---

Burma

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is almost as energetic in his travels around the world in the cause of human rights as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Once again he does us an important service in raising the question of Burma and particularly the gross human rights violations committed by the SPDC against ethnic minorities. This debate has allowed us a little more time than we normally get on the Floor of the House to discuss these matters. At the conference of Non-Aligned Countries last week, the Myanmar Minister of Information, Brigadier General Kyaw San, complained about unfair reports and fabricated news created by some western countries. I ask the Minister what the UK and the European Union are doing to ensure the wide dissemination of the many reports about the human rights situation that have been drawn to our attention this afternoon, if possible inside Burma itself but at least among Burma’s ASEAN neighbours, the Non-Aligned Movement and, most important of all, in China. The EU-ASEAN ministerial meeting in Jakarta last March expressed hope that the national convention would lead to concrete results but underlined the need for the constructive involvement of all political and ethnic groups; called upon Myanmar to grant access to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General; and asked Myanmar to continue effective co-operation with all UN agencies—a polite way of saying that there was a palpable and deplorable history of non-co-operation. Since the EU-ASEAN Ministers are not scheduled to meet again until March 2007 but had agreed to continue dialogue on this issue, perhaps I may suggest that the European Union prepare a paper detailing its concerns and circulate it together with any response from the SPDC to ASEAN governments and to China for information at the halfway mark in March 2006. That should be a public document. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, mentioned the EU’s common position on Burma, which was last updated in April and which he said needs to be strengthened. However, I think it also needs to be made more specific about what we are calling on Myanmar to do. It refers to the thousands of ethnic minority citizens driven across the border into Thailand and Bangladesh, many of them by recent military action. It also mentions the official designation of the Rohingya—who are mentioned as an important ethnic minority—returnees as ““non-citizens”” and the restrictions on their movements. It says that there are extrajudicial executions, forced relocations and forced labour on a massive scale, and it refers to the ILO’s implementation of measures against Myanmar under Article 33 of the ILO constitution—the first time that this measure has been invoked against a member state—and the failure to implement the plan of action agreed between the ILO and the government in May 2003. The EU analysis for which I am calling for next March should be detailed on the lines of the report on Burma in the US State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The information-gathering by the EU could be co-ordinated with the State Department, as we already do informally, for example, with the Home Office’s Country of Origin Information Service reports. They quote the State Department extensively although there is no COIS report on Myanmar because almost all their refugees remain in the region. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already mentioned some of the sources on which the EU can rely, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Chan, have added some more. The ILO would obviously be a source since its Application of Standards Committee had urged member states to review their direct foreign investment policies and report back to the governing body, which met earlier this month. It also considered the death threats against the ILO liaison officer and his predecessor, and the mass rallies and media campaign against the ILO which had seriously undermined the liaison officer’s ability to perform his functions. The ILO asked the government of Myanmar to resume effective co-operation, and called on the regime to stop prosecuting those who were seeking redress on behalf of the victims of forced labour. It would be useful to know whether there has been any response from the SPDC, when the Minister replies. In addition, there are the reports from the Secretary General’s Special Rapporteur on Myanmar. Although he has not been allowed to enter the country since November 2003, Mr Pinheiro reports to the UN General Assembly, based on ““a variety of independent and reliable sources””. He singles out grave abuses against the ethnic communities for special mention. From the end of 2002 to October 2004, 157,000 people had been displaced by armed conflict, 240 villages destroyed or relocated, and between 700,000 and 1 million people have fled into Thailand and other nearby countries, reinforcing the figures already given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. But, he added that sanctions were not the answer. Withdrawal of the Global Fund on AIDS, TB and malaria has hit the poor, but had no effect on the Government. He suggested instead that the international community should seek to establish a dialogue with the regime, though it is difficult to see how that could be achieved if the SPDC will not allow Mr Pinheiro into the country. Mr Pinheiro suggested that states should be held accountable, presumably to the United Nations, and to the Security Council in particular, as the Motion suggests. The Secretary General, although noting in his latest report that 10 years have elapsed since he was first tasked by the General Assembly to use his good offices to facilitate democracy and reconciliation in Myanmar, and that the situation has actually worsened since General Khin Nyunt was ousted a year ago, merely addresses recommendations to the junta, which are certain to be ignored. When the national convention reconvenes next month, it will not contain representatives of the NLD or the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy. Restrictions on the freedom of movement of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders will not be lifted, and in fact the house arrests on her have just been renewed for another year. Party offices will not be allowed to reopen, nor will dissidents arrested, since the partial release of 249 prisoners in early July, be released. Mr Annan warned that other aid groups would follow the Global Fund in withdrawing from Myanmar in the absence of moves towards reform, but he held out the carrot of substantial aid in support of reconciliation and democracy if there are positive signs of change by the regime. How long has to elapse before conditions justifying the intervention of the Security Council lead to action under Chapter VII? In the impressive report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, Threat to the Peace, the authors examine six factors, some of which were present in each of the seven Chapter VII initiatives since 19990, but all of which are present in Myanmar. They could have added Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, Somalia, Burundi and DRC, reinforcing still further the precedents for acting on Burma. The arguments for doing nothing were summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, in the exchanges we had on 27 October, and we can all guess where the blockage comes from. China is a substantial investor in Myanmar’s natural resources, and enjoys a virtual monopoly which could be challenged if the US and European companies entered the market. No doubt the army, which controls all inward investment, makes deals with the Chinese—Myanmar is one from the bottom in Transparency International’s corruption index—and this is no doubt why the people are among the poorest in the world. The generals would be reluctant to give up power, and the Chinese would oppose moves under Chapter VII that might threaten the scam. The UK’s general policy, as I understand it, is not to support resolutions unless they are sure that they are not going to be vetoed, and that they will get the nine votes needed for approval. But there have been exceptions, notably when the US, the UK and Spain tried to get a second resolution on Iraq in March 2003. Nobody pleaded then, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, did last week, that there was not a majority in the Security Council, or that the neighbours would not like it. So I suggest that the UK and any other member states of the Security Council who will join us, should issue a statement saying that they are minded to table a resolution to smoke out the objectors and launch a campaign to persuade them that Myanmar is, indeed, a threat to the peace. In the view of the UK, as set out by the Foreign Secretary in his confidential memorandum of 8 March 2002 to the Prime Minister on the legality of action against Iraq, the use of force may be justified if the action is taken to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. It was under this rubric that force was used, and rightly so in my opinion, against the Serb oppressors in Kosovo. As the Foreign Secretary emphasised, the catastrophe has to be clear and well documented, there must be no other means short of the use of force which could prevent it, and the measures must be proportionate. The massive displacements, destruction of homes and livelihoods, mass rapes and killings in Myanmar undoubtedly satisfy the test, and we have a moral responsibility, at least, to make out the case and lay it before the Security Council.