PRESS CONFERENCE BY HUMAN RIGHTS RAPPORTEUR ON MYANMAR

Neither the international community nor the Myanmar Government should miss the “golden opportunity” to make progress on the transition of Myanmar to a more democratic State, said Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on Myanmar at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon.  Myanmar “must act quickly” to seize the opportunity, he added, and the international community must not miss the chance to further spur the progress.

Mr. Pinheiro said that he had presented an interim report on the human rights situation in Myanmar to the Third Committee of the General Assembly.  After 5 years in which special rapporteurs had not been invited into Myanmar, the Government had invited him for a three-day period in April this year.  Unfortunately, illness had obliged Mr. Pinheiro to suspend his visit.  Information from the report he had presented to the Third Committee this morning would form the basis of the report that he was to present to the Commission on Human Rights on 15 December.  He was preparing an update to that report and hoped to have it finished by February or March.  He was pleased to report that the Government of Myanmar had told him today that they would invite him again next year.

Asked when he would be returning to Myanmar, Mr. Pinheiro said that the timing of his visit would depend on his teaching schedule at Brown University.  The visit would have to be before the next meeting of the Commission on Human Rights in April, so it was likely to be in February or March of next year.

Mr. Pinheiro was asked if he had seen all he had wanted to see during his last visit and whether he thought the visit was a sign of real progress or merely driven by the government’s own political agenda.  He responded that all governments, democracies included, were concerned with political motivation.  When working as a Special Rapporteur, he did not ask governments what he could do or where he could go; he informed them of his plans.

The Government of Myanmar had told him that he could go anywhere he wanted and see whomever he chose to see, he continued.  During his last visit, he had visited two states, but was unable to go to the third because of his illness.  His team had been able to visit Mandalay prison, as well as the labour camp there.  The team had been able to interview prisoners there without any significant interference.  It was “very delicate” to speak with prisoners -- because they were very vulnerable -- and he always made clear that he did not want the people who spoke to him to suffer for it.  He had urged the government to release the prisoners who had been detained for contacting his predecessor.

Mr. Pinheiro added that the Government of Myanmar’s behaviour had been “perfect” during his visit.  His team had held a “very substantial” meeting with the Board of the opposition group, the National League for Democracy (NLD).  He said that he did not have any complaints concerning the access he was afforded.

A correspondent asked a question about the freedom of the media in Myanmar.  Mr. Pinheiro said that all of the 10 or 11 news agencies there were subjected to censorship and that the electronic media were completely under State control.  If the Government was interested in liberalization, it was imperative to allow the press more freedoms.  He had tried to persuade the Government that it was in their best interests to invite journalists into the country.  If journalists were not allowed in, they would only make bad reports.  But, if they were allowed in, they could report on the progress being made.

Asked if the military government was completely in control of the human rights situation, Mr. Pinheiro said that he did not know, as he had only seen two provinces.  He could, however, imply from his visit and from an International Labour Organization (ILO) report that there was a “high probability” that regional commanders did exert some control.  It was, therefore, very important for United Nations agencies to visit areas outside when visiting Myanmar.  During his own visit, he had had “very extensive” conversations with a local commander, to whom human rights was “brand new territory”.

A correspondent asked Mr. Pinheiro if he had been able to gleen any information from NLD members about the progress of the dialogue process.  Mr. Pinheiro said that his impression was that one year of confidence building was sufficient.  All the people with whom he had spoken seemed to feel it was time to go to the next phase -- real political dialogue.  Unlike the reports of his predecessors, he felt that there had been an improvement in the political climate.  In a country that had not known democracy for decades, it was important to acknowledge any positive change.  Any progress was important to the victims.

Mr. Pinheiro said that he had been surprised today by two things.  First, the letter from the Government of Myanmar, to the Secreatry-General had been “very realistic and very objective”.  Second, he had been “agreeably surprised” by the comment of Myanmar indicating that they were willing to “play the game”.  Playing the game was important, because there were rules and evaluations.  He had been pleased to hear that the Governments of the United States, Australia, and Belgium were positively disposed to engagement with Myanmar.  The European Union could play a very important role and the United States a decisive one in convincing Myanmar to take bolder initiatives towards a transition to democracy.

A correspondent asked Mr. Pinheiro to explain what “carrots and sticks ” the international community would be able to use in persuading Myanmar to change.  The so-called carrots, Mr. Pinheiro said, were such things as normalizing relations, and participation in International Monetary Fund (IMF)loans.  The military needed to cooperate with the opposition to make the transition to an accountable, democratic government.  The international community had many positive inducements to offer to the Government and society of Myanmar.

A correspondent asked if people were hungry and if children were well educated in Myanmar.  There was no widespread famine, Mr. Pinheiro said, but there was a “very serious” problem with HIV/AIDS.  He was completely against the

international community waiting for democracy in Myanmar to help in emergencies like HIV/AIDS there.

Another correspondent asked Mr. Pinheiro to elaborate on the important role he thought the United States could play in Myanmar, considering the constructive efforts Asian countries, such as Singapore and Malaysia, had been making.  Mr. Pinheiro said that no country could prescribe a recipe for change in Myanmar, but countries that had imposed sanctions could have significant impact on the situation.  The Asian perspective was crucial and Asian countries like Japan, China and Thailand had made important efforts, as well.  It was very important that Japan had a specific approach to help with democratic reforms, for example.  Other important initiatives were the dissemination of human rights materials by Australia and the donation of funds for HIV/AIDS-related projects by the European Union.

* *** *