UN Assembly Isn’t Right Forum

By Nehginpao Kipgen

In a vote of 80 to 25 with 45 abstentions, the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 24 adopted a resolution condemning human rights violations by the Myanmarese (Burmese) military regime. The resolution called for the release of over 2,100 political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi.

The world's highest body criticized the military regime's political road-map as ``not transparent, inclusive, free and fair, and that the procedures established for the drafting of the country's new constitution resulted in the de facto exclusion of the opposition from the process.''

The General Assembly also expressed concerns over ``continuing practice of enforced disappearances, use of violence against peaceful demonstrators, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.''

The Burmese military, to nobody's surprise, categorically rejected the resolution by accusing the assembly of making a ``blatant interference'' in its internal political process. The regime, in a direct challenge to the international community, said it is not bound by the resolution.

The Myanmarese government's representative told the assembly that the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has made significant political progress and the country is on its way to having a multi-party general election in 2010, the fifth stage of the seven-step roadmap toward a democratic transition.

The absence of the international community's coordinated approach was again witnessed. Of the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), in which Myanmar (Burma) is also a member, four members ― Brunei Darussalam, Laos, Malaysia and Vietnam ― voted against the resolution.

Another four members ― Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand ― abstained from voting. Cambodia was not present for the vote.

While Western countries, including the United States, supported the General Assembly's motion, Myanmar was once again defended by two of the U.N. Security Council permanent members ― China and Russia.

India voted against the resolution, while Israel and Japan voted in favor of the resolution. Zimbabwe, a country, which is also on the radar of the U.N, unsurprisingly defended Myanmar by voting against the resolution.

Resolutions at the U.N. General Assembly are largely symbolic and are not binding. Successive resolutions have been passed and statements have been released since 1991 by different U.N. agencies, with little or no impact on the military regime.

This resolution by the assembly, like in the past, will gradually die down after making some news headlines. One significant consequence, though, is that the Myanmarese democratic movement is still a concern to the international community.

The U.N. Security Council, on Oct. 11, 2007, issued a presidential statement calling for the military regime to release all political prisoners and ``create the necessary conditions for a genuine dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and all concerned parties and ethnic groups in order to achieve an inclusive national reconciliation with the direct support of the United Nations.'' That too was not followed up with any concrete action.

U.N. resolutions and statements have not deterred the military from pursuing its agenda. U.N. special envoys come and go without achieving any substantive results. Effective U.N. intervention would happen when the Security Council can pass a binding resolution.

Article 41 under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter states that: ``The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the members of the United Nations to apply such measures …''

For any Security Council binding resolution to happen, the support of the five permanent members is necessary. This is why the Myanmarese military leaders have been vigorously wooing the support of China and Russia by strengthening economic and military ties, among others.

Without the Security Council's endorsement, resolutions and statements by the different U.N. agencies, including the General Assembly, would remain a paper tiger. The good offices of the Secretary-General also has limited roles, and the Secretary-General himself is as frustrated as anyone.

If there is no change in the veto power system, unilateral action could be one other option to consider. If neither of the two actions is initiated, the international community should explore other possible pragmatic strategies.

The U.N. General Assembly is not the right forum to deliver change in Myanmar.

Nehginpao Kipgen is the general secretary of the U.S.-based Kuki International Forum (www.kukiforum.com) and a researcher on the rise of political conflicts in modern Myanmar (1947-2004). He can be reached at nehginpao@yahoo.com.