U.N. General Assembly isn't the right forum for dealing with Burma regime

The world's highest body criticized the military regime's political road-map as “not transparent, inclusive, free and fair, and that the procedures established for the drafting of the

(country's new) constitution resulted in the de facto exclusion of the opposition from the process.”

The General Assembly also expressed concerns over “continuing practice of enforced disappearances, use of violence against peaceful demonstrators, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.”

The Burmese military, to nobody's surprise, categorically rejected the resolution by accusing the Assembly of making a “blatant interference” in its internal political process. The regime in a direct challenge to the international community said it is not bound by the resolution.

The Burmese government's representative told the Assembly that the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has made a significant political progress and the country is on its way to having a multi-party general election in 2010, the fifth stage of the seven-step roadmap towards a democratic transition.

The absence of international community's coordinated approach was again witnessed. Of the 10 ASEAN members, in which Burma is also a member, 4 members - Brunei Darussalam, Laos, Malaysia, Vietnam - voted against the resolution. Other 4 members - Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand - abstained from voting; Cambodia was not present for the vote.

While western countries, including the United States, supported the General Assembly's motion, Burma was once again defended by two of U.N. Security Council permanent members, China and Russia.

India voted against the resolution, while Israel and Japan voted in favor of the resolution. Zimbabwe, a country which is also on the radar screens of the United Nations, unsurprisingly defended Burma by voting against the resolution.

Resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly are largely symbolic and are not legally binding. Successive resolutions have been passed and statements have been released since 1991 by different U.N. agencies with little or no impact on the military regime.

The attention caused by this resolution will, as in the past, gradually die down after making some news headlines. One significant point to note though, is that the Burmese democratic movement is still a concern to the international community.

1|2|Next Page>>

SharePrintEmail

Write a Comment

Enter your comments - 3000 characters max

Type in image code

Submit

 Receive China Post promos Respond to this email