Burma's authoritarian military junta government has a long-standing history of committing egregious human rights violations against its own citizens. Additionally, past international efforts at reforming Burma – including multiple resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights – have failed due to the intransigence of the Burmese Government. The international community must now take a far more stringent stance towards Burma's oppressive regime. 

The international community's most effective and pragmatic solution is a UN Security Council Resolution that must draw up a comprehensive strategy directed at Burma's compliance with international human rights standards. 

A Security Council Resolution regarding Burmese Governmental reform would have various benefits. The short-term goals erected via the resolution would bring about an unprecedented level of pressure on the Burmese Government, forcing it to either comply with the stipulated conditions or face a substantial international backlash. In the long-term, the resolution would officially elevate the international community's moral intolerance towards Burma, thereby establishing a higher global standard in human rights.  

The international community must put its political allegiances aside in dealing with Burma. Security Council intervention in Burma is contingent upon the approval of all of the Security Council's Permanent Members. It thus follows that Burmese human rights abuses must take precedence over the Permanent Members' economic costs. 

A threat to the peace 

The Burmese Government poses a grave threat to international peace and security. In addressing the urgency of halting Burma's governmental abuses, the Security Council must consider both the breadth and magnitude of the issues implicated by the Burmese crisis. 

The Security Council's most effective intervention in Burma will be accomplished pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which articulates the UN's scope of authority to react to “a threat to the peace”. However, Security Council involvement requires a threshold analysis, pursuant to Chapter VII, Article 39 of the UN Charter, to determine whether the Burmese situation actually constitutes a “threat to the peace”. Although there is no precise definition of “threat to the peace”, the mandate derives its meaning through past application – most notably, regarding the Security Council's involvement in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Haiti, Yemen, Rwanda, Liberia, and Cambodia.  

In response to Burma's urgent human rights crisis, Vacláv Havel (former President of the Czech Republic) and Bishop Desmond Tutu (Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town and Nobel Peace Laureate) commissioned an influential report entitled “Threat to the Peace: A Call for the UN Security Council to Act in Burma”. The report underscores the salience of the following factors, which the Security Council applies on a case-by-case basis, in determining the existence of a “threat to the peace”: (1) overthrow of a democratic government; (2) conflict among factions; (3) humanitarian/human rights violations; (4) refugee outflows; (5) and other problems. 

All of the factors mentioned are present to excessive degrees in Burma. The latter section of this report elaborates upon the current Burmese abuses, which should prompt the international community to forgo symbolic action and seek concrete methods to correct the following atrocities.

Democracy 

The most debilitating blow to Burma's path to democracy occurred following the junta's call for general elections in 1990 - the first democratically held elections since the junta took power in 1962. The National League for Democracy (NLD) won the election, accruing over 80 percent of the seats in Parliament. Despite the NLD's landslide victory, the State Development and Peace Council (SPDC) – undergirded by the junta - refused to transfer power to the NLD. If the 1990 election results accurately depict Burma's contemporary political preference, then the Burmese Government owes democracy to its citizens.  

Additionally, Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Laureate and leader of the NLD, has been imprisoned by the SPDC for the majority of the past 16 years. Aug San Suu Kyi and hundreds of other “prisoners of conscience” have emerged as national symbols for democratic reform. However, the future of Burmese political reform is contingent upon the liberation of its pro-democratic leaders.  

The SPDC's “roadmap” to democracy is empty rhetoric. The Constitutional Convention's February 2005 meeting excluded NLD representatives and various other ethnic political parties that fairly won seats in the 1990 elections. Thus, the Burmese Constitution, which has yet to materialize, will undoubtedly be a mechanism to promulgate the SPDC's agenda unless full political participation is mandated in the constitution-building process.

The SPDC's anti-democratic agenda extends to Internet censorship. The junta blocks citizens’ access to e-mail services such as Yahoo and Hotmail as well as to international news media. The nature of Burma's governmental induced censorship is both pervasive and excessive.  

The Burmese Government aggressively bars domestic opposition by imposing violence on ethnic and religious minorities. Decades of junta-imposed armed conflict have devastated the ethnic minority groups, which comprise approximately 35 percent of Burma's population. According to Human Rights Watch, the junta has carried out “numerous summary executions, looting, torture, rape and other sexual violence” on minority groups for many years. Additionally, “arbitrary arrests and torture, forced labor, recruitment of child soldiers, and the displacement and demolition of entire villages occur as part of military operations against ethnic minority armed opposition groups.” 

Burma’s Muslim and Christian populations have faced the most widespread persecution by the junta. The junta's Burmanisation campaign actively attempts to convert the Chins to Buddhism, while simultaneously repressing Christianity. The campaign is marked by a massive increase in military units stationed in the Chin regions coupled with the destruction of churches and the construction of Buddhist temples. These destructive deeds are typically achieved through the use of local people as forced labour.  

Refugee outflows 

The outflow of nearly 700,000 Burmese refugees is clear evidence of the oppression plaguing Burma. Most refugees are from the Karen minority group. Burmese refugees commonly flee to areas such as Mizoram state in India, Bangladesh and northwestern Thailand. Even with ceasefire agreements in place, refugees fear returning to their respective homes. Burmese refugees cannot trust the junta because ceasefire agreements are continuously breached and refugees often killed upon return.  

Call for strategies 

This is an opportune moment for the Security Council to take up the Burmese human rights crisis. It can also serve as a test case for the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) that was created on 15 March 2006 by the UN General Assembly. According to the General Assembly Resolution, “the [Human Rights] Council should address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon. It should also promote the effective coordination and the mainstreaming of human rights within the United Nations system.” An HRC resolution referring Burma to the Security Council would be of great import and should be taken up as part of the substantive work of the HRC as early as possible. 

Ultimately, the Permanent Members of the Security Council – the United States, Britain, China, Russia, and France – would find it difficult to circumvent a Burmese resolution supported by the HRC. In the past, diplomatic tolerance for Burmese Governmental abuse has perpetuated the junta's incessant corruption.

A significant reason for the junta’s successful evasion of international accountability is the consistent exercise of veto power in the Security Council by China and Russia. This veto position is supported by Japan, which exercises considerable economic interests in Burma and now stands “on the other side from every single democracy in the Security Council”, as stated in a recent news article. However, the weight of an HRC resolution on Burma would deter harmful diplomatic maneuvers in the Security Council.  

Additionally, the United States' support for a UN Security Council resolution sends the message that despite the US refusal to be a member of the Human Rights Council, it supports efforts against human rights abuses in Burma. Sean McCormack, spokesman for the United States State Department, addressed the international significance of a UN Security Council Resolution on Burma, stating: “The international community must continue pressing the Burmese regime to change its policies. To this end, the United States intends to pursue a UN Security Council resolution that will underscore the international community's concerns about the situation in Burma.”  

It is also incumbent on Burma’s other significant neighbours, such as India and the countries comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), to take a stand on human rights violations by the Burmese junta. Human Rights Features has previously observed that in addition to economic ties with China, Burma’s trade relations with India and Thailand are a significant source of reassurance for the Burmese junta and a reason to carry out human rights violations with impunity. (see “Burma: Time to make the generals sweat” - HRF/81/03) ASEAN has already indicated its disapproval of the junta’s activities. It is now up to India, the largest democracy in the region, to reassess its ties with its starkly non-democratic and visibly repressive eastern neighbour. 

Burmese Governmental reform must be the highest priority when the Security Council convenes in New York in September 2006. And the Human Rights Council must justify its own existence, and its relevance, by taking on Burma as a worthy test case.

 Human Rights Features