Debate on Myanmar. Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Storting

Translated from Norwegian

 

Interpellation from Member of the Storting Laila Gustavsen to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

“The current developments in Myanmar (Burma) are encouraging. After almost 50 years of military rule, the first election in 20 years was held in November 2010. Since then, a great deal has been achieved. The country has gained a civilian government, President Thein Sein has initiated a programme of reform, political prisoners have been released, prior censorship of the press has ended and there are no longer restrictions on using the Internet. Having said this, the situation in Myanmar is far from perfect. Much remains to be done before it becomes a true democracy. More political prisoners need to be released, there must be greater respect for human rights, and conditions for the people – which are extremely difficult, particularly in the border areas – must be improved. Ethnic and religious groups are being systematically oppressed. Myanmar is in transition, and the country could develop in different directions. How would the Minister of Foreign Affairs describe the situation, and how can Norway’s policy make a positive contribution to Myanmar’s further democratic development?

 

Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre (main statement):

As Ms Gustavsen points out, recent developments in Myanmar are encouraging – and in my view, the situation is more encouraging than it has been for more than 20 years.

The election in 2010 was neither free, fair nor democratic. Nevertheless, it paved the way for establishing democratic institutions and processes, which have been crucial for the positive changes the country has undergone after the new government took office in April 2011.

In an interpellation debate on Myanmar on 18 January, I said that a new political landscape had been created, and that we would follow developments closely and consider our policy and approach accordingly.

We now see that there have been more changes than anticipated, and that the speed of change has been faster than anyone expected. The country has gained a functioning parliament, in which representatives from various parties have been able to pose questions openly and present proposals. The opposition has gained political room for manoeuvre that it has not had previously. This also applies to the ethnic parties, which despite the shortcomings of the 2010 election have achieved a significant level of representation in the regional parliaments.

A number of sensitive issues have been raised in parliament, including a proposal to introduce an amnesty for political prisoners. The proposal was approved, and it laid the political foundation for the process of releasing prisoners that we are now witnessing.

Furthermore, a new labour law has been adopted, which according to the ILO is the best law of its kind in Asia.

Parliamentary proceedings are open to the public, and they are broadcast on television and reported on in the newspapers.

These are all new developments.

Our impression is that there are now a larger number of actors in Myanmar pulling in the same direction. Former adversaries are now standing together. Aung San Suu Kyi has said on a number of occasions, including to Norwegian politicians, that she supports the President’s reform agenda, and she has called on the international community to support him.

The authorities and Aung San Suu Kyi and her party NLD are now engaged in substantive dialogue. The talks have led to the electoral registration law being amended in line with conditions set by the NLD, and the party has recently announced that it will participate in the forthcoming by-election. In the near future, the NLD could therefore become the country’s largest opposition party.

The ongoing process of releasing political prisoners is crucial for Myanmar’s democratic development, and for helping Myanmar to earn the trust of Western countries. In talks with Norway, the country’s authorities have assured us that this will continue, in which case the main demands the West has made of the Myanmar authorities could soon be met. It is therefore vital that we stand by what we have said in the past, and do not move the goalposts by making new demands before we have responded to what has been achieved.

So far, it seems as if Myanmar is undergoing a democratisation process which is not dissimilar to those of other ASEAN countries in the past, for example Indonesia. The changes have not come from the collapse of a regime or a revolution, but they have been the result of a gradual, controlled transition from dictatorship towards democracy. Western countries must be prepared to make a contribution during this process, as they have in other Asian countries, and we must make sure that we are able to respond swiftly when necessary.

Ms Gustavsen is also quite right to point out that the situation in Myanmar is far from perfect. The human rights situation gives cause for concern, particularly in the border areas, where there are intermittent armed clashes between the army and various groups. The civilian population is suffering due to the conflicts between the army and a number of armed ethnic groups. Deep divisions remain between the various groups in Myanmar. In some areas these divisions are visible in the form of armed conflict; in other areas we can see the kind of fragility associated with post-conflict situations.

The ethnic dimension is probably the greatest challenge facing Myanmar. It has never been resolved, neither under British rule nor after the country’s independence in 1948. In meetings with the authorities, Norway makes it very plain that the situation must be resolved by peaceful means, and that violence or discrimination against the ethnic groups concerned is unacceptable. If a solution is to be found, this will demand a great deal of all parties, including the international community, of which of course Norway is a part. We have said that we are willing to provide guidance and expertise in the areas of reconciliation and conflict prevention if the parties are interested in this, and we will follow this up in the time ahead.

Ms Gustavsen asks what Norway can do to contribute positively to Myanmar’s further democratic development.

Norway is one of the Western countries that has most frequent political contact with Myanmar. The rationale behind Norway’s engagement is that we want to promote positive developments in Myanmar and make sure that we are updated on conditions in the country by maintaining close contact with all actors.

In my view, it is crucial that the international community seeks rapprochement with the Myanmar authorities, not unconditionally, but with a view to strengthening the positive forces of change. Our task is now to help make sure that the President’s reforms continue, and that they lead to lasting change for the people of Myanmar. We must seek to consolidate what has been achieved and build on this in an ongoing, positive process.

Norway has aligned itself with the EU sanctions, and as far as possible we wish to have a common policy with the EU on Myanmar. In cooperation with the EU, we must examine the common position as a whole more closely, and see which areas we can make adjustments to first. We also need to give ourselves enough flexibility to be able to respond swiftly to developments, whether positive or negative. We have therefore started discussions with the EU on the extent to which today’s measures enable us to do this. As recently as last week I discussed this matter with High Representative Catherine Ashton in Brussels.

In addition to the EU sanctions, successive Norwegian governments since 1997 have strongly advised Norwegians not to travel to, trade with or invest in Myanmar. The Norwegian business sector seems to have generally followed this line, and as a result, in practice Norway has Europe’s most restrictive policy towards Myanmar. In response to recent developments, as of this spring Norwegians are no longer advised not to travel to Myanmar. There was widespread support for this decision, also from the democratic opposition in Myanmar. In the time ahead we must continue to follow developments closely, not least in relation to the release of political prisoners, and we are now considering on an ongoing basis whether or not to withdraw the advice not to trade with or invest in Myanmar.

We have to accept that Norway alone cannot make a great difference to the situation in Myanmar. Having said this, the international community sees what we do, and our stance has attracted growing interest from the EU, the US and Myanmar’s neighbouring countries.

In our talks with other Western countries, we argue that we should engage in direct cooperation with the Myanmar authorities. This is the only way we can effectively help Myanmar to fight poverty, promote its efforts relating to climate change and the environment and assist in other major, demanding reforms the country has to undertake.

Capacity-building is key. In Norway’s view, international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the UN and the UNDP, should be given the opportunity  to engage in essential capacity-building, for example in relation to crucial economic reforms. As far as the issues of forced labour and greater democratic rights are concerned, the ILO should be given a broader mandate in the country.

At the same time, we are continuing our humanitarian work in the country, and continuing to support actors outside the country who are working to promote democracy in Myanmar. To a growing extent, we are seeing that members of exile communities are able to return to Myanmar. We are encouraging the authorities to reinforce this trend, and we are assessing on a continuous basis how we can best contribute to democracy-building.

Within Myanmar, there are clear indications that many people now have confidence in the President and his reform agenda, but at the international level there is still a degree of scepticism. This is understandable, given that a large proportion of the members of the current government also held key positions in the former regime. There is still much for the country’s new leadership to achieve if the positive reputation it has gained so far is to be consolidated.

Having said this, in my view it is wrong to argue, as some do, that it remains to be seen whether or not the authorities are serious about the reform policy, or to say that there have been positive signs before without these leading to any real results. Those currently in power in Myanmar have shown in both words and action that their willingness to change is genuine. Now, they need to make the changes irreversible. And we must assist them in this.

Norway is not alone in assessing the recent changes in Myanmar as positive. All those we met in Myanmar were of the view that the President needs international support in order to show that the reform policy is bearing fruit. There is growing sympathy for this view in other countries. In the UN Secretary-General’s Group of Friends on Myanmar, of which Norway is a member together with 16 other countries including the EU, there is increased acceptance of the view that the international community needs to play an active role and respond to the positive steps that have been made. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to visit Myanmar in December. Last Friday, High Representative Catherine Ashton responded positively to the NLD’s decision to participate in the by-election, and the EU is now also discussing how the first adjustments can be made in order to respond to the progress that has been made in Myanmar. In its contact with other countries on this issue, Norway has attached particular importance to consultations with the political leadership in Indonesia.

Finally: It is of course not the case that the authorities alone should be given recognition and praise for the positive changes that are now taking place in Myanmar. The democratic opposition, and not least Aung San Suu Kyi herself, have faced difficult choices, and there will be more in the future. Perhaps most importantly, it is also high time that the country’s 60 million inhabitants are rewarded for the progress that has been made. Many of them are living in abject poverty, and the international community must also seek to safeguard their interests.

After two decades of isolation and sanctions, Norway would like to cooperate more closely with Myanmar, precisely so that the country’s population can benefit from the democratic and economic development that the rest of the region is experiencing. Myanmar has both the resources and other conditions conducive to achieving this. And now that we are seeing the political conditions also beginning to change, we must do what we can to speed up this positive trend.

 

*****

 

Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre (reply):

As a starting-point for the debate, I would like to make clear that as far as taking action is concerned, Norway has stressed that it is aligned with the EU sanctions, and we are in close dialogue with the EU on this issue. In addition, we have the specifically Norwegian policy that dates back to the Bondevik Government ­­– I clearly remember when it was introduced, it must have been in 1997 – whereby the Prime Minister strongly advised the Norwegian business sector not to invest in or have an engagement in Myanmar, but stopped short of introducing special Norwegian sanctions to limit investments.

This is a line that subsequent governments have followed. What I am saying today is that the Government is considering withdrawing this advice. We will make it very clear to Norwegian market actors when this will be done. In the Government’s view, the line taken by Norway has been a unilateral measure that has sent a clear signal, but that can now be changed for two reasons – firstly, to acknowledge the positive steps that have been made in Myanmar, and to send a signal to the Norwegian business sector, which needs to be able to consider Myanmar as a potential area for investment with opportunities for Norway to play a role, perhaps particularly in the energy sector.

And secondly, as an extension of our humanitarian engagement in Myanmar, we would like to see the UN development organisations such as the Bretton Woods institutions play an active role, given that poverty is widespread and there are major, ongoing conflicts. Myanmar is in many ways a prime example of modern conflicts, which are often within countries rather than between countries. But intra-state conflicts are just as difficult to resolve, and peace is just as elusive as in interstate conflicts. Today there is still fighting between groups in Myanmar. Finding a way out of this requires that the international community plays an active role and provides assistance. Norway also intends to support this line.

 

*****

 

Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre (final response):

This is the second debate we have had on this topic this year, and my impression is that the Storting and the Government are engaged in constructive dialogue on how we can follow developments in Myanmar closely. Mr Håbrekke put it very well when he said that what we are experiencing is cautious enthusiasm. In my view, that is a good approach: we need to be level-headed as we look to the future.

In my view, Norway should give priority to following developments on the ground, and then wait and see what happens. That means that we must also be able to look at what has happened up until now, and since the last debate we had. Recent developments have led the US, the country that was perhaps most critical of Myanmar, to take the step of sending its Secretary of State to Myanmar for the first time in several decades.

This led people to ask what President Obama hopes to achieve. We have no way of knowing the full answer. But I believe that he sees that without reforms, there will be no development, and without reforms, the problems for the people of Myanmar will continue, which in turn will lead to more conflicts and more insecurity whatever the regime.

I am under no illusion that all the political leaders in Myanmar today are democratically inclined, but I think we must be careful not to move the goalposts, as I said earlier, when we see the country gradually moving forwards. If the reality of the situation is that Myanmar is in the process of introducing social practices that are more in line with its international obligations than those of other countries in the region that are not subject to sanctions, we are faced with the problem that our treatment of different states is not equal. We have to find a way of acknowledging positive steps taken and responding appropriately if, for example, Myanmar adopts a labour law that the ILO considers to be the most progressive of its kind in the region, if freedom of the press is achieved and this is measurable and observable, and if the elections held are free and fair.  

I noted that the Conservative Party representative argued that there have not yet been any grounds for changing our policy. I hear what he is saying, but at the same time my impression is that the majority of this chamber would like us to be able to make adjustments to our policy, together with our close partners, and send signals back to the Myanmar regime.

As a final point, I am fully aware that there may be setbacks, and we must follow developments very closely. This means that we also need to be able to respond to setbacks. If we now send signals to Myanmar that can help to bring about positive developments, and if these are followed by setbacks, we too have to be able to “rewind” and retract the signals we have previously sent.

Thank you for the constructive discussion and for helping to lay the basis for our continued policy in this area, which I believe enjoys broad support in the Storting. 

 

Click here for the other statements (Norwegian only): www.stortinget.no