§ Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest)I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to raise a subject as important as Her Majesty's Government's relations with Burma. We had a debate in the House on 19 July last year, in which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) made some significant points following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from confinement last July.
I am delighted to see present in the Chamber not only the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), but the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who takes a great deal of interest in this subject. I was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) that he would have been here had his schedule allowed it.
I am not an expert in Burmese affairs, but I recognise a gross human rights violation when I see one. There can be no grosser violation than that of the democratic sovereignty of a country. Burma was turned over in 1990 by the State Law and Order Restoration Council regime. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy obtained no less than 82 per cent. of the popular vote in an election, but was promptly prevented by military intervention from taking power. That is as gross an invasion of the sovereignty of a country as a territorial invasion would have been.
We all very much admire the courage of Aung San Suu Kyi and her continuing calls for reconciliation, communication and peaceful protest, despite the provocations that she and her supporters have no doubt suffered. We remember, as did the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale in last summer's debate, that Baroness Chalker, the Foreign Office Minister said in a lecture:
The United Nations charter lays a duty on all of us to promote respect for human rights everywhere.She merely echoed the slightly more florid tones of President Kennedy when he said:The people of the world respect a nation that can see beyond its image".As we have former colonial responsibilities for Burma, I believe that in that context alone, the British Government should, and does, take human rights in Burma seriously.As the Minister said in the last debate on Burma, rhetoric in such situations is often easier than practical action. One of my greatest frustrations as vice-chairman of the parliamentary human rights group is the difficulty of the international community in giving practical effect to its condemnation of human rights regimes in other countries. I appreciate that there is always a balance between constructive engagement through aid, trade or diplomatic relations and sufficient pressure in other ways. I equally appreciate, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said in July, that caution should be the watchword in our dealings with Burma. We should concentrate on the practical aspects of our good governance policy. My right hon. Friend said:
Aid is a valuable tool in exercising international influence in Burma, and we must be careful that it is used to support reform rather than undermine it."— [Official Report, 19 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1644.]297 The cautious optimism that then characterised the position of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not been borne out by events in Burma since last July.The SLORC Government would no doubt say that the economy has revived in the past year, during which time, I understand, rice production has risen by 15 per cent. The House should not forget that about 30 years ago Burma was the largest exporter of rice. Some additional foreign investment—one may or may not agree with the wisdom of making such investment, given the Burmese Government's human rights record—particularly from Japan, has resumed. Some political prisoners have been released, although many hundreds, if not thousands, remain in gaol. There has been a ceasefire with 15 out of 16 of the rebel movements that litter Burma, which is an intensely multicultural and multi-racial country.
On at least a formal basis, the constitutional convention continues to meet intermittently. It is at least talking about steps towards democracy, although whether that democracy would meet the requirements of most Members of Parliament must be open to doubt. SLORC has maintained its policy of economic diplomacy—as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale called it—and has attempted to achieve at least some sort of military stability by economic improvements.
However, as was said recently in the Asian context:
No human being should be asked to choose between bread and freedom.That is the choice that SLORC puts before the Burmese people.There is definite and continuing evidence of massive human rights abuses in Burma. There is no freedom of assembly or effective political association. Some, including Amnesty International and the Burma Action Group point to the rising number of political prisoners, despite some releases earlier last year. The International Labour Organisation still points to the significant use of forced labour. Some 80,000 labourers have been forced to work, perversely and ironically, on the preparations for the "Visit Myanmar Year 1996". Those people have been displaced from their villages and taken away from their families and are being used to construct roads and other infrastructure for what the regime hopes will be a newly buoyant tourist industry.
The United Nations human rights rapporteur, Mr. Yakato, has itemised summary executions, torture and forced movements, particularly in the east of the country against the Karen people. I find it appalling that the SLORC regime has decided that it wants a reservation on article 37 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. That article prevents the torture of children. The regime has found it necessary to seek a reservation in order to promote its continued hold on power.
A 20-point resolution was drawn up by the United Nations social, humanitarian and cultural committee in December. It deplored continued violations of human rights in Burma. Sadly, on the political front, it appears that the constitutional convention is increasingly being revealed as a declining farce. It was never likely to get off the ground in a substantive way since 600 out of the 700 delegates are government appointed. It proceeds on the assumption that no one who is married to a foreigner, which includes Aung San Suu Kyi, should ever be able to 298 hold high office. Her appointment as secretary general of the National League for Democracy was specifically not recognised by the SLORC regime.
The constitutional convention also lays down ground rules that most people would regard as profoundly undemocratic for the new constitution. The chairman of its convening commission, General Nyunt, said at its opening session in 1993 that the new constitution would depend upon
the participation of the Defence Services in the leading role in national politics in the future.If that is not a recipe for a military regime, I do not know what is.As the convention appears to have descended into farce, it is not surprising that on 29 November 1995 the National League for Democracy, which is led by Aung San Suu Kyi, should decide that it was no longer appropriate to take part. She, rightly, justified its action by saying:
If the League is not allowed to represent the views of the people then why was the election held in 1990"—and what justification, by implication, is there for continuing to take part in the convention? Despite that, and the provocations that she and her supporters—who, after all, have been the legitimate Government of Burma since the overturned 1990 elections—have faced, she continues to promote dialogue with the existing regime and discourage demonstrations or anything that might be used by the regime to promote renewed oppression of the people of Burma.I have four questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister about what Britain can do, given the deteriorating human rights and political situation in Burma. Everything that I am going to ask him to do would bolster the position of the legitimate Government of Burma, which is the National League for Democracy, while encouraging dialogue.
First, there is the tricky question of investment and trade, over which there seems to be some confusion about the stance of the British Government. For instance, in 1993, the then Minister for Trade said:
The Government's policy is to provide no specific encouragement to British firms to trade or invest in Burma in view of the current political and economic situation there."— [Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 214.]That is quite categorical and was said only two years ago in a political situation similar to the present one. Yet the Department of Trade and Industry actively encouraged, through the south of England exporters association, trade missions that took place in November and a seminar on, "An Introduction to Burma—The latest tiger club", organised by the London chamber of commerce and industry on 5 December. Other trade missions, involving 37 countries, are being supported by the DTI later this year.I would have thought that such encouragement is not what Aung San Suu Kyi has been urging on the British Government as constructive disengagement from the regime in Burma. It seems to contradict directly the original position of the British Government. It certainly contradicts the position taken by Daw Suu Kyi when she said that future investment, and by implication improved trading links, between western firms and the Burmese Government and Burma in general would have to "jolly well wait" until there had been significant improvements in human rights and democratic freedoms. A clarification of the Government's position on trade and investment in Burma would be useful.
299 Secondly, will the Government continue to refuse to recognise any constitution proposed by the SLORC regime through its pet convention on the constitution if it is not specifically approved by the National League for Democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi? To do anything else would be to acquiesce in making legitimate the new regime that overturned democracy in 1990.
Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend the Minister work, through the United Nations, to improve human rights monitoring in Burma to ensure that there will be a constant stream of information so that not only will engagement but the trade and aid that will follow depend on human rights being improved?
Fourthly, will he ensure that Britain supports the EU's current position that dialogue with ASEAN, the Association of South-East Asian Nations, would be significantly jeopardised if Burma were allowed entry into the ASEAN group of nations on an unreformed basis?
Finally, it would be right for my right hon. Friend the Minister to say now that Britain would encourage a position whereby any international involvement, particularly on a multilateral basis, with Burma was dependent on the specific agreement, at least in principle, by Aung San Suu Kyi, who is the legitimate leader of Burma. Those steps would bolster democracy in Burma, improve the bargaining power of its democratic forces— which desperately need it—and ensure there was a genuine rather than a symbolic democracy in Burma, symbolic democracy being the sort that the SLORC regime would like to foist on the people. Most of all, those steps would send a signal to the rest of the world that democratic, civilised nations are not prepared to stand by and watch democracy, elections and freedoms being trampled underfoot by regimes such as that in Burma and are prepared to back their rhetoric with substantive, positive action.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley)I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) for initiating this debate and I recognise fully the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, in this subject. He has met me on a number of occasions to discuss issues involving Burma. I must say that the presence of four Ministers and other Conservative Members is in stark contrast to the interest shown by the Opposition. There is not a single Labour or Liberal Democrat Member here to discuss what I regard as a most important matter. Burma is an important country and one that we watch—and have to watch—carefully.
Last July year, in the debate secured by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), I told the House that I warmly welcomed the decision of the State Law and Order Restoration Council—SLORC—to release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from her long period of detention without trial. I hoped that that would signal a new dawn for Burmese politics and allow Daw Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy, or NLD, to participate in the creation of a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Burma.
Those hopes have not yet been fulfilled. The much-needed dialogue between Daw Suu Kyi and SLORC has yet to materialise. Indeed, most recently 300 SLORC appears to be increasing the pressure on Daw Suu Kyi and her supporters. Recent arrests and harassment of NLD personnel are a cause for concern.
Last November, the NLD decided to withdraw its support for the national convention constitutional review process because of SLORC's failure to begin a serious dialogue about national reconciliation, institute genuine multi-party democracy and produce a constitution that could win the support of the people.
The European Union considered it important to reiterate the need for dialogue and to call for a peaceful settlement of differences. We issued the following statement at the time:
The European Union expresses its concern about the absence of open and meaningful dialogue on constitutional reform involving all sectors of opinion in Burma including the NLD recently being forced to abandon the National Convention.The European Union firmly believes that dialogue will help prevent confrontation and offers the best hope of national reconciliation. We, therefore, call upon the SLORC to engage in dialogue with all Burma's political and ethnic groups and to increase their efforts to achieve national reconciliation and multi-party democracy. At the same time we urge all parties concerned to proceed with caution and to take all possible steps to avoid a return to violence.That remains our position. We want SLORC to build on the hopes that have been nurtured by the release of Daw Suu Kyi and for there to be progress towards genuine reform.We will continue to make those views known. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest is aware, we have long been at the forefront of international action on Burma and initiated the European Union's suspension of official aid in 1988, an arms embargo in 1991 and a ban on all defence links in 1992. We shall not weaken in our commitment to help forward the cause of reform in Burma.
I have heard suggestions that, for commercial reasons, our support for reform in Burma may be weakening. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest did not say that, but I certainly welcome the opportunity to rebut such an insinuation. The question of trade is complex—I shall deal with it later in my speech—but let me be clear: our will to see real change in Burma is undiminished, and our support for the reform process is as strong as ever. I shall cite the latest evidence of that support. At the recent 50th session of the United Nations General Assembly, in New York, we worked closely with other countries to secure a critical resolution on the political and human rights situations in Burma. The resolution urged SLORC to engage in a substantive dialogue with Daw Suu Kyi and other political leaders, including representatives of ethnic groups, as the best means of promoting national reconciliation and the full and early restoration of democracy. I shall take this opportunity to repeat that call on the members of SLORC to take those steps, which are vital to the future of their country and its place in the international community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest mentioned the human rights situation in Burma, as did my good friend the hon. Member for Gedling at our meeting. The Government remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation. The UN resolution addressed some of those concerns by urging SLORC
to release immediately and unconditionally detained political leaders and all political prisoners, to ensure their physical integrity and to permit them to participate in the process of national reconciliation.301 It also expressed grave worries about the attacks on the Karen and encouraged SLORC to create the conditions necessary to ensure an end to the movements of refugees to neighbouring countries. That would be conducive to voluntary return and full reintegration of those people, in conditions of safety and dignity.My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest asked us to monitor the human rights situation in Burma closely. We will continue to do so and to take every opportunity to urge SLORC to comply with UN resolutions and to fulfil its basic duties to all the people of Burma. In particular, I call on SLORC to recognise the right of all Burmese people to participate fully in the political process. That will remain a central objective of our policy towards Burma.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest asked about the Government's position on trade with Burma. I said earlier that that is a complex issue. However, the elements of our policy are logical and are not difficult to understand, and I believe that those who are most directly concerned clearly understand it. We do not think that we should cut off trade with Burma. We may be able, through trade, to help to reinforce our pressure for reform. Daw Suu Kyi has not called for a ban on trade to Burma. If there is one thing on which she and SLORC agree, it is that Burma is in desperate need of economic development.
In a recent interview with the BBC, in answer to a question about whether foreign investment and trade will boost growth, Daw Suu Kyi replied:
It depends on how investments are put to use. Those that bring prosperity to the country and the people are one thing. But investments that widen the gap between the rich and poor will never benefit the country".I cannot but agree with that.We do not see trade with Burma intrinsically as a bad thing. Furthermore, we believe that, with the exception of defence exports—which are, of course, subject to the European Union's embargo—we have a responsibility to ensure that British companies are kept informed of developments in Burma and are aware of potential opportunities. British firms are anxious to explore the market and to match their competitors. They have requested the support of Her Majesty's Government, and we should provide it. However, we draw the line at any suggestion of funding for projects that have been commissioned by the ruling SLORC. That is why we do not even consider support for major investment projects.
It is worth taking a few moments to clear up some facts about British investment in Burma. Investment is notoriously difficult to measure. Figures that quote Britain as the largest investor in Burma include investments from other countries that are channelled through some of our dependent territories as well as investment from Britain. Because of our history, it is natural that British business should have invested in Burma over the years.
302 My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest obliquely referred to history. One should beware of figures that may not be representative of current British investment in Burma. The Department of Trade and Industry seminar that was held last December, to which my hon. Friend referred, and the first trade mission, which will be made later this month, are modest contributions to the process of keeping companies informed. Those events provide us with an opportunity to ensure that British companies that have expressed an interest in Burma are made aware of the realities of doing business there and informed of the situation there. Ultimately, it is for the companies to weigh up whether they wish to operate in Burma in the current circumstances.
In view of the political and economic conditions that prevail in Burma, we firmly remain of the view that it is still premature for the Government to provide any bilateral aid that might directly benefit SLORC. That does not mean that we will provide no humanitarian aid to Burma; we are still willing to consider projects that are identified and implemented by non-governmental organisations. As I have said, aid can be a valuable tool in exercising international influence in Burma. We shall continue to discuss the way ahead with our European Union partners.
The European Union agrees that we should reward reform in Burma by providing aid, as long as it is targeted at the grass-roots level and to the people who are most in need. We think that it is vital that SLORC should allow the UN and other non-governmental organisations to operate in Burma. Only in that way will the Burmese people be able to benefit from the help that we all wish to provide.
We must make full use of the weight of our common European Union policy. The European Union has a "critical dialogue" with SLORC that makes it clear that the resumption of normal relations will be conditional on progress in key areas, including human rights, and political and economic reform. We must use the dialogue to accelerate liberalisation and political change to create a prosperous and democratic Burma.
Last July, in the debate to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and I earlier referred, I summarised our current attitude to Burma as cautiously optimistic. Developments since then may have tipped the balance further towards caution. Burma still desperately needs meaningful reform, which will require that courage and common sense prevail. We know that the people of Burma have those qualities, and I believe that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is perhaps the embodiment of courage.
I have tried to explain what we are doing to advance the process of reform. I continue to hope that the efforts of all those who are working for successful change in Burma will bear fruit. As long as there is an interest in the House about reform in Burma and we continue to remember that, in time the democratic process must prevail and the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United Nations will be able to encourage Burma to return to what it should be: a beautiful country with a great future.