------------------------ BurmaNet ------------------------ "Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies" ---------------------------------------------------------- The BurmaNet News: April 12, 1997 Issue #692 SPECIAL EDITION- UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS HEADLINES: ========== THAILAND/BURMA AT THE UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN UN HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEFING - ALTSEAN-BURMA PAPER UN HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEFING - REFUGEE UPDATE WORLDVIEW INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION DR SEIN WIN TO COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ***************************************************** THAILAND/BURMA AT THE UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS April 9, 1997 From: darnott@gn.apc.org In the past, there has been little criticism of Thailand at the Commission on Human Rights. This year, however, the Kingdom is beginning to reap the fruits of her closer relationship with the Burmese military, as the international community is faced with reports (denied in the Thai statement below) of forced repatriation of Karen refugees and failure by the Thai army to provide them with adequate protection against cross-border attacks. The first statement was made to the Commission by War Resisters International, in response to a Statement (attached) by Thailand. ................................. WAR RESISTERS INTERNATIONAL Commission on Human Rights 53rd Session Agenda item 10 9 April 1997 Burmese asylum-seekers at risk Mr Chairman, War Resisters International welcomes Thailand's important statement of the 2nd of April to the Commission on Human Rights, reaffirming that the Kingdom "will continue to adhere to its long-standing value of providing safe refuge and humanitarian assistance to All fleeing unrest in neighbouring countries". The significance of the statement derives not only from its content, but also from the fact that it was made to a United Nations body by an accredited representative of the Royal Thai Government. The statement will help to clear up the considerable confusion which has existed over the past weeks about Thailand's past actions and future intentions regarding the Karen and other ethnic groups who are seeking refuge in Thailand from the current offensive and massive violations of human rights by the Burmese army. Reports from humanitarian organisations, other international observers and the refugees themselves, but denied by the Thai army, claim that some Karen asylum-seekers have already been subject to refoulement, including rejection at the frontier. The confusion about Thailand's future intentions has arisen from what appear to be contradictory statements by various Thai military spokesmen (some of which are attached to the written version of this text). The asylum-seekers as well as the international community will certainly be reassured by this definitive and authoritative statement by the Royal Thai Government. It is also reassuring to learn that Thailand has "taken steps to move Karen displaced persons to sites deeper inside Thailand for better security". The murderous and destructive armed attacks by the Burmese military and their agents on the refugee camps just inside Thailand has been a source of great anxiety to their residents as well as to relief agencies, international organisations and Thai citizens living in the area. Such steps are in conformity with Thailand's ancient Buddhist culture of hospitality, of being Kalyanamitra -- good friends -- which Gautama Buddha prescribes as essential to the Way of Awakening. Indeed, there are few cultures in the world which do not place a high value on hospitality and the protection of those in danger. These values are also reflected in the international human rights instruments, for instance the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Thailand recently acceded. The right to security of person referred to in Article 9 has been interpreted by the Human Rights Committee as requiring States to protect asylum-seekers from cross-border attacks, while Article 2 requires the State party "to respect and to ensure the rights recognised in the Covenant to All individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction". The Thai statement informs the Commission that "in the current situation of Karen civilians from Myanmar, Thailand grants them permission for temporary stay". Thailand's culture of hospitality, as well as her treaty obligations and her respect for the jus cogens prohibition of refoulement, including rejection at the frontier, would preclude closing the border to asylum-seekers, or requiring them to return to Burma until the situation were truly safe. It is abundantly clear that safety cannot be guaranteed by a mere reduction or cessation of the fighting. The Convention Against Torture, in Article 3, which deals with non- refoulement, requires the State party to take into account "the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights" in assessing whether return to another State is safe, a pattern affirmed by All the UN human rights resolutions and reports on Myanmar. The Karen and Karenni seeking refuge in Thailand would be especially vulnerable to persecution if they were returned to Burma, since the Burmese military, rightly or wrongly, sees them as family members or supporters of resistance groups, which have been in a state of hostilities with Rangoon for up to fifty years. Given the abysmal human rights record of the Burmese military, any such returnees would therefore be at risk until a genuine peace settlement had been consolidated. We stress a GENUINE peace settlement which addresses the political concerns of the Karen and other groups, since cease-fires by themselves not prevent persecution. For instance, the military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council, or SLORC, maintains that it has a cease-fire with the Karenni, and yet over the past year over half the population of Karenni has been subject to forced relocation, forced labour, and other massive violations of human rights. The same applies in Shan State, where the figures are even higher. In conclusion, Mr Chairman, We recommend: 1) to the Commission, that in its resolution on the Situation of human rights in Myanmar, it emphasise that until the Government has concluded and consolidated a genuine peace settlement with the Karen National Union and other ethnic nationalities (and it is probable that only a popular civilian government will be capable of this task), Burma will remain extremely dangerous to any returnees from Thailand; 2) to the international community , that it provide further assistance to Thailand in order to share the burden of the large-scale influx of Burmese into Thailand; 3) to Thailand, that the Royal Thai Government continue to extend its hospitality and protection to the Burmese seeking refuge in Thailand; 4) to SLORC , that it recognise that national reconciliation and economic prosperity cannot be achieved by force, that only a government with a high degree of popular support and participation can achieve these goals, and that it therefore honour its commitment to transfer power to the victors in the 1990 elections. Thank you, Mr Chairman ......................................................... STATEMENT IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO REPLY BY THE DELEGATION OF THAILAND TO THE 53RD SESSION OF CHR* Mr Chairman, I take the floor today to exercise the right to reply in order to clear up certain misunderstandings of the representative of Fimarc, an NGO, in his statement yesterday (1 April 1997) concerning the policy of Thailand towards the Karen displaced persons from Myanmar. Thailand acknowledges the concern of the international community over the situation along the Thai-Myanmar border, as well as the need for protection of Karen displaced persons fleeing the fighting in Myanmar. We wish to reassure that the Royal Thai Government had been taking steps to address the plight of the Karen displaced persons long before the above concern was raised. International aid agencies and relief workers have also been granted access to provide food and shelter for them at safe sites in Thailand for decades. The recent incident along the Thai-Myanmar border is not new to Thailand. Throughout the past decades, Thailand has, based on its deeply rooted value instilled in every Thai individual, provided considerate and generous hospitality to everyone fleeing unrest from neighboring countries. At the height of the Cold War, more than half a million of Lao, Cambodian and Vietnamese displaced persons found their safe refuge on Thai soil. A decade thereafter, there remain almost a million people from Myanmar living in Thailand as illegal migrants and displaced persons, posing enormous social, economic and security burden on Thailand. In spite of the above, Thailand will continue to adhere to its long-standing value of providing safe refuge and humanitarian assistance to All fleeing unrest from neighboring countries. With regard to persons fleeing the fighting in Myanmar, the following policies have been adopted: - Thailand stands firm in her support for peaceful resolution of ethnic conflicts in Myanmar. - In the current situation of outflow of Karen civilians from Myanmar, Thailand grants them permission for temporary stay and allows a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to assist them in the provision of necessities such as food, medication, medical services, education, etc. Furthermore, the Thai Government has taken steps to move Karen displaced persons to sites deeper inside Thailand for better security. Indeed, as recently as 25 March 1997, we have received a letter from the UNHCR Regional Representative in Bangkok, expressing the appreciation of the UNHCR for the actions taken by the Thai authorities in the following words and I quote "UNHCR is well aware of the difficulty in coping with arrivals of large numbers of asylum seekers. We understand that the Thai Government and NGO staff are working to upgrade sanitary conditions in these encampments and this too is commendable. Please extend to the responsible officials in the field, both military and civilian, UNHCR's appreciation for their actions that conform with the Royal Thai Government's stated policy of granting temporary refuge to persons fleeing conflict in Myanmar." Permanent Mission of Thailand 2 April 1997 ................................ * The above statement by Thailand was delivered in Geneva to the Commission on Human Rights on 2 April 1997. The NGO statement which inspired the reply was made by Fimarc (International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements) under the agenda item dealing with Indigenous Issues. The section of the Fimarc statement referred to by the Thai delegate was the following: " In Asia, indigenous peoples are the most impoverished, marginalised and oppressed sector of society. In most Asian countries, indigenous peoples are struggling to reclaim their lands, their culture and their identity. But such struggles are often repressed by governmental forces. Alarming news of serious violations of human rights is coming out of Burma. The Karen living in that country are often suppressed and killed by Burmese troops. Refugees living in the most appalling situation in Thailand are forced to return to Burma into a very dangerous situation. About 5,000 Karen refugees were recently returned forcibly from Thailand, according to a document distributed by Associated Press". (unofficial translation from the French) ***************************** UN HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEFING - ALTSEAN-BURMA PAPER April 8, 1997 From: darnott@iprolink.ch (David Arnott) "CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT" - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW Presented by Debbie Stothard, Coordinator, ALTSEAN-BURMA (Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma) FOR THE BRIEFING ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN BURMA UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, GENEVA APRIL 8, 1997 That I am here to represent of a network of over 200 ASEAN-based organisations and individuals is an indication of the growing concern and indeed, outrage, at the apparent acceptance by our governments of the deteriorating human rights situation in Burma. For many years now, a significant number of citizens from this region have opposed the policy adopted by member governments of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). This policy known as "constructive engagement" has been opposed because it has proven to be the exact opposite of its title. Under the guise of "constructive engagement", ASEAN and its member states have established their position as one of the few public allies of Burma's military regime, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slorc). The rapid increase of business ventures involving organizations with links to ASEAN governments would imply that our leaders seem to have mistaken "constructive" for "construction". Perhaps we should be more honest and acknowledge that "constructive engagement" does not exist, "business engagement" does. In July, Burma's military regime gained observer status with ASEAN and was assured that Slorc membership for ASEAN would be imminent. This, and other developments indicate that the only party dictating the conditions of "engagement" are the Slorc. "Constructive engagement" has helped worsen the crisis in Burma and from the behavior of some governments in this region, brought about a "Slorcisation" of ASEAN. Thus, the claims and pronouncements made by the proponents of "constructive engagement" are sounding increasingly hollow: MYTH # 1: "CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT" HAS WORKED TO OPEN UP THE COUNTRY "Constructive engagement" has only helped the Slorc's campaign project to indiscriminately exploit the country's resources in the same way it has attacked the peoples of Burma. It has helped in the creation of jobs which pay wages in the way of displacement, misery, death and fear. The opening up of Burma's economy has not improved the well-being of the majority of its citizens. Hunger and deprivation continues to exist on a large scale. Amnesty International reported that 1996 has been the worse year on record for human rights abuses in Burma. Detentions, arrests, and violence by the Slorc has escalated. The Slorc seem to have been encouraged by their closer relationship with ASEAN to increase their oppression against the peoples of Burma. The Slorc continues to divert most of the country's earnings to the military and other structures which help the military survive. As a result even the most basic needs of civilians are not being met. The health system or lack of public health system continues to allow the HIV/AIDS epidemic to continue unabated. Literacy rates have plummeted - increasing numbers of children are being deprived of their access to education. The Slorc continues it attacks military, and otherwise, on supporters of democracy and ethnic nationality groups. The current offensive against Karen people is one of the worst in recent years, and the objective seems to be to wipe out the Karen people, not just the Karen National Union. ASEAN cannot claim ignorance of this ongoing crises, yet it has persisted in giving tacit endorsement to the Slorc throughout this time. If ASEAN member states were truly concerned with "opening up" the country, they would be building hospitals and schools, instead of hotels and shopping malls. They would not be involved in projects which result in forced relocations and the use of slave labor. Myth # 2: THOSE OBSTRUCTING THE ENTRY OF MYANMAR ARE FOREIGN NATIONS NOT IN ASEAN Absolutely not. The Alternative ASEAN Declaration on Burma, which was finalized in October has been endorsed by 227 organisations and individuals from existing ASEAN member states, including 16 Members of Parliament and several former Members of Parliament. The Alternative ASEAN Declaration on Burma opposes ASEAN membership for the Slorc on the grounds that: * The SLORC is not the legitimate government of that country * ASEAN membership would provide the SLORC with a de facto license to continue its attacks on the peoples of Burma, and * The SLORC's activities are a direct contradiction to the aims and objectives of ASEAN The Alternative ASEAN Declaration on Burma also calls upon the member governments of ASEAN and the international community to discard the policy of "constructive engagement" which has brought untold injustice and suffering upon the peoples of Burma. It is extremely ironic that ASEAN activists are being lumped in with "western governments" on the issue of Slorc's membership of ASEAN. It is a poor reflection on ASEAN member states that they have failed took take the initiative on Burma and instead resort to irrational and sometimes contradictory statements to justify their lack of vision on this matter. Myth # 3: IT IS AN INTERNAL AFFAIR The usual line trundled out when all else fails. Sometimes used in tandem with "it is up to the people to decide their fate". This is a pronouncement verging on obscene, when it is obvious that the people of Burma DID decided their fate in May 1990. Despite pressure and obstructions by the SLORC, they voted overwhelmingly for the National League for Democracy, led under Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who was under house arrest at the time. The NLD won 82% of the seats and more significantly, over 90% of the vote - a fantasy for most politicians in the free world. What ASEAN is doing is in fact, meddling in the internal affairs of Burma, by giving legitimacy to a clearly illegitimate regime, while relegating human rights violations, which are the concern of all human beings, to the confines of a "domestic" matter. MYTH #4: IT IS IN THE INTERESTS OF REGIONAL SECURITY It would appear that the threat to regional security and stability is the Slorc itself. It has persisted in violating the borders of its neighbours, and on several documented instances, crossed borders to pursue and attack the security forces of another country. Slorc military have committed murder, abductions, robberies, assault and property damage in neighboring countries. It has shown a blatant disregard for the sovereignty and security. The unabating HIV/AIDS epidemic in Burma, helped by the Slorc's irresponsibility in not providing adequate public health services (awareness, prevention and care programs) not to forget its apparent direct involvement in the production of drugs, poses a long-term security threat to this region. The human and economic cost to Burma and the rest of the region should be a cause for great concern to us all. MYTH # 5: IF NOT FOR THE SLORC, BURMA WOULD COLLAPSE INTO ETHNIC CONFLICTS A line often used by our leaders to introduce some humor into the debate. The Slorc has the main responsibility for ethnic conflicts and tensions taking place in Burma. It has been in its interest to perpetuate a situation of "divide and rule". The attacks on ethnic nationality groups, including the current offensive against the Karen people, are not being perpetuated by the NLD. It is the Slorc which is committing murder, rape, looting, abductions and torture against ethnic groups. It is the Slorc which is denying ethnic people access to their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The hope for harmony lies in a government committed to justice, human rights and democracy. This is why ethnic groups are increasingly making their support for the democracy movement led by Aung San Suu Kyi known. The Mae Tha Raw Hta Statement, made by ethnic nationality leaders at a conference in January, calls for tripartite dialogue and expresses support for the democracy movement led by Aung San Suu Kyi. The "stability" molded by Slorc military force and coercion is one that will continually collapse into armed conflict, death and refugees. The growing cooperation between Suu Kyi and ethnic nationality leaders offers the only peaceful alternative to this situation. MYTH # 6: ASEAN IS A TRADING BLOC, THEREFORE "POLITICS" IS NOT ITS CONCERN If this is the case, ASEAN would not have involved itself in efforts to resolve the crisis in Cambodia or the conflict in Mindanao. The ASEAN charter does make reference to the well-being of the people of the region, as well as the matter of regional stability. ASEAN does involve itself in matters "political" because it realizes that trade and investment is dependent on political stability. What it needs to recognize is that political stability is based on justice and respect for human rights. Political stability is not a matter of forceful containment of dissent. MYTH #7: SLORC WILL BE POSITIVELY INFLUENCED THROUGH ITS EXPOSURE TO ASEAN STATES I reiterate that the growing links between Slorc and ASEAN have only brought about a Slorcisation of ASEAN. The strategies and rhetoric used in recent times by some member states of ASEAN to suppress open dialogue in their own countries seem to echo those used by the Slorc, i.e. such choice phrases as "crush destructive elements", " puppets of Western masters", "Communist threat" and so on. There have also been instances where government-organized groups have been used to commit violence in the style of the Union Solidarity and Development Association. In addition, government responses to the consequences of SLORC aggression in their countries seem to imply an active cooperation to stamp out political diversity. MYTH # 8: BURMA IS A "WESTERN" AGENDA This implies that Asians or "Easterners" somehow endorse murder, assassination, rape, child abuse, slave labor, violence and war. I do not view the so-called Western approach as being entirely altruistic. However, frivolous and insulting statements such as those made by the Singapore Foreign Minister about the "Asian way" do nothing to improve the situation. The Foreign Minister concerned said at the ASEAN-EU Meeting in Singapore that ASEAN would not seek that Slorc meet certain conditions prior to gaining membership. He said that no such negotiations was needed - according to the "Asian way", bride is expected to adjust to the groom after marriage. This statement is both offensive to Asian women and misleading - it is doubtful that Slorc sees itself as the stereotypical "blushing bride". One of the characteristics of the so-called "Asian" way is the emphasis on dialogue and negotiation. This is precisely what Burma's democracy movement and the ethnic nationality groups are calling for, and this is what the Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma supports. Why then, is ASEAN being an obstacle to this urgently needed process? MYTH # 9: SANCTIONS HURT THE WRONG PEOPLE This was recently stated by Malaysian Prime Minister Dato Dr Mahathir Mohamad. He asserted that sanctions did not work and hurt the wrong people. Why then did Malaysia, under Dr Mahathir's leadership, stand so strong on sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa? Why didn't Malaysia "constructively engage" with Israel to support Palestinian self-determination? MYTH # 10: "CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT" IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO ISOLATIONISM It has been in the interests of ASEAN member states to push the line of "either/or". Many activists do not oppose "constructive engagement", if only it did just that. Engaging and in this case, complicity with the perpetrator of widespread violations and brutality, is far from constructive. Neither is isolating the legitimately elected government of a country. The term "constructive engagement" has to be discarded because it been so abused and perverted from its original intent. ASEAN needs to have the courage to replace it with a policy which will contribute to positive change in Burma. ASEAN has so far, failed to use its influence gained through engaging with the Slorc to effect any significant advances for the peoples of Burma. It has instead gained international and domestic embarrassment for its member states. One would conclude, from the rampant abuses by the Slorc in the past year, that even that regime views "constructive engagement" with contempt. The first step in this process is to facilitate tripartite dialogue between the Slorc, the democracy forces led by Suu Kyi, and the ethnic nationalities. ASEAN should be taking the lead in providing strong encouragement to the Slorc to agree to this process. The National Convention is an inadequate arena for such dialogue, particularly since the non-Slorc key players have been maneuvered out of the process. If ASEAN fails to take this up, it is conceding international leadership on this issue to its Northern (or Western) counterparts. It is up to ASEAN's leadership to realize that unconditional support for the Slorc motivated by investment interests will not just hurt the peoples of Burma - the long-term costs will hurt us and our governments. ******************************* UN HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEFING - REFUGEE UPDATE April 8, 1997 From: darnott@iprolink.ch (David Arnott) The following is an update circulated at the Briefing on Human Rights in Burma, at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. SLORC Offensives and Forced Relocations Lead to Human Rights Crisis on the Thai/Burmese Border April 8, 1997 A humanitarian and human rights crisis now exists along the hai/Burmese border. In an attempt to solidify its hold over the civilian population and territory, the ruling Burmese military regime, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), launched a major offensive against the Karen National Union (KNU) and the civilian populations in the region in February 1997. Similiarly, SLORC is also continuing its massive forced relocation campaigns in Karenni and Shan areas. In all these areas (see map on reverse side), systematic human rights abuses prevail, including summary executions, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, forced porterage and forced labor, and the burning and looting of villages. Because of the SLORC campaigns and the resulting human rights abuses, hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to live in relocations sites, are internally diplaced or, if they are fortunate, have fled to Thailand. Exact numbers are difficult to nail down, but estimates can be made. There are now 120,000 people living in refugee camps just inside the Thai border; 20,000 people have arrived in the past two months because of the offensive against the KNU. In addition, approximately 40,000 Shan people have reached Thailand fleeing the forced relocations, but they have not been permitted to establish refugee camps. Another 300,000 Burmese from various ethnic groups have also come to Thailand and have been labelled "illegal economic migrants" though most have fled because of the massive forced relocation and forced labor campaigns in Burma. This brings the total number of dislocated Burmese people inside Thailand to at least 450,000 people. Added to those who have been able to reach Thailand--who are the fortunate ones--are the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons inside Burma. It is estimated that for every person that has reached Thailand, there is at least one still inside Burma who would flee if they were able. SLORC now controls almost the entire border with Thailand and has blocked the evacuation routes of thousands who wish to flee. Thousands of villagers are still scattered in the jungles along the border with inadequate food and water supplies, poor shelter and no access to medicine. Thousands of others have given up trying to reach Thailand and have gone to the ordered forced relocations sites which have similiarly poor conditions. Adding insult to injury, SLORC and SLORC-supported forces now terrorize the refugees just inside the Thai border--threatening to burn down their homes and force them to return to Burma. Indeed, in January, two refugee camps were burnt to the ground, leaving more than 10,000 people homeless. Several other camps have been attacked this year as well, leaving the refugees all along the border frightened and vulnerable. Making the situation worse has been the change in Thai policy toward these refugees. In the area around Kanchanaburi and Ratchaburi, the Thai 9th Army Division has forcibly repatriated several groups of refugees on a few occasions, including forcing boys as young as ten years old back into an active war zone. These repatriations and the recent announcement by the Thai National Security Council that all the refugees will be sent back to Burma as soon as the situation is "peaceful and safe" has raised fears even further among the refugees who have already suffered enormously. This crisis along the Thai/Burmese border calls for international humanitarian assistance to help those in need of immediate food and supplies. In addition, the security of the refugees should be improved by moving the camps further inside Thailand. Finally, the international community should do all it can to pressure the SLORC regime to stop its campaign of force against its own civilian populations and the political opposition groups in the country. ************************************** WORLDVIEW INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION April 10, 1997 From: darnott@gn.apc.org United Nations Commission on Human Rights Agenda Item (10) Oral Intervention of David Taw* April 10, 1997 Mr. Chairman. A humanitarian and human rights crisis now exists along the Thai/Burmese border. In an attempt to solidify its hold over the civilian population and territory, the ruling Burmese military regime, SLORC the State Law and Order Restoration Council, launched a major offensive against the KNU Karen National Union and the civilian populations in the region in February 1997. SLORC is also continuing its massive forced relocation campaigns in Karenni and Shan areas. In All these areas (see attached map), systematic human rights abuses prevail, including summary executions, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, forced porterage and forced labor, and the burning and looting of villages. Because of the SLORC campaigns and the resulting human rights abuses, hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to live in relocation sites, are internally displaced or, if they are fortunate, have been able to flee and seek refuge in Thailand. Exact numbers are difficult to nail down, but estimates can be made. There are now 120,000 people living in refugee camps just inside the Thai border; 20,000 people have arrived in the past two months because of the current offensive against the KNU. In addition, approximately 40,000 Shan people have reached Thailand fleeing the forced relocations, but they have not been permitted to establish refugee camps. Another 300,000 Burmese from various ethnic groups have also come to Thailand and have been labeled "illegal economic migrants" though most have fled because of the massive forced relocation and forced labor campaigns of the Burmese army. The total number of dislocated Burmese inside Thailand is at least 450,000 people. Added to those who have been able to reach Thailand--who are the lucky ones--are the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons inside Burma near the border. It is estimated that for every person that has reached Thailand, there is at least one still inside Burma who would flee if they were able. SLORC now controls almost the entire border with Thailand and has blocked the evacuation routes of thousands who wish to flee. Thousands of villagers are still scattered in the jungles along the border with inadequate food and water supplies, poor shelter and no access to medicine. Thousands of others have given up trying to reach Thailand and have gone to the ordered forced relocations sites which are just as bad. In Shan state, the massive forced relocation campaign continues which started last year and effected at least 120,000 people. The Burmese army is relocating new villages as well as doing "secondary sweeps" in the previous relocation areas to mop up any remaining villagers who may be scattered in the forests and trying to avoid the relocation sites. Areas outside relocation sites are now free-fires zones, and some villagers are shot on sight; these are clear examples of arbitrary and summary executions of innocent civilians. In Karenni state, another forced relocation campaign, which affected at least 180 villages and began last year continues with similarly alarming human costs. Many abandoned villages have been burned --some completely--by the Burmese army, and land mines have been laid in others to prevent villagers from returning to their homes. Thousands remain scattered in the jungle, and unable to plant their crops, they face potential famine. Those who have gone to the relocation sites face appalling conditions; little or no food is provided, and water supplies are inadequate and normally dirty. Disease is rampant, and medicine is scarce or nonexistent. The relocation campaigns in both Shan and Karenni states are blatant violations of numerous rights of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The violations of human rights resulting from the offensive against the KNU and the Karen people are just as pervasive. Forced porterage, rape, torture, summary executions, arbitrary detentions, and the burning and looting of villages have All been documented. With SLORC occupying these areas, forced relocations and massive violations of human rights will continue. Adding insult to injury, SLORC and SLORC-supported forces now terrorize the refugees just inside the Thai border -- threatening to burn down their homes and force them to return to Burma. In January, two refugee camps were burnt to the ground, leaving more than 10,000 people homeless. Other camps have been attacked this year as well, leaving the refugees All along the border frightened and vulnerable. In light of this human rights crisis along the Thai/Burmese border, we recommend: 1) to the Commission, that its resolution on the situation of human rights in Burma emphasize the crisis along the Thai/ Burmese border because of the offensive against the Karen people and the forced relocations in Karenni and Shan states and other areas. 2) to the international community, to continue its international humanitarian assistance to the border area to help those in need of immediate food and supplies, including medicine, and to work to improve the security of the refugees by moving the camps further inside Thailand. 3) to Thailand, to continue its long tradition of humanitarian assistance and allowing those in danger to seek refuge in their country and not to repatriate any refugees until a genuine lasting political solution and peace is in place in Burma. 4) and finally to SLORC, that it stop its campaign of force against the civilian population and the political opposition groups in Burma and join a tripartite dialogue with the democracy movement and ethnic nationalities to reach a national reconciliation. Thank you. * Readers may be interested to know that during the delivery of this statement, His Excellency U Aye, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative of Myanmar to the United Nations in Geneva, along with his deputy, rather conspicuously walked out. ************************************************ DR SEIN WIN TO COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS April 9, 1997 From: David Arnott INTERNATIONAL PEACE BUREAU Commission on Human Rights 53rd Session Agenda Item (10) April 9, 1997 Oral Intervention made by Dr. Sein Win I am Dr. Sein Win, an elected representative of the 1990 general election from the Paukkhaung constituency in Burma. First of all, I am disappointed to know that the Special Rapporteur on Burma has not been allowed to visit Burma to perform his mandate given by the 52nd Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. SLORC's failure to comply with the terms of successive UN resolutions and its denial to allow the Special Rapporteur and the Envoy of the UN Secretary- General to visit Burma are clear violations of articles 55 and 56 of the UN Charter in which member states "pledge themselves to take joint and separate action" to "promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all." At every UN session, SLORC authorities appear to be very defensive about the resolutions on Burma and the Special Rapporteur's reports on the situation of human rights in our country. SLORC mistakenly claims that the right of non- interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state is paramount to all other articles in the UN Charter. In our view, national sovereignty must descend from the people; sovereignty should not be used as a veil to hide human rights abuses. Instead of cooperating with the UN, improving the human rights situation and opening the country to human rights monitoring, SLORC has chosen a different path. Its total denial to all human rights violations and its closed door policy to UN human rights monitoring are not the acts of a responsible member of the UN that adheres to the principles of the rule of law. The situation of human rights in Burma is moving from bad to worse. The rights of the people, especially elected representatives and supporters of the National League for Democracy, to freely participate in the political process have been severely restricted by unjust laws and orders. In response to the efforts of the people to freely express their will, SLORC has resorted to violent suppression, arbitrary arrests, unfair trials and harsh prison sentences. While SLORC is able to reconcile with drug traffickers, even trying to make them into respected leaders of some ethnic groups and legitimate businesses, democratically elected representatives are being treated like criminals. Since May, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has again been put under virtual house arrest. Her freedom of travel is severely restricted. SLORC has forbidden the weekend rallies in front of her home, the only place she could communicate directly with the people. Even worse, on November 9th of last year, she was physically attacked by a group of about 200 young men from the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), a SLORC-organized youth group. This is SLORC-orchestrated, state-sanctioned terrorism. We continue to be seriously concerned about the personal security of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi because Win Sein, the Minister of Railways and Transportation, told members of the USDA that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should be killed. Now SLORC is also putting much more pressure on elected Members of Parliament (MPs) to resign from their posts. SLORC has ntimidated, harassed and arrested many MPs and their families as well as used economic coercion to try to force their resignations. In addition, under the restrictive measures imposed in the country, lawyers and medical doctors involved in the democracy movement are finding it increasingly difficult to practice their professions. Restrictions have also been imposed on the travel of NLD Mps and members. They are confined to their respective townships unless they receive prior permission from their local authorities to leave. Some MPs who have traveled without permission have been arrested and sentenced under the 1961 Restrictions and Bond Act which was originally enacted to limit the travels of ex-criminals. There are many other restrictions on NLD activities. Many NLD branches have been forced to take down their party sign boards. Also, landlords have been forced not to rent office space for the NLD. And when NLD members want to meet, they must request permission from the local authorities. Permission rarely follows. The NLD also tried to organize a meeting of elected MPs and party members in May and again in September. In May, around 200 MPs and supporters were detained in intelligence buildings to prevent them from congregating in Rangoon, and in September, around 600 suffered the same fate. When student demonstrations broke out in December, SLORC accused the NLD of inciting the demonstrations and arrested more NLD members. They released the majority, but there remain approximately 100 members and 24 MPs in detention. We are greatly disturbed to see continued cases of death in custody due to torture and lack of food and medical care. Two elected Mps, Tin Maung Win from the Khayan constituency and U Hla Than from the Coco Island constituency, have died in prison since 1990. The purpose of arresting, torturing and allowing MPs to die is to undermine and nullify the 1990 election results. Of the 392 elected NLD MPs, 68 were disqualified by the Election Commission for no valid reason, 39 have been forced to resign, 24 remain in detention and two have died in prison. As the Special Rapporteur pointed out, the lack of rights pertaining to democratic governance is the root cause of major violations of human rights in Burma. The remedy for improving the human rights situation is to have a substantive triparte dialogue at the earliest possible date among all concerned parties. It is the will of the Burmese people to seek national reconciliation through dialogue. In the light of the deteriorating situation in Burma, I would like to recommend that the Commission: (1) extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for another year; and(2) pass a resolution on Burma that reflects the appalling human rights situation in Burma. Thank you. *******************************