The ongoing unrest in Myanmar, marked by continued protests by the pro-democracy activists and Buddhist monks against the military regime and latter’s iron-hand policies to curb the popular movement, has spawned serious challenges to the domestic stability of Myanmar and peace and security of South and South East Asian Region. G-8 member countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, have imposed economic sanctions against the Junta regime in Yangon. The UN Special Envoy has been shuttling between New York and Yangon to broker peace between the military regime and the pro-democracy activists led by Nobel Laureate, Aung Suu Kyi.
The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon had on 3 November openly declared that the endeavours of the UN Special Envoy must yield ‘substantive results’ towards ‘facilitating a dialogue’ between the military regime and the opposition led by Aung San Suu Kyi. However, he left unsaid what UN would and could do if there were no ‘substantive results.’ During the last week of October 2007, the Myanmar military regime had in fact taken the first step towards dialogue as Aung San Suu Kyi was taken to the state’s guest house to meet with the liaison minister, Aung Kyi. But what was discussed in that one hour meeting had never been revealed. This led skeptics to question if it was only for show and that the advent of national reconciliation will not take place soon enough.
Meanwhile, the situation is so desperate that the monks have resumed their protest marches. Additionally, the hatred for the junta runs so high even among the more privileged classes of Myanmarese that there were reports alleging that they are wishing for a US invasion to bring about regime change, just as in Iraq.
How then can the international community pain the junta enough for it to comply? Predictably, sanctions have not and will probably never work. They do not appear to have hurt the junta one iota. The increased US sanctions in October this year have not had any results, nor do Myanmar’s closest neighbours seem committed to compel Myanmar to improve. The French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has even recently scoffed at the efficacy of sanctions, saying, “We worked on sanctions. Was it enough? Certainly not.” Therefore, France and Thailand have come together calling the international community to provide positive incentives to cajole Myanmar into democratization. They are in favour of the positive part of the “carrot and stick” approach. Kouchner recommended that an international trust fund could be set up for development projects. Thai foreign minister Nitya seconded France’s approach, saying that Thailand would fully support a fund as well as social and economic development policies for Myanmar.
However, Myanmarese opposition leaders preferred that international pressure be kept up on Myanmar. Exiled Myanmarese opposition leader, Maung Maung, secretary general of the National Council of the Union of Burma advised the international community to keep applying international pressure, saying, “The international pressure does mean something to the regime. They are really worried about it.” Maung Maung even called for a UN presence in Myanmar to monitor daily events. This ‘could stop atrocities’ and ensure the junta keep their promise of engaging with Aung San Suu Kyi.
Regional Endeavours on Myanmar
Outside Myanmar, other countries and organizations have continued their efforts to search for possible solution to the problem of Myanmar. Apart from the UN Special Envoy, Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo has also been travelling round the region, meeting with key stakeholders of the Myanmar issue. After meeting with both Chinese and Japanese Foreign Ministers on separate occasions, Yeo told reporters, “We were in broad agreement on the main points, that the regional countries have a very important role to play in creating conditions for genuine national conciliation in Myanmar.”
India has been keen to maintain good ties with the Myanmar regime in part due to the latter’s natural resources. India also needs Myanmar’s cooperation for its Kaladan project. The Kaladan project aims to link India’s northeast state of Mizoram to Thailand through Myanmar. The Indian government is underwriting the entire project. The project, when completed in four years’ time, will give the landlocked states of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh access to international trading routes through the Bay of Bengal.
The Indonesian Foreign Ministry confirmed that it would not raise the issue of Myanmar during Indonesian’s presidency term at the UN Security Council in November. The Foreign Ministry director for international security and disarmament affairs Desra Percaya told the press on 26 October 2007: “We have no programme of discussing Myanmar during our presidency in November although the issue is still on the UN Security Council’s agenda.”
On 24 October 2007, the foreign ministers from China, India and Russia met in the northeastern Chinese city of Harbin, discussing amongst other issues, Myanmar. All three opposed sanctions on Myanmar. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned, sanctions, threats or other forms of pressure on the junta risked “aggravating the situation and generating a new crisis.” Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee concurred, saying, “The special envoy of the U.N. secretary general, the initiatives he has taken, he should be encouraged … (but) there should not be any sanctions at this stage.”
Most of the ASEAN leaders also opposed sanctions. For instance, despite expressing frustrations with Myanmar, Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, pointed out that sanctions would not be a solution, saying, “ASEAN will continue its efforts to find a solution. But realistically speaking, sanctions don’t work since this would mean there would be no more influence from outside and, ironically, the junta would get stronger. Apart from that, there will always be countries which would surreptitiously beat the sanctions since Myanmar is such a rich country, with great potential for business.”
Nonetheless, the Malaysian government is concerned that the situation in Myanmar will worsen especially since refugees from Myanmar already formed the largest number of refugees in Malaysia. From 2003 to May 2007, Malaysia hosted 25,644 refugees.
Deepening Crisis
Since its assumption of power in 1988, the Myanmar junta has remained relatively reticent regarding strong criticisms from the international community over its rampant human rights abuses of political persecution, the continued house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, and forced displacement and killings of ethnic minorities. However, fed up with weeks of anti-junta protests after the raising of fuel prices in late august 2007, especially in the light of the monks’ destructive rampage and holding government officials hostage during the first week of September 2007, Myanmar junta seemed to have finally lost patience and lashed out wildly at domestic dissenters and external ‘bullies’.
The panic came probably after monks in northern Myanmar became involved in the latest protest. Angry at the military for beating up protesters demonstrating against economic conditions, the monks took some military personnel hostage for quite some hours. The latter were released after they apologized. The violence involving the monks has prompted the authorities to post plain-clothes police and junta supporters at monasteries in Pakokku, Mandalay and Yangon to prevent further protests. The moves by the junta were expected as historically, monks in Myanmar have been at the forefront of protests and the role they played at the 1988 pro-democracy rebellion that sought to end military rule must have the junta worried as they became involved in the latest round of demonstrations.
The junta had sworn to tackle culprits of civil disobedience with tough measures. On 8 September 2007, the junta heaped more accusations on the 13 dissidents detained earlier for holding a labour rights seminar on May Day, calling them ‘terrorists’ and saying that long jail sentences were likely to be passed to punish their ‘seditious’ acts.
Furthermore on 10 September 2007, the junta condemned Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) for masterminding the wave of anti-junta protests. They also accused the NLD of “organizing the monks to demonstrate and of maliciously blaming junta supporters for attacking the monks…” The television announcement declared that “The NLD took advantage of the increase of fuel prices by the state and tried to exploit the situation to mount a political attack”. The junta was also employing national newspapers to encourage the public to cooperate with the government and army and keep a lookout for ‘saboteurs’ so that such movements could be ‘crushed’.
In addition, the junta had pointedly motioned that the US, UK and other foreign states to stop meddling. On 7 September 2007, leaflets calling for American and British diplomats to desist from their “blatant support of pro-democracy movements were left in front of the US and British embassies”. The junta also alleged that the US had given sanctuary to Htay Kywe, a prominent pro-democracy activist, in its embassy.
All this had renewed efforts to encourage India and China to help Myanmar change. U.S. President George W. Bush and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono have agreed “at a bilateral meeting in Sydney to urge India and China to lean on Myanmar” as ASEAN states have no leverage on their recalcitrant neighbour, even after years of engagement.
However, China is not too keen to be involved. Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in Sydney, “China all along has advocated non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. This is a very important principle.” However, China would like an improvement of the status quo through “mutual respect and equal dialogue”.
18 September 2007 marked the 19th anniversary of the 1988 crackdown in which the current junta took over after violently crushing vast pro-democracy demonstrations. For almost two decades, the junta has managed to hold on to power, despite losing an election in 1990. However, for the past couple of months, the junta has been facing demonstrations over its decision to double petrol and diesel prices in August. Since the protests began a month ago, the authorities have arrested more than 150 people.
What is ‘worrying’ the junta this time round is the involvement of monks. Monks in Myanmar have historically been at the forefront of protests- first against British colonialism and later military dictatorship. They also played a prominent part in a failed 1988 pro-democracy uprising that sought an end to military rule, imposed since 1962.
A Thai-based analyst, Win Min said the generals were cautious about a public backlash if they acted against the monks. He said the monks’ recent refusal to accept alms from the military was religiously significant. “Without Buddhist merits, you are going to hell. If monks refuse your alms, it means you will suffer,”’ he explained. “It’s a dilemma for the junta. If they don’t crack down on protests by monks, more people will join. But if they do, it could trigger massive public outrage against the Government.”
Mandalay is home to 300,000 monks and the Buddhist clergy have demanded a government apology over that incident. On 18 September 2007, hundreds of defiant monks marched through Yangon, walking 10 miles through streets lined with cheering crowds. Previous pro-democracy demonstrations did not receive such support. In the city of Bago, about 40 miles away, 1,000 monks peacefully marched to the Shwemawdaw pagoda.
In the western city of Sittwe, some 5,000 monks turned out to protest Tuesday’s arrests of at least three monks and some 20 demonstrators. The military tried to break up the Tuesday protests by firing tear gas and warning shots. Elsewhere, more than 300 monks took to the streets of Yangon, drawing hundreds of people.
On 19 September this year, the protests continued. But the police did not intervene though The Irrawaddy reported that the Myanmar military government has ordered a state of emergency, authorising regional and local authorities to control the demonstrations, including the use of open fire, if necessary.
The UN, which is monitoring the situation in Myanmar, had called for a “low-key discussion of Myanmar … at this stage”. However, if the situation deteriorated, the UN said it would consider other options including a statement voicing the Security Council’s “concern about the situation”. A diplomat in Yangon told the Straits Times on 20 September 2007 that the country was on a downhill trajectory and it was hard to know at what point people would say “they have nothing to loose”. But the junta also seemed intent to hold to power at any cost.
On 26 September 2007, 100,000 people went to the streets in protest, defying the military government. Unlike previous days, the police and military blocked the road leading to Shwedagon Pagoda. They fired tear gas and warning shots to break up the crowds. Several of the protestors were also beaten by the police.
The government imposed dusk to dawn curfew and in the night, the police raided several monasteries. About 200 monks were reportedly detained. Three monks had been confirmed dead. Despite the crackdown, protests continued on 27 September 2007. The government reacted with even more force killing at least five people, including a Japanese photographer, in Yangon the same day.
Yangon-based diplomats were called to a meeting with a deputy foreign minister in Myanmar’s new capital, Naypyidaw. They were told “’the government was committed to showing restraint in its response to the provocations’, as he called them.”
International reactions were generally negative. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in a strongly-worded statement that ‘the whole world is now watching Burma’ and called for a UN envoy to be sent there to talk to the ‘illegitimate and repressive regime.’ The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided to send Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari to Myanmar. Perhaps as an indication of growing concern, China at last joined in the call of the international community for ‘calm, peace’ and issued its first public call on Burmese leaders to show “restraint in handling the protestors”.
ASEAN foreign ministers also issued a rare rebuke to Burma on 27 September 2007 demanding the military junta immediately stop using violence against pro-democracy protestors. Issuing a statement on behalf of the other ASEAN foreign ministers, Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo said that they were ‘appalled’ to receive reports of violence use against demonstrators and expressed “their revulsion to Burmese Foreign Minister Nyan Win. ASEAN also urged Burma to “exercise restraint and seek a political solution … and work towards a peaceful transition to democracy”.
The Thai government discouraged its citizens from travelling to Myanmar. The Thai Defence Minister Gen Boonrawd Somtas had also indefinitely postponed a scheduled visit on 27 September in which he was to strengthen military ties with the ruling junta there. The Bangkok Post expressed its frustration at the Thai government for being preoccupied with explaining to the world its own democratic transition and neglecting the issue of Myanmar.
The Jakarta Post slammed the Indonesian and the other ASEAN governments for not doing enough on the issue of Myanmar. It wrote, “Shame on them if they [ASEAN leaders] continue to defend the bloody junta.”
The Indian government shifted its stance slightly, breaking its silence on Myanmar. India Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee expressed concern on Wednesday, calling for dialogue, and a ‘broad-based process of national reconciliation and political reform.’ India, unlike China, has escaped international criticism for not doing enough.
However, an Indian Foreign Ministry official cautioned, “It is like hedging one’s bets… I really don’t think there has been a major shift in our position… We probably kept quiet all this while because this regime was not faltering so far. But after yesterday, it is all up in the air. There is also the pressure of the EU-U.S. resolution.”
The crackdown had been long feared. In 1988, the military regime killed 1,000 protestors and another 3,000 protestors in the subsequent weeks. The question now was as to who would back down first- the military or the protestors.
ASEAN and Myanmar
After all the hoo-ha about persuading Myanmar to accept the human rights clause into the ASEAN Charter, the recalcitrant member state was again about to put a monkey wrench in the works again. The crisis in Myanmar has been putting further uncertainty to the Charter process. When asked about the upcoming summit and what would happen to the ASEAN Charter, Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong replied that as of now, the Myanmar’s generals were expected to attend the summit. However, if they opted to keep away, it would not affect the Charter but “it would not make the signing ceremony at the November summit look good and also hamper the progress towards taking it to the next level”.
But it is not only Myanmar that would cast a shadow on the Charter. According to Secretary-General Ong, the new Thai Constitution contains a clause that disallows the Prime Minister or government from signing anything without approval from the country’s Parliament. This means that Thailand may not be able to sign the ASEAN Charter if Thai lawmakers disapprove of the document. However, he was also quick to add that “Thailand not signing the Charter “was a worst case scenario”.
Thailand was quick to refute this “worst case scenario”. The Thai Foreign Ministry deputy spokesman Piriya Khempon announced that it “would propose the final draft of the ASEAN Charter for the consideration of the Cabinet next week before a submission to a reading with the NLA by the first week of November”. This will ensure that there is ample time for Thailand to participate in the summit and signing of the Charter.
Whatever it is, the ASEAN Charter is now ready to be signed, albeit with deep divisions among the ASEAN members. Due to high secrecy, it is uncertain what remains tabled after dilution of previous proposals. However, the Singapore member of the ASEAN Charter Task Force Ambassador Tommy Koh has assured that “the charter will include agreements to establish an ASEAN human rights body and to ensure ASEAN members comply with agreements signed among members”. He said that ASEAN’s present rate of carrying out its commitments was “dismal” at only 30 per cent.
With such a poor record of keeping its word, it is no wonder ASEAN remains reluctant to act further on Myanmar. Indeed over the last week, different and at time contradicting positions have surfaced on what ASEAN should be doing with the crisis in Myanmar.
The UN Special Envoy Gambari stressed that ASEAN must step up real action by cooperating with the UN, China and India. In addition, “ASEAN members must be persistent and monitor, and make sure that expected discussions between the Myanmar government and the opposition and other parties actually take place…not just statements from conference to conference”.
It is quite obvious that ASEAN is not ready to put action to word. Just a day before meeting Badawi and issuing his strong exhortation, Gambari had met Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar who told him that while the UN can count on the full support of ASEAN, nobody should expect it to mete out sanctions. Syed Hamid told Gambari plainly, “If you want Myanmar to continue to be engaged, first we should not be talking about suspending. Nobody can talk when you are threatening with all sorts of things.”
This echoes Singapore’s stand voiced in the beginning of October. While Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong had written to Myanmar expressing “deep concern” on the violence the junta was wreaking, he also warned in a CNN interview that same week that sanctions would be “counterproductive”. In addition, Foreign Minister George Yeo had also declared to the media that “ASEAN must avoid pushing Myanmar into civil war because that would force China and India to get involved, creating instability in the region”. The best course of action for ASEAN would be to “keep Myanmar in the family and handle the problems with a certain degree of understanding and compassion [as] I believe we have a deeper understanding of the situation there, and the stand we take is the correct stand”.
ASEAN’s implicit but strong “solidarity” for Myanmar was again underlined by the outgoing Secretary-General of ASEAN Ong Keng Yong, who told AFP, “Whether you are in ASEAN or not, if you sit back and understand the constitution and make-up of Myanmar and you say you want to have a regime change, you are going to create another Iraq. I think regime change is a very fashionable buzzword in certain quarters but it is not realistic… the best outcome [would be] to thrash out a consensus between the military and the political opposition led by Aung San Suu Kyi.”
Conclusion
While there are continued strong calls for sanctions, and the US and EU have acted to broaden the slew of sanctions slapped on Myanmar, UN Envoy Gambari has called on ASEAN and the international community to offer incentives to the Myanmar’s ruling junta in return for reforms. Adding to the voice calling for engagement is Nyo Ohn Myint, a senior member of the National League for Democracy (NLD), who called on ASEAN to try and bring the ruling junta to the negotiating table. However, how much of an influence ASEAN has on Myanmar remains to be seen.
The recently concluded 13thSummit of the ASEAN at Singapore has reportedly given final shape to the Human Rights Charter and called upon the military rulers of Myanmar to accede to it as soon as possible. Myanmar has even been threatened with ‘expulsion’ from ASEAN in case of its failure to act accordingly. On the whole, situation in Myanmar is very fragile and concerted efforts are required, particularly by India, China and Russia, main stakeholders in the future stability of Myanmar, to explore an amicable way to wriggle out Yangon out of this quagmire in conjunction with ASEAN and leading opposition groups in Myanmar.
by Dr. Arvind Kumar
