Justpeace Blog

Democratic Voice of Burma

Dec 21, 2006 (DVB)—Karen National Union leaders said today they planned to hold ceasefire talks with Burmese military officials soon.

Peace talks have been held intermittently between the government and the KNU for several years. In 2004, the two sides reached what was described as a gentlemen’s agreement, which failed to end ongoing fighting.

KNU general secretary Padoh Mahn Shar told DVB today fresh negotiations with the government were being moderated by a Thai third party, but declined to name the group.

“Generally, [the Thai government] are involved . . . the aim is to talk about ceasefire agreements,” Padoh Mahn Shar said.

The Karen leader gave little away about the planned discussions, refusing to confirm when or where they would be held.

Padoh Kwal Htoo, commander of the KNU’s Myake and Hyawae divisions, said the ongoing military offensive in Karen State was having a serious impact on civilians.

“So we shall have talks about these matters. We think dialogue is the only solution in dealing with conflict. We will not get anywhere fighting. We stand on the positive side in finding a solution through dialogue,” Padoh Kwal Htoo said.

For the past year the Burmese military have waged fresh offensives against the KNU and have been accused of deliberately targeting civilians. The worsening human rights conditions in Karen State have been widely reported in the media and are considered to have caught the attention of sections of the international community.

Civilians Forced to Serve as Human Minesweepers
Human Rights Watch

(New York, December 20, 2006) – The widespread use of landmines by the Burmese army against civilians to terrorize them and hamper the annual harvest season should cease, Human Rights Watch said today. The Burmese government is the only government in the world that has used antipersonnel mines on a regular basis throughout 2006.

Villagers and relief workers told Human Rights Watch that since the start of the harvest season in November, Burmese army soldiers have been laying increasing numbers of antipersonnel landmines in front of houses, around rice fields, and along trails leading to fields in order to deter civilians from harvesting their crops. They believe this has caused an alarming rise in civilian casualties in Mon township and the rest of northern Karen state. Human Rights Watch has grave concerns over the safety of civilians in conflict zones and their deteriorating food security as a result of widespread landmine use by the Burmese army.

“In order to separate ethnic armed groups from their civilian population, the Burmese army lays landmines and other explosive devices in order to maim and kill civilians,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “This is a concerted policy aimed at denying people their livelihoods and food or forcing them to risk losing limbs or lives.”

Last week, a Burmese army landmine planted in a kitchen in a village killed three men and wounded eight in the Baw Kwey Day area of Mon township in northern Karen state. The device was planted next to a fireplace in a private house.

Dozens of civilians have been injured and killed by landmines in northern Karen state during 2006 in one of the biggest Burmese army offensives in 10 years. According to the International Campaign to Ban Landmine’s Landmine Monitor Report 2006, 231 people were killed or injured by landmines planted by government forces and non-state armed groups in 2005. Many more deaths and injuries go unreported.

Burmese soldiers have on many occasions used civilians as human minesweepers, forcing them to walk in front of government troops. Refugees and internally displaced persons call this “clearing the way” for Burmese soldiers; the UN special rapporteur for human rights has called this “atrocity demining,” borrowing the phrase used by Landmine Monitor. Human Rights Watch has received reports that, to demine areas to be traversed by the Burmese army, soldiers from the 66th Light Infantry Division forced civilians from 12 villages in Toungoo district in December to walk or ride tractors ahead of troops on the road between Toungoo and Mawchi.

The Burmese government has sometimes charged people who have stepped on landmines a “fine” for destroying state property. If they die, their family must pay the levy, which amounts to approximately US$10, a large sum in Burma.

“Making the family of a mine victim pay for their death or injury is about as twisted and cruel an irony imaginable,” said Adams. “Instead of fining victims, the government should stop using mines and provide assistance to all victims.”

The government of Burma is not among the 152 states that have joined the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which comprehensively prohibits use, production, trade and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. On October 26, 2006, prior to its vote against the annual UN General Assembly resolution supporting the treaty, the Burmese government stated, “We oppose the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines which causes death and injury to the innocent people all over the world,” but insisted on its right to use mines for “self-defense.” Yet Burmese forces use antipersonnel mines indiscriminately and as an offensive weapon against civilians and ethnic insurgents.

Many insurgent groups are also using landmines in Burma. According to Landmine Monitor, it is likely that the Karen National Liberation Army was the rebel group using mines most extensively in 2005 and 2006.

The Burmese army domestically manufactures its own antipersonnel mines. According to Landmine Monitor, Burma is now producing a variant of the US M14 blast mine, in addition to its long-standing production of versions of the Chinese Type 59 stake mine and Type 58 blast mine.

The Burmese government is violating international humanitarian law by using starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare. According to article 14 of the Second Additional Protocol of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions, which is considered reflective of customary international law: “Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless for that purpose, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works.”

“The Burmese government has for too long targeted civilians with landmines and improvised explosive devices,” said Adams. “Living in fear of these silent and indiscriminate weapons is a daily challenge for hundreds of thousands of civilians in conflict zones.”

Louise Arbour, Geneva
Thursday, December 7. 2006


Poverty is frequently both a cause and a consequence of human rights violations. And yet the linkage between extreme deprivation and abuse remains at the margin of policy debates and development strategies. To draw attention to this crucial, but often neglected correlation, this year's Human Rights Day, on Dec. 10, is dedicated to the fight against poverty.

This should represent not only an opportunity for reflection, but also a call for action to governments, as well as to the human rights and development communities, to ensure a life in dignity for all.

All human rights-the right to speak, to vote, but also the rights to food, to work, to health care and housing-matter to the poor because destitution and exclusion are intertwined with discrimination, unequal access to resources and opportunities, and social and cultural stigmatization. A denial of rights makes it harder for the poor to participate in the labor market and have access to basic services and resources.

In many societies, they are prevented from enjoying their rights to education, health and housing simply because they cannot afford to do so. This, in turn, hampers their participation in public life, their ability to influence policies affecting them and to seek redress against injustice.

In sum, poverty means not just insufficient income and material goods, but also a lack of resources, opportunities, and security which undermines dignity and exacerbates the poor's vulnerability. Poverty is also about power: who wields it, and who does not, in public life and in the family.

Getting to the heart of complex webs of power relations in the political, economic and social spheres is key to understanding and grappling more effectively with entrenched patterns of discrimination, inequality and exclusion that condemn individuals, communities and peoples to generations of poverty.

However, poverty is often perceived as a regrettable but accidental condition or as an inevitable consequence of decisions and events occurring elsewhere, or even as the sole responsibility of those who suffer it.

A comprehensive human rights approach will not only address misperceptions and myths surrounding the poor, it will also and more importantly help to find sustainable and equitable pathways out of poverty.

By recognizing the explicit obligations of States to protect their populations against poverty and exclusion, this approach underscores government responsibility towards creating an environment conducive to public welfare. It also enables the poor to help shape policies for the fulfillment of their rights, and seek effective redress when abuses occur. There are strong legal foundations for such an approach.

All States have ratified at least one of the core seven international human rights treaties, and 80 per cent have ratified four or more. Moreover, the world community has subscribed to the Millennium Development Goals which set concrete targets for joint international efforts to tackle poverty and marginalization. The World Summit in 2005 reiterated such commitments.

Irrespective of resource constraints, States can take immediate measures to fight poverty. Ending discrimination, for example, will in many cases remove barriers to labor market participation and give women and minorities access to employment. Child mortality can be reduced through effective, low-cost, low-technology interventions. For their part, States in a position to provide assistance should come forward and help.

In contrast, indifference and a narrow calculus of national interests may hamper both human rights and development just as damagingly as discrimination. Last year the World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz noted that it ismorally justifiable for rich countries to spend US$280 billion - nearly the total gross domestic product of Africa and four times the total amount of foreign aid - on support for agricultural producers."

In one of his last speeches as United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan stated that he regarded focusing global attention on the fight against poverty as one of the biggest achievements of his tenure. He had emphasized the critical vulnerability and the assaults on human dignity that accompany poverty.

Crucially, the Secretary-General identified human rights, security and development as indispensable elements of a world where all people could live in larger freedom. As one in every seven people in the world goes hungry, that freedom depends on tackling poverty as one the gravest human rights challenges of our time.

The writer is United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.