Feb 3, 2023 | DFF, Opinion Articles
By Charles Santiago.
Two years after the coup d’état in Myanmar on 1 February 2021, the country has descended into a downward spiral as the junta led by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing tries to consolidate its power with increasing brutality. Amid the fog of war engulfing Myanmar, two facts have become increasingly clear: the military has failed to take over the country amid widespread popular resistance; and the global community has failed to provide the help that the Myanmar people so badly need in their struggle for democracy.
Those were two of the main conclusions that an International Parliamentary Inquiry (IPI) into the global response to the crisis in Myanmar, organized by ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), reached in a report published in November. The report laid bare the many inadequacies of the international community on Myanmar, in particular how it has hidden behind ASEAN, despite the regional bloc’s evident fecklessness in handling the issue so far. Little has changed since the report came out.
On both the domestic and international fronts, 2023 presents itself as a pivotal year for Myanmar. It is a time fraught with danger, as the junta plans to hold an election which will not serve to solve the crisis and is likely to trigger even more violence; for the time being, such plans have been put on hold, as Min Aung Hlaing extended on 1 February the state of emergency for another six months. He even admitted that more than a third of Myanmar’s townships are not controlled by the military.
What the military is unable to admit is that, in the conditions currently prevailing in Myanmar, there is not a remote possibility that any election organized by the junta can be minimally free and fair. And it is Min Aung Hlaing who has created these conditions. The military is persecuting the opposition with criminal ferocity while also viciously killing their own citizens on a daily basis. According to the local organization Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP), over 13,600 political prisoners are currently jailed in abysmal conditions, and at least 2,810 people have been killed by the military since the coup, though the organization believes that the number is likely many times higher.
It is thus crucial that international actors, including ASEAN, do not get fooled by the electoral charade planned by Min Aung Hlaing as a desperate attempt to legitimize its illegal takeover. The Myanmar people already voted in 2020, and gave a resounding victory to the incumbent National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi. And the generals have never shown any evidence that those elections were marred by fraud, as they claim as their flimsy rationale for the coup.
The Myanmar people have clearly shown that they are not willing to accept a return to military rule. The representatives of the elected government and parliament who have managed to avoid being jailed, the National Unity Government (NUG) and the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH), along with leaders of the ethnic minorities, are working in drafting a new constitution that would establish a democratic federal system.
The global community should support those efforts. And, as Chair of ASEAN, Indonesia should take the first step by breaking with the regional group’s failed approach over the last two years, particularly under the chairmanship of Cambodia in 2021, with the government of Hun Sen engaging with the junta and thus conferring it a legitimacy it does not deserve.
The Myanmar military has disregarded from the outset the Five Point Consensus, which was signed by ASEAN member states and Min Aung Hlaing’s junta in April 2021, and was aimed at putting an end to the violence, foster negotiations between all stakeholders and deliver humanitarian aid. Such disregard only shows the utter contempt of the junta towards ASEAN itself and its member states, including Cambodia; and the group has proved incapable, or unwilling, to enforce the implementation of the agreement.
It is encouraging that the Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Retno Marsudi, squarely blamed the junta for failing to implement the Five Point Consensus in November last year. Now, as Special Envoy to Myanmar, she should step up and lead ASEAN into changing tack on Myanmar.
Ibu Retno should begin with publicly acknowledging the NUG as the legitimate government in Myanmar, and engage with it, alongside allied ethnic organizations and the pro-democracy movement at large, on all issues. As a first step, the Minister should promote within ASEAN a new agreement to replace the failed Five Point Consensus. This new agreement should be negotiated with the NUG and allied forces, not with Min Aung Hlaing, and it should include clear benchmarks and enforcement mechanisms.
The Indonesian government should also recognize that the junta is repeatedly weaponizing aid, and cannot be trusted to deliver it in an effective manner. ASEAN should work through the NUG, ethnic organizations and Myanmar’s vibrant civil society to assist those affected by the humanitarian catastrophe befalling the country since the coup.
Lastly, Indonesia should promote sanctions against the generals, including efforts to impose an arms embargo, cutting the financial flows to the junta and travel bans in the region. The ASEAN Chair should also take a leading role in making the junta accountable for its horrible crimes.
As one of the largest democracies in the world, with experience in sending its own military back to the barracks after decades of dictatorship, Indonesia can, and should, play a positive role in supporting democracy in Myanmar. Indonesia’s chairmanship of ASEAN presents a unique opportunity for the regional group to change course and begin to help at last the Myanmar people in their struggle against the murderous military. Let’s not miss this opportunity.
Charles Santiago is a former member of Parliament from Malaysia, and the co-chairperson of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).
This article first appeared in The Jakarta Post.
Jan 26, 2023 | FoRB, Opinion Articles
By Eva Kusuma Sundari.
We Indonesians like to take pride in the national motto of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (unity in diversity). We like to boast that we are a nation of tolerant pluralists, especially at a time when intolerance and exclusivism are on the rise globally.
Yet President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s recent remarks about the importance of safeguarding freedom of religion and worship during a meeting of regional leaders are a timely reminder that Indonesia still has a long way to go on this front. Moreover, our country, as the current ASEAN chair and its biggest democracy should play a role in promoting human rights in the region, including freedom of religion and belief. And Indonesia should lead first by setting an example for other countries to follow.
“Religion and worship are guaranteed in our constitution,” Jokowi said during the opening of the National Coordination Meeting of Regional Heads and Regional Leaders Coordination Forums (FKPD) on Jan. 17. “This must be understood by the military district commander, the National Police chief, the regional police chief, the regional military commander, it must be understood by the Prosecutor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office,” he added, sending a strong message to local administrations and other regional institutions to ensure people’s right to worship, regardless of their religion or belief, as mandated by Article 29 of the Constitution.
The issue of religious freedom at the regional level is a fraught one, as shown in various studies. PUSAD Paramadina researcher, Siswo Mulyartono, found at least 122 cases of local communities resisting the construction of houses of worship from 2015 to 2020, while human rights group Setara Institute recorded at least 573 disruptions to worship and places of worship across the country between 2007 and 2022.
What Jokowi failed to mention is the central government’s complicity in these violations of religious freedom. Many of these disturbances have occurred because intolerant actors feel empowered by a joint ministerial decree issued in 2006 that requires local resident approval for the construction of any new place of worship. All too often, this becomes an issue when minority religious communities look to build temples, churches or mosques in areas where residents are predominantly of another faith.
Even when the complicated technical and administrative requirements in the joint decree are satisfied, hardline groups often successfully block the construction of new houses of worship by citing the lack of some residents’ approval.
A case in point is the GKI Yasmin church in Bogor, West Java, whose construction permit was revoked in 2011 by the mayor under pressure from intolerant groups. In the end, even after the construction permit was upheld by the Constitutional Court, the church was relocated to a different site in 2021 after a 15-year legal fight.
Similarly, last year, a plan to build a church on land belonging to the Huria Kristen Batak Protestan (HKBP) in Cilegon, Banten, was also blocked by regional officials, despite the fact that the church had already gathered the names of 112 congregants and 70 local residents. To this day, Cilegon, home to over 7,000 Christians, remains without a church where its Christian population can attend religious services.
Those cases should remind the government that it is vital to ensure that the regulations are implemented on the ground in line with the Constitution. Another example is the mandatory hijab requirement in educational institutions, which is currently spreading in the country. This shows how neutral, or even positive, regulations can be twisted and wrongly implemented at the local level, resulting in massive violations of Indonesian women’s rights.
According to a recently published report from ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) titled Restricting Diversity: Mapping of Legislation of Freedom of Religion or Belief in Southeast Asia, Indonesia is not alone in restricting people’s rights to worship in the region. Similar problematic regulations exist in other ASEAN countries, such as Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.
Government regulations and policies that hinder or prevent the fulfillment of citizens’ constitutional right to worship are contrary to the state’s human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As the UN Human Rights Committee emphasizes, “freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship … extends to … the establishment of places of worship.”
Jokowi’s words at the meeting of regional leaders, as well as earlier remarks from Jokowi acknowledging and expressing regret for 12 cases of past gross human rights violations, are a welcome step in the right direction. But the President’s days are numbered. If he is to fulfill the promises to uphold human rights made when he first ran for president, he needs to take concrete action now.
Immediate actions should include, at least, repealing the 2006 joint ministerial decree on the construction of houses of worship, and providing comprehensive training to officials down to the regional level on freedom of religion and belief in order to correctly implement policies on the ground.
By doing that, Indonesia would unequivocally demonstrate its leadership as ASEAN chair in promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief. As stated in article 22 of the ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights: “Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. All forms of intolerance, discrimination and incitement of hatred based on religion and beliefs shall be eliminated.”
Eva Kusuma Sundari is a board member of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), and a former member of the Indonesian House of Representatives.
This article first appeared in The Jakarta Post.
Nov 18, 2022 | CCHR, Opinion Articles
By Mercy Barends.
As COP27 draws to an end, the dozens of Southeast Asian politicians and government officials who attended the global climate change meeting must answer a crucial question: are they going to take real steps to address the climate crisis and its devastating impact or continue to treat it as if it did not exist?
With over 56 million living along its coastlines, Southeast Asian people are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. For many in the region, climate change is not just the abstract notion of rising temperatures; it is a real threat to their lives and livelihoods, to their right to health, to their right to education, and even to their right to suffrage. Unfortunately, few among the region’s political leaders take this threat with the seriousness it demands.
A case in point is Malaysia, which plans to hold general elections on 19 November. In December last year, Malaysia faced devastating floods that left nearly 50 people dead, thousands displaced, and an estimated RM6.1 billion (USD1.3 billion) in financial losses. The post-flood recovery is still ongoing today, nearly a year later. The scheduling of the elections during this year’s monsoon season risks further compounding those losses and could limit the ability of many Malaysians to vote.
And yet, while the floods were often discussed in the Malaysian parliament, their root cause was hardly addressed. According to research by Greenpeace, of the 19,401 questions asked in parliament since the last elections in 2018, only 8.4% contained environment-related keywords. The term ‘climate change’ or ‘perubahan iklim’ was only discussed less than 0.3% of the time. Of the 350 questions related to ‘flood’ or ‘banjir’, only 16 mentioned ‘climate change’.
This lack of discussion in the Malaysian parliament reflects a wider reality in the region: too few Southeast Asian politicians are willing to publicly recognize climate change as the inherently political issue that it is – one that threatens the stability of our democratic systems and the rights of our peoples, especially the most vulnerable.
We must recognize that the most politically disenfranchised in our society are also the most endangered by climate change. In the Philippines, one of the world’s most disaster-prone and affected countries, the urban poor often live in informal settlements designated as danger zones because the land is especially prone to flooding, earthquakes or landslides. The impact of climate change means that they are at higher risk of suffering destruction of property and loss of life during, and in the aftermath of, a disaster.
In my own country, Indonesia, indigenous peoples are often the most vulnerable to both the effects of climate change and some of the proposed solutions to climate change that often do not take their needs and aspirations into account.
The urban poor and the indigenous peoples, incidentally, are also groups that have historically faced more barriers to participate in democratic processes, including to their access to voting.
Our national leaders, in Malaysia and elsewhere, need to realize this and prioritize climate change: national governments can no longer ignore that climate change is a political issue, including during their campaigns, particularly with elections coming up not only in Malaysia but also Thailand, Indonesia, and Timor-Leste. They should do that not only for the public interest but for their own as well – calls for climate action are gaining a growing constituency, especially among young voters, who will hold to account leaders who dither over addressing the climate crisis.
So what should Southeast Asian politicians do, starting with those running in the Malaysian elections? First, political candidates can support the climate action campaigns organized by civil society and show a unified front on climate policy. Lawmakers should create a comprehensive climate action framework that covers both mitigation and adaptation measures.
Second, election management bodies tasked with implementing the entire electoral process, such as the Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) in Malaysia, must design a clear contingency plan should a natural disaster strike, in order to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to take part in free and fair elections.
And lastly, both short-term and long-term electoral policy reforms should consider the impact of climate change on political participation, especially among voters whose political rights are most at risk. This could be done through establishing a more independent SPR in Malaysia, by moving its supervision from the Prime Minister’s office to the Parliament, so it can make fully independent and non-partisan decisions, as well as be held accountable for its actions, or lack thereof.
Climate change is here and it is disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable among us, leaving loss and devastation in its wake. The least that those seeking their votes can do is to take it seriously.
Mercy Barends is a member of the House of Representatives in Indonesia, and a Board Member of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).
This article first appeared in Malaysia Kini.
Oct 26, 2022 | DFF, Opinion Articles
By Kasit Piromya.
In July, Al Jazeera broadcast a powerful documentary about cyber-scam human trafficking operations in Cambodia. It was a moving, if at times difficult watch, with victims speaking about how they had been lured to Cambodia with the promise of jobs, before being trapped inside compounds and threatened, beaten and electrocuted.
“I was scared [they’d kill me],” said one victim.
Although not the first media outlet to report on the issue, the Al Jazeera documentary placed considerable attention on it, and likely inspired other publications to focus on the issue, with articles run in outlets ranging from the BBC to The Guardian and VICE.
The global coverage has meant the issue has reached the very top of Cambodia’s government, with Prime Minister Hun Sen addressing the issue at a recent event on human trafficking. He told the audience at the 6th Interfaith Forum Against Human Trafficking: “Do not let Cambodia become a haven for crime, a place of money laundering, a place of human trafficking.” He added that he was surprised by the number of foreign nationals who had been brought to Cambodia and “cheated,” and urged authorities to take action.
Clearly, the issue of widespread human trafficking in Cambodia is an embarrassment to Hun Sen and his government, but it cannot have come as a surprise.
After all, as the Al Jazeera documentary points out, many of the compounds where these human rights abuses are taking place are owned by close allies of Hun Sen, including his nephew Hun To, as well as a former advisor, a senator from his Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), and an associate who flew Hun Sen to the United Nations in New York on a luxury private jet.
In fact, corrupt practices – whether human trafficking, deforestation, land confiscation, or many other issues – have been rife in Cambodia under the watch of Hun Sen, who has ruled the country since 1985. In 2005, a World Bank representative said Cambodia faced three major challenges: “corruption, corruption, corruption.”
The situation has not improved since then.
In its annual Corruption Perceptions Index for 2021, Transparency International gave Cambodia a score of 21 out of 100, ranking it 157th of the 180 countries assessed, and the third lowest in the Asia-Pacific, behind only Afghanistan and North Korea. Cambodia was given the lowest spot in Southeast Asia, a region not exactly renowned for its commitment to tackling corruption.
Donor countries must not be fooled by Hun Sen’s remarks that he knows nothing of the human trafficking taking place in Cambodia; in fact, it is ludicrous for him to say so. Over the years Hun Sen – a former Khmer Rouge soldier who became the country’s new leader as it emerged from decades of civil war and strife – has proven himself to be a wily operator when it comes to donor countries, attracting funds to tackle issues that are in fact being exacerbated by his corrupt form of governance, where kick-backs in the form of land, large-scale projects, or senior positions in conglomerates are granted to his supporters.
Last year, the United States ended an aid program aimed at protecting the Prey Lang Wildlife Sanctuary in northern Cambodia, saying the government had not done enough to tackle deforestation and was harassing environmental activists.
“The government continues to silence and target local communities and their civil society partners who are justifiably concerned about the loss of their natural resources,” the U.S. said. Washington had spent more than $100 million on the issue, funds that would be much better spent on supporting civil society and local efforts.
Donor countries must apply the same logic when it comes to cyber-crime and human trafficking, and recognize that while Hun Sen has the means to tackle such an issue, he lacks the will to do so. In fact, he is directly complicit, through the corrupt system of patronage that he oversees.
Hun Sen’s most recent comments, and the arrests made by police of some of those involved in human trafficking scams, are not the actions taken by authorities attempting to solve the problem, but are instead lip service paid to the international community following the embarrassing media coverage.
As the results of June’s commune-level election show – when the opposition, the Candlelight Party, received almost a quarter of the popular vote – there are still many people in Cambodia striving for freedom, democracy, and human rights.
Instead of offering support to a system that supports Hun Sen’s corrupt rule, donor countries should instead invest in civil society representatives and grassroots groups, and ensure their funds are spent on supporting those working for positive change in Cambodia.
Kasit Piromya is a Board Member of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), and a former Thai Minister of Foreign Affairs.
This article first appeared in The Diplomat.
Oct 5, 2022 | DFF, Opinion Articles
By Heidi Hautala, Ilhan Omar, and Charles Santiago.
Less than two years ago, on Feb. 1, 2021, Myanmar’s military seized power in a coup d’etat. Since then, international headlines might have faded, but the situation in the country has only become more desperate. The junta has killed and arrested thousands, while pushing the country to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe, all with the outright support of China and Russia.
Meanwhile, the U.S., the European Union, and other supporters of Myanmar’s democratic resistance have thus far mainly issued statements of concern. As lawmakers from different countries, we are deeply frustrated by the lack of action by governments around the world. The international community can and must do more, before Myanmar is pushed over an edge it cannot come back from.
The coup in 2021 ended a decade-long power sharing agreement between the military and civilian leaders, although one heavily tilted in the army’s favor. Even so, the Tatmadaw, as the Myanmar military is known, soon felt too threatened by the electoral success of the National League for Democracy (NLD), and decided to seize power outright. The aftermath of the coup has been as brutal as it has been chaotic.
The junta has killed more than 2,000 people, many of them peaceful protesters. More than 15,000 people have been arrested, among them Aung San Suu Kyi, NLD’s leader, and scores of prominent democracy and human rights activists. Myanmar is also facing a humanitarian crisis, with government services and the economy collapsing, and more than 1.2 million people internally displaced from the army’s brutal crackdown across the country.
The people of Myanmar have, however, continued to fight back against military rule. Across the country, a Civil Disobedience Movement has organized itself, including unions, doctors, teachers, students and other citizens from all walks of life. A National Unity Government (NUG), composed of civil society and political representatives, has led the political struggle from exile. Meanwhile, in Myanmar’s border areas, Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) have continued to resist the junta. They function as de facto states within the state, providing services and governance, as well as safe havens for pro-democracy activists fleeing from other parts of the country.
It is this bravery from ordinary Myanmar people that has made the international reactions since the coup so disappointing.
The junta has been actively and openly supported by both China and Russia, including through financial investments, arms sales, and official visits offering legitimacy to the regime. China has also shielded Myanmar from scrutiny at the UN Security Council.
On the other hand, the United States, the European Union and other democratic countries have offered lip service to the Myanmar resistance, but not much more. The sanctions that have been imposed have had little impact on the junta, and regular statements of concern are no substitute for real action. Many Western countries have also left the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on its own to resolve the crisis. However, ASEAN’s “Five Points Consensus” approach with the junta, launched more than a year ago, is now all but dead, having had almost no real impact.
The international community must change course, and do so quickly. In June this year, we joined lawmakers from seven countries in Africa, Asia and Europe to launch an International Parliamentary Inquiry into the failed response to the crisis. Together with democracy and human rights leaders from Myanmar, we developed a set of recommendations that we believe should be acted on immediately.
A first step is to address the immediate humanitarian crisis. As much as possible, international donors must channel aid and resources through Myanmar civil society and EAOs who are already providing services in border areas. At the same time, the UN must step up efforts to convince Myanmar’s neighbors — India and Thailand — to open their borders to refugees and aid flows, and not seek to push back those who are fleeing from the junta.
We should also implement limited sanctions that target the junta’s leaders, without punishing the entire Burmese population. This includes imposing sanctions on junta-owned companies, such as the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), which remain some of the military’s most important sources of funding. To its credit, the EU sanctioned MOGE in February, and the U.S. should follow its example.
The international community must also make it unequivocally clear that the NUG and its partners are the true representatives of the people of Myanmar. The junta must never be afforded the legitimacy it so desperately craves. Governments should afford formal recognition to the NUG, take all possible steps to facilitate its work, and open dialogues with both the NUG and EAOs to chart the course for a future federal democratic Myanmar. Only such kind of dialogue can solve the long-standing problem of inter-ethnic conflicts in the country.
Myanmar faces a long and protracted conflict between the military and most of its population that will not be easily resolved. But amid the darkness, there are real signs of hope, as brave people from across the country are resisting the junta’s brutal rule. We in the international community have failed them so far, but it is not too late for us to do better. The future of a whole country depends on it.
Heidi Hautala is vice-president of the European Parliament and chair of the International Parliamentary Inquiry (IPI) into the global response to the crisis in Myanmar. Ilhan Omar represents the 5th District in Minnesota and is a committee member of the IPI. Charles Santiago is a Malaysian member of parliament and committee member of the IPI.
This article first appeared in The Hill.
Aug 3, 2022 | DFF, Opinion Articles
By Kasit Piromya.
As ASEAN’s foreign ministers meet in Cambodia this week, the recent executions of four political prisoners in Myanmar by the illegal military junta should serve as yet another wake-up call for the group to change course in its approach to the deepening crisis in the country. The executions are acts of judicial barbarism committed by a military that has shown no qualms about committing any and every crime against the Myanmar population in order to cement its hold on power.
To be clear, the death sentences were handed down without fairness, by military tribunals conducting secretive trials without respect for due process. These are the conditions in which 76 other prisoners currently in Myanmar jails were sentenced to death, including two children, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma). The executions that took place last week, the first known in over three decades, are an ominous sign that this cruel punishment may continue to be carried out.
This is another page in the extensive catalog of atrocities that Min Aung Hlaing and his men have been committing for the past 18 months. Since the coup in February last year, at least 2,114 people have been killed by the self-styled State Administration Council (SAC), which continues shelling villages and killing protesters in a pattern of “systematic and widespread human rights violations and abuses” that may amount to “war crimes and crimes against humanity,” according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
In this context, there is no room for inaction or neutrality between the generals and the widespread popular movement opposing their rule, and all ASEAN member states should act accordingly.
Yet ASEAN’s special envoy to Myanmar, Cambodian Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn – who visited the country only two weeks before the executions – issued a statement condemning these barely disguised political assassinations, without once mentioning the culprits – the junta leader Min Aung Hlaing and his henchmen.
Moreover, Prak Sokhonn asserts that an “extreme bellicose mood can be felt from all corners of Myanmar,” setting out a false equivalence between the criminal junta waging an all-out war against the people and a countrywide opposition movement organized to restore democracy in the country. We should not forget that the opposition to military rule only resorted to armed struggle to resist the brutal campaign launched by the military to quash an initially non-violent civil disobedience movement.
The ASEAN envoy also showed this false even-handedness when he asserted a couple of weeks ago its willingness to secretly meet the National Unity Government (NUG) of Myanmar, which opposes the junta and represents the democratic aspirations of the Myanmar people. Such secrecy stands in stark contrast with the very public meetings that Prak Sokhonn has held with the SAC, which have lent the junta a degree of legitimacy that he, representing ASEAN, is denying to the NUG.
As ASEAN chair this year, Cambodia has clearly not been up to the task of dealing with the crisis in Myanmar. Neither is ASEAN itself nor the global community above criticism. They have acted with a timidity and absence of leadership that have contributed to the Myanmar generals’ sense of impunity.
In April 2021, ASEAN member states and Min Aung Hlaing’s junta agreed on a Five-Point Consensus that called for, among other things, an “immediate cessation of violence,” and a dialogue between all stakeholders in Myanmar. It was an agreement without precedent, and it was immediately supported by other international actors such as the United States, China, and the U.N.
Yet the Myanmar military has flagrantly ignored its obligations under the agreement. It has not ceased its campaign of violence and has not taken any step towards any kind of political dialogue. Given that the Consensus lacks any enforcement mechanisms or deadlines for compliance, the junta has not faced any consequences for its failure to implement it.
With no progress on the ground, ASEAN has apparently been paralyzed, and it is deeply divided between those countries, such as Cambodia, that show an undue indulgence towards the junta, and those willing to adopt a tougher approach, such as Malaysia and Indonesia. Meanwhile, actors beyond the region are seemingly hiding behind their support for the Consensus and ASEAN to justify their lack of decisive action on Myanmar.
In order to work, the Five-Point Consensus should, at the very least, be reinforced with clear “milestones and time limits” to be met by the junta, as the Malaysian Foreign Affairs Minister Saifuddin Abdullah argued recently at an oral hearing of the International Parliamentary Inquiry on the global response to the crisis in Myanmar organized by ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).
ASEAN can, and should, do more. For starters, the group should begin exerting pressure on the SAC by suspending Myanmar’s membership, imposing targeted sanctions and travel bans in the region on the junta and its cronies, in order to show Min Aung Hlaing and his men that they cannot commit their crimes without consequences. The chair and its special envoy must desist from making a show of its apparent even-handedness in dealing with the junta, adhere to the collective ASEAN plan, and engage openly with the NUG, as has Saifuddin.
This is a turning point for ASEAN to decide on which side of history it will place our region. Confronted by the worsening Myanmar crisis, the group cannot assert the principle of non-interference as an excuse for inaction or neutrality. Such a principle was designed to protect the sovereignty of ASEAN’s member states, but the biggest threat to the sovereignty of the Myanmar people now is its own military, which is acting as a brutal force of occupation, throwing the country into chaos with potentially destabilizing effects beyond its borders. Nor should non-interference be used as an excuse to turn a blind eye to crimes against humanity itself.
ASEAN must deliver on its responsibility to Myanmar, its people, and the region. The so-called tiger cub economies should come into their own, serve the junta with consequences that bite, and support the Myanmar people in their hour of direst need.
Kasit Piromya is a former Foreign Minister of Thailand, and a Board Member of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).
This article first appeared in The Diplomat.
