Is Meaningful Action on Burma in the UNSC a Pipe Dream? Perhaps Not:
AUNG DIN
Earlier this month, activists supporting the Burmese democracy movement rallied in 12 countries; outside embassies controlled by Burma’s military dictatorship. They called for a UN Security Council (UNSC) binding resolution to stop the killing and violence in Burma. On May 18, 2006, great human rights leader Arch-Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa made similar request to Secretary of State Dr. Rice, who has described Burmese military junta, led by General Than Shwe, as one of the outposts of tyranny.
Last year the U.S., Britain, Romania and other like-minded countries successfully brought the issue of Burma before the Security Council in the form of a briefing by UN Under-Secretary-General Ibrahim Gambari that featured the participation of Secretary-General Kofi Annan. This was a significant step but if the UNSC is a relevant to world crises, they must do more.
During the past five months, Burma’s military junta has embarked on a campaign aimed at wiping out ethnic groups along the Thai-Burma border, killing, jailing, and intimidating members of the democracy movement, the National League for Democracy led by imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi, and threatening to finally crush and outlaw the party that received more than 85% of the vote in parliamentary elections held in 1990.
In short, Burma has become a killing field. To secure the area around its new capital, Naypyidaw, the army has launched its largest offensive in regions where ethnic minorities such as the Karen and Karenni reside. Also, villagers living in remote areas where hydro dams are scheduled to be built face the stark choice of moving or being killed. Over 500,000 ethnic minorities have been forced to flee from their villages and are now hiding in jungles and mountains to avoid being killing or captured. A shocking over 2,900 villages have been burned or otherwise destroyed by the junta. With no food, no medicine, no shelters, starvation is rampant. Military attacks focus on destroying food supplies and the infrastructure necessary for people to live.
Moreover, the regime is responsible for a flood of met amphetamines flooding into China, India and Thailand. The junta’s deliberate neglect of the HIV/AIDS problem is spawning more resistant strains of the virus that moves out of Burma along drug trading routs to infect millions in the region. When Avian Influenza was discovered in the country, the regime took more than 10 days to tell people in afflicted regions how to respond to this deadly disease, setting up a scenario where the highly contagious virus could spread in Burma and neighboring states. Without question, the regime is a danger to its people and a new, non-traditional threat to the international community.
Is meaningful action on Burma in the UNSC a pipe dream? Perhaps not: Last year it was conventional thinking that China would use its veto power to defend the Burmese regime. When U.S. Ambassador Bolton asked the UNSC President to discuss Burma--China, Russia and Algeria quickly delivered their objections. Later, when they realized that U.S. had support from ten members of the Council, more than enough to secure an item to place on the formal agenda, they opted for an informal briefing. China is being victimized by drugs and HIV/AIDS emanating from Burma. Beijing has good reasons (economic and political) to see a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Burma. Plus, China knows that it can use its influence on the Council to shape the outcome of Council action just as much as other countries. China can act responsibly at the Council by supporting a binding resolution and preserve its interests at the same time by shaping the very same resolution.
Burma’s democrats are not asking the UNSC to take punitive measures, such as sanctions and military intervention. They are simply asking the Council to empower the Secretary-General in his effort to facilitate national reconciliation and democratization in Burma. A resolution instructing the junta to fully cooperate with the Secretary-General and UNSC is a modest proposal that holds no “veto bait.”
The UN can play a positive role in my country. The recent visit by Mr. Gambari and his rare meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi would not have been possible without the focused attention of the UNSC and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations demonstrating the regime’s sensitivity to regional opinion and international pressure.
The regional problems created by the Burmese military regime and the financial costs it inflicts on the region can only be addressed through a negotiated political settlement. The Security Council must act and the U.S. must continue to play its pivotal role in trying to secure a council resolution. Burma represents a defining moment for the UNSC to prove it can be relevant to present day problems. We in Burma pray that it will rise to the occasion.
Aung Din
Policy Director
U.S. Campaign for Burma
(Aung Din was a student leader in Burma and had spent over four years in prison for his leading role in the 1988 nationwide popular uprising. He is now serving as policy director of Washington, DC-based U.S. Campaign for Burma that organize Global Days of Action to Stop Killing in Burma)
