The EU has always been tagged as the ruling junta’s fiercest critique over the the lack of concrete progress in democracy and the violations of human rights in Burma. The EU has also been vocal in demanding for the release of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and in pushing for political reforms in Burma. With this posture, the EU had the respect and adulation of the international community, NGOs and other human rights groups that also advocate genuine peace, justice and restoration of civilian power in Burma. But this changed when the EU leaders recently agreed to rub elbows with Burma’s military rulers at the ASEM table.
Letter to the Editor
This letter is in reaction to the European Union’s change of position in agreeing to military-ruled Burma’s entry to the Asia-Europe Meeting(ASEM) scheduled in Hanoi, Vietnam this coming October.
The EU has always been tagged as the ruling junta’s fiercest critique over the the lack of concrete progress in democracy and the violations of human rights in Burma. The EU has also been vocal in demanding for the release of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and in pushing for political reforms in Burma. With this posture, the EU had the respect and adulation of the international community, NGOs and other human rights groups that also advocate genuine peace, justice and restoration of civilian power in Burma. But this changed when the EU leaders recently agreed to rub elbows with Burma’s military rulers at the ASEM table.
For human rights advocates around the world who believe that putting pressure on the military government in Burma is a crucial factor for reforms inside Burma, allowing the generals to join the ASEM is undoubtedly disgusting. The EU’s move is obviously a result of a compromise deal. But we are not surprised. Given the self-serving motives of governments trying to exploit Burma’s resources, one would conclude that the EU’s move is not an exemption to the rule. In fact, this is the general rule (pun intended). This rule that says that many countries consider their economic agenda in Burma as heavier than their supposed political and international responsibility.
Statistics says that despite economic sanctions imposed on Burma’s military regime, foreign investment in Burma even soared to 94 percent in 2003. Data shows that the largest investments came from Britain, which put in US$27 million (euro 22 million) into Burma’s transportation sector, and Thailand, which invested US$22 million (euro 18.2 million) in the oil and gas sector.
Malaysia on the other hand put US$18.2 million (euro 15 million) in the fisheries sector, Hong Kong invested US$15.8 million (euro 13.1 million) in fisheries and transportation and Singapore invested US$6.1 million (euro 5.1 million) also in fisheries. South Korea and Brunei also took stakes in Myanmar fisheries, while Canada invested in the mining industry.
With all these statistics at hand, it cannot be denied that “corporate greed” is still the suspect that murders the supposedly social and political responsibility of other countries in Burma. Social and
political responsibility are forgotten every time economic interest is at stake.
In the end, the people of Burma are the ones to suffer. Like magicians, the generals in Burma are still able to pull out the rabbit that is called “compromise”.
But the EU alone cannot be blamed. ASEAN members are also to blame when they insisted that they would not recognize the EU’s expansion to 25 member states this year if the EU failed to allow Asean’s new members – Burma, Cambodia, and Laos – to participate in the inter- regional dialogue.
As a result, the EU bowed to the ASEAN’s wish, as many EU officials recognize that engagement with Asian nations is imperative for the EU’s multilateralist agenda.
We at the Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID) believe that allowing the Burmese generals to sit at the ASEM will not result to democratic reforms inside Burma.
But still, we challenge the EU and all the participants in the October meeting to use ASEM as a venue to confront Burma over its continuous human rights violations. The participants should go beyond detailing economic cooperation, and put on the table for discussion the junta’s poor human rights record. Can they accept this challenge? We will be watching them.
Gus Miclat
Executive Director
Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID)
Recent Comments