FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 28, 1998

• 1007

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting of the committee to order.

We are pleased to have with us Dr. Sein Win, Prime Minister of the National Coalition of the Government of the Union of Burma, together with his colleagues. He is also accompanied by Micheline Lévesque of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development in Montreal.

Madam Lévesque, I think you're going to introduce Dr. Win. We hope Dr. Win and you, and perhaps other of your colleagues, if it's appropriate, would make short introductory comments. Then we'll open it up to questions from the members.

Ms. Micheline Lévesque (Coordinator, Asia Program, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development): Thank you.

I have the honour to introduce the Prime Minister of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, the NCGUB, Dr. Sein Win. Dr. Sein Win is the cousin of the Nobel laureate and leader of Burma's democracy movement, Aung San Suu Kyi. Dr. Sein Win won a seat in the 1990 May general election and was elected Prime Minister following the establishment of the NCGUB in December 1990.

Dr. Sein Win (Prime Minister, National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma): Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, vice-chairs, and honourable members.

I was here in Canada in 1994, and once again I thank you for giving me the opportunity to present our case here in Parliament.

I would like to start briefly with the situation after my last visit, which was in 1994. The situation in general has been getting worse, although Aung San Suu Kyi was released in 1995. When she was released, we kept hoping for better developments, but as things have developed, it is not the case. Although Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest, her movements are very much restricted, her phone is tapped, and visitors who want to visit her are finding it is very difficult to meet her.

Our weekend forum is now over; it was blocked by the military, physically, around the compound area.

In 1998 we found that many active NLD members were arrested. One of the recent arrests is a woman member of Parliament, Daw San San, 60 years old. She was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

• 1010

Universities were closed in December 1996. They are still closed, and the students are suffering because of it.

Repression of the ethnic people in the border area, especially the non-Burma ethnic area, is also getting worse.

We heard a lot from the Karen refugees. The refugee camps were burned down. The refugee camps were in Thailand. Still, the military invaded and burned down the refugee camps.

We've heard a lot about the Shan State very recently. Of course, it is happening all the time. From the Amnesty International report we know a lot about the atrocities going on in the Shan State.

It is not only the Karenni and Shan states. It is overall. It is in the western area where Chin nationals are living. There are a lot of atrocities going on, especially in a kind of religious persecution way. A majority of the Chins are, as we know, Christian. It is persecution and they are destroying.... You can ask later about the human rights violations.

The situation is such that we have political problems and especially economic problems. The economy is not developing. It is getting worse. The prices are going up, and on top of that there is a food shortage coming to Burma.

We had a great flood last year. Most of the rice crops were destroyed, so the military could not export the rice. We are even concerned about domestic consumption.

They are hoping to get investment coming in. Instead, many investments are withdrawing, especially from our region, the ASEAN region. Malaysian investment, Thai, and many others are now withdrawing because of the economic crisis in the region. We are very concerned that this dissatisfaction and economic hardship could lead to unrest and upheaval, very similar to what we had in 1988.

We want a peaceful transition. For that we would like to have tripartite dialogue. Up until now they are refusing, and we are now asking the international community to maintain the pressure. Without the international pressure they will not move. They will go on like this.

We are also trying to prepare for the future. We have lots of problems coming in the future—refugee problems, resettlement problems. We are now preparing a plan. That is, we have already started with the economic plan. We are trying to do that.

One of the concerns we have is that the military is now trying to get some funds from whatever source it can. The UNDCP, the United Nations International Drug Control Programme—we had news about the program that is going to support the drug eradication program in Burma for the next ten years. We see that it is an unrealistic program. We see also that the root cause of the drug problem in Burma is politics. Without solving that, we could not solve it. It is a much more complicated problem than the people really know.

We are very much concerned about that program. The military could not solve the problem. They are part of the problem.

• 1015

To prepare for the future, we are trying to solve the transition in a peaceful manner. We would like to ask the Canadian government to do the following.

The Canadian government should refrain from giving aid, especially to the United Nations International Drug Control Programme, because this will only give them the money they want and the problem will not be solved.

They also want this debt-forgiving program. We are concerned about that, because the military will use whatever they can save just to buy arms. That is one of our concerns.

If possible we want to increase the sanctions the Canadian government now has, and we want the Canadian government to speak out about the Burma agenda whenever there is a possible forum.

So we want the Burma problems and Burma to be on the map of the international community.

We also want increased aid to democracy, in both the political and humanitarian spheres. Canada is the first government to give us the financial support through ICHRDD, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.

We also have a program for future development, including a scholarship fund, an educational fund, and training.

We would also like to try to organize a meeting of ethnic nationals so they can come and discuss things. It is very difficult for them to come together, because they are spread out and in a very difficult situation. They are living in Bangladesh, in India, on the Thai-Burma border. But this time they can come and have a discussion. These kinds of meetings are very important, so we would like the Canadian government to facilitate a meeting like this.

We would also like the Canadian government to facilitate a dialogue by a United Nations informal consultation mechanism. This is the mechanism we now have, but it is still facing some difficulty, so we would like the Canadian government to try to assist in facilitating the dialogue. Maybe Dr. Thaun Tung can talk about it later.

We want to ensure asylum for refugees, and we also would like the Canadian government to use their influence so that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees can ensure the protection of the refugees in Thailand. As I said, the refugee camps were burned down and there is a lot of unfair treatment going on in the refugee camps. We know about it, and we are concerned about the protection.

The last point is we would like to ask the Canadian government that whenever the Canadian government meets with the ASEAN counterparts—we have a problem with them. Immigrant labourers and refugees are the people who have left the country; they could not stay there because of the suppression. We are very concerned about the forced repatriation of these people and hard measures against these people, so we would like to appeal to the ASEAN governments, especially Thailand and Malaysia, to treat the refugees and migrant labourers very leniently. We would like the Canadian government, whenever they consult with the ASEAN governments of Thailand and Malaysia, to talk about these matters.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Are any of your colleagues going to add anything, or are they just there to answer questions?

Very well.

Christine, were you trying to slip something in, or did you just slip yourself?

• 1020

Ms. Christine Harmstone (Coordinator, Friends of Burma): No. I wanted to bring to the attention of the committee that we have just concluded a two-day national consultative conference on Burma this past weekend, where my colleagues here in this room were participants, along with around 80 Canadian delegates from across the country and representation from virtually all the provinces. It was a two-day strategy meeting with the specific goals of harnessing the energies and interests of Canadians on this issue, and coming together and forming plans of action and strategies that we can adopt for this coming year and the immediate months ahead.

One of the goals was how to strengthen the national network on Burma, the support mechanism we have in place, and how to establish it further and get a stronger foundation so we can become more effective in our work. Another goal was in the same area: how can Canadian civil society play a greater role in supporting the democracy movement and what recommendations can we give to the Canadian government? Some of those we will be presenting today.

I bring this to your attention to show this is not an Ottawa-based interest; this is a national focus. We have groups across the country working very hard in their respective regions to really support the movement. And it's a global movement. Certainly there are groups in South Africa, in Asia, all over Europe, and in North America.

I would like to make a brief intervention to make the following three recommendations to this committee.

The first is to support what Prime Minister Sein Win has just said, which is for the Canadian government to further increase its support of the democracy movement, starting with immediate financial assistance to the democratic forces through the NCGUB, channelling through such organizations as the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.

Our second recommendation is that we would like to see a parliamentary delegation go to the region. We would like to have the parliamentary delegation visit the Thai-Burma border; visit colleagues, fellow members of Parliament, who were elected in the 1990 elections and are now based on the borders; visit the refugee camps; and visit the human rights groups documenting the abuses. Farther then from the Thai-Burma border, go into Rangoon. Try to meet Aung San Suu Kyi, the Noble Peace Prize laureate and leader of the National League for Democracy. Then also go to New Delhi to visit the western side and the situation in that area, and visit also with the democratic forces there.

Our third recommendation is, to repeat what Prime Minister Sein Win said, that Canada, while supporting the democracy movement, cannot also be allowing our Canadian companies to go in and collaborate with the State Law and Order Restoration Council of the current military regime in giving it hard currency and helping to fill the coffers of this regime. This must stop immediately. In that way we are talking about further sanctions; stopping Canadian investment, so therefore investment sanctions; and looking at various ways in which we can cut off all Canadian people's money from going to support this regime.

I would like to now also bring to your attention the following people, who are here in this room and very happy to answer questions. Dr. Thaun Tung is director of the United Nations Burma Service Office based in New York. We have David Tackarbaw, who is based on the Thai-Burma border; he is director of the Karen Information Centre, the Karen being one of the ethnic nationality groups. And we have Dr. Sein Win.

Sui Khar is the secretary of foreign affairs of the Chin National Front, the Chin being an ethnic nationality based in the western area of Burma. Harn Yawnghwe is the director of the Euro-Burma Office based in Brussels.

And Kevin Heppner is a Canadian based on the Thai-Burma border who is director of the Karen Human Rights Group and documents testimonies from rural villagers and people who are escaping Burma. He is getting their stories as to what's happening in the country. He is providing primary data to the United Nations, to Amnesty International Human Rights Watch, and to governments as to what is happening in that country. Mr. Heppner also has a lot of information that he would be happy to give to you—documentation of testimonies from villagers as to what's happening, so you can read their own voices.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Harmstone. Perhaps when you have a conte rendu of the results of the conference, you will provide that to the committee. Would you be good enough to send it to the committee?

Ms. Christine Harmstone: Absolutely.

The Chairman: The clerk will then distribute it to the members.

Ms. Christine Harmstone: A report's being prepared right now.

The Chairman: Okay, so we can know what your other recommendations are as well. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Mr. Mills.

• 1025

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): I should just point out that in 1996 I did attend several rallies in Thailand. I visited some of the people who were refugees. As well, I met with some of the members of parliament from Burma. So I do have some background. I will be back there this summer, and in New Delhi as well, to meet some of the people you made reference to. This is just so you know that there are some Canadians who are interested and involved in that issue.

I guess I look at the sanctions issue and have some problems with that in that the ASEAN countries are literally recognizing Burma. Its neighbours are trading with Burma. So any sanctions that Canada might put on seem rather minor and ineffective when the neighbours are trading and working with that government.

I would like your comments on that, because that seems to me to be a bigger problem than Canada's.

I would like to also know the level of development of opposition within the country. I've asked that question quite often, and I haven't really got a very good feel for where an opposition is that might ultimately replace the military government.

Of course, we had the ambassador come before us in this committee and tell us that he can't even get his papers recognized in Rangoon. So when inquiring about the difficulties of getting in, our ambassador can't even get in. I wonder how effective we might be if we tried to get in, because we would obviously be threatening to expose what's there.

Then I wonder about the effect of the pipeline and the buying of petroleum by Thailand. How much of an implication is there to that?

The questions could go on and on, but if you might just address a couple of those, I'd be interested in your answers.

The Chairman: Anything you could say to encourage Mr. Mills to get in would be very good.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: We don't necessarily need him out; we just want him in.

Who would like to answer that?

Mr. Harn Yawnghwe (Director, European Office for the Development of Democracy in Burma): Thank you.

In terms of the sanctions, what you said was correct, I would say, before the ASEAN crisis. What has happened since that crisis is that many of the ASEAN countries are withdrawing their investments. So it's putting the military in a bind. They have to look elsewhere for funds. If we can maintain that pressure, we hope they will begin to start a political dialogue. Without that, they will not.

In terms of the opposition within the country, first of all, you have the National League for Democracy, which won the elections in 1990. It's a nationwide organization. The problem they face is that because of the restrictions placed on the party by the military, it's hard for them to organize, but the structure is there.

We have been seeing recently more unrest in terms of workers in the foreign-owned garment factories and even in the government-owned mines. People are beginning to exercise their rights. We have also had student groups. That is why the military closed down all universities in the country in December 1996. They have not reopened the universities because they are scared of students getting together. So there is a growing opposition.

Apart from that, you have to remember that there are other ethnic parties that won in the election. Those parties are also still intact, although many of them are very severely restricted. There are other ethnic groups who are at the moment politically dormant in a sense because they signed ceasefires with the military, but they are not happy with the situation themselves. So there are quite a number of groups.

As for the pipeline—

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Yawnghwe. On the sanction issue, though, you're at the European Community. Is there a European-Community-directed sanction or embargo, or is it by individual nation states? Is it effective from the European point of view?

• 1030

Mr. Harn Yawnghwe: At the moment, it's a bit similar to that of Canada. They have lifted the GSP trade preferences because of forced labour. There's very little trade. It's more a matter of expressing the European Union's dissatisfaction.

One of the main problems about sanctions from the European point of view is with France, because one French company is involved in the pipeline.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Harn Yawnghwe: In terms of the pipeline, maybe Kevin can answer.

Mr. Kevin Heppner (Director, Karen Human Rights Group): The gas pipeline itself has of course had a lot of effects both on economics and the human rights situation. A lot of people were displaced and villages were destroyed in Burma by the pipeline. We interviewed quite a few people who had done forced labour on the pipeline infrastructure itself.

Even though the oil companies themselves obviously didn't want to use forced labour, the fact is that the regime forced them to hand over money, and the regime then rounds up forced labour. This is just an example of how companies that go in really cannot control their own projects.

Now that pretty much all the pipe on the Burma end of the pipeline is laid, the project is running into a lot of problems in Thailand, because Thai villagers have a bit more flexibility to protest. And they are protesting. This, combined with the economic crisis, is making it look like the pipeline may go way behind schedule on the Thai side. There may be problems with the Thais having the money to buy the gas.

The people who are caught in the middle, though, are also the refugees from Burma, many of whom fled the pipeline project, along with the others who fled other forced-labour projects in the area like the Ye-Tavoy Railway. They are being severely clamped down on by the 9th division of the Royal Thai Army. The 9th division has a financial interest in the pipeline project and controls that area of the Thai border.

So it remains to be seen where that project is going, but overall, it has already caused a lot of suffering and will probably continue to do so. It will also provide the number one single cashflow to prop up the military junta in Burma. They're looking at $400 million U.S. a year coming from that project.

Just from our own work, we're looking at the situation in Burma where the military is systematically relocating thousands of villages and destroying the village economy in order to make sure it has complete control over everyone. They're wiping out the entire village structure of the rural areas.

This of course wipes out the food supply within the country itself. The money just isn't there. The food isn't there because a lot of the agricultural base has already been wiped out. Money looted from the rural areas is financing a facade of economic improvement in the cities, but the whole system is just not sustainable. This is reflected in the falling value of the currency and the economic crisis there.

The only way the junta can continue to maintain this unsustainable system is with these foreign cash inputs, such as what they hope to get from the pipeline project.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): I'd like first of all to welcome the representatives of the government in exile, welcome to you, Mr. prime minister, and welcome to your colleagues. I'd like to tell you that the Bloc Québécois, the party I represent here, is not only sensitive to the reproaches you have toward the present Burmese government, but supports and we'll continue to support the very noble cause you are defending and that you came to defend before the committee. In a moment, we will have the opportunity to meet with the leader of my party, Mr. Duceppe, and we will be able to go on with our discussions.

I would like you to comment, for the committee members, on a document from the Associates to Develop Democratic Burma that is being circulated today. It contains a rather worrying comments that might warrant some clarification on your part since they might suggest that the situation is perhaps even more serious than one would think or even know.

• 1035

It says that the SLORC is

[English]

as Orwellian in design as they are Hitlerian in intent.

[Translation]

I'd like some comments on this definition of the regime. Has the present government genocidal ideas? If so, do you think that the international community is aware of it? This is my first question.

[English]

Mr. David Tackarbaw (Information Centre of Karen National Union): There are very extensive human rights violations, especially against the ethnic peoples in the rural areas. The ethnic peoples in Burma mostly live in the rural areas. For example, where I come from is on the Thai-Burma border. That is on the eastern side of the country.

What happened there is a military operation against the ethnic resisters who are resisting against encroachment of their land. They have to defend it because there is a scorched earth policy.

They try to physically eliminate the ethnic people. They burn down the villages. They destroy the food supply. Not only that, but they try to destroy the means of livelihood. That means the farms, the livestock, and the draft animals used in farming, for example. Also, the plantations are being cut down. The plantations take about five or six years to mature for harvesting, but once they are cut down, it's very difficult to get any benefit from that again.

So we see this as a scorched earth policy, and the people there are forcibly relocated. If they can't do that, then they try to shoot them on sight. Many have to go and hide in the jungle, facing the elements of jungle life. It's very difficult. They have to live on wild vegetables. If they can enter into Thailand, then it's better. There are refugee camps there where they get basic assistance from NGOs, but many are trapped.

We believe about one million in the Shan State, in the Karenni state, and in the Mon State are trapped inside. In some cases, they don't want to come into Thailand because there have been some cases of forcible repatriation, but some cannot come in because they are trapped by the military forces of the central government, so they have to remain in hiding there. That affects about one million people of ethnic origin.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Thank you. I'd just like to make two comments. The Chairman is telling me that we should share equitably our time.

Mrs. Harmstone, I find your second recommendation interesting. If our committee could travel to Algeria or Mexico, according to the wish of the minister of Foreign Affairs, may be the least we could do would be to ask the government to accept the delegation, even if success is not a given. I really like that recommendation.

• 1040

As a matter of fact, the Canadian investments are not that important; a little over $15 million worth of goods are being exported from Burma to Canada. May be we are in a situation similar to other situations where Canada tried to eliminated all trade with a country. Such was the case with South Africa, at one point, and we had to give directions to the Canadian institutions and businesses. The Bloc Québécois thinks that such should be the case and we will urge the government to do so. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, you're aware of course that the only legal mechanism for doing that in Canada would be under the legislation, which permits us to apply United Nations-organized sanctions. I don't think there's anything we can do on a unilateral basis, but we can discuss that later in the committee, if you want.

Madame Beaumier.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Thank you.

I'm interested in a number of your recommendations. Number one, on the funds, is pretty clear to everyone. Funds are needed for any kind of movement. You were talking about having Canada finance and facilitate...was it an annual conference you were talking about? Could you explain that one a little more? That's one question.

The other question I would like you to answer is this. Ultimately the goal is a democratic Burma. What have you done, considering all the little pockets of ethnic groups, to prepare yourself for this when it happens?

Mr. Harn Yawnghwe: The answers are linked.

The military in Burma claims it can solve the problem of the ethnic people and democracy in Burma by forcing their version of a future Burma. The National Coalition Government's program is to work the other way around: instead of from the top down, from the bottom up. The program of the National Coalition Government is to support various ethnic groups to be able to meet together to discuss their own problems first and then meet with other ethnic groups to look at the future, at what kind of Burma they want.

The government has started to help fund seminars and conferences for various groups. In fact the Chin people are meeting in the next two days. These are leaders of the Chin movement from all over the world, coming here to discuss their own internal problems and to see where they want to go within the Union of Burma. They have been able to do that because, thanks to your good offices, they have been able to obtain visas to come to Canada to meet together. It's been very difficult for various Burmese groups to meet, because we are unable to get visas, and we don't want to meet in Thailand or India because it's not secure.

I believe the recommendation was that if Canada could facilitate in terms of visas and location so people could meet in safety and really discuss the problems, that would help the program of the government to facilitate people meeting together in a democratic manner and solving problems.

There was another request for facilitating at the United Nations. Perhaps Dr. Thaun Tung might explain.

Dr. Thaun Tung (Director, National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB) United Nations Liaison Office): The Canadian government fully supported all the UN resolutions on Burma, so the Burmese democracy movement really appreciates the strong support of the Canadian government in that aspect.

We already have seven resolutions on Burma at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and another seven resolutions at the UN General Assembly. All the UN resolutions are quite good in terms of human rights criticism. Also, all these resolutions recognize the results of the 1990 general election and ask the military regime to have a substantive political dialogue with the National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and leaders of the ethnic groups.

Unfortunately, the terms of the UN resolution have not been implemented yet. So the main thing is that the international community should take interest and consider how to implement the terms of the UN resolution.

• 1045

Two years ago, the UN Secretary-General set up a mechanism known as an informal consultative mechanism, with the aim of giving recommendations to the Secretary-General and helping him in his efforts to implement the terms of the resolution.

We have eight members in the informal consultative mechanism. Canada is a member of this mechanism. Thailand and Malaysia are also members from Asia, so it's quite interesting to have members from our region. But the difficulty is that Thailand and Malaysia are still reluctant to be part of the formal one, so there is no regular meeting of the informal consultative mechanism and there is no policy coordination among the members.

We believe it will be very helpful if the Canadian government facilitates informal meetings occasionally. The Canadian mission in New York will have the capacity to hold such informal meetings, inviting all members of the informal mechanism.

Also, the political affairs department of the UN Secretary-General's office is considering organizing a meeting of the informal consultative mechanism in Bangkok, with the view that most of the missions and embassies in Bangkok are well informed and well aware of the situation, because geographically it is very close to Burma. So the political affairs department is thinking of organizing such a meeting in Thailand in the near future. It will be very helpful if the Canadian government can facilitate such a meeting in Bangkok.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Mrs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Prime minister, you talked about the refugee camps in Thailand and more specifically at the border between Thailand and Malaysia. I'm wondering whether their is an agreement between the governments of Thailand and Malaysia and the Burma regime as to the repatriation of those refugees. Is the government or are the Canadian NGOs playing a role in the administration of those refugee camps in Thailand and elsewhere? What can the Canadian government do for the administration of the camps? I know that within them, there are often huge problems of criminality, prostitution, drug and so on.

[English]

Dr. Sein Win: There is no formal agreement between the military in Rangoon and the Thai government for the repatriation of refugees and illegal immigrants. But we know there are instances of some forced repatriation of the refugees from Thailand. We also know about some of the harsh treatment of these Burmese illegal immigrants in Thailand.

We are of course very concerned about the safety of the refugees in the refugee camps, and also the fair treatment of the refugees, because we keep hearing about the mistreatment of the refugees in the refugee camps. That is why we will be happy if the Thai government accepts the UNHCR team in the refugee camps so they can monitor or prevent such mistreatment.

I think Kevin could....

Mr. Kevin Heppner: Speaking about the situation for the refugees right now, for one thing, it's extremely tense, because of these ongoing cross-border attacks by Burmese forces to destroy the refugee camps and try to drive them back to Burma. This is being made worse by current Thai policy, which basically is denial of asylum to all new refugees.

• 1050

In the case of exiting refugees, there's an ongoing practice, particularly from the Thai army, of what's being called humane deterrence, meaning they're deliberately making life in refugee camps so difficult that they hope people will go back spontaneously.

In order to do this, for example, there is one refugee camp where the refugees arrived more than a year ago and are still living on the ground under plastic sheets, because the Thai army will not allow the NGOs to bring in proper building materials, nor to build schools or religious facilities.

In other camps they've forced the refugees to build fences around the camps. They're not allowing them to do anything for income-generation. There have been many cases of refugees being beaten, robbed, used as forced labour, and in some cases killed, all by Thai security forces who are there to guard the camps.

It's important to note that in Thailand there is a definite division between the army and the government and other aspects of Thai authority. The army is very much behind this policy of repressing the refugees, and when possible, when no one's looking, forcibly repatriating them.

The current Thai government has adopted a somewhat softer stand than its predecessor and is a bit more open to refugee issues. However, the current Thai government is strongly disliked by the army. There was even one incident when one refugee was killed and a lot of people felt the army was deliberately doing it, trying to make the government look bad internationally.

You always are up against this division between the army and the government. I know the Canadian embassy people in Bangkok are very aware of how this whole political dynamic works, and I'm sure they could advise you further.

One thing is, the Canadian embassy is one of those who have been among the most proactive on the Thai-Burma border in terms of visiting the refugees and using influence with the Thai government. I know everyone over there really wants this kind of activity to continue, because the embassies over the past year have probably managed to save the lives of many refugees, and have definitely saved thousands of people from possible forced repatriation by the Thai army.

With regard to the UNHCR, it's true they are the only organization that has a protection mandate, and they are definitely required in the camps. However, I think it's also important to look at what their role is going to be, because this also comes into this case where the Thai army wants the UNHCR to run the camps and feels it can twist the UNHCR's wrist into legitimizing forced repatriation. This could be true, looking at what the UNHCR has done in Bangladesh. It shows they can be involved in forced repatriations.

Most of the refugees and people concerned for their welfare would like to see UNHCR have a protection mandate but not actually to run the relief in the camps, and would recommend that the UNHCR be closely watched as to just what they do get involved in, so that they're not legitimizing forced repatriation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also join my colleagues in welcoming the delegation to this committee.

I have two brief questions, but before that I will make a comment. Looking at the dismal human rights record in Burma, I think the international community could have done a little more than what they have done so far. Also, it was quite unfortunate that one of our cabinet ministers made some comments that were not appropriate, earlier. I think that was embarrassing for Canada.

My first question is that I understand the United Nations has passed eight resolutions up till now with respect to Burma, and most of the resolutions are not implemented the way they should be. What are the basic reasons, do you think, that those resolutions are not implemented, and what could be done, from your point of view?

The second question is about the rumours I heard so far that the military government is providing protection and getting revenue from the drug producers in Burma. In other words, the drug production in Burma has become official. Why is the international community not doing anything about it, or do you think the brutal military government should be financed by the lucrative money produced from the drugs officially in the country, particularly the Golden Triangle and all those things we know about?

• 1055

Dr. Thaun Tung: Mr. Chairman, let me present you my analysis on the implementation of the resolution. First, you are aware that UN resolutions are not legally binding. Of course, it is the high moral authority, so having the consensus resolution in Burma, it can be said that these are the international public opinions that the regime should comply with. Unfortunately, the regime doesn't comply with the terms of the resolution.

The UN also gave the mandate to the Secretary-General to continue dialogue with the Burmese military, as well as with the leaders of the democratic movement. The Secretary-General sent his special envoy to Burma, as far as I remember, three times, but the military rejected the role of the UN as a mediator, and there is no improvement in terms of the Secretary-General's mediation.

In that aspect, it is necessary to have full cooperation of the member states with the Secretary-General. It's a force for the implementation of the resolution.

Unfortunately, in the case of Burma, there is no coordinated international strategy. The United States has their own policy, ASEAN has a constructive engagement policy, and the EU also has a different policy. So it is very important to have a well coordinated international strategy.

The good office of the Secretary-General is a good focal point to formulate such kind of coordinated strategy. That is the reason we are asking the Canadian government to facilitate the meetings among the informal consultative committee members. Thank you.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Clearly, about the United Nations resolution, we have seen how the resolutions are implemented in Iraq, but the same types of resolutions, originating from the same source, are treated differently in Burma. That was the concern I had.

Anyhow, the second question....

Dr. Sein Win: As to the second question, we are also very surprised by this international reaction. We know these drug lords very well. They are very well-known drug lords, like Lohsing Han and Khun Sa. They were not tried. Khun Sa is very much wanted by the United States, and they will not extradite him.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Have they military protection in that country?

Dr. Sein Win: They said they are under observation, but we know they are protected by the military. And they are very free to invest without any question—what we call money laundering. What concerns us is that many of these investments are transportation, boat facilities by Lohsing Han and land transfers by Khun Sa, and that is very much like transporting the drugs.

So while we cannot say that the document they sign or whatever...but when we look at the association with the drug lords and what the drug lords are doing very freely, we are very much concerned, and also about the very latest news we got from the United Nations Drug Control Programme. That is, in our view, a really meaningless program.

Mr. Harn Yawnghwe: As to the drug problem, as we mentioned, the basic problem is political. In 1989 the military made deals with these various drug lords, saying if you do not join the democracy movement, you can engage in any trade you want.

Since that time, the drug production in Burma has more than tripled. As was mentioned, they're living in Rangoon, and they can deposit their drug proceeds in Burmese banks without any questions asked, as long as they pay a 25% tax to the government.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: A tax on drugs?

Mr. Harn Yawnghwe: On the money they deposit.

• 1100

The Chairman: More of a partnership than a tax, by the sounds of it.

Did you want to ask a quick question, Ms. Augustine? We do have to draw this to a close.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): In light of the time, I'll ask one very short question.

As Canadians we've been talking about the human rights issue. If there were two priorities and you had to organize them, would it be the improvement of human rights or would it be the return to the democratic process? What should be the priority? Can you speak to this?

Dr. Sein Win: It is very much connected. In the case of Burma we have no democratic governments, no independent institutions; the media are all controlled by them and there is no rule of law exactly. So these are the reasons why those human rights violations can perpetuate. When somebody violates the human rights condition he is free to go, and if he is a part of the army personnel then he is free to go. There is no single instance of putting him in court. We know about lots of human rights violations like rapes and atrocities, but not one is tried publicly in court by the military. So I think these two are very much connected.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you.

The Chairman: Dr. Win, I see the next committee coming in behind you. So rather than risk their wrath, I'd like to tell you I'm sorry we don't have longer with you. I'm sure I speak on behalf of all the committee members when we wish you and your colleagues well in your very difficult mission in this world.

We all respect a great deal the life your cousin is leading under terribly trying circumstances. We wish you success. We will certainly draw to the attention of the government the points you raised with us this morning and we will try to act in some way as your advocates with the government.

I would also be remiss if I didn't say to Ms. Harmstone, perhaps on behalf of one of my most eminent constituents, John Rowlston Saul, we certainly support the work your organization does in this country.

We would also like to congratulate Mr. Heppner for the work that a Canadian is doing under very difficult...with personal risk to himself in that part of the world.

So thank you all very much for coming. We appreciate your taking the time to spend with us this morning and we wish you well in your work.

We're adjourned until 9 a.m. on Thursday.