Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Security Council
6161st Meeting (AM)
The refusal by Myanmar’s senior leadership to allow Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was not only a deep disappointment, but also a major lost opportunity for the country, he told the Security Council today.
Briefing the Council on his recent visit to Myanmar, he said that allowing such a meeting would have sent a constructive, conciliatory signal inside the country and abroad. He said that, during two meetings with Senior General Than Shwe, the Head of State, and one with General Thein Sein, the Prime Minister, he had made special proposals with a particular focus on three outstanding concerns that could undermine confidence in the political process if not addressed: the release of all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi; the resumption of a substantive dialogue between the Government and the opposition; and the creation of conditions conducive to credible and legitimate elections in 2010.
He went on to say he had proposed that the senior leadership enhance cooperation with the United Nations to address pressing development needs through a broad-based process involving all sectors of society. Empowering the people to participate in development was equally important for stability, democracy and prosperity, and in order to ensure that Myanmar benefited fully from, and contributed to, the regional and global economy. “I have made clear my expectation, and that of the international community, that the Government needs to deliver on the promise to make the 2010 elections inclusive, free and fair, and to take necessary steps on my specific proposals in the very near future.” Senior General Than Shwe had pledged to ensure the elections were free and fair.
Before leaving Myanmar, the Secretary-General continued, he had been able publicly to reiterate a dual twofold message in a keynote speech to a large and diverse audience in Yangon: that, while Myanmar had a unique and complex history, the challenges it faced as a country in transition were neither exceptional nor insurmountable; and that the choice in the coming days and weeks would be for Myanmar’s leadership to meet their responsibilities or fail their own people. “The world is now watching closely whether they will choose to act in the best interest of their country or ignore our concerns and expectations and the needs of their people.”
Myanmar’s representative responded by saying that the utmost had been done to accommodate the Secretary-General’s requests, except the one for a meeting with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi due to the Special Court’s independent jurisdiction over the matter. The Secretary-General had discussed Myanmar’s social and economic development at length with the Prime Minister, who had noted that some States had imposed economic sanctions on the country instead of providing assistance and cooperation. The Government intended to implement all appropriate recommendations proposed by the Secretary-General, including on such matters as amnesty for prisoners and technical assistance for the elections.
Myanmar’s acceptance of the Secretary-General’s good offices mission, as well as his two visits in just over a year, were important milestones of its cooperation with the United Nations. His recent visit had been successful, whereas undue pressure from the outside, without full comprehension of the challenges facing the country, would not be conducive to its home-grown political process. Myanmar posed no threat to international peace and security, therefore, no Council action was warranted.
In the ensuing discussion, Council members stressed the importance of, and expressed support for, the role that the United Nations could play through the Secretary-General’s good offices. While disappointed that he had been unable to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, most speakers underlined the necessity of the unconditional release, not only of the Nobel Peace Laureate, but also of all other political prisoners in order to make the process leading to the 2010 elections free, transparent and participatory.
However, some speakers said the Secretary-General’s failure to meet with the opposition leader should not be the only criterion by which the success of his visit should be judged. The authorities had made gains towards the goal of a democratic society through implementation of a seven-step road map, of which the holding of general elections in 2010 would be an important step. The country’s internal affairs should be handled by the Government, in consultation with the population and with the assistance of the international community, some speakers said, welcoming the involvement of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).
China’s representative described the Secretary-General’s visit as significant and that its positive outcome deserved a fair assessment by the international community, adding that it would be unfair to turn a blind eye to the progress that Myanmar had made. As an Asian country and a neighbour, China fully understood Myanmar’s challenges, the biggest of which was development. In addition, armed groups inside the country had not yet signed peace agreements with the Government. National unity and reconciliation were, therefore, another big challenge. Hopefully the international sanctions against Myanmar would be lifted, which was necessary for the creation of an enabling environment for development. Events occurring inside Myanmar were internal matters that posed no threat to international peace and security.
The representative of the United Kingdom emphasized, however, that the visit had been an opportunity for the Government to transform its relationship with the international community, and its failure to take that opportunity only served to isolate the regime further. Without improvement in the situation, including an acceptable outcome to the trial of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the international community must react firmly, he stressed.
France’s representative added that that the Myanmar Government had not only done nothing to meet the Council’s demands, but it had taken decisions to counter those demands. A genuine process of national reconciliation was a precondition of which the release of Aung San Suu Kyi was an essential part. However, the current impasse was no reason for the international community to do nothing. While the Council must respond firmly if she was found guilty, inaction must not be the price of a unified response.
Also making statements were the representatives of Mexico, Japan, United States, Austria, Viet Nam, Russian Federation, Croatia, Turkey, Libya, Costa Rica, Burkina Faso and Uganda.
The meeting began at 11:38 a.m. and adjourned at 1:19 p.m.
No comments:
Post a Comment