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