New York, 5 October 2007 – The Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a Resolution on Tuesday, 2 October, criticizing the government of Burma/Myanmar for recent violence and calling for an urgent investigation by the UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in the country.

The resolution was the result of the Council’s Fifth Special Session, convened at the request of Portugal on behalf of the European Union to react to the human rights situation in Burma.[1] Non-violent demonstrations began in August when the military government raised fuel prices, and they intensified when Buddhist monks joined the protesters. The government subsequently arrested thousands of protesters and killed hundreds or thousands of citizens, according to various reports.

Special Session Highlights

The Session on Tuesday began with a statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour.

She said that the Burmese authorities must indicate the true number of people killed and injured, and reveal the whereabouts and condition of arrested demonstrators.

Arbour noted that in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, UN member states agreed that the international community has a responsibility to protect civilians against grave crises, no matter where they occur. “The exercise of such responsibility requires that preventive, reactive and rebuilding measures be put in place to avert and confront crises, as well as to prepare the ground for justice, the rule of law and respect for human rights to take hold.”

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar (Burma), Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, spoke next.

He called for the release of all detainees and political prisoners, including opposition leader Aung Sang Suu Kyi. He urged the Council to seek detailed information on the number of people killed and injured.

He also criticized the government for blacking out foreign media in Burma and blocking internet access.

Pinheiro called on other Asian states to help with a strategic dialogue between the army and the people of the country.

Pinheiro said the Special Session was “historic” and that it represented a “truly universal appeal.”

Finally, a representative of the “concerned country,” Burma itself, made a short statement.

He argued that the protests were designed to justify outside intervention and represented the “long-awaited chance for some Western countries to initiate an action to intervene in the country.” To this end, he claimed, the international media “blew the situation out of proportion.”

He said that the former Commission on Human Rights had made the mistake of “naming, blaming and shaming on the weak countries” and that if HRC should do the same, it would “set the dangerous precedent for small and weak countries like Myanmar.”

He added that his government “rejects the politicized approach” of convening a Special Session to deal with the issue.

A general debate followed. Speakers – over 50 in total – included:

Sweden’s delegate had been to Burma last month and witnessed security forces firing on unarmed civilians.

Pakistan, speaking for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, noted the number of recent deaths in Palestine due to Israeli action and wondered why the Council was focusing on Burma.

India expressed reservations with the wording of the draft resolution, in which the Council “condemns” the actions of the Burmese government. India preferred a “non-condemnatory” outcome.

Russia, similarly, described the draft as “unbalanced in nature." It preferred to encourage, rather than condemn, the government.

Switzerland demanded the immediate release of peaceful protestors and political prisoners in Myanmar and said, "We remind the authorities that they are answerable for the physical and moral integrity of those arrested." It expressed concerns about the humanitarian situation and asked the government to authorize humanitarian activities throughout the country.

African states including Zambia and Morocco made strongly worded statements.

China expressed concern about the violence.

ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) also expressed strong concern.

Other Asian states including Philippines, Republic of Korea, and Japan gave strongly worded statements, and Singapore reportedly made a direct condemnation and stated that Burma’s problems were no longer of strictly internal concern.

Amnesty International said:

The true number of deaths could be far above the official reports;

“Widespread patterns of abuse of detainees ... have become entrenched” in Burma;

Detainees should be released immediately;

It fears that authorities will continue to make arrests and use violence to prevent further demonstrations; and

The Human Rights Council should complement the Security Council’s efforts, including by condemning human rights abuses and ensuring that the Special Rapporteur documents the current situation and reports back to the Human Rights Council, Security Council, and General Assembly.

The Human Rights Education Institute of Burma, based in Thailand, also made an oral intervention, with a statement endorsed by over 200 NGOs.

Outcome

In consultations before the Session, the draft resolution was changed to soften the language. Whereas the original text said the Council “strongly condemns” the violence, a subsequent version said only “condemns,” and in the version that was adopted by consensus in the Session, the Council, “strongly deplores” the government’s recent actions.

In the language of UN resolutions, “to deplore” is weaker than “to condemn.” The language was weakened so that all countries, including China and Russia, would join the consensus to adopt the resolution.

The final Resolution:

“Strongly deplores” actions by the authorities, including "beatings, killings, arbitrary detentions and enforced disappearances" of non-violent demonstrators;

Urges Burma’s authorities to take positive actions including:

Desist from further violence;

Protect human rights and fundamental freedoms including peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, as well as to ensure media access;

Release immediately all political detainees including Aung San Suu Kyi;

“Bring to justice perpetrators of ... the recent violations of the rights of peaceful protesters";

Engage urgently in an inclusive process to achieve democratization;

Engage in a dialogue with OHCHR; and

Cooperate with humanitarian organizations for aid delivery in the country; and

Calls for an immediate investigation of the situation in the country, as well as the implementation of the resolution, by the Special Rapporteur, with cooperation from the authorities.

Significance

Burma is the only country that the Council has criticized except for Israel, which makes its critique especially pointed. At the same time, criticizing a country other than Israel may add to the Council’s credibility, which for some Member States and observers has been undermined by its attention to Israel and lack of attention to human rights violations elsewhere.

The Resolution on Burma is the first Special Session Resolution that the Council has adopted by consensus. A consensus is regarded a stronger than one adopted by a vote. Mr. Pinheiro and others hoped that its passage without opposition would send a strong message to the Burmese leaders that the international community is united in its demands. Even African and Asian members that usually resist perceived interference in other countries’ affairs joined the consensus.

That China was among the members of the Council to adopt the Resolution was notable given its opposition to Security Council resolutions on Burma in January 2007 as well as last month during the violence.

India’s support for the Resolution could represent a slight shift in its approach to Burma (normally, a policy of non-interference), although India had pushed to soften of the original language and still expressed regret about the “tone” after the final decision.

The Resolution called for the findings of the investigation to be brought to the UN General Assembly and Security Council, in addition to the Human Rights Council. This gives both major UN organs additional information to use in their consideration of the situation in Burma.

NGO Commentary

The Human Rights Education Institute of Burma expressed concern over the effectiveness of the Council's Resolution, especially its lack of enforcement mechanisms: "The question is, what if the junta denies entry to the Special Rapporteur? We are also worried on reports that the junta is destroying evidence of human rights violations, so even if the junta agrees to let the Rapporteur in, can he find the true facts?"

Human Rights Watch said there were no guarantees that the government of Burma would cooperate with the resolution. Therefore, neighboring countries and other countries in Asia held a special responsibility for getting Burma to cooperate, and every member of the Council should work to ensure that this resolution gets implemented.

Amnesty International said it was disappointed that the Council did not use stronger language to condemn the abuses in Burma.

UN Watch welcomed the resolution, although it too was disappointed that it had been “watered down.”

Next Steps

Pending his ability to enter Burma and conduct the mandated investigation, the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Pinheiro, will report on the situation in Burma at the General Assembly during the 62nd Session – possibly in late October or November – and to the Human Rights Council at its resumed Sixth Session (10-14 December 2007).

He is also expected to report his findings to the Security Council.

The e-Newsletter of ReformtheUN.org is a free service. To subscribe, go to http://reformtheun.org/mailman/listinfo/latestdevelopments. Please forward this announcement widely to individuals and organizations that have expressed an interest in UN reform.