Press conference reveals friction after state counsellor, UNFC meet

–The state counsellor called this week’s landmark meetings with ethnic armed group leaders “family-like”, but a press conference with a United Nationalities Federal Council delegation yesterday revealed a different picture: At least one of the armed groups’ leaders left the talks dissatisfied.

Khu Oo Reh, general secretary of the UNFC, a bloc of nine ethnic armed groups, said he was displeased with remarks made by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

According to him, the state counsellor told UNFC leaders that they should consider what they can offer rather than what they want to demand.

“She said, ‘You can demand everything you like. But, I do not guarantee every demand will be met.’ She previously said that people should consider what they can offer for peace rather than what they want to obtain from it,” Khu Oo Reh said at a press conference held yesterday, becoming emotional as he described the exchange.

“Look at the states inhabited by the ethnic people. We have lost almost everything,” he said. “In this situation, what do they want from us? What do we still have left to offer?

“We do not have demands and offers. Everyone has a responsibility to make the country more developed and peaceful. This is the equality that we have been demanding for decades,” he said.

The anger was not expressed during the “time-limited” talks with the state counsellor, and Khu Oo Reh added that he did not want to “create tension” during the meeting.

Earlier in the press conference, he said that the UNFC delegation represented seven armed ethnic groups. When The Myanmar Times asked why two armed ethnic groups were missing from his count, he backtracked, and said the bloc includes nine members. The withdrawal of two UNFC members, ethnic Kokang and Palaung armed groups, was previously refused.

When asked about the only partial inclusivity of the upcoming 21st-century Panglong Conference, and the likely absence of some UNFC member groups – including the three allies fighting in Kokang, the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, the Ta’ang National Liberation Army and the Arakan Army – he said the Tatmadaw had made it difficult for everyone to participate.

“We should question the military offensives on the other side of these armed ethnic groups. If the Tatmadaw halts its military offensive against them, then they would not fight back,” Khu Oo Reh told reporters yesterday.

The senior UNFC leaders urged the government to find ways to include representatives of armed ethnic groups with whom it has not held separate talks yet. Such groups include the Arakan National Council, the Wa National Organisation and the Lahu Democratic Union, which do not have standing armies, as well as the three Kokang allies.

“We think that there should be a formal understanding between the government and the armed groups before proceeding to reviewing the [peace talk] framework and the 21st-century Panglong Conference,” he said. “We urge the government to foster an agreement guaranteeing the participation of all groups.”

Government peace negotiators have invited UNFC members to attend the framework review scheduled for the first week of August. However, only the Union Peace Dialogue Joint Committee has the decision-making power to change the framework, which will determine the shape of the political dialogue.

“As we were not there during the drafting of the framework, we have to ask by what means some groups can participate in the review of the framework dialogue without signing the nationwide ceasefire agreement. We would also like to know what status will be offered to the groups,” Khu Oo Reh said.

The previous government excluded armed groups engaged in ongoing offensives from the NCA last October. Inclusion of the Kokang, Arakan and Ta’ang groups in the upcoming conference remains an open question.

“The state counsellor yesterday said that it was important for us to have the rule of law. Without the rule of law, there cannot be peace. We can have a strong and good constitution only if we have the rule of law and peace,” Khu Oo Reh said.

The charter was drafted by the former junta and was ratified in 2008. President U Htin Kyaw in his inaugural address to the nation in March said that the new government would prioritise reforming the constitution. But Speaker U Win Myint said in June that constitutional amendments are on the backburner until peace and national reconciliation are achieved.

Copy from http://www.burmaenac.org/?p=882

Read more...

‘We Are Not Hardliners – We Are the Ones Who Want Peace the Most’: Khu Oo Reh, General Secretary of UNFC

Khu Oo Reh is the General Secretary of the ethnic alliance United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) and the Vice Chairman of the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP). In this exclusive in-depth interview, Khu Oo Reh talks about the goals of the UNFC, the current state of the peace process and the NCA talks (Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement), as well as the role of the international community who are engaging with the Burma Government and funding the peace process through institutions such as the Myanmar Peace Centre (MPC). The views of the UNFC and ethnic armed organisations, who remain in desperate need of support in order to realise a lasting and sustainable peace, end up too often ignored, overlooked, or misunderstood by international actors. Khu Oo Reh strongly encourages the international community to listen to all sides in order to develop an understanding of the dynamics of the problems they are funding to solve.

Q: When and why was the UNFC founded, and what are the goals of the UNFC?

The UNFC was founded in 2011, just after the 2010 general election that we had in Burma. In 2009, the Burmese military regime forced all the ceasefire armed ethnic groups to transform their troops into Border Guard Forces, or local military militias. By the pressure given by the regime some ethnic armed organisations such as KIO, the Kachin Independence Organisation, New Mon State Party, Shan State Progress Party, and a few more, rejected to transform their troops to be Border Guard Forces or local militias. […] Such ethnic armed groups, who had been in ceasefire agreement with the military regime, returned to war against regime by joining hands with the other ethnic armed groups who were still fighting against the military regime, such as the KNU, Karen National Union, and Karenni National Progressive Party, and Chin National Front, and also the Palaung National Liberation Front. So such ethnic armed groups, who rejected to transform their troops into Border Guard Forces or local militias, got in touch with other ethnic armed groups, those who were still fighting against the military regime. And we came together, found the way to come together and work hand in hand to fight against the military regime. So we all agreed that by having a federal union that can guarantee democracy, equality, and self-determination, is the only way that we can stop all the problems that we have [had] in our country for over 60 years.

The main goal is to build a federal union based on democracy, equality, and self-determination. […] Within the UNFC we have a 12-member organisation plus four association member organisations, all together 16. Still the RCSS (Restoration Council of Shan State) and the UWSP (United Wa State Party), remain outside of the UNFC, but we have a mutual understanding. We work together on some major issues.

Q: How would you describe the current state of the peace process and the NCA?

Now [we are] ready for political dialogue, as we try very hard to conclude the nationwide ceasefire agreement with the government. We try very hard to come together, but there are still [some groups that are] out of the UNFC, some organisations are still not members of the UNFC. […] … they also should be part of the process, that’s how we understand. So no matter what, how we are, we should have a common goal, and a common position and working together and build our unity. We view that before we go for political dialogue, first we have to stop all the fighting. If we cannot stop the fighting we cannot smoothly move onto political dialogue. So we all agree that we should stop the fighting first and then move onto another step, because we really want to make sure there is no more fighting in all of the country, the country is in peace. So that is the reason that all the members of the UNFC and non-member organisations came together and worked together on the peace process.

[…] Now we are trying very hard to be there [to have NCA], but we still have some serious issues that need to be agreed with the government, for example [1] the inclusiveness. To be honest we really want to see all the armed ethnic groups come together and sign the NCA. Another thing is [2] who is going to sign the NCA, we still need to agree on that […]. And also at the signing of the NCA, we want to see [3] the international witnesses to be included. We propose UN, ASEAN, EU, and some neighbouring countries to be as witnesses to ensure that whoever comes into power [after the forthcoming elections] implements the agreement and also the process of the NCA is monitored. Who is going to monitor, if we fail to implement the agreement? So such important issues still remain to be agreed on.

Q: Why is the government trying to exclude the three groups TNLA (Ta’ang National Liberation Army), MNDAA (Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army), and AA (Arakan Army) from the NCA?

Their reason is that those groups such as MNDAA, AA, TNLA, still not yet have bilateral agreement with the government, so first they have to enter into bilateral agreement with the government, and then later on they can join the NCA. That is the reason [put forward] by the government.

…for TNLA they said that they are ready to join with the others to sign the NCA at any time. At the same time they are also ready for talks with the government individually as well to reach a bilateral agreement as soon as possible. But the Burmese military must stop all their military operations in the area first. If they (the Burmese army) are still fighting the group (TNLA) it is hard for them to believe in the government for talks.

Q: Why was the new Senior Delegation (SD) formed to replace the NCCT?

Because the NCCT (Nationwide Ceasefire Coordination Team) has repeatedly said that they tried their best to negotiate with the government. It is the upmost effort that they could make, no more beyond that, but some issues still remain to be discussed and agreed on. So for those remaining issues the NCCT thought that there should be another new team that can continue the negotiations with the government to be able to finalise this agreement.

Q: What do you expect from the forthcoming general election?

[…] It is the work of the political parties, not for us, but we have a clear stand for the general election. We won’t stop or disturb the election process. It can freely go as it is, but we foresee that even at this timethere cannot be free and fair election as far as we have seen the scenario of the activities by the USDP (Union Solidarity and Development Party) and by the [Burmese] military, and also since the military representatives at the parliament rejected to amend the constitution. So we won’t see free and fair election, again. So, even though we will still have to negotiate with the new coming government, whether they are new faces or old faces, we don’t really know… We don’t know. But we have to continue our talks with them. If we can conclude the NCA before the election, we still have to implement the agreement after the election with the new government, and also to discuss about the framework for political dialogue. There is still so many agenda and problems [that] remain ahead. So we expect to see more challenges.

Q: What is the UNFC’s position regarding the 2008 Constitution?

We never talk about the 2008 Constitution, we are thinking to have a new one, which could be agreed by all, the entire population in the country. Because our main goal is to build a federal union based on democracy, equality, and self-determination. So when you carefully study the 2008 Constitution they have now … we better have a new one.

Q; The UNFC aims to build a federal army. What is your vision for the federal army?

When federal union is materialised that we are aiming for, under the federal system we should have a federal army, as we do have a federal government. Within the federal army, all ethnic living in the country should have an equal right to get involved, and participate, and join the position that they deserve. When you look at the Burma Army that we have now in the country, all the senior commanders are Burman, and also Buddhist. If you are non-Burman ethnic you cannot enjoy a higher position. […] So we feel it is very unfair.

We are not asking to found a new army, but just to restructure the army that we have in Burma. One army for all, the whole country. No matter [whether] you are Karenni, or you are Shan, you are Burman, we all can enjoy the same rights, the same equalities.

Q: What is the UNFC’s stance regarding a SSR (Security Sector Reform) and DDR (Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration)?

It heavily depends on the NCA agreement that we will have; how much the agreement can guarantee for ethnic armed groups. Let me say that after signing of the NCA, if we don’t see any concrete guarantee, or, if we don’t see any promise that could materialise, we will be worried to have SSR or DDR. So it very [much] depends on the NCA that we are going to sign, how much the agreement will guarantee for us.

Because we worry, if there is no concrete agreement or guarantee for us, if we fail to have political dialogue it will be a big danger for us to go back to war once again. Or it will be big challenge how to disarm, or accept the DDR or SSR. But we do understand that for Burma Army and the government, after signing the NCA, they really want us to be ready for SSR and DDR, at any time.

Q: How does history influence the way that ethnic armed organisations feel about this?

We are still not ready for that, because we [are] used to feeling that we are not safe now. So we are worried for our self-defence because of the promises that have been broken [by the government] for several times before.

Q: Does the UNFC consult civil society and groups like women’s organisations and refugee representatives about how to proceed with the peace process?

Well we are seriously thinking about the role on the CSOs (civil society organisations), and women, and youth. […] What support they can give, in which way they can help? Because we understand that when the talks for political issues come, they have to get involved.

Now the negotiations that we have with the government and the army are just to stop the fighting, but … there are some other issues to be guaranteed when the political dialogue comes. For example, the role of the political parties and the role of the CSOs, women, and youth. Particularly women’s participation in the process, at the political dialogue. And also if we are going to talk about environmental issues, natural resources or education or health and human rights. So many issues need to be addressed, so those, no matter [whether] they are youth or women or CSOs, they need to represent the issues and address [them] at the talks. So now we UNFC encourage youth, women and CSOs to closely work with us.

Q: In the Law Khee Lah Summit, did the UNFC agree to have 30% women at all levels of talks?

Even [though] we agreed, whether fully 30% can get involved in all levels of talks or making decisions, or making policy or not, it depends on them (the women).

If they are qualified to be in the leadership, we have no objection. At the policy making level, decision making level, and so on, it depends on their knowledge and their abilities, and their experience. We have no discrimination on that, we have no specific criteria for that. No matter [whether] you are a man or woman, if you deserve any position that’s where you will be. For example, the KNU Vice Chairwoman [Naw Zipporah Sein] is a woman, because KNU members think that she deserves that position. The same way within the UNFC, if your own organisation nominates you as their organisation representative to the UNFC, if you qualify to be in one of the higher positions within the UNFC, and all eligible representatives vote for you for that position, finally you are there.

Q: Currently the international community is supporting the peace process mainly through institutions such as the MPC [set up by the government]. What is your view on these peace funds and they are benefiting the peace process?

My observation on the international involvement, also the donor countries [is that] from the very beginning they have [had] the wrong mind-set, they have [had] the wrong thinking about the process that we have now. When they are coming to Burma with the funds in support of the peace process, how they have so far understood is just mainly to engage with the government. [They are] just engaging with the [Burmese] military who has power to manage everything, who has the power to say whatever they want. So they only have one ear [for] listening to the government, listening to the [Burmese] army.

But they don’t care much about the ethnic, they all are intentionally trying to ignore the ethnic. Even [if] a few donor countries are thinking of giving a helping hand to ethnic groups, they are reluctant to do so because the majority [of the] donor countries are mainly happily working with the government through MPC or through other channels. But the problem that we have in the country, without ethnics there can be no peace at all in the country, believe me. If we don’t come for talks with the government and the army, the problems still remain huge. Without the government, peace cannot come in the country either, because all the problems [that] we have in the country are problems of us, all of us, not only the ethnic. That is the reason [why] the government and the army decided to talk with us and we agreed to talk with them, to solve the problems in the country. As the government and the army are in need, we are also in need. The need is huge, so big, and the resources that we have in our hands are not enough, so we do really need it, international support, financially, technically.

So the international community and governments have to come up with their own decision, ‘how should we approach the problem, how should we approach the process? How should we provide our support?’ There should be such a clear agenda. Beforehand, they should have all the information that they need … before they give their support. To truly bring about peace in our country.

But so far, as far as I have seen and I feel, the majority of international community and countries only have one ear. [They] heavily depend on the government and have very little access to ethnic. When we talk about this, they still disagree, they still argue that ‘oh no, no no no, the majority of our support, our funds go to the ethnic areas, very little to the government.’ It is not true. But one thing I can agree with is [that] so many INGOs’ staff officers are coming to ethnic areas, right? But we are still wondering what they are doing there? In three years’ time, we didn’t see any progress, [and] we still don’t see any change, but we understand [that] they have already spent huge amount of money that they have brought from their country. But we also don’t know, where all that money goes? Only the people who engage in their activities will know. ‘Please have a fair treatment, have a fair view, on all sides. And also reach to the ground situation, and find out what the real needs are, and also who are in the situation.’

Q: In your view, if the international community wants to support the peace process, what would be the best way to do that?

Before deciding to deliver support or assistance, first they should access all groups of people in the country, they should access all groups who are in the process, and listen to them. And then gather all their points of views, all their needs, and talk with them, which way is the best to give out the assistance.

Because the government used to say that ‘oh all these ethnic armed groups are still outlaw organisations, unlawful organisations, so you should not give out any assistance to them.’ That is what the government said to all international communities and governments. And also the international community and governments have their say as well. So if they still have such a view on us, how can you bring about peace? How can you solve the problem? If you don’t have a fair treatment, if you don’t have a fair view, if you don’t have fair judgement, all the problems cannot be solved peacefully.

If they see the government that we have now as the only legal organisation, legal body, who are running the country, how did they come to power? You can ask all the voters, during the general election, whether all the voters, eligible voters, freely had the right to vote for them or not. No! Everybody knows it, no doubt at all, that’s how they came to power. So we should recognise that as a legal government? That is the main reason that we still don’t trust them, and still remain taking up arms to fight against them, not to win them, [for] a solution. The result that we want to see is a win-win solution. No one to win another, to have a fair position, to have a fair say. That’s all.

Q: What would you like to say to the international community?

Firstly I would like to thank all international governments and communities who are giving a helping hand to us in all ways that they can help. I do truly appreciate that, no matter what. But, in the long run, some have their own interests and some have their own national interest. I’m not in a position to blame them. Only one message that I would like to give is ‘before coming into the country with the interest of giving support to the people in the country, please try to understand the situation, please try to reach out [to] as many people as you can. And come up with your right decision, and making sure that all your assistance goes to the right place, goes to the needy people, truly benefits the people, and truly benefits the whole country.’ […] ‘So don’t only talk to one side, but talk to all sides. Don’t listen to one side, but please listen to all sides. And come up with your own judgement. Whether you do right or wrong, it is in your hands.’ The resources that we have in our hands are not enough to bring peace in the country, so we do understand well, [that] we truly need outside assistance and help.’

[…] We are not hardliners, we are not hard. We are the one who need peace the most. Nobody wants to suffer, nobody wants to be poor, you see? Everybody wants to be free.

Ariana Zarleen / Mizzima | August 3, 2015

The interview was conducted by Ariana Zarleen at the UNFC office in Chiang Mai on July 24, 2015. Ariana Zarleen is a co-founder and current Program Director of Burma Link, an NGO that spreads awareness of Burma’s ethnic nationalities and displaced people, and shares their voices and stories locally and internationally.

Read more...

THAI PM: “THAILAND WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE CARE OF THE REFUGEES ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS…”

Aung San Suu Kyi arrived at Mae La refugee camp in 2012 (Photo:Karen News)

Thailand’s Prime Minister, General Prayut Chan-o-cha was reported as saying that Burma’s government refugees needed more time to put in place a process to repatriate its refugees.

General Prayut was quoted by The Bangkok Post and before the three-day visit of Aung San Suu Kyi’s, the head of Burma’s National League for Democracy government.

General Prayut said discussions between Thailand and Burma over refugee issues dated back to Burma’s military backed government. General Prayut, as quoted in The Bangkok Post, said.

“Myanmar [Burma] is willing to take back the refugees [from Thailand] but we have to give them more time to prepare for such considerations as securing land to accommodate those who return.”

General Prayut was reported to have said that “Thailand will continue to take care of the refugees on humanitarian grounds although this will inevitably result in an increased burden on the country.”

Mr. Iain Hall, the senior field coordinator for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees based in the Thai border town of Mae Sot in a previous interview with Karen News said.

“The country of origin, in this case Myanmar [Burma], has the primary, responsibility of the protection of its citizens and indeed all civilians on its territory. They [Myanmar Government] hold a responsibility … the primary responsibility. So ensuring the conditions for sustainable return will be the Myanmar Government. But of course they may need support.”

Naw Blooming Night Zan, a spokeperson for the Karen Refugee Committee told Karen News that repatriation is not on the new NLD government’s agenda.

“The government has had their 100-day campaign, but the refugee issue is not in the discussions. When she [Suu Kyi] comes Thailand, even though we can’t meet her, we want her to create the conditions where we can go back.”

Naw Blooming Night Zan told Karen News that refugees need reassurances about their safety and living conditions before repatriation can begin.

“We should go back in dignity, with a condition that our safety is guaranteed, free from human right abuses and provided with humanitarian aid that we would need to start our lives again. The most important thing is that we should not be forced to go back.”

Saw Luis, secretary of the Karenni Refugee Committee said that it is important Aung San Suu Kyi gives the right message to the Thai government and to the United Nation High Commission for Refugee.

“Our refugee situation is related to the progress of political development in Burma, so, there should be guaranteed for our safety before we can return and the government needs to be prepared and ready before any return can take place.”

Saw Luis called on Aung San Suu Kyi to listen to the refugees concerns and “to pass this message to her own government, UNHCR and the Thai government.”

The Karen Women’s Organization in a statement released this week to commemorate World Refugee Day said that refugees living along the Thai Burma border are caught in a hard place and see cuts by international donors and talk of repatriation by UN agencies as putting pressure on refugees.

“We feel it is still very premature for a safe and dignified refugee return. We see on a daily basis, refugees receiving less food rations, and significant cuts to the already very basic health and education services. We imagine if this continues then life in camps will no longer be sustainable.”

The KWO pointed out that despite plans and preparation to repatriate refugees has been ongoing for years, the voices of community-based organizations and refugees are ignored.

“Our voice is not heard and our concerns are not addressed. Decisions are made about us, without us. Many NGOs and UN agencies have done very little really to prepare refugees to go back or to help build the services and communities that we will return to.”

The Border Consortium estimates that there as many as 120,000 refugees from Burma living in the nine camp along the border – Nu Po, Umphiem, Mae La, Mae Ra Ma Luang, Mae La On, Tham Hin, Ban Don Yang, Ban Mai Nai Soi and Ban Mae Surin which is also known as Karenni camp 1 and 2.

http://karennews.org/2016/06/thai-pm-thailand-will-continue-to-take-care-of-the-refugees-on-humanitarian-grounds.html/

Read more...

RCSS/SSA says villagers arrested by army were not conscripts

The Restoration Council of Shan State/Shan State Army (RCSS/SSA) says a group of villagers arrested last month by the Burma army in eastern Shan State were not troops who had been forcibly recruited by the group. The denial came in response to a statement issued last month by the army.

Villagers who were accused by the army of being from RCSSSSA

Speaking at a press conference held at Wan Hwai village group in Mong Kung Township on June 2nd, Major Sai Han, who is responsible for the RCSS/SSA in Mong Kung Eastern Area No 7, explained to local residents and the media that the announcement released by the Burma Army on May 23 was not accurate.

“We don’t have any policy on recruitment since we signed the NCA [Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement]. No order [to recruit] has come from the upper-level. The news release from the Burma Army on 23 May is not concerned with us,” said Major Sai Han.

“We went to Loi Tai Leng headquarters because a representative from each village was sent to observe agriculture and rural area development acclivities and there was also a Resistance Day ceremony at the headquarters. The 33 people arrested by the Burma Army are not new recruits. They are normal civilians,” explained Sai Mai, a member of Ham Ngai village group of Mong Kung Township.“Our group encountered the Burma Army’s military column on the 18th (18 May). The Burma Army took us to the military [camp] with a vehicle. We were divided into groups of four and interrogated. They told us to say that the RCSS has been recruiting new soldiers. We were interrogated from 6 pm to 3:30 am. We had to stay there for ten days and nine nights. Among our group, a man called Sai Nyunt was taken with a hood [on his head] and he still hasn’t been released yet,” said Hla Kwe, one of 32 people arrested by the Burma Army last month.

The Burma Army also arrested eight residents of Pan Sone Village in Theinni Township at the end of May accusing them of being soldiers with the Shan State Progress Party/Shan State Army (SSPP/SSA).

According to relatives of the detained villagers from Theinni Townshp, they have been charged with Section 17-1 of the Unlawful Association Act.

http://english.panglong.org/?p=14408

Read more...

Conservation efforts made over 100 Mrauk U stupas

Conservation efforts are currently being made over a hundred stupas within the Mrauk U Ancient Cultural Zone in Rakhine State, according to the Department of Archaeology and Museums for Mrauk U.

The conservation efforts began in January this year and are on-going.

“The stupas were all completely covered in vines and vegetation. The clearing of flora is being done out of respect. The grasses are difficult to maintain; once you’ve cleared one side, they’ve grown tall on the other.”
said U Nyein Lwin, director of the Mrauk U Department of Archaeology.

The Rakhine State government has provided Ks124m to cover conservation expenses, of which K60,000 (US$50) a day is spent on employing 20 workers to handle maintenance of the stupas, over 80 stupas have already been cleared. “The meaning of the initiative is to allow for a good view of the pagodas. Efforts have also seen that entrances into some of the overgrowth of grass on the pagodas has been cleared.” said U Than Myint, vice chair of the Mrauk U Ancient Cultural Heritage Conservation Organization.

Conservation efforts are also being conducted on the Alannipuya, Letwelpisidaw and Kyinngantat pagodas, Shinmyawah statue - together with other stupas within the Mrauk U Ancient Cultural Zone - as part of the new government’s ‘100-day plan.’

Myitmakha News Agency

Read more...

Shan and Kachin Armed Groups Hold ‘Pre-Panglong Consultation’

Ethnic Kachin and Shan leaders pose after the Consultation on Panglong on June 8 in Chiang Mai, Thailand. In the front row, from left, are Lt-Gen Yawd Serk of the RCSS, Gen N’Ban La of the KIO, and Gen Sai Htoo of the SSPP. (Photo: Nyein Nyein / The Irrawaddy)

CHIANG MAI, Thailand — To prepare for the upcoming “21st Century Panglong Conference,” the leaders of ethnic Shan and Kachin armed groups held a “Consultation on Panglong” in the northern Thai city of Chiang Mai on June 7-8.

The conference was proposed by Burma’s State Counselor Aung Suu Kyi as a means of forging peace with Burma’s disparate ethnic armed groups.

The original Panglong agreement in 1947, on which Suu Kyi has styled her peace initiative, was signed between her father Aung San—representing the soon-to-be independent government of Burma, dominated by ethnic Burmans—and leaders from Shan, Kachin and Chin minority groups. It envisaged “full autonomy in internal administration” for Burma’s ethnic minority “frontier” regions.

Still today, a deal on federalism is widely considered a necessary condition for a successful peace agreement.

The Kachin Independence Organization (KIO), the Restoration Council of Shan State (RCSS) and the Shan State Progressive Party (SSPP) were present at the June 7-8 consultation, led respectively by Gen N’Ban La, Lt-Gen Yawd Serk and Gen Sai Htoo.

Although the consultation was intended to comprise the ethnic descendants of the original Panglong signatories, leaders from the Chin National Front (CNF) were absent—although they consented in advance to abide by the outcome of the meeting.

Gen N’Ban La of the KIO said in his closing remarks that, “As the original signatories of Panglong [in 1947], we—Shan, Kachin and Chin—have to take responsibility for leading this [peace] process.”

“We agreed that we would work with the other ethnicities and try to create a common voice at the [government’s] upcoming [peace] conference,” N’Ban La added.

Lt-Col Sai Meng of the RCSS, who was also present, told reporters that the leaders had agreed to support and participate in the “21st-Century Panglong Conference.”

“We also believe that the new Panglong will honor the spirit of the 1947 Panglong, and preserve its essence,” Sai Meng said.

KIO Vice Chairman Gen Gun Maw told reporters that his group would “consult with our people” before participating in the peace conference, which they hope to help “make into a success.”

The June 7-8 “Panglong” consultation was urgently called following a meeting between RCSS and KIO leaders the previous week.

However, despite these clear signals of support for the government’s peace initiative, the armed group leaders would still need to hold discussions with other members of the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC), an influential alliance of ethnic armed groups, which currently includes the KIO and the SSPP but not the RCSS or the CNF.

One urgent topic for discussion would be whether the UNFC’s Delegation for Political Negotiation (DPN) would be ready to join the government’s review meeting on the framework for political dialogue on Thursday, to which they were invited last week.

Gen Sai Htoo of the SSPP told The Irrawaddy that members of the DPN needed to discuss the matter before deciding whether they would attend.

 By NYEIN NYEIN / THE IRRAWADDY

 http://www.irrawaddy.com/burma/shan-and-kachin-armed-groups-hold-pre-panglong-consultation.html

Read more...

Burma's army uses rape to demoralise ethnic minorities, report says

 Women’s rights group says military uses sexual violence to intimidate women in ethnic minority communities and take control of resource-rich areas

A girl watches as soldiers (not implicated) walk by her home in Thapyuchai village, in Rakhine state. Photograph: Soe Zeya Tun/Reuters

The Burmese army systematically uses sexual violence against women – including gang rape by soldiers – to “demoralise and destroy the fabric of ethnic [minority] communities” and establish control over resource-rich areas, according to a women’s rights group.

A report by the Women’s League of Burma (WLB), released on Tuesday to coincide with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, says the use of sexual violence is so widespread in ethnic minority areas that abuses may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under international criminal law. 

The WLB is an umbrella organisation comprising 13 women’s organisations of various ethnicities. 

The report, If They Had Hope, They Would Speak (pdf), highlights 118 incidences of rape, gang rape and sexual assault in both ceasefire and non-ceasefire areas at the hands of Burma’s armed forces since 2010 – but notes that these figures are likely to be “a fraction” of the number of abuses actually taking place. A culture of impunity and intimidation prevents women from reporting the crimes or seeking redress, the group claims.

Large-scale development projects in ethnic minority communities – including mining, hydroelectric and pipeline projects – have led to an increase in poverty, sexual violence and militarisation in those areas, the report claims, with the armed forces enjoying “de-facto immunity” for their crimes.

Documenting reports of sexual violence in Kachin, Karen, Mon, Chin, Shan and Karenni states – in some cases of victims as young as eight years old – the WLB alleges that both the number and geographic scope of the abuses proves that “sexual violence remains an institutionalised practice” of Burma’s armed forces. 

“The army are not interested in accountability for sexual violence or human rights abuses,” the Lahu Women’s Organisation says in the report. “If a captain or commander commits rape, they will go to the survivor’s house to apologise, and offer some compensation. Even the highest-ranking officers are doing this. If a gang rape committed by a group of soldiers is made public, they will quickly be moved to another base before they can be held to account.”

Burma’s president, Thein Sein – who came to power in 2011 after half a century of military-led rule – has reformed the country, from the privatisation of sectors of the economy to releasing political prisoners and easing media censorship. His government has made public pledges to help promote and protect women through a national strategic plan to advance women and a UK-led declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict. But no action has been taken to implement the declaration, and very little has been done to help women in ethnic minority communities, the WLB says.

“The government of Burma has worked hard to show its reformist credentials to the world, but for women in Burma’s ethnic [minority] communities, human rights abuses and sexual violence at the hands of the Burma army remain a constant threat,” said the organisation’s general secretary, Tin Tin Nyo. “Any positive changes coming out of Naypyidaw [Burma’s capital] have not improved the lived experience of women in Burma.”

In March, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, called on Thein Sein to investigate crimes of sexual violence and human rights abuses, as well as develop a comprehensive strategy to protect survivors. The WLB has also repeatedly called on the government to demilitarise the nation (one-fourth of all parliamentary seats are reserved for the military); investigate human rights abuses; and promote and integrate women into the peace process.

Apart from opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who lived for nearly two decades under house arrest and is now an MP, women are largely absent from any decision-making or powerful positions. Burma’s political, economic and social structures have long privileged men, says the WLB’s joint general secretary, Naw Wah Ku Shee, and the nation has the lowest representation of female MPs of any country in the Association of South-east Asian Nations. This dearth of powerful women undermines Burmese women’s capacity to confront and address the abuses they frequently face.

“As long as women continue to be marginalised from Burmese political and public life, sustainable peace cannot be realised,” Naw Wah Ku Shee told the Guardian, adding that Aung San Suu Kyi needed to do more to help women in her country. “[Aung San Suu Kyi] has not used her celebrity to highlight the scale of ongoing abuses faced by women in ethnic [minority] communities. If she is going to champion the human rights of the women in Burma, she must not be silent on the rape, torture and displacement faced by [these] women.”

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/nov/25/burma-army-rape-ethnic-minorities

Read more...