Bangkok (Mizzima) – In a few days’ time – a week or two at most – the junta will have finished cutting and pasting the results of the November 7th Burmese parliamentary elections. How, if at all, will the United Nations react when the final results come in?

United States President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in tandem with their Australian political colleagues, have already made clear that they do not accept these elections as being fair or representative. Obama spoke quickly on the issue from neighboring India; Clinton and US Defense Secretary, Dr. Robert Gates, issued a joint statement from Melbourne, with Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd and Defense Minister Stephen Smith: “Australia and the United States underlined their deep regret that the Burmese authorities failed to hold free, fair and genuinely inclusive elections.”

Canada and the United Kingdom have also made clear their skepticism regarding this election; the Canadian Ambassador to Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos, Ron Hoffmann, and the British Ambassador to Burma Andy Heyn, have both spoken clearly and forcefully to that effect, while at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand, in Bangkok. But Britain and the US are only two out of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and Canada and Australia are without seats.  

One Asian nation that does currently have a seat – though not a permanent one – is Japan. Over the past several years, Japan has attempted to find the middle ground between the West’s relative intransigence towards the Burmese regime, and many Asian nations’ more accommodating approach. Japan has provided development aid and economic co-operation to the Burmese government, and has engaged it in diplomatic dialogue. But, it has balanced that dialogue with diplomatic pressure, including repeated calls for the release of political prisoners, including as Aung San Suu Kyi.

How did Japan respond to Sunday’s election? It did so with “deep disappointment”. This contrasts with the attitude taken by Asean, which “welcomes” these elections as a “significant step forward”, according to a statement made by Vietnamese Foreign Minister Pham Gia Khiem on Monday. Vietnam is holder of the Southeast Asian bloc’s chairmanship this year. According to a Xinhua Chinese news agency report published in the Philippine Star, a daily English-language broadsheet based in Manila, Kheim said that Asean was willing to support the Burmese junta whenever it was needed, in compliance with the Asean charter.  

“Asean welcomes the general elections held on 7th November 2010 in Myanmar [Burma] as a significant step forward in the implementation of the seven-point ‘road map for democracy’, and  Asean encourages Myanmar to continue to accelerate the process of national reconciliation and democratization, for stability and development in the country,” the statement said on the bloc’s secretariat website.

The response also seemed to backtrack on pre-poll criticism by Asean members, the Philippines and Indonesia. “There is a perception of a credibility deficit but it’s not too late, we think, to try to address that,” Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa told reporters in Hanoi, ahead of the grouping’s summit late last month.

Inside the summit, the Philippines offered a more stinging rebuke. The government said in the document outlining President Benigno Aquino’s position: “It is increasingly evident that the forthcoming elections … will continue to be a farce to democratic values of transparency, fairness, provision for [a] ‘level-playing field’, credibility and all-inclusiveness”.  

Furthermore, on Wednesday, Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Alberto Romulo, submitted his entire “intervention” speech, delivered at the Asean summit on October 27 against Burma’s polls, under the heading “On Myanmar Elections”, on the opinion pages of the Manila Bulletin newspaper.  

“It is time for all of us in Asean, not just to go along ,but to firmly urge the Myanmar [Burma] government to implement its own ‘Roadmap to Democracy’. This includes the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and the all-inclusive participation of all parties and sectors in the electoral and democratic process in the November 7 electoral exercise,” a section of his speech read.

To release his speech again was a statement in itself, perhaps aimed at saying it was "too late" after all. In short, the Asean statement papers over very real disagreement among its member states.  

In any event, no Asean nations hold seats on the Security Council, and Japan is only one of 10 non-permanent members. The other nine, ranging from Austria to Uganda, have little direct national interest in Burma, and will no doubt line up with decisions made by one or more of the five permanent members.

So, what score cards are the Big Five holding up? The US and Britain would clearly be in favor of a stern response to the recent election, and France, while not in the lead on this issue, would no doubt agree. Russia has significant economic interests in Burma, and has helped veto anti-junta resolutions in the past. However, it is unlikely that Russia would stand alone in opposition to an anti-junta resolution – Burma lies too far south to be counted any longer as part of Russia’s “near abroad”, and why waste political capital that might be needed nearer to home?

But Burma most definitely counts as part of China’s “near abroad”, or its increasing sphere of influence. China has been a major player in Burma’s oil and gas industry, as well as an important source of economic co-operation more generally, a major source of weapons and of military training, a significant source of foreign aid, a diplomatic ally, and a consistent shield against more robust international action in response to the junta’s human rights abuses.

It must be noted, however, that China has shown some signs of embarrassment over the Burmese regime’s excesses. For example, in the last few days, China finally withdrew its opposition to a UN report suggesting that Burma, among other pariah nations, had been supplied with nuclear material by North Korea. But, as with North Korea, just how far will China go in allowing the international community to punish a rambunctious client state?

By way of answer: The Global Times, an official Beijing mouthpiece, ran an editorial on Monday entitled: “Myanmar’s election a step forward”. According to this opinion piece, Beijing supports Burma’s plan “… to transform its political system, but knows it will not happen overnight”.

In short, China could and would veto any substantive UN resolution on the “cut and paste” election.