[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
BURMA: HR SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT OCT
Subject: BURMA: HR SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT OCT 1995 # 1. (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 07:58:49 +1030
To: uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: BURMA: HR SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT OCT 1995 # 1.
/* posted Tue 20 Feb 6:00am 1995 by DRUNOO@xxxxxxxxxxxx(DR U NE OO)
in igc:soc.culture.burma */
/* -----------" BURMA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT, OCT 95 (1.1-1.15) "---------- */
Following materials are reproduction from the findings of Human Rights
Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence
and Trade of the Parliament of Australia, published in October 1995.
Anyone wishing to inquire about the book may contact Ms Margaret
Swieringa, Secretary, Human Rights Sub-Committee, Parliament House,
Canberra A.C.T. 2600, AUSTRALIA.
Best regards, U Ne Oo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER ONE: (1.1 - 1.15)
*************************
The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
A REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LACK OF PROGRESS TOWARDS DEMOCRACY
IN BURMA (MYANMAR) October 1995
CHAPTER TWO: INTRODUCTION (1.1-1.15)
------------------------------------
Background to the Inquiry
1.1 Burma is a large, strategically placed country between South Asia and
South east Asia. It has borders with India, China, Bangladesh, Thailand and
Laos. All othe these countries have a vital interest in what happens in
Burma. For Thailand Burma is a source of resources in timber and natural
gas. It offers a trade route to China from the hinterland into South East
Asia, the Bay of Bengal and ultimately the Indian Ocean. It is itself a
large potential market and rich in natural resources - in gems, timber and
natural gas. Today its estimated population is around 43 million and
growing at an estimated rate of 2.2 per cent per year, although no accurate
census figures are available. It is an ehtnically mixed population: the
dominant Burma group comprises 60-70 per cent of the population; other
major communities include the Shan approximately eight per cent, the Karen
about ten per cent, the Chin over two per cent, the Arakanese over three
per cent. It is claimed there are over 100 indigenous languages. The major
religion is Theravada Buddhism although Christinity and Islam are adhered
to by significant groups of people.
1.2 Like many former colonial states, Burma is an artificial consturction
encompassing very different groups of people whose hostilities have deep
historical roots, often exacerbated by their colonial experience. The
challenge for Burma, as for many of the mordern post colonial states, is to
find a means of including all thier people in the polity in ways that
recognise their aspirations for cultural expression and give them
confidence that they will be treated justly and equally.
1.3 Quite late in the nineteenth century, in 1886, Burma became part of the
British Empire when the British, after a series of wars, finally defeated
the Burman Empire. British control was wrested from them by the Japanese
who promised independence to Burma and consequently gained local support to
drive out the British. Formal independence under Japanese protection was
given to Burma by the Japanese in August 1943 but Japanese 'protection'
proved onerous and unacceptable to the Burmese who rejoined the allies in
March 1945. Burma was finally decolonised in January 1948. The early
attempt at a federal and democratic constitution with significant support
from the ethnic minorities was thwarted by the military coup in 1962.
1.4 When Australians think of Burma their first thought is likely to be of
the Burma railway where Australian prisoners of war, caught by the Japanese
advance through South East Asia, were made to work in horrific conditions
in Thailand and Burma, or of Burmese students brought to Australia to study
under the Colombo Plan. However, in the 1950s, there was a sizeable program
of officer training offered by the Australian army to the newly independent
Burma. Because of the isolationist policies of the Ne Win Government, the
gradual cooling of Australia's political interests and the lack of
commercial involvement, contacts declined after the coup of 1962.
1.5 Isolationism meant that news of the crackdown on the democracy movement
in 1988 filtered out to the world very slowly and much less dramatically
than had been the case of the massacre in Tienanmen Square in 1989, even
though many more people appear to have died in Burma. At the time, the
reaction in the Australian Parliament was muted. There were two questions
on Burma in the Senate in 1988, one drawing attention to disturbances in
Rangoon and the other asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs about the
likelihood that elections would be held as promised [1]. Despite the quiet
response, aid was suspended, although residual projects were to be
completed.
1.6 In 1989, as more information of what had happened reached Australia,
especially with the escape of students and political activists to to the
borders, and particularly because of the personal interest of Senator
Schacht who had visited Burma in February 1989, the Parliament began to
take a more active interest. Questions were asked, particularly in the
Senate, about the number of students being arrested, the prospect for free
elections given the apparent arrest and persecution of members of the
democratic parties and the nature of Australia's dealings with the
Government of Burma, especially in the sphere of aid, defence exports and
investment. There were also petitions and motions in the Senate calling for
the release of all political prisoners.
1.7 From 1990 onwards the concern became wide, encompassing all political
parties and resulting in unanimous votes in the chambers when motions were
put forward on Burma. The questions, motions, petitions became more
specific, demanding the release of political prisoners, particularly Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi, the handover of power to the National League for
Democracy (NLD), the end to the gross violations of human rights and the
cessation of Australian aid and trade until this was achieved.
1.8 The dozens of petitions, questions and motions of the Senate and the
House of Representatives increasingly reflected the frustrations many
Australians felt at the refusal of the State Law and Order Restoration
Council (SLORC) to recognize the outcome of the 1990 election which they
had lost so decisively. It offended every notion of fair play which
Australians value. What was worse, however, was the brutality of the regime
in dealing with its opponents and the arrogance and equivocation with which
it responded to legitimate questions about its actions.
1.9 On 23 November 1993, the Senate passed the following motion moved by
Senator Chamarette:
That the Senate -
(a) notes, with concern:
(i) the lack of progress towards democracy and the human rights
situation in Burma;
(ii) the failure of the State Law and Order Restoration Council
(SLORC) to respect the wishes of the people of Burma as expressed
in the election held in 1990; and
(iii) indications that the SLORC is seeking to push through the
National Convention constitutional proposals, which would entrench
the military's role in politics, despite clear opposition to these
proposals from delegates representing major opposition parties; and
(b) encourage the Government:
(i) to continue to urge all parties to the conflict in Burma to
resolve their difference through negotiations;
(ii) to continue its endeavours, in concert with other concerned
countries at the United Nations and elsewhere, to promote a
resolution of the political and military conflict in Burma; and
(iii) to work to ensure that international attention remains
focused on the situation in Burma.
1.10 The President of the Senate, Senator the Hon Michael Beahan, duly sent
a copy of the resolution to the Ambassador for Myanmar(Burma), U Saw Tun.
On 24 February 1994, the Ambassador replied to the President of the Senate
in the following terms:
Dear Mr President
I wish to refer to your letter dated 24 November 1993 by which you
have transmitted to me the text of the resolution adopted by the
Senate of teh Commonwealth of Australia on 23 November 1993
concerning the developments taking place in the Union of Myanmar.
In this connection I am constrained to express my deep regret that
the contents of the above-mentioned resolution to the Senate do not
reflect the true situation prevailing in my country. Consequently,
in reference to the said resolution I would like to brief you and
the distinguished Australian Senators as follows on the relevant
developments taking place in Myanmar.
Firstly, it was alleged in the resolution in question that there
was a lack of progress towards democracy and in the field of human
rights in Myanmar. This allegation clearly cannot hold water at all
since it can be easily seen from what have been taking place over
the last few years in Myanmar that considerable progress has been
achieved in various areas, including democracy and human rights. To
cite a few examples in this regard, the State Law and Order
Restoration Council (SLORC) Government which has temporarily taken
over the responsibilities of State in order that a repeat of the
chaos of the 1988 disturbances will not occur, has successfully
held a free and fair election in 1990. It is currently overseeing
the holding of a National Convention attended by the delegates of
all strata of society, including the representatives elected in the
1990 general election and which will draw up a constitution for
future multi-party democracy as well as a market oriented economy
in Myanmar, the SLORC Government has been conduction talks with
under ground armed groups to secure peace, it is also planning and
implementing projects for achievement of progress of national races
and border areas, it is combating the menace of narcotic druges on
national, sub-regional and international levels. Moreover, it
should be mentioned here that hundreds of persons who no longer
pose a threat to the security of the State have also been released.
Incidentally, the government has been compelled to take legal
action against some persons, including a few delegates to the
National Convention, not because of their political beliefs byt
because of their actions which, if left unchecked, would derail the
constitutional process. Furthermore, the Government has agreed to
and received the visits of responsible high-ranking UN human rights
officials to my country.
As to the general election held in 1990, I would like to inform you
that the authorities of the Union of Myanmar have stated time and
time again that the objective of the election was the drafting of a
new Constitution based on the broad principle of national consensus
and not for the formation of a government by the elected
representatives. Thus the question of the SLORC government not
respecting the wishes of the people of Myanmar, as mentioned in the
resolution, does not arise at all. The Government has reiterated
several times that it will transfer power to a firm government
established in accordance with a sound constitution which is yet to
emerge.
Finally, contrary to what has been stated in the relevant Senate
resolution about the role of the Tatmadaw (the Myanmar Defence
Services ) in the political life of Myanmar, it has been agreed at
the very outset of the ongoing National Convention that the
participation of the Tatmadaw in the leading role of national
politics be one of the six objectives of the Convention in laying
down basic principles for the drafting of a constitution. Such a
role is in keeping with Myanmar's historical traditions. the
Tatmadaw has invariably been a source of great strength in times of
crisis. It has constantly been above party politics and it has
always shouldered its primary responsibility of ensuring the
non-disintegration of the Union, the non-disintegration of national
solidarity and the consolidation of national sovereignty.
Additionally, at the current national convention itself, through a
rpocess of free and open deliberations and mutual accommodation,
significant progress has been made and a consesus is now in sight.
Having explained the issues raised in the Senate resolution, I
would like to express the hope that my above explanations would
help the distinguished members of the Australian Senate to
understand our viewpoint regarding the complex issues obtaining in
our country.
Yours sincerely
(Saw Tun)
Ambassador
1.11 This letter, signed by the Ambassador, was copied to all Senators.
Senators did not find the Ambassador's explanations satisfactory and
consequently passed the following resolution, moved by Senator Reid, on 2
March 1994:
That the following matters be referred to the Human Rights
Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing committee on Foreign Affairs,
Defence and Trade for inquiry and report: The Senate resolution of
23 November 1993 relation to human rights and lack of progress
towards democracy in Myanmar and the letter from the Ambassador of
the Union of Myanmar responding to the resolution.
1.12 This inquiry was deferred by the Sub-Committee until the then current
inquiry into Australia's efforts to promote and protect human rights was
completed in December 1994. Nevertheless, it was advertised in the national
press on 10 September 1994. The Sub-Committee received 36 submissions, 46
exhibits and conducted 8 public hearing in Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne and
Perth between 24 February and 17 August 1995.
1.13 The inquiry was characterised by the number of witnesses who sought to
give evidence in-camera. Most expressed concern about the welfare of their
families in Burma.
1.14 The Committee was also disappointed by the unwillingness of Australian
businesses who were approached to give evidence on their experience of
doing business in Burma to appear before the Committee. Most who were
approached replied that they had considered ventures that they did not
pursue; however, the Committee believed there might have been considerable
value if those that had decided not to proceed had been willing to discuss
the reasons for their decision.
1.15 To avoid confusion, a word needs to be said at the outset about the
use of the alternate names, Burma and Myanmar. The SLORC renamed Burma
Myanmar after they took power. In this report, where the name Myanmar is
used by witnesses or in documents it has not been changed; however, the
Committee resolved to use the name Burma in all other places.
ENDS(1.1-1.15)\