US embassy cable - 05RANGOON273

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 RANGOON 000273 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/BCLTV; PACOM FOR FPA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/13/2015 
TAGS: PHUM, PGOV, PREL, ELAB, ECON, BM, Human Rights 
SUBJECT: BURMA: GOB "REJECTS" HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT 
 
REF: A. RANGOON 246 
 
     B. RANGOON 224 
     C. RANGOON 185 
 
Classified By: COM Carmen Martinez for Reasons 1.4 (b,d) 
 
1. (C) Summary:  Calling our human rights report "nothing 
more than a catalogue of unsubstantiated allegations," the 
GOB says the United States "does not have the moral 
authority" to pass judgment on Burma and failed to take into 
account "major progress and positive developments" such as 
new infrastructure and an 8.5 percent average economic growth 
rate (note: zero percent last year, according to the IMF). 
We've told the GOB that we would welcome a regular dialogue 
on human rights, but new abuses in 2005 clearly indicate the 
regime's record is not improving.  The GOB's rebuttal to the 
report is a standard response to foreign criticism: question 
the integrity of the messenger; steer clear of irrefutable 
abuses; emphasize efforts to achieve "national unity" and 
build new bridges and highways; and toss in an inflated 
figure or two.  End Summary. 
 
2. (U) On March 3, MFA Director General U Thaung Tun 
requested a meeting with COM to deliver a verbal response to 
our recently released human rights report on Burma.  Americas 
Division Director Tun Ohn joined the MFA DG and P/E chief 
accompanied the COM.  (Note:  The MFA subsequently sent the 
Embassy a press release with the GOB's written response to 
the human rights report, which U Thaung Tun said would be 
broadcast by official state television on March 3 and printed 
in official state newspapers on March 4.  We've faxed the 
release to EAP/BCLTV.  End Note.) 
 
3. (U) U Thaung Tun said the GOB was "disappointed and 
unhappy with a human rights report that is nothing more than 
a catalogue of unsubstantiated allegations and that does not 
take into account positive developments."  The DG said the 
report concludes that the Burmese economy is crumbling, but 
does not address "major progress" in building new 
infrastructure and new education and health facilities.  The 
DG said the GOB had "improved standards on our own, even 
without international resources." He also said that the 
United States "does not have the moral authority to address 
human rights practices in Burma or elsewhere," adding that 
the report would not help bilateral relations. 
 
4. (U) The COM replied that the human rights report is a 
well-researched document that accurately reports on a host of 
abuses.  The COM noted that we would welcome a regular 
dialogue with the GOB on human rights issues, but pointed out 
that further setbacks in 2005, after the period covered in 
the report, indicate the GOB's record is not improving. Such 
additional abuses, she said, include arrests of democracy 
activists (ref B, C); secret trials of political party 
leaders; the extension of NLD Vice Chairman U Tin Oo's house 
arrest (ref B); and the failure of a top-level commitment on 
forced labor (refs A). 
 
5. (U) Addressing U Tin Oo's situation, the DG said simply, 
"I don't know, and can neither confirm nor deny whether his 
detention was extended."  On forced labor, U Thaung Tun 
claimed that the early departure in late February of an ILO 
delegation (ref A) was a "misunderstanding," but offered that 
"at least the ILO left the door open" for future dialogue. 
The ILO team, he said, had insisted on meeting with the head 
of state (SPDC Chairman Than Shwe), but "in fact, had the 
opportunity to meet with Prime Minister (Sein Win), "who is 
the head of government and, as a member of the SPDC, speaks 
for the (regime)." 
 
6. (U) The COM replied that the GOB has promoted the notion 
that no important decisions can be made without the regime's 
top two members, and therefore the ILO should have every 
expectation that Than Shwe and/or Maung Aye must be 
personally engaged in making a commitment on forced labor. 
"If the ILO left the door open," the COM added, "then you 
should step through it and adhere to international standards 
on forced labor."  The COM also noted that the GOB had not 
allowed UN Special Envoy Razali to visit Burma since March 
2004 and had prohibited UN Special Rapporteur for Human 
Rights Pinheiro from returning since late 2003.  "There can 
be no viable UN process without them," she said, "and your 
senior leaders should be discussing their imminent return." 
U Thaung Tun replied that the issue was indeed under 
discussion, but "the authorities have not yet made a 
decision." 
 
7. (C) Comment:  The MFA's DG rebuttal to the report, and the 
subsequent press release, represented a standard GOB response 
to foreign criticism of its human rights practices and 
policies: question the integrity of the messenger; steer 
clear of irrefutable abuses; emphasize efforts to achieve 
"national unity" and build new bridges and highways; and toss 
in an inflated figure or two (the press release claimed an 
average economic growth rate of "8.5 percent annually for the 
past three years;" however, the IMF estimates zero percent 
growth in 2003-2004).  The only unusual aspect this year was 
the request today for a meeting with the COM to complain 
directly about the human rights report; the GOB usually shuns 
such direct dialogue and relies on propaganda issued through 
its official media, as it has done over the past several 
years in response to a variety of regular U.S. reports on 
Burma.  End Comment. 
Martinez