WRITTEN QUESTION E-2704/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Persecution by the Burmese authorities.
Date: 2002-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Myanmar/Burma, drug traffic, economic sanctions, ethnic group, government violence, protection of minorities, religious discrimination, religious group

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/13

The Union strongly lobbies against the death penalty in international fora and supports non-governmental
organisations that work for the same objective through the EIDHR. The policy to push for universal
abolition is pursued globally and raised in dialogues with all third countries, which retain it, including
Egypt.

(2004/C 11 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2704/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Persecution by the Burmese authorities

There are persistent reports of persecution of minority ethnic groups living in jungle areas by the Burmese
authorities, and especially of
the Karen Christians and the Shan people. This persecution includes
systematic rape and murder. On Boxing Day, last year there was an attack on Ler Per Hur camp for
internally displaced Karen people inside Burma which resulted in 300 people fleeing for their safety to
Thailand. In February, it was reported that Burmese troops from Infantry Battalion 246 executed three
farmers who had been making their way to their farm outside Saai Khaao village in Kun Hing township. In
May, it was reported that troops from the Light Infantry Battalion 559 executed ten Karen villagers in
Mukwa village.

Some of these groups are believed to have been involved at certain periods in drug-smuggling, although
there are now reports that some of the Shah tribesmen have been targeted because they have recently
begun to try to prevent illicit exports of amphetamine tablets to Thailand which have been taking place
with the active collusion of the Burmese military.

It is obviously difficult for the European Union to verify individual incidents, but can the Commission
confirm that systematic persecution of this kind is taking place on a regular basis, and, if so, what efforts
the Commission has made to improve the regime’s human rights record?

Can the Commission confirm that the Burmese military is playing a part in smuggling amphetamine
tablets to Thailand? Does the Commission have evidence that the Burmese Government is involved in
heroin trafficking?

What is the extent of the trading relationship between Burma and the European Union? Could the
Commission indicate what economic assistance the European Union offers to Burma?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

As has been stated on several occasions, the Commission is deeply concerned about the situation in
Burma/Myanmar and the damage the military regime is causing to the country and to its future, as well as
the negative effects of their policies on the region, such as drug trafficking and an increasingly difficult
refugee situation.

The Commission is aware of reports of alleged persecutions of ethnic minority groups by the military in
Burma/Myanmar and continuously voices its grave concern for the human rights situation in the country,
particularly in ethnic minority areas. During the recent Union Troika visit to Burma/Myanmar these
concerns were, once again, expressed to the Burmese government. The Commission also regularly makes
its preoccupations known to Burma’s partners in the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The Commission is also aware of allegations that the regime has been involved in drug trafficking although
these naturally are hard to verify.

C 11 E/14

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

The Union has a robust Common Position on Burma/Myanmar, which was first adopted in 1996 and has
been strengthened on a number of occasions since. It includes an arms embargo imposed in 1990, the
suspension of defence co-operation since 1991 and the suspension of all bilateral aid, other than strictly
humanitarian assistance. There is also an Union visa ban on the members of the military regime, the
members of the government, senior military and security officers and their families, as well as the
suspension of high-level governmental visits to Burma/Myanmar.

The further strengthening of the Common Position, decided on 10 April 2000, introduced (a) a ban on the
supply of equipment
(b) the merging and
that might be used for internal repression or terrorism,
publication of the former ‘red’ (automatic visa ban) and ‘yellow’ (requiring consultation between Member
States on visa requests) lists and (c) a freeze on funds held abroad by persons named in the published list.
It opened up the possibility of a visa waiver for the Burmese Foreign Minister where it is in the interest of
the Union.

The General Affairs Council of 8 October 2001 decided on a further renewal of the Common Position for
the period up to 29 April 2002, unchanged except for a technical amendment to allow Member States to
meet
their obligations in relation to granting visas to facilitate participation in UN meetings or
conferences. The Common Position was renewed, unchanged, in April 2002 until 29 October 2002.

As regards trade relations, Burma/Myanmar is a member of World Trade Organisations (WTO) and its
trade is therefore protected by WTO Rules from any discriminatory treatment. However, Community trade
privileges, normally granted to Least Developed Countries, were withdrawn from Burma/Myanmar in 1997
because of forced labour. This also means that the country is not eligible to benefit from the Community’s
‘Everything but Arms’ initiative, launched in 2001.

The Commission provides EUR 4-6 million in humanitarian assistance per year to the Burmese population,
mainly in ethnic minority areas, and it is currently preparing a EUR 5 million in assistance programme to
combat human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/Aids) in the country.
All Community assistance is channelled through non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and/or
international organisations.

(2004/C 11 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2715/02

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: The forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees by the People’s Republic of China

In recent years, tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled famine and persecution in the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), clandestinely crossing the border into the north-eastern provinces of
China.

Since 1999, the Chinese Government has been forcibly repatriating thousands of these North Korean
refugees and asylum-seekers, whom it regards as economic migrants and thereby ‘illegal immigrants’. Over
the last year there has been a notable crackdown on these refugees, and an intensification of forcible
repatriations.

This is despite the fact that having fled from a country with such a deplorable human rights record as the
DPRK, many of the refugees will undoubtedly have genuine asylum claims. Once extradited by the PRC,
the North Koreans meet an uncertain fate back in their home country, which might include imprisonment,
torture and in some cases summary execution or death in detention from starvation and disease (source:
Amnesty International).

In forcibly repatriating the refugees, the Chinese Government is denying them access to any refugee
determination procedure. This violates the fundamental principle of non-refoulement embodied in the
1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to which China is a state party.