Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 29th, 2012

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I have this sixth sense when my time is almost up. In essence you are saying that no real change is going to happen until the military government shows, in good faith, it is willing to open up talks about the constitution.

[James Paul Humphries]

Right, I would say that's the bottom line.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You were right, Mr. Sweet. The end is nigh.

It is time now to go to Professor Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, time did not permit you to give your testimony orally, but this was in your written testimony and I read it, particularly the paragraph that begins with “Since June of 2011...”. You describe the many war crimes that have been committed against the Kachin people. You refer to the torturing of people for information, disappearances, people being killed, indiscriminate shelling and burning of villages, raping of women and children, laying of land mines, and booby-trapping of bodies. You conclude:

Because of this year of horrible atrocities against their people, the KIA has moved from defence to offense, attacking the Burmese army anywhere they can be found (this reprisal action began in the middle of April 2012).

When I read your description I realized what was happening in Burma in the last year—really, to the Kachin people—began almost at the same time, although a little bit later, as what was happening to the Syrian people in their assault.

I hope you don't mind the kind of comparison I'm making with regard to what is happening in Syria. There is this expression of international outrage in an ongoing way. Yet with regard to what is happening with the Kachin people, which according to witness testimony is a series of war crimes and assaults not unlike what is happening in Syria, not only is that outrage in fact not manifest, but you have the actual easing of sanctions on Burma, as you know, whether it be from the United States, the European Union, or from Canada and the like. How do you account for those two very different approaches from a point of view of policy, as I say, by the EU, the U.S., and Canada, to what seem to be similar situations in Burma regarding the Kachin people and in Syria?

[James Paul Humphries]

Well, to me a lot of the challenges are a little bit like the way Europe was. I used to travel to Ukraine and other parts of the world. They always take you to the capital city. They show you the good things. They show you the hydro. They show you that everything works nicely and that everybody is living happily ever after, but they never let you outside of the capital.

So what you have now is that outside of the capital you have all these problems that are going on, and the thing is that we can't get in to document this. The UN has been trying to get in there over the last year now, and they've only been able to get in twice and in a little amount.... I mean, we're giving the UN millions of dollars to help the Kachin, but they can't get the resources there. They can't because these two mountain ranges on both sides have kept this country so closed, and the military regime has kept it so closed that it's very difficult to document.

I hope it doesn't become like a Kosovo, where 20 years later we have to go in, dig up all the graves, count all the human remains, and say that we think we might have had an atrocity there. I hope we don't have to get to that place. We may have to, but I don't know.

But the atrocities are going on and are being well documented. The sad part—I've left some other material—is that Britain's Parliament discussed this whole issue of genocide around 2000-and-something. It's well documented in the British archives that they declared it was genocide that was going on. They declared it in their House of Commons with their reports: it is genocide. But now, 20 years later, we're still discussing whether it is genocide, when we already have it passed, voted on, and everything else.

It's happening, but how to get that balance between the positive things that are taking place, which I'm excited about, and once you get outside the capital city, what do we do...? How do we bring about the democracy that I believe Aung San Suu Kyi wants to bring about and the rest of the world wants to have?

The problem you have is that you have two very large countries. China has made Myanmar its puppet. China controls almost 75% of the natural resources and the ownership of the dams—everything. They own it all. Right now there's an uprising going on even at this very hour concerning electricity, because for the dams that are being built, over 95% of the power is going back to China.

So the people themselves get no benefits from these resources—from the gold, the uranium, and the platinum. All these wonderful things are going outside the country. The people themselves are getting little of it. That's the dichotomy we're struggling with. I'm not sure if I've answered your question completely, but....

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Because of time I'm going to move very quickly to another question if I may...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

It's your last one, but please do.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Tucked away in your presentation is a paragraph that I found intriguing in terms of its suggestion, namely, the reference you make that “It is not a secret that the Military Regime desires to enter the nuclear age.” Then you speak about the investment and application of technologies for that purpose, also referring to the applicable technology from Russia, China, and North Korea for that purpose.

Again, the contrast is striking for me on Burma aspiring to become a nuclear power with all the involvement there, with no reference to this internationally, as against the situation that is taking place in Iran.

[James Paul Humphries]

But the thing is.... Again, I did not walk these sites personally, but through the documentation, most of it coming from the United States, this is well documented. They've had several people who have come out of the country of Myanmar and have brought plans for the sites and the aerial things. Everything that is needed to prove what is going on is quite well documented. You can get everything from reports to YouTube pictures—the whole nine yards—about his issue.

A number of years ago, the Americans did stop a ship—I'm not sure how many years ago—from North Korea that was bringing more equipment to Myanmar for this specific area and also weapons. As for why they are trying to become a nuclear country, that part I cannot answer, unless they want something to do with breaking their long-term hold from China.... I don't know. I'm just speculating there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

All right, we'll move to our next questioner, then.

That is Ms. Grewal, please.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Humphries, for your time and your presentations.

The Irrawaddy magazine reports that land confiscation in Burma is “increasing as state agencies and powerfully placed domestic firms position themselves to welcome foreign investment.” The report indicates that groups have been forceably removed from their land to make way for major projects there, including the oil and gas sector. Further suggestions have also implied that natural resource extraction and infrastructure projects have been put in place primarily in the areas inhabited by ethnic minorities. Reports also indicate that local communities have not been consulted about these projects. Land ownership laws are vague in Burma, but I understand that a new law is being developed.

In your opinion, do you feel such legislation will possibly facilitate military-linked businesses to claim that they are acting within the law when they wish to seize a piece of land from such minorities?

[James Paul Humphries]

Yes, that's the double side of the constitution again. The double side of the constitution says you have a right to land, you have a right to own, but the other side of the constitutions says that the government has the right to take it way from you at any time for the betterment of the whole country. That's how they sort of get around this.

When they want to build a power dam, as they did up north of Myitkyina, they just said they were building the power dam. It's the fifteenth largest power dam in the world, and they just started moving out the Kachin by the thousands. The commitments and the things that they said they would do, such as giving them a new farm or new property, they never did. They just took it. Then they brought in about 10,000 migrant workers from China—I was living there at that time. So they don't even get the benefit of helping to make money by building these things. They bring in the Chinese to build the dams and to do all the hauling of the dirt and all this stuff, even though the Kachin really don't want the dam in the first place.

So you have all these things that are being built, like the pipeline and everything that's going from the bay up through the middle of Myanmar, across Shan state, again into China. All of these lands are being confiscated. I've given a map to the clerk that shows the number of regiments along that pipeline, who are going to make sure that pipeline is implemented and put in place.

Then, the third one will start. They're going to rebuild the railway from Thailand to Myanmar. We know the famous movie Bridge on the River Kwai . The railway that was built during the war is now going to be rebuilt. Again, they will take all those lands away from the Karen people.

It's well documented that they do that, but the people have no recourse. There's no justice. There's no way that you can say, “This is unjust, so now I will stand up and take it to court”, go through, and fight. There is none of that. You just lose it; it's gone. And if you complain too much, you're gone.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Burma has also announced that it will conduct a census in 2014. Although some groups, including Human Rights Watch, have indicated this could have a positive effect there, affecting the ethnic areas, other groups are concerned that the census will further isolate groups by excluding ethnic minorities, such as the Rohingya, a predominantly Muslim group of immigrants.

In your view, since the recent 2011 election of a nominally civilian government and the 2012 byelection of the bicameral legislature, will further isolation of ethnic and religious minorities be a key issue for concern? Additionally, what work can be done by the Canadian government to prevent the isolation of ethnic and religious minorities?

[James Paul Humphries]

I think we have to give the ethnic groups more credit. They are not heathen or ill-educated people, but rather many of the ethnic groups have been the groups that have gotten the Burmese to the place where they are now. Kachin are very highly educated as are many of the ethnic groups. The Chin people are very highly educated. I think we need to bring them into the whole picture to establish a government that's going to take every part of the ethnic groups and bring them together. But the challenge is the resources. That again is, I think, the challenge that's going to cause them....

It would be like our federal government saying Alberta cannot have any more taxes for its oil, or anything like that at all. We're going to keep it all here, and you go away. That's the problem with all these ethnic groups right now. They're sitting on a lot of these resources and are just wanting a piece of what they feel is rightfully theirs given to them through the contracts and agreements over the years.

I'm not so sure that I answered your question.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Yes, you answered it quite well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That's all the time you have unfortunately.

Mr. Jacob, you have the floor.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Humphries.

After reading your report and listening to your testimony, I realize that the armed ethnic conflicts could undermine any chance of establishing democracy in Burma.

First, did the democratic process that was recently initiated resonate with people on the ground, in the conflict areas? Second, is resolving the ethnic conflicts important to ensure the viability of democratic reform in Burma?

[James Paul Humphries]

I understand what you're saying, and again here's one of those difficult things, because the military regime was also an armed conflict group before they took off their military garbs and put on the three-piece suits, bought up all the land, and got voted in. You have to understand that out of the 600 seats, probably 550 of those seats are maintained by previous military or military. So what happens is that you have in a sense a stronger armed group trying to now overtake a smaller armed group, the Kachin, who have been there for 50 or 60 years and trying to....

It's not that they didn't want to work with it. When I was living there, there were many meetings between the Burmese and the Kachin to try to resolve these things. One of the things that they tried to do is say they'll let the Kachin be border guards but they won't allow them to have any high positions in the army. They can just be border guards. We will tell them what to do, where to go, and how to fight for us. The Kachin were saying, no, we want to be able to have an established right in the country and to be able to help our people to go forward and to have education.

So they were the ones who have, over this ceasefire time, worked with the government, or the military regime, I guess you could say. But what happened during the ceasefire was that the Kachin army kept moving back and the Burmese army kept moving forward and taking up more positions, taking away lands from the church, taking away the jade mines, all the things that were once under the Kachin. During the ceasefire the Burmese just kept moving in and taking more and more to the point that the Kachin said we're going to have nothing so we have to stand up for our rights.

Does that answer your question a little bit there?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

I have another question. What do you think are the chances of sustainable peace between the minority ethnic groups and the Burmese military? In other words, what are the main concessions that each side would have to make in the future?

[James Paul Humphries]

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, one will be having to change the constitution to reflect a more homogeneous group of people.

We have 135 ethnic groups in the country, so a lot of work is going to have to be done. But when talking to many of the leaders from various ethnic groups, I haven't heard any of them say, “We want to become our own country.” They want to be a federation. They want to work together. I think the ethnic groups really desire that; they are not trying to become their own country. They're wanting to work within, because in a distant way they're all brothers and sisters, if you know what I mean. They're all part of the tribal clans that have come down, and so they understand that they have a lot of similarities. But they want to build together a level playing field of equality and bring hope and encouragement both to their children and to the people who will follow after them.

So you don't see any of the military groups attacking the capital city or going down to Rangoon. They're not trying to use their level of power against the Burmese. They're just saying, can we not make it equal? Can we not make it balanced?

I think that's what they're trying to do. I take my hat off to them for that.

But it's going to have to be, as Aung San Suu Kyi said, a federation of working together. She sees it, but I don't think they quite understand, because of all the years of going from being a kingdom to being under British rule to being now separated themselves. They just don't have the idea of democracy. It's not even in their blood. There has always been a supreme leader who rules his people.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

No, none.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Humphries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

In consequence to one of Professor Cotler's questions, Mr. Humphries mentioned a report. I don't know whether it was by a committee, but it was from the House of Commons in the U.K.

I wonder whether we could source that. It would be substantial for our report, if we had it.

[James Paul Humphries]

We can do that, yes. The clerk has it, and actually Russ has a copy.

We were trying to deal with the extra paper. There are about 150 pages to my appendix, and of course, I didn't want you to have to translate them all, so I left it up to the clerk as to what you wanted to do or not do with all this information. We wanted to give credibility to what we are saying, and so a lot of it is found in there.