SEAPA calls for continued pressure for release of Aung San Suu Kyi
SEAPA calls for continued pressure for release of Aung San Suu Kyi
28 May 2008
Source: By Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), BangkokThe following is a 28 May 2008 SEAPA media release:
The Southeast Asian Press Alliance strongly condemns the continued detention of Burma’s democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and calls on the international community to step up pressure on the country’s military junta to release Suu Kyi as well as all political prisoners and journalists still languishing in Burmese prisons.
As her prescribed period for detention was expected to expire this week, the Burmese junta on Tuesday extended the house arrest of Suu Kyi by at least six months. Burma observers had hoped that the release of Suu Kyi after five years of imprisonment could signal hope for reconciliation in the country, though beyond that the junta would still have much to undo in its policies and practices before democratic reform even becomes a possibility in long repressed country.
In 1990, Ms. Suu Kyi led the National League for Democracy to a landslide victory in Burmese national elections, in what had been hoped would put Burma back on the path of democracy. Instead, however, the ruling military nullified the vote, banned the NLD, and arrested Ms. Suu Kyi.
The reign of repression and brutality has continued in Burma ever since, clamping down not just on political figures, but also student leaders, religious activists, writers, artists, and journalists. One free expression advocate, U Win Tin, jailed since 1989, spent his 77th birthday in prison despite failing health. More recently, on Tuesday, about 20 NLD activists were arrested while attempting to march from the party’s headquarters in Rangoon to her house to demand for the Nobel Peace laureate’s release.
SEAPA says the continued detention of U Win Tin and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi bodes ill for the prospects of free expression, democracy, and human rights in Burma. Indeed, the alliance of free press advocacy groups from Southeast Asia noted that not even Cyclone Nargis and its trail of destruction could distract the Burmese generals from their desire to further consolidate their power. Despite the humanitarian emergency still unravelling in Burma, the junta had pushed ahead with a sham referendum for a poisoned constitution.
“In a way, nobody is surprised that Suu Kyi, U Win Tin, and so many opposition leaders are still in prison,” SEAPA said in a statement. “But the latest actions — or inaction — of the junta therefore should move the international community to speak and move on behalf of the shackled people of Burma.”
—————–
ABOUT SEAPA
The Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) is a coalition of press freedom advocacy groups from Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. Established in November 1998, the network aims to unite independent journalists and press-related organisations in the region into a force for the protection and promotion of press freedom and free expression in Southeast Asia. SEAPA is composed of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (Indonesia), the Jakarta-based Institute for the Study of the Free Flow of Information (ISAI), the Manila-based Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, and the Thai Journalists Association.
Contact us at:
seapa (a) seapa.org, or call (662) 243 5579.
Global Internet Freedom: Corporate Responsibility and the Rule of Law
Source by Human Rights Watch,
Testimony to the US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law
Written Testimony of Arvind Ganesan
Director, Business and Human Rights Program, Human Rights Watch
Related Material
HRW Testimony on Global Internet Freedom, May 20, 2008 (PDF)
Testimony, May 20, 2008
More on the internet and human rights
Thematic Page
Free Email Newsletter
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mr. Chairman:
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the important matter of global internet freedom. I would also like to thank Senator Coburn, the ranking minority member of this Subcommittee. As someone who is from Oklahoma and whose family still lives there, I’m proud to say that my parents are thrilled at the prospect of delivering my testimony in front of one of their senators.
Human Rights Watch believes that the internet is a transformative force that can help open closed societies and provide the near-instantaneous flow of information to inform the public, mobilize for change, and ultimately hold institutions accountable. We have warned, however, that there is a real danger of a Virtual Curtain dividing the internet, much as the Iron Curtain did during the Cold War, because some governments fear the potential of the internet, want to control it and the companies that provide the services and products tied to it; and users fear the consequences of using it as a medium for openness and accountability.
Today, I would like to address three issues in relation to global internet freedom:
The actions by some governments to restrict the flow of information and to punish individuals who exercise their right to free expression through this medium.
The ongoing efforts by industry, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academics, and financial institutions to press for self-regulation to ensure that leading companies who provide internet technologies and services are not complicit in abuses or forced by governments to capitulate to their repressive demands.
The prospects for government-led change and opportunities to ensure respect for human rights, particularly in regard to companies.
Governments
In 2006, the human rights problems related to the internet in China came to light through Congressional hearings; reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other NGOs; and the press. Through those revelations, the public learned that the US company Yahoo! had provided user information to Chinese authorities that led to the imprisonment of online activists for years. We also learned that US companies, including Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, censor their search engines in China, in anticipation of what Chinese censors expect and in addition to what the Chinese government’s firewall prohibits.
However, China is not the only government that actively tries to suppress its critics in the virtual world. Since 2006, there are other examples, both of activists being intimidated or silenced for their efforts and of restrictions that governments impose on the internet by controlling both providers and users:
Just two weeks ago, on May 7, 2008, Egyptian officials beat Ahmed Maher Ibrahim, a 27-year-old civil engineer. His crime? He used Facebook to support calls for a general strike on May 4, President Mubarak’s 80th birthday. Few people actually participated in the strike, but three days later, he was abducted by Egyptian officials in civilian clothes, beaten and insulted at New Cairo police station, then taken to the headquarters of the Interior Ministry’s State Security Investigations (SSI) department where he was subjected to more beatings, and threatened that they would sodomize him with a broomstick. He was released without charges on the morning of May 8, but his captors asked him for the password to the Facebook group that he reportedly started, asked him about other participants in the group (whom he did not know), and threatened to beat him even more severely the next time SSI detained him.
In Russia, Saava Terentev, a musician in a town a little over 600 miles east of Moscow, is being tried as an “extremist” because he spoke out about corruption in Russian law enforcement after reading a newspaper story about a newspaper being harassed by the authorities for reporting on corruption. He issued a harsh critique of corrupt police in a blog posting and an extremely offensive, but clearly ironic, “modest proposal” that they be burned in the public square. It was shortly deleted by the blog’s owner, but now the authorities are prosecuting him for his sarcastic rant. We believe that this is the Russian government’s first test case to try to use a law to restrict free speech on the internet. Additionally, the government has promulgated a decree that allows unfettered surveillance of the internet and other communications mediums without telling the user or the provider. But they do require the provider (potentially companies) to pay for the surveillance equipment. There are also some troubling proposals that are being circulated in the Duma. One is to regulate websites that receive more than 1,000 hits a day. Another is to separate the Russian internet from the rest of the world, along the lines of the Chinese firewall, so that the government could monitor content and shut down the link between the Russian internet and the rest of the world. Between those efforts and the attempts to go after bloggers it appears that the internet, which is perhaps one of the few open forums left in Russia, is now falling under government control.
During its crackdown, following protests by monks, Burma’s military junta shut down the country’s internet connections to make sure no information got into the country and more importantly, that little information got out of the country. In total, the OpenNet initiative found that the junta blocked about 85 percent of e-mail service providers and virtually all of political opposition and pro-democracy sites. Then, in late September 2007, the government apparently disconnected the main telecommunications lines in two cities to stop the flow of information. Some bloggers, however, used satellite and cellphone services. This is a chilling example of how far certain governments will go to stop the flow of information.
The government of Syria regularly restricts the flow of information on the internet and will arrest individuals who post comments that the government deems too critical. Internet use in the country has exploded in the last few years and could be a crucial medium for the flow of information. However, Human Rights Watch has documented at least five cases since 2005 in which the government has arrested individuals because they posted comments critical of the government online, sent critical e-mails, or posted other information on the web. For example, on June 30, 2007, military intelligence arrested Tarek Biasi because he “went online and insulted security services.” He was held incommunicado by the authorities and then sentenced to three years imprisonment on May 11, 2008, for “diminishing national feeling” and “weakening the national ethos.” These are not the government’s only tactics. Security services often force internet café owners to spy on their customers. In one case, an internet café owner filmed a customer who was sending comments and information to opposition websites outside of the country. On July 25, 2007, the government promulgated regulations that required all website owners to display the name and e-mail of the author of any article or comment on their website. This brazen regulation is clearly intended to chill critical speech by making it easier for the government to identify its critics online, particularly as anonymous postings have become a crucial means for individuals to avoid surveillance, or worse. Finally, the government also blocks websites, most notably those that are critical of the government, such as Arabic opposition newspapers’ websites outside of the country.
These are just some of the cases around the world in which governments try to restrict the internet and silence users. What is clear is that government efforts to control the internet have multiplied around the world. While China has in many ways become the poster child for our efforts to stop censorship abuses, for other repressive governments such as those I have mentioned, China provides a model to be replicated. If that model is the ideal for internet repression, then the role of companies cannot be overlooked since they are clearly part of the Chinese government’s efforts to censor the internet and obtain user information. As we have previously documented, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo! censor their search engines in anticipation of what the Chinese government expects. Blogs have been shut down, and user information has been turned over to the government.
A Voluntary Code of Conduct
On January 17, 2007, leading companies including Yahoo!, Microsoft, Google, Vodafone, French Telcom, and Telia Senoria, along with human rights organizations (including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Human Rights in China, Reporters without Borders, and the World Press Freedom Association), socially responsible investors, and academics, started on a process to develop a voluntary code of conduct and process of enforcement to try to curtail censorship and protect user information. We believe a system with three critical features could make a real difference in many censoring countries. These features are: a strong but reasonable code of conduct, an effective but not overly bureaucratic governance process, and independent monitoring of companies that sign on to ensure they actually take steps to curtail censorship and protect their users. Now, almost 18 months later, it would be great to tell you that a code is finalized and a system is in place to address these problems, but instead, we are still negotiating, and in the meantime, internet users are no safer, and censorship continues.
Not every company is in the same place nor is it fair to say companies don’t care about human rights. After a high profile lawsuit by the families of jailed cyber dissidents, Yahoo! settled and has set up a fund to help cyberdissidents obtain legal aid. Google has used technologies like Google Earth to monitor some of the world’s worst human rights crises, such as Darfur.
However, as laudable as those efforts might be, they do not address steps companies should take to ensure that their operations do not contribute to violations of human rights, such as censorship or the persecution of cyberdissidents. Some companies have been more aggressive, especially those that have faced the most controversy. Yahoo! has raised these issues with the Secretary of State, and some companies, such as Microsoft, have become more rigorous about censorship and the circumstances under which they will take down blogs.
Much more remains to be done. While companies have developed differently in regards to their human rights procedures, a voluntary industry initiative is only as strong as its weakest link. Without disclosing the details of discussions that are under the Chatham House rules, I can say that a fundamental problem is that some companies continue to be very resistant to the idea of independent monitoring, in particular to a system that would allow for an independent third party to assess: 1) whether companies have put policies into place that demonstrate a respect for freedom of expression and user privacy; 2) that those polices are diligently implemented; and 3) that their implementation is effective in curtailing these human rights problems. Unfortunately, we do not have such a system. Right now, the preferred option for companies is a system in which they will decide who the monitors are and what they will see, while companies implement those standards at a pace convenient to them.
In other words, companies will express support for human rights but also ask the public to basically trust them to do the right thing. There are several problems with that approach. First, this is exactly the situation that led to the problems we are trying to solve. Companies have already been opaque and exercised discretion over their actions, and to claim that the same approach will change things is dubious. For example, in China, Google and others choose what to censor. Even though Google and other companies now provide a disclaimer to notify users that censorship occurs, they still decide what to censor and whether they will even challenge the government’s actions.
Second, it is difficult to point to a company within the voluntary standards process that has robust human rights policies and procedures in place more than two years after the problems in China were disclosed. Google, for example, has actively resisted such efforts. On May 8, Google’s board voted down two shareholder proposals, including one sponsored by Amnesty International and the NYC Pension Funds, calling on the company to implement policies and procedures to protect human rights and another calling for a board committee on human rights. Sergey Brin, the company’s co-founder, abstained from the vote and expressed support for human rights, but felt these proposals were not the appropriate way to approach the issue. What he did say was, “I think it makes sense to have a separate, a group of independent people in Google who meet regularly to discuss [these issues].” Frankly, that is not good enough.
Google’s resistant stance and the lack of consensus on voluntary standards raise a fundamental question: What is holding up these corporations from finding an effective means of protecting user privacy and curtailing censorship? It can’t be technical or technological challenges because industries like pharmaceuticals are very complex yet regulated. And in the case of internet companies, nobody is calling for a massive new bureaucracy like those that regulate other industries, just an agreement to be independently monitored.
Mr. Brin also recently defended Google’s activities in China. “Google has a far superior track record than other search companies with respect to making information freely available,” he said. This is a bold statement, but on what basis is he making it and what assurance is Google giving to the public to support this claim? Without some form of independent assessment of their activities, assertions like this simply are not credible.
A key purpose of our joint voluntary initiative is to provide the public with real assurance so that they can have confidence in companies or an industry that claims to oppose censorship and respect user privacy. After all, it will be the public and users who are the victims of censorship and whose information may be turned over to authorities. But that assurance is unlikely without meaningful oversight. A useful analogy is that of airlines. We would not accept that the best way to monitor airline safety is to allow airlines to do it themselves. Instead, we insist that someone else oversee them and are rightly critical of both the airlines and the monitors if they fall down on the job. Independent oversight is a critical component in protecting the public interest and it should be in the case of protecting freedom of expression and user privacy. Independent oversight is especially important with a medium and technologies that have the power to open societies, and because companies have already shown that they cannot or will not do it themselves.
Government Intervention
While we hope and plan to work towards an effective voluntary standard, it is unlikely that voluntary initiatives alone will be sufficient. A voluntary initiative will not apply to companies that do not join and it is difficult to see how it will get effectively implemented in countries where the government is very good at dividing and pressuring companies to capitulate to its demands, sometimes in exchange for access to a lucrative market. And most importantly, a voluntary initiative may be least effective in curtailing governments’ efforts to obtain user information about cyberdissidents from companies, because a voluntary effort is not sufficient to stand up against the pressures a government can assert against companies.
For those and other reasons, we believe a regulatory approach is a necessary complement to a voluntary initiative. It would help to ensure that the playing field is level for human rights since rules would apply to far more companies than those who join a voluntary initiative; that there are meaningful consequences for companies who do not respect those standards; it would make it more difficult for governments to force companies into becoming complicit in human rights abuses; and could encourage a more assertive US foreign policy on these issues. There have been proposals circulating in Congress and one is in the House. We believe that any regulation should, at a minimum, contain the following elements:
A requirement that companies have effective policies and procedures in place to safeguard human rights modeled after provisions in the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
A provision that requires companies to catalog and record efforts by governments to censor information.
A process in which foreign government requests for user information can be referred to US diplomatic channels so that a company and its personnel are at less risk of pressure or retaliation.
A requirement that companies locate personal information outside of jurisdictions that punish individuals exercising their right to free expression where the authorities may try to obtain personal data to do so.
A private right of action so that victims can seek redress against companies that violate their rights.
Clear and aggressive steps that the US government should take to combat censorship and protect user privacy through its foreign policy, trade policy, and other means.
An examination of whether certain types of hardware and software, such as servers and other equipment, should be subject to export controls because of their capacity to be used by governments to spy on individuals and censor information.
Effective penalties to deter companies from violating human rights.
Restricting access to federal funds for companies that do not abide by these standards.
A useful model for this approach is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). That act allows for companies to face penalties if they do not have adequate systems in place to prevent bribery as well as penalties if they actually engage in corruption. That approach could work quite well in regards to the internet and would easily complement a voluntary initiative since it would require a company to put systems into place to prevent abuses and would also hold it accountable were the company party to abuses. The FCPA also disproves the notion that regulations intended to protect the public good limit companies’ ability to do business. The FCPA has been in force for more than 30 years and US business is still thriving abroad. Indeed, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo! did not even exist when the act was passed, yet they seem to be doing reasonably well.
Companies have said that they might support regulation in theory, but seem to oppose existing efforts. Much like human rights policies and a voluntary initiative, they support them in principle, but apparently, not in practice. It would be helpful to understand how the companies and the industry intend to move forward effectively and credibly in terms of voluntary and mandatory standards. I would welcome the opportunity to come before you again or at regular intervals to report on such progress and would hope that the other witnesses today would do the same.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak on this important subject.
Joint NGO Statement to the Eighth Session of the Human Rights Council
Source by Human Rights Watch,
Third Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises
Action Aid, Amnesty International, EarthRights International, Friends of the Earth International, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net), Human Rights Watch, International Commission of Jurists, Oxfam International, Rights & Accountability in Development, and Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) submitted the following written statement for the eighth session of the United Nations Human Rights Council:
Related Material
More on Human Rights Watch’s Work on Business & Human Rights
Thematic Page
More information on the Human Rights Council
Thematic Page
Free Email Newsletter
We thank the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises (SRSG) for the extensive work done to produce his third report. The report emphasizes three key principles: the state duty to protect, the corporate responsibility to respect, and access to remedies for victims. We appreciate the emphasis given in the report to the state duty to protect human rights in the context of corporate activity, and the recommendation for urgent action by governments to fulfil this duty, particularly in light of escalating reports of business-related human rights abuses. We also welcome his confirmation of the corporate responsibility to respect all human rights, and the corresponding requirement for concrete action by companies to discharge this duty. As work carried out under his mandate (and annexed to his report) confirmed, allegations of abuse by business affect all human rights and all business sectors, and arise in all parts of the world. The SRSG’s report also recognizes the inadequacy of existing mechanisms to address business-related abuses and ensure justice for the victims.
We agree with the SRSG that the “international community is still in the early stages of adapting the human rights regime to provide more effective protection to individuals and communities against corporate-related human rights harms”. It is therefore imperative that this issue remains on the United Nations (UN) human rights agenda, and we urge the Human Rights Council (HRC) to establish a follow-on mandate on business and human rights that builds on what has been so far achieved, clearly relates it to the realities faced by those who are directly affected, and helps to chart a way forward that will give results for those facing abuses.
While we consider that the broad framework of “protect, respect, and remedy” is valuable and merits further attention by the HRC, we would wish to underline the importance of undertaking complementary work to ensure that the views and experiences of those affected by business-related abuses more fully inform the effort to identify appropriate solutions.
In defining the scope of a follow-on mandate we therefore urge the HRC to broaden the focus beyond the elaboration of the “protect, respect, and remedy” framework, and to include an explicit capacity to examine situations of corporate abuse. A more in-depth analysis of specific situations and cases is needed in order to give greater visibility and voice to those whose rights are negatively affected by business activity and to deepen understanding of the drivers of corporate human rights abuses. Both elements should underpin the elaboration of the framework and proposed policy responses. For example, the modalities of corporate impunity and its impact on the enjoyment and protection of human rights need greater scrutiny as an integral part of the effort to identify solutions. A cornerstone of human rights is combating impunity. To date the mandate has placed relatively little emphasis on the means of holding companies – including those that operate trans-nationally – to account. But for victims of human rights violations, justice and accountability can be as important as remedial measures.
Broadening the scope of the mandate to include the capacity to reflect more fully on instances of business abuse is, we believe, vital to ensuring the proposed framework is robust and credible and also that other critical recommendations are identified by the mandate. This in turn is critical to ensuring the work of the mandate can better aid states, companies, and the UN to effectively prevent violations involving companies and hold those responsible to account.
Finally, we urge the HRC to ensure that the complex issue of business and its impact on human rights remains a Council priority. While it is important to build on proposed policy-based solutions, this focus should not close doors to other necessary analysis and action at the UN level, including, ultimately, the need for clear global standards adopted by governments.
We thank the HRC for its attention to this matter.
Burma: Time for UN Security Council to Act
ASEAN Plan Inadequate to Deliver Timely and Sufficient Assistance
(New York, May 20, 2008) – The United Nations Security Council should insist that aid deliveries and humanitarian workers be given unfettered access to Burma, Human Rights Watch said today. The Burmese government has blocked supplies and humanitarian workers from reaching areas devastated by Cyclone Nargis.
The Security Council is avoiding its responsibilities to save lives by not insisting that Burma accept all aid and humanitarian workers being offered.
Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch
Official Burmese government estimates of the death toll have risen to 77,738, with some 55,917 missing. Other estimates of the dead are considerably higher. Yet more than two weeks after Cyclone Nargis hit the Irrawaddy Delta region, rendering an estimated 2.4 million people homeless and in need of food and medical care, the World Food Programme said it had been able to provide aid to only approximately 30 percent of victims. Whole areas of the delta have still not received any assistance.
While the Burmese government has accepted more aid flights and granted more visas to aid workers in recent days, this continues to be just a fraction of the total needed. Meanwhile, ships from France, the United Kingdom and the United States packed with aid that could save large numbers of lives and alleviate the suffering of survivors continue to be refused entry.
“The Security Council is avoiding its responsibilities to save lives by not insisting that Burma accept all aid and humanitarian workers being offered,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It is not acceptable to dither and allow large numbers of people to die while ships are sitting offshore and humanitarian workers are in Bangkok ready to deliver aid.”
There are now an estimated 120 official or makeshift shelter camps housing some 150,000 internally displaced people in parts of Laputta and Bogale townships alone. International health organizations have reported isolated outbreaks of cholera and are fearful that respiratory diseases and the effects of poor sanitation and access to drinking water will increase the spread of illness.
Human Rights Watch is dismayed that the words of John Holmes, head of the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), to the Security Council are still as relevant today as they were on May 9, when he made the statement: “The sooner humanitarians are allowed in, and the less procedural and other obstacles we encounter, the more lives we can help save. The speed with which we deliver assistance to those in need is becoming more and more critical and the danger of the outbreak of epidemics rises by the hour.”
“Until the Burmese government opens its doors to all aid offered, unnecessary deaths and suffering will continue,” said Adams. “How many failed and inconclusive meetings and visits to Burma by diplomats will it take before the UN Security Council acts?”
Human Rights Watch applauded the efforts of Burmese and international relief workers operating in difficult circumstances. The majority of the aid work being carried out in the delta is by Burmese national staff of the World Food Programme, Save the Children, World Vision and other intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, as well as by local Red Cross workers.
On May 19, the ASEAN announced that it would establish a coordinated response to the emergency. The Burmese government agreed to accept medical teams from all ASEAN countries, while ASEAN has sent an “Emergency Rapid Assessment Team” to Burma.
“While the ASEAN initiative may turn out to be a step forward, it does not have the capacity to address all the urgent needs faced by Burma’s cyclone survivors,” said Adams. “Governments and aid agencies should not delude themselves into thinking otherwise.”
Human Rights Watch called on the Burmese government to open cyclone-affected areas to a major international relief effort by immediately granting visas to aid workers, by allowing UN and international humanitarian agencies to distribute the aid they provide directly to those in need, and by allowing countries with military assets nearby to deliver aid by air and sea to survivors who cannot be reached quickly any other way. Many affected communities are only accessible by air and sea, which makes assistance by countries that are equipped to deal with humanitarian disasters essential.
Under international law, the 2 million or so people thought to have been made homeless by the cyclone are considered internally displaced. Under the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, a state should not arbitrarily withhold permission for international humanitarian organizations and other appropriate actors to provide aid, “particularly when authorities concerned are unable or unwilling to provide the required humanitarian assistance.” The principles further state that “All authorities concerned shall grant and facilitate the free passage of humanitarian assistance and grant persons engaged in the provision of such assistance rapid and unimpeded access to the internally displaced.”
Human Rights Watch said that China, India, Thailand and other members of ASEAN with close relations with Burma should press Burma’s government to lift restrictions on international assistance so aid can reach survivors of Cyclone Nargis.
“The Chinese government has shown unprecedented openness in accepting international aid after the earthquake in Sichuan,” said Adams. “Yet it does not appear to be doing anything to pressure the Burmese government to respond to the cyclone with the same urgency and openness. China has blocked concerted UN Security Council action in the past, but after the quake it must shift its policy to put people ahead of politics.”
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-STM-139- 2008
May 19, 2008
AHRC-STM-139- 2008
May 19, 2008
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
BURMA: From Dictator Ne Win to Cyclone Nargis - Burmese catastrophe continues
Two weeks after Cyclone Nargis, which has so far claimed the lives of over 100,000 persons, the world remains unable to deliver water, basic foods and medicines to at least two and half million people who have been categorised as persons in dire need. The government of Burma obstructs the delivery of these items which the neighbouring countries and the world community has come forward to give by way of relief to the Burmese people suffering from this tragic disaster. All the neighbours, including China, India and ASEAN countries have tried to use their persuasive powers to convince the few military leaders who control the fate of these two and a half million people to allow the assistance to flow, unhindered. To-date, the Burmese leaders obstinately refuse, despite of the children and the weaker sections of society, like those of advanced years, who are facing death due to the lack of water, food and basic medicines.
Tomorrow the foreign ministers of ASEAN will meet in Singapore to take a further step in trying to persuade the Burmese military to allow assistance. They are also willing to take a larger share of the burden in the distribution of aid than they would normally do judging by past experience due to the extremely difficult situation that has arisen. In the interviews to world press some of the foreign ministers have expressed disappointment but however, still want to attempt to convince the military leaders to cooperate with them and the world community to deal with this situation. The foreign ministers of Malaysia, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam will be meeting tomorrow mainly for this purpose.
The world’s displeasure expressed at the highest levels does not seem to make any impression on the Burmese military leadership. This is no surprise. Since 1962, when General Ne Win seized power, the country has been pushed into isolation, mainly as a strategy of safeguarding his political power.
His 26 year rule, under what he called the Burmese way of socialism, was a style of absolutely ruthless dictatorship which left no space at all for the people or for a system of governance based on law. The country was brought under the all-comprehensive surveillance of a policing system which merely served the function of the preservation of the political power of the regime. In Burma this regime achieved complete disempowerment of the people. This was no easy task as the Burmese people, over and over again, tried to resist the dictatorship and assert themselves, even to the extent of defeating the military electorally in 1988.
However, the military did not allow th The task facing the foreign ministers of ASEAN tomorrow is an unenviable one. To have even minimum success in trying to assist the people of Burma suffering from this tremendous disaster and even unable to get water, basic food and medicines, is a formidable one. The Burmese foreign minister will also attend but whether he shares the concerns of the rest of the world and whether he has the authority to take a decisive step to welcome assistance from outside, will be known to the world within the coming 24 hours or so. Perhaps at this time the international community should exert all its pressure to get across the message that if persuasion fails the world will be without any other option than to take a more coercive approach to save lives by making water, basic food and medicines available for the people. It is just common sense that when these basic needs are deprived for many, the time available for survival is very short.
The AHRC supports the call of Amnesty International to the foreign ministers of ASEAN to redouble their efforts to press the Burmese government especially to:
1. immediately remove barriers to the entry of disaster response experts and needed supplies into Myanmar and all affected areas, including by waiving visa and customs restrictions.
2. remove as a matter of urgency all barriers to the entry of relief workers and of urgently needed humanitarian assistance to the worst-affected areas, including through the use of appropriate transport vehicles;
3. ensure the provision of humanitarian aid throughout the affected areas without discrimination or political considerations;
4. allow independent local and international observers to monitor the provision of humanitarian assistance.
So far it has been proved that the legacy of General Ne Win is much more disastrous to the Burmese people than Cyclone Nargis. The test now is whether this legacy should be allowed to run its course of complete destruction.
# # #
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
Rigged Referendum in Rakhine State
reported by Human Rights Defenders & Promoters
May 10 2008
Taunggut Township, Arakan State
Most people cast “NO” votes in Taunggut, Arakan State, according to witnesses. “Taunggut is one of the strongest opposition regions in the Arakan State and people there dared to vote “No’ even before the authorities,” a resident said. “There were many fire brigade personnel guarding the booths.”
“There are eight booths in Taunggut and the authorities monitored the vote. They took pictures of people while voting, especially in NO (1) polling station. We have no privacy and safety in voting,” a voter said.
There are also three booths in the Army barracks in Taunggut. “The soldiers from No (5) Battalion are very frustrated because they are not allow to vote freely. Some of the soldiers told me if they have a chance to vote without restrictions, they will vote ‘No’ because they are suffering from the bad government as well as the ordinary people,” a resident from Taunggut said.
Two days before the referendum, the authorities from Township Peace and Development Council (in Burmese Ma Ya Ka) arrested some people in “No” T- shirts and interrogated them for two hours. Authorities took T-shirts and released them.
