A Subtle way of Ethnic Cleansing and Marginalizing the People

7/30/2019 A Subtle way of Ethnic Cleansing and Marginalizing the People

1/7

A Subtle way of Ethnic Cleansing and Marginalizing the PeopleKanbawza Win

Is the reform really working for the entire people of Burma or just for the top layers of

the society with the help of foreign companies? is the big question which every Burmese

nationalist is asking himself? It seems that economic hardship, ongoing ethnic conflicts and ahistory of media censorship will prove more serious challenges to reform in this former pariahstate.1Thein Seins reforms are largely geared towards creating a `late developmental statealong the lines of Vietnam and China and sadly, the West and the rest alike are choosing tooverlook the apparent pitfalls of Burmas reforms, ignoring the cries of the wretched and the

marginalized 55 million plus people especially the ethnic nationalities of this New Burma.Ordinary people see little tangible improvement in their day-to-day lives, and inflation is havingan adverse effect on the lives of many Burmese. According to the UNs most recent Integrated

Household Living Conditions Assessment, the average proportion of total household budgetspent on food is 68 percent (74 percent for the poorest 30 percent of the population). Almost, onethird of the countrys population lives below the poverty line, according to the World Bank

figures, which recently approved a $245 million development package to the country.Given long-standing ethnic conflicts are including the Kachin State, Rohingya in

Western Burma, Northern Shan States and the latest being an unjustified crack down on theBurmese Muslims, proves that the Western countries praise on Burma is something terriblywrong.The government has successfully used Daw Aung San Suu Kyis image. a democracyicon to promote and protect their way of reform. Their strategy is one of using your enemysgood name to reach its own objective.

But the worst part is that Inadequate land laws have opened rural Burma to rampant landgrabbing by unscrupulous, well-connected businessmen who anticipate a boom in agricultural

and property investment, what we in Burmese say (w&m;0i "g;jy) legal dacoits. If unchecked, thegathering trend has the potential to undermine the country's broad reform process and impedelong-term economic progress.2 Under the former military regime, land grabbing became acommon and largely uncontested practice. Government bodies, particularly Tatmadaw units ofwere able to seize large tracts of farmland, without compensation at the point of the gun. Whilesome of the land was used for the expansion of military bases, new government offices orinfrastructure projects, much of it was used either by military units for their own commercialpurposes or sold to private companies.

This threat of military force meant there was little grass roots opposition to these landseizures and few avenues to secure adequate compensation. Under military rule, many farmerssimply understood that it was fruitless to challenge land seizures by state-owned enterprises orgovernment cronies. Indeed, protests could result in lengthy prison sentences, enforceddisappearances, or, especially in ethnic areas, summary execution.

Now, with the new democratic order as local communities band together to fight backagainst seizure of their lands there were several problems. Many of the current land disputes dateto the period before the 2010 general elections. The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation's

1Analysis How Real are the Myanmar Reforms 20-11-2012

2McCarten; Brian,Land grabbing as big business in Burma Asia Times 8-3-2013


2/7

Department of Agricultural Planning reported in January 2010 that 216 companies had receiveda total of 1.75 million acres (708,200 hectares) of farmland in the form of state concessions.Many of the disputes now being contested are related to land taken in the mid- to late-1990s. Asignificant proportion of the land grabbing during this period took place in ethnic-majority statesin the country's peripheral regions.

This was especially the case in areas along the border with China in Kachin and ShanStates and along the border with Thailand in the Karen and Mon States, a clear way of ethniccleansing. The Tatmadaw maintained a strong presence in these areas to battle ethnic freedomfighters and uphold tenuous ceasefires with other insurgent organizations. Much of the land wastaken for military camps and military access roads, but also for commercial projects either run bythe military or companies with ties to the military.3 Significant land grabbing also took place inthe Sagaing and Irrawaddy Divisions.

With new hope for an economic revival and rising property prices sparked by Thein Sein'sreformist government, land grabbing has continued in many of these areas and has also increasedin central Burma and in Rakhine State in the west of the country, especially in Rohingyainhabited areas. Current land grabbing is forcing farmers off their land for commercial agri-

business ventures, infrastructure projects, tourism development, industrial facilities and gaspipelines. Political and economic reforms, together with relaxed sanctions and a betterrelationship with the West, have raised expectations of a foreign investment-led economic boom.The government has actively encouraged more investment in agriculture, one of the country'smore laggard economic sectors, by promoting the country's former role as the "rice bowl ofAsia and highlighting its agriculture. But the quasi military regime in driving from the Ricehole of Asiaof the Juntas rule to the Rice bowl of Asia is not without problem. It hasencouraged state agencies and private companies to seek to acquire larger tracts of land in thehopes of enticing foreign partners. Local firms are both seeking new land as well as reassertingdubious claims to past ownership over land they received as concessions during the 1990s underthe military government.

The symbiotic relationship between serving and former military officers and influentialprivate businessmen that flourished under the previous military regime remains largelyunchanged under the current administration. Indeed, these alliances are in the forefront to landlucrative joint venture deals with foreign investors. Although widely derided as "cronies" of themilitary, these businessmen have long occupied a powerful niche in Burma's economy, a rolewhich will be enhanced with foreign investment-driven faster economic growth. At the sametime, connections to the security forces provide these firms with the muscle to intimidate or forcesmall landholders off their claimed lands. Rising land grabbing is resulting in greaterdisplacement and landlessness among Burma's rural population. Public dissatisfaction with thesituation, coupled with a new openness brought about by the reform process, is leading somefarmers and other land owners to protest the seizures.

The much publicized protest has involvedthe forced removal of villagers from threevillages in Sagaing Division to expand a copper mine being developed by the government-ownedUnion of Myanmar Economic Holdings (UMEH) and the Wan Bao Co. Ltd, a subsidiary ofChina North Industries Corp. A protest that included a large number of Buddhist monkssupporting displaced villagers was violently broken up by police. Incendiary devices fired intothe protest camp severely burned several of the monks, according to press reports. The heavy-



3/7

handed crackdown sparked outrage across the country.In another case, farmers in Mandalay Division filed a court case against the Bureau of

Air Defense and the High Tech Concrete company owned by army crony Aik Tun for theirperceived as unlawful seizure of 40 acres (16.1 hectares) of land. Most recently, on February 26,a police attempt to break up a protest in Maubin Township, Irrawaddy Division resulted in a

clash where one policemen was killed and dozens of police and villagers injured. The farmerswere protesting the confiscation of their land by the military in 1996 and its later sale to abusinessman in 2004.

Under theNargis Constitution, the state is the ultimate owner of all land and naturalresources above and below it. Land rights are exclusively in the form of either leasehold rights,user rights, or the right to cultivate a certain plot of land. These rights are granted on the approvalof local government bodies appointed by the central government.

Two new land laws passed on March 30, 2012 - the Farmland Law and the Vacant,Fallow, and Virgin Land Management Law - were intended to clarify ownership under theconstitution and provide protections to land. While the laws guaranteed more individualownership rights, to date big businesses have profited most from the legislation. The new laws

created a dysfunctional and opaque system of land registration and administration that reinforceda top-down decision-making process without local participation. The absence of adequate legaland judicial recourse for the protection of land rights has further exacerbated the situation.Rather than deter land rights violations, the laws have effectively facilitated more land grabbingand manipulation of the system.

While providing for certificates of ownership and the selling of rights to land, theFarmland Law requires prospective land owners to register at local Farmland ManagementCommittees. These committees are appointed by the government with no representation fromfarmers, leaving them open to corruption and the influence of government and military officialsin league with commercial interests. The composition of the committees and enduring distrust ofthe bureaucracy after years of mismanagement under the military regime will likely discouragemany farmers from registering. 4

Farmers appealing decisions of these bodies must appeal within the same system offarmland management committees at various levels up to the state and regional levels. Thesesame government appointed bodies are also empowered to issue fines, enforce evictions, andissue criminal penalties, allowing for a mechanism which few farmers would be willing tochallenge.

Burmas resources are being sold off to the highest bidder. Foreign investors can nowlease land for a period of 50 years with two 10 year extensions. In undeveloped and remoteareas in Burma, the government will allow foreign investors to hold even longer leases.This sealsaway swathes of land and ecosystems for generations of farmers and residentsseriouslyjeopardising their right to food and a secure livelihood. Burmas President has proven heswilling and eager to sell out its residents for personal gain and the benefit of his friends benefits.

Is this the way to feed the poor of Burma? 5


5Hudson Rodd:Nancy International Praise and Grassroots Reality 8-1-2-2012 in DVB


4/7

About a week ago, 40 ethnic non-governmental organizations from across Burma andgroups based on the border in Thailand are calling on the government, ethnic militias and theinternational community to address a surge in land-grabbing, as companies move into Burmasethnic regions following recent ceasefire agreements. But the two government committees onland use declined to meet the activists. Land Investment Committee, headed by Union Solidarity

Development Party MP Tin Htut, and the Land Allotment and Utilization Scrutiny Committee,chaired by Win Tun Min of the Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry refused tomeet them 6. The simple reason is how can the head dacoit meet the people he has robbed?The other day Tin Htut Oo, chairman of the National Economic and Social Advisory Council(NEASAC), told the activists that the governments attempt at establishing rule of law wouldprotect ethnic communities against land-grabbing.7 This tantamount to admitting that there wasno rule of law since the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) seized power in1988 up to this day and the quasi government is the protg of SPDC whose former name isSLORC. A simple logic is missing.

There was a deep concern over the lack of legal protection of land rights of ethniccommunities, who are increasingly losing farmland to mining or agro-industry firms. The 2012

Land Law and other laws, they said, often fail to recognize land tenure of farmersespeciallythose reliant on traditional shifting agricultureor local customary law regarding land. Mostethnic villagers struggle to register land ownership as the procedures are too expensive orbecause they lack the required ID cards.8Most of Burmas ethnic nationalities live in the borderregions rich in mineral wealth, timber, fertile land and rivers suitable for hydropower damdevelopment. The areas are plagued by long-running ethnic rebel insurgencies against the central

government. Now it is open up for exploitation.Burmas powerful Tatmadaw has often grabbed resources from these ethnic communities

at gunpoint. But after most rebels groups reached ceasefire agreements with the government,there has been an influx of local and foreign companies seeking to build mines or agro-industrialplantations in ethnic areas. Often the firms gain support from the Tatmadaw or, at times, fromethnic militias. The people feared that peace would lead to a massive surge in land-grabbing,deforestation and the damming of rivers. Over $1.419 billion foreign direct investment was madefor 94 enterprises while local investors made 1.1 trillion kyat (US $1.3 billion) for 65 enterprises,creating a total of 82,792 job opportunities, claimed the government.9

An increase in resource-grabbing by Tatmadaw -supported investment projects could alsolead to a flare-up in the ethnic conflict. Burmese Tatmadaw had used the ceasefires to expand itspresence and to push through projects that confiscate resources from local communities.

6Vrieze:Paul, Ethnic Activists Warn of Surge in Land Grabs After Ceasefires. Irrawaddy 9-5-2013

7Weng:Lawi, Rule of Law Will End Land Grabs in Ethnic Areas, Officials Tells ActivistsIrrawaddy 12-5-2013

8Vrieze:Paul, Ethnic Activists Warn of Surge in Land Grabs After Ceasefires. Irrawaddy 9-5-2013

9Foreign Investment Jumps Fivefold in Burma by Reutiers News 13-5-2013


5/7

The customary rights held by millions of agrarians, land laborers, and contract farmers includingshifting cultivators and pastoralists are also not recognized within the current legal framework.Without land tenure security, small landowners are particularly vulnerable to speculators andcorporate agri-businesses. The Vacant, Fallow, and Virgin Land Management Law likewise vestan enormous amount of discretionary power in a central committee appointed by the president.

The committee is empowered to grant permission to use vacant land, set taxes, and requestsecurity fees for land use as well as monitor compliance with the law.Additionally, central committees determine whether land is unused, a particular

concern for farmers practicing the traditional taungya (awmi,m)form of shifting uplandcultivation in which crops are rotated with some fields left fallow for certain periods of time.Much of the land seized and given to private companies is classified by the Ministry ofAgriculture and Irrigation as fallow, vacant, or virgin land without registered owners.

Without any meaningful recourse to the courts under the current legal framework,opportunities abound for manipulation of the system. Burma's justice system has for decadesbeen integrated into the Tatmadaw's authoritarian governance structure and is still equated inmany people's minds with summary justice and kangaroo courts.

As such, the system is largely incompetent and virtually powerless against powerfulvested interests in other parts of the state or private companies. Officials are neither inclined tointervene in land disputes nor effectively capable of protecting the rights of small landholdersagainst encroaching military-owned companies and their partners.

The provision for the selling of land rights is also open for exploitation by businesseswhich encourage farmers under mounting debt to sell off their land for short-term gains. Manyfarmers in the country are in debt due to a widespread inability to access credit through normalchannels and the high costs of agricultural inputs. Unchecked land-grabbing has the potential toimperil both Thein Sein's political reforms and the overall economic potential of the country. Thecurrent lack of transparency and public participation in the planning and decision-makingprocesses involved in land management has served to continue public perceptions that land

transfers are frequently undertaken outside the rule of law. This has undermined local confidencein both Thein Sein's supposed democratic government and the overall reform process. Thesituation is compounded by an enduring attitude in the bureaucracy that treats farmers withcontempt, threats and intimidation. Rising landlessness, meanwhile, will push many farmers intocities, creating a new urban underclass and a potential source of instability.10

Growing discontent among small landowners, displaced agrarians and landless ruralworkers have the potential to create a powerful voting bloc in the 2015 elections. Nearly 70% ofBurma's population of some 60 million live in rural areas, among which one-third are estimatedto be landless laborers. Effective land reform promises thus have the potential to win massivepopular support at the next polls. In apparent recognition of the importance of the rural vote,Naypyidaw-based parliamentarians are paying more attention to the plight of farmers. Both the

majority (USDP)11

usually referred as United in Slaughtering the Depaeyin Parti cipants-commonly perceived as the party of the formerTatmadaw rulers - and the opposition (NLD)have broached the topic in parliament. In July 2012, parliament, including members of the


11They were also known as United in Slaughtering Depaeyin Participants as they were the first ones who make

an attempt on the life of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and its associates


6/7

USDP, took the unusual step of overruling the government and voted to form a committee toinvestigate land disputes across the country. The Parliamentary Land Investigation Committeebegan visiting various areas of rural Burma in late September to probe alleged land seizures,particularly in Rakhine, Mon and Karen States, as well as in the southern Tennaserim Division.Committee members have reportedly received numerous reports of land seizures during their

investigations. Government officials and presidential advisors have subsequently sought out theadvice and assistance of local and international experts on land issues.A report by Displacement Solutions, an international organization involved in land rights

issues, recognized the importance placed on the issue by the government."There is a clear recognition at all levels of society - from the Government, the political

opposition, the private sector, civil society groups, the UN and donors - that the way in which

land rights issues are addressed within the reform process will be a central factor in determining

the social and economic (and political) destiny of the nation.12

At least some of Burma's private businesses, including several owned by so-called

cronies, have recognized the sensitivity of the land issue and have taken positive steps to mitigatethe damage from past seizures. While the laws still work in their favor, some analysts believe

these signals a grudging recognition that in the new more open political and social climate it isimportant to maintain a positive social image.With the country's poor reputation for human-rights violations and the alleged involvement

of businessmen in some of those violations, including land seizures, many foreign investors arewary of investing with partners associated with such unsavory practices. Rising governmentaland parliamentary attention to the issue will also bring more scrutiny to arrangements by localand foreign firms seeking to develop land-intensive projects. Media attention will also keep theissue in the spotlight in the lead up to the 2015 elections.

Some local companies have already moved to improve their image in relation to landownership and compensation. Several companies have taken steps to either return land or initiatejoint development programs with the former owners of the land. In June, a local parliamentariansuccessfully lobbied the military to pay compensation to owners of over 500 acres (202 hectares)of land in Shan State confiscated in 2009. In August, under similar pressure the Ayeya ShweWah Co Ltd returned a concession of some 40,000 acres (16,187 hectares) to farmers in theIrrawaddy Delta. All in all it is a fact that the quasi military government of Thein Sein iswittingly or unwittingly using the land grab for ethnic cleansing.

Sometimes I became crazy in trying to find the answer of why the world is so vulnerableto being seduced by socio-political doctrines and a readiness to accept totalitarian terror for thesake of some potential peace? Why are so many citizens of Burma being denied the support

they need now to create a country based on democratic principles? Why is there not rage againstthe murderous powers of injustice being committed in Burma? Why after decades of protest bytruth seekers in Burma is there not support for the defenders of human freedoms? Perhapsbusiness over rules the conscience.



7/7

A Subtle way of Ethnic Cleansing and Marginalizing the People

Documents

Transcript of A Subtle way of Ethnic Cleansing and Marginalizing the People