PRESS BRIEFING BY SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN MYANMAR

PRESS BRIEFING BY SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN MYANMAR

Released political prisoners, who could serve as interlocutors and troubleshooters, should be seen as assets rather than nuisances, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar, said at a Headquarters press briefing this afternoon.

Asked about the “Road Map” to democracy that Myanmar had unveiled at the recent summit of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), he said he did not wish to become too involved in the country’s political process, since that matter fell under the mandate of the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Myanmar, Razali Ismail.  However, such a plan would be difficult to institute given the lack of basic freedoms in the country.

Noting that he had suggested an amnesty for Myanmar’s many political prisoners, he said the Government’s had agreed to consider his proposal.  That was important since no political transition in the world could work without basic political freedoms.  With Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the detained democracy leader, living under virtual house arrest, a proper dialogue could not take place.

Responding to a question about the conditions of the political prisoners, he said that during his five working days in Myanmar, he had interviewed 19 of them.  A few had been released but others, some of whom were quite old, were not permitted to leave their cells or communicate with each other.  That was a harsh punishment for people who had, many times, done nothing more provocative than sign a report of the Secretary-General.

Asked about Myanmar’s stated commitment to moving ahead while ignoring criticism from those who wished to undermine the country, he replied that although the Government was indeed committed to progress, a “Kafkian” environment, in which opposition political parties were not allowed to operate, continued to exist.  Insisting that he was not an enemy of Myanmar, he maintained, nevertheless, that he would not invent niceties to please the country’s Government.  After all, that would be unfair to the people of Myanmar.

In response to a question about the kind of action that the United Nations should take vis-à-vis Myanmar, he said the Organization should make it clear that it was unacceptable that a United Nations envoy could not visit the country he was assigned to when necessary.  Urging Myanmar to realize that it needed the United Nations, he said regional support might be fine now, but it might not be enough in the future.

He acknowledged that it was not easy for a country that had lived under dictatorship for 40 years to make the transition to democracy.  People would need time to learn how to function within democratic frameworks.  Given the time required, it was strange that certain United States congressmen had seemed to think he had a magic wand that could immediately make drastic changes.  Instead of engaging in mere rhetoric, the international community should devote more energy to making the Commission on Human Rights more effective, he said.  Also, Asian countries like China could play an important role in promoting reform.

Asked whether India could also play such a role, he replied that when he arrived, the Indian Vice-President had been in Myanmar offering $25 million for road development.  Hopefully, therefore, India, the world’s largest democracy, would play a bigger role in the future.

Responding to a question about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s demanding freedom for other political prisoners before her own, he said the request was reasonable.  Every release was a cause for celebration, even though representatives of some non-governmental organizations, who had never been to prison, made grand demands.

He added that drafting harsh resolutions was not necessarily a productive step, especially when they did not lead to any action. Resolutions should be instruments designed to achieve concrete results, not mere symbols of protest.

Asked to elaborate on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s conditions, he said people had no access to her, and there were security barriers around her house.  It was particularly outrageous that she had no telephone, since that prevented her from serving as a valuable interlocutor.

Responding to a question about hope for democracy in Myanmar, he said the country could not become Norway in three months.  In the meantime, however, the international community could ostracize the present regime so that the people of Myanmar could see that the world was ready to help them. 

He said he did not, however, necessarily advocate sanctions. After all, unilateral sanctions, as previously applied around the world had not been helpful.  In fact, except in the case of South Africa, sanctions had never been very productive.

* *** *