Press conference ON HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN MYANMAR

 

Burma had become a challenge to the United Nations and its human rights mechanisms, Thaung Htun, of the Burma UN Service Office, said this afternoon at a Headquarters press conference sponsored by the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations.

Addressing the human rights situation in Myanmar, Mr. Htun, who was introduced by Jack Petterson of the Quaker UN Office, said his organization’s long-standing interest in the issue stemmed from the fact that the movement against the country’s military regime was based on principles of non-violence and democracy.  The “brave Burmese”, including ethnic minorities, were an inspiration to many as they strove for non-violent change.

[In 1989, the Government changed the name of the country in English from Burma to the Union of Myanmar.]

Recalling this morning’s address to the General Assembly by the representative of Myanmar’s military Government,, Mr. Htun said he was “not surprised, but disappointed” that no mention had been made of national reconciliation or cooperation with the United Nations towards the implementation of the Organization’s resolutions.  It had been a defensive statement of the regime’s political agenda and a total denial of the appalling human rights situation, including the use of rape as a weapon against ethnic minorities.  In addition, forced relocations, forced labour, arbitrary killings and confiscation of land and property continued unabated in the ethnic areas.

He said that so far, the efforts of Razali Ismail, the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy, and Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, to improve the situation and achieve national reconciliation did not seem to go anywhere.  Both representatives were being denied entry into the country.  Meanwhile, a systematic campaign to weaken democratic forces had intensified this month, and there were now 1,585 political prisoners, more than 100 of whom had died due to torture or lack of medical care.  Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, “icon of the Burmese democracy movement”, remained under house arrest since May last year.

The regime was stepping up its attempts to establish a military-dominated government by convening the “National Convention”, he continued.  From the strict, non-negotiable guidelines, it was clear that the generals were after a constitution that would legitimize an authoritarian, centralist government with very few checks and balances.  Ultimately, all powers would be bestowed on a president who must have military experience.

Moreover, he said, the crisis in Burma had begun to spill over into neighbouring countries.  The country had become the source of an unchecked spread of HIV/AIDS, the production and trafficking of illicit drugs, an exodus of refugees and cross-border trafficking in women and children.  Weapons purchased from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China and the Russian Federation, as well as the construction of a nuclear reactor, had become an additional factor threatening regional peace and stability.  Quiet diplomacy and persuasion, as advocated by some countries, were unlikely to influence the mindset of the generals, he added.

It was of crucial importance that the current Assembly session state clearly its position on the National Convention, he emphasized.  It should also encourage the Secretary-General to take a leading role in formulating a framework for democratic transition that should be implemented before the country assumed the presidency of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2006.  The Assembly should also call on the Secretary-General to consult with members of the Security Council in order to advance national reconciliation and democratization.  Since China had expressed its support for a United Nations-facilitated national reconciliation process, such an approach might be acceptable to that country.  “This is the most critical period for the people of Burma and we look to the United Nations to help resolve the political crisis in Burma”, he added.

Asked whether the European Union’s demand for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi by 1 October, under the threat of sanctions, would be effective, he said there was no indication that she would be released.  He agreed fully that measures should be taken if that demand -– in addition to demands for participation by political parties in the National Convention and the announcement of an inclusive reconciliation process -– were not met.  Proposed measures included an expansion of the visa ban and economic measures against European companies that provided financing to military-owned firms, as well as a boycott of products from illegal logging.  However, such measures needed a clear and strong interpretation and must be enforced.

He stressed the need for targeted sanctions that would have an impact on the military but affect the people less.  They should be aimed at industries monopolized by the military, such as timber and mining.  Humanitarian assistance should be funnelled through the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, under independent monitoring.  In that connection, he drew attention to the humanitarian situation of internally displaced persons.

Frankly, the international community was not doing enough, he said in answer to another question.  Every year, consultations were held with key international players during the Assembly session.  Those consultations should be better prepared so that a clear action plan could be devised.  The ASEAN had enormous economic and political leverage, but its members talked mostly about quiet diplomacy.  The Association should have a clear position on the National Convention, and it was disappointing that some of its member countries saw the Convention as a positive process.

Asked to name something positive that the regime had done, he cited the establishment of a committee to end the recruitment of child soldiers.  However, such committees must be transparent.  The democratic movement had proposed cooperation in addressing the humanitarian situation as a confidence-building measure.

Responding to another correspondent’s question, he said a transparent national human rights commission would be a good venue for improvement.  However, independent individuals were not allowed to be part of the national human rights commission.  It was chaired by the Minister for Home Affairs, who was responsible for the imprisonment of many political activists, and was supervised by the military intelligence chief.  The latter was responsible for torture, he added.

* *** *