Events such as these are not unusual in Burma. Numerous United Nations reports have expressed concern about high numbers of rapes of women by the army in Burma since at least 1996. The number of reports that reach the UN are, almost certainly, gross underestimates. The lack of effort to conceal rapes or the bodies of victims is a regular feature of such cases that underlines a culture of impunity for soldiers in a country under military rule.

The UN’s Torture Rapporteur recorded in 2006,

“Women and girls are subjected to violence by soldiers especially sexual violence as “punishment” for allegedly supporting ethnic armed groups. The authorities sanction violence against women and girls committed by military officers, including torture as a means of terrorising and subjugating the population.”

This has been brought to the attention of Burma’s military government consistently since 2002 but United Nations representatives have found, at best, shrugging indifference from the government and often active attempts to prevent impartial investigation.

The widespread abuse of civilians by their own country’s government (or its soldiers or agents) is a crime against humanity under international law. Unfortunately, the rape of women is but one strand of human rights abuses in Burma.

Burma gained independence in the 1947 and enjoyed parliamentary government, albeit with inter-ethnic and Communist inspired armed conflict occurring, until 1962 when General Ne Win staged a coup that begun a continuous period of rule by force. Ne Win‘s regime sought to control rural areas by destroying farms and villages, killing thousands of civilians. Student protests were harshly suppressed and the once prosperous economy collapsed.

In 1988, further protests against military rule led to 3000 people being killed and fighting between the army and rebels groups has continued since then creating 100,000s of refugees. The regime has forced people away from their home areas and used murder and torture, as well as sexual violence, as tools of oppression on a widespread scale and with an ingrained culture of impunity for those who commit such crimes.

In 1998, a UN Special Rapporteur wrote,

“These violations have been so numerous and consistent over the past years to suggest that they are more simply isolated or the acts of individual misbehaviour by middle and lower-rank officers but are rather the result of policy at the highest level, entailing political and legal responsibility.”

More recently, you may recall the violent suppression in 2007 of Buddhist monks who began peaceful protests against military rule.

The United Nations and the European Union have published numerous reports documenting these crimes against humanity. President Obama has indicated that the United States is willing to take more decisive action against Burma.

There are two recent developments that deserve to be noted. The first is the publication of the report “Crimes in Burma” by the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School. The report was commissioned by five of the world’s leading jurists from Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia. The Harvard Report took as its source material not any and every allegation, but only those allegations documented and actually found to have occurred in United Nations investigations and reports.

The 102-page report surveys the evidence and the legal framework (the established elements of crime against humanity) and concludes that there is undoubtedly a strong prima facie case for Burma’s military leaders to answer.

The report also notes the glaring disparity between the international community’s response to these cases and how it has acted in relation to similar crimes in other countries.

The established response to a prima facie case of crimes against humanity is an international judicial process. This is what the international community has done in recent years with regard to the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Darfur. Abuses of human rights in Burma are comparable to all three of those countries. An international judicial process establishes the truth and brings some of the guilty people to justice. Armed with those precedents for action, the Harvard Report calls for an international judicial commission of inquiry for Burma. If we fail to set up such a process, it is likely that abuses of human rights will continue for decades to come.

Secondly, during August, the military regime announced new elections but 25% of the seats in parliament will be reserved for the military, numerous democratic parties including the movements led by Aung San Suu Kyi have been barred from even taking part and the leading General announced on 31 August that he will not relinquish power whatever the election result. There is every chance that the election period and its aftermath will unleash a heightening of violence and oppression by the regime.

An Emergency Motion has been put to the Liberal Democrat Conference by me and Sir Geoffrey Nice QC (who prosecuted Milosevic at the Hague) calling for urgent action. We want the British government, and the European Union of which we are also citizens, to use all means at its disposal to begin an international judicial process as called for by the Harvard Report to end the murder and torture of innocent people.

We need delegates to the Conference to vote for this motion in the Emergency Motions Ballot and, if we get through the ballot, to give it your support by voting for it in the Conference Hall and making it the official policy of our party in government.

If you would like to talk to Sir Geoffrey or myself about the motion or the situation in Burma generally call me on 07967 136099.

Antony Hook was a candidate for the European Parliament in 2009.

Nonetheless, the bloody repression there continues, including the torture of political prisoners. On 30 December, nine members of the National League for Democracy (NLD) were arrested in Rangoon (Yangon) for demonstrating in favour of the release from house arrest of their leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. Suu Kyi (who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991) has spent more than 12 of the past 18 years in detention, her ‘crime’ being that her party won Burma’s last democratic election in 1990 – a result which the junta simply refused to accept.

As a sop mainly to its fellow members of ASEAN, the Burmese government has announced that fresh elections will be held next year, but democratic activists are convinced these will be nothing but a sham. The military chiefs, meanwhile, being aware of how much they are hated by the Burmese people, have built an almost surreal new capital for themselves at Naypyidaw, 300 miles away in the jungle. There the 75-year-old General Than Shwe and his cronies live in luxurious seclusion, while overseeing the army that keeps the ordinary people subjuugated.

Forced labour – a modern form of slavery – is still common practice in Burma. That’s how the regime gets infrastructure such as roads built on the cheap. In a sickening echo of the wartime Japanese supervision of the building of the Burma railway, they don’t care how many of the workers die in the process. Or that the Burmese people as a whole – especially the ethnic minorities, such as the Karen – are often desperately short of food and medical care.

Yet Burma is a rich country. It has abundant natural resources, not to mention some of the most spectacular tourist attractions in South East Asia, such as the Shwedagon Pagoda in Rangoon, and the Buddhist pilgrimage city of Mandalay. The country’s energy resources are vast. Although Western countries are largely boycotting energy deals with Burma because of its appalling human rights record, others, such as China, India and Thailand, are not so fussy.

Indeed, on 24 December, the junta signed a new deal with South Korea’s Daewoo and Korea Gas Corporation, as well as India’s ONGC Videsh and GAIL, to pipe gas from fields in north-west Burma to China. The South Korean government in Seoul rebuffed complaints from Korean and Burmese human rights and environmental campaigners that the Korean companies concerned had breached corporate responsibility guidelines laid down by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Many thousands of Burmese have fled the poverty and repression, the majority seeking sanctuary in Thailand. But Thailand has been so overwhelmed by the influx that it routinely returns Burmese illegal immigrants. Others fester in refugee camps near the border. Delegates from sixteen member parties belonging to Liberal International recently visited one of the these camps, Mae La, about 40 miles from the town of Mae Sot, where they met exiled leaders from Burmese political parties, who confirmed the ongoing crackdowns in Burma on student leaders, democracy activists and monks who took part in the so-called ‘Saffron Revolution’.

We have a moral duty to publicise this state of affairs and to increase the pressure for change.

Jonathan Fryer, Chairman of Liberal International British Group and No. 2 on the London list for the European Parliamentary elections, recently returned from South East Asia.

This motion is being moved at conference by North Somerset, North Wiltshire and Westminster Liberal Democrats. The mover, Brian Mathew, explains.

Our policy motion, entitled “The Extension of the Remit of the International Criminal Court”, was conceived a year ago, following a long consideration of the plight of populations persecuted by their own governments. We want to celebrate the role the International Criminal Court has had in bringing some rogue ex-heads of state to justice, while bemoaning the fact that not all nations (including the US) are signatories, and until the recent attempt at bringing Sudan’s President Omar al Bashir to Court, serving heads of state seemed to be completely immune.

The motion calls for the UK Government to make a chief tenet of its foreign policy the extension of the remit of the International Criminal Court, in which the ICC acts on behalf of the UN Security Council to help protect the human rights of all people, by holding currently serving heads of government and their associates to account for their actions should they persecute their own populations and infringe their human rights, as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The background to this policy motion for me is that I have spent the past 20 years working with various Aid programmes in the developing world. I have made many good friends of my local colleagues over the years, in places as far afield as Darfur, Zimbabwe and Honduras – people who care deeply about human rights and some of whom have suffered persecution and even death at the hands of their own governments for their humanitarian work. So for me this is personal, but it is also much more than that: it is about building a better world, a world where leaders and politicians think twice or even three times before they persecute to seize or hold on to the reins of power, because they know they will themselves face justice for what they do or, as in Burma, fail to do.

When the United Nations was founded at the end of the Second World War, the people of the world sought justice for the crimes of the Nazis, and in Nuremburg to a large extent they found it. The cold war that followed allowed horrors to return and go un-punished because of the divisions between East and West. Now with increased global economic and environmental dependency and the spectre of international division threatening to reappear, it is vital to international peace and justice, and to sustainable development for all the World’s people, that the United Nations go further in cementing the sterling work of the ICC as part of its global constitution.

International justice, like national justice needs to be separated from the legislative and executive branches of government, and not held hostage to the whims of international politics. Where international crimes are being committed they need to be seen as such and have robust UN mechanisms in place to confront them, mechanisms that will allow for the arrest, detention and trial of leaders who flout human rights, instead of necessitating massive destruction and invasion. Many will say this is not realistic, but those of us who want to see problems solved in a civilised way – and if anyone does surely we in the Lib Dems do – are determined to go on trying to do what is possible to make the UN system really work.

We think Britain should help lead the way.

Brian Mathew is the PPC for North Somerset. The Extension of the remit of the International Criminal Court  (F23) is being debated at 10.45 on Monday the 15th of September

The sun shines on London Pride, as fellow London Euro-candidates Dinti Batstone, Christopher Le Breton, John Pindar and I march with members of the LibDem LGBT campaigning group, DELGA. They have arranged a stall right in front of the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. While Nick Clegg addresses the rally there, our Euro-team hands out special focuses, highlighting Sarah Ludford MEP’s call for the US to end its entry ban on people living with HIV/AIDS. I’ve vowed I won’t set foot in the States again until that iniquitous prohibition is lifted. By the end of the afternoon, the boys and girls miling around are in the mood for some serious partying, but I am sensible and head off to Eltham for the Greenwich LibDems’ summer barbeque. Keeping in touch with local parties and reminding them about Europe is a high priority.

Sunday

Moor Park is right on the edge of Zone 6, just outside the London Euro-constituency but my Oyster card still gets me there. For many years now, Anneliese Waugh has hosted a garden party for Liberal International British Group (LIBG) at her home there. This year it rains, so we are all packed indoors, but there are three first-rate speakers: Emil Kirjas, the Macedonian Secretary General of Liberal International (LI); Simon Hughes, the LibDem Party President; and Lord Russell-Johnston, former President of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. Simon pledged that the party will fight the European elections next June on European issues, which will make a change.

Monday

A briefing lunch organised by the Association of European Journalists with the French Ambassador, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, in the London office of the European Parliament. France has just taken over the rotating presidency of the EU and President Nicolas Sarkozy is determined to inject new life into that body, following the Irish voters’ slap in the face. I quizz the Ambassador about Sarkozy’s proposals for a Mediterranean Union, which will link the EU to all the other countries bordering the Mediterranean. Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi is having none of it, but all the other interested parties think its worth giving a whirl, even Israel and Palestine. If I do get elected to the parliament next year, the EU’s relations with its neighbours and the wider Arab world will be one of my key concerns. In the evening, I do a live broadcast review of the papers on PressTV, during which I plug the EU’s potential as peace-maker.

Tuesday

Lunch at the National Liberal Club with Peter Dunphy, who managed my selection campaign last year, resulting in my being comfortably Number 2 on the London list. We discuss what we’ll do at the Bournemouth autumn party conference, which is the best forum in which to try to whip up enthusiasm among activists about the Euro-campaign, though the conference halls and bars are likely be full of people more preoccupied about getting themselves nominated for various party committees and the new tranche of the Peers’ List. Those of us who are near the top of the regional Euro-lists but not yet MEPs have formed an ‘In It to Win It’ group, lobbying hard for a vigorous campaign.

Wednesday

Up at an ungodly hour in order to be at the German Ambassador’s residence in Belgrave Square for an 8.15am working breakfast on climate change, organised by Business for New Europe. These occasions are often most useful as networking opportunities. Fistfuls of visiting-cards get handed out. Robert Moreland, former MEP and one of the few remaining pro-European Conservatives in the Tory Party, shares his sorrows. In the evening, I have to speak at a multicultural gathering hosted by the Universal Peace Federation, on ‘Muslims in Europe’, where the star turn is Professor Lord Bhikhu Parekh, whose books I use in the course I teach at SOAS.

Thursday

Pasta and Politics in Hackney, where Malcolm Bruce, MP for Gordon and President of LIBG, leads a discussion on Burma. Most of my political activity seems to involve food, but I justify my expanding waistline by assuring myself I am eating for victory. It turns out that one of the Hackney LibDem councillors was born in Burma, though he left in 1969, the year I visited the country on my way back from being a journalist in the Viet Nam War. We all agree that the junta in charge in Burma are bastards and that the international community should be doing more to support the Burmese people. Perhaps the next LI Executive, which is to be held in Bangkok, will come up with some concrete proposals about how that can be done.

Friday

I am invited to the opening ceremony and pre-reception of IslamExpo at Olympia. Circulating among the Muslim dignitaries while balancing a paper plate of samosas and baklava, I bump into Ken Livingstone, who is still looking shell-shocked from losing the London mayoralty. He says he is not interested in standing for Parliament again, as he’ll never become Prime Minister, but he does fancy another crack at City Hall. Other anticipated politicians are conspicuous by their absence; it transpires that Labour and Tory powers-that-be have ordered them to stay away, nervous about some of the groups involved in the huge event. But Simon Hughes does appear, even on time. I spend some minutes at the LibDem stall, with members of Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats and get duly photographed. A golden rule of political campaigning is: get photographed everywhere. Well, everywhere you don’t mind being seen.

Jonathan Fryer is a writer, lecturer and broadcaster, and is second on the party’s list for the European Elections in London in 2009.  His blog has featured on Lib Dem Voice’s Golden Dozen lists over a dozen times.

If you’ve had an interesting week, why not write a diary for Lib Dem Voice?  Details for contributers are here.

Judge for yourselves how Nick did. You can watch the exchange on YouTube, or read the Hansard transcript.

Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): I should like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of the British serviceman who tragically lost his life in Afghanistan. I am sure that the whole House agrees that a failure of our mission in Afghanistan would be catastrophic and would lead to an increase in terrorism, more hard drugs on the streets of our towns and cities, instability in the region and more suffering for the Afghans. Will the Prime Minister accept that perhaps more could be done to explain to the British people why success in Afghanistan is so vital and that we perhaps need to be more candid about how long we will have to stay there? Does the Prime Minister agree that stabilising and rebuilding Afghanistan could take 30 years and that Britain must be ready to make that commitment?

The Prime Minister: It will certainly take time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that what we are doing in Afghanistan is the front line against the Taliban and their ever returning to power. It is a battle against al-Qaeda and those people who want to use Pakistan and Afghanistan to bring al-Qaeda back into power. It is also a fight to re-establish government in Afghanistan under President Karzai. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with our strategy, which is to use military force, while also building up national and local government in Afghanistan and giving people a stake in the future by promoting the economic development of the country. The strategy that we announced for Afghanistan, backed up by 7,800 very brave troops there, is to move not only through military means but through civilian and local government reform and economic development that will bring hope to people in the country.

Mr. Clegg: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. That being the case, does he share my concern that much of our defence expenditure continues to be misallocated on cold war priorities? For example, we are committed to spending £6 billion on the Eurofighter but are failing to deliver enough of the right kinds of armoured vehicles to our troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Will the Prime Minister commit to undertaking the first strategic defence review in 10 years to ensure that our troops are properly equipped for the new kinds of conflict that they now face?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have spent £6 billion on urgent operational requirements in addition to the ordinary defence budget for the work that is being done by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He will also know that when it comes to giving our fighting troops the equipment that they need, we have made major investments now and for the future including in tanks and helicopters for Afghanistan. Eurofighters are strike aircraft, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that they are of use in the theatres of war in which we are operating. He will also welcome the announcement yesterday that the aircraft carrier order will go ahead, benefiting almost every shipyard in the UK.

We liberals believe in a society based on liberty, justice and a constitutional government, whether it is in are own country or abroad. But we have struggled since Iraq to maintain the common principles following the Liberal Democrats’ vote against the war. And to hear Nick Clegg at the last conference shun “neo-con wars” was almost unbearable to listen to. Why criticise foreign intervention or the ‘Blair doctrine’ because it is immoral, and then sit along side the new left who support groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah? I fail to understand modern Liberals.

Saddam was a fascist dictator who tortured his own citizens and gave financial support to terrorist organisations that declared war against Israel. Removing him from power benefited the West and the Middle East, even though the planning of the war was a disaster for Iraq and the coalition (but that is a different matter.) Now we are faced with Iran, a theocracy ruled by an undemocratic council and with a poor human rights record towards women, homosexuals and reformists. Will we liberals stand by and allow President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to mock and violate international law once more?

Zimbabwe is another nation, too, which is suffering from the exploitations of a tyrant and requires foreign intervention. South Africa and the African Union have allowed Mugabe to go unchallenged for far too long. Britain would be justified in using military force to remove Mugabe and the people of Zimbabwe would welcome UK action – the Catholic Church of Zimbabwe said Britain would be morally justified – but there is no chance of this because liberals have ruled out the idea of humanitarian intervention. Iraq has allowed the very idea to be seen as imperialistic in nature.

Whether it will be Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma or Sudan, we liberals will continue to play the Iraq card in relation to foreign intervention. The Liberal Democrats have placed themselves in the isolationist field of foreign affairs, which is both tragic and depressing.

That is why I am an independent liberal. My views and beliefs are different to some, and my support for the neoconservative agenda has isolated me amongst liberals. But if the liberalism we hold so dear is based on liberty and democracy, then we of all people have the moral right to spread it.

* Daniel Furr is an independent liberal, not linked to the Lib Dems, currently studying business at Greenwich University. He is also a part time freelance blogger commenting on politics and international affairs.

Editor’s note: ‘The Independent View’ is an occaional slot for non-Lib Dem members to put across their viewpoint. If you’re an LDV-reading non-party member – or if you know someone you think would be a good contributor – and would like to write an article, please do get in touch with the editor at .

During the protests in Burma over the past two weeks, the UN showed how ineffective its current structural system could be. Meetings were held, debates were had, but in the end no concrete action was taken, doubtless because Russia and China would have vetoed it anyway, just as they vetoed a resolution criticising the regime in January of this year. Even if they had the political will, the US and UK are not equipped to launch a military expedition to Burma in defence of democracy – forces are too tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. So, another country needs to be willing to intervene, but which one?

India shares a 1,463 kilometre border with Burma along its eastern frontier. It has 1.4 million troops to Burma’s 428,000, as well as the all-important nuclear bomb. Would a invasion by Indian forces into Burma to bring democracy be legal and politically feasible? Let’s deal with the legality of such a move first. Don’t worry, it’ll all be over in a second and we can get on to the nice and juicy politics of it.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, as any fool knows, states:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state …”

This is your basic “don’t start another bloody war” article, that forms the basis of our post-Second World War international community. But are there exceptions to this rule? Was the Pope a Nazi? Of course. Article 51 recognises all states “inherent” right to self-defence, there is a possible right to humanitarian intervention and military forces are allowed to enter another country if they are invited to do so by the government of that country. It is this last exception which I wish to focus on. The military junta headed by Than Shwe and Thein Sein is the government of Burma. There is really no escaping this as they have effective control of the country and they would never invite India to invade in defence of democracy. But there have been interventions in the past where the democratically elected people who have not been able to form a government have been assisted by the military intervention of another country – the US invasion of Panama in December 1989. So there is a precedent for this sort of action were Aung San Suu Kyi to invite India in, and with no Security Council resolution to the contrary (presumably, due to a lack of unanimity amongst the permanent members) it could not be found definitively that illegality on India’s part has taken place, although I am sure it would keep international legal scholars busy for a good long while.

On then to the political feasibility of such a move. Why would India want to intervene in Burma? The BBC gives a summary of the current Indian position:

“Relationship: It has close economic and diplomatic ties with Burma. It has expressed concern over the current crisis but generally maintains a careful silence over the situation, describing it as an internal affair of Burma. Former Defence Minister George Fernandez has described India’s current position as “disgusting”.
Interests: India is concerned above all with protecting its oil interests in Burma, signing a new deep-water exploration deal in the same week that protests got under way. India also sells arms to the military regime in Rangoon. But as the world’s most populous democracy, India is under pressure from the West and from activists at home to take a stronger stand in support of democratic forces in Burma.”

My argument is that if they are not too enthusiastic right now to intervene in any direct way, surely they can be persuaded by the West with the right enticements. India, as a matter of principle, it being the world’s largest democracy and a rising economic force, deserves a seat at the top table and that means a permanent seat on the Security Council. The US and UK should support an Indian bid for a seat in exchange for action in Burma. Cynical? Hell yes, but it’s not like India don’t deserve it. India should also be offered intelligence and hardware by the West to aid their action in Burma. Perhaps the biggest enticement for India, though, is that they will likely not need to physically enter Burma. As I noted above, on troop strength alone India beats Burma on a ratio of about 3:1, and that’s before taking into account the technical advantage India enjoys, which would be magnified with Western support. Wouldn’t a build-up of Indian troops on the Burmese border, coupled with reasonable notice of their intentions to invade if a democratic civilian government is not formed force the military junta to stand down, especially in light of the fact that they enjoy little popular support. In this way, India could enjoy the international prestige of projecting force and bringing democracy to another country without the risk of actual invasion (although they should certainly prepare for it).

Of course, there are risks for India, probably the biggest being that China could get aggressive and come to the aid of the military government. However, in the current political climate, with Beijing eager to impress in the run-up to the 2008 Olympics, it is doubtful this would occur. There is also the possibility of chaos in Burma similar to what we are currently witnessing in Iraq. However, a civilian government is already willing to step up and greater plans should be made anyway in advance of an invasion to ensure that they are supported. This is really just about learning the lessons of Iraq.

I don’t hold out much hope that this would ever actually happen, but wouldn’t it be great if it did and show the people of Burma that their long sacrifice hasn’t been for nothing?