India, China & Russia’s Voting with Junta in UN General Assembly Third Committee Meeting: Right or Wrong?

http://www.burmareview.org/2008/11/india-china-russias-voting-with-junta.html

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 Burma (document A/C.3/63/L.33), three important nations of world community – India, China & Russia once again sided with Burma’s ruling military junta. However despite siding with junta as usual by India, China and Russia, the draft resolution which attempts to restore situation of dialogue and human rights with Burma’s infamous military regime got approved and passed with a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 29 against, and 63 abstentions. The countries which abstained and remain absent also helped diplomatically the resolution passed smoothly and should be considered as a sympathetic to the cause of freedom of Nobel laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi suffering more than thirteen years in house arrest. Most importantly, it also raises the question to debate that the argument of Junta or the decision of India, China and Russia going with that argument by voting with Junta is right or wrong or the argument of USA, EU etc. are right in proposing the human rights resolution concerning Burma?



India, China, Russia, and Burma’s official Argument:

While participating in the debate, India officially said that, “his country had consistently emphasized the importance of the promotion of human rights through dialogue and cooperation. Initiatives on the human rights situation in Myanmar should begin from a “forward-looking” standpoint and be conducted in a ‘non-confrontational manner’. Additionally, recent steps taken by the Government of Myanmar, specifically in terms of progress in political reforms, must be recognized. The draft resolution did not reflect those positive steps taken, nor was it in line with the Secretary-General’s mission to develop his good offices, with a view to improving the situation on the ground. Instead, it seemed to have a tone of condemnation about it and, as such, his delegation had voted against the resolution.” China repeating the same argument of previous year said that, “her delegation had always opposed to the practice of using country-specific resolutions to exert pressure on a developing country. With the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review mechanism in operation, countries concerned about violations of human rights in particular regions should refrain from introducing country-specific resolutions in the Third Committee. In addition, she noted that the co-sponsors had generated strong doubt over their desire to build consensus and real dialogue, because of the exclusive nature with which they conducted consultations on the draft.” Russian Federation said that, “drafts of “selective, politicized and one-sided” country-specific resolutions often led to confrontations among Member States. The creation of the Human Rights Council and the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review offered new opportunities now to establish better international cooperation on human rights. With that in mind, the consideration of country-specific situations should now be conducted within the framework of the Universal Periodic Review, and not the Third Committee.”





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 India, China, Russia and Burma following points emerges to vote with Junta in UN General Assembly third committee meeting, which also emerged in the same manner last year in UN Security Council meeting against Anglo-US resolution.




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 Burma was suffering with worst gigantic scale natural disaster – Cyclone Nargis. Last year when Junta extended the house arrest, the honourable foreign minister of Burma- Mr. Nyan Win said to his Japanese counterpart – Taro Aso in Hamburg, Germany during the ASEM (Asia Europe Meeting) that, ‘it had been a very difficult decision’ to neutralize the criticism in ASEM. But this year in May 2008, they extended the house arrest a day after Junta’s Supremo General Than Shwe met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon making mockery of the office and prestige of the UN Secretary General’s office.






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 USA and should be consensus based. This point has been a hot issue since long relating even with economic sanction policy of west and some even went to writing in ‘The Guardian’ newspaper of UK recently that, Daw Suu and NLD took confrontational attitude due to the western nations support. This point is also related with the sixth point of argument of Russia. Although, every time I read this argument, I felt surprised that how a lady who has been said in Junta’s mouthpiece – ‘The New Light of Myanmar’ that, “The restrictions will never be lifted until she abandons her practice of liberal policy. Even if the restrictions on her are lifted in such a situation, the release will bring no changes…today Myanmar is practicing the national politics, not liberal policy. So, she should give the first priority to the national cause and the second priority to democracy,” holds confrontational attitude and who are actually confrontational? (The New Light of Myanmar, 18 October 2006 also published earlier on 5th of July 2006, two times repeat publication of the same article written by Maung Cetana entitled, “She Who Turned Alien or Danger to the Nation” reflects the secondary priority towards democracy of the regime).”






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 Russia and China had been creation of China & Russia itself by which military gets emboldened to refuse release of political prisoners in Burma. The regime which doesn’t recognize political prisoners in Burma itself reflects who wants confrontation?






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 India, China Russia and Burma. But neutral observers should also took note of the point that, how can NLD or Daw Suu accept the so called referendum results as a positive steps by Junta, when it was conducted against the many resolution of the same Human Rights Council, UN General Assembly resolution and official ASEAN resolutions, which specifically asked first for the release of all political prisoners including Daw Suu Kyi and taking view of different political groups and ethnic communities?






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 India, China and Russia in UNGA third committee but they foolishly missed the great golden diplomatic opportunity of freeing Daw Suu Kyi, when it was announced that UNSG would visit Burma in December 2008 and welcoming in advance for his journey to the golden land.





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 Burma. There are numerous examples in which even Russia and China took the country specific resolution in UN history. And particularly here in Burma, the ruling military council had been given temporary role to play by then Prime Minister – Mr. U Nu having faith on his military commanders but military snatched the power in 1962, and later exploited to remain in power even after achieving the concerned goal and May 1990 elections. The tactics of attaching developing word in country’s name by China is an old Chinese diplomatic tactics of cajoling developing nations since the time of Chou-en-Lai. As far as the Human Rights Council mechanism and its Universal periodic review mechanism are concerned. One should not forget that, Burma’s military regime, which hasn’t taken a notice of UNSG appeals a few days back and repeated appeal by earlier UN Secretary General – Mr. Kofi Annan and many ASEAN and UN official resolutions due to the Chinese and Russian instigation to Junta, how could work with Universal Periodic review mechanism? Russia and China knows that more the restoration of democracy problem remains’ in Burma in the guise of Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review meetings of delaying tactics, which also avoids the road of UN Security Council resolutions, the more they will get the opportunity in grazing the economic fields of Burma?


The sixth point of confrontation issue has been already explained and regarding “selective, politicized and one-sided” agenda point of Russia. It is one sided because West and USA etc. are raising the important issue of house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi against ethos of Human Rights Charters. Whether Russia and China can refuse that they had also demanded release of Daw Suu but Junta’s refusal doesn’t harm their economic interest, so it fits their diplomatic maneuverings?





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: Rajshekhar, Burma Review)