[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

"SPDC/SLORC DELEGATION'S RESPONSE T



/* Posted 10 Mar 11:00am 1998 by drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:reg.burma */
/* ----------" Statement by H.E.U Win Mra "----------- */
[ADDED NOTE: as regards the visit of Human Rights Special Rapporteur
to Burma, the 1997 UNGA Resolution also states:

        1. Expresses its appreciation to the Special Rapporteur of
        the Commission on Human rights on the situation of human
        rights in Myanmar for his interim report, and urges the
        Government of Myanmar to cooperate fully with the Special
        Rapporteur, and to ensure his access to Myanmar, without
        preconditions, in order to allow him fully to discharge his
        mandate; (A/52/137, 12 December 1997)

By looking at the response below, at least the Burmese junta's
representative at UN understand the implication of this resolution.
This, however, is no guarantee of the Burmese Generals in Rangoon
understand the content of resolution.

One of the reason we, the pro-democracy activists, have not given
much notice to the responses/rebuttals made by the SPDC/SLORC
representatives is that such responses do not accurately reflect
the top Burmese military leaders understanding/thinking about the
UN Resolutions etc. It is even possible to judge, to my way of
thinking, the SPDC/SLORC delegation at the United Nations as a
simple propaganda-making body, which only attend UN meetings and
made speeches. Simply saying, we can not make prediction as to how
the junta may respond to a situation from what its representatives
- or even its foreign minister - have stated. This phenomena may
found to have its roots in the Burmese military's perception about
politics and political events. --- Regards, U Ne Oo.]
******************************************************************
(reproduced from  BURMA DEBATE Vol.IV No.4 Nov/Dec-1997 pp-32.)

STATEMENT BY HIS EXCELLENCY U WIN MRA
PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE CHAIRMAN OF
THE DELEGATION OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR

IN THE THIRD COMMITTEE OF THE FIFTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE UNITED
NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTION A/C.3/52/L.63
"SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN MYANMAR"

New York, 24 November 1997.

MR. CHAIRMAN,

I thank you for giving me the floor to state my delegation's position
on the draft resolution"the situation of human rights in
Myanmar"contained in A/C.3/52/L.63. The draft ritualistically
repeats many paragraphs of last year's resolution without taking
into consideration the present realities in Myanmar.As my
delegation's position is well-known, I will refrain from repeating
them and I will concentrate only on the new elements.Before I
comment on them, let me make a general observation on the draft.

As it is formulated, the draft contains as before, unsubstantiated
allegations based on information received from dubious sources.
Despite the fact that much progress has been made in the country,
the draft, regrettably fails to portray the situation of the country
in a faithful manner. Even where some positive developments are
mentioned, it is done very grudgingly. Furthermore, the draft
reveals a lack of understanding of the root causes of problems in
Myanmar. It is an attempt to impose on my country a solution which
only the people of Myanmar have the legitimate right to undertake.

The allegation in the draft are principally linked with the ethnic
problem which rooted in Myanmar's colonial past. The allegations of
torture, summary executions, etc. are, on closer examination, found
to have originated from areas where the insurgents where active and
they stemmed mainly from those insurgents and the unscrupulous
elements who are bent on capitalizing on the situation. Actually, due
to the government efforts to achieve national reconciliation, 16
armed groups have returned to the legal fold and peace and stability
are prevailing in the country. The national races are actively
cooperating with the government in efforts for the economic
development of their respective regions and are participating in the
National Convention process as well. the only armed group remaining
outside the legal fold is the Karen National Union. Even the KNU is
now composed only of a few old guards helped and financed by
extraneous elements. Therefore, in reality, the allegations now in
the draft primarily emnates from the KNU remnants and other
unscrupulous elements linked with them. For these reasons, the
allegations have no validity at all and do not reflect the actual
situation in the country.

I would like to reiterate here that, as a matter of policy, Myanmar
does not condone human rights violations as it is committed to the
principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

the draft resolution on Myanmar maintains a distinctive
characteristic, especially in terms of co-sponsorship. It is
glaringly co-sponsored by a particular group of countries and a few
others who are linked with them. The majority of co-sponsors
represent one particular geographical area, clearly demonstrating a
clash of cultural values and traditions where between them and
Myanmar. It is therefore evident that the co-sponsors lack a clear
understanding of Myanmar's concept of human rights, situation in
Myanmar and its root causes. The draft is conspicuous by the absence
of any Asian or African countries in its co-sponsorship. One may
therefore wonder whether the concerns expressed in the draft
constitute those of the international community. Moreover, the draft
attempts to stand up for a single individual and one political party
out of many other legally registered political parties. The draft
clearly politicizes the human rights question in the name of the
international community. The draft therefore is unbalanced, highly
intrusive and politicized.

To find out the real situation in my country, the distinguished
delegates are kindly invited to refer to the memorandum on the
situation of human rights in Myanmar contained in document
A/C.3/52/5 submitted to the Secretary-General under this item.

MR. CHAIRMAN,

Let me now turn to the new elements in the draft. True to the nature
of country-specific resolutions, new allegations, though
unsubstantiated, have found their way into this year's draft. I will
confine my comments to them.\

Preambular paragraph 8: on allegations of restrictions and
harassment is a lop-sided representation. There were no restrictions
on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as alleged.On the contrary, her activities
in Yangon are extensive and well-known. Similarly, there was no
arrest or harassment of the members of the NLD as stated in this
paragraph. As a matter of fact, it has been  found that some
members of the NLD resorted to any means conceivable to create
chaos. the actions of the government were invariably preventive in
nature and they were taken with the objective of upholding the rule
of law and of maintaining public peace and civil order in the
country.I wish to reiterate that the government does not take
action against any individual for peaceful activities. It takes
action against only those who violate the existing laws. However,
let me underscore here that being a member of a political party does
not exempt an individual from legal actions for infringement of the
law. Let me also stress that, in the circumstances referred to in
the paragraph under reference, the government exercised utmost
restraint. The university classes were not closed but merely
suspended in order to avoid further unrest on the campuses and to
safeguard public order. Efforts are now under way to resume all the
classes. this paragraph also alludes to forced resignation of
elected representatives, which is totally devoid of truth. In
reality, they were permitted to resign only at there request.

Preambular paragraph11: attempts to criticize the legal system of
Myanmar on the basis of information provided to the special
rapporteur by anti-government sources. It is disingenuous to charge
the government with unsubstantiated allegations. It is well known
that Myanmar enjoys a sound and comprehensive legal system complete
with necessary codes of criminal, civil and court procedures.

These procedures guarantee fair trial to all persons. LIke similar
legal systems in other countries, it is based on the universally
accepted principles. Dispensing justice in open courts, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, is a principle, among others observed
by the Myanmar legal system. However, no system can escape
occasional lapes due to human foibles or unique circumstances. In
fact, if there were cases of government agents, be they military or
civilian, breaking the existing laws, there are established channels
through which proper complaints or reports can be brought to the
competent authorities. No legal system provides for actions based on
uncorroborated evidence or unsubstantiated allegations.

Preambular paragraph11: read together the lst part of operative
paragraph 12 is a misrepresentation. No perpetrators of offenses
punishable under law enjoy impunity in Myanmar. To suggest that such
a privilege exists in Myanmar for government agents is outrageous
and is totally unacceptable. In this regard, I wish to stress that
members of the Tatmadaw (the Armed Forces) have to observe strictly
not only the Defence Services Act and the Defence rules but also the
civil and criminal procedures. Any member of the Armed Forces
convinced with murder or rape can be sentenced to the maximum
punishment of death penalty. I categorically reject these
allegations. Here I would like to state that is not the policy of my
government to condone such violations.

Operative paragraph1: refers to cooperation between Myanmar and the
Special Rapporteur, urging the government to ensure the access by
the Special Rapporteur to Myanmar without preconditions. this
paragraph obviously dictates to the government the ground rules for
the visit of the Special Rapporteur. We find this highly
objectionable. This paragraph implies the absence of any cooperation
between Myanmar and the UN. As is well known, there have been
instances where Myanmar has cooperated to the fullest extent
possible not only with the UN but also with the Special Rapporteur
appointed by the commission on HUman Rights. Concerning the visit of
the Special Rapporteur, we have not yet precluded the possibility of
such a visit. Under the circumstances, it is not appropriate to
prejudge the action of the government which could undermine the
prevailing spirit of cooperation. We find it presumptuous and highly
objectionable.

With respect to the activities of the NLD in operative paragraph4, I
wish to reiterate what the representative of Myanmar stated in this
committee on 18 NOvember. IN Myanmar, peaceful political activities
within the law are permitted. The concern about the physical
well-being of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is misplaced since the government
has taken responsibilities even for her personal security at her own
request.

Operative paragraph 6: urges the government to make further contacts
with the NLD. With the first meeting with the Chairman of the NLD
and tow CEC members on 17 JUly of this year and another invitation
to them after two months, the government has shown its positive and
conciliatory gesture towards the NLD. I wish to emphasize here that
it is the government which took the initiative to establish contacts
with the NLD and this led to the first successful meeting. As is
widely known, the second meeting did not take place due to the
precedence given to personal interests over that of the party. As
such, it has proven more and more difficult for the government to
continue its sincere efforts for further contacts with the NLD.

Operative paragraph 7: urges the government to broaden the dialogue
with the Secretary-General. As has been consistently done in the
past, Myanmar will continue to cooperate with the UN in every
possible way. It is, however, appropriate to reiterate my
government's position that the role of the Secretary-General
ev=nvisaged in this paragraph and operative paragraph 21 is to be
implemented in manner consistent with the time-honoured principle
set forth in Article2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the UNited
Nations.

Operative paragraph 10: represents a blatant interference in the
internal affairs of Myanmar. Myanmar has chosen the mechanism of the
National Convention as its political path towards democracy and will
never deviate from this undertaking at this stage after so much
progress has been achieved. We cannot accept any judgement on our
internal political process. As is now composed, absence of
representatives of a single political party does not detract from
the representative character of the National Convention since
delegates representing all strata of life in the country, including
the delegates from other political parties and national races are
participating in the process. It was the NLD which unilaterally
withdrew from the process and renounced its right to participation.
The government cannot be faulted for that.

The National Convention is the only forum where dialogue is going
on among the national races to achieve consensus on the principles
for the new constitution. I want to stress that the success of the
National Convention is the national priority. My government will not
accept any disruption of this process, whatever judgement is made on
it. It is neither appropriate nor morally defensible for any country
to pass judgement on our internal process or to attempt to channel
that process to its own liking. We totally reject the conclusion
made in the paragraph.

The intent and purpose of operative paragraph 16 referring to the
convention on the Rights of the child is difficult to understand.
Myanmar acceded to the Convention in July 1991, well before several
co-sponsor countries became States Parties. Although the Convention
has been accepted by a greater number of countries than any other
international instrument on human rights, one co-sponsor of the
present draft has not acceded to the Convention, according to the
information we have in hand as of September 1996. The exhortation in
this paragraph plainly reveals an unfair treatment of my country. We
cannot accept that treatment. Under Article 43 of the Convention,
the committee on the Rights of child is the mechanism to examine the
progress made by the States Parties in achieving the realization of
the obligations undertaken in the convention. Myanmar has, as
required under the mechanism already submitted its national report at
the 14th session of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and
replied to both oral and written questions from the Committee. As
the Committee is competent to transmit its suggestions and
recommendations together with its comments to any States Parties
concerned, there is no valid ground for the reference made in this
paragraph.

MR. CHAIRMAN,

The draft contained in A/C.3/52/L.63 is, for the above-mentioned
reasons, not acceptable to us. My delegation totally rejects all the
negative elements and disassociates itself from the draft.

My delegation wishes to express its deepest appreciation to all
friendly countries of their support, cooperation and understanding
shown towards my delegation and the constructive approach they have
taken on the draft.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

/* Endreport */