---

Burma

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate, as well as all noble Lords who have participated. We have had an important debate and I share the profound concern expressed over the appalling human rights situation in Burma and in particular the suffering of the political and ethnic groups, including the Karen, Karenni and Shan, who have challenged Burmese misrule. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, observed a few moments ago, all the arguments have been made with force and sincerity and I add my voice to those who say that we are describing a brutal and violent regime. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the events of the past few days as further demonstrations of that brutality, while the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, cited as evidence accounts of children being unwilling to brutalise older people. I, too, read about that. It may be only an example, but it is very moving. There is deep concern in both Houses on the situation in Burma, and the Burmese regime knows this. Our ambassador in Rangoon regularly sends to Burmese leaders a compendium of Parliamentary Questions and debates on Burma. On 26 October, she drew Parliament’s concerns to the attention of the Burmese Home Minister, and did the same with the Labour and Foreign Ministers on 31 October. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether we publish our position regularly enough. I can assure him that we try to put information into the public domain as quickly as possible. The print media have been a little more helpful than others but, as everyone knows, trying to get this information into other countries, including China, is very difficult. The BBC World Service, known for its impartiality and independence of reporting, is still blocked and cannot be broadcast in China. That is a matter I deeply regret. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned a joint EU/State Department paper on the matter. I shall give that suggestion, which has a good deal of appeal, very serious attention with my honourable friend Ian Pearson in another place to see whether there is a prospect of pursuing that. The SPDC has announced that the National Convention will reconvene on 5 December. As for other recent sessions, the National League for Democracy will not participate. In the circumstances, we fully respect that decision. If the convention is to be at all meaningful, it is essential that delegates should be able to discuss freely key issues such as the future role of the military and that the regime listens to and takes account of delegates’ concerns. It is difficult to see how the convention can be credible without a more transparent and inclusive process. On 6 November, the military regime suddenly and with minimal warning began to move its ministries to a small town 250 miles from Rangoon. This regime’s isolation from the real world and, indeed, its isolation from its hitherto capital city, show how little world opinion impacts on it. It is unpredictable—curiously, it seems to welcome disengagement and isolation—and it is difficult to make the clear and unequivocal impact on the ground that we all intend with the regime. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made a very important point when he said that the need for dialogue to provide some sort of window for the rest of the world into Burma is vital. Yet the regime seems to follow the Soviet experience in preference to others. I turn now to the central issue of concern to noble Lords, that of human rights. Human rights abuses continue in many forms although harassment is particularly targeted at politically active individuals such as members of the NLD, in the areas where conflict continues and where there are high concentrations of SPDC soldiers. We estimate that there has been a net reduction of about 250 in the number of political prisoners this year. That is welcome, although I do not take particular comfort from it. However, many of the people who have regained their freedom continue to work bravely for democracy inside Burma. They can only be applauded for their courage. But there are still around 1,100 political prisoners, including of course Aung San Suu Kyi, whose house arrest we understand has just been extended, a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. For the record, may I say that a statement on this has been issued today by Ian Pearson on behalf of the Presidency of the EU. I shall read part of it for the benefit of noble Lords:"““The UK as Presidency of the EU is deeply concerned about reports that the Burmese regime has extended the house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. We join with other members of the international community in calling on the Government of Burma/Myanmar to release her and all other political prisoners. This will help facilitate an open and genuine dialogue involving all ethnic, nationality and political groups in Burma in the interests of national reconciliation and the resolution of Burma’s longstanding political and humanitarian problems””." I know that many in the region share those thoughts. Apart from the travesty of the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, we know that certain Shan leaders received very severe prison sentences only a few days ago on 3 November. On 16 November, the European Union under the UK Presidency condemned those sentences unequivocally. There have been at least two instances in the past year where individuals detained by the authorities have died as a result of beatings received in custody. We are quite clear about that. Our ambassador raised these issues with the Foreign Minister of Burma on 31 October and called on the authorities to hold an inquiry. I turn to the role of the United Nations, which has rightly preoccupied noble Lords during the course of the debate. There is a lot of debate about the role of the UN Security Council, much of it following the publication of the report commissioned by Vaclav Havel and Desmond Tutu. I responded to a Question in the House to say that I have read that report. Our position on this is clear: we support the involvement of the UN in helping to address Burma’s problems. We also support US efforts to get the UN Security Council to address Burma. As I pointed out in my responses to the Question tabled on 27 October, there has been a division of labour in the UNSC as to what work should be done by which country on which problem in the world. On this issue, the United States is leading. We are supporting it with effort and energy and will continue to do so. We will work consistently with the Americans on how best to achieve the goal. We are wholly involved. It is true that it is extremely difficult to get Russia and China to respect what we believe are the fundamentals of the human rights agenda of the United Nations. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, observed in such simple terms, that we do not do it because we risk defeat. Certainly a defeat through a likely veto from China would assist the Burmese regime in a way unlikely to help its opponents—that is a political fact—but that is no reason for not doing it and sending out a signal of what we think. In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, we and the United States are working hard, the United States commendably so, to secure the majority needed to get Burma on to the agenda in the first place, whether or not it is vetoed. The United States believes that serious progress is being made. When the rotating members change on 1 January 2006 we believe that we may still be close to that point. We must try to reach that point and continue to work towards it. If Burma does get onto the UN Security Council agenda, it will certainly include a discussion about the human rights situation. It may also include a discussion about what other measures might be taken against Burma, such as arms and investment embargoes. But I have to say to noble Lords that UN Security Council members plainly do not have consensus on this for all sorts of reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, rightly reminded us of many of them. The chances of securing a UN embargo are small. That is the reality of the situation. Noble Lords will be aware that Burma is regularly discussed in the United Nations. This year’s UN General Assembly Human Rights Resolution on Burma was adopted on 18 November despite attempts to block it with a no action motion. As the holder of the EU Presidency, the UK led the drafting of the resolution, which condemns the many human rights abuses in the country, particularly against ethnic groups. Our success in getting that resolution through has been praised. It covers all the issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We welcome the personal involvement of the UN General Secretary. In April, Kofi Annan met Senior General Than Shwe in Jakarta, and he underscored the need to make the National Convention process inclusive and credible. We also support the efforts of Ali Alatas, who visited Burma on behalf of the UN Secretary General earlier this year. I have commented on the difficulties and I hope that noble Lords will see that we are lobbying on this issue with some energy. I have also made clear the problems particularly related to China. Perhaps I may touch on certain points that were raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Clarke, along with others, asked about the position with regard to crimes against humanity and the definition of genocide. So far the UN Special Rapporteur has not used these terms to describe the atrocities that plainly have been carried out in Burma. The nature of the crimes would need to be tested in a fair and impartial trial, and obviously it would be desirable if the UN’s own internal system of reporting led to the conclusion that that is the path we should take. I do not think that this Government have a closed mind on the outcome. We look forward to seeing the reports and we will respond to them. It is better that the international community helps to take that step in order to arrive at a conclusion. On the allegations raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on the use of chemical weapons, we treat them with the utmost concern. Experts in the UK have examined all the available information on the alleged attack and we have discussed it with our international partners. Their view is that at the moment the evidence of what chemicals were deployed and so forth is not adequate. We are not in a position to make a definitive statement on the matter. We are considering any further evidence we can gather, such as soil samples. If we are going to make an announcement on this we had better be right, rather than find that what we say can be readily dismissed by the military thugs who run Burma. I turn to the issue of internal refugees and the international monitoring of Karen returnees. We are deeply concerned about this. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the success of New Zealand here, while also raising the profound problems faced by those who are in hiding and what they face. We are working with many others in this area, specifically with the Thais. We are encouraging them to continue to provide safe sanctuary while it is not in any sense safe for these people to return. We are also providing reasonably significant levels of aid to those in the cross-border areas because that aid is needed for education and for health provision. DfID has an active programme in place but it is not always easy to get in to those areas. Furthermore, our own embassy’s small grant scheme is also providing support for community groups and others. We will continue with that work. On the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords regarding UN Security Council sanctions and the possibility of an arms embargo, the UK supports the EU arms embargo against Burma. We do not have the support of the full membership of the UN Security Council to extend these measures globally, but there is a continuing discussion and briefing within the council on the situation, and through that we hope to be able to bring about some change. We will continue to work towards achieving that. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others also referred to the International Labour Organisation. That is an extremely important issue. The ILO is now discussing moves to strengthen measures against Burma at the 2006 meeting. The ILO governing body has also urged the Government of Burma to use the intervening period to conduct a meaningful dialogue of the sort the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said we ““could not turn our back on””—and so the ILO believes as well—to ensure that the issue of forced labour is addressed. As I said earlier, representatives from our embassy in Rangoon called on the Burmese Labour and Foreign Ministers on 31 October on behalf of the EU to express our deep concerns on this. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. There are reports that Burma is going to withdraw from the ILO. We are concerned about that and we are trying through the ambassador in Rangoon to clarify it. There has as yet been no response to our request for information from the regime. British policy on Burma continues to be at one with our EU partners, combining targeted sanctions, assistance—we are not trying to hurt those who are most impoverished and in greatest difficulty—and the attempt to have a dialogue on human rights and democratisation. The policy is not just about sanctions against the regime, it is also about trying to assist people. Within the EU and bilaterally the UK provides for the delivery of assistance, as I said. We expect to spend at least £7 million a year over the next three years primarily focused on health, education and rural livelihoods, and to support those peoples in the transition to a democratic society. Our priorities in Burma are to support them in many of the challenges they face including the challenge of HIV/AIDS. There is a huge epidemic with 620,000 people thought to be infected.