Unspecified Photo: AP
As the saying goes "a man who promises everything is sure to fulfil nothing".
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is coming under intense scrutiny over his failure to deliver on his many election promises.
The litany of broken promises on the domestic front runs from failing to act on petrol and grocery prices and failing to fix public hospitals by mid-2009, to failing to ensure that no worker would be worse off and no business would face higher costs under Labor’s new workplace and awards system.
What is less well publicised is the fact that Kevin Rudd, as opposition leader, also made a series of promises in the foreign policy arena to win votes but has not lived up to them.
There was his repeated promise that if elected, a Rudd Government would take Japan to the international courts to stop whaling. Three years on and there has been no sign of court action. The Rudd Government should withdraw its hollow threats against Japan if it has no intention of acting on them.
Then there was Kevin Rudd’s promise to take the President of Iran to the International Criminal Court. There is no evidence that the Rudd Government has taken any action at all against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
According to Burma Campaign Australia, Kevin Rudd also promised that, if elected, he would work to ensure that the United Nations Security Council referred the Burmese generals to the International Criminal Court. Far from continuing the tough line of the former Howard government on the repressive military regime in Burma, Kevin Rudd is sending mixed messages that risk watering down Australia’s long held foreign policy position.
The Burmese military junta is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. The International Labor Organisation estimates that more than 800,000 people have been forced into virtual slavery. The use of forced labour and the recruitment of child soldiers has been widely condemned.
Military attacks on civilian ethnic populations are causing massive internal displacements. The last election in Burma was held 20 years ago. Nobel peace prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi led the opposition party, the National League for Democracy, to a landslide win, with 80 per cent of the parliamentary seats.
The result was overturned by the military regime, which then crushed any dissent. Opposition members were held in detention under draconian laws. There are still more than 2000 political prisoners in Burma’s horrendous jails.
Aung San Suu Kyi has been in detention or under house arrest for 14 of the past 20 years. There have been reports of increased military co-operation between Burma and North Korea and unconfirmed reports that Burma is pursuing a nuclear program.
United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed growing concern over the military co-operation between Burma and North Korea noting: ''It would be destabilising for the region. It would pose a direct threat to Burma’s neighbours.''
Australia has long maintained a tough sanctions regime against the Burmese military regime, including an arms embargo. Yet, inexplicably, the Australian Navy recently undertook military exercises involving the Burmese Navy.
The Rudd government has given no explanation for Australia’s participation in this exercise nor offered any assurance that this act should not be seen as giving any legitimacy to the Burmese regime.
There is deep international scepticism that the elections to be held in Burma this year will be free or fair, particularly with Aung San Suu Kyi still under house arrest. The new Burmese constitution reportedly entrenches military rule and excludes Aung San Suu Kyi from holding high office.
The Rudd government must maintain a strong stance against the Burma military in the interest of freedom and democracy for the long suffering Burmese people.
Julie Bishop is deputy leader of the federal opposition.
14 comments so far
More comments
New user? Sign up
Make a comment
You are logged in as [Logout]
All information entered below may be published.
Thank you
Your comment has been submitted for approval.
Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.