1991 U.N. DRAFT RESOLUTION AND SLOR

[uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: 1991 U.N. DRAFT RESOLUTION AND SLORC'S RESPONSE

/* Written Thu 20 Jun 6:00pm 1996 by DRUNOO@xxxxxxxxxxxx in soc.culture.burma */
/* -----------" Draft resolution and Slorc response in 1991 "------------- */

SWEDES' SOLIDARITY TO THE BURMESE IN 1991
-----------------------------------------
In the period after May-1990 election which leads up to the U.N. General
Assembly in September-1990, the international community's response to the
Military Government's refusal to honour election result in Burma seem
to be confused and mixed: the injustice is known but how to respond it may
be the greatest question at that time.  There was a report of movement by
delegation from Sweden at the UNGA'90 to address the incident in Burma
- which nevertheless had withdrawn by the request of Japanese Government.

The Swedes continued making efforts on the Resolution for Burmese
situation in the next UNGA in 1991. The Draft Resolution A/C.3/46/L.43
was adopted without a vote (meaning all votes counted) in December 1991.
To many Burmese, this is known to become their second experience of
international solidarity against the military dictatorship in Burma. In
the later years in 1992 through 1995, such action in solidarity has grown
to greater number of countries ( Draft Resolution for 1994, for example,
was sponsored by 38 Countries !). Burmese will be forever grateful to
the Swedes for this important action at the UNGA-1991. -- U Ne Oo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT RESOLUTION AND SLORC RESPONSE IN 1991.
********************************************

Forty-sixth session:
THIRD COMMITTEE
DRAFT RESOLUTION A/C.3/46/L.43
25 November 1991

HUMAN RIGHTS QUESTION: HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS AND REPORTS OF SPECIAL
RAPPORTEURS AND REPRESENTATIVES

Situation in Myanmar

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming that all Member States have an obligation to promote and
protect human rights and fundamental freedoms stated in the Charter of the
United Nations and elaborated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1/ and the International Covenants on HumanRights 2/ and other applicable
human rights instruments.

Aware that, in accordance with the Charter, the Organization promotes and
encourages respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all and
that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "the will of the
people shall be the basis of the authority of government".

Recalling that the Government of Myanmar has assured the General Assembly
and other United Nations bodies of its intention to take all necessary
steps towards democracy in the light of the election held in 1990.

Noting with concern substantive available information indicating a grave
human rights situation in Myanmar.

Welcoming the Secretary-General's statement on the award of the Nobel Peace
Prize to Aung San Suu Kyi and his repeated appeals for her early release
from house arrest.

1. Takes not of the assurances of the Government of Myanmar to take firm
steps towards the establishment of a democratic State and looks forward to
the early implementation of this commitment;

2. Express its concern at the information on the grave human rights
situation and stresses the need for an early improvement of this situation;

3. Urges the Government of Myanmar to allow all citizens to freely
participate in the political process in accordance with the principles of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

4. Decides to continue its consideration of this question at its
forty-seventh session.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLORC RESPONSE TO THE RESOLUTION
********************************
REPLY STATEMENT MADE BY HIS EXCELLENCY U KYAW MIN, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR TO THE UNITED NATIONS (NEW YORK), TO 'DRAFT
RESOLUTION A/C.3/46/L.43' REGARDING HUMAN RIGHTS QUESTION: HUMAN RIGHTS
SITUATIONS AND REPORTS OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS AND REPRESENTATIVES, ON 25
NOVEMBER 1991.

Mr Chairman,

I have asked for the floor to state the position of my delegation on the
draft resolution contained in document A/C.3/46/L.43 of 25 November 1991,
introduced by the delegation of Sweden.
        First of all, I should like to inform the Committee that through
out the consultations which my delegation conducted with the Swedish
delegation on this draft resolution we have taken a constructive and
reasonable attitude. We conducted these discussions honestly and in good
faith.
        Let me explain the principled stand of my delegation on this draft
resolution.
        My delegation strongly feels that there is no valid reason for the
Committee to adopt a country specific resolution on Myanmar. Let me explain
why.
        As is well known to all, the Myanmar Government has been
cooperating very closely with the Commission on Human Rights. It is no
secret that the situation in Myanmar is being considered by the Commission
on Human Rights under the confidentian procedure established under ECOSOC
resolution 1503(XVIII). The Chairman of the Commission has announced this
at public meetings of the Commission.
        Moreover, the Myanmar Government has willingly accepted and indeed
welcomed the visits to Myanmar of independent experts appointed by the
Chairman of the Commission. The independent expert appointed by the
Chairman of the forty-seventh session of the Commission, Professor Yozo
Yokota of Japan, visited my country in October and will shortly be
submitting his report to the Commission on th basis of his extensive
discussions with Myanmar authorities at a very high level. In view of this
my delegation feels strongly that it is quite inappropriate for this
Committee to pass a country's specific resolution on Myanmar as it could
prejudge the contents of the independent expert's impending report.
        One serious flow of the resolution is the unbalanced character of
the text. Some provisions in the draft resolution are based on
unsubstantiated and politically motivated allegations, emanating mainly
from unsavoury anti-government and anti-people elements who are in league
with armed terrorist groups.
        The draft resolution fails to reflect the positive aspects of
developments of my country, such as Myanmar Government's close cooperation
with the Commission on Human rights.
        Now, let me make some brief observations on certain paragraphs of
the draft resolution.

Preambular Paragraph 1. Myanmar adheres in good faith to the purposes and
principle of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles enshrined
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Myanmar also abide by the
legal principles pertaining to human rights that have come to be
universally accepted as principles of customary international law. Although
Myanmar is not yet a State party to the International covenants on Human
Rights, we are abiding by these provisions and principles embodied in the
Covenants which are taken from the Charter and the Declaration. However,
the provisions which represent the progressive development of international
law and have not yet attained the status of general principles of customary
international law cannot be considered as binding on non States-Party. To
assert, as preambular paragraph 1 seems to do, that rules of conventional
international law are binding on non-States parties is too sweeping and is
not in consonance with the established principles of treaty law.

Mr Chairman,
        Let me here say that human rights also encompasses economic and
social rights. Questions of human rights are multi-faceted and
multi-dimensional. In our consideration of these questions, we should,
therefore, take into account all aspects of human rights. These rights
include, among others, the right to security in one's home and in the
streets, the right to live in peace and tranquility in the cities and in
the countryside, the right to have a roof above one's head, clothing on
one's back and food in one's belly.
        For a developing country, the economic and social realities dictate
that basic human requirements such as security, food, clothing and shelter
must be given priority. If these basic requirements remain unfulfilled,
enjoyment of human rights by the common people will remain seriously
wanting.

Preambular Paragraph 3. The State Law and Order Restoration Council in
Declaration No. 1/90 dated 27 July 1990, has clearly set forthe the
comprehensive programme on the political and constitutional process aimed
at establishing a multi-party democratic state in Myanmar. All the
political parties without exception have accepted this progremme. Mya
minister for Foreign Affairs has explained at length the main features of
this progremme in his statememt before the General Assembly on 4 October
1991. Preambular paragraph 3 is not a faithful reflection of that
statement. Indeed, as presently formulated, it amounts to dictating to
Myanmar Government how democracy should be established in the country. this
constitutes an unacceptable interference in matters which fall essentially
within the domestic jurisdiction of my country in the terms of Article 2(7)
of the charter of the United Nations.
        A clear-cut line of demarcation must be drawn between human rights
and purely internal matters of Member States. Linkage between these
entirely difference questions is totally inadmissible and unacceptable.

Preambular Paragraph 4. Under the terms of this paroagraph the Committee
would be passing a judgement on the human rights situation in Myanmar,
which, we feel is totally unjustified and unwarranted. I should here like
to stress once again that the main sources of "substantive available
information" are nothing but fabrications coming from the sources which I
have earlier mentioned.

Mr Chairman,
Preambular Paragraph 5. Let me state categorically that the measure alluded
to in the second phrase of this paragraph has been taken in the larger
interest of the State and for the sole purpose of upholding the rule of law
and preserving public order and tranquility. Let me also inform the
committee that the Head of State of Myanmar, Senior General Saw Maung,
himself has written to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,
explaining the full facts concerning this matter. Moreover, my Minister for
Foreign Affairs has on tow separate occasions personally appraised the
Secretary-General of the true situation in this regard to allay his
concerns. I myself, Mr Chairman, have reiterated the assurances of my
Government to the Secretary-General early this month. My delegation
therefore simply cannot understand why preambular paragraph 5 has been
inscribed in the draft. Needless to say, it is totally unacceptable to my
Government.

Mr. Chairman,
        My delegation would like once again to stress that certain
individuals have been placed under restraint, not for their political
activities or for thier political persuasions but for infringement of the
law. Every government has the primary responsibility to uphold the rule of
law and to maintain public peace and civil order in its country. I repeat
most emphatically that legal action taken against certain persons in the
most lenient under the law. Must sterner penalties could have been taken
against them under our criminal law. These actions have been taken after
due processes of law. Let me remind the co-sponsors that it is a sacrosanct
rule that decisions of courts of law in a Member State must not be called
in question.

Mr Chairman,
        I have briefly set out the position of my delegaiton on the draft
resolution contained in L.43. It should be clear from what I have said that
certain in-built flows of the draft which I have pointed out make it
unacceptable to my government. However, in teh spirit of Myanmar's unbroken
tradition of faithfully observing the principles of the Charter and colsely
cooperating with the United Nations ever since we regained independence, in
deference to the sentiments expressed by a great many delegations
representing governments which bear goodwill and understanding towards my
country, and last but not least, out of respect for the strong appeal made
by you, Mr Chairman, at the opening meeting of the Committee that
delegations should cooperate to enable draft resolutions to be adopted
without a vote, my delegation has decided not to request a vote on L.43. I
must however make it abndantly clear that my delegation in NOT (repeat) NOT
taking part in the adoption of this draft resolution and will NOT be a
party to it.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT RESOLUTION BY SWEDEN AND SLORC'S RESPONSE IN 1991.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
/* Endreport */