Myanmar, formerly Burma, is a wretched place. In 1962, a military junta overthrew the democratically elected government. Since then, armed forces have maintained a chokehold on power. In 1991, the military organised a democratic election and then refused to relinquish power to the party that was elected, the National League for Democracy (NLD).
This junta has committed grave crimes against the people of Myanmar. It forces more than 800 000 of them to work for little or no pay; those who do not properly carry out their tasks are often shot or beaten to death. Public spaces are a place of danger for boys; they risk being captured and forced to join the army. More children are soldiers in Myanmar than in any other country and the full force is one of the largest in the world.
Thousands of girls and women, from ethnic minority groups in particular, have suffered sexual violation by government troops. Entire villages — an estimated 700 of them between 1996 and 2002 — have been destroyed by soldiers, displacing more than half a million people. Banditry, ethnic insurgency, poverty, malnutrition, corruption, poor education, decayed or non-existent infrastructure, drugs, drug lords with private armies, Aids, tuberculosis and Malaria — you name it, Myanmar has it.
The horrors of life in Myanmar have driven hundreds of thousands into neighbouring Thailand, India, Bangladesh and M alaysia. For those fighting for change inside the country, the path is treacherous. Regarded by many as the leader of the people of Myanmar, NLD Secretary General Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has, for 11 of the past 17 years, been held under house arrest. The junta shows no signs of releasing its throttle on political freedom.
The best hope for the people of Myanmar lay in the votes of the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council. The United States had proposed a robust resolution by the world’s foremost political body: calling on the junta to cease military attacks against civilians in ethnic minority regions and to put an end to the associated human rights and humanitarian law violations; calling on the junta to allow international humanitarian organisations to operate without restrictions to address the humanitarian needs of the people; calling on Myanmar to cooperate with the International Labour Organisation to eradicate forced labour; calling on it to take concrete steps to allow full freedom of expression, association and movement by unconditionally releasing Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, lifting all constraints on all political leaders and citizens, and allowing the NLD and other political parties to operate freely; and calling on the junta to begin without delay a substantive political dialogue that would lead to a genuine democratic transition. This set of prescriptions is crucial for the beleagured people of Myanmar.
But last week, three security council members — China, Russia and South Africa — voted against this resolution. The Myanmar issue is “an internal affair of a sovereign state”, China’s ambassador Wang Guangya explained, before voting against action on the regime. As for the grave “challenges” such as refugees, child labour, human rights and narcotics, well, “similar problems exist in other countries”, he said.
For Russia, it was most important to maintain an appropriate division of labour between the security council and other UN organs. A long list of UN bodies — the Third Committee, the Human Rights Council, the International Organisation of Migration, the World Health Organisation and others (all of which have failed in the past 17 years to influence the policies of the junta) — were said by Russian representative Vitaly Churkin to be dealing with the situation. “Attempts aimed at using the security council to discuss issues outside its purview are unacceptable” and “counter-productive”, he argued.
South Africa’s representative Dumisani Khumalo made it clear that South Africa did not wish to “question, judge or comment on the content of the draft”. The draft dealt with issues that did not “fit within the mandate of the security council” and the problem of Myanmar, he said, was best addressed by the office of the secretary general and the Human Rights Council.
They had to give reason for their voting decisions, so reasons were given. But few who understand Russia’s and China’s interests in the world take their public statements at face value. There are other values involved: the fearful 400 000-strong Myanmar army is supplied by China and Russia (and the Ukraine). Last year the chairperson of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, Fu Chengyu, said the company would focus its investment in the medium term on two countries: Myanmar and Nigeria.
Besides, China must surely count itself among the states with human rights problems not too dissimilar to those of Myanmar. Political freedom is alien to China. It executes more people every year than all other nations combined; many of the executions turn out later to have been miscarriages of justice. More journalists are held in China’s prisons than in any other country in the world. It is in China’s interest to champion the old concept of sovereignty, which maintains that human rights problems are “internal”.
In Russia political dissidents and hard-nosed journalists are killed or disappear without a trace and the government appears unable or unwilling to protect them. In Chechnya, separatists are suppressed with brutal force, a policy that has drawn sharp criticism from defenders of human rights across the globe.
Russia or China on their own could have put paid to the resolution — they each carry a veto. So, in practical terms, South Africa’s vote was, ostensibly, only to make a point of principle. Which makes it that much more surprising. South Africa is a new democracy, born out of an internationally supported struggle against a political regime almost as vile as that of Myanmar. Given its recent history, South Africa is expected to pursue a foreign policy grounded in compassion and morality. Key South African moral figures such as Desmond Tutu have recently campaigned for the security council to put Myanmar on its agenda. It seems a curious thing that South Africa went against the position that would most enhance its moral credibility on the international stage — something that is in its own interest, so why did South Africa vote the way it did last Friday?
Gugulethu Moyo is a lawyer who works for the International Bar Association on Southern African issues. The views expressed in this article are those of the writer