Wider World by CS

The European Union and political prisoners

Friday, 30 March 2012 12:13 Derek Tonkin

(Commentary) – UK Foreign Secretary William Hague made it clear on his return from Myanmar in January that “the release of all political prisoners in time for the by-elections on 1 April” was one of three conditions which needed to be met for the UK to support an easing of sanctions, so it is not clear why the Burma Campaign UK should allege (Mizzima “Commentary,” March 29) that the UK Foreign Office is taking too soft a line within the EU on this issue.

Derek Tonkin of Network Myanmar Photo: intelligencesquared.com

There is a problem, recognized especially by the United States, in defining the term “political prisoner.” The reality, as Amnesty International has stated, is that there are still “prisoners of conscience” whom it should not be too difficult to identify, but those “political prisoners” detained because they felt compelled to resort to armed action are unlikely to be released any time soon. 

The U.S. and the E.U. need to decide how they are to handle what is likely to be a long-term problem. Provided all known “prisoners of conscience” can be released, the E.U. us not going to hold out on easing sanctions very much longer.

The E.U. statutory economic and financial “sanctions” to which the Burma Campaign refer are largely ineffective and have little or no impact on those supposedly targeted. Far more important are the non-statutory sanctions – the “recommendations” and “policy guidelines” discouraging trade, investment and tourism where the E.U. is still well behind what even the National League for Democracy itself has recommended, with their emphasis on responsibility and transparency. There is also the continuing ban on international financial institutions that both the U.S. and the E.U. have now agreed may at least carry out assessments of Myanmar’s needs.

The E.U. is right to have its own benchmarks, but needs to review its sanctions policy as a matter of urgency and cease pretending that their sanctions are “smart” when the wrong people are affected. U.N. Special Rapporteur Tomás Ojea Quintana has recently drawn attention to the human rights implications of sanctions, while U.S. special envoy Derek Mitchell has said that the U.S. is looking at restrictions that might be "getting in the way of the reform process." This is especially serious in the case of the U.S., which is still conducting virtual economic and financial warfare against the Myanmar economy. 

It is frankly immoral to contemplate trading off improvements in human rights in Myanmar against a reduction of sanctions primarily directed at the Myanmar people. There is no good reason to delay the removal of these sanctions. As it is, despite the very positive developments in Myanmar since power was transferred in March 2011, not a single economic or financial sanction has yet been removed, which is no way at all to encourage political reform in the country.