GRAPE VINE
A letter from Josef Silverstein
It is to be hoped that the Japanese public as well as government and business leaders read your article in the Japan Times. It was well written and thoughtful. Having been mentioned twice in it, I feel it necessary to respond by expanding upon my idea to expel the representative of the present government of Myanmar to the UN as a way of demonstrating that the government has no more standing with the community of nations as it does with its own people.
You ask, what are the precedents for such action; what procedures will be followed; how can the UN proceed to "selective expulsions? Recently, Thomas Hidgon, Esq. Law Fellow at Washington College of Law, American University, presented a paper entitled, "Myanmar's Regime at the UN General Assembly" at a public meeting in Washington, D.C. In it he reminded his listeners that the General Assembly's rules provide "that the credentials of representatives and the names of members of a delegation shall be submitted to the Secretary General."
The Credentials Committee of the GA, appointed at the beginning of each session, then examines the credentials and reports to the GA. The committee can report acceptance or rejection and the GA then votes to accept or reject the committee's report "in the light of the purpose and principles of the Charter and the Circumstances of each case."
Hidgon pointed out that in l974, the Credentials Committee rejected the credentials of the representative of the Republic of South Africa and the GA accepted the report. The rejection of the SA rep was questioned by several members of the GA and the President of the GA was asked for a ruling from the chair, He ruled on the basis of his authority to rule on points of order and control of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure and upheld the decision of the GA. The GA sustained his ruling by a vote of 91 to 22 with l9 abstentions.
Given the fact that the government in Rangoon has repeatedly ignored the resolutions of the GA and the Comm on Human Rights, took no acceptable action in the light of the exhaustive report of the ILO and its efforts to bring an end to forced labor in Burma; and given the fact that there exists a mountain of reports documenting every kind of human rights violations by the Burma military against the people of Burma, there is every reason why the representative of the Burma's military rulers should not occupy the Burma seat in the GA.
In dismissing my argument, Ambassador Sioris, failed to mention that the military rules without any popular support. In the only election held since the military coup of l988, the people voted overwhelmingly in favor of the National Democratic Front and against the party supported by the military, National Unity Front. When the military rulers decided to ignore their own election and rule under martial law, they issued a Declaration 1/90 which said in para. 6.
"The SLORC, the Defense Services, is not bound by any constitution. the SLORC is ruling the country with martial law. It is known to all that the SLORC is a military government and that it is a government recognized by countries of the world and the United Nations."
The author argues at the outset of his essay that "the sooner the will of the majority of its people is respected, the better for all concerned in the country, the region and beyond."
In l990, the people spoke out loud and clear; they wanted a democratic government under leaders of their own choice. Didn't the world hear and see this? If the people do not want the military to rule them, why does the world community continue with the fiction that it is the legitimate government of Burma and continue to treat it as such.
If the General Assembly acts now as it did in l974, it will stand with the people of Burma and destroy the myth that the military rulers can ignore their will and substitute recognition by the world body for it. Only by unseating the military ruler's representative in the UN will the Burma army and its supporters see that their government is truly a pariah.
It is my belief that part of the glue that holds the military together is the belief that the world supports them, trades with them, gives them aid and accepts them as the legitimate government of their land. That glue could give way if the reality that they serve an outlaw government which neither the people of Burma or of the world accepts finally sinks in.