| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.15 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) for initiating this debate and I recognise fully the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, in this subject. He has met me on a number of occasions to discuss issues involving Burma. I must say that the presence of four Ministers and other Conservative Members is in stark contrast to the interest shown by the Opposition. There is not a single Labour or Liberal Democrat Member here to discuss what I regard as a most important matter. Burma is an important country and one that we watch--and have to watch--carefully.
Last July year, in the debate secured by the righthon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale(Sir D. Steel), I told the House that I warmly welcomed the decision of the State Law and Order Restoration Council--SLORC--to release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from her long period of detention without trial. I hoped that that would signal a new dawn for Burmese politics and allow Daw Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy, or NLD, to participate in the creation of a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Burma.
Those hopes have not yet been fulfilled. The much-needed dialogue between Daw Suu Kyi and SLORC has yet to materialise. Indeed, most recently
SLORC appears to be increasing the pressure on Daw Suu Kyi and her supporters. Recent arrests and harassment of NLD personnel are a cause for concern.
Last November, the NLD decided to withdraw its support for the national convention constitutional review process because of SLORC's failure to begin a serious dialogue about national reconciliation, institute genuine multi-party democracy and produce a constitution that could win the support of the people.
The European Union considered it important to reiterate the need for dialogue and to call for a peaceful settlement of differences. We issued the following statement at the time:
That remains our position. We want SLORC to build on the hopes that have been nurtured by the release of Daw Suu Kyi and for there to be progress towards genuine reform.
We will continue to make those views known. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest is aware, we have long been at the forefront of international action on Burma and initiated the European Union's suspension of official aid in 1988, an arms embargo in 1991 and a ban on all defence links in 1992. We shall not weaken in our commitment to help forward the cause of reform in Burma.
I have heard suggestions that, for commercial reasons, our support for reform in Burma may be weakening.I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest did not say that, but I certainly welcome the opportunity to rebut such an insinuation. The question of trade is complex--I shall deal with it later in my speech--but let me be clear: our will to see real change in Burma is undiminished, and our support for the reform process is as strong as ever.
I shall cite the latest evidence of that support. At the recent 50th session of the United Nations General Assembly, in New York, we worked closely with other countries to secure a critical resolution on the political and human rights situations in Burma. The resolution urged SLORC to engage in a substantive dialogue with Daw Suu Kyi and other political leaders, including representatives of ethnic groups, as the best means of promoting national reconciliation and the full and early restoration of democracy. I shall take this opportunity to repeat that call on the members of SLORC to take those steps, which are vital to the future of their country and its place in the international community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest mentioned the human rights situation in Burma, as did my good friend the hon. Member for Gedling at our meeting. The Government remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation. The UN resolution addressed some of those concerns by urging SLORC
It also expressed grave worries about the attacks on the Karen and encouraged SLORC to create the conditions necessary to ensure an end to the movements of refugees to neighbouring countries. That would be conducive to voluntary return and full reintegration of those people, in conditions of safety and dignity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest asked us to monitor the human rights situation in Burma closely. We will continue to do so and to take every opportunity to urge SLORC to comply with UN resolutions and to fulfil its basic duties to all the people of Burma.In particular, I call on SLORC to recognise the right of all Burmese people to participate fully in the political process. That will remain a central objective of our policy towards Burma.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest asked about the Government's position on trade with Burma.I said earlier that that is a complex issue. However, the elements of our policy are logical and are not difficult to understand, and I believe that those who are most directly concerned clearly understand it. We do not think that we should cut off trade with Burma. We may be able, through trade, to help to reinforce our pressure for reform. Daw Suu Kyi has not called for a ban on trade to Burma. If there is one thing on which she and SLORC agree, it is that Burma is in desperate need of economic development.
In a recent interview with the BBC, in answer to a question about whether foreign investment and trade will boost growth, Daw Suu Kyi replied:
I cannot but agree with that.
We do not see trade with Burma intrinsically as a bad thing. Furthermore, we believe that, with the exception of defence exports--which are, of course, subject to the European Union's embargo--we have a responsibility to ensure that British companies are kept informed of developments in Burma and are aware of potential opportunities. British firms are anxious to explore the market and to match their competitors. They have requested the support of Her Majesty's Government, and we should provide it. However, we draw the line at any suggestion of funding for projects that have been commissioned by the ruling SLORC. That is why we do not even consider support for major investment projects.
It is worth taking a few moments to clear up some facts about British investment in Burma. Investment is notoriously difficult to measure. Figures that quote Britain as the largest investor in Burma include investments from other countries that are channelled through some of our dependent territories as well as investment from Britain. Because of our history, it is natural that British business should have invested in Burma over the years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest obliquely referred to history. One should beware of figures that may not be representative of current British investment in Burma. The Department of Trade and Industry seminar that was held last December, to which my hon. Friend referred, and the first trade mission, which will be made later this month, are modest contributions to the process of keeping companies informed. Those events provide us with an opportunity to ensure that British companies that have expressed an interest in Burma are made aware of the realities of doing business there and informed of the situation there. Ultimately, it is for the companies to weigh up whether they wish to operate in Burma in the current circumstances.
In view of the political and economic conditions that prevail in Burma, we firmly remain of the view that it is still premature for the Government to provide any bilateral aid that might directly benefit SLORC. That does not mean that we will provide no humanitarian aid to Burma; we are still willing to consider projects that are identified and implemented by non-governmental organisations. As I have said, aid can be a valuable tool in exercising international influence in Burma. We shall continue to discuss the way ahead with our European Union partners.
The European Union agrees that we should reward reform in Burma by providing aid, as long as it is targeted at the grass-roots level and to the people who are most in need. We think that it is vital that SLORC should allow the UN and other non-governmental organisations to operate in Burma. Only in that way will the Burmese people be able to benefit from the help that we all wish to provide.
We must make full use of the weight of our common European Union policy. The European Union has a "critical dialogue" with SLORC that makes it clear that the resumption of normal relations will be conditional on progress in key areas, including human rights, and political and economic reform. We must use the dialogue to accelerate liberalisation and political change to create a prosperous and democratic Burma.
Last July, in the debate to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and I earlier referred,I summarised our current attitude to Burma as cautiously optimistic. Developments since then may have tipped the balance further towards caution. Burma still desperately needs meaningful reform, which will require that courage and common sense prevail. We know that the people of Burma have those qualities, and I believe that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is perhaps the embodiment of courage.
"The European Union expresses its concern about the absence of open and meaningful dialogue on constitutional reform involving all sectors of opinion in Burma including the NLD recently being forced to abandon the National Convention.
The European Union firmly believes that dialogue will help prevent confrontation and offers the best hope of national reconciliation. We, therefore, call upon the SLORC to engage in dialogue with all Burma's political and ethnic groups and to increase their efforts to achieve national reconciliation and multi-party democracy. At the same time we urge all parties concerned to proceed with caution and to take all possible steps to avoid a return to violence."
"to release immediately and unconditionally detained political leaders and all political prisoners, to ensure their physical integrity and to permit them to participate in the process of national reconciliation."
7 Feb 1996 : Column 301
"It depends on how investments are put to use. Those that bring prosperity to the country and the people are one thing. But investments that widen the gap between the rich and poor will never benefit the country".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |