Disenfranchisement and Desperation in Myanmar’s Rakhine State: Drivers of a Regional Crisis

Disenfranchisement and Desperation in Myanmar’s Rakhine State: Drivers of a Regional Crisis

Report, October 2015

Political exclusion is exacerbating the already intense sense of desperation among Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, and driving a regional crisis that ASEAN leaders are ill prepared to confront. Unless serious steps are taken to address the situation of deprivation and despair in Rakhine State, many Rohingya will have no other option but to flee in search of asylum elsewhere. The report examines in detail the factors driving Rohingya to flee, and explores steps that can be taken by the Myanmar government and other ASEAN governments to help mitigate those factors.

DOWNLOAD

The Rohingya Crisis and the Risk of Atrocities in Myanmar:   An ASEAN Challenge and Call to Action

The Rohingya Crisis and the Risk of Atrocities in Myanmar: An ASEAN Challenge and Call to Action

Report, April 2015

The longstanding persecution of the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar has led to the highest outflow of asylum seekers by sea since the U.S. war in Vietnam. Human rights violations against Rohingya have resulted in a regional human trafficking epidemic, and there have been further abuses against Rohingya upon their arrival in other Southeast Asian countries. The report represents a call to action. It demonstrates that the escalating human rights crisis in Myanmar and Southeast Asia more broadly is exacerbated by ASEAN’s failure to take effective action.

DOWNLOAD

The Rohingya Crisis and the Risk of Atrocities in Myanmar:   An ASEAN Challenge and Call to Action

Myanmar must comply with ICJ order and end restrictions on Rohingya, MPs say

JAKARTA – Ahead of the deadline imposed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) tomorrow for Myanmar to submit its first report in the case alleging genocide against the Rohingya, regional parliamentarians are calling on Myanmar to take immediate steps to end the discriminatory restrictions against the minority group. Authorities must also protect all civilians in the ongoing war in Rakhine and Chin states, said ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).

“We have still not seen any credible evidence of Myanmar improving the situation for the Rohingya at all. Those inside Myanmar are still living in apartheid conditions and subject to the same – if not worse – restrictions they have lived under for years now, including those on their freedom of movement, access to health, education, and livelihoods. After all the pressure Myanmar has faced on this issue, how are we still at this point?” said Charles Santiago, Member of Parliament in Malaysia and APHR chair.  

In the preliminary ruling of the Gambia v. Myanmar case on 23 January, the ICJ ruled that there is a serious risk of genocide against the Rohingya. The court ordered Myanmar to implement provisional measures to prevent all acts of genocide including “killing members of the group,” “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group,” “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” or “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”. It also requires Myanmar to preserve evidence of crimes that could amount to genocide. These provisional measures are legally binding and require Myanmar to provide a report on their progress by 23 May, and a follow-up every six months thereafter.

On 8 April, Myanmar issued two presidential directives in response to the provisional measures. President Directive No. 1/2020 orders “all Ministries and all Regions and States Governments” to ensure that its staff, military or security forces and others under its control “do not commit” acts defined in the Genocide Convention, while Directive No. 2/2020 prohibits “all Ministries and the Rakhine State government” from destroying or removing any evidence of genocidal acts. 

“The Myanmar government’s directives, while a positive start, mean nothing if there are no concrete measures being implemented on the ground to dismantle the system of apartheid and discrimination against the Rohingya. If Myanmar is serious about complying with the ICJ, an absolute start point must be lifting the government-imposed internet blackout in Rakhine and Chin states,”  Santiago said.

All civilians living in Rakhine State are caught in the midst of the intensifying conflict between the Tatmadaw and Arakan Army, in which hundreds have been killed and wounded, and more than 157,000 people displaced. Amid a telecommunications blackout in Rakhine, the Tatmadaw excluded Rakhine State from their recently announced four-month unilateral ceasefire aimed at tackling the COVID-19 virus.  

APHR calls on ASEAN to urge Myanmar to protect civilians in the conflict, and tackle the root causes of the crisis by taking a rights-based approach that is in line with international standards. To achieve this, the recommendations from the Kofi Annan-led Advisory Commission on Rakhine State should be implemented, and ASEAN must urge Myanmar to cooperate with international accountability mechanisms to ensure justice for the Rohingya.

“We are talking about the most severe crimes under international law. After decades of oppression, violence and restrictions on the rights of the Rohingya, the international community cannot continue to watch the Myanmar authorities act with impunity. It may be years before the ICJ comes up with a final judgment, so in the meantime, ASEAN leaders must urge Myanmar to implement genuine reform,” said Chamnan Chanruang, an APHR member and former Thai MP. 

ASEAN must do more to help the Rohingya

ASEAN must do more to help the Rohingya

By Kasit Piromya, former Thai MP and Board Member of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights

The deaths of more than a dozen Rohingyas on an overcrowded boat that was bound for Malaysia but capsized in the Bay of Bengal in early February highlighted the desperation that about a million refugees continue to face in the sprawling camps in southern Bangladesh. While the refugees’ plight is of high concern, it often overshadows the fact that the situation has only gotten worse for the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya still in Myanmar’s Rakhine state, where the refugees in Bangladesh lived before fleeing persecution and violence over recent decades.

In both Myanmar and Bangladesh, the desperate plight of the Rohingyas has no end in sight. This is particularly true for the often forgotten hundreds of thousands of Rohingyas who remain in Rakhine, where the conflict between the Arakan Army (AA) and the Tatmadaw, Myanmar’s military, keeps intensifying.

The shelling of a school in northern Rakhine’s Buthidaung Township on Myanmar’s Children’s Day last month, which injured about 20 primary school students, should have been the final straw of the violence. Instead, thousands of civilians from all communities in Rakhine continue to live in fear as the number of casualties and injuries, as well as those displaced, grows every day.

How many more people have to suffer and how many more villages need to be hit by artillery as so-called “collateral damage” before Myanmar takes its obligations seriously and protects all civilians in the restive state?

On top of the conflict-related violence, communities in Rakhine state face the added ignominy of living under one of the world’s longest-running telecom shutdowns, which has been in place in one form or another since June 2019. The internet blackout has a disproportionate impact on local civilians, hampering their access to livelihoods and to basic information, while also obstructing the work of journalists, human rights monitors, and aid organizations.

Humanitarian groups have been prevented from providing crucial aid to many areas where the Rohingyas live, leaving thousands at risk of starvation. Meanwhile, state-imposed restrictions on freedom of movement mean that the Rohingyas cannot even flee for safety if the conflict encroaches close to where they are living.

The situation in Rakhine state is troubling for all communities, but particularly so for the approximately 600,000 Rohingyas who remain trapped in an apartheid system that has been ongoing for almost eight years. Not only are their villages being caught up in the violence, but there is credible evidence that they are being used as forced laborers in Tatmadaw camps, as “guides” to find AA fighters in remote areas, and as sentries in villages. All this while continuing to face severe restrictions on their rights to citizenship, freedom of movement, and access to education, healthcare, and livelihoods.

Put simply, Myanmar authorities have done nothing to improve the situation for the Rohingyas living in Rakhine state in recent years, and in many ways the conflict and the government’s imposed restrictions mean that the situation has only gotten worse. Amid this environment, how can ASEAN and other countries even begin to talk about repatriations taking place?

ASEAN’s efforts to facilitate and promote the repatriation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar is rushed and one-sided. It has totally embraced Myanmar’s narrative on the ongoing situation in Rakhine state and failed to consult and engage with Rohingya refugees.

The lack of progress clearly calls for ASEAN governments to do more to help resolve the protracted crisis.

Yet, despite ASEAN’s charter — the bloc’s legally binding founding agreement — claiming to adhere to “respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms,” ASEAN member states have been too eager to hide behind its policy of noninterference regarding a member’s domestic affairs to avoid questioning Myanmar’s highly defensive narrative.

Instead, members of the ASEAN Plus Three grouping, comprising the bloc’s member states as well as China, Japan and South Korea, are supporting humanitarian and repatriation efforts in Rakhine state. In recent months, Indonesia and South Korea have donated half a million U.S. dollars each to support ASEAN efforts for the repatriation of the Rohingyas.

However, with conditions on the ground deteriorating, and most refugees not willing to consider moving back without guarantees for their rights and safety, ASEAN’s aid will be of little benefit to the Rohingyas if the bloc does not play a role in helping Myanmar tackle the root causes of the crisis and take steps toward restoring citizenship rights, lifting discriminatory movement restrictions, and ensuring full accountability of those responsible for the atrocities. Humanitarian aid is in dire need, but highly flawed if its access is being restricted and no measures are taken toward a sustainable solution that means that aid is no longer required.

Further, by only relying on Myanmar’s word about the situation in Rakhine state, how can ASEAN governments even be sure that their money and aid are being used to benefit all communities? ASEAN members should request access on the ground to verify and evaluate that their contributions are being spent effectively and having a positive impact — something that can only be achieved by consulting all communities, including the Rohingyas, directly.

An opportunity for progress emerged recently, when the International Court of Justice ordered Myanmar to not commit any acts of genocide and to prevent the destruction of potential evidence. Myanmar must submit a report back to the court within four months of the January 23 decision, and every six months thereafter.

The ICJ case relates to the most heinous crimes under international law, and should lead to greater urgency among ASEAN member states to prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possible genocide against the Rohingyas. A welcome step would be for ASEAN member states to offer assistance in helping Myanmar meet its reporting obligations for the ICJ ahead of the May 23 deadline.

Myanmar has consistently said it needs time to deal with the complex issues in Rakhine state, but ASEAN must start questioning Myanmar’s lack of progress toward improving the situation on the ground. ASEAN can be a constructive player in resolving this crisis but must recognize that helping Myanmar — a member state — to overcome the ongoing issues in Rakhine is a collective responsibility that requires more than humanitarian assistance. The impacts of the crisis are being felt across the region and will continue to do so as long as Myanmar’s government refuses to tackle the root causes of the crisis and ensure accountability.

We need to finally start seeing concrete progress in Rakhine, so that the issue moves toward a resolution, and justice for the Rohingyas can finally be served.

This article was originally published in The Diplomat

Kasit Piromya is the former foreign minister of Thailand, a former member of Parliament, and a board member of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR). 

Civil Society Organisations Calls for Immediate Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Myanmar

Civil Society Organisations Calls for Immediate Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Myanmar

A Myanmar version of this statement can be found here

By 139 organizations and one individual

We, the undersigned civil society organisations call for the protection of civilians in armed conflict in Myanmar and for the State to comply with its obligations under the Geneva Conventions and UN Security Council Resolutions 1265, 1296 and 1325. The current targeting of innocent civilians in the conflict between the Arakan Army (AA) and the Myanmar military amounts to war crimes and must immediately cease.

The conflict between the Myanmar military and the AA has displaced up to 150,000 people in Rakhine and Chin States since 2018 and its impacts are being felt most keenly by innocent civilians. In the past 30 days alone, 28 villagers in Chin State, have sadly died as a result of the conflict. The Myanmar military has been deliberately targeting civilians through the use of airstrikes from fighter jets. On 7 April 2020, airstrikes on the village of Hnang Chaung Village, Paletwa Township, in Chin State by two Myanmar military fighter jets killed seven people, injuring eight more and burning several houses to the ground. Among the victims were two children, a mother and a baby. This was the second airstrike within one week, as more civilians were injured during an attack on Bawngwa Village on 31 March. Last month, on 14 and 15 of March, multiple attacks on several villages in Paletwa Township killed 21 civilians, again including children.

These attacks have been conducted with total disregard for civilian life and would constitute indiscriminate attacks or even direct targeting of civilian population. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions specifically prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds” of civilians and persons hors de combat. In addition, “wilful killing” of protected persons is listed as a grave breach under all four Geneva Conventions, which Myanmar ratified in 1992. Thus, targeting innocent civilians, such as the airstrikes on villages in Paletwa Township, can be considered a serious violation of international humanitarian law and customs, which constitutes as war crimes under the Rome Statue.

Furthermore, UN Security Resolutions 1265 and 1296 addresses the protection of civilians in armed conflict. Resolution 1265 “Strongly condemns the deliberate targeting of civilians in situations of armed conflict as well as attacks on objects protected under international law, and calls on all parties to put an end to such practices” while also emphasizing “the responsibility of States to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

Additionally, UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, “Calls on all parties to armed conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, and all other forms of violence in situations of armed conflict.” This is especially salient in the case of Myanmar, which has repeatedly used sexual violence in armed conflict for decades. Related to this the Joint Communique that the Myanmar government and the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict signed in December 2018 has not been brought to women from the conflict affected areas for consultation while the ongoing sexual and gender-based violence committed by the Myanmar military in ethnic areas flies in the face of any supposed commitment of the government in signing such Joint Communique with the UN’s SRSG’s office in the first place.

Finally, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which Myanmar has ratified, recognizes “that every child has an inherent right to life” and Myanmar must ensure to the “maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.” As a state party to the Geneva Conventions and the CRC, and as a UN member state, Myanmar has an obligation to comply with these instruments of international law.

Meanwhile, the Association of Southeast Asian Nation’s (ASEAN) reluctance to become substantively involved is a missed opportunity for the block to play a key role in resolving the increasing escalation of violence. Rather than standing idly by and endorsing the narrative of the Myanmar government, ASEAN can seek to couple its humanitarian initiatives with engaging the government in addressing root causes of violence, while utilizing their good offices to seek a solution to the ongoing violence that is affecting countries beyond the borders of Myanmar.

As the whole world is taking measures to protect against the coronavirus pandemic, the targeting of innocent civilians in southern Chin State, through the use of airstrikes and other military operations, is causing tragic and unnecessary loss that amount to war crimes. It must end immediately. These war crimes are a blatant contravention to the Geneva Conventions and are destroying communities. We urge the immediate end to all attacks that target civilians and to protect the lives of innocent people.

For further information, please contact:

  • Salai Lian, Chin Human Rights Organization, +95 945 068 7296, info@chinhumanrights.org
  • Khin Ohmar, Progressive Voice, +1 571 992 8395, khinohmar@progressive-voice.org
  • East Asia and ASEAN Programme, FORUM-ASIA, ea-asean@forum-asia.org
  • Marc Batac, Initiatives for International Dialogue, +63 945 274 8214, marc@iidnet.org

Signed by:

  1. Alliance for Conflict Transformation (ACT), Cambodia
  2. ALTSEAN-Burma
  3. Asian Resource Foundation (ARF), Thailand
  4. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
  5. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  6. ASEAN SOGIE Caucus
  7. Association of Women for Awareness and Motivation (AWAM), Pakistan
  8. AwazCDS-Pakistan
  9. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha, (MASUM), India
  10. Balay Alternative Legal Advocates for Development in Mindanaw (Balaod Mindanaw), the Philippines
  11. Bodhigram, India
  12. Burma Campaign UK (BCUK)
  13. Bytes For All, Pakistan
  14. Cambodian Civil Society Partnership (CCSP), Cambodia
  15. Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC), Cambodia
  16. Center for Human Rights and Development (CHRD), Mongolia
  17. Centre for Communication and Development Studies (CCDS), India
  18. Center for Conflict Resolution (CECORE), Uganda
  19. Center for Peace Education-Miriam College, the Philippines
  20. Civil and Human Rights Network (CSHRN), Afghanistan
  21. Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW)
  22. Civil Rights Defenders (CRD)
  23. Coalition for Integrity and Social Accountability (CISA), Cambodia
  24. Covenants Watch, Taiwan
  25. Community Resource Centre Foundation (CRC), Thailand
  26. Centre for the Sustainable Use of Natural and Social Resources (CSNR), India
  27. Community Self Reliance Centre (CSRC), Nepal
  28. Desaparecidos, the Philippines
  29. Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC)
  30. Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC)-Southeast
  31. Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC)-North America
  32. Globe International Center (GIC), Mongolia
  33. GZO Peace Institute, Philippines
  34. HAK Association, Timor Leste
  35. Hustisya, Philippines
  36. IM Center for Peace and Dialogue, Indonesia
  37. Info-Birmanie, France
  38. INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre, Colombo, Sri Lanka
  39. Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID), Philippines
  40. JANANEETHI, India
  41. Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation (JPIC), Roma, Italia
  42. Karapatan Alliance Philippines
  43. Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law (KIBHR)
  44. KontraS (Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence), Indonesia
  45. Korean House for International Solidarity
  46. Legal Aid Foundation Indonesia
  47. Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN)
  48. The Mekong Butterfly, Thailand
  49. MONFEMNET National Network, Mongolia
  50. Odhikar, Bangladesh
  51. Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia 
  52. Pax Christi Pilipinas, the Philippines
  53. People’s Watch, India
  54. People’s Empowerment Foundation (PEF), Thailand
  55. Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
  56. Public Association “Dignity”, Kazakhstan
  57. Pusat KOMAS, Malaysia
  58. People’s Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR), India
  59. Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU), University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
  60. Research and Education for Peace, Universiti Sains Malaysia (REPUSM), Malaysia
  61. Recourse, Netherlands
  62. Right to Life Human Rights Centre, Sri Lanka
  63. Rivers without Boundaries Mongolia
  64. Samahan ng Ex-detainees Laban sa Detensyon at Aresto (Society of Ex-Detainees against Detention and Arrests in the Philippines)
  65. South India Cell for Human Rights Education and Monitoring (SICHREM)
  66. Southeast Asia Conflict Studies Network (SEACSN), Malaysia
  67. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Malaysia
  68. Swedish Burma Committee (SBC), Sweden
  69. Tanggol Bayi (Defend Women), Philippines
  70. Think Center, Singapore
  71. Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP)
  72. Vietnamese Women for Human Rights (VNWHR)
  73. Witness Radio Organisation, Uganda
  74. Youth for Peace (YFP), Cambodia
  75. Action Committee for Democracy Development (ACDD), Burma/Myanmar
  76. Athan – Freedom of Expression Activist Organization, Burma/Myanmar
  77. Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP), Burma/Myanmar
  78. Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters (HRDP), Burma/Myanmar
  79. Australia Chin Federation (ACF)
  80. Burmese Women’s Union (BWU), Burma/Myanmar
  81. Center of Development and Ethnic Studies (CDES), Burma/Myanmar
  82. Chin American Association (CAA)
  83. Chin Christian Council in Australia (CCCA)
  84. Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO), Burma/Myanmar
  85. Chin Youth Organization of North America (CYONA)
  86. Chinbridge Institute (CI), Burma/Myanmar
  87. Chin Community in Norway (CCN)
  88. Chin Community of Indiana (CCI), USA
  89. Central Chin Youth Organization (CCYO), Burma/Myanmar
  90. Chin Civil Society Network (CCSN), Burma/Myanmar
  91. Chin Literature and Culture Committee (Universities – Yangon), Burma/Myanmar
  92. Chin Refugee Committee (Delhi), India
  93. Chin Student Union, Burma/Myanmar
  94. Chin Community in Denmark (CCDK)
  95. Chin Women Organization (Hakha), Burma/Myanmar
  96. Cherry Foundation (Yangon), Burma/Myanmar
  97. Equality Myanmar (EQMM), Burma/Myanmar
  98. Future Light Center (FLC), Burma/Myanmar
  99. Genuine People’s Servants (GPS), Burma/Myanmar
  100. Generation Wave (GW), Burma/Myanmar
  101. Human Rights Foundation of Monland (HURFOM), Burma/Myanmar
  102. Human Rights Educators Network (HREN), Burma/Myanmar
  103. Independent Chin Communities (ICC), Malaysia
  104. Indigenous Peoples’ Partnership (IPP), Burma/Myanmar
  105. Karen Women’s Organization (KWO), Burma/Myanmar
  106. Karenni Human Rights Group (KnHRG), Burma/Myanmar
  107. Karenni Legal and Human Rights Center (KnLHRC), Burma/Myanmar
  108. Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG), Burma/Myanmar
  109. Kachin Women’s Association Thailand (KWAT), Burma/Myanmar
  110. Loka Ahlinn (Social Development Network), Burma/Myanmar
  111. Khumi Affairs Coordination Council (KACC), Burma/Myanmar
  112. Koung Jor Shan Refugee Camp (KJSRC), Burma/Myanmar
  113. Metta Campaign – Mandalay, Burma/Myanmar
  114. Myanmar Human Rights Alliance Network (MHRAN), Burma/Myanmar
  115. Myanmar People Alliance (Shan State) (MPA-SS), Burma/Myanmar
  116. Myanmar Cultural Research Society (MCRS), Burma/Myanmar
  117. Peace & Development Center (Meikhtila), Burma/Myanmar
  118. Progressive Voice (PV), Burma/Myanmar
  119. Reliable Organization, Burma/Myanmar
  120. Synergy (Social Harmony Organization), Burma/Myanmar
  121. Ta’ang Women’s Organization (TWO), Burma/Myanmar
  122. The Seagull:Human Rights, Peace & Development, Burma/Myanmar
  123. Women Peace Network (WPN), Burma/Myanmar
  124. Women’s League of Burma (WLB), Burma/Myanmar
  125. White Marker Group, Burma/Myanmar
  126. Yangon Youth Network (YYN), Burma/Myanmar
  127. Youth Corner (YC Hakha), Burma/Myanmar
  128. ရွှေခြံမြေကွန်ရက်၊ ကွမ်းခြံကုန်း ၊ ရန်ကုန်တိုင်းဒေသကြီး၊ Burma/Myanmar
  129. လူအခွင့်အရေးကာကွယ်မြှင့်တင်ရေးကွန်ရက်၊ ချောက်မြို့နယ်၊ မကွေးတိုင်းဒေသကြီး၊ Burma/Myanmar
  130. အလုပ်သမားအဖွဲ့ဖွဲ့စည်းပေါ်ပေါက်ရေးနှင့် အမျိုးသမီးအခွင့်အရေးအသိပညာပေးရေး ပဲခူးကွန်ရက်၊ ပဲခူးတိုင်းဒေသကြီး၊ Burma/Myanmar
  131. တောင်သူလယ်သမားများနှင့် ရေလုပ်သားများ အကျိုးစီးပွားကာကွယ်စောင့်ရှောက်ရေး ကွန်ရက်၊မြစ်ကျိုးတိုက်နယ်၊ ပဲခူးတိုင်းဒေသကြီး၊ Burma/Myanmar
  132. ဥသျှစ်ပင် လူငယ်ကွန်ရက်၊ ဥသျှစ်ပင်မြို့နယ်၊ ပန်းတောင်းမြို့နယ်၊ ပဲခူးတိုင်းဒေသကြီး၊ Burma/Myanmar
  133. တောင်သူလယ်သမားများဥပဒေအထောက်အကူပြု ကွန်ရက် (PLAN-A) ၊ မြောက်ဦးမြို့နယ်၊ ရခိုင်ပြည်နယ်၊ Burma/Myanmar
  134. မွန်လူငယ်ကွန်ရက်၊ ရေးလမိုင်း၊ မွန်ပြည်နယ်၊ Burma/Myanmar
  135. လူမူဖွံ့ဖြိုးရေးနှင့် ငြိမ်းချမ်းရေးကွန်ရက်၊ ပေါင်မြို့နယ်၊ မွန်ပြည်နယ်၊ Burma/Myanmar
  136. Ramkhye – ရမ်းခေး မြစ်ကြီးနား ကွန်ရက်၊ မြစ်ကြီးနား၊ ကချင်ပြည်နယ်၊ Burma/Myanmar
  137. Justice Drum ကွန်ရက်၊ ရှမ်းပြည်နယ်တောင်ပိုင်း၊ Burma/Myanmar
  138. ရပ်ရွာငြိမ်းချမ်းရေးနှင့်ဖွံ့ဖြိုးရေးရှေ့ဆောင်အဖွဲ့ (Area Peace and Development Forward) ကလေး မြို့နယ်၊ ကလေး ခရိုင်၊ စစ်ကိုင်းတိုင်း၊ Burma/Myanma
  139. ဒို့လယ်ယာ ကွန်ရက်၊ အင်္ဂပူမြို့နယ်၊ ဟင်္သာတခရိုင်၊ ဧရာဝတီတိုင်းဒေသကြီး၊ Burma/Myanmar

Individual:

  1. Jim Gomez