HUMAN RIGHTS SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT O

[uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: HUMAN RIGHTS SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT OCT 95 (6.1-610)

/* posted Wed 28 Feb 6:00am 1996 by DRUNOO@xxxxxxxxxxxx(DR U NE OO)
                                                in igc:soc.culture.burma */
/* -----------" BURMA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT, OCT 95 (6.1-6.10) "---------- */
Following 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER SIX: (6.1 -6.10)
*************************
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 OR ISOLATION (6.1-6.10)
-----------------------------------------------

6.1  The  lack of domestic accountability and the apparent unwillingness of
the  SLORC  to  set  in  place  democratic  processes   ensure   continuing
international attention on Burma. The international system is, and must be,
a  last  resort  for  people  who can gain no redress internally. Since the
massacres of 1988, there has been growing concern at teh  gross  violations
of  human  rights in Burma, conducted for the most part by the military and
the Government. Far from preventing national  disintegration  and  domestic
rebellion,  the policies of the SLORC, through tyranny and oppression, have
encouraged it. Although minor adjustments have been made by the  government
in  response  to  massive  international  pressure,  the  core issue of the
recognition of the democratic will of the people and an end to human rights
abuses has not been addressed in any credible way.

6.2 Moreover, there has been almost no dissension from the condemnation  of
the human rights abuses perpetrated by the current regime in Burma. However
the  question  of what might be the most appropriate response has generated
considerable debate. The question is whether  the  natural  inclination  to
proscribe  an  abusive and illegal regime would lead to an improvement more
quickly than engaging it and opening it to  the  influences  of  trade  and
development;  whether  contact would give political legitimacy and economic
succour to the ruling elite at the expense of the ordinary people of Burma.
The dilemma is  made  more  complicated  by  the  differing  attitudes  and
interests  of  regional  countries and neighbours - the ASEAN states, China
and Bangladesh - and the wider international community - the United States,
Japan, the European Union, Canada and Australia  etc.  Where  there  is  no
consensus  the  question becomes as mucn one of pragmatic politics and what
is achievable as one of principle and international law.

The United Nations

6.3 The reaction of the United Nations has been expressed in  a  series  of
resolutions passed in boht the General Assembly and the Commission on Human
Rights.  Tehy  have  left  no doube about teh UNs view of Burma. Since 1991
these  resolutions  have  been  increasingly  specific   and   increasingly
critical.  Moreover  they have been passed by consensus, thereby giving the
force of unanimity to the condemnation of Burma's record. What began  as  a
general  concern about human rights violations and the failure to implement
the results of the 1990 elections have become quite  detailed  demands  for
action to stop the detention and torture of political opponents, to improve
conditions  in prisons, to remove the conditions which cause the outflow of
refugees from Burma  nd  to  comply  with  already  ratified  international
conventions and ratify those which have not yet been ratified.[1]

6.4 In 1992 a series of Special Rapporteurs reported on Burma:

        *  Mr  P  Kooijmans,  pursuant to CHR Resolution 1992/32 concerning
        Persons Subjected to any Form of Detention or Imprisonment;
        * Mr Barc Waly Ndaye, pursuant to CHR Resolution 1992/72 concerning
        Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions;
        * Mr Angelo Vidal d'Almeida Riberio,  pursuant  to  CHR  Resolution
        1986/20 concerning Religious Intolerance and Discrimination.

6.5  These  rapporteurs based their findings on written communications both
with complainants  and  the  Government  of  Burma.  They  presented  quite
specific  allegations  to  the  Government and they have received only very
general denials in reply.

6.6 In 1993 the Working Group on Arbitrary Detantion found that, since both
Aung San Suu Kyi and U Nu had  never  had  access  to  counsel,  could  not
challenge  their deprivation of liberty before a court and had been held in
almost  complete  isolation,  their  detantions  were  arbitrary   and   in
contraventions of Article 9,10,11,19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of
Human  Rights  and Article 9,14, 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.

6.7 The United Nations took a furhter step  in  1993,  Resolution  1992/58,
appointing  the  Special  Rapporteur  on  Human  Rights in Myanmar, Mr Yozo
Yokota. Mr Yozo Yokota has  visited  Burma  twoce,  in  December  1992  and
November  1994.  The Government of Burma organised wide-ranging discussions
for him; however, on neither occasion was he able to see all the people  he
wished  to  see. Mr Yokota's first report concluded that there was 'serious
repression and an atmosphere of pervasive fear in Myanar'  as  well  as  'a
lack   of   accoutability  and  an  absence  of  legal  and  administrative
protections'. He recommended continued close monitornig.

6.8  In  the second report he noted 'visible signs of relaxation of tension
in the life of the people ... many consumer goods, ...  many  cars  on  the
streets.'  However, the economic expnasion and development only benefited a
few and people did not generally enjoy civil and political rights - freedom
of thought, opinion, expression, publication,  and  peaceful  assembly  and
association.  In  a  series  of  recommandations  Mr  Yokota  called on the
Government of Burma to develop a democratic constitution, to agree  to  and
implement  all the international human rights norms and to open the country
to free access to and cooperation with non-government organisations.

6.9 In its resolution on Burma, the United Nations has judged the record of
Burma against its conventions and declarations; it has not taken a stand on
the question of engagement or isolation. Unless matters are  taken  to  the
Security  Council  and resolutions agreed under the Chapter VII enforcement
provisions, it is in the nature of the UN system to  be  persuasive  rather
than  punitive.  When,  in  1992  after  250,000  refugees  had  fled  into
Bangladesh, matters were close to being raised in the Security Council, the
SLORC began to madify its policies.  Since  then  the  UN  has  sought  the
cooperation of the regime in reminding the SLORC of its obligations.

6.10 The Committee recommended that:

    25. THE  AUSTRALIAN  GOVERNMENT  CONTINUE  TO  WORK  THROUGH THE UNITED
        NATIONS FOR CHANGE IN BURMA AND THAT AT ALL  TIMES  THE  GOVERNMENT
        GIVE FULL SUPPORT TO THE WORK OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON BURMA IN
        HIS  ENDEAVOURS  TO PERSUADE THE GOVERNMENT OF BURMA TO COMPLY WITH
        EXISTING UN RESOLUTIONS.

Footnotes:
---------
[1] For the full text of the last UNGA resolution, 49/197 23 December 1994,
see Appendix 7.

ENDS(6.1-6.10)\