From: MIS-EUROPE, P.O. Box 305, Fin 01301, Vantaa, Finland
****************************************
1. MNRC APRIL 1996 REPORT
2. NMSP LETTER TO UNHCR-THAILAND
3. MON CANADA STATEMENT
4. ANALISIS ON THE CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT
****************************************
1. MNRC APRIL 1996 REPORT
Unclear Definition,"Repatriation" for Mon Refugees.
Under the circumstances of fear of being repatriated by force, the Mon
refugees who have remained on Thai soil have not too much opportunity to
immovably reside in their camp after April 30 deadline. Since the
concerned Thai autorities gave instructions for the Mon refugees to move
into Burma side of the border in December 1995, those remaining Mon
refugees and their community leaders have waited for international
recognition and monitoring they asked already in August 1995. There has
been no condition for them to achieve a well organized international
repatriation program in time and as the time was too close to April 30
they had to move before the deadline mentioned.
According to the international principles of protection on refugees, the
preparation time for repatriation must be provided and the repatriation
must be voluntary. After the repatriation they must be provided the
needed re-integration assistance in the new settlement sites. In the
preparation process, the registers for the choices of the refugees must
be done; the reception camps must be created and the visiting access to
setlement sites or origin places must be provided under the protection of
international organizations.
After the preparation of repatriation was completed, the process for
repatriation must be started. Mostly, in countries of origin, the genuine
peace already occurred and the government is also ready to accept it4s
people and provide well treatment.
In the situation of Burma the cease-fire agreement reached between the
ethnic nationalities and SLORC is only a initial step for peace. But the
country of asylum, Thailand, has considered such a initial step as a
genuine peace and would like to move the refugees along the border back to
their country of origin under the term of "REPATRIATION". The MNRC
accepted the term of repatriation as meaning relocation and settlement of
returnees when the international assistance is systematically envolved
in all processes including preparation, transportation and reintegration.
In fact, the present repatriation of the Mon refugees without the
involvement of the international organizations and under circumstances
and conditions of fear to be returned by force, is not what we understand
by repatriation. Such a "repatriation" is unrealistic for the Mon
refugees.
The Mon refugees who have been moved under the circumstance of fear and
lack of international protection, which is organized by its own community,
must be simply defined as " cross border RELOCATION".
The situation in Burma is unacceptable for any repatriation in the wake of
cease-fire and also the government of the country is unwilling to accept
it4s own people, the Mon refugees, who are taking refuge along the border
in Burma side remain as internally displacen persons. Once a democratic
government comes to power those displacen persons should be repatriated to
their original living areas in accordance with the international
principles.
Even the MNRC has consistently requested for international involvement
to provide monitoring and protection, specially from the Bangkok based
UNHCR and since August 1995, the government of Myanmar (SLORC) did not
agree to allow UNHCR to participate in this repatriation, according to
UNHCR legal officers. SLORC ansvered that the international monitoring
shall be available only when all the ethnic nationalities along Thai-Burma
border have agreed cease-fire with the Rangoon military government. The
MNRC has realized the type of role the UNHCR assumes based in a country
which is not a signatory of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocols
related to refugees all over the world, due protection has just been
impossible.
Actually the recent relocation was organized by the community itself to
avoid the terrible situations which those refugees had faced recently.
Most Mon refugees and community leaders even faced terrible situations of
two forced repatriations, from Loh Loe to Halockhani ( a vulnerable
position close to Burmese troops4 outpost ) and from Thai soil to
Halockhani after they were attacked by Burmese troops. That is the
reason why the refugees could not delay but crossed the border and
relocated in new sites.
The New Arrivals and Assistance Problems
As the cease-fire agreement did not mean an agreement of political
settlement, the SLORC autorities never reconsidered its practice of forced
labour or improved it4s human rights situation and ignored the
condemnation or complaint of even its ceasefire partners.
In the case of conscription to forced labour at the 110 miles long
Ye-Tavoy railway construction, the New Mon State Party (NMSP) also has
complained to SLORC for its local troops and autorities4 inhumane labour
conscription but the concerned military division has simply ignored the
complaint.
In the areas where the Mon, Karen and Tavoyan local inhabitants are
residing the conscription to forcen labour has been terrible all the time
and many villagers from several villages have consistently fled to
border area. On the other hand the local Burmese troops also collect the
high tax for portering fees and other fees for the development projects.
The last arrivals, escaping such human rights abuses, have been taking
refuge in Tavoy district area and Halochani camps and at the same time the
internally displaced persons, immigrants from Thailand also sought refuge
in the resettlemnt sites. Compared with the total population farmers from
respctive camps, who have slash and burnt rice cultivation in coming rainy
season, are only a few and it will be impossible to provide rice to all
camp residents.
In Tavoy District Area only 91 families of total population have rice
cultivation in nearby campsites and it has the smallest number of farmers
compared with other camps. The Halockhani camp has 259 families who grow
rice while the Bee Ree camp has 143 families. Although the Mon
Resettlement Committee, an organization that was formed by NMSP, has
attempted to organize the refugees to grow rice, most refugees were too
busy building their houses and other necessary constructions in camps and
had not time enough for the farmland cleaning.
Therefore, the MNRC expresses its concern on such situation: the food
shortage problems might ocurre at the end of this year. The new crops will
come out in December 1996 and estimatedly that rice production can provide
only one or two months food assistance to all population. The food
shortage problems can occur in coming year 1997 and the refugees may have
difficulties to survive. The rice production is also totally dependent on
rain and it can be reduced by rain or climatic conditions.
Mainly the Tavoy District Area refugees shall need rice assistance in the
coming 1997, the MNRC is specially concerned of them. If they face food
shortage problems it might be impossible for all family members to move
into Thailand to seek job for survival. Undoubtetly they will not get
any help from Burmese government or SLORC while the NMSP also lacks funds
to help them.
Furthermore, those displaced persons still need the help of the
international community in providing them with available food in 1997.
Humanitarian consideration and collaboration of all the parties concerned
is needed to help that suffering people.
**************************************
2. NMSP LETTER TO UNHCR-THAILAND
The New Mon State Party General Headquarters
Date 14th April 1966
Mr.Rurecht von Arnim Representative United Nations High Commission for
Refugees Office Bangkok
Subject: Re monitoring resettlement of Mon refugees.
Sir,
With regard to the abovementioned subject, the Thai Royal Government had
given order to all Mon refugees to evacuate from Payaw and Halokhani camps
into Burma by 30th April 1966.
Therefore, all of them have already evacuated to areas around the sources
of Kin Chaung (stream), Ye Chaung and Baleh Doonphite.
Resettlement of refugees in respect of economic stability,
self-sufficiency, health and education are still inadequate. That is why
they are in need of special monitoring. We therefore urge the United
Nations High Commissiones for Refugees to give every possible help to
them.
Yours truly,
( Nai Shwe Kyin )
President
NMSP
***************************************
3. MON CANADA STATEMENT
STATEMENT ON THE 239 TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FALL OF MON KINGDOM HONGSAVATOI
As the 239th anniversary of the Mon kingdom Hongsavatoi is on May 9 ,
1996, we, the Mon National Organization of Canada, have released this
statement to express our deep concern for the Mon people and the present
situation in Burma.
The Mon kingdom, which was situated in the lower part of Burma, had
flourished in peace and prosperity for several centuries until it was
occupied by the Burman dynasty in 1757. At that time the last kingdom was
devastated and tens of thousands of Mons including learned Buddhist monks,
pregnant women and children were being killed by king U Aungzeya of
Burma. After this massacre many Mons fled to the southern most part of
Burma and into Thailand to escape further oppression, persecution and
enslavement by the conqueror.
After Burma was independent from the British colonial rule in 1948, it
became a country where protracted civil war raged on seriously because of
denying the rights to self-determination of the ethnic peoples. The
country that once was rich in South East Asia had dropped down to one of
the least developed country (LDC) in the world and the suppressive
military regime, namely State Law and Order Restoration Council ( SLORC )
seized state power by killing thousands of demonstrators in a nation-wide
uprising for democracy in 1988.
Currently, the military regime has reached a cease-fire agreement with its
opposition ethnic armed forces and it seems a peaceful condition has been
achieved to the satisfaction of all the people of Burma. The New Mon State
Party ( NMSP ) entered into a cease-fire agreement with the Burmese junta
on June 29 1995 and this deal contained no political solution and as such
was simply a military agreement. As a result of this the Thai autorities
have recently forced aproximately 14.000 Mon refugees to go back into
Burma even as new comers are arriving to avoid supression under the
regime. At the same time SLORC has considerably increased its use of
thousands of forced labour to speed up the construction of the Ye-Tavoy
railway, which connects Mon State and Tenessarim Division for security of
the billion dollar gas pipeline project of the Total company of France and
the UNOCAL corporation of the United States.
Apparently, the Mon National Organization of Canada understands that the
agreement reached between NMSP and SLORC is not the rights process for a
genuine peace and it does not represent the wishes of the Mons and
majority of the other people still living in Burma as well as overseas
Mons. As the human rights violations and oppression by the SLORC continue
the suffering of all peoples in Burma also continues
On this tragic day of the 239th anniversary of the fall of Mon kingdom
Hongsavatoi we, the Mon National Organization of Canada, urgently
recommend the international communities to take the following action:
1) Stop the project of constructing a 500 mile gas pipeline
from Monland.
2) Stop the conscription of forced labour for constructing of
Ye-Tavoy railway and forced relocation of the villages.
3) Call a tripartite dialogue among the military regime of
SLORC, opposition democratic political parties and the
ethnic leaders,
4) Permit international human rights observers and the United
Nations access to Burma to all prisons, detention centres
and ethnic areas.
5) Boycott companies doing business with the military regime.
6) Stop all arms trade with the military regime and pass a UN
resolution forbidding member states all military support to
Burma
May 9 1966
Mon National Organization of Canada Fraser Street 6416 Suite 142
Vancouver, BC V5W 3A4 Canada. Tel/Fax ( 604 ) 321 9871
************************************************
4. ANALISIS ON THE CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT
Analysis on the cease-fire agreement reached between NMSP and SLORC
If we analyze the cease-fire agreement reached between NMSP and SLORC on
29th June 1995 at the south-east command office in Moulmein we see the
following points clearly.
1) "Ceremony of NMSP denouncing the armed struggle and returning into
legal fold " was the official title used on the occation when the two
sides made cease-fire agreement.
2) Nai Htin, vice-president of NMSP, leader of Mon Delegation for
cease-fire agreement, has to admit in front of the audience that NMSP
denounces the armed struggle and returns into legal fold after realizing
the noble desire and sincere attitude of the State Law and Order
Resoration Council.
3) As a symbol of surrender, Lt.Gen. Aung Nai, joint chief of staff of
NMSP has to present the full list of Mon military forces and their
ammunitions to Lt.Gen Ket Sein, the commander of southeast command at this
ceremony.
4) NMSP has to retreat from its front posts and remain at 12 places
enumerated by the SLORC.
5) Among 15 points accepted by the two sides as a gentleman's agreement,
there are some restrictions placed on NMSP which must be followed.
For Example;
* NMSP can not recruit new soldiers.
* NMSP can not give any military training.
* NMSP can not collect any tax or revenue.
* NMSP can not parade in strength.
* NMSP can not contact with other revolutionary forces.
* NMSP can not make any contact with foreign countries and
foreign organizations.
6) After cease-fire agreement comes into effect, NMSP is not allowed to
discuss nor even present political issues to the SLORC. Instead NMSP is
allowed to present business and border development projects only. In this
way the SLORC hope to turn the attention of Mon people from Political
issues tu business issues.
7) There is no limitation date for the period of cease-fire.
8) In the agreement reached between NMSP and SLORC, there are no political
rights for the Mon people and no political principles, such as
Self-Determination Rights, Equality or Freedom. Nor does the agreement
point towards a future constitution for Burma and the Ethnic Minorities
Federal Constitution of Burma.
9) The process of this cease-fire is absolutely out of the international
principles, practiced by the world leaders in making cease-fire
agreement.
For Example;
* The two sides' generals stay where they have been, on the day
they make cease-fire.
* The two sides must respect each other and must be dealt with
equal status.
* The two sides can carry out their functions as usual without
any restriction put upon each other.
* There must be a fixed date for the period of cease-fire.
* The representatives from the two sides must sit together
face to face with equal status to discuss the political
issues, during the period of cease-fire.
10) It is very clear that NMSP has been forced, pressured or persuaded by
the third group in many ways and by the then prevailing circumstances, at
last NMSP has to bow down it4s head to the pressure in making cease-fire
agreement rather than it could make decisions by it4s own will freely.
If we study the above mentioned points carefully, we can see very clear
that the agreement reached between NMSP and SLORC is not a real cease-fire
agreement. It is just an agreement between NMSP and SLORC for a process of
a new system of surrender for NMSP and NMSP has been regarded and treated
as a surrendered party by the SLORC from the beginning.
We feel with great concern that NMSP would become one day like a tree
which bark is cut around it4s trunk and it is impossible to develop again.
Only when there are no leaves left and only dried branches left on it that
tree could understand that it shall be dead in the near future.
We feel also with great concern on the point that NMSP might be treated on
day in the same way like a wild elephant, after being captured by a
hunter. At first the hunter keeps the wild elephant without giving any
food and water to make elephant loose it4s physical strength and moral
strength. Only when the wild elephant is starving and dying for food and
ready to follow the words of the hunter the elephant is allowed to have a
little bit of food and wather by a time. The food is increased a little
bit by a little bit depending on the obedience of that wild elephant. At
last the wild elephant has to follow the full orders of the hunter and
must become a good servant of that hunter.
The same as the wild elephant the NMSP might one day be in the position to
have to obey the instructions and orders of SLORC for a small assistance
and support and at the final stage, we feel with great concern, the NMSP
shall be regarded and treated by SLORC as a loyal servant.
All human beings love peace, we also love peace. This is the nature of
human beings, we want lo live peacefully. It is not a correct belief that
whenever there is no fighting against the rulers peace prevails. Such a
conception leads to tolerate whatever oppression, to the silence and
quietness. It ends the fight against the tyrants and does not fight for
what is right. Dictators always pretend to make people belive that because
of fighting against the rulers people have to live in a miserable life and
that stop fighting against the rulers iis the only way to create peace in
the country and only then people could enjoy peaceful life.
This conception could support the SLORC to stay in power forever after all
the opposition groups renounce the armed struggle and come into legal
fold. Only when there is no more opposition groups, the SLORC could treat
the people the way they like. When there is nobody to fight against the
SLORC on behalf of the opressed people, the people would be surely
opressed more than ever before. The armed resistance groups could enjoy
better life when there is no fighting while the people might live worst.
This is our analysis on the cease-fire agreement reached between NMSP and
SLORC on 29th June 1995 with a good mood and we only would like to present
the real accent of the cease-fire agreement to Mon people so that the Mon
people could take a right decision with a clear version on the cease-fire
agreement.
Mon National Council 18th February 1996
......ooooooOOOOOOoooooo......