Burma (Hansard, 12 June 1996)

§ 17. Mr. Miller
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Burma regarding human rights in Burma. [30860]

§ Mr. Hanley
The United Kingdom has had no ministerial contact with the ruling military regime in Burma, the State Law and Order Restoration Council— SLORC—but we regularly raise our concerns about human rights in Burma at official level.

§ Mr. Miller
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is inadequate simply to criticise SLORC from the sidelines. We all deplore that regime. When considering the plight of people in UNHCR camps, will he have regard to the examples set by Canada, the United States and Australia—which have established small resettlement programmes for people in those camps—particularly when those people have legitimate links with families in Britain who could meet their needs and support them?

§ Mr. Hanley
I agree with the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman's question, but I disagree with his suggestion that we are somehow sniping from the sidelines—we are not. On 7 June, our ambassador, Robert Gordon, was sent to the SLORC with a déemarche urging it, first, to free those who were detained immediately; secondly, to permit Burma's pro-democracy groups and others freedom of speech, movement and association in fulfilment of Burma's obligations under the universal declaration of human rights; and, thirdly, to enter into meaningful dialogue with Burma's democratic opposition without delay. That is hardly speaking from the sidelines. We are carrying out our policy in support of democratic reform and human rights in Burma, and we have made it clear to SLORC that the resumption of normal relations- is conditional on progress in those key areas. That is the purpose of our critical dialogue.
As to the way in which we can help those who have been harmed by the regime in Burma, we will continue to work and to co-operate at every level in order to find the best and most effective way of helping them.

§ Mr. Fatchett
If the Minister is so concerned about human rights in Burma, and if the Government's actions are consistent with his words, will he give a commitment to the House that the trade delegation to Burma sponsored by the Government and scheduled for 24 June will be cancelled and that the Government will give no further legitimacy to that foul regime in Burma through their 306 actions or finances? Will he also give a commitment that the British Government will make it clear to the regime in Burma that, if there is any further repression of democratic forces, or if Aung San Suu Kyi is arrested, the British Government will take tough retaliatory action against Burma and join the United States and others in the world community in making it clear that democratic rights in Burma are important to us and to the people of that country?

§ Mr. Hanley
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, on 19 July last year, there was an Adjournment debate on the subject, when I set out the Government's policy. I did so again on 7 February and I also referred to our policy in Parliament on 6 March. It is true that we sponsored a mission to Burma in January and February this year, but it is surprising that Mr. Pilger's recent television programme omitted to mention the fact that we have pulled the plug on our support for the trade mission to which the hon. Gentleman referred—for the reasons that he has given. It is strange that programmes criticising the Government fail to mention the facts that they find inconvenient—one must never let the truth interfere with a good story.