In his August 16 speech to a gathering of handpicked cronies and technocrats in the Burmese capital of Naypyidaw, President Thein Sein, an ex-general, dropped a bombshell: his government would like Burmese dissidents in exile to “come home” in order to help contribute towards the national development of their birthplace.



Curiously, the real thrust of the President’s speech was about the popularly mandated nature of his quasi-parliamentary government—which works under the directives of the non-elected National Defense and Security Council; the terrorist insurgent nature and lack of public support of the Kachin Independence Organization; and the compassionate nature of the economic measures the government is undertaking in order to alleviate the economic pains of the country’s masses, including the working urban poor, the rural farmers and the pensioners.

Be that as it may, let me single out the issue of the exiles’ return.


Unlike emigrants, political exiles typically look back not only to the circle of immediate and extended family that they left behind, voluntarily or not. They look beyond that circle, to their “home” communities and people. And the greatest dream of political exiles is not to have a prosperous permanent home in the country where they have taken “temporary refuge,” but to return home in order to both reunite with their loved ones who are still alive and contribute to the betterment of the people of their country.

Burmese exiles—who number in the thousands, span several generations and include people from diverse professional and educational backgrounds—are no exception.

Judging from on-line chats and Facebook discussions, the potent idea of the “exiles’ return” has triggered widespread conversations among the Burmese diasporas. And as a one-time “returnee” from exile in the US, I do feel I have something worthwhile to share with my compatriots on the subject of “going home”— especially when that return home would take place in a climate of political uncertainty and against the backdrop of a government, run by the very same leaders as the old regime, which is unlawfully keeping 2,000 plus fellow dissidents with various talents behind bars.

In particular, I don’t want other exiles to repeat my mistake of seeing the mirage of a negotiable or expandable political and societal space, when in fact no such space actually exists on the ground.



Whatever talents and skills which a Burmese exile may wish to use in order to benefit the welfare of the people and the general development of the country, without this crucial space it is inconceivable that anyone—returnees or existing residents—will be able to productively contribute to nation-building.



So before we exiles and expatriates leap to any excited conclusions and express even the cautious welcome of Thein Sein’s offer as a sign of regime liberalization, we would do well to hold the president’s manifest desire for the return of the natives up against the government’s extremely poor track record of misuse, abuse, under-use and non-use of Burmese citizens, both soldiers and civilians, with talents and skills to contribute.



If Thein Sein, together with his seniors and juniors, are serious about creating the space necessary for Burmese of all ethnic backgrounds to be able to apply their talents and energies towards nation-building, they should start by setting free the 2,000 plus political prisoners and several hundred ex-military intelligence officers who are serving unlawful and lengthy prison sentences in 30 plus jails throughout Burma. For among these prisoners are acclaimed artists, writers, technocrats, teachers, community organizers, doctors, political negotiators, entrepreneurs and so on—with Zaganar, Khun Tun Oo, Mya Aye, Ko Ko Gyi and Htay Kywe springing to mind.

One of the most fundamental obstacles for any Burmese who wishes to use his or her skills and energies in building Burma’s communities and institutions is the neo-totalitarian nature of the overall political economy over which successive military leaders—in mufti or civilian clothing—have presided.



However, Thein Sein’s government has undertaken a flurry of significant activities recently, including the 180-degree reversal of its strategic stance towards Aung San Suu Kyi, going from printing life-threatening messages in the state media to holding out an olive branch in her direction. In addition, the new administration has been rushing to sign a one-year, temporary ceasefire with the Kachin Independence Organization (which the government officially refers to as a “terrorist insurgent” group), has suddenly issued a visa to UN Special Rapporteur Tomas Quintana (who has been denied entry to Burma for the last year), and has attempted to coddle up to the International Monetary Fund.

These actions may be a public relations effort aimed at the Association of South East Asian Nations and the regime’s soft-critics such as the European Union, or possibly the result of a widely-speculated intra-military dynamic taking place among the country’s top leaders. But regardless of the real driving factors, Naypyidaw’s moves certainly give even the harshest critics reason for cautious welcome, if not yet optimism.

But my own first-hand experience in dealing with the generals, both in my capacity as a professional and as a dissident, and more importantly, the military’s nearly half-century track record, tells me that the regime’s view of relations with civilian professionals is little more than that of autocratic masters and professional subordinates.



Neither the military’s institutionalized attitudinal framework towards civilians with talents, skills and creative ideas, nor the country’s institutional framework for decision making, have changed appreciably. Despite a half century of spectacular and verifiable failures, the generals and ex-generals with their neo-totalitarian orientation are still behaving as if they can do no wrong. Without any significant and fundamental change in these two dimensions of the military’s power, policy-making and politics, no meaningful space for any civilians—whether they be community organizers (which dissidents are), entrepreneurs, intellectuals, technocrats or other professionals—can be expected.

In the fall of 2005, and after the ouster of Gen Khin Nyunt and dissolution of his intelligence network, I voluntarily returned to Burma after 17 years in exile as what my regime minders termed “a guest of the State.” I was a mini-VIP, fetched straight from the airplane before anyone disembarked, offered reimbursement for the full international airfare—an offer I refused—and put up in a military guest house with a driver, two personal attendants and a Grade-3 military officer from the Ministry of Defense as my liaison. I held several one-on-one meetings with the then head of intelligence during which I could—and did—offer my views without feeling a need to mince words. All of this was enough to make any returning exile’s head swell and ego bloat with a sense of self-importance.



But despite the regime playing nice with me, to the best of my knowledge none of the ideas and suggestions I was invited to share in writing with the generals has been implemented. There has been no relaxation of restrictions on the Internet, no independent think tank established in the country and no meaningful reconciliation process—not even with second-tier leaders of the opposition such as the “moderate” 88 Generation Student group leader, Htay Kywe. The word “reconciliation” was not even uttered during the Thein Sein government’s first press conference, which was held in Naypyidaw last week.



Even my language of economic “developmental nationalism,” which I thought would resonate with some of the presumably patriotic generals, didn’t result in any appreciable shift in the regime’s budget priorities—which allocate more than 50 percent for armaments and defense, but only 2-5 percent for socially and economically productive domains such as health and education. This is the same government that talks about fertilizers for the country’s farmers and “poverty reduction” with UN officials, but goes on spending billions on Russian-made bombers for the generals.It is the generals’ and ex-generals’ deeds, not their words, that count. I for one will not be going home any time soon.
Dr Zarni (m.zarni@lse.ac.uk) is Visiting Fellow, Department of International Development, LSE and columnist for the Irrawaddy.

Burma has been a pariah nation since 1988, shun by the civilized international community. The Burmese army is reviled domestically and around the world. This is galling to the men in uniforms and naturally these Generals want to sit smart in the community of the civilized nations, in spite of their gross human rights violations.

The country had missed a chance to chair of ASEAN in 2006, because of strong international objections led by Western countries, when the systematic use of rape by the Burmese soldiers scrutinized and confirmed by International Organizations and Foreign Governments, couple with the attempted assassination of the Noble Peace Laureate at Depaeyin, which marked the most atrocious chapter of contemporary history of Burma, has become the most notorious country in the world.

Hence the new administration of the Junta has embarked on the public relations drive aimed at shedding a reputation synonymous with human rights violations and abuse. Despite assertions from Naypyidaw that Burma is progressing in the right direction, it remains Southeast Asia’s least developed countries, and ranks 132 out of 169 countries on the UN Human Development Index and various assessments brand the country as a top source for rapes, refugees, drugs and human trafficking, hindering international aid for refugees, all of which have become a sensitive blot on the region’s reputation. 

Now, another chance for Burma comes out in 2014. Again this time the rape of the Kachin women, authentically proved by the international organizations and strongly condemn by the US Congress couple with the massive child soldiers and staging a sham election with a dubious constitution, not to mention holding more than 2,000 political prisoners would be an embarrassment for the region to be its chairperson.

In order to appease these crimes and to gain legitimacy internationally, as well as to gain credit among its own people, the regime had invited ASEAN Chairperson. Marty Natalegawa, the Indonesia's Foreign Minister to visit Naypyidaw. But he had made it clear that he will go only if Burma makes a satisfactory progress towards resolving the issues, such as dialogue with pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, ceasefire with the ethnic nationalities and the releasing of more than 2,000 political prisoners.

Hence to prove it, at least cosmetically, the Thein Sein Administration has grudgingly, if not cautiously, contacted the Lady.via the information minister. The irony is that, if it is according to the laws of the Junta, NLD is an illegal association, and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is persona non grata. Why contact now? The raison d’être is crystal clear; it wants to show to ASEAN and the world that there is already a dialogue. Then reluctantly it held a cease fire talks with the Kachin, just to prove to the World Community that they are having a dialogue, when in fact, the regime is not sincere by dispatching only a junior officer which authentically proved that it is reluctant to find a negotiated settlement. The high water mark was by its refusal to dialogue with the Shan, Karenni and the Karen. In a way they are up to their old tricks of divide and rule policy on the ethnic nationalities.

When it comes to a sensitive topic of releasing 2000 plus political prisoners held in inhumane and harsh conditions, it is synchronising with some pro-engagement, anti-sanctions apologists and members of the international community in the form of a partial political prisoner release as pretext for a “positive development” to sell Western governments on the idea of lifting sanctions and dropping the call for a UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI) on human rights abuses in Burma. 

The pro-engagement, anti-sanctions diplomats, business persons and international NGOs especially led by the Nazi ancestors, are now attempting vigorously to persuade the country’s new quasi-civilian government to give them something, to show that they can be used to argue for reduced sanctions and the opportunity to invest in Burma, in order to open up a new market to exploit the country`s natural and human resources, at a time when Europe is experiencing a financial crisis.

It has been proved that behind diplomatic doors, the pro-engagement, anti-sanctions forces are asking for the release of 200-300 political prisoners all at once, and the regime relented by releasing one prisoner a day. In another three months when about 100 or so of its least-threatening prisoners have been released, then it will have create a dilemma for those who genuinely care about democracy and human rights in Burma. Simultaneously because the thaw relations between the Thein Sein administration and NLD there is a possibility that a fraction of the 2000 plus political prisoners will be released, now that regime construe that the ethnic nationalities poses as enemy No 1 instead of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. 

Perhaps the Generals have figured out her popularity as a pop star, instead of a revolutionary figure that will inspire the masses to serious and sustained revolt and have reworked their approach to containing her just like, what the Thai army is doing to Yinluck Shinawahtra. Obviously, anyone resisting rewarding the release of prisoners with meaningful carrots—such as reduced sanctions or support for the award of the ASEAN chair to Burma in 2014—will be accused of being a “stubborn radical” who is unwilling to compromise. The people of Burma and the international community should see this nasty trick and manoeuvre. The international community must know to allow the prisoner as human capital, bartering away as objects, some holding while others releasing, in order to obtain benefits will allow the regime to perpetuate its oppression of the Burmese people and to benefit the West is something to think of?

Even though any political prisoner release is welcome by anybody, the international community should not allow its own economic motives to cause it to fall into the regime’s trap and give away the leverage of sanctions and a CoI at the cost of the peoples of Burma, before all of Burma’s 2,000 plus political prisoners have all been released and genuine democracy has been restored. So far the only truly significant development has been the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, that was counterbalanced by barring her from participating in the election and the continue crackdown on ethnic nationalities. Can all these be counted as small and positive changes to release the punitive actions as the apologist claims?

As far as the domestic scene is concern, the writings on the wall is clear, the regime’s propensity for violence will neither bring national reconciliation nor will it lead Burma to democracy; it will only lead to Myanmarnization over the non Myanmar and deepen the enduring political grievances of systemic alienation and suppression felt by ethnic nationalities. The ethnic nationalities have no choice left to counter it democratically but resort to taking up arms as it had done for decades to rightfully defend their national birthright of ethnic equality and self-determination within their own territory. More than ever before, the changing political trends and drama unfolding inside Burma have demanded that leaders of ethnic-based armed opposition groups stand together in their resistance of armed struggle against successive military regimes. The political stakes are too high for non-cooperation. Knowing the potential power of their collective force, they need to fight their common enemy under the banners of ‘we suffer together; we will fight together; we die together; we shared together’.

Previously due to the corrosion of the internal cohesion among its members and lack of commitment in adhering to their common strategy, the military regime had succeeded in effectively undermining the front by persuading some members of the front to enter into the ceasefire agreements individually. Once, one main member party signs a peace deal with the military regime, it enables the Burmese army to break the internal cohesion and unity of the ethnic nationalities, thus subsequently weakening the collective movement.

Now over the years, understanding has reached that the collective forces of the armed group pose a serious threat to its grip on power, successive military regimes have been employing the strategy of ‘divide and rule’ in dismantling one by one of the collective forces of opposition armed groups. While many of Burma’s watchers wonder about the future of armed struggle in Burma, the recent re-unification of ethnic-based armed organizations under the umbrella of the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) reinvigorates the hope of many in the ongoing ethno- democratic movements. The creation of the UNFC once again signifies the realization that ‘the ethnic resistance forces are more powerful and stronger when they fight collectively, rather than fighting separately without cooperation, what in Burmese we say Nwa Kwe Kyar Kaik . Remembering that countless innocent lives have been sacrificed with the goals of reclaiming their inalienable rights to self-determination, equality, and universal human rights within the ethnic ancestral land, the current and future leadership of ethnic nationalities must attempt to minimize making a collateral strategic blunder in negotiating with the cunning, crafty regime one by one.

Indeed, the notion that we need each other and will stand together has long being embraced in 1976 under the banner of National Democratic Front (NDF). In this case it is worth mentioning that Salai Za Ceu Lian, a Chin scholar had drawn two explicit lessons from the NDF’s experience. First is not to allow the economic and social incentives to outweigh their political rights. Second, is not to enter into a ceasefire agreement with the military regime individually and separately, that would pave the way for the military regime to dismantle one by one again by the regime divide and rule policy. In this aspect the Kachin, which has the most educated leaders, had done a commendable job in demanding that there should be a nation-wide ceasefire and others should follow its example. It is for the Karenni, Shan, Mon, Chin and the Karen or any breakaway party to follow suit. These are the pillars of success for the Non Myanmar whose combine population is far more than the Myanmar.

As seen the regime had refused to have a dialogue with leaders of the UNFC as a common body and have pressured the Thai Intelligence to close the UNFC Office in Chiang Mai and more of this can follow suit, as only then the Thais can exploit Burma’s natural and human resources now that Thaksin’s influence is gaining ground. This clearly indicates that the Burmese regime is not sincere and does not want a negotiated peace. Vice-President Tin Aung Myint Oo claimed Naypyidaw would welcome peace talks with the ethnic nationalities fighting the government is just a bluff. The authenticated proof of it is that fighting in the countryside goes on unabated especially in Karen, Kachin and Shan states. La Nan, joint-secretary of the KIO, said that is just a propaganda statement which has arisen due to international pressure on Burma.For far too long, the Junta had dictated the terms and conditions of ceasefire agreements in a way that serves its own interest of retaining power. 

If all the ethnic nationalities could unite, should we leave out the Myanmar ethnic groups? Are all the Myanmar practicing Myanmarnization policy? In other words are all the Myanmar bad? These are the basic questions which every ethnic leader, nationalist and patriot should ask himself, now that there is a possibility of thaw relations between the pro democratic forces and the quasi civilian government. No doubt there are genuine Pyidoungsu Myanmar and the Mahar Myanmar that are that wittingly or unwittingly encouraging the Myanmarnization philosophy and programme and even among the Burmese Diaspora who now are holding influential and high positions especially in the media.

One must be able to differentiate between the two. No doubt the Pyidoungsu Myanmar are the followers of Bogyoke Aung San particularly her daughter, U Win Tin, Ko Ko Gyi and the likes but not all the NLDs are Pyidaungsu Myanmar as a great majority of them, especially the retired generals, are Mahar Myanmar, who construe that ethnic nationalities are all rebels bent on balkanization. One can easily distinguished by their actions and their philosophy especially in the interpretation of the Burmese History. For instance, the military leaders and the great majority of the Mahar Myanmar share a belief that the present day Burma developed in a linear fashion straight from the founding of the first Burmese kingdom in 1044 AD under king Anawrahta. Only the British colonization of the Myanmar Kingdom disrupted this historical development. They believe in the accounts of their mighty, expansionistic imperialist empires (one of the proof is the three mammoth statues in Naypyidaw) with subordinate alliances made up of multi-ethnic and multi-language communities, including the Shan, the Arakanese, the Mons, and so on, encompassing the present day Burma and its political boundaries and, at times, stretching into neighbouring India and Thailand, others are their subordinates and hence should not be treated as equal but above the ethnic nationalities.

On the other hand the ethnic nationalities and the Pyidoungsu Myanmar believes that -

 

This is a divergent - and obviously irreconcilable interpretation and will clearly different between the Mahar Myanmar and the Pyidoungsu Myanmar. The latter and the ethnic nationalities who are the genuine followers ofBogyoke Aung San can vividly recalls that in the submission of the Union constitution to the AFPFL at Jubilee Hall on May 1947, our beloved leader himself has said. 

“When we build our new Burma, shall we build it as a Union or a Unitary State? In my opinion it will not be feasible to set up a Unitary State. We must set up a Union with a properly regulated provision to set up the rights of the ethnic nationalities.”

But the Myanmar historians never pick up this phrase. Even the arch supporter of the Burmese Junta Dr Maung Maung points out that,

“The Union States should have their own separate constitutions, their own organ of states, viz parliament, government and Judiciary.”

On the eve on the historic Panglong Conference to be exact on 11th Frb.1947, Bogyoke Aung San said,

This is the essence of coming together but as everybody knows it Bogyoke Aung San and his key leaders were assassinated on 9th July 1948 and it was U Chan Htun the only proficient person whom the leaders had put their trust on him, shows his Mahar Bamar mentality by betraying Bogyoke Aung San and the ethnic nationalities of Burma by completely changing his vision made it a unitary state under the directions of U Nu.

Hence an average Myanmar view the ethnic nationality as somewhat the necessary evil of the country where he is destined to live forever and that it is his unbounded duty to lead him to civilization He/she must be showed the real civilization of the Myanmar people and finally lead him to Theravada Buddhism on to Nirvana. Whereas the ethnic nationalities view that the Myanmar people spearheaded by the Burmese army is still uncivilized as shown by their actions all these half a century especially in pillaging and raping of women, not to mention tens of thousands of child soldiers and killing of children and Buddhist monks. They were horrified that even now they are behaving in such a way should be brought back to civilization; slowly educate them to bring them back to the civilized international community.

History cannot be undone, but the point which I am emphasizing is that it will be a full mistake and a major blunder, if the ethnic nationalities did not put in the genuine Pyidoungsu Myanmar in their band wagon of the country’s epic struggle for the ultimate battle. Without the Pyidoungsu Myanmar, the ethnic nationalities will be building the Union of Ethnic Nationalities with Burmese as a lingua franca at its best and as its worst will be instead of the Union of Burma will be Balkanization. None of which is acceptable to the peoples of Burma or to the international community. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi call for the Second Panglong Conference, .not only to complete the unfinished work of her martyred father but is also potentially laying the groundwork for genuine security and economic prosperity in the border areas, where most ethnic nationalities live, is a clear clarion call which every ethno-democratic forces should lend a ear to stay united with her through thick and thin. 

No doubt the flames of ethno-nationalisms of Burma will continue to burn, given the fact that many ethnic communities have been deprived of equality, politically, culturally and economically under the Myanmar -dominated rule for so long. But it must be remembered that the distrust and fear of the Myanmar race groups throughout the country began long before the country gain independence. Even though the Pyidoungsu Myanmar may feel some ideological affinity with their military rulers, more than our cosmopolitan, "enlighten ethnic nationalities” who speak a language littered with words like "federalism" or "self-determination" their reasoning is sound under the guidance of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi when juxtaposed with the ideological discourse of human rights and democracy with the world thinking in this globalized and digital world. Even now the Thein Sein administration is using his major trick by neither calling back the students and the Burmese intelligentsia in Diaspora to come back without general amnesty nor releasing the existing prisoners. But we should know that without the genuine Pyidoungsu Myanmar and vice versa without the ethnic nationalities our goal is unattainable. It is a MUST that the two will have to stick together.

Last but not the least is not to forget the Buddhist Clergy whose moral force and stand for justice and truth have shaken the Junta. The Shan, Arakanese, Mon and the majority of the Karen are still adherence of this faith and they have well organized groups both inside and outside the country. We should also recollect of what Bogyoke Aung San that one religion, one race and one language had gone obsolete. 

ASEAN and Asian Scene

Part of the Truman doctrine of the Cold War period was creating a string of Defence Treaty Organizations (NATO in Europe, CENTO, Bagdad Pact in the Middle East, FETO in the Far East) and SEATO or the Manila Pact was born in 1954 including Thailand and Philippines to contain the socialist countries of Russia and China. Once it became obsolete it was replaced by ASEAN in 1967 by newly independent nations like Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore joined by Philippines and Thailand but it was not a defence pact but rather an economic entity. Since then, membership has expanded to include all the ten Southeast Asian countries and aims at the the acceleration of economic growth, social progress, cultural development, the protection of the peace and stability of the region, and to provide opportunities for member countries to discuss differences peacefully.

Due to the economic nature of ASEAN, the Constructive Engagement Policy on Burma was adopted when she was in trouble, just to exploit the country’s natural and human resources to their benefit .ASEAN for years held the position that the crisis in Burma is a domestic issue; and closes their eyes to the fact that people are fleeing their homes and spilling into neighbouring territory. It does nothing about the situation and according to the guidelines of the Constructive Engagement Policy continued investing in the many mega-projects inside the country and has no qualms about giving the chair to Burma.

But the association’s most influential Western partners and the civilized international community have said the case must be decided based on Burma's political and economic reforms and the region’s reputation and credibility would be greatly harmed by supporting a member country as its leader that promotes dictatorship and the violation of basic human rights. Lessons from ASEM (Asia Europe Meeting where EU cancelled because of Burma) must be heeded and could not afford a break with the West

Besides as an emerging economic region with a long history of political instability, ASEAN governments have increasingly spoken of their desire for a leadership that can tackle the manifold social, political and economic problems they collectively face – a call that gains pertinence as borders become more porous, trade grows and an ASEAN ‘community’ blossoms. They also realise that in an apparent attempt to project a reformist image, the quasi civilian government has sought the help of the International Monetary Fund in modernizing its currency exchange system and have withdrew foreign exchange certificates (FECs) and is craftily using Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, to seek normalization of their deepening and constitutionalized military -business class to be acceptable in terms of international relations, 

On the other hand the Arab Spring has blossom and Southeast itself is changing, Philippines and Indonesia has become full blown democracy and one party dictatorship under the smokescreen of democracy as in Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore are waning, Vietnam and Cambodia have adopted market economy and the leaders of ASEAN are now plodding with the idea of whether it is time for ASEAN to assist Burma in securing justice and if possible to stop human rights violations. Of course it can easily do this by bringing the legal process to bear on the perpetrators and providing relief and comfort to victim’s families and those who suffer in natural catastrophes. This would be a huge step in the resolution of one of the world’s most shameful conflicts between a government and its people. 

The people of Burma and the international community has learnt that the Burmese gridlock is not a horizontal one with one ethnic nationalities or party fighting one another but all the pro democratic forces and the ethnic nationalities are fighting against the military Junta and its accomplice. The generals still perceive themselves as good, family men trying their level best to defend Myanmar's sovereignty and territorial integrity. They view themselves as the saviour of the nation from potential Balkanization and keepers of law and order. Virtually all of them are insular, are stuck in the old father-knows-best mentality and demand complete and utter loyalty. While the rank and file live rather poor lives, not dissimilar to the bulk of the population, a handful of top generals live extremely lavishly by local standards.

The Burmese army view that ordinary people and civil servants of the country live more easy-going lives. They are undisciplined and have many leisure hours. They do business just to enrich themselves. When the army cracks down on peaceful demonstrators, they viewed them as lazy opportunists who are asking for rights without working hard and sacrificing like them The army as a whole works hard whereas others don`t do.. The soldiers work industriously and are disciplined and for this they are simply reaping the advantages from performance. The end result is that soldiers believe they have the sole right to hold state power due to their hard work and sacrifices and could not comprehend of why these foreign countries are always asking the army to give up power. No doubt foreigners work hard and think smarter than lazy people of Burma, and these are the reasons developed countries are ahead of Burma seems to be the Burmese army`s logic and rationale. 

In other words the Burmese army in a way blame the people for failing to develop the country. When ordinary people go abroad to seek job opportunity, they see them as betraying the country and opting for a foreign one. Not a single general or soldier had the slightest idea that the country could not move forward because of the army’s heavy handed control. The Burmese army propaganda encourages a blind racist nationalism, full of references to protecting the Myanmar ethnic race leaving out the other ethnic nationalities. This implies that if the Myanmar do not oppress other nationalities then they find themselves be oppressed. For them national reconciliation means assimilation and preventing disintegration of the Union of Burma, all the ethnic races must be assimilated into the Myanmar race including their language, culture and values. With such kind of mind set it is still to be seen how will ASEAN respond to be eligible for the chairperson?

Will ASEAN’s support for the call of the international community and the United Nations to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the crimes against humanity which is the only way to achieve the ultimate goal or will they prove it that ASEAN chairperson to be the highest stage of this Constructive Engagement is still to be seen?

Given the staunch political support and unprincipled business dealings from Beijing's bogus neo-communists with their unquenchable thirst for Burma's energy resources, as well as the support of the veto-wielding Russia, the international community has so far not been powerful enough to either strong-arm or persuade the regime to find a peaceful resolution to their self-perpetuated war against their own citizens.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s focus on a more durable and equitable resolution of Burma's festering interethnic relations should pique interest from Kunming to Zhongnanhai and make the men on the dragon throne sit up. By proposing to reopen negotiations on a new Second Panglong Agreement, modeled on the 1947 pact would be in China's interests, since it would resolve the dilemma arising from its present conflicted role. Beijing poses as both the protector of ethnic Chinese minority peoples on the Burmese side of the border, and also the political protector and economic enabler of their tormentors.

It can be seen that the Chinese government's hopes that the recent elections would help move the country in that direction have proven to be illusory, as armed conflict has resumed in the wake of widespread disenfranchisement and continued state violence in ethnic areas. This unstable situation has major implications for China's quest to exploit Burma's natural resources, as both petroleum pipelines and major hydroelectric projects traverse or are located in ethnic homelands. These projects have already been the site of anti-Chinese violence. If Daw Aung San Suu Kyi can succeed where the Junta's coercive approach has failed, China would be one of the biggest beneficiaries.

Another factor is the Junta's poor response to HIV/AIDS (usually name as SLORC’s disease for when the country first open its door HIV/AID is the first to come in) epidemic and the nature of cross-border trade between China and Burma, public health experts and epidemiologists have tracked a vector of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases begins in Burma have sweeps into China's Yunnan province—home of China's highest HIV/AIDS infection rates—before spreading out into the rest of the country. On the other hand Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's visit to an HIV/AIDS clinic in Rangoon and her exhortation to do more for those suffering from Burma's epidemic will definitely also a benefit to China.

Now that China is has a potential to be the next super power, at least economically, (America’s biggest foreign creditor, holding $1tn of debt) where even the Vice President Joe Baden has to kow tow to the next generation of the men on the Dragon throne, that have a lot of brains will have to think twice for the continue support of the Junta’s accomplice. If the ethno democratic forces remain united they would really be an alternative to the Junta and definitely will get the support from the emerging economic powers of China, India and Japan. Hence it is high time for the ethnic nationalities (UNFC), Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s party and the clergies to be united in one voice.

Lian,Salai Za Ceu In Chinland Guardian “United we Stand, Divided We Fall.” 2nd Aug 2011

Ibid

See Bogyoke Aung San’s speech pp 306-307

U Maung Maung Burmese National Minorities 1940-1989- p170

See the speeches of Aung San also reprinted in The New Panglong Initiative, Rebuilding the Union of Burma p 13 by Chao Tzang and LH Sakong

See Contemporary of the speech of Aung San delivered on 20th Jan. 1946

Ibid.

Zarni,Maung Dr.; Monks Vs. Generals Opinion Asia Sept 2007

Wall Street Journal 25th Nov.2010

Ibid

 

PHUKET: A group of Rohingha boatpeople imprisoned on Phuket since January were trucked to the border port of Ranong today - a day after other would-be-refugees appeared to have been repatriated to Burma in highly unusual circumstances.

The 33 men and boys from Phuket had been kept in cramped conditions in cells at Phuket Immigration headquarters in Phuket City since coming ashore in Phuket in February. Two were said to have difficulty standing up straight when they were loaded onto a police truck today.

All were reported to be pale after more than six months imprisoned with little or no sunlight and exercise.

Their trip north marks what could be a new approach by the incoming Pheu Thai government to a long-standing international issue. Whether it has been done with the knowledge of other members of Asean is not clear.

The Rohingya, a Muslim minority, come from Arakan in north Burma but are not recognised as having citizenship rights in that country. Thailand's policy over the past two-and-a-half years has varied from pushing back the unwanted arrivals in unseaworthy vessels to keeping them in detention indefinitely, without hope of being set free.

But yesterday, Phuketwan has learned, a group of 70 Rohingya were placed in three longtails in Ranong, north of Phuket, each given 4000 baht by a person who said she represented a non-government aid organisation, and allowed to leave Thailand.

Where they go may depend on the people steering the boats. The departure of the three vessels, followed by the four-hour road trip north today by the group who had been captive in Phuket, comes as the new Pheu Thai Government takes over from the Democrat-led government.

What's not plain is whether the Burmese Government is now accepting back Rohingya boatpeople, or whether the three vessels that set off from the Customs pier at Ranong in Thailand yesterday were doing so without the knowledge of the Burmese government.

Adding to the mystery was a report that a woman who handed 4000 baht to each of the 70 boatpeople as they boarded the longtails said that she was a representative from the Jesuit Refugee Service, a highly-regarded Catholic aid group.

A spokesperson for another aid group associated with the Rohingya said it would be uncharacteristic for the Jesuit Refugee Service to be involved in a set of circumstances that appears to leave the Rohingya open to people-trafficking.

However, changes in many long-standing policies are reported to be taking place in Burma as the junta in control and a newly-elected Parliament appease international critics.

And Thailand just this week did gain a new and inexperienced Foreign Minister, Dr Surapong Tovijakchaiyakul, who has already been criticised for his rapid approval of fugitive former PM Thaksin Shinawatra's application to make a trip to Japan.

What Phuketwan can say with certainty is that the Immigration department's detention of Rohingya in numbers has strained the budgets of local holding centres. Allocations do not account for having large groups of people held prisoner for long periods.

Whether the sudden shift of captive Rohingya to Ranong and into longtail boats is a change in policy or a convenient but short-term solution to Thailand's Rohingya problem will only become clear as the United Nations and other organisations ask the new government for an explanation of what is going on.

 Source : phuketwan.com

ေနျပည္ေတာ္တြင္ ေရာက္ရွိေနသည့္ ဒီမုိကေရစီ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ႏွင့္ သမၼတ ဦးသိန္းစိန္တို႔ ယေန႔ ေတြ႔ဆုံခဲ့ေၾကာင္း သတင္းရ ရွိသည္။


ယေန႔ ေန႔လယ္က ေနျပည္ေတာ္သို႔ ဆုိက္ေရာက္လာေသာ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ကို သမၼတဦးသိန္းစိန္က စီးပြားေရး ျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲမႈဆုိင္ရာ အမ်ိဳးသားအဆင့္ အလုပ္ရံုေဆြးေႏြးပြဲ မတက္ေရာက္ခင္ ေခတၱ ေတြ႔ဆုံၿပီးေနာက္တြင္ သမၼတ ဦးသိန္းစိန္က ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္အား ေနျပည္ေတာ္အတြင္း လွည့္လည္ ၾကည္ရႈရန္ တုိက္တြန္းေၾကာင္း သိရသည္။

ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္သည္ အလုပ္ရံုေဆြးေႏြးပြဲသို႔ မတက္ေရာက္ဘဲ ေနျပည္ေတာ္တြင္ အစိုးရ၏ လံုၿခံဳေရး ေစာင့္ေရွာက္မႈျဖင့္ လွည့္လည္ၾကည့္ရႈခဲ့သည္။

ညေန ၄ နာရီတြင္ သမၼတဦးသိန္းစိန္က ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ကို သမၼတအိမ္ေတာ္တြင္ ထပ္မံ လက္ခံေတြ႕ဆံုခဲ့သည္။ ထိုေတြ႕ဆံုေဆြးေႏြးပြဲမွာ ညေန ၅ နာရီတြင္ ၿပီးဆံုးခဲ့ၿပီး မည္သည့္အေၾကာင္းအရာမ်ား ေဆြးေႏြးၾကသည္ကိုမူ မသိရွိရေသးေပ။ အဆိုပါ ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲၿပီးေနာက္ သမၼတကေတာ္ႏွင့္ အစိုးရတာဝန္ရွိသူမ်ားက ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ႏွင့္ ရံုးအဖြဲ႕ကို ၁၅ မိနစ္ခန္႔ ေတြ႕ဆံုခဲ့သည္။

သမၼတဦးသိန္းစိန္က ယေန႔ည တည္ခင္းဧည့္ခံမည့္ ညစာစားပြဲသုိ႔ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ကို ဖိတ္ၾကားထားေၾကာင္းလည္း သိရသည္။

ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္သည္ ယေန႔နံနက္ ၈ နာရီ မိနစ္ ၃၀ ခန္႔ကမွ ေနျပည္ေတာ္သုိ႔ ရုတ္တရက္ သြားေရာက္ျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။ မနက္ျဖန္တြင္ ရန္ကုန္ၿမိဳ႕သို႔ ျပန္လည္ထြက္ခြာမည္ ျဖစ္သည္။

အမ်ိဳးသားဒီမုိကေရစီအဖြဲ႕ခ်ဳပ္ (NLD) ေခါင္းေဆာင္ တဦးျဖစ္သည့္ ဦး၀င္းတင္ကလည္း ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ အေနျဖင့္ ေနျပည္ေတာ္ သြားေရာက္ရျခင္းမွာ သမၼတ ဦးသိန္းစိန္ အပါအ၀င္ ေတြ႔သင့္ေတြ႕ထုိက္ သူမ်ားႏွင့္ ေတြ႔ဆုံရန္ျဖစ္သည္ဟု ေျပာသည္။

“ညီလာခံေတာ့ တက္ျဖစ္လိမ့္မယ္ မထင္ဘူး” ဟု ၎က ဆိုသည္။

အဆုိပါ ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲသုိ႔ တက္ေရာက္ေနသည့္  Myanmar Egress ၏ အမႈေဆာင္ တဦးျဖစ္သူ ငါးလုပ္ငန္းအဖြဲ႕ခ်ဳပ္မွ စီးပြားေရး လုပ္ငန္းရွင္ ဦးလွေမာင္ေရႊကမူ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံေရးတြင္ အဓိက အခန္းက႑၌ ပါ၀င္ေနသည့္ လူမ်ားအေနျဖင့္ မတူသည္ကို ေဘးဖယ္၊ တူသည္ကို ဝုိင္းဝန္းလုပ္ေဆာင္ျခင္းမွာ ေကာင္းမြန္ေၾကာင္း ေျပာသည္။

သမၼတဦးသိန္းစိန္ အေနျဖင့္ ႏုိင္ငံစီးပြားေရး တုိးတက္မႈကုိ လုိလားေၾကာင္း၊ တုိင္းျပည္စီးပြားေရး က႑တြင္ပါဝင္ေနသည့္ လုပ္ငန္းရွင္ႀကီးမ်ားႏွင့္ အျပန္အလွန္ ေဆြးေႏြးမႈမ်ားလည္း ၿပီးခဲ့သည့္ အဂၤါေန႔ညက ေျပာဆုိခဲ့ေသးေၾကာင္း ဦးလွေမာင္ေရႊက ဆိုသည္။

ၿပီးခဲ့သည္ ဗုဒၶဟူးေန႔က ေနျပည္ေတာ္တြင္ ျပဳလုပ္သည့္ စီးပြားေရး၊ လူမႈေရး နယ္ပယ္မွ အသင္းအဖြဲ႕အသီးသီးႏွင့္ ေတြ႔ဆုံရာတြင္ သမၼတဦးသိန္းစိန္က သေဘာထား အျမင္မတူသည့္ လူပုဂၢိဳလ္အဖြဲ႕အစည္းမ်ား၏ မတူကြဲျပားမႈမ်ားကုိ ေဘးဖယ္ကာ တုိင္းျပည္ အတြက္ အက်ိဳးရွိေစမည့္ ဘုံအက်ိဳးစီးပြားမ်ားကုိ ပူးေပါင္းေဆာင္ရြက္ရန္ ဖိတ္ေခၚေၾကာင္း ေျပာၾကားခဲ့သည္။

ျပည္သူ႔ လႊတ္ေတာ္ ကုိယ္စားျပဳ ေကာ္မတီ (CRPP) ၏ အတြင္းေရးမႉး ဦးေအးသာေအာင္ကလည္း  ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္မွာ အမ်ိဳးသား ေခါင္းေဆာင္၊ ပါတီတရပ္၏ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ ျဖစ္သည့္အတြက္ သမၼတ ဦးသိန္းစိန္ အေနျဖင့္ စီးပြားေရး ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲ ဖိတ္ၾကားျခင္းထက္ ႏုိင္ငံေရး စားပြဲ၀ုိင္းသုိ႔သာ ပုိမိုဖိတ္ၾကားသင့္ေၾကာင္း ေထာက္ျပေ၀ဖန္သည္။

“အခုေဆြးေႏြးပြဲက စီးပြားေရး ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲေလ။ တတ္သိနားလည္တဲ့ စီးပြားေရး ပညာရွင္ေတြ၊ စီးပြားေရး သမားေတြနဲ႔ ပုိသင့္ ေတာ္ပါတယ္” ဟု ၎ကဆုိသည္။

ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံတြင္ ျဖစ္ပြားေနသည့္ စီးပြားေရး၊ လူမႈေရး ျပႆနာအရပ္ရပ္ကုိ ေျဖရွင္းႏုိင္ရန္ ႏုိင္ငံေရးအရ ေဆြးေႏြးပြဲမ်ား ျပဳလုပ္ၿပီး ေျဖရွင္းေစခ်င္ေၾကာင္း ဦးေအးသာေအာင္က ေျပာသည္။

Credit : ရန္ပိုင္ (Irrawaddy News)

Human Migration ဆိုတာ ယေန႕ကမၻာမွာ အေရးပါတဲ့ သေဘာတရား တရပ္ျဖစ္ေပမယ့္၊ ေရွးလြန္ခဲ့တဲ့ ႏွစ္ေပါင္းမ်ား စြာကတည္းက ေပၚေပါက္ေနခဲ့ပါတယ္။ ပိုၿပီးေကာင္းမြန္တဲ့ အလုပ္အကိုင္နဲ႔ ဘ၀အေျခအေနအတြက္ လူအမ်ားဟာ ေမြးရပ္ေျမ၊ အိမ္ယာေတြကို ခြဲခြာၿပီး အျခားၿမိဳ႕ရြာ၊ အျခားႏိုင္ငံေတြမွာ အလုပ္သြားေရာက္ လုပ္ကိုင္တာေတြ၊ အေျခခ် ေနထိုင္တာေတြ ျပဳလုပ္ၾကပါတယ္။ ၂၀ ရာစုေႏွာင္းပိုင္းကာလေရာက္ေတာ့ ဂလိုဘယ္လိုင္းေဇးရွင္း အရွိန္အဟုန္ ျမင့္ တက္လာတာနဲ႔အမွ် အာရွ၊ အာဖရိက၊ ေတာင္အေမရိကနဲ႔ အေရွ႕ဥေရာပႏိုင္ငံမ်ားကေန အေနာက္ဥေရာပ၊ ၾသစေၾတး လ်နဲ႔ ေျမာက္အေမရိကႏိုင္ငံမ်ားဆီကို migration လုပ္မႈေတြ မ်ားျပားလာပါတယ္။ ေဒသတြင္းမွာတင္ ဆင္းရဲႏြမ္းပါးတဲ့ ႏိုင္ငံေတြကေန အျခားအိမ္နီးခ်င္းႏိုင္ငံေတြကို migration လုပ္မႈေတြလဲ မ်ားျပားလာပါတယ္။ တရား၀င္ ျပဳလုပ္မႈေတြ ရွိသလို၊ တရားမ၀င္ ျပဳလုပ္တာေတြလဲ ရွိလာပါတယ္။ ဒါကို အခြင့္ေကာင္းယူၿပီး၊ smuggling of migrants ဆိုတဲ့ ရာဇ ၀တ္ျပစ္မႈေတြကို က်ဴးလြန္လာမႈေတြလဲ ရွိပါတယ္။

၂၀၀၀ ခုႏွစ္မွာ The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime ကို ကမၻာ့ကုလ သမဂၢ အေထြေထြညီလာခံရဲ႕ Resolution 55/25 အျဖစ္ ခ်မွတ္ခဲ့ၾကပါတယ္။ ဒီကြန္ဗင္းရွင္းကို ေနာက္ထပ္ ပ႐ိုတို ေကာလ္ သံုးခုနဲ႔ ထပ္ဆင့္ျဖည့္စြက္ၿပီး၊ နယ္စပ္ျဖတ္ေက်ာ္ရာဇ၀တ္မႈ (Transnational Organized Crime) တိုက္ဖ်က္ ေရးကို ထိေရာက္စြာ ေဆာင္ရြက္ႏိုင္ရန္ ႀကိဳးပမ္းခဲ့ပါတယ္။ ဒီပ႐ိုတိုေကာလ္သံုးခုကေတာ့ the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children; the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air; and the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition စတာေတြ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air ရဲ႕ ပုဒ္မ (၃) နဲ႔ ပုဒ္မ (၆) မွာ smuggling of migrants ရဲ႕ အဓိပၸာယ္ဖြင့္ဆိုခ်က္နဲ႔ ရာဇ၀တ္ျပစ္မႈ ေျမာက္ေစတဲ့ အျပဳအမူေတြကို ရွင္းလင္းစြာ ထည့္ သြင္းေဖာ္ျပ ထားပါတယ္။ Smuggling of migrants ဆိုတာ ႏိုင္ငံတႏိုင္ငံရဲ႕ ႏိုင္ငံသား မဟုတ္ေသာ လူပုဂၢိဳလ္တဦး တေယာက္ကို အဲဒီႏိုင္ငံမွာ အေျခခ်ေနထိုင္လို႔ရေအာင္ ေငြေၾကး (သို႔မဟုတ္) အျခား တစံုတရာ အက်ိဳးအျမတ္မ်ားအား တိုက္႐ိုက္ျဖစ္ေစ၊ သြယ္၀ိုက္ျဖစ္ေစ ရယူၿပီး အကူအညီေပးျခင္း ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ပုဒ္မ (၆) အရ တိုင္းျပည္တခုအတြင္းသို႔ ခိုးသြင္းျခင္း၊ အဆိုပါ ခိုးသြင္းခံရသူသည္ ခိုးသြင္းခံရေသာ တိုင္းျပည္၏ ႏိုင္ငံသား (သို႔မဟုတ္) တိုင္းျပည္တြင္းတြင္ တရား၀င္ ေနထိုင္ႏိုင္ခြင့္ မရွိျခင္းႏွင့္ ယင္းသို႔ခိုးသြင္းရာတြင္ ေငြေၾကး (သို႔မဟုတ္) အျခား တစံုတရာ အက်ိဳးအျမတ္ မ်ားအား တိုက္႐ိုက္ျဖစ္ေစ၊ သြယ္၀ိုက္ျဖစ္ေစ ရယူျခင္းဟာ ရာဇ၀တ္ျပစ္မႈ ေျမာက္ပါတယ္။

အလားတူပဲ တိုင္းျပည္တခုအတြင္းမွာ တရား၀င္ေနထိုင္ခြင့္ သက္တမ္းကုန္လြန္ေနသူ (သို႔မဟုတ္) တရားမ၀င္ ၀င္ ေရာက္ ေနထိုင္ေနသူ တေယာက္ကို အဆိုပါ တိုင္းျပည္တြင္းမွာ တရားမ၀င္ ဆက္လက္ေနထိုင္ခြင့္ ရရွိေအာင္ (သို႔မ ဟုတ္) ဥပေဒသတ္မွတ္ခ်က္မ်ားႏွင့္ ေဘာင္၀င္ေအာင္ လိမ္လည္ ကူညီေပးျခင္းႏွင့္ ယင္းသို႔ျပဳလုပ္ရာတြင္ ေငြေၾကး (သို႔မဟုတ္) အျခား တစံုတရာ အက်ိဳးအျမတ္မ်ားအား တိုက္႐ိုက္ျဖစ္ေစ၊ သြယ္၀ိုက္ျဖစ္ေစ ရယူျခင္းဟာလဲ ရာဇ၀တ္ ျပစ္မႈ ေျမာက္ပါတယ္။

The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air ဟာ migrants မ်ားကို အေရးယူ ေဆာင္ရြက္ရတဲ့ legal instrument တခုေတာ့ မဟုတ္ပါဘူး။ တခါတရံမွာ migrants ေတြက ရာဇ၀တ္ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္ရန္ ႀကိဳးပမ္းေနသူမ်ားရဲ႕ သားေကာင္ေတြ ျဖစ္ေနတတ္ပါတယ္။ အျခားႏိုင္ငံသို႔ ခိုးသြင္းေပးျခင္း (သို႔မဟုတ္) ေနထိုင္ခြင့္ သက္တမ္း ေက်ာ္လြန္ေနေသာ ႏိုင္ငံ (သို႔) တရားမ၀င္ ၀င္ေရာက္ေနေသာ ႏိုင္ငံတခုမွာ တရားမ၀င္ ဆက္လက္ေနထိုင္ ခြင့္ ရရွိေအာင္ (သို႔မဟုတ္) ဥပေဒသတ္မွတ္ခ်က္မ်ားႏွင့္ ေဘာင္၀င္ေအာင္ လိမ္လည္ ကူညီေပးမည္လို႔ ဆိုၿပီး ေငြေၾကး (သို႔မဟုတ္) အျခားတစံုတရာအက်ိဳးအျမတ္မ်ားကို ရယူေတာင္းဆိုမႈ လုပ္ေဆာင္လာၿပီဆိုရင္ ဒါဟာ ရာဇ၀တ္ျပစ္မႈ က်ဴးလြန္ရန္ ၾကံစည္အားထုတ္ေနသူမ်ားရဲ႕ ခ်ဥ္းကပ္မႈဆိုတာကို လူအမ်ားနားလည္မွသာ ရာဇ၀တ္ ျပစ္မႈေတြရဲ႕ သား ေကာင္ေတြဘ၀က လြတ္ေျမာက္မွာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ Smuggling of migrants ဟာ လူကုန္ကူးမႈနဲ႔ ကြဲျပားျခားနားပါတယ္။

The Trafficking in Persons Protocol ရဲ႕ အပိုဒ္ (၃)၊ အပိုဒ္ခြဲ (က) အရ လူကုန္ကူးမႈဆိုတာကို အဓိပၸာယ္ဖြင့္ဆိုထား ရမွာ အပိုင္း (၃) ပိုင္း ပါ၀င္ပါတယ္။ ပထမတပိုင္းကေတာ့ ျပဳမူေဆာင္ရြက္ခ်က္ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ျပဳမူေဆာင္ရြက္ရာမွာ လူ ကုန္ကူးမႈ၏ သားေကာင္ျဖစ္ႏိုင္သူမ်ားကို ရွာေဖြေခၚယူျခင္း၊ သယ္ယူပို႔ေဆာင္ျခင္း၊ လႊဲေျပာင္းျခင္း၊ လက္ခံျခင္း (သို႔မ ဟုတ္) ၀ယ္ယူျခင္း စတာေတြ ပါ၀င္ပါတယ္။

ဒုတိယအပိုင္းကေတာ့ နည္းလမ္းမ်ား ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ လူကုန္ကူးရာမွာ အသံုးျပဳတဲ့ နည္းလမ္းေတြကေတာ့ ဆြဲေဆာင္ သိမ္းသြင္းျခင္း၊ စည္းရံုးျခင္း၊ အင္အားသံုးျခင္း၊ ျခိမ္းေခ်ာက္ျခင္း၊ ဖမ္းဆီးျခင္း၊ ျပန္ေပးဆြဲျခင္း၊ လိမ္လည္လွည့္ဖ်ားျခင္း၊ အာဏာကို အလြဲသံုးစားျပဳျခင္း၊ သားေကာင္ျဖစ္သူရဲ႕ တစံုတရာ အားနည္းခ်က္ကို အသံုးျပဳျခင္းနဲ႔ ေငြ (သို႔) အျခား တစံုတရာ အက်ိဳးအျမတ္မ်ားကို ေပးအပ္ၿပီး၊ သားေကာင္ျဖစ္သူ၏ consent ကို ရယူထိန္းခ်ဳပ္ရန္ ႀကိဳးပမ္းျခင္း စတာ ေတြ ပါ၀င္ပါတယ္။

တတိယအပိုင္းကေတာ့ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ လူကုန္ကူးမႈရဲ႕ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ေတြထဲမွာ ျပည့္တန္ဆာအျဖစ္ ေရာင္း ခ်ရန္၊ လူတဦးတေယာက္(သို႔မဟုတ္) လူအစုအဖြဲ႕ တခုရဲ႕ လိင္ေက်းကၽြန္အျဖစ္ အသံုးျပဳရန္၊ ထိုက္တန္ေသာ လစာႏွင့္ ခံစားခြင့္ မရွိေသာ အလုပ္မ်ားကို ေစခိုင္းရန္၊ ေက်းကၽြန္ (သို႔မဟုတ္) ေက်းကၽြန္ႏွင့္ အလားသ႑ာန္တူေသာ အေျခအ ေနမ်ားသို႔ သြတ္သြင္းရန္ နဲ႔ ကိုယ္ခႏၶာအစိတ္အပိုင္းမ်ား (ဥပမာ- ေက်ာက္ကပ္၊ အသည္း၊ ႏွလံုး စသည္မ်ား) အား ရယူ ရန္ စတာေတြ ပါ၀င္ပါတယ္။

ဒီလို ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ေတြအတြက္ လူကုန္ကူးမႈက်ဴးလြန္ရန္ ႀကိဳးပမ္းအားထုတ္သူမ်ားက နည္းမ်ိဳးစံုအသံုးျပဳၿပီး၊ ဒါေတြဟာ သားေကာင္ျဖစ္သူရဲ႕ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္အရ ျပဳလုပ္ျခင္းဆိုတဲ့ ခုခံကာကြယ္မႈကို လုပ္တတ္ၾကပါတယ္။ ဒီလို သေဘာ တူညီခ်က္ဆိုရာမွာ အထက္မွာ ေဖာ္ျပထားတဲ့ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ေတြအတြက္ ဆြဲေဆာင္ သိမ္းသြင္းျခင္း၊ စည္းရံုးျခင္း၊ အင္ အားသံုးျခင္း၊ ၿခိမ္းေခ်ာက္ျခင္း၊ ဖမ္းဆီးျခင္း၊ ျပန္ေပးဆြဲျခင္း၊ လိမ္လည္လွည့္ဖ်ားျခင္း၊ အာဏာကို အလြဲသံုးစားျပဳျခင္း၊ သားေကာင္ျဖစ္သူရဲ႕ တစံုတရာ အားနည္းခ်က္ကို အသံုးျပဳျခင္းနဲ႔ ေငြ (သို႔) အျခား တစံုတရာ အက်ိဳးအျမတ္မ်ားကို ေပးအပ္ၿပီး၊ သားေကာင္ျဖစ္သူ၏ consent ကို ရယူထိန္းခ်ဳပ္ရန္ ႀကိဳးပမ္းျခင္း စတဲ့ နည္းလမ္းေတြကို အသံုးျပဳထားမယ္ ဆိုရင္ ဒီသေဘာတူညီခ်က္ေတြက အလိုအေလ်ာက္ ပ်က္ျပယ္ပါတယ္။

Smuggling of migrants နဲ႔ လူကုန္ကူးမႈဟာ ကြဲျပားျခားနားပါတယ္။ အဓိကကေတာ့ ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ Smuggling of migrants က ေငြေၾကး (သို႔မဟုတ္) တစံုတရာ အက်ိဳးအျမတ္အတြက္ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ လူကုန္ကူးမႈ ၾကေတာ့ ျပည့္တန္ဆာအျဖစ္ ေရာင္းခ်ရန္၊ လူတဦးတေယာက္(သို႔မဟုတ္) လူအစုအဖြဲ႕ တခုရဲ႕ လိင္ေက်းကၽြန္အျဖစ္ အသံုးျပဳရန္၊ ထိုက္တန္ေသာ လစာႏွင့္ ခံစားခြင့္ မရွိေသာ အလုပ္မ်ားကို ေစခိုင္းရန္၊ ေက်းကၽြန္ (သို႔မဟုတ္) ေက်းကၽြန္ ႏွင့္ အလားသဏၭာန္တူေသာ အေျခအေနမ်ားသို႔ သြတ္သြင္းရန္ နဲ႔ ကိုယ္ခႏၶာအစိတ္အပိုင္းမ်ား (ဥပမာ- ေက်ာက္ကပ္၊ အသည္း၊ ႏွလံုး စသည္မ်ား) အား ရယူရန္ စတဲ့ အသံုးခ်မႈအတြက္ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

ေနာက္ထပ္ကြဲျပားျခားနားမႈ တခုကေတာ့ တိုင္းျပည္တခုအတြင္းသို႔ တရားမ၀င္ ၀င္ေရာက္မႈ (သို႔မဟုတ္) တရားမ၀င္ ေနထိုင္မႈ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ smuggling of migrants မွာက တိုင္းျပည္တခုကေန အျခားတိုင္းျပည္တခုအတြင္းကို တရားမ ၀င္ ခိုးသြင္းမႈု (သို႔မဟုတ္) တရားမ၀င္ ေနထိုင္ေနသူမ်ားအား သက္ဆိုင္ရာ တိုင္းျပည္ရဲ႕ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ လုပ္ထံုးလုပ္နည္းေတြ အရ ေဘာင္၀င္သြားေအာင္ ေငြေၾကးရယူ ကူညီေပးမႈ စတာေတြ ပါ၀င္ပါတယ္။ လူကုန္ကူးမႈမွာက်ေတာ့ တရား၀င္ ၀င္ ေရာက္မႈ (သို႔မဟုတ္) တရား၀င္ေနထိုင္မႈ ေတြပါ အက်ံဳး၀င္သလို၊ တိုင္းျပည္တခုအတြင္းမွာတင္ တေနရာမွ အျခားတ ေနရာသို႔ ပို႔ေဆာင္အသံုးခ်မႈေတြလဲ ျဖစ္ပြားႏိုင္ပါတယ္။

ေနာက္ထပ္ကြဲျပားျခားနားမႈ တခုကေတာ့ သားေကာင္ကိုယ္တိုင္ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ Smuggling of migrants မွာ သားေကာင္ ကိုယ္တိုင္ရဲ႕ လိုက္လိုက္ေလ်ာေလ်ာ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္ ပါ၀င္ပါတယ္။ ဒါေၾကာင့္လဲ smuggling of migrants ျပစ္မႈကို က်ဴးလြန္သူအခ်ိဳ႕က သားေကာင္ရဲ႕ ဆႏၵသေဘာထားပါ၀င္ၿပီး၊ ႏွစ္ဦးႏွစ္ဘက္ အက်ိဳးရွိေစတာေၾကာင့္ ဒါဟာ ျပစ္မႈမ ေျမာက္ဘူးလို႔ ထင္မွတ္မွားေနတတ္တာေတြ ရွိပါတယ္။ သို႔ေပမယ့္ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ ဥပေဒနဲ႔ လုပ္ထံုးလုပ္နည္းေတြအရ ဒါဟာ ရာဇ၀တ္ျပစ္မႈ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ လူကုန္ကူးမႈမွာက်ေတာ့ သားေကာင္ရဲ႕ သေဘာတူညီခ်က္ ပါ၀င္ရင္ေတာင္ အထက္ မွာ ေဖာ္ျပထားတဲ့ နည္းလမ္းေတြနဲ႔ ရယူထားတာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

လူကုန္ကူးမႈနဲ႔ smuggling of migrants တို႔အၾကားမွာ အခုလို ကြဲျပားျခားနားခ်က္ေတြ ရွိေပမယ့္ ဆက္စပ္မႈေတြလဲ ရွိ တတ္ပါတယ္။ အခ်ဳိ႕သားေကာင္ေတြဟာ အျခားတိုင္းျပည္ကို ခိုး၀င္ဖို႔ ကိုယ္တိုင္ကိုယ္က် ေငြေပးခဲ့တာ ျဖစ္ေပမယ့္၊ သက္ဆိုင္ရာ ႏိုင္ငံကို ေရာက္သြားခ်ိန္မွာ ေရာင္းစားခံရတာေတြ ရွိႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ လူကုန္ကူးမႈ က်ဴးလြန္သူမ်ားက smuggling လုပ္ေပးေနသူမ်ားအေနနဲ႔ ဟန္ေဆာင္အသြင္ယူထားျခင္းေတြ ရွိသလို၊ ရာဇ၀တ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္သူမ်ား အခ်င္း ခ်င္း အစကနဦး ကတည္းက ခ်ိတ္ဆက္ထားမႈေတြလဲ ရွိႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ တခါတရံမွာ လမ္းေၾကာင္းတေၾကာင္းထဲမွာ smuggling လုပ္ခံရသူမ်ားနဲ႔ လူကုန္ကူးခံရသူမ်ား အတူတြဲၿပီး ပါ၀င္ေနတတ္ၿပီး၊ ျပစ္မွဴက်ဴးလြန္ေနသူမ်ားဟာ လူကုန္ ကူးမႈနဲ႔ smuggling of migrants ႏွစ္မ်ိဳးလံုးကို က်ဴးလြန္ေနတဲ့ ကြင္းဆက္တရားခံမ်ား ျဖစ္ေနႏိုင္ပါတယ္။

migrants ေတြကို အျခားႏိုင္ငံတြင္းသို႔ ခိုးသြင္းရာမွာ ျပစ္မႈက်ဴးလြန္သူေတြ အသံုးျပဳေလ့ရွိတဲ့ ရာဇ၀တ္မႈသဏၭာန္ေတြ မတူညီပါဘူး။ ပထမ တမ်ိဳးကေတာ့ အေရးေပၚ ခိုးသြင္းေပးမႈ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ဒီသဏၭာန္မွာ migrants ေတြကို ႏိုင္ငံ (ေအ) ကေန ႏိုင္ငံ (ဘီ) ကို ခိုးသြင္းဖို႔အတြက္ ၾကိဳတင္ျပင္ဆင္ထားတဲ့ organized trip မပါ၀င္ပါဘူး။ သူတို႔တေတြဟာ ႏိုင္ငံ (ေအ) အတြင္းမွာ တရား၀င္ လႈပ္ရွားသြားလာၿပီးမွ၊ ႏိုင္ငံ (ဘီ) နဲ႔ အနီးဆံုး နယ္စပ္ကို ေရာက္ရွိသြားၾကပါတယ္။ အဲဒီ ကေန ေဒသခံေတြကို ေငြေပးၿပီး၊ တရားမ၀င္ နယ္စပ္ျဖတ္ေက်ာ္ေရးအတြက္ အသံုးျပဳၾကပါတယ္။ ဒီရာဇ၀တ္မႈမွာ လူတ ဦး တေယာက္ (သို႔မဟုတ္) လူတစုကို အျခားႏိုင္ငံအတြင္းသို႔ တရားမ၀င္ နယ္စပ္ျဖတ္ေက်ာ္ ၀င္ေရာက္သြားႏိုင္ေရး အတြက္ ေငြေၾကးရယူၿပီး ေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးသူမ်ားဟာ လူတဦးတေယာက္၊ တဖြဲ႔တည္းတင္ မကပဲ လူမ်ားစြာ၊ အဖြဲ႔မ်ားစြာ အဆင့္ဆင့္ ပါ၀င္ေနတတ္ပါတယ္။

ေနာက္ထပ္ သဏၭာန္တမ်ိဳးကေတာ့ စာရြက္စာတမ္း အတုမ်ား အသံုးျပဳမႈ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ႏိုင္ငံ (ေအ) ကေန ႏိုင္ငံ (ဘီ) ကို migrants ေတြ ခိုးသြင္းရန္ (သို႔မဟုတ္) ႏိုင္ငံ (ဘီ) အတြင္းသို႔ တရားမ၀င္ ေရာက္ေနသူမ်ား ႏိုင္ငံတြင္းတြင္ ဆက္လက္ ေနထိုင္ႏိုင္ရန္ အတြက္ ႏိုင္ငံ (ေအ) မွာ ေနထိုင္သူကျဖစ္ေစ၊ ႏိုင္ငံ (ဘီ) မွာ ေနထိုင္သူကျဖစ္ေစ စာရြက္စာတမ္း အတု မ်ား ျပဳလုပ္ေပးမႈ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ဒီရာဇ၀တ္မႈမွာ ႏိုင္ငံကူးလက္မွတ္ အတုမ်ား၊ ဗြီဇာအတုမ်ားနဲ႔ အျခားဆက္စပ္ စာရြက္ စာတမ္း အတုမ်ား ျပဳလုပ္ၿပီး ခိုးသြင္းမႈ (သို႔မဟုတ္) ဆက္လက္ေနထိုင္ႏိုင္ရန္ ႀကိဳးပမ္းေပးမႈေတြ ပါ၀င္ပါတယ္။

စာရြက္စာတမ္း အတုမ်ား ျပဳလုပ္ေပးမႈမွာ အတုအေယာင္ လက္ထပ္ျခင္းနဲ႔ ႏိုင္ငံေရးဒုကၡသည္မ်ားအျဖစ္ လိမ္လည္ခံ ယူရန္ ေငြေၾကးမ်ား ရယူေဆာင္ရြက္ေပးမႈ စတာေတြ ပါ၀င္ပါတယ္။ စာရြက္စာတမ္း အတုမ်ားဆိုရာမွာ ပတ္စ္ပို႔အတု မ်ား၊ ပတ္စ္ပို႔ ဓာတ္ပံုမ်ားခြာယူ၍ အသစ္ျပန္ကပ္မႈမ်ား၊ ခိုးယူထားေသာ ပတ္စ္ပို႔မ်ားတြင္ အခ်က္အလက္မ်ား ျပင္ဆင္ ထည့္သြင္းမႈမ်ား၊ ႏိုင္ငံေရးဒုကၡသည္ မခံယူခင္ ပတ္စ္ပို႔မ်ားအား ဖ်က္ဆီးလႊင့္ပစ္ရန္ အၾကံေပးခ်က္မ်ား၊ ေဖ်ာက္ဖ်က္ ေပးမႈမ်ား စတာေတြ ပါ၀င္ပါတယ္။

ေနာက္ထပ္ရာဇ၀တ္မႈ သ႑ာန္တမ်ိဳးကေတာ့ ၾကိဳတင္ျပင္ဆင္ထားမႈမ်ား ပါ၀င္ေသာ stage- to – stage smuggling ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ဒီသ႑ာန္မွာ ႏိုင္ငံ (ေအ) ကေန ႏိုင္ငံ (ဘီ) (လမ္းခရီးတြင္ အျခားႏိုင္ငံမ်ားတြင္လည္း transit လုပ္ရမႈမ်ား ရွိႏိုင္သည္) သို႔ ခိုး၀င္ရမယ့္ သူမ်ားဟာ လမ္းခရီးအတြက္ ကိုယ္တိုင္ ႀကိဳတင္ျပင္ဆင္ထားရန္ မလိုအပ္ပါဘူး။ သက္ ဆိုင္ရာႏိုင္ငံအလိုက္ stage co-ordinators မ်ား ရွိပါတယ္။ ဒီလူေတြဟာ ကြန္ယက္သဏၭာန္ ခ်ိတ္ဆက္ထားၿပီး၊ တခါ တရံမွာလဲ တဖြဲ႔တည္း ျဖစ္ေနတတ္ပါတယ္။

ဥပမာ- ႏိုင္ငံ (ေအ) ကေန လူတေယာက္ကို ႏိုင္ငံ(စီ)ကို ပို႔ေပးသူက တေယာက္၊ ႏိုင္ငံ (စီ) မွာ ေခတၱ ၀ွက္ထားေပးၿပီး၊ ႏိုင္ငံ (ဒီ) သို႔ သြားရမည့္ အိုင္ဒီ အတု စီစဥ္ေပးသူက တေယာက္၊ ႏိုင္ငံ (ဒီ) ေရာက္ခ်ိန္တြင္ အျခား အိုင္ဒီ အတုမ်ား ထပ္မံစီမံၿပီးမွ ႏိုင္ငံ (ဘီ) သို႔ ပို႔ေဆာင္ေပးသူမ်ားက တေယာက္၊ ႏိုင္ငံ (ဘီ) သို႔ ေရာက္ခ်ိန္တြင္ ႀကိဳဆို လက္ခံထား သူက တေယာက္၊ ႏိုင္ငံ (ဘီ)တြင္ အိုင္ဒီအတုမ်ား ေဖ်ာက္ဖ်က္ေပးၿပီး၊ တရား၀င္ ေနထိုင္ခြင့္ ရရွိေစရန္ လုပ္ေဆာင္ ေပးသူမ်ားက တေယာက္ ျဖစ္ေနတတ္ပါတယ္။ ဒီလူေတြ အားလံုးဟာ ခ်ိတ္ဆက္မႈႏွင့္ ျဖစ္ေစ၊ အဖြဲ႔တခုတည္း အေန ႏွင့္ျဖစ္ေစ stage- to- stage smuggling process ၾကီး တခုလံုးမွာ ပါ၀င္ၿပီး ရာဇ၀တ္မႈက်ဳးလြန္ၾကသူမ်ား ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

smuggling process မွာ ေအာ္ပေရးရွင္းတခုလံုး (သို႔မဟုတ္) အဆင့္တဆင့္ကို ၾကိဳးကိုင္စီမံၾကတဲ့ co-ordinators ေတြ ရွိပါတယ္။ co-ordinators ေတြမွာ အဆက္အသြယ္မ်ားစြာ ရွိၿပီး၊ ဆက္သြယ္ေရးစနစ္၊ ေနရာခ်ထားေရး အစီအမံ၊ လမ္း ေၾကာင္း စတာေတြအားလံုးကို တာ၀န္ယူၾကီးၾကပ္စီမံေလ့ရွိၾကပါတယ္။ co-ordinators ေတြဟာ ေနာက္ကြယ္ကေန ႀကိဳးကိုင္စီမံေလ့ရွိၾကတဲ့အတြက္ သူတို႔ကို အေရးယူေဆာင္ရြက္ႏိုင္ေရးအတြက္ သက္ေသအေထာက္အထားမ်ား ရယူ ရန္ ခဲယဥ္းတာေၾကာင့္ co-ordinators မ်ားကို ပစ္မွတ္ထားၿပီး စံုစမ္းသူမ်ားဟာ covert နည္းလမ္းေတြကို အသံုးျပဳ ေလ့ရွိၾကပါတယ္။

ေနာက္ထပ္ တမ်ိဳးကေတာ့ recruiters ေတြ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ သူတို႔တေတြက smuggling လုပ္မယ့္သူေတြနဲ႔ migrants ေတြ အၾကားမွာ ဆက္သြယ္ေပးရသူမ်ား ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ migrants မ်ားနဲ႔ recruiters ေတြဟာ လူမ်ိဳးတူေတြ ျဖစ္တာမ်ားၿပီး၊ တခါတရံ အိမ္နီးခ်င္းေတြ၊ အသိမိတ္ေဆြေတြ ျဖစ္တတ္ပါတယ္။ တရားမ၀င္ ခိုးသြင္းမႈမွာ ပါ၀င္ပတ္သက္ေနတဲ့ recruiters ေတြဟာ မိခင္ႏိုင္ငံေတြမွာ အေျခခ်ေနထိုင္သူမ်ား ျဖစ္ေလ့ရွိၿပီး၊ ရံဖန္ရံခါမွာေတာ့ ႏိုင္ငံရပ္ျခားမွ အလည္အ ပတ္ ျပန္လာသူမ်ားလဲ ျဖစ္တတ္ပါတယ္။

Recruiters ေတြဟာ မိခင္ႏိုင္ငံမွာ ေနထိုင္သူမ်ားထဲမွ ႏိုင္ငံရပ္ျခားသို႔ တရား၀င္ သြားေရာက္ရန္ ခက္ခဲေနသူမ်ားကို သတင္းအခ်က္အလက္ မွားမ်ားေပးျခင္း၊ မက္လံုးမ်ားေပးျခင္း (ႏိုင္ငံဘီတြင္ သြားေရာက္ အလုပ္လုပ္ပါက ဘယ္ႏွစ္ႏွစ္ အတြင္း ခ်မ္းသာမည္ စသည္မ်ား)ျဖင့္ သြားေရာက္ႏိုင္ရန္ ကူညီေပးမည္ဆိုကာ smuggling process ထဲသို႔ သြတ္သြင္း တတ္ပါတယ္။ ႏိုင္ငံတြင္း တရားမ၀င္ေနထိုင္မႈမွာလဲ recruiters ေတြဟာ လူမ်ိဳးတူေတြ ျဖစ္တာမ်ားၿပီး၊ လူ႔အဖြဲ႔အစည္း ထဲမွာ စိမ့္၀င္ေနတတ္ပါတယ္။ တရားမ၀င္ေနထိုင္သူမ်ား၊ တရား၀င္ေနထိုင္ရန္ အခက္အခဲျဖစ္ေနသူမ်ားကို ပစ္မွတ္ ထားၿပီး စည္းရံုးေလ့ရွိပါတယ္။ အဲဒီကေနတဆင့္ migrants smuggling လုပ္ေနသူမ်ားနဲ႔ ထပ္မံဆက္သြယ္ေပးၾက ပါတယ္။

ေနာက္ထပ္တမ်ိဳးကေတာ့ လမ္းခရီး သယ္ယူပို႔ေဆာင္ေရးမွာ အဆင္ေျပဖို႔အတြက္ လုပ္ေဆာင္ေပးတဲ့ transporters ေတြနဲ႔ လမ္းျပေတြ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ လမ္းခရီးအဆင့္ဆင့္မွာ လမ္းျပတေယာက္ (သို႔မဟုတ္) တစု ရဲ႕ လက္ထဲကေန အျခား လမ္းျပေတြရဲ႕ လက္ထဲကို ထပ္မံလႊဲေျပာင္းေပးမႈေတြလဲ ရွိႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ ကားေမာင္းသမားေတြ၊ လမ္းျပေတြ (သို႔မဟုတ္) ေလယာဥ္နဲ႔ လူအမ်ားကို ဦးစီးေခၚေဆာင္သူေတြဟာ smuggling operation ကို လုပ္ေဆာင္ေနတဲ့ အဖြဲ႔၀င္ေတြ ျဖစ္ ႏိုင္သလို၊ ကန္ထ႐ိုက္အေနနဲ႔ လုပ္ကိုင္သူမ်ားလဲ ျဖစ္တတ္ပါတယ္။

ေနာက္ထပ္တမ်ိဳးကေတာ့ အေျခအေနကို ေစာင့္ၾကပ္ၾကည့္ရႈေပးရတဲ့ spotters ေတြ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ရဲ၊ စစ္တပ္၊ လူ၀င္ မႈႀကီးၾကပ္ေရး တို႔ရဲ႕ လႈပ္ရွားမႈ အေျခအေနကို ေစာင့္ၾကပ္ၾကည့္ရႈေပးရၿပီး၊ လႈပ္ရွားလို႔ ရႏိုင္မယ့္ အေျခအေနနဲ႔ အခ်ိန္ အခါေတြကို မီးစိမ္းျပေပးရသူမ်ား ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ေနာက္ထပ္တမ်ိဳးကေတာ့ လာဘ္စားေသာ ျပည္သူ႕ ၀န္ထမ္းေတြ ျဖစ္ ပါတယ္။ ရဲတပ္ဖြဲ႕၊ စစ္မႈထမ္း၊ လူ၀င္မႈႀကီးၾကပ္ေရး စသူမ်ားက လာဘ္စားၿပီး၊ smuggling operation ေတြကို မသိ ခ်င္ေယာင္ၿပီး လႊတ္ေပးတာေတြ ရွိပါတယ္။

ေနာက္တမ်ိဳးကေတာ့ smuggling process အဆင့္ဆင့္မွာ တည္းခိုေနထိုင္ခြင့္ျပဳထားတဲ့ ေနရာေတြ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ဟို တယ္၊ တည္းခိုခန္းနဲ႔ လူေနအိမ္ စတာေတြ ပါ၀င္ပါတယ္။ ဒီလို ရာဇ၀တ္မႈေတြမွာ တည္းခိုခန္းပိုင္ရွင္ေတြပါ ပါ၀င္ပတ္ သက္ ေနတဲ့အခါ စံုစမ္းအေရးယူသူမ်ားအတြက္ အခက္အခဲျဖစ္ေစႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ ေနာက္တမ်ိဳးကေတာ့ smuggling process ေအာင္ျမင္သြားေစရန္အတြက္ ေငြေၾကးရယူၿပီး သတင္းထိန္ခ်န္ထားသူမ်ား ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ကားလက္မွတ္နဲ႔ ရထားလက္မွတ္ ေရာင္းသူမ်ား၊ တကၠဆီကားေမာင္းသူမ်ား၊ ေလေၾကာင္း၀န္ထမ္းမ်ား၊ ေလွပိုင္ရွင္မ်ားႏွင့္ ေလွသားမ်ား၊ ကားစက္ျပင္မ်ား ပါ၀င္ႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ ေနာက္ထပ္တမ်ိဳးကေတာ့ ရာဇ၀တ္မႈမ်ားကေန ရလာတဲ့ ေငြမည္းေတြကို ေငြျဖဴ ျဖစ္ေအာင္ ျပဳလုပ္ရာမွာ ကူညီလုပ္ေဆာင္ ေပးသူမ်ား ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

ဒီလို active role မွာ ပါ၀င္သူေတြအျပင္ passive role မွာ ပါ၀င္ေနသူေတြလဲ ရွိပါတယ္။ ဥပမာ- တကၠဆီေမာင္းသမား တေယာက္ဟာ လူအုပ္စုကို ျမင္ခ်ိန္မွာ illegal immigrants ေတြမွန္း သိျမင္ေပမယ့္၊ safe house ကို လိုက္လံ ပို႔ေဆာင္ေပးၿပီး ပံုမွန္ေၾကးပဲ ေတာင္းယူခဲ့ေပမယ့္၊ သက္ဆိုင္ရာကို သတင္းအခ်က္အလက္ ေပးပို႔မႈ မရွိပဲ blind eye လုပ္ခဲ့ရင္ ဒါဟာလဲ passive role မွာ ပါ၀င္ပတ္သက္ျခင္းပဲ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။

smuggling of migrants ဆိုတဲ့ ရာဇ၀တ္မႈ ေပၚေပါက္လာရတဲ့ အေျခခံအေၾကာင္းရင္းေတြဟာ အလုပ္အကိုင္ရွားပါးမႈ၊ ဆင္းရဲႏြမ္းပါးမႈ စတာေတြကေန ရုန္းထြက္ဖို႔အတြက္ ဘ၀အေျခအေန ပိုမိုေကာင္းမြန္ေစႏိုင္မယ့္ တိုင္းျပည္ေတြကို migration လုပ္မႈေတြပဲ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ဒီလို အေျခအေနေတြကို ေငြေၾကး (သို႔မဟုတ္) အျခားတစံုတရာ အက်ိဳးအျမတ္ အတြက္ အခြင့္ေကာင္းယူၿပီးျဖစ္ေစ၊ ႏွစ္ဦးႏွစ္ဘက္ အက်ိဳးရွိတဲ့အလုပ္လို႔ ထင္ျမင္၍ ျဖစ္ေစ လုပ္ေဆာင္ၾကရာကေန smuggling operations ေတြမွာ ရာဇ၀တ္မႈမွန္းသိရက္နဲ႔ ျဖစ္ေစ၊ မသိ၍ပဲျဖစ္ေစ ပါ၀င္ ပတ္သက္ေနသူေတြ အမ်ား အျပား ရွိလာပါတယ္။ ေဒါသေၾကာင့္ျဖစ္တဲ့ လူသတ္မႈတခုမွာ သတ္မိသူကို စာနာနားလည္ ေပးလို႔ ရႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ သို႔ေပမယ့္ သက္ေသအေထာက္အထား ေဖ်ာက္ဖ်က္ေပးရင္ေတာ့ လူသတ္မႈ ၾကံရာပါ ျဖစ္သြားႏိုင္ ပါတယ္။

ဆင္းရဲႏြမ္းပါးမႈကေန ေပၚထြက္သြားတဲ့ လုယက္မႈတခုမွာ လုယက္သူရဲ႕ ဘ၀အေျခအေနကို စာနာနားလည္ ေပးၾကလို႔ ရႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ သို႔ေပမယ့္ ဆင္းရဲႏြမ္းပါးသူေတြ လုယက္ၾကပါလို႔ အားေပးလွံဳ႕ေဆာ္တာေတြ၊ လုယက္လာတဲ့ ပစၥည္းေတြ ကို ထုခြဲေရာင္းခ် ေပးတာကိုေတာ့ ဘယ္လိုႏိုင္ငံရဲ႕ ဥပေဒကမွ ခြင့္ျပဳၾကမွာ မဟုတ္ပါဘူး။ ဒီအတိုင္းပါပဲ။ smuggling of migrants ဟာ (၂၁) ရာစုကမၻာရဲ႕ နယ္စပ္ျဖတ္ေက်ာ္ ရာဇ၀တ္မႈေတြကို ႏွိမ္နင္းေရးဆိုင္ရာ ရာဇ၀တ္ျပစ္မႈ တခုျဖစ္တဲ့ အတြက္ smuggling operations ေတြမွာ သိရက္နဲ႔ ျဖစ္ေစ၊ မသိဘဲ ျဖစ္ေစ ပါ၀င္ပတ္သက္ျခင္းမ်ားကို ေရွာင္ရွားၿပီး၊ လူ႔အဖြဲ႔အစည္းအတြင္းမွာ Rule of Law ရွိလာေအာင္ ၀ိုင္း၀န္းေဆာင္ရြက္ဖို႔ လိုအပ္ပါေၾကာင္း ေရးသားတင္ျပအပ္ပါ တယ္။

ခင္မမမ်ဳိး (၁၆၊ ၈၊ ၂၀၁၁)

By Zin Linn>>

Tomas Ojea Quintana, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Burma, will be allowed into the country next week for the first time in more than a year, AFP reported officials as saying on Wednesday.

Mr. Quintana is to meet high-ranking government officials, including the defense and foreign ministers, during his August 21-25 trip according to a government official.

“He will also visit parliament and meet with parliament members,” he told AFP.

Mr. Quintana has not been issued a visa to visit Burma since March 2010, when he suggested forming of a commission of inquiry.

The UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution shortly after he presented a report in March that asked him: “to provide an assessment of any progress made by the government in relation to its stated intention to transition to a democracy to the General Assembly.”

In his statement, he said, “I am concerned that the Government is not finding a political solution to solve the ethnic conflicts. The authorities have now reached the final step of their 7-step road-map to democracy, but democracy requires much more. We also have to keep in mind that the electoral process excluded several significant ethnic and opposition groups, so their voices are not being heard in these fora.”

Quintana last visited Burma, also knows as Myanmar, in February 2010 but was not allowed to see opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who was under house arrest at the time. His consequential requests to revisit Burma have been refused.

As a result, Mr. Quintana held a press conference on May 23 at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT) following the conclusion of his one-week mission to Thailand. During the press conference, he highlighted that a United Nations commission of inquiry should be set up to address Burma’s human rights violence, which has not ended under the new government.

In this coming trip, Quintana is likely to meet Burma’s Nobel laureate, who was freed from seven years of house arrest soon after the country’s controversial election in November last year.

It would be the first talks between the UN special rapporteur and the democracy icon of Burma.

Freedom of expression, information and association is controlled by more than half a dozen laws, the violation of which, may be, and in fact is, widely punished by three to 20 years in prison.

There are approximately 2,000 political prisoners who have been detained and sentenced for having peacefully expressed their views verbally, through participation in peaceful demonstrations or in activities of political parties. Some of them are punished for having written about human rights or political issues in the country or for reading or possessing written materials judged illegal.

Information Minister Kyaw Hsan confirmed at a 12 August press conference that Quintana would be allowed the visa after he was denied for a year. It seems Quintana’s idea of ‘commission of inquiry’ is threatening toward the current president and his cabinet members who have responsibilities with the human rights abuses under previous junta.

Dated: August /16/2011 

Ref : frc-rec 023/02/2011 

 by ဧရာဝတီ>>

ကာကြယ္ေရးဦးစီးခ်ဳပ္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီး မင္းေအာင္လႈိင္က စစ္ေထာက္ခ်ဳပ္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေ၀လြင္ႏွင့္ စစ္ေရးခ်ဳပ္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ ခင္ေဇာ္ဦးတို႔ ႏွစ္ဦးကို လာဘ္ေပး လာဘ္ယူမႈ၊ အာဏာအလြဲသုံးစား မႈမ်ားႏွင့္ စုံစမ္းေဆးလ်က္ရွိၿပီး လက္ရွိထမ္းေဆာင္ေနေသာ ရာထူးတာ၀န္မ်ားကုိ ေခတၱဆုိင္းငံ့ထားေၾကာင္း သတင္းရရွိသည္။