Check against delivery
Statement by
His Excellency U Mya Than
Permanent Representative and
Leader of the Myanmar Observer Delegation
to the fifty-ninth session of the
Commission on Human Rights
Rebuttals to the draft resolution No.E/CN.4/2003/L.36
(Agenda Item 9)
Geneva, 16 April 2003
Madam Chair,
I thank you for giving me the
floor to offer some comments on the draft resolution on the situation of human
rights in Myanmar, contained in document E/CN.4/2003/L.36, submitted by Greece on
behalf of the European Union and other countries.
This year's draft resolution
is once again fundamentally flawed, imbalanced and biased.
Madam Chair,
There is an emerging
consensus view among the Member States and observers of the Commission on Human
Rights that country-specific resolutions should be constructive, non-accusatory
and balanced. This year's draft resolution on the situation of human rights in
Myanmar has fallen far short of meeting these criteria.
Because of the time
constraint, let me cite only some examples from a long list of text elements
which are fraught with such defects.
In the Memorandum of Human
Rights Situation in Myanmar contained in document E/CN.4/2003/G/47, circulated
by the Myanmar observer delegation, we have set out in detail Myanmar's
specific characteristics and conditions, and we have also explained why the
process of transition in Myanmar has to be of evolutionary nature.
The draft resolution, in o.p. 3(b), expresses its grave concern at "the
continued refusal to enter into a genuine political dialogue with Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi and other democratic leaders". That paragraph deliberately
portrays a negative picture as if nothing has been done on the part of the
Myanmar Government in this respect.
Let us see whether or not
this accurately reflects the reality.
There have been
misconceptions and misrepresentations about the current status of the national
reconciliation in the Union of Myanmar.
I wish to inform you that
there have been 12 meetings between a special team led by a cabinet-level
representative of the Government and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi of the NLD. There
have also been meetings between the two sides at the higher and lower levels.
For instance, a high-ranking military official with the rank of Brigadier
General, who is acting as a liaison between the Government and Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi, had met her 111 times during the period between 25 October 2000 and 15
January 2003. It bears reiterating here that our national reconciliation
process is a homegrown process in our own traditional way.
In this context, we wish to
stress that, while the Myanmar authorities have displayed their magnanimity and
positive gestures, politicians and political parties, on their part, also ought
to demonstrate their goodwill, constructive spirit and willingness to cooperate
with the Government in the interest of the country. The political evolution can
take place only when politicized attempts to destabilize the country and to
derail the ongoing process have given way to a responsible, realistic and
cooperative approach on the part of these elements.
Madame Chair,
The draft resolution includes
sweeping generalizations such as "systematic violations of human
rights" without any shred of evidence to substantiate those accusations.
The term "systematic violations of human rights" occurs in o.p. 3(a), 3(c), 5(b) and 5(g).
Let us see whether or not
there is any shred of evidence mentioned in the report of the Special
Rapporteur to support these accusations.
Members and observers of this
esteemed Commission will recall that the Special Rapporteur of the Situation of
Human Rights in Myanmar, in his report to the fifty-ninth session of the
Commission, states :-
Quote
"It is time to take
stock of, acknowledge and evaluate the ongoing effects of incremental change
which have taken place."
Unquote.
Furthermore, the Special
Rapporteur, in the same report, has made this observation :-
Quote
"According to
third-party views, it is true that there has been more development, peace and
stability in more areas than before and there is more freedom (in relative
terms)." Unquote
I am quoting from the
credible and authoritative report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of
Human Rights in Myanmar. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the accusations
of "systematic violations of human rights in Myanmar" is
unsubstantiated, and is, indeed, proven to be inaccurate and incorrect by the report
of the Special Rapporteur.
May I add here that it is not
the policy of the Myanmar Government to encourage or condone anyone to commit
any violations of human rights, let alone carrying out harassments of any kind
on its own people as its policy.
Madam Chair,
Let us see whether or not the
draft resolution is really constructive without accusatory language.
The draft resolution, in o.p. 3(c), provides a very, very long list of accusations.
That paragraph is, in fact, a catalogue of all possible violations of human
rights, all attributed without any evidence or justification to the Myanmar
Government. This clearly
demonstrates the accusatory character of the draft resolution.
Madam Chair,
Let us see whether or not the
draft resolution is fair and balanced.
The draft resolution, in o.p. 4(f), calls upon the Myanmar Government to accede to a
very long list of international conventions. I wish to pose a question to the
sponsors of the draft resolution whether they have themselves acceded to all
those conventions. The imbalance in that paragraph is underscored by the fact
that a long list of international conventions also includes the Convention on
the Prohibition on the Use, Stockpiles, Production and Transfer of
Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Mine Ban Treaty). The Mine Ban
Treaty is not a human rights treaty. It is rather an arm control and
disarmament treaty and a humanitarian treaty.
The inclusion of the Mine Ban
Convention in that paragraph has, indeed, weakened the claim of the sponsors to
the seriousness of their purpose and the genuineness of their good intention in
encouraging the Myanmar Government to improve the human rights situation in
Myanmar.
Madam Chair,
The draft resolution, in o.p. 3(c), (d) and (e), includes the allegations of systematic
use of child soldiers, allegations of various types of violations of human
rights against ethnic minorities.
I should like to point out
here that there is no credible and concrete evidence of the recruitment and the
use of children by the Myanmar Armed Forces. As a matter of fact, such an abuse
has been banned by law in Myanmar. The Myanmar Defence Services Act of 1974 and
Instruction 13/73 of the War Office Council provide that a person cannot enlist
in the Armed Forces until and unless he has attained the age of 18. There is
neither a draft system nor forced conscription by the Government of Myanmar.
The Myanmar Armed Forces is an all volunteer army.
Nor are the sweeping
allegations of violations of human rights against the ethnic minorities
credible and plausible. These allegations emanate from the
politically-motivated anti-government elements. May I point out here that no
one can deny the fact that, for the first time in the modern history of
Myanmar, the overwhelming majority of the armed groups --17 1/2 out of 18 armed
groups --have concluded peace agreements with the Government; have returned to
the legal fold; and have joined hands with the Government in the development of
their respective regions. It would have been inconceivable that these armed
groups of national races will return to the legal fold and join hands with the
Government in nation-building tasks, if the allegations of systematic and
widespread violations of human rights against the national races were really
true.
In fact, the State Peace and
Development Council has accomplished border area
development on an unprecedented scale for national races and a perceptible
uplift in the standard of living and the well-being of these people.
Madam Chair,
The draft resolution, in o.p. 3(f) and 5 (h), inaccurately characterizes HIV/AIDS
situation in Myanmar as "progressively more critical" and of
"mounting gravity". It further describes the efforts of the Myanmar
Government as an "insufficient response".
Let us also see how these
negative portrayals match with the reality.
We have formed the National
AIDS Committee, and there are 40 AIDS/STD Prevention and Control Teams. They
are energetically and effectively carrying out necessary measures of
prevention, control and treatment of HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Myanmar is also actively
cooperating with ASEAN Member States and neighbouring countries in combating
HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Myanmar is also cooperating
fully with the UNAIDS. A joint survey, conducted by Myanmar and the UNAIDS in
March 2002 estimated a total of 177,279 people, affected by HIV/AIDS in
Myanmar. Mind you that this estimated figure is only one-third of the estimated
figure of around 500,000 HIV/AIDS cases, published by the western NGOs and
mentioned in the report of the Special Rapporteur last year.
This is an example of how
those people could distort the facts and figures and ignore the reality.
Madam Chair,
So much
about some examples of too many negative elements in the draft resolution.
The problem is that, even
when the sponsors of the draft resolution welcome and appreciate the efforts
and achievements of the Myanmar Government, they do so only grudgingly and not
in full fairness.
The draft resolution, in o.p. 1 (i), welcomes merely "the growing awareness of
the Government to combat the production of opium in Myanmar." But there is
no mentioning of the efforts and achievements of the Government in its war on
illicit drugs.
Let us see how this compare with the reality.
In fact, Myanmar has made
great sacrifices in its war on illicit drugs. During the period from 1988 to
date, Myanmar has sacrificed the lives of 776 soldiers from its Armed Forces in
its military operations to interdict drug traffickers; 2350 soldiers have
sustained injuries and lost their limbs.
Is there any other country
which has made sacrifices of this kind and magnitude in its war on illicit
drugs?
Moreover, Myanmar has done a
great deal in destroying poppy plantations and illicit drugs seized by the law
enforcement agencies. Nor is it sparing any effort in its cooperation with
neighbouring countries in combating this horrible scourge.
The efforts and achievements
of the Myanmar Government in this respect have been recognized by the
International Narcotic Drug Control Board (INCB). In its 2002 report, the INCB
acknowledges that the opium production in Myanmar had decreased by some 50
percent from its level in 1996.
In the eyes of the sponsors
of the draft resolutions, all these facts and figures on the achievements of
the Myanmar Government add up to nothing more than "the growing awareness
of the Government of the need to combat the production of opium in
Myanmar."
Madam Chair,
We hope that next year the
sponsors of the draft resolution will show more flexibility and a more
constructive approach to draw up a draft resolution on Myanmar which approaches
our vision of a fair draft resolution, as outlined above.
I regret to say that the
draft resolution, as it now stands, has fallen far short of meeting the
aforementioned criteria. There are too many negative elements, too
excessively-worded formulations, too much politicization and too many factual
errors in it.
Madam Chair,
I wish to place on record the
profound gratitude of the Myanmar delegation and the Myanmar Government to the
ASEAN countries and their ambassadors and representatives who have extended
all-out support and have helped throughout the consultations on the draft
resolution. I should also like to express our deep appreciation to other
friendly countries and their ambassadors and representatives, who have been
very supportive of my delegation, for their most valuable support in our
endeavours to tone down the draft resolution.
Madam Chair,
Despite all these efforts by
my delegation as well as the representatives of the friendly countries to make
the draft resolution more constructive, less accusatory and more balanced, the
end product of the draft resolution has fallen far short of meeting these
criteria.
For these reasons, my delegation
dissociates itself from the draft resolution on situation of Human Rights in
Myanmar.
Nonetheless, Myanmar's stand
is a principled stand. We stand firm on our principles. One of the principles
we believe in is that of cooperation with the United Nations and international
organizations and the Commission on Human Rights to the extent possible.
We shall, therefore, continue
to cooperate with the Commission on Human Rights in the spirit and the
tradition that we have carried forward to date.
I thank you, Madam Chair.