All Rights Reserved
The Guardian (London)
March 26, 2010 Friday
SECTION: GUARDIAN INTERNATIONAL PAGES; Pg. 30
LENGTH: 739 words
HEADLINE: UK backs war crimes case against Burma: UN envoy calls for referral of junta to Hague court Security council 'not unanimous' over measure
BYLINE: Simon Tisdall
BODY:
Britain is backing moves to refer Burma's military leaders to the international criminal court for investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity. The move is part of a heightened campaign to force the junta to embrace genuine democratic reforms, diplomatic and government sources told the Guardian yesterday.
In a tough demarche that will increase pressure on the isolated regime ahead of planned elections this autumn, Britain's ambassador to the UN said the UK supported a recommendation by the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Burma that The Hague-based international court opens a war crimes investigation.
Speaking after a security council meeting, Sir Mark Lyall Grant said the council's five permanent members were "not sufficiently unanimous" in their views to allow an ICC referral to happen immediately. But if such a proposal were tabled, he said, Britain would support it. Nearly 200 MPs have backed the referral campaign.
Britain, the former colonial power, is keen to use the threat of security council action to press the junta into dropping new rules that exclude political prisoners, past and present, from standing for election or belonging to political parties.
"Our number one objective is to increase pressure on the regime to clarify the election rules and hold free and fair elections," a British official said. The UK was pursuing the issue "robustly" with the US, France and other like-minded states at the UN and in other forums, such as the Human Rights Council in Geneva, the official added.
If Burma's junta refuses to change the election rules and opposition parties are forced into a boycott, Britain is understood to be ready to propose a tough range of EU economic sanctions. Any decision on proposing such sanctions would be made by Gordon Brown, who has taken a personal interest in the plight of the Burmese people, and could come as early next week.
A government source said the election rules were "clearly taking the piss" and were not a serious effort to democratise the country, a view that was increasingly shared by Burma's neighbours in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
An announcement of an election date could come within the next few days, the source said. "This will clearly be a big moment for the regime and there is no sign they will change course. So all our efforts will be focused on trying to make sure there is a chorus of condemnation and making clear that they (the polls) won't do anything to legitimise the regime."
Burma's National League for Democracy (NLD), the largest opposition party led by the Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who is under house arrest, is expected to announce on Monday whether it will register to participate in the elections. As matters stand, she and many of the NLD's other leading figures would be automatically disqualified because they have served, or are serving jail terms.
"If (Aung San) Suu Kyi decides to pull out, that will be the death knell for the elections," the British source said.
Aung San Suu Kyi was quoted this week by her lawyer as saying she opposed the NLD's participation, but that the decision was not hers alone. "Personally I would not dream of registering the NLD under such an unjust and one-sidedly drawn-up state constitution," she said.
The junta's decision to hold elections, the first since 1990 when the NLD won in a landslide, is widely seen as an effort to gain international respectability for the regime and end US and EU sanctions. But activists and human rights groups have already denounced the rules of the poll.
Welcoming Britain's backing for an ICC referral, Anna Roberts, the director of Burma Campaign UK, said: "The generals in Burma will never allow justice and democracy . . . Rather than engaging with the fake elections, the international community should focus on putting the generals in jail, where they belong."
The campaign to bring war crimes charges against junta members, including General Than Shwe, Burma's de facto head of state, received a boost this month when the UN's special rapporteur, Tomas Ojea Quintana, described "a pattern of gross and systematic violation of human rights" of Burmese civilians. The abuses, including killings, rape, torture, ethnic cleansing and forced labour, were the result of long-standing state policy, he said.
Under current rules, Ang San Suu Kyi and other past or present political prisoners are barred from standing in the election
LOAD-DATE: March 25, 201
UK: Send Burma to the ICC
Every time that I teach international criminal law, at least one student writes on whether you could prosecute the Burmese junta for crimes against humanity. As a matter of substantive ICL, the answer is clearly yes. The problem is jurisdictional — who is going to prosecute them? Apparently, the UK thinks it should be the ICC via a Security Council referral:
Britain is backing moves to refer Burma’s military leaders to the international criminal court for investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity. The move is part of a heightened campaign to force the junta to embrace genuine democratic reforms, diplomatic and government sources told the Guardian today.
In a tough démarche that will increase pressure on the isolated regime ahead of planned elections this autumn, Britain’s ambassador to the UN said the UK supported a recommendation by the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Burma that The Hague-based international court opens a war crimes investigation.
[snip]
Welcoming Britain’s backing for an ICC referral, Anna Roberts, the director of Burma Campaign UK, said: “The generals in Burma will never allow justice and democracy … Rather than engaging with the fake elections, the international community should focus on putting the generals in jail, where they belong.”
The campaign to bring war crimes charges against junta members, including General Than Shwe, Burma’s de facto head of state, received a boost this month when the UN’s special rapporteur, Tomás Ojea Quintana, described “a pattern of gross and systematic violation of human rights” of Burmese civilians. The abuses, including killings, rape, torture, ethnic cleansing and forced labour, were the result of long-standing state policy, he said.
This is an excellent idea — but, as the UK representative notes, the Security Council is “not sufficiently unanimous.” What he means is that any attempt to refer Burma to the ICC would almost certainly be vetoed by Russia and China, both of whom (see here and here) have major energy interests in Burma and who have vetoed previous Security Council attempts to condemn the regime.
The current civil and political situation in Myanmar presents an opportunity for several major powers, namely Russia, China, India and the United States. Of these, Moscow has been working in concert with China to maintain the military-led status quo in Myanmar in order to preserve Russian interests.
For Russia, Myanmar is of growing economic interest since entering into various arms-for-energy access deals with the poor Southeast Asian country. In May, for example, Russian nuclear equipment export monopoly AtomStroyExport forged an agreement to construct a nuclear research center in Myanmar – an arrangement both sides say would be dedicated to only civilian uses, but one that has raised possible proliferation concerns among some Western countries.
Meanwhile, leading foreign energy trade company Zarubezhneft, natural gas producer Itera, and Silver Wave Sputnik Petroleum are all currently producing from Myanmar's off-shore oil deposits - often working alongside the Chinese energy giant PetroChina. Myanmar purchased 15 Russian MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters for approximately US$150 million in 2001 and it is now negotiating with Russia's state-controlled arms exporter Rosoboronexport for the establishment of an air defense system using the Russian-made Tor-M1 and Buk-M1-2 missile systems.
These business dealings - with a special emphasis on the energy-related deals - are important to Russia’s broad geo-strategic designs. Russia, which is currently one of the world’s leading exporters of natural gas, is on the path to achieving a near monopoly on the fuel source throughout Europe. It is most likely utilizing its growing access to Myanmar’s oil and natural gas deposits to drive forward its apparent aim of monopolizing Europe's energy industry and possibly expanding its economic and political interest further into Asia.
A recent Russian foreign ministry statement in the wake of recent street protests and security forces’ armed response warned that "urgent steps must be taken to prevent the escalation of tensions" in Myanmar. The statement inferred that Russia supported the government’s crackdown to stop the escalation of hostilities and restore stability. Russia has also made it clear that it does not support the imposition of new economic sanctions, which many Western countries have recently advocated to hit the military regime’s finances.
Opposition to Moscow’s non-interference policy has come from several sources, including, predictably, the US, which has called for harsh action and already imposed new sanctions against the regime, including new travel bans on senior junta members. One possible reason for the US’s strong push for political change in Myanmar is to undermine Russia’s and China’s growing economic and strategic interests there.
If the current regime were eventually deposed through popular pressure, it’s possible that a new democratic government would seek better relations with the United States and its European allies. That diplomatic realignment would likely come at China’s and Russia’s expense due to their close ties to the current military regime. Despite Beijing’s call for more democracy in Myanmar, China clearly favors a political transition where the current regime still has political control and explains its and Russia’s opposition to any new economic sanctions that would potentially weaken the military’s grip on power.
India is also a factor in the strategic struggle for influence in Myanmar. India has bid to build better bilateral relations with Myanmar towards the aim of securing new energy deals. Yet New Delhi was recently stripped of its "preferential buyer" status for certain offshore oilfields off Myanmar’s western coast.
Soon after removing India’s preferential buyer status, the junta entered into negotiations with Russian and Chinese oil companies. Possible Indian interests are limited at best since it has been pushed aside by China. It is most likely that the Indian government opposes Russia and China in an attempt to maintain some form of business relations with the country.
What actions and strategies Russia may adopt as the global call for action against Myanmar’s regime grows is still a wildcard. It is not clear whether Moscow would back an active international intervention that still preserved its interests or a more passive campaign of noncommittal rhetoric.
It is also still difficult to tell whether the US’s call for change will be able to generate a global consensus at the United Nations that leads to new multilateral sanctions against the regime, although with Russia’s and China’s veto powers on the UN Security Council that seems unlikely. It is clear, however, that Russia has recently extended its economic interests into Myanmar and hence has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Published with permission of the Power and Interest News Report, an analysis-based publication that seeks to provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. With additional reporting by Asia Times Online.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011300296.html
China, Russia Veto Myanmar Resolution
UNITED NATIONS -- China and Russia blocked the Security Council from demanding an end to political repression and human rights violations in military-ruled Myanmar, rejecting a resolution proposed by the United States.
The vote was 9-3 in favor of the resolution, with South Africa joining China and Russia in the opposition. Indonesia, Qatar and the Republic of Congo abstained. While they were in the minority, China and Russia were able to kill the resolution because they have veto power as permanent members of the council.
The two argued that the U.N.'s most powerful body was not the proper forum for discussing the Southeast Asian nation because the country doesn't threaten international peace. China and Russia both have human rights records that have frequently been criticized.
Myanmar's U.N. Ambassador Kyaw Tint Swe thanked China and Russia and the countries that abstained. Had the resolution been adopted "it would have created a dangerous precedent," he said.
State media, which closely reports the junta line, praised the outcome Sunday. The New Light of Myanmar called it a "victory for the people of the international community and the people of Myanmar who love truth."
Multiple vetoes in the Security Council are rare, raising questions about unity in the months ahead when the council will have to deal with difficult issues including Sudan's conflict-wracked Darfur region and the follow-up to sanctions against North Korea and Iran.
Myanmar's junta took power in 1988 after crushing the democracy movement led by Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been in detention for much of the last 18 years. Hundreds of her supporters remain in prison.
"This resolution would have been a strong and urgently needed statement by the Security Council about the need for change in Burma," said Acting U.S. ambassador Alejandro Wolff, using Myanmar's former name.
Still, he said, "the people of Burma should not be disheartened" because the vote reflected differences over the Security Council's jurisdiction, not about their plight.
All 15 council members "recognize that there are problems in the areas of human rights, social issues, political freedom," he said.
The last multiple veto was in 1989 by the U.S., Britain and France on a Panama resolution and the last double veto by China and the former Soviet Union was on a 1972 Mideast resolution.
"We find that attempts aimed at using the Security Council to discuss issues outside its view are unacceptable," Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said, noting that problems in Myanmar were being addressed by other U.N. bodies.
China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said he voted against the resolution for the same reason. The veto was only China's fourth, and Wang expressed regret, saying it was clear Myanmar was not moving quickly enough to promote stability.
He urged the military regime to move toward "inclusive democracy" and "speed up the process of dialogue and reform."
Though he abstained, Indonesia's ambassador, Rezlan Jenie, was highly critical of Myanmar, a fellow member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. ASEAN has tried to restore democracy in Myanmar, he said, but there has been no progress on the ground.
"Myanmar must respond to the imperative of restoring democracy and improving human rights," Jenie said. "We will do everything in our power ... to bring about positive change in Myanmar."
Wolff said the U.S. aim was to put the situation in Myanmar in the global spotlight and to support its people.
He accused Myanmar's military regime of carrying out arbitrary arrests, torture, rapes and executions, of waging war on minorities and building news cities while refugees flee the country, "narcotics and human trafficking grow, and communicable diseases remain untreated."
The United States views these actions as "contemporary threats that the council and the international community needs to address before they become imminent ... threats to international peace and security," he said.
Along with the U.S., Britain, France, Slovakia, Peru, Ghana, Belgium, Italy and Panama all supported the resolution.
Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, who co-sponsored the resolution, said his government wants to see a strengthened relationship between the United Nations and Myanmar to reduce poverty and promote development, and to establish democratic institutions, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
