Maybe This Time

Irrawaddy: Maybe this time – Aung Din

Thu 13 Oct 2005
Filed under: News, Opinion
http://www.burmanet.org/news/2005/10/13/irrawaddy-maybe-this-time-%E2%80%93-aung-din/

A new proposal on Burma would directly involve the UN Security Council

A round-up of Burmese opinions on the possibility of effective UN action posted by The Irrawaddy on its website a few weeks ago crystallized what many of us have been feeling for some time: The UN may be a paper tiger incapable of bringing change to Burma. Let’s be honest. What has the UN done for Burma lately?

Most Burmese would agree that the answer is “not much.” Indeed, it is increasingly looking as if Burma—like Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Darfur—will go down in history as one of the UN’s great failures. Meanwhile, the military regime continues to rack up its list of atrocities: millions pushed into forced labor, more child soldiers than any other country in the world, 2,700 villages destroyed in eastern Burma since 1996 and the use of rape as a weapon throughout the country, to name but a few.

One might expect that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan would be embarrassed by this series of failures on Burma and want to correct his future actions. In one year, he was “concerned,” then “increasingly concerned,” then “gravely concerned” and then—inexplicably—only “concerned” again.

But is lack of progress in Burma really Annan’s fault? He is not the one burning down villages and forcing hundreds of thousands of refugees to flee their homes both inside the country and across borders. Whose fault is it? Clearly the ruling State Peace and Development Council is the primary barrier to progress in Burma. Who else is to blame? Is it China, which has provided billions of dollars in weaponry and equipment to the regime? Is it Asean, which has exercised a policy of “constructive engagement” that was in reality a policy of hoping for slow change through the pursuit of business interests?

What about the US and EU, who responded to the opposition National League for Democracy’s call for sanctions on Burma while also spending millions on humanitarian assistance, yet not offering a framework for international negotiations? All these are UN members, yet the UN as a whole has failed to bring change to Burma.

Still, we should not lose hope in the UN system. It represents the only source of global legitimacy in today’s world, despite its weaknesses. As Burmese, it is in our interest to strengthen the UN system. After all, the UN’s calls for national reconciliation in Burma are not wrong; they are just weak. The 14 consecutive resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly and 13 consecutive resolutions by the Commission on Human Rights represent not only the collective opinion of the international community, but the desires of the Burmese people.

The democracy movement, military regime and those not involved in politics all say they want to see genuine national reconciliation in Burma. This desire extends beyond Burma—Asean, the US, EU, China, India, Japan and others have all called for it. Moreover, all want to see change soon. As Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yew recently said about Burma: “To stay frozen in time means they are building up problems for themselves, and those problems will overflow into Asean.”

The UN’s three accomplishments—uniting world opinion, injecting a reasonable sense of urgency, and agreeing on a common mechanism for change—are real and not without merit. The problem is that the mechanism needs adjustment. The Burmese regime has had more than a decade to cooperate with the good offices of the UN secretary-general, but it has refused. Ten years of failure is enough to show that the present mechanism is broken.

One positive proposal for fixing this broken mechanism and strengthening the UN’s role in Burma—indeed, the only pro-active proposal—was launched on September 20 by former Czech President Vaclav Havel and 1984 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu. They proposed a UN Security Council resolution that would compel the SPDC to work with the secretary-general. It would also authorize him to report back periodically to the council. Unlike UN General Assembly and Commission on Human Rights resolutions that are unenforceable, the UNSC resolution would be binding. This means that the regime must work with Annan towards national reconciliation—or stand in violation of the UN Charter. In what appears to be a nod towards building an international consensus that all can agree on, Havel and Tutu did not call for sanctions to be applied through the council.

The UNSC has cited serious refugee flows, drug production, human rights abuses, the overthrow of a democratic government and armed conflict among factions in its past decisions to take action on a country. What is unique about Burma is that all of these factors are at play, and many are especially severe. Indeed, no UNSC member should fear that a resolution on Burma would set a precedent for action on its own country—Burma is beyond the pale.

World leaders should embrace this proposal. In fact, the level of support for the proposal will test whether countries and regions mean what they say when they claim to support UN efforts in Burma. After all, isn’t this what everyone has agreed on: national reconciliation through dialogue, multilateral talks, and diplomacy?

Aung Din is a former political prisoner in Burma and co-founder and policy director of Washington DC-based US Campaign for Burma.