Burma | ukwatch.net

Cowardice of silence

JamieSW — Sat, 31 May 2008 23:00:47 +0000

When I phoned Aung San Suu Kyi’s home in Rangoon yesterday, I imagined the path to her door that looks down on Inya Lake. Through ragged palms, a trip-wire is visible, a reminder that this is the prison of a woman whose party was elected by a landslide in 1990, a democratic act extinguished by men in ludicrous uniforms. Her phone rang and rang; I doubt if it is connected now. Once, in response to my “How are you?” she laughed about her piano’s need of tuning. She also spoke about lying awake, breathless, listening to the thumping of her heart.

Now her silence is complete. This week, the Burmese junta renewed her house arrest, beginning the 13th year. As far as I know, a doctor has not been allowed to visit her since January, and her house was badly damaged in the cyclone. And yet the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, could not bring himself to utter her name on his recent, grovelling tour of Burma. It is as if her fate and that of her courageous supporters, who on Tuesday beckoned torture and worse merely by unfurling the banners of her National League for Democracy, have become an embarrassment for those who claim to represent the “international community”. Why?

Where are the voices of those in governments and their related institutions who know how to help Burma? Where are the honest brokers who once eased the oppressed away from their shadows, the true and talented peacemakers who see societies not in terms of their usefulness to “interests” but as victims of it? Where are the Dennis Hallidays and Hans von Sponecks who rose to assistant secretary-general of the UN by the sheer moral force of their international public service?

The answer is simple. They are all but extinguished by a virus called the “war on terror”. Where once men and women of good heart and good intellect and good faith stood in parliaments and world bodies in defence of the human rights of others, there is now cowardice. Think of the parliament at Westminster, which cannot even cajole itself into holding an inquiry into the criminal invasion of Iraq, let alone to condemn it and speak up for its victims. Last year, 100 eminent British doctors pleaded with the minister for international development, then Hilary Benn, for emergency medical aid to be sent to Iraqi children’s hospitals: “Babies are dying for want of a 95 pence oxygen mask,” they wrote. The minister turned them down flat.

I mention that because medical aid for children is exactly the kind of assistance the British government now insists the Burmese junta should accept without delay. “There are people suffering in Burma,” said an indignant Gordon Brown. “There are children going without food … it is utterly unacceptable that when international aid is offered, the regime will try to prevent that getting in.” David Miliband chimed in with “malign neglect”. Say that to the children of Iraq and Afghanistan and Gaza, where Britain’s role is as neglectful and malign as any. As scores of children in Shia areas of Baghdad are blown to bits by America and what the BBC calls Iraq’s “democratic government”, the British are silent, as ever. “We” say nothing while Israel torments and starves the children of Gaza, ignoring every attempt to bring a ceasefire with Hamas, all in the name of a crusade that dares not say its name. What might have been a new day for humanity in the post-cold war years, even a renewal of the spirit of the Declaration of Human Rights, of “never again” from Palestine to Burma, was cancelled by the ambitions of a sole rapacious power that has cowed all. The “war on terror” allows Australia and Israel to train Burma’s internal security thugs. It consumes both most humanitarian aid indirectly and the very internationalism capable of bringing the “clever” pressure on Burma, about which Aung San Suu Kyi once spoke.

Dismissing the idiocy of a military intervention in her country, she asked: “What about all those who trade with the generals, who give them many millions of dollars that keep them going?” She was referring to the huge oil and gas companies, Total and Chevron, which effectively hand the regime $2.7bn a year, and the Halliburton company (former chief executive Vice-President Dick Cheney) that backed the construction of the Yadana pipeline, and the British travel companies that send tourists across bridges and roads built with forced labour. Audley Travel promotes its Burma holidays in the Guardian. The BBC, in contravention of its charter, has just bought 75% of Lonely Planet travel guides, a truculent defender of “our” right to be tourists in Burma regardless of slave labour, or cyclones, or the woman beyond the trip-wire. Shame.

Burma and the Making of Iraq's Ghost Towns

JamieSW — Wed, 28 May 2008 13:19:29 +0000

The Rules Of The Game

The psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan once commented on “how suavely we simply ignore great bodies of experience, any clearly analysed instance of which might present us with a very real necessity for change.” (Quoted, Daniel Goleman, Vital Lies, Simple Truths – The Psychology of Self-Deception, Bloomsbury 1997, p.124)

The problem for professional journalists is that they are not free to change. Or at least, they are not free to change and flourish in their chosen careers. Ex-CBS producer Richard Cohen explained the relationship between media and politics:

“Everyone plays by the rules of the game if they want to stay in the game.” (Quoted, Daniel Schechter, The More You Watch, The Less You Know, Seven Stories Press, 1997, p.39)

The rules include focusing intently on the crimes of others while suavely ignoring comparable, or worse, crimes at home.

Consider the intense criticism heaped on the Burmese government for failing to accept foreign add in the aftermath of cyclone Nargis. Gordon Brown said:

“There are people suffering in Burma, there are children going without food, there are people without shelter.

“It is utterly unacceptable that, when international aid is offered, the regime will try to prevent that getting in.

“And I’m determined to work with the rest of the international community to make sure that people in need of help, people who face a long and terrible time ahead…” (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page15495.asp)

And so on… Foreign secretary, David Miliband, talked of “malign neglect”. French president Nicolas Sarkozy found Burmese government inaction “utterly reprehensible”. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/14/burma.china)

As ever, the British media rallied to the cause. In the Guardian (May 19), Kim Fletcher lambasted the Burmese generals for having done “a most effective job in preventing the world from witnessing the wholly ineffective way in which they appear to have dealt with the devastation.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/19/pressandpublishing.chinathem…)

An outraged May 18 Sunday Telegraph leader actually raised the possibility of military action:

“The inevitable violation of Burmese airspace would certainly require that the cargo planes be protected by fighters. It would not amount to an invasion of the country. But it would mean the use of force to get aid through to the people who so desperately need it.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/18/dl…)

The first aid war! The Observer’s Nick Cohen also cited with approval the “call for foreign troops to escort aid workers into the stricken areas”:

“As always, there are 1,001 good reasons for doing nothing. But I don’t think passivity is an option for the UN.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/11/cyclonenargis.burma)

Cohen’s compassion for the Burmese people, we were to understand, made inaction unthinkable.

And yet these are the same politicians and journalists who have shown almost complete indifference to the suffering of the Iraqi people under US-UK occupation. Cohen, for example, had plenty to say about the merits of war in 2002 and early 2003; he has had almost nothing to say about the catastrophic consequences since.

This is a recurring theme of right-wing commentary. Typically, great compassion is expressed for the population of a nation targeted for US-UK attack. As Western violence then wrecks havoc on that country, the pundit simply moves on to express similar compassion for the next target. Trails of right-wing tears track across the globe closely followed by JDAMs, cluster bombs, and blood.

In the last year, Cohen has had essentially nothing to say about the suffering of civilians in Iraq, beyond tiny mentions in passing. In April, he wrote that “the United Nations estimated that in 2006, 35,000 died in the civil war in Iraq.” But this was in the context of a discussion of avoidable deaths in NHS hospitals. He described the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq as merely a “civil war”. (Cohen, ‘Satirists once had real bite. Not any more,’ The Observer, April 6, 2008)

In a further mention, Cohen mocked the idea that America and Britain were responsible for the violence, describing how “squaddies on the ground [are] fighting totalitarian enemies in close combat”. (Cohen, ‘Our weasel words betray these decent Iraqis,’ The Observer, October 7, 2007)

By contrast, General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the British army, said in September, 2007:

“By motivation… our opponents are Iraqi nationalists, and are most concerned with their own needs – the majority are not bad people.” (Richard Norton-Taylor, ‘Embrace returning troops, pleads army chief,’ The Guardian, September 22, 2007)

Leaving The Children to Die

On January 19, 2007, 100 eminent British doctors wrote to the British government pleading for emergency medical aid to be sent to an Iraqi children’s hospital – exactly the kind of assistance the government is now insisting Burma should accept. The doctors’ letter, titled, ‘Iraq’s children must not be left to die,’ began:

“We are concerned that children are dying in Iraq for want of medical treatment. Iraq, instead of being a country at the top of the league for medicine, as it once was, now has conditions and mortality of a Third World country. Sick or injured children, who could otherwise be treated by simple means are left to die in hundreds because they do not have access to basic medicines or other resources. Children who have lost hands, feet and limbs are left without prostheses. Children with grave psychological distress are left untreated.” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-letter-sick-or-i…)

The letter added:

“Contrary to Article 50, 55, and 56 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV where the Occupying Power has a duty of ensuring the food and the medical supplies of the population… three years into the conflict, Iraqi children are dying in large numbers due to lack of medical supplies. (Babies are being ventilated with a plastic tube in their noses and dying for want of a 95 pence oxygen mask, or lack of a phial of vitamin K, or sterile needles, or even rubber surgical gloves. Premature babies are forced three to an incubator 36 years old held together with wire and elastoplast).”

In rejecting the request, Hilary Benn, then Britain’s Secretary of State for International Development, replied on January 29, 2007:

“Iraq has a democratically elected government that is responsible for providing healthcare to its citizens. I agree that the quality of this healthcare, the security of hospitals and the availability of medical supplies is entirely inadequate. But I take issue with your assertion that the deaths of children are a ‘direct result of the actions or inactions of the UK government‘. It is the escalating sectarian violence and political divisions that are the main obstacles to the Government of Iraq delivering the services that the Iraqi people deserve.”

Benn added:

“I regret that I am unable to meet you and your colleagues at this time, but I can assure you that the issues you raise are of deep concern to me, and that the UK is making every effort, along with international partners, to support the Iraqis to improve the situation for their citizens.”

The journalists currently going blue in the face over Burmese indifference did not give a damn. The doctors’ plea was reported in two brief articles in the Independent – no other media outlet covered the story.

Turning Cities Into Battlefields

Or consider the media response to the fate of Iraqis currently enduring major US-led assaults. In the last month, UK national broadsheets have published a total of six articles offering substantial reporting on the fighting in Sadr City.

Sadr City and other major Shiite areas in Baghdad have been under siege since late April; millions of people are struggling to survive. On May 1, Patrick Cockburn – an honourable exception to the journalistic norm – reported in the Independent:

“Shia losses have been heavy. An Iraqi government spokesman for the civilian side of Baghdad security operations said 925 people had been killed and 2,605 wounded in Sadr City since the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, began his offensive against the Sadrist movement on 25 April.” (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/us-military-death-toll-...)

On May 3, Agence France Presse (AFP) reported the aftermath of a US attack involving a hospital in Sadr City that was “badly damaged” with a fleet of ambulances destroyed:

“The hospital corridors were littered with glass shards, twisted metal and hanging electrical wiring. Partitions in the wards had collapsed. Huge concrete blocks placed to form a blast wall against explosions had toppled onto parked vehicles.” (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5it1rhG8GfKYP4YMgIiTDEUl26QwA)

Hospital officials reported that at least 28 people had been injured. The Iraqi Red Crescent Organisation told Time magazine this month that hundreds of people had fled the fighting and oppressive curfews, which have cut access to food, water and electricity. Mohammed Kamel Hassan, a volunteer organiser for Red Crescent reported that up to one million Sadr City residents needed emergency aid. Abu Haider al-Bahadili, a Mahdi Army leader, told the Washington Post:

“Sadr City right now is like a city of ghosts. It has turned from a city into a field of battle.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR200804…)

On May 13, Cockburn reported that more than 1,000 people, “mostly civilians”, had been killed during the offensives. In one clash in Sadr City, the US claimed it killed 28 Shia “militants” but hospital officials said they had received 25 bodies, most of which were civilians. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/alsadr-ceasefire-all…)

Bush – “Stay The Course! Kill them!”

Earlier this month, the Independent reported revelations made by Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the US commander in Iraq in 2003-4. In his recently published memoirs, Wiser in Battle, Sanchez describes how Bush personally ordered Shia leader Moqtadr al Sadr to be captured or killed. During a video conference on April 7, 2004, Bush said:

“The Mehdi Army is a hostile force. We can’t allow one man [Sadr] to change the course of the country. At the end of this campaign Sadr must be gone. At a minimum he will be arrested. It is essential he be wiped out.” (Cockburn, ibid)

Bush emphasised the point:

“Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!”

This is the ethic of extermination through maximum force that has brought utter catastrophe to Iraq. The political novelist Gore Vidal recently summed up the Bush regime:

“They — Cheney, Bush — they wanted the war. They’re oilmen. They want a war to get more oil. They’re also extraordinarily stupid. These people don’t know anything about anything.” (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/14/legendary_author_gore_vidal_on_the)

General Sanchez’s grim account was apparently of no interest – the Independent was the sole newspaper to cover the story.

Indifference also defines media reporting of the assault on Mosul, one of Iraq’s great cities, also described by eyewitnesses as “a ghost town”. According to one rare press report (Cockburn, again), Mosul “looks ruinous and under siege. Every alley way is blocked by barricades and the only new building is in the form of concrete blast walls.” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ghost-city-mosul-bra…)

We found two articles offering meaningful analysis of the disaster in Mosul over the last month in the entire UK quality press.

It ought to be a thing of wonder that the British corporate press can simultaneously rage against the crimes of the Burmese government while having almost nothing to say about the ongoing US-UK devastation of Iraq. And yet it feels entirely normal. American media analyst Edward Herman explained:

“The human capacity for compartmentalisation of thought and suppression of inconvenient facts always continues to break new ground in service to evolving political demands.” (http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/17050)

SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Nick Cohen
Email: nick.cohen@observer.co.uk

Write to Alan Rusbridger
Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk

Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org

The Media Lens book ‘Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media’ by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published in 2006. John Pilger described it as: “The most important book about journalism I can remember.” For further details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here:
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php

RBS - Financing Atrocity

eddie — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:25:10 +0000

The Royal Bank of Scotland’s uncritical support for oil is contributing to major human rights abuses, underwriting repressive regimes and fuelling conflict.

Following Steven Spielberg’s withdrawal from the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics, pressure has increased on other celebrities (and athletes) to follow suit. But whilst China is the popular whipping boy for the human rights disaster in Darfur, behind the scenes Britain’s second largest bank is helping prop up the Sudanese regime.

Royal Bank of Scotland doesn't only sponsor rugby. PLATFORM research has uncovered a recent RBS loan to an oil corporation working with and supporting the Sudanese regime. This follows a trend of RBS funding fossil fuel extraction in some of the world's most repressive and war-torn countries, including Burma, the DRC and Equatorial Guinea. In October 2007, RBS underwrote loans of $1 billion for Lundin Petroleum, together with BNP Paribas and HBOS. The Sudan Divestment Task Force (SDTF) classifies Lundin in its Top 5 “Highest Offenders”, for its direct support for the Sudanese government during the continued ethnic cleansing in Darfur.

*Working with the military*

Lundin is exploring for oil in Block 5B in south Sudan, together with Sudapet, the Sudanese national oil company, which is part of the regime. This is one of Lundin's major strategic growth areas, and will probably be where much of RBS' financing goes: 4 out of the 13 exploration wells Lundin will drill in 2008 are in Sudan. Its Sudanese assets are estimated at a potential 500 million barrels - 42% of the 1200 million potential barrels to be targeted in 2008.

Due diligence by RBS should have thrown up concerns as to Lundin’s suitability, based on its past record. Southern Sudan has been one of Lundin’s core sites of operation since 1997 - including during the destructive civil war. Human Rights Watch and Christian Aid asserted that, if not complicit, the company enabled Sudanese military operations against local civilians, including the clearing of villages and widespread rape.

While exploring and extracting oil from Block 5A (neighbouring its current operations in Block 5B), Lundin cooperated and worked with the Sudanese government and military. Lundin's construction of a bridge and road allowed year-round access by Baggara militias to attack local villagers, apparently leading to enormous human rights abuses and significant depopulation around Lundin’s operations.

Currently the ceasefire in the south continues to hold shakily, yet Lundin’s clear support for the Sudanese government and lack of commitment to human rights gives little hope.

Beyond Sudan, AllAfrica.com reported on 14 February that Lundin approached the government in Somaliland, Somalia's northern breakaway region, seeking exploration rights. Lundin is currently also investing in what it terms “high risk, high reward frontier exploration” in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia, a Somali-inhabited region suffering under the army’s current crackdown on separatist rebels.

Lundin Petroleum is not an exception; the self-styled “Oil and Gas Bank” has repeatedly underwritten the operations of oil and gas corporations working in conflict zones or highly repressive countries. The RBS oil & gas team cofinanced an $850 million financing facility for Tullow Oil, which is working with the state oil company of Equatorial Guinea to pump 44,000 barrels of oil per day from the offshore Ceiba field.

President Mbasogo maintains absolute control of Equatorial Guinea, claims to have received 97% in the most recent elections and has been criticised for extreme human rights abuses by Amnesty International.

Tullow Oil is also pursuing an “aggressive exploration programme” in the North Kivu region on the border of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. 400,000 civilians fled their homes in North Kivu during 2007 to escape fighting between government soldiers, local militia and Tutsi insurgents. The conflict in the DRC is widely seen as fuelled by attempts to control natural resource extraction.

*Financing occupation*

RBS finances numerous oil corporations contributing to human rights abuses globally. However, in some situations, the bank finances the problem project directly. In late 2007, the RBS Oil & Gas Team participated in an $884 million project financing BP’s controversial Tangguh LNG (liquefied natural gas) project in West Papua, occupied by Indonesia since 1963. Amnesty International has estimated that 100,000 West Papuans - one sixth of the population - have been killed by the Indonesian military.

Despite BP’s human rights assessments, local residents have raised issues around disempowerment, environmental degradation, social degeneration and a failure to fully compensate. Local NGOs LP3BH and Perdu have warned of increased militarization in the region and a failure in recognition of customary rights.

More insidiously, the Tangguh LNG project plays a key role in asserting and institutionalising Indonesia's occupation of West Papua. Repression is still rife.

Peaceful protests involving the Papuan flag have led to 15 year prison sentences. In 2004, US Senators wrote that “a military campaign in the Central Highlands has led to an inestimable number of civilian deaths and significant population displacement” and “government security forces are operating with impunity”.

Papuan NGOs reported in autumn 2007 that military “sweep operations” in the highlands were causing displacement and starvation. The Indonesian government’s restrictions on international media and humanitarian organisations makes assessing the reality in West Papua very difficult.

RBS assets also appear to be supporting the Burmese junta. With control over 8.25% and a seat for its CEO Fred Goodwin on the board, RBS is the most significant private shareholder on Bank of China, key backer of Chinese oil companies propping up the military regime in Burma. Petrochina and Sinopec have been criticised heavily for co-operating closely with the Burmese military rulers. Both named Bank of China as their principal banker and continue to borrow and repay loans of hundreds of millions of dollars.

In September 2007, Sinopec began drilling an onshore well in a joint venture with the Burmese regime’s Myanmar Oil & Gas Enterprise. The launch ceremony on September 26 coincided with the first day of the dictatorship’s brutal crackdown on civilian dissent and was attended by military officials and Sinopec executives. Oil & gas ventures in Burma have been repeatedly condemned by human rights organisations as propping up the regime. Sales of natural gas, such as those to Petrochina, account for the single largest source of revenue to the military government.

Whether through its assets, by financing specific projects or through corporate loans to oil & gas corporations, RBS' lending is contributing to major human rights violations across the planet. Whether this is through a wilful refusal to recognise human rights as a relevant concern or merely repeated failures at due diligence remains unclear.

The Hypocrites who say they back Democracy in Burma

Ellie Keen — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:40:13 +0000

The news is no more from Burma. The young monks are quiet in their cells, or they are dead. But words have escaped: the defiant, beautiful poetry of Aung Than and Zeya Aung; and we know of the unbroken will of the journalist U Win Tin, who makes ink out of brick powder on the walls of his prison cell and writes with a pen made from a bamboo mat – at the age of 77. These are the bravest of the brave.

What honour they bring to humanity with their struggle; and what shame they bring to those whose hypocrisy and silence helps to feed the monster that rules Burma.

When I began to write this, I had planned to quote a moving passage from my last interview with Aung San Suu Kyi, but I decided not to - because of something Suu Kyi said to me when I last spoke to her. “Be careful of media fashion,” she said. “The media like this sentimental version of life that reduces everything down to personality. Too often this can be a distraction.”

I thought about that, and how typically self effacing it was, and how right she was. For the greatest distraction is the hypocrisy of those political figures in the democratic West, who claim to support the Burmese liberation struggle. Laura Bush and Condaleeza Rice come to mind. “The United States,” said Rice, “is determined to keep an international focus on the travesty that is taking place in Burma.” What she is less keen to keep a focus on is that the huge American company, Chevron, on whose board of directors she sat, is part of a consortium with the junta and the French company, Total, that operates in Burma’s offshore oil fields. The gas from these fields is exported through a pipeline that was built with forced labour and whose construction involved Halliburton, of which Vice President Cheney was Chief Executive.

For many years, the Foreign Office in London promoted business as usual in Burma. When I interviewed Suu Kyi a decade ago I read her a Foreign Office press release that said, “Through commercial contacts with democratic nations such as Britain, the Burmese people will gain experience of democratic principles.” She smiled sardonically and said, “Not a bit of it.”

In Britain, the official public relations line has changed; Burma is a favourite New Labour's "cause"; Gordon Brown has written a chapter in a book about his admiration of Suu Kyi. How well his platitudes reflect on his counterfeit liberalism. When the last month’s uprising broke out in Rangoon, he referred to the sanctity of the “universal principles of human rights”. This week he wrote a letter to PEN about Burma's writers; it waffles about prisoners of conscience and is a distraction: indeed part of his current, grand theme of distraction about "returning liberty" when of course none will be returned without a fight. Hands can be wrung; letters to PEN can be spun; nothing can be done. As for Burma, the essence of Britain's compliance and collusion has not changed. British tour firms – like Orient Express and Asean Explorer – are able to make a handsome profit on the suffering of the Burmese people. Aquatic – a sort of mini Halliburton – has its snout in the same trough, together with Rolls Royce and all those posh companies that make a nice earner from Burmese teak.

When did Brown or Blair ever use their close connections with business – their platforms at the CBI and in the City London, among the bankers of Brussels - to name and shame those British companies that make money on the back of the Burmese people? When did a British prime minister call for the European Union to plug the loopholes of arms supply to Burma, stopping, for example, the Italians from supplying military equipment? The reason ought to be obvious. The British government is itself one of the world’s leading arms suppliers, especially to regimes at war with their neighbours, democracies or dictatorships, who cares? Next week, the dictator of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, whose tyranny gorges itself on British arms, will receive a state visit. Last night, (On October 25) the Brown government approved Washington's latest fabricated prelude to a criminal attack on Iran - as if the horrors of Iraq and Afghanistan were not enough for the "liberal" lionhearts in Downing Street and Whitehall.

And when did a British prime minister call on its ally and client, Israel, to end its long and sinister relationship with the Burmese junta. Or does Israel’s immunity and impunity also cover its supply of weapons technology to Burma and its reported training of the junta’s most feared internal security thugs? Of course, that is not unusual. The Australian government – so vocal lately in its condemnation of the junta – has not stopped the Australian Federal Police from training Burma’s internal security forces in at the Australian-funded Centre for Law Enforcement Co-operation in Indonesia.

Those who care for freedom in Burma and Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia and beyond must not be distracted by the posturing and weasel pronouncements of our leaders, who themselves should be called to account as accomplices. We owe nothing less to Aung San Suu Kyi, to Burma’s writers and to all the bravest of the brave.

Playing in the Rough

JamieSW — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:36:55 +0000

Most human differences can be overcome, but there is one unbridgeable divide. The world is split between people who play golf and people who don’t. Each faction regards the other as an alien lifeform. One is astonished that any human fails to see that life without golf is not worth living. The other watches grown men in two-tone shoes dragging a bag of sticks round Tellytubbyland, and shakes its collective head with incredulity.

I regret that I must compound the incomprehension on the other side of the golf gulf by confessing that until three weeks ago I did not know who Gary Player is. And I am sure that – with much greater reason – he had never heard of me either. But now we are tangled up in one of South Africa’s messiest controversies.

I came across him while researching the column I wrote about Burma a fortnight ago. In trying to discover which western companies have been operating there, I stumbled upon a list of the country’s recent golf course developments. He was named as the designer of the Pun Hliang course in Rangoon(1). His website boasted that he had turned “a 650-acre rice paddy into The Pride of Myanmar.”(2)

I asked his company who owned the land on which the course was constructed. How many people were evicted in order to build it? Was forced labour used in its construction? As his company is based in Florida, did this work break US sanctions?(3) It refused to answer my questions(4). I suggested in my column that Nelson Mandela should remove his name from the charity golf tournament Player is due to host next month(5).

My call was taken up by Desmond Tutu(6,7) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu)(8). The Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, which claims to own the event, asked Mr Player to stand down as the tournament’s guest of honour(9). Player’s company responded by claiming that it was in fact the joint owner of the event; he has refused to stand aside(10). The controversy is still raging. Cosatu has promised to turn up and protest if Player does not withdraw(11).

One result of the fuss is that the Gary Player Group was obliged to issue a statement about its involvement in Burma. It maintained that “The company’s decision to design the course in Burma was actually humanitarian in that it took no profit from the endeavor, but rather encouraged the developer to put the money toward creating jobs, as well as the establishment of a caddy & agronomy program. … the company was paid expenses only.”(12) Converting 650 acres of rice paddy in a country suffering from malnutrition into a golf course likely to be used by the generals looks to me like an unusual object for charity, so I asked Player’s company to provide some evidence for these claims(13).

The same statement maintained that “Gary Player has always been a great supporter of human rights” and has “a solid record of campaigning for democracy around the world”(14). To test this claim, I ordered the book he wrote in 1966, when he was 30 years old and at the peak of his remarkable career. Grand Slam Golf is well-written and strangely compelling: it makes the game seem almost interesting even to me. But Chapter Two contains the following statements.

“I must say now, and clearly, that I am of the South Africa of Verwoerd and apartheid … a nation which is the result of an African graft on European stock and which is the product of its instinct and ability to maintain civilised values and standards amongst the alien barbarians … The African may well believe in witchcraft and primitive magic, practise ritual murder and polygamy; his wealth is in cattle. More money and he will have no sense of parental or individual responsibility, no understanding of reverence for life or the human soul which is the basis of Christian and other civilised societies. … A good deal of nonsense is talked of, and indeed thought about ’segregation’. Segregation of one kind or another is practised everywhere in the world.”(15)

Journalists in South Africa pointed me to allegations that Gary Player was used as a kind of global ambassador by the apartheid government(16,17). In 1975 he collaborated with the Committee for Fairness in Sport, which was set up by the government to try to overcome the global sporting boycott(18). In 1981 he featured on the UN’s blacklist of sports people breaking the boycott(19). So I asked Player’s company questions about these incidents as well(20).

All this is a long time ago, and Gary Player’s attitude towards the apartheid regime is very different today. But another human rights issue is still current. There is a real problem with golf, and it is not confined to the dress sense of the participants. All over the world, the construction of golf courses is associated with dispossession and environmental destruction. You’ll find a flavour of the controversies it stirs up in Aberdeenshire at the moment, where Donald Trump is promoting a project to create the “world’s greatest golf course” on a site of special scientific interest(21).

One study suggests that an 18-hole course requires, on average, 22 tonnes of chemical treatments (mostly pesticides) every year: seven times the rate per hectare for industrial farming(22). Another shows higher rates of some cancers, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (which has been associated with certain pesticides(23)), among golf course superintendents(24). Courses consume staggering amounts of water(25). Many of them are built on diverse and important habitats, such as rainforests or wetlands. In some countries people have been violently evicted to make way for them.

The problem is particularly acute in South East and East Asia, where golf is big business, and land rights and the environment are often ignored by governments. There are hundreds of accounts of battles between peasant farmers or indigenous people and golf course developers. In one case in the Philippines in 2000, two farmers resisting a course planned for their lands were mutilated and dismembered then shot dead(26).

Player’s companies, which have a turnover of hundreds of millions of dollars, have designed eight golf courses in China, one in Taiwan, nine in the Philippines, one in Malaysia, seven in Indonesia and one in Burma(27). At least two of the courses in Indonesia were built during the Suharto dictatorship(28), when the ruling family was alleged to have had a commercial interest in most golf course development(29,30). So I asked the Gary Player Group whether Suharto or his relatives had a stake in any of the projects he designed. As I was unable to find any position statements about environmental policy or land rights on the group’s website, I asked whether it had produced such policies, and if so, how they are enforced(31). For the second time, the group has refused to answer any of my questions(32,33).

I realise that in writing this article I might have made the great golf gulf even wider. I am sorry about that. But I did try hard to get the other side to state its case. I don’t want to start a new golf war, but I do want some answers.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. http://www.asiegolf.com/gb/nos_golfs2.php#golf_birm

2. Gary Player Design, 21st November 2002. Design Excellence Revealed at Grand Opening of Gary Player Signature Course in Myanmar. http://www.garyplayer.com/newsRead.asp?cid=3&pageid=1&articleid=12

3. I emailed and phoned Player’s companies in both Florida and South Africa.

4. Duncan Cruickshank, 30th September 2007.

5. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/02/the-juntas-accomplices/

6. Eg Michael Schmidt, 6th October 2007. Tutu calls for boycott of Gary Player.
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=vn20071006075423445C685234

7. SABC News, 13th October 2007. Tutu adamant on Gary Player/Myanmar issue
http://www.sabcnews.com/sport/other/0,2172,157419,00.html

8. Marthe van der Wolf, 12th October 2007. COSATU says Player should be dropped as host. http://bushradionews.blogspot.com/2007/10/cosatu-says-player-should-be-d…

9. Oupa Ngwenya, Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund. 9th October 2007. Press Release – untitled. http://www.nmcf.co.za/News_Current6.htm

10. Marc Player, 10th October 2007. Black Knight International CEO Marc Player Responds to Recent Statement by the NMCF. http://www.garyplayer.com/news.asp?cid=3&url=newsLatest.asp

11. Marthe van der Wolf, ibid.

12. Gary Player Group, 8th October 2007. Statement from the Player Group on Burma.
http://www.garyplayer.com/news.asp?cid=3&url=newsLatest.asp

13. Email to Gida Campbell, Gary Player Group, 1501, 11th October 2007.

14. ibid.

15. Gary Player, 1968. Grand Slam Golf. Paperback edition. Corgi Books, London.

16. Eg David Denison, 6th November 2002. Dispatch Online. http://www.dispatch.co.za/2002/11/06/sport/GOLFCOL.HTM

17. John Barton, November 2007. Golf In The Days Of Black & White.
http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/papwa

18. Eg http://www.dispatch.co.za/2005/06/24/editoria/chiel.html

19. Neil Amdur, 16th May 1981. Anti-Apartheid Unit Publishes Sports List. The New York Times.

20. Email to Gida Campbell, Gary Player Group, 13.40 BST, 15th October 2007.

21. Severin Carrell, 9th October 2007. Trump says golf plans will save Scots dunes. The Guardian.

22. S.Chamberlain, 1995. Golf Endangers Hawaiian Ecology and Culture. Earth Island Journal, cited by Kit Wheeler & John Nauright, July 2006. Global Perspective on the Environmental Impact of Golf. Sport in Society, Vol 9, No 3 , pp. 427–443

23. Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson, 15th March 1999. A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides, Cancer, Vol. 85, No.6.

24. B. C. Kross et al., May 1996. Proportionate Mortality Study of Golf Course Superintendents. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 29, no. 5, pp 501–6, cited by Kit Wheeler & John Nauright, July 2006. Global Perspective on the Environmental Impact of Golf. Sport in Society, Vol 9, No 3 , pp. 427–443.

25. eg Timothy Hildebrandt, 16th July 2003. Environmentalists cry ‘fore!’ in China. Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0716/p11s01-coop.htm

26. Eg Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (Peasant Movement of the Philippines), 11th March 2000. Murdered anti-golf farmers buried. http://golfwar.org/old_score.htm

27. http://www.garyplayer.com/courseDesignProjectListing.asp?cid=8&sid=1

28. The Ria Bintan Golf Club, (see http://my-indonesia.info/page.php?id=1294&ic=807 and http://www.golf-asiapac.com/Default.aspx?tabid=953&error=Object+referenc….) and the Graha Helvetia Golf & Country Club (see http://www.my-indonesia.info/page.php?ic=807&id=2318)

29. Fred Pearce, 4th June 1994. Golf wars break out in Bali. New Scientist.

30. Philip Shenon, 22nd October 1994. FORE! Golf in Asia Hits Enironmental Rough
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDE163FF931A15753C1A…

31. Email to Gida Campbell, Gary Player Group, 13.40 BST, 15th October 2007.

32. Email from Gida Campbell, Gary Player Group, 18.37 BST, 11th October 2007.

33. I phoned Gida Campbell at 14.25 BST 15th October 2007, and left a message to say she had until 11.00 EST (16.00 BST) to answer any of the questions if she wished to.

Total Propping Up Burmese Junta

Tim Holmes — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:13:48 +0000

From now on, I think every protest should have monks at the front. They look fantastic, so much better than Bianca Jagger and someone from Greenpeace dawdling into Trafalgar Square clutching a crumpled banner the width of the road. And they’re so dazzling, you almost wish that when they’re being chased by the police they would flee in formation, to create a kaleidoscope of colour like the Red Arrows.

So everyone loves the Bur-mese protestors, including George Bush, and yesterday the Conservative party conference. But there are a few in the West that aren’t so enthusiastic. For example, Total Oil doesn’t appear to be cheering for them.

This may be because they supply most of the energy to the regime through the Yadama gas project, which rewards the Burmese military with hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Total denies that its operation there has any connections with the military, although 16 battalions of the army have been stationed around their plant to protect it.

Maybe the board of Total thought this was just part of the Rangoon tattoo. And each day, all the regiments had a thrilling competition to see which could be quickest to assemble an armoured car, fire tear gas from it at dissidents, and drag them away to be tortured.

Total may also, if they were more observant, have noticed that many of their workers have been employed as forced labour, as they claim they didn’t realise this. How can you not know when your workforce is part of a forced labour scheme controlled by the military? Didn’t it seem strange that no applicants for jobs ever seemed to come for interviews? Or maybe they did, and the transcript of every one reads: “So why do you want to come and work for Total?”

“Because if I don’t I’ll be shot and dumped in a quarry.”

“Aah, I see. We’ve had quite a lot say that this morning. Well I must say your CV seems rather impressive – forced to work on a railway, forced to work on a General’s palace, forced to dig graves, I’d say you’ll fit in rather well but I’ll let you know in due course. Next.”

It’s also part of Total’s contract in Burma that all their security staff are to be made available from the army. Did that not strike them as odd? Does this usually happen in democracies? If the Arndale Centre in Ipswich needs a couple of security guards, they tend not to get the 9th regiment of the Royal Fusiliers.

And they might have realised, if they were keeping a vigilant eye on affairs, that the elected leader of the country was under house arrest where she’d been for 13 years. Or maybe the Burmese government told Total that this was an experiment in spreading home-working. Because these days with new technology, fewer and fewer jobs require us to go into the office, even if your occupation is international rebel.

Gone are the days when poor old Che Guevara had to go all the way to Cuba and run around mountains to overthrow a government. If he was around now he could do the whole revolution from his lap-top. Not only does this leave the elected Aung San Suu Kyi with more quality time for herself, but think how it cuts down on carbon emissions.

Total insist that their presence in Burma has helped to make the place more liberal, because they’ve engaged in “constructive engagement” with the regime. That’s how to deal with murderers: never mind stopping them, constructively engage with them by helping them out. If only Maxine Carr had thought of this. She could have said, “Instead of whining from the outside about Ian Huntley I decided to constructively engage with him,” and by now she’d be in the House of Lords.

And there’s another clue about whether they were aware of their part in the military dictatorship. One clause in their deal with the regime reads: “The contract shall be terminated in its entirety if irrefutable evidence is brought that Total is involved willingly with political activities detrimental to the government.”

So how could they sign that and not be aware they were making themselves a tool of that government? Maybe their PR person will claim they were all confused by the broker, the same way people signed up for endowment mortgages in the 1980s.

Like every company that makes profits in a vile regime, Total claims that if it pulled out this would hurt the poorest people most. But the opposition in Burma calls for companies to pull out, and they were supported by 82 per cent of the population, in the election the military trampled over.

So Total are in the same position as companies who made millions out of apartheid South Africa, claiming that to pull their business out would hurt black people, despite the fact black people were demanding them to pull out. And when apartheid fell, very few black people said, “Thanks to all those people who helped bring down apartheid by making money out of it. Thank you so much to Shell Oil, and to Cliff Richard and to all the sportsmen who broke our boycott. Our gratitude is with you for ever.”

You’d have more respect if they said, “We’re making a fortune, so sod the monks. Anyway, they reckon they’ll come back as something better so we’re doing them a favour.”

The Conservatives, like George Bush, can praise and cheer the Burmese opposition, but it’s the free market profiteering they idolise that glues the barbarity into place.

The Junta's Accomplices

Ellie Keen — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:23:19 +0000

China has become the world’s excuse for inaction. If there is anything a government or a business does not want to do, it invokes the Yellow Peril. Raise the minimum wage to £6 an hour? Not when the Chinese are paid £6 a year. Cap working time at 48 hours a week? The Chinese are working 48 hours a day. Cut greenhouse gas emissions? The Chinese are building a new power station every nanosecond. China is our looking-glass bogeyman. If you behave well, the bogeyman will get you.

As we saw during George Bush’s climate pantomime last week, China the excuse is not the same place as the China the country. Bush insists that the US cannot accept mandatory carbon cuts, because China and India would reject them. But while he stuck to his voluntary approach, China and India called for mandatory cuts¹. “China” is a projection of the West’s worst practices.

I mention this because the western companies still trading with Burma use it as their first and last defence. If we withdraw, they insist, China will fill the gap. It is true that the Chinese government has offered the Burmese generals political protection in return for cheap resources. In January, for example, China vetoed a UN resolution condemning the junta’s human rights record. Three days later it was given lucrative gas concessions in the Bay of Bengal². It is also true that the Chinese government has no interest in promoting democracy abroad. But the more the Burmese junta must rely on a single source of investment and protection, the more vulnerable it becomes. China is not intractable. If western governments boycotted the Beijing Olympics, they would precipitate the biggest political crisis in that country since 1989.

The businesses still working in Burma are having to scrape the barrel of excuses. Even Tony Blair, that bundle of corporate interests in human form, said “we do not believe that trade is appropriate when the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of its people”³. Explaining his company’s decision to pull out of the country, the CEO of Reebok noted that “it’s impossible to conduct business in Burma without supporting this regime. In fact, the junta’s core funding derives from foreign investment and trade.”⁴ As the junta either controls or takes a cut from most of the economy, as almost half the tax foreign business generates is used to buy arms, any company working in Burma is helping to oppress its people.

The travel firms Asean Explorer and Pettitts, which take British tourists round the country in defiance of Aung San Suu Kyi’s pleas, both refused to comment when I rang them, then slammed down the phone⁵. Aquatic, a British company which provides services for gas and oil firms, was more polite, but still refused to talk⁶. The tourism companies Audley Travel and Andrew Brock Ltd promised to phone me back but failed to do so⁷. But aside from invoking the Chinese bogeyman, each of the others produced a different justification.

The spokeswoman for Orient Express, a travel company which runs a cruiser on the River Irrawaddy and a hotel in Rangoon, told me that “tourism can be a catalyst for change.” Given that tourism has continued throughout the junta’s rule, I asked, how effective has that catalyst been? “There has been very slow progress, but we feel it has helped.”⁸ The Ultimate Travel Company explained that “We feel we just like to offer the people who travel with us a choice. If people want to travel, they can. And really I’d prefer not to enter into a debate about it.”⁹

Rolls-Royce, which overhauls engines for Myanmar Airways, a company owned by the state, told me that it operates “in line with UK export licences. … As long as we are meeting government requirements, that’s what we work to. I’m not getting into a debate on this issue. We’re doing this to ensure passenger safety.”¹⁰

William Garvey, the boss of the furniture company which bears his name and which works mostly in Burmese teak, admitted that he buys timber “that comes from Rangoon, through government channels.” But if he stopped, “a highly likely consequence is that the rate of felling would increase dramatically. … whatever you may think about the Burmese government, they are still using a sustainable system for extracting teak.” Aren’t human rights a component of sustainability? “In the strict sense, no.”¹¹

The managing director of Britannic Garden Furniture, which makes its benches from Burmese teak, and supplies the Royal Parks and the Tower of London, told me “I know it’s no excuse to say we don’t buy it directly. … You try and get teak from other sources. But it’s rubbish. … The government has given us no directive not to trade with Burma.”¹²

All these companies have felt some pressure already, thanks to the work of the Burma Campaign UK, which includes them on its “dirty list”¹³. But I have stumbled across one western firm which most Burma campaigners appear to have missed. It is run by one of the world’s most famous sportsmen, the golfer Gary Player. Player has made much of his ethical credentials. Next month he will host the Nelson Mandela Invitational golf tournament, whose purpose is “to make a difference in the lives of children”. One of his websites shows a painting of Mr Player bathed in radiant light and surrounded by smiling children. Nelson Mandela stands behind him, lit by the same faint halo ¹⁴.

Golf, to most of us, looks like a harmless if mysterious activity, but in Burma it is a powerful symbol of oppression. Some of the country’s courses have been built on land seized from peasant farmers, who were evicted without compensation. Golf is the sport of the generals, who conduct much of their business on the links.

Player’s website shows him, in 2002, launching the “grand opening” of the golf course he designed, which turned “a 650-acre rice paddy into The Pride of Myanmar. The golfer’s paradise that stands in Myanmar today is said to be living proof that miracles do happen.”¹⁵. I asked his company the following questions. Who owned the land on which the course was constructed? How many people were evicted in order to build it? Was forced labour used in its construction? As Player’s company is based in Florida, did the design of this course break US sanctions? His media spokesman told me “The Gary Player Group has decided not to comment on any questions regarding Myanmar-Burma”¹⁶. It seems to me that there is a strong case for asking Nelson Mandela to remove his name from Mr Player’s tournament.

If, like me, you have been shaking your head over the crushing of the protests, wondering what on earth you can do, I suggest you get on the phone to these companies, demanding, politely, that they cut their ties. I sense that it wouldn’t take much more pressure to persuade them to pull out. By itself, this won’t bring down the regime. But it will cut its sources of income, and allow us to focus on confronting the reality of Chinese investment, rather than the excuse.

References:

1. Ewen MacAskill, 29th September 2007. Europeans angry after Bush climate speech ‘charade’. The Guardian.

2. No author, 20th July 2007. Myanmar: Pariah or Prospect? Energy Compass.

3. Tony Blair, 25 Jun 2003. Prime Minister’s Questions. Hansard Column 1042. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030625/debt...

4. Paul Fireman, 7th June 2005. Burma: Time to Restore Human Rights and Democracy. Wall Street Journal.

5. Phoned on 28th September.

6. ibid.

7. ibid.

8. Pippa Isbell, Orient Express, 28th September 2007.

9. Gloria Ward, Ultimate Travel Company, 28th September 2007.

10. Martin Brodie, Rolls-Royce, 28th September 2007.

11. William Garvey, William Garvey Ltd, 28th September 2007.

12. The managing director would not give her name. 28th September 2007

13. http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/dirty_list/dirty_list_details.html

14. The painting flashes up in the top righthand panel here: http://www.nmigolf.co.za/default.asp

15. Gary Player Design, 21st November 2002. Design Excellence Revealed at Grand Opening of Gary Player Signature Course in Myanmar. http://www.garyplayer.com/newsRead.asp?cid=3&pageid=1&articleid=12

16. Duncan Cruickshank, 30th September 2007.

Things Can Only Get Buddha

The Staff — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:13:08 +0000

"I call on those who embrace the values of human rights and freedom to support the legitimate demands of the Burmese people." - George Bush.

Burma’s people are on the streets. Simmering discontent with the military junta that keeps millions in poverty boiled over into saffron-clad streetrage this week. The biggest clashes since 1988 were sparked by a 500% rise in the price of fuel, which also sent the cost of foodstuffs soaring. The first march by students and monks on 19th August led to series of protests; a movement which has been confronted with countrywide curfews, tear gas and live fire. There is no doubting their courage but why the sudden outpouring of concern for human rights from the West’s leaders? And why is it twenty years late?

Gordon gave us the answer in a comment piece in the Independent when he came to the heart of the matter - “Burma should be one of the most promising economies in south-east Asia. Instead, it is one of the poorest countries in the region.”

Roughly translated – Burma’s military junta just aren’t very good at ensuring that enough of the country’s natural wealth ends up in the hands of the western corporations. And recently, instead of opening the country up to western investment, the regime has become more friendly with regional superpower China. During the first seven months of this year, China-Burmese trade reached £600m up 40% compared to last year. So suddenly the West swings behind the idea of sanctions - maybe if the junta can be ousted then we could find more PR friendly people with whom we could do business.

The clashes in 1988 led to mass repression and the deaths of 3000, but extracted the promise of an election out of the junta. This was won outright two years later by the NLD, personified in the West by Aung San Suu Kyi who’s been under house arrest for 11 years. Suu Kyi has achieved a Mandela-like status in the West in recent years, and Gordon demanded that any solution in Burma have her “at its heart”. However her party has little control over the uprising. In fact they’ve been pleading from the sidelines for the gatherings not to become an excuse to topple the regime, preferring the adoption of sanctions by the international community to bring the junta to the negotiating table.

Burma solidarity campaigners have been screaming for sanctions for twenty years but apart from an arms embargo, the EU has only issued ‘guidance’ on investment. The largest western investor is French oil conglomerate, Total. The UK follows with $26m in trade but ‘recommends’ that the multinationals shouldn’t increase trade with Burma. The EU - policing its guidelines - has confiscated a wallet-busting four grand. With such a brutal regime in power, it’s also a little embarrassing when by 2000, the EU was responsible for almost three-quarters of all investment and nearly one third of those corporations doing business in the country had their headquarters based in Europe. Profits from foreign investment have helped double military spending at the same time the public health and education systems have crumbled. Outside investment is not the answer in Burma – it’s the problem. What the west would like to see in Burma is a transition to ‘democracy’ of a wearyingly familiar market variety.

The question is: when the military junta eventually have to step away from government (although not necessarily power), will a free and newly elected Aung San Suu Kyi sign on the dotted line with the IMF and World Bank? And will there be a deal for Western support or will she think a little more carefully about the historical precedent and tell foreign investors where to shove it? Answers on a postcard to the usual address....

* For more background about Burma see www.burmacampaign.org.uk

* Read John Pilger’s book 'Freedom Next Time', about how corporate interests exert power over former authoritarian regimes - www.johnpilger.com

EU Countries Arming Myanmar

Tim Holmes — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:22:46 +0000

New report by Amnesty International, Saferworld and other NGOs: EU-Made Rockets, Guns And Engines Risk Undermining Myanmar Arms Embargo

The proposed transfer to Myanmar (Burma) of a military helicopter containing components and technology from as many as six European Union countries threatens to undermine an EU arms embargo on Myanmar, according to a new report issued today.

‘Indian helicopters for Myanmar: making a mockery of the EU arms embargo?’, a report by European and international NGOs, including Amnesty International and Saferworld, cites credible sources who say that the Indian government is planning to transfer the Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) to Myanmar. It reveals how the Indian-manufactured helicopter would not be operational without vital components from EU Member States and highlights the urgent need for stricter EU arms controls.

Should this transfer go ahead, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK could be undermining an EU arms embargo on Myanmar in place since 1988.

Variants of the ALH attack helicopter contain rocket launchers from Belgium; rockets, guns and engines from France; brake systems from Italy; fuel tanks and gearboxes from the UK and self-protection equipment from a Swedish company. German companies have been crucial to the design development of the ALH.

Saferworld’s Roy Isbister said:
“The EU embargo explicitly states that no military equipment should be supplied, either directly or indirectly, for use in Myanmar – what’s the point in having an arms embargo if it is not going to be implemented or enforced?”

Myanmar – or Burma – has a widely-documented record of serious human rights violations, which the United Nations has described as widespread and systematic. Such abuses include summary executions, torture, and the recruitment of child soldiers.

Amnesty International’s arms control researcher Helen Hughes said:
“Greater attention has to be given to the end-use agreements and the re-export of components from EU member states. Otherwise, these states could find themselves indirectly propping up a brutal regime which they themselves have condemned and whose violations have amounted to crimes against humanity.”

Info Birmanie, Burma Campaign, France said:
“The EU must stand by its obligations to prevent its military equipment being used in Burma and urge the Indian Government to stop this transfer. EU equipment must not be allowed to be used in connection with human rights abuses in Burma.”

The report also identifies US companies involved in the making of military equipment for the ALH despite a US arms embargo on Myanmar. Currently, there are no existing restrictions on India transferring these weapons to Myanmar.

The report calls on the EU to initiate immediate consultations with the Indian government. If India plans to supply or has indeed already supplied ALHs to Myanmar, EU member states should:

• withdraw all existing export licence authorisations and refuse any new applications for any transfers of components or technology that could be used for the ALH;
• discontinue all future production co-operation with India that might lead to transfers of embargoed equipment to Myanmar;
• attach to all future licences for transfers of controlled goods and technology to India a strict and enforceable condition prohibiting re-export to states under embargo.

In addition to improving national and EU practice, EU member states should give their full support to current efforts to develop an international Arms Trade Treaty, establishing globally-binding rules on arms transfers in accordance with international law and human rights standards.

The report can be viewed here.

For more information, please contact:

Nicola East, Amnesty International, Tel: +44 (0)207 413 5729; "neast@amnesty.org":mailto:neast@amnesty.org

Sonia Rai, Advocacy and Communications, Saferworld, Tel: +44 (0)207 324 4646; "srai@saferworld.org.uk":mailto:srai@saferworld.org.uk

NGOs endorsing this report include:
Africa-Europe Faith & Justice Network (AEFJN), Belgium; Amnesty International; Armaments Information Office (RüstungsInformationsBüro), Germany; Burma Campaign France; Burma Campaign UK; Caritas France; Campagne tegen Wapenhandel, Netherlands; Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), UK; Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité (GRIP), Belgium; Pax Christi Flanders; School for a Culture of Peace, Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain); Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation (SweFOR); Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society (SPAS); Saferworld, UK; Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC), UK.