Sunday, 14 March 2010
The U.N. Must Stop Enabling the Burmese Regime
The Southeast Asian country of Burma (renamed Myanmar by the country's ruling junta in 1989) attracted international criticism following a violent crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations in September. This brutal response, resulting in the deaths of at least 15 protestors (most independent observers estimate the number killed to be much higher), is typical of the junta, which has long been accused of human rights violations, including mistreatment of ethnic minorities and forced labor. Despite its routine violation of the most fundamental rights of its citizens in contravention of the United Nations Charter, Burma is a U.N. member in good standing and regularly receives assistance from the U.N. and its affiliated funds and programs. Until the recent press attention, the U.N. Human Rights Council ignored the human rights abuses perpetrated by the government on its citizens. Even after the crackdown, the U.N. has not imposed sanctions on Burma or the junta due to opposition from veto-wielding permanent members China and Russia. The United States should take steps within the U.N. to prevent the oppressive regime in Burma from using the privileges of the organization, including access to its resources and assistance, to benefit itself and further repress its citizens.
The U.N. and Burma
The United Nations was founded in 1945 to maintain international peace and security and undertake collective measures to remove threats to peace; to promote equal rights and self-determination of peoples; to help solve problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character; and to encourage "social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." In the Charter, member states pledge "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women."[1] U.N. treaties and conventions, such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which the General Assembly passed in 1948, form the core of international standards for human rights.
Few members of the United Nations violate the founding principles of the United Nations as regularly and profoundly as the junta in charge of Burma.
Political repression. The people of Burma have been denied the right to self-determination, the most basic human right recognized by the United Nations. Military regimes have ruled Burma since 1962. The current regime, which seized power in 1988, permitted a national election in 1990, refused to recognize its loss, and has confined the leader of the opposition National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, for 12 years since the election. Thousands of Buddhist monks and Burmese citizens staged a series of peaceful demonstrations in September 2007 to demand "freedom, democracy and respect for human rights." The ruling military junta responded to these demonstrations with a violent crackdown on the monks and unarmed civilian demonstrators that "resulted in ten deaths [the government now acknowledges 15] and the imprisonment of some 4,000, according to the regime. Diplomatic sources, however, state that the numbers of those killed, injured and imprisoned are much higher than those officially reported."[2] Following the recent crackdown on demonstrators, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution strongly deploring "the continued violent repression of peaceful demonstrations in Myanmar."[3]
Human rights violations. The Burmese regime poses a serious danger to the Burmese people. Protesters and dissidents are routinely beaten, tortured, and killed. The U.S. Department of State reports:
The regime continued to abridge the right of citizens to change their government.... In addition, the government continued to commit other serious abuses, including extrajudicial killings, custodial deaths, disappearances, rape, and torture. The government abused prisoners and detainees, held persons in harsh and life threatening conditions, routinely used incommunicado detention, and imprisoned citizens arbitrarily for political motives.... The government restricted freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, and movement. The government did not allow domestic human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to function independently, and international NGOs encountered a hostile environment. Violence and societal discrimination against women continued, as did forced recruitment of child soldiers, discrimination against ethnic minorities, and trafficking in persons, particularly of women and girls. Workers rights remained restricted, and forced labor, including that of children, also persisted.[4]
The United Nations has also condemned Burma for human rights violations. The Third Committee of the General Assembly passed a resolution expressing "grave concern at ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Myanmar; the continuing use of torture; deaths in custody; political arrests and continuing imprisonment and other detentions, denial of freedom of assembly, association, expression and movement, and the prevailing culture of impunity"[5] and called on the government to end those practices.
Government-caused poverty and underdevelopment. When Burma won independence from Britain in 1948, the country was one of Asia's brightest economic prospects. Burma possessed rich natural resources and a well-developed agricultural sector that earned the country the title of "the rice bowl of Asia." Nearly 60 years later, and despite receiving nearly $14 billion in total official development assistance between 1960 and 2006, Burma is one of the world's most impoverished, undeveloped, and isolated countries.[6] According to the Index of Economic Freedom, Burma is a "repressed" economy, ranking 153rd out of 157 countries in terms of economic freedom.[7] Burma is ranked 29th out of 30 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, besting only North Korea. Repressive economic policies imposed by the military junta, such as forcing farmers to sell rice to the government at below market prices and restricting movement and trade, have directly contributed to an estimated 5 million people lacking sufficient food, according to the World Food Program. According to U.N. estimates, a third of all Burmese children under five years of age are underweight, and 10 percent are considered "wasted" or acutely malnourished. Burma's child mortality rates are among the worst in Asia.[8]
The repressive policies of the Burmese government have led the United States and other Western nations to suspend foreign assistance to Burma and apply economic sanctions to the regime.[9] These nations have used their influence to constrain Burma's access to assistance from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which have not made new loans to Burma since the 1980s.
Few other nations have taken similar actions. The member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Burma is a member, have been unwilling to act against Burma, aside from harshly criticizing the recent political crackdown.[10] China has focused on securing access to Burma's resources and refuses to take steps that would undermine that goal; worse, it has increased its ties to Burma,as has India.[11]
Most disappointing is the lack of action by the United Nations. Many of Burma's actions are in contravention of multilateral agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the founding principles of the U.N. Yet Burma is treated no differently than any other nation within the U.N. organization. Burma is permitted to participate in all U.N. activities without restriction or consequence for its repudiation of fundamental U.N. principles. Indeed, Burma's junta has not only gone unreprimanded but also has reaped the fruits of U.N. programs and assistance:
Burma has evaded sanction by the U.N. Security Council. The evidence of human rights violations by the Burmese junta is extensive and well documented. In violation of its obligations under the U.N. Charter, the country has denied its citizens the right to self-determination in addition to undermining other basic human rights and fundamental freedoms espoused in the Charter. The government has conducted a vicious campaign against ethnic minorities that has caused an estimated 540,000 people to be internally displaced and hundreds of thousands of others to flee to neighboring countries.[12] The Security Council, however, has failed to sanction Burma for flagrantly violating central provisions of the Charter or for its actions that have created a refugee crisis. After years of ignoring the situation in Burma, the Security Council voted to place the situation in Burma on its formal agenda in September 2006, which allows any member of the Council to raise the item for discussion.[13] This has not spurred action by the Council, however. A U.S.- and U.K.-sponsored resolution calling on the Burmese government to cease attacks on civilians in ethnic minority areas and lift restrictions on political freedoms and human rights failed to pass in January 2007 due to vetoes from Russia and China.[14] An October 11, 2007, statement by the president of the Security Council strongly deplored the political crackdown and called on the government to release political prisoners.[15] A November 15 Security Council press release reiterated these concerns and stated that the "members of the Security Council confirm their intention to keep developments in Myanmar under close review."[16] The U.N. Human Rights Council[17] and the Third Committee of the General Assembly,[18] to their credit, have both passed resolutions condemning the situation in Burma. However, these resolutions are non-binding and affect the Burmese junta minimally, if at all.
Burma serves in high-level positions in the U.N. and its affiliated funds and programs. Burma currently serves as a vice president on the Executive Board of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) despite its dismal record of mistreatment of children, and serves as a member of the Commission on Social Development, a functional commission of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), despite its well documented repression of civil society and minority ethnic groups. Burma served as Chairman of the Fourth Committee (Special and Political and Decolonization Committee), one of the Main Committees of the General Assembly, in 2004. Myanmar was on the Governing Body of the United Nations Environment Program as recently as 2005.
Burma benefits from U.N. assistance. As Western nations have applied sanctions and reduced foreign assistance, the Burmese government has increasingly relied on the U.N. for assistance. The U.N. and its affiliated organizations spent $218 million in Burma from 2002 through 2005. In 2005, more than 70 percent of these funds were spent by the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), UNICEF, and the World Food Program. Other U.N.-affiliated organizations active in Burma include the World Health Organization, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the U.N. Population Fund, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor Organization, and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).[19] Though the governing board of the UNDP has directed the UNDP to "work directly with the Burmese people at the grass roots level and not through the regime," other U.N. entities have not adopted similar restrictions.[20] In addition, it is difficult to see how the UNDP board's direction could possibly be implemented. According to the GAO, Burma's regime:
[H]as blocked international efforts to monitor prison conditions, and, until recently, forced labor cases. The regime has also significantly restricted international assistance to populations living in conflict areas, and, to a lesser degree, impeded food, development, and health programs....
The regime formalized its restrictions on the international organizations in 2006 by publishing guidelines to govern their activities in Burma. The guidelines, if fully implemented, would further tighten regime controls over these activities and contain provisions that UN officials consider to be unacceptable.
International organization officials informed us that the regime had become more restrictive of their activities since 2004.... The regime has also begun pressuring some international organizations to work more closely with regime-sponsored political mobilization groups, such as the Union Solidarity Development Association. A senior UN official in Burma told us that since 2004 the regime has made the operating environment for UN organizations far more difficult than before. [21]
Moreover, the Burmese government has increasingly clamped down on independent non-governmental organizations, limiting the ability of U.N. programs to skirt government restrictions. The Burmese junta has exploited the eagerness of the UNDP and other U.N.-affiliated organizations to operate in the country to support the agenda of the government. For instance, according to a Thailand-based human rights organization, the military junta has used large internationally funded projects to further its political agenda and undermine the rights of its citizens.[22] The Karen Human Rights Group released a 121-page report in April 2007 that asserts that UNDP, which funds educational programs such as teacher training and informal education, is
restricted from accessing and thus implementing and monitoring their programmes in most areas of Karen State. In [Burmese government] regulations released in December 2006 covering the work of UN agencies, such restrictions were deemed necessary in order to restrict movement and prevent 'unpleasant incidents'. In this manner the [military government of Burma] is able to utilise access to UN educational programmes as yet another means of asserting military control over the civilian population.[23]
The report further asserts that forced labor may be being used for U.N. projects and that U.N. funding, including UNDP funding, supports programs, such as the state-controlled Myanmar Maternal and Child Welfare Association, that employ extortion and forced recruitment to "expand military control over the population while divesting itself of the cost of operating programmes and simultaneously legitimising its policies in the name of development."[24] The same report indicates that FAO, UNAIDS, UNICEF, and some notable NGOs have similarly supported government programs.
The False Hope of Engagement
The U.N. organizations have defended their activities by arguing that "their organizations are still able to achieve meaningful results in their efforts to address Burma's development, humanitarian, and health problems, despite the regime's post-2004 restrictions."[25] Similarly, the U.N. uses its presence to provide incentives for the Burmese government to cooperate with U.N. experts and envoys seeking to nudge the regime toward a more open political system.
There is little evidence that U.N. assistance, incentives, or other engagement efforts are leading the junta to change its ways. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars in U.N. assistance, the Burmese government has only tightened its grip on the country and further restricted the ability of U.N. organizations and NGOs to operate in the country. The government impeded efforts by the U.N. envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, and the U.N. human rights envoy to Burma, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, to visit the country. When peaceful protests erupted in September 2007, the Burmese government reacted with brutal rapidity, killing protesters, arresting thousands, and cutting off media and Internet access to conceal their actions.
Only when international outrage over the recent crackdown precipitated increased sanctions from Western countries and harsh condemnations from ASEAN, the Security Council, and the U.N. Human Rights Council did the Burmese government react. The government agreed to let Gambari visit the country and meet with opposition leaders. It also allowed Piniero back in the country after his four-year hiatus to evaluate the human rights situation, as is his mission. [26] It released many of the political prisoners arrested in the recent protests and did not dismiss entirely a proposal to negotiate with Aung San Suu Kyi.
There is every indication, however, that these gestures were calculated to buy time. Crises in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and elsewhere have shifted focus away from Burma, and the conclusion of the annual ASEAN leaders meeting has eased the pressure from its immediate neighbors.[27] The Burmese government continues to imprison Aung San Suu Kyi and hundreds of other political prisoners, attack and repress minorities, and constrain the ability of U.N. and NGO representatives to provide assistance without interference from the government. The Burmese junta expelled the head of the U.N. office in Burma for making "inappropriate" comments on the "deteriorating humanitarian condition" in Burma.[28] The leader of the junta, Senior General Than Shwe, refused to meet with Gambari during his visit. The junta also refused to enter into a three-way meeting between the government, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Gambari. It refused to release Aung San Suu Kyi and continues to deny the severity of its actions in the crackdown.
The reaction by ASEAN and the U.N. to the Burmese government's refusal to change tack is muted and focused on engaging the Burmese government by providing "incentives to encourage the authorities [in Burma] to go along the path to making a stable, democratic Myanmar with full respect for human rights" and "strong encouragement of the authorities in Myanmar to do the right thing."[29] This is the same failed strategy that preceded the recent crackdown. In short, it is business as usual in Burma now that the attention of the international community and the media has shifted elsewhere.
Recommendations for the United States
The lesson of recent history should be clear: The Burmese government's record of responding to incentives is poor. Movement has come only after strong condemnation by ASEAN, the U.N., and other nations. The Burmese government made cosmetic concessions out of marginal consideration for ASEAN on the eve of its annual summit and a calculation that it could stem calls for wider, rigorous application of sanctions at virtually no political cost. With the spotlight now elsewhere, the recent minimal progress has already begun to unwind. Therefore, the U.S. should use its influence to:
Broaden sanctions on Burma through the U.N. Security Council to include all U.N. member states. The international community must take a much harder line on Burma if it hopes to change the junta's behavior. Thus far, only a few countries have applied sanctions to accompany their condemnation. For the most part, these countries merely strengthened existing sanctions.[30] If Burma is to feel the pinch, sanctions must be applied by its neighbors and primary trade partners: China, India, Singapore, Thailand, and the other ASEAN nations. An arms embargo and a freeze on the junta's assets--and those of its associates and supporters--through a binding U.N. Security Council resolution could bring real pressure to bear on a regime that cares about little else. Until this happens, Burma will feel little consequence. The U.S. should again seek sanctions in the Security Council as the most appropriate means for broadening sanctions on Burma. Even though such efforts will likely be blocked by China, they will keep attention on the situation in Burma and the junta's intransigence, as well as Chinese efforts to support their client.
Tighten rules governing U.N. activities in Burma. While the governing board of the UNDP has officially adopted a policy of not working through the regime, other U.N. entities lack these restrictions and regularly work with the junta on joint projects or fund programs of the government. Moreover, even though the UNDP has these restrictions in place, there are indications that UNDP funds are, likely inadvertently, supporting government projects and reprehensible policies like forced labor. The U.S. should seek to extend the UNDP's prohibitions on working with the Burmese government to all activities by U.N.-affiliated organizations in the country. It should further insist on tightening existing rules to prevent assistance from inadvertently supporting government programs, priorities, and activities. The U.S. should support a freeze on all U.N. assistance and activities in Burma not effectively governed by these tighter rules. The few benefits gained for the general Burmese public through ongoing efforts are more than offset by U.N. activities that benefit the junta and aid its repression.
Conclusion
Burma is a prominent example of how a nation can routinely violate the principles of the U.N. with little penalty or consequence to its standing in the organization. The concern for the people of Burma on the part of U.N. organizations is sincere and warranted, but their eagerness to assist the people of Burma against the predations of the ruling junta is being exploited by the regime to strengthen its own grip on the country. The U.N. must send a clear message to the leaders of Burma that their repression and abuse will not be tolerated or subsidized by the U.N. or its affiliated organizations.
Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]United Nations, "Charter of the United Nations," preamble, at www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html.
[2]Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State, "Burma: Democratic Aspirations," October 16, 2007, at www.state.gov/documents/organization/93816.pdf.
[3]Human Rights Council, "Situation of human rights in Myanmar," Resolution S-5/1, October 2, 2007, at www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/specialsession/A.HRC.RES.S.5-1.pdf.
[4]Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, "Burma," Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2006, March 6, 2007, at www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78768.htm.
[5]United Nations Department of Public Information, "Third Committee Approves Draft Resolutions on Human Rights in Myanmar, Belarus; Rejects Texts on Canada, United States: Other Drafts Approved on Action against Racism, Israeli Military Operations, Violence against Women, Unilateral Coercive Measures, Children's Rights," General Assembly Document GA/SHC/3877, November 22, 2006, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gashc3877.doc.htm.
[6]Figures are in constant 2005 U.S. dollars. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Development Statistics, at www.oecd.org/dac/stats/idsonline.
[7]Tim Kane, Kim R. Holmes, and Mary Anastasia O'Grady, 2007 Index of Economic Freedom (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation and Dow Jones & Company, Inc., 2007), at www.heritage.org/index.
[8] Ed Cropley, "Five million people going hungry in Myanmar--WFP," Reuters, October 18, 2007, at www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSBKK340630.
[9]According to the Government Accountability Office, "The United States has banned the importation of Burmese goods, the export of financial services and arms by U.S. persons to Burma, and new U.S. investment in Burma. It has barred high-ranking Burmese officials from visiting the United States." Australia, Canada, and the EU have joined the U.S. in adopting sanctions. See United States Government Accountability Office, "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," Report No. GAO-07-457, p. 8, at www.gao.gov/new.items/d07457.pdf.
[10]Luis Ramirez, "ASEAN Leaders Say They Do Not Support Sanctions Against Burma," Voice of America, November 18, 2007, at www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-18-voa6.cfm.
[11]According to the Government Accountability Office, "China has increased its commercial presence in Burma, emerged as Burma's largest single source of imports (about 30 percent in 2005), and become a strong market for Burmese exports. In addition, the current Burmese Prime Minister visited Beijing in February 2006 and signed agreements with Chinese officials that will provide Burma with grants and concessionary loans." See GAO, "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," p. 8.
[12]Refugees International, "Burma," at www.refugeesinternational.org/content/country/detail/2922.
[13]United Nations Department of Public Information, "Security Council, in procedural action, votes to include human rights situation in Myanmar on its agenda," Security Council Document SC/8832, September 15, 2006, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8832.doc.htm.
[14]United Nations Department of Public Information, "Security Council fails to adopt draft resolution on Myanmar, owing to negative votes by China, Russian Federation," Security Council Document SC/8939, January 12, 2007, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc8939.doc.htm.
[15]United Nations Department of Public Information, "Statement by the President of the Security Council," Security Council Document S/PRST/2007/37, October 11, 2007, at /static/reportimages/88AEF0267AFCC5797562DB25838E689A.pdf.
[16]United Nations Department of Public Information, "Security Council Press Statement on Myanmar," Security Council Document SC/9171, November 15, 2007, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/sc9171.doc.htm.
[17]Human Right Council, "Human Rights Council Strongly Deplores Continued Violent Repression of Peaceful Demonstrators in Myanmar," United Nations Press Release, October 2, 2007, at www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/6F686D230293EC91C12573680072F75A.
[18]The Third Committee has passed resolutions condemning human rights violations in Burma many times. The most recent resolution calls on Burma to "desist from further arrests and violence against peaceful protesters, and to release all political prisoners without conditions [and] to lift all restraints on peaceful political activity, to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, and to immediately ensure safe and unhindered access to all parts of Myanmar for the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations." See United Nations Department of Public Information, "Third Committee Approves Three Country-Specific Texts on Human Rights Despite Opposition Led by Developing Countries," General Assembly Document GA/SHC/3909, November 20, 2007, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3909.doc.htm.
[19]Government Accountability Office, "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," pp. 8-11.
[20]Government Accountability Office, "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," pp. 8-11.
[21]Government Accountability Office , "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," pp. 16-19.
[22]Claudia Rosett, "In the UN Dollars-for-Dictators Series, Next Up: Burma," April 24, 2007, at http://claudiarosett.pajamasmedia.com/2007/04/24/in_the_un_dollarsfordictators.php.
[23]Karen Human Rights Group, "Development by Decree: The politics of poverty and control in Karen State," April 2007, pp. 86-87, at www.khrg.org/khrg2007/khrg0701.pdf.
[24]Ibid.
[25]Government Accountability Office, "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," p. 25.
[26]Paul Tighe, "UN Envoy Tells Myanmar Leaders to Talk to Opposition Parties," Bloomberg, November 5, 2007, at www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=au0Bl6D5ad7c.
[27]Luis Ramirez, "ASEAN Leaders Say They Do Not Support Sanctions Against Burma," Voice of America, November 18, 2007, at www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-18-voa6.cfm, and Benny Avni, "Asian Nations Deal Blow To U.N. Efforts on Burma," New York Sun, November 20, 2007, at www.nysun.com/article/66767.
[28]Bill Varner, "Myanmar's Junta Orders Expulsion of Top UN Official," Bloomberg, November 2, 2007, at www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a.7r9UzzS8hE.
[29] U.N. News Centre, "Incentives might lead Myanmar to 'do the right thing'--UN envoy," October 18, 2007, at www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24334&Cr=myanmar&Cr1.
[30]The U.S. expanded sanctions on Burma in October 2007, and the European Union tightened sanctions in November 2007. See Neil Chatterjee, "U.S. criticises ASEAN as Myanmar overshadows new charter," Reuters, November 20, 2007, at http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-30578820071119, and En-Lai Yeoh and James G. Neuger, "EU Tightens Sanctions as Myanmar Set to Sign Charter," Bloomberg, November 19, 2007, at www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aZC4reb_fXyU .
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/11/The-UN-Must-Stop-Enabling-the-Burmese-Regime
This article was posted on Published on November 27, 2007 by Brett Schaefer, reposted by Burma Democratic Concern (BDC)
The U.N. and Burma
The United Nations was founded in 1945 to maintain international peace and security and undertake collective measures to remove threats to peace; to promote equal rights and self-determination of peoples; to help solve problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character; and to encourage "social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." In the Charter, member states pledge "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women."[1] U.N. treaties and conventions, such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which the General Assembly passed in 1948, form the core of international standards for human rights.
Few members of the United Nations violate the founding principles of the United Nations as regularly and profoundly as the junta in charge of Burma.
Political repression. The people of Burma have been denied the right to self-determination, the most basic human right recognized by the United Nations. Military regimes have ruled Burma since 1962. The current regime, which seized power in 1988, permitted a national election in 1990, refused to recognize its loss, and has confined the leader of the opposition National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, for 12 years since the election. Thousands of Buddhist monks and Burmese citizens staged a series of peaceful demonstrations in September 2007 to demand "freedom, democracy and respect for human rights." The ruling military junta responded to these demonstrations with a violent crackdown on the monks and unarmed civilian demonstrators that "resulted in ten deaths [the government now acknowledges 15] and the imprisonment of some 4,000, according to the regime. Diplomatic sources, however, state that the numbers of those killed, injured and imprisoned are much higher than those officially reported."[2] Following the recent crackdown on demonstrators, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution strongly deploring "the continued violent repression of peaceful demonstrations in Myanmar."[3]
Human rights violations. The Burmese regime poses a serious danger to the Burmese people. Protesters and dissidents are routinely beaten, tortured, and killed. The U.S. Department of State reports:
The regime continued to abridge the right of citizens to change their government.... In addition, the government continued to commit other serious abuses, including extrajudicial killings, custodial deaths, disappearances, rape, and torture. The government abused prisoners and detainees, held persons in harsh and life threatening conditions, routinely used incommunicado detention, and imprisoned citizens arbitrarily for political motives.... The government restricted freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, and movement. The government did not allow domestic human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to function independently, and international NGOs encountered a hostile environment. Violence and societal discrimination against women continued, as did forced recruitment of child soldiers, discrimination against ethnic minorities, and trafficking in persons, particularly of women and girls. Workers rights remained restricted, and forced labor, including that of children, also persisted.[4]
The United Nations has also condemned Burma for human rights violations. The Third Committee of the General Assembly passed a resolution expressing "grave concern at ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Myanmar; the continuing use of torture; deaths in custody; political arrests and continuing imprisonment and other detentions, denial of freedom of assembly, association, expression and movement, and the prevailing culture of impunity"[5] and called on the government to end those practices.
Government-caused poverty and underdevelopment. When Burma won independence from Britain in 1948, the country was one of Asia's brightest economic prospects. Burma possessed rich natural resources and a well-developed agricultural sector that earned the country the title of "the rice bowl of Asia." Nearly 60 years later, and despite receiving nearly $14 billion in total official development assistance between 1960 and 2006, Burma is one of the world's most impoverished, undeveloped, and isolated countries.[6] According to the Index of Economic Freedom, Burma is a "repressed" economy, ranking 153rd out of 157 countries in terms of economic freedom.[7] Burma is ranked 29th out of 30 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, besting only North Korea. Repressive economic policies imposed by the military junta, such as forcing farmers to sell rice to the government at below market prices and restricting movement and trade, have directly contributed to an estimated 5 million people lacking sufficient food, according to the World Food Program. According to U.N. estimates, a third of all Burmese children under five years of age are underweight, and 10 percent are considered "wasted" or acutely malnourished. Burma's child mortality rates are among the worst in Asia.[8]
The repressive policies of the Burmese government have led the United States and other Western nations to suspend foreign assistance to Burma and apply economic sanctions to the regime.[9] These nations have used their influence to constrain Burma's access to assistance from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which have not made new loans to Burma since the 1980s.
Few other nations have taken similar actions. The member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Burma is a member, have been unwilling to act against Burma, aside from harshly criticizing the recent political crackdown.[10] China has focused on securing access to Burma's resources and refuses to take steps that would undermine that goal; worse, it has increased its ties to Burma,as has India.[11]
Most disappointing is the lack of action by the United Nations. Many of Burma's actions are in contravention of multilateral agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the founding principles of the U.N. Yet Burma is treated no differently than any other nation within the U.N. organization. Burma is permitted to participate in all U.N. activities without restriction or consequence for its repudiation of fundamental U.N. principles. Indeed, Burma's junta has not only gone unreprimanded but also has reaped the fruits of U.N. programs and assistance:
Burma has evaded sanction by the U.N. Security Council. The evidence of human rights violations by the Burmese junta is extensive and well documented. In violation of its obligations under the U.N. Charter, the country has denied its citizens the right to self-determination in addition to undermining other basic human rights and fundamental freedoms espoused in the Charter. The government has conducted a vicious campaign against ethnic minorities that has caused an estimated 540,000 people to be internally displaced and hundreds of thousands of others to flee to neighboring countries.[12] The Security Council, however, has failed to sanction Burma for flagrantly violating central provisions of the Charter or for its actions that have created a refugee crisis. After years of ignoring the situation in Burma, the Security Council voted to place the situation in Burma on its formal agenda in September 2006, which allows any member of the Council to raise the item for discussion.[13] This has not spurred action by the Council, however. A U.S.- and U.K.-sponsored resolution calling on the Burmese government to cease attacks on civilians in ethnic minority areas and lift restrictions on political freedoms and human rights failed to pass in January 2007 due to vetoes from Russia and China.[14] An October 11, 2007, statement by the president of the Security Council strongly deplored the political crackdown and called on the government to release political prisoners.[15] A November 15 Security Council press release reiterated these concerns and stated that the "members of the Security Council confirm their intention to keep developments in Myanmar under close review."[16] The U.N. Human Rights Council[17] and the Third Committee of the General Assembly,[18] to their credit, have both passed resolutions condemning the situation in Burma. However, these resolutions are non-binding and affect the Burmese junta minimally, if at all.
Burma serves in high-level positions in the U.N. and its affiliated funds and programs. Burma currently serves as a vice president on the Executive Board of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) despite its dismal record of mistreatment of children, and serves as a member of the Commission on Social Development, a functional commission of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), despite its well documented repression of civil society and minority ethnic groups. Burma served as Chairman of the Fourth Committee (Special and Political and Decolonization Committee), one of the Main Committees of the General Assembly, in 2004. Myanmar was on the Governing Body of the United Nations Environment Program as recently as 2005.
Burma benefits from U.N. assistance. As Western nations have applied sanctions and reduced foreign assistance, the Burmese government has increasingly relied on the U.N. for assistance. The U.N. and its affiliated organizations spent $218 million in Burma from 2002 through 2005. In 2005, more than 70 percent of these funds were spent by the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), UNICEF, and the World Food Program. Other U.N.-affiliated organizations active in Burma include the World Health Organization, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the U.N. Population Fund, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor Organization, and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).[19] Though the governing board of the UNDP has directed the UNDP to "work directly with the Burmese people at the grass roots level and not through the regime," other U.N. entities have not adopted similar restrictions.[20] In addition, it is difficult to see how the UNDP board's direction could possibly be implemented. According to the GAO, Burma's regime:
[H]as blocked international efforts to monitor prison conditions, and, until recently, forced labor cases. The regime has also significantly restricted international assistance to populations living in conflict areas, and, to a lesser degree, impeded food, development, and health programs....
The regime formalized its restrictions on the international organizations in 2006 by publishing guidelines to govern their activities in Burma. The guidelines, if fully implemented, would further tighten regime controls over these activities and contain provisions that UN officials consider to be unacceptable.
International organization officials informed us that the regime had become more restrictive of their activities since 2004.... The regime has also begun pressuring some international organizations to work more closely with regime-sponsored political mobilization groups, such as the Union Solidarity Development Association. A senior UN official in Burma told us that since 2004 the regime has made the operating environment for UN organizations far more difficult than before. [21]
Moreover, the Burmese government has increasingly clamped down on independent non-governmental organizations, limiting the ability of U.N. programs to skirt government restrictions. The Burmese junta has exploited the eagerness of the UNDP and other U.N.-affiliated organizations to operate in the country to support the agenda of the government. For instance, according to a Thailand-based human rights organization, the military junta has used large internationally funded projects to further its political agenda and undermine the rights of its citizens.[22] The Karen Human Rights Group released a 121-page report in April 2007 that asserts that UNDP, which funds educational programs such as teacher training and informal education, is
restricted from accessing and thus implementing and monitoring their programmes in most areas of Karen State. In [Burmese government] regulations released in December 2006 covering the work of UN agencies, such restrictions were deemed necessary in order to restrict movement and prevent 'unpleasant incidents'. In this manner the [military government of Burma] is able to utilise access to UN educational programmes as yet another means of asserting military control over the civilian population.[23]
The report further asserts that forced labor may be being used for U.N. projects and that U.N. funding, including UNDP funding, supports programs, such as the state-controlled Myanmar Maternal and Child Welfare Association, that employ extortion and forced recruitment to "expand military control over the population while divesting itself of the cost of operating programmes and simultaneously legitimising its policies in the name of development."[24] The same report indicates that FAO, UNAIDS, UNICEF, and some notable NGOs have similarly supported government programs.
The False Hope of Engagement
The U.N. organizations have defended their activities by arguing that "their organizations are still able to achieve meaningful results in their efforts to address Burma's development, humanitarian, and health problems, despite the regime's post-2004 restrictions."[25] Similarly, the U.N. uses its presence to provide incentives for the Burmese government to cooperate with U.N. experts and envoys seeking to nudge the regime toward a more open political system.
There is little evidence that U.N. assistance, incentives, or other engagement efforts are leading the junta to change its ways. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars in U.N. assistance, the Burmese government has only tightened its grip on the country and further restricted the ability of U.N. organizations and NGOs to operate in the country. The government impeded efforts by the U.N. envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, and the U.N. human rights envoy to Burma, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, to visit the country. When peaceful protests erupted in September 2007, the Burmese government reacted with brutal rapidity, killing protesters, arresting thousands, and cutting off media and Internet access to conceal their actions.
Only when international outrage over the recent crackdown precipitated increased sanctions from Western countries and harsh condemnations from ASEAN, the Security Council, and the U.N. Human Rights Council did the Burmese government react. The government agreed to let Gambari visit the country and meet with opposition leaders. It also allowed Piniero back in the country after his four-year hiatus to evaluate the human rights situation, as is his mission. [26] It released many of the political prisoners arrested in the recent protests and did not dismiss entirely a proposal to negotiate with Aung San Suu Kyi.
There is every indication, however, that these gestures were calculated to buy time. Crises in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and elsewhere have shifted focus away from Burma, and the conclusion of the annual ASEAN leaders meeting has eased the pressure from its immediate neighbors.[27] The Burmese government continues to imprison Aung San Suu Kyi and hundreds of other political prisoners, attack and repress minorities, and constrain the ability of U.N. and NGO representatives to provide assistance without interference from the government. The Burmese junta expelled the head of the U.N. office in Burma for making "inappropriate" comments on the "deteriorating humanitarian condition" in Burma.[28] The leader of the junta, Senior General Than Shwe, refused to meet with Gambari during his visit. The junta also refused to enter into a three-way meeting between the government, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Gambari. It refused to release Aung San Suu Kyi and continues to deny the severity of its actions in the crackdown.
The reaction by ASEAN and the U.N. to the Burmese government's refusal to change tack is muted and focused on engaging the Burmese government by providing "incentives to encourage the authorities [in Burma] to go along the path to making a stable, democratic Myanmar with full respect for human rights" and "strong encouragement of the authorities in Myanmar to do the right thing."[29] This is the same failed strategy that preceded the recent crackdown. In short, it is business as usual in Burma now that the attention of the international community and the media has shifted elsewhere.
Recommendations for the United States
The lesson of recent history should be clear: The Burmese government's record of responding to incentives is poor. Movement has come only after strong condemnation by ASEAN, the U.N., and other nations. The Burmese government made cosmetic concessions out of marginal consideration for ASEAN on the eve of its annual summit and a calculation that it could stem calls for wider, rigorous application of sanctions at virtually no political cost. With the spotlight now elsewhere, the recent minimal progress has already begun to unwind. Therefore, the U.S. should use its influence to:
Broaden sanctions on Burma through the U.N. Security Council to include all U.N. member states. The international community must take a much harder line on Burma if it hopes to change the junta's behavior. Thus far, only a few countries have applied sanctions to accompany their condemnation. For the most part, these countries merely strengthened existing sanctions.[30] If Burma is to feel the pinch, sanctions must be applied by its neighbors and primary trade partners: China, India, Singapore, Thailand, and the other ASEAN nations. An arms embargo and a freeze on the junta's assets--and those of its associates and supporters--through a binding U.N. Security Council resolution could bring real pressure to bear on a regime that cares about little else. Until this happens, Burma will feel little consequence. The U.S. should again seek sanctions in the Security Council as the most appropriate means for broadening sanctions on Burma. Even though such efforts will likely be blocked by China, they will keep attention on the situation in Burma and the junta's intransigence, as well as Chinese efforts to support their client.
Tighten rules governing U.N. activities in Burma. While the governing board of the UNDP has officially adopted a policy of not working through the regime, other U.N. entities lack these restrictions and regularly work with the junta on joint projects or fund programs of the government. Moreover, even though the UNDP has these restrictions in place, there are indications that UNDP funds are, likely inadvertently, supporting government projects and reprehensible policies like forced labor. The U.S. should seek to extend the UNDP's prohibitions on working with the Burmese government to all activities by U.N.-affiliated organizations in the country. It should further insist on tightening existing rules to prevent assistance from inadvertently supporting government programs, priorities, and activities. The U.S. should support a freeze on all U.N. assistance and activities in Burma not effectively governed by these tighter rules. The few benefits gained for the general Burmese public through ongoing efforts are more than offset by U.N. activities that benefit the junta and aid its repression.
Conclusion
Burma is a prominent example of how a nation can routinely violate the principles of the U.N. with little penalty or consequence to its standing in the organization. The concern for the people of Burma on the part of U.N. organizations is sincere and warranted, but their eagerness to assist the people of Burma against the predations of the ruling junta is being exploited by the regime to strengthen its own grip on the country. The U.N. must send a clear message to the leaders of Burma that their repression and abuse will not be tolerated or subsidized by the U.N. or its affiliated organizations.
Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]United Nations, "Charter of the United Nations," preamble, at www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html.
[2]Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State, "Burma: Democratic Aspirations," October 16, 2007, at www.state.gov/documents/organization/93816.pdf.
[3]Human Rights Council, "Situation of human rights in Myanmar," Resolution S-5/1, October 2, 2007, at www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/specialsession/A.HRC.RES.S.5-1.pdf.
[4]Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, "Burma," Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2006, March 6, 2007, at www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78768.htm.
[5]United Nations Department of Public Information, "Third Committee Approves Draft Resolutions on Human Rights in Myanmar, Belarus; Rejects Texts on Canada, United States: Other Drafts Approved on Action against Racism, Israeli Military Operations, Violence against Women, Unilateral Coercive Measures, Children's Rights," General Assembly Document GA/SHC/3877, November 22, 2006, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gashc3877.doc.htm.
[6]Figures are in constant 2005 U.S. dollars. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Development Statistics, at www.oecd.org/dac/stats/idsonline.
[7]Tim Kane, Kim R. Holmes, and Mary Anastasia O'Grady, 2007 Index of Economic Freedom (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation and Dow Jones & Company, Inc., 2007), at www.heritage.org/index.
[8] Ed Cropley, "Five million people going hungry in Myanmar--WFP," Reuters, October 18, 2007, at www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSBKK340630.
[9]According to the Government Accountability Office, "The United States has banned the importation of Burmese goods, the export of financial services and arms by U.S. persons to Burma, and new U.S. investment in Burma. It has barred high-ranking Burmese officials from visiting the United States." Australia, Canada, and the EU have joined the U.S. in adopting sanctions. See United States Government Accountability Office, "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," Report No. GAO-07-457, p. 8, at www.gao.gov/new.items/d07457.pdf.
[10]Luis Ramirez, "ASEAN Leaders Say They Do Not Support Sanctions Against Burma," Voice of America, November 18, 2007, at www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-18-voa6.cfm.
[11]According to the Government Accountability Office, "China has increased its commercial presence in Burma, emerged as Burma's largest single source of imports (about 30 percent in 2005), and become a strong market for Burmese exports. In addition, the current Burmese Prime Minister visited Beijing in February 2006 and signed agreements with Chinese officials that will provide Burma with grants and concessionary loans." See GAO, "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," p. 8.
[12]Refugees International, "Burma," at www.refugeesinternational.org/content/country/detail/2922.
[13]United Nations Department of Public Information, "Security Council, in procedural action, votes to include human rights situation in Myanmar on its agenda," Security Council Document SC/8832, September 15, 2006, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8832.doc.htm.
[14]United Nations Department of Public Information, "Security Council fails to adopt draft resolution on Myanmar, owing to negative votes by China, Russian Federation," Security Council Document SC/8939, January 12, 2007, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc8939.doc.htm.
[15]United Nations Department of Public Information, "Statement by the President of the Security Council," Security Council Document S/PRST/2007/37, October 11, 2007, at /static/reportimages/88AEF0267AFCC5797562DB25838E689A.pdf.
[16]United Nations Department of Public Information, "Security Council Press Statement on Myanmar," Security Council Document SC/9171, November 15, 2007, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/sc9171.doc.htm.
[17]Human Right Council, "Human Rights Council Strongly Deplores Continued Violent Repression of Peaceful Demonstrators in Myanmar," United Nations Press Release, October 2, 2007, at www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/6F686D230293EC91C12573680072F75A.
[18]The Third Committee has passed resolutions condemning human rights violations in Burma many times. The most recent resolution calls on Burma to "desist from further arrests and violence against peaceful protesters, and to release all political prisoners without conditions [and] to lift all restraints on peaceful political activity, to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, and to immediately ensure safe and unhindered access to all parts of Myanmar for the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations." See United Nations Department of Public Information, "Third Committee Approves Three Country-Specific Texts on Human Rights Despite Opposition Led by Developing Countries," General Assembly Document GA/SHC/3909, November 20, 2007, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3909.doc.htm.
[19]Government Accountability Office, "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," pp. 8-11.
[20]Government Accountability Office, "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," pp. 8-11.
[21]Government Accountability Office , "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," pp. 16-19.
[22]Claudia Rosett, "In the UN Dollars-for-Dictators Series, Next Up: Burma," April 24, 2007, at http://claudiarosett.pajamasmedia.com/2007/04/24/in_the_un_dollarsfordictators.php.
[23]Karen Human Rights Group, "Development by Decree: The politics of poverty and control in Karen State," April 2007, pp. 86-87, at www.khrg.org/khrg2007/khrg0701.pdf.
[24]Ibid.
[25]Government Accountability Office, "International Organizations: Assistance Programs Constrained in Burma," p. 25.
[26]Paul Tighe, "UN Envoy Tells Myanmar Leaders to Talk to Opposition Parties," Bloomberg, November 5, 2007, at www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=au0Bl6D5ad7c.
[27]Luis Ramirez, "ASEAN Leaders Say They Do Not Support Sanctions Against Burma," Voice of America, November 18, 2007, at www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-18-voa6.cfm, and Benny Avni, "Asian Nations Deal Blow To U.N. Efforts on Burma," New York Sun, November 20, 2007, at www.nysun.com/article/66767.
[28]Bill Varner, "Myanmar's Junta Orders Expulsion of Top UN Official," Bloomberg, November 2, 2007, at www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a.7r9UzzS8hE.
[29] U.N. News Centre, "Incentives might lead Myanmar to 'do the right thing'--UN envoy," October 18, 2007, at www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24334&Cr=myanmar&Cr1.
[30]The U.S. expanded sanctions on Burma in October 2007, and the European Union tightened sanctions in November 2007. See Neil Chatterjee, "U.S. criticises ASEAN as Myanmar overshadows new charter," Reuters, November 20, 2007, at http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-30578820071119, and En-Lai Yeoh and James G. Neuger, "EU Tightens Sanctions as Myanmar Set to Sign Charter," Bloomberg, November 19, 2007, at www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aZC4reb_fXyU .
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/11/The-UN-Must-Stop-Enabling-the-Burmese-Regime
This article was posted on Published on November 27, 2007 by Brett Schaefer, reposted by Burma Democratic Concern (BDC)
Friday, 12 March 2010
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) today warmly welcomes European Union (EU) resolution on Burma1 stating that elections in 2010 is to justify five decades of military rule and gives the military 25% of the seats in parliament whereas the elections will be based on the army-drafted Constitution which bars Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) from public office.
European Union (EU) resolution said that under the present conditions they cannot be considered free and democratic, in particular, the ban on Aung San Sui Kyi standing as a candidate and calling on the Government of Burma/Myanmar immediately to open a genuine dialogue with the NLD, all other opposition parties and ethnic groups.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) Director Myo Thein said, “We are very grateful that EU sees the realities of the suffering of Burmese people and crisis in Burma. Burma crisis is at its peak and it is not enough anymore that EU is calling for junta to mend its action by words alone. It is time to follow action after words which should be European Union (EU) calling for United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to declare junta’s sham 2008 constitution as NULL & VOID”.
http://www.bdcburma.org
European Union (EU) resolution said that under the present conditions they cannot be considered free and democratic, in particular, the ban on Aung San Sui Kyi standing as a candidate and calling on the Government of Burma/Myanmar immediately to open a genuine dialogue with the NLD, all other opposition parties and ethnic groups.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) Director Myo Thein said, “We are very grateful that EU sees the realities of the suffering of Burmese people and crisis in Burma. Burma crisis is at its peak and it is not enough anymore that EU is calling for junta to mend its action by words alone. It is time to follow action after words which should be European Union (EU) calling for United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to declare junta’s sham 2008 constitution as NULL & VOID”.
http://www.bdcburma.org
Canada Deeply Concerned by Burmese Election Laws
(No. 102 - March 11, 2010 - 6:30 p.m. ET) The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement expressing Canada's concern about the new electoral laws promulgated by the Burmese regime:
"Canada is deeply concerned by the new election laws unveiled by the Burmese regime this week. While Canada continues to study the new laws carefully as they are promulgated, what we have seen to date suggests that the Burmese regime is resolutely failing to deliver on its promise of free and fair elections this year.
http://ping.fm/yxYFe
(No. 102 - March 11, 2010 - 6:30 p.m. ET) The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement expressing Canada's concern about the new electoral laws promulgated by the Burmese regime:
"Canada is deeply concerned by the new election laws unveiled by the Burmese regime this week. While Canada continues to study the new laws carefully as they are promulgated, what we have seen to date suggests that the Burmese regime is resolutely failing to deliver on its promise of free and fair elections this year.
http://ping.fm/yxYFe
“Daw Suu wants to urge everyone, whether NLD members, non-members or ethnic people, to take concerted action against these unjust laws,” Nyan Win said. “She also said all the people should speak up for their own rights with understanding of the laws.”
http://ping.fm/4CGpt
http://ping.fm/4CGpt
Detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi instructed members of the National League for Democracy (NLD) to discuss the party's Shwegondaing declaration and why the 2008 Constitution is unnacceptable, said her lawyer, Nyan Win, after a two-hour meeting with Suu Kyi on Thursday.
“She wants the party members to discuss why the 2008 Constitution is unacceptable because she wants everyone to understand the laws, and she wants everyone to have a thorough understanding of the Shwegondaing declaration,” said Nyan Win, who is also a senior NLD party official.
http://ping.fm/1V8UT
“She wants the party members to discuss why the 2008 Constitution is unacceptable because she wants everyone to understand the laws, and she wants everyone to have a thorough understanding of the Shwegondaing declaration,” said Nyan Win, who is also a senior NLD party official.
http://ping.fm/1V8UT
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) calls for United Nations Security Council to convene emergency meeting since Burma crisis is in very critical situation. We must take action decisively and collectively in order to intervene Burma crisis so as to avoid total devastating.
Burmese junta is fully geared up to extinguish democracy, human rights and rule of law in Burma. Junta is touching its final brush to eliminate all the democratic voices by issuing its so-called the electoral law on 8 March 2010 which effectively turning their back on national reconciliation in Burma.
http://ping.fm/erh90
Burmese junta is fully geared up to extinguish democracy, human rights and rule of law in Burma. Junta is touching its final brush to eliminate all the democratic voices by issuing its so-called the electoral law on 8 March 2010 which effectively turning their back on national reconciliation in Burma.
http://ping.fm/erh90
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) calls for UNSC Emergency Meeting: Time to take immediate action
http://ping.fm/Zpd27
http://ping.fm/Zpd27
Rigging Myanmar's election
Belt, braces and army boots
The generals leave nothing to chance
Mar 11th 2010 | From The Economist print edition
THE junta ruling Myanmar has had 20 years to digest the lessons from the country’s most recent election. It was trounced by the National League for Democracy, even though the opposition’s charismatic leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, was already under house arrest. This year on an unnamed date (perhaps its astrologers cannot agree) the junta will hold another election. It will not lose this one.
Election laws published this week do not quite spell out the result. But a “political-parties registration law” bars Miss Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, of whom there are more than 2,000, from belonging to a party because of their criminal convictions. Cut off from politics by her house arrest, Miss Suu Kyi is anyway barred from office as the widow of a foreigner. Her party now has to expel her and other detainees. The law also bans civil servants from joining parties, along with monks, who led anti-government protests in 2007.
http://ping.fm/7Ukj8
Belt, braces and army boots
The generals leave nothing to chance
Mar 11th 2010 | From The Economist print edition
THE junta ruling Myanmar has had 20 years to digest the lessons from the country’s most recent election. It was trounced by the National League for Democracy, even though the opposition’s charismatic leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, was already under house arrest. This year on an unnamed date (perhaps its astrologers cannot agree) the junta will hold another election. It will not lose this one.
Election laws published this week do not quite spell out the result. But a “political-parties registration law” bars Miss Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, of whom there are more than 2,000, from belonging to a party because of their criminal convictions. Cut off from politics by her house arrest, Miss Suu Kyi is anyway barred from office as the widow of a foreigner. Her party now has to expel her and other detainees. The law also bans civil servants from joining parties, along with monks, who led anti-government protests in 2007.
http://ping.fm/7Ukj8
Canada Deeply Concerned by Burmese Election Laws
(No. 102 – March 11, 2010 - 6:30 p.m. ET) The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement expressing Canada’s concern about the new electoral laws promulgated by the Burmese regime:
“Canada is deeply concerned by the new election laws unveiled by the Burmese regime this week. While Canada continues to study the new laws carefully as they are promulgated, what we have seen to date suggests that the Burmese regime is resolutely failing to deliver on its promise of free and fair elections this year.
“Notably, elements of the laws point to a deliberate effort by Burmese military leaders to prevent legitimate democratic actors from participating in the promised elections. Reports suggest that the new laws may bar Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners from the democratic process by virtue of their current prison sentences, which Canada believes are unwarranted and politically motivated.
“Canada urges the Burmese regime to move forward with electoral laws that support a genuine democratic process, based on principles of transparency, fairness and inclusion.
“Canada again calls upon the regime to free all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and to engage in a genuine dialogue with members of the democratic opposition and different ethnic groups in Burma.
“Canada has imposed the toughest sanctions of any country against the Burmese regime to protest its treatment of the Burmese people, and will continue to engage with all stakeholders working toward a democratic Burma.”
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Catherine Loubier
Director of Communications
Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
613-995-1851
Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874
Erin Koenig
Policy Officer | Burma, Thailand & Regional Human Rights
Agente politique | Birmanie, Thaïlande & droits humains régionaux
Southeast Asia & Oceania Relations Division | Direction des relations avec l'Asie du Sud-Est et l'Océanie
Tél: +1 (613) 995-8596 | Fax/Télécopieur: +1 (613) 944-1604
(No. 102 – March 11, 2010 - 6:30 p.m. ET) The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement expressing Canada’s concern about the new electoral laws promulgated by the Burmese regime:
“Canada is deeply concerned by the new election laws unveiled by the Burmese regime this week. While Canada continues to study the new laws carefully as they are promulgated, what we have seen to date suggests that the Burmese regime is resolutely failing to deliver on its promise of free and fair elections this year.
“Notably, elements of the laws point to a deliberate effort by Burmese military leaders to prevent legitimate democratic actors from participating in the promised elections. Reports suggest that the new laws may bar Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners from the democratic process by virtue of their current prison sentences, which Canada believes are unwarranted and politically motivated.
“Canada urges the Burmese regime to move forward with electoral laws that support a genuine democratic process, based on principles of transparency, fairness and inclusion.
“Canada again calls upon the regime to free all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and to engage in a genuine dialogue with members of the democratic opposition and different ethnic groups in Burma.
“Canada has imposed the toughest sanctions of any country against the Burmese regime to protest its treatment of the Burmese people, and will continue to engage with all stakeholders working toward a democratic Burma.”
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Catherine Loubier
Director of Communications
Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
613-995-1851
Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874
Erin Koenig
Policy Officer | Burma, Thailand & Regional Human Rights
Agente politique | Birmanie, Thaïlande & droits humains régionaux
Southeast Asia & Oceania Relations Division | Direction des relations avec l'Asie du Sud-Est et l'Océanie
Tél: +1 (613) 995-8596 | Fax/Télécopieur: +1 (613) 944-1604
Burma's leaders have formally annulled the National League for Democracy's 1990 election win, under laws enacted for polls expected later this year.
Authorities said the win was invalid because the poll had taken place under a law repealed by the new legislation.
The new laws have attracted a storm of criticism from international observers.
They banned NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other senior pro-democracy figures from taking part in the polls. A date for them has not yet been announced.
A US official said the lawsmade a mockery of the democratic process, while a UN spokesman said they fell short of expectations for an inclusive election.
After the 1990 polls, the military did not allow the NLD to take power. These elections will be the first in two decades.
They will be held under a new constitution which critics say is aimed at perpetuating military rule.
'Repressive laws'
The new elections laws were formally approved by Burma's military leaders on Monday and are being published in state media gradually.
http://ping.fm/3zIiX
Authorities said the win was invalid because the poll had taken place under a law repealed by the new legislation.
The new laws have attracted a storm of criticism from international observers.
They banned NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi and other senior pro-democracy figures from taking part in the polls. A date for them has not yet been announced.
A US official said the lawsmade a mockery of the democratic process, while a UN spokesman said they fell short of expectations for an inclusive election.
After the 1990 polls, the military did not allow the NLD to take power. These elections will be the first in two decades.
They will be held under a new constitution which critics say is aimed at perpetuating military rule.
'Repressive laws'
The new elections laws were formally approved by Burma's military leaders on Monday and are being published in state media gradually.
http://ping.fm/3zIiX
2009 Human Rights Report: Burma
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
Burma, with an estimated population of 54 million, is ruled by a highly authoritarian military regime dominated by the majority ethnic Burman group. The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), led by Senior General Than Shwe, was the country's de facto government. Military officers wielded the ultimate authority at each level of government. In 1990 prodemocracy parties won more than 80 percent of the seats in a general parliamentary election, but the regime continued to ignore the results. In May 2008 the regime held a referendum on its draft constitution and declared the constitution had been approved by 92.48 percent of voters, a figure no independent observers believed was valid. The constitution specifies that the SPDC will continue to rule until a new parliament is convened, scheduled to take place following national elections in 2010. The military government controlled the security forces without civilian oversight.
http://ping.fm/EjJuG
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
Burma, with an estimated population of 54 million, is ruled by a highly authoritarian military regime dominated by the majority ethnic Burman group. The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), led by Senior General Than Shwe, was the country's de facto government. Military officers wielded the ultimate authority at each level of government. In 1990 prodemocracy parties won more than 80 percent of the seats in a general parliamentary election, but the regime continued to ignore the results. In May 2008 the regime held a referendum on its draft constitution and declared the constitution had been approved by 92.48 percent of voters, a figure no independent observers believed was valid. The constitution specifies that the SPDC will continue to rule until a new parliament is convened, scheduled to take place following national elections in 2010. The military government controlled the security forces without civilian oversight.
http://ping.fm/EjJuG
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
1990 Elections overview
Burma has been under totalitarian regimes since 1962 when General Ne Win staged a military coup. Since then, Burmese people are suffering very tremendously. Under General Ne Win’s one party Burma Socialist Programming Party, corruptions are rampant, and people are facing very hardship due to closed economics system and miss-management. In 1988 students led the mass uprising demanding for democracy, human rights and successfully managed to topple General Ne Win’s government after sacrificing thousands of lives. But, another military came to power on 18 September 1988 after gunned down peaceful demonstrators and declared to hold elections.
http://ping.fm/Wy8oE
Burma has been under totalitarian regimes since 1962 when General Ne Win staged a military coup. Since then, Burmese people are suffering very tremendously. Under General Ne Win’s one party Burma Socialist Programming Party, corruptions are rampant, and people are facing very hardship due to closed economics system and miss-management. In 1988 students led the mass uprising demanding for democracy, human rights and successfully managed to topple General Ne Win’s government after sacrificing thousands of lives. But, another military came to power on 18 September 1988 after gunned down peaceful demonstrators and declared to hold elections.
http://ping.fm/Wy8oE
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) : EU should call for UNSC to declare Burma junta’s sham constitution as NULL & VOID
http://ping.fm/6mJRs
http://ping.fm/6mJRs
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Junta Provides Details of First Election Law
RANGOON — Burma's ruling junta will appoint the commission that will have final say over the country's first elections in two decades, state-run newspapers announced Tuesday as the country's military rulers began unveiling the laws that will govern this year's balloting.
There are growing fears among pro-democracy groups that the election—a date for which has not been announced—will be weighted in favor of the military and its supporters, and the first of five election-related laws to be published is likely to increase that unease.
Residents of Rangoon listen to news on new election laws being broadcast by state-run radio as they sit at a pavement tea shop on March, 8. (Photo:AP)
The laws enacted Monday will set out the mechanisms and rules for the election and campaigning, and the conditions under which parties may participate. Details were to be released in the state-run media over the coming days.
The first explained was the Union Election Commission Law, signed by junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe. It stipulates that the junta will appoint a Union Election Commission with a minimum of five members including the chairman. Decisions of the body would be final.
Members, who cannot be members of political parties, must be persons "deemed prominent and reputable" by the junta, known as the State Peace and Development Council.
Burma's military government announced in early 2008 that elections would take place sometime in 2010. A 1990 election was won by the National League for Democracy party of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, but the military refused to hand over power.
The party of Suu Kyi, who is under house arrest until November, has not yet committed itself to taking part in the polls because it claims the new constitution of 2008 is unfair. It has clauses that would ensure that the military retains a controlling say in government and bars Suu Kyi from holding office.
The party has said the election laws will help it determine whether it will participate.
The remaining four laws are said to cover the polls for the Pyithu Hluttaw, or House of Representatives; the polls for the Amyotha Hluttaw, or House of Nationalities, the other house of parliament; the polls for Region and State parliaments; and the Political Parties Registration Law.
The national and regional legislatures will all include military personnel nominated by their commander in chief.
The 440-member House of Representatives will have 330 elected civilians and 110 military representatives; while the 224-member House of Nationalities will seat 168 elected candidates and 56 nominated by the military chief.
Suu Kyi has been detained for 14 of the past 20 years. The Supreme Court last month dismissed her latest appeal for freedom. She was convicted last August of violating the terms of her previous detention by briefly sheltering an American who swam uninvited to her lakeside home, and sentenced to a term of house arrest to end this November.
The sentence was seen as a ploy to effectively keep Suu Kyi locked up during any election campaign.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed disappointment Monday that Suu Kyi's appeal was rejected, adding that the legitimacy of the elections rests on the freedom of political prisoners.
"Most importantly, all the political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, should be released as soon as possible, so that all of them can take part in elections," Ban said.
Ban said he wrote Than Shwe about 10 days ago "first of all expressing my concern about the lack of progress and also emphasizing the importance of the election ... to be (held in) a most credible, inclusive and transparent manner."
http://www.irrawaddy.org/highlight.php?art_id=17986
There are growing fears among pro-democracy groups that the election—a date for which has not been announced—will be weighted in favor of the military and its supporters, and the first of five election-related laws to be published is likely to increase that unease.
Residents of Rangoon listen to news on new election laws being broadcast by state-run radio as they sit at a pavement tea shop on March, 8. (Photo:AP)
The laws enacted Monday will set out the mechanisms and rules for the election and campaigning, and the conditions under which parties may participate. Details were to be released in the state-run media over the coming days.
The first explained was the Union Election Commission Law, signed by junta leader Snr-Gen Than Shwe. It stipulates that the junta will appoint a Union Election Commission with a minimum of five members including the chairman. Decisions of the body would be final.
Members, who cannot be members of political parties, must be persons "deemed prominent and reputable" by the junta, known as the State Peace and Development Council.
Burma's military government announced in early 2008 that elections would take place sometime in 2010. A 1990 election was won by the National League for Democracy party of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, but the military refused to hand over power.
The party of Suu Kyi, who is under house arrest until November, has not yet committed itself to taking part in the polls because it claims the new constitution of 2008 is unfair. It has clauses that would ensure that the military retains a controlling say in government and bars Suu Kyi from holding office.
The party has said the election laws will help it determine whether it will participate.
The remaining four laws are said to cover the polls for the Pyithu Hluttaw, or House of Representatives; the polls for the Amyotha Hluttaw, or House of Nationalities, the other house of parliament; the polls for Region and State parliaments; and the Political Parties Registration Law.
The national and regional legislatures will all include military personnel nominated by their commander in chief.
The 440-member House of Representatives will have 330 elected civilians and 110 military representatives; while the 224-member House of Nationalities will seat 168 elected candidates and 56 nominated by the military chief.
Suu Kyi has been detained for 14 of the past 20 years. The Supreme Court last month dismissed her latest appeal for freedom. She was convicted last August of violating the terms of her previous detention by briefly sheltering an American who swam uninvited to her lakeside home, and sentenced to a term of house arrest to end this November.
The sentence was seen as a ploy to effectively keep Suu Kyi locked up during any election campaign.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed disappointment Monday that Suu Kyi's appeal was rejected, adding that the legitimacy of the elections rests on the freedom of political prisoners.
"Most importantly, all the political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, should be released as soon as possible, so that all of them can take part in elections," Ban said.
Ban said he wrote Than Shwe about 10 days ago "first of all expressing my concern about the lack of progress and also emphasizing the importance of the election ... to be (held in) a most credible, inclusive and transparent manner."
http://www.irrawaddy.org/highlight.php?art_id=17986
Saturday, 6 March 2010
American policy on burma needs sharper teeth
Apart from urging the junta to hold free, fair elections, the world should also keep it away from North Korea
After the initial four high-level contacts with the Burmese junta since last August, the US administration has been trying hard to engage the junta for two major reasons.
http://ping.fm/03i30
Apart from urging the junta to hold free, fair elections, the world should also keep it away from North Korea
After the initial four high-level contacts with the Burmese junta since last August, the US administration has been trying hard to engage the junta for two major reasons.
http://ping.fm/03i30
American policy on burma needs sharper teeth
Apart from urging the junta to hold free, fair elections, the world should also keep it away from North Korea
After the initial four high-level contacts with the Burmese junta since last August, the US administration has been trying hard to engage the junta for two major reasons.
The first is to convince Burma that it would be in the country's as well as the regime's interest to hold an all-inclusive, free and fair election this year. The second, and an equally important, reason is to create a distance between the Burmese and North Korean regimes in terms of the sale of weapons and nuclear arms proliferation.
Washington believed its enthusiastic, softer approach would convince the junta that the planned elections should be carried out in a manner that is internationally acceptable and one that would help the regime join the global community.
So far, the regime has not yet set a date for the elections or given the world a peek at any electoral laws. It is clear that the enthusiasm for the elections is quickly evaporating, if not disappearing, within the administration. The junta has its own roadmap to follow and will certainly not pay attention to the guidelines being suggested by well-wishers in other capitals.
The irony of it all is that the junta is managing to successfully buy time to maximise on the outcome of its grand political strategy - staying in power at all costs without ever giving in. Most importantly, the junta leaders want to keep opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi away from all political activities prior to the elections. Her party won the elections in May 1990 by a landslide, but the regime annulled the victory and took over.
Therefore, it is commendable that women like Nobel Peace laureates Shirin Ebadi and Jody Williams, along with other well-known human rights activists, are working to highlight the extreme violence being inflicted on women living in Burma. Their call to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court should be supported because in the past two decades, the Burmese junta has committed lots of crimes against humanity, not to mention innocent people being raped and tortured. In fact, the junta is known for using rape as a weapon of war against minorities. Thus, the international community should join hands and work towards the noble aim of ensuring safety and freedom for all people.
As for the second objective, Washington also has so far been unable to distance the two rogue states that have not only normalised their relations, but have over the past few years intensified their cooperation on military hardware.
The Burmese junta wants the kind of lethal weapons from North Korea that will allow it to project its military might on neighbouring countries. The reports on Rangoon's efforts to become nuclear capable should be taken seriously, though at this moment it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for Burma to develop such capacity.
However, in say 10 to 15 years, Burma can very easily build up its nuclear capacity with assistance from other rogue states that are willing to sell their technology and know-how. Like many other new, nuclear-ready states, such as Iran, the governments in power know exactly how to hide their burgeoning nuclear facilities. The world, especially Thailand, should watch out and not be fooled by the junta.
US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs Kurt Campbell will be in Thailand next week, and might drop by in Burma if his planned itinerary is approved. If given the go-ahead, perhaps he will use this visit as an opportunity to tell the junta that time is running out and that it should stop dragging its feet in opening the door to democracy.
After the initial four high-level contacts with the Burmese junta since last August, the US administration has been trying hard to engage the junta for two major reasons.
The first is to convince Burma that it would be in the country's as well as the regime's interest to hold an all-inclusive, free and fair election this year. The second, and an equally important, reason is to create a distance between the Burmese and North Korean regimes in terms of the sale of weapons and nuclear arms proliferation.
Washington believed its enthusiastic, softer approach would convince the junta that the planned elections should be carried out in a manner that is internationally acceptable and one that would help the regime join the global community.
So far, the regime has not yet set a date for the elections or given the world a peek at any electoral laws. It is clear that the enthusiasm for the elections is quickly evaporating, if not disappearing, within the administration. The junta has its own roadmap to follow and will certainly not pay attention to the guidelines being suggested by well-wishers in other capitals.
The irony of it all is that the junta is managing to successfully buy time to maximise on the outcome of its grand political strategy - staying in power at all costs without ever giving in. Most importantly, the junta leaders want to keep opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi away from all political activities prior to the elections. Her party won the elections in May 1990 by a landslide, but the regime annulled the victory and took over.
Therefore, it is commendable that women like Nobel Peace laureates Shirin Ebadi and Jody Williams, along with other well-known human rights activists, are working to highlight the extreme violence being inflicted on women living in Burma. Their call to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court should be supported because in the past two decades, the Burmese junta has committed lots of crimes against humanity, not to mention innocent people being raped and tortured. In fact, the junta is known for using rape as a weapon of war against minorities. Thus, the international community should join hands and work towards the noble aim of ensuring safety and freedom for all people.
As for the second objective, Washington also has so far been unable to distance the two rogue states that have not only normalised their relations, but have over the past few years intensified their cooperation on military hardware.
The Burmese junta wants the kind of lethal weapons from North Korea that will allow it to project its military might on neighbouring countries. The reports on Rangoon's efforts to become nuclear capable should be taken seriously, though at this moment it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for Burma to develop such capacity.
However, in say 10 to 15 years, Burma can very easily build up its nuclear capacity with assistance from other rogue states that are willing to sell their technology and know-how. Like many other new, nuclear-ready states, such as Iran, the governments in power know exactly how to hide their burgeoning nuclear facilities. The world, especially Thailand, should watch out and not be fooled by the junta.
US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs Kurt Campbell will be in Thailand next week, and might drop by in Burma if his planned itinerary is approved. If given the go-ahead, perhaps he will use this visit as an opportunity to tell the junta that time is running out and that it should stop dragging its feet in opening the door to democracy.
Friday, 5 March 2010
The Export-Import Bank of Thailand will open talks with the government on whether its four billion baht low inteerst loan to the Burmese government should be reviewed, Deputy Finance Minister Pruektichai Damrongrut says.
Pruektichai: Talks to start this week
Mr Pruektichai would consult Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij and Exim Bank's legal team this week.
The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions on Friday ruled former premier Thaksin Shinawatra had abused his authority with the Exim Bank loan to Burma.
Mr Pruektichai did not say how the bank would review the contract.
http://ping.fm/RuJJE
Pruektichai: Talks to start this week
Mr Pruektichai would consult Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij and Exim Bank's legal team this week.
The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions on Friday ruled former premier Thaksin Shinawatra had abused his authority with the Exim Bank loan to Burma.
Mr Pruektichai did not say how the bank would review the contract.
http://ping.fm/RuJJE
Exim Bank reassesses loan to Burma
The Export-Import Bank of Thailand will open talks with the government on whether its four billion baht low inteerst loan to the Burmese government should be reviewed, Deputy Finance Minister Pruektichai Damrongrut says.
Pruektichai: Talks to start this week
Mr Pruektichai would consult Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij and Exim Bank's legal team this week.
The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions on Friday ruled former premier Thaksin Shinawatra had abused his authority with the Exim Bank loan to Burma.
Mr Pruektichai did not say how the bank would review the contract.
Exim Bank president Apichai Boontherawara said the bank would also assess the possible damage resulting from the contract before forwarding it to the finance minister. But he insisted the Burmese government was a good client which made regular repayments.
Exim Bank's soft loan to the Burmese government was one of five cases in which the Supreme Court ruled Thaksin abused his authority as prime minister.
The bank lent 4 billion baht to the Burmese government for 12 years at 3% interest, which is below its operating costs.
The Supreme Court said lending at an interest rate which was below the bank's operating cost was not an objective of the bank's establishment. The court estimated that lending at 3% over 12 years would cost the bank 670 million baht in damages.
Mr Apichai insisted the bank did not lose money from the lending, but said it would have to study the ruling thoroughly.
The court also ruled that Shin Satellite, a company in which members of the Shinawatra family were majority shareholders, benefited from the loan.
Burma spent it on buying telecommunications equipment and satellite services from Shin Satellite, better known now as Thaicom.
The court found the bank approved the 4 billion baht loan to Burma following an instruction by the Thaksin government.
Initially, it had opened a credit line of 3 billion baht for Burma, but Thaksin asked the bank to increase the credit line by one billion baht. After that, the interest rate on the loan was cut from 5.5% to 3%.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/33889/exim-bank-reassesses-loan-to-burma
Pruektichai: Talks to start this week
Mr Pruektichai would consult Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij and Exim Bank's legal team this week.
The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions on Friday ruled former premier Thaksin Shinawatra had abused his authority with the Exim Bank loan to Burma.
Mr Pruektichai did not say how the bank would review the contract.
Exim Bank president Apichai Boontherawara said the bank would also assess the possible damage resulting from the contract before forwarding it to the finance minister. But he insisted the Burmese government was a good client which made regular repayments.
Exim Bank's soft loan to the Burmese government was one of five cases in which the Supreme Court ruled Thaksin abused his authority as prime minister.
The bank lent 4 billion baht to the Burmese government for 12 years at 3% interest, which is below its operating costs.
The Supreme Court said lending at an interest rate which was below the bank's operating cost was not an objective of the bank's establishment. The court estimated that lending at 3% over 12 years would cost the bank 670 million baht in damages.
Mr Apichai insisted the bank did not lose money from the lending, but said it would have to study the ruling thoroughly.
The court also ruled that Shin Satellite, a company in which members of the Shinawatra family were majority shareholders, benefited from the loan.
Burma spent it on buying telecommunications equipment and satellite services from Shin Satellite, better known now as Thaicom.
The court found the bank approved the 4 billion baht loan to Burma following an instruction by the Thaksin government.
Initially, it had opened a credit line of 3 billion baht for Burma, but Thaksin asked the bank to increase the credit line by one billion baht. After that, the interest rate on the loan was cut from 5.5% to 3%.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/33889/exim-bank-reassesses-loan-to-burma
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
