[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
BurmaNet News: April 15, 2001
- Subject: BurmaNet News: April 15, 2001
- From: strider@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 04:01:00
______________ THE BURMANET NEWS ______________
An on-line newspaper covering Burma
April 15, 2001 Issue # 1780
______________ www.burmanet.org _______________
INSIDE BURMA _______
*The Weekend Australian: Senior Sub Editor - SE Asia
REGIONAL/INTERNATIONAL _______
*LA Times: A Man's Asylum Fight in the Land of the Free
*BurmaNet: Burmese Asylum Cases Fare Better than Most
*Battle Creek Enquirer (Michigan): B.C. may host 160 asylum-seekers
ECONOMY/BUSINESS _______
*Bangkok Post: Junta Keeps Tachilek Checkpoint Closed
*Myanmar Information Committee: Opening of A 1 Garment Factory in
Mingaladon Garden City and Yangon Industrial Zone
OPINION/EDITORIALS_______
*KNU: Regime?s Military Investigation Unit responsible for Nyaunglaybin
killings
*United Nations: Statement of Special Rapporteur on Myanmar to the
Commission on Human Rights
*SPDC: Statement of Myanmar Ambassador to the UN Commission on Human
*Altsean-burma: Is Burmese Diplomat an Alien?
OTHER______
*Burma Education Website
*SOAS Centre for South East Asian Studies: Forthcoming talk at SOAS-- Dr
Christina Fink on her new book 'Living Silence: Burma under military
rule'
__________________ INSIDE BURMA ____________________
The Weekend Australian: Senior Sub Editor - Se Asia
APR 14-15, 2001
The Myanmar Times, a national weekly paper in both languages and
published from the capital Yangon is looking for an experienced editor
with a minimum of three years subbing on a leading regional, rural or
daily newspaper. SE Asian experience will be highly regarded.
Applicant must possess cultural sensitivity and maturity. Salary
A$3-4k/mth with fully furnished apartment provided. Interviews to take
place in Melbourne and Perth over coming two weeks. In the first
instance email your CV and covering letter to: The Editor-in-Chief
<myanmartimes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[BurmaNet adds?The Myanmar Times maintains that it is not owned by the
regime. A number of mainstream news accounts as well as a reading of
its content indicate that it at a minimum reflects the view of Lt. Gen.
Khin Nyunt. Some press accounts assert?probably accurately?that it is
funded by the regime.]
___________________ REGIONAL/INTERNATIONAL___________________
LA Times: A Man's Asylum Fight in the Land of the Free
Sunday, April 15, 2001
His 642-day journey through the backlogged Immigration Court could
happen anywhere and calls into question 'justice for all.'
By LISA GETTER, Times Staff Writer
ARLINGTON, Va.--One by one, the 10 men line up against a wooden rail
in this federal courtroom, right hands raised, pledging to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
"I do," each replies--one after another after another, the statement
resonating powerfully by the time the 10th "I do" echoes through the
room.
This is America at its most basic: a chance for these men, eight of
whom have fled persecution themselves, to tell an immigration judge what
they know about Tialhei Zathang, a math teacher from Myanmar who is
applying for political asylum.
Immigration Judge Joan V. Churchill instructs the men to line up as
if they are waiting for a bus. The analogy might seem jarring, but
within these walls, the wheels of justice start and stop so many times
that it is just like a slow-moving bus.
U.S. Immigration Court is unique in American jurisprudence. There is
no bailiff, no court reporter, no one to record the hearings but the
judge herself, using a tape recorder that she can turn on and off at
will. There isn't even a full day set aside for Zathang's case, which
means the witnesses will come back again and again, workday after
workday, some never getting a chance to testify.
For Zathang and his supporters, the wait will prove excruciating.
>From the time Zathang files his asylum application, 642 days will pass
before Churchill issues her ruling. During those 21 months, documents
will be lost, attorneys will come and go and scheduling mistakes will
multiply.
And the decision, when it finally comes, will appear to contradict
much of what was said in court.
While Zathang's case may be unusual, its tortuous path reflects
broader problems with the nation's Immigration Court system.
Congress defines the mission of the courts as "the expeditious, fair
and proper resolution of matters coming before immigration judges." But
in reality, the courts are often backlogged. It is difficult to find
competent translators. And the identity of each of the 219 judges can
affect the outcome.
Statistics tell part of the story: Only 20 judges granted asylum in
more than 30% of their cases, while 69 judges approved fewer than 10% of
the asylum cases.
"Without a doubt, who the judge is makes a difference," said Ivan
Yacub, an immigration lawyer in Virginia.
To those immigrants who have experienced political or religious
persecution firsthand, asylum is a cornerstone of America's image as the
land of the free and the home of the brave. But relatively few of them
ever get it. A Los Angeles Times computer analysis of Immigration Court
statistics during a six-year period from 1994 to 2000 shows that judges
approved asylum requests in about 14% of their cases.
To counter widespread fraud in asylum cases, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service in 1995 began withholding work permits from
asylum applicants in an effort to weed out job-seekers from those truly
fearing persecution.
Zathang says he did not come for work. He came for freedom. This is
the story of one asylum case in one courtroom, before just one of the
immigration judges who decide the fates of tens of thousands of
asylum-seekers each year.
What happened here could happen anywhere in America, in courtrooms
often closed to the public, and under conditions that call into question
the concept of justice for all.
DAY ONE: Dec. 4, 1998
Tialhei Zathang shows up at an INS office in Arlington, Va., and
applies for asylum. He says he had been persecuted in Myanmar, the
Southeast Asian nation formerly known as Burma, where human rights
abuses are rampant.
He is a small, intense man, then 39 years old, with dark, quiet eyes
and an indentation on the left side of his forehead. Medical records say
it probably was caused by blunt trauma from a club or piece of wood.
Zathang says it came at the hands of the Burmese military, who detained
him for 11 days in 1988 and beat him until he was unconscious. He says
he was persecuted because he was a practicing Christian in a Buddhist
country who actively fought for democracy.
Zathang tells the INS he left Myanmar in the middle of the night on
Feb. 27, 1998, after the wife of the village leader warned him he was
about to be arrested again. The country has been under military rule
since 1962.
He says he and his family reached India after walking through the
jungle for 16 grueling days, clearing a path with a machete as they
went. He carried his 5-year-old daughter on his back, while his
6-year-old son walked on his own and his 15-year-old son carried
supplies.
Because Indian authorities have begun deporting Burmese back to
Myanmar, his wife and children remain in hiding in India even now. If he
were to return to his homeland, he says, he would be killed.
Zathang says friends and a Baptist pastor in India collected money
for him to buy a plane ticket to New York and an Indian passport issued
illicitly by a local official willing to overlook the fact that Zathang
was not a citizen of India. He arrived in the United States on Nov. 1,
1998.
"Although I did not know that I could apply for political asylum, I
knew that the United States was full of freedom and that I would be safe
there," Zathang states in an affidavit.
To win asylum under U.S. law, immigrants must prove they cannot
return to their country "because of persecution or a well-founded fear
of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group, or political opinion."
Most asylum applicants have little evidence to
prove a well-founded fear of persecution. Often their only proof is the
story they tell. Zathang's interview is scheduled for Jan. 4, 1999.
If the INS officer who interviews Zathang believes his story, he
could be granted asylum immediately. But the officer, who takes 3 1/2
pages of notes, turns the application down. It is referred to
Immigration Court for a full adversarial hearing.
The case is assigned to Churchill, the toughest immigration judge in
the Washington, D.C., area. She approves fewer asylum cases than any of
her judicial colleagues here.
Six months go by. An INS lawyer misplaces, then finds, Zathang's
birth certificate. A few days before the initial trial date in April,
the INS says it has decided to argue that Zathang has committed fraud.
Zathang's team says it needs more time to prepare.
DAY 206: June 28, 1999
The case is set to begin at 1 p.m. Churchill enters the courtroom
at 1:05 and says she won't get to the case until "2:30, at least." Her
docket is crowded as usual, and she has other matters to hear. It is
past 3:30 when she finally is ready.
Churchill began working for the INS as a lawyer in 1967. She has
been on the bench since 1980, a tenure surpassed by only five other
judges.
Judges such as Churchill have enormous discretion to interpret
immigration law. The Board of Immigration Appeals has been reluctant to
overrule judges, even when some members believe the judges are wrong.
Churchill grants fewer asylum requests than the national average.
She awarded asylum in only 233 of the 2,302 cases in which immigrants
showed up for their hearings since October 1994.
Churchill is a short, mercurial woman with reddish hair swept back
from her face by combs. She often fidgets with the pearls she wears over
her black robe; sometimes she peers over the bench with the long
necklace wrapped around her nose.
She is buried in paperwork. While immigrants testify, she
addresses, stuffs, then licks the back of an envelope. She shuffles
documents. She schedules future hearings. She copies documents on a
machine near her desk.
Six brightly colored paintings of garden scenes painted by
Churchill's husband hang on the blue walls of her courtroom. The air
conditioner hums loudly. A faded brown, wooden gate squeaks loudly each
time a witness approaches the bench.
Zathang's case file is 2 inches thick. His witnesses, some of whom
have been granted asylum themselves, are eager to testify about the time
he led a demonstration that angered the military, about the time he was
forced to spend days carrying soldiers' equipment, about the time he was
imprisoned in his
homeland for 11 days.
They spend most of their time sitting in the lobby. As witnesses,
they can't listen to the testimony.
Under the U.S. Constitution, asylum-seekers are not entitled to a
government-paid lawyer. Many law schools try to fill the gap by
sponsoring immigration law clinics, which give students the chance to
try cases.
Zathang's legal team comes from nearby Georgetown University. Two
second-year law students, Jessica Attie and Grace Lou, have spent
hundreds of hours preparing his case. The weekend before his packet was
due at the court, they worked 72 hours nonstop.
The interpreter assigned to the case does not speak the same
dialect as Zathang. But he is all that is available. Though it is
clearly difficult for the men to understand each other, the trial
proceeds.
Karl Klauck, the INS trial attorney, is the third government lawyer
on the case. That kind of turnover is not unusual in asylum cases.
Because the hearing is adversarial, Klauck's role is much like that of a
government prosecutor.
Klauck argues that Zathang's application should be denied on the
basis of fraud. He says Zathang is not Burmese at all. His reasoning:
Zathang came to America with an Indian passport. He contends that
Zathang is claiming Myanmar nationality simply to win asylum.
He says the case is "a house of cards."
Although it is late afternoon, the student lawyers want to call
retired Rutgers University political science professor Josef Silverstein
as a witness. They have arranged for him to testify by phone, a common
practice in Immigration Court because few immigrants can afford to pay
their witnesses' travel costs.
Churchill is reluctant. "Why is it so urgent I hear the witness
today?" she asks.
Silverstein has been waiting at his New Jersey home for hours. He
has testified before Congress on Myanmar. He has also testified in
Immigration Court, though not before this judge. Most of his research
has been about Myanmar's ethnic minorities such as Zathang, who says he
is from the Chin state near the border with India.
In his written affidavit, Silverstein urges the court to grant
Zathang asylum. "Based on my professional and personal experience, I can
attest that should Mr. Zathang be deported back to Burma, he would most
certainly face imprisonment and torture, and even execution."
Static crackles on the speaker phone, which makes it hard for
Silverstein to hear. Churchill loses her patience and soon cuts him off.
It is almost 6 p.m. The judge reschedules the case for another day, a
month away.
DAY 238: July 30, 1999
The hearing resumes at 9:23 a.m., 23 minutes late. Expectations are
high among Zathang's friends. Churchill had said she will set aside
enough time to hear his case today. But she has already scheduled other
cases for the afternoon.
Another INS lawyer, Lora Ries, is now handling the case. Churchill
wants to know whether the INS would support asylum if Zathang manages to
prove he is Burmese. "Assuming what he says is true, I take it then you
would grant him asylum?" the judge asks. Ries says the INS "still has
some trouble with the case" and would oppose asylum even then.
This time, Silverstein has taken the train from New Jersey to
testify in person for his cross-examination, the ticket paid for by the
law school. But he still has trouble making his points. The judge
interrupts Ries, instructing her how to ask the questions.
Frederic K. Lehman, an anthropology and linguistics professor at
the University of Illinois, takes the stand. He is rail-thin, with a
gray buzz-cut, a bushy black mustache and a booming voice reminiscent of
Sean Connery.
Lehman offers a piece of evidence that seems to cut right through
the government's case: He knew Zathang in Burma. They met at the
University of Mandalay when Lehman was a visiting professor in 1981.
Not only that, Lehman says, Zathang speaks a dialect found only in
the Chin state he claims as home.
When Lehman finishes, the judge breaks for lunch. She promises to
get back to the case after she wraps up some other matters on her
docket.
After lunch, the other matters drag on. The lawyer for a former
diplomat from Zaire tells Churchill what a delight it is to be in her
courtroom. She turns on her tape recorder and asks him to repeat the
statement. "It's always a delight," he says, "especially before you."
Nearly three hours go by. Zathang's witnesses sit in an anteroom on
the 13th floor of the office building that houses Immigration Court. The
judges and the INS lawyers have keys to a private bathroom, but everyone
else must take the elevator to the first floor and use a public one near
the subway entrance.
Finally, it is Zathang's turn to tell his story. He sits with his
student lawyers, facing the judge, and testifies through a different
interpreter, who this time speaks his dialect. Churchill tells Zathang
he must look at her while he testifies, but then the judge rarely looks
his way.
Zathang is measured as he speaks, even as he describes the beating
that left the scar on his head, the blood that covered him, the bad
smell in the tiny Myanmar cell, the three days without food or water.
"Just because I wanted to have democracy in my country, I was
beaten and tortured," he says. "I can't even express the words about how
I hate the military people in my country."
Churchill wants to know why he won't agree to be sent back to
India. Zathang takes off his glasses, holds them in his hands and looks
straight ahead. He understands some English and knows this is not a good
sign.
He says he is afraid to go back to India because the authorities
there have recently begun deporting Myanmar refugees back to their
homeland.
The judge breaks again to hear another unrelated matter. By now,
the INS lawyer has a headache. Attie's mother, who has come to watch the
proceedings, gives the lawyer aspirin.
After the break, Zathang continues to describe his life in Myanmar.
He explains how he became a member of the Chin National Front, a
pro-democracy group, how he was ordered by the military to disperse a
Christian revival, how he was forced to spend more than 10 hours a day
carrying equipment for the soldiers and how, finally, he was warned by
the wife of the village leader that he would be arrested again. So he
fled to India, where he managed to buy the passport that has become the
crux of the government's case against him.
When he is finished, his first cousin Philip Hrengling speaks on
his behalf. Hrengling, a pastor, already has been granted asylum by the
INS. Like Zathang, he fled Myanmar to India, where he too bought a
passport on the black market.
Churchill wants to know why Hrengling doesn't have the same last
name as Zathang. In the back of the room, professor Lehman shakes his
head, knowing that few Burmese use surnames.
"I can tell you for sure he is not an Indian citizen. We are born
in the same village and his father and my father are brothers,"
Hrengling testifies.
It is nearly 6 p.m. The case is not over yet, but it has been a
long day. The only free day the judge can find on her calendar is one
when the law students won't be in town. She schedules the case for that
day anyway.
DAY 245: Aug. 6, 1999
The hearing resumes. Georgetown University law professor Mary
Brittingham cuts short a California vacation to try the case for her two
students.
INS lawyer Ries isn't there either. In her place is still another
INS trial attorney, Sandra Czaykowsky, who is unfamiliar with the case.
Czaykowsky asks for a postponement, but Churchill turns down the
request.
The INS lawyer raises another obstacle. She says the interpreter at
the previous hearing had met Zathang at a church service, a disclosure
not made to the court. She says the law students helped pick the
interpreter, which makes his interpretation of Zathang's testimony
suspect.
But it is too late to make a change.
Zathang takes the stand again for cross-examination. He becomes
animated when describing a 15-minute speech he gave at an all-day
demonstration in front of thousands: "I said the military system of
government has to come down!"
As the INS attorney cross-examines Zathang, Churchill tries to keep
things moving along.
"There was a time when you actually left Burma, yes or no?" the INS
lawyer asks Zathang.
"He's here," Churchill interrupts. "Why would you ask a question
like that?"
The judge breaks for lunch and tells everyone to be back at 1:15
p.m. But she has double-booked her calendar again and takes up other
cases upon her return.
Zathang and his advocates bide their time. While they wait,
Churchill rules on a residency application from a Lebanese auto
mechanic. "Have you ever been involved in any terrorist organizations?"
she asks him. "There are quite a few terrorist organizations operating
in Lebanon, aren't there?" He says he is not a terrorist.
It is nearly 3 p.m. when Zathang's trial resumes. The key INS
witness, a document analyst, has left. Churchill is incensed. But the
case moves forward.
Zo T. Hmung, the uncle of Zathang's wife, relates that Zathang's
flight from Myanmar was described in an Indian newspaper. The judge
wants to see a copy.
The article was published on July 7, 1998. It says Zathang, who was
born in Burma and had been "arrested, tortured and jailed," had fled to
India. "Police are seeking him for interrogation, but they cannot
ascertain his whereabouts," the article says.
Lian Uk, who was elected to the Burmese Parliament but not allowed
by the government to assume his seat, testifies that he has known
Zathang for more than 20 years.
"He's, of course, a citizen of Burma," Uk says. "No, no, no, he
can't be a citizen of India. The Indian government does not accept dual
citizenship."
By now, the evidence seems overwhelmingly in favor of Zathang. "I'm
wondering if the government is willing to concede I should just grant
this applicant asylum?" Churchill asks.
Czaykowsky says no. "We will appeal. There are several issues in
this case."
Churchill knows about appeals. In a system that rarely reverses
judges, she has had 50 cases overturned outright in the six-year period,
more than any other sitting judge in the nation.
"Given the approach the government is taking on this case, they
haven't given me much to go on. It's not really a contested matter," she
says.
But the INS wants another day in court for the document examiner's
testimony.
DAY 250: Aug. 11, 1999
John Ross, the document expert, testifies that the Indian passport
is authentic, but he can't determine if it was bought on the black
market by Zathang. He also cannot draw any conclusions about Zathang's
blue-colored Burmese birth certificate because the INS has no similar
documents to which to compare it.
It is 11:10 a.m., time for closing arguments.
Attie delivers hers. She says Zathang was forced to buy an Indian
passport "to save his own life" and notes that his route to freedom was
identical to that of others who have been granted asylum. "Mr. Zathang's
life is testament to his defiant embrace of democracy."
It is the INS lawyer's turn. Ries is back. She argues that "it is
entirely possible that the applicant is an Indian citizen." She
speculates that perhaps Zathang once lived in Myanmar, but he must have
moved to India. She dismisses his role in organizing the pro-democracy
movement. If India were not safe, she asks, why would he leave his wife
and children there?
Attie bites her nails.
The judge questions Zathang at length and says she will issue her
decision after lunch. But within minutes she changes her mind, saying
she will take the case under advisement and render judgment later.
Later turns out to be more than a year away.
DAY 642: Sept. 6, 2000
Nearly 13 months after the final hearing, Churchill issues her
ruling, giving no explanation for the delay.
She denies Zathang's request for asylum. Despite her own comments
in the courtroom, despite the testimony of Zathang's witnesses, despite
the published account of his flight from Myanmar and the paucity of
evidence to support the government's position, Churchill says she
believes Zathang is actually Indian because of his passport. She
concedes that he "may have Burmese nationality as well" but concludes
that the time he spent in India proved he was living there without
persecution and could return safely.
"We cannot, from the record, completely sort out the truth from the
fictions," she writes. "It is our conclusion, from the preponderance of
the evidence here, that he has Indian nationality, despite his claims to
the contrary. It is not necessary for us to make any other factual
findings. We note, though, that his general credibility is in some
question."
She orders Zathang back to India but grants him a special
dispensation called voluntary departure, which would allow him to leave
America at his own expense with a clean immigration record.
DAY 668: Oct. 2, 2000
Zathang's lawyers file a notice of appeal.
In the motion, Georgetown University fellow Virgil Wiebe points out
that the judge referred to Zathang's witnesses as "convincing." He
argues that Churchill's decision is not supported by the law or by the
evidence and that it contains "significant factual errors and
omissions."
The request is pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. It
could take years before the panel rules.
Epilogue
Zathang, now 42, is allowed to stay in the U.S. pending his appeal.
He is living with friends in Maryland, looking for work. He finally got
a work permit from the INS last June. The card classifies him as
Burmese.
When he learned of Churchill's decision, he was so upset he
couldn't sleep for days. He said he does not know what else he could
have told the judge. "I have all the proof I am a Burmese citizen," he
said, sitting in his cousin's apartment, a calendar from his Chin
village in Myanmar on the wall. "If they couldn't accept that, I don't
know what more I could do."
The Times discovered that Zathang is listed on an Internet site
identifying Burmese Chin residing in the United States. His attorneys
were unaware of the reference, which helps corroborate Zathang's
nationality.
The Times also found other Burmese Chin who verified Zathang's
ethnicity. "He is not only my oldest brother's friend but also his
classmate when they were in Mandalay University," said Siang Dun, who
left Myanmar in 1995. Zapeng Sakhong, who taught at Mandalay University,
said he and Zathang came from nearby villages in Myanmar, that he knew
him at the university and had heard of his political activities. "He is
really from Burma," Sakhong said.
Zathang's family remains in India, hiding from the police. They
move every few days. Had Zathang been granted asylum, he would have
started the paperwork to bring them to the United States legally.
Zathang spoke with his wife by phone for 10 minutes in August 2000
on the same day Amnesty International warned that many ethnic Chin in
northeastern India were in danger of deportation. "I miss my family," he
said. "They are afraid of being arrested by the Indian authorities, so
they hide from one place to one place."
Attie, now 27, graduated from law school in May 2000. She is a
clerk for a federal judge. She said she lost her idealism about the
asylum process long before Churchill ruled in Zathang's case. "I knew
the system didn't work for everybody," she said.
Ries, the INS lawyer, now works for a congressional immigration
subcommittee. She thinks Churchill made the right decision. She said she
was suspicious of Zathang's story and felt there was no evidence that he
would be harmed in India if sent back. "There were credibility
questions," she said.
The 13 months it took Churchill to issue her decision violated a
60-day rule set by Chief Immigration Judge Michael J. Creppy. "Justice
delayed is justice denied," Creppy said in an interview. But he
acknowledged that his policy "is loosely enforced, to be honest."
Churchill declined to talk to a reporter about Zathang's case. In
accordance with Immigration Court policy, she would only respond to
questions through a court spokesman. "She insisted she needed all that
time. It required a lot of consideration. She had to wade through the
record," said spokesman Rick Kenney. "As far as statements made during
the trial, that may be part of the record, but the decision explains
itself."
After the trial ended, the INS invited one of Zathang's witnesses,
Zo T. Hmung, to speak at a celebration of asylum reform. Hmung, who is
president of the Chin Freedom Coalition, has spoken on behalf of Burmese
refugees around the world. At the INS event, he thanked America for
granting him asylum. But then he mentioned the case of a teacher from
his village, a man who first fled to India when he learned he was going
to be arrested.
"The INS made the improbable argument that he is Indian . . . even
though 10 people, including professors and members of parliament,
testified that he is a Burmese," Hmung said.
The INS posted Hmung's speech--with its reference to Zathang--on
its Web site.
* * *
http://www.latimes.com/asylum
* * *
Strictest Judges
Judges who granted asylum to 5% or fewer of the applicants.*
Judge Asylum Asylum Pct.
(State) Cases Granted Granted
Ronald L. Mullins (Nevada) 669 9 1.3
Roy Daniel (California, retired) 2,045 26 1.3
William F. Jankun (N.Y.) 2,050 28 1.4
Ira E. Bank (California) 1,579 37 2.3
Jack H. Weil (California) 337 8 2.4
* * *
Lenient Judges
Judges who grant more than 30% of their asylum cases.*
Judge Asylum Asylum Pct.
(State) Cases Granted Granted
Douglas B. Schoppert (N.Y.) 1,112 535 48.1
Margaret McManus (N.Y.) 2,273 967 42.5
William P. Van Wyke (Pa.) 769 316 41.1
Terry A. Bain (N.Y.) 2,126 874 41.1
Paul Grussendorf (California) 803 319 39.7
* * *
NOTE: Judges who heard a minimum of 250 cases.
*When the applicants shows up for the hearing
* * *
Attorney Representation Makes a Difference
The government does not provide legal counsel to immigrants who
appear in Immigration Court. But those with lawyers have a much greater
chance of receiving a favorable ruling:
* * *
Approval rates for all applicants
With an attorney: 23%
Without an attorney: 1.3%
* * *
Approval rate for asylum applicants only
With an attorney: 16%
Without an attorney: 1%
* * *
How to Seek Asylum in the United States
1. Ask for asylum at the port of entry or file an application for
asylum within one year of arrival.
2. Interview with asylum officer. The officer can grant or deny
asylum or refer the case to an immigration judge.
3. Hearing before immigration judge.
4. If judge denies claim, appeal with Board of Immigration Appeals
within 30 days of receiving denial.
* * *
Sources: Immigration Court, Immigration and Naturalization Service
* * *
Journey From Myanmar
1. Feb. 25, 1998, Zephai
In the Chin state in Myanmar, Tialhei Zathang helps organize a
village meeting to hear from members of the Chin National Front, a
pro-democracy group.
* * *
2. Feb. 27, 1998, Zephai
The village head sends his wife to warn Zathang that Burmese
soldiers are about to arrest him. Zathang, his wife and three children
flee on foot.
* * *
3. Their first stop is Ainak, a border village in India. Zathang
and his family finally stop walking. They stay at the home of an
acquaintance, who sends them on to the village of Saiha. There, they are
told to keep going until they reach Aizawl in the Indian state of
Mizoram. They get to Aizawl on March 15, 1998.
* * *
4. Nov. 1, 1998, New York City
Using a passport bought on the black market, Zathang arrives in New
York. His family remains in hiding in Aizawl.
Sources: Immigration Court testimony and exhibits
___________________________________________________
BurmaNet: Burmese Asylum Cases Fare Better than Most
By Strider
April 14, 2001
First, an admission. I have argued asylum cases at the INS office in
Arlington and gave an affidavit in support of Tialhei Zathang?s
application. The conduct of the Immigration Court Judge and the INS
attorneys profiled in today?s LA Times article (see above) was every bit
as incompetent as it appears in Lisa Getter?s article. It may come as a
surprise then that the asylum system is not usually so nightmarish, at
least for Burmese asylum seekers.
The rate at which people from Burma get asylum in the US is
extraordinarily high?perhaps as many as 80% of all applicants. The rate
at which applicants from most other countries prevail in asylum requests
is generally under 5% even for people coming from countries with regimes
that are as abusive, such as Guatemala. Most Burmese asylum requests
are granted after the initial interview with an INS officer and
therefore never make it into Immigration Court. Even Burmese cases that
are turned down at the first state and therefore are appealed to the
court fare better than most?probably 50% ultimately are granted asylum.
The reason for the high success rates are essentially three. The
regime?s human rights abuses are so bad and so widespread that it is
fairly simple to make out a credible asylum claim. Secondly, the
difficulty of getting from Burma to the United States means there are
relatively few Burmese seeking asylum and therefore no real political
backlash over large scale immigration. Just as importantly, US policy
to the regime is so hostile that the regime?s perceived opponents and
victims are generally viewed sympathetically by the US government.
Where valid Burmese asylum cases sometimes go off the rails is when the
interviewing officer does not bother to do their homework before
conducting an interview. In one case I argued at the Arlington office,
the interviewing officer did not know who Aung San Suu Kyi was and
literally could not find Burma on a map. In another, the INS attorney
consistently mispronounced Myanmar as ?Meeneemar.?
There are some steps that Burmese applicants in the United States can
take to improve their odds of avoiding an asylum disaster. First,
concentrate on making your case at the initial interview. The success
rate at this initial stage is much higher than in the appeals phase so
don?t make the mistake of underpreparing for the initial interview.
Second, tape record the interview. That way, if the interviewer does
not know enough about Burma to conduct an intelligent interview, you
will be able to show that on appeal.
Finally, don?t exaggerate or make anything up. Even the best
interviewers will probably not be experts on Burma but they are trained
to ask the same questions repeatedly. Applicants who are
embellishing?or making their stories up out of whole cloth?tend not to
be able to keep their story straight and catching an applicant in even a
fairly minor embellishment is enough for the INS to disbelieve the
entire case.
___________________________________________________
Battle Creek Enquirer (Michigan): B.C. may host 160 asylum-seekers
Saturday, April 14, 2001
By Karen Lynn Todd
The Enquirer
Burmese men and women who fled their native nation to practice
Christianity without persecution soon may be making their way to Battle
Creek. About 160 people are seeking asylum status from the United
States and may be in Battle Creek by midsummer to integrate with the
existing local Burmese population of about 90.
A planning meeting this week involving church leaders, community
assistance agencies and members of the local Burmese community generated
ideas to get many of the asylum-seekers from Guam to Battle Creek.
Because the people fled from Burma to Guam, an American-protected
territory, they cannot receive any government assistance to get from
Guam to Battle Creek.
Several Burmese people -- out of the 1,000 who fled Burma to Guam
during the past two years -- already have moved from Guam to the Cereal
City, including two nieces of Battle Creek resident Edward Thawnghmung.
They now live with him but he hopes to integrate them into the
community.
Thawnghmung is a Burma native who has lived in Battle Creek with
his immediate family for 20 years. He said he is excited about the
opportunity for his family and friends in Guam to come to Battle Creek.
"We have a lot of people in Guam waiting to come here,"
Thawnghmung said. "I believe this plan will work. We can make it."
Other U.S. Burmese communities include ones in Dallas, Atlanta,
Seattle and Maryland and some of the 1,000 asylum-seekers will go to
these cities. But the Burmese Refugees Assistance Committee, made mostly
of the local Burmese community, plan for about 160 men and women to come
here. The asylum-seekers are looking to begin life in Battle Creek with
new jobs, housing, culture and freedom to express their Christianity
without persecution. In their homeland, they withstood political
persecution by the Buddhist military.
Burma is a southeast Asian nation with about 48 million people.
About 90 percent of the population is Buddhist. Christians make up about
5 percent of the country's population, and most of them live in a state
called Chin.
"We want to see how we can get people here and assimilate them
into the community," said Duane Nieuwsma, pastor of the Christian
Reformed Church and member of the refugee assistance committee.
The cost of flying a Burmese person from Guam to Michigan could
cost between $750 and $1,200. Once they arrive, they would need shelter,
food and English-speaking lessons the first three months. After that,
they would become working citizens of the community.
For more information on the Burmese asylum-seekers coming to
Battle Creek from Guam, call 962-1817.
Karen Lynn Todd can be reached at 966-0684 or
ktodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________ ECONOMY AND BUSINESS _______________
Bangkok Post: Junta Keeps Tachilek Checkpoint Closed
Sunday,april 15, 2001
Subin Khuenkaew and Teerawat Khamthita
The Tachilek border checkpoint opposite Mae Sai district remains closed,
dashing traders' hopes that another 500 million baht would be in
circulation during Songkran.
A commercial bank branch will close early next month because of the
slump brought on by the lack of border trade.
Since the closure of the Mae Sai-Tachilek checkpoint on Feb 11 following
a clash between Thai and Burmese troops, border trade has come to a
standstill. Thailand unilaterally opened its side of the border
mid-March, but there are limits on the type of strategic goods which can
be sent into Burma.
Maj Domsak Khamsaengsai, chief of the Thai-Burmese border co-ordination
team in Mae Sai, said although the bilateral Regional Border Committee
meeting on April 2-4 was rated a success, all efforts to get the
checkpoint reopened had failed. Anant Kankham, president of the
Hoteliers Group of Chiang Rai, said since the closure the amount of
money in circulation in the area has dropped by at least 30%, down from
about 10 billion baht a year.
He said Radanasin Bank would close its branch in Mae Sai next month, and
14 other branches elsewhere in the country.
___________________________________________________
Myanmar Information Committee: Opening of A 1 Garment Factory in
Mingaladon Garden City and Yangon Industrial Zone
Yangon
Information Sheet
N0. B-1779 (I) 15th April, 2001
A clarification on development of Mingaladon Garden City and Yangon
Industrial Zone and opening of A 1 Garment Factory were held at the
factory in Mingaladon Garden City on 12 April attended by the
Secretary-1 of the State Peace and Development Council Lt-Gen Khin
Nyunt.
Garden City and Yangon Industrial Zone are over 3,000 and 1,000 acres.
Entrepreneurs bought plots for 40 factories. The A1 factory designed by
Myanmar engineers was built on 5.9 acres of plot with the investment of
K 400 million and machines worth US $ 1.2 million are installed.
Altogether 900 Myanmar employees with 13 foreign technicians are
working at the factory which produces man?s and lady?s suits, coats and
jackets. It is the first factory to produce man?s suits. The factory
will produce 720,000 units of clothing in 2002 and 1,200,00 in 2003 for
export.
_______________OPINION/EDITORIALS_________________
KNU: Regime?s Military Investigation Unit responsible for Nyaunglaybin
killings
OFFICE OF THE SUPREME HEADQUARTERS
KAREN NATIONAL UNION
KAWTHOOLEI
KNU Information Department
April 12, 2001
With regard to a news item, accusing the Karen National Liberation Army
(KNLA) troops of killing 27 wood cutters, published on April 6, in the
"New Light of Myanmar," the propaganda organ of the SPDC Burmese
military dictatorship, we have to say that it was totally false.
Our information from reliable sources indicates that the civilians were
in fact murdered by the dictatorship's special unit, known in short as
"Sa Thon Lon Apweh" in Burmese. A translation of it means "Military
Investigation Unit (MIU)." It operates independently from the regular
SPDC army units.
Members of this unit have been terrorizing the people, since 1998, by
torturing and killing innocent civilians at will in the KNLA 3rd Brigade
area (Nyaunglaybin District), in which the killing took place. In
addition, they freely commit such crimes as extortion, looting and rape,
against the Karen as well as the Burmese population.
Some details preceding the SPDC accusation were that the deputy
commander of the SPDC military Southern Command, Maung Ni, arrived at
the headquarters of Infantry Battalion 60 based in Kyaukkyi, on
30-3-2001. He instructed Infantry Battalion 60, Light Infantry Battalion
351 and units under the local SPDC tactical command to seize all the
persons and machinery, involved in stealing timber from the forest. In
the following days, the SPDC units seized 38 supposedly timber poachers
and handed them over to Kyaukkyi police.
The MIU is under the direct control of Maung Ni. There is reason to
believe that, the MIU members took out these unfortunate villagers and
murdered them, in accordance with a plot hatched at a higher level. They
then accused the KNLA troops of murdering these people.
The incident supposedly took place on the 23 of March and it was not
published in the NLM until the 6th of April. The accusation no doubt was
politically motivated and with the intention of tarnishing the good
image of the KNU.
The SPDC also accused the KNU of murdering the engineer, U Tint Lwin,
who was seized in a raid on a forced labor camp of the SPDC at a dam
construction site. The SPDC made this false accusation, even when they
knew that the KNU was making arrangement to hand over the engineer to
the ICRC. The engineer was finally handed over to a Thai intermediary,
on April 5, 2001, who had a good rapport with the SPDC.
Nowadays, the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) in Geneva has been
holding a hearing on human rights violations. Every year since 1990, the
Burmese military junta has been condemned by the UNHRC and the UNGA,
for serious and widespread human rights violations.
This year, perhaps, the junta hopes to pull a wool over the eyes of the
International Community, by concocting false propaganda against the
ethnic nationalities, who have to carry on armed resistance against the
junta's genocidal war against them.
False accusations against the ethnic nationalities are being done in
conjunction with what we see as a false dialogue with the NLD General
Secretary, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. It is clear that the junta is still
using various tactics of pressure to break her will. We hope that the
World does not fail to see the ruse and take necessary measures, in
time.
United Nations: Statement of Special Rapporteur on Myanmar to the
Commission on Human Rights
Address by Prof. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, United Nations Special
Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar to the UN
Commission on Human RightsGeneva 6 April 2001, 6 p.m.
Mr. Chairman, Deputy High Commissioner, Excellencies, ladies and
gentlemen, I would like to express my satisfaction with the opportunity
to intervene in this session of the Commission on Human Rights under the
Chairmanship of Ambassador Leandro Despouy.
As I am returning to the group of Special Rapporteurs and to the
Commission on Human Rights to report on the situation of human rights
in Myanmar, I would like to thank very warmly the former Chairman of
this Commission, Ambassador Simkhada for my appointment to that
mandate.
I would also like to honour the work done by my dear and eminent
predecessors, Professor Yozo Yokota and Justice Rajsoomer Lallah, for
their impeccable dedication to this mandate which I hope to be able to
follow. I want also to thank Mr. Predrag Zivkovic, my colleague from the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, for his
collaboration.
I would like to acknowledge and express my gratitude for the full
cooperation I received from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
Director-General of the Department of International Organisations, and
the Permanent Representative of the Union of Myanmar in Geneva, prior
and during my visit to the country. In addition, the UN Resident
Representatives in Bangkok and Yangon have most kindly facilitated the
extremely demanding logistical needs of my recent visit.
I take this opportunity to affirm before this Commission that the
principal reference in fulfilment of my mandate is and will always
remain the promotion of best interests of the victims of human rights
violations.
I wish to assure the Commission that I will not fail to speak very
clearly about the situation of human rights in Myanmar. I will report
in an independent, objective, fair and transparent way under the terms
of my fact-finding mandate. I will aim to offer my voice to the people
and the civil society of Myanmar, presenting their allegations to the
Government and requesting their effective action to provide redress and
prevent further violations.
I am aware that I am coming to a particularly difficult and challenging
mandate, but - judging by signs of changes reported by a number of
Myanmar observers in recent months ? I believe that the country is
currently about to enter a new phase which the Commission of Human
Rights and the international community must acknowledge and act upon. In
this specific conjuncture I understand that under the terms of the
resolution on Myanmar, my role is also to seize every window of
opportunity to contribute to the improvement of the promotion and the
protection of human rights in the country. In this endeavour, I will
work together with the Government of Myanmar, the opposition, members
of the emerging civil society, United Nations organisations, and the
international community at large.
As you know, I was appointed to this mandate on 28 December 2000,
following the resignation of Justice Rajsoomer Lallah in November last
year. Since my appointment I conducted three missions to Geneva, one to
New York and one field mission to Japan, Malaysia, Thailand from 24
March to 2 April 2001.
The visit to Myanmar took place between 3 and 5 April, and I will use
this opportunity to brief the Commission about my preliminary
observations on the latest developments in Myanmar. A more complete
mission report will be included in the forthcoming report to the
General Assembly later this year.
Taking into account the activities and reports submitted by my two
predecessors, Professor Yokota and Justice Lallah, whom I have
contacted, and further to consultations with Governments, United
Nations agencies and experts on the human rights situation in Myanmar, I
made my first priority to create conditions to be able to be invited by
the Government of the Union of Myanmar to visit the country.
Also taking into account the time constraints and the current realities
on the ground, I decided to make this first country visit exploratory -
to establish channels of communication and to build mutual trust and
confidence with the Government. I am pleased to report that those terms
of reference, which were intentionally limited, were fully
accomplished. In Yangon I met with Secretary (1) of the State Peace and
Development Council (SPDC), Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of
Home Affairs, Minister of Labour, and other senior Government
officials.
In addition, I met with representatives of the political opposition in
Myanmar. I was received by the leader of the National League for
Democracy (NLD), Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, at her house and I was able to
attest that she is in excellent health. Separately I also had the
possibility to meet with other senior NLD officials, U Lwin, Secretary
General, and his colleagues U Nyunt We, U Than Tun, U Hla Pe, and U Soe
Myint, to hear their analysis of the present political situation and
perspectives for the future.
I also met representatives of ethnic and religious communities,
diplomatic and business community, and representatives of United
Nations and other international organisations working in the country.
My mission to Japan, Malaysia and Thailand was inspired by the need to
learn and better understand the perspectives of those countries on the
human rights and humanitarian situation in Myanmar, and their
corresponding national policies. I am pleased to report very fruitful
discussions with Government officials, civil society and members of the
legislative bodies of those states.
I also had the honour to meet on two occasions, in New York and Kuala
Lumpur, with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Myanmar,
Amb. Razali Ismail, to whom I proposed to coordinate our future
activities, which he accepted.
I conducted my mission against the background of the recent news brought
by Amb. Razali that a process of dialogue between the Government of
Myanmar and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the NLD, had started. In
this connection I take note that no official statement has yet been made
by either of the two parties to the dialogue. In consequence, I have no
further information concerning those both sides to share with the
Commission at the present moment.
Notwithstanding, I have received numerous indications from human rights
observers, ethnic groups and civil society organisations that a great
deal of hope is placed on such a dialogue as a means to open the doors
for a free, democratic and peaceful Myanmar.
As indicated above, the nature of my mandate is fact-finding. I have not
yet had the opportunity to make a first-hand and objective analysis of
the situation of human rights in Myanmar, but I am confident that a
suitable opportunity will arise in the near future, in the course of
forthcoming missions and throughout the duration of my mandate.
I take note of information received from reliable sources that in some
areas where the authorities have accepted independent observation, such
as in prisons, there has reportedly been some improvement.
I take note of the fact that the Government of Myanmar released from
detention a number of members of the opposition. In connection with this
matter, during my visit I expressed my opinion to the Government that
there is an urgent need to consider the release of the old, the
mentally disturbed and those prisoners whose sentences have reportedly
already expired. I received the assurance that the Government took note
of my intervention and that it will give it due consideration on a
case-by-case basis. I intend to remain seized of this important issue
and will continue following it up with the authorities.
I take note of a series of steps taken by the Government recently,
including their willingness to engage with United Nations and the
international community by entering into a dialogue with the Human
Rights Commission through the Special Rapporteur, and their continued
cooperation with the Secretary General's envoy, Amb. Razali.
I take note with satisfaction that the government of Myanmar has
constituted a 20-member Human Rights Committee under the patronage of
Secretary (1) of the State Peace and Development Council in April 2000.
The Committee has eight working groups dealing with issues ranging from
international human rights law, health, education and labour. During my
mission I had an opportunity to meet with the Committee and have a brief
exchange of views on the human rights situation in Myanmar. The work of
the Committee is clearly in its very early stages, which makes an
objective assessment difficult at present.
During my visit I expressed to the Minister of Labour that I was
encouraged by the resumption of a dialogue between the International
Labour Organisation and the Government of Myanmar concerning forced
labour, and hopes that the authorities will be able to find ways to
establish modalities for cooperation for objective and fair assessment
after several legislative changes concerning this question.
I believe that, despite not being able to carry out a full fact-finding
mission during the short time since my appointment, there are several
signs that indicate an evolution leading to an eventual political
opening.
The present juncture requires search for consistent approach, with
emphasis on dialogue, allowing different actors both those within and
outside the country, to work towards the same goal despite eventual
differences.
I am convinced that the best hopes for governance reforms in Myanmar
require a mix of long-term strategies and immediate steps. Among those
steps, as I conveyed to the Government, are the freedom of expression
and assembly, the early release of political prisoners,
liberalisation of the media space and strengthening of the civil
society and the right to participation in public life. Those
initiatives will contribute to the process of confidence building in
the country.
There are also some pressing social needs that cannot continue to be
neglected. Among those there is the requirement for the alleviation the
humanitarian needs: some solutions cannot wait any longer. However, I
believe that the Government should create the situation whereby such
international assistance could be given and effectively reach the most
vulnerable sections of the population, such as children, persons
affected by HIV/AIDS, and the poor.
This approach must be built upon existing initiatives and measures
already in place. Any positive initiative must be acknowledged and
encouraged by the international community, which must be prepared to
offer positive answers to any indicators of real progress towards
democratisation and strengthening of human rights protection.
I am convinced that the deepening of the isolation of Myanmar should be
avoided. If the international community wants to contribute for the
promotion of human rights, it is necessary to find ways to increase the
integration of Myanmar into the international community.
___________________________________________________
SPDC: Statement of Myanmar Ambassador to the UN Commission on Human
Rights
Check against delivery
Statement by
His Excellency U Mya Than
Permanent Representative and
Leader of the Myanmar Observer Delegation
to the fifty-seventh session
of the Commission on Human Rights
on the brief oral presentation by Mr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro under Agenda
Item 9
Geneva 9 April 2001
Mr. Chairman,
At the outset, I should like to extend the warmest congratulations of my
delegation to you on your unanimous election to the chair of the
fifty-seventh session of the Commission on Human Rights. I also wish to
express the deep satisfaction of my delegation with the effective manner
in which you have been conducting the proceedings of the Commission. We
are confident that, under your able leadership, this session will come
to a successful conclusion. [My tribute also goes to the other members
of the Bureau]*
Professor Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of
Human Rights in Myanmar, made his brief oral presentation on his first
visit to my country on Friday last.
Mr. Chairman,
Professor Pinheiro's brief oral presentation calls to my mind the
generally-accepted norms concerning the functions of the
country-specific Special Rapporteurs and on the way they should write
their reports on situations of human rights in the respective countries.
Mr. Chairman,
Undoubtedly, the proper role of the country-specific Special Rapporteur
is to be a neutral, independent observer and to write a report on the
situation of human rights in the country concerned in an unbiased and
balanced manner. He must, therefore, abide by the universally-accepted
principles of objectivity, non-selectivity and impartiality in dealing
with the questions of human rights, which are enshrined in the Final
Declaration of the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in
1993, and other legal instruments on promotion and protection of human
rights.
Mr. Chairman,
I mention this on purpose, because it is the very basis on which the
mechanism of the country-specific Special Rapporteurs operates.
Whether the country-specific Special Rapporteurs have actually operated
on that basis and whether they have met the above-mentioned criteria and
whether they have performed their functions properly are the questions
that the Commission on Human Rights and the delegations, directly
concerned, will have to address.
Mr. Chairman,
This explains why my Government had declined to accept the proposed
visits of Mr. Lallah, the former Special Rapporteur on the Situation of
Human Rights in Myanmar.
Mr. Chairman,
The reasons are crystal clear, sound and rock-solid. Mr. Lallah deviated
widely from these established norms. His reports were very much biased,
partial and slanted against Myanmar. Much as we desired to cooperate
with the United Nations and the Commission on Human Rights, we had been
compelled, for the reasons stated above, to decline the proposed visits
of Mr. Lallah. And we had no other choice but to categorically reject
and dissociate from those resolutions, which were largely based on the
texts in Mr. Lallah's reports.
It is now time that this negative approach and the unfair treatment of
Myanmar be replaced by a positive approach and a fair treatment of
Myanmar on the part of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human
Rights in Myanmar and the proponents of the draft resolution on my
country.
Mr. Chairman,
I am glad that Professor Pinheiro has taken a positive approach. And
rightly so,
Judging on the main thrust and the contents of the brief oral
presentation by the Special Rapporteur, it is quite fairly balanced and
quite positive. Much more so than the misrepresentations of facts in his
predecessor Mr. Lallah's reports.
In his brief oral presentation Professor Pinheiro made the following
observations:-
"I would like to acknowledge and express my gratitude for the full
cooperation I received from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
Director-General of the Department of International Organizations, and
the Permanent Representative of the Union of Myanmar in Geneva, prior
and during my visit to the country."
"I believe that the country is currently about to enter a new phase
which the Commission of Human Rights and the International community
must acknowledge and act upon."
"I take note of a series of steps taken by the Government recently,
including their willingness to engage with the United Nations and the
international community by entering into a dialogue with the Human
Rights Commission through the Special Rapporteur, and their continued
cooperation with the Secretary General's envoy, Ambassador Razali."
"I take note with satisfaction that the government of Myanmar has
constituted a 20-member Human Rights Committee under the patronage of
Secretary (1) of the State Peace and Development Council in April 2000.
The Committee has eight working groups dealing with issues ranging from
international human rights law, health, education and labour. During my
mission I had an opportunity to meet with the Committee and have a brief
exchange of views on the human rights situation in Myanmar. [The work of
the Committee is clearly in its very early stages, which makes an
objective assessment difficult at present.]"*
"I take note of information received from reliable sources that in some
areas where the authorities have accepted independent observation, such
as in prisons, there has reportedly been much [some]** improvement."
"I believe that, despite not being able to carry out a full fact-finding
mission during the short time since my appointment in December, there
are several signs that indicate an evolution leading to an eventual
political opening."
"Any positive initiative must be acknowledged and encouraged by the
international community, which must be prepared to offer positive
answers to any indicators of real progress towards democratisation and
strengthening of human rights protection."
"I am convinced that the deepening of the isolation of Myanmar should be
avoided. If the international community wants to contribute for the
promotion of human rights, it is necessary to find ways to increase the
integration of Myanmar into the international community."
Mr Chairman,
The afore-mentioned quotations from Professor Pinheiro's brief oral
presentation clearly demonstrate that the Myanmar Government has
goodwill; it is acting in good faith and with sincerity; and that it has
fully cooperated with the Special Rapporteur to the extent possible
during his recent visit to Myanmar by extending all the assistance,
sought by him, and by making all the necessary arrangements.
Furthermore, Professor Pinheiro's oral presentation also goes a long way
in rectifying and enhancing the image of Myanmar, which has been
negatively portrayed by the anti-Myanmar Government elements and the
Western media. It clearly demonstrates that Myanmar, the reality that he
has discovered during his visit, is a far cry from the false
allegations, levelled at my country.
Mr. Chairman,
In view of the time constraint and the requirement for brevity of
interventions, I only wish to refresh the memory of the members and
observer delegations in this room on some pointers to the recent
encouraging developments in Myanmar.
- For the first time in 6 years, the Government of the Union of Myanmar
has accepted the visit of the newly-appointed Special Rapporteur
Professor Pinheiro. The Special Rapporteur's visit took place just a few
days ago from 3 to 5 April 2001.
The Myanmar authorities have fully cooperated with the Special
Rapporteur to the extent possible during his visit to Myanmar with the
result that the Special Rapporteur's visit turned out to be a success.
- The Special Rapporteur Professor Pinheiro made his brief oral
presentation on his visit to Myanmar at the meeting of the Commission on
Human Rights on Friday last. This presentation is fairly balanced, and
reflects the positive developments taking place in Myanmar.
- Mr. Razali Ismail, Special Representative of the United Nations
Secretary-General also paid a fruitful visit to Myanmar in January 2001.
(He had visited Myanmar twice before in July and October 2000.)
- The Government has recently released 85 persons in January and 16 more
in March 2001, respectively. This gives the lie to the unfounded
allegations of "the increasing repression" by the Government.
- The Government has established a Steering Committee at the highest
level, headed by Lt-General Khin Nyunt, Secretary (1) of the State Peace
and Development Council and a Human Rights Committee, headed by Col Tin
Hlaing, Minister for Home Affairs. These bodies are carrying out
preparatory work and will pave the way for the establishment, in due
course, of a full-fledged institution on promotion and protection of
human rights.
- While my country has ceased cooperation with the ILO for the time
being in relation to Convention 29 on account of the unfair treatment of
my country and the unwarranted imposition of drastic measures under
Article 33 of the ILO Constitution, Myanmar has shown its goodwill and
positive gesture. His Excellency U Khin Maung Win, Deputy Minister for
Foreign Affairs, came to Geneva, on his way to South America to attend
an international conference, and held talks with Mr. Juan Somavia,
Director-General of the ILO on 22 March 2001.
- There are also other activities going on in Myanmar by way of
promoting human rights and raising the awareness of human rights. The
Myanmar Government, in cooperation with Mr. Chris Sidoti, the former
Australian Commissioner for Human Rights, has been organizing workshops
and seminars on human rights in Yangon from July 2000 onwards.
- Contrary to the much-publicized allegations, schools and universities
are open, and students from kindergarten to post-graduate classes have
been pursuing their studies peacefully.
[- There have been many more positive developments in other areas, as
well, in my country in the past one year.]*
Mr. Chairman,
These are just a few pointers to the recent positive developments in
Myanmar. I shall dwell at a greater length on the endeavours and the
concrete achievements of the Myanmar Government in my next intervention.
Mr. Chairman,
May I reiterate here for the record that we do not accept that there
have been violations of human rights in Myanmar, as portrayed by the
anti-Government elements and the Western media. Nor do we accept that
there be any need for having a resolution on the situation of human
rights in Myanmar. This remains to be the official position of the
Myanmar Government.
Nevertheless, we are ready and willing to cooperate with the United
Nations and the Commission on Human Rights to the extent possible under
the prevailing circumstances.
This cooperation has resumed between the Commission on Human Rights and
Myanmar with the fruitful visit of the Special Rapporteur to Myanmar
just a few days ago.
Professor Pinheiro has made a good start as the Special Rapporteur on
the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar.
We, on our part, have demonstrated our goodwill and willingness to
cooperate. The full cooperation on the part of the Myanmar authorities
to the extent possible has contributed to the success of the first visit
of the Special Rapporteur to my country.
We do hope that Professor Pinheiro will follow through with his positive
approach in the future, as well. With the proviso that he does so, it
will enhance the possibility of the continuation of our cooperation with
the Commission on Human Rights.
Let us, therefore, accentuate the positive, and promote a cooperative
approach, rather than a coercive one.
I thank you Mr. Chairman
* The text in square brackets was in the printed text, but not read
out. Since the note "Check against delivery" heads the printed text, the
oral delivery is authoritative.
** The word used by the Special Rapporteur in his oral presentation was
"some", which also appears in the printed text of the Ambassador's
statement. However, the word actually read out by His Excellency was
"much".
___________________________________________________
Altsean-Burma: Is Burmese Diplomat an Alien?
IS BURMESE DIPLOMAT AN ALIEN?
UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Oral Intervention on Item 14
Delivered by Deborah Stothard, April 12, 2001
Mr/Madam Chairperson,
I speak on behalf of Aliran Kesedaran Negara.
I wish to use this time to highlight two particular cases, that although
quite different, stem from the same root causes - the oppression of
ethnic nationality and religious minorities in Burma, and the prevalent
use of forced relocation.
These causes have led to an increase in the number of internally
displaced persons. Many of these internally displaced persons end up
becoming refugees, trafficked persons and migrant workers seeking to
escape the intense oppression perpetrated by the regime known as the
State Peace and Development Council of Myanmar.
On January 18th, Nang Thwe, a 14 year old girl, who came from the
relocation sites in Lai Kha township, Shan State, was sold at the town
of Mae Sai, in Thailand. Her brother traveled to Mae Sai to try to bring
her back home. However, the "purchaser" of the girl demanded that he buy
his sister back for 20,000 baht [about USD 500]. He returned to Burma to
collect some money. Tragically, when he arrived in Thailand with some
money, he was unable to get her back. Since then 14-year-old Nang Thwe
and her "owner" have disappeared.
Nang Thwe and many young people like her are vulnerable to being
trafficked because of human rights violations committed by the military
regime in Burma. We can only pray that she will be able to stay alive
and be "lucky" enough to eventually be rescued by welfare groups in
Thailand. Even then, there is no guarantee that young women like Nang
Thwe will be returned home safely - the regime has not committed itself
to such repatriation programmes. In addition, the villages of these
young people may have been forcibly relocated several times, or their
communities may have fled to the jungles of Burma, to evade the
violations of security forces.
The problem of children of Burma being trafficked to work as labourers,
sex workers and domestic help is already well known to the Commission.
In March, the High Commissioner for Human Rights Mrs Mary Robinson
herself was able to witness this problem when she visited a children's
shelter near Bangkok, Thailand.
Therefore, it is somewhat amazing to hear the regime's ambassador His
Excellency U Mya Than this week deny that there have human rights
violations in Myanmar. Has the SPDC somehow miraculously eradicated the
scourge of human rights violations between March and this week, or does
he mean that the SPDC has successfully exported all its violations
across the border? Or are we talking about two entirely different
countries - is there another Myanmar or Burma existing in a parallel
universe that is free of human rights violations, and has H E U Mya Than
beamed himself down from that planet?
Mr/Madam Chairperson,
In Malaysia, Mr Peter Hee Man, of Chin ethnic nationality from Burma
faces deportation into the hands of the SPDC, merely because he went to
observe a protest at a public event held by the Myanmar embassy in Kuala
Lumpur.
Aliran urges the Malaysian government not to deport Peter Hee Man. Mr
Hee Man was was detained along with three Malaysians who were part of a
group that paraded Aung San Suu Kyi T-shirts in front of guests at the
embassy reception. Mr Hee Man was unlawfully detained by security agents
of the embassy who then insisted that the Malaysian police arrest him.
He was subsequently released and immediately re-arrested for being an
illegal immigrant. Mr Hee Man has a pending application to be recognized
as a refugee by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. He
is currently being detained at the Immigration Detention Centre in
Macap, Melaka state pending deportation. UNHCR is attempting to process
his application, however the Malaysian government has given no assurance
that Peter Hee Man will be allowed to stay in Malaysia until his UNHCR
application is processed.
Aliran calls on the Malaysian government to stay Mr Peter Hee Man's
deportation until his application for refugee status and subsequent
resettlement can be processed. We are convinced that if he is deported,
he will be deported to the Myanmar or Burma that DOES perpetrate human
rights violations against activists and people of ethnic and religious
minorities.
We note that Mr Peter Hee Man has been identified as a pro-democracy
sympathizer, also that he is of Chin ethnic background and is a
Christian. It is a documented fact that the Chin people have been
targeted for abuse by the military regime on these grounds. Deporting Mr
Peter Hee Man would be an act that would condemn him to torture or even
death at the hands of the Burmese military junta.
Thank you.
______________________OTHER______________________
Burma Education Website
The Burma Education website is now accessible at:
http://geocities.com/mahawthahta/index.html
However, it is our beta site and we are working on getting a permanent
host with a faster service.
Currently, you can access the pages at the above mentioned address and
we will inform you after we have straightened things out. This website
has information for Burmese students on neccessary steps taken in
studying abroad, taking tests, scholarships, culture shock, etc. as well
as a page for donors. Please take a look at it and send us suggestions
and comments.
Mahawthahta [mailto:mahawthahta@xxxxxxxxx]
___________________________________________________
SOAS Centre for South East Asian Studies: Forthcoming talk at SOAS-- Dr
Christina Fink on her new book 'Living Silence: Burma under military
rule'
The talk is to be hosted by the Centre for South East Asian Studies and
will be held in room BG05 at 5pm on Thursday 26th April 2001 at the
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London
Thornhaugh St, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG
(nearest tube Russell Square or Goodge St)
All are welcome, contact cseas@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cseas@xxxxxxxxxx> or
call the SOAS Centre for South East Asian Studies on 020 7898 4220 for
details or further directions.
________________
The BurmaNet News is an Internet newspaper providing comprehensive
coverage of news and opinion on Burma (Myanmar) from around the world.
If you see something on Burma, you can bring it to our attention by
emailing it to strider@xxxxxxx
To automatically subscribe to Burma's only free daily newspaper in
English, send an email to:
burmanet-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to The BurmaNet News in Burmese, send an email to:
burmanetburmese-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You can also contact BurmaNet by phone or fax:
Voice mail or fax (US) +1(202) 318-1261
You will be prompted to press 1 for a voice message or 2 to send a fax.
If you do neither, a fax tone will begin automatically.
Fax (Japan) +81 (3) 4512-8143
________________
Burma News Summaries available by email or the web
There are three Burma news digest services available via either email or
the web.
Burma News Update
Frequency: Biweekly
Availability: By fax or the web.
Viewable online at http://www.soros.org/burma/burmanewsupdate/index.html
Cost: Free
Published by: Open Society Institute, Burma Project
The Burma Courier
Frequency: Weekly
Availability: E-mail, fax or post. To subscribe or unsubscribe by email
celsus@xxxxxxxxxxx
Viewable on line at: http://www.egroups.com/group/BurmaCourier
Cost: Free
Note: News sources are cited at the beginning of an article.
Interpretive comments and background
details are often added.
Burma Today
Frequency: Weekly
Availability: E-mail
Viewable online at http://www.worldviewrights.org/pdburma/today.html
To subscribe, write to pdburma@xxxxxxxxx
Cost: Free
Published by: PD Burma (The International Network of Political Leaders
Promoting Democracy in Burma)
________________
==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?b1dbSX.b1CGhI
Or send an email To: burmanet-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This email was sent to: reg.burma@xxxxxxxxxx
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
==^================================================================