The celebrations started even before the polls opened on Apr. 1. The mood has been festive in Yangon and surrounding districts for the past few days, with jubilant revellers, sporting National League for Democracy (NLD) logos parading on open trucks, motorbikes, rickshaws, chanting party slogans and blasting patriotic songs made especially for the occasion.

Crowds of supporters in front of the NLD headquarters, as preliminary results are announced. Credit: Preethi Nallu/IPS.

It is a first time since 1990 that masses have taken to the streets during elections, to vocalise their political views in such large numbers, and to openly support their ‘Lady’ Aung San Suu Kyi.

Suu Kyi won the presidential elections with a landslide victory in 1990 – and was subsequently placed under house arrest by the Junta for over 14 years.

In Kawhmu district, Suu Kyi’s constituency for these by-elections, a massive rally took place hours before polls opened. Suu Kyi herself reached the otherwise sleepy town amidst tens of thousands of supporters who stood on the streets for a chance glimpse of their famous leader.

“They (the ruling Union Solidarity Development Party, USDP) know very well she is going to win and that the NLD is going to win by a large margin,” a 20-year-old who currently attends Yangon University, shouted out, as he pointed to the nearby USDP supporters who were muted in comparison.

The expectations of millions of Burmese across the country were realised with preliminary results from polls indicating a landslide victory of 41-43 out of the 45 seats for the opposition party.

While the NLD confirmed Suu Kyi’s victory early in the evening election day, the administration will officially announce poll results on Apr. 8. The NLD won at least four seats in Naypyidaw, a USDP stronghold.

The NLD is riding high. “There is no turning back for the NLD,” Tin Oo, chairman of the party, told IPS.

He remained unclear about the party’s collective position on Aung San Suu Kyi potentially accepting a ministerial position. But, regardless of the impending decisions, the party has delineated an agenda geared towards long-term reform.

“This is a flicker of democracy we are seeing today. We will continue to push for key elements such as rule of law and transparency from the government,” Tin Oo said.

The chairman also stated that without ethnic minority inclusion in the democratic process, “there will be no peace at all.” He added that the different ethnic groups must be given “equal rights under a federal government” and that their educational and health needs must be met by the USDP.

“There are endless opportunities but there are significant sources of concern,” said Aung Naing Oo. “The legacy of military rule is still present and some departments lack capacity and exposure, while others have vested interests and a highly bureaucratic culture.”

The conviction and confidence that radiated in the faces of a majority of Burmese at rallies in urban centres such as Yangon and Mandalay is evidence of a changing political culture and unprecedented openness towards expressing views that were considered controversial and a ‘risk to safety’ just a year ago.

But despite Suu Kyi’s victory, which is of historic importance to the country, these elections are far from a tectonic shift in the political landscape of Myanmar.

The election result will not materialise in a change in power-balance in Naypyidaw, and Suu kyi will be limited in terms of wielding political leverage, even if she decides to sit in the parliament with a ministerial portfolio.

Khin Zaw Win, a former political prisoner who currently heads the Tampadipa Institute in Yangon predicted that the government will attempt to “isolate and contain” Suu Kyi’s realm of influence.

“If she were savvy enough, she could form cross-cutting alliances with MPs from other parties. A high degree of political astuteness is going to be called for,” Khin Zaw Win explained in an interview for IPS.

Even if the NLD is granted a significant number of seats, the electoral laws and distribution of power in the legislature will need significant remodelling for a truly democratic process to emerge.

Ninety percent of constituencies in the country have been formed along ethnic lines, whereby a clear majority ethnic group is present in each constituency, thereby dictating the politics of that particular region. This has inevitably lead to localised loyalities and divisive politics.

The European Union which has already eased sanctions on Burma this year, announced that it is set to possibly lift sanctions over the month of April, provided the poll results reflect a “free and fair” process.

An EU election observer in Yangon, Malgorzata Wasilewska, stated to reporters that this latest polling process is indicative of “remarkable signs” of progress.

Aung Naing Oo, co-director of Vahu Development Institute, corroborates the EU’s emerging view that sanctions have crippled the middle classes and lower socio-economic strata in the country over the past decades.

“Indefinitely delaying lifting of sanctions might bring back the hardliners or conservatives in the administration to the forefront,” Aung Naing Oo warns.

Although he hopes to shift base to Yangon in the future based on his positive experiences of being in different parts of Burma, and a freedom of movement that is a first in several decades, he acknowledges that changes in the different sectors are dependent on individual ministries and officials heading them.

“There are some ministries that are never in the limelight but have silent revolutions of their own. But there are many that are very bureaucratic and dealing with monetary issues such as the mining ministry that have been accused of rampant corruption. It will take time for changes across the board.”

A major concern over lifting sanctions has been the lack of preparedness on part of the government in handling an influx of large-scale investments, and ethical concerns in terms of ensuring that masses benefit from such an opening.

David Mathieson, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW) says that lifting sanctions immediately, based on election results, will be premature and irresponsible.

“There are two reasons why sanctions should not go anytime soon,” he told IPS. “The first is political calculation. The punitive measures must not be removed until they see that the government is genuine in terms of reform and improving human rights. The second point is that it is impractical to remove them anytime soon.”

The European Union, United States, Canada and Australia are currently the main sanctioning entities.

The United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC), an umbrella for Myanmar's armed ethnic factions, laid out its agenda for a successful ceasefire. Credit: Preethi Nallu/IPS

By Preethi Nallu
THAI-BURMA BORDER, Mar 9 2012 (IPS)

“Our past experiences have demonstrated that a mere ceasefire agreement will not result in the durable peace that we have long sought. Political peace is the only way forward.”

This was the overriding sentiment expressed by the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) at its latest press conference held Feb. 28 on the Thai-Burma (Myanmar) border.

The UNFC was formed last February as an umbrella group that would collectively represent all the ethnic resistance groups in comprehensive peace talks with Myanmar’s military.

This reunification was particularly significant in terms of the merger between the ceasefire and non- ceasefire parties.

The membership initially comprised six armed ethnic groups – the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO), the Karen National Union (KNU), the New Mon State Party (NMSP), the Shan State Progressive Party (SSPP), the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP) and the Chin National Front (CNF), representing six distinct ethnic minority groups, each with a unique relationship with the state government and armed resistance since the formation of a Burmese state in 1948.

By November 2011, right ahead of Myanmar’s first elections in 20 years, the alliance expanded with the membership doubling to 12 groups, when the Palong State Liberation Front (PSLF), Lahu Democratic Union (LDU), Arakan National Council (ANC), Wa National Organisation (WNO), Pa’o National Liberation Organisation (PNLO) and Kachin National Organisation (KNO) joined the group.

The founding members explained that the formation of the umbrella started in early 2010, well before the November polls, in response to the then-military regime’s insistence that the ceasefire groups merge with the Border Guard Force (BGF) that would become part of the state military apparatus.

Given the recent bout of skirmishes in Karen State and Shan State throughout the month of February, despite the signing of initial ceasefire agreements between these ethnic armed groups and the government, the UNFC reiterated its ‘starting points’ for any meaningful dialogue to continue.

Nine representatives opened the press conference by stating that talks cannot progress without cessation of all military offensives against members of the UNFC by the Mynamar military.

The spokesperson for the New Mon State Party, Nai Hong Sar, explained key prerequisites for talks to proceed.

First, “We demand a nationwide ceasefire before any substantial dialogue takes place. We also demand a nationwide conference with leaders of all mainstream ethnic opposition groups to have substantive political dialogue with the goal of solving our crisis in (Myanmar),” Nai Hong Sar explained.

Meanwhile, President Thein Sein himself reiterated during his latest speech to the Union Parliament in Naypyidaw that “an all-inclusive peace process” was his immediate priority.

“It is necessary that we, the current government, help to end the misunderstanding and mistrust between ethnic groups and the government,” the President stated during his Mar. 1 speech.

Another critical demand of the UNFC members has been a call for comprehensive dialogue with all parties upon establishment of a viable truce to last throughout the peace talks. However, continued local skirmishes and fighting in Kachin State in Northern Myanmar, bordering China, have greatly impeded progress on talks.

The joint-secretary of UNFC, Hkun Okker, explained that all groups are collectively demanding an end to hostilities in Kachin State as an immediate precondition for talks.

“The government asked us to give them a list of areas from where we want their forces to withdraw so we gave it to them. We don’t know if they are going to follow up on that with action,” La Ja, secretary- general of the KIO, told IPS.

When asked about continued fighting in Kachin State, despite the President’s orders to troops stationed in the area, La Ja pointed to divisions between the civilian members of the government and the military wing, as well as splits between ‘reformists’ and ‘hardliners’ in the administration.

“It is someone higher up from the army side that is making these decisions. It seems like the government, the Hluttaw (legislature) and the army are different. This is the question we are asking, whether they (all parts of the government) really want to negotiate politically in order to solve this ethnic issue,” he explained.

Despite peace talks progressing between the union-level delegations and the Karen, Shan, Mon and Chin armed groups, continued fighting in Kachin State, where an estimated 50,000 civilians are displaced, points to inconsistencies in government objectives.

Though Thein Sein called for cessation of hostilities in the Kachin fighting areas in December 2011, and negotiations took place between the two sides on the Chinese side of the border in January and February of this year, the desired result of a tentative ceasefire has not yet been achieved.

Concerns over constitution’s ‘military bias’

Yet another hurdle to the negotiations has been the 2008 constitution, which the UNFC rejects as the political basis for peace talks.

“We cannot accept a dialogue based on the 2008 constitution. The government requires that the constitution can only be amended in the parliament (but) we reject (the notion) that all political dialogue must be in the parliament,” Okker explained at the conference.

The 2008 constitution’s mandate has been criticised by opposition parties and exiled Myanmar activists because of the inordinate power granted to the military. Twenty-five percent of the seats in both houses of parliament are reserved for members of the security forces with key ministerial positions held by military personnel.

The UNFC delegation acknowledged the positive changes taking place in the political arena inside the country and described their reaction as “cautiously optimistic.”

But they stressed that the leadership itself has not changed dramatically since elections, adding to their suspicion about government intentions in abiding by peace agreements.

“We see that President Thein Sein has taken initiative and so far he looks sincere on some of these changes. But we don’t know if the military wing is going to listen to him…we don’t know whether behind the scenes, perhaps Than Shwe (chairman of the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and Commander-in-Chief of the Burmese Armed Forces until 2011) is playing both Thein Sein and the Army,” Okker elaborated.

Despite the unprecedented level of peace talks begun this year, complete disarmament in the conflict- riddled areas does not appear to be an immediate option for either side.

The UNFC created the Federal Union Army (FUA) as means of collective defence whereby troops would be stationed even during a ceasefire period. On the other hand, state military outposts continue to remain in place. Approximately 200 outposts are estimated to continue operating in Eastern Karen State, despite the signing of an initial ceasefire agreement on Jan. 12 this year.

Decades of mutual distrust between the ethnic armed groups and the state military, who continue to operate within close proximity of each other and are often susceptible to localised skirmishes, has tampered with the process of negotiating peace.

Achieving a concrete ceasefire agreement is expected to take up to two years according to both government officials and ethnic minority representatives.

Despite these obstacles, representatives from the ethnic armed groups acknowledge that the negotiations initiated by the government are different from previous years and offer a more equitable platform.

“All previous agreements were top-down initiatives from the Government. They would set the terms and conditions for peace. So we had no room to make decisions. This time the tone is different as they invited us to make peace instead of just asking us to accept their terms and conditions,” explained Colonel San Aung representing the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), formerly allied with the Burmese Armed Forces.

All members of the UNFC reiterated that ‘self-determination and equality’ have been and continue to be their main objectives.

“We are not terrorists, we are not separatists, we are just fighting for our rights,” concluded Sai Soe Aung, representing the SSPP at the conference.

Excerpt:

As ‘positive’ news flows out of Burma – release of political prisoners, ceasefire talks in ethnic areas, increased freedom, formation of labour unions – people inside the country and exiles have been in heated discussion. What does ‘reform’ entail and are the changes going to be fully implemented?

At a port of entry into Burma from Thailand. Credit: Preethi Nallu/IPS

Reform initiatives under President Thein Sein, leading a military backed, nominally civilian government that replaced two decades of army rule last year, are being heralded by observers as the most progressive since the 1962 coup.

The planned by-elections in April are the ‘big litmus test’ of how much political space will be created for the opposition. The extent to which the human rights situation improves, especially in the ethnic areas, will also indicate the willingness of the government to achieve lasting peace.

With the National League of Democracy (NLD), the major opposition party led by the iconic pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, registering for elections the stage is set for a contest with the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) for 50 seats in the 664-seat parliament.

The NLD had boycotted the 2010 elections on the premise that the process was ‘undemocratic’, especially with Suu Kyi still under house arrest at the time, and hence ineligible to contesting under election rules.

Suu Kyi’s present bid to contest a seat is of historic importance, says Khin Zaw Win, a former political prisoner and director of Tampadipa Institute based in Rangoon (also Yangon). “It will be the first time in more than two decades that the two mass organisations will meet head on in elections,” he commented in a phone interview with IPS from Rangoon.

Prior to registering as USDP in June 2010, the Burmese government’s mass organisation was called the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) with junta leader Gen. Than Shwe as its official patron.

While Zaw Win predicts that Suu Kyi will be offered a ministerial position, he estimates that the NLD will only have limited presence in parliament.

“You have to differentiate between the government as such and certain powerful elements in the USDP, the party in power. It is clear that the government has gained in opening up to Suu Kyi; the USDP party bosses think otherwise,” says Zaw Win.

Maung Maung Lay, vice-president of the Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, provides a more optimistic perspective. “Up to now the government has acted quite seriously to gain the trust of the people.

“In political and economic scenarios, they have made the people feel more comfortable, but the main credit goes to the President,” he told IPS over telephone.

Tangible reforms initiated by Thein Sein include the legalisation of labour unions and starting a dialogue with the hugely popular Suu Kyi.

Maung Lay said the USDP is already “jittery” and that the election results may well turn out to be overwhelmingly in favour of the opposition.

Suu Kyi started her campaign tour in January in Dawei, southern Burma, where she was greeted by masses reminiscent of the 1990 election campaign. These turnouts suggest a comfortable victory for the opposition leader.

Even if the by-elections are fair and free, the number of seats being contested being small, the impact in parliament will be limited. Also, President Thein Sein is widely expected to try and form alliances with the opposition.

“I personally think that the President himself will be gaining a ‘friend’ and an ‘ally’ within his circle of ‘reformists’ and will try to consolidate his position,” Maung Maung Lay said. “The hardliners understand the new world order and will want to avoid the type of situation that the Middle Eastern countries are experiencing.”

While individual countries such as Norway have already lifted embargoes, the United States and the European Union are currently reassessing their policies towards Burma in the direction of easing sanctions.

The international community is now vested with the responsibility of acknowledging the government’s positive steps while maintaining the pressure to keep the momentum going in the right direction. It is a delicate balance and one that has divided the different camps.

While the Burmese government has expressed willingness to address a range of human rights issues from political prisoners to labour unions and rectify its abysmal record in terms of forced labour and child soldiers, the culture of impunity is entrenched in the military.

Khin Ohmar of the Chiang Mai-based Burma Partnership, a network of organisations working for peace and human rights in Burma, says the current negotiations are far from transparent and do not offer imminent political solutions.

“The most worrying element is that the regime approaches the ethnic conflict with economic solutions (special economic zones, industrial zones), and creating jobs for the ethnic resistance movement, as if the struggle of ethnic people for the past 50-60 years is because they didn’t have jobs,” she said.

“Lifting embargoes is good,” said Zaw Win. “But we have to be careful that it doesn’t benefit only the fat cats and leaves the rest of the populace out. The economic structure is unbalanced and fragile.”

The new administration has displayed signs of pragmatism and rational decision-making, at times sidestepping the hardliners in the administration so that reconciliation with opposition parties and ethnic groups can proceed.

In a press release, issued after U.S. secretary of state Hilary Clinton’s visit to Burma early December 2011, the London-based rights watchdog Amnesty International (AI) called for investigations into current and previous war crimes against ethnic minorities.

“The U.S. must not allow Burma to mischaracterise Clinton’s visit as a reward, rather than a challenge,” explains Benjamin Zawacki, lead researcher at AI.

In recognition of the latest ‘positive’ changes initiated by the government, the U.S. eased sanctions on Feb. 7 by allowing ‘limited technical assistance’ by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to help rebuild the country’s economy.

*This is the second of a two-part series on Burma’s transition from decades of dictatorship.

Moves by the Burmese government to settle ethnic conflicts in the country, notably with the Karen in the mountainous eastern part of the country, have caught most observers by surprise.

When the government and the Karen National Union (KNU) held ceasefire talks on Jan. 12 aimed at ending the 62-year-old Karen insurgency – the world’s oldest running ethnic conflict – there was scepticism as to whether the powerful Burmese military would honour conditions laid down by the rebels.

The government agreed to all 11 points put forth by the KNU at the historic meeting, making the initial round a success. But a ceasefire ‘agreement’ has not yet been reached, the current truce being tentative and dependent on future negotiations at a national level.

The KNU has outlined “trust building through dialogue, discussion and pulling out/reduction of government troops” and “collaboration with other ethnic national nationality forces at the stage of political dialogue and negotiation” as key demands.

“There are still no guarantees, but the fact that they (government) are addressing the problems is a shock and positive surprise in itself,” explains Kim Jolliffe, a research consultant specialising in conflict and displacement who is based on the Thai-Burma border.

Jolliffe said the situation remains relatively stable and the parties are keen to uphold the conditions laid down at the January talks between the KNU and the pro-reform government of President Thein Sein.

“The KNU has ‘welcomed’ the government’s acceptance of its 11-point proposal and says it will continue ‘concrete discussions’ on how the terms and conditions will ‘materialise on the ground’ before both sides can agree on a final agreement,” Jolliffe elaborated.

Through its militant wing, the Karen National Liberation Army, the KNU has been fighting successive governments to secure independence or greater autonomy for the Karen since 1949, a year after Burma gained independence from British colonial rule.

Burma’s military, which has ruled the country since a 1962 coup, responded with repressive measures that included systematic rape, evictions, forced labour, torture and murder.

A crackdown on student protests in 1988 and refusal to honour the results of elections held in 1990, overwhelmingly in favour of the National League for Democracy, prompted two decades of sanctions by the European Union and the United States.

Representatives on both sides acknowledge that it will take a cumbersome process before ‘everlasting peace’ is achieved in a region riddled by conflict for over six decades.

At a press conference in Rangoon (also Yangon) before the ceasefire talks, Aung Thung, minister for industry and head of the government’s negotiating group, estimated that “it will take up to three years to reach peace agreements with all armed ethnic groups.”

An agreement has been reached with rebels of the Shan State Army (southern faction) that seeks to establish an autonomous Shan state in the north-eastern part of the country.

However, negotiations have not borne positive results in a third major ethnic area, the northern Kachin state that shares a long border with China.

Talks with the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) have been derailed by continued fighting, despite orders by President Thein Sein, last month, to end military operations in the Kachin state.

According to the New York-based watchdog Human Rights Watch (HRW), the number of civilians displaced in Kachin state has risen over 50,000 in the fighting that erupted in June 2011, ending a 17-year ceasefire between the KIA and the Burmese military.

Despite the fragility of the situation activists such as Aung Naing Oo, director of the Chiang Mai-based Vahu Development Institute, feel that significant momentum has been generated for peace efforts with a new perspective.

“It is not only because of the new government’s policy, but also prevailing conditions such as general political progress, release of political prisoners, improved international relationships and, above all, greater political space,” explains Aung Naing Oo, a leader of the failed student-led uprising of 1988 that left 3,000 people dead.

A positive effect of the ceasefire talks is that unlike previous years, when deliberate displacement campaigns and burning down of villages by the state military were common over the winter months, there has been relative calm in Karen state.

But the situation remains frail and disagreements between the government and KNU could erupt over economic development plans, especially around the exploitation of natural resources that are attractive to foreign investors.

Jolliffe says the Karen leadership will claim to “become key economic stakeholders in order to maintain relevance in a modern political environment and continue making demands on behalf of the people they aim to represent.”

“Most important of all, I think we need a new roadmap for reconciliation with armed ethnic groups because we have to create a proper and comprehensive peace process,” says Aung Naing Oo.

According to HRW, human rights abuses continued through 2011. “The Burmese military continues to violate international humanitarian law through the use of extrajudicial killings, torture, sexual violence, beatings, abusive forced labour, antipersonnel landmines, and pillaging of property, particularly in Kachin, Shan, and Karen states,” says a January press release from HRW.

Khin Ohmar, of the Thailand-based Burma Partnership, believes that the international community should maintain pressure on the regime to “put an end to attacks on ethnic communities” and keep this as a “key benchmark while considering lifting of sanctions.”

The ceasefire talks between the Karen and the Burmese military were followed by the release of about 300 political prisoners on Jan. 13, many of them high-profile dissidents or political leaders. But, Ohmar is sceptical about political freedom for those released, in upcoming elections.

“Given that laws prohibiting free expression remain in place, speaking out against the regime could lead to a return to prison,” she said.

Former Burmese army captain Nay Myo Zin, arrested under the infamous Electronics Act – that bans Burmese citizens from using the Internet to send information critical of the government to foreign audiences – was re-arrested within two weeks of the January amnesty.

*This is the first of a two-part series on Burma’s transition from decades of dictatorship.

The release of 651 prisoners, a process which started this month, is being seen as a victory for activists and families who have had to contend with Burma’s notorious prison system.

But, while state media reported, ahead of the first releases on Jan. 13, that the prisoners were being freed to allow them to participate in ‘nation building’, there was no word on conditions set for their release.

At least 300 of those ordered released are political prisoners granted amnesty by the government and include such high-profile figures as the Shan ethnic leader Khun Tun Oo, journalist Zaw Thet Htwe and U Gambira, leader of the All-Burma Monk’s Alliance.

Geraldine May, who heads the Free Burma VJ (video journalists) campaign, told IPS that her work will not be complete until there is substantive proof that the government will allow the freed prisoners to participate in public life and in the upcoming elections without interference.

“The campaign can’t end now. We need to make sure they’re safe and help them in reintegrating their lives,” May explained. She said “conditions” have been set on freed reporters, such as in the case of video journalist Sithu Zeya who must serve out his full 18-year sentence if caught committing “any crimes in the future.”

Zeya reported for the Thailand-based Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), a leading Burmese exile media organisation responsible for many of the gripping images and videos that were transmitted to the world during the ‘Saffron Revolution’ in 2007.

In all 13 journalists associated with the DVB, incarcerated for breaching draconian media laws while covering the Saffron Revolution and Cyclone Nargis in 2008, are due to be released as part of the amnesty.

Supported by the France-based Reporters Without Borders, DVB launched Free Burma VJ in May 2011, demanding immediate release of its journalists who had been arrested while operating as part of an underground network inside Burma.

Hla Hla Win, 27, one of five reporters named by the campaign and arrested under the infamous electronics media act, that prohibits ownership and usage of video equipment, was among the first to walk free on the morning of Jan. 13 with her 27-year prison sentence cut short by presidential pardon.

While the last prisoner release in October 2011 was granted under article 201(b) of the constitution that allows amnesties with the recommendation of the National Defence and Security Council headed by the president, the latest round was authorised under article 401 which does not require the permission of the council.

While such a release might indicate a loosening of the council’s grip on matters of national importance, it could also mean that the releases are ‘suspensions’ that could later be reversed.

Activists point to discrepancies in the estimated number of political prisoners, and international human rights groups such as Amnesty International (AI) have, for many years, called on the government to form a United Nations-led panel to define terms to compare different lists.

“This would be toward not only finding common ground – or perhaps identifying significant differences – but also ensuring that no political prisoner is forgotten by the stroke of a pen,” explains Benjamin Zawacki, AI’s lead researcher on Burma.

The number of political prisoners remains a matter of controversy due to lack of access to information and the justice system for decades.

While the Thailand-based Assistance Association of Political Prisoners alleges that 1,260 political prisoners remain behind bars, the country’s opposition party National League for Democracy (NLD) has a more modest estimate of 300. Officially, the government denies the existence of political prisoners, classifying all people in jail as criminals.

But, even the staunchest opposition groups recognise that the present round of releases will have far- reaching implications and shows that the new administration is more willing to reconcile with opposition groups.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the country’s best-known opposition leader who was under house arrest for 14 consecutive years, herself welcomed the release as “a positive sign.” She has announced plans to contest a seat in parliament in the by-elections scheduled for Apr. 1.

The profiles of the released prisoners also suggest willingness by the government to forge better relationships on a domestic level and internationally.

“Many released this time can be considered leaders in one way or another – leaders of the 88 Generation group, of the Saffron Revolution, of the Shan NLD,” Zawacki said.

The international community has responded with positive endorsement of the latest moves.

Governments that have traditionally supported sanctions against the military regime and divestment in Burma have begun opening ties in response to reform-minded changes that have taken place over 2011.

While U.S. secretary of state Hilary Clinton promised “to meet action with action” during a press conference on Jan. 13, Norway has lifted its embargoes on Burma with the aim of encouraging private companies to invest in Burma.

Views on sanctions are mixed among human rights groups. AI has no official stance on sanctions, while exile groups such as the Burma Partnership say sanctions maintain pressure on the government to move towards democracy, universal human rights and unconditional release of all remaining political prisoners.

Burma, often referred to as a closed country and ranked low in the press freedom indices, has experienced significant reform in the area of free speech over the past year.

The publishing of editorials by Suu Kyi, lifting of bans on international news organisation and exiled media, including DVB, largely uninterrupted protests opposing controversial hydropower projects and the latest prisoner release are important conciliatory steps for a country long captive to antiquated and oppressive laws.

However, human rights advocates continue to press for the release of all remaining political prisoners. The New York-based Human Rights Watch has called upon the Burmese government to allow international monitors to ascertain the whereabouts and numbers of political prisoners.

The Burmese army has been following a policy of systematically raping women and girls to subjugate the country’s rebellious ethnic minorities, according to a new report.

The latest conflict between the militant Kachin Independence Army and the Burmese military reveals widespread use of rape by the military as a psychological weapon.

The Kachin Women’s Association of Thailand (KWAT) reports that at least 37 women were raped by state soldiers over June and July alone when the fighting erupted.

Women’s rights groups operating along the Thai-Burma border have documented 81 cases of rape of women and girls over the course of eight months of fighting between the Burmese army and ethnic armed forces. Of these, 36 women were killed by the soldiers.

Over the last decade the Women’s League of Burma (WLB), an umbrella organisation for various ethnic women’s groups, has documented hundreds of cases that suggest that rape is not a by-product of war but a deliberate strategy used by the military.

“By looking at the nature of violations and the worsening situation during conflict, we can say with confidence that the military is precisely using rape as a weapon against women,” Shirley Seng, founder of KWAT, told IPS.

“Our aim is to collect information on sexual violence to understand the root causes and to publicise it to the international community,” Seng explains. Seng is the widow of the founder of the militant Kachin Independence Organisation.

“Whenever rape cases happen, we get information from our partners and we also go and interview the victims and conduct our own field investigations,” she said.

“How do we know that rape is being used as a weapon? Because the civilians who are attacked are told this by the soldiers attacking them,” said Seng.

Victims of rape may be in continuing danger not only from the perpetrators, who enjoy impunity, but also from their own communities due to the social stigma attached to rape, local reports reveal.

Conflicts in northern and eastern Burma that erupted between the Burmese military and ethnic armed groups in the Shan and Kachin states in March and June are reported to have led to displacement of more than 30,000 civilians.

Soldiers also regularly persecute the Rohingyas who are not recognised as citizens by the Burmese government, although they have lived in western Arakan state for generations with established roots, ties and property.

Stories of displacement, violence and persecution involving ethnic minority communities such as the Karen, Shan and the Kachin have been commonplace since the formation of the Burmese state in 1948 when ethnic representatives demanded autonomy.

When armed groups sprang up among these minorities the government responded by heavily militarising the homelands of these remote communities.

Amongst the most vulnerable in this struggle are women. Sexual violence has been a constant theme among ethnic minority communities living along the borders of the country. There are continuing reports of deliberate displacement and intimidation, with women targeted as part of a campaign to weaken the social fabric of the different ethnic groups.

“I was only four years old. My mother told me that we had to run away, otherwise they would kill us,” says 21-year-old Rahima, describing her flight from her home in the western Arakan state. During her flight across the country to the Thai-Burma border Rahima, and others like her, sought refuge in railway stations that were often raided by the military.

She describes soldiers taking away the “attractive” women who would be returned later with obvious physical injuries but hidden mental wounds as a result of sexual violence and torture.

Rahima’s sister was raped by Burmese soldiers. But due to the social stigma and ostracism that would follow in the local community, no one in her family spoke about the incident.

“It is very shameful in my culture to talk about rape. In my whole time there, dozens of women were taken. Not one of them ever told of what had happened,” said Rahima.

Narratives resembling Rahima’s are common in conflict zones where evidence suggests that the military uses rape as a psychological weapon to intimidate civilians, shame the men in the community, and to ‘Burmanise’ these populations by mixing bloodlines.

It is difficult to verify how explicit ‘orders to rape’ from the state military could be. But what is verifiable is that renewed conflict situations have coincided with concurrent and drastic rise in sexual violence.

Seng believes use of rape is not only encouraged but also ordered by Burmese military officials. Her peer at the WLB, Charm Tong, who leads the Shan Women’s Action Network, co-authored the report ‘License to Rape’ in 2002, which documented 173 incidents of rape and other forms of sexual violence, involving 625 girls and women, committed by Burmese army troops in Shan state.

Tong continues to travel to Shan, where she and her colleagues have documented cases of pregnant women and their daughters being raped inside their homes by state soldiers raiding villages.

The International Criminal Court recognises rape, sexual slavery “or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity” as war crimes when committed as part of a systematic practice.

WLB’s goal is to mobilise support for an investigation by an international body to examine the trends, patterns and extent of sexual violence perpetrated by soldiers in Burma.

Tomas Ojea Quintana, United Nations Human Rights rapporteur for Burma, expressed concern over “continuing human rights abuses such as forced labour, land confiscation and rape in ethnic minority communities,” and called for an independent investigation commission during a visit to the country in September.

Following Quintana’s visit, the Burmese government set up the Myanmar (as Burma is also known) National Human Rights Commission to “safeguard the rights of its citizens” as announced in the state run newspaper ‘New Light of Myanmar’.

Rights groups point out that any accountability mechanism for crimes must be followed by a remedy process and that any permanent remedy can happen only when militarisation ends in these areas.