Interview with Robert Goebbels, member of the European Parliament

Mizzima (Brussels) – Robert Goebbels, a member of the European Parliament (EP) from Luxembourg, received Mizzima at his office in Brussels. The Socialist member of the EP since 1999 is vice-chairman of the delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and Asean and has been minister of economic affairs, transport and public works and energy for Luxembourg. He is a member of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats group within the EP, the second-largest bloc in the parliament.


Robert Goebbels

Since the early 1990s, the European Union (EU) has maintained a set of sanctions on Burma that, given the lack of progress on human rights and democracy in the country, has been strengthened over time. These restrictions comprise a travel ban on junta leaders, members of the judiciary and figures associated with the state-controlled economy (and in most of the cases, their close relatives); an assets freeze; and a ban on the export of regime-linked entities working in the industries of woods, metals, construction material, information technology and the media.

Do the existing EU sanctions on Burma bear any influence on the Burmese military rulers?

I am personally against any policies based on sanctions; history has shown that they never work. The imposition of restrictions only serves the EU to give itself a good conscience. First of all, restrictions rarely hit the ruling elites. Cuba, Iraq and now Iran have evidenced how in the end, this type of embargoes only disrupts ordinary people. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that sanctions could ever prove conductive to bring about change in any way.

How can the EU streamline its current range of sanctions if it is to promote human rights and democracy in Burma?

The Burmese regime does not look at the approval of the West. Besides, the junta still makes business with a number of EU companies [the EU economic sanctions on Burma do not apply to companies operating in the country prior to the ban]. On the top of this, the junta’s dealings with a number of mighty economic allies [China, Russia, India, for example] secure the establishment with much-needed foreign investment. In its endeavour to persuade the military regime to pave the way for opening up, the EU would be better advice if it engages in dialogue with the Burmese rulers.

They are certain policy discrepancies between the EP and the European Commission (EC) – the EU’s executive body – as the latter favours further dialogue with the junta. What do you make of this?

That is true. In the EP, there are a number of members who monopolise this debate, and I am afraid that these very people tend to be wrong. Some members of the EP subcommittee on human rights keep pursuing a misguided strategy on Burma – one that has largely failed in its aim to enhance the junta’s respect for its citizen’s fundamental freedoms. Consequently, I back the EC approach of generating new channels of dialogue. There are some times when we make the mistake to act in a paternalistic fashion, dictating to others what they should do.

Since last year, the EC has declined to finance aid for Burmese refugees living along the Thai-Burmese border. What could possibly be the EC’s reasons to stop such funding?

I am not informed about the details of the EC’s motives. I suspect that most of these funds go to NGOs. Despite that, the non-profit sector plays a very constructive role in the field; some NGOs also finance themselves out of the resources provided by the EU. The EC may know better than the EP committees concerned what the situation on the ground is. This would have probably prompted its decision.

Does the Burmese issue interfere with relations between the EU and Asean?

The situation in Burma is always present on EU-Asean talks. Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that the ties between both supranational entities are essentially of an economic nature. In such a framework, the economic actors do not pay much attention to the human rights situation in Burma – otherwise, there would not be so many companies operating in the country.

Are you satisfied with the Asean method of dialogue without meddling in members’ domestic affairs?

Obviously, Asean could have a larger influence on the junta’s policy-making. Yet, it should not be forgotten that various Asean member states have themselves poor records on human rights, which partially explains why the organisation is not very vigorous in challenging the junta. Nevertheless, the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights [formed last year] embodies a platform that should be better brought into play when dealing with the Burmese leadership.

Recently, the EP encouraged the governments of China, India and Russia “to stop supplying the Burmese regime with weaponry and other strategic resources”. However, China has just sold 50 jet fighters to Naypyidaw. In the end, China, Russia, India and others are reluctant to stop their arms sales and energy deals with the regime. Could the EU possibly take any initiative to warn these states of Brussels’ annoyance?

I would focus my answer on China, as I do not think that the EU has at its disposal much leverage against Beijing. One can say that China has not friends, only interests. In addition, we should not forget that many EU member states run vast investments in China; thousands of joint-ventures produce goods in China for the EU market. A number of European economies need China to expand, and the situation in Burma is unlikely to get in its way.

If it was for you to say what the Burmese military should first do to boost the credibility of the forthcoming elections, what would be your advice?

If the junta were really aiming to hold credible elections, the regime should invite foreign observers to monitor the whole process. Following the polls, I am confident that the newly established parliament will not be satisfied with its given powers. At some point, the parliament will contest its original rubber-stamp role. I am positive that the new assembly will gradually challenge the military.

source: http://www.mizzima.com/edop/interview/4084-interview-with-robert-goebbels-member-of-the-european-parliament.html

AAPP submission for the UPR of Burma

Information Release


Date: 6 July, 2010


Burma’s Human Rights Record Up For Review


The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners has submitted its report to the UN Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review of Burma. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a new mechanism of the Human Rights Council (HRC) aimed at improving the human rights record of all 192 UN Member States.


Burma is up for its first review in the 10th session of HRC, in January 2011.
“For countries, like Burma, with a poor human rights record and a low ratification rate of international human rights treaties, the UPR provides a unique opportunity to put them in the hot seat and have their rights record publically scrutinized” says Bo Kyi, Joint Secretary of AAPP.


“Through the UPR, the Human Rights Council has examined country situations that are rarely raised at the international level and would otherwise fall off the radar, such as North Korea. It also draws attention to the human rights concerns in states, with a generally good human rights performance, showing us that no state is perfect”, says Bo Kyi.


AAPP’s UPR submission shows that the human rights situation for the more than 2,170 political prisoners in Burma remains dire: incommunicado detention, torture, and the denial of adequate medical care are common place. This treatment is meted out to all prisoners, without distinction to age, health and the special needs of women, children and those with disabilities. Evidence collected by AAPP suggests that torture is a cultural norm, amongst the military, police and security officials. AAPP has documented hundreds of cases of torture experienced by political prisoners, dating back to 1988 and as recent as 2010.


AAPP, along with a number of other independent non-governmental organizations working inside Burma and in exile, joined together and worked hard to produce credible reports for the UPR.


“Will the SPDC take the UPR process just as seriously, asks Bo Kyi?
North Korea's approach illustrates the limitations of UPR. They mocked the process by refusing to accept any of the recommendations offered by a wide range of member states, as every other country has done at the UPR sessions. Instead, they would only state which recommendations they rejected.


“Ultimately, the effectiveness of UPR can be measured by the extent to which it inspires a country to alter its actual human rights practices, as there is no enforcement mechanism” says Bo Kyi.


When the SPDC are confronted with the reality of their human rights record at the HRC in January, will they respond with defensive rhetoric, fabrications and denial as they have done in past, or engage in a meaningful debate to improve the situation for the people of Burma?


Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma)


For further information, please contact:


Tate Naing, Secretary +66 (0) 81-287-8751


Bo Kyi, Joint-Secretary +66 (0) 81-962-8713