“A Battle Is Lost But Not The War”

Patience is reputed to be a virtue, and I wish I had more of it – I need it! I find it frustrating that when confronted with an obvious decision regarding doing what is right, some ‘world leaders’ choose to do what is wrong. Of course, they each have their own inner reasons and those which they tell the press - they keep their hidden agendas very much hidden behind a veil of political blanket, and they won’t admit them – their excuses range from being ‘firmly opposed’ to ‘regretting to inform the council’. When it comes to the ‘situation in Burma’, all are agreed that change is necessary, that the regime faces many grave challenges, certain problems in socio-economic and humanitarian areas – but… and there are big ‘buts’ when China and Russia can use a veto to stop any progress being made – ones which we need to counter. But if this first attempt at getting a positive resolution passed didn’t succeed, then we will support those countries who are true friends of Burma to try again.

They say that if at first you don’t succeed, try, try, and try again - Never give up! There are many issues that we need to address before we will succeed at the UNSC. First and foremost is to maintain the commitment to providing reliable information about the situation in Burma – news that counters the propaganda and lies that the regime pumps out and feeds to Xinhua and any other news agency interested. Keeping Burma in the news with the diplomatic community will ensure that those nations who profess to support human rights, freedom and democracy will continue to support the people of Burma in their quest for freedom from a state of terror. It is the regime who refers to its own propaganda as if it were true in defence of its actions (and in-actions), and gives countries like China the alibi for its support of the regime. Every time a critical report is issued from Human Rights groups around the world (and there are a lot of them), the regime counters with puerile articles in New Light of Myanmar, statements from myriad organisations coerced into supporting the regime and, with the UNSC resolution, the USDA thugs are brought out for peaceful demonstrations in front of the US and UK embassies – a technically illegal activity in Burma, but not for those who have been told to do so by the regime. Then the regime uses this as ‘evidence’ (another aspect of the justice system usually lacking in Burma) that the population fully support the regime!

Reading ‘Flags of our Fathers’ recently, I was struck by the attitude of Lt-Gen. Kuribayashi, commander of the defence of Iwo Jima in 1945, who analysed the 1944 German defence strategy at Normandy and determined not to make the same mistakes; he built his defences further back and in greater depth – instead of being overcome in 24 hours, the Japanese resisted assault for several days before the US Marines could get off the beach. Of course, the lesson for us is that we need to analyse exactly why the resolution failed last time, so that we can build a better resolution and a stronger argument next time. We need to understand why Russia and China voted the way they did, and use our skills to persuade them to change their minds when it comes to voting at the UNSC a second time – a veto is a veto! This is not an easy tea-shop discussion but requires the efforts of all of us to support those of our leaders who can gain the confidence and the time out of the busy schedules of the representatives of China and Russia to sit and talk with them to explain our position. As the SSA-S’s Colonel Yawd Serk says, “The two countries may be hearing only from one side, and that is from the Burmese military, and not enough from us” - he wants a different approach: dialogue instead of confrontation. China stated that the situation in Burma does not pose a threat to regional peace and security, and that “Myanmar’s internal affairs should be handled mainly and independently by Myanmar’s Government through consultation”. With its increasing trade links with Burma, China’s top leaders are on good terms with leading members of the regime; even the USDA has exchange meetings with counterparts in China; all fostering China’s region of protection and long-term political manipulation. This is not a situation that is likely to change easily or quickly, as it impinges on China’s overall foreign policy and close relationship with the regime and for the whole region.

China makes two claims regarding the resolution – that it would not only exceed the council’s mandates but also hinder the discussions by other relevant United Nations agencies. These need to be directly addressed – the council’s mandate regarding regional peace and security, and the hindrance of other UN functions (Russia refers to it as counterproductive and would not facilitate the division of labour). The second is a spurious accusation that bears no credence with me, but somehow, we will need to diffuse this point – liaison with the other UN agencies involved with Burma is surely viable within a bureaucratic organisation such as the UN, and co-ordination and supportive actions across agencies would actually benefit one another – we need these agencies to state openly that a UNSC resolution on Burma would not be ‘counterproductive’.

The first reason regarding ‘regional peace and security’ is the same reason given by South Africa, in that the primary mandate for the UNSC is to act in the interests of peace and security. The government of Burma is at war with no one other than its own people, and hence there is no direct peace or security issue that directly affects other countries. As the resolution states the impact is more indirect, and some UNSC delegates consider that this could escalate into a more serious peace and security issue. With oppressive press and reporting restrictions in place in Burma, and the regime’s propaganda machine working full out, the rebel armies are referred to variously as insurgents, drug-traffickers and terrorists. An ‘insurgent’ is a member of a group involved in an uprising against the government or ruler of a country. This rather implies that the government is legal and the insurgent illegal – whereas, the freedom fighters in Burma have at least moral legality as representatives of the people they protect, and a political agenda to bring peace and democracy to Burma. The regime has no legality having grabbed power by military coup, but claims it by dint of possession. Burma’s official representative at the UN, Kyaw Tint Swe, used his opportunity at the UNSC meeting to claim that the resolution was based on information that was “patently false”, and to discredit the KNU, blaming them for the killing of unarmed civilians and other atrocities that we all know are crimes committed by the SPDC’s troops. China and Russia might claim to believe these statements – we need to ensure that they begin to doubt them and see the regime for what it is.

Were the issues of genocide and nuclear weapons to be substantiated and form the basis for the next UNSC resolution, there is less likelihood that it would be vetoed. If the charges of ethnic genocide and the development of nuclear weapons are to be used to bring the ‘situation in Burma’ to the attention of the UNSC in a more meaningful way, then more authoritative and compelling information regarding these activities will need to be compiled and presented to relevant authorities at the UN and the International Criminal Court.

China and Russia state that the UNSC resolution deals with many human rights issues that are more correctly dealt with UN and other (e.g. ILO) organisations, and not the UNSC (this is also the stance that South Africa take). If this is the case, then these organisations should also be petitioned by pro-democracy advocates for more and sustained action against the regime. Only by increasing the external pressure on the regime will the people of Burma realise that they do have the active support of the rest of the world and take matters into their own hands; the protection that China and Russia are giving the regime will begin to recede once the regime weakens.

The more pressure that the UN can be persuaded to put on the regime, the better for the people of Burma. Under threat of action, the regime will be forced to concede bit by bit, the people will be the winners. Even if the UNSC can not decide on a resolution, it will at least keep the pressure on and the focus of attention on the atrocities committed by the regime, and their blatant attempts at hoodwinking the international community concerning any meaningful dialogue and reconciliation with regard to the National Convention.

Please click here to sign the Petition to UN Security Council to help STOP ATROCITIES in Burma.

QUOTES

¨ “Alejandro D. Wolff said that the United States was “deeply disappointed by the failure of the Council to adopt this resolution”. It would have been a “strong and urgently needed” statement by the Council about the need for change in Burma, whose military regime arbitrarily arrested, tortured, raped and executed its own people; waged war on minorities within its own borders; and built itself new cities, while looking the other way as refugee flows increased; narcotise and human trafficking grew; and communicable diseases remained untreated. The deteriorating humanitarian and political situation in Burma affected, first and foremost, the people of Burma, and today, the United States reiterated its firm support for them. However, it also believed that the situation there posed risks to peace and security beyond its borders.

¨ On Monday, when the Council met with the Secretary-General, he said that delegations called on the international community -– to borrow a phrase from one of his colleagues — to grasp the challenge of development, security and democracy and human rights in a holistic manner, and for the Council to act in cooperation with the other United Nations organs. The draft just voted on would, in his view, have done just that. It would have contributed to stability in the region by providing its clear support for the Secretary-General’s good offices mission, which was intended to provide a framework for constructive dialogue between the United Nations and the Burmese regime leading to concrete progress.”…….UNSC Press Release

¨ “Don’t be discouraged by a failure. It can be a positive experience. Failure is, in a sense, the highway to success, inasmuch as every discovery of what is false leads us to seek earnestly after what is true, and every fresh experience points out some form of error which we shall afterwards carefully avoid.”……John Keats (1795 - 1821)

For further information

• For access to all UNSC Documents in 2007 , Meetings conducted / Actions taken by the Security Council in 2007
• Security Council fails to adopt Draft Resolution on Myanmar, owing to negative votes by China, Russian Federation.
• Meeting Record, UNSC 5619th meeting - Friday, 12 January 2007, 4 p.m.
• UNSC Draft Resolution for discussion - S/2007/14
• SSA calls for constructive engagement with China and Russia
• Flags of our Fathers, James Bradley, Ron Powers