Tories call for global action to support Burma's brave protestors

The news coming out of Burma is gripping.  BBC Online is reporting that thousands of monks and their supporters are marching despite baton charges from the authorities.  There are suggestions that Aung San Suu Kyi has been taken to prison and that internet cafes are being shut down.

John Bercow MP, just back from a trip to the India-Burma border with ConservativeHome regular and human rights campaigner Ben Rogers, has written for this morning's Independent about the nature of the Rangoon regime:

"Burma's junta is guilty of every conceivable human rights violation. It has the highest number of forcibly conscripted child soldiers in the world. It spends more than 40 per cent of its budget on the military, and less than 60p per person per year on health and education combined. Since 1996, the regime has destroyed more than 3,000 villages in eastern Burma alone. More than a million people have been forced to flee their villages, and are on the run in the jungle without adequate food, medicine or shelter."

In his article Mr Bercow echoed earlier calls from Shadow Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell for strong action from the international community.  Mr Mitchell called for carefully-targeted sanctions against key members of the regime.  He continued:

"We also look to the international community to honour its ‘Responsibility to Protect’. We have a duty to protect those who suffer at the hands of oppressive regimes such as the Burmese junta. We must stand united with the brave people who have taken to the streets in Burma in the last few days, people who are prepared to risk their lives to achieve democratic rule – the rights we take for granted."

Also worth reading is Baroness Cox's op-ed in The Telegraph: Now is the time to topple Burma's tyrants

Comments

[Editor]

I think Conservatives owe a particular thank you to Ben Rogers for equipping so many Conservatives with a knowledge of Burma.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I don't understand how Britain can increase sanctions as I'd thought that no British company did business in Burma anyway? Am I wrong about this?

[Jomo]

What about the vile regime in China supporting the generals in Burma. Is Bercow suggesting a boycott of the Olympics or sanctions on trade with China?

Is this really serious foreign policy?

[Traditional Tory]

China, North Korea, Sudan Zimbabwe, the list goes on. I do not understand the obsession with Burma.

Of course this is a pariah regime and should not be supported by the international community. Appropriate sanctions should be applied through the United Nations. Hot air from the ikes of Bercow will achieve nothing whatsoever.

Beyond that there is little that can can be done. The future of Burma will effectively be decided by China, not by us.

[Opinicus]

In what sense is Bercow still a Tory?

[Traditional Tory]

In what sense is Bercow still a Tory?

Do you think he and his new buddy Brown could be spinning this Burma business to enable Bercow to jump ship while claiming some high moral reason for doing so?

I'm pencilling in the first day of the Conservative Conference for the big announcement.

[James Mawdsley]

The Burmese will not stop their protests. Even if there are more deaths they will keep coming out over the coming weeks/months. There may be periods of quiet, as in 1988, but the determination now is greater than in 1988.

Added to this are two crucial new factors. Firstly the telecommunications revolution means not only that the world is daily informed of developments in Burma, but also the Burmese people now have a far clearer picture of the situation across their whole country in comparison to the information they had in 1988.

Gordon Brown's assurance that the Security Council will meet today (Wed) specifically to discuss Burma is an exceedingly welcome consequence of all these factors.

The key at the UNSC is China. Certainly China does not want to see democracy in Burma; China does not want to share a border with a free country. But China can be moved.

China has more at stake in the 2008 Olympics than any other country. They will take disruptions and threats to the Olympic plan extremely seriously.

A boycott of national squads from the Olympics is probably out of reach at the moment.

However, it is very possible to begin a boycott of companies sponsorig the Beijing 2008 Olympics, on the grounds that they are partners of a government which supports inhuman tyranny. [China's claim that they do not intefere in foreign nations is rubbish. They are raping parts many of Africa and are a massive military and economic player in Burma.]

Visa, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Johnson & Johnson, Kodak and Volkswagen are just six high-profile sponsors of the Beijing Olympics and they will be extremely sensitive to consumer boycotts.

In the event of new massacres in Burma, and if China is uncooperative at the UNSC, what do people think about writing to these companies to warn them of a boycott, and then to carry it out if they do not respond reasonably?

One of the weakest aspects of this proposal might be the timescale. We might be tempted to think that the situation in Burma demands effective action in days not months. But although the world would love to see a speedy resolution in Burma, the chances are that it will be protracted.

In the event of widespread killing in Burma, and if the demonstrators appear to be cowed, we should not think that is the end of it. The feelings are too strong; the cause is too just; the world's interest is now too real: the Burmese are determined, they will not have their spirit broken soon.

[Iain]

"Gordon Brown's assurance that the Security Council will meet today (Wed) specifically to discuss Burma is an exceedingly welcome consequence of all these factors.
"

But it was also noticeable in Jeremy Paxman's interview with Milliband what little consideration the Labour Government have given to this issue.

Firstly Newsnight believes that whilst the Labour Government have given £120,000 for bat conservation in Burma, they have given nothing to support the democracy movement.

In addition when asked what was the Labour Government was going to do on the issue, Milliband thought an EU meeting was a sufficient response, which made Paxman wonder why we had to wait for the EU to do something ( we are still supposed to have an independent foreign policy aren't we? )

But if they wanted do something they could join with the US and put sanctions on Burma. No need to have a discussion in the EU or the UN, they just need to get on and do it, at least signal that they are joining the US and putting on sanctions.

[anthony scholefield]

Now we know where one Tory has been over the last few weeks-the border of Burma with India. As Winston Churchill said about Uganda and from my personal experience it is fine country but not much to eat.
You wont find many conservative votes there, Mr Bercow.

[George Hinton]

It's a shame that Burma doesn't have great deal of oil. Otherwise, rather than watching news links of the monks and demonstrators being beaten, shot at and tear-gassed, we could have wholesome footage of Dubya's liberating troops advancing up the Irrawaddy, shooting the ecstatic natives.

[Rod Sellers]

If Bercow is involved in anyway then count me out. All very unfortunate but not high up on the agenda for |Britain. Why do we seem to think that everything is sorted at home and we need to look for even more challenges, When we have done something about 'Rhodesia' then we can fret about Burma.

[Scotty]

I hope the people of Burma can finally rid themselves of this terrible military junta, and in doing so, gain the democracy that we so often take for granted.
I also hope that I will not be yet again left disillusioned and disappointed at the UN's appalling lack of REAL power or motivation to seek a worldwide consensus. Will we finally see them achieving something concrete that will be of real help to the people of Burma?
Oh what great ambitions the world once had for that organisation!!