6 July 2008
Speech: ‘Human Rights Challenges in the Asia-Pacific Region’
Roshan Jason (Executive Director, ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus / Former Board-Member, Amnesty International Malaysia)
Amnesty International Australia NAGM 2008
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Firstly, I would like to say that it is indeed a pleasure for me to be here speaking to human rights defenders from Australia. My first visit to your country and your section has been enriching. I have, over the past few days, been encouraged by the use of terms such as consultation, diversity and the involvement of rights-holders, in your discussions. I look forward to more exchanges of views and ideas for the rest of the short time I am here. I would also like to congratulate you on what I have seen as a successful NAGM.
Before I begin my presentation, I would like to screen for you an excerpt of a video titled “Freedom from Fear” by Milena Kaneva – an independent filmmaker from Bulgaria, on the recent crackdown of peaceful protests involving Buddhists monks in Burma by the country’s military regime.
Friends, I am going to attempt to avoid giving you a very academic presentation of today’s topic – ‘human rights challenges in the AP region’ – primarily because I believe you, as concerned human rights defenders from the region, are able to, if you have not yet already, obtain information and examples of regional human rights challenges we face from Amnesty reports and reports from other human rights organizations or from websites, media coverage and even from your personal experiences.
My challenge here today, given that I am fortunate enough to have contact with Burma’s pro-democracy movement and its people on the ground, is to vocalize the calls of those sacrificing their lives in order to see peace in their homeland. I will try to also touch on topical issues of other countries in the region.
I hope to leave enough time and space for questions from the floor and answer them as best with my knowledge of the political, social and cultural aspects of the issues in the region, particularly Burma.
I would like to just say here that the use of the words Myanmar or Burma in my presentation here today, and perhaps even in the general discussion of Burma issues, is not as important as discussing the issue in itself.
—————————————————————————————————–
Friends, the people of Burma, who flee torture and indiscriminate violence and now live in refugee camps and border towns – primarily in Thailand – and who now call countries like Malaysia, Bangladesh and even Australia their home, constantly ask me to urge the ‘international community’ – particularly those in the region – to step-up efforts to bring about change in their country – a member of our region, and essentially a neighbour.
How many of us here today have in some form had contact, a connection, or interaction with refugees and asylum seekers? How many of them were / are Burmese? How many are from other parts of the region?
I personally know a 77-year-old Member of Parliament in exile from Burma, who was elected in the country’s 1990 general elections. An election that saw the elected Parliamentarians barred from convening Parliament. She has an Australian travel document and spends time between Australia and a small town on the Thai-Burma border, where many dissidents from Burma have established groups working for their democracy.
Her name is Daw San San. She is a courageous, kind and sweet lady who has 6 children and 6 grandchildren whom she has not seen nor heard from for many years. Her family remains in Burma. She has not only given up contact with them to ensure their safety but also has had to live a life of isolation and fear in avoiding deportation to Burma – where she will certainly be jailed or harassed into giving up her believe in human rights and democracy.
There are about 4 or 5 Burmese MPs whom have sought and been given asylum in Australia. I’m told there about 20’000 Burmese living in Australia.
—————————————————————————————————-
We are well aware that one key challenge for the region is the protection of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants. Reasons for migration can vary between the need to escape poverty, inequality and conflict, like in Burma and not too long ago in Aceh. Some migrate for a want to pursue better work and education opportunities, or even a desire to live in a cleaner environment or better climate. People often migrate for a combination of reasons and sometimes, under complex circumstances.
I believe you are also aware that migrant workers and refugees can face a range of human rights abuses while they travel as well as when they arrive in the country of destination especially in Southeast Asian (ASEAN) countries – all of whom have not signed the UN 1951 Refugee Convention.
In Malaysia we continue to see mass arrests of migrant workers, refugees and asylum-seekers who suffer human rights abuses in the process
In Cambodia last year, over 200 Vietnamese from an ethnic minority called the Montagnards, sought asylum. Some hid in the jungle before seeking asylum under UNHCR’s mandate, fearful of arrest and being forcibly returned home where they are at risk of persecution
In North Korea approximately 50,000 North Koreans are reportedly hiding in China, living under constant fear of deportation. Each month hundreds are believed to be forcibly repatriated to North Korea without being given access to UNHCR offices in China.
Today more than 140,000 refugees from Burma are living in nine camps along the Thailand-Burma border. These are just the figures of those whom are documented.
Here we need to take stock of how much the ‘third-country State’, and non-governmental organizations protect and assist migrants and refugees. Are there adequate welfare projects? Are there sufficient laws? Are refugee and migrant children given enough medical attention and education? How much is being done to ensure that families are reunited or help is given to track-down family members?
Overcoming human rights challenges does not just mean regime change. There are practical, emotional and physiological challenges to deal with in the interim.
What can we do, you ask? What should the government of Australia do, some question. Coming back to the Burma discussion, the Australian government has rightfully given Daw San San refuge when she sought asylum. But what’s next? What can you – as Australian citizens and as well your government – do to ensure she does not see her life pass without ever holding her grandchildren again or setting foot in Burma as a free person?
In order to answer this we have to ask ourselves why does the military regime in Burma continue to enjoy the freedom to ruin the country and destroy the life of its people?
I argue that it is because they are protected and fuelled by their neighbours – both by States and corporations. Looking at Burma, it is not hard to say there is a profound culture of impunity by the regime fuelled by partners in the region via politics and economics.
Business partners from Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, China and India prop the military – which took power in a 1962 coup – and ruled the country arbitrarily ever since.
Australian businesses are not spared of their responsibility in strengthening the regime. Australia’s biggest airline Qantas holds a controlling majority – 49% stake – in Jetstar Asia. Jetstar Asia promotes Burma as a tourist destination. It flies to the country in partnership with the regime owned Myanmar Airways International. Burma’s democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, and the country’s democracy movement asks tourists not to visit Burma because it helps fund the regime and gives it legitimacy. Forced and child labour are used to develop many tourist facilities.
Other Australian companies with business interests and partnerships with the military include Andaman Teak Supplies Pty Ltd, Gecko’s Adventures, Lonely Planet, Peregrine Adventures, Twinza Oil – parent company of Danford Equities.
Burma’s regime gains wealth primarily from the oil and gas industry as well as from tourism – where the regime itself admits that it receives 12% of everything private tourists spend in country – and substantially more if holidaymakers stay in regime owned hotels.
What this just means is that the regime uses their economic power to sustain their dictatorship. And this wealth is not used for the benefit of the people of Burma. It has been reported that USD 50 million was spent on the military’s leader Senior-General Than Shwe’s daughter’s wedding in July 2006. Acts as such, of corruption and greed and mis-governance, are rampant among the country’s military rulers.
What Australians should also be aware of is that the Australian government is about to sign a Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) with ASEAN, and indirectly with Burma, in August this year. Perhaps Australia should follow in the direction of the European Union who has yet to sign an FTA with ASEAN and Burma is understood to be the main reason for the delay.
Friends, the debate on sanctions vis-à-vis Burma has been happening for a while now. It is a long and hard debate but one thing we need to realize is that the people of Burma were already in trouble long before sanctions were imposed. Sanctions are a result of oppression by the SPDC. As long as oppression exists, sanctions should not be lifted.
If not for international pressure on business in Burma, companies such as Rolls Royce, PWC, Willis, British American Tobacco, Adidas and many more may not have pulled out.
Companies remaining in Burma, such as France’s Total Oil, Malaysia’s Petronas, US’ Chevron and more, often attempt to justify their involvement by claiming that pulling out would harm ordinary Burmese people. Aung San Suu Kyi and many others disputes this, as the reality is only very few Burmese, who are non-military linked, benefit from investments in the country.
Companies investing in Burma are not doing so because of an altruistic wish to help the people of Burma. They are there to make a profit, and are attracted by salaries of less than 50 cents a day, a compliant workforce where unions are banned, and limited health and safety laws which in any case are rarely enforced. The minimum working age is 13.
I would like to also note that government-to-government relationships also empower the military regime. Australia has in the past provided training in Rangoon to enable immigration, customs and police officials to detect fake passports.
The training “will be an important step in protecting Myanmar from individuals such as international terrorists and criminals from entering the country,” a statement was issued by the Australian embassy at that time. This training can also be used against Burma’s stateless people and political dissidents – many branded ‘terrorists’ by the regime – whom are sometimes forced to travel in and out of their country with non-military issued travel documents.
At the same time the same Australian government have rejected postings of Burma’s ambassadors.
Australia must have clear policies re Burma. It cannot afford to have mixed policies and practices especially being one of ASEAN’s oldest regional dialogue-partner.
Australia needs to take a pro-active role in being the lead agents of change in Burma. They must have the moral courage to pressure their regional neighbours. There is a new government in Australia and new opportunities. We need to capatilise on these.
There are numerous Australian Parliamentarians, such as the Hon. Laurie Ferguson, who are proponents of change in Burma and we have to network with them.
Perhaps AI Australia can embark on larger national campaigns to create greater public awareness on Burma. Strong public support and rallies from Australians will create an impact. It had before when the call for change in East Timor from here took to the streets – with the involvement of AI, the trade unions, the catholic church and other organizations – was key in seeing change there.
Australia’s bilateral relationship with China, India, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore also promises a large opportunity for change if influenced.
China has a strong influential role in the Burma crisis. In 2007, at the United Nations Security Council, a resolution on Burma was vetoed off by China, as well as Russia. South Africa also voted no to a relatively mild resolution that would have compelled the junta to engage with Burma’s democratic movement and international bodies pursuing positive change.
On August 8th this year, the Olympics in Beijing will begin. That date is also the 20th anniversary of Burma’s pro-democracy uprising that was bloodily suppressed. Perhaps Amnesty’s campaign on China can carry a strong component of Burma.
On a positive note, I must acknowledge that Amnesty’s current work on Burma via urgent actions on individual cases of prisoners of conscience (POCs) work is important. The people of Burma whom I meet, especially former POCs, are so grateful for the work that Amnesty members carry out for them.
But we should also remember that there are not only over a thousand POCs in Burma because the 54 million of Burma’s population are in many ways POCs to a cruel regime.
————————————————————————————————————
One other area where I see human rights challenges being better addressed is in the engagement with Burma’s diaspora. The Burmese leaders and community here in Australia and of course elsewhere in the world have vital role to play in rebuilding their country. We cannot just view them as refugees, asylum seekers or migrants.
Despite all they have been through over the past 46 years, the people of Burma both inside and outside the country are a very strong people. Those whom I’ve met over the years – inside Burma, at refugee camps on the border, those in my own country, the activists, leaders, youth and elders – are so resilient, so motivated, so forgiving, kind, intelligent, enthusiastic, courageous and resourceful. They are not weak. They are not needy. They have sometimes no choice but to depend on us.
Lets use our opportunities to help build on their strengths and shortcomings. Amnesty talks about consultation and the involvement/ participation of ‘rights-holders’ in the process – we must hold true to that as much as we can.
—————————————————————————————————————–
In ending, I would like to share some visions I have of the future of the Burma situation in respect to Australia and AI Australia’s role.
Wouldn’t it be nice that if in a year’s time there is a strong public awareness campaign in motion in Australia – that mobilises rights groups, development agencies, parliamentarians, the trade union, who already does so much on Burma, and other concerned groups and citizens – to effectively address Burma’s situation at a national, regional and international level?
Wouldn’t it be nice if in the near future Australia joins in with the EU to refer Burma’s military regime to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity?
Wouldn’t it be great if Australia co-sponsors resolutions in the UN that would effective bring progress to political discussions and negotiations with the regime and key stakeholders in Burma?
Wouldn’t it be great if at the next AI International Committee Meeting (ICM 2009) – a more vibrant discussion / campaign / resolution on Burma is introduced by AI Australia?
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Australian government convinces ASEAN states to sign and ratify UN conventions – that ensure protection of people and their human rights in the region – such as the 1951 Refugee Convention?
Wouldn’t it be good if the Australian government themselves are ratify the ‘UN International Convention on the Protection of the rights of all Migrant workers and members of their families’?
Wouldn’t it be just great if more donations, resources and aid can be channeled to those working with refugees and groups on Burma’s borders?
And this may be somewhat of a radical wish but wouldn’t it just be amazing if Burma’s MPs in exile are invited and allowed to convene and run their parliament in Australia?
And of course, wouldn’t it be just great if Australia brokers for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners in Burma as a start to the process of re-establishing a democratic and free Burma.
Thank you.
Amnesty International ‘AI Annual Report 2008: Malaysia’
Amnesty International ‘AI Annual Report 2008: Cambodia’
Amnesty International ‘AI Annual Report 2008: China’
Burma Campaign, UK ‘Dirty List’
