Press conference by SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN MYANMAR

(Issued on 2 November 2004)

Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said he was “somewhat sceptical” that there would be democracy “at the end of the tunnel” when the country hosted a meeting of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2006.

Answering a correspondent’s questions during a press conference this morning at Headquarters, he said that when he was appointed in 2000, he had had some “cautious optimism”, but he was no longer in that mood.  Requirements for a transition included freedom of political prisoners, freedom of operation for political parties, and at least some concessions to freedom of the press.  He would like to see some process of election for representatives to the national Convention as foreseen in the road map to democracy.  It was important to prepare a people that had lived under a military regime for 40 years for democracy, which “cannot be parachuted into a country”.  If democracy was to be established by 2006 for the ASEAN meeting there, preparations had to start now.

In an introductory statement, he said that since 2000, he had visited the country six times, the last time being in November 2003.  Since then, he had not been invited back by the Government of Myanmar and had gotten his information through meetings with representatives in New York and Geneva, among other places.  That had been “somewhat” frustrating when he had to report to the Third Committee last week.  He was therefore not in a position to evaluate political changes in the Government and to answer questions such as whether the Government would continue with the road map to democracy and reconvene the National Convention, even though the new Minister for Foreign Affairs had assured ambassadors that there would be no change.

He said he also did not have any information that the human rights situation in that country had improved.  There had been no major release of political prisoners, of which there were 1,300, some of whom had been arrested during peaceful demonstrations.  The leader of the opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi.was still under some sort of house arrest called a “mutual security arrangement”, and her party had only one office in the whole country.

Answering correspondents’ questions, Mr. Pinheiro said he had tried to demonstrate to Myanmar authorities that it was better to have a Special Rapporteur visit.  His colleague, Razali bin Ismail, the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to Myanmar, had not been able to visit the country since April.  He was assured, however, that the Government continued to examine the possibility of a visit.  He had asked for a visit before he would have to report on the situation during the sixty-first session of the Commission on Human Rights in March next year.  After that session, which would adopt a resolution on the situation, he would have to reconsider whether he would continue with his mandate, as he had not seen real progress in its implementation.

Asked if a Special Rapporteur from the Asian region could be more effective in case he decided to quit, Mr. Pinheiro said that personally, he thought it was not appropriate for a Special Rapporteur to come from the same region.  In his work in Burundi and Myanmar, the fact that neither he nor his country [Brazil] had any interest in the countries he was assigned to, had been helpful.  If there was no progress, however, it could be tried.

Asian countries were in a better position to be heard from than the United States or the European Union, he said in reply to a question about influence from the regional group on Myanmar.  Because of sanctions, regional countries could have a dialogue, a positive influence, he said, noting that the Asian diplomatic approach was different.  “Sometimes, megaphone diplomacy is not the best diplomacy”, he said.

He had always tried to acknowledge positive developments, he said, but had not seen too many.  The Myanmar Government had always cooperated with past visits, putting no restrictions on him.  He had been allowed to go everywhere, had met people under house arrest and political prisoners.  In four years, there had only been one incident, where “an overzealous officer” had placed a listening device under the table when he was interviewing a political prisoner.  Special Rapporteurs to other countries had had more difficulties during visits. He did have complaints, however, about the implementation of his suggestions.

* *** *