Min Ko Naing and Cynthia Maung (Burma)
Dr. Cynthia Maung
Dr. Cynthia Maung is a 39-year old physician from the Karen ethnic minority in Burma who fled her country during the 1988 uprisings and who for the past ten years has been livingalong the Thai/Burmese border. She is known widely as "Dr. Cynthia." Thousands of refugees, displaced persons and migrant workers seek the solace and safety of her clinic, where she not only heals the wounded but also maintains a sense of community and keeps alive the hope for a life of freedom.
Acceptance Speech by Dr. Cynthia Maung
Co-Recipient of the 1999 John Humphrey Freedom Award
Good evening ladies and gentlemen,
Today, I am very pleased to be here with all of you who have been supporting our struggle for a long time. Because of my status, it was hard to decide whether to attend this ceremony or not. With the support of my colleagues and all of you, I have this opportunity now, to share my knowledge and my experience about my country and to accept this award.
It is very sad that the joint winner of the Award, Min Ko Naing, could not be here today. Although I did not know him personally, I honour him for his dedication and sacrifice for the struggle for democracy in Burma. The demonstrations that he, and other student leaders started in Rangoon in 1988, inspired me to take to the streets in the town of Pa-an in Karen state to demand political changes. And this was why I had to flee with thousands of others democracy activists to the Thai-Burma border in September 1988, when the regime cracked down violently on the demonstrators.
Min Ko Naing chose to remain in central Burma and to carry on the struggle for democracy above ground but was sentenced to prison for 20 years in March 1989. He has remained in solitary confinement ever since. His continuing imprisonment for non-violent activism together with an estimated 1500 other political prisoners in Burma today, stand as a clear reminder that the people of Burma are being denied their fundamental political rights, 11 years after the entire country rose up to oppose the regime.
In the same way, the fact that I and hundreds of thousands of other refugees are unable to return to Burma testify to the continuing lack of basic human rights in our country.
Refugees and migrants are continuing to flee Burma in huge numbers. Back in 1989 when I first opened a clinic at the border to treat displaced Burmese, our annual caseload was about 2000. This year it has reached 25,000.
Most of the patients we treat are migrants from Burma working near the Thai border town of Mae Sot. There are well over 100,000 migrants working in factories and farms in this area, part of a total Burmese migrant population in Thailand of well over a million. These migrants came from all over Burma, many have fled the civil war and the regime’s policies of forced relocation and forced labour, as well as other human rights abuses. Many have simply been unable to survive in Burma because of the regime’s economic policies, which are causing mass poverty and loss of livelihoods. Therefore, in one way or another, all these people are refugees. The health problems of refugees are a clear indication of the regime s neglect of the basic rights to health care for the Burmese population.
At one time Burma was considered one of the Southeast Asia’s richest countries, with immense natural resources and a highly skilled and literate population. Today, the country is in severe economic crisis, the universities have remained closed for most of the last 10 years and with much of the national budget going to defence, Burma now has one of the poorest health records in the region.
Many doctors and health workers have been forced to resign or been imprisoned because of political activism since 1988. This has led many of them to go abroad. At the same time, the lack of government support for public health facilities and staff throughout the country has forced many health professionals to change their professions in order to survive.
Every day at the border we can see evidence of the collapse of Burma’s health system. Malaria and tuberculosis are rampant, and people have no knowledge of prevention or proper treatment. Women have little knowledge of family planning and often use abortion as a means of birth control. At our clinic this year, we have already had 235 cases of abortion complications, most of which were performed by unqualified traditional birth attendants from Burma. Twenty-six (26) per cent of the cases were teenaged girls. We are also seeing increasing numbers of people with HIV. One NGO working on AIDS in Burma has recently estimated that 2.5 per cent of Burmese people or over 1 million people are already infected with the AIDS virus.
To address this health crisis, my colleagues and I have been working with displaced communities along the border, training local health workers who can provide health education and care for their people. We have now trained over 200 health workers from different ethnic opposition groups. They have now set up a joint health outreach programme, which is able to assist over 100,000 people in the border areas of Burma.
We hope, that when democracy is restored, our work will lay the foundation for a new and equitable health infrastructure in our country.
As well as our health work, we need to educate, encourage and empower individuals and communities to struggle for their human rights, including the protection of women’s and children’s rights and the rights of the poor. We believe that by sharing responsibilities and long term commitment we can change the situation smoothly and gradually.
We urge the international community to help us in our struggle against the military dictatorship in Burma and to withhold any assistance that can be used by the regime to prolong its grip on power.
On behalf of my fellow health workers and the people of Burma I would like to express our thanks to Inter Pares and the Canadian International Development Agency for supporting our work for human rights and freedom in Burma. We also thank the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development for the recognition of the sacrifice, courage and dignity of the Burmese people who are working towards a future where there is democracy and freedom in Burma.
Thank you.
Montreal, December 10, 1999
Text of message of Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy Burma
It is a great pleasure for me to speak on the occasion of the awarding of the John Humphrey prize to Min Ko Naing and Dr. Cynthia Maung. It gives me great pride that two people from Burma have been found worthy of this prestigious human rights prize.
Everybody knows of what Dr. Cynthia Maung has done on the border for Burmese refugees, for political refugees and economic migrants, as well as for people from Burma who are finding it very difficult to get medical care on our side of the border. It is a sad reflection on the state of things in Burma that many people from our side of the border feel impelled to cross the border to go to Dr. Cynthia Maung for treatment. But it is also proof of her great compassion and the importance of what she is doing.
We need more people like Dr. Cynthia Maung. I am particularly happy that she belongs to the Karen ethnic group, because it helps the world to realize that Burma is a country of many peoples. It is not just made up of the majority Burmese, but of others like the Karens, the Mons, the Kachins, the Chins, the Shans, the Arakhanese, and many other smaller ethnic groups.
We think that it is only through genuine unity that we will be able to build up the future of our country. And these people who are going to Dr. Cynthia Maung today are not just Karens, not just people from other ethnic nationalities, but people from the majority Burmese ethnic group who go to her for help. When it comes to humanitarian issues, there is no question of difference of race, or difference of citizenship, or difference of religion. Humanitarian aid should be given without consideration of these matters. For this reason, I am extremely grateful to Dr. Cynthia Maung. What she has done for our people, and what she has done for our country, has shown that we have people like her in our country - people who care and people who will build up the future of our country.
Min Ko Naing, people know less about because he has been incarcerated in a prison in Burma for the last ten years. He is a young man who is one of the student leaders who started the 1988 movement for democracy, and he has stood firm against all pressure from the authorities.
He has been kept in solitary confinement for all these 10 years. At the moment, he is no longer in a prison in Rangoon but has been transferred to one in the Arakhan division. This means that his family faces enormous difficulties in going to visit him. Political prisoners in Burma are allowed one visit a fortnight. Fifteen minutes a fortnight. But if you are in a prison in the Arakan division and your family is in Rangoon, you are lucky if you get a visit once in 6 months. His family is devoted to him, but it is extremely difficult for them, both practically and financially, to see him even once a month. Sometimes they do not manage to go for several months.
This is the lot of many others in Burma. Min Ko Naing represents many others who are suffering from the injustices of the present military regime. That the prize has been awarded to him gives us all great hope, great pride, and great pleasure, because it shows that the world has not forgotten our cause, and that the world is not ignoring our people who have been ignored by the military regime for so long. Even if the military authorities do not recognize our people as human beings who need help, who need compassion, and who have the right to justice, we know now that the world recognizes it. That in the world there are people who stand on the side of justice and on the side of humanity, whatever authoritarian regimes may do.
For this reason, I would like to thank those who have been responsible for awarding the John Humphrey prize to Min Ko Naing and Dr. Cynthia Maung-for the great honor they have done to my country and for the compassion that they have shown.
Thank you very much.
10 December 1999
Resolution Adopted by the Québec National Assembly, December 8, 1999
On December 8, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a resolution to recognize the Committee Representing the People's Parliament (CRPP) of Burma. It is the second Canadian legislature to do so.
The Assembly urged the Government of Canada to also recognize the CRPP, which stems from the Parliament democratically elected by the people on May 27, 1990, in Burma, and to ensure the implementation of coordinated international action for the respect of human rights in Burma.
At a press conference at Rights & Democracy, Prime Minister Sein Win, of Burma's government in exile, called on the Canadian government to follow Quebec's lead. "The case is very clear cut,'' he said. "A government elected by the people is in prison and the human rights, economic and political situation deteriorates every day. Why is Canada so reluctant to take further action?''
Prime Minister Sein Win also visited Toronto where he met with members of all parties represented in Ontario's legislature. It is believed that a Burma resolution will soon be introduced there. Burma groups in Edmonton and Winnipeg are also actively lobbying the provincial legislatures of Alberta and Manitoba.
Text of the Resolution
"That the National Assembly condemns the unceasing human rights violations perpetrated by the military junta in power in Burma, particularly against the country's various ethnic minorities. These violations include mass arrests, arbitrary and extra-judiciary executions, torture, forced labour, forced movements of population and denial of the fundamental freedoms of expression and association;
"Secondly, that we urge the Burmese military regime to free all prisoners immediately and unconditionally, to revoke all repressive laws, to cease all human rights violations, in particular those suffered by the members of the National Democracy League, and to enter immediately into constructive political dialogue with the Committee Representing the People's Assembly before further violence erupts in Burma;
"And, finally, that the National Assembly also urges the Government of Canada to recognise the Committee Representing the People's Assembly, which stems from the Assembly democratically elected on May 27th, 1990, as a legitimate representative of the Burmese people, to take all necessary measures to carry out co-ordinated international action, and to call upon the Secretary General of the United Nations to continue talks with the leaders of the Burmese military junta and other important political players in that country so as to move toward Burma's democratization."
Speech by John Ralston Saul
1999 John Humphrey Freedom Award Ceremonies
Montreal, December 10, 1999
It seems for me, that every time I speak about Burma —it’s been 20 years now— I have to be cautious. I come, as many of us do here, from a country in which human rights and freedom of speech mean something that is clearly defined. There are some flaws. Some things are missing. There are a couple of mistakes and weaknesses, but it is mainly well defined. Let’s for a moment turn ourselves towards people that live in a different situation, in which human rights and freedom of speech are not as well defined, living in some kind of anarchy. Let’s turn to them with modesty and restraint. Individuals like Min Ko Naing and Dr. Cynthia Maung do not need our sympathy, our emotions, our love, our lessons or the certainties and opinions that emerge from our comfort. They need our respect. We need to give them our admiration. We need to be ready to put ourselves beside them, even in our comfort situation, and as Mr. Allmand, president of ICHRDD, said, to defend, even if it is just a little, their rights, which do not exist at this moment. It is somehow important to show our inability to understand their personal strength, mainly because we have not lived their situation, though some persons here may have lived them. People from Canada, the United States or Europe generally never experience that reality. We cannot imagine the lives they are living. Many of us have seen that kind of situation, by visiting countries just as I’ve visited Kosovo recently, just as when I visited Burma ten years ago, looking at Burma during the eighties. But visiting a country is not living a situation. It isn’t experimenting imprisonment, being an ‘outcast’ as is one of our recipients tonight. So when I talk about Burma, I always do it with certain reservations, mainly because the particular situation is so appalling.
Above all, I am very careful always to put forward easy, clear, certain answers to the obvious problems of Burma. I have a tendency to force myself to speak with a certain pessimism about Burma. If you don’t speak with a certain pessimism, you are pretending that it is going to be easier or that it can be done in a classical Canadian way, as opposed to the very difficult and complex way which Dr. Cynthia knows far better than we do and Aung San Suu Kyi knows far better than we do, sitting in a form of prison for years.
I’ll give you a small example of why I am careful. Twenty years ago, I started writing about, something which many of us knew then: the involvement of the military junta in Burma, in the drug trade. For years, it was impossible to get any respectable newspaper or Western government to pay attention to this fact. Because international politics is international politics: There is a certain nobility to the diplomatic profession and to the journalistic profession when they are writing about diplomacy. On the other hand, drugs is police work and that’s not dignified. It belongs on another page in the newspapers or in police headquarters, not in diplomatic headquarters. The result was that it was for years impossible to get people to discuss openly the fact that Burmese leaders were involved in some ways in drug traffic.
Finally, about three or four years ago, there was a breakthrough. Western governments began to say what they should have said long before, which was the self-evident involvement of the junta in various ways and at various levels. Only now have we begun to talk about the fact that this repetitive war on drugs in the United States and Canada is directly related to our policies on Burma. Most of the heroin on our streets comes from Burma and the junta in Burma plays some sort of role in that heroin getting this far.
If we were serious about a war on drugs, we would be putting an enormous effort, throughout the Western world, I’m not talking about any specific government, into working for a change in Burma.
People say that it is hard to get public attention for the situation in Burma because we have so little relations, we sell and buy so little, people know so little. I can only suggest that every time we say the word ‘heroin’, ‘overdose’, ‘addiction’, ‘organized crime’, ‘crime-related’ or ‘death of youth in the street’ we simply add three words: ‘Burmese military rulers’. It will then become far easier to concentrate on the situation in Burma as being absolutely central to the situation in our streets in the West. If Burmese military rulers is too long, we could use the word SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council), which I persist in using as being an accurate description somehow, verbally, the sound of it seems right. Just as Burma is more accurate, SLORC sounds right for what we are dealing with.
I would suggest also that when people talk or argue about the possible benefits of investing in Burma—building a pipeline for example from Burma to Thailand and talking about the positive trickle down effects (there are none but which people talk about and the slave labour which there was), I think it would be interesting to do a bit of inclusive economics calculations. Even if there were a trickle down effect, or a benefit from the pipeline (which there was not), how much was it and how much is the cost—direct and indirect—of the heroin in our streets coming directly from Burma with some involvement from the military junta in that country? How do they stack up against each other? Well, we know very well. At the most optimistic, the trickle down would be a few million. At the most modest, the heroin effect is billions and billions of dollars.
There is an increasing number of respectable and responsible people in the Western world who are saying we have got to be more rational and productive in terms of Burma because we have been working at this for awhile (a few years in other words; sort of a decade). What we are doing doesn’t work, so we must try something else. I would call this personally a western frenetic approach towards public policy, the administrative approach, the management approach. It is very short term. We have got to have results in the quarter, in the year, in the five years. If you don’t have results, then you are failing and therefore you’ve got to do something else. It is a very, very management view of reality and of course reality has nothing to do with management, particularly in a situation such as Burma. It isn’t about quarterly reports. It isn’t about showing progress in the short term.
The choices of people like Dr. Cynthia and Min Ko Naing demonstrate to us that it isn’t about short term results. It’s about being ready to engage for the long term. Their approach and the approach of people like them, Aung San Suu Kyi, show that there is another view, another approach which is not only possible but is probably the only approach possible if you live inside a society like the Burmese society today. There is an astonishing combination in their lives, it seems to me, between courageous impatience i.e. willing to take risks with their lives, combined with stubborn patience, ready to take the time necessary to get real change.
On top of that they have a memory, a positive memory, a real memory of what has come before. I didn’t experience or visit the first two decades of the Burma of Ne Win from 1962 on, but I read a lot about them. I knew the Burma of his last real decade, the eighties. That’s when I was there on a regular basis. That’s what I wrote about. So that’s three decades—not 10 years, not two years, three decades—and then 1988 happened and the violence and the deaths and suddenly Burma disappeared and it was as if we were beginning afresh. We no longer had a memory of those three decades and instead we had another place called Myanmar so that you couldn’t push a button on a computer and have the history of the preceding decades come up. I am joking slightly but only slightly. A new situation, apparently, with new dictators, a new name SLORC and then suddenly 10 years later another new name, the SPDC (State Peace Development Council). Apparently a new situation again but of course the SPDC is the SLORC and the SLORC is the military group which came out of and is part of Ne Win. This is still the 1962 regime of Ne Win. Soldiers grow old but they replace each other even in situations like this. We are looking at an extremely long-lived rogue regime, which alters itself by slight degrees every five, 10, 15 years. But it’s the same regime, with the same philosophy, and the same approach. Nothing fundamental has changed since 1962.
Now, I hear phrases today from people who don’t want to remember that it goes back to 1962, saying things like our influence over Burma is weak because we don’t trade enough with them. If only we traded more, then we would have more influence over them. Well, there are many other people who have traded with Burma since 1962 who have invested in Burma in the 70s, in the 80s, over the last 10 years and today. Do any of them have any influence over the regime? Is there any indication over the last decades that by investing in Burma you would get any influence over this regime? There isn’t a single example of it. Japan, Thailand, nobody has gained any influence by putting money into the country through economic investment.
Secondly, I hear people trotting out the classic Western argument that if we invested then there would be a trickle down effect that would create a middle class. A middle class would lead to liberalization and liberalization would lead towards democracy. You’ve all heard that sort of argument but that approach has also been tried several times over the last 30 years. Most recently it was tried just before 1988 and of course it was tried in a small way through the pipeline to which I made reference and it was very clear. We were promised by the people building the pipeline that it would have an effect. I quote from their spokesperson, ‘We believe our presence in the region is a force for progress for economic and social development.’ Allright, the pipeline is more or less built. Has there been progress? Has there been economic development? Has there been a trickle down? No! There hasn’t! We just have to remember that it didn’t work. It didn’t turn out the way they said it would turn out.
There is a third phrase I hear increasingly, which is : normalize relations and then we’ll sort of draw them out into a conversation. And as a result of that the military were allowed into ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) and they’ve been in ASEAN for a little while now and what has changed? Have they been drawn out? Has ASEAN gained influence over them? Has something changed for the better? No! Nothing has changed! It is still exactly the same as it was in 1962, 1963, and I won’t go through the years since then one by one… Nothing has changed through this approach.
My own sense of this regime, and I have said this in various ways before, is that it is a very peculiar regime. If you don’t focus on the peculiarity of it, it is very difficult to deal with it. It is an extremely mediocre regime. These are mediocre people. They don’t even have the glorious ambitions of your classic dictators. They are not in it for the money, except for small amounts of money. This is a very rich country, Burma. They could be making hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, but they’re not. They’re making five million dollars, 10 million dollars. It’s very mediocre. And they’re not in it for the glory. It’s very unglorious, their regime. It’s very small potatoes—except for the deaths of individuals. It’s a regime of mediocre people clinging to the minimum sort of power for small amounts of money.
These are people who are willing to destroy their own country in order to hang on. And this is rarer than we believe, dictators who are willing to open fire on their own citizens in order to hang on. I mean most unpleasant dictators are willing to kill a few people, a few of their own citizens, but very few of them are actually willing to kill thousands of their own citizens. It’s a relatively rare phenomenon. It is what I call a rogue regime, not a real government at all. It has no legitimacy, not by any standards. It doesn’t have a legitimacy that would come from Asian standards. It is completely at variance with Asian ethical standards. It doesn’t even have the legitimacy of being true to the realpolitik of international politics or of Asian realpolitik. It isn’t even a real regime by the standards of dictatorships. It isn’t even a real dictatorship. This idea of a rogue, marginal, peculiar régime isn’t new. After all, we treated South Africa as if it were a rogue regime and brought it down in the end by doing that. In the end, we treated the Duvaliers in Haiti—far too late in the day but nevertheless—as a rogue regime.
So, having given this rather pessimistic view, what does it mean. Well, Aung San Suu Kyi is ready to negotiate with the military without any preconditions. In other words, she is ready to engage in a strategic risk, which I think is a very reasonable position. She is not ready to talk about nuts and bolts. She is willing to talk about the big picture with them--if they are willing to do that. And equally, I think that the proposition made by the United Nations special representative De Soto in 1998, that he would coordinate one billion dollars of assistance in exchange for some positive initiatives from the military is also I think a very reasonable strategy. If you could actually get that kind of agreement, a big agreement, then things would move in a relatively big way. And in spite of offering enough money for all of them to go to Switzerland for the rest of their lives,wherever they want to go, there is no response. Nothing is happening. Because that isn’t the essence of why they are there. The corruption of this regime is so profound that it is impossible to imagine how one can construct a step by step rational management process towards normalization.
You know, John Humphrey said about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "There has never been a more revolutionary development in the theory and practice of international law and organization than the recognition that human rights are matters of international concern. Revolutionary, strategic. Soon we are going to have an International Criminal Court, active and capable of dealing with issues and people who resemble in many ways those who are in power in Burma. It would be perhaps possible to apply the rules of that court to some of those people. To apply the court to these people would be a strategic approach. To offer them a billion dollars in return for some sort of movement would be a strategic approach.
I believe what we have to do is to avoid at all costs the temptation of Western countries, avoid the comfortable trap of the Western approach, believing that all situations are manageable in detail. Sometimes tactics are really aimed at the people engaging in the tactics not at the situation. Sometimes tactics, while reassuring, will actually undermine the very strategy they are designed to serve. I have always sensed that progress in Burma would come from a strategic long-term and extremely tough approach.
I feel this is the message, the real message of people like Dr. Cynthia Maung and Min Ko Naing. We must engage ourselves, but we must also accept that there are juntas here and there that resist other nation’s logic and international laws. There aren’t many in Asia, but there are some. And in these particular cases, we must play in a different way, aware that we play on a long term and in a risky situation. That’s why I guess that the jury has recognized the engagement of Dr. Cynthia Maung and Min Ko Naing, by presenting them with the John Humphrey Freedom Award.
Burma
Overview of the Human Rights Situation
Since 1962, a reclusive military regime has ruled Burma (called Myanmar by the military government). When the Burmese people rose up in nation-wide demonstrations for democracy in 1988, they were crushed by the group of generals known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). Crowds of peaceful protesters were machine-gunned by troops and thousands died.
In 1990, the main opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), swept Burma’s first free elections in three decades. Unwilling to relinquish power, the SLORC (recently renamed the State Peace and Development Council or SPDC) ignored the election results, having first placed under house arrest, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the cofounder of the NLD and daughter of Burma’s revered nationalist figure, General Aung San. While under detention, Suu Kyi received the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize for her commitment to non-violent change in Burma. Following an enormous international outcry, she was released in 1995. For several months after her release, she and NLD colleagues were allowed to engage in dialogue with crowds that gathered outside her house on weekends. But these gatherings have now been stopped by the military regime. Since late 1996, she has been unable to travel or speak freely, while her aides and supporters, especially members of the NLD, have been jailed or forced into exile. The SPDC claims its actions are justified to thwart domestic instability and imperialist influences.
Burma has had no freedom of association or press since the 1960s. Social and economic conditions for most people in Burma have deteriorated, while a military elite has prospered and the size of the army has reached historic levels—all at the expense of education, health care, and social programs.
The junta’s economic plans are devastating Burma’s environment. Huge tracts of rainforest are being cleared for valuable hardwoods, fisheries are being stripped for quick commercial profit, and natural gas and other mineral exploitation continue with no apparent concern for the environment or local populations.
There has also been an explosion of heroin production in Burma by nearly 400% since 1988. Around the world, this flood of cheaper and purer heroin is causing a vast new wave of addiction. In recent years, approximately 60% of the heroin reaching North America has been of Burmese origin. And in Burma itself, an estimated half million addicts are spreading an AIDS epidemic at a rate equalling the world’s worst affected areas in Central Africa.
Burma also plays a pivotal role in Asia’s security due to its strategic position linking South and Southeast Asia and bordering the continent’s two most populous countries, China and India. Independent Burma had long pursued a policy of neutrality. The military regime is now increasingly dependent on China as a political ally and arms supplier. Fear of Chinese military influence in Burma is helping to spur a costly regional arms race, which diverts funds desperately needed for human development.
Gross human rights abuses, environmental devastation, massive heroin smuggling, regional military destabilization—these are Burma’s realities under the military junta’s absolute rule. Many governments and human rights groups have urged an end to human rights violations in Burma. The military junta’s response so far has been intensified abuse, including murder, torture, rape, political imprisonment, and forced labour. Amnesty International has called Burma "a prison without bars."
Some analysts believe economic sanctions, which build on Canadian and European trade restrictions and the U.S. ban on new investment, can pressure the generals to respect human rights and negotiate a transition to a democratic government. Consumer boycotts, demonstrations, shareholder actions, and sanctions legislation have convinced many international companies to pull out of Burma or not to begin to do business there. Grassroots action by community groups, unions, and students has made Burma "the South Africa of the 1990s." This public pressure is convincing elected representatives worldwide that Burma is an issue on which they should take action.
Recently, some governments have been pressing for "constructive engagement" with the junta to convince them to fight drug trafficking and to reduce their reliance on China. Those who want increased international involvement with the military regime are those who argue that trade and tourism can promote respect for human rights. Some claim simply that business and human rights are separate issues that should not be mixed. The junta itself, backed by a few Asian autocrats, asserts that it respects human rights in an "Asian" or "Burmese" context and that internationally-recognized standards do not apply.
Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD are urging national and international organizations, unions, parliaments and political movements to give their moral and political support to the Committee Representing the People’s Parliament (CRPP). The CRPP is a 10-member committee representing the parliament elected in Burma on May 27, 1990. More than 200 Members of Parliament have been incarcerated for attempting to carry out their responsibilities as representatives of their constituencies. The CRPP is supported by British Columbia’s Legislative Assembly, the European Parliament, the Danish National Assembly, and the Norwegian National Assembly.
Dr. Cynthia Maung
Dr. Cynthia Maung is a 39-year old physician from the Karen ethnic minority in Burma who fled her country during the 1988 uprisings and who for the past ten years has been livingalong the Thai/Burmese border. She is known widely as "Dr. Cynthia." Thousands of refugees, displaced persons and migrant workers seek the solace and safety of her clinic, where she not only heals the wounded but also maintains a sense of community and keeps alive the hope for a life of freedom.
Min Ko Naing
Min Ko Naing is a legendary figure of the student movement in Burma. During the 1988 nation-wide democratic uprising, his statements, speeches and poems aroused the democratic aspirations of the people. Viewed as a threat by the military regime, Min Ko Naing was arrested in 1989 and sentenced to 20 years in prison. His last known contact with the international community was in 1995, when the UN Special Rapporteur on Burma was permitted to visit him in detention.
John Ralston Saul
Renowned author John Ralston Saul is one of Canada's leading thinkers. His books, including The Unconscious Civilization (which won the 1996 Governor General Literary Award for Non-Fiction), The Paradise Eater, and Reflection of a Siamese Twin, have been translated into more than a dozen languages. Formerly President of the Canadian Centre of International PEN, Ralston Saul is also committed to the promotion of human rights and more specifically to the restoration of democracy in Burma. This past fall his wife, Adrienne Clarkson, was appointed Governor General of Canada.
Dr. Sein Win
Dr. Sein Win is the Prime Minister of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB). The NCGUB was created in 1991 as a result of the military regime's refusal to transfer power to the elected representatives of the People's Parliament. It represents the democratic aspirations of the people of Burma on the international scene and receives support from many governments and grassroots organizations.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in Burma. In 1989, she was placed under house arrest by the military rulers, who now call themselves the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). The following year, her party swept the Burmese general elections, but the military rulers refused to relinquish power. In 1991, while still under house arrest, Suu Kyi won the Nobel Peace Prize for her courage and non-violent opposition to the military regime in Burma. Even though she was released from house arrest in 1995, her movements are still severely restricted by the SPDC.
December 10, 1999, at the Sheraton Centre in Montreal
Programme
Traditional Burmese Danse--Mya Thida Cho
Welcome--Cyril Ritchie
Chairperson, World Civil Society Conference Steering Committee
Introduction--Warren Allmand
International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development
Guest Speaker--John Ralston Saul
Prime Minister Sein Win
National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma
Presents message from
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
1991 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
and Leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma
Award Presentation--Kathleen Mahoney
Chairperson, Board of Directors
International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development
Excerpts from a video on
Dr. Cynthia Maung's Clinic
Produced by AsiaWorks in Thailand
Reception and cash bar -- RSVP before 06 December 1999.
Tel.: (514) 283-6073Fax: (514) 283-3792Email
For additional resources on the human rights situation in Burma, please visit the following web sites:
Soros Foundation: Burma Project
Partners Working to Promote Human Rights and Democracy in Burma
Canadian Friends of Burma
Organized through the auspices of Peacefund Canada, the Canadian Friends of Burma (CFOB) was established in 1990 to promote public awareness about Burma and action in Canada. CFOB is the best Canadian source on Burma. It helps to influence Canada's foreign policy and provide channels for humanitarian assistance to the peoples of Burma. It works to coordinate individual interest and NGO activity in Canada in support of the restoration of democracy and the alleviation of human suffering in Burma. CFOB's network of members and contacts now numbers 1 200. CFOB has support from powerful national organizations and NGOs as well as a network of 20 associated groups across the country. CFOB is working to establish a parliamentary group on Burma and to assemble a lobbying team to pressure the Liberal cabinet, DFAIT and opposition parties to implement the Special Economic Measures Act report, commissioned by CFOB. It continues to increase the momentum of citizen-led sanctions against Canadian and foreign corporate presence in Burma. Telecommunications giant, Nortel, has been particularly targeted.
Rights & Democracy has been funding the CFOB since 1992 for a total of $93,500.
National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB)
The NCGUB is an interim provisional government created in December of 1990 formed as a result of the military regime’s refusal to transfer power to the elected representatives of the Burmese People’s Assembly. The NCGUB consists of representatives elected to the People’s Assembly in the national elections of May of 1990. The NCGUB was prevented from actively campaigning in neighbouring Thailand and after having lost its geographic base in the formerly Karen controlled area of Manerplaw, the NCGUB now operates primarily from Washington and maintains a small communications office in Bangkok. Since 1991, the NCGUB has been very effective in representing the democratic aspirations of the Burmese people in the international arena. The United Nations General Assembly in New York, the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva, the United States government, some member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Japan have been the main focus of the NCGUB. The NCGUB received strong political support from the European Parliament, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States.
Rights & Democracy has been funding the NCGUB since its inception in 1991 for a total of $554,061.14.
The Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN)
The regional grouping ASEAN has expressed its public support for the military regime in Burma through the policy of constructive engagement—a policy, which has done nothing to support dialogue between the regime and democratic forces. Some argue the constructive engagement has provided the junta with a license to increase widespread violations of human rights and renew its crackdown on democratic forces in Burma. The Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN) is a network of activists, NGOs, academics and politicians from Southeast Asia who support human rights, democracy and peace in Burma. It was formed on October 30, 1996 at the conclusion of the Alternative ASEAN Meeting on Burma at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand. This network helps ASEAN NGOs better lobby their respective governments to urge them to reconsider their support of SLORC. ALTSEAN has developed programmes that enable human rights activists from ASEAN countries to meet and plan activities together; build the capacity of Burmese and non-Burmese women for networking and advocacy; support lobbying activities by members of the network in ASEAN countries; and increase the capacity of ASEAN media and activists to advocate for the cause of Burma. ALTSEAN has very close links with pro-democracy activists inside Burma. Along with the NLD and others, ALTSEAN declared Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s birthday on June 19 to be Women of Burma Day. Women of Burma Day gives supporters around the world the opportunity to express their support for the multi-ethnic women of Burma in their struggle against the military dictatorship.
Rights & Democracy has been supporting the ALTSEAN since 1997 for a total of $30,000.
Associates to Develop a Democratic Burma (ADDB)
Formed in October 1990, the Associates to Develop a Democratic Burma (ADDB) is a Canadian-based international organization comprised of expatriate Burmese who are engaged in the struggle for the return of democracy in Burma. With over 40 members in 12 countries, ADDB provides accurate information about events affecting Burma to governments, scholars, policy makers, the media, NGOs and members of the Burmese community in exile to increase international pressure for democracy and human rights in Burma. It encourages dialogue and debate within the Burmese exile community about democratic solutions to Burma's political, social and ethnic problems. ADDB also publishes "Burma Alert", a widely respected monthly newsletter concerning political and economic trends in Burma and in the international community. The ADDB has also played a leading role in bringing together a forum of donor agencies interested in supporting the political activities of the democratic opposition in Burma and providing humanitarian assistance in the "liberated zones". The objective of this conflict resolution initiative is to facilitate the restoration of democracy in Burma by exploring alternatives for breaking the political deadlock.
Rights & Democracy has been supporting ADDB since 1991 for a total of $207,000.
Burma Issues
Established in 1990 and formerly known as the Burma Rights Movement for Action, Burma Issues is a Bangkok-based non-governmental organization (NGO) working to restore democracy in Burma and which has offices on both sides (if security permits) of the Thai-Burma border. Its activities respond both to the needs of activists for training and solidarity and to the need of the international community for accurate information concerning the ongoing human rights violations inside Burma.
Rights & Democracy has been supporting Burma Issues for the past five years.
Burmese Women Union (BWU)
The Burmese Women Union (BWU) was founded in January 1995 by the female students who fled to the Thai-Burma border in 1988. It was formed to organize women from Burma, both on the border and internationally. It is an independent organization working mainly to organize training programs and taking care of the social welfare of the members. It is also working to strengthen relations with existing women’s groups in different countries. In January 1999, through International Centre support, a representative from BWU attended the Asian Centre for Women’s Human Rights (ASCENT) training on Monitoring, Investigating, and Documenting Women’s Human Rights Violations. In addition, Dr. Win Than a witness from our public education programme From Witness to Advocate, is the representative of BWU in Canada. Other BWU activities include human rights education, vocational training programs/income generating projects, research on the Burmese Women Migrant Workers in Thailand/Burma, publication of Global Women’s Rights and Struggle in the Burmese language and the publication of Dove Bulletin.
Total funding to our Burma partners: $884,500 since 1991.
Archive: Past Winners
- 1997: Father Javier Giraldo (Colombia)
- 1996: Sultana Kamal (Bangladesh)
- 1995: Bishop Carlos F. X. Belo (East Timor)
- 1994: Campaign for Democracy (Nigeria) and Egyptian Organization for Human Rights
- 1993: La Plate-forme des organismes haïtiens de défense des droits humains (Haïti).
- 1992: Instituto de Defensa Legal (Peru)