On 21st of November 2008, in another historic 44th & 45th Meetings of United Nations General Assembly Third Committee on the draft resolution concerning situation of human rights in
India, China, Russia, and
While participating in the debate,
Burma said that, “the draft resolution was flawed procedurally and in terms of substance, and was part of a ‘yearly ritual’ meant to put political pressure on his country under the pretext of promoting and protecting human rights. Compared to last year, it was a harsher text, which attested to the desire of its co-sponsors to maintain that political pressure. It had even attempted to politicize the tragic humanitarian disaster resulting from Cyclone Nargis.”
The gist of Indian, Chinese, Russian and Burmese Argument’s:
From the positions taken by
First, it should be through ‘dialogue and cooperation and begin from a forward looking stand point’. Second, it should be in a ‘non-confrontational manner’ and ‘consensus’ based. Third, indicating towards the constitutional referendum held in May 2008, it also stressed to recognize the recent positive steps taken by Junta. Fourth, it should go with Secretary General’s good office initiatives and avoid condemnation. Fifth, the resolution should be not country specific and exert pressure on developing country but utilize the offices of Human Rights Council and its universal periodic review mechanism (both Chinese and Russian argument). Sixth, it should not be “selective, politicized and one-sided” country-specific resolutions, which often led to confrontations among Member States.
Opposition to the Resolution: Right or Wrong?
Now, we come to the first point of argument of voting with Junta on the theme of ‘dialogue and cooperation’ and ‘forward looking stand point’. The proposer’s of this argument misses the point that, how a real dialogue could take place, when you put the leader of NLD and most of its executive members behind prison bars? Any political party in any nation and its leader functions taking opinions of its key executive working committee members, whereas in Burma; the leader of NLD – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is in house arrest for more than thirteen years and restricted to meet her fellow party members. In May 2008, during the referendum month, the junta extended her house arrest for another term despite appeals of freedom made by UN Secretary General and many ASEAN ministerial meetings official resolutions giving a strong psychological message of suppression to the Burmese people of result of even non-violent political protest. Burmese people knew that what would be their fate by going against referendum, when even world’s celebrated personality could suffer in a prolong house arrest, so the outcome of referendum could be well assumed? Moreover, the referendum had been held when
Moreover, the said extension even violated the Junta framed country’s state protection law, enacted in 1975, which allows one year extensions of a house arrest only for up to five years. In addition the choice of ‘dialogue and forward looking stand point’ doesn’t rest with Daw Suu Kyi, who is in a prolonged house arrest. And junta started the so called dialogue after the September 2007 mass uprising of monks by appointing Labour Minister –Mr. Aung Kyi as a liaison minister and the schedule of meeting with concerned liaison minister doesn’t rests with Daw Suu kyi but on the whims of Junta without ‘any fixed time frame’. In addition till now only five meetings had taken place and the last one being held in January 2008. So the forward looking point can’t be achieved without the freedom of Daw Suu Kyi and her political co-workers. The military regime which considers – Daw Suu Kyi and Min Ko Naing as a ‘bubble political leaders’ has got any attitude of political dialogue could be well understood (please see article written by Yebaw Tin Shwe entitled, “For successful completion of National Convention, The New Light of Myanmar, 20 May 2007, p.7)?
The Second point of debate revolves around the ‘confrontational’ attitude of west and
Moreover, the USA started imposing economic sanctions on Burma’s military regime after the enactment of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 pursuant to section 8 (b) (3) of PL 108-61, long years after the May 1990 elections, in which NLD of Daw Suu won landslide victory and Burmese military regime’s refusal to start a dialogue with NLD and Daw Suu Kyi. In addition, Daw Suu is not controlling the sanctions issue, its decision rests with EU and US house of Congress and Senate. The confrontation issue which has been projected by
The confrontation issue is also related with referendum issue and NLD’s refusal in accepting the results, which is also related with the third point of the argument of
The fourth point that, “it should go with Secretary General’s good office initiatives and avoid condemnation” is a sarcastic joke on Secretary General’s good office itself. Does Russia and China forgot or intentionally attempted to forget that few days before the concerned meeting of GA third committee, on 12th of November 2008, the UN Secretary General – Ban Ki-moon, “expressed his deep concern at reports that authorities in Myanmar have issued lengthy jail terms to some participants in last year’s peaceful demonstrations in the Asian country” and he called, “once again for the release of all political prisoners and all citizens of Myanmar to be allowed to freely participate in their country’s political future as part of an inclusive national reconciliation process (please see UN SG Press Release of 12th November 2008).” Again on 18th of November 2008, the five independent United Nations experts on human rights demanded that, “authorities in Myanmar hold fair and open re-trials for dozens of prisoners of conscience sentenced to lengthy prison terms and immediately release their jailed defence counsels, but instead of listening to the voice of UNSG and UN experts, the junta continued with awarding long prison terms to non-violent political protestors including Burma’s famous artists and comedian’s.” Now it clearly reflects that how much Junta regards the institution of UNSG? Junta might feel great by thinking that they have succeeded in getting votes of
The argument of fifth point by Junta’s supporters that it should be not country specific is in utopian paradigm. If any problem exists with particular country then naturally concerned country’s specific name will emerge. And it is not the first time that UN bodies have taken a country specific resolution concerning
The sixth point of confrontation issue has been already explained and regarding “selective, politicized and one-sided” agenda point of
However, unfortunately Junta emboldened by these supports feel that they have been successful in cornering Western Bloc’s initiatives without realizing that Burmese ethos rests with individual freedom & democracy and denigrating their own world’s celebrated personality like - Daw Suu Kyi will ultimately harm Burma’s long term prestige. Because Daw Suu Kyi is not less patriotic than any Burmese soldiers. Junta may think about - Daw Suu Kyi as her enemy but they should also accept the fact that Daw Suu Kyi’s vision of non-violent political struggle for the restoration of democracy has saved lives of many talented Burmese people, soldiers and military leaders. Likewise, Burma’s ethnic leaders involved with futile arms struggle should also misses the point that, a united and strong Burma will serve better for all and they should give an open call to world media / press that, they are ready to surrender their arms before Daw Aung San Suu Kyi defeating the propaganda of certain military commanders that, they are the saviors’ of Burma. India, which could have diplomatically avoided going with Junta by even abstaining (even if it has not reached to the point of abandoning constructive engagement with Junta by voting against the military) as world’s largest democracy like – Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, South Africa etc. and ASEAN Members like – Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia or followed absent like – Cambodia, but India unfortunately voted with Junta. If ASEAN+1 and BIMSTEC prevent India to oppose the Junta then they should have taken note that only – LAO PDR, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei from ASEAN went with Junta and Sri Lanka’s going with Junta is after the emergence of new honeymoon with China after the recent criticisms of Sri Lanka on Tamil issues by Prime Minister – Dr. Manmohan Singh’s due to the internal politics and DMK pressure. There are many instances in Modern Indian history that, Gandhi ji used to always keep with himself his worst critics to resolve his own mistakes and preventing himself to fall into wrong path of his experiments but probably Burma’s ruling military council prefers sycophants’ foreign policy experts to get more and more exploited of their resources?
(By:
****************************
(Document: GA/SHC/3940)
Voting pattern on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar (GA THIRD COMMITTEE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS, Sixty-third General Assembly, 44th & 45th Meetings, dated 21st of November 2008.
The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.
Against: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Russian Federation, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.
Absent:
***********************************
No comments:
Post a Comment