1
Made by
participants of the Solidarity Work Programme of the World Student Christian
Federation Asia-Pacific Region/ held in Chiang Mat, Thailand, November 4-15
1996.
The fact-finding
mission took place from 6-8 November, and consisted of visits to three refugee
camps located in Thailand near the border towards Burma/Myanmar.
After a brief introduction to the
situation in Burma and to the format and frameworks of our mission, this report
will discuss the human rights violations we encountered in the visited camps,
as well as root causes of these violations. This will be followed by a
theological reflection on the story and situation of the refugees, and an
outline of the role of various NGOs and churches. Finally, we propose a number
of actions that can be taken by SCMs and others to improve the human rights
situation for the refugees as well as in Burma. These practical recommendations
will include detailed references to relevant institutions, as well as to the extensive
body of literature.
We would like to thank many people for
their assistance during our fact-finding mission. To ensure as widespread
distribution as possible of this report, without jeopardizing the security of any
person involved, we have had to refrain from mentioning names here.
Nevertheless, we'd most of all like to address our sincere thanks to our very
helpful and patient guides of the mission, both those who transported us, and
also the residents of the camps themselves. We were all deeply touched by your
hospitality and openness, and hope that this report can be beneficial to you,
both now and in the future.
(1: MAP 1)
1.1 THE SITUATION
IN BURMA
Burma's population is about 43 million
people, but the number of displaced people living on Burma's borders is
estimated to be more than a million (IWDC 1996). Thailand hosts about 200 000
of these, of whom about 100,000 live in refugee camps.
In Burma, there are 20 million ethnic
Burmans. The Karens make the second biggest minority of 6-7 million people
after the Shans, who amount to 8-10 million. The Karen people used to live in
the central and southeastern part of Burma.
According to the "Human Rights Year
Book 1995: Burma", people in this country have experienced severe and
sustained human rights violations under the rule of its present government, the
SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council). Violations include forced
labor, rape, destruction of homes, crops and villages, and through this and
other means the creation of an atmosphere of fear and oppression. While it is
true that most people living in Burma have experienced these violations,
2
they have hit the ethnic minorities most
harshly. Hence, these groups make up the majority of the refugees.
The Burmese government has changed the
name of the country to Myanmar. This is however, seen to be just another
example of imposing a change upon the people without consultation. In deference
to the wishes of the refugees we have met, we will continue to use the name
Burma in this report.
1.2 FACT FINDING
MISSION FORMAT
In all three refugee camps we visited,
the majority population was from the Karen ethnic group. Even though human
rights are violated for all ethnic groups in Burma, this report will largely
reflect the situation from the point of view of the Karen refugees.
Nonetheless, as the Karens are one of the largest ethnic groups, and as the
camps visited were quite different to each other, a relatively representative
cross-section of refugee experience is to be provided in the following.
The nature of an FFM dictates that we
cannot in any way claim to be "experts". A fact-finding mission is
basically a short term, independent inquiry to investigate cases of human rights
violations. This limited nature of the investigation also marks the frameworks
of this report.
1.3 FFM COURSE OF
EVENTS
The first camp we visited, Mae La, houses
approximately 26 000 refugees (BBC 1996). Situated among hills, the camp
environment is beautiful, though not very conducive to farming. Schools,
churches, a Buddhist monastery, busy markets, a hospital and several
dispensaries are well established; signifying the relatively permanent nature
of the camp. According to residents, it was established 15-20 years ago.
During our day in Mae La, we walked
around and met with people, among whom were students and teachers at a
post-secondary school and at the Karen Baptist Bible College (KBBC), church
leaders, expatriate volunteers (teachers from England, USA and Nagaland,
medical worker from France) and members of the Karen National Union (KNU) army.
(2: DPK ph.)
The second camp we visited, Don Pa Kiang,
is much smaller than Mae La. Many of the about 3 300 residents (BBC 1996)
benefit from cultivating on the flat land surrounding the camp. Located close
to the Burma border, however; it's frequently attacked by armed groups
connected with the Burmese army. Hence, the residents are themselves tightly
patrolling the camp, which is of a relatively temporary nature. While in Don Pa
Kiang, we met with a village leader, a church pastor and a refugee family.
Finally, we visited the Wang Kha camp.
Established in 1984, Wang Kha now houses 6 600 refugees (BBC 1996). Also
surrounded by flat farming land, there is much evidence of activity in the
thriving market. While in this camp we spent time with a refugee family, as
well as the camp commander. She is also active in the KNU resistance.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 Methodology
3
The degree to which the refugees enjoy
their human rights will here be measured on the basis of the United Nation's
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This Declaration, a "common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations", is not to be
ratified by states, unlike the more specific Human Rights Covenants and
Optional Protocols of the UN. However, the Declaration has gained a high degree
of international moral authority.
2.1.2 The dual pattern of violations of the
refugees' human rights. Our experience during the fact finding mission clearly
revealed that human rights, as they are expressed in the Declaration, have very
little authority for the present rulers of Burma. This conclusion is based on
numerous stories the refugees told us, and supported by a large body of
existing documentation.
The general pattern of human rights
abuses found in our mission, can be seen in two levels: the abuses (1) in Burma
which forced these people to leave the country, and (2) in the refugee camp
itself. Thus, some violations were CAUSES of these peoples' status as refugees,
others are CONSEQUENCES of this status.
Therefore, on the basis of some selected
standards of the UN Declaration, we will here distinguish between these two levels
of human rights violations when depicting the situation of the refugees.
2.2 THE REFUGEES'
HUMAN RIGHTS IN THEORY AND REALITY
Among the 30 articles in the Declaration,
the following ones give the rights of which our mission enabled us to reflect
the present situation for the refugees. The documentation is based on what we
were told by the camp residents as well as by people working with them, as well
as on our observation and analysis of the situation. The analysis is guided by
background material on the situation of refugees and on Burma.
In citing the articles, we have adopted
the language to the gender sensitive standards of today, as human rights apply
to human beings, women as well as men.
2.2.1 Art. 2:
Non-discrimination
Everyone is entitled to all the rights
and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind,
such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made
on the basis of the(...) status of the country or territory to which a person
belongs(...).
Burma's government, dominated by ethnic
Burmans, is waging a war, which has lasted for more than 40 years against the
ethnic minorities. As part and parcel of this war, the SLORC soldiers * ravage
villages to recruit forced labor, * take villagers' livestock and personal
belongings, * bring with them or execute men accused for being soldiers in the
ethnic group's army, and * harass and rape women and girls left back.
Therefore, heavy discrimination on the basis of the people's ethnicity, which
is largely composed of "race", color, language, social origin and
religion, indirectly forced them to flee from Burma.
Constituted by a relatively homegenous ethnic
population, ethnic discrimination is not a major problem within the refugee
camps. However, in the refugees' contact with Thai authorities, and during the
relatively frequent attacks of the Democratic Kayin Buddhist Army (group
allegedly
4
being used by the SLORC to fight the
ethnic minorities outside the borders of Burma), the deprivation of rights and
freedoms are again made on the basis of Art.2's distinctions.
Included in these distinctions is the status
of the territory to which people belong. However, the government of Burma may
claim that it no longer can be responsible for the refugees, as they
deliberately have left the country. If so, who is to ensure that these people
can enjoy the rights they have as human beings? Normally, this responsibility
is supposed to be followed up by the state to which people belong. But for
refugees, the government of the hosting country, here Thailand, is reluctant to
accept them as citizens. Thus, as no state is willing to integrate the refugees
properly, their enjoyment of human rights is dependent upon their own
initiatives and on the assistance of the Iocal and international community.
Hence, the fact that the refugees are not fitting into the global system of states,
as well as the limited willingness of the states to take responsibility for
immigrants, is a basic feature to understand why refugees' human rights are
largely violated.
So, which concrete violations are we
actually talking about?
2.2.2 Art. 3: A free
and secure life
Everyone has the right to life, liberty
and security of person.
The war and its consequences in Burma
represent severe violations of all these rights. Arbitrary killings of
villagers, gathering of "suspects" in concentration camps and forced
service as porters are experiences shared by many camp residents we met. They
had either been victims themselves, or witnessed family and friends being
taken. Hardly any free movement or expression was tolerated in Burma. But the
right to life and security of person is also highly threatened in the refugee
camps. This is a result of frequent DKBA attacks, as well as - for male
residents - expectations to join the ethnic guerrilla. The Karens' KNU Army is
amounting to no more than about 10000 men.
We spoke to one resident who had been a
KNU soldier during his holidays for the last 15 years, since he was 13 years
old. Now he is about to finish his studies, and wants to make use them in his
home country, but said: "But how can I? Many of my fellow Karens expect me
to join the KNU again. I don't know". So now, he has to juggle not only
threats from the Burmese rulers and antipathy from the Thai, but also the
expectations from his own people.
While staying overnight in the camp, we
experienced to some extent the lack of liberty and security of person. Mainly
due to the unpredictable DKBA, guards were patrolling in the hills and outside
the house; and members of our party kept guns as well just in case.
2.2.3 Art. 4 and
23: Labor and slavery
(4) No one shall be held in slavery or
servitude(...). (23) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of
employment (...) and to protection against unemployment.
In Burma, the high incidence of forced
labor signifies that slavery is still not an extinct phenomenon. Karen people
flee from construction, routine and emergency labor they have to provide SLORC
troops. As workers, they are left with very little time and energy to sustain
their own livelihood. Moreover, they are not paid, and have to take their own food
along (Karen Refugee Committee 1996).
In the camps, the residents' employment
relies upon their own initiative. The level of employment also varies with
environmental conditions of the respective camps. However, we witnessed an
5
impressive diversity of income-generating
activities. The refugees work as e.g. farmers, teachers, health assistants;
hair dressers and sellers of various items.
Outside the camp, however, the refugees lacking
Thai citizenship can only work illegally; thus without any protection. In this
regard, a major concern is the protection of young women from attempts to lure
or dupe them into prostitution outside. Anxious to assist their families, they
can fall easy prey to procurers (BBC 1996).
2.2.4 Art. 5:
Torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or
to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
An incident, which we heard about clearly
demonstrates the existence of such treatment. This was witnessed by a camp
family, and caused them to leave Burma. In this case, SLORC soldiers had come
into their village, taken some girls, dug a deep hole, thrown them into it and
replaced the soil on top; thus burying them alive.
In the camp, however, incidents of cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment seem to be rare. They may take place, however,
during DKBA attacks and whenever residents are going out of the camp and are
caught by Thai authorities.
2.2.5 Art. 6-8,
10-11 and 28: Law and order
(6) Everyone has the right to recognition
everywhere as a person before the law.
(7) All are equal before the law(...).
All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of
this Declaration.
(8) Everyone has the right to an
effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the
fundamental rights granted her or him by the constitution or by law.
(10) Everyone is entitled (...) to a fair
and public hearing by and independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of her or his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge
against her or him.
(11)Everyone charged with a penal offence
has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty (...). (28) Everyone
is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and
freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
The refugees' comments to all these
rights may boil down to two basic questions: Which laws? Whose laws?
In Burma, the government calls itself the
"State Law and Order Restoration Council". However, the law they
refer to is a martial law. According to a SLORC chairperson. Senior General Saw
Maung, "martial law means the will of the ruler. He can do anything he
wishes to do." Also, the First Secretary of SLORC and head of military intelligence.
Major General Khin Nyunt, asserts that "in fact martial law means no law
at all." ("Total Denial", 1996)
Having fled from lawless conditions in
their homelands, the refugees face another kind of legal vacuum as camp
residents. As seen in par.
2.2.1, the only law they are subject to
is the international humanitarian law, which is mainly developed and followed
up by United Nations bodies. However, our FFM revealed that the UN is largely
unknown to the refugees.
6
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees,
who's working at government levels in Thailand on the issue of refugees from
Burma, does not even recognize the Karen refugee camps (Human Rights Year Book
1995: Burma, p.323). The task of awareness-raising on laws and conventions
which displaced people are subject to, is then left to NGOs, churches and
voluntary workers. Even if the information will reach the refugees, the UNHCR's
position has so far not given much hope for UN legal assistance.
2.2.6 Art. 9 and
12: Exile
(9) No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. (12) No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with her or his privacy, family or home (...).
Denials of these rights are other core
reasons why the people we met had to leave Burma. Importantly, the right to
freedom from arbitrary exile manifests that the refugee status as such actually
represent a human right violation in itself! So, with huge and increasing
numbers of displaced people in and between countries all over the world, we can
indeed ask ourselves which moral authority human rights actually have in the
present international system.
2.2.7 Art. 13:
Freedom to move
Everyone has the right to freedom of
movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right
to leave any country, including her or his own, and to return to her or his
country.
(3: BOARD INSIDE
HOUSE)
In Burma, these rights are violated e.g.
through the forced relocation of people. This is a SLORC strategy both to
"counter insurgencies" and to make way for infrastructure projects
and military bases. It has been exacerbated of late by the growing demands of
overseas investors in Burma, and especially by the pressure for new development
relating to the "Visit Myanmar Year" promotion.
In Thailand, a severe deprivation faced
by the refugees is to be imprisoned for years inside the borders of a camp. In
this situation, both the right to leave and, even more, the right to return
seem quite meaningless.
2.2.8 Art. 18:
Freedom to think and believe
Everyone has the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to (...) manifest
her or his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
In Burma, religious persecution is part of
the SLORC's tactics towards the minorities. For instance, we were told about an
attack on a pastor and two church workers in a Burmese village. These people
had been detained and forced to build a Buddhist temple.
In the camps, however, the religious life
seemed both vital and peaceful. However, we heard that a Christian woman
recently had been persecuted in the camp because of her faith.
2.2.9 Art. 19-21:
Democracy
(19) Everyone has the right to freedom of
opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to (...) seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(20) Everyone has the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly and association. (...)
7
(21) Everyone has the right to take part
in the government of her or his country, directly or through freely chosen
representatives. (...) The will of the people shall be the basis of the
authority of government. (...)
In Burma, these rights are hardly
enjoyed. People have been arrested e.g. for possessing opposition materials,
for gathering peacefully and even for making a videotape about the poor rice
harvest (AI 1996). These authoritarian policies are basic reasons why people
flee from the country.
The present climate of fear also denies
people their freedom of expression. A refugee family who'd just arrived from
Burma, said they could never have dared to tell their fellow villagers about
their plans to flee. That would have cost them their lives, either by Karen
followers who'd regard them as traitors, or by the Burmese army.
In the camps, however, the residents seem
to regard their opportunities to participate in the decision-making as
satisfactory. Actually, they apply the same type of independent administration
in camps as they used to do in their Karen villages in Burma. Women appear
satisfied that they are adequately represented on camp committees and have
equal voting opportunity (BBC 1996). However, the residents face difficulties
in associating with groups outside, for instance in other camps.
2.2.10 Art. 22
and 25: Welfare
(22) Everyone has the right to social
security.(...)
(25) Everyone has the right to a standard
of living adequate for the health and well-being of herself or himself and
other or his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment and sickness.(...)
Thanks to NGO and volunteer work;
adequate food, clothing and housing are provided in the camps. As the camps
have become subject to more frequent DKBA attacks and tighter controls by the
Thai authorities, it has become increasingly difficult for the refugees manage
on their own. The visit to the Mae La hospital showed that the human and
technical resources for medical care are relatively satisfactory, so that they
by and large have the facilities to cope with the main diseases: malaria,
pneumonia, measles and tuberculosis.
2.2.11 Art. 26:
Education
Everyone has the right to education. (...)
Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and
higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(...)
The refugees sustain all community
activities themselves, including schools - from kindergarten to high school
(BBC 1996). However, some volunteer teachers serve as support staff. In a
school in Mae La, for instance, the camp education is being outlined by the 3
Western and 4 Karen teachers together. Subject to no external curriculum
control, they emphasize training in critical thinking at all levels.
The higher education consists of a Bible
college and some professional training by volunteers. Hence, the prospects of
higher education for residents are poor. As the camp schooling is not
recognized as sufficient qualification, the refugees will need both financial
back-up and the right contacts to get either (1) Thai citizenship, with which
they may enter Thai or foreign institutions for higher education after some
supplementary courses; or (2) entrance permit to a foreign (open) university.
8
(4: 2 SCHOOL
GIRLS)
2.2.12 Art. 27:
Culture
Everyone has the right freely to
participate in the cultural life of the community. (...)
Whilst largely deprived of this right in
Burma, where the policy of "Burmanization" is being actively pursued
by e.g. prohibiting teaching in indigenous languages (IWDC 1996); the cultural
life in the camps seems vital. People are sustaining their traditional Karen
handicrafts, marriages are frequent and people often gather to sing and dance
in the streets.
2.3 CONCLUSION:
General impression of the camps
On the one hand, daily life in the camps
seems quite "normal". Children go to school every day, religious
services are regular, people play football, watch TV, go to the market, grow
flowers... On the other hand, children are playing war. Peoples' eyes express
experiences that we are unable to fully understand. On this basis, though, the
passivity we saw is understandable, and the high level of activity more
impressive.
(5: MAP 2)
In 1942, Japan invaded Burma and chased
the British colonial rulers. The Japanese and Burman groups cooperated with
each other, whereas Karen continued cooperating with Britain. Hence, in this
period Burman people began to attack Karen groups.
After the Japanese withdrawal in 1945,
Britain regained power in Burma for 3 years. In the period leading up to
independence, the Burmese government was ethnically mixed, and certainly
sympathetic to the requests and needs of the ethnic minority groups. Before
independence could be achieved, however, the leader, Aung San, and most of his
cabinet were assassinated by a political riyal. The next government did not
keep the promises that had been made to the ethnic groups. In 1948, the Karen
people as well as other groups demanded independence. These attempts at
independence were brutally suppressed by the government. It was then that civil
war broke out. War has continued ever since.
For about half a century, Burma has been
under an authoritarian regime controlled by the armed forces. The
'Burmanization' policies have certainly hit the ethnic minority groups most
harshly. In this, throughout the 60s and 70s, the ruling Burmese military under
General Ne Win followed a strategy known as 'Four Cuts'. This policy aimed to
cut at four main links - food, funds, communication and recruits - between
civilians and the armed resistance movement, thereby forcing ethnic minorities
to submit to rule under the Burmese. More than 40000 people are estimated to
have died as a result of tins policy (IWDC 1996).
The appearance of a pro-democracy
movement in Burma and the crackdown against it in 1988 clearly revealed the
brutality of the regime. Nearly 3,000 students were said to be killed. In the
same year, the ruling military junta in Burma formed the State Law and Order
Restoration Council (SLORC), and tightened the control of all aspects of
people's life in Burma.
In the same year, however, the SLORC
promised that democratic elections would be held. Although Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi, the leader of the main opposition party. National League of Democracy, was
put under house arrest in 1989, her party won 80% of the votes in the 1990
elections: The
9
SLORC then cancelled these elections.
Aung San Suu Kyi was not released until 1995, and she continues to live under
strict supervision.
Despite internal and external pressure,
the SLORC's human rights violations continue; such as forcing people to work as
porters, relocating villages, raping women and girls, stealing and causing
various forms of damage and destruction. These acts are felt most by members of
minority ethnic groups.
China is one source of the SLORC's
maintaining its power, as it is providing the Burmese junta with both weapons
and soldiers. The interests of this regional superpower are supposedly to get
better access to Burma's prosperous timber and gem resources, as well as to the
Indian Ocean. Besides, it is probably not in the interest of the Chinese
government to let democracy be introduced in Burma, as a new democratic
neighboring country may strengthen the pro-democracy movements in China.
The SLORC is also assisted by
international companies doing business in Burma. Foreign investors are
particularly attracted by hardly exploited petroleum resources. For example, a
gas pipeline now being constructed will give huge profits to investors as well
as to the government. However, the forced labour of the people of Burma is a
backbone for the pipeline construction (Total Denial 1996). After heavy
international pressure, however, lawsuits against UNOCAL and TOTAL, some of the
biggest foreign investors in this project, are being implemented in national
and international levels.
The civil war is also both a cause and a consequence
of the human rights violations in Burma. Even as covert peace talks actually
are going on different levels, the current prospects seem poor. Both sides\
tend to be geared towards continued fighting - the Burmans from a position of
strength, the resistance from a position of defense. A politically educated
refugee woman we met, whose father was an experienced armed resistance
commander, was concerned about the generation gap in the guerrilla. She said,
"The elderly grouping has been fighting for so long now. That's what
they're good at, and what they want. How can the fighting be de-escalated under
such a leadership?" According toner, many younger soldiers are keen on
getting to an end of this war that has lasted for more than 40 years. Perhaps
there are means other than military that could be employed?
However, the SLORC's attitudes towards
the ethnic groups as well as towards human rights give little hope for
improvements in the situation in Burma under the present government. For
instance, the junta is one of the few regimes in the world not to have ratified
any of the UN human rights covenants, and it characterized the appointment of
the second UN Special Rapporteur on Burma as 'intrusive' and 'unacceptable
interference'(The Nation, 15.11.96).
(6: 2 SMALL
CHILDREN)
In the story of the Exodus, we see God's
Concern for and determination to act on behalf of oppressed people: 'I have
observed the misery of my people. . . I have heard their cry on account of
their taskmaster. ..I have come down to deliver them' (Exodus 3: 7-8). The
story's themes of liberation, struggle, and hope for a new future have been
significant for many people in difficult situations. While this is not the only
perspective found in the Christian tradition, it is certainly one of the
strongest.
As well as the positive aspect, however,
the story of the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian domination has some
repressive elements. The passage quoted above continues: '[I will] bring them
10
up out of that land to a good and broad
land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the country of the Canaanites, the
Hittites, the Amorites, the Perezites, the Hivites and the Jebusites' (Exodus
3:8). Thus, the new nation of Israel is constituted on the domination of other
ethnic groups. A form of this nationalistic chauvinism continues throughout the
Hebrew Bible. A large part of the writings of the Law, for example, is
concerned with exclusivity, purity, and the destruction of foreign influences.
Similarly, the prophetic writings are filled with extensive polemics against
other nations.
To some extent, this is understandable.
Much of the rhetoric can be understood in terms of the need of a small,
probably vulnerable group to establish clear boundaries in order to survive. It
can also be seen in some cases to be a sincere attempt to call for faithfulness
and loyalty to the God and people of Israel.
Many of these concerns can easily be seen
in the present as well. Refugee situations such as these, for example, exist
because of competing desires for national and ethnic autonomy/domination. This
is clearly true in the case of Burma. In addition, the reluctance of host
countries to accept refugees is often due to concern for the protection of the
boundaries, needs and rights of their own people.
While such concerns may be
understandable, they are not necessarily justifiable. Certainly, they do not
represent the only perspective found in the Bible. The concern of God (and
consequently the people of God) for the oppressed, displaced and exploited can
clearly be seen throughout the tradition. In addition to pronouncements against
foreigners, the Law also contains laws designed to safeguard their rights. A
similarly alternative vision can also be found in the prophets (e.g. Isaiah
56:6-8, 61; Hosea 5:21-24; Zechariah 7: 9-10; Malachi 3: 1-5). Thus, while the
exclusive, nationalistic stance is certainly present in the Judeo-Christian
tradition, it does not go unchallenged. The book of Nahum must not be read
apart from the story of Jonah.
Indeed, it is this latter strand which
can be seen most powerfully in the New Testament, and especially in the life
and teachings of Jesus. The fundamental identification of Jesus' mission and
ministry with the marginalized, poor and oppressed, can be seen in the
Magnificat (Luke 1:46 ft). Also present is an openness to foreigners. In
Matthew's genealogy, for instance, we see not only kings and famous men of the
Israelite tradition, but also some women (Rahab, Ruth, Tamar, Bathsheba). Apart
from being outcast and sexually suspect, these women are also all foreigners,
"Gentiles".
Such openness is reflected in Jesus' life
as well. His encounters with the Samaritan Woman (John 4), and the Syro-Phoenician/Canaanite
woman (Matth. 15: 21-28) are indicative of Jesus' commitment to engagement with
the needs and possibilities of foreign people, especially those who are
oppressed.
This has obvious implications for our
responses to refugees. We cannot ignore the long tradition of concern found in
our religion. We have a mandate and even an obligation to take this heritage
seriously and to be similarly concerned and involved.
We saw much evidence of the contribution
of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and churches in the refugee camps we
visited. Some of the organizations we got to know of are: * Burma Border
Consortium (BBC): assisting refugees on the Thai-Burma border by organizing the
delivery of essentials such as food and clothing. *
Christians Concerned for Burma (CCB):
raising awareness of the situation in Burma abroad, especially among Christians
and churches, working for unity amongst ethnic groups. * Democratic Voice of
Burma (DVB): radio station broadcasting out of Oslo, Norway, providing refugees
with up
11
to date and accurate news about the
situation in Burma. * Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF): supplying medical
equipment, workers and health care training. * independent volunteer workers
(teachers). * Australian Baptist World Aid (ABWAID): supporting teachers at
KBBC, Mae La. * Local Karen Churches: education, religion, social cohesion,
pastoral care in all three camps. * Church of Christ in Thailand (CCT):
supporting practical projects, e.g. a water pipeline near Mae La.
It is important to note that our guides
were Christian, and thus much of what we saw was Christian involvement. This
does not mean that other religious groups are not also making contributions.
All services in the camp are being provided
by NGOs and/or by residents themselves, not from the Thai government. The
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) works at government
level, with few visible results in the field.
We have seen which roles various
organizations are playing for the refugees. But how can these roles be played
in ways that will give more substantial improvements to the human rights
situation for the refugees and in Burma? And how can we contribute to playing
such roles ourselves?
In the following, for more detailed
references, refer to paragraph no. 7.
6.1 CAMPAIGNING
Campaign forms can be pickets, signature
campaigns, urgent appeals, petitions and boycotts, either by individuals or by one
or several groups. Through this, we can put pressure on
(1) governments; especially the ones of
Burma, China and Thailand, as well as
(2) our own embassies/consulates in these
countries, and
(3) these countries' diplomatic mission
in our own country.
(4) The United Nations is also a relevant
target for lobbying, especially as a Special UN Rapporteur is appointed to
improve on the human rights situation in Burma only.
A fruitful campaigning strategy is to be
as specific as possible, by picking up recent incidents of human rights
violations and acting on them, through both protesting and coming up with clear
recommendations for measures to be taken.
The focus should be:
I. Support to the democratically elected
government and its leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as to the student
movement (ABSDF).
(7: DAW AUNG SAN
SUU KYI)
II. Boycott the SLORC's campaign
"Visit Myanmar 96" launched in November'96. Information on this can
be provided from: * Amnesty International, either the section in your country,
or the Al International Secretariat; * All Burma Students League, * Southeast
Asian Information Network and * Burma Action Group.
III. Boycott of companies doing business in
or with Burma, e.g. Pepsi, Texaco, Amoco, Unocal, Total. To make the boycott bear
fruit, it might be effective to write letters to these companies
12
(politely, it can be more effective!) to
inform them that you will refuse to buy their products until they have withdrawn
from Burma. Information on this can be requested from SAIN and BAG. Some
addresses:
* Amoco US, c/o RJ Criswell, Managing
Director, Amoco (UK) Exploration Co., Amoco House, West Gate, Ealing, London W5
1XL. * Mr Al De Crane, Chairman Texaco Inc., c/o Mr Roger B. Colomb, Managing
Director, Texaco Ltd, 1 Westferry Circus, London E144Ha * Total France c/o
Managing Director, Total Holdings Ltd., Palace Street, London SW1E 5BQ.
6.2 PRAYER
* World day of prayer on Sunday March 16,
1997: for Burma. All over the world this day, we are encouraged to pray - for
an end to the atrocities in Burma, - for the emergence of an open society and
freedom for all peoples there and for love and understanding among them, and -
for calling people to act for improvements in Burma. More information,
suggestions for actions, materials such as study/prayer guide, church bulletin
inserts etc. can be provided by Christians Concerned for Burma.
* Arrange thematic worships or services
on e.g. refugees, Burma, human rights... Here, the "liturgy for Human
Rights Sunday" might very well be used. It is a joint 1996 production by
the Christian Conference of Asia and the Assembly Social Responsibility and
Justice Committee of the Uniting Church in Australia.
* Use the 1997-focus on "Uprooted
people" of the World Council of Churches (WCC), which will result in
various publications and programs on the situation of displaced people and
refugees all over the world from a Christian point of view, both on
international and regional level. More information can be provided by the WCC,
the Christian Conference of Asia and the National Christian Councils of your
country.
Finally and importantly, we can run
information activities on the situation for the refugees and in Burma, as well
as more general workshops for various groups of people. We can also actively
participate in monitoring and investigating human rights violations. A good
method in this regard is fact finding missions and reports.
6.3 INFORMATION
All the above actions are dependant on
access to reliable information. We have hence included an extensive list of
references in the next section. A particularly effective source is the internet
and various e-mail subscription lists; such as: * the BurmaNetNews: an
electronic newspaper covering Burma, produced with the support of BIG and the
ABSDF. For free subscription send a message "subscribe burmanet-1" to
bunnanet@igc.apc.org / majordomo@igc.apc.org * the Free Burma Web Pages: the
web-address http://FreeBurnia.org is a departure point to resources promoting
the improvements in the situation of the peoples of Burma.
(8: SMILING
CHILD)
The references are ordered alphabetically
by titles.
7.1 For the
content of this report
13
* Burma Border Consortium Report for the 1st
half of 1996
* Human Rights Yearbook 1995: Burma
* Indigenous Women from Burma 1996
(Indigenous Women's Development Centre's 1996 Calendar) * Karen Refugee
Committee Monthly Report April 1996 * Myanmar Update on political arrests and
trials (AI September 1996) * Organizing Fact Finding Missions (Edna Luna,
United Church of Christ in the Philippines) * Total Denial. A Report on the
Yadana Pipeline Project in Burma (Earth Rights International and Southeast
Asian Information Network 1996)
7.2 For further work
for Burma, displaced people and human rights
7.2.1
Organizations and periodicals
* All Burma Students' Democratic Front
(ABSDF), central headquarters P.O. Box 31, Mae Sariang, Mae Hong Song Province,
Thailand - ph/fax: +66 2 53 68 18 13 GPO Box 1352, Bangkok 10501, Thailand -
ph. +66 2 300 0631 E-mail: Caroline@ksc.net.th / lurie@mozart@inet.co.th /
absdf@oslonett.no Publication: "DAWN". * All Burma Student League
Dehli office, 3 Krishna Menon Marg, New Dehli 11001, India. Ph/fax: + 9111 301
7172/6035 * Amnesty International, Int. Secretariat (c/o Burma Researcher) 1
Easton St. London WC1 X8DJ, UK ph. +41 71 413 /5500. Fax: +44 71 956 1157
e-mail: amnestyis@gn.apc.org. WWW: http://www.traveller.com/~hrweb/ai/aihtml *
Anti-Slavery International Lesley Roberts, Unit 4, The Stableyard, Broomgrove
Rd., London SW9 9TL, UK. ph. +44 171 924 9555, fax 738 4110 * Boycott Pepsi
E-mail: brschmidt@aol.com * Burma Action Group (BAG) Colhns' Studios, Collins'
Yard, Islington Green, London N1 2XU, UK ph.: + 44 71 359 7679, fax: +44 71 354
3987, e-mail: bagp@gn.apc.org / tlandon@ewu.eud Publication: "Burma
News". * Burma Alert, Associates to Develop Democratic Burma Ham Yawnghwe,
R.R. 4, Shawville, Quebec, Canada JOX 2YO ph.: +1 819 647 6131, fax +1 819 647
5403, e-mail: yawnghwe@hookup.net Publication: "Burma Alert". * Burma
Border Consortium c/o Sally Thompson, 12/15 Convent Rd., Silom Rd., Bangkok
10500, Thailand ph. +66 2 236 021, fax +66 2 266 5376, e-mail:
dunfoj@mozart.inet.co.th /
dunfoj@morakot.nected.or.th * Burma Information Group POBox 1027, Suan Phlu
Post Office, Bangkok, Thailand. E-mail: steele@mozart.inet.co.tli Publication:
"Irrawaddy". * Burma Issues
(formerly B.U.R.M.A) (1) c/o Max Ediger, 1/11 Soi Pipet 2, Convent Rd., Bangkok
10500, Thailand (2) POBox 1076, Silom Post Office, Bangkok 10504, Thailand ph.:
+66 2 234 6647, fax: +66 2 631 0133, e-mail: durham@mozart.inet.th Publication:
"Burma Issues".
*Christian Conference of Asia 96, 2nd
District, Pak Tin Village, Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong ph. +852 2691
1068, fax: +852 2692 3805. * Christians Concerned for Burma POBox 48,
Chiang Mai 50
000, Thailand E-mail: ccb@pobox.com,
WWW:http://members.aol.com./infoburma/ * Democratic Voice of Burma (Oslo,
Norway) E-mail:
dvb@oslonett.no * Human Rights Watch/Asia
(1) Sindey Jones, 485 5th Av., NY 10017. USA ph. +1 212 972 8400, fax +1212 972
0095, e-mail: hrwnyc@hrw.org (2) Zunetta Liddell, 33 Islington High St., London
N1 9LH, UK. ph. +44 171 713 1995, fax +44 171 713 1899, e-mail:
hrwatchuk@gn.apc.org * Images Asia POBox 2, Prasingha PO, Muang, Chiang Mai
50200, Thailand ph. +66 53 211 282, fax +66 53 406155, e-mail:
dg@DS90.intanon.nectec.or.th * Indigenous Women's Development Centre POBox 169,
Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50202, Thailand ph & fax: 66 53 278945 *
Karen National Union POBox 22, Mae Sod, Tak 63110, Thailand. Fax: +66 2 332
1924 * Karen Human Rights Group Box 68, Mae Sod, Tak 63110, Thailand. E-mail:
klirg@bnms.wov.com * Karen Women's Organisation POBox 5, Mae Sot Tak 63 110,
Thailand. * National League for Democracy, Liberated Area (NLD-LA) U Thein Oo, POBox 159, Chiang Mai University,
Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand * Southeast Asia Information Network (SAIN) GPO Box
217, Chiangmai University, Muang 50002, Thailand. Ph & fax: 66 53 278549.
E-mail: sain@cm.ksc.co.th * Uniting Church in Australia, Assembly Social
Responsibility and Justice Committee PO Box A2266, Sydney South NSW 1235,
Australia. * World Council of Churches, 150 Route De Ferney, CH-
1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland Fax: +41 22 791 0361.
14
7.2.2 Books
* Aung San of Burma: A Biographical
Portrait by his Daughter (Aung San Suu Kyi, Kiscadale Publications, Edinburgh
1991) * Burma in revolt (Bertil Lintner, Westview Press, Boulder/San Fransi sco/Oxford
1994) * Burma: insurgency and the politics of ethnicity (Martin Smith, Zed
Books) * Burma today: land of hope and terror (Eric Kolvig, International Burma
Campaign, Washington DC) * Burma in the back row: autobiography of a Burmese
rebel (Aye Saung, White Lotus, Bangkok) * Cries from Insein (Win Naing Oo,
ABSDF/CPDSK) * Ethnic groups in Burma: development, democracy and human rights
* Freedom from fear and other writings (Aung San Suu Kyi, Penguin Books,
England) * History of Burma (M.L.Manich Jumsai, Chalermnit, Bangkok 1979) *
Human Rights Yearbook 1995 (Human Rights Documentation Unit [NCGUB], Thailand)
* Independent Burma at forty years: Six assessments (Josef Silverstein, ed.
SEAP, New York) * Inked out, ripped out - Burmese storytellers and the censors
(Anna J.Allot, Silkworm books, Chiang Mai) * Land of jade: A journey through
insurgent Burma (Bertil Lintner, White Lotus, Bangkok/Kiscadale Publications,
UK) * A modern form of slavery (Asia Watch & The Women's Rights Project,
Human Rights Watch) * Operation Dragon King: The forced relocation of Burma's
village peasants (corn. Burma Issues,
Bangkok) * Outrage: Burma's struggle for democracy (Bertil Lintner,
White Lotus, Bangkok/London) * The war is growing worse and worse (US Committee
for refugees)