[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

BURMA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT OCT 95 (6



Subject: BURMA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT OCT 95 (6.11-6.26)

/* posted Thu 7 Mar 6:00am 1996 by DRUNOO@xxxxxxxxxxxx
                                                 in igc:soc.culture.burma */
/* -----------" BURMA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT, OCT 95 (6.11-6.26) "---------- */

CHAPTER SIX: (6.11 - 6.26)
*************************
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 SIX: ENGAGEMENT OF ISOLATION (6.11 - 6.26)
--------------------------------------------------

Other International Forums

6.11  As  this report has detailed, a number of international organisations
have come to similar conclusions and made similar demands  on  the  regime.
The  International  Labour  Organisation, the Inter Parliamentary Union [2]
and the European Union have taken strong stands on the denial of  democracy
and the abuse of the population in Burma.

The European Union

6.12 In 1992 the European Community (now Union) resolved that member states
should suspend non-humanitarian development aid programs to Burma. It noted
that  arms  sales  to Burma nad already been suspended, that in 1991 member
states  had  withdrawn  military  attaches  and  that  economic  and  trade
relations had by then been reduced to a minimum.

6.13 The European Community premised the opening of relations with Burma on
a fulfilment of its obligations in the field of human rights and democracy.

The United States - Isolation

6.14 Since the uprising of 1988 the United States too has:

        * imposed an embargo on the sald of arms to Burma,
        * suspended all non-humanitarian aid,
        *  opposed loans to Burma by international financial  institutions,
        and
        * encouraged others not to provide bilateral assistance to Burma.

6.15  As  the  situation  worsened  in 1991 - 92 the United States Congress
advised and the President  approved  the  imposition  of  further  economic
sanctions on Burma if Burma failed to meet certain conditions:

        (i)  Burma  meets  the certification requirements listed in section
        802(b) of the Narcotics Control Trade Act 1986.
        (ii) The national governmental legal authority in  Burma  has  been
        transferred to a civilian government.
        (iii) Martial Law has been lifted in Burma.
        (iv)  Prisoners  held  for  political  reasons  in  Burma have been
        released.

6.16 Sanctions were to be  applied  to  major  imports  from  Burma:  fish,
tropical  timber and aquatic animals and particularly textiles, the largest
single category of  exports  to  the  United  States.  In  support  of  the
amendment  to  the  Customs  Act 1990, the Hon Patrick Daniel Moynihan also
warned:

        We also have this important message today to any  foreign  invester
        who  might  be tempted to go to Burma for quick profits by shipping
        textiles to the United States: Think again. The President  and  the
        Congress  will  not  permit the UNited States market to finance the
        exploitation of the Burmese people [3].

6.17 In July 1991 Resolution 107 of the House of Representatives  condemned
the involvement of the military regime in Burma, also known as the Union of
Myanmar, in the ongoing, horrifying abuses of human rights, the trafficking
of  illicit  drugs  and  the  mass  buildup  of  military arms for domestic
repression.

6.18 IN March 1992, the Senate resolved concurrently with the House that:

        (i) the President should seek an international arms embargo against
        the Burmese military regime until all power has been transferred to
        a ligitimate, democratically elected government; and

        (ii) the President should instruct the Secretary of State  to  call
        privately  and  publicly  of  an  end  to China's military sale and
        economic support for the Government of Burma until such time as the
        political prisoners are unconditionally released  (  including  Daw
        Aung San Suu Kyi), martial law is lifted and the results of the May
        1990 election are fully implemented [4].

6.19  The  US  Department  of  State  responded  to  the resolutions of the
Congress by agreeing to implement Section 138 thereby refusing to renew the
bilateral textile agreement. However Janet Mullins, the Assistant Secretary
Legislative Affairs, noted that:

        [T]here  is  no  significant  support  for  multilateral   economic
        sanctions,  generally  because of the paucity of economic relations
        with Burma. We will continue to press our friends and allies on the
        situation of Burma, including the  members  of  ASEAN  ...  at  the
        annual Post Ministerial Conference in Kuala Lumpur [5].

6.20  Non-government  organisation in the United States have also started a
movement against  trade  and  investment  with  Burma.  The  Coalition  for
corporate  Withdrawal  lobbies  companies  involved in Burma explaining the
record of human rights abuses of the  SLORC.  They  lobby  shareholders  to
bring  about  shareholders  resolutions which would preclude companies from
dealing with Burma[6]. The overall government and  non-government  pressure
has led to some success. To date withdrawls include Levi Strauss, Federated
Department Stores which own Macy's, retailers Eddie Bauer and Liz Cliaborne
and Amoco. The Berkeley City Council in California decided in February 1995
not  to  buy  goods  from  companies  which do business with Burma. Madison
(Wisconsin)  Seattle  (Washington)  and  the  state  of  Massachusetts  are
considering  similar  legislation. Most companies which have withdrawn from
Burma cite corruption as the factor which has made it  impossible  to  work
effectively.

6.21  Unions  in  the  United  States have also taken a stand by boycotting
ships carrying Burmese crews that have been picked up in Rangoon  by  SLORC
agencies [7].

6.22 The most recent statements from the Congress and the Government of the
United  States,  post  the  release  of  Aung  San  Suu Kyi, have tended to
reinforce their determination to maintain such isolation of Burma as can be
achieved.  In  July,  Senator  Mitch  McConnell,  Chairman  of  the  Senate
Apporpriations, Foreign Operations Sub-Committee, proposed legislation, the
'Free  Burma Act', which would ban US trade and investment in Burma, ban US
imports of goods from Burma, suspend GSP and MFN status for Burma,  suspend
US   assistance   to  any  country  selling  arms  to  Burma,  withhold  US
contribution to  UN  organisations  funding  non-humanitarian  programs  in
Burma,  instruct  the US executive director at multilateral institutions to
vote against loans to Burma and prohibit US tourist travel to  Burma.  This
piece  of  legialation  has  been withdrawn for the time being; however the
HOuse committee on International Relations held hearings  in  September  to
review  recent  developments  in  Burma. It was recommended to this hearing
that continued efforts be made  to  persuade  the  SLORC  to  implement  UN
resolutions  and  that pressure be exerted on the SLORC through a freeze on
private investment until forced labour is ended and independently  verified
to  have  ended,  continued suspension of bilateral assistance, a continued
freeze on multilateral financial  assistance  and  a  concerted  effort  to
stigmatize China for its role in supplying arms to the SLORC.

6.23  The  US  Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, visited
Burma in September 1995. IN discussion with General Khin Nyunt she told the
junta  forcefully  that  the  United  States  intended  to  isolate   Burma
politically  and  economically until the regime began a meaningful dialogue
with Aung San Suu Kyi, freed more political prisoners,  halted  attacks  on
ethnic  minorities,  ended  forced  porterage and forced labour and let the
International Committee of the Red Cross visit Burmese prisoners [8].

6.24 However, unlike Australia which has a policy that  neither  encourages
nor  discourages  trade  and  investment [9], the United States has a trade
officer in Burma and, like the UK, still holds trade promotions for  Burma.
UNited  States'  companies  investing  in  Burma  include Pepsi, Texaco and
UNOCAL. Their policies appear to be somewhat odds with stated US Government
policy on Burma. The largest investor is UNOCAL which, in a  joint  venture
with  TOTAL,  a  French company, and the Government of Burma, is developing
gas fields and buildng a 416 kilometer long [10] gas pipeline from the Gulf
of Mataban in  Burma  into  RAtchaburi  Privince  in  Thailand.  The  total
investment  is  estimated  to  be  $US 1 billion. They expect to supply 130
million cubic feet of gas per day to Thailand by  1998  increasing  to  525
million cubic feet 15 months later.

6.25  Complaints  about  the  construction  of  the pipeline have been wide
spread. It is claimed that it has caused the forced relocation of  villages
[11]  along  the  route,  forced  labour  for  the  clearing  of  the  land
surrounding the pipeline and the maltreatment of Burmese  refugees  on  the
border  as  the  Thai  government  attempts  to force the guerillas to sign
ceasefire agreements. The notorious Ye-Tavoy railway project,  the  subject
of  massive forced labour [12] is an integral part of the pipeline project.
Security is a major priority and has necessitated the building, again  with
forced  labour,  of military encampments throughout the area. Ethnic groups
claim that SLORC are forcibly 'securing'the area before the building of the
pipeline  bagins [13]. The capacity of the regime to conceal such practices
from overseas investors needs to be examined as does the business ethics of
companies which profit from them.

6.26 The Committee recommends that:

    26. GIVEN THAT THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, THE  EUROPEAN  UNION  AND  THE
        COMMONWEALTH  OF  NATIONS  ENCOMPASS  MOST OF THE DEVELOPED AND THE
        DEMOCRATIC STATES OF THE WORLD, THE  AUSTRALIAN  GOVERNMENT  SHOULD
        CONTINUE TO WORK BILATERALLY AND THROUGH ALL RELEVANT MULTI-LATERAL
        FORUMS  TO GAIN AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEED FOR POLITICAL REFORM AS A
        PRELUDE TO INVESTMENT IN BURMA OR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO BURMA.

Footnotes:
---------
[2] ILO and IPU resolutions have been dealt with in Chapters  3  and  5  of
this report.

[3]  Quoted  from  NCGUB,  Democracy and Politics in Burma: A Collection of
Documents, 1993, pp.434-35.

[4] ibid.
[5] ibid. p. 438.

[6] Evidence, 5 May 1995, p. 109.

[7] Evidence, 5 May 1995, p. 109. See also complaints to the ILO  from  the
International Transport Federation, Chapter 3 and Appendix 6.

[8] Quoted from Agence France Press (AFP), 9 September 1995.

[9] The AUSTRADE office in Rangoon is minimal information office.

[10] It will be 350 kilometers off shore  and 66 kilometers overland.

[11]  It  is  estimated that 30,000 Mon, Karen and Tavoyan people from more
than 50 villages have been forcibly displaced or relocated  into  strategic
hamlets miles distant from their primary location.

[12] Involving over 150,000 people over a period of seven months.

[13] See also Chapter 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above 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.
ENDS(6.11-6.26)\