Prisoners of War: Exploring the possibilities
Speakers - Thar Nat Shin Naung (Officer in charge of prisoner of war detention, Southern Military Command, Sub-Region 3), Ko Kyee Kan (Ex PDF), Dr. Su (CDM Professor)
Moderator - Nang Ei Thi
Thought Process Program Season (2)/Episode (4)
Q: Moderator
Currently, how are the captured soldiers, defected soldiers, and their family members being classified and detained? Under what circumstances are the captured soldiers referred to as Prisoners of War (POW)? How do you feel about keeping them under detention and what are the foundational principles/beliefs for managing them.
A: Thar Nat Shin Naung
Prisoners of Wars (POW) are individuals that were captured by force and there are five different categories of POW according to our Prisoner of War (POW) Law: (1) Members of the terrorist military council's army, navy, and air force; (2) Police force members; (3) Members of the Pyusawhti militia and People's Militias. (4) Members of other armed groups collaborating with the military council; (5) individuals defined by National Unity Government (NUG) as POWs. We regard these people as prisoners of war.
In our camp, we classify and detain POW by separating married individuals and unmarried individuals. For married POWs, we provide separate living quarters so they can stay with their families. These accommodations are secured under strict safety measures. Regarding children, we coordinate with the NUG's Ministry of Education to set up small schools within the camp for school age children. We’ve also built some playgrounds for the children.
The parents are detained as prisoners of war. But for the children, we've made efforts to help them stay connected with the outside world. For instance, we've organized festive events and celebrations within the camp specifically for these children. Since the very beginning, officials from the NUG made it very clear to us that an endless cycle of revenge will not resolve anything. They emphasized that we must focus on building a strong, ethical federal army in the future and that in the future, soldiers need to adhere to military code of conduct.
In the heat of battle, for sure, we will fight fiercely to defeat the enemy. However, for those soldiers who surrender and become prisoners of war, we must treat them with compassion and safeguard them according to international human right principles and the Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian Laws (IHL). We were instructed to strictly adhere to these principles. The NUG has given us clear directives and policies that we must follow unwaveringly. Yes, we carry deep grievances. Many of my comrades have lost family members, suffered oppression, and I myself have had such experience as well. But we must rise above our emotions and focus on our duty, our mission, and our revolution. That is why, in our camp today, we detain and care for prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian Laws, as well as NUG’s laws for prisoner of war.
Q: Moderator
I would like to ask Ki Kyee Gann. People say that POW is a very important issue. Since you have been working on this issue, can you tell us why it is important to do these things?
A: Kyee Gann
POW is a sensitive issue to discuss at the moment. By "sensitive," I mean we're dealing with a situation where there's absolutely no room for error or mishandling. From our experiences on the frontlines, we've seen this clearly. Normally, following established norms and principles would be a standard procedure, and a correct course of action. However, in the current circumstances, this military junta – or rather, this terrorist military regime – is brutally oppressing civilians and people are completely rejecting their actions. And such brutal repression from junta has a significant impact on the issue of POWs. Therefore, we must think through and deliberate on this issue carefully. The matter of POWs is critically important.
Because I myself have fought in battles. During the Kaw Bain battle, we captured over 20 POW. Let me clarify something. POWs are fundamentally different from defectors. What I am saying here is defection refers to those who defect to our side before combat begins. POWs are different. They're combatants we capture after fierce fighting when our forces overrun their positions. These are soldiers who only surrender when they realize they can't win after a bloody battle with us. However, there are scenarios for exceptions such as encountering children and women among them including among military personnel or polices. In these cases, we apply different humanitarian standards. We don’t do anything excessive. We question them according to the procedures and keep them under careful custody and protection.
So, regarding this issue, it's important to note that this isn't just a challenge faced by units under the NUG's Ministry of Defense chain of command. All ethnic revolutionary organizations across the country are encountering major difficulties with POW management. Under the IHL, we cannot physically abuse, torture, or execute those who surrender to us during battle. But there are also a lot of – perhaps too many for us – other obligations under the IHL that we need to follow. The main problem here is that this creates a practical dilemma because we are trying to follow these protocols and treat them properly at a time our own soldiers are facing shortage of basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter.
We're also facing severe food shortages in other areas. Yet as captors of these POW, we have the responsibility to treat them in compliance with human rights standards. We need to provide them with proper food and shelter and equal schooling access for their children. This burden is heavy especially when our own revolutionary forces are struggling with basic needs. The irony is that
the international community want us to uphold human rights, yet offers no meaningful support even when the revolutionary groups follow these standards.
Q: Moderator
Could you explain what should be the principles and procedures for handling POW and detainees? Why do you think we need follow them?
A: Dr.Su
When we talk about POW, we're referring to matters that occur during wartime. In war zones, civilians suffer tremendously as they are battered by the devastation of frequent bombardments. Just two days ago, many civilians died when our school was bombed by aircraft. Innocent children died in large numbers. This attack came after the military junta publicly declare ceasefire. People were devastated and heartbroken by this. It was extremely painful to witness.
This profound grief only reinforces the fighting spirit of our revolutionary fighters, intensifying their outrage and strengthening their resolve to resist the enemy. Yet we must remember that our warfare has to follows strategic military objectives, not raw emotion. When the enemy breaks their promise with such brutal actions, it galvanizes our forces. But this motivation must never become hatred. We wage war through carefully planned tactics so that we can achieve military victory for our cause, not because we want revenge. Our armed struggle serves a political purpose, to build a federal democratic country and a peaceful future for generations to come. This is our political objective. This is why we fight this war. Our military and battle strategy and tactics have to serve these purposes.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a civil war, not an international conflict. In this civil war, both sides are Burmese. Even when ethnic groups are involved, fundamentally we're fellow citizens fighting each other.
This creates critical identification challenges. The enemy combatants and our revolutionary comrades often look remarkably similar in appearances. They speak Burmese or ethnic languages. So, it is critical for us to be able to distinguish enemy combatants from our own allies. Therefore, when we capture prisoners of war, we must document their information properly and record precise details including their battalion number, full legal name etc.
Captured POW are personals from the side of the enemy. So, they might not tell us the trough. This is why it is crucial that we record their information. The next most important procedure is to immediately confiscate all weapons and ammunition from the enemy to protects our comrades' security and prevent any potential threats. So, we need to secure all equipment including any communication devices they might be carrying. Only when the enemy is completely disarmed and all equipment is confiscated, should we then consider them a surrendered combatant and a defeated opponent.
When we capture a defeated combatant, we need to ensure they're completely neutralized and pose no threat to us. Then we need to restrain them. After we follow these procedures and make sure that they can no longer harm anyone, they we need to ensure our comrade understand that we don’t need to kill them. Because killing is not our military objective. We already have clear military and political objectives and meaningless killing is not part of them. So, we have no reason to kill or torture POW.
In fact, POWs are fellow human beings too, so we need to keep them clean, treat their wounds if they are injured, and provide them shelter. Though these POWs have been brainwashed by their military, they still have hearts. They're still our fellow Burmese people. Our revolutionary forces need to demonstrate that we have moral integrity and an open heart, and show them that we keep a principled stance in our fight. This strategic approach to POW detention can make them realize that the revolutionaries act with purpose, not malice.
Q: Moderator
Could you discuss whether POWs on the ground are being detained in accordance with human rights standards? What is the actual situation on the ground?
A: Kyee Gann
We do have concern because obviously our fighters are young people with guns. There are legitimate fears that people with guns have a tendency to commit violent, killing and abuses. The United Nations has also consistently expressed these very concerns regarding armed conflicts. That's precisely why I documented this footage. I wanted to demonstrate clearly that although we are armed, we are not terrorists, and we are only trying to dismantle a corrupt system. I personally visited, filmed, studied the situation, and presented this evidence to show our revolution's true nature.
What I mean is that we strictly adhere to human rights principles and IHL regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. Our comrades don't even need to be told because from the very beginning, we didn’t just train them how to shoot and kill people. While 30% of our training covers weapons handling, assembling/disassembling firearms, shooting, etc., a full 70% focuses on military codes of conduct and the dos and don’ts. Of cause, you might have seen our fighters showing intense emotions and bitterness toward the enemy in combat and battlefield, but in reality, it’s different. Our fighters don’t let their emotions dictate their actions.
As Sun Tzu's Art of War teaches, there are three paths to victory and the best of them is defeating the enemy without fighting. This is why if we can treat POWs properly, welcome defectors and create safe zones for them – safe from arial bombing, then, I believe there will be mess defection of people militia or other personnels who were forcibly conscripted by the military council to the revolutionary forces. If this happens, then we can achieve victory without further bloodshed. So, I would like to say to the international community that we follow international human rights principles, so they should support us with concrete actions. Empty rhetoric is not enough.
Q: Moderator
Some organizations in some areas have been criticized for reckless actions and crimes against prisoners of war. What are your thoughts on this? Additionally, could you discuss whether such actions are justified or unacceptable?
A: Thar Nat Shin Naung
We reject unlawful acts against any person or member of any ethnicity not just against prisoners of war. I want to clarify something about my camp's operations. We aspire to build a peaceful, progressive nation, and this demands careful attention. Ironically, I am among the most criticized people for being too compliant to human rights principles. Some even suspect if I have become a “Dalan” (informer/spy). But, no, we have to focus on our duties despites criticisms/accusations. The crisis we are having today is a result of people overstepping their roles. In our country, every institution became dysfunctional because our military abandon its original duties and get involved in things they are not supposed to. So, frankly, if we really want to change our country, we have to remain true to our role and keep saying what we need to say about what should be done even if we are criticized and blamed. Everyone in this country deserve to be treated in a fair and just manner. If we abuse POW when they fall into our hands, we'll only perpetuate an endless cycle of revenge. That's why we firmly oppose any unlawful acts against POWs—or against anyone, for that matter.
Q: Moderator
We talked about handling prisoners of war according to international standards. However, given the realities on the ground and current circumstances, fully implementing these standards presents significant challenges. So how should we strike a balance between these two imperatives?
A: Dr. Su
There's been a great deal of discussion about whether we should comply with international law. Laws are built upon human ethics and moral principles. Following these laws means upholding our own moral integrity. Compliance reflects the standards of our organization's dignity and honor. We don't follow rules only when others provide incentives. The very nature of law requires mandatory compliance. This is how we draft our legislation, and this is how international laws binds nations. Yet in reality – whether in world wars, civil conflicts, or interstate wars – we've seen widespread violations of these very laws.
For example, during Lenin's era, his military strategies were renowned. Yet, even in the wars that Lenin fought, his doctrine emphasized humanity. There was a strict policy against executing POW. They didn't kill POWs. However, when POW numbers grew, they established forced labor camps under what we called Gulag system where prisoners were compelled into brutal work. After the war, those who run the Gulag system and operated these camps were tried and punished.
We saw similar patterns in the Vietnam War where the Americans faced some accountability actions for torturing or killing Vietnamese POWs. In the case of Germany, those who executed and tortured POW were tried and prosecuted as well. This demonstrates that compliance with international laws is mandatory and violations do result in accountability actions under international mechanisms.
Earlier, Ko Kyee Kan mentioned that while we follow international laws, the international community gives nothing in return. But this isn't about exchanges. By complying with international laws we are upholding our moral integrity, defending our military/political cause – something we'd sacrifice our lives for. The world has been watching us already. But they are not watching to determine whether our action merit aids and supports. This is about principle, not bartering.
International law already has strict standards that must be upheld. Therefore, when we reach the transition period, we must continue to carry out these accountability measures. The crimes committed by the military junta must be punished. So, if our comrades in the resistance forces are found to have committed such acts, they too will face consequences because the essence of the law demands accountability from everyone.
Though we are not currently receiving international aid and support, if our actions remain just and righteous, such assistance will come. We must discard the mindset of acting only when we receive help and instead prioritize our principles, ethics, and dignity. Only then will we earn the trust of our people and the international community. Right now, even though we already have the trust of the entire population, we still have shortcomings. If the people trust that we are truly committed to our political objectives in our armed struggle, then I believe victory will be within reach.
Q: Moderator
What about the prisoners of war? Have there been any changes in their views on the revolution, shifts in their attitudes, or transformations in their beliefs and convictions? Any updates?
A: Thar Nat Shin Naung
If I talk about this, I wonder if General Zaw Min Htun would want to bomb my camp. He once spoke strongly against the fact that POW are fighting them back. Let me tell you one thing. All the soldiers who aren't DSA graduates have been fighting alongside us in previous battles too, like in Karen State. They're ready to fight at any time. Some people ask me, “Why bother showing them compassion? What difference will it make?" But you know what? Compassion does bring change. Today, every single prisoner of war under my command is ready for battle. I want to mention here about the issue of rations and such, as well. I’ll touch on this briefly, because I don’t want any misunderstandings in a talk show.
We are not operating under ideal conditions. The National Unity Government cannot always provide supports for children's education, the prisoners' food and medical needs, or other necessities. Since the beginning, we never thought we would only fight in the revolution if we received support. Since the day I took on this responsibility, I have done everything in my capacity to improve the situation in this camp. Today, in accordance with the NUG’s laws, we provide medical care here. We allow them contact with families. We do our best to make sure they are treated humanely. For all this, we are not receiving extensive support from the NUG. But we are not doing it for the sake of getting supports. We continue implementing their policies because we want our country to be free, peaceful, and transformed. We are simply doing what we can within this policy framework.
Q: Moderator
Regarding detention practices and management of prisoners of war in the long run, do you have any recommendations or suggestions you'd like to share? Could you discuss please?
A: Kyee Gann
I am combat soldier myself. I lost my brother and my leg fighting alongside this military column. So, when I tell you we help these prisoners of war and refuse to see them as enemies, understand that this isn't some easy choice we're making. I'm not here building my reputation or popularity by sensationalizing these issues. This isn't about publicity. This is something only those who actually do the work understand. What we do for POWs is based on what we believe in the heart. If you don't truly believe in this cause, there's no reason to do any of these.
The number of prisoners of war is growing and the combat ability and experience of our troops is improving too. Their skills and courage continue to strengthen. POW are from the side of the military junta. From the perspective of the terrorist military, they've been losing strength during the past four years. Desperate to replenish their forces, they've been forcibly conscripting civilians. And on our side? We're seeing more defectors and people militias joining our cause.
What I mean is, in this war, we can't automatically assume everyone in a junta’s military uniform is our enemy. The reality is that on one side we have younger brothers fighting with the revolution forces, and on the other side, we have older brothers who were forcibly conscripted to fight for the junta's army. There are many cases like this. We cannot just ignore these. It’s not that simple. And regarding the international community, even for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), we still see countless public campaigns calling for helps and assistances for them. The general public have to bear the cost of this war and they are struggling so much already. So, when the revolutionary fighters and IDP need help we have to try to reach out to the international community for potential help and support. Otherwise, we would have too much burden.
Q: Moderator
If we can't properly address and handle the crimes being committed on the ground, what kind of impact could this have on the revolution as a whole? And from the international community's perspective, could we see a shift in how they view the Spring Revolution organizations?
A: Dr.Su
This revolution isn't something that can be won overnight and we are not going to win this war after we win one battle. This military is a very old and well-established institution and the junta have entrenched themselves for so long. That's why we have to wage this fight on many fronts, in different forms. But when we're fighting across so many fronts, our forces can face major shortages and countless challenges. Survival and securing food, shelter, basic needs in itself have become a major challenge and so have securing necessary weapons, ammunition, and supplies. All of us already know about these challenges.
So, when formulating our military strategy, our primary focus must be securing and holding territory. Once we've taken control of an area, we need to ensure it’s protected. But it doesn't stop there. Within these territories, we must also address livelihood challenges, whether through agriculture, livestock farming, or other means. We have to solve basic survival needs. There are many things we must do after we occupy a new territory all the while preparing for new battles for territorial expansion. We have to be able to do all of these at the same time.
Of course, since we're all human, there will inevitably be clashing perspectives and misaligned attitudes. We will have different political views and ideologies. But that's natural. That's just how politics works. But when these differences in vision and principles pile up, when people are under immense pressure, internal conflicts multiply. Now, in this revolutionary period, on the actual battlefield of resistance, we're seeing a rise in incidents. It's not just cases involving captured enemy combatant. We're also seeing incidents between fellow revolutionaries themselves.
At this critical juncture, we must all come to realization that when liberating territories, our military units and political leaders must work together to establish fair and just systems that serve all people equally. Only through such frameworks can we effectively govern controlled areas and ensure that everyone including IDPs, revolutionary fighters and family members can live in genuine peace. But for now, we have to be afraid both the enemy, and of internal conflicts erupting among revolutionary forces. Therefore, we need fair and equal policies, binding regulations, and clear conflict-resolution mechanisms to maintain order and reduce the risk of conflict incidents in our controlled areas. We also need to educate all stakeholders in these areas about these systems. If implemented properly, these frameworks will establish rule of law and prevent violations and abuses.
