A Subtle way of Ethnic Cleansing and Marginalizing the People

Kanbawza 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 a history of media censorship will prove more serious challenges to reform in this former pariah state.1 Thein Seins reforms are largely geared towards creating a `late developmental state along the lines of Vietnam and China and sadly, the West and the rest alike are choosing to overlook 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 having an 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 budget spent on food is 68 percent (74 percent for the poorest 30 percent of the population). Almost, one third 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 the Burmese Muslims, proves that the Western countries praise on Burma is something terribly wrong. The government has successfully used Daw Aung San Suu Kyis image. a democracy icon to promote and protect their way of reform. Their strategy is one of using your enemys good name to reach its own objective. But the worst part is that Inadequate land laws have opened rural Burma to rampant land grabbing by unscrupulous, well-connected businessmen who anticipate a boom in agricultural and property investment, what we in Burmese say (w&m;0if "g;jy) legal dacoits. If unchecked, the gathering trend has the potential to undermine the country's broad reform process and impede long-term economic progress.2 Under the former military regime, land grabbing became a common and largely uncontested practice. Government bodies, particularly Tatmadaw units of were able to seize large tracts of farmland, without compensation at the point of the gun. While some of the land was used for the expansion of military bases, new government offices or infrastructure projects, much of it was used either by military units for their own commercial purposes or sold to private companies. This threat of military force meant there was little grass roots opposition to these land seizures and few avenues to secure adequate compensation. Under military rule, many farmers simply understood that it was fruitless to challenge land seizures by state-owned enterprises or government cronies. Indeed, protests could result in lengthy prison sentences, enforced disappearances, or, especially in ethnic areas, summary execution. Now, with the new democratic order as local communities band together to fight back against seizure of their lands there were several problems. Many of the current land disputes date to the period before the 2010 general elections. The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation's
1

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

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

Department of Agricultural Planning reported in January 2010 that 216 companies had received a 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. A significant proportion of the land grabbing during this period took place in ethnic-majority states in the country's peripheral regions. This was especially the case in areas along the border with China in Kachin and Shan States and along the border with Thailand in the Karen and Mon States, a clear way of ethnic cleansing. The Tatmadaw maintained a strong presence in these areas to battle ethnic freedom fighters and uphold tenuous ceasefires with other insurgent organizations. Much of the land was taken for military camps and military access roads, but also for commercial projects either run by the military or companies with ties to the military.3 Significant land grabbing also took place in the Sagaing and Irrawaddy Divisions. With new hope for an economic revival and rising property prices sparked by Thein Sein's reformist government, land grabbing has continued in many of these areas and has also increased in central Burma and in Rakhine State in the west of the country, especially in Rohingya inhabited areas. Current land grabbing is forcing farmers off their land for commercial agribusiness ventures, infrastructure projects, tourism development, industrial facilities and gas pipelines. Political and economic reforms, together with relaxed sanctions and a better relationship 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's more laggard economic sectors, by promoting the country's former role as the "rice bowl of Asia and highlighting its agriculture. But the quasi military regime in driving from the Rice hole of Asia of the Juntas rule to the Rice bowl of Asia is not without problem. It has encouraged state agencies and private companies to seek to acquire larger tracts of land in the hopes of enticing foreign partners. Local firms are both seeking new land as well as reasserting dubious claims to past ownership over land they received as concessions during the 1990s under the military government. The symbiotic relationship between serving and former military officers and influential private businessmen that flourished under the previous military regime remains largely unchanged under the current administration. Indeed, these alliances are in the forefront to land lucrative joint venture deals with foreign investors. Although widely derided as "cronies" of the military, these businessmen have long occupied a powerful niche in Burma's economy, a role which will be enhanced with foreign investment-driven faster economic growth. At the same time, connections to the security forces provide these firms with the muscle to intimidate or force small landholders off their claimed lands. Rising land grabbing is resulting in greater displacement and landlessness among Burma's rural population. Public dissatisfaction with the situation, coupled with a new openness brought about by the reform process, is leading some farmers and other land owners to protest the seizures. The much publicized protest has involved the forced removal of villagers from three villages in Sagaing Division to expand a copper mine being developed by the government-owned Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings (UMEH) and the Wan Bao Co. Ltd, a subsidiary of China North Industries Corp. A protest that included a large number of Buddhist monks supporting displaced villagers was violently broken up by police. Incendiary devices fired into the protest camp severely burned several of the monks, according to press reports. The heavy3

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

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 their perceived 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 farmers were protesting the confiscation of their land by the military in 1996 and its later sale to a businessman in 2004. Under the Nargis Constitution, the state is the ultimate owner of all land and natural resources 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 approval of 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 the constitution and provide protections to land. While the laws guaranteed more individual ownership 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 reinforced a top-down decision-making process without local participation. The absence of adequate legal and 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 grabbing and manipulation of the system. While providing for certificates of ownership and the selling of rights to land, the Farmland Law requires prospective land owners to register at local Farmland Management Committees. These committees are appointed by the government with no representation from farmers, leaving them open to corruption and the influence of government and military officials in league with commercial interests. The composition of the committees and enduring distrust of the bureaucracy after years of mismanagement under the military regime will likely discourage many farmers from registering. 4 Farmers appealing decisions of these bodies must appeal within the same system of farmland management committees at various levels up to the state and regional levels. These same government appointed bodies are also empowered to issue fines, enforce evictions, and issue criminal penalties, allowing for a mechanism which few farmers would be willing to challenge. Burmas resources are being sold off to the highest bidder. Foreign investors can now lease land for a period of 50 years with two 10 year extensions. In undeveloped and remote areas in Burma, the government will allow foreign investors to hold even longer leases.This seals away swathes of land and ecosystems for generations of farmers and residents seriously jeopardising their right to food and a secure livelihood. Burmas President has proven hes willing 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

McCarten; Brian,Land grabbing as big business in Burma Asia Times 8-3-2013 Hudson Rodd:Nancy International Praise and Grassroots Reality 8-1-2-2012 in DVB

About a week ago, 40 ethnic non-governmental organizations from across Burma and groups based on the border in Thailand are calling on the government, ethnic militias and the international community to address a surge in land-grabbing, as companies move into Burmas ethnic regions following recent ceasefire agreements. But the two government committees on land 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 to meet 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 would protect ethnic communities against land-grabbing.7 This tantamount to admitting that there was no rule of law since the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) seized power in 1988 up to this day and the quasi government is the protg of SPDC whose former name is SLORC. A simple logic is missing. There was a deep concern over the lack of legal protection of land rights of ethnic communities, 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 farmersespecially those reliant on traditional shifting agricultureor local customary law regarding land. Most ethnic villagers struggle to register land ownership as the procedures are too expensive or because they lack the required ID cards.8 Most of Burmas ethnic nationalities live in the border regions rich in mineral wealth, timber, fertile land and rivers suitable for hydropower dam development. 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-industrial plantations in ethnic areas. Often the firms gain support from the Tatmadaw or, at times, from ethnic 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 made for 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 also lead to a flare-up in the ethnic conflict. Burmese Tatmadaw had used the ceasefires to expand its presence and to push through projects that confiscate resources from local communities.

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

Weng:Lawi, Rule of Law Will End Land Grabs in Ethnic Areas, Officials Tells Activists Irrawaddy 12-52013
8

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

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

The customary rights held by millions of agrarians, land laborers, and contract farmers including shifting cultivators and pastoralists are also not recognized within the current legal framework. Without land tenure security, small landowners are particularly vulnerable to speculators and corporate agri-businesses. The Vacant, Fallow, and Virgin Land Management Law likewise vest an 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 request security 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 (awmif,m)form of shifting upland cultivation 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 of Agriculture 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 decades been integrated into the Tatmadaw's authoritarian governance structure and is still equated in many people's minds with summary justice and kangaroo courts. As such, the system is largely incompetent and virtually powerless against powerful vested interests in other parts of the state or private companies. Officials are neither inclined to intervene in land disputes nor effectively capable of protecting the rights of small landholders against encroaching military-owned companies and their partners. The provision for the selling of land rights is also open for exploitation by businesses which encourage farmers under mounting debt to sell off their land for short-term gains. Many farmers in the country are in debt due to a widespread inability to access credit through normal channels and the high costs of agricultural inputs. Unchecked land-grabbing has the potential to imperil both Thein Sein's political reforms and the overall economic potential of the country. The current lack of transparency and public participation in the planning and decision-making processes 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 confidence in both Thein Sein's supposed democratic government and the overall reform process. The situation is compounded by an enduring attitude in the bureaucracy that treats farmers with contempt, threats and intimidation. Rising landlessness, meanwhile, will push many farmers into cities, creating a new urban underclass and a potential source of instability.10 Growing discontent among small landowners, displaced agrarians and landless rural workers have the potential to create a powerful voting bloc in the 2015 elections. Nearly 70% of Burma's population of some 60 million live in rural areas, among which one-third are estimated to be landless laborers. Effective land reform promises thus have the potential to win massive popular 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 Participantscommonly perceived as the party of the former Tatmadaw rulers - and the opposition (NLD) have broached the topic in parliament. In July 2012, parliament, including members of the
10

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

11

They 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

USDP, took the unusual step of overruling the government and voted to form a committee to investigate land disputes across the country. The Parliamentary Land Investigation Committee began 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 the advice 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 mitigate the 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 is important 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 are wary of investing with partners associated with such unsavory practices. Rising governmental and parliamentary attention to the issue will also bring more scrutiny to arrangements by local and foreign firms seeking to develop land-intensive projects. Media attention will also keep the issue in the spotlight in the lead up to the 2015 elections. Some local companies have already moved to improve their image in relation to land ownership and compensation. Several companies have taken steps to either return land or initiate joint development programs with the former owners of the land. In June, a local parliamentarian successfully 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 Shwe Wah Co Ltd returned a concession of some 40,000 acres (16,187 hectares) to farmers in the Irrawaddy Delta. All in all it is a fact that the quasi military government of Thein Sein is wittingly 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 vulnerable to being seduced by socio-political doctrines and a readiness to accept totalitarian terror for the sake 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 against the murderous powers of injustice being committed in Burma? Why after decades of protest by truth seekers in Burma is there not support for the defenders of human freedoms? Perhaps business over rules the conscience.

12

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