By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, July 18 -- After Myanmar condemned five journalists to 10 years in prison each for reporting on a weapons factory, Inner City Press on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about it on July 11.
Haq had no specific comment but said he would check.Video here.
In the week since, Ban's UN has had nothing to say. On July 14, Inner City Press asked again, also about Thailand's proposed refoulement of 100,000 Muslim Rohinga back to Myanmar. No comment.
Now the US has expressed concern about the jailings. On July 18 US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said, " We are very concerned by reports that journalists and the CEO of the newspaper United Weekly News were sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for publishing investigative stories about a weapons factory. The sentence sends the wrong message about Burma’s commitment to freedom of expression, including for the press."
So NOW will the UN belatedly speak on the jailings? Maybe not, since it has arranged for and rewards, with a big lounge and set-aside first questions, a friendly "UN Correspondents Association" whose head was exposed on July 18 in Dutch, here, translated into English here.
Note that Myanmar has opened criminal cases against 50 more journalists, for protesting the sentencing of their five colleagues. Deputy Inspector Han Tun Aung from Kamayut police station said he had opened cases against 50 reporters, including Thamagga News Journal chief reporter Ma Shwe Hmon.
Does the UN's silence encourage such a crackdown?
Back on July 3, amid more attacks on Muslims in Myanmar, Inner City Press asked lead UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:
Inner City Press: In Myanmar, there has been a curfew declared in Mandalay after violence between Buddhists and Muslims, and I wondered, one, whether Mr. [Vijay] Nambiar and his good offices have any comment on this, and two, whether the UN country team there is in any way affected by the curfew? What is its knowledge? Do they think the Government’s reaction is appropriate?
Spokesman Dujarric: I have not seen anything from Mr. Nambiar’s office. I haven’t seen those reports, so I will look into those.
While often Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson's office does not return with an answer, even to correct a misleading statment, or even inserts the transcript an answer different than the erroneous one given, in this case on July 4 the UN provided, and Inner City Press tweeted and publishes in full:
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply[at] un.org
Date: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:50 PM
Subject: On Myanmar.
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Stephane Dujarric Farhan Haq
From Special Adviser Vijay Nambiar:
"Special Adviser Vijay Nambiar is deeply concerned by the reported loss of life and public disorder resulting from the latest flare-up of communal tension in Mandalay caused by the deliberate rumour-mongering and incitement of tension among communities that have lived together peacefully so far. While expressing sorrow at the deaths in the latest wave of violence, he noted the prompt and effective initial response of the authorities to prevent a deterioration of the situation and protect civilians.
Date: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:50 PM
Subject: On Myanmar.
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Stephane Dujarric Farhan Haq
From Special Adviser Vijay Nambiar:
"Special Adviser Vijay Nambiar is deeply concerned by the reported loss of life and public disorder resulting from the latest flare-up of communal tension in Mandalay caused by the deliberate rumour-mongering and incitement of tension among communities that have lived together peacefully so far. While expressing sorrow at the deaths in the latest wave of violence, he noted the prompt and effective initial response of the authorities to prevent a deterioration of the situation and protect civilians.
The Special Adviser called on religious and community leaders to help the authorities restore calm in Mandalay and avert any spread of tension to other parts of the country. Those responsible for the violence should be brought to justice. He urged the inhabitants of Mandalay as well as the people of Myanmar generally not be provoked or manipulated by vested interests but to promote harmony, mutual respect and peaceful coexistence between all communities in the country."
"On the curfew in Mandalay:
There are two UN offices in Mandalay, and UN staff members are observing the curfew, which has had a negligible impact on their work."
"On the curfew in Mandalay:
There are two UN offices in Mandalay, and UN staff members are observing the curfew, which has had a negligible impact on their work."
When Inner City Press first published these answers, there was reader feedback recalling Nambiar's role in Sri Lanka. On those two countries, Inner City Press on June 20 asked the US State Department's Ambassador Luis CdeBaca of the US Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons,click here for State Department transcript:
OPERATOR: All right. We did have one final question from Matthew Russell Lee at Inner City Press. Please go ahead.
INNER CITY PRESS: Sure. Thanks a lot, and thanks for taking the question. I was looking at Myanmar – Burma – and also at Sri Lanka. And in both cases, it seems to say – the report seems to say that that government is either, in the case of Burma, directly involved in trafficking in coercion; or in the case of Sri Lanka, suspected of complicity in it. So in those two cases, I wondered as the U.S. sort of re-engages with Myanmar or Burma, how does this issue get raised and how is it going to be resolved? And the same in the case of Sri Lanka where there’s this human rights inquiry. Is this – what can be done in terms of actual government complicity in trafficking?
AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Well, it’s interesting. Let me start with Burma. We – this is one of the first things that we re-engaged on. I was in Burma within I think about three weeks or a month after Secretary Clinton took her first historic trip there, and when I met with Aung San Suu Kyi, one of the things that was very interesting to me was that she recommended to me that I needed to talk to her jailor. And I asked her, “What do you mean?” And she said, “The guy from the secret police who was assigned to me to be my warden all of these years would bring me articles on human trafficking off of the Internet, and we would talk into the night about how we would work together to help end human trafficking and slavery for our people if things ever changed.” A lot of people forget that she spent her Nobel Prize money while she was in prison. She sent it World Vision, an NGO, to provide food and shelter for about 200 Burmese trafficking victims in Thailand. The first place that she went after she was able to travel was to the shrimp-packing sheds in Thailand where so many Burmese are affected by this crime.
So it was interesting to see not only her, but then eventually what came true is the new head of the anti-trafficking unit – the central body against trafficking in persons for the Burmese Government in the new era – is the very person who she recommended to me that we should work with. He’s written a book on trafficking; he’s gone to other parts of the region. I think there’s a real desire on the part of the Burmese Government to engage and to bring on some of these modern approaches.
And to that end, they even passed a law abolishing the 1907 Villages and Towns Act, which is what gave them the legal ability to enslave their own people. So the notion of giving that up as part of the process of opening up to the outside world. I think that, as with every country, there’s a long way to go, and we’ll continue to work with them. We have an established and formal dialogue with them that was agreed to by both presidents during President Obama’s visit a year and a half ago, and it’s something that I’ve been to Burma for that dialogue and will be, I think, going again in the fall for the second round of that. So we’re – in that situation, I think that we’ve got a formal way to work with them.
Sri Lanka on the other hand, I think that that’s a bit of a work in progress. We don’t see – first of all, we’re not digging out of the years of exclusion from the international community that we had seen with the Burmese Government, but we’ve got this notion of three years in a row the trafficking statute that they have, which is a pretty good one – it prohibits all forms of trafficking, which not every SAARC country, not every country in the region has laws that prevent forced labor as well as sex trafficking – and yet three years in a row without any convictions, no services really for male trafficking victims, sex trafficking victims punished, and the folks who come home from overseas, no real way to screen for or help them the way that other source countries like the Indonesians and the Filipinos have.
So I think that there’s a long way to go, but they have this inter-ministerial structure that they have now adopted, and I think that for us both here in Washington and at the Embassy in Colombo it provides us some interlocutors who we hope that we’ll be able to work with going forward.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up on Burma. Do you see this issue of the Rohingyas, is it – does it make them susceptible to trafficking, this kind of stateless status? And how – do you have more – do you see this – do you see it through the light of trafficking, or is it a separate issue?
AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Well, I think that we see with any displaced and vulnerable communities that are suffering from social exclusion, and I think that the plight of the Rohingyas has pretty been – has been pretty well documented. That is the type of population in which we often see in this type of situation.
Now, I mean, obviously, we remain concerned about all of the humanitarian issues that are around the Rohingya and other vulnerable ethnic and religious communities. We actually shed some – a little bit of light on this both in the Burma narrative but also, frankly, in the Thai narrative as we’re looking at the exploitation and even alleged sale of Rohingya refugees once they get to their destinations as they’re moving for all these different reasons.
INNER CITY PRESS: Thanks.
INNER CITY PRESS: Sure. Thanks a lot, and thanks for taking the question. I was looking at Myanmar – Burma – and also at Sri Lanka. And in both cases, it seems to say – the report seems to say that that government is either, in the case of Burma, directly involved in trafficking in coercion; or in the case of Sri Lanka, suspected of complicity in it. So in those two cases, I wondered as the U.S. sort of re-engages with Myanmar or Burma, how does this issue get raised and how is it going to be resolved? And the same in the case of Sri Lanka where there’s this human rights inquiry. Is this – what can be done in terms of actual government complicity in trafficking?
AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Well, it’s interesting. Let me start with Burma. We – this is one of the first things that we re-engaged on. I was in Burma within I think about three weeks or a month after Secretary Clinton took her first historic trip there, and when I met with Aung San Suu Kyi, one of the things that was very interesting to me was that she recommended to me that I needed to talk to her jailor. And I asked her, “What do you mean?” And she said, “The guy from the secret police who was assigned to me to be my warden all of these years would bring me articles on human trafficking off of the Internet, and we would talk into the night about how we would work together to help end human trafficking and slavery for our people if things ever changed.” A lot of people forget that she spent her Nobel Prize money while she was in prison. She sent it World Vision, an NGO, to provide food and shelter for about 200 Burmese trafficking victims in Thailand. The first place that she went after she was able to travel was to the shrimp-packing sheds in Thailand where so many Burmese are affected by this crime.
So it was interesting to see not only her, but then eventually what came true is the new head of the anti-trafficking unit – the central body against trafficking in persons for the Burmese Government in the new era – is the very person who she recommended to me that we should work with. He’s written a book on trafficking; he’s gone to other parts of the region. I think there’s a real desire on the part of the Burmese Government to engage and to bring on some of these modern approaches.
And to that end, they even passed a law abolishing the 1907 Villages and Towns Act, which is what gave them the legal ability to enslave their own people. So the notion of giving that up as part of the process of opening up to the outside world. I think that, as with every country, there’s a long way to go, and we’ll continue to work with them. We have an established and formal dialogue with them that was agreed to by both presidents during President Obama’s visit a year and a half ago, and it’s something that I’ve been to Burma for that dialogue and will be, I think, going again in the fall for the second round of that. So we’re – in that situation, I think that we’ve got a formal way to work with them.
Sri Lanka on the other hand, I think that that’s a bit of a work in progress. We don’t see – first of all, we’re not digging out of the years of exclusion from the international community that we had seen with the Burmese Government, but we’ve got this notion of three years in a row the trafficking statute that they have, which is a pretty good one – it prohibits all forms of trafficking, which not every SAARC country, not every country in the region has laws that prevent forced labor as well as sex trafficking – and yet three years in a row without any convictions, no services really for male trafficking victims, sex trafficking victims punished, and the folks who come home from overseas, no real way to screen for or help them the way that other source countries like the Indonesians and the Filipinos have.
So I think that there’s a long way to go, but they have this inter-ministerial structure that they have now adopted, and I think that for us both here in Washington and at the Embassy in Colombo it provides us some interlocutors who we hope that we’ll be able to work with going forward.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up on Burma. Do you see this issue of the Rohingyas, is it – does it make them susceptible to trafficking, this kind of stateless status? And how – do you have more – do you see this – do you see it through the light of trafficking, or is it a separate issue?
AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Well, I think that we see with any displaced and vulnerable communities that are suffering from social exclusion, and I think that the plight of the Rohingyas has pretty been – has been pretty well documented. That is the type of population in which we often see in this type of situation.
Now, I mean, obviously, we remain concerned about all of the humanitarian issues that are around the Rohingya and other vulnerable ethnic and religious communities. We actually shed some – a little bit of light on this both in the Burma narrative but also, frankly, in the Thai narrative as we’re looking at the exploitation and even alleged sale of Rohingya refugees once they get to their destinations as they’re moving for all these different reasons.
INNER CITY PRESS: Thanks.
Here is the report on Thailand:
“There continued to be reports that corrupt Thai civilian and military officials profited from the smuggling of Rohingya asylum seekers from Burma and Bangladesh (who transit through Thailand in order to reach Malaysia or Indonesia) and were complicit in their sale into forced labor on fishing vessels. Thai navy and marine officials allegedly diverted to Thailand boats carrying Rohingya asylum seekers en route to Malaysia and facilitated the transfer of some migrants to smugglers and brokers who sold some Rohingya into forced labor on fishing vessels.”
Will Thailand try to sue the US State Department? Here's from the Department's report on Sri Lanka:
“The Sri Lankan government made very limited law enforcement efforts to address human trafficking. Sri Lanka prohibits all forms of both sex and labor trafficking through Article 360(c) of its penal code, although the law also covers non-trafficking offenses, such as selling children. The law prescribes punishments of up to 20 years’ imprisonment. These penalties are sufficiently stringent and commensurate with those prescribed for other serious offenses, such as rape. The government investigated 20 new cases of trafficking in 2013, compared to 44 in 2012. Authorities prosecuted one case under Article 360(c), an increase from zero cases in 2012 and 2011, though it was a case of baby-selling. Authorities also prosecuted ten potential sex trafficking cases under Sri Lanka’s procurement statute, which prescribes lesser penalties than Article 360(c). As in 2012 and 2011, Sri Lankan courts did not convict any traffickers under Article 360(c) in 2013, though one court convicted three defendants under Article 360(c) for baby-selling. Authorities also convicted 12 traffickers under the procurement statute; all but one of them received a suspended sentence. The government’s reliance on procurement charges, and the absence of prosecutions under the trafficking statute, resulted from an inability or unwillingness on the part of police to thoroughly investigate potential human trafficking cases for elements of force, fraud, or coercion.”
That's by no means the only crimes, and war crime, the Sri Lankan government is unwilling to investigate. Watch this site.
