Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-16-Speech-4-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001116.9.4-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there are several reasons as to why we are once again discussing Burma – in fact this is the second time since the summer – and nor is this the first time this year that this country has been on the agenda. There are several reasons for this. Not long ago, Aung San Suukyi was again denied permission to leave Rangoon and talk to the supporters of her party, the NLD, a party which won the elections by such a large majority and has never been allowed to wield power. It is true that James Mawdsley, the activist we talked about two months ago, has been released since then. We might think that this is a small ray of hope, but that must not divert us from the major issues, from the big picture that we get in Burma. At the end of the day, the fact remains that the UN rapporteur for human rights returned from Burma with a negative account. The human rights activist Soe Thein has been treated in a lamentable manner.
So there is every reason to talk about Burma again, and unfortunately there is no hope of it being the last time. Of course, slavery in Burma is talked about at length within the IAO. This is a subject that has not been given very much attention here to date, but, naturally, it must be discussed within the context of the European Union. The political repression continues and the flood of refugees, mainly headed for Thailand, continues – and for that matter, Thailand is putting troops into action. This is unacceptable in every sense by international standards. The military regime in Burma claims to be able to maintain order and stability in a country where ethnic rivalries are never far away. But the repression perpetrated by the regime only strengthens the rebellious feelings that can arise there and does not in any way, shape or form, lead to a resolution of potential ethnic conflicts. The problem of course, is what should we, as the European Union, do now? Our answer is to suggest that we keep the sanctions in place. I really do not think we have any alternative. The sad thing is that sanctions have proved ineffective so far. But ASEAN’s constructive contribution has fared no better, and I also have the feeling that increasingly, the other ASEAN countries, i.e. Burma’s neighbours, are beginning to feel ashamed of their decision to allow Burma to join ASEAN. Their philosophy of taking a constructive approach has failed and I feel that we, as the European Union, ought not to let them forget it. Round table talks with Burma do not work. In any case, I would not trust our own ministers to raise the matter there. They did not say a word about human rights at the ASEAN meeting in October, and I am not confident that they would do so now. That is why we are going to keep the sanctions strategy in place for the time being. We readily support the amendments that Mrs Kinnock tabled on that aspect."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples