ASEAN Perspectives on Human Rights Abuse in Myanmar1

Kosum Saichan GMS Studies Center Faculty of Political Science Chiang Mai University Introduction Myanmar has been under military rule since 1962. The struggle for ethnic autonomy began in 1949, with many armed ethnic groups agreeing to ceasefires over the last 20 years. In the 1990s, a military clique ruled Myanmar, but by 2000, Senior General Than Shwe had become the dictator. In 2007, the regime increased gas prices dramatically without forewarning. Monks protested on behalf of the people. When democracy activists joined the monks marches, the regime decided to crack down. Over 30 people were killed, and far larger numbers were beaten and imprisoned. Part of the reason for the regimes original resistance was that General Than Shwe wanted to go ahead with a planned referendum on the new constitution which would institute a military-led, semi-democratic government. The referendum went ahead, amid widespread cases of intimidation and authorities voting for citizens.

In 2009, the regime began preparing for elections to be held in 2010. Aung San Suu Kyi was sentenced to a further 18 months of house arrest for allowing an American intruder to stay briefly at her compound. This was a convenient pretext for keeping her out of the election process. Ethnic armed groups who had made ceasefire agreements with the regime were also ordered to integrate into the Burma Army as border guard forces. Human Rights Abuse in Myanmar The military regime is obsessed with national security and sees everything from a security perspective, but virtually everyones lives, including the generals, is filled with insecurity. In urban areas, people feel insecurity, because they dont know who is listening in to their conversations and might report them. University students come under extra surveillance because so many demonstrations have been started by them. In rural areas, people face great problems with livelihoods security. They have been compelled to engage in forced labor on roads and other projects, the authorities control the sale and movement of rice, and farmers are often ordered to grow certain crops which they do not want to grow. In the conflict areas, life is particularly insecure because the Burma Army targets civilians rather than the ethnic nationalist armies. All civilians in conflict areas are considered the enemy, and terrible human rights abuses have taken place. Business people also suffer from insecurity because of the lack of rule of law. Contracts are not enforceable in court, and compensation is generally not given for confiscated property. Even the regimes cronies risk losing everything if they are suspected of disloyalty or the general they have made business deals with loses power. While the number of local and international NGOs has increased dramatically in response to the growing humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, they are never sure if their projects will be allowed to continue.

A summary of

Final Report of The 6 General Meeting of

th

the International Parliamentarians

Coalition for North Korean

Refugees and Human Rights. Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2009.

2 The vast majority of people in Myanmar want change. Many military officers and soldiers are not happy, especially with the regimes economic policies. The ethnic nationalist groups and the democracy movement are closer in their vision for the future than in the past and have more contact with each other. It must be emphasized that the regime hopes to ensure continued control, and many provisions in the constitution protect the militarys power. Nevertheless, there may be some opportunities. The election campaign period may lead to greater expectations for changes in certain policies, depending on how free the campaigning is. How change will emerge in Myanmar remains unclear. Nevertheless, it seems likely that it will require a combination of changes in the military leadership, a more pro-active and better networked opposition movement, and sustained international involvement which consists of both pressure and engagement. while activists and ordinary citizens felt abandoned in their moment of need. The regimes claim that only the Tatmadaw or Burmese army can hold the country together has found some support in the international community. Some Asian governments in particular seem to have taken the threat of anarchy seriously, and this, along with their economic interests in Myanmar, has contributed to their more equivocal stance toward the regime than most Western countries. Many would argue that the regimes refusal to consider the ethnic groups demands has exacerbated the ethnic conflict, and that the establishment of a genuine democratic, federal union, as the ethnic political parties and armed groups have called for, would lead to peace. Nevertheless, Chinese and other Asian leaders, particularly from authoritarian states, have voiced doubts about the ability of Aung San Suu Kyi and an elected government to prevent the eruption of ethnic violence.

Moreover, China worries that an NLD-led government would be closely allied to the U.S and far less amenable to working with the Chinese than Some hope that if economic sanctions on Myanmar are lifted, significant change could result. Lifting sanctions would have the benefit of helping some in the middle class to prosper and a number of poor people to obtain jobs. However, the rule of law and more rational economic policies are also needed before there will be large scale investment in the manufacturing and service sectors. Others are looking to the planned 2010 elections and the implementation of the 2008 constitution. the military regime has been. In particular, China wants to ensure that its International Engagement numerous energy-related projects in Myanmar are not jeopardized in the The international context can also shape the way that domestic power future. Still, China has been unhappy with the regimes gross mishandling holders perceive their options in dealing with a civil resistance movement. of the economy, which has reduced the potential for Chinese investment In the case of Myanmar, its growing economic engagement with other and created the conditions for civil unrest. China seems to believe that countries potentially made it more vulnerable to international censure. stability in Myanmar could best be achieved by moving forward with the However, because China and India, the two regional powers with the regimes roadmap, which calls for elections, but based on a constitution greatest influence over Myanmar, were not willing to exert any significant which ensures continued military dominance in politics. pressure on the regime, it was easier for the generals to crack down. Nevertheless, Chinas position in the world has been changing, and as it The UN Security Council discussed the Burmese events, but with China has sought recognition as a global statesman, it has had to carefully and Russia holding veto power, it was not able to take serious action, and consider how to balance its interests and its image. In 2007, China came the visit of UN special envoy during the crackdown achieved no tangible under significant pressure from the West and the UN Secretary General to results. The regime felt confident it could carry out its plans unhindered use its leverage over Myanmar to help bring about a process of national

3 reconciliation. China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Burmese regimes human rights abuses in January 2007, in part, because this could set a precedent for investigations into Chinas human rights situation. However, when Ban Ki-moon, the UN SecretaryGeneral, decided to send his representative to Myanmar during the crackdown, Chinese authorities played a key role in persuading Burmese generals to allow the visit. Days later, China voiced its opposition to the idea of a binding UN Security Council resolution on Myanmar, but it did acquiesce in a much softer presidential statement from the Security Council calling for talks between the regime, Aung San Suu Kyi, and the ethnic groups, with UN involvement. Like China, Indias need for fossil fuels has grown rapidly, and it sees Myanmar as an important supplier. The Indian Oil Minister was in Myanmar signing oil and gas exploration contracts during the height of the demonstrations, and India refrained from criticizing the regimes crackdown. In the past decade, the military regime cleverly took advantage of the competition between India and China for Myanmars resources, playing one off against the other. China has provided the Tatmadaw with over a billion dollars worth of military equipment, and India has also supplied arms in recent years. After the crackdown, the U.S and the EU imposed further economic sanctions targeting the regime and its cronies, but the generals clearly feel confident that China and India will continue to do business with Myanmar. United Nations Reaction on Myanmar The United Nations has taken notice of Myanmars problems but has not been able to take effective action. Year after year, the UN General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, reorganized in 2006 as the Human Rights Council, issued annual resolutions on Myanmar urging the release of political prisoners and political dialogue with all stakeholders, but the Burmese authorities have responded with indifference. For four years, the regime denied a visa to Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, the UN-appointed special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, making it impossible for him to carry out his work. During the crackdown, UN Special Envoy, Ibrahim Gambari went to Myanmar to urge the regime to stop the violence and begin talks with Aung San Suu Kyi. At that point, many Burmese hoped that Gambari could make the generals listen. General Than Shwe agreed to appoint a liaison minister to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, but in the ensuing months no substantive discussions took place. When the UN Security Council put out a non-binding presidential statement on Myanmar following the crackdown, it was significant for those seeking to broaden the mandate of the Security Council, but it was not a threat to the regime. In February 2008, the regime announced it would hold a referendum on the new constitution in May and an election in 2010. General Than Shwe clearly had no intention of engaging in political dialogue or working with the UN. The UN Security Council has the means to make a difference in Myanmar. It could, for example, impose an arms embargo, but that cannot happen until China agrees. Persuading China to change its position is crucial to enabling the Security Council to be able to do more. Stronger measures from the Security Council and indications that China would not back the regime indefinitely could help facilitate the emergence of a faction in the military that might feel more vulnerable and therefore see political reform as in its interest. ASEAN Human Rights Body and Its New Perspective After only a few days Southeast Asia's inter-governmental human rights body is already being criticized over its terms of reference as well as its ability to have any impact on human rights in Myanmar. ASEAN launched its Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) on 23 October2009 with the signing of the Cha-am Hua Hin Declaration at the 15th ASEAN summit held in Hua Hin, Thailand, over the weekend. Thailand's Prime Minister and ASEAN chairman Abhisit Vejjajiva said it "showed the commitment of ASEAN member-states to realize the historic quest of the people of Southeast Asia for freedom". But critics say its mandate is limited and that its undertaking to "promote human rights within the regional context, bearing in mind national and regional particularities and mutual respect for different historical, cultural and religious backgrounds" does not go far enough, given that Myanmar

4 continues to be cited by human rights watchdogs as one of the world's worst violators.

References
Callahan, Mary. 2009. Myanmars Perspective Junta: Solving the Riddle of the Tatmadaws Long Reign. New Left Review 60 (Nov Dec). Fink, Christina. 2009 . Living Silence in Burma: Surviving under Military Rule. Public lecture at Chiang Mai Alliance Francaise, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Analysis: US reignites debate over Myanmar sanctions. http://irinnews.org / 3/09/2009 http://irinnews.org / 26 October 2009