Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-40)
Ms Meg Munn, Ms Louise Lassman and Ms Ruzina Hasan
15 MAY 2008
Q20 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Can I raise
a couple of UN aspects? The first is the question of co-ordination
of all the UN agencies and activities, the World Food Programme,
UNICEF and all that, and the activities of the Under-Secretary-General
for Humanitarian Affairs, John Holmes. What is going on with that?
The news is being reported that John Holmes is going there. Does
that mean he is being given a visa and being allowed in? And in
Rangoon and elsewhere, where the UN has a number of offices and
different agencies, is the UN being allowed to mount any serious
operations in the delta? Are they co-ordinating effectively? Are
they providing an overall co-ordination function as they did in
the Tsunami case for other countries, Member States of the UN,
who are acting to try to get things in? Or are they completely
hamstrung by the activities of the regime and their refusal to
allow them to work? That is my question on the humanitarian side.
Secondly, I wonder if I could ask you a question about what is
going on in New York? I rather understood from an answer that
the Minister in the House of Lords gave two days ago that an attempt
was made to discuss this in the Security Council and that this
was frustrated by Russia, China and perhaps some others. Could
I just suggest that some of the discussion in the first few days
does seem to be a bit wide of the mark in all this. To treat the
responsibility to protect, which is the issue that has been raised,
as a purely military concept is very counterproductive. It is
not a purely military concept. Use of force to provide protection
is the last resort and I wonder whether, given that clearly this
crisis is going to go on for quite some time and it does not look
as if the Burmese regime is going to respond, we cannot have a
rather more subtle approach to all this in New York which does
try to get people to agree collectively in the Security Council
to put collective pressure on the Burmese regime and to get away
from the rather, I think, unfortunate emphasis on a military angle
to responsibility to protect. Responsibility to protect is a normative
responsibility, not an exclusively military one, and I wonder
whether there is not going to be some scope to move back into
that again, rather than simply accept the first setback as being
definitive.
Ms Munn: If I can answer on the humanitarian
angle first, as I best understand it John Holmes is going to the
region but I do not know yet whether he has a visa or not. The
UN Interagency Steering Committee is meeting next week. UN OCHA
are, as I understand it, on the ground but their co-ordination
efforts are hampered again by lack of visas for staff. Our supplies
and United States' supplies which are going in are going to the
World Food Programme, and are being stored in UN warehouses. Now,
we know the UN situation in relation to Burma has been difficult
since Charles Petrie was expelled; it is not adequate and not
good on the ground, so they are having a problem about the co-ordination
of that. The UN launched a flash appeal on Friday which is seeking
to raise $187 million, and the priorities are food, nutrition,
water, sanitation, shelter and health. So far, as of yesterday,
$44 million has been raised, so that is broadly the humanitarian
situation. In relation to the diplomatic discussions and the issue
about responsibility to protect, the Secretary-General had an
emergency meeting on Burma yesterday which was for the Permanent
5, ASEAN, India and Bangladesh, and what was said on that was
that John Holmes had briefed that the flow of assistance was increasing
although there were still bottlenecks; the flash appeal has increased
from the initial $187 million to $200 million; Burma was insisting
that the situation had to be treated as humanitarian with no politicisation,
and essentially the discussion focused around how to communicate
better with the Burmese government, what role ASEAN and other
neighbours could play, how we could ensure that relief efforts
were complementary and well co-ordinated, and whether we could
find ways whereby the Burmese government could use boats, helicopters
and engineering teams available from outside. On the broad issue
of the UN Security Council and the issue about responsibility
to protect, it is very much our view as a British government that
we will want to see used whatever instruments of the UN are likely
to be the most effective, and that we should not get hung up on
one approach or another. The test has to be what will make a difference
on the ground, so a discussion as to whether this falls under
various categories we think is probably unhelpful at this stage.
What has to happen is continued pressure to get things to move,
and we could spend an awful long time discussing the niceties
of this but I think you are right to emphasise that if there is
too much of a push which seems military that will not be helpful
in terms of the approach to the Burmese regime. Our prime focus
now is on the ASEAN meeting next Monday. Now, when that was set
up we were very clear with ASEAN governments that we felt this
was too late and it should have happened much earlier, but this
is where we are now and that has to be our focus.
Chairman: Can we move to the question of EU
sanctions?
Q21 Lord Jones: Lord Chairman, Minister,
for some time now the European Union has been operating sanctions
on the regime. The cyclone, a great humanitarian tragedy, is very
recent and we have known about it, to a degree at least, from
worldwide reporting. To open up the subject of sanctions I will
formally ask you the question you may know we were going to ask
you. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of EU sanctions
on the Burmese regime?
Ms Munn: Our sanctions in the European Union
are designed to be very targeted and to affect the regime, not
the wider population. Our assessment is that they are effective
in the respect that they limit travel, they limit it in relation
to people in the regime themselves, they are focused on sectors
of the economy which benefit the regime financially—wood,
gems, those sort of issues—but we have no doubt that sanctions
in and of themselves are not what is going to shift the situation
in Burma. There has been a long debate, particularly between us
and the ASEAN countries, as to the sanctions posed on one side
and an engagement to try and get the regime to shift on the other
side, and the reality is that neither has delivered what we would
like to see. Sanctions are part of an overall approach; they are
in and of themselves not the only thing, but they are important.
Q22 Lord Jones: And what is your perception
of the regime, indeed, of the nation? Why are they so? Why is
it so difficult even to help them? What is the Department's perception
of the regime?
Ms Munn: This is a long, long standing situation.
This country has been subject to a military regime for more than
40 years; they are very entrenched and, therefore, it is very
difficult to change and move the situation. I have spoken to people
who come from the region: I have obviously spoken to a lot of
countries around the region; and it has to be one of the most
difficult and intransigent situations there is. Nobody knows what
ultimately will achieve a change. If you look at the ASEAN region
it is a region where you have economies which are growing incredibly
fast, people talk about the Asian century, that it is an area
that is developing, China, Vietnam, and in the ASEAN region you
have nine countries going forward and one that is going backwards.
You have living standards rising in the countries around, they
are going down in Burma, and in the long term this is not tenable.
It is argued, and there has been long discussion about this, that
it is stable because it has been like this for however long. I
do not think in the long term you can hold that back and something
sooner or later will happen, but nobody knows exactly what combination
of action that will be. We firmly believe sanctions have a role
to play; we know from information from other people in the region
that the Burmese government do pay attention to sanctions and
that they do not like them. At times sanctions do particularly
have effects on them, so we believe they do have a role to play.
Q23 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Minister,
can you give the Committee assurance that the financial component
of the EU sanctions in no way hampers the wish of voluntary organisations
of countries, individuals, to help financially support the Burmese?
Ms Munn: Our view has always been that they
have to be targeted directly on the regime and not at the people,
and in terms of our own provision of aid none of it goes to the
Burmese regime.
Q24 Lord Anderson of Swansea: But there
must be some part of our own EU which potentially could harm the
flow of funds to Burma?
Ms Munn: That is not my understanding.
Ms Lassman: The point to make here is that the
European Council's common position has exemptions for humanitarian
aid within it, including financial, so that is covered in the
Burmese region.
Q25 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: An All-Party
Committee of this House produced a report on sanctions saying,
one, they did not work and, two, they hit the poorest people.
Surely this applies in spades to the Burmese? You say these sanctions
of the EU, which are targeted, as you say, on precious stones,
minerals and timber, are targeted against the people at the head
of the regime because they run the companies and they benefit
from them, but they employ numbers of poor Burmese, and if they
bite—and I have every hope they will not, and they probably
will not anyway, but if they do bite—it is poor Burmese
people who are going to be put out of work as a result of these.
Burma is a country with a thriving drugs trade in the north where
heroin and opium are trafficked in enormous quantities, and the
generals are totally into that trade so the idea that these guys
are short of hard currency is absolutely nonsensical, and at the
end of the day we have imposed sanctions which make us feel better
and put Burmese people out of work.
Ms Munn: The situation with the people in Burma
is bad and difficult, not because of sanctions but because of
the actions of the Burmese regime, and we have just spent the
last 40 minutes talking about the Burmese regime and their incredible
response to a humanitarian disaster. The whole running of their
country, their whole approach, takes no account of the general
needs of their population, and that is what is causing the problem,
not sanctions, and we need to use sanctions not as the only tool
to try and get change but as part of that. It is our view that
these specific ones targeted in the way they are will have an
effect. There is a discussion now and the EU has agreed to look
more directly at financial sanctions. We know that in the wake
of the demonstrations in September/October some of the actions
taken by the United States were having a very direct effect on
the regime: the inability of, for example, airlines to get insurance
when they could not fly caused significant problems. They are
part of an approach, not the whole approach.
Q26 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Could I just
confirm, perhaps, that the leader of the democratic opposition
of Burma, Aung San Sun Kyi, supports the sanctions of the EU proposals
and believes they are an effective means of pressure on the regime,
and since I do not think any of us would wish to criticise her
for lack of sensitivity towards the problems of her countrymen,
that does seem to be rather important.
Ms Munn: She does, indeed, support sanctions.
In fact, I think she would support sanctions beyond the view we
would take. There is always a discussion to be had on that, but
that is certainly correct.
Q27 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Is it not true
that I understand Sun Kyi supported a ban on people travelling
to Burma, and she subsequently withdrew support for that?
Ms Munn: I am not sure of her exact views in
relation to that, and dates on that. Those issues are always subject
to debate. This is not a clear situation in that it is not directly
causative. We know that if a regime does financially well the
pressures on them to change became minimal. We also know that
a population that has no contact with the West also gets very
isolated and that can be problematic, and we do hear from people
that they value certainly the low budget tourism where people
stay with local people and the money goes into the economy there,
and the local people value that contact. It is not black and white.
That is the situation.
Q28 Lord Chidgey: Minister, if I could just
pick up on a question related to the EU suspending preferential
trade relations with Burma, and the Government's assessment of
the impact that the suspension has had on trade with Burma and
on poverty levels. That has already been covered, so it is particularly
the preferential trade relations with Burma that I would like
to have your response on, if I may?
Ms Munn: Again, because of the restrictions
that the regime places upon general freedom of information it
is very difficult to get the overall view, but the view of our
Embassy and also the non-governmental organisations is that we
have not seen any evidence that suspension of preferential trade
has had a significant effect on the poverty levels of the Burmese
population. The poverty, as I said, in Burma comes from the problems
with basic freedom, economic rights, land confiscation—a
whole range. That is what is causing that. So we have not seen
any evidence of it.
Q29 Lord Chidgey: My supplementary question
is related and, hopefully, relevant to the point you have just
made. It concerns me that possibly one of the ways that the Government,
the EU specifically, could be trying to make this policy, whether
we support it or not, more effective would be to be working with
perhaps the ASEAN counterpart countries in the region, and I am
particularly concerned that it is reported that the profits, the
income, whatever you want to call it, is running at about $2.7
billion going straight into the pockets of this small ruling clique
in Burma. It is very difficult, therefore, to say sanctions are
going to work. You have to look further; you have to look at the
people and the organisations which are doing the trade which generates
that income, surely? I would just like to know from you whether
the Government is looking at this, with its EU counterparts and
colleagues, and whether one can perhaps work more closely at the
source of the income which is almost ring-fenced for the benefit
of the ruling group?
Ms Munn: It is an extremely complicated situation
because obviously the European Union can decide to put in place
sanctions; we know that China and India engage and have agreements;
I visited Thailand at the end of February after their elected
government came into place in December and they assured us they
were going to push the Burmese regime more on changing, and then
the Prime Minister went and signed a new trade agreement and we
know that is happening, so we have to calibrate our response to
look at what we think we can achieve while being realistic that
there is action in the region which means that the regime continues
to flourish. These are complicated issues from that point of view.
But we do know that there is evidence that the suspension of the
preferential trade caused the Burmese government to make some
concessions, such as agreement to the International Labour Law
Organisation complaints mechanism on forced labour and agreement
to some high level visits from UN officials, so it is not completely
without effect and, as I have said before, we know that the United
States financial sanctions did have some effect and the EU has
decided to explore further whether it can go down that route as
well.
Ms Lassman: On the financial measures, there
is a study going on in the EU at the moment to try and look more
deeply at financial restrictions against the regime to target
the Burmese ruling elite. It is in early stages at the moment:
there are some very technical issues involved in it, but it is
on-going. The EU Commission is looking very closely at these issues
but we do not have a date yet for the conclusion of that study.
It is likely to be not in the very near future, but certainly
we are looking very closely at that including, and I think this
is an important point, the impact that it might have on the ordinary
Burmese population as well, and we are looking very closely at
the banks.
Q30 Lord Boyce: Given the opposition in
Burma's rather more hardline view, before the cyclone were there
any plans, apart from financial ones you have just talked about,
to strengthen EU sanctions and, if so, what sort of sectors or
people were being targeted? And this is before the cyclone, because
obviously our stance has modified since then.
Ms Munn: What happened was that we increased
the sanctions in the sectors following the repression of the demonstrations
in October. We had not looked at there being any further development
of that other than the financial ones on the basis that it was
still early days in terms of assessing the impact of those, so
there were not any more specific areas being looked at. It was
just the financial ones.
Q31 Chairman: Moving on, has there been
any change at all in the political assessment since the cyclone,
and in particular the question of the recent referendum? Should
the referendum have gone ahead in the circumstances, and is it
at all realistic to suggest that you are going to be able to have
the postponed referendum in the areas which were affected by the
cyclone within a fortnight?
Ms Munn: Frankly, I think it beggars belief
that they went ahead with the referendum. I was travelling in
the region at the time, and while news channels were showing pictures
of the awful devastation and dead bodies, the Burmese government
were transmitting TV programmes of women dancing and singing that
people should go and cast a vote. Words fail me really. We know
the referendum has gone ahead in certain areas: we had severe
doubts before the referendum that it would be free and fair: we
know that opposition groups had determined to call for a "No
vote" but were extremely concerned about what might happen
if they went, and I understand anybody wearing a "No vote"
T-shirt who went to vote was turned away and not allowed to cast
a vote. I have heard this morning, although I have not had this
confirmed, that they have announced the result of the referendum
which, again, seems incredible. If you have not had all of the
referendum, how can you announce part of it? I think the figures
were a 99 per cent turnout and 92 per cent vote in favour. My
elections never look like that! So, frankly, I think it is incredible.
How anybody could believe that you would be able to hold a referendum
in the areas that have been affected by the end of next week is
unbelievable. As I say, words fail me.
Q32 Lord Boyce: Minister, there could be
possibly just the faintest of hopes that the cyclone and its aftermath
might have changed the attitude of the some of the generals and
senior civilians, those who have not completely lost the plot
and touch with reality, and there may be one or two; and if you
agree with that, do you think there is an opportunity now for
the United Kingdom, EU and our international partners to modify
our strategy to achieve some sort of a peaceful and democratic
reform in Burma?
Ms Munn: We, of course, always should look at
the situation and modify our strategy. If I can go back to the
situation last September/October, just to put this in context,
our view was that, at that point in time, obviously it was a crisis
and things were moving and a number of things change. The international
community, the European Union, the UN, set down expectations of
what they wanted to see happen, and the Burmese spectacularly
failed to comply with all those requirements. Having said that,
all the information that we get suggests that the situation had
changed, that it had not gone back to completely where it was;
the ASEAN countries were saying, although they were respecting
the matters, that this was an internal matter for Burma, but also
kept repeating that they did not think things could go back to
where they were, so we were looking at a situation that we did
not think was fixed politically. Inevitably a situation of this
nature will also, I think, throw everything up in the air again.
We can see this as an opportunity where things may change: you
will understand I want to be a bit circumspect in relation to
this because at the moment our focus is humanitarian, not political,
but I think anybody looking at this would see that people's views
will be impacted upon by what they have seen in terms of the catastrophe
and devastation and the failure to put in place an adequate relief
process, so I am sure that the situation will change and we will
be adjusting our approach on the basis of that, but I think at
this stage it is probably good not to say too much on that.
Q33 Lord Boyce: If I may, if we are to starting
to achieve some success through the ASEAN countries or otherwise,
identifying individuals and who to target, in the regime I mean,
who may have seen the light a bit in view of that failure, maybe
this is something we should be pursuing in parallel so we do not
miss an opportunity? Otherwise, if we leave it until it is all
over, they will revert.
Ms Munn: What we have to understand about the
regime is they are a regime who have kept themselves insulated
from the outside world extremely well; they moved their capital
from Rangoon to Naypyidaw, which has further insulated them from
contact with the outside world. I think probably it is people
not at the top level where this will make a difference, because
those at the top level are in Naypyidaw, Naypyidaw was not hit
by the cyclone—vindication for the regime in their move
there, you might say; but people at the lower levels are faced
with the reality of what is happening much more directly, and
I think that is where we may begin to see a change of views. In
addition, we know that the military obviously are all recruited
from the local population and they will have relatives, family,
friends, who are involved, and that, too, may bring about a change
of views. We are not at all complacent about this, and obviously
our people on the ground are keeping closely in touch, but we
just need to be absolutely clear that at the moment our focus
is very much humanitarian.
Q34 Lord Anderson of Swansea: I have a supplementary
on that. Clearly our sources of information are limited and probably
the best sources are those of neighbouring countries. Is there
any hard evidence against the view that there is a monolith? Evidence
that there are cracks at the senior level, or differences? Different
tendencies?
Ms Munn: It is quite difficult to answer that,
really, because this is a regime which has managed to stay in
control, and there are differing views. Some people think that
the next generation may be less hardline: some people think they
might be more hardline. Our view very much, as Lord Boyce said,
is that the fact that this has happened will have quite a significant
--
Q35 Lord Anderson of Swansea: That is a
hope rather than an expectation. Are there individuals who are
known to be more liberal at senior levels?
Ms Munn: I am not aware of any specific individuals
to whom that would apply at this point.
Q36 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: You referred
to the difficulty of communicating and the fact they are all very
isolated. Could you just tell the Committee how much effort the
BBC, the World Service and language services are putting into
this and has any consideration been given to increasing the flow
of information so that ordinary Burmese people get a proper understanding
of the failure of their government to respond properly to this
crisis?
Ms Munn: The BBC World Service and Burmese Service
broadcast twice a day to Burma. We have looked with the Service
at whether there can be an increased output from that and yes,
we have consistently worked with the BBC on the information that
they are putting across. It is very important; people in Burma
do listen to it; and that is certainly part of our consideration.
Q37 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: The UN Gambari
process that was started after the demonstrations in September
seems to have really got nowhere, and is being treated by the
regime as simply a temporising device, a way of spinning out time
until everyone's attention is diverted somewhere else. Do we have
any hopes of that process at all? Also, the Security Council having
adopted the Presidential Statement about a week before the referendum,
which has been totally ignored and, indeed, treated with contempt
by the regime, presumably there will be a requirement after the
referendum for the Security Council to say something about the
consequences of there not having been a free and fair process,
and the flawed nature of the constitutional process there?
Ms Munn: I am absolutely sure they would wish
to say something. As you rightly say, there was a further Presidential
Statement at the beginning of May which helpfully confirmed the
strong statement that was made on 11 October last year, and it
is helpful in that it demonstrates that the world collectively
has said that there is a problem here, and in reinforcing the
situation and working with the ASEAN countries, who were obviously
party to making a strong statement back in October, that is very
helpful. In terms of the Gambari process what has happened is
that, in the early days, there was a bit of give on certain things,
but we have to be realistic that in terms of what was set out
of the expectations in that 11 October statement nothing has changed.
It is important for the UN process to continue; we will obviously
need to look at that in the light of what happens from the cyclone,
but it does have the benefit of having the support of the United
Nations and, I think, the world, and we have certainly not given
up on the Gambari process.
Q38 Lord Crickhowell: We have understandably
concentrated on discussing with the neighbours how to help with
this terrible disaster, and I understand perfectly well your caution
in making too many political points when that is the central objective.
It is also a problem that countries like China are not keen to
be seen to interfere in the political affairs of other countries.
Coming back to the longer term, however, how do you see the EU
engaging with the neighbouring countries, the ASEAN, China and
India and so on, in trying to drive forward the political reforms
and democratic reforms, because we have to return to that issue
at some point? Do you see a role here, and how do you see Europe
engaging with the neighbours on these issues?
Ms Munn: I absolutely think there is a role.
There is an annual EU/ASEAN Summit, which obviously has as its
focus these kind of discussions, and I think what we have to bear
in mind in relation to this is that ASEAN is a developing organisation;
they have put in place a new charter which they did at their meeting
last November, and they are keen to become a more active regional
group. You could say before they were, as it says, an association
of nations but now with the charter they are seeking to move on.
ASEAN themselves are frustrated that the issue of Burma has dominated
the agenda, and they make the point to us and to the European
Union collectively that there is a lot more to our relationships
than Burma, and we have discussions on trade agreements and a
whole wide range of issues so that continuing engagement between
the European Union and ASEAN is important. Alongside that, however,
I know from direct discussions that I regularly have with the
ambassadors from ASEAN whom I meet as a group periodically that
they become frustrated because they want to talk about the other
issues, and obviously I say to them very directly that I know
and understand that, but that the world will judge them on their
response to this situation in Burma, so we are very frank with
them about that and they understand that, so I think that is the
on-going relationship and those are the levers.
Q39 Lord Selkirk of Douglas: Lord Chairman,
can I first express an interest as President of the International
Rescue Corps, which did apply to send a team to Burma but, in
fact, they now have a team in Hong Kong which is hopefully moving
on very shortly to the earthquake zone in China. Can I, on their
behalf, express through you to the Department of International
Development gratitude for their close working relationship with
the Department and for their assistance, and if I may say so I
do not think that just applies to the International Rescue Corps
but to other charities like the International Red Cross. I cannot
speak for them, obviously, but I think there is a general feeling
of gratitude for the assistance they receive. Can I put through
you a question to them that, from their perspective, the speed
of response is often absolutely critical in achieving maximum
success, and that after their missions have been accomplished
debriefings can be enormously valuable in ascertaining the best
possible advanced planning in the most up-to-date way, and make
I just make the point that they will, of course, give maximum
assistance if the opportunity arises. They could send a small
team to Burma now, as we speak, if required, but, of course, it
is very much appreciated what you have said this morning.
Ms Munn: Thank you very much. That is a really
helpful contribution and it is very good to hear directly from
somebody involved with one of the organisations which is standing
ready to help. That was very much my message directly to the Burmese
Ambassador yesterday, that we have people who are ready to help,
and the British people have raised £6 million because they
are concerned about the Burmese people, not because they want
to see regime change.
Q40 Chairman: Minister, could I thank you,
in what is obviously a very busy time for you and your colleagues,
for having come and given a full picture and responded so fully
to questions of the members of the Committee? We do feel it is
important and we are very grateful that we can have a Minister
come and give such wise advice, and we wish you very well in what
is obviously going to be a very difficult few weeks as far as
your own responsibilities are concerned. Thank you very much indeed.
Ms Munn: Thank you very much indeed.
|
