You are on page 1of 1

!"# %&' %(')*#+!, -. -/ !"# %&' %(')*#+!

,
(. (00#'1)2 .3
+(%04# 0,+)!),' 0(0#5
Conference: Connect Model United Nations 2010
Committee: United Nations Security Council
Topic: Instability in Burma
Country: India
Delegate: Marco Wong
In the past, there has been substantial political confict within
Burma between the National League of Democracy (NLD)
and the military. Although winning the elections of 1990, the
militarys insistence prevented Burma from becoming a truly
democratic nation. On November 7, 2010, the military called for
an election, the result of which favoured the military, who were
accused of boycotting the elections by, for instance, securing 25%
of the seats for the military under any circumstances. Tough
western nations condemn these elections as fraudulent, China
and Russia voiced their approval of Burmas elections as part of
their road map to democracy. Western nations have imposed
sanctions for over a decade, with no avail, whereas neighbouring
countries believe Burma to be a business opportunity. Te issue at
hand is to determine what the Security Councils response is, and
whether or not certain actions ought to be taken.
India is a democratic nation, frst and foremost. Tis has not
changed since its gaining of independence in 1950. However,
bordering Burma, we strongly value our mutual trade relations.
Currently, India is Burmas fourth largest trading partner, after
Tailand, China and Singapore.
Despite our diferences in the past, their suppression of de-
mocracy in contrast to our promotion of it, as well as their drug
trafcking issue, we have managed to overcome such strains to
mutually beneft. Indias choice to enhance cooperation with
Burma is solely for the clear economic advantages.
India would like to see Burma become a democracy, without
doubt. However, we have no intention of interfering with Bur-
mas internal afairs; we believe that the Burmese people must
achieve democracy themselves. We feel that there is no efcient
way to enforce democracy, and India urges western nations to
remove all sanctions from Burma. Te reasons for this is simply
that A) it has proven to be inefective and B) such sanctions re-
sult in harm - for the countries placing the sanctions, for Burma
and most concerning to India, for the citizens caught in the mid-
dle of the confict. Regarding the drug trafcking issue in Burma,
we do not perceive it a direct threat to international peace and
security, and as such, are opposed to seeing it discussed in the
UNSC. India believes that this issue, instead, should be left to
the discretion of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. As for
the question regarding the legitimacy of the Burmese elections,
India will exercise its freedom to remain silent at this time.
In short, India believes that sanctions must be removed by all na-
tions as history has proven that they are inefective in conveying
the intended message. Troughout the conference, India would
like to see alternative solutions discussed to resolve instability
in Burma. We deeply hope that this conference will prompt a
resolution in which all countries may prosper.