[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states had withdrawn military attaches and that economic and trade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)\