[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
BURMA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT #5c (Part
Subject: BURMA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT #5c (Part 2 of 2).
/* posted 18 Jan 6:00am 1995 by DRUNOO@xxxxxxxxxxxx on igc:soc.culture.burma */
/* -------------------" HRSUB: ICJ AND OBLF "---------------------- */
[Subject: To inquire into and report on the human rights situation
and lack of progress towards democracy in Myanmar(Burma) by the
Human Rights Sub-Committee of the parliament of Australia.
Submissions made to this enquiry by various people and
organisations are re-posted here.-- U Ne Oo]
# SUBMISSION NO. 5c.
HUMAN RIGHTS SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
DEFENCE AND TRADE
JOINT SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS AND
THE OVERSEAS BURMA LIBERATION FRONT
Part 2 of 2.
************
THE CONSEQUENCES OF INTERNATIONAL INACTION AND CONTINUED
RECOGNITION OF THE MILITARY REGIME IN BURMA
--------------------------------------------------------
On 16 May 1991 the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Senator Gareth Evans, stated to the Australian Parliament:
"Indeed, it is now increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion
that, as much as we hoped and believed otherwise at the time, [the
election in Burma] was a fraud to flush out democratic leaders and
make it easire to move against the dissident groups using
increasingly intimidatory methods."
Senator Evans reiterated his belief that Australia "should do what we can
to focus the world's attention on the situation in Burma."
It its "Reviews of Australia's Effort to Promote and Protect Human Rights"
in December 1992, the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade identified various courses of action for
Australia aimed at promoting and protectiong human rights in Burma
including:
1. Sponsoring a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly to
declare Burma's seat vacant;
2. Calling for Burma's Least Developed Country (LDC) status to be
withdrawn;
3. Calling for the United Nations General Assembly to instruct the
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and all allied UN agencies to
cease all operations in Burma;
4. Calling for a UNited Nations trade and arms embargo against Burma;
5. Closing Austrade office in Rangoon.
Unfortunately, none of the recommended actions identified by the Human
Rights Sub-Committee have been implemented by Australia. Partly, the reason
for the government's reluctance to pursue those recommended avenues was the
difficulty in mobilising international support.
The Australian Government's current policy towards Burma is based upon:
1. No resumption of bilateral development assistance without substantial
progress in the political and human rights field;
2. A ban on defence exports;
3. A suspension of Austrade visits to Rangoon although a locally staffed
Austrade office in Rangoon would be maintained with guidelines to
"neither encourage nor discourage" trade;
4. The provision of humanitarian assistance to Burmese refugees in
Bangladesh and Thailand "as needs dictate";
5. Endeavouring to restrict the assistance programs of UN organisations
to "grass roots activities";
6. Support for UN consensus resolutions calling for political and human
rights reform;
7. Urging influential and mainly regional countries to assert their
influence with SLORC to promote a policy change.
The Australian Government has announced several benchmarks in its policy
which, in addition to the unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,
include:
(a) the commencement of a serious dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi;
(b) access to political prisoners by international human rights groups;
(c) progress in the proposed dialogue between SLORC and the UN;
(d) a clear timetable for the constitutional process;
(e) the provision of legal guarantees for the rights of ethnic
minorities;
(f) the cessation of forced labour and forced porterage;
(g) the repeal of censorship and state protection laws;
(h) a review in reduction of sentences imposed for political activity.
The Australian Government's benchmark policy on Burma does not address the
more fundamental issue of denying SLORC the legitimacy which it purports to
enjoy by reason of its recognition by the international community and its
participation in the United Nations General Assembly as a member state.
Declaration 1/90 clearly reveals that SLORC derives a significant amount of
its "legitimacy" from its recognition by the international community.
Furthermore, the Australian Government's benchmark policy merely
perpetuates SLORC's misleading and deceptive promouncements concerning
constitutional reform and attempts to institute multi-party democracy in
Burma. SLORC's purported desire to institute a genuine multi-party
democratic system in Burma cannot reconciled with its objective to involve
the military in all aspects of national political leadership and reserving
to the military full autonomy and full state powers in the case of
emergencies.
SLORC continually relies upon the National Conventions as being part of a
program towards the establishment of a constitutional multi-party democracy
in Burma in accordnace with Declaration 1/90. The representation of the
membership of the Convention and of its committees illustrates the lack of
genuineness of SLORC's public pronouncements in support of constitutional
and democratic reform.
For these reasons, the benchmarks proposed by Senator Evans are
unrealistic.
SLORC's attempt to rely upon the sham of the National Convention to satisfy
international concerns at the alck of progress towards democracy are
evident from a publication on 30 December 1992 in the state owned newspaper
"The Working People's Daily". The article was in response to a draft
resolution introduced in the UN Third Committee deliberations on human
rights questions on 3 December 1992. The article stated:
"One thing that surprised (and saddened) me was the total neglect
to mention the National Convention soon to be convened. Every
structure of society will be represented at the Convention, elected
represented of the 1990 elections, representatives of all the
national race of our country, representatives of the political
parties under the very strata of our society - which will unite the
diverse desires of these peoples under one mandate that will be the
backbone of the constitution to be drafted by the elected
representatives. Everyone is looking forward to the convening of
this very significant convention and as it is the only way towards
establishing a constitutional democracy in our country. If the
biased and unsubstantiated views of a country's outlaws are to be
give more consideration than those of its government, then what
hope is left for the future of our people ?"
The resolution was adopted on 4 December 1992. In response Burma's
permanent representative to the United Nations said that "the caravan of
Myanmar's political process will role on along its set course and at its
set pace until it reaches its goal. [The resolution] will in no way
influence the measures which my government is committed to implementing
with a view to establishing a strong and enduring constitutional democracy
in Myanmar".
That statement accords with several other published statements over many
years by SLORC's members. For instance, on 23 September 1988 General Saw
Maung announced in a speech that "all the armed forces personnel, my
colleagues and I would like to solemnly promise not to hold onto power for
a long time. We will not break this promise for any person. Moreover, we
additionally promise that the armed forces, after transferring power to
the democratically elected government which will emergence from a free and
fair election, shall only perform its principal tasks of defence, security
of the state and maintaining law and order ...."
On 7 October 1988, U Maung Maung Gyi, SLORC's permanent representative to
the United Nations, addressed the 43rd Regular Session of the General
Assembly and said:
"No outside power can prescribe for Burma what her future political
destiny should be, for it is the right of the peoples to determine
their own future. In order that the Burmese people would be able to
exercise the rights, the state authorities have announced and are
making arrangements for holding general elections that would be
free and fair and which all political parties can participate so
that a multi-party democracy system which the people have been
aspiring may be successfully established."
In October 1990, Burma's Foreign Minister stated that "SLORC will continue
to exercise martial law, until such time that a firm constitutionally
established government is accepted. In the exercise of judicial
responsibility, martial law is being applied in serious cases which warrant
such actions."
After the general elections in May 1990, SLORC abandoned all previous
promises and issued Declaration 1/90. SLORC's violations of human rights
and disregard of the rule of law has continued unabated. SLORC's refusal to
relinquish power and recognise the results of the general election are in
no way excused by its convening of the National Conventions or by the
holding or recent meetings with Aung San Suu Kyi.
The recent increased military activity and continued hard line policies
cannot in any way suggest that SLORC is genuine in its desire for
multi-party democratic reform, the assimilation of ethnic minorities into a
federated union or the removal of the military from the political
leadership. The fall of Manerplaw in late January 1995 will only encourage
SLORC to maintain its present policy of pursuing military solutions in an
atempt to destroy its political opponents.
It is therefore encouraging that Senator Evans announced on 21 February
1995 that he has received regional backing for Burma to be discussed in
detail at the first ASEAN Security Meeting in July. Senator Evans has
stated that Australia and regional nations should be prepared to reconsider
their current position since the regime's apparent desire for peaceful
reconciliation has been reversed by the fighting and stalled talks with
Aung San Suu Kyi.
Australia must remember that SLORC has no intention of relinquishing power
either now or in the near future. SLORC's blatant disregard for the human
rights of its people has continued unabated; it has increased its military
activities against the ethnic minorities and political opposition groups in
the Thai-Burmese boarder areas; it has ocntinually broken its public
promises to institute multi-party democracy in Burma and created a pretence
at constitutional reform by the establishment of the Constitutional
Convention. SLORC's framework for reform merely reinforces and perpetuates
the role of the military in all burmese political matters. It is worth
remembering the words of Lieutenant-General Aung Ye Kway who announced in
September 1991 on state Burmese radio:
"We cannot say for how long we will be in charge of the State
Administration. It might be fove years or ten ..."
Sd. MALCOLM R. GRACIE Sd. PHILIP E. SMYTH
Convenor, Burma Sub-Committee Secretary
International Commission of Jurists Overseas Burma Liberation
Front
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCUMENT ATTACHED -A
--------------------
Full text of State Law and Order Restoration Council Declaration No. 1/90
is as follows:-
THE STATE LAW AND ORDER RESTORATION
COUNCIL DECLARATION
(DECLARATION NO. 1/90)
The Sixth Waxing Daw of Wagaung, 1352 ME
(27the July, 1990)
1. Myanmar Naing-Ngan became an independent and sovereign nation on
4th January, 1948.
2. The situation in the whole of the country deteriorated because of
the disturbances during 1988. The Tatmadaw took over State Power in order
to control the deteriorating situation in time and in the interests of the
people. The Tatmadaw abolished all the Organs of State Power including the
Pyithu Hluttaw, formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council,
declared that it would carry out the four main tasks and undertook the
responsibility of all the affairs of the State.
3. The State Law and Order Restoration Council issued laws,
notifications, declarations and orders which have the force of law,
required for effectively ensuring prevalance of law and order, the rule of
law and peace and tranquility throughout the country.
4. In order to cease the food, clothing and shelter problems of the
people and to enable private, co-operative and joint venture businesses to
be undertaken, the State Law and Order Restoration Council has repealed
the restrictive laws and has issued necessary laws, orders, directives and
orders which have the force of law. Moreover, it is carrying out measures
which should be undertaken with a view to serving the long-term interests
of the State.
5. The State Law and Order Restoration Council is carrying out
measures which should be undertaken in order to ensure safe and smooth
transportation and communications and to improve the same.
6. The State Law and Order Restoration Council (Tatmadaw) is not an
organization that observes any constitution; it is an organization that is
governing the nation by Martial Law. It is common knowledge that the State
Law and Order Restoration Council is governing the nation as a military
government and that it is a government that has been accepted as such by
the United Nations and the respective nations of the world.
7. As regards international relations, the State Law and Order
Restoration Council has declared that it will pursue an independent and
active foreign policy and has friendly relations with the respective
nations of the world. With a view to promoting better diplomatic relations
with the respective nations the Government has not closed down any embassy
in Myanmar Naing-Ngan but has allowed them to continue to operate; neither
has it withdrawn Myanmar embassies from foreign countries, but has
continued to keep them open and maintains normal relations with the
respective nations. Furthermore, the Government has even opened an embassy
in a country in which there was no Myanmar embassy previously.
8. Myanmar Naing-Ngan being a member of the United Nations, the
Myanmar Embassy to the United Nations strictly pursues the foreign policy
of Myanmar Naing-Ngan in international matters and in performing its duties
concerning the United Nations. Myanmar Naing-Ngan abide by the principles
of peaceful co-existence in its relations with other nations. MOreover,
Myanmar Naing-Ngan defends and safeguards its independence and deals with
other nations' interference in its internal affairs in accordance with the
provisions of the United Nations Charter.
9. In order to avoid disruption and severance of relations between
Myanmar Naing-Ngan and other nations, the Government magnanimously has time
and again told some diplomats who have violated their diplomatic code of
conduct not to interfere in its internal affairs without meitioning their
names and the nations to which they belong. Furthermore, it has informed
the matters to the embassies concerned through diplomatic channels. As it
has been able to avoid matters that may cause disruption of relations
between nations and governments by doing so, there has not arisen any
problem. Misunderstandings due to the activities of some diplomats have
been cleard with magnanimity, through diplomatic channels.
10. The State Law and Order Restoration Council (Tatmadaw) has been
persistently carrying out the three main tasks - that of preventing
disintegration of the Union, preventing disintegration of national
solidarity and that of ensuring perpetuity of the sovereignty of the State
from the time it has assumed the duties and responsibilities of the State.
Everybody is aware that on the other hand it has launched major offensives
and crushed all sorts of armed insurgents, sacrificing the lives, blood
and sweat of many members of the Tatmadaw. Since the Tatmadaw is not a
political organization, it did not hold negotiations with the insurgents by
political means. However, it welcomes all those who have renounced the
programme of armed struggle and returned to the legal fold and a body
formed by it is carrying out resettlemet work for them. Since the State Law
and Order Restoration Councial is not a political government, it has no
reason at all to negotiate by political means with any armed insurgent
organization.
11. In order to enable the Multi-Party Democracy General Election to be
held, the State Law and Order Restoration Council enacted the Multi-Party
Democracy General Election Commission Law and formed the Multi-Party
Democracy General Election Commission. It also It also enacted the
Political Parties Registration Law to enable political parties wishing to
stand for the election to get themselves registered. Moreover, in order to
hold a free and fair multi-party democracy general election, it enacted the
Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law.
12. Section 3 of the Pyithu Hluttaw Election Law provides that "The
Hluttaw shall be constituted with the representatives elected from the
constituencies in accordance with this law." The State Law and Order
Restoration Council will take measures for summoning the Hluttaw in
accordance with this provision. The Information Committee has, from time to
time explained that the Multi-Party Democracy General Election Commission,
the parties which won seats in the election and the elected representatives
should carry out measures which should be carried out in accordance with
the law and rules.
13. Today, after the Multi-Party Democracy General Election has been
held, matters relating to summoning the Hluttaw and transfer of power are
being discussed in bulletins and panphlets published; buidelines in respect
thereof are being given and incitements and instigations are being
undertaken by foreign broadcaasting stations and illegal pamphlets and
leaflets are being distributed.
14. The matter of summoning the Hluttaw has been explained earlier. The
Chairman of the State Law and Order Restoration Council has explained
matters relating to transfer of power in the addresses he has made from
time to time in his meeting with the Command Commanders, Commanders of
Light Infantry Divisions and Chairmen of State/Division Law and Order
Restoration Councils. The Secretary-1 of the State Law and Order
Restoration Council explicitly dealt with this matter at the 100th Press
Conference held on 13th July, 1990.
15. There will be no necessity to clarify the fact that a political
party cannot automatically get the three aspects of the State Power - the
legislative power, the executive power and the judicial power - just
because a Pyithu Hluttaw has come into being and that they can only be
obtained on the basis of a constitution. The Constitution of 1947 was
accepted and approved by the Constituent Assembly on 24th September, 1947.
However, it can clearly be seen from the legal aspect that that
constitution came into force only on 4th January 1948 when Myanmar
Naing-Ngan was declared an independent and sovereign State. There are two
types of constitutions for a nation - one drawn up before the nation
becomes independent and the other drawn up after the nation has become
independent. The tradition followed by the respective nations which have
attained independence is that they hold constituent assemblies and draw up
the constitutions only after they have acquired sovereign power. However,
in Myanmar Naing-Ngan independence was declared only after the Constituent
Assembly had drawn up the constitution. It is clear that this was due to
the fact that the leaders of the nation in those days wanted to obtain
independence from the British by peaceful means as early as possible.
16. The Constitution of 1974 was drawn up after the nation's
independence had been gained and no one can deny the fact that it was a
constitution promulgated through a national referendum.
17. It is necessary to note particularly the difference in that the
Constitution of 1947 was drawn up before the independence of the nation was
attained and that the Constitution of 1974 was drawn up after the
independence of the nation had been attained.
18. It can be seen from the statements issued that the desire of the
majority of the political parties which contested in the Multi-Party
Democracy General Election is to draw up a new constitution. It will be
seen that when the Constitution of 1947 was drawn up, matters concerning
the national races were discussed only with the Shan, Kachin and Chin
nationals at the Panglong Conference and that they were not discussed with
the Mon and Rakhine nationals. Today, in Myanmar Naing-Ngan there are many
national races who have awakened politically and it is obvious that it is
especially necessary to draw up a firm constitution after soliciting their
wishes and views.
19. As the State Law and Order Restoration Council is a military
government, it exerciese Martial Law. As such it exercises the following
three aspects of State Power in governing Myanmar Naing-Ngan:
(a) Legislative power: Only the State Law and Order Restoration Council
has the right to exercise it.
(b) Executive power: The State Law and Order Restoration Council has
the right to exercise it. Howevver, it has delegated this power to
the Government, State/Division, Township Zone, Township and
Ward/Village-tract Law and Order Restoration Councils at different
levels and has caused administrative work to be carried out through
collective leadership. This is a form of giving training to the
service personnel so that they will be able to perform, by keeping
themselves free from party politics their departmental work under
the government that will come into being according to the
constitution.
(c) Judicial power: The State Law and Order Restoration Council has the
right to exercise it. However, the Government has formed courts at
different levels to adjudicate on ordinary criminal and civil cases
so that they will have practical training when a constitution comes
into being.
20. Consequently under the present circumstances, the representatives
elected by the people are those who have the responsibility to draw up the
constitution of the future democratic State.
21. It is hereby declared that the State Law and Order Restoration
Council will in no way accepting the drawing up of a temporary constitution
for forming a government to take over State Power and that it will take
effective action if it is done so, and that in the interim period before a
government is formed in accordance with a new firm constitution drawn up
according to the desires and aspirations of the people, the State Law and
Order Restoration Council (Tatmadaw) will defend and safeguard -
(a) the three main causes -- such as the non-disintegration of the
Union, non-disintegration of national solidarity and ensuring
perpetuity of the sovereignty;
(b) of the four main tasks mentioned in the State Law and Order
Restoration Council Declaration No 1/88 such as the prevalence of
law and order, the rule of law, regional peace and tranquility,
ensuring safe and smooth transportation and communication, easing
the food, clothing and shelter problems of the people and holding
Multi-Party Democracy General Election, the first three main tasks
(with the exception of the task of holding the multi-party
democracy general election) and
(c) the task of bringing about the development of all the national
races of Myanmar Naing-Ngan.
By order,
Sd. Khin Nyunt
Secretary-1
The State Law and Order Restoration Council
/* ENDPART 2 */