Motion on Burma - 11th October 2007

Motion on Burma – 11th October 2007

Senator David Norris: I am glad to welcome
the Minister of State to the House. I know of his
interest in this matter. I commend the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, for
his work in New York. Other European countries
have also played a positive role. The British
Prime Minister was very clear in this regard, as
were both the French President, Mr. Sarkozy, and
his Foreign Minister, Mr. Kouchner, who even
went so far as to suggest they would try to get the
French oil giant, Total, to pull out of Burma. I
am not sure such a move would be appropriate
because it would simply open the way for China
to further colonise the country.
This is a point that needs to be put on the
record. Burma is in fact an economic colony of
Beijing. China has the key, as demonstrated when
it vetoed the resolution at the UN Security
Council. The tragic situation in Burma highlights
clearly the truth of what President Ahmadinejad
told the United Nations, namely, that the entire
organisation still reflects the situation at the end
of the Second World War. If we want effective
work from the United Nations, we need to examine
the permanent membership of the Security
Council and the disproportionate power given to
permanent members by the use of the veto.
Burma is a very beautiful country, rich in
natural resources and with a gentle and lovely
people. It is ruled by a vicious and inward-looking
regime. While the present turmoil was sparked by
the enormous rise in commodity prices, the small
ruling elite was insulated from its impact and continues
to live in considerable luxury. The
members of the elite have not had experience of
the rest of the world and have not travelled or
been educated abroad and so on. However, they
are quite capable of inflicting serious damage
upon their own people.
This happened in 1998, when there was great
repression and at least 3,000 people were killed.
The difference between then and now is the
advance in technology. Whereas in 1988 the
regime was able to conceal the situation and the
outside world did not know until it was all over,
we now have contemporary reports. I followed
events in Burma on television and radio in
Cyprus. I saw in a newspaper blurred images,
taken on a mobile phone, of the bloodied faces
of monks. We also know of attacks on pagodas
and monasteries. The events in Burma could not
be concealed.
The murder of a Japanese tourist while taking
footage of the protests was disastrous for the Burmese
authorities and raises the question of
whether Japan, one of the main donors of assistance
to Burma, will cut off aid. The most
interesting aspect of the initial phase of the protests
was that they consisted exclusively of monks
and were entirely peaceful. A gentle revolution
led by monks who had made clear to civilians that
they should not get involved as it would mean
exposing themselves to danger was brutally
attacked. It was at that point that ordinary
members of the population became involved in
the protests to a significant degree.
Buddhist monks in Burma are representative
of the population because entering a monastery
for a period is almost a form of national service.
Virtually every young Burmese male becomes a
monk for a time before rejoining civilian life. The
question arises as to what are the feelings of soldiers
who may have experienced being a monk.
We have entered the end game for the Burmese
regime and while it may take a long time, the
skids are under the junta. I am glad that is the
case.
In terms of Buddhist culture, it was significant
that the monks refused to accept offerings from
members of the military. This is tantamount to
an excommunication of the government agencies.
The role of the Association of South East Asian
Nations, ASEAN, is significant because these
states have been mealy-mouthed previously. We
have listened to calls for constructive engagement
but this means sweet damn all. The economic
interests and vulnerabilities of these undemocratic
regimes mean they were unwilling to apply
pressure on the Burmese regime.
China is the key to this issue but I would not
hold my breath in that regard. I appeal to the
Government to apply greater diplomatic pressure
on the Chinese Government. The Chinese
ambassador should be told in unambiguous terms
that it is perfectly clear that China could have the
violence switched off tomorrow if it wished, given
its absolute control of what is an economic colony
of China.
A question also arises with regard to the attitude
of the West. Tragically — Senator Walsh
alluded to this point — while President Bush and
his wife may have said all the right things — their
comments were bang on — they are a busted
flush with no moral authority because the United
States is involved in the kidnap, torture and
bombing of civilians. Who are they to lecture the
Burmese regime? On the other hand, a small
country such as Ireland still has some moral authority,
despite the ongoing use of Shannon Airport
for military purposes. Complaints emanating
from the United States about the undemocratic
nature of the regime are justified but what about
Palestine where a government returned in a
proper election has been subverted? A similar
process took place in Algeria. In other words,
from the point of view of the West, democracy
only works when it produces the result we want.
This approach leaves our moral authority elided.
Senators should start a debate on whether it is
appropriate to support holding the Olympic
Games in Beijing in the light of the consistent and
gross violation of human rights by the Chinese
authorities in Burma and Tibet. I say this despite
hearing Jung Chang, the author of Wild Swans,
in a discussion of her interesting and analytical
biography of Mao Tse-tung on the wireless in
recent days, state the staging of the Olympic
Games in China has put pressure on the authorities
to open up a little. She also stated,
however, that it would be no harm to send the
Chinese authorities a warning. If we are to stand
in solidarity with the people of Burma, we must
raise these issues with China because we only
have one chance to use the Olympic Games for
this purpose. Now is the time to demand that
China take real, constructive action on Burma or
face the prospect of the debate heating up and
protests taking place against the Olympic Games.
I thank Senator Cummins for his kind words
but the real praise should be directed towards the
Burma action group.