UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon briefs the Security Council on Monday on his recent visit to Burma and his failed attempt to meet detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Final submissions in Suu Kyi’s trial in Rangoon's notorious Insein Prison will be held on July 27. Burma's democracy icon should know her fate soon—if convicted, she could face up to five years’ imprisonment—though whether the UN Security Council will go so far as to approve a compulsory resolution directed against the Burmese regime remains doubtful.

For the past two decades, the Burmese generals have shown the international community that no matter how many resolutions the UN passes, even before the 15-nation UN Security Council, actions fail to follow words.

The latest evidence came last week when the military government led by Snr-Gen Than Shwe again failed to respect the objectives of the UN secretary-general’s visit—the release of all political prisoners including Suu Kyi; resumption of dialogue between the military government and its opposition; and the creation of conditions for credible elections.

Traditionally, the Burmese regime has counted on the support of its two UN allies, China and Russia, who can use their veto powers to block any Security Council action against Burma. Those countries view Burma as a resource-rich, strategically important client state and treat ongoing human rights violations as Burma’s "internal affair."

Burmese generals still hope to maintain the status quo in UNSC as long as their rule is not seen to threaten peace and security in the region and the world. For instance, the knowledge that allowing the North Korean ship Kang Nam 1 to dock at a Burmese port could only deepen global and regional tensions is believed to have persuaded Naypyidaw to ask the North Korean ambassador to tell his government to order the vessel home.

Russia’s position is clear. By expecting to increase trade and diplomatic ties with the regime, including an agreement to sell a nuclear research reactor, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced in mid-June that Moscow rejected the use of political and economic pressure to influence the Burmese regime. "We see no reasons why the UN Security Council should discuss Myanmar (Burma)," a Foreign Ministry statement said.

The Chinese position, however, could be slightly different, political observers suggest.

Wen Liao, chairwoman of Longford Advisors, a political, economic, and business consultancy, wrote an article in the influential US magazine Foreign Policy that China has of late been quietly reaching out to Burma's opposition. She pointed out that during the September 2007 demonstrations, China repeatedly called for restraint and backed the arrival of a UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari, and two months ago China signed a joint EU-Asean petition calling for Suu Kyi's release.

China has now stood behind Ban's bid to end Suu Kyi's house arrest, Wen Liao wrote. "Ban would not have attempted his mission had China not signed off on it," she said.

Whether the UN can push effectively for political change in Burma depends on 
how Ban now concentrates on his responsibility to solve Burma's political dilemma.

Last week, Ban explained in Rangoon why he returned to the military-ruled country. He said that as he's Asia’s second secretary-general, he admired Burma’s U Thant, the first Asian to hold this post. 

He quoted U Thant’s words: "The worth of the individual human being is the most unique and precious of all our assets and must be the beginning and end of all our efforts.  Governments, systems, ideologies and institutions come and go, but humanity remains."

Midway through his five-year term, Ban describes himself is "a man of results rather than fiery rhetoric."

With all due respect, we’d like to believe it.