Nat'l Coalition Govt. of the Union of Burma       Government and Politics of Burma        BurmaFund WebIndex

Washington D.C, 14 January, 1999.

Let me begin with expressing my deep appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Jody K. Olsen, Senior Vice President of the Academy for Educational Development, for providing an opportunity to participate in this interesting intergenerational dialogue. It is the urgent need of the world today to emphasize human rights components in designing development policy for 21st century.

Seven years ago in Rio de Janeiro, the "Earth Summit" set Agenda 21, a comprehensive strategy for global action for sustainable development. All of us confirmed that "Environmental sustainability" and "social justice" are the two fundamental elements of sustainable development. All of us agreed that sustainable development is the reasonable development paradigm that will ensure the humankind to enjoy a healthy and productive life in harmony with the environment.

After witnessing the fact that economic growth alone cannot alleviate poverty and bring development for humankind, there was a debate among economists and international agencies that attempted to redefine the concept of development. In A New Concept of Development, François Perroux asserted that "personal development, the freedom of persons fulfilling their potential in the context of the values to which they subscribe and which they experience in their actions, is one of the mainsprings of all forms of Development." That concept was reaffirmed in the Copenhagen declaration on social development acknowledging that "people are at the center of our concerns for sustainable development."

The human development perspective- a process of expanding human choices by enabling them to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives- has been moved to the mainstream of the global development debate. The concept of human development provides an alternative to the traditional view that equates development exclusively with economic growth. In contrast, human development focuses on people. And, it sees economic growth and higher consumption not as ends in themselves but as means to achieve human development.

Nonetheless, concern with economic growth as an end itself continues to dominate policy choices - often measuring success and failure in terms of changes in GDP and stock market performance rather than focusing on how economic growth can promote human development in a sustainable and equitable manner. Human development has yet entered into many aspects of policy-making and frameworks for action.

Today, we are passing through an age of Globalization, which is a consequence of increased human mobility, enhanced communications, greatly increased trade and capital flows, and technological development. Globalization opens new opportunities for sustained economic growth and development of the world economy, particularly in developing countries. However, we are witnessing that the rapid process of change and adjustment is also accompanied by intensified poverty, unemployment and social disintegration. Threats to human well-being, such as environmental risks, have also been globalized.

Disturbingly, many governments still assume that economic development can resolve all the problems that their countries are facing. Healthy economic development is seen as "essential to meeting the challenge of peace and security, the challenge of human rights and responsibilities, the challenge of democracy and rule of law, the challenge of social justice and reform, the challenge of cultural renaissance and pluralism".

In my view, nothing is further from the truth. In the past decade, there has been growing international consensus over the fundamental relationship between the universal values of "human rights", "environmental rights" and "development rights". The overarching link between these three rights is the most fundamental right of all - "the right to life" as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But underlying such linkage is also recognition that there can be no environmental protection or sustainable development without social and political justice for the people.

I believe that conditions necessary for the achievement of sustainable development are two other fundamental human rights: the "right to freedom of opinion and expression" as guaranteed in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the "right to political participation", which is guaranteed in the Article 21 of the Universal Declaration and codified in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Such rights, which include access to information, have long been regarded as essential in the environmental protection for two reasons. First, they allow citizens to investigate, report and learn of ecological hazards, such as pollution or deforestation, which could endanger their communities. Second, by guaranteeing the rights of citizens to engage in the decision-making process over the use of their lands and natural resources, they are able to address such underlying conditions as drought, war, poverty or repression, which frequently cause communities or governments to despoil their own environments even more.

We also see that communities or areas of the earth which are under great threat of poverty and environmental degradation are generally those inhabited by ethnic minority groups vulnerable to racial discrimination or caught in the civil war. Therefore, it is equally important to strengthen the international human rights instruments to protect the rights of the ethnic minorities, especially, their right of self-determination and their right to dispose of their wealth and natural resources, land rights, the right to development, to participation, to work and to information, the right of peaceful assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression. The 1989 Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (No.169) of the International Labour Organization (ILO) implicitly guarantees the right of ethnic minorities people to full representation in political, cultural or economic discussions which might effect their lives.

The problem of poverty provides an example of the inadequacy of a purely economic approach to the human situation. It is not enough merely to provide the poor with material assistance. They have to be sufficiently empowered to change their perceptions of themselves as helpless and ineffectual in an uncaring world. They must have the sense that they can shape their own future. The question of empowerment is central to the sustainable development.

Peoples' participation in social and political transformation is the central issue of our time. This can only be achieved through the establishment of societies, which place human worth above power and liberation above control. In this paradigm development requires democracy, the genuine empowerment of people.

In an "Agenda for Development", UN Secretary-General said, "Democracy and development are linked in fundamental ways. They are linked because democracy provides the only long-term basis for managing competing ethnic, religious, and cultural interests in a way that minimizes the risk of violent internal conflict. They are linked because democracy is inherently attached to the question of governance, which has an impact on all aspects of development efforts. They are linked because democracy is a fundamental human right, the advancement of which is itself an important measure of development. They are linked because peoples' participation in the decision making-processes which effect their lives is a basic tenet of development."

The Earth Summit also recognized the role of stake holders-"Major Groups"- in implementing Agenda 21. The nine major groups in Agenda 21 are: women, children and youth, indigenous people, non-governmental organizations, local authorities, trade unions, business and industry, scientific and technical community, and farmers. The Summit stressed the need for new forms of governance in which local stakeholders groups are drawn into local decision-making processes. Thus, participation of the people in the development process has become the central theme in a new development concept.

Tragically, my country, Burma, is the most appropriate example of how a resource rich country has declined to the level of least developing country when the ruling military elite denies basic human rights and fundamental freedoms to its people.

After the brutal suppression of the popular democratic uprising in 1988, the ruling military junta claimed that Burma would be transformed from "socialist centrally-planned to a "free market economy". For the first time in 26 years since 1962, foreign direct investment was invited to exploit the natural resources of the country. Multinational companies rushed in to exploit teak forests, gems and minerals, marine resources and offshore oil and gas reserves. The military also strove for tourism development and declared 1996 as Visit Myanmar Year. Indeed, the new economic policy of the regime puts its highest priority on short-term survival rather than the rational long-term interests of the country.

What has happened after ten years of Military's way to Capitalism? Burma is still one of the poorest states with the rank of UNDP Human Development index 131 and per capita income--less than US$ 200. The Burmese economy is worse than ever before and there is serious threat of starvation facing many because of rice shortages. FDI fell more than 53% to $771 million. The national currency has been loosing its value. In the black market rate, one US$ is equal to 350 Kyats while the official exchange rate is just 6.7 Kyats. The inflation rate is between 40 and 50%. Foreign currency reserves are just about US$ 100 millions--enough for only one-month's imports. There is current deficit of trade, which is at least US$ 814 millions and foreign debt is 7 billion dollars.

Everywhere in Burma, there is evidence of poverty, ethnic conflict and a growing threat to the environment. Such concerns transcend every region, war zone and ethnic community. The most obvious victims are the 120,000 refugees and half a million migrants in Thailand who fled from the country since the military regime came to power. These forcible population transfers and other forms of human rights violations; killing,torure,rape,forced labor, extortion of money, burning of villages and crops in areas of ethnic minorities, have led to the destruction of the socioeconomic fabric of village life, wide spread malnutrition and death, internal displacement of about one million people and continuous flow of refugees into neighbouring countries. The worst fate is probably that of the 30,000 Burmese women being exploited in the sex industry in Thailand. They are facing constant danger of being arrested by Thai immigration authorities and extremely vulnerable to HIV/AIDS.

Since SLORC/SPDC came to power, timber exports have, along with heroin, become the major foreign exchange income earners with average of US$200 millions in 1990s. That statistics itself manifests how forests have been excessively exploited. The Rainforest Action Network has calculated Burma's annual deforestation rate at 800,000 to one million hectares a year, one of the five highest in the world. In central Burma, landlessness and deforestation are the major causes of extreme rural poverty.

In the 1993 Agricultural Census covering the entire nation, out of 33 million living in rural area, only 11 million people lived in housholds which held at least 3 acres. Three acres is roughly a minimum sized holding to allow subsistence. Once landless, a family faces difficult prospects. Agricultural work is poorly paid and not always available. Many landless augment their income by chopping down trees for firewood for their own use or for selling, further compounding the damage caused by commercial logging. In that way, rural poverty and destruction of environment are in vicious cycle.

Another problematic area that caused human rights violations and threatening rain forest and wild life is the gas pipeline project in Southern part of Burma constructed jointly by the UNOCAL (US),TOTAL (France) and PTTEP (Thailand). The pipeline runs from the offshore Yadana gas field in the Gulf of Mataban, through landholdings of indigenous Karen and Mon, before reaching electricity generation turbines in Ratburi, Thailand. The project is consolidating SLORC's military stranglehold on the area, where human rights abuses against ethnic minorities are common.

Karen and Mon villages throughout the pipeline area have faced harassment and relocation since 1991. In a promotional advertisement in the Bangkok Post on April 17, 1995, even the electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, admitted that military regime has forcibly relocated eleven Karen villages from pipeline route. Villages in the area were burned and looted by the Burmese army, and villages were taken as forced laborer and subjected to torture and execution. According to the US Department of Labor, forced labor was used in the initial clearing of the pipeline route, and on related infrastructure development. It has also been used in the construction of barracks, trenches for the 25 newly deployed battalions in the area and porterage for those units. Refugees are still fleeing from that area to escape from the forced labour and persecution.

The Karen National Union and New Mon State Party leaders contend that critical decisions, which will have a vast impact on the future of their peoples, were made between Western Oil Companies and the Burmese Military Regime, without proper representation or any public environmental studies. According to a press release of the NMSP in May 1994: "Ethnic nationalities and ecological diversity are the immediate victims of greed and racism, because the oil and gas corporations as well as multinational investors are assisting the military junta with technical aid and propaganda to legitimize military rule."

The deteriorating economic situation in Burma and a leadership that is more interested in keeping its own privileges than the welfare of the people have harmed the health of Burma’s people, particularly, her women and children. According to UNICEF, the infant mortality rate in 1996 was 105 per 1,000 live births. Compare this with 33 per 1,000 in vietnam, 31 in Thailand and 11 in Malaysia. One million of our children are reportedly malnourished. Maternal mortality rates are 580 per 100,000 live births, as compared to 80 for Malaysia and 10 for Singapore. Only 10 percent of the rural population has direct access to maternity care provided by a midwife. The Universal Child Immunization Programme which is conducted with UNICEF's support, reaches less than 60% of children nationwide. AIDS continues to be an important public health problem. In 1996, The World Health Organization estimated that approximately, 500,000 people had been infected with HIV.

The regime’s greatest negligence—a failing which is virtually unique in the world—is its ‘de-education’ of Burma’s people. Whenever there is a student movement that demands students rights, democracy or human rights, the military immediately responds by closing down all the universities and colleges. In its 10 years rule of SLORC/SPDC, the regime has so far closed the universities for seven years. All of Burma’s universities and colleges have been closed since December 1996 and it is the great loss for Burma’s young people. Worse, it is a loss for Burma’s future because my country is no longer producing the doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and other professionals that are so necessary in any modern society.

The concluding remark made by Dr. David Dapice in his report to the UNDP is an unmistakable warning sign with regard to Burma’s future.

"If the combination of growing population, a diminishing resource base, and poor policies which aggravate existing problems continue, it is likely that some threshold will be passed in the next decade or so. Having passed this point, recovery will be difficult and increasingly expensive."

It is the time for all parties involved in state of affairs of Burma to enter into a substantive political dialogue, build a national consensus and reconciliation, and find a future course of action for the national survival and renewal.

Rapid transition to democracy, respect for human rights and strengthening of the civil society are the prerequisites for the sustainable development in Burma or anywhere else in the world. We have to continue to strife for the implication of sustainable development concept in many aspects of policy making and framework for action at the national level as well as international level. Of course, there are overwhelming challenges waiting ahead. Let me conclude with a quotation of total hope, the words of civil rights movement leader and my great hero of this century, Martin Luther King Jr.

We shall overcome.