On 23 March 2007, the Human Rights Council sat in its fourth session before the United Nations in Geneva. The session concentrated on the report of Paulo Sergio Pinheira, special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar. The content of the report revealed nothing new on the political impasse, which in turn cemented the belief of a worsening human rights situation in Myanmar. But what added controversy to the Myanmar issue in Geneva was the varied response of China, India and ASEAN on Myanmar.

Pinheiro reported to the meeting that during the past two years, although the Myanmar government had commenced a political reform agenda under the aegis of the "Seven Steps Roadmap to Democracy", little progress had been made. The roadmap was originally perceived to be a catalyst that would lead to the national reconciliation between the government and the various political factions, culminating in an eventual transition to democracy.

Unfortunately, democracy remains an alien concept to the Myanmar regime.

Slow progress on political reform was beset further by the government's decision to extend the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) for another 12 months. In February 2007, the detention period of Tin Oo, deputy leader of the NLD, was also lengthened for one more year, instigating an outcry among NLD supporters and pro-democracy activists around the world.

Nonetheless, Pinheiro expressed his satisfaction at the release of almost 3,000 political prisoners from December 2006 to January 2007, and continued to call on the military government to discharge 79 political campaigners — all of whom were arrested last year for carrying out pro-democracy activities.

Pinheiro also touched upon a critical aspect in the cooperation between Myanmar and the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The military government signed a Memorandum of Understanding on "Forced Labour Complaint Procedure" under the framework of ILO. Concomitantly, the junta claimed to work closely with international organisations in the fight against HIV/AIDSs and Tuberculosis, and submitted a report that testified its commitment to the UN Convention on the "Elimination of Discrimination against Females" in all forms.

The question is however whether Myanmar's commitment to build a more caring society for its own people from different ethnic backgrounds ought to be construed as a political gimmick put forward to please Western audiences. On this note, Pinheiro displayed his trepidation of more political violence following an upswing of military deployments in Eastern Myanmar, where many ethnic minorities reside.

Pinheiro's document unveiled accounts of ethnic minorities' rights violated by different methods, ranging from extra-judicial killings, sexual harassment, lootings of local residents, inaccessibility of food, and forced relocation. But most damaging was the obstruction of humanitarian assistance undertaken by the Red Cross (ICRC) in Myanmar.

A representative from Myanmar took turn to debrief the meeting of the latest development in his country's political makeover. He declared that the drafting of the national constitution would likely be completed by the end of 2007.

The Myanmar representative went on to explain that during the past year, the government organised a field trip for officials from UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) to visit the Military Recruitment Unit, with a view to prove that conscription is a voluntary process and that child soldiers do not exist in Myanmar. Finally, the representative implored the Human Rights Council to remain neutral and impartial when investigating the human rights situations in Myanmar.

His plea however, failed to impress the Europeans. They reiterated that the human rights situation in Myanmar had in fact worsened, that Myanmar continued to hamper Pinheiro's work, declined to release Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, and prevented ethnic minorities from participation in the national constitution drafting process. Human Rights Watch and the International Federation for Human Rights spoke in unison with Europe, denouncing the Myanmar regime.

This was in stark contrast to China and India whose representatives openly commended political development in Myanmar. The two Asian giants proceeded to inform the meeting of the perplexing nature of Myanmar's domestic politics, stressing that Pyinmana was on the right track towards democracy. China and India have economic interests in Myanmar and hard-nosed realism has clearly dictated their policies. More significantly, Myanmar is fast emerging as a zone of competition between the Asian powerhouses, and both are wary of turning the screw on the junta.

As for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN, the grouping had recently changed its tune regarding political stagnation in Myanmar. Hitherto the meeting, it put forward a bold statement declaring that Myanmar must defend its own human rights record to the world, lest ASEAN be construed as acting like a go-between or worse, a defender of the regime. In Geneva, however, ASEAN was suddenly mute, sparking doubts whether such manner signified the end of its appeasement policy, or in fact was a silent endorsement of the worsening human rights situations in Myanmar. As ASEAN struggled to find its voice, one would be forgiven in assuming that what ASEAN really wanted to say was, "no comment".

The development of three rather different approaches in dealing with the human rights situation in Myanmar has without a shadow of a doubt, worked in favour of the junta. Through no diplomatic somersault of its own making, the regime continues to shelter itself under the fog created by the reality of a schizophrenic Myanmar policy. The confluence of conditions could not be more favourable for the military regime in Pyinmana, who must think that foreign policy management is the easiest function of government.