
Français		Home		Contact Us		Help		Search		canada.gc.ca		Canada International

Home > Media Room

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada

Canadian Offices Abroad

Services for Canadian Travellers

Services for Business

Canada in the World

About the Department

SPEECHES

2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips

<html> <head> <meta name="Generator" content="Corel WordPerfect 8"> <title>MR. KILGOUR - ADDRESS AT THE CANADIAN FRIENDS OF BURMA CONFERENCE "WHITHER BURMA?" - OTTAWA, Ontario</title> </head> <body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"> CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID KILGOUR, SECRETARY OF STATE (ASIA-PACIFIC), AT THE CANADIAN FRIENDS OF BURMA CONFERENCE "WHITHER BURMA?" OTTAWA, Ontario October 9, 2002 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk to you about a hauntingly beautiful land and its people, full of history, which have for the past 40 years and longer weighed heavily on the conscience of humanity. Let me first explain for any newcomers why so many of us continue to use the name Burma rather than Myanmar. There are certainly problems with the term "Burma" for some of the non-Burman ethnic communities, but none of them to my knowledge prefers the name minted by the military clique--which incidentally used to go by the acronym SLORC [State Law and Order Restoration Council], but now understandably prefers to call itself the SPDC [State Peace and Development Council]--to the one with which the country began independence from the United Kingdom in 1948. Until a freely elected parliament or popular referendum indicates a national will to change, true friends of the nation that brings us here today seem likely to stick with "Burma." Bertil Lintner Permit me to make some brief references to an extraordinary book by Bertil Lintner, Burma in Revolt, republished in 2000. The book, incidentally, is the sixth in a series he has published on the homeland of his wife, Hseng Noung. In 1948, Lintner notes, Burma was a promising democracy with a vigorous market economy and a higher standard of living than virtually all of its Asian neighbours. Today, it is one of the poorest of the world's least-developed nations and is ruled by a "medieval military dictatorship that has been in power since 1962." At independence, the country harvested about 30 tons of raw opium. Five years before the publication of Lintner's book--the most recent year for which he offers data--the harvest, according to U.S. estimates, was at least 2,500 tons--an 8,000 percent increase. Millions of Asians and North Americans are being poisoned through the country's phenomenal success at one of the worst instances of globalization. He notes correctly that: [almost] no attempts have been made to address the underlying historical, social and economic factors behind the drug explosion in areas such as the Golden Triangle.... Without a lasting solution to the ethnic question and the civil war, Burma will remain a source of political despair--and drugs from its sector of the Golden Triangle will continue to flood the markets of the world. I might add here, as a Western Canadian, that in Vancouver alone today we are losing the life of one person approximately every day and a half to heroin overdoses. More Recent Years My own personal interest in Burma dates back to the early 1990s, when my wife, Laura, and I welcomed a Burmese refugee into our home in Edmonton, while he waited for his family to arrive. He opened our eyes to the true nature of the ongoing tragedy in Burma. The whole world had watched in horror in 1988, when in a six-week period Ne Win's regime murdered thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators and imprisoned hundreds more. In 1990, we all shared in the euphoria of the extraordinary victory of Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy in the first elections in more than a generation. With one unified voice, the people of Burma overwhelmingly chose the way of open, democratic and civilian rule. This democratic miracle occurred despite the regime's continuous efforts since 1962 to silence dissent, barring opposition leaders from standing for office and placing Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest. The election, of course, has never been recognized by Burma's military rulers. They kept Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for fully six years. In that time, her spirit could not be broken. She was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for her selfless devotion to Burma. She has garnered the respect and support of millions of people around the world. Her essay "Freedom from Fear" won worldwide attention. She has worked tirelessly while under house arrest and while free to press the regime to enter into dialogue with Burma's democratic forces. Since October 2000, she has led "secret" confidence-building talks with the regime. In May of this year, the entire international community welcomed her release from house arrest. While this was an important symbolic event, it was long overdue and only a first step toward redemocratization. Humanitarian Disaster During Aung San Suu Kyi's continuous battles with the regime, Burma's people, to her great regret, have suffered enormously. Burma remains one of the world's poorest countries. Its very modest economic gains in the last 15 years have benefited a small privileged elite only. For years, Ne Win and his successors attempted to hermetically seal off Burma from the world. Their economic mismanagement and reliance on forced labour, compounded by the lingering effects of the Asian financial crisis, sent the economy into a downward spiral. Per capita income hovers around US$300 a year. The most reliable World Bank survey (1997) estimates that about one quarter of the population (13 million people) is living below minimum subsistence levels, while another five million live precariously above it. According to the Asian Development Bank, in 2001 foreign direct investment in Burma dropped 50 percent while inflation averaged about 20 percent. Consequently, the most basic foodstuffs, such as rice, are now out of the reach of many consumers. This, unfortunately, is not the worst of it. Various social indicators have now reached alarming levels. Rates of infant mortality, maternal mortality and malnutrition among children are growing. HIV prevalence is rapidly rising, fuelled by population mobility, poverty and frustration. In June 2000, the joint United Nations Program on HIV and AIDS estimated that over 530,000 people in Burma were infected with HIV. This translates into about one out of every 50 people between the ages of 15 and 49. Approximately 43,000 children are already living without their mothers or without both parents because of AIDS-related deaths. The International Crisis Group reports that only three out of four children enter primary school, and of those only two out of five complete the full five years. In other words, only 30 percent of Burma's children receive proper primary schooling. Secondary schools and universities are often closed for "security" reasons (a euphemism for the regime's fear of student-led protests) and because there is simply a lack of resources to maintain them. Life in Burma's conflict areas is worsening. Human Rights Watch reports that there are currently about 140,000 Burmese displaced by conflict and ongoing political repression, who are living in squalid refugee camps in Thailand and Bangladesh. Hundreds of thousands more live as internally displaced people within Burma or outside camps in Thailand, Bangladesh and India. Villagers in the Shan, Kayah (Karenni) and Karen states have been forcibly relocated, and those suspected of aiding "insurgents" are tortured and sometimes killed. One particular issue of grave concern is a June 19, 2002, report published by the Shan Human Rights Foundation and the Shan Women's Action Network, which in macabre detail describes a campaign in which the military is alleged to have used rape against the Shan minority. According to the report, there were 625 documented rapes committed against Shan women and girls between 1996 and 2001. Given the seriousness of these claims, we are all very pleased that Burma has invited UN Special Envoy Paulo Pinheiro to personally investigate the allegations. There are few places in Asia where human security is more lacking than in Burma. The situation is not the result of some humanitarian crisis born out of war or a natural disaster. Rather, it is almost entirely attributable to the regime's economic mismanagement and complete lack of respect for human rights. Burma's hopes for the future rest on the regime's ability to open the political process, commit to democratic change, and end the cycle of political repression and economic stagnation that has cursed Burma for almost 40 years. Burma's Political Stagnation As mentioned earlier, we all welcomed Aung San Suu Kyi's release on May 6. After nearly 20 months under her second house arrest, she returned with a clear agenda: to release all political prisoners and begin real discussions about a timeline for transition to democratic rule. Regarding political prisoners, in the past 20 months, fewer than 300 have been released. An estimated 1,400 to 1,600 remain imprisoned, often in terrible conditions. UN Special Rapporteur Paulo Pinheiro stated before the Commission on Human Rights in March: I cannot accept the view that the estimated 1,600 remaining political prisoners are criminal offenders. The fact that they are not ordinary criminals is officially recognized by [the regime] since they are held separately from common criminals. Their common denominator is that they are in prison in connection with alleged political opinions or activities...most, if not all [political prisoners] are in prison in violation of international human rights law and...should be unconditionally released. At the current rate of releasing prisoners, as Aung San Suu Kyi has pointed out, there will be political prisoners in Burma until 2010. Any meaningful consideration of engagement by Canada with the regime in Burma depends on the unconditional release of all political prisoners. The political situation in Burma does seem to be undergoing something of a thaw currently, but the SLORC/SPDC has yet to provide any substantive reason for anyone to believe that it intends to give up power or even to engage in substantive negotiations with Aung San Suu Kyi. Freedom House concluded in its annual report this year that "Burma continue[s] to be ruled by one of the world's most repressive regimes. The junta rules by decree, controls the judiciary, suppresses nearly all basic rights, and commits human rights abuses with impunity." The UN Commission on Human rights and the General Assembly have expressed grave concern at continuing human rights violations, arbitrary executions, rape, torture, forced labour, forced relocation, and denial of freedom of assembly, association, expression and movement in reports by Special Rapporteur Pinheiro and, in the case of forced labour, by the International Labour Organization. Canadian Policy toward Burma Canada and like-minded countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and the countries of the European Union have not engaged with Burma in a high-level, government-to-government manner since 1988. We have no intention of changing this policy at this time. In 1988, Canada suspended official commercial relations with Burma, withdrew all support for Canadian firms doing business in the country, including export programs and commercial promotion, cancelled multilateral assistance through international financial institutions, and suspended bilateral aid. In 1997, further measures were imposed to underscore Canada's concerns over human rights, illegal drugs and the lack of political dialogue. Canada withdrew Burma's General Preferential Tariff eligibility, placed the country on the Area Control List (the only export approvals since have been for humanitarian goods) and called on Canadian firms not to trade with or invest in Burma until improvements were evident. Tragically for the population, such improvements have not been forthcoming. Permit me to make some comments regarding our policies of punitive commercial actions and non-engagement at high levels. Regarding the former, Canada urges all Canadian companies to practise good corporate social responsibility wherever they operate. Canada urges Canadian firms not to trade with or invest in Burma until significant improvements are evident. That said, the Canadian government currently does not have the legislative capacity to punish Canadian companies or bar them from operating overseas unless similar sanctions have been enacted by a multilateral organization of which Canada is a member. On the matter of engaging with the regime, some of you will undoubtedly have seen that Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, was in Burma last week, meeting with General Than Shwe and Aung San Suu Kyi. Meeting Aung San Suu Kyi was the precondition for his trip--the first by an Australian minister since 1988. Australia has criticized Burma over human rights abuses and political repression, and shares many of the international community's concerns. Moreover, as Mr. Downer himself has said, he hopes that Australia's links with Asia can help bridge the gaps between Burma and the West. Japan is another country that has taken a more open approach to its relations with Burma. Nevertheless, Canadian policy has not changed on this issue. Even Aung San Suu Kyi, according to an October 7 article in the Melbourne newspaper The Age, continues to support tough economic and political sanctions. In short, the evidence before us is compelling. As far as the Government of Canada is concerned, Burma's unelected military regime has not taken the necessary steps to merit the international community's direct engagement. We have yet to be convinced that any tentative steps toward opening the system are anything more than a public relations exercise. The admirable efforts by UN Special Envoy Razali Ismail to engage the regime are commendable. Even he is reportedly becoming increasingly disappointed with the regime's intransigence. On the humanitarian side, since 1992 Canada has provided $18 million in aid to support peacebuilding initiatives and emergency humanitarian aid (such as food and medical aid) to Burmese refugees in neighbouring countries, including Bangladesh and Thailand, through international non-governmental organizations and multilateral organizations such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Médecins sans Frontières and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Policy Change? Today, the military junta in Burma finds itself at a crossroads. Internationally, it is isolated. Public support for Aung San Suu Kyi and democratic reform has not waned; if anything, it seems to have grown. Domestically, Burma's economy is devastated. It is to be hoped that it has become evident to Burma's ruling generals that their form of government is not sustainable. Despite the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, Canada does not feel that the regime has made sufficient progress toward democracy and respect for human rights to warrant changing our policy toward Burma. Canada, along with like-minded countries in the international community, continues to call for immediate and concrete signs that the regime is serious about change. At the very least, these changes include: • the release of all political prisoners; • the resumption of talks and formal recognition on the part of the SLORC/SPDC that talks have taken place with Aung San Suu Kyi; and • a shift by the regime beyond "confidence building" to substantive talks with Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy. Ensuring the effectiveness of Canada's policy would not be possible without the domestic and international support of organizations such as the Canadian Friends of Burma, the Centre for Human Rights and Democracy and many other groups represented here today. Indeed, the international campaign calling for a free and democratic Burma has been a long road, fraught with disappointments until now. Through all such groups working together, I am confident that the real change that all Burmese hope for will be realized. Conclusion: A Plea for Reconciliation I'd like to conclude with a quote from Aung San, Aung San Suu Kyi's father and probably the main inspiration for Burma's independence. On the night of his election as the President of the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (Burma's first-ever nationally elected governing party) in January of 1946, he said: "By national unity, we don't mean only unity; we mean the unity of the entire people, irrespective of race, religion, sex and sectarian and party interests, in action and not in words for national...objectives." These words are as true today as they were 56 years ago. Aung San Suu Kyi is a hero to many people, but she admits that she does not speak for all people in Burma. Burma is a culturally and ethnically rich country that needs national reconciliation as much as it does democracy. I hope that one day very soon representatives of all of Burma's ethnic groups will be included in a true national dialogue--when all the patient and gallant Burmese can decide the fate of their country. Thank you. </body> </html>

2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips



Last Updated: 2006-10-30	Top of Page	Important Notices