Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue and to follow what Senator Mark Daly has said. We do not fool ourselves that passing this motion, even on an all-party basis, will have the slightest effect on the Burmese junta. It does not listen to the United Nations, the European Union nor its regional neighbours in the ASEAN community. It certainly will not listen to the views of Seanad Éireann. This makes it all the more important for us to continue passing resolutions such this and not to lose sight of the important need to bear witness against injustice. Everybody in the House who has spoken on the issue agrees with that. We must continue passing resolutions, even when bearing witness has no immediate prospect of achieving tangible results. As long as injustice continues, we must continue to lobby against it.

In the case of Burma-Myanmar, we have no problem with maintaining a policy of opposition to what is taking place there. We can maintain this policy because we have no commercial relationship with the country. We have nothing to lose, therefore, by offending the junta. I cannot help but reflect on the difference between that attitude and our attitude to China in this respect. I visited China in July for the first time after many years. China is moving away from a regime of personal intimidation towards the individual, but at a very slow pace. However, the size of our commercial interests in China mean we are quite reticent about encouraging China to move at a swifter pace. This is somewhat ironic because China is one of the two large states — the other being India — fighting over Burma's natural resources. They are also the only two states to which the Burmese junta has any incentive to listen. It would be quite bizarre if we ended up thanking the Chinese for persuading the Burmese junta to make changes and see some sense.

When the ASEAN community invited Burma to join it in 1997, there was a feeling that it should not be allowed join because it was not seen to be a democratic state. The argument then for its admission was that it was better to be able to influence Burma from within rather than from without. Look, for example, at what happened in the case of Libya. A case was made to try to persuade it to change and it did. There are also signs of North Korea moving to a more acceptable level of recognition of rights.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been supported worldwide in what she has done. The Dalai Lama supports her, as does Bishop Tutu and others who recognise there is a challenge to be faced. We must continue to condemn the junta and what it is doing. Our voice may not be loud but it will add to the continuous drip of criticism. If we can manage to influence other countries, including Japan which has interests in the area, and particularly China and India, and convince them to use their pressure to influence the junta, it is possible we can achieve some success. This may seem impossible when we see what has happened recently, but I urge the Seanad to continue to make these efforts and to put the spotlight on Burma in the hope that even small steps forward will prove successful in the long term.