§ Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe)I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister who has to reply to this debate. I had no idea that he was in Hong Kong when I applied for it. I understand that he landed at 5 o'clock this morning, only to find that he had to answer this debate. Still, I know that he shares many of our concerns about Burma, and I am sure that he will rise to the occasion.
I thought it vital, before we finished for the summer, that the House paid its respects to the courage of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has now completed five years under house arrest in Rangoon and who, for many Burmese all over the world and in Burma, has kept alive the hope of a return to democratic government in Burma.
I also record the fact that 2,064 Members of Parliament from 32 countries, including 200 of our colleagues here, signed a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, pointing out to him that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won a landslide victory in May 1990, winning 392 of 485 seats—despite the fact that she was by then under house arrest. Since then, about 1,550 opponents of the Government, many of them elected to Parliament in that election, have been arrested or put in prison. The human rights abuses by the Burmese regime have been well catalogued.
The fact that several colleagues are present in the Chamber for this Adjournment debate is a tribute to their concern. Our letter to Boutros Boutros-Ghali was designed to reiterate what we have always understood to be the position of the international community; it called for the immediate and unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, with guarantees of their complete freedom and swift implementation of a transition to civilian rule, as mandated by the election of May 1990.
On 20 July five years ago, 11 lorries full of troops came to San Suu Kyi's house. The troops cut off the telephones and excluded her from all contact with any but her immediate family. Some comparison can be made with the suffering of Nelson Mandela and his immense contribution to change in South Africa while being imprisoned for so long. Mandela at least went through some form of legal process—however much we might disagree with it—before being sent to Robbin Island; whereas San Suu Kyi has never stood trial or been given any justification by the illegal regime for the fact that she has been detained.
We know from her conversation with Congressman Richardson—the only person from the western world who has had a chance to see her in the past five years—that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi remains in touch with events in Burma and the world, and that she is still ready, in the same spirit of peace and tranquillity as she has shown ever since becoming involved in Burmese politics, to discuss the way forward.
The regime has, step by step, extended its original powers and sought, with the passage of time, to claim legitimacy, despite the overwhelming rejection of the people of Burma. San Suu Kyi still reaches out towards it to find a way in which to allay its fears and to negotiate and discuss the way forward for the Burmese people, who fear, of all things, the abuse of all normal standards of human rights.
I received a letter from Mr. Sein Win, the Prime 630 Minister of the national coalition Government of the Union of Burma, who asked me to express to the House, on behalf of the Burmese people, their gratitude
to you and to other members of the House of Commons. Without such well-meaning concern about the human rights situation in Burma by United Kingdom and the others in the international community, the people of Burma would long have lost their hopes to be free and democratic and the brute force of the SLORC would have prevailed over justice.Many people in all parts of the world feel concern about the lack of progress towards a solution.I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister whether the Government remain resolute in their original policy. In some circles, there is concern that the promotion of British week for the second year in Rangoon could give the impression that the time that has elapsed since the election has dulled the edge of our concerns. We know how difficult it is to apply direct pressure on the regime. We know how it is cushioned within the Association of South-East Asian Nations community from the direct concerns that many of us feel.
Will my right hon. Friend give an impression of how we feel about dealing with our Asian and, in particular, our Commonwealth colleagues who are members of ASEAN in terms of constructive engagement with the regime? From the comments of previous Ministers who attended ASEAN meetings, I know how strongly they presented our views. We know that Mr. Baker, the previous US Secretary of State put forward the United States view in a forthright manner at the ASEAN meeting that he attended. This coming week, however, the ASEAN meeting has invited the illegal Burmese regime to attend its opening dinner and closing ceremony.
Constructive engagement can work, but many of us are concerned that it seeks to give authenticity to the illegal State Law and Order Restoration Council regime before the convention succeeds. We are concerned that we may give the impression that, by allowing time to elapse, the regime will accepted by the ASEAN community and more widely. We deeply believe that that would be contrary to natural justice and to the way in which elected colleagues to Parliament should be treated.
I ask my right hon. Friend whether the resolve of the Government, unlike that of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, is weakening. Many of us believe that we should not accept dual standards of human rights. There is no such thing as oriental human rights and human rights for the rest. There is one standard of human rights which should be accepted under the United Nations mandate.
We do not believe that one should accept dual standards of democratic rights. Many of us believe that the 1990 elections were organised in such a way that it was amazing that the military regime were overwhelmingly rejected. Having gone through that process and having had international observers at the last minute to examine it, it is an abomination in terms of democratic systems to reject the result and to hold Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in captivity for this considerable period.
I point out to my right hon. Friend the Minister that trade is not all. Under the system in Burma, the military are involved in many companies and organisations, making it almost impossible to trade without indirectly supporting the illegal military regime.
Concern has been expressed about the status of refugees in Thailand. The various tribes—the Keren, the Mons, the Chins, the Shan—are under pressure to negotiate with SLORC an end to the civil war. We know that Thailand is 631 exerting pressure on them to enter negotiations. We are concerned that the status of the refugee, which is absolute in United Nations rules, is being threatened. People can be returned to Burma to face not necessarily trial but being convicted and imprisoned simply for being out of the country.
The processes of the convention should require comment from those outside. The processes have dragged on for a considerable time. Many of the original people called to see whether the convention was an acceptable way of enshrining the military in the future Government of Burma have not attended since because they recognise that it is designed to produce only one result. A convention cannot be designed to produce only one result when a population of 48 million people are seeking only a decent Government. Without Aung San Suu Kyi, whose captivity I began with, remaining there, at great personal cost to herself and her family, the flame of democracy will dim.
I believe that, ultimately, good always triumphs over evil and that Aung San Suu Kyi's time is still to come. I shall finish by quoting her own words:
It is man's vision of civilised humanity which leads him to dare and suffer to build societies free from want and fear. Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power.
§ Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)I thank the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), on behalf of myself and my constituents, some of whom are committed members of the Burma action group, for raising the plight of Madam Aung San Suu Kyi in the Chamber. I know that they will be deeply grateful.
As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, Aung San Suu Kyi yesterday began her fifth illegal year of house arrest —the fifth illegal year because SLORC has changed the existing law and extended the legal period that someone can be kept without charge or trial under house arrest.
Perhaps more important, Aung San Suu Kyi has highlighted the continuing failure of SLORC to meet even the most basic requirements of the international community's definition of what constitutes human rights. Recent newspaper reports have stated that small children are being dragooned and forced to walk ahead of troops to detonate land mines on the road. That is just one example of what the regime is doing in Burma.
Once again, I heartily endorse everything that the hon. Member for Broxtowe said and thank him on behalf of myself and my constituents.
§ Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford)With the leave of the House, I should like to add a few comments, aware fully that my right hon. Friend the Minister is ready to answer the debate.
Just over a year ago, I initiated an Adjournment debate on the same subject. This debate has served as a timely reminder that I was then on my feet, asking my right hon. Friend the Minister why the international community should tolerate such an abuse of civil rights.
Aung San Suu Kyi's only crime is to have been elected. Before she could take up her position, she was incarcerated. When I first spoke about this issue, she had 632 been incarcerated for four years, but she has now been under house arrest for five years. That is utterly intolerable, not simply because I presume to believe that she would be an excellent leader of her country—none of us has any idea about that and the matter is academic—but because she has a right to demonstrate whether she would be just that.
It is all too easy for hon. Members to take for granted the fact that we can speak about many subjects without thinking what it would be like to have restrictions placed on us that would prevent us from airing the views that our constituents wish us to air on their behalf. On this ghastly anniversary, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do all that is possible, although there is not a great amount that he can do, to persuade the other ASEAN countries not to embark on some form of slow recognition of the ghastly regime in Burma.
The State Law and Order Restoration Council, the aptly-named SLORC, an emotive terminology, should be outlawed and ultimately forced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) have said, to come to terms with the reality that an elected person waits to take up her position and that she should be allowed to do so as soon as possible.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) for initiating the debate. I welcome the remarks by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). They and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who is in his place, have shown their concern for a long time about Burma and the plight of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, it is certainly timely for the House to focus its attention on the plight of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel peace laureate and daughter of the architect of Burmese independence. As my hon. Friend said, yesterday was the fifth anniversary of her detention under house arrest on 20 July 1989 by the ruling military regime in Burma, the State Law and Order Restoration Council, SLORC.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's continued detention is but one deplorable example of the arbitrary and brutal nature of SLORC, which assumed power in September 1988 after bloodily crushing pro-democracy demonstrations. Although it claimed initially to be an interim authority, and organised fair and free democratic elections in May 1990, it has steadfastly refused to accept the result of these 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.
Thanks largely to the tireless efforts of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi herself, as well as her many supporters in the United Kingdom, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, the world has not been allowed to forget the fate of the Burmese peoples. Their struggle for freedom, and SLORC's appalling human rights record, remain major issues of international concern, attracting public and parliamentary interest worldwide.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's own efforts were acknowledged in 1990, when she was awarded the Sakharov prize, followed one year later by the Nobel peace 633 prize, for her non-violent efforts in support of democracy and human rights. The award of the Nobel peace prize was a particularly fitting tribute to her commitment to the cause of democracy and civil liberties in Burma. It also served as a reminder to SLORC that the world community would neither forget nor ignore the continuing struggle by the Burmese people for their full human rights.
The citation for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's prize from the Nobel Committee described her contribution as one of the most remarkable examples of civilian courage in Asia in recent decades. She has become an important symbol of the struggle against repression and the desire of the Burmese people for a peaceful transition from a military straitjacket to a democratic system. The majority of the Burmese people continue to regard her as the embodiment of their desire for peace, democracy and freedom.
We remain acutely concerned about Daw Aung San Sui Kyi's situation. We have called repeatedly on the SLORC, in concert with our European Union partners and with other like-minded Governments throughout the world, to commence dialogue with the Burmese opposition to agree to the unconditional release of Daw Aung San Sui Kyi and to allow her to remain freely in Burma in accordance with her wishes. That the SLORC continue to ignore all international calls for her release, including those by the United Nations Secretary-General, is quite unacceptable.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was originally detained under the provisions of the 1975 state protection law, as amended in 1991, which states that the maximum period of detention for a person held under that law is five years. But the most recent SLORC interpretation seeks to extend the term, in practice, to six years.
To mark the fifth anniversary of her detention, the European Union issued the following text at the recent session of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission in New York:
The European Union and the acceding countries Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway view with great concern the continued detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, who has been detained under house arrest in Myanmar since 1989, in flagrant contradiction of all principles of justice. July 20, 1994 marks the fifth anniversary of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's detention. It is unacceptable that there is. still no sign of her release.On the occasion of the anniversary of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's detention, the European Union and the acceding countries Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden call upon the State Law and Order Restoration Council immediately to start serious and meaningful discussions with the representatives of the democratic forces of Myanmar. In the views of the European Union and the acceding countries, Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden, dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi would open the way for national reconciliation which would, in turn, enable the SLORC to lift the restrictions imposed on her and allow Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to participate in the political process in Myanraar.Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is, of course, only one of the many victims of the ruling regime's denial of human rights in Burma. Students, monks and several other members of Burma's opposition movement have all fallen victim to the SLORC's policies. The United Nations special rapporteur on Burma, Professor Yokota of Japan, reported to the United Nations general assembly that SLORC had arrested and tortured many people who had voiced political dissent. He also expressed concern at the numerous reports of disappearances and extra judicial executions. Other human rights violations in Burma include the forced conscription of porters for use in front-line areas and abuses of civilian 634 non-combatants in the war zones. Freedom of expression remains almost non-existent, with all media being subject to heavy and frequently arbitrary censorship.As the situation has deteriorated, the United Kingdom, with our European Union partners, has taken a leading role at the United Nations general assembly and at the Commission on Human Rights, to gain consensus support for tough resolutions calling for the unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders and in denouncing the human rights violations reported by Professor Yokota.
§ Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel)My hon. Friend will be aware that among the other political leaders to whom he refers are 37 Members of Parliament. He will be aware also of the visit that I made to Rangoon last month on behalf of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to press the case for their release as well as that of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
I wish to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). Will my hon. Friend the Minister take the opportunity to assure hon. Members that Her Majesty's Government will give every possible support to visits by parliamentarians to contact those who have been imprisoned in Burma? I think that that would help the process of bringing those in prison some hope and comfort. It would also apply moral pressure for the future.
§ Mr. GoodladI pay tribute to what my hon. Friend did during his recent visit to Burma, in expressing his concern and that of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, along with that of other colleagues, for the detained parliamentarians in Burma. The answer to his question about support for other colleagues following in his footsteps is strongly in the affirmative.
Even in the face of the international concern that I have described, the regime continues its efforts to circumvent the clear expression of the will of the Burmese people. Since 9 January 1993, a national convention has been taking place in Rangoon to draw up a new constitution. We believe that Burma needs a new constitution that incorporates the changes in the political and economic system that the Burmese people have called for since the demonstrations in 1988. It must also provide safeguards for the rights of people belonging to the ethnic minorities, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has referred.
However, one of the guidelines, to which the convention has been told that it must adhere, requires the constitution to 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.
My hon. Friend asked about European Union policy on Burma. I think that he is well aware that our official relations with the SLORC have been virtually non-existent since it assumed power. We suspended all EU and national non-humanitarian official aid at that time and, in 1991, imposed an arms embargo in response to SLORC's refusal to honour the results of the 1990 elections. We severed all remaining defence links a year later. We have maintained pressure on SLORC to improve its human rights record, to respect the results of the 1990 elections and to promote political and economic reform.
A recent review of EU policy confirmed that existing pressure should be maintained, but we have also agreed with EU partners that we should be more active in ensuring 635 that SLORC understands that the resumption of normal relations between the EU and Burma is dependent on improvements in Burma's human rights performance and progress towards political liberalisation and national reconciliation. We shall be using SLORC's attendance at the ASEAN meeting next week to ensure that it understands our concerns. The presidency will explain our position to the SLORC Foreign Minister in the margins of the meetings of the Association of South-East Asian Nations.
As for the refugees in Thailand, we have insisted—we will continue to do so—that SLORC should treat ethnic minorities in the same way as the rest of the population. We have said that it should apply human rights equally to them.
Although we are talking of the first meeting between the EU and a member of the ruling military regime since it seized power, it should not be seen as a departure from our existing policy on dealings with SLORC. We have consistently refused to accept the regime as the legitimate representatives of the Burmese peoples. We also continue to believe that it is the duty of the international community to persist in their efforts to persuade SLORC to bring about the transfer of power to the civilian Government elected by the people in 1990. We hope that the increasing dialogue between SLORC and neighbouring Asian countries, as 636 well as western nations, will contribute to that pressure. I concur whole-heartedly with what my hon. Friend said about the universality of human rights.
My hon. Friend mentioned trade links. Trade between Britain and Burma is negligible but increasing. United Kingdom exports for 1993 stood at £19 million and imports were £9 million. There has been an increased interest in the Burmese market. We ensure that British firms are aware of the opportunities in Burma and our policy towards SLORC, but, in line with our European partners, we offer no financial support under ECGD or aid and trade provision.
The British week was consistent with our policy on Burma. There is no obstacle to British companies exploring business opportunities. That is not covered by the European Union embargo on arms sales. That does not derogate from or dull our concern over SLORC.
The continued interest shown in the House reflects the genuine wish of people in Britain to see democracy, freedom and full respect for human rights restored in Burma. We will help to make every possible effort to bring that about. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi once said:
I'm committed to democracy. Until we get there I go on. Let's hope it won't take a lifetime.We certainly share that hope, but, for as long as it takes, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will have the support of the Government and, I believe, of the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock till Monday 17 October, pursuant to Resolution [20 July].