Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Urban Development and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

As a member involved with support groups in Sydney over many years and also with individual ethnic minorities such as the Karen, who, perhaps of all the groups, have been most resistant to the government’s encroachment, I commend the member for Cook on his gesture today in moving this motion on human rights in Burma.

However, on a day when there has been criticism of the Prime Minister for meddling in the affairs of the United States, I would urge this government to meddle more clearly in the affairs of Burma. The member for Cook and the member for Hasluck quite correctly stressed the aid program, which is very commendable and very widely praised, but at the same time Australia has been involved in limited engagement with the regime, which is not quite as forthright, as strong or as valuable as the role of the United States and the European community.

One of the problems internationally has been the lack of solidarity with regard to these measures, and that was most recently demonstrated at the UN, where not only did China and Russia use the veto but they were joined by South Africa in supporting the regime. I note the comments of Archbishop Desmond Tutu in which he strongly reprimanded the South African government for forgetting its own history. Equally, we have had a situation where at various stages India and China, for their own geopolitical self-interest, have tended not to show solidarity in respect of these measures.

Even today, in the Sydney Morning Herald, we note the comments of the Indian foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, who promised ‘favourable responses’ for a 2003 request by the Burmese regime to be armed by India. That country has already supplied field guns and howitzers The pretext for Indian assistance is that the Burmese regime would help India with regard to insurgent forces in the Assam area that are operating out of Burma. The record shows in the article in the Sydney Morning Herald that, rather than the Burmese regime working against these insurgents, there is actually very strong evidence of complicity with them. Equally, China is very keen not only to exploit raw materials in the country, not only to get from the regime bargain prices for various products; it is also very interested in a number of naval bases in Burma that are being upgraded at the moment.

There is a need for a lot more solidarity internationally with regard to these measures, but of course there have been some worthwhile gestures. The International Labour Organisation has taken up the question of slave labour and child labour in the country and has moved towards a possible reference to the International Court of Justice. Equally, Human Rights Watch has constantly attacked the use of landmines in the country. The European community, which has taken a forthright position in these matters, has signalled to ASEAN in current free trade agreement negotiations the possibility that it will not sign this agreement if Burma is a party to it and has hinted at the possibility of bilateral agreements with other countries because of other problems with Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and the state that they are in.

We have a situation where there is international pressure. I have a slightly different read from the member for Kingsford Smith. I say that, while ASEAN has been historically backward with regard to interference in the internal affairs of its parties, it has in recent years shown a greater predilection to taking more initiatives on this front. So, while we cannot be totally satisfied, there have indeed been moves. I think it is very encouraging that the Philippines, Singapore in particular and, to some degree, Thailand have been a lot more inclined to pressure the Burmese regime. Let us be honest about it: it is easy for people in Australia to prescribe activity in Europe; it is hard for people on the doorstep. I do recognise gains in ASEAN.

See this speech in context