Asia-Pacific, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights

POLITICS: Burmese Junta Gets Mixed Review from U.N. Chief

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 8 2007 (IPS) - The military junta in Burma (Myanmar), currently shielded from U.N. strictures by two veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, has received a mixed review from Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

While welcoming the decision of the Burmese government to grant amnesty last week to 2,831 prisoners, including up to 40 political prisoners, Ban has asked the Burmese junta to also show compassion to the country’s longest serving political prisoner: Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

On Monday, Ban urged “the Myanmar authorities to go beyond this first step by releasing all other political prisoners in the country, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and by making further concrete progress on all of the issues raised in the context of his good offices.”

The former Nobel Peace prize recipient, who remains under house arrest, led the National League for Democracy which, in 1990, won 82 percent of the legislative seats in Burma’s national elections, subsequently annulled by the military junta.

A draft resolution authored by the United States – and critical of the Burmese regime – has remained in limbo since November last year, primarily because of the stiff opposition from China and Russia, both threatening to use their vetoes to protect the junta.

The resolution expresses “concern” over the situation in Myanmar, which “has become significantly worse for various international organisations, whose humanitarian efforts are being increasingly restricted.”

According to one published report, the military junta has forced the Red Cross to close five of its field offices.

The draft also expresses “deep concern” over “the transnational threats posed by the situation in Myanmar, in particular HIV/AIDS, avian flu and trafficking in narcotics and people.”

Additionally, it condemns the “continued attacks” by members of the Myanmar military on civilians, including women and children, “and in particular the attacks on civilians in Karen State that have led to increased refugee flows, including into neighbouring states.”

Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, the permanent representative of Russia to the United Nations and president of the Security Council for January, told reporters last week Burma was not in the Council’s work programme for this month.

“It is only mentioned as a footnote,” he said, pointing out that the only exchanges in the Council chamber so far were informal exchanges.

Speaking in his capacity as the Russian envoy, he said his country had voted against the inclusion of Burma on the formal agenda of the Security Council.

“The Russian Federation did not believe the situation in Myanmar posed a threat to international peace and security,” Churkin said.

But he conceded that if there are “certain matters, including human rights”, that need to be addressed, they should be done “in the proper fora” – not the Security Council.

The Russian stand has been endorsed by China, thereby blocking any action by the Security Council against Burma.

This despite the fact that the Security Council voted in September to place Burma on its permanent agenda – for the first time.

The 117-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the largest single political bloc at the United Nations, has taken an equally strong stand against any Security Council action.

“The Non-Aligned Movement does not consider that the situation in Myanmar constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and opposes attempts by a permanent member of the Council to categorise Myanmar as such,” a NAM statement said last month.

Furthermore, it said, “countries neighbouring Myanmar that are members of the Non-Aligned Movement have stated that the domestic situation in Myanmar does not constitute a threat to regional peace and stability.”

“Therefore, it is the position of the Movement that the situation in Myanmar should not be on the agenda of the Security Council.”

Kerry Kennedy, founder of the Robert F. Kennedy Centre for Human Rights, said last month that Aung San Suu Kyi’s imprisonment “is only the most visible aspect of the human rights and humanitarian nightmare in Burma.”

“The regime burned down 3,000 villages in the eastern section of the country in an attempt to ethnically cleanse minorities,” she pointed out. “It is also destroying food supplies and turning thousands of ethnic villagers into modern-day slave labour, forcing over one million refugees to flee the country.”

In a statement released late last year, Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said that the Security Council must act on the human rights situation of a country where violence and repression from the military are an everyday fact of life.

“The military doesn’t allow a free press, independent civil society organisations or opposition parties, and it arrests and tortures those who speak out. These are the issues the Council must address,” he said.

Human Rights Watch also said that with the political support of China, Russia, India and Thailand, the Burmese military junta has become increasingly intransigent.

“Two permanent members of the Security Council, China and Russia, have repeatedly opposed moves to place Burma on the formal agenda,” the group noted.

Both have “close commercial relations” with the junta, including arms sales that enable the Burmese military to commit abuses and stay in power, HRW said.

Meanwhile, the draft resolution also calls on the government of Myanmar “to begin without delay a substantive political dialogue which would lead to a genuine democratic transition, to include all political stakeholders, including representatives of ethnic nationality groups and political leaders, and notes that the National Convention as presently constituted does not offer the opportunity for genuine dialogue.”

The draft also “underscores the urgent need for the government of Myanmar to permit international humanitarian organisations to operate without restrictions” and calls on the government “to cooperate fully with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and its representatives in the eradication of forced labour.”