Human Rights Watch World Report 1996 - Burma

Human Rights Developments

The most significant human rights event in Burma in 1995 was the release on July 10 of Nobel laureate and opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi after six years of house arrest. Paradoxically, the governing military State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) took an increasingly hard-line stance during the year, and there was no overall improvement in the human rights situation. In some areas abuses increased, notably in the Karen, Karenni and Shan States where there was fighting, while throughout the country thousands of civilians were forced to work as unpaid laborers for the army. The SLORC continued to deny basic rights such as freedom of speech, association and religion and the right of citizens to participate in the political process. Daw Suu and more than 200 other political prisoners were released in 1995, but at least 1,000 people, including sixteen members of parliament elected in 1990—all representing Daw Suu's party, the National League for Democracy (NLD)—remained in jail, and there were new political arrests. In February, nine students were arrested at the funeral of former prime minister U Nu when they began singing a pro-democracy anthem and were later sentenced to seven years in prison. A month later, six more students were arrested for allegedly obstructing soldiers preparing for Armed Forces Day. In June, four veteran politicians in their late sixties were arrested and sentenced to seven years in prison. On September 27, a student, Ye Htut, was arrested for having sent information to Burmese abroad; as of November, his trial was still pending. All of these people were tried under Section 5 (j) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act, for "spreading false news about the government." The treatment of those detained remained an issue of concern. Two of the students were known to have been beaten immediately after their arrest, but the fate of the other is not known. In June, Dr. Thida, a twenty-nine-year-old medical doctor who was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment in 1993 under the 1950 Act, was reported to have contracted tuberculosis while in Rangoon's Insein jail. She was also diagnosed in June as needing surgery to remove ovarian cysts. Dr. Thida reportedly received inadequate medical treatment. The year opened with a renewed offensive against the Karen National Union (KNU) following a split within the KNU and the formation of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), which was supported by the SLORC. By January 27, the KNU headquarters at Manerplaw near the confluence of the Salween and Moei rivers had fallen, and on February 23 the KNU retreated from its base at Kawmoora. Since early November 1994, the SLORC army had arrested as many as 5,000 men from towns and villages in the Karen and Mon states and even from Rangoon to work as porters in preparation for this offensive. Although the offensive was relatively short, scores, and possibly hundreds, of forced porters are believed to have died from beatings or exhaustion compounded by lack of food. Others were caught in the cross fire during the fighting or were killed by landmines laid by both the SLORC and the KNU. In early February the offensive took a new turn as DKBA and SLORC troops launched the first of several raids into refugee camps in Thailand. There were already more than 70,000 refugees in these camps, joined by some 10,000 people after the fall of Manerplaw. Many camps were situated along the banks of the Salween and Moei rivers, which mark the border between Burma and Thailand, and were easily accessible by the DKBA/SLORC troops. The raids, which were intended to terrify the refugees into returning to Burma, continued from February to May. They left fifteen refugees and Thai civilians dead, scores injured, and at least 1,000 houses in different camps razed. In addition, the DKBA/SLORC forces kidnaped more than twenty-five individuals and took them back to Burma at gunpoint, forcing hundreds of others to return through a campaign of fear and intimidation (see Thailand section). Following its defeat in these areas, the KNU made several offers to the SLORC to engage in cease-fire talks. While there were meetings between the two sides, at the end of October there was no sign of any progress. Talks with other ethnic groups were more successful, but the weakness of the military cease-fires as solutions to long-term ethnic insurgencies became apparent as the SLORC failed to deliver the promises of reconciliation and economic development that formed the basis of the agreements. Moreover, the SLORC continued to refuse to discuss lasting political solutions with the ethnic groups, claiming that as a temporary, military government, it had no authority to discuss political matters. In the Karenni State, the Karenni Nationalities Progressive Party (KNPP) signed a cease-fire agreement at a ceremony in Loikaw on March 21, making it the fourth and final armed group in the Karenni State to do so. But on June 28, the KNPP issued a statement claiming that the SLORC had broken the terms of the agreement by sending an additional 2,000 troops into its territory and continuing to take porters from the area. Two days later, fighting broke out after the SLORC launched an attack on the KNPP headquarters near the Thai border. The SLORC insisted that the offensive was launched in order to chase away illegal Thai loggers and to secure a route through the KNPP territory to that of drug warlord Khun Sa. In later addresses, the SLORC also claimed that it had positioned so many troops in the area, close to the Thai border, because of possible threats to national security during the time of the general election in Thailand. During the fighting some porters escaped into Thailand, but these were relatively few, given the total numbers believed to have been taken in Loikaw township alone. Those who did arrive in Thailand told of witnessing the deaths of fellow porters from landmines, stories which were confirmed by medical workers who reported that in just one day seven porters arrived in a refugee camp all close to death as a result of landmine injuries. These reports led observers to believe that landmines planted by both sides may have killed many porters who fled. The fighting died down during the rainy season in August and September, though skirmishes were still reported. By October, despite the arrival of SLORC intermediaries in Thailand, there was no sign of any new settlement, and the KNPP claimed that the SLORC was preparing for a major offensive against it and had brought in a further 6,000 troops. In the south, the New Mon State Party (NMSP) signed a cease-fire on June 29. Discussions that had started between the NMSP and the SLORC in 1993 were helped in 1995 by three intermediaries, one of whom was an elected member of parliament for the Mon National Democratic Front who had been in jail from 1991 until November 1994. While the agreement itself, like all other previous agreements, was not made public, it was known to have included the right of NMSP troops to retain their arms within twenty small circles of territory. However, the SLORC did not agree to the right of the Mon to receive developmental assistance from international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Thailand, nor were there clear decisions made on rights to the natural resources of the area, especially logging and fishing rights. The agreement did include a program to repatriate the 11,000 Mon refugees in Thailand, with no international monitoring or guarantees of safety on return, fueling speculation that Thailand had played a major part in pressuring the Mon to accept the terms. In the northeast, fighting continued against drug warlord Khun Sa in the Shan State. In January the SLORC had announced its resolve to crush his Muang Tai Army (MTA) by the end of the year. SLORC had also made this promise in 1994, but by October the much-heralded final offensive had not materialized. However, Khun Sa suffered a major blow in August when one of his military commanders broke off to form his own Shan nationalist group, taking between 1,000 and 2,000 troops with him. Then, in September, the United Wa State Party, a group that has had a cease-fire agreement with the SLORC since 1989, joined in the attack against Khun Sa, allegedly in order to secure its own stake in the drug trafficking market. As in other areas, the Burmese army impressed thousands of civilians to work as porters in the offensive against Khun Sa. In January, indiscriminate aerial bombardments by the SLORC forced hundreds of people to flee from villages near Kengtung, and in March and April heavy fighting forced others to seek refuge in Thailand (see Thailand section). At the same time, inside the Karen State, thousands of villagers living in areas where the Karen had been active were forcibly relocated to areas under DKBA/SLORC control. At first these relocations were restricted to areas in Hlaingbwe township near the DKBA headquarters, but by July relocations were also reported to have taken place as far south as Kyaukkyi, Kawkereik and Pa-an townships. Relocated families either were forced to live in encampments guarded by the army, or they fled to the forests. From the camps, they were forced to work as laborers on road-building and other infrastructural projects for the army. Indeed, forced labor was endemic in Burma. As the SLORC sought to open up the economy to international investors, it forced tens of thousands of civilians and prisoners to rebuild the country's long-neglected infrastructure. During the year, scores of people died on such projects from beatings, lack of medical care and food, and sheer exhaustion. In the southwest, at the site of the Rangoon-Kyaukpyu road in Arakan State, at least twelve people died during December 1994 and January 1995 from untreated fevers. In the far north, some 3,000 people were taken from Putao, Kachin State, in late 1994 to work at a remote site on the Putao-Sumprabum road. After walking for six days to reach the site, they found that the rice supplies that had been promised by the army had not arrived, and they had to walk back. Many died on the journey from malaria and other diseases, exacerbated by lack of food. In the northwest, soldiers supervising the work killed a woman working on the Pakokku-Kalemyo railway line in Chin State after she had stopped working twice to feed her young baby. In the south, in Mon State, two to three families each week fled from the site of the Ye-Tavoy railway to refugee camps in Thailand. In Arakan, Burma's most western state, refugees who had fled into neighboring Bangladesh in 1992 returned to Burma. Of the 270,000 refugees, only 40,000 remained in camps by October, though it was unclear how many of these would eventually be accepted by the Burmese authorities. Despite the presence of fifteen UNHCR staff in Arakan and two NGOs running programs to reintegrate the refugees, reports continued of abuses of Muslims, especially of those Muslims who had not left Burma in 1992. In their Bulletin of June, the UNHCR claimed that it had succeeded in getting an agreement to limit the amount of forced labor for returnees to one day a week. However, the government had plans to build more than 1,200 miles of road in the area, and it was unclear how the UNHCR would be able to monitor the many forced labor sites in Maungdaw and Buthidaung townships. Muslims who remained in 1992 were also subject to forced relocations and forced labor and religious persecution, and villages in Mro Haung and Myauk Oo townships were forced to move to Buthidaung, forming a Muslim enclave on the border with Bangladesh. Following Daw Suu's release from house arrest in July, members of her party, the NLD, were able to visit her freely. Among her first visitors were former chairmen of the NLD, U Tin Oo and U Kyi Maung, who had been released from jail in March. She was also able to meet foreign journalists, ambassadors and other international representatives, including the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright, who visited in early September. Daw Su's international profile was enhanced by the showing of a videotaped speech she gave to open the NGO Forum of the U.N. Women's Conference in Beijing. Daw Suu also held regular Sunday morning gatherings outside her home, at which up to 200 people would come to hear her speak. She made her first trip outside Rangoon on October 4, visiting the famous Thanmanyat monk in the Karen State. In press interviews Daw Suu continued to take a reconciliatory line, calling on the SLORC to begin dialogue with her. On October 11, the NLD re-elected Daw Suu, U Tin Oo and U Kyi Maung as general secretary and vice-chairmen of the party respectively. This was a move intended to deprive the SLORC of their main justification for not talking to her: she was not just an ordinary individual, but re-instated as a party representative. The National Convention, the SLORC's constitutional assembly, had begun deliberations on a new constitution in January 1993, sat for six months from September 1994 to March 1995 and was then suspended for six months until October 24. Nearly 600 of the 700 delegates were hand-picked by the SLORC. During this session, the question of representation at the local and national level for ethnic groups was discussed, including representation for those groups that were not included under previous constitutions—the most contentious issue for Burma's political future. Despite strong statements opposing the government proposals by ethnic representatives and members of the NLD, the National Convention approved the formula of 'self-administered zones' entitling groups to one representative in the House of Nationalities. In early October the convention was again postponed for a further month, leading analysts to suggest that the SLORC feared an NLD walk-out if Daw Suu was not invited to attend the convention.

The Right to Monitor

There are no indigenous human rights organizations in Burma, and no international human rights organizations were permitted to visit the country during the year. U.N. bodies, however, were given limited access. In January the International Labor Organization conducted a preliminary mission to investigate the government's compliance with Article 87 of the ILO Convention concerning freedom of association. By the end of the year, however, the ILO had not decided to conduct a formal mission. In October, U.N. Special Rapporteur to Burma Prof. Yozo Yokota went to Burma for the fourth consecutive year and met with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for the first time; his previous requests to see her had all been denied. At the same time, the government refused to allow international monitoring of prisons. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) announced on June 16 that it would close its office in Rangoon the following month due to the failure of negotiations with the SLORC on allowing the ICRC regular and confidential access to prisoners.

The Role of the International Community

On December 13, 1994, the U.N. General Assembly passed the toughest ever resolution on Burma. A key part of the resolution called on the secretary-general of the U.N. to assist in implementing the resolution, including facilitating a political dialogue between the SLORC, the democratic opposition and ethnic minorities. On that basis, Alvaro de Soto, the assistant secretary-general for political affairs, spent two days in Rangoon in February 1995 to follow up meetings held in Rangoon in November. At the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in March, the mandate of the special rapporteur to Burma was once again renewed. At the same meeting, the U.N. secretary-general presented a report in which he complained that Mr. de Soto had not been permitted to meet with Daw Suu, but made it clear that meetings with the SLORC would continue in the spring. No further meetings took place until after the release of Daw Suu. Mr. de Soto went to Burma again in August and met with Daw Suu, but was unable to see Gen. Khin Nyunt, the Secretary-1 of the SLORC. Press reports suggested that the SLORC was not prepared to enter into meaningful discussions with the U.N.'s representatives. The efforts of the secretary-general's office failed to receive adequate support from the international community. No governments took concerted action to exert pressure on the SLORC to ensure that the resolution's recommendations were implemented. Indeed, when the SLORC launched its attack against the KNU, just days after the resolution was passed, only the U.S. government reacted with a strong statement, condemning the use of civilian porters in the January offensive. In mid-February, the European Union issued a similar statement, but days later the German Deputy Foreign Minister, Helmut Schaefer visited Rangoon to continue the policy of "critical dialogue" adopted by the European Union in 1994. Worse yet, governments did not back up their rhetoric on Burma by denying the SLORC the benefit of bilateral aid and investment. Instead, at the end of February, the British embassy in Rangoon launched the second "British Week" aimed at encouraging British business in Burma. On March 18—as the SLORC-backed DKBO attacks on refugees in Thailand were at their height—Japan announced an agreement to give Burma an $11 million grant for "agricultural development." In April, Tokyo also granted Burma debt relief worth $4 million. Following the release of Daw Suu in July, the attitude of some governments toward the SLORC further softened—notably Japan, which had previously maintained support for the international consensus on Burma. Differences in approach emerged even on the day of her release, with Western countries reacting in a spirit of "cautious optimism" and Asian governments, such as Japan and Thailand, welcoming the move as "substantive progress." Later, Tokyo indicated it planned to resume some Official Development Assistance (ODA) projects suspended in principle since 1998 (see Japan section). South Korea also rewarded the SLORC with a government loan of $16.8 million in October. China continued to be a key supporter of the SLORC. The relationship was enhanced by the visit to Rangoon of Chinese Premier Li Peng in December 1994, followed by a flurry of diplomatic trips between the two countries during the year, including a delegation of 150 Burmese officials and businessmen who took part in the Yunnan trade fair in August. Arms supplies remained a crucial element of the Sino-Burmese relationship. Throughout the year, arms shipments arrived in Rangoon from a November 1994 deal reportedly including $400 million worth of helicopters, armored vehicles, rifles and parachutes. Several Chinese naval vessels, purchased with a $40 million interest-free loan, also arrived in June. The ever increasing closeness between China and Burma was disquieting for Burma's other neighbors, notably India, and prompted India to reopen official border trade in April for the first time since the 1962 military coup. The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) also sought to increase its economic influence in Burma, and by March Singapore had become the second largest investor, with projects totaling $294 million. However, relations with Thailand, which had been the originator of ASEAN's "constructive engagement" policy, soured during the year. When DKBA/SLORC troops attacked refugees, Thai police and villagers in Thailand, the Thai government maintained a policy of appeasement, barely even criticizing the SLORC for the attacks. The SLORC, on the other hand, showed no such restraint in condemning what it saw as Thailand's un-neighborly acts. It accused Thailand of supporting Khun Sa by allowing his forces to seek medical care and obtain food supplies in Thailand, and in August the SLORC condemned the murder of a Burmese fisherman by his Thai bosses, who were also illegally fishing in Thai waters. The construction of the Mae Sot-Myawaddy "Friendship Bridge" was suspended in June, and by September all border crossings between the two countries were closed. Nevertheless, Thailand still supported the SLORC in its bid to become a member of ASEAN. Bangkok's position was made public at the ASEAN Ministerial Conference in July when Foreign Minister U Ohn Gyaw acceded to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, the first step towards membership. During the ASEAN meeting, Australia and the European Union urged the ASEAN countries not to grant Burma membership too rapidly, insisting that the SLORC needed to do much more than release Daw Suu. But the ASEAN governments ignored this warning and arranged for a special conference to take place in December to assess ways in which they could facilitate Burma's and Cambodia's entry into the forum in the shortest possible time. In the U.S., the Clinton administration faced congressional pressure to respond to the "further deterioration of human rights in Burma," as described by sixty-one members of the House of Representatives in a letter to President Clinton on June 1, 1995. On June 21, the administration announced that it would reward SLORC's cooperation in allowing the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to undertake a joint opium yield survey by stepping up some forms of anti-narcotics assistance to Burma. This included an agreement to provide limited in-country training for SLORC's anti-narcotics enforcement agencies as well as an exchange of information on anti-drug operations.This decision contradicted earlier administration statements that without progress on each of the three fronts of human rights, democratization, and narcotics control, an upgrading of U.S. cooperation could not take place. In June, the House of Representatives adopted by a decisive 359-38 vote an amendment to the fiscal year 1996 foreign appropriations bill prohibiting anti-narcotics assistance to Burma, including training. As of the end of October, the bill was still awaiting final approval by Congress. Following the release of Daw Suu, President Clinton issued a statement welcoming the news but expressing "concern about a number of serious and unresolved human rights problems in Burma." The White House then dispatched Ambassador Albright to visit Daw Suu and senior members of the SLORC in early September. She delivered a tough message, calling for "fundamental progress toward democracy and respect for human rights" before relations with the U.S. could be improved or the U.S. would consider lifting the ban on World Bank loans to Burma imposed since 1988. However, while the State Department did not rule out the possibility of further economic sanctions, such as prohibitions on private U.S. investment, the administration took no moves to implement this option. By 1995, the U.S. was the fourth largest investor in Burma, with investment primarily in the oil sector, totaling some $203 million. An abortive attempt to impose comprehensive sanctions, including a ban on all U.S. investment in Burma, was led by Senator Mitch McConnell, who introduced legislation in July. But he failed in his attempt to insert the bill as a last minute amendment to the 1996 foreign aid legislation.

The Work of Human Rights Watch/Asia

Human Rights Watch/Asia continued to press governments and the international community to exert effective political and economic pressure on the SLORC for fundamental improvements in human rights. It sponsored regular "Burma Roundtable" meetings in Washington, London and Brussels; sent missions to discuss Burma policy with government officials in Paris and Tokyo and at conferences in Europe and Seoul; and maintained close contacts with key offices of the European Union, the U.S. State Department, the World Bank, and the relevant U.N. agencies carrying a mandate on Burma. Human Rights Watch/Asia also provided information and briefings to the U.N. special rapporteur to Burma throughout the year. When Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was released, Human Rights Watch/Asia laid out specific recommendations for an international response, putting her release in perspective and laying the groundwork for a long-term strategy aimed at focusing attention on the broader situation in Burma. These recommendations were presented in congressional testimony in both the House and Senate and in a major report. Human Rights Watch/Asia published three reports on Burma during the year. The first, Burma/Thailand: The Mon—Persecuted in Burma, Forced out by Thailand, was published in December 1994 and documented abuses by the Burmese army of forced laborers on the Ye-Tavoy railway and the history of the treatment that refugees from the area received in Thailand. A second report released on March 27, Abuses since the Fall of Manerplaw, was based on research in Thailand in January and February and included testimony from more than fifty men who had been taken to work as porters for the army. The third report, Entrenchment or Reform?: Human Rights Developments and the Need for Continued International Pressure, released on July 26, assessed the human rights situation in light of the release of Daw Suu.