19:28 ????????????

 

??????????????????????? ?????????? ???????? ????????????? ??????? (DKBA) ????????????????? ???? ????????? ?????????? (KNU) ?????????? KNLA ?????? (?) ?? ???????? ? ????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????

???????????????????? DKBA ????????????????? ??????????? ?????????????????????????? KNLA ?????? (?) ?????? ??????????????? ????????????????? ??????????????????? ??????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????????????????????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??????????????? ????? ??????????????????????????

KNLA ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????????????????? ???? ????????? ????????????????? DKBA ??????????? ?????????????????????? ???????????????????? ????????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ???? ???????????????????????? Free Burma Rangers ??????? ????????????? ??????????????????

??????????????????? (??) ???????????????????????? DKBA ??????? ??? ? ??? ? ??? ?????????????? ??? KNLA ?????? (?) ??????????????????? ??????????????? ??????????????????? ??????????????? ??????????????????????????? ?????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ???????????????????????????????

?????????????? ?????????????? ???????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????????? KNU/ KNLA ????????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ???????????? ??????????? ???????????????????

“????????????????? ?????? ??????????????????? KNU/ KNLA ??????????????????? DKBA ??????????? ??????????? ?????????????????????????? ?????? ??????????? ???????????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ????? ???????????????????????” ?? ? ????????????? ???????? ????????

KNU ?? ???? ?????????????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????????????????? ??????????????? ???????? ??????? ??????????????? ??????????? ???????????

“???? ?????????????? ????????????? ?????? (???) ???? ???????????? ??????? ? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????????????? ???????????????????”?? ???????????????? ????????

?????????????????????? ??????? ????????????????? ??????????? ???????????????????? ????????????????? ??????????? ????????? ????????? ??????????? ??????????????????? ????????? ???????????? ????? ???? ???????? ??????????? ???? ???????????? ????? ?? ??????? ????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????? ????????? ???????? “???????????? ??????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????? ????? ????????????? ??????? ?????????????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ???????? ????????????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????? ????????? ???????????????????? ??????????????????????? ?????????? ?????????????????” ????????? ?????????????

???????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ????????????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ????????? ????? ???????????? ???????? ????? ??????????????????? ???????????????? ??????????????????????????

????? ????? ????????????????????? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ?????????????? ??????????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????

“KNU/ KNLA ??????????????? ??????????????????? ??????????? ????????????????? ???????? ?????? - ?????? ????????????????? ??????????????????????????????? ????????? ????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????????? KNU/ KNLA ????????????????? ????????? ??????????????????????????? ????????????” ?? ? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????

???????????????? “??????????????????????? ???????????????”?? ???????

??????????? ????????????? ????????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????????????????????????? ????????????????????? ????????????? ??????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????????????????? ????????????????????????????

??????????????????? ?????? - ???????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ? ?????????????? ??????????????? ??????? (KRC) ????? ?????? - ???????????? ???????? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????????????? (TBBC) ????? ?????????????????????????? ???????

 

http://www.irrawaddy.org/bur/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1271:knu—-&catid=1:news&Itemid=2

 

*************************************************************

??????????????????? ??????????????? ??????? ???????????????

NEJ / ?? ???? ????

 

???????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????????????? ??????? ??????????????? ???? (??) ???? ????????? (?????) ? ?????????????? ?????????? ????????????????? ??????? ?????????????????????? ?????????????????????? ????????? ???????? ????????

???????????????????? ????????????????????????? ???????????? ????????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????

???????????????????? ??????????????????????? (???????) ??-???? ???? ?????? ?????? “?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ???????????????? ????????? ?????????????? ??? ?????? (?) ??? ????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ????????? ??? -??? ??? -???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?????????????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ??????????????????? ????????????????? ???????????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ???????????????????? ????????????? ?????????????????????????” ?? ?????????????? ????????

?????????????????????????????????? ?????? (?) ????????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ??? ???????????? ????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????????? ?????????????? ??????? ???????????????? ?????? ??? ??????????????????? ??????????????? ????????? ??????????????????? ????????????????? ????????????? ?????????????????????? ????????? ????????

?????????? ?????????????????(????????) ?? ?????????????? “?????? (?) ??? ???????????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????????? (??) ?? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ????????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ????????? ????????????????? ??????????? ????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????????????? ???????? ????????????? ??????????? (??) ?? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ????????????” ?? ????????

?????? (?) ?????????????????????????? ?????? (?) ??? ?????????????? ???????? ?????????? (?,???) ??????? ??????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ??????????????? ???????? ????????? ????????????? ??????????? (?) ???????????? ????? ?????????????? ??????? ????????????? ????????

?????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ???????????????? ??????????? ??????? ??????????? (?) ???????????? ??????????? ???????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ???????? ????????????????????????? ????????????????????? (?,???) ??????? ????????????? ???????????????????

???????????????????????????????? ????????????? ???????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ??????????? ????????????????????????? ???????????????????????

 

http://khitpyaing.org/news/june_09/15-6-09a.php

 

*************************************************************