Burma: enough's enough

I've been outspoken in my criticism of the Burmese junta that has abused, maligned, imprisoned and attacked its own people for far too long.

The evidence exposed on Wednesday by the BBC that the military regime is actively stopping aid reaching those suffering from the ravages of the hurricane almost two weeks after the tragedy struck is despicable.

On Tuesday I was elected Vice President of Putney United Nations Association (UNA). The UN has a clause within its Charter that allows it to intervene when a regime fails to protect its own people. If that clause was written to apply anywhere and at any time it is in Burma, now.

The UN Security Council is set up so that any one of the permanent members: the UK, US, Russia, China and France has a veto on action, and at least one of these five has an interest in (or alliance with) pretty much all of the non-permanent members.

The permanent member associated with Burma is China and we could normally expect strong opposition from them to any UN active intervention in this country. There are two reasons why China may not intervene in this case.

The first is that they're preoccupied with the response (and doing far more, far better) to their own earthquake disaster. The second is that the worldwide outrage that will be provoked by the actions of the Burmese Junta will - I hope - make it almost impossible for the Chinese government to block international action, especially as it would be doing so just weeks before the start of the Olympic Games in Beijing.

What does intervention mean? Well, at the very least, it is now time to commence humanitarian aid drops. We may need to go further, depending on how the junta reacts to UN intervention. But the only point of action now is humanitarian relief. And let's be clear: the UN struggled to deliver anything substantive when the junta attacked its people and jailed its monks last Autumn. Its argument then, that greater intervention was beyone its mandate, does not and should not apply today given the humanitarian crisis that is engulfing the people of Burma.

The world, through the UN, must act Burma. Now.

The Burma Cyclone

So, barely two years after the tsunami that devastated Thailand and the Indian coast in particular, Asia is again struggling to recover from another natural disaster; this time Cyclone Nargis in Burma.

As if the cyclone is not challenging enough to respond to, Burma has one of the most stifling, bureaucratic, secretive and oppressive political regimes anywhere in the world.

Twice last year I wrote about this regime and criticised the rapidly-moving news agenda that too quickly lost interest in the supression of the democracy protests there.

The military junta is doing all it can to give the impression that it is more concerned that the cyclone has re-focussed international attention on their country rather than the horrific loss of life of their citizenry.

There can be no other reason why their Government is dragging its feet on letting aid agencies into the country, why it continues to prevent the media from adequately reporting the tragedy and persists in forging ahead with ludicrous plans to hold a so-called constitutional "referendum" this weekend.

The world must assist the devastated people of Burma: we cannot play politics with international aid.

But Burma's two main exports - paddy fields and offshore natural gas fields - have been absolutely devastated by the Cyclone and in the long term the international community would be absolutely within its rights to explain in categorical terms to the military junta that reconstruction aid and assistance must be coupled with political reform.

And that means the release and reinstatement of Aung Sun Su Kyi, the nation's democratic, elected leader.

Boycotting the Beijing Olympics

There seem to be two camps in the row over whether Britain should boycott this year's Beijing Olympics: those who believe British participation in them condones China's utterly attrocious record on human rights, especially in respect of Tibet; and those who argue that Politics should not interfere with sport.

Although I'm strongly critical of China in respect of Tibet and their human rights (lack of) record, I can see the difficulty facing the Government. Matters are also complicated by the fact that the UK is going to be the next host of the Olympics - something that traditionally incurs additional public responsibilities at the preceding games.

But this doesn't have to be an "either/or" choice. We should try to keep politics and sport separate as far as possible. So our athletes should go to Beijing, without any criticism, pressure or censure from their fellow countrymen and women. But I'm struggling to see why politicians should attend - albeit that many of them have been looking forward to this junket for some time. I hope it won't come as too much of a devastation to our leaders that their presence will make little difference to the performance of those competing for Olympic honours.

However, it is naive to argue that never the twain shall meet between politics and sport. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has to be more aware of the political regimes of the countries that bid for the Olympics. This is not playing politics - the IOC has a charter setting out the Olympic ideals, and it must pay more than just lip-service to measuring whether bidder nations share those ideals. I struggle to see how China can reasonably claim to.

That, of course, cuts both ways. It has been mantra in the West for getting on for two decades at least that "bringing in" China and trading with them is far more likely to bring reform than isolation and criticism. As part of this process of inclusion Western governments strongly encouraged the IOC to look favourably on China's Olympic bid. The IOC must retain independence - because I can see very little reciprocity from China during this time that the West has been turning a blind eye to its misconduct.

Tibet

History doesn't usually repeat itself, but the parallels between the conduct of the Chinese Government in cracking down on Tibetans, and that of the Burmese dictatorship attacking the protests led by that country's monks are alarming.

When I wrote about the Burmese protests here and here, the international consensus was that China's opposition to Burma's behaviour was crucial because they are the regional power and carry greater influence with the ruling junta.

I was always somewhat concerned about this line of argument for the reasons that have become self-evident here: how can a regime that behaves in exactly the same way over Tibet be expected to be taken seriously by countries with equally dubious human rights records.

Of course there are differences between China's relationship with Tibet and Burma's with its own people; and the real politic of dealing with Asia's main superpower will lead many to treat it differently. But I for one was proud to see Gordon Brown offer to meet with the Dalai Lama the other day, and if that causes "dismay" within the Chinese government, so be it.

Benazir Bhutto 1953-2007

It is extraordinary how frequently major events occur during the Christmas period. In 1989, Romanian President Nikolai Chauchesku was overthrown - beginning the collapse of Communist Eastern Europe. Three years ago large tracts of South Asia were devastated by the Tsunami - and still haven't recovered.

Today the shocking news is that Benazir Bhutto, the Leader of the main opposition party in Pakistan has been murdered in a bomb attack.

The consequences of this terrorism should not be understated: the future of Pakistan as a democracy and of President Musharaf is now seriously in question. But today is a time to reflect on the contribution - and sacrifice - of Benazir Bhutto and her family (her father Ali was a previous Prime Minister and President of the country, overthrown and executed by the military in a coup in 1979).

What is clear is that Benazir Butto represented the single most significant opportunity Pakistan had for entrenching democratic values in the country. Pakistan is poised at a crossroads defined by two of its neighbours. It can either follow the path towards growing economic prosperity and democratic security that India is pursuing, or the far more troubled - and troubling - road that Afghanistan has suffered.

Benazir personified everything Afghanistan's former al Qaida-backed, Islamist-terrorist Taliban regime despised - elements of which are surely behind this bomb attack: a confident, imposing, articulate woman leader, a democrat, the separation of religion and government, optimism, economic growth, and unflinching, active opposition to terrorism.

Some are now calling for the Pakistan elections, scheduled for the New Year, to be called off as a mark of respect. While her party - the Pakistan People's Party - clearly needs space to regroup, it seems to me that the greatest mark of respect that could be paid to everything Mrs Bhutto stood for is for democratic, free and fair elections to go ahead.

Burma

Today the news agenda moves so fast that when stories stop getting coverage we often forget about them very easily. It's almost as though by losing interest in a story, the media are saying that the issue is resolved, or it no more of importance.

The fate of Burma is just such a story. In September, there was almost blanket coverage of the Monks' protest and the Military Dictatorship's draconian, outrageous and - I maintain - ultimately futile supression of that protest. In October I set out my views of the crisis, and how I would have liked the international community to respond here.

When it started, we had hopes that because it was led by Monks the regime would not dare crack down as they had in the past. We were sadly wrong. Today, the monasteries remain abandoned. Monks remain either imprisoned, or dispersed to rural communities where they are unable to foment trouble, as the regime would see it.

We need to keep the pressure up, even though there is little coverage of the problems. It isn't as though we have no leverage - China, the critical international player in this crisis is of course host of next year's Olympics which it doesn't want to be embarrassed over; so there is a real opportunity for the UN and individual countries to bring real pressure to bear.

There are three absolute priorities: all prisoners held as a result of this uprising must be released. The Monks must be allowed to return to their monasteries. And a roadmap to sincere political reform in Burma has to be drawn up, culminating in the release of Aung San Su Kyi - the democratically elected leader of that country.

The signs are the exact opposite. The UN envoy has been expelled. This has gone largely unreported, though it is a major concern. Without the media coverage, the international community will not feel any urgency to force change. And yet again the Burmese people will be left to stand alone against a regime they despise. Now is the time for the UN to demonstrate leadership, and show the world why it can be trusted to resolve today's diplomatic and human rights challenges.

United Nations Day Service

At the weekend I had the pleasure of attending the United Nations Day Service at the Shree Ghanapathy Hindu Temple in Effra Road, Wimbledon. I am a member of the Putney branch of the United Nations Association and joined fellow members and the Mayor of Wandsworth in marking UN Day.

The Service took place in the week that saw the launch of the UK United Nations Associations Lobby for the UN - a campaign to promote dialogue between voters and MPs about the UKs contribution to the UNs work in maintaining international peace and security, protecting human rights and promoting sustainable development. In 2007-08 the lobby will focus on the UN's role in:

• Achieving the Millennium Development Goals
• Ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• Banning cluster munitions
• Combating climate change
• Implementing the responsibility to protect

In these changing times so many of the threats to our peace and security are global whether it is international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to climate change and the continuing scar of world poverty. The UN despite its imperfections, remains the principal route through which Governments must come together to tackle these challenges.

The covenant with our armed forces

I believe passionately in supporting serving and former armed forces personnel and their families and if elected to Parliament they can expect me to be an advocate on their behalf.

So when I was at the Labour Party conference last week I made sure I attended the fringe meeting organised by the Royal British Legion. I talked with RBL officials and with the families of service personnel on active duty abroad and was moved by their stories of quiet heroism.

Conservative attacks on the Governments record are cynical and dishonest, especially given the way the last Conservative Government ran down our armed forces. However, I am clear that as we ask more and more of our service personnel we should continually reassess the level of support we provide to them and their families.

Thats why I welcome whole heartedly yesterdays announcement by the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Defence of extra funding for Wiltshire and Swindon coroner David Masters, who deals with inquests for service personnel repatriated through RAF Lyneham. The move is intended to deal with the continuing problem of inquest delays and backlogs. The bereaved families of service personnel who have been killed on active duty abroad should be entitled to know as quickly as possible the circumstances in which their loved ones died.

Burma

There is as I write growing concern about the fate of the brave Monks who last week took a stand against the ruling junta that is misgoverning Burma.

I want Britain, the EU and the world to take a firm stand on the unacceptable human rights abuses that have been tolerated for far too long. I know I'm not alone in this.

Although these are effortless and possibly inconsequential measures, a facebook group supporting the monks' protest had about 70,000 subscribers last Thursday. By Friday it was over 100,000; by the end of the weekend over 200,000 and earlier today the total passed 330,000. Just one of many online petitions to the UN has amassed over 36,000 signatures.

The biggest contribution Britain can make is pushing for much tougher EU action: the French oil giant Mobil is one of the biggest investors in Burma. Their involvement in the country must end. Britain itself has virtually no remaining major trade links with Burma but there are plenty of small businesses who do.

We have seen strong leadership from the ASEAN nations: every single member other than Burma itself has criticised the military response to peaceful protests. China, which can do more than any other nation has gone further than it ever has before to criticise the military junta, but it must go further: it remains the break on the UN Security Council taking far tougher action than it has been able to so far.

It's often hard to see any tangible results brought about by diplomacy. But international pressure is bringing results - far too slowly, but the regime would not have even countenanced meeting the UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari without such universal condemnation. We should not be grateful for this - but nor should we dismiss it as inconsequential either.

We in Britain must appreciate that as the former colonial power in this part of Asia, we cannot be seen to be reasserting our Imperialist tendencies, however just the cause. It must be the region that takes the lead on Burma: that means China, Japan and ASEAN. Britain's role must be to lead the UN Security Council towards unremitting, crystal clear opposition to the Burmese Junta.

What we need - and we rarely get - are sanctions to be observed by everyone. The reason Saddam Hussain piled up reserves while Iraqis starved is that too many multi-national corporations - and I'm afraid to say, nations - felt that sanctions applied to everyone else but them. If we can bring about a genuine embargo enforeced and abided by, then the chance of Aung Sun Suu Kyi being reinstated as Burma's rightful leader will be massively advanced.