[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
BURMA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT OCT 95 (6 (r)
Subject: BURMA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT OCT 95 (6.59-6.82)
/* posted Sun 10 Mar 6:00am 1996 by DRUNOO@xxxxxxxxxxxx
in igc:soc.culture.burma */
/* -----------" BURMA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT, OCT 95 (6.59-6.82) "---------- */
CHAPTER SIX: (6.59 - 6.82)
*************************
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 OF ISOLATION (6.59 - 6.82)
--------------------------------------------------
Australia - the Current State of Involvement in Burma
6.59 Since 1988, at a government level, Australia's relations with Burma
have been minimal.
(a) Australia maintains an Embassy in Rangoon.
(b) Defence exports to Burma are banned and defence visits from
Australia have been suspended.
(c) Austrade officers from Australia do not visit Burma although an
Austrade office is maintained in Rangoon with guidelines to
'neither encourage nor discourage trade', it is an information
office.
(d) The Government has suspended direct bilateral development aid
and assistance through the United Nations is confined as much as
possible to grassroots activities.
(e) Humanitarian aid is provided to displaced people along the
borders of Burma and Thailand and Burma and Bangladesh. It is
delivered through NGOs [40].
6.60 However, the Australian Government has promoted change in the
political situation and an improvement in human rights in Burma through:
(a) dialogue between the Foreign Ministers, Senator Gareth Evans
and U Ohy Gyaw at regional and UN forums;
(b) representations and dialogue with the Government of Burma by
the Embassy in Rangoon;
(c) support for strong resolutions on Burma at the UN General
Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights;
(d) support for the objectives of the ICRC and UNHCR in their work
in Burma and on the borders;
(e) support for the international legal and human rights
infrastructure; and
(f) urging regional countries and the wider international community
to press the Government of Burma to implement democratic reforms
and to adhere to universally accepted standards of human rights.
Australian Trade and Investment
6.61 Australian trade with Burma is small. Australian exports to Burma in
1993 were valued at $A9.7 million, made up of electrical equipment,
machinery, telecommunications equipments and spare parts; imports from
Burma were $A12.7 million, mainly seafood.
6.62 Australia is ranked twelfth in foreign investment in Burma; $US28.2
million of investmemts have already been approved. At March 1995, proposals
by four Australian firms for investment have been approved, two in oil
exploration, one in mining. The fourth company, BHP, though approved has
withdrawn.
6.63 The DFAT Country Economic Brief reported that there had been 100 per
cent increase in the number of Australian businesses visiting Burma in
1994-95. Australian business presence in Burma was listed as:
* BHP Minerals is engaged in coal exploration in the Tenasserim
area.
* Carlton and United Breweries are actively engaged in the
promotion, distribution and sale of Fosters beer, distributed
through a local agent.
* Ericsson (Australia) which successfully commissioned telephone
substations during late 1993 and early 1994, maintains an office
staffed with an expatriate manager responsible for follow up work
and to search for future business opportunities.
* Glover Electrical Industries, which entered the Myanmar market in
1989 has grown solidly. They specialise in air conditioning,
electrical refrigeration, plumbing and construction works.
* ICI Pacific Seeds (Australia) has supplied hybrid maize and
sunflower seeds on a modest but steady scale to the Ministry of
Agriculture for some years. Similarly Boart LOngyear continued to
supply mining tools and equipment to the Ministry of Mines.
* In February 1995, Pacific Arc Exploration signed a contract for
joint venture gold exploration with the Ministry of Mines. A
feasibility study has been completed and initial works are now
under way.
* South Paeific, an oil exploration company, started drilling its
first test well in March and in April 1995, Empire Oil Co (Pacific)
signed a contract with the Ministry of Energy for a production
sharing joint venture exploration for oil and gas in the Rakhine
State, western Myanmar.
* Transfield International has an office run by a expatriate
manager, with interests in developing proposals for power stations
[41].
6.64 The Committee wrote to 16 Australian businesses [42], understood to
have had connections with trade or investment in Burma, seeking
informaition on their experience. Nine replied. None were willing to talk
to the Committee. Airey Ryan & Hill said that they had not proceed after
exploring the possibilities. Klinger explained that they had withdrawn in
1988, Transcom withdrew in 1993, Multiplex successfully completed their
project in 1993, BHP withdrew in 1992. NOne of these companies believed
they had anything useful to tell the Committee. Lloyd's P&O Maritime said
they had no involvement in Burma at all. Kailis also said that they had no
involvement but suggested that another part of the company might have. They
did not volunteer any further information.
6.65 This reluctance on the part of business was a matter of regret to the
Committee as it would have been most useful to test the general information
and other claims made about doing business in Burma against the individual
experiences of Australian companies.
6.66 The DFAT Country Brief makes no meition of the human rights situation
in Burma. While the Committee understands the desire of businesses to
separate trade and human rights issues, it seems to the Committee that
where human rights are abused, business is affected. This is so because
human rights problems generally indicate the lack of legal accountability
in a number of fields and the lack of the rule of law and open systems make
doing business unpredictable; because human rights abuses can impact on the
safety of expatriates doing business; because there are ethical problems of
associating the company with the problems of poor labour practices which a
company may or may not be able to control. Joint ventures particularly may
face this ethical dilemma as far as labour standards are concerned. Burma's
record of forced labour is so well documented and so brutal that it would
seem to the Committee to be an important consideration in any investment
decision.
6.67 The ethnical dimension of doing business has received attention in
number of forums of late. Teh Academy of Social Science in Australia and
the Asia-Australia Institute currently have a project on Australian-Asian
perceptions. Business ethics are a matter of concern to australians as
evidenced by the disillusionment of many with the poor practices of the 80s
and the subsequent losses suffered by shareholders and the wider community.
HOwever business ethics, what they are or should be, affect our
international relationships as well. The export and investment push,
especially in this region, requires Australian businessmen to have a clear
understanding of our ethical values. This becomes particularly important
where there are different levels of development, different rates of pay and
different expectations labour standards between Australia and the region.
At a recent conference on business ethics, Professor Stephen Fitzgerald
warned of the danger of failing to understand the importance of maintaining
high standards of business ethics in this country if we are not to be
accused of hypocricy [43].
6.68 The Committee believes that this is a debate that needs to be
continued and developed. It should involve all those concerned with
business and business practice and those concerned with the protection of
human rights. These are not mutually exclusive groups. The Committee also
believes that the debate should be broadly based, not, as in the past,
narrowly focused on purely punitive responses to human rights abuses. In
its tow reports to the Parliament so far, the committee has recommended
that, where possible, policy should move away from reactive and punitive
approaches and consider the integration of human rights expectations as a
normal baseline feature of Australian practice both domestically and
internationally, in both the public and private domain, applying equally to
government agencies involved in trade, aid and defence cooperation and to
private businesses.
6.69 It is time that Australian business become engaged in the development
of a clear statement of business ethics. It is part of the best practice
debate and it is an essential aspect of the projection of Australia in the
region. To this extent, it is something that should be facilitated by teh
Australian Government through its relevant agencies, the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade, AUSTRADE and the Department of Industry. It
should be addressed in a coordinating way by the peak bodies of industry as
well as by individual Australian companies.
6.70 The Committee recommends that:
(A) THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE AUSTRALIAN
BUSINESS TO ACT AT ALL TIMES IN MANNER CONSISTENT WITH AUSTRALIAN
LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS OBJECTIVES, INCLUDING ENVIRANMENTAL AND
WOMEN'S RIGHTS; AND
(B) CONSISTENT WITH THE WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT APPROACH TO HUMAN
RIGHTS AND THE NEED TO PROVIDE BUSINESS WITH PRACTICAL ASSISTANCE,
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD ENSURE THAT THOSE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES AND SERVICES, SUCH AS AUSTRADE, WHICH
ROUTINELY DEAL WITH AND/OR ADVISE AUSTRALIAN COMPANIES:
(i) ARE FULLY APPRAISED AND ROUTINELY UPDATED ON AUSTRALIA'S
HUMAN RIGHTS OBJECTIVES AND RELEVANT HUMAN RIGHTS INTELLIGENCE;
(ii) PROVIDE APPROPRIATE ADVICE TO COMPANIES ON HUMAN RIGHTS
MATTERS; AND
(iii) ESTABLISH IN COOPERATION WITH BSINESS ORGANISATIONS A
HUMAN RIGHTS CODE OF PRACTICE; AND
(C) THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD PURSUE AT THE ILO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A CONVENTION TO REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF
CONSISTENT HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS FOR WORKERS IN MULTINATIONAL
ENTERPRISES, ENSURING THAT THE SAME HIGH STANDARDS APPLY TO WORKERS
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AS TO THOSE IN THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF THE
ENTERPRISE.
6.71 The Committee has addressed these matters and made similar
recommendations in Chapters 5 and 16 of its report into Australia's
Relations with Thailand.
6.72 In the human rights report of 1994, teh Committee recommended that the
Government consider the establishment of a HUman Rights Centre for Dialogue
and Cooperation. The Committee believes that this issue of extending and
facilitating the debate on human rights and business would be well served
by the establishment of such a centre. At the time of writing the
Government had not yet made its response to the 1994 report. The Committee
therefore reiterates its recommendation on the Centre and suggests there
may be some scope for combining the Human Rights Centre with the Peace
Centre proposed in the JSCFADT report on peacekeeping also tabled in
December 1994.
6.73 The Committee recommends that:
31. THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT, AS OUTLINED IN
THE ACFOA PROPOSAL TO THE INQUIRY INTO AUSTRALIA' EFFORT TO PROMOTE
AND PROTECT HUMAN RIHGTS, OF A HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE FOR DIALOGUE
AND COOPERATION IN AUSTRALIA. THIS CENTRE MIGHT BE ESTABLISHED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE PEACEKEEPING CENTRE.
Aid
6.74 The suspension of development assistance to Burma is a response to the
massacre of pro-democracy students in Burma in 1988 and the usurpation of
power by the SLORC after the 1990 election. The Government does not wish to
aid the regime or offer its legitimacy. The resumption of development
assistance is dependent on progress towards democracy and an improvement in
human rights.
6.75 AusAID informed the Committee that the acceptability of particular
programs of humanitarian aid was dependent on 'the extent to which the
SLORC can take them over and use them to demonstrate international support
[44]'. They told the Committee that they decide upon projects following
direct discussions with NGOs and UN organisations in Burma, on the border
and in Australia, about the situation on the ground and to ascertain the
needs and wishes of the recipients.
6.76 The total allocation to Burma is 1994-95 is expected to be
approximately $A3.4 million, with most of those funds, approximately $A2
million, going to refugee assistance on the borders. The delivery of most
of the Australian assistance money to border refugees is through the UNHCR
- $A1.5 million of the $A2 million. Other delivery agencies are Medicins
sans Frontieres and the Burma Border Consortium. An allocation of $A410,000
has been made to health programs for the Burmese in Thailand and $A404,000
has been allocated to allow students from Thailand and the border to study
in Australia. A further $A90,000 is granted to NGOs through the Australian
NGO Cooperation Program (ANCP) for projects along the Thai-Burma border.
6.77 In-country humanitarian programs for 1994-95 cover health programs,
maternal and child health - $A100,000 and HIV/AIDS - $A200,000. This aid
is delivered by NGOs and UN agencies. A further allocation through the
Australian NGO Cooperation Pragram (ANCP) of $A50,356 is devoted to similar
health and humanitarian programs within Burma. Assistance in the form of a
professional officer is given to the United Nations Drug Control Program
(UNDCP) [45].
6.78 Projects are evaluated through regular written reports and financial
acquittals. AusAID officers visit projects where possible. In principle
they do not at this stage visit Burma itself.
6.79 The delivery of the humanitarian assistance through NGOs inside Burma
drew some criticism during the inquiry. The Australia-Burma Council opposed
any aid that depended on a memorandum of understanding with the SLORC or
any cooperation with SLORC officials as they said it was used by the SLORC
for their own purposes. They believed that there was no adequate means of
monitoring what was happening with the project and that corruption in the
system made the targeting of the aid difficult. Medicines did not get
through. they cited the case of a hospital supposedly supplied with
medicines by the World Health Organisation:
[T]here are many problems concerning health programs in Burma. I
have recently been to one hospital inside Burma right across the
border from Thailand. The hospital is almost empty. One man I met
was in the contagious diseases ward. He told us there was no one
caring for him and there was no medicine. ... [T]he hospital is one
of the areas where aid has supposedly been sent [46].
Table: AUSTRALIAN ACTIVITY IN BURMA (pp-102)
(illegible to reproduce in this format )
6.80 They also believed that the intrusive nature of the regime meant that
SLORC supervision would limit the effectiveness and impartiality of the
delivery of the assistance. Finally they argued that Burmese opposition
groups themselves thought that the time was not yet right.
6.81 Australian NGOs involved in humanitarian aid to Burma disagreed. They
saw the need as substantial: there was exterme poverty; medicines were
scarece; the HIV/AIDS incidence had reached crisis proportions [47]. They
belived that, despite many difficulies and frustrations, it was possible to
deliver humanitarian assistance with a reasonable degree of intefrity. This
included hard negotiations to insist that no direct financial aid be given,
only medicines and they warned that any systematic stealing from the
program would result in its withdrawal. Tehy had experienced a less than
five per cent loss rate. However they admitted the Government accompanied
their officers in the field and it was burdensome, that negotiations were
protracted and that discrepancies in the exchange rate created difficulties
for the delivery of assistance. (See Chapter 4, paragraph 4.55 and
recommendation. )
6.82 The Committee recommends that:
40. AS LONG AS THERE IS NO MOVE TO ESTABLISH A DIALOGUE WITH AUNG SAN
SUU KYI AND THE NLD, NO BROADENING OF THE PROCEDURES OF THE
NATIONAL CONVENTION, NO END TO FORCED LABOUR, NOR THE RELEASE OF
POLITICAL PRISONERS, THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT:
(A) CONTINUE TO DIRECT ITS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO THE PEOPLE ON THE
BORDER; AND
(B) CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN HEALTH AND SANITATION PROGRAMS FOR THE
PEOPLE IN THE CAMPS.
Footnotes:
---------
[40] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade submission, p.S497.
[41] All the information in this section is quoted from the DFAT Country
Economic Brief, op.cit. pp. 35-37.
[42] Letters were sent to: AGC Woodward-Clyde Pty Ltd, Ericsson Australia
Pty Ltd, Richard Klinger Pty Ltd, C&C Diesel Engineering &Consultants,
Lloyds (P&O Maritime Services Pty Ltd), Pacific Arc Exploration NL, PG
Airey and Associates, BHP, Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, Blakers Pump
Engineers, Global Livestock Marketing Pty Ltd, Stockdale 90, Stefani Pure
Water Australasia, Modra Electric, Pacific Advance Madia, Kailis Brothers
and Transcom International.
[43] The views of Professor Fitzgerald and a number of prominent business
leaders were given at a conference at the St James Ethics Centre and the
Centre for Philosophy and Public Issues on 19 April 1993. Professor
Fitzgerald's paper, 'Ethical Dimensions of Australia's Engagement with
Asian Countries: Are there any ?' is quoted from the discussion paper,
'Business and Human Rights', 7 August 1995, prepared for Senator Bourne by
Mr Eric Sidoti.
[44] AusAID submission, p. S504.
[45] Evidence, 17 August 1995, p. 278.
[46] In-camera evidence, 5 May 1995, p. 35.
[47] The Committee was told that an estimated 400,000 people in Burma had
been infected with HIV/AIDS - approximately 1% of the population.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above 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.
ENDS(6.59-6.82)\