| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Burma
12.59 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest): I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to raise a subject as important as Her Majesty's Government's relations with Burma. We had a debate in the House on 19 July last year, in which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) made some significant points following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from confinement last July.
I am delighted to see present in the Chamber not only the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), but the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who takes a great deal of interest in this subject. I was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) that he would have been here had his schedule allowed it.
I am not an expert in Burmese affairs, but I recognise a gross human rights violation when I see one. There can be no grosser violation than that of the democratic sovereignty of a country. Burma was turned over in 1990 by the State Law and Order Restoration Council regime. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy obtained no less than 82 per cent. of the popular vote in an election, but was promptly prevented by military intervention from taking power. That is as gross an invasion of the sovereignty of a country as a territorial invasion would have been.
We all very much admire the courage of Aung San Suu Kyi and her continuing calls for reconciliation, communication and peaceful protest, despite the provocations that she and her supporters have no doubt suffered. We remember, as did the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale in last summer's debate, that Baroness Chalker, the Foreign Office Minister said in a lecture:
She merely echoed the slightly more florid tones of President Kennedy when he said:
As we have former colonial responsibilities for Burma,I believe that in that context alone, the British Government should, and does, take human rights in Burma seriously.
As the Minister said in the last debate on Burma, rhetoric in such situations is often easier than practical action. One of my greatest frustrations as vice-chairman of the parliamentary human rights group is the difficulty of the international community in giving practical effect to its condemnation of human rights regimes in other countries. I appreciate that there is always a balance between constructive engagement through aid, trade or diplomatic relations and sufficient pressure in other ways. I equally appreciate, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said in July, that caution should be the watchword in our dealings with Burma. We should concentrate on the practical aspects of our good governance policy. My right hon. Friend said:
The cautious optimism that then characterised the position of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not been borne out by events in Burma since last July.
The SLORC Government would no doubt say that the economy has revived in the past year, during which time, I understand, rice production has risen by 15 per cent.The House should not forget that about 30 years ago Burma was the largest exporter of rice. Some additional foreign investment--one may or may not agree with the wisdom of making such investment, given the Burmese Government's human rights record--particularly from Japan, has resumed. Some political prisoners have been released, although many hundreds, if not thousands, remain in gaol. There has been a ceasefire with 15 out of 16 of the rebel movements that litter Burma, which is an intensely multicultural and multi-racial country.
On at least a formal basis, the constitutional convention continues to meet intermittently. It is at least talking about steps towards democracy, although whether that democracy would meet the requirements of most Members of Parliament must be open to doubt. SLORC has maintained its policy of economic diplomacy--as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale called it--and has attempted to achieve at least some sort of military stability by economic improvements. However, as was said recently in the Asian context:
That is the choice that SLORC puts before the Burmese people.
There is definite and continuing evidence of massive human rights abuses in Burma. There is no freedom of assembly or effective political association. Some, including Amnesty International and the Burma Action Group point to the rising number of political prisoners, despite some releases earlier last year. The International Labour Organisation still points to the significant use of forced labour. Some 80,000 labourers have been forced to work, perversely and ironically, on the preparations for the "Visit Myanmar Year 1996". Those people have been displaced from their villages and taken away from their families and are being used to construct roads and other infrastructure for what the regime hopes will be a newly buoyant tourist industry.
The United Nations human rights rapporteur,Mr. Yakato, has itemised summary executions, torture and forced movements, particularly in the east of the country against the Karen people. I find it appalling that the SLORC regime has decided that it wants a reservation on article 37 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. That article prevents the torture of children. The regime has found it necessary to seek a reservation in order to promote its continued hold on power.
A 20-point resolution was drawn up by the United Nations social, humanitarian and cultural committee in December. It deplored continued violations of human rights in Burma. Sadly, on the political front, it appears that the constitutional convention is increasingly being revealed as a declining farce. It was never likely to get off the ground in a substantive way since 600 out of the 700 delegates are government appointed. It proceeds on the assumption that no one who is married to a foreigner, which includes Aung San Suu Kyi, should ever be able to
hold high office. Her appointment as secretary general of the National League for Democracy was specifically not recognised by the SLORC regime.
The constitutional convention also lays down ground rules that most people would regard as profoundly undemocratic for the new constitution. The chairman of its convening commission, General Nyunt, said at its opening session in 1993 that the new constitution would depend upon
If that is not a recipe for a military regime, I do not know what is.
As the convention appears to have descended into farce, it is not surprising that on 29 November 1995 the National League for Democracy, which is led by Aung San Suu Kyi, should decide that it was no longer appropriate to take part. She, rightly, justified its action by saying:
and what justification, by implication, is there for continuing to take part in the convention? Despite that, and the provocations that she and her supporters--who, after all, have been the legitimate Government of Burma since the overturned 1990 elections--have faced, she continues to promote dialogue with the existing regime and discourage demonstrations or anything that might be used by the regime to promote renewed oppression of the people of Burma.
I have four questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister about what Britain can do, given the deteriorating human rights and political situation in Burma. Everything that I am going to ask him to do would bolster the position of the legitimate Government of Burma, which is the National League for Democracy, while encouraging dialogue.
First, there is the tricky question of investment and trade, over which there seems to be some confusion about the stance of the British Government. For instance, in 1993, the then Minister for Trade said:
That is quite categorical and was said only two years ago in a political situation similar to the present one. Yet the Department of Trade and Industry actively encouraged, through the south of England exporters association, trade missions that took place in November and a seminar on, "An Introduction to Burma--The latest tiger club", organised by the London chamber of commerce and industry on 5 December. Other trade missions, involving37 countries, are being supported by the DTI later this year.
I would have thought that such encouragement is not what Aung San Suu Kyi has been urging on the British Government as constructive disengagement from the regime in Burma. It seems to contradict directly the original position of the British Government. It certainly contradicts the position taken by Daw Suu Kyi when she said that future investment, and by implication improved trading links, between western firms and the Burmese Government and Burma in general would have to "jolly well wait" until there had been significant improvements in human rights and democratic freedoms. A clarification of the Government's position on trade and investment in Burma would be useful.
Secondly, will the Government continue to refuse to recognise any constitution proposed by the SLORC regime through its pet convention on the constitution if it is not specifically approved by the National League for Democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi? To do anything else would be to acquiesce in making legitimate the new regime that overturned democracy in 1990.
Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend the Minister work, through the United Nations, to improve human rights monitoring in Burma to ensure that there will be a constant stream of information so that not only will engagement but the trade and aid that will follow depend on human rights being improved?
"The United Nations charter lays a duty on all of us to promote respect for human rights everywhere."
"The people of the world respect a nation that can see beyond its image".
"Aid is a valuable tool in exercising international influence in Burma, and we must be careful that it is used to support reform rather than undermine it."--[Official Report, 19 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1644.]
7 Feb 1996 : Column 297
"No human being should be asked to choose between bread and freedom."
"the participation of the Defence Services in the leading role in national politics in the future."
"If the League is not allowed to represent the views of the people then why was the election held in 1990"--
"The Government's policy is to provide no specific encouragement to British firms to trade or invest in Burma in view of the current political and economic situation there."--[Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 214.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |