Monday, May 2, 2016

Shan Herald Agency for News

Shan Herald Agency for News

Shan rights group urges government action in sexual assault case

Posted: 02 May 2016 04:26 AM PDT

The Shan Women's Action Network (SWAN) issued a statement last week calling on Burmese government authorities to take steps to ensure that due process is followed in a sexual assault case involving a teenage Shan women. The group alleges that the victim, who remains unnamed, was sexually assaulted by her businessmen employer in Mandalay 2014.


SWAN alleges that the young victim was sexually assaulted by Maung Hla Sein, also known as Kin Min Jee, age 24, the manager of the Xin Hua Company and later physically assaulted by his father-in-law U Kyan Yee Kane, the owner of the Xin Hua Company.
According to SWAN the first incident took place on November 6 2014 when the then 17-year old Shan teenager, a cook for the Xin Hua Company in Mandalay, was sexually assaulted by Maung Hla Sein, at the Shwe Phyu Guesthouse. At the time of the alleged incident Maung Hla Sein was in charge of the local Xin Hua Company branch.
According to SWAN following the sexual assault Maung Hla Sein told the then 17 year old that they would get married. The young women continued to stay with the man for 3 months and became pregnant. Maung Hla Sein, allegedly drugged her without her consent causing their unborn child to be aborted. Maung Hla Sein, is then alleged to have told the victim to go back to her home, after promising her that he would marry her within two months. This never happened, according to SWAN.
It is alleged that Maung Hla Sein later phoned the victim and told her that they could not marry because he was already married but that he would give her 40,000 Kyat (approx US$33,000) as compensation for what he did. According to SWAN however he never paid her the promised funds, the young women then filed a law suit against him.
According to SWAN while the suit was still pending the young woman was summoned by Maung Hla Sein's father in-law, U Kyan Yee Kane, to come to their family's home Muse in order to discuss the settlement. According to SWAN, "When she arrived at the house at 7 pm on 7 May 2015, U Kyan Yee Kane and his entire family brutally beat the girl, stripping her of her clothing. She managed to escape with no clothes on,"
The the victim then filed a report about the incident with police authorities in Muse. According to SWAN,"Since then, there have been more than 30 court appointments regarding the case. The Police officer responsible for the assault case, Sub Inspector of Police, U Aung Lin never appeared in court. There has been no examination of the attackers, U Kyan Yee Kane and Daw Ah Shwin."
In March 2016, the victim was informed that she was being sued by U Kyun Yee Kane and is facing charges under Penal Codes 447 & 427. The same judge, U Sithu Tun , is supposed to be presiding over both cases.
Reached for comment, Ying Harn Fah, a spokesperson for SWAN told the Shan Herald that she is concerned that the accused's wealth and influence has been used to further harm the young woman.
"Nobody has stood on the side of the young woman who has been violated, including the government. That's why I want the new government to know this. I want to warn them that allowing foreign businessmen to manipulate Burma's judiciary is an infringement of the country's sovereignty," she said.
Yein Han Pha added that her group will continue to support the Shan teenager throughout her ordeal. "SWAN will stand on the side of violated and oppressed women. I want to request the public to help and support the women who are victims of injustice. In most cases, the families abandon the case and fail to report them to the police because of their feelings of shame. Such kind of things shouldn't happen in this era. I want everyone to give their support and take fair action against injustice", Ying Harn Fah said.

21 Century Panglong Convention: A way forward for peace process?

Posted: 02 May 2016 04:07 AM PDT

Concerning the pending and failed peace process, a lot of people, including Burma watchers were expecting another spectacular performance from Aung San Suu Kyi. However, they were disappointed as it turned out to be an average show, not comparable in anyway to the two extra-ordinary political moves played out earlier by the National League for Democracy (NLD) regime, namely: the creation of a State Counsellor position Suu Kyi against the military (Tatmadaw) strong opposition and the mass release of the political prisoners, incarcerated by the former, Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP)-Military regime.
True to her conviction, Aung San Suu Kyi did tried to impress her audience by declaring that she is keen to start a nationwide political dialogue, dubbed the "21st Century Panglong" within one or two months, during a speech given in Naypyitaw, on 27 April, at the Union Ceasefire Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC-U) meeting that was supposed to be her first serious political appearance, after taking office as a State Counsellor.
While she admitted that it is a sort of information gathering, learning and orientation to be acquainted with the works done by the previous administration regarding their undertakings, she left no doubt that the course of peace process would be set by her, involving restructuring of the Myanmar Peace Center (MPC) and perhaps, even introducing the whole new game plan, although she hasn't spelled it out as yet.
For the moment, her intention was said to be convening the political dialogue, which she might and could term it as 21st Century Panglong, while at the same time, wooing the non-signatory Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) to sign the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA).
Now let us look at the reactions of the ethnic leaders and the Tatmadaw on this latest Aung San Suu Kyi's initiative.
Responses of the ethnic leaders
Regarding Suu Kyi's initiative, Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD) Chairman Hkun Htun Oo, according to BBC, said that to achieve peace, constitutional amendment is essential, for the EAOs are also asking for it. As circumventing it is not possible, the present regime should discuss and secure promises from the military.
He stressed that doubts are growing between the military and EAOs and thus is impossible to amend constitution through the peace conference. And also since both camps are having their own policy and planning, only sitting down at the table on an equal basis would be able to resolve the problems.
He added further, "At the moment, Burma's political situation is not even clear who is leading (the country)".
SNLD Secretary General Sai Nyunt Lwin, who was offered a minister post by NLD but declined due to his party decision, was also of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to start the Suu Kyi's initiated move only after the problematic of armed conflict is resolved.
He said: "I welcome (Suu Kyi's initiated) convention and also endorsed it. But desiring it to happen within one or two months and don't want to wait longer is just the opinion of the elder sister (Suu Kyi). In reality there could be a lot of problems. It is impossible to start an all-inclusive discussion within two months. A lot of talking is needed with the Tatmadaw. Raging battles are not the only concern of the Tatmadaw, (we) need to talk with the other side (EAOs) as well. (We) could start the negotiation only if both sides could stop fighting."
Secretary General of United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) Khu Oo Reh also echoed the same when he said: "My view is that if we are going to hold such convention, we would need a common agreement. And to prepare details concerning political issues and discussion together, we need to first stop the ongoing war. (We) just can't lightly say that the ceasefire is already there. I think firstly it has to be firmly consolidated."
UNFC Vice-Chairman Nai Han Tha's point of view was more or less along the same line and stressed that Panglong-like conference or convention would only be effective, if it is all-inclusive and nationwide ceasefire could be implemented. But in order to do it he said: "All EAOs need to participate and nationwide ceasefire has to be in place. Otherwise, it would be also good if the government could declare unilateral ceasefire and invite all (EAOs). For example, in 1963, the government just stopped fighting and invited all (anti-government combatants). The (present) regime could also do the same."
The Tatmadaw
Generally, the military seems to be in tune with the policy of NLD, although armed confrontations are ongoing in Kachin, Shan and Ararkan States.
Lieutenant General Yar Pyae, vice-chairman of the Union-level JMC formed by eight armed ethnic groups who signed a so-called NCA and the military last October under the former military-backed government led by Thein Sein, said prior to the Aung San Suu Kyi's attendance of the meeting on 27 April: "The new government has said many times that it will work to prioritize national reconciliation and peace as its policy."
"The groups that have signed the NCA should work [as examples] for achieving national reconciliation and peace," Yar Pyae said. "We will work to stop fighting by connecting with each other, because we have networks."
In an interview with BBC Burmese, Colonel Wunna Aung, secretary of the JMC-U described Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's perspective on the peace process as a continuation of the Tatmadaw's goals.
"What she said is in line with what we have been doing," said the Colonel. "The most important thing is the ceasefire. Only after the ceasefire can we move on to political dialogue and the peace conference."
According to an interview with an online media, Col Wunna Aung, who is also a spokesperson for the Tatmadaw, besides being a member of the JMC-U, recently said: "We will cooperate. We'll form committees and continue engaging in the peace process. It is too early to say when [a second Panglong conference can be held]. We still can't say, as we have not yet prepared. We are no longer fighting with the eight groups with which we have signed the ceasefire. As we are an organization dedicated to peace, we will give a hand to the peace process."
Outlook and analysis
The military doesn't vary much with the ethnic leaders on the convening of peace conference, or according to Suu Kyi's wish of 21st Century Panglong Convention, that it needs to wait until real ceasefire on the ground could be established. But the major responsibility hinges upon the military, for so long as it is entertaining the idea of being the sole enforcer and protector of the national unity and sovereignty, going about with its military offensives within the ethnic homelands, in the name of establishing the "area of influence and peacefulness" policy, the war cannot be stopped, much less the durable ceasefire.
The case in point, why meaningful ceasefire could be hard to achieve might be the explanation made by the Pyidaungsu Institute's Director Khuensai Jaiyane, when he said: "The Burmese military seems to want to secure as much land as it can before political dialogue starts with the new government. These kind of acts affect trust."
Generally speaking, the phobia that the EAOs would opt for secession from the union by the Tatmadaw and Bamar political class is an outdated perception, given the unfavourable contemporary regional and international configuration in facilitating such an ambition. And as such, they have all given up the aspiration of total independence and since years projected their aims to a practically achievable genuine federalism, within the mould of the present political entity.
Likewise, all the non-Bamar ethnic nationalities have embarked on a federalism solution, as a way out of the ongoing ethnic conflict and realization of their political aspirations.
However, the existing reality on the ground are ongoing wars in Shan, Kachin and Ararkan States, involving Kachin Independence Army, Shan State Progress Party,Ta'ang National Liberation Army, Kokang's Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, and Ararkan Army, while latent conflict prevails with all the non-signatory EAOs, including the United Wa State Army, which fields some 30,000 troops and is the strongest ethnic armed group.
Adding to these debacles are the Tatmadaw's positioning of a "state within a state" posture which tend to leave the government of the day powerless to deal with the peace initiative in an effective and appropriate manner, as the former Thein Sein regime had shown, during his five years tenure. The present NLD government, no doubt, also faces the same position.
The name of the game then is to ponder on a workable cooperation between the NLD regime and the Tatmadaw, so that real ceasefire on the ground could be implemented.
For now, the strained situation between the two adversaries are compounded by a number of disagreement, undertaken by the NLD, such as creation and appointment of Suu Kyi to a State Counsellor position and mass release of the former regime's political opposition prisoners. Recently, as if to stoke the military's burning anger, although symbolic and insignificant it might seem, the publicized administrative line-up in the presidential Facebook, which placed Suu Kyi second in line, after the President and pushed down the Commander-in-Chief one place down to the eighth place, is not so helpful or conducive for the cooperation to materialize.
Furthermore, Thura Shwe Mann, who recently called on his 11th in-take classmate of the DSA to join the Suu Kyi's regime in the democratization and development of the country is seen by the Tatmadaw as driving a wedge between the military establishment. More so, as Shwe Mann is a former USDP second boss and now head of the Commission for the Assessment of Legal Affairs and Special Issues, under the NLD regime.
Given such prevailing political atmosphere, Suu Kyi is faced with a dilemma of escalating the latent conflict to an open one and reversing the confrontation course to a manageable level that the military could accept without losing face, enabling the top brass to fade away in silence, coupled with a continuation of democratization process that would benefit the country and the people. Thus, handling this delicate political situation, or charting the troubled political waters, would largely depend on the ability, far-sightedness and tactfulness  of the NLD leadership and Suu Kyi.
In the same vein, the Tatmadaw leadership would need to accept and confront with the reality of the people's wish, personified by Suu Kyi and her NLD, and do away with its entrenched, privileged stature of a "state within a state" of more than 50 years.
If such a compromise could be worked out, unilateral ceasefire on the part of the NLD regime could be easily announced and implemented, followed by all-inclusive invitation of all ethnic armed combatants without preconditions, leading to an all-inclusive Panglong-like convention and eventually, a set of political settlement that all could identify and live with.

Burma army mobilization in Kokang blocks refugee returns says report

Posted: 01 May 2016 08:57 PM PDT

A new report released recently by the Shan Human Rights Foundation (SHRF) alleges that an ongoing mobilization of army troops in northern Shan state along the border with China in Kokang has made it "impossible for tens of thousands of Kokang refugees to return home".

The outbreak of heavy fighting between Kokang forces from the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) and Burmese government troops in February of last year led to an estimated 100,000 refugees fleeting from the homes, many of the refugee arrived in China. "Now continuing persecution by Burmese troops camped near their villages is preventing many of these refugees from returning home," concludes the SHRF report released on April 22nd.
"No one can go back to our village now. The Burma Army has blocked the road to our village. They have also laid land mines at the border to prevent people crossing over", said a 61 year old refugee farmer from Shung Diao Ai interviewed by SHRF. According to this man three other refugees returned to his village to check on their possessions in March of last year and they were never seen from again.
SHRF interviewed refugees from more than 20 villages in Laogai and Konkyan townships, many of whom described their villages as completely "deserted or with only a few inhabitants temporarily staying to look after their farms". According to SHRF the interviews indicate that there is a "deliberate strategy by the Burma Army to depopulate the eastern border regions of the entire Kokang self administered zone."
Another refugees SHRF interviewed also described other serious human rights abuses including rape being carried out by Burma army soldiers on Kokang refugee women who sought to return to their villages last year.
Report: UN downplays Kokang refugee crisis
Citing figures from aid workers, SHRF reports that there are still more than 20,000 Kokang refugees enduring increasingly precarious conditions in China's Yunnan province. A recent report from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) on Burma's refugee situation released in January estimated that only 4,000 Kokang refugees remain in China, something that doesn't sit well with SHRF who say that the UNOCHA report "downplays the severity of the crisis".
SHRF's research found that many of the refugees who fled to China are currently "sheltering in makeshift camps just inside the Chinese border, surviving on donations from volunteers and wage labour in nearby farms". Compounding the crisis, Chinese authorities shut down the official camps last year, according to SHRF. In the report's conclusion the group called on donors and aid agencies "to seek ways to address the urgent humanitarian and protection needs of the refugees sheltering along the Kokang-China border."

A NEW BURMA PEACE PROCESS – PART 2

Posted: 01 May 2016 06:40 PM PDT

In my first article about the reset of the negotiations in Burma, I made the following points: The NCA should be abandoned; new people were needed (the MPC staff should be excluded from the peace process); the ethnic and religious census results should be published immediately; the law should be changed so the EAOs are not designated as illegal; the NLD should take ownership of the process; and, the focus should be on achieving peace on the ground, before proceeding to political negotiations.
Aung San Suu Kyi has just attended a meeting of the Joint Monitoring Committee - she does appear to be taking control of the process. But, the JMC was an outcome of the so-called NCA between the military dictatorship and two resistance armies, the leaders of which were bribed by Europe to sign. In addition, the MPC is going to be renamed the National Reconciliation and Peace Center. It apparently will survive (probably at the behest of Europe), although it is uncertain if the old faces will return.
Just by participating in this meeting, Suu Kyi gave legitimacy to the NCA. She further said, as quoted by DVB: "By strengthening the ceasefire we have now and making evident the positive outcomes of a strong ceasefire to the public, we can entice the remaining parties to join in and pave the way for peace talks that can promise us perpetual peace."
This statement signifies a couple of things. First, she believes there is a ceasefire. This is ridiculous, as the dictatorship is attacking the EAOs in many different places. The Burma Army even last week invaded the KNDO HQ, which NCA violation led the group to announce: "The NCA is bringing a fake peace in our territories and this evil accord was only implemented to destroy the ethnic people."
Secondly, Suu Kyi also has no intention to abandon the NCA. She merely wants the non-signer EAOs to sign. These groups resisted years of intensive pressure, because it meant surrender, and now her strategy appears to be: Well, just sign - surrender - anyway. Dear Daw Suu: There will be no "positive outcomes," or "strong ceasefire." Please understand, the old peace process served the dictatorship perfectly. Nothing concrete happened and the Burma Army came under no pressure: to stop offensives, war crimes, even to implement code of conduct measures with the groups, such as the KNU, with which it had deals. It was a time wasting exercise. For Senior General Than Shwe, it did exactly what he wanted. Now, you are proposing that the process that suited him perfectly be continued.
At the JMC meeting she further called for a new Panglong conference, in one to two months time, which would be a political meeting, and for which an enduring peace on the ground is absolutely essential. Also, the census results are still not published, one month after the NLD has taken over the government; and, while the law is being changed to decriminalize protest, it is unclear if this will extend to the armed resistance groups.
The issue of False Equivalence
The reason all of this is important is because it reveals the fundamental assumption underlying the entire negotiation: that the two sides have equal legitimacy. But, while the Burman dictators and the EAOs are absolutely the two sides of the negotiation, they are not equal. The first is the oppressor and the second the oppressed. In many peace talks, such as over borders or territory, the different sides often have authentic positions tied to history. The purpose of the discussion is therefore to negotiate these differences. This does not hold for Burma. Indeed, Harvard Law School researchers who studied the country concluded that the generals have committed war crimes. They shouldn't even be in the peace process. They should be arrested, and tried at the International Criminal Court.
When Sui Kyi says that she has warm feelings for the Burma Army, or that the NCA should be extended, she is reinforcing the false equivalence between the dictators and the EAOs. She, possibly without even realizing it, has picked sides. To once again state the obvious: any peace process that is biased will fail.
The EAOs' greatest fear has always been that Suu Kyi would align with the Burma Army. This would give credence to the idea that they are insurgents. This is why they and their activist allies have repeatedly documented that it is the military who are the terrorists, and who have invaded the ethnic homelands like a colonizing force and committed crimes against humanity.
The possible explanations for Suu Kyi's bias include that she doesn't really understand it - she lacks both self knowledge and a deep appreciation of what is taking place and what needs to be done to bring peace to Burma; that it is actually an overt characteristic - she is a Burman racist; or that she is uninformed. To be polite, I will assume the last. When she was under house arrest, she obviously had limited access to information, but this no longer holds. Suu Kyi should make a sincere effort to understand Burma's civil war, including its daily manifestations. She further needs help to do this. For example, President Obama is given an intelligence brief, every morning, about events - notably military events - that are signifiant to U.S. interests and policy. Suu Kyi needs the same type of brief.
In the first article I said that the NLD should establish a peace working group, to manage the process. One of the responsibilities of this group should be to prepare this brief, including of all the conflict currently underway in the different parts of Burma. Furthermore, the EAOs should help with this, since they have the best battlefield intel. They should email sitreps to the new NLD peace group, which can then include the info in Suu Kyi's briefs.
I would also suggest that the first order of business for the EAOs, through the UNFC, should be to compile a list of all the Burma Army bases and outposts in their territory, including with the number of soldiers present and their heavy equipment such as artillery and aircraft. There are no doubt hundreds of such bases. Lists, and if possible maps, would make the full extent of the Burma Army colonization clear, and also that the obvious route to peace is for the generals to withdraw.
Lastly, in a negotiation there is an agenda, of what needs to be discussed. But, for Burma, there is one thing that is not subject to negotiation. The Burma Army must stop its attacks. Aung San Suu Kyi can believe in unicorns, for all I care, but there won't be peace in the country until the military dictatorship ends it offensives.
A new Panglong
This brings us to the idea that it is possible to have a new Panglong conference, in short order. Suu Kyi's proposal misses a basic point. The Panglong Agreement was signed in February 1947. This was a year and a half after the end of World War II; before the assassination of Aung San that July; and almost two years before eventual dictator Ne Win started attacking the Karen in Insein and other townships. This means Panglong was signed during that rare thing for Burma, a period of peace, and with a trusted leader in charge. Suu Kyi may be trusted by many people, including some EAO leaders, but there is no peace. There is no possibility at all of a new Panglong until there is peace on the ground, and for an extended period. But, this isn't up to her. Regarding conflict, the generals are in charge. And, if anything, they have increased their attacks since the election. Suu Kyi promoting the possibility is simply raising false hopes and expectations. It may even be an attempt to deceive (that she can bring peace to the country without confronting the military).
Finally, if such a time does arrive when a new Panglong conference may be held, the EAOs should be extremely careful about signing anything. The original agreement is still valid, and it gives them many rights, including to secede. A new agreement will rescind this. Considering how uncertain the future of Burma is, with the dictators still in power and clearly after Suu Kyi leaves the scene, the EAOs need to hold onto their guns and not yield any of their rights.
The National Census
In conclusion, I want to return to the unpublished national census results once again. Why do I focus so intently on what seems to be a minor issue? The reason is that their publication could change the peace negotiation if not the entire national dynamic. Everything about Burma is based on a single idea, that the Burmans are the majority. It underlies the generals' demand that they be in charge, and that the EAOs have no right to leave the union much less autonomy. It further supports the false equivalence - the dictators must be legitimate since they "represent" the majority.
But, what if the Burmans aren't the majority? Prior national surveys counted all Buddhists as Burmans and mixed group individuals as well. The results, therefore, were false. But now there is a much better, and U.N. sponsored, count. It is quite possible if not likely that pure-Burmans (both parents are Burman) are not in the majority. Instead, the country has no majority. It is a collection of disparate minority groups!
In that case, no one group can claim precedence. Indeed, the country must have a federal democracy. No other system can work.
Suu Kyi, though, is extending the censorship. This combined with her appointment of regime official Thein Swe as Immigration and Population head is very suspicious. She is either being timid - she fears what will happen if the truth is known; or she really is a Burman bigot and racist, and not only against the Rohingya. Aung San Suu Kyi: Don't live in fear! Please release the ethnic and religious breakdowns. The truth will set you, and the country, free.
By Roland Watson
Dictator Watch
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)