Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 10th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Order, please. Today is May 10, 2012, and this is the 37^th meeting of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. We are continuing our study of the situation in Burma.

Today as a witness we have William Davis, who is the director of the Burma project for Physicians for Human Rights. He will begin his testimony, which as usual will occupy the first 10 minutes of our hearings and after which we will go to questions. The exact length of the questions will be determined by how much time we have. I simply divide the available time by six, and away we go.

That being said, Mr. Davis, I invite you to begin.

[William Davis, Director, Burma Project, Physicians for Human Rights]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman Reid, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for extending an invitation to Physicians for Human Rights to testify about the human rights situation in Burma. It's an honour to testify before you today.

I would like to submit my full written statement as well as our report on Kachin state, and an update on human rights violations in Kachin state from the Kachin Women's Association Thailand. I ask that they be ordered part of the record.

Physicians for Human Rights, or PHR, is an independent non-profit organization that uses medical and scientific expertise to investigate human rights violations and advocate for justice, accountability, and the health and dignity of all people. We're supported by the expertise and passion of health professionals and concerned citizens alike.

I should note that I'm not a physician. I'm an epidemiologist and public health practitioner.

Physicians for Human Rights has been investigating human rights violations against Burmese civilians, dissidents, minorities, and refugees since 2004. As director of the Burma project for PHR, I have conducted investigations in Burma's rural areas, including in Kachin, Karen, and Shan states, and in most countries bordering Burma. I've written a report titled Under Siege in Kachin State, Burma, which documents the human rights and humanitarian situation in that area of renewed conflict. I look forward to sharing my experiences with you today.

Burma has made a lot of news headlines lately. There have been extensive discussions among policy-makers as well as in the international media about the changes that appear to be bringing Burma from a pariah state to a country on the path to genuine democracy.

It's true that there have been some changes. In Rangoon, for example, people are now allowed greater media freedoms, and iconic Aung San Suu Kyi T-shirts and memorabilia are no longer forbidden. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate even sits in Parliament, and several hundred of her fellow political prisoners have been released.

While these changes are important, the same problems that have plagued the people of Burma for decades, including rampant forced labour, attacks on civilians, the use of land mines, and lasting impunity for those who commit heinous human rights violations, continue to this day.

The Burma army continues to attack civilians in ethnic areas, especially in Kachin state, where an estimated 70,000 civilians remain displaced because of fighting. The Government of Burma, until very recently, has blocked access of humanitarian aid groups to this vulnerable population, thereby further exacerbating the precarious condition of those displaced.

The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) has confirmed that 471 political prisoners remain in jail today, and they are further investigating another 475 cases. They're verifying that they're truly additional political prisoners.

Prisoners of conscience who were released earlier this year have not been given amnesty by the government and they could be sent back to jail at any time, and new arrests are continuing. March saw the highest number of arrests in two years, including 43 people who have been jailed in relation to development projects for things like refusing forced relocation orders, and for distributing T-shirts protesting a gas pipeline.

The Government of Burma also continues to violate human rights in other areas and remains dominated by a military that is not subject to any institutional accountability mechanism that could be used to punish or deter crimes.

Burma's ethnic minorities make up a third of the country's population, and they continue to bear the brunt of the military's crimes. Minority groups remain extremely skeptical of the changes in Burma, and for good reason. Ethnic people have faced abuse and oppression by the Burmese government for more than 60 years, and they're understandably reluctant to embrace the announced changes coming from their government. They do not trust the government, and so far, they have not benefited from the changes in Burma.

I have interviewed Karen, Shan, Mon, Kachin, Chin, Arakan, and Burman people inside Burma and in most of the countries along its borders. From all of them I've heard a common theme, and that is that they want to go home, but they're still afraid of the government.

Indeed, when I was in Kachin state I spoke with one man who was forced to walk in front of Burmese army troops to clear the path of land mines. I interviewed several more who had been forced to carry weapons and supplies for the Burmese army.

These abuses are not new. A grandfather told me how the Burmese army tried to drown his wife in a bucket of water in the 1970s. Last year when the ceasefire in Kachin failed, he and his wife fled, not wanting to relive the experience. The past and continuing abuses do not bode well for future reconciliation. A 15-year-old Kachin boy who had been forced to guide Burmese army troops between villages was scared and angry at the army. He told me he wanted to join a Kachin insurgent group so he could fight the Burmese.

In the months since I was in Kachin state, I have been in regular contact with groups who are monitoring the human rights situation as well as ongoing humanitarian needs. They have told me that human rights abuses are continuing, and as more civilians are displaced the need for humanitarian aid is increasing.

Before the 2010 elections in Burma, development and humanitarian relief programs in ethnic areas were funded mainly through groups operating outside the fold of the Burmese government. This was because the central government blocked aid to conflict areas and made it clear that it was not interested in helping ethnic people.

Since the 2010 election, the Burmese government has talked of starting development projects in ethnic areas. In response, some donor countries are shifting their funds from community-based groups operating in border regions to groups that are based deeper inside the country.

This should not be a trade-off, and this shift is premature. The talk of development from Naypyidaw thus far is just talk, and the effects that have been felt in ethnic areas are decreases in aid.

It is not yet clear if the central government in Burma actually intends to serve the needs of ethnic people or not. If it does, starting development programs will take time, and community-based organizations that are already running these programs should continue to receive funding until a system is in place for them to work in partnership with Naypyidaw. The ethnic leaders I have spoken with, and especially Karen ethnic leaders, are willing to cooperate with the government to promote the welfare of their people.

Community-based groups work inside the country and they receive only funding and supplies from across international borders. They have been serving their people for decades, and they already have the human resources, expertise, and local trust to implement development programs. Pulling their funding will disempower these communities and force them to rely on the central government for support.

This is dangerous. When the central government reorganized the state governments in 2008, it failed to establish ministries of health or education in Chin state.

The central government has not convinced ethnic peoples that it is trustworthy enough to provide aid for them. I heard several examples of this when I interviewed Chin refugees in India. I asked them if they would go back to Burma now that the government is changing and they all told me they would not. They are not yet convinced the government will not harm them and they are choosing to remain as exiles.

Most Chin people I spoke with said that when they left Burma they left because they feared the military. A Chin man told me the Burmese government had deceived him his whole life and that he doesn’t believe them when they say they are now a democracy. He said he will only return when the generals are no longer in power. Another man told me that democracy in Burma is not for Chin people; it is not for the ethnics. Others said there is still no freedom in Chin state.

The only refugees I spoke with in India who had returned to Burma or who had planned to return were Kachin refugees who were going back to join the Kachin insurgent groups to fight the Burmese.

Lastly I want to comment on the situation of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority in western Burma. They remain one of the most heavily persecuted groups in that country. They do not have citizenship and they suffer from forced labour, forced migration, restrictions on movement, and several other human rights violations.

Now it appears they will be excluded from the planned 2014 census. This will only further marginalize them. If the changes in Burma are slow to reach other ethnic groups, the Rohingya will be the last to feel any benefit from change. This group should be the measure of progress of human rights in Burma.

The Government of Burma has done much to convince the international community that it has changed, but it has yet to convince its own people. Generations of human rights abuses cannot be erased after just two elections in Burma. Even if the government's intentions are honourable, it will take a long time to build trust with its own ethnic people.

Promoting development and allowing aid into ethnic areas is a start. Stopping abuses, pursuing reparative justice, and acknowledging that human rights abuses have happened would go much further. The Government of Burma should continue its reforms, and the international community should support and encourage them.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, in closing I would like to share with you some specific recommendations which my organization has been advocating.

The international community is faced with some important decisions regarding policy toward Burma. While some may celebrate the recent changes in Burma, I urge you to remain cautious and to consider what impact these changes have had on people living in rural Burma. Because human rights violations, impunity for those who commit them, and military hierarchy continue to mark Burma’s internal policies, we as the international community should do what we can to encourage more substantive improvements that will have a lasting positive impact on all people of Burma.

In order to ensure that Burma's future is decided by its people, including ethnic minorities, I recommend that the Government of Canada use its influence to press for the following reforms in Burma: an end to gross violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law, including an end to attacks on civilians; meaningful collective negotiations that lead to a political settlement with ethnic nationality groups; unfettered humanitarian access to people in need in areas of conflict; release of all remaining political prisoners; and constitutional reform that will enable a civilian government to hold the military accountable.

I also recommend that the Government of Canada commit to the following: ensure that the list of individuals and entities still sanctioned under the Burma regulations is updated, broad, and includes those individuals who have profited from human rights violations, such as forced labour and displacement; and continue providing assistance to support displaced persons, refugees, and migrants from Burma along its borders. There has been an impulse by some in the international community to limit assistance to the border regions, but the need is great and I urge you to increase your support for communities in these areas. Every dollar spent there can save lives.

Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, I thank you for your attention and I'm ready to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much.

I think we'll have time for six-minute rounds. Maybe I'll be a little more generous than I am at other times with fulsome answers running over, although I'll be ruthless with long-winded questions, as usual.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Davis, for being here.

Your organization's survey of the Chin state is quite alarming. I have a copy and my staff reviewed it. Basically the assessment is that everyone you were able to talk to has been a victim of some sort of abuse at the hands of the regime, either through forced labour, rape, or being displaced from their homes.

What do you believe are the regime's ultimate goals with minority peoples in Chin state?

[William Davis]

That's a good question.

In Chin state, and as well as in most ethnic states in Burma, this is where most of the natural resources are for extraction, such as timber. There is jade in Kachin and other mining.

In the past—not under Thein Sein, the current president, but under Than Shwe and Ne Win before him—there was this policy of “Burmanization”, where they wanted the country to be one distinct nationality. They wanted ethnic minorities to enter into this fold and be “Burmanized”.

This goes back decades. This is probably the history of government policy in ethnic areas. Lately this has not been the policy, but I think some effects of that remain in older military commanders and what has happened in these areas. I think there's a lack of understanding between Burmese people and ethnic minorities, and probably racism, which also leads to this.

As far as the abuses you mentioned, the Burma army has policies of self-reliance. Most of the units are not supplied from central Burma, but they're instructed to get their supply of food and housing from the local population. So a lot of the forced labour we see is for the military—or the military stealing food from civilians to feed its own troops.

On the more violent crimes, I can't think of a reason why anyone would do them, but they might be tactics of control and bullying. We've seen a lot of that in Karen state. People are starting to say that the amount of control the Burmese army has over an area may be an indicator of how severe the human rights violations are. If they have a lot of power and control, the violations aren't as bad. If they don't have much power they tend to bully more. So depending on the regions in Chin state and what is happening, that's how we would see those different violations.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Your report also indicates that the persecution of Christians is prevalent in Chin state, with the burning of churches and practices of forced conversion to Buddhism.

Can you tell me what those practices of forced conversion might include?

[William Davis]

Yes. I have spoken with my Chin colleagues on this. There is a lot of coercion going on. There's a government school, but they're only allowing Buddhist students in. So if a Christian student wants to attend, they need to convert. Since there really aren't any other schools in that area, this would be something they would have to do.

I think also maybe in dealings with businesses they might want to only deal with Buddhists and not Christians, and they would encourage business partners to convert. It's coercion, but the people are in a vulnerable situation, so they don't have much recourse.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

In your report on Chin state, there are a number of recommendations calling on different countries and organizations to press the Burmese government to respect individual rights. Do you believe that sanctions have played or can play an important role in helping to create such pressure? If so, what sorts of sanctions do you believe can and do have the most impact?

[William Davis]

I believe sanctions have played, and can still play, an important role in pressuring the Burmese government to stop human rights abuses. I mean, specifically, pressure for justice and to stop impunity, and for perpetrators of human rights abuses to be held accountable. I think important sanctions were on travel restrictions on individuals in the Burmese government who have been implicated in human rights violations. I think sanctions on Burmese businesses have also been effective.

There is a lot of debate on whether sanctions resulted in the few changes that have happened in Burma, and I think they have been important in pushing for those changes. I think it's important to maintain some sanctions. Sanctions were put in place originally to stop human rights violations. Now, there is a lot of talk about dropping and suspending sanctions so that businesses can go into Burma and do work, but human rights violations are still continuing. Really, we should keep sanctions so that we may encourage the Burmese government to stop these abuses and to hold perpetrators accountable.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

You mention in your statement that constitutional reform that would enable the civilian government to hold the military accountable is one of the objectives that need to be accomplished. As I have learned a little bit about the nature of the Burmese constitution, it becomes clear that such reform would never occur without the consent of the military regime. How do you think that could be accomplished?

[William Davis]

They rewrote the constitution in 2008. They certainly did it in a way to ensure that the power will stay with the military, by allocating many seats in Parliament to members of the military and thus ensuring that a majority of Parliament will never vote for changes in the constitution.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Just to clarify, it's my understanding that a vote to change the constitution would require more than 75% of parliamentarians. As long as the military is assigned 25% of the seats, that's never going to happen.

[William Davis]

Correct. This is another change in Burma that is not going to happen overnight. Essentially, the way the constitution is written right now, some of these members of the military are going to need to vote for constitutional change. I think it's going to take a while for them to understand why this is important.

It's tough after having 60 years of power to just stop and give it up. That's not going to happen. They need to understand why this is important to happen and what are the effects—the positive effects—if this is going to happen. This is why we need to continue to pressure and also educate the Burmese government on making this happen. I'm a public health person and not a politician, and this is certainly a challenge for politicians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That actually uses up your time, and I gave you an extra minute as well.

We now go to Madam Péclet.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to commend you on the work you do. It's really amazing. We need more people like you in the world. Thank you very much for your time today.

I will follow up on my colleague's comments on the accountability process. In the report of the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, they stress the need for an effective and independent domestic accountability process for gross or systematic human rights violations. In your view, what would this domestic accountability process look like in Burma?

[William Davis]

That's a good question. They have started a national human rights commission, and the special rapporteur was very critical of that, and I would agree with his assessment. I believe a lot of his criticisms were that this body is not independent of the government. There are former military commanders on this body who, some groups say, have committed war crimes in the past. So these would be the two main issues. It needs to be independent. It refused to investigate some abuses in Kachin state, which is a sign that it's not doing its job. A Kachin man brought a case, his wife was disappeared by the army, and they refused to hear that case also. So this is also a problem.

It needs to be a group of people, probably who have no ties to the regime, present, historical, or otherwise, and who are able to work unimpeded by the regime. I think those would be the two most important things.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

So the process right now, according to you, of course, is not effective.

[William Davis]

That's correct.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Following on my colleague's comments, it has to come from inside. It cannot be imposed from the outside. How could the international community help a process like this to be established?

[William Davis]

For a long time groups have been working inside to promote democracy and human rights, and a lot of them have been put in jail for this. Certainly many exiled groups are doing this. I live in Thailand on the Burma border and I'm just here for a short bit and I work with a lot of these groups. The Burmese people working in these groups have a lot of capacity and a lot of training to do this kind of thing. I think this is a start, especially for the groups that are working inside, because this brings the most legitimacy to this kind of body.

I think the international community can do a couple of things. I think training in capacity building is always important. It can also provide support for the people on this committee to make sure they don't get sent to prison or harassed in any way, and also pressure the Government of Burma and the military, if that's possible, to let this group do its job.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

The special rapporteur suggested a deadline of March 2012 in his report. He said that if no domestic accountability process was established, “the international community should consider establishing an international commission of inquiry into gross and systematic human rights violations that could amount to crimes against humanity and/or war crimes”.

What's your assessment of that statement?

[William Davis]

I agree with that statement. There's been a push for a long time to establish a commission of inquiry. Recently, a lot of the international pressure for that has dropped because of the few changes that have happened in Burma and political prisoner releases. It's a very important thing, and I should make it clear that a commission of inquiry does not mean a war crimes tribunal or involvement of the International Criminal Court. It's essentially an investigation into what has happened in the past. It would be extremely valuable to inform how Burma is going to shape up in the future.

I mentioned a lot of problems and mistrust between ethnic groups and Burmans. Ethnics are 15% of the population. This is where a lot of the resources are in the country, so they're involved in this process, and they have suffered a lot of abuses over the last 60 years. I feel a commission of inquiry, in whatever form it would take, would be an extremely important step in moving forward in this process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You have one minute left.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I'll follow up in French.

You focused a lot on the issue of minorities in your presentation. You mentioned it frequently in your answers to me. The UN special rapporteur indicated that violations committed by the military and armed non-government groups often targeted ethnic minorities, ethnic groups.

In light of what you told me, what commitment has the government shown in recent months or years in terms of combatting this kind of discrimination and violence against ethnic minorities? What steps has the government taken to rectify the situation?

[William Davis]

Thank you. That's a good question.

I think before I answer this question, I should say that a lot of the abuses in ethnic areas have been committed by the Burma army. Insurgent groups also commit some human rights abuses, but let's just focus on the Burma army for now.

What is becoming more apparent is that the Government of Burma does not have much control over the Burma army. In Kachin state, for example, in the last year, President Thein Sein twice ordered the Burma army to stop all combat activities in Kachin state. The army continued fighting. This presents a big problem. It seems like the international community now has good engagement with the government but very weak engagement with the military. A lot of people don't even know which person they should engage with—which commanders, which generals.

What has the government done to counter violence against ethnic minorities? Well, Thein Sein twice asked the Burma army to stop. That had no effect. They are engaged in ceasefire negotiations, which I think could be promising, in a lot of areas, not in Kachin. Karen is moving along, and there have been some Shan ones, and Mon, and with Chin groups. The negotiators here are coming from the government and not the military. Hopefully the military will abide by whatever ceasefire treaties they come up with.

So there's been that. The government has talked about doing development programs and humanitarian aid in these areas. It hasn't done that yet, but you can't just roll out a development program overnight. This would take time.

So there's been a lot of talk and not much action. I think this is another topic that we have to wait and see on.