This Tribunal convened to investigate two
straightforward questions about human rights in Burma: Is
there food scarcity, and if so, is militarization the cause?
In the course of inquiry we reviewed
evidence from a variety of first and second hand sources
representing all walks of life. The geographic distribution
of evidence covered ten states and divisions, from the
northeastern-most Shan State to the western border with
Bangladesh. This swath of territory includes a range of
topographic conditions: fertile river valleys, arid plains
and plateaus, tropical forests, remote mountains and coasts.
Hunger appeared consistently throughout these diverse
regions. The prevalence of food scarcity was also clear in
the demographic distribution of evidence. The Tribunal
admitted evidence from members of at least eight different
ethnic groups. Among the rural population, we heard from
subsistence farmers, landless peasants, hired workers, and
land-owners. Townspeople and suburbanites, including educated
civil servants and teachers, also testified to hunger and its
proximate causes. Muslims, Christians and Buddhists alike
struggle daily just to eat. The Tribunal is confident that
food scarcity is indeed a nationwide phenomenon.
The causes are also national, linking
hunger wherever it occurs to a common source. By all
accounts, the source is social rather than natural, rooted in
the structure and actions of the state rather than vagaries
of land and climate. Our findings show that among state
institutions, the people of Burma overwhelmingly accuse the
military of denying their right to food. The displaced
hilltop farmer hiding in the jungle, the impoverished lowland
rice farmer surrendering his crop, and the harried civil
servant trying to feed and clothe his family all identify the
army as the source of their privation.
The abuse of power, rampant though it may
be, would not in itself be sufficient to qualify for
militarization. The excessive use of force could be explained
as isolated incidents, minor flaws or corruption in a
well-meaning and essentially noble institution. Poor
judgment, weak discipline and loss of self-control are
dangers inherent to army field operations everywhere.
However, the army attacks on all fronts: strategic,
political, economic and ideological. Influence over all
political, economic, legal, social and cultural affairs of
the nation is prescribed by the needs and priorities of the
state, enforced by the military’s potential for violence
against citizens, and reinforced by the people's lack of
legal recourse. This trend has contributed to state
repression of fundamental rights and freedoms, insurgency,
communal violence, and particularly to the evolution of a
powerful and successful military government. Paddy
procurement, agriculture development and rice export are all
nationwide policies designed at the highest levels to fulfil
military needs first without regard to civilian well-being.
The military’s role in managing the national economy
demonstrates that militarization is centralized, not
isolated; systematic, not random; intentional, not
accidental.
Normal governance and administration have
been subsumed by military authoritarianism. All functions of
state which came under our purview—tax-collecting,
infrastructure development, economic policy—conform to
military priorities and bear the signs of military
implementation. Civilians are polarized from the state
through continual and excessive demands for food, land and
labor. Moreover, the army’s obsession with internal
security has become so central that it tolerates no form of
political dissent. Just as the army treats the people as an
Enemy, so too have the people become inimical towards the
state.
Nowhere is this polarization more evident
than in Burma’s continuing armed conflict, in which the
state repeatedly destroys and expropriates food, farmland and
crops, displaces entire populations and systematically denies
people the right to work. Civilians are presumed to be
unpatriotic, hostile and seditious and thus in the
army’s eyes lose all their rights. In non-combat zones,
where one might not expect to see similar excesses, again the
state levies enormous demands on malnourished farmers,
upbraiding them as selfish, lazy and dishonest when they
can’t comply.
Moreover,
the Tribunal has found evidence that the militarization of
Burmese society extends beyond the government and its
relationship to the people. Insurgent or revolutionary armed
groups follow the same pattern of absolute military
authority, although with a notable reduction in violence
against civilians. Nevertheless, arbitrary taxation and
compulsory labor are standard wherever an army takes over.
This suggests a transcendent pattern of militarization in
which whoever holds a gun rules supreme and may dictate to
the people under his control.
While other factors such as natural
disaster or mere incompetence may contribute to or exacerbate
scarcity, none is as pervasive or consistent, none can
explain why food is not available to those who produce it,
and none can override the state’s role in denying the
right to food. The nexus stands established.
The People’s Tribunal is aware that
Burma is in the throes of a long and difficult democracy
struggle, and wishes to emphasize once again the importance
of the right to food. Civil rights, political participation,
freedom of expression and civilian rule are all important in
democratization. So too are the most basic economic and
social rights which allow people the physical strength and
security to realize and enjoy their political freedoms.
Without food, land rights, and a secure natural resource
base, the comings and goings of assorted governments and
political parties are to the rural poor mere scenes played
out on a distant stage.
True democratization means breaking down
barriers between political actors and their captive audience.
A democracy struggle brings little change if those who
lecture, exploit and despise the rural poor simply change
from military to civilian costume. Democratization must be a
complete change of character. Ultimately, Burma’s
democratization will depend on widening the stage to
accommodate all society, burying the old habit of monologue
and building a new culture of dialogue based on mutual
interest and respect.
