§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
§ 4.5 am
§ Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith (Chingford)On 13 June 1992, troops loyal to the military State Law and Order Restoration Council in the area of Maungdaw came to Mohamed Ilyas Maung Nyo and ordered him, as a Muslim party worker, to go into Bangladesh and fetch Burmese Muslim refugees home. He refused. They arrested him and severely beat him, eventually so severely that he died on about 23 June. His family were then forced to bury him at gunpoint, and the military have returned regularly since to make sure that the body stays where it is. No relatives are allowed to tend the grave. SLORC says that he died of acute gastro-intestinal disease.
Doctor Maung Nu, a constituent of mine, who is Mohamed Ilyas's brother, contacted me and spoke of this tragedy, asking how it could have happened and what Her Majesty's Government could do to stop this sort of thing continuing. It appears that his brother's crime was to be a party worker, believing in democracy under a brutal and despotic regime.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber should picture to themselves the reality. All the things that we take for granted in our daily lives, with our party organisations having party workers putting forward political messages in our constituencies—these basic freedoms are thoroughly abused and clearly can end in death in Burma today.
The case that I have just spoken about is only a microcosm of what is going on in Burma. Of course, the best known example of the Burmese authorities' total abuse of human rights is the continuing house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. For those hon. Members who do not know, this remarkable woman led her party to an election victory, but the military regime has since refused to accept the result. Despite world condemnation, it has refused to allow her to take up her position as the rightful leader of her Government.
She is married to Dr. Michael Aris, who, as I have to remind hon. Members, is a British citizen. Because she refused to be driven out of her country, she is kept in isolation, away from any contact with the people of Burma. It has got to the point where even Dr. Aris has not received any form of contact from her for some months, and to all intents and purposes her condition is now completely unknown.
What kind of a regime is this that clearly separates families? For any parliamentarians, it should be a matter of great concern when a democratically elected leader of Government is denied access to her electorate. But, on a personal note, I cannot believe that an hon. Member could fail to be moved by the thought of this remarkable woman and her incredible stand against the massed forces of tyranny that constantly rage against her.
I do not believe that enough is known about the facts and figures in Burma today. There are nearly 400,000 refugees from Burma in surrounding countries. There are nearly 1.5 million displaced Burmese in Burma who are unable to return to their homes because of SLORC action. Amnesty International has a list of over 1,500 people in prison on human rights charges. At least three elected Members of Parliament have died in prison. A vast number of people in prison for political offences have died.
330 The list is endless, and I do not intend to detain the House for long. I emphasise that this is a brutal and despotic regime that cares nothing for human rights, and we should do our utmost to bring it to an end.
I am extremely pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the Front Bench. In asking what the Government can do, I fully accept that they have been in the forefront of those countries attempting to bring pressure to bear on Burma.
I wish to highlight two areas of concern and ask my right hon. Friend some questions. First, is there not more we could do to apply pressure to China? China is the most important supporter of Burma. It has supplied it with some $1.5 billion-worth of arms since 1989 and offers it great protection in the United Nations. Surely it is time that we highlighted China's persistent support for the Burmese regime, particularly as the Chinese are clearly embarrassed by its activities.
Burma is China's Achilles heel in its discussions with Britain over Hong Kong, in so far as the Chinese do not wish to have a spectre of human rights abuse hanging over their heads during the run-in to 1997, particularly if we make great efforts to highlight it across the world.
We should put pressure on all our allies, without exception, constantly to make reference in the United Nations to China's role in this matter, if for no other reason than, to pay for the arms, apart from cutting down vast swathes of timber such as teak and destroying their ecology, the Burmese export heroin to the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. Some 50 per cent. of all heroin imports into the United Kingdom now come from Burma. That has a considerable effect on our young people so, there is a natural reason for doing something about it.
Mr. Edward Gamier (Harborough)While my hon. Friend is introducing a debate on human rights, he will have noticed that the Opposition Benches are entirely empty. Is that not a disgrace? The British Government can take practical steps in applying pressure on the Burmese Government to improve its behaviour, but next week my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visits Japan. Japan in one of the leading economic powers in the far east, and it has many trade links with Burma. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were to apply pressure on the Japanese Government to place levers on the Burmese Government, that might improve human rights in Burma?
§ Mr. Duncan-SmithI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree with all that he has said. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister was listening carefully. Japan is certainly one of the countries that could do something to help.
Surrounding countries in Asean could also do a great deal. We all need to bring pressure to bear on many of those countries to be more outspoken about these matters, not simply in their trade with Burma. My hon. Friend mentioned Japan, but there are also others. Britain is providing financial aid to many of those countries, and I am sure that there are ways in which we might seek to tie some strings to that assistance.
A number of western companies exploring for oil and gas are working in Burma. I find that repugnant, 331 particularly as the regime is so unstable that it can benefit those companies nothing in the long run to try and extract some financial benefit from that country.
I urge the Government to put extra pressure on China, which holds the key to this matter, and to the surrounding countries in Asean and to try to bring these matters to the attention of the United States so that more pressure can be applied to China and other countries.
We must attempt to do whatever we can, and leave no stone unturned, to make sure that Burma returns to democratic government, particularly with its present elected Head of Government.
§ Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe)I am delighted to support the Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) has been fortunate to obtain. I have been to Burma, and, like him, I have taken a very big interest in its affairs before and since the election there. I can say categorically that the present illegal regime is one of the worst in the world in terms of the interest it takes in its people, the way it treats them and the way it imprisons for 25 years, on trumped-up charges, Members of Parliament elected in 1990.
I agree that we have to act together if we are to influence that country, which is so isolated and has been so isolated and so non-aligned that it left the non-aligned movement. It has now got back into the movement, and is trying in a cosmetic way to replace its existing isolation with a more influential role to improve the situation.
I do not think that anyone who knows the country, or knows what is happening there, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford has graphically described, would recognise that any of the changes that they are trying to bring about are other than cosmetic. It is a matter of tremendous frustration among people who care for that country, and many hon. Members present in the Chamber will recognise that in Rangoon there is a war cemetery with 30,000 Commonwealth soldiers' graves. They fought for that country.
I would ask the Minister to continue to use the powers of the European Community in the way in which we act together. I cannot remember how many times the ambassadors in Rangoon have joined in expressing the full weight of our concern. When we have meetings with the Foreign Ministers of the Community and of the Association of South East Asian Nations, they should continue to apply the pressure for which my hon. Friend has called.
I was in Bangkok recently, and raised the question of Burma with the new Government of Thailand. They put it that their relationship now was not one of friends but of acquaintances. I think the pressures are starting to apply.
I would further request the Minister to see how the new American Administration take up the cudgels. One hopes that they will be every bit as determined as was Mr. Secretary Baker, who, when he went to the ASEAN conference, spoke very firmly about the situation as the Americans see it. There has been tardiness by ASEAN in applying the pressure which one would expect any country to apply to a neighbour who disgraces the standards of human rights about which all are agreed.
The Minister will know that this month there has been an agreed statement in the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva which has been universally condemnatory. It 332 called for the military regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi and to re-establish the democratic Government who were elected in 1990.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward something that tends to get forgotten. Burma is a country of 40 million people. It is not a small country, but has tremendous potential in natural resources. It used to be one of the biggest rice exporters in the world but it now imports rice to stay afloat. I think that we should raise this question and use our influence with other countries constantly to remind the SLORC regime that they are part of the international community and are a signatory to many international conventions, but are disgracefully behind in terms of implementing and keeping to the high standards that I am sure all Members in this House want to maintain.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad)I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) for initiating this debate, and to my other hon. Friends who have contributed to it.
The Government's position on Burma was set out clearly at the session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which ended in Geneva earlier this month, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred. The Minister of State said in his speech to the Commission:
Burma is another country where repression of human rights has become institutionalised. The military regime steadfastly refuses to accept the result of the 1990 elections, which gave a substantial majority—nearly 60 per cent. of the vote, and over 80 per cent. of the seats—to the party of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of the architect of Burmese independence … The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to her reflects international recognition of the desire of the Burmese people for a peaceful transition from a military straitjacket to a democratic system. Meanwhile the army can only stay in power by the familiar methods—secret police, censorship, a ban on virtually all political activity, political imprisonment and torture.The case raised by my hon. Friend, of the death of Mohamed Ilyas, apparently at the hands of Burmese soldiers, is but one deplorable example of the arbitrary and brutal nature of the regime. It appears determined neither to permit the exercise of democratic rights nor to hand over power to a Government formed by the representatives freely and fairly elected in May 1990. We and our European Community partners have made it clear that the attitude of the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council is unacceptable.The regime continues its efforts to circumvent the clear expression of the will of the Burmese people. Since 9 January this year, a national convention has been taking place in Rangoon to draw up a new constitution. We believe that Burma needs a new constitution which incorporates those changes in the political and economic system which the Burmese people have called for since the demonstrations in 1988.
It must also provide safeguards for the rights of the ethnic minorities, but we believe that this constitution should be devised by the elected representatives, who have the mandate of the people—as, indeed, was laid down by the SLORC in their order 1/90—not by an unelected group who have largely been handpicked by the authorities.
But one of the guidelines, to which the convention has been told it must stick, requires the constitution to 333 enshrine a leading role for the military in Burma's politics. According to the rules of the convention, delegates are forbidden to question this, which makes a mockery of the entire process.
Meanwhile, repression and abuse of human rights continues. Although we welcome the release over the last year of more than 1,500 prisoners, an estimated 1,000 political prisoners are still believed to be held in Burma's jails. Those include a number of elected Members of Parliament, monks, writers and students imprisoned for expressing their political opinions.
Most recently, two students were held by military intelligence in Rangoon for several days in March, during which time they were beaten and accused of distributing anti-Government leaflets. During the visit of the UN special rapporteur in December last year, former political prisoners and others who wished to contact the rapporteur were intimidated and threatened by military intelligence.
The best known of Burma's political prisoners, Nobel peace prize laureate, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, will shortly approach the fourth anniversary of her house arrest in Rangoon. The majority of the Burmese people continue to regard her as the embodiment of their desire for peace, democracy and freedom, and are deeply worried by reports of her frail health. As comments in this House have shown, we in Britain are also deeply concerned about her situation. We have called repeatedly on the SLORC, in concert with our European Community partners and with other like-minded Governments throughout the world, to release her and allow her to remain freely in Burma, in accordance with her wishes.
The 47th session of the UN General Assembly also passed a resolution calling for her unconditional release. Her Majesty's Government will continue to press for her release and the release of all prisoners detained in Burma for political reasons.
There are disquieting reports of other human rights violations in Burma. Those include the forced conscription of porters for use in front-line areas. They also include abuses by the army, and also on occasion by insurgents, of civilian non-combatants in the war zones, including extrajudicial executions and rape. Freedom of expression in Burma remains non-existent, with all media subject to heavy and frequently arbitrary censorship.
Together with our EC partners, we have made our views very clear on many occasions, most recently at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. A resolution condemning human rights abuses in Burma, which we co-sponsored, was passed by consensus on 10 March.
As my hon. Friend said, Burma is one of the largest producers of heroin in the world. The international community is co-operating closely in efforts to stamp out the illicit drugs trade. The authorities in Burma are well aware that the problem of heroin addiction and abuse, often linked with AIDS, affects the people within as well as outside their borders. We welcome the efforts being made by UN agencies and the Burmese authorities to counter illegal drug production by developing infrastructure in the opium-producing regions and introducing substitute crops. We are concerned, however, that a number of 334 leading drug traffickers have been allowed to continue their trafficking activities unpunished. They are even able to invest the profits of their narcotics activities in other businesses in Burma with the acquiescence, and even encouragement, of the authorities.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that Burma continues to direct scarce resources into the unjustified purchase of arms and into reinforcing the strength of the armed forces. We deplore this, and at our instigation the European Community decided in July 1991 on an embargo of arms sales to Burma. We have consistently urged other countries to take similar action. The European Community has made formal representations to China—one of Burma's principal arms suppliers, as my hon. Friend pointed out—and we have also raised the issue directly in bilateral talks with the Chinese and will continue to do so. In 1992, EC countries further reduced defence links by the withdrawal and de-accreditation of resident and non-resident defence attaches.
Military repression has been particularly severe against ethnic and religious minorities. Since late 1991, more than a quarter of a million Burmese Muslims, or Rohingyas, have fled Arakan state to Bangladesh to escape abuses received at the hands of the Burmese armed forces. To date, fewer than a tenth of them have returned. The remainder are putting pressure on Bangladesh's own frail economy. We welcome the participation of staff of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the repatriation process on the Bangladesh side of the border. We hope, too, that agreement can be reached to allow UNHCR to operate on the Burmese side of the border, as well as in Bangladesh.
We are also exerting pressure on the Burmese regime by means of aid policy. In November 1988, the Government, together with other EC Member states, stopped bilateral aid to the SLORC Government in protest at their seizure of power and persistent human rights abuses. This followed the bloody suppression of peaceful demonstrations in Burma. We have also put tight controls on multilateral assistance through the United Nations Development Programme. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe is in touch with my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development about scrutiny of the work of the UN agencies in Burma.
We believe that it is the duty of the international community to maintain pressure on the SLORC to bring about the transfer of power to the civilian Government elected by the people in 1990. The United Kingdom and its EC partners will continue to work together closely to bring about change in Burma. I take my hon. Friend's point about including Japan in the process and encouraging it to use its influence. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will raise the matter when he visits Japan soon. We hope that lobbying by neighbouring Asian countries as well as by western nations will contribute to that pressure.
The continued interest shown by the House reflects the genuine wish of people in Britain to see democracy, freedom and full respect for human rights restored in Burma. We shall continue to make every possible effort to help to bring that about.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.