Warning: include(../../En/MenuLayout.htm) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /usr/home/burma/domains/burmaissues.org/public_html/Scripts/BIPageLayout.php on line 26

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '../../En/MenuLayout.htm' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in /usr/home/burma/domains/burmaissues.org/public_html/Scripts/BIPageLayout.php on line 26

Burma Issues Newsletter

Volume 13 Number 1

January 2003

 

Ivanhoes Investment in the Crackhouse

Reforming Education

Where You're Not Welcome

Crackdown Countdown

Ivanhoes Investment in the Crackhouse

by Rudy Huffer

For decades now the military junta that is the government of Burma has always made excuses, and pointed the finger at other parties, whenever they are accused of wronging what the world considers to be a right. It does not matter whether it is the UN, an NGO, Human Rights Groups or government officials of other nations, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) are quick to “Pass the Buck” so that they can divert any real offences they are accused of. It is not surprising that they do this nor that international companies that invest in Burma are doing this too. It is believed that about 500 international companies presently invest in Burma. Some are in direct relations with the SPDC others have indirect relations. However, as a foreigner to Burma I care that many of these companies come from our own countries and therefore represent us. As a result of that representation many people have chosen to speak out against the companies investing from their motherlands. This action of disapproval has resulted in some companies pulling out of Burma but it has also led others to, like the SPDC, “Pass the Buck” when facing accusations of supporting human rights violations.

Ivanhoe Mining Inc. is a Canadian company that has a 50% joint venture with the SPDC on a copper mine in the Monywa district of Kachin State. Ivanhoe is headed by Robert Friedland, whose name has already received a negative reputation. Friedland has been associated with many other mining companies who have been accused of environmental disasters and human rights violations in other countries, such as the U.S, Guyana, Angola and Sierra Leone. The SPDC has a global reputation of being a ruthless military government that has, and continues to, destroy Burma’s economy, commit acts of genocide, torture, murder and rape of ethnic minorities, enforces forced labour, child labour, child soldiers and forced relocation of ethnic minorities as well as punishment to anyone who displays any ability to think freely.

It is believed that Ivanhoe Mines produces one of Burma’s largest incomes from any international company. The Monywa copper mine is one of the most successful mines in the world financially and is believed to be second in income only to Burma’s notorious drug production and trade. It is difficult to say for sure anything about the Monywa copper mine since the Monywa area is very difficult to access from the outside and is said to be under military restriction. But one does not need to go to Monywa to find answers. They can go to the Ivanhoe Mines Inc. website at www.ivanhoe-mines.com and read a statement written by Daniel Kunz, who is the company president.

In the statement titled “Human Values, Jobs and Economic Investment”, Kunz states that Ivanhoe Mines is about “exploration of minerals and production of metals” and they are not “motivated by political considerations.” Okay, fair enough. The statement goes on to discuss their stance on “Safety and Environmental Standards” another topic that could be argued on another day. One aspect that should be noted is that the Burmese government does not adhere to the International Environmental Laws. This leaves a lot of corners to be cut by investing companies.

The next section titled “Fair Wages and Voluntary Labour”, states that if Ivanhoe pulled its investments out of Burma, it would result in the loss of thousands of jobs for the people in the Monywa area. In fact, thousands of people would lose good, fair paid jobs. This could be very true, but on the contrary, hundreds of thousands of people in Burma have been and will continue to suffer more as a result of the SPDC, the very same government that Ivanhoe Mines is supporting by having invested in Burma. The statement does not specify that the SPDC does not use forced labour or forced relocation when constructing roads, railways, dams, military bases or even mines. Kunz states conveniently that Ivanhoe is not involved in these human rights violations, but he does not consider the actions of the SPDC. It is not enough for foreign investors to claim they did not know about the atrocities that have been or are taking place as a result of their investment. Even if the construction of the Monywa copper mine did not involve any human rights violations, the SPDC is guilty of such actions through out Burma. He also does not mention that Ivanhoe took 50% control of the mine in the mid 1990’s, from Burma’s state-owned Mining Enterprises No. 1 (ME1). This is the company that built the first stage of the mine. This being so, one has to imagine that forced labour was a sure thing during that construction phase. Kunz also mentions “Ivanhoe has never used forced labour or condoned such practice. Ivanhoe has never knowingly benefited from the use of any involuntary labour”. There is no mention of the forced relocation. Victim accounts report that some 200 families were told to leave without notice so that Ivanhoe could begin expansion of the mine. This information came from refugees that left the Monywa area. The information cannot be obtained easily as the Monywa mine is suspected to be a militarized zone now.

The statement includes that “Ivanhoe Mines has pledged to cooperate with the International Labour Organisation’s fact-finding mission to Burma in 2001.” This is hard to understand. Ivanhoe is supporting the ILO who has reported that the SPDC and Burmese military are guilty of committing massive human rights violations. The ILO Report concludes that “all the information and evidence before this commission shows utter disregard by the authorities for the safety and health as well as the basic needs of the people performing forced or compulsory labour”, revealing “a saga of untold misery and suffering, oppression and exploitation of large sections of the population…from which people find no escape except by fleeing the country”.1 This does not even talk about the murder, torture and rape that they commit as well. So Ivanhoe supports the ILO who points the finger at the SPDC and Burmese Military who in turn are the partners of Ivanhoe in the Monywa Mine project. It’s a vicious circle.

Kunz continues the statement by justifying where all the money that is produced, by the mine, goes. He claims that “The government will not receive a share of the profits until the US $90 million dollar cost of building the first phase of the project has been repaid to major Japanese investors, which is not expected before 2005.” This is interesting because just a few weeks ago the Associated Press wrote that Japan announced, this year, it would cancel US $1.32 billion of the debt owed to them by Burma. It is one third of the over all debt and was considered to be a gesture of goodwill. Also, 2005 is only two years away, how much money will the SPDC be getting from the mine after that? The government state-owned ME1 that owns a 50% share of the Monywa mine also controls the military that is getting 2-4% royalties on copper production from that mine. That percentage was about US $885,000 in 2000. In relation to the costs and profits of the mine it is a small number, but it is still more money to be cycled into the SPDC’s high military spending.

Here is a very simple analogy. Try and imagine that the earth is a neighbourhood. Each country on the earth is a house in that neighbourhood (example: Canada is one house, Mozambique is another house, and Thailand is a house etc.). Some houses are bigger than others, some have more people and some have more money. Now try and imagine that Burma is a “crack house” in the neighborhood. It is trouble. Not very many people know about it, the farther away you live from it the less you worry. Many do not know what goes on inside of it. They hear stories and the neighbours of the “Burma House” have had their share of issues with it. Now imagine if one of the people in your house, in this case a company from your country, enters the “crack house” and begins to frequent it and maybe even participate in the activities. No one from the outside really knows what goes on in the house and the relating outsiders down play the activities they are involved in like it is not really such a bad place. Despite these things however, one cannot help but wonder and look shamefully at anyone involved with that troubled house. 

In conclusion, Ivanhoe Mines Inc. is in business with a corrupt and cruel government. Whether the SPDC gets one dollar or one billion dollars from outside investment, Ivanhoe, like many other international company’s, is contributing to human suffering and injustice by simply associating themselves with the Burmese government. They wrongfully support a dictatorship that has no regard for human dignity or economic progress among its own people. In the statement from their website, Ivanhoe has been able to tactfully twist their words around so that they can present the illusion that they are not guilty of the accusations they face. Sadly they are. And they are able to do it with a clear conscience, thinking only about profits, capital gain and economics. In the end why does everything always revolve around economics?

To find out more about international company’s that invest in Burma check out www.icftu.org and click on “Burma Campaign”.

(Footnotes)

1 No Copper for Blood: The need to stop Ivanhoe Mines, Aaron James, Peace for Burma Coalition, 2001

Return to Top

Reforming Education

by Saw Kawhtoo

The old year is gone and the new one has come, but for many Karen youngsters in refugee camps who are going to graduate in the coming summer, the future is uncertain and there is not much to expect. This tragic phenomenon comes from the legacy of the fear and unwillingness towards education reform that deprives many of the policy makers to engage in changes.  One major concern toward education reform is the fear of curriculum inconsistency. Inconsistency with teaching methods and subjects are not the only issues but inconsistency with the students’ academic outcomes is understood as a threat by many Burmese Socialist Progressive Party (BSPP) graduated teachers and the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), the current military regime in Burma.  Education is not seen as a social driving force towards social transformation and thus it has not attempted to integrate with the goals of the national struggle. For some reasons, although when changes and improvements are made, partly from the legacy of foreign influence, it was done only at the surface level: the goals and the vision of education remain the same.  The effect of non-functional existing Karen education is tremendous and is jeopardising the Karen community’s future while policy makers and leaders are reluctant to work on the reform.

The fear of curriculum inconsistency is the underlying reason that causes reform in delay. Many are worried that reforming teaching methods and curriculum in one school might result in inconsistency with others. The arguments given to that fear is that students may not catch up with subjects that are being taught at other schools when they switch to others that have not changed their text books and teaching methods. Because of the fear of inconsistency, there is huge amount of delay taking place in reforming education and until recently there has been no school that has adopted a new curriculum which emphasises creativity and independent thinking. 

Sadly, what is not seen as an important matter is that, in reality changes need to have more consistency with the needs of the youngsters than consistency in curriculum.  What is really needed today and in the future for the young generations of Karen is the kind of education that is based on proactive form, dynamic and responsive to changes. In other words, a proactive education format that emphasises problem solving skills and critical thinking ability, and this would enable the youngsters to be able to deal with their own needs without entirely depending on their leaders, most of whom will not survive more than another three decades.  Regardless of the kind of changes taking place however, any changes must be consistent with the need of the population rather than the need to be consistent with other schools’ curriculum. Changes should not be made because of the fear of inconsistency.

Why changes are reluctantly accepted by policy makers rests on one crucial historical premise that has effected the entire Karen population for many decades. The students’ academic outcomes are judged by their ability to memorise and their attitudes of not-to question-the-teachers. In addition, there is very little connection between what is taught in the schools and what is happening around the student’s environment.  Because students are trained to obey, they are aware of very little of the world’s events. This teaching doctrine has widely been adopted in most Karen schools in which the judgements made on students’ academic outcomes is similar to what they were being told fifty years go in BSPP and British colonial, and now in SPDC indoctrinated schools. As a result, the judgement and evaluation made on student’s success is entirely based on student ability of memorising than on creativity and independent thinking abilities and the knowledge gap of the Karen generation has considerably grown.

What is also considered to be the reason that policy makers are reluctant to carry out education reform, is based upon the fact that there is no clear vision among policy makers to the relationships between national struggle and the education system. Education is not viewed as a social driving force that is attached to the struggle for ethnic equality. The vague vision of existing education can only give the majority of the Karen, considered to be the back-bone of the revolution, the ability to read and write. Since the ability to read and write and the power of memorising are taken as the primitive, ultimate goal of Karen education, it gives very limited chances for the grassroots to get involved in the decision making process and play actively in the Karen revolution.

Even though it is evident that the non-functional education erodes the vision and hopes of many youngsters, many old British educated generations and the BSPP trained teachers who presumably have the ultimate decision making power in the education department have viewed education reform as a threat to society.  Their fears lie entirely on their intuitive assumptions and the influence of their past experiences, which is not compatible with the needs of the current generation. Similar to what is happening in SPDC dominated schools, for many Karen policy makers, maintaining status quo is seen as a linchpin of the solutions to the education problem.

So far, from the legacy of foreign influences, many have realised that the current existing education system does not support the needs of the Karen youth. When the community is touched by many outside communities and the influence of certain religious organisations, and when the downsides of the existing education system is clear, education reform becomes a necessary-to-discuss-topic among people who are concerned about the education of youngsters. Sadly, although education reform is a duty bound task, it is learned that many teachers and policy makers have little confidence to play a leading role in the process. This becomes a major concern for many community members and thinkers as to the influence of foreign organisations that create dependency among policy makers. They have suggested that the tendency towards foreign-lead projects is that when too much power is given to foreign experts and not the community itself, the goal of the education could be distorted easily, far from the needs of the community and youth who will be subject to the new methods.  Recently, there have been slight changes in curriculum, text books and teaching methods by the policy makers with the inputs of foreign experts.

Critically speaking, changes have been made at the surface level—teaching methods and materials—while the visions and the goals of education have remained completely vague. 

The legacy of non-functional British colonial and SPDC doctrine systems has made many Karen youngsters’ future one of decay and hopelessness. There is a considerably growing number of children who give up education, but unfortunately, the solutions of the policy makers to that phenomenon has been dealt with mainly by creating forcible rules in an attempt to reduce the drop out rate. There is no critical discussion on how to improve the education system as an alternative to attract students and reduce the drop out rate, and importantly to empower the students.

 

Nowadays, there is widespread complaints made by leaders that very few youngsters are interested in politics and the national struggle, and that youngsters are blamed for seeking their own benefits by working with NGOs or going to third countries for personal well-being.  While leaders are wrestling with unpredictable political movements and policy makers are reluctantly working on true changes, the numbers of hopeless youngsters in the refugee camps who engage in crime and drugs are also considerably increased, presumably from the legacy of the education system that gives no options to the confusion and frustrations they have. Eventually, they are also blamed for their immoral and reckless acts that create a burden to other members, but nothing has been taken seriously into account as to the factors that trigger these social draw backs.

To some degree, a big gap exists between leaders and Karen youngsters in terms of commitment, knowledge and experiences, and it is a serious gap that would determine the future fate of the entire Karen people. Despite enthusiasm to serve their own community, many high school graduate students find it tough to work with leaders where they want to receive training, skills and experience. When the time comes to make their own choices for their lives, NGOs become the only way out to get training and financial support.  From the premise that their ability of putting things in context is limited, they have very little chance to get involved in leadership roles in NGOs. Regardless of low position or less income, working with NGOs is taken as granted for many Karen youngsters who are considered to be bright and smart, yet many have expressed that it is relatively better than working with their elders.

 It is common to hear the confession of the Karen youngsters regarding their poor education and the degree of self confidence they have. Many have confessed that the schools do not provide the kind of creativity and necessary skills that they can apply to a real world outside the classrooms, and another reason is their lack of experience. While many privileged Karen youth are seeking their own better future, with their parent’s effort, at better schools, preferably in third countries, for many underprivileged Karen youth in refugee camps and in the jungles of Burma, after grade ten, which is the final step of schooling, their futures remain uncertain. When Karen youngsters realise that their high school qualification is no longer a guarantee for their future, it causes tremendous pain that leaders and policy makers are very little aware of, and not dealt with, with any importance. 

For social transformation to emerge, education must be seen as the central part of social wheels and a key to revolution. Since young generations are key strengths of national struggle,  education must be seen as part of the national struggle for peace and justice, and education must be designed to promote youngsters with creative and critical thinking ability; not only memorising ability.  When education reform is inevitable, it is crucial to accept that changes must be consistent with the needs of youngsters rather than consistent with the curriculum of other schools. While policy makers are reluctant for changes and maintaining top down decision making process, in effect, youngsters in the refugee camps and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are no more than victims of their day to day lives. The plights of youngsters along the border and inside Burma has posed a critical question as to whether it is necessary to maintain the non-functional British colonial and SPDC indoctrinated education system or should it come to an end by replacing it with a new democratic education system that highlights the needs of the youngsters with emphasis on creativity and critical thinking ability.

Return to Top

When You're Not Welcome

by Tha Lay

It’s a friendship of great mates, or so they would have us believe. Six months ago the friendship wasn’t such great mates, in fact the “mates” weren’t even on speaking terms and there is no guarantee that in six months time today’s great mates won’t be back to the great non-speakers. In the fickle world of Burma-Thai mateship it’s today that matters, the reality of the relationship and its many complex issues are brushed aside, grandiose statements like General Chavalit’s, “I am certain that Thailand and Burma will be best friends forever. From now on, we will have no conflicts or problems stemming from different viewpoints”, paints the mateship in unrealistic and simplistic terms. Over the past few months the Thai government has ensured these words remain true with the proliferation of raids on Burmese activist organisations, presumably in the spirit of good mateship.

Five office raids over the past five months in Sangklaburi and Mae Hong Son. More than 50 arrests, a porportion of which were either handed over to Burmese authorities or forced back onto the Burmese side of the border. Increasing numbers of visits and requests or demands for  offices in Mae Sot, Chiang Mai, Sangklaburi and Mae Hong Son to shut their office doors.

The general reasoning behind this recent spate of raids and arrests is attributed to the supposed Thai government policy of appeasement towards the Burmese generals. It’s a new era of mateship; of honesty, understanding and cooperation. No more accusations of supporting the ethnic minority groups, no more misunderstanding caused by cross-border fighting, no more need for border closures and trade restrictions which have financially hurt both sides. It’s a mateship formed under the guises of trade and economic gain.

It was estimated that Thailand lost 2.1 billion baht in taxes over the five month closure of the Mae Sot checkpoint. A Bangkok Post report in August stated that, “Rangoon would not reopen the border until Thailand announce a clear stance on its relationship with ethnic minorities openly opposing the military junta”.1 It is obviously not in Thailands best economic interests for the border checkpoints to remain closed.

Unfortunately the new mateship had already hit a snag when shortly after the border reopened, at a Border Committee meeting, Burma was already parading out the same old tired accusation that Thailand was supporting the ethnic minority groups.

It would almost seem as if the sacrifices in this mateship were being made by Thailand alone, except that would be presuming Thailand is dumb, which they’re not.

Why should Thailand be concerned about sending Burmese nationals back across the border? The bottom line is that Thailand sees them as a financial burden, therefore easily expendable in their persuance of trade, tourism and development with Burma. Recently Thailand and Burma announed four mega projects in Burma to be built by Thai companies. These include a hydroelectric dam on the Salween River, a coal mine, a port project in Tavoy and the Mae Sot to Rangoon highway. In January PTT Exploration and Production Plc, the Thai oil and gas company whose projects include the Yadana and Yetagun gas pipelines, announced a planned investment of 59.8 billion baht over the next 5 years. 38 percent of which will used to fund existing major projects which include the two gas pipelines in Burma. Reports also surfaced earlier this year of interest in funding a ski resort in Northern Kachin state in which top level Thai government officials were implcated.

In November last year Thailand’s then Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit, was quoted as saying, “Joint development will make border areas more open and help eliminate bad people, minority people and bad things hidden along the border and ensure greater security”. If Thailand is seen as dealing with these “problem border people” then so much the better for Thailand’s economic interests in Burma.

On the recent arrests in Sangklaburi a Burmese dissident suggested, “...the case in Sangklaburi is more to do with business than a national security concern for Thailand”. This is the area for the deep sea port Thailand has just agreed to build and a Kanchanaburi-Tavoy highway which is currently under discussion. A branch office of the Thai-Myanmar Cultural and Economic Association was also opened at Three Pagodas Pass at the end of November, less than 3 weeks prior to the December raids and arrests. Thai businessmen expect this Association to be based on free trading and the Three Pagodas Pass to be a major border trade route between the two countries. This Association is also the coordinator behind the 4 mega projects already discussed. All of which may lead you to believe that Thailand has executed these raids and arrests as callateral for their significant economic interests.

So are Thailand appeasing the Burmese generals, probably, but significantly its for the protection of their own economic interests; and its a trait the Thai government is instigating at home as well. NGO’s in general are being targeted by the Thai government. The recent treatment of demonstrators (mostly Thai nationals) for the Pak Moon Dam and Thai-Malaysia gas pipeline seems to suggest the Thai government is willing to crackdown on any group that threatens investment and economic projects.

The importance of maintaining pressure on the Thai government that their actions are unacceptable is paramount. These crackdowns pose a significant threat to the continued access to information from inside Burma and its distribution to the international community. It also poses a threat to the lives of thousands of Burmese nationals who have lived and operated peacefully, if sometimes illegally, in Thailand. In the cases where Burmese nationals have actually been handed back to Burmese authorities, their deaths could be imminent, their work on the Thai side of the border ensuring that. A Burmese activist told BI, “These crackdowns are just testing grounds. The Thai government wants to see the reaction from NGOs and activists. If there is no real reaction they will continue to raid and arrest Burmese dissidents. Its important that NGOs don’t back off from their criticism of these actions by the Thai authorities”.

Endnotes

1. Bangkok Post, Aug 19 2002

Return to Top

Crackdown Countdown

May 20 - Burma orders all border checkpoints with Thailand to be closed after an incident where Burma accused Thailand of shelling Burmese territory in support of a raid by a Shan ethnic armed group.

July 15 - The National Security Council of Thailand ordered immigration police to check on Thai and foreign volunteers providing support to anti-Rangoon ethnic minority groups.

Early August - Thai Defence Minister General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh instructed the Armed Forces Security Center of the Supreme Command to arrest any leaders of anti-Rangoon minority groups found in Thailand.

August 20 - Thai police and local authorities raided the offices of ethnic and democratic groups in Sangklaburi. 30 people from NLD-LA, DPNS, ABSDF, KNU and MYPO were arrested and taken to Sangklaburi Police station where they were charged with illegal entry into Thailand. The Foreign Ministry insisted all 30 dissidents were placed in safe areas inside Burma and not handed over to the junta.

August 30 - Thai police raided a primary school in Bhansaphanyaing village, southern Thailand (set up by the ABSDF) and took away 33 people (30 children, 3 teachers). The children were released on the same day.

October 15 - Thai-Burma border reopens after 5 months.

December 10 - Thai police arrested 28 people in Mae Hong Son who were participating in a discussion that coincided with Thailand Constitutional Day and International Human Rights Day. Those arrested were from KNYO, KSU, KING, PWO, ABSDF, NDD, SCOEWBA and Green November 32. News agencies had been informed of the raid and were present when it took place. Those arrested were charged with illegal political activities and faced deportation. 14 of the 28 were later released as they possessed legal travel documents. 13 of those detained were handed over to Thai immigration and were to be deported back to Burma.

December 19 - Thai army raided the Mon Youth Progressive Organisation in Sangklaburi. All Mon youths were deported to Plaing Japan, inside Burma.

December 20 - The Commander of the Ninth Thai Army ordered the offices of ABSDF, DPNS, MDUF, MYPO, PDF and the PPF in Sangklaburi to close their offices. The groups were ordered to close their offices within 2 days, otherwise they would be arrested. Officers were later seen photographing the offices but no arrests had been made.

December 24 - Military directive issued ordering 65 ethnic Karen from Sangklaburi District to return to Burma within three days. The Thai military accused them of being KNU but FORUM-ASIA declared them “unarmed civilians”, some of whom had Thai ID cards while others were participating in the national verification process.

December 28 - A humanitarian team from the Karen Action Group, comprising 35 people from England, Australia and Thailand, was detained by the Thai military. The group had been visiting refugee camps and distributing christmas presents at the camps. They were taken to an army base and detained for 3 1/2 hours, they were denied toilet breaks, food and water whilst being detained. They were then released.

 

December 29 - Gen Winai Phattiyakhul, newly appointed Secretray-General of the National Security Council said, “From now on, Thailand would force refugees to go back to where they came from. Thailand would not welcome refugees from Burma and other neighbouring countries anymore”.

January 20 - 9 Burmese activists were arrested in Sangklaburi. Those arrested were in hiding from the late December order that forced them from their offices and homes. At this time it is unclear where the 9 are being held and whether they will be deported back to Burma.

Return to Top


Warning: include(../../En/MenuClose.htm) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /usr/home/burma/domains/burmaissues.org/public_html/Scripts/BIPageLayout.php on line 34

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '../../En/MenuClose.htm' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in /usr/home/burma/domains/burmaissues.org/public_html/Scripts/BIPageLayout.php on line 34