Alex White (Labour)

This morning, The Independent of London reported the following voice from Burma:

There were about 400 of us in one room. No toilets, no buckets, no water for washing. No beds, no blankets, no soap. Nothing ... The room was too small for everyone to lie down at once. We took it in turns to sleep. Every night at 8 o'clock we were given a small bowl of rice and a cup of water. But after a few days many of us just couldn't eat. The smell was so bad.

Some of the novice monks were under 10 years old, the youngest was just seven. They were stripped of their robes and given prison sarongs. Some were beaten, leaving open, untreated wounds, but no doctors came.

The Independent has published a stunning report comprising fresh information and eye-witness accounts of the horror taking place in Burma. Nothing could be more eloquent than the voices of the people facing that horror.

I welcome this motion and the Labour Party joins our colleagues in this House in supporting it. I concur with what Senator Boyle said in the conclusion to his contribution. I do not wish to say this debate is not valuable or important but its value is limited if we are unable to do anything of practical import.

I commend the Government on its actions thus far and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on raising the issue in various international fora. However, without detracting from what has been done, I would expect nothing less than a robust position from a sovereign Irish Government and the Minister who represents it abroad. To the extent the Minister has done that, I welcome his intervention.

I find it difficult to explain to my children the hierarchy of concern that applies to international relations. I do not say international public opinion because that is not always the same as relations between countries. If we take in particular the US and the great powers, including China, this hierarchy often relates directly to the financial and strategic interests of the countries concerned. They are not predicated often enough on the issues themselves. We have seen interventions being made by the US and supported by others where the interests of the great powers are perceived to be affected by events in certain countries. However, this has not occurred in respect of Burma.

I listened to the contributions of Senators Boyle and Walsh. I welcome that this is an all-party motion and we are largely in consensus in our discussions, but I prefer the emphasis given by Senator Boyle to the issue. Senator Walsh quite reasonably referred to sanctions and the constructive engagement and behind-the-scenes efforts of China. However, what is the point of so-called constructive engagement or behind-the-scenes work when it has been seen to achieve nothing over the past decades? There is no point in attempting to persuade the junta to change its mind when we know it will not do so. The junta will only understand forceful and robust action by way of sanctions. A recent statement by the American Government warned that if certain actions are not taken by the regime, it would face sanctions. The day has passed when we could have any confidence that any request by the international community to Burma would be met. I understand Senator Walsh's intention when he speaks about the carrot and the stick but I am not sure whether the carrot belongs in this debate any longer. I remain to be convinced that such an approach has any value.

Another individual is reported in The Independent as stating:

My friend was taken away for clapping during the demonstrations. She had not marched. She came out of her house as the marchers went by and, for perhaps 30 seconds, smiled and clapped as the monks chanted. Her face was recorded on a military intelligence camera. She was taken and beaten. Now she is so scared she won't even leave her room to come and talk to me, to anyone.

The article continues:

Another Rangoon resident told the aid worker: "We all hear screams at night as they [the police] arrive to drag off a neighbour. We are torn between going to help them and hiding behind our doors. We hide behind our doors. We are ashamed. We are frightened."

These are the most recent reports available and we are indebted to The Independent for bringing them to the attention of the world.

One cannot disagree with the calls made by Senators for more stringent sanctions and for the Government to insert itself into the debate at an international level in the most robust way possible. Numerous references have been made in this discussion to Aung San Suu Kyi, as is right given that she is the democratically elected leader of the country despite being kept under house arrest by the generals for so many years. She wrote a speech in 1991 which speaks to the horror of the situation, even today, and describes the fear we cannot appreciate in this country. She stated in the speech: "The effort necessary to remain uncorrupted in an environment where fear is an integral part of everyday existence is not immediately apparent to those fortunate enough to live in states governed by the rule of law". We may congratulate ourselves on the consensus we have reached regarding the depth of the problems facing Burma's people but we cannot truly appreciate the horror of what they are enduring.

I will quote further from Aung San Suu Kyi's piece of 1991 because I feel it is very powerful.

Saints are the sinners who go on trying. So, free men are the oppressed who go on trying and who, in the process, make themselves fit to bear the responsibilities and to uphold the disciplines which will maintain a free society. Among the basic freedoms to which men aspire, that their lives might be full and uncramped, freedom from fear stands out as both a means and an end. People who would build a nation in which strong democratic institutions are firmly established as a guarantee against state induced power must first learn to liberate their own minds from apathy and fear.

In conclusion she said

Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights fear tends to be the order of the day: fear of imprisonment, fear of torture, fear of death, fear of losing friends, family, property or means of livelihood, fear of poverty, fear of isolation, fear of failure. A most insidious form of fear is that which masquerades as common sense or even wisdom, condemning as foolish, reckless, insignificant or futile the small daily acts of courage which help to preserve man's self respect and inherent human dignity. It is not easy for a people conditioned by the iron rule of the principle that might is right to free themselves from the enervating miasma of fear. Yet even under the most crushing state machinery courage rises up again and again for fear is not the natural state of civilised man.

Could there be a more eloquent statement to the world that the daily fear on which this regime is based, recounted as recently as today and yesterday in newspapers, cannot be allowed to continue by the international community of nations? We can no longer stand back and must use any means available, including sanctions and strong pressure on countries such as China to desist from supporting the regime.