The calls by Xi, heir apparent to the Chinese leadership, to deepen military cooperation with Myanmar come after U.S. efforts to ramp up military engagement in Asia made Beijing jittery.

He told the visiting commander of Burma’s armed forces, General Min Aung Hlaing, that the two countries’ friendship had “endured the test of time through sudden international changes.”

“I hope the militaries of the two countries, hereon, can continue to strengthen exchanges, deepen cooperation and play an active role in pushing forward the development of comprehensive relations,” Xi said, according to a statement posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website(www.fmprc.gov.cn).

Earlier this month, U.S. President Barack Obama told Asia-Pacific leaders that the United States was “here to stay.” He also announced plans to set up a de facto military base in northern Australia and chided China for refusing to discuss its South China Sea disputes at regional forums.

Chinese military commentators have suggested Washington’s recent diplomatic push into the Asia-Pacific region is an obvious ploy to encircle China. Clinton’s three-day Nurma visit from Wednesday is the first such trip by a U.S. secretary of state since a 1962 military coup ushered in 50 years of unbroken military rule. That rule ended in March when a nominally civilian parliament was established. Many of Burma’s top leaders are former generals but they have adopted breathtakingly fast reforms by Burmese standards, reaching out to armed ethnic groups to end decades of violence,

releasing political prisoners, and initiating talks with democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

Obama dubbed those moves “flickers of progress,” opening the door for Clinton’s visit to the secretive state, which is under wide-reaching sanctions by Western countries for human rights issues.

China’s ties with Burma now change the name to Myanmar by military dictators , , were jolted in September when the new civilian government suspended plans for a controversial, Chinese-backed dam.

For Burma, China is its most important diplomatic and economic ally, and both governments voiced a desire to find an “appropriate solution” to the dam issue.

Thursday, 17 November 2011 14:53 S.H.A.N.

Cover: Shan Drug Watch report

In Burma, the plot is being played again and again by the country’s rulers. The only difference is that while the Mexican general was exposed and sent to jail, his counterparts in Burma are still getting away with it.

• 1 as an Upper House representative
• 2 as Lower House representatives, and
• 4 as Shan State Assembly representatives
  leading to the saying, “The army gets (opium) taxes and the lion gets votes.”

Amid euphoria that Naypyidaw is on its way to irreversible democratisation process through implementation of recent reform initiative is heartening but still fails to touch the core problems, outlining the ethnic and political conflicts that plague Burma for almost half a century.

Although President Thein Sein’s civilian-cum-military dominated regime has come into being through self-drawn, military supremacy 2008 Constitution, stage-managed or manipulated referendum to rigged, controversial election; he has managed to push some piecemeal reform process to ease the confrontation and tense political atmosphere to a certain degree.

His poverty reduction workshop, a close-door, four eyes meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi, invitation of exiles to return home, peace overtures directed at armed ethnic groups, and easing off the restrictions on the media have been conducive to some improvement in political atmosphere.

Strangely enough, the war flames in Kachin, Shan and Karen states are on the rise, prompting observers to speculate whether Thein Sein is really calling the shots or if he is in a position to rein in the status quo or military hardliner camp, within the government.

The most encouraging news coming out to date is that the recent meeting between Mr. Espen Barth Eide, Norwegian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Parliament president Thura Shwe Man, when the latter said that political prisoners will be released very soon.

According to BBC, Thura Shwe Mann was responding to the question of Norwegian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, whether Burma would respond to the international demand of the release of political prisoners before sanctions could be lifted.

While it is relatively safe to conclude that the NLD members and 88 generation student leaders like, Min Ko Niang, Ko Ko Gyi and the likes will be on the forthcoming list of release, many concerned people are afraid that the regime could hold back the monks leader, U Gambira, and other 200 or so monks connected to saffron revolution and the ethnic leaders like Khun Htun Oo and his SNLD members languishing in various prisons across the country.

The reason for such worry is that while the monks opposition could quickly snowball into a massive mass civil disobedience if they choose to take the street anew, as proven by the popular saffron revolution in 2007, the SNLD leader and his imprisoned members could become vocal, in the wake of heightened armed conflicts between the regime and ethnic armed groups, for the restoration of Panglong spirit and federalism again, which the regime could see it as a direct challenge to its unitary, centralised system.

At any rate, we could only take President Thein Sein’s word at face value, when he said: “We are also trying to lessen the conflicts based on disagreements with local political forces that have not accepted the constitution yet. Today, democratization is in the process for flourishing democratic practices, so each of us are to have a strong sense of democratic spirit for the type of freedom that is in conformity with our culture and society. We are exercising the executive power of the Union government the most effectively for sustainable development in the democratic practices.”

”We are also implementing the proceedings we have pledged to this Hluttaw such as ensuring good governance, clean government and democratic practices, fundamental rights of citizens, the rule of law, transparency, undertaking, reducing the gab between the rich and the poor, creation of a harmonious society, economic reforms and environmental conservation.”

”Our government is the government of the people. So, we have to give the first priority to the public interest.”
(Source: President U Thein Sein addresses second regular session of first Pyidaungsu Hluttaw -  New Light of Myanmar, 22 Aug 2011)

Whether Thein Sein will literally follow what he preaches is a question only time could answer. But hopefully, the much awaited release of political prisoners will be all-inclusive and no reason or purpose would arise to hold back any prisoner of conscience, whatsoever

The contributor is General Secretary of Shan Democratic Union – Editor

www.shanland.org

The issue of political prisoners has been a focal point of international criticism and a matter of disagreement among ASEAN member states.

Realists and Liberals

Sincerity Needed

Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – In a conference held by the Nobel Women’s Initiative, Burma’s own Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi condemned sexual violence against women in conflicts around the globe.

In a video message presented at the conference, Suu Kyi decried the use of all forms of sexual violence against women as a systematic weapon of war. She said that in Burma, especially in the areas of ethnic nationalities, ‘rape is rife’.

‘Rape is used in my country as a weapon against those who only want to live in peace, who only want to assert their basic human rights. Especially in the areas of ethnic nationalities, rape is rife. It is used as a weapon by armed forces to intimidate the ethnic nationalities and to divide our country’, she said in her message.

The conference, ‘Women forging a new security: Ending sexual violence in conflict’, was held on May 23-25 May in Montebello, Canada, and was attended by more than 100 gender activists, academics, security experts, corporate leaders and Nobel Peace laureates.

Suu Kyi stressed the global importance of empowering women and educating men in order to end the devastating use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, used to destroy individuals, families and communities in conflict zones.

Aung San Suu Kyi addresses violence against women. from Nobel Women’s Initiative on Vimeo.

Heavy intensification of militarization in Burma, particularly in the areas of ethnic nationality groups, has reaped terrible effects on the lives of women and girls who are subject to physical and sexual violence from a basically unaccountable military.

The culture of misogyny and sexual violence against women fostered within the military has been used as a deliberate military strategy to destroy communities and subjugate the local populations in zones of conflict.

A United Nations Security Council resolution classifying rape as a weapon of war was passed in 2008. It defines  sexual violence is ‘a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instil fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group’.

‘Poster from the 2009 major Amnesty International campaign to protect women and girls in conflict’

Rape is cheaper than bullets

Tin Tin Nyo, the general-secretary of the Women’s League of Burma (WLB), told Mizzima that she concurred that women’s empowerment and education was vital to bringing about an end to the use of all forms of violence against women. She stressed a lack of awareness within Burma of the use of rape as a weapon by the military and said that there was a ‘very limited knowledge’ due to state control of the media.

She also said that there remained a stigma attached to rape in Burma and that it was one of WLB’s biggest obstacles in obtaining data.

‘Rape is very sensitive and is a taboo for the people in the communities, it is never easy for the survivors of rape to actually report or express about what happened to them, because they are still living in the community where the traditional practices are very strong, traditional practices that are never encouraging for the women…so whenever the women are raped or sexually abused, these women always become the ones to be blamed, not the perpetrators’, she said.

According to a statement released by Canadian Friends of Burma, K’Nway Paw of the WLB, who attended the conference, said that her organization was pushing for international governments to back the proposed UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) into human rights abuses and crimes against humanity in Burma in order to eventually bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice and that WLB is ‘calling for a referral of the head of the military regime to the International Criminal Court’.

She noted that for political reasons the regime had managed to evade international intervention and pointed a finger at China for vetoing the effort at the UN Security Council.

Zoya Phan, Burma Campaign UK’s international co-ordinator, told Mizzima, ‘I don’t think that the dictatorship will reform itself and stop violence against women. To really tackle this problem we need to remove the dictatorship and have a democratic government. But I do think international pressure, the threat of consequences for the violence against women, can help combat it’.

The Karen activist told Mizzima, ‘The use of sexual violence against women in Burma has not changed, look at what is happening in Shan State since March. Many instances of gang rape by the Burmese army. Ban Ki-moon says sexual violence against women is a silent war, but he is silent about the Burmese army using sexual violence and that encourages the dictatorship to think they can get away with it’.

She said that rape as a weapon of war is not only used to destroy communities, but that it was also used systematically as ‘part of the Burmanization policy by the regime against other ethnic civilians, in order to dissolve the ethnic nationalities’.

In 2008, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called sexual violence against women and girls in conflict across the globe a ’silent war’.

We, more than 1,300 delegates at the 2011 ASEAN Civil Society Conference/ ASEAN Peoples’ Forum, representing various civil society organizations and , movements of workers from rural and urban sectors as well as migrant sector, peasants and farmers, women, children, youth, the elderly, people with disabilities, people affected by leprosy, urban poor, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, traditional fishers, refugees, stateless persons, people in exile, victims of human rights violations, domestic workers, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender/Transsexual Intersex and Queer (LGBTIQ), sex workers, women in prostitution , drug users, people living with HIV/AIDS, human rights defenders and other vulnerable groups, gathered together in Jakarta, Indonesia, 3-5 May 2011 to discuss the main concerns confronting the peoples of ASEAN and developing key proposals for the 18th ASEAN Summit.

We reaffirm the fundamental principles of democracy and rule of law, human rights and dignity, good governance, the best interests of the child, meaningful and substantive peoples’ participation, and sustainable development in the pursuit of economic, social, gender and ecological justice so as to bring peace and prosperity to the ASEAN region.

Human conditions and issues confronting the peoples cut across all current pillars of the ASEAN. ASEAN governments must adopt a more holistic approach with regards to development, equal and just treatment of the peoples, and harmonize its policies and practices of all its pillars. Furthermore, the principle of free, prior and informed consent of for all peoples, especially indigenous peoples must be pursued in the fulfilment of all political, economic and social agreements under the ASEAN. The ASEAN must ensure that its development initiatives do not further aggravate environmental hazards, destruction of traditional community coastal area lands and forest and global warming.

ECONOMIC PILLAR

While ASEAN recognizes the development asymmetries that exist in the region and the urgent need to narrow the development gap to ensure that economic benefits are felt by the poorest and marginalized sectors, its continued and aggressive push for neoliberal policies including free trade agreements (FTAs). These agreements are negotiated in almost total secrecy and devoid of people’s participation, and in the absence of clear mechanisms to coordinate trade policy at the regional level, poses a very serious threat to people’s rights to jobs and livelihood, food, health, access to medicines and education; and would undermine efforts to address poverty and inequality in the region.

Extractive industries (hydrocarbon, coal and mineral) are important in the South East Asian context as they are vital for the ongoing socio-economic investment and development in the region – and are likely to be so in future. The challenge now facing most countries is how to make the operations of extractive industries transparent and accountable across all stages of the extractive decision-chain. This is a challenge requiring the attention of all stakeholders: governments, citizens and corporations alike.

Current policies and programs on trade liberalization, as well as unjust taxation systems, have not protected the peoples of ASEAN and instead privilege business sector and investments such as various mega projects in coastal waters and along major rivers like deep sea ports, mega hydropower plants, sand mining, mining of mineral resources, establishment of large-scale plantations, which results in degradation of national resources and exacerbates the impacts global climate change in the region. This has resulted in increasing displacement of communities, erosion of culture, hunger, disease, malnutrition and poverty, deteriorating living conditions of farmers, fisher folk, indigenous people, workers, especially women and children.

We call upon ASEAN and its member states to:

1. Ensure that people’s needs and rights are at the heart of any economic development including trade arrangements through instituting and practicing political accountability on all economic decision-making processes, including bringing in civil society to participate as a full stakeholder, in order to arrive at equitable and sustainable development and trade systems. ASEAN has to abandon unjust free trade agreements and replace them with an alternative development paradigm that rejects neoliberal economic policies, in order to pursue justice for small farmers, fisher folks and workers, protection for the livelihood of rural communities and enhancement of food security, food sovereignty and food self-sufficiency of ASEAN countries.

1. Conduct human rights, health, social and environmental impact assessments of all existing ASEAN FTAs and other trade and economic agreements and re-negotiate if necessary agreements that are proven to be detrimental to the regional and national development interests.

1. Affirm ILO labor standards and Doha Declaration on Public Health in FTA negotiations. Eliminate contract and labor outsourcing system and stop discrimination among workers. Health rights of workers can only be realized if informal workers such as domestic workers are given full labor rights including days off to access health services. Ensure production and distribution of more affordable generic medicines. Reject FTAs as they support the privatization and commodification of health care services, and make health services expensive and inaccessible, and protect corporate interests at the expense of public health policy.

1. Take firm action to stop land-grabbing, regulate investments in agriculture with priority given to poor farmers, and support land reform program to secure land rights of peasants, by establishing common policy framework and guidelines on agrarian reform and sustainable agriculture. Enact Land Use policies that promote sustainable resource management.

1. To increase public investments for smallholder agriculture towards increasing food productivity through sustainable and agri-ecological farming systems, strengthening market-access initiatives to minimize food prices volatility, empowering peoples’ organizations, and supporting the redistribution of arable lands to small food producers.  Support services must be adequately provided including seed, water, farm inputs, credit, social insurance, research and extension, education and capacity-building of farmers, basic infrastructure, storage and transportation, etc.

6.    ASEAN member states must develop social protection measure to cushion the effects of the food price crisis, especially to rural women and children, who are most vulnerable to the food price volatility.

7.    ASEAN member states must provide a conducive environment for income generation and employment opportunities for the poor as well as existence to link small farmers to markets, and build their capacities on ICT, market information, and enterprise managers.

8.    ASEAN member states must increase investment in research, education and program support in diversifying food production and dietary habits to reduce dependence on rice.

1. In recognition of the principle of restorative justice, ensure that tax policies and programs appropriate tax funds for human rights, ecological and gender justice.

1. To take immediate action to curb food speculations and strengthen regional cooperation on developing a more responsive Regional Food reserves that will help stabilize food supply and price. Moreover, it showed support national and community food reserves.

1. In recognition of the principles of restorative justice, ensure that tax policies and programs support human rights, ideological and gender justice.

1. Recognize and support environmentally sustainable and culturally appropriate local initiatives and traditional practices of farmers, fishers, indigenous communities and women to adapt to and mitigate climate change.  Extractive activities which adversely affect the resilience of farming and fishing communities need to be stopped.

1. Work toward and adopt a comprehensive framework on extractive industry transparency. This framework could be served as the basis for the harmonization of policies and practices of oil, gas, and mineral of the member countries of ASEAN, thus ensuring that the existing internationally recognized standards pertaining to human rights, the environment is upheld, and the benefits generated by the extractive industries extend to all citizens in ASEAN, now and in the future. ASEAN to urge and encourage Burma to consider imposing a moratorium on mega-projects and extractive industries harmful to the Burmese people’s housing and land rights.

1. Discuss and implement guidelines on illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing (IUU) in shared/common water bodies in the Southeast Asia Region in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the UN-FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and must be recognized in the ASEAN Charter and Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.

1. ASEAN trade policy on fishery product must consider the nature of fishery as an environmental good to protect fishing grounds, avoid the depletion of stocks and environmental degradation in coastal. ASEAN must consider consultation with fisher and coastal communities in drafting the ASEAN good aquaculture practices to ensure that fishers’ rights and the welfare of coastal communities are respected and avoid harm to natural resources.

1. Push for the realization of access to water as a human right and halt and reverse the privatization and commodification of water to ensure the delivery of clean affordable water to communities.

1. Recognize and address water injustices and the water crisis and take appropriate urgent steps in protecting people’s rights to water services and water resources.

1. Adopt a rights-based approach to development and economic policies and uphold housing and human rights of peoples in the region. Member states must ensure that their land and housing policies are consistent with internationally accepted housing and human rights standards.

1. Demand all ASEAN member states to allocate adequate financial and human resources and to take necessary measures for the realization and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 as set out by the UN

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PILLAR

We strongly urge ASEAN member states to sign and ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and its Optional Protocol.

Labour

1. ASEAN member states must eliminate contract and labor outsourcing system and stop discrimination by giving all workers permanent employment status.

1. We urge ASEAN to adopt welfare state systems to ensure social security for all peoples in the region

1. ASEAN member states must allow all workers including migrants to establish independent and autonomous trade unions for the protection of labour rights. ASEAN member states must ensure that all migrant workers receive the full protection of labour laws in the countries, which they are working.

1. ASEAN must act against attempts by employers to disguise or evade employment relationships to the detriment of labor or workers rights.

1. ASEAN members must recognize domestic work as work and provide domestic workers full labour rights and legal protection. All ASEAN members should support and commit to the ILO Convention on Domestic Workers. We urge ASEAN to respect ILO Core Convention 87 and 98.

Migrants

1. As elaborated in Article 22 of the Declaration, we call on all state parties to make efforts to comply with the provision of the declaration; the Secretary General is to submit annual report cards in regard to the compliance of the states parties to the Declaration.

1. All ASEAN member states should work together to fast-track the process of adopting a legally-binding instrument that protects and promotes the rights of ALL migrant workers and members of their families. This process must be transparent and actively involve migrant associations, trade unions and other representatives of civil society.

1. Recognising the increasing numbers of women migrant workers in the region who are working in precarious conditions, states parties should remove reservations to the CEDAW and the CRC. At the same time, it should also recognize CEDAW General Recommendation 26, adopted in November 2008. The instrument should reflect this commitment to address the specific working and living conditions of all women migrants.

1. All ASEAN member states must repeal policies of contractual termination and deportation on the ground s of pregnancy and communicable diseases, such as HIV/AIDS.

1. States must provide social protection that includes provisions for health care and medical insurance, and that promote safe working environments for all migrant workers and their families.

1. Given the movement of migrants in the ASEAN region, ASEAN must support a residence-based (as opposed to a citizenship-based) health care system. This requires universality and a single, high standard of health services.

Refugees, IDPs and stateless people

1. Every ASEAN STATE should refrain from repatriating refugees against the principles of non-refoulement, which is a peremptory norm of international law that forbids the expulsion of a refugee into an area where the person might be again subjected to persecution.

1. Provide refugees with the same rights as citizens in keeping with principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

1. Set up clear policies for each type of people in need of protection namely asylum-seekers, refugees, statelessness people, internal displaced persons, economic migrants etc

1. Provide cross-border aid to support IDPs in areas with a lack of access to humanitarian aid.

1. Encourage non-signatory ASEAN states to sign, ratify, and implement the 1951 Refugee Convention its 1967 protocol and the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless persons, as well as the 1961 convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

1. Recognize children of refugees born in country of asylum through birth registration and birth certificates

1. Encourage ASEAN countries to actively seek alternatives to detention of asylum-seekers, stateless and displaced persons, and refugees.

Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Minorities

38.  ASEAN member states must recognize IP/EM as distinct peoples with collective rights, rights to land, territories and natural resources, right to self determination including Free Prior and Informed Consent and the right of participation in all processes, programmes and plans affecting them at all levels, and such other rights laid down under the UNDRIP and ILO 169.

39.  ASEAN member states must acknowledge, recognize and protect the contribution of IP/EM in the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, protect their rights to sustainable livelihoods, food security and sovereignty; and protect their rights against the adverse effects of extractive industries and other projects with adverse socio-cultural and environment impacts and risks.

40.  ASEAN member states must establish an independent working group and monitoring oversight mechanism within AICHR to promote IP/EM rights

41.  ASEAN member states must promote and protect indigenous health knowledge practices and ensure the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) especially in health care, water and sanitation.  Their right to a healthy and balanced ecology must be respected and ensured.

Women

1. Emplace a quota system that will ensure meaningful participation of women in government, civil society organizations, and international organizations like ASEAN, as well as in the ASEAN integration process and in the ASEAN-EU relations, by not confining them to the socio-cultural pillar of ASEAN. Gender issues must especially be included in the economic pillar. Women must be at the heart of the ASEAN’s development agenda.

1. ASEAN member states must remove all gender-biased policies of ASEAN and other bilateral and multilateral agreements, especially those that increase feminization of poverty, exploit natural resources, disrupt livelihood and employment, worsen trafficking and various industrial issues in ASEAN that further exacerbate women and LBT conditions.

1. ASEAN must ensure a coherent and gender-responsive approach to human rights by implementing both international and ASEAN  human rights instruments, including an effective alignment of the functions and mandates of AICHR, ACWC, ACMW, and CEDAW with human rights mechanism at the national and international levels and across the ASEAN bodies, to promote, protect, and fulfil women’s human rights in all areas of life, including: young women, women with disabilities, LBT  women, adult sex workers, and women in armed conflict and militarization areas, through meaningful and continuous dialogue and participation of women, and paying attention to women’s voices and issues.

1. ASEAN member states must end all forms of discrimination and violence against women, and governments must provide meaningful political recognition of the rights of women with disabilities, LBT women and adult sex workers as part of the women’s human rights; and also focus on women’s health, women living with HIV/AIDS, and protecting women human rights defender.

1. ASEAN member states must support women empowerment agenda for women in order to improve women’s condition, particularly in situations of militarization and armed conflict.

1. ASEAN member states must consistently act to stop and prevent women’s human rights violations caused by abuse of power and patriarchy, including for women who are refugees, IDPs and in places of detention. These measures must include provision of proper health care and protection, as they are vulnerable to sexual abuse, trafficking, forced labor and other forms of gender biased violence.

48.  ASEAN member states must fulfil women’s rights by unburdening them of care work, to free their time for paid work, leisure time, political action, and participation in development work. . ASEAN member states must adopt the three-8 system (8 hours of work, 8 hours of study and 8 hours of leisure) for the benefit of all women.

1. Establish a regional tax fund for women in recognition of the discriminatory impacts of globalization and patriarchy towards restoration of equality and freedom and women.

1. ASEAN must ensure that women affected by leprosy are equally treated with dignity further; it must end stigma and discrimination against them.

Children

1. ASEAN must develop and implement measures to ensure that the rights of children living in or from ASEAN member states, as expressed in the UNCRC and two Optional Protocols, are respected, protected, and fulfilled by states and other duty-bearers.

1. ASEAN member states must ensure the right to participation of all children including children living with and/or affected by disabilities, HIV, leprosy and other health concerns, indigenous groups, affected and/or involved in armed conflict, affected by abuse, exploitation, trafficking and violence, children affected by migration, and stateless children in all matters that affect them, is actively exercised in all settings including ASEAN. They must also create an enabling environment that supports ethical and meaningful child participation.

53.  All children whose rights have been violated should have access to redress mechanism and be provided with adequate care and support for their recovery and reintegration. We expect existing regional and mechanism in ASEAN, particularly AICHR and ACWC to develop and implement measures to ensure and improve measures to ensure and improve compliance of ASEAN member states to their human rights obligations.

54.  ASEAN member states should adopt and ratify an Optional Protocol to the UNCRC creating individual complaints mechanism without reservations and ensure is accessibility to victims of child rights violations.

1. ASEAN must support establishment of national or regional child protection systems and mechanism, including the development of regional information system aimed at generating updated and verifiable information of child rights situations, ensure information-sharing and exchange between governments and civil society that would facilitate effective monitoring of governmental compliance.

Youth

1. ASEAN must immediately set up and enforce an independent regional youth council or commission, and meaningfully engage the youth in policy planning, implementing, monitoring, decision-making and reform of this body. The council or commission shall be involved in strategic, transparent, and accountable measures on education, employment, public health, and sustainable environment in local, national, and regional levels.

1. ASEAN must ensure optimum reach of education, including aspects related to the promotion and protection of the environmental sustainability, community-based education, local wisdom, peace, democratic values, human rights and social justice to all segments of the population, especially marginalized groups – young women and girls, young people living with HIV, young ethnic minorities, young people with disabilities, young people affected by leprosy, young people living under poverty, young sex workers, and young people who use drugs and young LGBTIQ.

1. ASEAN must promote entrepreneurship among ASEAN youth by providing skills training and a regional fund which must be easily accessed by all marginalized groups.

LGBTIQ

1. ASEAN member states must repeal all laws that directly and indirectly criminalize sexual orientation and gender identities (SOGI), recognize LGBTIQ rights as human rights and harmonize national laws, policies and practices with the Yogyakarta Principles.

1. ASEAN member states must establish national level mechanisms and review existing regional human rights instruments (e.g. AICHR, ACWC) to include the promotion of the equal rights of all people regardless of SOGI with the active engagement of the LGBTIQ community.

1. ASEAN member states must depathologize SOGI and promote psycho-social well being of people in diverse SOGI in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) standards, and ensure equal access to health and social services.

Adult Sex Workers/Women in Prostitution

1. ASEAN member countries must provide a comprehensive set of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services that covers prevention, treatment, support and care with a rights-based approach for adult sex workers.

1. ASEAN member countries need to recognize sex workers as workers, and must address and prevent violence and other threats to the health and safety of adult sex workers and their families. Measures may include but are not limited to removing criminal and punitive laws and policies, reducing stigma, providing the protections and benefits available to other workers; access to services. There need be no differentiation between migrant and non migrant sex workers.

1. ASEAN member countries must recognize that sex work is work and that adult sex workers and their families and friends face stigma and discrimination due to lack of acknowledgement by the states.

Persons with Disabilities

1. ASEAN must recognize the ASEAN Disability Forum (ADF) as a vehicle of persons with disabilities in the region and consult representatives of the Disabled People Organizations (DPOs) in policy planning, implementing, and monitoring policies that affect persons with disabilities, including Agent Orange victims.

1. ASEAN must recognize the existence of multiple discriminations against women, children, and migrants with disabilities and address these issues in the implementation of three pillars of ASEAN.

1. ASEAN must encourage all member states to ratify and implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and mainstream disabilities across all sectors including AICHR, ACWC and ACMW, and three pillars of ASEAN.

1. ASEAN must adopt a policy to improve the access to health of persons with disabilities including reproductive health, health services, health insurance, and subsidizing additional cost on the grounds of disability.

CSOs

1. ASEAN must recognize the crucial role of CSOs in the development processes and respect their diversity, expertise and autonomy.

1. ASEAN member states must commit to the minimum standards set by CSOs for an enabling environment for CSOs to reach their potential as equal development actors.

1. ASEAN must recognize Civil Society’s Position Paper on ASEAN Guideline on Civil Society Engagement and institutionalize engagement between civil society and ASEAN states.

Social Protection

1. ASEAN must create a Social Protection and Health Promotion Fund that would ensure States fulfil their responsibilities to the peoples of the region.

1. ASEAN must recognize and address as a priority the growing burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), 80% of which adversely affect low and middle income countries.

1. ASEAN must realize the ASEAN Charter provision on education and the Socio-Cultural Blueprint commitment to “achieve universal access to education across ASEAN by 2015” by allocating budget to create the ASEAN Fund for Education for All.

1. ASEAN must facilitate the full implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) by States Parties and encourage the Indonesian government to accede to the convention in the best interest of its people.

1. ASEAN must stop the privatization and commodification of health care services and provide free universal health care. Health is not a tradable or marketable item, commodity, or service; otherwise, it would lose its value as an essential right that everyone is entitled to. ASEAN must reject FTAs as they support the privatization and commodification of health care services, and make health services expensive and inaccessible.

1. ASEAN must implement a universal pension for older people in the region.

1. We strongly urge ASEAN member states to sign and ratify the ICESCR and all optional protocols.

POLITICAL –SECURITY PILLAR

ASEAN civil society envisions a region where people-centered governance takes seriously the wishes and aspirations of the peoples. It also envisions an ASEAN region that achieves people-centered integration as an alternative to the capital-led integration exemplified by the EU.

The civil society of ASEAN acknowledges the human rights instruments established in the region. We also celebrate the achievement made in advancing the rights for women and children in ASEAN and recognise the existence of spaces for engagement. ASEAN governance however has not been driven by substantive ‘people-centered governance’, nor does ‘the act of governance’ by ASEAN member state governments.  A restrictive environment exists in ASEAN states for the meaningful participation and engagement of civil society organisations. Protection and promoting civil liberties in ASEAN countries are seriously challenged. Impunity for massive crimes remains. ASEAN member States are not taking sufficient steps to implement the ASEAN Charter and other documents, particularly relating to the protection of the rights of migrant workers, asylum seekers and refugees. Further ASEAN countries are beset with internal conflicts arising form historical injustices and the states’ militarist approach to dissent. This further exacerbates the already demeaning human rights situation of communities including women and children where armed conflict and militarization happen.

These mainly due to the dominant view of ‘non-interference’, Asian values and idea of human rights as western value. We believe that torture, summary killing, forced disappearance, restrictions on freedom of expression and other serious violation of human rights are not the values of ASEAN countries. Those acts instead create challenges for civil society in South East Asia to engage with ASEAN governments. AICHR as a mechanism to uphold human rights is still young and needs to be strengthened to enable civil society engagement. It should also be noted that state of human rights in ASEAN countries do not stay within countries but bring effect to the region – including maintaining peace and security.

Civil society believes that internal conflicts are a matter of regional concern and must be addressed with the participation of civil society and affected communities.

Civil society recognises the interdependence and interrelation between civil liberties and economic, social and cultural rights. They are equally important and equally have to be protected and promoted. This includes social protection and the access of the people to health care and health information. The establishing of an accessible, universal health care system is social, economic and political questions. It is the question of how the conduct of governance takes into account the wishes and aspirations of the lower strata.

In these regards, ASEAN civil society assert their right as an equal development actor and further develop their capacity to become more effective in their role as innovative agents of changes and social transformation.

Civil society endeavours to strengthen its solidarity in particular by campaigning on freedom in Burma, freedom of expression and access to information in countries particularly in ASEAN countries, right to access to justice and strengthening human rights protection mechanisms at the regional level.

We call upon ASEAN to act on the following recommendations:

1. Burma:

1. 1. Civil Society Support the call for a UN Commission of Inquiry to conduct a study into widespread and systematic human rights violations in Burma.

1. 1. Refuse Burma the ASEAN chairmanship unless it meets the necessary minimum benchmarks that demonstrate that it is capable of governing a country in a transparent, democratic, and rights-based manner. These minimum benchmarks are: The cessation of attacks on ethnic communities; an immediate halt to all human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law committed against civilians; Immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners; end of all censorship and, genuine and inclusive tripartite dialogue, including a review of the 2008 Constitution.

1. 1. We also call upon ASEAN to provide humanitarian protection and assistance to refugees and other stateless people who have fled from Burma and engage with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, ethnic representatives, the National League for Democracy and other relevant stakeholders to support and facilitate the process of national reconciliation and dialogue.

1. Indonesia: We call on the Government of Indonesia to investigate all human rights violations especially the Humanitarian Tragedy of 1965/66 Massacre during which 2 million people were killed and hundreds of thousands were imprisoned without trial. This gross and systematic violation of human rights on such a massive scale urgently needs to be investigated so that the truth may be established, the rights of victims to justice and reparations fulfilled, and the necessary apologies made. In this regard, we call for the establishment of a regional criminal court to obtain justice for victims of serious human rights violations in ASEAN.

Peace and Security

1. Strictly respect international laws, fully implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and accelerate efforts towards a Code of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (CoC); more authority for Asean Secretariat; Practice peaceful process to solve conflicts.

1. Make regional peace and security related to Asean peoples and their sovereignty; CSOs should play proactive role in ensuring regional peace and security.

1. Design a mechanism for regional trust, not just among Asean governments but also among their peoples; Collectively engage China; Promote democracy, rule of laws and security governance; Turn Asean into a rule-based community; Promote greater transparency; Be cautious of external influences; Hold regular inner-Asean consultations on regional security; Designate mechanisms to regularly consult and work with CSOs. CSOs should push governments to stop wars and protect human security.

1. Asean countries should take a more proactive role in helping solve the Thai-Cambodian conflict and maintain regional peace. Asean should pay attention to conflicts in its member countries as well. Listen to people affected by conflicts for solution.

1. ASEAN under its Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) should address the Thailand-Cambodia border dispute. In doing so it must ensure the active participation of civil society with women given a greater role.

1. There should be state obligation to protect, promote and fulfilled the rights of women, especially in armed conflict and militarization area

1. There should be effective conflict resolution program in placed and ensured it’s implementation CS urge the implementation of UNSCR1325 which promotes participation of women in decision-making and peace processes gender perspectives and training in peacekeeping, protection of women gender mainstreaming in UN reporting systems & programmatic implementation mechanisms

Civil Liberties

1. Push ASEAN to take steps to end impunity, including: coordinating a regional agreement on impunity, pushing AICHR to strengthen accountability and protection from within its mandate – perhaps through advocating for a regional system of justice as exists in all other regions of the globe. All ASEAN states should sign and ratify the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court.

1. ASEAN governments must comply with their human rights obligations and immediately put a stop to all forms of torture and all forms of degrading treatment and punishment.

1. Improve regional monitoring and documentation of abuses within ASEAN so that all the information is publicly available.

1. Repeal all laws that allow imprisonment or other forms of detention for speech, religious practices and other activities deemed contrary to the interests of the government or the ruling party.

1. End censorship of the media and ensure the rights to freedom of expression for all.

1. Form a strong Solidarity Committee on Freedom of Association in the ASEAN countries to be able to sit in equal position with the government.

1. ASEAN must recognize the important role played by Human Rights Defender in the promotion and protection of human rights, which includes the highlighting of human rights violations.

1. ASEAN reaffirm its commitment to the principles as confirmed in the UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration.

1. ASEAN must ensure necessary protection be accorded to Human Rights Defenders to effectively carry out their role, including immunity from civil and criminal liability.

1. Pressure on governments of ASEAN countries not to practice in union busting to make union focus on delivering their duties.

1. To respect labour unions’ role to fight for labor rights, and allow migrant workers to join labor unions in the countries where they are working. Further, to allow more concrete communication towards the formulation of the strong ASEAN Regional Labour Union.

1. All ASEAN member states must repeal policies of contract termination and deportation on the grounds of pregnancy and communicable diseases, such as HIV/AIDS.

1. Repeal laws that directly and indirectly criminalize SOGI, recognize LGBTIQ rights as human rights, and harmonize national laws, policies and practices with the Yogyakarta Principles.

1. Establish national level mechanisms and review existing regional human rights instruments (e.g. AICHR, ACWC) to include the promotion and protection of the equal rights of all people regardless of SOGI with the active engagement of the LGBTIQ community.

1. Awareness raising for women’s human rights violations, by the abuse of power and patriarchy, especially for women as IDPs and in IDPs camps, to provide them with proper health care and protection since there are prone to sexual abuse, trafficking and other forms of gender based violence.

1. Meaningful participation of women in the government, civil organizations and international organization like ASEAN, especially in the case of Burma after 2010 election were there only a few women that are in the parliament

1. Given the movement of migrant workers in the ASEAN region, support a residence-based (as opposed to a citizenship-based) health care system. This requires universality and a single, high standard of health services.

1. End human trafficking and other extreme forms of exploitation, especially where such exploitation takes place with the complicity of government officials.

1. We strongly demand the ASEAN to immediately set up and enforce an independent regional youth council/commission meaningfully engaging the youth in policy planning, implementing, monitoring and reform. It shall be involved in strategic transparency and accountability measures on education, employment, public health and sustainable environment in local and national levels.

Participation and public accountability

1. Create mechanism for inclusive CSO participation in decision-making and designing of a sound and sustainable health program for ASEAN Peoples particularly the marginalized.

1. Commit to a healthy environment for CSOs to maximize their potential as an equal development actor.

1. Call on the AICHR to monitor and respond not only to regional issues but also human rights situation in each countries so that ASEAN can go beyond non-interference principle;

1. Call on the AICHR to be more accessible and transparent by making all documents public, translating documents into ten ASEAN languages and conducting national and regional consultation with civil society;

ENVIRONMENT

We strongly reiterate calls made from previous years for ASEAN to establish an Environment Pillar in its structure and governance that will place environmental sustainability, economic, gender, social and climate justice at the center of decision-making. Building an ASEAN Environmental Community as the fourth pillar is urgently needed to more effectively address the climate crisis, the social and environmental costs of large-scale development projects, and increasing damage to our eco-system.

Energy:

1. We call upon ASEAN to reject technology fixes such as nuclear power plants and biomass plantations, and market-based instruments such as “Blue Carbon Fund” and offsets that are being promoted as false solutions to the climate crisis that do not address the root causes.  We call for the de-nuclearization of ASEAN and the cancellation of plans to promote nuclear energy.
2. ASEAN must recognize that large scale hydropower dams are a major threat to the people’s livelihoods, with far-ranging human security and environmental impacts on the region. ASEAN urgently needs to establish a sustainable energy development program, which includes pursuit of alternative and more sustainable sources of energy, and an end to the privatization of power, water privatization and indigenous sources of renewable energy.

Water:

1. ASEAN must recognize that access to water is a fundamental human right, halt water privatization projects and engage in partnerships that will result in the delivery of clean, affordable water to communities, while ensuring sustainability of water resources;

Climate Change:

1. ASEAN countries should demand for reparations for climate debt. ASEAN should pursue an international legally binding agreement to ensure that rich industrialized countries undertake deep drastic emissions cuts through domestic measures (not offsets).

1. ASEAN must recognize and support environmentally sustainable and culturally appropriate local initiatives and traditional practices of farmers, fishers, indigenous communities and women to adapt to and mitigate climate change.  Extractive activities such as mining, which adversely affect the resilience of farming and fishing communities, need to be stopped.

1. ASEAN needs to assert that climate funds established under the UN Climate Convention and any other forms of climate funding must follow the principle of reparation for climate debt, and be subject to stringent democratic, transparent and accountable measures. World Bank and other international financial institutions must be kept out of in climate finance, and climate funding should not be in the form of debt and debt-creating instruments, nor undermine the self determination of the most affected communities and groups.

1. We call for the development of an ASEAN Framework instrument on Climate Change, based on the principles of climate justice and gender justice that will produce policies and programs oriented to the diverse and particular needs and conditions of communities and localities in affected areas.

1. Genuinely environmentally sustainable, socially equitable, people-centered, gender-sensitive, inclusive and responsive and diverse green economies should be promoted in the context of fulfilling the obligations of developed countries to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide financial and technological support to developing countries in adapting to and mitigating climate change.

1. The implementation of ASEAN’s education policy on climate change should include acknowledgement of women’s indigenous and local wisdom, and their role in preventing climate change as well as emergency and disaster preparedness must be included.  ASEAN should also ensure that the education reaches women, especially women from marginalised groups.

1. Adopt a regional mechanism and build capacity for assessment of new, emerging or un-tested technologies based on the Precautionary Principle with the full participation of civil society and communities to look into the potential environmental, health and socio-economic impacts of these technologies, including transboundary implications. Concretely, we propose the establishment of an ASEAN Technology Observation Platform.

HEALTH (special section on theme of interface)

Basic Health for All

1. ASEAN states should ensure a free and universal health care system without any discrimination regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). There should be stop the privatization and commodification of health care system, ensure equal access and provide affordable and quality health care as pat of labor rights for all including domestic workers, migrant workers,  sex workers, workers with disabilities, LGBTIQ workers, refugees and asylum seekers..

Health System

1. Mechanism should be created that enables CSOs and/or community members to participate in decision-making and designing of a sound and sustainable health program for ASEAN people, particularly the marginalized people.

1. Governments should ensure the provision of adequate resources, and accessible and quality healthcare for children.

1. Youth, the poor and vulnerable groups including people living with HIV/AIDS, young LGBTIQ, and youth who use drugs should be provided with free and accessible universal health care system that is youth-friendly with the formalisation of young peoples’ involvement.

1. Policy should be implemented for persons with disabilities that improves the access to health services, health insurance and subsidy to additional cost on the ground of disability

Health for those who are in difficult circumstances

1. For migrant workers, all ASEAN member states must repeal policies of contract termination and deportation on the grounds of pregnancy and communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS.

1. Specific health needs such as physical and psycho-social related needs should be fulfilled for those who are infringed their human rights due to war and torture.

Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights

1. Human rights and Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights should be prioritised and enforced within the policy framework of public health services. Condom programmes must address all aspects of supply, demand and environment within a rights based approach.

1. A comprehensive set of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services must be provided to sex workers. The whole spectrum of prevention, treatment, care and support from a rights-based approach. Focusing HIV prevention on sex work is the most cost-effective investment in ASEAN

1. To endorse ASEAN member states and government commitment to realise their vision of the implementation of ICPD (1994) Plan of Action in particular sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) as well as MDG 5 and MDG 6 commitments.

1. ASEAN member states must enforce and guarantee the sexual and reproductive health and rights in the ASEAN policy framework by referring laws and policies to promote sexual and reproductive rights and repeal restrictive and punitive laws and policies which deny equal access to information and services as well as those which criminalize the transmission of HIV and abortion. These laws and policies should at minimum comply with international human rights standards, treaties, and conventions. These rights enable and informed decisions over marriage pregnancy, treaties and conventions. These rights enable free and informed decisions over marriage pregnancy, childbirth, contraception, sexuality, sexual orientations, gender identities, pleasure and livelihood. Eradicate sexual and reproductive coercion, stigma, discrimination, harmful traditional practices and gender-biased violence, particularly against women and girls.

1. To decrease unsafe abortion and maternal mortality, and as a result call for governments to address these as public health and human rights issues. Ensure equitable and affordable access for contraception, safe and legal abortion, skilled maternity and newborn care including access and referral to pregnancy and delivery complications; prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care of HIV and AIDS and all other sexually transmitted infections, including in humanitarian crisis. All of these services must be available and fully funded throughout the health system, particularly in the public sector and at the primary health care level as well as taking into consideration the important role that NGOs play in providing complementary health services.

1. To decrease the high maternal mortality and morbidity in the ASEAN region as well as the high unmet need of contraceptives and the high adolescent fertility rate as a consequence of the traditional practice of underage marriage Making Pregnancy Safer (MPS) for the youngest mothers and their babies should become a priority for those ASEAN countries where childbearing still common. Effective interventions and a clear action plan should be ready to address adolescent marriage and pregnancies.

1. Provides these services for all, ensuring quality, gender and age-sensitive healthcare and non-discrimination for low income and other marginalised groups. Services providers need to be non-judgmental and respect diversity. Support innovation, including the development of new technologies and services models, and access to scientific progress. We call upon governments to include objectives and indicators in the national health planning and budgeting process that ensure positive sexual and reproductive health and rights outcomes.

1. To stop the forced sterilization and denial of reproductive rights of persons living with HIV/AIDS and persons with disabilities.

Health Education

1. ASEAN should initiate and implement a regional curriculum on comprehensive sexuality education inclusive of sexual and reproductive health and rights, both in formal and informal education systems that can be enjoyed by youth of ASEAN especially marginalized groups

Access to Medicines

1. ASEAN should resist and oppose the effort of the EU to push for restrictive Intellectual Property Rights chapter that would curtail production and distribution of more affordable generic medicines.

1. To refuse trade agreement between India and EU which patented the medicines, including ARV, caused price of medicine in the third world become very expensive.

Health risk factors

1. Health policies should consider decent working condition, safe working environment and decent living conditions

1. The harmful impact on health of individuals and communities affected by forced evictions and displacements should be examined and remedied

1. Building large-scale hydropower dams affects both the physical and mental health of indigenous peoples and local communities living within the dam site. They become insecure because of safety concerns and uncertainties since they rely heavily on the river and their environment for sustenance and livelihood and this is even more compounded by the threats and impacts of climate change.

1. Taxes and prices of tobacco products should be raised as the best way to curb smoking. This will increase government revenue, save lives and improve quality of life.

1. ASEAN should ensure dialogue and decision making between women or community members and policy makers on the impact of climate change on women’s livelihoods, health, sexual and reproductive rights.  The specific needs of women should be factored into the policies on climate change.

The regime is the last in the world still planting mines and the rebels improvise their own devices. Liane Wimhurst meets the people caught in the middle

afp/getty imagesRefugees from the conflict in Burma at the Mae Sot camp in Thailand

Ootepew lies with his withered leg under a mound of coarse blankets, his face stoical as he awaits an amputation. It is more than a week since he trod on a landmine outside his home in Burma’s Kayin state, and his wounds have begun to fester. In a messy and bitter war between insurgent groups and the Burmese army that has spanned decades, this clandestine killer has become the weapon of choice.

Burma is the only regime in the world still planting landmines. A tenth of the Burmese population live just a few ill-chosen footsteps away from a blast that could maim or kill, according to the International Committee to Ban Landmines (ICBL). Despite this, the Burmese authorities still churn out mines modelled on old Chinese and US designs at the state-run ammunition factory.

The actual number of mines produced each year is unknown outside of the Burmese military, but it is likely to be in the thousands. “The anti-landmine campaign has been extremely successful: each year land has been cleared and stockpiles destroyed. This is simply not the case in Burma,” says Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, research co-ordinator of the ICBL, a network of organisations that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997.

The Burmese government has long operated behind a veil of secrecy, making access to the nation’s landmine casualty numbers extremely difficult. The ICBL counted 2,587 in the 10 years to the end of 2009 – 183 killed, 2,207 injured and 197 unknown. The actual figure is certain to be far higher. Ten years ago, Burma was in the top 10 countries for mine casualties. Five years ago it was in the top five. For the past three years it has been in the top three. The most recent data shows an average of around 4,000 landmine casualties globally each year. In every country in the world the number of casualties is dropping, apart from Burma, where they have remained high year on year.

Only Colombia and Afghanistan have more mine deaths and injuries each year than Burma. These two worst-offending nations are signed up to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, have destroyed their stockpiles of weapons, and are involved in a programme to de-mine. Burma is alone in having a widespread and relentless problem and doing nothing to address it.

The government’s justification is that the country has long borders and a problem with people trafficking and drug running. But, as Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan explains: “Mine warfare in Burma is simply accepted military doctrine and it doesn’t get reviewed.”

Over the border in Thailand lies the hilltop town of Mae Sot, a halfway house for Burma’s refugees. Burmese women with white circles painted on their cheeks and men draped in wrap-around lungis populate every corner. The Thailand Burma Border Consortium estimates that around 142,000 refugees live in camps around Mae Sot.

The sprawling humanitarian heartland of medical facilities and aid agencies faces the quagmire of shattered lives, displacement and disease caused each day by the war in Burma. The spectacle of those such as 70-year-old Ootepew, limbs crushed and writhing in agony, is familiar here. But the elderly patient is impassive, he just once betrays his emotions – when asked about his repatriation his sunken eyes flash a look of fear.

The Burmese military leadership and ethnic minority rebels have been locked in a brutal and volatile conflict for 50 years. In their struggles for autonomy, many insurgent groups have become caught up in long-running feuds with each other and splinter into new groups to take up arms.

When asked about the origin of the mine that mangled his leg Ootepew is unequivocal: it was the junta that planted it. Ethnic refugees, victims and campaigners in Mae Sot often solely level blame for landmine atrocities at the regime. The reality is more complex: the ICBL has counted 17 different militias scattering landmines in Burma since 1999. Burmese villagers are determined to ensure the junta is held responsible for every aspect of the humanitarian disaster, while the warlords who head the militias play Russian roulette with the lives of those in their own communities.

Government-made landmines are powerful enough to kill instantly. The rebel devices – rudimentary bombs consisting of a glass bottle stuffed with nuts and bolts – deliver bone-shattering, dirty wounds, much like Ootepew’s injury.

Survivors face an amputation without anaesthetic in a wooden hut in the jungle, after which they will attach a bamboo shoot to their stump and attempt to walk. When the rebel landmine kills, it is a slow and painful death caused by gangrene or other infections. A lucky few, like Ootepew, are helped by friends to drag their shredded limb across the border to Thailand.

Agencies covertly collecting data on landmine “accidents” have recorded a spike in the number of victims spilling into Mae Sot since the start of the year. The recent influx started with an officer of the junta treading on an explosive device, sparking a wave of violence.

Dr Cynthia Maung is a witness to this upsurge. The Karen refugee arrived in Mae Sot more than 20 years ago, one of many pro-democracy activists who fled during the violent crackdown on the 1988 student uprising. She set up a clinic to help the tide of injured and displaced people turning up every day, and her workload has since sizeably increased.

From inside her makeshift accident and emergency unit, the walls of which are lined with posters of Aung San Suu Kyi, the soft-spoken, weary-looking doctor says: “The people who come here don’t know who they are. Many have been on the run for so long that they don’t know where they’re from or when their birthday is.”

Ootepew will come here once his leg has been severed, as Dr Maung has established a dedicated prosthetic limb clinic. A Burmese woman, Mya Aye, has become a permanent resident since having both her legs blown off by a mine. Her torso lies face down on a flimsy bed in a hut, her two disused prosthetic limbs rest by her bed.

The International Committee of the Red Cross estimates the total number of amputees in Burma to be 12,000, of whom the majority are likely to be landmine victims.

A recent undercover investigation by two European charities revealed widespread use of child soldiers, human shields and forced labour by both the junta and rebels. More than 800 mine victims were interviewed. The findings showed that children and villagers were forced to walk through infested areas to check for mines. Of the victims in the study, 13 per cent were children and around half were civilians.

The biggest thorn in the side of groups such as the ICBL is their inability to engage the government. There has been no official comment since 2009, when a foreign ministry representative spoke at a regional mine ban workshop in Bangkok. The government has shunned UN meetings.

Although rebel weapons contribute a significant part of the landmine blight in Burma, aid agencies argue that a strategy to combat the problem must start with the leadership. “If the authorities in the country can’t join the Mine Ban Treaty today, they should at least order a moratorium on any new mine use and make serious offers to negotiate with the armed insurgency,” says Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan.

The junta refuses to stop planting mines so long as the rebels continue to do so. The rebels, meanwhile, scatter explosive devices to ward off attacks by the junta. This puts the warring sides in a permanent state of stand-off, with innocent victims like Ootepew in the line of fire. Should current conditions prevail in Burma, where tensions can flare up again at any time – the tragic human waste from the insidious weapon lurking in the jungle will continue unabated.

Last November’s election, the first in Burma for 20 years, was dismissed by western powers as a sham.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy boycotted the vote and a pro-junta party stormed to victory with an almost 80 per cent majority.

The new president, Thein Sein, is one of several generals of the junta who shed their uniform to contest the election. Although the military has officially handed power to the new government, members meet for just 15 minutes a day.

In such conditions the nation’s scattered arsenal of explosive devices is unlikely to top the agenda. Meanwhile the human detritus lies strewn across the jungle.

Burma’s tireless political campaigner talks about rebuilding the National League for Democracy, the revolutionary power of social media and her love of The Grateful Dead

But it has been enough to allow neo-liberal Western economists to call for compromise and the lifting of sanctions, accusing her of stubbornness. “They say if we build up trade, it will bring democracy. They say what you need is a middle class, that will bring democracy.” As in China? She mocks the idea

Aung San Suu Kyi Back To Work In Burma

‘More people are realising that if they want change, they’ve got to go about it themselves’ … Aung San Suu Kyi

The high fence is back, separating her house from the lake it stands beside – but this time it has been erected by her own people to protect her, not to lock her in. How free is Aung San Suu Kyi, five months after her 15 years of house arrest ended? Not very; or free as a bird, depending on how you ask the question.

Fragile yet strong as iron, the yellow and white roses in her hair belie her steely resolution. She had not been well when we visited her this week. Though she steps into the room with bright smiles, warmth and grace, her ramrod-straight deportment disguises painful spondylosis of the spine. Andrew Comben, director of the Brighton festival, and I as its chair, have come to film an interview, as she is guest director of this year’s event in May. Since she dare not travel abroad, knowing the generals who have run Burma since 1962 would never let her return, we shall show this film of her instead. Her visitors will be followed, so it takes some subterfuge, ducking and diving in and out of taxis, a ferry over the river and sidling out through hotel back doors to avoid confiscation of our film.

Approached some months ago while still under house arrest, we wondered if she might think the idea of guest directing an arts festival absurdly frivolous or irrelevant to her country’s struggle for democracy. But not at all. She accepted with delight: despite 15 of the last 21 years spent in solitary isolation, she has an ebullient enjoyment of many things. Arts matter, she says. “If you can make people understand why freedom is so important through the arts, that would be a big help.” Exploring her artistic tastes, pleasures and memories has been revealing and moving. And surprising – of which more later.

As a surge for freedom storms across the Middle East, will it ripple on through dictatorships everywhere, including Burma? “Human beings want to be free and however long they may agree to stay locked up, to stay oppressed, there will come a time when they say ‘That’s it.’ Suddenly they find themselves doing something that they never would have thought they would be doing, simply because of the human instinct that makes them turn their face towards freedom.” Is that time now? “More people, especially young people, are realising that if they want change, they’ve got to go about it themselves – they can’t depend on a particular person, ie me, to do all the work. They are less easy to fool than they used to be, they now know what’s going on all over the world.”

The Middle East is never mentioned in Burma’s state newspapers, organs that make Soviet-era Pravda look like Wikileaks. The New Light of Myanmar carries front and back page warnings – “Anarchy begets anarchy. Riots beget riots, not democracy. Wipe out those inciting unrest and violence” – and attacks on the BBC and Voice of America: “Do not allow ourselves to be swayed by killer broadcasts designed to cause troubles.” She laughs at it, calling the paper “The New Blight of Myanmar”. Is the regime rattled? “People know what’s going on because of the communications revolution. So people are becoming more aware of their own potential, and this has to be encouraged.”

What might the trigger be? A 1988 uprising was sparked by the government abolishing existing bank notes overnight, so everyone lost their savings. The 2007 protests, joined by the monks, began with soaring rice prices. “Once the army starts shooting, most uprisings are put down pretty quickly. But how long the people will remain quiet after something like that is another matter.” People look to her, and now she is free the National League for Democracy has a new impetus, though organising is extraordinarily difficult with all its leaders among the country’s 2,200 political prisoners: 65-year sentences were handed out to students. “Fear, fear, fear” is everywhere, she says.

Except inside her. In 2003 they tried to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi when her convoy was set upon by government-organised thugs and 70 of her people murdered: beaten up and thrown into jail, she was put under house arrest until this year. Her people want her heavily guarded, but she refuses. She shrugs, and says if the regime wants her dead, there’s little to be done. How free is she now? If she steps outside she is mobbed by thousands of admirers wherever she goes. She went shopping once with her son, but had to be rescued from the crush of well-wishers. “Luckily, I don’t like shopping!” – and indeed shopping in Burma holds few enticements. Once the second richest nation in south-east Asia, despite rich resources it is now the poorest, as well as least free nation after North Korea. Is she free to travel the country? Unlikely, she thinks. She hasn’t yet ventured out of Rangoon: “So far I haven’t tried to go anywhere they wouldn’t wish me to, but I must start testing the waters again.” Her work detains her between the party’s office and her home, her erstwhile prison.

Her long years in detention were so exceptional because they were partly voluntary. Most prisoners have no choice, but every day she could have walked free, headed for the airport and flown away, her captors glad to be rid of her for ever. Every day for 15 years she had to make that hard decision to stay, alone and isolated without her two sons, even as her beloved husband was dying of cancer in Britain, cruelly forbidden from visiting her. But if you suggest exceptional fortitude, she always refers to the other Burmese political prisoners kept in far harsher conditions, half-starved, their health broken. “I don’t think I was the only one who volunteered. A lot of our people could have chosen not to go to prison if they had given up working for the movement for democracy.” The generals’ respect for her war-hero father, who died fighting for Burma’s independence when she was just two, kept her incarcerated in her own home. This Nobel Peace Prize laureate was protected, too, by world opinion. “This word ‘free’,” she says of herself and the other prisoners, “we all think that we are freer than the people outside because we don’t have to compromise with our conscience. We are doing what we believe in. We are not locked in by the bars of guilt. So I think this is what made us choose imprisonment rather than to stay – in quotes – ‘free’. For us, that is how our lives are.”

In the last five months she has revived the National League for Democracy, starting new humanitarian services, digging wells, opening clinics and schools with scarce money. Scrupulously, they take not a penny from foreign campaigners, only from Burmese donors. She laughs as she says that if they begin to dig a well, the government rushes in to dig a better one, “So that does a lot of good!” But it’s hard to convene meetings with regional organisers without funds, hard to find out what’s happening anywhere. She has just learned of mutinies in army bases from the BBC World Service, a lifeline when information is so hard to come by. She is relieved the BBC’s Burma service has been saved from British government cuts, “puzzled” at the decision to cut the Chinese service. After 70 years, the BBC’s last Mandarin programmes for China have just been broadcast.

Pressure from the outside world makes more impact than people realise, she says. That’s why the generals felt obliged to shape a new constitution, though it leaves the same military cadre running the country in civilian clothes. Sham elections held just before her release were declared “deeply flawed” by the UN. Her party did not stand, since conditions included repudiating all its political prisoners and swearing support for a constitution that lets the army take over at any time. But it has been enough to allow neo-liberal Western economists to call for compromise and the lifting of sanctions, accusing her of stubbornness. “They say if we build up trade, it will bring democracy. They say what you need is a middle class, that will bring democracy.” As in China? She mocks the idea. “But the IMF say the mess in the economy is due to mismanagement and not sanctions.” She heats up with controlled anger at pusillanimous NGOs: “They invite civil servants to ‘capacity building’ training. But the problem with civil servants’ capacity is they won’t do anything unless bribed.” Burma is ranked 176th out of 180 countries for corruption. “I talk to business people and they say (what prevents enterprise) is that everything falls into the cronies’ hands.”

Her message is that democracy and transparency are the only answer – but the NGOs steer clear of politics, which makes her burn with indignation. She quotes Graham Greene, “He wrote, ‘Sometimes, if you are human, you have to take sides.’ They say we are not ready to compromise. I don’t know what they mean. Our minds are not inflexible, but perhaps our knees are inflexible. We are not down on our knees!” Her message is that politics is everything, nothing is apolitical. With crystal clear precision, she enunciates in capital letters, “I AM A POLITICIAN. That’s a dirty word, but I write it on forms as my profession. I AM A POLITICIAN!” We talk about the universal contempt for politics, as voting declines in the West. “Just ask them if they would like to emigrate to a totalitarian state,” she says. But does she worry that when freedom comes, people quickly forget as the everyday business of governing falls short of expectations? “I’ve always tried to explain democracy is not perfect. But it gives you a chance to shape your own destiny.”

Despite everything, politics is not her whole life, as she talks of what the arts have meant to her. You might expect her to choose Beethoven: “For many people he does represent not just the greatness of music, but the greatness of thought behind it. I’ve often wished in these last few years under detention that I were a composer, because then I would be able to express what I felt through music, which is somehow so much more universal than words.” So the festival starts with Fidelio, the prisoner’s opera. In detention she played the piano daily. She talks of her devotion to TS Eliot when she was at Oxford reading politics and economics, so the festival is producing the Four Quartets, accompanied by a Beethoven string quartet. She mocks the awful poetry she was taught at school in colonial Burma, reciting “At Flores in the Azores, where Sir Richard Grenville lay” with a laugh. But here’s a surprise. You might not expect her recently acquired taste for the Grateful Dead’s Standing on the Moon. “Have you ever listened to it? I like it very much. My son taught me to like it. And Bob Marley. Well, I do like ‘Get up, Stand up for your rights’. We need more music like that.” So the festival has brought her Lee Scratch Perry, one of Bob Marley’s mentors.

Before we go, she stops to fold an origami lotus flower to send to the festival, to join the thousands to be floated on the lake in Queen’s Park to mark Burma’s many political prisoners. Deftly her fingers fold it back and forth, and she smiles as she recalls doing origami with her young sons. There she is, the iconic beacon of freedom, worldwide symbol of fortitude and endurance, laughing and folding. As ever, with good humour and grace, she wears her heroism lightly.

Aung San Suu Kyi is Guest Director of Brighton Festival 2011. Brighton Festival takes place on 7-29 May. See brightonfestival.org (01273 709709)

Published on April 12, 2011

Shan human rights groups on Tuesday denounced widespread atrocities against civilians inside Burma, one day after the Thai National Security Council (NSC) talk about repatriating more than 100,000 Burmese refugees back to the trouble-plague country.

The Shan community groups “strongly denounce the current Burma Army offensive against the Shan State Army-North (SSA-N) and atrocities against civilians, including shelling of Buddhist temples, gang-rape and using women as cannon fodder.”

The 22-year-old ceasefire with the SSN-N came to an end effectively on March 13, 2011 when the Burmese military mobilised some 3,500 troops from over twenty battalions to launch attacks in Murng Su township, according to the report.

“Over 100,000 civilians in the conflict zone are now fearing for their lives. The Burma Army has deployed 120 mm mortars throughout the area and shelled indiscriminately at populated villages. The initial attack on March 13 involved shelling of a Buddhist temple at Wan Nam Lao, killing four novices and injuring two villagers,” the report said.

“Villagers are being tortured and killed on suspicion of supporting the Shan resistance, and women targeted for sexual violence. Three women were gang-raped in separate incidents in Wan Nam Lao, including a 30-year-old woman who had given birth only one month earlier, and died after being raped by numerous troops.”

“The Burma Army is also systematically rounding up women and girls from different villages, and using them as porters to walk in front of their troops to deter SSA-N attacks,” the report aid.

The Shan groups urged the international community to condemn this unprovoked offensive, and increase pressure on Burma’s military rulers to immediately stop their policies of military aggression in the ethnic areas.

“Northern Shan State is being plunged into war and new atrocities inflicted on our people. Now is definitely not the time to lift sanctions against the regime,” said Kham Harn Fah of the Shan Human Rights Foundation.

The groups are also urging international donor countries and agencies not to cut support to refugee camps along the Thai-Burma border at a time when the conflict is intensifying in Shan State.

NSC’s Secretary General Tawin Pleansri told reporters after his meeting with Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, armed forces chiefs and other security agencies at the Government House on Monday that the 100,000-plus refugees should return to Burma because Burma now has just concluded its general election and a new government is in place.

April 14, 2011 04:45 am (Thai local time)
www.nationmultimedia.com

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20110414-273637.html

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/04/12/mekong/Shan-community-denounces-atrocities-against-civili-30153075.html

For Immediate Release

31 March 2011

NO REAL CHANGE AS BURMA SWAPS MILITARY RULE FOR CIVILIAN PARLIAMENT

Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) has warned that although Burma’s State Peace and Development Council has been officially disbanded, there is no prospect of true democratic reform for the country.

As part of the changes that followed the sham elections of November 2010, a new civilian parliament was sworn in yesterday, ostensibly completing the transition from a military dictatorship to a civilian administration. In addition, Burma’s dictator Than Shwe has been replaced by General Min Aung Hlaing as head of the armed forces, and former Prime Minister Thein Sein was sworn in as President of Burma.

Despite being touted as the first step on the road to democracy, Burma’s first elections in over 20 years were marred by reports of harassment, intimidation, violence and arrests in several of Burma’s ethnic states, both on polling day and in the days afterwards,. New electoral rules excluded pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi from participating, and resulted in her party, the National League for Democracy, being banned. Shortly after polling began, fighting between the Burma Army and a faction of the pro-junta Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) resulted in tens of thousands of refugees fleeing across the border into Thailand.

Political parties affiliated to the military regime won the majority of seats. Under the new constitution, the military is guaranteed 25 per cent of the parliamentary seats and immunity for past, present and future crimes. It also offers no meaningful autonomy for ethnic nationalities and no genuine protection for human rights.

CSW’s East Asia Team Leader Benedict Rogers said, “There is no real change in Burma at all. The process which the regime has completed is a cosmetic change, but the brutal military dictatorship remains in power. A few changes of personnel and clothing, from military uniform to civilian suits, does not represent real reform. The international community must unite in sending the regime a strong message, that if it wants the legitimacy and credibility it desires, it must make meaningful changes: release all political prisoners, end attacks on ethnic civilians, and enter into dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, the democracy movement and the ethnic nationalities. Sanctions must be maintained until there are meaningful signs of genuine progress, and the UN should investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes through a commission of inquiry. Only then can there be true accountability and an end to impunity.”

Friday, 18 March 2011 13:15 Jai Wan Mai

(News Analysis) – Twenty armed groups are now operating in Shan State, 53 years after the Shan started an armed resistance movement against the Burmese regime.

A SSA soldier stands guard duty at Loi Tai Leng training camp. (Photo: Jai Wan Mai)

The reasons behind the Shan uprising were essentially the same as other ethnic groups: inequality in political and administrative matters.

It would not be wrong to blame a succession of Burmese leaders for their failure to solve ethnic political conflicts in Burma. Instead of taking political differences to the negotiating table, the military regime is notorious for using threats, force and military might to coerce ethnic opposition groups to bow to its wishes.

Few ethnic groups were spared in the era of General Ne Win, after he staged a military coup in 1962. Ne Win came into power under the pretext of saving the union of Burma from breaking up into autonomous ethnic regions.

The Shan were no different from other ethnic groups who took up arms to fight for political equality based on the promises of the Panglong Agreement, signed in 1947, which assigned ethnic groups full equality and the authority to manage their own affairs.

The Shan State leaders were patient with the new Burmese government even after they felt they had been betrayed by the agreement . When ethnic leaders finally gave up on the agreement, Shan leaders asked for a reformation of Burma based along the principles of the agreement. Regrettably, their call for a federal government failed, and it wasn’t long before the Burmese leaders branded all ethnic political groups as separatists.

In fact, the Shan, Chin and Kachin have every right to demand independence, self-determination and full autonomy, as promised in the agreement.

On May 21, 1958, a Shan leader, Sao Noi aka Saw Yan Tha, was the first Shan to take up arms against the Burmese regime. News of his armed resistance group immediately spread throughout the state. Thousands of Shan grabbed their weapons in an attempt to push the regime from their land. In their hearts, they also desired revenge against the heavy-handed oppression of the Burmese troops.

Since then, thousands of Shan have sacrificed their lives for the cause.

However, in wasn’t long before Shan opposition groups began to split apart due to different political visions. Some Shan leaders followed the Communist ideology while others believed in democratic principles. On several occasions, the Shan even took up arms against each other.

For many years, the drug lord Khun Sa and his Mong Tai Army was the largest Shan resistance force and the greatest threat to the Ne Win government.

In late 1995, however, Khun Sa and a faction of his army surrendered to the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). The surrender was due to the break-up of his Mong Tai Army, when Major Sao Gun Yawd separated from Khun Sa over the issue of how the Shan were treated by the Chinese officers who dominated the Mong Tai Army. At the same time, Chinese businessmen began to gain greater influence.

When Sao Gun Yawd broke away, more than 15,000 Shan fighters, following Khun Sa, surrendered to the regime in 1995. Sao Gun Yawd formed the Shan State Nationalities Army (SSNA) after he parted ways with Khun Sa. However, in 2004, Sao Gun Yawd died as negotiations for a cease-fire agreement were underway. In 2005, the group came under pressure to surrender. As a result, its leader, Sao Sai Yee, decided to rejoin the Shan army led by Sao Yawd Serk, which is based along the Shan-Thai border.

Since then, a string of militias groups have been formed, and many have fallen under the control of the Burmese regime. Surprisingly, the regime has not confiscated their weapons but allowed the soldiers to hold on their guns, giving them the power to dominate various areas and establish business fiefdoms. In fact, when needed the regime often tries to play the militia groups against one another.

Over the years, various militia and cease-fire groups have surrendered to the regime, entering the ‘legal fold’. Generally, the regime has allowed them to do whatever businesses they want––including dealing in drugs. Various groups have been given business concessions in a cosy relationship with local Burmese commanders. As a result, many of the armed groups have lost their original political goals.

Since 2009, various cease-fire groups have agreed to transform into militia groups and become members of the regime’s Border Guard Force (BGF), largely due to pressure from Burmese commanders. Some groups remain nominally as cease-fire groups, such as the United Wa State Army (UWSA), the National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA) and the 1st Brigade of the Shan State Army -North (SSA-N).

While it’s difficult to get an exact count and description of each Shan armed group, there are about 11 militia groups and four cease-fire groups in some semblance of cooperation with the Burmese regime.

On the other hand, the Shan State Army – South (SSA-S) and three smaller armed opposition groups continue to fight against the Burmese regime.

Judging each group’s political point of view is a difficult task and their views often change based on events.

Observers agree that the regime will not be able to change the political goals of the ethnic armed opposition groups by using force, and national reconciliation can only come if and when the regime decides to engage in real political dialogue.

After the swift response to the situation in Libya by the United Nations Security Council, humanitarian groups documenting more than 20 years of abuse by the Burmese military against ethnic Karen say it is high time the council took similar action on Burma

Published: 6/03/2011 at 12:00 AM

A lone medical worker zigzags his way through sun-browned rice fields to a distant river. Thick rows of trees mark the edges of the narrow, snaking watercourse that forms part of the Thai-Burma border.

PHOTO: PHIL THORNTON

In the distance, the overworked brakes on a pickup truck moan when a driver forces his vehicle to slow as he winds his way down a steep hill.

Hidden out of sight of the road, and the authorities on both sides of the river, hundreds of displaced Karen villagers have set up small shelters on the Thai side of the border in dried-out channels cut by the floods of the wet season. The shelters are scattered and basic _ small built-up wooden platforms, torn coloured picnic mats spread under trees or split bamboo poles to form ground covering, roofed by dried leaves, faded strips of material or blue plastic sheeting.

Blackened pots simmer over hot charcoal embers. Clothes washed in the muddy river dry over bushes. Small children pester tired parents for food and babies howl for mothers’ milk. The villagers don’t ask, but look in hope to the medical worker for rice, clothing, soaps and medicine. They also crave news of when the fighting that drove them from their village will stop, and they can return safely to their homes.

Under the trees and out of the glare of the hot sun, the villagers are angry. Angry at the Burmese army for destroying their homes, angry at having their livestock stolen or killed by marauding soldiers, angry that they have no choice in where they sleep at night, angry at having to put their lives on hold and angry at not being able to do anything as their rice and corn crops ripen and rot across the river in Burma.

WATCHING AND WAITING: Displaced villagers keep their spirits in difficult times.

Naw Dway Sein, a grandmother twice over, is taking refuge in the Thai riverbank camp with eight members of her family and 341 other villagers from Hler Kaw. “I’ve had enough of this. But what can we do? Every day we hear shooting, explosions, landmines. We want to go home, but we can’t. We’re not free here and we’re not free there.”

Naw Dway Sein and the villagers of Hler Kaw are not the only ones escaping to Thailand to avoid the fighting.

The Back Pack Health Worker Team estimates, “that as of mid-February 2011, as many as 10,575 Burmese villagers have crossed the border.” These displaced people are scattered in a number of makeshift camps on a narrow 800km strip along the Thai border provinces of Kanchanburi, Tak and Mae Hong Son.

LIFE ON HOLD: A young boy facing an uncertain future.

The Back Pack Health Worker Team is an independent, non-profit organisation that has been delivering primary health care for over 13 years to people in conflict zones and rural areas deep inside Burma _ where access to health care is otherwise unavailable.

The organisation’s secretary, Mahn Mahn, explained that villagers close to the border fled their homes after the Burmese army moved into the area to wage war

against factions of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army.

”There are at least 14 new battle sites and 21 hiding sites along both sides of the border and we have seven emergency Back Pack teams working with local community organisations to help 10,575 displaced people,” said Mahn Mahn, adding that 80 Back Pack teams of three to five medics offer medical services to 187,000 internally displaced people in eastern Burma.

Mahn Mahn accuses the Burmese army of deliberately targeting civilians by firing heavy mortars and artillery shells into villages, forcing people to take refuge in neighbouring Thailand.

MOVED TO ACTION: Long-time Back Pack Health Worker Team member Livingstone.

Getting across the border is not always a guarantee of safety. Mahn Mahn says Burmese army mortars have injured villagers and soldiers on the Thai side of the border.

On Jan 30 this year, two Thai soldiers were hit by an artillery shell and two young boys and a woman were wounded by mortars. In early February, 1,000 Thai people were evacuated in Tak’s Phop Phra district after shells landed in their village.

WE CAN’T GO HOME

Pa Tabaw, the village headman at Hler Kaw, says his people are terrified to return to their homes.

”We know soldiers have planted landmines in the village, on paths and around our fields. Last week, one of our villagers was killed when he stepped on a mine near his farm. He was with his teenage son, who ran for help, but by the time we got there the father was dead. How can we go back?”

Pa Tabaw, a father of seven, is no stranger to landmines.

”I lost my leg to a mine 15 years ago. I was walking on a village path when it happened. I don’t know which group planted the mine, but I’ve had enough of mines.”

Pa Tabaw is worried that children will trigger mines when out playing.

”How can we stop them playing. We warn them, but it’s not enough. There are mines everywhere.”

INNOCENT: A malnourished four-year old. PHOTOS: COURTESY OF BPHWT

Granma Dway Sein says landmines are just one of a number of concerns the people of Hler Kaw village have about returning to their homes and farms.

”We worry our sons will be taken as soldiers by the Burmese army. They take them at 15, 16, 17, 18 _ age doesn’t concern them. Before the fighting, women and children from our village were ordered by soldiers to clean, cook and carry water at the army camps and our men were forced to porter for the soldiers.”

Samuel Blythe, a regional political and defence analyst who also writes for Jane’s Defence Weekly, says the Burmese army’s harsh treatment of Karen villagers is reflected in their orders. ”The Burmese army’s strategy is to sweep the area like a dirty floor, removing villages they deem sympathetic to Karen fighters. It is also stated in orders passed down to company commanders from their superiors,” writes Blythe.

The position of Burma’s military regime on its perceived enemies is regularly spelled out in blunt statements in the state-controlled media. On April 10, 2006, The New Light of Myanmar published the following: ”Internal and external destructive elements should be opposed and crushed as common enemies in line with the People’s Desire as they are hindering the progress in endeavours of the Tatmadaw [army] and the people in building the Union into a discipline flourishing democratic nation.”

EMERGENCY TREATMENT: A Back Pack medic treats a gunshot victim.

In May 2006, the regime’s attitude to the Karen was made clear when the same paper said: ”With a view to preventing KNU [Karen National Union] atrocities and sabotage acts and ensuring the public safety, the Government has to clear up the surrounding areas and those areas where KNUs and hardcores could take refuge.”

Pa Tabaw says villagers, like those of Hler Kaw, are accused of giving assistance to the ethnic resistance groups and are seen as

dhenemies by the regime and its army.

”Soldiers shoot at us on sight. The army wants us to clear landmines and carry their supplies.”

Pa Tabaw accuses the Burmese army soldiers of killing and stealing villagers’ livestock.

”They came and took our chickens, pigs and goats. We don’t have any animals now, we can’t harvest our crops and we can’t get our fields ready for the wet season. We need to plant corn, rice, chilli and beans,” said Pa Tabaw.

AT REST: A woman recovering from malaria.

”If we can’t get our fields ready for planting, we won’t have a harvest. How will we replace what we usually grow_ for me it’s more than a 100 tins of rice. I won’t be able to support my seven kids. Who is going to feed all of us?”

Pa Tabaw listed reasons why villagers will not be able to stay along the river when the monsoon rains arrive.

”It will be impossible to stay. It will flood over all of this area. Water will be unclean. People will be wet and sick all the time. Mosquitoes will be bad and we will get malaria and respiratory infections.”

OUT OF SIGHT

The list is long of credible international and community-based organisations that have compiled an impressive array of documentation verifying the widespread, systematic violence and abuses committed by the Burmese army in eastern Burma. It includes Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Harvard Law School, the Thai Burma Border Consortium (TBBC), the Karen Human Rights Group, Free Burma Rangers, the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) and various Karen and Shan women’s groups. All have detailed the litany of crimes by the regime against the Burmese people.

The Thai Burma Border Consortium (TBBC), in their 2010 report ”Protracted displacement and chronic poverty in eastern Burma”, estimated that ”at least 73,000 people were forced to leave their homes in eastern Burma in the last year, and over 446,000 people remain internally displaced.” The

dhreport says 3,500 villages have been destroyed or forcibly relocated since 1996.

The TBBC report also says that the main threat to human security in eastern Burma is related to militarisation and it explains how the Burmese army has, under its ”Four Cuts” policy, divided Karen state into zones of black, brown and white.

”The policy aims to turn the ‘black’ opposition-controlled areas into ‘brown’ contested areas and ultimately into ‘white’ areas controlled by Naypyidaw [Burma's capital].”

The TBBC says this results in civilians dhbecoming targets for military patrols, ”a violation of international humanitarian law which the state of Burma has formally ratified”.

Livingstone, a senior member of the Back Pack organisation who works and lives in a designated brown zone who goes by one name, lives with the constant fear of being caught by soldiers. ”Villagers are not allowed to leave the village without travel permits. When the army enters a village they shoot pigs and steal chickens to eat. They take food from homes and shops and force villagers to pay for it.”

To get to the Thai-Burma border for medical supplies not available in Burma, it takes Livingstone 10 days of hard travel. The wet season floods can add days or weeks to his trip.

”If the rivers are flooded, we have to wait or find another crossing place. We use bamboo rafts to cross. It’s not the big rivers like the Tenasserim that are treacherous, but the smaller ones that are fast, deep and dangerous.”

It is not just the arduous trip that is dangerous for Livingstone and his team.

In 10 years, gunfire or landmines have killed nine Back Pack medics and one traditional birth attendant. The most recent killing was in 2010, when Burmese soldiers shot a medic.

”If the Burmese army is in the area when we are treating patients, we have to leave. If we are found, we can be arrested, tortured and even killed _ not only us, but also the villagers for receiving treatment.”

Livingstone, 35, says villagers known to have received medical treatment will be

dharrested.

”If the soldiers find an empty packet of basic medicine, they arrest the person. But it is also a big problem for the whole village. These villagers are poor. They can’t afford to buy medicine. They can’t work because of the travel restrictions. They can’t sell their farm produce and in some cases they are not allowed to travel to work on their farms. It’s a cruel cycle.”

Livingstone listed the ailments his team treats _ malaria, tuberculosis, pneumonia, bronchitis, accidents, falls, cuts, worms, dysentery, diarrhea, urinary tract infections, anaemia, malnourishment, gunshot wounds and landmines.

”Like any community, we also have emergencies _ work accidents, falls, bad cuts and broken bones. We treat people in their homes, in the jungle and in their fields. We work where we can, but we are seen as illegal by the Burmese army and hunted down.”

Between June and December 2010, Livingstone and his team saw around 700 patients out of the population of 8,000 residents in their area of operation.

”In that reporting period, five children died _ all were under one year old _ one from malaria complications, two in childbirth and the others from malnourishment. This should not be happening.”

Livingstone has been with the Back Pack team since 1998. It was the unnecessary death of a child that motivated him to become a medic.

”When I was 17, I saw a three-year-old child die because she could not get medical help. From that moment on, I wanted to be a medic. I wanted to help. I never wanted to feel helpless like that again.”

Livingstone is insistent that what NGOs and regional-based diplomats and politicians see and hear on the border is only a fraction of what the reality inside Burma is like.

”There as many as 500,000 displaced people. They are without proper health care and education. They are not allowed to farm their fields or stay in their traditional homes.”

To make his point, Livingstone opened an old battered computer and fed a USB memory stick into it. A series of photographs shimmer on the blue screen. A woman lies on the floor, her stomach slashed open by a gunshot. Livingstone explained that the woman, 35, was walking home to her village after visiting her father. She was carrying her five-month-old baby and walking with her five-year-old son. Burmese soldiers from Light Infantry Battalion 369 opened fire, killing her oldest son and severely wounding her baby.

”She walked 40 minutes to find a Back Pack medic. The medic dressed her and her son’s wounds before getting them to safety. The Burmese army came and burned down the village and mined the area,” said Livingstone.

His files are filled with the names and photographs of villagers battered and killed by Burmese soldiers.

The dates, brigade numbers, officer names, and villages are all listed.

Mahn Mahn says these incidents are clear evidence of the on-going systematic violence against civilians in Burma.

”So far the UN Security Council have ignored our calls for a Commission of Inquiry into the crimes against humanity. The human rights abuses and the climate of impunity continue to be facts of everyday life for Burmese citizens.”

YOU WANT PROOF?

The UN special rapporteur on the situation on human rights in Myanmar [Burma], Tomas Ojea Quintana, is due to present his latest report to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) later this month.

In March 2010, Burma’s Ambassador to the UN, Wunna Maung Lwin, angrily rejected Mr Quintana’s initial report into the human rights situation in Burma, claiming it contained ”unfounded allegations” from ”unverifiable sources”.

Clues to what infuriated the regime can be found in Mr Quintana’s recommendations, for example, 121 calls for an investigation into the possibility of ”crimes against humanity and war crimes under the terms of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”.

Community groups working along the Thai-Burma border say this is not the first time a UN special rapporteur has lodged a report on Burma, and a trawl of UN websites confirms an enormous amount of documented resolutions, articles, submissions and reports condemning the Burmese regime.

Back in December 2002, then special rapporteur on Burma, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, noted that the ruling State Peace and Development Council had issued a communique ”giving an initial positive reaction to his proposals regarding the investigation of allegations of human rights violations in ethnic areas, including allegations of rape in Shan State”.

The lone health worker visiting the displaced people on the Thai-Burma border laughed at Mr Pinheiro’s ”naive” optimism. ”The local UNHCR [the UN's agency for refugees] have said to me that ‘it is not safe for them to come and look at and assess the people’s situation’. If it’s not safe for the UN, how safe do they think it is for the villagers?” he asked.

The International Human Rights Clinic at the Harvard Law School released a report in 2009, ”Crimes in Burma”, that relies almost entirely on UN documents, resolutions, and special rapporteurs’ recommendations to state its case that there is a need for the UN Security Council to act. In the report’s preface, Justice Richard J Goldstone, the first prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunals for both the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and Patricia M. Wald, former judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, call on the UN Security Council to ”urgently establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate and report on crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma”.

Human Rights Watch senior researcher on Burma David Mathieson says the documentation on crimes against humanity is there, but ithasn’t been translated into action.

”The veracity of the documentation is an absurd part of the debate. The facts cannot be disputed. The UN agencies that should be doing something about this all have their offices in Rangoon,” said Mr Mathieson. ”They don’t work or can’t access the conflict areas. They are also hamstrung by official obstruction by the Burmese military.”

Mr Mathieson says the UN agencies are playing politics on the issue by not using documentation of abuses and crimes compiled by international and regional NGOs and community groups. ”The reporting by the UN special rapporteur, Quintana, is excellent. The shortcomings are from the UN agencies which should be gathering information and acting on it. UN agencies are playing politics on the issue. It’s about preserving their access to government-controlled areas in Burma. That work should be expanded and supported _ but not at the expense of violations against people in eastern Burma,” he said.

Mr Mathieson added that the swelling numbers of villagers fleeing Burma for the safety of Thailand are testimony to why a Commission of Inquiry needs to be supported.

”Civilians in a lot of these areas are being used as human shields around Burmese army troops, to prevent attacks from their opponents. People are used to carry army supplies and ordered to walk through minefields. If you ask these refugees what they are afraid of, they might not tell you they are suffering from war crimes or crimes against humanity, but that’s exactly what it is.”