<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

V. International Response to the Referendum

International pressure on the Burmese military government to address human rights concerns intensified after the September 2007 crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators. Intergovernmental bodies and influential governments briefly united in condemnation of the SPDC and in calling for real democratic reform in Burma. The condemnation included a presidential statement in the UN Security Council,¹⁰⁹ a resolution in the UN Human Rights Council,¹¹⁰ and a strengthening of targeted sanctions by the United States, European Union, and Australia. The UN secretary-general’s special advisor on Myanmar, Ibrahim Gambari, the central figure in international efforts to engage with the SPDC, made several visits to Burma in the aftermath of the crackdown, attempting to start a serious dialogue between the generals and Aung San Suu Kyi.¹¹¹

The international consensus for real democratic reform and an end to military rule in Burma broke down almost immediately. The military junta’s long-time defenders, particularly China and Russia, returned to their stance of “non-interference” in the internal affairs of Burma. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) returned to its more usual stance of silence and inaction in the face of rampant human rights abuses within one of its own members states, while Thailand focused on its trade relationships with the Burmese generals.

This deep division is reflected in the stance of the international community, including the United Nations, towards the May 10 constitutional referendum. China and Russia have uncritically “welcomed” the referendum as a step toward democratization. Australia, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States have expressed grave concern about the referendum; Australia and the US have already denounced it as a “sham.”

Actions by the United Nations

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon greeted the February 19 announcement of the referendum with caution, renewing his call on the SPDC “to make the constitution-making process inclusive, participatory and transparent in order to ensure that any draft constitution is broadly representative of the views of all the people of Myanmar [and] to engage without delay in a substantive and time-bound dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other relevant parties to the national reconciliation process.”¹¹²

The efforts of special envoy Ibrahim Gambari have been the main focus of UN efforts, but given the perennial difficulties of having useful dialogue with the SPDC, the “good offices” mandate has been used as much to maintain contact as achieving discernable progress in Burma. A four-day March 2008 visit led to no tangible gains. Nonetheless, Gambari reported to the Security Council that his meetings with SPDC officials, including the Referendum Commission, were “fruitful,” and that he succeeded in conveying the UN’s concerns about the transparency of the process:

I left with my interlocutors a list of detailed questions and observations prepared by our [UN] experts regarding the conduct of the constitution making process, the referendum and elections, which I hope they will find useful with a view to enhancing the credibility and inclusiveness of the process.… I encouraged the authorities to take further steps to ensure that the credibility of the process is enhanced.… The better educated voters are, and the more public space there is for open debate on the draft constitution, the more confidence the process will generate from all political actors and the public at large, and the more the process will be perceived as credible to the outside world.¹¹³

Although Gambari correctly mentioned that he raised the concerns of the international community with the SPDC leadership, his report to the UN Security Council failed to acknowledge that the SPDC had failed to act on a single one of his recommendations.¹¹⁴

The outgoing UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, has regularly criticized the human rights abuses associated with the “seven steps to democracy” program during his eight-year tenure. In an interview published on April 14, one of his last before retiring from his post, he described the referendum as “surreal” given the severe repression that continues in Burma:

How can you have a referendum when you make repression against those that are intending to say “no”? This is completely surreal. You cannot have a political transition if you keep almost 2,000 political prisoners and you continue the crackdown after the repression of the end of last year. If you say a real political transition process is taking place in Myanmar, this would be almost offensive to countries in Asia like the Philippines and Indonesia or Thailand that passed through a transition process to democracy.¹¹⁵

Despite these strong statements of concern by some UN officials, the UN’s primary institutions, particularly the Security Council, have been severely hampered from taking action by the objections of China and Russia. In April 2008 the US, UK, and France introduced a draft presidential statement at the Security Council calling for an end to military rule in Burma and for the full participation of all political opposition groups in a transition to democracy. China and Russia objected strongly to the draft language, effectively stopping the presidential statement from being issued by the council.¹¹⁶

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ASEAN reacted united and forcefully to the September 2007 crackdown, issuing a statement on September 27 expressing “revulsion… over reports that the demonstrations in Myanmar are being suppressed by violent force.” However, the organization has been deeply divided over the upcoming referendum, with some member states welcoming the referendum and others demanding a more inclusive process.

Surin Pitsuwan, the former Thai minister of foreign affairs who currently serves as the secretary-general of ASEAN, expressed support for the referendum: “It has to begin somewhere and now it has a clear, definite beginning. I think it is a development in the right direction.”¹¹⁷

Australia

In February 2008 Foreign Minister Stephen Smith responded to the announcement of the referendum: “We’re frankly very skeptical. We are not persuaded that this is anything more than a cynical sham…. Any genuine movement towards democracy or respect for human rights can only be done in cooperation with the international community and also with the political leaders in Burma.”¹¹⁸ Australia issued a joint statement with the United Kingdom in April 2008 describing the constitution drafting and referendum process as “deeply flawed” (see “United Kingdom” below).

China

China has consistently defended the actions of the SPDC, shielding it from criticism at the international level. Following the September 2007 crackdown, China briefly took a more critical stance, joining a strong presidential statement issued by the UN Security Council in November 2007, and reportedly helping facilitate access to Burma for Gambari and Pinheiro. In February 2008 China applauded the SPDC for making “constant new progress in promoting democracy.”¹¹⁹

European Union

The European Union and the European Parliament have strongly rejected the upcoming referendum, stating that only an inclusive process of democratization can be acceptable. Responding to the Burmese government announcement to hold the referendum in May 2008 and multi-party elections in 2010, the Council of the European Union stated that “only a process that involves the full participation of the opposition and ethnic groups will lead to national reconciliation and stability. To this end, [we call] for the release of all political detainees, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the start of a substantial time-bound dialogue with all political stakeholders, and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”¹²⁰ The European Parliament rejected the referendum, saying it was a pretext for military dominance: “[Burma’s] next move is a 10 May referendum on a Constitution that will give the military power and keep opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi out of politics.”¹²¹

India

India has drastically altered its Burma policy from one of support to the democratic opposition following the crushing of the nationwide protests in 1988, to one of political, trade, and military engagement with the SPDC and silence on its abusive rule. Since the mid-1990s India has attempted to engage with the military government on strategic concerns, aiming to offset Chinese influence in Burma and to increase its trade with the country.¹²²

India has repeatedly stressed the need for an inclusive, broad-based process of democratic reform in Burma. The deputy head of the SPDC, General Maung Aye, visited India in April 2008. During this visit, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh noted “the positive steps being taken by the Myanmar Government towards national reconciliation and political reforms,” but stressed “the need for Myanmar to expedite the process and make it broad-based to include all sections of society, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the various ethnic groups in Myanmar.”¹²³

Indonesia

Among ASEAN members, Indonesia has been one of the most skeptical of the referendum process. In April 2008 the House of Representatives rejected the incoming Burmese ambassador to Indonesia, as is permitted under Indonesian law. According to House speaker Agung Laksono, the Indonesian government should only accept a Burmese ambassador after there are democratic elections in the country and the junta reconciles with pro-democracy groups.¹²⁴

Japan

Japan has adopted a more critical approach to its relations with the military government, which have been close for decades, since its support for UN Security Council discussions on Burma in September 2006. Japan’s aid has concentrated on grants for basic human needs since the May 2003 Depayin incident. After the 2007 crackdown, in which a Japanese journalist was willfully shot dead by Burmese troops, the government further suspended one of its bilateral aid projects. Following the announcement of the referendum date the Japanese Foreign Ministry stated:

Japan takes it positively that the Government of Myanmar showed a time frame concerning a democratization process by announcing the timing of a referendum on a new constitution and general elections. On the other hand, participation of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and others concerned has not been realized in the process of establishing a new constitution in Myanmar. Japan deems it important for Myanmar’s national reconciliation that genuine dialogue involving all the parties concerned will be conducted.¹²⁵

Russia

The Russian government has made statements on Burma at the UN Security Council supporting the SPDC’s “roadmap to democracy” without criticism. Moscow has cynically suggested that the calls for democracy and respect for human rights in Burma are “tensions being fanned by certain countries around the so-called Myanmar question,” a barely veiled attack on Western governments’ expressions of concern. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement welcoming the referendum on February 12, 2008:

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs notes with satisfaction the official announcements issued on February 9 by the Myanmar State Peace and Development Council of plans for a national referendum to be held this May on a draft constitution of the Union of Myanmar, followed by general multiparty parliamentary elections in 2010.

The Russian side hopes that the determination of the distinct time parameters to implement the next phases of political change in Myanmar, envisaged by the well-known Roadmap and aimed at moving to a civilian democratic form of rule, will help reduce tension being fanned by certain countries around the so called Myanmar question and will constitute an additional impulse to intensify the dialogue of all concerned political forces within Myanmar on the issues of the future of that state.¹²⁶

Thailand

The new Thai government sworn in in February 2008 (ending 16 months of military rule) has become one of the biggest supporters of the referendum, reviving the close relationship forged between the SPDC and the deposed government of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Following a visit to Burma in March 2008, Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, a close Thaksin ally, gave viewers on his weekly television program, “Samak’s Talk” a bizarre defense of the SPDC’s actions:

Burma is a Buddhist country. Killings and suppression are normal even in Buddhist countries. China, also a Buddhist country is doing suppression in Tibet now. But General Than Shwe does meditation. You may think Samak has been hoodwinked. Burma’s PM Thein Sein tells me he prays in the morning, and also prays in the evening… The Burmese leaders say they live in peace. The Burmese leaders told me they are building a new parliament for the government in the future. They are building the new capital for the future. There will be a referendum in two months and elections in two years.¹²⁷

Thai Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama also indicated that international criticism of the referendum was unwarranted. Following the March 2008 visit, he said that the referendum was an “internal affair of Myanmar.”¹²⁸

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has firmly rejected the proposed referendum, describing the process as “deeply flawed,” and stating that “only an inclusive process of national reconciliation can bring stability and prosperity” to Burma. Following an April 7, 2008, meeting in London, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued a statement stressing their common position on Burma:

The Prime Ministers underlined their shared commitment to work for political change and respect for human rights in Burma. They agreed that the regime’s draft constitution and referendum process were deeply flawed. In the continued absence of progress the UK and Australia would seek to further increase pressure on the regime.¹²⁹

Meg Munn, under-secretary of state in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, explained the UK government’s concerns with the upcoming referendum in a March 2008 speech:

We are highly skeptical about the Burmese regime’s 9 February announcement of a referendum in May and elections in 2010. Only an inclusive process of national reconciliation can bring stability and prosperity to the country. The regime’s so-called “roadmap to democracy” excludes participation by the opposition and ethnic groups and does little to address the aspirations of Burma’s people. What we know of the draft constitution suggests it is designed to entrench the military grip on power behind a veneer of civilian rule. There is no question of a referendum being free and fair while it’s an offense punishable by 20 years in prison to criticize the roadmap process.¹³⁰

United States

The United States has historically been one of the strongest advocates for democratic reform and respect for human rights in Burma. The Bush administration has denounced the referendum as a “sham,” stressing that the constitution was “drafted in a closed process by a hand-picked committee dominated by senior regime officials,” and that the referendum will take place in “a pervasive climate of fear.”¹³¹ The White House criticized the SPDC for showing a “lack of seriousness about an open and fair process for the restoration of democracy,” and condemned “the nontransparent and exclusive processes being promulgated by the regime.”¹³²